Al Reguel Ajat

In biblical times, God was conceived as a national deity, who protected the Israelites in their land, helped them in their disputes, freed them from hunger, and generally provided for their sustenance. Bad fortune, poor harvests, and illness could be overcome by offering sacrifices to God. God was seen as the exclusive Lord of the Israelites; they could not worship any other deity, and God could not protect any other people.

This concept began to change in the 8th century BCE. The Assyrians, who sought hegemony over the world, promoted the idea of ​​a single, unified world, an idea that resonated in Israel, not materially but spiritually. The prophet Amos (751 BCE) raised this question when he affirmed that God was not only the God of Israel, but of all the peoples of the world. The Book of Amos begins with the announcement of the punishment that the nations and cities neighboring Israel would suffer because of the cruelty of their conduct in war. God expected good behavior from all, not just from Israel. Amos also said that if the Jews ceased to have faith, God could terminate the covenant and seek another people who would accept His commandments.

Amos preached that the Jews should be faithful to the covenant to ensure that they would continue receiving God’s favor. The Israelites were surprised to hear from this prophet that their God was a universal God, who existed alone, and that everyone, not just they, must obey His Law. Even so, the prophet Amos, the first universalist, believed that God could only enter into a covenant with one people and that the Jewish people could only worship God in the land of Israel. Isaiah, the disciple of Amos (740-700 BCE), said that both Assyrians and Israelites had to obey God’s ethical commandments. This was a fundamental step for Judaism to acquire a universal character, because a critical connection had been made: Isaiah said that God was the God of the whole world, not just of Israel, and that His laws were addressed to all people.

The departure of the Jews from the land of Israel to Babylon in 586 BCE meant that, after losing their national independence, religious precepts became the element that most defined their identity. The scholarship-based rabbinate replaced the lineage-based priesthood; synagogues and academies replaced the Temple; and Torah study and prayer replaced sacrifices. Most importantly, as the prophet Jeremiah sensed, God could be worshipped outside the land of Israel. Previously, to integrate into the Jewish people, you had to go live with them in their land; now you could convert to the Jewish religion, wherever they were. Judaism and its commandments, including its ethical principles, were open to everyone. Now, loving your neighbor as yourself included all people.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Theory and Practice of Welcoming Converts to Judaism by Lawrence J. Epstein and other sources.

In biblical times, the Israelites were more of a nation than a religious group. They did not have the concept of religious conversion, because it was an incoherent idea to consider religion as something separate from nationality. That is why Abraham Avinu was called «the Hebrew» (ha ivri) and his descendants «the Hebrews.» These are terms that denote a nationality and, like all nations at that time, included worship of their own particular deity, the God of Abraham.

At that time, there was no formal religious conversion, but rather a cultural integration into the group, as many non-Israelites joined the Hebrews, through marriage or by accepting their customs and their God. Abraham himself and his descendants absorbed many pagans and their own servants, thereby increasing the size of their ethnic group. At the time of the Exodus, according to the Midrash Tanhuma, those who left Egypt were not only Hebrews, but a portion—the Midrash speaks of 40,000—of non-Israelites who joined them and were also present at the reception of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Once settled in the land of Israel, the Hebrews increased their number by incorporating members of the neighboring peoples living in Canaan.

The Torah uses the terms «ezrakh» when referring to someone who is an Israelite by birth; «nochri» when referring to a foreigner living among them but maintaining political, cultural, and religious ties with their native people; and «ger,» meaning resident or proselyte, for those who, although not born Hebrew, have integrated into their culture, customs, and beliefs.

The «gerim» often joined the Israelite group through intermarriage. Pagan women married Hebrew men and automatically accepted belonging to their clan and practicing their religion. The resulting marriages were viewed positively, because by marrying, the pagans exchanged an idolatrous practice for the God of Abraham.

The Gerim were permanent residents and enjoyed many of the privileges of the native Israelites. All non-Israelites who joined a family or tribe were given equal rights and responsibilities, although their participation in religious rituals occurred in stages. The Torah commanded love for the stranger because the people of Israel had been strangers in Egypt. It is written in Numbers 15:16: “One law (Torah) and one right shall you have, you and the stranger who sojourns with you.”

Cultural integration occurs when someone joins a majority group and acquires its characteristics or customs, losing or relegating what distinguished them. The best-known biblical case is that of Ruth. It is written: (Ruth 1:16) “And Ruth said, ‘Do not urge me to leave you or to turn back from you, for wherever you go, I will go, and wherever you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God.’” Just as Ruth, the Moabite from whom King David is descended, so did Ziporah, the Midianite, wife of Moses, integrate herself into the people of Israel by accepting their customs and their God.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: The Theory and Practice of Welcoming Converts to Judaism by Lawrence J. Epstein and other sources.

Jewish communities in Europe in the 19th century could not remain indifferent to the effects that emancipation and enlightenment had on the daily lives of their members. Some chose to reject them, while others accepted them. The latter were convinced that ghetto Judaism needed to be «reformed» so that it would fit in with a free and modern society.

The first reformers were not rabbis but businessmen. They felt the need to reshape Judaism, because through contact with Gentiles, they saw the world opening up before their eyes. A banker, Israel Jacobson, stood out among these reformers. He criticized the fact that Jewish schools did not teach secular subjects and did not prepare for any profession other than being a rabbi. He argued that German Jews should be integrated into the country as citizens.

Jacobson (1768-1828) was educated in Jewish religious schools and independently studied German literature and read Moses Mendelssohn. He mastered rabbinic literature to such an extent that the University of Helmstedt recognized him as a scholar of Judaism. In 1801, using his own resources, he founded a Jewish school in Seesen, the town where he lived. For the first time, Jewish boys and girls studied together. At that time, most girls did not receive a formal education. For Jacobson, the idea of ​​equality between men and women was very important. Not only did he begin to teach secular subjects such as arithmetic, science, and German, but he did so with such high quality that Christian parents requested that their children be admitted to Jacobson’s school. He accepted them, as he wanted Jews to live together with their Christian neighbors and vice versa. The Jewish religion was also taught at the school in a logical and orderly manner.

But in the long run, the most important effect on Judaism, was the school’s temple, dedicated in 1810, because the service that Jacobson designed was different. It was well-organized, orderly, and decorous. It was also beautiful and solemn. Jacobson criticized the disorder, length, repetition, and informality of the traditional synagogue. Jacobson shortened the service, primarily by eliminating repetition. Many prayers were translated into German so that people could understand what they were praying. He included the use of the organ and a mixed choir of men and women singing together. People were expected to arrive on time, participate in unison, and behave in a solemn and respectful manner.

He also implemented the sermon. Until that time, only a few sermons in Yiddish and Hebrew were preached before major holidays to remind congregants of a particular ritual. In the new Reform temples, sermons were held weekly and discussed the problems of each day. Since the sermons were in German, the entire congregation could understand what was being said. This new service format attracted many adults. Jacobson reshaped the practice of Judaism. He was the great reformer of reformers.

By Marcos Gojman

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

From the 7th to the 14th centuries, there is evidence of the presence of Jews in what is now Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia. They were few compared to those in Russia’s neighboring countries. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe already had a growing Jewish population, which arrived in Poland at the invitation of King Casimir III, after being expelled from England, France, and Spain, and having suffered persecution in Germany in the 14th century. Jews settled in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hungary, and sparsely populated regions of Ukraine.

During the reign of Tsarina Catherine II the Great, the Russian Empire took possession of large territories in Poland and Lithuania that included a large Jewish population. This occurred during the second (1793) and third (1795) partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Catherine established that Jews could only live in the so-called «Zone of Settlement,» in Hebrew «Thum Hamoshav,» an area that included parts of Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and Western Russia.

Catherine’s successor, Alexander I (1801–1825), expanded the empire’s borders to Alaska. After Napoleon’s defeat, he led the Russian delegation to the Congress of Vienna that defined the new map of Europe. In 1827, Nicholas I succeeded Alexander I and decreed military service for Jews. Between that year and 1854, 70,000 Jews were conscripted, which indirectly caused the cultural and social isolation of Jews to gradually erode. A significant number of Jews adopted Russian customs, education, and the language.

Alexander II succeeded Alexander I, but he was assassinated in 1881. His successor, Alexander III, was a reactionary and anti-Semite. A wave of pogroms occurred in Ukraine in 1881, under the pretext that Jews had assassinated Alexander II. These occurred in 166 Ukrainian towns, where thousands of homes were destroyed and many families reduced to extreme poverty. Many Jews were injured and killed. The wave of pogroms continued until 1884, even instigated by law enforcement. In 1886, Jews were expelled from kyiv, and in 1891, from Moscow. In 1892, they were banned from running for office in the Duma, the parliament. Another wave of pogroms occurred between 1903 and 1905, leaving 1,000 Jews dead and 7,000 wounded.

The Jewish response to this situation was emigration, primarily to the United States. Between 1881 and 1924, more than 2 million Jews arrived in the United States, although it was not the only destination. They also emigrated to Australia, Canada, Western Europe, South America, South Africa, and Palestine with the first aliyah from Bilu and Hovevei Zion in 1882. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Russia had the largest Jewish community in the world. In the 1897 census, there were 5,189,401 Jews, 4.13% of the total population. Those living within the «Zone of Settlement» represented 11.5% of the population in that area. The «Zone of Settlement» lasted more than 100 years and ended with the Russian Revolution of 1917. It was undoubtedly the largest «ghetto» that ever existed.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Encyclopaedia Judaica and other sources.

Since the time of the Mishnah (2nd century CE), when a Jew had a question or an important problem, whether religious or otherwise, he would write to a rabbi of his choice, who would then respond in writing, basing his answer on quotations from the Bible, the Talmud, commentaries by the sages, or Jewish law codes. These questions and answers are called «Responsas.» Today, more than 9,000 volumes with over 300,000 responsas are known. No responsas are known from periods prior to the Mishnah, as it was customary at that time not to write down commentaries on the commandments of the Torah.

Essentially, the responsas addressed problems arising from new conditions, for which no direct answer could be found in the Talmud, the final authority on Jewish law. To answer them, the questioned rabbis tried to discover analogies in the Talmud or in legal codes, and occasionally even in the answers to other responsa.

The rabbis who answered the questions had not been appointed by any official body. They were considered qualified to answer simply when their colleagues considered them a reliable authority. Obviously, many of the topics sparked debate among the rabbis themselves.

In the yeshivot, there was a procedure for answering the questions. First, they were read and discussed in the full yeshiva, and at the conclusion of the debate, the scribe would write down what the yeshiva director dictated to him, and it would be signed by its senior members. Urgent questions were decided directly by the head of the yeshiva.

Since Judaism does not have a hierarchical structure, and there is no supreme authority recognized by all, in the Orthodox world, a responsa carries more or less weight depending on the prestige of the rabbi who wrote it. Conservative Judaism does have a special committee dedicated to studying these issues and defining a unified position through an edict, or takanah.

The responsa indirectly give us a portrait of what Judaism was like in each era and the issues that concerned them. In ancient times, these questions were not only religious in nature, but also medical and scientific ones. In the 15th century, people wondered whether a get, a divorce decree, was as valid in print as it was handwritten. In the 19th century, questions related to civil law and financial matters. In the 20th century, questions were about Zionism, the State of Israel, and issues arising from new technologies, such as turning on an electric light on Shabbat. In the 21st century, questions are about organ transplants, artificial insemination, etc.

The responsa are the mechanism that allows Judaism to stay current, providing answers to new situations. This keeps it young. So if you don’t know, it’s very good to ask.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Articles by Jay M. Harris, Rabbi Louis Jacobs, and other sources.

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.