Support Lishmahh's Jewish Knowledge Revival

There exists more in Heaven and Earth--and in traditionalist Judaism--than meets the eye. Knowledge that belongs to all Jews, not just the realm of Orthodoxy. Truths that encompass race, gender, and orientation that is often relegated to the realm of electives. There are many kinds of Jews asking where they are in our text and tradition and how they show up, if they ever do. This does not mean that the answers to these inquires will end in satisfactory closure, happy endings, or neat little bows. Yet there is much to be said about the intentionality of acknowledgment that their presences—that our presences—are there, and have been there all along. Which is a far cry from being told that one doesn’t exist, or has never existed, in our tradition at all. We here at Lishmahh Publications are here to reintroduce them into the main curriculum. And we need your help.

Our Values

Why do we describe ourselves as moving from a “traditionalist” space, as opposed to a framework of "Orthodox Judaism", “Torah Judaism”, “Halakhic Judaism” or even simply “traditional Judaism”?

Firstly, many of the commonly employed synonyms for “Orthodox Judaism” often insinuate that Orthodoxy has an exclusive ownership of aspects of our joint tradition. “Torah Judaism,” for example, implies that Torah is not important or a part of Jewish identity in non-Orthodox movements. There are Jews of all denominations who are deeply “religious” or fastidiously “observant” in the practices they do adhere to. “Halakhic Judaism” and “Traditional Judaism” erases that non-Orthodox movements indeed have traditions or a systemic approach to their Jewish practice that engages with the rulings of the classical Jewish authorities. To claim any of these terms as synonymous with “Orthodox Judaism” is to inherently claim that Heterodox Judaism has no traditions, do not observe any laws and/or customs, have no Jewish methodology, and do not hold Torah dear, rather than engaging in a conversation acknowledging that these aspects do exist in non-Orthodox Judaism, yet Orthodoxy’s contention is with how these aspects exist and operate in Heterodoxy.

Secondly, it is important to qualify that arguably any source or figure pre-1818—and certainly pre-1795—is not “Orthodox” but traditionalist, as Orthodoxy did not yet exist, either in name or ideology. Therefore, to state our traditional sources as the “Orthodox” view misrepresents both tradition and Orthodoxy, falsely illustrating what our tradition is and has been, and potentially serves as a barrier intimidating others away from studying that which they feel is in the realm of “Orthodoxy.”

Thirdly, using “Orthodox” as the descriptor for traditionalist stances erases Sefaradi, Mizrachi, and other Judaisms, as the construct that is Jewish denominationalism originated from, and operates in, an Ashkenazi context. The religious phenomenon of the Haskalah occurred primarily among Ashkenazi Jews, but—even while being impacted by it—denominational revolution did not occur in Sefaradi or Mizrachi circles. Therefore, to name Sefaradi or Mizrachi sources or figures of either the past or present as existing in a framework of denominationalism—Orthodox or otherwise—would be an inaccurate labeling and flattening of their relationship to traditionalism.

Although universally accepted as a reference method, the existing chapter divisions of the biblical text of the so-called “Old Testament” are not of Jewish origin.

On the contrary, they are instead a 13th century innovation codified circa 1227 CE by Stephen Langton—an English Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 being the first Bible to use Langton’s chapter pattern.

The Christian demarcations of the Biblical text were eventually adopted as the standard in Jewish circles for ease of reference during the (often forced) theological debates between Christian and Jewish dogma that peppered the Middle Ages. However, in many cases, these divisions are inaccurate or discordant in relationship to the Hebrew text.

In a post-Holocaust world, there has been an overemphasis on Jewish physical "might", when—as people of the book, not of the sword—our true might are our texts and our fidelity to them.

If we are to celebrate and demonstrate Jewish agency and self-determination, it only serves us to first free our foundational texts from the Christian-imposed structures they have been bound by, and present them as they were meant to be ingested, according to Jewish Masoretic traditional divisions of book, chapter, and verse. Contrary to popular Jewish publishing convention, the Masoretic demarcations take the primary position in LPS publications, with the popular Christian divisions being relegated to a secondary role.

"Who is wise? One who learns from everyone, as it is said: “From all who taught me have I gained understanding” (T'hillim/Psalms 119:99).

As we are firmly an Orthodox/traditionalist publishing house—even as those terms drift further apart from each other—there is much on which we theologically disagree with our Heterodox brethren. Yet to reject wisdom which we can learn from, just by dint of its denominational source, is anathema to the Torah's supreme value of truth as espoused by the RaMBaM “וְשָׁמַע הָאֱמֶת מִמִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ/V’shama ha‘emet mimmi she‘amru/One should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds”.

Moving with an open eye and ear towards gender language and how it is often employed and/or weaponized, we see no reason to insist on continuing the pervasiveness of masculine G’d imagery. However, we will not pursue a feminized perception of G’d either, as the crux isn’t to swap out male-gendered hegemony with female-gendered hegemony, but to understand that G’d operates outside a paradigm of either gender’s hegemony.

G’d is not a “He.” And neither is G’d a “She.” Nor is G’d a non-binary “They,” because G’d exists wholly outside the paradigm of gender.

G’d “Is.”

But, to frame G’d in the form of a noun, would be to necessarily say that G’d is an “It.”

A Something that chooses, at times, to interact with us as a Sovereign or Shepherd, Vintner or Spouse, but is ultimately a timeless singularity, unchanging and eternal in isolated splendor, that nonetheless provides us aid and comfort in our times of oppression and bereavement.

To that end, all language regarding G’d will use “It.” To name G’d as “It,” and to feel the almost visceral uncomfortability with the implications of that distance and alien feel, is to make us more sensitive as to when which “face” is toward us, and why.

Additionally, in cases where gender is not the crux of the verse or translation, a non-gendered option will be used instead.

LPS publication are crafted to foster familiarity with our texts and traditions which are often barred by a lack of familiarity or fluency with the Hebrew language or its esoteric terms. As such our publications, where relevant, are fully vowelized and transliterated at all times.

Publications

Our inaugural publishing slate for Fall 5784 includes:

-An anthology and commentary by Rabbi Shais Rishon

-An ongoing series born in a post-COVID world for when one is forced to pray alone, or is without access to a minyan. Will eventually include holiday and Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur editions

-A series fully translated, transliterated, and transtropilated (transliterated with Torah tropes) according to Jewish Masoretic traditions

All donations over $100 will be added to our Machziqei Torah donor list, featured at the beginning of all LPS publications.

Please enjoy this link to a free sample draft of

Y'dei Yaaqov: Megillat Rut The LPS K'tuvim:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cRA3AH9VYshgiB6lNYEvaYDmEzv3jtUN/view?usp=sharing