July 26, 2020 Tradition in Transition: Orthodoxy, Halakhah, and the Boundaries of Modern Jewish Identity Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Hildesheimer came down firmly on the side of Orthodoxy. In his mind, Frankel, Graetz, and other professors at Breslau were heretics. Not only was Frankel a meshumad—which made him even worse than an apikores—but it was perhaps even a mitzva to burn his book Darkhe haMishna.16 Hildesheimer had the same view regarding the graduates of Frankel’s seminary.17 This harsh view was broadly shared among the German Orthodox. Yet as time went on, some elements of German Orthodoxy were able to take a more balanced look at both Frankel and his work. With this change, certain segments of Orthodoxy, especially the Berlin variety, began to adopt a more sympathetic approach to Frankel and the sort of scholarship he represented.18 Horovitz adopted a more positive attitude than his teacher Hildesheimer. In referring to Frankel, he prefaced his name with the compliments usually reserved for Orthodox scholars.19 However, he did very conspicuously neglect to add the customary “of blessed.memory” after his name; a fact which did not go unnoticed.20

Hoffmann makes good use of Frankel’s works. Whether this is a sign of a positive attitude to Frankel is not certain for Hoffmann’s practice was to quote anyone without concern for their religious beliefs. He recognized that good scholarship cannot limit its choice of sources or neglect proper historical methodology.21 Thus, whether Hoffmann held the same view of Frankel that Hildesheimer did cannot be definitely established. Even a close examination of Hoffmann’s writings will not settle the question for he was always very respectful in what he wrote, even when confronting those who denied the very basis of what to him was holy.22 However, the general impression one gets from the way he approaches Frankel’s works is that Hoffmann, much like Horovitz, had a positive, or at the very least neutral, opinion of Frankel.

With Weinberg, we see more than we have seen so far. For him, not only was Frankel not a heretic, he was actually a good Jew. Weinberg calls him Rabbi and on occasion affixes the phrase zikhrono livrakha after his name; a sure sign of respect, and one that is notably missing when Weinberg mentions Geiger.23 Fie cites the Darkhe haMishna throughout his works and considers this book to be a basic text and a forerunner for Floffmann’s later studies of the Mishna. He also defends Frankel against Isaac FHalevy’s harsh attacks throughout the latter’s Dorot haRishonim attacks in the spirit of Hildesheimer.

Posted in Judaism, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off

RABBI DAVID TSEVI HOFFMANN ON ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT WITH THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 1999:

When, in the early 1920’s, serious planning for a Jewish University in Jerusalem got underway, the Orthodox community was put into a quandary. The notion of a university in Jerusalem in which heretical ideas, in particular biblical criticism, were taught was not something most Orthodox Jews could easily stomach. As can be imagined, there were great protests by many leading East European scholars, which reached their peak around the time or the April I, 1925, formal inauguration of the institution. Adding to the consternation of the Orthodox leaders was that many of the university’s partisans viewed its inauguration in almost Utopian terms, even affixing the verse “For out of Zion shall come forth Torah” to the new university.1

Not surprisingly, the German Orthodox followers of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, whose commitment to secular studies was equaled by their strident opposition to Wissenschart des Judentums and organizational affiliation with the non-Orthodox, were very vocal in this battle, for them, while it was entirely proper, in accordance with the Torah im Derekh Erets ideal, to attend a non-Jewish university, it was absolutely forbidden to have any involvement with a Jewish university in which heresy was countenanced.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off

Judaism & The Trinity

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

Throughout Jewish literature one can find any number of explanations as to how the notion of the Trinity is in direct opposition to Jewish teachings, since Judaism demands a simple, unified God. There is no doubt that for much of our history this was the standard view. However, once the doctrine of the sefirot arises on the scene, matters change. Many of the arguments put forth by kabbalists to explain why the belief in the sefirot does not detract from God’s essential unity could also be used to justify the Trinity, a fact recognized by the opponents of the sefirotic doctrine. Since the doctrine of the sefirot has become part and parcel of Judaism, we must now acknowledge that Judaism does not require a simple Maimonidean-like, divine unity.

In fact, without any reference to the sefirot, R. Judah Aryeh Modena was able to conclude that one could indeed justify the notion of the Trinity so that it did not stand in opposition to basic Jewish beliefs about God’s unity. As Modena points out in his anti-Christian polemic, Magen va-Herev, the real Jewish objection to the Christian godhead is not found in any notion of a Triune God, but in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.35 The idea that God assumed human form, i.e., that a human is also God, is regarded by us as way over the line. This is not only because it deifies a human, but also because there is a great difference between a spiritual God divided into different “parts,” and an actual physical division in God. The latter is certainly in violation of God’s unity even according to the most extreme sefirotic formulations. (It would not, however, appear to be in violation of R. Moses Taku’s understanding of God, since he posits that God can assume form in this world at the same time that He is in the heavens. For Taku, Christianity’s heresy would thus be seen only in their worship of a human, which is avodah zarah.)

From the Trinity, let’s turn to Virgin Birth, another phenomenon which everyone knows is not a Jewish concept, or is it? If by Virgin Birth one means conception through the agency of God, then there is no such concept in Judaism. Yet if by Virgin Birth we also include conception without the presence of human sperm, then as we shall soon see, this indeed accepted by some scholars. (I stress human sperm, so that we can exclude the legend of Ben Sira’s conception, which occurred by means of a bathtub, not to mention all of the responsa dealing with artificial insemination.)

Pre-modern man believed in all sorts of strange things, one of which was the concept of the incubus and the succubus, which was found in many cultures. The idea was that male and female demons would have sex with humans while they slept. Among the outstanding Christian figures who believed the notion possible include Augustine and Aquinas.36 This was an especially good way to explain an unwanted pregnancy: just blame it on the demon. While the classic example of the incubus is when a male demon comes upon a sleeping woman, there were times when this happened while both parties were awake, and we will soon see such a case in Jewish history. Lest one think that this is only a pre-modern superstition, what about all those people who claim to have had sexual relations with aliens who abducted them?

Posted in Christianity, Judaism, Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off

Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 2009:

In my book I gave many examples of Maimonides misquoting verses from the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible, which I attributed to Maimonides citing from memory. It is not uncommon for medieval writers or even modern ones to misquote verses for this very reason. I don’t know why Buchman thinks Maimonides should be immune to this.

Buchman believes that it is more plausible to assume that Maimonides had alternate versions of these biblical texts, and this explains the misquotations. This is an untenable suggestion. To begin with, many of the misquotations are combinations of verses or Maimonides citing the wrong verse. As for the other misquotations, where only a word or two is different, in many of these cases Maimonides cites the verse accurately elsewhere, even in the same book. Furthermore, when it comes to the Mishneh Torah we know that he had access to the Ben Asher text, which he examined carefully with regard to the Pentateuch.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits’s Halakic Vision for the Modern Age

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes in 2013:

How is Jewish law supposed to respond to the incredible changes that have taken place in modern times, most important of which are the expanded role of women in society and the creation of the State of Israel? For Eliezer Berkovits, these changes require a different approach to halakah than is currently seen, yet this approach should should not be seen as any sort of “reform,” but rather a return to original halakic values that due to historical circumstances were not able to be brought to fruition until modern times. Sharply delineating his approach from traditionalist Orthodoxy on the one hand, and the Conservative view of halakah on the other, Berkovits offers a dynamic approach to halakah that seeks to return the halakic process to the precodification era.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits is a figure who provokes diverse reactions. This is especially the case when it comes to his halakic writings. Some advocates see them as the way to a dynamic halakah. On the other hand, his approach has been strongly criticized by those who see it as little different than Conservative Judaism. Much like his teacher, R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, who never really found his place after World War II, so too Berkovits, because of his unique halakic vision, was destined to remain isolated from many of his Orthodox colleagues.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off