:26; 10:28–30, 40). In the Mishnah we find the expression mil emet reshut , i.e., a vol- untary or approved war. 10 This is further elaborated in the Talmud, where we find that only a tribunal of seventy-one sages may approve such a voluntary war against another people, whereas mil amah le- x Adonay
in mediaeval thought, which the philosophers and theo- logians of the time endeavored to reduce to a monism or a unity. . . . Philo in Alexandria and Maimonides in Fostat were the products not of the Bible and Talmud alone, but a combination of Hebraism and Hellenism, pure in the case of Philo, mixed
philosophical tradition. He also attributes this perspective to the most formidable sources in the Jewish tradition when he claims that Maimonides and the talmudic rabbis recognize that the universe is eternal, and they must attempt to work around the biblical account of creation, as opposed to Aristotle, who
but unable to find the palace); (4) Talmud as well as logic and math ( just outside the palace gate but unable to enter); (5) natural science (inside the antechambers of the palace); and (6) divine science- prophecy (into the inner court). It is a path in the opposite direction of the one taken by the
at the beginning, nor at a rupture that would justify the end of an era, but at a middle that defies all epochization. Graetz began his history with the talmudic age, the very age the naughty reformer Abraham Geiger would later dismiss as the age of “rigid legalism,” the age where history came to a
who is teacher and the man taught.” 99 The term limmudim brings to mind Buber’s idea of the “builder,” referring to those who serve as the center of true community, 100 since the Talmudic statement from which Buber derives this term (b. Berakhot 64a) interprets those who are “ limmudei Adonai ” as
Rabbinic Discourse as a System of Knowledge Hannah Hashkes employs contemporary philosophy in describing rabbinic reasoning as a rational response to experience. Hashkes combines insights from the philosophy of Quine and Davidson with the semiotics of Peirce to construe knowledge as systematic reasoning occurring within a community of inquiry. Her reading of the works of Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Luc Marion allows her to create a philosophical bridge between a discourse of God and a discourse of reason. This synthesis of pragmatism, hermeneutics and theology provides Hashkes with a sophisticated tool to understand Rabbinic Judaism. It also makes this study both unique and pathbreaking in contemporary Jewish philosophy and Rabbinic thought.
establishes an intriguing connection between idolatry and ontology. This connection is aptly illustrated by the biblical character of Balaam, the ambiguous Mesopotamian prophet or sorcerer of Numbers 22–24, who is almost never men- tioned in Levinas’s work but who is present, albeit hidden, in the talmudic
Rabbi J. David Bleich is Professor of Talmud (Rosh Yeshiva) at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University, as well as the Director of its Postgraduate Institute for the study of Talmudic Jurisprudence and Family Law. In addition, he holds the Herbert and Florence Tenzer Chair of Jewish Law and Ethics at Yeshiva University and is Professor of Law at the Cardozo School of Law. A foremost authority on Jewish law and ethics, he has written extensively on medical ethics, Jewish law and contemporary social issues, and the interface of Jewish law and the American legal system. As the spiritual leader of Congregation B’nai Jehuda in Manhattan, Rabbi Bleich teaches weekly Talmud classes and lectures on Jewish law and philosophy.
; hermeneutics; sampling; anomalous monism; technology; Talmud Theirs was a system that made a virtue of ambivalence and built uncertainty into bedrock assertions of faith. No wonder fundamental- ists and fascists have hated it so. – Jonathan Rosen, The Talmud and the Internet 1 Introduction For the ancient