Al Reguel Ajat

It is written in Midrash Tanhuma (ed. Buber, Nitzavim, pp. 48-49): “If one takes a bundle of rods, will you be able to break them all at once? But if you take them one by one, even a small child can break them. In the same way, you will find that Israel will not be redeemed until it becomes a single bundle.” Isaac Abravanel said: “All that is good about Israel and its very survival depends on their being together and united.”

There are many examples in the Bible of calamities that have befallen the Jewish people and that have been attributed to a lack of unity. For example, the story of Joseph and his brothers, that of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel that were lost, and even the destruction of the Second Temple, which the Talmud (Yoma 9b) attributes to the sin of “sinat hinam,” senseless hatred.

It is clear that Jewish tradition seeks unity within the Jewish people. And one could easily conclude that the best way to achieve unity is through uniformity. If we all think and act alike, then we will be united. But our sages taught that plurality is essential in studying the Torah, in relationships with other people, and in Jewish law itself.

Our sages say that “the Torah has seventy faces” (Bemidbar Rabbah 13:15-16) and “just as a hammer breaks a stone into pieces, so a verse of the Bible can have many explanations” (Sanhedrin 34a). Similarly, the house of Rabbi Yannai said: “He who learns Torah from only one rabbi will never see a sign of blessings” (Avodah Zarah 34a).

For example: What kind of tree was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that stood in Paradise? People imagine it was an apple tree, but the rabbis offered other interpretations. Rabbi Yose said it was a fig tree, for after eating its fruit, Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. Rabbi Judah bar Ilai said they ate grapes, Rabbi Meir said it was wheat, and Rabbi Abba said it was an etrog tree.

Tractate Berachot (58a) of the Talmud says: “Our rabbis taught: If one sees a crowd of Jews, he says: Blessed is he who deciphers secrets, for the mind of each one is different from the other, and the face of each one is different from the other.”

After the disappearance of the Sanhedrin, the assembly of rabbis that made halakhic decisions, in 425 CE, there was no longer a group of sages who approved anything by majority vote, so Jewish law became more pluralistic. Rabbi Isaac Abraham Kook, the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Israel, said: “The multiplicity of opinions, which originate from the variety of souls and educations, is the true thing that enriches wisdom and makes it expand.” The sages say the Torah has seventy faces, but I believe it has more: one face for every Jew.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Articles by David Golinkin, Allen S. Maller, and Elliot Dorff

It is said that Judaism is more a religion of actions than intentions. This statement reflects the centrality of the mitzvoth in Jewish life and is summarized in the Torah in one phrase: “Naase venishmah.” Exodus 24:7 relates that the people of Israel, at the foot of Mount Sinai, after Moses read to them the words God had dictated to him, replied: “We will do and we will listen.”

The 613 commandments in the Torah are called “mitzvoth d’oraita” and are the basis of Halacha, the branch of rabbinic literature that defines the rules for conducting oneself both ethically and religiously in Judaism. We can classify them in several ways. For example, we have positive and negative commandments, such as helping the poor or not working on Shabbat, respectively. They can also be grouped into commandments between God and man, such as the commandment to love God, and those between man and his neighbor, such as the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

We have commandments we call mishpatim, which are those we can understand rationally, such as the commandments to not kill or steal, and those called chukim, which have no clear explanation, such as wearing tzitzit. There are also mitzvoth that are time-bound, such as the celebration of Shabbat, and others that are not, such as honoring one’s parents. Furthermore, the rabbis divided the mitzvoth of the oraita into three types: first, those that come from a verse with a direct meaning, such as the prohibition against eating pork; Second, those that come from a verse interpreted by the rabbis, such as the prohibition against cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, from which they derived the rule of separating meat from milk. And the third, which they call «Halacha le Moshe mi Sinai,» the halacha of Moses at Sinai, is a group of mitzvoth that the rabbis maintain originated in the time of the Torah but are not written in it.

Apart from the mitzvoth that originate in the Torah, there are commandments originating in the Talmud and derived from the rabbis’ commentaries. These are called «mitzvoth d’rabanan,» the commandments of the rabbis, and include, for example: washing one’s hands before eating, lighting candles on Shabbat and Hanukkah, reading the Megillah of Esther on Purim, or saying a «bracha» before experiencing a material pleasure, such as eating. And finally, another type of commandment is the «takanot,» rabbinic edicts, such as the prohibition of polygamy, which are still in place today.

George Robinson tells us: «The roots of Halacha are in the Torah, but the branches of this leafy tree extend from the Talmudic period, through the Middle Ages, to the headlines of today’s newspapers.» Still, the question remains: How does «Naaseh» precede «Nishma»? How could Israel accept the Torah without knowing what they were accepting? Perhaps because they knew that movement, doing, had to be demonstrated by walking.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Essential Judaism by George Robinson, article by Rabbi Jill Jacobs, and other sources.

“Hechadash assur min haTorah, bchol makom” means: “The new is prohibited by the Torah in all places.” This rule, found in Mishnayot Masechet Orlah (3:9), refers to “new” grain that was harvested from plants that took root after the 16th of Nissan, the second day of Pesach, and which can be eaten up to a year later. One of the great rabbis of the 19th century, the Hatam Sofer, played with the words of this Mishnah rule to express his opposition to the Jewish Enlightenment and Reform movements. Instead of translating “chadash” as “new grain,” he chose to give it the meaning of “innovation.” Thus, the Hatam Sofer categorically declared that “innovation was prohibited by the Torah,” that the rules and principles of Judaism had never before changed and would never change in the future. His motto, «hadash assur min haTorah,» became the rallying cry of those Jews who opposed modernity and innovation.

The Hatam Sofer (1762–1839), whose name was Moses Schreiber, was born in Frankfurt and died in Pressburg. At the age of 19, he left his hometown following his teacher, Nathan Adler. In 1806, Sofer was appointed rabbi of Pressburg, where he remained for the rest of his life. He obtained the position due to his high reputation, acquired through his scholarship and leadership skills.

During his 33-year tenure, Sofer founded his famous yeshivah and made it the center of his struggle against the Reform movement. His outstanding qualities allowed him to become the foremost traditional religious authority of the time. He wrote 1,200 responsa, which were published after his death in six volumes. From then until today, his work has become fundamental in halachic decisions. He is considered the father of Orthodox Judaism.

He declared an all-out war against modernity. He had his best students appointed to important rabbinical positions and generally strengthened the status of the Orthodox rabbinate. He formed a united front with the Hasidim and gained the government’s trust in Orthodox Judaism. He used propaganda and even demagogic methods to achieve his goals. His actions increased division and created an irreparable gap between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox, especially in Central Europe.

Although he realized the consequences of this division, he nonetheless adopted this policy. He was convinced that the way of life of yesteryear was superior to that of his time. He opposed integrating secular subjects into his yeshiva, although he allowed the study of those necessary for learning a trade. He distanced himself from the struggle for emancipation, because seeking equality with non-Jews meant, for him, dissatisfaction with traditional life. He achieved complete acceptance of the Shulchan Aruch as the fundamental doctrine of Orthodoxy. He became the undisputed leader of Orthodox rabbis in Europe. The irony is that the Hatam Sofer, with his own responsa, himself innovated in the way Orthodox Judaism was practiced. He violated his own rule.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Articles by Michael K. Silber, Danny Geretz, Encyclopaedia Judaica, and others.

Zechariah Frankel was born in Prague in 1801. He received a religious and secular education in his youth and earned a doctorate in classical languages ​​from the University of Budapest, eventually becoming a rabbi. He served as rabbi in several German communities until he was elected president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau. He was the first rabbi in Bohemia with a modern education. In 1845, he disbanded from the conference of Reform rabbis meeting in Frankfurt because they had declared that Hebrew was not necessary for public prayer.

The Breslau School, the name given to Frankel and his group, advocated complete freedom to research and study the origins of Jewish beliefs and institutions, without implying any modification to the strict observance of its precepts. He coined the term «Positive Historical Judaism,» where the positive aspect was the way of studying Judaism using the scientific method, as objectively and dispassionately as possible, and the historical aspect because it recognized that Judaism had its history and had not simply been received from heaven ready for use.

Frankel argued that if we want to understand Judaism correctly, we must study its history. When reading a Jewish text, we must ask ourselves who wrote it, when, for whom, why, etc. Furthermore, in doing so, we must utilize the tools used by historians, including texts from other ethnic groups, archaeological discoveries, and linguistic studies. We also have to distinguish between what the author intended (Peshat in Hebrew) and the meaning it acquired over time (Derash or Midrash in Hebrew).

By studying Judaism in this way, you discover that it has been a historical phenomenon, influenced and modified by the political, social, economic, and cultural conditions under which Jews lived and by contact with other peoples. In other words, Judaism has not been the same throughout its existence. This does not mean that Judaism has changed so much that there is no connection between our current Judaism and that of Moshe Rabeinu. What has happened is that Judaism has evolved organically over the years.

Not only that, Judaism will continue to change. The world does not stand still, and living organisms must learn to live under new circumstances if they are to survive. But this did not justify, Frankel said, introducing artificial changes that were inconsistent with the true spirit of Judaism, as the Reformists did when they radically altered sacred traditions for the Jewish people. Nor did it coincide with the Orthodox position of Samson Raphael Hirsch, who opposed the positive historical method. Frankel argued that tefillin were black not because of a commandment received at Sinai, as Hirsch claimed, but because painting them black was a very ancient custom that Jews had preserved over time. Furthermore, tefillin have only been used for a little over 20 centuries. In fact, Abraham Avinu didn’t even had tefillin.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Articles by Louis Jacobs, Elliot N. Dorf, and other sources.

In reaction to Reform Judaism, a group of traditionalist German Jews began a movement that sought a balance between strict observance of halacha and modernity. They accepted some of the new values ​​of modernity, but wanted to preserve the classical interpretation of Jewish law and tradition.

The most prominent figure of this group was Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), a German rabbi born in Hamburg, who studied the sacred texts with his father and with his grandfather, Mendel Frankfurter, founder of the Talmud Torah in that city. From 1851 until his death, Hirsch was the spiritual leader of an observant community in Frankfurt, which had separated itself from the Reform movement that prevailed in most Jewish homes there.

He used the phrase «Torah im Derech Eretz,» the Torah with the ways of the land, a metaphor signifying full participation in Western secular culture while maintaining complete adherence to Jewish law. He envisioned an «Israel-Mentch,» a Jew who was both completely observant and enlightened. He believed that some non-halachic customs could be changed, but the essence of Jewish law was untouchable. His community became the model of a community that strictly adhered to halacha while remaining «modern.»

Hirsch took an active part in the 1848 revolution to secure the emancipation of the Jews of Moravia and Austria. He founded three schools: a primary, a secondary, and a girls’ high school. They taught Hebrew, Jewish subjects, German, mathematics, natural sciences, and geography. He rejected changes that affected the principles of the Jewish faith. According to him, Jews did not need to «progress,» as the Reformists claimed, but rather to «elevate» the eternal ideals of Judaism and not «lower» them to suit those seeking a more comfortable life. Even so, he introduced changes to the liturgy, such as including a choir with a professional conductor and delivering his sermons in German twice a month. He defended Hebrew as the sole language of prayer.

He tried not to divide with the Reformists until they, at a synod of rabbis in 1844, annulled the dietary and marriage rules. From then on, he sought the separation, in practice and legally, of Orthodoxy and Reform. He also opposed the philosophy of the historical development of Judaism proposed by Zechariah Frankel and H. Graetz. He created the «Free Society for the Advancement of the Interests of Orthodox Judaism.» He opposed the Reformist idea of ​​considering Judaism as a religious sect, since for him it was a people, and the love of Zion was fundamental.

The term «Orthodox» applies to traditional Jewish movements that consciously opposed the modernization of Judaism resulting from European emancipation and the Enlightenment. Orthodox means one who faithfully follows the principles of a doctrine. But the Modern Orthodox movement, the movement led by Samson Raphael Hirsch, managed to combine both positions.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Encyclopaedia Judaica and other sources.

Something interesting we can learn from the effects that emancipation had on the Jewish people was the number of responses the Jewish mind devised to address the problem. One of those responses was the Musar movement, which means «moral conduct with discipline.»

The Musar movement sought to develop ethical conduct based on the values ​​of the Torah. It was founded in Lithuania by Rabbi Israel Salanter (1810-1883), who taught that ethical conduct based on the commandments of the Torah was one of the fundamental goals of the Jewish people. His work focused especially on teaching Jewish ethics in business. He said that just as we verify that a food item is kosher, in the same way one should verify with equal care that the money one earns was made kosher, that is, ethically.

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz tells us in “Shaar Haotiyot”: “The mezuzah we have placed on the doorpost of our house is connected to the things we bring into and take out of our homes. We gather in our homes the wealth that God has bestowed upon us, and it must have been obtained honestly and in good faith, as befits a house where God’s law is inscribed on its doorpost. This is the secret to conducting our business ethically. In other words, what one brings into the house, the livelihood one earns, must be obtained ethically, and what we take out, how we spend our money, must also be ethical.”

The word “kosher” or “kashrut” comes from the Hebrew root “kaf-shin-reish,” which means proper, permitted, or correct. There are over 100 commandments in the Torah related to the kashrut of our money, many more than those related to the kashrut of food. For example, our sages teach us that the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal,” not only refers to the act of stealing a material good from someone, but also extends its meaning to the prohibition of acting falsely or fraudulently in matters of commerce and business.

In Leviticus, there are several verses that regulate ethical conduct in business: 19:35-36 says: “You shall not do unfairly in judgments, in measuring the measure of length, weight, or capacity. You shall have just balances, just weights, and just measures.” 25:14 says: “And whether you sell to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, you shall not defraud your brother.” 25:17 says, «Let no man deceive his neighbor,» and 19:14 says, «You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind,» which we interpret as not abusing someone who is in a disadvantaged position compared to us.

The Musar movement brought new life to traditional Judaism, combining the intellectual study of the Lithuanian yeshivot with the spirituality of the Hasidim. It served as a bond between the two groups in the face of emancipation. Its ethical message remains relevant to this day, not only in business but also in daily life. So, how kosher is your business?

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Jewish Religion by Louis Jacobs, Encyclopaedia Judaica, and other sources.

Putting on tefilin each morning during Shacharit prayer is based on four verses from the Torah: Exodus 13:9 and 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. All four have the same message: «Write these words of mine upon your heart and upon your soul, and they shall be for a sign upon your hand and a reminder upon your forehead (or between your eyes), that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth.» Some groups during the Second Temple period, such as the priests, explained this commandment figuratively, saying that we are to think of the words of the Torah as if they were before our eyes. But the rabbis of that time took it literally and said that the words of the Torah should be written and placed physically between the eyes and on the arm.

At least two dozen fragments of tefillin scrolls were found in the Cumran Caves, along with their boxes and leather straps. They are estimated to date from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE, a crucial period in the development of rabbinic Judaism. There is no evidence of the use of tefillin in earlier periods, such as in biblical times. Conical tefillin, some overlaid with gold, were found in the Cairo Genizah. These included the Decalogue among the scroll texts, in addition to the traditional four passages: Exodus 13:1-10 and 13:11-16, Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21.

The use of tefillin, or phylacteries (from the Greek phylakterion, meaning amulet), began to become popular among the Hebrews as a practice to counteract the use of amulets by idolatrous peoples. They used it all day long, not just in prayer as it is today.

The manufacturing process of the leather tefillin boxes is quite complex, especially the head box, which has four compartments, unlike the hand box, which only has one. The process involves special tanning of the leather, die-cutting with hydraulic presses to form the compartments, embossing the letter Shin on the outer surfaces, painting the exterior black, and affixing the scrolls. Four scrolls are placed on separate rolls for the head box, and the four scrolls on the hand box are placed on a single roll. After the boxes are closed, straps are attached with knots simulating the letter Yod on the hand box and the letter Dalet on the head box. The manufacturing process for a pair can take up to a year.

However, the true meaning of the verses that gave rise to tefillin was not to create another ritual in prayer. Placing God’s commandments between your eyes means constantly thinking about them, and tying them to your arm means putting them into action. Tefillin are more than an adornment in prayer; they are a call to thought and action.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Jewish Encyclopedia and other sources.

The Reform movement was the pioneer in attempting to modernize while simultaneously maintaining the essence of Judaism, within a culture of enlightenment and emancipation. They were deeply dedicated people and deeply concerned about the future of Judaism. They were convinced that what they were doing was the best way to preserve Judaism. Other responses to modernity, such as the Conservative movement, the Modern Orthodox movement, and even Political Zionism, were a response to the work of the Reformists.

The Reformists focused on two major questions: what aspects of Judaism should be changed? and how would those changes be made? What to change ranged from superficial aspects, such as the language of sermons (German or Yiddish) or the length of the service, to issues that touched the essence of Judaism, such as maintaining kashrut, praying with tefillin and a kippa, or praying to Zion. And the question of who would decide had its own problems: Who would decide, each rabbi, the leaders, or the members of the congregation? These and other issues had supporters and detractors, from liberals to traditionalists.

One of the dissenters was Zechariah Frankel, the chief rabbi of Dresden, who in 1845 broke with the Reformists, maintaining that Hebrew should remain the primary language of prayer and that the laws of kashrut should be upheld. He argued that Jewish law was not static, but evolved according to new conditions. He called this «Positive Historical Judaism,» which is having a positive attitude toward norms but with an open mind to accept new laws and customs, as had happened throughout history. He argued that the Reformists’ changes were not based on history and tradition.

Frankel was not the only opponent. In 1854, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch viewed Judaism as “an untouchable sanctuary that should not be subject to human judgment or subordinated to human considerations” and that “progress is valid only to the extent that it does not interfere with religion.” His motto, “Torah and Derech Eretz,” means observing the mitzvoth while simultaneously understanding and interacting with the society and culture in which we are immersed.

Another position was that of political Zionism. Although it does not strictly have a religious content but rather a political and national one, Zionism can also be considered a response to modernity. In 1882, Leon Pinsker spoke of self-emancipation, accepting that the Jewish people would be emancipated only when they had their own country and not while they continued to live among other nations.

Frankel is considered the initiator of the Conservative movement, Hirsch of Modern Orthodoxy, and Herzl, Pinsker, and other thinkers of political Zionism. But the catalyst for these currents was undoubtedly the Reform movement.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Conservative Judaism by Neil Gillman and other sources.

Harry Heine was born in 1797 in Düsseldorf, Germany. He was the son of Samson Heine and Betty von Geldern, who educated their son in schools run by Jesuits and French refugees. Harry grew up in a culinary Jewish atmosphere: Shabbat dinners and Passover seders. He learned Hebrew only so he could say the blessings at the holidays. His youth had been the most benevolent period for German Jews, thanks to the emancipation Napoleon had brought to Germany.

In 1815, he traveled to Hamburg to visit his uncle Solomon Heine, the city’s most important banker. Heine sent him to study law, first in Bonn and then in Berlin. There, he began to frequent the home of Rahel Varnahagen, a meeting place for many intellectuals, such as Alexander von Humboldt and members of Leopold Zunz’s group, who founded the Society for the Scientific Study of Judaism, with the aim of uniting modern culture with Judaism. In Rahel’s salons, Harry confronted, on the one hand, his yearning for a unified Germany, like any young German, and on the other, the effects of discrimination for being Jewish.

With Napoleon’s defeat, the rights granted them by emancipation were reversed, and Jews lost many of the prerogatives they had achieved. The Society for the Study of Judaism failed, leading several of its members to convert to Christianity, the only path to a professional career in Prussia at that time. The effect this had on Heine caused him to abandon his focus on Jewish themes and instead devote himself to German literature. From 1822 to 1827, he produced a series of poems that practically placed him at the pinnacle of German literature, culminating in his «Buch der Lieder,» one of the most beautiful collections of lyric verse produced by a German poet. His wit was essentially Jewish, derived from the intellectual circles where he moved in Berlin. He began writing a romantic novel, «Rabbi von Bacharach,» on the theme of the persecution of Jews by the Crusaders, but did not finish it.

Since he had to belong to the bar to earn a living, Harry Heine accepted the title, «the ticket to European culture.» It was then that he wrote to his friend Moses Moser: “From what you see, you can imagine that baptism is of no importance to me. I don’t consider it important, even as something symbolic, and that’s why I will dedicate myself even more to achieving the emancipation of the unfortunate members of our people. Nevertheless, I consider it a disgrace and a stain on my honor that, in order to hold a position in Prussia, I had to allow myself to be baptized.”

Harry, now Christian Johann Heinrich Heine, soon saw that his sacrifice didn’t do him much good. In 1827, he wrote “Buch Le Grand,” an apologia for Napoleonic ideas. This closed the door even further to him, so he emigrated to France, where he died in 1856. In his work “Almansor,” he wrote: “This is only the prelude: where they burn books, they will eventually end up burning people.” Heinrich Heine, the great German poet, was baptized but not converted, and he never ceased to be Harry the Jew.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: The Jewish Encyclopedia and “Emancipation” by Michael Goldfarb.

Initially, there were two extreme responses to the problems that emancipation posed for Judaism. Those who rejected it completely proposed that Jews continue their traditional way of life, isolated from the outside world, as if they had never left the ghetto. They feared that contact with this new world would alienate them from Judaism. This insistence that Judaism could not adapt to modern times ironically produced the other extreme response: many Jews simply chose to convert to Christianity. These Jews argued that one could be modern or Jewish, but one could not be both at the same time. A middle path was needed, one that did not reject emancipation and did not reject Jewishness.

To achieve this, the traditional forms of the Jewish faith had to be adapted to the new conditions of the time. The Haskalah, the movement that brought the Enlightenment to Judaism, of which Moses Mendelssohn was a leading figure, grappled with this problem, but initially chose to leave traditional norms more or less intact. However, it was the Reform movement that ultimately introduced innovations into synagogue services and Jewish religious life.

Reform-minded thinkers within German Jewry, such as Israel Jacobson, Abraham Geiger, Samuel Holdheim, and Leopold Zunz, sought to modernize Jewish practices and beliefs. They convened synods to discuss the issue, but did not formally establish an independent rabbinical organization or body. However, the reform effort changed when the German government allowed the establishment of new institutions within the Jewish community. Between 1840 and 1850, independent Reform congregations were established in two major Jewish centers, Frankfurt and Berlin.

In 1870, an even more important step was taken: the creation of a rabbinical seminary and research center. Rabbi Abraham Geiger suggested that the way of observing Jewish life could change to make it more appealing to young people. Geiger, a scholar expert in both biblical studies and German cultural studies, was also a researcher of the history of Judaism. He maintained that Jewish life was always in a state of constant change. Old practices were modified and new ones were introduced, resulting in a Jewish life quite different from what it had been 1,000 or 2,000 years earlier. He realized that these changes were intended to adapt the practice of Judaism to the historical moment in question. Geiger concluded that the process of change needed to continue so that Judaism could face modernity without losing its essence.

At that time, Darwin proposed his theory of the evolution of living beings and said that change, not permanence, was natural. Similarly, the Reform movement maintains that Judaism has changed since its beginnings. Because evolution is natural, even in Judaism.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Explaining Reform Judaism, by Eugene B. Borowitz and Naomi Patz and other sources.