|
TRADITION SEFORIM BLOG
|
|
|
|
Review of Quntres
Review of Quntres
by B. Jackson
First, a quick note regarding Prof. Haym Soloveitchik's apparent position that anonymous critiques are inappropriate. It appears that his position overlooks at least one example of just that. As Dan Rabinowitz has pointed out in a prior post, R. Shmuel Aboab authored an ethical work which critiqued some of the perceived laxity of the day but did so anonymously.
Turning to the new online journal Quntres: An Online Journal for the History, Culture, and Art of the Jewish Book. This online only journal, which focuses on the history of the Jewish book has just published its inaugural issue. The editors explain that they view this journal as a "to continue the tradition of scholarship dedicated to the history of the Jewish book once represented in Europe in Hebräische Bibliographie and the Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie, then transplanted to Israel in Kiryat Sefer, and now taking on a virtual form at the libraries of the Jewish Theological Seminary." Although not noted, arguably there have been such journals in America already such as the Jewish Book Annual. Additionally, in Israel, Ali Sefer, although on extended hiatus, has recently been restarted (soon to be reviewed). Be that as it may, any addition to the study of the Hebrew book is most welcome.
This issue contains four articles, three in English and one in Hebrew. The first two articles are articles truly devoted to Hebrew bibliography. Marvin J. Heller, a prolific writer in this field, already having authored his excellent studies on the printing of the Talmud as well as his Abridged Thesauruses of the Hebrew book, turns his keen eye to unraveling the bibliographical history of the Sefer ha-Kavanot. Indeed, this issue is also dealt with by Yosef Avivi, in his recent bibliography of writings of the Arizal. The second article, by Jordan S. Penkower is also of interest to Hebrew bibliographies as well as students of the Bible. In particular, Penkower traces the history of Norzi's Introduction to his Minhat Shai. As most are aware, Minhat Shai, is a fundamental work on textual variants of the Bible, and the introduction, not included in the first edition of Norzi's work - nor many other editions - is important as well. Penkower has published other similar bibliographical and Bible related studies such as his articles on the verse divisions of the Bible, the chapter divisions of the Bible and his seminal article which is steeped in bibliographical finds on the pronunciation of the word "zekher."[1] The final English article, while not directly devoted to Hebrew bibliography is still of interest to the history of Hebrew bibliography as it is an appreciation of Moritz Steinschneider, one of the most important Hebrew bibliographers of all time.
The final article, in Hebrew, is by Shmuel Glick and discusses some examples of censorship in the responsa literature. Glick, of course, is the editor of the Kuntress ha-Teshuvot he-Hadash project (two volumes have already been completed [see reviews here and here], with the third and final volume set to appear this summer) and thus is perfectly placed to write such an article. Indeed, Glick mentions the project in many footnotes for additional details. The start of the article is not all that promising as Glick trots out the well worn example of the responsa of the Rema regarding yayin nesach. This is one of the most well known examples of censorship in responsa literature. Many have discussed this example, but curiously Glick doesn't reference most of the scholarly literature on the topic. For example, Asher Siev, in his edition of the She'elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rema discusses this as does Daniel Sperber in Minhagei Yisrael. [2] Neither source is mentioned. Another omission is Glick's discussion of the responsa of R. David Tzvi Hoffmann. Glick notes that in the Kest-Leibowitz edition a responsum regarding headcovering is removed. It appears that Glick was unaware of Dan Rabinowitz's article (see here) where he notes this as well as other examples of censorship specific to headcovering. One other example that Glick discusses should also be augmented. Glick mentions the responsum of R. Ezekiel Landau regarding a suspected case of adultery. The responsum contains graphic details discussing the alleged act. David Katz, "A Case Study in the Formation of a Super-Rabbi: The Early Years of Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, 1713-1754," (PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, 2004), 228-248, provides much in the way of background with regard to this case. While it is possible that Glick didn't see this dissertation, the sources Katz provides should be added to the single source Glick provides. One other addition regards the Hatam Sofer's responsum discussing metiziah be-peh. Glick correctly notes that this responsum was subject to much controversy whether it was authored by Hatam Sofer. While Glick provides a few sources, he fails to mention that Jacob Katz has written an excellent article on the topic - see Jacob Katz, "The Controversy Over the Mezizah," Halakhah in Straits: Obstacles to Orthodoxy at its Inception (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), 150–183 (Hebrew), translated in idem, "The Controversy Over the Mezizah: The Unrestricted Execution of the Rite of Circumcision," in Divine Law in Human Hands: Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1998), 357-402 as well as the more recent article by Shlomo Sprecher, "Mezizah be-Peh: Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige," Hakirah 3 (September 2006): 15-66.
Another example of responsa censorship that Glick provides bears mentioning because Glick's discussion supplements the discussion in Kuntress ha-Teshuvot. Glick, in this article, mentions the removal of the responsum from R. Y. Greenwald to R. Sonnefeld regarding joining the Agudah from Greenwald's Zikrhon Yehuda. In Kuntress ha-Teshuvot, Glick questions Miamon's story regarding how and why this responsum was removed. Maimon claimed that as Greenwald argued against joining the Agudah, the Agudah purchased all the copies of Greenwald's responsa and removed and substituted a different responsum. Unfortunately, the censors failed to change the index to reflect the alteration and in all copies, the index records a responsum discussing joining the Agudah and in some editions the responsum in question (no. 210) deals with that while in others it deals with the issue of eating on the eve of Yom Kippur. Glick, however, questions this in Kuntress noting various problems with Maimon's story. (See Kuntress ha-Teshuvot, vol. 1, no. 1310). Now, Glick provides additional material that appears to indicate that Maimon was wrong. In particular, Glick cites Schisa's article where Schisa provides a very different version of what happened. Namely, that the printers, in order to be able to sell this work at a convention that was an Agudah convention, on their own switched the responsum in question. According to this version, the alteration was for profit not ideology. Curiously, Glick makes no mention that the article considerably augments what appears in Kuntress ha-Teshuvot.
Of course, the balance of Glick's article is very interesting and provides some lesser known examples of censorship in responsa literature. Two technical notes. First, in Glick's article he refers to non-existent page numbers. That is, he references pages in his article (see, e.g., pp. 43, 65 n.56, 69 n.66) that are internally incorrect. Second, although this journal is published digitally, the format is somewhat poor. In particular, the lines are justified but, rather than get all the words on a single line, a considerable amount of words are broken up and hyphenated. This makes for difficult to reading both digitally and in hard copy.
Notes:
[1] See Jordan S. Penkower, "The Chapter Divisions of the 1525 Rabbinic Bible," Vetus Testamentum 48:3 (July 1998): 350-74; idem, "Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible," Vetus Testamentum 50:3 (July 2000): 379-93; idem, "Minhag and Mesorah: On the Recent Ashkenazi Custom of Double Vocalization of זכר עמלק (Deut. 25:19)," in R. Kasher, M. Sipor, Y. Sarfati, eds., Iyenei Mikrah u-Parshanut 4 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1997), 71-128.
[2] Teshuvot ha-Rama, Ziv. ed. no. 124, and pp. 66-67; D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1991), vol. 2, p. 56 n.26; D. Sperber, Netivot Pesikah (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 2008), pp. 104-14; Y.S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri Ketivah ve-Hataka (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2007), p. 273 and the notes therein.
|
|
|
|
|
Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin's Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship
Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin's Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship
by Eliezer Brodt
R. Chaim Berlin, Sefer Nishmat Hayyim, She'elot u-Teshuvot, R. Ya'akov Kosovsky-Shachor ed., Beni-Brak, 2002, 412 pp.
R. Chaim Berlin, Sefer Nishmat Hayyim, Mamorim u'Mechtavim, R. Ya'akov Kosovsky-Shachor ed., Beni-Brak, 2003, 424 pp.
R. Chaim Berlin, Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin, Shu"t Nishmat Hayyim, Jerusalem, 2008, 4 vol., 446, 462, 449, 298 pp.
R. Chaim Berlin (1832-1912), the son of the R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (author of the Netziv), although well known until recently none of R. Chaim's extensive torah has been published. To be sure, some of R. Chaim's torah can be found scattered throughout the seforim of his time, but never in a book of its own. In 2002, R. Kosovsky-Shachor ("R. KS") published a collection of R. Chaim's responsa entitled Nishmat Hayyim. These responsa were collected from various manuscripts in many collections as well as correspondences which R. KS found in the Rabbinic literature from R. Chaim's era. A year later R. KS printed a second volume of letters, derashot, articles and approbations of R. Chaim Berlin also entilted Nishmat Hayyim. In the back of the volume of responsa, R. KS includes a nice historical write up of R. Chaim Berlin's life (corrections and additions to the biography appear in the back of the second volume).
A few months ago another collection of R. Chaim Berlin's respona were published by Yeshivat ve-Hegaditah le-Vinkha entitled Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin. This version was published in four massive volumes on all areas Shulchan Orach, Shas and more. In this post I will discuss a bit about the two versions, some of the interesting teshuovs found in them and many instances of censorship in the later edition. Regarding these examples of censorship, I can only assume that there are many more examples as I haven't compared every line of the four volumes with the original. But, as will be apparent, the examples provided below are fairly egregious. Additionally, these works touch on the important topic of the reason behind the closing of Volozhin Yeshiva.
For purposes of this post, I will refer to the Nishmat Hayyim as the older edition and the Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin as the new edition. The earlier edition contains about 200 responsa while the new version has well over 800 responsa. In the earlier edition they printed a volume of letters and haskamos which the new version did not do yet include but promises to print shortly. The newer version has an excellent index based on the order of shas and topics. Just a quick glance shows the tremendous wealth of topics discussed. They also included a list of all the people R. Chaim corresponded a veritable "who's who" of the gedolim from that time period.
Some Highlights
Amongst the many interesting teshuvos there is one about riding on a train on Shabbas (1:171-172), creating something via the Sefer Yetzira on Shabbas (1:418), asking an agent to give a Get via a phonograph (4:39), throwing grass when one leaves the cemetery (2:359) and burning dead bodies as opposed to burial (2:353-355).
In the new edition there is a lengthy discussion (1:70-77) about answering Amen when one is in middle of davening. In the midst of this responsa (1:73) R. Berlin notes a very interesting thing :
נראה לענ"ד שאף במקום שמותר להפסיק בפשיטות ואין שם בית מיחוש כלל להחמיר כמו להפסיק מפסוקי דזמרה לקדושה, אין זה אלא רשות שמותר להפסיק אבל לא חיוב, וטעמא דידי, משום דקי"ל העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה....
Another interesting statement found in a correspondence between him and R. Sholomo Hakohen where R. Shlomo writes (#67 in the old edition and # 191 in the new edition):
כן שמעתי מפי אביו הצדיק זצ"ל (הכוונה להנצי"ב) שאמר בשם חמיו זקנו הצדיק מו"ה חיים מוואלזין זצ"ל שיש לומר פירוש בלשון הרמב"ם והשו"ע אם הוא עולה ע"פ ההלכה אף שבודאי לא כוונו לזה משום שרוח הקודש נזרקה על לשונם, וכן מצאתי כעין זה ממש בס' בית אלוקים להגאון המבי"ט זצ"ל בסוף פ' ס"ד ע"ש".
While discussing the topic of gramophones, R. Chaim Berlin (#1 in old edition) writes that they had these already in the time of Chazal:
ובזה נראה לי לפרש לשון הש"ס בפ' ראוהו ב"ד רה"ש כ"ח ב' דמשני הש"ס על הא דתנן הי' עובר אחורי בית הכנסת ושמע קול שופר או קול מגילה, אם כיון לבו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא מאי לאו אם כיון לבו לצאת, ושמע מינה מצות צריכות כונה, ומשני לא לשמוע, והא שמעי, סבור חמור בעלמא הוא, ופירש רבינו חננאל בש"ס החדשים דפוס ווילנא אם כיון לבו לשמוע ולהבחין אם הוא תקיעת בן אדם או צהלת סוס, ותמוה דהא ניחא בקול שופר שיש לטעות שהוא צהלת סוס, אבל בקול מגילה דלא שייך לטעות שהוא צהלת סוס, מאי איכא למימר, ותפשוט מינה דמצות צריכות כונה, וכבר תמהו בזה הטורי אבן במקומו, והפרי חדש או"ח (סי' תר"צ סעי' י"ג). ונראה דבימי הש"ס הי' כלי זו של הגרמפון עשויה כצורת חמור והליצנים היו משתמשין בו, וזהו חמרא דאכפא דאמר ר' אבהו בפ' במה אשה שבת ס"ו ב' ופירש"י חמור הנישא בכתפים והליצנים עושים אותו ובמקומנו נקרא ארדפיסא, ותרגם בש"ס החדשים דפוס ווילנא שזה קומנדינט או פארשטעלונג, וביותר היו עושין כן בפורים לבדח ולשמח את ההמון, והיה הדבר מצוי לשמוע מהחמור הזה גם קול מגילה, ומבואר דאם הוא קול החמור הזה, אינו יוצא ידי חובתו, כנלע"ד, וה' יודע האמת
Another nice point is found while dealing with the issue of reciting the tefilah of Birkat Rosh Chodesh in light of the general prohibition against praying for one's livelihood on Shabbos. R. Chaim Berlin writes (#23 old version):
ע"ד אשר שאל, היאך מצלינן בשבת שמברכין החודש על חיים של פרנסה, לפלא שלא שאל גם על נוסח מי שברך שאומרים בכל שבת אחר יקום פורקן, דמצלינן וישלח ברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם, וגם על נוסח בריך שמי' שאומרי' בהוצאת ס"ת דמצלינן יהא רעוא קדמך דתוריך לן חיין בטיבותא. אבל כבר כתבו האחרונים ליישב מנהג ישראל, שלא אסרו לתבוע צרכיו בשבת, אלא ביחיד העושה לעצמו תפלה מיוחדת על איזה מקרה, הנחוצה לו באותה שעה לפרנסה או לרפואה וכדומה, אבל נוסח תפלה הקבוע לכולם בשוה בנוסחא אחת, אין קפידא בזה, וגם זה נכלל בלשון הירושלמי טופס ברכות כך הוא.
Another nice piece (# 52 old version) I found is in regard to the famous discussion for those who observe gebrucks how can they make kneidel on Chol Hamoed Pesach?
והנה, קרבו ימי המועד לבוא, אשר לא אאחוז עט בידי לכבודו משך שמונת ימים, ע"כ אמרתי להודיעו מה שעוררתי את בני עדתי בדרשת שבת הגדול העבר, ע"ד האנשים הנזהרים ממצה שרוי' כל ימי הפסח לבד מיום האחרון, ויש גם נשים הנזהרות בזה. ואותן הנשים שנזהרות בזה ואין להם משרתת בבתיהם ואופות ומבשלות בעצמן, הנכון שיזהרו בשביעי של פסח מלהכין תבשילי מצה שרויה על יום המחרת, מאחר שאין התבשילין הללו ראויין להן ביו"ט, ואפי' אם יקלעו להם אז אורחים ביו"ט שביעי של פסח, ג"כ לא יתנו להם מצה שרוי', הרי לא מהני עירוב תבשילין בזה, כמש"כ הרמ"א בסי' תקכ"ז סעי' כ' לענין מי שמתענה ביו"ט ועי' מגן אברהם שם.
It is also apparent from this teshuvah that R. Chaim did not even write Torah on Chol Hamoed.
Another very interesting Teshuvah (new edition 3:1-3) is where he deals with the Tzavas R. Yehudah Hachassid, as he was asked about marrying someone where it would be against one of the statements in the Tzavah. To which he replied:
מכאן נלמוד לכל האזהרות שהזהיר רבינו החסיד ז"ל בעניני זיווגים, שאם אין בדבר זה שום מצוה, אלא שחפץ בה לשם ממון או לשם נוי, ודאי יש ליזהר בכל אזהרותיו, אבל מי שעושה מעשיו לשם שמים, ומכוין למצוה, עליו לא הזהיר החסיד כלל.
Another interesting piece found (#24) is about a piece of the Netziv in the journal of Rav Kook, Iyutur Seforim where the Netziv wrote that it is permissible to read newspapers on Shabbas. Regarding this point R. Chaim Berlin wrote:
ועל דבר לעיין בשבת בהרהורא בעלמא בלי קריאה בפה באגרות רשות ובמכתבי העתים לא הי' כלל דעת מר אבא הגאון שליט"א, לקבוע מסמרים בהלכה זו ככל דבריו שבעטור סופרים, ולא בא אלא ליישב מנהג העולם שקוראים במכתבי העתים בשבת שסומכים בזה על משמעות תלמודא דידן עפ"י דעתם, שמפרשים דתלמודא דידן פליג בזה על תלמוד ירושלמי, אבל להלכה גם הוא יודה דקיי"ל כהירושלמי, וכה"ג מצינו בהרבה מקומות שכתבו הפוסקים ליישב מנהג העולם, שסומכים על דעה יחידית אף שלא כהלכה.
The Netizv defends his opinion in the Shut Bikurei Shlomo (1:2). Interestingly enough there is testimony to the contrary from R. Baruch Halevei Epstein who writes how on Shabbas his uncle the Netziv used to read the Hebrew newspaper, Hamagid (Mekor Baruch 4:1794). R. Meir Bar-Ilan echoes R. Baruch Halevi's testimony about his father the Netziv that he would read newspapers on Shabbas (Me-Volzhin LeYerushalim 1:138).
Much has been written about how the responsa literature can aid in reconstructing the history of the period, this sefer also shows us this. Just to cite one example in volume one (p. 88) of the newer version (which shockingly was not edited out) someone wrote to R. Chaim:
גלוי וידוע לכבודו עד כמה פשתה הנגע בארצינו וביתר שאת בארצות אוירפפה ושדה תיכלה כמעט בכל בנות ישראל שוע ודל אשר גם בעליהן ואבותיהן המה משלומי אמוני היהודים המחזקים בדתינו הקדוש והמה גם הנה אינן ח"ו מפורקי עול בדרך כלל, ובכל זאת עברו ושנו ונעשה להן כהתיר לילך בגליות שער ראשיהן אחת המרבה ואחת המטמעטת, עיר ועיר ומדינה ומדינה כמנהגה וכפי חוקות המאדע שלה. ולא ישמרו את נפשותיהן מזה לילך כן גם בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמסיבות אנשים שרים סביב לשלחן בעת סעודות נשואין שבת ויום טוב...
We see from this that the well known phenomena of woman not covering their hair in previous generations. The question which was posed to R. Chaim was what one should do about saying berokhot or Shema in front of such a woman. To which R. C. Berlin replied:
לענין קריאת שמע גופא יש מקילין בזמן הזה שכבר נהגו לגלות ראשן ודומה לשער שמחוץ לצמתן... ומעתה למעשה בזמן הזה, מי שאינו מחפש למצוא לו יתד על מה לסמוך, ומקלו יגיד לו, יוכל לסמוך על המקילין. ומי שהוא ירא חטא, ורוצה לצאת ידי שמים גם בסתר כבגלוי, ודאין אין לו לסמוך על המקילין.
This is similar to the famous controversial pesak of the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 75:7):
עתה בואו ונצווח על פרצות דורינו בעוונותינו הרבים שזה שנים רבות שנפרצו בנות ישראל בעון זה והולכות בגילוי הראש וכל מה שצעקו על זה הוא לא לעזר ולא להועיל ועתה פשתה המספחת שהנשואות הולכות בשערותן כמו הבתולות אוי לנו שעלתה בימינו כך מיהו עכ"פ לדינא נראה שמותר לנו להתפלל ולברך נגד ראשיהן המגולות כיון שעתה רובן הולכות כך והוה כמקומות המגולים בגופה... וכיון שאצלינו גם הנשואות כן ממילא דליכא הרהור
Censorship in the New Edition
Of course this post would not be complete without mentioning some censorship in the new edition. Although I mentioned that the later edition has much more material than the first edition it seems a few teshuvos got "lost" in the later edition. [The family involved with the printing of this sefer is the same one mentioned by Dr. Gil S. Perl, in his Emek ha-Neziv, A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (PhD, Harvard, 2006), on pages 49-50, in light of Dr. Perl's comments, it is of no surprise that they edited out these particular teshvot].
In the first edition (# 135, see volume 3:5 of the new edition) there is a discussion about shaking woman hands which has been a very controversial topic [See the recent Bina Ve-das p. 117]. Perhaps shockingly to many R. Chaim Berlin replied:
ואשר שאל על דבר נתינת ידו לרשעים או לנכרית, הנה ליתן יד לפושעים אין שום איסור בזה אם אין בזה הודאה וחיזוק להנהגותיהם בשרירות לבם. ולתת יד לאשה לשון הש"ס הוא ברכות ס"א א' המרצה מעות לאשה מידו לידה כדי להסתכל בה, מבואר דאם אינו מכוין לשום דבר וכש"כ שאינו עושה כדי להסתכל בה כמו מעלתו שכל מעשיו לשם שמים אין איסור בזה לרצות מעות מידו לידה. ודאי אם יוכל להזהר בזה מה טוב, אבל אם אי אפשר לו להנצל מזה כגון אם הנכרית הקדימה והושיט לו את ידה ואין דעתו לשום הרהור ח"ו אין להחמיר בזה, ודרכיה דרכי נועם, ואהבת את ה' אלקיך אמרו חכמים יומא פ"ו א' שיהא שם שמים מתאהב על ידך, ולא יאמרו על יראי ה' שהם משוגעים ואינם בעלי דרך ארץ.
Two other pieces edited out from that same teshuvah in the new edition I am not sure as to why, are:
ועל דבר כסוי ראש האשה במטפחת אחת, אם אין שערה נראין אין בזה שום איסור, ועדיף טובא מפיאה נכרית, ואין צריך כלל שני כסויין, ואם אך אין השער נראה בחוץ די בכסוי אחד אף ברשות הרבים, ורשאי גם לקרות ק"ש כנגדה, ואין להחמיר עוד בזמן הזה.
ולדבר עם אשה בשוק לא נאסר אלא לתלמיד חכם ולא למי שאינו מוחזק בתלמיד חכם, וכשם שתלמיד חכם המדבר עם אשה בשוק גורם בזה חלול השם כן מי שאינו מוחזק לתלמיד חכם הנזהר בזה שלא לדבר עם אשתו לעיני הבריות הוא מיחזי כיוהרא, ויש בזה גם כן חלול השם...
Another very interesting statement which was edited out of the second edition is about Chasidim (# 7 in the old edition) where he writes:
ולהתפלל בבית הכנסת של החסידים אין שום חשש בזה, וגזירת רבינו הגר"א ז"ל לא הי' אלא בזמנו שהקילו אז בכבוד תלמידי חכמים לומדי תורה, ולא כן בימינו שהחסידים חולקים כבוד לכל לומדי תורה והם יראי ה' ושומרים תורה ומצוה. אך על דבר שינוי נוסחת התפלה, אסור לשנות בפרהסיא ממנהגיהם ומנוסחאותיהם ובנוסח הקדושה יאמר קדושת כתר בשביל שנאמרת בקול רם ויש בזה איסור לא תתגודדו, וגם שלא לעורר מחלוקת ח"ו, אבל בתפלה בלחש לא ישנה כבודו ממנהג אבותיו וממנהגו מעולם, ויתפלל שמונה עשרה בלחש כנוסח אשכנז.
Another piece which was censored out although I am not sure what is so bad with it (#200 in the old edition) where he writes that there were additions to Mishnayos after Rabeenu Hakodesh edited it:
שביארתי מאמרם ז"ל התמוה מאד בשלהי מס' סוטה מ"ט ב' על משנתינו משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא א"ל ר"י לתנא לא תיתני ענוה דאיכא אנא א"ל ר"נ לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא דאיכא אנא. והתמיה מפורסמת איך אמוראים קדושים כאלה ישבחו עצמם בענוה ויראת חטא, והמלך החכם אמר יהללך זר ולא פיך. וביארתי בס"ד על פי מש"כ הרע"ב ז"ל על האי בבא משמת רבי בטלה ענוה שתלמידיו של רבי הוסיפו וכתבו זה במשנה, וכ"כ בתוס' רע"ק בשם הרמב"ן בחי' ע"ז ל"ז א' שהוא תוספת שהוסיף בר קפרא או לוי במשנה, והמה היו תנאים אחרונים תלמידי רבי. ואמרתי שהוא הוא התנא שדברו עמו רב יוסף ורב נחמן, שרב יוסף א"ל לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה א"ל לא תיתני ענוה שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ענוותן כרבי ועדיין לא בטלה ענוה משמת רבי, וכן א"ל רב נחמן לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא א"ל לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ירא חטא כרבי, ועדיין לא בטלה יראת חטא משמת רבי, כן ביארתי זה המאמר לפי חומר הנושא.
This censorship or editing goes the other way as well. In the first edition there is a piece (#120 old edition) about being a vegetarian but the whole question is not included for some odd reason but in the new version (#222) the whole question is printed out in full. R. Chaim Berlin was asked by R. Menashe Grossburg:
אם ראוי לישראל להיות מהחברה צער בעל החיים, ואם מותר לאכול בבית מרזח שלהם, שאין אוכלים אפילו חלב ובצים. לדעתי נראה לי בחפזי לפי מה שכתב הט"ז כמה פעמים דמה שמפורש התיר בתורה אין כח לשום אדם לאסור ובתורה מפורש התיר לאכול בשר מזמן נח. והם אומרים שכשם שאסור רציחה באדם גם כן אסור בבהמה אפילו בשחיטה, וזה נגד דעת תורתנו. ועוד ששמחת יום טוב מצות עשה גם בזמן הזה בבשר.
To which R. Chaim Berlin answered:
נראה דעד כאן לא אמר הט"ז אלא דאין כח ביד חז"ל לגזור איסור לכל ישראל על דבר שפירשה התורה בפירוש להיתר, אבל מי שירצה לאסור על עצמו אכילת בשר, אין זה בכלל דברי הט"ז, והרי הוא ככל הנדרים שכתבה תורה בפירוש איש כי ידר נדר או השבע לאסר אסר על נפשו לא יחל דברו, אלא שחובה להתרחק מן הנדרים, והנודר כאלו בנה במה, ונקרא רשע כדתנן בפ"ק דנדרים ט' א' כנדרי רשעים, וביו"ד סי' ר"ג.
This teshuvah was a list of questions from R. Menashe Grossburg to R. Chaim Berlin which the old edition broke up and put it in the different places and never even included the name of R. Menashe Grossburg [at one time the editor makes it as if someone else asked the question (see p. 104)].
Some Final Points
When talking about the Malbim in a hesped (printed in volume two of R. KS Nishmat Chaim p. 14) R. Chaim Berlin said:
לחזק תורה שבעל פה כהגאון המלבי"ם ז"ל, ובענין זה לא הניח כמותו, ממלא מקומו, כי הניח כל החריפות והפלפולים שמילדותו והקדיש כל כחותיו להראות איך התורה שבעל פה מבוארת בבאר היטב בתורה שבכתב, אשר הענין הזה נחוץ ביותר בזמנינו...
In another teshuvah we see how much he respected the Marsham as he (#19 old version) writes:
ואני אין רצוני להיות מדייני גזירות, אם לא שיבוא האיסור גם מרבנים זולתי כמו מהגאון ר' שלום מרדכי הכהן מברעזאן וזולתו, אז יוכל לצרף להם גם את שמי ולא באופן אחר.
His very close friend the Adres also felt the same way about the Marsham as the Adres even asked him to be his Rebbe in Halacha after R. Yitzchak Elchanan died (see Rabbosenu she-begoleh 1:13-125 and R. E. Katzman in his introduction to Chidushei Hagoan Hadres pp. 25-26).
I write that the Adres was very close to him based on two things. One, besides for the Netziv and other family members the most correspondences are with the Adres. Two, in his Tzevah he writes:
מקום קבורתי, קניתי בחיי, על יד קבר אהובי הרב ר' אלי' דוד ראבינאוויץ תאומים ז"ל.
[On the friendship between Adres and R. Chaim Berlin see also the letter printed in the most recent volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (3:355-356).]
In a letter from the Adres (new edition 1:382) to R. Chaim Berlin the Adres describes to him when he first met the Netziv. The Netziv got up and made a Shecheaynu! [The Adres also records this incident in his now rare, autobiography Seder Eliyhu p. 85]. [On the friendship between Adres and Netziv besides for what Adres writes there in his autobiography (ibid) see the letter printed in the most recent volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (3:485-486).]
In a letter to a friend written when he first got to Yerushalim R. Chaim Berlin writes:
והנני מברך בכל יום בשמחה רבה שלא עשני עב"ד (אב"ד).
He also writes this statement in a short history of himself which he sent to R. Eisenstadt for his Doros Achronim (1:71-72). [This short history is included in the new edition of Nishmat Chaim p. 8 without providing their source.] [On this "Beracha" see R. S. Askenazi in his Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria p. 469 where he shows five places where R. Yakov Emden said this.]
In the newer edition of R. Chaim Berlin they write that they did not include a biography of R. Chaim Berlin in light of R. Chaim's opposition to such biographies or histories:
The Closing of Volozhin
But they did include one historical thing which they felt was very important to be printed, the statement of R. Chaim Berlin about the closing of the Volozhin Yeshiva (based on a copy of the manuscript) where he writes:
מה שהזהירני וצוה עלי מר אבא הגאון זצלל"ה הכ"מ קודם פטירתו. על דבר שמסר נפשו על ענין ישיבה דוואלוזי'ין, שלא להכניס לתוכה שום לימוד חול ולסיבה זו נסגרה הישיבה ומזה נחלה בחוליו אשר לא עמד ממנה. וצוה לי באזהרה שלא להסכים לענין זה בלא שום הוראת היתר בעולם. ואמר שהקב"ה רמז כל זה בתורה. שאמר להבדיל בין הקודש ובין החול היינו שכל עניני חול המתערבים בקודש בלי הבדל. לא די שאין עניני למודי חול מקבלים קדושה אלא אף זה שעניני למודי קדש מתקלקלים מהם. ע"כ לא ירע לך בני מה שהענין זה גרם לי לצאת מן העולם כי כדאי הוא הענין הגדול הזה למסור נפשו עליו. כל זה דיבר אלי ביום ג' כ"ו מנחם אב תרנג בוורשא עכ"ל.
This piece has been printed before in many places (at times even an exact picture of it see S. Roz in his Tzadik Yesod Olam pg 142 and from there R. Eliach in Hagoan pg 629; see also Yeshurun 7:675). The letter was called into question as to its authenticity see R. Ben Zion Yadler in his Betov Yerushlaim pg 388-389. [These sources escaped Professor Stampfer's notice see his book Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah pg 224].
The topic of the closing of Volozhin has been the subject of much discussion especially the often quoted article of Jacob J. Schacter, "Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892," Torah u-Madda Journal 2 (1990). See even more recently the interesting discussion by R. N. Kamenetsky in his Making of a Godol (1: 442-455). Although we have this statement of R. Chaim Berlin about the closing of the Yeshiva but based on historical facts it can not be true. While it was very true that the government and maskilim had been making terrible trouble for years about learning secular studies in the Yeshiva and for the most part were unsuccessful. We do have clear documentation that Secular studies were taught in Volozhin on some scale a few years before its closing. ]See Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah p. 223.] The various theories discussed in these articles attribute the close of the Volozhin Yeshiva to the fight of R. Chaim Berlin taking over his father's position as the Rosh Hayeshiva. R. M. Shapiro in R. Moshe Shmeul Vedoro (an eyewitness to the closing) also writes that one factor in the closing of the Yeshiva was the rebellion against R. Chaim Berlin (p.76) [This excellent book was not used by R. KS in his writing up about R. Chaim Berlin.] Most recently all this has been reexamined by two people especially based on new evidence - documents that have been discovered after the Iron Curtain fell.
What I find interesting is how two people can see the same documents and came to completely different conclusions. A few years back R. Frank printed a book on yeshivas Volozhin called Toldos Beis Haskem Bevolozhin. This book deals with the history of the Yeshiva from the beginning until the end including a brief history of all the Roshei Hayeshiva. Although the book is weak on quoting sources it has many important discussions about the topic of Volozhin. One of the real new important things printed here is government documents dealing with the closing of the Yeshiva (pp. 274-96). Although he edits out many parts due to respect for R. Chaim Berlin and R. Chaim Solovetick he prints parts and concludes that the maskilim and a few renegade bochrim influenced by the maskilim caused the government to close down the Yeshiva and it revolved learning secular studies in the Yeshiva. A few years later Professor Saul Stampfer reissued his excellent book Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah with many important additions and corrections amongst the additions were these same documents but unedited. The picture one gets from these documents (as he shows pp. 245-66) is something else entirely. Specifically, the cause for the government closing down the Yeshiva was not because of learning secular studies, instead the closure was because of the whole terrible and disgusting controversy about the succession of R. Chaim Berlin for his father the Netziv to be the Rosh haYeshiva of the Yeshiva. The bochurim got the government involved and they were very unhappy how the whole thing was dealt with so they shut down the Yeshiva.
One of the things the Bochrim did was interrupt the shiur of R. Chaim Berlin constantly bombarding him with many questions. According to some, they used many seforim borrowed from R. Chaim's vast library to stump him. This terrible act was done a few times before in Volozhin. Once when R. Alexander Moshe Lapides visited the Yeshiva the bochrim did the same thing to prove a point (see Yeshivos Lita, Pirkei Zicronos pp. 75-77). [This account is not included in the otherwise excellent edition of R. Alexander Moshe Lapides writings called Torah Hagoan R. Alexander Moshe.] When R. Yitzhkach Elchanan Spektor visited the yeshiva at a different time they tried the same thing but were unsuccessful in stumping him (see Toldos Yitchack p. 61 see also Harishon Leshalshles Beis Brisk pp. 128-32).
As an aside in researching this topic I was (and still am) horrified about this whole controversy how the bochurim (even if it was not the majority of the Yeshiva) could do all the terrible things they did during the whole fight. Ultimately causing the close of the Yeshiva and the premature death of the Netziv!
In the Derech Etz Chaim, Y. Meltzer (pp. 51-52) prints a letter of someone (he edits out the name) (see also Nishamt Chaim old edition 2:122) who asked mechilah from R. Chaim Berlin for making him trouble when he was supposed to take over Volozhin and R. Chaim Berlin writes back:
אנכי עפר ואפר ואין אני כדאי לפני המקום יתברך שמו, כי יענש חס ושלום שום אדם בסיבתי. ובר מן דין, כבר באותם הימים שצערוני אמרתי בכל לילה כמר זוטרא מגילה כח א' שרי ליה לכל דצערן לי ואין לו לחוש כלל לדרוש ממנו מחילה כי מצדי כבר מחלתי. אמנם מאי דשקליה למטרפסי ונענש מן השמים זה בשביל שני דברים: אחד בשביל חילול ה' הגדול שגרם... ב. בשביל צערו של רבו המובהק, מר אבא הגאון מאור הגולה זצוקל"ה, שגרם לו אז כמובן... ובפרט שיכול להיות שמהצער הגדול הזה שגרם לו היה התחלה למחלתו האחרונה, שנפטר על ידה מן העולם...
Another famous piece printed in Nishmat Chaim (volume two of the old edition pp. 380-83) is the dream he had after his very close friend R. Yitchack Blazaer died and R. Chaim Berlin gave a hesped although he requested that there be no hespedim. R. Chaim Berlin described the dream as follows:
נשמע אליו בזה שלא לספר בשבחו כלל, אולם על שלא נבכה על ההעדר לא צוה כלל... בא המונח אצלי בחלום ואמר לי יישר כח על שלא הגדתי שבח. ושאלתי ממנו מה נעשה בדינו בעולם ההוא, ואמר לי שדין של מעלה הוא חמור מאד שאי אפשר לשום אדם בעולם הזה לשער כלל, וביחוד מקפידים מאד על דבורים האסורים שנדברו שלא כהוגן...
Another thing which R. Chaim Berlin was very famous for was his massive library which consisted of thousands of volumes. [See R. KS in Nishmat Chaim p. 376, vol 2 pp. 398, 352]. There are even some nice letters of his to his (and his fathers) friend E. Harkavy thanking him for some recent volumes from the Mikitze Nerdamim society with some comments on the seforim. This letter was printed in the first volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (p. 199) and than again in the second volume of the Nishmat Chaim of R. Kosovsky-Shachor. In the recent version of Nishmat Chaim (4: p. 45 part two) only part of the letter was printed. In the edited out piece R. C. Berlin wrote:
זה שנתים ימים, אשר הריצותי כסף שלומים, בעד שנת מקיצי הנרדמים חמשה רו"כ שלמה ליד בחיר החכמים, ידידנו הגאון ר"מ שטראשון ז"ל, ויענני במכתב, כי הריץ את הכסף לידדנו הרב הד"ר א' ברלינר הי"ו בברלין...
I am not sure why it's a problem to acknowledge that R. Chaim Berlin liked R. Strashun but it's not a problem in regard to R. Harkevey. As an aside we see R. Chaim Berlin wrote respectfully about A. Berliner contrary to the recent complaint voiced by someone in the recent Yerushenu (3:396).
This library also consisted of manuscripts one of which was the Seder Hadoros with the comments of the Radal. [There is a teshuvah (new edition 1:96) of his to the Radal someone who his father was also very close with] When R. Chaim Kahana was working on the Seder Hadoros R. Chaim Berlin gave him this sefer. R. Kahana included these notes which are very valuable to the topic in his Kochvei Or (available here ).
The bulk of this library passed on to R. Isser Zalman Meltzer. In Derech Etz Chaim, Y. Meltzer brings a few stories of how R. Isser Zalman Meltzer made use with it (pp. 451-52) and even had the editors of Otzar Haposkim use it (p. 328). Although Y. Meltzer writes that in the Tzevah of R. Berlin it said that if a Talmid Chaham moves into my apartment after my death he should get it (p. 50) but in the version of the Tzevah printed in Nishmat Chaim (vol. 2 pp. 403-05) it does not say any such thing. [See Nishmat Chaim volume one (old edition p. 376).]
R. KS brings a story (2:377) to show his incredible yedios which I find hard to believe. Someone asked R. Chaim Berlin where is the first time that the name Chaim is mentioned in our literature as its not found in Talmud, Medrash or the era of the Geonim. R. Chaim Berlin replied the first time the name is found is in Tosfos and than he started listing the rest of the people with that name. The reason I find it hard to believe this story is we do find this name in the era of the Geonim. As R. Sherirah Gaon and Ravad in Sefer haKabalah [Cohen ed. p. 41] bring that Rav Zemach Goan father was Chaim. A look at the index of Moshe Gil's Bemalchut Yishmael Betekufos Hageonim (volume 4 p. 853) shows that the name Chaim was fairly common in the era of the Geonim [thanks to M.M. Honig for this source]. R. Chaim Palgai (Kol Hachaim 8:15) cites a Medrash in Bamedbar (14) that shows an Amorah had the name Chaim. But it seems to be a printing mistake as in our edition it says Chiyah [see also Kesser Shem Tov vol 1 pg 300].
I mentioned that R. KS collected the Haskomos of R. Chaim Berlin reaching over 140 but at least one is missing a haskamah to a reissue of Seder Hadoros that R. Yeruchem Leiner brother of the Radziner Rebbe started working on with many additions.
One weakness both editions have which E. Katzman in his introduction to Chidushei Hagoan Hadres (p. 42) already complains about, is that the older edition left out all the sources for the pieces. The second edition at times does quote the sources from where they found the pieces but more often than not they do not quote their sources.
In conclusion, to obtain the full version of R. Chaim Berlin's responsa, both edition are necessary, and definitely worth owning.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc B. Shapiro - Responses to Comments and Elaborations of Previous Posts III
Responses to Comments and Elaborations of Previous Posts III
by Marc B. Shapiro
This post is dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Chaim Flom, late rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Ohr David in Jerusalem. I first met Rabbi Flom thirty years ago when he became my teacher at the Hebrew Youth Academy of Essex County (now known as the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy; unfortunately, another one of my teachers from those years also passed away much too young, Rabbi Yaakov Appel). When he first started teaching he was known as Mr. Flom, because he hadn't yet received semikhah (Actually, he had some sort of semikhah but he told me that he didn't think it was adequate to be called "Rabbi" by the students.) He was only at the school a couple of years and then decided to move to Israel to open his yeshiva. I still remember his first parlor meeting which was held at my house. Rabbi Flom was a very special man. Just to give some idea of this, ten years after leaving the United States he was still in touch with many of the students and even attended our weddings. He would always call me when he came to the U.S. and was genuinely interested to hear about my family and what I was working on. He will be greatly missed. 1. In a previous post I showed a picture of the hashgachah given by the OU to toilet bowl cleaner. This led to much discussion, and as I indicated, at a future time I hope to say more about the kashrut industry from a historical perspective. I have to thank Stanley Emerson who sent me the following picture. It is toilet bowl cleaner in Israel that also has a hashgachah. Until Stanley called my attention to this, I was bothered that the kashrut standards in the U.S. had surpassed those of Israel. I am happy to see that this is not the case. (In fact, only in Israel can one buy a package of lettuce with no less than six (!) different hashgachot. See here) But in all seriousness, I think we must all be happy at the high level of kashrut standards provided by the OU and the other organizations. This, of course, doesn't mean that we have to be happy with what has been going on at Agriprocessors. I realize that this is a huge contract, but it was very disappointing to see that the first response of the OU to the numerous Agriprocessors scandals, beginning with the PETA video, has been to circle the wagons and put out the spin. Any changes from the OU only came after public outrage, and if the hashgachah is eventually removed from Agriprocessors, it will once again be due to this outrage. To be sure, we no longer can imagine cases of meat producers locking the mashgiach in the freezer, but it does seem that the company was being given pretty free reign in areas where the hashgachah could have been using more of its influence. (Let's not forget that Agriprocessors needs the OU more than the reverse.) At the very least, we need some competition in the glatt kosher meat business. Agriprocessors has a near monopoly and as we all know, competition is what forces businesses to operate at a higher standard.
In fact, the entire glatt kosher "standard" should be done away with and turned into an option for those who wish to be stringent. This has recently been tried in Los Angeles, with the support of local rabbis, but I don't know how successful it has been. The only way this can happen on a large scale is if the OU once again starts certifying non-glatt. The masses have been so brainwashed in the last twenty years that they will not eat regular kosher unless it has an OU hashgachah. There is no good reason – there are reasons, but they aren't good – why the OU does not certify non-glatt. As is the case with the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, the OU should certify both mehadrin (glatt) and non-mehadrin.
It might be that people in Teaneck and the Five Towns don't feel the bad economic times. Yet there are many people who are having difficulty making ends meet. It is simply not fair to create a system where people are being forced to pay more money for meat than they should have to. The biggest problem Orthodoxy faces, and the factor that makes it an impossible lifestyle for many who would otherwise be drawn to it, is the enormous costs entailed. Anything we can do to lower this burden, even if it is only a couple of hundred dollars a year--obviously significantly more for communal institutions--should be done. Returning to Agriprocessors, while the current issue focuses on the treatment of workers, the problem of a couple of years ago focused on the treatment of animals. Yet the two should not necessarily be seen as so far apart. According to R. Joseph Ibn Caspi (Mishneh Kesef [Pressburg, 1905], vol. 1, p. 36), the reason the Torah forbids inflicting pain on animals is "because we humans are very close to them and we both have one father"! This outlook is surprising enough (and very un-Maimonidean), but then he continues with the following incredible statement: "We and the vegetables, such as the cabbage and the horseradish, are brothers, with one father"! He ties this in with the command not to cut down a fruit tree (Deut. 20:19), which is followed by the words כי האדם עץ השדה. This is usually understood as a question: "for is the tree of the field man [that it should be besieged of thee?] Yet Caspi understands it as a statement, and adds the following, which together with what I have already quoted from him will make the Jewish eco-crowd very happy. כי האדם עץ השדה (דברים כ' י"ט), כלומר שהאדם הוא עץ השדה שהוא מין אחד מסוג הצמח כאמרו כל הבשר חציר (ישעיה מ' ו') ואמרו רז"ל בני אדם כעשבי השדה (עירובין נד ע"א) Finally, in Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld's op-ed on Agriprocessors in the New York Times (see here) he wrote as follows: "Yisroel Salanter, the great 19th-century rabbi, is famously believed to have refused to certify a matzo factory as kosher on the grounds that the workers were being treated unfairly." Herzfeld was attacked by people who claimed that there is no historical source to justify this statement. While the story has been garbled a bit, the substance indeed has a source. I refer to Dov Katz, Tenuat ha-Mussar, vol. 1, p. 358. Here R. Yisrael Salanter is quoted as saying that when it comes to the production of matzah, one must not only be concerned with the halakhot of Pesah, but also with the halakhot of Hoshen Mishpat, i.e., that one must have concern for the well-being of the woman making the matzah. אין כשרות המצות שלמה בהידוריהן שבהלכות פסח לבד, כי אם עם דקדוקיהן גם בדיני חשן משפט 2. In my previous post I wrote: "With regard to false ascription of critical views vis-à-vis the Torah's authorship, I should also mention that Abarbanel, Commentary to Numbers 21:1, accuses both Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides of believing that the beginning verses of this chapter are post-Mosaic. Yet Abarbanel must have been citing from memory, since neither of them say this. In fact, Ibn Ezra specifically rejects the notion that the verses were written by Joshua." I made a similar point in Limits of Orthodox Theology, p.106 n. 102. I looked at Abarbanel again and would like to revise what I wrote. I don't think it is correct to say that Abarbanel was citing from memory, since he quotes Nahmanides' words. With regard to Ibn Ezra, I now assume that Abarbanel thinks Ibn Ezra is being coy. In other words, although Ibn Ezra cites a view held by "many" that Joshua wrote the beginning of Numbers 21, and then goes on to reject this view, Abarbanel doesn't trust Ibn Ezra. He thinks that Ibn Ezra really accepts the "critical" view. I see absolutely no evidence for this. Ibn Ezra has ways to hint to us when he favors a critical view, and he never does so with this section. Furthermore, I am aware of no evidence that the "many" who hold the critical view are Karaites, as is alleged by Abarbanel. What led Abarbanel to accuse Nahmanides of following Ibn Ezra in asserting that there are post-Mosaic verses in Numbers 21? As with Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel sees Nahmanides as hiding his critical view and only hinting to it. Numbers 21:3 reads: "And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah." Yet as Nahmanides notes, it is in Judges 1:17 that we see the destruction of the Canaanites and the naming of the city Hormah. How, then, can the city be called Hormah in Deuteronomy when it won't be conquered and named for many years? Nahmanides writes that the Torah here is relating "that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah." In other words, the Torah is describing an event, including the naming of a place, which will only take place a number of years later. This event is described in the book of Judges. The verse in Numbers is written in the past tense, which would seem to render Nahmanides' understanding problematic. Yet as Chavel points out in his notes to his English edition, this does not concern Nahmanides. "Since there is no difference in time for God, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him." This is certainly true with regard to God, but what about the Children of Israel? How are they supposed to read a section of the Torah that speaks about an event as having happened in the past but which in reality has not yet even taken place? These are problems that the traditional commentators deal with, but Abarbanel sees Nahmanides as departing from tradition and offering a heretical interpretation. He is led to this assumption because Nahmanides uses the ambiguous words "Scripture continued" and "Scripture, however, completed the account." Why didn't Nahmanides say that Moses wrote this? It must be, according to Abarbanel, that Nahmanides is hinting that this was written down after Moses' death. In Abarbanel's words: כי הרב כסתה כלימה פניו לכתוב שיהושע כתב זה. והניח הדבר בסתם שהכתוב השלימו אבל לא זכר מי היה הכותב כיון שלא היה משה עליו השלום והדעת הזה בכללו לקחהו הראב"ע מדברי הקראים שבפירושי התורה אשר להם נמנו וגמרו שלא כתב זה מזה והרמב"ן נטה אחרי הראב"ע והתימה משלימות תורתו וקדושתו שיצא מפיו שיש בתורה דבר שלא כתב משה. והם אם כן בכלל כי דבר ה' בזה. From here, let me return for the third time to what some would see as an aspect of biblical criticism in Radak. To recap, in his commentary to I Sam. 4:1 Radak writes: על האבן העזר: כמו הארון הברי' והכותב אמר זה כי כשהיתה זאת המלחמה אבן נגף היתה ולא אבן עזר ועדיין לא נקראה אבן העזר כי על המלחמה האחרת שעשה שמואל עם פלשתים בין המצפה ובין השן שקרא אותה שמואל אבן העזר שעזרם האל יתברך באותה מלחמה אבל מה שנכתב הנה אבן העזר דברי הסופר הם וכן וירדף עד דן. Dr. H. Norman Strickman convinced me that Radak means that the words "and pursued as far as Dan" are a later insertion, since the city was only named Dan after it was conquered in the days of Joshua (Joshua 19:47). In a comment to the post, Benny wrote: There is no reason to assume that Radak is not referring to Moses prophetically writing the word Dan. It just means that in the time that the story took place, the name was not Dan. . . . I think that it is definitely possible that Radak understood that Moshe is the one who wrote "Et HaGilad Ad Dan". Dr. Yitzchak Berger wrote to me as follows: I think the commenter 'Benny' was right about Radak's view of Gen. 14:14. At I Sam 4:1 he's probably merely contrasting the author-narrator's [i.e. "sofer's"--MS] perspective with that of the players in the story, concerning the phrases in both Samuel and Genesis (in the case in Samuel there would be no reason for him to introduce a later editor)." As is often the case in these sorts of disputes, I find myself being moved by the last argument I hear. As I noted in the earlier post, Radak elsewhere insists on complete Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Thus, it is certainly easier to read this text in a way that would not create a contradiction. While on the subject of Mosaic authorship, let me also add the following. David Singer recently wrote an interesting article on Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. With the recent passing of Rabbi Moses Mescheloff, Rackman, born in 1910, might be the oldest living musmach of RIETS. If this is so, don't expect this to be acknowledged in any way by the powers at YU. The ideological winds have blown rightward in the last thirty years, and Rackman has moved leftward. He is thus no longer regarded as representative of RIETS or worthy of any acknowledgment.
A similar thing happened at Hebrew Theological College in Skokie. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (died 1992) was, in my opinion, the most significant and influential person ever to teach on its faculty. (Unfortunately, they didn't let him teach Talmud, only philosophy.) Yet not only does HTC currently have no interest in recognizing him, in 2001, some eighteen years (!) after the appearance of Not in Heaven, a very negative review appeared in the Academic Journal of Hebrew Theological College. To show how insignificant Berkovits is in Skokie, neither the author, Rabbi Chaim Twerski, nor any of the editors, realized that his last name is not spelled Berkowitz! Were he alive today, can anyone imagine that HTC would allow him to speak? (It would be interesting to create a list of people who founded or taught at institutions and today would be persona non grata there. A few come to mind, and for now let me just mention R. Zev Gold, the outstanding Mizrachi leader who was one of the founders, and first president, of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. Gold, who was also a rabbi in Scranton, was one of the signers of Israel's declaration of independence.)
Some people pointed out that in Twerski's negative review, Berkovits is never even referred to as Rabbi, only as Dr. (A cynic might add that in his zeal to use the title "Dr." instead of "Rabbi" for those he doesn't approve of, Twerski even gives R. Judah Leib Maimon a doctorate, referring to him as Dr. Maimon.) In the following issue, Twerski apologizes for any disrespect, noting that while some people took offense at how he referred to Berkovits, others "who know [!] him well have told me that he always preferred to be addressed as 'Dr. Berkovits.'" I think this is a fair response. After all, would anyone criticize an author for referring to "Dr. Lamm"? Yet I must also say that someone reading the article will not learn that Berkovits was a great talmudic scholar, and I don't even know if Twerski recognizes this.
Returning to Singer, in his article he writes that Rackman accepted the Documentary Hypothesis. I discussed this issue with Rackman some years ago and this is definitely not what he told me. The most he would say was that he would not regard someone as a heretic if he accepted biblical criticism. Yet he personally was not a believer in the theory. In support of Singer's assertion to the contrary, he quotes the following passage from Rackman: "The most definitive record of God's encounters with man is contained in the Pentateuch. Much of it may have been written by people in different times, but at one point in history God not only made the people of Israel aware of his immediacy, but caused Moses to write the eternal evidence of the covenant between Him and His people." He also quotes another statement by Rackman: "[T]he sanctity of the Pentateuch does not derive from God's authorship of all of it, but rather from the fact that God's is the final version. The final writing by Moses has the stamp of divinity – the kiss of immortality."
Singer misunderstands Rackman. There is no Higher Criticism here, no Documentary Hypothesis. What Rackman is saying is that the stories in the Pentateuch might have been recorded by various people before Moses, but that these stories were later included in the Torah at God's command, with Moses being the final author. In both of these passages Rackman is explicit that the Torah was written by Moses. Rackman's position in these quotations is very traditional, asserting that all that appears in the Torah is Mosaic. With this conception it doesn't matter if, for example, the stories of Noah or the Patriarchs had earlier written versions passed down among the Israelites, since what makes them holy and part of the Torah is God's command to Moses that they be included in the Holy Book. This was done by Moses' "final writing." I can't see anyone, even the most traditional, finding a problem in this. While on the subject of Rackman, let me make a bibliographical point. R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah IV, no. 50:2 refers to: המאמרים של רב אחד שמחשבים אותו לרב ארטאדקאקסי שנדפסו בעיתון שבשפת אנגלית . . . והנה ראינו שכולם דברי כפירה בתורה שבעל פה המסורה לנו. R. Moshe goes on to further attack the heresy of this unnamed rabbi, who is none other than Rackman. This can be seen by examining Ha-Pardes, May 1973, p. 7, where R. Moshe's letter first appeared. It is not a private communication but is described as coming from Agudat ha-Rabbonim of the United States and Canada, and R. Moshe signs as president of the organization. Earlier in this issue (it is the lead article) and also in the April 1973 Ha-Pardes, R. Simhah Elberg published his own attack on Rackman, referring to him as ראביי ר. Elberg refers to Rackman's articles which appeared regularly in the American Examiner, and which so agitated the haredim – and also many of the centrist Orthodox. This paper then joined with the Jewish Week, and became known as the Jewish Week and American Examiner. Rackman continued to publish in the paper until around 2001. (His article discussing my biography of Weinberg was one of the last ones he would write, and it is reprinted in the second edition of One Man's Judaism [Jerusalem, 2000], pp. 402-404.) 3. Many people were interested in the claim, quoted in an earlier post, that rabbis turned over their own children to become soldiers if these children were no longer observant. If something like this ever happened it would have been very heartless, and there were, of course, many children of gedolim who became non-religious. While in some cases the child choosing a different path led to estrangement with his father, in others, father and son remained close, and I think today everyone realizes that this is the only proper approach to take. R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg thought that it might be a good idea for a father to attend his son's intermarriage, in order not to break ties completely. (Believe it or not, this statement was published in Yated Neeman.) Yet to see how different things were in years past, at least among some parts of our community, consider the following responsum by the important Hungarian posek, R. Jacob Tenenbaum. The case concerned an Orthodox shochet whose son went to the בית האון (This means the non-Orthodox rabbinical seminary in Budapest, against which the Orthodox rabbis carried on a crusade.) The problem was that during his vacations the son came home to his parents' house. Tenenbaum was asked if this meant that the shochet was disqualified and could no longer serve the community. The father pleaded that he loved his son, and Tenenbaum replied that התנצלות זה הוא הבל. Tenenbaum also rejected the father's claim that if he doesn't show love to his son, the latter will go even further "off the derech." Tenenbaum demanded that the father make a complete break with his son (that is, if the father wanted to be regarded as a Jew in good standing). The choice was clear: The father had to decide between loving his son and making a living (for if chose the former he would be blacklisted throughout the country): ואם אביו יתן לו מקום בביתו או יתמכהו באיזה דבר בזה יגלה דעתו שגם בו נזרקה מינות [!] ובזה אין חילוק בין שו"ב לאיש אחר . . . אם יחזיק ידו או יתן לו מקום בביתו הנה ידו במעל הזה אשר בנו פנה עורף לדת ה' ועל כן צא טמא יאמר לו, ושלא יוסיף עוד ראות פניו אם לא ישמע לדבריו לעזוב דרך רשע. I know this sounds like a Hungarian extremist approach, but R. Kook had basically the same viewpoint. In Da'at Kohen no. 7, he too is asked about a shochet whose non-religious sons live at home. R. Kook replies that while technically the actions of the sons do not destroy the hezkat kashrut of the father, nevertheless, the matter is very distasteful (מכוער). Even if the father could not be blamed at all in this matter, nevertheless, it is a hillul ha-shem. Since the beit din has the power to legislate in matters beyond the strict law, "there is no migdar milta greater than this." He explains the reason for his uncompromising viewpoint: שלא ילמדו אחרים להפקירות עוד יותר, כשרואין שבניו של השו"ב הקבוע הם מחללים ש"ק, ע"כ לע"ד ברור הדבר, שכ"ז שבניו הם סמוכין על שולחנו, ואין פוסקין מחילול ש"ק, איננו ראוי להיות שו"ב קבוע, ומה גם בעדה חרדית. If this is said about a shochet, how much more would it apply to a rav of a community. It is therefore easy to understand why non-religious children of some well-known rabbis are no longer welcome in their parents' home. (Other well-known rabbis have a completely different outlook, and reject what they would categorize as the conditional-love approach of Rabbis Tenenbaum and Kook). 4. Since I have mentioned R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg a few times, I must call attention to something that was pointed out to me by Rabbi Chaim Miller. Miller might be known to some readers for his wonderful editions of the Chumash and Haggadah with a commentary based on writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. He has also published the first volume of a multi-volume work on the Thirteen Principles.
I have often been asked if Weinberg gave semikhah to the Lubavitcher Rebbe. There is such a story yet I always found it suspicious that it was never mentioned in the Rebbe's lifetime. Furthermore, Weinberg never mentions this in his letters. (He does mention that R. Yosef Yitzhak Schneersohn loved him.) So when asked, I always replied that I didn't believe the story to be correct, as there is no evidence. In fact, I thought that the story was created as a clever way of giving the Rebbe semikhah. There is no record of him receiving semikhah before he arrived in Germany or after he left, so it made sense to have him receive it during his time in Berlin. Once you assume that the semikhah is received in Berlin, who better than Weinberg to give it to the Rebbe? Yet I always assumed that that this was a legend and wondered if the Rebbe even had semikhah. Rabbi Miller called my attention to the new book, Admorei Habad ve-Yahadut Germanyah, pp. 103ff., where R. Avraham Abba Weingort, who is completely trustworthy (and far removed from Habad), records the testimony of two other reliable people from Switzerland who knew Weinberg well. Although there is probably some exaggeration in the details of the story they tell, they report being told by Weinberg that he indeed gave semikhah to the Rebbe, and the circumstances of how this came about (including requiring that the Rebbe come to some of his shiurim at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary). I can now better understand why the Rebbe's contact information given to the University of Berlin was the address of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary. From now on, whenever I am asked if the Rebbe received semikhah from Weinberg, I will reply yes. 5. In recent years a few volumes from the writings of R. Yehudah Amital have been translated into English, allowing many new people to be exposed to his thoughts. Here is a provocative passage from his newest volume, Commitment and Complexity: Jewish Wisdom in an Age of Upheaval, p. 48: We live in an era in which educated religious circles like to emphasize the centrality of Halakha, and commitment to it, in Judaism. I can say that in my youth in pre-Holocaust Hungary, I didn't hear people talking all the time about "Halakha." People conducted themselves In the tradition of their forefathers, and where any halakhic problems arose, they consulted a rabbi. Reliance on Halakha and unconditional commitment to it mean, for many people, a stable anchor whose purpose is to maintain the purity of Judaism, even within the modern world. To my mind, this excessive emphasis of Halakha has exacted a high cost. The impression created is that there is nothing in Torah but that which exists in Halakha, and that in any confrontation with the new problems that arise in modern society, answers should be sought exclusively in books of Halakha. Many of the fundamental values of the Torah which are based on the general commandments of "You shall be holy" (Vayikra 19:2) and "You shall do what is upright and good in the eyes of God" (Devarim 6:18), which were not given formal, operative formulation, have not only lost some of their status, but they have also lost their validity in the eyes of a public that regards itself as committed to Halakha. This reminds me of the quip attributed to Heschel that unfortunately Orthodox Jews are not in awe of God, but in awe of the Shulhan Arukh. In truth, Heschel's point is good hasidic teaching, and R. Jacob Leiner of Izbica notes that one can even make idols out of mitzvot. He points out that the Second Commandment states that one is prohibited from making an image of what is in the heavens. R. Jacob claims that what the Torah refers to as being in the heavens is none other than the Sabbath. The Torah is telling us that we must not turn it into an idol. In this regard, R. Jacob cites the Talmud: "One does not revere the Sabbath but Him who ordered the observance of the Sabbath."
I believe that the "halakho-centrism" that Amital criticizes has another pernicious influence, and that is the overpopulation of "halakhic" Jews who have been involved in all sorts of illegal activities. A major problem we have is that it is often the case that all sorts of halakhic justifications can be offered for these illegal activities. One whose only focus in on halakhah, without any interest in the broad ethical underpinnings of Judaism, and the Ramban's conception of Kedoshim Tihyu, can entirely lose his bearings and turn into a "scoundrel with Torah license." The Rav long ago commented that halakhah is the floor, not the ceiling. One starts with halakhah and moves up from there. Contrary to what so many feel today, halakhah, while required, is not all there is to being a Jew, and contrary to what so many Orthodox apologists claim, halakhah does not have "all the answers." One of the most important themes in Weinberg's writings is the fact that there are people in the Orthodox community who, while completely halakhic, are ethically challenged. Since I already mentioned Rabbi Rakov, let me tell a story that illustrates this. I went to Gateshead to interview him about his relationship with Weinberg. When I got there I had a few hours until our meeting so I paid a visit to the local seforim store. I found a book I wanted and asked the owner how much it cost. He gave me a price, and then added that if I was a yeshiva student there was a discount. When I later met with Rakov I asked him if it would have been OK for me to ask one of the yeshiva students to buy the book at discount, and then I could pay him for it. He replied that there was certainly no halakhic problem involved. After all, the first student acquires the book through a kinyan and then I buy it from him. But he then added: "Yet it would not be ethical." Weinberg's concerns in this area were not merely motivated by the distressing phenomenon of halakhically observant people who showed a lack of ethical sensitivity. His problem was much deeper in that he feared that this lack of sensitivity was tied into the halakhic system itself. In other words, he worried that halakhah, as generally practiced, sometimes led to a dulling of ethical sensitivity. Weinberg saw a way out of this for the enlightened souls, those who could walk the middle path between particularist and universal values. Yet in his darkest moments he despaired that the community as a whole could ever reach this point. This explains why he esteemed certain Reform and other non-Orthodox figures. Much like R. Kook saw the non-Orthodox as providing the necessary quality of physicality which was lacking among the Orthodox, Weinberg appreciated the refined nature of some of the non-Orthodox he knew and lamented that his own community was lacking in this area. It was precisely because of his own high standards that he had so little tolerance for ethical failures in the Orthodox community. Weinberg's sentiments, which focused on inner -Orthodox behavior, were not motivated by fear of hillul ha-shem. It was simply an issue of Jews living the way they are supposed to. [15]
In his opposition to halakho-centrism, Amital finds a kindred spirit in R. Moses Samuel Glasner and cites the latter with regard to the following case. What should someone do if he has no food to eat, except non-kosher meat and human flesh. From a purely halakhic standpoint, eating non-kosher meat, which is a violation of a negative commandment, is worse than cannibalism. The latter is at most a violation of a positive commandment (Maimonides) or a rabbinic commandment according to others. Yet Glasner sees it as obvious that one should not eat the human flesh, even though this is what the "pure" halakhah would require, for there are larger values at stake and the technical halakhah is not the be-all and end-all of Torah. Glasner writes as follows in his introduction to Dor Revi'i: כל מה שנתקבל בעיני בני אדם הנאורים לתועבה, אפילו אינו מפורש בתורה לאיסור, העובר על זה גרע מן העובר על חוקי התורה . . . ועתה אמור נא, בחולה שיש בו סכנה ולפניו בשר בהמה נחורה או טרפה ובשר אדם, איזה בשר יאכל, הכי נאמר דיאכל בשר אדם שאין בו איסור תורה אע"פ שמחוק הנימוס שמקובל מכלל האנושי, כל האוכל או מאכיל בשר אדם מודח מלהיות נמנה בין האישים, ולא יאכל בשר שהתורה אסרו בלאו, היעלה על הדעת שאנו עם הנבחר עם חכם ונבון נעבור על חוק הנימוס כזה להינצל מאיסור תורה? אתמהה! In other words, the Torah has an overarching ethos (Natural Law?) which is not expressed in any specific legal text, and this can sometimes trump explicit prohibitions.
Glasner has another example of this: Someone is in bed naked and a fire breaks out. He can't get to his clothes and has two choices: He can run outside naked or put on some women's clothes. The pure halakhic perspective would, according to Glasner, require him to go outside naked, since there is no biblical violation in this. But Glasner rejects this out of hand: ובעיני פשוט הדבר דלצאת ערום עברה יותר גדולה . . . כי היא עברה המוסכמת אצל כל בעלי דעה, והעובר עליה יצא מכלל אדם הנברא בצלם אלוקים. While I don't know if the Rav would agree with Glasner, he too acknowledged that ethical concerns are a part of halakhic determination, meaning that not everything is "pure" halakhah. "Since the halakhic gesture is not to be abstracted from the person engaged in it, I cannot see how it is possible to divorce halakhic cognition from axiological premises or from an ethical motif." Yet he adds: "Of course, in speaking of an ethical moment implied in halakhic thinking, I am referring to the unique halakhic ethos which is another facet of the halakhic logos." I wonder, though, if the approach set out here stands in contradiction to how, in his famous essay, he portrays the Halakhic Man's mode of thinking. Would Halakhic Man, whose values arise exclusively from the halakhic system, be able to write the following, which acknowledges a significant subjective element? Before I begin the halakhic discussion of the subject matter I wish to make three relevant observations . . . I cannot lay claim to objectivity if the latter should signify the absence of axiological premises and a completely detached attitude. The halakhic inquiry, like any other cognitive theoretical performance, does not start out form the point of absolute zero as to sentimental attitudes and value judgments. There always exists in the mind of the researcher an ethico-axiological background against which the contours of the subject matter in question stand out more clearly. . . . Hence this investigation was also undertaken in a similar subjective mood. From the very outset I was prejudiced in favor of the project of the Rabbinical Council of America and I could not imagine any halakhic authority rendering a decision against it. My inquiry consisted only in translating a vague intuitive feeling into fixed terms of halakhic discursive thinking. How often have I seen Orthodox polemicists criticize this very approach?
Finally, with regard to the issue of cannibalism mentioned above, let me point to one more relevant source (I can't resist). In a previous post I mentioned that since every topic in halakhah has been dealt with in such detail, scholars today have to find new areas to focus on. Because of this, large books constantly appear about all sorts of things that are found in the sources, but to which no one ever gave much thought in previous years. The example I gave was an entire book dealing with the halakhot of sex change operations. The halakhot of cannibalism is one of the last areas which hasn't yet been given a book-length treatment. However, R. Yosef Aryeh Lorincz has recently published Pelaot Edotekha. The author is a rosh kollel whose previous book won an award from the municipality of Bnei Brak (see here). He is also the son of Shlomo Lorincz, one of the elders of haredi politics. He raises the following question (before reading any further, make sure the digitalis is in easy reach): Is it permitted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of demons?! Let me quote some of what he says on the topic: יש לעיין באותם השדים שיש להם דמות אדם ומתו מה דין בשרם ודמם האם אסורים באכילה, דפשוטו אינם אדם וגם אינם בהמה אלא בריה בפנ"ע ולא מצינו שאסרה תורה לבשר ודם דשדים, אולם להאמור לעיל דשד הוה מקצת אדם, א"כ הוה כעין חצי שעור ואסורים באכילה, עוד יש לעיין אם בשרו ודמו יש להם טומאה כמת עכו"ם, ואם אסורים בהנאה לשיטות דמת עכו"ם אסור בהנאה. Whatever you may think about hashgachot on candles and toilet bowl cleaner, I am fairly certain that even if Lorincz can prove that demon's flesh and blood is kosher, none of the kashrut organizations will be rushing to add their symbol to this product. But in all seriousness, I know that I am not the only one who thinks that it is very unfortunate that we have Torah scholars spending time on this sort of thing. 6. I have been asked to say something about the current conversion controversy. The halakhic problems will be sorted out by the poskim, but let me make a few comments about the historical issue. There have been a number of people who have stated that the lenient approach often associated with R. Uziel is a singular opinion, or that this view was original to him. That this is mistaken can be seen by anyone who examines Avi Sagi's and Zvi Zohar's book Giyur u-Zehut Yehudit. In fact, throughout most of Jewish history a lenient approach to conversion was the mainstream approach.
Now it is true that R. Herzog famously states that in earlier times one could be more lenient than today, because in a traditional society when someone converted he was immediately part of a community and was required to be observant. Things are very different today when you can convert and move to a secular neighborhood in Tel Aviv. There is no communal pressure for you to be observant, and the convert can look around and see that the leaders of the Jewish people in Israel, Peres, Olmert and Livni, are not religious. In such a world, R. Herzog didn't think we could rely on certain leniencies used in the past. However, despite R. Herzog's opinion, the lenient approach, which didn't insist on a convert's complete observance of mitvot remained popular in modern times. (Contrary to what has often been stated, the lenient approach, and this includes R. Uziel, always insisted on kabbalat mitzvot. The dispute concerns what " kabbalat mitzvot" means, and whether a formal acceptance, without inner conviction, is sufficient.) Until recent years the lenient approach was even a mainstream position, alongside the more stringent (and widespread) approach. Among the adherents of the lenient approach one must mention R. David Zvi Hoffmann, who was the final halakhic authority in Germany until his death in 1921. Almost every Orthodox rabbi in that country, and many in other parts of Western Europe, looked to him as their authority. Others who held this position include R. Unterman and R. Goren. In addition, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate batei din, which were full of haredi dayanim, until recently followed the lenient approach. Many non-Jews were converted in Israel by dayanim who knew perfectly well that these people were not going to live an Orthodox life. Some of them were even intent on marrying people who were living on secular kibbutzim. No one ever challenged the validity of these conversions. The situation was similar in places outside of Israel. See R. Yitzhak Yaakov Weiss, Minhat Yitzhak, vol. 6, no. 107:
Unlike what goes on today, in previous generations there were never any classes for future converts. In fact, according to R. Akiva Eger, these classes are improper, since one is not permitted to teach Torah to a non-Jew. Now obviously, this is not the position we accept, but it does illustrate that in reality converts don't need to know much about Judaism. R. Malkiel Zvi Tenenbaum writes similarly in dealing with a case from England where a man was with a non-Jewish woman and wanted to convert her. The man had stopped eating non-kosher and attended synagogue on Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, but he was obviously not a completely observant Jew. Tenenbaum notes that even though it is possible that the only reason the woman is converting is so that she can remain with her husband--apparently she thought that this was in doubt due to his new religiosity-- nevertheless, one should not be too exacting with her, other than telling her a few weighty and light mitzvot. This approach should be adopted because ex post facto the conversion will be fine, "and by doing this, we will save the Jew from living with her in a forbidden manner . . . but it is best that she learn everything [relating to Judaism] after she converts, and in particular in this case when we have to hurry to save the husband from sin."
Even R. Moshe Feinstein's opinion regarding conversion is not uniform, and you can see changes in his view in the direction of leniency. But leaving that aside, although R. Moshe requires real kabbalat mitzvot, he acknowledges that a rejection of complete halakhic observance might not really be a rejection, because the person might not think that a particular law is really required. For example, what about a case where a woman converted in order to marry a Sabbath violator and was herself now a Sabbath violator? This is the exact sort of conversion that would be thrown out today. The fact that after the conversion she never observed Shabbat would suffice to show that there was no kabbalat mitzvot. Yet R. Moshe disagrees. He says that it depends on the woman's mindset. In this case, perhaps she never intended on violating the halakhah, but she didn't believe that Shabbat is really a law! And why should she, when she sees that most Jews don't keep it? In R. Moshe's words, she thought that observing Shabbat was hiddur be-alma, that is, something nice, but not required. This means that she never rejected the halakhah of Shabbat, she just didn't know about it, and people are not required to know every halakhah before they convert. Therefore, R. Moshe concludes that the conversion is valid. In another responsum, R. Moshe explains that even if one rejects a particular mitzvah of the Torah, ex post facto the conversion is still valid: ולכן צריך לומר שכיון שאיכא עכ"פ קבלת מצות אף שלא בכולן הוא גר ונתחייב בכולן אף שלא קבלם דהוה מתנה ע"מ שכתוב בתורה. Anyone who reads responsa literature of the last hundred years often comes across cases where a man was intermarried and wanted to convert his wife, or wanted to convert his future wife. Often he had a child with the non-Jewish woman and wanted the child to be converted. A few different issues are discussed in these responsa, in particular nitan al ha-shifhah, but one thing you find very little discussion of is kabbalat mitzvot. The rabbis often give permission to convert the children even though the parents are not religious, and they give permission to convert the non-Jewish spouse even though there is no expectation that the person is going to lead a religious life. This obviously shows us that these rabbis had a different conception of conversion than what is today declared to be the only acceptable approach. Rabbi Yehudah Herzl Henkin has recently called attention to Rabbi Abraham Price's comments in this regard. Price was the leading rav in Toronto, and he defends the lenient approach (which was being carried out all over the world). Yet today, these conversions would be thrown out. Here is the page from Price's sefer.
 In the recently published responsa of R. Eliezer David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet), Ma'aneh Eliyahu, no. 65, he discusses converting a Gentile who was involved with a Jewish woman. He raises the issue of whether it is proper to convert the man if he will not be observant. Even though the woman will be spared the sin of intermarriage, the man who is converted will now be violating the prohbitions of Niddah and Shabbat. This means that he was in a better place before he converted, as he was not obligated in these laws. The Aderet never assumes that the conversion won't be valid because the man will be non-observant. Indeed, his entire responsum is based on the fact that it will be valid, which leads him to wonder if conversions like this are a good idea. אם הם מדור החדש, וקרוב הדבר שלא תשמור לטבול בזמנה, ויחללו שבת, ויכשלו באיסור נדה החמורה, רחמנא ליצלן, ועוד ועוד, באופן כזה חלילה, צריך ישוב והתבוננות אם לטובלו לדת ישראל. (There are many other responsa where halakhists show great annoyance that people who convert often don't live a religious life, but very few of these halakhists mention anything about the conversions not being valid.) Here is another example that nicely illustrates what I am talking about. It has not been quoted in any of the numerous discussions of the issue and can be added to the lenient side. Yet as I indicated, there is nothing unusual in this case as the approach seen here was very popular. R. Shlomo Sadowsky was a rav in Rochester and in 1918 he published his sefer, Parparaot le-Hokhmah. On page 63 he discusses converting a non-Jewish woman who is married to a Jewish man. In this case, he turned to R. Gavriel Zev Margulies, one of the leading poskim in America. (Joshua Hoffman wrote a wonderful masters dissertation on him.) The decision is made to convert her, and there is no mention of authentic acceptance of mitzvot. The halakhic concern focuses on a different matter, and the two rabbis are guided by the desire to help the man get out of the sin of intermarriage. Here is the responsum.   A few pages prior to this, Sadowsky has a responsum from 1906, when he was a rav in Albany. Here he discusses converting the son of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. The mother had no interest in converting. Sadowsky agrees to convert the child who would, of course, be raised in an intermarried home without any Torah or mitzvot. He sent his responsum to the great R. Moses Danishefsky, the rav of Slobodka, and Danishefsky agreed with him. There is absolutely no discussion about the fact that the boy will be brought up without Torah observance. Both Sadowsky and Danishefsky assume that there is a benefit to being Jewish, even if one is being brought up in an intermarried home. Here are the responsa from Rabbis Sadowsky and Danishefsky.     The technical issues are probably easier in this last case, as a child doesn't need to have kabbalat mitzvot to be converted. Yet it is still significant that the issue of being raised in a non-religious home is not considered. There have been cases in Israel where the rabbinate refuses to convert children in situations like this, since the parents are not religious. The parents are thus forced to raise non-Jewish Hebrew speaking children, who of course will serve in the army and then marry Jewish Israelis.
For another example of converting women where there is no real expectation that they will be "observant" (by current standards), since their husbands were themselves not religious, see this responsum by R. Judah Leib Zirelson, from his Atzei ha-Levanon, no. 63.  I could cite a number of other sources, but it should be obvious by now that the lenient approach is hardly a daat yahid, identified only with R. Uziel. I believe that an examination of the responsa literature reveals that until recently this was a mainstream approach among both rabbis doing conversions and poskim who dealt with this issue. I am not saying that it was the dominant approach, only that it was widespread. As we all know, however, many converts of years past would not be accepted by batei din today. (Nothing I have mentioned so far should imply that R. Druckman's beit din followed any of the sources mentioned so far. From what I have been able to determine, his beit din required a lengthy instruction period as well as attachment to an Orthodox family during this period, and also complete acceptance of mitzvot. For one relevant article, see R. David Bass in Tzohar 30, available here.)
There is another important source, a pre-modern responsum that is not mentioned by Sagi and Zohar and is directly relevant to the issue of revoking of conversions. It is cited by the Shas member of Kenesset (and author of seforim), R. Hayyim Amselem, as part of his responsum against the revoking of any conversions. R. Simeon ben Tzemach Duran, Tashbetz, vol. 3, no. 47, writes as follows: מי שלא נתגייר אלא שעה אחת וחזר לסורו לאלתר ועבד ע"ז וחלל שבתות בפרהסיא כמנהגו קודם שנתגייר ומין הוא ומן המורדים הוא, דלא קרינן ביה אחיך כמ"ש למעלה, ואפ"ה חשבינן ליה ישראל משומד וקידושין קידושין . . . וכן ראיתי בתשובה למורי חמי הרב רבנו יונה שכתב כן, וכן כתוב בספר העיטור ובספר אבן העזר, שמעשה הי' בכותי שקידש ואצרכוה גיטא מר רב יהודה ומר רב שמואל רישי כו', והדבר ידוע שגזרו עליהם להיות כעכו"ם גמורים כדאיתא בפרקא קמא דחולין. In other words, in a case where a convert immediately after the conversion practices idolatry and violates Shabbat, the rishonim mentioned hold that the conversion is valid and the person has the status of a sinning Jew. Today, we would be told that such a conversion is completely invalid, as it is obvious that the convert never intended to accept Judaism. The proof of this is that immediately following the conversion he continued in his old ways. Yet these rishonim hold that the conversion is binding. R. Shlomo Daichovsky, until recently a dayan on the Supreme Rabbinic Court, held this position. Eight years ago he expressed his opinion against R. Avraham Sherman and wrote as follows: נשותיהן של שלמה ושמשון עבדו עבודה זרה – כך מפורש בתנ"ך. גירותן היתה מפוקפקת מלכתחילה, כלשון הרמב"ם: 'והדבר ידוע שלא חזרו אלו, אלא בשביל דבר'. בנוסף: 'הוכיח סופן על תחילתן שהן עובדות עבודה זרה שלהן'. ועוד יותר: 'לא על פי בית דין גיירום'. יש כאן שלושה חסרונות גדולים. אין לי ספק, כי אם היתה באה גירות כזאת לפני בית הדין ברחובות, היו פוסלים אותה, ללא כל בעיה. יתכן, וגם אני הייתי מצטרף לכך. אף על פי כן, רואה אותן הרמב"ם כישראליות לכל דבר. ומוסיף בהלכה י"ד: 'אל יעלה על דעתך ששמשון המושיע את ישראל או שלמה מלך ישראל שנקרא ידיד ה' נשאו נשים נכריות בגיותן'. כלומר, אסור להעלות על הדעת, אפשרות כזו. ובעצם, למה לא? אין מנוס ממסקנה כי בדיעבד, אינו כלכתחילה. ולא ניתן לפסול גיור בדיעבד, לאחר שנעשתה. R. Ovadiah Yosef believes that we can void a conversion, but only if there was (or should have been) a certainty before the conversion that the whole thing was a sham. But if there was no reason to think so, even if the convert did not become an observant Jew the conversion is valid. He writes (Masa Ovadiah, p. 438): "אם באמת היה הדבר גלוי וידוע מראש שאינם מקבלים עליהם עול תורה ומצוות, רק ע"ד האמור: 'בפיו ובשפתיו כבדוני ולבו רחק ממני', ואנן סהדי שלא נתכוונו מעולם לקיים המצוות בפועל, אז גם בדיעבד י"ל שאינם גרים. אבל אם לא היה כאן אומדנא דמוכח בשעת הגיור, אע"ג דלבסוף אתגלי בהתייהו, דינם כישראל מומר, שאע"פ שחטא ישראל הוא. In the famous Seidman case, where R. Goren – based on R. David Zvi Hoffmann's well-known responsum – converted a woman who was going to be living with a kohen after the conversion, R. Ovadiah agreed that the conversion was valid be-diavad. (See R. Shilo Rafael, "Giyur le-Lo Torah u-Mitzvot," Torah she-Baal Peh 13 (1971), p. 131). אם היה הגירות נעשה בפני בי"ד כשרים היינו מוכרחים לומר שהבי"ד בדקו היטב בשעת מעשה וראו שמקבלים בלב שלם, ע"כ אף שראינו שאח"כ אין מחזיקין במה שקבלו עליהם אמרינן דהדרו בהו ויש להם דין ישראל מומר The rabbis at Kollel Eretz Hemdah were asked from Karlsruhe, Germany, about people who convert and continue to violate Shabbat and act no differently than before the conversion. In other words, they fooled the Beit Din. Are they to be regarded as converts? The reply is that while le-hatkhilah one cannot convert people unless they accept to observe the Torah אי-אפשר לבטל את הגירות של גרים שנתגיירו בבית-דין אורטודוקסי, אף על פי שלא היו כנים בבית-הדין ולא קיבלו על עצמם באמת לקיים את כל מצוות התורה, כל עוד שבאמת הם רוצים להיות יהודים, ורוצים להשתייך לעם ישראל. As mentioned already, this is a matter that will have to be decided by the halakhic authorities. But I think that what I have written so far is sufficient to establish that there has been a great deal of distortion regarding this issue, often by well-meaning people. (In particular, I noticed that a number of writers, including talmidei hakhamim, have mistakenly claimed that the Bah is the only one to say that the Rambam didn't require kabbalat mitzvot be-diavad.)
What is important to remember is that it is not just some modern Orthodox and religious Zionist rabbis who oppose the revoking of a conversion, but no less a figure than the Tashbetz. If today's authorities disagree, that is their right, but it is simply wrong for haredi leaders to say that conversions have always required absolute commitment to mitzvah observance, and that lacking such commitment the conversions were always regarded as having no validity. As is often the case, there are different traditions. The adherents of the stricter approach are attempting to recreate the past, as if there has been only one approach. In fact, there is an even more radical view found in the rishonim. I refer to the Meiri's position that be-diavad one can convert without a beit din. That is, following circumcision one can then accept the Torah and immerse all by oneself, and ex post facto it is a valid conversion.
I understand that all the discussions about the revoking of conversions have been very difficult for converts. After all, they were taught that once they convert they are as good as any other Jew. They have begun to learn that matters are not so simple. What is one of these converts supposed to think when they see the heading of R. Menasheh Klein's responsum, Mishneh Halakhot vol. 9, no. 237: גרים כשרים אין להם יחוס וראוי לזרע ישראל לרחק מהם ? He explains: וודאי שיש מצוה לקרב ולאהוב את הגרים אבל אין זה מחייב להתחתן עמהם והרי משה רבינו קבל כמה גרים דכתיב וגם ערב רב עלה אתם ואפ"ה לא נתערבו בהם ולא התחתנו עמהם בני ישראל. (By the way, the heading of the responsum following this is בענין נשים בעצם אם הם במדרגה אחת עם אנשים. Maybe on another occasion I will return to this, but I think everyone can predict what his conclusion is.) This is a theme that is found in a number of his responsa. In fact, it appears that if he had his way there would be a complete ban on conversions. Since not every convert will be able to find another convert to marry, I guess he would advise having them marry the community's losers, as no self-respecting Jew should marry a convert, at least not if you want your children to turn out right. As to why the children of converts don't turn out properly, Klein has his own theory. ודע דעלה בלבי מפני מה גרים לא יצליחו בניהם ע"פ רוב לפמ"ש דגר שנתגייר בידוע שנשמתו גם כן היתה מאותם שרצו לקבל התורה מסיני ולכן סופה שתתגייר, והנה כל זה נשמתו אבל נשמת זרעו שממשיך לא היו במעמד הר סיני ולכן אין זרעיו מצליחין . . . ומעתה מי פתי יסור הנה לישא אשה אשר יצאו ממנה בני סורר ומרה, ואם לפעמים ימצא שלא יצאו בדור הזה אולי עד עשרה דרי לא תבזה ארמאה ויחזרו ח"ו לסורם, ועכ"פ ע"פ רוב הכי הוא, והגע עצמך אם יאמרו לו שישא אשה חולנית שבעוד חמשה שנים תמות ורק על דרך נס יש אחת מיני אלף שתחיה או שע"פ רוב תלד בנים חולי גוף או רוח ודאי לא ישאנה . . . וכ"ש הכא שיצאו ממנו ח"ו דורות כאלו וכיוצא בה, מי הוא בעל אחריות שייעץ לאדם לישא אשה כזו. He then quotes some negative things said about converts in the Zohar, and concludes as follows, in words that the Eternal Jewish Family will never include in its literature and which are very hurtful: ומעתה מי זה יכול ליעץ לאדם מישראל אשר נתחייבנו עליו ואהבת לרעך כמוך ואמרו ז"ל מה דסני לך לחברך לא תעבד והאיך נעבור על יעצנו רע ח"ו לזרע קודש משרשא קדישא וגזעא דקשוט להתערב ולתתגעל בגיורת המזוהמה בזוהמת הנחש . . . ולכן ודאי דכל מי שחש וחס על עצמו ועל זרעו יראה להדבק בטובים. It is interesting that R. Moshe Sternbuch expresses the exact opposite approach to converts. We can see the same sort of dispute between them with regard to baalei teshuvah, with Klein having a suspicious and at times negative view toward them, and Sternbuch having the opposite approach. But before one assumes that Klein's outlook is just another example of the far-out positions he often takes, take a look at the following from R. Kook, commenting on Berakhot 8a which states: "Some say it means: Do not marry a proselyte woman": כי ראוי לדאוג שיהיו תולדותיו זרע ברך ד' בטבעם קשורים ג"כ בקשר טבעי עם ד'. אבל הגיורת, קשורה אינו כ"א בחירי ואיננו חזק כ"כ כהטבעי. ע"כ יש לחוש על קיומו, גם המדות הקדושות שהאומה הישראלית מעוטרות בהן חסרות הנה בהכרח, והמזג פועל על הבנים. Finally, let me say something about RCA's agreement with the Chief Rabbinate that all conversions already recognized by the RCA will be accepted in Israel. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the Chief Rabbinate can deliver on this. That is because, as we have seen in the latest controversy, the dayanim are not bound by the Chief Rabbinate's agreements. The Chief Rabbinate can accept a convert for its own purposes, but local dayanim have the autonomy to issue their own rulings, as we saw Rabbi Sherman do.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the agreement with the Chief Rabbinate will be upheld for a more fundamental reason: It violates the conscience and halakhic standards of the haredi world, which is currently taking over the religious court system. Let me explain what I mean. Many people who converted through RCA rabbis did not become completely observant. Some didn't become observant at all. (I have already mentioned that this was the case with haredi rabbis as well.) If a dayan feels that such a conversion is invalid halakhically, the fact that the Chief Rabbinate made an agreement that all RCA conversions from previous years will be accepted is irrelevant. An agreement of this nature cannot override halakhah. So the dayan in question will be forced to reject this conversion no matter when it took place.
To show how difficult the situation can become, take a look at this article from Yated Neeman that appeared a few years ago. I think we can get a good sense from it where we are heading with regard to conversion, and why the only solution is to have two separate court systems dealing with this matter. Yes, it is true that people converted by the Religious Zionist courts might not be accepted by the haredim, but so what? In the unlikely event that one of these converts or their children will want to marry a haredi, they can undergo a second haredi conversion. This is hardly a big deal, and certainly not reason enough for the Religious Zionists to entirely abandon their vision of halakhah, all in order to satisfy the haredi demands for a "single standard," which by definition always means the haredi approach. Notes Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah I, no. 160. This notion, that even apparently obvious Jewish laws could be viewed by some people as not binding, has all sorts of ramifications and has often dealt with by poskim. One interesting example is Teshuvot Maharam Lublin, no. 15, where R. Meir of Lublin was asked about a man who was caught having sex with a Christian prostitute, and he was sentenced to death. He could escape this sentence by converting to Christianity. (The responsum, which was sent to the city of Apta, deals with a young man held prisoner by the "Ishmaelites" because he was found with an "Ishmaelite" prostitute. Obviously, R. Meir is speaking in code, as Muslims were not in large supply in Apta. I will speak more about this sort of code in a future post.) The local community wanted to know if they had an obligation to ransom him, as it could be that the imprisoned man had the status of a mumar le-teavon. R. Meir rejects this point and offers the following incredible justification:ופרט בזמנינו זה בעו"ה שרבים נכשלים בעבירה זו שאין להחשיבה כמומר לתיאבון.
|
|
|
|
|
R' Orenstein, Author of the Yesuos Yaakov: The Controversy Over Publication of his Works
R' Orenstein, Author of the Yesuos Yaakov: The Controversy Over Publication of his Works
by R. Yosaif M. Dubovick R. Y. Dubovick has published many articles on diverse topics. He is currently working on many projects including a critical edition of the Rabbenu Hananel's commentary on Bava Kama. Additionally, he has published a critical edition of the Mahrashal on hilchot shehita and Yoreh Deah (discussed here ) and R. Dubovick is working on some of the Mahrashal's other works. As R. Orenstein's yarhzeit is the 25th of Av, Tuesday, Aug. 26, R. Dubovick provides the following information on this personage and his works.
Biographical Sketch of R' Orenstein
Perhaps the crown of pre-war Polish Jewry was the city of Lvov (Lviv, Lemberg). Settled in the dawn of our history in Poland, the city was renowned as a center of learning and piety, drawing from the elite of scholarship to its helm. The mere mention of the city's name draws to mind those Gaonim, such as R' Yehoshua, author of Shut Pnei Yehoshua, Sefer Maginei Shlomo (grandfather of the author of the noted Pnei Yehoshua on Shas), as well as R' Shmuel HaLevi author of Turei Zahav on Shulchan Aruch 1 (son-in-law of R' Yoel Sirkes2 the author of Bayis Chodosh on Tur)3. R' Zvi Ashkenazi (author of Chacham Tzvi, father of R' Yaakov Emden), R' Shlomo of Chelm, author of Merkeves haMishnah on Rambam (as well as homilies on the haftorot and a volume of responsa4), and R' Chayim Hakohen Rappoport5 all held the position of Av Beis Din and Rav of Lvov.
The subject of Toldos Anshei Shem by R' Shlomo Buber, Lvov has had its history well written and studied. R' Buber went so far as to personally request from the Rav of Krakow, the noted historian and author, R' Noson Chayim Dembitzer to collate his own findings; the result, a sefer of immense value to any student of history and genealogy, Klillat Yofe.6 These seforim list prominent men of stature and renown, leaders of the kehillot, their works and ancestors, shedding valuable light on the city's history.
From the beginning of the 5th century, (1640) Lvov's two communities ['inner' Lvov, and 'outer' Lvov] united under the leadership of one Rav. This period of grace between the communities lasted for close to two hundred years, and ended with the passing of the famed Gaon of Lvov, R' Yaakov Meshulem Orenstein in 5599 (1839), the focus of this article.
Much has been written regarding this sage, with numerous accounts detailing his biography. Klillat Yofe details his father's position as Rav of Lvov, R' Mordechai Zeev, who took office after R' Shlomo of Chelm stepped down as Rav in order to embark on a journey to Eretz Israel.7 In 5547 (1787) R' Mordechai Zeev was taken suddenly from this world, leaving a young twelve year old Yaakov Meshulem an orphan. The youth's best interests in mind, whilst still in the shiva period he was betrothed to the daughter of R' Tzvi Hirsch of Yaruslav, who was financially well off and would support his son-in-law.8 As such, the young man developed in his studies, and gained repute as a scholar of stature. His opinion was sought in many difficult matters, and elders as well as his contemporaries flocked to his doorstep in Yaruslav to discuss various issues with him. Notably, R' Aharon Moshe Tobias of Satnin, author of Shut Toafos Reem, would spend much time conversing with R' Yaakov Meshulem.9 Additionally, he was friends with R' Yehonosan Shimon Frankel, author of Etz Pri Kodesh, Lember, 1838. See his haskmah where he referrs to him as "yidid nafshe." He was also friendly with R' Yaakov Tzvi Yalish, author of Melo haRoim who he refers to as "hu yedidi min'noar."
R' Yaakov Meshulem mentions having been Rav AB"D of Zhalkov for a period, but the exact dates aren't clear. Later, he was appointed to take his father's seat as Rav AB"D of Lvov, and we find witness that in 5566 (1806) was already serving Lvov as its spiritual head, a position he held for over 30 years, until his passing.
The hub of religious activity in Poland, R' Yaakov's opinion on halachic matters was sought out by the leading sages of his time. Halachic authorities such as R' Moshe Sofer (author of Shut Chasam Sofer), and R' Akiva Eiger, R' Aryeh Leibish of Stanislaw (as well as with his son and successor R' Meshulem Yissocher, author of Shut Bar Levai), as well as R' Yaakov's relative, R' Chaim Halberstam of Sanz all queried him on matters of grave importance. His opinions regarding rulings issued by R' Shlomo Kluger of Brody versus his dissenters are collected in sefer Shivas Eynayim, along with those of his son, R' Mordechai Zeev.
While himself not a member of the Chassidic camp, R' Yaakov showed no animosity towards Chassidim and their leaders, and is purported to have met with Rebbe Yisroel Freidman of Ruzhin, as well as Rebbe Meir of Premshlyn.
As the head of the most prestigious community in the area, R' Yaakov also held the position of Nasi or president of Eretz Israel, and was responsible for the collation and distribution of all tzedakah funds earmarked for the Holy Land's poor.10 In addition, being financially secure, R' Yaakov established a personal free-loan organization, a gemach.
The apple of his eye, his only son R' Mordechai Zeev was taken from him at an early age on the 17th of MarCheshvan 5597 (Oct 28, 1836). Less than three years later, R' Yaakov passed away on the 25th day of Av, 5599 (Aug 5, 1839), and was buried next to R' Shmuel Halevi, author of Turei Zahav. Out of respect for their venerable leader, it was agreed upon that no longer would there be one Rav heading both communities, rather a new title called 'Rosh Bais Din', with less authority was implemented. In the succeeding line of leaders, Lvov called R' Yaakov's grandson, R' Tzvi Hirsch to take his rightful place. In turn, R' Tzvi Hirsch's son-n-law, R' Aryeh Leib Broide11 succeeded him.
R' Orenstein's Works & the Controversy Over Their Publication
A prolific writer, R' Yaakov is best known for his magnum opus, Yeshuos Yaakov, novella covering all four sections of the Shulchan Aruch. Published in his lifetime, R' Yaakov is said to have danced with a copy of a second edition, stating that he is now assured that this work is considered by heaven to be 'prophetic' in nature.12 He also penned chiddushim on the Torah in the order of the parshiyos, at first printed together with the chumash entitled 'Ein Yaakov', and later published as a separate volume. A new edition of these chiddushim was re-typeset in 5764 (2004), with a two page biographical sketch.
Throughout Yeshuos Yaakov, R' Yaakov cites numerous times his chiddushim on Shas, Rambam as well as his teshuvos, responsa. Seemingly, these works remained in manuscript form, and over the course of the years were lost. Recently, an attempt was made to 'reconstruct' those chiddushim on Shas based on chiddushim and references gleaned from sefer Yeshuos Yaakov. Chiddushei Yeshuos Yaakov al Seder haShas, 7 volumes, printed by Machon leCheker Kisvei Yad - Chochmas Shlomoh, Yerushalayim, 5757-60/1997-2000.
In the last months of 5666 (1906), R' Avraham Yosef Fisher, a well-known publisher, printed R' Yaakov's teshuvos from manuscript, in Peterkov. According to R' Fisher, he was given the autograph from the then Gerrer Rebbe, R' Avraham Mordechai Alter (author of Imrei Emes) for printing. The responsa were reordered according to the Shulchan Aruch, and in the end of the sefer, a table of contents as well as a list of errata and annotation was added. For reasons not fully explained, R' Fisher printed the book sans approbations that he claimed to have received from various leaders. He had applied to several sages for their approval, and while waiting for their response, decided to publish without them. In deference to those letters not at hand, he chose to omit those he did have, citing his desire to publish as taking precedence. This printing of the sefer was photo-mechanically reproduced in New York some forty years ago.
Several months after his sefer was printed, R' Aryeh Leib Broide, the son-in-law of R' Yaakov's grandson and heir, R' Tzvi Hirsch, issued a variant title page, and introduction. Claiming that the book had been in his personal possession to date, he alone had sent it to a printer, one Shimon Neiman for publication. Seemingly, the book changed hands, R' Fisher took possession of the printed volumes, selling them under his name, with R' Aryeh Leib Broide receiving a mere thirty volumes. As rightful owner, R' Aryeh Leib decried this act, and wondered how the name of the Gerrer Rebbe had been brought in to the fray. The variant pages were then bound to these thirty volumes.
Speculation as the behind the scenes reasoning would be an exercise in futility, as no word of it was mentioned by the Gerrer Rebbe himself.13 While it is possible that R' Aryeh Leib's claims are accurate, R' Fisher was a respected publisher, and would only stand to lose by stooping to theft. Further, the silence of the Gerrer Rebbe on the issue is deafening in its own right. What cause could he have had be still regarding this issue? If he did give the book along with a letter, why remain silent? On the other hand, if his name was simply being used, why did he allow himself to remain an accessory to theft, even if only a defacto one?
One might postulate based upon the religious leanings of those involved. Lvov at the time was torn between the haskalah movement, and the majority of its opposition, the Chassidim. While R' Yaakov stood strong against the waves of the enlightenment, after his passing those safeguards he passed began to lose potency. The Rabbinate in Lvov became politically controlled by those with positions of power and wealth, and sentiment among the Chassidic community in Lvov was that even R' Tzvi Hirsch was suspect of leaning towards the maskilim.14 Certainly R' Aryeh Leib was considered controversial. His son Mordechai (Marcus) studied in Polish schools, received a doctorate, and married Martin Buber's sister, Gila. It is possible that R' Neiman had suspicions as to the religious opinion of the book, seeing how the main buyers market were Chassidim. Should the book be published under R' Aryeh Leib's name, it might not sell. Moreover, it could be he suspected R' Aryeh Leib of wanting to edit the text, based on his personal leanings. Perhaps he sent it to the Gerrer Rebbe, who in turn allowed for R' Fisher to print it, and use his name. In the event of exposure, R' Fisher would take the blame, while the Gerrer Rebbe would remain silent, thereby obfuscating the facts.
This year, a new edition of this controversy-fraught sefer has been published. Completely re-typeset, with the annotations and corrections penned by R' Fisher added in their rightful locations. Additionally, an index has been set up, to reference the standard ensemble of basic halachic texts; Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch.
Many of the responsa are those alluded to by R' Yaakov in his Yeshuos Yaakov; some of the letters are replies to expound his thoughts in Yeshuos Yaakov. A veritable 'who's who' of Galitzian Rabbis can be listed among those querying R' Yaakov; R' Chayim Halberstam of Sanz, R' Aryeh Leibish of Stanislaw, and R' Moshe Sofer, to name a few.
The current publisher did not feel the edition would be complete without scouring the available literature and storehouses for those novella and letters that are not readily available. Such, an addendum was appended to the sefer, with additional responsa, derashos, chiddushim and even witticisms and anecdotes not found in the more common seforim. Of note, is a particularly interesting piece R' Yaakov expounded upon in the main beis medrash of Lvov in honor of Kaiser Franz Joseph [Emperor Franz II], on June 29 1814 (the 11th of Tamuz 5). The spirit of the derashah is the miraculous victory the Emperor had over Napoleon Bonaparte, and how he was Divinely aided in battle. A lone copy of this sermon survived, and Dr. M. Balaban reproduced it in his volume in honor of Dr. Mordechai (Marcus) Broide.
Other curios include novella that elaborate on those posed in Yeshuos Yaakov, and anecdotes from obscure works of that period. In one incident, while speaking with a local Rav of lesser standing, R' Yaakov offered a very insightful thought. The Rav, realizing the potential use of this thought in a personal derashah, asked of R' Yaakov to 'present' him with this thought and make it his "own". Understanding the Rav's motive, R' Yaakov agreed under one condition: that upon using the thought as his own, he must announce that he received it as a gift from R' Yaakov.
As a final touch, the publisher added a photo of the original title page, as well as the variant pages printed by R' Aryeh Leib. The ability to locate an extant copy of one of thirty copies ever bound testifies to the sheer effort expended in this edition. [Available at Girsa Books, Jerusalem; Biegeleisen Books, Brooklyn NY USA, and fine bookstores worldwide]
Notes
|
|
|
|
More Entries
|
|