499) The debate over the authenticity of the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi

From the Abraham Schwadron Portrait Collection, National Library of Israel archive

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Wojciech Tworek[1] ꟷ examines the debate over the authenticity of one of the best-known portraits in Chassidic iconography; that of the Alter Rebbe, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Chabad Rebbe. 

Unlike the iconic portrait of the Baal Shem Tov which has conclusively been shown to be not of the Baal Shem Tov of Medzhebuzh (c.1700-1760) but rather of the Baal Shem of London (1708-1782) ꟷ  there is much controversy over the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812). 

The portrait of R. Shneur Zalman is published in the haTamim (vol. 2 p. 755) anthology of the sixth Rebbe of Chabad, R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, under the title “תמונת תואר פני קדש הקדשים, The picture of the image of the Holy of Holies...” 

498) Did the Babylonian Talmud create the authoritative rabbi and the passive Jew?

 

Coins from the Bar Kochba era

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach[1] − explores the emergence of the rabbinic class after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans during the first two centuries CE. Up to that point, the rabbis did not feature in leadership positions. On assuming power immediately after the failed military campaigns and revolts, the rabbis (and the Babylonian rabbis particularly) began to intensely promote passivity as the hallmark of the Torah Jew. Too many Jews had been killed during the wars and the rabbis saw passivity as the only way forward for Jewish survival into the future. 

497) Language as incubators of theological ideas

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Edward Ullendorff (1920-2011) – examines languages as distinct incubators of theological ideas. In other words, we are going to see to what extent “different languages reflect different realities” (Ullendorff 1966:273) which, in turn, reflect different theologies; and how translations, in this case from the Hebrew of the Torah into English, can project different meanings from those of the original language. I then take this a step further and propose that sometimes the reflected theologies can impose themselves back onto the original source language, creating a double distortion. 

496) Kabbalah: To print or not to print the ‘lost’ mystical tradition

 

The first printed edition, the "editio princeps", of the Zohar published in Mantua, Italy in 1558.

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Avraham Oriah Kelman[1] ꟷ examines the little-known crisis in Kabbalistic transmission that became evident between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. 

The earlier Sefaradic Kabbalistic tradition, which had peaked in Spain in the thirteenth century (with the Zohar first published around 1290) had now spread to central Europe. The expulsion from Spain in 1492 can be seen as precipitating this spread of Kabbalistic influence to Europe. This was coupled with the simultaneous spread of Kabbalah from the various mystical schools of Safed, including Lurianic Kabbalah from the Ari Zal (1534-1572). By the sixteenth century, Central European Ashkenazi Jewry was well-exposed to, and keenly influenced by, Kabbalah from both its eastern and western co-religionists. But Kabbalah, although now widely disseminated and popularised, was in an internal state of crisis. This created a tension between the leadership of the mystical movement and those who were publishing mystical works, and it is to that tension and theological strain that we shall now turn. 

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 ꟷ based extensively on the research by Shai Afsai[1] ꟷ 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.  

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.