@phdthesis{Zur2018,
  author    = {Zur, Avichai},
  title     = {פרדוקס 'הידיעה והבחירה' במשנת ר' צדוק הכהן מלובלין},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412201},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {371, xxxiii},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This research deals with R. Zadok's innovative writings. According to most scholars R. Zadok continues the doctrine of his rabbi R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and introduces existential fatalism: man has the freedom to act against the customary law, according to God's will which is revealed in his heart, even in his passions, which exceed the Halacha; however, man does not determine the will that is revealed in the root of his soul, but only uncovers it. Many expressions, in content and form, of this fatalism can be found in R. Zadok's writings; yet, he also introduces many remarks about human free choice and its creative power to establish and determine man's root and re-establish and influence the Divine worlds and this world. This research focuses on these passages whose centrality has been so far neglected by research. Hence, its renewed understanding of his doctrine. R. Zadok's position can be explained by means of the paradoxical perception, which claims the full strength of the two opposites and even a mutual influence between them, which creates a difficult yet fertile tension: as opposed to the a priori intellectual and formal process of fatalism where Divine Foreknowledge eliminates free choice, R. Zadok introduces fatality which identifies in reality itself the Divine foreknowledge and will that exist in all things. In R. Zadok's fatality, Divine foreknowledge does not eliminate free choice; on the contrary, without Divine foreknowledge, nothing has existence. Therefore, only the existence of Divine foreknowledge within free choice enables its true and indeed free fulfillment. R. Zadok's ontological perception is realized not only in the direct content of his words but also indirectly, in the method of his exegesis and the sense he gives to the concepts he discusses. Therefore the fatality is revealed in other areas in which there is a gap between the absolute dimension ('Yedi'ah') and the contingent dimension ('Bechirah'): the lie, imagination, evil, sin, suffering etc., indeed contingent compared with the absoluteness of truth, good, etc.; however, according to R. Zadok, God wants them as such - that is to say, they have an essential existence and actuality that are not absolute, but rather as such: as contingent, temporary and relative. However, these essential existence and actuality do not confirm them as they are but create a transformation within them. For example, evil does not become absolute good or remains evil but rather turns into 'Very Good' (Tov Me'od) which includes evil and according to Rabbi Zadok is greater than regular good. From this, rises also the opposite influence: that of free choice, or contingent Bechira in general, on Divine Foreknowledge, or absolute Yediah in general. According to R. Zadok, when the contingency and relativity of "Bechirah" received its essential existence and actuality, it has the power so to speak, to add dynamism to the permanent Divine absoluteness of the 'Yedi'ah': the affliction (Nega; נגע) of sin or suffering turns by itself, by interchanging its letters, into pleasure (Oneg; ענג) which is greater than regular delight. Man has the power to influence the upper worlds by decreeing decrees or by canceling Divine decrees; he also has the power to influence the daily novelties of this world, by the novellaes of the Oral Law and the sanctification of the new month which is capable of changing the movement of the zodiac. The human creativity of the novellae of the Oral Law is included in the Divine truth which is hidden in the Written Law and it only reveals and interprets the latter; but on the other hand, according to R. Zadok, the source of the dynamic vital novellaes of the Oral Law is higher than the source of the permanent absoluteness of Written Law and they are those which create and determine the latter. R. Zadok introduces two main concepts for his paradox: On the ontological perception - Yichud Gamur, the Ultimate Unification of God, in which the contingent duality (between God and His creation, and the choice it enables) of the Lower Unification paradoxically exists with the absolute unification and Divine Foreknowledge of the Upper Unification. On the perception of man's existential situation - HaShoresh HaNe'elam, The Hidden Root: unlike Rabbi Mordechai Yosef, his rabbi, rabbi Zadok claims that man determines his destiny by his willful contingent actions - yet, simultaneously, like his rabbi, he also claims that the man's permanent root is determined by God and His Foreknowledge and it is what determines his actions for better or worse. But above these R. Zadok points to an additional Hidden Root which is higher than the permanent one: it is indeed an absolute root (Yediah) yet is determined and established by man's willful actions (Bechira), similar to the Divine creation of 'ex nihilo'.},
  language  = {mul}
}
@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}
}