See here for the previous lists.

Halkhot Gedolot, Berlin-Hildesheimer ed., Otzreinu, Toronto, 2009, 2 vol., 22, 162, [3]; 652 pp.: This is a reprint of the important Geonic work based upon a different manuscript than the other printed editions.  Additionally, it includes a new brief introduction and additions to the Seder Rav Amram Goan also published by Otzeinu.

Kol Brisk, Jerusalem, 2009, 797 pp. This is a controversial work that explores the Brisk school and attempts to locate the current Brisk school with the European one.  It is has already been subject to pashkevilin and one can read more about it all here and here.

Beyamin Shlomo Hamburger, Meshekhe ha-Sheker u-Mitnagdehem, Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz, Beni Brak, 2009, 703 pp.  This is an significantly updated and expanded version (the prior version is only 347 pages) of R. Hamburger's work on various false messiahs in Jewish history.  As anyone who read the original version knows, R. Hamburger takes a very broad view of the term "messiah."  (read more here)


Shmuel Glick, Mekorot le-Tolodot ha-Hinukh be-Yisrael, vol. 5, New York & Jerusalem, 2009, 30 [2] 452 pp.  This is the fifth volume in the revised work originally done by Simcha Assaf collecting sources on Jewish education.  The first three volumes reprinted Assaf's original work with some updating of the notes.  The fourth and now the fifth contains new material. In particular, the fifth volume focuses on the European responsa literature from the 15th-20th centuries.  As the editor points out in his introduction, Assaf's work is particularly weak in this area and thus this substantially adds to Assaf's sources.  The introduction also explains why the focus on responsa literature in particular, although one assumes it was natural for Glick, who has been editing a bibliography on responsa literature, to focus on the responsa. Additionally, in the introduction, the editor notes that volume six, which will focus on Sefard responsa, will be out soon.

While Eliezer is in the midst of preparing a comprehensive list of new seforim issued in the past months, I wanted to provide a shorter list of new seforim that I have recently received from Biegeleisen.  All of these are of course available at Biegeleisen in Boro Park (and I assume elsewhere as well) and some will be reviewed in greater detail in the coming months. 



Batim le-Vadim, Yaakov Mosowitz, Beni Brak, 2008, 663 pp. a collection of laws and customs relating to marriage as well as the laws relating to mahzir gerushato.  The book covers both first marriages as well as second.

Sodei Humash ve-sha'ar, Students of Rebbenu Yehuda ha-Hassid, ed. Yaakov Stal, Jerusalem, 2009, 228 pp.  This is another work from the school of Yehudah ha-Hassid edited by R. Stal.  R. Stal's prior works in this area are excellent.  Eliezer has reviewed two here and here.

Kitzur Nahlat Shivah, Shmuel ha-Levi Segal & Asher Anshel Greenwald, ed. Yehezkel Shraga Shwartz, Beni Brak, 2009, 2 vols., 315, 649 pp.  This reprint, done by Otzar ha-Poskim, follows Otzar ha-Poskim's reprint of the full Nahlat Shivah.   This contains a short introduction as well as notes on the text. 

Pirush ha-Melitz Bentotam, Tzvi Fishbein, [n.p.], 2009, 567 pp.  A commentary on the Targum Yohnathan ben Uzzeil for the parshiyot Shemot - Beshalach.  The commentary is divided into two parts, the first, beiurim is an straightforward explanation of the text, while the second, Iyunim, discusses the implications of the text in great detail providing both other rishonim's take as well as the relevant achronim.

Otzar Hemdat Yamim, David Shlomo Kosovitski-Schorr, Beni Brak, 2008, 885 pp. This work collects close to all the mentions of the controversial work Hemdat Yamim in other works.  Additionally, rather than just provide quotations, full pages are reproduced which is an added boon to the interested bibliographer.  Kosovitski-Schorr's stated purpose is to show that the author of Hemdat Yamim was active during the years 1599-1639.

Ve-Zarch ha-Shemesh, Shirah Devlisky, Beni Brak, 2008, 101 pp.  A collection of custom of R. Devlisky's congregation in Beni Brak with notes and sources for said customs.

Ma'aseh Rav, Jerusalem, 2009, 423, [102] pp.  This is a new edition of the Ma'aseh Rav which collects the customs of the Gra. This edition includes some additional notes and supposedly is a "critical edition."  They also include a photomechanical reproduction of the 1832 edition of the Ma'aseh Rav as well as the Tosefot Ma'aseh Rav.  Unfortunately, the editors seem to be unfamiliar with a few points about the 1832 edition.  First, they fail to include both title pages.  The 1832 edition contains two distinct title pages, only one is included. Second, and more importantly, Dr. Jordan Penkower has already suggested that the 1832 edition while the first edition chronologically in terms of publication date may not actually reflect the first edition of the Ma'aseh Rav.  Instead, according to Penkower as well as Yeshayahu Vinograd the bibliographer of all the Gra's works, the second edition, Lemberg, 1833 is actually the "mahdurah kama" of the Ma'aseh Rav .  See J. Penkower, "Minhag and Massorah: On the Recent Ashkenazic Custom of Double Vocalization of Zeikher Amalek," in Rimon Kasher, Moshe Zipor, Yitzhak Zafati, eds., Studies in Bible and Exegesis (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1997; Hebrew), 82-85; Y. Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Books of the Vilna Gaon, Kerem Eliahu, Jerusalem, 2003, entry 809.

Sefer haKol Bo, the critical edition of the Kol Bo has been completed in eight volumes bound in four volumes.

She'elot u-Teshuvot Rebi Akiva Yosef, Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, Jerusalem, 2008, 2 vols., 403, 397 pp.  The responsa of the eclectic R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger on Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah with notes and an introduction. 

Announcing The Publication of Eliezer Brodt's Bein Kesah L'Asur

by Eliezer Brodt

This post is not a review of a sefer as one can not review ones own sefer. Rather it is a simple announcement and book description. Last year I posted a chapter from my sefer about the minhaghim of Rosh Hasnaha. I was hoping to complete that work this year but as the material grew I realized that would not be possible. Around Pesach time I decided that I would take some of the parts about aseret yemei teshuvah and print it as its own pamphlet. The pamphlet grew into its own 286 page sefer. The name of the sefer is Bein Kesah L'asur. The central topics of the sefer revolve around the chumras (stringency) that people practice during aseret yemei teshuvah.

The sefer begins with a chapter to explain why we observe these chumras even though right afterwards we revert back to our old ways. This follows with a chapter about the special power of Teffilah during this period. In the next chapter I trace at length the source of the minhag to take on chumros during this period starting with the Yerushalmi and up until recent literature showing how this minhag developed over time. Throughout I discuss many topics that were inter related to this Yerushalmi such as baking challos for shabbos that it should be specifically Pas yisroel, the minhag of people of Tzefas to eat chulin B'taharah, going to the Mikvah erev Yom Tov especially Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, and if there was Efar Parah Adumah after the destruction of the Bes Hamikdash. Besides this I deal with other topics such as the time period one has to observe these chumros. After which I have a few chapters disusing at length the actual chumras that people did, such as washing hands before eating vegetables, giving tzedakah in asret yemei teshuvah, checking ones tzizits before putting it on, sleeping during the day and on shabbos. There are some interesting appendixes in these chapters such as where the source for sleeping on Shabbos is considered oneg shabbos, wearing teffilin the whole day or at least during mincha. The last two chapters are about chumras in general (the pros and cons), and about the famous Asrah Mili Dechasdusad'Rav (the 10 pious practices of Rav) – in particular "Rav Lo soch Sicha Bitalha Miyomov" (Rav never spoke unnecessary words his whole life). I conclude the sefer with a chapter about the sefer Simachat Ha-nefesh which I used many times through out this work. I included an index of some 40 entries of some obscure seforim and topics that I discuss in the footnotes.

The sefer is available in Girsa, Otzar haseforim, next to the Mir and Shankies. It is en-route (arriving right after Rosh ha-Shana) to Biegeleisen and Judaica plaza. For all information about this sefer including donations for this one or the upcoming volume contact me at eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com

What follows is a sample chapter based on one of the most famous things everyone learns about in school about asret yemei teshuvah that if you do teshuvah each day of the week has power to fix all of those days of that year.

החומרות בעשרת ימי תשובה ככפרה על ימות השנה

א. אלולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר, שהסיבה שישראל קדושים לאחוז בחומרות יתירות בעשרת ימי תשובה היא משום היסוד המפורסם על שמו של האריז"ל:

אמר לי הרב משה גאלאנטי, ששמע ממורי ז"ל: שאם האדם יתענה בשבעת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים ויעשה בהם תשובה גמורה, כל יום מהם מכפר על כל העונות שחטא כל ימיו, ביום שכיוצא בו... ואם התענה ועשה תשובה בכל שבעת הימים ההם, יתכפרו לו כל עונותיו שעשה כל ימיו¹.

ומשום כך נהגו בחומרות יתירות בימים אלו, כדי שיעלה להם שעשאום בכל ימות השנה. ואכן ראיתי שהדברים נתבארו בכתבי ר' דוד מנובורודוק (רוסיה הלבנה, תקכה-תקצג), בעל 'גליא מסכת': ועוד ראיתי, שענין הזה שאמרו דורשי רשומות, דכל יום מימי עשרת ימי תשובה עומד ומעותד שיהיה ניתקן בו כל מה אשר עיות, חס וחלילה, בכל יומו מימות השנה. ויש לזה סמיכות בירושלמי... דרבי חייא רבה מפקיד לרב: אי אתה יכול למיכל כולה שתא חולין בטהרה - אכול, ואם לאו - תהא אכיל שבעה יומין מן שתא. וכתב ראבי"ה: קבלתי, שאלו שבעה ימים בין ראש-השנה ליום כיפור... אם כן נראה, שבחר שבעה ימים מעשרת ימי תשובה כדי שכל יום ויום, הן יום ראשון או יום שני וכן כולם, יתקן כנגדו מכל ימות השנה².

 

ג. אמנם ראוי לציין שהיסוד המובא על-שם האריז"ל מצוי, ברמיזה, באחד מספרי בן-דורו המבוגר, ר' משה קורדובירו (הרמ"ק; שאלוניקי-צפת, רפב-של)! וזה לשונו: עשרת ימי תשובה... ועשרה ימים אלו הם עשרה ימים שבהם עשר ספירות ודאי. ואולם מלת 'תשובה' נודע פירושה: תשובת הדברים אל שרשם... וכפי פעולת האדם בימים ההם כן יפגום בימים או ישלימם במעשיו הטובים... [ו]נתן הקב"ה לישראל עשרה ימים אלו, שהם של תשובה, שמתגלה המקור, שהיא הבינה, על הימים - שהם העניפים, להמשיך להם שפע רב, ולתקן על ידי התשובה כל פגם שפגם בימים הנזכרים שחלפו9.

על פרט נוסף ראוי להתעכב מעט. במובאות הראשונות שמשם האריז"ל הודגש, ששבעת ימים אלו מתקנים את כל ימות השנה רק "אם האדם יתענה" בהם "ויעשה בהם תשובה גמורה"¹². ואילו מתורתו של הרמ"ק אנו שומעים ש"ישלימם במעשיו הטובים" בלבד, וניתן להבינם כמחייבים רק את התשובה ולא גם את התענית. ולמרות כל זאת, רוב המקורות המאוחרים המביאים יסוד זה בשם האריז"ל¹³, ואף-על-פי-כן אינם מציינים שיש להתענות, אלא רק מחייבים את התשובה!

ד. היה שמצא את שורש יסודו של האר"י בתורת הנגלה, וזולתו מצאה בתורת הנסתר. הראשון הוא ר' יחזקאל לנדא (פראג, תעד-תקנג), בעל 'שו"ת נודע ביהודה', המוצא לכך סמך מהמסופר בתלמוד בבלי (חגיגה ה סע"ב):

רב אידי, אבוה דרבי יעקב בר אידי, הוה רגיל דהוה אזיל תלתא ירחי באורחא וחד יומא בבי רב. והוו קרו ליה רבנן: 'בר בי רב דחד יומא'. חלש דעתיה... נפק רבי יוחנן לבי מדרשא ודרש: "ואותי יום יום ידרשון ודעת דרכי יחפצון" (ישעיה נח ב), וכי ביום דורשין אותו ובלילה אין דורשין אותו? אלא לומר לך: כל העוסק בתורה אפילו יום אחד בשנה - מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עסק כל השנה כולה...

מסיק מכך ר' יחזקאל לנדא: "הרי מפורש בגמרא, שיום אחד יוכל לתקן כל השנה. ואם כן יפה כתב האר"י, שיוכל לתקן בימים הקדושים הללו מעשה כל ימות השנה"¹⁴.

מאידך, ר' רפאל כ"ץ (המבורג, תפג-תקסד) מוצא סמך לדברי האריז"ל בנאמר בספר הזוהר¹⁵:

בכל יומא ויומא כרוזא נפיק וקרי ולית מאן דישגח. דתניא: אינון יומין דבר-נש כד אתברי בההוא יומא דנפק לעלמא, כלהו קיימין בקיומייהו ואזלין וטאסין בעלמא נחתין ואזהרן לבר-נש כל יומא ויומא בלחודוי. וכד ההוא יומא אתי ואזהר ליה ובר נש עביד בההוא יומא חובא קמי מאריה, ההוא יומא סליק בכסופא ואסהיד סהדותא וקאים בלחודוי לבר. ותאנא בתר דקאים בלחודוי, יתיב עד דבר-נש עביד מניה תשובה. זכה - תב ההוא יומא לאתריה; לא זכה - ההוא יומא נחית ואשתתף בההוא רוחא דלבר ותב לביתיה ואתתקן בדיוקניה דההוא בר-נש ממש... בין כך ובין כך, אתפקדן אינון יומין וחסרים ולא עאלין במניינא דאינון דאשתארו. ווי לההוא בר-נש דגרע יומוי קמי מלכא קדישא ולא שביק לעילא יומין לאתעטרא בהו בההוא עלמא - - -

מסיים ר' רפאל הכהן ואומר: "והנה, כתבו בעלי מוסר, שסגולת הימים האלו [=עשרת ימי תשובה], שאם שב לפניו ברוך הוא, מוחלין לו כל מה שחטא באותו יום בשבוע כל ימות השנה. נמצא על ידי מה ששב בימים הקדושים האלו, גורם שחוזרים הימים שחטא בהן במנין הימים, כמבואר בזוהר. ועל ידי זה נכון הוא לקרוא לאותן הימים 'ימי תשובה', כי על ידי ימים האלו משיבין לו הימים שנאבדו ממנו בחטאתו בהן"¹⁶.

ה. יסודו של האריז"ל, ששבעת הימים מעשרת ימי תשובה מתקנים את היום השבועי שכנגדו, שימשו שורש ועיקר גדול; ממנו נוספו כמה הנהגות טובות ואף נתבארו על-ידו כמה מהִלכות ימים אלו.

1. ביטול השינה ב'שבת תשובה'. המחבר האנונימי של ספר חמדת ימים הבין מיסוד זה, שבשבת החל בעשרת ימי תשובה ('שבת תשובה') אין לקיים בו את מצוות 'שינה בשבת תענוג':

בשם הרב ז"ל, כי כל יום מעשרת ימי תשובה, מה שיעשה האדם בתשובה בהם - מתכפר מה שפגם באותו יום כל ימות השנה. וכן על זה הדרך בכל עשרת הימים. והאיש השלם עם השם, צריך לתת אל לבו אם פגם באיזו משבתות השנה בשיחת חולין ודברים בטלים או כעס<

Responses to Comments and Elaborations of Previous Posts III

by Marc B. Shapiro

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,[2] 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.

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.

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.[3] With the recent passing of Rabbi Moses Mescheloff,[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8])

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.

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