Explore the vast range of titles available.

The text of Luke 11:41 seems to indicate a Halakhic rule according to which alms-giving causes purity. There is no textual evidence for such a rule in known Jewish traditions. An alternative translation is possible which helps us better understand Luke 11:41 within Jewish tradition.

A Winner of the 2024 Association for Jewish Studies' Jordan Schnitzer First Book Publication Award This book contains a collection of eight annotated translations of responsa, alongside the original Hebrew texts, focusing on the post-expulsion Spanish-Portuguese communities of the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries. This collection will acquaint the reader with Jews who, following their expulsion, settled in the Ottoman Empire, in Palestine under the Mamluks, in Amsterdam and in Brazil. The period of the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula was a tragic time in Jewish history, but the revitalization of the post-expulsion Spanish-Portuguese Jewish communities in new locales is testimony to the human spirit and determination. The volume includes eight chapters, each built around one responsum from one of the great halakhic authorities of the time. Topics include excommunication in Amsterdam, ʻ agunot , inheritance rights of a converso son, obligatory contracts and breach of agreement, heresy and humanist scholarship, informing on someone to the Venetian Inquisition, and more

This article offers a conceptual and historical analysis of the rabbinic term maḥloqet, arguing that it functions not merely as a descriptor of disagreement but as a culturally embedded legal category with shifting meanings and purposes across rabbinic history. The article traces maḥloqet through two key moments: its institutionalization in the Mishnah and its attempted elimination in Maimonides’ legal writings. In the Mishnah, maḥloqet is presented as a legitimate and even constructive feature of halakhic discourse, enabling pluralism, preserving dissenting voices, and fostering a collective sense of legal authorship. By contrast, Maimonides views maḥloqet as a symptom of a dysfunctional legal system and seeks to eliminate it through his codificatory project in the Mishneh Torah. Drawing on both legal and philosophical writings, the article argues that for Maimonides, the eradication of maḥloqet is necessary for halakhah to fulfill its unifying social function. The article concludes that the term maḥloqet cannot be fully translated into terms like “dispute” or “controversy,” as it carries distinct legal, political, and epistemological valences unique to rabbinic culture. Its layered function across time highlights the complex interplay between law, authority, and dissent in the Jewish legal tradition.

This article discusses the dominant understanding of the concept of repentance in the thought of the Jewish philosopher Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the original interpretation he offers of this religious idea. It explores how his interpretation of the way repentance operates upon the human soul is based on Max Scheler’s thought regarding remorse, while adding another layer of meaning grounded in Henri Bergson’s philosophical conception of time as “durée”. Against this background, the article argues that Soloveitchik’s identification with the notion of time as “durée” stems both from a philosophical perspective that runs through significant parts of his thought, and from a personal biographical stance and his understanding of the religious experience of the talmid chacham (Torah scholar)—one who internalizes Torah study and dialectical reasoning in essential life concerns. This stance structures both the mental experience that enables repentance, contingency, and reversibility in time, and the homiletical–intellectual performance that affirms and constructs a Hegelian dialectic between past and present, ultimately forming a synthesis that is repentance.

The compelling vision of religious life and practice found in Hasidic sources has made it the most enduring and successful Jewish movement of spiritual renewal of all time. In this book, Ariel Evan Mayse grapples with one of Hasidism's most vexing questions: how did a religious movement known for its radical views about immanence, revelation, and the imperative to serve God with joy simultaneously produce strict adherence to the structures and obligations of Jewish law? Exploring the movement from its emergence in the mid-1700s until 1815, Mayse argues that the exceptionality of Hasidism lies not in whether its leaders broke or upheld rabbinic norms, but in the movement's vivid attempt to rethink the purpose of Jewish ritual and practice. Rather than focusing on the commandments as law, he turns to the methods and vocabulary of ritual studies as a more productive way to reckon with the contradictions and tensions of this religious movement as well as its remarkable intellectual vitality. Mayse examines the full range of Hasidic texts from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, from homilies and theological treatises to hagiography, letters, and legal writings, reading them together with contemporary theories of ritual. Arguing against the notion that spiritual integrity requires unshackling oneself from tradition, Laws of the Spirit is a sweeping attempt to rethink the meaning and significance of religious practice in early Hasidism.

This study examines the dialectic between “navigating secularism” and “lived religion” in the context of modern Jewish Orthodoxy, focusing on the rulings of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910–1995) regarding secular Jews. The research relies on two analytical models: Ravitzky’s theological model, based on the Chazon Ish’s distinction between a “full wagon” and an “empty wagon”; and the phenomenological model of Zohar and Sagi, which examines the halakhic distinction between belonging to the religious collective versus the ethnic collective. Contrary to the consensus of 20th-century halakhic authorities, who applied the category of “captured child” (tinok shenishba) to modern secular Jews, Rabbi Auerbach rejects this categorical expansion and reinstates the traditional halakha: one who publicly desecrates the Sabbath has the status of a gentile in all matters. This normative decision yields far-reaching halakhic implications: prohibition of a secular person’s contact with wine, prohibition of inviting a secular person for festivals, and more. The study identifies an internal tension in Rabbi Auerbach’s rulings: theoretically, he considers whether it might be preferable to die than to live as a gentile, but practically, he permits saving secular Jews on the Sabbath based on extra-halakhic theological reasoning. This tension reflects a conflict between his loyalty to halakhic deontology and his humane character. The study classifies Rabbi Auerbach within the ahistorical approach, which views the halakhic conceptual system as an eternal entity. Nevertheless, the religious public perceives him as a lenient authority toward secular Jews. This gap is explained through Wolfgang Iser’s hermeneutics and the category of “textual indeterminacy”: readers interpret his words through the prism of an expectation for tolerance, based on their perception of his warm personality, thereby creating a subjective textual meaning.

Orthodox Judaism is an ever-evolving religion, responding to changes in science, technology, medicine, etc. The evolution of thought within this religious tradition can be clearly examined in halakhic responses to assisted reproductive technology and the adoption of these technologies and procedures by the Orthodox Jewish community. A relatively new reproductive technology of great interest to the Orthodox community is mitochondrial replacement therapies (MRT). This article examines past and current decisions regarding reproductive technologies that are used when examining a new assisted reproductive technology. Additionally, close examination of these sources will elucidate whether MRT results in the conception and delivery of children who are “Jewish by birth” or how a child born via MRT can be considered Jewish, post-parturition.

Hovevei Zion is a collective name for several societies established in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, advocating immigration to the land of Israel, settlement of the land and agricultural work. This article examines the religious approach of several prominent thinkers from among Hovevei Zion and the First Aliya, who shared the perception of farming and settling the land as having religious and even messianic meaning. It was clear to them that the Torah is the foundation of the Jewish people’s existence, however, to this they added another value – work. These thinkers strived to change the identity of the exilic Jew, who was occupied only with spiritual religious life and to reinstate the identity of the biblical Jew, who combined a spiritual and a material religious life. The article examines the approach of Hovevei Zion in light of the general rabbinic approach to redemption, settlement and agriculture and the social changes in 19th century Europe.ContributionThis article contributes to the journal’s multidisciplinary theological perspective, particularly the notion ‘historical thought’, which covers the textual and oral history and hermeneutical studies, narratives and philosophies behind the Abrahamic religions as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Rabbinic literature.

Until recently, in rabbinic discourse as well as Israeli state policy, Jewish identity was not reckoned via genetics. While academic studies looked for genetic similarities among Jewish communities, these similarities did not determine Jewishness or state policy. This article is the first study spotlighting the novel use of mtDNA testing in order to determine the Jewishness of Israeli citizens who immigrated to Israel from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) 1990 onward. These tests offered by the Israeli State Rabbinate are accompanied by heated political and religious wrangles, in particular between leaders of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community and the political party claiming to represent immigrants from the FSU. We aim to understand this current debate on determining Jewishness by mtDNA. We examine the reciprocal relationship between science, religion, communal identity and state policy, and question the possible social implications. In contrast to claims that the change in Jewish’ definition is guided by science and technology, we argue that this change is dictated primarily by specific historical and socio-political circumstances. Furthermore, enthusiasm or rejection of the use of mtDNA for Jewish recognition depends on inclusive or exclusive ideologies, not on the indecisive content of science or religion themselves.

This essay examines the trajectory of Jewish feminist theology from the 1970s to today. It uses a synthetic, thematic approach, distilling concerns that appear across generically diverse theological writings over the last half century. These themes include the authority of Jewish classical texts and ritual practice, the meaning of embodiment, and the potential of theologies of immanence. The essay is framed by a consideration of the activist roots that fed Jewish feminist theology in its initial stages, on the one hand, and the changed conditions of production that characterize the present, on the other.