Abstract
In the confrontation of man with nature, the Biblical doctrine of idolatry precipitates inter alia three major teachings: that to conceive of matter — ‘wood and stone’ — as anything but inert, impervious to human animation and incapable of signifying the divine, save in the most exceptional of exceptional circumstances, is perhaps the greatest conceivable error of which man is capable; that direct access to God can be enjoyed by the individual; that to succumb to the employment of supposedly mediatory symbols is akin to a form of self-inflicted deception that also exposes its victim to political abuse (which must however, not be confused with a permissible political myth).1 These three propositions are inter-dependent, form a unity and can be assembled in any sequence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For Maimonides’s endorsement of the political myth, see L. Berman, ‘Ibn Bajjah ve-ha-Rambam’: Dissertation for the degree of doctor of philosophy, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1959, pp.139 ff.
H. Blumenberg, Arbeit am Mythos, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1979, pp.110–111.
For a summary outline of Durkheim’s views and critique, see S. Lukes, Durkheim, London, Allen Lane Penguin Press, 1973, pp.24 ff.
Quoted from L. Fine, ‘The contemplative practice of Yihudim in Lurianic Kabbalah’, in A. Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality, II, London, Routledge, 1987, p.79.
See P. Brown, The cult of the saints, London, SCM Press 1981.
L. Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1911, Vol.III, p.326.
See Y. Eliach, Hassidic tales of the Holocaust, New York, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp.92–4
F. Landsberger, ‘The origins of the decorated mezuzah’, Hebrew Union College Annual, 31, 1960, p.154.
R.Joel Halevi, Sefer Rabiyah, ed. A. Aptowitzer, repr. Jerusalem, 1984, p.292; and M. Schlüter, ‘Deraqon’ und Götzendienst, Frankfurt am Main/Bonn, Peter Lang, 1982, p.102.
R. Nehemiah Nobel, Hagut ve-halakhah, Jerusalem, Mossad ha-Rav Kuk, 1969, pp.145 ff.
For further detail and references, see U. Tal, ‘The Land and the State of Israel in Israeli religious life’, in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, Vol.38 (1976), pp.16–17
D. Hercenberg, L’Exil et la Puissance, Arles, Actes du Sud, 1990, pp.204 ff.
Norman Lamm, Faith and doubt, New York, Ktav, 1986, pp.174 ff.
Tos. to TB Yeb. 6b s.v. Yakhol; see also G. Hansel, ‘“... Et vous craindrez mon sanctuaire” (Lev. 19:30)’, in J. Halpern and G. Lévitte (eds.), Idoles, Paris, Denoël 1985, pp.109–123.
N. Polen, ‘A derashah of R.Joseph Saul Nathanson’, Tradition, vol.19, no.1, Spring 1981, pp.76–9.
See M. Buber, Moses, Engl, trans., London, East and West Library, 1946, p.106.
See, for example, Ex.19:6; Lev.11:44 ff.; also J. G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1989, p.33.
This scheme also allows for varying degrees of differentiation in terms of obligations and duties as applicable to Israelites, Levites and priests (descendants of Aaron); for details, see I. Knohl, Mikdash ha-Dmamah, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1993, pp.179–80.
2 Sam.6:1-8; cf. E. L. Ehrlich, Kultsymbolik im Alten Testament und im nachbiblischen Judentum, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1959, pp.22 ff.
See the view of R. Shraga Zvi Tannenbaum quoted in Y.-Z. Kahana, Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Tschuvot, Jerusalem, Mossad ha-Rav Kuk, 1973, p.383
E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian history, II, Leiden, Brill, 1980, p.202.
See the Responsum of R. Meir (the ‘Maharam’) of Rothenburg, cited by I. A. Agus, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, 2 vols., New York, Ktav, 1970, I, No.19, pp.174–175.
Z. Zinger, Jerusalem Post Magazine, October 20, 1967, p.3. (This article was kindly put at my disposal by Rabbi Dr. Z. Gotthold); S. S. Sered, ‘Rachel’s Tomb: the development of a cult’, Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol.2, No.2 1995, pp.103–148, esp. p.147.
‘Interestingly, neither the Holy Land nor the Holy Tongue has a Jewish name in the Biblical sources, as if (in traditionalist eyes) to underscore the fact that they are sacred entities held in trust rather than by absolute right and title. The land is always referred to in the Bible as Canaan...’ (L. Glinert and J. Shilhav, ‘Holy land, holy language’, in Language and Society, XX (1991), pp.59–86
See also I. Leibowitz, Am, Eretz, Medina, Jerusalem, Keter, 1992, pp.76–7; and Knohl, op. cit., p.176.
I. Leibowitz, Emunah, Historiyah, Ve-Arakhim, Jerusalem, Akademon, 1982, p.126.
That is why Moshe Greenberg can juxtapose the ‘conquest and settling of the Land’ to a social system. The Decalogue, Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel and the Psalms, Greenberg writes, ‘all agree that the essence of God’s requirement of man does not include the national task of settlement of the land... but consists mainly of the establishment of a just and mutually loving society’ Moshe Greenberg, (‘On the political use of the Bible in modern Israel’, in D. P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and golden bells, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1995, pp.461–71, here pp.467-8).
See R. zur Lippe, ‘Das Heilige und der Raum’, in D. Kamper and C. Wulf (eds.), Das Heilige — Seine Spur in der Moderne, Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum, 1987, pp.413–27
Menahem (Edmond) Stein, Ben Tarbut Yisrael ve-Tarbut Yavan ve-Roma, Jerusalem, Massada, 1970, pp.210–211.
A. Oppenheimer, ‘The boundaries of Eretz Israel as interpreted by the sages’, in G. Sed-Rajna (ed.), Rashi, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1993, pp. 166–7.
Copyright information
© 1997 Lionel Kochan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kochan, L. (1997). To Limit the Holy. In: Beyond the Graven Image. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25545-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25545-0_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-62596-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-25545-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)