452) Was R. Heshil Tzoref intentionally conflated with R. Adam Baal Shem?

[Note: This article is an abridged version of my current research project - G.M.]

Introduction

R. Yehoshua Heshil Tzoref was born in Vilna in 1633 and passed away in Cracow in 1700 or 1720 (Rabinowitsch 1939:126). He had no significant religious education and made a living as a silversmith (‘tzoref’ is the Hebrew for ‘silversmith’). During the series of wars between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, he sought refuge in Amsterdam, where he was exposed to the ideas of Shabbatai Tzvi. When he returned to Vilna in 1666, he became “the most important personality of the Sabbatian movement in Lithuania” (Maciejko 2010b:n.p.).^[1] Put more directly, R. Heshil Tzoref:

“became the outstanding spokesman of the believers in Shabbetai Zevi and persisted in this belief throughout his life” (Scholem 2007a:670).

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.

446) Mashiach is just two Amens away

 

Shirei Yehuda by Yehuda Leib Zelechow, Amsterdam, 1697

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Elisheva Carlebach[1] − explores how (just after the failed messianic awakening of Shabbatai Tzvi, and just before the emergence of the Chassidic movement) a new trend in messianism began to develop. This new messianism was advanced by the likes of Yehuda Leib of Zelechow, and it promoted the notion that the ‘imminent redemption’ was dependent upon urgent attention to the prayers. His theological hypothesis was that two specific “Amens” in the prayer service have generally been ignored by the congregations − and this is holding up the messianic redemption. 

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.