This paper examines the sayings, maxims, stories, and aphorisms of the Talmud and Midrash in order to better understand the philosophy of life of Judaism’s ancient sages. More than 800 such recorded insights are examined and categorized. The sages of the Talmud were active from about 10 BCE until 500 CE, a period of more than 500 years, while most Midrash collections were written from the 2nd–10th centuries.
{"title":"Greatest Insights of the Talmudic Sages: A Roadmap for a Gratifying and Meaningful Life","authors":"Hershey H. Friedman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3454895","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3454895","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the sayings, maxims, stories, and aphorisms of the Talmud and Midrash in order to better understand the philosophy of life of Judaism’s ancient sages. More than 800 such recorded insights are examined and categorized. The sages of the Talmud were active from about 10 BCE until 500 CE, a period of more than 500 years, while most Midrash collections were written from the 2nd–10th centuries.","PeriodicalId":384115,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Judaism (Sub-Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123858661","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}
Russian Abstract: Дискуссия вокруг «государства алахи» (или еврейской традиции как источника права в современном государстве Израиль) стала одной из заметных тем перед выборами в XXII Кнессет. Автор ни в коей мере не претендует на основательное знание еврейской традиции. Данные комментарии сводятся либо к общеизвестным положениям еврейской Традиции, которые здесь просто напоминаются, либо представляют из себя интерпретацию некоторых норм традиции с точки зрения теории общественного выбора. В частности, здесь заостряется внимание на наиболее жестких обвинениях Традиции в проповеди жестокости, легитимации геноцида, неравенства и т.п.
English Abstract: Halacha and Jewish Tradition as a source for modern Legislation of State of Israel become one of a significant issue of the XXII Elections’ campaign. Here the reader is provided by some simplest references on the very basic facts of Jewish tradition (the author is an economist, not rabbi) and by the comments from the point of view of Public Choice Theory. Special comments are devoted to the most harshly criticized halachic norms blamed as a legitimization of cruelty, genocide atrocities, and discrimination.
The Supreme Court's experts (being far from supportive to the Halacha) agree on the fact of the noticeable influence of the Halacha even on the acting norms of the modern State of Israel.
{"title":"«Государство алахи»: что полезно знать, прежде чем задавать вопросы сведущим в Традиции людям (Halachic State: Some Pieces of Information Worth Knowing, Before Questioning Educated People)","authors":"K. Yanovskiy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3413929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3413929","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Дискуссия вокруг «государства алахи» (или еврейской традиции как источника права в современном государстве Израиль) стала одной из заметных тем перед выборами в XXII Кнессет. Автор ни в коей мере не претендует на основательное знание еврейской традиции. Данные комментарии сводятся либо к общеизвестным положениям еврейской Традиции, которые здесь просто напоминаются, либо представляют из себя интерпретацию некоторых норм традиции с точки зрения теории общественного выбора. В частности, здесь заостряется внимание на наиболее жестких обвинениях Традиции в проповеди жестокости, легитимации геноцида, неравенства и т.п.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> Halacha and Jewish Tradition as a source for modern Legislation of State of Israel become one of a significant issue of the XXII Elections’ campaign. Here the reader is provided by some simplest references on the very basic facts of Jewish tradition (the author is an economist, not rabbi) and by the comments from the point of view of Public Choice Theory. Special comments are devoted to the most harshly criticized halachic norms blamed as a legitimization of cruelty, genocide atrocities, and discrimination.<br><br>The Supreme Court's experts (being far from supportive to the Halacha) agree on the fact of the noticeable influence of the Halacha even on the acting norms of the modern State of Israel. <br>","PeriodicalId":384115,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Judaism (Sub-Topic)","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115445037","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}
Some historians have argued that one of the great theological innovations of the early Rabbis was to understand much of halakha as a form of spiritual discipline rather than a reflection of cosmic metaphysical reality. This view of halakhic nominalism has powerfully influenced at least major strains of the Jewish legal imagination writ large. And one possible upshot of that sort of approach is to understand the observant Jewish life as, in some sense, a form of "playacting." But understanding halakhic observance as playacting does not reduce the responsibility of halakhically-committed Jews, it only deepens it. For observant Jews to admit that they are acting in a play is no excuse for them to be sloppy actors. For the Rabbis also insisted that Jews have a duty to follow the script, to be authentic and convincing actors in the drama of Jewish religious life. They need to be actors, but darn serious actors. This short talk further explores the metaphor of playacting. It distinguishes the ritual script and the moral script and emphasizes the importance of navigating their complex relationship. It also widens the lens to a brief discussion of the larger script of human life. In that context, the playacting metaphor must be read to accommodate the divine gift of human free will. In a certain sense, God is the author, or director, or stage manager, or critic, of a single-performance live show, with little in the way of rehearsal and no retakes. It can go well. And it can also go badly. As C.S. Lewis put it, "Of course God knew what would happen if [human beings] used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk."
{"title":"Playacting: A D'Var Torah on Parshat Hukkat","authors":"Perry Dane","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2996216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2996216","url":null,"abstract":"Some historians have argued that one of the great theological innovations of the early Rabbis was to understand much of halakha as a form of spiritual discipline rather than a reflection of cosmic metaphysical reality. This view of halakhic nominalism has powerfully influenced at least major strains of the Jewish legal imagination writ large. And one possible upshot of that sort of approach is to understand the observant Jewish life as, in some sense, a form of \"playacting.\" But understanding halakhic observance as playacting does not reduce the responsibility of halakhically-committed Jews, it only deepens it. For observant Jews to admit that they are acting in a play is no excuse for them to be sloppy actors. For the Rabbis also insisted that Jews have a duty to follow the script, to be authentic and convincing actors in the drama of Jewish religious life. They need to be actors, but darn serious actors. \u0000This short talk further explores the metaphor of playacting. It distinguishes the ritual script and the moral script and emphasizes the importance of navigating their complex relationship. It also widens the lens to a brief discussion of the larger script of human life. In that context, the playacting metaphor must be read to accommodate the divine gift of human free will. In a certain sense, God is the author, or director, or stage manager, or critic, of a single-performance live show, with little in the way of rehearsal and no retakes. It can go well. And it can also go badly. As C.S. Lewis put it, \"Of course God knew what would happen if [human beings] used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk.\"","PeriodicalId":384115,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Judaism (Sub-Topic)","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122128865","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}
"Vanity oh Vanities, All is Vanity". So, begins the words of Kohelet, (Ecclesiastes), which is read on Succot, the Holiday of the Harvest. Supposedly one of the happiest of holidays, one wonders why we would diminish the joy of Succot with the morosings of an old King -- by reading twelve chapters lamenting the purposeless of existence. The given reasons are either contradictory, artificial or to my mind wholly unsatisfactory. Some commentators interpret this pathetically sad homily as being upbeat. Rather than acknowledging Solomon’s clear and forthcoming statements of futility, these commenters say he is asking a question so as to allow ourselves to ponder the meaning of existence. In this article I examine an alternative theory, which attempts to also reconcile the seemingly incongruous statement of Chapter 11 v. 23 with our universal view of King Solomon, who is said to have adopted the pseudonym, 'Kohelet' or the preacher. In this volume, the preacher writes: "All this have I tried by wisdom; I said: 'I will get wisdom'; but it was far from me." Since we know Solomon was imbued with unlimited wisdom, to what precisely does this sentence refer? One theory is that it alludes to the mystery of the Red Heifer, Para Aduma. The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 21b discusses the situation at some length, leading to the conclusion that Solomon could not be satisfied with the caveat that the injunction falls into the category of 'chok' or those laws for which mortals are not given to understand. Frustrated he could not puzzle out the mystery of the Red Heifer, when Moses was given to understand it, leads to the conclusion that Solomon's greatest desire was to be like Moses, not just in understanding, but in leadership. Against, this backdrop, the laments of the futility of endeavor become easier to understand.
{"title":"On Reading Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) on Succot (the Feast of the Tabernacles)","authors":"B. P. Billauer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2330406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2330406","url":null,"abstract":"\"Vanity oh Vanities, All is Vanity\". So, begins the words of Kohelet, (Ecclesiastes), which is read on Succot, the Holiday of the Harvest. Supposedly one of the happiest of holidays, one wonders why we would diminish the joy of Succot with the morosings of an old King -- by reading twelve chapters lamenting the purposeless of existence. The given reasons are either contradictory, artificial or to my mind wholly unsatisfactory. Some commentators interpret this pathetically sad homily as being upbeat. Rather than acknowledging Solomon’s clear and forthcoming statements of futility, these commenters say he is asking a question so as to allow ourselves to ponder the meaning of existence. In this article I examine an alternative theory, which attempts to also reconcile the seemingly incongruous statement of Chapter 11 v. 23 with our universal view of King Solomon, who is said to have adopted the pseudonym, 'Kohelet' or the preacher. In this volume, the preacher writes: \"All this have I tried by wisdom; I said: 'I will get wisdom'; but it was far from me.\" Since we know Solomon was imbued with unlimited wisdom, to what precisely does this sentence refer? One theory is that it alludes to the mystery of the Red Heifer, Para Aduma. The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 21b discusses the situation at some length, leading to the conclusion that Solomon could not be satisfied with the caveat that the injunction falls into the category of 'chok' or those laws for which mortals are not given to understand. Frustrated he could not puzzle out the mystery of the Red Heifer, when Moses was given to understand it, leads to the conclusion that Solomon's greatest desire was to be like Moses, not just in understanding, but in leadership. Against, this backdrop, the laments of the futility of endeavor become easier to understand.","PeriodicalId":384115,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Judaism (Sub-Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128361724","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：