456) The power (and strategy) of maintaining secret religious knowledge

 

Introduction

Over and above the traditional, theological and Halachic considerations of Judaism, one cannot help but notice an apparent increase in the use of the word ‘power’ that gets appendaged to almost every contemporary religious discourse. If a certain day falls close to Shabbat, for example, there is an extra power to that day. Tzedaka is no longer a mitzva or chiyuv or an important social responsibility, but a means of attaining power. This strategy is often employed by fundraisers. Local Challa Bakes and Amen Parties become powerful antidotes capable of negating crises on an international, universal and cosmic scale. Powerful days, events, times and prayers have taken the place of holy, Halachic and auspicious times and practices. 

455) The three-pronged mystical revolution of the 16th century

 

Seventeenth century manuscript of Eitz Chaim by R. Chaim Vital

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Rachel Elior[1] and Professor Zvi Werblowsky^[2] − examines the three-pronged mystical revolution of the sixteenth century that changed the face of much of subsequent Judaism. 

In general terms, it is true that despite the calamitous events of the fifteenth century which saw the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492: 

“[t]he majority of exiles rehabilitated themselves by pursuing a normal life, conducted according to usual mundane considerations” (Elior 2000:187). 

On the other hand, a smaller but very influential number of Jewish mystics saw the world of the sixteenth century as anything but normative. They turned to Kabbalah and mysticism as the only way to explain the trauma of the expulsion. They believed and taught that the world was on the cusp of an imminent messianic redemption. Instead of engaging with the normative world like the majority of their co-religionists which included scholars and rabbis, they sought to detach themselves from reality as they experienced what they believed were the messianic birthpangs. These circles of mystics were known as Mechashvei Kitzim (Calculators of the End). 

454) Reconstructing the story of a Maimonidean student:

 

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Dr Reimund Leicht – examines the story of R. Yosef ben Yehuda ibn Shimon, a student of Maimonides (1138-1204).[1] He could not have been an insignificant student because Maimonides chose to dedicate his philosophical work, Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed), to him. Very little is known about Yosef ibn Shimon. However, based on available historical evidence, Leicht reconstructs his life story and shows how he may have played a pivotal role in supporting his teacher during the Maimonidean Controversies that broke out after the passing of Maimonides. We are also presented with a fascinating window into some details about Maimonides the individual, and some of his practical directives about rabbinic independence and not teaching Torah for money. 

451) Ancient pre-existence of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin?

The order of the scrolls in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin.

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Dr. Yehudah Cohn[1] – explores the claim that Tefillin scrolls resembling those of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Obviously, Rashi (11^th century) and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam (12^th century) lived long after the period of the scrolls (3^rd century BCE – 1^st century), but the claim is that their argument over the order of the four scrolls inserted into the Tefillin, reflected a much more ancient argument. 

450) Could conflicting rabbinic views both be right?

Can an Ashkenazi rely on legal pluralism to drink reheated tea in a Yemenite home on Shabbat?

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Richard Hidary from Yeshiva University[1] – looks at the possibility that the Talmud was open to the idea that two conflicting rabbinic views could often both be correct. 

Some[2] argue that in a Talmudic matter, there can only essentially be one correct answer. This view emphasises the notion of an overarching Talmudic truth. Hidary, on the other hand, rejects this legal monistic approach and, instead, brings textual support for legal pluralism – where the Talmud adopts the position that conflicting views can coexist and be equally valid.  

449) Maimonides on the authority of the rabbis

A 13th to 14th century manuscript of Moreh Nevuchim from Yemen.

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Menachem Kellner[1] − explores Maimonides (1135-1204) as a democratiser of Jewish law. Maimonides’ theology and worldview have been interpreted in so many ways, many of which are mutually exclusive. The problem is that by just reading his Code of Law, known as Mishneh Torah, he comes across as a dedicated jurist and Halachist. On the other hand, by just reading his Guide of the Perplexed, or Moreh Nevuchim, he emerges as a radical philosopher. Thus, to some, Maimonides is simply a legal Halachist who essentially despised philosophy  (either because they never read Moreh Nevuchim or they claimed it was a forgery). To others, he becomes the Great Philosopher whose deepest thoughts were in grave conflict with normative Judaism. To still others, he becomes a secret mystic who later in his life turns against philosophy and adopts Kabbalah.[2] And there are even those who believe he was a secret Karaite.[3] 

448) R. Yosef Karo’s unusual mystical entries in his diary

1773 edition of Magid Meisharim by  R. Yosef Karo

Introduction

R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) is well recognised as the great codifier of Jewish law who was responsible for the Shulchan Aruch. Many are familiar with the logical and methodical nature of this legal code. For practical purposes, today, he is widely regarded as the last of the great codifiers if not the codifier par excellence. 

However, not many are aware of an extremely mystical component of his makeup. This extreme mysticism may seem rather surprising for someone so steeped in the pragmatism of legal codes. He kept a diary in which he recorded some of the mystical teachings he had acquired from an apparent spiritual or angelic being, known as a Magid (who identified as the ‘soul’ of the Mishna). These were later published in book form under the title Magid Meisharim. 

447) How Should We Respond to Tragedy and Crisis?

 Another guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton:

Image by Ri Butov from Pixabay

I’m almost jealous of Jews living in Israel during this crisis: they may face horrifying tests and mortal danger but, from what I’m hearing, they’re rising beautifully to the challenge. And, one way or another, they’re acting. They’re making a difference.

Thousands of miles away, my ability to act is limited. Sure, we can all offer financial support for the many emergency funds out there. But that can’t be enough.

445) ‘Mainstreaming’ Chassidism in 19th century Poland

Jakub Tugendhold's Jerobaal

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Marcin Wodzinski[1] − looks at an unlikely defence of Chassidim by Jakub Tugendhold (1794-1871) a member of the Polish Haskalah (Enlightenment movement). The Haskalah is generally regarded as a more enlightened, academic and scientific movement, often in direct philosophical conflict with Chassidism which it regarded as a form of Jewish superstition. The Haskalah movement began in Germany but in the early nineteenth century, it had spread to Poland. The issue of Chassidism was not just one component of the battle of the Haskalah against traditionalism, it became the major point of contention, especially in Warsaw, which became the “primary battleground of this struggle” (Wodzinski n.d.:13). There were one or two voices from within Warsaw that argued somewhat in favour of the Chassidim. Jakub Tugendhold and Marcus Jastrow were among the small number of non-Chassidim who lent their support to  Chassidism. 

444) R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and R. Abraham Joshua Heschel on inter-religious dialogue

R. Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972)

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993)

Introduction

This article explores two very different approaches to inter-religious dialogue. On the one hand, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993), a leader of Modern Orthodox Judaism and Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, did not promote Jewish-Christian dialogue − on the other hand, R. Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972), a professor at The Jewish Theological Seminary of America did engage in inter-religious dialogue. 

Both came from important rabbinical families. R. Soloveitchik came from a line of outstanding Lithuanian Talmud scholars − and R. Heschel was the grandson of the Apter Rebbe and went by the same name ‘Avraham Yehoshua’ as his illustrious grandfather who was buried next to the Baal Shem Tov. 

R. Soloveitchik and R. Heschel were friends. Both rebelled against their family traditions of not engaging in secular studies and went to study at the University of Berlin, emerging with doctorates in Philosophy in the early 1930s. Both were admirers of Kierkegaard and were interested in Existentialism (Kimelman 2004:2).[1] 

443) Mystical approaches of the early Chassidic movement

 

1772 was a year in which many bans against the Chassidim were issued. This one is from the Vilna Gaon in Vilna. Our article deals with the 1772 Brody bans.

Introduction

The early Chassidic courts are often presented as inspiring centres of fellowship, prayer, dancing and learning. This article – based extensively on the research by Dr. Mor Altshuler[1] – explores some of the more ‘cosmic’ elements and inner mystical dynamics of the Chassidic court of R. Yechiel Michal, the Magid of Zlotchov (1726-1786), a major early leader of the movement [see previous post]. 

442) The early Chassidic movement in historicity and hagiography

 

The resting place of R. Yechiel Michal, the Magid of Zlotchov, in Yampol, Central Ukraine

Introduction

There is an important, albeit sometimes uncomfortable, difference between historicity and hagiography. Hagiography is the way adherents of any movement tell their stories of origin, while historicity is how the same events are viewed in light of evidence and historical records. Hagiography is often embellished, biased and tendentious, while historiography is, hopefully, a neutral depiction of the events. 

This article – based extensively on the research by Dr Mor Altshuler[1] – takes a new look at one aspect of the origin story of the Chassidic movement, and explores when the first significant Chassidic courts are to have emerged. 

441) Could the Zohar Chadash have engaged in a contemporary polemic with Chassidei Ashkenaz?

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Dr Jonatan Benarroch,[1] explores the question of whether Zohar, could possibly have engaged in a polemic, or religious debate, with the Chassidei Ashkenaz (the German Pietists of the Rhineland). The problem is that the Zohar is traditionally believed to have been authored by R. Shimon bar Yochai, a second-century Tanna, or Mishnaic rabbi – while Chassidei Ashkenaz was a twelfth and thirteenth-century mystical movement in Germany. This places the Zohar a thousand years before the advent of Chassidei Askenaz. 

440) Theologies of the Festivals as early models for Jewish survival

Sefer haYovelim (University of Notre Dame)

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Steven Weitzman[1] – looks at three sets of writings from the Second Temple Period that offer different perspectives on the reasons for the Jewish Festivals. We will examine how these theologies and ideologies of the Festivals may have been used as different models and strategies for Jewish survival. They also contain some colourful descriptions and eyewitness accounts of how the Festivals were observed and how they sometimes got out of hand. 

439) Did early Midrashic rabbis know about Origen?

A 17th century edition of Bereishit Rabba housed in the Jewish Museum of Greece.

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Professor Maren Niehoff^[1] − explores the possibility of an unlikely form of ‘dialogue’ taking place in Caesarea around the 3^rd century CE between early Midrashic (i.e.,Tannaic or Mishnaic) rabbis, and Origen, an early Church Father. 

An analysis of some of the similarities between Bereishit (Genesis) Rabba and Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, raises the question of whether their authors had any knowledge of each other's writings. It appears that they may have, because not only do they sometimes deal with similar issues, but they seem to intentionally interact and, in fact, ‘correct’ each other. 

438) Seeking an interface between Halacha and archaeology

Rabbi Dr Yonatan Adler at an archaeological site.

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Yonatan Adler of the Institute of Archaeology at Ariel University,[1] deals with Halacha (Jewish ritual and civil law) viewed from an unusual perspective − through archaeology, in addition to the written text. Of course, the legal rabbinic texts provide the indisputable and authoritative approach to the keeping of Halacha today, but our purpose here is to see to what extent archaeological evidence indicates how laws may have been observed in earlier times. It is only through this archaeological record that we can glimpse at details that are not apparent in the texts. 

437) The historical neglect of Tefilin

One of the oldest pairs of Tefilin, dated between 200-50 BCE, discovered in the Qumran Caves in the 1950s. (The dimensions are 1 X 2 cm).

Introduction

Considering how normative the wearing of Tefilin is in contemporary religious and traditional societies, it is hard to comprehend the idea that this may be a relatively new phenomenon. During Talmudic[1] times (10-589 CE) and the later rabbinic periods of the Gaonim (589-1038 CE) and Rishonim (1038-1500), it seems that the mitzva of Tefillin was largely neglected for a variety of reasons that we shall discuss. 

436) A Hirschian rejection of Maimonides

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Micha Gottlieb,[1] examines the sharp anti-Maimonidean writings by the nineteenth-century rabbi, Shimshon Refael Hirsch. In the previous article, “An 'enlightened' rejection of Maimonides,” we discussed how the Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment movement) wanted to adopt Maimonides as their official ideologue and ‘poster rabbi’ because he encouraged secular education, and elevated the position of the sechel (intellect) as the prime component of the human being. We then showed how this ‘enlightened’ focus on Maimonides was severely challenged by R. Shmuel David Luzzatto, initially a member of Wissenschaft des Judentums (the official arm of the Jewish Enlightenment). In this article, we examine another rabbi also somewhat associated with the Haskala, R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch (1808-1888), who similarly rejects Maimonides and his rationalism, but for different reasons. 

435) An ‘enlightened’ rejection of Maimonides

 

An 1830 edition of  R. Shmuel David Luzzatto's work Ohev Ger, It examins Aramaic translations of the Torah by Onkelos, analysing variant texts found in manuscripts and other sources. 

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Micha Gottlieb,[1] examines the sharp anti-Maimonidean writings by an Orthodox nineteenth-century rabbi, R. Shmuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865). He lived during the Haskala (Enlightenment) Period and his writings reflect severe criticisms of the fact that the Haskala had adopted and appropriated Maimonides (1135-1204) as an example of ‘one religious leader worthy of emulating. 

434) Why was R. Natan Adler of Frankfurt excommunicated?

The anonymous work entitled Ma'aseh Ta'atuim (Act of Deception).

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Rachel Elior,^[1] explores the little-known story of R. Natan Adler of Frankfurt and his Chassidim, who were excommunicated twice, in 1779 and 1789 respectively. These Chassidim of Frankfurt were in some ways similar, but technically unrelated, to the better-known Chassidim of the Baal Shem Tov. 

433) How the Ethical Will of R. Yehuda heChasid became integrated into Halacha.

 

Professor Maoz Kahana.

Introduction 

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Maoz Kahana, examines the long and windy road followed by the various interpreters of the Ethical Will left by R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217), the founder of the group of German pietists known as Chassidei Ashkenaz.[1] An Ethical Will is usually a document of moral and ethical teachings a person leaves behind for their children, to encourage them to follow on in the same ways.

432) How three Jewish scholars may have been motivated by personal bias.

 

Gershom Scholem studying the Zohar in his Sukka in 1925

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Michael Brenner,[1] shows how three Jewish scholars, Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891), Moriz Friedländer (1844-1919) and Gershom Scholem (1897-1982) developed three different approaches to the emergence of Gnosticism (an early form of mysticism). Brenner shows, however, that each may have been motivated to some degree by personal bias. 

431) The historical and ahistorical R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto

 

An 1853 commentary on R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, perhaps the first book to be published in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Introduction

An influential Kabbalist who lived at the same time as the Baal Shem Tov (1700-1760) was R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (1707-1746). He was born in Padua to a wealthy and cultured Italian family and was exposed to languages, including Latin, by his father. He mastered Talmud and even Kabbalah at an early age and later, went on to study secular subjects (possibly medicine) at Padua University under R. Yitzchak Chaim Cohen Cantarini. It was there that he selected a group of medical students and together they formed a Kabbalistic circle known as Chevra Mevakshei haShem (the Group of Seekers of G-d) intending to bring about “messianic manifestation in global redemption” (Sclar 2017:40). In several of his writings: “Luzzatto identified himself directly as the redeemer" (Carlebach 1987:13).

430) Did Yehuda Halevi contribute to the theurgy of Kabbalah?

Sefer haKuzari with the Kol Yehuda commentary by R. Yehuda Moscato. 

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Dr Avishai Bar-Asher,[1] examines how R. Yehuda Halevi (1075-c.1141) − the great Spanish physician, poet, philosopher and author of the Kuzari  − may not only have contributed to medieval Kabbalah but may have introduced parts of its theurgical elements. 

[Note: Theurgy is almost a magical approach to mysticism, where, by doing certain actions and rituals, or by reciting certain formulas, one can influence the Divine Being. This is as opposed to Theosophy, which is more of a theoretical study of mystical concepts without necessarily trying to influence the cosmos.] 

429) Were Jews expelled from Portugal in 1497?

Introduction

During the late fifteenth century, two sad dates stood out for the Jews on the Iberian Peninsula. In 1492 the Jews were expelled from Spain and in 1497 they were expelled from Portugal. This article, based extensively on the research by Andrée Aelion Brooks,[1] discusses the expulsion from Spain in 1492 and examines the question of the expulsion from Portugal in 1497. 

427) Keset haSofer: The story behind the guide to writing a Sefer Torah

 

A manuscript on Bava Batra in the handwriting of R. Shlomo Ganzfried (1804-1886)

I came across a fascinating piece of little-known Halachic history uncovered by Hadassah Wendl who is a PhD researcher on Halakhic history at the Free University of Berlin. It’s about how a now well-known guide to writing a Sefer Torah, entitled Keset haSofer (The Scribe's Inkwell), came to be. 

Before R. Shlomo Ganzfried (1804-1886) became the famous author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Abridged Code of Jewish Law) he was a businessman in Eastern Hungary, selling wines. One day, while looking at some books in a Jewish bookshop in Debrecen, in Hungary’s Northern Great Plain region, he chanced upon a book entitled Bnei Yona. 

426) Developing R. Hayim Soloveitchick's view on the "controlling role of the text"

 

Introduction 

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Adiel Schremer,[1] explores the rather provocative notion that contemporary religious Judaism has adopted a new approach which was unknown to previous generations. Schremer builds on the thought and observations of Rabbi Professor Hayim Soloveitchick[2] (the only son of R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchick, known as the Rav, who served as Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University) who maintained this was due to an unhealthy obsession with the text - and he shows historical parallels of similar elevation of 'text above tradition' which were always reactionary to the former tradition.

425) Challenging G-d in rabbinic writings

 

Tanchuma-Yelammedeinu named after the common phrase Yelamedeinu rabbeinu: "Let our master teach us." 

Introduction 

This article is based extensively on the research by Professor Dov Wiess[1] and discusses the changing rabbinic perspectives on the permissibility, or otherwise, of arguing with, or challenging G-d. The Torah is replete with references to Avraham, Moshe, Job, Jeremiah, Habakkuk and even some Psalms challenging and protesting various actions of G-d. Talmudic and Midrashic literature followed on a similar path by an expansion of this style of protest writing, where the rabbis placed additional confrontational words into the mouths of the biblical characters they commented upon. Thus, biblical and rabbinic literature is overwhelmingly in favour of humans directing challenges to G-d when they feel they have been unjustly treated. These bold and challenging rabbinic texts flourish and peak particularly at the end of the Talmudic period (around the seventh century). 

424) Avraham Ibn Chasdai's references to 'a certain Chacham'

 

The thirteenth-century Moznei Tzedek by R. Avraham bar Chasdai,

Introduction 

I have based parts of this article on the research presented in ‘Judaism Adventures,’ and have additionally included some of the original Hebrew texts as well as other observations. For contextualisation, I have drawn on Peter Cole’s The Dream and the Poem.[1] 

Sefer Moznei Tzedek is a fascinating thirteenth-century work by R. Avraham bar Chasdai, also known as Ibn Chasdai, which gives us a rare window into rabbinical writings from around the time of Maimonides. Like Maimonides, Ibn Chasdai quotes Aristo (Aristotle) and he also is well-acquainted with Islamic teachings. He even cites sections of the Quran. 

Ibn Chasdai, was a staunch follower of Maimonides, and fought against R. Yehuda ibn Alfakhar and R. Meir haLevi Abulafia to withdraw their opposition to the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed). This is interesting because Ibn Chasdai went on adapt or translate a work by the Islamic mystic, al-Ghazali, which we shall soon explore. 

423) Maimonides calls the belief in Angels an “evil and blind foolishness”

 

Introduction 

By all accounts, Maimonides (1135/8-1204) had some interesting views on Angels. He certainly did not view angels the same way as most other rabbis did, especially the mystics. In this article, although the style is somewhat cumbersome, we turn to Maimonides’ text in Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed 2:6) to see his actual words describing his position. 

The first challenge often posed to Rambam’s view that angels do not exist as the spiritual beings most understand them to be, is that the Torah mentions angles in contexts that seem to support these popular conceptualisations. However, Rambam does not read angels that way. 

422) The opening and closing blessings of the Amidah have not changed for more than a thousand years?

 

The world's oldest siddur from about 1 200 years ago.

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber,[1] looks at the popular perception that the daily prayer known as the Shemoneh Esrei, or Amidah − particularly the opening and closing blessings − have not changed an iota for more than a thousand years.

421) Hirsch, Hildesheimer and Hoffmann: Examining the boundaries of Orthodox modernity

R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch

R. Esriel Hildeshimer

R. David Tzvi Hoffmann

Introduction

R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch (1808-1888), R. Esriel Hildesheimer (1820-1899) and R. David Hoffman (1843-1921) were early protagonists of what has become known as the Modern Orthodox movement. There were, however, some major disputes between them. This article, based extensively on the research by Professor David Ellenson and Dr Richard Jacobs,[1] looks at some of the differences between these early Modern Orthodox rabbis. 

420) Alleged recruiting methodologies of the early Chassidic movement

 

The Autobiography of Solomon Maimon

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Immanuel Etkes,[1] looks at the recruiting processes and other activities of the two early Chassidic courts of R. Dov Ber, known as the Magid of Mezrich, and R. Chaim Chaikel of Amdur. Etkes bases himself on two separate texts allegedly presenting an ‘inside view’ and a personal account of the internal world of early Chassidim. 

419) Priestly politics, Calendar wars and early Jewish mysticism

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls from around the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE

Introduction

The Hebrew Calendar that we use today has undergone some dramatic transformation over time. What is most interesting is it seems that control over the calendars was often directly related to control over mysticism. In this article, based extensively on the research by Professor Rachel Lior,[1] we examine some of the fascinating developments of the Hebrew Calendar. Much of this information has only come to light in relatively recent times. It must be emphasised that these are Elior's views and not everyone necessarily agrees with the position she takes. Nonetheless, her observations are of great interest.