DOCSLIB.ORG

Torah, Nevi'im, and Kesuvim

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Relationship of Rabbi Michael Taubes Nach and Torah Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS and YU High School for Boys Rabbi, Congregation Zichron Mordechai, Teaneck , NJ TORAH, NEVI’IM, AND KESUVIM: HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT, HOW ARE THEY SIMILAR? he Gemara in Shabbos (88a) the Gemara in Kiddushin (49a) and in that it is rooted, separately, in Torah, relates that when praising Sanhedrin (101a), which identify one in Nevi’im, and in Kesuvim.6 The Hashem in connection with who has experience with or expertise Gemara in Rosh Ha-Shanah (32a) Tthe giving of the Torah to the Jewish in mikra as someone who studies speaks of citing pesukim individually people on Shavuos, a certain individual Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim.2 As from Torah, from Nevi’im, and from thanked Him for having presented us detailed by the Gemara in Bava Basra Kesuvim as part of the special berachos with a “Torah [consisting] of thirds.” (14b), there are eight books in Nevi’im of Malchuyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros In clarifying this unusual phrase, and eleven books in Kesuvim, for a on Rosh Ha-Shanah. The Gemara Rashi there (d”h Oryan Telisa’i) states total of nineteen. When added to the in Megillah (21b) suggests that that the reference is to the fact that five books of the Torah,3 this results in specifically three people are called up there are three sections of the Torah, the Tanach consisting of twenty-four to the Torah on Mondays, Thursdays, namely, Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim, books, the amount identified by the and Shabbos afternoons as a means or what we commonly call “Tanach”;1 Gemara in Ta’anis (8a) and in many of corresponding to Torah, Nevi’im, the Ritva there (d”h Oryan Telisa’i) Midrashic and other sources.4 and Kesuvim. And the Gemara in explains that all three were actually Although these sections of Scripture Bechoros (50a) notes that words can alluded to at Mount Sinai. These three are certainly related,5 they are have different meanings depending on sections collectively comprise that nonetheless distinct from one another. whether they are found in Torah, in which Chazal generally call “mikra,” or On occasion, for example, Chazal Nevi’im, or in Kesuvim. The question Scripture, as indicated by the Midrash seek to emphasize the significance of is what precisely distinguishes these in Devarim Rabbah (8:3) as well as by a particular concept by demonstrating three divisions of Scripture from each 26 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 other, or, put differently, what unique the Torah states “eileh ha-mitzvos …” the Kohanim in the Beis Ha-Mikdash characteristic(s) identify each of — these are the mitzvos that Hashem and to their garments, as presented them, and what warrants the inclusion commanded (Vayikra 27:34). The in the Gemara in Yoma (71b) and in of a particular book in one section as implication of the word “these,” as Ta’anis (17b), to the placement of opposed to another. noted by the Malbim there (No. 120), markers at a gravesite, as discussed in is “these and no others.” TheSifra the Gemara in Moed Kattan (5a), and The Legal Authority of Each there (Parashas Bechukosai 13:7) thus the technical performance of a bris Section states, as does the Gemara in Shabbos milah, as noted by Tosafos in Yevamos (104a), among other places, that (71b, d”h lo nitnah). In addition, The singular nature of Torah is following the closing of the Torah, a there are some laws found in Nevi’im relatively easy to understand. The prophet does not have the authority and Kesuvim that may not have been Gemara in Nedarim (22b) actually to innovate any new law to be binding “on the books” in terms of having suggests that but for the failings of upon future generations with the been previously observed, but which the people, the five books of Torah force of a law from the Torah.9 Of were part of a tradition that existed alone would have sufficed (along course, since the prophets were from the revelation at Mount Sinai with the book of Yehoshua because (generally) among the sages of their indicating that at a certain point in of its significance regarding Eretz respective generations, as implied time they would be introduced by a Yisrael), and the works in Nevi’im by the Mishnah at the beginning of prophet. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary and Kesuvim would not, in a certain Pirkei Avos (1:1), and as indicated by to Shemos (12:1, d”h Va-Yomer) cites sense, have been necessary at all; the Rambam in the introduction to the idea of having songs and musical Torah obviously stands apart from his Mishneh Torah, they had the same instruments as part of the Beis Ha- everything else. Indeed, the Mishnah right to legislate new laws as did other Mikdash service and the prohibition in Sanhedrin (90a) declares that one sages. But these laws, found in Nevi’im to carry outside on Shabbos as who denies the Divine origin of Torah and Kesuvim, do not have quite the examples of this. TheShelah (Torah has no share in Olam Ha-Ba, and the authority of any laws from the Torah, She-B’al Peh, afterOs Tav, d”h Kelal Gemara later there (99a) adds that as explained by Tosafos to Bava Basra Rabbanan) goes so far as to say even this person is classified as a non- (147a, d”h Minayin) and discussed by about Megillah reading on Purim believer and that such is the case even the Ramban, in his commentary to the that Moshe Rabbeinu had been told if he or she denies the Divine origin Rambam’s Sefer Ha-Mitzvos (Shoresh at Mount Sinai that when so-and-so of just one word or just the spelling7 2), among others. will take place, such-and-such should of one word of Torah.8 The Rambam, be done in commemoration.10 These in his Peirush Ha-Mishnah to the tenth Divrei Kabbalah laws, then, though found in Nevi’im chapter of Sanhedrin (called “Cheilek,” and Kesuvim, can have the force of in the introduction to Mishnah 1, d”h The above is not, however, to suggest actual Torah laws. Ve-Ha-Yesod Ha-Shemini), articulates that every law found in Nevi’im One of the words often used to refer that the entire Torah was dictated to and Kesuvim should be considered to Nevi’im and to Kesuvim is the Moshe Rabbeinu by Hashem Himself, Rabbinic in nature. In some cases, word “kabbalah,” as indicated by and declares that this is a fundamental a law found there is a law that was Rashi in Bava Kamma (2b, d”h Divrei principle of the Jewish faith. In this actually already “on the books” from Kabbalah). The Mishnah inTa’anis sense, that Torah is literally and the time of the giving of the Torah (15a), for example, introduces a entirely the word of Hashem, it is at Mount Sinai, but was initially passuk from Nevi’im by saying that unlike any other portion of Scripture. preserved only as part of the oral it is written in thekabbalah ,11 while For this reason, it is only in Torah, tradition presented there and was the Gemara in Sotah (37a) as well as as opposed to in either Nevi’im or not immediately written down. At in Niddah (25a) introduces a passuk Kesuvim, that a law can be introduced some later date, a prophet, for various from Kesuvim by saying that it is with the authority to make it binding reasons, then committed the law to written in thekabbalah . It should for all time. writing. Examples of this include be stressed that the word kabbalah At the very end of the book of Vayikra, certain details relating to the service of in this context has nothing at all 27 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 to do with mysticism or esoteric and certainly by the sages, is classified from a passuk in Nechemiah (8:8).18 mystical literature. The word rather as a Rabbinic requirement, and not The Maharatz Chayes elsewhere (to alludes to something that has been as something from the Torah.15 The Yoma 38b, d”h Mena Ha Milsa) notes received. Rashi in Chullin (137a, Ramban, however, in his commentary that it is precisely because many ideas d”h Toras Moshe) says that it hints at there, disagrees and maintains that a in Nevi’im and Kesuvim are actually the prophecy that the navi receives law that a navi expressly commanded rooted in Torah that Chazal frequently via Divine inspiration (Ruach Ha- (as opposed to something that is look for hints to these ideas in Torah Kodesh) as necessary for each given implied by a narrative or accepted as itself. circumstance. TheMachzor Vitry (No. a precautionary stringency) can be 16 424, commentary to Pirkei Avos 1:1) considered like a law from the Torah. The Sanctity of the Respective explains that the words of the Nevi’im ThePri Megadim, in the introduction Scrolls reflect a received tradition going back to his commentary on the Shulchan to the days of Yehoshua.12 In either Aruch (Pesichah Kolleles 1:18-19), Nonetheless, even those who case, principles and laws that appear in accepts the broader understanding of maintain that (at least some) laws Nevi’im and Kesuvim are frequently divrei kabbalah. He asserts that many found in Nevi’im and Kesuvim have referred to as “divrei kabbalah” — laws found in Nevi’im and Kesuvim the authority of laws found in Torah, words of the received tradition.
Recommended publications
  • Office of Rabbi Sacks

    Office of Rabbi Sacks

    Dear Sir / Madam, Please find the text below of a speech Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks made on the subject of antisemitism. This was the keynote address of “The Future of the Jewish Communities in Europe” Conference held at The European Parliament on 27th September 2016 in Brussels. I believe you might find the speech useful as you consider your report. Kind regards, Dan Sacker (on behalf of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks) Office of Rabbi Sacks Dan Sacker Postal address: The Office of Rabbi Sacks, P.O. Box 72007, London NW6 6RW www.rabbisacks.org | ********************************************************************************* The hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews. That is what I want us to understand today. It wasn’t Jews alone who suffered under Hitler. It wasn’t Jews alone who suffered under Stalin. It isn’t Jews alone who suffer under ISIS or Al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad. We make a great mistake if we think antisemitism is a threat only to Jews. It is a threat, first and foremost, to Europe and to the freedoms it took centuries to achieve. Antisemitism is not about Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their own failures and have instead to blame someone else. Historically, if you were a Christian at the time of the Crusades, or a German after the First World War, and saw that the world hadn’t turned out the way you believed it would, you blamed the Jews. That is what is happening today. And I cannot begin to say how dangerous it is.
  • Conversion to Judaism Finnish Gerim on Giyur and Jewishness ​ ​ ​ ​

    Conversion to Judaism Finnish Gerim on Giyur and Jewishness ​ ​ ​ ​

    Conversion to Judaism Finnish gerim on giyur and Jewishness ​ ​ ​ ​ Kira Zaitsev Syventävien opintojen tutkielma Afrikan ja Lähi-idän kielet Humanistinen tiedekunta Helsingin yliopisto 2019/5779 provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk CORE brought to you by Tiedekunta – Fakultet – Faculty Koulutusohjelma – Utbildningsprogram – Degree Programme Humanistinen tiedekunta Kielten maisteriohjelma Opintosuunta – Studieinriktning – Study Track Afrikan ja Lähi-idän kielet Tekijä – Författare – Author Kira Zaitsev Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Conversion to Judaism. Finnish gerim on giyur and Jewishness Työn laji – Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä– Sidoantal Arbetets art – Huhtikuu 2019 – Number of pages Level 43 Pro gradu Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Pro graduni käsittelee suomalaisia, jotka ovat kääntyneet juutalaisiksi ilman aikaisempaa juutalaista taustaa ja perhettä. Data perustuu haastatteluihin, joita arvioin straussilaisella grounded theory-menetelmällä. Tutkimuskysymykseni ovat, kuinka nämä käännynnäiset näkevät mitä juutalaisuus on ja kuinka he arvioivat omaa kääntymistään. Tutkimuseni mukaan kääntyjän aikaisempi uskonnollinen tausta on varsin todennäköisesti epätavallinen, eikä hänellä ole merkittäviä aikaisempia juutalaisia sosiaalisia suhteita. Internetillä on kasvava rooli kääntyjän tiedonhaussa ja verkostoissa. Juutalaisuudessa kääntynyt näkee tärkeimpänä eettisyyden sekä juutalaisen lain, halakhan. Kääntymisen nähdään vahvistavan aikaisempi maailmankuva
  • A Fresh Perspective on the History of Hasidic Judaism

    A Fresh Perspective on the History of Hasidic Judaism

    eSharp Issue 20: New Horizons A Fresh Perspective on the History of Hasidic Judaism Eva van Loenen (University of Southampton) Introduction In this article, I shall examine the history of Hasidic Judaism, a mystical,1 ultra-orthodox2 branch of Judaism, which values joyfully worshipping God’s presence in nature as highly as the strict observance of the laws of Torah3 and Talmud.4 In spite of being understudied, the history of Hasidic Judaism has divided historians until today. Indeed, Hasidic Jewish history is not one monolithic, clear-cut, straightforward chronicle. Rather, each scholar has created his own narrative and each one is as different as its author. While a brief introduction such as this cannot enter into all the myriad divergences and similarities between these stories, what I will attempt to do here is to incorporate and compare an array of different views in order to summarise the history of Hasidism and provide a more objective analysis, which has not yet been undertaken. Furthermore, my historical introduction in Hasidic Judaism will exemplify how mystical branches of mainstream religions might develop and shed light on an under-researched division of Judaism. The main focus of 1 Mystical movements strive for a personal experience of God or of his presence and values intuitive, spiritual insight or revelationary knowledge. The knowledge gained is generally ‘esoteric’ (‘within’ or hidden), leading to the term ‘esotericism’ as opposed to exoteric, based on the external reality which can be attested by anyone. 2 Ultra-orthodox Jews adhere most strictly to Jewish law as the holy word of God, delivered perfectly and completely to Moses on Mount Sinai.
  • Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life1

    Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life1

    ORTHODOXY IN AMERICAN JEWISH LIFE1 by CHARLES S. LIEBMAN INTRODUCTION • DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ORTHODOXY • EARLY ORTHODOX COMMUNITY • UNCOMMITTED ORTHODOX • COM- MITTED ORTHODOX • MODERN ORTHODOX • SECTARIANS • LEAD- ERSHIP • DIRECTIONS AND TENDENCIES • APPENDLX: YESHIVOT PROVIDING INTENSIVE TALMUDIC STUDY A HIS ESSAY is an effort to describe the communal aspects and institutional forms of Orthodox Judaism in the United States. For the most part, it ignores the doctrines, faith, and practices of Orthodox Jews, and barely touches upon synagogue hie, which is the most meaningful expression of American Orthodoxy. It is hoped that the reader will find here some appreciation of the vitality of American Orthodoxy. Earlier predictions of the demise of 11 am indebted to many people who assisted me in making this essay possible. More than 40, active in a variety of Orthodox organizations, gave freely of their time for extended discussions and interviews and many lay leaders and rabbis throughout the United States responded to a mail questionnaire. A number of people read a draft of this paper. I would be remiss if I did not mention a few by name, at the same time exonerating them of any responsibility for errors of fact or for my own judgments and interpretations. The section on modern Orthodoxy was read by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. The sections beginning with the sectarian Orthodox to the conclusion of the paper were read by Rabbi Nathan Bulman. Criticism and comments on the entire paper were forthcoming from Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein, Dr. Marshall Ski are, and Victor Geller, without whose assistance the section on the number of Orthodox Jews could not have been written.
  • 1 Antisemitism Rosh Hashanah 5780 September 29, 2019 Rabbi David

    1 Antisemitism Rosh Hashanah 5780 September 29, 2019 Rabbi David

    Antisemitism Rosh Hashanah 5780 September 29, 2019 Rabbi David Stern Tonight marks my thirty-first High Holidays at Temple Emanu-El, a huge blessing in my life. In thirty-one years of high holiday sermons, you have been very forgiving, and I have addressed a diverse array of topics: from our internal spiritual journeys to Judaism’s call for justice in the world; relationship and forgiveness, immigration and race, prayer and faith, loving Israel and loving our neighbors; birth and death and just about everything in between in this messy, frustrating, promising, profound, sacred realm we call life. Except -- in thirty-one years as a Jewish leader, I have not given a single High Holiday sermon about antisemitism.1 References, allusions, a pointed paragraph here and there, yes. But in three decades of High Holiday sermons spanning the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries, not a single one about antisemitism. I’m hoping that doesn’t constitute professional malpractice, but it is strange. So I’ve asked myself why. Reason #1: I had almost no experience of antisemitism growing up. With one limited exception, I never even experienced name-calling, let alone any physical incident. All four of my grandparents were born in America, and our story was the classic trajectory of American Jewish integration and success. 1 Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt makes a compelling argument for this spelling. Lipstadt rejects the hyphen in the more conventional “Anti-Semitism” because it implies that whatever lies to the right of the hyphen exists as an independent entity.
  • 4 / Midrash and History: a Key to the Babelesque Imagination

    4 / Midrash and History: a Key to the Babelesque Imagination

    4 / Midrash and History: A Key to the Babelesque Imagination Myth as History Myth in Babelʹ’s fiction gives an illusion of the epic while mocking it, and reads unorthodox interpretations and essential truths into history. For Babelʹ, the myths of history and religion were a subtle medium for allegorical parallels, as well as ironic allusions to a moral message. This is an essentially midrashic approach to history, fol- lowing the ancient Jewish storytelling tradition that imaginatively elaborates on biblical and historical narrative, usually for exegetic or homiletic purposes, and playfully draws on intertextual, ver- bal, and semantic associations. Often new, contemporary meaning is introduced into the reading of familiar stories, or biblical ver- ses are given unexpected levels of meaning that dramatizes bib- lical figures as human. As Daniel Boyarin has demonstrated, midrash, the biblical metacommentary that forms part of Tal- mudic lore, is fundamentally intertextual and sets up a coded dua- lity between the exegetical text and the quoted or referenced pas- sage. When a textual moment is felt to be awkward, what Michel Rifattere terms “ungrammaticality” points to gaps that provide the key to decoding through another text.1 The midrashic mode informs the Jewish imagination at times of cultural repression (such as under the Romans or the Tsars), and characterizes the way the canon of Jewish literature has developed and renewed itself. There is something we might call midrashic in Babelʹ’s view of history. 129 4 / Midrash and History We may find a key to Babelʹ’s midrashic view of history in the art of the Polish painter in Red Cavalry.
  • Introduction

    Introduction

    INTRODUCTION Hanne Trautner-Kromann n this introduction I want to give the necessary background information for understanding the nine articles in this volume. II start with some comments on the Hebrew or Jewish Bible and the literature of the rabbis, based on the Bible, and then present the articles and the background information for these articles. In Jewish tradition the Bible consists of three main parts: 1. Torah – Teaching: The Five Books of Moses: Genesis (Bereshit in Hebrew), Exodus (Shemot), Leviticus (Vajikra), Numbers (Bemidbar), Deuteronomy (Devarim); 2. Nevi’im – Prophets: (The Former Prophets:) Joshua, Judges, Samuel I–II, Kings I–II; (The Latter Prophets:) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek- iel; (The Twelve Small Prophets:) Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; 3. Khetuvim – Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles I–II1. The Hebrew Bible is often called Tanakh after these three main parts: Torah, Nevi’im and Khetuvim. The Hebrew Bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted by rab- bis and scholars up through the ages – and still is2. Already in the Bible itself there are examples of interpretation (midrash). The books of Chronicles, for example, can be seen as a kind of midrash on the 10 | From Bible to Midrash books of Samuel and Kings, repeating but also changing many tradi- tions found in these books. In talmudic times,3 dating from the 1st to the 6th century C.E.(Common Era), the rabbis developed and refined the systems of interpretation which can be found in their literature, often referred to as The Writings of the Sages.
  • Some Forlorn Writings of a Forgotten Ashkenazi Prophet NOTE R

    Some Forlorn Writings of a Forgotten Ashkenazi Prophet NOTE R

    T HE J EWISH Q UARTERLY R EVIEW, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Winter 2005) 183–196 Some Forlorn Writings of a Forgotten Ashkenazi Prophet NOTE R. Nehemiah ben Shlomo ha-Navi’ MOSHE IDEL O WING TO RECENT STUDIES on Haside Ashkenaz, especially by Jo- seph Dan, and the publication of some of the Ashkenazi material from manuscripts, we have a better picture of the literature produced from the early decades of the thirteenth century.1 Of paramount importance to this literature is the distinction Dan drew between different schools emerging out of the Ashkenazi masters. He proposed to distinguish between the main line represented by the writings of the Kalonymite school of R. Yehudah he-Hasid and R. Eleazar of Worms, on the one hand, and the school, which he described as the ‘‘school of the special cherub,’’ on the other.2 In addition, he drew attention to, and eventually printed and ana- lyzed, material that did not belong to either of the two schools and is found in anonymous manuscripts.3 More recently, in an innovative article dealing with the occurrence of the syntagm ‘‘Yeshu‘a Sar ha-panim,’’ Yehudah Liebes has noted dispa- rate anonymous writings found mostly in manuscripts, which belong to an Ashkenazi school, that he called the ‘‘circle of Sefer ha-h. eshek.’’4 He 1. See especially Dan’s The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi Hasidism (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1968); Studies in Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature (Hebrew; Ramat Gan, 1975); and The ‘‘Unique Cherub’’ Circle (Tu¨ bingen, 1999). 2. Dan, Esoteric Theology, 156–63; Studies, 89–111; The ‘‘Unique Cherub’’ Circle, passim.
  • Kabbalah As a Shield Against the “Scourge” of Biblical Criticism: a Comparative Analysis of the Torah Commentaries of Elia Benamozegh and Mordecai Breuer

    Kabbalah As a Shield Against the “Scourge” of Biblical Criticism: a Comparative Analysis of the Torah Commentaries of Elia Benamozegh and Mordecai Breuer

    Kabbalah as a Shield against the “Scourge” of Biblical Criticism: A Comparative Analysis of the Torah Commentaries of Elia Benamozegh and Mordecai Breuer Adiel Cohen The belief that the Torah was given by divine revelation, as defined by Maimonides in his eighth principle of faith and accepted collectively by the Jewish people,1 conflicts with the opinions of modern biblical scholarship.2 As a result, biblical commentators adhering to both the peshat (literal or contex- tual) method and the belief in the divine revelation of the Torah, are unable to utilize the exegetical insights associated with the documentary hypothesis developed by Wellhausen and his school, a respected and accepted academic discipline.3 As Moshe Greenberg has written, “orthodoxy saw biblical criticism in general as irreconcilable with the principles of Jewish faith.”4 Therefore, in the words of D. S. Sperling, “in general, Orthodox Jews in America, Israel, and elsewhere have remained on the periphery of biblical scholarship.”5 However, the documentary hypothesis is not the only obstacle to the religious peshat commentator. Theological complications also arise from the use of archeolog- ical discoveries from the ancient Near East, which are analogous to the Torah and can be a very rich source for its interpretation.6 The comparison of biblical 246 Adiel Cohen verses with ancient extra-biblical texts can raise doubts regarding the divine origin of the Torah and weaken faith in its unique sanctity. The Orthodox peshat commentator who aspires to explain the plain con- textual meaning of the Torah and produce a commentary open to the various branches of biblical scholarship must clarify and demonstrate how this use of modern scholarship is compatible with his or her belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
  • Abraham Joshua Heschel and Theology After the Holocaust Matthew Ae Net Denison University

    Abraham Joshua Heschel and Theology After the Holocaust Matthew Ae Net Denison University

    Denison Journal of Religion Volume 1 Article 2 2001 Abraham Joshua Heschel and Theology after the Holocaust Matthew aE net Denison University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.denison.edu/religion Part of the Ethics in Religion Commons, and the Sociology of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Eanet, Matthew (2001) "Abraham Joshua Heschel and Theology after the Holocaust," Denison Journal of Religion: Vol. 1 , Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.denison.edu/religion/vol1/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Denison Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denison Journal of Religion by an authorized editor of Denison Digital Commons. THE DENISON JOURNAL OF RELIGION Eanet: Abraham Joshua Heschel and ITheology after the Holocaust Abraham Joshua Heschel and Theology after the Holocaust Matthew Eanet "Life in our time has been a nightmare for many of us, tranquility an interlude, happiness a fake. Who could breathe at a time when man was engaged in murdering the holy witness to God six million times?"1 hen Abraham Joshua Heschel entered the national spotlight as a pro- found religious thinker and strident social activist, he bore the garb W and look of an Eastern European Jew. A man of short stature, Rabbi Heschel looked the way religious Eastern European Jews have for hundreds of years: the traditional dark-colored suit with the white fringes of his prayer shawl hanging out beneath his sport coat, a skullcap hidden beneath a black full- brimmed hat, and a long, thick gray beard. An American leader, Heschel was, in every sense, a European Jew, steeped in the traditional Jewish communities of both Warsaw and Vilna.
  • The Anti-Samaritan Attitude As Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim

    The Anti-Samaritan Attitude As Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim

    religions Article The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim Andreas Lehnardt Faculty of Protestant Theology, Johannes Gutenberg‑University Mainz, 55122 Mainz, Germany; lehnardt@uni‑mainz.de Abstract: Samaritans, as a group within the ranges of ancient ‘Judaisms’, are often mentioned in Talmud and Midrash. As comparable social–religious entities, they are regarded ambivalently by the rabbis. First, they were viewed as Jews, but from the end of the Tannaitic times, and especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt, they were perceived as non‑Jews, not reliable about different fields of Halakhic concern. Rabbinic writings reflect on this change in attitude and describe a long ongoing conflict and a growing anti‑Samaritan attitude. This article analyzes several dialogues betweenrab‑ bis and Samaritans transmitted in the Midrash on the book of Genesis, Bereshit Rabbah. In four larger sections, the famous Rabbi Me’ir is depicted as the counterpart of certain Samaritans. The analyses of these discussions try to show how rabbinic texts avoid any direct exegetical dispute over particular verses of the Torah, but point to other hermeneutical levels of discourse and the rejection of Samari‑ tan claims. These texts thus reflect a remarkable understanding of some Samaritan convictions, and they demonstrate how rabbis denounced Samaritanism and refuted their counterparts. The Rabbi Me’ir dialogues thus are an impressive literary witness to the final stages of the parting of ways of these diverging religious streams. Keywords: Samaritans; ancient Judaism; rabbinic literature; Talmud; Midrash Citation: Lehnardt, Andreas. 2021. The Anti‑Samaritan Attitude as 1 Reflected in Rabbinic Midrashim. The attitudes towards the Samaritans (or Kutim ) documented in rabbinical literature 2 Religions 12: 584.
  • Interpreting Diagrams from the Sefer Yetsirah and Its Commentaries 1

    Interpreting Diagrams from the Sefer Yetsirah and Its Commentaries 1

    NOTES 1 Word and Image in Medieval Kabbalah: Interpreting Diagrams from the Sefer Yetsirah and Its Commentaries 1. The most notorious example of these practices is the popularizing work of Aryeh Kaplan. His critical editions of the SY and the Sefer ha Bahir are some of the most widely read in the field because they provide the texts in Hebrew and English with comprehensive and useful appendices. However, these works are deeply problematic because they dehistoricize the tradi- tion by adding later diagrams to earlier works. For example, in his edition of the SY he appends eighteenth-century diagrams to later versions of this tenth-century text. Popularizers of kabbalah such as Michael Berg of the Kabbalah Centre treat the Zohar as a second-century rabbinic tract without acknowledging textual evidence to the contrary. See his introduction to the Centre’s translation of the Zohar: P. S. Berg. The Essential Zohar. New York: Random House, 2002. 2. For a variety of reasons, kabbalistic works were transmitted in manuscript form long after other works, such as the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, and their commentaries were widely available in print. This is true in large part because kabbalistic treatises were “private” works, transmitted from teacher to student. Kabbalistic manuscripts were also traditionally transmitted in manuscript form because of their provenance. The Maghreb and other parts of North Africa were important centers of later mystical activity, and print technology came quite late to these regions, with manuscript culture persisting well into the nineteenth, and even into the mid- twentieth century in some regions.