494) Inverted hierarchies: Humans making G-d more moral

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Dov Weiss[1] ꟷ examines how late Palestinian Midrashim, particularly the Tanchuma Yelamedeinu (fourth to ninth centuries CE), depict humans challenging G-d over morally problematic issues expressed in the Torah. In these cases, biblical figures are audaciously portrayed as both teaching and counselling G-d, as it were, convincing Him to adopt a more moral and ethical approach. The Midrashic work, Tanchuma Yelamedeinu exhibits about fifty examples of humans making G-d ‘more moral.’ 

493) Carrying on Shabbat: From Jeremiah to the Mishna

Jerusalem began trading on the silk route from around 200 BCE

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Alex P. Jassen[1] ꟷ examines how four pre-Mishnaic texts show evidence of the origin and expansion of the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat. The specific textual prohibition against carrying on Shabbat first begins with Yirmiyahu’s (Jeremiah’s) prohibition against carrying a ‘load’ (מַשָּׂא֙, massa), for trade and commercial purposes, and only in Jerusalem. It then underwent a process of expansion during Second Temple times as it passed through the four texts of Nechemiah (Nehemiah), the Book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls and finally became the Mishna’s general Halachic prohibition, as we know it today, against carrying ‘anything’ to or from ‘any’ domain. We shall trace and map this textual progression. Our focus is on the textual trail, as the oral tradition (which we briefly discuss at the conclusion) is not possible to track in the same way. 

492) Are Halachic rulings (Piskei Halacha) open to critical analysis or do they represent Divine Will?

    The varying faces of Piskei Halacha:

A Psak Din from R. Henkin 1934 regarding an inheritance

A Psak Din signed by 250 rabbis declaring the Lubavitcher Rebbe the Messiah

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Adiel Schremer[1] − takes an in-depth and forthright look at the sometimes mysterious process of Halachic decision-making as practised by the Posek (Halachic judge or decisor). The Torah teaches that if any matter of law shall arise in the future that is too difficult for people to determine by themselves, then they must approach the “judge who shall be in those days” (Deut. 17:8-11) for adjudication:

וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶ֨ל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט

However, the Torah is silent on exactly how the judge is to go about deciding the law: 

“Scripture offers no answer, and surprisingly it is neither discussed by later classical Jewish tradition, nor addressed by modern students of Jewish law” (Schremer 2010:5). 

In practice, we all know that the simple answer is to ‘ask a rabbi,’ or, under more pressing circumstances, to ‘ask a Posek’ (an authoritative Halachic decisor). The question, though, in light of the silence on the matter, is what specific process or methodology (if any) does the Posek (have to) follow?  Various interest groups sometimes propose direct or indirect 'guidelines,' but, as we shall see, that only contributes to the problem.

491) A source trail defending the Baal haTanya’s definition of the soul as ‘a part of G-d’

 

Signature of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in a copy of the Tanya in 1979

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Louis Jacobs (1920-2006)[1] − traces possible sources that the author of the Tanya, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, also known as the Baal haTanya (1745-1812), may have used, to formulate what is sometimes described as his ‘controversial’ definition of a soul being an actual ‘part’ of G-d.  

The notion of an infinite and monotheistic G-d who incarnates Himself in humans is often regarded as anathema to Jewish theology which seems firmly against the idea that G-d embodies Himself within mortal beings. Yet, as we shall see, there is an array of earlier mystical sources that the Baal haTanya could, and may, have used to develop his famous statement that the [second or Godly] soul is חלק אלו-ה ממעל ממש, truly a part of G-d above (Tanya, Ch. 2).[2] 

490) How the rabbis used interpretive tools like Kal vaChomer to assert their independence and unseat the Second Temple sects

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Richard Hidary[1] − continues on the previous article’s theme of Sadducees (Priests) and Pharisees (Rabbis). It examines what can only be described as one of the most dramatic internal revolutions within Jewish thought, as the priestly class of Kohanim (צָדוֹקִים/Tzadokim/Sadducees) gave way to the developing class of Rabbis (פְּרוּשִׁם/Perushim/Pharisees). The priestly Sadducees dominated the approximately one thousand years of the First and Second Temple eras as they managed the Temple and administered the sacrifices. 

489) Pharisees and Sadducees: The politics of Sages and Priests

Pesher Nachum from Qumran 13

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Eyal Regev[1] − examines the theological differences between the Sadducees (צָדוֹקִים - Tzadokim) and Pharisees (פְּרוּשִׁם - Perushim). It identifies the differences between the early class of Jewish priests, known as the Sadducees, and an emerging rabbinic class, known as the Pharisees. It focuses on the moment when rabbinic Judaism, as we understand it, became the more dominant force in the future development of Jewish history, as the nascent rabbinic sages (Pharisees) began to displace the established Temple priests (Sadducees). 

488) Gershom Scholem’s messianic claim

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Boaz Huss[1] and Professor Michael Brenner[2] − explores aspects of the life story and personal thought of Gershom (Gerhard) Scholem (1897-1982), the first researcher and professor of Jewish mysticism. 

Meeting with the kabbalists of Jerusalem

In 1915, while still in Berlin, a young Scholem had already met and become friends with Walter Benjamin. Benjamin was later to kill himself by an overdose of morphine tablets in 1940 rather than surrender to the Nazis. Scholem dedicated his famous work, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, to his friend Walter Benjamin. 

487) Self-promotion or natural authority? The case of Chavot Yair.

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Jay Berkovitz[1] − examines the charismatic image and commanding authority of the Halachic decisor, known as the Posek, whose task is to determine Jewish religious law. In this case, the rabbinic authority, R. Yair Chaim Bacharach (1638–1702) is used as an exemplar of the rise of the modern Posek.  He is known as the Chavot Yair after the title of his Responsa by that name, and he was active around the city of Worms in Germany. Responsa is sometimes called Sheilot uTeshovt (questions and answers) or Shut literature). The Chavot Yair was known for his innovation in law and independence of thought. 

486) An ancient (pre)text of Deuteronomy?

 

A cartoon in Punch magazine, 1883, showing Moses Wilhelm Shapira being apprehended by Christian David Ginzburg outside the British Museum, for allegedly forging an ancient textual find.

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Idan Dershowitz[1] − examines a work that for many years was regarded as a forgery, but, arguably, turned out to be one of the most significant textual finds of the nineteenth century. 

Part 1 describes the human-interest story of the original owner of the text, Moses Wilhelm Shapira and his eventual suicide after being accused of being the forger of the text. 

Part 2 advocates for the authenticity of the text, and discusses some of the consequences of this find which Dershowitz considers to be “a text that could change everything” (Dershowitz 2021:vi). Because the text resembled sections of the Book of Deuteronomy which deals with Moses’ farewell speech, Dershowitz has called the Shapira texts the ‘Valediction of Moses.’ 

485) Is a Halachic environmental discourse even possible?

 

Introduction

This article −based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Kotel Dadon[1] − examines some Torah and rabbinic sources that indicate the existence of, and potential for, further Jewish ecological discourse. It then (ambitiously) attempts to seek ways to bring this debate into the four cubits of Halacha (religious law). 

Dadon begins by nailing his colours to the mast in terms of his position on climate change and environmental issues: 

“Climate change and the resulting environmental disasters are among the greatest moral and existential crises of our time” (Dadon 2023:131). 

The general environmental discourse today revolves around two conflicting approaches regarding the role humans play in the world. These are the anthropocentric and biocentic approaches.

484) Babylonian Talmudic notion of 'Temporary Marriage'

Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman 1943-2018

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman[1] − examines the recorded Talmudic notion of ‘temporary marriage’ as practised by the Amoraic (Gemara) sages, Rav (d. 247 CE) and R. Nachman (d. 320 CE). In a series of five previous articles, we have dealt with Elman’s groundbreaking studies on surprising but extensive Babylonian influences on the Babylonian Talmud. In this article, we try to understand how a Babylonian (=Iranian, Persian or Sasanian to be more accurate) practice of ‘temporary marriage’ was able to penetrate the conservative Talmudic circles around the third and fourth centuries CE. 

483) What Are We Supposed To Be Doing on Tisha B'Av?

Another guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton

We all know the things we can’t do on Tisha B’Av. But just not doing stuff can’t be the whole story. The real point, I suppose, is the mourning. But how does that happen?

The poskim (אורח חיים תקנ”ד) point to a custom to avoid labor (מלאכה) and business (בפרקמטיה). That, no doubt, is to keep us from being distracted from the mourning. We’re also expected to refrain from learning most Torah sources as it’s assumed those will give us joy.

The tefilos and kinnos are certainly there to help us focus on this specific flavor of mourning. But tefilos don’t take that much time, and the kinnos - even when properly understood - are relatively modern: it’s unlikely that any of them is older than 1,000 years, and it’s only very recently that we began reciting the “whole book” regardless of our individual family traditions. So how did our ancestors from previous centuries actually fill the day?