@phdthesis{Blankovsky2014,
  author    = {Blankovsky, Yuval},
  title     = {עבירה לשמה},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-87158},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {A Transgression for the Sake of God -'Averah li-shmah: A Tale of a Radical Idea in Talmudic Literature All cultures, religions, and ethical or legal systems struggle with the role intention plays in evaluating actions. The Talmud compellingly elaborates on the notion of intention through the radical concept that "A sin committed for the sake of God [averah li-shmah] is greater than a commandment fulfilled not for the sake of God [mi-mizvah she-lo li-shmah]." The Babylonian Talmud attributes this concept—which challenges one of rabbinic Judaism's most fundamental dogmas, the obligation to fulfill the commandments and avoid sin—to R. Nahman b. Isaac (RNBI), a renowned 4th century Amora. Considering the normative character of the rabbinic culture in which Halakhah (Jewish religious law) plays such a central role, this concept, seems almost like a foreign body in the Talmudic corpus. The study focuses on the linguistic stratum of RNBI's statement. By tracking the development of the meanings and uses of the word 'li-shmah' the research locates RNBI's statement as part of the broader Talmudic discourse evaluating two levels of performing religious actions 'li-shmah/she-lo li-shmah'. Since we wish to explain the word 'li-shmah' consistently both times it appears in the statement, the best translation would be 'for the sake of God'. This translation is based on the linguistic connection between the word 'li-shmah' and the term 'le-shem shamayim' (for the sake of God) that appears in several rabbinic sources. This linguistic connection is also the key to identifying the possible root of RNBI's concept. RNBI bolsters his idea by quoting a verse about Jael, thus implying that Jael sinned for the sake of God. The research describes at least five statements in Sages' Literature that attribute sins for the sake of God to other biblical figures, all the while using the term 'le-shem shamim'. Therefore we may presume that RNBI's concept has evolved from the exegetical notion of attributing sin for the sake of God to biblical figures. To understand the way RNBI's statement was accepted in Talmudic culture, we must explore the textual witnesses to the literary frame of RNBI's statement: the Talmudic sugya (Nazir 23a; Horayot 10b). We possess five versions of the sugya's dialectical structure. Comparison of these versions, allows us to reconstruct the earlier dialectical structure, from which the familiar versions developed. The radical potential of RNBI's statement led to cultural activity, in the transmission of the sugya, in an effort to mitigate it. This activity is reflected in late additions to the sugya identified by our research—which should be viewed as a process of self-censorship for ideological reasons. This research explores a fundamental issue in rabbinic world: the immanent contradiction between law and intention. The research depicts in detail the movement of a radical idea from the margins culture to mainstream - in this case into the Babylonian Talmud. Therefore, the findings of this research provide substantial insight into our understanding of the interpretive process and of conceptual adaptation in rabbinic culture.},
  language  = {mul}
}
@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}
}