Page 100«..1020..99100101102..110120..»

Shoah

Posted By on February 1, 2024

1985 French documentary film by Claude Lanzmann

Shoah is a 1985 French documentary film about the Holocaust (known as "Shoah" in Hebrew[a]), directed by Claude Lanzmann.[5] Over nine hours long and 11 years in the making, the film presents Lanzmann's interviews with survivors, witnesses and perpetrators during visits to German Holocaust sites across Poland, including extermination camps.[6]

Released in Paris in April 1985, Shoah won critical acclaim and several prominent awards, including the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Non-Fiction Film and the BAFTA Award for Best Documentary. Simone de Beauvoir hailed it as a "sheer masterpiece", while documentarian Marcel Ophls (who would go on to win the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for Hotel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie three years later) called it "the greatest documentary about contemporary history ever made".[7] Conversely, it was not well received in Poland, wherein the government argued that it accused Poland of "complicity in Nazi genocide".[8]

Shoah premiered in New York at the Cinema Studio in October 1985[9] and was broadcast in the United States by PBS over four nights in 1987.

The film is concerned chiefly with four topics: the Chemno extermination camp, where mobile gas vans were first used by Germans to exterminate Jews; the death camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau; and the Warsaw ghetto, with testimonies from survivors, witnesses and perpetrators.

The sections on Treblinka include testimony from Abraham Bomba, who survived as a barber;[10] Richard Glazar, an inmate; and Franz Suchomel, an SS officer. Bomba breaks down while describing how he came across the wife and sister of a barber friend of his while cutting hair in the gas chamber.[11] This section includes Henryk Gawkowski, who drove transport trains while intoxicated with vodka. Gawkowski's photograph appears on the poster used for the film's marketing campaign.

Testimonies on Auschwitz are provided by Rudolf Vrba, who escaped from the camp before the end of the war;[12] and Filip Mller, who worked in an incinerator burning the bodies from the gassings. Mller recounts what prisoners said to him and describes the experience of personally going into the gas chamber: bodies were piled up by the doors "like stones". He breaks down as he recalls the prisoners starting to sing while being forced into the gas chamber. Accounts include some from local villagers, who witnessed trains heading daily to the camp and returning empty; they quickly guessed the fate of those on board.

Lanzmann also interviews bystanders. He asks whether they knew what was going on in the death camps. Their answers reveal that they did, but they justified their inaction by their fear of death. Two survivors of Chemno are interviewed: Simon Srebnik, who was forced to sing military songs to entertain the Nazis; and Mordecha Podchlebnik. Lanzmann also has a secretly filmed interview with Franz Schalling, a German security guard, who describes the workings of Chemno. Walter Stier, a former Nazi bureaucrat, describes the workings of the railways. Stier insists he was simply managing railroad traffic and was not aware that he was transporting Jews directly to their deaths, though he admits to being aware that the destinations were concentration camps.

The Warsaw ghetto is described by Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground who worked for the Polish government-in-exile, and Franz Grassler, a Nazi administrator in Warsaw who liaised with Jewish leaders. A Christian, Karski sneaked into the Warsaw ghetto and travelled using false documents to England to try to convince the Allied governments to intervene more strongly on behalf of the Jews.[13]

Memories from Jewish survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising conclude the documentary. Lanzmann also interviews Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, who discusses the significance of Nazi propaganda against the European Jews and the Nazi development of the Final Solution and a detailed analysis of railroad documents showing the transport routes to the death camps. The complete text of the film was published in 1985.

Corporal Franz Suchomel, interviewed by Lanzmann in Germany on 27 April 1976, was an SS officer who had worked at Treblinka.[14] Suchomel agreed to be interviewed for 500 Deutschmarks, but refused to be filmed, so Lanzmann used hidden recording equipment while assuring Suchomel that he would not use his name.[15]

Suchomel talks in detail about the camp's gas chambers and the disposal of bodies. He states that he did not know about the extermination at Treblinka until he arrived there. On his first day, he says he vomited and cried after encountering trenches full of corpses, 67 m deep, with the earth around them moving in waves because of the gases. The smell of the bodies carried for kilometres depending on the wind, he said, but local people were scared to act in case they were sent to the work camp, Treblinka I.[16]:p.78

He explained that from arrival at Treblinka to death in the gas chambers took 23 hours for a trainload of people. They would undress, the women would have their hair cut, then they would wait naked outside, including during the winter in minus 1020C, until there was room in the gas chamber. Suchomel told Lanzmann that he would ask the hairdressers to slow down so that the women would not have to wait so long outside.[16]:p.1920

Compared to the size and complexity of Auschwitz, Suchomel calls Treblinka "primitive. But a well-functioning assembly line of death."[16]:p.16

The publicity poster for the film features Henryk Gawkowski, a Polish railway worker from Malkinia, who, in 19421943 when he was 2021 years old,[17] worked on the trains to Treblinka as an "assistant machinist with the right to drive the locomotive".[18] Conducted in Poland in July 1978, the interview with Gawkowski is shown 48 minutes into the film, and is the first to present events from the victims' perspective. Lanzmann hired a steam locomotive similar to the one Gawkowski worked on and shows the tracks and a sign for Treblinka.[19]

Gawkowski told Lanzmann that every train had a Polish driver and assistant, accompanied by German officers.[20] What happened was not his fault, he said; had he refused to do the job, he would have been sent to a work camp. He would have killed Hitler himself had he been able to, he told Lanzmann.[21] Lanzmann estimated that 18,000 Jews were taken to Treblinka by the trains Gawkowski worked on.[20] Gawkowski said he had driven Polish Jews there in cargo trains in 1942, and Jews from France, Greece, Holland and Yugoslavia in passenger trains in 1943. A train carrying Jews was called a Sonderzug (special train); the "cargo" was given false papers to disguise that humans were being hauled.[22] The Germans gave the train workers vodka as a bonus when they drove a Sonderzug; Gawkowski drank liberally to make the job bearable.[23]

Gawkowski drove trains to the Treblinka train station and from the station into the camp itself.[22] He said the smell of burning was unbearable as the train approached the camp.[24] The railcars would be driven into the camp by the locomotive in three stages; as he drove one convoy into Treblinka, he would signal to the ones that were waiting by making a slashing movement across his throat. The gesture would cause chaos in those convoys, he said; passengers would try to jump out or throw their children out.[25] Dominick LaCapra wrote that the expression on Gawkowski's face when he demonstrated the gesture for Lanzmann seemed "somewhat diabolical".[26] Lanzmann grew to like Gawkowski over the course of the interviews, writing in 1990: "He was different from the others. I have sympathy for him because he carries a truly open wound that does not heal."[27]

Lanzmann was commissioned by Israeli officials to make what they thought would be a two-hour film, delivered in 18 months, about the Holocaust from "the viewpoint of the Jews".[28][29] As time went on, Israeli officials withdrew as his original backers.[28] Over 350 hours of raw footage were recorded, including the verbatim questions, answers, and interpreters' translations. Most of this footage has been digitized by the United States Holocaust Museum, and is available online.[30] Shoah took eleven years to make.[31] It was plagued by financial problems, difficulties tracking down interviewees, and threats to Lanzmann's life. The film was unusual in that it did not include any historical footage,[32] relying instead on interviewing witnesses and visiting the crime scenes.[9] Five feature-length films have since been released from the outtakes.

Some German interviewees were reluctant to talk and refused to be filmed, so Lanzmann used a hidden camera, producing a grainy, black-and-white appearance.[9] The interviewees in these scenes are sometimes obscured or distinguished by technicians watching the recording. During one interview, with Heinz Schubert, the covert recording was discovered by Schubert's family, and Lanzmann was physically attacked. He was hospitalized for a month and charged by the authorities with "unauthorized use of the German airwaves".[29]

Lanzmann arranged many of the scenes, but not the testimony, before filming witnesses. For example, Bomba was interviewed while cutting his friend's hair in a working barbershop; a steam locomotive was hired to recreate the journey the death train conductor had taken while transporting Jews; and the opening scene shows Srebnik singing in a rowboat, similarly to how he had "serenaded his captors".[29]

The first six years of production were devoted to the recording of interviews in 14 countries.[31] Lanzmann worked on the interviews for four years before first visiting Poland. After the shooting, editing of the 350 hours of raw footage continued for five years.[31] Lanzmann frequently replaced the camera shot of the interviewee with modern footage from the site of the relevant death camp. The matching of testimony to places became a "crucial trope of the film".[29]

Shoah was made without voice-over translations. The questions and answers were kept on the soundtrack, along with the voices of the interpreters,[29] with subtitles where necessary. Transcripts of the interviews, in original languages and English translations, are held by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Videos of excerpts from the interviews are available for viewing online, and linked transcripts can be downloaded from the museum's website.[33]

The film received numerous nominations and awards at film festivals around the world. Prominent awards included the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Non-Fiction Film in 1985,[7] a special citation at the 1985 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards, and the BAFTA Award for Best Documentary in 1986. That year it also won the National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Non-Fiction Film and Best Documentary at the International Documentary Association.

Hailed as a masterpiece by many critics, Shoah was described in The New York Times as "an epic film about the greatest evil of modern times".[9] According to Richard Brody, Franois Mitterrand attended the first screening in Paris in April 1985 when he was president of France, Vclav Havel watched it in prison, and Mikhail Gorbachev arranged public screenings in the Soviet Union in 1989.[29]

In 1985, critic Roger Ebert described it as "an extraordinary film" and "one of the noblest films ever made". He wrote: "It is not a documentary, not journalism, not propaganda, not political. It is an act of witness."[34] Rotten Tomatoes shows a 100% score, based on 37 reviews, with an average rating of 9.2/10. The website's critical consensus states: "Expansive in its beauty as well as its mind-numbing horror, Shoah is a towering and utterly singular achievement in cinema."[35] Metacritic reports a 99 out of 100 rating, based on four critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[36] As of July 2019, it is the site's 20th highest-rated film, including re-releases.[37]

Time Out and The Guardian listed Shoah as the best documentary of all time in 2016 and 2013 respectively.[38] In a 2014 British Film Institute (BFI) Sight and Sound poll, film critics voted it second of the best documentary films of all time.[39] In 2012 it ranked 29th and 48th respectively in the BFI's critics' and directors' polls of the greatest films of all time.[40]

The film had detractors, however, and it was criticized in Poland.[41] Mieczyslaw Biskupski wrote that Lanzmann's "purpose in making the film was revealed by his comments that he 'fears' Poland and that the death camps could not have been constructed in France because the 'French peasantry would not have tolerated them'".[42] Government-run newspapers and state television criticized the film, as did numerous commentators; Jerzy Turowicz, editor of the Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny, called it partial and tendentious.[43] The Socio-Cultural Association of Jews in Poland (Towarzystwo Spoeczno-Kulturalne ydw w Polsce) called it a provocation and delivered a protest letter to the French embassy in Warsaw.[44] Foreign Minister Wadysaw Bartoszewski, an Auschwitz survivor and an honorary citizen of Israel, criticized Lanzmann for ignoring the thousands of Polish rescuers of Jews, focusing instead on impoverished rural Poles, allegedly selected to conform with his preconceived notions.

Gustaw Herling-Grudziski, a Jewish-Polish writer and dissident, was puzzled by Lanzmann's omission of anybody in Poland with advanced knowledge of the Holocaust.[45] In his book Dziennik pisany noc, Herling-Grudziski wrote that the thematic construction of Shoah allowed Lanzmann to exercise a reduction method so extreme that the plight of the non-Jewish Poles must remain a mystery to the viewer. Grudziski asked a rhetorical question in his book: "Did the Poles live in peace, quietly plowing farmers' fields with their backs turned on the long fuming chimneys of death-camp crematoria? Or, were they exterminated along with the Jews as subhuman?" According to Grudziski, Lanzmann leaves this question unanswered, but the historical evidence shows that Poles also suffered widespread massacres at the hands of the Nazis.[45]

The American film critic Pauline Kael,[46] whose parents were Jewish immigrants to the U.S. from Poland,[47] called the film "a form of self-punishment", describing it in The New Yorker in 1985 as "logy and exhausting right from the start..." "Lanzmann did all the questioning himself," she wrote, "while putting pressure on people in a discursive manner, which gave the film a deadening weight."[48] Writing in The New Yorker in 2010, Richard Brody suggested that Kael's "misunderstandings of Shoah are so grotesque as to seem willful."[49]

In 2000, the film was released on VHS, and in 2010 on DVD.[50] Lanzmann's 350 hours of raw footage, along with the transcripts, are available on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.[33][51] The entire 566-minute film was digitally restored and remastered by The Criterion Collection over 201213 in 2K resolution, from the original 16 mm negatives. The monaural audio track was remastered without compression. A Blu-ray edition in three disks was then produced from these new masters, including three additional films by Lanzmann.

Lanzmann released four feature-length films based on unused material shot for Shoah. The first three are included as bonus features in the Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray release of the film. All four are included in the Masters of Cinema Blu-ray release of the film.

Previously unseen Shoah outtakes have been featured in Adam Benzine's Oscar-nominated HBO documentary Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah (2015), which examines Lanzmann's life from 1973 to 1985, the years he spent making Shoah.[53][54]

Ziva Postec's work as the film's editor was profiled in the 2018 documentary film Ziva Postec: The Editor Behind the Film Shoah (Ziva Postec: La monteuse derrire le film Shoah), by Canadian documentarian Catherine Hbert.[55]

Yvonne Kozlovsky Golan (2017), "Benjamin Murmelstein, a Man from the "Town 'As If'": A Discussion of Claude Lanzmann's Film the Last of the Unjust (France/Austria, 2013)", Holocaust Studies, A Journal of Culture and History, vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 464482.

Yvonne Kozlovsky Golan (2019), "The Role of the Judenrte in Serving Nazi Racial Policy: A Discussion of Claude Lanzmanns film 'Last of the unjust'", Slil: a Journal of History, Cinema and Television, pp.7298, (Heb.).

Yvonne Kozlovsky Golan (2020), "Through the Directors Lens: Claude Lanzmanns Oeuvre: Commemorating the First Anniversary of his Passing", Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (CISA), Antisemitism Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2020), pp.143168.

Also see Claude Lanzmann with Marc Chevrie and Herv le Roux, "Site and Speech: An Interview with Claude Lanzmann about Shoah", in Kahana (ed.) 2016, 784793.

Also see Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State: My Report to the World, Georgetown University Press, 2014 [1944].

Also see "Claude Lanzmann Shoah Collection: Henryk Gawkowski and Treblinka railway workers", Washington, D.C.: Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Original post:

Shoah

Shoah (1985) – IMDb

Posted By on February 1, 2024

The primary focus of Shoah is the stories of Holocaust survivors, perpetrators and witnesses. Instead of encompassing a traditional narrative document of these people, director Claude Lanzmann conducts in-depth interviews with his subjects, some of them, like SS Junior Sergeant (Unterscharfuhrer) Franz Suchomel and Franz Schalling, being filmed in secret. In all, the documentary encompasses over nine hours.

Survivors that Lanzmann interviews include Simon Srebnik, a survivor of the Chelmno extermination camp, Abraham Bomba, a barber who cut the hair of women before they entered the gas chambers at Treblinka, and Rudolph Vrba, who escaped from Auschwitz and for producing the most detailed information about the exterminations taking place at the camp.

Perpetrators interviewed included the aforementioned Suchomel, who describes the processions of prisoners to the gas chambers at Treblinka. He also talks at length about the construction of additional gas chambers. Henryk Gawkowski talks about driving the trains that brought prisoners to Treblinka while consuming vodka supplied to him by the Nazis.

Witnesses to the Holocaust include Jan Karski, who was charged by Jewish leaders in the Warsaw ghetto with informing the Allies of the mass exterminations and with trying to procure weapons for the uprising. Other witnesses include the then-living residents of Treblinka who talk about the Jewish residents being removed to the ghettos. In a famous scene, they discuss the events with Lanzmann while Simon Srebnik stands with them.

Lanzmann also talks at great length with Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg who talks about the logistics used by the Nazis to transport the millions of victims to the camps via the rail system, the Reichsbann. Hilberg also discusses the economics of the relocation and extermination of the victims.

See the original post:

Shoah (1985) - IMDb

RABBI – JewishEncyclopedia.com

Posted By on January 30, 2024

"Rabban," "Rabbi," and "Rab." The Title:

Hebrew term used as a title for those who are distinguished for learning, who are the authoritative teachers of the Law, and who are the appointed spiritual heads of the community. It is derived from the noun , which in Biblical Hebrew means "great" or "distinguished," and in post-Biblical Hebrew, "master" in opposition to "slave" (Suk. ii. 9; Gi. iv. 4) or "pupil" (Ab. i. 3). In the Palestinian schools the sages were addressed as "Rabbi" (my master). This term of respectful address gradually came to be used as a title, the pronominal suffix "i" (my) losing its significance with the frequent use of the term. Nathan ben Jehiel, in the "'Aruk" (s.v. ), quotes the following passage from the letter addressed by Sherira Gaon to Jacob ben Nissim with regard to the origin and signification of the various titles derived from : "The title 'Rab' is Babylonian, and that of 'Rabbi' is Palestinian. This is evident from the fact that some of the tannaim and amoraim are called simply by their names without any title, e.g., Simon the Just, Antigonus of Soko, Jose ben Johanan; some bear the title 'Rabbi,' e.g., Rabbi Akiba, Rabbi Jose, etc.; others have the title 'Mar,' e.g., Mar 'Uba, Mar Yanua, etc.; others again bear the title 'Rab,' e.g., Rab Huna, Rab Judah, etc.; while still others have the title 'Rabban.' e.g., Rabban Gamaliel and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. The title 'Rabbi' is borne by the sages of Palestine, who were ordained there by the Sanhedrin in accordance with the custom handed down by the elders, and were denominated 'Rabbi,' and received authority to judge penal cases; while 'Rab' is the title of the Babylonian sages, who received their ordination in their colleges. The more ancient generations, however, which were far superior, had no such titles as 'Rabban,' 'Rabbi,' or 'Rab,' for either the Babylonian or Palestinian sages. This is evident from the fact that Hillel I., who came from Babylon, had not the title 'Rabban' prefixed to his name. Of the Prophets, also, who were very eminent, it is simply said, 'Haggai the prophet,' etc., 'Ezra did not come up from Babylon,' etc., the title 'Rabban' not being used. Indeed, this title is not met with earlier than the time of the patriarchate. It was first used of Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin. The title 'Rabbi,' too, came into vogue among those who received the laying on of hands at this period, as, for instance, Rabbi Zadok, Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and others, and dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward. Now the order of these titles is as follows: 'Rabbi' is greater than 'Rab'; 'Rabban,' again, is greater than 'Rabbi'; while the simple name is greater than 'Rabban.' Besides the presidents of the Sanhedrin no one is called 'Rabban.'"

Sherira's statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grtz ("Gesch." iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title "Rabbi" as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus' disapprobation of the ambition of the Jewish doctors who love to be called by this title, and his admonition to his disciples not to suffer themselves to be so styled (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8).

A different account of the origin and the signification of the titles is given in the Tosefta to 'Eduyot (end): "He who has disciples and whose disciples again have disciples is called 'Rabbi'; when his disciples are forgotten [i.e., if he is so old that even his immediate disciples belong to the past age] he is called 'Rabban'; and when the disciples of his disciples are also forgotten he is called simply by his own name."

In modern times the term "Rabbi" (in Judo-German, "Rab") is used as a word of courtesy simulating the English "Mister."

The rabbi in the Talmudic period was unlike the modern official minister, who is elected by the congregation and who is paid a stipulated salary. The function of the rabbi of the Talmud was to teach the members of the community the Scriptures and the oral and traditional laws. There were three positions open to him: (1) the presidency of the community with the title "Nasi," (2) the head of the judiciary ("ab bet din"), and (3) the ordinary master of civil and ritual laws and exemplar in charitable work and moral conduct. For the first position the rabbi was elected by the leaders of the community; for the second, by the members of the judiciary; while the third position was a matter of duty imposed upon the rabbi by the very Law he was teaching. All these were honorary positions, without emolument, save the bare living expenses of the rabbi when he gave up his occupation for the public welfare (Shab. 114a). The rabbi as a justice could claim only compensation for loss of time (see Fee). Rabban Gamaliel III. said the study of the Law without employment brings transgression (Ab. ii. 2).

The Rabbis invariably had their private occupations. The elder Hillel earned a "arpe'i" ( = a half-denarius) a day as a wood-chopper, spending one-half of his earnings to gain entrance to a bet ha-midrash; Shammai was a builder (Shab. 31a); R. Joshua, who was elected nasi, a blacksmith (Ber. 28a); R. Jose, father of R. Ishmael, a tanner (Shab. 49b); Abba Hoshaiah of urya, a laundryman (Yer. B. . x. 10); R. anina and R. Oshaya, shoemakers (Pes. 113b); arna, a wine-taster; R. Huna, a water-carrier (Ket. 105a); Abba b. Zemina, a tailor (Yer. Sanh. iii. 6); andisda and R. Pappa were brewers of mead (Pes. 113a). Other rabbis whose names indicate their callings are: Isaac Nappaa = "the smith"; R. Johanan ha-Sandalar = "the sandal-maker"; and R. Abin Naggara = "the carpenter." Rabbis were also found as merchants, but principally as agriculturists (see Artisans).

The Rabbis were indirectly assisted by the preference given to them in their trades and business enterprises. Thus when R. Dimi of Nehardea imported a vessel-load of dried figs, the president of the community ("resh galuta") gave orders to "hold the market" for R. Dimi (i.e., to allow him to dispose of his goods first; B. B. 22a). The rabbi had also the privilege of exemption from taxes, following the instruction of Artaxerxes, "It shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom upon them" (Ezra vii. 24). Scholars were exempt from providing substitutes as laborers on public works; but they were required to lend their services in digging street wells (B. B. 8a).

The rabbi worked at his trade one-third of the day and studied during the remainder. Some, especially farmers, worked in summer and studied in winter (Eccl. R. vii.). R. Judah b. 'Hai complained that times had changed; that the rabbis of former generations spent most of their time in study and less time in labor, yet succeeded in both, while those of later generations made study subservient to labor and failed in both (Ber. 35b).

Outside her household duties the wife of the rabbi was not connected with the business nor even with the charitable concerns of her husband. Like all Oriental wives, she did not mix in society beyond her own family circle. All marketing was done by the husband. Regarding the question of matrimony, R. Johanan thought one could not study the Law with "a millstone round his neck." The consensus of opinion was that the home student should not be fettered by matrimony, but that the traveling student might be married before he started for the yeshibah in a foreign country, the family in this case being provided for beforehand, and there being no fear of his being disturbed while studying (id. 29b; Rashi ad loc.). Raba said to his pupils: "I pray ye, do not come to see me in the days of Nisan [harvest-time] nor in the days of Tishri [viticulture-time], that ye may provide for your maintenance for the whole year" (Ber. 35b).

The title "Rabbi" was obtained through merit of learning. Any one might become qualified as a rabbi, irrespective of his antecedents. The celebrated Resh Laish was a gladiator before he became a rabbi. The circumstances under which he was induced to give up his former life are related as follows: "R. Johanan, seeing Resh Laish diving in the Jordan after him, remarked, 'Thy strength should be preserved for the Law.' Resh Laish rejoined, 'And thy beauty for women.' Said Johanan, 'If thou wouldst be converted I will give thee my sister, who is more beautiful than I.' Resh Laish consented; and Johanan taught him the Scriptures and the oral law and made of him a great rabbi. One day the scholars at the bet hamidrash discussed the question, 'The sword, knife, dagger, and spear, in what state of finish are they liable to contamination?' Johanan referred the question to Resh Laish as a competent judge. Resh Laish took offense and ironically asked, 'How didst thou benefit me? They called me "Rabbi" [chief of the gladiators] then; and they call me "Rabbi" now.' Said Johanan, 'I did benefit thee by bringing thee under the wings of the Shekinah'" (B. M. 84a; see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 344).

R. Judah ha-Nasi ordained the son of R. Eleazar as rabbi for the purpose of inspiring him with ambition to mend his ways and study the Law. The same Judah converted the licentious grandson of R. arfon and induced him to become a rabbi by promising him his daughter in marriage (ib.).

The personal appearance of the rabbi should command respect. R. Johanan said, "The rabbi should appear as clean and pure as an angel." He quoted, "They shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord Sebaoth" (Mal. ii. 6, Hebr.; Mak. 17a). The Rabbis generally dressed in long, flowing white robes, and sometimes wore gold-trimmed official cloaks (Gi. 73a).

The honor paid to the Rabbis exceeded even that due to parents. The "elder in knowledge" was revered even more than the "elder in years" (id. 32b). "When the nasi enters the assembly the people rise, standing till he bids them sit down; when the ab bet din enters, they form a row on each side of him, standing till he takes his seat; when a akam enters, each one rises as the wise man passes him" (Hor. 13b; comp. id. 33b).

The rabbi or akam lectured before the Talmud students at the bet ha-midrash or yeshibah. He seldom spoke in public except on the days of Kallah, i.e., during the months of Elul and Adar (Ber. 8b), and on the Sabbaths immediately preceding the holy days, when he informed the people of the laws and customs governing the approaching festivals. The rabbi who was a haggadist or maggid preached before a multitude of men, women, and children (ag. 3a). A short sermon was delivered by him every Sabbath after the reading of the Pentateuchal portion (Soah 41a; Beah 38b). With regard to preaching on fast-days, funerals, and special occasions see Kallah; Maggid; Yeshibah.

In the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century a great change took place in regard to the position and requirements of the rabbi and to the services expected of him, a change which finally amounted to a complete revolution of former ideas. This change originated in Germany, which country from that time became the center for the development of Reform Judaism and for the scientific treatment of Jewish history and Jewish religion. The impulse to this movement was given by Moses Mendelssohn. Through his translation of the Bibleinto pure German, Mendelssohn taught his people to speak the language of Germany, to read her classical authors, and to feel that they were integral parts of the nation in whose midst they lived; that the country of their birth was their fatherland. In this way he breathed new life into the sluggish masses and educated the German Jews to take an active part in the national literary and social life.

Meanwhile some rabbis of even large congregations remained out of touch with the educated Jews. They came into contact with their constituents chiefly in the decision of ritual and ceremonial questions, and in the performance of certain legal acts, especially in connection with the laws of marriage and inheritance. Their literary activity was confined to casuistry, their opinions being rendered only in Hebrew. Some led lives so retired from the world that their influence upon the members of their congregations was scarcely perceptible. Many of them, though very learned in Talmudical lore, had not even the most elementary knowledge of the things essential to a common education. They could hardly make themselves understood in the language of their country. Some, again, addressed their congregations only twice every year, and then on subjects uninteresting to the great majority of their hearers.

By the abolition of the specific Jewish jurisdiction, the rabbis' acquaintance with the civil law of the Jewish code, to which in former times the greatest attention had been paid, became unnecessary for most practical purposes, and the imperative necessity for a general education became obvious.

After the foundation for a scientific treatment of Jewish history and religion had been laid by Leopold Zunz and his colaborers, a number of enthusiastic young rabbis, struggling against the most violent opposition, strove to bring about a reconciliation of rabbinism with the modern scientific spirit. Foremost among these was Abraham Geiger, who devoted his whole life to the battle for religious enlightenment and to the work of placing Judaism in its proper light before the world. He and his associates succeeded in arousing the German Jews to the consciousness of their duties. By fearlessly uncovering existing evils they cast light upon the proper sphere of rabbinical activity and showed how the moral and religious influence of the rabbinical office could be enhanced.

It was one of the results of their labors that some congregations awoke to the fact that rabbis ought to be more than merely Jewish scholars, that they should be equipped with a thorough secular education. This tendency was furthered by the circumstance that first in Austria (under Joseph II.), next in France, and thereafter in many other European (especially German) states, the government began to demand evidence of a certain degree of general education from rabbinical aspirants.

The yeshibot, and uncontrolled instruction by individual rabbis, were found to be increasingly unsatisfactory. The necessity of preaching in the vernacular and of explaining and defending the Jewish religion in a scientific manner involved systematic education and training. Abraham Geiger recommended and enthusiastically worked for the establishment of a faculty of Jewish theology at one of the German universities, parallel to those existing for Christian theology. This would have been the ideal solution of the question of the education of Jewish rabbis; but its application was prevented by the inveterate prejudice of the ruling authorities.

The next best thing was the foundation of seminaries and special institutions of learning for Jewish theology. These sprang up in rapid succession. The oldest were that in Metz, founded in 1824 and transferred to Paris in 1859, and that in Padua, Italy, founded in 1827, where Samuel David Luzzatto was the ruling spirit. Then followed the Jewish Theological Seminary at Breslau in 1854; the Lehranstalt fr die Wissenschaft des Judenthums in 1872 and the Rabbiner Seminar in 1873, at Berlin; the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, founded by Isaac M. Wise in 1874; the Landesrabbinerschule at Budapest in 1877; the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, in 1886 (reorganized in 1901); and the Israelitisch-Theologische Lehrenstalt, Vienna, in 1893.

While these institutions have equipped many rabbis with a thorough knowledge of Jewish religion and literature, based upon general education previously acquired at colleges and universities, they have by no means abandoned the principle that there is in Judaism no distinction between the clergy and the laity except that given by superior learning and character.

Frankel thus expresses this principle: "In Judaism there is no power endowed with the right to bind and to loose; there are no clergymen who by higher inspiration stand above the laymen; but only teachers, who expound the Law and give information thereof" ("Jahresbericht des Breslauer Seminars," 1860, p. xviii.). Geiger observes: "The practical theologian [rabbi, minister, or priest] holds among the Jews the position of moral influence appropriate to him. Neither as priest, by his ordination, nor as officer, by the material power of the state, is he entitled to interfere in the direction of religious affairs; but only through his knowledge, through the call he receives from the congregation, and through being imbued with the spirit, is he so entitled and is he furthermore the custodian of the eternal contents, of the transient history, and of the further development, of Judaism; as such he is entitled to a more authoritative voice than others. As little as he is a master, so little he is a mere servant" (Geiger, "Nachgelassene Schriften," ii. 27).

In the Jewish religion the rabbi is no priest, no apostle; he has no hierarchical power. He is a teacher, one who unfolds and explains religion, teaches the young in the school and the old from the pulpit, and both by his writings.

The chief distinction between the old and the modern rabbi consists in the functions they severally discharge. The former, if living in Eastern countries under medieval conditions, was expected principally to decide questions of law, ritualistic or judicial, for people who adhere scrupulously to the rabbinical code. He supervised the religious institutions of the community, such as the Miweh and the She-iah, and, as head of the council of rabbis of the town, formed a bet din for the giving of a ge or a aliah; some of the other rabbinical functions, such as preaching, were regarded of secondary importance. It was his example rather than his precept that led the community in the fear of God and in a life of purity and sanctity.

The modern rabbi, on the other hand, though trained to some extent in the halakic literature, is as a rule no longer expected, except in extraordinary cases and in matters concerning marriage or divorce, to decide ritualistic questions; but greater stress is laid upon his work as preacher and expouder of the tenets of Judaism, as supervisor and promoter of the educational and spiritual life of the congregation. In matters concerning ancient traditions and beliefs and the views and aims of modern culture he is looked to to reconcile the present with the past. As the spiritual head of the congregation he is on all public occasions regarded as its representative, and accordingly he is treated as the equal of the dignitaries of other ecclesiastical bodies. In countries in which state supervisors guard or support the interests of religion, the function of the rabbi or chief rabbi is defined and prescribed by the government, and accordingly the necessary equipment and fitness are demanded of him (see Jost, "Neuere Gesch. der Israeliten," i. 98, 131, 214, 260, 365, 372-377; ii. 100, 169).

As a matter of course, the example of the minister in the Church, especially in Protestant countries, exerted a great influence upon the function and position of the rabbi in the Synagogue; even upon his outward appearance, since the vestments of the Christian clergy, or their abandonment, have sometimes been copied by the modern rabbi, much to the chagrin of the followers of the tradition which prohibited the imitation of non-Jewish rites as "uat ha-goy" (see "Die Amtstracht der Rabbinen" in L. Lw's "Gesammelte Werke," iv. 216-234).

Another function of the modern rabbi which follows the pastoral practise of the Christian minister is the offering of consolation and sympathy to persons or families in bereavement and distress, in forms perhaps more cheering and elevating than those formerly in use. Here, as well as in his pulpit and educational work, the modern rabbi has the opportunity of bringing the blessings of religion home to every individual in need of spiritual uplifting. He claims to have infused a new spirit and ardor into the divine service and other religious rites by his active participation therein; and in the communal work of charity and philanthropy he takes a conspicuous share. Modern life with its greater complexity and deeper problems has produced the new type of rabbi, possibly less ascetic and not so well versed in Hebrew lore, but more broad-minded, and more efficient in the direction of manifold activities in a larger field of usefulness.

Go here to read the rest:

RABBI - JewishEncyclopedia.com

My dad survived the Holocaust and today I ask this of you: resist the antisemitism blighting our world – The Guardian

Posted By on January 30, 2024

My dad survived the Holocaust and today I ask this of you: resist the antisemitism blighting our world  The Guardian

More:

My dad survived the Holocaust and today I ask this of you: resist the antisemitism blighting our world - The Guardian

Houghton man convicted in federal court on 2 charges for defacing Hancock synagogue with neo-Nazi symbols – WLUC

Posted By on January 28, 2024

Houghton man convicted in federal court on 2 charges for defacing Hancock synagogue with neo-Nazi symbols  WLUC

View post:

Houghton man convicted in federal court on 2 charges for defacing Hancock synagogue with neo-Nazi symbols - WLUC

Remnants of ‘Nazi Town, USA’ still looms among us in Long Island just a stone’s throw from a synagogue – New York Post

Posted By on January 28, 2024

Remnants of 'Nazi Town, USA' still looms among us in Long Island just a stone's throw from a synagogue  New York Post

Go here to read the rest:

Remnants of 'Nazi Town, USA' still looms among us in Long Island just a stone's throw from a synagogue - New York Post

What we know about Israels allegations against UN staffers in Gaza – CNN

Posted By on January 28, 2024

  1. What we know about Israels allegations against UN staffers in Gaza  CNN
  2. UNRWA claims: UN chief in aid plea after staff accused of helping Hamas in Israel attack  BBC.com
  3. Israel-Hamas war: UN chief calls for countries to resume funding to UNRWA  The Associated Press

Continue reading here:

What we know about Israels allegations against UN staffers in Gaza - CNN

Head Of UN Agency Denounces Shocking Funding Cuts Amid Allegations Staffers Were Involved In Hamas Attack On Israel – Forbes

Posted By on January 28, 2024

Head Of UN Agency Denounces Shocking Funding Cuts Amid Allegations Staffers Were Involved In Hamas Attack On Israel  Forbes

Go here to see the original:

Head Of UN Agency Denounces Shocking Funding Cuts Amid Allegations Staffers Were Involved In Hamas Attack On Israel - Forbes

Jewish identity – Wikipedia

Posted By on January 25, 2024

Jewish identity is the objective or subjective state of perceiving oneself as a Jew and as relating to being Jewish.[1] Under a broader definition, Jewish identity does not depend on whether a person is regarded as a Jew by others, or by an external set of religious, or legal, or sociological norms. Jewish identity does not need to imply religious orthodoxy. Accordingly, Jewish identity can be cultural in nature. Jewish identity can involve ties to the Jewish community. Orthodox Judaism bases Jewishness on matrilineal descent. According to Jewish law (halacha), all those born of a Jewish mother are considered Jewish, regardless of personal beliefs or level of observance of Jewish law. Progressive Judaism and Haymanot Judaism in general base Jewishness on having at least one Jewish parent, while Karaite Judaism bases Jewishness only on paternal lineage. These differences between the major Jewish movements are the source of the disagreement and debate about who is a Jew.

Jews who are atheists or Jews who follow other religions (Christianity etc) may have a Jewish identity. While the absolute majority of people with this identity are of Jewish ethnicity, people of a mixed Jewish and non-Jewish background or gentiles of Jewish ancestry may still have a sense of Jewish self-identity.

Jewish identity can be described as consisting of three interconnected parts:

In classical antiquity, the Jewish people were constantly identified by Greek, Roman, and Jewish authors as an ethnos, one of the several ethne living in the Greco-Roman world.[3][4] Van Maaren utilizes the six attributes that co-ethnics share, as identified by Hutchinson and Smith, to show why ancient Jews may be considered an ethnic group in modern terminology.[3] Those include:

In his works from the late Second Temple period, Philo of Alexandria made comments that reflected the features of Jewish identity in the diaspora. At the time Philo lived, Jews had been present in the Diaspora, particularly in Alexandria, for a very long time. Because his fellow nationals had lived there for many generations, he appears to have thought of Alexandria as his city. In an effort to explain the status of the Jews in words that Greek readers would understand, Philo depicted them as immigrants who laid the groundwork for "colonies" (Greek: apoikiai), with Jerusalem serving as their "mother-city" (metropolis). According to Kasher, Alexandria in this circumstance could only be regarded as a homeland in the political sense because it was the site of the establishment of a Jewish "colony," structured as a distinct ethnic union with a recognized political and legal status (politeuma), with Jerusalem being the colony's mother-city.[5]

Jewish identity underwent a significant shift in the centuries that followed the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The initial conception of the Jews as an ethnos, albeit one with a distinctive religious culture, gradually shifted to that of a religious community that also identified as a nation.[4]

In the aftermath of the First JewishRoman War, the Fiscus Judaicus was imposed on all Jews in the Roman Empire, replacing the annual half-shekel tribute that Jews paid to the Temple in Jerusalem. It appears that the Romans chose to use Jewish religious behavior rather than Jewish ancestry to determine tax liability, and this Roman interference in Jewish tax-collection may had prompted this transformation in Jewish identity.[4]

In the following centuries, the Christianization in the Roman Empire sped up this transformation. Ethnic identity had no meaning in Christian thought. Additionally, Christians also believed that the Jews were important solely (or primarily) because their religious practices had served as a foundation for the development of the new covenant.[4]

Jewish identity can be cultural, religious, or through ancestry.[6] There are religious, cultural, and ancestral components to Jewish identity due to its fundamental non-proselytizing nature, as opposed to Christian or Muslim identity which are both "universal" religions in that they ascribe to the notion that their faith is meant to be spread throughout all of humanity, regardless of nationality.[7] However, Jewish identity is firmly intertwined with Jewish ancestry dating back to the historical Kingdom of Israel, which was largely depopulated by the Roman Empire c. first century CE, leading to what is known as today as the Jewish Diaspora.

Jewish identity began to gain the attention of Jewish sociologists in the United States with the publication of Marshall Sklare's "Lakeville studies".[8] Among other topics explored in the studies was Sklare's notion of a "good Jew".[9] The "good Jew" was essentially an idealized form of Jewish identity as expressed by the Lakeville respondents. Today, sociological measurements of Jewish identity have become the concern of the Jewish Federations who have sponsored numerous community studies across the U.S.;[10] policy decisions (in areas such as funding, programming, etc.) have been shaped in part due to studies on Jewish identity.

According to the social-psychologist Simon Herman, antisemitism plays a part in shaping Jewish identity.[11] This view is echoed by religious leaders such as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who writes that modern Jewish communities and the modern Jewish identity are deeply influenced by antisemitism.[12]

Right-wing antisemitism, for example, is typically a branch of white supremacy: it traditionally conceives of Jews as a distinct race with intrinsic, undesirable qualities that must be exterminated from the population. Left-wing antisemitism, by contrast, frequently views Jews as members of the white race, an idea that is a precursor to the criticism of Zionism as a racist ideology, as well as the exclusion of Jews from goals of intersectionality.[13]

Read more:

Jewish identity - Wikipedia

Rabbi Oury Cherki, in an open letter from Israel to leaders of Islam: Judaism and Islam can find common – EIN News

Posted By on January 22, 2024

Rabbi Oury Cherki, in an open letter from Israel to leaders of Islam: Judaism and Islam can find common  EIN News

More here:

Rabbi Oury Cherki, in an open letter from Israel to leaders of Islam: Judaism and Islam can find common - EIN News


Page 100«..1020..99100101102..110120..»

matomo tracker