M. Grodin, J. Kelly, Erin L. Miller, R. Kirschner, Joseph F. Polak
{"title":"Rabbinic Responsa and Spiritual Resistance during the Holocaust: The Life-for-Life Problem","authors":"M. Grodin, J. Kelly, Erin L. Miller, R. Kirschner, Joseph F. Polak","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjz012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjz012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"13 1","pages":"296 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73937698","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":"Kimmy Caplan. Amram Blau: The World of Neturei Karta’s Leader","authors":"M. Keren-Kratz","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84586973","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}
Following the disintegration of Austria--Hungary in 1918, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews found themselves as residents of other states—mainly Romania and Czechoslovakia. In this new situation, the question of their national identity became open to debate. Their “Hungarianess” having been rendered all but irrelevant, the option of a Jewish national identity became increasingly attractive, strengthened by a zeitgeist in which the notion of national self-determination was leading to the creation of new states, and groups (like the Jews), unable to claim an independent territory, were gaining recognition as “national minorities.” By the same token, Jewish national aspirations found reinforcement through decisions being made by the great powers through the instrument of the League of Nations, which in 1920 granted to Britain an internationally backed mandate with the aim of establishing in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people.” Among two groups of Jews in particular the collapse of Hungarian national identity created a deep crisis. The first group was the highly assimilated, whose decades-long effort to adopt the Hungarian language and culture and to become integrated into Hungarian society had been nullified at a single blow. For all practical purposes, their Magyar identification went from being an advantage to being a burden—and a potential source of danger. The second group, less to be expected, was the Orthodox. Known for their anti-assimilationist ideology, they might have been thought prime candidates for Jewish nationalism. Yet they fought fiercely against it because they regarded Jewish nationalism as a threat to the Orthodox ethos which was built on the concept of separation from other Jews on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. In 1919, now cut off from the Orthodox central office in Budapest, a number of prominent rabbis in Slovakia formed the “Central Bureau of Slovak Orthodox Congregations.” (The Czech communities, which lacked an organized Orthodoxy, were ignored.) A similar move took place in
{"title":"From a People to a Church by the Grace of the State: Another View of Hungarian Jewish Orthodoxy","authors":"Y. Sorek","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ006","url":null,"abstract":"Following the disintegration of Austria--Hungary in 1918, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews found themselves as residents of other states—mainly Romania and Czechoslovakia. In this new situation, the question of their national identity became open to debate. Their “Hungarianess” having been rendered all but irrelevant, the option of a Jewish national identity became increasingly attractive, strengthened by a zeitgeist in which the notion of national self-determination was leading to the creation of new states, and groups (like the Jews), unable to claim an independent territory, were gaining recognition as “national minorities.” By the same token, Jewish national aspirations found reinforcement through decisions being made by the great powers through the instrument of the League of Nations, which in 1920 granted to Britain an internationally backed mandate with the aim of establishing in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people.” Among two groups of Jews in particular the collapse of Hungarian national identity created a deep crisis. The first group was the highly assimilated, whose decades-long effort to adopt the Hungarian language and culture and to become integrated into Hungarian society had been nullified at a single blow. For all practical purposes, their Magyar identification went from being an advantage to being a burden—and a potential source of danger. The second group, less to be expected, was the Orthodox. Known for their anti-assimilationist ideology, they might have been thought prime candidates for Jewish nationalism. Yet they fought fiercely against it because they regarded Jewish nationalism as a threat to the Orthodox ethos which was built on the concept of separation from other Jews on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. In 1919, now cut off from the Orthodox central office in Budapest, a number of prominent rabbis in Slovakia formed the “Central Bureau of Slovak Orthodox Congregations.” (The Czech communities, which lacked an organized Orthodoxy, were ignored.) A similar move took place in","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"39 1","pages":"205 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87343392","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}
Religion is one of many factors that can help to elucidate aspects of Jewish and non-Jewish behavior during the Holocaust. By the outbreak of the Second World War, Europe was already well advanced in a process of secularization; however, the process was uneven, with Eastern and Southern Europe remaining arguably more traditionally religious regions. Consequently, we must consider religion as a factor, both in motivating non-Jews to help Jews threatened existentially by the Nazis and, conversely, that non-Jews driven by different religious considerations might also act against Jews. Viewed from this perspective, gauging the impact of religion in Soviet territories occupied by Axis armies constitutes a formidable difficulty. Since its inception, the Soviet state has pursued policies alienating all religions, which climaxed in an actual anti-religious crusade targeting the remaining religious leaders and laymen during the immediate prewar period. Nevertheless, religion persisted in the Soviet Union. Some 57 percent of Soviet citizens defined themselves as believers in the 1937 population census. The combined effect of these factors, prompted by active German promotion of religion in the context of their struggle against the “godless Judeo-Bolsheviks” seems to have brought a certain degree of religious revival in the occupied Soviet territories under German and auxiliary Axis rule. This article assesses the role of religion, most specifically conversion, viewed as a capstone of religious experience, when a Jew was caught on the horns of a dilemma whether—and to what extent—to cling to his or her “born” religion, or to relinquish it, hoping to survive in the occupied Soviet territories. Regarding history from below, it is necessary to address the methodological problem of what responses can be qualified as religious. For the purposes of this study, the area to be scrutinized was narrowed to
{"title":"Save Your Souls: Jewish Conversion and Survival in the Occupied Soviet Territories During the Holocaust","authors":"K. Feferman","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ005","url":null,"abstract":"Religion is one of many factors that can help to elucidate aspects of Jewish and non-Jewish behavior during the Holocaust. By the outbreak of the Second World War, Europe was already well advanced in a process of secularization; however, the process was uneven, with Eastern and Southern Europe remaining arguably more traditionally religious regions. Consequently, we must consider religion as a factor, both in motivating non-Jews to help Jews threatened existentially by the Nazis and, conversely, that non-Jews driven by different religious considerations might also act against Jews. Viewed from this perspective, gauging the impact of religion in Soviet territories occupied by Axis armies constitutes a formidable difficulty. Since its inception, the Soviet state has pursued policies alienating all religions, which climaxed in an actual anti-religious crusade targeting the remaining religious leaders and laymen during the immediate prewar period. Nevertheless, religion persisted in the Soviet Union. Some 57 percent of Soviet citizens defined themselves as believers in the 1937 population census. The combined effect of these factors, prompted by active German promotion of religion in the context of their struggle against the “godless Judeo-Bolsheviks” seems to have brought a certain degree of religious revival in the occupied Soviet territories under German and auxiliary Axis rule. This article assesses the role of religion, most specifically conversion, viewed as a capstone of religious experience, when a Jew was caught on the horns of a dilemma whether—and to what extent—to cling to his or her “born” religion, or to relinquish it, hoping to survive in the occupied Soviet territories. Regarding history from below, it is necessary to address the methodological problem of what responses can be qualified as religious. For the purposes of this study, the area to be scrutinized was narrowed to","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"46 1","pages":"184 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77898417","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}
At its founding meeting in 1898, the Orthodox Jewish Congregational Union of America (OJCA) laid out in its charter that “we affirm our adherence to the acknowledged codes of the Rabbis and the thirteen principles of Maimonides.” In his seminal study of rabbinic attitudes towards the thirteen principles, Marc Shapiro has compellingly demonstrated that over the eight centuries since the time of Maimonides, affirmation of the principles by leading rabbinic figures has been far from monolithic. Yet, he, too, avers that the above cited quote reflects developments in Orthodox thought: “In more recent centuries there was a general agreement among traditional Jews that the Thirteen Principles were indeed the fundamentals of Judaism. Denial of even one Principle was usually enough for one to be branded as a heretic.” In this study I examine examples of Orthodox rabbinic exceptions to the thirteen principles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Specifically, I examine these liminal cases to understand the contours and dynamics of the “acceptance” of the principles as binding within Orthodoxy. The above-cited statement from the founding charter of the OJCA implies symmetry between the affirmation of Orthodox adherence to the codes of the Rabbis and to the thirteen principles of Maimonides. Here I will demonstrate that this alleged symmetry belies a more subtle process and a more nuanced truth. Indeed, both have been accepted but in different ways, and their respective acceptance is governed by different rules. The codes of halakha are statutory in nature. The only exceptions they allow are generally those that already are incorporated into the code itself. Legal formalism is the reigning paradigm here. Any act is assessed in light of the code and determined to be either permissible or prohibited. By contrast, as we shall see, the thirteen principles are not even encapsulated in an agreed upon authoritative text. Indeed, the rules that govern their acceptance have never been articulated— neither in the rabbinic sources themselves, nor in analysis by scholars
{"title":"Orthodox Rabbinic Exception to the Thirteen Principles of Faith: The Dynamics of Boundary Permeability","authors":"Joshua Berman","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ007","url":null,"abstract":"At its founding meeting in 1898, the Orthodox Jewish Congregational Union of America (OJCA) laid out in its charter that “we affirm our adherence to the acknowledged codes of the Rabbis and the thirteen principles of Maimonides.” In his seminal study of rabbinic attitudes towards the thirteen principles, Marc Shapiro has compellingly demonstrated that over the eight centuries since the time of Maimonides, affirmation of the principles by leading rabbinic figures has been far from monolithic. Yet, he, too, avers that the above cited quote reflects developments in Orthodox thought: “In more recent centuries there was a general agreement among traditional Jews that the Thirteen Principles were indeed the fundamentals of Judaism. Denial of even one Principle was usually enough for one to be branded as a heretic.” In this study I examine examples of Orthodox rabbinic exceptions to the thirteen principles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Specifically, I examine these liminal cases to understand the contours and dynamics of the “acceptance” of the principles as binding within Orthodoxy. The above-cited statement from the founding charter of the OJCA implies symmetry between the affirmation of Orthodox adherence to the codes of the Rabbis and to the thirteen principles of Maimonides. Here I will demonstrate that this alleged symmetry belies a more subtle process and a more nuanced truth. Indeed, both have been accepted but in different ways, and their respective acceptance is governed by different rules. The codes of halakha are statutory in nature. The only exceptions they allow are generally those that already are incorporated into the code itself. Legal formalism is the reigning paradigm here. Any act is assessed in light of the code and determined to be either permissible or prohibited. By contrast, as we shall see, the thirteen principles are not even encapsulated in an agreed upon authoritative text. Indeed, the rules that govern their acceptance have never been articulated— neither in the rabbinic sources themselves, nor in analysis by scholars","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"2 4","pages":"161 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/MJ/KJZ007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72388280","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}
Even thousands of years later, Lilith, the demonness, still tempts many. Her image, which appears in ancient tradition as a personification of the forbidden temptation, turns up and is manifest in our time in secular, religious, spiritual, and post-secular contemporary circles as an alluring and relevant character. What purposes or ends does her image serve nowadays? Why is she once again referred to and appropriated? What is there about her story that has had such wide appeal to so many in the feminist movement and in various forms of alternative spiritual discourse over the past few decades? Does she represent a certain value, leadership, spiritual perception, or a certain feminist movement? To answer these questions, I would like to review how Lilith’s image is utilized in contemporary feminist spiritual discourse, and to analyze the values and ideas embodied in these appearances. I will present the different and varied ways in which Lilith’s image reappears, while attempting to understand what today’s admirers view as her unique contribution to their spiritual and/or feminist purposes. I will begin with a short review of Lilith’s image in ancient traditions, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition.
{"title":"The Temptation of Legitimacy: Lilith’s Adoption and Adaption in Contemporary Feminist Spirituality and Their Meanings","authors":"M. Shapiro","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ003","url":null,"abstract":"Even thousands of years later, Lilith, the demonness, still tempts many. Her image, which appears in ancient tradition as a personification of the forbidden temptation, turns up and is manifest in our time in secular, religious, spiritual, and post-secular contemporary circles as an alluring and relevant character. What purposes or ends does her image serve nowadays? Why is she once again referred to and appropriated? What is there about her story that has had such wide appeal to so many in the feminist movement and in various forms of alternative spiritual discourse over the past few decades? Does she represent a certain value, leadership, spiritual perception, or a certain feminist movement? To answer these questions, I would like to review how Lilith’s image is utilized in contemporary feminist spiritual discourse, and to analyze the values and ideas embodied in these appearances. I will present the different and varied ways in which Lilith’s image reappears, while attempting to understand what today’s admirers view as her unique contribution to their spiritual and/or feminist purposes. I will begin with a short review of Lilith’s image in ancient traditions, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition.","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"3 1","pages":"125 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86736781","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}
Many modern Jewish legal decisors have struggled with two questions: (a) how should the Halakha relate to scientific progress; and (b) should the Halakha change in response to paradigm shifts in how we view our surroundings and the universe due to advances in scientific thinking. For example, the use of technology has the potential to change the way we observe the Shabbat, and advances in artificial reproduction can certainly impact on traditional Jewish definitions of parenthood. In addition, scientific and technological progress in genetics has profound implications for the age old question of who is a Jew? In the present essay, we will discuss how these advances impact fundamental questions in Jewish identity, Jewish thought and the relationship between Halakha and science. A recently published responsum highlights these issues and nicely illustrates the complex relationship and potential tension between Halakha, science and Jewish theology. Rabbis Carmel and Arenreich (modern halakhic decisors residing in Israel) were asked the following question:
{"title":"Jews, Genes, and Motherhood: Modern Science and Jewish Chosenness","authors":"A. Jotkowitz","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJZ002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJZ002","url":null,"abstract":"Many modern Jewish legal decisors have struggled with two questions: (a) how should the Halakha relate to scientific progress; and (b) should the Halakha change in response to paradigm shifts in how we view our surroundings and the universe due to advances in scientific thinking. For example, the use of technology has the potential to change the way we observe the Shabbat, and advances in artificial reproduction can certainly impact on traditional Jewish definitions of parenthood. In addition, scientific and technological progress in genetics has profound implications for the age old question of who is a Jew? In the present essay, we will discuss how these advances impact fundamental questions in Jewish identity, Jewish thought and the relationship between Halakha and science. A recently published responsum highlights these issues and nicely illustrates the complex relationship and potential tension between Halakha, science and Jewish theology. Rabbis Carmel and Arenreich (modern halakhic decisors residing in Israel) were asked the following question:","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"17 1","pages":"144 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87418622","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":"Ingrid L. Anderson. Ethics and Suffering since the Holocaust: Making Ethics “First Philosophy” in Levinas, Wiesel, and Rubenstein","authors":"Zachary J. Braiterman","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJY023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJY023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89408444","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}
Within the field of German-Jewish studies in general, and Zionist thinking in particular, the discourse of authenticity is of central importance. This article critically examines the functions and effects of the ideas of “the authentic Jew” and “the authentic Jewishness” or “Judaism” within early German Zionism. It will trace the skillful marking of “authentic” and “inauthentic” entities in German-Zionist thinking. Certain figures and a certain habitus are referred to as unambiguously “inauthentic”— usually summarized in the slogan “assimilation,”—and Zionism is constructed as the only authentic form of being. By focusing on this concept in early German-Zionist discourse, this essay aims to reassess and modify conventional research which usually projects “authentic Judaism” or “Jewishness” solely onto Eastern Europe. Accordingly, most studies about Jewish nationalist authenticity deal with the East--West discourse or orientalism and stress the image of the “authentic Eastern Jew.” In his 1982 classic, Brothers and Strangers, Steven E. Aschheim wrote that in Western Zionism the eastern European Jew became “the embodiment of Jewish authenticity” and an “exemplar of the unfragmented self.” David A. Brenner explained in his innovative 1998 study, Marketing Identities, how the stereotypical representation of a “western Jewish enlightened identity” was opposed to an “eastern Jewish traditional identity” as a means to create an “ethnical pan-Judaism.” Michael Brenner also refers to the “Jew as oriental” and uses the rhetoric of the “authentic eastern European Jew.” Interpretations of German-Jewish history in general, however, and German Zionism in particular, alternatively carry the connotation of inauthenticity, an attitude that we also come across in early Zionist discourse. This article will reevaluate these statements, and point out
在一般的德国犹太人研究领域，特别是犹太复国主义思想，真实性的话语是至关重要的。本文批判性地考察了早期德国犹太复国主义中“真正的犹太人”和“真正的犹太性”或“犹太教”的概念的功能和影响。它将追踪德国犹太复国主义思想中“真实”和“不真实”实体的巧妙标记。某些人物和某些习惯被明确地称为“不真实的”——通常用“同化”的口号来概括——犹太复国主义被构建为唯一真实的存在形式。通过关注早期德国-犹太复国主义话语中的这一概念，本文旨在重新评估和修改传统研究，这些研究通常只将“真正的犹太教”或“犹太性”投射到东欧。因此，关于犹太民族主义真实性的研究大多涉及东西方话语或东方主义，强调“正宗的东方犹太人”的形象。史蒂文·e·阿什海姆(Steven E. Aschheim)在1982年的经典著作《兄弟与陌生人》(Brothers and Strangers)中写道，在西方的犹太复国主义中，东欧犹太人成为了“犹太人真实性的化身”和“完整自我的典范”。大卫·a·布伦纳(David a . Brenner)在他1998年的创新研究《营销身份》(Marketing Identities)中解释了“西方犹太人开明身份”的刻板代表是如何与“东方犹太人传统身份”对立的，这是一种创造“种族泛犹太教”的手段。迈克尔·布伦纳也提到“犹太人是东方人”，并使用了“真正的东欧犹太人”的修辞。然而，对德国犹太历史的总体解读，尤其是对德国犹太复国主义的解读，却带有不真实性的内涵，这也是我们在早期犹太复国主义话语中遇到的一种态度。本文将重新评估这些说法，并指出
{"title":"The Power of Authenticity: Individualism, Gender, and Politics in Early German Zionism","authors":"Manja Herrmann","doi":"10.1093/MJ/KJY022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MJ/KJY022","url":null,"abstract":"Within the field of German-Jewish studies in general, and Zionist thinking in particular, the discourse of authenticity is of central importance. This article critically examines the functions and effects of the ideas of “the authentic Jew” and “the authentic Jewishness” or “Judaism” within early German Zionism. It will trace the skillful marking of “authentic” and “inauthentic” entities in German-Zionist thinking. Certain figures and a certain habitus are referred to as unambiguously “inauthentic”— usually summarized in the slogan “assimilation,”—and Zionism is constructed as the only authentic form of being. By focusing on this concept in early German-Zionist discourse, this essay aims to reassess and modify conventional research which usually projects “authentic Judaism” or “Jewishness” solely onto Eastern Europe. Accordingly, most studies about Jewish nationalist authenticity deal with the East--West discourse or orientalism and stress the image of the “authentic Eastern Jew.” In his 1982 classic, Brothers and Strangers, Steven E. Aschheim wrote that in Western Zionism the eastern European Jew became “the embodiment of Jewish authenticity” and an “exemplar of the unfragmented self.” David A. Brenner explained in his innovative 1998 study, Marketing Identities, how the stereotypical representation of a “western Jewish enlightened identity” was opposed to an “eastern Jewish traditional identity” as a means to create an “ethnical pan-Judaism.” Michael Brenner also refers to the “Jew as oriental” and uses the rhetoric of the “authentic eastern European Jew.” Interpretations of German-Jewish history in general, however, and German Zionism in particular, alternatively carry the connotation of inauthenticity, an attitude that we also come across in early Zionist discourse. This article will reevaluate these statements, and point out","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"31 1","pages":"113 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73310687","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：