I do not share Joffe’s gloomy view of Jewish Studies, nor his call for teachers of Jewish Studies to help lead “a counter-movement to the prevailing ethos” of “politically correct cosmopolitanism.” Each college and university is different, and if anything, society must address what actually is the purpose of higher education. I’ll throw you one of my elitist zingers that luckily isn’t applicable to Israel and in the month of March is dangerous in some parts, higher education should not be about spending so much time, money, and resources on college sports.

The field will adapt the circumstances, things will change, but the present should be seen as a time of flux. Jewish Studies also does not have to understood as limited to what happens within the ivory tower. There are many promising scholars of Jewish Studies that are out there who happen to be working in non-university settings. Also, many non-academic journals show the influence of academic Jewish Studies, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

I wanted to mention one great debate about the nature and even the possibility of Jewish Studies. In 1965, Baruch Kurzweil published an article in Ha-Aretz, “Dissatisfaction in History and the Science of Judaism.” Gershom Scholem, who himself critiqued Wissenschaft des Judentums, responded to Kurzweil’s article and so began one of the great Jewish debates of the second-half of the twentieth century. It harkens back to a period when it seems, probably incorrectly, that ideas and ideology were actually important.

Below are some sections from David Meyers’s article, The Scholem-Kurzweil Debate and Modern Jewish Historiography.

In recounting the charges and counter-charges levelled in this spirited debate-and indeed, it is important to do so periodically as a sort of intellectual accounting-one is struck by the divergent perspectives from which the respective arguments are presented. One is also struck-momentarily at least-by the common motives which encouraged Scholem (and [Jacob] Katz) on one hand and Kurzweil on the other. That is, Scholem and Kurzweil advocated positions which both reflected and addressed the contemporary Jewish condition. Scholem portrayed his dialectical advance over the panegyrists of the 19th century, in large part, as the result of the superior historical force of Zionism over assimilation. Conversely, Kurzweil saw the Zionist impulse in modern Jewish historiography as a symptom of a radical break with traditional Jewish values, a break which began in the 18th century with the penetration of “(rationalist) philosophical systems from outside into the Jewish world”.

Clearly, then, the two men had radically different conceptions of Scholem-Kurzweil Debate the role and importance of Zionism, and more specifically, of its relation to the renewed undertaking on behalf of the Science of Judaism. The passion, even ferocity, with which each man propagated his ideas indicated that the stakes in their exchange were quite high. At issue was not a genteel scholarly excursion into the ethereal world of the philosophy of history, but rather an existential dilemma of sizeable dimensions. Both from Scholem, as a “post-assimilatory Jew”, and from Kurzweil, as an observant Jew in Israel, Zionism evoked a response which reflected openly on their respective professional and Jewish self-images. In Scholem’s case, Zionism shaped the course of his personal and professional life, particularly through “aliyah” or immigration to Palestine. Not surprisingly, a frontal assault upon the presuppositions underlying Zionism, when carried upon the pages of Israel’s most respected newspaper, raised the ire and consternation of Scholem and his colleagues.

Seen from the other side, Kurzweil’s attacks were, to his own mind, a measure of last resort. Zionism, in its most expansive formulation, was a movement which threatened to detach the Jewish people from the roots of its tradition. Though ironically he himself had chosen to immigrate to Palestine, Kurzweil vigorously and bitterly objected to the image of
Zionism as a trans-ideological force of normalization, capable of rejuvenating the Jewish soul and body. Indeed, such an expansive conception encroached upon his own religious faith and historical perception that the binding force of Jewish identity and historical consciousness was belief in the Divine Will.

The first are two similar comments that were written in two different responsa. The first is a well-known responsum of his about the eruv in Manhattan (Igrot Moshe, OH 4:89). For a longer discussion about this responsum see this post by Rabbi Josh Yuter. Rav Moshe didn’t think that it was permissible to build an eruv around Manhattan, but he also wouldn’t come out against those who did support the eruv.

אבל הא כבר אמרתי שאין בידנו למחות ביד המקילין וכשיתקנו הרי יהיה מותר לאיזה שיטות, גם הם רבנים גדולים ומי ימחה בהם מכיון שסוברים לפי הכרעתם שיכולין לתקן והם ראוים להוראה.

But I already said that it is not within our power to protest against those who are lenient, and when they build the eruv it will be permissible according to some approaches. Also, they are respectable rabbis, and who should protest against them, since they are holding according to their decisions that one is able to build an eruv, and they are qualified to make decisions.

Rav Moshe says something similar in a responsum on conversion (Igrot Moshe, YD 1:159). In this responsum he took a stricter stand towards performing certain conversions, but he was again unwilling to speak out against those with whom he disagreed since the convert may have been sincere.

אך מ”מ אולי גיורת זו תקבל המצות ולכן איני אומר בזה כלום לכתר”ה כי יש הרבה רבנים בנוא יארק מקבלין גרים כאלו וממילא אין לי לומר בזה איסורין אבל אני אין דעתי נוחה וגם דעת אבא מארי הגאון זצ”ל לא היה נוחה מזה אבל לא אמינא איסורים בזה וכתר”ה יעשה כפי הבנתו ודעתו וכפי הדוחק. וספר אחיעזר שהביא כתר”ה לא ראיתיו עדין.

But nevertheless, maybe this convert accepted upon herself the commandments, and therefore I am not going to comment on this at all to you, since there are many rabbis in New York who accept converts like these, and I am not going to pronounce this forbidden. But I am not comfortable with it, and also my learned father ztz”l was not comfortable with this, yet I am not going to pronounce this forbidden. You should follow your own understanding and opinion according to the situation. I have yet to see the book Ahiezer that you brought.

Rav Moshe was willing to both respect the opinions of other rabbis, and also to encourage the rabbi asking the question to make a decision for himself. The last line is also interesting. Rav Moshe rarely quotes other responsa collections, so it isn’t very surprising that he didn’t have Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski’s responsa collection Ahiezer.

The last responsum is from Igrot Moshe, OH 5:12. This responsum addresses whether one needs a mehitzah at a house of mourning, or whether separate seating is sufficient.

שאלת אם צריך מחיצה כשמתפללים במקום שאינו קבוע לתפלה, למשל, בבית אבל רח”ל. אם צריכות הנשים לילך לחדר נפרד, או שדי בהפסק אוויר. ונראה שלדינא הנשים בבית אבל צריכות ללכת לחדר אחר. והטעם דבית אבל הוי מקום שפתוח לרבים, שצריך בו מדינא תמיד הפרדה בין הנשים לאנשים, וכל שכן בשעת תפילה, כמבואר בתשובתי בא”מ או”ח ח”א סימנים ל”ט – מ”א. אבל אם למעשה הנשים אינן מסכימות לעזוב את החדר, נחשב זה לאקראי, ואין להמנע מלהתפלל מחמת זה. אבל בבית חתן מדינא אין צורך במחיצה, שאינו פתוח לרבים, אלא רק לבני המשפחה. לכן די בכך שילכו האנשים המתפללים לזווית אחת שיוכלו לכוין שם, ושם יתפללו.

You asked whether one needs a mehitzah in a place that is not set aside permanently for prayer, for example, a house of mourning (God forbid). If the women need to go to a separate room, or if a separation of air is enough. It seems that according to the law, women in a house of mourning need to go to a separate room. The reason is that the house of mourning is open to everyone, and according to the law it always need a separation between men and women. All the more so at the time of prayer, as I elucidated in Igrot Moshe OH 1:39-41. But if in reality the women do not agree to leaving the room, it will be considering temporary, and you shouldn’t let this prevent you from praying. But in the house of a groom, according to the law there is no need for a mehitzah, since it is not open to the public, but just for the family. Therefore, it is enough if the men just go to a corner of the room and pray there.

The rest of the responsum is interesting, including a comment about women who used to come into the beit midrash in order to say the mourner’s kaddish. In the section that I brought above, Rav Moshe states what he thinks is the law, but in some sense he also anticipates the possible objection of women, and writes that if they do object, there is another option available.

Below is an article written by Prof. Pinhas Hacohen Peli that was published in the now defunt magazine Ha-Doar after Rabbi Feinstein’s death. May we merit more gedolim like Rav Moshe who are confidant enough to refrain from criticizing those who are more liberal than they are.
Pinhas HaCohen Peli-Rav Moshe Feinstein

The following session was standing room only, accompanied by quite a bit of excitement.

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD IN ITS SASANIAN CONTEXT: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

Chairs: Yaakov Elman (Yeshiva University)
P. Oktor Skjaervo (Harvard University)

Discussants:
David Brodsky (Reconstructionist Rabbinical College)
Isaiah M. Gafni (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Jeffrey L. Rubenstein (New York University)

Shai Secunda (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Shana Strauch-Schick (Yeshiva University)

There were no surprises at this session, just a communal howl to study Persian and use the Persian background in order to better understand the Babylonian Talmud. Yaakov Elman even made a tongue-in-cheek remark about a comment on a blog that found an article of his to be boring. It was a Persia/Bavli lovefest and it was entirely justified.

At a subsequent session Michal Bar-Asher Siegal tried to remind the audience that Syriac and Syriac Christianity are just as important for the study of the Babylonian Talmud and the history of Jews in Babylonia. At this session Jenny Labenz showed how to read rabbinic dialogues with Gentiles through the lense of Socratic dialogue and Vered Noam revisited the question of the impurity/purity of non-Jews. Steven Fraade also spoke on the multi-lingual aspect of the Torah and its exegesis.

This morning I went to the following session:

REDACTION, IDEOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

Chair: Herbert Basser (Queen’s University)

New Texts on Old Traditions: The “European Geniza” and the Transmission of the Tosefta

Binyamin Katzoff (Bar-Ilan University)

Confrontation as a Hermeneutical Tool in Tanhuma-Yelammedenu
Dov Yehuda Weiss (University of Chicago)

Revealing Pesikta de-Rav Kahana’s Secrets in “The Third Month”
Arnon Atzmon (Bar-Ilan University)

Binyamim claimed the the most important fragment from the European Genizah that has been found belongs to the MS Erfurt family and not that of the MS Vienna. There are some isolated exceptions when the fragment is more similar to MS Vienna, but on the whole it is Erfurt cousin. He also claimed that the emendation of the Tosefta in order to make it closer to the versions of baraitot found in the Babylonian Talmud actually started in the middle of the Geonic period in Babylonia and not in Ashkenaz, pre-dating this process by a few hundred years.

Dov presented some texts that seem to show how the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu includes around sixty examples of Moses or other figures confronting God, even having God being described as admitted that he was wrong and changing his mind. This was used in numerous cases when there are two verses in the Torah that contradict each other. I saw it as a version of פסוק לא זז ממקומו. This confrontational agenda is also found in cases such as Abraham and Sodom, Moses and the Golden Calf, and Moses’s death. Dov felt that one of the main reasons for this confrontational approach was the rise of the saint and holy man who confronted God in Byzantium, with this providing an impetus to show how Jewish history also has such figures.

Arnon claimed that the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana actually consists of two parts. An original Pesikta, chapters 1-11, and a second section, chapters 12-25, that was added later.

There were a number of other sessions that I wasn’t able to attend that looked very good. I also got to meet a some nice people who I hadn’t known before.

Here are a few new books that have recently been published or are to be published soon.

Jordan Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism

Tzvi Novick, What Is Good, and What God Demands: Normative Structures in Tannaitic Literature

Barry Wimpfheimer, Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories

Talya Fishman,

I apologize to any authors and books that I may have forgotten.

I also had the chance to speak with the people from Accordance Bible Software. Attention Mac users: Buy this great program. Attention Bar-Ilan Responsa Project: Let them Accordance license your texts so that Mac users will not have to use a virtualization program or the inferior on-line option.

Sunday, Session 1-”CLASSICAL RABBINICS AS A PRISM FOR JEWISH HISTORIOGRAPHY”: The conference started off with a bang, at 9:30 a.m. on Sunday morning a standing room only crowd heard three interesting papers by Barry Wimpfheimer, Talya Fishman, and Eliyahu Stern. Here are some thoughts that I wrote down.

BW:
-What is “Rabbinics”?
-How do we decide the periodization of the subject?
-Talmud was seen as relevant for Jews whenever they lived, and Wissenschaft came to distance Jews from the text.
-More on the need to rethink periodization and the emphasis placed on earlier sources: “The Shach may have been more influential than Ravah.”
-Barry has a new book coming out soon, more on that when it appears.

TF:
-The need to rethink Ta-Shma’s explanation for the formation of custom in Ashkenaz.
-The claim of minhag mevatel halakhah appears only twice in the Yerushalmi and was not actually used to overturn any halakhah.
-She wants to understand the strengthening of minhag in Ashkenaz against the Roman/Germanic legal and cultural background.
-These ideas seem to be based upon a new book that she is publishing from U of P Press.

Eliyahu Stern:
-How have “traditional” Jews and their literature been treated by modern historiography?
-Criticized the “needle in the haystack” approach to the study of traditional sources from the modern period. Finding the few times that the Gr”a refers to science cannot be compared to the massive amount of his writing on other subjects.
-Eastern European Judaism was as much a modern experience as Western Europe.

Jay Harris (respondent):
-”Messy cultural history”
-According to Ta-Shma the founder of the haskalah was the Pnei Yehoshua.

Sunday, Session 2-”THE PURPOSES AND PRACTICES OF TEACHING RABBINIC LITERATURE:

This was a very interesting session with Charlotte Fonrobert (Stanford University), Marjorie S. Lehman (Jewish Theological Seminary), Jonathan Schofer (Harvard Divinity School). This session was recorded, so hopefully it will be posted online at some point. Ethan Tucker asked an interesting question. Should we be treating Talmud as “language acquisition” and not “ideas acquisition?” Language is taught in a more intense fashion with different methods.

Sunday, Session 3-”THE IMPACT OF CONTEMPORARY LEGAL THEORY ON THE STUDY OF HALAKHAH”

Alyssa Gray (HUC-JIR), Jane Kanarek (Hebrew College), Claire Sufrin (Northeastern University), Ethan Tucker (Mechon Hadar), Barry Wimpfheimer (Northwestern University).

Barry was hesitant about the applicability of Anglo-Saxon Legal Theory to Jewish Law. It was developed for a specific legal system with a certain structure and goals. I didn’t write down many other notes, sorry about that.

Monday, Session 5-”MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZ”

Here are the presenters.

Child Martyrs and Jewish Violence in the Middle Ages
Julie Goldstein (New York University)
Judah and the Wolf: The Lycanthropic Theology of the Hasidei Ashkenaz
David Shyovitz (Northwestern University)
New Directions in the Study of Piyyut Composition in Germany during the High Middle Ages
Ephraim Kanarfogel (Yeshiva University)
“Are you not a Jew”? Medieval Ashkenazi Jewish Reactions to Healing in the Shrines of Christian Saints
Ephraim Shoham-Steiner (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)

Julie G. examined the martyrdom chronicles from the perspective of children. A fascinating example of looking at material that has been discussed by countless people from a different perspective. How were children portrayed? How do these descriptions compare with descriptions of children from Blood Libel narratives.

David S. examined the place of werewolves in pietistic literature from the Middle Ages. Werewolves were used to address questions of human transformation. Very interesting according to all accounts.

Ephraim K. showed the Ashkenazi payytanim didn’t only write depressing selichot and kinot. For some of them, the majority of their writings were for joyous occasions, whether they be holidays, weddings, etc.

Ephraim S.-S. addressed the phenomenon of Jews visiting the shrines of Christians Saints in search of healing. This raised numerous issues about cross-cultural influence, etc.

I hope to blog at least one more time from this AJS.

“A friend of mine just launched a website aiming to bring together anti-racist rabbis. The website is here. There’s a growing list of links here.

(Via Hagahot.)

It is the Jewish-sponsored institutions that will produce the next generation of rabbis and Jewish educators — not merely the knowledgeable people turned out by the secular academy’s Jewish studies curricula. Students in the Jewish-sponsored academies gain knowledge through the concrete experience of learning in the model of their teachers, who are often rabbis themselves. Academic professors do not — and cannot be expected to — embody a personal model of piety for their students.

As endowment funds have flowed to the Jewish studies programs in secular colleges and universities, the normative institutions of Jewish learning have paid the price. What has been gained in vital scholarship is outweighed by the charge against the future of Judaism as a tradition of religious learning and religious action. It is time to right the balance in favor of our Jewish institutions of higher learning.

One thing that Neusner wrote about years ago was how many Jewish Studies departments are seen as Jewish ghettos and are not really part of the regular scholarly discourse of the university. While I think that this has changed, the descriptions that I am often reading in the publications of different Jewish studies departments is essentially about a secular Chabad House or an appendage of Hillel. Students who are interviewed talk about their Jewish commitment, the local Jewish community is always an important feature, etc. It seems to be that this is more or less the reality, and it probably won’t change so much.