Al Reguel Ajat

Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortified city overlooking the Elah Valley. The ruins of the fort were discovered in 2007, 30 kilometers west of Jerusalem. Some archaeologists believe it is the biblical city of Shaarayim, but this is unproven. Based on the styles of pottery found at the site and two burnt olive pits carbon-14 tested, archaeologists have dated the site to between 1050 and 915 BCE, more than three thousand years ago. In publishing preliminary reports from excavations conducted in 2010 and 2011, the Israel Antiquities Authority stated: «The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah at the end of the 11th century BCE.

At the site, in addition to the ruins of walls and fortifications, many pieces of pottery were found. Equipment for baking unleavened bread and hundreds of bones from goats, cattle, sheep, and fish were also found. Significantly, no pig bones were discovered, suggesting that the city was neither Philistine nor Canaanite, but rather Hebrew.

Among the pottery fragments was an «ostracon,» a broken piece of pottery, usually a piece of a vase or other clay vessel, scratched with an inscription. It was common at that time for people to use pieces of broken pottery to write text, scratching it on the surface of the pebble. This was an easy and inexpensive way to write a note.

This particular ostracon, measuring 15 by 16.5 centimeters, contains five lines of text. Archaeologist Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa proposes the following interpretation of the text: “You shall not do this, but worship God [El]. Judge the slave and the widow, judge the orphan and the stranger. Plead for the infant, plead for the poor and the widow. Rehabilitate the poor at the hands of the king. Protect the poor and the slave, support the stranger.” According to experts, the text used words and verbs characteristic of Hebrew, more than other languages ​​of the region.

Amos Oz says: “Written in Hebrew more than three thousand years ago, this pebble is inscribed with a moral and legal imperative born of a culture demanding justice for the weak and the needy. At the heart of the matter is the slave, the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the infant, and the poor.” A meticulous inventory that includes all the oppressed figures in ancient society. They managed to squeeze it into this tiny fragment, about six inches across, for us to discover especially now in our time. Perhaps to show us that a social protest arose in that place three millennia ago. More than three thousand years ago, there was a culture that saw fit to demand respect to the weak from the strong.”

In 2010, the ostracon was put on permanent display in the Iron Age gallery of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Amos Oz asks, “What is the heart of Judaism for me?” He answers, “What is written on that small pebble.”

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Amos Oz “Shalom lakanaim,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, and other sources.

Louis Jacobs (1920-2006) was born in Manchester, England, to a working-class Lithuanian Jewish family. His father made Louis attend synagogue, even though he himself did not. Louis attended secular schools and later entered the Manchester Yeshiva. From there, he went to the Gateshead Kollel, where he pursued advanced Talmudic studies. Jacobs eventually returned to Manchester, where he obtained smicha, rabbinic ordination.

At that time, it was customary for English rabbis to have an academic education in addition to religious studies, so Jacobs enrolled at the University of London, where he studied Semitic language and literature. His tutor, Dr. Siegfried Stein, warned him that, as an observant Jew, he might be bothered by the tenets of what was known as biblical criticism, which held that the Pentateuch was a human, not divine, document, written and edited over an extended period of time. This position was considered heretical, as it contradicted the doctrine that the Torah was revealed in its entirety to Moses at Sinai, thus undermining the authority of halacha. Nevertheless, Jacobs continued his studies in Semitics. He believed that intellectual integrity and observant Judaism could be reconciled, a position that became the focus of his religious life.

In 1948, Jacobs was appointed rabbi of the Central Synagogue in Manchester and in 1954 moved to the New West End Synagogue in London. There he continued his search and in 1957 published the book «We Have Reason to Believe,» in which he summarized the discussions that took place in the course he taught at the synagogue on this topic. In it, Jacobs argued that the value of divine commandments is not diminished by the fact that it was humankind who conveyed His message by writing the Torah, contrary to the traditional position. He argued that «God not only revealed His will to humankind, but He revealed His will through humankind.» Jacobs reinterpreted the idea of ​​»Torah min hashamayim,» «Torah from heaven,» using the analogy of recorded music: «Despite the distortion that results from recording a song, when listening to a record we can still clearly hear the artist’s voice.» For Jacobs, this approach, which he later termed «Halakhic Non-Fundamentalism,» made it possible for modern Jews to remain committed to tradition and religious observance without sacrificing their intellectual honesty.

His stance was not well received by the English Orthodox authorities. The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Israel Brodie, prevented Jacobs from assuming the leadership of Jews’ College, the Orthodox rabbinical seminary, despite the recommendation of that institution’s governing board. Furthermore, the entire incident was reported in the Jewish press, turning it into a «cause célèbre.» Jacobs wanted to return to his position at the New West End Synagogue, and Brodie also prevented him. This caused members of that synagogue to leave and form the New England Synagogue, with Jacobs as rabbi. The new synagogue spawned a new movement, Masorti, which represented an affront to the central power of the Orthodox Chief Rabbi.

In 2005, a survey of its subscribers by the Jewish Chronicle named Louis Jacobs the most distinguished Jew in the 350-year history of English Jewry. In the more than 50 books he wrote. while remaining observant, Jacobs made the Torah speak the language of our times.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Articles by Matt Plen, David Newman, Richard Simon, and other sources.

Within Ashkenazi Judaism, there are a wide variety of religious movements: ultra-Orthodox, Hasidim, Modern Orthodox, Open Orthodox, Traditionalist, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, Chavurot, Humanist, etc. The list could be even longer if we mentioned the subgroups within each of them. In contrast, in Sephardic Judaism, virtually everyone considers themselves Orthodox in some way.

Daniel J. Elazar tells us: “One of the greatest, if not the greatest, contributions of Sephardic Jews was their unique approach to the theory and practice of Judaism. The Iberian Jews reformulated the Judaism they inherited from the Jews of Eretz Israel, Babylon, and North Africa and shaped it into classical, systematically thought-out and organized forms. They offered a balanced and practical theology, without excess, seriously Jewish, but without losing its worldliness and cosmopolitan character. Classical Sephardic Judaism was designed by men who lived in the outside world and actively participated in its affairs. Most of them desired a Judaism that was, in its essential aspects, no less rigorous than that of the Ashkenazi Jews, but flexible in its interpretations and applications. Their Judaism would isolate itself from the outside world only where critically necessary, and it would not prevent Jews from playing their part in what was Spain before the anti-Jewish revolt of 1391: a multi-religious society.”

Elazar continues: “Sephardic Judaism, as it developed in Spain, did not break with tradition, as Reform Judaism did, but neither did it transform tradition into something frozen, or worse, into a rigid ideology, as ultra-Orthodoxy did. The culture of the Mediterranean world was different from that of Northern Europe. As a general rule, Mediterranean peoples believe they must be formally faithful to the traditions of their fathers, although they reserve the right to determine how they will individually maintain those traditions.”

Sephardic Jews did not develop different currents within their Judaism, unlike the Ashkenazim, who not only did so, but also, to promote their movements, founded large institutions, such as the Lithuanian and Hasidic yeshivos or the American rabbinical seminaries, which have dominated the Jewish religious scene, especially since the 20th century. This dominance penetrated Sephardic Judaism, where, lacking similar institutions, they began to integrate into the religious world, especially the Orthodox world, of the Ashkenazim. It is curious how many of the rabbis in Sephardic communities now come from Ashkenazi yeshivot.

The Sephardic world remains predominantly Orthodox. The different religious denominations have not penetrated their culture. It still retains that characteristic of sheltering different religious traditions under one roof. For them, tradition outweighs modernity.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Daniel J. Elazar: “Can Sephardic Judaism be reconstructed?”; Elliot Jagger: “Sephardic Judaism straining to stay non-denominational”

Benzion Meir Hai Uziel (1880-1953) was born in Jerusalem into the city’s Sephardic community. By the age of twenty, he was already a teacher in a yeshiva. In 1911, Uziel was appointed Chacham Bashi, chief rabbi of Jaffa. From there, he collaborated with Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, spiritual leader of the Ashkenazi community. The two rabbis shared a common spirit and shared ideas, which helped to achieve more harmonious relations between the two communities. After a series of appointments, in 1939 he was appointed Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel, a position he held until his death. He always emphasized the need for all its inhabitants to work together in harmony. In a speech in Arabic, he said, “The land stretches out before us, and with joined hands we will work it, discover its treasures, and live off it as brothers living together.”

Rabbi Uziel said that Judaism requires its followers to live moral and upright lives. Religious Jews should be concerned about any injustice in society and should strive to defend and protect the oppressed, as this is a religious mandate. During the War of Independence in 1948, he refused to support a group of yeshiva students who asked him to exempt them from military service. Rabbi Uziel sharply rebuked the students. He told them that religious Jews, including yeshiva students, were obligated to share in the defense of the nation. If they were going to influence society to live according to the Torah, they themselves had to set an example. He also said that yeshiva students should live off the fruits of their labor, not on handouts.

Uziel criticized what he considered false ideologies that distract the Jewish people from their authentic national calling. He rejected assimilationist Jews, saying their strategy would ultimately undermine the true message of Judaism. He also disagreed with isolationists, those Jews who want to restrict Judaism to the narrow confines of their homes, synagogues, and study halls, for they would bury Judaism in a small, inner world, cutting off its impact on society as a whole. Rabbi Uziel was concerned about the division among Jews in Israel. He said that one group emphasized Torah study but excluded building the country and organizing the people, while the other group emphasized action but denied Torah study. He said both were wrong: «Action without study is like a tree with branches but no roots. And study without action is a tree with roots but no branches.» He said that the influence of rabbis was achieved through their own rectitude, devotion, and scholarship, as coercion and threats were not the appropriate ways to win followers. Rather, religious people should win the hearts of other Jews with love and kindness. He opposed religious coercion, especially if it came from state institutions. He was a defender of secular, and especially scientific, knowledge.

Uziel always opposed extremes. He sought the happy medium between action and study, between the secular and the religious. He knew that assimilating or isolating oneself was not the solution.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Rabbi Marc D. Angel: “The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel” and other sources

Erich Seligmann Fromm (1900-1980) was born in Frankfurt, Germany, to an Orthodox family descended from rabbis. As a young man, he studied Talmud with several teachers, including Rabbi Salman Baruch Rabinkow, a member of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group. He studied law in his hometown and later moved to Heidelberg to study sociology, where he earned his doctorate in that field with a thesis on «Jewish Law.» He later entered the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, where he met his first wife, Frieda Reichmann. Once married, the couple abandoned Orthodox religious life. They divorced in 1931, and in May 1934, Fromm emigrated to the United States. In 1944, he married Henny Gurland, and in 1950, they moved to Mexico, where he taught at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and promoted the practice of psychoanalysis. In 1974, he emigrated to Switzerland, where he died in 1980.

For Fromm, the Bible, the Talmud, and the teachings of the Hasidic masters always occupied a central place in his understanding of humanity. He considered the story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Paradise after eating from the Tree of Knowledge to be extremely important, an action that Fromm viewed as a virtue rather than a sin. What was valuable for Fromm was that humanity had dared to disobey the orders of a higher authority, and now it was up to him to decide, using his reason, his intuition, and his sensitivity, what was good and what was evil. Fromm argued that, by doing so, Adam and Eve evolved and became true human beings. He argued that humanity was created to grow and develop.

Fromm adds: the central theme of the Bible is the constant struggle against idolatry, and today, the history of humanity is the history of idol worship, from primitive idols made of wood and clay to modern idols such as the state, the religious leader, the politician, and consumerism. Fromm continues: idols were once called Baal or Astarte; today they are called honor, flag, fame, and artist.

Fromm distinguishes two systems of ethics: authoritarian ethics, where principles emanate from an external authority, and humanist ethics, which comes from our own conscience. For Fromm, authoritarian ethics is tinged with idolatry. People act under the orders of an authority they believe possesses absolute truth. It is not a true ethic. When we act in obedience to the instructions of a religious leader or a populist politician, because we believe they know everything, instead of listening to our inner voice, we are worshipping an idol.

Fromm, in his book «And You Shall Be as Gods,» says that in the Bible, God himself is a God who evolved. At first, he is an absolute sovereign, who does whatever he wants with his creation, man, to the point of nearly destroying him (the Flood). Later, he makes a pact with humanity (with Noah) and voluntarily limits his power. Finally, when he reveals himself to Moses, he presents himself as a nameless and difficult-to-describe God, something completely opposite to the concept of an idol, which does have a name and attributes (the rain god).

Fromm said that «the Bible is an extraordinary book with norms and principles that have remained valid for thousands of years.» One of those principles is the fight against idolatry, where there has been progress, but the battle is not yet over.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Erich Fromm «And You Shall Be as Gods» and other sources.

It is common to read in the media the results of surveys conducted by prestigious institutions such as PEW, PRRI, Brandeis University, and others to find out how members of a particular community identify as Jewish. These studies are routinely conducted in the United States and Israel, and sporadically in Jewish communities in other countries.

Reviewing some recently conducted surveys, we find that there is a significant group of respondents who, when asked what religion they practice, “tell us they are atheists, agnostics, or that they do not practice any religion.” This is commented by Greg Smith, director of religious surveys in the United States at the PEW Center. However, those Jews who did not answer with the word “Jewish” to the question: “What is your religion?”, later state that they are Jewish in another way. The PEW Center calls them “Jews of no religion,” secular, or cultural Jews. And these cultural Jews are on the rise. PEW says that among American Jews born before 1927, the so-called «Greatest Generation,» when asked about their religion, only 7% did not answer «Jewish.» In contrast, among American Jewish millennials, those born after 1980, 32% do not describe themselves as Jewish by religion. Instead, they identify as Jewish only on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, or culture.

The Center for Cultural Judaism, established in New York City in 2003, maintains that cultural Jews have a deep passion for their Jewish identity, yet struggle to express it in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. These Jews do not find meaning in Judaism as a religion, but rather in Judaism as a culture, which is very meaningful to them. They are far from alone. In fact, a growing number of Jews around the world identify as cultural, not religious, Jews. The Center says: “Cultural Jews understand Judaism as the history, culture, civilization, ethical values, and shared experiences of the Jewish people. Their connection to their heritage is found in languages, such as Hebrew, Yiddish, and Ladino, literature, philosophy, art, dance, music, food, and the celebrations of the Jewish people. It is not religious beliefs that connect them to one another, but the entire civilization of their extended Jewish family.”

In Jerusalem, the College of Judaism as Culture, established in the wake of the 1994 Shenhar Commission, states that Judaism is a culture in motion. Its director, Martin Ben Moreh, says: “Judaism is a culture, not just a religion. There is a religion within that culture, but not vice versa.”

Whether or not we agree with the position of cultural or secular Jews, the fact remains that they represent a significant portion of the Jewish people today. In the United States, and especially in Israel, they represent more than 50%. Programs need to be implemented to nurture the Jewishness of this group before they declare themselves not Jewish culturally or religiously.

By Marcos Gojman.

References: Material from PEW, The Center for Cultural Judaism, and the College of Judaism as Culture.

Peretz Smolenskin (1842-1885) was born in Monstriczena, Belarus, to a poor family. He was orphaned by his father and also experienced the kidnapping of his older brother by the army of Tsar Nicholas I, events that marked his childhood. At the age of 14, he entered the Shklov Yeshivah, where he stayed for four years and later spent a few months at the court of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson, in the village of Lubavitch. Disillusioned with both life in the yeshivah and the Hasidic court, he spent the following years traveling around the Jewish community, settling first in Odessa and finally in Vienna.

In 1868, he founded the Hebrew newspaper «Ha Shachar» and turned his home into a meeting place for young writers. Thanks to his work as editor of Ha Shachar, he was chosen to lead the Alliance Israelite Universelle delegation to Romania. The delegation’s purpose was to investigate the plight of the local Jewish community, who suffered from antisemitism and pogroms, and to help them establish Jewish schools.

In his novels, Smolenskin criticized the social reality of his homeland and proposed progressive changes. His characters included wealthy philanthropists, beggars, rabbis, sages, Hasidim, young people seeking their future, assimilated Jews, traditional Jews, and modern women. Smolenskin was a maskil, a follower of the Haskala, the movement that sought to preserve Jews as a unique and separate community, but within a framework of moral and cultural renewal, where Hebrew would be revived as a secular language through modern journalism and new literature. The Haskala sought the integration of the Jewish group into the surrounding societies by speaking the local language and adopting its values, culture, and appearance.

He was critical of the Hasidim and religious Jews in general, but also of the new generation who sought to shed their Jewish identity and culture. He fought against the «guardians of tradition» who opposed modernization, but also sought to stop Jews who advocated assimilation and who, he believed, posed a danger to the unity of the Jewish people and its culture. Seeing the deterioration of Jewish identity in communities across Western and Central Europe, a result of religious reform, social and economic emancipation, the abandonment of Hebrew, and integration into the country’s culture, Smolenskin concluded that the maskilim had to change their priorities.

The anti-Jewish riots in Odessa in 1871 convinced him that the Haskala, the Enlightenment, had failed in its attempt to introduce humanistic values ​​into modern society and that, for the Jewish people, the only path was cultural nationalism, based on modern Hebrew, the spiritual rather than ritualistic qualities of the Torah, and the hope of achieving national redemption in a secular rather than religious territory. Smolenskin joined the nationalist movement Hovevei Zion and in his articles continued to attack both assimilationist and religious currents, while advocating for immigration to the Land of Israel. Smolenskin was able to summarize his Judaism in one phrase: he was an enlightened Zionist.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Articles by Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Encyclopedia, and other sources.

Every morning, during the Shacharit prayer, 14 blessings known as Birkot Hashachar, the morning blessings, are recited. In the version prayed by Orthodox Jews, there is a blessing where men thank God for not having made them women. Orthodox women, on the other hand, instead pray: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, for having made me according to Your will,” a formula dating back to the 14th century CE. Melissa Scholten-Gutierrez asks: How can I thank God for having created me according to His will, when I cannot pretend to understand the intentions of why or how God acts?

The obligation to recite these blessings is stipulated in the Talmud, some in tractate Berachot 60b and others in Berachot 6:23, where it says: “Rabbi Yehuda used to say: A man is obligated to recite three blessings each day… (one of them) for not having made me a woman…” The Orthodox explain that men recite this blessing not because they are intrinsically superior to women, but because they are obligated to fulfill a greater number of commandments, and are therefore grateful to God for this sacred duty. From positions like this, they argue that the tradition of reciting this blessing should be respected and maintained.

But not everyone agrees. Yoel H. Kahn says that, in Southern Europe, in the 14th and 15th centuries, women adopted a more assertive stance and, instead of the original phrase, would say: “who did not make me a man” or “who made me a woman.” By 1872, the original blessing, along with others, had been removed from Reform Judaism’s prayer books, and it no longer appeared in the 1895 edition of the Union Prayer Book. In Conservative Judaism, in the 1873 Siddur Avodat Yisrael, men said, «Who has imposed upon me the obligations of a man,» and women said, «Who enables me to win hearts for You, through motherhood or womanly devotion.»

In 1946, the Conservative movement published its prayer book for Shabbat and Holidays, where the wording was changed to read, «Who has made me in Your image.» The committee that drafted the new siddur was headed by Rabbi Robert Gordis, who explained in an article that the committee originally intended to eliminate this blessing (along with two others), but that «deleting the three preliminary blessings was unsatisfactory because they contained significant religious values ​​that needed to be preserved.» The new phrase, which Gordis attributes to Rabbi Max Gelb, has become the new text used by non-Orthodox movements since the mid-20th century.

The phrase «for not having made me a woman» is a text that many consider misogynistic in its content and also assumes that the person holding the book is a man. Elana Sztokman tells us that a 1471 siddur, housed in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, contains an alternative text. In this 15th-century siddur, the blessing reads: «Thank you God for having made me a woman and not a man.» According to JTS Professor David Kramer, the siddur was produced by the scribe and rabbi Abraham Farissol for a groom to give to his bride. It seems that the issue of equality for Jewish women is still unresolved. And thinking of our women, it would be better to say: «Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, for having created the woman.»

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Chapter by Yoel H. Kahn in “My people´s prayer book: Birkhot Hashachar”, articles by Elana Sztokman, Melissa Scholten-Gutierrez and other sources.

The minyan is the quorum of ten Jewish adults required to fulfill certain religious obligations. The requirement to have a minyan is not stipulated as such in the Torah. It is a halachic rule established by the rabbis, who deduced it after interpreting several biblical verses. One of them is Leviticus 22:32, which says: «And I will be sanctified among the children of Israel.» Another is Leviticus 19:2, which says: «Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: You shall be holy.» A third verse is Numbers 14:27, which says: «How long shall I be able to bear this evil congregation that murmurs against me?» referring to ten of the twelve spies who returned with negative news about what they saw in the Land of Israel. From these and other verses in the Torah, the rabbis in the Mishnah concluded that a congregation of at least 10 members is required to sanctify God.

Rabbi Abraham P. Bloch explains that the first mention of the requirement for 10 to perform certain religious rites is in the Mishnah, in the second century CE. But it is known that in the Qumran sect, several centuries before the Mishnah, their codes stated “that wherever there were 10, a priest versed in the Book of Study should not be absent.” It is clear that the rule of having 10 men was firmly established even before Qumran.

In tractate Megillah 4:3 of the Mishnah, the rabbis established what religious obligations require having a minyan. These are: when reciting the «Shema,» in the blessing for the cohanim, for reading the Torah and the Haftarah, when saying Kaddish, Barechu, Kedushah, and the repetition of the Amidah, when consoling the mourners, when blessing the bride and groom, and when giving grace after the meal.

Bloch continues: The requirement of ten men for a quorum in religious services is more than a technicality. Indeed, this rule has had a far-reaching effect on the organization of Jewish communal life. This requirement mandated that there be at least ten families when Jewish communities were established in new places.

The Talmud itself does not directly address the question of whether women can count as part of a minyan for «devarim shebkdusha,» the religious rites that require a minyan. In Orthodox Judaism, only men can constitute a minyan. In liberal Judaism, women are also counted. Reform Jews were the first in Jewish life to include women in counting a minyan. At the 1845 Frankfurt Rabbinical Conference, Rabbi Samuel Adler proposed a resolution declaring that women «have the same obligation as men to participate from youth in the teaching of Judaism and in public religious services, and that the custom of not including women in the number of people required for the performance of a service is only a custom and has no religious basis.»

In 1973, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative Judaism voted that men and women count equally in a minyan. In 2002, the Committee adopted a responsum by Rabbi David Fine, which provides the official basis in religious law for women to count in a minyan. However, each Conservative community may decide whether or not to include women in the minyan. The word minyan in Hebrew translates as the noun «count» or «number» (the count or the number) and does not mean «ten,» although we all think of «10» when we say minyan. From the texts found in the Qumran caves, we know that the requirement of having at least 10 people in a religious rite is an ancient custom that, with some modifications, especially the inclusion of women, has been preserved by all religious movements.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: Articles written by Abraham P. Bloch, Cyrus Adler, Lewis N. Dembitz, Michael Leo Samuels, Leon Morris, and other sources.