Shibboleth Volume X

from the editors

This edition of Shibboleth is about Jewish continuity. From the streets of New York and the settlements of Gush Emunim (Meir Kahane, p.6) to pre-war Berlin (Buber, p. 9), from Modern Orthodox synagogues across America (Artscroll, p.16) to the village of Agouim (Schwartz, p.28), and from the alchemical laboratories of early modern Europe (Magic, p.30) to Interregnum London (Menasseh ben Israel, p.40), these works depict the struggle of Jews to survive and adapt their traditions to a changing world. Judaism has stayed alive precisely because of its willingness to converse with the world and with itself.

Not all of these conversations are positive there are tragic directions, such as the entrenchment of Meir Kahane’s ideology. But our inheritance is multi-vocal, and it is our job to interrogate the inexhaustible interpretations of Judaism as we define what it will mean to us. The sense of dislocation we often feel and the rupture that we sense with an “authentic past” is not new. It has provided a crucible of creativity for all generations one which we must also embrace.

We believe that understanding the past and reflecting on the meaning of Judaism is the best way to move forward and engage with the world while rooting ourselves in the tradition.

Shibboleth is a magazine by and for young Jews who believe in a living tradition. We invite you to contribute your ideas and enrich the conversation.

The original cover art by Giovanna Truong which adorns this volume embodies our hope that this edition will become another braid in the golden chain of our people. We hope that it will honor those before us and nourish those to come.

Marc Chagall, The newlyweds under the Canopy, 1980 Oil and gouache on canvas Image courtesy of the Opera Gallery

Yosef Malka and Ruthie Davis

Shibboleth is Yale’s undergraduate magazine of Jewish thought and culture. Shibboleth hopes to enrich the Jewish conversation at Yale and in the world, and to amplify the voices of emerging Jewish scholars.

We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all those who have made this publication possible through their generosity of time, talent and resources. We are especially grateful for the support of The Rose A. and Jack Schwartz Jewish Publication Fund, Endowed By Joseph B Schwartz, YC 1962, In Memory of His Parents, at Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale Thank you

letters

Dear Reader,

The staff of Shibboleth is eager to hear your responses to this issue and anything you find herein. You can address letters to the editors or to any of our authors at Shibboleth, 80 Wall St., New Haven, CT, 06511. You can also email us at shibboleth yale@gmail com

contribute to shib

Interested in writing for Shibboleth or joining the editing team? We’d love to have you. For more information, contact our editors or look out for future events

find us online

Want more Shibboleth? You can find articles, archives, and more at SHIBBOLETHJOURNAL COM

shib • bo • leth

Editors in Chief

Yosef Malka

Ruthie Davis

Associate Editor

Max Bamberger

Art and Design Editor

Giovanna Truong

Layout and Design

Ruthie Davis

Cover Image

"Di Goldene Keyt," Giovanna Truong, 2023. Watercolor and ink.

bo

leth

"We

Ben Metzner

Medad Lytton

Dov Greenwood

Netanel Schwartz

Ren Robins

Yosef Malka

Kahane in the Light of History

Shaul Magid, Meir Kahane: The Public Life and Political Thought of an American Jewish Radical, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021, 296pp. ISBN 9780691179339. $35.00.

by Ben Metzner

Meir Kahane has reemerged in the public consciousness in the wake of this year’s Israeli elections, which saw Kahanist Itamar Ben-Gvir emerge as a powerful member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition in the Knesset. Owing to Kahane’s sudden relevance in the discourse, historical focus on Kahane is likely to follow.

Shaul Magid, with his Meir Kahane: The Public Life and Political Thought of an American Jewish Radical, has gotten out in front of any Kahane Studies explosion. He does not claim to be a canary in a Kahanist Studies coal mine, nor to forecast a Kahanist insurgency in Israel before Jewish Power’s victory. Instead, his thesis deals with the unacknowledged influence of Kahane in the Jewish imagination: that “we have absorbed more of his worldview than we think ” The impetus for his intellectual biography of Kahane is not the jackbooted Kahanist marching in East Jerusalem, but the mild-mannered American Modern Orthodox Jew waiting in the bar mitzvah buffet line with Magid, unapologetically announcing that he “[agrees] with everything Kahane said, [that] everything he predicted came true.”

Magid claims that the book is “an intervention into contemporary Judaism and Jewishness as much as it is a book about Meir Kahane.” He argues that Kahane’s ideas have been internalized in the Jewish imagination even as American Jews have expunged him from their history. Kahane’s grip on American Judaism endures, even if, as Magid observes, his name never appears in Jonathan Sarna’s seminal American Judaism As such, Meir Kahane, a biography that takes as each of its chapters a different component of Kahane’s ideology, is not a biography of Kahane the rabbi, Kahane the Brooklynite, or even Kahane the politician, but of Kahane’s body of doctrine

Magid loosely traces the chronology of Kahane’s political development: his founding of the Jewish Defense League, his anti-communism and agitation for Soviet Jewry, his emigration to Israel. But the focus, from Kahane’s activism during the Ocean HillBrownsville teachers’ strike to his extremism in Israel, remains on his ideas. This might lead a less capable historian to an undeserved assumption of intellectual seriousness common in intellectual histories of the far right. For his part, Magid dutifully guards against this impulse. He takes Kahane seriously, but resists lending him his scholarly imprimatur The result is a well-considered intellectual history, harshly critical but never

Meir Kahane. Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

unfair, thought-provoking but never needlessly controversial.

Kahane’s project, in Brownsville as in Gush Emunim, was thoroughly American, Magid contends. In Israel, Kahane Americanized the previously nationalist conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs by introducing a racial dimension. And in America, having imbibed the militancy of the social movements of the late 1960s, Kahane appropriated the imagery of the American left. Magid puts Kahane in conversation with his ideological predecessor, the Revisionist Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky, but also with Stokely Carmichael, with the Zionist paramilitary group Irgun, but also with the Weather Underground and, particularly fruitfully, the Black Panthers (Kahane often called the JDL the “Jewish Panthers”). The interplay between tactics and ideology on the radical left and right is central to Magid’s narrative Highlighting Kahane’s begrudging respect for the New Left and Abbie Hoffman’s comment that he agreed with Kahane’s “methods but not his cause,” Magid argues that Kahane drew more from the American radical left than the Jewish right Magid’s comparison of the “heroic revolutionaries” of Kahanist Jewish history to “Jewish Eldridge Cleavers and Che Guevaras” is, then, not provocative, but trenchant.

Magid’s effort to plumb the intellectual climate of Kahane’s time is par for the course for intellectual history. Unique is Magid’s use of contemporary theory and interdisciplinary frameworks to understand Kahane. Magid makes sense of Kahane’s belief that antisemitism is an endemic and eternal feature of society with a comparison to Frank Wilderson’s Afropessimism. Kahane’s belief in Jew hatred as sui generis to diasporic life is refracted through the lens of “Judeopessimism.” He borrows from critical race theorists the concept of "grammars of racism” to understand how Kahane, with his track record of antiBlackness and Arabophobia, strategically deployed racist rhetoric with the JDL and the Kach party. Moonlighting as literary critic, he reads Kahane’s magnum opus The Jewish Idea as a reinterpretation of musar, the Jewish practice of personal self-improvement, for the Jewish nation Magid’s comfort here is apparent, and makes for the rare intellectual history that is as daring as it is comprehensive.

Liberalism is the subject of Meir Kahane’s best chapter, but it is really the current that runs through the entire work. According to Magid, it was the liberalism of American Jews that was “the real enemy.” Kahane’s critique of liberalism’s language of democracy and equal rights, forged in Brooklyn and formalized in Jerusalem, is the clearest evidence for Kahane’s continued importance. Kahane frequently and acerbically criticized secular Zionists for their belief in “Jewish democracy”: in his view, a contradiction in terms. Israel’s existence, if Jews were the elect, depended on the absence of democracy Arab participation and Jewish rule were irreconcilable if Israel was to fulfill its biblical destiny as “a nation alone.” The forced removal of Arabs was, in Kahane’s eyes, the only solution, and his opponents were deluded for thinking otherwise

In his lifetime, however, Kahane’s illiberalism failed. His racism got him expelled from the Knesset and his ideas were never popular while he was alive. But Kahanism’s resurgence, invigorated by what Magid understands as its reinvention by homegrown

Kahane in the Light of History

Israeli sympathizers suggests its staying power Ben-Gvir re-enters as the apotheosis of Magid’s analysis. His brand of smash-and-grab ethnonationalism, shorn of any democratic illusions, continues Kahane’s legacy. The liberal Zionist cannot reconcile their belief in a democratic Jewish state with the Kahanists who will soon dictate state policy, and yet American Jews, reliably filling the ranks of a pro-Israel Democratic party seemingly waging asymetrical warfare against its tiny, but vocal pro-Palestinian faction, have not as of yet had much to say or do about the matter beyond vague expressions of concern, usually situating the rise of Kahanism within the rise of the far right in the United States and across the world. This connection is not incorrect, but it belies the particular conditions in and history of Israel that have made for such hospitable ground for Kahanism’s return. The street Kahanist has gotten his way, and so has the buffet Kahanist, while the liberal American Jew, long the target of Kahanists, uneasily watches on.

That Kahanism has returned to Israel does not in itself validate Magid’s work; plenty of historians have been right for the wrong reasons. What does is the dynamism with which Magid combines disciplines to draw out Kahane’s ideology. Meir Kahane argues that Kahane’s ideas are alive. Magid has breathed historical life into them

Freedom and Renewal An Analysis of Buber's On Religiosity

by Medad Lytton

Preface

Martin Buber (1878-1965) is one of the great Jewish thinkers of the twentieth century. Born in Vienna but raised in Lemberg by his grandfather, a scholar of Midrash, Buber was exposed from a young age to the rich world of Rabbinic literature Despite being from a German Jewish family, Buber was exposed to Hasidism through his contact with the significant Hasidic population of Lemberg. As a young man, Buber broke with his traditional upbringing and went to study German philosophy in Vienna. He was particularly inspired by the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. Buber was an active Zionist and edited the Zionist weekly Die Welt. Early in his career, Buber developed a deep academic and personal interest in Hasidism, and he published his own editions of Hasidic tales. Strong Hasidic influences can be seen throughout his work. Buber’s work opened up the rich world of Hasidism to the Western intellectual world for the first time. Buber’s most famous works are his translation of the Bible into German, a project he undertook with Franz Rosenzweig, and his book I and Thou, a work that has inspired generations of Jewish and Christian theologians.

On Religiosity is a lecture which Buber gave in 1913 to the Free Jewish Club of Berlin, a group of young Jewish intellectuals and artists. It comes from a series of lectures which he gave between 1909-1918. In these lectures and in On Religiosity in particular, the reader encounters Buber’s many influences, Hasidism, Zionism, and Protestantism coalescing into his distinct brand of existentialist philosophy. Yet over a century later, this lecture’s call for Jewish renewal still feels relevant.

Introduction

The Enlightenment set into motion the great crisis of modernity. Enlightenment thought elevated human reason above all else and undermined belief in God which had formed the foundation of traditional modes of life. Enlightenment thinkers asserted the equality of all men, an assertion which manifested in the emancipation of European Jewry. Opening secular European society to Jews for the first time, emancipation provided an alternative to traditional communal structures. In this way, emancipation significantly diminished the coercive power of Jewish communal authorities and weakened the pull of traditional

Martin Buber Image courtesy of the Times of Israel

religious life. By challenging the theological and social foundations of traditional Judaism, the Enlightenment gave rise to a crisis that would come to define Judaism in modernity

Martin Buber’s lecture On Religiosity reflects a deep need to find a foundation for religious life in the modern world. Buber rejects the reactionism of Orthodox Judaism which, in the face of Enlightenment skepticism, doubled down on the rigidity of the tradition. Buber argues that Jewish vitality lies in Judaism’s cultivation of the individual’s free expression of the religious impulse to transcend. Through his articulation of the Jewish tradition, Buber not only offers a model for Jewish continuity, but also a more universal response to the crisis of modernity.

Against the radical upheaval of modernity, Orthodox Jewish doctrine reaffirmed the eternal and immutable truth of the tradition. While the Enlightenment placed its hopes in the individual’s capacity for reason, Orthodox Judaism argued that the authority of Jewish tradition lay in its unaltered transmission from a Divine revelation at Sinai In the continuity of the tradition from antiquity, Orthodox Judaism found proof of a direct revelation which superseded human reason. Orthodox Judaism doubled down on strict obligation and the subservience of the individual to tradition Buber’s On Religiosity must be read as a rejection of the Orthodox response to the crisis of modernity. For Buber, rather than offering a model for Jewish continuity, Orthodox Judaism poses a critical threat He argues that Judaism is perpetuated not by strict observance, but by genuine religiosity.

On Religiosity

For Buber, religiosity is the necessary component for Jewish continuity. He argues, “Jewish religiosity … [is the] motive power of [Judaism’s] destiny, [the] force whose upsurging blaze would restore it to new life and whose total extinction would deliver it to death.” Buber begins his address by drawing an important distinction between what he calls religiosity and religion. “Religion,” for Buber, consists of “customs and teachings … prescriptions and dogmas,” that is, the institutional elements of a faith community “Religion” is, in many ways, what Orthodox Judaism saw as the key component of Judaism. “Religiosity,” on the other hand, “is man’s sense of wonder and adoration, an ever anew becoming, an ever anew articulation and formulation of his feeling that transcending his conditioned being … there is something that is unconditioned.” Religiosity is the religious impulse that drives humans to participate in religion, providing it with new energy and meaning. For Buber, Jewish continuity relies not on the rigidity of religion but on the dynamism of religiosity.

Buber argues that religiosity facilitates religion’s survival by infusing it with flexibility. “Religion is true so long as it is creative; but it is creative only so long as

Martin Buber, On Religiosity, 79 Buber, 80. Ibid.

religiosity … is able … to imbue them with new and incandescent meaning.” The danger in “religion” lies in its inflexibility Paradoxically, religion wants to build a system “stabilized for all time,” but in its attempts to achieve longevity, it sows the seeds of its own death. Because religion consists of “laws and doctrines,” with the passage of time it becomes stale and unable to meet the needs of its adherents. By imbuing the laws “with new and incandescent meaning,” religiosity allows religion to stay relevant, to “seem to have been revealed to every generation anew.” Continuity requires renewal. Every generation must reinvigorate Jewish practice. In fact, Buber insists that every individual must take ownership of Judaism for it to survive. He quotes the Baal Shem Tov’s teaching that explains the line from Jewish liturgy, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” by saying, “Isaac and Jacob did not rely on Abraham’s tradition, but they themselves searched for the Divine ” Cultivating their own unique relationships with the Divine, each of the forefathers set an example for future Jews.

In Buber’s account, religiosity is realized through individual choice “The act that Judaism has always considered the essence and foundation of all religiosity is the act of decision as a realization of divine freedom and unconditionality on earth,” declares Buber. He asserts that Jewish religiosity demands unconditionality Judaism demands that one rise above the “conditioned” state of “being acted upon,” and act unconditionally, choosing for oneself. Buber argues that the “inertia and indecisiveness” which arise from conditional living are considered by Judaism to be the “root of all evil ” For Buber, to accept the conditions that life imposes on us to accept the religion of our ancestors is unacceptable. Jewish practice demands that the individual rise above conditionality and act with the conviction and intentionality of choice.

Buber supports his claim with a historical narrative of Jewish history which places the striving for unconditionality as the point of continuity For Buber, Jewish religious history is a history of “heretics.” That is to say, Buber sees the important figures and movements of Jewish history as those who challenged the status quo with a demand for authentic religious expression. Buber’s history begins with Moses’ demand for unconditionality, his demand that the Israelites choose to serve God and rise above their idolatrous conditions. Buber points to the prophets as the next perpetuators of Judaism. The prophets demanded that the Jews rise above the ritualized structures of the sacrificial cult and pursue the “true service of God: ‘justice,’ … living unconditionally with God and with men.” Buber continues his narrative of Jewish history with the Essenes, early Christians, and Hassidim, groups which broke out of the rigid strictures of Jewish practice and demanded authentic and unconditional service “All three movements have in common the

impetustorestoredecisionasthedeterminingmotivepowerofallreligiosity,”argues Buber. Thesemovementswereseentogreaterorlesserdegreesashereticalbythe Judaismoftheirday,yetBuberclaimsthatitisinthesegroupsthatwecanfindthe lifebloodofJudaism.Hedescribestheforcesthatdrovethesemovements:

They are not the forces that belong to specific periods of the people, nor are they the forces of insurrection and sectarianism. They are the forces that fight living Judaism’s spiritual battle against bondage; they are the eternal forces Only from them can come the religious inner shock without which no renewal of Jewish peoplehood can succeed

TheseforcesaretheforcesofJewishreligiosity,theforcesofunconditionality.ForBuber, thedriveforhumanfreedomdoesnotthreatenJewishcontinuity,butanimatesit.This couldnotbefartherfromtheOrthodoxnarrativewhichpointstostrictpreservationof thetraditionastheanimatingforceofJewishhistory.

YetitisimportanttoclarifythatBuberisnotarguingagainstthestricturesof OrthodoxJudaismwithavisionoffreedomcharacterizedbylicense.Rather,Buber replacesOrthodoxJudaism’semphasisonobediencewithanemphasisonresponsibility. Obedienceiseasy.Decidingwhattodoforyourselfisfarmoredifficult.Judaismseeks“to makeman’slifenoteasierbutmoredifficult.” ForBuber,“genuinereligiosity…has nothingincommonwiththefanciesofromantichearts,orwiththeself-pleasureof aestheticizingsouls,orwiththecleverexerciseofapracticeintellectuality.”

UnconditionalchoosinginBuberdoesnotsimplymeanfollowingone’sdesiresforthese tooareakindofcondition.Tochooseunconditionally,istotakefullresponsibilityfor one’sownactions,thetradition,andtheworld.

InBuber’saccount,Judaismgivesindividualchoiceatranscendentmeaning, identifyingunconditionalitywithDivinity.“Godisunconditioned,”assertsBuber. When weactunconditionally,weimitateGod,fulfilling“imitatioDei. ” Bubersuggeststhat Judaismseesthedriveforunconditionalitywithinusasadrivetorealizeourpotentialfor Divinity.Judaismdemandsthatwechoosesothatwemaytranscend.Buberstates,“God isunconditioned;thereforemanshallextricatehimselffromtheshacklesofhis conditionalityandbecomeunconditional.” Yet,notonlyisunconditionalityourimitation ofGod,butGod’srealization.ForBuber,unconditionalactionisthemediumthrough whichGodcanexistintheworld.Buberexplainsthat“theactofdecisionisconceivedas meaningGod’srealizationthroughanintensificationofHisreality.” Whenwechoose,our actionshavemeaningbecausetheyincreasetherealityoftheDivine.

Buber pushes further, arguing that unconditionality is not only a realization of the Divine, but a redemption of the Divine and of the world “His shekhinah (God’s imminent presence) has fallen into the world of the conditioned,” explains Buber. Buber sees the world itself as an expression of the shekhinah trapped in conditionality. Through our individual, unconditioned choices, we elevate the unconditioned within ourselves and “thereby the world, that is, the shekhinah, [is] lifted.” Buber understands that Judaism demands that humans take responsibility to choose for themselves and in doing so, choose for the world and redeem it. Judaism makes the individual human life “more difficult, while at the same time inspiriting and exalting it.” Judaism places the weight of Jewish continuity and of the entire world on the shoulders of every individual.

Buber’s exaltation of individual choice should not be seen as a rejection of tradition, but a rejection of the way that it is practiced. He argues, “Not the matter of a deed determines its truth but the manner in which it is carried out.” Buber is not seeking to challenge the Orthodox conception of the content of Judaism, but rather the form “Hasidism,” one of Buber’s examples of a successful Jewish movement, “had no desire to diminish the law.” The arguments about the contents of Jewish law and practice miss the point. Buber understands that Jewish renewal comes not from “What” Jews do but “How” they do it. For Buber, an important example of Jewish religiosity done well is “Jewish mysticism … which strives to revive the ossified rites through the notion of kavanah, intention, and to endow every religious act with hidden significance directed toward God’s destiny and the redemption of the world ” Buber understands that the power of an action ultimately comes not from its contents, but from whether it is done as a choice.

Buber’s emphasis on form (religiosity) over content (religion) is the source of his break with Orthodox Judaism and the key to his articulation of a new response to the crisis of modernity. Buber understands that Judaism can neither accept the elevation of human reason nor reject it He offers a third option For Buber, Judaism’s truth does not lie in its content, a thing that can be rationalized, but rather in its form. Modernity’s rationalism threatens to undermine the intellectual foundations of Judaism, but for Buber, Judaism’s foundation is not intellectual but experiential. What gives Judaism its force is not its possession of an intellectually apparent truth but its ability to cultivate a transcendent experience: the experience of unconditionality. This experience, explains Buber, has value which “cannot be judged by our meager knowledge of the causes and effects of this world ” One cannot rationally understand the power of free choice When we act unconditionally, “something infinite flows into a deed of man; something infinite from it.”

Thefreeexpressionofthehumanwillcannotbeunderstoodrationally.Itbreaksoutof therealmofhumanreasonandrealizessomethinginfinite,somethingdivine.

Buber’sJudaismservesasaresponsetopositivistdeterminism.Positivismisa movementinEuropeanthoughtwhichcanbeseenasakindofoutgrowthofthe Enlightenment.LiketheEnlightenment,positivismemphasizesreasonandsoughtto discovertruththroughrigidempiricism.Positivismattemptstoapplytheempiricalrigor ofthehardsciencestohumanlife.Humansbecomeobjectsofscientificstudy, understoodintermsofcauseandeffect.Inthisway,humansaredeniedfreedomand choiceisbelittled.Buberunderstandsthatthisaccountofhumanityisfundamentally flawed.That“transcending[man’s]beingyetburstingfromitsverycore,thereis somethingthatisunconditioned.” Wemaysometimesseemtoliveconditionedlives,as positivismsuggests,butdeepdowneveryhumanhasthepotentialtotranscendthis conditionalitythroughchoice.Buber’sJudaismrecognizesthehumanpotentialfor transcendencewhichpositivismdenies.

Buber’semphasisontheexperientialovertheintellectualisreflectedinhistheology. ForBuber,themediumforhumanrelationshipwiththeDivineisnotintellectualbut experiential.Heendshisaddressbydeclaringthat“Goddoesnotwanttobebelievedin, tobedebatedanddefendedbyus,butsimplyrealizedthroughus.” InBuber’saccount, God’srealityisdeterminednotbyanintellectualprocess,butbyhumanaction.“Themore manrealizesGodintheworldthegreaterhisreality,”explainsBuber. ForBuber,Godis dependentuponhumanchoice.Buberoffersusatheologythatcanwithstandmodernity. TheEnlightenmenthad,asNietzschesoaptlyputit,killedGod Therewasnorational proof,noempiricallogicthatcouldsupporttheexistenceofGod,andso,withinthe Enlightenment’sinsistenceontheultimateauthorityofreason,Godcouldnolongerexist Buber’stheologyallowsGodtoexistonceagain ForBuber,Nietzsche’sdeathofGodisa truism AGodwhocanbegraspedrationallyisconditionedandfiniteandthereforenot God Onlythatwhichisunconditionedandthereforebeyondthereductionismofreason canbeDivine Buber’sassertionofhumanchoiceredeemsGodfromtheshacklesof conditionalityandoffersGodapathtoexistenceintheworld

The“deathofGod”alsohadprofoundethicalimplications.WithoutGod,there wasnoauthoritytounderpinethicalobligations.Buber’saccountofJudaismoffersa responsetothiscrisisaswell.Buberunderstandsthatunconditionalactionimpliesa tremendousethicalobligation.Judaism’sdemandthatwechoosefreelymeansthat we,andwealone,mustreckonwithourethicalresponsibility “Justice,”arguesBuber, “islivingunconditionallywithGodandwithmen.”

out of an awareness of our responsibility to others and the world. This is what Buber means when he says that every individual has the power to redeem the world When we choose to act unconditionally, we declare the existence of God and we demand ethical responsibility of ourselves and others.

Conclusion

Buber’s account of the Jewish tradition foreshadows the Existentialist philosophy which would come to define European thought in the middle part of the twentieth century. Existentialism traces its roots to Heidegger whose move from epistemology to ontology, from questions of knowledge to questions of being, clearly parallels with Buber’s prioritization of the experiential over the intellectual. Furthermore, the Existentialists, like Buber, elevate the human subject above all else, locating ethical authority and responsibility within the individual. Buber’s emphasis on unconditionality prefigures the Existentialist demand for authenticity and choice. Buber must be read as a protoExistentialist Buber’s work roots Existentialist philosophy in Jewish tradition On Religiosity reveals that while Judaism may not have been well-suited for the Enlightenment, it is primed to blossom in the age of Existentialism.

Despite being written over a century ago, Buber’s vision of Judaism in On Religiosity feels deeply relevant to the world of Modern Orthodox Judaism in America today. Like the Orthodoxy of Buber’s time, today’s Modern Orthodoxy has placed its hope for Jewish continuity in a religious mode of submission to the tradition. The individual in Modern Orthodoxy must yield to the law. This has left Modern Orthodoxy deeply lacking in the vitality and renewal which Buber describes. On Religiosity offers the antidote to the stagnation inherent in the strict traditionalism of Modern Orthodoxy.

Yet, there is also a broader American cultural context which makes Buber once again feel deeply relevant. Advances in the sciences have led to a belittling of the human being, a reduction of human existence to the interaction between molecules. These views threaten religion by reducing it and questioning its necessity. Buber’s articulation of the Jewish tradition offers a powerful counterargument Buber reminds us that the human can rise above their molecular condition and express the infinity latent within them.

within

“WeAreRight”:TheArtScrollChumash andItsSignificance

Excerptedfrom"TheLegacyoftheHertz:TheSynagogueHumashandModernOrthodox JudaismintheTwentiethCenturyandPresentDay"

byDovGreenwood

Preface

The Torah has always been and still is the central text of Judaism. Most Jews access it in the form of a liturgical and study Bible, or Humash. Humashim (plural) are printed in many different forms; some contain a translation of the Torah into the vernacular, and most contain commentaries of some sort. Until recently, Rabbi Joseph Hertz’s The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (1928), affectionately known as the “Hertz Humash,” reigned supreme in the world of English-speaking Jewry. The Hertz was a landmark achievement in Jewish history, akin to Mendelssohn’s Sefer Netivot Hashalom in Germany 160 years earlier: it was the first English-Hebrew Pentateuch to contain a Jewish commentary in English, which blended traditional ethics and interpretation with contemporaneous secular scholarship, along with (in its later editions) the acclaimed English translation of the Bible published by the Jewish Publication Society (1917).

Hertz’s The Pentateuch and Haftorahs represented a delicate and masterful balance between Jewish tradition and secular modernity, produced by an esteemed spiritual leader, who had received his rabbinical ordination in the United States. It found a home in synagogues across the US, specifically those of the budding Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements, whose foundations lay in grappling with this tension between tradition and modernity.

However, the turn of the century signaled an end to this broad consensus with the publication of ArtScroll’s The Chumash: The Stone Edition (1993) and the Rabbinical Assembly’s Etz Hayim Humash (2001) Now, the Hertz Humash is a rare sight The “fall” of the Hertz Humash coincided with, reflected, and foreshadowed, the widening divide between these two religious denominations, which had been closely tied for much of the 20th century.

Introduction

Although ArtScroll came into existence in 1976 and met with wide success, it surged in popularity with its liturgical works, beginning with the ArtScroll Siddur in 1984. These books quickly became dominant in Modern Orthodox synagogues, homes, and schools, and had virtually no successful challengers for decades, such that by 1998 the publisher could boast that in “the several years since its publication, the Stone Edition of the

Chumash [had] become the standard Chumash of the English-speaking world.” Synagogues that once used the Hertz often relegate it to upper shelves or cellars, where they are hardly used.

Unseating the Hertz Humash was an explicit goal of ArtScroll, with Nosson Scherman stating that the “Hertz was a masterpiece in its time [. . . but now] people are offended by that. Now you have people with a yeshiva education. They want to know what the Chumash means to Jews, what the traditional sources have to say.” This chapter explores how the ArtScroll Humash responds to the Hertz Humash’s legacy what it keeps, what it attacks, and what it abandons and how the ideology that it transmits has played a role in shaping the Modern Orthodox community over the past thirty years.

The ArtScroll Humash: An Overview

As the first of its kind, the Hertz Humash established a precedent for what the English synagogue Humash should look like, which influenced the design of its successors. It supplanted the layout of the traditional Rashi-Humash by replacing Onkelos and Rashi with the new English translation and commentary, and the weekly Haftarah was positioned between each Torah portion so it could easily be found during the Sabbath prayer service. This was supplemented by essays and prefaces for each book. During the transition period wherein one generation would move from the Hertz to a different Humash, any change would come as a shock

The ArtScroll Humash leans into this shock, declaring through its design that it has a greater fidelity to tradition Whereas Hertz took the elements of the Rashi-Humash and substituted them with his own, the ArtScroll returns these elements. It does so by moving the English text to the left-page and using the extra space on the right-page of the spread to restore the Rashi-Humash layout, with the Targum in a narrow column to the left of the Hebrew text and Rashi’s commentary in a smaller script underneath. This subtle strategy signals to readers that the book they are reading is more in line with the “traditional” interpretation of the text.

That sentiment is compounded by the organization of the book’s sections. The Hertz Humash had placed the Haftarahs between the weekly Torah readings, which emphasized that its main use was for the synagogue. In contrast, the ArtScroll Humash relegates the Haftarahs to the back of the book, which can be confusing for readers in synagogue. However, with the Haftarahs out of the way, the ArtScroll Humash becomes much more effective as a study Bible Similarly, the breaks between the five books of the Torah are

Nosson Scherman, Ed The Chumash: The Stone Edition, Travel-Size Edition (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1998), xi

Nosson Scherman, quoted by Yosef Lindell, “A Call for a New Modern Orthodox Humash.” The Lehrhaus, June 5, 2017. https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/a-call-for-a-new-modern-orthodox-humash/. Here I am speaking of Soncino’s one-volume edition, not the original five-volume edition, which had a more educational bent and lacked the Haftarahs

broken up only by a title page; there are no essays or prefaces between them to break up a pure reading of the text

The difference is immediately apparent even in the parts that parallel the Hertz. Like the Hertz Humash, the ArtScroll has an English commentary running along the bottom of the page that relies on traditional sources. In most cases, ArtScroll follows Hertz’s convention in citing the name of the exegete who gives the opinion, but without any further information. However, in many cases, the ArtScroll Humash

provides further detail about where the commentary can be found so that learned readers can study the original sources. Additionally, certain parts of the ArtScroll commentary are interspersed with diagrams or images that flesh out obscure details of ritual laws, Levitical dress, and the Tabernacle’s construction. Supplementing these diagrams, the appendix includes meticulous “charts of the Temple offerings.” These features emphasize the expertise of the editor, who demonstrates knowledge of even the smallest details of the Law.

Two more small but significant aspects of the commentary deserve mention. First, the ArtScroll commentary has a distinct comment at the end of each Torah portion based on the siman, a word created hermeneutically from the number of verses in the portion, which traditionally bears some sort of significance. By utilizing a hermeneutic that the Hertz does not, it signals that it relies on tradition not only for the content but also the method of Torah study. Second, the transliteration of Hebrew words in the commentary strikes an odd but purposeful balance between the ultra-Orthodox writer and his readership. Since 1967, most non-Orthodox American communities have adopted the Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew, and although the Modern Orthodox community continues to use the traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation of consonants, many have adopted Israeli vowel pronunciations. In its commentary, ArtScroll uses

a cross between the Sephardi [Israeli] and Ashkenazi transliterations, using Sephardi vowel [sic] and Ashkenazi pronunciations. Thus: Akeidas Yizchak, rather than Akeidat Izhak or Akeidas Yitzchok.

With this, ArtScroll admits that one of its primary goals is to reach out to Jews beyond the ultra-Orthodox sphere of influence. This compromise also heightens ArtScroll’s claim to authenticity by showing Ashkenazi readers that the publisher of the book has preserved the pronunciation of their ancestors

The translation uses Anglicized spelling, yet it cements itself as more traditional by other means The 1917 JPS translation and Hertz’s “alternate translation” comments served to combat Christian translations of scripture. In composing a completely new translation, ArtScroll had a parallel goal: to replace the JPS translation in the Hertz,

Scherman, Chumash, xiv

From the ArtScroll

which was informed by scholarship, with a translation that is informed by tradition and piety. This aspect is already clear from page 11, where the tetragrammaton is translated as “HASHEM,” which simply means “the name,” the title employed by Jews in place of God’s sacred unpronounceable name Moreover, although the translation is easier to read than the older JPS translation, it displays a stubborn adherence to the syntactical structure of the Hebrew. For example, Genesis 2:3 is notoriously difficult to interpret:

1917 JPS Translation: And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all His work which God in creating had made 1967 JPS Translation: And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done ArtScroll Translation: God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because on it He abstained from all His work which God created to make.

ArtScroll’s translation provides a literal rendering of the enigmatic construction at the end of the verse, “which God created to make,” whereas the JPS translations attempt to resolve it.

Additionally, whereas the new JPS translation eliminates an unnecessary pronoun, ArtScroll, like the older JPS translation, keeps it. The greatest way that the ArtScroll translation diverges from any previous ones, though, is in its reliance on Rabbinic sources

The Ideology of the ArtScroll Humash: Case Studies

Because of ArtScroll’s intense fidelity to syntax, it can be difficult for readers who rely on the English translation to realize that it is often skewed in favor of a non-literal rabbinic interpretation of the text. The ArtScroll Humash translates this way selectively, only when it is required for a theological or Halakhic reason, which is why it is easy to overlook This is especially the case when a rabbinic expansion of a Biblical commandment relies on a forced reading of the text, or the rabbinic reading directly contradicts the text.

The law of Exodus 23:4 should literally be rendered, “if you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, return you shall return it to him,” doubling the verbal phrase “hashev tashivenu” to emphasize the action. However, ArtScroll renders it as follows:

ArtScroll Translation If you encounter an ox of your enemy or his donkey wandering, you shall return it to him repeatedly.

Commentary The Torah requires one to return a lost item “repeatedly,” meaning that even if it is lost time after time, it must still be returned. The finder may not ignore it on the grounds that the owner is apparently careless (see Bava Metzia 30b).

In other places, however, ArtScroll does translate according to the emphatic meaning

of the doubling, when it does not defy the rabbinic interpretation.

Even when ArtScroll does not inject the rabbinic interpretation of the verse into the translation itself, it presents the minutia of the rabbinic law in the commentary This contrasts with the Hertz Humash, which frequently comments on laws by divulging their ethical underpinnings This can be seen in their different expositions of the laws in the Covenant Code, one of the main law codes in the Torah. The Hertz commentary focuses on exploring the ethical foundations of the laws, providing 18 such comments, while the ArtScroll commentary only provides seven. In contrast, the ArtScroll focuses on explicating the rabbinic interpretations of the laws, providing 29 such comments, while the Hertz only provides eight This should not be taken to mean that either text fully excludes the other category of comment, as in some cases the opposite is true. However, in such cases, the ArtScroll Humash dives into more detail. Regarding the command to wear a blue thread among the ritual fringes on one’s garment, the comments in the two books seem identical:

Hertz Commentary a thread of blue. To be intertwined with the ‘tassel’ itself. [. . .] The thread had to be dyed with the blood of a mollusc [ . . .] The dye was scarce even in Mishnaic times. Hence the authorities agreed that white wool-threads alone need be inserted.

ArtScroll One of the strings is to be dyed turquoise with the blood of an aquatic creature [ ] The exact identity of the creature that is the source of this blue dye is unknown nowadays, so that techeiles is unavailable currently [ ] The white threads and the techeiles shall combine to form a single fringe, for the two elements in combination constitute a single mitzvah [commandment] If techeiles threads are unavailable, this absence does not prevent the performance of the commandment with all white threads (Rambam, Hil. Tzitzis 1:5).

While the Hertz’s commentary contains more individual laws, it has less detail Meanwhile, the ArtScroll commentary explains the intricate Halakhic reasoning that justifies the wearing of the white threads without the blue because the “two elements in combination constitute a single mitzvah” and cites a precise location where this law can be explored in depth.

Many of the ArtScroll’s non-Halakhic comments connect with one another across a chapter or Torah portion to form a unified ideological “argument ” In this way, the ArtScroll Humash can transmit a worldview without resorting to topical essays, as the

For example, Genesis 2:16

It should be noted that these two categories can and do overlap after all, many of the laws in this section seem to be “ethical” injunctions When the ethical and legal dimensions are explored simultaneously in the commentaries, I have counted both toward the total However, when the ethical dimension is only implicit in the rabbinical interpretation presented or expressed using terms of legal obligation rather than ethical imperative, I have only counted it toward the category of “rabbinic interpretation ” Inevitably, this tally is subjective to a degree, however, the massive disparity in the two categories across these two works appears to legitimize the claim.

Hertz, The Pentateuch, 634 Scherman, The Chumash, 817

A page of Hertz's The Pentateuch and Haftorahs

The Hertz Humash. Image courtesy of Israel Bookshop

Hertz does. To do this, comments are selected from the corpus of tradition that complement each other rather than disagreeing, bringing out an underlying theme of the unit. The ArtScroll commentary understands the rabbinic division of the Torah into weekly portions to reflect distinct spiritual themes in each section, as is apparent in the siman comments, such as the one at the end of the Torah portion containing the Binding of Isaac: “the profound [. . .] faithfulness of Abraham [. . .] is the primary theme of the sidrah [Torah portion].”

The commentary on the story of the Binding of Isaac demonstrates this approach as well as ArtScroll’s promotion of strict Halakhic observance. Beginning with the message, attributed to Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, that this “section epitomizes the Jew’s determination to serve God no matter how difficult the circumstances, [which is] the very reason for Israel’s existence,” many of the following comments explore this theme. The tale’s protagonists exemplify how the pious carry out even the most difficult of commandments: Isaac is persuaded to travel to his death because he was “[persuaded] to do the will of God,” God “[makes] the commandment more precious to Abraham” by phrasing it as he does, and this leads Abraham to go to “slay his son [. . .] with [. . .] alacrity” and “[rejoice] to do God’s will ” Thus, Abraham sets “the standard of behavior for his descendants,” which requires unswerving devotion to even God’s most upsetting commands. Because of this, should his descendants “sin grievously,” they will “fall into the hands of their enemies,” but if they obey the commandments, “no nation can dominate them ”

While one might argue that ArtScroll is merely conveying the plain meaning of the text, its predecessor proves otherwise. Hertz also sees this as a “test to Abraham’s faith,” but does not derive from this the necessity to obey the Law. Neither the commentary nor Hertz’s essay on the Akedah propose this. The commentary elides moralizing entirely, focusing rather on explicating the details of the vague narrative. While the essay spends a few lines on the idea that one demonstrates a love of God through a “willingness to serve Him” with actions, he clarifies the scope of this teaching by writing that such an extreme command was “a test safe only in a Divine hand.” The rest of the essay argues that the command to Abraham was intended to “demonstrate [ ] that God abhorred” the contemporary practice of human sacrifice, while the primary message is “the ideal of martyrdom [. . . which] represents the highest moral triumph of humanity.”

In addition to promoting the practice of Halakha, the ArtScroll also promotes its study. In certain places, this is expressed directly, such as the consecutive comments on the Shema: a “person demonstrates his devotion [ ] by [prioritizing] the education of his

children”; one comes to love God by “occupying [oneself] with Torah study in every possible situation ” It is emphasized in other passages that are interpreted as commands to teach Torah, such as the instruction to teach one’s child about the Exodus story, which is interpreted to mean that “the child who is unlearned and unsophisticated [. . .] would not have been redeemed [from Egypt] on his own merits, but because he is part of the nation.”

Just as it glorifies Torah study, the Humash glorifies the person who spends his life studying it unceasingly: the gadol, in ultra-Orthodox parlance. Gedolim (plural) are towering figures in the world of ultra-Orthodoxy, who dedicate every hour of their lives to studying and writing about the Torah and Talmud. Sometimes, general comments on Torah study express this admiration, suggesting that those “who seek perfection [ ] study the Torah unceasingly at all times and in every possible situation.” More often, the commentary re-interprets Biblical heroes as great scholars, following the Midrash. Thus, in the battle with Amalek, the Israelites lose when they are not “diligent in their Torah study,” so they must be led by Joshua, a person who “never left [. . .] the house of [Torah] study.” Similarly, Jacob spends fourteen years of his life studying enough Torah so he can remain spiritually pure in his uncle’s home

While intense Torah study is promoted, the study of secular subjects is disparaged. The ArtScroll Humash repeatedly asserts the dubiousness of secular knowledge compared to the strength of tradition; even contemplating ideas that contradict the Torah is dangerous. The Torah commands a person to wear ritual fringes on the corner of their garments to remember the commandments and not “follow [one’s] heart” to sin. The commandment according to the ArtScroll is to “not explore after [one’s] heart” (emphasis added), which is interpreted to mean that people “are enjoined to avoid thought that could entice [them] to uproot a fundamental of the Torah,” as “human intelligence is limited and not everyone can ascertain the truth.”

This worldview shines through most clearly in the commentary to Genesis 1. While the Hertz Humash, in its commentary and the related essays, argues that the Creation story does not contradict the scientific account of the origin of life, the ArtScroll Humash ignores the issue. Rather, it asserts that the “work of creation is a deep mystery that can be comprehended only through the tradition transmitted by God,” not by human methods. Scherman explains this in more detail in an essay in another of his books on Genesis:

17

Scherman, The Chumash, 975

Ibid , 363

Ibid , 975

Ibid , 391

Ibid , 144

This more literal rendering follows the 1967 JPS translation of Num 15:39 Scherman, The Chumash, 817.

The most vital element in creation is spirituality It is obscured by the material, interlaced

with evil, disguised by statistics, logic, and data. But it is man's task on earth to cut away the earthly insulation the prevents the rays of spirituality from warming his soul.

Here,secularknowledge signifiedby“statistics,logic,anddata” is“evil.”Theonlyway toaccessthetruthsoftheuniverseandtheTorahisthroughtheTorahitself.

TheworldviewoftheArtScrollHumashencapsulatestheultra-Orthodoxideologyof da’astoyreh,“pureTorahknowledge,”accordingtowhichtheproperwaytostudythe Torahisforone’smindtobecompletelyuntaintedbysecularknowledge.Thegedolim, whosupersedeallothersintheirda’astoyreh,deservetheutmostveneration,whileother menshouldstrivetostudytheTorahasmuchaspossibleandavoidpossiblyheretical ideas.ThepurposeofthisistoalignoneselfcompletelywithGod’swill,downtothe seeminglyinsignificantminutia.

TheSignificanceoftheArtScrollHumash

Inthepast30years,ModernOrthodoxyhasshownanoveralldrifttowardthevalues embodiedinArtScrollpublications,suchthatsociologistSamuelHeilmandubstheformof Judaismembracedbyright-wingModernOrthodoxrabbis“theArtScrollMesorah PublicationsversionofJudaism.” Justasimportantly,theArtScrollHumashhasimpacted theintellectuallandscapeofModernOrthodoxybydisplacingtheHertz,thereby removingitsideasandmethodologyfromcontemporarydiscourse.

TheHertzHumashwasrevolutionaryforitsattempttotackletwoofthegreatest contemporaryassaultsonJudaism:EvolutionarytheoryandBiblicalCriticism.Inhisessay onEvolution,HertzarguedthatEvolutioncouldbereconciledwiththeBiblicalaccountof creationbyrecognizingthatthestoryisnotliteral.ArtScrollimplicitlyunderminesthe scientificviewinitscommentary,butdoessoonlybyplantingdoubt,notbypresentingan alternative.ThisdiscomfortwithreadingGenesis1allegoricallyisapparentinsomeofthe contemporaryapproachestoEvolutioninModernOrthodoxy.Intheearly1990s,three ModernOrthodoxphysicistspublishedbooksthatarguedthatafundamentalistreadingof theCreationstory,ifreadproperly,stillalignswithmodernscience. Duetotheirbooks’ popularity,theywereinvitedtobescholars-in-residenceatsynagogueswheretheirideas circulatedandbecameprevalent.

Thefundamentalist-scientificreadingofGenesisalignswiththeperspectiveinthe HertzHumash’scommentary,butnotwithHertz’sownviewofthedistinct“dominions”

Nosson Scherman, The Majesty of Bereishis: A Deeper Understanding from Creation to Mitzrayim, (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2017), 42

Heilman, “How Did Fundamentalism Manage to Infiltrate Contemporary Orthodoxy?” 269

Shai Cherry, “Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis,” in Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, ed. Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 168-169.

Rachel S A Pear, “The Kiss and the Slap: Modern Orthodox Ambivalence towards Evolution 1980s-2010s ” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies (2021), 18

of scientific and spiritual truth that he argues in his essay on Evolution. To Hertz, these were two equally valid alternatives; to these writers, they are not Hertz’s allegorical reading of Creation was a threat to the truth of the Torah. When the Hertz Humash was displaced by the ArtScroll, his philosophy fell from public consciousness, leaving the fundamentalist reading dominant. This was confirmed in 2006, when Rabbi Natan Slifkin published a book on reconciling the Torah with Evolution that was seen as controversial but original. However, Slifkin’s view merely echoes Hertz’s earlier argument, arguing that the Torah does not “teach science” and similarly drawing on the Jewish rationalist tradition as support.

Likewise, when the ArtScroll Humash overtook the Hertz, it left the next generation of Modern Orthodox Jews bereft of a compelling voice arguing against Biblical Criticism The ArtScroll Humash chooses to disregard the field, relegating it a heretical belief that should not even be considered. Many Modern Orthodox educators have assumed this posture, assuming that it is better not to mention the topic However, this has left young adults unprepared for challenges to their faith at secular universities. In 2020, Rabbi Joshua Berman, a Modern Orthodox Bible scholar, published Ani Maamin, a book aiming to confront the issue head on, because many “rabbis and educators would not dare broach this topic for [. . .] their students and congregants.” This issue is rooted in the fall of the Hertz, which educated the previous generation about Biblical scholarship from a traditional standpoint within the walls of the community, but is not available to the current generation.

In sidestepping the most difficult issues confronting a contemporary reader of the Torah, the ArtScroll Humash utilizes a more conservative hermeneutical approach to the text. This approach has gained recognition in Modern Orthodoxy and takes on several forms. Aside from advocating for a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, the ArtScroll Humash also propagates a fundamentalist reading of the Midrash, according to which the tales should be understood as history; this view has become popular in the Modern Orthodox world as well. ArtScroll’s pedagogical approach of granting traditional voices overwhelming authority in Torah discourse is reflected in the Day school classroom, where “students and teacher [think they] cannot understand the true meaning and depth of the Humash unless they immerse themselves in the [...] sanctioned commentaries.” The Modern Orthodox community has been invigorated to study the Torah more regularly

Cherry, “Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation,” 185

Pear, “The Kiss and the Slap,” 16-19

Joshua Berman, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2020), xvi-xix

Marc B Shapiro, “How Did Fundamentalism Manage to Infiltrate Contemporary Orthodoxy: A Response to Samuel C. Heilman,” Contemporary Jewry 25, Special Issue on NJPS 2002 (2005), 274.

Lehman, Devra. “Calling Integration into Question: A Discourse Analysis of English and Humash Classes at a Modern Orthodox Yeshiva High School,” Journal of Jewish Education 74, no 3 (2008): 295-316

and traditionally, at least in part as a result of ArtScroll’s influence Additionally, the ArtScroll’s selective commentary paves over the differences between its sources, making it appear as though all authorities represented a unified front in defending a clearly defined tradition.

These examples are representative of a hidden revolution in ArtScroll’s exegetical approach: the narrowing of Torah discourse into the realm of da’as toyreh. The ArtScroll Humash vociferously deviates from the approach of the Hertz Humash in its choice of sources The appendix to the Hertz Humash listed 48 modern Jewish commentators, 26 medieval or ancient sources, and 26 non-Jewish authorities. The ArtScroll also lists its sources in the back of the Humash, numbering over 230, none of which are secular. More significantly, it adds a plethora of ultra-Orthodox, Yeshivish, or Hasidic sources; on the 35

first two pages (of seven) of the bibliography alone, more than 20 such authorities are listed. By overwriting the “valid” sources that can be brought to bear on the Torah, ArtScroll fundamentally changes the nature of Torah discourse for readers. This would have been particularly apparent to the generation that grew up on the Hertz before switching to ArtScroll, who would now have to wrestle sources that they had never considered, until this point, to be authoritative.

Many of the ultra-Orthodox authorities cited from the century are gedolim or Hasidic Rebbes (the Hasidic equivalent), such as Rabbis David Feinstein, Yaakov

Kamenetzky, and Gedaliah Schorr The attractiveness of the gadol ideology and the veneration of ultra-Orthodox gedolim has seeped into Modern Orthodox Judaism. One need only point to the outpouring of grief in Modern Orthodox institutions over the 2022 passing of ultra-Orthodox gadol Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky as a demonstration of this This has also sparked anxiety within Modern Orthodoxy’s liberal wing to find a Modern Orthodox gadol to clarify the movement’s ideology.

Yehua Turetsky and Chaim I Waxman, “Sliding the Left? Contemporary American Modern Orthodoxy,” Modern Judaism 31, No. 2 (2011): 127.

Levy, “Our Torah, Your Torah, and Their Torah,” 176-179, 87.

Scherman, The Chumash, 1297-1303 It should be noted that the ArtScroll overcounts in comparison to the Hertz, for example, by counting each Talmudic tractate separately Even so, the total number likely exceeds 200 It may be worth noting that Rabbi Joseph H Hertz does not appear on this list

For example, a tweet from the official Yeshiva University Twitter account: @YUNews "Yeshiva University mourns the passing of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, ל״צז, one of the world’s preeminent Torah scholars " Twitter, March 18, 2022, twitter com/YUNews/status/1504905138070298625

The Lehrhaus, an online Modern Orthodox journal, convened a symposium on the topic in 2016: https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/short-responses-on-gedolim/.

These examples are representative of a hidden revolution in ArtScroll’s exegetical approach

Finally, the accompanying shift toward text-based authority is the most noticeable factor in the swing to the right, especially in the realm of Halakha Aside from liturgical works, ArtScroll’s best-sellers in the Modern Orthodoxy community are their works of practical Halakha, giving guidance on even the minutiae of religious observance. They became particularly popular because they were written in English, making them the easiest way to find a quick answer to a question; Modern Orthodoxy, meanwhile, had for a long time no distinct works of practical Halakha. Moreover, although ArtScroll has repeatedly stated that its works should not be the final word on any matter, the sheer breadth of its output indicates otherwise. At least some part of the popularity of ArtScroll’s Halakhic works can be contributed the use of the Humash in synagogues, which itself takes frequent opportunities to outline Halakhic practice.

Conclusion

In an article that went against the prevailing view that Modern Orthodoxy is undergoing a swing to the right, one interviewee noted that rather than moving rightward, YU seems to be pulling the ultra-Orthodox world to the left: “[YU is] making inroads into communities that have been dominated by the right wing [. . .] many more [rabbis] are entering the rabbinate ” This does not represent a swing to the left but the opposite; the Modern Orthodox rabbinate has become sufficiently conservative to serve in ultra-Orthodox congregations. The institution that once competed to control Conservative synagogues is now fighting to control ultra-Orthodox ones

Certainly, the use of the ArtScroll Humash signifies this change, in the same way that the use of the Hertz Humash once signified the tense unity of “modern” Orthodox Judaism. The rabbis produced by Yeshiva University go on to serve in congregations with similar values values that Revel and the OU’s founders had seen as damaging to American Judaism Those values have been codified in the Torah that is read by their congregations.

Stolow, Orthodox By Design, 56-57. Shapiro, “How Did Fundamentalism Manage to Infiltrate Contemporary Orthodoxy: A Response,” 274.

Levy, “Our Torah, Your Torah, and Their Torah,” 142 Turetsky and Waxman, “Sliding to the Left,” 129

OntheDaymyGrandfatherLeftAgouimtheVillageCried

Agouim why did you send out your men with silver tongues and silver platters and jewels for lips and jewels for gifts for my grandfather Abakar.

Agouim why did you allow your merchants to weep into the Dra’a until the valley swamped into a river with sailboats and steamships and three buses of your Jews and my grandfather Abakar.

Agouim why did you hear Sheikh Aiytu Shalash whispering, whispering by the buses and still stay in your clay houses while Sheikh Aiytu Shalash wrenched open three honey dates and two figs and one green olive from 1961 for my grandfather Abakar.

Agouim why did you sleep that night and all the rest after it and never give even one of your red clay houses for the boat for my grandfather Abakar.

Agouim why did your cold and bitter wind not bite again for sixty years at least His cheek stayed warm after that, my grandfather Abakar

Netanel Schwartz

Francisco Lemeyer y Berenguer, Jewish Wedding in Tangier, 1875, detail Oil on canvas Image courtesy of Andre Goldberg, Art of the Jews of Morocco, Somogy Art Publishers

From Magic Wells to Practical Kabbalah

Analyzing Attitudes Towards Magic and Alchemy Among European Jews in the Second Millennium

by Ren Robins

Introduction

Ever since Jews first inhabited Europe, they have been practicing and discussing magic, incorporating elements from their new environments into late antique traditions. A wide array of sources make it possible to trace how European Jewry’s attitudes towards magic and alchemy evolved across the second millennium, and how various developments impacted these attitudes: Yiddish folktales with ambiguous origins; the early medieval rise of Kabbalah; a first-hand account of the later middle ages from Venetian rabbi Leon de Modena; and finally, as the Enlightenment swept the continent during the mid-eighteenth century, the emergence of two opposing groups, the Hasidim and the Enlightenmentaligned Maskilim. This analysis of attitudes toward magic, mysticism, and alchemy not only reveals a chronic lack of consensus, but also illustrates how the factors that produced those divides can contribute to a greater understanding of the priorities and experiences of European Jews in the second millennium.

Early Roots: Yiddish Folktales

The rich collection of Yiddish folktales collected by ethnographers (the so-called “zamlers”) traveling through Eastern Europe during the 1920s and 30s have origins that are mostly unknown – but like fables of many cultures, they have been passed down orally through the generations, and are likely very old. Some tales, such as “The Trustees,” can be traced back through time in earlier and earlier volumes Others find their sources in agodes, which folklorist Beatrice Weinreich defines as “stories and legends from the Jewish oral tradition that were written down some fifteen hundred years ago in Babylonia and Judea by the sages of the Talmud ” “Wonder Tales,” known in the Ashkenazi tradition as tsyober mayse, involve magic or superstitious elements and make up a prominent part of the bastion of Yiddish folktales. The magic in these stories ranged from decidedly positive to unambiguously evil.

One wonder tale that unequivocally epitomizes the former category is called “The Orphan Boys,” and tells the story of Berele and Shmerele, two orphan children from a shtetl. The impoverished boys subsist on scraps from do-gooders and live in the hegdesh

Beatrice Weinreich and Leonard Wolf, Yiddish Folktales, (New York: Schocken Books, 1997). Jewish Fables and Tales Retrieved from http://shtetlroutes eu/en/jewish-fables-and-tales/ Weinreich and Wolf

(poorhouse) until they set out one day in search better fortunes. Walking through the forest, they cross paths with a radiant old man, “clearly possessed by the Divine presence,” who offers to help them after hearing their woeful story. The man gives Berele a stick, explaining that it will allow him to fly over an otherwise impenetrable gate into a grand palace, where a princess will meet him. He offers Shmerele a head of garlic, which he claims will heal a terribly ill princess in a large city, bringing the orphan great renown and acclaim. Finally, the man teaches each orphan a short spell to activate their objects at the appropriate moment. The boys tearfully part ways and fulfill the sage’s prophecy, living happily ever after.

This story is a prime example of a positive portrayal of magic in Yiddish folklore. The deserving boys are miraculously saved from lives of poverty by a literally “radiant” woodsman. Moreover, the protagonists remain humble and kind to the very end, curbing any hesitations about magic “spoiling” beneficiaries. The plot itself features earmarks of Jewish magic, such as the use of incantations to activate the materia magica, and the idea of miraculous transport. Known as kefitzat ha-derekh or “jumping the path,” the idea of instantaneous movement between disparate locations is well-attested throughout the tradition One codex likely composed by a modern Italian intellectual in the seventeenth century contains four recipes for this explicit purpose, and Hayyim Vital’s seventeenth century compendium, “Practical Kabbalah and Alchemy,” includes a kefitzat ha-derekh recipe along with others “for the protection of travelers ” These authors drew on earlier examples: Gerrit Bos testifies that this phenomenon is prominent across rabbinic literature “in connection with the Biblical figures of Eliezer, Jacob, and Abishay Ben Seruya,” in Islamic magical literature (where it is called tay al-ard, “the folding of the earth”), and throughout the mystical canon. The garlic invokes another common trope, health restoration, which crops up everywhere from Babylonian incantation bowls, to Genizah fragments, to medical books (for one medieval example, see Abraham ibn Ezra’s Sefer Hanisyonot).

Another magical Yiddish folktale, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” tells of an impoverished father whose son becomes a sorcerer’s apprentice Three years later, when the father returns to retrieve his son, the sorcerer demands he pass a test proving he can distinguish his son (in dove form) from another. He picks correctly and the sorcerer releases the son under the condition that the child will perform no magic in the sorcerer’s lifetime However, soon thereafter, the son breaks the contract in hopes of helping his father make money, and again ends up under the sorcerer’s abusive dominion, now in a horse’s body. Eventually, the son escapes and murders his former teacher The boy happily marries the sorcerer’s daughter and replaces him in Odessa, where he works performing tricks for poor folk. This tale takes a fairly neutral stance on magic itself. On the one hand, the

Alessia Bellusci Jewish Magia in Renaissance and Baroque Italy: Preliminary Notes on Ms GFC 325 Cahiers Academia: Cabbala Dir. Flavia Buzzetta, 23-42.

Gerrit Bos, "Hayyim Vital's “Practical Kabbalah and Alchemy”: A 17th Century Book of Secrets," The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 1995, 4(1), 55-112

Weinreich and Wolf

Magic Wells to Practical Kabbalah

Magic Wells to Practical Kabbalah

original sorcerer is depicted as cruel and cutthroat. On the other hand, the protagonist apprentice, undeniably a sorcerer in his own right, is painted in a positive light Although he breaks the contract, it is only to improve his father’s financial situation. He uses his magical powers to orchestrate his escape, and eventually replaces his former master as the market entertainer. Magic is depicted here as a legitimate form of livelihood, and practitioners are perceived as neither universally good nor bad, but as individuals who must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In a third story, “Of Nettles and Roses,” a jealous woman casts her beautiful and lovely stepdaughter away to wash clothes in a supposedly cursed river. The water spirits take pity on her and give her three gifts: her breath smells good, her wash water turns to gold, and roses spring up behind her feet The flabbergasted woman sends her own ugly daughter to the river hoping for similar results, but the rude girl receives only unpleasant curses. Many years pass, and the lovely stepdaughter marries a prince and bears a beautiful baby Out of spite, the stepmother sends for a sorceress to kill the stepdaughter The sorceress agrees and, using her magic, breaks into the girl’s bedroom and brutally quarters the baby, framing the stepdaughter by leaving the sharp, bloody knife in her hand The innocent princess is widely accused, blinded, and cast away with only her baby’s carcass as company. However, her real mother appears to her in a dream, and directs her towards a magical well whose water restores her sight and revives the child. Eventually the girl reconvenes with the prince and all is well The tale also incorporates Jewish magical traditions, namely oneiric communication with the dead, which was commonly used to locate lost inheritances. Those trying to unearth the treasure would perform some purification ritual before reciting incantations and going to sleep, hoping for the opportunity to question deceased relatives (see Genizah fragment JTSL ENA NS 12.5, a medieval finished product for the oneiric divinatory ritual She’elat Halom, which directly references Sefer ha-Razim). In this story, although magic is not uniformly evil (the water spirits, oneiric vision, and well are good), the act of magic is indisputably negative, as the sole practitioner mentioned is the evil sorceress. Thus, Yiddish folktales present diverse views of magic, ranging from highly positive to highly negative.

The Early Middle Ages: Practical Kabbalah

One of the most significant developments in Jewish magic during the middle ages was the rise of Kabbalah, whose practical branch adopted many preexisting magical practices As scholar Yuval Harrari explains, “The Kabbalah of Names” would invoke ancient magic traditions “from the land of Israel and Babylonia based upon holy names and adjurations.” Even the very first use of the term “Kabbalah” references the forty-two letters of “the Ineffable Name.” Researcher Moshe Idel’s work on medieval Kabbalists R. Nehemiah ben Solomon and R. Baruch Togarmi demonstrates a staggering degree of influence by

Alessia Bellusci, "A Genizah finished product for She elat Ḥalom based on Sefer Ha-Razim,” Journal of Jewish Studies, 2016, 67 (2), 305-326. doi:10.18647/3281/jjs-2016.

Benjamin Lewin, Ozar ha-geonim: Teshuvot geonai bavel u-perushaihem al pi seder ha-Talmud, (Haifa, 1928)

adjuratory practices and holy names, and shows that Ashkenazi magic and mystical traditions transferred to Spain shaped the development of “prophetic Kabbalah” by R Abraham Abulafia (1240-1291).

Despite striking overlap, Kabbalists frequently sought to distinguish themselves from practitioners of traditional magic through careful branding. Magic was, after all, expressly forbidden by the Torah (“You must not allow a sorceress to live,” Exodus 22:17). To take one example, the Spanish Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia hoped to distance himself from users of “books of names” by distinguishing between “true” holy names and their power, which lead to spiritual elevation and prophecy, and “false names that lack any true wisdom,” and merely mislead users. In a later writing, Abulafia invokes Maimonides to ridicule “the vain ravings of the writers of charms” and their “stupid books ” He distinguished his practices, which were for holy and pure intentions, from those with “profane” objectives, such as erotic magic.

Scholars of Kabbalah have likewise drawn these distinctions: Gershom Scholem emphasized that intention formulae were never to be pronounced, as opposed to recited adjurations and incantations of “operative magic,” and R J Zwi Werblowsky similarly dismissed connections between verbal formulae used to facilitate divine energy flow to a Kabbalist (such as the Lurianic yihudim) and magical adjurations (hashbaʿot, or “Beschwörungen”) Christian Renaissance intellectuals also embraced the traditional view of Kabbalah as the key to unlocking the secrets of cosmos, regarding it admiringly as a form of divine science associated with natural magic and alchemy, rather than taboo “black magic” or charlatanism. Even today, websites devoted to Practical Kabbalah stress these distinctions-- one July 2000 article by Faye Levine features a subsection entitled, “Why Practical Kabbalah isn’t considered ‘Magic.’” Emphasis on labels reflects chronic conundrums concerning legitimacy and definitions: contentious feelings toward magic fostered attempts to distance Kabbalah from magic, despite evidence of shared elements.

Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Italy: Leon Modena’s The Life of Judah

Venetian rabbi Leon Modena’s autobiography The Life of Judah, demonstrates how the interest in and ambivalence towards magic, alchemy, and astrology continued among Italian Jews into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Leon Modena was born in Venice in 1571 According to Mark R Cohen and Theodore K Rabb, the scholar’s ancestors

“belonged to that familiar group of Ashkenazic ... moneylenders who ... abandoned the increasingly inhospitable lands of northern Europe to establish new homes in the credit-

Yuval Harari, "'Practical Kabbalah' and the Jewish Tradition of Magic," Aries Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism, 2019, 19(1), 38-82

Abraham Abufia, Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-raʻ yon ; ha-Ḥeshek; veha-Melamed Agata Paluch, "Intentionality and kabbalistic practices in early modern East-Central Europe," Aries Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism, 2019, 19(1), 83–111

J H Chajes, & Yuval Harari, "Practical Kabbalah," Aries Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism, 2019, 19(1) Retrieved from https://brill com/abstract/journals/arie/19/1/article-p1 1 xml Faye Levine. Retrieved from http://kabbalah.fayelevine.com/practice/pk014.php

R Abraham

hungry cities of northern Italy.” Modena practiced bibliomancy (seeking an omen by asking a child what biblical verse he had learned that day in school), and dabbled in amulet production, dream divination, and astrology

Nevertheless, Modena’s views on these subjects were far from uniformly positive. He reports that, around 1602, Roman physician Abraham di Cammeo “enticed” him to “pursue the vanity of the craft of alchemy,” on which he spent “much money.” Later, his son Mordecai turned to alchemy. In November 1614, Mordecai began his practice with the priest Joseph Grillo, “a very learned man.” Mordecai’s efforts culminated in a supposedly successful experiment in which he “made ten ounces of pure silver from nine ounces of lead and one of silver.” Modena recounts how he verified the metal’s integrity with a thorough examination and then sold it for a great profit. This account reflects a society in which people staunchly believed in the reality of alchemical transmutation While Modena was initially excited by the financial potential and success of Mordecai’s work, he soon came to regret it when his son’s health failed. In fall 1615, “Suddenly much blood flowed down from [Mordecai’s] head to his mouth, and from then on he ceased performing that work, for they said perhaps the vapors and the smokes of the arsenics and the salts that enter into it injured his head.” Medical complications caused by alchemical experimentation were not uncommon: five centuries earlier, Bahya ibn Paquda warned that “the smell and the smoke [can] kill [the alchemist] due to the constant work and the length of effort he devotes to [his work].” In his book of secrets, Hayyim Vital likewise warns, “Everyone active in chemistry should be wary of the various toxic substances present when gold and silver are melted in the fire,” additionally mentioning the toxicity of nitric acid and mercury vapors.

In his autobiography, Modena listed both his own and his son’s engagements with alchemy under a section entitled “Miseries of my heart in brief,” emphasizing this shift in attitude. Modena seems to have experienced a similar journey with astrology: he admits to having had “a passionate desire to learn from the astrologers ... what would happen to [him] during the days of [his] life and how many they would be” as a youth, and did eventually consult astrologers to obtain this information, but ended up regretting the affair, “for man’s only proper way is to be pure before God, and he should not make such inquiries.” Thus, Modena’s experience with both alchemy and astrology illuminates some of the crucial factors, such as physical danger, expense, time commitments, and piety that contributed to people’s disdain for magic, alchemy, and astrology.

Ibid Ibid.

Raphael Patai, Jewish alchemists: A history and source book, (Princeton: Princeton Univ Press, 2014).

Léon Modena, The autobiography of a seventeenth-century Venetian rabbi: Leon Modena's Life of Judah, trans and ed Mark Cohen, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)

Jewish Magic in the Modern Era: the Printing Press, Haskalah, and Hasidism

In the modern era, developments such as the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment significantly shaped perceptions of Jewish magic. In his article, “How Jewish Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World,” Gideon Bohak identifies two key advancements that impacted the field: the printing of books of Jewish magic and the Haskalah’s war on Jewish magic.

The rise of the printing press facilitated dissemination of a swath of Jewish magicomystical literature, incorporating both recipe books and finished products. Some prime examples include books of segullot, which detail the occult properties of various substances; the Sod Yesharim, a Renaissance hodge-podge of one hundred table-tricks, medical recipes, practical advice, and miscellaneous riddles; the Sefer Berit Menuhah, a fundamental Kabbalistic book encompassing subjects of esoteric cosmology; and the Sefer Raziel, a volume first printed in Amsterdam in 1701 containing magical recipes, cosmological descriptions, and information on the use of divine names. Bohak explains that the proliferation of printed books led to the rearrangement, simplification, and censoring of the contents of the Jewish magical tradition. New thematic and alphabetical arrangements and the addition of a Table of Contents and Index made books more practical. Cheap, mass-produced amulets (often intended for the protection of newborns) also went on the market. Meanwhile, Yoel Baal Shem’s books of segullot helped develop the Do-It-Yourself genre of Jewish magical literature, which, as the name suggests, granted the reader unprecedented agency and contributed to the obsolescence of professional experts. Thus, the field shed some of its esotericism, and the censorship of texts, “so as not to print recipes which were deemed too sensitive” generally softened the perception of magic among laypeople.

However, the Haskalah’s war on Jewish magic heightened divisions As Bohak puts it, “Modernity came upon the Jews from the outside.” For the most part, Ashkenazi Jews were not involved in the intellectual advancements of early modernization. They were not even looped into more scientifically-oriented magico-mystical domains – namely, alchemy. Despite its current-day association with frivolous hocus-pocus, for centuries alchemy was tied closely to chemistry: involvement in the craft historically characterized a more modern worldview. A letter from rabbi, printing press editor, and scholar Jacob Emden (1697-1776) provides insight into eighteenth century Ashkenazi Jews’ lack of alchemical knowledge. In response to a certain Wolf Ginzberg, Emden requests information on alchemy in general, and on Hebrew (or Jewish) alchemical writings in particular. He laments: “My soul ... yearns to know whether perchance somebody among us still possesses a [Hebrew] book [on alchemy].”

As Raphael Patai, author of The Jewish

Gideon Bohak, "How Jewish Magic Survived the Disenchantment of the World," Aries Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism, 2019, 7-37 doi:10 1163/15700593-01901002

Alchemists:AHistoryandSourceBook,attests,Emdenwas“anexceptionalfigureamong theAshkenaziJewsoftheeighteenthcentury,”simplybecauseofhisinterestinnatural sciencesHisAshkenazineighbors,unliketheirSephardibrethren,mostlydevotedtheir attentiontohalakhaandTalmudicstudy,leavingEmdenfrustratedbytheresultingdearth ofinformationPataiexplains:“[The]generalsilence[ofAshkenazischolars]concerning alchemyindicatesthattheywere,inallprobability,unawareofitsmeaning,scope,tenets, andpossiblyofitsveryexistence.”

Nevertheless,theEnlightenmentreachedJewish communities UrbancenterslikeBerlinsawthe emergenceofcirclesofEnlightenment-inspiredJewish intellectuals(themaskilim),whopromotedanewideology builtonthecontemporaryChristianmovementandthe workofmedievalJewishrationalistssuchasMaimonides.

LiketheirChristiancounterparts,theseJewshadno tolerancefordemonology,superstition,ormagic.They soonrealizedthedegreeofreconstructionthatwouldbe requiredtopurgeJudaismofmagic.

InhisAutobiography,SolomonMaimon(whoadopted

Maimonides’nameoutofadmiration)railedagainstPracticalKabbalahforitsinefficacy, recountingspecificallyitsfailuretomakehiminvisibleandthefailureofthesupposedly amuleticbookSeferRazieltopreventafire.Healsoattacksparticularpractitioners, mockingtheir“Kabbalisticfooleries–fumigations,conjurations,andsimilarpractices.”

MaimonsinglesoutvariousHasidicfigures,accusingRabbiYoelBaalShem(theSecond)of merelycomingupwith“luckycureswhichheeffectedbymeansofhismedical acquirementsandhisconjuringtricks,”anddescribingthetsadikRabbiDovBaer’s clairvoyanceas“acombinationofspy-workandcommonsense.”Similarly,inhis polemicaltractateTheJealousyofTruth,GalicianmaskilauthorYehudahLeibMieses (1798-1831)refutestheexistenceofdemons,pointingoutmultipleflawsinthelogicHe writes:“ItiswellknownthatamongthoseJewsuponwhomthelightofwisdomhas shone,suchasinBerlin,thereisnosignatallofthepresenceofdemonsandspirits,and onlyintheLandofPoland,andothercountriesinwhichthesonsofJacobwalkin darkness–onlytherearesuchfairytaleswide-spread.”Inthiscontext,“thelightof wisdom”canbeunderstoodtomeanmodernEnlightenmentthought.Insupportinghis claimthatdemonsaremerelyfigmentsoftheimagination,Maimondescribeshow accountsofdemonsandspiritsonlyexistinplaceswhere“thesonsofJacobwalkin darkness,”thusdelineatingtheboundarybetweenmodern,urban,Haskalah-oriented

These Jews had no tolerance for demonology, superstition, or magic

They soon realized the degree of reconstruction that would be required to purge Judaism of magic.

Jews and their rural, superstitious counterparts, whose backwardness he almost seems to pity

Turning our gaze to the opposing camp, the rise of Hasidism carried on the long tradition of magic in Judaism and formed a hub of Jewish magical activity during this era The movement’s founder, the Baal Shem Tov (whose formal name was Israel ben Eliezer, 1698-1760), was an acclaimed practitioner of magic in addition to an avid philosopher. The profession of Baalei Shem originated long ago with ancient Palestinian wonderworkers, before spreading to southern Italy, and then to Central and Eastern Europe. These individuals claimed knowledge of the holy Names, with which supernatural actions, such as healings, exorcisms, and resurrections, could be performed The Baal Shem Tov’s contemporary, Rabbi Naphtali Katz of Poznan, was a known practical kabbalist, who possessed a ring in which the holy Names were engraved, and which he probably used to exorcize spirits. Gedalyah Nigal of Bar-Ilan University claims that “it is inconceivable that the title ‘baal shem’ was given to someone who did not engage at all in magical activity, even on a temporary basis.”

Hasidism was inextricably tied to the Jewish magical tradition Nigal cites the doctrine of gilgul (transmigration or reincarnation) as “a classic example of a kabbalistic doctrine that was absorbed by Hasidism from the esoteric literature, especially from Lurian Kabbalah According to one account, the Baal Shem Tov encountered a frog on his return from an unsuccessful attempt to immigrate to Eretz Ysrael. The frog held the spirit of a former rabbi, who was punished with this undesirable form for having failed to wash his hands properly according to ritual and then for having become a drunkard (because “one sin leads to another”). There was also an assumption that the tsadikim knew the transmigratory routes of particular individuals f l h B l Sh T supposedly the transmigration of Rav Saadiah was a spark of the soul of Saul.

The Baalei Shem were thought to possess aforementioned kefitzat ha-derekh (the shorte transport occurred in sea or air and its motive certain place (for the sabbath, a holiday, a wed etc). Examples of the use of kefitzat ha-derekh Judah He-Hasid supposedly imparted the gift former would succeed in going from Regensbu Judah flew via a cloud in order to arrive in tim

Gedalya Nigal, Magic, Mysticism, and Hasidism: The su Jason Aronson, 1994)

Eleazar of Worms “would ride in the cloud shape which was appointed for this purpose” and arrive at distant destinations in order to fulfill religious duties It is said that Eleazar once fell from a cloud, “and from then on, he limped.” There are many accounts of the Baal Shem Tov himself employing kefitzat ha-derekh. Nigal writes: “When he was forced to flee from the ire of the large tenants in the city of Slutzk, he did so with the help of kefitzat ha-derekh: ‘And he went from there in half the night, by the shrinking of the earth by about 15 parasangs, until he left heir bounds for another kingdom.’” As Nigal relates, tales of kefitzat ha-derekh often attempt to counter the issue of a lack of credibility: the travelers in these stories provide “proofs,” “such as the…the bringing of a certain object that exists only in a distant place, or the bringing of a receipt for an object purchased in a distant land ”

These juxtaposing perceptions of Jewish magic persisted well into the twentieth century. Bohak asserts that even in the 1920s, many Jews, “especially among the Hasidim of Eastern Europe, but not only among them ... were convinced that demons do exist, that magic does work, and that Baalei Shem and tsaddikim have great powers ” In his account of his 1924 visit to Poland, novelist Alfred Döblin describes his encounters with Kabbalists in Krakow, and offers direct citations from a long Hebrew amulet and various magical texts. From his writings, it seems he “could not help but feeling that the ‘superstitious’ Jews of Eastern Europe were far more Jewish -- and in some ways more endearing -- than the enlightened Jews he had known from birth, with their often unfounded sense of intellectual superiority.” The skeptics and proponents that emerged in this arena represent a monumental divide in the opinions of European Jews, even as they demonstrate the unending controversy over magic’s status

Conclusion

Throughout the second millennium, developments such as the rise of Kabbalah and the Enlightenment impacted the opinions of Jews towards magic, alchemy and astrology, but a consistent lack of consensus persisted through each epoch Yiddish folktales reveal vastly variable attitudes toward magic. In the early middle ages, the rise of Kabbalah demonstrates how Jews stressed labels to distinguish and validate their practices. Leon

Dov Ben Samuel Baer, trans. and ed. S. A. Horodezky, Shivḥei ha-Besht, (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1960). Nigal.

From his writings, it seems he "could not help but feelings that the 'superstitious' Jews of Eastern Europe were far more Jewish... than the enlightened Jews he had known from birth. "

–––

Modena’s case clearly shows both the prevalence of magic, alchemy, and astronomy among seventeenthcentury Italian Jews, as well as practitioners’ ambivalent and fluid opinions on these subjects. In the modern era, the emergence of two opposing groups, the maskilim and hasidim, accentuates a growing separation that persisted at least well into the twentieth century. The unceasing ambivalence towards magic reflected dangers (particularly relevant in the field of alchemy), inconveniences (such as money and time requirements), and doubts about efficacy (especially prominent among the skeptical Enlightenment Jews). Nevertheless, judging by the persistent popularity of magico-mystical practices, it appears the desired results were considered so spectacular as to compensate for these drawbacks. Ultimately, understanding the considerations that affected perceptions of magic sheds valuable light on the day-to-day lives of European Jews throughout the millennium.

The unceasing ambivalence towards magic reflected dangers... inconveniences... and doubts about efficacy...

Nevertheless it appears the desired results were considered so spectacular as to compensate for these drawbacks. –––

Magic Wells to Practical Kabbalah

Menasseh ben Israel and the Paradoxes of Modern Jewish Politics

by Yosef Malka

Introduction: The Tragedy of Father and Son

In 1653, Menasseh ben Israel dispatched his son, Samuel ben Israel, from Amsterdam to London Samuel was sent to initiate the campaign for Jewish readmission to England three and a half centuries after expulsion. Menasseh was a prominent rabbi and an intellectual celebrity across Protestant Europe, having escaped the inquisition and brought his Judaism to light in 1610 He was hesitant to cause a scandal by negotiating with Holland’s commercial adversary during the tensions of the Second Anglo-Dutch War. But this decision was not merely practical. For Menasseh, it had deeper religious significance. When he joined his son in 1655, not only was Menasseh finishing the Piedra Gloriosa, a work of messianism he also believed that his own mission was suffused with messianic power. When Menasseh married Rachel Abrabanel in 1633, he knew he would have an important son. Through his mother’s lineage, Samuel joined the Davidic line which was destined to produce the messiah, and was connected to the prolific statesman and philosopher Don Isaac Abravanel. While Samuel’s trip initiated a process that would ultimately lead to resettlement, he was not the messiah: within four years, he would be dead. Those four years would break his father. By 1657, after his own mission to England, Menasseh found himself in between London and Amsterdam, rejected by both Jewish communities and looking desperately to Oliver Cromwell for financial support. He died just two months after his son, defeated

While Samuel ben Israel and his converso companion, Manuel Martinez Dormido, sought to engineer the resettlement by writing privately to Oliver Cromwell and extolling the commercial utility and political loyalty of the Jewish people, Menasseh ben Israel’s mission was defined by advocacy in the vernacular. Menasseh published three pamphlets that were translated into English and intended to create the conditions for large-scale

Steven Nadler, and Victor Tiribás. “Jewish Censorship of Menasseh Ben Israel’s Piedra Gloriosa: A New Document from the Archives,” Jewish Quarterly Review 111, no. 2 (2021): 323–34. The Dutch Sephardi communal authority, the Mahamad, ordered Menasseh to stop production of the book after reviewing it Steven M Nadler, Menasseh Ben Israel: Rabbi of Amsterdam, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 36

Menasseh ben Israel Image courtesy of the British Museum

resettlement of the Jews in England during a period when early modern Jewry was in desperate need of a new, tolerant frontier

Menasseh’s advocacy can be considered one of the opening acts of Jewish emancipation politics, even though he did not invoke the concept of emancipation at all. Jews would have to be admitted before being emancipated. Menasseh faced many of the same dilemmas and challenges that advocates for Jewish rights and inclusion would face in the centuries that followed. Menasseh engaged with both Christian intellectuals to create horizontal alliances in an emerging public discourse and to create vertical alliances with the state based on economic utility. The confusion of his two audiences state and public and their incompatible objectives may explain part of Menasseh’s failure to achieve the settlement he desired

The Fragility of Mandate: Menasseh’s Activism in its Dutch-Sephardic Context

Menasseh ben Israel was not a prolific merchant. Instead, his ability to speak the language of English Protestantism and his international celebrity legitimized his mandate with the Dutch Jewish community. At the same time, Menasseh had a history of causing trouble with Dutch Sephardic communal leaders precisely because of the controversial nature of his theological work and his extensive contact with Christian intellectuals. At the end of the readmission campaign, Menasseh appealed not to the Jewish communal leaders in Amsterdam for financial assistance, but to Oliver Cromwell Even his wife was apparently unable to receive assistance from the Dutch Jews and turned to Cromwell’s minister John Sadler, who intervened on her behalf with Cromwell again. Menasseh’s mandate from the Dutch Jewish community remains unproven and may have been tacit and tentative

Menasseh was skilled at making allies with people who did not like Jews. In his recent biography of Menasseh, Steven Nadler discusses his first intellectual relationships with Christian scholars like Vossius and points out their general antipathy towards the Jews, but also makes clear their willingness to defend and support Menasseh because of their respect for his erudition. Nadler claims that Menasseh engaged with them out of a

In addition to Simone de Luzzatto See Benjamin Ravid, “The Venetian Context Of The Discourse” in Simone Luzzatto, Giuseppe Veltri, and Anna Lissa, Discourse on the State of the Jews: Bilingual Edition (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2019), 274 Luzzatto advocated in the vernacular, and many of Menasseh’s arguments are pulled directly from his work, but he ultimately pursued a maintenance of the status quo rather than a theologically-informed project of resettlement.

The Dutch Sephardic community was extremely conservative. Not only did they internalize a sense of ethnic superiority from their Iberian oppressors, they also had to maintain decorum and solidarity (“bom judesmo”) because of the fragile status quo in Amsterdam The burgher class had to block insistent attempts by the Protestant clergy to resist the Jews’ presence, and this presence was entirely dependent on their vital role in Dutch commercial success See ”Gente Política: The Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam vis-à-vis Dutch Society,"

In: Chaya Brasz/Yosef Kaplan (eds ): Dutch Jews as Perceived by Themselves and by Others, (Boston, Köln: Leiden, 2001), pp 21–40 and Miriam Bodian, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.)

See: Lucien Wolf, “Menasseh Ben Israel’s Study in London," Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England), 3 (1896): 144–50

Henrietta Maria Image Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum.

universalist impulse and a genuine interest in reconciliation and peace. Nevertheless, the bylaws of the community included a prohibition against engaging with gentiles in theological conversations and the Jewish communal elite was often angered by his publications. Additional moments confirm this: their disapproval of his publication of theological books, screaming matches in the sanctuary, the herem placed on Menasseh in 1640 for insubordination, the extremely low level of trust between him and the community at the time of the mission to England, and the fact that for much of his career he was not on speaking terms with senior Rabbi Saul Levi Mortera. Menasseh was a disaffected rabbi who felt underappreciated by the communal elite.

Menasseh made the communal authority, or Mahamad, nervous, but he was also useful to them A few moments in his biography highlight this tension When Henrietta Maria, queen consort of Charles I of England, came to Amsterdam, she wanted to see the synagogue. The Mahamad decided to ask Menasseh to give the sermon that week over the more senior Rabbi Mortera Does this mean that they respected or trusted Menasseh more? This is unlikely. They consciously took a risk by selecting Menasseh. In all likelihood, it was his intellectual celebrity that had made the synagogue a must-see for a member of the English royalty, and for many intellectuals who visited It was Menasseh who was known to interact with Christians in Amsterdam and to win their support for his intellectual projects. This is precisely what made the Mahamad so nervous about Menasseh, but it is also what would have made them pick him to represent the community in the presence of a gentile over Saul Levi Mortera, who was known not to engage with gentiles and did not interest them.

This all points to two larger questions about the dynamics of Jewish emancipation politics. First, to what extent can a practitioner’s personal motivations for capital, intellectual recognition, or some mix of the two coexist with the interests of the community? Does this create an unstable situation, or is it simply an inevitable consequence of advancing a set of political goals through individual agents? Second, to what extent does an emancipation-politician’s external celebrity (i.e. standing among Gentiles) confer a mandate on them to pursue the work of emancipation politics?

Menasseh’s story belies a subtle problem of legitimacy and representation at work in many instances of diaspora politics, where practitioners are skilled and well-positioned for precisely the same reasons that they might not be perfect representatives of their communities.

“Manasseh was a most tolerant man He allowed that under the true Messiah there would be a place in the world to come for the righteous of all nations As someone who was widely regarded by gentiles as the spokesman for the Jewish world, he felt an obligation to play along with the Millenarians and try to minimize the differences between their theological views However, he was not going to abandon the fundamental tenets of Judaism Manasseh’s messianic agenda certainly did not include the conversation of his people.” Nadler, Steven M. Menasseh Ben Israel, 138. This universalist conception of the messiah will be important later in the analysis.

See: Nadler, Menasseh Ben Israel, 109

The history of shtadlanut among other communities reflects these same concerns

Grounds for Inclusion: Erastian Toleration, Cromwellian Church Policy, and Mercantilism

During the period between 1640-1660, England debated the proper relationship between civil and ecclesiastical power and those in control took drastic steps to reform the English Church. Erastianism, an increasingly influential doctrine in the early 17th century, holds that the civil magistrate is the only source of valid religious law. As Eric Nelson explains, the embrace of Erastianism by early modern Protestants was coupled with a new belief that the Hebrew Bible provided a set of political principles that modern governments should adopt. They believed that the Sanhedrin, or Jewish court, did not make a distinction between civil and religious law, but also that it did not attempt to punish people for spiritual transgressions. On this view, civil government would be based on Godly principles and carry out religious law, but not root out unbelief Erastianism regarded God as the ultimate sovereign, but only permitted religious legislation that was necessary for civil peace. As Nelson argues, the rise of religious freedom in the West should be seen not as the result of an impulse to deny the relevance of revelation to political life or to separate church and state. Rather, toleration was the result of a transformation within the religious sphere itself.

This history is critical for understanding the terms in which the decision to readmit the Jews was debated and the reasons why Cromwell did not want to make the decision on his own authority and instead called a public conference to debate the matter at Whitehall. Theories about the “Hebrew Republic” did not necessarily dispose Christians to living Jews, but they structured political debate in a way that created common ground. According to Nelson, all of the Erastians at the Westminster Assembly of Divines, which convened in 1643 in order to debate the proper form of Church governance, were accomplished Hebraists. They fiercely debated the nature of the Sanhedrin, and specifically about whether or not it was primarily a civil body. The Erastians argued that it was a civil body, and that there was no independent ecclesiastical authority in the Hebraic and Godly polity. It is remarkable that the conference dedicated to determining the proper form of ecclesiastical government in England devolved into a debate about the nature of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Ancient Israel

Among the Erastian spokesmen was Bulstrode Whitelocke. Bulstrode Whiltelocke was a lawyer and Parliamentarian who served Cromwell for many years but also managed to keep a distance from the revolutionary project that allowed him to survive the Restoration. He was an operator who was useful to many people and did not cause controversy, and was dispatched in 1653 to Sweden as a diplomat Most importantly for

Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 16

Nelson, The Hebrew Republic, 93-4

Because, “who judgeth the heart but God?” Erastus quoted in Ibid., 94.

Wolf, Lucien. Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell, XXXV.

Nelson, The Hebrew Republic, 112-113

Ibid , 190n114 One of the other spokesmen was John Selden

the history of Jewish readmission, he also served on Cromwell’s Council of State when it received a petition for readmission sent directly from Menasseh to the Council in 1651

Stowe 333, a manuscript in the British Library which has not yet been discussed in the literature, demonstrates Whitelocke’s Hebraism and links his arguments to those of Menasseh. This document, “Historie of the Parlement of England and of some resemblances to the Jewish and other Councells” is an unfinished manuscript. It examines the etymology of the word parliament and claims that the English Parliament is largely based on the Jewish Sanhedrin. As the historian Jacqueline Rose has shown, the concept of “resemblances” was used by Whitelocke in his other works. It was central to his claim that there was continuity between biblical law and modern common law. Whitelocke is not merely important for corroborating that political Hebraism may have had some tenuous effect on the readmission process, but for exposing an argumentative strategy shared by Menasseh and the Hebraists. While his involvement beyond the Council of State decision is unlikely, he is valuable to this story due to the similarity between his arguments and Menasseh’s.

In a chapter titled “On Tyranny,” Whitelocke uses passages from the Book of Samuel and the Book of Job to argue that God always punishes tyrants. He discusses the “just hand and vengeance of God towards tyrants” by expounding on Job 15:20 (“The wicked who oppress others will be in torment as long as they live ”) In a nod to Machiavelli, he claims that “their life is miserable, who would rather be feared than loved…Though he may seem to prosper heer, he cannot escape punishment hereafter.” This line of argument about the tendency of God to punish tyrants is important in the readmission context (though not unique to Whitelocke) because it paralleled Menasseh’s arguments in the Humble Addresses. In the Humble Addresses and Hope of Israel, Menasseh chronicles tyrants and monarchs who have persecuted the Jews and experienced a downfall, and he posits the mistreatment of the Jews as the prime causal factor. In his preface to the Humble Addresses, he writes that he came to England because he believed, “the Kingly government being now changed into that of Commonwealth, the ancient hatred towards

Katz, Philosemitism and the Readmission of Jews to England, 184. The petition is lost, but Menasseh was issued a passport in November of 1651 See Calendar of State Papers 25/35 f 58

It is not clear that this offers completely new insights because Whitelocke did discuss the similarities between the Hebrew Republic and English institutions in other works and had a reputation as a Hebraist Settling this question would require more research, especially about the English Common Law and the debates around its reform that occurred in the 17th century, to assess what might have been creative in Whitelocke’s approach and how the manuscript explored here was similar or different to his other arguments

See Jacqueline Rose, “A Godly Law? Bulstrode Whitelocke, Puritanism and the Common Law in SeventeenthCentury England.” Studies in Church History 56 (June 2020): 282 for an explanation of Whitelocke’s support for the Common Law through his Hebraic scholarship

Citing the Book of Samuel was common among “republican exclusivists” who opposed monarchy Whitelocke, however, made a distinction between monarchy and tyranny, and only opposed the latter See Nelson, The Hebrew Republic, Chapter 1

Brit Lib , Stowe MS 333, fos 98-99

Ibid , fos 99-100

[the Jews] would also be changed into good-will.” Ironically, he addressed this work to his “highnesse” Oliver Cromwell Nevertheless, it seems that this opposition to tyranny was a major source of agreement between Menasseh and the English Erastians.

The political-theological argument that Whitelocke and Menasseh shared did not mean the same thing to both of them. Whitelocke and Menasseh had completely different intentions in appropriating the language of the Old Testament to argue against "oppression." Whitelocke's argument was not a plea for "toleration," rather, it was about the terms of the revolution that put parliament over crown. Menasseh inserted his vision of toleration into the same political-theological argument to further his own agenda.

Cromwell achieved a reorganization of the English Church by 1654, the year the readmission debate picked up in earnest. Scholars including Blair Worden and Jeffrey Collins have urged historians to recognize how “toleration” was not a conscious goal of Cromwell and in fact was a “dirty word” for most Puritans Cromwell believed that he had the power and the responsibility to establish a national confession and worked “relentlessly” to establish a system that would centralize control over the nation’s Churches Cromwell was an Erastian, but that did not mean perfect toleration in practice: religious conformity and religious law in general were rationalized in support of the needs of civil peace. The deliberation about the readmission of the Jews was not the inevitable result of the spirit of religious liberty and toleration that had taken hold during the English Civil War a Whiggish view but instead was accommodated through the structure of Cromwell’s reformed Church.

Understanding the reception of Menasseh’s arguments also requires placing them in the context of larger, contemporaneous debates within English society about mercantilism. By the time readmission was debated, merchants no longer needed to be chartered by the government. As Nuala Zahediah has shown, this led to a set of debates about both the virtues of mercantilism and about what made a good merchant. She claims that the Jews had a “competitive advantage” in the transport trade because of their trust networks, better communal discipline, and better intelligence The Navigation Acts of

Lucien Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell, 77 Collins is worth quoting at length for context. “If the Interregnum was partly marked by a nascent toleration and disorienting religious pluralism, it also witnessed the institutional realization of the Erastian programme of the Long Parliament Cromwell once characterized this balance thus: ‘Is not Liberty of Conscience in religion a fundamental? So long as there is liberty of conscience for the supreme magistrate to exercise his conscience in erecting what form of church government he is satisfied should be set up ’” See Collins, Jeffrey R The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 169 See also Worden, Blair “Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate ” Studies in Church History 21 (ed 1984): 199

Worden, God’s Instruments, 199

Collins, Jeffrey R. “The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell.” History 87, no. 285 (2002): 36. Zahedieh, Nuala. “Making Mercantilism Work: London Merchants and Atlantic Trade in the Seventeenth Century ” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9 (1999): 158 Intelligence, used here to mean flow of information Zahedieh, “Making Mercantilism Work,” 157

1651 were meant to create a “self-contained commercial system” by ensuring that all trade involving English colonies was funneled through England Thus, there was a body of London merchants opposed to the readmission of Jews to England on commercial grounds because they knew about the prominence of Jews in early modern colonial trade. But this prominence was precisely what made them so attractive to Cromwell in his pursuit of colonial and mercantile expansion. According to Lucien Wolf, Cromwell even discussed plans for the Jews to colonize Jamaica with one of the Conversos living in London at the time of the readmission debates.

Menasseh’s Changing Alliances

Samuel ben Israel’s mission, which pursued a vertical strategy by directly supplicating Oliver Cromwell (the petition was submitted by Manuel Martinez Domido ), was a failure Cromwell’s decision to call a public meeting, the Whitehall Conference, to discuss the readmission question indicated that he wanted the decision to be reached by a larger body that possessed more authority than his executive power: he was unwilling to make this decision in the dark. The Whitehall Conference yielded a definitive statement that there were no laws prohibiting the readmission to England, but failed to authorize resettlement With authorization from the Whitehall Conference, Jews would have been able to enter the country as a community. In a sense, the Whitehall Conference would have approved Judaism, while the process of endenization approved individual Jews.

The Whitehall Conference had the broadest mandate and the most authority, but its attendants were deeply concerned about the potential for Jews to corrupt good Christians and encroach on their commercial interests. John Dury advocated for Jews to be admitted as aliens but later expressed concerns, adding a list of restrictions to qualify his decision. Menasseh and Dormido advocated for Jews to be admitted as subjects.

Johanna Cartwright, a Baptist living in Amsterdam, advocated for Jews to be “permitted to

Zahedieh, “Making Mercantilism Work,” 154

Lucien Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell, XXXVII

Dormido submitted two petitions: one personally asking Cromwell to help him recover assets seized by the Portuguese government, and another asking for toleration of the Jewish community Cromwell personally saw to it that this letter was written, but opted for a public approach to the question of communal resettlement, indicating the transition away from the vertical alliance in modern Jewish politics conducted in emerging civil societies Henry Jessey, A Narrative of the Late Proceeds at White-Hall, (London, 1656), 1-3.

“There is no doubt, but they may lawfully be received in to any civil Societie of men, to live and have a beeing therein, as strangers ” John Dury, A Case of Conscience, Whether It Be Lawful to Admit Jews into a Christian Common-Wealth? (London: 1656), 3 Dury later wrote in correspondence concerning Menasseh that, “his demands are great, & the use which they make of great priviledges is not much to their commendation here & elsewhere: they haue wayes beyond all other men, to undermine a state, & to insinuate into those that are in offices & preiudge the trade of others, & therefore if they bee not wisely restrained they will in short time bee oppressive, if they bee such as are here in Germany ” Dury quoted in Yosef Kaplan, “Jews and Judaism in the Hartlib Circle,” Studia Rosenthaliana 38/39 (2005): 208.

Dormido’s petition of November 3, 1654 asks for liberty to dwell in England “with the same equalness and conveniences, which ye inland borne subjects do enjoy ” Brit Lib , MS Eger 1049 f 7

His "highnesse" Oliver Cromwell Image courtesy of the National Army Museum.

trade and dwell amongst you in this Land, as now they do in the Nether-lands,” which presumably meant as merchant strangers with limited rights

Dury’s qualified support for Jewish readmission as strangers was premised on his agenda of theological diplomacy and his desire to convert Jews. According to Dury and his close correspondent and collaborator, Samuel Hartlib, the Jews had a decisive role to play in the coming of the messiah. Yosef Kaplan writes that for these Protestants, who were obsessed with the cause of converting Jews, Jews had an “actual historical function in salvation history.” Dury and the Hartlib circle worked to promote the study of Judaism among Protestants to aid in conversionary efforts, and they interacted with Menasseh in their quest to gain knowledge that would help them convert Jews. They believed in the doctrine of emulation, that is, the idea that Jews had not yet witnessed true Christianity Once given the opportunity to experience non-Catholic Christians, they would grow interested as long as they were not persecuted and rushed along by force. This was characteristic of even the most tolerant thinkers of the age This was an age when people cared deeply about the salvation of one another’s souls the idea of suspending judgment about the beliefs of others was almost unthinkable.

In his 1656 pamphlet, A Case of Conscience, Dury called on the civil magistrate to assist in the “edification” of the Jews, (meaning their ultimate conversion), by readmitting them. He supported toleration as a strategy, knowing that persecution will not attract anyone to the faith. His pamphlet also betrays the influence of the debates about civil authority over ecclesiastical matters defined above. He writes that the question of Jewish settlement has always been a matter decided by the civil magistrate, and driven by raison d'etat, rather than something handled according to religious considerations. He writes that, “it is a work, which the Civil Magistrate takes wholly into his own consideration, to do, or not to do therein, what he finds expedient for the advantage of the the State; nor do I remember, to have read or heard, that the Case hath ever been put to any of the Churches, to be scanned as a matter of conscience.”

Dury wrote an overview of the situation in the German principalities, claiming that Jews were admitted by princes but despised by the Churches and ordinary Christians. He wanted this to change with Cromwell and England. He laid down a legal framework for doing so, drawn from a reading of the New Testament His framework was essentially a distinction between “things lawful” and “things expedient.” To be truly justified according to a Christian standard, an act must be both lawful and expedient. It may be permissible to

Menasseh’s petition of November 13, 1655 to the Council of State asked them “to take us as citizens under your protection; and for our greater security, to order your chiefs and generals-at-arms to defend us on all occasions ” See Calendar of State Papers 18/101 f 237 (“Requests to the Protector by Manasseh Ben Israel, on behalf of the Hebrew nation”)

Johanna Cartwright, The petition of the Jewes for the Repealing of the Act of Parliament for their Banishment out of England, 1649.

Kaplan, “Jews and Judaism in the Hartlib Circle,” 191

Ibid , 192

John Dury, A Case of Conscience, 1-3

readmit the Jews, he claims, but it will only be expedient if readmission is a means towards conversion Only if the Jews can be “made to see the goodnesse of Gods mercy to us, that he hath adopted us to be his People in their stead; Then the first Rule of Expediencie will be observed, and there wil be no great difficultie to contrive the business so.” For Dury, readmission should be conditional on the adoption of a conversionary program. Only then could it become a “case of conscience” that could be agreeable to Christians and to the civil magistrate. Conveniently, he believes that readmitting the Jews will eventually cause them to accept that God “hath adopted us [Protestants] to be his people in their stead,” that is, to deny the validity of their own covenant. Within the framework of the Church settlement which had recently given the civil magistrate more authority over religious matters, he argued that Cromwell had the authority to readmit the Jews, but should only do so if motivated by more than raison d’etat

Menasseh’s Advocacy Reinterpreted

We can now revisit Menasseh’s pamphlets and reassess his vision of diaspora politics In the Hope of Israel and Humble Addresses, he surveyed the same communities in the German principalities that Dury discussed, writing that they are, “very much favoured by the moft mild and moft gracious Emperours, but defpifed by the people, being a nation not very finely garnifhsed by reason of their vile cloathing.” He adds additional communities where Jews lived according to privileges and enriched the surrounding lands In the Ottoman Empire, he says, they have the power to judge their own cases Regarding Poland, he adds that “in that kingdome the whole Negotiation is in the hand of the Iews, the reft of the Chriftians are either all Noble-men, or Ruftiques and kept as slaves.” These are not flattering examples that would commend Jews to English Protestants. Menasseh is articulating standards for readmission that Dury would subsequently repudiate. The Humble Addresses also offered a primarily economic argument which was lodged in a redemptive narrative of diaspora history that affirmed the Jewish covenant. Dury’s A Case of Conscience was primarily dedicated to reframing the question of readmission from an economic one to a theological one, and its conversionist arguments betray the belief that the Jewish covenant was dead. Menasseh seems to confuse his audiences here; Menasseh’s purpose was to create legitimacy in the

Dury, A Case of Conscience, 6. Ibid.

Dury explicitly stated that he did not want the readmission to occur for economic reasons “I conceive matters may be so ordered towards them, that they may be made to understand, that the intention of the State in admitting of them, is not to have profit or temporall advantages by them but rather out of Christian love and compassion towards them, and in witness of our thankfulness to God, for the good which hath been derived from them to us; and for the hope which we have, that the Messiah shall returne in his Glory ” Ibid, 7 Wolf, Menasseh Ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell, 86

Ibid. In his November 13, 1655 petition to the Council of State, Menasseh requested “that we may not trouble the justices of peace with our contests, to license the chief of the synagogue... to reconcile differences according to the Mosaic law, with right of appeal to the civil law ” See Calendar of State Papers 18/101 f 237

horizontal sphere, and yet, he was making an argument that was patently incompatible with those he had been sent to engage

Menasseh and Dury did, however, share a geopolitical vision of sorts. Both were fierce opponents of the Spanish, and this could have united them briefly around the question of readmission. The Jews were often invoked as the ultimate symbols of Papist oppression, and Protestants who took seriously the Christian duty to welcome the stranger could view the prospect of readmission as a means of opposing a common enemy. This is also a primary way in which mercantile visions and religious visions came together: by defeating Spain in commercial trade, Cromwell offered a Christian thinker like Dury the picture of Protestant worldly supremacy. This excited Christian messianists and conferred more legitimacy on Cromwell’s mercantile pursuits Dury’s standard exemplified the hope that worldly and non-worldly considerations can come together. Worldly pursuits could be worthy if motivated by Godly reasons. He believed that Protestant Europe needed to unite and become more militant, and saw readmission as a step in a larger plan to defeat Spain The debate on the readmission of the Jews was situated in this confluence between Cromwellian mercantile policy and millenarian Protestant politics, and Menasseh was Cromwell’s necessary mediator for galvanizing the millenarians

Menasseh frequently reminded readers of the Hope of Israel and the Humble Addresses that the dispersion of the Jews was a prerequisite for the coming of the messiah according to the Book of Daniel. What do pragmatic politics look like in the face of the messiah? Menasseh never said when he thought the messiah would arrive. His political actions should be seen, not as trying to prepare Jews for a messianic age, but as trying to ensure a Jewish future. It was an age of expectation in the sense that Jews, and Menasseh in particular, expected a deliverance from generations of tribulation and difficult political circumstances surrounding the converso experience. As Miriam Bodian and Yosef Kaplan’s work on the Amsterdam Jewish community shows, they remained deeply tied to the situation in Iberia, helping arrange for population transfers and returning to the peninsula for re-Judaizing efforts: the persecution of the inquisition still affected them in Amsterdam

Dury and Thomas Thorowgood believed that the Indians in New England, whom the

See the anti-economic argument above, as is note 39 It is clearly a repudiation of Menasseh’s focus on commerce, which had not been a topic of discussion in their correspondence before Menasseh’s mission

“For Dury, Jews and Protestants might share a common future in the communion of saints, but his collaboration with Menasseh ben Israel persuaded him that they most certainly shared a common plight as victims of Catholic cruelty, carried out especially by the Habsburg monarchies of Austria and Spain ” See Jeremy Fradkin, “Protestant Unity and Anti-Catholicism: The Irenicism and Philo-Semitism of John Dury in Context ” Journal of British Studies 56, no. 2 (April 2017): 273–94. It must also be remembered that the Puritans themselves had memories of similar persecution under Archbishop Laud who burned dissenters in the 1630s.

See Harold Fisch, “The Messianic Politics of Menasseh ben Israel ” In Yosef Kaplan, Richard H Popkin, and Henry Méchoulan, Menasseh Ben Israel and His World Leiden: E J Brill, 1989