Talk before Sisterhood, Young Israel Grand Concourse, Jan. 20, 1950: Unfortunate that title of talk is "Renaissance" etc. This word means, in plain English, "rebirth", and as we shall soon see, the continuity of J. lit. is such that it needs no rebirth, whereas J. Art has not really been born in the first place. However, shall accept it at face value. 1950. Half-century mark affords us opportunity to review the new literature which had its birth at the turn of the century and which now is at crossroads, its major crisis in its 50 yr. life. But, as said, J. lit. as such is undisrupted since Moses and Torah. Luick tracing of major outlines. Chumash, Tanach, Apocrypha, Mishna, Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim—philosophy—poetry—prose—mysticism, Achronim—responsa—mysticism—Hasidic—Mussar—Haskallah. Ahad Ha’am at his prime at turn of century, died 1927, can be regarded as paver for last 50 yrs of Zionism & lit. Bialik first true son of 20th cent. In this National poet find expression of the new era, swing fr. melancholy which caused almost pathological inaction w. regard to J. bitter fate, to young pessimism. The wide open fields synthesized w. nostalgia for Beis Hamidrash. Nationalistic aspirations. First poems appear, coincide approx. w. Herzl’s "Judenstaat", conversion of Rothschild by Ahad Ha’am to Zionism, to provide the dramatic setting for a revived J. dynamism, inspired by Prophets, which was to see fruition in 50 years, culminating w. declar. State Israel. Until contemporary period, most lit. strong nationalistic kernel, optimism—outdoors etc till contemporary period.The contemp period, the mid–cent, coincides w. Israel, which creates new problems for the literary talents of the new state. Lit, because it is the most articulate of the arts, is most intimately involved in the cultural, political, and social & economic issues as they evolve. Lit not only reflects them, it also directs. Our discussion of contemp, or as we call it "renaiss" of J. lit. must therefore…

We are here gathered tonight because of a common purpose: the exercise of our democratic rights in seeking to secure the abolition of the death penalty in this Commonwealth. I believe that the origin of our commonly shared opinion and the goal of our activities, our starting point and end point, are the same. We all begin with a deep and ineffable reverence for human life, and we aim at the legal abolition of capital punishment, which outrages this sense of reverence for life. But the route we take from the starting point to the end point, from origin to goal, differs with each of us, and affects the quality, temper, and mood of our opinions. Jew, Christian, and agnostic, scientist and lawyer, each develops his opinion differently. I think, therefore, that we are acting wisely in giving expression to the different, individual, and unique ways in which many of us arrive at the same conclusion: the necessity of abolishing the death penalty. I speak as an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. To me, human life has infinitely more than sentimental or social value. It has the very highest religious value, for man was created in the image of God. When, therefore, we discuss the disposition of human life, we involve ourselves directly in our relations with the Creator. And if the problem of capital punishment is of such great religious import, my judgment on it must be derived from the classical sources of the Jewish tradition. Allow me to make several brief prefatory remarks on the nature of these sources. Jewish law, which includes Jewish religion, philosophy, theology, morals, and ethics, has two origins – they are the two avenues of the divine revelation to man. More well-known is the Written Law, which is Scripture. The Bible, or Written Law, is, to our way of thinking, the exact record of God’s revelation to Moses. It contains a good part of the civilized culture of the ages that preceded it (the “Noahide laws”) with certain changes and additions effected by divine inspiration. It…

The Jewish philosophical movement of the Middle Ages became a legitimate, acceptable part of Judaism with Saadia in the 9th century – he was a Torah scholar, while Philo was not. Three causes contributed to the growth of philosophy among Jews at this time: (A) inner – with the close of the Talmud came the need for classification, systematic organization, and inquiry into origins and fundamentals; (B) outer – the scientific renaissance of Islam, which included diverse cultural elements, especially Greek thought; (C) as a result – an intellectual ferment in both Arabic and Jewish worlds, stemming from skepticism introduced by science and new knowledge. Philosophy became an integral part of Jewish life and culture, even introduced into the Halakhah, as in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah of Maimonides. However, there was also strong opposition – to this day – to the absorption of alien modes such as philosophy. Thus, Abravanel sharply reacted against the dogmatological experiment of Maimonides and others (“everything in Torah is a fundamental”); Halevi created a dichotomy between philosophy and Judaism – the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob vs. the God of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; Luzzato (Shadal) objected to philosophy and all systematization as a paralysis of the creative spirit – Henri Bergson complained similarly. A bird’s-eye view shows diversity and dramatic tension in medieval Jewish philosophy: Saadia – rationalism, optimism, complete equation of religion and intellect, Torah and science; Bachya – Neoplatonistic, with emanations, intermediary forms, religious pessimism, and asceticism; Ibn Gabirol – the greatest Neoplatonist, followed by Bar Chiyya and Ibn Ezra; Aristotelianism – eternity of matter instead of creation, nature in place of providence, knowledge rather than communion, represented by Ibn Daud, Maimonides, and Gersonides; anti-Aristotelians – Halevi with his historiosophy (the religio-historical experience of the folk) and Crescas, the greatest oppo…

"True and pure, and without blemish, was his singing, like his soul – the Creator having made it, with His handiwork contented, kissed the lovely soul, and echoes of that kiss forever after thrilled through all the poet’s numbers, by that gracious deed inspired." In these words did Heinrich Heine, the German poet, sing the praises of the most eminent poet ever to write in the Holy Language – or in any other language. That Divine Kiss left its G-dly imprint on Yehudah Halevi’s life, his poetry, his philosophy. To this day, over 800 years later, Halevi shines forth as one of the purest souls and most sublime poets of all times. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi Is, in the estimate of most students of Judaism, the most authentic Jew of the ages. To know Yehudah Halevi is, in a sense, to know what a Jew is and should be. When we study Halevi, as we shall do in this series, and ponder the sweetness of his personality, the grace of his poetry and the charm of his Jewish thought, we are really discovering for ourselves the ideal personality of Judaism. Two great centers of Jewish life and thought flourished during the Middle Ages — the Franco-German center, and that of the Iberian Peninsula, Spain and Portugal. The Franco-German communities produced the most potent development of Talmudic scholarship — Rashi and the Tosaphists. Its Talmudic learning was far more Intense than that of Spanish Jewry. The Spaniards, on the other hand, were generally less intense as Talmudists, but more inclined to general culture. Spanish Jewry too had its Talmudic giants: Maimonides, Nachmanides, and a host of others. But the Sephardim, unlike the Ashekenazim, were culturally more versatile. — included: science, pottery, medicine, grammar, philosophy. — Franco-Germans reflected feudalism their environment — hemmed in; Spaniards — comparative freedom — both political and cultural — of theirs. — yet all not well time YHL born. Contemporary Moslems, Christians murdering each other in Palestine, Iberia, N.A…

Norman Lamm ’’RELIGION AND MORALITY," delivered on March 30, 1965 as first in a series of lectures on "The Philosophy of Synthesis" in honor of the Tenth Anniversary of Stem College for Women, Yeshiva University: The term "synthesis," which forms the major theme of this Tenth Anniversary series of lectures, is most characteristic of all that Yeshiva stands for: its ideology and its outlook upon the world. The term itself is perhaps not the most felicitous or propitious, I remember the endless debates during my years at Yeshiva as to whether or not "synthesis" is a "good" word. After we finished many of these discussions concerning nomenclature, we began to ponder the content of the concept Many of us never succeeded in obtaining an accurate Socratic definition of the term; but I think that all of us at least were able to intuit its true significance. Hence the term whatever our semantic scruples, ultimately will do "Synthesis" is more than a mere educational device by which we combine or juggle two sets of curriculum - one religious and one secular. The term also comprehends I a metaphysic, a vision of the fate and the function of the Jew in the modern world. This vision seeks to describe how the Jew can fit into the world without being absorbed by it; how he can retain his identity, his full religious and spiritual individuality, and at the same time contribute greatness and holiness to enhance and advance the general community of mankind. Furthermore, ’synthesis” is not a self-contained fact, a desideratum Which may be pursued and successfully accomplished. It does not mean that if you have gone through four years of Yeshiva or Stem that you have achieved ”synthesis.” ”Synthesis,” in the sense we shall be using the term, is a method, the manner in which you approach problems, how you orient yourself towards your Jewishness. ”Synthesis” is a way, not an accomplished and Isolated fact; a process, not an event.This evening I propose to discuss not ״synthesis” as it …

Zohar (Mishpatim) on Torah: Torah compared to maiden in castle motioning to secret lover… gradually reveals herself completely… from this we learn: (a) must never take Torah superficially; (b) Torah contains layer upon layer of meaning, and can hardly ever be exhausted; (c) to succeed, we must develop a personal relationship with Torah: we must love Torah; (d) if you strive to penetrate castle, Torah will cooperate.How not to study Bible: (a) Not as literature; though it is that too. Heschel on analyzing Einstein's relativity theory for its penmanship. (b) Not critically: no unified, agreed theory amongst critics, except that Torah is not what it says it is. (c) Not as archaeology: although a valuable medium for understanding Biblical times, and confirmation of Biblical records; “Torah min ha-shamayim” versus “Torah min ha-aretz.” (d) Not psychologically: armchair psychologists generally faulty. Book on Job I saw several years ago, concludes psychologically: his father either too lenient or too strict. Only small, parochial minds slur unique, towering geniuses of spirit, try to apply own provincial categories to the unique. The above are autopsy, not analysis; deal with Bible as dead body, not “living reality.”How then? (a) Must take Torah’s claim seriously and encounter it honestly, face it squarely. (b) Thus: Bible’s claim is that it is word of God. Not a record of man’s thoughts about God, but God’s thoughts about man. Bible is not man’s theology, but God’s anthropology. (c) A question of interpretation. (Story Yiddish paper: “Queen of China to US looking for husband,” — “Empress of China on maiden voyage to N.Y.”) Not infinitely plastic, not rigidly monolithic. Freedom of interpretation within limits. The Oral Law — all of Judaism is the Bible according to Rabbinic, oral interpretation. (d) Not an abstract philosophy, but a guide to achieving collective Jewish and individual human destiny practically. Hence: Halakhah…Is Bible Relevant to Modern Man? Must be rel…

This past week, I made a very brief trip (I say brief, so that any of my baalei batim hear me, they shouldn’t think I’m only out-of-town) to the Pacific Northwest and met with two communities. In the course of lecturing there, I also met with college groups in both communities. This was for me the first opportunity to meet, in the flesh, the Jewish New Left, West Coast variety. I didn’t find it exhilarating; I was repelled. One of them said: "Do you really think Israel is always right?" No, I don’t think Israel is always right; I am a believer in Judaism and the whole literature of Judaism and the Prophets shows that Israel is not always right. He said to me: "in that case, would you join in publicly condemning Israel for its attitude on Viet Nam?" I found in general an attitude of moral disdain for Israel, for Jews; and for Yiddishkeit. It is not an immoral dissent. The same moral impulse which brings the members of the New Left to protest the barbarism of the Viet Nam policy of our government (assuming you call them barbarities), which brings them to protest the starvation of Biafrans,or the various underprivileged classes in different countries around the world^ this moral impulse, I felt, despite the ugly way in which it was expressed, fundamentally spoke of something of the Jewish background of these young men and women^ Because- I find it fascinating that Jews have almost always been in the forefront of radical movements in this country and in Europe. Somehow, despite the fact that they have been cut off from the Jewish tradition, sometimes a generation or two or three, poooooo oome interest they are still collecting on the old capital. The passion for just causes, even when it is expressed in dangerous fashion, betrays some kich of Jewish element deep down in them. Since protest is in the air today, since protest really defines the spirit of this country in fact, it may be the element which will tear asunder the whole fabric of America and leave it a complet…

Second part of the "Judaism Confronts Secularism" series in which we are trying to measure Judaism's response to the challenge of secularism, the dominant mood or mode of modern man which. Secularism, as we pointed out last lecture, two weeks ago, tends to bypass religion not by opposing it, but by privatizing it, making it a private concern, by trivializing it almost, saying religion deals with the other world, with matters of the spirit. Go, do it if you wish, but as modern men, our concern is with this world, with the body, with the real world, with the sensate world. And therefore Judaism is off in the corner, or rather religion is off in the corner. We showed that this whole secularist trend was a reaction against Christianity, classical Christianity which tended towards an otherworldliness. In other words, stemming from an ancient religion or movement, Gnosticism, which tended to bifurcations, to breaking reality into two’s and into dualities. This world and the other world locked in eternal combat; they are antagonistic. Christianity therefore chose the other world. This world is only a shadow of the other world. Whereas secular man says: let religion take care of the other world, we are concerned with this world. The same thing with the bifurcation or the split of body and spirit. Christianity opted for spirit; secularism doesn’t knew what you mean by that. It opts only for body, for material, for trying to forge an ethical existence in a real material, physical world.We showed too, in the last part of our talk, that there was also a split as to whether to take an ontological view, which means, on the one hand whether we look for ultimate questions, to a weltanschau-ung, to a general worldview, or do we focus on specific, operational, functional problems^ and we said that Christianity tended towards looking at faith problems, ontological, philosophical problems, from a very broad perspective and rarely brought this wide view down toIf it did, religious prac…

One of the things mentioned by the Mishnah, in addition to the first ten items that were created erev Shabbat bein hashmashot, is the burial place of Moses – קבורתו של משה. What a strange thought! What the Tanna is trying to teach us, I believe, is how to stabilize our views and our assessments of our fellow men. He is trying to help us avoid succumbing to the danger of extremes in our evaluation of others, especially after they have died. Consider the extraordinary case of Moses. An unbiased reading of the Torah leads us to the startling conclusion that he was probably one of the most unpopular leaders in the history of mankind. His people were afraid of him and had little love for him. He literally had to force them out of slavery and into freedom. No matter what untoward event occurred, they blamed him. Jewish tradition even maintains that they accused him of some of the vilest crimes in the annals of mankind – not excluding adultery. He had to defend himself explicitly against implied charges of graft, bribery, and theft. This holiest of all men, this chief of all prophets, was treated with utter contempt and apparently without a shred of acknowledgement or appreciation of his unparalleled greatness. He was resented, disliked, hated. Yet as soon as he died, the Israelites experienced a sudden and radical change of heart. We are told that God Himself buried Moses and did not allow his burial place to be known – ויקבור אותו בגי... ולא ידע איש את קבורתו. Why so? Because, our Sages tell us, God was afraid that the sudden wave of admiration for Moses by the people would have evil consequences – the adulation might lead to idolatry and worship. God did not want Moses, the great teacher of monotheism and the great enemy of idolatry, to become himself an object of worship. So the feelings of the Israelites for Moses ran from one extreme to the other – from hatred to worship, from contempt to idolization. Before he died, they wished he would; after he died, they were di…

This mishnah has a parallel in Chapter IV, where, in the name of R. Elazar HaKappar, we read of three similar qualities that “take a man out of the world” – עין רעה, יצר הרע, ושנאת הבריות. If we accept this parallelism, then “the evil eye” should be understood not in its usual context as a kind of “jinx,” but rather as a sense of begrudging which harms the perpetrator much more than its intended victim. Jealousy – the evil eye – eats away at the innards of the one who is jealous and slowly destroys him, not only psychologically and spiritually, but even physically. יצר הרע and תאווה are obviously related. And the pursuit of honor usually implies a desire to be superior to others – hence שנאת הבריות. But why only these three? And what is the meaning of the strange phrase “take him out of the world”? Should not the mishnah have mentioned three worse crimes – perhaps the three cardinal sins? I believe that the Tanna was aiming specifically at three qualities or dispositions which lend themselves to misinterpretation. The cardinal crimes or the great virtues are simple enough to observe. The blacks and the whites of life are not what make up the “world” – which is for the greatest part comprised of shades of gray. It is rare that, in crisis, we are confronted with clear-cut options: good and evil, right and wrong. Normally, we have to make subtle distinctions; we are faced with paradoxes and ambivalences and are forced to choose amid uncertainty and confusion. This confusion and ambivalence are most oppressive when we deal with ideas and qualities that can serve both the ends of good and of evil, of the right and of the wrong. At such times, not only is there an element of uncertainty as to whether we are using or abusing a certain quality, but there is a tendency for us to submit to rationalization – to abuse a quality and to assume we are doing the proper thing. Since the world is constituted mostly of such uncertainties and such qualities of double nature, when we c…