THE TIKVAH SCHOLAR FORUM SERIES: CRITICAL READINGS IN LAW AND JEWISH CIVILIZATION Center Directors Moshe Halbertal

and Joseph Weiler lead a forum series on the theme that reflect upon the Mission Statement of the Center, with 5 sessions each semester, to teach the Scholars how to think, question, differentiate, internalize, and communicate complex issues pertaining to Law & Jewish Civilization. The Forum thus provides essential, heuristic tools for the Scholars to become and serve as responsible, independent thinkers at the forefront of each academic field as well as in the general public setting. The principal texts and discussions will always be in English. (Sample texts include: Biblical and Rabbinic Literature, Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Mendelssohns Jerusalem, The Declaration of the Independence of Israel, and recent proposals for a Constitution of the State of Israel).

Fall 2010: Judaism and Constitution Spring 2011: Judaism as Constitution Fall 2011: "Intersection between Legal and Jewish Hermeneutics Spring 2012: Religious Law and the Challenge of Science and Contemporary Mores Fall 2012: "Reconsidering the Private and Public Spheres in Law & Jewish Civilization

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM

First Semester (Fall 2010): Judaism and Constitution: Sessions 14 Session 1: Israel as a Jewish & Democratic State: An Oxymoron? Session 2: Israel as a Jewish & Democratic State: Collective Identity and Private Liberty Session 3: Mendelssohns JerusalemBetween the Voluntarism and the Existence of Community Session 4: The JFS CasePublic Education, Discrimination, and Freedom of Religion

Second Semester (Spring 2011): Judaism as Constitution: Sessions 58 Session 5: Maimonidess Introduction to The Mishneh TorahCodification and Law Session 6: Deuteronomy 13:16: Law and ImmutabilityTorah as Constitution Session 7: Deuteronomy 13:16: A Constitution without a Revision Clause Session 8: MaimonidesLaw, Prophecy, and Authority

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 1 ISRAEL AS A JEWISH & DEMOCRATIC STATE: AN OXYMORON? During this first session, we will discuss the issues of the Identity of the State and Religion and State as reflected in the provisions of three recent proposals for a Constitution of the State of Israel. Discussion Materials: Three recent proposals for a Constitution of the State of Israel (1) One drafted by Adalah: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel: Eng: http://www.adalah.org/eng/democratic_constitution-e.pdf Heb: http://www.adalah.org/heb/democratic_constitution-h.pdf (2) One by the Israel Democracy Institute: Eng: http://www.idi.org.il/sites/english/ResearchAndPrograms/ConsititionalLaw/ Documents/Hooka_Excerpts.pdf.pdf Heb: http://www.knesset.gov.il/committees/heb/material/data/H13-122005_9-49-48_sefer.pdf (3) One by the Institute for Zionist Strategies: Eng: http://www.izs.org.il/userfiles/izs/file/Constitution.pdf Heb: http://izs.org.il/userfiles/izs/02%02%02%02%02% .pdf

Preparation Guide: In preparation for this forum session, read the sections in those three draft constitutions: Adalahread a Word from the Chairman (by Marwan Dwairy), the Introduction, and Provisions 2, 1521, 29, 40; Israel Democracy Instituteread the Introduction (by Meir Shamgar), Declaration of Independence, and Provisions 113, 22; Institute for Zionist Strategiesread the Preface (by Abraham Diskin), Preamble, and Provisions 15, 8, 2131, 43, 73. And be ready to discuss the following questions: What are the implications of the different formulas suggested in the three constitutions? Identify the differences, and the consequences that flow from each variant. Which, in your view, would be the most desirable? The least desirable? And why so? Do you have your own proposal?

Do you have a principle position on the legitimacy of making Judaismor Jewishnessofficially part of the constitutional identity of the state? Are you willing to defend such?

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 2 ISRAEL AS A JEWISH & DEMOCRATIC STATE: COLLECTIVE IDENTITY AND PRIVATE LIBERTY

During this second session, we will continue discussing the issues of the Identity of the State and Religion and State as raised by three recent proposals for a Constitution of the State of Israel. Discussion Materials: Three recent proposals for a Constitution of the State of Israel (1) One drafted by Adalah: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel: Eng: http://www.adalah.org/eng/democratic_constitution-e.pdf Heb: http://www.adalah.org/heb/democratic_constitution-h.pdf (2) One by the Israel Democracy Institute: Eng: http://www.idi.org.il/sites/english/ResearchAndPrograms/ConsititionalLaw/ Documents/Hooka_Excerpts.pdf.pdf Heb: http://www.knesset.gov.il/committees/heb/material/data/H13-122005_9-49-48_sefer.pdf (3) One by the Institute for Zionist Strategies: Eng: http://www.izs.org.il/userfiles/izs/file/Constitution.pdf Heb: http://izs.org.il/userfiles/izs/02%02%02%02%02% .pdf

Preparation Guide: See the Preparation Guide for the previous session.

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 3 MENDELSSOHNS JERUSALEM BETWEEN THE VOLUNTARISM AND THE EXISTENCE OF COMMUNITY

During this third session, we will discuss Moses Mendelssohns Jerusalem, especially the issues that are relevant to our overall theme of Law and Jewish Civilization, such as religious tolerance, the freedom of conscience, and the scope of protection against government interference as addressed in the book. Discussion Material: Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism (trans. Allan Arkush; Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1983)

Preparation Guide: In preparation for the forum, please do the following: Be ready to explain how Mendelssohn understands the ideal relationship between religion and state. How do you see Mendelssohns Judaism? Do you see it as a continuation or rather as a break from historical Judaism? Be ready to justify your stance. Choose "four" passages from Mendelssohns Jerusalem (two from the first part and two from the second) that seem relevant to our overall theme of Law and Jewish Civilization (such as religious tolerance, the freedom of conscience, and the scope of protection against government interference) and thus worth discussing during the forum.

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 4 THE JFS CASE PUBLIC EDUCATION, DISCRIMINATION, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION During this fourth session, we will discuss the JFS Case and the decision of the House of Lords. Discussion Material: The Judgment of the House of Lords (16 December 2009) http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0105_judgmentV2.pdf

Preparation Guide: As you read the judgment: Identify and be ready to discuss the issues that are relevant to our overall theme of Law and Jewish Civilization (e.g., the issue of religion and state, the notion of membership, equality, etc.). Be ready to explain whether or not you agree with the judgment and why. In light of this case, what political model, in your view, would be the most desirable for a liberal democratic state that seeks to be respectful of the cultural and religious identity of each citizen? How much, in your view, should the autonomy and identity of each citizen, as well as of each religious group, be recognized and respected? How would you establish a category or principle, by which the State can allow such autonomy? How much should the State get involved in religious education? Should the State fund religious schools as it does in Israel or refuse to fund them as it does in the United States? Make the case for and against.

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 5 MAIMONIDESS INTRODUCTION TO THE MISHNEH TORAH CODIFICATION AND LAW For the next forum session, please study the following materials. Discussion Materials: Maimonidess Introduction to The Mishneh Torah; The Letter to R. Pinhas the Judge; The Letter to Yoseph [Maimonides' student], Moshe Halbertal, "What Is the Mishneh Torah? On Codification and Ambivalence," in Maimonides After 800 Years: Essays on Maimonides and His Influence (ed. Jay M. Harris; Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 2007), 81111.

Preparation Guide: As you read these materials, please consider and be ready to discuss the following questions: (1) What is particular about the way in which Maimonides constructs the history of halakhah? What is the relationship between halakhah and its history as Maimonides understands it? In what way is the particular form of the history of halakhah described by Maimonides tied to his project? (2) What is the Mishneh Torah? What is the fundamental legal theory of Maimonides in relation to his project?

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 6 DEUTERONOMY 13:16 (ENG.: 12:3213:5): TORAH AS CONSTITUTION

During the next forum session, we will discuss Deuteronomy 13:16 (Eng.: 12:32 13:5), especially the issues that are relevant to our overall theme of Judaism As Constitution, such as the problem of entrenchment, significance of covenant, and identity of the parties as reflected in this passage.

Discussion Materials: Deuteronomy 13:16 (Eng.: 12:3213:5) Miqraoth Gedoloth: Deuteronomy 13:16 Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 90a, Yebamoth 8990

Preparation Guide: In preparation for this forum, please do the following: Read Deuteronomy 13:16 (Eng.: 12:3213:5). What legal and moral issues do you think those verses give rise to? Please also consider the issue of entrenchment, notion of covenant, and identity of the parties as reflected in this passage. Feel free to use the discussion materials.

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 7 DEUTERONOMY 13:16 (ENG.: 12:3213:5): A CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A REVISION CLAUSE

During the next forum session, we will continue our discussion of "Judaism As Constitution," especially the problem of entrenchment, significance of covenant, and identity of the parties as reflected in Deuteronomy 13:1-6 (Eng.: 12:32-13:5).

201011 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 8 MAIMONIDES: LAW, PROPHECY, AND AUTHORITY

During the next forum session, we will continue our discussion of Judaism as Constitution, this time, in light of Maimonides' notion of law and prophecy.

Discussion Material: Chapters 7-9 of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah in The Mishneh Torah.

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM

First Semester (Fall 2011): "Intersection between Legal and Jewish Hermeneutics Session 1: LAW, VALUES, AND INTERPRETATION:You shall cut off her hand (Deut 25:11): Philo, Midrash Tannaim, and Sifre Deuteronomy Session 2: AUTHORITY, CONTROVERSY, AND TRADITION I: Homosexuality and Judaism Session 3: AUTHORITY, CONTROVERSY, AND TRADITION II: Abortion and Scriptural Hermeneutics Session 4: REVELATION, TEXT, AND INTERPRETATION:Maimonides and Spinoza Session 5: INTERPRETATION, LAW, AND CULTURE: Gadamer and Legal Hermeneutics Session 6: INTERPRETATION, LAW, AND MYSTICISM: Scriptural Hermeneutics and Zoharic Literature

Second Semester (Spring 2012): Religious Law and the Challenge of Science and Contemporary Mores

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 1 LAW, VALUES, AND INTERPRETATION:You shall cut off her hand (Deut 25:11): Philo, Midrash Tannaim, and Sifre Deuteronomy During this session, we will discuss Deuteronomy 25:1112 (a biblical law of improper intervention in a fight) and some of the Jewish interpretations of this passage, thereby exploring the general complexity inherent in the relationships between law, values, and interpretation. Preparation Guide: In preparation for the first forum session (Sep. 19, 2011), please do the following (the discussion materials are attached to this message): 1. Please study the law in Deuteronomy 25:1112 with J. Tigays JPS Commentary to Deuteronomy (the excursus is optional). 2. Please read the following texts: (a) Philo, On the Special Laws III: 169-175 (Yonges English translation, pp. 61112) (b) Sifre Deuteronomy, Pisqa 292 and Pisqa 293 (Finkelsteins edition, pp. 31112 [in Hebrew+; Neusners translation, pp. 25759 [in English]) (c) Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy 25:1112 (Hoffmanns edition, pp. 16869 [in Hebrew]; the attached English translation is for internal use only--I thank David Flatto and Lynn Kaye for proofreading it) 3. Please be ready to discuss the following questions: How does each text interpret the law in Deuteronomy, and why? What are the underlying interpretive assumptions and normative considerations of each text? How do you explain the differences among their interpretations? Through considering these and other questions, we will explore if and how the study of Jewish law can provide illuminating perspectives on the general study of law, and vice versa.

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 2 AUTHORITY, CONTROVERSY, AND TRADITION I: Homosexuality and Judaism During this session, we will discuss Rabbi Gordon Tuckers 2006 responsum, entitled Halakhic and Metahalakhic Arguments Concerning Judaism And Homosexuality.

PREPARATION GUIDE: In preparation for the upcoming session (10/3/2011), please review the following: Read Gordon Tuckers 2006 responsum.Consider the interpretive approach developed in this responsum to resolve a conflict between the authoritative text, on the one hand, and the contemporary normative values, on the other. What are the interpretive steps and techniques the author takes in order to overcome the given conflict? How do you conceptualize, and also assess, his overall hermeneutic method?

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 3 AUTHORITY, CONTROVERSY, AND TRADITION II: Abortion and Scriptural Hermeneutics

During the next session, we will discuss "Abortion and Scriptural Hermeneutics.

PREPARATION GUIDE: In preparation for the upcoming session (10/17/2011), please review the following: 1. Exodus 21:2223; Mishna Oholot 7:6; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 57b; Maimonides, MT, Rozeah U-Shemirat Ha-Nefesh 1:9; Tosafot, Sanhedrin 59a, s.v. LekaAll these materials are included in Jewish Law (Mishpat Ivri): Cases and Materials (eds. M. Elon et al.; Lexisnexis, 1991), 60910 [attached "discussion materials"]; 2. Rav Lichtensteins article Abortion: A Halakhic Perspective (This is a very accessible and concise pieceit may be worthwhile reading this first) [attached "discussion materials"]; 3. Moses Feinstein vs. Eliezer Waldenberg, in Jewish Law (Mishpat Ivri): Cases and Materials (eds. M. Elon et al.; Lexisnexis, 1991), 61020 [attached "discussion materials"]; if you read Hebrew, please read Eliezer Waldenberg Responsa (XIII, #102; XIV #100) and Ben-Zion Uziels Responsum (IV, 46) *attached "ziz eliezers . . ."+; 4. Ratzingers 1991 Report on the Issue of Abortion *attached "discussion materials"+ As an optional reading, please find attached: J. David Bleich, Abortion and Jewish Law *attached "j david bleich . . ."+ Please be ready to discuss the following questions: - How does each of them (i.e., Lichtenstein, Feinstein, Waldenberg, and Ratzinger) structure the argument? - How do you conceptualize the hermeneutic framework and normative horizon of each approach? What is, for each approach, the hermeneutic and normative boundary beyond which its interpretive community may consider a given opinion illegitimate? - How do you describe the interpretive obligations reflected in each approach? How do you conceptualize the driving force behind each interpretive approach? What is the telos, method, and result of each approach?

- How do you describe the differences among the various opinions within Halakhic literature?

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 4: REVELATION, TEXT, AND INTERPRETATION:Maimonides and Spinoza During the next session, we will discuss the hermeneutic differences between Maimonides and Spinoza.

Preparation Guide Please read: - Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed II 25 - Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, chapter 7

Please be ready to discuss the following questions: - What is the theoretical framework and hermeneutic method through which Maimonides and Spinoza think one must interpret the Bible, and why? - On what hermeneutic issues do they disagree with each other, and why?

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 5: INTERPRETATION, LAW, AND CULTURE: Gadamer and Legal Hermeneutics During the next session, we will explore Gadamers contribution to Legal Hermeneutics.

Preparation Guide: Reading: Hans-Gerog Gadamer, Truth and Method (2nd revised edition, Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall trans., 1993) 265285, 300311, 324341 Guiding Question: How does Gadamers hermeneutics bear on legal hermeneutics and on the problem of judicial discretion?

201112 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 6: INTERPRETATION, LAW, AND MYSTICISM: Scriptural Hermeneutics and Zoharic Literature

We are delighted to have Professor Elliot Wolfson, one of the foremost authorities on Jewish mysticism and philosophy, who will teach Kabbalistic Hermeneutics. The Primary Readings: * texts that we will read together: - Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar (trans. David Goldstein; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), vol. I, pp. 194197; vol. III, pp. 11261127.

The Secondary Readings: * Please read Scholems piece, or Professor Wolfsons, or both. - Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), pp. 3286 - Elliot R. Wolfson, Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 56110

Additional Optional Readings: * The texts below will be on hold in the NYU Law Library. - Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. III, pp. 10771121 - Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), pp. 80136 - Michael Fishbane, The Garments of Torah (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1989), 3346

RELIGIOUS LAW AND THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE AND CONTEMPORARY MORES Spring 2012

Religious Lawnotably Jewish, Islamic, and Christianis assumed to derive its authority from Revelation as reflected in Scripture. For many believers, this sacred authority, which demands compliance and obedience, suppresses all competing normative sources, constitutional or otherwise. In the past two centuries, one of the greatest challenges to this authority comes from critical scholarship of Scripture, whose empirical notion of the text as human artifact challenges the very premise of a sacred book, and undermines any claim of representing the living word of God the ultimate foundation of that authority. This seminar will use Jewish lawmore specifically, the encounter of the Jews with modern Biblical Criticismas a vehicle through which to study the nature of religious law and its challenge by science and contemporary mores. We will first consider the claim of divine authority and next look at the nature of the challenges biblical criticism has posed to the traditional notion of Scripture. We will then explore, paradigmatically, how different scholarssuch as D. Z. Hoffmann, F. Rosenzweig, M. Breuer, D. W. Halivni, T. Ross, and J. Kugelhave tried to resolve this problem for themselves and, if at all, for their audience. Among the questions we will explore in the course are: What are the theoretical framework and hermeneutic method through which each scholar seeks to present an empirically sustainable notion of the Bible as a normative and/or formative canon? What do they identify as the source of its authority and binding nature: Is it its origin (e.g., God)? Its intrinsic merit (e.g., ethical monotheism)? Or its manner of adoption (e.g., consentWe will do and obey Exod 24)? How does each scholar justify such a claim from a modern critical perspective? How, in their view, must the Bible be read and why? How, if at all, do they conceive of this fixed ancient document as a living text, which also respects the basic contemporary values of liberal democracy? Through investigating these and other questions, we will explore if and how the study of religious law can provide illuminating perspectives on the general study of law, and vice versa. Furthermore, as the relationship between State and Religion is central to many pressing contemporary issues, students with either general or specialized interests in this intersection will find the seminar to be of great relevance. No prior knowledge of Biblical Studies, Judaism, or Hebrew is required.

CONTENTS*
*These topics are subject to change The overall structure of the seminar is threefold: Sessions 14 are introductory, viz., they set the general heuristic frameworks of the seminar; Sessions 58 mainly concern themselves with Critical Assessments of Religion in terms of Science (or, religious nomos as discussed within the boundaries of science); Sessions 912 mainly concern themselves with Critical Assessments of Science in terms of Religion (or, science as discussed within the boundaries of religious nomos).
PART I: SETTING THE FRAMEWORKS Session 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION: The WHAT, WHY, and HOW of The Theme What is at Stake? Date: January 19, 2012 Session 2. B. SPINOZA (16321677): A Precursor to Modern Biblical Criticism Revelation, Tradition, Law, Reason, and Interpretation Date: January 26, 2012 Session 3. BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIPThe Challenge: An Overview Date: February 2, 2012 Session 4. A. GEIGER (18101874) AND S.R. HIRSCH (18081888): Two Major Paradigms of HalakhahScience, Tradition, and Nomos Date: February 9, 2012 PART II: RELIGION IN TERMS OF SCIENCE Session 5. D. Z. HOFFMANN (18431921), M. H. SEGAL (18761968) AND U. CASSUTO (18831951): Not That Path Traditional Responses to Wissenschaft Date: February 16, 2012 Session 6. H. COHEN (18421918): Religion of Reason as Reflected in the History of the Textual Formation of the Bible Date: February 23, 2012 Session 7. AHAD HAAM (18561927), Y. KAUFMANN (18891963), J. MILGROM (19232010), M. GREENBERG (1928 2010): The Project of Cultural Recovery Session 11. T. ROSS (1938): Values, Ancient and ModernThe Halakhic System as a Living Organism Date: April 5, 2012 Session 12. J. KUGEL (1945): Faith & ReasonIntegration, Compartmentalization, Reconceptualization Date: April 12, 2012 Session 13. TBA Date: April 19, 2012 Session 14. A SYNTHESIS: Connecting the Dots Date: April 26, 2012 the Hebrew Bible as an Identitarian Bedrock of Modern Jewry Date: March 1, 2012 Session 8. L. JACOBS (19202006) AND D. W. HALIVNI (1927): Community, Truth, and Nothing But The TruthOr the Traditional Approach Restored Date: March 8, 2012 PART III: SCIENCE IN TERMS OF RELIGION Session 9. M. BUBER (18781965) AND F. ROSENZWEIG (18861929): An Eternal Dialogue in the TemporalFrom the Written Law (Gesetz) to the Living Commandment (Gebot) Date: March 22, 2012 Session 10. M. BREUER (19212007): Everything Is in the Hands of Heaven Polyphonic Revelation in Scripture Date: March 29, 2012

PART I: SETTING THE FRAMEWORKS SESSIONS 14 Session 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION: The WHAT, WHY, and HOW of The Theme What is at Stake? Date: January 19, 2012
Judaism stands or falls with its belief in the historic actuality of the Revelation at Sinai. Joseph H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, The Pentateuch, (2d ed.), 402 The Christian faith stands or falls with the truth of the testimony that Christ is risen from the dead. Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, 2:241

In this unit, the students will be introduced to the seminar subject in general and its significance, ramifications, and methodologies in particular. The following subjects may be covered: the importance and the ramifications of the theme of the course to legal and religious studies in general; legal codex and its supporting elements narrative, readership, and authority; a religious text as a normative sourceits authority, validity, and relevance; the major characteristics and nature of religious lawhow it is different from secular law (in terms of their scope, as well as the source of their authority); similarities and differences between constitutional and scriptural jurisprudence (in terms of content and interpretive method); why biblical criticism may be more challenging to Judaism, rather than other religions, including Christianity; the notion of the Torah as the living word of God; the centrality of the notion of the Mosaic Origin of the Torah in normative Judaism (Moses received the Torah from Sinai *Mishnah Avot 1:1+)would it enough to call this notion as a founding myth or not?; the difference between saying God said we have to do X and saying our community (or our ancestors) believed God said we have to do X; the Scripture as a normative and/or formative canon; the Geologyrather than the Historyof Biblical Interpretation (i.e., different hermeneutic paradigms coexist, cf. the Geology of Intl Law).

Session 2. B. SPINOZA (16321677): A Precursor to Modern Biblical Criticism Revelation, Law, Reason, and Interpretation Date: January 26, 2012 . . . there is one prejudice of the Enlightenment that defines its essence: the fundamental prejudice of the Enlightenment is the prejudice against prejudice itself, which denies tradition its power. Gadamer, Method and Truth (1999), 273
. . . Such is the principle which Spinoza represents, so simple in its nature yet so decisive and far-reaching in its consequences; being, or the nature of things, is not to

be understood through the Bible, but the Bible itself is to be understood as a portion of this being, and therefore as subject to its general laws. Bible is not the key to nature but a part of it; it must therefore be considered according to the same rules as hold for any kind of empirical knowledge. Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, 186

Well before the rise of the scientific approach to the Bible, the traditional notion of the Bible as Scripture was called into question. In this unit, we will discuss Spinoza as a precursor to modern biblical criticism and we will examine the interpretive method of the Bible he proposed in his TTP (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670]). The setting of this discussion is the so-called Age of Reason or the Rise of Historical Consciousness. As Gadamer puts it: the real consequence of the Enlightenment is . . . the subjection of all authority to reason (Truth and Method [2d.; 2004], 279). We will consider, inter alia, the ramifications of this consequence as achieved through Spinozas paradigm shiftespecially, vis--vis the binding force of religious authority and traditional norms (cf. sola scriptura). Especially, we will examine Spinozas understanding of the ontology of the Bible, the role of tradition and reason in scriptural interpretation, and the scope and basis of the bindingness of the Bible. As a general framework of the seminar, this discussion will elucidate the overall basic tensions between faith and reason, tradition and science, particularism and universalism, religion and state.

Session 3. BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIPThe Challenge: An Overview Date: February 2, 2012

. . . the Bible is our sole raison detre, and it is just this which the Higher antiSemitism is seeking to destroy, denying all our claims for the past, and leaving us without hope for the future . . . Forget not that we live in an historical age in which everybody must show his credentials form the past. The Bible is our patent of nobility granted to us by the Almighty God, and if we disowned the Bible, leaving it to the tender mercies of a Wellhausen, Stade and Duhm, and other beautiful souls working away at diminishing the nimbus of the Chosen People, the world will disown us. . . . But this intellectual persecution can only be fought by intellectual weapons and unless we make an effort to recover our Bible and to think out our theology for ourselves, we are irrevocably lost from both worlds . . . We have to create a really living, great literature, and do the same for the subjects of theology and the Bible that Europe has done for Jewish history and philosophy. Solomon Schechter, Higher CriticismHigher Anti-Semitism, 38

In this unit, we will discuss major challenges posed by biblical criticism to the canonical notion of the Bible: (1) Spinozas Paradigm Shift (that regards the Bible not as a Scripture but as an Artifact); (2) The Documentary Hypothesis (that challenges the Mosaic-Divine Origin of the Torah); (3) The Christian prejudices inherent in the Documentary Hypothesis (that challenge the Formative Significance of Biblical Religion and Literature in general, and its two central conceptsLaw and Temple in particular); (4) The Babel-Bible Controversy (that challenges the Uniqueness of Biblical Religion); (5) The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (that challenges the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Traditional Methods of Biblical Interpretation); (6) The

Biblical Archeology (that challenges the Historicity of the Bible). These six challenges will be the background (not the thrust) of the seminar. Session 4. A. GEIGER (18101874) AND S.R. HIRSCH (18081888): Two Major Paradigms of HalakhahScience, Tradition, and Nomos Date: February 9, 2012
. . . All I seek to do is to show Judaism in its true nature to those who may be on the verge of leaving it because they feel that Judaism as it is at present cannot satisfy them . . . A. Geiger, Abraham Geiger & Liberal Judaism, 284 . . . Is it so sure that happiness and perfection constitute the goal and objective of mans existence? . . . [in Judaism] we may learn to think differently about the purpose of human existence and the destiny of mankind. . . . Samson R. Hirsch, The Nineteen Letters, letter 2

In this unit, we will explore the differences between two major, contrastive approaches to the relationship between religion, nomos, and modernityi.e., Geigers (reform/ historical) and Hirschs (orthodox/literalist or ahistorical) especially, their views on religious law vis--vis modernity and secularism, the nature and value of their cultural heritage, the authority of the written and oral law (temporal or eternal), and the authentic method of scriptural hermeneutics. In a way, Geiger minimizes the normativity of the Torah, whereas Hirsch seeks to preserve it. As well, the former assumed a historical development of Jewish law in response to changing moral, religious, and cultural values, whereas the latter insisted on retaining what they conceived as the authentic (read: traditional) approach. We will consider them also in light of other contemporary authorities, such as Zachariah Frankel and Mosheh Sofer. This discussion will enable us to construct a heuristic horizon or framework, into which we can map other scholars and thinkers whom we will treat in the future sessions.

PART II: RELIGION IN TERMS OF SCIENCE SESSIONS 58 Session 5. D. Z. HOFFMANN (18431921), M. H. SEGAL (18761968) AND U. CASSUTO (18831951): Not That PathTraditional Responses to Wissenschaft Date: February 16, 2012
. . . Perhaps this presentation will somehow contribute to letting the truth be victorious . . . David Z. Hoffmann, The Main Arguments against the GraftWellhausen Hypothesis, introduction

In this unit, we will examine how David Zvi Hoffmann, M. H. Segal, and U. Cassuto argued against Wellhausen and sought to demonstrate the internal problems in his documentary hypothesis. Hoffmann was one of the first Jewish authorities who sought to thoroughly refute Wellhausens Documentary Hypothesis in writing. He regarded his biblical investigations against biblical criticism as a holy undertaking . . . an obligatory battle to answer decisively these new critics who come as oppressors to violate the holy Torah. Hoffmann is also known for his application of a critical approach to rabbinic literature (insofar as it does not negate the Halakhah), whereby he identified different layers in Mishnah, or what he called the First Mishnah (his approach aroused objections by several rabbis, including S. R. Hirsch). As such, his intellectual integrity is called into question. As for Segal and Cassuto, while both engaged in biblical studies, the former was also a worldly acclaimed Hebraist whereas the latter was a renowned scholar of Dante and also of Canaanite-Ugaritic literature. In this unit, we will consider how they both opposed the Graf-Wellhausen theories and, instead, sought to reaffirm the Bibles literary and artistic excellence. These scholars, especially, Cassuto, can be seen as predecessors of the literary approach to the Bible, e.g., Robert Alters. We will assess the solutions these scholars present to the challenges posed by modern biblical scholarship.

Session 6. H. COHEN (18421918): Religion of Reason as Reflected in the History of the Textual Formation of the Bible Date: February 23, 2012
Modern biblical research damages its own understanding of the ethical meaning of holiness and its connection with the fundamental concepts of monotheism because it cannot refrain from blindly mixing a historical interest in the literary and cultic development of these concepts with the inner connection that permeates them. Therefore its objective understanding is constantly hampered by historical education. Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason, 97

In this unit, we will consider how Hermann Cohenarguably, the most important Jewish philosopher of the 19th centurysought to develop a conception of the Bible, which is empirically accountable from a scientific perspective. Tellingly, he was Wellhausens colleague at the University of Marburg and accepted the latters documentary hypothesis. In Cohens view, the documentary hypothesis faithfully reflects the history and development of the religion of reason. We will assess the solutions Cohen presents toward the challenges posed by modern biblical scholarship to the religious norms of Judaism. Special attention will also be given to Cohens integrative project between faith and reason, ethics and religion, Jewish messianism and German humanism.

Session 7. AHAD HAAM (18561927), Y. KAUFMANN (18891963), J. MILGROM (19232010), M. GREENBERG (19282010): The Project of Cultural Recoverythe Hebrew Bible as an Identitarian Bedrock of Modern Jewry Date: March 1, 2012

. . . my endeavor [was] to be true to the task of the classical Jewish Bible scholar: to enhance the Bible in the eyes of the faith/cultural community by (a) seeking to set forth existential values embodied in biblical narratives, laws and rituals; (b) pointing to the continuities and transformations of the biblical materials in later Jewish creativity. At the same time I have tried to be true to the task of the critical scholar in (a) using historical, linguistic, and comparative methods that seek to understand the Bible in its ancient context; (b) presenting and dealing with material uncongenial to my predilections; (c) reviewing the goals and reflecting on the assumptions underlying the procedures of criticism. Moshe Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, xv

In this unit, we will explore the works of the scholars who approach the Bible as a formative (rather than normative) text, as a foundation text of modern Jewish culture. This group of scholars includes both the religious (Uriel Simon, Jacob Milgrom, Moshe Greenberg, Eliezer Schweid) and the secular (David Ben-Gurion, Yair Zakovitch). Two themes can be discussed: (a) their notion of biblical literature in general and biblical law in particular as reflecting a value system essentially not inconsistent withand perhaps also inspirational tothe contemporary notion of liberal democracy; (b) their theory of the Mosaic Origins of the Torah, which seems least inconsistent with the empirical notion of the Bible. If the class prefers, we can spend one more session on this unit and consider the problems revolving around the historicity of the Bible, which is a major challenge to the formative notion of the Bible. The rise of Jewish historiography since the 19 th century began to question and challenge the essential historicity of the foundation narrative of the Bible (the Patriarchal narrative, the Exodus event, etc.), which gives structure to the normative world of traditional Judaism. How, if at all, can the Bible still be viewed as a formative text? If we decide to dedicate a session on this topic, we will begin with the observation of the heated debate between biblical minimalists and maximalists on the historicity of the Bible and then explore such issues as the following: memory and community, myth and history, nomos and narrative, transparency and education, transparency and authority. This subject is also inherently related to the topic of the next session, the so-called Jacobs Affair(s).

Session 8. L. JACOBS (19202006) AND D. W. HALIVNI (1927): Community, Truth, and Nothing But The TruthOr the Traditional Approach Restored Date: March 8, 2012
Therefore the prudent shall keep silent . . . Amos 5:13

In this unit, we will consider Louis Jacobs and David Weiss Halivni, who both sought to integrate Orthodox Jewish theology with higher biblical criticism (esp. the documentary hypothesis). Their projects yielded diametrically opposite results. Jacobs was a promising candidate for the principalship of Jews College (now, the London School of Jewish Studies) but Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie did not give his approval, because of Jacobs theological stance. This issue soon grew into a stormy controversy, the so-called Jacobs Affair(s). Jacobs eventually left the Orthodox community with hundreds of his like-minded members and established his own congregation as the first leader of Masorati Judaism (Conservative Judaism) in the UK. On the other hand, David Weiss Halivnia worldly acclaimed Talmud scholar also sought to develop an approach that fully accepts the stylistic and substantive maculations in the Pentateuch as well as disparities between Pentateuchal laws and observed Jewish laws, while remaining faithful to the traditional stance of normative Judaism. Unlike Jacobs, Halivnis work is generally regarded highly, even among Modern Orthodoxy. Halivni is also known for his objection to the ordination of women as rabbis in the Conservative Movement, which led him to part from the Conservative community and co-found a new academic institute, the Union of Traditional Judaism. As will be seen, this objection is not unrelated to the hermeneutic and normative boundaries of the approach he represents. In light of this contrastive discussion, we will also explore the complex relationships between truth, community, identity, authority, education, and heresy. We will see if we can thereby establish a category by which to identify the hermeneutic and normative boundaries within which a given interpretive community operates.

PART III: SCIENCE IN TERMS OF RELIGION SESSIONS 912 Session 9. M. BUBER (18781965) AND F. ROSENZWEIG (18861929): An Eternal Dialogue in the TemporalFrom the Written Law (Gesetz) to the Living Commandment (Gebot) Date: March 22, 2012
. . . If Wissenschaft and religion seek to know nothing of each other, but do know of each other, then neither is of much use. There is only one Truth. No honest man can pray to a God whom as a scientific scholar he denies. . . . God made the world that is the object of Wissenschaft . . . God is transcendent to Wissenschaft but also transcendental to it; Wissenschaft does not contain him, but would not exist without him; he is not in it, but it is beneath him.

Franz Rosenzweig, Scripture and Translation (A Letter to Mr. Rosenheim), 26

In this unit, we will consider how Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig responded to modernity in general and sought to renew the concept or religiosity of Judaism in particular. It should be noted that Buber and Rosenzweig were different in their approach to Jewish Law. For Buber, the Bible presents an eternal paradigm of human existence, society, culture, and historyit embodies eternal values. This is a very humanistic approach to the Bible. He rejected, it seems, the normative approach to the Bibleas a foundation or symbol of a legal system (shulhan arukh). Rosenzweig, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of transforming back the written law to the living commandment, to restore the living reality of the divine sovereign in everyday life. We will also consider, inter alia, the ramifications of Rosenzweigs following statement: If Wissenschaft and religion seek to know nothing of each other, but do know of each other, then neither is of much use. There is only one Truth. No honest man can pray to a God whom as a scientific scholar he denies. . . . It is not belief that is opposed to knowledge, but believing knowledge to unbelieving knowledge.

Session 10. M. BREUER (19212007): Everything Is in the Hands of Heaven Polyphonic Revelation in Scripture Date: March 29, 2012
How manifold are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you have made them all.

Psalm 104:24 In this unit, we will consider Mordechai Breuers scriptural hermeneutics and his inclusive and mystic approach that seeks to subsume everythingincluding the secularism in general and the claims of biblical scholarship in particularunder the category of religion. This discussion may also serve as a test case for clarifying the limits of scholarly inquiries into the phenomenology of religious law.

Session 11. T. ROSS (1938): Values, Ancient and ModernThe Halakhic System as a Living Organism Date: April 5, 2012
And in general, this is an important rule in struggle of ideas: we should not immediately feel obligated to refute any idea that comes to contradict something in the Torah, but rather we should build the palace of Torah above it. In so doing we reach a more exalted level, and through this exaltation the ideas are clarified. And thereafter, when we are not pressured by anything, we can confidently also fight on the Torahs behalf.

A. I. Kook, Iggerot Hareayah I, 16364 In this unit, we will consider how Jewish feminists resolve the tensions between the traditional values grounded on Scripture, on the one hand, and contemporary value systems based upon the basic notions of liberal democracy, on the other. Special attention will be given to Ross cumulativist approach to revelation, which claims to be grounded on some trends of rabbinic theology, Kabbalistic texts, and Rav Kooks theological stance.

Session 12. J. KUGEL (1945): How do we read Kugel?Integration, Compartmentalization, Reconceptualization Date: April 12, 2012 In this unit, we will explore James Kugels approach that insists the compartmentalization between the traditional and the empirical notions of the Bible. We will also examine the exchanges between Kugel and Benjamin Sommer on this issue.

Session 13. TBA Date: April 19, 2012

Session 14. A SYNTHESIS: Connecting the Dots Date: April 26, 2012 In this unit, we will integrate the issues and themes we have discussed this semester in order to attain a broader perspective on the overall theme of the seminarviz., Religious Law and the Challenge of Science and Contemporary Mores.

Fall 2012: "Reconsidering the Private and Public Spheres in Law & Jewish Civilization SESSION 1: Private and Public SpaceTaxonomy, Conceptualizations, and the Human Condition SESSION 2: Public and Private Space in the Laws of Shabbat: The Evolution of the Eruv. SESSION 3: TBA SESSION 4: TBA SESSION 5: TBA

201213 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 1: Private and Public SpaceTaxonomy, Conceptualizations, and the Human Condition

During this session, we will discuss Geuss Public Goods, Private Goods (Princeton). Preparation Guide: In preparation for the first forum session (Sep. 20, 2012), please do the following: 1. Please acquire a copy of Raymond Geuss book, Public Goods, Private Goods (Princeton), either from a library or from a bookstore. Its a very short and accessible book. 2. Please be ready to discuss the following questions: How does he conceptualize the distinctions and relations between the private and public spheres and why? What are the advantages, disadvantages, and ramifications of his approach? How may his approach be applied to the field of your own research?

201213 TIKVAH SCHOLARS FORUM, SESSION 2: Public and Private Space in the Laws of Shabbat: The Evolution of the Eruv. This second discussion will revolve around the issue of public and private space in the Laws of Shabbat. Professor Adam Mintz, who is a leading authority on this subject and a Tikvah Fellow of this year, has kindly agreed to present the issue. In preparation for this session, please read the attached documents (see below Guiding Outline). Guiding Outline The prohibition against carrying an object on Shabbat from the private to the public domain and vice versa was codified in Rabbinic literature almost two thousand years ago. We will explore this prohibition in terms of the definition of public and private spaces in rabbinic literature. The readings address the institution of eruv which transformed the public domain into a private domain in order to permit carrying on Shabbat. We will examine the legal and social justifications for the redefinition of public and private spaces regarding the laws of Shabbat. In addition, we will trace the development of the eruv through the medieval and modern period as the rabbis struggled with the issue whether larger Jewish neighborhoods and even entire cities could be redefined as private domains. Please be sure to read the following articles.

- Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Diaspora Cartography: On the Rabbinic Background of Contemporary Ritual Eruv Practice, Images 5, no. 1 (2011): 1425 - Micha J. Perry, Imaginary Space Meets Actual Space in Thirteenth-Century Cologne: Eliezer Ben Joel and the Eruv, Images 5, no. 1 (2011): 2636