Wednesday, January 21, 2009

My Family Origin study #1

See also Evernote entry for this study



Jewish Frankfurt am Main

See also Frankfurter Judengasse, People born and actived at Frankfurt/Main, History of the Jews in Germany, List of German Jews

The date of the organization of Frankfurt's Jewish community is uncertain. Probably no Jews were living in Frankfurt at the time of the first and second Crusades, as the city is not mentioned among the places where Jews were persecuted, although references occur to persecutions in the neighboring cities of Mayence and Worms.

A Jew of Frankfurt is mentioned in connection with the sale of a house at Cologne between 1175 and 1191. Eliezer ben Nathan, rabbi at Mayence toward the end of the twelfth century, says that there were not then ten adult Jews in Frankfurt. The first reliable information concerning Frankfurt Jews dates from 1241, on May 24 of which year 180 Hebrews were killed during a riot and many fled, this being the first Judenschlacht or slaughter of the Jews. As the affair was detrimental to the income of the emperor, he was incensed with the city for seven years. King Conrad IV did not forgive the citizens until May 6, 1246. The emperor distributed the income he derived from the Jews so liberally among the princes and his retainers that he had little left for himself; yet the Jews remained under his protection. In 1286 King Rudolf pledged to Count Adolf of Nassau 20 marks yearly from the income derived from the Frankfurt Jews. When Adolf was made king under the title of "Adolf of Nassau," he pledged these 20 marks to the knight Gottfried of Merenberg (1292); and the latter again pledged 4 marks of this sum to the knight Heinrich of Sachsenhausen. King Adolf also gave 25 marks to Glottfried of Eppstein as a hereditary fief; and from 1297 he gave 300 marks yearly of the Jews' tax to the Archbishop of Mayence, adding to this sum 500 pounds of hellers in 1299. As early as 1303 the archbishop pledged 100 marks of this amount, and thus the Jews of the city of Frankfurt became subject to the archbishop. The emperor, however, attempted to exact still more money from the Jews, and it was only thanks to the resistance of the city that King Adolf did not succeed in 1292 in extracting from them the sum required for his coronation.

The Jews were subject not only to the emperor and to the archbishop but also to the city; in 1331 King Ludwig recommended his "beloved Kammerknechte" to the protection of the municipality. Under Ludwig the Frankfurt Jews were accused of a crime and cruelly persecuted, and many fled. The king then confiscated the houses and other property of the fugitives and sold them to the municipal council for 3,000 pounds of hellers. Those Jews that returned had their property restored to them; and, as the Jews had been treated unjustly, the king promised not to punish them again but to be content with the verdict of the municipal council. The Jews were required, however, to pay to the king a new impost, the "goldene Opferpfennig."

In the 14th century

During the Black Death (1349) the Jews of Frankfurt were again persecuted. At the beginning of these outbreaks the circumspect Carl IV, who feared for his income, pledged the Jews to the city for more than 15,000 pounds of hellers, stipulating that he would redeem them, which he never did. The Flagellants, on coming to Frankfurt, destroyed nearly the entire Jewish community, with the Jews in their distress setting fire to their own houses. Their property was confiscated by the council by way of indemnity. Jews returned to Frankfurt very gradually. In 1354 Carl IV. renewed his pledge to the city; three years later the Archbishop of Mayence again advanced his claims, but the Jews and the council came to an agreement with him in 1358. In 1367 the city was again in full possession of the income derived from the Jews, but this did not prevent the emperor from occasionally levying extraordinary taxes; for example, Sigismund (1414) exacted a contribution from the Jews toward the expenses of the Council of Constance. HI

The Jews were under the jurisdiction of the municipal council. Beginning with 1488, privileges (Judenstüttigkeiten) were issued that had to be renewed every three years. The Jews lived originally in the vicinity of the cathedral, this part of the city being necessary for their commerce; but Christians also lived there. Hence it was a hard blow to the former when they were forced, in 1462, to settle outside the old city ramparts and the moat. At first the city built their dwellings, but later they were required to erect their own houses, The Judengasse originally consisted merely of one row of houses; when this became overcrowded, a part of the moat was filled in, and houses were built upon the new ground thus obtained. There were three gates in the street, one at each end and one in the center. The cemetery of the community, which was situated on the Fischerfeld and which is still in existence, is mentioned for the first time in 1300, but a tombstone dated July, 1272, has been preserved. Among the communal buildings were the synagogue (called also the "Judenschule"), the "Judenbadstube," the "Juden-Tanzhaus" or "Spielhaus," and the hospital. The Jewish inhabitants were more numerous in the early years of the community than later on: in 1241 they numbered about 200; in 1357 there were 12 tax-paying families; from 1357 to 1379, not more than 14 on the average; from 1401 to 1450, an average of 12; while in 1473 there were 17 families.

From the 15th to the 17th century

Toward the end of the Middle Ages the number of the Frankfurt Jews was considerably increased by emigrants from Nuremberg (1498); and Frankfurt took the place of Nuremberg as the leading Jewish community in the empire. This is seen in the numerous requests made by other cities to the magistrates of Frankfurt for information concerning their method of procedure in cases affecting Jews.[1] Civil cases were decided by a commission of twelve, with the chief rabbi at its head. The reports of this commission from 1645 to 1808 are in the archives of the community. In 1509 the Jews were threatened with confiscation of their Hebrew books by Pfefferkorn, who arrived in the city with an imperial edict; on April 10, 1510, they were obliged to surrender all their books, which were not restored to them until June 6, after they had sent a special embassy to the emperor. In 1525 the impending danger of expulsion was averted by the municipal council; but the Jews were restricted in their commerce and were forbidden to build their houses higher than three stories. Although this measure crowded them more closely, there were 43 Jewish families in Frankfurt in 1543, and 454 in 1612. (A list of these families was published in 1614; 2d ed., Mayence, 1678; republished in the "Israelit," Aug. 17, 1899).

Hard times were now approaching. In 1612 the Jews of Frankfurt suffered much on account of some persons who were heavily indebted to them, chief among these being Fettmilch. On Aug. 22, 1614, these men headed an attack on the Jews' street, sweeping away everything in the space of thirteen hours; and the unfortunate Jews, who had sought refuge in the cemetery, begged for permission to depart. On the following day 1,380 Jews, glad to have saved even their lives, left the city and went to Offenbach, Hanau, and Höchst. The synagogue as well as the Torah-scrolls were destroyed, and the cemetery was desecrated. When the emperor heard of the affair he proscribed Fettmilch; but the Jews were not brought back until February 1616, when their street was placed under the protection of the emperor and the empire, as announced in a notice affixed to each of the three gates. By 1618 there were 370 families, living in 195 houses, of which 111 lay to the right of the Bornheimerpforte, and 84 to the left. The houses were of wood, with stone foundations, and were named according to signs suspended in front. The names were those of animals (e.g., ox, duck, wild duck), fruits (apple, red apple), trees (fir, elder, nut), or miscellaneous objects (tongs, scales, winecup); but sometimes a house was named simply from the color of the shield, e.g., red= "Rothschild"; black = "Schwarzschild." The main synagogue was built in 1462; a smaller one was erected in 1603. Among the other communal buildings were the bath, to the east of the synagogue, the dance house, the inn, the slaughterhouse, the bakehouse, and the hospital.

With their return to Frankfurt a new epoch in the history of the Jews of that city begins. They were still debarred from acquiring real estate, but they loaned money, even accepting manuscripts as pledges. The rate of interest, formerly as high as 24 percent, was now reduced to 8 percent. As the unredeemed pledges were sold, traffic in second-hand goods arose, which was further stimulated by the fact that the Jews were not permitted to sell new goods. They were also forbidden to deal in spices, provisions, weapons, cloth, and (from 1634 on) grain. But in spite of these interdictions, their commerce gradually increased. During the Thirty Years' War the Jews fared no worse than their neighbors. In 1694 there were 415 Jewish families; of these, 109 persons were engaged as moneylenders and dealers in second-hand goods; 106 dealt in dry goods, clothes, and trimmings; 24 in spices and provisions; 9 retailed wine and beer; 3 were innkeepers; and 2 had restaurants. Besides these there were the communal officials.

In the 18th century

The importance and status of the community at the beginning of the eighteenth century are indicated by the gracious reception accorded to the deputation that offered presents to Joseph I on his visit to Heidelberg in 1702. On Jan. 14, 1711, a fire which broke out in the house of Rabbi Naphtali Cohen destroyed the synagogue together with nearly the whole Judengasse. The rabbi was accused of having caused the fire by cabalistic means and was forced to leave the city. The 8,000 homeless Jews found shelter either in the pest house or with compassionate Christians. The synagogue and the dwelling houses were speedily rebuilt, and the street was widened six feet. In 1715 the community issued an edict against luxury. From 1718 onward the "Residenten," or representatives of the community of Frankfurt at Vienna, were accorded official recognition. In 1721 part of the Judengasse was again destroyed by fire. About the same period, conflicts with the Shabbethaians (a messianic Jewish sect) caused excitement in the community. In consequence of the denunciation of a baptized Jew the edition of the Talmud published at Frankfurt and Amsterdam between the years 1714 and 1721 was confiscated; and certain prayer books were likewise seized on account of the "Alenu" prayer. The books were restored, however, on Aug. 1, 1753, chiefly through the efforts of Moses Kann.

The middle of the century was marked by the dissensions between the Kann and Kulp parties. The Kulp party, to which many influential men belonged, endeavored to harmonize the ancient constitution of the community with new measures for the benefit of the people; but their efforts were thwarted by the wealthy Kann family, whose influence was predominant both in the government of the community and among the people. In 1750 the two parties effected a compromise, which was, however, of but short duration. The community was further excited by Jonathan Eybeschütz's amulet controversy. In 1756 the Jews received permission to leave their street in urgent cases on Sundays and feast days for the purpose of fetching a physician or a barber or mailing a letter, but they were required to return by the shortest way. In 1766 the Cleve divorce controversy began to excite the rabbinate of Frankfurt also. At the coronation of Joseph II. the Frankfurt Jews were permitted for the first time to appear in public, when they swore allegiance to the emperor (May 28, 1764). The community of Frankfurt rendered great service in suppressing Eisenmenger's "Entdecktes Judenthum," confiscating all the copies in 1700. Eisenmenger sued the community for 30,000 gulden. Although he lost his case, proceedings were several times renewed with the aid of King Frederick I of Prussia, and only in 1773 was the community finally released from all claims brought by Eisenmenger's heirs.

In 1753 there were 204 houses, built on both sides of the Jews' street. On May 29, 1774, a fire destroyed 21 dwellings, and the homeless again found shelter in the houses of Christians. When their houses were rebuilt, the Jews endeavored to remain outside of the ghetto but were forced to return by a decree of Feb. 13, 1776. One hundred and forty houses on the Jews' street were destroyed by fire when the French bombarded the city in 1796.

The Cemetery

The Jewish cemetery, as mentioned above, is situated on the old Fischerfeld. In 1349 the cemetery was enclosed within the city moat and walls, which were fortified with jetties. Beginning in 1424 the neighboring communities also buried their dead there; but this privilege was withdrawn by the magistrate in 1505. When Frankfurt was besieged during the interregnum in 1552, a garrison with cannon was stationed in the cemetery, and an attempt was even made to force the Jews to sink the tombstones and to level the ground; but against this they protested successfully (July 15, 1552). During the Fettmilch riots the whole community spent the night of Sept. 1, 1614, in the cemetery, prepared for death, and thought themselves fortunate when they were permitted to leave the city through the Fischerfeld gate on the following afternoon. In 1640 a dispute in regard to passage through the cemetery was decided in favor of the Jews. The community occasionally paid damages to Christians who were injured by the oxen (bekorim, the first-born that may not be used in accordance with Exodus xiii. 3) that grazed within the cemetery walls. In 1694 a neighboring garden was bought for the purpose of enlarging the cemetery. During the great fire of 1711 the Jews sought refuge withall their possessions among the tombs of the fathers. The communal bakingnovens, which before the fire were behind the synagogue, were transferred to a new site acquired in 1694. The only building preserved from the flames was the hospital for the poor, near the cemetery; behind it, another hospital was built in 1715 to replace the one in the Judengasse that had been destroyed. A slaughterhouse for poultry and a fire station were erected between the ovens and the cemetery. The fire station existed down to 1882; the site of the ovens is now covered by the handsome building of the Sick Fund, and that of the Holzplatz and the garden by the Philanthropin schoolhouse. On the site of the two hospitals the Neue Gemeinde-Synagoge was built in 1882. The cemetery, covering more than five acres, was closed in 1828; its epitaphs have been published by Dr. M. Horovitz.

The end of the eighteenth century marks a new epoch for the Jews of Frankfurt. In 1796 they received permission to live among Christians. In 1811 the prince-primate granted them full civic equality. In 1809 they were already scattered throughout the city and had taken surnames. A reaction, however, came in 1816, when the city, on regaining its autonomy, completely excluded the Jews from the municipal government. In 1819 there were riots to the cry of "Hep-hep!", and the magistrate discussed the advisability of restricting the number of Jews to not more than 500 families and of assigning to them a special part of the city. These schemes, however, were not carried into effect. In 1853 the civic rights of the Jews were enlarged, and in 1864 all restrictions were removed. The synagogue that had been rebuilt after the fire of 1711 in the Judengasse was torn down in 1854, and a new synagogue was erected on the site (1855-60). The synagogue on the Börneplatz was consecrated in 1882. The Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft, an independent congregation founded in 1851 (incorporated 1900), built a synagogue in 1853 and enlarged it in 1874. In 1817 there were 4,309 Jews in Frankfurt; in 1858, 5,730; in 1871, 10,009; in 1880, 13,856; in 1890, 17,479; and in 1900, 22,000 in a total population of 288,489.

Rabbis and scholars

The following rabbis and scholars of Frankfurt may be mentioned:

  • Pethahiah; elected 1622; author of the cabalistic work "Sefer ha-Kavonot," which relates the events in connection with the Fettmilch riot and which was approved by Elhanan Helen, author of the "Megillat Winz."
  • Hayyim Cohen of Prague, grandson of the Maharal of Prague; officiated in 1628.
  • Shabtai Sheftel Horowitz, son of Isaiah Horowitz; elected in 1632. He was the author of "Vavei ha-'Ammudim," the introduction to his father's work. In 1643 he went, like his predecessor, to Posen.
  • Meïr Schiff, author of novellæ to the Talmud; born at Frankfurt in 1605; died while rabbi of Fulda in 1641, just after he had been called to the rabbinate of Prague; was buried at Frankfurt.
  • Mendel Barr of Cracow; elected in 1644; died in 1666. He was a pupil of Joel Sirkes, and inclined toward the Kabalah. Among his prominent pupils were Yair Bacharach and Meïr Stern.
  • Aaron Samuel Kaidanower of Wilna; called to Frankfurt in 1667; went to Cracow in 1677. He was the author of "Birkath ha-Zevach," commentary to some treatises of the Talmud.
  • Isaiah Horowitz II, son of Shabtai Sheftel Horowitz, and grandson of Isaiah Horowitz. David Grünhut, kabalist, cited by Johann Andreas Eisenmenger and Johann Jakob Schudt, was his contemporary. Hurwitz went to Posen.
  • Samuel b. Zebi of Cracow; elected 1690. He added valuable references to the Frankfurt edition of the Talmud (1721). His son, Judah Aryeh Löb, known as a writer, was associate rabbi; Löb's father-in-law, Samuel Schotten, though rabbi at Darmstadt, was living at Frankfurt as "Klaus" rabbi, and after Samuel ben Zebi's death (1703) he became president of the rabbinate.
  • Naphtali Cohen; called in 1704. As stated above, he was accused of having caused the fire of 1711, and, being compelled to leave the city, he wandered about for many years.
  • Moses Frankfurter, author of a commentary to the Mechilta.
  • Joseph ben Moses Kossmann, author of "Noheg ke-tzon Yosef," a work on the ritual of the community of Frankfurt.
  • Pethahiah ben David Lida, who issued in 1727 at Frankfurt his father's "Yad Kol Bo." The book was confiscated but was restored with the approval of several professors and preachers.

Naphtali Cohen's successors in the rabbinate of Frankfurt were as follows:

  • Abraham Broda of Prague; died in 1717; famous both as a writer and as a scholar.
  • Jacob Cohen Popers of Prague; called from Coblenz to Frankfurt. He was noted for his many pupils and for his learned correspondence, which is included in the responsa collection "Shev Ya'akov." He became involved in the current controversies in regard to Shabbethaism.
  • Jacob Joshua Falk (1741-56); known to Talmudists through his valuable Talmud commentary "Pnei Yehoshua" and to historians through his conflict with Jonathan Eybeschütz. During his rabbinate occurred the Kann-Kulp controversy mentioned above. Kulp's party was opposed to the rabbi and sided with Eybeschütz. Falk had to leave the city in consequence of this disturbance. He died at Offenbach in 1756, at the age of 75, and was buried at Frankfurt.
  • Moses Kann, Moses Rapp, and Nathan Maas took charge of the rabbinate until 1759. Maas was the real leader in the controversy in which the rabbinate of Frankfurt engaged with reference to the divorce granted at Cleve (referred to above), as his opinion was authoritative.
  • Abraham Lissa; elected in 1759; died in 1768. He was a notable Talmudist, and the author of "Birkath Avrohom"; he also studied medicine. Maas again acted as deputy rabbi from 1769 to 1771; he is also known through his commentary to two treatises of the Talmud.
  • Pinchas Horowitz; elected 1771; died 1805. He was the author of "Hafla'ah" and other Talmudic works. Prominent scholars were at that time living at Frankfurt; among them David Tebele Scheuer, who became rabbi at Mainz, and Nathan Adler, a strict ritualist, who gathered about him a group of men that attempted to introduce Chasidism into Frankfurt. The community, with the consent of the rabbi, soon found it necessary to proceed against Adler. Hurwitz also opposed the school of David Mendelssohn.
  • Hirsch Hurwitz, son of Pinchas Horowitz; died Sept. 8, 1817. He was the author of several haggadic and halachik works.
  • Leopold Stein; elected 1844; officiated down to 1862; also known as poet and writer.
  • Abraham Geiger, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Breuer, Nehemiah Brüll, M. Horovitz, and Rudolph Plaut succeeded Stein in the order named; Seligsohn was elected to the office in 1903.

Philanthropic Institutions

Among the philanthropic institutions of Frankfurt the following are important:

  • Achawa (Verein zur Brüderlichkeit; 1864).
  • Almosenkasten der Israelitischen Gemeinde (1845).
  • Biḳḳur Ḥolim (1889).
  • Hersheim'sche Stiftung (for education of poor boys; 1865).
  • Georgine Sara von Rothschild'sche Stiftung (1870; hospital, 1878).
  • Gumpertz'sches Siechenhaus (1888).
  • Israelitische Religionsschule (1890).
  • Israelitische Volksschule (1882).
  • Israelitische Waisenanstalt (founded 1873).
  • Israelitischer Hülfsverein (1883).
  • Israelitischer Kranken-Unterstützungs Verein (1843).
  • Israelitisches Frauen-Krankenhaus (society, 1761; hospital, 1831).
  • Israelitisches Gemeinde-Hospital (1875).
  • Israelitisches Kinderhospital.
  • Jüdische Haushaltungsschule.
  • Kindergarten für Israeliten (1890).
  • Lemaan Zion, Palästinensischer Hülfsverein.
  • Mädchenstift (1877).
  • Realschule der Israelitischen Gemeinde (Philanthropin; founded by Sigmund Geisenheimer 1804).
  • Realschule der Israelitischen Religionsgesellschaft (1883).
  • Sigmund Stern'sche Waisenstiftung (1874).
  • Suppenanstalt für Israelitische Arme.
  • Verein zur Beförderung der Handwerke.
  • Verein für Jüdische Krankenpflegerinnen.
  • Versorgungs-Anstalt für Israeliten (1845).
  • Waisenhaus des Israelitischen Frauenvereins (1847); and a number of private "Stiftungen" established for various purposes.
  • For Jewish physicians see Horovitz "Jüdische Aerzte".

Bibliography

Publishing

The law of this free city decreeing that no Jew should establish a printing house there greatly impeded the development of Hebrew publishing in Frankfurt. Many books published there, especially prayer books, appeared without place of publication or publisher's name. Owing to this restriction, the printing requirements of Frankfurt were in large measure met by Jewish presses established in neighboring towns and villages, such as Hanau, Homburg, Offenbach, and Rödelheim, the last-named place being specially notable. Besides the local wants of Frankfurt there was the yearly fair which was practically the center of the German-Jewish book trade. In a measure the presses of the above four towns were really intended to supply the fair trade of Frankfurt.

According to Wolf ("Bibl. Hebr." ii. 1385), the history of Hebrew typography at Frankfurt-on-the-Main begins with 1625, in which year seliḥot were printed there. But Steinschneider and Cassel declare this statement doubtful. The chronogram of a certain prayer book seems to show that it was printed there in 1656, but this chronogram is known only from references to it in a second edition printed at Amsterdam in 1658 ("Cat. Bodl." Nos. 2149, 2152). It may be said with certainty, however, that Hebrew printing began in Frankfurt not later than 1662, when the Pentateuch with a German glossary was printed. The books printed at Frankfurt up to 1676 do not bear any printer's name.

From the year 1677 till the beginning of the eighteenth century there were two Christian printing establishments in Frankfurt at which Hebrew books were printed: (1) The press owned till 1694 by Balthasar Christian Wust, who began with David Clodius' Hebrew Bible; his last work was the unvocalized Bible prepared by Eisenmenger, 1694; up to 1707 the press was continued by John Wust. Among his typesetters who worked on the "Amarot Ṭehorot" (1698) and the responsa "Ḥawwot Yaïr" were two Christians: Christian Nicolas and John Kaspar Pugil. (2) That of Blasius Ilsnerus, who printed in 1682 the "Ḥiddushe Haggadot" of Samuel Edels. Many works that appeared in the last quarter of the seventeenth century without bearing the names of either printers or publishers probably belong to the publications of Isaac and Seligmann, sons of Hirz Reis, who in 1687 published a beautiful edition of the Yalḳuṭ. Although the proprietors of the presses were Christians, the publishers were often Jews; among them may be mentioned Joseph Trier Cohen (1690-1715), Leser Schuch, Solomon Hanau, and Solomon and Abraham, sons of Kalman, who in 1699 published through John Wust the Alfasi in three volumes.

The greatest period of Hebrew publishing in Frankfurt was the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Hebrew books were printed in several establishments, including those of Mat. Andrea (1707-10), Jo. Ph. Andrea (1716), Nicolas Weinmann (1709), Antony Heinscheit (1711-19), and, above all, John Kölner, who during the twenty years of his activity (1708-27) furnished half of the Hebrew works printed at Frankfurt up to the middle of the nineteenth century. Among the more important works printed by Kölner may be mentioned the "Bayit Ḥadash," in 5 vols., corrected by Samuel Dresles (1712-16), and the continuation of the Babylonian Talmud (1720-23) begun at Amsterdam, between which city and Frankfurt there was a sort of partnership in printing. Kölner printed with the same Amsterdam type the "Yeshu'ah be-Yisrael" (1719-20). He then conceived the idea of printing the Alfasi after the model of the Sabbionetta edition of 1554, a copy of which was bought for 40 thalers. He resolved upon printing 1,700 copies at the price of 10 thalers each; the expenses, 11,000 thalers, were to have been obtained by means of a lottery; that is to say, each subscriber was entitled to a copy of the book and to a lottery ticket; but the whole plan miscarried.

Between the years 1726 and 1736 no Hebrew printing appears to have been done in Frankfurt, and during the last three-quarters of the eighteenth century very few Hebrew works were printed there. Among those printed "Toledot Adam," a Hebrew letter-writer printed in 1736; and in 1742 the responsa "Sheb Ya'aḳob," the three Babot of the Jerusalem Talmud, and the second part of the "Pene Yehoshua'," the third part appearing in 1756. Abraham Broda's "Eshel Abraham" was issued in 1776. Hebrew printing has continued at Frankfurt up to the present day.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Face of a Dog

...the gemarrah in tractate Sotah "Dor acharon dor pnai' hakelev"  The final generation will have the face of a dog.

And Mashiach will make the face of the dog beautiful!

Instead of just opposing and resisting the redemption of Israel the leaders of the nations will be turned to the support of the redemption of Israel, in accordance with the words of the prophets of Israel.  But does this include the 'dog-god' of Egypt too?  For:

It basically revolves around the fact that all the gods of Egypt were destroyed except for Baal Tzafon (the god of the north which supposedly trapped Israel between Pharoah's army and the sea) which according to the Vilna Gaon in his haggadah had the face of a dog. When we offered up the sheep god as a Pesach sacrifice we were rebelling against the world power of Egypt and its god for the month of Nissan, the sheep. The final false Egyptian god would need to wait to the final generation, our generation, for its destruction. => http://yearsofawe.blogspot.com/2005/04/face-of-dog.html

Now all such "gods" are no elohim.  The power of the north will be made to "give up".  Does this mean that any such power will actually be redeemed in the process of Israel's redemption?  Another question,  Can this creation be redeemed at all, as opposed to being replaced, if there is no redemption of any kind of any fallen power in this creation?

Monday, December 15, 2008

Knowledge management - Wikipedia

[

Knowledge management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices } routines, physical, mental, computer, etc. {"Best Practice is an idea that asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc." _-_ technique a way of accomplishing a task that is not immediately obvious. (plural: techniques)}

used in an organization to identify

create,

represent,

distribute and enable adoption of insights and experiences.

{Insight can be used with several related meanings:

  • a piece of information
  • the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively
  • the power of acute observation and deduction, penetration, discernment, perception
  • introspection
  • In AI: an extended understanding of a subject resulting from identification of relationships and behaviors within a model, context, or scenario.

An insight that manifests itself suddenly, such as understanding how to solve a difficult problem, is called with a German word Aha-Erlebnis. The term was coined by the German psychologist and theoretical linguist Karl Bühler. It is also known as an epiphany.}

{experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event. The history of the word experience aligns it closely with the concept of experiment.

The concept of experience generally refers to know-how or procedural knowledge, rather than propositional knowledge. Philosophers dub knowledge based on experience "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge".

The interrogation of experience has a long tradition in continental philosophy. The German term Erfahrung, often translated into English as "experience" has a slightly different implication, connoting the coherency of life's experiences.

A person with considerable experience in a certain field can gain a reputation as an expert.

Certain religious traditions (such as types of Buddhism, Surat Shabd Yoga and mysticism) and educational paradigms with, for example, the conditioning of boot camps, stress the experiential nature of human epistemology. This stands in contrast to alternatives: traditions of dogma, logic or reasoning. Activities such as tourism, extreme sports and recreational drug use also tend to stress the importance of experience.}

Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge,

either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice. I.E. 'knowledge' is situated.

An established discipline since 1995, KM includes courses taught in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences [1]. More recently, other fields, to include those focused on information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy, also have started contributing to KM research. Many large companies and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their 'Business Strategy', 'Information Technology', or 'Human Resource Management' departments [2]. Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and advice regarding KM to these organizations.

KM efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, and continuous improvement of the organisation. KM efforts overlap with Organizational Learning, and may be distinguished from by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the exchange of knowledge. KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable organisational insights, to reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training time for new employees, to retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organisation, and to adapt to changing environments and markets [3] [4].

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History and research

KM efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs. More recently, with increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge bases, expert systems, knowledge repositories, group decision support systems, and computer supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance the such efforts [5][6].

A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exists with no unanimous agreement; approaches vary by author and school. As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

  • Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and creation
  • Organisational with a focus on how an organisation can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best
  • Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include People, Processes, Technology (or) Culture, Structure, Technology, depending on the specific perspective [7]. Different KM schools of thought include various lenses through which KM can be viewed and explained, to include:

[edit] Dimensions

Different frameworks for distinguishing between knowledge exist. One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of how he or she accomplishes particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[20] [21]

Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in order to share it, but the same effort must also permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort. Subsequent research into KM suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads).[22]

A second proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between embedded knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a human body’s nervous and endocrine systems [23].

A third proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community. Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer [24].

[edit] Strategies

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities. Different organisations have tried various knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. Considerable controversy exists over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged.

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge. In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository [25].

Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis. In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this [26].

[edit] Motivations

A number of claims exist as to the motivations leading organisations to undertake a KM effort [27] [28]. Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:

  • Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services
  • Achieving shorter new product development cycles
  • Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning
  • Leveraging the expertise of people across the organisation
  • Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals
  • Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work
  • Solving intractable or wicked problems
  • Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals)

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may hopefully help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM help determine the success or failure of such efforts [29] [30].

[edit] Technologies

Early KM technologies included online corporate yellow pages as expertise locators and document management systems. Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in particular Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid-1990s. Subsequent KM efforts leveraged semantic technologies for search and retrieval and the development of e-learning tools for communities of practice [31] [32].

More recently, development of social computing tools (such as blogs and wikis) have allowed more unstructured, self-governing or ecosystem approaches to the transfer, capture and creation of knowledge, including the development of new forms of communities, networks, or matrixed organisations. However such tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit knowledge transfer. These tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and ensuring that their content is transmissible through diverse channels [33] [34].

[edit] See also




[edit] References

  1. ^ http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=374117
  2. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=889992
  3. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=239247
  4. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=559300
  5. ^ http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Courses/610/Lectures/McInerney_KM_intro_general_10_02.ppt
  6. ^ http://www.unc.edu/~sunnyliu/inls258/Introduction_to_Knowledge_Management.html
  7. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958768
  8. ^ http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html
  9. ^ http://www.crito.uci.edu/noah/HOIT/HOIT%20Papers/TeacherBridge.pdf
  10. ^ http://www.ischool.washington.edu/mcdonald/ecscw03/papers/groth-ecscw03-ws.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q/archive/sharma_social_networks.ppt
  12. ^ http://choo.fis.toronto.edu/OUP/default.html
  13. ^ http://www.ndu.edu/sdcfp/reports/2007Reports/IBM07%20.doc
  14. ^ http://iakm.kent.edu/programs/information-use/iu-curriculum.html
  15. ^ http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~clairemc/KM_dynamic_nature.pdf
  16. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=984600
  17. ^ http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/06/21/complex_systems_management_when_linear.htm
  18. ^ http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/wyssusek02sociopragmatic.html
  19. ^ http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.pdf
  20. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991169
  21. ^ http://web.njit.edu/~jerry/CIS-677/Articles/Alavi-MISQ-2001.pdf
  22. ^ http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf
  23. ^ http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/387
  24. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961043
  25. ^ http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~chens/PDF/IRI00_Rathau.pdf
  26. ^ http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=13
  27. ^ http://tecom.cox.smu.edu/abasu/itom6032/kmlect.pdf
  28. ^ http://eceb.gmu.edu/pubs/Kerschberg_NASA_IST.ppt
  29. ^ http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html
  30. ^ http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/papers/WhyKMSFail.pdf
  31. ^ http://elvis.slis.indiana.edu/irpub/HT/2001/pdf53.pdf
  32. ^ http://outreach.lib.uic.edu/www/issues/issue12_6/capozzi/
  33. ^ http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm
  34. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=755904

[edit] External links


Sunday, December 7, 2008

from: http://www.azamra.org/TempleSecrets/Introduction.htm

The different areas of the Temple correspond to the different orders of existing beings

I will now begin to explain the design of the Temple in detail, area by area, corner by corner. [First, a number of general principles governing the overall design.] The entire design of the Temple is based on a great secret that stands at the very summit of the universe. I have already told you how this House emerged from the intensity of blissful tranquility that came about when the two great lights [Tiferet and Malchut] were joined as one. It was then that there appeared in the lower light [Malchut] the Sanctuary [Heichal] and its chambers and the other glorious buildings from which all the King's servants and officers receive their portions, each in his proper place with no disorder and no exceptions.

The Temple consists of three main areas after the emergence of the channels and highways extending from the great stone that I mentioned at the beginning.

These three areas are the places of the three orders of created beings that exist in the world.

The first order includes all the "external" creations, the creatures of this world, from the largest to the smallest without exception.

The second consists of all the angels at their appointed posts ready to carry out the service of the King.

The third consists of the souls of the Children of Israel, the holy seed, a unique people on earth. - messianic neshamaot


The corresponding places in the Temple are:

(1) the main Sanctuary building (Heichal) together with the Holy of Holies (Dvir) and Vestibule (Ulam): this is the innermost part of the Temple [the place of the souls]; messianic neshamaot


(2) The Temple Courtyards, i.e. the Upper [or Inner] Courtyard and the Lower [or Outer] Courtyard [the place of the angels];

(3) the rest of the Temple Mount [the place of the creatures of this world].

You must understand that the angels require two kinds of sustenance, one for their own subsistence and a second to hand on to the creatures over which they are

appointed. For if they did not receive, what would they have to give? If you are familiar with the ways of wisdom you will see that even though I have divided these areas into three, they are actually four:

(1) The main Temple building (Heichal);

(2) the Upper [Inner] Courtyard;

(3) the Lower [Outer] Courtyard;

(4) the Temple Mount.

These are the places of the inhabitants of the four worlds, Atzilut [Emanation], Beriyah [Creation], Yetzirah [Formation] and Asiyah [Action]. [The Temple building, place of the souls, corresponds to Atzilut; the Inner Courtyard, place of the captains of the angels, corresponds to Beriyah; the Outer Courtyard, place of the angelic hosts, corresponds to Yetzirah, while the rest of Temple Mount corresponds to Asiyah.] In addition, the Temple building (Heichal) is divided into two. For within the Heichal proper is the Holy of Holies (Dvir) corresponding to the cusp of the Yud, which is always connected to the Yud and never moves from it.

Souls of Israel = regenerate souls < Temple mount = Asiyah = Kingdom = all souls, so also the souls of not yet fully regenerate souls...