Papers by Ronen Pinkas
DAAT: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah, 2025
Teologia i Moralność, 2025
This article takes Marxism as a model and example of a secular-humanist approach that, while lack... more This article takes Marxism as a model and example of a secular-humanist approach that, while lacking a dimension that can be characterized as divine, transcendent, spiritual, etc., is also a mass ‘secular-messianic’ movement that incorporates religious elements, primarily the universal aspiration for the redemption of humanity. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen pointed out the danger of humanistic approaches with universal aspirations that lacked an intimate dimension towards one’s fellow human beings, a dimension that, according to Cohen, is fundamentally religious and stems from the transcendence of God. Erich Fromm’s approach is used in this article as a medium to present a Jewish socialist idea in the formulation and language of humanistic psychology. Fromm’s critique of Marx, whom he admired, includes the application of Hermann Cohen’s approach to the historical situation of the mid- and late twentieth century. Fromm’s call for personal involvement as a solution to alienation echoes Cohen’s concept of correlation. The position of Emmanuel Levinas presented in this article serves to present the claim that humanistic-universal approaches that reject the transcendent divine dimension ultimately deny the transcendent element that defines human beings in general and the other person in particular, and according to Levinas, this is the epistemology and phenomenology of violence. Despite its socialist vision, Jewish messianism also embraces a personal element of the transcendent that gives it an ethical orientation that secular socialism lacks, as the Levinassian examination of messianism in rabbinic literature demonstrates.
Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 2025
This essay discusses the complex interplay between Jewish identity and the intellectual contribut... more This essay discusses the complex interplay between Jewish identity and the intellectual contribution of Sigmund Freud. It explores his unique relationship with Judaism, focusing on his views on circumcision and its sociocultural implications for understanding anti-Semitism, as well as his critical engagement with religious dogma and mysticism through the lens of psychoanalysis, particularly as expressed in his final work Moses and Monotheism. The second part of this article explores Freud’s Moses and Monotheism as a psychoanalytic attempt to address the historical roots of anti-Semitism by examining Jewish identity and religious belief through a therapeutic lens.
Journal of Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity, 2024
Franz Rosenzweig’s references to Sigmund Freud in his diaries and letters are not extensive. Howe... more Franz Rosenzweig’s references to Sigmund Freud in his diaries and letters are not extensive. However, they are exceptional in the intellectual landscape of Jewish religious philosophy at the beginning of the twentieth century. Based on these references, this article presents a Psychotheological reading of the Binding of Isaac. This interpretation treats the rabbinic account of Abraham’s childhood in Genesis Rabbah 38:13 as an unconscious layer of the biblical narrative. The demand to take his son and offer him as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2) is understood as stemming from Abraham’s superego, which includes the internalized father’s law (Teracḥ, his father, and Nimrod, the father symbol in the culture into which Abraham was born). The actual revelation, however, is the liberation from the phantasmatic demands and sanctions of the superego, which suspends the individual’s moral relationship to the world. This is exemplified by Abraham’s resolution not to proceed with the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:12). The preceding interpretation provides a framework for examining the relationship between commandment (mitzvah) and law in The Star of Redemption. According to Rosenzweig, the revelation of the divine commandment of love softens the rigidity of the law while maintaining its relevance and importance in providing orientation for the individual’s daily life.
Religions, 15, 531, 2024
In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm (1900–1980) defines his position as nontheistic mysticism. T... more In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm (1900–1980) defines his position as nontheistic mysticism. This research clarifies the term, considers its importance within Fromm’s humanism, and explores its potential origins. The nontheistic mystical position plays a central role in Fromm’s understanding of the relationship between mysticism and organized religion, religion and religiosity, and it clarifies the relationship between religion, philosophy, and social psychoanalysis, whose combination constitutes his humanistic ethics. Nontheistic mysticism relates, as well, to Fromm’s understanding of human nature; it involves the question of the relationship between language, perception, and experience. The nontheistic mystical position is linked to Fromm’s negative theology, the x experience, and idolatry. Hence, the nontheistic mystical position is relevant to Fromm’s understanding of self realization and his vision of a sane society. Unlike some scholarly opinion, the conclusions of this paper suggest that Fromm’s humanism is not radical, as long as radical is defined as an absolute atheistic secular feature that eliminates the range of religious language and experience. Rather, it is a broad and cautious humanism that, on the one hand, internalizes the transcendent divinity into the human subject and transforms it into anthropological–ethical phenomena, but, on the other, implies that atheism carries the risk of an idolatrous identification of the human being with God. Consequently, this humanism requires a religious–mystical component to adequately portray the spiritual and ethical potentials of humanity and its challenges. Nontheistic mysticism is a consciousness mechanism aimed at the fine-tuning of the individual’s moral compass, which is affected by the pathologies of normalcy that prevail in all societies.
Religions 14, no. 8: 996, 2023
This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference b... more This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference between two patterns of recognition: the dialectical and the dialogical. The second assumption is that the origins of the dialogical pattern may be found in the relationship between human beings and God, a relationship in which prayer has a major role. The second assumption leads to the supposition that the emphasis of the dialogic approach on moral responsibility is theologically grounded. In other words, the relationship between humanity and God serves as a paradigm for human relationships. By focusing on Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig, in the context of prayer and dialectic, this paper highlights the complexity of these themes in modern Jewish thought. These two important philosophers utilize dialectical reasoning while also criticizing it and offering an alternative. The conclusions of their thought, in general, and their position on prayer, in particular, demonstrate a preference for a relational way of thinking over a dialectical one, but without renouncing the latter.
The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 2023
This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig’s use of the term “the unconscious” (das Unbewußte) and pos... more This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig’s use of the term “the unconscious” (das Unbewußte) and possible influences on his understanding of it. I claim that for Rosenzweig, it is through the unconscious that the individual becomes aware of himself and becomes capable of fulfilling his longing to achieve self-fulfillment and eventually to take part in a collective redemption. The unconscious is often perceived as the mental sphere related to trauma and repression in which defense mechanisms and fantasies are evolved. Fantasies are psychological tools that allow the individual to cope with trauma, but they are also “layers of enclosedness,” illusions that should be dissolved. Hence, in the unconscious, we find a possibility of liberation.
Judaica: Neue Digitale Folge , 2023
This article examines Erich Fromm (1900-1980) within the context of the so-called "renaissance of... more This article examines Erich Fromm (1900-1980) within the context of the so-called "renaissance of Jewish religious thought" in Germany during the early 20th century. It is well known that Fromm was a member of the Institute for Social Research, later called the Frankfurt School. The focus of this study, however, is on what has received little attention in research, namely Fromm's involvement in founding the Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus (the Jewish House of Free Study) in Frankfurt. Fromm participated in the founding of the Lehrhaus as a student and later as a lecturer. During this time, Fromm also wrote his dissertation on Judaism at Heidelberg University. Methodologically, this paper intertwines the historicalbiographical axis, which deals with Fromm's connections to several thinkers: Rabbi Nehemia Nobel, Rabbi Georg Salzberger, Baruch Salman Rabinkow, Franz Rosenzweig, Ernest Simon and others, and the philosophical axis, which focuses on his dissertation, The Jewish Law. The Freies jüdisches Lehrhaus in Frankfurt is primarily associated with Franz Rosenzweig and other thinkers who worked there, such as Gershom Scholem, Ernest Simon, Leo Löwenthal and Martin Buber, who wrote Ich und Du during the years he taught there. With the exception of Buber, the Lehrhaus was their first official teaching venue. The Lehrhaus was characterized by its dialogical atmosphere, and symmetrical relationships between teachers and students, which softened some of the rigidity that was the norm at German educational frameworks at the time. This atmosphere continued to influence Fromm in his adult life, in terms of his attitude towards religion, questioning of authority and his understanding of human nature. Finally, it later played a role in his departure from Freudian libido theory.
This study presents some key ideas from his dissertation, including his position on religious dogma, particularly concerning the Karaite sect, a subject that he later taught as a lecturer at the Lehrhaus. Fromm's dissertation expresses his preoccupation with his Jewish identity and his examination of the complex theopolitical reality in which the Jews of Germany found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, including the debates between Orthodox Jews and reformers, and between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This article supports the claim that Fromm's position that religious factors play a central role in the historical process, which he held throughout his life, was formed in these early years. The article strengthens the scholarly position that Fromm's Jewish background is relevant to understanding his thought in general.
International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 2022
In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and
Monotheism, which is his most unusual ... more In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and
Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In
Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the
biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism
is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The
murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually
contributed to the rational and ethical development of
Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud’s Moses received
extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst,
Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as
on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his
position on Freud’s latest work. This paper offers explanations for
Fromm’s roaring silence on Freud’s Moses.
![Research paper thumbnail of Animal rights – Jewish perspectives [English]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/80159666/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Turn: Zeitschrift für islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik, Nr. 3 , 2021
This article begs the question why is it that despite Jewish tradition devoting
much thought to ... more This article begs the question why is it that despite Jewish tradition devoting
much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict
adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes
to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers
and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism.
What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: “Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19: 18) and “That which is hateful to you
do not do to another” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 31a: 6; Jerusalem Talmud,
Nedarim, 30b: 1) on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the
fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to
a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken
from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his
ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas' ethics
explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: the 'I' is
committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the
affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and
animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?
This paper examines attitudes to animals in Jewish thought. The article
opens with a discussion of man's special status in Creation, as created in the
image of God, and explores, on the one hand, the challenges of this approach
(human supremacy), and, on the other, its inherent potential (human moral
responsibility). The short discussion on the attitudes toward animals in the
Hebrew Bible teaches that moral responsibility does not derive from the special
status awarded to humans in Creation, but rather is rooted in God’s own
relationship to animals. The heart of the article is devoted to discussing the
treatment of animals in Jewish law, how biblical laws that deal with animals
were understood among halakhic thinkers, and, especially, the meaning of
the ancient term “the suffering of living creatures” (tza’ar ba’alei chayim). The
basic premise is that halakhic discourse can provide fertile ground for a philosophical-
religious discourse on animals.
Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 89 , 2020
Fromm Forum 25, 2021
"Der Sabbat" is Erich Fromm’s first publication in a scientific journal, published in 1927 in Fre... more "Der Sabbat" is Erich Fromm’s first publication in a scientific journal, published in 1927 in Freud’s Imago, and his first reference to religion from a psychoanalytic perspective. Der Sabbat is undoubtedly an extraordinary paper in Fromm’s thought. First, because Fromm later moved away from the conservative Freudian psychoanalytic method, and the pure oedipal approach he presents to religion and Judaism does not reflect his later thought. Second, the way in which the Sabbath is presented in this essay differs from the way it was presented earlier in his 1922 doctoral dissertation The Jewish Law (Fromm 1989b) and his later writings (The Forgotten Language (1951a), You shall be as Gods (1966a), and To Have or to Be (1976a). However, his early article reflects his interdisciplinary approach and unique creativity that will characterize his future works. The Sabbath is, therefore, an interesting point of departure to examine the development of Fromm’s thought concerning Judaism and law in religion.
Fromm Forum 22, 2018
Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröffentlic... more Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröffentlichungen -auch von Teilen -bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.
DAAT: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah , 2018
קורלציה ואוריינטציה: יחסו של אריך פרום לדת לאור הגותם של הרמן יחזקאל כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג
תקציר ... more קורלציה ואוריינטציה: יחסו של אריך פרום לדת לאור הגותם של הרמן יחזקאל כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג
תקציר בעברית
אריך פנחס פרום (1980-1900) הוא ככול הנראה אחד ההוגים החשובים והמשפיעים ביותר של המאה העשרים. השפעתו הנרחבת ניכרת בתחומים רבים של מדעי החברה, הפסיכואנליזה וחקר האישיות, המדעים ההומניסטיים, חינוך, ביקורת התרבות והדת, מקרא, תיאולוגיה השוואתית, מיסטיקה וזן בודהיזם. מאמר זה מציג את יחסו של פרום לדת, למקורות הדת וליהדות לאור הגותם של הרמן כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג. במבוא מוצגים בקצרה הקשרים הביוגרפיים והרעיוניים שבין ההוגים. פרום נפגש עם רעיונותיו של כהן בתחילת דרכו האינטלקטואלית כאשר היה חבר במעגל התלמידים של הרב נחמיה אנטון נובל בשנים 1921-1916, ואף לקח חלק פעיל בהתהוותו של בית המדרש היהודי החופשי בפרנקפורט. בשנת 1923 לימד פרום בבית המדרש, שהיה אז תחת ניהולו של רוזנצווייג, לצדם של ארנסט סימון, גרשום שלום, מרטין בובר והוגים חשובים נוספים. חלקו הראשון של המאמר מציג את תפיסתו של פרום את מושג הדת ומראה את הקרבה שקיימת בין כהן ובין פרום באשר למקורותיה של הדת, למושג האל וליחסים שבין דת למוסר. על השפעתו של כהן על מחשבתו מצהיר פרום כבר בכתביו המוקדמים כמו גם בעבודותיו המאוחרות. הצגתו של כהן את היהדות כמונותיאיזם מוסרי אשר הביא לאנושות את האל האחד ואת החזון המשיחי של אחדות האנושות כפי שהוא מתואר על ידי הנביאים, נוכחת בעבודותיו של פרום ומהדהדת בדיוניו על הנצרות, האלילות וביקורת החברה והתרבות. חלקו השני של המאמר עוסק בדמיון ובשוני שבין פרום לרוזנצווייג על בסיס ניתוח הקשר שבין אוריינטציה, התגלות ואלילות. כבר במחציתה הראשונה של המאה העשרים העלו רוזנצווייג ופרום את האפשרות כי יש להתייחס לפולחן האלילי כבעיית אוריינטציה הרלוונטית לעת המודרנית. מחקר זה משווה בין גישתם וטוען כי לשיטתם, חרף ההבדלים בהבנתם את מושג האל, ישנו קשר משמעותי בין אלילות לבין ניכור. חלקו האחרון של המאמר מציע דיון פנומנולוגי-השוואתי וביקורתי בין ההתגלות לפי רוזנצווייג לבין חוויה-X לפי פרום. הן ההתגלות והן חוויה-X מהווים אירוע משמעותי בחייו של האדם שבו העצמיות נפתחת מסגירותה ומתוודעת אל האפשרות הטרנסצנדנטית. בשני המקרים, מדובר בחוויה מכוננת בה העצמיות משתחררת מכבליה האליליים של האנוכיות והלאומיות הנרקיסיסטית, ופונה אל המציאות כפי שהיא מתוך מבע של תבונה ואהבה.
![Research paper thumbnail of Between the Jordan River and the Ganges: On Karma and the Biblical Principle Measure For Measure: A Discussion on the Premises of a Comparative Theological Encounter [Heb.]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/68190485/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DAAT: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah, 2017
This article invites an encounter between the Near and the Far East.
The study phenomenologically... more This article invites an encounter between the Near and the Far East.
The study phenomenologically analyzes two differing approaches to the notion of “cosmic justice.” Both approaches, “measure for measure” / the
Biblical principle of reward and punishment and the karma principle
in ancient Hindu literature (as represented in the Bhagavad Gita and
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali), express the human need and desire to achieve
a wider understanding of man’s place in the world. They both illustrate
that there is an essential connection between what happens in man’s life
and his previous actions. The aim of this study is not to combine the approaches, but to present their similarities and differences, based on their meanings within the contextual and cultural moment in which they appear. Key questions discussed in this research are:
1. What are the similarities and differences between Karma and the
principle of “measure for measure,” given the situation of man in the
world, human relationships, and the relationship between man and God?
2. To what extent is it possible to clarify the differences between the
two approaches on the basis of their conceptual backgrounds?
Jacob’s story in Genesis (chapters 25-50) serves as a textual point of
departure for this comparative theological research. The study concludes
that the different approaches share an essential ethical connection based
upon events of the past, present and future. Both imply an educational
lesson, teaching that the individual is responsible for the consequences
of his actions. The Hindu-Yogic approach offers a way to release theindividual from the shackles of karma and the cycle of birth and death.
In contrast, the Biblical approach, the principle of “measure for measure,”
does not involve the afterlife, hence punishments and rewards are limited
to one’s lifetime, even when it spans generations. Furthermore, the
Biblical “measure for measure” is not considered a general commandment
given by Revelation, but rather can be learned through the semantic
language of the Bible and its particular narratives.
kesher-ayen: The Teachers’ Association Journal 249, 2015
kesher-ayen: The Teachers’ Association Journal, 247, 2015
Encyclopedic entries by Ronen Pinkas
Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations (EJCR), W. Homolka, K. Ehrensperger, R. Kampling, A. Levine, C. Markschies, P. Schäfer & M. Thurner (eds.), Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021
Table of Contents: Etymology, Hebrew Bible, Mishnah and Talmud, Middle Ages, In Modern Times.
Bo... more Table of Contents: Etymology, Hebrew Bible, Mishnah and Talmud, Middle Ages, In Modern Times.
Both Judaism and Christianity were shaped, in part, by their common criticism of idolatry and their intra-monotheist polemic. For both, idols and idolatry are terms connected to the theological critique of what are considered signs of forsaking God or false forms of worship. Although the rejection of idolatry has remained constant in both religions from their origins to today, the scope of what constitutes idolatry and how it is to be treated have changed in a variety of ways. Idolatry is a fluid category that appears in different contexts and has various uses. What constitutes idolatry depends, to a great extent, on who has the authority to determine what idolatrous behavior is. Different ideas of God lead to different ideas of idolatry (Halbertal and Margalit 1992; Phua 2005). In Judaism, discussions about the subject of idolatry are found in theological and philosophical debates about the Christian faith, as well as about art and the use of images in worship. Some Jewish theologians perceived the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ as a polytheistic deviation from monotheism and the depiction of Christ as a violation of the ban on images (e.g., Yehuda Henkin, Responsa Bnei Banim 3:35, 1998). In contrast, medieval Jewish theologians used the Christian affirmation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and Christian adherence to the Old Testament to argue in favor of perceiving Christianity as a legitimate non-idolatrous religion. In Christianity, the only true and living God is the Christian God. Some Christians hold that by rejecting the Gospel, Jews do not worship the true God and remain at the level of having a fundamentally impersonal God. In this view, the interpersonal communion revealed through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit modifies the doctrine of God so that Jewish worship barely seems to rise above the level of the pagan philosophers. Perhaps the most extreme formulation of this approach was embraced by Marcion who was excommunicated by the church in the 2nd cent. He viewed Israel’s tradition as identical to Demiurge worship, which puts it in the same category as any other pagan religion. However, the existence of Judaism and Jewish tradition and the struggle with the pagan (a term that refers to non-monotheistic views) world did not threaten early Christianity in developing as a universal religion. Generally, there is no indication that Christians accused Jews of idolatrous worship, not even in periods when the Talmud was thought to have encouraged anti-Christian sentiments (see Kogman-Appel 2009).
Lexikon für Kirchen- und Religionsrecht (LKRR). Band 4. Herausgeber: Heribert Hallermann, Thomas Meckel, Michael Droege, Heinrich de Wall. Paderborn, Brill, Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021
Das Schlachten von Vieh in der Bibel u. in den versch. Halachischen Traditionen: Die primäre Bede... more Das Schlachten von Vieh in der Bibel u. in den versch. Halachischen Traditionen: Die primäre Bedeutung des Verbs sh-ch-t in der Bibel ist das Töten des Tieres zum Zwecke des Essens, obwohl das Verb in den priesterlichen biblischen Quellen das Töten von Tieren ausschließlich für das Opfer meint (Paran, 1989, 248-250, insb. Fn. 19 auf 249; eine Erkl. für diese Anomalie wird im Folgenden gegeben). Bibelwissenschaftler sind der Meinung, dass die Verwendung des Verbs sh-ch-t im biblischen Sprachgebrauch indirekt zeigt, dass das Schlachten durch das Durchschneiden der Kehle m. einem Messer erfolgte, auch wenn es nirgendwo explizit gesagt wurde (B. E. 1976; zum Titel "shochet" u. seinen Die Halakha hat neben der Bibel (wie in der Mishna u. im Talmud interpretiert) eine weitere gültige Quelle: Die akzeptierte Gewohnheit. Synonymen im Talmud s. Novick, 2017, 127 Fn. 57), wie es in der jüd. u. islam. Tradition auch heute noch für das Schlachten üblich ist. Eine eingehendere Untersuchung zeigt jedoch, dass, auch wenn der Akt des Schlachtens selbst unverändert blieb, die versch. Traditionen zeigen, dass das Schlachten selbst als Fortsetzung des alten biblischen Gesetzes im Wesentlichen auf zwei Arten gesehen wurde: Diejenigen, die jede Verbindung zwischen dem zeitgenössischen u. dem antiken Schlachten missachteten, u. diejenigen, die die Beziehung dazu aufrechterhielten. Der Bezug zum biblischen Schlachten manifestiert sich in Anweisungen, die sich auf die biblische Vorstellung beziehen, den Verzehr von Viehfleisch an das Tempelopfer zu binden. Das Gesetz in der priesterlichen Quelle verlangt, dass derjenige, der beabsichtigt, ein Rind, Schaf od. eine Ziege zu schlachten, es als Friedensopfer (zevah shelamim) in den Tempel bringen soll, u. erst nachdem sein Teil, der Gott gehört, genommen wurde, darf die Person von seinem Fleisch essen (vgl. Lev 17, 3-4; wie für andere Texte in Bezug auf die Lit. des Priestertums [P] u. die Heiligkeitsquellen [H] s. Schwarz, 1999, 78-91). Diese Auffassung geht davon aus, dass Rinder, Schafe u. Ziegen "Brot Gottes" sind u. das Volk Israel nur dann von ihrem Fleisch essen soll, wenn sie "mit ihm speisen" (Schwarz, 1999, 77 u. Fn. 31; nach Mischna Zevahim 5:7 wurde bei der Opferung eines Friedensopfers das Blut weggeworfen u. die Emurim, d. h. die auf dem Altar dargebrachten Opferanteile, also das Fett, die Nieren u. einige andere Teile, auf dem Altar verbrannt, während dem Priester die Brust u. das Schienbein gegeben wurden. Nur das restliche Fleisch durfte gegessen werden, u. zwar nur innerhalb der Grenzen von Jerusalem innerhalb einer Frist von zwei Tagen u. der dazwischenliegenden Nacht). Ein weiteres Element, das in den priesterlichen biblischen Quellen dominiert, ist m. Schächten-Jüdisch-Slaughtering-שחיטה Published in: LKRR (Scroll down to the English and Hebrew version) 2 dem Blut verknüpft. Lev (vgl. Lev 17, 4) zeigt große Sensibilität für das vergossene Blut des geschlachteten Tieres u. stellt fest, dass für dieses Blut Sühne gefordert wird u. es daher nicht erlaubt ist, das Vieh zu schlachten, o. es zu einem Friedensopfer am Altar zu bringen, um die Tat zu sühnen (vgl. Werman, 2015, 10-11 über die diesbezüglichen Warnungen an den Schlachter). Auf der anderen Seite der Ansatz in Dtn, der zwar zustimmt, dass während der Wanderung Israels durch die Wüste jegliches Schlachten nur zum Opfer diente; dennoch ist seit ihrem Einzug in das Land Israel das säkulare Schlachten erlaubt, d. h. das Schlachten zum alleinigen Zweck des Verzehrs des Fleisches (vgl. Schwarz, 1999, 91-94). Die rabb. Tradition hat jegliche Verbindung zu den Tempelopfern vollständig gelöst, sei es, weil ihre Tradition den Verlauf des Dtn fortsetzte od. weil sie verstanden, dass nach der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels sogar diejenigen, die vielleicht die Verbindungen zu den Tempelritualen bewahrt hatten, zugeben mussten, dass diese nun nicht mehr gültig sind. In einigen anderen alten halachischen Systemen sind jedoch Zeichen für die Beziehung zum Verbot des Schlachtens von Vieh außerhalb des Tempels erhalten geblieben, od. zumindest können wir sagen, dass diese Traditionen eine gewisse Verbindung zwischen dem säkularen Schlachten u. den Tempelritualen bewahrten. Erlaubnis, das Fleisch nach dem Schlachten zu essen: Nach der rabb. Halacha erlaubt das Schlachten das Essen aller Tierorgane, m. Ausnahme des Ischiasnervs (verlagerte Sehne; Gid hanashe), u. erlaubt sogar das Essen eines ganzen Fötus (von den rabb. Weisen "ben pekuah" genannt), der sich im Mutterleib des Tieres befindet, o. dass er speziell geschlachtet werden muss (Mischna Chulin 4:1). Die anderen halachischen Systeme waren jedoch anderer Meinung. In der Tempelschriftrolle aus Qumran steht geschrieben, dass es verboten ist, ein schwangeres Tier zu schlachten, u. offensichtlich verbietet das Schlachten der Mutter nicht, den Fötus zu essen (
Lexikon für Kirchen- und Religionsrecht (LKRR). Band 4. Herausgeber: Heribert Hallermann, Thomas Meckel, Michael Droege, Heinrich de Wall. Paderborn, Brill, Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021
Über den allg. Charakter der Bestrafung im jüd. Recht: Die Bestrafung im jüd. Recht scheint auf d... more Über den allg. Charakter der Bestrafung im jüd. Recht: Die Bestrafung im jüd. Recht scheint auf den ersten Blick jener der säkularen Rechtssysteme zu ähneln, doch bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich, dass dieses Strafsystem Ähnlichkeit m. den Zwangsmitteln religiöser u. sozialer Normen aufweist. Die Tatsache, dass die göttliche S. eingängiges Konzept in diesem System ist u. dass einige Schlüsselelemente dieses Systems darauf beruhen, dass der Sünder aus Furcht vor "göttlicher Gerechtigkeit" vorsichtig bei der Begehung der Straftat sein sollte, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass dieses System nicht wie das normale Zivilrecht funktioniert, obwohl es, wie bereits erwähnt, in der Tat in weiten Teilen ähnlich zu sein scheint (Blidstein, 2003, 33-34). Ein prominentes Bsp. für diese Behauptung findet sich in der S. der Exzision (Karet), die in der hebräischen Bibel mehrfach erwähnt wird (z. B. in Lev 7, 27: "ausgerottet werden soll jener aus seinem Volke".). Diese Bestrafung bezieht sich trotz ihrer Zweideutigkeit wahrscheinlich auf eine Bestrafung gem. "göttlicher Gerechtigkeit" (zumindest so, wie sie in der rabb. Li. verstanden wurde; für eine neuere Überprüfung der Quellen u. Forschungshypothesen bzgl. der Art dieser Bestrafung, s. Weiss, 2015, 80-83; Hezser, 2014, 212-214). So wird z. B. nach der Halacha die Nichtbeachtung des Verbots ehelicher Beziehungen während der Menstruation der Frau (u. einige Tage danach) von Gottes Hand m. Karet geahndet. Dies ist ein guter Hinweis darauf, dass das Verbot, trotz der damit verbundenen intensiven sexuellen Versuchung, über viele Generationen hinweg o. Überwachung u. Androhung menschlicher Bestrafung, sondern nur unter Androhung göttlicher S. befolgt wurde (Blidstein, 2003, 33-34). Darüber hinaus verliehen die rabb. Weisen der Bestrafung durch göttliche Gerechtigkeit Vorrang. Sie reduzierten die Strafgewalt der menschlichen Vollzugsbehörden, die durch die Bibel selbst gegeben ist. Dabei greifen zwei grundlegende Tatsachen ineinander: Die Tatsache, dass die Juden während der rabb. Zeit der politischen Unabhängigkeit beraubt waren u. deshalb in zentralen Bereichen nicht die Kraft zur Bestrafung aufbringen konnten (z. B. die Todesstrafe, s. u.), und dies i.V. m. der unabhängigen Tendenz der rabb. Weisen selbst, grausame S., die in der Vergangenheit angewandt od. in der Bibel selbst erwähnt wurden, zu reduzieren (zur Todesstrafe kann klar gesagt werden, dass die rabb. Weisen sie als eine schwere S. ansahen, die das Bild Gottesentehrt; s. z. B. Mischna, Makkot 1:10; u. s. Lorberbaum, 2004, 285-345). Infolgedessen übertrugen sie die Kraft der Todesstrafe in Gottes Hände (z. B. Babylonischer Talmud, Ketubot 30a-30b).
Uploads
Papers by Ronen Pinkas
This study presents some key ideas from his dissertation, including his position on religious dogma, particularly concerning the Karaite sect, a subject that he later taught as a lecturer at the Lehrhaus. Fromm's dissertation expresses his preoccupation with his Jewish identity and his examination of the complex theopolitical reality in which the Jews of Germany found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, including the debates between Orthodox Jews and reformers, and between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This article supports the claim that Fromm's position that religious factors play a central role in the historical process, which he held throughout his life, was formed in these early years. The article strengthens the scholarly position that Fromm's Jewish background is relevant to understanding his thought in general.
Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In
Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the
biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism
is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The
murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually
contributed to the rational and ethical development of
Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud’s Moses received
extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst,
Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as
on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his
position on Freud’s latest work. This paper offers explanations for
Fromm’s roaring silence on Freud’s Moses.
much thought to the status and treatment of animals and demonstrating strict
adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes
to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers
and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism.
What prevented the expansion of the golden rule: “Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19: 18) and “That which is hateful to you
do not do to another” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 31a: 6; Jerusalem Talmud,
Nedarim, 30b: 1) on to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the
fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to
a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken
from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his
ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas' ethics
explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: the 'I' is
committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the
affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and
animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?
This paper examines attitudes to animals in Jewish thought. The article
opens with a discussion of man's special status in Creation, as created in the
image of God, and explores, on the one hand, the challenges of this approach
(human supremacy), and, on the other, its inherent potential (human moral
responsibility). The short discussion on the attitudes toward animals in the
Hebrew Bible teaches that moral responsibility does not derive from the special
status awarded to humans in Creation, but rather is rooted in God’s own
relationship to animals. The heart of the article is devoted to discussing the
treatment of animals in Jewish law, how biblical laws that deal with animals
were understood among halakhic thinkers, and, especially, the meaning of
the ancient term “the suffering of living creatures” (tza’ar ba’alei chayim). The
basic premise is that halakhic discourse can provide fertile ground for a philosophical-
religious discourse on animals.
תקציר בעברית
אריך פנחס פרום (1980-1900) הוא ככול הנראה אחד ההוגים החשובים והמשפיעים ביותר של המאה העשרים. השפעתו הנרחבת ניכרת בתחומים רבים של מדעי החברה, הפסיכואנליזה וחקר האישיות, המדעים ההומניסטיים, חינוך, ביקורת התרבות והדת, מקרא, תיאולוגיה השוואתית, מיסטיקה וזן בודהיזם. מאמר זה מציג את יחסו של פרום לדת, למקורות הדת וליהדות לאור הגותם של הרמן כהן ופרנץ רוזנצווייג. במבוא מוצגים בקצרה הקשרים הביוגרפיים והרעיוניים שבין ההוגים. פרום נפגש עם רעיונותיו של כהן בתחילת דרכו האינטלקטואלית כאשר היה חבר במעגל התלמידים של הרב נחמיה אנטון נובל בשנים 1921-1916, ואף לקח חלק פעיל בהתהוותו של בית המדרש היהודי החופשי בפרנקפורט. בשנת 1923 לימד פרום בבית המדרש, שהיה אז תחת ניהולו של רוזנצווייג, לצדם של ארנסט סימון, גרשום שלום, מרטין בובר והוגים חשובים נוספים. חלקו הראשון של המאמר מציג את תפיסתו של פרום את מושג הדת ומראה את הקרבה שקיימת בין כהן ובין פרום באשר למקורותיה של הדת, למושג האל וליחסים שבין דת למוסר. על השפעתו של כהן על מחשבתו מצהיר פרום כבר בכתביו המוקדמים כמו גם בעבודותיו המאוחרות. הצגתו של כהן את היהדות כמונותיאיזם מוסרי אשר הביא לאנושות את האל האחד ואת החזון המשיחי של אחדות האנושות כפי שהוא מתואר על ידי הנביאים, נוכחת בעבודותיו של פרום ומהדהדת בדיוניו על הנצרות, האלילות וביקורת החברה והתרבות. חלקו השני של המאמר עוסק בדמיון ובשוני שבין פרום לרוזנצווייג על בסיס ניתוח הקשר שבין אוריינטציה, התגלות ואלילות. כבר במחציתה הראשונה של המאה העשרים העלו רוזנצווייג ופרום את האפשרות כי יש להתייחס לפולחן האלילי כבעיית אוריינטציה הרלוונטית לעת המודרנית. מחקר זה משווה בין גישתם וטוען כי לשיטתם, חרף ההבדלים בהבנתם את מושג האל, ישנו קשר משמעותי בין אלילות לבין ניכור. חלקו האחרון של המאמר מציע דיון פנומנולוגי-השוואתי וביקורתי בין ההתגלות לפי רוזנצווייג לבין חוויה-X לפי פרום. הן ההתגלות והן חוויה-X מהווים אירוע משמעותי בחייו של האדם שבו העצמיות נפתחת מסגירותה ומתוודעת אל האפשרות הטרנסצנדנטית. בשני המקרים, מדובר בחוויה מכוננת בה העצמיות משתחררת מכבליה האליליים של האנוכיות והלאומיות הנרקיסיסטית, ופונה אל המציאות כפי שהיא מתוך מבע של תבונה ואהבה.
The study phenomenologically analyzes two differing approaches to the notion of “cosmic justice.” Both approaches, “measure for measure” / the
Biblical principle of reward and punishment and the karma principle
in ancient Hindu literature (as represented in the Bhagavad Gita and
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali), express the human need and desire to achieve
a wider understanding of man’s place in the world. They both illustrate
that there is an essential connection between what happens in man’s life
and his previous actions. The aim of this study is not to combine the approaches, but to present their similarities and differences, based on their meanings within the contextual and cultural moment in which they appear. Key questions discussed in this research are:
1. What are the similarities and differences between Karma and the
principle of “measure for measure,” given the situation of man in the
world, human relationships, and the relationship between man and God?
2. To what extent is it possible to clarify the differences between the
two approaches on the basis of their conceptual backgrounds?
Jacob’s story in Genesis (chapters 25-50) serves as a textual point of
departure for this comparative theological research. The study concludes
that the different approaches share an essential ethical connection based
upon events of the past, present and future. Both imply an educational
lesson, teaching that the individual is responsible for the consequences
of his actions. The Hindu-Yogic approach offers a way to release theindividual from the shackles of karma and the cycle of birth and death.
In contrast, the Biblical approach, the principle of “measure for measure,”
does not involve the afterlife, hence punishments and rewards are limited
to one’s lifetime, even when it spans generations. Furthermore, the
Biblical “measure for measure” is not considered a general commandment
given by Revelation, but rather can be learned through the semantic
language of the Bible and its particular narratives.
Encyclopedic entries by Ronen Pinkas
Both Judaism and Christianity were shaped, in part, by their common criticism of idolatry and their intra-monotheist polemic. For both, idols and idolatry are terms connected to the theological critique of what are considered signs of forsaking God or false forms of worship. Although the rejection of idolatry has remained constant in both religions from their origins to today, the scope of what constitutes idolatry and how it is to be treated have changed in a variety of ways. Idolatry is a fluid category that appears in different contexts and has various uses. What constitutes idolatry depends, to a great extent, on who has the authority to determine what idolatrous behavior is. Different ideas of God lead to different ideas of idolatry (Halbertal and Margalit 1992; Phua 2005). In Judaism, discussions about the subject of idolatry are found in theological and philosophical debates about the Christian faith, as well as about art and the use of images in worship. Some Jewish theologians perceived the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ as a polytheistic deviation from monotheism and the depiction of Christ as a violation of the ban on images (e.g., Yehuda Henkin, Responsa Bnei Banim 3:35, 1998). In contrast, medieval Jewish theologians used the Christian affirmation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and Christian adherence to the Old Testament to argue in favor of perceiving Christianity as a legitimate non-idolatrous religion. In Christianity, the only true and living God is the Christian God. Some Christians hold that by rejecting the Gospel, Jews do not worship the true God and remain at the level of having a fundamentally impersonal God. In this view, the interpersonal communion revealed through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit modifies the doctrine of God so that Jewish worship barely seems to rise above the level of the pagan philosophers. Perhaps the most extreme formulation of this approach was embraced by Marcion who was excommunicated by the church in the 2nd cent. He viewed Israel’s tradition as identical to Demiurge worship, which puts it in the same category as any other pagan religion. However, the existence of Judaism and Jewish tradition and the struggle with the pagan (a term that refers to non-monotheistic views) world did not threaten early Christianity in developing as a universal religion. Generally, there is no indication that Christians accused Jews of idolatrous worship, not even in periods when the Talmud was thought to have encouraged anti-Christian sentiments (see Kogman-Appel 2009).