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]. 

523) Radical rabbinic models of universalism

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz 1937-2020

Introduction

This article traces the thought of four rabbinic figures—spanning from the sixteenth century to the modern writings of R. Adin Steinsaltz—who identify and exemplify a strikingly universalist approach within Jewish tradition. It highlights how these thinkers engaged with non-Jewish doctrines, religions, and ideologies not with hostility or indifference, but with a rare openness that challenges conventional boundaries of theological discourse. 

1) R. Natan Nata Shapira (1585-1633)

R. Natan Shapira of Kraków, also known as the Megaleh Amukot (Revealer of Secrets), was a student of Lurianic Kabbalah from the school of R. Yisrael Sarug and was responsible for the dissemination of the teaching of the Ari Zal.  He saw the need to extract good from the non-Jewish world as a necessary precursor to the messianic age. 

“[R. Natan Nata Shapira] clarified the mission of Judaism, in light of kabbalistic historiography, as one that aims to gather up the holy sparks scattered among gentiles in order to bring redemption nearer” (Rachel Elior in Yivo Encyclopedia). 

522) Italian letters: The battle over the Zohar

An 1847 letter by Shmuel David Luzatto, to the scholar Meir Halevi Letteris.

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Daniel A. Klein[1]—examines the little-known polemic over Kabbalah between two great Italian rabbis of the nineteenth century. These rabbis were R. Shmuel David Luzzatto (known as Shadal, 1800-1865), a great-grandnephew of the famed R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal), and R. Elia Benamozegh (1823-1900), the rabbi of Livorno (Leghorn). The two collided in written correspondence—not over Halachah, but over the soul of Judaism itself. Both were outspoken defenders of traditional Judaism, yet each understood its essence in profoundly different ways. 

Shadal emphasised the practical, ethical and rational core of Judaism, rejecting mystical elements like Kabbalah and particularly the Zohar. His approach was more material than ethereal in the sense of being grounded in practical, historical, linguistic, and moral realism. Benamozegh, on the other hand, was a mystic, a Kabbalist, a man who believed the Zohar was not only authentic, but essential. To this day, the Piazza Benamozegh in Livorno, Tuscany, continues to bear his name—a quiet but enduring tribute to the legacy of a man whose ideas once stirred fierce debate within Italian Jewry.