Monthly Archives: November 2013

,

“How much time in our synagogue schools has been spent on helping students cultivate their sense of the sublime?”

How much time in our synagogue schools has been spent on helping students cultivate their sense of the sublime? How much time has been spent providing an immersive and reflective experience of different mitzvot as possible responses? How much time has been spent on coaching them in the performance of those regularized practices so that they become a normative aspect of their life? To take an example from outside Judaism, when Jews are serious about undertaking yoga or Bhuddist meditation, they don’t learn about it. They take it on as a discipline that must be practiced regularly with a teacher that can help them develop their ability to perform properly.

Bill Robinson, “The Religion You Don’t Believe In, I Don’t Believe In Either”, eJewishPhilanthropy (3 November 2013).

“Magazines were expected to be magisterial registers of the passing scene”

Magazines in their great age, before they were unmoored from their spines and digitally picked apart, before perpetual blogging made them permeable packages, changing mood at every hour and up all night like colicky infants—magazines were expected to be magisterial registers of the passing scene. Yet, though they were in principle temporal, a few became dateless, timeless.

Adam Gopnik, “Yellow Fever”, The New Yorker (22 April 2013), 102.

“The comparison of parallel versions of a narrative or legal statement in different rabbinic documents may allow us to distinguish between tradition and redaction…”

The comparison of parallel versions of a narrative or legal statement in different rabbinic documents may allow us to distinguish between tradition and redaction and to determine the form of a tradition before its inclusion into the broader redactional context. It should be clear, though, that synoptic comparisons of rabbinic texts can never lead to the detection of an “Urtext”, because such an “Urtext” is out of reach, if it ever existed at all. Various versions of a tradition will have circulated at one and the same time, and they will have been constantly changed and adapted to new circumstances. Synoptic comparisons may therefore indicate the main traits of a tradition before its inclusion into the present context, but not the exact words in which it was created or circulated.

Catherine Hezser, “Form-Criticism of Rabbinic Literature”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, eds. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martinez, Dider Pollefeyt and Peter J. Tomson (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010), 104-105.

“The midrashic unit consists of the quotation of a biblical verse followed by its rabbinic interpretation or comment”

The midrashic unit consists of the quotation of a biblical verse followed by its rabbinic interpretation or comment, which may consist of a short sentence only or be expanded, including various types of narratives, lists, or discussions.

Catherine Hezser, “Form-Criticism of Rabbinic Literature”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, eds. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martinez, Dider Pollefeyt and Peter J. Tomson (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010), 103.

A nonliteral approach to understanding על רגל אחת

Without denying the primary literal sense of the story, therefore, can we also understand the term רגל nonliterally, or as a Latin term? There is one clear instance in which some scholars have taken רגל in a nonliteral sense, and in relation to a Latin term, but in an entirely different context, namely the talmudic expression רגל רדופין, which they tend to equate with the Latin regale repudium (royal divorce), which in turn they posit as a possible corruption from legale repudium (legal divorce).

Raphael Jospe, “Hillel’s Rule,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 1/2 (July-October, 1990), 50.

“Rabbi Avi Weiss can be a bit of a controversial figure that very few people, I think, take seriously…”

Rabbi Avi Weiss can be a bit of a controversial figure that very few people, I think, take seriously, for two major reasons, that I think may be related.

The first is by reputation. He’s not known for being a למדן – he’s not known for being a learner; not known for being a תלמיד חכם, which I find very unfortunate. Having heard him numerous times – my grandparents go to his synagogue in Riverdale often – and other interactions, I can tell you that Rabbi Weiss is a lot more knowledgeable and a lot smarter than just about everyone gives him credit for. It might not come across because he might act like a Carlebachian hippie, but there’s a great deal of substance under there that’s very easy to overlook.

The other issue that I think comes up is that leads people to make either irresponsible or just flat-out wrong assessments is they focus too much on conclusions; by which I mean What is the conclusion? What is the statement that Rabbi Weiss says?  If you agree with it, you agree with what he’s trying to accomplish: “Oh, how great, how courageous he is”.  And if you’re predisposed to not liking what he says: “The guy’s a כופר – he’s a heretic, and he’s not really Orthodox”.  And neither one of these responses addresses the issue of method; meaning, you could be right, but for wrong reasons,  you could also be right for wrong reasons.  But no one actually addresses the arguments on their merits. People get so worked up in the emotional reaction of “Do we like what he says or do we dislike what he says?”  And I think that, too, is unfortunate, because I think there is a system here and I think it’s worth unpacking.

Rabbi Josh Yuter, “Halakhic Process 25: Open Orthodoxy“, Yutopia Podcast #119 (27 October 2013).

Questions any student editing texts needs to ask oneself….

…the first question a student of philology should answer is whether a manuscript edition can be achieved without interpreting the text itself.

…a second question to be answered by our virtual student of text editing is the following: should we construct/re-construct a text every time after having interpreted it? The question is not so far off the mark as it might seem to be at first glance. Looking at the edition of fragments of lost works, every scholar would agree that every further interpretation presupposes a new edition….

A third question should, therefore, be addressed by the virtual student of text editions: is the original text what we imagine as being such, or, perhaps, rather the beginning of a tradition or, indeed, both?

Giuseppe Veltri, “From The Best Text To The Pragmatic Edition: On Editing Rabbinic Texts”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, eds. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, Peter Tomson (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010), 65, 66, 67.

,

“the main purpose of synoptic comparisons of rabbinic texts is to determine which elements are shared and which are different”

As in the case of synoptic parallels between the gospels, the main purpose of synoptic comparisons of rabbinic texts is to determine which elements are shared and which are different. The differences may either be features of the different pre-redactional versions, or they may be editorial. They are likely to be editorial if they fit – or even replicate – the subject matter, formulation, structure, ideology of the surrounding context into which the tradition was integrated. If there is no neat transition between the tradition and its context, that is, if there is no shared formulation and the purpose and theme of the tradition seem to differ from the context, editorial changes cannot be detected.

Catherine Hezser, “Form-Criticism of Rabbinic Literature”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, eds. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martinez, Dider Pollefeyt and Peter J. Tomson (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010), 105.

“…the discursiveness of the Bavli and Pahlavi legal literature can be related to their respective pedagogic environments”

…the discursiveness of the Bavli and Pahlavi legal literature can be related to their respective pedagogic environments. As we saw in Šāyest nē šāyest 1.3, the scholastic environment of the Sasanian commentators was one in which later authorities transmitted the teachings of previous generations via an act of speech. That is, Zoroastrian sages “spoke” (guft) the teachings of their master. In rabbinic literature, the naming of previous authorities can be linked to the processes of oral transmission. This aspect of rabbinic culture is ubiquitous and constitutes one of its central foundational myths.

Shai Secunda, “The Sasanian ‘<i>Stam</i>’: Orality and the Composition of Babylonian Rabbinic and Zoroastrian Legal Literature” in <i>The Talmud in Its Iranian Context</i>, eds. Carol Bakhos and M. Rahim Shayegan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 159.

Rewards and Punishments in the View of the Rabbis

In the Bible, definite rewards and punishments from on high are only in a few instances brought into correlation with definite actions or classes of actions. By the Rabbis, this process was carried much further, and a number of precepts were assigned by them a specific value in the material or the spiritual field or both. Thus, they laid down that faith in God brings redemption, prophecy, and the inheritance of both worlds. The prayers of the priests, when accompanied by the observance of the people, are answered with the material gifts of health, wisdom, and a good reputation. Congregational worshippers are honoured with the Divine Presence; the individual who prays regularly is granted, among other material gifts, the blessings of children and good life. The study of the Law earns the assurance of the hereafter disinterested study brings also fame in this world and high honours in the hereafter. Sabbath observance, besides gaining the future world, qualifies one to celebrate the three pilgrim festivals also. The rewards for honouring and fearing parents are long life, the enjoyment of the Divine Presence, fame, and a prosperous land.
Similarly, with punishment: the judge who accepts bribes is punished with physical and mental blindness, and may also become poverty-stricken. Those guilty of slander and arrogance are reminded of the punishment of leprosy which according to the biblical account befell Miriam and Uzziah for these two sins. And the downfall of the Jewish State is attributed specifically to the three sins of bloodshed, over-bearing behaviour, and neglect of the study of the Law.

A. Melinek, “The Doctrine of Reward and Punishment in Biblical and Early Rabbinic Writings,” in Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. H.J. Zimmels, J. Rabbinowitz, & I. Finestein (London: The Soncino Press Limited, 1967), 285-286.