Excerpt from introduction: This thesis aims to examine Kafka's life and work in relation to what is arguably the crucial factor in his complex historical, cultural, literary and religious background. The particular relevance of his Jewishness is a subject that has occasionally been discussed in the study of Kafka; attention has been drawn to it especially by his Jewish contemporaries and friends, but the issues involved in it have not yet received exhaustive investigation. The main part of my thesis is devoted to the subject of Kafka's interest in Jewish mysticism, notably in its Hasidic form, in the later years of his life. It shows how his search to regain a sense of participation in Jewish tradition, combined with religious impulses deeply inclined towards an esoteric spirituality, led him to practise his art in the light of this interest as a religious pursuit with unmistakably mystical intent. What I hope becomes clear from my work is the course of individual development by which growing concern for his relation to Jewish tradition led Kafka to deeper appreciation of his historical situation, and guided his increasing sense of moral and spiritual commitment to his time, despite (or because of?) the deficiencies he perceived in it, in a 'task' undertaken through the medium of his art. In selecting nine stories from the Landarzt collection for commentary in the final chapter, I have chosen to concentrate on a crucial period in Kafka's literary development that began in 1916/17, when his continuing, earnest assessment of his position as a Jew had an evidence influence upon his choice of narrative subject and technique. The stories have been considered not in the published sequence of the Landarzt collection, but in an order that seems appropriate to discussion of various aspects of their Jewish context. Where possible, my commentaries upon these stories are related to themes previously identified in discussion of the Oktavhefte, which were begun soon after the collection was completed and contain the chief evidence of Kafka's growing mystical pre-occupation.

This investigation aims to ascertain whether or not the Israelites believed in the supernatural beneficent power of the dead. First, a lexicon of selected mortuary practices and beliefs is outlined. In the Israelite context, those rites most likely to reflect this belief are necromancy and those which fall within the purview of the ancestor cult intended to express veneration or worship of the ancestors (ch. 1). Secondly, an evaluation of the relevant texts from Syria-Palestine of the third to first millennia B.C.E. demonstrates that a longstanding West Semitic or Canaanite origin for Israel's belief in the supernatural beneficent power of the dead cannot be established on the basis of these data (chs. 2 and 3). Thirdly, an examination of the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that while a concern to care for or commemorate the dead might be inferred, neither an ancestor cult nor ancestor veneration or worship in particular can be established on the basis of the available literary (or material) evidence. Moreover, while necromancy is occasionally attested, the relevant passages which polemicize against Israel's embrace of this practice originate either in the last days of the Judahite monarchy or, more likely, during the exile itself. The historical reality which gave rise to this polemical tradition was the threat which Mesopotamian religion and magic beginning with the Neo-Assyrian period posed to later (dtr?) Yahwism (ch. 4). Comparative ethnographic data suggests that the longstanding absence of the belief in the beneficent dead in Israel and Syria-Palestine might be partially explained as a reaction to the pervasive fear of the dead. Nevertheless, once this belief was embraced by late Israelite society, owing to contemporary developments in politics (Mesopotamian hegemony), economics (depletion of resources), and religion (popularity of divination), necromancy, not ancestor veneration or worship, presented itself as the preferred ritual expression of this belief (conclusion).

Thesis (M.F.A.)--University of Central Florida, 2009. / Adviser: Steven Chicurel. Includes bibliographical references (p. 90-91).

Ch. 1: Introduction: A Destruction without Adequate Precedent. Ch. 2: Rupture and the Holy Ideal: Redemption in the Hebrew Bible. Ch. 3: Giving the Sense: The Rise of Commentary. Ch. 4: Rabbi Eliezer’s Silence. Ch. 5: Gold and Glass: Ethical Rupture in Mystical Union? Ch. 6: Our Impossible Victory.

In 1972, with the publication of Violence and the Sacred, René Girard makes the stunning assertion that violence is the foundation of culture. Humanity’s innate urges for competition and rivalry entrap us in cycles of violence, which left alone would find no resolution. Girard calls the cause of this rivalry “mimetic desire”, and the only way out of this deeply embedded vengeance is to create a scapegoat to take the blame, reconciling the conflicting parties. Girard asserts that the biblical texts uniquely reveal the mechanisms of mimetic rivalry and scapegoating, and even demystify sacrificial rituals as nothing more than sacrilized “good” violence to keep a fragile peace. This revelation, according to Girard, can finally allow us to remove violence from the sacred. Much scholarship has been devoted to Girard’s theory, in particular how it offers a viable alternative to the still-dominant sacrificial theology of the cross. But there is little scholarship on the connection between Girard and Judaism; and Girard’s own work leaves us with a picture of Judaism that is at best incomplete, and at worst unable to find an answer to disturbing violence permeating the scriptures. This dissertation brings the Hebrew Bible into dialogue with Girard’s ideas in a systematic fashion to assert, contra Girard, that the Jewish revelation is a full, effective and even practical expression of his theory. After an overview of Girard’s work in the first chapter, the dissertation examines three Jewish “vaccines” to the mimetic disease as follows: the Birkhat ha-Banim (“The Blessing of the Children”); the reading of the Book of Esther on Purim; and the reading of Jonah on Yom Kippur. The conclusion to the dissertation asserts, drawing on these three demonstrations, the following points: 1) Rene Girard gives an important and clarifying lens to aid us in finding a new way to talk about, understand, and unify Jewish scripture and ritual; 2) a Jewish perspective can help flesh out what a different “revelation” of Girard’s mimetic desire looks like—even providing prescriptions to curtail this desire; and 3) positive mimesis is possible, and there are Hebrew examples of it free of originary violence. The final chapter addresses certain challenges in reconciling Girard with Judaism, moving toward a sincere Jewish Girardianism that will harmonize with the central views of the tradition.

In the year 1504 the grand prince Ivan III convened a Council of the Church to try several Muscovites and Novgorodians accused of heresy. The Council found the men guilty and they were burnt at the stake in public executions in Novgorod and Moscow. The 1504 trial and execution was the last of three trials of a group of men accused of a 'judaizing' heresy and known to historians as the Zhidovstvuyushchie, or Judaizers. The first trial of the heretics had taken place in 1486 and the second in 1490. The evidence compiled for these trials by Archb'shop Gennady of Novgorod, who claimed to have discovered the heresy, the chronicle accounts for 1486 and 1490, the documents produced by the Councils of 1488 and 1490, and the Prosvetitel' of Iosif of Volokolamsk, a polemical work against the heresy of the 'Novogorod heretics who philosophize judaistically' provide much material for a study of the first documented heresy in the Russian Church. Many historians have been attracted to such a study for, as a review of the historical background and historiography of the heresy in Chapter I shows, the involvement of many of the alleged Judaizers in the affairs of the Church and State during a period of important changes affecting both the Church and the State and the relationship between them, makes an understanding of the heresy important to our view of Russia in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. But the many studies of the heresy of the Judaizers undertaken by historians from the nineteenth century to the present day have failed to yield agreement on the origin and nature of the heresy. It is seen variously as the result of Jewish propaganda in the Russian Church, of the influence of Western Renaissance and Reformation ideas in Russia or, and this is the view which has dominated recent Soviet historiography, as a symptom of an indigenous Reformation (or proto-Reformation) movement affecting the whole of Russian society in the late fifteenth-early sixteenth centuries. The present work is an attempt to resolve the questions posed by studies of the heresy on the basis of a re-examination of primary published and manuscript sources. These fall into two categories: sources presenting the evidence against the Judaizers (evidence of the accusers), and sources associated with the heretics themselves. Chapter II examines the evidence of the accusers in connection with the trials of 1488 and 1490 (the so-called Novgorod stage of the heresy). Most of this evidence comes from the pen of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod - consideration of the pre-1490 writings of Iosif of Volokolamsk shows that these do not have a direct bearing upon the subject of this study. Gennady's evidence has not received the attention it deserves, for it provides valuable information not only about the heresy he discovered in Novgorod, but also about the procedures accepted in the Russian Church in this period for discovering and identifying any heresy. His evidence explains his choice of the 'judaizing' label and shows that heretical acts had been committed in Novgorod, though not necessarily by the men condemned in 1488 and 1490. Gennady's letters are complemented by the official documents issued by the Councils of 1488 and 1490, and it is clear that the heretics were tried according to properly accepted procedure and that evidence and condemnation was obtained by Gennady with the full co-operation of the grand prince. Gennady remained Archbishop of Novgorod until 1503, but a study of the works produced at his court after 1490 (in Chapter III) provides little evidence of a continuation of his campaign against the heresy. For evidence against the heretics tried in 1504, historians have had to rely on the writings of losif of Volokolamsk, but an examination of his polemical tracts (later incorporated in the Prosvetitel') and letters written before 1504 yields little reliable information about the beliefs of the Judaizers. Even the Prosvetitel', written probably after, and not before the Council of 1504, as has been generally accepted, does little more than reiterate the accusations raised originally against the Novgorod heretics condemned in 1488 and 1490. The evidence of the accusers between 1490 and 1504 thus provides little information on the case presented against the heretics condemned by the Council of 1504. Such information has also been sought in the so-called 'literature of the Judaizers', works written by, or associated with, the men labelled by the accusers as 'judaizing' heretics. Chapter IV examines such works, most of which are associated with the Moscow Judaizers. Several survive in MSS. of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and it is clear that most were not considered heretical at the time. On the contrary, they belonged to the category of instructive Orthodox literature. Chapter V draws some conclusions from the evidence of the sources. If it is accepted that a heretic is someone whom the established Church recognises as such, the Novgorodians condemned in 1488 and 1490 by a body representative of the Church and according to accepted Orthodox procedure were heretics. However, the available evidence about the Novgorod heretics and about the methods used in identifying and naming the heresy suggests that they were not guilty of a departure from Orthodox Christian beliefs: only of offences against ritual and of criticism of ecclesiastical and, perhaps, secular authority. There is little evidence that the men accused of heresy in 1504 were condemned in accordance with the precedent established by the-case of the Novgorod heretics of 1488 and 1490, or by a body representative of the established Church. The accepted view that they were heretics is not substantiated by the evidence available and the reasons for their condemnation were probably not religious but political.

Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH ve-hanhagot yesharot: The Influence of Non-Lurianic Kabbalah on East-European Hasidism of Modern Age Mgr. Antonín Šedivý This dissertation thesis consists of Introduction, three chapters, and Conclusion. Furthermore, it includes name index, list of traditional Jewish sources used in the second chapter, list of sources, literature and other relevant resources, and four supplements. The Introduction of this dissertation deals with several issues important for its research. First of all, the East-European Hasidism is introduced, then follows very thorough overview of current state of knowledge of Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH ve-hanhagot yesharot, and the definition of goals, hypothesis, and methods of this dissertation, and finally, it also contains technical notes about the dissertation thesis. The first chapter "Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH ve-hanhagot yesharot" is devoted solely to Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH, which is the central point of my dissertation. It is divided into chapters that are dedicated to fundamental information about Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH, to its content, to its place within Hasidic literary collection, and to its reflexion by the opponents of Hasidism. The second chapter "Translation and Commentary of Selected Texts of Tzava'at Ha-RIBaSH" contains translation and short commentary of fifty-one selected...