{"title":"An Ordinary Tale of Solidarity and Survival? Reflections on Jacques Sémelin's The Survival of the Jews in France, 1940–44","authors":"Aliza Luft","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"280 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47585354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:Since running across a small book of hagiography in a prayer room on the Upper West Side in the 1970s, I have been fascinated with Eliezer Ze'ev Rosenbaum, the Sabba of Kretchnef, or the Kretchnefer Zeide, who was murdered at Birkenau on the 27th of Iyyar (May 20), 1944. The Kretchnefer Zeide, while remembered, was one of many. To paraphrase Alan Nadler's estimation of R. Pinchas of Polotsk, he is paradigmatic because he was an unexceptional figure. One dimension of the Judaism practiced by rebbes such as the Kretchnefer Zeide was the need and desire to stretch the boundaries of the law's demands on him. The intensity of his kabbalistic and religious practice was the defining aspect of his rabbinical leadership, and his effect on the communities of Sighet and Kretchnef. Although he was unexceptional, in remembering the Kretchnefer Zeide through the eyes of hagiographers, the reader is reminded of the old conundrum: we exalt these figures, yet they are ever conscious of their inadequacy. Are we seeing the rebbe, or are we seeing the Hasid seeing the rebbe?
{"title":"The Sabba of Kretchnef: The Life and Death of a Minor Tzaddik","authors":"P. Giller","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0026","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Since running across a small book of hagiography in a prayer room on the Upper West Side in the 1970s, I have been fascinated with Eliezer Ze'ev Rosenbaum, the Sabba of Kretchnef, or the Kretchnefer Zeide, who was murdered at Birkenau on the 27th of Iyyar (May 20), 1944. The Kretchnefer Zeide, while remembered, was one of many. To paraphrase Alan Nadler's estimation of R. Pinchas of Polotsk, he is paradigmatic because he was an unexceptional figure. One dimension of the Judaism practiced by rebbes such as the Kretchnefer Zeide was the need and desire to stretch the boundaries of the law's demands on him. The intensity of his kabbalistic and religious practice was the defining aspect of his rabbinical leadership, and his effect on the communities of Sighet and Kretchnef. Although he was unexceptional, in remembering the Kretchnefer Zeide through the eyes of hagiographers, the reader is reminded of the old conundrum: we exalt these figures, yet they are ever conscious of their inadequacy. Are we seeing the rebbe, or are we seeing the Hasid seeing the rebbe?","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"121 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44680497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:By the very nature of its subject, To Be or Not to Be (1942) caused Ernst Lubitsch considerable trouble, even though it came late in his successful film career, which began in Germany in 1913 and finished in Hollywood in 1947. It must be recalled that Lubitsch was Jewish and would in any case have been under heavy pressure to leave Germany after January 1933 had he not already done so ten years earlier. Adolf Hitler himself is said to have had a particular animus against Lubitsch, as a Berlin Jew who triumphed in the German film industry and then went on to further triumphs in Hollywood. The Nazi propaganda picture The Eternal Jew (1940) went so far as to display the director's face as an archetype of corruption and depravity.Along with The Shop Around the Corner (1940), Trouble in Paradise (1932), and Design for Living (1933), To Be or Not to Be ranks among Lubitsch's best films. It is a black comedy about Hitler at the same time as it was a morale-builder for Resistance fighters throughout Europe during World War II. Along with Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1940), itself a dark comedy about Hitler, To Be or Not to Be is an early landmark in the evolution of a modern genre: war-as-black-comedy. This essay reconsiders Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be in light of its controversial genre (sometimes described as grotesque satire or gallows humor), its relationship to the theater (including acting), and the film's sociohistorical context (Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War II).
摘要：《生存与否》（1942）这部电影的主题本身就给恩斯特·卢比奇带来了不小的麻烦，尽管它发生在他成功的电影生涯的后期，1913年在德国开始，1947年在好莱坞结束。必须指出的是，卢比奇是犹太人，如果不是在十年前离开德国，他在1933年1月后无论如何都会面临离开德国的巨大压力。据说阿道夫·希特勒本人对卢比奇有着特殊的敌意，因为他是一名柏林犹太人，在德国电影业取得了胜利，然后又在好莱坞取得了进一步的胜利。纳粹宣传片《永恒的犹太人》（1940）甚至将这位导演的脸展示为腐败和堕落的原型。与《街角的商店》（1940年）、《天堂的麻烦》（1932年）和《生活的设计》（1933年）一样，《生存与否》也是卢比奇最好的电影之一。这是一部关于希特勒的黑色喜剧，同时也是二战期间欧洲各地抵抗运动战士的士气建设者。与查理·卓别林（Charlie Chaplin）的《大独裁者》（The Great Dictator，1940）一样，这本身就是一部关于希特勒的黑色喜剧，《成为或不成为》（To Be or Not To Be）是现代类型演变的早期里程碑：战争是黑色喜剧。本文根据卢比奇有争议的类型（有时被描述为怪诞讽刺或绞刑架幽默）、其与戏剧的关系（包括表演）以及电影的社会历史背景（纳粹主义、大屠杀和第二次世界大战），重新审视了卢比奇的《活下去还是不活下去》。
{"title":"Jews, Germans, and Comedy: Re-viewing Ernst Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be","authors":"R. Cardullo","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0024","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:By the very nature of its subject, To Be or Not to Be (1942) caused Ernst Lubitsch considerable trouble, even though it came late in his successful film career, which began in Germany in 1913 and finished in Hollywood in 1947. It must be recalled that Lubitsch was Jewish and would in any case have been under heavy pressure to leave Germany after January 1933 had he not already done so ten years earlier. Adolf Hitler himself is said to have had a particular animus against Lubitsch, as a Berlin Jew who triumphed in the German film industry and then went on to further triumphs in Hollywood. The Nazi propaganda picture The Eternal Jew (1940) went so far as to display the director's face as an archetype of corruption and depravity.Along with The Shop Around the Corner (1940), Trouble in Paradise (1932), and Design for Living (1933), To Be or Not to Be ranks among Lubitsch's best films. It is a black comedy about Hitler at the same time as it was a morale-builder for Resistance fighters throughout Europe during World War II. Along with Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1940), itself a dark comedy about Hitler, To Be or Not to Be is an early landmark in the evolution of a modern genre: war-as-black-comedy. This essay reconsiders Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be in light of its controversial genre (sometimes described as grotesque satire or gallows humor), its relationship to the theater (including acting), and the film's sociohistorical context (Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War II).","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"62 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49493635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Accusation: Blood Libel in an American Town by Edward Berenson (review)","authors":"J. Streicker","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"287 - 289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43373486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Portrayal of Jews in Modern Bielarusian Literature by Zina J. Gimpelevich (review)","authors":"A. Walke","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"290 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44480497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:In the age of social media, controversy has regularly erupted when tourists post inappropriate photographs of themselves at Holocaust memorial sites to their social media feeds. These "Shoah selfies" subsequently trigger vitriolic online shaming when outraged, self-appointed defenders of Holocaust memory accuse selfie-takers of desecrating the memory of the dead. But while these images are usually dismissed as evidence of bad taste and a crisis of Holocaust memory among younger generations, this paper argues that both Shoah selfies and Shoah selfie shaming fulfill other, more nuanced functions. Through a reading of Ukrainian filmmaker Sergei Losnitza's 2016 observational documentary Austerlitz, which depicts how tourists behave and photograph on a typical summer afternoon at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, I argue that however offensive they may be, Shoah selfies must be understood as examples of "social photographs." In media theorist Nathan Jurgenson's definition, a "social photograph" is a digital image whose "existence as a stand-alone media object is subordinate to its existence as a unit of communication." Within social media streams, they contribute to the photographer's ongoing narrative of self-fashioning. They also typify the rise of what Diana Popescu terms "post-witnessing," the urge to "investigate the past by undertaking a real and not only an imaginary journey of discovery" at Holocaust sites. As Shoah selfies show how new media have effected tremendous shifts in Holocaust memory, the overrepresentation of young women and effeminate men as targets of shaming show how this response to offensive Holocaust photography concurrently sustains oppressive gender hierarchies.
{"title":"Shoah Selfies, Shoah Selfie Shaming, and Social Photography in Sergei Loznitsa's Austerlitz (2016)","authors":"Daniel H. Magilow","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0027","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:In the age of social media, controversy has regularly erupted when tourists post inappropriate photographs of themselves at Holocaust memorial sites to their social media feeds. These \"Shoah selfies\" subsequently trigger vitriolic online shaming when outraged, self-appointed defenders of Holocaust memory accuse selfie-takers of desecrating the memory of the dead. But while these images are usually dismissed as evidence of bad taste and a crisis of Holocaust memory among younger generations, this paper argues that both Shoah selfies and Shoah selfie shaming fulfill other, more nuanced functions. Through a reading of Ukrainian filmmaker Sergei Losnitza's 2016 observational documentary Austerlitz, which depicts how tourists behave and photograph on a typical summer afternoon at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, I argue that however offensive they may be, Shoah selfies must be understood as examples of \"social photographs.\" In media theorist Nathan Jurgenson's definition, a \"social photograph\" is a digital image whose \"existence as a stand-alone media object is subordinate to its existence as a unit of communication.\" Within social media streams, they contribute to the photographer's ongoing narrative of self-fashioning. They also typify the rise of what Diana Popescu terms \"post-witnessing,\" the urge to \"investigate the past by undertaking a real and not only an imaginary journey of discovery\" at Holocaust sites. As Shoah selfies show how new media have effected tremendous shifts in Holocaust memory, the overrepresentation of young women and effeminate men as targets of shaming show how this response to offensive Holocaust photography concurrently sustains oppressive gender hierarchies.","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"155 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48459577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:Two methodologies dominate recent scholarship on early twentieth-century Hebrew literature—discourse analysis and the transnational approach. These approaches' proponents disagree about this literature's political character. While pointing to how the discourse analysts' work accords more effectively with historical research and how early twentieth-century Hebrew literature can be better understood in relationship to its political function, this article stresses how scholarship employing a transnational approach nonetheless contributes to more effective understanding of this literature. In fact, through analysis of Levi Aryeh Arieli's 1911 novella In the Light of Venus, this article will explore how the national, the transnational, the aesthetic, and the political are interwoven in early twentieth-century Hebrew literature, with these elements finding variant expression in different Hebrew works, even the works of individual authors. Despite this crisscrossing, Zionist objectives proved highly significant to Hebrew writers looking to contribute to the development of textual and spatial locations where Jews, especially Jewish men, could fully express their cosmopolitan character and universal beliefs and desires. Thus, while Arieli draws on the transnational literary milieu to aesthetically depict the modern individual's quest for religious experience, his engagement with gender and sexuality to promote Jewish gender and sexual norms considered best able to aid in promotion of Zionism aims in Palestine constitutes his novella's center of gravity. Such a reading offers a new way to look at Arieli and his literary work, as well as early twentieth-century Hebrew literary works with overlapping aesthetic and political aims.
{"title":"Pursuing Universalism Through the Particular: Zionism and Transnational Modernism in Arieli's \"In the Light of Venus\"","authors":"P. Hollander","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0025","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Two methodologies dominate recent scholarship on early twentieth-century Hebrew literature—discourse analysis and the transnational approach. These approaches' proponents disagree about this literature's political character. While pointing to how the discourse analysts' work accords more effectively with historical research and how early twentieth-century Hebrew literature can be better understood in relationship to its political function, this article stresses how scholarship employing a transnational approach nonetheless contributes to more effective understanding of this literature. In fact, through analysis of Levi Aryeh Arieli's 1911 novella In the Light of Venus, this article will explore how the national, the transnational, the aesthetic, and the political are interwoven in early twentieth-century Hebrew literature, with these elements finding variant expression in different Hebrew works, even the works of individual authors. Despite this crisscrossing, Zionist objectives proved highly significant to Hebrew writers looking to contribute to the development of textual and spatial locations where Jews, especially Jewish men, could fully express their cosmopolitan character and universal beliefs and desires. Thus, while Arieli draws on the transnational literary milieu to aesthetically depict the modern individual's quest for religious experience, his engagement with gender and sexuality to promote Jewish gender and sexual norms considered best able to aid in promotion of Zionism aims in Palestine constitutes his novella's center of gravity. Such a reading offers a new way to look at Arieli and his literary work, as well as early twentieth-century Hebrew literary works with overlapping aesthetic and political aims.","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"120 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44731925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
[...]some argue that the more apt comparison is not between Nazism's genocidal agenda and today, but rather between modern politics and the collaborationist Vichy regime.1 American politicians supportive of the "morally disastrous and legally dubious acts" of Donald Trump have been labeled "Vichy Republicans" for their willingness to make accommodations to Trump's exclusionary ideologies and values.2 While America under Trump is not completely analogous to France under occupation by a foreign power, if we extend the parallels from politics into the realm of society in times of extreme stress, the comparison with Vichy still holds. [...]Sémelin argues that Jews in France found significant support despite state-sanctioned antisemitism and that, "the maintenance of these social bonds between Jews and non-Jews was paramount when it came to thwarting a genocidal enterprise whose intention was to create an ever-widening gulf between the designated victims and the general population. "11 Calling this widespread movement of spontaneous help offered to Jews "social reactivity," Sémelin concludes, "These scattered and multiform responses from individual 'helpers' threw a protective and beneficent mantle over a group of people who had become the pariahs of the regime. The Vichy regime did not enact any "new basic anti-Jewish legislation" after December 11, 1942, but 1943 and 1944 still held disastrous consequences for thousands of Jews in France.16 The year 1942 was the height of deportations from France: 27,500 Jews in the greater Paris region were deported to death camps that year, and another 11,000 would be sent to the east from the capital in 1943 and 1944.17 As Sémelin notes, the difference between the numbers of French and foreign Jews deported is significant, a fact that he attributes to differences in social integration and networks.
{"title":"Contradictions: Contextualizing Social Solidarity and Jewish Exclusion in World War II France","authors":"Shannon L. Fogg","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0016","url":null,"abstract":"[...]some argue that the more apt comparison is not between Nazism's genocidal agenda and today, but rather between modern politics and the collaborationist Vichy regime.1 American politicians supportive of the \"morally disastrous and legally dubious acts\" of Donald Trump have been labeled \"Vichy Republicans\" for their willingness to make accommodations to Trump's exclusionary ideologies and values.2 While America under Trump is not completely analogous to France under occupation by a foreign power, if we extend the parallels from politics into the realm of society in times of extreme stress, the comparison with Vichy still holds. [...]Sémelin argues that Jews in France found significant support despite state-sanctioned antisemitism and that, \"the maintenance of these social bonds between Jews and non-Jews was paramount when it came to thwarting a genocidal enterprise whose intention was to create an ever-widening gulf between the designated victims and the general population. \"11 Calling this widespread movement of spontaneous help offered to Jews \"social reactivity,\" Sémelin concludes, \"These scattered and multiform responses from individual 'helpers' threw a protective and beneficent mantle over a group of people who had become the pariahs of the regime. The Vichy regime did not enact any \"new basic anti-Jewish legislation\" after December 11, 1942, but 1943 and 1944 still held disastrous consequences for thousands of Jews in France.16 The year 1942 was the height of deportations from France: 27,500 Jews in the greater Paris region were deported to death camps that year, and another 11,000 would be sent to the east from the capital in 1943 and 1944.17 As Sémelin notes, the difference between the numbers of French and foreign Jews deported is significant, a fact that he attributes to differences in social integration and networks.","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"257 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48926130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT:This study investigates how the Holy Land was experienced and perceived in the early modern era, by comparing the accounts of two travelers representing distinct but complementary vantage points: Evliya Çelebi (d. ca. 1685), a Sunni Muslim from Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, and Shemu'el ben David (d. 1673), a Karaite Jew from the Crimean Khanate, a vassal state on the periphery. Considering their specific views of the Holy Land and the kinds of traditions that the two contemporaries relate about the same sites they visited, we argue that both perceived the Holy Land not only through an intersecting scriptural lens, but also through a similar imperial lens that drew attention to and valorized the Ottoman presence over the sacred territory. Thus more broadly, the comparative study offers an alternative non-Eurocentric frame for exploring the relationship between empire, subject, and the holy in the early modern era.
摘要:本研究通过比较两位旅行者的叙述，探讨了近代早期人们是如何体验和感知圣地的。他们分别是来自奥斯曼帝国首都伊斯坦布尔的逊尼派穆斯林Evliya Çelebi(约1685年)和来自边缘附属国克里米亚汗国的卡拉特犹太人Shemu’el ben David(约1673年)。考虑到他们对圣地的特定看法，以及两位同时代人对他们所访问的同一遗址的各种传统，我们认为，他们不仅通过交叉的圣经镜头来看待圣地，而且通过类似的帝国镜头来关注和巩固奥斯曼帝国在神圣领土上的存在。因此，更广泛地说，比较研究为探索近代早期帝国、臣民和神圣之间的关系提供了另一种非欧洲中心的框架。
{"title":"An Ottoman Holy Land: Two Early Modern Travel Accounts and Imperial Subjectivity","authors":"O. Bashkin, Sooyong Kim","doi":"10.1353/sho.2021.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2021.0014","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:This study investigates how the Holy Land was experienced and perceived in the early modern era, by comparing the accounts of two travelers representing distinct but complementary vantage points: Evliya Çelebi (d. ca. 1685), a Sunni Muslim from Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, and Shemu'el ben David (d. 1673), a Karaite Jew from the Crimean Khanate, a vassal state on the periphery. Considering their specific views of the Holy Land and the kinds of traditions that the two contemporaries relate about the same sites they visited, we argue that both perceived the Holy Land not only through an intersecting scriptural lens, but also through a similar imperial lens that drew attention to and valorized the Ottoman presence over the sacred territory. Thus more broadly, the comparative study offers an alternative non-Eurocentric frame for exploring the relationship between empire, subject, and the holy in the early modern era.","PeriodicalId":21809,"journal":{"name":"Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49041117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：