DOCSLIB.ORG

Discreet Theologies of Sacred Space: D, Dtr1 and Jeremiah: What the Mishnah Already Knew and No One Ever Told Us2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discreet Theologies of Sacred Space: D, Dtr1 and Jeremiah: What the Mishnah Already Knew and No One Ever Told Us2 DISCREET THEOLOGIES OF SACRED SPACE: D, DTR1 AND JEREMIAH: WHAT THE MISHNAH ALREADY KNEW AND NO ONE EVER TOLD US2 Mayer I. Gruber Ben-Gurion University of the Negev I see myself as, among other things, a Jewish confessional biblical scholar who attempts to expound for non-Orthodox Diaspora Jews and non-Orthodox Israeli Jews the abiding messages contained in Hebrew Scripture as understood against the background of mod- ern scientific history. It should be noted that what is now called “biblical theology” was born of the attempt of people like Henry Churchill King (1858–1934), writing at the end of the nineteenth century, to explain how the Bible could be more meaningful than ever before if persons were willing to study it anew against the background of modern natural science including the theory of evo- lution and modern, scientific history including biblical criticism.3 1 The two important contributions of W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica, qua Deteronomium (1805) to the study of the Book of Deuteronomy and the books of the so-called Early Prophets ( Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings) were his thesis that Deuteronomy was the book discovered in the Temple in the eighteenth year of the reign of King Josiah (see 2 Kgs. 22:3; an idea already floated by Jerome in the fourth century C.E.) and his thesis that the so-called Early Prophets have been edited by a school, which adopted the ideology of Deuteronomy (referred to as D) and that an adherent of this school should be designated therefore as a Deuteronomist [Dtr]. However, according to the rival thesis of Martin Noth, Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, vol. 1 (Halle, 1943), pp. 12–18, the Book of Deuteronomy and 2 Kgs. belong to a single work called “the Deuteronomic history.” The latter theory fails to distinguish between the diverse ideologies and diverse terminologies with respect to legitimate and illegitimate holy places found in Deut. 11–12 (D); the Books of Kings [Dtr] and in the Book of Jeremiah. Hence our distinction, following both de Wette and Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), between D (Deuteronomy) and Dtr (especially various passages in the Books of Kings, which inveigh against the worship of Yahweh at bamot). 2 This article is expanded from the author’s paper read at the session on Hebrew Bible Theology (aka Jewish Biblical Theology) chaired by Wonil Kim and orga- nized by Isaac Kalimi and Marvin Sweeney at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia, November 23, 2003. 3 See Henry Churchill King, “Reconstruction in Theology,” in American Journal of Theology 3 (April, 1899), pp. 295–323; reprinted in William Robert Miller, ed., © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11.2 Also available online – www.brill.nl discreet theologies of sacred space 229 For the contemporary non-Orthodox Jew, the sacred books of Judaism and of ancient and modern Israel are primarily the Hebrew ver- sions of the books found in the Lutheran canon of the Old Testament. Rabbinic literature is essentially a closed book. Moreover, it is assumed a priori by members of the aforementioned communities— the non-Orthodox Israeli and the Conservative and Reform Jews in the Diaspora—that unless proven otherwise in a specific instance, whatever Rabbinic literature has to say about a given text of Hebrew Scripture is probably wrong. The common and shared background of both the non-Orthodox Jews who are the primary target audi- ence of publications such as The Jewish Study Bible edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford and New York, 2003) and my professional colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature, most of them professing Christians, are the a priori assumptions that 1) Judaism is not the natural and necessary continuation of the religion of ancient Israel;4 and 2) any biblical scholar who studied Contemporary American Protestant Though, 1900–1970 (Indianapolis and New York, 1973), pp. 7–36. 4 For the comparison of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura with modern sec- ular Zionism, cf. Jon D. Levenson, “Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology?” in Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds.,Judaic Persepctives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, 1987), p. 294; cf. Samuel Sandmel, The Hebrew Scriptures (New York, 1978), p. 546: “The contrast between the Jewish view of the Tanak can be oversimplified in the following way: Christianity regards the Tanak as superseded but sacred, while Judaism regards it as sacred and unsuper- seded;” quoted by H. Yavin (pseudonym for Adele Berlin), “‘Modern ‘Doxologies’ in Biblical Research,” in Neusner, Levine, and. Frerichs, Judaic Persepctives, p. 277. Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford, 2002), p. 3, asserts: “The modern historical understanding of the Bible is a rival to rab- binic reading.” Attempting to accommodate both Sandmel’s thesis of the centrality of Hebrew Scripture in Judaism and the recognition in Rabbinic Judaism of addi- tional sources of authority, which appear to supersede and/or ignore the plain meaning of Scripture, David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (Boulder, 1997), p. 89, writes as follows: . revelation was indeed a single, unique event, endowed with unique power and authority. The Torah of Sinai is the product of this revelation; and the Torah as canonized by Ezra, we have said, is not only the closest possible approximation of this original Torah, after centuries of idolatry, but is also the canon as endorsed by prophetic authority. This Torah serves as the basis and the inspiration for all subsequent decisions of law, and disputes arise, not because of continuous revelation of any kind, but because of the imperfection of human understanding and the lacunae of tradition. Ultimately, Halivni’s approach is incompatible with all of the following: 1) the recog- nition within Hebrew Scripture, including the Pentateuch, of diverse points of view .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barry Wimpfheimer, Ed., Wisdom of Bat Sheva: the Dr
    BARRY SCOTT WIMPFHEIMER curriculum vitae Department of Religious Studies Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Northwestern University 1860 Campus Drive, 4-140 Evanston, Illinois 60208-2164 [email protected] 847-491-2618 POSITIONS Associate Professor, Northwestern University, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Religious Studies (Fall 2013-Present) Critical Theory, Jewish Studies and Legal Studies Committees Associate Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (Fall 2013-Present) Director, Crown Family Center for Jewish and Israel Studies & Jewish Studies Program, Northwestern University (Fall 2012-Summer 2016) Fellow, Alice Kaplan Institute for the Humanities, Northwestern University (Fall 2011-Spring 2012) Assistant Professor, Northwestern University, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Religious Studies, (Summer 2007-Spring 2013) Director of Undergraduate Studies, (Fall 2008-Spring 2009) Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (Summer 2007-Spring 2013) College Fellow, Northwestern University, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Religion (Summer 2006-Spring 2007) Assistant Professor. The Pennsylvania State University, Department of History and Religious Studies; Malvin and Lea Bank Early Career Professor of Jewish Studies (Fall 2005- Spring 2006). Harry Starr Fellow. Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies (Spring 2006). Instructor. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (Spring 2005). EDUCATION Columbia University, New York, New York. Wimpfheimer cv September 19 p. 1 Ph.D., with Distinction, October 2005. Religion. Committee: Professors David Weiss Halivni, Elizabeth Castelli, Jeffrey Rubenstein, Alan Segal, Michael Stanislawski. M.Phil., October 2004. Religion. M.A., October 2003. Religion. Yeshiva University, New York, New York. 1996-2000. Rabbinic Ordination, June 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Biography of Lee I. Levine
    Biography of Lee I. Levine Lee Israel Levine was born on Feb. 1, 1939, in Bangor, Maine, to Rabbi Dr. Harry O. H. Levine and Irene R. Levine (née Ginsburgh). He attended the Akiba Academy in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a public high school in Steubenville, Ohio, where his father served as a congregational rabbi. Summers were spent at Camp Ramah. Lee attended Columbia College in New York, majoring in philosophy. At the same time, he studied in the undergraduate program at the Jewish Theological Semi- nary, majoring in Talmud. He graduated from both institutions in 1961, earning a B.A. from Columbia and a B.H.L. in Talmud from JTS. In June 1961, he married Mira Karp of Buffalo, New York. Lee and Mira spent the 1959–60 academic year at Machon Greenberg (Hayyim Greenberg Institute for Teachers from the Diaspora) and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1961 to 1965, Lee studied in the rabbinical program at the Jewish Theological Seminary with the distinguished rabbis and scholars Saul Lieberman, David Weiss Halivni, Moshe Zucker, and Gerson Cohen. He received his M.H.L. in Talmud in 1963 and rabbinic ordination from JTS in 1965. In 1963, Lee pursued his graduate studies in Jewish and Ancient History at Co- lumbia University with Professors Gerson Cohen and Morton Smith. After receiving his M.A. in 1966, he continued his doctoral studies under the mentorship of Cohen and Smith and was awarded his Ph.D. in 1970. While researching his dissertation on Caesarea under Roman Rule, he spent the 1968–69 academic year at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irreconcilability of Judaism and Modern Biblical Scholarship
    Studies in the Bible and Antiquity Volume 8 Article 3 2016 The Irreconcilability of Judaism and Modern Biblical Scholarship James L. Kugel Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba Part of the Biblical Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Kugel, James L. (2016) "The Irreconcilability of Judaism and Modern Biblical Scholarship," Studies in the Bible and Antiquity: Vol. 8 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba/vol8/iss1/3 This Forum is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in the Bible and Antiquity by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The Irreconcilability of Judaism and Modern Biblical Scholarship James L. Kugel Thanks to the work of scholars of the Hebrew Bible over the last two centuries or so, we now know a great deal about how and when various biblical texts were composed and assembled; in fact, this has been the focus of much of modern biblical scholarship. One thing has become clear as a result. Our biblical texts are actually the product of multiple acts of rewriting. All our canonical books have been found to be, in some degree, the result of editorial expansion, rearrangement, and redaction introduced by various anonymous ancient scholars. This raises an important question about those ancient scholars. To put it bluntly: How dare they? If you, an ancient Israelite, believe that Scripture
    [Show full text]
  • Ari Ackerman
    ARI ACKERMAN Machon Shechter Office: (02) 679-0755 4 Avraham Granot St. ackerman at schechter.ac.il Jerusalem, 91160 Professional Positions: Academic Advisor for Mishle Program 2014- Academic Advisor for Jewish Education and Contemporay Judaism Tracks 2012-2014 Academic Advisor for Student Affairs 2010-2012, 2014- Academic Advisor for TALI Educational Leadership Program 2005-2012 Senior Lecturor in Jewish Education and Philosophy: Machon Schechter, Jerusalem, Israel Lecturor in Jewish Education and Philosophy: Machon Shechter, Jerusaelm, Israel 2001-2012 Jerusalem Fellow: The Mandel School for the Development 1999-2001 of Professional Leadership, Jerusalem, Israel Research Fellow: The Institute for Advanced Studies, School of 1996- 1999 Social Science, Princeton, New Jersey Adjunct Instructor in Jewish Philosophy: Stern College 1997- 1999 for Women, Yeshiva University Instructor in Jewish Philosophy: Drisha Institute 1997- 1999 for Jewish Education, New York Education: Ph.D.: Jewish Philosophy 1994- 2001 Hebrew University Dissertation topic: “The Philosophic Sermons of Zerahia ben Isaac Halevi Saladin: Jewish Philosophic and Sermonic Activity in Late 14th and Early 15th Century Aragon.” Master’s Degree: Jewish Philosophy 1991-1993 Hebrew University Thesis: “Zerahia Halevi’s Sermon on Genesis 22:14” Bachelor Of Arts Degree 1984-1988 Columbia University Publications: Books The Philosophic Sermons of Zerhia Halevi Saladin, Beer Sheva University Press, 2012. Edited Books Co-editor, The Jewish Political Tradition, volume two, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Co-editor, "Jewish Education for What?" and Other Essays of Walter Ackerman, Jerusalem: Schechter Press, 2008. Articles “The Composition of the Section on Divine Providence in Or Hashem,” Da’at 32-33 (1994) pp. 37-45.
    [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]
  • Reflections on Maimonides' Eighth Principle of Faith: Its Implications for Orthodox Bible Students
    REFLECTIONS ON MAIMONIDES' EIGHTH PRINCIPLE OF FAITH: ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORTHODOX BIBLE STUDENTS AHARON E. WEXLER Many regard Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith as the bedrock of Jewish theology, and in many ways it is. "Maimonides' formulation assumed such significance that all post-Maimonidean dogmatists were forced to con- front it."1 The standard set by Maimonides demands that all students of Juda- ism use his principles as a starting point for any inquiry into the nature of Judaism. It would seem that "as a method of shorthand the Principles are in- deed a very good way of expressing the fundamentals of Judaism as under- stood by most Jews until the rise of the Reform movement. However, as with most shorthand formulations, while correct in many essentials, they are not correct in their entirety "2 (emphasis mine AW). Perhaps the most difficult article of faith for any modern student of the Bible is the eighth principle claiming that the Torah that is found in our hands is the Torah that was given to Moses and that it is all Divine. The basic claim is that the Masoretic text is exactly the same today as it was 3,300 years ago, dictated by God and written down by Moses. And yet, "strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Masoretic text (MT). One can only speak of the texts established by various Masoretic scholars, which dif- fered in minor details. Technically speaking, all of these disparate texts must be termed 'Masoretic'."3 Since at least the time of the Prophets there were always variant texts.
    [Show full text]
  • Rabbi Dr. David Weiss Halivni from Sighet Chasid to Critical Talmud Scholar Professor David Weiss Halivni the Iluy of Sighet
    Rabbi Dr. David Weiss Halivni From Sighet Chasid to Critical Talmud Scholar Professor David Weiss Halivni The Iluy of Sighet • His father – the assistant of the “miracle worker” • Reb Shaya Weiss – Belzer Chasid • Inherited from him his predilection for peshat and sense of humor • R. Menachem Mendel Hager Visheva and Tzipora • March 19th, 1944 – German occupation of Hungary • May 15th, 1944 – Auschwitz • Gross-Rosen • Sundays with Halivni – Bameh Madlikin • The bletl – Orakh Haim 434 Arrival in the US • The Jewish orphanage • The Pri Megadim and the initial meeting with R Shaul Lieberman • Yeshivat Chaim Berlin and Maharal • From Weiss to Weiss Halivni • Brooklyn College and R Aharon Kotler • JTS 1954 – Finkelstein and daiges parnasa • Lieberman “made a Litvak out of him” • From Yerushalmi to the Bavli Source Criticism and Forced Interpretations • Scholarship ki’peshuto • Authorial Intent versus Applied Meaning • Gr”a and Netsiv • Rav Hayya Gaon - Know that it was never our way to cover up a thing (a text) and explain it in a manner differently from the intent of the one who said it…there are many Mishnayiot which are not upheld in halakha, and we [nonetheless] explain them according to the view of the author. b. Gittin 77a • Mishnah: In a case of one who throws a bill of divorce to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard at the time, then she is divorced as though he placed the bill of divorce in her hand. הַ זּוֹרֵ ק גֵּט לְאִשְׁ תּוֹ, וְהִ יא בְּ תוֹ�בֵּ יתָ הּ אוֹ בְּ תוֹ� חֲצֵרָ הּ – הֲרֵ י זוֹ מְ גוֹרֶשֶׁ ת • b.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Generation of Modern Orthodoxy
    The Next Generation of Modern Orthodoxy Next Generation.indb 1 4/3/12 3:43 PM Chancellor of Yeshiva University, meets each year to consider major issues of concern to the Jewish community. Forum participants from throughout the world, including academicians in both Jewish and ah, Jewish educators, and Jewish communal professionals, gather in conference as a think tank to and disseminate a new and vibrant Torah literature addressing the critical issues facing Jewry today. gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph J. and Bertha K. Green Memorial Fund established by Morris L. Green, of blessed memory. OF 19 r10 draft 08 balanced.indd ii 9/23/2008 8:19:37 AM Next Generation.indb 2 4/3/12 3:43 PM The Next Generation of Modern Orthodoxy EditEd by Shmuel Hain Robert S. Hirt, Series Editor the michael scharf publication trust of the yeshiva university press new york Next Generation.indb 3 4/3/12 3:43 PM Copyright © 2012 Yeshiva University Press Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The next generation of modern orthodoxy / edited by Shmuel Hain. p. cm. -- (Orthodox Forum series) Includes index. ISBN 978-1-60280-206-3 1. Orthodox Judaism--Congresses. 2. Judaism--21st century--Congresses. I. Hain, Shmuel. BM30.N49 2012 296.8’32--dc23 2012013967 Distributed by KTAV Publishing House, Inc. 888 Newark Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 [email protected] www.ktav.com (201) 963-9524 Fax (201) 963-0102 v Next Generation front-chp 11 rev 2.indd 4 4/10/12 10:16 AM Contents Contributors xi Series Editor’s Preface xvii Robert S.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Ditty Eruvin 105: HADRAN
    Daf Ditty Eruvin 105: HADRAN 1 2 The Sages taught in a baraita: It is permitted for everyone to enter the Sanctuary to build, to repair, or to remove impurity from inside. However, wherever possible, the mitzva is for these tasks to be performed by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are available, Israelites enter. In both cases, if they are ritually pure, yes, they may enter, but if they are impure, no, they may not enter the holy place. 3 Therefore, the verse teaches “only” as an expression of exclusion, which means that there is a distinction here: Although the mitzva should be performed with unblemished priests ab initio, if no unblemished priests are available, blemished ones may enter. Likewise, it is the duty of ritually pure priests; if no pure priests are available, impure ones may enter. In both cases, if they are priests, yes, they may enter, but if they are Israelites, no, they may not enter the holy place. According to Rav Kahana, ritually impure priests take precedence over ritually pure Israelites. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one priest is ritually impure and another has a blemish, which of them should enter to perform repairs? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The impure one should enter, as he is permitted to participate in communal service. If the entire community is ritually impure, even impure priests may perform the service, whereas blemished priests may not serve under any circumstances. Rabbi Elazar says: The one with the blemish should enter, as he is permitted to eat consecrated foods, which indicates that he retains the sanctity of the priesthood despite his blemish.
    [Show full text]
  • The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions
    The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions by Zvi Septimus 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 David Henkin Professor Naomi Seidman Spring 2011 The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions Copyright 2011 All rights reserved by Zvi Septimus Abstract The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions by Zvi Septimus Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair This dissertation proposes a poetics and semiotics of the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud)—how the Bavli, through a complex network of linguistic signs, acts on its implied reader's attempt to find meaning in the text. In doing so, I advance a new understanding of how the Bavli was composed, namely as a book written by its own readers in the act of transmission. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Bavli scholarship focused on the role of the Stam (the collective term for those people responsible for the anonymous voice of the Bavli) in the construction of individual Bavli passages (sugyot). Stam theory details how sugyot were crafted out of pre-existing sources and how the Stam works to control those sources in the service of a particular worldview. This dissertation locates a different force at work in the construction of the Bavli as a single unified book, an authorship that is above and against the work of the Stam—a Superstam.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Peacemaking and Ethical Formation in Classical Rabbinic Literature
    Just Peacemaking and Ethical Formation in Classical Rabbinic Literature1 Daniel H. Weiss Upon examining the texts of classical rabbinic Judaism, we find that two key elements frequently stand out with regard to questions of violence. On the one hand, in interpreting Scripture, these texts do accord a conceptual place for the notions of justified violence and killing. On the other hand, they make the practical enactment of such violence very difficult, if not functionally impossible. However, these two elements can easily seem contradictory: if such actions are to be made functionally impossible to implement, why should they be reasoned about conceptually? That is, why not reject such actions in principle as well as in practice? Conversely, if such actions are to be reasoned about conceptually, why should they be made impossible in practice? In fact, as this paper will demonstrate, it is precisely and importantly the “contradictory” nature of the rabbinic approach that enables a directing of intention and evaluation into a just peacemaking ethic. In this study, I explore the rabbinic approach through close readings of two textual passages, the first from tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud, and the second from tractate Makkot in the Mishnah. By tracing out the details of the reasoning displayed in these passages, with close attention to literary and rhetorical structure, I seek to demonstrate that such rabbinic texts present an alternative to the “just war vs. pacifism” dichotomy. In addition to highlighting ways in which the engaged study of rabbinic texts can potentially function as a formational practice of just peacemaking, I will also indicate aspects of the texts that can provide a basis for constructing a logic of just peacemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Download WHOLE Journal in Adobe Acrobat Format
    The Edah Journal A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse The Mission of Edah is to express and deepen the values of Modern Orthodoxy, educating and empowering Jews to address Modern Orthodox concerns. Fully committed to Torah, halakhah, and the quest for qedushah, Edah values open intellectual inquiry and expression in both secular and religious arenas; engagement with the social, political, and technological realities of the modern world; the religious significance of the State of Israel; and the unity of Kelal Yisrael. The Edah Journal 5:1 Edah, Inc. © 2005 Tammuz 5765 The Edah Journal A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse Statement of Purpose The Edah Journal is a forum for discussion of Orthodox Judaism’s engagement with modernity. It is Edah’s conviction that such discourse is vital to nurturing the spiritual and religious experiences of Modern Orthodox Jews. Committed to the norms of halakhah and Torah, The Edah Journal is dedicated to free inquiry and will Statement of Purpose of Purpose Statement be ever mindful that, “Truth is the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He.” Editorial Board Eugene Korn - Editor Naftali Harcsztark – Associate Editor Joel Linsider – Text Editor Moshe Halbertal (Israel) Richard Joel Norma Baumel Joseph Simcha Krauss Barry Levy Dov Linzer Tamar Ross (Israel) Directions for Submissions The Edah Journal invites submissions of original scholarly and popular essays, as well as new English translations of Hebrew works. Popular essays should be between 800-2000 words. The journal particularly welcomes halakhic, philosophic, and literary studies relating to qedushah in modern experience, the religious significance of The Edah Journal the State of Israel, Jewish ethics, emerging Torah conceptions of and opportunities for women, Talmud Torah as an intellectual and spiritual discipline, pluralism, and Judaism’s relation to gentiles and contemporary culture.
    [Show full text]