@article{Pinkas2021,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {"Der Sabbat" as a point of reference for evaluating Erich Fromm's approach to Jewish Law},
  series = {Fromm Forum},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {Fromm Forum},
  publisher = {Internationale Erich-Fromm-Gesellschaft},
  address   = {T{\"u}bingen},
  issn      = {1437-0956},
  pages     = {19 -- 41},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2023,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {The Unconscious in Rosenzweig's the Star of Redemption:},
  series = {The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy},
  volume    = {31},
  journal   = {The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1477-285X},
  doi       = {10.1163/1477285x-12341347},
  pages     = {102 -- 126},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig's use of the term "the unconscious" (das Unbewußte) and possible influences on his understanding of it. I claim that for Rosenzweig, it is through the unconscious that the individual becomes aware of himself and becomes capable of fulfilling his longing to achieve self-fulfillment and eventually to take part in a collective redemption. The unconscious is often perceived as the mental sphere related to trauma and repression in which defense mechanisms and fantasies are evolved. Fantasies are psychological tools that allow the individual to cope with trauma, but they are also "layers of enclosedness," illusions that should be dissolved. Hence, in the unconscious, we find a possibility of liberation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2020,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {Reason and the Future of Historical Consciousness},
  series = {Archivio di filosofia = Archives of philosophy},
  volume    = {88},
  journal   = {Archivio di filosofia = Archives of philosophy},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Fabrizio Serra Ed.},
  address   = {Pisa},
  issn      = {0004-0088},
  pages     = {149 -- 164},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2023,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {On prayer and dialectic in modern Jewish philosophy},
  series = {The Turn: Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {The Turn: Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik},
  publisher = {Al Mustafa Institut},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2569-2054},
  pages     = {45 -- 96},
  year      = {2023},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2023,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {On prayer and dialectic in modern Jewish philosophy},
  series = {Religions},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Religions},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2077-1444},
  doi       = {10.3390/rel14080996},
  pages     = {1 -- 28},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference between two patterns of recognition: the dialectical and the dialogical. The second assumption is that the origins of the dialogical pattern may be found in the relationship between human beings and God, a relationship in which prayer has a major role. The second assumption leads to the supposition that the emphasis of the dialogic approach on moral responsibility is theologically grounded. In other words, the relationship between humanity and God serves as a paradigm for human relationships. By focusing on Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig, in the context of prayer and dialectic, this paper highlights the complexity of these themes in modern Jewish thought. These two important philosophers utilize dialectical reasoning while also criticizing it and offering an alternative. The conclusions of their thought, in general, and their position on prayer, in particular, demonstrate a preference for a relational way of thinking over a dialectical one, but without renouncing the latter.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2022,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {Freud's Moses and Fromm's Freud},
  series = {International Journal of Philosophy and Theology},
  volume    = {83},
  journal   = {International Journal of Philosophy and Theology},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {2169-2327},
  doi       = {10.1080/21692327.2022.2140184},
  pages     = {240 -- 262},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually contributed to the rational and ethical development of Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud's Moses received extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his position on Freud's latest work. This paper offers explanations for Fromm's roaring silence on Freud's Moses.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Pinkas2021,
  author    = {Pinkas, Ronen},
  title     = {Animal rights - Jewish perspectives},
  series = {The Turn: Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {The Turn: Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik},
  publisher = {Al Mustafa Institut},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2569-2054},
  doi       = {10.53100/bvnmxbhgbhgjb},
  pages     = {65 -- 88},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {This article raises the question why is it that, despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and showing strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What has prevented the expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« (Lev 19,18) and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« (BT Shabbat 31a:6; JT Nedarim 30b:1) to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas's ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?},
  language  = {en}
}