517) A historical context to Midrashim

 

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Gary Porton[1]— investigates the historical conditions that may have fostered the complex and often elusive evolution of Midrash. Midrashim are the creative and often fanciful interpretations of the biblical text that dramatically expand its plain meaning. While some adopt a literal approach to the interpretation of Midrashim, others opt for an allegorical methodology. Based on a reading of Talmudic texts, Porton suggests a more diachronic or historical approach based on how and where Midrashim were first taught. 

Fascinatingly, he discovers that Midrashim may never have been intended for communal consumption. They were not, as many have claimed, produced for sermons to entertain those in the synagogues. Instead, he hypothesises, they were part of an internal rabbinic tradition that was rarely expounded in the public domain. This research could significantly contribute to the way we read and understand Midrashim. 

516) When Midrash is too much for the Midrash

One of the six known manuscript versions of the Tosafist work Hadar Zekeinim. This one dates around the 15th century.

Introduction 

This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Zvi Ron[1]—examines various Midrashim that have been rejected by an unofficial form of collective rabbinic consensus. These include Midrashim from lesser known sources as well as, surprisingly, those from classical Midrashic sources such as Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri, Midrash Raba and Midrash Tanchuma. 

Midrashic ‘status’ 

Not all Midrashim are cut from the same cloth and there appears to be a hierarchy of Midrashic sources. Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038), for example, suggests that those Midrashim that made it into the corpus of the Talmud, are of a superior quality to those that remained in the anthologies of Midrashic works alone. He maintains that the Midrashim not found in the Talmud can be rejected if they do not seem plausible: 

515) Missing in Manuscript: The additional biblical verses added to the Mishna

Tosefet Yom Tov (later  Tosefot Yom Tov) Mishna commentary by R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, Prague, 1614-1617. 

 
Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Jason Kalman[1]—examines the question of additional biblical verses, cited as proof texts added to our versions of the Mishna. Based on comparisons between our Mishna texts and their earlier manuscripts and printings, in almost twenty per cent of the cases, these scriptural citations are missing in the earlier and more original versions. This means that one out of five biblical verses, acting to compliment or support a contemporary Mishna text, is a later insertion. 

Until recently, not much research had been conducted on the relative absence of biblical citations found in a vast array of manuscripts and early printings of the Mishnah, in comparison with our contemporary version of the Mishna where these extra verses are to be found. 

514) Kabbalah: From Obscurity to the Defining Essence of Judaism

First printing of the Zohar, Cremona 1558.

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor David Malkiel[1]—explores the thirteenth-century rise of Kabbalah in Spain and its subsequent peaking in sixteenth-century Safed. Since the Safed period, Kabbalah has come to be widely regarded as embodying the very essence and greatest depths of Judaism in the popular imagination. How did this transformation take place? Some would suggest that this is a natural progression towards messianic times. But any study of Jewish messianism shows that we have always believed we've been living in imminent messianic times. There may be additional ways of tracking the development of Kabbalah.

Malkiel introduces an unusual history of the rise of Kabbalah from a cultural perspective connecting it to the Rennaissance and the emerging preoccupation with ‘realism,’ which (ironically for a study on mysticism) avoids fantasy and idealism in favour of concrete reality. 

513) Secret Mystical and Chassidic societies

The Pledge of Allegiance between the students of the Ari zal (as found in the Stolin Geniza)

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Zvi Leshem[1]—examines several secret mystical societies from biblical times to pre-war Europe, with a particular focus on the secretive group established by R. Kalonymus Kalmish (Kalman) Shapira of Piasecnzo (Piasetzna) (1889-1943). 

Secret mystical circles and societies are not well-known in Judaism, but they have always existed. 

Biblical times

The Torah describes the Benei haNevi’im (Sons of the Prophets) who were groups of disciples of prophets like Samuel, Eliyahu and Elisha (see 2 Kings 2:3, 4:1, 6:1 for example). These groups, while not necessarily secretive, played a significant role in preserving prophetic traditions and maintaining spiritual teachings during times of idolatry and apostasy. They used mystical techniques including meditation and even music to train in prophetic inspiration (Leshem 2021:112). 

512) Managing theological differences: Then and now

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Bernard Dov Cooperman[1]—explores how the Italian rabbinic world dealt with their dynamic differences in theological expression during the early Modern period. This was about the same time as R. Yosef Karo was producing his Shulchan Aruch in Safed. If one of the rabbis stepped out of the perceived appropriate theological boundaries, they were officially placed under a ban of cherem, or excommunication. However, what they referred to as cherem differs dramatically from the way we understand and implement the concept of cherem today. The earlier forms of excommunication and even charges of heresy were not as severe or even as binding as they are considered nowadays. 

511) The Zoharic notion of healing a ‘lovesick’ Shechina: A possible medical context

Tikunei Zohar, first edition, Mantua 1558

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Assaf Tamari[1]—examines the Zohar’s unusual depiction of the exiled Shechina (the feminine aspect of the Godhead) as a patient requiring urgent treatment. 

Note: This literature research by Tamari on the Zohar showing a possible medical context to the thirteenth-century emergence of the Zohar, is brand new and was only published recently in a peer-reviewed journal article. Had I read something like this ten years ago I would have rejected it as absolute nonsense. Now I read it with great interest and fascination.

The intertwining of religion and medicine was not an innovation of the thirteenth century when the Zohar was first published, because the two disciplines had always been interrelated since the earliest of times. Sin was traditionally associated with illness and healing with atonement (Tamari 2025:83, note 1). What was new at that time, though, was a proliferation of Jews and rabbis who had entered the medical field and were practising physicians. The number of Jewish physicians was: 

“out of proportion with contemporary demographics and the place of Jews in society” (Shatzmiller 1995:1).[2] 

510) L'shem Yichud: Do You Understand What You're Actually Saying?

This guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton originally appeared on the B'chol D'rachecha site.

Some days you just can’t open a regular Artscroll siddur without falling down a deep rabbit hole of theological controversy.

You’d figure that the siddur is the very poster child of consensus and ancient tradition. But you’d be wrong. There are, in fact, some odd expressions of extreme beliefs that many recite daily without giving it a second thought. Today’s example is the “l’shem yichud” attached to sefiras haomer (and to putting on tefilin). Artscroll even printed those in their Ashkenaz editions.

What’s the big deal about l’shem yichud? Well there is that famous Noda B’yehuda (חי”ד סי’ צג) who wasn’t at all shy about sharing his general feelings on the subject. But his forceful criticisms were largely focused on the chutzpa of later generations who felt that the mitzva observance of our ancestors - who simply made berachos and then did the mitzvos - was somehow incomplete. He did hint to something darker, but didn’t elaborate.

509) When authority becomes the determinator of reason, meaning and truth

An early manuscript of Meirat Einayim by the 14th century R. Yitzchak of Acre

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Eitan Fishbane[1]—examines the rabbinic notion of the authenticity of a teaching or text being reliant on the perceived authority of its transmitter or originator. In other words, the greater the rabbi the more authentic the teaching, regardless of the independent status, nature and validity of the actual teaching itself. 

As a test case, we analyse the writings of a fourteenth-century Kabbalist, R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Acre in his Meirat Einayim which is a supercommentary (i.e., a commentary on a commentary) on Nachmanides’ Commentary on the Torah. Interestingly, R. Yitzchak of Acre—who lived at the same time as R. Moshe de Leon who had claimed to have discovered the ancient Zohar—questioned the authenticity of Zohar being the work of the second-century Tanna, R. Shimon bar Yochai about a thousand years earlier.[2] 

508) Assessing the Modern "Yeshivishe" Approach to Torah Learning

Tractate Eruvin from the famous Vilna Shas

This Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton originally appeared on his B'chol D'rachecha site.

Despite what you might think, I’m not going to talk about the way yeshivas largely ignore Tanach or - in many cases - ignore 90 percent of whatever mesechte they’re learning. There may or may not be justifications for such deviations from tradition, but no one’s going to argue that, two thousand - or even two hundred - years ago, abandoning whole curriculum categories was the way things were supposed to work.

Instead, I’m going to discuss the dominance of the Brisker “chakira” style of analysis. I should be clear that I have nothing against the style, and I don’t deny that many people get enormous pleasure from it. My only question is whether making that our primary focus is the best use of the limited time we have available for our learning.

507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism

Torat haMelech: a work by a "fringe element," a "call to terror" or according to R. Dov Lior (a respected figure among many mainstream Religious-Zionists) “very relevant especially in this time”?

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Yoav Peled[1]—examines the rise of the Religious Zionist movement from relative non-dominance in 1948 to a position of unquestionable hegemony in the last decades. The Chabad movement is widely recognized for its messianic focus, yet the similarly fervent messianism of Religious Zionists often receives less attention. 

From Socialist-Zionism to a Labour-Zionism to Religious-Zionism

Two political scientists from Bar-Ilan University, Charles Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehiya (1983:128-131),[2] show how two significant ideological shifts took place within two decades of the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. Both shifts profoundly influenced the so-called ‘civil religion’ or dominant mindset and worldview of the nascent Israeli society. 

506) Reading the biblical word אות (‘sign’) in its earlier context

 

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professors Idan Dershowitz and Na’ama Pat-El[1]—examines possible lost meanings of the Hebrew word אות (‘ot’) which is usually simply translated and commonly understood as a ‘sign.’ The word ‘ot’ appears most famously in the Shema prayer in reference to the tefillin (phylacteries) which does seem to refer to a tangible 'sign': 

וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃

“And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand and they shall be as a symbol (or frontlets) between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8). 

Because the biblical word ‘ot’ is usually translated as a ‘sign,’ it is commonly associated with some object, or some miraculous future event as a symbol of either an ominous or auspicious occurrence. 

“This understanding [of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign’] has long informed interpretations of biblical passages and Hebrew inscriptions” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:1).