In the meantime, even as we mourn JPS’s disappearance as an independent Jewish publisher, lovers of Jewish books should wish the new couple well.

Sarna is also the author of JPS: The Americanization of Jewish Culture, 1888-1988, a full-length study about JPS.

I thought that the following paragraph from Sarna’s book was interesting (p. 191):

The Society also projected an imposing list of other plans. The ever-ambitious Maurice Jacobs called for “the publication of a Philadelphia Schass…edited by a scholar like Louis Ginzberg.” He believed that such a new edition of the Talmud was essential after the destruction of Vilna’s great Romm Press, and he promised that such an undertaking “would bring the Society more fame than it has ever had in its history.” Somewhat more modestly, Solomon Grayzel urged publication of a new edition of the Shulchan Aruch, the basic code of Jewish law, with an English translation. In this case, the idea became mired in controversy, for, as Jacob Marcus explained: “The Reform Jews wanted the entire Shulchan Aruch published in a scholarly edition in toto, because the average American Jew would find it ridiculous and burdensome, and the Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, insisted on its publication in part; they wanted to choose only those items which would leave a good impression upon the American public.” Needless to say, that idea was dropped.

The only tractate of the Talmud that was ever published by JPS was Henry Malter’s translation of Tractate Taanit which should not be confused with his critical edition of the tractate without any translation.

Call for Papers:

Location and schedule: The Jewish Law Association in conjunction with Yale University Program in Judaic Studies will hold the 17th
International conference of the JLA at the Yale University Law School, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A., on July 30-August 2, 2012.

Proposals for papers: The Conference will include a thematic stream on Interaction of Jewish and Other Legal Systems (from ancient to modern times), but presenters may choose any topic and approach to Jewish Law (historical, doctrinal, comparative or philosophical).

Papers will be allocated 45-minute slots, to include 15 minutes of discussion. Papers at the Association’s conferences are normally
published in Jewish Law Association Studies, subject to peer review.

Proposals for papers should include the paper’s title, a short description of its contents (200 words maximum), and be accompanied by an updated C.V. Please transmit all this material to the conference committee at the following e-mail address: jla2012conference-at-gmail.com no later than January 31st, 2012.

Founded in 1978, the Jewish Law Association seeks to promote study and research in Jewish Law. It provides a major interdisciplinary meeting point for scholars and practitioners in both Law and Jewish Studies. Its membership represents diverse religious, philosophical and intellectual perspectives, and is drawn from many nations, from Israel to Brazil, from Canada and the United States to Australia, from Western Europe to South Africa.

Registration for the conference will include the $50.00 membership fee for 2012 (and its member privileges, including publications: see the Membership page on the Association’s website, at http://jewishlawassociation.org/), if not already paid.
Conference papers are, in principle, to be given in English. As in the past, members who prefer to present in Hebrew are asked to prepare for distribution a translation of their paper into English.
The conference academic committee will review each proposal and its relevance to the conference. The committee is not obligated to accept any proposal.

Adiel Schremer’s working paper, Toward Critical Halakhic Studies. Here is the abstract:

Current scholarly study of Jewish law concentrates either on a description and analysis of halakhic doctrines, or on the jurisprudential theories underlying the thought of halakhic thinkers. Questions such as: “how halakhic decisions are actually produced?”, and “what are the various constraints operating in halakhic decision-making?”, usually receive very limited attention in the study of Halakha. This paper calls for a shift of focus, from the “theoretical” (whether doctrinal or philosophical) to the “practical”, so that the halakhic process will occupy a central role in the study of Jewish law.

The emphasis on the need to study the halakhic process was also stated by Marc B. Shapiro in idem, Review: “Jewish Obligation and the Modern World: Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson and His Approach to Modernity” by David Zohar,” Edah 5,1 (2005). (here)

By way of criticism, or better, suggestions for future researchers, let me note that while Zohar’s book is certainly where all future analysis of Hirschensohn’s halakhic thought will begin, there still remains a good deal that Zohar has not examined. Zohar’s interest is primarily in Hirschensohn’s conclusions, but the process whereby Hirschensohn reached his conclusions is also fascinating. The way Hirschensohn is able to work within the halakhic process and his most original method of halakhic argumentation still remain to be analyzed in a comprehensive fashion.

There have been two main criticisms of the decision to investigate Rabbi Lior. One is that it is disrespectful for a rabbi to be subjected to a police investigation for a legal opinion that he wrote, or in this case, a letter of support for a book. There are really two parts to this claim. The first is that a person of Rabbi Lior’s stature should not be subjected to a police investigation. My opinion about this claim is that a rabbi is not above the law, and just as presidents and prime ministers have been investigated, if needed, so should rabbis. The second is that a person shouldn’t be punished for words that they have written or opinions that they have voiced. This addresses the limits of free speech and incitement and I’ll let others more knowledgable about the subject address this question.

For those interested, the Israeli Supreme Court has a search engine for English translations of some of their decisions. Search for “incitement” or “freedom of speech” and you’ll get some interesting results. In addition see this critique (Hebrew) by Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer of one of the Supreme Court’s decisions and this book (Hebrew). Also, see this article (English) by Prof. Yedidia Stern about the “Dov Lior Bill” that would prohibit the prosecution of rabbis for opinions expressed in a Torah-related publication.

Another criticism is that there is an unequal enforcement of laws against incitement. According to this claim, people who are religious or hold right-wing views are investigated more frequently than those who are left-wing. This may be true, but I would like to see a serious examination of the question before people start making serious claims against law enforcement and the courts. For example, during the past few days MK Yaakov Katz has been spewing diatribes against the police and the prosecutor’s office. A little searching on the Internet found that these very same police and prosectors investigated incitement against MK Katz earlier this year. It might mean much, but it should cause one to be careful about serious allegations of discrimination.

By the way, I happen to own two volumes of Rabbi Lior’s responsa, Shu”t Devar Ḥevron. I have found them to be interesting and clearly written and Rabbi Lior addresses many interesting topics. When reading them I try and ignore his other halakhic opinions that I find revolting.

Competing Communities