Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (102)
- Review (27)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (13)
- Doctoral Thesis (6)
- Part of a Book (5)
- Other (2)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Moving Images (1)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (160) (remove)
Keywords
- Judaism (3)
- 20. Jahrhundert (2)
- 20th century (2)
- German Jewish history (2)
- Immigration (2)
- Islam (2)
- Israel (2)
- Jewish Studies (2)
- Judentum (2)
- Jüdische Studien (2)
Institute
- Institut für Jüdische Studien und Religionswissenschaft (160) (remove)
In postsocialist Potsdam, religious diversity has risen surprisingly in public life since 1990 although more than 80% of the residents have no religious affiliation. City and state authorities have actively embraced issues around immigration and integration as well as the promotion of religious diversity and interreligious dialogue and have linked this to the agenda of rejuvenating the city’s religious heritage. For years, negotiations have been going on about the need of a mosque, the reconstructions of a synagogue and the so-called “Garrison Church,” a landmark military church building. These initiatives have been dominating the public space for different reasons. They implied, beyond religion, questions of memory, identity, immigration, and culture. This article puts these three cases into perspective to offer a nuanced understanding of the importance of religious spaces in secular contexts considering city politics.
The Babylonian Talmud (BT) attributes the idea of committing a transgression for the sake of God to R. Nahman b. Isaac (RNBI). RNBI's statement appears in two parallel sugyot in the BT (Nazir 23a; Horayot 10a). Each sugya has four textual witnesses. By comparing these textual witnesses, this paper will attempt to reconstruct the sugya's earlier (or, what some might term, original) dialectical form, from which the two familiar versions of the text in Nazir and Horayot evolved. This article reveals the specific ways in which, value-laden conceptualizations have a major impact on the Talmud's formulation, as we know it today.
This article explores an instructive case of translation critique against the background of the rise of Zionism in Europe at the turn of the previous century. It seeks to answer the question: Why did David Frishman, one of the most prolific Hebrew writers and translators of the late 1890s and early 1900s, criticize Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Russian translation of Hayim Nahman Bialik’s Hebrew poems? Both Bialik and Jabotinsky were major figures in the field of Hebrew culture and Zionist politics in the early 1900s, while Frishman generally shunned partisan activism and consistently presented himself as devoted solely to literature. Frishman perceived literature, nevertheless, as a political arena, viewing translation, in particular, as a locus of ideological debate. Writing from the viewpoint of a political minority at a time in which the Hebrew translation industry in Europe gained momentum, Frishman deemed translation a tool for cementing cultural hierarchies. He anticipated later analyses of the act and products of translation as reflective of intercultural tensions. The article suggests, more specifically, that it was Frishman’s view of the Hebrew Bible that informed his “avant-garde” stance on translation.
A woman and a language
(2008)
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?
Berkowitz, J., Shakespeare on the American Yiddish Stage; Iowa City, Univ. of Iowa Press, 2002
(2002)
Between history and legend
(2010)
In the early modern period, Jewish historiography moved from the Hebrew domain into the Yiddish one. Jewish writers have succeeded to match the historical literature to the particular needs of their audience. The most popular Yiddish chronicle of this kind was written in Amsterdam in the 18th century by Menachem Man Amelander, following both the Jewish and Christian genre. This paper briefly surveys the genre characteristics of this chronicle and the way it served the purpose of guarding Jewish memory and tradition.
Brecht and the Jews
(1996)