Shaul Magid opens JCC series on Historical Jewish Response to Plagues
 |
|
Shaul Magid
|
“Alterity” is the first word in Shaul Magid’s introduction to his book, “Piety and Rebellion.” Alterity is the state of being different or otherwise, something outside tradition or convention.
Magid was raised in a Workman Circle household: secular, Yiddish speaking, progressive. Jewish alterity involved moving to Israel to study in a yeshiva, becoming a ba’al teshuva and living as a Haredi Jew. From there, he went on to an academic career that includes teaching positions at Rice University, Indiana University and Dartmouth, where he’s currently a distinguished fellow in Jewish studies.
Thus, when he presents a Jewish text to his students, particularly one that is “troubling,” Magid is well-equipped to present it in a way that emphasizes the multi-vocality of the text.
Magid will open a three-part virtual series, “Plague and Perspective: Jewish Survival Throughout the Ages,” on March 24 at 7:30 p.m. The series will explore the various iterations of plague the Jewish people have encountered throughout their existence.
How did the Jewish people respond to these catastrophes, both physically and spiritually? How did they learn to cope and survive, and even sometimes find meaning in the direst of circumstances? How can these experiences inform our understanding of today’s current crisis?
Magid will be in conversation with Congregation Beth Yeshurun Rabbi Steve Morgen. They will discuss “Plagues and the Holocaust: Living with Divine Absence.”
In his latest book, “Piety and Rebellion,” Magid discusses Hasidism as a textual tradition and a lived life. He writes, “It is to suggest that the texts themselves contain multivalent layers, and the lens one chooses to use as a reader can yield a variety of results that the texts themselves can sustain, even though in some cases those readings may stand in contradiction to one another … My own allergy to normative readings of these texts comes in part because, at a certain time in my life, I was convinced that was the only way to read them.”
Magid told the JHV that traditional Jewish texts often open themselves up to be interpreted in various ways.
“Hasidic texts, in particular, are not simply part of a tradition. These texts open one into a lived life. The texts are flexible, not didactic. They can be read in various ways. What is the correct meaning of those texts?
“To answer, I offer a musical metaphor: They represent jazz more than classical music. They are improvisational in a sense and they are always expanding. Hasidic texts seem to be operating outside the lines or pushing the lines. Some people who are not trained in reading Hasidic literature respond by saying, I don’t know what’s going on. How can he read the text this way?”
The point Magid makes is that religious communities are generated by particular readings of the texts that comprise its heritage. The critique of a religious community often is hermeneutically based; that is, it is a re-reading of the very texts that serve as its foundation. A troubling text is troubling to Jews because it affects their identity as Jews.
Magid not only studied at various yeshivot in Jerusalem, but also at the Shalom Hartman Institute and in the rabbinic program at the Seminary of Jewish Studies, the academic arm of the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel where his approach to reading a text was influenced by Eliezer Schweid. That’s where he learned the art of understanding a text on its own terms, before moving to the critical phase of analysis.
Magid writes, “this at times requires a suspension of disbelief.
“One of the things I learned from Schweid was don’t criticize something until you can first tell me what the author is arguing,” said Magid.
“In Schweid’s seminars, you felt like he was channeling the author in the best way possible before becoming critical. In contrast, students often begin with a critique. They haven’t been able to suspend their own critical intuitions before getting to the roots of what the original argument was.”
Along this line, Magid stirred up quite a bit of controversy last year when he published an article in Tablet on why one should engage Yoel Teitelbaum’s anti-Zionist works. (Teitelbaum, the late head of the Satmar Hasidim, published “Vayoel Moshe” in 1959. In the book, he argued Zionism and Judaism were incompatible.)
In his Tablet article, Magid first analyzed Teitelbaum’s discussion of the three oaths (between G-d, Israel and the world, from Tractate Ketubot); on whether the commandment to settle the land is still binding in our time; and on the halakhic status of Hebrew.
Then, Magid situated Teitelbaum’s ideological commitments against Zionism as part of a much longer trajectory of traditional religious anti-Zionism that stems back to the early 20th century in the work of Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz, the “Old Settlement” Jews in Palestine and, later, Neturei Karta in Israel. This anti-Zionism also was shared by much of the prewar ultra-Orthodox world, wrote Magid.
He pointed out that many of Teitelbaum’s critics – and Tablet readers – live in a post-Holocaust theology orbit, where making such theological claims is considered blasphemous. In contrast, Teitelbaum and many from his world do not live in such an orbit. They take covenantal theology very seriously. To those who live according to that religious worldview, claims that the Holocaust does not – or cannot – fit into any covenantal paradigm are unacceptable. Even more strongly, it is blasphemous.
Magid raised two questions in his article: Why should one even read Teitelbaum? Why should one take his arguments seriously?
From one perspective, Teitelbaum is part of Jewish history. “In the early 20th century, most Orthodox Jews were quite anti-Zionist,” said Magid. “Teitelbaum once said he didn’t understand why people were so upset by his argument.
“Secondly, even though his position has not won favor, I think his particular theological and political vision is very constructive in thinking about the reality we live in and some of the challenges Zionism faces in the present. Although Zionism solved the problem of Jewish life in Europe, it created other problems. That’s the way all solutions work.
“Teitelbaum lived in a totally religious world. There is no precedence of creating a secular Jewish state in that tradition. There are many religious Jews who don’t want the Holocaust to be the center of Jewish nationalism and sovereignty. We’ve failed to see all of the problems Zionism creates. For example, how do you deal with the non-Jewish population? There are real dangers in nationalism and Jewish nationalism is no different than other forms of nationalism.
“I’m interested in paths not taken, and this is one example of that.”
* * *
The “Plague and Perspective” series is a presentation of the Evelyn Rubenstein JCC and is made possible in part by the Program in Jewish Studies at Rice University.
Part 2 of the series will feature Stony Brook University Associate Professor Joshua Teplitsky in conversation with Boniuk Institute’s Paula Sanders. They will be speaking on “Contagion, Crisis and Culture: Jewish Ritual Life in Early Modern Plague Epidemics,” on March 31 at 7:30 p.m.
The series will conclude on April 7 at 12:30 p.m., with University of Connecticut Prof. Susan Einbinder, in conversation with Jewish Herald-Voice staff writer Aaron Howard. They will be speaking on “After the Black Death: Plague & Commemoration Among Iberian Jews.”
For tickets and information, contact Rabbi Samantha Safran at [email protected] at 713-595-8163.
Magid was raised in a Workman Circle household: secular, Yiddish speaking, progressive. Jewish alterity involved moving to Israel to study in a yeshiva, becoming a ba’al teshuva and living as a Haredi Jew. From there, he went on to an academic career that includes teaching positions at Rice University, Indiana University and Dartmouth, where he’s currently a distinguished fellow in Jewish studies.
Thus, when he presents a Jewish text to his students, particularly one that is “troubling,” Magid is well-equipped to present it in a way that emphasizes the multi-vocality of the text.
Magid will open a three-part virtual series, “Plague and Perspective: Jewish Survival Throughout the Ages,” on March 24 at 7:30 p.m. The series will explore the various iterations of plague the Jewish people have encountered throughout their existence.
How did the Jewish people respond to these catastrophes, both physically and spiritually? How did they learn to cope and survive, and even sometimes find meaning in the direst of circumstances? How can these experiences inform our understanding of today’s current crisis?
Magid will be in conversation with Congregation Beth Yeshurun Rabbi Steve Morgen. They will discuss “Plagues and the Holocaust: Living with Divine Absence.”
In his latest book, “Piety and Rebellion,” Magid discusses Hasidism as a textual tradition and a lived life. He writes, “It is to suggest that the texts themselves contain multivalent layers, and the lens one chooses to use as a reader can yield a variety of results that the texts themselves can sustain, even though in some cases those readings may stand in contradiction to one another … My own allergy to normative readings of these texts comes in part because, at a certain time in my life, I was convinced that was the only way to read them.”
Magid told the JHV that traditional Jewish texts often open themselves up to be interpreted in various ways.
“Hasidic texts, in particular, are not simply part of a tradition. These texts open one into a lived life. The texts are flexible, not didactic. They can be read in various ways. What is the correct meaning of those texts?
“To answer, I offer a musical metaphor: They represent jazz more than classical music. They are improvisational in a sense and they are always expanding. Hasidic texts seem to be operating outside the lines or pushing the lines. Some people who are not trained in reading Hasidic literature respond by saying, I don’t know what’s going on. How can he read the text this way?”
The point Magid makes is that religious communities are generated by particular readings of the texts that comprise its heritage. The critique of a religious community often is hermeneutically based; that is, it is a re-reading of the very texts that serve as its foundation. A troubling text is troubling to Jews because it affects their identity as Jews.
Magid not only studied at various yeshivot in Jerusalem, but also at the Shalom Hartman Institute and in the rabbinic program at the Seminary of Jewish Studies, the academic arm of the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel where his approach to reading a text was influenced by Eliezer Schweid. That’s where he learned the art of understanding a text on its own terms, before moving to the critical phase of analysis.
Magid writes, “this at times requires a suspension of disbelief.
“One of the things I learned from Schweid was don’t criticize something until you can first tell me what the author is arguing,” said Magid.
“In Schweid’s seminars, you felt like he was channeling the author in the best way possible before becoming critical. In contrast, students often begin with a critique. They haven’t been able to suspend their own critical intuitions before getting to the roots of what the original argument was.”
Along this line, Magid stirred up quite a bit of controversy last year when he published an article in Tablet on why one should engage Yoel Teitelbaum’s anti-Zionist works. (Teitelbaum, the late head of the Satmar Hasidim, published “Vayoel Moshe” in 1959. In the book, he argued Zionism and Judaism were incompatible.)
In his Tablet article, Magid first analyzed Teitelbaum’s discussion of the three oaths (between G-d, Israel and the world, from Tractate Ketubot); on whether the commandment to settle the land is still binding in our time; and on the halakhic status of Hebrew.
Then, Magid situated Teitelbaum’s ideological commitments against Zionism as part of a much longer trajectory of traditional religious anti-Zionism that stems back to the early 20th century in the work of Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz, the “Old Settlement” Jews in Palestine and, later, Neturei Karta in Israel. This anti-Zionism also was shared by much of the prewar ultra-Orthodox world, wrote Magid.
He pointed out that many of Teitelbaum’s critics – and Tablet readers – live in a post-Holocaust theology orbit, where making such theological claims is considered blasphemous. In contrast, Teitelbaum and many from his world do not live in such an orbit. They take covenantal theology very seriously. To those who live according to that religious worldview, claims that the Holocaust does not – or cannot – fit into any covenantal paradigm are unacceptable. Even more strongly, it is blasphemous.
Magid raised two questions in his article: Why should one even read Teitelbaum? Why should one take his arguments seriously?
From one perspective, Teitelbaum is part of Jewish history. “In the early 20th century, most Orthodox Jews were quite anti-Zionist,” said Magid. “Teitelbaum once said he didn’t understand why people were so upset by his argument.
“Secondly, even though his position has not won favor, I think his particular theological and political vision is very constructive in thinking about the reality we live in and some of the challenges Zionism faces in the present. Although Zionism solved the problem of Jewish life in Europe, it created other problems. That’s the way all solutions work.
“Teitelbaum lived in a totally religious world. There is no precedence of creating a secular Jewish state in that tradition. There are many religious Jews who don’t want the Holocaust to be the center of Jewish nationalism and sovereignty. We’ve failed to see all of the problems Zionism creates. For example, how do you deal with the non-Jewish population? There are real dangers in nationalism and Jewish nationalism is no different than other forms of nationalism.
“I’m interested in paths not taken, and this is one example of that.”
* * *
The “Plague and Perspective” series is a presentation of the Evelyn Rubenstein JCC and is made possible in part by the Program in Jewish Studies at Rice University.
Part 2 of the series will feature Stony Brook University Associate Professor Joshua Teplitsky in conversation with Boniuk Institute’s Paula Sanders. They will be speaking on “Contagion, Crisis and Culture: Jewish Ritual Life in Early Modern Plague Epidemics,” on March 31 at 7:30 p.m.
The series will conclude on April 7 at 12:30 p.m., with University of Connecticut Prof. Susan Einbinder, in conversation with Jewish Herald-Voice staff writer Aaron Howard. They will be speaking on “After the Black Death: Plague & Commemoration Among Iberian Jews.”
For tickets and information, contact Rabbi Samantha Safran at [email protected] at 713-595-8163.