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

JACOB NEUSNER, THE MISHNAH, AND VENTRILOQUISM

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

John C. Poirer writes:

Jacob Neusner’s ideas on the Mishnah have already been roundly criticized. Nevertheless many of Neusner’s extraordinary ideas still need to be examined. This response to Neusner’s reading of the Mishnah raises questions in four areas: (1) his treatment of all documents as manifestos that in some way disclose their authors’ self-definitions; (2) his adduction of the Mishnah’s ritual map as a datum that helps locate it among the philosophies of the ancient world, as if philosophies of sacred space were the exception and not the rule (thus typifying the Mishnah through what does not distinguish it, since the concept of “sacred ontology” typified the Mediterranean world); (3) his use of the Mishnah’s “ahistorical” language (including its choice of verb tense) as evidence that the Mishnah has no interest in history (thus again typifying the Mishnah through what does not distinguish it, in that it is not present at all); and (4) his unprofessed but evident use of structuralist analysis to use conclusions about the Mishnah’s “ahistorical” language as a corroboration and refinement of his “discovery” of the Mishnah’s “‘sacred ontology.” He ends up talking about an anti-eschatological Judaism that hierarchizes the cosmos in the same way as Aristotle. These unusual results are based not so much upon the data of the Mishnah as upon Neusner’s eisegetical reading of the text.

Jacob Neusner has written more on the Mishnah than anyone else. This article asks what we have gained from his efforts. As the title suggests, this review will argue that Neusner’s works on the Mishnah have not provided us with exegesis but rather ventriloquism. In his long list of commentaries and studies on the Mishnah, we continually hear Neusner’s voice recast in the guise of “the Mishnah’s philosophy.” Some of the substance of this study can be found elsewhere-the trenchant criticisms by Cohen, Maccoby, Sanders, and Evans should not be missed-but Neusner’s proposals about the Mishnah are so ambitious and extraordinary that they have not tired of criticism.

Posted in Jacob Neusner | Comments Off

The Analytic Movement: Hayyim Soloveitchik and his Circle by Norman Solomon

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

The history of Torah study is marked by various trends, such as Tosafistic analysis, the combination of philosophy and Talmud study, and pilpul. In this century, it is the “Brisker” method of Talmud study which stands out. The analytic approach developed by R. Hayyim Soloveitchik of Brisk (1853-1918) quickly conquered the yeshiva world and created a revolution in Talmud study. It is true that R. Hayyim did not create the Brisker method ex nihilo. Still, there is no doubt that this method reached its most polished state in R. Hayyim’s hands. He was the major force behind its development and his contribution was unique. Without exaggeration it is possible to say that R. Hayyim raised the quality of Talmud study to a level not seen since the days of the Tosafists. In hands the argumentation of the Talmud and rishonim assumed a “scientific” character, without parallel in previous generations. At the same time, he transformed the practical halakhic work par exellence—Maimonides’ Mishne Tor ah—into both the central feature of his theoretical analyses as well as the most profound commentary on the Talmud. By doing so, he became the first to reveal the profundity of the Mishne Torah in all of its grandeur. The centrality of Maimonides’ code in contemporary Talmudic shiurim is a direct result of R. Hayyim’s influence.1

As is to be expected with anything new, the approach of R. Hayyim met with opposition among many scholars. No doubt, there was a good deal of jealousy and small-mindedness in this opposition. It would not be surprising if there were those who, because of their inability to produce hiddushim of R. Hayyim’s quality, attempted to destroy his influence. Yet it is also true that a number of important gedolei Tisrael distanced themselves from R. Hayyim’s method of study. They did so not merely as a natural conservative response to the new method, but because they believed that R. Hayyim’s approach endangered the tradition of Talmud study.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Talmud | Comments Off

LAT: By easing its bar exam score, will California produce more Black and Latino lawyers?

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

The Los Angeles Times suggests that reducing standards will allow for more diversity.

Report:

For more than three decades, California has clung to one of the nation’s toughest testing standards for law school students hoping to practice law in the most populous state in the country.
But this month, the California Supreme Court, which oversees the state bar, agreed to lower the passing score for the exam, a victory for law school deans who have long hoped the change would raise the number of Black and Latino people practicing law…
“There is absolutely no evidence that shows having a higher score makes for better lawyers,” said UCLA School of Law Dean Jennifer L. Mnookin, a longtime supporter of lowering the passing score. “There is significant evidence that it reduces the diversity of the bar.”
Forty percent of California’s population is white, 60% are people of color. But 68% of California lawyers are white, and only 32% are people of color, according to a new report by the State Bar of California.

Posted in Law | Comments Off

Boy

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

Jack writes: The term persists in the name “busboy” which is still used. Because of child labor laws, menial jobs that were once done by children or young teens (e.g. bellboy, shoe shine boy) are now done by full grown adults but the “boy” description still sometimes attaches. In other cases (“ball boy”) the job is still done by children (though often nowadays by girls).

Naturally, being the lowest skilled, the grown men who replaced children in these menial jobs were often black but the job title was still “boy” – there was no racial angle. In the old days, IQ was sometimes express as mental age, so it’s not surprising that a job once done by a white 12 year old would become one that a black 16+ year old was capable of in the age of child labor laws.

Posted in America | Comments Off

What Many Transgender Activists Don’t Want You to Know: and why you should know it anyway

Posted on July 26, 2020 by Luke Ford

J. Michael Bailey writes: Currently the predominant cultural understanding of male-to-female transsexualism is that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men’s bodies. This understanding has little scientific basis, however, and is inconsistent with clinical observations. Ray Blanchard has shown that there are two distinct subtypes of MtF transsexuals. Members of one subtype, homosexual transsexuals, are best understood as a type of homosexual male. The other subtype, autogynephilic transsexuals, are motivated by the erotic desire to become women. The persistence of the predominant cultural understanding, while explicable, is damaging to science and to many transsexuals.

Posted in Trans | Comments Off