This paper examines the Palestinian Amoraic response to the popular theatrical entertainments of the Later Roman Empire A new theme in Amoraic homiletics situated the moral difference between spectators and Torah scholars in spatial terms, stressing the essential incompatibility between theaters and circuses on the one hand, and synagogues and study-houses on the other. In this paper, I examine rabbinic efforts to distinguish the synagogue from the theater as a result of the same ambiguities and tensions that spawned similar rhetoric among the Fathers of the Church. Though much of their success in influencing the laity's beliefs about their religious obligations was rooted in performance and stagecraft, Christian orators demonized a whole range of values and practices by associating them with the theater. Though they saw the church as an analogous institution to the theater, the Church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries vigorously tried to distinguish between the two. In this paper, I suggest that Rabbinic rhetoric comparing the theater and the synagogue worked in a similar fashion to neutralize the problematic performative aspects of synagogue worship. Rabbinic criticism of the theater functioned not as a form cultural antagonism towards a specific practice, but as part of a program of moral invective, in which the theater came to represent anything opposed to Torah study and therefore inherently wicked.
This paper is an attempt to gauge the predominant Jewish attitude towards the Polish Uprising of 1830-1 against the Tsarist regime, a military fiasco which nevertheless served as a catalyst for Polish romantic nationalism. This topic has been treated by several Polish historians, including some of the pioneering historians of the early twentieth century. But the context of perceived Polish anti-Semitism has caused many such scholars to use the issue in for apologetic purposes, frequently by highlighting and sometimes exaggerating the participation by a small group of Polish Jewish assimilationists in the Uprising (often framed anachronistically as "patriotism") and thereby ignoring the more ambivalent attitudes of the vast majority of Polish Jews. This study considers the stances of Jews across the entire cultural spectrum, from acculturated Jews and Maskilim, to more tradition-oriented Mitnaggdim and Hasidism. The case of the latter group, Hasidim, is particularly compelling: among "zaddikim" there is actually evidence of a some support for insurgents and the Polish cause in general. An attempt will be made to place the active support of acculturated Jews in perspective, while treating the traditionalist majority's stance in greater depth.
Leviticus 18:3 does not specify the scope of its prohibition against following the practices of Egypt and Canaan: "Like the practice of the land of Egypt which you dwelled in, you should not practice, and like the practice of the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you, you should not practice, and in their laws you should not go." The local passage, verses 1-5, suggests that the scope is broad, but the chapter context of Leviticus 18 limits the prohibition to the list of sexual taboos that follow. The early rabbinic commentary within the Sifra exploits this ambiguity to generate a reading of the verse that simultaneously restricts the prohibition specifically to religious practices but also expands the prohibition beyond Leviticus 18's taboos. This paper examines this exegesis and considers what is ideologically at stake. Drawing on Daniel Boyarin's arguments in Border Lines, the paper argues that the Sifra's proscription of laws transmitted from gentile father to gentile father mirrors the rabbinic prescription of laws transmitted from rabbinic father to rabbinic father. The Sifra creates a gentile "diadoche" to reflect the Rabbis' own. Moreover, the paper explores how bodies, male and female, Jewish and gentile, are used to help construct this utopian rabbinic tradition. The gentile tradition, according to the Sifra, consists of gay marriage (and other marriage combinations). The paper asks why the Sifra imagines gentile tradition in this way, and suggests that its concern is to heighten the claims of rabbinic authority and, relatedly, to dramatize the problem of Jewish difference. The consequence of the Sifra's reading, concludes the paper, is that Jewish men can maximize their dominance as men and minimize their marginality as Jews.
This panel examines varying perspectives of Jewish leadership, especially that of Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, in the Lodz ghetto during and after WWII. The four papers address different ways of understanding the complexities of this leadership. Though Rumkowski's behavior as head of the Jewish council in Lodz has received much attention in the postwar period, this panel offers several new insights by examining previously unused historical sources, asking new questions about perception, listening to formerly unheard voices, and combining historical with literary approaches.
The papers presented by Robert Moses Shapiro and Amy Simon both look at Jewish leadership through the lens of Jewish diarists writing in the ghetto. Shapiro uses the Polish language diary of Jakub Poznanski to examine a Polish Jewish industrialist's perception of the controversial Jewish leader with whom he had a tempestuous relationship. This paper gives insight into the relationships possible between Rumkowski and the factory workers in whom he ultimately placed the fate of the ghetto. In contrast, Simon's paper looks at a variety of ghetto diaries to determine how their authors' views of Rumkowski compared with their views of German perpetrators. In this way, she reexamines perceptions of persecution and perpetration in the Lodz ghetto. Elizabeth Strauss's paper uses a variety of sources to look at Rumkowski from a previously underrepresented viewpoint—that of the elderly in the Lodz ghetto. Strauss's paper explores the variety of experiences open to the elderly in the Lodz ghetto as well as their real and perceived interactions with Rumkowski and his associates. Finally, Eric Sundquist's paper offers a completely different perspective on the understanding of Chaim Rumkowski. His analysis of Leslie Epstein's novel, King of the Jews, explores what new depths a fictive and tragi-comic account of Rumkowski's leadership can bring to our historical reading of his behavior and moral quandary. Moving the panel past disciplinary boundaries, Sundquist's paper also moves us beyond historical restrictions to consider not only wartime perceptions of Rumkowski and his role in the ghetto, but also the ways in which postwar thinkers have considered and represented his record.
The three presentations in this session examine curatorial practices—the collecting and assessing of archival and museum artifacts, the construction of narratives from diverse fragments (textual and otherwise), the creation of cultural works using the rubric of inventory--as part of modern Jewish life. These practices are examined both as cultural phenomena of interest in their own right and as points of entry into theorizing modern Jewish culture more broadly. Each scholar is interested in how analyzing curatorial practices challenges established understandings of how modern Jewish culture works, whether by problematizing notions of what constitutes evidence of the truth; how works of modern Jewish culture are authored and how they engage their audiences; how modern Jewish cultural works are to understood as authoritative and, at the same time, how they accommodate cultural play.
Curatorial practices, exemplified by museums but by no means limited to them, are key to understanding new ways that Jewish culture is made, disseminated, and discussed. The curatorial process of gathering, scrutinizing, selecting, and arranging informs many modern Jewish cultural practices, though this is seldom recognized as such. Attention to this process enables scholars of modern Jewish culture to consider new possibilities for understanding how it is constituted and moreover, how it is conceptualized, especially as notions of what is "Jewish" and who determines this have been challenged by historical events, new technologies, and a diversifying range of practitioners of and audiences for a broadening array of what is claimed as Jewish culture. These examinations strive to enhance our understanding of modernity as a term defining Jewish culture of the present and recent past, distinguishing it from what has come before (even as what is thought of as "premodern" Jewish culture continues), and relating them to general notions of the modern (and, at least implicitly, the postmodern).
Daniel Roth (Bar-Ilan University), Session Organizer
In recent years, universities throughout North America have launched academic programs focusing on the relationship between religion and conflict resolution. These new programs, associated with either departments of conflict resolution or religion, involve the study of conflict resolution models as found in the world's major religions and often—though not always—include the study of Jewish models. The session aims to define this new field of research as pertains to Jewish models and to explore ways in which the field can be further explored. Questions for discussion include: What are Jewish models of conflict resolution? How should such models be studied? How can further research of these models contribute to the academic study of conflict resolution and to Judaic studies? To what extent can these Jewish models have an impact on the transformation, resolution, or management of conflicts involving Jewish societies today? Panelists are American and Israeli scholars in both Judaic studies and conflict resolution who are engaged in the study of Jewish models of conflict resolution. Marc Gopin, professor of religion, diplomacy, and conflict resolution at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, has published numerous works on Judaism and conflict resolution that serve as the cornerstone of any academic discussion on the topic. Similarly, Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles, has published crucial articles currently studied in the framework of religion and peacebuilding courses. Robert Eisen, professor of religion and Judaic studies at George Washington University, recently published a groundbreaking book on peace and violence in Judaism. Peter Ochs, professor of modern Judaic studies at the University of Virginia and one of the founders of Scriptural Reasoning, has taught courses on religion conflict and resolution among the Abrahamic religions. Michael Berger, associate professor of religion at Emory University, has taught courses on rabbinic literature and violence as part of Emory University's Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding Initiative. Daniel Roth, director of the Peace and Conflict track at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and a doctoral student at Bar-Ilan University's Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation, is currently completing his dissertation on rabbinic models of reconciliation and pursuing peace. The expertise of all participants will enable the panel to fully explore the emerging field of Judaism and conflict resolution.
Jonathan Karp (American Jewish Historical Society), Session Organizer
Sponsored by the Pedagogy Working Group, this proposal addresses the challenges of teaching about contemporary Jewish political controversies, including fundamentalism, the ideologies of far right and left, and conflicts surrounding Zionism. The overarching question is how to open up the classroom to divergent viewpoints on current issues in the Jewish world while fostering an atmosphere of civility and respect. The roundtable focuses on three core questions, all addressed with reference to specific courses taught. First, given their potentially divisive and disruptive effects in the classroom, what is the substantive value of teaching about current political controversies? Second, what mechanisms can instructors employ to balance openness to divergent viewpoints with respect for individuals and groups? Third, how do campus and wider university politics impinge upon the Jewish Studies classroom and what is the appropriate response? To make the roundtable effective it must be comprised of scholars representing different approaches. The panel includes two historians of modern Jews (Nancy Sinkoff and Jonathan Karp), a scholar of modern European politics (Malachi Hacohen), a sociologist of religion (Samuel Heilman); and a literary scholar (Ruth Wisse), and is moderated an ethnic and women's studies scholar (Shelly Tenenbaum). Heilman will organize his responses around his course on "Comparative Fundamentalism," which employs the comparative model to prompt critical inquiry into the exclusive claims of any single faith. Sinkoff's course on "Jewish Power and Politics" situates current controversies within the broad history of Jewish politics, including premodern eras. In reference to his courses on modern Jewish politics, Hacohen will ask how definitions and accusations of antisemitism are often used as rhetorical weapons to discredit ideological opponents. Wisse will likewise address the phenomenon of antisemitism as it pertains to her experiences in the classroom and on various campuses. Karp offers his course on "Zionism and its Jewish Critics" as a model for how historical understanding can enable students to engage sympathetically with contradictory political positions while provisionally withholding final support from any. Moderator Tenenbaum, given her research on Jewish self-definition, will aim to focus the discussion on how the above issues impact specifically on the world of Jewish Studies pedagogy.