Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904508
M. Keren-Kratz
Abstract:It is important to remember not only that many Jews rejected Zionism but also that for some it symbolized an abomination, heresy, and the worst collective sin the Jewish people have ever committed. Since it was first published in 1960, Va-yo'el Moshe—a book written by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the SatmarRebbe—is considered the most radical anti-Zionist text written by a Jew in modern history. During the ensuing sixty years, the book has reappeared in more than a dozen full editions and been translated into several languages. At least thirty further volumes have offered interpretations, adapted it for children, compiled digests, or reviewed its relevance to various ideological issues or halakhic rulings.The essay presents the history of Jewish anti-Zionist texts published prior to Va-yo'el Moshe and briefly reviews Teitelbaum's biography to explain his motivation for writing the book. It then outlines the book's contents and the religious principles that support its main theses. Last, it reviews the Jewish public's reaction to the book and explains how and why it became a canonical text among Jewish Orthodoxy's most radical wing, which in this article is titled Extreme Orthodoxy.
{"title":"Va-yo'el Moshe: The Most Anti-Zionist and Anti-Israeli Jewish Text in Modern Times","authors":"M. Keren-Kratz","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904508","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:It is important to remember not only that many Jews rejected Zionism but also that for some it symbolized an abomination, heresy, and the worst collective sin the Jewish people have ever committed. Since it was first published in 1960, Va-yo'el Moshe—a book written by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the SatmarRebbe—is considered the most radical anti-Zionist text written by a Jew in modern history. During the ensuing sixty years, the book has reappeared in more than a dozen full editions and been translated into several languages. At least thirty further volumes have offered interpretations, adapted it for children, compiled digests, or reviewed its relevance to various ideological issues or halakhic rulings.The essay presents the history of Jewish anti-Zionist texts published prior to Va-yo'el Moshe and briefly reviews Teitelbaum's biography to explain his motivation for writing the book. It then outlines the book's contents and the religious principles that support its main theses. Last, it reviews the Jewish public's reaction to the book and explains how and why it became a canonical text among Jewish Orthodoxy's most radical wing, which in this article is titled Extreme Orthodoxy.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"479 - 505"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76059720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904509
J. Habib
Abstract:In the introduction to his commentary on the book of Genesis, the early tenth-century Karaite Yaqub al-Qirqisani enumerated thirty-seven principles of biblical exegesis. Up until now, only the first twenty-four principles had been published, and only ten of those translated into a modern language. The purpose of this essay is to present the text of the twenty-fifth through thirty-seventh principles, critically edited, accompanied by an annotated English translation. The text is prefaced by a brief discussion of al-Qirqisani, his works, and the relationship of the exegetical principles to his other compositions.
{"title":"Ya'qūb al-Qirqisānī's Twenty-Fifth through Thirty-Seventh Exegetical Principles","authors":"J. Habib","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904509","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In the introduction to his commentary on the book of Genesis, the early tenth-century Karaite Yaqub al-Qirqisani enumerated thirty-seven principles of biblical exegesis. Up until now, only the first twenty-four principles had been published, and only ten of those translated into a modern language. The purpose of this essay is to present the text of the twenty-fifth through thirty-seventh principles, critically edited, accompanied by an annotated English translation. The text is prefaced by a brief discussion of al-Qirqisani, his works, and the relationship of the exegetical principles to his other compositions.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"19 1","pages":"507 - 533"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82683885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904507
Orr Scharf
Abstract:The giving of the Torah at Sinai is the cornerstone of Jewish faith in divine revelation. Yet the account in the book of Exodus (19–20) is riddled with questionable descriptions that have puzzled commentators and exegetes from early midrash onward. In the early twentieth century, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918) and Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) attempted to reconcile the advent of modern philosophy with the bequeathal of Jewish tradition. From their viewpoint, Ex 19–20 raised epistemological difficulties and was fraught with questionable ontological assertions. Yet, since revelation, premised on its classic Jewish formulations, was central to the thought of Cohen and Rosenzweig alike, Sinai could neither be ignored nor silenced; it had to be accommodated. This essay traces the interpretive strategies Cohen and Rosenzweig employed to construct philosophical conceptions of revelation grounded in biblical prooftexts. A close reading of Cohen's The Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism and Rosenzweig's The Star of Redemption shows that by choosing alternative biblical prooftexts (Cohen: Deuteronomy; Rosenzweig: Song of Songs), they endorsed the historical impact of Sinai on the Jewish idea of revelation without accepting it as a historically verifiable event. The essay suggests that the reliance of the two philosophers on rabbinic literature to complete their interpretive strategies is the most subtle and illuminating aspect of their reception of Sinaitic revelation.
{"title":"From Sinai to This Day: Hermann Cohen's and Franz Rosenzweig's Recasting of the Giving of the Torah","authors":"Orr Scharf","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904507","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The giving of the Torah at Sinai is the cornerstone of Jewish faith in divine revelation. Yet the account in the book of Exodus (19–20) is riddled with questionable descriptions that have puzzled commentators and exegetes from early midrash onward. In the early twentieth century, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918) and Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) attempted to reconcile the advent of modern philosophy with the bequeathal of Jewish tradition. From their viewpoint, Ex 19–20 raised epistemological difficulties and was fraught with questionable ontological assertions. Yet, since revelation, premised on its classic Jewish formulations, was central to the thought of Cohen and Rosenzweig alike, Sinai could neither be ignored nor silenced; it had to be accommodated. This essay traces the interpretive strategies Cohen and Rosenzweig employed to construct philosophical conceptions of revelation grounded in biblical prooftexts. A close reading of Cohen's The Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism and Rosenzweig's The Star of Redemption shows that by choosing alternative biblical prooftexts (Cohen: Deuteronomy; Rosenzweig: Song of Songs), they endorsed the historical impact of Sinai on the Jewish idea of revelation without accepting it as a historically verifiable event. The essay suggests that the reliance of the two philosophers on rabbinic literature to complete their interpretive strategies is the most subtle and illuminating aspect of their reception of Sinaitic revelation.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"452 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89149336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904505
M. Jánošíková, Iris Idelson-Shein
Abstract:This essay explores the phenomenon of the translation of scientific works from European languages into Yiddish from the early sixteenth century through the late eighteenth century. By following the trajectory of texts and ideas from the non-Jewish realm to the Ashkenazi Jewish vernacular, it draws attention to the ways in which cultural and scientific innovations reached Jewish readers of various classes, spaces, and genders well beyond the narrow elite of rabbinically or university-trained Jews. The essay challenges the notion that there existed in early modern Europe a neat division of labor between Hebrew, the language of the learned elite, and Yiddish, the language of the Jewish masses. It also contributes to recent scholarship calling into question the prominence of the Jewish Enlightenment (the Haskalah) as a harbinger of Ashkenazi interest in non-Jewish knowledge in general, and science in particular. Mapping the hitherto overlooked interactions between Yiddish readers and writers and early modern scientific thought, this essay opens avenues into new research on the complex relationships between the interrelated corpora of early modern Jews and Christians, physicians and rabbis, scholars and laypeople.
{"title":"New Science in Old Yiddish: Jewish Vernacular Science and Translation in Early Modern Europe","authors":"M. Jánošíková, Iris Idelson-Shein","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904505","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay explores the phenomenon of the translation of scientific works from European languages into Yiddish from the early sixteenth century through the late eighteenth century. By following the trajectory of texts and ideas from the non-Jewish realm to the Ashkenazi Jewish vernacular, it draws attention to the ways in which cultural and scientific innovations reached Jewish readers of various classes, spaces, and genders well beyond the narrow elite of rabbinically or university-trained Jews. The essay challenges the notion that there existed in early modern Europe a neat division of labor between Hebrew, the language of the learned elite, and Yiddish, the language of the Jewish masses. It also contributes to recent scholarship calling into question the prominence of the Jewish Enlightenment (the Haskalah) as a harbinger of Ashkenazi interest in non-Jewish knowledge in general, and science in particular. Mapping the hitherto overlooked interactions between Yiddish readers and writers and early modern scientific thought, this essay opens avenues into new research on the complex relationships between the interrelated corpora of early modern Jews and Christians, physicians and rabbis, scholars and laypeople.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"394 - 423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79176582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904503
B. Wimpfheimer
Abstract:The Mishnah is both the best-organized work of rabbinic literature and not entirely consistent in its organization. These aspects led to robust scholarly debates about the Mishnah as a work of literature. Recent overview scholarship has highlighted the inconsistency and refused to attempt to define the Mishnah's literary genre. This essay draws on three common mishnaic phenomena to highlight the ways the Mishnah asks to be read. It argues that the Mishnah employs legal couplets (paired statutory case presentations) to communicate the presence of underlying conceptual meaning and to train the reader to mine the text for such meaning. It shows that the Mishnah stacks couplets like building blocks to produce ever-richer conceptual understandings of mishnaic information. Finally, it highlights and embraces the role that readers must play in producing the Mishnah's fullest meaning.
{"title":"The Mishnah's Reader: Reconsidering Literary Meaning","authors":"B. Wimpfheimer","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904503","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The Mishnah is both the best-organized work of rabbinic literature and not entirely consistent in its organization. These aspects led to robust scholarly debates about the Mishnah as a work of literature. Recent overview scholarship has highlighted the inconsistency and refused to attempt to define the Mishnah's literary genre. This essay draws on three common mishnaic phenomena to highlight the ways the Mishnah asks to be read. It argues that the Mishnah employs legal couplets (paired statutory case presentations) to communicate the presence of underlying conceptual meaning and to train the reader to mine the text for such meaning. It shows that the Mishnah stacks couplets like building blocks to produce ever-richer conceptual understandings of mishnaic information. Finally, it highlights and embraces the role that readers must play in producing the Mishnah's fullest meaning.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"335 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78291851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904504
Yakov Z. Mayer
Abstract:Shlomo Sirilio, a resident of sixteenth-century Safed, created a radical adaptation of the Jerusalem Talmud based on its 1523 editio princeps. He sweepingly adapted the talmudic text, expanded it with medieval materials, and added novel material, based on his creative scholarly intuition. This essay describes Sirilio's scholarly conception and distinguishes between the medieval motifs and the innovative Renaissance ideas that shaped his work. It argues that such a creative approach could not have been created in the centers of humanistic culture, but only in the peripheral locale of Safed, where humanistic ideas could be developed without polemical undertones.
{"title":"Writing the Talmud Anew: Shlomo Sirilio's Renaissance Edition of the Jerusalem Talmud","authors":"Yakov Z. Mayer","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904504","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Shlomo Sirilio, a resident of sixteenth-century Safed, created a radical adaptation of the Jerusalem Talmud based on its 1523 editio princeps. He sweepingly adapted the talmudic text, expanded it with medieval materials, and added novel material, based on his creative scholarly intuition. This essay describes Sirilio's scholarly conception and distinguishes between the medieval motifs and the innovative Renaissance ideas that shaped his work. It argues that such a creative approach could not have been created in the centers of humanistic culture, but only in the peripheral locale of Safed, where humanistic ideas could be developed without polemical undertones.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"16 1","pages":"368 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87146813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-01DOI: 10.1353/jqr.2023.a904506
Natasha Gordinsky, Rafi Tsirkin-Sadan
Abstract:This article explores the understudied role of Gomel as an important center of literary production during the emergence of Hebrew modernism at the turn of the twentieth century. Prominent writers such as Gershon Shofman, Yosef Haim Brenner, and Uri Nissan Gnessin fostered personal and literary dialogues in and with the city. By combining various methodological approaches—New Historicism, literary cartography, and regional history—we analyze the unique spatial dynamics that sparked Gomel's transformation into a laboratory of Hebrew modernism. While grounding our readings of Shofman, Brenner, and Gnessin in the spatial turn in literary theory, we argue that these three canonical Hebrew writers created literary texts that captured the urban experience of this eastern European Jewish metropolis.We trace the evolution of Hebrew texts written in Gomel from a synchronic perspective and construct a detailed description of the town's literary-cum-cultural history. At the same time, we focus on Gomel's broader historical and geographical status within the Pale of Settlement and demonstrate how each of the three writers used a different literary genre—the urban miniature, the novel, and the novella—to create a unique representation of Gomel's urban space. Furthermore, by focusing on the chronotope of Gomel, our readings of Shofman, Brenner, and Gnessin underscore that these texts are grounded in Gomel's urban fabric through particular forms of local belonging, rather than an abstract notion of "uprooted" existence.
{"title":"Hebrew Gomel: Space, Genre, Modernity","authors":"Natasha Gordinsky, Rafi Tsirkin-Sadan","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.a904506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a904506","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article explores the understudied role of Gomel as an important center of literary production during the emergence of Hebrew modernism at the turn of the twentieth century. Prominent writers such as Gershon Shofman, Yosef Haim Brenner, and Uri Nissan Gnessin fostered personal and literary dialogues in and with the city. By combining various methodological approaches—New Historicism, literary cartography, and regional history—we analyze the unique spatial dynamics that sparked Gomel's transformation into a laboratory of Hebrew modernism. While grounding our readings of Shofman, Brenner, and Gnessin in the spatial turn in literary theory, we argue that these three canonical Hebrew writers created literary texts that captured the urban experience of this eastern European Jewish metropolis.We trace the evolution of Hebrew texts written in Gomel from a synchronic perspective and construct a detailed description of the town's literary-cum-cultural history. At the same time, we focus on Gomel's broader historical and geographical status within the Pale of Settlement and demonstrate how each of the three writers used a different literary genre—the urban miniature, the novel, and the novella—to create a unique representation of Gomel's urban space. Furthermore, by focusing on the chronotope of Gomel, our readings of Shofman, Brenner, and Gnessin underscore that these texts are grounded in Gomel's urban fabric through particular forms of local belonging, rather than an abstract notion of \"uprooted\" existence.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"424 - 451"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73404861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T O W H AT D E G R E E I S J E W I S H S T U D I E S still engaging with the myth of the Jew? A popular view identifies Jewish monotheism with a consistent opposition to mythological cyclicality and a pantheistic view of nature. In contrast, academic research demonstrated how limited this view is, and how impor tant mythological themes have been to Jewish scripture and commentary.1 Take, for example, the impact of mythological images of nefilim— fallen beings, but also angels or giants— most clearly vis i ble at times of crisis and “ political judgments against royal power.”2 Three recent books—in political history, critical thought, and political theology— exemplify how vibrant but problematic mythmaking still is for our understanding of Jewish culture. Before turning to these recent books, however, it is worth briefly revisiting the history of the problematic relationship between Jews and their myths. If in premodern times Jews were represented in popular imagery as angels and giants, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the mythic
{"title":"The Myth of the Jew: Negating the Negation","authors":"Nitzan Lebovic","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.0021","url":null,"abstract":"T O W H AT D E G R E E I S J E W I S H S T U D I E S still engaging with the myth of the Jew? A popular view identifies Jewish monotheism with a consistent opposition to mythological cyclicality and a pantheistic view of nature. In contrast, academic research demonstrated how limited this view is, and how impor tant mythological themes have been to Jewish scripture and commentary.1 Take, for example, the impact of mythological images of nefilim— fallen beings, but also angels or giants— most clearly vis i ble at times of crisis and “ political judgments against royal power.”2 Three recent books—in political history, critical thought, and political theology— exemplify how vibrant but problematic mythmaking still is for our understanding of Jewish culture. Before turning to these recent books, however, it is worth briefly revisiting the history of the problematic relationship between Jews and their myths. If in premodern times Jews were represented in popular imagery as angels and giants, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the mythic","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"327 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85022857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This essay explores the relationship between Buber's philosophy of history and his political theory, known also as theopolitics. Buber's first book on theopolitics, Kingship of God (1932), implemented the principle of dialogue as a critique of leadership. Dialogue reconciles the paradox of authoritarian theocracy and absolute freedom of anarchy: it unites the interhuman relationship (religious anarchy) and the divine-human relationship (direct theocracy). Without dialogue, anarchy would become chaotic and theocracy would actually mean the tyranny of the priests (hierocracy). But Buber's theopolitics also revealed a particular understanding of history. As this essay demonstrates, Buber held a notion of dialogical history (contrary to Hegelian dialectic history), which ultimately functioned as a critique of the history of victory and power. Dialogical history criticizes not only secular but also any kind of religious or sacred history claiming to authorize human power by divine justification. Dialogical history, therefore, should be seen as "counter-history," not only because it is based on a rehabilitation of myth (Hasidic tales and biblical myths) but also because it is engaged in an alternate philosophy of history, whose fulfillment is vouchsafed neither by the necessary unfolding of a spirit, nor by "great" historical deeds, but by everyday human agency and responsibility alone.
摘要:本文探讨了布伯的历史哲学与其政治理论(又称神权政治学)之间的关系。布伯关于神权政治的第一本著作《上帝的王权》(Kingship of God, 1932)将对话原则作为对领导力的批判。对话调和了专制神权和绝对自由的无政府状态的悖论:它统一了人与人之间的关系(宗教无政府状态)和神人关系(直接神权)。如果没有对话，无政府状态就会变得混乱，神权政治实际上意味着祭司的暴政(等级政治)。但布伯的神权政治也揭示了他对历史的特殊理解。正如本文所展示的那样，布伯持有对话历史的概念(与黑格尔的辩证法历史相反)，其最终功能是对胜利和权力的历史进行批判。对话历史不仅批判世俗历史，而且批判任何一种宗教或神圣的历史，这些历史声称通过神的理由来授权人类的权力。因此，对话历史应该被视为“反历史”，不仅因为它基于神话(哈西德派故事和圣经神话)的复兴，还因为它参与了另一种历史哲学，这种哲学的实现既不是由精神的必要展开，也不是由“伟大的”历史事迹，而是由日常的人类代理和责任来保证的。
{"title":"Martin Buber's Dialogical History: Theopolitics as a Critique of the History of Human Power","authors":"Yemima Hadad","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay explores the relationship between Buber's philosophy of history and his political theory, known also as theopolitics. Buber's first book on theopolitics, Kingship of God (1932), implemented the principle of dialogue as a critique of leadership. Dialogue reconciles the paradox of authoritarian theocracy and absolute freedom of anarchy: it unites the interhuman relationship (religious anarchy) and the divine-human relationship (direct theocracy). Without dialogue, anarchy would become chaotic and theocracy would actually mean the tyranny of the priests (hierocracy). But Buber's theopolitics also revealed a particular understanding of history. As this essay demonstrates, Buber held a notion of dialogical history (contrary to Hegelian dialectic history), which ultimately functioned as a critique of the history of victory and power. Dialogical history criticizes not only secular but also any kind of religious or sacred history claiming to authorize human power by divine justification. Dialogical history, therefore, should be seen as \"counter-history,\" not only because it is based on a rehabilitation of myth (Hasidic tales and biblical myths) but also because it is engaged in an alternate philosophy of history, whose fulfillment is vouchsafed neither by the necessary unfolding of a spirit, nor by \"great\" historical deeds, but by everyday human agency and responsibility alone.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"249 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84206599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The early American Yiddish and Hebrew presses had various affinities and bonds. This essay seeks to examine the connections between newspapers written in the Hebrew alphabet in the United States between the 1870s and 1890s and highlight the parallel process of growth undergone by periodicals in both languages. Diverting from standard research in this area that treats the Yiddish and Hebrew presses in the United States as two separate entities, this essay emphasizes the points of contact and proximity between them. It reviews the interconnectedness of the Hebrew and Yiddish presses during its first two decades, emphasizing personalities and material culture, and situates the phenomenon against its broader cultural background. More specifically, it presents a case study—Hebrew and Yiddish periodicals published in Chicago in 1889—and compares the periodicals' content and form. The essay then traces the geographical and cultural bilingual heritage of the publications' founders. By analyzing the features and origins of these contacts, this essay offers a different and more nuanced consideration of the historical perception of Hebrew and Yiddish in the American context.
{"title":"Breathing, Nostrils, and the Press: Rethinking the Hebrew–Yiddish Axis in the United States, 1870–1900","authors":"Yael Levi","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2023.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.0020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The early American Yiddish and Hebrew presses had various affinities and bonds. This essay seeks to examine the connections between newspapers written in the Hebrew alphabet in the United States between the 1870s and 1890s and highlight the parallel process of growth undergone by periodicals in both languages. Diverting from standard research in this area that treats the Yiddish and Hebrew presses in the United States as two separate entities, this essay emphasizes the points of contact and proximity between them. It reviews the interconnectedness of the Hebrew and Yiddish presses during its first two decades, emphasizing personalities and material culture, and situates the phenomenon against its broader cultural background. More specifically, it presents a case study—Hebrew and Yiddish periodicals published in Chicago in 1889—and compares the periodicals' content and form. The essay then traces the geographical and cultural bilingual heritage of the publications' founders. By analyzing the features and origins of these contacts, this essay offers a different and more nuanced consideration of the historical perception of Hebrew and Yiddish in the American context.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"67 1","pages":"304 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75644048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：