@phdthesis{Gurman2014,
  author    = {Gurman, Avraham I.},
  title     = {איסור נישואי "מעוברת חברו ומנקת חברו" במשפט העברי},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-77081},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XIX, 343, P},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The Period of the Sages 1. The stringent approach in the early halakhah: we assume that a pregnant or nursing widow was forbidden to remarry because such a marriage would be considered trespassing on the domain of her late husband. This prohibition was perceived as quite severe since it stemmed from biblical verses. 2. The lenient approach: A different rationale was given for the prohibition, and significant exceptions were made to the prohibition. Furthermore, many rabbinic scholars maintained that the prohibition's duration should be less than twenty-four months. 3. Choosing stringency with the closing of the Talmud: At the end of the amoraic period, or, perhaps, even in the saboraic period, the rabbis decided to adopt the more stringent positions pertaining to the marital prohibition. They ruled that there were to be no exceptions to the law, except if the child died. Likewise, the rabbis ruled that the duration of the waiting period would be twenty-four months from the birth of the child. The Geonic period 4. In the Geonic period differences of opinion between the Babylonian Jews and the Jews living in the Land of Israel were preserved. These differences had their roots in sources in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, respectively. Ultimately, the Babylonian Geonim ensured that the Babylonian Talmud's approach became the consensus opinion among the rabbinic decisors. The Period of the Rishonim (Early Authorities) 5. Broadening the scope of the prohibition: In the period of the Early Authorities, the rabbis decided that the prohibition also applied to divorcees who had children from their previous marriages and to single women who had children out of wedlock. These rulings greatly expanded the scope of the prohibition. 6. Exceptions to the prohibition - the case of R. Jacob ha-Kohen of Cracow and its impact on the Spanish sages: R. Jacob of Cracow believed that exceptions could be made to the prohibition. By hiring a wet nurse for the child and creating a mechanism that would prevent her from breaking her commitment, the mother could remarry. This position was vehemently rejected by the sages of Ashkenaz, but Spanish sages seemed to have accepted it. When R. Asher b. Yehiel (Rosh) fled to Spain, he revolutionized the Spanish approach, leading the Spanish sages to adopt the stringent approach that originated in Ashkenaz. The Modern period 7. In the Modern period, with the shortening of the average nursing period, the rabbinic decisors faced a dilemma: on the one hand the classical halakhic literature adopted a stringent approach to the prohibition, but on the other hand, the rationale to the prohibition almost disappeared. The Halakhah reacted to this new reality by adopting two contradictory approaches: the stringent one and the lenient one. 8. The stringent approach fashioned by the Chatam Sofer: The Chatam Sofer and his disciples were only willing to annul the prohibition if forbidding the marriage was likely to cause the child to ultimately forsake religion. The Chatam Sofer's stringent approach was influenced by the fact that one of the early religious reformers, R. Aharon Churin argued that the marital ban should be abrogated. In order to strengthen the prohibition's legitimacy, Sofer's student, the Maharam Schik, argued that the prohibition was biblically mandated and he suggested a new rational to the prohibition. 9. The lenient approach: This approach is the product of a number of lenient rulings issued by various rabbinic decisors. These leniencies reflect the tremendous openness of the text to interpretation. Sources that had been interpreted stringently for hundreds of years were suddenly interpreted in a far more lenient fashion. We presume that the change in interpretation was a result of the change of the surrounding environment. 10. The Chatam Sofer's school's stringent opinion influenced the lenient rabbinic decisors too, vitiating their willingness to cross certain boundaries. Thus, the lenient decisors were willing to adopt lenient interpretations to the ancient sources, but they were not usually willing to recognize the need for a dramatic change in the law's status in light of the changing reality.},
  language  = {mul}
}
@book{Schulte2014,
  author    = {Schulte, Christoph},
  title     = {Zimzum},
  publisher = {J{\"u}discher Verlag im Suhrkamp Verlag},
  address   = {Berlin},
  isbn      = {978-3-633-54263-5},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {499},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Zimzum steht in der Kabbala f{\"u}r die Selbstzusammenziehung Gottes vor der Erschaffung der Welt und zum Zweck der Weltsch{\"o}pfung. Gepr{\"a}gt wurde dieser Begriff im 16. Jahrhundert durch die Lehren des j{\"u}dischen Mystikers Isaak Luria. Der vor der Sch{\"o}pfung allgegenw{\"a}rtige Gott muss sich im Zimzum von sich selbst in sich selbst zur{\"u}ckziehen und konzentrieren, um f{\"u}r die Erschaffung der Welt in seiner eigenen Mitte Platz zu machen. Dieses Buch sp{\"u}rt den Spuren des Zimzum quer durch die j{\"u}dische und christliche Geistesgeschichte in mehr als vier Jahrhunderten nach. Von den Kabbalisten in Safed bis zum Chassidismus, von den christlichen Hebraisten zu Newton und Schelling, von mystischen Handschriften bis zur Avantgarde von Else Lasker-Sch{\"u}ler oder Anselm Kiefer mischen und befruchten sich in den Deutungen und Aneignungen des Zimzum G{\"o}ttliches und Menschliches, J{\"u}disches und Christliches, Mystik, Philosophie, Theologie, Literatur und Kunst. Im 20. Jahrhundert schließlich wird in der Idee der Selbstbegrenzung einerseits eine radikale Gottverlassenheit der modernen Welt erkannt, andererseits aber auch ein unverzichtbares Moment menschlicher Kreativit{\"a}t, innerer Freiheit und friedlicher Koexistenz.},
  language  = {de}
}