Menu

Showing posts with label Haskalah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Haskalah. Show all posts

Sunday, 1 December 2024

495) Benjamin Franklin as a ‘Founding Father’ of the Musar Movement

 

The 1844 edition of Cheshbon haNefesh by R. Menachem Mendel Lefin of Satanów (first published anonymously in 1808).



Introduction

This article based extensively on the research by Shai Afsai[1] examines how Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), Founding Father of the United States and drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence, made an unexpected, under-reported, yet significant contribution to the ethical philosophy of R. Menachem Mendel Lefin of Satanów (1749–1826). 

These ethical principles were then later adopted by the Lithuanian Musar movement under R. Yisrael Lipkin Salanter (1810–1883). 

“Leading members of the Lithuanian Musar movement loved Rabbi Menahem Mendel Lefin of Satanów’s method of character refinement” (Afsai 2019:55). 

However, neither R. Lefin nor R. Salanter made any indications that these ethical contributions originated with Benjamin Franklin. Nevertheless, these methods of character refinement were included in R. Lefin’s work, Cheshbon haNefesh, which became a key source for R. Yisrael Salanter’s Musar movement which was intended to be an alternative to Chassidism.  

Sunday, 4 December 2022

408) Rebbe Professor Isadore Twersky

 

The two faces of  Rabbi Professor Twersky

Introduction

This article, based extensively but not exclusively on the research by Rabbi Dr Carmi Horowitz,[1] looks at the extraordinary story of Rabbi Professor Isadore (Yitzchak) Twersky (1930-1997). As both a rebbe and professor, Isadore Twersky straddled two very distinct worlds.

The story

Rebbe Professor Twersky, as he was affectionately known, was born into a Chassidic line of rebbes from the Chernobyl dynasty. He was a great-grandson of Rabbi David of Talne, an important leader of the Chassidic movement in Ukraine during the nineteenth century. By all expectations, he should have just grown up to become another rebbe in the chain going back to R. Nachum of Chernobyl (1730-1789), a student of the Baal Shem Tov. The Talner Chassidim are a branch of the Chernobyl Chassidic dynasty.

Sunday, 19 January 2020

260) THE CHIEF RABBI OF MORAVIA RECEIVES A LETTER FROM G-D:


Moses Mendelssohn's controversial Biur received the approbation of R. Mordechai Benet, the Chief Rabbi of Moravia.


INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Mordechai Benet or Marcus Benedict (1753-1829) was the chief of rabbi Moravia, the historical region[1] in the east of the Czech Republic. This would have been one of the most prestigious rabbinic appointments of that time.

R. Benet was a child prodigy and at his barmitzvah his teacher showed the guests commentaries he had already written on the Torah and Talmud.

He was an interesting man because although respected by rabbis from across the spectrum – for example, the second Rebbe of Chabad, as well as his friend the Chatam Sofer spoke highly of him - he is described as being a fiercely independent thinker as well. 

Paradoxically, he allowed space for writings and ideas from the Enlightenment Movement (Haskalah), while at the same time staunchly upholding the traditional Halachic and rabbinic system.

In this article, which is based extensively on the research of Professor Tamás Visi[2], we will explore some of the thinking of R. Mordechai Benet.

Visi describes R. Benet as being:

“...remarkably flexible concerning those innovations [of the Enlightenment] that did not threaten the prestige of rabbinic literature. However, he was a rigid opponent of any changes that could have restructured the inner hierarchy of the [rabbinic][3] literary system.”

A COMPLEX MAN:

People were not sure how to read R. Benet.

On the one hand, he had adopted a strict anti-Enlightenment and anti-Reform stance, such as his ruling against the Hamburg Temple, forbidding the use of organs in a synagogue on Shabbat.[4]
This was in keeping with the traditional position of the Chatam Sofer, one of the ideologues of the emerging ultra-Orthodox movement who famously claimed that anything new was forbidden by the Torah.[5]


On the other hand, R. Benet gave his endorsement to a school book complied by Herz Homberg. Homberg started out as a tutor to Moses Mendelssohn’sson and ended up becoming his follower.
(Moses Mendelssohn is regarded as the father of the Enlightenment Movement.)

R. Benet also endorsed an edition of the Pentateuch which had Mendelssohn’s German translation of the Torah as well as his commentary on it known as the Biur.

There is evidence that Mendelssohn’s commentary was studied in Moravian yeshivot during the 1820s.[6]

R. Benet had a secretary, Avraham Trebitch who recorded the history of the time and he included a eulogy for Mendelssohn just as he did for other orthodox rabbis, and R. Benet gave his approbation for this work.

This should not come as too much of a surprise as there were quite a number of rabbis who were part of an ‘orthodox Haskalah.’  


TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENLIGHTENMENT:

It is possible to understand R. Benet’s ‘warm’ feelings towards the Enlightenment because of his being domiciled in Moravia. It was the Berlin Enlightenment particularly, which was the considered most threatening to traditional Judaism.

RABBINIC AUTHORITY AND PRESTIGE IN MORAVIA:

The reason why the Enlightenment was not such a threat in places like Moravia may have been because of the generally unattested authority and prestige of the rabbis which was prevalent there more than in Berlin.

Visi writes:

“Maskilic [Enlightenment][7] texts could have reached Moravia at the turn of the nineteenth century. They may have been read by some Moravian Jews...
Nonetheless, they could not compete with the heavy voice of Tradition in terms of prestige...”

And Visi continues to explain why a degree of Enlightenment literature may have been permitted in Moravia under R. Benet:

“However, it could be consumed only as peripheral or low prestige literature as long as the traditional literary system functioned.”

A HIERARCHY OF PRESTIGE:

Amongst the rabbinate itself, there was even a hierarchy of prestige. There were rabbis and then there were specialist rabbis or ‘geonim.’ While this is typical of the rabbinate in all communities, it appears that this was particularly so Moravia. Thus, even within the orthodox rabbinic world:

“Any innovation not coming from the ‘geonim’ was immediately perceived as amateurish and suspicious.”

The Enlightenment could not successfully compete with this hierarchy of prestige.

Rabbinic prestige was obviously a major issue and one could say it was a positive factor as it kept the important tradition alive.

Visi describes this matter of prestige in rather strong terms regarding a question put to R. Benet about the permissibility of praying in a language other than Hebrew:

“...Benet argues, once Hebrew is replaced by German as the language of worship Jews may forget Hebrew altogether. This situation would cause the complete disappearance of rabbinic culture (as well as rabbinic authority) since rabbinic literature is consumable only in Hebrew. Its prestige among Jews stands or falls with the prestige of Hebrew.”

In other words, it was felt that prayer must remain in Hebrew not just because it is prescribed by Halacha (although there are exceptions), but also because it was a means of maintaining rabbinic culture, prestige and authority.

Incidentally; besides prayer - unlike the Chatam Sofer whose followers believed it was a religious duty to speak Yiddish and not German - R. Benet had no problems with Jews using German as a spoken language.

THE AVERAGE MASSES:

In R. Benet’s response to the Hamburg Temple issue, he wrote in Hebrew: 


“It is well known and generally recognized by everybody that all the community of Israel are all sacred and the One God is among them. And one Torah is for all of them. And all the people stand all the time on [the belief that] Moses is true and his Torah is true. And this is the Torah that he gave us. They are the two tablets of the covenant, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.”

The same eloquent passage was translated into the Yiddish vernacular in a curt and more authoritative style which simply laid down the law for the populace:


“It is generally known that all the community of Israel is based on an unconditional belief in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.”

In light of this unconditional belief, there was nothing more to discuss.

The unassailable authority of the rabbis was most likely also contributed to by the general disinterest by the masses in intellectual endeavours both in technical religious, as well as in secular affairs.

As Visi puts it, the average Jews of Moravia had no real appetite for intellectual matters, and they:

“...actually lacked the educational background necessary to do philosophy in an enlightened maskilic style.”

‘BESAMIM ROSH’ - A DIRECT ATTACK ON RABBINIC AUTHORITY:

It is apparent that R. Benet developed an interesting way of coping with the threat of the Enlightenment: 

As long as the authentic rabbinic theme was allowed to maintain its basic dominance, he felt no need to attack the Haskalic influences. He was prepared to allow them some space as long as they remained on the periphery. 

However, as soon as he perceived a direct threat to rabbinic tradition, he was steadfast in his condemnation of it no matter the source.

An example of this was R. Benet’s outright denunciation of the well-known Halachic work, Besamim Rosh, which originated from Berlin. R. Benet believed this work to be forgery.

As the title suggests, it purports to be the 14th-century work of Rabbeinu Asher, known also as the Rosh. The book, regarded as a ‘Trojan horse in the camp of Halacha,’ is thought to have been forged by R. Saul Berlin, whose father, R. Hirsch Tzvi Levin was the rabbi of Berlin.

Interspersed amongst the various writings in Besamin Rosh are ideas such as that Rambam did not base his Thirteen Principles on Torah or Talmud but from non-Jewish sources as well as on his own perceptions, and that faith is a matter of individual conviction. The Rosh (b. 1250), allegedly, would have known this having lived soon after Rambam passed away in 1204.

Besamin Rosh also speaks of a time when certain laws of the Torah will be abolished for the ‘well being’ of the people. There are also references to shaving one’s beard, drinking non-Jewish wine, and most controversially to a case of riding a horse on Shabbat. –These and other such statements are regarded as subversive and deliberately planted in the guise of a Halachic work, to spread Enlightenment propaganda.


In a letter by R. Benet to R. Levin of Berlin, he disputes the attribution of Besamim Rosh to the Rosh. He compared sections of authentic Responsa (Teshuvot, or written answers to Halachic questions) of the Rosh to the writings in Besamim Rosh and exposed various inconsistencies.

Visi explains:

“However, the main point of criticism was not the authenticity of the work but the blatant heresy propagated in some of the pseudoepigraphical [falsely attributed][8] responsa.

... the Besamim Rosh was a dangerous attack on traditional rabbinic Judaism in Mordecai Benet’s opinion. It demanded a response as opposed to other pieces of maskilic or reformer literature, which Benet preferred to ignore.

It could create a new publicity and prestige for maskilic ideas that they did not enjoy before. By attacking it Benet obviously wanted to prevent the spread and the recognition of the book: the possibility that Moravian yeshiva-students take the Besamim Rosh as an authentic piece of rabbinic literature must have been a nightmare for him.”

A TIGHTROPE:

What emerges is a very interesting dynamic displayed by R. Mordechai Benet. He seems to have been neither a proponent nor opponent to the Enlightenment Movement. This was unusual in an age which had clearly defined boundaries in this area.

However, the open-minded, independent and tolerant R. Benet - who normally turned a blind eye to, and in some cases even endorsed Enlightenment literature - was transformed into a warrior when he felt that rabbinic literature itself was under threat.

This theological tightrope on which R. Benet walked as well as his commensurate delicate ideological balance seems to have been quite considered, intentional, strategic and in his mind, appropriate.

-But this unusual balance between staunch defender of faith and open tolerance of Enlightenment views, was too much for some. The following tactic was adopted by an anonymous Kabbalist, perhaps representing a larger interest group:

THE ‘LETTER FROM G-D’:

In 1820, a letter - ‘from G-d’ - was found in the East-Moravian town of Lipnik addressed to the chief rabbi, or landesrabbiner of Moravia. The anonymous author claims he attended a sitting of the Heavenly Yeshiva and he was commissioned to bring a message to the rabbi.[9]

The letter praises the erudition of R. Benet and informs him that his teachings are studied in the Heavenly Yeshiva. The Rif (Alfasi, 1013-1103), Rabbeinu Asher (1250-1328) and Rambam (1135-1204) send their regards.

This praise notwithstanding, R. Benet is reproached for not noticing and not objecting to a new evil which was spreading everywhere. The letter, referring to the proliferation of what it calls heretical views from the Enlightenment, states:

 “Don’t you know, have you not heard how the schism arose in Israel and faith perished and heresy is growing stronger and stronger day by day! No settlement remains unpolluted from people belonging to their sect, some of them [professing their heresy] openly and many more secretly.”

The letter goes on to make use of Kabbalistic terminology describing how G-d’s Presence, or Shechina is being harmed by such Enlightenment activity and R. Benet is reminded about how others in the past - especially Mordechai the Jew[10] - had being willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent the suffering of the Shechina and to stop these satanic influences.

Then the letter becomes more personal and threatening:

“And you, my son, my beloved one, behold I have appointed you as the leader [nagid] of my people and all the great ones of the generation obey your words and all the chiefs and leaders of the people respect you. You have the power to do as you wish.

Despite all these you sit in silence as if you were deaf and unable to give instructions to fight the wars of the Lord and to punish these wicked ones, who destroy the world, with strong hand.
And it is you whom the other sages of the generation imitate when they sit and keep silence. 

Meanwhile the faith and religion of Israel is being demolished because of you.

And for this reason many accusers arose against you, some of them from the right side and some of them from the left side,[11] and required a punishment for you in the presence of God, and your punishment was almost decreed had not the members of the heavenly yeshiva, especially Jacob… and Joseph… spoken for your benefit and apologized on your behalf, saying, if you knew the intensity of the Shekhina’s suffering in the exile, so to say [kivyakhol], and the demolition of the upper worlds you would certainly be ready to sacrifice your life just as the saints of old days did.”

R. Benet is then told that he is a reincarnation, or gilgul, of Mordechai who did not fear any man, and he is called upon to convene a great gathering of rabbis in order to condemn the new heresy from the Enlightenment.

ANALYSIS:

I am not aware of R. Benet’s reaction to this letter just nine years before his passing, but it shows how far some people were prepared to go to draw him deep into the fight against the Enlightenment.

By the same token, some members of the Enlightenment also went out of their way to produce forged and subversive works in the guise of technical rabbinic literature in order to further their agenda.

The problem, of course, was that huge numbers of innocent and unsuspecting people caught up in the middle would be swayed by charismatic leaders on both sides, to believe that either G-d was writing letters, or that the 13th-century Rosh had 19th-century Enlightenment leanings.



[1] Historic regions are geographic areas which at some point in the past had an ethnic or political basis regardless of present-day borders.
[2] Tamás Visi, A Moravian Defence of Orthodoxy: Mordecai Benet and the Rabbinic Literary System.
[3] Parentheses mine.
[4] See Elle Divrei haBrit.
[5] A play on the words ‘chadash asur min haTorah’ (referring originally to the eating of ‘new grain’ before the Omer offering is given). However, according to the findings of Meir Hildesheimer, it is no longer certain that the Chatam Sofer even banned the study of Mendelssohn’s writings. (Hildesheimer, “The Attitude of the Hatam Sofer…” (see note 10), pp. 149-154 and p. 177).
[6] Hildesheimer, “Moses Mendelssohn…” (see note 10), pp. 95-96.
[7] Parenthesis mine.
[8] Parenthesis mine. (Also spelt: pseudepigraphical.)
[9] The letter is printed in Maasiyot m-tsadiqei yesodei olam (Podgorze, 1903), 6a-7b.
[10] From the Book of Ester.
[11] These would refer to what the anonymous writer believes to be spiritual entities. Those from the ‘left’ are evil, while those from the ‘right’ are good.

Sunday, 1 September 2019

241) FOLKLORE – ALIVE AND WELL IN A MODERN WORLD:



INTRODUCTION:

I have always been fascinated by the difference between superstition and religion – and by just where one delineates between superstitious or magical practices and genuine Halacha.

In this article, I have drawn extensively from the research of Professor Gideon Bohak[1] who is a specialist scholar of Jewish magic.

Professor Bohak writes:

“Jewish magic is thriving in present-day Israel, in spite of the supposed disenchantment of the modern world.”

NOTE:

In this discussion, the term ‘magic’ is used with reference to any ritualistic activity or folkloric belief - usually presented as a religious undertaking involving recitations or actions - which attempts to theurgically change the fabric of reality, without the individual actually trying to affect it by pragmatic endeavours.

Similarly, the term ‘Kabbalah’, in our context, refers to practical and particularly theurgical Kabbalah, and not to theoretical or theosophical mysticism.[2]

A SHORT HISTORY OF JEWISH MAGIC:

2nd CENTURY BCE:

Gideon Bohak explains that Jewish magic, although a factor since “time immemorial”, only really becomes traceable from the second century BCE. We know this because of the proliferation of magical texts from that period onwards. 

These texts are regarded as ‘magical’ because they aimed at changing the world around them through the use of amulets, holy names of G-d, angelic and demonic powers. Some of these included the intention to harm or even kill opponents.

Bohak writes very tellingly that throughout Jewish history:

“...for every Jewish community for which we have reasonable amounts of written evidence, the evidence also includes extensive documentation of Jewish magical activities.”

11th CENTURY – RATIONALIST OPPOSITION:

Interestingly, as we move on to the 11th century when medieval rabbinic rationalists like Maimonides opposed many of these rituals and practices which had sometimes become indistinguishable from normative Judaism, these rabbis were aggressively challenged by many of their contemporaneous mystical colleagues.

15th CENTURY – THE PRINTING PRESS:

Then, from the mid 15th century, with the invention of the printing press, Kabbalistic medicine, practical Kabbalah and mystical literature in general, received a boost and were quickly spread throughout the Jewish world.

16th CENTURY - SHIMUSH TEHILLIM (1551):

One newly printed book was Shimush Tehillim (How to Use Psalms) which was published in 1551. It is an anonymous work from a much earlier time. The printed edition, in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, shows how to get practical benefit from the 150 Psalms:

According to this work, Psalm 1; - for example - could prevent an abortion. Psalm 2; could help with a headache and also saves from a storm at sea. Psalm 3; alleviates shoulder pain. Psalm 5; helps find favour in a governor. Psalm 16; helps with catching thieves. Psalm 54; helps with taking revenge on an enemy. And Psalm 124; helps find a runaway slave and gets him to return.

18th CENTURY - RAZIEL HAMALACH:

Books of Segulot (Kabbalistic amulets, remedies and recipes) became very popular particularly after Sefer Raziel was printed in 1701. This book became an amulet in itself as it suggested that even if one did not study from it but merely kept it in the home “together with his silver and gold” then the house would be protected from fire and evil spirits.

IMPACT OF PRINTED MAGICAL TEXTS:

Sociologically, the popularity of these types of books had a huge impact because now the reader could simply open the book (some even came with indexes) and did not need to visit the Kabbalist or one of the Baalei Shem (medicine men).

This, in turn, led to a reaction from the Kabbalist practitioner who now felt aggrieved, and often tried to ban the publication of such works, claiming that the printing of various holy names amounted to a desecration of G-d’s name.

On the other hand, some Baalei Shem like Yoel Baal Shem (the Second) took advantage of the need for such works and used the technology of his day to actively produce even more books for wide dissemination.

Printed Segulot for newborn babies also became very popular as they were ubiquitous and cheap.

19th CENTURY HASKALAH:

The proliferation of magical texts continued until the early 19th century when the Jewish Enlightenment Movement or Haskalah, declared a “war on magic” and tried, instead, to emphasise reason over folklore and magic. To some extent and in some circles the Jewish magical texts were then marginalised but certainly not eradicated.

“However, just as Maimonides and his followers had found out several centuries earlier, any attack on ‘superstition’ and magic in the Jewish world soon ran into the problem that the Jews’ sacred texts—and especially the Babylonian Talmud—are full of elements which the rationalists were wont to disparage.”

(These were issues that many of the post-Talmudic Gaonim[3] as well as the rationalist Rishonim[4] dealt and grappled with. See Angels in Rabbinic Literature, and A Newly Minted Chareidi Amulet.)

Although there were orthodox rabbis who embraced the Haskalah Movement [See Talmudic Commentators Who Embraced the Enlightenment], the Haskala is generally associated with reform. Unfortunately, opposition to magic was now seen as a reform innovation and an attack on the orthodox. This may have had the effect of strengthening the belief in magic in some of the more conservative orthodox circles.

Either way, the albeit partial marginalization of magic only took place in Europe but did not affect the Jews of Muslim countries who continued to practice a very traditional or “conservative” form of magic.

JEWS IN MUSLIM LANDS:

The Jews in Muslim countries were not generally exposed to the printed Kabbalistic texts published after the 15th century (as printing was strictly regulated in those countries) nor were they exposed to the influence of the Enlightenment Movement (opposing magic) which was predominantly felt only in Europe.

Even long after the emergence of the printing press, most of Middle Eastern, North African and Sefardic magic was still transmitted in manuscript form, and often assumed the format of a ‘recipe book’.

PLOTTING THE GRAPHS OF ASHKENAZI AND SEFARDI MAGIC:

Bohak points out an interesting difference between the practical Kabbalistic literature developing in Europe as opposed to that which flourished in Muslim countries: In the European or Ashkenazi world, the numbers of such books rise during the 17th century, peak during the 18th century, dwindle in the 19th century (largely due to the Haskala), and all but vanish in the 20th century.

However, in the Sefardic countries, the numbers of such works rise continuously from the 17th century right up to and including the 20th century!

R. AVRAHAM HAMUY (1839-1888):

One particularly interesting Sefardic writer of Segulot was R. Avraham Hamuy who wrote over 50 books. Once, on a visit to the Moroccan city of Marrakesh in February 1881 - on a Thursday - he was asked by the Jewish community to end a drought that had plagued them for some time. 

He performed various rituals including writing out G-d’s name in circumcision blood, and by Friday evening the heavens opened up and the drought was assuaged. This gained him much admiration from Marrakesh’s Jewish as well as its Muslim inhabitants.

THE 1942 PLOT TO KILL HITLER:

In 1942 some Jerusalem Kabbalists used various rituals to try and kill Hitler.[5]

They procured an airplane from the RAF to spray the blood of white roosters over the Land of Israel to protect it from the armies of Rommel.

1948 - THE STATE OF ISRAEL:

THE ATTEMPT TO THWART JEWISH MIDDLE EASTERN MAGICAL PRACTICES:

With the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, both European and Middle Eastern Jewish cultures confronted each other and the Ashkenazim tried to “disenchant” their Middle Eastern and North African brethren of their magical practices, but with little success.

“[Israel’s] founding fathers had little patience for demons, amulets, and Jewish magical beliefs and practices, and neither would the ‘new Jew,’ which they hoped to create.”

The ‘new Jews’ thus came into ideological conflict with the ‘old Jews’, also known as the ‘old yishuv’ (or old ‘establishment’) who had already been residing in Ottoman Palestine and after 1922, in Mandatory Palestine. The ‘new Jews’ were embarrassed about, and therefore opposed to, the superstitious and magical practices of the older communities.

David Ben-Gurion dreamed of Israel becoming a melting pot with new Israelis emerging who had let go of practices that he believed could only hinder them in the future.

1980s - RESTORATION OF HONOR:

This model proved to be effective for the first few decades until the 1980s when a push-back was expressed by - amongst other groups - the formation of the Shas party[6] which vowed to restore the ‘honor and glory’ of North African, Middle Eastern and Sefardic Jews, which had been ‘stolen’ from them by the Israeli state.

This restoration of honor and the holding on to traditional beliefs, also indicated to all that the magical and practical Kabbalistic tradition was never eradicated in Israel but, instead, remained alive and well. 

1990s – ‘SUSPICION OF REASON’ IN THE POSTMODERN AGE:

Then, during the 1990s with the advent of the Postmodern Era and its “cultural sensitivities and...New Age religiosities” (which brought with it a “suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology[7]), “the Jewish magical tradition is now more vigorous, and more visible[8] than ever imagined.

MAGIC IN THE ‘START-UP NATION’:

During the 1996 Israeli elections, the Shas party, comprised of Sefardic Orthodox Jews, distributed amulets which had the image of the ‘eldest Kabbalist’, R. Yitzchak Kaduri (1898-2006), and which were ‘blessed’ by him.

These amulets were greatly in demand but were only given to voters who promised to vote for the Shas party.

When the opposition got wind of this, they claimed it was election bribery and the matter went to adjudication. The distribution of amulets was dully halted by the law. This did not stop Shas gaining 10 seats.

2000:

As a result of previous electioneering with amulets, Israeli law now prohibits anyone using:

“...adjuration, curse, excommunication, ban, a vow, the dissolution of a vow, a promise to grant a blessing, or the giving of an amulet; in this regard, ‘an amulet’ includes any object that in the eyes of a part of the public has the power to grant it benefits or harm it.”    

The clause “any object that in the eyes of a part of the public has the power to grant it benefits or harm it,” is interpreted by Bohak as:

 “...an honest admission by the Knesset that while some of the citizens of the modern State of Israel deny the efficacy of amulets, others certainly do not.”

And therefore:

“By the year 2000, when this clause was added to the law, the Jewish magical tradition was finally winning official recognition of its existence and wide appeal...”

However, even this legislation did not curb the continued (and illegal) use of amulets and even “aggressive magic” in election campaigning in a country that prides itself as one of the most technologically advanced in the world.

ANALYSIS:

Gideon Bohak writes:

“The impact of this multifaceted and multidirectional shift is still in progress, and it is too early to tell where exactly it will lead, but one of its obvious features is that magic is once again in vogue...

In a postmodern world, modernity’s aversion towards magic and ‘superstition’ is being replaced by suspicion of the rationalistic discourse...”


If Gideon Bohak’s analysis is correct and if we are indeed living in a Jewish world defined by suspicion of the rationalistic discourse, then we need to know this. Those of us who are happy to remain in this state have every right to do so, but those who are not, need to sit up and take notice.

CONCLUSION:

To end on a philosophical note, this is how R. Jonathan Sacks uses the biblical incident of the Golden Calf to describe magic:

“...the Israelites sought an oracle, something to tell them what to do and what to become. They were still in an age of magical thinking in which people do what the gods require and gods produce the outcome the people desire.

That is not what the biblical covenant is about...It is about the acceptance of responsibility. It is about being guided by the experience of history, not about having the responsibility for history taken from the people and assumed by God Himself.”[9]






[1] See: How Jewish Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World, by Gideon Bohak.
[2] These definitions are mine.
[3] Rabbis during the period 650 to 1038.
[4] Rabbis from the period 1038 to 1500.
[5] See Three Charms for Killing Adolf Hitler, by Yuval Harari.
[6] Not wishing to go into the politics of the matter as it is a complicated affair because one of Shas’ main leaders was R. Ovadya Yosef (1920-2013) and he did try to wean his followers off some of the mystical practices of the Ben Ish Chai (1832-1909) of Baghdad.
[7] As Postmodernism is defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[8] All quotations are from Professor Gideon Bohak unless otherwise indicated.
[9] Covenant &Conversations; Deuteronomy, p. 6. (I thank Ariel Elliasof for pointing this description out to me.)