Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'judaism'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Brandon and Book News
  • Events, Signings, & Giveaways
  • Columns and Features
  • Site News
  • Shardcast

Forums

  • 17th Shard
    • Introduce Yourself!
    • 17th Shard Discussion
    • The Coppermind Wiki
    • Arcanum Discussion
  • Brandon Sanderson
    • General Brandon Discussion
    • Events and Signings
    • Sanderson Fan Works
    • Arcanum, the Brandon Sanderson Archive
  • Spoiler Zone
    • The Sunlit Man (No Cosmere Spoilers)
    • The Sunlit Man (Cosmere Spoilers)
  • The Cosmere
    • Cosmere Q&A
    • Cosmere Discussion
    • Stormlight Archive
    • Mistborn
    • Other Cosmere
  • Non-Cosmere Works
    • Cytoverse
    • Other Non-Cosmere
    • The Wheel of Time
  • Related Works
    • Writing Excuses and Intentionally Blank
    • Reading Excuses
    • Sanderson Curiosities & Unpublished Works
    • TWG Archive
  • Community
    • General Discussion
    • Entertainment Discussion
    • Forum Games & Random Stuff
    • Creator's Corner
    • Role-Playing
    • Social Groups, Clans, and Guilds

Blogs

  • Chaos' Blog
  • Leinton's Blog
  • 17th Shard Blog
  • KChan's Blog
  • Puck's Blag
  • Brandon's Blog
  • The Name of your Blog
  • Darth Squirrely's Blog
  • Tales of a Firebug
  • borborygmus' Blog
  • Zeadman's Blog
  • zas678's Blog
  • The Basement
  • Addy's Avocations
  • Seshperankh's Blog
  • First time reading The Well Of Ascension
  • Zarepath's Blog
  • "I Have Opinions About Books"
  • Test
  • Which actors would you like to see playing the characters of Mistborn?
  • Drifted Mists
  • Jaron's Realm
  • Roshar Speculative Theories
  • ChrisHamatake's Blog
  • Paradox Flint's Blog
  • Deoradhan's Blog
  • Storm Blessed's Blog
  • Elwynn's Blog
  • firstRainbowRose's Blog
  • Rotabush ShardBlog
  • Hoid's Compendium
  • InterContinental Adventures
  • Claincy Creates
  • Theories, quotes, and details to keep it all straight.
  • WoR Thoughts and Questions
  • Blogfalcon
  • David Coppercloud's Blog
  • yurisses' notes and theories
  • Lark Adventures
  • LUNA's Poetry
  • Inspiration Board
  • Trying to be Useful for a Change
  • Cosmere Nerd Things
  • The Way of Toasters
  • An Elephant's Blog
  • Shhh Spoilers for Ronald.
  • Wyn's Adventures in Geekiness
  • Words With Ene
  • Dapper's Blog
  • Things to talk about, stuff to do
  • Zelly's Healthy-Accountability Blog
  • Dapper's Music Blog
  • GM Test Blog
  • Rhythm of War Liveblog
  • Zephy’s Art Blog
  • Axioms Idioms & Adages
  • Weather Reports
  • Unnecessarily Overcomplicated
  • 5
  • The Blog of Dubious Copyright Legality
  • Trutharchivist's Rambles
  • Xino's corner of insanity
  • The Perfect Space Opera
  • My Journey Through Roshar (A Liveblog)
  • Lost Metal Liveblog by ccstat
  • D&D campaign design.
  • My Depression Log
  • Story Ideas and Whatnot
  • deltarune AU concept.
  • How I Relate to Every Character in The Stormlight Archive
  • A thing
  • random jank and jabber.
  • FNF crem

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Member Title


Location


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. Hello, and welcome to my blog! I’m Trutharchivist, your rambler for today. And I want to talk about a specific point in the history of Judaism: the Age of Enlightenment onward, to this very day. I include about two or three centuries in the last period in the history of Judaism, because I think that some topics which rose at this era are still points of argument to this very day. At first, I thought to write on it all in one essay; then I realized that it’s going to be too much to talk about, so I decided to divide it to multiple essays, about Enlightenment, Haskalah and Reform, about the more inner religious world - Chassidus, Musar and Yeshivos, and about Zionism, Anti-Zionism and Secularity. This is the one about the direct effects of the Enlightenment on Judaism, starting from the Haskalah, with the next one probably being on how it led to Reform Judaism and different reactions to it. I can probably assume you all know what the Age of Enlightenment was about; but for my own sake, and for the sake of those who don’t know, I’ll try to explain. It was an era, around the 17th-18th century, It was for a couple of centuries that modern printing existed and knowledge was relatively cheaper, free for everyone. This allowed more people to learn, and as something of a side effect, it caused equal rights to be given to many minorities, including Jews. The thing is, up until then the Jews were generally secluded. They lived in neighborhoods of their own - ghettos, if you will; this is merely the Italian term for it, the negative associations came relatively late. They mostly spoke their own language - Yiddish or Hebrew - and worked in semi-autonomous communities, though they did have some contacts with the general population. The Enlightenment, and the Emancipation that came with it, changed that. Or, well, the possibility of emancipation. We’ll get to that. Anyway, some Jews, probably those with contacts in the government or the general non-Jewish population, joined the flow of knowledge and learned general science and philosophy. In time, those Jews became the Haskalah Movement - a movement bent on causing Jews to learn more about things outside the Torah. One such person, a prominent member of the Haskalah movement, was Moses Mandelssohn. Madelssohn was a German Jew, and a great philosopher at his time; he conversed with many gentile philosophers, won awards - surpassing Immanuel Kant for a prize, one time. He got special permission from the king to live in Berlin - and yes, most Jews didn't have this right this easily, sadly. He was also a G-d fearing Jew, well appreciated by at least some of the rabbis of his era. The thing is, though, in all that fame and renown and contacts with gentile philosophers... Well, he was somewhere in between, sometimes a complete outsider to the people he discussed with; a great example for this is the Lavater incident. Johann Kaspar Lavater was a Swiss Christian theologian who met Mandelssohn and discussed with him about his opinion on Jesus. Then, one day, he sent him a book of evidence on the truth of Christianity and asked him to either disprove the claims of the book or to convert to Christianity. Mandelssohn found himself trapped; if he'd prove Christianity wrong, it wouldn't do well with the people surrounding him, who were mostly Christians; if he'd refuse to dispute the book's claims, it will seem like Judaism has no answer; in short, Lavater has pushed him to the corner. His reply to that was a public letter, in which he says (among other things) that he thinks that one can appreciate the wisdom of another without trying to convert him. But a point has been made: it is hard for a Jew to both stay true to his religion and converse with Christian scholars. One more point I'd like to make, in relation to Mandelssohn, is what in the end became his legacy: a translation of the Torah (the Pentateuch) to the German language. He started on this project for various reasons: one, that Christian translations were bound to be Christian in nature, and unfitting for Jews as a result; two, that most Jews at the time studied a Yiddish translation of the Torah, which he saw as an unfitting language for its complexity; and three, to help Jews get closer to the general German culture by helping them learn German. Moses Mandelssohn was a great Jewish scholar and philosopher; he had a few things to say both about the Jewish Halacha and about philosophy, but he's remembered the most due to his translation. Remembered - and sometimes despised for it. You see, it worked; it did get Jews to learn German and be better integrated to the general culture. But it also had a negative impact on the religion. More on that later. The Haskalah movement, because of the aforementioned gap between Judaism and general society, adopted the motto "be a Jew at your home, and a person outside". All that was bound to cause a problem. Most of what I wrote so far is about Germany. This is because it was a huge center of enlightenment. Similar things happened in France, and to a lesser extent in easter Europe, in countries like Poland, Ukraine and Russia; in the Muslim countries - like North Africa, the Ottoman Empire and Yemen - the effects were less immediate, due to the Enlightenment being a European movement. It reached them via colonialism and education centres funded by European Jews, instead, and that actually made the Jews the enlightened people of this area, thus avoiding the gap the European Maskilim fell into. The Yemen Jews who accepted the Haskalah ideas mostly just estranged themselves from Jewish mysticism; the Jewish community in Babbel - Iraq of today - first accepted a school funded by French Jews, only to find out about the negative impact it had religiously and stop sending their children there. The North African Jews received French citizenship far easier than the Muslims around them, and many of them went to live at France at some point, though I don't know how they reacted to the ideas of the Haskalah. That will be it for today, I'm afraid. I planned on talking about much more, but I delayed quite a lot in delivering in my promise. So this is the first chapter in the series, I don't know how many more I will post.
  2. Hello, and welcome (back) to my random ramble/blog! Still Trutharchivist here, and continuing from the last entry, today I want to talk about Reform Judaism, how it began and what it resulted. Just one clarification for the previous entry: I realized I might have indicated that the Haskalah movement caused religious degradation directly. This is not completely accurate; while secularity was caused by the Enlightenment in Jews just as much as it did with Christians, the Haskalah movement wasn't necessarily a part of it. Many of the members of this movement, like Mandelssohn, were devout practicing Jews. In some ways, the fraction of Orthodox Judaism I belong to is not unlike them. Just, the fact they tried to hold the rope on both ends sometimes led to them dropping things from their belief, as we'll see in this entry. As a side note I'd mention that none of Mandelssohn's descendants stayed a practicing Jew. Another clarification: I believe I forgot to include dates, which is kind of stupid of me, in hindsight. For reference, Mandelssohn lived during the 18th century (1729-1786), he arrived at Berlin in 1743, and the Lavatar incident occurred during 1769. Hope this helps with the chronology. Anyway, Reform Judaism. So, we had talked about the gap between Jews and the general society of Europe. We explained (somewhat) the problems it caused, and showed how one person reacted to this, with a few tidbits about how others did. There were some Jews who became secular altogether; but we’re not really here to talk about them today. As odd as it may seem to me as an Orthodox Jew, we’re talking about the ones who didn’t want to abandon their traditions completely, the ones who thought that Judaism needed nothing more than a little fixing to fit with the times - Reform Jews. Odd to me because, well, Orthodox Judaism doesn't favor Reform over secularity by much. It's been some time between the death of Mandelssohn and the actual start of something that was different enough to be dubbed Reform Judaism, though a few things that later became the movement's trademarks appeared during that time. A Maskil - a member of the Haskalah movement - named Saul Ascher wrote in his book “Leviathan, or religion in respect of Judaism” (1792) that the principles of faith are the important part of Judaism, while the practical commandments were secondary and by modern times didn’t serve their purpose. There were a few changes to the prayers in a synagogue in Amsterdam in 1796, including removing some Piyutim (religious poems, more or less) from the prayer and adding a sermon in the local language. In Westphalia it was decided by the local Jewish Consistory, headed by Rabbi Israel Jacobson, in 1810 to change the prayers a little and cancel some traditions in order to keep an atmosphere of seriousness in the synagogue - to somewhat look like a Christian church. Jacobson was later involved with more changes to the prayers - including in the incident of the Hamburg Temple Dispute. The Hamburg Temple was a Jewish temple - you could say. It's actually a synagogue, but it's almost always referred to as a temple. It may or may not be related to a certain point in the dispute about it - I'm not really sure. Anyway, the actual problem started with a few changes in how prayers went in the Temple. You see, the Hamburg Temple, unlike traditional synagogues, used a choir and an organ in the prayers (the organ was played by a gentile during Shabbat) and added prayers in German - of which at least the first two were perceived to just be added to make it more like a church. All that in itself, though, wasn't any worse than what we already mentioned, and what another congregation in Berlin already started doing - and while many Orthodox rabbis thought it problematic, it wasn't quite enough to create a schism just yet. What did that was a new Siddur - a Jewish prayer book, so to speak - published the same year the Temple was opened (1818) and used in it. In this Siddur, many mentions of wishes and prayers to return to Jerusalem and reinstate the Temple there were revised, and prayers to salvation of the Jewish people and the coming of the Messiah were changed to be about more universal salvation. And that started the heart of the problem. As an opening to what I'm about to say, I want to mention that while working on this essay I texted a Reform rabbi to try and hear things from their side. After mentioning this specific bit about the erasure of the hope to return to Zion, he remarked that while it's true that the Reform movement was anti-Zionist in its early days, the same could be said about Orthodox Judaism. This is, indeed, a good point, since some of the prominent rabbis who resisted the Reform movement - like Hatam Sofer and Rashar Hirsch, on whom I intend to elaborate in future essays - were anti-Zionists as well. So it isn't the anti-Zionism in this change that was seen as problematic; instead, it was the drastic change in understanding what salvation meant. You see, for over 2000 years, Jews have waited for a certain series of events: the coming of a Messiah of king David's line, all the people of Israel being brought back to their ancestral land, the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt and the ancient kingdom being refounded and getting peace at last. All that, under G-d's guidance, of course. I hope to delve in later essays as to why Zionism wasn't seen as fulfilling that dream, for now suffice it to say that's how it was. But Reform Judaism took a hard turn in the opposite direction: what if we already got our salvation without realizing it (or are much closer to it than we thought)? Throughout history, Christianity pursued Jews, only stopping short of completely destroying them due to a council decision from its early days. But in this modern day and age, in the most Enlightened Germany - home to Kant and Hegel, Schiller and Goethe, with emancipation for Jews being visible in the horizon… surely, we're already at the age of the Messiah. Surely, thought the early fathers of the Reform movement, this is all we could and should hope for. After all, the Temple in Jerusalem and the sacrifices made in it seemed far and kind of barbaric, really. Is that really what we hope and wait for? Opening a compound for butchering animals and burning their meat? Surely, that's not what G-d would want for us. Other people had different reactions to the possibility of emancipation, and I promise you I'll get to them eventually, but that's probably a good approximation of what went through the early Reform rabbis' heads. In addition, they may have adopted the ideas of nationalism in a rather different way from the Zionists - why assume a nation so different from those around you, when you can be a German of Moshe's faith? The same could be applied to France, or England, or the newly-founded USA - all places Reform Judaism spread to and became prominent in. As a side note, I’ll say that this term (or, well, a very similar one) was apparently used first in the Grand Sanhedrin that Napoleon Bonaparte founded in 1806, where the assembly called Jews “French of Moses’ Faith”. While the Sanhedrin wasn’t necessarily Reform (well, the movement didn’t really exist at the time, so it wasn’t exactly a possibility), its decisions stretched the Halachah a bit and later the main Consistoire of France (Consistoire were the governing bodies of Jewish congregations in France from Napoleon’s time onward) was mostly Reform. Anyway, all that was directly opposed to traditional Judaism, which still hopes to return to Israel - if not in the way the Zionists did. Because even if you don't believe in pushing for founding an independent state, you can still believe that being a Jew is more than obeying the laws of a religion - it's belonging to a nation… Or maybe I'm just saying that because I'm a Zionist myself. Mostly, abandoning the Messianic beliefs entirely - which seemed to be what this new Siddur attempted to do - was seen as an unforgivable deed. Many Orthodox rabbis of the time went against it - prominent among them was the aforementioned Hatam Sofer of Pressburg (nowadays known as Bratislava), who voiced loud and clear objections to the changes made by the Reform Jews. Letters of rabbis who resisted the changes were published together under the title "Eleh Divrei HaBrit" (lit. Those are the Words of the Covenant). This pushed a little back on the whole affair, and some of the changes were withdrawn - at least temporarily. All that does supposedly nothing to assert what I started with, that those were the ones who wanted to keep the religion and tradition. But the point is, secularity became common in Jewish youths at this time and place. Trying to settle Judaism with the spirit of the time like the Reform Jews did was their way to hold on to their beliefs. It was hard for some Jews to accept that the ideal is of Jews returning to an ancient, dead land from their birthplaces. The choice they saw before them, most probably, was either keeping Judaism without the messianic ideal, or abandoning it entirely. That's as to the Hamburg Temple Dispute. But in my work on those essays, I wanted to cover things from the angle of at least one rabbi or thinker from each movement, to give a better idea of what the movement’s ideology was. So, to elaborate some more about the changes - reforms - this Movement made, I'd like to talk about one of the prominent Reform rabbis - Abraham Geiger. Abraham Geiger was born in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1810. His family was Orthodox, though they were open to studying German and general science. In 1829 he went to study in the University at Heidelberg - leaving it after a short while due to his professor and fellow students laughing at recent Pogroms. He then went to the University of Bonn, where he met and befriended Rashar Hirsch - who later became his bitter rival, we'll talk about him in a future essay. He probably went to a university because it was required of would-be rabbis at the time in Germany -after all, he later asked for and got a Semikha - meaning, he was ordained as a rabbi - in 1832, and served as one in multiple places (including his hometown of Frankfurt and Berlin) during the following years. But considering his positions, he probably was very interested in studying history and critical studies of the Tanakh anyway. Either way, the things he taught were (unsurprisingly, considering our context) controversial. He believed that the Prophets and the Sages all worked to rid Judaism of being overly ritualistic. He believed that G-d's will is revealed differently from generation to generation - something of a reasoning as to why changing the Halakha should be fine. He had a somewhat more scholarly view of the Torah, and supported views of Biblical criticism - which are mostly opposed to traditional views of the Torah, though contrary to popular belief they aren't necessarily anti-religious. There was a tidbit I wanted to add about views towards the Oral Torah; but it appears the only person to have said those was actually Zacharias Frankel, who went on to become the model for Conservative Judaism. I'm not sure if Geiger held similar opinions - he probably went even farther - after all, Frankel didn’t approve of Biblical criticism, while Geiger was apparently well known to be involved with it. He organized quite a few conventions of Reform rabbis, one of which Zacharias Frankel went to - only to run out and slam the door behind him. We'll talk about this event and Conservative Judaism in another essay. In short: Reform Judaism sought to fit in better with the gentile society around them and with the ideals presented by the Enlightenment philosophers (well, the ideals of the era at least). This last part is shown by the tendency of Geiger to take a critical view of the Torah, for example - something that gentile thinkers of the time saw as essential, while Orthodox Jewish thinkers saw it as bad. The abandonment of the Messianic ideal served for assimilation, too - because the Messianic ideal itself set Jews apart by saying that one day they'll leave this land and go back to Israel. The Reform counterpoint, then, would be to define themselves as Germans of Moshe's faith - or, well, replace "Germans" with whatever other nation you want. So, what happens with Reform Judaism nowadays? Well, today they are most prominent in the US - in fact, they are the most prominent Jewish denomination in America, meaning if you meet a Jew in the States (well, probably outside New York, where there are many Orthodox Jews) - chances are they are Reform. Not that I would know all that well - I don't live there and never have. In Israel, there are Reform congregations - the Reform rabbi I talked to is Israeli - but they aren't very prominent. We do hear from them every now and then, but not much. Their practices can vary, but they generally will be more receptive to modern ideals - the red lines are mostly not believing that there is one G-d and not circumcising the sons, IE not doing Brit Milah (though some early Reform rabbis did want to cancel this practice). Interestingly enough, modern Reform congregations are still somewhat opposed to ordaining intermarriage between Jews and gentiles - but a non-Jewish partner of a Jewish person will be accepted at a Reform temple. Generally they are much less strict than Orthodox Judaism in obeying the Halacha - they're willing to bend it for modern ideals such as equality and acceptance, and for having a Jewish experience even if it's not according to the halacha, like driving to a synagogue during Shabbat (Saturday). There is no separation between men and women in their temples and they ordain women as rabbis - both things that aren’t approved by Orthodox rabbis. Well, that's it for now, hope it was helpful! Sorry for the huge delay, I procrastinated and tried to find good sources for a while. Can't promise the same thing won't happen again - I still am not sure whether I'll talk about Ultra-Orthodox or Conservative Judaism next time! If you have an opinion on the matter, or have anything to say, please do comment. Thank you for reading, and have a good day!
  3. Hello, Trutharchivist speaking. This is my blog, I’m happy to see you here! This is my new (third so far) post about the history of Judaism during the Age of Enlightenment forward. Specifically I’m talking about the scale of conservation vs change in religion - so far I’ve talked about the Haskalah and the beginning of breaching the walls of the ghetto (that existed way before World War 2, calm down), and of how this breach led, eventually, to the forming of the Reform Jewish movement. In the post about Reform Judaism, I’ve name-dropped a couple of Jewish rabbis on whom I said I’ll elaborate later. Well, it’s still going to take a while, but I can promise we’ll reach all of them (assuming I’ll keep writing this, low feedback makes it a tad less probable). This time, I wish to talk about Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. On the scale I mentioned it’s the exact other end from Reform - to go orderly on the scale would be to talk about Conservative Judaism; but since historically the forming of Ultra-Orthodox ideas came first, I decided to put it first. What can you expect from this particular essay? Well, talking about the negative reactions to the Enlightenment and emancipation from some more traditional Jews, especially another Frankfurt-am-Main born rabbi - Rabbi Moshe Sofer, AKA Hatam Sofer. We’ll also get to see the Jewish Frankfurt before the time of Abraham Geiger. Speaking of which, a few additions to the previous installment: firstly, further research shows that Geiger’s father was a bit more traditional than I implied - young Abraham had to study history under his father’s nose, since the latter didn’t support of Jews studying secular sciences. He went to university to study Middle-Eastern languages, and though I might’ve been right about it being a requirement to be a rabbi, it rather seems that this wasn’t the most important part of it in Geiger’s mind. Regarding the critical Tanakh study, I’ve found out more about his specific opinion - he believed that Judaism evolves through the generations, and that as a part of this evolution, during the time of the Pharisees vs. the Sadducces the Pharisees edited parts of the Tanakh to fit better with their view - I hope it’s obvious enough why such opinions won’t be accepted by Orthodox Jews. If not, maybe it will be after this essay. I got this point from a book of his named “The Original Text and the Translations of the Bible”, originally published in German in 1857. (To be a tad more accurate, it was from the preface by Prof. Joseph Klausner to the Hebrew translation of the book from 1949; but it had a summary of the book, so I’ll go with that.) Anyway, to start with a few things about Orthodoxy: it continues on, as best it can, the way Judaism existed way before the Age of Enlightenment came around. Yet, there is not much point to talk about Orthodoxy before the Reform and Conservative movements exist, so I’m going to refer to the reactions from traditionalist Jewish rabbis to the Reform as the founding of Ultra-Orthodox ideas. Now, all this is not to say different Jewish denominations didn’t exist before: Karaites aren’t exactly Orthodox and have existed for centuries… but they aren’t very sizable and many Jews never even heard of them. I might refer to them again later, but I’ll leave talking about them to another theoretical essay series, since they emerged at an entirely different era and for entirely different reasons - reasons that could be applicable against Reform and Conservative Judaism just as much, if not more so, than against Orthodox Judaism. Hopefully that was comprehensible. Anyway, Ultra Orthodox Judaism. The thing is, emancipation and acceptance into gentile society weren’t necessarily things all Jews wanted or liked. For hundreds of years we lived among ourselves, with some autonomy to judge ourselves. We were detached from gentile society, and some people were completely fine with it. Emancipation included things they didn’t want to deal with - plus the fact all this scientific study led to secularity, and quite naturally there were Jews who didn’t want that. So they resisted it. Well, not all that much, but… When Moses Mandelssohn - remember him? We talked about him in the first essay - wanted to be ordained as a rabbi in 1761, Rav Yehonatan Eibeschitz (who himself did study some general science - I know I’m being overly general, but I kind of have to) refused to ordain him, on the flimsy ground that before he got married he couldn’t get a certain title, but the other title possible was too low to fit him. Apparently scholars think it has more to do with him learning philosophy etc. I’m not sure how much more I can find, because it wasn’t necessarily all that bad - Jewish rabbis were known to study the science of their time for centuries, with possible examples including a few Amoras (rabbis from the time of the Talmud, over 1500 years ago), Rambam (AKA Maimonides), Ibn Ezra, Rabeinu Tam and many more - those names might not mean much for non-Jews, but they are very prominent Jewish rabbis (mostly Sepharadic ones - meaning those who came from Spain. I give the credit to the Muslims). Things became more complicated later, when the Reform rose and Haskalah was seen as related. I can say that in stories told by Ultra-Orthodox Jews about rabbis of the time, the Maskil - a member of the Haskalah movement - is usually portrayed in a negative light. Anyway, to better understand Orthodox Judaism I rather want to follow the example I set in the two previous essays and follow a prominent rabbi and thinker - this time the Hatam Sofer. Rabbi Moshe Sofer was born in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1762 to an Orthodox family. The sharp-eyed among you will note this was later to be the origin city of Abraham Geiger, too - it was a prominent city for Judaism in that era, we’ll visit it again later. As a matter of fact, it ended up becoming mostly Reform - but we’ll get to it. For now, we’ll say that Rabbi Moshe Sofer studied there under both Rav Nathan Adler and Rav Pinchas Horowitz. In 1782, Rav Nathan Adler was banished from Frankfurt due to praying in a Sepharadi Hebrew accent and various other behaviors the local congregation deemed unacceptable, and when he left - Rabbi Moshe Sofer left with him. In a certain future essay, we’ll encounter more people who acted not dissimilarly to Rav Nathan, and we’ll see how such things were accepted in eastern Europe. Rabbi Moshe Sofer later became the rabbi of various cities around Czechia and Hungary (after being ordained by both Rav Nathan Adler and the chief Rabbi of Moravia at the time), with the city he’s most remembered as the rabbi of being Bratislava - which back then was called Pressburg. He became a rabbi there in 1807. He wrote (at some point) a book on the Talmud called “Chidushei Torat Moshe” - it’s hard to translate, it basically means “new understandings in Moshe’s Torah”, more or less, referring both to the fact we call the Torah “Moshe’s Torah” and to his own name. He was called Hatam Sofer after this book - with Hatam being an acronym of the book’s name, and also incidentally meaning seal. So, what can we say about Hatam Sofer’s resistance to the Reform and somewhat to the Haskalah? I think I’ll start on that with a story. For some context, emancipation for Jews was discussed as a possibility in the Holy Roman Empire at the time, and possibly also in neighboring kingdoms. They say that one Shabbat - a Saturday, the resting day in Judaism - Hatam Sofer went to say a Drasha, which is more-or-less a sermon but I’m not sure if this is a good comparison. In this Drasha, he told the following parable: Once, there was a king’s son who disgraced his father and disobeyed him. Thus, as a punishment he was sent to exile to a far-off land for an undetermined amount of time. After a while, the king asked after his son, because even in punishment - he still loved him. He heard that his son lives in the garbage, with hardly anything to eat or a good place to sleep. Once he heard that, the king sent his messengers to his son’s place of exile. The king’s son seemed excited to see his father’s messengers, at first, but then they started building him a good, steady house and bringing him money for provisions, and he started crying. The local men were surprised at that and asked the king’s son what he’s sad about. After all, it seems his father still remembers him and cares about him! The king’s son replied: how can I not cry? At first, when I lived in the garbage it was very uncomfortable, but at least I could draw comfort from knowing my father won’t leave me like that for long, and I’ll soon return home. But now that he’s making things easier for me, that he’s making sure I’m comfortable in my exile, I see that he intends for me to stay here for much, much more time, and how can I not cry over that? As per usual in Jewish parables, the father/king is G-d, and the son is the people of Israel. Hatam Sofer said: it’s true life in exile wasn't good for us, we suffered and were prosecuted. But at least we knew G-d would eventually hear our prayers and deliver us. Now that He gives us emancipation and ways to live in comfort here, in our exile, it means we’re in this for the long run. Well, longer run than it was so far. All that is just regarding emancipation for its pure idea. The results it usually led to are a whole different story - after all, it tended to lead to either secularity or conversion to Christianity. Generally, in relation to new things, Hatam Sofer’s opinion was clear: “Chadash Asur Min HaTorah!” meaning lit. “New things are forbidden according to the Torah!” This sentence was originally about the newly harvested grains - I talked about it in my SU about Shavuot, linked here. You see? When I tell you we’ll revisit something, I actually mean it! Bear with me for just a little while longer and we’ll touch on everything I promised I’ll touch on. Anyway, using this motto Hatam Sofer resisted any new innovations that tried to be made in Judaism. An elementary school for Jews in Pressburg trying to teach core studies? Not on his watch. A synagogue in Hamburg is trying to pray in German and change the prayers’ text? Not going to happen. Even if some of the changes could be supported by the Halacha, Hatam Sofer refused to start going down in this direction, fearing the slippery slopes that may be found there. Now, regarding studying general science eventually - he actually accepted that. He himself studied at some point some math, astronomy, and philosophy. But in his view, studying the Torah always came first. He died in 1839… Leading to people taking his ideas to the extreme. After Hatam Sofer’s death, his followers - who were called Ultra Orthodox by many, but referred to themselves as Hareidim or Yereim [both coming from words meaning they were G-d fearing, could be roughly translated to pious (or frum, in Yiddish)] - resisted the idea of teaching boys anything but Torah, even more than Hatam Sofer and his original followers. Though, oddly enough, they let girls study general science - but not Torah. This has led to an odd situation where wives were typically more well-educated in the general sense, but they knew nearly nothing from the Torah. I think I’ll leave the “nowadays” conclusion to the next essay, to summarize all factions of Orthodox Judaism together - plus I’ll have a better conclusion for that after I finish the essays on this topic. A short summary: many more traditional Jews didn’t like the emancipation and studying secular sciences, so they tried to strengthen the falling walls of the ghetto as much as they could. First and foremost among them was Hatam Sofer, who coined the phrase “new things are forbidden according to the Torah!” He himself wasn’t completely opposed to studying science, though he did approach it warily, but his students and successors took it a bit further and forbade it almost entirely. Well, hopefully that’s enough for now. Next time we’ll talk about Neo-Orthodoxy, and after that there’ll be a post about Conservative Judaism and a wrap-up of this topic. Thank you for reading and have a good day!
  4. Hello! Welcome again to my blog. I'm still Trutharchivist - that's not changing until Ookla season comes by, or until I find a better name (unlikely). I'm sorry to tell you, though, this isn't the expected essay about Modern-Orthodox Judaism, neither it is one about Conservative Judaism. Rather, it's an elaboration on why I chose this period, what you might expect from future posts here, what periods I won't be talking about and why. I'm writing this because I've just watched a video that explained in a neat chart the different denominations - or streams, as it called them - of Judaism, and some of the things that were said there deeply irritated me. So, why am I writing about the Age of Enlightenment? Mostly because it was a huge upheaval for Ashkenazi Jews. Duing this time - from about the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th - major changes were made to the European world, and Judaism was deeply affected by them. Those effects are still seen today, in many different reactions to secular studies, to change and to the rise of ideologies like nationalism and socialism - in addition to different approaches to mysticism. All those things are still affecting the Jewish world in various ways, and understanding it will be helpful to stop generalizing too much about Jews - that most of them don't believe in G-d, that they strictly adhere to the letter of the Law, that "true" Judaism is anti-Zionist, that they're all rationalists - all misconceptions when generalized, some of which I've actually seen in the past and some of which I'm more vaguely assuming might exist. I may well be wrong. Another part of it is the vague suspicion people assume Jewish Reform had to do with the same things Martin Luther's focused on. I personally think the two came from very different places and should be acknowledged as such - but I'm biased, since I'm Orthodox (and I find that I agree with some of the things Luther said. Except the parts about Jews, those are just regular ol' antisemitism). Those are my reasons for focusing on this period so far, at least. So, the next question I should answer is: are there other time periods I might cover here? Or am I content to stick to those three centuries? Even if I leave this period, are there periods in the History of Judaism I wouldn't talk about at all? The answer, simply put, is: I might explore some other periods, depending on the level of interst by my audience and how I feel about it. However, there are periods I don't want to cover - namely, the Biblical period, the time of what you call the Old Testment. You see, the thing is this period is detailed in the Bible, but somewhat less existent in History books, which tend to not consider the Bible as a viable source and thus don't have much outside of archeological findings to go on. And, since I'm religious, and since those scholarly views tend to assume that there is no G-d and that the Bible is merely a fictional book I find it hard to talk about it. I might feel free to talk about Biblical stories and paragraphs from plenty of angles, but the historical one won't be one of them, I'm afraid. I would like to add that I'm actually planning to go as far back as the 17th century after I go over Modern Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, as a background to the next portion on the series - about Ḥassidut, Mussar and the Lithuanian Yeshivot, I think it's going to be necessary. Besides that, I don't think I'll go over many other periods, though the beginning of Karaite Judaism and Muslim Spain are two possible topics after I finish with the Age of Enlightenment part - as well as the Tosafot era in France, which is much more of an inner-Judaism thing. Now, the reason I went to this length to explain myself is that the video I mentioned basically said Judaism is a branch of the Canaanite polytheistic faith that became Monotheistic in exile. This, along with saying things like "Ashtoret is the Jewish G-d's spouse" tend to infuriate me to no end, since it starts out from the assumption that Judaism is and always has been lying about itself and its history. I realize that historical research arrived at those conclusions, but I daresay that it's probably not all that one-sided and that it's not an impossible outlook, to believe that when Elijah told the Israelites on the Carmel to stop hopping between to faiths and to decide between G-d and the Ba'al - he actually had basis to what he said in the Jewish faith that existed previously. Anyway, this has just been my latest rant on this here. I hope you've enjoyed it and that my sleep deprivation didn't affect it too much. Your irregularly scheduled actual update will happen sometime in the future, please be patient. Thank you for reading, and have a good day!
×
×
  • Create New...