![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article presents the unique reception of the Talmudic tale about the messiah at the gates of Rome (BT, Sanhedrin 98a) among German-Jewish intellectuals in the early twentieth century. Thereby, the article offers a new perspective on the relations between messianism, Zionism, and human agency in German-Jewish thought. In tractate Sanhedrin, Yehoshua ben Levi asks the messiah about the date of his arrival, and the redeemer answers, “Today.” However, as redemption fails to arrive, the prophet Elijah explains the redeemer’s words as “Today, if you will listen to my voice.” The tale raises the possibility that people have an agency to act and hasten the redemption. Nevertheless, the “correct” nature of redemptive actions is missing. I argue that by repeatedly interpreting the Aggadah, German-Jewish intellectuals position themselves within the political-theological conversation about Zionism and negotiate the tension between the ethical and the political manifestations of messianic agency. On the one hand, Zionists like Martin Buber, Chaim Arlosoroff, and Arnold Zweig change the content of the tale and charge it with political potency. On the other hand, Franz Rosenzweig returns to the traditional tale to offer a counter-reading supporting an ethical mode of agency instead of a Zionist form of activity.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Morgan, “Providence,” 467.
2 Kavka, Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, 7.
3 Morgan uses the tale about the messiah at the gates of Rome to exemplify the question of messianism and agency but does not develop the matter. Morgan, “Providence,” 470–1.
4 See Rashi on Babylonian Talmud, “Sanhedrin,” folio 98.a.
5 Baal Shem Tov, “The Holy Epistle,” 236–7.
6 Nachman of Breslov, Likutei Moharan 1, 425. Teitelbaum, Yismach Moshe on Bereshit and Shemot, 8.
7 For more on its different versions and functions in the Talmudic-Midrashic corpus see: Berger, “Captive at the Gate of Rome,” 1–17; Margaret Jacobi, “‘In its Time I will Hasten it’ Messianic Speculation in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 96b–99a,” 115–9. On the function of the in the work of Nachmanides see: Roth, “The Disputation of Barcelona (1263),” 123–5; Chazan, “In the Wake of the Barcelona Disputation,” 188, 194–5; Altshuler, “Messianic Strains in Rabbi Israel Ba’al Shem Tov’s ‘Holy Epistle’,” 64–5.
8 I examine Levinas and Derrida’s reception of the tale in: Shenhav, “Jacques Derrida and the »Desertification« of the Messianic,” 89–108.
9 Blumenberg, Work on Myth, 34.
10 Bottici, A Philosophy of Political Myth, 179.
11 Buber, “Judaism and the Jews,” 21.
12 Although Buber’s reference to the tale is repeatedly quoted by scholars of his works, thus far there has been no attempt to critically examine his interpretation. Nevertheless, there are efforts to define Buber’s approach to tradition in his Address on Judaism. For example, Dan Avnon explains that Buber’s speeches fired the imagination of young Jews “with a vision of Judaism that is not Orthodox yet nonetheless faithful to the tradition’s ancient mission.” Avnon, Martin Buber, 26.
13 I believe Buber’s background, specifically the fact that he was brought up by a Talmudic scholar (his grandfather Salomon Buber), excludes the possibility he “innocently” omitted the reference from tractate Sanhedrin. In other words, his version of the tale speaks to a selective hermeneutical process.
14 Buber’s approach is also in accordance with his more general critique on rabbinical literature. In his second speech in Prague, Buber creates a contrast between the “creative” biblical period and the Talmudic age of exile characterized by “intellectuality” and “bookish” interpretations. Buber, “Judaism and Mankind,” 29.
15 Buber, Die Geschichten des Rabbi Nachman, 1.
16 Buber, “The Beginning of Hasidism,” 150. According to Martina Urban, Buber’s early reflections on Hasidism represent a stance that assumes Jews in the West “ceased to be a text-centered and, consequently, a hermeneutic community.” Urban, Aesthetics of Renewal, 11–2.
17 The figure of the old man suggests Buber’s own grandfather and scholar Salomon Buber.
18 For more about the embodiments of Elijah in Jewish folktales see: Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, 393–5.
19 Buber, “Judaism and the Jews,” 20.
20 Buber, “The Renewal of Judaism,” 55.
21 For more see: Friedman, Martin Buber, 126–7; Avnon, Martin Buber, 24–7.
22 For an elaborated discussion on the impact of Buber’s speeches see: Mendes-Flohr, Divided Passions, 84–6.
23 Arlosoroff, Leben und Werke; ausgewählte Schriften, Reden, Tagebücher und Briefe, 263. My translation.
24 Literally problematizing or debating over something.
25 For more see: Cohen, “Arnold Zweig’s War Novellas of 1914 and their Versions,” 277–8.
26 On the impact of the “Judenzählung” on Zweig see: Sauerland, “Arnold Zweig und das Ostjudentum,” 113; Efron, “The Zionist World of Arnold Zweig,” 204.
27 Almost two decades later, Zweig published a novel about the famous battle of Verdun. See: Zweig, Erziehung vor Verdun.
28 Zweig’s letter from 15 February appears in: Wenzel, Arnold Zweig, 1887–1968, 74.
29 Zweig, “Judenzählung vor Verdun,” 37. The story first appeared in the Jüdische Rundschau in November 1916.
30 Throughout his text, Simon makes several references to Talmudic texts. Therefore, we can assume that he refers to Buber with full awareness that his text is a modified version of the tale in tractate Sanhedrin.
31 Simon refers to the actor Zvi ben Chaim (1898–1957) who played the character of Tanchum in the Golem.
32 Simon, “Zum Problem der jüdischen öffentlichen Meinung,” 49–50.
33 Simon, “Zum Problem der jüdischen öffentlichen Meinung,” 43–5.
34 The play was originally written in Yiddish by H. Leivick, but translated by Benjamin Caspi.
35 Leivick, “The Golem,” 306.
36 See for instance: Schlesinger, Im Zeichen der Wiedergeburt, 130.Other intellectuals adhere at the same time period to the original tale but take a similar approach as Buber and emphasize the notion of political activism. See: Rudolf Kayser, “Die Neue Bund,” 527.
37 Kohn, Die politische Idee des Judentums, 64.
38 Research literature tends either to ignore Rosenzweig’s interpretation or to award it a marginal-anecdotal importance. Gibbs, Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas, 109–10; Mosès, The Angel of History, 60.
39 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 344–5. My translation.
40 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 345.
41 According to Paul Mendes, Rosenzweig’s earlier essay “Atheistic Theology” should be read as a reaction to Buber’s Addresses on Judaism. Mendes-Flohr, Martin Buber, 91.
42 Rosenzweig began to write The Star of Redemption in 1918; thus, his letter to Oppenheim could be recognized as part of his preparatory notes.
43 Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, 289–90.
44 Scholars of Rosenzweig’s thought offer different and sometimes contradictory descriptions of his stance on Zionism. My own limited discussion in this article falls along the lines of Leora Batnizky’s reading. Batnizky shows how Rosenzweig supports a Jewish exilic existence and describes Zionism as a form of dangerous idolatry. However, Batnizky also asserts that Rosenzweig sees in idolatrous Zionism a necessary risk with which the Jewish people must engage. Batnitzky, Idolatry and Representation, 187–90.
45 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 344.
46 Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, 241.
47 In a different part of his letter to Oppenheim, Rosenzweig comments somewhat ironically on the notion of messianic progress by comparing the Talmudic tale to a conversation he supposedly had with his teacher: “Hermann Cohen actually answered my question: ‘Do you believe that ‘messianic age’ will begin in the next fifty years?’ with the response ‘No, but in the next hundred.’ It is a story almost as beautiful as the ‘today’ story.” Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 345.
48 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 345.
49 For more see: Batnitzky, Idolatry and Representation, 68; Sharvit, “History and Eternity,” 190.
50 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 344.
51 Rosenzweig adheres to the structure of the tale, to the notion of the “messianic today,” and to its indeterminable nature in his discussions about commandments and the love of God. See for instance: Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, 191–2.
52 Rosenzweig, Briefe und Tagebücher, 1–2, 344.
53 Franz Rosenzweig, Franz Rosenzweig and Jehuda Halevi, 259.
54 Another detail that links Rosenzweig’s letter to Oppenheim to his interpretation of Halevi’s poem is that in both texts, he repeats the story about Hermann Cohen in close proximity to his discussion of the “messianic today.” See note 47 above.
55 See for instance: Shapira, Bible and Israeli Identity; Raz-Krakotzkin, “Religion and Nationalism in the Jewish and Zionist Context,” 33–53.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ghilad H. Shenhav
Ghilad H. Shenhav is a research associate (wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter) at the department of history and at the center for Israel studies at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.