DOCSLIB.ORG

Resubmission of Paper (29 May 2013)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resubmission of Paper (29 May 2013) This is a preprint manuscript. The published version of the work can be found on JSTOR at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.15699/jbl.1354.2016.2714.pdf. The Poles of the Ark: On the Ins and Outs of a Textual Contradiction RAANAN EICHLER I. INTRODUCTION The ark, the primary cult object in the Hebrew Bible, is described in detail in the priestly tabernacle pericopes of the Pentateuch. Within these texts, a difficult which are universally understood as ,בַּדִּ ים contradiction arises with regard to its carrying poles.1 In the commands for the construction of the ark (Exod 25:10–16), after it is specified that the carrying poles are to be inserted into four gold rings at each of the ark’s four feet (vv. 12–14), it is added that the poles are to stay in the ark’s rings and never to v. 15). This requirement is not :בְּטַּבְּעֹת הָאָ רֹן יִּהְּ יּו הַּבַּדִּ יםלֹא יָסֻרּו מִּ מֶּ ּנּו) part from it paralleled in the cases of the other three tabernacle objects that have carrying poles – the table, the bronze altar, and the incense altar – nor is its fulfillment reported in the account of the ark’s construction (Exod 37:1–5). It is, however, comparable to two other requirements within the priestly tabernacle texts: first, that the breast-piece is to be tied to the ephod and is not to come loose from it (Exod 28:28 = 39:21); second, that the robe of the ephod is to have a binding around its opening and is not to tear (Exod 28:32 ≈ 39:23). .of the ark are mentioned in Exod 25:13–15; 35:12; 37:4–5; 39:35; 40:20; and Num 4:6 בַּדִּ ים The 1 Outside the Pentateuch, they are mentioned in 1 Kgs 8:7–8 ≈ 2 Chr 5:8–9, in the context of the temple as solid, human-made objects, they are בַּדִּ ים in Jerusalem. In the only other biblical occurrences of transportation-facilitating accessories to other major items in the tabernacle: the table (Exod 25:27–28; 35:13; 37:14–15; Num 4:8), the bronze altar (Exod 27:6–7; 35:16; 38:5–7; 39:39; Num 4:14), and the incense altar (Exod 30:4–5; 35:15; 37:27–28; Num 4:11). 1 The command regarding the poles can be understood to mean that they are to be inserted into the rings in such a way that it is not possible for them to part from it. This understanding was proposed by the Amora R. Aha b. Jacob and rejected in the Talmud (b. Yoma 72a). It may also be reflected in the Septuagint, which has in place the single word ἀκίνητοι, “immovable.”2 But the command לֹא יָסֻרּו מִּ מֶּ ּנּו of the phrase is more commonly understood to mean that it is not permissible for the poles to part from the ark. Hence the Amoraim R. Eleazar and Abaye considered their removal a violation of a pentateuchal prohibition (b. Yoma 72a, Makkot 22a). Either way, the text creates a picture in which, in practice, the poles never part from the ark. This picture is consistent with the testimony of a separate tradition in Kings that the ark retained its poles when it was at rest in the temple (1 Kgs 8:7–8 ≈ 2 Chr 5:8–9). However, in the priestly instructions regarding the preparation of the tabernacle for transport from place to place in the wilderness (Num 4), we read that in the course of preparing the ark for carriage, its carrying poles are to be “put in”3 by Aaron and his v. 6). The same action is prescribed for the table (v. 8), the incense :וְּשָ מּו בַּדָיו) sons altar (v. 11), and the bronze altar (v. 14), and these three objects pose no problem. But if the poles of the ark are always “in,” how can they be “put in” when preparing the ark for transport? It cannot be answered that the author of Num 4 was adhering heedlessly to a rigid formula, because this is clearly not the case. On the contrary, he included two peculiarities in the instructions for the ark vis-à-vis the other objects: it was to be wrapped in the tabernacle’s own screening curtain (v. 5), as opposed to a generic dyed cloth (vv. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13), and its leather covering was to be wrapped again in a “pure blue” cloth (v. 6). This contradiction has received an immense amount of attention, beginning around the eleventh century CE and continuing to the present, with modern scholars often 2 NETS: “fixed.” The Greek word, however, may also describe an object that can be moved but should not be, as in Herodotus, Hist. 6.134 (regarding the nefarious intentions of Miltiades in the Shrine of Demeter near Paros): κινήσοντά τι τῶν ἀκινήτων, “moving something that should not be moved.” 3 As translated in the following English-language Bibles: Wycliffe (Vulgate: inducent), Tyndale, King James, Challoner, Webster, ERV, ASV, RSV, and ESV. Other translations include “draw in” (Douay- Rheims), “put . therein” (Coverdale), “put to” (Geneva), “put to it” (Darby), “put in place” (NAB, NIV, NJPS, NRSV, NLT), “place” (YLT), “set” (JPS), and “insert” (NASB, NKJV, NET; cf. Septuagint: διεμβαλοῦσιν). 2 repeating – knowingly or unwittingly – solutions already proposed by medieval Jewish commentators. Attempts thus far to solve the inconsistency can be divided into four groups. (1) Exod 25:15 does not really mean that the poles are always in the rings.4 (2) Num 4:6 does not really mean that the poles are to be put into the rings.5 (3) One or the other of the instructions is not universally applicable but is restricted in some way.6 (4) The ark had two sets of poles, and each passage refers to a different 4 Rather, it means either (a) that the poles are to be fixed firmly in the rings so that the ark does not slide back and forth along them during carriage: Moses b. Jacob of Coucy, in Jacob Gellis (ed.), Sefer Tosafot hashalem: Commentary on the Bible (Jerusalem: Harry Fischel Institute, 1993; Hebrew), 41 par. 4; see also Joseph Bekhor Shor, in Menahem Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Exodus (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007; Hebrew), 73; or (b) that they are to be fixed in such a way that the ark does not accidentally fall off of them altogether: Arnold Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches (7 vols.; Leipzig 1908; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968), 1:366–7; Cornelis Houtman, Exodus III (HCOT; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 2000), 378–9. 5 Rather, it means either (a) that the poles are to be adjusted in some way within the rings: Saadia b. Joseph Gaon, in Mordechai L. Katzenelnbogen (ed.), Torat Chaim: Numbers (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1991; Hebrew), 22; Eliakim b. Meshullam of Speyer, in Dov Genachowski (ed.), Commentarius in Tractatum Yoma: Auctore R. Eliaqim (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1964; Hebrew), 222; Rashi, in a gloss published in Menachem Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Numbers (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press 2011; Hebrew), 18–19; Nahmanides, ibid., 19; Meir of published e.g. in Gellis, Tosafot, 41–43 par. 6; Isaac ,כתיב .Rothenburg, in Tosafot on b. Yoma 72a, s.v b. Judah Halevi, ibid., 41 par. 5; anonymous tosafist, ibid., 43–44 par. 10; Menachem Meiri, in Haim B. Ravitz (ed.), Beit Habhira on Tractate Yoma (Bnei Brak: Ktavim, 1969–1970; Hebrew), 214–5; Hezekiah b. Manoah, in Chaim D. Chavel (ed.), Hizkuni: The Torah Commentaries of Hezekiah b.R. Manoah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981–1982; Hebrew), 289, 431; George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 34–35; Benno Jacob, Der Pentateuch: Exegetisch-Kritische Forschungen mit Figuren und zwei Tafeln (Leipzig: Veit, 1905), 166; Julius H. Greenstone, Numbers: with Commentary (Holy Scriptures 3; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1939), 34; (b) that they are exposed: Meyuhas b. Elijah, in Shlomo Freilich (ed.), Rabbenu Meyuhas b.R. Elijah: Commentary on the Book of Numbers (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1977; Hebrew), 8; or (c) that they are placed on the shoulders of the ark’s porters: Abraham ibn Ezra, in Cohen, Numbers, 19; Jacob of Orleans, in Gellis, Tosafot, 41–43 par. 6 at 42 col. 1; Eleazar b. Judah of Worms, in Julius Klugmann and Sons (eds.), Rokeach: A Commentary on the Bible by Rabbi Elazar of Worms (3 vols.; Bnei Brak, 1981; Hebrew), 3:15. 6 Num 4:6 is a one-time command: Joseph Bekhor Shor, in Cohen, Exodus, 73. Exod 25:15 does not apply to the disassembly of the tabernacle: Abraham ibn Ezra, ibid., 72; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, 3 set.7 Additionally, some modern scholars maintain (5) that the two passages are indeed contradictory and cannot be reconciled with each other.8 In what follows, a new solution will be offered in the vein of Group 2, based on semantic analysis and an examination of relevant material and iconographic data. וְשָׂ מּו II. SEMANTICS OF in Num 4:6, 8, 11, and 14 is understood וְּשָ מּו The two verses are only contradictory if ,(*וְּשָ מּו עָלָיו בַּדָיו ,.in the sense of “put in.” But this sense begs an indirect object (e.g appears in the tabernacle שִּ ים which is absent here. Every other time the verb pericopes without an indirect object, it conveys the broader sense of “set up.” These occurrences are all in Exod 40: in v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doing Talmud: an Ethnographic Study in a Religious High School in Israel
    Doing Talmud: An Ethnographic Study in a Religious High School in Israel Thesis submitted for the degree of “Doctor of Philosophy” by Aliza Segal Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem May 2011 Iyyar 5771 This work was carried out under the supervision of: Prof. Marc Hirshman Dr. Zvi Bekerman Acknowledgements If an apt metaphor for the completion of a dissertation is the birthing of a child, then indeed it takes a village to write a dissertation. I am fortunate that my village is populated with insightful, supportive and sometimes even heroic people, who have made the experience not only possible but also enriching and enjoyable. My debt of gratitude to these villagers looms large, and I would like to offer a few small words of thanks. To my advisors, Dr. Zvi Bekerman and Professor Menachem (Marc) Hirshman, for their generosity with time, insight, expertise, and caring. I have been working with Zvi since my MA thesis, and he has shaped my world view not only as a researcher but also as an individual. His astute and lightening-speed comments on everything I have ever sent him to read have pushed me forwards at every stage of my work, and it is with great joy that I note that I have never left his office without something new to read. Menachem has brought his keen eye and sharp wit to the project, and from the beginning has been able to see the end. His attention to the relationship between structure and content has informed my work as both a writer and a reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Musical Instruments and Recorded Music As Part of Shabbat and Festival Worship
    Musical Instruments and Recorded Music as Part of Shabbat and Festival Worship Rabbis Elie Kaplan Spitz and Elliot N. Dorff Voting Draft - 2010. She’alah: May we play musical instruments or use recorded music on Shabbat and hagim as part of synagogue worship? If yes, what are the limitations regarding the following: 1. Repairing a broken string or reed 2. Tuning string or wind instruments 3. Playing electrical instruments and using prerecorded music 4. Carrying the instrument 5. Blowing the shofar 6. Qualifications and pay of musicians I. Introduction The use of musical instruments as an accompaniment to services on Shabbat and sacred holidays (yom tov) is increasing among Conservative synagogues. During a recent United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s biennial conference, a Shabbat worship service included singing the traditional morning prayers with musician accompaniment on guitar and electronic keyboard.1 Previously, a United Synagogue magazine article profiled a synagogue as a model of success that used musical instruments to enliven its Shabbat services.2 The matter-of-fact presentation written by its spiritual leader did not suggest any tension between the use of musical instruments and halakhic norms. While as a movement we have approved the use of some instruments on Shabbat, such as the organ, we remain in need of guidelines to preserve the sanctity of the holy days. Until now, the CJLS (Committee of Jewish Law and Standards) has not analyzed halakhic questions that relate to string and wind instruments, such as 1 See “Synagogues Become Rock Venues: Congregations Using Music to Revitalize Membership Rolls,” by Rebecca Spence, Forward, January 4, 2008, A3.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrestling Demons
    WRESTLING WITH DEMONS A History of Rabbinic Attitudes to Demons Natan Slifkin Copyright © 2011 by Natan Slifkin Version 1.0 http://www.ZooTorah.com http://www.RationalistJudaism.com This monograph is adapted from an essay that was written as part of the course requirements for a Master’s degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem). This document may be purchased at www.rationalistjudaism.com Other monographs available in this series: Messianic Wonders and Skeptical Rationalists The Evolution of the Olive Shiluach HaKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah The Question of the Kidney’s Counsel The Sun’s Path at Night Sod Hashem Liyreyav: The Expansion of a Useful Concept Cover Illustration: The Talmud describes how King Solomon spoke with demons. This illustration is from Jacobus de Teramo’s Das Buch Belial (Augsburg 1473). 2 WRESTLING WITH DEMONS Introduction From Scripture to Talmud and Midrash through medieval Jewish writings, we find mention of dangerous and evil beings. Scripture refers to them as Azazel and se’irim; later writings refer to them as sheidim, ruchot and mazikim. All these are different varieties (or different names) of demons. Belief in demons (and the associated belief in witches, magic and occult phenomena) was widespread in the ancient world, and the terror that it caused is unimaginable to us.1 But in the civilized world today there is virtually nobody who still believes in them. The transition from a global approach of belief to one of disbelief began with Aristotle, gained a little more traction in the early medieval period, and finally concretized in the eighteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Le-Tacen Olam (לתכן עולם): Establishing The
    :(לתכן עולם) Le-Tacen Olam Establishing the Correct Text in Aleinu :(עולם לתכן) Le-Tacen Olam Establishing the Correct Text in Aleinu[1] By Mitchell First ([email protected]) עולם תקון The Jewish obligation of (=improving the world) is widely referred to and it is traditionally assumed that the Aleinu prayer is one of the texts upon which this obligation is based. This article will show that a very strong case עולם לתכן can be made that the original version of Aleinu read (=to establish to=) עולם לתקן the world under God’s sovereignty), and not perfect/improve the world under God’s sovereignty[2]). has no connection to the עולם תקון If so, the concept of Aleinu prayer.[3] —– It is reasonable to assume that Aleinu was already included in the Amidah of Rosh ha-Shanah (=RH) by the time of Rav (early 3rd century C.E.).[4] But no text of Aleinu is included in the Talmud, nor is a text of Aleinu included in any of the classical midrashim.[5] Therefore, we must look to later sources for texts of Aleinu. When is לתכן we do, we find that the reading found in the text of the RH Amidah in the Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon (d. 942),[6] and in the text of the RH Amidah in the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam (d. 1204).[7] Moreover, it is found in numerous prayer texts from the Cairo Genizah that include this line of Aleinu.[8] For example, it is found in: 1) a fragment of the RH Amidah first published by Jacob Mann in 1925;[9] 2) a fragment of the RH Amidah first published by Richard Gottheil and William H.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Every Day Count
    4 Chayei Sarah Making Every Day Count Sarah’s Blueprint for Meaningful Living Dedicated in loving memory of Susan Moses on the occasion of her yahrtzeit, 16 Cheshvan לזכרון ולעילוי נשמת זמירה לאה בת צבי הלוי PARSHA OVERVIEW Chayei Sarah Sarah dies at age 127 and is buried in the Machpelah Cave in Hebron, which Abraham purchases from Ephron the Hittite for four hundred shekels of silver. Abraham’s servant Eliezer is sent, laden with gifts, to Charan, to find a wife for Isaac. At the village well, Eliezer asks G‑d for a sign: when the maidens come to the well, he will ask for some water to drink; the woman who will offer to give his camels to drink as well shall be the one destined for his master’s son. Rebecca, the daughter of Abraham’s nephew Bethuel, appears at the well and passes the “test.” Eliezer is invited to their home, where he repeats the story of the day’s events. Rebecca returns with Eliezer to the land of Canaan, where they encounter Isaac praying in the field. Isaac marries Rebecca, loves her, and is comforted over the loss of his mother. Abraham takes a new wife, Keturah (Hagar), and fathers six additional sons, but Isaac is designated as his only heir. Abraham dies at age 175 and is buried beside Sarah by his two eldest sons, Isaac and Ishmael. 62 Torah Studies Season One 5779 Isaac and Rebecca endure twenty childless years, until their prayers are answered and Rebecca conceives. She experiences a difficult pregnancy as the “children struggle inside her”; G‑d tells her that “there are two nations in your womb,” and that the younger will prevail over the elder.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Hilkhot Teshuva 2:4 "Darkhei Ha-Teshuva"
    Hilkhot Teshuva 2:4 "Darkhei Ha-teshuva " By David Silverberg It is in accordance with the ways of repentance [mi-darkhei ha-teshuva ] for the penitent sinner to always cry before God with weeping and supplication, to perform charity according to his ability, to distance himself greatly from the matter regarding which he sinned, to change his name as if to say, "I am somebody else, and I am not that person who committed those acts," and to change all his actions favorably and to the proper path, and to leave his location into exile, for exile atones for sins as it causes one to be subdued and be humble and lowly of spirit. (Hilkhot Teshuva 2:4) Maimonides here lists five measures that are required "mi-darkhei ha-teshuva " – "in accordance with the ways of repentance" – as part of a sinner's process of spiritual recovery: 1) Frequent prayer 2) Charity 3) Change of conduct 4) Changing of one's name 5) Change of location Among these five measures, the first three are readily understandable and even intuitive. Heartfelt prayer, directly communicating one's thoughts and feelings to the Almighty, is self-evidently a critical step in repairing a strained relationship with one's Creator. Charity functions as a kind of "sacrifice" whereby one relinquishes some of his possessions as though offering a tribute with which to "appease" God, as it were. And clearly sincere teshuva requires an effort to avoid a recurrence of the sin, which entails changing one's lifestyle. As for the fourth and fifth measures – change of name and location – Maimonides sensed that these are less intuitive and therefore provided explanations for the purposes they are intended to serve.
    [Show full text]
  • Mishna Berura
    THE CODIFICATION OF JEWISH LAW AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE MISHNA BERURA THE CODIFICATION OF JEWISH LAW AND AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE MISHNA BERURA Michael J. Broyde and Ira Bedzow Boston 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalog record for this book as available from the Library of Congress. Copyright © 2014 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved Effective August 22, 2016, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. Open Access publication is supported by OpenEmory. Cover design by Ivan Grave ISBN 978-1-61811-278-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-61811-279-8 (ebook) Published by Academic Studies Press in 2014 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com ACKNOWLEDGMENTS any people have contributed in different ways to the writing of this book and we would like to thank them: M Thank you to the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, the Law School and the Tam Institute of Jewish studies, all at Emory University, who supported us in writing this work, and the editors at Hamline Law Review for reviewing and publishing an earlier version of portions of this book as an article. We particularly also want to thank Jerry and Chaya Weinberger, who supported our work in dedication to their son’s, Shmuel’s, bar mitzvah.
    [Show full text]
  • By Bruce Roth
    TOWSON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES ANALYSIS OF THE RABBINIC USAGE OF “BECAUSE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE” by Bruce Roth A Thesis Presented to the faculty of Towson University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Department of Jewish Studies Towson University Towson, Maryland 21252 December 2014 II Acknowledgements I would like to express gratitude and acknowledgement to my advisor Dr. Avram Reisner. Many people helped, but special mention is due to Zvi Leshem from the National Library of Israel for helping me with data searches, to Chava and Zach my children, and to my beloved wife Rachel for all their encouragement. III Abstract Rabbinic Literature highlights the pursuit of a peaceful and just society. This paper argues that contemporary modes of discourse have utility in understanding the social problems that the Rabbis sought to solve. By reading and interpreting a specific rabbinic decree justified as Mipnai Darchei Shalom “because of the ways of peace” (MDS), this paper demonstrates that the understanding of specific rabbinic laws can be enhanced by using contemporary terms such as “groups”, “power” and contemporary definitions such as “human, cultural and individual values”. The desire to minimize and resolve social conflict sheds light on the sages pursuing an ordered society, much as society aspires to do today. IV CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.………………………………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER ONE: Readings…..……………………………………………………………………….5 Mishnah…………………………………………………………………………....6 Tosefta……………………………………………………………………………13
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Halevy, Halivni and The Oral Formation of the Babylonian Talmud Ari Bergmann Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Ari Bergmann All rights reserved ABSTRACT Halevy, Halivni and The Oral Formation of the Babylonian Talmud Ari Bergmann This dissertation is dedicated to a detailed analysis and comparison of the theories on the process of the formation of the Babylonian Talmud by Yitzhak Isaac Halevy and David Weiss Halivni. These two scholars exhibited a similar mastery of the talmudic corpus and were able to combine the roles of historian and literary critic to provide a full construct of the formation of the Bavli with supporting internal evidence to support their claims. However, their historical construct and findings are diametrically opposed. Yitzhak Isaac Halevy presented a comprehensive theory of the process of the formation of the Talmud in his magnum opus Dorot Harishonim. The scope of his work was unprecedented and his construct on the formation of the Talmud encompassed the entire process of the formation of the Bavli, from the Amoraim in the 4th century to the end of the saboraic era (which he argued closed in the end of the 6th century). Halevy was the ultimate guardian of tradition and argued that the process of the formation of the Bavli took place entirely within the amoraic academy by a highly structured and coordinated process and was sealed by an international rabbinical assembly. While Halevy was primarily a historian, David Weiss Halivni is primarily a talmudist and commentator on the Talmud itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Ethics and Jewish Law: Torat Ha-Melekh and the Moral Problems of Contemporary Halakhic Discourse Bar Guzi Brandeis Unive
    Between Ethics and Jewish Law: Torat Ha-Melekh and the Moral Problems of Contemporary Halakhic Discourse Bar Guzi Brandeis University [email protected] Abstract This essay focuses on Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur’s Torat Ha-Melekh1 (2009). Through an examination of the book’s arguments and conclusions, I seek to show how a halakhic discourse which relies solely on Jewish sources, and disregards, even deliberately rejects, what it conceives as “external” sources, can lead to radical and ethically problematic halakhic rulings, which not only permit, among other things, the deliberate killing of little children and complete innocents, but also understand this act to be the fulfillment of a positive commandment. Furthermore, I seek to show the failure of the halakhic and meta-halakhic critiques of Torat Ha- Melekh and argue for the necessity of a much more comprehensive paradigm shift in contemporary halakhic discourse. In the first part of this essay, I provide basic background about the authors and the book. In the second part, I follow the book’s six chapters and summarize its main arguments and rulings. I believe it is important to do so for two main reasons: First, it provides the reader with the necessary background for better appreciating and understanding the critique to follow. 1 Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, Torat Ha-Melekh: Berure Halakha Be-Inyane Malkhut U-Milḥamot: Diney Nefashot Bein Yisrael La-'Amim, Second ed., vol. 1 (Lev ha-Shomron: Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai, 2009). Moral Law and Jewish Law Guzi Second, as far as I am aware, an English translation of Torat Ha-Melekh has yet to be published.
    [Show full text]
  • An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought Vol. IV: Issue 1–2 | Fall–Winter 2019–2020/ 5779–5780
    ISSN 2577–4921 Zeramim: An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought Vol. IV: Issue 1–2 | Fall–Winter 2019–2020/ 5779–5780 Zeramim: An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought Vol. IV: Issue 1–2 Fall–Winter 2019–2020 / 5779–5780 1 A LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear readers, We (the editors) like to read essays that raise interesting questions, and present for your consideration three such articles. Shai Cherry starts with a question raised by Abraham Joshua Heschel: how are we to understand the various Midrashic teachings that our prayers somehow strengthen or empower God? Analyzing a wide variety of texts, Shai Cherry suggests, in “The Camouflaged Ta’am (‘Motive’): Redemptive Implications of Rabbinic Theurgy,” that there is a critical messianic undercurrent to these teachings—and identifying that theme can perhaps help us to better contextualize their message. Another question: is there a common element in how we understand our own personal travails, and how we understand the travails of the People Israel generally? We often think of the Book of Job as addressed to the challenges we face as individuals. Nathan Moretto and Richard Claman, in “Reading Job (Iyyov) as a Stand-In for the People of Israel,” review, however, the curious history of how the Book of Job has been understood, by Martin Buber and others, as having a collective dimension. Lastly, the final of the Ten Commandments raises the curiosity of law that appears to try to regulate our inner thought-processes. Zachary James Silver, in “Mind Control? A Halachic and Meta- Halachic Investigation of Forbidden Thoughts” reviews how traditional commentators have struggled with this concept, and some approaches towards an answer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of a Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy: 9Th – 14Th Centuries
    Oqimta 4 (5776 [2016]) [1-87] The Development of a Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy: 9th – 14th Centuries Steven H. Adams Introduction Unlike common practice in halakhic Judaism in modern times, waiting six hours between the consumption of meat and the consumption of dairy was not customary in early, post-Talmudic centuries. The Babylonian geonim merely rinsed their mouths after eating meat and transitioned to dairy right away. It was only in the eleventh century that halakhic authorities imposed a multi-hour waiting period after eating meat. A careful analysis reveals that these changes in rabbinic law parallel reverse developments in Karaite law, suggesting anti-sectarian intent formed the base for the amendments in halakha. No rinsing or waiting was required by the Talmud, geonim, or rishonim between the eating of poultry and dairy until Maimonides required it in his Mishneh Torah . At approximately the same time, Ashkenazi Jews began refraining from eating dairy after poultry in one meal. Possible local non-Jewish cultural influences, as well as anti-sectarianism, will be considered as potential motivations for these changes in the halakhic attitude towards poultry. This paper will argue that the waiting periods common today between meats and dairy are not of Talmudic origin, but rather evolved in the Middle Ages and continued to develop late into the 14 th century. These assertions will include a response to Aviad Stollman’s claim that waiting between meat and dairy was a common custom amongst the Babylonian Jews beginning in the sixth century. http://www.oqimta.org.il/oqimta/5776/adams4.pdf [2] Steven H.
    [Show full text]