DIVISION C: THOUGHT AND LITERATURE, VOLUME II: JEWISH THOUGHT, KABBALAH AND HASIDISM / חטיבה...

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ אתיקה יהודית ומודרניזם יהודי JEWISH ETHICS AND JEWISH MODERNISMAuthor(s): RICHARD FREUND and ריצ'ארד פרוינדSource: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי,DIVISION C: THOUGHT AND LITERATURE, VOLUME II: JEWISH THOUGHT ,היהדות, כרך יאKABBALAH AND HASIDISM / חטיבה ג: היצירה הרוחנית, כרך שני: הגות יהודית, קבלהוחסידותpp. 101-108 תשנ"ג / 1993Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23536917 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 19:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.40 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:39:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wujs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23536917?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


JEWISH ETHICS AND JEWISH MODERNISM

RICHARD FREUND

Jewish ethics is, for the most part, a comparative and descriptive discipline, gleaned from

many lives, influences and works from the biblical through the modern period. ^ Since there is no

complete and systematic classical model for Jewish ethics, writing about Jewish ethics in the modern

period is usually itself a comparative discipline. For one, the issues of Jewish ethics are those which

other non-Jewish systems of ethics have determined to be the basic ethical issues. Many modern writers

on Jewish ethics have also chosen a comparative approach to understanding Jewish ethics. Some have

chosen to organize their books and articles by comparing some of the basic philosophical issues (free

will, theodicy, concepts of justice, etc.) present in general philosophical and religious ethics to Jewish

ethics. Others have chosen to organize their works strictly according to issues (self-sacrifice, war,

economics, etc.) with little concern for basic philosophical issues. This paper suggests that given:

a. the fact that Jewish ethics has been and continues to be a text based enterprise

b. the complex manuscript state of most ancient Jewish literary works

c. the fact that the text critical and systematic philosophical approaches are hallmarks of the modern

period and have become an important part of modern Jewish studies of the textual traditions of Judaism

d. therefore: Jewish ethics in the modern period should be investigated using text critical and

systematic philosophical approaches and

e. that these approaches can and do yield significantly different perspectives on Jewish ethics than do

other non-text critical and systematic philosophical approaches to Jewish ethics in the modern period

I. Modernity and Jewish Ethics: One might say that the need for a text-critical approach is

just a manifestation of modernity or modernism's effect upon Judaism. In recent years, one can find

many different uses of the words "contemporary", "modern", "modern agenda" or "modernity" in the

title of books on issues in Judaism. Rarely do the authors offer a comprehensive or precise meaning of

"modern" or "contemporary". In these studies, "modem" means :

a. the writers of the articles are from the modem period (from the 17th century onward)

b. the subjects or technologies written about are extremely relevant in the modem period.

c. an way of thinking which began with the Enlightenment or the Renaissance.

The latter definition is the one which guides our understanding of Jewish modernism in this paper. The

Enlightenment marked a real turning point that ushered in the modern world as we know it. Not only in

terms of modern technology, but also in terms of the modern way of thinking, researching and writing

about issues.

101



RICHARD FREUND

The Enlightenment and the later Jewish Haskalah movement mark turning points in the

development of Western culture in general, and also a shift in the development of Jewish thought. The

rise of the scientific way of thinking and the philosophical questions/issues that went along with it

confronted Judaism with a major challenge. Judaism had found its place in the medieval world. How

would it adjust to the new world of modern thought? Indeed, there was a real question as to whether it

could adjust to this new world, because of the radical shift in human ways of thinking and the situation

of the Jews. One way that Judaism adjusted to the modern world was through the acceptance of the

modern and systematic examination of its texts which began in the 18th and 19th century. This

approach is not intended to create or recreate a new Jewish ethics but rather to demonstrate a modern

method for researching Jewish ethics in light of themes present in the modern period. The only response to modernity that this work offers is the historical-critical method applied generously to the Jewish

tradition. It is this method which I believe will not only help in the study of historical Judaism but

also in the renewal of Judaism in the modern period. The modern period brought with it a promise for

great possibilities for most marginalized groups in society (such as the Jews). The modern agenda included a rejection of traditional authority groups and figures in favor of individual human reason and a

firm belief in the power of analysis to see through (as much as possible) the subjective nature of

representation of "facts" , including the facts of Judaism. The traditional sources or paradigms of ethical

investigation were brought under close scrutiny. Many of the issues which most of the major thinkers

in the modern period have chosen to discuss were not seen as major ethical issues (especially in the way

they are presented) to Judaism before the modern period. This is not only because of changing

technologies, but because of the way we think about issues in the modern period. In addition to

neologisms and the language used to describe ethical issues in the modern period (which is often

accompanied by detailed technological explanations) most ethical questions are framed concerning the

individual mitigating circumstances of a case rather than a theoretical paradigm into which the case fits.

Many modern writers are forced to make great "metaphoric" and "creative" leaps of method in order to

find a precedent in the ancient texts of Judaism. Jewish modernism has introduced a new text critical

methodology which is central to the the agenda of the Enlightenment especially as it became translated

in the Wissenschaft des Judenlums. The goal of this text-critical methodology was to reinvestigate the

traditional sources of Judaism because they had historically suffered censorship and damage in the

medieval period and because the challenge of the modern period necessitated a more systematic

understanding of the development of Judaism. The studies of A. Geiger, Z. Frankel, D. Hoffman, S.

Schechter, J. N. Epstein, C. Albeck, and S. Lieberman in the 19th and 20th century have contributed

greatly to the re-understanding of the rabbinic tradition through textual criticism yet it is not generally used for the next step of research, the philosophical implications of these new/old texts. In the past 50

years forms of textual criticism have been applied by a whole range of scholars to rabbinic texts with

results which have clarified both rabbinic Judaism, Jewish law and ethics. This rabbinic research follows

18th and 19th century studies of text-critical biblical studies mostly by non-Jewish Europeans but most

recently by 20th century figures such as U. Cassuto, Y. Kaufmann, R. E. Friedman, M. Greenberg, S.

Paul, E.Tov and many others. In a sense, this paper is about understanding how historical Jewish

ethics can be understood through a text critical and systematic philosophical approach to the entire

literary tradition of Judaism, but more exactly to the biblical and rabbinic literary traditions.

102




II. The Textus Receptus: Ethics in general, and religious ethics, in particular, do not employ textual critical methodology. Generally ethicists begin their analysis from a textus receptus ("received

text") and rarely question the status of the text itself. They assume that the classical texts before them

have come down through history unchanged. The interpretation and understanding of Plato, Aristotle,

Zeno, Augustine, etc., the "dialogue across the ages" (which many ethical thinkers have with these

seminal figures and other pre-modern thinkers with medieval philosophers) presupposes that they were

all reading exactly the same versions of the texts. We assume that there were little or no

differences between the text as it emerged from the hand/mouth of Aristotle until its reading and

interpretation in the time of Thomas Aquinas, for example. Similarly, we assume that this literary tradition continued absolutely unchanged in almost an unbroken fashion until Ludwig Wittgenstein's

speculations in the 20th century. We also assume that the translation of these texts and their ideas are

all exact and literal re-creations of the words of the original. (I am not speaking of differences in

meaning. I am referring to the actual text itself). The study of religious ethics especially depends upon

ancient and historical sources. Unfortunately, the texts which over the years have evolved from the

original sources represent another layer of ethical expression and thought. The texts at our disposal in

the modern period (and at the disposal of others before the modern period, especially before the advent of

the printing press) generally differ from the earliest manuscript copies of these texts and the original

sources themselves. Even before a translation is made of these ancient texts, subtle and sometimes

fundamental changes may have affected the transmission of an ethical statement, the norm it represents

and inevitably our ability to understand the text.

Most of what we know about Jewish ethics comes to us through texts. However, ethics is

also a reflection of social, economic and political circumstances and cultural and religious beliefs that are

sometimes not clearly set out even in the original text, before the further alterations of translation.

Even the seemingly best, most utilized and firmly established texts of the West contain lacunae, variant

readings and obscure references which can radically affect our understanding of the ethical import of the

text. In fact, it appears that the more utilized, recopied and famous the text, the more opportunity for

these "innovations" to become part of the "received text." In short, the state of a textual tradition

determines the state of the received knowledge. In a textually based enterprise such as Jewish ethics,

the state of the text is as important as the ideas in the text. This paper holds that textual variants and

contemporary textual witnesses testifying to varying ethical views do matter. Even minor changes in

seemingly "unbroken" textual traditions raise new questions concerning what the formulators of the text

conceived of as right and wrong, good and evil. This is especially important in Judaism since its textual

tradition is so complex. This methodology examines textual variants and witnesses of biblical and post

biblical Judaism to reveal a previously untapped source for understanding the variety of Jewish life and

ethical behavior. It is true that some variants are errors committed by scribes, but the existence of

entirely different manuscript traditions often suggest differing positions on ethical issues. The

following are a list of variants which represent different ethical considerations in the LXX and MT

Exodus.

A. Incest: The MT and LXX versions of Exodus 6.20 are different. The MT tradition makes

Jochebed, (Moses mother) an aunt of Amram; a forbidden relation by the Leviticus 18.12 and the 20.19

standards. Later Biblical interpretations explained this MT text by saying that since this takes place in

Exodus 6, before the giving of the laws in the desert (Exodus 20 ff.) and they were not obligated to

observe it, but the existence of this form of ethical variance was not acceptable to many commentators

103



RICHARD FREUND

(BT Sanhédrin 58a-b). The LXX Exodus 6.20, however made Jochabed a cousin resolved the incest

problem (as well as other problems). B. Murder, Adultery, Theft? : What are the Ten Commandments? Four different

orderings of these three prohibitions found in the Decalogue of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are found

in ancient literatures and manuscript versions. It appears that the ordering of the

prohibitions/commandments represents different ethical priorities found in these different Jewish

literatures. The orderings are the following:

Ex. and Deut. MT Exodus LXX® Romans Nash Papyrus, Philo

Matt.; Mark Origen (Latin) 2.21-22 Luke

Tertullian/D/dac/ie + James, Hippolytus, additions, 4QDeut.n Origen (Greek), Clement

Clement of Alexandria of Alexandria

I Timothy 1.8-11 Romans 13.9

Josephus, Deut. LXXA Deuteronomy LXX®

LXXa Exodus

1. Murder 1. Adultery [1. Murder] 1. Adultery 2. Adultery 2. Theft 2. Theft 2. Murder

3. Theft 3. Murder 3. Adultery 3. Theft

The question is: How or why did these changes happen? The theories which I put forward in

my book Understanding Jewish Ethics. Volume I (in much greater detail) all revolve around the fact that these different orderings present different ethical messages in these orderings. In the minds of Philo and some of the early Christian writers, for example, the crime of adultery was connected with other sex

offenses,(such as pederasty/fornication in the Didache, for example) and reflects the view common in

Roman law and society which made adulterium iudicium domesticum, or a crime affecting the entire

family unit. Additionally, adultery was connected in Jewish society with the crime of incest in some cases. It is, therefore, perhaps understandable that it was placed directly after the fifth commandment

(Exodus 20.12 /Deuteronomy 5.16) to "Honor your father and your mother." The ordering of adultery and murder, respectively, is a connection which is made by both the

Talmud (BT Sanhédrin 74a) and the Church Fathers, such as Tertullian in his work, On Modesty, (chapter 5) who clearly expresses the reasons for the linking of the two for ethical reasons. The reason for the Exodus LXX change may point to two different factors in the transmission history of the

Decalogue and the LXX in particular. The order of these three prohibitions may be linked to the rather fluid oral and written use of the Decalogue in the Biblical and perhaps the Hellenistic period. The influence of Hellenistic society, especially the sexual mores of the resident Greeks and Romans may have led the LXX Exodus translator to manipulate a fluid text according to the changing priorities of his

readers; i.e., placing adultery before theft. The LXX Exodus translator is especially sensitive to the ethical currents in his period as can be seen from his rather creative and ethically "pregnant" reading of LXX Exodus 21.22-23 in comparison with the MT reading (see below for this example) . This order

probably represents homiletic concerns: which are evident from the conflicting readings of Tertullian; in favor of the adultery/murder reading.

104




C. Monarchy or Archony : MT Deuteronomy 17.14-20 is the basic text for the Divine

establishment of the monarchy. In the LXX of Deuteronomy and almost systematically throughout the

text of the LXX almost all Israelite kings and future monarchies are made into archonates or semi

autonomous "princes". The LXX knows the common Greek word basileus but prefers "archon" when

speaking of the future Israelite government and ruler. This is a systematic and apparently ideological

change. Of the 33 times that the word "king" is used in the MT of Genesis, 29 refer to non-Israelite

kings, and the LXX translates them using the word basileus. The LXX takes great pains to establish

the future leaders of the Israelite/Judean nation as either an archon or a hegemon rather than the more

autonomous and independent role clearly prescribed for the family of Judah by the later Aramaic

translations. The political message for the Greek reader of Genesis, therefore, is that there is an ancient

king of Patriarchal/Matriarchal lineage and there are kings of other non-Israelite/ Judean nations, but the

rest of the leaders of the Israelite/Judean nation are only archons—a leader of the Jews but hardly a leader

of a nation. In the LXX books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of

Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,

Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai and Zechariah references are made to historical kings, both Israelite and

non-Israelite and these principles generally hold. Similarly, the books of Esther and Job mention kings

but they are either non-Israelite or not identifiable. The LXX rule seems to be that ancient historical

Israelites and non-Israelite kings receive the designation of basileus in the LXX all others are

archons. The implications are that the Jews of Hellenism changed their political philosophy from one

which saw as the ideal political setting as one of total political autonomy to a more realistic acceptance

of semi-autonomy under the Greeks and later the Romans.

D. Abortion: The MT locus classicus in the Hebrew Bible for many Jewish ethics investigations of

abortion is the unlikely episode of Exodus 21.22-23. There is no indication in the MT text of anything

but a spontaneous miscarriage caused by negligence and a payment is required. The LXX translation is

significantly different. The translation reads:

"When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that the woman miscarry

an unformed child, he shall pay according to the husband's account. 23. If the child

is formed, he shall give life for life..."

How and why did the LXX translator arrive at this significantly different translation? The

translator made a new translation of the expression no harm!any harm as it appears in the MT Hebrew

yihyeh ason/lo yihyeh ason. The LXX translator took these two Hebrew phrases and interpreted them to

mean something completely different in Greek. There are, of course, cases of major variant readings which are total parallel substitutions or supplementary information in the text of the LXX. Here,

however, the translator has made a clear, parallel substitution which bears no resemblance to the

Hebrew. Although the LXX translator does not give his reasons for interpreting as he does, Philo does

inform us of possible reasons in two places in his two works, The Preliminary Studies and Special

Laws. He links feticide to homicide when a fetus is formed. This view corresponds to Greek views held

by Plato and the Stoics. Philo appears to have accepted both of these positions. A similar controversy

exists in rabbinic literature, where the view that the embryo is part of the mother is maintained against

the view that the embryo is a separate entity with an individual spirit and thought process. The link

between feticide and homicide is maintained in writings of the Samaritans, Didache, and the Karaites.

The rabbis both maintain and deny that feticide is homicide. This seems to represent a changing reality

within the Greco-Roman world which a variant can give us insight into.

105



RICHARD FREUND

E. Theodicy and Morality: Other Jewish philosophers have considered the text-critical approach and found that it can play an important part in their deliberations. I. Kant found that Job was the best

type of Kantian hero. From the experiences of Job, Kant knew that all further attempts of human

wisdom to know things as they truly are must be abandoned. For Kant, Job is not the individual

suffering but a universal problem of tilings not being as they seem. Both Kant and S. Kierkegaard built

(different) philosophical assumptions of ethical import from their understanding of Job. Unfortunately as biblical criticism has revealed, in terms of the textual problems present in the book, "The Book of

Job is the most vexed in the Old Testament"^ and Job of these texts is not the Job of the MT. The

Syriac Peshitta, the Targum of Job, arid the different Greek versions present different types of Jobs. In

fact, the LXX version is a less rebellious more trusting and accepting Job than the MT suggests. The

trusting and patient Job which was known to the New Testament Epistle of James (5.11) ,for example, is not the Job which emerges from the Hebrew. This is the Job which Kant and Kierkegaard are

following. These problems cannot be ignored in order to just get on with the reading of Job and derive

all sorts of theodicies as well as ethical issues. One must recognize that these problems exist and deal

in a systematic fashion with the implications of biblical criticism in dealing with philosophical issues.

With each generation the issues are more and more pronounced. Professor K. Seeskin recognized these

text-critical problems and writes concerning his attempt to research the problem of evil in Job:

"There are problems with the translation. It has not escaped the notice of biblical scholars that

the Septuagint's Job is not nearly the rebel who emerges from the lines of the Hebrew text.

Allowing themselves linguistic and editorial liberties, the Greek translators created a character

who is much less willing to challenge God. There is even evidence that the Hebrew text was

altered. I prefer to leave questions about textual authenticity to others...to the degree that the

work is unified, the question of multiple or single authorship can be put aside. Yet even if we

assume the book is coherent, its enigmatic character still haunts us."^ 1■

V. The Textus Receptus: Rabbinic Texts: The rabbinic tradition itself is divided into different

periods of literary activity extending from the first part of the 3rd century CE with a number of different

collections of legal and literary materials by Tannaitic (early rabbinic) sources to the Saboraim and

Stamaim. Each group employed differing editing and writing techniques and it is this complex textual

tradition which comes into play when one wishes to use a rabbinic text. The instability of the textual

tradition of rabbinic literature is also a major problem since although internal evidence shows the

Babylonian Talmudic text to have been completed in the 6th century, the first complete copy of the

Babylonian Talmud is a 14th century manuscript (Munich, Codex Hebr. 95) All other copies are extant

in manuscript longer and shorter fragments from the 8-9th century CE. For textual critics of the

Talmud, the question is: How can we be sure what is the correct reading some 800 years after its redaction? As earlier suggested, the subject of this paper is not a search for some "correct" or "original" text, but an exploration of the ethical questions raised by textual differences found in texts. The

recognition of the complexity of the textual traditions of rabbinic literature in the research of topics

relating to Jewish ethics is fundamental to the academic credibility of this research. A common editing

technique, for example, in the Talmudim is transference of complete sections of rabbinic thought and

argumentation from one part of the Talmud to another. This transference immediately de-contextualizes the original discussion and recontextualizes into a totally different argument. While this is an important

part of the talmudic argument, it creates a host of problems for those investigating Jewish ethics

106




because it changes the ethical argument by changing the context of an argument. Although different

rabbinic texts from the Mishnah through the Babylonian Talmud are inter-related, they need to be

examined independent of one another to determine the individual ethical perspectives present in each text.

It is a test of critical analysis to examine the contexts and philosophical reasonings to determine the use

a certain text may have in another collection. An example of an ethical problem and these textual

issues, such as transference and variants can be seen in the investigation of the ethical issue of abortion

and the change of status of a fetus to "human being" in the birth process. The Mishnah Ohilot 7.6

states: "if the greater part of (the fetus/child) has proceeded forth, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another." In the Tosefta, Yevamot, 9.5: "...once the head

has proceeded forth...." which agrees with the BT Sanhédrin 72b. In these last two citations "the head"

is seen as the determining portion of the anatomy for establishing the "human-ness" of the fetus, while

the Mishnah apparently has another standard. The PT Shabbat 14d, Avodah Zarah 40d agrees with the

Tosefta position but the PT Sanhédrin 26c has a hybrid position of "once the head and the greater

part (of the fetus/child)". The debate continues in the medieval period with Rashi, Tosafot and

Maimonides reading Sanhédrin "once the head..."while other medieval sources state that the different

readings allow either, "...the greater part of the head" (a combination of both readings into one)

and even "...the greater part (of the fetus/child) or the head.'** All of these variants imply

different views as to exactly when a human life begins. The fact that the "head" is indicated in some

readings and not others may indicate, for example, that the ability to think, reason, or understand may be

associated with this version's definition of human life. Other variants include only the greater part

of the body (and not the head) and may indicate that viability is a quantitative and not qualitative

question. What is important for our research is that the existence of variants within rabbinic sources,

even apparently minor ones, can be an indication of serious ethical differences in the Jewish tradition.

IV. How Text Variants in Rabbinic Texts Could Change Modern Jewish Ethics:

Finally, a very contemporary issue, artificial insemination has been debated by modern rabbinic

responsa, but one of the medieval sources used in the debate, The Alfa Beta D'Ben Sirah, exists in two

different manuscript recensions. While the use of a pre-modern argument and (imperfect) analogy upon

to derive a modern ethical stance may seem fraught with methodological and philosophical problems,

this approach is a major part of most religious ethical systems as well as many modern legal systems.

In this case, the manuscript variants offer different ethical insights which may actually be helpful to

rabbinic responsa in the modern period if they would develop a text critical approach to the text. In

Manuscript #1 the story is related that the Prophet Jeremiah went to the bath-house, only to find "evil

people from the tribe of Ephraim masturbating at the bath-house." Jeremiah begins to reprimand them,

whereupon these evil ones began to hit Jeremiah exclaiming: "why have you reprimanded us? You will

not move from here until you do as us." Jeremiah asks them to leave him alone and he swears that he

will tell no one. They, knowing Jeremiah's nature realize that this is not going to be the case

whereupon they threaten him saying: "Now, you will either do as us or you will submit to sodomy!"

Up to this point the two manuscript versions are virtually the same. At this juncture there is a

significant change. In Manuscript #1 it states: "Immediately (Jeremiah) did it and he began to curse

himself." In Manuscript #2 it states: "Immediately, he did it but out of extreme fear." Though this

may seem like an insignificant change, ethically, this detail is of immense importance for the whole

question of artificial insemination. Does the motive and mental stale of the DONOR matter? If a

107



RICHARD FREUND

person is clearly in a traumatic or neurotic state because of the inability to conceive, for example, could

this be a consideration in the analysis of the question?

III. Conclusions: It is difficult to write conclusions about a text-critical methodology which

implies that no serious Jewish philosophical speculation or analysis of texts can be done until serious

text-critical investigations have first been completed. The implications of such a pronouncement are:

a. text critics must become philosophers b. philosophers must become text-critics

Actually, I would propose that text critics continue to be good text critics but should also be

sensitive to philosophical issues in their investigations of texts and that philosophers get hold of the

best text-critical examplars of works they are investigating and become aware of the problems in the

literature. A text-critical methodology to Jewish ethics can allow insights into a forgotten or reshaped tradition of Judaism without some of the damage which is apparent from other attempts at wanton

reshaping of Jewish tradition because of purely modern issues and concerns. These new insights may

actually provide new answers to new questions. Even more important, however, is that a text-critical

approach to Jewish ethics is intellectually honest in a period in which we value critical analysis and

thinking in all its manifestations.

1Most of the information for this paper is based upon examples found in my book, R. A. Freund,

Understanding Jewish Ethics, Volume I (New York and Toronto: Mellen, 1990) and my forthcoming

Understanding Jewish Ethics, Volume Two, Major Themes and Thinkers (New York and Toronto:

Mellen, 1993). These books contain complete explanations of the different examples cite in this paper. 3The Anchor Bible Series, Vol. 15, Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary , by M. H. Pope, (New York: Doubleday, 1986), p. XLIII.

3K. Seeskin ,Jewish Philosophy in a Secular Age, (New York: SUNY Press, 1991), p. 171.

*M. Schachter, The Babylonian and Jerusalem Mishna Textually Compared, (Jerusalem: Talmudic Research Institute Mosad Harav Kook, 1959) p. 321, note #773.

108



Date post:	15-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungdieu
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

DIVISION C: THOUGHT AND LITERATURE, VOLUME II: JEWISH THOUGHT, KABBALAH AND HASIDISM / חטיבה...

Documents