Jewish Philosophy

This study explores an important Hasidic manuscript rediscovered among the papers of Abraham Joshua Heschel at Duke University. The text, first noted by Heschel in the 1950s, is a collection of sermons by the famed tzaddik Judah Aryeh Leib Alter of Ger (d. 1905). These homilies are significant because they were transcribed by one of his disciples, in many cases capturing them in the original Yiddish. Comparing this alternative witness to Alter's own Hebrew version (called Sefat emet), printed shortly after his death, reveals substantive differences in the sermons' development, structure, and themes. But the manuscript's importance extends beyond a critical new perspective on Alter's teachings. It offers a snapshot of the processes behind the formation of Hasidic books, and calls for scholars to consider the unavoidable divergences between Hebrew and Yiddish, between orality and textuality, and the transmission of ideas from a teacher to his disciples, vectors of change that inhabit all Hasidic literature.

Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum was born in 1887 to his father Rabbi Hanania Yom-Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, chief rabbi of Sighet, the capital of Maramureş County, Hungary. The father was a Rebbe to his Hasidim, headed the local yeshiva, and was one of the top leaders of Hungarian Orthodoxy. During his childhood, Rabbi Yoel was known as a prodigy but was not destined to continue the family’s Hasidic or rabbinic dynasty, as this role was reserved for his older brother - Rabbi Haim Tzvi. At seventeen, soon after his father’s death and the ordination of his older brother as his successor, the newlywed Rabbi Yoel and his wife were forced to leave Sighet.

They settled in nearby Satmar (Satu Mare) where Rabbi Yoel began gathering a small group of disciples. Several years later he was elected as chief rabbi of the remote village Orshiva, but during World War I he returned to Satmar and established a small yeshiva, dividing his time between Satmar and Orshiva. In 1926 he was elected as chief rabbi of Kroly (Carei) in Transylvania, Romania and two years later he was elected chief rabbi of Satmar. This appointment faced substantial public opposition and it took Rabbi Yoel six years of fierce and scandalous struggle until he eventually took office in 1934. During that waiting period he also tried to run for a rabbinate office in other communities, including that of the Edah Haredit (the ultra-Orthodox community) of Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yoel was known to have a stubborn, controversial and argumentative personality. Wherever he wanted to serve, public debates arose and the newspapers accused him in using improper means during the election process. At the same time, he was also known as a religious zealot, and several extremist Orthodox groups acknowledged him as their spiritual leader. Following his ordination as chief rabbi of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel gained an important leadership role among the extreme-Orthodox, and became known for his unwavering opposition to modernity, Zionism and even to the ultra-Orthodox party Agudat Israel. In the late 1930s, after a long public campaign, he was elected to the leadership of the Central Bureau of the Orthodox Jewish communities of Transylvania. In that position he was able to influence the lives of over one hundred and fifty thousand religious Jews in that region.

In his personal life, Rabbi Yoel suffered a series of tragedies. After losing his father at an early age, he was expelled from his hometown, Sighet. He and his wife could not give birth to a son, and two of their three daughters died young and childless. His chronically ill wife died soon thereafter, as well as Rabbi Yoel’s mother and brother. He married again, but although his wife was young and healthy, she too did not bear him any children. Following this second marriage, Rabbi Yoel and his only daughter became estranged and they hardly spoke until she died, also at a young age. This surviving daughter was also barren meaning that Rabbi Yoel had no grandchildren to succeed him.

During World War II Rabbi Yoel was involved in various rescue operations for refugees who fled Poland. As danger grew, he sought to get a certificate that will allow him and his close family to immigrate to Palestine. Failing that, he abandoned his community and escaped along with a small group of friends from Satmar, but was caught and sent to the ghetto of Cluj. He was spared from being sent to Auschwitz as he was included in the small group saved by Zionist activist Israel Kasztner’s rescue train. He and the rest of the passengers were taken to Bergen-Belsen, where they were detained for a few months. Later the group was released to Switzerland where Rabbi Yoel stayed for a few months. He did not return to lead and to comfort the survivors that returned to Satmar after the Holocaust, nor did he join the relief operations conducted by other rabbis in the refugee camps in Germany.

After his stay in Switzerland, Rabbi Yoel decided to settle in Jerusalem. The leaders of the ultra-Orthodox community, who were aware of his aggressive and argumentative personality, shunned away from him. As a result, the institutions he established failed and he was on the verge of bankruptcy. His only hope to repay his tremendous debt was by raising funds in the United States. Humiliated and destitute Rabbi Yoel was forced to travel to the land he always considered the most hostile and spiritually dangerous environment for Orthodox Jews.

After arriving in the United States, it became clear to Rabbi Yoel that he will never be able to raise enough funds to save his institutions in Jerusalem. Having no place to return to, he decided to settle in New York. Oddly enough, it was in this notorious “New World” that Rabbi Yoel was able not only to establish his own congregation, but also to significantly expand and develop it. Within a few years he attracted a large circle of supporters and devotees and created a congregation which, he claimed, resembled that of an East-European “Shtetel.”

However, in order to succeed in his mission, Rabbi Yoel had to apply significant un-traditional innovations that were inconceivable in the East-European “Shtetel.” He established a Hasidic education system, including one for girls, which introduced secular teachings and summer camps. He also encouraged his followers to go to work or to establish their own small businesses. His delegates cooperated with government and municipal officials who helped the poor Hasidim to get public housing, professional training and social benefits. That innovative spirit was one of the main reasons his Hasidic court grew rapidly and prospered economically. Rabbi Yoel used funds gathered by his adherents to support the Eda Haredit in Jerusalem, and in 1952, just a few years after he was forced to leave Jerusalem, he returned triumphant to be declared president of the Edah Haredit.

One of the reasons for Rabbi Yoel’s unparalleled success, beyond his personal charisma and leadership qualities, was his anti-Zionist and Extreme Orthodox ideology. His views were published in two major books, Va-Yoel Moshe – published in the late 1950s, and Al Ha-Geula Ve-Al Ha-Temura – published after the Six Days War. These books were re-printed numerous times, and new editions are still being printed to this day. The radical ideas expressed in these books still affect and guide the Satmar Hasidic court and some of the other Hungarian courts, as well as some marginal groups of zealots, also known as Neturei Karta.

At the time of his death, in 1979 and still today, Rabbi Yoel was undoubtedly one of the most recognized and influential Jewish leaders in the post-Holocaust era. His community had tens of thousands of Hasidim and the education system he established was amongst the largest in the Jewish world outside Israel. Ideas expressed by Rabbi Yoel have influenced the rest of Orthodox society and thus the Jewish society in general. Today, about forty years after his death, the “Satmar” trademark is still strong and still synonymous with religious zealotry. The spiritual and practical foundations laid by Rabbi Yoel continue to fuel the ever-growing expansion of the Satmar Hasidic court that today has more than a hundred thousand followers worldwide.

Claude Eatherly, pilota e metereologo,
era un ragazzo texano di
27 anni quando ordinò lo sgancio
della prima bomba atomica della
storia, Little Boy, che colpì Hiroshima
il 6 agosto 1945.
Nonostante la giovane età, non
era certo un dilettante: per quella
missione vennero scelti i migliori
piloti della US Army, e Eatherly
aveva già dato prova del suo valore
militare, abbattendo, nel corso
della sua fulminante carriera,
più di trenta aerei nemici. Dopo
lo sgancio della bomba, tuttavia,
lasciò l’esercito e rifi utò qualsiasi
riconoscimento al valore da parte
degli Stati Uniti. Compì anche
maldestre rapine e altri piccoli
crimini, con la speranza di trovare
sollievo nel biasimo collettivo. Ma
ciò non bastò a placare i suoi dilanianti
sensi di colpa e Eatherly
venne internato in un ospedale
psichiatrico. Fu in questo momento,
quattordici anni dopo Hiroshima,
che iniziò un carteggio con
Günther Anders, il fi losofo tedesco
autore del capolavoro L’uomo
è antiquato. Il risultato è questo
libro: un commovente scambio
epistolare tra Anders e un’anima
persa, in cerca di un’espiazione
tanto impossibile quanto necessaria.
Dopo anni di assenza dalle
librerie, torna disponibile una delle
testimonianze più toccanti sul
disastro che cambiò per sempre
la coscienza collettiva.

An updated version, with the addition of one paragraph. I also recommend that you read the Tree of Life (1st and 2nd Part), which is now also published here in Academia. This is a post on my blog, and also a supplement to my last book titled, The Torah of the Messiah.

Here is my blog: http://secretofbereshit.blogspot.com/

מאמרו של הראי"ה קוק, "למהלך האידיאות בישראל", המהווה ניתוח היסטוריוסופי של ההיסטוריה הישראלית, ואשר מושתת על אדני האידיאליזם הדיאלקטי ההיגליאני, מתמודד למעשה עם נסיון דומה שנעשה על ידי אנשי 'חכמת ישראל' במאה ה-19 בגרמניה, והכוונה למאמר שנכתב על ידי עמנואל וולף, ממייסדי "האגודה לתרבות ומדע של היהודים" בברלין, ולמאמר נוסף שנכתב על ידי ההיסטוריון צבי היינריך גרץ ואשר פורסם בכתב העת של זכריה פרנקל. המאמר משווה בין שלושת הניתוחים, אלו אידיאות עומדות לדעת כל אחד מן ההוגים ביסוד ההיסטוריה של עם ישראל, מהו התהליך הדיאלקטי המתחולל בקרבה במעברים שבין גלות וגאולה, מה תפקידו של עם ישראל בין העמים וכיצד יוציא אותו אל הפועל, כיצד התפתחו המצוות ומה צופן לנו העתיד. הראי"ה מקבל כמה מן העקרונות המופיעים אצל אנשי 'חכמת ישראל' ודוחה עקרונות אחרים, אבל את מאמרו הוא מסיים בכך שרק מכאן ואילך "תוכל חכמת ישראל וספרותה האמתית (!) להתחיל לצאת לישע עמנו, להחיותו בטל תחיתו".

Despite Emmanuel Levinas’s famous denigration of art in “Reality and Its Shadow” as an egregious evasion of ethical responsibility, discussions of poetic art in his later writings court the ethical rhetoric that lies at the heart of his philosophy. Refuting claims that a more mature Levinas simply changed his attitude towards art, this article argues the existence of a poetic art that equates to a Jewish understanding of Temimut, or holiness, and describes the written word as a “holy aesthetic” born of ethical artistic intentions. Through these claims, this article seeks to add an interdisciplinary dimension to existing Levinas scholarship on ethical aesthetics, which has yet to consider how Levinas’s later discussions of art emerge from Talmudic thought.

Aile kökleri geriye doğru Polonya ve Almanya'ya dayanan bir haham ailesinin dâhi denilebilecek bir çocuğu olarak 1745 yılında bugünkü Beyaz Rusya Vitebsk'te doğdu. Kendisi Ortodoks Yahudiliğinin halen önemli bir kolu olan Habad-Lubaviç Hasidizmi'nin de kurucusudur. Yahudi geleneğinde bir tür saygı ve itibar takdimi olarak yer bulan, ismin baş harflerinden ad türetme işi yaygınca görülür. Bundan dolayı literatürde bazen Rebe Şneor Zalman kısaltılarak RaŞaZ biçiminde kullanılır. Rebe Şneor Zalman'ın başka kitapları da vardır fakat bu yazıda felsefi bir yapıt olarak önem atfettiğim Tanya adlı eseri üzerinde duracağım. RaŞaZ, Tanya (literal olarak 'öğretildi') olarak tanınan Likutei Amarim (Anlamı: Sözlerin Toplanması) adlı bu başyapıtını 1797 yılında yazdı. Bundan yalnızca bir yıl sonra Hasidizm içindeki muarızları tarafından Rus Çarı'na şikayet edildiği için hakkında şüphe oluştu ve pek tabii olarak Çarlık Rusyası'nda tutuklanması öyle pek uzun sürmedi. Tutuklanma nedeni ilginçtir: Osmanlı Türkleri'ne yardım etmek. Bundan dolayı ihanet ile suçlandı. Osmanlı imparatorluğu o dönemde III. Selim idaresinde Rusya'nın yayılmacı politikalarına karşı koymaya çalışıyordu. Osmanlılar, Rusya ile yüz yılı aşkın süredir birçok savaş yapmışlardı ve III. Selim döneminde de bu savaşlar hız kesmemişti. Rebe'ye dönecek olursak St. Petersburg'daki 53 gün süren tutsaklığı esnasında hiçbir sarsılma göstermemişti. Yeni sayılabilecek bir süredir tahtta olan Çar I. Pavel Petroviç tarafından kendisinin suçsuz olduğuna hükmedilerek serbest bırakıldı. Serbest kaldığı (Yahudi takvimine göre) 19 Kislev tarihine Habad hasidimi tarafından özel bir önem atfedilir ve her yıl bu özgür kalış sevinçle kutlanır. Rebe Şneor Zalman, Tanya'da yalnız felsefi erinçler/hakikatler (haemet) konusunda yetkin olduğunu göstermemiş, bu yetkinliğin gereği olarak kavramları herkesin anlayabileceği kadar açık ve seçik olarak serdetmişti. Descartes felsefesinin bilgi için aradığı açık ve seçik olma şartı basitçe incelenen nesnenin yalın öğelerine götürülüp aradaki ilgilerin kavranması demektir. Yani yalın olanı biz sezgisel olarak ve olduğu gibi kavrarız. Rebe Zalman'ın hakikatin felsefi özünü izleyicilerine sunuşu için bu sezgisel yalınlama yerini bulmuştur. Tanya'da o denli zor hakikatleri o denli yalın ifade etmiştir ki bu bana göre düşünür veya mistiğin felsefesinin pratiklerindeki hakimiyetini de ilan eder niteliktedir. Ne denli zor olursa olsun hakikati kavrayışındaki bu keskinlik, üslûbundaki (tarzındaki) izleyiciyi kavrayış ile

The term “ethical monotheism” is an important marker of Judaism’s tumultuous transition into the modern era. The term emerged in the context of culture wars concerning the question of whether or not Jews could or should become emancipated citizens of modern European states. It appeared in arguments whether or not Judaism could be considered a Religion of Reason—a symbolic, motivational  representation of a universal morality—and in debates about whether or not Judaism could or should reform itself into a Religion of Reason. This book is both a decisive departure from those discussions and an attempt to add a further, post-modern statement to their ongoing development. As a departure, it refuses to take for granted a philosophical conception of Religion of Reason as the standard for ethical monotheism according to which Judaism was to be evaluated or reformed. As a continuation, the book undertakes a phenomenology of Jewish modes of ethical religiosity that allows it to inquire about what kind of ethical monotheism Judaism might be. The introduction and the conclusion present the argument of the book and explain its structure. Readers may benefit from reading those sections first, and then going on to the evidence in chapters 1 to 5.

This paper offers a critical analysis of Rabbinic sources concerning the the history of Loshon HaQodesh. The paper first attempts to define the language known as "Loshon HaQodesh" and then trace its origins through Midrashic and Talmudic sources. The paper also follows the rise and decline of this language.
A more complete version of this paper was printed in Nov. 2014 under the name Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014).

This is a new, 2021 edition of Buber's masterpiece, complete with explanatory notes, glossary, and an interpretative essay. A bibliography is also included, along with testimonies of people who have read and lived with the book. Buber's "Ich und Du" (I and Thou) ranks as a twentieth-century classic of philosophical literature. The present book offers the first complete commentary on Buber's book.

(שימו לב - ניתן להוריד את המאמר גם אם לא ניתן לקרוא אותו על המסך)


קריאה של מאות רבות של פיוטים שנכתבו על ידי יהודים שחיו במרחבים מוסלמים מאז ראשית האסלאם ועד היום, מראה תמונה חד משמעית של איבה קשה כלפי המסולמים וציפייה שהא-ל יקח מהם נקם. המעניין בדבר הוא שגם יהודים שחיו תחת 'מלכי חסד' - שליטים שהטיבו עם יהודים - שרו וכתבו פיוטים בגנות המוסלמים והאסלאם. המאמר מנסה לפצח את הסיבות העמוקות לכך.

A legal system may be prone to limit its jurisdiction, so that its laws will apply exclusively only within its territorial borders. In an alternate conception, a legal system may opt to apply its laws extraterritorially, so that its citizens will be bound to them in any place they find themselves. The theoretical foundations of these two conceptions of law are deeply distinguished from each other. It is within this jurisprudential framework that this article explores anew the transition from the biblical (Pentateuchal) conception of law, to the conception of law found in the writings of the mishnaic rabbis. Towards its end, the article examines this legal difference on the background of a parallel theological transition. By revealing the possible relationships between these two transitions it becomes clear that theology and law are intertwined.

The concept of right stands at the very center of our legal universe. An imaginary alternative legal universe might have similar legal norms to ours, except that they are centered on the concept of duty. Is there any significant difference between these two legal universes? The Hohfeldian assumption of complete correlativity between rights and duties might imply that the difference between these two universes is merely a matter of rhetoric. This article, however, argues that a rights-based legal world would presumably be significantly different from a legal world based upon duties. For this purpose, the article examines the way in which contradictory norms are resolved. A rights-based system decides cases of contradictory norms according to a process that is different from that used by a duty-based system. The article is devoted to examining the roots of this difference, its significance and its social implications. Alongside the discussion of the classical and modern legal sources from the Western legal tradition, the article contains a comparative discussion of Jewish law sources, which demonstrates a typical example of a duty-based legal system.