Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /home/mosaicdev/sites/dev.mosaicmagazine.com/htdocs/wp-content/themes/mosaic/functions/functions-paywall.php on line 944

Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /home/mosaicdev/sites/dev.mosaicmagazine.com/htdocs/wp-content/themes/mosaic/functions/functions-paywall.php on line 944
Judaism’s Many Rules, and the Hierarchy of Values They Represent » Mosaic
Development Site - Changes here will not affect the live (production) site.

Judaism’s Many Rules, and the Hierarchy of Values They Represent

July 20 2017

Drawing on the work of the anthropologist Richard Schweder as well as on rabbinic sources, Moshe Koppel divides the various regulations Judaism imposes on its adherents into three groups, which, respectively, enforce fairness, loyalty, and restraint. Correlatively, violations of these rules are harm, disrespect, and degradation. Although all societies have taboos in each of these categories, today’s liberal cosmopolitans put a disproportionate value on fairness, while Jewish tradition tends to regard them as close to equal. Koppel illustrates his point by referring to two archetypal figures from his own life—a religiously observant Holocaust survivor named “Shimen” and a Jewish graduate student named “Heidi”:

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Read more at Judaism without Apologies

More about: American Jewry, Anthropology, Halakhah, Judaism, Religion & Holidays, Universalism

Israeli Sovereignty Would Free Residents of the West Bank from Ottoman Law

To its opponents, the change in the legal status of certain areas of Judea and Samaria is “annexation;” to its proponents, it is the “extension of sovereignty” or the “application of Israeli law.” Naomi Khan argues that the last term best captures the practical implications of the measures in question. Since the Six-Day War, the Jewish state has continued to uphold the Ottoman legal system in areas of the West Bank under its jurisdiction—despite the fact that the Ottoman empire ceased to exist in 1922; “annexation” would end this situation. Setting aside the usual questions of foreign policy, security, and the possibility of Palestinian statehood, Khan argues that this change would be the one most felt by those who live there:

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Read more at JNS

More about: Annexation, Israeli law, Ottoman Empire, Palestinian Authority, West Bank