539) The new Rebbe of Thieves

Resisei Laila given to me by R. Shlomo Carlebach

Introduction

I recently experienced a brief lapse back into my earlier self, when I was totally captivated by the romance of Chassidism, which included a diversion into the magnetism of R. Shlomo Carlebach, his music and teachings. I once asked R. Shlomo what I needed to do to become his Chassid. He smiled and said (typically), “But I want to be a Chassid of you!” I replied, “No, seriously...” He then told me to go to the Mikveh just before Shabbos and to read Resisei Leilah by R. Zadok haCohen. I went to the Mikveh, but I could never find a copy of Resisei Leilah. Years later, someone unexpectedly gave me a small parcel wrapped in brown paper. When I opened it, it was the well-used personal copy of Resisei Leilah that R. Shlomo carried around with him. Apparently, he met someone at the airport, heard they were going to South Africa and gave them his book to give to me. I was overwhelmed and felt like I was living in one of the Chassidic stories he used to tell. Years have passed, times have changed, and my interests and pursuits have moved on, but that little worn blue book remains one of my prized possessions. 

538) Rules for writing a Sefer Torah: Rabbinic innovation or reflection of an existing scribal tradition?

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research of Professor Emanuel Tov, former Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project[1]—examines the rabbinic rules for writing a Sefer Torah. These laws are among the most detailed and revered in rabbinic literature. Every letter, margin, and column is prescribed with precision, creating the impression of a system wholly devised by the rabbis to safeguard the sanctity of the text. Yet the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has complicated this picture. As Emanuel Tov has shown, many of these rabbinic instructions echo standard and common practices already in use among scribes in the Judean Desert centuries earlier. Thus, what previously may have seemed like a unique rabbinic innovation in scribal law now appears, at least in part, to be the codification of an existing scribal tradition—if not a form of acculturation.[2] 

537) When Did We All Start Ignoring the "Sealing of the Talmud"?

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

It’s popularly understood that the completion of the Talmud around 1,500 years ago marked a critical transition in halachic history. From that point on, halachic conclusions found in the Talmud were binding on all Jews everywhere and for all time.

536) ‘Halachic Fiction’ and ex post facto justification in the modern Halachic process

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research of Professor Marc Shapiro— examines the term ‘Halachic fiction.’ It is used to describe legal constructs in Halacha (Jewish law) that are not literally true, but serve as mechanisms to reconcile the demands of Halacha with the realities of lived experience. In other words, there is a category of Halacha—popular during the post Shulchan Aruch period (from the sixteenth century to this day)—where the “community’s ritual instinct” (Halbertal 2002:166, citing Jacob Katz), as well as custom, determine the law, sometimes to a greater extent than the rabbis.   

535) Suspending Judaism between depth and accessibility: Maimonides and Yeshaya of Trani

Piskei haRid and Piskei haRiaz. Rid (grandfather) and Riaz (grandson) published together in one volume, although their worldviews were very different.

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research of Professor Marc Shapiro[1]—asks whether the Italian commentator and Talmudist, R. Yeshaya di Trani (known as Riaz) had a larger influence on future Judaism than Maimonides. Riaz was one of the rabbis who vigorously opposed Maimonides during the Maimonidean Controversies that consumed the rabbinic world in the centuries after Maimonides’ passing in 1204. It seems that the rabbis were not ready for the radical expansiveness of Maimonidean thought, and under the leadership of Riaz—the great anti‑Maimonidean polemicist—refused to allow Judaism to be subjected to philosophical creed or inquiry. Maimonides’ towering philosophical system threatened to redefine Judaism as a religion of creed and rational inquiry. Not all rabbis were prepared to accept this radical shift, and Riaz emerged as one of the most forceful voices of resistance, rejecting the binding nature of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles of Faith as well as his rationalism. Instead, he argued for a simpler, unsophisticated and non-dogmatic faith based solely on Halachic observance. 

534) Between Law and Magic: The Mezuzah as a test case in shifting cosmologies

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research of Professor Oded Yisraeli—examines references to the mezuzah from both before and after the emergence of the Zohar in the late thirteenth century, in order to trace shifting cosmologies. To map these changing approaches, we shall examine successive periods of Jewish literature from the third century to our times, each marked by distinct emphases and developments in the evolving mystical cosmology of the mezuzah. 

533) The Seven Laws of Noah: Then and now

 

Jan Jansson's Duo Tituli Thalmudici Sanhedrin et Maccoth (Amsterdam, 1629)

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Yaacov Amar Rothstein—identifies two distinct layers in the development of the Seven Laws of Noah, comprising an early rabbinic conception, and a later reinterpretation. In the Talmud and classical rabbinic sources, the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach were not envisioned as a comprehensive universal religion for non‑Jews, but rather as a minimal legal framework—a baseline of obligations incumbent upon humanity with clear consequences for their violation. The difference between these two layers of perception is immense. The modern idea of a ‘Noahide religion,’ presented as the original biblical faith intended for all non‑Jews, does not originate in rabbinic tradition. Surprisingly, it first emerged within Medieval Christian polemics and Early Modern[1] European thought. It was only as recently as about one hundred and fifty years ago that this universalist reading was taken up within Jewish discourse, most notably by R. Elia Benamozegh (d.1900), and later expanded upon by contemporary figures such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R. Adin Steinsaltz. [See: Kotzk Blog: 523) Radical rabbinic models of universalism and Kotzk Blog: 522) Italian letters: The battle over the Zohar]. 

532) Dialogues of vision: How we view Maimonides and how he might view us (Part II)

 

Secrets of the Guide by Dr Micha Goodman

How Maimonides might view us

Introduction

Part I examined the reception of Maimonidean thought in rabbinic Judaism. Part II now turns the focus on its head and examines, theoretically, how Maimonides might view contemporary Judaism as we know it. 

We begin with an overview of the essence of Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) in an attempt to understand what it means by ‘secrets.’ 

‘Secrets’

There are two bodies of knowledge that Maimonides describes as Maaseh Bereishit and Maaseh Merkavah, which together form the Pardes (Orchard of esoteric wisdom) into which the four sages entered (b. Chagiga 14b). This knowledge (yeda), he maintains, once existed among the prophets and sages until a tragedy occurred, and that knowledge was lost. Maimonides understands a real prophet as—not someone who experiences visions—but rather as a composite of perfected intellect, ethics and ability to imagine (Goodman 2015:39). Maimonides believed that the greatest loss to Judaism was not the destruction of the Temple or its rituals, but the loss of knowledge. Maimonides (Introduction to Moreh Nevuchim, section 3) writes that he managed to re-establish the hidden secret that our Masoret (Tradition) had lost. He did this, not through revelation or prophecy but through the capacity of the mind. 

531) Dialogues of Vision: How we view Maimonides and how he might view us (Part I)

R. Yihye Kafich (1850-1931), leader of the rationalist Yemenite group Dardaim.

Introduction

This two-part series series—based extensively on the research by Professor Marc B. Shapiro and Dr Micha Goodman—engages in a dialogue of vision: Part I examines how we view Maimonides and the reception of Maimonidean thought in rabbinic Judaism, particularly over the past two and a half centuries. Although arguably the greatest Jewish thinker, the rabbinic world has always had an ambivalent relationship with Maimonides, beginning with centuries of opposition—known as the Maimonidean Controversies—to a partial acceptance of selected writings of Maimonides only in relatively recent times. Part II turns the focus on its head and examines, theoretically, how Maimonides might view contemporary Judaism as we know it. 

How we view Maimonides

Enlightenment

Shapiro(2023:168) explains that over the last two and a half centuries, rabbinic interest has been resurgent in Maimonides, ironically as a result of the rise of the Enlightenment movement in late eighteenth-century Germany. Faced with increasing engagement with Maimonides’ philosophical writings by the maskilim (secular members of the Enlightenment), the rabbis formulated different responses to a renewed problem that—although always there—had lain dormant for so long. 

530) Early textual layering in Zohar and Bahir as clues to their dating

Sefer haZohar, Cremona Edition (1559-1560)

 Introduction

This article—based extensively on the work by Professor Ronit Meroz—examines new evidence suggesting that the Zohar and Sefer haBahir may have originated in the Middle East, challenging the prevailing Spanish and Provencal origin theories. Sidestepping the controversies over who wrote the Zohar, it is historically evident that the text first appeared in material form around 1290 in Spain. This emergence led the majority of scholars to conclude that the Zohar was a creation of Spanish Kabbalists. Meroz's research, however, shifts the cultural milieu for the origins of this emerging Kabbalah, from Spanish and French Christian lands to Middle Eastern Muslim lands.

Gershom Scholem: Single authorship by Moshe de León in Spain

In the 1940s, Gershom Scholem ascribed the role of sole authorship of the Zohar to Moshe de León, based on similarities in Moshe de León’s writing style when compared to his other known books. This view remained the dominant scholarship for half a century. 

529) Avraham Ibn Daud: Maimonides’ unspoken mentor?

14th century copy of Avraham Ibn Daud's Sefer haKabbalah

Introduction

Is it possible that Maimonides (1138-1204) had an unspoken mentor who has been largely overlooked by history? This ‘mentor’ may have been the twelfth-century philosopher, translator, and historian Avraham Ibn Daud (c. 1110–1180). “[H]istory has been rather unkind” (Fontaine 2023:1) to Avraham Ibn Daud. Yet, it seems that Maimonides was not the first to engage with Arabic Aristotelian rationalists, because just decades before,  Avraham Ibn Daud emerged as the pioneering rabbinic thinker who made: 

“the first attempt to integrate the teachings of the Muslim Aristotelians into a Jewish philosophic theology” (Fontaine 2007-8:23). 

It must be noted that Avraham Ibn Daud passed away when Maimonides was about twenty-five years old, yet Maimonides is often (perhaps unfairly) credited as the first to have achieved this theological synthesis that changed the face of Judaism. 

528) Rationalism, Mysticism and Binitarianism

Introduction

It’s commonly assumed that Jewish belief in G-d has remained consistent throughout history. In truth, Jewish perceptions of the Divine have been strikingly diverse, shaped and reshaped across centuries, cultures, and theological currents. 

Many are familiar with the contrast between Maimonidean philosophical rationalism—rooted in Aristotelian thought—and the mystical worldview of Kabbalah which some maintain is rooted in Neoplatonic thought.[1] Yet there is a third, often overlooked theological strand with ancient roots: Jewish binitarianism. Emerging as early as Second Temple times, this approach suggests a dual structure within the Divine, typically involving a transcendent G-d and a mediating figure. Any serious discussion of Jewish theology must move beyond the binary of rationalism and mysticism to include this third, lesser-known but historically significant option. This discussion explores the theological tensions of the thirteenth century surrounding the nature and definition of G-d.