A Historian from the World of Torah

PaRDes, 2018

The article examines the work of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, arguably the most significant Orthodox response to the Wissenschaft des Judentums school of historiogra-phy. Halevy himself exemplified the Orthodox struggle against Wissenschaft, yet his work expressed a commitment to modern historiographical discipline that suggested an internalization of some of the very same premises adopted by Wissenschaft. While criticizing the representatives of Wissenschaft, Halevy was, at the same time, fighting for the internalization of its innovative characteristics into Orthodox society. He saw himself as a leader of a movement working towards the development of Orthodox Jew-ish studies and his application of modern historiographic principles from an Orthodox worldview as creating critical Orthodox historiography. Halevy's approach promotes an understanding of Orthodoxy as a complex phenomenon, of which the struggle against modern secularization is just one of many characteristics.

Eastern European Jewish Affairs, 2022

Simon Dubnov is considered the father of Russian Jewish historiography without rivals or peers. An examination of his memoir shows that he intentionally fought with his colleagues and belittled their contributions. The author of this essay tries to answer why and how Dubnov did this.

2011

The modernization of European Jewry was a gradual process that spread from individuals to communities and from one social class to another. It travelled from city to small town and from central and western Europe eastward. Among its component elements were economic redistribution, acculturation, secular edu cation, and religious reform. Scholars have examined each of these elements and their interrelation. They have also recognized the appearance of a new historical consciousness that began to play a crucial role in the formation of modern Jewish identity. Recently, the shifting relation of Jews to their history has received much attention, both in general surveys and in specific studies.' Yet the emergence of a fresh historical awareness, after centuries in which historical interest was at best limited, deserves further consideration, for the process was by no means simple and straightforward. As Jews began to attribute major significance to his tory in general and to Jewish history in particular, they faced issues that were not speedily or uniformly resolved: What was the purpose of historical study? What history should be learned? How was the study of history related to Jewish religion and its possible reform? And perhaps most important, should the study of Jewish history principally serve to liberate the Jew from tradition by historicizing it or create a new attachment to the past by reconceiving it as a model or anchorage for the present? These questions emerge especially among German Jews during the periods of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. The answers given reflect both the intellectual milieu and the specific historical situation of the Jews. I. THE VALUE OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE Although Moses Mendelssohn, the first prominent and articulate modern Jew, on one occasion complained of his boredom with history, his first biographer, Isaac Euchel, felt constrained to point out, in 1788, that his subject's secular edu cation had begun with historical studies. That remark, in turn, served as a good l. The general works include

Modern Judaism, 2010

Andrea Shatz (ed.), Josephus in Modern Jewish Culture, Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2019

This paper presents the various and, at times, contradictory components of two Orthodox historians’ approaches to Josephus, noting the ambivalence inherent in the approach of any Orthodox historian to Josephus. This ambivalence provides a glimpse into the world of Orthodoxy, and the world of nationalist Orthodoxy in its embryonic stages at the start of the twentieth century. Any Orthodox approach to Josephus involves an internal contradiction. On the one hand, Josephus held a place of honor in traditional society, even if this was largely because early commentators identified the book of Josippon with the works of Josephus and cited it frequently. , On the other hand, the actions of Josephus –collaborating with the Romans, publishing books in Greek and becoming an integral part of the Hellenistic-Roman culture – contradict Orthodox values, which eschew cultural collaboration with external elements. Orthodoxy is intensely committed to conserving tradition. The intensity of this commitment, however, is itself an innovation. This is the paradox of Orthodoxy, and the approach of Orthodox historians to Josephus is a signal example of this paradox. The two historians presented here are Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Rabinovitz (1847-1912) and Ze’ev Ya’avetz (1847-1924). Halevi was one of the most important Orthodox pioneers in the field of historiography in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. Ya’avetz, his friend and disciple, was an Orthodox-nationalist historian who published a series of books surveying the history of the people of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. His historiographical oeuvre was also part of the Orthodox reaction to the wissenschaft school of historiography. Unlike Halevi, Ya’avetz was distinctive in his identification and cooperation with the nationalist Zionist movement. He was amongst the founders of the “Mizrachi” movement, and was editor of its journal from 1902-1905. They both exemplify the complexity of the Orthodox historian’s approach to Josephus. Along with what their ambivalence can teach us about the inherent paradoxes of Orthodoxy, an examination of their approaches to Josephus may, as well, contribute to improving our understanding of Josephus himself.

The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 2022

For lack of a better criterion, we can identify a rabbinic 'group' by about 200 CE, the traditional date for the publication of the Mishna in Palestine.1 At that point, there was a coherent literary work using specialized language, legal terminology, and modes of argument, all applied to a set of topics. The Mishna thus presupposed an audience, however small, that could make sense of it. The Mishna also states traditions in the names of persons. These men appear to go back as far as two hundred or so years (only occasionally earlier).2 However, the bulk of statements are attributed to sages who flourished later, after the revolts of 66-70 and 132-136 CE that resulted in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the re-annexation of Judaea as a separate Roman province. The Mishna also provides the title rabbi ('my master') for nearly all of the figures from 70-200 CE. Although this usage may not be exclusively rabbinic, it does not appear to antedate the first century CE.3 In practice, then, the Mishna claims a legacy of inherited tradition drawing on the remembered statements and opinions of recognized (often named and titled) antecedents of considerable but usually not primordial antiquity. This criterion has the merit of identifying a fixed historical point by which to date 'the rabbis' , although the underlying social and intellectual developments were undoubtedly lengthier and more complex. Like every reconstruction that hopes to talk about actual rabbinic people, places, and times, the following discussion makes assumptions about the rough reliability of the division of rabbis into 'generations' and the significance of large political and military events for shaping the group. Part 1 of this chapter looks backwards, examining the connections between what we know of rabbis near the turn of the third century CE and the social,