- Berlin
Ronen Pinkas
Universitaet Potsdam, Jewish Theology, Department Member
- Jewish Philosophy, Hebrew Bible, Comperative Theology, Jewish Thought, Yoga Philosophy, Religious Studies, and 39 morePhilosophy Of Religion, Psychoanalysis and religion, Erich Fromm, Sigmund Freud, Franz Rosenzweig, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Émmanuel Lévinas, Viktor Frankl, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jewish Mysticism, Mysticism, Friedrich Nietzsche, Franz Kafka, Animal Ethics, Jewish Ethics, Interreligious Dialogue, German Idealism, Humanities, Philosophy Of Language, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophical Theology, Theology, Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, Rabbinic Literature, German-Jewish Studies, Biblical Hermeneutics, Hermeneutics, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Levinas, Jewish History, Modern Jewish History, Ethics, Applied Ethics, and Pragmatismedit
- Dr. Pinkas is a research fellow at the School of Jewish Theology at Potsdam University in Germany (PhD. Jewish Philos... moreDr. Pinkas is a research fellow at the School of Jewish Theology at Potsdam University in Germany (PhD. Jewish Philosophy at Bar-Ilan University). He is a member of the International Erich-Fromm Society and the International Rosenzweig Society. Among his research interests are contemporary Jewish philosophy, Jewish Law, Judaism and psychoanalysis, and interreligious dialogue.edit
In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm (1900–1980) defines his position as nontheistic mysticism. This research clarifies the term, considers its importance within Fromm’s humanism, and explores its potential origins. The nontheistic... more
In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm (1900–1980) defines his position as nontheistic mysticism. This research clarifies the term, considers its importance within Fromm’s humanism, and explores its potential origins. The nontheistic mystical position plays a central role in Fromm’s understanding of the relationship between mysticism and organized religion, religion and religiosity, and it clarifies the relationship between religion, philosophy, and social psychoanalysis, whose combination constitutes his humanistic ethics. Nontheistic mysticism relates, as well, to Fromm’s understanding of human nature; it involves the question of the relationship between language, perception, and experience. The nontheistic mystical position is linked to Fromm’s negative theology, the x experience, and idolatry. Hence, the nontheistic mystical position is relevant to Fromm’s understanding of self realization and his vision of a sane society. Unlike some scholarly opinion, the conclusions of this paper suggest that Fromm’s humanism is not radical, as long as radical is defined as an absolute atheistic secular feature that eliminates the range of religious language and experience. Rather, it is a broad and cautious humanism that, on the one hand, internalizes the transcendent divinity into the human subject and transforms it into anthropological–ethical phenomena, but, on the other, implies that atheism carries the risk of an idolatrous identification of the human being with God. Consequently, this humanism requires a religious–mystical component to adequately portray the spiritual and ethical potentials of humanity and its challenges. Nontheistic mysticism is a consciousness mechanism aimed at the fine-tuning of the individual’s moral compass, which is affected by the pathologies of normalcy that prevail in all societies.
Research Interests:
This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference between two patterns of recognition: the dialectical and the dialogical. The second assumption is that the origins of the dialogical pattern... more
This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference between two patterns of recognition: the dialectical and the dialogical. The second assumption is that the origins of the dialogical pattern may be found in the relationship between human beings and God, a relationship in which prayer has a major role. The second assumption leads to the supposition that the emphasis of the dialogic approach on moral responsibility is theologically grounded. In other words, the relationship between humanity and God serves as a paradigm for human relationships. By focusing on Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig, in the context of prayer and dialectic, this paper highlights the complexity of these themes in modern Jewish thought. These two important philosophers utilize dialectical reasoning while also criticizing it and offering an alternative. The conclusions of their thought, in general, and their position on prayer, in particular, demonstrate a preference for a relational way of thinking over a dialectical one, but without renouncing the latter.
Research Interests:
This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig’s use of the term “the unconscious” (das Unbewußte) and possible influences on his understanding of it. I claim that for Rosenzweig, it is through the unconscious that the individual becomes aware of... more
This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig’s use of the term “the unconscious” (das Unbewußte) and possible influences on his understanding of it. I claim that for Rosenzweig, it is through the unconscious that the individual becomes aware of himself and becomes capable of fulfilling his longing to achieve self-fulfillment and eventually to take part in a collective redemption. The unconscious is often perceived as the mental sphere related to trauma and repression in which defense mechanisms and fantasies are evolved. Fantasies are psychological tools that allow the individual to cope with trauma, but they are also “layers of enclosedness,” illusions that should be dissolved. Hence, in the unconscious, we find a possibility of liberation.
Research Interests:
This article examines Erich Fromm (1900-1980) within the context of the so-called "renaissance of Jewish religious thought" in Germany during the early 20th century. It is well known that Fromm was a member of the Institute for Social... more
This article examines Erich Fromm (1900-1980) within the context of the so-called "renaissance of Jewish religious thought" in Germany during the early 20th century. It is well known that Fromm was a member of the Institute for Social Research, later called the Frankfurt School. The focus of this study, however, is on what has received little attention in research, namely Fromm's involvement in founding the Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus (the Jewish House of Free Study) in Frankfurt. Fromm participated in the founding of the Lehrhaus as a student and later as a lecturer. During this time, Fromm also wrote his dissertation on Judaism at Heidelberg University. Methodologically, this paper intertwines the historicalbiographical axis, which deals with Fromm's connections to several thinkers: Rabbi Nehemia Nobel, Rabbi Georg Salzberger, Baruch Salman Rabinkow, Franz Rosenzweig, Ernest Simon and others, and the philosophical axis, which focuses on his dissertation, The Jewish Law. The Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus in Frankfurt is primarily associated with Franz Rosenzweig and other thinkers who worked there, such as Gershom Scholem, Ernest Simon, Leo Löwenthal and Martin Buber, who wrote Ich und Du during the years he taught there. With the exception of Buber, the Lehrhaus was their first official teaching venue. The Lehrhaus was characterized by its dialogical atmosphere, and symmetrical relationships between teachers and students, which softened some of the rigidity that was the norm at German educational frameworks at the time. This atmosphere continued to influence Fromm in his adult life, in terms of his attitude towards religion, questioning of authority and his understanding of human nature. Finally, it later played a role in his departure from Freudian libido theory.
This study presents some key ideas from his dissertation, including his position on religious dogma, particularly concerning the Karaite sect, a subject that he later taught as a lecturer at the Lehrhaus. Fromm's dissertation expresses his preoccupation with his Jewish identity and his examination of the complex theopolitical reality in which the Jews of Germany found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, including the debates between Orthodox Jews and reformers, and between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This article supports the claim that Fromm's position that religious factors play a central role in the historical process, which he held throughout his life, was formed in these early years. The article strengthens the scholarly position that Fromm's Jewish background is relevant to understanding his thought in general.
This study presents some key ideas from his dissertation, including his position on religious dogma, particularly concerning the Karaite sect, a subject that he later taught as a lecturer at the Lehrhaus. Fromm's dissertation expresses his preoccupation with his Jewish identity and his examination of the complex theopolitical reality in which the Jews of Germany found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, including the debates between Orthodox Jews and reformers, and between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This article supports the claim that Fromm's position that religious factors play a central role in the historical process, which he held throughout his life, was formed in these early years. The article strengthens the scholarly position that Fromm's Jewish background is relevant to understanding his thought in general.
Research Interests:
In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The... more
In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and
Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In
Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the
biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism
is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The
murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually
contributed to the rational and ethical development of
Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud’s Moses received
extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst,
Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as
on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his
position on Freud’s latest work. This paper offers explanations for
Fromm’s roaring silence on Freud’s Moses.
Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In
Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the
biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism
is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The
murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually
contributed to the rational and ethical development of
Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud’s Moses received
extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst,
Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as
on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his
position on Freud’s latest work. This paper offers explanations for
Fromm’s roaring silence on Freud’s Moses.
Research Interests:
This article begs the question why is it that despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical... more
This article begs the question why is it that despite Jewish tradition devoting
much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict
adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes
to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers
and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism.
What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: “Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19: 18) and “That which is hateful to you
do not do to another” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 31a: 6; Jerusalem Talmud,
Nedarim, 30b: 1) on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the
fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to
a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken
from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his
ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas' ethics
explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: the 'I' is
committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the
affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and
animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?
This paper examines attitudes to animals in Jewish thought. The article
opens with a discussion of man's special status in Creation, as created in the
image of God, and explores, on the one hand, the challenges of this approach
(human supremacy), and, on the other, its inherent potential (human moral
responsibility). The short discussion on the attitudes toward animals in the
Hebrew Bible teaches that moral responsibility does not derive from the special
status awarded to humans in Creation, but rather is rooted in God’s own
relationship to animals. The heart of the article is devoted to discussing the
treatment of animals in Jewish law, how biblical laws that deal with animals
were understood among halakhic thinkers, and, especially, the meaning of
the ancient term “the suffering of living creatures” (tza’ar ba’alei chayim). The
basic premise is that halakhic discourse can provide fertile ground for a philosophical-
religious discourse on animals.
much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict
adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes
to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers
and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism.
What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: “Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19: 18) and “That which is hateful to you
do not do to another” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 31a: 6; Jerusalem Talmud,
Nedarim, 30b: 1) on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the
fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to
a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken
from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his
ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas' ethics
explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: the 'I' is
committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the
affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and
animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?
This paper examines attitudes to animals in Jewish thought. The article
opens with a discussion of man's special status in Creation, as created in the
image of God, and explores, on the one hand, the challenges of this approach
(human supremacy), and, on the other, its inherent potential (human moral
responsibility). The short discussion on the attitudes toward animals in the
Hebrew Bible teaches that moral responsibility does not derive from the special
status awarded to humans in Creation, but rather is rooted in God’s own
relationship to animals. The heart of the article is devoted to discussing the
treatment of animals in Jewish law, how biblical laws that deal with animals
were understood among halakhic thinkers, and, especially, the meaning of
the ancient term “the suffering of living creatures” (tza’ar ba’alei chayim). The
basic premise is that halakhic discourse can provide fertile ground for a philosophical-
religious discourse on animals.
Research Interests:
"Der Sabbat" is Erich Fromm’s first publication in a scientific journal, published in 1927 in Freud’s Imago, and his first reference to religion from a psychoanalytic perspective. Der Sabbat is undoubtedly an extraordinary paper in... more
"Der Sabbat" is Erich Fromm’s first publication in a scientific journal, published in 1927 in Freud’s Imago, and his first reference to religion from a psychoanalytic perspective. Der Sabbat is undoubtedly an extraordinary paper in Fromm’s thought. First, because Fromm later moved away from the conservative Freudian psychoanalytic method, and the pure oedipal approach he presents to religion and Judaism does not reflect his later thought. Second, the way in which the Sabbath is presented in this essay differs from the way it was presented earlier in his 1922 doctoral dissertation The Jewish Law (Fromm 1989b) and his later writings (The Forgotten Language (1951a), You shall be as Gods (1966a), and To Have or to Be (1976a). However, his early article reflects his interdisciplinary approach and unique creativity that will characterize his future works. The Sabbath is, therefore, an interesting point of departure to examine the development of Fromm’s thought concerning Judaism and law in religion.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
קורלציה ואוריינטציה: יחסו של אריך פרום לדת לאור הגותם של הרמן יחזקאל כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג תקציר בעברית אריך פנחס פרום (1980-1900) הוא ככול הנראה אחד ההוגים החשובים והמשפיעים ביותר של המאה העשרים. השפעתו הנרחבת ניכרת בתחומים רבים של... more
קורלציה ואוריינטציה: יחסו של אריך פרום לדת לאור הגותם של הרמן יחזקאל כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג
תקציר בעברית
אריך פנחס פרום (1980-1900) הוא ככול הנראה אחד ההוגים החשובים והמשפיעים ביותר של המאה העשרים. השפעתו הנרחבת ניכרת בתחומים רבים של מדעי החברה, הפסיכואנליזה וחקר האישיות, המדעים ההומניסטיים, חינוך, ביקורת התרבות והדת, מקרא, תיאולוגיה השוואתית, מיסטיקה וזן בודהיזם. מאמר זה מציג את יחסו של פרום לדת, למקורות הדת וליהדות לאור הגותם של הרמן כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג. במבוא מוצגים בקצרה הקשרים הביוגרפיים והרעיוניים שבין ההוגים. פרום נפגש עם רעיונותיו של כהן בתחילת דרכו האינטלקטואלית כאשר היה חבר במעגל התלמידים של הרב נחמיה אנטון נובל בשנים 1921-1916, ואף לקח חלק פעיל בהתהוותו של בית המדרש היהודי החופשי בפרנקפורט. בשנת 1923 לימד פרום בבית המדרש, שהיה אז תחת ניהולו של רוזנצווייג, לצדם של ארנסט סימון, גרשום שלום, מרטין בובר והוגים חשובים נוספים. חלקו הראשון של המאמר מציג את תפיסתו של פרום את מושג הדת ומראה את הקרבה שקיימת בין כהן ובין פרום באשר למקורותיה של הדת, למושג האל וליחסים שבין דת למוסר. על השפעתו של כהן על מחשבתו מצהיר פרום כבר בכתביו המוקדמים כמו גם בעבודותיו המאוחרות. הצגתו של כהן את היהדות כמונותיאיזם מוסרי אשר הביא לאנושות את האל האחד ואת החזון המשיחי של אחדות האנושות כפי שהוא מתואר על ידי הנביאים, נוכחת בעבודותיו של פרום ומהדהדת בדיוניו על הנצרות, האלילות וביקורת החברה והתרבות. חלקו השני של המאמר עוסק בדמיון ובשוני שבין פרום לרוזנצווייג על בסיס ניתוח הקשר שבין אוריינטציה, התגלות ואלילות. כבר במחציתה הראשונה של המאה העשרים העלו רוזנצווייג ופרום את האפשרות כי יש להתייחס לפולחן האלילי כבעיית אוריינטציה הרלוונטית לעת המודרנית. מחקר זה משווה בין גישתם וטוען כי לשיטתם, חרף ההבדלים בהבנתם את מושג האל, ישנו קשר משמעותי בין אלילות לבין ניכור. חלקו האחרון של המאמר מציע דיון פנומנולוגי-השוואתי וביקורתי בין ההתגלות לפי רוזנצווייג לבין חוויה-X לפי פרום. הן ההתגלות והן חוויה-X מהווים אירוע משמעותי בחייו של האדם שבו העצמיות נפתחת מסגירותה ומתוודעת אל האפשרות הטרנסצנדנטית. בשני המקרים, מדובר בחוויה מכוננת בה העצמיות משתחררת מכבליה האליליים של האנוכיות והלאומיות הנרקיסיסטית, ופונה אל המציאות כפי שהיא מתוך מבע של תבונה ואהבה.
תקציר בעברית
אריך פנחס פרום (1980-1900) הוא ככול הנראה אחד ההוגים החשובים והמשפיעים ביותר של המאה העשרים. השפעתו הנרחבת ניכרת בתחומים רבים של מדעי החברה, הפסיכואנליזה וחקר האישיות, המדעים ההומניסטיים, חינוך, ביקורת התרבות והדת, מקרא, תיאולוגיה השוואתית, מיסטיקה וזן בודהיזם. מאמר זה מציג את יחסו של פרום לדת, למקורות הדת וליהדות לאור הגותם של הרמן כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג. במבוא מוצגים בקצרה הקשרים הביוגרפיים והרעיוניים שבין ההוגים. פרום נפגש עם רעיונותיו של כהן בתחילת דרכו האינטלקטואלית כאשר היה חבר במעגל התלמידים של הרב נחמיה אנטון נובל בשנים 1921-1916, ואף לקח חלק פעיל בהתהוותו של בית המדרש היהודי החופשי בפרנקפורט. בשנת 1923 לימד פרום בבית המדרש, שהיה אז תחת ניהולו של רוזנצווייג, לצדם של ארנסט סימון, גרשום שלום, מרטין בובר והוגים חשובים נוספים. חלקו הראשון של המאמר מציג את תפיסתו של פרום את מושג הדת ומראה את הקרבה שקיימת בין כהן ובין פרום באשר למקורותיה של הדת, למושג האל וליחסים שבין דת למוסר. על השפעתו של כהן על מחשבתו מצהיר פרום כבר בכתביו המוקדמים כמו גם בעבודותיו המאוחרות. הצגתו של כהן את היהדות כמונותיאיזם מוסרי אשר הביא לאנושות את האל האחד ואת החזון המשיחי של אחדות האנושות כפי שהוא מתואר על ידי הנביאים, נוכחת בעבודותיו של פרום ומהדהדת בדיוניו על הנצרות, האלילות וביקורת החברה והתרבות. חלקו השני של המאמר עוסק בדמיון ובשוני שבין פרום לרוזנצווייג על בסיס ניתוח הקשר שבין אוריינטציה, התגלות ואלילות. כבר במחציתה הראשונה של המאה העשרים העלו רוזנצווייג ופרום את האפשרות כי יש להתייחס לפולחן האלילי כבעיית אוריינטציה הרלוונטית לעת המודרנית. מחקר זה משווה בין גישתם וטוען כי לשיטתם, חרף ההבדלים בהבנתם את מושג האל, ישנו קשר משמעותי בין אלילות לבין ניכור. חלקו האחרון של המאמר מציע דיון פנומנולוגי-השוואתי וביקורתי בין ההתגלות לפי רוזנצווייג לבין חוויה-X לפי פרום. הן ההתגלות והן חוויה-X מהווים אירוע משמעותי בחייו של האדם שבו העצמיות נפתחת מסגירותה ומתוודעת אל האפשרות הטרנסצנדנטית. בשני המקרים, מדובר בחוויה מכוננת בה העצמיות משתחררת מכבליה האליליים של האנוכיות והלאומיות הנרקיסיסטית, ופונה אל המציאות כפי שהיא מתוך מבע של תבונה ואהבה.
This article invites an encounter between the Near and the Far East. The study phenomenologically analyzes two differing approaches to the notion of “cosmic justice.” Both approaches, “measure for measure” / the Biblical principle of... more
This article invites an encounter between the Near and the Far East.
The study phenomenologically analyzes two differing approaches to the notion of “cosmic justice.” Both approaches, “measure for measure” / the
Biblical principle of reward and punishment and the karma principle
in ancient Hindu literature (as represented in the Bhagavad Gita and
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali), express the human need and desire to achieve
a wider understanding of man’s place in the world. They both illustrate
that there is an essential connection between what happens in man’s life
and his previous actions. The aim of this study is not to combine the approaches, but to present their similarities and differences, based on their meanings within the contextual and cultural moment in which they appear. Key questions discussed in this research are:
1. What are the similarities and differences between Karma and the
principle of “measure for measure,” given the situation of man in the
world, human relationships, and the relationship between man and God?
2. To what extent is it possible to clarify the differences between the
two approaches on the basis of their conceptual backgrounds?
Jacob’s story in Genesis (chapters 25-50) serves as a textual point of
departure for this comparative theological research. The study concludes
that the different approaches share an essential ethical connection based
upon events of the past, present and future. Both imply an educational
lesson, teaching that the individual is responsible for the consequences
of his actions. The Hindu-Yogic approach offers a way to release theindividual from the shackles of karma and the cycle of birth and death.
In contrast, the Biblical approach, the principle of “measure for measure,”
does not involve the afterlife, hence punishments and rewards are limited
to one’s lifetime, even when it spans generations. Furthermore, the
Biblical “measure for measure” is not considered a general commandment
given by Revelation, but rather can be learned through the semantic
language of the Bible and its particular narratives.
The study phenomenologically analyzes two differing approaches to the notion of “cosmic justice.” Both approaches, “measure for measure” / the
Biblical principle of reward and punishment and the karma principle
in ancient Hindu literature (as represented in the Bhagavad Gita and
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali), express the human need and desire to achieve
a wider understanding of man’s place in the world. They both illustrate
that there is an essential connection between what happens in man’s life
and his previous actions. The aim of this study is not to combine the approaches, but to present their similarities and differences, based on their meanings within the contextual and cultural moment in which they appear. Key questions discussed in this research are:
1. What are the similarities and differences between Karma and the
principle of “measure for measure,” given the situation of man in the
world, human relationships, and the relationship between man and God?
2. To what extent is it possible to clarify the differences between the
two approaches on the basis of their conceptual backgrounds?
Jacob’s story in Genesis (chapters 25-50) serves as a textual point of
departure for this comparative theological research. The study concludes
that the different approaches share an essential ethical connection based
upon events of the past, present and future. Both imply an educational
lesson, teaching that the individual is responsible for the consequences
of his actions. The Hindu-Yogic approach offers a way to release theindividual from the shackles of karma and the cycle of birth and death.
In contrast, the Biblical approach, the principle of “measure for measure,”
does not involve the afterlife, hence punishments and rewards are limited
to one’s lifetime, even when it spans generations. Furthermore, the
Biblical “measure for measure” is not considered a general commandment
given by Revelation, but rather can be learned through the semantic
language of the Bible and its particular narratives.
Research Interests:
Table of Contents: Etymology, Hebrew Bible, Mishnah and Talmud, Middle Ages, In Modern Times. Both Judaism and Christianity were shaped, in part, by their common criticism of idolatry and their intra-monotheist polemic. For both, idols... more
Table of Contents: Etymology, Hebrew Bible, Mishnah and Talmud, Middle Ages, In Modern Times.
Both Judaism and Christianity were shaped, in part, by their common criticism of idolatry and their intra-monotheist polemic. For both, idols and idolatry are terms connected to the theological critique of what are considered signs of forsaking God or false forms of worship. Although the rejection of idolatry has remained constant in both religions from their origins to today, the scope of what constitutes idolatry and how it is to be treated have changed in a variety of ways. Idolatry is a fluid category that appears in different contexts and has various uses. What constitutes idolatry depends, to a great extent, on who has the authority to determine what idolatrous behavior is. Different ideas of God lead to different ideas of idolatry (Halbertal and Margalit 1992; Phua 2005). In Judaism, discussions about the subject of idolatry are found in theological and philosophical debates about the Christian faith, as well as about art and the use of images in worship. Some Jewish theologians perceived the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ as a polytheistic deviation from monotheism and the depiction of Christ as a violation of the ban on images (e.g., Yehuda Henkin, Responsa Bnei Banim 3:35, 1998). In contrast, medieval Jewish theologians used the Christian affirmation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and Christian adherence to the Old Testament to argue in favor of perceiving Christianity as a legitimate non-idolatrous religion. In Christianity, the only true and living God is the Christian God. Some Christians hold that by rejecting the Gospel, Jews do not worship the true God and remain at the level of having a fundamentally impersonal God. In this view, the interpersonal communion revealed through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit modifies the doctrine of God so that Jewish worship barely seems to rise above the level of the pagan philosophers. Perhaps the most extreme formulation of this approach was embraced by Marcion who was excommunicated by the church in the 2nd cent. He viewed Israel’s tradition as identical to Demiurge worship, which puts it in the same category as any other pagan religion. However, the existence of Judaism and Jewish tradition and the struggle with the pagan (a term that refers to non-monotheistic views) world did not threaten early Christianity in developing as a universal religion. Generally, there is no indication that Christians accused Jews of idolatrous worship, not even in periods when the Talmud was thought to have encouraged anti-Christian sentiments (see Kogman-Appel 2009).
Both Judaism and Christianity were shaped, in part, by their common criticism of idolatry and their intra-monotheist polemic. For both, idols and idolatry are terms connected to the theological critique of what are considered signs of forsaking God or false forms of worship. Although the rejection of idolatry has remained constant in both religions from their origins to today, the scope of what constitutes idolatry and how it is to be treated have changed in a variety of ways. Idolatry is a fluid category that appears in different contexts and has various uses. What constitutes idolatry depends, to a great extent, on who has the authority to determine what idolatrous behavior is. Different ideas of God lead to different ideas of idolatry (Halbertal and Margalit 1992; Phua 2005). In Judaism, discussions about the subject of idolatry are found in theological and philosophical debates about the Christian faith, as well as about art and the use of images in worship. Some Jewish theologians perceived the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ as a polytheistic deviation from monotheism and the depiction of Christ as a violation of the ban on images (e.g., Yehuda Henkin, Responsa Bnei Banim 3:35, 1998). In contrast, medieval Jewish theologians used the Christian affirmation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and Christian adherence to the Old Testament to argue in favor of perceiving Christianity as a legitimate non-idolatrous religion. In Christianity, the only true and living God is the Christian God. Some Christians hold that by rejecting the Gospel, Jews do not worship the true God and remain at the level of having a fundamentally impersonal God. In this view, the interpersonal communion revealed through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit modifies the doctrine of God so that Jewish worship barely seems to rise above the level of the pagan philosophers. Perhaps the most extreme formulation of this approach was embraced by Marcion who was excommunicated by the church in the 2nd cent. He viewed Israel’s tradition as identical to Demiurge worship, which puts it in the same category as any other pagan religion. However, the existence of Judaism and Jewish tradition and the struggle with the pagan (a term that refers to non-monotheistic views) world did not threaten early Christianity in developing as a universal religion. Generally, there is no indication that Christians accused Jews of idolatrous worship, not even in periods when the Talmud was thought to have encouraged anti-Christian sentiments (see Kogman-Appel 2009).
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Über den allg. Charakter der Bestrafung im jüd. Recht: Die Bestrafung im jüd. Recht scheint auf den ersten Blick jener der säkularen Rechtssysteme zu ähneln, doch bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich, dass dieses Strafsystem Ähnlichkeit m.... more
Über den allg. Charakter der Bestrafung im jüd. Recht: Die Bestrafung im jüd. Recht scheint auf den ersten Blick jener der säkularen Rechtssysteme zu ähneln, doch bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich, dass dieses Strafsystem Ähnlichkeit m. den Zwangsmitteln religiöser u. sozialer Normen aufweist. Die Tatsache, dass die göttliche S. eingängiges Konzept in diesem System ist u. dass einige Schlüsselelemente dieses Systems darauf beruhen, dass der Sünder aus Furcht vor "göttlicher Gerechtigkeit" vorsichtig bei der Begehung der Straftat sein sollte, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass dieses System nicht wie das normale Zivilrecht funktioniert, obwohl es, wie bereits erwähnt, in der Tat in weiten Teilen ähnlich zu sein scheint (Blidstein, 2003, 33-34). Ein prominentes Bsp. für diese Behauptung findet sich in der S. der Exzision (Karet), die in der hebräischen Bibel mehrfach erwähnt wird (z. B. in Lev 7, 27: "ausgerottet werden soll jener aus seinem Volke".). Diese Bestrafung bezieht sich trotz ihrer Zweideutigkeit wahrscheinlich auf eine Bestrafung gem. "göttlicher Gerechtigkeit" (zumindest so, wie sie in der rabb. Li. verstanden wurde; für eine neuere Überprüfung der Quellen u. Forschungshypothesen bzgl. der Art dieser Bestrafung, s. Weiss, 2015, 80-83; Hezser, 2014, 212-214). So wird z. B. nach der Halacha die Nichtbeachtung des Verbots ehelicher Beziehungen während der Menstruation der Frau (u. einige Tage danach) von Gottes Hand m. Karet geahndet. Dies ist ein guter Hinweis darauf, dass das Verbot, trotz der damit verbundenen intensiven sexuellen Versuchung, über viele Generationen hinweg o. Überwachung u. Androhung menschlicher Bestrafung, sondern nur unter Androhung göttlicher S. befolgt wurde (Blidstein, 2003, 33-34). Darüber hinaus verliehen die rabb. Weisen der Bestrafung durch göttliche Gerechtigkeit Vorrang. Sie reduzierten die Strafgewalt der menschlichen Vollzugsbehörden, die durch die Bibel selbst gegeben ist. Dabei greifen zwei grundlegende Tatsachen ineinander: Die Tatsache, dass die Juden während der rabb. Zeit der politischen Unabhängigkeit beraubt waren u. deshalb in zentralen Bereichen nicht die Kraft zur Bestrafung aufbringen konnten (z. B. die Todesstrafe, s. u.), und dies i.V. m. der unabhängigen Tendenz der rabb. Weisen selbst, grausame S., die in der Vergangenheit angewandt od. in der Bibel selbst erwähnt wurden, zu reduzieren (zur Todesstrafe kann klar gesagt werden, dass die rabb. Weisen sie als eine schwere S. ansahen, die das Bild Gottesentehrt; s. z. B. Mischna, Makkot 1:10; u. s. Lorberbaum, 2004, 285-345). Infolgedessen übertrugen sie die Kraft der Todesstrafe in Gottes Hände (z. B. Babylonischer Talmud, Ketubot 30a-30b).
Research Interests:
Das S. ist ein jur. Bereich, dessen Zweck die Regulierung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens ist, indem bestimmte negative Verhaltensweisen als illegal definiert werden. Eine Person, die gegen diese Regeln verstößt, wird einer Straftat... more
Das S. ist ein jur. Bereich, dessen Zweck die Regulierung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens ist, indem bestimmte negative Verhaltensweisen als illegal definiert werden. Eine Person, die gegen diese Regeln verstößt, wird einer Straftat angeklagt u. kann m. den gesetzlich vorgesehenen Strafen verfolgt u. bestraft werden. Das S. zeichnet sich dadurch aus, dass seine Durchsetzung in erster Linie dem Staat auferlegt wird, selbst in Fällen, in denen das Hauptopfer eines kriminellen Verhaltens ein privater Kläger ist. Das S. regelt die Beziehungen zwischen Einzelpersonen in der Gesellschaft, wird aber zwischen dem Staat als kollektiver Einheit u. der Person, die der Straftat verdächtigt wird, durchgeführt. Das Problem der Diskussion dieses Rechtsgebiets innerhalb des jüd. Rechts ist einfach u. kann so formuliert werden, wie es vom ehemaligen Oberrabbiner Israels, Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman (1886-1976), formuliert wurde: "When I had the opportunity to discuss our constitution in public, I said that in the field of criminal law we [die rabb. Gerichte im Staat Israel] must start from the beginning because in our Torah [d. h. im jüd. Recht] there are no penal laws for theft, robbery, Tort and the like" (Unterman, 1994, lit. 52, 212; u. für eine detaillierte Darstellung des Problems s. Enker, 2007, 23-31). Zu diesem Problem u. den Vorschlägen für seine Lösung im heutigen Staat Israel s. die Erläuterungen in unserem Eintrag Strafe. Zusätzlich zu dem, was dort gesagt wird, wollen wir hinzufügen, dass es Juristen gibt, die glauben, dass diese Textlücke im jüd. Recht, obwohl sie im Grunde genommen eine klare Folge des Verlustes der jüd. Souveränität im Land Israel am Ende der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (u. natürlich in den langen J. des Exils danach) ist, gleichzeitig auch eine bewusste Religionspolitik ist, die auf einer theol. Konzeption beruht, die das S., wie wir es aus modernen Gesellschaften kennen, grds. ablehnt. Kirschenbaum glaubt, dass die jüd. Tradition sich dafür entschieden hat, kein System der Strafjustiz aufzubauen, weil es grds. ein System ist, das "assumes the existence of a delicate and gentle-minded society... in the eyes of rabbinic sages as well as in the eyes of the Geonim, the Rishonim and Acharonim [der früheren u. letzten rabb. Weisen], the divine law is perceived as a spiritual entity and not necessarily as an effective and utilitarian legal system" (Kirschenbaum, 2013, 401). Gleichwohl ähneln nach Kirschenbaum die bestehenden Strafgesetze in der Tradition des jüd. Rechts "a legal of emergency: there are no institutionalized police and no Strafrecht-Jüdisch-Criminal law-פלילי משפט
Research Interests:
Wenn im Zivilrecht ein Vergehen als ein verbotenes Verhalten definiert wird, das nach den Anweisungen des Gesetzes strafbar ist, dann wird es im jüd. Recht als ein Verhalten definiert, das den Willen Gottes nicht erfüllt, der bestimmte... more
Wenn im Zivilrecht ein Vergehen als ein verbotenes Verhalten definiert wird, das nach den Anweisungen des Gesetzes strafbar ist, dann wird es im jüd. Recht als ein Verhalten definiert, das den Willen Gottes nicht erfüllt, der bestimmte Gebote befiehlt, deren Verletzung entweder von Menschen od. von Gott bestraft wird. Nach Ansicht vieler jüd. Denker, die dem nominalistischen Ansatz anhängen, wird die S. als ein Akt der Rebellion gegen Gott wahrgenommen (zu den psychologischen Gründen, die dieser Rebellion zugrunde liegen, s. Steinsalz, 2009, 190). Wenn die Straftat also m. Vorsatz begangen wird, kann sie sogar ihren sündigen Charakter ganz od. teilweise verlieren u. sogar als Ausführung eines religiösen Gebots (Mitzwah) wahrgenommen werden. Dies ist wahrscheinlich die Bedeutung des gewagten talmudischen Satzes: "Größer ist eine Verfehlung [begangen zu haben] um ihrer selbst willen [d. h. um des Himmels willen], als eine Mitzvah [durchgeführt zu haben] nicht um ihrer selbst willen" (Babylonischer Talmud, Nazir 23b; Ben-Schammai, 1968, 273; s. Blankovsky, 2017). Eine andere Art, den Charakter des Vergehens zu verstehen, ist die Annahme, dass das Gesetz, wie es von Gott dem Volk Israel gegeben wurde, ein metaphysisches, natürliches Gesetz ist, das Gott seinem Volk offenbart hat. Dementsprechend leidet jemand, der dieses Gesetz verletzt, an einer Art geistiger Perversion, aber jemand, der sich bessert u. für seine S. Buße tut, ist wie ein Mensch, der sich von einer Krankheit erholt (Steinsalz, 2009, 882-883). Diese Herangehensweise an das jüd. Recht wird heute als die realistischste Perspektive bez. (zu Nominalismus u. Realismus im jüd.
Research Interests:
Terefah: Es muss unterschieden werden zwischen dem Begriff terefah, wie er in den offiziellen jüd. Quellen verwendet wird, u. dem Begriff treiff (u. trefa), der in der Alltagssprache für jedes Fleisch (u. manchmal für jede Speise)... more
Terefah: Es muss unterschieden werden zwischen dem Begriff terefah, wie er in den offiziellen jüd. Quellen verwendet wird, u. dem Begriff treiff (u. trefa), der in der Alltagssprache für jedes Fleisch (u. manchmal für jede Speise) verwendet wird, das nach jüd. Recht nicht koscher gegessen werden darf.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
שירה בפרוזה
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Predigt zum Shoah-Gedenken, Evangelische
Weinbergkirchengemeinde, Berlin-Spandau
January 2018.
http://www.weinberggemeinde.de/?p=14466
Weinbergkirchengemeinde, Berlin-Spandau
January 2018.
http://www.weinberggemeinde.de/?p=14466
Research Interests:
How would I and Thou read if it were written by a woman? Martin Buber was not a feminist thinker, however his philosophy has been occasionally viewed by its virtue of being feminine (Gustav Landauer) while, at other times, insulted as a... more
How would I and Thou read if it were written by a woman? Martin Buber was not a feminist thinker, however his philosophy has been occasionally viewed by its virtue of being feminine (Gustav Landauer) while, at other times, insulted as a philosophy for “ladies” (Yeshayahu Leibowitz). Yet, for generations, scholarship on Buber has been dominated by male scholars shaping Buber’s intellectual legacy and the interpretive canon of his works. As in the larger tradition of Jewish thought, women’s experiences, spiritual sensibilities, and intellectual expressions have rarely been acknowledged. At the same time, a new awareness of embodied thinking and positionality necessitates and makes urgent the presence of women’s voices.
The present project invites women scholars to join a conference in Haifa and read Buber from a multiplicity of philosophical and disciplinary perspectives. The presented papers of the conference will be submitted for publication as an edited volume. Our aim is to expand the canon of Buber scholarship and to offer a more inclusive reading of his multifaceted work.
Martin Buber (Vienna 1878 - Jerusalem 1965) was an extraordinarily versatile thinker writing on a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, politics, theology, ethics, education, Hasidism, Bible, translation, religion, sociology, psychology, art, and mysticism. We believe that Buber’s remarkable
multiplicity of interest invites a greater diversity of readership. We wish to bring to the forefront the voices of women’s scholarship to reclaim and reinvigorate Martin Buber’s legacy in light of the centenary of his seminal book I and Thou (1922/23).
By offering perspectives from women, our conference seeks to introduce new ways of reading and new approaches to Buber’s legacy, providing greater diversity and giving more attention to neglected voices. In this way, our conference will increase the visibility of women scholars from different cultural, religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds. Keynote Speakers: Prof. Vivian Liska, Universitity of Antwerpen, Prof. Leora Batnitzky, Princeton University The conference is scheduled to take place in Haifa, from July 17-18, 2023.
The present project invites women scholars to join a conference in Haifa and read Buber from a multiplicity of philosophical and disciplinary perspectives. The presented papers of the conference will be submitted for publication as an edited volume. Our aim is to expand the canon of Buber scholarship and to offer a more inclusive reading of his multifaceted work.
Martin Buber (Vienna 1878 - Jerusalem 1965) was an extraordinarily versatile thinker writing on a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, politics, theology, ethics, education, Hasidism, Bible, translation, religion, sociology, psychology, art, and mysticism. We believe that Buber’s remarkable
multiplicity of interest invites a greater diversity of readership. We wish to bring to the forefront the voices of women’s scholarship to reclaim and reinvigorate Martin Buber’s legacy in light of the centenary of his seminal book I and Thou (1922/23).
By offering perspectives from women, our conference seeks to introduce new ways of reading and new approaches to Buber’s legacy, providing greater diversity and giving more attention to neglected voices. In this way, our conference will increase the visibility of women scholars from different cultural, religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds. Keynote Speakers: Prof. Vivian Liska, Universitity of Antwerpen, Prof. Leora Batnitzky, Princeton University The conference is scheduled to take place in Haifa, from July 17-18, 2023.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
International Conference: Back to Redemption: Rosenzweig's Star 1919-2019
Van Leer Institute, 17-20/2/2019, Jerusalem
Van Leer Institute, 17-20/2/2019, Jerusalem
Research Interests:
Jewish perspectives on Karl Marx
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The Phenomenology of Faith Theological, A-Theological and Anti-Theological Approaches in Contemporary Judaism
Research Interests:
"בספר שלפניכם, מגולל יעקב בשנינות ובהומור זיכרונות מתקופת ילדותו, על רקע המאורעות הקשים שחוו יהודי בולגריה בימים הנוראים של רדיפה ופחד. בנימה אוטוביוגראפית משעשעת נפרסים בפני הקורא מרחבים היסטוריים, החל משנות השלושים של המאה הקודמת, דרך... more
"בספר שלפניכם, מגולל יעקב בשנינות ובהומור זיכרונות מתקופת ילדותו, על רקע המאורעות הקשים שחוו יהודי בולגריה בימים הנוראים של רדיפה ופחד. בנימה אוטוביוגראפית משעשעת נפרסים בפני הקורא מרחבים היסטוריים, החל משנות השלושים של המאה הקודמת, דרך תקופת הפשיזם, העלייה ארצה ומלחמות ישראל. הסיפורים רוויים באהבת האדם ובאופטימיות, ומהווים שער ייחודי להבנת היחסים בין היהודים לבין הבולגרים בשנים הקשות ביותר שידעה יהדות אירופה"
--מן המעטפת האחורית
http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/HY62NQMA79YUX36DQR7SBMSQ4A5ED7PSQB5E3CXJI7P829SGVJ-08477?func=direct&=&=&local_base=NNL01&doc_number=004108518&pds_handle=GUEST
http://www.thebulgarianjews.org.il/?CategoryID=0&ArticleID=1961
http://merhav.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?&tab=default_tab&srt=rank&ct=search&mode=Basic&dum=true&indx=1&fn=search&vid=NLI&vl(freeText0)=%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94%20%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9C
--מן המעטפת האחורית
http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/HY62NQMA79YUX36DQR7SBMSQ4A5ED7PSQB5E3CXJI7P829SGVJ-08477?func=direct&=&=&local_base=NNL01&doc_number=004108518&pds_handle=GUEST
http://www.thebulgarianjews.org.il/?CategoryID=0&ArticleID=1961
http://merhav.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?&tab=default_tab&srt=rank&ct=search&mode=Basic&dum=true&indx=1&fn=search&vid=NLI&vl(freeText0)=%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94%20%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9C