ABSTRACT:The new coronavirus pandemic, COVID-19, has resurrected a number of historical and sociological problems associated with blaming collectives for the origin or transmission of infectious disease. The default example of the false accusation has been the case of the fourteenth century charge of well poisoning against the Jews of Western Europe causing the pandemic of the Black Death. Yet querying group actions in times of pandemics is not solely one of rebutting false attributions. What happens when a collective is at fault and how does the collective respond to the simultaneous burden of both false, stereotypical accusations and appropriate charges of culpability? The case study here is of Haredi communities and the 2020 outbreak of COVID-19.
{"title":"Placing the Blame for Covid-19 in and on Ultra-Orthodox Communities","authors":"S. Gilman","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa021","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The new coronavirus pandemic, COVID-19, has resurrected a number of historical and sociological problems associated with blaming collectives for the origin or transmission of infectious disease. The default example of the false accusation has been the case of the fourteenth century charge of well poisoning against the Jews of Western Europe causing the pandemic of the Black Death. Yet querying group actions in times of pandemics is not solely one of rebutting false attributions. What happens when a collective is at fault and how does the collective respond to the simultaneous burden of both false, stereotypical accusations and appropriate charges of culpability? The case study here is of Haredi communities and the 2020 outbreak of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89903534","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:Rabbi Norman Lamm, who assumed the presidency of Yeshiva University in 1976, sought to clarify the mission of the institution by using as its tagline the phrase Torah U'Madda–denoting the dual aim of providing traditional Jewish study (Torah) along with a standard college curriculum (Madda, meaning knowledge). It would replace the word "Synthesis," which generations of students, including Lamm himself, had found vague and confusing. Lamm launched what he called the Torah U'Madda Project, which ultimately included a campus lecture series, an annual journal, and a book entitled: Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition. While denying any intention to construct a hard-and-fast institutional philosophy on how to integrate Orthodox Judaism and secular higher education, Lamm insisted that serious exposure to both Torah knowledge and the arts and sciences fulfilled the Torah's mandate to understand and appreciate all aspects of God's world. Lamm's initiative failed, however, because economic conditions induced many students to forsake the liberal arts for vocational and pre-professional courses, and the trend to the right in American Orthodoxy–expressed by rabbis at Yeshiva itself and abetted by the year or more spent at Israeli yeshivot before college–stressed single–minded concentration on Torah study and justified secular education only for the purpose of making a living.
{"title":"The Rise and Fall of Torah U'Madda","authors":"Lawrence K. Grossman","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa016","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Rabbi Norman Lamm, who assumed the presidency of Yeshiva University in 1976, sought to clarify the mission of the institution by using as its tagline the phrase Torah U'Madda–denoting the dual aim of providing traditional Jewish study (Torah) along with a standard college curriculum (Madda, meaning knowledge). It would replace the word \"Synthesis,\" which generations of students, including Lamm himself, had found vague and confusing. Lamm launched what he called the Torah U'Madda Project, which ultimately included a campus lecture series, an annual journal, and a book entitled: Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition. While denying any intention to construct a hard-and-fast institutional philosophy on how to integrate Orthodox Judaism and secular higher education, Lamm insisted that serious exposure to both Torah knowledge and the arts and sciences fulfilled the Torah's mandate to understand and appreciate all aspects of God's world. Lamm's initiative failed, however, because economic conditions induced many students to forsake the liberal arts for vocational and pre-professional courses, and the trend to the right in American Orthodoxy–expressed by rabbis at Yeshiva itself and abetted by the year or more spent at Israeli yeshivot before college–stressed single–minded concentration on Torah study and justified secular education only for the purpose of making a living.","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"2 1","pages":"71 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91382015","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 19th century, some Jewish scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement presented Kabbalah as the vital, spiritual and mystical aspect of Judaism, and juxtaposed it to legalistic, conservative, and petrified Halakha. Jewish neo-romantic and Zionist thinkers adopted this perception, which Christian Kabbalists and Hebraists first formulated in the Renaissance period. The assumption concerning the distinction and tension between Jewish mysticism and Halakha had a significant impact on the modern academic study of Judaism and it still governs the academic discipline of Jewish mysticism that Gershom Scholem and his disciples founded. This article argues that the modern identification of Kabbala as Jewish mysticism, and the assumed dichotomy between spiritual, vital Kabbalah, and dogmatic, petrified Halakha are a modern Jewish adaptation of the Pauline antithesis between the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life.
{"title":"\"For the Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life\": Halakha Versus Kabbalah in the Study of Jewish Mysticism","authors":"Boaz Huss","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa017","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:In the 19th century, some Jewish scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement presented Kabbalah as the vital, spiritual and mystical aspect of Judaism, and juxtaposed it to legalistic, conservative, and petrified Halakha. Jewish neo-romantic and Zionist thinkers adopted this perception, which Christian Kabbalists and Hebraists first formulated in the Renaissance period. The assumption concerning the distinction and tension between Jewish mysticism and Halakha had a significant impact on the modern academic study of Judaism and it still governs the academic discipline of Jewish mysticism that Gershom Scholem and his disciples founded. This article argues that the modern identification of Kabbala as Jewish mysticism, and the assumed dichotomy between spiritual, vital Kabbalah, and dogmatic, petrified Halakha are a modern Jewish adaptation of the Pauline antithesis between the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life.","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"20 1","pages":"47 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75454217","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}
Unlike his mentor, R. Esriel Hildesheimer, and his chief antagonist, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. Marcus Horovitz, the “communal Orthodox rabbi” (orthodoxer Gemeinderabbiner) of Frankfurt am Main at the end of the nineteenth century, has received relatively little scholarly attention. Horovitz was both a creative halakhic mind and a passionate communal leader devoted to Jewish unity at a time of intense ideological and political division. This article considers Horovitz’s analysis of the halakhic permissibility of stunning an animal with a blow to the head after slaughter, a practice that was being advanced by animal protection groups in Switzerland and Germany at the time. In a lengthy responsum on the topic, after a thorough reading of halakhic sources, Horovitz argued that the practice was permissible and called for a united Jewish response. The responsum illuminates both the virtuosity of its under-studied author and the complex social and political forces faced by Orthodox rabbis at the time of the Schächtfrage (the controversy over the legality of kosher animal slaughter in German-speaking lands).
不像他的导师，R. Esriel Hildesheimer和他的主要对手，R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. Marcus Horovitz，“社区正统拉比”(orthodoxer Gemeinderabbiner)的法兰克福在19世纪末，已经收到相对较少的学术关注。霍洛维茨既是一位富有创造力的伊斯兰教思想家，也是一位充满激情的社区领袖，在意识形态和政治分歧严重的时期致力于犹太人的团结。这篇文章考虑了霍洛维茨对伊斯兰教规允许的分析，即在屠宰后用一击击昏动物的头部，这种做法当时在瑞士和德国的动物保护组织中得到了推广。在对这个话题的长篇回应中，在全面阅读了伊斯兰教法的资料后，霍洛维茨认为这种做法是允许的，并呼吁犹太人团结一致。这个回答既说明了作者的精湛技艺，也说明了东正教拉比在Schächtfrage(关于在德语地区屠宰犹太动物合法性的争议)时期所面临的复杂的社会和政治力量。
{"title":"Halakhic Flexibility and Communal Unity: R. Marcus Horovitz and the Schächtfrage","authors":"J. A. Skloot","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Unlike his mentor, R. Esriel Hildesheimer, and his chief antagonist, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. Marcus Horovitz, the “communal Orthodox rabbi” (orthodoxer Gemeinderabbiner) of Frankfurt am Main at the end of the nineteenth century, has received relatively little scholarly attention. Horovitz was both a creative halakhic mind and a passionate communal leader devoted to Jewish unity at a time of intense ideological and political division. This article considers Horovitz’s analysis of the halakhic permissibility of stunning an animal with a blow to the head after slaughter, a practice that was being advanced by animal protection groups in Switzerland and Germany at the time. In a lengthy responsum on the topic, after a thorough reading of halakhic sources, Horovitz argued that the practice was permissible and called for a united Jewish response. The responsum illuminates both the virtuosity of its under-studied author and the complex social and political forces faced by Orthodox rabbis at the time of the Schächtfrage (the controversy over the legality of kosher animal slaughter in German-speaking lands).","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"168 1","pages":"355-375"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78607206","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":"Irene Eber (ed.), Jewish Refugees in Shanghai 1933-1947: A Selection of Documents, Archive of Jewish History and Culture, v. 3","authors":"S. Hochstadt","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"22 1","pages":"376-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89473405","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 article explores the mentality of Neolog Judaism and how its early proponents fashioned a centrist, non-ideological alternative to both Orthodoxy and German-Jewish style Reform Judaism, an alternative that emphasized Judaism’s inherent compatibility with and adaptability to the demands of citizenship. Early proponents of this Neolog mentality, such as Aron Chorin and Leopold Löw, argued that adapting Jewish practice within the framework and systemic rules of Jewish law, precedent, and custom would not undermine a commitment to traditional Judaism in any way, as Orthodox jeremiads predicted; nor would it require the sort of re-definition of Judaism that Reform Jews advocated. Four aspects of Neolog mentality, in particular, laid the foundation for this outlook: a belief that Judaism has always been inherently malleable and diverse; a willingness to see leniency as no less authentic an option than stringency (in contrast to the “humra culture” that has defined Orthodox Judaism for the last two centuries); a preference for unity over schism (contra the secession of Orthodox communities in Germany and Hungary); and the use of halachic precedent and argumentation as a mandatory part of the rationale for innovation.
{"title":"Neolog: Reforming Judaism in a Hungarian Milieu","authors":"Howard N. Lupovitch","doi":"10.1093/mj/kjaa012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mj/kjaa012","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:This article explores the mentality of Neolog Judaism and how its early proponents fashioned a centrist, non-ideological alternative to both Orthodoxy and German-Jewish style Reform Judaism, an alternative that emphasized Judaism’s inherent compatibility with and adaptability to the demands of citizenship. Early proponents of this Neolog mentality, such as Aron Chorin and Leopold Löw, argued that adapting Jewish practice within the framework and systemic rules of Jewish law, precedent, and custom would not undermine a commitment to traditional Judaism in any way, as Orthodox jeremiads predicted; nor would it require the sort of re-definition of Judaism that Reform Jews advocated. Four aspects of Neolog mentality, in particular, laid the foundation for this outlook: a belief that Judaism has always been inherently malleable and diverse; a willingness to see leniency as no less authentic an option than stringency (in contrast to the “humra culture” that has defined Orthodox Judaism for the last two centuries); a preference for unity over schism (contra the secession of Orthodox communities in Germany and Hungary); and the use of halachic precedent and argumentation as a mandatory part of the rationale for innovation.","PeriodicalId":54089,"journal":{"name":"MODERN JUDAISM","volume":"20 12","pages":"327 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/mj/kjaa012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72471149","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：