Category Archives: Jewish

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).

,

“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.

,

“the poetics of the “study-hall” and pedagogy must contribute more to our understanding of orality”

What is significant for orality studies as well as the mutual understanding of the production of the Bavli and Pahlavi legal literature is that the discursive elements of these corpora do not appear to originate in the silence of the scriptorium, rather in the din of the rabbinic house of study and the Hērbedestān – the Zoroastrian school of priestly studies. While scholars have focused on the role of performance or dramatics in their research of oral transmission, this paper suggests that the poetics of the “study-hall” and pedagogy must contribute more to our understanding of orality.

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), 160.

,

“…the Jewish innovation sector would benefit from new tools, beyond logic models, to help plan, assess and evaluate the work of the innovation sector”

Logic models were first developed in the early 1970s based on engineering models that rely on quantifiable inputs and outputs. Logic models provide a managerial tool for program planning and to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. Logic models often ask people to think and plan by reverse engineering – starting from the ultimate outcomes or desired results in order to devise the best path to achieve those results.

But how can Jewish innovators and their supporters create a logic model (based on those engineering models that rely on quantifiable inputs and outputs), when so much of what Jewish innovators AND Jewish traditionalists do is largely unquantifiable, focused on producing “meaning” and “engagement,” and appears qualitatively slippery?
…
A consensus emerged from this conference: the Jewish innovation sector would benefit from new tools, beyond logic models, to help plan, assess and evaluate the work of the innovation sector. This could help innovative organizations strengthen their work as well as help funders make funding decisions. The development of new tools to engage these questions was beyond the scope of the meeting. But one clear outcome of the meeting is that coming up with new ways to capture and map the creativity, flexibility, vitality, and dynamism of the Jewish innovation sector using different visual, conceptual, and analytic tools is a challenge and opportunity.

Caryn Aviv, “Haskalah 2.0”, Jumpstart Report 2 (Summer 2010), 11-13.

, ,

“The challenge for intermarried men raising Jewish children is the tenacity of traditional gender roles”

The challenge for intermarried men raising Jewish children is the tenacity of traditional gender roles. For the most part, men continue to be the main breadwinners for their families while women continue to be the information gatherers and social organizers, maintaining greater influence than their husbands over children’s ethnic and religious upbringing. Women’s hands rock the cradle, so to speak. As a result, men’s presence where Jewish identity is nurtured (at home, the community center, the school, the synagogue) is more limited. Gender will persist in influencing the disproportionately low transmission rate of Jewish identity to children of intermarried men compared to intermarried Jewish women so long as “men’s work” outside the home continues to be more valued than “women’s work” inside it.

Keren McGinity, “The Hand that Rocks the Cradle: How the Gender of the Jewish Parent Influences Intermarriage”, AJS Perspectives (Spring 2013), 42-43.

“If introductory formulas are not particular to a story but occur repeatedly, they are probably editorial”

If introductory formulas are not particular to a story but occur repeatedly, they are probably editorial. If their usage is limited to a particular sugya (logical unit of Talmud discussion) or tractate and they fit in with the general editorial strategies of a particular sugya or tractate, one may assume that the editors of that particular portion of text are responsible for their formulation. If such formulas appear in many different tractates or even different documents, it is likely that they were part of the tradition at a stage prior to its “final” redaction and inclusion into the present literary context.

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), 99.

“If we look at Jewish literature as an object of edition, the situation is…rather exceedingly complicated”

If we look at Jewish literature as an object of edition, the situation is certainly not easier than in other branches, but rather exceedingly complicated. Looking first at literature by and ascribed to a single author, so-called authored literature, we have to face not only the question of different manuscripts and fragments, but also that of different text versions, perhaps consciously created by the author, or at least by scribes and schools on the basis of reasons difficult to reconstruct. Furthermore, centuries of Church censorship, of voluntary or forced expurgation of allegedly anti-Christian variant readings and texts, of public burning of manuscripts and prints of Talmud and Midrash as well as authored tractates, render modern edition-making no easier.

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), 66.