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). 

505) Michtav Oz Shel Torah: A 1923 Anti-Zionist Polemical Letter by R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson

 

The 1923 Michtav Oz Shel Torah by R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson

Introduction

The rise of modern Zionism created some interesting challenges for many within the rabbinic community. Some rabbis believed that Zionism transgressed the Talmudic notion of Shalosh haShavut or the Three Oaths, where Jews were conceptualised to have undertaken oaths to remain in exile until the arrival of the Messiahꟷas discussed in the previous article [see: Kotzk Blog: 504) The ‘Three Oaths’: Theologies of Cancellation and Resurrection]. The list of rabbis who opposed Zionism becomes very interesting when some unexpected names begin to emerge. 

504) The ‘Three Oaths’: Theologies of Cancellation and Resurrection

 

Eim haBanin Semeicha by R. Yisachar Shlomo Teichtel

Introduction

This article – based extensively but not exclusively on the research by Professor Reuven Firestone[1] ꟷ examines the Talmudic concept of שלוש השבועות or Three Oaths. It focuses on the theological tension between the Three Oaths, which prohibit a return to the Land of Israel until the Messiah arrives, and the desire to settle in the Land. The Three Oaths were designed to engender a non-militaristic and exilic ethos within the Jewish people after the defeats of the Bar Kochba revolts against the Romans. It also touches upon the biblical notion of מלחמת מצווה, Mitzvah or Holy War. 

NOTE: This is not intended to be a political discussion or commentary on the present situation in the Middle East. Rather, it is an inquiry into a Talmudic theology that has evolved dramatically and in different directions over time. Firestone’s original article was written in 2006 and I have additionally consulted various other sources entirely unrelated to present-day events. In any case, ideas discussed here can be simultaneously selected and used by protagonists and detractors from all quarters. The main concern here is the vast array of often tendentious exegesis and evolution of a Talmudic theology, paradoxically resulting in both its cancellation and resurrection. 

503) Sebastianism: Crossover messianism that predated Sabbatianism

 

A Chumash printed by R. Menashe ben Yisrael in Amsterdam. Note the interesting way he presents the date.

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Matt Goldish[1] ꟷ examines the unusual notion of messianic crossover between Jews, Christians and Muslims that developed around the sixteenth century. What is even more unusual, from a Jewish perspective, is that the rabbis who participated in such enterprises were always Kabbalists and often respected Halachists as well.

 

Early forms of ‘messianic crossover’

An early example of messianic crossover may have early Christianity where Paul of Tarsus “deliberately engineered or changed” symbols and messages of his messianic movement (Christianity) to “appeal to people outside that tradition” (Goldish 2018:124). This successful methodology was adopted by Paul and he indeed brought many Gentiles under the wings of Christianity. 

502) Moshe haGoleh of Kiev: a critical devotee of Avraham Ibn Ezra

 

An early manuscript of Moshe haGoleh's Kabbalistic work, Shoshan Sodot.

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Eric Lawee[1] ꟷ examines a little-known and somewhat neglected exegete and commentator, R. Moshe ben Yakov (1448-1520) who compiled a super-commentary (i.e., a commentary on a commentary) based on R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) who had preceded him by almost four centuries. Moshe ben Yakov is also known as Moshe haGoleh (the ‘exile’) miKiev.^[2] 

Very few have ever heard of Moshe haGoleh, nor of the commentary he authored on Ibn Ezra entitled Otzar Nechmad, but he had some interesting things to say about Ibn Ezra and his relationship to Halacha, and to his 'opponent' Rashi. Moshe haGoleh also shed some light on the existence of diverse Rashi manuscripts. Additionally, he embarked upon a mission to convert Karaites to Rabbinic Judaism. Surprisingly, although Moshe haGoleh was an outspoken supporter of the rationalist Torah commentary of Ibn Ezra and engaged in the sciences and astronomy, he personally remained a Kabbalist. As an exegete, he was able to maintain a level-headed and even critical approach towards his ‘rabbi,’ Ibn Ezra. He is the only known Kabbalist to have written a super-commentary on Ibn Ezra. Yet, he remains: 

501) Were some early Spanish Kabbalists defending a Maimonidean position?

An image believed to be that of R. Yitzchak the Blind occupied with the Sefirot

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Tzahi Weiss[1] ꟷ examines an interesting and unusual approach to understanding how thirteenth-century Kabbalah suddenly emerged in Provence (southern France) and Catalonia (northeastern Spain). With this emergence, there was now a rapid interest in, and wide reception of, the notion of Sefirot (Divine emanations). Although the term ‘Sefirot’ was used in the earlier mystical work of the Bahir, it suddenly took on a specific meaning in thirteenth-century Spanish Zoharic Kabbalah. 

Weiss, a professor of Jewish mysticism, offers a unique interpretation as to why the Spanish Kabbalists reworked and redefined the older existing notion of Sefirot.  While the Spanish Kabbalists are usually depicted as radical mystics in direct conflict with Maimonidean rationalism ꟷ Weiss fascinatingly sees these Kabbalists as having more in common with some aspects of Maimonides’ Halachic writings (Mishneh Torah) and his philosophical writings (Moreh Nevuchim or Guide for the Perplexed) than usually imagined!

500) Mining Chassidic stories for kernels of historicity

 

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Glynn Dynner[1] ꟷ examines a possible methodology to extract aspects of historical truths from the often exaggerated and venerating style of Chassidic storytelling. Even within Chassidic circles the ‘Chassidishe Maaseh,’ or Chassidic story, is sometimes acknowledged as a questionable source of information, but this is not always the case. The presentation style of Chassidic stories is often referred to as hagiography as opposed to historiography. Sometimes Chassidic hagiography is so dense and detailed that Ada Rapoport-Albert has coined the phrase “Hagiography with footnotes.”[2] As detailed as the hagiography may be, it is still hard to define Chassidic stories as accurate history. Nevertheless, Dynner asks: 

“Can elements of certain tales stand on their own as historical sources?” (Dynner 2009:655).

 

499) The debate over the authenticity of the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi

From the Abraham Schwadron Portrait Collection, National Library of Israel archive

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Wojciech Tworek[1] ꟷ examines the debate over the authenticity of one of the best-known portraits in Chassidic iconography; that of the Alter Rebbe, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Chabad Rebbe. 

Unlike the iconic portrait of the Baal Shem Tov which has conclusively been shown to be not of the Baal Shem Tov of Medzhebuzh (c.1700-1760) but rather of the Baal Shem of London (1708-1782) ꟷ  there is much controversy over the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812). 

The portrait of R. Shneur Zalman is published in the haTamim (vol. 2 p. 755) anthology of the sixth Rebbe of Chabad, R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, under the title “תמונת תואר פני קדש הקדשים, The picture of the image of the Holy of Holies...” 

498) Did the Babylonian Talmud create the authoritative rabbi and the passive Jew?

 

Coins from the Bar Kochba era

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach[1] − explores the emergence of the rabbinic class after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans during the first two centuries CE. Up to that point, the rabbis did not feature in leadership positions. On assuming power immediately after the failed military campaigns and revolts, the rabbis (and the Babylonian rabbis particularly) began to intensely promote passivity as the hallmark of the Torah Jew. Too many Jews had been killed during the wars and the rabbis saw passivity as the only way forward for Jewish survival into the future.