Tradition Seforim Blog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm All about Seforim - New and old, and Jewish Bibliography. en-us Thu, 17 May 2012 17:05:35 -0400 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:45:00 -0400 BlogCFC Shaul@rabbis.org Shaul@rabbis.org Text & Texture http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/8/25/Text--Texture Click Here For Tradition's new Blog

]]> General Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/8/25/Text--Texture Text & Texture blog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/8/19/Announcement Text & Texture blog ]]> Important Annoucements Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:16:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/8/19/Announcement The Peh/Ayin Order in the Acrostics of the Book of Eichah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/7/26/The_PehAyin_Order_in_the_Acrostics_of_the_Book_of_Eichah

The Peh/Ayin Order in the Acrostics of the Book of Eichah

by Mitchell First[1]

 

The first four chapters of the book of Eichah comprise alphabetical acrostics.  In the acrostics in chapters 2, 3 and 4, the verses that begin with peh precede the verses that begins with ayin.[2] The Soncino commentary to Eichah remarks: "This unusual order has never been satisfactorily explained." [3]  In light of the archaeological discoveries of recent decades, it is time to provide this explanation.

 

Preliminarily, it will be noted that the Talmud includes a comment on the unusual order of peh preceding ayin in the book of Eichah. The suggestion is made that it alludes to the sin of the meraglim:[4]

 

 רבא אמר רבי יוחנן אמר בשביל מה הקדים פ"א לעי"ן  בשביל מרגלים שאמרו בפיהם מה שלא ראו בעיניהם.                                

 

The sin of the meraglim is connected to the ninth of Av in a well-established rabbinic tradition:[5]

 

But even prior to the archaeological discoveries of recent decades, evidence of peh preceding ayin was found elsewhere. In the Septuagint version of חיל אשת (Mishlei 31:10-31), the translation of the peh verse, פיה, precedes the translation of the ayin verse, עז.[6] The earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint are from the 4th and 5th centuries, hundreds of years earlier than the earliest Hebrew manuscript of Mishlei.

 

The relevant archaeological discoveries of recent decades from the land of Israel are as follows:

 

                      -It was discovered that in the texts of Eichah from the Dead Sea, the peh verse precedes the ayin verse even in the first chapter.[7]     

 

                      -During excavations between Oct. 1975 and May 1976 at Kuntillet 'Ajrud, a site in the northern Sinai,[8] a jar fragment was discovered which included three Hebrew abecedaries in which the peh precedes the ayin.[9] The site dates to a period between the mid-9th and mid-8th centuries and is believed to have been a religious centre in the tribe of Judah, at its border.[10] 

         

                      -In 1976, a potsherd was discovered at Izbet Sartah (near Rosh ha-Ayin). The potsherd had five lines of Hebrew[11] writing on it, one of which was an abecedary (written left to right!). In this abecedary, the peh precedes the ayin. The writing and potsherd date to the 12th-11th centuries B.C.E. Scholars are confident that Izbet Sartah was an Israelite settlement.[12]

 

                       -In 2005, a Hebrew abecedary inscribed on a stone was discovered at Tel Zayit (north of Lachish). The stone had been used in the construction of a wall belonging to a 10th cent. B.C.E. structure. In the abecedary, the peh precedes the ayin.[13] Most probably, Tel Zayit was within the tribe of Judah in the 10th century B.C.E.[14]

 

The abecedaries mentioned above are the only Hebrew (or Proto-Canaanite[15]) texts of the alphabet in order that have ever been discovered in ancient Israel that date from the period of the Judges and the First Temple that are long enough to span the letters ayin and peh.[16] Peh precedes ayin in every single one.[17]           

 

Abecedaries or other texts of the alphabet in order from other Western Semitic languages[18] have also been found, dating from the late second millenium and early first millenium BCE:

 

                                - Twe ]]> Tanakh Mitchell First Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/7/26/The_PehAyin_Order_in_the_Acrostics_of_the_Book_of_Eichah אימתי פסקה טהרת אפר פרה אדומה http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/7/2/--------   אימתי פסקה טהרת אפר פרה אדומה

 מאת: אליעזר יהודה בראדט[*]

א. כבר הבאנו לעיל[2] את דברי התלמוד ירושלמי המוסר את אזהרת רב חייא לתלמידו רב: "רבי חייא רובא מפקד לרב: אין את יכיל מיכול כל שתא חולין בטהרה - אכול, ואם לאו - תהא אכיל שבעה יומין מן שתא"[3]. ושם גם נתבאר, שרובם של הראשונים הבינו, כי רב חייא הזהיר את תלמידו על אכילת חולין בטהרה, וכפשטות לשון הירושלמי. אולם עדיין לא נתברר כיצד סבר הרב שתלמידו יכול לעמוד במטלה זו? הרי בתקופתם כבר נחרב המקדש ולכאורה נחסר מהם גם אפרה של פרה אדומה שהזאת מימיה מטהרת מטומאת מת, וכיצד יאכל התלמיד חולין בטהרה?

ואכן מצאנו לר' יהודה החסיד (אשכנז, ד'תתקי-תתקעז) שהתייחס לבעייה זו בהקשר לאזהרת רב חייא האמורה. הוא כותב בספר חסידים:

רבי חייא צוה לרב לאכול חולין בטהרה, ואם אינו יכול כל השנה לאכול בטהרה, שיזהר שבעה ימים בשנה לאכול חולין בטהרה... כי חייב אדם לטהר עצמו ברגל, 'ואת נבלתם תשקצו' (ויקרא יא ח), שלא יגעו בהם, כדי שיוכלו לעשות קרבנות ולאכול; זהו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים. וצוה רב חייא לרב שיאכל בזמן הזה; אף-על-פי שטמאי מתים היו ואין אפר פרה, צוה לו להיות שבעה ימים בשנה אוכל חולין בטהרה[4].

היינו, ברור לו שבתקופת רב חייא כבר לא היה ניתן להטהר מטומאת מת, שלא היה ברשותם אפר פרה אדומה, ולמרות זאת הזהיר רב חייא את תלמידו שיאכל חולין בטהרה.

 

ב. אולם רבים מרבותינו הראשונים חלקו על דעתו של ר' יהודה החסיד. הם סוברים שאפילו בתקופת האמוראים, מאות בשנים לאחר חורבן בית המקדש השני, היה מצוי עדיין אפר פרה אדומה בה נטהרו טמאי מתים.

בעלי דעה זו נסמכו על כמה הוכחות[5]:

1. ירושלמי, שבת, פ"א ה"ג: "רבי חייא רובא מפקד לרב: אין את יכיל מיכול כל שתא חולין בטהרה - אכול, ואם לאו - תהא אכיל שבעה יומין מן שתא". אכילת חולין בטהרה לא תתכן ללא טהרה מטומאת מת שבאמצעות אפר פרה אדומה, ולמרות זאת הוזהר רב - אמורא ארצישראלי בן הדור הראשון - לאכול חולין בטהרה, משמע, איפוא, שבימיו עדיין היה מצוי אפר פרה.

2. חולין קז ע"א-ע"ב: "איבעיא להו: מהו לאכול במפה? [כלומר, מהו לפרוש מפה על ידיו ולא יגע באוכלין ויאכל בלא נטילת-ידים?], מי חיישינן דלמא נגע, או לא? ...כי סליק ר' זירא, אשכחינהו לר' אמי ור' אסי דקאכלי בבלאי חמתות [הם חמתות בלויים, וכורכו ידיהם בהם ואכלו בלא נטילת ידים]... דאמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל: התירו מפה לאוכלי תרומה [כי הכהנים זריזין הן ולא נגעי], ולא התירו מפה לאוכלי טהרות [הם אוכלי חוליהם בטהרה, לפי שאינם למודין להשמר כמו כהנים], ורבי אמי ורבי אסי כהנים הוו". נמצאנו למדים, שבימי רב אמי ורב אסי, אמוראים מבני הדור השלישי, היה ניתן לאכול תרומה האסורה לטמאי מתים; הוה אומר, שבזמנם היה ניתן להטהר מטומאת מת!

3. נדה ו רע"ב[6]: "אי אמרת בשלמא לתרומה - היינו דהואי תרומה בימי רבי [הרי כמה שנים היה אחר החורבן, בסוף התנאים], אלא אי אמרת לקדש [=מֵי פרה אדומה] - קדש בימי רבי מי הואי?! כדעולא, דאמר עולא: חבריא מדכן בגלילא [פירוש: חבירים שבגליל מטהרים יינם לנסכים ושמנן למנחות, שמא יבנה בית המקדש בימיהם][7]; הכא נמי בימי רבי". היינו, מדברי עולא על זמנו - הדור השלישי לאמוראים - שה'חברים' היו מפיקים את יינם ושמנם בטהרה, משמע שבדורו היתה עדיין שכיחא הטהרה באפר פרה.

 

מרבית הראשונים שהסכימו על הִמצאות אפר פרה בזמן האמוראים סמכו שיטתם על אחד המקורות דלעיל, ואחדים מהם נסמכו על שני מקורות ויותר.

כבר רבן של ישראל, רש"י, בפירושו לאחד המקורות דלעיל (מס' 3) כותב: "'חבריא מדכן בגלילא', [פירוש:] חבירים שבגליל מטהרים יינם לנסכים ושמנן למנחות, שמא יבנה בית המקדש בימיהם. ולעולא, קדש הוו[8]. כך שמעתי בחומר בקדש [חגיגה כה ע"א], וכך היא שנויה". היינו, בימיו של עולא האמורא היה קיים עדיין 'קודש', הוא מֵי חטאת[9].

כיוצא בזה כותב תלמיד נכדו ר' יצחק הזקן מגדולי בעלי התוספות, הוא ר' ברוך ב"ר יצחק מגרמייזא (אשכנז, נפטר ד'תתקעא), בעל 'ספר התרומה': "אפילו האמוראים, שהיו הרבה דורות אחר חורבן, היה להן אפר פרה. כדאמר פרק כל הבשר, גבי ר' אמי ור' אסי... ואי לא היה להם הזאה, מה מועיל כרכי ידייהו?"[10]. ואלו דברי בן דורו הצרפתי, ר' שמשון משאנץ, מגדולי בעלי התוספות בדורו (צרפת, ד'תתקי-תתקעה): "ובימי חכמים היו מזין בארץ-ישראל, כדאמרינן: חבריא מדכן בגלילא. אבל עכשיו בטלה אפר פרה"[11].

ודור לאחר מכן כותב ר' ישעיה טראני, הרי"ד (איטליה, ד'תתקל-ה'ה), שבזמן האמוראים "היה להם אפר פרה מקודם לכן בגליל, ואחר-כך נתיישבו הכותים באותה הרצועה, והיו נטהרים מטומאת מת בגליל"[12]. אלא שמעיון בתשובותיו נראה, שהוא הסכים לכך רק מחמת דוחק שדחקו:

עוד הבאתם לי ראיה דאפילו בבבל היו אוכלין חוליהן בטהרה, כדאמרינן התם: רב הונא בר חייא איצטריכא ליה שעתא וכו'. וגם מן הירושלמי, דהוה אכיל רב חולין בטהרה וכו'. אודיע לכם רבותיי, כי אמת, שלאחר חרבן עדיין היו נזהרין מן הטומאה... וקשיא לי, היכי מצי רב למיכל חולין בטהרה? והלא אחר החרבן היה! וכיון דבטל אפר פרה מי יטהר טמאי מתים שבישראל? ונראה לי לתרץ לפי הדחק, דאף-על-גב דחרב בית המקדש, היה להם עדיין אפר פרה, שהיה מתחלק לכל המשמרות, ועד שהספיק להם אותו האפר היו נטהרין בו טמאי מתים שבארץ ישראל. ותדע שהיו נזהרין בארץ-ישראל לאחר החורבן מטומאת מת... אלמא, דאפילו בימי רבי, שהיה לאחר החורבן, היו מדקדקים להיזהר מטומאת המת וטיהרו את קיני בימיו כשאר ארץ-ישראל, שלא תהא כארץ העמים... ורב דאשכחן בירושלמי, דהוה אכיל חולין בטהרה, נראה לי, דווקא כשהיה דר בארץ-ישראל קודם שירד לבבל, אבל לאחר שירד בבבל - לא היה יכול להזהר[13].

והרבה אתה למד מעקימת שפתיו "נראה לי לתרץ לפי הדחק". שמכך יש להסיק כי לולא שהכריחו הנאמר בירושלמי הוא אפילו לא היה מסכים לקביעה שבדור הראשון של האמוראים היה קיים אפר פרה אדומה!

אולם שאר הראשונים לא ראו כל דוחק בקביעה זו, הן הראשונים שקדמו לר' ישעיה טראני וכפי שהובא לעיל בסמוך, והן הראשונים שלאחריו כמו ר' משה מקוצי (צרפת וספרד, נולד בשנת ד'תתקס) הכותב: "שבימי האמוראים היו מפרישים שתי חלות בארץ-ישראל... כדאמרינן בנדה: חבריא מדכן בגלילא. שהיה להם עדיין אפר הפרה"[14]

והסכים לדברים בן הדור שלאחריו, ר' אשר ב"ר יחיאל, הרא"ש (אשכנז וספרד, ה'י-פח): "דבימי האמוראים היו אוכלין תרומה טהורה בארץ-ישראל, כי היה להם אפר פרה. כדאמרינן: חבריא מדכן בגלילא. ולכך הצריכו גם בחוץ-לארץ להפריש חלת כהן, שלא תשתכח תורת חלה"[15]. ובעקבותיו צעד ר' אשתורי הפרחי (פרובנס וארץ ישראל, ה'מ-קטו) בעל 'כפתור ופרח': "ואמת, כי כשגלו לבבל הביאו עמהם אפר פרה... [ולאחר] חרבן, היה להם אפר פרה שנעשית בבית שני... [כדאמרינן:] חבריא מדכן בגלילא. וכן פרק כל הבשר: שמואל אשכחיה לרב דקא אכיל במפה... אשכחינהו לרבי אמי ולר' אסי דקא אכלי בבלאי חמתות... [ד]התירו במפה לאוכלי תרומה ולא התירו במפה לאוכלי טהרות..."[16].

כל הנזכרים עד עתה הינם מבני אשכנז-צרפת פרט לר' אשתורי הפרחי שמבני ספרד[17]. אמנם מצאנו לאחד משלהי ראשוני ספרד שאף הוא הסכים לכך. כוונתי לר' שמעון דוראן, הרשב"ץ (ספרד ואלג'יר, ה'קכא-ה'רד), הטוען, כי למרות שברשות אמוראי בבל היה אפר פרה, היא לא הועילה לטהרם משום שהיו קיימים בארץ העמים הטמאה, אך מתוך דבריו אתה למד שהוא מסכים שבארץ-ישראל באותה תקופה אכן נטהרו מטומאת מת באמצעות אפר פרה: "...מכל מקום, אף-על-פי שהיה לבני ארץ-ישראל הזאה, אפילו תאמר שעדיין היה להם אפר פרה בימי רב יוסף ורבא ורבינא ורב טובי, דבבבל היו, וארץ העמים גזרו עליה טומאה, לא הועילה להם הזאה..."[18].

מכל מקורות אלו עולה, במפורש או במרומז, שבימי האמוראים נהגה הטהרה באפר פרה בארץ-ישראל בלבד ולא גם בבבל[19], וזאת מהטעם הפשוט, שבאותו זמן כבר נגזרה טומאה על ארץ העמים[20] ולפיכך אפילו אם היה ברשות אמוראי בבל אפר פרה - לא היה באפשרותם להטהר באמצעותו, כי הוא נטמא.

ואם ראשונים הסכימו שבימי האמוראים היה קיים אפר פרה ונטהרו בו, אחרונים, שסמכו על דבריהם ועל ראיותיהם - על אחת כמה וכמה.

ר' אלעזר אזכרי (צפת, רצג-שס) בעל 'ספר חרדים', כותב: "שאפילו בזמן האמוראים היה להם אפר פרה מזמן בית שני"[21]. וכך בפירוש המשנה לר' שלמה עדני (תימן וארץ-ישראל, שכז-שצב), בעל 'מלאכת שלמה': "דהא אפילו בימי האמוראים היה להם עדיין אפר פרה מזמן הבית, כדאיתא בפרק קמא דנדה: חבריא מדכן בגלילא, וכל-שכן בימי התנאים"[22]. ולאחריו דן בנושא ר' יהודה רוזאניס (קושטא, תיז-תפז): "יש לומר דסבירא להו, דבזמן האמוראים גם כן היה להם אפר הפרה, וכדאמרינן בפרק קמא דנדה, דמתמה תלמודא: 'קדש בימי רבי מי הואי?!', ומשני: 'כדעולא, דאמר עולא: חברייא מדכן בגלילא'... ועל כן היו טהורים ממת, דאי לא איך היו מטהרים יין ושמן?! אלא ודאי, דהיה להם אפר הפרה. וזכורני שראיתי במקום אחד, דכשגלו לבבל הוליכו עמהם אפר הפרה"[23].

דברי בעל 'משנה למלך' נתפרסמו מאוד והביאו להרבה מרבותינו האחרונים לדון בנושא, וגם הם ברובם הסכימו על הִמצאות אפר פרה בזמן האמוראים, כמו: ר' ישראל יעקב אלגזי (אזמיר וירושלים, תמ-תקטו)[24]; ר' יעקב עמדין, היעב"ץ (אשכנז, תנח-תקלו)[25]; ר' חזקיה די סילוה, בעל 'פרי חדש'[26]; ר' יעקב מנשה (שאלוניקי, תקה-תקצב)[27]; ר' יוסף שאול נתנזון (גאליציה, תקסח-תרלה)[28]; ר' אברהם הכהן (שאלוניקי, נפטר תרמו), בעל 'שיורי טהרה'[29]; ר' עזרא אלטשולר (ליטא, נולד תרא)[30], ר' חיים סתהון (צפת, תרלא-תרעו), בעל 'ארץ חיים'[31]; הרב יששכר תמר, מחבר 'עלי תמר'[32]; הרב מרדכי פוגלמן (גאליציה וארץ-ישראל, תרנט-תשמד)[33], ועוד[34].

 

כל האחרונים שהסכימו על הִמצאות אפר פרה אדומה בזמן האמוראים, צעדו בעקבות הראשונים ואף הם סמכו שיטתם על אחד (או יותר) ממקורות חז"ל הרומזים זאת[35]. שונה מהם ר' שמואל ויטאל אשר הלך בדרך חדשה ולא נודעה. לשיטתו, בהכרח שאפילו בדורות האמוראים האחרונים היה מצוי אפר פרה, שהרי על שני אמוראי התקופה, רב חנינא ורבא, מסופר, שבראו 'גברא' או 'עגלא' באמצעות צרופי האותיות שבספר יצירה, דבר שלדעתו לא יתכן לולא שנטהרו קודם לכן באפר פרה אדומה: "דבגמרא סנהדרין, פרק ז[36], וזה לשונו: 'רבא ברא גברא... רב חנינא... מברי עגלא'... והיו בוראים אותו ב'ספר יצירה'... ולא היו יכולים לעשות המעשים האלו בטומאה אם לא בטהרת אפר פרה, כאשר הוא פשוט אצלנו"[37].

וכנראה, שזהו העומד ביסוד דברי אביו, ר' חיים ויטאל (ארץ-ישראל, שג-שפ), המסביר מדוע רק בתקופת התנאים והאמוראים הותר השימוש ב'קבלה מעשית': "וזהו סוד שמוש פרקי היכלות שנשתמשו בו רבי נחוניא ורבי עקיבא ורבי ישמעאל ואנשי-כנסת-הגדולה, ואחר-כך נשתכחו גם דרכי השמושים ההם. ועוד אחרת, כי נאבד טהרת אפר פרה בזמן האמוראים עד זמן אביי ורבא, כנזכר בתלמוד, ולכן לא נשתמשו מאז ואילך בעלית הפרדס..."[38]. היינו, גם הוא מסכים שעד לאחר זמנם של אביי ורבא היה עדיין מצוי אפר פרה, שכנראה הוא הבין כי רבא לא היה יכול לברוא עגל באמצעות ספר יצירה ללא שנטהר קודם לכן מטומאת מת[39]. ודבריו שבהמשך, שמי שלא נטהר מטומאת מת אינו יכול להשתמש בקבלה מעשית[40], תומכים בסברא שהוא ובנו אמרו דבר אחד, כי אין לך קבלה מעשית יותר גדולה מבריאת 'גברא' או 'עגל' באמצעות צרופי השמות שבספר יצירה.

 

ג. בנוסף על מקורות חז"ל המכריחים שבזמן האמוראים היה עדיין מצוי אפר פרה אדומה, שהובאו לעיל, קיים גם נוסח מדוייק בירושלמי ממנו מוכח שבזמנם של רב חגי ורב ירמיה, אמוראים ארצישראלים מן הדור השני, הִטהרו באמצעות אפר פרה.

בתלמוד הירושלמי מסופר: "רבי חגיי ורבי ירמיה סלקון לבי חנוותא. קפץ רבי חגיי ובירך עליהן. אמר ליה רבי ירמיה: יאות עבדת! שכל המצות טעונות ברכה"[41]. מספר דברים טעונים ביאור במעשה זה: מהו 'בי חנוותא'? מה שני אמוראים אלו עשו שם? על איזו מצווה בירך רבי חגי?

ר' אלעזר אזכרי (צפת, רצג-שס) בעל 'ספר חרדים', כותב לפרש: "[משום ש]חייבין בית דין להעמיד שוטרים בכל מדינה ומדינה ובכל פלך ופלך שיהיו מחזירין על החנויות ומצדיקין את המאזנים ואת המדות ופוסקין השערים, וכל מי שנמצא עמו משקל חסר או מידה חסרה או מאזנים מקולקלין יש להם רשות להכותו כפי כוחו ולקנסו כפי ראות בית דין, לחזק הדבר... ור' חגי ור' ירמיה היו מקיימין מצווה זו, ואפשר שהם היו הממונים המחזירין על החנויות על פי בית דין... ובירך 'אשר קדשנו לקדש המדות והמאזנים ולתקן השערים', שכל המצוות טעונות ברכה"[42]. לעומתו, הסיע ר' משה מרגליות את הענין לברכת הנהנין (ולא ברכת המצוות) שרב חגי בירך על הפירות שנמכרו באותם חנויות. הוא כותב בפירושו פני משה: "סלקון לבי חנותא, שמוכרין שם מיני פירות ומיני מגדים. קפץ רבי חגיי ובריך עליהן, ולא המתין עד שיביאם לביתו"[43].

לשני פרשנים אלו נוסח הירושלמי שעמד לפניהם היה: "לבי חנוותא", והוא הכריחם לפרש כפי שפירשו. אולם למרות שנוסח זה מקויים בכתב-יד ליידן של הירושלמי[44], כתב-יד מפורסם שנכתב בידי ר' יחיאל ב"ר יקותיאל מן הענווים (רומא, ה'א-מט) מחבר ספר מעלות המדות וספר התניא, קיים לפנינו עֵד נוסח אחר בירושלמי כתב-יד וטיקן: "סלקון למי חטאתה"[45]. ולנוסח זה, שכנראה ראהו בכתב-יד[46], הסכים ר' שלמה סיריליו (ספרד וארץ-ישראל, נפטר שטו), ומבאר על-פיו את גוף המעשה:

'סלקון למֵי חטאתא', כן מצאתי בספר מדוייק, והן מֵי חטאת, והיו עדיין נמצאין מי חטאת בזמן האמוראים, כדאמרינן בנדה פרק קמא: 'מדכן בגלילא', שהיו מתנהגים בטהרת הקדש כבימי הבית, להיות בקיאים בקידוש מי חטאת, כדי שיהיו מפרישין תרומה וחלה בטהרה, מטעם שהיה להן עדיין מֵי חטאת להזות עליהן[47].

נוסח זה מקויים גם מן הראשונים. אישר אותו ר' אלעזר מוורמייזא, ה'רוקח' (אשכנז, ד'תתקכה-ה'ב), הכותב: "כל המצות שהן חוקות וגזירה צריך לברך, שילוח הקן וראשית הגז ושאר מתנות כהונה, ירושלמי בפרק כיצד מברכין, גבי קידוש ואפר חטאת ולהזות: ]]> Eliezer Brodt Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/7/2/-------- Shavua HaSefer sale on Hardrives http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/6/16/the-annual-Shavua-HaSefer-SALE-on-com  Annual Shavua HaSefer sale on computerized (digital) Seforim Libraries.

1) Otzar HaChochma
This year the sale will be 30% off the regular price. The sale will be from June 7 thru June 27. The prices are as follows:
Full version (30,300 vol.) reg. 1920 sale $1299
Bnei Torah version (29,000 vol.) reg 1720 sale $1175
Library version (30,300 vol.) reg 1120 sale $820
There are also TWO additional optional sections that can be added to any of the above versions:
Seforim from Machon Yerushalayim (340 vol.) $180
Seforim from Kehos Publishing (3,500 vol.) reg 90 sale $60
All of the above (EXCEPT the Library edition) include a "search engine" which is very good and also the ability to convert the "image" to "text" (at the moment only seforim with "square" print, not "rashi" print).
It is also possible to buy the Otzar HaChochma with monthly payments.
NOTE: There will be a special BONUS for readers of the seforim blog (when mentioning seforim blog)!
2) OTZROT HATORAH aka The Morgenstern Library
Otzrot Hatorah/The Morgenstern Library NEW version 5 has arrived. In addition to the additional 8,000 volumes that were added the program has been updated with MANY new features and options.
The program also contains the OTZROT HaShut from Otzar HaPoskim. This too has been updated with the addition of parts of Yoreh De'ah. (The previous version did not contain any Yoreh De'ah.)
Prices are: Full version (21,000 vol.) reg. 1750 Sale $1215
Bnei Torah Version (20,000 vol.) reg. 1475 Sale $1035
It is also possible to buy the Otzar HaTorah with monthly payments.
3) BAR ILAN version 17
Bar Ilan's new version (17) has arrived. Price for Shavua HaSefer is: version 17 @ $449 (list $689) and version 17 "plus" (inc. Encyclopedia Talmudis) @ $539 (list $789).
Updates from ver. 16 are $100. (Updates for earlier versions also available.)
4) DBS version 15
DBS newest version is now available. Shavua HaSefer price is $399. Update price from ver. 14 is $89.
And finally, FREE Shipping (USPS) for all Seforim Blog readers for ANY of the above programs!
Moishe Flohr
Computer Maven
732-363-4941
cell: 917-456-7855

]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:08:01 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/6/16/the-annual-Shavua-HaSefer-SALE-on-com A Shanda fur die Goyim: Hillul Ha-Shem in the Eyes of Non-Jews II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/6/7/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eyes-of-NonJews-II

חילול השם בעיני אומות העולם (ב)

מאת ר' יחיאל גולדהבר


חלק א נמצא פה

נחזור על הראשונות

ביריעה הראשונה הארכתי במקורות הראשונים שכתבו אודות חילול הדת בעיני הגוים. היינו דבר שעל פי דין מותר לעשותו, והואיל ואצל הגוים הנהגה זו אינה ראויה ונמצא שיש בה משום לעג לדת, שהגוים סוברים שהיהודים מזלזלים בדתם, על כן יש להתייחס לדעתו של הגוי ולהמנע ממנה. הדוגמא הקלאסית היא, במקום שאין דרכם של בני המדינה להכנס לבתי תפילותיהם במנעלים, אין לעשות כן גם בבתי הכנסת, משום ביזוי. במרוצת הגלות התפתח איסור זה, עד שבימינו הוא מוכר כעיקר המושג של "חילול השם".

בתקופת הפוסקים האחרונים לא מצאנו התייחסות לסוגיא זו עד המגן אברהם, שקבע מדעתו שבהליכות הנוגעות לכיבוד הדת יש להתחשב בתרבות הסביבה כדי שלא לגרום חילול השם בעיניהם. הנידון הוא בניית בית הכנסת בשבת, שמעיקר הדין מותר לגוי המועסק בקבלנות לעבוד בשבת, אלא שגזרו על עבודות הנעשית בפרהסיה במקום שיש יהודים, משום חשד, שהרי לא הכל יודעים שהעבודה נעשית בקבלנות. המגן אברהם (רמד, ח) מתייחס למה שנוהגים בעירו קאליש: "פה בעירנו נוהגין היתר לשכור עכו"ם בקבלנות ליקח הזבל מן הרחוב והעכו"ם עושים המלאכה בשבת[33]. ואף ע"ג דמלאכה דאורייתא כדאמרינן היתה לו גבשושית ונטלה חייב משום בונה דמתקן הרחוב, וצ"ל דגדול אחד הורה להם כך משום דבשל רבים ליכא חשדא כמ"ש בי"ד סימן קמ"א ס"ד, אבל בשכיר יום פשיטא דאסור. וא"כ היה נראה להתיר לבנות בית הכנסת בשבת בקבלנות, ומ"מ ראיתי שהגדולים לא רצו להתירו כי בזמן הזה אין העכו"ם מניחין לשום אדם לעשות מלאכת פרהסיא ביום חגם, ואם נניח אנחנו לעשות איכא חילול השם אבל תיקון הרחוב אין נקרא ע"ש הישראל כ"כ ומ"מ במקום שאין נוהגין היתר ברחוב אין להקל".

המגן אברהם מסיק ממנהג עירו לפנות הזבל בשבת, שיהיה מותר גם לבנות בית הכנסת בשבת ע"י גוים העובדים בקבלנות, משום שהוא צורך רבים – ומדובר כנראה בנידון שהיה נוגע למעשה – אלא "שהגדולים לא רצו להתירו", מטעם שהוא ביזוי הדת בעיני הגוים, שהם אינם מניחים גם לבני דתות אחרות לעשות מלאכה ביום חגם, לכן נעשה ק"ו לעצמנו: אם אנו מניחים לגוי לעבוד אצלנו בשבת במה שאפשר לנו למונעו, הרי נחשב בעיניהם כזלזול בשבת. דברי המגן אברהם המחודשים שימשו בסיס לפוסקים האחרונים בנוגע לשאלות שונות שצצו ועלו במשך הדורות, בנוגע לצורך להתחשב בדעתם, שלא יחולל השם בעיניהם.


מקור המגן אברהם

ר' אברהם אבלי גומבינר, בעל מגן אברהם, נולד בשנת שצ"ז. לאחר שאביו נרצח ע"י הקוזקים בפרעות שארעו בשנת תט"ו, התיישב ר' אברהם אבלי בקאליש, וכעבור כמה שנים ישב בבית דינו של הגאון המפורסם רבי ישראל שפירא[34] והורה הלכה לרבים. בפסק דלעיל לא פירש המגן אברהם מיהם אותם גדולים שלא התירו לבנות את בית הכנסת בשבת, ובעצם חידשו את ענין חילול השם בעיני הגוים בארצות רו"פ.

בתקופה האחרונות אנו עדים לפריחה עצומה של ההדרת כתבי יד מגדולי הדורות, ומכך אנו מתוודעים לחומר רב שנתעלם מן העין מאות בשנים. לפעמים מתבררת הלכה מסוימת ומאירה באור חדש בעקבות גילוי של כתב יד, וכך גם בנידוננו. לפני כעשרים שנה הדפיס הגאון ר' פישל הערשקאוויטש מניו יורק אוסף תשובות מתקופת הזוהר של פולין, בשם שו"ת הררי קדם, ובתוכו מדור תשובות מר' יצחק איילנבורג, מחשובי תלמידי הב"ח, דרשן בקראקא ואב"ד ליסא. אחת מן התשובות שנדפסו שם שופכת אור על דברי מגן אברהם האמורים.

ר' יצחק איילנבורג נשאל בשנת תט"ו מן העיר שטארק-נעסט בענין בניין בית הכנסת בשבת בקבלנות. הוא נבהל משמוע את הרעיון ואסרו בתכלית האיסור, ולא רק בנייה ממש אלא אפילו תיקון, והתרה בהם שאם לא ישמעו לפסקו זה, יחרים את תוצרתם לבל יקנו מהם. עיקר כובד המשקל בהכרעה זו היה בגין חילול השם, "שלא יאמרו"... ואלו מקצת דבריו: "ובר מן דין, אין לנו חילול השם גדול מזה, שביום חגם אינם עושים מלאכה השייך לא להם ולא ליהודים, וביום השבת יעשו מלאכת היהודים דבר השייך למחובר, שומו שמים על זה, המעט לכם אשר נגע בהם אף ה' סמוך לשבת, ואיך יעלה על לבבכם לעבור על דברי חז"ל בדבר חילול שבת, השמרו לכם שלא יצא אש מאת ה' שאין לה כביה עולמית[35], חלילה וחלילה לכת"ר לעבור על ההתעוררות מה שאני מתעורר כעת לכם לכבוד ית"ש לקדש את יום השבת... ומה גם אחינו דרים בין הנכרים ואנו בעיניהם נוטרי שבת... ויש לנו קיומים מן המלכים ושרים שלא לדיין אתנו ביום השב"ק, ורע בעיניהם כשרואין ישראלים אינם נזהרים בקדושת השבת, יש לחוש ח"ו דלא תיפוק מיניה חורבה, ודי בזה לחכמים ונבונים כמו מכת"ר"[36].

דברים אלו, שישראל המניחים לנכרי לעשות מלאכה בשבת – מראים בכך זלזול בשבת וחילול השם, הם דברי חידוש שלא נשמעו מעולם בארצות אלו. לדוגמא, מפורסמות הן תקנותיו של הגאון ר' משולם פייביש אב"ד קראקא ושידלוב, משנת ש"נ, בהן מפורטים סעיפים רבים הנוגעים להחכרת בתי עסק ומלאכה לגוים בשבת. על התקנות הסכימו כל רבני המדינה, ולמרות שהחמירו מאוד מבחינה הלכתית ולא התירו להחכיר אפי' במקום הדחק, ובכל זאת לא נזכר שם הטעם של חילול השם, אלא הנידונים ההלכתיים. ואולי יש לשער, שמשום שמדובר בעסקים פרטיים לא שייך בזה חילול השם, אבל כאשר מדובר בדבר השייך לקהילה כולה – רואים בכך הגוים חילול שבת וחילול השם[37].

רבי יהושע ב"ר יוסף אב"ד קראקא, בעל 'מגיני שלמה', מורו של רבי יצחק, נשאל אף הוא בעניין שיפוץ בית הכנסת בקבלנות, ואסרו בתכלית האיסור, ואולם טיעון זה של חילול השם לא עלה על דעתו[38].


החולקים על חומרת המג"א

באחד הדורות הבאים נחלקו שני גדולי הדור, הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר וחתנו רבי משה סופר בנידוננו. רבה של צילץ, רבי אריה ליב לאנדסבערג, מסר שרבו הרעק"א הסתייג ותמה בפניו על חידושו של המג"א, וכה מסר בשמו: "איך שייך חילול השם, כיון דאדרבה הרי לדידן גוי אסור לשבות"!

בשנת תרכ"ב נדפסו בעיר יוהנסבורג גליוני רעק Yechiel Goldhaber בעברית Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/6/7/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eyes-of-NonJews-II A Gemeinde Gemeinheit http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/6/2/A-Gemeinde-Gemeinheit

A Gemeinde Gemeinheit

by Shlomo and Mati Sprecher

 

We are delighted that the occasion of our son’s wedding (Uri Sprecher to Rivi Zand, 4 Kislev 5769) solved a 150-year-old bibliographic mystery. When we chose to provide our guests with the opportunity to engage in limmud Torah during the course of the wedding by reprinting and distributing “Tshuvah Be’Inyan Kriat HaKetubah,” we assumed that, just as the title page and the publisher’s introduction indicated, it represented an actual Halakhic Responsum issued in 1835 by the Chief Rabbi of Bialystok, Rabbi Nechemiah, to a query submitted to him by Rabbi Shalom, the Chief Rabbi of Novgorod. The Responsum had been brought to print, some 2 ½ decades later, by Rabbi Nechemiah’s devoted disciple, Nehorai Zechnech-Lefavitch, who had just taken up residence in Vienna, a city in which the necessity of the public reading of the Ketubah was coming under question.

 

Nehorai Zechnech-Lefavitch, informs us that he had long sought to share his teacher’s wisdom with the world at large, and so he seized this opportunity to enlighten his Viennese hosts with his Rebbi’s lengthy and learned psak, which after closely examining all the arguments ruled that such a public recitation of the Ketubah was entirely and appropriately dispensable. This Tshuvah (aside from its scarcity as an example of ephemera,[1] i.e., a solitary Responsum appearing in print) was taken at face value and duly registered as such in all the standard bibliographies of Hebrew printing and Responsa literature. Even A.H. Freimann, in his authoritative work, Seder Kiddushin VeNissu’in (Jerusalem, 1964) cites this work (on page 41) and Daniel Sperber, in his magisterial Minhagei Yisrael (Jerusalem 1995), 4:89, follows Freimann’s lead in referencing this Teshuvah. Further attestation of its acceptance as an authentic Responsum is its inclusion in an anthology of rare Halakhic material bearing on Kiddushin and Nissu’in issued by Rabbi Yitzchok Herskovitz, Mili deVei Hillulah, (Brooklyn, 1998), adorned with the Haskamah of his illustrious father, Rabbi Ephraim Fishel Herskovitz, the noted Hasidic Posek of the Klausenberger Kehillah (who is also an acclaimed expert on Seforim).

 

However, our close reading of this Tshuvah led us in an entirely different direction. To us, the work’s style manifested clear Maskilic echoes, and its arguments rejecting the binding nature of centuries-old Minhagim were clearly not in accord with 19th –century Halakhic thought. Our reaction was that the work must certainly be pseudepigraphical and could not have arisen from the pen of the Chief Rabbi of Bialystok. In fact, a quick perusal of the reference literature demonstrated that there never was any Chief Rabbi of Bialystok named Nechemiah, nor, for that matter, was there any Chief Rabbi Shalom of Novgorod. As for Nechemiah’s disciple, Nehorai Zechnech-Lefavitch, well, one didn’t need to do much research in order to recognize the pseudonymous nature of this publisher’s name.[2] But who was really behind this masterful forgery, which deceived so many discerning readers for a century and a half?[3] Our initial thought was to place the blame on the notorious Abraham Krochmal or his erstwhile partner in literary crime, Yehoshua Heschel Schorr. They certainly had the requisite Talmudic knowledge to perpetrate a learned forgery.[4] But the tone of the work did not reflect their slashing, acerbic style. Our Tshuvah evinced a genuine love for Talmudic learning, albeit with a clear intent to utilize earlier sources to eliminate the prevailing Minhag of Kriat HaKetubah and replace it with an edifying sermon.

 

At an impasse, we reached out to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman, who suggested that the scholar most likely to solve the mystery would be the doyen of Israeli bibliographers, Rabbi Shmuel Ashkenazi.[5] We were rewarded thanks to the tireless efforts of Eliezer Brodt who, on our behalf, pestered the aged Jerusalem sage until he successfully unmasked the name, but not quite the identity, of the author. Rabbi Ashkenazi concluded that the first line of the introductory poem that prefaced the Halakhic query contained the acrostic – “Meir Ish-Shalom.” (His initial contention was that this could not be the noted 19th –century Viennese scholar, Meir Ish-Shalom, because his heretofore known literary output began only some five years later, with his publication of the Sifre in 1864.)

 

Once Rabbi Ashkenazi had provided the key to the author’s name via the acrostic, it became apparent that all along the title page had been proclaiming that very same message. Let us recall the passage in Bavli Eruvin 13b where it is recorded that the celebrated Tanna, known to us as Rabbi Meir, was actually named Nehorai, according to one opinion; or alternatively, that both Meir and Nehorai were laudatory appellations reflecting his enlightening wisdom, whereas his actual name was Nechemiah. Recall also that the query first originated with Rabbi “Shalom” of Novgorod, and the word “shalom” appears twice more on the title page and is highlighted by the placement of a circle above one of its appearances.

 

Although none of the biographies[6] and bibliographies[7] devoted to the life and works of Meir Ish-Shalom attributes the Tshuvah Be’Inyan Kriat HaKetubah to him, we believe that a re-examination of Meir Ish-Shalom’s life supplies overwhelming confirmation that he is indeed the actual author of this Tshuvah. Born, as Meir Friedmann, in 1831, to a simple village couple in Krasna, his formative years were strained by extreme material and spiritual deprivation. At the age of Bar Mitzvah, his great desire to study Torah was realized by his acceptance to the Yeshiva in Ungvar, which was led by a distant relative of his mother, Rabbi Meir Asch-Eisenstadter, a noted disciple of the Hatam Sofer. Meir’s brilliance was soon recognized by his teachers, and he made great strides in Torah scholarship and adopted many stringent ascetic practices such as prolonged fasting, ritual immersion in ice-covered rivers and hours of un-interrupted Torah study and prayer. At the age of 19, he was granted Rabbinic ordination. Unfortunately, this phase of his life was cut short by a spiritual crisis induced by his exposure to Mendelssohn’s Biur and Wessely’s Hebrew poetry.[8] After a decade of hardship and wandering through Hungary and Slovakia, his wanderlust brought him fortuitously to Vienna in late 1857. That summer, the newly hired assistant to Vienna’s Chief Rabbi Mannheimer, Adolf Jellinek, began officiating at marriages. Claiming that sitting through the recitation of the Ketubah was too burdensome for the assembled guests, Rabbi Jellinek substituted in its stead an edifying sermon in the German language.[9] This reform of the Chuppah ritual was not endorsed by his employers, the leadership of the Gemeinde, who at that time still favored the classical Viennese approach of caution and consensus in religious reform,[10] and letters of reprimand directed at Rabbi Jellinek for this innovation are extant.[11] Rabbi Jellinek’s angry retort to Josef von Wertheimer, the Gemeinde’s President is also preserved:

 

Tatsache ist es; dass kaum eine kleine Zahl unserer grossen Gemeinde sich mehr um die Ketuba kummert, da die Vorlesung derselben fur jeden Sachverstandigen, der niche in Zogling der Pressburger Rabbinatsschule ist, als nutzlos und storend erscheint. Tatsache ist es, dass man hier mit mir umspringt, als ware ich der unfahigste, geistloseste, taktloseste und unbrauchbarste Mensch. In Berlin sitzen Manner wie Fr. Veit, Magnus, Dr. Oesterreicher, Geheimrat Joel Meyer im Vorstande; aber wahrlich diese Manner werden es nich wagen, ihre Prediger so zu tyrannisieren, wie es hier in Wien beliebt wird, wo alle Urteile nach Horensagen under Einflusterungen gatallt warden.[12]

 

Apparently, the ex-Yeshiva prodigy, newly arrived from Hungary, aided Rabbi Jellinek in resisting his Governing Board’s demands to re-institute the recitation of the Ketubah by fabricating a learned Responsum from a distant (and fictional) Rabbi proving that reading the Ketubah was a practice that had no sound Halakhic basis. This fabricated Responsum relied heavily on the reasoning advanced by Rabbeinu Meshulam in his celebrated correspondence with Rabbeinu Tam, which had recently appeared in print when the Sefer HaYashar was published for the first time.[13] Meir Ish-Shalom was thus able to demonstrate that Rabbi Jellinek’s innovation, far from being a deviation from correct Halakhic practice predicated on a reformist basis, was in reality a restoration of the authentic ritual promoted by Rabbeinu Meshulam, whose arguments, in the opinion of the Responsum, clearly bested the counter-arguments of Rabbeinu Tam.[14]

 

After surviving this rocky beginning, Rabbi Jellinek enjoyed a productive career that spanned the remaining four decades of the 19thWine, Women and Song: Some Remarks On Poetry and Grammar - Part II

By: Yitzhak of בין דין לדין

[In addition to reiterating my thanks to Andy and Wolf2191 for their assistance and encouragement, I wish to thank Eliezer Brodt for a number of valuable suggestions, several of which have been incorporated into this part of the essay.]

Great Men and Grammar

In the first part of this essay, we discussed Ibn Ezra's slashing attack on the alleged grammatical lapses of the Kallir. Rabbi Ya'akov Weingarten has a good survey of the responses of subsequent thinkers.1 One is that of Rav Shimon b. Zemah Duran (Tashbaz), who discusses the criteria for one to be considered a תלמיד in the context of תלמיד חכם שנידה לכבודו; he argues that one can be a great scholar although ignorant of grammar, citing the Kallir as an example:

ואם לפעמים כותב [החכם שעליו מדבר רבי שמעון דוראן - י'] בקצת כתביו קצת שגגות לא מפני זה יוצא מגדר תלמיד, לפי שהוא גר ומנעוריו לא גדל על לשון הקודש. והלל היה אומר מלא אין מים שאובין שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו, כך היא הגרסא בנוסחאות ישנות אין באל"ף, ולפי שהיו שמעיה ואבטליון גרי צדק ולא היו יכולין לומר מלא הין והיו אומרים אין, הלל שלמד מהם היה אומר בלשונם.

ומדקדקי הלשון השיבו כמה תשובות על רבי אלעזר הקליר שהיה מגדולי התנאים שמצאו בפיוטיו כמה שגגות לפי הדקדוק, לפי שאין זה פוגם מעלת החכם אם אינו יודע דקדוק הלשון והמלות.2

Yirmiyahu As A Man Of Letters

Abravanel

Don Yitzhak Abravanel goes so far as to argue that even a great prophet can have a poor grasp of grammar and literary style. He unfavorably contrasts Yirmiyahu with Yeshayahu and other prophets, arguing that the clear poetic and literary superiority of the latter is due to Yeshayahu's aristocratic education and the other prophets' greater age and experience of society prior to the onset of their prophetic careers, whereas Yirmihahu was merely a priest, and but a youth at the onset of his. In the course of his explanation, he discusses the phenomena of קרי ולא כתיב and כתיב ולא קרי and declares categorically that the original authors of the various Scriptures certainly composed but one version of their respective texts, and he provocatively proposes that the alternate versions were added by Ezra to correct perceived deficiencies in the texts' grammar or syntax. These problematic phrasings may simply be a reflection of the relatively poor literary skills of some of the Bible's authors, or alternatively, they may be deliberate, from esoteric motivations:

ואמנם בשלמות והחקוי השני שהוא בצחות המליצה ושפת יתר אחשוב אני שלא היה ירמיהו שלם מאד בסדור הדברים ויפוי המליצה כמו ישעיהו הנביא וגם נביאים אחרים ומפני זה תמצא בדברי ירמיהו פסוקים רבים שלפי דעת המפרשים כולם יחסרו להם מלה או מלות עם היות שאני אשתדל לישבם כאשר הם ותמצא בדבריו פעמים רבות מאד מאד מלת על תשמש במקום אל והזכר בלשון נקבה והנקבה בלשון זכר והרבים בלשון יחיד והיחיד בלשון רבים ועבר במקום עתיד ועתיד במקום עבר ודבור אחד בעצמו פעם לנכח ופעם לנסתר ותמצא בדבריו גם מן המוקדם מאוחר והמאוחר קודם כי הנה אחרי שזכר חרבן הבית ותשלום מלכות צדקיהו חזר לספר מעניני המלך יהויקם שקדם אליו ועם היות שכבר באו כיוצא מהזריות האלה בשאר הנביאים הפרש גדול יש ביניהם בין רב למעט והוא שבשאר הנביאים תמצא זה על המעט ובדברי ירמיהו הוא על הרוב כפלי כפלים ממה שנמצא בשאר הנביאים

ואני אחשוב שהיתה הסבה בזה היות ירמיהו נער בשנים כשהתחיל בנבואה ולכן לא היה עדין שלם בדרכי הלשון ובסדריו וביופי המליצה ועל זה באמת אמר הנה לא ידעתי דבר כי נער אנכי כי הנה ישעיהו להיות מזרע המלוכה ונתגדל בחצר בית המלך ולכן היה דברו ערב ולשונו נאוה ושאר הנביאים נבאו אחרי שהושלמו בעניני העולם ובעסקיו ונשאו ונתנו עם בני אדם ולכן ידעו לסדר דבריהם אמנם ירמיהו היה מן הכהנים אשר בענתות ובקטנותו קודם שירגיל הדבור וידע מוצאיו ומובאיו באתהו הנבואה והוכרח לדבר מה שצוהו השם בלשונו דרגיל בו:

ואמנם בחקוי והשלמות הג' שהוא ביושר הכתב ודקדוקו אחשוב גם כן שירמיהו לא נשלם בו מהסבה אשר זכרתי רצוני לומר להיותו נער כשהתחיל לנבא ולזה לא לימד בדקדוק הלשון ובסדר הכתיבה כראוי והנה יורה על זה הקרי והכתיב וכתיב ולא קרי וקרי ולא כתיב שתמצא בספרו יותר מבשאר הנביאים כי הנה תמצא שספר ירמיהו בכמותו בכתיבה הוא דומה בכמות הכתיבה לספר התורה מבראשית עד תחילת בא אל פרעה עוד תשוב תראה שספר ירמיהו זה הוא כמו ספרי יהושע ושופטים בקרוב בכמות הכתיבה דוק ותשכח שבאותו חלק מהתורה אשר זכרתי נמצאו כ"א קרי וכתיב ואמנם בספר ירמיהו שהוא בכמותו דומה לזה נמצאו פ"א קרי וכתיב וכן בספר יהושע ושופטים תמצא מ"א קרי וכתיב ובאו אם כן בספר ירמיהו הכפל מהם

וכדי להעמידך על אמתת הטענה הזאת וחזקה ראיתי לבאר פה ענין הקרי והכתיב ומה הסבה שבספרי התורה והנביאים והכתובים נמצאו בספרים מלות באופן אחד ומבחוץ בגליון הוא באופן אחר ואין ספק שהנביא או המדבר ברוח הקדש באופן אחד דבר דבריו ולא בשנים

והנה הרד"ק כתב בטעם זה וז"ל ונראה כי המלות האלה נמצאו כן לפי שבגלות הראשונה אבדו הספרים ונטלטלין טלטול והחכמים יודעי המקרא מתו ואנשי הכנסת הגדולה שהחזירו התורה לישנה מצאו מחלוקת בספרים והלכו בהם אחר הרוב לפי דעתם על הבירור כתבו האחד ולא קראוהו או כתבו מבחוץ ולא כתבו מבפנים וכן כתבו בדרך אחד מבחוץ ובדרך אחר מבפנים ע"כ וכמו שזכרו בהקדמת פירושו לנביאים ראשונים ומסכים לזה כתב האפוד בפרק ז' מספרו בדקדוק ...

והדעת הזה אשר הסכימו בו החכמים האלה ועצתם רחקה מני כי איך אוכל בנפשי להאמין ואיך אעלה על שפתי שמצא עזרא הסופר תורת האלקים וספרי נביאיו ושאר המדברים ברוח הקדש מסופקים בהפסד ובלבול ... וזהו כח העיקר הח' מעיקרי הדת שהניח הרב הגדול בפירוש המשנה שיחייב כל בעל דת להאמין והוא שהתורה שבידינו היום היא הנתונה למשה בהר סיני מבלי חילוף ושנוי כלל ...

[ועיין שם שהאריך לדחות דעתם, והעלה:] אלא שאין הדבר כאשר חשבו החכמים האלה ושרי להו מריהו בדעת הזה אבל אמתת הענין אצלי הוא שעזרא ואנשי כנסת הגדולה מצאו ספרי התורה בשלמותם ותמותם כמו שנכתבו וקודם שהתעורר עזרא לעשות הנקוד והטעמים וסופי הפסוקים עיין במקרא והדברים אשר נראו אליו זרים כפי טבע הלשון וכונת הספור וחשב בעצמו שהיה זה לאחד מב' סברות אם שכיוון הכותבים בדברים הזרים ההם סוד מן הסודות מסתרי התורה כפי מעלת נבואתו ועומק חכמתו ולכן לא מלאו ידו לגשת ידיו למחות דבר מספרי האלקים כי הבין בדעתו שבחכמה יתירה נכתבו כן ושלסבה מן הסבות נכתבו האותיות החסרות והמיותרות והלשונות הזרים ההם ולכן הניחם בכתב מבפנים כמו שנכתב האמנם שם מבחוץ הקרי שהוא פירוש הכתוב הזר ההוא כפי טבע הלשון ופשיטות הענין ומזה המין תמצא כל הקרי והכתיב שבתורה [ועיין שם שהאריך לפרש כמה מהקרי והכתיב שבתורה על פי דרך זה] ...

גם אפשר שחשב עזרא שהיו בספרי הקדש תיבות ומלות שלא נכתבו כן בזרותם לסבה מן הסבות כי אם להיות האומר אותם בלתי מדקדק כראוי אם בקצור ידיעת הלשון עברית ואם בקצור ידיעת דקדוק הכתיבה בסדרה וישרה והיה זה מהנביא או המדבר ברוח הקדש כשגגה יוצאת מלפני השליט ...

והנה רוב הקרי והכתיב שבא בספר ירמיהו זה כשתעיין בשם ובענינם תמצא כולם שהם מזה המין שכתבם ירמיהו כן בטעות ובשגגה [ועיין שם שהאריך לבאר כמה מהם על פי דרך זה] ... ובזה הדרך תראה כשתחפש כל הקרי וכתיב שנמצא בספר ירמיהו שענינו פירוש והיה בסבת שלא דוקדק הלשון והכתיבה כפי זה שזכרתי [ועיין שם שביאר על פי דרך זה גם הקרי ולא כתיב והכתיב ולא קרי] ...

ומזה תדע שהספרים אשר נפל בהם הרבה מזה הוא לחסרון המדבר בחקוי הב' מידיעת דרכי הלשון או הג' בידיעת דקדוק הכתיבה ולכן היו בספר ירמיהו פ"א מקרי וכתיב ובספר שמואל שכתבו ירמיהו כפי מה שביארתי והוכחתי בהקדמתי לספר יהושע שהוא בכמות הכתיבה בספר ירמיהו רבו בו הקרי וכתיב בכמו קל"ג וכן בספר מלכים שכתב ירמיהו גם כן באו ע"ד [ועיין שם שביאר הטעם למספר הקרי והכתיב בכמה מספרי התנ"ך על פי דרך זה] ... וכל זה יורה הראות מבואר אמתת מה שזכרתי

ואפשר עוד לומר שלא נכתב בספר הקדש תורה ונביאים וכתובים דבר בטעות ושגיאה אבל שכל המלות והתיבות הזרות בלשונם ובכתיבתם כתבום הנביאים כן בכונה וחכמה ולסבה מהסבות ואנחנו לא נדע כי הם מסתרי התורה והנבואה וידיעתנו קצרות מהשיגם האמנם הסופר עזרא במופלא ממנו לא דרש והניח הדברים כמו שנכתבו כדי שירמזו לענינים שכונו בהם הנביאים והמדברים ברוח הקדש אבל הוא רצה לפרש המלות ההם כפי הפשט והוא מה שעשה בקרי

הנה נתתי לך ב' דרכים בדבר הזה כולם נכחים למבין וישרים למוצאי דעת3

Various later thinkers, however, were vehemently opposed to the entire attitude of Abravanel, to the basic presumption that we mere mortals can critique Divine prophets, as we shall see.4

Ya'akov Ben Haim Ibn Adoniyahu

Ya'akov Ben Haim Ibn Adoniyahu sharply criticized Abravanel in his introduction to his famous second edition of the Mikraos Gedolos:

ולא אשיב על דברי השר האבר"בנאל בסבה הב' באומרו כי המלות נכתבו כן בזרותם לסבה מן הסבות אם להיות האומר אותם בלתי מדקדק כראוי אם בקצור ידיעת הלשון העברית ואם בקצור ידיעת דקדוק הכתיבה כי תמהני עליו אם דבר זה יצא פי אדם דוגמתו ז"ל היעלה על דעת כי הנביאים קצרה ידם בכל אלה. אם כן הוא ז"ל היה גדול מהם בדקדוק הלשון העברית וחיי ראשי כי לא אאמין דבר זה. ואם היה בשגגה כמו שכתב הוא ז"ל למה הנביא או המדבר ברוח הקדש לא תקנו האם השגגה נפלה בספר ירמיה פ"א פעמים ובספר שמואל שכתבו ירמיה כמו שהוכיח הוא ז"ל רבו בו הקרי והכתב בכמו קל"ג כמו שמנה הוא ז"ל היעלה על לב נביא שנאמר עליו בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך ובטרם תצא מרחם הקדשתיך נביא לגוים נתתיך יפול בשגגות כאלה. סוף דבר נראה חס ושלום כאלו השר ז"ל לא ראה הגמרא [בסוף פרק כל הקורא, שהוכיח ן' אדוניהו ממנה לעיל דאין ענין קרי וכתיב תיקון של מהדיר מאוחר, כמו שסובר האברבנאל - י'] ואליבא דגמרא לא נהיר ולא צהיר מה דתירץ ואולי כי השר ז"ל היתה רוח אחרת עמו ולא נעלם ממנו חס ושלום הגמרא כי דרך בדרך הרב הגדול הרמב"ם ז"ל במורה הנבוכים להראות כחו כי זולת הגמרא יש דרך לתרץ.5

Rav Zalman Hanau

Rav Zalman Hanau followed in Ibn Adoniyahu's footsteps:

ומה שטען האברבנאל מהנביא ירמיה שלא היה נשלם בדקדוק הלשון וביושר המכתב ... אמנם אין הפרש אצל המתאמתים בין שיהיה הכזב רב או מעט [זה קאי על דברי האברבנאל שבשאר ספרי תנ"ך גם כן נמצאו דברים שאינם מתוקנים, אלא שבירמיהו נמצאו הרבה פעמים יותר - י']. ואולם כל מה שנמצא בספרי המקרא אשר איננו הולך אחרי עקבות דקדוק הלשון יש לו דרש או סוד ודרוש וקבל שכר וכל הקוצר מלוא ידו ותולש מלוא קומצו מהם יתן הודאה על חלקו ולולא כובד האריכות הייתי מתקן ומיישב כל הזריות הנמצאו בספר ירמיהו להוציא מלב האברבנאל. כמו שכתב בעל האפוד ראוי שנשתדל תמיד ליישב הזריות האלה אם אפשר ומה שלא נוכל לישבו על נכון ולתת בו טעם מספיק נדע שהוא מפאת חסרוננו לא שיהיה הזרות הזה בכתבי הקדש מבלי סבה חלילה ע"כ. והנה האברבנאל עצמו הביא דברי האפודי הנ"ל בישעיה סימן א' פסוק כי יבושו מאלים אשר חמדתם ע"ש. עם כל זאת פער פיו לבלי חק על הנביא ירמיהו ושכח בדברי האפודי.

והנה גם בהקדמת מקרא גדולה שהדפיס הבומב"ירגי השיג על האברבנאל בענין קרי וכתיב ע"ש. ואנכי לא אוכל להתמהמה לאהבת הקצור ודי בזה למשכילים.6

Malbim

Malbim did not let "אהבת הקצור" get in the way of expressing his full-throated, impassioned rejection of Abravanel's position:

והנני אומר (ועם האדון אשר היה משלומי אמוני ישראל הסליחה) ... בדבר אשר זדה עליו להוריד כבוד מליצתו והדר ספרו, כי לא שלם בנועם המליצה ודרכי הלשון, לא נשמע לו ולא נאבה. ובטרם אשיב על דבריו בעצמם אומר, כי החקירה הזאת בכללה, לתור ולבקר את כתבי הקדש כתבו הנביאם ביד ד' ורוחו עליהם, להגביל את מדרגתם ולחרוץ משפט על מחברם אם היה שלם בשלשת החקויים הנאמרים, אין לה מציאות רק אם נסכים אל דברי המבקר אשר השוה השגת הנביאים את החזון אשר קבלו מאת ד' והטפתם אל העם והעלותם הדברים על ספר, כהשגת החכמים והתלמידים את דברי החכמה אשר יקבלו מפי מורם בשכלם האנושי וילמדוה לרבים ויחרתו הדברים בספר למשמרת כפי מה שהתחקו הדברים בשכלם וכפי מה שיעיר להם אזן רוח בינתם לדבר בלשון למודים ולכתוב בחרט אנוש באר על הלוחות, שכל זה תלוי לפי שלימותם או חסרונם בשלשה החקויים הנזכרים, כי רק אז נוכל להחליט אומר על ספרי הנביאים כעל ספרי החכמים כותבי הספרים, שדבריהם באו חסרים לפעמים, מצד שלא הבינו עומק דברי ד' המנבא אותם ולא ציירו כונתו ציור שלם בשכלם לדעת אותם על אמתתם, או מצד שלא היו מהירים בלשונם לדעת לעות את יעף דבר ולשמוע כלמודים ולהציע הדברים בטוב טעם ודעת, או מצד שלא היה בידם עט סופר ולא ידעו תהלוכות הלשון חקיו ומשפטיו, המישרים הכתיבה מכל טעות ושגיאה הבא לרגלי הכתב והמכתב. אבל איך יעלה כזאת על לב איש שלם בתורתו ואמונתו לדמות את השפע האלוקית הנבואיית אשר ישפוך את רוחו על חוזיו ומלאכיו עת יגלה להם סודו וישלחם במלאכת ד', אל שפע השכל האנושי אשר הוא עליל לטעות וחסרונות מצד היותו כח חומרי מוגבל שוכן בית חומר אשר בעפר יסודו? מה לתבן את הבר ואם נסך ד' עליכם רוח הרדמה, עליכם! הדורשים והמעיינים על פי כח השכל האנושי, ויעצם את עיניכם מהביט אל האלקים, הכי גם את הנביאים ואת ראשיכם החוזים והצופים במראות אלקים כסה, עד שתהיה להם חזות הכל כדברי הספר החתום, אשר אם יתנו אותו אל יודע ספר ואמר לא ידעתי ספר כן קרא הנביא אל אנשי דורו, וכן אקרא אל המעפילים לעלות בהר ד', לאמר אל תגעו במשיחי ובנביאי אל תרעו, כי לא כאשר ישכיל האדם בשכלו האנושי אשר ישיג השגה הדרגיית מן המאוחר אל הקודם, השגה כלואה במכלא הזמן והמקום ותנאי הגשם, ישכיל החוזה ברוח ד', כי הוא ישיג השגה [פתאומית] מן הקודם אל המאוחר מופשטת מכל עניני החומר, כי יתן ד' את רוחו עליו בענין נעלה מדרך הטבע. כי השפעת הנבואה תלויה ברצון האלקי ובכחו הגדול, אשר יברא בריאה חדשה מה שהוא למעלה מהשגת השכל המוטבע בחומר, כי אז נפשו יצאה ותפרד מחברת החומר ותהי כאחד מן השכלים הנפרדים אשר אין מסך ומעצור בעדם מלראות באור הבהיר, כי סר הענן והערפל ונסו הצללים כי רוח ד' עברה ותטהרם

Malbim now addresses an apparent contradiction to his position - the view of Rambam, who apparently understands that the nature of any particular prophecy is indeed dependent on the moral and intellectual character of the prophet receiving it:

ואף למה שכתב המורה שהנבואה לא תחול כי אם כפי ההכנה וכפי שלימות מזג הנביא ודמיונו ושכלו ומדותיו, בכל זה הלא סתר דעת הפילוסוף אשר החליט שכל המוכן מוחלט שינבא, רק שהדבר תלוי ברצון האלקי, כי גם המוכן מצד שכלו וכחתיו אינו מוכרח שינבא, באשר הנבואה אינו דבר טבעי, רק ענין אלקי למעלה מן הטבע, ואחר אשר על ידי טוב הכנתה מצאה נפש הנביא חן בעיני ד' וירצה ויבחר ותשוב בעת החזון להיות שכל נפרד שכל משכיל בפועל, (כי בלעדי זה מן הנמנע שתשיג השגה נבואיית שהיא השגה פתאומיית מן הקודם אל המאוחר), איך תאמר כי בעת ההיא לא תשכיל ותחקה צורת המושכל וההשגה על אמתתה? שזה לא יצוייר רק בשכל המשכיל בכח, שהוא ישכיל בהשגה הדרגיית, משכיל ובלתי משכיל גם יחד, לא בשכל המשכיל בפועל, שאצלו לא יצוייר שבלתי ישכיל עתה ושהוא רק בכח להוציא ההשכלה אל הפועל, שזה דבר הסותר את עצמו?

With all due respect to Malbim, his understanding of Rambam's position on prophecy is exactly backward. Rambam's divergence from the philosophers with respect to prophetic determinism is not based on his viewing prophecy as a supernatural, Divine phenomenon; on the contrary, it is precisely because prophecy is a purely naturalistic phenomenon that God can override its normal rules, just as all miracles that He performs violate the natural order. This is perfectly clear from his analogies to the immobilization of the hand of Yeravam at the altar7 and the blinding of the host of Aram upon its attempt to capture Elisha8:

והדעת השני דעת הפילוסופים והוא שהנבואה הוא שלמות אחד בטבע האדם, והשלמות ההוא לא יגיע לאיש מבני אדם אלא אחר למוד יוצא מה שבכח המין אל לפעל, אם לא ימנע מזה מונע מזגי או סבה אחת מחוץ, במשפט כל שלמות שאפשר מציאותו במין אחד, כי לא יתכן מציאות השלמות ההוא עד תכליתו וסופו בכל איש מאישי המין ההוא אבל באיש אחד, ואי אפשר מבלתי זה בהכרח, ואם היה השלמות ההוא ממה שיצטרך בהגעתו למוציא, אי אפשר מבלתי מוציא, ולפי זה הדעת אי אפשר שינבא סכל ולא יהיה האדם מלין בלתי נביא ומשכים נביא כמו שימצא מציאה, אבל הענין כן, והוא שהאיש המעולה השלם בשכליותיו ובמדותיו, כשיהיה המדמה על מה שאפשר להיות מן השלמות, ויזמין עצמו ההזמנה ההיא אשר תשמענה, הוא תנבא בהכרח, שזה השלמות הוא לנו בטבע, ולא יתכן לפי זה הדעת שיהיה איש ראוי לנבואה ויכין עצמו לה ולא יתנבא, כמו שאי אפשר שיזון איש בריא המזג במזון טוב ולא יולד מן המזון ההוא דם טוב ומה שדומה לזה:

והדעת השלישי והוא דעת תורתנו ויסוד דתנו הוא כמו זה הדעת הפילוסופי בעצמו, אלא בדבר אחד, וזה שאנחנו נאמין שהראוי לנבואה המכין עצמו לה, אפשר שלא יתנבא וזה ברצון אלקי, וזה אצלי הוא כדמות הנפלאות כלם ונמשך כמנהגם, שהענין הטבעי שכל מי שהוא ראוי לפי בריאתו ויתלמד לפי גדולו ולמודו שיתנבא, והנמנע מזה אמנם הוא כמי שנמנע מהניע ידו כירבעם Yitzhak - בין דין לדין Wed, 27 May 2009 18:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/27/Wine-Women--Song-Some-Remarks-on-Poetry--Grammar--Part-II A Shanda fur die Goyim: Hillul Ha-Shem in the Eyes of Non-Jews http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/24/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eyes-of-NonJews חילול השם בעיני אומות העולם (א)

מאת ר' יחיאל גולדהבר

וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי ד' מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם (ויקרא כב, לב). כך בא הכתוב לומר, כאשר רוצים בני ישראל לבנות בית הכנסת כדי להרבות קדושת השם, עליהם להשמר שבניית בית הכנסת לא תגרום חילול השם (חתם סופר).

האיסור היסודי

איסור חילול השם, הנלמד מן הפסוק בפרשתנו שצוטט למעלה ונחשב בין האיסורים החמורים בתורה1, מהותו להזהר שלא לגרום ששם ה' יהיה חולין2.

בגדרו של חילול השם כתבו הראשונים שהאיסור מתחלק לשלשה חלקים, שנים מהם כוללים ואחד פרטי: א. עבר עבירה באונס, במקום שאמרו שחייב למסור את נפשו והוא עבר ולא נהרג. ב. עבר עבירה במזיד באופן שיש בה חילול השם, כגון שעשה להכעיס, שמלבד העבירה עצמה עבר על לאו של חילול השם. ג. בנוסף לשני אלו האמורים כלפי כל אדם, מוטל חיוב מיוחד על אדם חשוב – שהבריות מביטות עליו – שלא יעשה מעשים שיבואו לרנן אחריו בשבילם, אע"פ שאינם עבירות3.

סוג נוסף של חילול השם הוא זהירות בפני נכרים. אם יהודי מתנהג בצורה שלילית כלפי הגוי (אף במקום שאינו איסור), והוא גורם לרואיו לתלות את התנהגותו הכעורה באמונתו, ובכך מזלזלים באמונה ובשם השם – הרי זה חילול השם. גם דברים המותרים, אולם הגוי סובר שהם אסורים, אסור לעשותם מפני חילול השם. כגון גזל הגוי4 או שבועה מתוך אונס5.

כבוד ישראל

בגמרא כבר מצאנו שאסור לחלל את כבוד ישראל בעיני הגוים, ומטעם זה אסור לישראל ליטול צדקה מן הגוים בפרהסיה6, וכתבו הראשונים בטעם הדבר שהוא משום חילול השם7. ושני הסברים ניתנו למהות חילול השם שיש בזה: א. היהודי מבזה את עצמו בלקיחת הצדקה8. ב. לקיחת צדקה מגוים מוציאה לעז על ישראל שאינם בעלי צדקה וחסד9.10

האיסור המחודש

בכתבי הגאונים אנו רואים שצעדו צעד נוסף בחילול השם וחידשו פן שאין לו שורש בחז"ל – הוא חילול הדת בעיני הגוים. היינו דבר שעל פי דין מותר לעשותו, אלא הואיל ואצל הגוים הנהגה זו אינה ראויה ונמצא שיש בה משום לעג לדת, שהגוים סוברים שהיהודים מזלזלים בדתם, על כן יש להתייחס לדעתו של הגוי ולהמנע ממנה. למשל, במקום שאין דרכם של בני המדינה להכנס לבתי תפילותיהם במנעלים, אין לעשות כן גם בבתי הכנסת, משום ביזוי. במרוצת הגלות התפתח איסור זה, עד שבימינו הוא מוכר כעיקר המושג של "חילול השם".

היו שתמהו על הגדרה מחודשת זו כחילול השם; ראשית, הרי איסור מחודש זה נוגד לאיסור ההליכה בחוקות העכו"ם, ועוד, מה טעם יש לנהות אחרי מנהגי הגוים ולהעדיפם על פני המסורת היהודית11. ההסבר לכך הוא פשוט: אין חיוב להנהיג הנהגות מחודשות לגמרי משום חילול השם. המדובר הוא במקום שאינו אלא ענין שהוא תלוי-תרבות, כהליכות ונימוסים המשתנים ממקום למקום. לפיכך, במקום שמושג הכבוד מחייב חליצת נעלים בבית הכנסת, יש לעשות כן משום כבוד בית ה', שהוא דבר שנצטווינו עליו מן התורה.

אסמכתא לאיסור המחודש

לבו של רעיון זה פועם בהלכה המובאת במסכת כותים (פרק א). מדין תורה מותר לאכול בשר השליל – שהוא בן פקועה שנמצא במעי אמו – בלא שחיטה. אבל היות והוא נאסר אצל הכותים ללא שחיטה, הרי שאם ישראל יקנוהו מהם, ייראה שהכותים קדושים יותר מישראל. וזו לשון הברייתא: "אלו דברים שאין מוכרין להם... ולא שליל, אף על פי שישראל אוכלין אותם... שנאמר כי עם קדוש אתה לה' אלהיך, כשאתה קדוש, לא תעשה עם אחר קדוש למעלה ממך"12.

המקור לנאמר בספר חסידים (סי' תתכט): "אם יש דבר שהנכרים נהוגים בו איסור וליהודים אינו אסור, אסור ליהודי שיאכל, פן יתחלל שם שמים על ידו. כגון נכרי שראה שנכרי חברו רבע בהמה ואמר לנכרים שלא לאכול אותה ונמכרה ליהודי, לא יאכלנה ישראל". קשה להסיק מכאן האם בזמנם אכן שללו הגוים אכילת בהמה שנרבעה, או שמדובר במקרה בודד. מה עוד שדברי ספר חסידים לא הובאו בדברי נושאי כלי השולחן ערוך13.

פנים חדשות אלו למושג "חילול השם" גרמו לשינויים רבים באורחות חייהם של יהודי התפוצות, ובפרט באופני כיבוד בית השם, שראו לנכון להתחשב בכיבוד שהללו מכבדים את בית תיפלתם! להלן אמנה כמה מנהגים שנגזרו מהיבט זה של חילול השם:

א. ביטול חזרת הש"ץ

דוגמא נוספת מתקופת הראשונים שחששו משום חילול השם מפני הגוים, היא התקנה שביטלה את חזרת הש"ץ. רבינו הרמב"ם מביא בתשובותיו כמה מנהגים בהסדרת י"ח ברכות וחזרת הש"ץ, וביניהם נמצאת התקנה ששינתה את סדר התפילה, ומאז אומר הש"ץ לבדו את התפלה בקול רם בעוד שהיחידים הבקיאים מלווים אותו בלחש. הרמב"ם מסביר באריכות את תקנתו וחשיבותה14, ואחד ממניעיו לביטול חזרת הש"ץ היה חששו מפני חילול השם. הוא מסכים לסברת "אחד החכמים מארצות אדום, שיתפלל הש"ץ פעם אחת בקול רם וקדושה ושלא יהי שם לחש כלל", ונימוקו עמו: "כשיחזור ש"ץ להתפלל בקול רם, כל מי שהתפלל ויצא ידי חובתו יהפוך פניו לספר עם חבירו... ויחזור פניו מהמזרח וירוק ויסיר כיחו וניעו". אמנם כאשר יתקנו שלא יתפללו בלחש רק יתפללו הקהל עם הש"ץ, "ותמנע אריכות החזרה ויוסר חלול השם שנתפשט בין נכרים, שהיהודים רוקקים וכחים ומספרים בתוך תפלתם, שהרי הם רואים זה תמיד, וזה יותר נכון אצלי באלו הזמנים מצד הסבות"15.

ב. טהרה לפני התפלה

דוגמא נוספת לחשש לעג מהסביבה הנוכרית, נמצא בכתבי הגאונים. דעת רוב הגאונים שטבילת עזרא בטלה בזה"ז, מלבד בעל קרי שהוא צריך להתרחץ באותו מקום. בכמה מקורות בכתבי הגאונים הובא הסבר לרחיצה זו מן הטעם שמתגוררים בסביבת נוכרים המקפידים על נקיות, מפני שהנכרים נוהגים בטבילה זו. ואלו דברי רב כהן צדק גאון – גאון סורא בתקופת רה"ג – בדונו אודות בעל קרי ביוה"כ: "מי שמבקש לקנח ביוה"כ במים אם אסטניס הוא ואין דעתו מיושבת עליו עד שמקנח במים, צריך לקנח ולטהר א"ע ביותר, אבל כל אדם לא... והוראה קרי ביוה"כ חייב לטבול... וכן בשאר ימות השנה משום נקיות ומפני קידוש השם בגוים"16. נוסח דומה נמצאה בתשובה לרב האי גאון, אחרון גאוני בבל17. כמו כן, כשהרמב"ם מתייחס לטבילת קרי הוא מרמז לענין זה, וכה לשונו באגרתו לר' פנחס ב"ר משולם דיין באלכסנדריה18: "והלא אין הדבר אלא מנהג בשנער ובמערב בלבד, אבל בכל ערי רומי... מעולם לא נהגו במנהג זה. ומעשים תמיד שיבואו חכמים גדולים ורבנים מֵעָרֵיכֶם להפָּרֵד, וכשיראו אותנו רוחצים מקרי, שוחקים עלינו ואומרים: 'למדתם מנקיות הישמעאלים'... וכל ישראל שבין הישמעאלים נהגו לרחוץ, וכל ישראל שבין הערלים לא נהגו לרחוץ"19. גם רבי יהודה הלוי מתבטא בייחודיותה של הרחיצה, וקובע: "ולולא שאמרו עזרא תיקן טבילה לבעל קרי, לא היינו חייבין בה חובת תורה, אך חיוב טהרה ונקיות"20.

ג. רחיצת הרגלים לכבוד התפילה

דוגמא נוספת למנהג טהרה היא רחיצת רגליים לכבוד תפלת שחרית. מנהג זה נהג רק בקרב הראשונים שגרו בארצות האסלאם21, שהושפעו ממנהג המוסלמים מטעם חילול השם, וכפי שביטא זאת לנכון המקובל המשורר רבי מנחם די לונזאנו בפיוטו לאדם המתקדש לקראת תפלת שחרית: "ואחר כך רחץ טנוף נקבים / ומרק מקרה לילה בשרים. ואל יהיו קדושים ממך ישמעאלים / פוט ולוד והגרים. אשר הם ירחצו מים ידיהם / ורגליהם וראשם בשחרם. צהרים ערבים וגם בלילות / בעת שלג וקרה ממזרים"22.

לפנים אלו של חילול השם לא מצאנו דוגמאות נוספות מתקופת הראשונים.

ד. חליצת הנעלים בכניסה לבית הכנסת

בסוף תור הזהב בספרד מצאנו עוד דוגמא של חילול השם דידן, והוא בענין חליצת נעלים בבית הכנסת. מעיקר הדין אמנם אסור להיכנס להר הבית במנעלים, אבל לבית הכנסת מותר23. רבי שלמה ב"ר שמעון דוראן, המכונה רשב"ש24, נשאל על בית הכנסת שנוסד באלג'יר ע"י יהודים שבאו מספרד, שחלק מהמתפללים דרשו שלא להיכנס לבית הכנסת בנעלים, כמנהג המקום, שהיא מדינה מוסלמית שתושביה נוהגים לחלוץ נעליהם לפי כניסתם לבית תיפלתם, ורואים פחיתות כבוד בכניסה למקום קדוש בנעלים, ויהודי הסביבה נהגו אחריהם במנהג זה25 . הרשב"ש השיבם: "דבר ידוע שבית הכנסת ראוי לפארו ולרוממו ולכבדו ולהרחיק ממנו כל בזיון. אמנם הכבוד הוא כל דבר אשר נחשב אצל בני אדם כבוד... והכבוד והבזיון האמיתי הוא כפי מחשבת בני אדם וכפי המקומות ... והנה בארצות הנוצרים, שאין אצלם בזיון כשנכנס אדם ואפילו לפני מלכם במנעל אם נכנס כן בבית הכנסת בעירם אינו בזיון. ובארצות אלו (האיסלם) שהיא בזיון ליכנס לפני גדוליהם, וכש"כ לפני מלכם, במנעל, אסור ליכנס בעירם לבית הכנסת במנעל... על כן טוב הדבר אשר רצו לעשות להסיר חרפת האומה אשר חרפונו". הוא מדגיש שתקנה זו נתקנה בידי אביו – הרשב"ץ – בעירו אלגי'ר. למעשה הוא מסיים: "איך אפשר שבבית ישמעאל אחד פחות שבפחותים לא יוכל אדם ליכנס במנעל, ובבית אלהים יכנס? איזהו כבודו ואיזהו מוראו? ואפילו לא היה הדבר איסור, היה ראוי לעשות תקנה בדבר משום חרפת האומה"26.

בדורות האחרונים

בין הפוסקים האחרונים ניצב המגן אברהם, שקבע מדעתו שבהליכות הנוגעות לכיבוד הדת יש להתחשב בתרבות הסביבה כדי שלא לגרום חילול השם בעיניהם. הנידון הוא בניית בית הכנסת, והחתם סופר נקט הלכה כמותו למעשה.

וכך היא השתלשלות הדברים: מעיקר הדין מותר לגוי המועסק בקבלנות לעבוד בשבת, אלא שגזרו על עבודות הנעשית בפרהסיה במקום שיש יהודים, משום חשד, שהרי לא הכל יודעים שהעבודה נעשית בקבלנות27.

המגן אברהם עוסק בהיתר שנוהגים בעירו קאליש, "לשכור גוים בקבלנות ליקח הזבל מן הרחוב היהודי והגויים עושים מלאכתם בשבת, ואע"ג שמלאכה דאורייתא וכו', וצ"ל שגדול אחד הורה להם כך, משום דבשל רבים ליכא חשדא28 וכו' וא"כ היה נראה להתיר לבנות בית הכנסת בשבת בקבלנות".

בהמשך הדברים מביא המגן אברהם בשם "גדולים", היות והגוים אינם מניחים אפילו לישראל ולכל מי שאינם מבני דתם לעשות מלאכה ביום חגם ואידם, על כן נראה בעיניהם כגנאי ובזיון לדתם אם יעשה מלאכה ביום אידם. לכן נעשה ק"ו לעצמנו: אם אנו מניחים לגוי לעבוד אצלנו בשבת במה שאפשר לנו למונעו, הרי נחשב בעיניהם כזלזול בשבת.

ואלו דבריו: "מכל מקום ראיתי שהגדולים לא רצו להתיר, כי בזה"ז אין העכו"ם מניחים לשום אדם לעשות מלאכה בפרהסיא ביום חגם, ואם נניח אנחנו לעשות, איכא חילול השם29. אבל תיקון הרחוב אין נקרא על שם ישראל כל כך30. מ"מ במקום שאין נוהגים היתר ברחוב, אין להקל"31.

דברי המ"א המחודשים32 שימשו לפוסקים האחרונים כבסיס לשאלות שונות שצצו ועלו במשך הדורות, בנוגע לצורך להתחשב בדעתם, שלא יחולל השם בעיניהם. ואי"ה בשבוע הבא אביא דוגמאות רבות לשאלות מסוג זה, ואת דברי הפוסקים עליהן.



1 בתורה מתייחס האיסור למעשי עבודה זרה הנעשים ע"י ישראל. אולם חז"ל הרחיבו ודרשו את המושג לכל התנהגות שאינה ראויה.

2 את ההגדרה הקולעת לשורש 'חילול' כתב רבי יעקב צבי מעקלענבורג, 'הכתב והקבלה' (בראשית מט, ד), בפירושו לפסוק אז חללת יצועי אביך: "הורדת דבר מיקרו וחשיבותו".

3 בה"ג ל"ת קלז; רס"ג ל"ת לג; סהמ"צ לר"מ ל"ת סג; החינוך מצוה רצה. וראה רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה ה, א.

כאשר נתמנה רבי ישראל אלתר לאדמו"ר על מקום אביו הגדול בעל 'אמרי אמת', ביקש מאת אחד ממכיריו (ר' פישל כהן, תלמידו של האוסטרובצי) שהיה ידוע בבקיאותו המופלגת, שימציא לו רשימה של כל המקומות שחז"ל מנו הנהגות ואזהרות ל"אדם חשוב"... (מפי ש"ב הרב שמעיה טויסיג).

4 רש"י סנהדרין דף נז ע"א ד"ה ישראל; תוס' ב"ק דף קיג ע"ב ד"ה הכי. וראה ירושלמי ב"מ ה, ה; דברים רבה פ"ג מעשה ב"ר שמעון בן שטח.

5 שו"ע יו"ד רלב, יד. וכן בגוי שנשבע שלא כדין, אין לחלל שבועתו, בגלל שגוים אחרים אינם מבחינים בטעות. ועד"ז מצינו שנענשו ישראל בימי דוד, שהיה רעב שלש שנים בעון שהמית שאול את הגבעונים, על אף שנשבעו בשקר; אמרו: מוטב שתיעקר אות אחת מן התורה ואל יתחלל שם שמים בפרהסיה. ראה יבמות דף עח ע"ב.

6 סנהדרין דף כו ע"ב; שו"ע יו"ד רנד, א.

7 רש"י, יד רמ"ה, תוס' שאנץ, רבי יהונתן מלוניל, נמוקי יוסף.

8 ש"ך יו"ד ראש סימן רנד.

9 ר"י מלוניל, לבוש סי' רנד, חכמ"א קמו סעיף ד, ערוה"ש סי' רנד.

יש להעיר ממקור נוסף לאיסור נטילת צדקה מגוי, הוא במסכת ב"ב דף י ע"ב, משום הפסוק "ביבוש קצירה תישברנה", כלומר בלא מעשה הצדקה תכלינה זכויותיהם של הגוים.

ר"י מלוניל, בסנהדרין שם, הביא פירוש נוסף לחילול השם שיש בדבר, שהוא מטעם "ביבוש קצירה תישברנה", היינו לפי פירושו - שתי הסוגיות אחת הן! ויהיה הבדל למעשה בין טעמים אלו, באופן כשהגוי יוזם מעצמו את מתן הצדקה, שאין חילול השם, שאין מקום לטענה שאין היהודים עושי צדקה וגם המקבל את הצדקה אינו מתבזה, אולם זכות הצדקה נזקף לגוי.

10 ענין נוסף של חילול השם כלפי הגוים אנו מוצאים בדאגה שלא יתחלל השם בעיני הגוים, מפני הפורענות שהוא מביא על ישראל ואומות העולם יאמרו: "עובדים לשמו והוא הורגם". אבינו הראשון אברהם אמר (בראשית יח, כה): "חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה להמית צדיק עם רשע"; ולפי פירוש רש"י הכוונה "חולין הוא לך". היינו, כאשר השופט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט, הרי שמו מתחלל, ומכאן השורש הלשוני למילה 'חילול'. גם משה טען אל הקב"ה (שמות לב, יב): "למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר ברעה הוציאם להרוג אתם". וכן ניבא יחזקאל שרצון ה' להתקדש בגוים ולתקן את חילול שמו אשר נגרם בעצם הימצאות ישראל בגלות במקום לשבת בארצו (יחזקאל לו, יז). פייטנים רבים השתמשו בטיעון של חילול שמו יתברך בגוים בגלל הגלות ושיבצוהו בפיוטיהם, ובעיקר במזמורי הסליחות שנתחברו על רקע הפורענויות השכיחות שליוו את הקהילות.

11 ראה הערה .

12 מצאנו בחז"ל רעיון דומה – כלפי איסור ע"ז בלבד. הגוים לעגו לישראל כשהם נכשלו בע"ז. בסנהדרין (דף צג ע"א), במעשה חנניה מישאל ועזריה שקדשו ש"ש, שואלת הגמרא: אחרי שיצאו מן הכבשן, להיכן הלכו? משיב שמואל: "ברוק טבעו". פירש"י: "באותו רוק שרקקו אומות העולם בישראל שאומרים אלוה כזה יש לכם והשתחויתם לצלם". במסכת תענית (דף ה ראש ע"ב) הובא שע"ז של ישראל חמורה פי שתים משל נכרי, נכרי אינו ממיר את אמונתו אע"פ שהן אמונות פחותות ושפלות, ואילו ישראל הממיר את האמונה באלוקי אמת באמונה של הבל. ונוראים המה דברי הרד"ק (מלכים ב ג, Yechiel Goldhaber בעברית Sun, 24 May 2009 20:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/24/A-Shanda-fur-die-Goyim-Hillul-HaShem-in-the-Eyes-of-NonJews Elliott Horowitz -- 'The Howling Place of the Jews' http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/21/Elliott-Horowitz--The-Howling-Place-of-the-Jews-in-the-Ninete “The Howling Place of the Jews” in the Nineteenth Century:

From William Wilde to Ahad Ha’am

by Elliott Horowitz

In previous posts at the Seforim blog, Elliott Horowitz of Bar Ilan University, co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review, and author of Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), has described Modern Amalekites [here], Isaiah Berlin on Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Saul Lieberman [here], Edmund Wilson, Hebrew, Christmas, and the Talmud [here], and Bugs Bunny [here].

 

This is his fifth contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.

Late in the first half of the nineteenth century Jewish prayer and mourning at the Western Wall began to attract the interest of Christian visitors to Jerusalem, many of whom imposed upon it their own theological interpretations. In the Memorandum on the Western Wall (1930) that he prepared on behalf of the League of Nations Dr. Cyrus Adler (1863-1940), the recently elected President of the American Jewish Committee, included a list of modern travel accounts in which Jewish prayer at the Wall was described (pp. 44-67). Due presumably to Adler’s many responsibilities (he was also editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review as well as president of the Jewish Theological Seminary) the list was far from complete.

One of the important accounts he missed was Dr. William Wilde’s Narrative of Journey…along the Shores of the Mediterranean (1840). The young Irish physician singled out Jewish prayer at the Western Wall as one of the scenes that had most moved him during his extensive journey. “Were I asked what was the object of the greatest interest that I had seen, and the scene that made the deepest impression on me, during my sojourn in other lands,” wrote Dr. Wilde (father of the future playwright Oscar), “I would say that it was a Jew mourning over the stones of Jerusalem.”[1] Shortly afterwards the Anglican minister George Fisk of Lichfield (England) who had visited Jerusalem in 1842, provided his own comments on the weekly spectacle, which he described as  “humiliation and supplication.”  The Jews, he reported, “are said to have a persuasion that their prayers will find especial acceptance when breathed through the crevices of that building of which Jehovah said ‘Mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually’ (II Chron. 7:16).” Although among the “aged Jews sitting in the dust” Fisk saw no signs of the “outward manifestation of strong emotion” there were also present “several Jewesses, enveloped from head to foot in ample white veils,” who “stepped forward to various parts of the ancient wall,” and kissed them with great fervency.”[2]

Fisk’s comments about prayer at the Wall, also unnoticed by Adler, were soon echoed by the children’s writer Favell Lee Mortimer (1802-1878), in the second part of her Far Off (1852), devoted to Asia and Australia – neither of which she had visited.  Addressing her “little readers,” Mrs. Mortimer (a daughter of Barclay’s bank cofounder David Bevan and wife of London minister Thomas Mortimer) informed them that “every Friday evening a very touching scene takes place” in Jerusalem, near the Mosque of Omar. “There are some large old stones there,” wrote Mrs. Mortimer, “and the Jews say that they are part of their old temple wall, so they come at the beginning of their Sabbath…and sit in a row opposite the stones.” Upon arriving, the Jews “read their Hebrew Old Testaments, then kneel low in the dust, and repeat their prayers with their mouths close to the old stones; because they think that all prayers whispered between the cracks and crevices of these stones will be heard by God. Some Jewesses come, wrapped from head to foot in long white veils, and they gently moan and softly sigh over Jerusalem in ruins.”[3] Her “little readers” were likely to think of Jerusalem’s Jews as involved in the cultic worship of large “stones” (a word used no fewer than four times in the brief passage), which served as intermediaries between them and God.

Some two decades later James Creagh (1836-1910), a native of Ireland who had studied at Sandhurst, wrote of his own visit to what he called “the Howling-place of the Jews at Jerusalem.” Unlike Dr. Wilde and Rev. Fisk before him, Captain Creagh, in his colorfully titled Scamper to Sebastopol and Jerusalem, described not only the local Jews (and Jewesses) who participated in the weekly event, but also “whole families of Jews, some dark and some fair, some wearing the English and some the Asiatic costume, and coming from every part of the world.” In a remark that would have appealed to some of the Hebrew poets of medieval Spain, Creagh reported that among those who were “crying and wailing in the most bitter accents” were some “lovely Jewish girls, who wept and sobbed with an appearance of real grief that would appear more natural for the loss of a lover than for the misfortune of their nation in the remotest times.” And although he, unlike Fisk, was evidently a Catholic, Creagh (perhaps under the influence of the latter) was also critical of the “vain hope” on the part of those praying “praying fervently through the crevices…that their earnest supplications, by penetrating to the inside and ascending to heaven from that hallowed spot, would be received more favourably at the throne of grace.[4]

Creagh arrived in Jerusalem shortly after the departure of Albert Rhodes, who was born in Pittsburgh in 1840 and who had served as US consul in Jerusalem between 1863-65.[5] In his appropriately titled Jerusalem As It Is (1865) Rhodes presented a penetrating (and perhaps still relevant) comparison of the Holy City’s Sephardim and Ashkenazim,[6] and also described the weekly prayers at “the wailing-place of the Jews…a spot of interest to every traveler,” focusing particularly on what today might be called “women who weep.”  On Fridays afternoons, he wrote, “every available spot along the foot of this wall is occupied by weeping Jews,” adding that “the greater part of these are women, who often sit in little circles around a Talmud-learned Jew, who reads to them – for a consideration… - portions of the Jewish chronicles.” Rhodes also reported that ‘those who arrive early, particularly the women, commence at one end of the wall and kiss and touch every stone within reach, from one end of the wall to the other.” Like Fisk and Creagh, the former US consul also stressed the importance to many of physical contact with the Wall, adding that some of the Jews “almost hide their heads in the fissures, and remain for some time in this position, sobbing in the most affecting manner.”[7]

A decade after the appearance of Rhodes’s book his fellow Pennsylvanian Richard Newton (1812-87), who had studied at New York’s (Episcopal) General Theological Seminary after graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, published his Illustrated Rambles in Bible Lands (1875), in which he too offered his critical comments on the Jews’ weekly wailing at the Western Wall. Like his (by then) late colleague in Christ the Rev. Fisk, Dr. Newton, criticized the Jews for thinking that prayers offered at the Wall “would be more acceptable to God…than if offered in any other place,” but he was more blatant in his attempt to utilize this “mistake” as a means of saving fellow Christians from similar error:

 

Some people think that part of a church where the minister stands or kneels…is more holy than the pews where the people sit. But this is a mistake. God is no more present in one place than he is in another.  Prayers offered in the city of Jerusalem will not be heard any sooner by God than prayers offered in the city of London, or New York, or Boston, or Philadelphia.[8]

 

Dr. Newman, who was then serving as rector of the Epiphany Church in Philadelphia, carried away with him, and imparted to his readers, two lessons that he learned from his visit. One was “the sin of the Jews which brought upon them all the evil that they are suffering now,’ and “which has caused them to be despised and persecuted in every nation.” The second lesson, of course, was the nature of the “great sin of the Jewish people” – namely, that “they neglected Jesus.”[9]

 

Another late nineteenth-century visitor to the Western Wall who was concerned with the question of what had caused the Jews “to be despised and persecuted in every nation” was Asher Zvi (Hirsh) Ginsberg (1856-1927), by then known as Ahad Ha’am. The leading ideologist of Cultural Zionism, who had been born to a Hasidic family in the Russian Ukraine, was quite critical of much that he saw during his first tour, in 1891, among the Jewish colonies in land of Israel. As Ginsberg later wrote in his controversial essay Emet me-Erez Yisrael “filled with melancholy thoughts,” he “arrived on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, there to pour forth my sorrow and rage before the…remnants of our former glory.” Although he clearly knew what to expect at the Wall, the visit nevertheless affected him greatly, provoking painful questions that remain largely unanswered: 

 

There I found many of our Jerusalem brethren standing and praying in loud voices. Their haggard faces, their strange gestures, and their odd clothes – all this merged with the ghastly picture of the Wall itself. Looking at them and at the Wall, one thought filled my mind. These stones testify to the desolation of our land; these men testify to the desolation of our people. Which of these desolations is worse? For which should we lament more bitterly? [10]


[1] William R. Wilde, Narrative of a Voyage to Madeira, Tenerife and along the Shores of the Mediterranean (Dublin, 1840), quoted in Linda Osband, ed., Famous Travellers to the Holy Land (London,1989), 155. Osband’s book includes an introduction by the distinguished British travel writer Jan Morris, who has also written under the name James Morris. On the remarks by modern travelers about the Jews of Jerusalem see also Elliott Horowitz, “As Others See Jews,” in Nicholas de Lange & Miri Freud-Kandel, eds., Modern Judaism: An Oxford Guide (Oxford, 2005), 415-425, esp. 415-419.

[2] George Fisk, A Pastor’s Memorial, Of Egypt, The Red Sea… Jerusalem, and Other Principal Localities of the Holy Land, Visited in 1842 (third edition, London, 1845), 290-91. In a later edition (1865) the pious pastor wrote less cautiously that “the Jews have a persuasion…” (ibid., 199). For an annotated Hebrew translation of Fisk’s comments on Jerusalem and its Jews see Michael Ish-Shalom, Christian Travels in the Holy Land (second ed., Jerusalem, 1979), 539-43.

[3] F. L. Mortimer, Far Off , or Asia and Australia Described (London, 1852), 21.

[4] James Creagh, A Scamper from Sebastopol to Jerusalem in 1867 (London, 1873), 405-06. On the participation of women in prayer at the Western Wall see Stuart Charmé, “The Political Transformation of Gender Traditions at the Western Wall in Jerusalem,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21:1 (Spring 2005): 5-34, who, relying on Adler’s outdated list, misses the testimonies of  both Fisk and Creagh.

[5] Ruth Kark, American Consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914 (Jerusalem and Detroit, 1994), 314

[6] “There is no entente-cordiale,” wrote Rhodes, “between the Sephardim and Aschkenazim. The former are cleaner, more indolent, and ignorant than the latter. The Aschkenazim pride themselves on their Talmud learning, are dirty, and fond of dispute. From long residence in the East, the Sephardim have acquired something of the ease and dignity of its inhabitants…The Aschkenazim are often seen poring over the Talmud, and are consequently full of its traditionary (sic) lore, but know little of the Bible…The Sephardim,  as a race are healthy-looking, and many of them are handsome…Of the two the Aschkenazim are more corrupt.” idem, Jerusalem As It Is (London, 1865), 363-64. Ish-Shalom, Christian Travels, contains no passages from Rhodes’s book.

[7] Rhodes, Jerusalem, 373-74. On Rhodes in Jerusalem see Lester I. Vogel, To See a Promised Land; Americans in the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century (Pennsylvania, 1993), 166, 172.

[8] Richard Newton, In Bible Lands (London, 1880), 60-61. I have quoted from the first British edition, published with a slightly different title.

[9] Ibid., 62.

[10] The translation I have provided is a composite of those by Steven J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley, 1993), 62, and Reuven Hammer, ed., The Jerusalem Anthology: A Literary Guide (Philadelphia, 1995), 206.



]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 17:45:37 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/21/Elliott-Horowitz--The-Howling-Place-of-the-Jews-in-the-Ninete Wine, Women & Song: Some Remarks on Poetry & Grammar - Part I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/12/Wine-Women--Song-Some-Remarks-on-Poetry--Grammar--Part-I Wine, Women and Song: Some Remarks On Poetry and Grammar - Part I
by Yitzhak of בין דין לדין

[This is the first of three parts; I am greatly indebted to Andy and Wolf2191 for their valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into this paper, and for obtaining for me various works to which I did not have access.]

Rhyme and Grammar

This is the opening stanza of one of Rav Yehudah Halevi's (henceforth: Rihal) best known poems:

יום ליבשה

נהפכו מצולים

שירה חדשה

שבחו גאולים!1

This seems to contain a blatant grammatical error; מצולה is a feminine noun, and its plural form is clearly מצולות, not מצולים. In fact, מצולה appears six times in Tanach in plural form,2 twice in the context of קריאת ים סוף - both instances of which are recited daily as part of the Pesukei De'Zimrah section of the liturgy:

והים בקעת לפניהם ויעברו בתוך הים ביבשה ואת רודפיהם השלכת במצולות כמו אבן במים עזים.3

תהומות יכסיומו ירדו במצולות כמו אבן.4

Rihal was surely aware of the ungrammaticality of מצולים; it seems obvious that he was taking a liberty with the language in order to rhyme with גאולים (and גאולות would have been just plain silly).

In a similar vein, it is related that someone once asked the Brisker Rav why, in the Shabbas hymn ברוך קל עליון, the refrain is:

השומר שבת הבן עם הבת

לקל ירצו כמנחה על מחבת5

After all, there are several standard types of מנחות:

  • סלת

  • מאפה תנור

  • מחבת

  • מרחשת

Why, then, does the poet single out the מחבת?

The questioner was probably expecting some brilliant and incisive Brisker Lomdus, but if so, he must have been disappointed; the Brisker Rav is said to have responded simply that the poet required a rhyme for the word הבת, and מחבת is the only type of Minhah that answered.

Formal Structure and Meter in Jewish Poetry

It is noteworthy that Rihal himself elsewhere maintains that poetic form and meter are actually alien to Jewish poetry:

אמר הכוזרי תכליתך בזה ובזולתו שתשוה אותה עם זולתה מהלשונות בשלמת, ואיה המעלה היתירה בה, אבל יש יתרון לזולתה עליה בשירים המחוברים הנבנים על הנגונים (נ"א הלחשים):

אמר החבר כבר התבאר לי כי הנגונים אינם צריכים אל המשקל בדבור, ושבריק (נ"א ושכריק) והמלא יכולים לנגן (נ"א בנועם) בהודו לד' כי טוב בנגון (נ"א בנועם) לעושה נפלאות גדולות (נ"א כי לעולם חסדו). זה בנגונים בעלי המעשים, אבל בשירים הנקראים אנשארי"א והם החרוזים האמורים, אשר בהם הוא נאה החבור, לא הרגישו עליהם, בעבור המעלה שהיא מועילה ומעולה יותר: ...

אמר הכוזרי ... אני רואה אתכם קהל היהודים שאתם טורחים להביע (נ"א להגיע) אל מעלת החבור (ס"א הסדור) ולחקות זולתכם מהאומות, ותכניסו העברית במשקליהם:

אמר החבר וזה מתעותנו ומריינו, ...

אמר החבר אבל השיגנו באמירת המחובר מה שהשיג את אבותינו, במה שנאמר עליהם ויתערבו בגוים וילמדו מעשיהם:6

As Rabbi Haim Sabato puts it, in his lovely and wonderful The Dawning of the Day:

When [Doctor Yehudah Tawil] became a scholar he was in thrall to the poetry of Sepharad with his entire mind and all his means. He spent months deciphering the meaning of a single verse of HaLevi, and entire years combing through manuscript fragments of newly discovered poems bearing the acrostic Yehudah or HaLevi. As much as a single verse in a stanza of HaLevi was precious, so the contemporary poems published in journals were worthless. These poems seemed to him like collections of words, without order or meaning. He did not like poems without rhyme schemes or an established meter, and the words of his learned friends who were partial to these poems were of no consequence. Although his own son showed him, in the most triumphant manner, what HaLevi had written in his philosophical treatise, The Kuzari - that he preferred the poems in Scripture, which have no rhyme scheme or fixed meter, to formal poems, and wrote about the adoption of meter in Hebrew poetry: But they mingled among the gentiles and learned their ways - nevertheless, he remained unappeased. He used to say, are they writing biblical poetry nowadays?7

[Emphasis added.]

Abravanel expresses a similar view, although he expresses pride in the purported fact that the alien form of highly structured poetry that the Jews have borrowed from the Muslims has actually reached its greatest perfection in the hands of the former, and that the poems of no other language are on the same level as ours:

[יש] אתנו עם בני ישראל שלשה מינים מהשירים.

המין האחד הוא מהמאמרים הנעשים במדה במשקל ובמשורה אף על פי שיהיו נקראים מבלי ניגון לפי שענין השיר בהם אינו אלא בהסכמת הדבורים והדמותם והשתוותם בסוף המאמרים רוצה לומר בקצוות בתי השירים שנדמו זה לזה בשלש אותיות אחרונות או בשתים כפי נקודם ואופן קריאתם עם שמירת משקלי המלכים והתנועות עם צחות הלשון ונפילתו על לשון פסוק מכתבי הקדש ונקראו השירים ההם חרוזים לפי שהם שבלים מסודרים מלשון צוארך בחרוזים שהם אבנים טובות ומרגליות נקודות מחוברות ומסודרות בסדר ותבנית ישר. וכן בדברי חז"ל (בבא מציעא י"ח) מחרוזת של דגים שהם שורות של דגים מחוברים זה לזה בסדר קשורים בחוטמיהם בגמי ומפני הדמוי הזה נקראו השירים מזה המין חרוזים להיותם שורות שוות ומתיחסות כי היו הדברים בזה המין מהשיר שקולים בענין המלכים והעבדים אשר בנקודות. והמלאכה הזאת בזה המין מהשירים שקולים היא מלאכה משובחת והם מתוקים מדבש ונופת צפים ונעשו בלשוננו הקדוש העברי בשלימות גדול מה שלא נמצא כמוהו בלשון אחר.

הן אמת שמזה המין משירים לא מצאנו דבר בדברי הנביאים וגם לא מחכמי המשנה והגמרא כי היתה התחלתו בגלותנו בין חכמי ישראל שהיו בארצות הישמעאלים שלמדו ממעשיהם במלאכת השיר הזה ויעשו גם המה החכמה בלשוננו המקודש ויתר שאת ויתר עז ממה שנעשו הישמעאלים בלשונם

וגם בין חכמי לשון הלאטי"ן ובלשון עם לועז עם ועם כלשונו נמצאו גם כן מאלו השירים השקולים אבל לא באותו שלמות מופלג שנעשו בלשון העברי

ואחר כך נעתקה המלאכה היקרה הזאת אל חכמי עמנו שהיו בארץ פרובינצייא וקאטילונייא וגם במלכות אראגון ומלכות קאשטילייא וידברו באלקים ובכל חכמה ודעת כפלים לתושיה מה מתוק מדבש ומה עז מארי.

ולהיות המין הזה מהשירים מחודש בגלות והם חדשים מקרוב באו לא שערום נביאינו וחכמינו הראשונים ז"ל לכן אין לנו במקום הזה [ר"ל, מחקר בגדר שירת הים - י'] צורך לדבר בהם כי לא התה מהם שירת הים.8

[Emphasis added.]

Milton on Rhyme

The particular poetic technique of rhyme, as opposed to other formal elements of structure, was magisterially disparaged by one of the very greatest English poets, a man perhaps best known to many readers of The Tradition Seforim Blog as a subject of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's doctoral dissertation:9

THE Measure is English Heroic Verse without Rime, as that of Homer in Greek, and Virgil in Latin; Rhime being no necessary Adjunct or true Ornament of Poem or good Verse, in longer Works especially, but the Invention of a barbarous Age, to set off wretched matter and lame Meeter; grac't indeed since by the use of some famous modern Poets, carried away by Custom, but much to thir own vexation, hindrance, and constraint to express many things otherwise, and for the most part worse then else they would have exprest them. Not without cause therefore some both Italian, and Spanish Poets of prime note have rejected Rhime both in longer and shorter Works, as have also long since our best English Tragedies, as a thing of itself, to all judicious ears, triveal, and of no true musical delight; which consists onely in apt Numbers, fit quantity of Syllables, and the sense variously drawn out from one Verse into another, not in the jingling sound of like endings, a fault avoyded by the learned Ancients both in Poetry and all good Oratory. This neglect then of Rhime so little is to be taken for a defect, though it may seem so perhaps to vulgar Readers, that it rather is to be esteem'd an example set, the first in English, of ancient liberty recover'd to heroic Poem from the troublesom and modern bondage of Rimeing.10

Rhyme and Grammar in Conflict

Even if we disagree with Milton and grant the value of rhyme, we must still consider whether it is right to sacrifice grammar on the altar of rhyme. Rav Avraham Ibn Ezra, in his notorious, sarcastic diatribe against the Kallir is quite clear that he does not think so:

יש בפיוטי רבי אליעזר הקליר מנוחתו כבוד, ארבעה דברים קשים: ...

והדבר השלישי, אפילו המלות שהם בלשון הקודש יש בהם טעויות גדולות ...

ועוד כי לשון הקודש ביד רבי אליעזר נ"ע עיר פרוצה אין חומה, שיעשה מן הזכרים נקבות והפך הדבר ואמר "שושן עמק אויימה", וידוע כי ה"א שושנה לשון נקבה וישוב הה"א תי"ו כשיהיה סמוך שושנת העמקים, ובסור הה"א או התי"ו יהיה לשון זכר כמו צדקה וצדק. ואיך יאמר על שושן אויימה, ולמה ברח מן הפסוק ולא אמר שושנת עמק אויימה. ועוד מה ענין לשושנה שיתארנה באימה, התפחד השושנה? ואין תואר השושנה כי אם קטופה או רעננה או יבשה.

אמר אחד מחכמי הדור, הוצרך לומר אויימה, בעבור שתהיה חרוזתו עשירה. השיבותי אם זאת חרוזה עשירה, הנה יש בפיוטיו חרוזים עניים ואביונים מחזרים על הפתחים, שחיבר הר עם נבחר. אם בעבור היות שניהם מאותיות הגרון, אם כן יחבר עמה אל"ף ועי"ן, ועם הבי"ת והוי"ו שהוא גם מחבר לוי עם נביא, יחבר עמם מ"ם ופ"ה, ויהיו כל החרוזים חמשה כמספר מוצאי האותיות. ואם סיבת חיבור ה"א עם חי"ת בעבור היות דמותם קרובות במכתב, אם כן יחבר רי"ש עם דל"ת, ואף כי מצאנו דעואל רעואל דודנים רודנים. וכן יחבר משפטים עם פתים, כי הם ממוצא אחד, ונמצא הטי"ת תמורת תי"ו במלת נצטדק הצטיידנו ויצטירו. וכן חיבר ויום עם פדיון ועליון, גם זה איננו נכון, אע"פ שנמצא מ"ם במקום נו"ן כמו חיין וחטין, איך יחליף מ"ם יום שהוא שורש עם נו"ן עליון, פדיון שהוא מן עלה ופדה והוא איננו שרש. ועוד, מה ענין החרוז רק שיהיה ערב לאוזן ותרגיש כי סוף זה כסוף זה, ואולי היתה לו הרגשה ששית שירגיש בה כי המ"ם כמו הנו"ן ואינמו ממוצא אחד. ועוד חבר עושר עם עשר תעשר, גם זה איננו נכון, רק אם היה המתפלל אפרתי.

יש אומרים אין משיבין את הארי אחר מותו, התשובה: רוח קל עשתנו כלנו, ומחומר קורצו הקדמונים כמונו, ואוזן מלים תבחן. וכלנו נדע כי דניאל היה נביא, ורב על כל חרטומי בבל וחכמיה. והנה אמרו חכמים ז"ל, טעה דניאל בחשבונו, והחשבון הוא דבר קל. ועוד כי ירמיה הנביא בזמן דניאל היה, ואחר שהראו חכמינו הראיה על טעותו, האמור יאמר להם אילו היה דניאל חי היה מטעה המטעים אותו?! ואחרים אמרו רחמנא ליבא בעי, א"כ למה נצטרך לדבר כי הוא יודע תעלומות לב, והלא תקנו הקדמונים לאמר בצום כפור, היה עם פיפיות שלוחי עמך בית ישראל, ואל יכשלו בלשונם.11

[Emphasis added.]

We see that Ibn Ezra criticizes the Kallir for alleged grammatical lapses, and in response to a defense by “one of the sages of the generation” that his deviations were compelled by the rhyme, he sneers that many of his rhymes are actually of very poor quality. It seems clear, however, that Ibn Ezra believes that even exemplary rhyming does not justify disobedience to the laws of grammar.

A Poetical Romance

This apparent disagreement between Rihal and Ibn Ezra about the strictness with which poetry must adhere to grammatical conventions is quite ironic in light of the delightful, albeit preposterous, legend which relates Ibn Ezra's winning of the hand of Rihal's beautiful daughter to his impressing her father with his poetical prowess:

ושמעתי אומרים שרבי יהודה הלוי בעל הכוזר היה עשיר גדול ולא היה לו זולתי בת אחת יפה וכשהגדילה היתה אשתו לוחצתו להשיאה בחייו. עד שפעם אחת כעס הזקן אישה וקפץ בשבועה להשיאה אל היהודי ראשון שיבא לפניו. ויהי בבוקר ויכנס ר' אברהם ן' עזרא במקרה לבוש מלבושי הסחבות. ובראות האשה העני הלז נזכרה משבועת אישה ויפלו פניה עם כל זה התחילה לחקור אותו מה שמו ואם היה יודע תורה ויתנכר האיש ולא נודע ממנו האמת. ותלך האשה אל בעלה למדרשו ותבכה לפניו וכו' ויאמר אליה רבי יהודה אל תפחדי אני אלמדנו תורה ואגדיל שמו. ויצא אליו רבי יהודה וידבר אתו ויגנוב ן' עזרא את לבבו ויכס ממנו את שמו ואחר רוב תחנוני רבי יהודה הערים ן' עזרא להתחיל ללמוד ממנו תורה והיה מתמיד בערמה ומראה עצמו כעושה פרי.

לילה אחת ויתאחר רבי יהודה לצאת מבית מדרשו וזה כי נתקשה לו מאד על חבור תיבת ר' שבפזמון אדון חסדך. והיתה אשתו קוראה אותו לאכול לחם ולא בא והלכה האשה ותפצר בו עד כי בא לאכול וישאל ן' עזרא אל רבי יהודה מה היה לו במדרש שנתאחר כל כך ויהתל בו הזקן ון' עזרא הפציר בו עד שהאשה החשובה ההיא הלכה אל מדרש אישה כי גם היא היתה חכמה ותקח מחברת אישה ותרא אותה לן' עזרא ויקם ן' עזרא ויקח הקולמוס והתחיל לתקן בב' או בג' מקומות בפזמון וכשהגיע לתיבת ריש כתב כל הבית הראשון ההוא המתחיל רצה הא' לשמור כפלים וכו' וכראות רבי יהודה הדבר שמח מאד ויחבקהו וינשקהו ויאמר לו עתה ידעתי כי ן' עזרא אתה וחתן אתה לי ואז העביר ן' עזרא המסווה מעל פניו והודה ולא בוש ויתן לו רבי יהודה את בתו לאשה עם כל עשרו.

ורבי יהודה לאט לו חבר הבית של תיבת ריש בפזמונו שמתחיל רחשה אסתר למלך וכו' ורצה שגם תיבת ריש תשאר שם בכתובים לכבודו12

The entire hymn can be found here; the two stanzas for the letter 'ר' are:

רצה האחד לשמור כפלים

משמרתו ומשמרת חברו שתי ידים

והשני סם בספל המים

שׁם שׂם לו

and

רחשה אסתר למלך באמרי שפר

בשם מרדכי ונכתב בספר

בקש ונמצא לפני צבי עופר

כי בול הרים ישאו לו

Of course, this charming, romantic account is almost certainly not true, as already noted by Rav Yair Haim Bacharach:

רבי יהודה הלוי חתנו של רבי אברהם ן' עזרא [צריך לומר חותנו, כי הרבי אברהם ן' עזרא לקח בתו. ובפסוק אנכי [שמות כ:ב] הביאו ולא זכרו בשם חמיו וכתב עליו 'מנוחתו כבוד', לכן נראה שאחר מותו לקח בתו. ועיין הקדמת הרבי יהודה מוסקאטי לפירושו קול יהודה לספר הכוזרי, גם מה שכתב מאמר א' סימן כ"ה וסוף מאמר ג' סימן ל"ה.

ומה ששמעתי וקריתי בספר שעל ידי חיבור נפלא דפורים שכל החרוזות סיימות בפסוק במלת 'לו' והוא בתפלה ספרדית, דפעם אחת שנתארח הרבי אברהם ן' עזרא אצלו וחקר ופשפש ומצא הפיוט חסר אות ריש בסדר א"ב הראשון, והניח הרבי יהודה הלוי מקום פנוי כי לא ידע לחבר לשם אות ריש, וכתב הרבי אברהם ן' עזרא 'רחשה אסתר למלך' ונודע לרבי יהודה ונתן לו בתו, כזב הוא]13



It is interesting that although Rav Bacharach dismisses the fanciful tale out of hand, he still takes for granted that Ibn Ezra did actually marry Rihal's daughter, even after acknowledging that Ibn Ezra does not refer to Rihal as his father-in-law, an omission which he needs to explain away by positing that the marriage occurred after Rihal's death. This acceptance of their relationship is seemingly based on earlier sources, such as Rav Yehudah Moscato (whom he mentions, as we have seen), who have mentioned it without the accompaniment of the implausible context:

[וריהל] היה חותנו של רבי אברהם ן' עזרא לפי מה שקבלנו. וכבר נזכרו שניהם סמוכים זה לזה בסוף קבלת הראב"ד, וכתוב בספר יוחסין שהיו בני שני אחיות14

והביטה לראות כי מה שכתב הרבי אברהם ן' עזרא פרשת יתרו על פסוק אנכי ד' אלקיך כי שאלה זו עצמה נשאלה לו מאת חותנו רבי יהודה הלוי מנוחתו כבוד ...15

We should also note that the Syrians apparently accept the basic tradition of Ibn Ezra's hand in the composition of the Purim hymn in question, but without the romantic element of the marriage; here is Rabbi Sabato's version:

[Doctor Yehudah Tawil's] community in Aleppo had customarily recited this hymn before the reading of the Torah on the Sabbath of Remembrance, for it told the story of Esther in an alphabetic acrostic. When he reached the letter w he read: "Wonderful sayings whispered Esther the Queen." He remembered the Aleppo prayer book that contained two renditions of the verse for the letter W. The el ]]> Yehuda ha-Levi Yitzhak - בין דין לדין Tue, 12 May 2009 14:47:48 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/12/Wine-Women--Song-Some-Remarks-on-Poetry--Grammar--Part-I Non-Jewish Iconography in Hebrew Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/8/NonJewish-Iconography-in-Hebrew-Books As we have discussed on numerous occasions, Hebrew books contain a fair amount of non-Jewish iconography and imagery that is of non-Jewish origin.  See, for example, here, here, here and here.  Of course, Marvin Heller's article on Mars and Minerva appearing on Hebrew title pages, Marvin Heller, "Mars and Minerva on the Hebrew Title-Page," in Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 98:3, Sept. 2004, reprinted in Heller's collected articles Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (which will be reviewed separately in the very near future), is the starting point for much of this discussion. There is an article in this week's Jewish Press that also discusses this issue.  The article is available Judaica Store. 

It is, however, worth noting a few things.  First, the article discusses the hare hunt motif that is found in various Jewish books, most notably in the Prague 1526 haggadah and the Mantua 1560 haggadah.  This illustration appears in manuscripts as well, and in the Darmstadt Haggadah, it is not a hare hunt but a deer hunt.  The deer, of course, is a more well known Jewish motif and thus would obviate the issue of representing Jews as a hare.  That said, it is unlikely that the deer hunt in the Darmstadt haggadah can be used to explain the hunting motif as it is likely that the illustrations in that haggadah are of non-Jewish origin.  Indeed, Gutmann notes that the illustrations accompanying this haggadah have no connection to the text and are likely non-Jewish. 

Additionally, it is worth noting,with regard to the Prague 1526 haggadah and its illustrations, there is a book that is devoted to explaining the history and meaning of the Prague 1526 haggadah, Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut, Shulsinger Bros., New York, 1967.  Wengrov discusses all the illustration in this, seminal, haggadah.  Additionally, he discusses the history of the various woodcuts, both in their forms in the Prague haggadah as well as the motifs they employ.  Wengrov's discussions encompass both printed and manuscript haggadahs.

Returning to non-Jewish iconography, a most radical but intriguing theory related to this topic can be found in Ruth Mellinkoff, Antisemitic Hate Signs in Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts from Medieval Germany, Center for Jewish Art -Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1999.  Mellinkoff offers a completly different theory for the bird's heads in the famous Bird's Head Haggadah. Mellinkoff opines that in reality these are not bird's heads but bird's beaks on human heads.  Thus, she offers that the bird's beaks are substitutions for large or beak-like noses.  She explains that in reality these illustrations are the work of a non-Jewish illustrator who was attempting to subtly use well know anti-Semitic tropes like large noses and, in some illustrations, pigs ears.  See id. pp. 11-29, 35-37.  Aside from the Bird's Head Haggadah, Mellinkoff provides other Hebrew manuscripts that apparently have similar anti-Semitic signs as well. 



]]> Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 08 May 2009 11:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/8/NonJewish-Iconography-in-Hebrew-Books New Books from Biegeleisen - May 2009 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/7/New-Books-from-Biegeleisen--May-2009 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.


]]> New Books Thu, 07 May 2009 20:54:50 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/5/7/New-Books-from-Biegeleisen--May-2009 New Books from Biegeleisen http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/3/11/New-Books-from-Biegeleisen New Books from Biegeleisen


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. 




]]> New Books Book Reviews Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/3/11/New-Books-from-Biegeleisen Elliott Horowitz - Modern Amalekites: From Adolf to Avigdor http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/3/6/Elliott-Horowitz--Modern-Amalekites-From-Adolf-to-Avigdor
In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Prof. Elliott Horowitz of Bar Ilan University and co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review, described Isaiah Berlin on Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Saul Lieberman [see here].
 
This is his fourth contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.

 

Modern Amalekites: From Adolf to Avigdor

by Elliott Horowitz

Well before the outbreak of World War II the Nazi regime in Germany came to be associated by many Jews with Israel’s ancient arch-enemy, Amalek. Perhaps the first to do so was the noted historian Simon Dubnow who in a 1935 (Hebrew) letter from Riga to his disciple Simon Rawidowicz bemoaned the recently promulgated Nuremberg Laws, and then prophetically exclaimed “We are at war with Amalek!” During that same decade some ultra-Orthodox European rabbis were using the epithet of “Amalek” with reference to their more secular coreligionists who adhered to such modern ideologies as Communism or Zionism. This was true, for example, of the great Talmudist R. Elhanan Wasserman, one of the leaders of Agudat Yisrael, who like Dubnow was to meet his death in 1941 at the hands of the Nazis. Wasserman, who had studied in Volozhin and Telz before joining the kollel of the Hafetz Hayyim (R. Israel Meir Ha-Kohen, 1838-1933), cited the latter’s confident opinion that the Soviet Jewish communists (known as the Yevsektzia) were “descendants of Amalek.” Ironically, his even more ultra-Orthodox Hungarian contemporary R. Hayyim Elazar Spira of Munkacz (1872-1937) included among the ranks of modern Amalekites not only the Zionists, but also the members and leadership of Agudat Yisrael.1

 
In September of 1941 Joseph Hertz, the Chief Rabbi of (what was then still) the British Empire, delivered a thundering sermon at a public “intercession service” held on the ruins of London’s Great Synagogue, which had just been destroyed by German bombs. Drawing upon the previous week’s scriptural reading from Deuteronomy 25, which is also the “additional” reading for Shabbat Zakhor, Hertz referred to Nazi Germany as “Amalek’s latest spiritual descendant; he fears not God; he closes the gates of mercy on those who cannot resist his might.” The Chief Rabbi stressed that God’s war with Amalek was not to be left in divine hands, but was to be “carried out by…men and nations filled with an endless loathing of Amalek and all his works and ways.” He also praised those Jews who had shown support for “our beloved country in her struggle to blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens of the Lord.”2
 
Hertz, who had studied at New York’s City College (where he received a gold medal for English composition) before attending the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (of which he was the first rabbinical graduate), was not the first British clergyman to portray the Germans as contemporary Amalekites. Early in October of 1939, shortly after his arrival in Jerusalem to serve as chaplain of St. Andrew’s Scottish Church (and a month after Germany’s invasion of Poland), Dr. Norman Maclean chose as the text for his Sunday sermon the account (in Exodus 17) of Amalek’s attack at Rephidim. The prayer by Moses on the adjacent hill-top, asserted Maclean (1869-1952), who had earlier served as minister of St. Cuthbert’s Church in Edinburgh, “described our duty in the grim conflict now being waged.” Then as now “the nations which abolished God or reduced Him to a tribal deity confronted the nations that held fast to the faith of their fathers.” In the balance, both at Rephidim and in the present, lay nothing less than “the fate of the world’s soul.”3
 

The connection between the world’s soul and the Jewish people had concerned Rev. Maclean (to whom I hope to return in a future post) well before his arrival in Jerusalem, which he first visited in 1934. During the First World War, while still serving at St. Cuthbert’s he contributed a foreword to Leon Levison’s The Jew in History (1916) which opened with the words: “The world owes its soul to the Jews.” In consonance with that position Maclean shared the hope of Levison, his Safed-born brother in Christ,4 that the war’s end “may be the restoration of the Jews to Palestine,” which Maclean saw as “the only lasting reparation that Christendom can make for centuries of wrong,” adding that “it was a disgrace that the holy places of Christianity should be in the hands of Mohammedans.”

 
Not surprisingly, Rev. Maclean, whose views were not quite in consonance with those of Britain’s Mandatory representatives, did not last very long at St. Andrews in Jerusalem. Early in January of 1941 the Palestine Post laconically reported that “Dr. Norman Maclean and the Hon. Mrs. Maclean are planning to return to Britain shortly.” Several months later he completed his tenth book, His Terrible Swift Sword: On the Problem of Jewish Immigration to Palestine (1942), which he had begun writing “on the summit of one of the hills of Judah looking down on Ain Karem,” but completed in Portree on the Island of Skye. As the Palestine Post reported, it was prohibited for importation into Palestine by the High Commissioner (Harold MacMichael) who may not have approved of such passages as: “Nine months after we declared war on Hitlerism, victims of Hitlerism are still in Athlit (p. 16).” Shortly after the book’s publication Maclean spoke at an event sponsored by the Jewish National Fund at London’s Dorchester hotel.5
 
At that event he may well have met Chief Rabbi Hertz, who was a fervent Zionist - a position of which not all prominent British Jews then approved. Had Maclean crossed the ocean to visit New York City he could, of course, have met many rabbis who shared his criticisms of British immigration policy, including Israel Levinthal of the Brooklyn Jewish Center. The Vilna-born and Columbia-educated Levinthal, like many of his coreligionists and fellow clergymen on both sides of the Atlantic, saw Hitler as a modern-day Haman and the Nazis as Amalekites, but by 1947 he was also willing to add others to the list. In a sermon delivered on Shabbat Zakhor of that year (and later published in his collection Judaism Speaks to the Modern World) he asserted that the British, who earlier “pretended to be friends of Jewish Palestine” now “suddenly reveal themselves as the modern Amalek,” and that Ernest Bevin, the Labour government’s foreign secretary, “is just like Haman himself.”6
 
It is unlikely that such ardent religious Zionists as Hertz and Levinthal were able to imagine that in the Jewish state they hoped and prayed for chief rabbis would emerge who would hurl the epithet of “Amalek” at fellow Jews, including members of parliament. Yet as many readers will recall, less than a decade ago R. Ovadia Yosef compared then-education minister Yossi Sarid to Haman, adding that “he is wicked and satanic and must be erased like Amalek.” Although the office of then-attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein pursued a criminal investigation on grounds of possible incitement to violence the redoubtable Rishon le-Zion was never charged. He was thus understandably less reluctant to make use of the same rabbinical WMD during the recent elections, when many Shas supporters showed signs of leaving the Sephardi Sage of Har Nof for the Russian Rage of Nokdim. At the same Saturday night live broadcast at which R. Ovadiah had in 2000 asserted that Sarid “must be erased like Amalek” he turned his rhetorical rifle to the right and aimed it at MK Avigdor Lieberman, announcing that “a vote for Lieberman was a vote for Amalek."
 
Notes:

1 See Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 140-41, and the sources cited there.

2 See Joseph H. Hertz, Early and Late: Addresses, Messages, and Papers (Hindhead: The Soncino Press, 1943), 67-69.

3 Palestine Post, 2 October 1939. Maclean’s imminent arrival, together with that of his wife, was reported in the same publication on 9 May of that year. The couple had previously been living on the Island of Skye.

4 On Levison see Frederick Levison, Christian and Jew: The Life of Leon Levison, 1881-1936 (Edinburgh: The Pentland Press, 1989).

5 idem., 4 June 1942, 17 September 1942.

6 Israel H. Levinthal, Judaism Speaks to the Modern World (London: Abelard-Schuman, 1963), 77-84. On Levinthal see Kimmy Caplan, “The Life and Sermons of Israel Herbert Levinthal (1882-1982),” American Jewish History 87:1 (March 1999): 1-27.


]]> Elliott Horowitz Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:57:09 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/3/6/Elliott-Horowitz--Modern-Amalekites-From-Adolf-to-Avigdor Daniel J. Lasker - Birkat Ha-Hammah 5769 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/23/Birkat-HaHammah-5769 Get Ready – It's Almost Time to Bless the Sun

by Daniel J. Lasker

Daniel J. Lasker is Norbert Blechner Professor of Jewish Values at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, and is chair of the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought. His landmark work Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages, originally published in 1977, was recently republished with a new introduction in 2007.

This is Professor Lasker's second post at the Seforim blog. His previous post about ve-ten tal u-matar li-verakha was entitled "December 6 Is Coming: Get Out the Umbrellas," and is available here.


לזכר אבי מורי ז"ל


In less than two months, on April 8, 2009 (Erev Pesah, 14th Nisan, 5769), the once- in-28-years Blessing of the Sun (Birkat ha-Hammah) will be recited, celebrating the occasion when the sun returns to the position where it was when it was first created, on the same day of the week and the same hour of the day as it was then. For those with short and medium range memories, and for those who were toddlers or perhaps not even born in 1981, it is useful to review the reason for this ceremony, one of the very few Jewish events which follow a solar calendar rather than our standard Jewish luni-solar calendar. This year's Blessing is the first one in the internet age, so it is appropriate to publicize it on a blog; one can only imagine what technological breakthroughs will be around at the time of the next Blessing in 2037. [More] ]]> Daniel J. Lasker Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:11:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/23/Birkat-HaHammah-5769 Milah Books & Manuals http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/19/Milah-Books--Manuals Milah Books & Manuals
by Eliezer Brodt & Ish Sefer

Much has been written on milah. Hebrew Books has over forty seforim on this topic. There are those books that discuss the various controversies, including abolishing milah in toto[1] or specific parts of milah such as metzizah be-peh.[2] Others focus on the philosophic and theological implications of milah.[3]  This post, however, will focus on two types of milah books , one what we will refer to as milah manuals and the second, books about milah. The former is comprised of books that explain, in detail, the process of milah - these can include the physical process, i.e. how the surgery is to take place, as well as the more esoteric processes such as thoughts or prayers that are to accompany the milah.  The second type of book doesn't focus on the technical aspects of milah but instead focuses on the customs, the laws, etc. that are connected with the surgery.  One final point, this is not intended to be a complete bibliography of either type of work, instead, we have picked out a few titles that hopefully will be of interest to the readers. 

Milah Manuals

The first manual up for discussion is R. Tzvi Benyamin Auerbach's, Brit Avraham,  Frankfort, 1860. This book includes a nice introduction dealing with a history of the Ravan as well as other Rishonim.  Additionally, all the liturgy associated with brit and explanations of the liturgy is included.  There is a section on the laws relating to milah.  At the beginning of this section, Auerbach notes that although he takes a different view of some of rules governing milah, he provides explainations for his divergent opinions in another section.  Indeed, Auerbach does provide a detailed discussion of the law of milah including a discussion of most, if not all, relevant opinions.  Interestingly, although the laws and liturgy are in Hebrew, this section, the section discussing the bases for Auerbach's opinions, is in German.  Not only is it in German, but in Latin characters indicating that Auerbach was trying to demonstrate the correctness of his opinion to only those who could read German.  Let us explain.  Auerbach's work includes one other section in the vernacular.  That section discusses various cures associated with milah. This section is written in Yiddish in Hebrew characters.  Auerbach explains that he did so "so that even those who do not understand Hebrew will understand this section." Thus, there are three potential audiences for this book.  Those who only understand Yiddish, those who understand Hebrew, and finally, those who understand German as well. [More] ]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs Book Reviews Bibliographies Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/19/Milah-Books--Manuals Review of Quntres http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/8/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.
]]> Censorship Book Reviews B. Jackson Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/8/Review-of-Quntres David Berger: A Brief Response To Marc B. Shapiro http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/2/David-Berger-A-Brief-Response-To-Marc-Shapiro
A Brief Response To Marc B. Shapiro 
by David Berger

In response to Prof. Marc B. Shapiro's recent comments in, "Thoughts on Confrontation & Sundry Matters Part II," Prof. David Berger, submitted the following response to readers of the Tradition-Seforim blog. For the recently-published paperback edition of his book on Lubavitch messianism, which follows the Hebrew translation of his book -- see David Berger,HaRebbe Melekh HaMashiach, Sah'aruriyyat ha-Adishut, ve-ha-Iyyum al Emunat Yisrael (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2005) -- and which includes a new introduction where he responds to earlier criticisms of the book, see David Berger, The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, With a new Introduction  (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2008).

This is his first contribution to the Tradition Seforim blog.


Since I've written an entire book about Chabad messianism, there is little point in my rehearsing the arguments here in truncated form.  I will make just two brief observations.

First, Prof. Shapiro writes, "Unlike Professor David Berger, it doesn't overly concern me that the belief in a Second Coming didn't exist twenty years ago. After all, Judaism is a developing religion."  My point, of course, is not that the belief did not exist twenty years ago. It is that Jews through the ages repeatedly--through both word and deed--rejected the possibility that God would send the Messiah to announce that redemption was imminent, preside over a movement identifying him as the Messiah, and then die in an unredeemed world.  In short, Chabad messianism destroys the gedarim, or defining parameters, of one of the ikkarei he-emunah.  Since this point was a key argument used against Christianity for untold generations, rendering it false is a betrayal not only of the Jewish faith but of generations of Jewish martyrs.

Second, there is the reality of toleration by rabbinic leaders (my "scandal of indifference"), which for Prof. Shapiro determines not only what Judaism has become but what we ought to accept as legitimate.  Now, in discussing Christianity, he goes on to say that the incarnation, or belief that a human being is God, is way over the line.  He does not, however, return to Chabad in that part of his discussion, because he would be required to confront his earlier criterion with all its terrible consequences.  I have shown that a significant segment of Chabad hasidim (not just a few lunatics) maintain a fully incarnationist doctrine, and yet the rabbis who believe this (including some of Prof Shapiro's "great Torah scholars" who allegedly deserve respect despite their adherence to the "messianic foolishness") are also generally treated as Orthodox rabbis in every respect.  The reasons for this indifference are discussed in chapter 13 of my book, and they have little to do with theology.  It may indeed be that even this belief will become so legitimated that Judaism will be fundamentally transformed; it is, however, much too early to make such a judgment even about "mere" messianism, and it is beyond irresponsible to look at this development with the cool eye of an analyst without attempting to stem the tide.  Historic Judaism is in mortal danger.  Let outsiders watch this process in detached fascination.  Those of us who care about preserving the faith of our ancestors must take a stand.  If we fail, the proper reaction will not be to accept this with equanimity as analogous to the distribution of shirayim; it will be to tear keriah as we mourn the destruction of core elements of our faith.
]]> David Berger Marc B. Shapiro Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/2/2/David-Berger-A-Brief-Response-To-Marc-Shapiro Message From Professor Haym Soloveitchik http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/30/Message-From-Professor-Haym-Soloveitchik
Message From Professor Haym Soloveitchik

It has come to my attention that a critique of my article "Halakhah, Hermeneutics and Martyrdom" published by the Jewish Quarterly Review has appeared in the Tradition Seforim blog in Fall of 2008. In principle, I do not respond to blogs, as this would place my time at the mercy of anyone who can type. However, I am preparing my articles for re-publication in 3 volumes by the Littman Library. The articles will be reproduced as originally published. However, I hope to relate to new developments in the prefaces to the individual essays. I welcome any criticism or relevant notes that individuals would send me. If I find merit in their remarks, I will note it; if their criticism seems substantive, I will try to address it.

I should add, I will not respond to anonymous communications. As I view such traffic as inappropriate. Intellectual engagement entails reciprocity of exposure. To criticize others behind a shield of anonymity is to my thinking craven and unworthy of a scholar or talmid hakham.

Haym Soloveitchik (solo@yu.edu)
Merkin Family Research Professor at Yeshiva University

]]> Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:26:24 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/30/Message-From-Professor-Haym-Soloveitchik Marc B. Shapiro: Thoughts on Confrontation & Sundry Matters Part II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part-
Thoughts on "Confrontation" and Sundry Matters Part II


By: Marc B. Shapiro



What follows is a continuation of this post.

Some people are so set on showing the differences between Christianity and Judaism that in the process they end up distorting Judaism. Let me start with an example that for the last fifteen years must be considered a Jewish teaching. By Jewish teaching I mean a view that is taught in the observant community. This doesn't mean that all or even most people will agree with it, anymore than they agree with the ideas of Daas Torah, religious Zionism, religious anti-Zionism, or that the shirayim of the Rebbe has mystical significance. But agree or not, these are clearly Jewish teachings.

Today it must be admitted that Judaism and Christianity share a belief in the Second Coming of the Messiah. While this is an obligatory belief for Christians, for Jews it is, like so many other notions, simply an option. The truth of my statement is seen in the fact that messianist Habad is part and parcel of traditional Judaism, and, scandal or not, most of the leading Torah authorities have been indifferent to this. That is, they see it as a mistaken belief, but not one that pushes its adherent out of the fold. In other words, it is like so many other false ideas in Judaism, all of which fall under the rubric "Jewish beliefs." As long as these beliefs don't cross any red lines, the adherents are regarded as part of the traditional Jewish community.

To give a parallel example, many people reading this post are good rationalists, and therefore regard astrology as quite foolish. But we are all well aware of the many Jewish teachers who taught the efficacy of this system. Therefore, astrology must be regarded as an acceptable belief for adherents of traditional Judaism. Whether it is correct or not is a completely different matter, and if the latter criteria determines whether something is included under the rubric of traditional Judaism, then it will be a small tent indeed.

Unlike Professor David Berger, it doesn't overly concern me that the belief in a Second Coming didn't exist twenty years ago. After all, Judaism is a developing religion. Two hundred years ago leading Torah scholars criticized Hasidism for advocating all sorts of new ideas, and yet these too became part of Judaism. In another fifty years the notion of a Jewish Second Coming will probably be seen by most as just another Hasidic eccentricity (albeit the province of only one sect), up there with prayers after the proper time and shirayim. The important point for me is what makes a belief an acceptable one in Judaism is not whether it is new, and certainly not whether it is correct, but whether the rabbinic leaders tolerate it. Over time they have shown that they can tolerate all sorts of foolish doctrines, Habad messianism being merely the latest.

Professor Berger argued his case valiantly, but it has largely fallen on deaf ears, and this includes the ears of great Torah scholars. So, like it or not, traditional Judaism now encompasses hasidim and mitnagdim, rationalists and kabbalists, Zionists and anti-Zionists, and those who think the Messiah will be coming for the first time together with those who think it will be a return trip.

What has occurred with Habad messianism and its painless integration into wider Orthodoxy can also teach us something with regard to the history of Judaism and Christianity. Had Paul not insisted on his antinomian path, that is, had the Law remained central to early Christianity, there is no reason to assume that there would have been a break with Pharisaic Judaism.

When thinking about Habad, there is one other point we have to bear in mind. There are great Torah scholars who unfortunately believe the messianic foolishness, and they should be treated with respect. After all, R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, the Hida, quoted from the works of scholars who continued to believe in Shabbetai Zvi even after his apostasy.33 He certainly opposed their Sabbatianism, and we must oppose the Habad messianism, but one's religious legitimacy in contemporary Orthodoxy is not destroyed because of the belief in a false Messiah.

Let me now return to an issue mentioned already, namely, the naivete in dealing with the differences between Judaism and Christianity that is common in Orthodox circles, especially among those who engage in apologetics and kiruv type activities. To give an example that I have both seen in print and heard in lectures, there are those who talk about how compared to Catholicism Judaism is a much more realistic religion when it comes to divorce, in that it permits it if people don't get along. That is fine, as far as it goes, but some people then go overboard and denigrate any outlook that opposes "Judaism's position." In doing so, these well-meaning people end up of denigrating Beit Shammai's view. Some will recall that Beit Shammai said that "a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found in her some unseemly conduct" (Gittin 9:10), which means unchastity. Now the halakhah is not in accord with Beit Shammai, but his is certainly a Jewish position. Any presentation of Judaism that presents the standard view of divorce as "the" Jewish position, and denigrates any other approach, has the unintended consequence of denigrating Beit Shammai as not having had a "Jewish" position.

In other words, it is disparaging to Beit Shammai for any contemporary to speak about how Beit Hillel's view is "better" than that of Beit Shammai. In fact, there are traditional sources that speak about how in Messianic days the halakhah will follow Beit Shammai, in this and in all other disputes. I think the traditional position would be to assert that Beit Hillel's position is not objectively any "better", and certainly not more ethical, than that of Beit Shammai. Furthermore, a number of poskim actually hold that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai only dispute about a second (or subsequent) marriage, but that with regard to the first marriage, Beit Hillel agrees with Beit Shammai that a man can divorce his wife only if he finds a matter of unchastity. R. Solomon ben Simeon Duran goes even further and asserts that in this dispute the halakhah is actually in accord with Beit Shammai!34ואע"ג דב"ש וב"ה הלכה כב"ה משמע הכא דהלכה כב"ש

This is not the accepted halakhah, but it illustrates how unseemly it is to portray a position held by important poskim as out of touch or foolish. As mentioned above, I have seen many times when apologists try to show the beauty of Judaism by contrasting it positively with some "non-Jewish" position (on the unsophisticated assumption that the best way to better their position is by denigrating another). As noted, I have also observed that sometimes the position they are denigrating happens to also be a Jewish position (just not the accepted position). Of course, when you point this out to them, and show them that the way they were arguing had the unintended consequence of ridiculing a position held by traditional Jewish figures, they immediately apologize and give assurances that they won't do so again.

My question always is, why not? Five minutes ago they were happy to declare how unfair or foolish a certain position is, and once being informed that the position is also held by Jewish thinkers they drop their argument like a hot potato. Are we to conclude that it is not the inherent logic of an argument that gives it validity, but only who its adherents are? Does an approach only stop being ridiculous when the polemicist learns that it was held by a traditional thinker? Obviously yes, which leads to the conclusion that there is no purpose in the polemicist arguing the merits of his case at all, since everything he states is only conditional. In other words, the polemicist is telling us: "I can attack a position as being foolish and illogical, but this is only when I think the position is held by non-Jewish or non-traditional thinkers. Once I learn that the position is also held by traditional thinkers, all of my previous words of criticism should be regarded as null and void." This is another example of what elsewhere I have termed the "elastic" nature of Jewish apologetics and polemics.

With this in mind, let me now say something that I know will make many people uncomfortable, but which I have felt for a long time. Throughout Jewish literature one can find any number of explanations as to how the notion of the Trinity is in direct opposition to Jewish teachings, since Judaism demands a simple, unified God. There is no doubt that for much of our history this was the standard view. However, once the doctrine of the sefirot arises on the scene, matters change. Many of the arguments put forth by kabbalists to explain why the belief in the sefirot does not detract from God's essential unity could also be used to justify the Trinity, a fact recognized by the opponents of the sefirotic doctrine. Since the doctrine of the sefirot has become part and parcel of Judaism, we must now acknowledge that Judaism does not require a simple Maimonidean-like, divine unity.

In fact, without any reference to the sefirot, R. Judah Aryeh Modena was able to conclude that one could indeed justify the notion of the Trinity so that it did not stand in opposition to basic Jewish beliefs about God's unity. As Modena points out in his anti-Christian polemic, Magen va-Herev, the real Jewish objection to the Christian godhead is not found in any notion of a Triune God, but in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.35 The idea that God assumed human form, i.e., that a human is also God, is regarded by us as way over the line. This is not only because it deifies a human, but also because there is a great difference between a spiritual God divided into different "parts," and an actual physical division in God. The latter is certainly in violation of God's unity even according to the most extreme sefirotic formulations. (It would not, however, appear to be in violation of R. Moses Taku's understanding of God, since he posits that God can assume form in this world at the same time that He is in the heavens. For Taku, Christianity's heresy would thus be seen only in their worship of a human, which is avodah zarah.)

From the Trinity, let's turn to Virgin Birth, another phenomenon which everyone knows is not a Jewish concept, or is it? If by Virgin Birth one means conception through the agency of God, then there is no such concept in Judaism. Yet if by Virgin Birth we also include conception without the presence of human sperm, then as we shall soon see, this indeed accepted by some scholars. (I stress human sperm, so that we can exclude the legend of Ben Sira's conception, which occurred by means of a bathtub, not to mention all of the responsa dealing with artificial insemination.)

Pre-modern man believed in all sorts of strange things, one of which was the concept of the incubus and the succubus, which was found in many cultures. The idea was that male and female demons would have sex with humans while they slept. Among the outstanding Christian figures who believed the notion possible include Augustine and Aquinas.36 This was an especially good way to explain an unwanted pregnancy: just blame it on the demon. While the classic example of the incubus is when a male demon comes upon a sleeping woman, there were times when this happened while both parties were awake, and we will soon see such a case in Jewish history. Lest one think that this is only a pre-modern superstition, what about all those people who claim to have had sexual relations with aliens who abducted them?37

As the superstitions in Jewish society have often mirrored those of the dominant culture, we shouldn't be surprised that sex with demons comes up in our literature. Already the Talmud (Eruvin 18b) speaks of Adam begetting various types of demons. This source doesn't say who the mother was, but since it wasn't Eve it must be a female demon. Yet the Talmud is quick to note that Adam never actually had sex with this female demon. Rather, she impregnated herself with his sperm that was emitted accidentally. Throughout Jewish history there were women who were believed to have had sex with demons, and this raised halakhic issues that had to be dealt with. There is no need for me to give various sources on this as they have been nicely collected by Hannah G. Sprecher in a fascinating article.38 I will just mention one point which I find interesting, and which I mentioned in one of my lectures on R. Ben Zion Uziel.39 While R. Uziel is in many respects a model for a Modern Orthodox posek, it is quite jarring to find that he too takes seriously the claim that a woman was intimate with a demon. Instead of sending her to a psychologist, he devotes great efforts to showing that she can remain with her kohen husband.40 That poskim would discuss this sort of thing is not surprising, and in an earlier post I mentioned a current talmid chacham who discusses if one can eat the flesh of a demon. Similarly, Sprecher cites a twentieth-century work that deals with circumcising a child whose father was a demon.41 Yet to find R. Uziel, a supposedly modern posek, also taking this very seriously was quite a surprise to me. I guess the greater surprise was that of the various women involved with the demons. While some were no doubt off their rocker, others presumably just invented the story to save themselves from the shame of an improper relationship and its consequences. Imagine their surprise when instead of being condemned for their illicit affair, the rabbis actually believed the story that they made up, namely, that the man they had sex with was really a demon!42

Once a woman is believed to have had sex with a demon, and certainly if she had a child in this fashion, people are generally not going to want to have anything to do with her and her family. Being descended from the Devil is hardly the best yichus. Yet much of the world began like this, at least according to one early interpretation. Targum Ps.-Jonathan to Gen. 4:1 explains that Cain's father is not Adam, but Sammael, who also is known as Satan and the Angel of Death. As James Kugel has shown, this tradition is found in other early sources, such as 1 John 3:12 which describes Cain as being "of the Evil One." Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 21 describes how the serpent impregnated Eve, and we know from other sources that the serpent is none other than Sammael. While we might be inclined to smile and regard this all as pleasant folklore, there is actually much more here than meets the eye. As Kugel brilliantly notes, this portrayal of Cain serves to explain why God did not accept his sacrifice, a point that is never explained in the text. In addition, it helps solve the puzzling comment of Eve (Gen. 4:1): "I have gotten a man with the Lord," understanding "man" to mean angel, as is elsewhere found in Scripture.43

Lest one think that in modern times tales of the Devil's children are only to be found in novels and on the big screen – one immediately thinks of Rosemary's Baby and The Omen – let me tell you a fascinating story. In the beginning of the nineteenth century a married woman named Yittel Levkovich gave birth to a child which, we are told, was obviously not her husband's. Yittel claimed that she had been raped by a male demon. This claim was accepted and the woman was not regarded as an adulteress nor was the child regarded as a mamzer. Yet other Jews refused to marry with the descendants of this woman, and these descendants were known as "Chitshers." Matters got to be so bad that in 1926 a broadside was published signed by many Hungarian rabbis declaring that there was no problem marrying into the Chitshers. Among the signatories was the young R. Joel Teitelbaum, the rav of Satmar.

Despite this plea, there were those who continued to shun the Chitchers, and even to this day there are families in the Hungarian hasidic world who will refuse to intermarry with other Hungarian hasidim since the latter are descended from Yittel and the demon. Tying in with the Christian theme with which I began this post, there was even a belief that a Chitcher has the image of a cross under his skin opposite the heart!44 Take a look at the end of this responsum.



This is a fascinating topic, and those who want more details should consult the previously mentioned article by Sprecher, from which I took the information mentioned until now. One aspect of the story that appeared too late to be included by Sprecher is mentioned by Jerome Mintz, and shows how despite R. Yoel Teitelbaum's words of support for the Chitshers, this did not carry on to one of the inheritors of his throne.

Jerome Mintz records the following from a Satmar informant:

The Satmar Rebbe's son, the oldest son, Aaron, he has sometimes a big mouth. Aaron, the Rebbe's son, gave a speech and he called Ableson's45 mother a hatzufah [impudent woman]. "This Ableson's mother--that impudent woman with her tsiganer [gypsy] family--came to the shul and starts yelling." You know, with that phrase he was trying to bring up an old pain.

There is an old story about the Ableson family, given only from mouth to ear, about the quality of their family. There were some rumors about a hundred years ago about the Ableson family, that it's not so spotless. A woman in the family had a relationship with some demon or something and that's how the branch of the family got started. . . . Nobody knows how she became pregnant. She went away to a different town and came back pregnant and she didn't have any love affair. She was a virgin. She was still a virgin. . . . It's written in a lot of books at that time. The Kotsker, on of the big rabbis, said that one of their ancestors was made pregnant by a demon.

This goes back six generations. The family is spread out and the descendants feel a little guilty. They try to behave, you know, so that nobody should throw it back at them. The family is so widespread because they're so rich. They've gotten into every family. They're very aggressive people, probably because they come from the devil. . . . Even today when somebody is making a marriage arrangement he wants to find out if the family is not from the witches. I know that my mother and my father when they made a marriage arrangement, it was a day before they left the country, they found out if there's a witch or not.46



The R. Aaron mentioned in this story is one of the current Satmar Rebbes.

We find another example where a large family was ostracized in this fashion. The problem here was especially acute as many great Torah scholars had married into this family, and now aspersions were being cast on it. Those casting the aspersions referred to the family members as Nadler, which has the connotation of mamzer. (As with the term mamzer, it was also used as a general term of abuse and is the subject of a responsum of R. Solomon Luria.47) Because of the growing calumnies against innocent families, the Maharal and numerous other great rabbis were forced to publicly support them and condemn all who would question their yichus.48 What I don't understand is how, considering the base origin of the term "Nadler" and how it was used in such an abusive fashion, that the word actually became an acceptable last name. Indeed, it is now more than acceptable and people are proud to have this name, which they share with two outstanding scholars, not to mention my former congressman.

* * *


Returning to the issue of Christianity, many have discussed whether or not it is considered avodah zarah. I will deal with this at a future time, but now I want to raise another issue which I mentioned briefly in Limits of Orthodox Theology: What is worse, atheism or avodah zarah? Subsequent to the book's appearance I found more sources related to this, which I hope to come back to in a future post. For now, let me just call attention to found a very interesting comment of R. David Zvi Hoffmann with regard to avodah zarah. It is found in R. Hayyim Hirschenson's journal, Ha-Misderonah 1 (1885), p. 137. In speaking about the practice of the Talmud to sometime use euphemistic language, he claims that the expression "Grave is avodah zarah, for whoever denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah" (Hullin 5a and parallels) is an example of this. In other words, the Talmud really means: "Grave is avodah zarah, for whoever accepts it denies the entire Torah." I had never thought of this and it is certainly interesting. Hoffmann is himself led to this interpretation, which he sees as obvious, because if it was really the case that one who rejected avodah zarah would be regarded as one who accepts the Torah, how come a public Sabbath violator who rejects avodah zarah is still regarded as having rejected the Torah?

Nevertheless, despite its immediate appeal, I don't think Hoffmann's interpretation can be accepted, and the passage is not to be regarded as euphemistic. Rather, it is an example of the Sages' exaggerations, which we find in other places as well, such as where they state that a certain commandment is equal to all six hundred thirteen. In fact, I have what I think is conclusive proof that Hoffmann is mistaken in regarding this passage as expressing a euphemism. In Megillah 13a the passage appears in an altered form: "Anyone who repudiates avodah zarah is called 'a Jew.'" The Talmud then cites a biblical proof text to support this statement which shows that it was not meant to be understood as a euphemism.

While on the subject of Christianity, I would like to respond to the reaction of some who read my opinion piece on John Hagee. There I showed that what got so many upset, namely, Hagee's theological understanding of the Holocaust, was actually shared by R. Zvi Yehudah Kook.49 Of course, I understand why people feel that attempting to explain the Holocaust is improper. I happen to share this sentiment. Yet if people are upset by what Hagee said, just wait until they see the following, which out of all the supposed justifications for the Holocaust, which have ranged the gamut, this is surely the most bizarre. What can I say, other than that it never ceases to amaze me how some of the greatest scholars we have say some of the craziest stuff imaginable.

I am referring to one of the reasons R. Ovadiah Hadaya gives to explain the Holocaust. He saw it as God's way of cleansing the world of all the mamzerim!50 How a sensitive scholar, which Hadaya certainly was,51 could offer such an explanation really boggles the mind. To think that the cruel murder of six million, including over a million children, not to mention all of the other terrible results of the Holocaust, was in order to complete some yichus program is beyond strange. I can't recall who it was who said that any attempts at explaining suffering are invalid if you are not prepared to tell it to a parent whose child is dying of cancer. I certainly can't imagine anyone telling a parent that his family was wiped out in the Holocaust in order to get rid of the mamzerim! (A well-known American haredi rosh yeshiva responded very strongly when told about what Hadaya wrote, but I don't have permission to quote his words.) Prof. David Halivni commented, when I told him about Hadaya's view, that Sephardim often don't get it when it comes to the Holocaust. I remember thinking about Halivni's comment when R. Ovadiah Yosef gave his own explanation for the Holocaust, some years ago, one which created such a storm that Holocaust survivors protested outside his home. He claimed that the dead were really reincarnated souls suffering for their sins in previous lifetimes.

Although he doesn't mention it, Hadaya's view is obviously based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot 8:3, which speaks of a catastrophe coming on the world every few generations which destroys both mamzerim and non-mamzerim (the latter are destroyed as well, so that it not be known who committed the sin.) Sefer Hasidim, ed. Margaliot, no. 213, repeats this teaching.


יש הריגת דבר או חרב שלא נגזר אלא לכלות הממזרים וכדי שלא לביישם שאם לא ימותו רק הממזרים היה נודע והיתה המשפחה מתביישת מפני חברתה [ולכן נוטל הכשרים עמהם]

It is with regard to the issue of the mamzer that one can see manifested a point I have often thought about. The great classical historian Moses Finley spoke of what he termed the "teleological fallacy" in the interpretation of historical change. "It consists in assuming the existence from the beginning of time, so to speak, of the writer's values . . . and in then examining all earlier thought and practice as if they were, or ought to have been, on the road to this realization, as if men in other periods were asking the same questions and facing the same problems as those of the historian and his world."52


The fact is that earlier generations often thought very differently about things. For example, we are much more sensitive to matters such as human rights than they were. They took slavery for granted, while the very concept of owning another person is the most detestable thing imaginable to us. Followers of R. Kook will put all of this in a religious framework, and see it as humanity's development as it gets closer to the Messianic era.

We see this very clearly when it comes to the issue of the mamzer who through no fault of his own suffers terribly. The Orthodox community is very sympathetic to his fate, and it is unimaginable that people today will, as in the past express satisfaction at the death of a mamzer.53 A difficulty with the sympathetic approach is the Shulhan Arukh's ruling (Yoreh Deah 265:4) that when the mamzer is born אין מבקשים עליו רחמים. The Shakh writes: כלומר אין אומרים קיים את הילד כו', מטעם דלא ניחא להו לישראל הקדושים לקיים הממזרים שביניהם. In fact, according to R. Bahya ibn Paquda (Hovot ha-Levavot, Sha'ar ha-Teshuvah, ch. 10), if one is responsible for bringing ]]> Marc B. Shapiro Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:18:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part- Thoughts on Confrontation & Sundry Matters Part I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/25/Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part-I- Thoughts on "Confrontation" and Sundry Matters, Part I


By: Marc B. Shapiro


Rabbi Meir Soloveichik's year-old essay, "No Friend in Jesus,"1 caused me to once again think about the Rav's essay "Confrontation," (available here) and how it should be understood. Before getting to that, let me note, for those who don't know, that Soloveichik is emerging as one of the most interesting, if controversial writers, on interfaith matters. I don't know if he picks the titles of his articles, but they are certainly catchy. In addition to "No Friend in Jesus," I also have in mind "The Virtue of Hate,"2 and "Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors."3 The last article focuses on the Maria Johnson's wonderful book, Strangers and Neighbors. Johnson is my colleague at the University of Scranton and the book deals with what she has learnt from living in a haredi community. The friendships she has developed (which would be impossible in a large city where the haredim have no substantive contact with non-Jews and certainly do not allow their children to play together) bring great enlightenment to her own Christian faith. With all of the bad press focusing on the haredi community (some of which is deserved and self-inflicted), it is nice to read such a positive portrayal.


Soloveichik is currently working on his PhD at Princeton, and due to his many essays he has already made a mark. While it is true that political concerns play a central role in his writing, and he seems most comfortable in the role of public intellectual rather than academic scholar, there is a great deal of learning in everything that he produces. He has also emerged as Orthodoxy's most prominent "theocon," which has led him to take positions that in my opinion are at odds with the proper halakhic response.4 I also suspect that many will not look kindly upon his theoretical defense of torture, although no one can argue the case better than he can.5

There are those who will criticize Soloveichik because he engages in theological dialogue with Christians, and they think that this is in violation of the Rav's strictures. If that were the case, then the Rav himself would be in violation, because he first delivered his famous "Lonely Man of Faith" as a lecture at a Catholic seminary.6 The fact is that the Rav never said that theological issues couldn't be discussed with non-Jews in a non-official setting. It all depends on the context of the discussions and the venue. In any event, it is very important to have a rabbi who actually understands Christian dogma. Otherwise, you can get poskim, like R. Joseph Messas, mentioned below, who come to decisions based on entirely incorrect information.

We should all be happy that there is a rabbi who knows that before Newman was an actor and then a tomato sauce, there was a more important Newman, that Immaculate Conception is not Virgin Birth, that Limbo is not only a game played at Bar Mitzvahs, and that St. Thomas is more than an island in the Caribbean. There are, however, many rabbis who know very little about Christianity. That is fine, but it is not fine when they try to speak about a matter they know nothing about. Some time ago I heard a talk in which the speaker gave his take on what was wrong with certain Christian ideas. The only problem was that that he had but a smattering of knowledge of the religion he was discussing. (Can you believe that there are people who speak about Catholicism without even knowing what happened at Vatican II?) After the talk someone asked me what I thought about the speaker. My reply was to quote the immortal words of Ha-Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz: "A man has got to know his limitations."7


Let me begin with a short article I wrote on "Confrontation" that originally appeared on the website of Boston College's Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding. I don't think that many people have seen it, and posting it here will give it some more exposure. I would encourage people to also read the other papers.8 One can even watch the original presentations.9


  "Confrontation": A Mixed Legacy


If any evidence were needed of the centrality of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in contemporary American Orthodoxy, one need only look at the vigorous exchange of ideas between Drs. Korn, Berger and Rabbi Klapper. These thinkers have focused on a close reading of the seminal essay "Confrontation," and have argued about its message and implications in a changed world. I would like to call attention to some points that have not been raised, which I regard as unfortunate results of the widespread acceptance in American Orthodoxy of the perspective offered in "Confrontation."

My goal in these comments is not to criticize the essay, but rather to clarify its impact. In fact, both in my personal and professional life (with perhaps one exception) I have avoided all venues of interfaith dialogue, and this despite being in my tenth year of teaching at a Jesuit university. I have participated in numerous events where Christians were exposed to Judaism, as well as some where I learnt more about Christianity, but it is unlikely that Rabbi Soloveitchik's position has any relevance to these situations.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's warning was directed against Jews dialoguing with Christians in some sort of organized, presumably official,10 meeting, and the fears he expressed relate to this type of setting. On the other hand, individual Jews and Christians discussing each other's religion has occurred in every generation, and neither this, nor a Jew giving a lecture to Christians about some aspect of Judaism, qualifies as dialogue of the sort that the Rav was warning against. It is therefore not surprising that even the most strident opponents of dialogue do not mention the subject of Orthodox professors teaching at universities whose student body is primarily Christian.

I have abstained from involvement in interfaith dialogue not because I regard the Rav's essay as a binding halakhic decision, but because I would have felt uncomfortable being regarded by the other side as a representative of Judaism. (Despite being part of a department of Theology and Religious studies, I am hardly a theologian.) In addition, I have always been sensitive to an aspect of dialogue that the Rav was concerned with, namely, that Jews will feel pressure to adjust their religious views in response to moves from the Christian side. In calling attention to this point, I feel that the Rav was uncannily prescient.

Yet despite the fact that I have lived my life in accordance with the Rav's guidelines, I believe that his position has had certain negative consequences. It might be that these are the sorts of consequences that Orthodox Jews who follow the Rav's prescriptions must live with, but I hope not.

One of these consequences is religious separatism, and when it comes to interfaith relations the Modern Orthodox have adopted the same position as that of the right-wing Orthodox. Thus, in the United States one finds virtually no relationships between Modern Orthodox rabbis and Christian clergymen, or between Modern Orthodox groups and their Christian counterparts, even of the sort that the Rav would encourage.11 This type of separatism is to be expected when dealing with the haredim, but one would have thought that the rabbinic leadership of Modern Orthodoxy would be more open-minded in this area. Yet for many Modern Orthodox rabbinic figures this is not the case, and when a group of Cardinals recently toured Yeshiva University a number of faculty members and students of the Rav expressed strong criticism of the administration in allowing this visit.12 In fact, the Rav was often cited as a source for this opposition, as if anything he wrote in "Confrontation" spoke against friendly relations and interchange of ideas in non-theological settings.13

In today's Orthodox world, when it comes to Christianity the stress is on the negative, beyond anything the Rav wrote about in "Confrontation." This has brought about a broad refusal on the part of Modern Orthodox rabbis to have even the barest of relationships with their Christian counterparts. I am not blaming this on "Confrontation," since before the essay appeared such relationships were also rare, but the essay reinforced the atmosphere of distance between Orthodox Jews and Christians in all spheres, even though this was not its intent. To put it another way, I would say that, despite its intent, "Confrontation" reaffirmed Orthodox Jews' inclination that, in all but the most negligible circumstances, they should ignore the dominant religion and its adherents. A different essay by the Rav could have put an even greater stress on the positive results of interfaith cooperation in "secular" spheres.14 Instead, almost nothing was done to remove the fear of Christianity from Orthodoxy, and while in the very shadow of Vatican II this might have been the correct approach, by now I think we have moved beyond this. Yet even in our day it would still be unheard of for a Christian clergyman to address the members of an Orthodox synagogue or group about matters of joint concern. A lay Christian might be welcome, but any relationship with clergy is seen as dangerous, in that it could lead to a compromising of traditional Jewish beliefs.


Another result of the lack of any dialogue between Orthodox Jews and Christians is that in addition to the fear of Christianity, there remains an enormous amount of ignorance. On numerous occasions I have heard Orthodox Jews assert that according to Christianity one must accept Jesus in order to be "saved". When I have pointed out that this notion has been repudiated by the Catholic Church as well as by most Protestants, the response is usually incredulity.

It is also significant that Orthodox Jews treat Christianity as an abstraction, and detailed discussions about its halakhic status continue to be published. I find it strange, however, that in our post-modern era people can write articles offering judgments about Christianity based solely on book knowledge,15 without ever having spoken to Christian scholars and clergymen, that is, without having ever confronted Christianity as a living religion.16 There is something deeply troubling about Orthodox figures discussing whether Christianity is avodah zarah without attempting to learn from Christians how their faith has impacted their lives. I would think that this narrative, attesting as it does to the redemptive power of faith, must also be part of any Jewish evaluation of Christianity.17 Yet barring theological dialogue, how is this possible?
I realize that the halakhic system prefers raw data to experiential narratives, but certainly modern halakhists and theologians are able to find precedents for inclusion of precisely this sort of information. After all, wasn't it personal contact with Gentiles, and the recognition that their lives were not like those of the wicked pagans of old, that led to a reevaluation of the halakhic status of the Christian beginning with Meiri and continuing through R. Israel Moses Hazan,18 R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg?


The concern with dialogue leading to attempted revisions of traditional Jewish beliefs is certainly well-founded, but the flip-side is that without any direct contact distortions can arise in the other direction as well, namely, in how non-Jews are viewed. Could Saadia Grama ever have written his infamous book19 if his Gentile neighbor, the Christian, was a real person instead of a caricature? Of course, one does not need interfaith theological dialogue in order to see adherents of other religions in a more positive light than Grama, but as noted above, a current trend opposes even non-theological dialogue. When all substantive contact with the Other is off-limits, it becomes much easier for extremists to reawaken old prejudices that should have no place in a modern democratic society.

I don't have any illusions that the leaders of American Orthodoxy will change their stance on this matter even after considering what I and others have written. Yet this does not mean that all is lost when it comes to Jewish-Christian relations. Even without theological dialogue there is still a great deal that we can discuss, and thus ensure that neither Orthodox Jews nor Christians are strangers in each other's eyes. There is a host of social and political issues that affect both of our communities and a vast reservoir of goodwill and respect among Christians for Jews, and Orthodox Jews in particular. Isn't it time the Orthodox responded in kind?


* * *


With regard to the Rav and Christianity, it is interesting to note what R. Samuel Volk wrote. R. Volk was one of the other roshei yeshiva at RIETS, an outstanding talmudist who had studied in Telz. Yet he was no fan of the Rav and went so far as to accuse the latter of adopting Christian imagery. In his eulogy for Dr. Samuel Belkin, the Rav described the latter as a wandering and restless yeshiva student. This was too much for Volk (who clearly had a bone to pick with the Rav). In the introduction to volume 7 of his Sha'arei Tohar, he wrote:


ראשית כל הנני להעיר שהביטוי הזה של "נודד" שאל "גאון" זה מהגוים ימ"ש, שאומרים שבעבור שעם ישראל לא קבלו תורת "אותו האיש" נתקללו להיות "עם נודד לעולם" ימ"ש וזכרם. ועליהם אין להתפלא דמה לנו ולהם? אבל על "גאון" הנ"ל שיש לו אפי' "פאספארט" של זכות אבות יש להתפלא!


He repeats this criticism of the Rav in his Sha'arei Tohar, vol. 8, p. 332.20 Yet this is nothing compared to how he savages Dr. Belkin, his former boss. Out of respect for Belkin, I will refrain from reproducing what he writes (which can be found in the just mentioned sources). His words are a good reflection of the conflict and tension that existed between Belkin and the roshei yeshiva, many of whom saw Belkin's goals as at odds with Torah Judaism21 On occasion Belkin had to give in to them, as in their threat to resign en masse if he went through with his plan to move Stern College uptown near Yeshiva University. Yet they usually had to sit by and feel growing anger at what they viewed as Belkin's wrong-headed moves. It was only after they were no longer employed at YU that they could express themselves openly. When they did, it is not surprising that they could be sharper than the most harsh haredi critics.


Another strong attack on Belkin was penned by R. Chaim Dov Ber Gulevsky, who also taught at YU. (I will have a great deal more to say about his fascinating writings in one of my upcoming posts.) As with Volk, Gulevsky too, unfortunately, falls into the trap of attacking Belkin personally.22 In the case of Gulevsky, I can say that he believed that in doing so he was defending the honor of the Rav, for whom he has the greatest respect. Yet, as with Volk, his attack is way overboard, so much so that I am again embarrassed to cite it. It is unfortunate that rather than focusing on all the Torah he taught while at YU, Gulevsky concludes on the following note:


ואני תפילה שנזכר לחיים טובים ממלך חפץ בחיים אמן ואמן. ושלא יענישו ושלא ירחיקו אותי ממקורי, וממחיצת צדיקים ישרים ותמימים גאוני ישראל קדושי עליונין בגלל שפעם הייתי במחיצתו של "אותו הנשיא", "אשר מכף רגל והראש לא היה בו מתום" . . . ר"ל.


In Gulevsky's attack, we also see reflected the long battle between the roshei yeshiva and the adherents of academic Jewish scholarship. This dispute was found at the institution from its early years, and is described in Rakefet's biography of Revel, Solomon Zeitlin was probably the first focus of the roshei Yeshiva's anger. A number of others, most notably Irving Agus and Meir Simhah Feldblum, would later run into trouble from the halls of RIETS on account of their outlooks.


In Gulevsky's mind, Belkin was not an adherent of Torah study of the traditional sort – he even denies the well-known story that Belkin received semikhah from the Hafetz Hayyim at age seventeen. He sees Belkin as having sold his soul to the idolatry of academic Jewish studies, with all the heresy that went along with it. In fact, it is not merely academic Jewish studies that Gulevsky sees as Belkin's downfall, but no less than the hated 'hokhmah yevanit" that the Sages had warned about. Philo of Alexandria is, in Gulevsky's understanding, just another example of "hokhmah yevanit."23 This involvement with Greek wisdom also led Belkin to his friendships with Christian scholars and "the professor who thought that 'the Jews made a terrible mistake' in pushing away oto ha-ish r"l". Gulevsky told me that (as I suspected) the unnamed professor is Harry A. Wolfson, who was the preeminent Philo scholar of his time. Yet I don't think Wolfson ever said this, and I believe Gulevsky has confused Wolfson with Joseph Klausner.
 

Gulevsky also recalls with pain how, in his annual shiur in memory of R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor, for whom RIETS was named, Belkin would include material dealing with Philo rather than give a traditional shiur. According to Gulevsky, this even led Belkin to make heretical statements with regard to the Oral Law. He also blasts Belkin's lengthy article on Philo and Midrash Tadshe24 and what he regards as Belkin's foolish attempt to posit a Philonic influence on the Zohar through an ancient midrashic tradition.25 Rather than seeing this last article as a worthy attempt to uphold an ancient dating for the Zohar, Gulevsky instead points out how Scholem rejected Belkin's position as completely nonsensical, even doing so on a visit to Yeshiva University.26


* * *


Returning to the issue of Judaism and Christianity, let me begin by calling attention to some curiosities that are perhaps not so well known. The first relates to R. Israel Moshe Hazan, mentioned above. His positive view of Christian scholars seemed so over the top to R Eliezer Waldenberg, that the latter delivered a stinging rebuke in Tzitz Eliezer 13:12:


שומו שמים למקרא מה יפית כזה לאמונת הנוצרים וחכמיהם מפורש יוצא וללא כל בושה, מפי בעל התשובה . . . ובכלל המותר לקרוא קילוס לחכמיהם? ואיה האיסור של לא תחנם שישנו בדבר?


As far as I know, Hazan is the only rabbinic author to publish a Christian haskamah in his work (he actually publishes two). These appear in his Nahalah le-Yisrael, which is devoted to a halakhic problem dealing with inheritance. Translations of these haskamot are found in the appendix to Isadore Grunfeld's The Jewish Law of Inheritance.27 (The section dealing with Hazan and his Nahalah le-Yisrael is called: "A Cause Célèbre, A Remarkable Man and a Remarkable Book.") The Christian scholars' haskamot appear together with the haskamot of such renowned figures as R. Hayyim David Hazan of Izmir (later Rishon le-Zion in Jerusalem), R. Eleazar Horovitz of Vienna, R. Shimon Sofer of Mattersdorf, R. Avraham Samuel Sofer of Pressburg, and R. Meir Ash of Ungvar.
 
Hazan's testimony about Jews who would go to the Church to listen the music, even if they stood outside the sanctuary has also been very troubling for many. The whole question of the propriety of entering a church deserves its own post. In years past no Jew would enter a Church unless he was forced to, or in order to avoid enmity. R. Moses Sitrug, Yashiv Moshe, vol. 1, no. 235, discusses the latter case and he advises removing one's head covering before entering the church. If not, one will be forced to do so in the church, and this would appear as if one was worshipping with the Christians.28 (When the Chief Rabbi of England is present in a church for an important state function, he does not remove his kippah, and is not expected to.)
 

I began this post with Meir Soloveichik. There was actually another Soloveitchik who also had a great interest in things Christian. I refer to R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik. Here is a picture of him.


He was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and the uncle of R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik, the Beit Halevi. He is also the subject of a comprehensive monograph by Dov Hyman, who was a medical doctor trained in London and who lived in Manhattan. For some reason this book was kept fairly secret, with only fifty copies published and never sold in stores. Here is the title page of the book.


 
Among Soloveitchik's works is a volume entitled Kol Kore (Paris, 1875). Friedberg, Beit Eked Seforim, describes this book as "in opposition to the New Testament." Yet Friedberg never looked carefully at the volume, for if he did he would have seen that rather than being in opposition to the New Testament, it is in favor of it. Yet it is not a missionary tract. Rather, Soloveitchik followed the approach of R. Jacob Emden (whom he cites in his introduction) that the New Testament is only directed towards Gentiles, and supports the Noahide Laws. However, it has nothing to say to Jews, whom it acknowledges are obligated to keep the Torah. In line with this conception, Soloveitchik felt comfortable in authoring a commentary on the book of Matthew, and that is what the Kol Kore is. Here are the title pages of the first edition as well as the 1985 reprint.
 

This is not the only rabbinic commentary on the book of Matthew. In 1900 R. Samuel Weintraub's commentary on this Gospel was published (Milhemet Shmuel). Yet unlike Soloveitchik's work, Weintraub's commentary is devoted to exposing the Gospel's faults.29 Here are the two title pages of the book.



The book is an interesting polemic, which unlike most polemics is written in the form of a commentary. Yet there are times when the author goes too far. For example, he deals with Matthew 1:18, which states that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, he strongly attacks this notion. But he also has to make sense of Gen. 6:2, which states that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them as wives." The problematic words are בני אלהים, as this might be taken to show that the Torah also shares the mythological conception of gods impregnating women.

Weintraub writes:


הוא כתרגום אונקלס בני רברביא, ואמרו בב"ר ר"ש בן יוחאי הי' מקלל למי שמתרגם בני אלהיא, כי לא יתכן כלל שהמלאך יבוא אל האשה ויחמוד אותה, ורק העובדי אלילים היו מאמינים בשטותים הללו כמבואר בספרי מיטהאלאגיע ובס' יוסיפון, תדע שהרי הכתוב מסיים עלה: וירא ד' כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ, ולא כתיב כי רבה רעת בני אלהים בארץ, כי בני אלהים האמורים היו ג"כ בני אדם כתרגום אונקלס. ואם רצה השי"ת לברא את המשיח ברוח קדשו היה לו לבראו עפר מן האדמה מבלי אב ואם כמו שברא את אדם הראשון ואז היו כולם מודים בו ואין הקב"ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו.

 
The only problem with Weintraub's point is that in his zeal to attack the Christian belief, and by asserting that only pagans could believe in a nonsensical notion such that an angel could desir ]]> Marc B. Shapiro Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/25/Thoughts-on-Confrontation--Sundry-Matters-Part-I- Review of Ma'amar al Yishma'el http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/19/Review-of-Maamar-al-Yishmael Review: Ma'amar al Yishma'el
by Eliezer Brodt & Ish Sefer
 
Solomon Ibn Aderet, Ma'amar al Yishma'el, Bezalel Naor ed., Spring Valley, NY, 2008, 178 pp.
Bezalel Naor, Mitsvat Hashem Barah, Spring Valley, NY, 2008, 220 pp.
 
R. Bezalel Naor, who has published a host of translations and explanations of R. Kook's writings, as well as Post Sabbatian Sabbatianisms, discussing Sabbatean works, has published two works in a single volume. The first, Ma'amar al Yishma'el, is a critical edition of R. Solomon Ibn Aderet's (Rashba) discussion of Islam.
 
This work was printed from manuscript (which today is lost) for the first time in 1863 by Y. Perles. Most recently it was printed in the new Shut ha-Rashba by Machon Yerushalayim in their last volume (siman 367). At first it was not accepted that Rashba authored this work but today it is accepted that  he is indeed the author. Naor's edition begins with an excellent introduction dealing with amongst many things the authorship of this work, Naor raises the possibility that R. Dovid who was a talmid of the Ramban was the author. Throughout the text he brings various proofs about the authorship from other writings of the Rashba. As an appendix Naor printed a copy of a manuscript of Steinschneider where he deals with the authorship of this text.
 
The main topic of this work is about the Rashba defending the Torah from an Islamic attack. Although much has been written on Jewish Christian disputes, when it comes to Jewish Islamic disputes, much less is written or known. Indeed, most are probably unaware that the Rashba wrote this work defending Judaism against Islam. Naor's edition begins with an excellent introduction discussing the work generally and specifically providing background materials on exactly what the Rashba was responding to.  Naor discusses both the Jewish as well as Islamic sources in all languages. It is pretty incredible to see his command in both these groups of sources, it is clear that much time and hard work went into preparing this work.
 
The main topic which the Rashba deals with is defending that the Torah which we have is 100% accurate and was never tampered with. The Rashba deals with many specific examples in a very orderly fashion. Specifically, the Rashba elaborates why the torah publicized what seems to be sins of Reuven (p.74) and Yehudah (pp. 73-74). The Rashba also deals with why the torah had to include the story of Lot and his daughters (pp. 72-73). Another issue that the Rashba defends is proving that the numbers of the Jews given by the Torah was 100% accurate (pp. 63-71). Additionally, the Rashba deals with the famous incident of the finding of the Sefer torah in Yoshiayhu's time. There are also many Chidushim with regard to the seven Noachide commandments.
 
Regarding why Hashem chose to give the Torah publicly the Rashba writes (p. 90):

והתבונן כי בשתי תורת האלו, רוצה לומר, תורת בני נח ותורת משה עליו השלום לא רצה השם יתברך שיקבל אותם ממנו נביא, ויקבלו אותם מן הנביא שאר העם. וזה לשתי פנות גדולות האחד: כדי שלא יוכל אחד ממי שנתחייב באורה התורה, להסתפק בקבלתה, ולחשוד מי שקבלה, שבדה מלבו, או ששבש בם קצת... והשניה, כדי שלא יוכל לשבש בדת ובאמונה לאחר זמן, ויטעון שהשם יתברך נתן עתה על ידו תורת כן וכן, כמו שנתן תורה ראשונה מתחלה עד יד הנביא פלוני אשר קדמו. אלא קבץ כל הנמצא באותו זמן ונתן רוחו עליהם והתנבאו...
 
Naor already points out that although this is similar to the proof offered by the Kuzari, however, this proof has a new addition to it as it includes the notion that the ז' מצות בני נח were also directly and publicly given by God! 
 
Besides for the actual main topics that the Rashba deals with and its great importance (as he is one of our most important Rishonim) there is also a wealth of interesting side points and discussions in this work.
 
Amongst the many important points that the Rashba writes is that although we find many times about the Torah that the Gemarah says שכחה התורה וחזרה ויסדה (one of example of this is by with Ezra). The Rashba explains at great length that it does not mean the Torah was almost completely forgotten at these times. Rather all of torah is connected and if one thing is forgotten it is as if everything is forgotten so Ezra prevented this from happening (pp. 100-05). With this the Rashba explains many things amongst them the famous Gemarah in Pesachim (66b)

תנו רבנן: הלכה זו נתעלמה מבני בתירא. פעם אחת חל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת, שכחו ולא ידעו אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו. אמרו: כלום יש אדם שיודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו? אמרו להם: אדם אחד יש שעלה מבבל, והלל הבבלי שמו, ששימש שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון ויודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו. שלחו וקראו לו. אמרו לו: כלום אתה יודע אם הפסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו? אמר להם: וכי פסח אחד יש לנו בשנה שדוחה את השבת? והלא הרבה יותר ממאתים פסחים יש לנו בשנה שדוחין את השבת. אמרו לו: מנין לך? אמר להם: נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר מועדו בתמיד. מה מועדו האמור בתמיד - דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח - דוחה את השבת. ועוד, קל וחומר הוא: ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת, פסח שענוש כרת - אינו דין שדוחה את השבת. מיד הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו נשיא עליהם, והיה דורש כל היום כולו בהלכות הפסח. התחיל מקנטרן בדברים, אמר להן: מי גרם לכם שאעלה מבבל ואהיה נשיא עליכם - עצלות שהיתה בכם, שלא שמשתם שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון. אמרו לו: רבי, שכח ולא הביא סכין מערב שבת מהו? אמר להן: הלכה זו שמעתי ושכחתי. אלא, הנח להן לישראל אם אין נביאים הן - בני נביאים הן. למחר, מי שפסחו טלה - תוחבו בצמרו, מי שפסחו גדי - תוחבו בין קרניו. ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה, ואמר: כך מקובלני מפי שמעיה ואבטליון.


Many people have discussed this Gemarah throughout the ages (its was a popular derasha topic for Shabbat HaGadol) how could they forget such a thing? The Rashba explains it with his same theme. Here to Naor includes an excellent lengthy footnote dealing with this Gemarah providing many sources.
 
Another important statement of the Rashba (pp. 116-17) is:
כל שכן ספר כולל מה שהוא ומה שהיה ועתיד להיות כתורתנו השלמה והתמימה שכוללת מן החכמה כל מה שהיה מן הבריאה הראשונה עד תכלית כל חכמה. ואפילו בא נביא מן הנביאים לכתוב בפרטי כל מה שתרמוז בה לא יכיל גליון וכן בפירושי מצותיה. 
 
When talking about Rabbenu Hakodesh role in the writing of the Mishna he writes (p. 119):
והודיעונו יתרון חכמת רבינו הקדוש בסדור ספרו סדר המשנה חברו בתכלית החכמה בקצור ובסדור בסתם ואחר כך מחלוקת ומחלוקת ואחר כך סתם וכולל ענינים גדולים בדברי קצתם.
 
Although, as mentioned above, the notes are generally excellent there is comment that deserves to be discussed. The Rashba referring to a Gemrah in Mesectas Pesachim calls (p. 103) it מסכת פסח שני. Here, Naor does not explain what the Rashba meant. The intention of the Rashba is that many rishonim called the part of Pesachim which deals with Korbon Pesach, Pesach Shenei, and referred to the first part of Pesachim that deals with Chametz and perek Arvei Peachim as Pesach Rishon. This fact was not known to everyone see for example Hagadah Shelemah (p.197) where it is pointed out that the Abarbanel was not aware of this and made a mistake because of this. [See also R. N. Rabonowitz, Mamar Al Hadfosass Hatalmud, p.27]. The Merei writes (Peachim 57b):

אמר מנחם בן שלמה לבית מאיר י"א זאת המסכתא ר"ל מסכת פסח שני היא מסדר מועד וכבר ביארנו בפתיחת החבור שבסדור רבינו הקדוש ע"ה היו מסכת פסח ראשון וזאת המסכתא חוברות אשה אל אחותה נכללות במסכתא אחת נקראת פסחים ופרק ערבי פסחים היה אחרון לכל פרקיה ובימי הגאונים ז"ל חלקוה . לשתים וקראו הראשונה פסח ראשון והעתיקו פרק ערבי פסחים ממקומו וסדרוהו בסוף פסח ראשון וקראו שם המסכתא הזאת פסח שני ועל זה הצד הורגלנו בלמודה אחר מסכת פסח ראשון על הדרך שסדרנו בפתיחת החבור והיא כוללת חמשה פרקים וסדרם לפי שיטתנו...


Another nice piece is (p. 67):

יש לנו להשיב ולומר שלא כל התולדות אשר היו להם זכר הכתוב רק מקצת מהם או מקצת מן הנזכרים ואף על פי שהיו להם או למקצתם בנים אחרים רבים מאלה, אלא שלא זכר כאן רק אותם שהיה הצורך מביא לזכרם, מפני שאלה היו ראשי בית אבות למשפחותם והאחרים בלבד יקראו על שמם כאשר קרה ליוסף שלא זכר הכתוב מכל בניו רק מנשה ואפרים...
 
The text of Ma'amar also contains extensive footnotes which provide the sources for the Rashba's statements as well side discussions. In the final section of this work, Naor explores, in greater detail, some issues he raised in passing in his notes. Just to mention a few of the many topics he deals with in the notes and appendixes (with just a few additional sources). These topics are rather eclectic ranging from the Ramban's position regarding the Ibn Ezra (pp. 136-143). In the introduction Naor has another nice discussion about the Ibn Ezra's position regarding the authorship of the Torah (pp. 23-28) although many deal with this topic Naor has some new important points based on some manuscripts showing what R. Ezra of Gerona, the Rebbe of the Ramban, thought of the Ibn Ezra. Other issues he deals with in regard to the Ibn Ezra are with his work the Iggeres ha-Shabbat (p. 141 n.578) [see also Ohr Yisrael 54:238] and additions which were put in by others in his works (p.142 n.582) [see also my Bein Keseh Lassur (Jerusalem, 2008), p. 53]. Others issues Naor deals with: did the Rashba know Arabic (p.21 n.24), the authorship of the classic Kabbalah work Mereches Aleokus (pp. 53-55). It is interesting that the Rashba always refers to Muchamed as Meshugah (see the note on p. 61-62 about this) [One can add to this Marc B. Shapiro, Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters (Scranton and London: University of Scranton Press, 2008), 151-52]  Another great note is about R. Abraham Ben Ha-GRA whose usage of very rare editions of the Talmud (pp. 72-72 n.236), and also about Ba'al Tosef on Taryag Mitzvot and the seven Noahide Laws (pp. 86-90). These are but a few samples.

In the introduction Naor writes that only after he completed working on this sefer did he find out that Chaim Zalman Dimitrovsky printed it already with notes - had he known he never would have bothered working on it. As is obvious, Naor has a tremendous command of the sources in Hebrew and academic world and he did incredible research for this work yet he never discovered the well known source where most should begin with when working on the Rashba - Dimitrovsky's works. It was good that he only found it at the end as he did a beautiful job dealing with many many things which Dimitrovsky did not, making it very worth while that he too worked on this sefer.
 
One minor piece of criticism is that Naor makes paragraph divisions between each section giving each chapter a heading.  While this is very useful, Naor does not explain that these are his creation and not the Rashba's and thus can cause some confusion.  For example, on page 120 he quotes a piece from Yigdal which would be a nice early source but after checking it out with other versions of the Mamar its clear that Naor himself added this in -to be helpful.
 
The second book included in this volume is Mitzvat Hashem Barah. This book deals with the seven Noahide commandments. Rather than dealing with the actual commandments - i.e. a mere list - this book delves into rather interesting issues that surround these laws. For example, Naor has a fascinating discussion regarding R. Hayyim Hirschensohn's opinion that all commandments can be adduced logically. This discussion implicates what obligations there are in absence of specific commandments or, in the classic parlance, what happened before Matan Torah (pp.72-83). As an aside although it is very useful that he quotes the exact lengthy pieces of Hirschensohn he says he is doing so as they are very rare seforim. Although it is true that a hard copy of the seforim are hard to get but anyone can access them today thanks to Hebrew books.

Naor also presents the controversy between R. Jacob Emden and Moses Mendelssohn regarding the Noachide laws (pp. 16-34). While some maybe aware of the correspondence R. Emden had with Mendelsshonn regarding determining the time of death (see Moshe Samat's article in Hadash Assur min ha-Torah (Jerusalem: Dinur Center & Carmel Publishing, 2005), 157-227), most are not aware of this important philosophical debate. For two additional scholarly sources to this topic not mentioned by Naor, see the important unpublished paper of Professor Lawrence Kaplan, "On the Boundary between Old and New: The Correspondence Between Moses Mendelssohn and R. Jacob Emden," delivered at the Jewish Thought in the Eighteenth Century conference, Harvard University (Spring 1984), and the extensive discussion in chapter seven of Jacob J. Schacter, "Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), 661-747 ("The Emden-Mendelssohn Correspondence"), and see esp. 720n3 for citations to previous descriptions of the correspondence, and also 725n37, 726n48, 742n150, 743n165, 744n168, where he discusses Kaplan's paper. Naor adds much to this topic. After these discussions, Naor then provides insights on the various Parshiyot ha-Torah that implicate Noahide laws especially before Matan Torah. Again the topics covered and, more importantly, the manner in which they are covered are terrific in scope and depth. His command of the "Yeshivish" sources along with Kabbalah (pp.97-102) and hasidut is excellent. Although much has been written on this topic of seven Noahide commandments especially before Matan Torah including a massive sefer (in size) called Birkot Avot and a recent pamphlet Mebei Medrasha from R. K. Redisch, Naor brings many new things to the table not dealt with before.

Here to he has many great footnotes scattered throughout the sefer some strictly for the sake of a very side footnote one such example is on pp. 5-6 about the Tosafot Yom Tov which writes (Nazir 5:5):

והכוונה בודאי ממאמר מי שלא נתקיימו דבריו הוא מה שאמרנו עכ"ל. ונתקיימו דבריו. אע"פ שבגמרא לא פירשו כן. הואיל לענין דינא לא נפקא מינה ולא מידי. הרשות נתונה לפרש. שאין אני רואה הפרש בין פירוש המשנה לפירוש המקרא שהרשות נתונה לפרש במקראות כאשר עינינו הרואות חבורי הפירושים שמימות הגמ'. אלא שצריך שלא יכריע ויפרש שום דין שיהא סותר דעת בעלי הגמ':

 
He brings a few sources that a סברא is דאורייתא (p.78 n.180) Just to add one obscure source to his list see R. Avraham Grodzensky in Torat Avraham (p.264) who writes:
גם סברת האדם ושכלו הפשוט כמקרא מפורש הוא, ואדרבה כל סברא פשוטה ביותר מפורש הוא ביותר כאשר נבאר איתא בב"ק (מו:) מניין להמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה... מתקיף לה רב אשי הא למה לי קרא סברא הוא... קושיא זו של רב אש אינה על סברא שדעת התורה והשקפתה כלולה בה, אלא על סברא פשוטה שהולה מבקש את הרופא מפני שמרגיש את כאביו ואל סברא זו מקשה...

One point of interest although this could really be nothing when Naor quotes Mendelssohn (pp.16-34) and Weisel (p. 19 n. 48, 200-203) in the text of the sefer he brings there name in abbreviation one suspects it has to do with fear for citing their names openly only in the notes (p.22 n.51) which much less people read does he quote Mendelssohn by full name.

On page 69 he deals with a Rambam who says יראה לי explaining that when ever the Rambam uses such language he is saying his own hiddush. It is surprising that although through out  this work Naor demonstrates great bekiyut in the works of the Aderet here he does not mention in the notes that he composed a work on all the Rambam's that say יראה לי recently reprinted by Ahavat sholom called Teshuvah Meyerah and more importantly he deals with this Rambam. One weakness is neither of these two works in the volume have an index which would have been rather useful as there are many many topics of interest in this sefer and one can not find them easily.   

Finally, it is worth noting that the book itself is rather nice to look at in part due to the color cover depicting a Spanish synagogue scene from the period of the Rashba. All in all this work is well worth owning and reading carefully.

The book is available in Jewish bookstores in Baltimore, Boston, New York and Pittsburgh or via the Orot website, with a special offer here.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/19/Review-of-Maamar-al-Yishmael A Note on the Latin Dedication in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 1517 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/11/A-Note-on-the-Latin-Dedication-in-the-Rabbinic-Bible-of-Venice-15 A Note on the Latin Dedication in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 1517

by: Jordan S. Penkower


In response to the recent post at the Seforim Blog about approbations of Hebrew books, a correction is in order concerning the footnote about the intent of the remarks of Felix Pratensis in his dedication of the Venice 1517 Rabbinic Bible to the Pope. In footnote 3 of the recent post, a conjecture was offered to explain Felix Pratensis' remarks.


In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions "hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them" and that "no one has attempted [such an edition] before." Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that "Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients."  But, it is possible that Pratensis' claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations.  Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate.  This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which "are new or which have never been printed before."  Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew).  Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a "new" book.  


I would like to clarify a number of points about Pratensis' remarks.

(1) Among his remarks, Pratensis makes the following statements: (a) no one before him had collated a great number of manuscripts to prepare a Bible edition; (b) the errors in the manuscripts are almost as many as their words, and only in this printed edition has the text been restored to its purity (See my PhD, p. 282 and nn. 20-21 for text and translation).


(2) Previous scholars have pointed out the problem with Pratensis' remarks, which seem to be mere hyperbole. C.D. Ginsburg, in his Introduction (pp. 946-947), who explained Pratensis' remarks as referring to the text, noted that he found several manuscripts similar to Pratensis' edition, and on the other hand, never found any manuscripts whose errors were as numerous as its words. P. Kahle, in numerous places, e.g. Cairo Geniza, p.123, offered an explanation of Pratensis' remarks: Pratensis was referring to the vocalization found in the manuscripts, specifically those manuscripts with "expanded-Tiberian vocalization", a system that he rejected.


(3) Neither of the above explanations of Pratensis' remarks is satisfactory. Ginsburg – he himself noted that if Pratensis refers to the text, there are several manuscripts similar to Pratensis' printed edition. Kahle – his explanation is unsatisfactory because Pratensis said that ALL mss - and not some specific sub-type - were replete with errors. I have offered an explanation several years ago in my doctoral thesis (pp. 187-188) that avoids the shortcomings of these suggestions. In chapter four of my thesis, I presented a detailed comparison of the variants between the Venice 1517 and the 1525 Rabbinic Bibles – in Genesis, Joshua, and Proverbs - both with respect to the text, as well as to the vocalization, accentuation, and ga'ayot. In light of the results of the comparisons between the two editions, I suggested that one should explain Pratensis' remarks as referring both to the text, as well as to the vocalization, accentuation, and ga'ayot.


(4) I have shown in my fourth chapter that with respect to the TEXT, Pratensis relied mainly on accurate Sefardi manuscripts. These manuscripts do NOT mark the "light ga'aya" consistently; do NOT use qamatz together with shewa to note the qamatz qatan (but only the sign of the qamatz alone); do NOT have a special sub-system of accentuation in Proverbs; and do NOT write "bin-Nun" with a dagesh in the first nun of the name Nun. With respect to all of these latter four phenomena – found in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 1517 – Pratensis relied upon Ashkenazi manuscripts, which also vary widely from the accurate Sefardi manuscripts with respect to the details of plene-defective spelling (these Ashkenzai manuscripts also vary among themselves with respect to the above four phenomena). From these details it follows that according to Pratensis every manuscript that he saw, its errors were like the number of its words: Ashkenazi manuscripts with respect to the plene-defective spelling (and other topics), and the Sefardi manuscripts with respect to vocalization, accentuation, and ga'ayot.


(5) Thus we see that Pratensis indeed thought that his edition was unique and was the first accurate Bible edition. In his edition, he gathered for the first time phenomena from the above noted Sefardi and Ashkenazi manuscripts, and in his opinion his edition thereby "restored the splendor to the crown" with regard to all of its components: text, vocalization, accentuation, and ga'ayot. In reality, he created a new hybrid that never existed in the manuscripts.



Bibliography: Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, London 1897, reprint: New York 1966; Paul Kahle, The Cairo Genizah, Oxford 1959; Jordan S. Penkower, Jacob ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Biblia Rabbincia, PhD dissertation, 2 vols, Jerusalem 1982 (Heb.); idem, "Rabbinic Bible", in: Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 2, Abington Press, Nashville Tenn 1999, pp. 361b-364a.


]]> Jordan Penkower Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/11/A-Note-on-the-Latin-Dedication-in-the-Rabbinic-Bible-of-Venice-15 Some Observations Regarding Approbations for Hebrew Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/8/Some-Observations-Regarding-Approbations-for-Hebrew-Books Haskamot (rabbinical approbations) to Hebrew books have an very interesting history.  There are a few different forms of haskamot, perhaps the most important form is that which granted the author and/or publisher a copyright. Typically, the haskamah would prohibit republishing the particular book for a period of ten or fifteen years, etc.  In some instances, it was not only the particular book but any book in the field. For example, the haskamah to R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller's edition of the Mishna with his commentary, Tosefot Yom Tov (Prague 1617) provides that "it is prohibited from printing any Mishnayot with any commentary for four years."[1] 

The history of this particular form haskamah begins with the approbation that appears on the first Rabbinic bible (Venice 1517).  As Jordan Penkower has previously provided, the approbation which appears at the end of Chronicles states that it is 
forbidden [for] any one under the penalty of excommunication and also the loss of the books in the territories of the Holy Roman Church, to print or cause to be printed these books with the Targum or without the Targum and the Hebrew Commentaries of the Bible for the space of ten years from 1515.[2] 
This approbation is somewhat unique for Hebrew books as it was not given by a Rabbi but instead by Pope Leo X. Indeed, the version of this bible which contains this approbation was also dedicated to the Pope. Felix Pratensis, the editor and former Jew (he became a Augustin monk), explains in the dedication that the very idea of including the Targumim is favorable to the Church.  He explains that 
the text we have added the ancient Hebrew and Chaldee Shcola, to wit the common Targum and that of Jerusalem.  These contain many obscure and recondite mysteries, not only useful, but necessary to the devout Christian.  We have wished with good reason to publish the whole under the sanction of your name [Leo X], for whereas on this book the foundation and the entire superstructure of Christianity rests, you are revered by us as the chief head of the Christian Church on earth and no one can deny the appropriateness of the dedication to you of our work. 

Another odd approbation appears in the book printed much later in Lemberg, 1878.  This book, Peni Abraham, authored by R. Abraham Abba Seelenfreund includes approbations dated years before the book was ever published. For example, R. Meir Perles' approbation is dated 1852.  But, that approbation is not unique in the history of approbations.  In fact, the first Ashkenazik approbations, appearing in R. Shlomo Luria's Hakmat Shlomo (Krakow 1581) contains the approbation of R. Kalman of Worms dated 1542.  Instead, the odd approbation is that of R. Yitzhak Meir Alter, the Gerrer Rebbi otherwise known as the Hiddushei ha-Rim.  The reason this approbation is odd does have to do with the date.  Specifically, it is dated, Rosh Hodesh Tamuz, 1870.  The problem is that R. Alter died some four years earlier on the 23 of Adar 1866!  Now it is possible that instead of 5630 (1870) it should read 5620 (1860) and the letter Chuf was inadvertently changed to a Lamed, but in all events, it is a rather interesting slip of the pen.  

Now, it is not only the approbation that is of interest, in fact, R. Seelenfreund himself was somewhat of a character. According to the brief biography by R. Yekutiel Yehuda Greenwald,[4] R. Seelenfreund ended up divorcing his first wife during sheva Berakhot.  Additionally, although R. Seelenfreund was the Rabbi in Zaloshick (Poland) for a period of time, in 1875 he took a position in Kosice, Hungary for a short period of time.  While R. Seelenfreund was considered Ultra-Orthodox, as the term was used by the Hungarians, Kosice, as were many cities in Hungry was split between three Jewish factions, Reform, Ultra-Orthodox and Status Quo.  R. Seelenfreund was appointed Rabbi of the Status Quo  synagogue and thought that his relationships with Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis would allow him to remain to be viewed as such.  Indeed, on his first sefer, Pras Avot (Lemberg 1865), he obtained the approbation of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson.  It was R. Nathanson's suggestion for the title of the book to be Pras Avot. It appears that R. Seelenfreund, however, was very wrong in his calculation regarding Kosice. He eventually left Kosice and returned to Zaloshick but not before relationships between himself and the community broke down.  He even published a small book, Kol Shover Shekarim (Kosice 1878) to defend himself.  It is unclear why much of this history of R. Seelenfreund does not appear in Cohen's biography of R. Seelenfreund from Hakmei Hungaria.[5]  It appears that Cohen was unaware that R. Seelenfreund left Kosice or that he published Kol Shover Shekarim. 


Notes:
[1]  For this and other similar approbations see Nahum Rakover, Copyright in Jewish Sources (Israel 1991), 150-53 (Hebrew). Both Rakover's work as well as Benayahu's, see infra n3, break new ground on the issue of approbations.  The new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, however, does not use any of these sources.  In fact, the new version merely reprints the earlier article on haskma which appeared in the 1971 edition and is seriously lacking.  This is but another example of how the new version has significant gaps.  See Shnayer Z. Leiman's review of the new edition here and Shlomo Zalman Havlin's additional note on the topic here. 

[2] The translation of this and the next quote is taken from Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Ktav Press 1966), 935-36, 946.

[3] In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions "hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them" and that "no one has attempted [such an edition] before." Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that "Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients."  But, it is possible that Pratensis' claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations.  Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate.  This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which "are new or which have never been printed before."  Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew).  Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a "new" book.  

[4] Y.Y. Greenwald, "The Descendants of the Rema and their Influence in Hungary," Sinai 28 (1951): 85-87 (Hebrew).  

[5]  Y.Y. Kohen, Hakmei Hungaria (Israel 1997), 342.

]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:05:36 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/8/Some-Observations-Regarding-Approbations-for-Hebrew-Books Snow: A Review of Ha-Noten Sheleg http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/7/Snow-A-Review-of-HaNoten-Sheleg Y. Meiselman, Ha-Noten Sheleg, Be-Inyanei ha-Sheleg veha-Kerach be-Halacha, Holon, 2001, 266 pp.

With winter approaching, a review of a work devoted to the topic of snow is particularly appropriate.  While everyone is familiar with R. Zevin's discussion of the halachik use of snow in his Le-Or ha-Halacha, R. Zevin only took his discussion so far. Today, we now have a work that is entirely devoted to snow and halacha.  This book, which is on Orach Hayyim and volumes on the other sections of Shulchan Orach are planned.  Indeed, the author in his introduction is aware how silly books devoted to a single topic can be and offers some justification for composing this work. This somewhat unique in so far as the author is at least willing to admit and deal with the problems with single subject works.  That is, there is no issue with writing a book on all of hilchos shabbos which incorporate something about snow.  What becomes problematic is when one takes a single subject and merely culls from other books what they have to say about it.  For example, is there any need for a book I once came across that is hundreds of pages on the "halachos" of walking in front of someone praying?  In this case, however, the author appears to have succeeded in producing a valuable work.  

As one would expect with a book devoted to a singular halacha, it covers every possible aspect of snow. The first section collects every mention of snow in Tanakh and the Talmud.  Additionally, he collects stories that are centered around snow. A common theme is that many great people felt shoveling snow was not beneath their dignity.  For example, he has two stories one with R. Chaim Volozhin and the other with the Chofetz Hayyim which are similar.  In both, whenever it would snow all the paths in the morning would be cleared by these great Rabbis.  
The author then ensures that his readers are actually aware of the phenomena that will be discussed so he provides the scientific definitions of snow, ice, and hail.   

The book then turns to the halachik questions.  It covers the obvious ones like shoveling snow on shabbos, using snow for ritual hand washing etc. as well as some more esoteric topics like skiing on shabbos.  Additionally, as appears to be de rigueur today, the final section are questions and responses from R. Chaim Kenifsky. The author explains that many of the questions he asked R. Chaim were not novel and instead asked questions that had been discussed previously - one assumes to see if R. Chaim agreed or disagreed with the prior opinions.  

Although the author claims his book is merely a collection of sources, in fact it is much more.  The author after collecting the various sources on a particular topic analysis the sources and actually is unafraid to come to his own conclusions.  This is especially surprising as so many authors are afraid of ever actually giving a conclusion for fear that someone will think it makes sense and follow it.  Rather, we typically get inane disclaimers on seforim that are devoted to halacha that in fact it is not a halachik work.  Indeed, in the case of this book, in some cases the author appears to disagree with the conclusion of R. Kenifsky.  Because of the author's willingness to actually offer opinions the book is a much more satisfying read, one not only gets a list of sources (many of which should be well-known) but also the reader can begin to see where the potential flaws are and come to their own conclusions.  

Turning to the particulars, the author allows for shoveling snow on Shabbat, salting icy walkways, and even skiing (when he asked R. Chaim about skiing, R. Chaim admitted that he didn't know what it was, the author then showed him pictures of people skiing).  Many of these laws start with a discussion of the well-known pronouncement of the Mahram of Rottenberg that one can urinate on snow on Shabbat.  One area that he takes a restrictive view is not really related to winter but ice.  That is, he questions squeezing or mashing freeze pops or other frozen snacks on Shabbat due to the prohibition of mesarek. 

Additionally, the author expends considerable energy on the burning question for most kids - can one make and throw snowballs on Shabbat. See 7:3 and Miluim no. 3. On this issue there is a split amongst the authorities.  The author in the additions in the back attempts to find additional support for those who allow for making and throwing snowballs on Shabbat.  He also discusses whether one can make snowmen (which he prohibits).  

In all, the book is an enjoyable read that provides the starting point for an serious discussion regarding the halachot implicated by snow. 


]]> Book Reviews Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:51:01 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/7/Snow-A-Review-of-HaNoten-Sheleg Review: Macsanyuh Shel Torah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/31/Macsanyuh-Shel-Torah-Rabbi-Moshe-Hub  

Review: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah

by Eliezer Brodt


Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, ed., New York, 2008, 297 pp.

 

As mentioned in the past, there is an austounding amount of seforim being published.  One genre, that is bursting at the seams, is sefarim on Chumash. There are seforim printed from famous people; some are still with us, while others have been gone for many years. These seforim focus on all kinds of topics: mussar, machashavah, pshat, kabbalah, d'rush, and halachah. In truth, it is virtually impossible to keep up with what is printed. I would, however, like to mention just one such sefer printed this year: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. This sefer is composed of three generations of Torah from the Hubner family. Most notably, Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, z"l, who was a big Rav for many years; ybl"ch, his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner; and his grandson, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, a young author who is frequently featured in the Hamodia Magazine Torah section. This sefer contains many interesting pieces on Chumash, some short and many long, representing unique and interesting topics and styles in learning. Aside from the many interesting chiddushim presented, it is worthwhile to note the mention of many rare and exotic sefarim quoted as sources throughout the work. As in almost any sefer, a variety of interesting content can be found apart from the actual body of the work. I would like to mention just a few of the interesting discussions I found in this sefer.

 

The sefer begins with a very nice but straight to the point biography of Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, written by his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner. This biography was based on stories heard from Rabbi Shmuel Hubner throughout his lifetime (1891-1983). Rabbi S. Hubner  made his rounds in Europe, meeting many different gedolim (almost like a Forrest Gump). (One gets the impression that there are many more nice stories that should have been printed here.) Just to mention some of the facts mentioned: Rabbi S. Hubner attended the levayah of Harav Yosef Engel, zt"l, and heard the famous hesped of Harav Meir Arik, zt"l, who said on Rav Engel that he was a baki in all areas of Torah, Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc., to which Rav Steinberg, the Brode Rav, asked him if he wasn't perhaps exaggerating a bit. Rav Arik replied that it was one hundred percent true, and there was no exaggeration involved.


Rav Hubner studied at the Berlin Seminary and heard shiurim from Harav Chaim Heller, zt"l. He was in Vienna when the Rogatchver Gaon, zt"l, passed away and he visited with him a bit before he died. He heard the Rogatchver expound on some topics in the parashah based on his well-known and unique methods of thought and assessment. Rabbi Hubner was the rebbi of the well-known scholar and writer, ybl"ch, Rabbi Tuviah Preschel.

 

After the war, Rabbi S. Hubner was a Rav in Brooklyn. Over the years he printed many pieces on all kinds of topics in the various Torah journals. Eventually, he collected many of them that related to practical halachah and printed them in a sefer entitled Sh"ut Nimukei Shmuel. This sefer received very warm haskamos from Harav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, and Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l. Some of the pieces have been reprinted in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, along with many new pieces found in Rabbi Hubner's many personal journals, which have never before been printed. This leads to a now-famous discussion regarding divrei Torah left behind after a person's petirah. In particular, if the mechaber did not leave instructions as to whether his writings should be printed, is his family permitted to do so? Another issue is, do these pieces carry weight in halachah, since the writer might have changed his mind before he passed away. An additional questioned is, if the mechaber specified not to print his writings, must his family adhere to his wishes? Much has been written on these topics, but Rabbi M. Hubner found information in his grandfather's notes addressing this very issue, which he included in Me'achsanya Shel HaTorah. Being that Rabbi S. Hubner's answer was very original, I am quoting it here in its entirety (intro pg. 9-10):

 

קראתי את תשובתו שבה כת"ה שקיל וטרי באריכות בנידון השאלה אם יש לשמוע להמחבר שציוה שלא לפרסם את כתביו הכוללים חידושים ותשובות. ואחרי שכת"ה מביא צדדי היתר וצדדי איסור הוא מגיע למסקנת שאין לשמוע לצוואת המחבר ויש להדפיס את כתביו. לע"ד נראה שיש לחקור ולמצוא טעמו ונימוקו של המחבר מפני מה הוא ציוה שלא להדפיס את כתביו ופסק הדין בשאלה זו תלוי בנימוקו של המחבר. דעתי זו מיוסדת על דברי הח"ס באו"ח סי' ר"ח שכתב וז"ל : כל המחבר ספר ומתערב במחשבתו לגדל שמו רבצה בו האלה האמורה במילי דאבות : נגיד שמא אבד שמא (פרקי אבות פ"א מי"ג) ולא תעשינה ידיו תושיה להוציא מחשבתו לפועל, כי יבוא מבקרי מומין ויחפשו וימצאו, מלבד שהוא עובר איסור דאורייתא דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן, ולא הותר אלא משום עת לעשות לה', (גיטין ס א) ואם איננו עושה לה' הרי איסורו במקומו עומד. לעומת זה מי שיודע בעצמו כי כל מגמתו לשם הית"ב, להגדיל תורה ולהדירה ורק מונע בר מפני חשש מבקרי מומין ומלעיגים ומלעיבים במלאכי ה' עבירה היא בידו, וכשם שיקבל עונש על הדרישה הנ"ל [אם אינה לשם שמים], כן ייענש זה על הפרישה, עכ"ל. בדברי החתם סופר הללו נמצאת התשובה על השאלה דמר. אם הציווי של המחבר שלא לפרסם את כתביו נבע מן החשש הראשון הנזכר בדברי הח"ס אז לדעתי מצוה לקיים דברי המת ולא להדפיסם, כי לב יודע מרת נפשו, ואין היורשים רשאים לעבור על צוואתו, כי ע"י הדפסת הספר יעשו רעה להמחבר, ואילו היה חי היה מורה בכל תוכף נגד ההדפסה, ועכשיו שאינו יכול למחות פסק הדין צריך למנוע מעשות לו עול. ואם ישאלני איך אפשר עכשיו לידע מה היה הנימוק שבגללו אסר את הפירסום ? אשיבנו שזה אפשר להכיר מתוך תשובותיו. אם דברי הח"ס מובאים בתשובותיו ובחידושיו, אז קרוב לודאי שגם תשובה זו היתה ידועה לו והיא היא שהניעה והביאה אותו לידי כך שיאסור לפרסם את כתביו. ברם אף אם דברי הח"ס אינם מובאים בתשובותיו אפשר ואפשר שתשובות הח"ס ובתוכן גם התשובה הנ"ל היו ידועות לו, שכן לא יצוייר שמחבר תשובות לא ישתמש בתשובות הח"ס. בהתחשבות עם זה לבי מהסס להתיר הפרסום.


הדבר שונה אם הנימוק העיקרי לצוואתו לא היה החשש הנ"ל אלא מטעם אחר כגון מפני חשש המבקרים או מפני שהיה מיראי הוראה, אז רשאי או יותר נכון מצוה להדפיס את כתביו כמפורש בדברי הח"ס שהבאתי לעיל. והנני להביא עוד ראיות לכך : בספר חסידים סי' תתקל כתב מי שגילה לו ה' דבר ואינו כותבו הוא גוזל את הרבים כדכתב סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם. ובשבט סופר (פ' כב) דעתיד אדם ליתן דין וחשבון על זה שאינו כותב חידושיו. ובספר מור וקציעה סי' רכג כתב דמי שגומר ספר בכתיבה וכל שכן בהדפסה יש לו לברך ברכת שהחיינו שכן עושין שמחה לגמרה של תורה, שאין שום קנין ובניו שיש בו שמחה יותר מזה. וכן מצינו ביבמות (צו ב) שדוד המלך התפלל אגורה באהלך עולמים (תהל' סא) וכי אפשר לאדם בשני עולמים ? אלא דוד אמר לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולםל יהי רצון שיאמרו דבר שמועה מפי בעוה"ז. וכמו שאמר רשב"י כל ת"ח שאומרים דבר שמועה מפיו בעולם הזה שפתותיו דובבות בקבר.

העיקר בנידון זה, לידע מאיזה טעם המחבר ציווה שלא לפרסם את כתביו.

 

 

Another very interesting discussion found in this sefer (pp. 264-66) is a piece about the authorship of Lecha Dodi. Being that I have never seen or heard a discussion of anyone denying that Harav Shlomo Alkebetz, zt"l, authored the tefilah, I feel it is worthwhile to quote this piece in part. Rabbi S. Hubner knew an interesting person named Reb Meir Sokel, who suggested to him as follows:

 

 רק שני החרוזים הראשונים נכתבו ע"י שלמה אלקבץ, שבהם הוא שר על קדושת שבת. אבל שאר החרוזים, שבהם שוב אין זכר לשבת, ואין להם כל קשר לחרוזים הראשונים, הם מעשה ידי מזייף והם מכוונים לאיזה "איש הנערץ והנקדש", אישיות מהוללה ומפוארה, שאליה מדבר המזייף בלשון נקבה - כלומר המזייף מטיף בהם לנצרות באורח מוסווה... מאיר סוקל מסיק שהשיר "לכה דודי" לא יוכל להיכלל בשירי ישראל, ורק מתוך אי-ידיעה ואי-הבחנה הוכנס השיר לסדר התפילה ויש להימנע, לדעתו, מלאמרו.

To which Rabbi S. Hubner replied to him at length:

 

א- השיר "לכה דודי", כמו שהוא לפנינו נדפס בפעם הראשונה בפראג בספר "ארחות חיים" בשנת שע"ב כשלושים שנה אחר פטירת המשורר. ולא יתכן כי בזמן שבני דורו של המשורר היו עוד בחיים יהיה איש לזייף באופן גס כזה, ישאיר רק שני חרוזים מקוריים ואת החרוזים האחרים ימיר בחרוזיו "החשודים", והזיוף לא הוכר ואיש לא מחה כנגדו.


ב- דבר ידוע הוא שהאר"י [האשכנזי - ר' יצחק לוריא] שהמשורר הסתופף בצלו, בחר בשירי אלקבץ מפני שנכתבו על דרך האמת. והלא בזמן שנדפס השיר שהוא לפנינו היה ר' חיים ויטאל, איש סודו ותלמידו הגדול של האר"י עוד בחיים. אם כן איך אפשר הדבר, שר' חיים ויטאל לא הדגיש בזיוף ובשינוי שאיש בליעל ביצע בשירו של אלקבץ, שהאר"י בחר בו, וציין אותו כשיר שנכתב על דרך האמת, והשינוי נתקבל ?


ג- מאיר סוקל קובע שהחרוזים האחרונים של השיר לא יצאו מתחת ידו של אלקבץ, שהרי אין להם שום קשר לחרוזים הראשונים. מסקנתו של מ. ס. בנויה על הנחות בלתי נכונות. לאמיתו של דבר אין כאן סטיה מן הענין, החרוזים האחרונים מחוברים וקשורים אל הראשונים. עובדה היסטורית היא שאלקבץ, אחר בואו מאדריאנופול לצפת, הצטרף לחבורה הקדושה שהתקבצה מסביב להאר"י. בין אלה היו גיסו של אלקבץ, המקובל ר' משה קורדובירו, ר' יוסף קארו [בעל השולחן ערוך], ר' משה אלשיך, ר' אליהו די וידאש [בעל ראשית חכמה] ועוד. ערגה עזה להופעתו של הגואל היתה ממלאה את לב כל אלה וכל מאוויי נפשם היו להחיש את הגאולה. חד לכוסף הגאולה, אנו מוצאים בחרוזים האחרונים של "לכה דודי". אחרי שהמשורר שר בשני החרוזים הראשונים על קדושת השבת, הוא נותן ביטוי בחרוזים האחרונים לתקוות הגאולה, שנפשו של המשורר ערגה לה כל כך. הוא פונה אל ירושלים הנקראת "מקדש מלך" (עמוס ז יג) ומנחם אותה שגאולת ה' קרובה לבוא, אחרי שבני ישראל קבלו את השבת - וזה על יסוד מאמרו של ר' שמעון בן יוחאי "אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים".


כל הנימוקים האלה שהזכרתי מספיקים כבר להפריד את השערתו של מ. ס., אבל הוספתי עוד נימוק מענין והוא : הלא הרדר, מסופרי המופת בספרות הגרמנית, תרגם את השיר "לכה דודי" לגרמנית מפני חשיבותו של השיר ולא מצא בו שום דופי. גם המשורר בחסד עליון, היינריך היינה, נזדקק לשיר זה לתרגמו ולא פסל אותו בשל חוסר אחידות. והנה מ. ס. פסל תוך גישתו השכלתנית שיר שנתקדש אצל בני ישראל במשך דורות. את כל זה כתבתי לו, אבל איני יודע אם נימוקי שיכנעו אותו או עמד על דעתו.

 

 

Another discussion of interest, in a more bibliographical sense, is a chapter (pp. 271-75) written by Rabbi Tuviah Preschel. It concerns a translation of the Talmud that Rabbi Shmuel Hubner wrote while hidden away in Belgium during World War II. What is unique about this translation is that it was done in Yiddish. By 1944 (when Belgium was liberated), Masechtos Brachos, Baba Metziah and part of Bava Kama had been completed. By 1948, a few more masechtos were completed. As late as 1965, some of these volumes were already being reprinted. Due to technical reasons, the printing of these masechtos was never completed. What is interesting is that Rabbi Hubner's translation seems to have escaped the otherwise rather excellent article of  Rabbi Adam Mintz, "The Talmud in Translation" in Printing the Talmud, an updated version of his article in Torah Umadah.



Aside from these valuable pieces, there are many more to be found in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. Just to note some, there is a very interesting discussion on the halachic aspects of adopting children (pp. 213-26); why the children "steal" the Afikomon on Pesach night (pp. 140-43); what reward can/does one get for learning via listening to a taped recording (p. 173)? (This question is found in the middle of a long discussion on the meaning of "שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה"); whether Hashem's shvuah to Noach not to destroy the world was only as pertains to a flood or any other means as well (pp. 31- 34); Zimri's understanding of the avodah zarah of baal pe'or (pp. 156-59); and an incredible lengthy discussion showing the historical background and logic behind the many the takonos of Ezra Hanavi (pp. 206-13).


For information regarding the sefer, Rabbi Moshe Hubner may be contacted at hubners@gmail.com.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/31/Macsanyuh-Shel-Torah-Rabbi-Moshe-Hub Eliezer Brodt: The Chanukah Omission http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/29/Eliezer-Brodt-The-Chanukah-Omission
The Chanukah Omission
by Eliezer Brodt


Every Yom Tov we celebrate has different questions relating to it which become famous and are discussed from all different angles. Chanukah too has its share of famous questions. In this post I would like to deal with one such question which is famous but the answers are mostly not. The question is why is there no special Meshecta devoted to Chanukah as opposed to all other Yom Tovim [1]. Over the years many answers have been given some based on hassidus, others based on machshava, and still others in a kabablistic vein [2]. In this post I will try to discuss a few different approaches to answer the question. In dealing with this question I will touch on some other topics amongst them what is Megilat Taanis, when was it written, and what Rabbenu Hakodesh did in regard to the writing of the Mishna.
 
One of the answers given to this question of why there is no Mishna on Chanuka is based on the famous Rambam who writes:

אבל דיני הציצית והתפלין והמזוזות וסדר עשייתן והברכות הראויות להן וכן הדינים השייכים לכך והשאלות שנתעוררו בהן אין ממטרת חבורנו לדבר בכך לפי שאנחנו מפרשים והרי המשנה לא קבעה למצות אלו דברים מיוחדים הכוללים את כל משפטיהם כדי שנפרשם, וטעם הדבר לדעתי פרסומן בזמן חבור המשנה, ושהם היו דברים מפורסמים רגילים אצל ההמונים והיחידים לא נעלם ענינם מאף אחד, ולפיכך לא היה מקום לדעתו לדבר בהם, כשם שלא קבע סדר התפלה כלומר נוסחה וסדר מנוי שליח צבור מחמת פרסומו של דבר, לפי שלא חסר סדור אלא חבר ספר דינים (פירוש המשנה, מנחות פרק ד משנה א).
 
Thus, according to the Rambam, things that are well known were not required to be mentioned in the Mishna.  There are those who posit that this rationale applies to Chanukah.  That is, Chanukah was also well known that’s why it was not necessary to be written. [3] [Regarding the Rambam's comments in general see R. Reuven Margolis in Yesod Hamishna Vearichasa pp. 22-23].
 
The problem with this answer would be best illustrated with R. Yakov Shor's comments on this statement of the Rambam. [See R. Y. Shor, Mishnas Ya'akov Jerusalem:1990; 33-34]. R. Shor questions the entire premise of the Rambam that the laws and details of teffilin were well known when these mitzvot are very complicated with many details.  Indeed, they are arguably much more complex than kriyat Shema which does have its own mesechtah. To answer this, R. Shor suggests that there was a Mesectah Soferim devoted to the laws of teffilin - this is lost but forms the basis of our Mesectah Sofrim which we have today.
 
With this introduction we can perhaps understand the following answers to the question about Chanukah, of which the assumption is there was a Mescatas Chanukah but has been lost.
 
The Rishonim refer to "Seven Minor Meschetot," however, the earlier Achronim did not have these Meschetot.  Today, we do have "Seven Meschetot," although as we shall see not all agree that these are the same that the Rishonim had.  During the period these Meschetot were unknown there was some speculation as to what they contained.  R. Avraham Ben HaGra quotes his father about which were the titles of the שבע מסכות

אמנם שמעתי מאדוני אבי הגאון נר"ו שהשבע מסכות קטנות המה חוץ מאשר נמצא לנו והן מסכת תפלין ומסכת חנוכה ומסי' מזוזה. (רב ופעלים, הקדמה דף ח ע"א)
 
He repeats this in his introduction to Medrash Aggadah Bereshis (see also Yeshurun 4:228).
 
We see that the Gra held that there was a Mesechet titled Chanukah. Now as far as we know today none of the seven Meschetot are about Chanukah. [4] But it could very well be there was such a Mesechet which was lost.  R. David Luria (Radal) [5] assumes as much and uses this assumption to understand the Teshuvos Hageonim which states:

ובא אלינו איש חכם וחסיד זקן ודרש בישיבה כתיב ופן תשא עיניך השמימה וראית את השמש זה נדר ואת הירח זו שבועה... וסדר משנה תוספת על סדרי שלנו ראינו בידו שהיה מביא ולא זכינו להעתיק שסבתו גדולה ונחפז ללכת ואתם אחינו הזהרו בענין זה וטוב לכם. (שערי תשובה, סימן קמג)
 
That is, this Geonic statement evidences additional Meschetot that are no longer extant. 

A different answer given by many [6] is that the reason why Rebbe did not have a whole Mesechet about Chanukah was because there was one already Megilat Tannis!
 
The Pirish ha-Eshel on Megilat Tannis (p. 58) wants to suggest that the Gra did not mean that there was a Mesechet titled Chanukah.  Instead, the Gra mean to reference Megilat Tannis.  Indeed, in earlier printings of the Shas it was included with the Meschetot Ketanyot. [7]
 
Whether or not the Gra meant Megilat Tannis many do say that Megilat Tannis is really Mesechet Chanukah as the most important chapter and lengthy entry is about Chanukah and therefore the question why Rebbi did not include a Meschet about Chanukah was simply because there was one already - Megilat Tannis. 
 
This answer was backed up with a statement found in the Behag which says:

זקני בית שמאי ובית הלל,... והם כתבו מגילת תעניות...
 
The problem with this answer is that while Megilat Tannis is our earliest written text (besides for Pirkei De-Reb Eliezer, see Radal's introduction to his edition of the Pirkei De-Reb Eliezer) dating from much before our Mishnayot, Migilat Tannis contains significant additions from a later time. To clarify, in the standard Megilat Tannis there are two parts one written in Aramaic which are various fast days and one part written in Hebrew which includes a lengthier description of the topic. The Mahritz Chiyus and Radal say that the Aramaic part was written very early when it was not permissible to really write Torah Shel Bal Peh but at a later point when it was permitted to write than the Hebrew parts were added. Mahritz Chiyus says it was after the era of Rabenu Hakodesh. Earlier than him R. Yakov Emden writes in his introduction to his notes on MT that it was completed at the end of the era of the Tanaaim. Now, the bulk of the discussion regarding Chanukah that appears in MT is in the Hebrew part. Thus, historically, it doesn't make sense that Rebbi did not include Chanukah in the Mishna because of sections of MT that had yet to be written. 

Indeed, the Gedolim who first suggested that MT is the reason why Rabbenu Hakodesh did not include it in Mishnayois were not aware of this point that it was written at two different time periods. However R. D. Horowitz in an article in Haples turns the historical difficultly on its head when he argues that the person who wrote those Hebrew parts was Rabbenu Hakodesh. [8] In fact, in one of the editions of Megilat Tannis it says on the Shar Blat Megilat Tannis which is Mesechet Chanukah (the original edition with the Pirush ha-Eshel). The problem with R. Horowitz point is that it seems most likely that it was later than Rabbenu Hakodesh.[9]

Another answer in the same vein as above was suggested by R. Schick (Torah Shleimah 3:156a).  R. Schik argues that there was a Sefer Hashmonaim which recorded the nissim etc written by Shamei and Hillel and therefore there was no separate Mishna. This seems to be based on the quote (quoted partially earlier) mentioned from the Behag which says:
זקני בית שמאי ובית הלל, הם כתבו מגלית בית חשמונאי...
 
Others say this might be a reference to Sefer Makabeyium or Megilat Antiyucus. However although it is likely what we have is from early times but it is not clear at all how early it is from. [See Radal in his introduction to Pirkei De Reb Eliezer, Binu Shnos Dor Vedor, pp. 121-150; N. Fried in Minhaghei Yisroel, vol. 5, pp. 102-20; Areshet vol.4 p. 166; Y. Tabori, Moadei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vehatalmud, p. 390; Moadim le-Simcha p. 253-265, and Hasmonai U-Banav p. 21].
 

Just for its bibliographical purpose in truth there is a book bearing the title Mesechet Chanukah but it was written in a parody form similar to Mesechet Purim of R. Klonymus the manuscript was printed in Areshet (3:182-191) [See also I. Davidson in Parody in Jewish Literature pg 39].  One of the things we see from this parody is the widespread custom of playing cards on Chanukah.
 
 
There is a interesting unknown correspondence on this topic between the Aderes and R. Yakov Kahana (Shut Toldos Yakov, Siman 29) about the topic of a Mesechet Chanukah.  The Aderes wrote to R. Kahana:
 
ומה שתמה על הש"ס למה לא הביאו האי בבא דמגילת תעניות גם אנכי הערתי בזה ומצאתי תמי' זו בהגהת הרצ"ה חיות ז"ל ובימי עולמו כתבתי מזה בס"ד ולא אדע אנה. ואשר התפלא מדוע לא נמצא הא דחנוכה בירושלמי באמת גם במשנה לא נמצא אולם בסוף פ"ו דב"ק שם נמצא וגם מעט בירושלמי בשלהי תרומות. ואנכי מתפלא מאד דגם מצות כתיבת ספר תורה לא נמצא במשנה...
 
 
 
R. Yakov Kahana wrote a lengthy response.  He explained that it does not bother him that the Mishana does not mention this story of Chanukah from MT as the Bavli does not mention any of the incidences in MT. He is more bothered by the omission of the Yerushalmi of this story as the Yerushlmi does mention other incidences of MT.  As to writing a sefer Torah not being mentioned in the Mishana R. Kahana  gives a lengthy list of all the Mitzvos that are not discussed in the Mishna (and the list is long).  
 
L. Ginsburg (Ginzei Schechter 2:476) writes :  
 
וראוי להעיר שבתלמוד ארץ ישראל כמעט לא נזכרו דיני חנוכה כלל לא בדברי התנאים ולא בדברי האמוראים ורק בבבל שעובדי האש גזרו על מצוה זו וככל מצוה שמסרו ישראל נפשם עליה נתחזקה מאד בידיהם... 
 
 
Another answer based on historical information is from the Edos Beyosef (2:15) who quotes the following Yerushalmi which says:
 
בימי טרוגיינוס הרשע נולד לו בן בתשעה באב והיו מתענין מתה בתו בחנוכה והדליקו נירות שלחה אשתו ואמרה לו עד שאת מכבש את הברבריים בוא וכבוש את היהודים שמרדו בך חשב מיתי לעשרה יומין ואתא לחמשה אתא ואשכחון עסיקין באורייתא בפסוקא ישא עליך גוי מרחוק מקצה הארץ וגומ' אמר לון מה מה הויתון עסיקין אמרון ליה הכין וכן אמר לון ההוא גברא הוא דחשב מיתי לעשרה יומין ואתא לחמשה והקיפן ליגיונות והרגן אמר לנשיהן נשמעות אתם לליגיונותי ואין אני הורג אתכם אמרון ליה מה דעבדת בארעייא עביד בעילייא ועירב דמן בדמן והלך הדם בים עד קיפרוס באותה השעה נגדעה קרן ישראל ועוד אינה עתידה לחזור למקומה עד שיבוא בן דוד (תלמוד ירושלמי, סוכה, פרק ה)
 
  Based on this he [10] writes:
 
וכתיבת דיני נר חנוכה יש בה פירסום יותר מהדלקה מפני שהדלקה היא בבתי ישראל בזמן מועט חי' ימים בשנה חצי שעה בכלל לילה ואפ' זה סמיה בידן להדליק בפנים אם יש חשש סכנה אבל דבר בכתב קיים כל הימים ומתפשט בעולם על ידי כל אדם המעתיקם כל מה שרוצה... ומפני זה השמיט רבי כתיבת דיני חנוכה..
 
 
 
Another answer based on historical information is from R. Yeshouyah Preil in Eglei Tal who writes (pp. 17-18)

כי הנה אנדריונוס קיסר אחרי הכניעו את המורדים בביתר שפך כאש חמתו על כל ישראל וישבת חגם, חרשם ושבתם כי גזר על שבת ויום טוב מלה ונדה וכיוצא בו, אולם בימי המלך הבא אחריו אנטוניוס פיוס ידידו של רבי רוח לישראל כמעט, אך כנראה לא השיב את גזרת ההולך לפניו בדבר חנוכה, כי באמת יקשה גם על מלך חסיד כמוהו להניח חג לאומי כזה לעם אשר זה מעט הערה למות נפשו ואך בעמל רב נגרע קרנו זה שנות מספר, ועל כן לא היה יכול רבינו הקדוש נשיא ישראל לדבר בזה בפומי
 
 
R. Reven Margolis [11] has a very interesting answer to this question:

ובכן כאשר תלמי המלך בזמנו צוה להעתיק לו התורה שבכתב לידע מה כתיב בה כן התענייה הנציבות לידע תוכן התורה שבעל פה ... דרישה כזאת היא אשר יכלה להמריץ את נשיא ישראל להתעודד ולערוך בספר גלוי לכל העמים תורת היהודים וקבלתם יסודי התורה שבעל פה להתודע ולהגלות שאין בה הטחת דברים נגד כל אומה ולשון ולא כל תעודה מדינית. ואחר אשר חשב רבי שספרו יבוקר מאנשי מדע העומדים מחוץ ליהודת שיחרצו עליו משפטם לפני כס הממשלה המרכזית ברומא. נבין למה השמיט ממשנתו דברים חשובים עקרים בתורת ישראל ... כן לא שנה ענין חנוכה והלכותיה במשנה, בעוד אשר להלכות פורים קבע מסכת מיוחדת, שזהו לאשר כל כאלו היו למרות רוח הרומיים שחשבום כענינים פוליטיים חגיגת הנצחון הלאומי ותוקת חפשיותו.
 

R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos answers:

לא נכתבה מגילת חנוכה, לפי שנתקנה להורות תוקף תורה שבעל פה, ותולדתיה כיוצא שלא נכתבה... חנוכה המורה על תורה שבעל פה ע"כ לא ניתנה להכתב...  (תורת הגאון רבי אלכסנדר משה, עמ' רנו).

Another answer given by R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos [12]:
 

דבקושי התירו לכתוב תורה שבעל פה והיו פסקי פסקי. מתחלה סתימת המשנה בימי רבנו הקדוש. ואחר זה בימי רבינא ורב אשי חתימת התלמוד, והשאר היו נוהגין במגלת סתרים עד שלאחר זה הותר לגמרי לפרסם בכתב כל מה שתלמיד ותיק מחדש. ורבנו הקדוש לא הרשה רק מה שהוא לפירוש לתורה שבעל פה ומה שיש לו סמך בכתוב, או מה שהוא לסייג, כמו הלל וברכות, ערובין, נטילת ידים, נר שבת ומגלה (מחיית עמלק). אבל חנוכה שאיננו לא פירוש ואין לו סמך בכתוב, ולא לסייג, לא היה נהוג רק במגלת סתרים בבריתות דר"ח ור"א... רק נרמזה במשנה ב"ק סוף פ"ו ואחריה הורשה לפרסם בכתב בתלמוד.

An interesting addition to this could be based on R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [13] who said:

יש להבין אם מצוה זו כ"כ חביבה היא לנו, כמו שכתב הרמב"ם שמצוה חביבה היא עד מאד, למה באמת לא ניתנה ליכתב, אולם עיקר כריתת ברית שכרת הקב"ה עם ישראל הוא רק בעבור תורה שבעל פה כמו שכתב בגיטין ס' ע"ב ומשום כך הואיל ומלכות יון הרשעה רצתה שלא יהי' לנו ח"ו חלק באלקי ישראל, לכן נתחבבה מצוה זו ביותר שנשארה כולה תורה שבעל פה אשר רק על ידי תורה שבעל פה איכא כריתת ברית בינינו ובין ה' ולכן אפילו במשניות לא נזכר כלל דיני חנוכה וכל ענין חנוכה כי אם במקומות אחדים בדרך רמז בעלמא.

R. Dov Berish Askenazi writes:

ולכן לא נכתב נס חנוכה בכתבי קודש רק הוא מקובל לנו מאבותינו הקדושים שכל עצמו של אותו נס לא בא רק להורות על אמתת הקבלה אשר מורשה היא לנו איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו מסיני... (נודע בשערים, דף קי ע"ב).

Another answer suggested by R. Chanoch Ehrentreu [14] is that:

שגוף המשנה על חלקיה העיקריים הוא מעשה אנשי כנסת הגדולה... לאחר ימי אנשי כנסת הגדולה השלימו תנאים במקום שהיה טעון השלמה והוסיפו בשעה שנזקקו להוסיף, וחלקו על פירושה של משנה ראשונה וגם מסרו מחלוקות אלה לדורות. אך המשנה עצמה עתיקה מהלכות חנוכה. לכן ברור שתנאים שנו הלכות בענין חנוכה ונר חנוכה, אך כיון שכבר לא נמצא להם מקום בגוף המשנה נאספו אלה בברייתות.
 
 

This answer is assuming that there were parts of the Mishna that existed earlier than Rebbe and he was just an editor, this leads us to the next explanation.

One of the most famous answers given to this question was by the Chassam Sofer who is quoted to have said:

מרגלא בפומי' כי נס חנוכה לא נזכר כלל במשנה ואמר טעמו כי רבנו הקדוש מסדר המשנה הי' מזרע דוד המלך ונס חנוכה נעשה על ידי חשמונאים שתפסו המלוכה ולא היה מזרע דוד וזה הרע לרבנו הקדוש ובכתבו המשנה על פי רוח הקודש נשמט הנס מחיבורו (חוט המשולש, דף נ ע"א).

Others bring this answer without saying a source [15]. This statement generated much controversy where many went so far as to deny that the Chasam Sofer said such a thing.[16] The bulk of the issues with this answer were dealt with by R. Moshe Zvi Neriah in an excellent article on the topic [17]. The most obvious being that Chanukah is mentioned in the Mishnah a few times the question is just why there isn’t a complete mesectah devoted to it.

The explanation in the Chasam Sofer seems to be based in part on the Ramban (not everyone agrees to this Ramban [18]) who writes:

זה היה עונש החשמונאים שמלכו בבית שני, כי היו חסידי עליון, ואלמלא הם נשתכחו התורה והמצות מישראל, ואף על פי כן נענשו עונש גדול, כי ארבעת בני חשמונאי הזקן החסידים המולכים זה אחר זה עם כל גבורתם והצלחתם נפלו ביד אויביהם בחרב. והגיע העונש בסוף למה שאמרו רז"ל (ב"ב ג ב) כל מאן דאמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא, שנכרתו כלם בעון הזה. ואף על פי שהיה בזרע שמעון עונש מן הצדוקים, אבל כל זרע מתתיה חשמונאי הצדיק לא עברו אלא בעבור זה שמלכו ולא היו מזרע יהודה ומבית דוד, והסירו השבט והמחוקק לגמרי, והיה עונשם מדה כנגד מדה, שהמשיל הקדוש ברוך הוא עליהם את עבדיהם והם הכריתום: ואפשר גם כן שהיה עליהם חטא במלכותם מפני שהיו כהנים ונצטוו (במדבר יח ז) תשמרו את כהונתכם לכל דבר המזבח ולמבית לפרכת ועבדתם עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם, ולא היה להם למלוך רק לעבוד את עבודת ה': (בראשית מט,י)

R. Weinberger [19] says that what the Chasam Sofer meant was:

דגם זה עשה רבינו הקדוש לשם שמים כמו דכל מעשיו היו לשם שמים, כלומר מאחר דחשמונאים דעל ידיהם נעשה הנס, והמה עי"ז עשו שתפסו המלוכה מזרע דוד, ולהכי לא הזכירם במשנה ולא מחמת כבודו וכבוד בית אבותיו.

Interestingly enough the Chasam Sofer in his Chidushim on Gittin (78a) writes:

ואל תתמה שהרי בשום מקום במשנה לא נזכר שיניח אדם תפלין... ולא תנן חייב אדם להדליק נר חנוכה אל גץ... ונר חנוכה גופא היכי הוזכר במשנה אלא רגילים הי' בכך ולא הזכיר...

Whether the Chasam Sofer did say it or not we have testimony from a reliable source that another godol said it as is recorded by Chasdei Avos [20] who is citing the Chidushei Harim:

דבשביל שהי' לבם של בית הנשיא מרה על החשמונאים, שנטלו מהם המלוכה, והוא נגד התורה דלא יסור משבט יהודה, כמו שכתב ברמב"ן ויחי, לכן לא הזכיר רבנו הקדוש דיני חנוכה במשנה.

 

This explanation of the Chasam Sofer (nothing to do with him saying it) was the accepted explanation in most of academic literature for many years  as to why the Mishna omits the story of Chanukah. A while back G. Alon wrote a now classic article proving that this was not true at all. A little later on S. Safrai backed this up. They both showed that there is positive mention of the Chasmonim in Halacha.[21]


To conclude this recently a very through and important article was written on the topic by M. Benovitz  printed in Torah Lishmah (pg 39-78) showing how the Yom Tov of Chanukah developed over time. But due to lack of time I can not discuss what he says. [Thanks to M.M. Honig for this source].


This whole issue was a small part of a famous debate started a while back. In 1891, Chaim Slonimski wrote a short article in Hazefirah (issue #278) questioning why there is no mention in Sefer Hasmonaim and Josephus of the miracle of the oil lasting eight days. Furthermore, he questioned why the Rambam omits the miracle of the oil when detailing the miracles of Chanukah. [The truth is this general question was raised much earlier by the Meor Eynayim (ch. 51, p. 429)] As can be expected this article generated many responses in the various papers and journals of the time and even a few seforim. A little later while defending his original article Slonimski wrote:

 

וכל דיני הלכות חנוכה לא מצינו בדברי בעל המשנה רק מן האמוראים שגמרא שבת...

 

R. Ginsberg in his Emunat Chachimim (pg 4a-4b) already points out that it is mentioned in Baba Kama. But I think his point was more about sefer Chashmonim and Yosefin. R. Lipshitz in Derech Emunah defended this based on MT as quoted above. R. Y. Sapir (Nes Pach Shel Shemen, pg 30) also wrote such a defense. But Slonimski said that the MT is a late addition.[22]

 
Notes:

 *I would like to thank to Professor Spiegel, M.M. Honig and Dan Rabinowitz for their help with this post.


[1] Chanukah is mentioned a few times in Mishnayos but the issue here is why isn’t there a whole Mesechet devoted to it. See Machnayim 34:81-86 [See Tifres Yeruchem pg 60, 414]. As an aside, in the Zohar there is also no mention of Chanukah see Tifres Zvi (3:397,465) and R. Yakov Chaim Sofer in Beis Aron ve-Yisroel (18:2, pg 110) and his Menuchos Shelomo (11: 43). 
 
[2] Chasidus sources: see Bnei Yissaschar , Ohev Yisroel and Moadim le-Simcha p. 38. For machashava sources see Sifsei Chaim (2:131); Pachad Yitzchak (pp. 29-32); Alei Tamar (Megilah p. 87); R. Munk, Shut Pas Sadecha, (introduction, p. 7). As to Kabblah the Yad Neman writes (p. 2b) that when he met R. Dovid Pardo author of the classic work on Toseffta Chasdei Dovid he told him a reason based on kabblah. 
 
[3] The earliest sources who says this answer is R. Hayyim Abraham Miridna, Yad Neman, Solonika, 1804, p. 2b.  Subsequently, many others give this answer (all on their own) such as the Mahritz Chiyus (Toras Haneviyim p. 105), R. Yakov Reiffmann (Knesses Hagedolah (3:90)), Pirish ha-Eshel on Megilat Tannis (p. 58b) Beis Naftoli son (#28), Yad Yitchach (#295) R. Hershovitz in Minhagei Yeshurun (pg 48) Dorot Harishonim (4:46a) [see also R. Eliyhu Schleiseinger in Moriah (25:123) and in his Ner Ish Ubeso pg 338-339].
  
[4] See Heiger in his introduction to Mesechtot Ketanot p. 6 and M. Lerner in The Literature of the Sages volume one pg 400-403 (thanks to P. Roth for this source). 
 
 
[5] Radal notes to Midrash Rabbah Emor (22:1). See R. Nachman Greenspan, Pilpulah Shel Torah p. 60 and his Melechet Machshevet p. 6. See also the Radal's comments in Kadmus Hazohar at the end of section two;  R. Dovid Hoffman, Mishnah ha-Rishonah, pp.12-13;Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa  p. 29 (and nt.15) & 17.
 
 
[6] The earliest source who says this is R. Yosef Hayyim ben Siman, Edos Beyosef, Livorno, 1800 (2:15). The Chida quotes this explanation in his dershos Devarim Achadim (derush 32) R. Lipshitz in Derech Emunah p. 24 also provides this explanation.
 
[7] Pirush ha-Eshel p. 58 see also his introduction to MT. The piece on pg 58 is not found in the new Oz Vehadar edition as the Pirish Haeshel was printed only partially see this post. It would appear that the Gra held there was a real meschatah called Chanukah like the Radal seems to understand him as his great nephew brings in his introduction to his work on Avos Beis Avos writes:
 
ואמר לי איך ששמע מדו"ז הגאון מו"ה אלי' ז"ל שהיו כמה וכמה מסכות על המדות כמו מסכתא ענוה ומסכתא בטחון וכדומה רק שנאבדה ממנו. 
  
[8] Mahritz Chiyus, vol. 1, pp. 153-54; Radal, Kadmus Hazohar, p. 269.  Haples vol. one pg. 182.
 

[9] The time period of the MT and the two versions (and the nature of the work in general) have been discussed by many just to cite some of the important sources: see Y. Tabori, Moadei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vehatalmud, pp. 307-22; Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa , p. 12 & n.26, p. 20 ;R. N. D. Rabanowitz, Beno Shnos Dor Vedor, pp. 28-46; V. Noam in The Literature of the Sages volume two, pp. 339-62; see also the introduction to her excellent edition of Megilat Tanit. See the nice introduction to the Oz Vehadar edtion of MT. See also M. Bar Ilan, Sinai 98 (1986) pp. 114-37. See also the important points in Yechusei Tanaim ve-Amorim (Maimon edition) pp. 398-399.
 
[10]  R.Y. Buczvah in Shut Beis Halachmei (#4) does not like this answer as than other yom tovim also should not be included. Regarding this Yerushalim, see: Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa p.22 nt.5; Ali Tamar, Sukkah p. 152; Y. Tabori, Moadei  Yisroel be-Tekufat ha-Mishna ve-HaTalmud, p. 373; Tzit Eliezer, 19:26.

[11] Yesod Hamishna ve-Arechsa pp. 21-22. See also R. Freidman in Machanayim 16:12 and R. M. Cohen in Machanayim 37:43.

[12 ]  This answer is brought by R. Yakov Reiffmann in Knesses Hagedolah (3:90) where he brings that R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos wrote this answer to him. This is historically interesting as it shows that there was a connection between the two even though he was a known maskil (for more on R. Yakov Reiffmann ties with Litvish Gedoilm see here ). As an aside this piece of R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos is omitted from the otherwise excellent, recently printed, collection of all of R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos Torah in Torat Hagoan Reb Alexander Moshe.  A similar idea to this is found in Tifres Zvi (3:465).
 
[13] Halechot Shlomo (p. 306 n.42). See also Shalmei Moed p. 254.

[14] Iyunim B'divrei Chaz ]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs Chanukah Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:03:22 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/29/Eliezer-Brodt-The-Chanukah-Omission The Name Machabee http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/21/The-Name-Machabee The Name Machabee

Recently, a whole spate of books have been published, both in English and Hebrew, discussing names (see below for a partial list).  These works tend to focus on the alleged importance of one's name and offer insights into the source and meaning of names.  Although typically not discussed in these books is a well-known name, one that around this time of year deserves attention - the name Machabee (alternatively spelled Machabeus, Maccabaeus, Maccabeus, or substituting a "k" for the "c"). 

One should not mistake the understanding of the proper  etymology and spelling is merely an academic exercise, we begin with a statement of the Hatam Sofer.  The Hatam Sofer is discussing the issue of the appropriate place for appellations in a divorce document. That is, where does one put "shlita" or the like - immediately after the person's name but before the father's name, i.e. Shimon Shlita ben Yosef, or after the father's name Shimon ben Yosef Shlita.  Hatam Sofer attempts to show that the former is correct by appealing to  the name Machabee. According to some, the name Machabee is an abbreviation for "Matisyahu Kohen ben Yochanon." Thus, the Hatam Sofer argues, demonstrates that the appellation, in this case "Kohen" appears immediately after the name and not at the end.  Ultimately, Hatam Sofer concedes that Machabee is not a perfect proof in so far as the reason for the placement of Kohen immediately following a name is because if placed solely at the end one may assume that the Kohen only applies to the father, who, engaged in an illicit relationship rendering his son a halal one who is no longer a kohen.  Thus, Machabee doesn't help for the general question of appellation placements.

However, R. Y.S. Spiegel in an series of articles discussing ראשי תיבות analyzes this Hatam Sofer and points out that the Hatam Sofer's understanding is predicated on a reading of מכבי and not מקבי. But, as Spiegel explains, מקבי has some support. And, as we will discuss below, the entire basis of the word is Greek it is especially difficult to use the word, irrespective of its spelling for much of anything.

Before preceding further, we should briefly discuss where the name Machabee first appears.  It does not appear in classic Rabbinic literature such as the Mishna or Talmud.  Indeed, nor can one point to the name of the book entitled Machabee and has four volumes, i.e. Machabees I, Machabees II and so forth, as has been shown, the title of these books were given much later than their composition.  In fact, the title was most probably given by early Christian editors/translators of the Bible.  (See generally, Uriel Rappaprot, The First Book of Maccabees, Yad Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, 2004, pp. 12-13).  Instead, the most likely candidate for the original title was סרבת סרבניאל or סרבני-אל. 

The first appearance of the word Machabee does appear in the work bearing the title Machabees I.  In particular, it states:

In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin.  And he had five sons, Joannan, called Caddis.  Simon, called Thassi.  Judas, who was called Maccabeus. Eliezer, call Avaran, and Jonathan, whose surmane was Apphus.

Machabees I, chapter 2, verses 1-5.  One of the earliest persons to deal with the meaning of the word Machabee was R. Azariah Di Rossi, in his Me'or Eynaim. 

According to Samotheus, "Maccabee" is a Greek word that is translated as paladino (fighter) in Italian.  But I have been told by others that he received the designation Maccabee because it was inscribed on his banner and derived from the acrostic based on the words Mi Kamokha Ba-elim Hashem.  But this interpretation is not consistent with the fact that On the Maccabees is the title Josephus gave to the work in which he describes the sufferings of Eleazar and Hannah and her seven sons, and this episode predated the rise of Hasmonean dynasty.  But the first explanation would fit, since they, too, [i.e. Eleazar and Hannah who suffered martyrdom] were also fighters.

Me'or Eynaim, Imrei Binah, section two, chapter 21.  Now, Weinberg, in her translation which the above was taken from with one minor alteration, explains that Somatheus is Johannes Lucidus Samotheus and this appears in his Opusculum, bk. 2, ch. 10, 25v.  Di Rossi accepted Samotheus' explanation that Machabee means fighter and is a Greek word.  Although not discussed by Di Rossi, Greek origin of the word makes sense in light of the fact that it was not only Judah who had a title, but his other brothers as well and those titles are Greek. Returning to Di Rossi, Di Rossi rejects the other explanation that Machabee is an acrostic because it was applied by Josephus to a story that long pre-dated Judah's existence.  It is worth noting that the second and rejected explanation is perhaps the more well known explanation of the word, Weinberg in her translation, however, admits that "I do not know the source for this explanation."  p. 343 n.12.  This rather surprising as the source for this understanding of Machabee appears in numerous sources, including the Rokeach (Pirush Siddur ha-Teffilah le-Rokeach, Jerusalem 1992, 219 & n.105), Tzoror ha-Meor (Parshat Veshahan), Shelah as well as many others. It is unclear why Weinberg was unable to locate any of these sources.  

Although Di Rossi had a good reason for rejecting the Mi Kamokha explanation, it didn't stop some from holding on to it. R. David Ganz, in his Tzemach David, argues that perhaps while Judah was the main person to use Machabee, the term may have been applied to earlier persons as well.  Levin, in his Mi-Boker ad Erev, rejects this. Levin states, "with all respect to R. David Ganz, however, does this make any logical sense? In general, is it possible to prove that the son of Matisyahu was called "Judah Mi Kamokha Ba-elim Hashem" and even if one is to assume that this was his slogan?  Further, if one is going to argue that Machabee is an abbreviation can't the word be explained in hundreds of different ways, for example, Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan.  This intrepretation, of Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan, makes the least sense, as anyone with a brain will admit that it makes no sense that Judah the son of Mattisyahu's name was called "Judah Mattisyahu Kohen ben Yochanan." 

A lesser known explanation was offered by Solmon Zeitlin who explained that during the Hellenistic period many people were called based upon their appearances. For example, Antichos VIII referred to Grippas as "the nose" due to his large nose.  Zeitlin accepts that Machabee is based on makbas, a hammer and thus, in keeping with the norms Judah had a hammer shaped head  - a block head.  Thus, Judah was Judah the Hammer Head. 

Levin, cites other explanations including that if makbas means a hammer it is not a large hammer but instead a small one used by a blacksmith. According to this explanation, Machabee refers to Judah's occupation a blacksmith.   Indeed, if one looks to the story of Yael, she used a makabas which assuming she was of normal strength was probably not a huge hammer but a small one. Ultimately, Levin rejects this.  Levin also rejects Munks explanation that Machabee refers to Hammer as used as an honorific for Charles Martel - Martel the Hammer - for his victory over the Muslims between Tours and Poitiers.  Another explanation is that Machabee refers to a place - but then it should read mi-chabani. 

To briefly return to the proper spelling.  A bit of background.  The Book of Machabees was written originally written in Hebrew but at best, the word Machabee was merely a transliteration from Greek.  We no longer have the original and only have the early Greek and Latin translations which were transliterating the word.  While there are essentially two schools regarding the original spelling - either with a kuf or with a chuf, that is was it spelled in Hebrew מכבי or מקבי.  Of course, some of the explanations discussed above depend on how it was spelled in Hebrew. Now, I won't attempt to go through the discussion on this, but refer the interested reader to Curtis's dissertation on the topic to which we shall presently turn. 

Samuel Ives Curtiss, Jr. wrote an entire dissertation on the word Machabee, The Name Machabee, Leipzig, 1876.  In it, he discusses the various theories regarding the original Hebrew spelling and ultimately concludes that it was spelled מכבי.  Others, however, attempt to show that the original was מקבי. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the correctness of either.  That said, Curtiss has a rather interesting and lesser known explaination regarding the etymology of the word.  He argues that in the time of Judah the state of the Jews "was most pitiable.  An insolent blasphemous and cruel foe filled the land, desecrated their sacred places, profanded the rite of circumcision . . . The one thought of Mattathias and his followers might well have been: How shall we extinguish these firebrands which are spreading death and desolation throughout the land."  Curtis continues that the word "מכבי as a simple word there is but one probable, I might also say possible, derivation for it, and this is from כבה to be extinguished, Piel to extinguish."  That is what Machabee (which would be pronounced using a kametz) means. 

One final explanation and perhaps the most outrageous is that of Winkler who argues that since Machabee means hammer and hammer is used symbolically by the Greeks to refer to Gods perhaps Judah never existed and was merely a God like Zeus or Thor.  Levin, rejects this as we have historical evidence that Judah existed but it is worth showing how far out the theories are.

[For additional posts regarding Chanukah see here.]



Sources:

Samuel Ives Curtiss, Jr., The Name Machabee, Leipzig, 1876
N.D. Rabinowich, Benu Shenot Dor ve-Dor, 1986, 177-186
Y. Levin, Me-Boker ad Erev, Jerusalem, 1981, 13-18
Y. Tabory, Moadei Yisroel Betekufos Hamishna Vhatalmud, 2000, 367
M. Adler, Hasmonei u-Banav, 2003, 46
Y.S. Spiegel, "Uncommon Abbreviations", Yeshurun 11 (2002) 923-24
A. Saba, Tzror Ha-Me'or, 261, stating:
 וזה חנוכה, לרמוז שבכח שם ה' וייחודו נצחו המלחמה, לא בחיל ולא בכח... אלא בשם ה' של הייחוד שהוא כלול בשם המפורש של ע"ב. וזהו מי כמוך באלים ה' בראשי תיבות מכב"י שעולה ע"ב. ולפי שהוא דבר סתר עושים בו ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו (בר"ת בכי"מ (אותוית מכבי) . ולכן לפי טעם זה היו קורין לחשמונאים מכביאו"ש על שם הסוד שהיו נוצחים בכח שם השם ובכח שם המפורש של ע"ב שהוא מכב"י (פ' ואתחנן עמ' רסא)  

Here are a few of the books devoted to names that have recently been published:
A. Taharni, Keter Shem Tov, Jerusalem, 2000, 2 vol.
M. Rubin, Koreh Shemo, Hebron, [2002]
R. Weinberger, Tolodot Shem, Jerusalem, 2004
Y.Z. Wilhelm, Kuntres Ziv ha-Shemot, Brooklyn, 2006
]]> Chanukah Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/21/The-Name-Machabee Caught in the Act: An Unknown Admission of Plagiarism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/11/Caught-in-the-Act-An-Unknown-Admission-of-Plagiarism While we have had the opportunity to discuss plagiarism on multiple occasions, it is rare in the Jewish world that a plagiarizer is caught and admits their mistake.  As such I wanted to discuss such an example. 

R. Yosef HaKohen Schwartz (1875-1944) was a veracious reader.  Many of his responsa are devoted to notes on newly printed seforim.  Indeed, the equally well-read bibliophile, R. Reuven Margoliyot, was in the habit of sending his new books for R. Schwartz's comment.  Needless to say, if one wished to pick a person's books to appropriate and remain undetected, it is probably not the best strategy to pick someone who reads much of what is published.  In this instance, however, that appears to be exactly what happened. 

One of R. Schwartz's books is devoted to yarhzeit customs, Moad Kol Hayi (Kisvarda, 1925).  It is a short book, which is made even shorter by the inclusion of a bunch of approbations, a eulogy, and a responsum.  While the book in and of itself is fairly unremarkable, what happened next is.  R. Tzvi Hirsch Friedling, who edited a Polish Torah Journal, Ha-Be'ar, published a work that was broader in scope than Schwartz's but also encompassed the same topic as Schwartz covered - yarhzeit customs.  Specifically, Friedling, some time after 1928 published Hayyim ha-Nitzchim a collection of sources related to funerary customs as well as yarhzeit.  Friedling had published similar likut seforim and, in part recycled some of the approbations he received on a different work, Kiyum ha-Olam, for Hayyim ha-Nitzchim, including an approbation from R. Abraham Isaac Kook. Indeed, we know that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim must have been published after 1928 as the approbations contain dates from 1928.  It is true that there is no date given on the title page, however, as should become apparent, the first edition of Friedling's book must have been published after 1928 and before 1936.

While Friedling readily admits that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim is not an original work, no where does he mention R. Schwartz or Schwartz's work on yahrzeit.  Although Schwartz is not mentioned, there is no doubt that the section of Friedling's book dealing with yarhzeit used Schwartz.  Indeed, as one would expect, Schwartz read Friedling's book and realized that Friedling had "borrowed" material from Schwartz.  In Schwartz's responsa, Va-Yitzbor Yosef, no. 50, Schwartz has a letter to R. Moshe Tzvi Landau discussing Landau's book Shulhan Melachim (Beregovo, 1931).  In his comments on Landau's book, Schwartz discusses  plagiarism in general and notes that he is a victim of plagiarism and specifically that Friedling had used his materials without attribution.  Schwartz writes:

You should be aware that there are entire published books that were never written [by the alleged authors], that is, without changing anything except the title [people have plagiarized books] indeed I am not immune to this behavior as one Polish rabbi (and in the approbations he is refered to a Goan and a tzaddik! what a joke) who printed a book under the title "Hayyim ha-Nitzchim", however, it is all mine which he stole from my small, in size, but great in content book "Mo'ad Kol Hayi" which I spent many years gathering and collecting all the laws [that appear in the book], and now from the "well" [this is a play on the word be'er that subltly references Friedling's journal Ha-Be'er] the deer [a play on Friedling's name Tzvi] has drunk without my knowledge, and in doing so has destroyed a world, he [Friedling] failed to give me proper recognition, how terrible it is for a generation to have this happen in their time.

יען כי גם ספרים שלמים קובעים בדפוס אשר לא דרו ולא ילדו, ובלי שינוי מעשה  אך בשינוי שם לבד, כאשר עשה אתי עמי רב א' מפולין (ומתארין אותו עוד בההסכמות לגאון וצדיק! אשר הוא לשחוק) כי הדפיס ס' בשם "חיים הנצחיים", וכלו שלי הוא גנוב אתו מספרי קטן הכמות ורב האיכות "מועד כל חי" אשר יגעתי בו הרבה שנים ללקט ולקבץ כל הדינים בזה, ועתה מבא"ר ההוא משקה הצבי שבור העדרים בבלי דעת, ומחריב העולם, ואת מקומי לא הערה, ואוי לדור שכך עלתה בימיו.
 


It seems that Friedling found out that R. Schwartz caught Friedling with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar and actually attempted to make amends.  In particular, I am aware of one copy of one edition of what one assumes is a reprint of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim that is at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University. In that copy, before the section discussing yahrzeit customs the following admission appears:

To Admit and Reveal!

Because most of the statements that appear in this work were gathered and collected from the work Mo'ad Kol Hayi which was written and published by the esteemed, erudite, and well-known Rabbi Yosef ha-Kohen Schwartz who lives in Grosswarden (and is the author of Tzafnat Panaech, Shu"t Genzei Yosef, and Hadrat Kodesh and previously edited the journal Va-Yelaket Yosef for twenty years).  And because of circumstances [beyond my control??] I forgot to mention this in the introduction of this work as I should have done, and when I publish this work a second time I will/have do so.  The Author


Now, although we don't know the exact date this edition with the admission was published, we do know that it, at the very least, must have been published after 1931 and probably after 1936.  This is so, as Friedling mentions three of Schwartz's other works, the last one, Hadrat Kodesh, was published in 1931 so this admission which makes mention of Hadrat Kodesh was written after that. It is also likely that this admission was published after the appearance of R. Schwartz's Va-Yitzbor Yosef where Friedling is exposed.  Va-Yitzbor Yosef was published in 1936 and therefore it is possible that this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim was published some time after that.  But, as with all the editions of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim we don't know for certain exactly when they were published. 

Be that as it may, we do have an example of a full admission of plagiarism, whether intentional or inadvertent based on this little know edition of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim.  In fact, as I mentioned I know of only one copy of this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim housed at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University and have never seen it in any other copies of the book. 

For more on Schwartz's biography, see Naftali ben-Menachem's article on Schwartz in Mi-Safrut Yisrael be-Ungariah pp. 330-70; Y. Y. Cohen, Hakmei Translivania, 237-40.  Both Friedling and Schwartz shared a few common facts.  They both edited journals and it appears that both were killed in the Holocaust.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Yair Rosenberg for sending me a scan of the above page, and for Mr. Menachem Butler for his help as well. 


]]> Plagiarism Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/11/Caught-in-the-Act-An-Unknown-Admission-of-Plagiarism Book Review: The Koren Sacks Bilingual Edition of the Siddur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/9/Book-Review-The-Yehuda-Bilingual-Edition-of-the-Koren-Siddur Book Review: The Koren Sacks Siddur

by Elli Fischer


        Rabbi Elli Fischer is a freelance translator living in Modiin, Israel.  He maintains the "On the Contrary: Judasim with Comments Enabled " blog.  This is his first contribution to the TraditionOnline Seforim blog.


I was recently given the opportunity to preview The Koren Sacks Siddur. This work, due to be released in 2009, is the first major bilingual Orthodox synagogue prayer book to be released since the ArtScroll Siddur in 1984. It goes without saying that this siddur will present the first serious challenge to ArtScroll's steadily increasing hegemony over the bilingual siddur market, and, as such, this review will often note differences between the two siddurim.


The present volume features a translation and commentary by Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth (based on his 2006 Authorised Daily Prayer Book). His comments tend to be thematic and introductory, and do not explain or comment on the meaning of individual phrases. Taken together, Rabbi Sacks' comments would constitute a monograph on the basic structure, function, and themes of Jewish prayer. He does not anthologize from various commentaries on the siddur, rarely citing any sources later than the Talmud.


The issue of translation is near and dear to my heart, as a professional translator. Translating the siddur is no easy task. It is fraught with the same tensions that characterize regimented prayer in general – the tension between spontaneity and regularity, the difficulty in giving expression to the longings of the human heart through a formal and formulaic recitation. Rabbi Sacks manages to capture the poetry and power of the prayers without sounding overbearing, highfalutin, archaic, or mechanical. Below I will compare the original Hebrew with the ArtScroll and Koren translations for several passages (The lines are broken up as they are broken up in the Koren siddur; the ArtScroll does not break lines up based on phrasing):


Original

Koren

ArtScroll

את צמח דוד עבדך מהרה תצמיח וקרנו תרום בישועתך

May the offshoot of Your servant David soon flower, and may his pride be raised high by Your salvation,

The offspring of Your servant David may you speedily cause to flourish, and enhance his pride through Your salvation

כי לישועתך קווינו כל היום

For we wait for Your salvation all day.

For we hope for your salvation all day long.



Original

Koren

ArtScroll

שים שלום טובה וברכה

Grant peace, goodness, and blessing

Establish peace, goodness, blessing

חן וחסד ורחמים עלינו ועל כל ישראל עמך

Grace, loving-kindness and compassion

To us and all Israel your people.

Graciousness, kindness, and compassion upon us and upon all of Your people Israel

ברכנו אבינו כלנו כאחד באור פניך

Bless us, our Father, all as one, with the light of Your face

Bless us, our Father, all of us as one, with the light of Your countenance

כי באור פניך נתת לנו ה' אלוקינו

For by the light of your face You have given us, LORD our God

For with the light of Your countenance You gave us, HASHEM, our God

תורת חיים ואהבת חסד

The Torah of life and love of kindness,

The Torah of life and a love of kindness

וצדקה וברכבה ורחמים וחיים ושלום

Righteousness, blessing, compassion, life and peace.

Righteousness, blessing, compassion, life, and peace.

וטוב בעיניך לברך את עמך ישראל


May it be good in your eyes to bless Your people Israel

And may it be good in Your eyes to bless Your people Israel,

בכל עת ובכל שעה בשלומך

At every time, in every hour, with Your peace.

In every season and in every hour with Your peace


Another, blatant example comes from the first line of the second blessing of the morning Shema, which begins with the words "Ahava Rabba". ArtScroll renders it: "With abundant love you have loved us, HASHEM, our God; with exceedingly great pity have you pitied us." Koren, on the other hand, translates: "You have loved us with great love, LORD our God, and with surpassing compassion have You had compassion on us."


These examples should suffice to bear out my contention that the Koren translation has a much more intuitive feel – that it is formulated as an English rendition of the Hebrew prayer and not simply as a mechanical translation. It is hard to quantify why "surpassing compassion" resonates better than "exceedingly great pity", but the eye and ear notice the difference all the same (as Prof. Moshe J. Bernstein is fond of noting: "My toilet overflows; my cup runneth over").


The layout of The Koren Siddur is innovative in several respects. Contrary to the convention of nearly all bilingual siddurim, the Hebrew appears on the left page and the English on the right. This format can be a bit disconcerting at first, but the adjustment period can be counted in minutes. The advantage of this innovation is both aesthetic and functional. From the aesthetic perspective, both languages seem to have a common "origin" in the binding instead of facing each other jaggedly. Functionally, this layout makes it easier to locate corresponding words and phrases.


As I alluded earlier, Koren characteristically breaks lines up thematically, as in poetic verse. This results in an abundance of white space, but makes the prayers more intelligible. This convention is characteristic of Koren's all-Hebrew siddurim as well, and its efficacy transfers to the bilingual edition.


Koren's liturgical publications (siddurim, machzorim, and chumashim) have long been known for their precise typesetting, and the present volume is no exception. In this siddur, there is a subtle distinction between the Hebrew fonts used for biblical passages and later liturgical compositions. The "dikduk-geeks" will be happy that the shva na is distinguished from the shva nach and the kamatz gadol from the kamatz katan. Its transliteration conventions are much more precise, making extensive use of apostrophes, hyphens, and underdots. Its transliterations of the various Kaddishin do not use awkward phonetic representations (e.g., "rabbaw").


In addition to the translation and commentary, the Koren Siddur includes italicized English instructions on both sides of the page. In general, they are longer at critical turning points of the service (beginning of the Amida, before Barkhu at Shacharit) but otherwise fairly concise. In general, these instructions contain more background and are less preachy than ArtScroll's instructions. For example, compare the following instructions that appear prior to the silent Shemoneh Esrei:


ArtScroll:

Moses advanced through three levels of holiness when he went up to Sinai. Therefore we take three steps forward as we 'approach' God in the Shemoneh Esrei prayer.

Remain standing with the feet together while reciting Shemoneh Esrei. Recite it with quiet devotion and without any interruption, verbal or otherwise. Although it should not be audible to others, one must pray loudly enough to hear himself, See Laws #61-90 for a brief summary of its laws, including how to rectify the omission of phrases or paragraphs that are added at particular times of the year.

Koren:

The following prayer, until "in former years," on page 134, is said standing with feet together in imitation of the angels in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek. 1:7). The Amida is said silently, following the precedent of Hanna when she prayed for a child (I Sam. 1:13). If there is a minyan, it is repeated aloud by the Leader. Take three steps forward, as if formally entering the place of Divine Presence. At the points indicated by ^, bend the knees at the first word, bow at the second, and stand straight before saying God's name.


The Koren Siddur, presumably because it is a bilingual edition of an Israeli siddur, is much more Israel-conscious than the ArtScroll. I refer not only to the fact that the Koren contains prayer services and laws for Yom ha-Zikaron, Yom ha-Atzma'ut, and Yom Yerushalayim and that it transliterates using generic Israeli pronunciation. I also refer to halakhic and liturgical differences that pertain to the Land of Israel, for example: adding the word "kadisha" in the Kaddish de-Rabbanan, differences regarding when one begins reciting "ve-ten tal u-matar", the procedures for Birkat Kohanim in the daily prayer, the inclusion of a note to omit "Barukh Hashem le-Olam" from Ma'ariv in the Land of Israel, and even the inclusion of the special prayer for rain in the Land of Israel as a footnote to the regular prayer. Although this siddur was produced specifically for American congregations, its inclusion of the laws and customs of the Land of Israel seems entirely right. The absence of these latter elements from the ArtScroll Siddur, for whatever reason, seems like an egregious omission.


The Koren Siddur is more inclusive of women both in terms of its content and in terms of its instructions. The content includes the liturgy (imported from the Sephardic rite and increasingly prevalent in Israel) of the "Zeved ha-Bat" celebration upon the birth of a daughter (it appears in the excellent "Life Cycle" section of the siddur). It furthermore includes the thanksgiving prayer recited by a women after childbirth, which includes "Birkat ha-Gomel". The ArtScroll Siddur makes no mention of this obligation (and the practice is even discouraged in the ArtScroll Women's Siddur, which follows the minority opinion of the Mishna Berura on this matter without recording dissent). With regard to zimmun, the ArtScroll Siddur applies the practice to "three or more males, aged thirteen or older". The Koren Siddur, on the other hand, states that "when three or more women say Birkat ha-Mazon with no men present, then substitute "Friends" for Gentlemen".

A final element of the Koren Siddur's treatment of women pertains to the commentary on the brakha of "she-asani kirtzono". As noted, this siddur does not generally comment on specific phrases and lines from individual prayers. The brakhot that use the "who has not made me" formula, as well as "she-asani kirtzono", are an exception to that rule. Here, Rabbi Sacks goes out of his way to explain these ostensibly problematic benedictions. Methinks he doth protest too much. His apology does little more than call attention to the problematicity of these passages.


The present edition includes several introductions and appendices. The original preface to the Hebrew edition, from 1981, has been translated into English, and has been joined by prefaces written by the publisher and by Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union (the OU is a sponsor of this publication). There is also a guide to pronunciation and transliteration penned by the editor of the volume. The most extensive introductory essay, however, is Rabbi Sacks' 42-page introduction to Jewish prayer. A perusal of it shows that it addresses elements of the history, philosophy, language, and structure of Jewish prayer, on the macro- and micro- levels. He characteristically weaves together Jewish sources from ancient to modern, as well as a sprinkling of references to British poets and critics.


I have not read all 487 paragraphs of the halakhic section, but it goes well beyond the laws of prayer narrowly defined and includes discussions of the laws of tefillin and tzitzit, an overview of the entire Jewish year, and more. It even includes a section on issues that arise when traveling back and forth between Israel and the Diaspora. It also resurrects the very handy "Table of Permitted Responses", which provides an easy reference guide to what types of interruptions are permitted during the various parts of the prayer.


The Talmud (Brakhot 32b) asks rhetorically: "Without knowledge, whence prayer?" Thus, understanding prayer – the simple meaning of the words and the underlying structure of how it all fits together – is a prerequisite for true prayer. The Koren Sacks Siddur has succeeded, through its nearly 1300 pages, in being informative and erudite without losing sight of the forest for the trees. It is, quite simply, a comprehensive guide book for Jewish prayer, introducing its users to the full gamut of experiences necessary to truly enter into the world of tefilla. It has set a new standard for English-language siddurim.




]]> Book Reviews Elli Fischer Relating to Siddur Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:13:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/9/Book-Review-The-Yehuda-Bilingual-Edition-of-the-Koren-Siddur Upcoming December Auctions http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/8/Upcoming-December-Auctions- In the next few weeks there are a bunch of auctions. First, is Sotheby's auction of the "Delmonico" collection.  This collection, of an anonymous collector, is amazing.  It includes fifty incunabula with the balance of the auction being 16 and 17th century books.  Included in the later portion are volumes of the first edition Bomberg Talmud printed on blue paper.  These are the only known copies of these volumes. The incunabula includes the first edition of the Rambam's commentary on Mishna, the second edition of the Mishna Torah, the first book printed in the author's lifetime - the Nofet Zufim by R. Yehudah Messer Leon, first edition of the Ramban's Commentary on the Torah, the first Hebrew book with a printer's mark, as well as many, many other gems. This auction takes place on December 17th in the morning, there is another Sotheby's auction of Jewish books and Judaica taking place that afternoon as well.

The next auction is Kestenbaum which takes place a day later, on the 18th.  Some highlights from the catalog include a letter from R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (318) regarding the permissibility of teaching Talmud to girls.  "Rabbi Soloveitchik declines to present his views."  Because "'We have reached a stage at which party lines and political ideologies influence our Halachic thinking to the extent that people cannot rise above partisan issues to the level of Halacha-objectivity. . . . I am not inclined to give any of these factions an opportunity for nonsensical debates.'"  Also, in the manuscript section, are a collection of letters from R. Samson Morpurgo, (308) many dealing with the Ramchal controversy. While some have been published it appears there are discrepancies between the published versions and that of the letters in this collection.  Or for those interested in the R. Naftali Hertz Wessely controversy, the scribal copy of R. Tzvi Hirsch Berlin's resignation letter (296) is included.  Due to R. Wessely's Divrei Shalom ve-Emet, R. Berlin wanted Wessely expelled from Berlin; however, Mendelssohn defended Wessely leading Berlin to tender his resignation as Chief Rabbi of Berlin.  Later, Berlin, recinded his resignation and remained Chief Rabbi until his death in 1800.  Of course, R. Berlin was R. Saul Berlin's (publisher of Besamim Rosh) father. Although not as rare as the blue paper Bomberg, Kestenbaum has a complete copy of the Slavita, 1817-22 Talmud (256). The publication of this Talmud eventually led to the controversy betwen the Slavita and Romm presses.

When it comes to colored paper there are two lots of interest.  The first is Deinard's edition of the Zemir Aritzim (124) which is printed on multi-colored papers including blue, green, pink, and yellow, indeed, there are only two white pages in the book. The Amsterdam, 1669 Seder Keriah ve-Tikun le-Leilei Chag Shavout ve-Hoshana Rabba, "at the request of wealty bibliophiles, a handful of copies of this work were printed on colored paper" including blue or green paper.  This one (213) is on blue paper.  Returning to Deinard, there are three other books of his, including one which he inscribed (122-25).  As is well-known Deinard travelled the world, what is lesser known is the the book Sefer ha-Berit ha-Chadash (On the Life and Customs of the Jews of China), Pietrokov, 1911, (108) which Uzeil Haga describes his travels with the U.S. Armed Forces expedition in 1901 to China. In the end Haga "was suspected of espionage and was imprisoned by the Boxers where he died after suffering torture."  Two bibliographical notes.  The first is a rare catalogue of R. Pinner (translator of the Talmud into German) for the Odessa Society for History and Antiquities Holdings of Ancient Hebrew and Rabbinic Manuscripts (81).  The second is Ben-Zion Eisenstat's Otzar ha-Temunot (85) which is a collection of photographys of over 150 Rabbis from the turn of the twentith century.  The full catalog can be downloaded here. 
]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:52:08 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/12/8/Upcoming-December-Auctions- Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin's Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/26/Two-Editions-of-R-Chaim-Berlins-Responsa-An-Egregious-Example-   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 כ ]]> Censorship Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/26/Two-Editions-of-R-Chaim-Berlins-Responsa-An-Egregious-Example- Tevie Kagan: The Enigmatic R. David Lida Part II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/24/Tevie-Kagan-The-Enigmatic-R-David-Lida-Part-II The Enigmatic R. David Lida Part II
by Tevie Kagan

R. David of Lida and Sabbateanism

The case for Sabbatean leanings in R. David ben Aryeh Leib of Lida's works are somewhat cloudy. The first clear accusation in this regard is from R. Yaakov Emden in his Toras Hakanaos. [1] Specifically, R. Emden, dealt with the conclusion of one of Lida's poem's entitled Shir Hillulim, which was printed with his Migdol David. Shir Hillulim was written in honor of a torah dedication in Amsterdam in 1680. It was comprised of verses to be recited by the congregation and cantor. The letters at the end that are enlarged spell out "Tishbi," and says "Tishbi, he will redeem us." In traditional Jewish literature, Tishbi (Elijah) is referenced as a forerunner for the messiah. Emden saw this as an allusion to Shabbetai Zevi, as the letters in "Tishbi" form "Shabbetai" when transposed. Emden continues and notes that the letters between the last lines (spelling out "David") demonstrate that Lida was attempting to equate David with Tishbi, and, consequently, with Shabbetai Zevi.


There are those who argue with Emden's assertion that Shir Hillulim displays Sabbatean tendencies. Specifically, they note that David de Castro Tartas, who routinely printed prayer books and other works of sabbatean nature, [2] printed Shir Hillulim. Eisner, for example, postulates that Tartas added the problematic lines and that Lida knew nothing about it. [3] However, as Heller [4] points out, it would seem unlikely that a printer would modify such a small work, and that of the chief rabbi, meant for immediate distribution. Even more so, if this were the case, why would Lida use the same printer again, as he did with for his Shomer Shabbos in 1687?


Indeed, it is especially difficult to determine whether a work is Sabbatean in nature.  Within Sabbatean writings there are certain recurring themes. There is often a thematic fixation on the Messiah. The writings often focus on King David, and explain how he did not sin with Bat-Sheba (Samuel II, Chapter 11). They also frequently discuss the concept of "mitzvah ha-ba'ah be-averah," the notion of reinterpreting biblical figures actions as foreshadowing Shabbetai Zevi's acts (particularly Esther or King David), and the rabbinic dictum that "greater a sin done for heavens sake than a commandment done other than for the sake of heaven." Writing about any one of these topics alone does not deem one to be a Sabbatean. However, a recurring reference to these beliefs within ones writings, combined with a less then stellar character, may deem one suspect.  Coupled with actual accusations from one of the foremost experts on Sabbateanism (R. Yaakov Emden), one must be wary and investigate further.


Aside from the obvious reasons for not overtly stating the sabbatean nature of a work, inherent in Sabbateanism is the notion of a "dual nature."  Scholem describes this dualism as having one side bordering on nihilism and another that is outwardly religious. Elsewhere, [5] Scholem states that "[a] double-faced nature came to be seen as a characteristic trait . . . [to] live in a high tension between outward orthodoxy and inward antinomianism." This corresponds with the paradox that the followers of Shabbetai Zevi were left with after he apostatized in 1666. This also follows Sabbatean teachings that corrupted the Lurianic doctrine of tikun, using sin as the preferred medium for rectification, as opposed to mitzvoth. Shabbetai Zevi sought to abolish many commandments, stating that since it was the messianic age they no longer were applicable. He instead preached a doctrine of "mitzvah ha-ba'ah be-averah," asserting that the path to a mitzvah is through a sin.[6] This is one of the many ways that Shabbetai Zevi's followers attempted to rationalize his apostasy.  They argued that he was merely gathering "sparks" from within the broken shards that reside in the Islamic faith. Shabbetai Zevi advocated certain sins outright, such as eating chelev, the forbidden fat of an animal, and abolishing the fast of the 9th of Av (Tisha B'Av"). Thus, it is unsurprising that it is difficult to uncover what truly is a Sabbatean work and what is not.  

 

Migdol David was Lida's first major work that was disseminated widely. It was written on the book of Ruth and seeks to explain the Davidic lineage. Migdol David does have messianic tones; yet, if the author was truly a Sabbatean, one would expect to find it overflowing with Sabbatean references. Oddly enough, though, through most of the work there are few Sabbatean references.  The ending lines are what lead to its Sabbatean suspicion, as they include the words "שבתי בבית ה'" This verse is in of itself not problematic, but the choice of  "שבתי" would fit with a common trait of Sabbatean writing to identify ones work to those who knew of certain code words. This was a fairly common tactic as can be adduced from Emden's list in Toras Hakanaos, where many books were banned for similar reasons.[7]

 

Within Lida's Sod Hashem, a manual of the rules of milah (circumcision)  with a running commentary called Sharbit Hazahav, there are a couple of problematic themes. While describing the kabalistic reasons behind mila, Lida explains that the foreskin is as an offering to Samael and, because of the phrase "nachash efer lachmo," the foreskin is placed in dirt. Sabbatean Kabbalah often equates the nachash (snake) with the messiah, as both have the same numerical value. This does not mean that every reference to the nachash is suspect; in this case, though, clearly equating it with Samael and the offering is odd. Slightly more problematic is the quote[8] from R. Yehoshua Heshel from Vilna that discusses the verse: "Abraham was ninety-nine years old and the Lord appeared to him" (Gen. 17:1). He proceeds to give an interpretation explaining its significance within the sefiros of the numbers involved. Now, one would assume this to be the same R. Heshel under which Lida studied. However, it is R. Heshel Zoref[9] (c.1663-1700), the noted Sabbatean Kabbalist, and supposed prophet of the Sabbatean movement in Poland, to whom Lida is referring. Zoref wrote the Sefer Ha-Zoref where, among other things, he proclaimed himself Messiah b. Joseph and Shabbetai Zevi as Messiah b. David. Lida's quoting of Zoref is not a damning piece of evidence on its own, as it is one isolated quote, and as Naor points out,[10] classic works such as Kav Hayashar contain quotes from Zoref as well.  Still, this does not help Lida,s case.

 

Quite possibly the most egregious piece of suspect Sabbateanism that Lida published is the homily at the beginning of his Be'er Esek.[11] After discussing the Medrash that the Yalkut Shimoni brings in Samuel (151) that David climbed the olive crop and cried, Lida goes into detail about why David would cry and why these do not suffice as reasons. Lida brings quotes from the Zohar and Peliah that say that David did not sin with Bat-Sheba, but that rather she was prepared for him from the six days of creation and that, indeed, it was a good thing that he had relations with her. David saw himself as Adam, Bat-Sheba as Eve, and Uriah the Hittite as the nachash. By having relations with Bat-Sheba, David rectified the sin of Adam and the act of the Snake having relations with Eve, ultimately bringing death to this world. Next Lida equates David, Adam and Messiah, explaining how David did not sin, but in fact effected a great tikun (rectification). Lida continues in this vein for at least another page and a half, equating his own travails with David being maligned for taking Bat-Sheba and running from Absalom.[12] This work is ostensibly setting out to clear his name of all Sabbatean charges, yet within the work Sabbatean charges are never mentioned, and the work opens with the epitome of a Sabbatean sermon!

 

Lest one think this is an isolated instance, one has but to look at much of Lida's Ir David to see this is more the norm than the exception. Ir David was Lida's magnum opus. He was only able to bring the first third to print, as he states in the introduction. Lida's son Pesachya ended up printing the entire work in Amsterdam in 1719, through the press run by Solomon Proops.[13] In the introduction Lida discusses the rabbinic claim that when the messiah comes all holidays will be nullified except for Purim. This saying had become a popular adage among the Sabbateans, since Shabbatai Zevi had abolished all holidays (including the 9th of Av), as he believed he was the Messiah. Lida proceeds to expound on a passage (#143) in the Megaleh Amukos (by R. Nathan Nata Shapiro) that the Merkavah Chariot is alluded to in the letters שב"ת implying, therefore, that the redemption is connected to the Jews keeping shabbos. Lida proceeds to equate this using the gematria  שין, בית, תיו and אליהו משיח בן דוד   which equal 496. The equation of these two sets of words is suspect, since a popular "pastime" of Sabbateans was to show that Shabbetai Zevi's name was numerically similar to the numerical value of the word "messiah." If we suppose that Lida had a Sabbatean mindset, than one more passage in the introduction is suspect as well. Lida bring uses a statement from R. Isaac Luria, the Ari, that states that all souls stem from the same 248 souls, which are mired in impurities and kelipot, except those of certain individuals, one of them being the messiah. Scholem, in his article on Shabetai Zevi in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, explains how Sabbateans viewed the messiah's soul within their own kabalistic view:[14]

"He is essentially different from all those souls which play their part in the process of tikkun. In fact, he was never under the authority of the Torah, which is the mystical instrument used by the power of the thoughtful light and the souls connected with it. He represents something utterly new, an authority which is not subject to the laws binding in the state of cosmic and historic exile. He cannot be measured by common concepts of good and evil and must act according to his own law, which may become the utopian law of a world redeemed. Both his history and his special task explain his behavior after he had freed himself from the prison of the kelippah."

This can be used as a rationale for Shabbetai Zevi's apostasy, for if his soul was not from among the "regular souls," it could not be influenced by the impurities inherent in regular souls. Accordingly, he had the ability to save those who needed to be saved. Lida ends with one of his favorite verses, "ושבתי בבית ה'" with, once again, his "favorite letters" standing out. As mentioned previously, all of this is innocuous on its own, but taken within the larger picture, gives one pause.

Within Ir David there are certain recurring pieces. As in his Be'er Esek, the concept that King David didn't sin with Bat-Sheba is an important and recurrent trope. In part 42,[15] for example, Lida argues that the reason David was perceived to have sinned was to inspire the concept of repentance in individuals. Similarly, the Israelites were perceived to have sinned by the golden calf to inspire repentance among larger groups. In part 54, Lida explains that David came to replace Adam and rectify the snake's relations with Eve. This discussion continues in part 55 where Lida discusses two interpretations of what happened with the snake and Eve, and how this affects, depending on the interpretation, our interpretation of whether or not David sinned. Lida continues with this theme in part 58, which also combines one of Lida's favorite aspects of David's life, that of David being persecuted by Absalom (perhaps a reference to Shabetai Zevi or Sabbateans being persecuted). In part 64 we are reminded that King David knew he was not sinning and that, on the contrary, he was eventually rewarded with a spot in the merkavah with the forefathers. Part 86 continues this theme by asserting that David, Moses, and the Israelites all did not sin because their motivations were right; through this, Lida sets forth the concept of "better a sin done for the sake of heaven than a mitzvah done with the wrong intention." Finally, part 88 references the Talmud in Shabbos 56 that asserts that anyone who says David sinned is wrong, as well as referencing a passage in the Assarah Maamaros that discusses why David's name is not invoked in prayer.

 If one views Lida as a Sabbatean, then David is not the one speaking, but rather the Messiah, Shabbetai Zevi.[16] This further complicates much of Lida's sermons, since this implies that he is no longer merely using Psalms as a springboard for simple rabbinic-homiletic discourse; on the contrary, this gives everything he states a double meaning.

           

It cannot be disputed that Lida was a great scholar and a prolific author. Whether he plagiarized works or held Sabbatean beliefs remains up for discussion. However, much of his writing lends proof to the fact that he did. Why his works are still in print today, as opposed to the works of other possible Sabbateans, has more to do with the luck that Lida had of being reprinted early on by the Hasidic Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh of Liska (1808-1874) (and why a Hasidic rabbi chose to latch on to such a controversial figure may have to do with the similar ideological mindset of early Hasidism and Sabbateanism).[17]


*The author would like to thank the editors of the seforim blog who make this great forum available. I would like to thank Professor S.Z Leiman for helping me with the idea for this post and guidance throughout, and Efraim Keller at the Habad Library who helped with attaining Eisner's Toldos of Lida. and Achron Achron Chaviv Eli Meir Cohen who has been a tremendous asset with his wealth of knowledge of everything seforim related especially getting out of print items.

 


[1] Emden, Toras Hakanaos (Amsterdam, 1752), 71b

[2] See Rosenthaliana Studia- http://cf.uba.uva.nl/nl/publicaties/treasures/text/t18.html

[3] Eisner, Toldot ha-Goan Rabbi Dovid Lida, pg.12

[4] pg.123

[5] 'Shabbetai Zevi," Encyclopaedia Judaica, pg.1251

[6] See Scholem, Mitzvah Habah Beaverah: Mechkarim Umekoros Letoldos Hashabsaut Ugilgoeha (Jerusalem, 1982)

[7] For an examination/explanation of Emden's list, see S.Z. Leiman, Sefer Hazikaron R. Moshe Lipshitz (New York, 1996)

[8] David Lida, Sod Hashem (Kiryath Joel, 2002), pg. 25

[9] Strashun, Mivhar Kesavim (Jerusalem, 1995), pg.128, n 2

[10] Betzalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, 1999), pg.43

[11] Aaron Freimann, Sefer Hayovel for Nahum Sokolow (Warsaw, 1904), pg. 464

[12] While this is most probably just a standard writer's convention, it lends credence to Emden's contention that Lida may have had some messianic aspirations. See Emden's Toras Hakanaos, discussing Shir Hillulim.

[13] For more about Solomon Proops, see Richard D. Abraham, "Selomoh Proops, Corrector or Copyist?" Hispanic Review, Vol. 43, No. 3. (Summer, 1975), pp. 317-320; Quaerendo, Volume 37:2 (April, 2007), pg. 96-110; Marvin J Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700

[14] pg. 1242

[15] All numbers refer to the paragraphs assigned in Amsterdam edition.

[16] See Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism, pg. 168, n 16

[17] See Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1967), "Ninth Lecture- Hasidim: The Latest Phase"



]]> Tevie Kagan Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/24/Tevie-Kagan-The-Enigmatic-R-David-Lida-Part-II Jordan S. Penkower: A Note Regarding R. Menahem de Lonzano http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/20/Jordan-S-Penkower-A-Note-Regarding-R-Menahem-de-Lonzano
A Note Regarding R. Menahem de Lonzano
by Jordan S. Penkower

I would like to call attention to the following points in reference to R. Menahem de Lonzano, as mentioned in Koreh HaDorot by R. David Conforte.
 
(1) In his recent post on TSB, Eliezer Brodt, in his review of the new edition of Conforte's Koreh HaDorot (2008), made the following statement (in the second paragraph):
 
R. Conforte was born in Salonika around 1617 and died sometime after 1678. Throughout his life he traveled to many places (including Eretz Yisroel), and in KH he describes his meetings with many great personalities, including R. Menachem Lonzano, author of Sheti Yadot,...
 
This seems to be a "slip of the pen", for it assumes an impossibilty. Conforte was born in 1617 (or 1618) in Salonika, and Lonzano died before 1624 (apparently in Eretz Israel; he was buried there at the foot of the Mount of Olives). Thus, Conforte was still a young lad in Salonika when Lonzano died elsewhere (apparently in Eretz Israel). In short, these two scholars never met, and Conforte certainly does not mention any such meeting between them.
 
In an interesting turn of events, these two scholars were, nevertheless, connected; for Conforte married Lonzano's granddaughter, the daughter of Lonzano's son, Adonikam. Conforte mentions his father-in-law (and the fact that he died young) in Koreh HaDorot, at the end of his entry on R. Menahem de Lonzano.
 
(2) In his introduction to the new edition of Koreh HaDorot, p. 32, R. Bezalel Deblitzki lists as one of the manuscripts used by Conforte:
      שבלי הלקט בכתיבת יד מהר"ם די לונזאנו   
 
When one goes to verify this assumption, one finds, on p. 76 of the new edition, the following quote:
 

 ומצאתי כתוב בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבלי הלקט מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"ל וז"ל = וזה לשונו
 
At first glance, one could possibly understand this statement as R. Deblitzki did, i.e. that Lonzano copied the whole manuscript of Shibbolei HaLeket.

Nevertheless, a closer look yields the following interpretation:
 
Conforte is describing a manuscript (written by an anonymous scribe) which was in the posession of Lonzano. At the beginning of this manuscript Lonzano added a gloss (quoted here at length by Conforte) about the author of the work and his teachers. Lonzano also mentions in the gloss that Zedekiah HaRofeh (author of Shibbolei HaLeket) wrote another work (=volume two; in manuscript) and that he (Lonzano) owns a copy. Lonzano further makes an observation at the end of his gloss concerning the state of the work - that people later changed the order of the work, just as they did with Sefer Yerei'im.
 
In short, the phrase
ומצאתי כתוב.. מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"ל
refers only to the gloss of Lonzano - which was subsequently quoted at length by Conforte.
 
The inserted phrase: בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבילי הלקט  simply informed the reader what were the contents of the manuscript (Shibbolei HaLeket, volume 1), and where the gloss was inserted (at the beginning of the manuscript).
 
I later discovered that already HID"A (R. Hayyim David Azoulai) correctly interpreted this passage in Conforte's Koreh HaDorot, and understood that Lonzano possessed a manuscript copy of Shibbolei HaLeket. See Azoulai's remarks in Sheim HaGedolim, s.v. רבינו צדקיה ב"ר אברהם הרופא
 
וב' ספרים אלו (=שבלי הלקט, על שני חלקיו) היו ביד מהר"ם די לונזאנו כמו שהביא דבריו בס' קורא הדורות דף כ"א ע"א ע"ש
 
It should be noted that this phenomenon, of Lonzano adding glosses in books (manuscripts and printed) that he owned, can be documented in many other cases as well.

]]> Jordan Penkower Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:45:36 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/20/Jordan-S-Penkower-A-Note-Regarding-R-Menahem-de-Lonzano Rabbis & History: A Review of the Koreh HaDorot, Ahavat Shalom ed http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/17/Rabbis--History-A-Review-of-the-Koreh-HaDorot-Ahavat-Shalom-ed Rabbis & History: A Review of the Koreh HaDorot, Ahavat Shalom ed.

by Eliezer Brodt



This is the first post in what I hope to be a series on various attitudes towards studying history.  The prism through which we will examine this issue is that of the many works written by gedolim discussing history.  The subject of this post is a new edition of the classic work Koreh Hadoros (KH) by R. Dovid Conforte (printed recently by Ahavat Sholom).  After discussing the actual sefer and its author,  I will conclude with a few comments about this recently printed edition.

 

R. Conforte was born in Salonika around 1617 and died sometime after 1678. Throughout his life he traveled to many places (including Eretz Yisroel), and in KH he describes his meetings with many great personalities, including R. Menachem Lonzano, author of Sheti Yadot, and R. Hayyim Benevisti, author of the Keneset Hagedolah. As he enumerates throughout the book, R. Conforte studied with R. Moredcahi Kalai and many others (see, for example, pg. 163, 175, 176, 179; all page references are to the new edition).  At times he also emphasizes with whom and when he studied Kabalah (pg. 172-73), which he started to learn at the young age of seventeen (p. 150). He seemed to have authored a few other works, most of which are lost. Recently, a responsum of his was printed in the journal Yeshurun (vol. 7, pg. 55ff). [In that article, the authors write of a plan to collect all R. Conforte's torah as well as to reprint the KH]. In Sinai (28:279-295), R. Toledano published a manuscript called Zikhron Yerushalim about gravesites in Eretz Yisroel, which the author proves was written by R. Conforte.

 

The KH is one of the most famous historical works written by a talmid chacham and continues to be studied to this day. This sefer was printed a few times (once even under a mistaken name -  see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim, p. 240), and remains very popular amongst gedolim and scholars alike. Most notably, the Chida quotes this work extensively in all his seforim (as an aside, it's rather strange that his entry on R. Conforte in Shem Hagedolim is very small and uninformative). Indeed, when, many years ago, R. Meshulam Roth created a curriculum for his yeshiva, he included the Koreh Hadoros as an essential sefer for his talmidim to read (among other interesting things in the program; see Mivasar Ezra, pg. 176, and Mivasar Vomer, pg. 119); R. Meir Shapira even asked R. Roth if he could use the latter's curriculum for Yeshivat Chachemei Lublin (see Mivasar Ezra, pg. 172).  Even today scholars use this work extensively; check the index of almost any of the works of Meir Benayhu and one can see how often he quotes the KH. 

 

KH begins with the era of the Rabbonan Savorei ("Saboraim"), continues with the geonic period and the rishonim, and ends with R. Confotre's own generation, in total covering a period of a few hundred years. The idea of this work is to list the different gedolim from each period and include basic information about them, such as when they were born and died, with whom they stiudied, and what they wrote. At times the KH includes a more lengthy entry on a specific person. Much of this information, especially that of R. Conforte's own period, is very important,  as we have no other such sources for it.  Much of the other material is taken from other classic "history" works, as R. Conforte himself notes (e.g. Igerres R. Shreriah Goan, Sefer Hakablah l'Ha'Ra'avad, Sahlsheles Hakablah, and Sefer Yuchsin, all of which will hopefully be subjects of their own posts in the future); yet, though R. Conforte uses these works extensively, he will at times disagree with these works. One work which, for some unknown reason, R. Conforte does not use, and which R. D. Kassel already pointed out, is the Zemach Dovid, obvious from the fact that the section on Askenaz achronim is quite weak. Finally, throughout the sefer he quotes many interesting things he heard from purportedly reliable sources, rare seforim, and manuscripts which he saw. In the recent Ahavat Sholom edition, they discuss about fifty such works which R. Conforte mentions. Indeed, Koreh HaDoros shows an incredible bikiyut in shas, rishonim, and achronim (and all of this in the pre-Bar-Ilan days!).

 

In 1842, D. Kassel printed an annotated version of KH. Though he included many short notes on various points in the sefer, his additions included nothing extensive. Among the reasons Kassel provides for this is that he was told Leopold Zunz was working on his own edition.  However, Zunz never ended up publishing his own edition and, as such, Kassel's edition, which still left room for much work, became the standard edition. More recently, this sefer was reprinted by Ahavat Sholom. One of the benefits of the Ahavat Shalom edition is that it collects all the Chida's comments on the sefer (scattered throughout his writings) and prints it here in the proper places. The truth is that Kassel already references when and where the Chida discusses particular points in KH; still, the Kassel edition only includes citations to the Chida's works without reproducing what the Chida says.  The Ahavat Shalom edition, on the other hand, includes the full text of the Chida's relevant comments. To be sure, even a cursory Bar-Ilan project search shows that the Ahavat Shalom edition missed a few of the Chida's comments, and I am sure that this is true of the many other seforim of the Chida not included the in the Bar-Ilan database.  Another plus of their edition are the indexes, which are very extensive- over a hundred pages (which include every time any sefer or name is mentioned)! Finally, the edition also has a retyped set,  making the sefer  more readable and clearly marking paragraph and topic breaks. They were also kind enough to reference pages numbers of the first edition, a useflul tool in tracking down quotes from the original edition.


Another positive aspect of this edition is a very thoroughly researched introduction about the author and the sefer. The Ahavat Shalom printing includes an entire section devoted to many of the manuscripts and seforim that R. Conforte may have seen (discussing what happened with the seforim if they were printed since then, etc.). Just to point out some additions to their discussion: The KH mentions a sefer from R. Yisroel Nigra which is a collection of his derashos called Mikveh Yisroel. They write (p. 35) that it exists in many manuscripts and that one derasha was printed already in Yeshrun (10:134). The truth is that this manuscript was printed partially in the early 1900s, but, more recently, S. Regev printed all the dershos (Bar Ilan Press, 2004) in a critical edition (675 pgs.), including an excellent introduction to the work Interestingly, R. Y. Goldhaver seems not to have been aware of this edition as he only quotes the manuscript (see his Minhaghei Hakehilos, 1:287). Another sefer that the KH mentions, also authored by R. Yisroel Nigra, is Sheris Yisroel, which is a collection of Nigra's songs. In the Ahavat Sholom introduction they mention that it exists in manuscript. It is interesting to note that the manuscript was in the collection of R. Aryeh Lipshiz, as mentioned in his Avos Atrah Lebanim (p. 109).

                                                                                                           

The main weakness of this new edition are the notes. Aside for putting in all the comments of the Chida taken from Shem Hagedolim, there is almost nothing as far as notes go. On the one hand, one could argue that Ahavat Shalom did not feel it is necessary to put in more notes than they did. However, in a recent issue of a journal called Mikabsel (# 32) - published by Ahavat Shalom - the editors include the introduction to KH, including the history of the author and a sampling of over fifty notes on various topics in the sefer. Even these notes, too, could have been more comprehensive, they are still very useful. For some odd reason, most of these notes were not included in the published edition of KH. In sum, Ahavat Sholom should be thanked for printing an important sefer which has not been around for some time; nevertheless, a critical edition is definetely still needed and eagerly awaited.


I would just like to give a list of some of the many points and discussions which R. Conforte brings up in the sefer. As previously mentioned, he deals with the Geonic period, mostly basing himself on the earlier works available to him such as Iggerot R. Sherirah Gaon and Sefer Hakablah of the Ra'avad.  

 

He records the famous puzzling statement about the death of R. Sherirah Goan that:

ונתלה רב שרירא מידו אחת והוא כבן מאה שנה, ולא הוסרו מגאונות.

 

For a recent summary of the discussions of this statement and a new suggestion as to its interpretation, see R. Nosson Dovid Rabonvitz, Rishumot Teshuvos R. Sherirah Gaon, pp. 42-45.

 

Another one of the interesting things R. Conforte brings up, and which is rather famous (and hopefully the subject of its own post shortly), is the dictum:


ומצאתי כתוב שיש אומרים כי הגאונים נקרא כל אחד מהם בלשון גאון על שם שהיה יודע שם ס' מסכתות כמנין תיבת גאון (עמ' יח).

  

In a footnote of the Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors note that the Meiri makes the same point in his Seder Hakablah. In the introduction, they note (p. 31) that the KH probably saw this in the Meiri's  manuscript. However, from R. Conforte's discussion of the Meiri, it appears to me that he never saw the sefer (see p. 83). Furthermore, if he had seen this particular sefer of the Meiri (which, parenthetically, could have helped him much in this work), he would have quoted it as he quoted from his other sources. A more likely source where R. Conforte could have seen this phrase is from the Sefer HaTishbi (pg. 122), which he did see and from which he often quotes. 

 

He includes a nice amount of information on the Rambam, including the famous legend regarding him being buried in Tevariah (Tiberias) and why the Ra'avad wrote a critical work on the Rambam. One of the things R. Conforte points out (as do many others) is that the Rambam studied under the Ri Migash (though the Chida comments that this is not chronologically possible).  What is less well known is what R Avraham Ben Ha-Rambam wrote about this:


ואבא מארי זצ"ל למרות היותו נמנה עליהם וקורא להם בחיבורו הגדול רבותי משום שאביו שהוא רבו הנו תלמידו של רבינו יוסף ז"ל  (המספיק לעובדי השם מהדורת נ' דנה עמ' 177-178).

 

KH mentions the famous legend about the death of R. Yehudah Halevi (already discussed previously here ). He also includes many interesting points about Rashi. Amongst them, he deals with a famous question that many ask: if Rashi died in middle of writing his work on Baba Basra, how is it that others say he died while working on Makos? R. Conforte's seemingly obvious answer is that Rashi must have been working on both at the same time (p. 56).


He includes an extensive list (almost fifteen pages) of all the various Rishonim quoted by Tosofos, including places where they quote from the Rambam and Ibn Ezra., further portraying the author 's tremendous bekiyut in Shas. In the new Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors actually provide the exact sources for all these pages.

 

The KH writes a very interesting possibility about the authorship of the Kol Bo:


ושמעתי אומרים שאשה חכמה חברה ספר זה, אבל אין דעתי נוטה לזה, מפני שחכמת הספר ההוא אינו מדעת אשה אלא מדעת איש חכם גדול ורב מובהק, ומחמת ענוה יתירה שהיה בו לא רצה להזכרי ולפרסם שמו בתוך הספר

.

For more on this point, see Y. Levine in her introduction to Simchat Torah L'yad Rivkah Tiktiner, pg. 17 (as well as my Ben Keseh Lassur, pg. 143). Although the possibility is mentioned (and dismissed) by the KH that a woman wrote this work, A. Grossman's excellent book Chasidos U'morodos (pp. 282-289) does not mention it at all, though he provides a lengthy list of many of the learned woman in times of Rishonim (as an aside, I did not see a discussion of this list in the Sefer Toras Emechah, which deals with at length with the issur to teach Torah to women).

 

The KH has a lengthy discussion of the authorship of the Sefer Tanya, as it is well known that it appears to be a direct copy of the Shibbolei Ha-leket (pg. 76-77). In the latest volume of Yeshurun (20:696-697), R. Yakov Chaim Sofer goes so far as to discuss whether a similar point made by both the Shibbolei Ha-leket and the Sefer Tanya can "count" as two Rishonim or only as one. He proves at the end that the Eliyahu Rabah (in many places) counts them as two Rishonim. R. Conforte concludes that the author was most likely R. Yecheil, the author of the Malos Hamidos, and perhaps more famous as the sofer who copied the Yerushalmi Leiden. Throughout the past few centuries, the authorship of this sefer has been constantly aruged and discussed. Recently, Profesor Feintuch (Mesoros Venuscos B'talmud, pp. 65-76) proved conclusively that the KH is certainly correct (see also, I. Ta-Shma, Creativity and Tradition, pp. 77-79).

  

When discussing the place where the Reshis Chochma is buried, he mentions, as an aside, that the Matnes Kehunah is buried next to him (p. 146). Others disagree on this point, showing that the Matnes Kehunah was actually buried in Poland (see Zev Gris, Safrus V'hanhagos, pp. 41-42).

 

When talking about R. Shlomo Halevi, R. Conforte writes (p. 165):


וצוה בשעת פטירתו... שהספסל שהיה משים עליו הספרים כשהיה לומד, שיעשו ממנו ארון כדי לקוברו בו.

 

 

On this topic of burying one using the table on which one studied, see the many sources of R. S. Askenazi in his notes on the Kav Hayashar, and his updates in his Alpha Beta Kadmidta Deshmuel Zeria, pp. 487-93.

 

When discussing the Lechem Mishna, R. Conforte brings down an incredible story which he heard (pg. 153):


ושמעתי מפי זקנים כי נפטר בערב שבת במגפה ונקבר בין השמשות ובא השמש, והתחילו מצטערים לומר שחללו את השבת. וכשחזרו מבית הקברות לבתיהם זרחה השמש והאיר להם היום ושמחו על שלא חללו את השבת.

 

As D. Tamar notes (Areshet, Vol. 1, p. 474), the KH is the first historical sefer (p. 127) to attribute the Magid Mesahrim to R. Yosef Karo (contrary to what R. Y. Greenwald writes in his book R. Yosef Karo Ve'doro, pg. 192). Of course today we have much earlier and excellent proof as to the authenticity of this work; see, in partiuclar, the works of R. J.Z. Werblosky and M. Benayhu (in Yosef Becherei).

 

The KH also brings (p. 128) an incredible tidbit about the Beis Yosef which he heard from the Beis Yosef desendants:


ספר לנו קצת משבחי זקנו ז"ל, ובכלל שבחיו אמר לנו שהרב זקנו אמר בשעת פטירתו שזכה ללמד התלמוד כלו שלשה פעמים.

  

In the introduction to the Ahavat Sholom edition, the editors note that this sefer was also used to learn halacha, such as in the discussion of teaching torah to Karaties. They reference, for example, how the first source on this topic in the Sdei Chemed is the KH (Sdei Chemed, Klal Beis, Siman 34:13). While it is true that the Sdei Chemed does quote the KH, in reality he is only quoting Shut Mizrachi as brought in the KH. However, a Bar-Ilan search does show a few cases where the Shut Minchat Yitzcahk uses this sefer in his works. As far as Halachos of Klalei Ha'pesak, I am certain that KH could play a role.

 
In the recent ("controversial") book Reckless Rites Elliot Horowitz has a excellent extremely comprehensive chapter on local Purims throughout history. One of the Purims he discusses is the Purim of Cairo (pp. 286-89) he mentions that we have various sources showing it was observed over several centuries. Another source, not mentioned by Horowitz, is that a reference to this Purim can be found in the KH where he mentions that in his times it was also celebrated (p. 119).
 

One last point of great interest about R. Conforte is that although he lived in the time of Shabetai Tzvi, no mention of Shabetai Zvi can be found in the entire sefer. This point was made by B. Deblitski in his article in Mekabseil (pg. 606); however, the introduction of the Ahavat Sholom edition omits this very important and interesting point.

 

 

 


]]> History Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/17/Rabbis--History-A-Review-of-the-Koreh-HaDorot-Ahavat-Shalom-ed Baranovich Auction http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/13/Baranovich-Auction Wednesday, November 19th.  One can download the catalog here.  While I don't intend to cover the whole catalog, I want to briefly highlight a few items. Those interested in early Hebrew/English primers (or English Hebraica) and the like should take a look at lots 12-17.  For those interested in early 20th century American figures, such as Rodkinson and Eisenstein, see lot 62 for Eisenstein's quasi-autobiography, Otzar Zikronoti .  And for a polemic against Rodkinson by R. Yosef Kohen Zedek (of London, a fascinating figure in his own right) see lot 52, Sefat Emet.  For other polemical material, no auction is complete without the rare (but, again, somehow appear in every auction) polemics on the Emden-Eybshutz controversy, lots 35-36.  Another controversial piece is the 1535 Constantinople edition of the Machberet Emanuel , lot 66. While this is not the first edition which was published in 1491, it contains different material than the first edition.  See Machberet Emmanuel, Yardeni ed., Jerusalem, 1957 p. 20.  For those interested only in first editions, the first edition of the Hafetz Hayim, Vilna 1873, lot 72 is available. For earliest mention of the Ba'al Shem Tov see lot 81, Maayim Hayyim , discussed at length here. Finally, for those interested in illustrated seforim, the Maayan Ganim, with its fountain illustrations as well as a mention of women studying torah is lot 102.
]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:47:36 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/11/13/Baranovich-Auction Review of Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-I... http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/28/Review-of-Amudim-beToldot-Sefer-haI Review of Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim

by Eliezer Brodt and Dan Rabinowitz


Yaakov S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim (Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book Scholars and their Annotations), Ramat Gan, 20052, 689 pp.

In 1996, Bar Ilan Press published Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim from Professor Yaakov S. Spiegel. Shortly thereafter, this edition sold out due to its popularity. A few years later Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Kitevah ve-haTakah (volume two) was published.  More recently, Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim was reprinted with over seventy five pages additional pages full of many important additions. In this new edition, Spiegel apologizes to the people who purchased the first edition of his work and would now have to buy the new one if they want the updates.  Spiegel offered that the requirement for a completely new edition rather than an addendum was out of his control.

 

Although the importance and quality of the book will be obvious shortly, it has not been reviewed or discussed properly in academic journals except for a short review on Hamayan (37, 3: 69-75). This post hopefully is a start in rectifying this omission.

 

This volume is the first of two (current) volumes discussing the History of the Jewish book - specifically the creation and alteration of the Jewish books.  That is, this volume covers annotating or editing texts.  Essentially, this work is divided into two parts, (Spiegel divides it into four parts) the first, discusses the permissibility of editing texts and the second discusses annotators and editors. 

 

The first portion begins with the sugyah of editing texts in the time of the Mishana (sifrei torah) and moves into the topic of the prohibition of having a unedited sefer. These two chapters play an important role in the background of this topic of editing seforim.  Spiegel then moves into the era of the geonim and rishonim dealing at great length with there methods of editing or annotating texts. He discuses at great length the methods of Rabbenu Gershom, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam.  As is well known Rabbenu Tam prohibited the editing or annotating texts Spiegel discusses the complete background of Rabbenu Tam's opinion going through the myriad of sources when Rabbenu Tam's restriction applies. This discussion includes an analysis of Rabbenu Tam's work Sefer Hayashar and his famous disagreement with R Meshulem. Spiegel, as he does in each of the chapter, quotes all the previous sources on the topics and rechecks it all carefully and comes out with many new important conclusions.

 

Spiegel then proceeds to deal with the different works of haghot in the times of rishonim and the nature of these works. Of particular interest is his sections on the Haghot Ashrei (pp. 183-90) and on the Ravad's comments on the Ramabam discussing if those comments are plain haghot or hasaghot (pp. 198-207).

 

The second section of the book surveys the story of Haghot u-Maghim from the beginning of the printing press, in approximately 1456, until 1840. He begins with chapters on the importance of the printing press (see also pp. 300-06) and moves in to the job of the annotators and editors and their methods. Dealing with topics such as, did Rabbenu Tam only speak to instances where one is erasing the text and substituting another but if one merely notes an alternative reading and preserves the original that is OK? Or, is it only applicable to manuscripts or does it apply to printed works as well?  The distinction being, in the case of a manuscript, that manuscript may be the only copy and, if one alters the text, the original is forever lost.  Additionally, Spiegel discusses at length the important question of whether one can correct texts based on logic or textual support. An interesting section is where he brings a bunch of sources that there is a special will from God that these mistakes happened and should remain (pg 262-269).

 

There are chapters on the various 'editors' such as R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, R. Yoel Sirkes (Bach), Maharshal, Maharsha, Maharam, R. Jacob Emden, R. Y. Pick, Gra, Rashash, and a host of others.  For each one Spiegel discusses which version of the Talmud they were addressing their emendation and whether their emendations were based on manuscript evidence or their own determination that the text was corrupted. These questions are very important. For example, Spiegel notes that the Maharshal (p. 315) and Maharsha (p. 323) did use manuscript evidence many times whereas the Maharam (p. 325) did not use manuscript evidence frequently.

 

 

As to the Bach's emendations, Spiegel notes that weren't published until the 19th century, but the Bach's comments were addressed at earlier, different version of the Talmud.  Thus, at times, it is unclear what the Bach is changing.  Indeed, Spiegel shows how some commentaries have misunderstood the Bach's comments. Spiegel deals with at length what the Bach's goals were. Spiegel also shows that there were additions to the work after the Bach's death. As to the Bach's usage of manuscripts Spiegel shows it's still not proven that the Bach  used them as most of the changes can be found in Ein Yakkov. 

 

 

Spiegel devotes a long chapter dealing with the Gra notes amongst the topics he discusses are what was the Gra's point in his comments, and to why there are contradictions in his notes on Shas to his other writings (pg 450). As to the question of whether the Gra used manuscripts Spiegel concludes that it appears that he did not [although he did visit libraries and saw old seforim (pg 454-457)].

 

Another whole section Spiegel devotes to is discussing Rabinowich's Dikdukei Soferim at length. This is especially important in that Dikdukei Soferim is a collection of variant readings of the Talmud.  As many great Rabbis of Rabinowich's time praised this work, this tends to show these Rabbis' position on emending texts. Spiegel shows the may people who used it and how those who did not use it could have benefited from availing themselves to Dikdukei Soferim. Spiegel deals with various theories why it was not used widely. He concludes that it appears that the Dikdukei Soferim is becoming more widespread. He even quotes recent sales of Dikdukei Soferim and notes how quick it sold out after being reprinted after being out of print for quite a while. Although a Otzar haChochma search comes up with well over 2000 hits in over a thousand seforim (of course not all this are good hits as there search engine is still limited although useful). It still does not appear that the Dikdukei Soferim is used widely in the main yeshiva circles. Perhaps that will change.


Spiegel deals extensively with the position of the Hazon Ish regarding manuscripts.  This topic, one which has gotten much attention (see, e.g. the Shnayer Z. Leiman, Kook, Moshe A. Bleich articles in Tradition, Hevlin in Meah Shearim as well as the articles in Beis HaVaad), is discussed in detail with the backdrop of all the nuances Spiegel raises throughout this work. Spiegel discusses the curious fact that the Chazon Ish himself did sometimes use the manuscripts of Gemarah when learning (p. 567 n.126).

Spiegel concludes this section with a discussion on to more recent printings of the Shas such as the shas Vilna, Frankel and Oz veHadar. It appears that the methodology of both Shas Vilna (the original one) and Oz veHadar in deciding which texts to use etc are not clear. This is especial important to know with Oz veHadar what the methods that they use as they advertise as if they are making incredible important changes but one only wonders what they are ad on what basis they are made.

 

The last section of the sefer is devoted to the various annotators and editors to various editions of the Ramabam including the editions of Bragadin and Justintine. Spiegel also deals with when were the divisions of halachot put into the Rambam (pp. 637-638).  He also deals at length with the Amsterdam edition and the comments of R. Sholom Leon and showing its influence on later editions. R. Sholom Leon authored other seforim  including Mesectas halacha Le moshe miSinia which was recently printed in a annotated edition including a nice introduction. The editor of this new edition was not aware of Spiegel discussion regarding R. Leon. Spiegel has an interesting discussion about a third work called Merkevet ha-Mishna by R. Leon that was not known to many people and thus people made a mistake attributing a source (pp. 648-49).

 

It is amazing to see Spiegel's mastery of the Talmud and the sources with all its nuances throughout the book. The amount of classical seforim quoted and discussed is breathtaking many very rare works are quoted. Another point is the respect and tone he uses when he speaks about all the authors, a problem some have with many academic books. Another thing is he is not embarrassed to admit mistakes he made – he could have easily left out a specific footnote instead he writes it and explains that he made a mistake (see, e.g., p. 259).

 

 

From the above, it should be apparent that this book contains a wealth of information regarding the issue at hand, emending texts.  While that alone would be enough to recommend in the strongest terms this book, it must be noted that Spiegel, mainly in the many footnotes, covers an amazing amount of tangential topics.  Here are some examples:

p.29 n. 8 Spiegel has a discussion about the sefer Kol Dodi quoted by Agnon (for more on this work see this post ).

p. 41 n.12 sources regarding the custom of placing a possul sefer torah in the ark and whether this violates the prohibition of "al tiskon be-ohelkha" (one should not have uncorrected texts in their home).
p. 65 n.105 testimony from R. Yaakov Katz that Rav Hai Goan was a copyist. 
p. 75 n.153 noting that la"z the term used to indicate a translation should not contain the quote mark as it is not an abbreviation. 
p. 80 n.177 noting that Krochmel in his Moreh Nevukeh haZeman quotes the Mahritz Heyos only as "Hakham Eched."
p. 89 n.29 discusses R. Zevin's offhanded comment that the rishonim did not use "nusach aher."
p. 102 n.110 discusses "nusach Sefard" and whether it is more reliable.
p. 103 n.115 notes that although a statement from the Rosh (responsa, klal 20, no. 20) is used by multiple authors to show that Ashkenazik customs have a long history, those many authors ignored the other implication of the statement regarding

the "nusach haTalmud shel beni Ashkenaz."
p. 105 n.123 who authored rashi on Horyois.

p.105 n. 126 if one learnsa small daf is it considered a Complete daf.

p.107 n.132 discussing the issue of when the Talmud records a pusuk differently than our Sifrei Torah. 

p. 131 n.14 corrections of rashi that were later added into the printed edition of Shas.

p. 142 n.55 when Rashi says Hachei Garseninon did he have a different version in front of him.
p. 170 n.64 the common meaning of the word "sefer" - as in yodeah sefer which sefer?
p. 218 n.7 Spiegel explains the melitza used by the printers of the 1494 Nevim to describe what they did.  The melitza includes the line "lower the high and raise the lower" (Ezekiel 21:31).  Dr. M. Glaser explained that in the early printing presses the letters would be set and they faced upwards, the printer would coat them in ink and then place the paper on top.  This is in contrast to how writing was done previously - from above. 
p. 230 n.67 citing examples of books where the Soncino press accused the Bomberg press of using (illegally?) Soncino editions.
p. 234 n.79 discussing the alleged apostasy of Yakkov ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu, the editor of the Mikrot Gedolot and other seminal texts.
p. 268 n.95 many sources that say the Havah Minah of the gemarah is true and important. 

p. 318 -21  he discusses the methods of R Dovid Meubin a talmid of the Maharshal in annotating the Gemarah including many general rules that he mentions in his sefer.

p. 329 -35 discuses the notes of the Levush on shas if they were really from him and dealing with R. Zechariah criticism on this.

p. 426 n.18 discuses about Fogelman work on R. Menasha Milyah.

p. 464 n.167 the Gra's opinion on the laining on Rosh Chodesh.

p. 540 n.29 the plagiarism of the Tolodos Adam.

p. 587 n.41 deals with a bit if Chaim Bloch was a forger.

p. 652 n.185 Kapach opinon on the Teshuvos of Rambam to Chachemei Lunel.

 

 

In the academic world Spiegel work has gotten some attention for his discussion of the Chazon Ish and manuscripts.  Specifically, Benny Brown in his unpulished dissertation, The Hazon Ish Halakhic Philosophy, Theology and Social Policy As Expressed in His Prominent Later Rulings  (Hebrew) pp. 129-40, & Appendix pg 111- 113  deals with Spiegel's discussions with comments and additions. As has been noted here Sperber in his recent work Nesivos Pesikah uses Spiegel's discussions on this topic. And, in his doctorate on R. Betzalel Askenazi B. Toledano uses Spiegel's comments on R. Betzalel. Finally, others have used Spiegel's work, but as Spiegel notes only sometimes do they give Spiegel credit, (see here for more and see the introduction p. 13 and the notes therein and page 183 n.132).

 

 

Finally, although Spiegel's work is very comprehensive, there are some additions to some of the topics discussed in the sefer:

 

 

In the beginning of the book Spiegel has a chapter about אין כותבין ספרים תפלין ומזוזות במועד ואין מגיהין אות אחת אפילו בספר העזרה בספרים אחרים גורסים ספר עזרא

To add to his long list of sources see Archaei Tanamim Vamorim (Rebbe of Rokeach) (Blau edition 2:666-67) and R. Meshulam Roth, Shut Kol Mevaser 2:2823.

 

For the chapter (pp. 39-83) about המחזיק בספר מוטעה אל תשכן באהליך עולה see Efodi in his Maseh Efodie p. 18 in the introduction.


For his chapter about Rabbenu Tam's methods of amending texts see also R. Yakov Shor (intro to Sefer haIttim p. vii) where he says he followed Rabbenu Tam's method in his edition of the Sefer haIttim and did make corrections on the actual text.

 

 

In chapter twelve where he discusses the Mesectos which are not learned (407-414) Spiegel mentions Nedarim as not being learnt (p. 407). See also the Merei in his Seder Hakabbalah (p. 128 Ofek Edition) where he writes

דעו בעדות נאמנה שלא נשנית מסכת נדרים בישיבה זה ק' שנה

On Nedarim see also R. Reven Margolis, Mekharim beDarkei HaTalmud, pp. 81-84; R. Zevin, Sofrim Veseforim (geonim) pp. 46-48; the extensive discussion of R. Zev Rabanovitz in his Shaerei Toras Bavel (pp. 299-310).

 

About Meschates Moed Koton see the important comment of R. Yissacar Tamar, Alei Tamar Moed Koton pg 312; and Yeshurun 20:702.

 

Another mesectah not really learnt in the time of the Rishonim was Mesectas Avodah Zarah see; Professor Chaim Solovetick, Hayayin Byemei Habenyaim pp. 133-36.

 

When discussing Meshtas Chagigah (pg 409) he brings the famous story from the Menorot haMeor that:

מעשה בתלמיד אחד, שהיה מתייחד במקום אחד, והיה למד בו מסכת חגיגה. והיה מהדר ומהפך בה כמה פעמים, עד שלמד אותה היטב והיתה שגורה בפיו, ולא היה יודע מסכתא אחרת מן התלמוד זולתה, והיה שונה בה כל ימיו. כיון שנפטר מן העולם הזה, היה לבדו באותו בית שהיה לומד בו מסכת חגיגה, ולא היה שום אדם יודע פטירתו. מיד באה אשה אחת, ועמדה עליו, והרימה קולה בבכי ובמספד, ותרבה אנחתה וצעקתה, כאשה שהיא סופדת על בעלה, עד אשר נקבצו ההמון, ואמרה להם, ספדו לחסיד זה, וקברוהו בכבוד גדול, וכבדו את ארונו, ותזכו לחיי העולם הבא, שזה כבדני כל ימיו ולא הייתי עזובה ולא שכוחה בימיו. מיד נתקבצו כל הנשים וישבו עמה סביב למטתו ועשו עליו מספד גדול, והאנשים נתעסקו בתכריכיו ובכל צרכי קבורתו, וקברו אותו בכבוד גדול. ואותה אשה בוכה במר נפש וצועקת. אמרו לה, מה שמך. אמרה להם, חגיגה שמי. וכיון שנקבר אותו חסיד נעלמה מן העין אותה אשה. מיד ידעו שמסכת חגיגה היתה, שנראית להם בצורת אשה, ובאה בשעת פטירתו לספוד לו ולבכותו ולקברו בכבוד, מפני שהיה שונה בה ושוקד עליה ללמוד אותה. והלא דברים קל וחומר, ומה חסיד זה שלא למד אלא מסכתא אחת בלבד כך, הלמד תורה הרבה ותלמוד הרבה ומעמיד תלמידים הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה.

 

It should be noted that there are eleven versions of the story see S. Askenazi notes to Kav Hayashar and updated to 15 versions in his Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria pp. 331-36. [These sources were not know to Y. Hacohen in his new annotated edition of the Magid Mesharim (p. 292). The Otzar Yad Chaim (pg 198) goes so far as to say that because of this story some say it's a segulah to learn this Mesechtah on a yarzheit. [See also Megedaim Chadashim introduction to Chaggiah.]

 

In regard to The famous abrevation ענ"י which Mescetas were hard add R. Emden who writes on the Zohar which says

עני איהו תמן בסימן עירובין נדה יבמות

 "בנה סוד על הלצה בעלמא, שהיתה מצויה בפי עוסקי התלמוד בישיבה, שלא יכלו לירד לעמקן של מסכתות הללו החמורות מאד, מחמת ריבוי החלוקות החדודות שבהן, הודו ולא בושו בעניות דעתם וקוצר יד השגתם, שלא יכלו להשוות כל הסוגיות השונות והסתירות הנמצאות בהן, לתרצם וליישבם כדרך שעשו בשאר כל המסכתות, חוץ מאלו קשות ולא מצאו כל אנשי חיל ידיהם. ונתנו בהן סימן על דרך הצחות, שלא יתפלא אדם, גם אם יאמר החכם למצוא פשר דבר לא יוכל, שכבר צווחו בהן קמאי דקמאי ולא אסקו בידייהו, אלא כמאן דמסיק תעלא מבי כרבא ועניא דקרי אבבא, היאומן שדברים כאלה יצא מפי תנא, אין צריך לומר מפי משה רבנו וא משאר נשמות מעולם הנעלם".  (מטפחת ספרים עמ' מו).

 

 

See also S. A ]]> Eliezer Brodt Amudim bTolodot Sefer HaIvri Book Reviews Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/28/Review-of-Amudim-beToldot-Sefer-haI Dr. Lange's Commentary on Koheleth http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/26/Dr-Langes-Commentary-on-Koheleth post, Dr. Leiman noted that Rabbi Dr. Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann's commentary on Shemot is being translated into Hebrew and printed in the near future.  While the volume on Shemot will be published, a commentary of one of R. Hoffmann's student on Koheles has recently been translated and printed.  Indeed,  there are two editions of the same commentary that have been recently been printed.  The fact that someone who has been ignored for a while then merits to have competing editions of their work is not that uncommon. For example, recently, there has been a renewed interest in the works of the Aderet.  The Adret's commentary on teffilah, Tefilat Dovid, there are three editions when five years ago there were none.

In this case, there are two editions, one in Hebrew and one in English of Dr. Gerson Lange's commentary on Kohelet.  The English edition titled, "The Book of Koheleth," is edited by Yosef Binyamin Fagin and includes a short biography about Dr. Lange. A slightly different version of this biography was printed in volume two of Yeruhaseinu (English section, pp. 22-31). Dr. Lange was a student of Rabbis Hoffmann and Hildesheimer and eventually took over as Director, after the death of R. Dr. Mendel Hirsch of the Israelitischen Religionsgessellschaft Realschule in Frankfort.  In this role as teacher, Dr. Lange taught Kohelet to his students, this work is a product of those classes. 

This is not Dr. Lange's only book, he also translated the Ralbag's Ma'asei Choseiv, a work on mathematics.  Dr. Lange, after obtaining semikh, studied mathematics at the University of Berlin.  In his commentary on Koheleth, he makes use of his mathematical background and even discusses Newton's Theory of Emission in the introduction.The commentary is one of peshat and many times focuses on eytomology to find the peshet.  The English version produces a highly readable translation. 

The Hebrew version, titled Gerash Yerachim, although the original title was, as the English version renders it, The Book of Koheleth, the editor decided to come up with a new title - a point that is not mentioned anywhere in this version. Additionally, this version, according to the editor, is not a translation but adapts Dr. Lange's commentary.  This version contains an introduction and background on Dr. Lange.  The introduction appears to take on a more apologetic tone than the English version.  Specifically, when discussing Dr. Lange the introduction points out that although Dr. Lange went to university buty that "going to university was common amongst the German Jews and without obtaining an advanced degree they could not function in any communal role, even amongst the Orthodox communities . . . [Dr. Lange] was following in the footsteps of his teachers, Rav Ezreil Hedesheimer and R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann and going up in holiness the Goan R. [Yaakov] Ettlinger."  Additionally, the introduction goes on to recount how R. Meir Shapira visited a resort near Frankfort, "Dr. Lange would get up at four a.m. and go to R. Shapira to study with him.  When R. Meir [Shapira] came back into Frankfort he proclaimed 'A Jew like [Dr. Lange] shows that there are still beni aliyah amongst the German Jews!'" Whether or not this tone was the intent of the editor, is of course, difficult to discern but worth noting. Finally, a short review of the Hebrew edition appeared in volume three of Yeruhaseinu pp. 399-400.

Both of these versions should be available in your local seforim stores, or the English can be purchased by contacting langebook-at-aol.com     
]]> Book Reviews Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/26/Dr-Langes-Commentary-on-Koheleth Pini Dunner - Handbill Defending the Use of the Corfu Etrogim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/13/Pini-Dunner--Handbill-Defending-the-Use-of-the-Corfu-Etrogim Pini Dunner B.A (Hons), formerly rabbi of London's Saatchi Synagogue, is an avid collector of polemical and controversial Hebraica, with a very large, diverse private collection of such material. Many items in his collection are unknown and unrecorded, and relate to long forgotten, obscure controversies.


This is Pini Dunner's third post at the Seforim blog. His first post, "Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931," is available here; his second post, "Unknown Picture of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, c.1930s," is available here.


For background on the controversy over Corfu etrogim, see Yosef Salomon, "The Controversies Regarding the Corfu and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim 1875-1891," Zion 65.1 (2000): 75-106; Yosef Salomon, "The Controversy Regarding the Corfu Etrogim and its Historical Significance," AJS Review 25 (2000-2001): 1-25; Yitzhak Refael, "Corfu Etrogim and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim," Sheragi 2 (1985), 84-90; Dan Porat, "The Controversy over Israeli Etrogim from 1875-1889," (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993); H. Hamel, "R. Yosef Zehariah Stern's Position in the Corfu Etrogim Controversy," in Sefer Refael (Jerusalem, 2000), 242-251. For a brief discussion about the broadsides authored by R. Gershon Henoch Leiner and his son R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin that were posted throughout Poland, see Pearl Preschel, "The Jews of Corfu," (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1984), 111-112, 113-114, 159.


Regarding the Russian text at the bottom of the broadside, the following is a translation that was obligatory to appear on all non-Russian books:
Condemnation by M.I.Leiner of those rabbis, which, as the revenge for the dwellers of the Greek islands for the disturbances on the island of Corfu, prohibited the paradise apples originating from those islands for using them in the religious ceremony of the holiday of Sukkot.
Included is a protest letter by the rabbi of Corfu about the matter.
---------------------------
Permitted by the censorship, Warsaw, 15 July 1891 -- printing of M.I. Galter Nalevki [St.] 23.

for post
Handbill Defending the Use of the Corfu Etrogim authored by R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin  published in Izbica, July 1891


This broadside contains a vigourous and impassioned defence of the practice of using etrogim from Corfu in preference to those from Eretz Yisrael. For centuries the most prized etrogim used by Jews of all communities were those grown in Corfu, and the etrog industry on the island was a mainstay of the local economy. It was said that the etrogim grown in Corfu traced their origins to those used during the second temple period, and were therefore of the most reliable pedigree. The untainted pedigree of an etrog is of primary importance, and as a result Corfu etrogim were highly sought after, making them expensive. Furthermore, the owners of the orchards - many of them non-Jews - fiercely guarded their monopolies, and were extremely careful that their etrogim were of unimpeachable pedigree.


This broadside was issued as a result of the drift away from using etrogim grown on the island of Corfu in the late nineteenth century. Initially this began with a ban on their use that was issued c.1875 and that had its roots in the growing suspicion that Corfu etrogim were no longer reliable in their pedigree and that growers had secretly begun grafting them with other citrus fruits to boost the numbers of fruit that were fit for use, and in addition would be outstanding in their appearance, boosting their value.


Then in 1891, the year of this broadside, the ban against Corfu etrogim was strengthened as a result of the terrible anti-semitism on the island that had led to a vicious blood libel. Jewish communities formerly loyal to Corfu etrogim switched their allegiances to the ever expanding etrogim market of Eretz Yisrael and it was this that R. Leiner was trying to prevent. R. Leiner (1877-1929) was the scion of the Izbica/Radzyn dynasty and in this broadside he quotes his recently departed father, R. Gershon Henoch (1839-1891), the famous 'Baal ha-Techeilet', as saying that there were no better and more kosher etrogim than those that grew in Corfu. He added that those grown in Eretz Yisrael were probably unfit for use and, furthermore, the excuse that they provided income for poor farmers there was utterly inappropriate in light of their unfitness. He added that the chief rabbi of Corfu, R. Elisha mi-Pano, had written to him to say that the ban effected against Corfu etrogim (the annual market for etrogim was of major economic significance to the small island) as a result of the blood libel was making matters worse for the Jews of Corfu.


Despite attemps by R. Leiner and other advocates of Corfu etrogim, the Corfu etrog business went into terminal decline. By the early twentieth century the rival industry in Eretz Yisrael had grabbed the overwhelming majority of the etrogim market, and with the upheaval of the two world wars, and following the creation of the State of Israel, Corfu etrogim disappeared completely from the scene.


Recently, I understand, there has been some effort to revive the fortunes of the Corfu etrog. It would seem that an emissary of R. David Twersky of New Square annually acquires etrogim from Corfu for R. Twersky to use on sukkot. No doubt this action is motivated by R. Twersky's well-known desire to strictly follow the customs of his illustrious forebears who, in the years when the etrogim controversy raged, were devotees of Corfu etrogim over their Eretz Yisrael counterparts. Nevertheless, as any etrog grower will tell you, once an etrog orchard has been abandoned, any fruit that emerge from it in the years that follow, especially if many years pass, no longer have a chezkat kashrut, and more than likely they are murkavim. It would be interesting to know if R. Twersky makes a bracha on these questionable etrogim, or if he first uses an etrog of reliable pedigree and then switches to the murkav simply for sentimental purposes.

]]> Pini Dunner Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:32:46 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/13/Pini-Dunner--Handbill-Defending-the-Use-of-the-Corfu-Etrogim Eliezer Kallir - Updated http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/7/Eliezer-Kallir Eliezer Kallir, is considered one of the greatest paytanim.  He authored some of the most well known piyyutim including those said for geshem and tal, as well as many others (although most of his piyyutim that were included in the Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur prayers are no longer said by most).  While his literary output is well-known, "[b]iographical facts about Kallir are shrouded in mystery."  E.J. (new ed.) vol. 11, p. 743. There are many theories about who R. Kallir was and I would like to touch on some of these in this post. (Also see below for a bibliography on R. Eliezer Kallir - provided by a kind reader of the blog.)

R. Shmuel David Luzzato (Shadal) in his Mevo l'Machzor Beni Roma, discusses Kallir and the history of piyyutim at length.[1]  "If you will ask who authored the first piyyut and who followed them, I will answer that the first is Yanni or Yinai, and the second is R. Eliezer Berebi Kalir.  The product of both is apparent to all in the Haggadah as the piyyut "Az Rov Nissim" is from Yanni . . . and the piyyut "Ometz Gevoroteha" is from R. Eliezer berbi Kallir . . ."  Interestingly, "regarding Yanni a nasty rumor has been spread (Zunz found it in a manuscript commentary to the Mahzor), however, anyone who hears it will laugh,  . . . [and the rumor is] that Yanni became jealous of his student R. Eliezer and [Yanni] put a scorpion in [Eliezer Kallir's] shoe and the scorpion killed Kallir."  Shadal, however, dismisses this rumor in light of the fact that Yanni's piyyutim are still said, especially the one mentioned above during Pesach.  Shadal argues that if Yanni was a murderer then there is no way Yanni's piyyutim would be so popular.  Additionally, Rabbenu Gershom mentions Yanni and uses honorific terms, something Rabbenu Gershom would not have done if the rumor is true. 

Shadal then turns to the details of R. Eliezer Kallir's biography.  "In many places R. Eliezer signs his name as 'R. Eliezer beribi Kallir from Kiryat Sefer.' Many of the early ones believed that this indicated Kallir was from the biblical town of Kiryat Sefer, and many thought that Kallir was a tanna, either R. Eliezer the son of Simon ... or R. Eliezer ben Arakh, both of these opinions are recorded in the Sefer HaYuchsin."  Shadal, however shows that it is highly unlikely that R. Eliezer Kallir was a tanna or that he was from the biblical town of Kiryat Sefer. Instead, Shadal quotes the opinion of R. Moshe Landau (grandson of the Noda Be-Yehuda) in his commentary to the Arukh, Maarkhe Lashon.[2]  According to Landau Kallir is a reference to the Sardinian city Cagliari.  Shadal disagrees with Landau.  In the end, after citing other opinions, including identifying Kallir with an Italian city, Pumadisa in Babylon, and Sippara also in Babylon, and to those it should be added, Bari, Ostia, "Civitas Portas, the former port of Rome (Derenbourg); Constantinople; Civita di Penna in the Abruzzi; . . . Normandy, Speyer in Germany . . . Lettere in Souther Italy,  . . . Antioch and Hama in Syria . . . Kallirrhoe in Palestine . .. [and finally] Tiberias."  E.J. p. 744.  As should be apparent, there is no consensus on where Kallir was from.

Turning to his name - Kallir - the starting place is R. Nathan and his Arukh.   He explains that Kallir, means cake (indeed in Greek kalura means cake).  And, Kallir was called "cake" because "he ate a cake that had written on a kemiah (amulet) and, as a result, he became smart."  Arukh erekh klr.  The idea to feed children cake with inscriptions is a well documented one.  R. Eliezer from Worms, the author of the Rokekh records the custom to feed children cakes with the verses from Isaiah 50:4, id.50:5, and Ezekiel 3:3.  The children would eat these when they were indoctrinated into Torah study on Shavout.  [2]  Of course, as noted above, some view the name Kallir as an indication of where Kallir was from.  Indeed, many, including Shadal did not swallow (if I may) the Arukh's interpretation of Kallir.

Again, as we have seen there is a bit of debate when it comes to Kallir, one of the more interesting debates regards which piyyutim can be attributed to him.  While in many Kallir provides his name in an acrostic, according to R. Shelomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir) one can also attribute those piyyutim that there is a gematria that equals some permutation of Kallir's name.  That is, Kallir sometimes signed his name Eliezer haKallir, Eliezer beribi Kallir, Eliezer Kallir me-Kiryat Sefer, and a combination of any of these.  Thus, according to Shir, if in the first line equaled any of these Kallir was the author. 

R. Efraim Mehlsack, however, took issue with Shir's use of gematria. Specifically, Mehlsack wrote Sefer ha-Ravyah, Ofen, 1837, against Shir.  Mehlsack was a prolific author, he supposedly authored some 72 seforim, but the only published sefer was this one.  But before we get into the details regarding Mehlsack we need to discuss his critique of Shir.  Mehlsack went to town on Shir and showed that using the gematria for the first line of a book, Mehlsack could make Kallir the author of just about every important Jewish book.  Mehlsack goes through Tanakh and uses the first verse of each book to equal some form of Kallir's name.  For example, the first verse in Berashit equals 913 which equals "meni ha-katan Eliezer Kallir." The first verse in Joshua equals 1041 which equals "ha-katon Eliezer beribi Kallir."  Mehlsack doesn't stop with Tanakh, he then moves to Mishna noting that the first mishna in Berkhot is 2362 which equals "ani Eliezer berbi Ya'akov ha-Kallir mi-Kiryat Sefer yezkeh be-tov amen."  As a final shot at Shir, Mehlsack has the gematria of I am Shelmo Yehuda Rapoport = 1164 to Eliezer beRebi Yaakov Kallir =1164.  Indeed, Mehlsack was not content to provide some 40 odd examples, he had even more and as a result of already printing the pages, the Sefer Ravyah is an interesting bibliographical oddity in that these gematrias appear on page 18 and then continue.  Well Mehlsack includes an alternative page 18 in the back which has more examples of these gematrias. Thus, the book goes until page 32 and then there is another page 18.  Both versions appear below.





Turning now to Mehlsack.  As I mentioned Mehlsack supposedly authored 72 books.  We know of 34 titles from that list.[4] Although most of those works have been lost, there are a few, around five, that are available in manuscript.  In Boaz Hass's recent book on the history of the Zohar, he mentions Mehlsack's translation of the Zohar (Scholem also discusses this work).  One of the works lost, is a work permitting one to travel via train on Shabbat.  The introduction of this work has been published (in part) and appears below. Additionally, Sefer Ravyah was not Mehlsack's only attack on Rapoport, Mehlsack attacked Rapoport in a few of his works, and some of his critiques were published in Bikkurei Ha-Ittim.

Returning to Kallir, it goes without saying that Kallir's piyyutim were controversial.  Most famously, the Ibn Ezra complained about them and offered that one should refrain from saying Kallir's piyyutim.  Ibn Ezra's critique is discussed by R. Eliezer Fleckels, who defends Kallir, and Heidenheim thought it important enough to include this lengthy responsum in Heidenheim's edition of the Machzor.[For more on the Ibn Ezra see צבי מלאכי "אברהם אבן-עזרא נגד אלעזר הקליר - ביקורת בראי הדורות" פלס (תשם) 273-296)  

Bibliography on R. Eliezer Kallir (provided by a kind reader of the blog.)

אלבוגן, התפלה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההסטורית, 233 - 239

יוסף זליגר, "לתולדות הפיוט והפיטנים (ר' אלעזר קליר)", כתבי הרב ד"ר יוסף זליגר, לאה זליגר מו"ל, ירושלים תרצ, צז - קב

שלמה דוד לוצאטו, אגרות שד"ל א, 464 ואילך

---, הליכות קדם, גבריאל פאלק, אמסטרדם תרז, מחלקה שניה, 56 - 64.

צבי מלאכי, "הפייטן אלעזר הקליר - לחקר שמו ומקומו", באורח מדע: פרקים בתרבות ישראל מוגים לאהרן מירסקי במלאות לו שבעים שנה, צבי מלאכי, מכון הברמן למחקרי ספרות, לוד תשמו, 539 - 543

אהרן מרקוס, ברזילי: מסה בתולדות הלשון העברית, ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק תשמג, 346

עזרא פליישר, תרביץ נ, 282 - 302

---, "לפתרון שאלת זמנו ומקום פעילותו של ר' אלעזר בירבי קיליר", תרביץ נד ג, ניסן - סיון תשמה, 383 - 427

שלמה יהודה ראפאפארט, תולדות גדולי ישראל, 24 - 55

יעקב שור, ספר העתים, 364 – 365

 

בנועם שיח: פרקים מתולדות ספרותנו, מכון הברמן למחקרי ספרות, לוד תשמג, 114 - 156

המעין טז א, תשרי תשלו, 3 - 14. המשך: ב, טבת תשלו, 32 - 52.




[1] Mevo leMachzor Beni Roma, Habermann ed. Jerusalem

[2] For more on this commentary see S. Brisman, History & Guide to Judaic Dictionaries & Concordances, KTAV Publishing House, Inc. 2000, pp. 19-20.

[3] For more on this custom see Assaf, Mekorot le-Tolodot ha-Hinukh be-Yisrael, Jerusalem 2002, pp. 80-1 n.9 and the sources cited therein.  See also, E. Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 2000 pp. 140-41 and the notes therein (discussing the ceremony generally); id.p. 237 n.47 (discussing some of the halakhik issues with this custom including the "issue" of "excret[ing] these verses")

[4] See G. Kressel, "Kitvei Mehlsack," Kiryat Sefer 17, pp. 87-96.





 

]]> Customs Historical Oddities Bibliographies Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:21:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/10/7/Eliezer-Kallir Post on my sefer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/28/Post-on-my-sefer 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.


ב. רעיון זה שר' דוד מנובורודוק הביאו בשם "דורשי רשומות" הוא באמת מתורת האריז"ל, וכאמור. ונוסיף בכך דברים. ר' רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי (תמז-תקג), מגדולי מקובלי איטליה שגם שהה בצפת ובירושלים מספר שנים, כותב בשנת תפב בספרו משנת חסידים: "ובעשרת ימי תשובה... המתענה בהם ועושה תשובה גמורה, מוחלין לו בכל יום מימי השבוע שבעשרת ימי תשובה מה שחטא ביום ההוא לעולם"3. כמו חיבורים אחרים, גם משנת חסידים הינו סיכום מתורתו של האר"י כפי שקיבלו המחבר מתלמידי תלמידיו בארץ-ישראל ובאיטליה, ולפיכך אנו מוצאים את הרעיון המדובר גם בכתבים אחרים שאספו לקרבם מתורת האר"י. ר' מאיר פופרש כותב: "מי שיחזור בתשובה גמורה ויתענה בשבעת ימי התשובה, נמחלו לו כל עונותיו. דהיינו, אם חל ביום ראשון משבעת ימי התשובה ביום א דשבת - מתכפרים לו כל עונותיו שחטא ביום א דשבת... וכן כולם. זה וודאי בלי ספק"4. הדברים הובאו גם במקורות מאוחרים יותר, ולא תמיד בשמו של האריז"ל. כך כותב הגר"א (ליטא, תפ-תקנח) בלשונו התמציתית: "...ולכן המעשים הנאותים הנפעלים בימים אלו [=בעשרת ימי תשובה], חשובים ככל השנה"5. אחריו כותב תלמיד-תלמידו, ר' יצחק אייזיק חבר (ליטא, תקמט-תריג): "לכן בימים המקודשים האלו... מחויב כל איש... לטהר עצמו מכל חטא ואשמה על-ידי תשובה גמורה... בימים אלו [ש]הם כלל כל ימות השנה, וכמו שכתב האריז"ל, שבשבעת הימים - כל יום ויום נתקן בו מה שפגם באותו יום מכל ימות השנה..."6. גם באחד מספריו של ר' יוסף תאומים (פולין ואשכנז, תפז-תקנב), בעל 'פרי מגדים', נאמר: "כי יקר הזמן מאד מאד, על כן ימהר יחיש מעשיו לתקן את כל אשר עיות בכל השנה. כי בעשרת ימי תשובה, בכל יום יתקן מה שפגם בכל השנה באותו יום"7.וכך אצל עוד רבים מרבותינו האחרונים8.

 


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.

אך הפלא הוא, שהמקור הראשון המזכיר ענין זה בשם האריז"ל הוא ר' משה גלנטי10, שרבותיו המובהקים היו: ר' יוסף קארו (בתורת הנגלה) והרמ"ק (בתורת הנסתר)!11.

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< ]]> Eliezer Brodt New Books Customs Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:16:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/28/Post-on-my-sefer Repackaged Rulings: The Responsa of R. Elyashiv http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/26/Repackaged-Rulings-The-Responsa-of-R-Elyashiv Repackaged Rulings: The Responsa of R. Elyashiv

by: Yitzhak of בין דין לדין


Wolf2191 recently wrote:

N.B. I believe I noticed that some of the pesakim that R' Elyashiv issued when he was part of the Beis Din Ha-Gadol together with Chacham Ovadiah and Harav Kappach were republished in a kovetz under R' Elyashiv's name only, but I would need to check again.]

The קובץ תשובות

Three volumes of Rav Elyashiv's responsa have been published in Yerushalayim under the title קובץ תשובות, the first in 5760, and the latter two in 5763. None contain any preface, introduction or critical apparatus, except for the following brief prefatory paragraph, which appears verbatim in all three volumes:

קובץ זה נאסף ונלקט מספרים קובצים וכו'. וזאת למודעי כי ברוב התשובות לא היה גוף כתה"י לנגד עינינו, וסמכנו על הנדפס ויש מהם שבאו בחסר ושינויי לשון, כך שאין מקום כלל לקבוע דבר מהם. התשובות נלקטו ונסדרו ע"ד בלבד ואם שגינו אתנו תלין משוגתנו, ואנו תפלה להשי"ת שלא יצא דבר תקלה ח"ו מתח"י.
The title pages state merely that these responsa have been
נאספו נלקטו וקובצו מספרים וקובצים תורניים
No editors are named, and copyright is claimed anonymously, although a mailing address is given.

A striking difference between the three volumes is in the sourcing of the individual responsa. The table of contents of the first volume contains sources for all the responsa, that of the second leaves many unsourced, particularly in the Even Ha'Ezer and Hoshen Mishpat sections, and that of the third dispenses entirely with sources.

Why does the second volume omit some sources? Rav Dovid Soloveitchik used to say (and probably still does) "We may only ask 'what does it say', not 'why'", so let us rephrase the question; which sources does the second volume omit? The crucial clue is in the fact that the table of contents of the first volume mysteriously gives the sources for many of the responsa as 'פ"ד', whereas that of the second volume contains no such references. 'פ"ד' clearly stands for פסק דין, or perhaps more precisely, פסקי דין, and indeed, most of the unsourced responsa in the second volume seem to be excerpts of rulings originally published in the פסקי-דין של בתי הדין הרבניים האיזוריים בישראל, which explains their concentration in the aforementioned sections.

I have hunted down the sources for a half dozen responsa from the beginning of the Hoshen Mishpat section of the second volume of the קובץ תשובות:

קובץ תשובות פסקי דין
p. 310 Vol. 5, p. 322
p. 314 Vol. 4, p. 225
p. 321 Vol. 3, p. 289
p. 327 Vol. 5, p. 3
p. 342 Vol. 1, p. 108
p. 351 Vol. 3, p. 170
The remainder are left as an exercise for the reader.

Of the six cases listed above, five were apparently decided unanimously, and the published opinions are recorded simply as the courts' rulings. The third case in the above list yielded a split decision; one opinion appears over the names of R. Elyashiv and a colleague, and another opinion over the name of the third member of the panel. The קובץ תשובות' inclusion of these opinions implies that they have been authored by Rav Elyashiv himself, although the careful reader will notice that the editors do not explicitly attribute them to him; his signature is not appended, as it is to many of the responsa in the work.

The פסקי דין

We have mentioned the פסקי דין; a few words about this invaluable work are in order. At more than eight thousand pages in more than twenty volumes, it is the largest, and unquestionably the most important, published collection of casefiles in the areas of Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer. The decisions are lengthy and intricately argued, and they include copious citations of earlier literature as well as much important original analysis. Many of the בתי הדין הרבניים are represented, as are many of the most eminent Talmidei Hachamim and experts on Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer of the latter half of the twentieth century. Here is a list of some of the best known of these scholars:

Current Status and Availability

According to the Hebrew University catalog entries (See the Main Catalog entries (not JNUL) here and here) twenty two volumes of rulings have been published to date, plus three index volumes. I believe that the cost of the print version is exorbitant, but the wonderful people at HebrewBooks.org have made most of the volumes available for free download, in PDF format; search for פסקי דין. They apparently have the same material that my local library has, nineteen volumes of rulings plus index volumes. [My library has one index volume, covering volumes one through fifteen, they have two, covering volumes one through five and six through ten, and the Hebrew University collections have all three.] They seem to have duplicate copies of volumes eleven through eighteen, and the publication dates of their first series, titled אוסף פסקי דין, are all given as תש"י, which is obviously incorrect (this is the date of the appearance of the first volume, as we shall presently see), but this is mere carping; their making (most of) the work available for free online is a great boon for anyone interested in Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer.

Present At the Creation

Wolf2191 has shown me Dr. Zerah Warhaftig's personal account of the founding and subsequent evolution of the project:

An important innovation in the history of the responsa literature was inaugurated in Israel with the decision to publish the rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal and those of the district rabbinical courts. The rulings are published together with the arguments on which they are based, as presented in court. Indeed, I myself proposed the publication project, and was charged with its implementation, a responsibility I viewed as a great privelege and sacred trust.

Previously, the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal followed the traditional system of issuing brief rulings while at the same time compiling a full account of the halakhic deliberation on the case in pamphlet form for circulation among judges. Deliberation and discussion are an essential part of the legal process, allowing the individual judges an opportunity to convince their colleagues of the validity of their arguments, so that a decision can be reached. The pamphlets were intended to facilitate this process, rather than explain the rulings to the litigants involved, so that they could understand why they had won, or lost, their cases.

There was no appeal against a ruling of the Rabbinical High Court, nor were there establishe procedures for appealing the rulings of district rabbinical courts. (Interestingly, these pamphlets often served as the basis for volumes of responsa published by their authors years later.)

The idea of publishing, in an organized fashion, both the courts' rulings and their grounds, and that of appending abstracts of the laws cited in the rulings, as is customary in law reports, to allow for ease of reference and study, was thus entirely new. Accordingly, the Chief Rabbinate, which had to approve the proposal, had to be convinced of its merits. This entailed some negotiation, in which, as head of the Ministry of Justice's Research Institute for Jewish Law, I was much involved.

In due course an agreement in principle was reached between myself and the Chief Rabbinate. After some administrative changes were carried out, the first collection of rulings of the Chief Rabbinate's Rabbinical High Court of Appeal was finally published in 1950. Assisted by S. B. Feldman, S. Z. Cahana and P. Galevsky, I served as editor. In the foreword to the volume, I wrote:

The selection of the rulings herein published was guided by the desire to accurately portray the workings of the court. Most of the rulings relate to family law and public endowments; the others are devoted to monetary matters. The opinions of the judges, with a few exceptions, are not published as written, but have been abstracted by the editors from the contents of the pamphlets appended to the case files. This volume thus does not constitute a formal record and the editors assume full responsibility for the adaptation and wording of the judicial opinions.
...

It was found that publication encouraged rabbinical courts judges to communicate their opinions in a clear and orderly manner comprehensible to those unschooled in Jewish law, whether jurists or members of the public. Over time, rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal and the district rabbinical courts began to be handed down in a form that allowed them to be published as written, with no editing. Accordingly, it was decided to publish the rulings of the district rabbinical courts, and later, those of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal, on a monthly basis. ...

In addition to the inaugural volume of rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal, eleven volumes of rulings of Israel's rabbinical courts had been published by 1960. These well indexed volumes alone contain a wealth of decisions on questions of family and monetary law and on matters of vital public interest.

[Warhaftig, Zerah "Precedent In Jewish Law." in Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law Ed. Hanina Ben-Menahem and Neil S. Hecht. Harvard Academic Publishers. 12-16]

So in addition to Wolf2191's point about the republication of the panels' rulings as specifically Rav Elyashiv's, Warhaftig tells us that the rulings in the first volume of the פסקי דין (at least one of which is included in the קובץ תשובות, as above) are actually abstracts written by the editors, and not the original opinions penned by the Dayyanim in the first place!


]]> Bibliographies Yitzhak - בין דין לדין Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/26/Repackaged-Rulings-The-Responsa-of-R-Elyashiv Shnayer Leiman: Notes on Rabbinic Epitaphs I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/23/Shnayer-Leiman-Notes-on-Rabbinic-Epitaphs-I

Notes on Rabbinic Epitaphs: I

by: Shnayer Leiman

The newly recovered tombstone of R. Yosef Trani (1568-1639), the Maharit, among the greatest of the early aharonim,1 is a truly remarkable event. The discoverer, the noted bibliophile and book dealer R. Shlomo Epstein, had searched all the Jewish cemeteries in Istanbul (formerly: Constantinople), but could not locate the Maharit's grave. On a recent visit to Safed, where he went to pray at the tomb of R, Moshe Alshekh (circa 1520-1593), he noticed nearby a fragmented, barely legible tombstone (see figure 1). As he began to decipher the text, he realized that it was the tombstone of none other than the Maharit. In fact, the Maharit died and was buried in Constantinople, but his sons later transferred his remains to Safed (as he had requested) so that he could be interred near his father, R. Moshe Trani (1500-1580), the Mabit.2

clip_image002

There is much to learn from tombstone inscriptions. Often they are the only source of precise information about an ancestor or about a gadol be-yisrael. Sadly, tombstones are often neglected, lost, or destroyed. Despite all the claims otherwise, we do not know where Rashi (d. 1105), Ibn Ezra (d. 1164), R. Eleazar b. Yehudah of Worms, author of Sefer Rokeah (d. circa 1230), or Don Isaac Abarbanel (d. 1508) are buried.3 Moreover, no one took the trouble to copy their tombstone inscriptions – and they can no longer be recovered. In a much later period, the tombstone of R. Aryeh Leib b. Asher Gunzberg (d. 1785), noted author of the Sha'agat Aryeh, was destroyed.4 Again, no one took the trouble to copy his tombstone inscription before it was destroyed – and it can no longer be recovered. Similarly, Sarah Schenierer's (see figure 2)5 headstone in Plaszow (a suburb of Krakow), erected in 1935 and destroyed by Nazi orders in 1942, was neither photographed nor copied during the seven years it stood undisturbed. When the stone was reset in 2003 (see figure 3), a newly invented text, based in part on eye-witness testimony, had to be prepared for it. We need to learn from these instances that it is crucial that we preserve Jewish cemeteries the world over, to the best of our ability. Moreover, tombstone inscriptions in particular need to be photographed while still legible, and – at least in the case of gedolei yisrael – restored or redone so that visitors can read and be inspired by what was said about those gedolei yisrael. When tombstones are restored, the original text is always preferable to a newly invented text.

figure 2 figure 3

 

In my travels, I often photograph rabbinic epitaphs, and present some samples in this posting.

I. R. Akiva Eger (d. 1837).

There is no need to rehearse here biographical information about R. Akiva Eger.6 Sadly, his grave in Poznan (formerly: Posen), which was still standing before World War II (see figure 4),7 figure 4 was destroyed by the Nazis. Tombstones from the Jewish cemetery were used to pave roads, and the nineteenth century Jewish cemetery itself – it opened in 1804 – was incorporated into Poznan's Trade Fair grounds after the war.8 Ultimately, a housing project and shopping center figure 5were built on the grounds of the Jewish cemetery, today at ul. Glogowska corner ul. Sniadeckich. Fortunately, the rabbinic section of the cemetery served as a parking lot (rather than as the foundation of an apartment house), and it was possible to transform the lot into a grassy knoll and to set new tombstones over the old graves (see figure 5). At best, the tombstones are approximately over the gravesites they describe. Even so, it is a great kiddush ha-Shem that this sacred site has been restored. The graves restored include R. Akiva Eger (see figure 6), his second wife Breindel (d. 1836), his son and successor R. Shlomo Eger (d. 1852; see figure 7), and his son R. Avraham Eger (d. 1854). Also restored were the graves of two predecessors of R. Akiva Eger as Chief Rabbi of Posen: R. Yosef b. Pinhas of Posen (son-in-law of R. Yehezkel Landau Prague; see figure 8), d. 1801, and R. Moshe Shmuel, author of בית שמואל אחרון, d. 1806 (see figures 9 and 10 for the original and the restored tombstone inscriptions).9

We would be remiss if we didn't mention that R. Akiva Eger's likeness is on permanent display in Poznan's Town Hall (see figure 11). The excerpt in figure 11 is part of a larger mural painted by Julius Knorr (1810-1860) and entitled Marktplatz in Posen. The painting was done during the lifetime of R. Akiva Eger and was first displayed in 1838. R. Akiva Eger can be seen at the bottom right, walking with cane in hand and accompanied by the two other members of his rabbinic court.10

figure 6 figure 7 figure 8 figure 9  figure 10

  figure 11

II. R. David Hoffmann (d. 1921).

The recent announcement that R. David Hoffmann's פירוש על ספר שמות (based upon his lecture notes in German) is about to be published by Mosad Harav Kook has brought great joy to biblical and rabbinical scholars alike.11 Yet another sefer by the Master! It matters not that more than a century has passed since he first taught Exodus at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary. Of course modern Bible scholarship has changed drastically in the interim. R. David Hoffmann's commentary will not reflect modern archaelogical advance, will not grapple with the textual readings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and will not deal with the latest philological discoveries of Semitic linguistics. But those who have read his commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and learned from them, will know that regarding R. David Hoffmann "כל מקום שאתה מוצא דבריו עשה אזנך כאפרכסת."12 Master of the Oral Law, he of course read the Torah through rabbinic lenses. At the same time, he listened to dissenting voices, weighed all the evidence, and never disparaged others even as he dismissed their arguments. He always judged judiciously and graciously. And even when one disagrees with him, one always gains insight from his comments.

It is sad that this seminal figure, Rector and Rosh Yeshiva, Bible scholar and Posek, Literary Critic of the Mishnah and Restorer of Lost Tannaitic Midrashim, Defender of the Faith and Public Servant, has never been the subject of an intellectual biography worthy of the name.13 Here we publish, apparently for the first time, his epitaph. R. David Hoffmann is buried in the Adass Jisroel cemetery in the Weissensee section of Berlin.

Obverse (see figure 12):

פ"נ

גאון ישראל נר המערב מורה מהור"ר14

דוד צבי

בן מוה"ר ר' משה יהודה

למשפחת

האפפמאן

ראש בית המדרש

לרבנים בברלין זכרונו לברכה

נולד ביום ב' דר"ח כסלו התר"ד

ועלה למרום ביום תשעה עשר

לחדש מרחשון ה' תרפ"ב לב"ע

----------------

דור לדור ישבח אורו

ותורתו ילמדנה

דעתו שפטה תועי דורו

צדקת עמו יגידנה

באר תורה ללבב עמו

יסד עז במשנת קדומים

זך מדעו נעם טעמו

לנצח יחיו בעלומים

תנצב"ה

 figure 12

Reverse (see figure 14):

Professor

Dr. DAVID HOFFMANN

geb. 24. November 1843.

gest. 20. November 1921.

figure 14

 

NOTES

1. According to R. Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (d. 1953), "גדול האחרונים הוא המהרי"ט." See Z. Yabrov, מעשה איש, Bnei Brak, 2001, vol. 4, p. 90.

2. See E. Zalman, "המהרי"ט קבור בצפת," Qulmos 65 (2008), pp. 18-21. The photograph in figure 1 is taken from the Zalman essay.

3. In the case of R. Eleazar b. Yehudah of Worms, he was certainly buried in the Worms Jewish cemetery, standing to this very day. The portion of the cemetery he was buried in was appropriated by the non-Jewish authorities. See R. Juspa Shammes, מעשה נסים, Amsterdam, 1696, p. 20.

4. See N. Netter, "Les Anciens Cimetieres Israelites de Metz," REJ 51(1905-6), pp. 280-281. Cf. S. Schwarzfuchs, (תנאי הרבנות של השאגת אריה בק"ק מיץ",מוריה 15(1986", pp. 81-90.

5. The only extant authentic photograph of Sara Schenierer, which scholars in Israel and the United States have kept under wraps for years, was recently published in T. Lesniak, J. M. Malecki, J. Purchla, and A.B. Skotnicki, eds., Swiat przed katastrofa:Zydzi krakowscy w wudziestoleciu miedzywojennym (A World Before a Catastrophe: Krakow's Jews Between the Wars), Krakow, 2007, p. 128 – and is reproduced here.

6. See, e.g., Y. Strasser and A. Perl, eds., מאורן של ישראל: רבינו עקיבא איגר, New York, 1990, 2 vols. Cf. J.H. Sinason, The Gaon of Posen: A Portrait of Rabbi Akiva Guens-Eger , Jerusalem, 1991.

7. Figure 4 is taken from T. Sztyma-Knasiecka, Miedzy tradycja a nowoczesnoscia: Zydi poznanscy w XIX i XX wieku, Poznan, 2006, p. 23.

8. See Z. Pakula, , The Jews of Poznan, London, 2003, pp. 1-21 and 109. Cf. anonymous, "Jewish Poznan," Poznan in Your Pocket, July-October 2008, p. 6.

9. The photograph of the original tombstone inscription is taken from Sztyma-Knasiecka, p. 22.

10. See Sinason, pp. 100-103; cf. Sztyma-Knasiecka, p. 13.

11. See A. Wasserteil's introduction to R. David Hoffmann, (שיעבוד בני ישראל במצרים, המעין 48(2008, number 3, p. 25.

12. R. David Hoffmann used to apply this Talmudic phrase to the רש"ש, but it surely applies to Hoffmann as well. See his שו"ת מלמד להועיל, Frankfurt, 1932, vol. 3, §71. Cf. R. M. Roth, מבשר עזרא, Jerusalem, 1968, p. 167.

13. Useful information can be gleaned from the following:

H.J. Bechtoldt, "David Hoffmann," in his Die jüdische Bibelkritik im 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 363-438; D. Ellenson and R. Jacobs, "Scholarship and Faith: David Hoffmann and his Relationship to Wissenschaft des Judentums," Modern Judaism 8(1988), n.1, pp. 26-70; L. Ginzberg, Students Scholars and Saints, Philadelphia, 1928, pp. 252-262; L. Jung, The Path of a Pioneer, London, 1980, pp. 20-27; J. Marmorstein, "David Hoffmann, Defender of the Faith," Tradition 8(1966), n.4, pp. 91-101; A. Marx, Essays in Jewish Biography, Philadelphia, 1947, pp. 185-222; Idem, Studies in Jewish History, New York, 1944, pp. 369-376; M. B. Shapiro, "Rabbi David Zevi Hoffmann on Torah and Wissenschaft," Torah U-Madda Journal 6(1995-6), pp. 129-137; C. Tchernowitz, מסכת זכרונות, New York, 1945, pp. 244-264; and Y. Wolfsberg-Aviad, "David Hoffmann," in L. Jung, ed., Guardians of Our Heritage, New York, 1958, pp. 363-419 (cf. Wolfsberg-Aviad's דיוקנאות, Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 57-66). Much more bibliography can be added; the items listed here are intended to get the interested reader started.

 

14. For the honorific title מורה מורנו, see figure 13, also from the Adass Jisroel cemetery. Cf. the very interesting responsum in שו"ת מהרש"ם 2:56.

figure 13

]]> Tombstones Shnayer Leiman Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:20:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/23/Shnayer-Leiman-Notes-on-Rabbinic-Epitaphs-I Tevie Kagan: The Enigmatic R. David Lida http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/17/Tevie-Kagan-The-Enigmatic-R-David-Lida

The Enigmatic R. David Lida

by Tevie Kagan

Tevie Kagan works in the Seforim industry.  This is his first post for the TraditionOnline Seforim blog.

Part I: R. David of Lida and Plagiarism

R. David ben Aryeh Leib of Lida (c.1650-1696) is a fascinating and enigmatic figure. He was the rabbi of multiple communities over the course of his lifetime including Lida, Ostrog, Mainz, and the Ashkenazic community in Amsterdam. He was forced to leave Amsterdam under a cloud of alleged plagiarism and possible Sabbatean beliefs; though he was acquitted of these charges by the council of the four lands (Va'ad Arba Ha-Aratzot), he never recovered from the various accusations. He is not a well-known individual today, yet many of his works survive and are still available in print. This post (the first of two) will present a detailed account of his life and will attempt to see if both the accusations of plagiarism and heretical beliefs have merit.

R. (David) Lida was born in Zwollen, Lithuania into a prominent rabbinical family. His uncle was R. Moshe Rivkes, author of the Be'er Ha-Golah. Other family members that Lida cites within his works include R. Yeshaya Horowitz, author of the Shnei Luchos Habris (Shelah), R. Yosef of Pozna, R. Naftali Hertz of Lemberg, and R. Yaakov Cohen of Frankfurt. He was married to Miriam the daughter of R. Wolf Yuspef of Lvov (Lemberg) and had two sons, Nathan and Pesachya, and two daughters. One of the daughters was married to R. Yerucham b. Menachem, who helped prepare Shomer Shabbos (one of Lida's early works) for printing, and the other was married to R. Abraham b. Aaron, who helped with the printing of Shomer Shabbos in Amsterdam. In his work Ir David, Lida testifies[1] that his primary teacher was R. Joshua Hoeschel b. Jacob of Cracow (c.1595-1663), who was one of preeminent rabbis of the time.[2]

From 1671 until 1677, R. David was rabbi in Lida. He then served as a rabbi in Ostrog and Mainz, replacing R. Samuel David b Chanoch of Lublin, the author of Divrei Shmuel who had passed away. In 1681, Lida left Mainz and became a rabbi in Amsterdam. After being forced out of Amsterdam, Lida appealed to the council of the four lands. By doing so he succeeded in getting himself reinstated in Amsterdam. However, his position was untenable, so he reached a financial agreement and moved to Lvov, where he lived until his death in 1696.[3]

The following is a list of Lida's works (with the topic covered in parentheses):

¨ Beer Esek – Frankfurt on the Oder/Lublin, 1684 (apologetic)

¨ Beer Mayim Chaim- lost, never printed (on Code of law)

¨ Chalkei Avanim- Fuerth, 1693 (on Rashi's commentary on bible) reprinted in Yad Kol Bo under the title Migdol Dovid

¨ Divrei David- Lublin, 1671 (ethics)

¨ Dovev Sifsei Yesheinim- lost, never printed (mishnah)

¨ Ir David- Amsterdam, 1683 (incomplete), 1719 (complete) (Homiletics)

¨ Ir Miklat – Dyhernfurth, 1690 (613 commandments)

¨ Migdol David –Amsterdam,1680 (Ruth)

¨ Pitschei She'arim - Pirush Tefilos- partially printed in Yad Kol Bo (prayer)

¨ Shalsheles Zahav

¨ Shir Hillulim- Amsterdam, 1680 (poem in honor of dedication of a new Torah)

¨ Shomer Shabbos – Amsterdam, 1687 printed with Tikkunei Shabbos, reprinted in Yad Kol Bo, and reprinted separately in Zolkolov, 1804 (laws of Sabbath)

¨ Sod Hashem Sharbit Hazahav– Amsterdam, 1680 (on circumcision)

¨ Tapuchei Zahav kitzur reishis chochma – Fuerth, 1693

¨ Yad Kol Bo- Amsterdam/Frankfurt on the Oder, 1727(Collection)

While in Amsterdam (about 1694), Lida was accused of libel, plagiarism and Sabbatean leanings. Since many of the documents surrounding both controversies no longer exist, we can only attempt to recreate what happened.

Lida is Accused of Libel

R. Yaakov Sasportas (c.1610-1698) has a series of responsa[4] that refer to the libel case. One of the prominent members of the Sephardic congregation, R. Nissan ben Judah Leib, the brother in law of R. Isaac Benjamin Wolf ben Eliezer Ashkenazi (Chief Rabbi in Berlin and the author of the Nachlas Binyomin (Amsterdam, 1682)), claimed that on a trip to Wessel R. Nissan had found defamatory letters about himself and R. Isaac Benjamin Wolf, which R. Nissan alleged were written by Lida. Lida denied having written these letters. R. Nissan submitted copies of the letters to the Sephardic court, presided over by R Yitzchak Abuhav, R Yaakov Sasportas and R Shmuel Deozida. The court requested the original letters, and when they could not be produced, the court decreed that Lida did not write the letters and that he was an upstanding rabbi of the community. The court also demanded that R. Nissan apologize, which he did. Subsequently the Sephardic court sent a letter to both R Wolf Lippman and the Council of the Four Lands requesting they revoke all bans against Lida and to forgive both themselves and Lida. This letter included the signatures of many prominent rabbis of the time, though many of these rabbis may have been influenced by Lida's famous brother-in-law, Yitzchak b. Abraham of Posnan, who was the first signature on the list.

Additionally, Lida himself wrote a work entitled Beer Esek,[5] in which he attempts to clear his name.The work begins with an introductory homily, after which Lida then proceeds to defend himself from the charges of plagiarism. Lida's letter ends off with letters and signatures of approbation..

Charges of Plagiarism

Charges of plagiarism hounded Lida regarding many of his works. The first work that this charge was leveled at was Divrei David (Lublin, 1671), an ethical treatise broken up into seven parts, corresponding to the days of the week. On the title page of this work, Lida states that it is culled from the words of Rishonim upon which he added his own additions. The bibliographer, Joseph Zedner (1804-71), in his Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum (London, 1867), was the first to note that the text of the Divrei David is identical to a part of the text of the Sefer Yirah published by Aryeh Judah Loeb ben Aryeh Priluck.

The work itself contains information that is inconsistent with Lida's biography. For example, the author talks about trips to Israel (nos. 6, 77, and 85), serving as rabbi in Israel (no. 46), and refers to a work that he wrote called Zer Zahav on the Bible (no.72). At the time Divrei David was published Lida was 21 and, as far as we know, never visited Israel, as he never mentions it anywhere else in any of his works. Even more puzzling is that he never authored a work on the Bible called Zer Zahav! Interestingly, Gershom Scholem argues that whoever the author of Divrei David was the author had Sabbatean leanings as there is a possible Shabbati Zevi reference in the beginning of the section on Shabbos.[6] Was this work stolen from a previous work? It would appear so; but, in defense of Lida, he admits that he culled his work from other sources. Nevertheless, this would not account for his borrowing of accounts of positions, travels or works written.

The Sefer Yirah was first published from manuscript in 1724 (Lida had published Divrei David in 1671). The publisher of the Sefer Yirah, Priluck, clearly states on the title page that he found a manuscript and had no idea as to whom was its author. Priluck adds statements and revises the original work where he saw fit. One example is in the "morning half" of the "first day," where he adds (in the fifth section) that he already printed a prayer book which was grammatically correct. Most of the other additions are merely clarifications of the earlier work [for example, in the "night section" of the first day he clarifies that the Shema referred to is the one said in bed before sleep (Kriat Shema al Ha'Mita)]. Within the section of the fourth day Lida mentions (part 77) that he was in Jerusalem, and he concludes that one should cover their head with a hat when saying grace (birkat ha'mazon); yet this last item is not found in the Priluck version of Sefer Yirah. In total, there are about twenty slight differences, but most are stylistic, with Priluck changing particular words and verses. The Sefer Yirah concludes with a statement that this is where the manuscript ends and that he does not want to add from other sources. The Warsaw edition of 1873 of the Divrei David adds an entire section of good traits (minhagim tovim). Interestingly the most recent reprinting (Brooklyn, 2006 by R. N.M., German) adds 2 more pages of character traits not found in the Warsaw edition. This would not be the only work that would come under suspicion that Lida wrote.

Lida's most famous work that is under the suspicion of plagiarism is his Migdol David, published in 1680 while Lida was still rabbi in Mainz. The work was published with 17 approbations (haskamot). While some of the approbations do not mention the work Migdol David specifically, by reading them one gets the idea that many felt it was an original work. In his Beer Esek, Lida alludes to R. Nisan's claim that accused Lida of stealing the work (R. Nisan did so by saying that Lida "wears the talis of another"). Many believe that this work was really a copy of R. Hayim Ben Abraham Ha-Kohen's (c.1585-1655) [7]Toras Chessed. For instance, R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, ,writes "truthfully [Migdol David] is the work of R. Hayim Kohen, author of the Tur Barekes..." (Shem ha-Gedolim, Marekhet Seforim, s.v. Migdol David). ,Azulai also cites the Yaavetz (R. Yaakov Emden) and his charge in Toras Hakanaos (see below). The Menachem Tziyon attempts to clear Lida's name by showing that many great rabbis attested to his kabalistic knowledge, but ultimately he too leans towards the plagiarism charge. [8]

The Yaavetz, in his Toras Hakanaos, lists a group of works that he charged with having Sabbatean leanings and allusions. He includes Lida's work, not as a potential Sabbatean work,[9] but rather as a plagiarized one, and, more specifically, to support his claim that Lida's character was suspect, and even possibly Sabbatean. Sabbateans were known to have "double natures," one being outwardly righteous, while the inner being corrupt and immoral (more about this to come in part 2 of this post, R. David of Lida and Sabbatianism). The Yaavetz shows that Lida took the work but left an allusion to Hayim Kohen's name in the introduction, which states, "ממקור מיים בריכה העליונה כה"נא רב"א" Lida's choice of words is suspect, as Lida was neither a Kohen nor named Hayim.

More recently, Marvin Heller[10] has argued that a parable in the introduction to Lida's work alludes to the fact that it is not an original work. The allegory (from the Zohar) regards a rooster who finds a pearl while searching for food. Startled by the pearl's beauty, the rooster recoils and wonders what caused the pearl to be hidden. A man, seeing the rooster recoil, stops to see what caused the reaction; when he sees the pearl, he proceeds to give it to the king. As a result, the king honors the rooster. Lida writes: "So to I found in this scroll blossoms and fruit which give forth a brightness, delightful to the sight and desirable to the eye, 'its fruit is good for food' (Genesis 2:9)...when this distinguished book comes to the hand of one who appreciates its value ... and also who publishes it will be remembered for good before the King, King of the universe" (emphasis added). This choice of language seems to be referring to a publisher not an author. In Lida's Ir Miklat, in the glosses where Lida mentions "my book Migdol David,"[11] Azulai (in his comments) interjects: "He printed it." Eisner seeks to defend Lida, even though he had never seen a copy of the rare Migdol David. Eisner argues that since all the charges were found to be groundless in the first case against Lida, so too the plagiarism charges must be false. He attempts to buttress this by showing that Lida had a reputation for being a Kabbalist. In 1681, the notorious anti-Semite Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (ca.1654-1704) visited Amsterdam and wrote about meeting Lida in his Entdecktes Judentum (Frankfurt am Main, 1700). He speaks of Lida and how he was a great scholar and Kabbalist. Interestingly, towards the end of the introduction of Ir David, Lida states that he hopes that this work will be printed without the mistakes and errors that the printers added to his work Migdol David, which he was unable to fix. Is Lida attempting to lay the groundwork for the argument that any troubling pieces within Migdol David are not his, but rather the work of the printers?

Slightly more telling about both of the works that are suspected of being stolen is that Lida references them in his other works very infrequently. In contrast, Ir David is referenced quite frequently within his other writings. When themes or interpretations are referenced in Chalkei Avanim that are supposedly printed in Lida's other works (specifically Migdol David) he does not give the work's name, but just the statement "and it is understood."[12]

Even after his death Lida's works have encountered problems. His son Pesachya printed a collected volume of his works entitled Yad Kol Bo (Amsterdam 1727) in which was included a work on Psalms called Assarah Hillulim. According to Brill, this was actually written by the Calvinist-Hebraist, Heinrich Jacob van Bashuysen (1679-1750) and published in Sefer Tehilim im Pirush ha-Katzar, Hanau, 1712.[13]

[1] Ir David, First Sermon

[2] See Dembitzer Kelilas Yofi Krakow:1893 pg59a-59b

[3] For the date of Lida's death, see Solomon Buber, Anshei Shem (Krakow, 1895), where he recreates the correct date based on approbations Lida had given, which are marked after the date on his tombstone.

[4]Ohel Yaakov 75-76

[5] Reprinted in Abraham Eisner, Toledot Hagaon R. David Lida (Breslau,1938) and in Aaron Freimann, Sefer Hayovel for Nahum Sokolow (Warsaw, 1904)

[6] See Warsaw edition that actually puts Lida as author and includes that he wrote Zer Zahav and Bris Yitzchok, which Lida did not.

[7] See Encyclopedia Judaica entry where Scholem states that Lidas plagiarism was well known in Kabalistic circles before H.J.D. Azulai made it public. Scholem offers no source or examples for this statement. Also interesting to note is that whatever Azulai's thoughts on Lida's character may have been, he still wrote glosses to Lida's work Ir Miklat.

[8] See also Ohr Hayim (Hayim Michael), where he unequivocally states that it is a stolen work from R. Hayim Kohen.

[9] Yehuda Liebes, in "Sefer Tzadik Yesod Olam- Mythos Shabetai" (reprinted in On Sabbateanism and its Kabbalah: Collected Essays (Jerusalem, 1995), pg. 303-304, note 22) shows that even Migdol David is not free of possible Sabbatean leanings. These could not have come from R Hayim Kohen as he died before Sabbateanism grew to the movement that it later became.

[10] Marvin J. Heller, David Ben Aryeh Leib of Lida and his Migdol David: Accusations of Plagiarism in Eighteenth Century Amsterdam, Shofar (Jan. 1, 2001) (translation of text is his).

[11] Commandment 190

[12] For examples see Brooklyn edition 2006-pg. 5, fn 1; pg. 8, fn 8.

[13] For more on Bashuysen, see Encyclopaedia Judaica under his name entry. Eisner strongly disagrees and says that it clearly is not a Christian work, and that it includes many ideas from Lidas other works.

]]> Tevie Kagan Plagiarism Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:07:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/17/Tevie-Kagan-The-Enigmatic-R-David-Lida The Tree Murderers I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/16/The-Tree-Murderers-I
The first such sefer is R. Aaron Levine's Kol Bo le-Yarhzeiht, Toronto, Canada, 2006.  This two volume work weighting in at a mere 1177 pages (needlessly killing all those trees) is entirely devoted to the custom of yarhzeit.  First a bit about the layout of the book. The first volume of the book opens with 18 pages of dedications and then 19 pages of approbations.  So the reader, who presumably paid money for this book, has to get through 40 pages before coming to any substantive content.  Moreover, the need for 19 approbations on a book that is supposedly merely a "likut" boggles the mind.  Perhaps the most amazing thing is that the author wasn't satisfied to include these dedications at the opening of the first volume - yes, at the start of the second volume, again the reader needs to first see all the very same dedications that appear at the beginning of the first, another 20 wasted pages.  To be clear, these 20 pages (at the start of the two volumes) are not the only dedications, no, at the end of each volume are 36 additional pages of dedications. And, yes, the same 36 pages appear at the end of each volume.  So, in total there are 112 pages of dedications!  That still leaves over 1000 pages for material about yarhzeit. 

As is apparent the author did not feel constrained by space (or environmental concerns) but that doesn't stop him from failing to include relevant sources.  For example, there is a section devoted to the using the mikveah before serving as a hazan on a yarhzeit.  What is amazing is that the section only speaks in terms of obligation - how one is obligated to do this.  It never mentions or includes any sources that not everyone does this. Apparently there were no more trees left for the other views.

A more troubling section is the lead section of the book discussing the history of the yarhzeit custom. As the author demonstrates, yarhzeit is a custom that started with the Ashkenazim sometime around the 13th century.  It is not a talmudic or geonic custom.   As such, there is no Hebrew or rabbinic term for the custom and unsurprisingly, yarhzeit or the German for aniversery is employed to describe the custom.  But there is still a dissenting view brought that it is improper to use a non-Jewish term to describe such a holy custom. 

Finally, it should be pointed out that throughout the book Pesach Krohn's stories are used as valid sources for halachos and customs.

Least one think that the needless killing of trees will end with this book, the author indicates that he plans on publishing an English edition and is soliciting dedications.  So if you want your dedication - and it may appear multiple times, perhaps the English will be three volumes allowing you the reader to see the same dedication three time - send your money in now.  
]]> Tree Murderers Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/16/The-Tree-Murderers-I Can a Segulah Free an Agunah? Jewish Beliefs &amp; Practices for Locating a Missing Drowned Body http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/8/Can-a-Segulah-Free-an-Agunah-Jewish-Beliefs-amp-Practices-for-Locating-a-Missing-Drowned-Body

Can A Segulah Free an Agunah? Jewish Beliefs and Practices for Locating a Drowned Body

By Bency Eichorn

Bency Eichorn learns in kollel and, on the side, has been researching about various segulos. For his wedding he authored a book, Simchas Zion, discussing the segulah of keeping the afikomom from year-to-year. The post below is a small part of a much larger project on this segulah and has been adapted for the blog.

In light of the recent drowning of Los Angeles's Naftoli Smolyansky A"H, much discussion has ensued about the segulah performed to recover his body. This same segulah, which involves floating a loaf of bread and candle in the water to locate the missing corpse, last year when Toronto Rabbonim considered performing it in order to locate the missing body of Eli Horowitz A"H, who had drowned the previous year. There is much skeptism regarding this segulah, some consider it witchcraft and claim that it has no basis in Judaism, deriving instead from non-Jewish sources. In this article, I will outline the development of similar segulot used throughout the ages and discuss how these methods were practiced by Jews and non-Jews alike. As my research on this topic is ongoing, I do not attempt to draw conclusions, but rather I hope to draw attention to primary and little-noted sources for these segulot. In effect, this will indicate how wide-spread these segulot were, specifically among Jews. This will suggest that their origins extend further than the tale recounted in Twain's Hucklebery Finn and can be traced to early Jewish sources.

The Floating Wooden Dish

Among the segulot noted in Jewish sources used to locate a missing drowned body, is a practice involving taking a wooden dish and floating it in the water above the general area where the body went missing. According to the tradition surrounding this segulah, the dish will float to the spot where the body lies and then stop. The first and earliest source for this segulah that I could presently locate is from the year 1618 in a well known sefer minhagim written by R' Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen[1]. He writes, that "I have a tradition of a segulah to locate a body that drowned; and this is the correct way it should be performed: Take a wooden dish [ke'oh'rah],[2] place it on the water to float by itself, until it rests on the spot where the body is lying." The work continues with an anecdote about a certain man named Meir, who drowned in Lake Pidikof and whose body was found using this particular segulah. Interestingly, the passages closes with the note "that if this segulah really works, it could have amazing implications, for it could help women who would otherwise have to be agunot for the rest of their lives."

The procedure for this segulah is rather straightforward; all that must be done is to place a dish on the water and it will float to the drowned body. This segulah seems to have been quite popular as it is mentioned in many seforim, particularly sifrei segulah such as the Noheg Ketzon Yosef (grandson of R' Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen),[3] the Taamai Haminhagim,[4] Refuah Vechaim,[5] Rafael Hamalach,[6] Hoach Nafshainu,[7] Mareh Hayeladim,[8] Yosef Shaul,[9] and the Segulas Yisroel.[10]

This amazing segulah is the earliest Jewish method noted as having been used to locate a drowned body and seems to be an exclusively Jewish practice. A search of a number of non-Jewish sources, works of history, superstition, and mythology, has not brought to light an instance of this particular practice of locating a drowned body. Thus to my knowledge, it does not seem to have ever been used by a non-Jew.[11]

The Floating Loaf of Bread

The second segulah attested to in the Jewish sources as being used to locate a drowned body is to float a loaf of bread instead of a bowl. Similar to the previous method it is believed that when the bread is left alone in the water it would float to the location of the body.

The earliest source for this segulah that I have found thus far can be traced to the year 1734 by Rabbi Dovid Tebal Ben Yaakov Ashkenazi.[12] He writes, "to locate one that drowned, throw a loaf of bread into the water [where he drowned] and the place where the bread stops [sholet] that is where the body is located."

This segulah is later recorded in Over Orach, a sefer of segulot, teffilot and halachot regarding traveling. In his discussion of general segulot, the author writes "[i]f one drowned, a segulah to find the body is to take a loaf of bread and throw it in the area of water where the person drowned, and the bread will float to the location of the drowned body." He finishes his description of the segulah by testifying that, "[t]his segulah has been performed in the past and it is known that it produced positive results"[13].

A similar practice of using bread to locate a drowned body is recorded in a Yizkor book for the community of Mlawa, a shtetl in pre-World War II Poland. In this book, under the subject of communal beliefs in segulot, the following is recorded, "if someone drowned while bathing, people would come there [to the place he or she drowned] with long iron poles, to search for the body. To aid in their search, they would throw a loaf of bread, on top of which was a burning candle, into the pool next to the brick factory.[14]" I found this belief, of using bread to locate a drowned body, recorded in a number of sifrei segulot, including, the Hoach Nafshainu,[15] Mareh Hayeladim,[16] Rafael Hamalach,[17] Yosef Shaul,[18] and the Segulas Yisroel.[19]

Thus, in the Jewish sources this method of locating drowned bodies is evidenced in a few but reputable sources. In contrast, it is mentioned in many non-Jewish sources. As early as 1586 we find that Thomas Hill mentions this practice as he records "[t]o find a drowned person...take a white loaf, and cast the same into the water, neer ye suspected place, and it will forth-with go directly over the dead body, and there abide.[20] Not long after in the year 1664, Oliver Heywood records an instance in which this practice was actually used to help find a missing corpse.[21]

Alternative Versions of the Floating Bread

As time went on, the method used by non-Jews seems to have changed. As early as the year 1767, the belief developed that a loaf of bread was not enough, but that the loaf of bread should be filled with quicksilver and only then should it be set afloat on the water. Sylvanus Urban, in The Gentleman's Magazine, describes this change in a testimony. He writes that in Newbury, Berkshire, "After diligent search had been made in the river ...a two penny loaf, with a quantity of quicksilver put into it, was set floating from the place where the child, it was supposed, had fallen in, which steered its course down the river upwards of a half a mile... when the body happening to lay on the contrary side of the river, the loaf suddenly tacked about ... and gradually sank near the child."[22] This loaded loaf was called by many 'a St. Nicholas'[23] and its occasional effectiveness was attributed by the cynical to eddies in the water.

This method was practiced and recorded many times over in the non-Jewish sources. Occasionally, it was even recorded that it worked. However, on most occasions, this practice yielded no positive results. Recorded testimonies of this method in the non-Jewish sources include the years 1849[24], 1878[25], 1879[26], 1884[27], 1885[28], 1891[29], 1921,[30]-[31] and 1925.[32] There are many more recordings of this procedure, but the above sources should suffice to indicate the widespread belief in the efficacy of the practice.[33]. Indeed, according to scholars of Mark Twain, the belief that quicksilver, or mercury, would make bread float to a point over a submerged body was widely held in Britain.. This particular version of the method to locate drowned bodies was apparently based on an purported etymological connection concerning the biblical ''bread of life'' and ''quick'' or ''living'' silver, so called because of the flowing form of mercury.[34]

The method of using bread with a candle on top of it, as recorded above as a practice of the Jews of Mlawa, is recorded in non-Jewish sources as well. However in the non-Jewish sources it is supplemented with the addition of quicksilver. The first record of this practice is in the year 1886, written by Henderson. He writes, "A loaf weighted with quicksilver, if allowed to float on the water, is said to swim towards and stand over, the body; when a boy, I have seen persons endeavoring to discover the corpse of the drowned in this manner in the River Wear...and ten years ago, the friends of Christopher Lumley sought for his body...by the aid of a loaf of bread with a lighted candle in it"[35]. Again, in the year 1891, in the Journal of Science,[36] it is written, "[i]n Brittany, when the body of a drowned man cannot be found, a lighted taper is fixed in a loaf of bread, which is then abandoned to the retreating current. When the loaf stops, there it is supposed to the body will be recovered.[37]The lit candle was referred by some, as just being a way to mark the course of the floating loaf at night.[38]

However, in Belgium, they would merely float a lit candle accompanied by the reading of a formula.[39] Indeed, already in 1578, Bornenisza recorded that a candle alone was used to locate the drowned. He writes, "[i]n Hungary if somebody drowns, a lighted wax candle is placed in a dish and where the flame goes out, there the drowned man lies."[40] This may indicate that the method recorded above of a loaf of bread together with a candle on it, was a corruption of the method to use just a candle. It is interesting to note that the record in the Jewish sources of using the method of a candle is from the people of Mlawa, if so more research is needed to ascertain whether this method originated with Jews. In any event, the method of using a candle alone can be viewed as separate, third, method of locating a missing, drowned body.

The Use of an Amulet to Locate Missing Bodies

A fourth method used by Jews to locate a missing drowned body involves floating an amulet. R' Yonathan Eibeshutz, remembered by Jews today as an eminent Talmudist, distributed many such amulets. He issued them in Metz, where he was Rabbi, and later in Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck, where he later served as chief Rabbi.

During this time R' Eibeshutz, together with a number of other Rabbis, was condemned by R' Yaakov Emden as being a follower of Shabtai Tzvi and his Messianic cult. This led to the famous controversy between these two great Rabbis. One of the complaints of R' Emden was R'Eibeshutz's writing and distributing of amulets. Among the many amulets, one was shaped like a written parchment and was used to find the missing body of one who had drowned.[41]

In a treatise written by R' Emden against R' Eybeshutz's amulets, which he named Sfas Emes,[42] he mentions the amulet that R' Eybeshutz supposedly wrote to find a missing, drowned body.

Interestingly, a similar usage of amulets is found in the non-Jewish sources as well. In a correspondence of Notes and Queries, it is recorded how a corpse in Ireland was discovered by means of a wisp of straw around which was tied a strip of parchment, inscribed with certain kabalistic characters written by a parish priest.[43]-[44]

Aside from the practices that bear a similarity to those evidenced in Jewish sources, many additional methods for locating drowned bodies are attested to in the non-Jewish records. Among such non-Jewish practices for locating a drowned body, one that is akin to the previously mentioned methods, includes placing a shirt of the person who drowned in the water so that it will float to the spot of the missing body.[45] It was also believed that straw or a bundle of straw should be floated on the water so that it would float to the spot of the body.[46] Some people have thrown in a lamb (or goat) in an attempt to locate a missing body.[47] A curious custom, practiced in Norway, is to row to and fro with a rooster in a boat, expecting that the bird will crow when the boat reaches the spot where the corpse lies in the water.[48] Certain Native American tribes would float chips of wood, while other groups would float wooden cricket bats or wooden bowls.[49] The effectiveness of the method of floating bread or any other item in the water to find a sunken corpse was attributed by many to natural and simple causes. In all running streams there are deep pools formed by eddies, in which drowned bodies would likely be caught. Any light substance thrown into the current would consequently be drawn to that part of the surface over the centre of the eddy hole.[50]

Another interesting method involves the use of drums. People searching for a drowned body would row down the river slowly beating on a big drum and according to the belief, if they came to the part of the river in which the dead body was immersed, a difference in the sound of the drum would be distinctly noticed.[51]

Another non-Jewish practice is related in one of the classics of American literature, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, which was published in the year 1884. The novel relates the story of a of a young boy from St. Petersburg, Missouri (a thinly veiled cover for Hannibal, Missouri, where Twain spent most of his youth) who tries to run away from civilization with an escaped slave named Jim. The book paints a picture of the pre-Civil War South through the dialects and habits of the characters, through their adventures and misadventures, and through their attitudes and the way their attitudes change during the story. One of those attitudes is the inclination to superstition.

In one of the most humorous episodes, Huck has run away from being 'civilized' by Miss Watson, his foster aunt, and is hiding on an island. He has covered his tracks with the blood of a pig, so that it looks as if he has been murdered:

"Well, I was dozing off again, when I thinks I hear a deep sound of "boom!" away up the river. I rouses up and rests on my elbow and listens; pretty soon I hear it again,. I hopped up and went and looked out a hole in the leaves, and I see a bunch of smoke laying on the water a long ways up- about the area of the ferry, and there was the ferry boat, full of people, floating along down. I know what was the matter now. "Boom," I see the white smoke squirt out of the ferry-boat's side. You see, they was firing cannon over the water, trying to make my carcass come to the top."

Shortly after the canon firing, "Huck happened to think how they always put quicksilver in loaves of bread and float them off because they always go right to the drowned carcass and stop there."

I have discussed earlier the latter belief of using bread with quicksilver to locate a missing drowned body. As Twain writes in the preface to Tom Sawyer, "[t]he odd superstitions touched upon were all prevalent among children and slaves in the West at the period of this story."[52] The first method mentioned by Twain of using a canon was actually not only a belief he heard about, but something he experienced firsthand. In the annotated Huckleberry Finn, Hearn observes that once when he was thought to have drowned, young Mark Twain witnessed a similar scene as the townspeople of Hannibal fired cannons over the water to raise him to the surface. He recalled in a later letter on February 6, 1870, "I jumped over board from the ferryboat in the middle of the river that stormy day to get my hat, and swam two or three miles after it [and got it] while all the town collected on the wharf and for an hour or so, looked out across toward where people said Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) was last seen before he went down."[53]

The method of shooting a canon to locate a drowned body is also recorded in Notes and Queries. "A few years ago when two men were drowned in the Lune, I believe the same experiment was tried [bread with quicksilver]. Guns also were fired over, and gunpowder was so contrived as to explode in the bottles containing it beneath the surface, but one of the bodies has never been found."[54] In a second citation in Notes and Queries, it is written, "Heavy gun firing was in progress yesterday in the marshes, and there is a strange but widespread belief among the riverside residents that a cannon tends to bring the drowned to the surface." [55] The superstition is also mentioned in Edgar Allen's Poe's 1842 story, Mystery of Marie Roget.[56]

A reason for the purported effectiveness of this method is offered in Radford's Encyclopedia of Superstition,[57] where he describes a widespread British superstition that, "a gun fired over a corpse thought to be lying at the bottom of the sea or a river, will by concussion break the gall bladder, and thus cause the body to float."

It seems Radford took the above fact for granted, for, scientifically, firing a canon over water is not likely to cause a gall bladder to burst. Even if it does rupture, it is strictly internal and there is no effect on the buoyancy since the body's overall density remains unchanged. However, if the skin is broken and the bowels come loose, then the body's density may increase due to water entering the body and air and other gasses escaping. This actually allows for a greater chance of the body sinking.[58] Accordingly, firing the cannon over the water would cause the opposite affect than what the superstition alleges. The only factor that could aid in the retrieval of the body that the firing of the cannon could cause a concussive effect which might jar loose a body snagged in weeds on the bottom of the water. So firing a canon might raise a body, although not for the reasons that the superstition gives.[59]

To returning to the Jewish sources, there seems to have been four different segulot used to locate a drowned body, each one involves floating an object in the water, either a wooden bowl, bread, a candle or an amulet. Each individual method seems to have once been a separate practice of its own. However in a number of instances the separate segulot are recorded as being performed together. It can be assumed that in these instances the person performing the segulah was aware of methods and combined them in the hopes of a more effective result.

There is limited testimony as to the effectiveness of these segulot; this may be due to the fact that they have rarely been subjected to controlled experimentation in the past. Like many segulot, they remain shrouded in mystery. The questions that remain are: From where did these segulot develop? Are all of them of early origin? Are they all solely of Jewish origin?

I would like to conclude this article, by stating that the world of Segulot and Kemi'ot [amulets] is very large and unexplored. Many of the seforim on this topic are rare and unavailable, while others remain in manuscript form. These seforim may have the missing pieces to the entire puzzle of the methods and sources of segulot. As material is continuously printed and made more available, my hope is the history of segulot will be made much more clear.[60]

[1] Rabbi Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen, Yosef Ometz, Jerusalem 1975 ed., pg. 352. Born in Frankfort 1570. It is probably correct to assume, the fact that the sefer was finished in 1618 [even though it was only first printed in 1648 see intro. Ibid.], and he was born in 1570, that this belief in this segulah was current before 1618 and certainly in the late 1500's.

[2] The word used in the Yosef Ometz is ke'oh'rah, which can be translated as a dish or bowl. The word ke'oh'rah comes from the root kar which means sunk, compared to keeka'ah which means to engrave (etch inside). See The Kunkurdantzyah Dictionary to The Tanach by Dr. Shlomo Madelkarn, Jerusalem 1972, pg. 1035, ke'oh'rah. See also Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of The Talmud, Jerusalem, pg. 1397, ke'oh'rah, therefore it would be correct to assume that ke'oh'rah is a dish, that is a slightly sunken in, like a bowl or even a plate that's center is lower then it's border.

[3] R' Yosef Yuzpa Dashman Segal, Noheg Ketzon Yosef, Tel Aviv, 1979,pg. 122, s.v. "segulas."

[4] R' Avraham Yitzchok Sperling, Sefer Taamai Minhagim, Jerusalem 1957 ed. [f.p. Lvov 1894], pg. 569.

[5] R' Chaim Palagi, Refuah Vechaim, Jerusalem 1997 ed. [f.p. Izmir 1879], pg, 141.

[6] R' Yehudah Yudal Rosenberg, Rafael Hamalach, Jerusalem 198? ed. [f.p. Piotrkow 1911], pg. 41, s.v. "yedeyot."

[7] R' Avaraham Chamuoy, Hoach Nafshainu, Jerusalem 1981 ed., [f.p. Izmir 1870], pg. 185 s.v. "water."

[8] R' Rafael Uchnah, Mareh Hayeladim, Jerusalem 1987ed. [f.p. Jerusalem 1900], pg, 48a, s.v. "drowned;" id. at 66b s.v. "water."

[9] R' Shaul Feldman, Yosef Shaul, Piatrikov 1911, pg. 83. It is interesting to note that he adds there "take hot bread."

[10] R' Shabtzi Lifshutz, Segulas Yisroel, Jerusalem 1991 ed. [f.p. Jerusalem 1946], pg. 132. s.v. "drowned." He brings it in the name of the Refuah Vechaim.

[11] The only similar (but note the same, for they are only similar in the fact that they consist of floating a piece of wood or pot similar to a bowl) methods found in non Jewish sources is in Notes And Queries, Oct. 4, 1851, pg. 251, The Journal of Science, NY, Dec. 4, 1891. Nicolas B. Dennys, The Folklore of China, Amsterdam 1968. "Sir James Alexander, in his account of Canada [L' Acadie, 2 vol., 1849, Pg. 26] writes: "The Indians imagine that in the case of a drowned body, its place may be discovered by floating a chip of cedar wood, which will stop and turn round over the exact spot. An instance occurred within my own knowledge, in the case of Mr. Lavery of Kingston Mill, whose boat overset, and himself drowned near Cedar Island; nor could the body be discovered until this experiment was resorted to." See also Linda J. Ivanits, Russian Folk Belief, 1989, pg. 73 (pg. 222 note 64) "A pot (or wooden cup) filled with hot coals and incense and with candles attached to the sides was placed on the surface of the water; the victim's body was believed to lie under the spot where the pot stopped floating."[Thanks to Professor Daniel Shvarber for pointing out this source to me.] Also the use of a wooden cricket bat in 1925 as recorded by Notes And Queries, Oct. 18. 1851, Pg. 297 [Also in Jan 30, 1886, Pg. 95] " An Eton boy, named Dean, who had lately come to school, imprudently bathed in the river Thames where it flows with great rapidity under the 'playing fields,' and he was soon carried out of his depth, and disappeared. Efforts were made to save him or recover the body, but to no purpose; until Mr. Evans, who was then, as now, the accomplished drawing-master, threw a cricket bat into the stream, which floated to a spot where it turned round in an eddy, and from a deep hole underneath the body was quickly drawn.

[12] Beis Dovid, Rabbi Dovid Tebal Ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, Wilhermsdorf, Pg. 31.

[13] R' Shimon Ben R' Meir, Over Orach, Lemberg 1865, pg. 8. The Sefer Over Orach was really an adaptation and extension of a sefer printed about 1646 in Krakow, by R' Yaakov Naftoli Ben Yehudah Leib of Lublin the Sefer was originally called Derech Hayoshor. [see Kiryat Sefer, 1933/34, 10, pg. 252]. It seems that segulah is one of the added segulas of R' Shimon Ben Meir, as this segulah only first appears in Over Orach by R' Shimon Ben R' Meir in the Karlsaruah 1764 ed. pg. 172, which seems to be the first or at least the second printing of the sefer in the life time of the latter Auther . In addition to the fact that this segulah is not brought at all by R' Yaakov Naftoli Ben Yehudah Leib in Derech Hayosher.

[14] David Shtokfish, Jewish Mlawa, Tel Aviv 1984, pg. 486.

[15] Ibid. pg. 55.

[16] Ibid. sub. Of water, pg. 66b.

[17] Ibid , the author brings this belief in the name of a earlier source however I had trouble locating his source.

[18]Ibid, pg. 83.

[19] Ibid. pg. 195 sub. Water. Also see his Kuntres Even Segulah pg. 406.

[20] Thomas Hill, Natural Conclusions, 1586, D3. Qouted by Iona Opie and Moira Tatem, A Dictionary of Superstitions, Oxford University Press 1989, pg. 34, subject, Body: locating in water.

[21] Oliver Heywood, Autobiography c.a. 1664, Turner ed., III 1883, pg. 89. 'Mr. Rawsthorne of Lumb and Mr. Thomas Bradshaw walked out and after they had drunk a cup of ale returned home. Going in the night by a pit side Mr. R. fell in; Mr. B. leaped after him to take him out because he could swim, they were both drowned. Mr. R. swam at top, Mr. B. could not be found. A women made them cast in white loaf and they doing so it would it would not be removed from over the place where he was, so they took him up, and they were buried together. A sad family it was, my brother being eye witness there of.

[22] Gents. Mag, 1767, pg. 189. Quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. See also Notes And Queries [Oct 4, 1851, Pg. 251, 1851-s1, iv, pg. 148, June 15, '78 5th s. Ix. pg. 478] "In looking through the chronicle of the Annual Register for 1767, I came across the following entry, which clearly shows that the superstition referred to by...was at the time current in Berks: The following odd relation is attested as a fact. An inquisition was taken at New Bury, Berks, on the body of a child near two year old who fell onto the river Kennet and was drowned. The jury brought in their verdict, accidental death. The body was discovered by a very singular experiment, which was as follows. After diligent search had been made in the river for the child to no purpose, a two penny loaf with a quantity of quicksilver put into it was set floating from the place where the child it was supposed had fallen in, which steered its course down the river upwards a half a mile, before a great number of spectators, when the body happening to lay on the contrary side of the river, the loaf suddenly tacked about and swam across the river, and gradually sunk near the child, when both the child and loaf were immediately brought up with grabbers ready for that purpose."

[23] Collin de Plancey, 'Dictionnaire Critique des Reliques et des images miraculeuses.' tom:ii, pg 212, Paris 1821. "In rural regions of France a perforated loaf called St. Nicholas is thrown in the river, which it would float down on, and stop as soon as it gains the spot with the corpse underneath, after turning three times around." Quoted in the Notes And Queries July 26, 1924 pg. 61.

[24] Notes And Queries [5th s. IX June 15, '78 pg. 478] " In January 1849, when the pier at Morecambe was being constructed, the stone for which was procured near Halton, the boat conveying the workmen from the quarry across the river Lune to the village was upset, and eight of the men were drowned. The villagers were confident that quicksilver placed inside a loaf would enable them to find the bodies, but the last corpse was not discovered until nearly three months after the accident." Also See June 29, 1878 pg. 516.

[25] Notes And Queries [ibid.] "A few years ago, when two young men were drowned in the Lune, I believe the same experiment [ a loaf with ]]> Bency Eichorn Customs Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:59:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/8/Can-a-Segulah-Free-an-Agunah-Jewish-Beliefs-amp-Practices-for-Locating-a-Missing-Drowned-Body Akiva Leiman: Gravely Mistaken http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/4/Gravely-Mistaken

Gravely Mistaken

by Akiva Leiman

R. Leiman teaches high school at the Yeshiva of Greater Washington in Silver Spring, Maryland.  Additionally, he leads trips to sites of Jewish interest in Eastern Europe. This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

One hardly need go far to find errors in published materials, but when even moderate research would suffice to unearth correct information lack of such an effort would seem egregious. Jewish burial sites have often been lost: Nazis or indigenous peoples destroyed cemeteries, acid rain ravages stones, burning candles char monuments and, of course, people just simply forget where things are.[1] Misinformation, however, would seem to be the most preventable culprit in this ever-losing battle to maintain vestiges of our heritage.

A few examples should suffice.[2]

1. In Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews, in the very first paragraph of the actual text, he says,

There in the Cave of Machpelah, are the Tombs of the Patriarchs . . . . Across the inner courtyard is another pair of tombs, of Abraham's grandson Jacob and his wife Leah. Just outside the building is the tomb of their[3] son Joseph.

In an endnote he references L.H. Vincent and his depiction of the cave which has been reproduced in EJ XI p. 671. There the caption does read: "Tomb of Joseph." However, the text of the EJ explicates that, "A Muslim tradition maintains that Joseph was buried here... (t)his tradition is probably due to a corruption of the Arabic name for Esau, whose head, according to aggadic sources fell within the cave..." EJ's theory for the mistake aside, Johnson must not have read the text of the article (or: ignored it), for though the diagram's caption tells us that Yosef is buried in the Cave, the text belies this point.[4] Furthermore, see Joshua 24:32 (providing Shechem as Joseph's burial place),[5] which must, at the very least, be mentioned in any serious discussion of the final resting place for Yosef.[6]

2. In בשבילי ראדין, by M. M. Palato, Machon B'Shvilai HaYeshivot, (2001), p. 25, we are provided a picture and told "that we are being shown the final resting place of R' Chaim of Volozhin (d. 5581 - 1821), the most esteemed student of the Vilna Gaon, and he is buried next to his mentor."[7]

But, R' Chaim is actually interred in Volozhin[8] and his grave is a regular stopping point for those visiting the Byelorussian town. The picture shown is of the old Ohel over the grave of the Vilna Gaon in the since-destroyed Shnipishok cemetery of Vilna. Of course, R' Chaim's grave is not pictured at all.[9]

3. Holy Stones: Remnants of Synagogues in Poland, drawings by Joseph Cempla, Dvir, Tel Aviv (1959) is a beautiful group of renderings of pre-war Poland. From the description for plate number 13 we read:

The gravestone of Rabbi Shalom Shachna in the Lublin Cemetery: Rabbi Shalom ben Joseph Shachna[10] (1510-1550[11]) was one of the greatest Talmudists produced by Polish Jewry. He was the pupil of Rabbi Jacob Polak, head of the Lublin Yeshiva, who created the method of "Pilpul"[12] (casuistics)[13] employed in the study of Talmudic literature.

It is correct that R' Shalom Shachna was a student of R' Yaakov Polak, but the stone sketched by Cempla is not R. Shalom Shachna. Here is Cempla's drawing:

And here is a picture of R' Shalom Shachna's grave today in the Old Cemetery of Lublin:

The grave today stands without the adornments found in Cempla's rendering: no pillars, no arch and no artistic flair filling the arch. Also, Cempla seems to indicate ten or twelve lines of etching while the current stone shows at least fifteen; puzzling, if not insurmountable issues.

A bit more research revealed the obvious error. Within twenty feet of R' Shalom Shachne stands this prominent headstone:

This is the grave of Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz (d. 9 Av 5575 – 1815), the Chozeh of Lublin.[14] It seems almost certain, upon comparing Cempla's drawing with that of the Chozeh's headstone is that Cempla drew the Chozeh's headstone mistaking it for the tomb of R' Shalom Shachna which lies in its close proximity.

[1] I can recall, as a young man, visiting the old cemetery in Tzfat immediately after havdalah. I encountered a middle-aged Chassidic Jew at that strange time, and inquired after the grave of Rabbi Chaim Vital (d. 5380) the eminent student and chronicler of R' Yitzchak Luriah – the Ari Hakadosh (d. 5332). He told me to go up the road and after a bit to ask for directions to Damascus...

[2] For another example see אבי מורי, Dr. S.Z. Leiman, in Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon's Tomb? Originally published in Jewish Action, Winter (1998), 59(2), and which can be found online at: http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5759winter/leiman.htm

[3] Sic, he was the son of Rachel not Leah.

[4] See Z. Vilnai, מצבות קודש בארץ ישראל, pp. 167-176, where (p. 170) sightings of the burial place in Shechem date to 320 AD.

[5] ואת עצמות יוסף אשר העלו בני ישראל ממצרים קברו בשכם

[6] For further discussions, see L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V1, JPS (2003) p. 430 n. 443. Also, Vilnai pp. 141-144. To come full circle, in Acts 7:16 we are told that Jacob was also buried in Shechem!

[7] See note 1 above.

[8] For a nice photo, see Mishpacha, Special Supplement Succos 5767, pp. 24-25.

[9] The caption also tells us that R' Zalmaleh of Volozhin, the brother of R' Chaim and most brilliant student of the Vilna Gaon, is in the photo as well. He is neither in Volozhin, next to his brother, nor in the Gaon's Ohel. See note 1. His grave has sadly been lost.

[10] I would assume that Shachna was his second, not family name; the stone reads:שלום המכונה שכנה, which would seem to be a nickname rather than a surname.

[11] See S. B. Nissenbaum's Lekorot HaYehudim B'Lublin, p. 19 for the exact wording on his tombstone. He actually died on Friday Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5319, which was in 1558. See A. A. Akavia לוח לששת אלפי שנה p. 485.

[12] Quotes in original

[13] Parenthetic translation in original

[14] Interestingly, in Y. Alfasi החוזה מלובלין p. 107 nt. 9 there is a discussion if the Chozeh is in fact buried near R' Shalom Shachna. He relies on a pre-war witness. Today one can go and see for himself, ואין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות.

]]> Historical Oddities Akiva Leiman Tombstones Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/9/4/Gravely-Mistaken Marc B. Shapiro - Responses to Comments and Elaborations of Previous Posts III http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/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.[1] 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,[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.

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.[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.

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.[9] 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 ]]> Censorship New Books Book Reviews Marc B. Shapiro Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:23:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-of-Previous-Posts-III R' Orenstein, Author of the Yesuos Yaakov: The Controversy Over Publication of his Works http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/21/R-Orenstein-Author-of-the-Yesuos-Yaakov-The-Controversy-Over-P

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

[1] Originally, the sefer was written as glosses and comments on Tur, much like the work by his father-in-law. [One might correlate the two works even more closely, and claim both emanated from marginal notes. See Prof. Y. S. Speigel, Amudim bToldot Hasefer haIvri, vol. 1, p. 297.] Later these notes were edited to form the present commentary.

[2] R' Shmuel married R' Yoel's widowed daughter-in-law (m. R' Shmuel Tzvi Hertz, son of the Bach), and raised her orphan R' Aryeh Leib, author of Shut Shagas Aryeh (w/ Kol Shachal). R' Aryeh Leib was sent along with his brother by his stepfather to investigate the issue of Shabbtai Zvi.

[3] During the outbreaks of 5424, two of his sons were massacred along with hundreds of the cities inhabitants. See D. Kahane, Sinai, 100 (Jubilee Volume), pp. 492-508.

[4] Both published by Mossad HaRav Kook from manuscript.

[5] Author of Shut R' Chayim HaKohen.

[6] Indexed by Jacob B. Mandelbaum.

[7] Unfortunately, he never made it to E. Israel, having passed away along with his wife in the city of Salonika, Greece, and is entombed there. See A. Brick, Sinai 61, pp. 168-84.

[8] Introduction to Yeshuos Yaakov.

[9] Citation in Klillat Yofe and see here as well.

[10] Called "the charities of R' Meir Baal Hanes". There is uncertainty regarding the true name of this charity. Historically, the tanna Rebbi Meir was never called "Baal HaNes" and the name is not found in neither Geonic literature or in works by the Rishonim. Furthermore, geographical guidebooks that list gravesites in E. Israel mention TWO R' Meirs, one in Teveryah (this is the grave of the well known tanna, the student of R' Akiva and friend of R' Yehuda and R' Shimon Bar Yochai) and one in Gush Chalav, the second bearing the name "Baal Han ]]> Censorship New Books Book Reviews R. Yosaif Dubovick Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/21/R-Orenstein-Author-of-the-Yesuos-Yaakov-The-Controversy-Over-P The Modern Custom of Standing for the Ten Commandments http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/16/The-Modern-Custom-of-Standing-for-the-Ten-Commandments
The earliest possible source for this custom, as with many of today's "universal" customs, is the Hemdat Yamim. The Hemdat Yamim, records that:


According to the Hemdat Yamim, the custom of the Ari (most of his customs the Hemdat Yamim attributes to the Ari, see this post discussing the spurious nature of the Meron custom also attributed to the Ari,) was to not stand for the recitation of the Torah with the exception of the Ten Commandments. Importantly, the Hemdat Yamim is only proposing this custom, not attempting to justify an already existing custom. Moreover, as we shall see, most who discuss the custom of standing for the ten commandments do so in an effort to reconcile this custom with the prohibition of elevating or highlighting the ten commandments as proscribed by the Talmud.

For instance, R. Shmuel Aboab discusses the custom of standing for the Ten Commandments. R. Aboab was asked "about the custom of some to stand for the Ten Commandments, what is the reason for this custom and should others follow it?" In his response, R. Aboab first questions the custom in light of the well-known passage in the Berachot where the Talmud records that the custom to read the Ten Commandments was abolished in the "gevulot" due to the "minim." Thus, according to the Talmud, highlighting the Ten Commandments or, in this case, standing specifically for their reading may run afoul of this passage. Ultimately, R. Aboab defends the custom of standing and distinguishes the Talmudic passage and claims that the Talmudic restriction is only applicable "when it is unclear why one is favoring the Ten Commandments over the rest of the Torah, i.e. when one reads the Ten Commandments daily. But, here, [merely standing on Shavout or Parshat Yitro or Vethanan] the purpose is clear in that we are reenacting the acceptance of the Divine Glory and thus there is no fear of the minim. The standing for the Ten Commandments is thus akin to standing when we recite the blessing on the new moon, . . . as Abbai states we need to do it standing and Rashi explains that since we are greeting the Divine Glory we are required to make the blessing standing out of respect for the Divine Glory. Therefore, we stand when the Ten Commandments are read and it poses no problem."[1]

The Hida also defends the custom of standing and argues the Talmudic fear of minim is not applicable as the Ten Commandments are read as part of a larger Torah reading thereby demonstrating that although we may stand for part we believe in it all.[2]

In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say, from the early 18th century there has been a virtual explosion of commentaries attempting to justify this custom in light of the Talmud. [3]

Of course, as with most Jewish customs, not everyone agrees that standing for the Ten Commandments is appropriate. R. Y. Emden (additions to the Siddur, Laws of Shavout) holds that one should not stand for the Ten Commandments as does R. Gieger in Divrei Keholot (p. 466).

Returning now to the origins, the earliest and most likely source is the Hemdat Yamim, which dates to sometime in the 17th century. That said, he is not actually the earliest person to discuss this custom. Rather, the Rambam discusses this custom, however, the Rambam cannot be the source for the custom of standing for two reasons. First, this passage of the Rambam was unknown until the 20th century. Second, the Rambam was against the custom of standing for the Ten Commandments.

The Rambam's statement appears in two editions of his responsa, first in the Freimann edition and then again, with small differences, in the Blau edition. The first, Freimann was published in 1934, and Blau's was published in 1971. Consequently, these can not be the sources for the custom discussed in the 17th century as these were still in manuscript and unknown in the 17th century - that is, no one mentions the Rambam until the publication of these editions. Moreover, as we have seen, this is not a inconsequential custom, rather, on its face this custom runs counter to the Talmud and thus if in fact this custom pre-dated the Hemdat Yamim why is there no one who raises the conflict with the Talmud in Berchot. As we have seen, once the custom is discussed it is almost always in the context of justifying the custom in light of the Talmudic passage.

The Rambam, contrary to the position of those discussed above, takes issue with standing during the Ten Commandments. Specifically, unlike those above, he is unwilling to distinguish the Talmudic passage and in fact expands on what the Talmud prohibits. According to the Rambam, based on the Talmud, it is prohibited from elevating any part of the Torah over any other part. As the Rambam discusses at length in his Commentary on the Mishna, the introduction to Perek Helek, it is heresy to claim any one part of the Torah is more important than any other. Similarly, the Rambam holds that to stand for one part of the Torah and not another part is akin to heresy as it shows that the Ten Commandments are somehow worthy of standing to the exclusion of the rest of the Torah.

To recap, the custom of standing seems to have become popular with the Hemdat Yamim in the early 18th century and the Rambam was against this practice ruling that it skirted the line of heresy. R. Ovadiah Yosef, basing himself on the Rambam (R. Yosef doesn't trace the lack of historical basis for the custom), rules that it is prohibited to stand. Surprisingly, this is not the conclusion reached by all his contemporaries. Instead, R. Waldenberg, takes the position that since this is well-established "minhag yisrael" standing for the ten commandments is permitted. R. Waldenberg raises the possibility that this custom falls in the category of those customs which are so powerful they override law.

R. Waldenberg then deals with the Rambam, and essentially dismisses the Rambam as unimportant because this responsum was unknown. R. Waldenberg then throws in for good measure the controversial statement of the Hazon Ish regarding using recently discovered manuscripts. [4]

R. Waldenberg is not the only one to dismiss this responsum. R. Feinstein also discusses standing for the Ten commandments and offers his own justification. In doing so he never mentions the Rambam's position. R. David Feinstein was asked if his father was aware of this responsum and R. D. Feinstein said that his father was not. But, R. Dovid continued, "knowing his father's position on newly discovered manuscripts - [that he took a dim view?]- the Rambam's responsum doesn't affect the analysis."Feldman, Yisrael be-Mamadam, p . 1051.

Thus, rather then dealing with the Rambam in a meaningful manner many appear to be willing to dismiss the entire position of the Rambam. Furthermore, the reason for this pithy dismissal is not based on substance but, instead, by alleging without any basis in fact that this responsum is a forgery.

In sum, the custom of standing is based on the Hemdat Yamim and is not older than the 18th century. The Rambam had serious reservations about establishing such a custom, but some are willing to ignore the Rambam on questionable grounds.



Sources:

See Y. Goldhaver, Minhagei Kehilot, vol. 1 227-36 where the majority of the above is taken from. See also, Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2, 109-11, n.63 (he discusses among other things, the meaning of "minim"); E. Brodt, Yeruschasanu, vol. 2, p. 208; G. Oberlander, Minhag Avotanu be-Yadanu, Nissan-Av, chapter 27; S.Y. Feldman, Yisrael be-Mamadam, vol. 2, 1040-51.

See also, Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. II, 340 where he records the custom that to take an oath one had to swear "in the name of God, and the Ten Commandments." And that a document from Syracuse, Sicily, it records that "the party giving the oath was even obliged to read the Ten Commandments aloud from the Torah Scroll."

Notes:
[1] R. Aboab's distinction is far from certain. Specifically, why it is clear on Shavout one is standing for a particular purpose as opposed to the daily recitation of the Ten Commandments?

[2] This reasoning is also not convincing as the proposed daily recitation of the ten commandments was also in a larger context where other Torah passages are recited, Shema, Az Yashir, and Tehilim. If reading the ten commandments during Yitro obviates the minim issue why doesn't reading it with the Shema or the Monday and Thursday Torah readings obviate the minim issue?

[3] See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeheva Da'at, vol. 1 no. 29 where in his typical fashion cites almost all the relevant literature.

[4] R. Waldenberg is not the first, nor presumably will he be the last, to question the authenticity of a particular responsum of the Rambam. For other examples, see Y.S. Speigel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri, Kiteva ve-Hatakah, 264-65.


]]> Yechiel Goldhaber Censorship Shavous Customs Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/16/The-Modern-Custom-of-Standing-for-the-Ten-Commandments Marc B. Shapiro: A Tale of Two Lost Archives http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/12/Marc-B-Shapiro-A-Tale-of-Two-Lost-Archives A Tale of Two Lost Archives

by

Marc B. Shapiro

I have spent much of my professional life rummaging through collections of documents, mostly in well-kept archives, but sometimes also in hard-to-reach places in basements and attics. Fortunately, I have made some great discoveries in these places, but I will now tell you a story that doesn't have a happy ending.

It begins around fifteen years ago, when I was researching the life of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. With the strength that only someone in his twenties has, I traveled around the world, knocking on doors, and tracking down every letter I could find written by Weinberg.[1] During this time I was in touch with the widow of R Hillel Medalie. While not a student of Weinberg, Medalie became close to him after the war. During this time he was serving as rabbi of Leeds, a tenure which incidentally led to a terrible dispute with R. Solomon Fisch, another rabbi in Leeds.[2] The dispute was so bad that Fisch refused to serve with Medalie on the Leeds beit din, and R. Joseph Apfel was appointed a dayan in Fisch's place. Apfel was a student of Weinberg, and more responsa in Seridei Esh are addressed to him than anyone else. At this time, he was serving as a hazan in Leeds, but after being appointed to the beit din his impressive learning was able to come to the fore.

In 1996 Apfel published Yad Yosef, which contains his collected writings. It also contains letters from numerous great Torah scholars including R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, R. Dov Berish Wiedenfeld, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Isaac Jacob Weiss and R. Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch. Among the most interesting teshuvot is one that is written by R. Pinhas Toledano, the Sephardic Av Beit Din of London. Apfel turned to him with the following problem: In Leeds there is a Jewish old age home and a non-Jew cooks for the residents on Shabbat. Is this permissible? Apfel had argued that the elderly residents are regarded as holeh she-ein bo sakanah, and it is permissible for a non-Jew to cook for a holeh she-ein bo sakanah. Others disagreed and Apfel turned to Toledano for his opinion.[3]

Toledano points out that while Apfel is correct that a non-Jew may cook for a holeh she-ein bo sakanah, (see Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 328:19), it is not at all clear that all old people have this status. Nowhere in the poskim do we find such a notion. So apparently, only for those elderly who suffer from diabetes, asthma or the like can the non-Jew cook. Yet Toledano concludes that the cooking is nevertheless permissible. Since the non-Jew is hired for the entire year, i.e., a contract worker, and can miss some days (vacation, etc.), there is room for leniency. While normally melakhah cannot be done in the house of a Jew because people will assume that the worker was hired to do the labor on Shabbat, in this case everyone knows that the cook is not hired on a daily basis. Toledano supports this contention by pointing out that in London everyone has milk delivered to the house on Shabbat and no one has raised any problems with this. I am too young to remember milk delivery, but I assume that this was the case in the U.S. as well, and the parallel is the daily delivery of newspapers. Toledano therefore concludes that it is permissible to have the non-Jew cook in the old age home. Yet he adds that even though halakhically this is OK, since it is very strange to permit such a thing in a Jewish old age home, the best thing to do is to cook the food on Friday and put it on a hot plate on Shabbat.

Returning to Medalie, from Leeds he went on to become the rabbi of the Antwerp community. After his death in 1977, a very nice memorial volume appeared honoring both him and his father, R. Shemariah Judah Leib Medalie.[4]

Here is a picture of R. Hillel.

 

 

 

Here is R. Shemariah

Although he came from a Chabad background, I don't know how strong Medalie's connection was to the movement throughout his life. His father, R. Shemariah, was close to the Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzhak, and was a very important figure in Chabad spiritual activities in the Soviet Union.[5] He was also a major figure in the political activities that took place in Russian Orthodoxy after the fall of the Czar.[6] In 1933 he was appointed rabbi of the Moscow synagogue, which meant that he was regarded as the rav of the entire city, and also made him the most important rabbi in the Soviet Union.

Before he left the country, R Hillel Medalie studied in a secret yeshiva that was headed by R. Mordechai Feinstein, R. Moshe's brother, who was the rav of Shklov. R. Moshe Zvi Neriyah was also a student here. The communists would later exile R. Mordechai to Siberia, where he died.[7] In the 1950's Medalie wrote to Weinberg about his attempts to secure his father's release from the Soviet Union. It had been years since he had communicated with his father and he did not know that in 1938 R. Shemariah was arrested, accused of counter-revolutionary activities, and shot.[8]

R. Shemariah was one of many great talmidei hakhamim who were stuck behind the Iron Curtain, and even if not killed by the regime, lived out their days in what can only be described as a living hell.[9] While it was bad for everyone in the Soviet Union, for those whose lives revolved around Torah it was even worse. In accordance with the Lubavitcher Rebbe's wishes, the elder Medalie did not attempt to leave the Soviet Union. While other rebbes and great rabbis were fleeing the country, the Rebbe told his followers to stay, as it was their responsibility to bring Torah to the Jewish people, even in times and places of darkness. He told them that they should not only think about their own physical and spiritual well-being but that of the Jewish people as a whole.

The Rebbe only changed his position in 1930 "when Stalinist terror was unleashed against rabbis and religious functionaries. But by then the difficulties connected with leaving the USSR were formidable and large scale emigration was impossible."[10] What this meant was that virtually all of the children and grandchildren of these hasidim ended up completely assimilating, and I think that in retrospect we can say that it was a terrible misjudgment. However, it must also be stated that when communism fell, there were still Habad families that had remained religious throughout all this time. The next time someone complains about how Habad is now dominating religious life in the former Soviet Union, he should remember this.

This reluctance towards leaving the galut, even to go to Israel, is tied in with the Habad ideology that stresses the need to keep Judaism alive throughout the world. While this is generally a very good thing, as all world travelers can attest, sometimes the way it is expressed can be maddening for a religious Zionist to read. For example, in 1955, a few years after he became Rebbe, R. Menahem Mendel Schneersohn said as follows to his followers (Sihah for 20 Av, 5715):

 

גם כאשר נמצאים בחוץ לארץ הרי זה המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלקיך בו, וגם כאן יכולה להיות עבודת הקרבנות ברוחניות . . . וזוהי ההוראה שצריכים להפיק מפרשת היום – ש"בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי" הרי זה ארץ ישראל

This downplaying of the Land of Israel was too much for R. Zvi Yehudah Kook, and he responded as follows (Le-Hilkhot Tzibur, p. 33):

 

התואר "המקום אשר יבחר ד' א-להיך בו" נאמר בתורת ד' מן השמים רק על קדושת ארץ ישראל וירושלים שאיננה ניתנת להעברה וחלופין ח"ו על שום מקום בעולם . . . עבודת הקודש של העסק בתורה, שקידתה, הגדלתה והאדרתה וחרדת קודש של קיום מצוותיה הקדושות באמונה שלימה, ולדבקה בד' א-להים חיים ללכת בדרכיו, והחיוב על כל אדם מישראל לחזור כל ימיו בתשובה, לעולם לא תעקור, לא תמלא את המקום ולא תחליף את מצוות ד' של עבודת הקרבנות, שמקומה רק בפנים ולא מבחוץ. "בכל מקום אשר אזכיר שמי, שם ארץ ישראל" – ארץ ישראל מוגדרת ומוגבלת ומסומנת לקדושתה וסגולתה ולהגדרות חיובי מצוותיה ממקורות תורה שבכתב ותורה שבע"פ מקורות חז"ל דברי רבותינו גדולי ישראל ראשונים ואחרונים. וזה לשון הגמרא ברכות דף נז. "העומד ערום בחלום, בבבל עומד בלא חטא, בארץ ישראל ערום בלא מצוות" ולשון קדשו של רש"י שם: "בבבל עומד בלא חטא, לפי שחו"ל אין לה זכיות, אלא עוון יש בישבתה וזה עומד ערום בלא אותם עוונות." ע"כ

 

Returning to Medalie, he also had a very good secular education, having received an MA from the University of Manchester and a doctorate from Trinity College in Dublin. In fact, Moshe Sharett, who was Israel's first foreign minister, wanted Medalie to serve as Israel's ambassador to Great Britain. Medalie declined the request after discussing the matter with the Hazon Ish.[11] Knowing of his closeness to Weinberg, I was anxious to examine his papers to find any letters from him, as well as from other great rabbis. His widow told me that all of his papers had been deposited at Machon Ariel in Jerusalem. No one had gone through them; they had simply been thrown into boxes and taken away.

Around twelve years ago I went to Machon Ariel to try to find out something about the papers. No one could tell me anything and I almost despaired. Fortunately, with the help of a janitor I found two giant boxes in a storage room in the basement. This contained all the materials taken from Medalie's home. There was no light in the storage room or even in the basement (something was wrong with the electricity that day). The only light I had was from the windows on the top of the basement walls. I took the boxes, one at a time, and emptied them on the floor. I then spent a number of hours going through all the papers, putting aside everything that came from Weinberg. The rest of the material, including letters, speeches, and pictures, was of great interest and documented many years in the rabbinate. But this would have to wait until another day. For now, my focus was on in finding the Weinberg material, and I was able to make copies of whatever I located. I used a number of the Weinberg letters in my book and also published some of them in Kitvei ha-Rav Weinberg, vols. 1 and 2.

I was leaving for the U.S. on the following day, so I made a note to myself to come back to Machon Ariel and carefully go through both large boxes. I knew that there was all sorts of fascinating material in these boxes and was very excited about a return trip. Shortly before I left, I looked at another large box (or maybe even two or three; I can no longer recall). This was full of Pinchas Peli's papers. Peli, who was a distinguished person in his own right, played a major role in bringing knowledge of R. Soloveitchik's thought to Israel, with the publication in 1975 of Al ha-Teshuvah. Here is his picture.

Peli had a nice relationship with the Rav and I had no doubt that there were letters from the him among the Peli papers, but this too have to await a return trip. I was certain that no one would beat me to this, as no one cared, or even know, about the dusty boxes in the basement storage room, which had dishes and glasses in front of them. (There was a small catering business in the basement.) I had seen it before – boxes placed in some far-removed place where they remain for years and years, out of sight and out of mind, much like the Cairo Geniza. There is no doubt that when the Medalie and Peli papers were donated, the survivors didn't expect that they would be put in some far away place where no one could examine them. They thought that the papers would be catalogued and kept in some sort of archive. Since Machon Ariel had not done anything in this direction, I figured that on a future visit I would take out all of the important material and then speak to the people in charge, alerting them to whatever treasures I had found and asking that they be kept in some sort of archive.

Mrs. Medalie told me that when the papers were at her home, some Chabad people had already looked through them for material from the Rebbe. She asked me to keep an eye out for any letters from him. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything, and presumably the material had already been removed. There are some letters to Medalie in the Rebbe's published correspondence. However, there are also many that do not appear there, but are found in R. Shalom Dov Ber Wolpo's Shemen Sason le-Haverekha,[12] which has a lengthy chapter on Medalie and the Rebbe. I assume that the new letters published here are what that the Chabad people found at the Medalie home.

While I was working in the basement no one was watching me. No one even knew I was there. I could have walked off with anything. I considered the possibility that all this precious material would one day be lost, since Machon Ariel had no interest in it. (They probably accepted it in order to do the families a favor, but didn't have the resources to do anything with the boxes). I rationalized to myself that since the material wasn't being taken care of properly, something should be done. I thought that since I could watch over it and give the material a good "home," that it would be OK for me to walk off with it. But I immediately squelched the thought, since stealing is always improper. Although there is a long list of people who have pilfered books and manuscripts, I didn't want to join the list, even for the best possible reason.

In January 2007 I finally had the opportunity to return to Machon Ariel to pick up where I left off. I saw that the basement is now a nursery school. Everything that used to be there was removed a number of years ago. There was no one there to talk to about this at the time, but in June 2008 I returned and had the janitor take me around. The boxes were nowhere to be seen. None of the administrators had any idea what I was talking about. I was shown the library, which is undergoing renovations. It was a mess and there were a bunch of boxes that were set to be taken to genizah the following day. What a story it could have been if I had been able to save the Peli and Medalie boxes one day before they were to be lost? But unfortunately, the material was not there. I assume that when the new construction happened in the basement, the boxes were thrown out like so much other garbage. For an average person looking at a large box with old papers, it certainly would have looked like garbage. Yet how much precious material is now lost forever.

For all the great and important material found in archives around the world, much more has been lost. In fact, only a few years ago the son of one of Weinberg's students contacted me about getting copies of the letters of Weinberg to his father, since they can't find the originals. The father gave me copies many years ago and now they are lost. After he passed away and his house was cleaned, the letters were mistakenly thrown out. Such was probably the fate of many of the Weinberg letters that I was given copies of. It is the way of the world and there is little we can do about it, but it is frustrating nonetheless.

The visit to Machon Ariel was noteworthy in at least one respect. On the floor of the library, waiting to be sent to the genizah, was a large pile of issues of Panim el Panim. This was a weekly that appeared in the 1950's and 1960's, edited by Peli, which covered the entire range of Orthodox life, and included interviews with leading figures from all camps. Unfortunately, it is not available online. One of its outstanding features were the numerous pictures of gedolim, rabbis, scholars, and public figures, many of which are found nowhere else. I grabbed one issue (20 Elul 5724), in order to have something to read in the hotel, and in it one finds the following pictures of Abraham Berliner

and Jacob Barth,

which as far as I know do not appear anywhere else.

Here is a picture of R. Aaron Walkin of Pinsk, which I don't recall ever having seen.

While on the theme of pictures of gedolim, let me note what appears in the recent volume focusing on the life of R. Bezalel Rakov, the Rav of Gateshead.[13] Rabbi Rakov thought very highly of such pictures and had them all over his house. He felt that today, when there are so many inappropriate pictures everywhere we look, it is important to have pictures of great rabbis to act as a counter. Here is a picture of Rabbi Rakov, from the beginning of the volume.

Getting back to Panim el Panim, one of the cover stories in the issue I took is about how R. Yehezkel Sarne visited Heichal Shlomo and the conflict this created, since by so doing R. Sarne was violating the Brisker Rav's ban against the institution. Some believe that it was the Brisker Rav's harsh stance that prevented his nephew, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, from accepting the offer to become Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel.

In general, the views of R. Sarne, and his Chevron Yeshiva, were more moderate than much of the haredi world (although he was known to be very anti-Habad). A glance at the names of those who attended the yeshiva shows that there are outstanding figures from all across the religious spectrum.[14] It is because of this that I was a little surprised when I read in a biography of R. Shakh[15] that R. Sarne once spoke very negatively to R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin about the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In fact, according to this source when R. Sarne was ill and R. Zevin visited him, R. Sarne told R. Zevin that his hasidut is heresy, his Rebbe is a heretic, and he is a heretic. When his health improved he went to R. Zevin's house and apologized for treating him that way when the latter came to visit him. But now that he is at Zevin's house, he wants to reaffirm that his hasidut is heresy, his rebbe is a heretic, and he is a heretic! The story as it appears is obviously a yeshiva fairy tale. But I asked R. Hayyim Sarne, R. Yehezkel's son and current Rosh Yeshiva of Hevron (the Geula branch) if it is true that his father once spoke harshly to R. Zevin about Habad. He told me that it is true but that his father later apologized to R. Zevin, i.e., a real apology.

Since I mentioned R. Sarne and his inappropriate comments, let me tell another story that relates to the fact that he would sometimes say things that perhaps he shouldn't have. Those who have read my book no doubt recall the funeral scene that I describe right at the beginning.[16] That, more than anything else, really shows the difficulty in placing Weinberg in any particular category. I actually feel that it was appropriate that he was buried in Har ha-Menuhot with all the other great rabbis, rather than the place chosen by the Mizrachi leaders (even if R. Herzog is also buried there). I say this for the following reason: R. Weinberg could not live in the haredi world. His views were too different from them. In fact, as my friend Shlomo Tikochinski has correctly pointed out, Weinberg is the only great sage respected in the haredi world whose views are so much at variance with it.

Yet while Weinberg wanted to live as a more modern type of rabbi, one who was a Zionist and academic scholar in addition to being a Torah sage, he wanted to be remembered as a gadol be-Yisrael. At the end of the day, he wanted his Torah works to be studied, and the only place for this was in the great yeshivot. So although he couldn't live in their world, for posterity he would have wanted his legacy to be with them. However, I must also add the following: When Weinberg passed away all the great yeshivot were in the haredi orbit, so it would be natural that this is where he would want to be remembered. At that time, high level Torah study could hardly be found in the Mizrachi world. However, things are very different now, with the flowering of religious Zionist yeshivot of all sorts. If Weinberg were alive today, he would be able to feel fully comfortable in the religious Zionist world, since he would see the intensive Torah study and openness to secular learning of places like Maaleh Adumim, Har Etzion, and the like. Yet these yeshivot simply didn't exist in his lifetime.

Not long after my book appeared, I was in a bookstore in New York City (does anyone remember Ideal Books?). I started talking to a certain fellow who happened to be a rav in Brooklyn and a son of one of the great Torah scholars of the previous generation. He told me that he is the only one alive who can testify as to what was said in the conversation between R. Yehezkel Sarne and the men who were in charge of the funeral, after R. Sarne and his students stopped the procession. (At the time, he was a student at the Chevron yeshiva.) Before he told me the story, he noted that one should remember that in his old age R. Sarne sometimes said things that were not appropriate. He gave one example of this: R. Sarne once went into the Brisk yeshiva and started screaming at the students that they should start learning mussar (Brisk being a place where they don't do this). Only after telling me this story was he ready to inform me what was said at the funeral. According to him, after arguing with R. Sarne about where to bury Weinberg, Zorah Warhaftig, the Minister of Religions, was exasperated and declared: "But we have already dug the grave." To this, R. Sarne replied (in Yiddish): "Put yourself in it!" The yeshiva students then took the coffin and proceeded to Har ha-Menuhot.

Returning to my conversation with R. Hayyim Sarne, which began with a discussion on Weinberg and moved into other areas, I was at his home for a good while and asked him many things. I even got into a disagreement with him on one issue. I am sure this surprised him, since roshei yeshiva are not used to young men challenging something they say. He insisted that it was better for people to be secularists than to identify with one of the non-Orthodox denominations. I responded that the opposite was the case, as the non-Orthodox groups at least add some Jewish content to people's lives. They also help slow down assimilation. (Of course, all this is valuable in and of itself, but from a purely utilitarian standpoint it also makes the job of the kiruv organizations easier.) Yet he didn't buy it and couldn't even see my point, which I think is shared by virtually all thinking people in the Diaspora.

I used the conversation to ask him why the haredim have such a negative view of R. Kook's philosophical writings, and his answer was very enlightening. To this day I have never seen it anywhere in print. He told me that one can turn pages and pages in R. Kook's philosophical works without coming across a rabbinic text (ma'amar hazal). He insisted that a "kosher" work of Jewish thought must be constantly citing rabbinic texts. I had never thought of this point before, but I think it is quite significant. As all who study R. Kook know, he writes in such an original fashion that he becomes the primary text, and one can indeed turn many pages before seeing a ma'amar hazal.

In the new biography of the Brisker Rav (R. Velvel Soloveitchik), there is a very nice picture of R. Hayyim Sarne and his father in Switzerland, together with R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and R. Wolf Rosengarten of Zurich.[17] This has nothing at all to do with R. Velvel. It is included because the picture was taken in Switzerland and the biography discusses R. Velvel's few trips there for health reasons. I assume that the author had this nice picture which he wanted to include, so he found some tenuous connection, even though, as I mentioned, it has nothing to do with R. Velvel.

While R. Velvel was in Switzerland, he was taken care of by Rosengarten, who appears prominently in the biography. R. Velvel also spent a lot of time with his nephew, R. Moshe Soloveitchik of Zurich. Both Rosengarten and Soloveitchik were also close to Weinberg. It has fascinated me that in all of the hundreds of letters that I have, Weinberg never mentions the Brisker Rav's trips to Switzerland. He also had no interest in going to meet R. Velvel, even though the distance between them was no more than a few hours. I get the feeling that Weinberg felt that R. Velvel was in such a different world that it would be hard for them to even have a pleasant conversation. It might be that he was even intimidated by the Brisker Rav's extremism. What makes this more interesting is that R. Moshe Sternbuch, who had become a great follower of the Brisker Rav, was also close to Weinberg. R. Bezalel Rakov taught at the Montreux yeshiva in the 1950's, and he too had a very close relationship with Weinberg. As with so many other Torah scholars in Switzerland, Rakov too went to see the Brisker Rav.

I think we might get a sense of why Weinberg made no effort to meet R. Velvel from the following story:[18] When Rakov went to meet R. Velvel, the latter refused to see him after he heard that he taught at the yeshiva in Montreux. This yeshiva was founded in 1927 and drew students from all over Western Europe. While R. Elijah Botchko, the Rosh Yeshiva, was a member of Agudah and the yeshiva was viewed as part of this world (R. Aharon Leib Steinman even studied there during World War II), he didn't tow the party line and was certainly more positive towards Zionism than the typical Agudist. Both he and his son and successor, R. Moshe Botchko, were also not opposed to the students getting a secular education. In the 1950's there was even a plan to for the yeshiva to provide this. It is this issue in particular that is mentioned in explaining why the Brisker Rav refused to see Rakov:

 

דאפשר שגם הוא בין אלו שרצו להכניס בישיבה לימודי חול בין כותלי הישיבה

 

Only after Rakov was able to convince the Brisker Rav's son that he had the proper hashkafot was he permitted to meet the Brisker Rav. He later recalled that the reason he was able to develop a good relationship with R. Velvel was because the latter valued his efforts in "fighting at the yeshiva so that they not incorporate secular studies." I think it is likely that knowing how different his outlook was from that of R. Velvel, and that R. Velvel had no hesitation in speaking his mind, Weinberg decided to avoid what might turn into a difficult meeting. Whereas other gedolim from the yeshiva world wouldn't dream of getting into an argument with Weinberg or telling him why his outlook was mistaken, the Brisker Rav, who always spoke his mind, would have had no such compunctions. As for the Montreux yeshiva, in 1985 it relocated to Israel and is now a hesder yeshiva.[19] This shows that even apart from the issue of secular studies, the yeshiva did not share the Brisker Rav's approach.

[1] Since my book appeared I have also discovered many more letters, including a collection sent to one of the leaders of the yeshiva world (whose identity I am not at present able to divulge). In my Note on Sources, found after the preface, I mentioned that while such letters might cause me to reevaluate some of my conclusions, I was confident that the picture I presented would not be substantially altered. I was happy to see that nothing in these letters caused me to change any of my earlier thoughts.

[2] See Fisch's Yeriot Shlomo (Jerusalem, 1983). Among Fisch's contributions to Jewish scholarship are his editions of Midrash ha-Gadol on Numbers and Deuteronomy and his commentary to Ezekiel in the Soncino Books of the Bible.

Some Literary, Scholarly & Halachic Perspectives on
Medieval Ashkenazi Attitudes Toward Martyrdom

by Yitzhak of בין דין לדין

Prose

George Eliot, in Daniel Deronda, depicts the ineffable, exquisite Mirah Lapidoth contemplating her recent abortive suicide attempt:

She went on musingly--

"I thought it was not wicked. Death and life are one before the Eternal. I know our fathers slew their children and then slew themselves, to keep their souls pure. I meant it so. (George Eliot, Daniel Deronda, Chapter XVII)

She elaborates, several chapters later:

Then I thought of my people, how they had been driven from land to land and been afflicted, and multitudes had died of misery in their wandering--was I the first? And in the wars and troubles when Christians were cruelest, our fathers had sometimes slain their children and afterward themselves: it was to save them from being false apostates. That seemed to make it right for me to put an end to my life; for calamity had closed me in too, and I saw no pathway but to evil. But my mind got into war with itself, for there were contrary things in it. I knew that some had held it wrong to hasten their own death, though they were in the midst of flames; and while I had some strength left it was a longing to bear if I ought to bear--else where was the good of all my life? (ibid. XX)

The one who "held it wrong to hasten [his] own death, though [he was] in the midst of flames" may be R. Hanina B. Tradyon:

מצאוהו לרבי חנינא בן תרדיון שהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה ומקהיל קהלות ברבים וספר תורה מונח לו בחיקו הביאוהו וכרכוהו בספר תורה והקיפוהו בחבילי זמורות והציתו בהן את האור והביאו ספוגין של צמר ושראום במים והניחום על לבו כדי שלא תצא נשמתו מהרה ...

אמרו לו תלמידיו ... אף אתה פתח פיך ותכנס [בך] האש אמר להן מוטב שיטלנה מי שנתנה ועל יחבל הוא בעצמו אמר לו קלצטונירי רבי אם אני מרבה בשלהבת ונוטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבך אתה מביאני לחיי העולם הבא אמר לו הן השבע לי נשבע לו מיד הרבה בשלהבת ונטל ספוגין של צמר מעל לבו יצאה נשמתו במהרה אף הוא קפץ ונפל לתוך האור יצאה בת קול ואמרה רבי חנינא בן תרדיון וקלצטונירי מזומנין הן לחיי העולם הבא ... (גמרא עבודה זרה דף י"ח ע"א)

Poetry


References to suicides and murders of children by their parents (and occasionally teachers) to avoid apostasy abound in both the Halachic and liturgical medieval Ashkenazic literature. A classic example from the former:

ואך את דמכם וגו'. אזהרה לחונק עצמו. ואמרו בבראשית רבה (ל"ד י"ג) יכול אפילו כחנניה מישאל ועזריה, תלמוד לומר אך. פירוש יכול אפילו כמו אלו שמסרו עצמן לקידוש השם שלא יוכל לחבול בעצמו אם הוא ירא שלא יוכל בעצמו לעמוד בנסיון, תלמוד לומר אך, כי בשעת השמד יכול למסור עצמו למיתה ולהרוג עצמו. וכן בשאול בן קיש שאמר לנערו שלוף חרבך ודקרני בה וגו' (שמואל א' פרק ל"א פסוק ד'). ומכאן מביאין ראיה אותן ששוחטין התינוק בשעת הגזירה...

ומעשה ברב אחד ששחט הרבה תינוקות בשעת השמד כי היה ירא שיעבירום על דת, והיה רב אחד עמו והיה כועס עליו ביותר וקראו רוצח והוא לא היה חושש. ואמר אותו רב אם כדברי יהרג אותו רב במיתה משונה, וכן היה שתפסוהו עכו"ם והיו פושטין עורו ונותנין חול בין העור והבשר, ואחר כך נתבטלה הגזירה, ואם לא שחט אותן התינוקות היו ניצולין: (דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות בראשית פרק ט' פסוק ה', וכעין דבריהם עם קצת שינויים הובאו בבדק הבית יו"ד סימן קנ"ז בשם ארחות חיים)

Here are two poignant references, from the Kinos of Tishah B'Av, to suicide and the slaughter of children to avoid conversion and sin:
אראלים צאו וצעקו מרה / ספוד תמרור האגדו בחבורה
קול כחולה צרה כמבכירה / התאוננו על עדת שה פזורה
עלימו כי נגזרה גזרה / בחרי אף וזעם ועברה
ונתועדו בפרישות ובטהרה / לקדש שם הגדול והנורא
ואיש את אחיו חזקו בעזרה / לדבק [בו] ביראה טהורה
בלי לכרוע לעבודה זרה / ולא חסו על-גבר וגבירה
על פנים צפירת תפארה / אבל אזרו גבורה יתרה
להלום ראש ולקרץ שזרה / ואלימו דברו באמירה
לא זכינו לגדלכם לתורה / נקריבכם כעולה והקטרה
ונזכה עמכם לאורה / הצפונה מעין כל ועלומה

אז הסכימו גדולים וקטנים / לקבל באהבה דין שוכן מעונים
וזקנים דשנים ורעננים / הם היו תחלה נדונים
ויצאו לקראתם עזי פנים / ונהרגו המונים המונים
ונתערבו פדרים עם פרשדונים / והאבות אשר היו רחמנים
נהפכו לאכזר כיענים / והפיסו על אבות ועל בנים
ומי שגורל עלה-לו ראשונים / הוא נשחט בחלפות וסכינים
ובחורים עלי תולע אמונים / הם לחכו עפר כתנינים
והכלות לבושות שנים / מעלפות בזרועות חתנים
מנתחות בחרב וכידונים / זכרו זאת קהל עדת נבונים
ואל תחשו מהרבות קינים / והספידו על חסידים והגונים
אשר צללו במים הזידונים / לזכר זאת נפשי עגומה
(קינות לתשעה באב כמנהג פולין (מהדורת גולדשמידט)), "החרישו ממני ואדברה", מספר כ"ג

Professors Simon Schwartzfuchs and Avraham Grossman disagree both on the quantity and significance of the liturgical poetry composed contemporaneously to the events of the First Crusade, and their divergent views on this question yield different inferences as to the magnitude of the Crusade's impact on the ravaged German communities. Grossman details Schwartzfuchs' position:

שוורצפוקס ממעיט ביותר ברישומן של גזירות אלה על הדורות הסמוכים ולאחריהם, וזאת הוא מסיק בעיקר ממיעוט העיסוק בהן ביצירה הרוחנית לענפיה ולסוגיה. עניין מיוחד יש בדבריו על הפיוטים. באותם ימים תפסו הפיוטים מקום נכבד בחיי הקהילות ולהדי הזמן ניתן בהם ביטוי מובהק. אם אכן לא נותר רישום הגזירות בהם, כי אז היה הדבר מעיד על מיעוט העניין בהן ועל הרושם הזעום שעשו על בני אותם דורות:

אשר לפיוטים שעניינם מסע הצלב הראשון, אשר ליקטו הברמן וקודמיו, מספרם הזעום מפתיע. הברמן הביא שניים שלושה פיוטים בני זמנו של מסע הצלב הראשון. יתרה מזאת, לא ברור כלל אם כולם דנים במסע הצלב. וכבר העיר ברון, שפיוטים אלה חוזרים על עצמם ועל ניסוחם, המעורפל במידה רבה, בכל הנוגע למאורעות שהם אמורים לתאר ולהזכיר (שוורצפוקס, "מקומם של מסעי הצלב בדברי ימי ישראל", בתוך: ר' בונפיל, מ' בן-ששון, י' הקר (עורכים), תרבות וחברה בתולדות ישראל בימי-הביניים, קובץ מאמרים לזכרו של ח"ה בן-ששון, ירושלים תשמ"ט, עמוד 257)

Yet Grossman himself disagrees:

קשה להסכים עם קביעות אלה מהטעמים דלהלן: מספר הפיוטים הקדומים המתייחסים אל גזירות תתנ"ו שהובאו בספרו של הברמן איננו 'שניים או שלושה'. הוא הביא בספרו שבעה פיוטים כאלה, ועליהם יש להוסיף ארבע קינות של ר' אלעזר ב"ר נתן (הראב"ן) המשולבות בתיאור הגזירות. למעשה, כבר כתב הברמן במפורש, כי הוא מביא לקט ומבחר מן הפיוטים על גזירות תתנ"ו, וכי הוא לא ירד למנות את כולם. בין אלה שלא הובאו על ידו יש לציין במיוחד את הקינה על חורבנה של קהילת וורמייזא שחוברה סמוך מאוד לאותן הגזירות, ואולי מיד עם סיומן, על ידי ר' יעקב בר' יצחק הלוי, בנו של ראש ישיבת וורמייזא...

בקינות אלה אין תיאורים כלליים של הגזירות אלא התייחסות מפורשת אל האירועים בשנת תתנ"ו. עליהם יש להוסיף פיוטים אחרים שנתחברו לאחר מסע הצלב השני וגזירות אחרות, אשר בהם תינו הכותבים את הצרות שתכפו עליהם מבלי להתייחס דווקא אל תתנ"ו, אך ניתן לחוש בבירור כי גם הן נלקחו בחשבון מניין הצרות. מדרך הטבע ישלב כותב מאוחר את פרעות זמנו עם אלה שקדמו להן ולא יסתפק בהזכרת הראשונות בלבד, ואין בעובדא זו כדי ללמד שנחלש או נעלם רישומן של הצרות הראשונות.

כללו של דבר, בתחום הפיוט נשארו הדים מרובים וקשים לגזירות תתנ"ו, ולכך יש חשיבות מרובה. הפיוט שימש באותם ימים ככלי הביטוי העיקרי להגיגיהם של בני הקהילות, ובו ביטאו את שמחותיהם ובעיקר את מכאוביהם ויגונם. יתר על כן, מסורות שונות היו מצויות בידי חכמי אשכנז שלאחר הגזירות, והן הועברו מדור לדור, תוך שמירת משמעותם של פרטים שונים הנמצאים באותם פיוטים שנתחברו על גזירות תתנ"ו. לפי מסורות אלה, אף שחלק מדברי הפייטנים נראים כתיאורים כלליים בלבד, נתכוונו בהם הכותבים לרמוז אל אירועים ממשיים שהתרחשו באותן גזירות. (אברהם גרוסמן, 'שורשיו של קידוש השם באשכנז הקדומה', בתוך: ישעיהו גפני, אביעזר רביצקי (עורכים), 'קדושת החיים וחירוף הנפש, קובץ מאמרים לזכרו של אמיר יקותיאל', עמודים 101 - 103)

Scholarship

Suicide and Infanticide in Halachah: A critique of Soloveitchik, Halbertal, and Berkovitz

All of this serves as an appropriate introduction to an analysis of Professor Haym Soloveitchik's provocative discussion of medieval Ashkenazic halachic attitudes toward martydom in Halakhah, Hermeneutics and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz (Part I of II) (Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 94 Number 1 Winter 2004 p. 77) [I am greatly indebted to Andy for drawing my attention to, and providing me with copies of Soloveitchik's article, as well as the previously cited article by Grossman].


Soloveitchik opens by arguing:


Some fifteen years ago, I argued that there are occasions when cultural norms shape the perception of Halakhah, even on the part of its greatest thinkers. There is no pure empiricism in Halakhah, any more than in any other discipline. The simplest text, if it leads to unbelievable conclusions, will be either discounted or reinterpreted. The more outlandish the conclusions of the straightforward interpretation, the less plausible need be the reinterpretation. Despite its improbability, it will carry the air of verisimilitude to those who share the shock at the alternative. This does not happen often, but it does happen - even in such important areas of Jewish law as martyrdom.

The strange reasoning of the Tosafists on the subject of martyrdom does not, I contended, bear legal scrutiny. Both their justification of suicide when fearing that one might yield to torture and apostasize and their even more surprising defense of parents slaughtering infants to prevent them from being reared as Christians were post facto justifications of the conduct of Jewish communities during the first Crusade. ...

The matter seemed fairly obvious to me, and I contented myself with one long footnote of documentation. This was evidently a mistake. Much to my surprise, this claim stirred considerable controversy. ...

Clearly the matter needs to be treated in far greater detail. Let us turn to the Tosafist writings on martyrdom, examine them carefully, and see whether their hermeneutical sins on this topic are indeed so scarlet. ...


Soloveitchik follows with an intricately detailed and closely reasoned argumentation showing that the Tosafists' reasoning in this area is not compelling and arbitrary, but that, on the other hand, the dilemmas faced by the Jewish victims of the Crusades had been unbearably agonizing. [In a recent, brief post, Wolf2191 is dismissive of Soloveitchik's entire argument, but I think it has more merit than he concedes, and that it is, in any event, worthy of a more detailed discussion.] Soloveitchik eloquently concludes:
The choice that now confronted the Jews probed the limits of the halakhah. The laws of martyrdom treat the issue of when one is obliged to lay down one's life. What happens after one is dead is irrelevant legally, but only too relevant in real life. The fate of the child of the now-dead martyr was out of the purview of halakhah, but remained at the very center of Jewish concerns for their Jewish continuance. Halakhah could not adequately address that burning question, so Jews addressed it on their own. Halakhists endorsed their solution, some even rationalized it after a fashion. The inadequacy of their answers was not simply because they were given after the bloody fact, but also because the received halakhah was inadequate to resolve the tragic question raised by their present condition: What was the point of Jewish martyrdom if the children would be reared as Christians?

Although Soloveitchik's arguments are, as I mentioned before, generally quite cogent, I believe that a couple of his points are erroneous. He writes:

Let us now turn to the issue of killing one's children rather than allowing them to fall into the hands of the idolators (i.e. Christians). ...
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the factors at work than [R. Meir of Rothenberg's] responsum. It reads:
יהודי אחד שאל את ר' מאיר שיחיה, אם צריך כפרה על ששחט(א) אשתו וד' בניו ביום הרג רב בקופלינש עיר הדמים, כי כן ביקשוהו יען ראו כי יצא הקצף מלפני ד' והתחילו האויבים להרוג בני קל חי הנהרגים על קדוש השם. וגם הוא רצה להרוג את עצמו במית(ו)תם אלא שהיצילו ד' על ידי גויים.

וכתב לו: לא ידענא שפיר מה אידון ביה, כי ודאי ההורג את עצמו על ייחוד ד' רשאי לחבול בעצמו, ואמר יכול כשאול, ת"ל אך. ... אבל לשחוט אחרים צריך עיון למצוא ראייה להתיר, ומשאול אין ראייה לאיסור אחרי שצווה דוד להרוג אותו (וכן) בן איש גר העמלקי, שנאמר אנכ[י] מות(ו)תתי משיח ד', [דדילמא משיח ד'] שאני. ...

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:03:22 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/8/Some-Literary-Scholarly---Halachic-Perspectives-on-Medieval-Ash Jews, Drinking &amp; Kiddush Clubs http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/5/Jews-Drinking-amp-Kiddush-Clubs

The popular press, in this case Newsweek, does not always get Jewish practices correct. Newsweek just published a short piece on Jewish drinking and specifically mention "Kiddush clubs." While the article makes it appear that this is a new problem, (and to be fair, it seems that is what they were erronously told by those they spoke with), in fact, as is almost always the case, ain hadash tachas ha-shemesh – there is nothing new under the sun.

First, the article claims that "Jews don't drink – much. Historically, Jews have not had alcohol problems to the extent as some other religious groups." This claim, that Jews don't drink, echos the erroneous assertions of some non-Jews, especially during the temperance movement of the 19th and early 20th century in the United States. Much of the temperance movement was lead by certain Christians and pointed to Jews or more specifically the Old Testament in suport of banning alcohol. One particularly egregious mistake in doing so was to misinterpret the prohibitions of Passover. That is, the problem that some in the temperance movement were required to deal with is if Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper, then how can wine be bad? To answer this, some pointed to "Jewish" practice. Specifically, they noted that the Last Supper took place on Passover, "and we know that the Jews were scrupulous in using at this ceremony none but unleavened bread and unfermented wine." Of course, while leavened bread is prohibited there is no related prohibition on fermented wine.[1]

Professor Hayim Solovetick has shown that historically Jews were involved in the wine business and drank as much as their non-Jewish neighbors. These facts may have affected certain halachik rulings. This does not mean that Jews must drink alcoholic beverages. Although wine is mandated for numerous rituals, according to most, grape juice suffices. For this point we again turn back to the temperance movement and this time the effect of the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment prohibited the consumption of alcohol. However, the National Prohibition Act carved out an exemption that allowed for consumption for "religious rites." As a consequence, there was a market for fraudulent rabbis and other religious figures that would permit the otherwise prohibited. To counter these scofflaws, R. Levi Ginzburg,[2] penned a responsum arguing that grape juice sufficed to Jewish religious purposes. This responsum remains the most comprehensive discussion of grape juice in Jewish law.

Isaac Wise, authored an essay discussing the topic of how Judaism views being a teetotaler. Wise rejects this practice. Wise notes that "Isaiah, upbraiding the weakness of his people says: 'Thy wine is adulterated with water.' and the Psalmist sings: 'And wine gladdens the heart of man.'" Wise continues and highlights the use of "mishteh, 'a drinking occasion." Accordingly, Wise explains that since "Moses and the Talmud are not opposed to the use of wine or strong drink. The Jew might consider it superfluous to be more orthodox than Moses, the prophets, or the rabbis of old."

Wise further argues that if the reason for prohibiting drink is due to the harm that may come from overindulging, there is a much more pernicious "evil" that of the amassment of wealth. Wise claims that "the wildest imagination [is] too feeble to depict a mere fraction of the woes and crimes caused by money. It makes rogues of honest men, and villains of generous souls . . . Money makes slaves, hypocrites, gamblers, thieves . . . [it] ruins virtue, beguiles innocences." Thus, Wise concludes that "the use of wine or strong drink as a beverage is no moral wrong . . . the abuse of religion and prayer is worse than the abuse of liquor, [and] the present crusade [of temperance] will not remedy the evil; it is contrary to law and liberty, and it makes us ridiculous in the eyes of the civilized world."

As was the case with Wise, there can be no doubt that drinking has been a controversial topic for one reason or another. One of the more well-known cases of censorship relates to a ruling on wine. The Rama's responsum on the consumption of ya'yin nesach was removed in most of the editions of his responsa. This responsum was so unknown that some charged the Rama never authored it and it was a forgery.[3]

But we need not go so far afield as ya'yin nesach to find controversy. As is mentioned in the article, there are those who participate in Kiddush clubs and, (as would be expected), there are those who question such gatherings. What no one appears to mention is that the Kiddush club is not a recent invention. Instead, from at least mid-sixteenth century, such gatherings took place. Specifically, R. Moshe Yitzhak M'zia (1530-1600, most of his responsa were authored between 1560-80) in his Yefeh Nof was asked

About the custom of the bachurim on Shabbat to leave the synagogue after the Torah is removed from the ark to drink whisky before the mussaf, is this permitted?

If they do not sit down for a meal this is permitted because the law does not follow Rav Huna who prohibits tasting prior to mussaf.[4]

According to this responsum, groups would leave to drink during the prayers.[5] From this responsum we can glean a few important facts about the custom during that period. First, such gatherings probably would not be called Kiddush clubs because they did not make Kiddush at all. Second, R. M'zia does not condemn the practice and expresses no outrage or suggestion that it stop. Instead, it appears so long as it was halachikally ok, R. M'zia was unwilling to challenge this practice.

[1] For more on the topic of unfermented wine (raisin wine) on Passover and its connection with the temperance movement see Jonathan Sarna, "Passover Raisin Wine, The American Temperance Movement, and Mordechai Noah," HUCA, 59 (1988), 269-88. Additionally, see the fascinating article by Hannah Sprecher, "'Let Them Drink and Forget Our Poverty': Orthodox Rabbis React to Prohibition," American Jewish Archives 43:2 (Fall-Winter, 1991): 134–179.  Sprecher discusses the one Orthodox response to Ginzberg.  Id. at 158.  See, as well, Marni Davis, "'On the Side of Liquor': American Jews and the Politics of Alcohol, 1870-1936," (PhD dissertation, Emory University, 2006), esp. chap. five ("'A House Divided Against Itself': American Jews Respond to Prohibition"), 190-250. Finally, see J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. V, 2005, chap. viii, "The Whiskey Brouhaha," where he takes issue with the monkier used by a drinking club - the Glatt Cigar Society.

Aside from actually drinking, Jews also authored parodies on drinking. One such parody is devoted to prohibition Gerson Kiss, Massekhet Prohibishon (Brooklyn, 1929), a description of which is found in in Sharon Liberman Mintz & Gabriel M. Goldstein, eds., Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein (New York: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005), 300. And, Y. Friedlander, the possible author of the well-known forgery Yerushalim on Seder Kodshim, also authored a drinking parody. This parody, however, focused on the hassidic custom of drinking for the purposes of tikkun. The parody is titled Sefer ha-Tikkun and is a "Shulhan Orakh" on all the various times and occasions to make a tikkun. See Baruch Oberlander, "Ha-Yerushalmi le-Seder Kodshim vehaMotzei le-Or Shelo," Or Yisrael 15 (1999), 174-75; see also Boaz Haas, Ke-Zohar ha-Rakiyah, Jerusalem, 2008, 353 n.330 who also discusses the Sefer ha-Tikkun. For other examples of parodies see Eliezer Brodt's post on the topic here.

[2] As an aside, it worth noting that Ginzburg was originally a student of Telz Yeshiva and later in life went on to teach at JTS. However, after Telz relocated to the United States, he helped with the publication of the Teshuvot R. Eliezer from R. Eliezer Gordon, Rosh ha-Yeshiva of Telz. Ginsburg was thanked in the back of this edition in a full page, it appears that in some copies, (perhaps those disturbed to Telz students) Ginzberg's name was pasted over. Additionally, on the topic of Ginzburg and Telz Yeshiva, Ginzburg authored an excellent five volume work on the Yerushalmi, Pirushim ve-Hiddushim al ha-Yerushalmi. R. Gifter and Ginzberg carried on a correspondence regarding this work which still remains in manuscript - but is facinating in its content. 

[3] See Y.S. Speigel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri Ketivah ve-haTakah, Ramat Gan, 2005, 273 and the notes therein.

[4] This responsum was first published by Assaf in his Mekorot l'Tolodot ha-Hinukh be-Yisrael, (in the original version it appears in vol. 4. no. 39:6, p. 43 and in the latest version, edited by Shmuel Glick, Jerusalem, 2002, it appears in vol. 1. P. 111). R. M'zia's responsa remained in manuscript until 1986 when Mechon Yerushalim published them. This edition includes a biography of R. M'zia by Professor Eric Zimmer. Additionally, Zimmer authored an article on M'zia. See E. Zimmer, "The book Yefeh Nof of R. Yitzhak M'zia," Kiryat Sefer 56 (1981), 529-545; E. Zimmer, Gahalaton shel Hakhamim, Jerusalem, 1999, 84-105.

[5] This is distinct from the custom of stopping the prayers and everyone, not just the bachurim, going home to eat a snack and then study prior to the start of the Torah reading; this custom is discussed at length by R. Y Goldhaver. See R. Y. Goldhaver, Minhagei ha-Kehilot, Jerusalem, 2005, vol. 1, 200-208. R. Goldhaver's work includes notes by the prolific and encyclopedic R. Shmuel Ashkenazi. On this topic of taking a break during services, Ashkenazi notes that Goldhaver made a common bibliographic mistake of attributing the Shu"t Hut ha-Meshulush to the author of the Tashbetz, R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, because both works were published together. See R. Shmuel Ashkenazi comments id., vol. 2, 316.

]]> Censorship Customs Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/5/Jews-Drinking-amp-Kiddush-Clubs More on Ma'adane Eretz on Shevi'it http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/31/More-on-Maadane-Eretz-on-Sheviit

More on Ma'adanei Eretz on Shevi'it

By Yitzchak Jakobovitz

Between the 'Inner Family Circle' and the Published Word

a) In a recent post on the Seforim Blog, Rabbi Chaim Rapoport spoke of the extent to which some disciples of the late Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach have gone in order to disassociate their late mentor from the heter mechirah, a procedure that he defended robustly in his work Ma'adanei Eretz.

To this end, a censored version of the original work was published (bearing the title Kitvei Ma'adanei Eretz), in which Rabbi Auerbach's endorsement of the heter mechirah as a minhag yisroel Torah hee was eliminated. The new version also eschewed citations of, and expressions of reverence for, the late Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (one of the primary proponents of the heter mechirah and other controversial positions).

In note 10 of his article Rabbi Rapoport wrote: "In the course of time we may yet witness the birth of reports to the effect that Rabbi Auerbach (and/or: the Rabbis who gave their glowing haskamot) regretted ever having published (written approbations for) his Ma'adanei Eretz. Clearly Rabbi Auerbach's regret will have to have been expressed 'be-sof yamav', since in 1972/5732 he was evidently still enthusiastic about the project".

Little did Rabbi Rapoport know that his tentative 'prophecy' had already been 'fulfilled.' A recent publication (dated Elul 5767) entitled Shemittah keMitzvatah, dedicated to a rebuttal of the efficacy of the heter mechirah, documents such a suggestion. This work published anonymously but with an abundance of haskamot (including an approbation from Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlit"a), quotes many authorities that expressed their opposition to and disdain for the heter mechirah.

In the preface, chapter 5 (page 19), the anonymous author quotes Rabbi Yitzchak Yerucham Burdiansky, a son-in-law of Rabbi Auerbach, in his eulogy for his revered father-in-law. According to Rabbi Burdiansky, Rabbi Auerbach would say to his family: "You can tell the Rabbis that it (the heter mechirah) is worth absolutely nothing. It is a mere mockery!"[1]

The author does not tell us how Rabbi Auerbach's statements in the inner circle of his family may be reconciled with his own published Ma'adanei Eretz.[2] Indeed, Ma'adanei Eretz is not even mentioned! One may therefore readily assume that Rabbi Auerbach's (alleged) change of mind occurred 'be-sof yamav' (as Rabbi Rapoport had predicted!); in time enough to express this to his family, but too late in the day to publish his revised opinion! Consequently, Rabbi Auerbach's (alleged) ridicule of the heter mechirah was evidently first publicised posthumously, at a hesped.

The Uncensored Edition is Back in Print

b) In the interim a new, uncensored edition, of the Ma'adanei Eretz has been published by "Beit Medrash Halachah, Moriah, Jerusalem 5768." This edition is an exact replica of the original Ma'adanei Eretz as the publishers inform us on the back of the title page:

נדפס מחדש בשנת תשס"ח

שנת השמיטה במתכונתו הקודמת

כפי שנערך ע"י מורנו המחבר זצ"ל

ובהוראתו, במהדורת תשל"ב

בית מדרש הלכה

"מוריה"

This uncensored edition has evidently received the financial backing of a generous and zealous English philanthropist (who was disturbed by the attempt to rob the Olam haTorah of part of Rabbi Auerbach's heritage). The same page continues:

מהדורא זו יוצאת לאור

בסיוע "קרן רחל", לונדון

לזכרו של מרן המחבר זצ"ל

להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה

Students who wish to study the Ma'adanei Eretz as authored and published by Rabbi Auerbach himself can now do so without recourse to a library or rare bookshop that still has a copy of the original edition.

On the other hand, students who want to study a censored version of the work, albeit bearing exactly the same title as the original, can also do so with ease. For since the publication of Kitvei Ma'adanei Eretz (and Rabbi Rapoport's post thereon) a 'Friedman edition' of Ma'adanei Eretz has been released (with the blessings of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman's family). This version bears greater similarity to the original work, both in external format and internal structure, but it is still heavily censored and spares the reader from having to confront the truth!

[1] בספר 'שמיטה כמצותה – בענין מכירת קרקע לגוי להפקיע דיני שביעית בימינו', עמוד יט (ההערות בשולי הגליון נכללו בחצאי ריבוע): "הרב יצחק ירוחם בורדיאנסקי שליט"א חתן הגרש"ז אויערבאך זצ"ל [רחוב ויסבורג 4 ירושלים] מעיד שחותנו דיבר בחוג המשפחה אודות ההיתר מכירה (פירסמו בהספד שהספיד חותנו), וז"ל, איר קענט זאגן די רבנים אז ס'איז גארנישט מיט גארנישט, ס'איז א ליצנות (ועשה בידו תנועה של ביטול) – אתם יכולים להגיד לרבנים שזה לא כלום, זו ליצנות – כי אין להם דעת למכור ולא מתכוונים למכור, וכן הרב אביגדור נבנצאל שליט"א מעיד בשמו של הגרש"ז אויערבאך זצ"ל, שאפילו לתלמיד 'מרכז הרב' לא התיר לאכול ירקות מ'היתר מכירה' משום איסור ספיחין, ואין זה סותר למה שאומר הרב בקשי דורון שאמר לו הגרשז"א זצ"ל בנוגע לההיתר מכירה 'שהרי יש מאירי', משום שאם יש אחד מיני אלף שיש לו גמירות דעת אין כאן הפסד במכירה לפי המאירי אלא רק ריווח, אבל עכשיו שנתברר שכל דברי המאירי לא נכתבו אלא מפני אימת המלכות [כמו שביארנו בשער א' פרק ז], בודאי אסור לסדר מכירה".

[2] Rabbi Auerbach's remarks in his Minchat Shlomo 1:44-45 also imply that he did not consider the heter mechirah to be a total mockery.

]]> Yitzchak Jakobovitz Censorship Chaim Rapoport Book Reviews Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:02:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/31/More-on-Maadane-Eretz-on-Sheviit Meir Hildesheimer - Historical Perspectives on Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/23/Meir-Hildesheimer--Historical-Perspectives-on-Rabbi-Samson-Raphael-Hirsch

On the recent occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), Dr. Meir Hildesheimer of The Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Cathedra for the Research of the Torah im Derekh Eretz Movement (Bar-Ilan University), delivered a paper entitled "Historical Perspectives on Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch," at the Jüdisches Museum in Frankfurt (7 June 2008). The remarks below appear with the express permission of Dr. Hildesheimer.

Historical Perspectives on Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

by Meir Hildesheimer

1. Introduction

200 years ago, on June 20th, 1808 Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch was born. And this year, 2008 – is also the 120th anniversary of Rabbi Hirsch's death; he died on December 31st, 1888. Rabbi Hirsch was an outstanding personality who is known as one of the founders of Neo-orthodoxy and the Torah Im Derekh Eretz philosophy. In orthodox Jewish circles he is remembered above all as an intrepid fighter against Reform Judaism and as an exemplary educator. And theologians, Jewish and Christian, appreciate his creative Bible commentary.

In my lecture I want to deal neither with Rabbi Hirsch's philosophy nor with his exegesis of the Holy Schriptures, as these issues are well known and much has been written about them. I want to concentrate on his deeds and achievements form a historical point of view and to shed light on some aspects of his multi-faceted personality.

2. Biographical sketch

Let's start with a brief biographical sketch. Rabbi Hirsch was born on June 20, 1808 (27th Sivan 5568) in Hamburg as first child of Raphael and Gella Hirsch.[1] His parents named him Samson. Later he used to join his father's name to his own ("Samson Raphael Hirsch"), thus following a widespread custom of the period. Samson Raphael Hirsch had a close relationship with his parents whom he described as "the guardians of his childhood, the guides of his youth, and the companions of his mature years."[2] His grandfather, Mendel Frankfurter, a great Talmudic scholar and serving as Rosh Beit Din of Altona, had a profound influence on his grandson, as had the charismatic Rabbi (Chacham) Isaac Bernays (1792-1849) who was appointed Rabbi of Hamburg when young Samson reached Bar-Mitzva age, and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger (1798-1871) whose Yeshiva in Mannheim Rabbi Hirsch attended. Conscious of the new legal requirements from rabbis, the latter advised him to study at an university. Rabbi Hirsch went to the Univertsity of Bonn where he befriended the slightly younger Abraham Geiger, leaving after studying for a year without earning a degree. Consecutively Hirsch served as rabbi of Oldenburg (1830-1841), Emden (1841-1847) and as Landesrabbiner of Moravia (1847-1851) before he accepted the call of a tiny religious association in Frankfurt called "Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft". From 1851 until his death in 1888 he resided in Frankfurt.

3. Personality

Rabbi Hirsch was a puzzle for his contemporaries and has remained so for later scholars seeking to unravel the complex components of his personality. Various people described Hirsch as extremely introverted, some of them even as "remoted" and "cold". His disciple in the Nikolsburg yeshiva Armin Schnitzer (later rabbi of Komorn), for example, wrote in his memoirs: "His demeanor was serious and introverted. He was not talkative." Rabbi Hirsch's following self-portrait, which he wrote as a young man, shows clearly that he was conscious to that perception:

"So it always goes with me when my inner soul is too full. Then it does not spill over the sides as is common in other people – no, inside there can be stormy, turbulent waves but on the outside, with pressures and counterpressures – only silence. I am like a clock whose inner components interact with each other constantly but whose hands are missing, so that on the outside it appears completely still. Superficial people hold a feather to the nose and proclaim it lifeless, but those whose comprehension is deeper sense from the ticking that there is indeed life inside. A wise man knows to attach the missing hands to the face, so that he can read the time ...".[3]

In the eyes of his fellow people – except those of his family and intimate friends who praised his warm and symphatetic heart – he looked not only cold and distant, but also very self-confident. Rabbi Hirsch's tone was rarely conciliatory, whatever his intentions. He used to express himself in such confident terms that made him appear arrogant. His strong commitment to rabbinic Judaism turned him into an active polemicist in the Orthodox camp.

4. Fighter against Reform

Rabbi Hirsch's father had been a merchant. He intended his firstborn son to go into his footsteps. But when growing up, Samson chose for himself another profession – that of a rabbi. According to his own words, the religious controversies waged in his native town Hamburg were of primary importance in the shaping of his career.

At the end of 1817, when Samson Raphael Hirsch was nine years old, a substantial group of Jews in his native town Hamburg joined together to offer an alternative public expression of Judaism and established the "New Israelite Temple Association in Hamburg" and in 1818 erected a house of prayer which they named "Temple". The "Temple" was the first Jewish house of worship in German to use an organ on the Sabbath and a mixed choir in the services. The Temple Association also published a new prayerbook, in which many prayers were in German, and various sections added and deleted at will. The Hamburg rabbinate as well as some of the leading rabbinic personalities issued a prohibition against praying in the Temple or using its prayerbook. The Hirsch home was the venue of meetings and strategy sessions called to combat the threat posed to Torah Judaism by the Temple. Young Samson was apparently deeply affected by the gatherings in his parents' home, and in his later years recalled that it was this struggle which first gave him the impetus to pursue his calling in life.

Rabbi Hirsch's first writings, The Nineteen Letters and Horeb already represented the beginning of his active struggle against the Reformers. At this early stage, Hirsch tried to address the reformers and young people attracted by reform in conciliatory terms, offering a positive alternative to the Reformer's approach. The rebuff he received from the Reformers drove Rabbi Hirsch on to more open opposition. His literary energy in the years immediately following was mostly spent as an active polemicist in the Orthodox camp and emerged gradually its most uncompromising and militant defender.

5. Secession

Rabbi Hirsch's uncompromising stance toward Reform was also the reason for his struggle for the secession of his small orthodox community in Frankfurt called Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft from the main Jewish community.

Neither in Oldenburg and Emden nor in Moravia did Rabbi Hirsch propagate a schism in the Jewish community. On the contrary, when leaving Nikolsburg, he admonished the Jews of Moravia in his farewell letter to stay united. On the other side, he left the Moravian Landesrabbinat because he had received an "appeal from Frankfurt to go to the aid of a tiny group, whose very founding is, in my view, given the goals I had all my life, the most promising development that has occurred in Jewry within the last several decades. For now, for the first time, a Jewish community has been formed, which is openly and proudly dedicated to a most holy principle, in an area which has been successfully conquered by the faces of confusion (i. e. Reform). What can I do! This holy cause is the very one to which I have consecrated my life."

The reason for his different behavior in different places is obvious: in places where Reform gains influence over the Jewish community and its rites, a God fearing Jew must strive to disassociate himself from these "wicked people" and erect his own, Torah true community; in places not endangered by religious innovators taking over Jews should stay united. For the same reason Rabbi Hirsch sided the secession from orthodox Jewry in Hungary in 1868, when the newly constituted Jewish congress was dominated by reformers.

When the Prussian government in 1875 passed a law that enabled the erection of additional Jewish communities at a certain place (called the Austrittsgesetz), and the Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft (IRG) was entitled to form an independent community. The Jewish community of Frankfurt, then dominated by the reformers, did not want a significant number of their members, i. e. taxpayers, leaving, especially not the richer ones like Baron Willy Rothschild who was associated with the Religionsgesellschaft. So the community agreed to provide for all the needs of its orthodox members – a thing it did not do in the past – and exempting them from funding the religious activities of the reformers. A disagreement arouse among the IRG members about accepting this generous offer or to secede and form an independent community. The rabbi of the IRG, Rabbi Hirsch, propagated the last option; he even issued an halachic statement that obliged the members to secede. But a significant number of them did not consent and succeeded in getting the halachic support of one of the most prominent orthodox rabbis in Germany at this time, Rabbi Seligmann Bär Bamberger of Würzburg. Rabbi Bamberger's involvement lead to a sharp literary argument between the two rabbis, resulting in lasting mutual bitterness and a severe blow for Rabbi Hirsch personally: most of the IRG members did not leave the old community.

What motivated Rabbi Hirsch's fierce struggle for secession? In Rabbi Hirsch's opinion Israel is a nation and became a nation only through and for the Torah. Every Jewish community is a microcosm of the people as a whole, and just as Torah is the sole unifying force of the Jewish people, so must it also be the bond which unites each community. Every Jewish individual is not only required to take an active role in the community, but only by being part of a community can the individual fulfill his role as a Jew and find his true meaning and purpose in life. The community exists for the sake of the Torah. A community that does not act according to the Torah forfeits its right to exist. Naturally, it is forbidden to be a part of such community.

At the same time, Rabbi Hirsch felt there was no halachic imperative for Jewish communities to join together in a wider framework. It is not clear whether his later activities for uniting orthodox Judaism in an organization called Freie Vereinigung für die Interessen des orthodoxen Judentums (Orthodox Union) reflexes a change in his beliefs or were only for practical reasons.

6. The orator and writer

Rabbi Hirsch used two main means for disseminating his ideas: the spoken and the written word. Once he said of himself: "All my life I have engaged in thinking more than in speaking, and in speaking more than in writing."[4] But in truth his abilities in all these fields were really masterful. As an orator of rare talent he was seemingly influenced by his rabbi and teacher Isaac Bernays who was one of the most famous Jewish preachers of his time – that means, in the German language. Once asked by his uncle, why he preferred delivering his sermons in German and not in Hebrew, he replied that law in East Friesland required him and the other rabbis to preach in the vernacular, and furthermore the Jewish masses were not proficient in the Holy language. In order to reach them one would have to speak their tongue. His first experience as an orator he had as a student at the University of Bonn, where he and Abraham Geiger established an "association for the cultivation of speech", intended for future rabbis in order to train them to deliver popular sermons.

Besides of speaking in German, a number of additional factors contributed to the profound impression Hirsch made on his audience: the carefully chosen expressions, the fast tempo, originality of thought and cogency of argument. He spoke without a text, occasionally keeping a small Bible in front of him. In his early years he would commit his speeches to writing before he delivered them. By the way, he spoke only in public settings, never at festive meals and private celebrations. His gifts as a speaker do much explain the great influence he had on his contemporaries.[5] In Frankfurt, Rabbi Hirsch's weekly Sabbath addresses was the bond which unified the members of the IRG and left his listeners inspired to put the ideals of the Torah into practice. A visitor to his synagogue commented: "I do not understand one word that was said, but one had the impression that nothing less than the prophet Isaiah was standing up there."

Yet the influence of his writings were even greater for they reached a much greater audience and had also a significant impact on future generations until this very day. Rabbi Hirsch's gifted pen produced a rich and varied output: Halacha, commentaries on the Pentateuch, the Psalms and the Jewish prayer book, articles on philosophy, Jewish weltanschauung and education, polemics, letters and responses. All his writings, including his letters and halachic responses, were stamped with his unique style and characterized by a warmth of feeling and a sense of closeness to God. His skill at capturing the sanctity and sublime beauty of Jewish life remains unparalleled. His style is characterized by long sentences quite typical for this period. It shows his perfect command of German language and literature. Rabbi Hirsch employed his mastery of German prose and modern literary techniques in the cause of classic Judaism. In these times the literary sophistication of this Orthodox rabbi took everyone by surprise. (His Hebrew writings – mostly responses – are written in a very special style too.)

His writings had a particular influence on the younger generation, and continued to affect German Jewry in the decades after his passing. His commentary on the Pentateuch, for example, were found in every home of religious Jews in Germany.

7. Rabbi Hirsch's attitude to German culture

Rabbi Hirsch's attitude toward German was not the same as that of the other traditionalists of his time who were conversant in that language. To the latter, it was a language they knew and employed, but nevertheless a non-Jewish language. Rabbi Hirsch, on the other hand, had a deep emotional feeling for German and a strong attachment to German culture that also went far beyond the modest requirements set down by the conservative Maskilim who advocated practical subjects as necessitated by social and economic considerations. Rabbi Hirsch had been educated in a gymnasium focusing on humanistic studies. Influenced by the atmosphere in his family who encouraged secular studies, he appreciated the humanistic spirit which permeated the German cultural climate as well as the aesthetics. In the first of the Nineteen Letters, Rabbi Hirsch makes his imaginary protagonist remark: "How can anyone who is able to enjoy the beauties of a Virgil, a Tasso, a Shakespeare, who can follow the logical conclusions of a Leibnitz and Kant--how can such a one find pleasure in the Old Testament, so deficient in form and taste, and in the senseless writings of the Talmud?" Before Rabbi Hirsch, no Orthodox Jew had ever expressed such sentiments, even as a prelude to their rebuttal.

Rabbi Hirsch was especially influenced by Hegel and Schiller. In a speech given in his school he founded on the centenary of the birth of the latter, he claimed that the universal principles of Western culture embodied in Schiller's writings are Jewish values originating in the Torah.

Despite Rabbi Hirsch's liberalism in matters of culture and education, he was critical of literature that he considered offensive from a religious or moral standpoint. Thus, while reading "Der Salon" by Heine, he grew so highly incensed by its blasphemous expressions that he wanted to burn the book and compensate the library for its destruction. Nevertheless, the fact that "Der Salon" was written by apostate did not prevent Rabbi Hirsch from reading it.

8. Torah Im Derekh Eretz

But with all his love for German language and culture, Rabbi Hirsch was well aware of the danger of scientific knowledge leading one away from religion. He, therefore, strongly opposed the tendency to simply put Torah and Derekh Eretz side by side for this would implement that both are of equal value. According to Rabbi Hirsch, however, there is a higher and a lower sphere: The Torah is the essential, the standard by which all education is measured, while secular knowledge is secondary or supplementary to Torah. Or in Rabbi Hirsch's own words: "We are confident that there is only one truth, and only one body of knowledge that can serve as the standard... Compared to it, all the other sciences are valid only provisionally".[6]

The totality of Rabbi Hirsch's thinking and teaching has always been regarded as comprehended in the single phrase, Torah im Derekh Eretz. What does it stand for?

The concept of Torah im Derekh Eretz – universal and timeless – in the doctrine of Rabbi Hirsch has been defined as a synthesis of Judaism and modern culture, embracing art and literature to the extent compatible with Halakha (i.e. religious Jewish law). However, this synthesis is to be understood in a Hegelian sense: two contradictory forces contending with each other are reconciled and renewed on a higher level. In other words: Torah and life, Judaism and culture, do not just complement each other, but achieve complete identity. In his old age, Rabbi Hirsch devoted most of his teaching activity in his school to a subject which he called "The Spirit of the Jewish Theory of Laws". In those lessons he strove to implant in the hearts of his students a love of Torah and to inspire them with the consciousness of Torah im Derekh Eretz as the unifying principle of all the religious commandments, molding them into a uniform context of a harmonious Weltanschauung and life-pattern.

9. Political attitudes and activities: the struggle for emancipation

On December 10, 1810 Hamburg, Samson Raphael Hirsch's native town, was annexed by revolutionary France. In 1814 the French were thrown out of the city, but the revolutionary vision of liberty, equality and fraternity remained part of the city's intellectual fabric. Gabriel Riesser, the famous Jewish lawyer and politician, was one of the leading advocates of Jewish emancipation and very much admired by Jewish youths. Rabbi Hirsch was also deeply impressed, despite Riesser's decidedly non-religious attitude.

As other rabbis, Rabbi Hirsch, too, recognized the enormous spiritual threat posed by Emancipation. Nonetheless, he viewed it as both a challenge and an opportunity to demonstrate that the Torah is no less applicable to the new open society than it was in the Ghetto – but of course only on condition that the Jewish people would still be bound to the Torah's laws.

In his Moravian time, Rabbi Hirsch had a first-hand experience of the negative side effects that came together with emancipation:

a. religious indifference;

b. the loosening of the bond between the individual Jew with the community which was expressed by refraining from paying community taxes – an act that brought the Jewish communities on the brink of bankruptcy; and

c. a substantial increase in anti-Semitism.

Seemingly this was the reason that from the time he went to Frankfurt, he did not engage in any more public advocacy to advance the cause of civil equality for Jews. In reevaluating the battle for equal rights, he wondered whether the all-out drive for emancipation at any price had not been grounds for the further deepening of the exile, and if it had not engendered renewed persecution and increased restrictions on Jews.[7]

10. Jewish Nationalism and the Colonization of Eretz Israel

Heaving heard about Rabbi Hirsch's attitude towards emancipation as well as about his embrace of contemporary German culture, we now want to deal with his attitude towards Jewish nationalism and the colonization of Eretz Israel.

Rabbi Hirsch's opinion is probably expressed best in his reply to Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer's attempts to persuade him to support his activities concerning the colonization of Eretz Israel. Rabbi Kalischer of Thorn, was a forerunner of Jewish nationalism and the settlement of Eretz Israel. His philosophy connects Jewish nationalism, philanthropic activities and the strive for ultimate redemption. In his book Derishat Ziyyon, he explained his idea of the return to Erez Israel and stated his theory that redemption would come in two stages: the natural one through return to Erez Israel and working on the land, and the supernatural one which would follow. Furthermore, he preached that the first stage should involve a healthy economic foundation for the yishuv, a foundation which could only come about through the development of agriculture on a large scale. Accordingly, he recommended the establishment of an agricultural school for the younger generation.

In his reply, Rabbi Hirsch presented a clear and concise statement of his position concerning settlement of Eretz Israel as a goal in itself in the present era. In his opinion, according to the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud, Jew's obligation is only to be devout with all the strength he is granted, and to look forward to the redemption each day. Israel possessed land and statehood only as instruments for translating the Torah into living reality; neither is it a goal in itself, nor is it instrumental in bringing the redemption. Furthermore, Jewish statesmen like Disraeli and Cremieux cannot be viewed as harbingers of redemption, for it is impossible to imagine that G-d would choose people who reject the Torah as his agents. Finally, Rabbi Hirsch agreed that is was important to support those Jews who currently lived in Eretz Israel – he himself supported efforts to improve their conditions! – but he expressed concern that mass settlement activity would bring in its wake increased risk of Sabbath desecration and the transgression of the agricultural commandments unique to Eretz Israel. And when Rabbi Kalischer's attempts to persuade him did not cease, Rabbi Hirsch wrote: "In my lowly opinion, there will not emerge from this any benefit for put Torah and Jewish tradition, and it is not fitting for God-fearing people to associate with the Alliance Israelite Universelle, whose leaders lack all commitment to Torah and to God's coventant." And in his letter to Rabbi Lipschitz, the secretary of Rabbi Yitchak Elchanan Spector of Kovno, he wrote that all the effords to bring the redemption in this way is a grave sin. Here again we have Rabbi Hirsch's resentment from cooperation with non-orthodox Jews!

And now, let us see if - and how – Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's legacy, 120 years after his death, is still relevant. In order to do this we have to relate to Jacob Katz's essay "Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch – ha-meymin veha-masme'il" (turning to the right and the to the left) published in 1987. Katz wrote that Rabbi Hirsch took a decisive right, i.e. conservative, position in issues concerning Judaism and its beliefs (see his fight against Reform), but may be called "left" concerning culture, science and the attitude towards modern society. As nobody after him succeeded to unite these juxtapposite positions, this apparent rift in Hirsch's philosophy led to a selected adoption of his by different group of peoples.

The "right" components were readily adopted by ever growing parts of ultra-orthodox society, that means an uncompromizing struggle against everything that seemed a deviation from traditional Judaism as well as the abhorrence of a cooperation with non-orthodox people or groups, even if the goals are common. These circles will cite from Hirsch's writings the passages useful for their purposes, but ignore other passages speaking, for example, of the need to learn a trade or gain seculat knowledge. It also seems that the ideological opposition to Zionism of Orthodoxy has its roots in Rabbi Hirsch's philosophy (see above), that means many years before the the Munkatcher and the Satmarer Rebbes.

Other orthodox circles, especially Modern Orthodoxy, embraced Rabbi Hirsch's openness to secular culture and science, combining "Torah" (i.e. rabbinic studies) with "Derekh Eretz". But unlike their ultra-orthodox counterparts, they do not refrain from cooperating with non-religious Jews. This is especially right of Religious Zionism which is also – as its name inplies – Zionist.

Rabbi Hirsch stood in the focus of the dramatic intellectual and spiritual transformations that characterized German Jewry in the 19th century. His personality as well as his many-sided and varied activities on the fields of Bible exegesis, philosophy and leadership shaped the face of Neo-orthodoxy to a very high degree and their influence was felt not only in his own generation but also later on until to this very day.

Selected Bibliography:

Breuer, Mordechai, The "Torah-Im-Derekh-Eretz" of Samson Raphael Hirsch, Jerusalem-New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1970.

Klugman, Eliyahu Meir, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Architect of Torah Judaism for the Modern World, New York: Mesorah Publications, 1996.

Liberles, Robert, Religious Conflict in Social Context, Westport (Connecticut)-London: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Rosenbloom, Noah H., Tradition in an Age of Reform, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976.

[1] Rabbi Hirsch's genealogy was researched by Eduard Duckesz and published in: Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft (also printed seperately).

[2] Dedication to Horeb (Altona 1836).

[3] Transcript (free rendition) by E.M. Klugman in the possession of the late Prof. Mordechai Breuer.

[4] Nineteen Letters, Letter 19.

[5] For example: Armin Schnitzer from his time in Nikolsburg as cited in English in Klugman, p. 324.

[6] Commentary to Leviticus 18, 4-5

[7] See Collected Writings II, p. 26.

]]> Meir Hildesheimer Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/23/Meir-Hildesheimer--Historical-Perspectives-on-Rabbi-Samson-Raphael-Hirsch Bitul ha-Tamid: the History and Application http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/20/Bitul-haTamid-the-History-and-Application- Bitul ha-Tamid and Edgar Allan Poe*

The Mishna in Tannit records that 5 bad events occurred on the 17th of Tamuz, one being the cessation of the daily sacrifice, the tamid. The Talmud Bavli offers the background to the other four events. When it comes to the cessation of the Tamid, all the Bavli does is state "Gemara." It is left to the Yerushalmi to fully explain the story.

The Yerushalmi, (Tannit, 4:5), records that the Jews to maintain the tamid worked out a deal with the Romans who were besieging the city. Everyday the Jews would lower down a basket full of coins, and in its stead, the Romans would return the necessary animals. One day, the 17th of Tamuz, however, after the Jews gave the requisite money, instead of the correct animals the Romans replaced them with pigs. Thus, the Jews were unable to bring the tamid and the sacrifice stopped from that time on.

As mentioned, this story only appears in the Yerushalmi and not the Bavli. (Although the Bavli records a similar story, it is about the Hashmonaim and not the Roman's, nor does it mention the bitul ha-tamid.) Further, Josephus does not record it either (he briefly mentions that the daily sacrifice stopped on the 17th without giving details - see Wars of the Jews, book VI, chapter 2). Although these works do not record it, Edgar Allan Poe does. Specifically, he has a story titled "A Tale of Jerusalem" which, more or less, is this story repackaged. You can read the whole story here. Basically, the story details the two priest whose job it was to lower the baskets of gold. Poe ends with the pigs being raised instead.

Not only does Poe use this somewhat obscure story, he even injects some detail that one would need to be versed in the original story to fully appreciate. The priest in question are who belonged to the sect called "The Dashers (that little knot of saints whose manner of dashing and lacerating the feet against the pavement was long a thorn and a reproach to less zealous devotees–a stumbling-block to less gifted perambulators)." This is a play on the talmudic description of the priests - that they are quick - kohanim zerizim hem.

Poe assumes familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet to a degree that one would know the letter yud is the smallest. As he says "thou canst not point me out a Philistine–no, not one–from Aleph to Tau–from the wilderness to the battlements–who seemeth any bigger than the letter Jod!"

The question is where in the world did Poe get this. According to some it seems Poe got this from another novel from "1828, Zillah, a Tale of Jerusalem, by Horace Smith (1777-1849). Poe incorporated whole phrases and sentences from Smith's story: "Poe's story is more than a parody; it is literally a collage of snatches of the Smith novel, cut out and pasted together in a new order."

That being said, it seems that Poe was still more familiar with this story than Zillah and we are left to wonder did Poe study Talmud? He wouldn't be the first famous American author to do so. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of a volume or two of the Bavli. Although, here, it would appear Poe one upped Jefferson by being a baki in Yerushalmi as well.

Bitul ha-Tamid in Later History

Although the actual tamid stopped on the 17th of Tamuz, the phrase "bitul ha-tamid" continues to be used. According to some, Rabbenu Gershom, amongst the many takanot he was involved in, instituted bitul ha-tamid. Bitul ha-tamid as used in this sense means to stop the daily prayers. That is, if a person had a grievance, they could stop the prayers or public torah reading, until the community dealt with the issue. Some rishonim trace bitul ha-tamid to a Yerushalmi that records R. Yochanon telling someone to stop the prayers to have his way. (See Teshuvot ha-Rashba, vol. 4, no. 56).

Bitul ha-tamid was a serious and well-recognized device. For example, the Or Zarua records that "on the week of parshat Emor, someone stopped the services, and there was no torah reading. Thus, they had to read both Emor and Behar the next week." (Or Zarua, Laws of Shabbat no. 45). Note that there was no question about the legality of forcing the entire community, in this case Cologne Germany, skipping the torah reading. The only issue was how to make it up.

The Sefer Hassidim records the process:
The one wishing to stop the prayers goes up either before barachu (or seder kedusha) to where the Hazan is standing. This person then closes the prayer book of the Hazan and announces "I am the one who stopped - [the word kalu or kalman possibly from clamour] and the hazan immediately stops the prayers. If he wants to stop the torah reading, he goes up to the steps before the ark and announces 'I will not allow the torah to be removed.' Some do this on the torah's return - they stop the return. Sefer Hassidim no. 463.
Obviously, this device could not be used for any minor grievance, the question some deal with is exactly when this can be used. One of the teshuvot ha-Geonim records that in Bavel, they only allowed this to be used when a person refused to show up for bet din. That is, if someone sues someone and the party refuses to come to bet din, one can go to the recalcitrant person's synagogue and make this announcement. In this same responsum, however, it records a different opinion that allows for one to collect on an outstanding debt - but, in the case of a debt collection to only do bitul ha-tamid once. The Sefer Hassidim, however, allows for bitul ha-tamid to collect necessary funds for the poor.

As one would expect, it appears that this process became abused. The Sefer Hassidim, the source for much material on this topic also includes a warning to anyone who misuses this that they will have to pay for abuse of the process. Similarly, R. Efrahim Lunschintz in his Amudei Shesh explains that abuse of this process only harms god as he misses out on prayers he otherwise would have received.

At base, it is understood that this is a powerful tool to get one's grievances heard, but what is the rationale behind this custom? According to Goiten, and based on genizah materials, he explains that bringing one's grievance before all - is demonstrative of the notion that bet din "were but representatives of the community, which, in principle, was the supreme judge. The biblical concept 'the people shall judge' (Numbers 35:24) was still very much alive." Goiten notes that this process was not limited to men, and instead, the geniza preserves some "eloquently styled and beautifuly written appeals to the community by women." Goiten posits that the women did not actually enter the men's section but had someone reads these on their behalf. See Goiten, A Mediterranean Society, vol. II, pp. 324-26.

A very different purpose for this procedure is espoused by a Lithuanian memoir. Basically, by this account, as "the Jewish townlets of Lithuania and Poland did not" have a well-developed press, "what weapon did the poor widow have at hand for calling public attention to the iniquities of, say, the money lender?" The answer, of course, "They delayed the reading of the weekly Portion on the Sabbath!" A story of a poor widow is provided to illustrate this point. She comes Shabbat morning, and is brought in to the main sanctuary on a cot where she moans
My child! My child! You are murderers! Take pity and give me back my child! . . . We children knew this woman quite well. . . All of us knew that this good old woman was now confined to her bed and quite helpless. And we also knew that the cause of her illness was due to the forcible drafting of her only son, Borukke the Tinsmith, into the army. We had also heard frequent comments at our homes on this heartless deed of the Town Elder in taking away this poor widow's only son in exchange for the few hundred rubles he received from David Refoel's for letting his own son - his fourth son- escape his duty, by finding a substitute for him in the son of the widow . . . The entire townlet knew of this iniquity and in the privacy of their homes had denounced it as a great outrage; but publicly they were afraid to speak of it. They were afraid to start a rumpus with the Elder who enjoyed the friendship of the town's Chief of Police.

Everyone in the Congregation immediately put aside his Pentateuch and paid the closet attention to the bed-ridden widow's supplication. The only one in the assembly who pretended to be unconcerned in the matter and began to read aloud to himself the weekly Portion, was David Refoel's. This painful scene lasted but a few brief minutes when from behind the Bimah there emerged Honeh the Shoemaker who, with his fists doubled, rushed over to the Elder and yelled out in a voice choking with anger: "If Borukke Tamar's is not freed from military service you will all be sent in chains to Siberia! Do you think we don't know that you have bought substitutes? Take care!"

An informer usually was hated by the town folk. But in this case they all gave their approval to Honeh the Shoemaker . . . It took just about one week before Borukke's claim to exemption on account of being an only son was properly recorded and he returned to his mother's home, a free man. Saks, Worlds that Passed, pp. 79-85.
Although I haven't seen this in print, I was told that when R. Solovetchik came to Boston there was no mikveah in Boston (there was one outside). R. Solovetchik instructed the women to stop the torah reading until sufficient funds were pledged for a mikveah.

*A portion of this post appeared in a slightly different format a few years back. I have updated that portion and added about bitul ha-tamid generally. Additionally, much material on bitual ha-tamid appears in Simcha Assaf's work, Battei ha-Din ve-Sidreihem (1924), pp. 25-29.
]]> Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:12:27 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/20/Bitul-haTamid-the-History-and-Application- Forgetfulness & Other Human Errors a New Monograph by Marc Shapiro http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/8/Forgetfulness--Other-Human-Errors-a-New-Monography-by-Marc-Shapr As a religion based on tradition, Judaism places great stock in the words and opinions of its early Sages. This is so to the extent that there is great debate as to whether it is even possible that these early authorities could err. In fact, throughout Jewish literature one can find many areas where people argue for deference based on seniority. For instance, there is an extensive debate on the binding authority, and to what extent, with regard to the Rishonim or the Shulhan Arukh. Similarly, there are those who refuse to allow that the Rishonim or earlier authorities erred. Recently, some accused Rabbi Natan Slifkin of allowing that certain statements of Hazal require reappraisal and that those statements are wrong. In the case of Slifkin, his issues with the particular statements of Hazal were not novel and mainly he repeated some of the same arguments that have been bouncing around for the last 400 years or so without adding anything new to that particular debate. A more important case, however, was that of R. Hayyim Hirschensohn in his discussion of whether women are allowed to hold positions of power.[1]

In the early part of the 20th century there was a debate of the appropriateness of women taking part in elections - whether they can vote or run for office. (Of late, this debate has been renewed by the Young Israel's stance regarding women becoming synagogue presidents.) Most are aware that those who take the position that women cannot hold positions of power rely upon the Rambam, hilkhot melakhim 1:5, who in turn in relying upon a Sifre 147 to Devarim 17:15. R. Hirschensohn, however, understood the Sifre in a radically different manner and in doing so allowed that the Rambam erred in his interpretation of the Sifre. Specifically, R. Hirschensohn argues that the Sifre that states "that the verse (Devarim 17:15) 'You shall place upon yourselves a king' limits the placement to a king and not a queen" should be understood that the requirement for a king does not require a queen. That is, should the queen die she need not be replaced; however, should the king die there is a commandment to replace him." Furthermore, according to R. Hirschensohn, the Sifre has nothing to do with the other statement from Hazal (Yevamot 45b) based on this verse, that "any leadership you shall establish should only be from your brethren [they must be Jewish]."[2] Thus, the Rambam erroneously conflated the two statements and thereby misunderstood the Sifre and came to the incorrect conclusion - that women are barred from all positions of power. As R. Hirschensohn explains "that even one as great as the Rambam in his knowledge and wisdom is not immune from error, an which then caused many who followed after him to rely upon and led to other errors. It is without a doubt the Rambam relied upon memory regarding these statements, and did not have time to reexamine them again" (See Malki ba-Kodesh 2:194).

As one would expect, aside from taking issue with R. Hirschensohn's position on women holding power, many took issue with R. Hirschensohn's claim the Rambam erred. R. BenZion Uziel said that although he respects R. Hirschensohn -- in fact R. Uziel ultimate held like R. Hirschensohn on this issue -- R. Uziel "believed that [R. Hirschensohn] erred in hastily writing such things about our master, Maimonides. For, while we may indeed take issue with his position, we may not characterize him as having committed [elementary] errors in understanding the text, or as having been mislead by custom and historical context. [R. Hirschensohn's] remarks to such effect are, no doubt, a slip of the pen." Mishpetei Uziel, vol. 2, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 6 (the translation comes from this article). R. Uziel was not alone in disputing R. Hirschensohn's assessment of the Rambam as is evidenced by the many letters to R. Hirschensohn and his responses on the issue of the Rambam erring. See, e.g. Malki ba-Kodesh 4:131, 6:103-104 (letter from R. Yosef Babad).[3] It is worth noting that R. Hirschensohn seemed to have tired defending this opinion saying in one letter "that any further argument about this point is only repetitive." Malki ba-Kodesh 6:100.

Another more recent example was noted by R. Eliezer Brodt in the magazine Datza, no. 15 (19 Kislev 5368): 4, where he calls to attention the recent edition of R. Yosef Karo's Maggid Mesharim edited with notes by R. Yosef Kohen. In the Maggid Mesharim, amongst the many halakhic statements from the Maggid -- the legendary angel that visited R. Karo and whose remarks are recorded in this work -- is that "on Rosh ha-Shana one should not eat meat or drink beer [wine] and one should be careful about other foods as well. And, although Ezra said [regarding Rosh ha-Shana] 'go eat sweet food' that was only said for the populace, I [the Maggid] am speaking to the special ones." The problem with this specific statement is that, as many commentaries have noted, it contradicts various Talmudic statements - including a Mishna or two - that imply one should eat meat on Rosh ha-Shana. (For more on the topic of eating meat on Rosh ha-Shana see Eliezer's post earlier post, available here, additionally, Eliezer's forthcoming volume on many of the customs of Rosh ha-Shana will also discuss this custom amongst others.)

Amongst the many others who attempted to explain this statement of R. Hayyim of Volozhin explained that the entire power of the Maggid only came from R. Karo himself. Thus, if R. Karo forgot a Mishna or a source then the Maggid wouldn't know it either. Therefore, "it is clear that at that moment the Bet Yosef [R. Karo] forgot the relevant Mishna, or there was some lack in his recollection or understanding, and due to that the light [understanding] of the relevant Mishna was also held back from the Maggid." R. David Luria, Kadmut Sefer ha-Zohar 5:4 (Koenigsberg, 1856), p. 35a (quoting R. Hayyim). Thus, according to R. Hayyim, R. Karo could forget and make mistakes.

R. Hayyim of Volozhin's understanding, however, is completely rejected by R. Yosef Kohen in his new edition of the Maggid Mesharim. R. Kohen, commenting on R. Hayyim's explanation, says "I am extremely troubled by this explanation, how is it possible to say that the great Rabbi Bet Yosef, who understood and was completely fluent in the entire Talmud and Mishna, that he forgot a simple Mishna or that he was weak in a particular Mishna." Maggid Mesharim, R. Yosef Kohen ed. (Jerusalem, 2007), 418.

Again, we see the two camps clearly, those who allow for human error and forgetfulness and those who refuse to believe great Rabbis could fall prey to these human frailties. An examination of the relevant sources shows that those in the former camp have the greatest support. Returning to the Rambam that R. Hirschensohn argued erred in his understanding of the Sifre. The Rambam himself in his famous answer to the Hakhmei Lunel, admitted that he had made a mistake. Similarly, the Rambam's son, R. Abraham when presented with a contradiction between his father's statement and a Talmudic passage said "it is possible that my father forgot this passage when he wrote this."

Likewise, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, author of Shu"t Havvot Yair, explains in a responsum "to one Godol who cast aspersions on [R. Bacharach] for claiming errors in the writings of the great earlier ones. That is, you asked how can I have the gall to dispute the earlier ones which we are much smaller. And, that I went further and said [at times] that they had forgotten the words of the Talmud and the Poskim." R. Bacharach answered "I turn the question back on you, is not this language, that is, 'you have forgotten [אשתמיטתיה]' taken from the Talmud itself and applied to the greatest Amoraim . . . using [forgetfulness] is a respectful way to allege that one didn't remember a relevant passage. Forgetfulness is human nature and affects everyone. Of course, how forgetful one is depends on the person."

R. Bacharach then offers historical examples to support his contention. "Who is greater than Moshe the greatest prophet who forgot two laws (Shapiro notes that Bacharach erred - Moshe made three errors! (Shapiro, 52 n.220)) due to anger . . . and who is a greater Posek than the Rambam who understood the entire oral Torah as is evidenced by his work and who also authored a commentary on the entire six volumes of the Mishna based on the Talmud . . . who also forgot . . . and Rashi, who was a repository of Torah, but who writes in his commentary to the Torah . . . 'I don't know . . . and whom the Ramban wrote that [Rashi] forgot a passage from Midrash Ruth." R. Bacharach continues to list other such examples. He concludes "there is no shame in saying that the Rishonim and the Achronim . . . forgot a Talmudic passage or Tosefot . . . and this position is evident from the writers in all the generations that precede me, they never held back from saying on the great ones before them." R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Shu"t Hut ha-Shuni, no. 20.

R. Yosef Hayyim from Baghdad, in the introduction to his responsa Rav Pealim, echos R. Bacharach's sentiment. "In truth one can find that many great ones that they made terrific errors, errors that even children wouldn't make, and at times they made mistakes in quoting biblical verse, as was the case with the goan, wonder of his generation the Hida [R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, one of the most erudite scholars of his period] . . . on these sorts of errors the verse 'that one is blameless from error' (Psalms 19:13)." By way of example R. Ya'akov Hayyim highlights four such errors R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson, author of the Shu"t Shoel u-Meshiv made in his work. R. Ya'akov Hayyim concludes "therefore, do not be surprised to find I disagree with the great ones . . . when I argue they erred because they forgot. Because, such allegations [of forgetfulness] are not unique and in no way take away from their greatness."

It is particularly ironic that the Hida fell prey to this very type of forgetfulness as he wrote an entire book, Helem Davar, [4] showing exactly these types of mistakes in other's works. The title of the Hida's work, Helem Davar is rather instructive when discussing the possibility of sages erring. Helem Davar refers to the sacrifice the members of Sanhedrin would bring should they all err, indicating that even groups of great people are not immune from making mistakes.

With the above introduction we now turn to Professor Marc Shapiro's new book Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters (Scranton and London: University of Scranton Press, 2008), 205 pages, where one of the three articles is devoted to showing exactly the type of errors that must be attributed to forgetfulness or faulty memory that appear in the Rambam. This volume is an expanded discussion of Prof. Shapiro's two earlier articles "Maimonidean Halakhah and Superstition" (2000) and "Principles of Interpretation in Maimonidean Halakhah: Traditional and Academic Perspectives" (2008), both of which originally published in Yeshiva University's Maimonidean Studies, and includes a Hebrew section of several letters from two twentieth-century Torah giants (R. Joseph Kafih and R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinbeg), as well as from the nineteenth-century-maskil Nahman Isaac Fischmann to R. Samuel David Luzzatto zt"l (ShaDaL).

The article regarding superstition is especially refreshing in the recent resurgence of many customs and practices that are arguably superstitious. One example of this resurgence is the book Shemirat ha-Guf veha-Nefesh that is replete with practices that can be labeled (surely according to the Rambam as explicated by Shapiro) as superstitious. In his article on errors in Maimonides Shapiro provides many examples of persons who held Maimonides and others could err as well as many who hold that one cannot attribute difficult passages to error. For example, notes that the Hida (contrary to what we have seen above regarding his view of other scholars) held that one can not write off difficulties in Maimonides' statements to error as "[i]f such approaches are adopted every insignificant student will be able to offer them, and what value is there in writing such thing?" (Shapiro, 8)[5]. On the other hand Shapiro marshals numerous sources, including the Ramabam himself, who allow for the errors in the Rambam. In the letter to the sages of Lunel, the Rambam states that in his old age he suffers from forgetfulness. (See Shapiro 73 n.295, 76 nn. 308, 309 discussing the controversy over the authenticity of these letters). However, even explicit statements from the Rambam himself have been disputed by later authorities. For example, although the Rambam concedes regarding a law in Yad that he erred, the Gra says that the Rambam was erring is saying he erred. The Gra explains that the original law in Yad is indeed right contrary to the Rambam's own position. (Shapiro 69 n.282). The Gra's position is somewhat tenuous, aside from the obvious issue of ignoring the statement of the original author, as "a number of . . . achronim provided what they believed to be better proofs for Maimonides' decisions than he himself was able to supply" but is has been shown "that the aharonim who adopted this approach erred in almost every example." (Shapiro 54 n.227).

Included in the book is a short "Note on Maimonides and Muhammad" following censorship that occurred in his "Islam and the Halakhah," Judaism 42:3 (Summer 1993): 332-343, about which Shapiro writes:
The "Note on Maimonides and Muhammad" found at the end of the English section requires a bit of explanation, as it speaks to the times in which we live and the sometimes precarious state of scholarship when it comes up against larger political forces. In 1993, I published an article in Judaism entitled "Islam and the Halakhah." In the version of the article submitted to the journal, I mentioned that Maimonides referred to Muhammad as a "madman," and in a few lines I also explained the origin of the term. When the article appeared in print, however, I was surprised to find that this had been removed without my knowledge. Naively, I thought that this was an innocent mistake, and I inquired as to what had happened. Imagine my shock when I was told that my article had been censored because the journal did not want to publish anything that could be seen as offensive to Muslims! While some may see this as understandable in the wake of the Salman Rushdie episode, it was nevertheless a betrayal of scholarship, which cannot be guided by political correctness. I would hope that any Muslims who see the "Note on Maimonides and Muhammad" will understand that its intent is not to insult their prophet, but rather to clarify a historical issue.
Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters is available for purchase here at Amazon.com.

The editors of the Seforim blog take great pride in the first post (of hopefully many frequent posts) at this new web address being able to discuss Professor Shapiro's new work. This is so, as Professor Marc B. Shapiro has been (as many others) a frequent contributor to the Seforim blog. It is such contributions that make the blog so much better.

Notes:
[1] Much of the material on R. Hayyim Hirschensohn was brought to my attention by Marc Herman, "Orthodoxy and Modernity: Rabbi Hayyim Hirschensohn's Malki ba-kodesh," (BA thesis, Brandeis University, 2005), 18-51. For a recent review of the scholarly consensus on R. Hayyim Hirschensohn, see Marc B. Shapiro, "Review of Jewish Commitment in a Modern World: Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson and His Attitude to Modernity by David Zohar," The Edah Journal 5:1 (Tammuz 5765): 1-6. Additionally, parts of the material on this topic of claiming that people forgot, comes from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi's article "Helem Davar u-Tous Sofer." Ashkenazi's article was originally supposed to appear in the journal Or Yisrael no. 15 (Nissan 5659), but at the last minute the editors decided not to publish it and instead the article was published separately in a run of 25 copies. Ashkenazi, himself an outstanding repository of material - it seems unlikely he forgets but he is human - in this article lists numerous examples of errors that can only be attributed to forgetfulness or printing error. For instance, Ashkenazi notes that R. Yechiel Epstein in his Arukh Ha-Shulhan states "it is surprising that the Rif does not mention the laws of yayin pagum, not in the eigth chapter of berakhot discussing the laws of wine for blessing, or in the tenth chapter of Pesachim regarding kiddush and havdalah." In fact, however, the Rif in the tenth chapter of Pesachim does discuss the laws of yayin pagum.
Or, the case of R. Aryeh Leib ben Asher Gunzberg (author of Shu"t Shaagat Aryeh), who notes in his Turei Even, that "we never find anywhere that the reading of the Bikurim passage is called Vidyu." Turei Even, Megilah, 20, s.v. mihu. Ashkenazi cites R. Yeruchum Fishel Perlow's comments in the journal Noam who notes R. Gunzberg forgot the mishna in Bikurim 2:2 which calls this recitation "viduy" as well as the Rambam in the laws of Bikurim 3:5, who says "it is a mitzvah to preform viduy on the bikurim." Ashkenazi adds the Tosefta in Bekurim chapter one and the Yerushalmi Bikurim, chapter 2 also refer to this process as viduy.

Another example, this one with the Hida. The Hida in Machzik Beracha (O.C. 468:10) and Lev David (end of chapter 10) states the author of the SeMaK is R. Yecheil. But, the real author is R. Yitzhak Corbeil. The Hida, in his own work on Hebrew bibliography, Shem ha-Gedolim, actually gets it right. But, it appears that he forgot that when he wrote these other works.

[2] R. Moshe Feinstein also argues the Sifre is not connected with the Talmudic statement. See Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah II, #44-45. R. Feinstein, however, ultimately comes to the opposite conclusion then that of R. Hirschensohn - the opinion of the Rambam must be followed and women cannot hold high office.

[3] As an aside, one of the many letters to R. Hirschensohn regarding women's voting rights came from Yehiel Mihel Goldberg from Radom. Goldberg attempts to bolster R. Hirschensohn with the (now) well-known statement of R. Shmuel Archivolti in his Ma'ayan Ganim and recorded by R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein in both his Torah Temimah and Mekor Barukh that supposedly is a halakhic statement which allows for women to study Talmud. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the Ma'ayan Ganim is not a responsa work or halakhic work. But, Goldberg's use of the Torah Temimah for this point seems to be the earliest. While the Torah Temimah was first printed in 1902 and then reprinted in 1904, it was not reprinted until 1928 and Goldberg's letter was written in 1921. Perhaps Goldberg's use evidences that the Torah Temimah was well received soon after it was published.

[4] This work, Helem Davar was recently printed (Beni Brak, 2006) for the first time in book form from manuscript - it also was printed as part of the lager book Iggerot ve-Haskmot Rabbenu ha-Hida also in 2006. Prior to this 2006 publication, R. Yehuda Leib Maimon published Helem Davar in the journal Sinai 43 (1948): 301-15. The 2006 edition includes Maimon's original article as well as a commentary on Helem Davar, Hokher Davar.

[5] This argument, essentially a slippery slope argument, is also applied to making textual emendations. See, e.g. R. Y. Landau, Noda be-Yehuda Kama, Even ha-Ezer, 32; this issue is discussed by Y.S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim, Ramat Gan, 2007, pp. 255-56.



]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:17:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/7/8/Forgetfulness--Other-Human-Errors-a-New-Monography-by-Marc-Shapr Special Subscription Offer to Tradition http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/25/Special-Subscription-Offer-to-Tradition In honor of the adoption of TraditionOnline Seforim Blog, Tradition Online is offering, for a limited time only, a reduced price of $15 for a 1-year, online-only subscription to Tradition. This will entitle you to complete online access to upcoming issues as well as all 50 years of the Tradition archives.

To subscribe, simply go to the Subscriptions link on the TraditionOnline.org sidebar, choose the 1-year online-only subscription option at the bottom of the page, and when you get to your shopping cart, enter the promotional code: Seforim. The price will then be reduced to $15.

The TraditionOnline Seforim blog (TSB) is, of course, open to the public for free, and will always remain that way.

Also, for those of you who are already subscribed to Seforim Email Updates - you don't have to do anything to continue receiving your email updates. You will be automatically connected to TSB email updates. Anyone interested in signing up for TSB email updates can do so on the top left corner of the TSB home page.
]]> Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:55:29 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/25/Special-Subscription-Offer-to-Tradition Important Announcement http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/24/Important-Announcement Dear Seforim Blog Readers,

It is with great pleasure that we announce today that Tradition Online (TraditionOnline.org) will be adopting the Seforim blog onto its website.
We believe that the Seforim blog is a premiere source of online Jewish learning, and we hope that our resources and expanding website will help the newly-named Tradition Seforim Blog (TSB) continue to grow. TSB remains easily accessible at its new URL - seforim.TraditionOnline.org, and can also be accessed through Tradition's website.

Allow me to assure you that the current Seforim editors will continue to exclusively direct the content and direction of the blog, and that TSB will continue to welcome your comments on the site. We salute Dan Rabinowitz for his excellent work, and look forward to helping him bring TSB to greater audiences.

Sincerely,

Shlomo Brody
Online Editor, Tradition
TraditionOnline@rabbis.org

]]> Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/24/Important-Announcement Upcoming Auctions http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/23/Upcoming-Auctions
There are two upcoming auctions. The first, Kestenbaum & Co. will take place this Thursday, June 26th, the catalog is available on their website. The auction includes R. S.R. Hirsch's copy of the Zohar, which is interesting in that R. Hirsch is not readily associated with Kabbalah. Of course, R. Hirsch and other German Jews had a more nuanced view of Kabbalah and were not antagonistic as some others (think certain groups of Yemenites).

Additionally, for those interested in incunabula, R. David Kimchi's (RaDaK) Sefer ha-Shorashim, Naples 1490 is for sale. It is worth noting that a tremendous amount of incunabula - by my count some 96 titles! - are available online at the JNUL Digitized Book Repository including this edition of the Sefer ha-Shorashim. To have access to so many rare titles is extrodinary. Even if one has access to a library that has a few incunabula it is difficult to view them let alone browse through and copy and print pages from these works.

This edition of the Sefer ha-Shorashim is also important in that it is different than the later editions. One of the readings this edition contains implicates the correct reading of Zekher Amalek. (See J. Penkower's excellent article on the topic, "Minhag u-Mesorah - 'Zekher Amalek' be-Hamesh or be-Shesh Nikkudot" in Iyun Mikrah u-Parshanut, vol. 4 (1997) 71-128, esp. pp. 82-3.)

Another work of interest, especially in light of some recent controversies, is Tuv Ta'am by R. Aron Tzvi Friedman, discussing various laws of Shehitah. As noted by Goldman, "according to a family legend, the English translation of this work convinced President Ulysses S. Grant to eat only kosher meat."

Other mentions include:

The first edition of R. Hutner's Torat ha-Nazir, that includes R. Kook's approbation (removed in some later versions).

Aneh Kesil, a polemic defending the authenticity of the Yerushalmi Kodshim.


Asufa has an auction coming up on July 3rd. Their catalog is available online here.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/23/Upcoming-Auctions A Note Regarding the Recitation of Brikh Shemei http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/21/A-Note-Regarding-the-Recitation-of-Brikh-Shemei

A Note Regarding the Recitation of Brikh Shemei

by Rabbi Yechiel Goldhaber

Rabbi Yehiel Goldhaber of Jerusalem is the author of the (currently) two-volume authoritative work on the customs of the Mattersdorf Kehilla entitled Minhagei Ha-Kehillot (2004) and is at work on additional volumes, as well as on a complete history of the area and rabbonim of the Mattersdorf Kehilla. He is also completing a volume on coffee.

In addition to his authoritative articles on Kabbalat Shabbat in Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael, Rabbi Goldhaber has published many articles on the topics of halakha and minhagim in Yerushateinu, Yeshurun, Tzohar, Ohr Yisrael, and many more.
In addition to its wide readership amongst the followers of the Mattersdorf Kehilla, Minhagei Ha-Kehillot has been praised by leading scholars in the academic community for its wide-ranging and comprehensive footnotes relevant to kehillot beyond Mattersdorf.

In Rabbi Goldhaber's post at the Seforim blog below, he explores the origins of two seemingly independent customs relating to the Torah reading - Brikh Shemei and vaYehi Binso'a ha-Aron. An examination of their history reveals that the inclusion of one possibly impacted the placement of the other. The recitation of vaYehi Binso'a is a fairly old custom. But, in its original incarnation this verse, as a simple reading of its contents imply, was said as the Torah was removed from the ark. That is, while the torah is moving. Today, however, this verse is said while the Torah is firmly ensconced in the ark. R Goldhaber suggests that the much later inclusion of Brikh Shemei may have "bumped" vaYehi Binso'a to an earlier spot.

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.



בפרשיתנו נמצאת פרשה מיוחדת "פרשה בפני עצמה" והיא השמירה ללווית עם ישראל בעת מסעם במדבר.

פסוקים אלו נוהגים כהיום בתפוצות ישראל לאמרם עם הוצאת הס"ת מארון הקודש.

לרגע אדלג על פסוקים אלו, ואתמקד במנהג אמירת "בריך שמיה" עם הוצאת הספר.

תפלת "בריך שמיה" מקורו בזוהר הק', פרשת ויקהל, דף רו ע"א: "אמר רבי שמעון, כד מפקין ס"ת בצבורא למקרא ביה, מתפתחין תרעי שמייא דרחמין ומעוררין את אהבה לעילה ואבעיליה לבר נש למימר הכי: בריך שמיה דמארי עלמא...".

עם התפשטות הזוהר וכתבי האר"י החל להתפשט -כיתר מנהגי המקובלים- גם אמירת 'בריך שמיה' בקרב קהילות ישראל. לראשונה הודפס בספר 'תפלה לדוד', עותק יחיד בעולם נמצא בבית הספרים שבירושלים, מאת המחבר ר' דוד ב"ר יוסף קארקו, נדפס בקושטא שנת רצ"ה, עלה לארץ מטורקיה, ורשם לעצמו מנהג התפילה בירושלים [מהספרים החשובים למנהג המקורי בא"י!] כבר בהקדמה מצטט המחבר ארבע פעמים קטעים מדברי הזוהר. ואכן בדף 27 הובא "בקשה להוצאת הס"ת" ומעתיק לשון בריך שמיה.

לאחריו העתיקו ר' עמנואל ב"ר יקותיאל בניונטו, בסוף ספרו 'לוית חן' על כללי תורת הדקדוק, מנטובה שי"ז, בסוף הספר הוא מעתיק מספר הזוהר אזהרות ודברי מוסר בענין שמירת כבוד בה"כ. בין הקטעים הוא מעתיק גם לשון ה"בריך שמיה". לציין שר' עמנואל היה חכם וחסיד ומקובל, הוא אשר הגיה את דפוס ראשון של הזוהר, וכן ספר מערכות אלקות (חייט). לאחריו הביאו בספר 'סדר היום' לר"מ בן מכיר מצפת.

הסידור הראשון המביאו "הלכה למעשה" הוא דוקא בפולין, אצל המדקדק המפורסם רבי שבתי סופר מפרעמישלא, בלטימור תשנ"ד עמוד 359, לא רק שהוא מעתיקו אלא הוא גם מבאר פירוש מילותיו! סידור חשוב זה נערך בשנת שע"ז, לערך. ומאז והלאה, החל אט אט להתפשט ע"י סידורים שונים.

תפלה זו, משכה אליה שאלות שונות, לדוגמה: זמן אמירתו, האם רק בשבת, או שמא גם בחול. משמעות ביטויים תמוהים, כגון "בר אלהין" וכן מה פשר המילים "סגידנא מקמא דיקר אורייתא". תביעת צרכים בשבת, ובירור נוסחאותיו, על כל אלה האריך ידידי הרב בנימין שלמה המבורגר, בספרו הנפלא 'שרשי מנהגי אשכנז' ח"א.

באתי לדון בזה בפרט אחד, שלכאורה הוא שולי ביותר -ובגדר "דקדוקי עניות", אולם היות ולאחרונה דנים בזה השכם וערב, אענה אני חלקי גם בזה, והוא:

שעת המדויקת לאמירת בריך שמיה: אם לאומרו בפתיחת הארון לפני הוצאת הספר, או שמא רק לאחר שהוציאוהו כבר, והמוציא מחזיקו ביד, או שמא בשלב יותר מאוחר!

לכאורה מלשון הזוהר כד מפקין ס"ת בצבורא למקרי משמע שיש לאמרו תוך כדי הוצאת הספר מהארון.

ואחרי בירור הנושא באנו לידי ארבעה מנהגים שונים!

עקב אריכות הדברים אצטט רק למראה מקומות ולא אאריך בהם, על אף שמן הדין כן לבאר את הלשונות.

א] לאומרו רק אחרי הוצאת הספר, כן כתב: סידור רבי שבתי סופר, סידור רבי יעקב עמדין, סדר קריה"ת והלכותיה. ערוך השלחן בסימנים קלב, רפב ו-רצב. כן נוטה דעת רבי יוסף חיים הבבלי בשו"ת רב פעלים ח"ג, סוד ישרים סימן ח, על אף שבספרו "בן איש חי" פ' תולדות לא נגע בבעיה זו.

רבי אברהם יעקב זלזניק, ראש ישיבת עץ חיים, במשך חייו היה מעורר את העולם על דברין הטעון תיקון בסדר התפלה, לדעתו! בין הדברים היה גם שלפי דעתו יש לאמרו אחרי ההוצאה, וכפשטות לשון הזוהר. ועוד הוסיף לטעון, שאחרת נגרם חוסר כוונה למתפללים! [יש מקום לחלוק עליו בזה].

ב] לאמרו בעוד הספר באה"ק:

כן כתב החיד"א בספרו תורת השלמים סימן כב סעיף ב: כשפותח הארון להוציא ס"ת יאמר...

רבי חיים פאלאגי' בספרו 'כף החיים' סו"ס כח: "העושה פתיחת ההיכל לא יוציא הס"ת תכף שפותח, אלא ישהה מעט כדי שיוכלו לומר בריך שמיה... ואם יוציא תיכף הס"ת מתחיל גדלו, ולא יוכלו לאומרו כל אחד בכונה...". וכן משמעות המ"ב בסימן רפב וכה"ח (סופר) סימן קלג וכן מפורש בקצות השלחן סימן כה.

כן נהגו בקהילה עתיקה בארם צובה, שמעתי מאת הרב המקובל רבי מרדכי עטיה, ועוד.

וכן נוהגים אצל כל עדות החסידים לגזעיהם.

לגבי הנהגת העולם, כבר לפני כשלושים שנה התעניינתי אצל זקני ירושלים, הן מעדת החסידים והן מעדת האשכנזים, רובם ככולם ענו ואמרו ש"המנהג הישן" לאמרו כשהס"ת עדיין בהיכל!

ורק הודות לפעולותיו של הרב זלזניק ש"הרעיש" את העולם על כך, הוקבע בעולם הישיבות, להקפיד כדעתו [וכן ראיתי שרבי יצחק נתן קופרשטוק מזדעזע כראותו אחד הנוהג כמנהג זה].

ג] שאין נפק"מ מתי לאמרו, בהרבה קהלות בארופה לא דקדקו בכך, וכן כותב שו"ת אגרות משה Yechiel Goldhaber Customs בעברית Prayer Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/21/A-Note-Regarding-the-Recitation-of-Brikh-Shemei Aryeh A. Frimer Review of Daniel Sperber&#8217;s Darka shel Halakha http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/12/Aryeh-A-Frimer-Review-of-Daniel-Sperber8217s-Darka-shel-Halakha

Lo Zu haDerekh: A Review of
Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber’s Darka shel Halakha
by Aryeh A. Frimer

Rabbi Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer is the Ethel and David Resnick Professor of Active Oxygen Chemistry at Bar Ilan University. He has lectured and published widely on various aspects of “Women and Halakha.”

Among his many articles, Rabbi Frimer is the author of “Women and Minyan,” Tradition, 23:4 (Summer 1988): 54-77, available online here; “Women’s ‘Megilla’ Reading,” in Ora Wiskind Elper, ed., Traditions and Celebrations for the Bat Mitzvah (Urim Publications: Jerusalem, 2003), 281-304, available online here (PDF); “Guarding the Treasure: A Review of Tamar Ross, Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism,” BDD - Journal of Torah and Scholarship 18 (April 2007): 67-106 (English), available online here (PDF); “Feminist Innovations in Orthodoxy Today: Is Everything in Halakha - Halakhic?” JOFA Journal 5:2 (Summer 2004/Tammuz 5764): 3-5, available here (PDF).

Over a three year period, from 5758-5760 (Fall 1997-Summer 2000), Rabbi Frimer delivered in-depth high-level shiurim on "Women and Halakha" to the Women of Rehovot at the Tiferet Moshe Synagogue – Rabbi Jacob Berman Community Center. The basic sourcebook for these lectures was R. Elyakim Getsel Ellinson, haIsha ve-haMitsvot – Vol. I: Bein Isha leYotsra, and this series of classes were regularly recorded as MP3 files, and the source materials, handouts and lecture notes were converted into PDF files and these files are now available here.

Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer are the co-authors of "Women's Prayer Services - Theory and Practice," Tradition 32:2 (Winter 1998): 5-118, available online here (PDF); and of the forthcoming “Women, Kri’at haTorah and Aliyyot.”

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.


Allow me to begin my review of Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber’s new volume Darka shel Halakha, with a few words of introduction.[1] I have the greatest respect for Prof. Sperber both as a scholar par excellence and as a human being. Over the almost 35 years I have been at Bar-Ilan University, we have developed a warm friendship and mutual respect. He writes clearly and beautifully, with great knowledge, sensitivity and depth – and his book Darka shel Halakha is no exception. Nevertheless, I am forced to disagree with his analysis and conclusions. I strongly believe that we have to be sensitive to women’s spiritual needs or as Hazal say: לעשות נחת רוח לנשים (Sifra, Parsheta 2; Hagiga 16b). But at the same time, we have to be honest about what the halakha clearly states – so that, at the same time, we will not be guilty of האהבה מקלקלת את השורה.

The question of women receiving aliyyot, which lies at the center of Darka shel Halakha, is briefly discussed in a baraita cited in the Talmud Megilla (23a) which reads (Source 1):

(1) תלמוד בבלי מסכת מגילה דף כג עמוד א
תנו רבנן: הכל עולין למנין שבעה, ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. אבל אמרו חכמים: אשה לא תקרא בתורה, מפני כבוד צבור.

Despite the above negative ruling of the Talmud and, in its wake, of all subsequent codifiers,[2] within the last decade, there have been two major attempts to reopen this issue. One was penned by R. Mendel Shapiro[3] who argues that kevod ha-tsibbur is a social concept – and a woman’s general standing in society was lower than men’s. Nowadays when this is no longer true, a community can be mohel on its kavod – voluntarily set aside its honor. He errs, however, since the vast majority of rishonim and aharonim disagree with his analysis. Kevod ha-tsibbur has nothing to do with social standing. The vast majority of posekim maintain that kevod ha-tsibbur stems from women’s lack of obligation in keri’at haTorah, and expresses itself either in terms of tsniut or zilzul ha-mitsvah. The Tsniut School argues that women should not be at the center of communal ritual unnecessarily – and this is particularly true by keri’at haTorah, from which they are freed. The second school maintains that there is an issue of zilzul ha-mitsva in that the men who are duty-bound should fulfill the mitsva that is incumbent upon them – and not delegate it to those who are not obligated.[4]

The second attempt is that of R. Prof. Daniel Sperber,[5] in Darka shel Halakha, and I would like to focus on two major issues.

Kevod haTsibbur: Instruction or Recommendation?

Firstly, R. Sperber has suggested that the phrase in Megilla 23a “However, the Rabbis declared: a woman should not read from the Torah – because of kevod ha-tsibbur” describes what Hazal believed to be the preferred or recommended mode of conduct, the ideal way of performing keri’at haTorah.

Indeed, ke-darko ba-kodesh, Prof. Sperber surveys all the places where it states אבל אמרו חכמים and shows that some cases are merely expressions of the ideal, while others refer to things that are actually assur. Yet, he concludes [Note 19, p. 21] that that in the case of women’s aliyyot: "לא נראה שמדובר ... בתקנת חז"ל אלא שאינו ראוי"

This position is very problematic, particularly in this case of women’s aliyyot which is one of kevod ha-tsibbur.

(1) Firstly, Meiri, Kiryat Sefer, Ma’amar 5, sec. a, writes (Source 2):

(2) מאירי, קרית ספר, מאמר חמישי חלק א
נמצאת למד ...שהכל עולין למנין ז' אפילו אשה וקטן…, אלא שמיחו באשה מפני כבוד צבור...

The word “מיחו” appears many times in the Mishnaic and Tamudic literature and it refers to strongly verbalized objection and public reproof. See for example, Source 3.

(3) מסכת פסחים פרק ד משנה ח
משנה: ששה דברים עשו אנשי יריחו על שלשה מיחו בידם ועל שלשה לא מיחו בידם
רמב"ם: אלו הששה דברים כולם היו שלא ברצון חכמים, אלא שעל שלשה מהם - והם הראשונים - לא מיחו בידם חכמים, ושלשה המנויים באחרונה מיחו בידם.

Clearly, from the Meiri’s perspective, the statement אבל אמרו חכמים by women’s aliyyot is not a simple recommendation.

(2) Secondly, there is a group of rishonim and aharonim who maintain that in the specific case of women’s aliyyot, women cannot receive aliyyot, even in cases of she’at ha-dehak or be-diavad. This school includes the Rambam and Semag and many subsequent aharonim (R. Abraham Pinso; R. Matsli’ah Mazuz; R. Ben-Zion Lichtman, R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg and R. Isaac Zilberstein). For example, Rambam (Sources 4 and 5) writes without any qualification that women may not receive aliyyot:

(4) רמב"ם הלכות תפילה ונשיאת כפים פרק יב, הלכה יז
אשה לא תקרא בציבור מפני כבוד הציבור…

(5) הרב מסעוד חי רוקח, מעשה רוקח שם
ורבינו כתב קיצור הדין ד-"אשה לא תקרא מפני כבוד הציבור", א"כ נאסר לגמרי…

Semag (Source 6) records that minors may receive aliyyot, but makes no mention of women whatsoever. On the contrary, he maintains (Sources 7 and 8) that women cannot motsi men in megilla, even be-di-avad, just as they can’t receive aliyyot.

(6) הרב משה בן יעקב מקוצי, ספר מצוות גדול (סמ"ג), עשין סימן יט
כמה [הם] הקוראים, בשבת בשחרית שבעה .. וקטן היודע לקרות ויודע למי מברכים עולה בשבעה למניין.

(7) ספר מצוות גדול – מצוות מדרבנן, הלכות מגילה
…דאף על גב דנשים חייבות במקרא מגילה אינן מוציאות את הזכרים. ואל תשיבני נר חנוכה דאמרינן בפרק במה מדליקין (שבת כג, א) דאשה מדלקת משמע אף להוציא האיש. דשאני מקרא מגילה שהוא כמו קריאת התורה לכך אינה מוציאה את האיש.

(8) מגן אברהם סימן תרפט ס"ק ה
"וי"א שהנשים אינם מוציאות את האנשים "
אינם מוציאות - ול"ד לנרות חנוכה דשאני מגילה דהוי כמו קריאת התורה (סמ"ג) פי' ופסולה מפני כבוד הצבור ולכן אפי' ליחיד אין מוציאה דלא פלוג (רא"ם)

Clearly, according to these authorities, the statement אבל אמרו חכמים is not a simple recommendation.

(3) There is another very large group of posekim (perhaps the majority) led by the R. Yoel Sirkis (Ba”h; Sources 9 and 10) who maintain that one cannot be mohel on kevod ha-tsibbur – particularly in the case of women’s aliyyot. However, bi-she’at ha-dehak – where there is no alternative or no one else eligible - a woman can read, lest keri’at haTorah be cancelled. It is to such cases that the Gemara in Megilla was referring.

(9) הרב יואל סירקיס, בית חדש (ב"ח) טור או"ח סימן נ"ג ד"ה "ואין ממנין"
…אלא הדבר פשוט, כיון שכך תקנו חכמים דחששו לכבוד ציבור, אין ביד הציבור למחול.

(10) בית חדש, טור אורח חיים סימן קמ"ד
... מה שתיקנו חכמים .. משום כבוד הציבור לא תקנו מתחילה אלא היכא שאפשר

For example, in a case of a city with only kohanim cited by Rabbi Sperber himself, Maharam mi-Rothenburg (Source 11) permits women to receive the third through seventh aliya. Otherwise the Torah reading would not occur, for the lineage of the kohanim would be challenged were they to receive the remaining aliyyot. In the language of the Maharam:

(11) שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנברג חלק ד (דפוס פראג) סימן קח
...ועיר שכולה כהנים ואין בה [אפי'] ישראל אחד נראה לי דכהן קורא פעמיים ושוב יקראו נשים דהכל משלימי' למנין ז' אפי' עבד ושפחה וקטן (מגילה כ"ג ע"א). ונהי דמסיק עלה אבל אמרו חכמי' לא תקרא אשה בתורה מפני כבוד הצבור, היכא דלא אפשר ידחה כבוד הצבור מפני פגם כהנים הקוראים שלא יאמרו בני גרושות.

Maharam mi-Rothenburg was only willing to permit bi-she’at ha-dehak. This certainly doesn’t sound like a recommendation המלצה. Rather it is permission given only bi-she’at ha-dehak.

It would seem to me that in Darka shel Halakha there is a blurring of the difference between le-khathila and be-di-avad. For example, Hazal say that one should not use a milchig spoon שאינו בן יומו (not used in last 24 hours) to stir hot chicken soup. Similarly, Hazal indicate that one shouldn’t eat out of utensils that haven’t been immersed in a mikva. In both cases, be-di-avad, the food remains perfectly kosher. Hazal’s ruling in both these cases is not a recommendation - but rather a clear directive how one is required to act; under normative conditions, it is assur to act otherwise. This is also true regarding women’s aliyyot – Hazal forbade it le-khathila, even though be-di-avad or bi-she’at ha-dehak the aliyya may be valid.

Now it should be appreciated that from Prof. Sperber’s perspective it is important that אבל אמרו חכמים be only a המלצה. Prof. Sperber wants to maintain that there really is no “down side” to women getting aliyyot. However, to my mind, he errs – kevod ha-tsibbur is a takana le-khathila, not a recommendation.

In this regard, I would also like to briefly mention one further crucial point, relevant to both the papers of R. Mendel Shapiro and R. Daniel Sperber – but which we will not be able to develop fully here at the Seforim blog.[6] When Hazal talked about women getting aliyyot, they were referring to a system in which the oleh made the berakhot and read aloud - for himself and the community. However, nowadays, the job of the oleh is bifurcated: the oleh makes the berakhot and ba’al korei reads aloud. This raises a fundamental question: how can one person make berakhot, while another does the ma’aseh ha-mitsva. For there not to be a berakha le-vatalah there must be a mechanism to transfer the reading from the ba’al korei to the oleh. That mechanism is either shom’eah ke-oneh or shelihut. But both mechanisms require that both the oleh and ba’al korei be obligated – otherwise there is no areivut. Since women are not obligated in keri’at haTorah, they can serve neither as the oleh nor as the ba’al korei - me-ikkar ha-din – because the birkhot haTorah of the oleh will be berakhot levatalah. Note that all this has nothing to do with kevod haTsibbur. The only case in which the issue of kevod haTsibbur begins is in the uncommon case where a woman makes the berakhot and reads for herself.[7] Hence, under a bifurcated system, there is a clear downside in allowing women to read or serve as olot – a proliferation of berakhot le-vatala!

Does Kevod haBeriyyot Defer Kevod haTsibbur –
The Rules of Kevod haBeriyyot

Lets now turn to the second issue – and this is Prof. Sperber’s major hiddush in this book. Briefly, Prof. Sperber notes that there is a concept in halakha called kevod ha-beriyyot which refers to shame or embarrassment (בושה או בזיון) which would result from the fulfillment of a religious obligation. The view of the halakha is that kevod ha-beriyyot can defer rabbinic obligations and prohibitions. Hence, Prof. Sperber maintains that if there is a community of women who are offended by their not receiving aliyyot – because of the rabbinic rule of kevod hatsibbur, then kevod ha-beriyyot should defer kevod ha-tsibbur.

Professor Sperber’s book is devoted to describing the use of kevod ha-beriyyot in the halakhic literature. He is by no means the first to do this and the subject is extensively reviewed and analyzed by Rabbis Rakover,[8] Blidstein,[9] Lichtenstein,[10] Feldman,[11] and many others.[12]

Let’s begin with the Gemara in Berakhot 19b:

(12) תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף יט עמוד ב
(א) אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: המוצא כלאים בבגדו פושטן אפילו בשוק, מאי טעמא (משלי כ"א) "אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה'" - כל מקום שיש חלול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב.
(ב) מתיבי: קברו את המת וחזרו, ולפניהם שתי דרכים, אחת טהורה ואחת טמאה, בא בטהורה - באין עמו בטהורה, בא בטמאה - באין עמו בטמאה, משום כבודו. [רוב הראשונים גורסים: באים בטמאה, בא עמהם משום כבודם] אמאי? לימא: אין חכמה ואין תבונה לנגד ה'. תרגמה רבי אבא בבית הפרס דרבנן
(ג)...תא שמע: גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה [את] לא תעשה שבתורה. ואמאי? לימא: אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה'! - תרגמה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו (דברים י"ז, יא) דלא תסור [מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל[ ...כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על לאו דלא תסור, ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן.
(ד) רש"י: כל מילי דרבנן וכו' - והכי קאמר להו: דבר שהוא מדברי סופרים נדחה מפני כבוד הבריות, וקרי ליה לא תעשה - משום דכתיב לא תסור, ודקא קשיא לכו דאורייתא הוא, רבנן אחלוה ליקרייהו לעבור על דבריהם היכא דאיכא כבוד הבריות.

The upshot of this Gemara is that if one is wearing sha’atnez – the wearer is obligated to remove it even in the marketplace, despite any possible embarrassment. The Gemara explains that G-d’s honor/dignity takes priority over that of Man. However, if the garment is only rabbinically forbidden, one can wait until they return home to change. The reason is that kevod ha-beriyyot, the honor of the individual, can defer rabbinic prohibitions.

Prof. Sperber adequately shows that kevod ha-beriyyot has always been an important consideration in pesak. However, an in-depth survey of the responsa literature over the past 1000 years makes it clear that it cannot be invoked indiscriminately. Indeed, as the gedolei ha-posekim make apparent, there are clearly defined parameters which Prof. Sperber seems to ignore. Hence, R. Sperber’s application of kevod ha-beriyyot to the issue of women’s aliyyot is seriously flawed. In this brief presentation, we will discuss nine of the aforementioned principles.

(1) Firstly, kevod ha-tsibbur is merely the kevod ha-beriyyot of the tsibbur.[13] Hence it makes no sense that the honor of the individual should have priority over the honor of a large collection of individuals. Indeed, this is explicitly stated by the 13th century Meiri. [Source 13; Meiri is referring to Source 12ב]
(13) מאירי, בית הבחירה, ברכות דף יט עמוד ב:
{יש גורסים בא בטומאה באין עמו. ואין הדברים נראין} שאין כבוד רבים נדחה מפני יחיד או יחידים, [וכן הוא] באבל רבתי...ואף בתלמוד המערב...

(2) Secondly, The Meiri (Source 14) also emphatically states:
(14) מאירי, בית הבחירה, ברכות דף יט עמוד ב:
...שלא אמרה תורה כבד אחרים בקלון עצמך...

Giving women aliyyot by overriding kevod ha-tsibbur with kevod ha-beriyyot would effectively be honoring women by dishonoring the community – and, hence, cannot be done.

(3) R. Sperber’s suggestion would ask us to uproot completely the rabbinic ban on women’s aliyyot. However, kevod ha-beriyyot can only temporarily set aside a rabbinic ordinance. As stated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Source 15):

(15) תלמוד ירושלמי כלאים פ"ט ה"א, לב ע"א
הרי שהיה מהלך בשוק ונמצא לבוש כלאים, תרין אמוראין (שני אמוראים חולקים בדבר): חד אמר אסור; וחרנה (ואחר) אמר מותר. מאן דאמר אסור - דבר תורה; מאן דאמר מותר - כההיא דאמר רבי זעירא: גדול כבוד הרבים שהוא דוחה את המצוה בלא תעשה שעה אחת.

Many of the commentaries on the Yerushlami and posekim hold that this proviso of sha’ah ahat applies to Rabbinic mitsvot as well – including: Tosafot, Ketubot 103b, end of s.v. “Oto”; Or Zarua, Hilkhot Erev Shabbat, sec. 6; Penei Moshe; Vilna Gaon; R. David Pardo; Arukh haShulhan (Source 16); and others.

(16) ערוך השולחן, יו"ד סימן ש"ג, סעיף ב:
שאני הכא [בכלאים] דהוא לשעה קלה, דכשיבא לביתו יגידו לו ויפשוט. ..ואפי' באיסור דרבנן תמידי נ"ל דמחוייב להגיד לו, ואין למנוע מצד כבוד הבריות

(4) Next, many posekim including R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach, R. Meir Simha of Dvinsk (Source 17), R. Jeroham Perlow, R. Moses Feinstein, R. Chaim Zev Reines indicate that the “dishonor” that is engendered must result from an act of disgrace - not from refraining to give honor. As Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk writes:

(17) אור שמח (הרב מאיר שמחה הכהן מדווינסק) הלכות יו"ט פרק ו, הלכה י"ד
גדול כבוד הבריות...זה דווקא במידי דבזיונא הוא לבריות, אבל...ענין של כבוד...מי שרי?

Only in cases where kavod is obligatory (e.g., for a King or mourner) is the absence of kavod considered embarrassing, as indicated by R. Isaac Blazer (Source 18),

(18) שו"ת פרי יצחק, נד (הרב יצחק בלזר)
צריך לומר דסבירא להו לגמרא במקום שהכבוד מחוייב גם העדר כבוד הוא בכלל כבוד הבריות, דהעדר כבוד הוא כמו גנאי... ועיין בכתובות (דף סט) מניין שאבל יושב בראש....

Prof. Yaakov Blidstein discusses burial on Yom Tov sheini shel galuyot, which is permitted because Yom Tov sheni is de-rabbanan, while not burying is kevod ha-beriyyot.[14] However, a long list of posekim will not permit 20 individuals to violate Yom Tov sheni to attend to a burial, when only 10 are required to bury the deceased and the additional 10 would be coming along out of honor. Only the first 10 are permitted.

Similarly, in the case of aliyyot, no act of shame has been performed to all those not called to the Torah (both men and women); they are simply not honored. Kevod ha-beriyyot cannot be activated under such conditions.

R. Daniel Sperber in his book Darka shel Halakha (p. 77, note 104) attempts to challenge this principle - that kevod ha-beriyyot is inapplicable when no act of shame has been performed. He cites the fact that a bride is permitted to wash her face on Yom Kippur (Source 19).

(19) מסכת יומא פרק ח משנה א
משנה: יום הכפורים אסור באכילה ובשתיה וברחיצה ובסיכה ובנעילת הסנדל ובתשמיש המטה והמלך והכלה ירחצו את פניהם והחיה תנעול את הסנדל דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אוסרין:
רשי והכלה - צריכה נוי עד שתחבב על בעלה, וכל שלשים יום לחופתה היא קרויה כלה.
ר' עובדיה מברטנורא: והכלה - צריכה נוי כדי לחבבה על בעלה. וכל שלשים יום קרויה כלה:

R. Sperber assumes that the prohibition against washing on Yom Kippur is rabbinic (when many authorities hold it is biblical) and that the permission to wash stems from kevod ha-beriyyot. Based on this, he wants to demonstrate that the shame here results from something that was not done.

This analysis is in error because the leniency for a bride has nothing to do with kevod ha-beriyyot. What was forbidden was rehitsa shel ta’anug, but not washing of necessity, e.g., for cleanliness. A bride is permitted to wash her face on Yom Kippur, so that her face would not be displeasing in her new grooms eyes – and this is considered laving of necessity. As Rashi and Rav write (Source 19 above), a bride requires beauty.

R. Sperber (p. 83) further cites a responsum of R. Isaiah of Trani, Resp. haRid, sec. 21 which permits the lighting of candles in the synagogue on Yom Tov because of “kevod ha-beriyyot.” R. Sperber attempts to use this example to demonstrate that kevod ha-beriyyot can set aside prohibitions even if it is only to honor those who are attending synagogue.

Unfortunately, he errs in his analysis here as well. Similar teshuvot are found from the Rid, Rosh and Maharam of Rothenburg.[15] And their goal is to show that lighting candles in the synagogue come under the rubric of tsorekh okhel nefesh because they honor people (Rid), the synagogue (Maharam) or the holiday (Rosh). Once it its tsorekh okhel nefesh, it is the tsorekh okhel nefesh which defers the prohibition.

(5) Nearly all authorities – including, inter alia, R. Naftali Amsterdam (Source 20), R. Elhanan Bunim Wasserman, R. Makiel Tsvi haLevi Tannenbaum, Rav Yitzchak Nissim (Source 21), R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, R. Elijah Bakshi Doron (Source 22), R. Israel Shepansky - maintain that kevod ha-beriyyot requires an objective standard that affects or is appreciated by all.

(20) שו"ת פרי יצחק, נג
הרב נפתלי אמשטרדם: כי הנה כבוד הבריות לא נאמר רק על דבר שהוא גנאי לכל מין האנושי יהיה מאיזה מין שיהיה, כמו מת מצוה או לילך ערום שרוב בני האדם מתביישים מזה. אבל בדבר שהבזיון מתייחס רק לאדם הזה לפי תכונתו, כמו לישא שק או קופה, בזה לא שייך כלל לפטור מטעם כבוד הבריות.

(21) הרב יצחק ניסים, תשובה כתב יד, מרחשון תשכ"ד (יד הרב ניסים)
וכמובן שתלך [הבת מצווה] לפני כן לבית הכנסת להתפלל, אבל לא לעלות לתורה. הלכה מפורשת היא שאין אשה קוראת בתורה בציבור, ואין משנים את ההלכה לפי הרגשות של בני אדם.

(22) הרב אליהו בקשי דורון, שו"ת בנין אב, ח"ב, סימן נ"ה, אות ג'
...כבוד האבל דין הוא שיש לכבד כל האבלים, ובכגון זה כבוד הבריות שיכבדו האבל... אבל אדם פרטי שמחליט לכבד את עצמו...כבודו משיקולים פרטיים אינו יכול לפטור אותו, או לדחות איסור דרבנן.

This view explicitly rejects subjective standards - in which what is embarrassing results from the idiosyncrasies or hypersensitivities of an individual or small group. The vast majority of religiously committed women are not offended when they do not receive an aliyya. Indeed, they understand and accept the halakhic given, although some might clearly have preferred it to be otherwise.

More importantly, does it make halakhic sense that if a group of women – nay, any group, says: “this Rabbinic halakha offends me” – be it mehitsa, tsni’ut, kashrut, stam yeynam, many aspects of taharat ha-mishpahah, who counts for a minyan, and who can serve as a hazzan - then we should have a carte blanche to go about abrogating it. Such a position is untenable, if not unthinkable.[16]

(6) Many leading scholars[17] emphasize that, as in the cases of kevod ha-beriyyot discussed in Berakhot 19b and elsewhere, the shame must result from extraneous factors. Thus, removing the kilayyim garment per se’ is not what causes the shame. Rather, it is that one has no other garment underneath and, hence, remains naked. In such cases, kevod ha-beriyyot can be invoked to nullify the rabbinic commandment which leads to the dishonor. However, kevod ha-beroyyot cannot be invoked to nullify a rabbinic commandment, where the shame comes from the very fulfillment of the rabbinic injunction itself.

Take for example one who is invited to dine with his colleagues or clients, would we allow him to avoid embarrassment by eating fruit and vegetables from which terumot and ma’asrot (which nowadays is Rabbinic) have not been removed, or by consuming hamets she-avar alav haPesah, or by drinking stam yeynam (wine touched or poured by a non-Jew). Or alternatively, suppose someone is at a meeting and is ashamed to walk out in order to daven Minha. And what about prayers at the airport in between flights. Would we allow him to forgo his rabbinic prayer obligation because of this embarrassment?

The answer is that in those cases where acting according to halakha - be it to not eat terumot and ma’asrot, or to not drink stam yeynam, or to fulfill ones prayer obligation – creates the embarrassment, then kevod ha-beriyyot cannot set aside the Rabbinic prohibition. One should be proud to be fulfilling the halakha. Similarly, kevod ha-beriyyot cannot be invoked to uproot the rabbinic consideration of kevod ha-tsibbur which prevents women’s aliyyot. This is because the dishonor stems directly from the very fact that women are not given aliyyot in accordance with the rabbinic guidelines.

(7) That the rabbis of the Talmud were sensitive to women’s spiritual needs is evident from the rabbinic concept of nahat ru’ah (spiritual satisfaction), which was invoked in a variety of instances to permit certain special dispensations for women.[18] R. Sperber maintains that this concept is an expression of kevod ha-beriyyot.[19] Yet, despite this admitted sensitivity, Hazal themselves were not concerned about kevod ha-beriyyot when they ruled that, because of kevod ha-tsibbur, women should not le-khathila receive aliyyot. Hence, how can we?

This argument is all the more true according to the explanation of Rashi on the mechanism of kevod ha-beriyyot deferments. Rashi (Source 12ד cited above) explains that in instances of kevod ha-beriyyot the Rabbis “forgo their honor to allow their edict to be violated.”

(12) תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף יט עמוד ב
..... כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על לאו דלא תסור, ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן.
(ד) רש"י כל מילי דרבנן וכו' - והכי קאמר להו: דבר שהוא מדברי סופרים נדחה מפני כבוד הבריות, וקרי ליה לא תעשה - משום דכתיב לא תסור, ודקא קשיא לכו דאורייתא הוא, רבנן אחלוה ליקרייהו לעבור על דבריהם היכא דאיכא כבוד הבריות.

It is one thing if the clash is unexpected, unanticipated and accidental. But in the case of keri’at haTorah, it was Hazal themselves who knowingly set up the rule of kevod ha-tsibbur which precludes women from aliyyot. Why would we expect them to forgo their honor in such a case?

(8) The Rivash (Resp. Rivash, sec 226) forbade sewing baby clothes during hol ha-moed for a newborn’s circumcision despite the parents’ desire to dress him properly and festively for the event. One of Rivash’s rationales is that since all understand that new clothes cannot be sewn on hol ha-moed - because Hazal forbade it, kevod ha-beriyyot cannot be invoked to circumvent this rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, one cannot invoke kevod ha-beriyyot to allow women to receive aliyyot, because all understand that this has been synagogue procedure for two millennia and that the Rabbis of the Talmud themselves prohibited it.

(9) Rivash (ibid.) and Havot Yair (sec. 95) and others rule against extending the leniency of kevod ha-beriyyot beyond those instances explicitly discussed by Hazal - honor of the deceased (כבוד המת), personal hygiene dealing with excrement, undress, and the wholeness of the family unit. New cases may not be comparable in their nature or severity to the original examples. Indeed, as noted by Prof. Blidstein and R. Aharon Lichtenstein,[20] throughout the two millennia of post-Talmudic responsa literature, kevod ha-beriyyot is rarely if ever cited as the sole or even major grounds for overriding a bona fide rabbinic ordinance. It always appears as one of many additional reasons to be lenient (snif le-hakel). This is indeed the case in nearly all the instances cited at length by R. Daniel Sperber in his book Darka shel Halakha.

What’s more, in those instances where kevod ha-beriyyot is invoked essentially alone, it is because the matter being deferred is a mere, often unbased, stringency (humra be-alma). For example, the custom in some communities prohibiting menstruants to enter the synagogue – which Prof. Sperber has returned to repeatedly (Sperber, pp. 74) - is what the posekim call a humra ve-silsul be-alma. Hence, the fact that even in such stringent communities, menstruants visited the sanctuary on the High Holidays - would be a classic example of kevod ha-beriyyot overruling a humra be-alma.

Now Prof. Sperber will respond, that he too would only invoke kevod ha-beriyyot in the case of women’s aliyyot. After all, there is no real down side - at most we have only violated a recommendation. However, as we have argued above, “aval amru hakhamim” is not a recommendation by women’s aliyyot - but a prohibition le-khathilla. What’s more, a woman who gets an aliyya without reading for herself or who is only the ba’alat keria is responsible for generating berakhot levatala. We have also argued that Prof. Sperber has improperly invoked kevod ha-beriyyot for the case of women’s aliyyot because he has not taken into consideration the kelalim of the gedolei ha-posekim.

I would like to close with one last point. Despite the fact that we strongly disagree with Prof. Sperber’s conclusion, he after all did w ]]> Aryeh A. Frimer Daniel Sperber Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/12/Aryeh-A-Frimer-Review-of-Daniel-Sperber8217s-Darka-shel-Halakha SEFORIM HARD DRIVES SALES UPDATE etc. http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/10/SEFORIM-HARD-DRIVES-SALES-UPDATE-etc SEFORIM HARD DRIVES SALES UPDATE etc.
The Otzrot HaTorah (AKA "The Morgenstern Library") is now ON SALE thru June 30.
The library contains 13,000 volumes in the "regular" version and 14,000 volumes in the "expanded" edition.
The SALE prices are as follows:
Expanded edition: Reg. price $1990 SALE price: $1480.
Standard edition: Reg. price $1480 SALE price: $1160.
There is a payment plan of (up to) 20 monthly payments. Payments can be made by cash, check or credit card.
For those making a one time payment by either cash or check there will be an additional $200 discount (i.e. $1280) for the Expanded version and a $165 discount (i.e. $995) for the regular version.
Please note: The Otzrot HaTorah program includes the 13,000 - 14,000 volumes (scanned originals, categorized but without search) as well as the Otzrot HaShut from Otzar HaPoskim (topic search) plus a few hundred digitized seforim (search, copy-paste, etc.). It also comes with the "HebrewBooks.org" collection (AKA Bayis Molay Seforim).
Purchasers will be entitled to the soon-to-be-released update which will include another 2,000 volumes as well as an update to the Otzrot HaShut as well as an update to the program itself.
Also, Bar Ilan version 16 is now IN STOCK.
Prices are as follows:
Version 16 is $469
Version 16 "plus" (inc. Encyclopedia Talmudis) is $569
Upgrades for previous owners are available as well.
Also, DBS version 14 has arrived! Updates from previous versions are available. (You can also purchase "older" versions for less).
Prices are as follows:
version 10 = $170
version 11 = $210
version 12 = $270
version 13 = $330
version 14 = $420
AND FINALLY, Otzar HaChochma 33% off SALE is still going on until June 22.
BONUS: Purchase any TWO of these Seforim programs (i.e. Otzar HaChochma, Otzrot HaTorah, Bar Ilan, or DBS) and receive a FREE all-in-one photo printer (print, copy, scan). A $100 vailue!
Please contact:
Moishe Flohr
Computer Maven
732-363-4941
cell: 917-456-7855
ezf613@hotmail.com
OtzarInfo@gmail.com

]]> Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/10/SEFORIM-HARD-DRIVES-SALES-UPDATE-etc Shavuah ha-Sefer 2008: A Recommended Reading List http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/2/Shavuah-haSefer-2008-A-Recommended-Reading-List
Shavuah ha-Sefer 2008: A Recommended Reading List

by Eliezer Brodt

Book week just began in Eretz Yisroel. As I wrote last year Every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer-book week. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out for the sale. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time. Just as in last year's post on Shavuah HaSefer, in this post I would just like to mention to some of the very recent titles from the various publishing houses which are available at this years Shavuah HaSefer. As to regular seforim that have come out in the past few months since my last seforim list a new list is being composed of the past few months.

Bar Ilan University Press had a big awakening compared to last year. Amongst their new titles is Mechkarim be-Toldos Yehudi Ashkenaz which is a sefer ha-Yovel in honor of Professor Eric Zimmer. There are many excellent articles in this volume (see here for the table of contents). As the title indicates, these articles are related to Ashkenaz. Another important book, published in conjunction with Oxford University Press, is from the extremely prolific author Professor Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle – Custom, Lore and Iconography. The book covers Jewish customs from the cradle to the grave. This book is based on his previous work Minhaghei Yisroel but as Sperber notes in the introduction, Minhagei Yisrael is not in any order and is eight volumes and thus is not the most user friendly when it comes to locating in a systematic fashion the topics covered. This volume is an attempt to organize some of that material, specifically, materials relating to the Jewish life cycle. Additionally, it includes many updates, corrections, and is the case with Sperber's past works, many interesting illustrations and diagrams. The much awaited volume two of the Keter Mikros Gedolos Chumash on Shemot was printed. (Volume one was not printed yet.) With this volume, Bar Ilan is trying something new as they released this volume in two sizes – big (the previous size) as well as a smaller size version. Only time will tell if they will continue to print both sizes. [The Keter series now has Berashit Vol. 1 and 2, Yehosuha, Shoftim, Shmuel alef and beis, Melachim alef and beis, Yeshaya, Yehezkiel, and Tehilim Vol 1 and 2.]

Iyunei Hamikra volume eight was printed this volume looks like it contains an excellent collection of articles. Another important work reissued (which unfortunately if you have the first edition you are stuck as I am) with many important additions to the first edition was their scientific version of Yesod Moreh of the Ibn Ezra. Amongst the many topics the Yesod Moreh deals with, one in particular around Shavout is worth noting. In this work, the Ibn Ezra takes issue with the "Miztvot counters" those you claim a set 613 mitzvot (see here for our discussion regarding mitzvot counts and the Azharot custom for Shavout.)

Another issue of Badad was printed (#20). Another important title is Am Levodod which collected pieces all about Mesctas Avodah Zorah by Professor Z. Steinfeld.

Another excellent looking volume is the Olam Nistar be-Maddei ha-Zeman from R. Shuchat. This volume contains in-depth studies on the Gra and his opinions in regard to the geulah. It also deals abit with the Ramchal and Rav Kook. There is an interesting chapter discussing the highly controversial work attributed to the Gra the Kol ha-Tohar. Just to add in a source the author seems to have missed Reb. Wolbe writes in his letters (vol 1 pg 227) that:

בענין קול התוהר: הגר"י הוטנר שליט"א אומר, שבעל הלשם שהוא הבר סמכא בענין כתבי הגר"א בקבלה, אינו מזכיר את הספר בכלל. הוא גם השתדל להוציא לאור ספרי הגר"א, ואילו הי' בדעה שזה ספר שיצא מבית מדרשו של הגר"א- לא יתכן שלא הי' משתדל להוציאו או לכל הפחות היה מזכיר אותו. לעומת זאת אמר לי הגר"י קלופט שליט"א שהוא מאמין שזה ספר אוטנטי, ומה שישנם בו דברים המפלאים אותנו, אין בזה כל ראי' שלא נישנו הדברים בבית מדרשו של הגר"א

Reuvan Mass has a few good titles, two of which pertain to the holocaust era. One is called Zikhron be-Sefer from a few authors - E. Farbstein, N. Cohen and A. Yedidya. This book deals with Gedolim that wrote, in their introductions to their works, accounts of their experiences in the Holocaust. The second book, Tenous be-Chrovos by Y. Fund, is about the Agudah Yisroel before and during the war how they dealt with the issues at hand to save the Jews. Aside from these two Holocaust books, Reuvan Mass also has D. Sperber's Nisviat Piskah already reviewed here. Another work is mi-Sinai le-LisKhat ha-Gazis by S. Kassierer and S. Glicksberg. This work deals with Torah she-Bal Peh in the writings of the Rambam and Ramban it looks like a very professional job.

The Jewish Theological Seminary Press has reprinted Saul Lieberman classic, Yerushalmi Kifshuto with a few pages of additions. Also printed this year is volume two of the Kuntres hatushuvos Hachdash already reviewed here. Additionally, one should keep an eye out in their "cheap section" as there are always some good titles.

The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities finally released the much awaited volume of Yerushalmi Nizkin with many additions from the Italian Gneziah.

Machlekes Herzog advertises that they have a new book form Professor Grossman on Rashi called Emunah Vedoes Bolamo shel Rashi but this title will not be printed for another few months.

Beis El has a new title from R. Reuven Margolis called Tal Techeyah. This work was very rare and has not been reprinted since 1922 it’s a collection of six pieces of his in his typical excellent style.

Mechon Ben Zvi has a new volume in there set of critical editions of classics of Sefer Hamakabim and other works - the Chayeh Yosef from Yosef ben matisyhu. Another important work just printed is the Chemas Hachemdah (from 1285)on chumash Breishes. One should keep an eye out on there cheap section as there are some great titles for really cheap prices.

Yediois Hachronis reprinted an old work of Shadal called Yesodei Hatorah. This new edition of theirs has a new name - Al he-Chemlah ve-Haskakha.

Merkaz Zalman Shazar has released some new titles among them a book in there about Shai Agnon. This is another book which is part of their recent series on the great leaders throughout the generations. Another title is from E. Shoham- Steiner called Charigim Bal Charcahim which deals with crazy people, leprosy, and people who had physical problems how they were looked at in the Middle Ages. Kiyum Beidan Shel Temuras a collection of articles about life in Germany from 1618-1945 – 647 pages these are articles from the English and German parts translated into Hebrew. Another title is Histography be-Mivchan which is a collection on Jacob Katz. Another very important title which they printed is ha-Yayin be-Yemei ha-Benayaim. This volume is the much awaited part two of Professor C. Solovetick book Yaynam printed by Am Oved a few years back. This volume is 480 pages and looks incredible. Here again, one should keep an eye out on there cheap section as there are some great titles for really cheap prices.

The Bialik Institute printed a very important work on Canonaztion of The Zohar from Boaz Huss. This book contains very valuable information on this controversial and senstive topic. [This title was printed with Ben Zvi and is a little cheaper by them]. An older title of theirs just reprinted is Y. Libeis book called Sod Hemunah Hashebatous.

Meketzei Nerdamim released two important new titles one is a critical edition of Rashi on Meschtos Megilah. Another is Shiriei R Aron Al-ammani from twelfth century Egypt.

Magnes Press this year has issued a few nice titles amongst them: Simchat Haregel be-Talmudum Shel Tananim by D. Henshke, Min ha-Rambam le-Shmuel Ibn Tibbon from C. Fraenkel. They also reprinted a few older titles amongst them E. Fleischer classic Shirat Hakodesh Byemi Habnayim, Rashi by S. Kamin and the Rashbam on Kohles by S.Japhet and R. Salters.

Mechon Yerushalim promised last year a new volume to their critical edition of the Teshuvos of the Rishonim the Shut Harif well it is out and looks great. They did not edit out the important notes and haskomos of Rav Kook on one of the editions they printed in this volume as other people would do these days. This volume is only part one and looks well done hopefulay part two will be printed shortly. They used the works of R. Dovid Rothestein and R. Leiter. Some other new tiles of there are: volume three of the Ramban on chumash Vayikra, Mordechai on Pesachim, volume five to their Nodah Beyuhadh set. Seder Parshyious of the Adres on Shemois and Ginas Veradim of the Prei Megadim.

Kibutz Hamechuad has put out many nice titles this year. One is a beautiful critical edtion of Mishnayis Shevies from professors S. and Z. Safrai. Other works of note include ha-Mavad Atzmos la-Daat by Y. Lichtenstein all about suicide. Another book from the same author put out earlier this year is called me-Tumah le-Kedusah which deals with going to Kevrei Tzadkim. Another title is a new study On the Jews in Germany in the middle ages called ha-Ashkenazim ha-Rishonim by A. Frischman. (reviewed here)

]]> Eliezer Brodt New Books Daniel Sperber Book Reviews Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/6/2/Shavuah-haSefer-2008-A-Recommended-Reading-List Lag Ba-Omer and Upsherins in Recent Jewish literature: Revisionist History and Borrowing and Plagiarism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/22/Lag-BaOmer-and-Upsherins-in-Recent-Jewish-literature-Revisionist-History-and-Borrowing-and-Plagiarism
Lag Ba-Omer and Upsherins in Recent Jewish literature:
Revisionist History and Borrowing and Plagiarism
By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to touch upon some of the topics relating to Lag Ba-Omer through a discussion of the latest volume of R. Tuviah Freund’s Moadim le-Simcha.

By way of introduction, in the past few years, the field minhaghim, specifically the research and investigation of sources and reasons for custom has expanded exponentially. To be sure, from early rishonim and onwards we have many books discussing minhag. But, only more only more recently, did the systematic study and collecting of sources as they relate to minhag really start. The basic idea underlying this particular area of research involves digging up as many sources as one could related to a particular minhag and then to try and put together a comprehensive picture of the development of the specific minhag. This is a time consuming process. To begin with, one has to carefully track down early sources, figure out who is earliest source, and then try to understand the reasons given for the custom on the whole. Additionally, one has to be mindful of who influenced whom, separate the development from the original unadulterated custom, as customs, being the product of human development tend to themselves to develop over time. The older a minhag is, the more difficult a challenge as the possible source texts multiply and patience is required to put together the whole puzzle.

The recent interest in the field has produced many articles and books. Although many of these articles rely on one another, proper attribution varies widely. Some authors always give credit, while others just “borrow” sources and still others take entire text portions without any attribution. At times, to obscure this misappropriation, the order of the original article is changed although the text remains the same.

Bar-Ilan University professor Daniel Sperber, in the introduction to his eighth and final volume of his Minhagei Yisrael, catalogues and comments on many recent works minhag. In an earlier volume he published a bibliography on minhagim by Prof. Yosef Tabory.

The Moadim le-Simcha Series

In this genre, one of the more recent and popular books is Moadim le-Simcha, by R. Tuviah Freund. The sixth volume of this series has just been published. The volumes follow the yearly holiday cycle and this latest volume covers the holidays appearing in the months of Iyyar and Sivan.

R. Freund first publishes portions of the books in the newsweekly Hamodia (Hebrew). Then, he updates them and collects and arranges them according to the months. Overall, the material found in this collection is excellent. R. Freund uses a wide range of sources and it is obvious that he works hard to put out a good product. Moreover, just collecting this disparate material in one place is admirable.

But, aside from doing his own research – a task that is obviously quite time consuming – R. Freund employs two other methods that ultimately allow him to produce these books. As I have elaborated on in the past, Machon Otzar ha-Poskim has a card catalogue comprising thousands of topics with a phenomenal amount of sources related to those topics. R. Freund, as other contemporary authors, uses these cards to get a head start (alternatively, sometimes the cards provide everything) on the articles in Moadim le-Simcha. R. Freund freely acknowledges, at the beginning of each volume, that he relies on these cards.

As we have previously noted, another source of R. Freund’s materials, however, goes unacknowledged. On many topics, not necessarily all, he locates a key article of a talmid hakham or academic scholar, and then R. Freund proceeds to use their material. At times he mentions the original source in a random footnote while on other occasions he makes no mention at all.

Of course, there is no problem using someone else material so long as the source is clearly noted at the outset of the chapter that you used it and you are adding on your own finds. To be sure R. Freund is not the only who fails to properly note all of his sources; many authors do this today both in the traditional rabbinic and academic communities, and this is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, below, we will see another such example.

Setting aside this methodological issue, Moadim le-Simcha also suffers from lack of proper organization. Chapters do not flow into one another like they should, content is not put in chronological order and many times sources are not given. One other issue is one can always find more material touching on the topics covered in Moadim le-Simcha. Although this is not a criticism of R. Freund but is an issue anytime someone attempts to collect material on minhagim. Overall, however, Moadim le-Simcha is well worth one’s money as it does have a wealth of information some of which will not be found else where on many interesting topics relating to the months of the year.

Moadim le-Simcha, volume 6 – The Customs relating to the Months of Iyyar & Sivan

As mentioned above, the latest volume of this series covers Iyar and Sivan. The first article is a lengthy one covering the issues of becoming bar-mitvah during the sefirah period. This one section is over ninety pages. The next topic is Pesach Sheni. The next eight articles cover topic that are connected with Lag Ba-Omer. The final section covers Shavous topics.

It is the Lag Ba-Omer section, however, that will be the focus of our discussion. Topics covered include the recent minhag called ח"י רוטל (pp. 146- 148), bows and arrows on Lag Ba-Omer (pp. 155-58),[1] and the origins of bonfires on Lag Ba-Omer and burning clothing. There is then a detour to discuss the more general custom of lighting candles at graves year-round. Then we return to Lag Ba-Omer with a discussion of Upsherin and a section on peyos, after which he discusses the custom of learning at the kever of the Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (“Rashbi”), followed by a chapter on the halakhic discussions relating to Kupas (charity) of Rashbi. On the topic of Rashbi, R. Freund turns to the controversial topic of authorship of the Zohar, as well as some general aspects of studying Kabbalah. Then we have another detour to discuss visiting graves of Tzadkim in general. He concludes this section with a discussion of the minhag to go to the kever of Shmauel ha-Navi on the forty-third day of Sefirat ha-Omer.

We now turn to the content of these chapters and Lag Ba-Omer generally.

Traditionally, the sefirah period is considered a time of mourning. The most well-known reason given – offered by the rishonim – is the mourning is due to the death of students of R. Akiva who died during this time of the year. Because this is deemed a mourning period, we refrain from shaving, taking haircuts, dancing, listening to music and making weddings, etc. Interestingly, some seem to think that there is an additional minhag during this time of abstaining from purchasing new clothes in order to avoid making a shehecheyanu; however, this is wrong. Many poskim write that people erroneously confuse the sefirah period restrictions with those customarily applied during the three weeks. Indeed, during the three weeks, one should refrain from buying new clothes to avoid a shehecheyanu, but during sefirah no such halakha applies. For example, the Mishnah Berurah writes that if during sefirah [493:2]:

מ"מ אם נזדמן לו איזה ענין שצריך לברך עליו שהחיינו יברך

The source for this ruling is the Ma'mar Mordechai who writes:

לא מצאתיו בשום ספר ראשון או אחרון ואין ספק שנשתרבב זה המנהג ממה שכתוב בשלחן ערוך לקמן סי' תקנא דטוב ליזהר מלומר שהחיינו בין המצרים על פרי או על מלבוש

While this is the halakha, today we do know that in fact there is some bases for refraining from shehecheyanu during sefirah. As many manuscripts have come to light, one of these manuscripts reflects this customs. In fact, this topic was comprehensively covered by R. Gedaliah Oberlander in his journal Ohr Yisroel, and later reprinted in his collection on minhaghim called Minhag Avosenu be-Yadenu (Merkaz Halakhah, 2005). There is much to add on this topic and I hope to return to it in a future post at the Seforim blog. While on this topic of shehecheyanu during sefirah, it is worth noting that one of the earliest sources reflecting this custom is the Leket Yosher. R. Zilber, quoted by R. Ben David, in his article in Tzohar, uses this example to question the authenticity of the Leket Yosher. Basically, they argue the Leket Yosher must be a forgery as this custom is only attested to in recent times. But, as I mentioned R. Oberlander demonstrates that there are many sources for the shehecheyanu restriction aside from the Leket Yosher. (Also, R. Ben David, in a later issue of Tzohar admitted that the fact the Leket Yosher may confirm what was believed to be a later custom is meaningless and disavowed his reliance on R. Zilber.)

Prof. Daniel Sperber (Minhagei Yisrael 1:101-117) posits that the mourning customs during sefirah are mainly due to the crusades, as many of the most horrific events of the crusades took place during the sefirah period. As evidence, Sperber notes that in Ashkenaz there was a custom to refrain from cutting one’s nails – a terrific extension of symbolic mourning. Moreover, in Sefer Assufot [printed in a few places- see Meoros ha-Rishonim p. 89] it says:

ועוד נראה לי מה שאין נושאין נשים בין פסח לעצרת, מפני צער הקהלות בכל המלכות, ומתענין עליהם ומזכירין נשמות באותן השבתות ומצטערין ודואגין עליהן באותו הפרק

In Spanish sources, however, we find that they were much more lenient some going so far to permit marriage during the sefirah period. (For one example of this leniency, see the manuscript published by Meir Benayahu,Yosef Bechiri [Jerusalem, 1991], 518-20).

Now for some reason or reasons all these prohibitions are lifted on Lag Ba-Omer. Additionally, there is a custom to celebrate on Lag Ba-Omer, while to a more limited degree in many places, but especially in Meron at the Kever of Rashbi. In Meron there are great celebrations with music and dancing and the like on Lag Ba-Omer. The obvious question, however, is why?

Now I will not even attempt to provide all the answers offered, but in a moment I will point the interest reader to additional sources. There are many early sources for simcha on Lag Ba-Omer, also that tachanun is omitted, marriages are allowed and so is shaving. In some rishonim the reason given is because the students of Rabbi Akiva stopped dying on Lag Ba-Omer. This reason, however, provides no insight into the connection between Meron and specifically Rashbi and Lag Ba-Omer.

One of the most famous reasons explaining the connection between Rashbi and Lag Ba-Omer – if you ask anyone this will probably be their reply – is because the Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer. Assuming for a moment this is factually correct, it is quite strange that we celebrate Rashbi’s death. We don’t find any other yahrzeit that we celebrate it in such a way and we had many other great people die besides for Rashbi, Avraham, Moshe, David HaMelech, etc. – none of whose death we celebrate with bonfires. Another problem is that neither chazal nor any of the rishonim mention Rashbi dying on Lag Ba-Omer. These questions and others were addressed by the Hatam Sofer in his teshuvot. In fact, because of these problems, he was very skeptical – to put it very mildly – of this celebration that takes place at Meron.


As an aside, an unknown sources about this whole topic is a statement found in some versions of Toledot Ha-Arizal (Sefer ha-Ari, 219) it is also found in a manuscript of the Chida which says:

בימי מרן (ר' יסוף קארו) הסכימו שלא יעשו ישראל הערביים מחול בל"ג בעומר על ציון רשב"י. ונראה למרן וב"ד שהוא זלזול שאוכלים ומרקדים, ונכתבה ולא נחתמה. בלילה חלם מרן עם הרשב"י וא"ל שתבא מגפה גדולה בעבור זו ההסכמה, כי רצונו שישמחו בהללולא, ולמחר קרע את ההסכמה


With this introduction regarding Lag Ba-Omer, we can now turn to the Moadim le-Simcha’s discussion of Lag Ba-Omer customs.

He starts the topic of Lag Ba-Omer with a nice list of issues regarding Lag Ba-Omer giving the impression that this list indicates the progression of the articles. The reader is quickly disabused of this notion as R. Freund jumps from topic to topic at times returning to earlier topics with no discernable order. After carefully reading the Lag Ba-Omer section, I decided to compare R. Freund’s work with that of R. Betzalel Landau’s [author of ha-Goan mi-Vilna] on Lag Ba-Omer called מסע מירון. R. Landau’s sefer is a collection of articles printed in 1966 and as is the case with R. Freund, R. Landau’s articles also first appeared in the Hebrew weekly Hamodia. R. Landau’s work is printed along with the Maseh Meron of R. Mendel Rabin. R. Landau’s articles deal with everything connected to Lag Ba-Omer, from the visiting of Meron and the accompanying celebration to Upsherin and much more. It is written beautifully, well organized and has excellent sources including manuscripts and many rare seforim.

After comparing the material, I noticed that R. Tuviah Freund basically lifted all the material from R. Betzalel Landau with one big difference: where R. Landau presents the material in very organized fashion, R. Freund does not. To be sure, Freund adds much material to the topics discussed by Landau and Freund covers areas not covered by Landau. On the other hand, Freund omits many interesting topics and sources relating to this day that he should have dealt with such as discussion of the song Bar-Yochai.[2] The point is not that Freund used the sources collected by Landau but rather at the outset of the articles Freund should note his debt to Landau and reference the reader to Landau’s work for its additional materials. In fact, in passing on at least two occasions Freund mentions “Mase Meron” indicating that indeed he was aware of and used Landau’s work. To make this even more bizarre, the only times Freund cites Landau, in truth, Landau was merely quoting from Avraham Yaari, Iggerot Eretz Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1943), a work that Freund uses directly in other places (379-384). In other words, the times he does mention Landau’s work it was almost unnecessary while where Freund should mention it he does not. Is it to say that only here he used Landau work and the rest he found himself? I find it hard to believe and quite silly – there is no problem to use someone else’s material as long as you give them proper credit.

A Revisionist History of Lag Ba-Omer and Another Example of Plagiarism.

Before returning to the rest of R. Tuviah Freund’s Moadim le-Simcha, we need to examine another recent article that appeared in the journal Yeshurun (no. 15) authored by R. Moshe Blau. R. Blau’s article is devoted to Lag Ba-Omer and is well organized and clearly written – a model for R. Freund to learn from. While these facts distinguish R. Blau’s article from Freund’s, Blau actually has something in common with Freund – Blau too plagiarized.

Again, Blau uses information that appears elsewhere without mentioning the sources. Specifically, Blau plagiarized from Avraham Yaari, Meir Benayahu, Betzalel Landau, and possibly even R. Yaakov Hillel, as I will demonstrate below.

As I mentioned earlier many traditionally many claim the yarzheit of Rashbi is on Lag Ba-Omer. While this claim is well-known the source of this tradition is more difficult to locate. Avraham Yaari and Meir Benayahu show that the earliest source to mention Lag Ba-Omer as the yarzheit of Rashbi is none other than the Hemdat Ha-Yamim. (R. Yaakov Hillel also confirms this on page 13 in his Aid ha-Gal ha-Zeh.)

There were some, however, who attributed the Lag Ba-Omer death date of Rashbi not to Hemdat Ha-Yamim but to R. Hayyim Vital, whose source was the Arizal. In truth, it is a mistake to give R. Vital credit for this. The source of this mistake was based on a simple printing mistake in one version of the Prei Etz Chaim which was first printed in 1782 - available here. (For more on this edition see R. Yosef Avivi, Binyan Ariel, pp. 68-71.) That edition reads:
והטעם שמת רשב"י ביום ל"ג בעומר כי הוא מתלמידי רבי עקיבא הנ"ל שמתו בספירת העומר
The Chida already writes that this is a mistake and instead of שמת, one letter is missing and the correct reading is שמחת רשב"י. So it is not a reference to Rashbi’s death day at all. Avraham Yaari demonstrates that other sources aside from the Prei Etz Chaim confirm this reading of שמחת. Meir Benayahu also concludes this is the correct reading using manuscripts. Finally, R. Yakov Hillel also writes that it is clear from viewing many manuscripts of the Prei Etz Chaim that it is a mistake. [3]

Turning to the origins of going to Meron, again, Avraham Yaari, in an article in Tarbiz 22 (1951) has a very detailed piece showing how the custom of going to Meron was taken from an earlier custom of going on Pesach Shnei to the kevarim of Hillel and Shamai in Meron. Soon after Yaari published this article, Meir Benayahu penned a strong rebuttal (Sefunot 6 pp. 11-40), and is again summarized in Sefer Vilnai 2:326-330). According to Benayahu, the custom of going to Meron was begun by the "Mekubeli Sefat." Irrespective of whose side one falls, both articles are full of interesting facts about the development of this Lag Ba-Omer. In my opinion, Benayahu appears to have the upper hand. More recently, Tel Aviv University professor Elchanan Reiner revisited this topic in his incredible dissertation, “Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to Eretz Yisrael (1099-1517),” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), 295-320. (Hopefully, Dr. Reiner will publish this in book form.)

Returning to Freund’s article on Lag Ba-Omer, there is no doubt he used both Landau and Benayahu, as he quotes them in his notes. At the end of his article, Freund raises the older, although less known, custom of going to the grave of Shmuel ha-Navi (again close to Lag Ba-Omer) (p. 384). In doing so Freund quotes an early source for this custom, a source that is only in manuscript. But, Freund provides no citation where this source can be found. In fact this comes from Yaari (neither Landau or Benayahu mention it) who notes that this was originally published in Jacob Moses Toledano, “Teudot mikkitvey-yad," Hebrew Union College Annual 4 (1927): 449-466, quote at 458. So either Freund was perusing random old copies of HUCA or more likely, he found Yaari’s article on Lag Ba-Omer and neglected to mention that.

Coming back to Blau's article, the general idea of Blau in his article is after dealing with all the sources of why Lag Ba-Omer is different than the rest of Sefirat ha-Omer. His new ideas which he brings to the table are that 1) the earliest source for Lag Ba-Omer being the death of Rashbi is from Hemdat ha-Yamim. This point was already made by both Yaari and Benayahu. 2) The printings of Prei Etz Chaim contains a printing error (Blau shows this to be the case from various manuscripts he checked). Again, not a new point, while it is nice that he prints in the article copies of the various manuscripts but this also was already shown to be the case by Benayahu much earlier. 3) Finally, at the end of his article he brings from a manuscript that R. Yosef Karo wanted to stop the going to Meron but did not. Blau, however, concludes that this fact is not mentioned by the Chida because the Chida did not believe this manuscript was legitimate. This whole major manuscript is brought by Yaari and Benayahu. The text itself is printed in Benayahu’s Sefer HaChida. Additionally, R. Landau also discusses this point. None of this is noted by Blau. All in all this leads to the conclusion that much of Blau’s article is premised, without attribution, on Yaari’s, Benayahu’s, and Landau’s works on the topic.

As an aside both R. Yaakov Hillel and R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer 5:35 and Hazon Ovadiah, p. 274) do not encourage going to Meron on Lag Ba-Omer due to the situation of pritzus there. R. Hillel is also against going on these types of hilulas throughout the year.

In actuality, while it is difficult to connect with the death of Rashi, there is another important person who perhaps did die on Lag be-Omer, Yehoshua ben Nun. (See R. Hamberger, Shoreshei Minhag Ashkenaz 3:262). In Meglias Ta'anis, the last section, there is a part titled Meglias Ta'anis Batra. In many versions of this text, it places Yehoshua ben Nun's death on Lag be-Omer. Professor Shulamis Elitzur, in her excellent book, Lamu Tzamnu, deal with the death date of Yehoshua ben Nun at length. She cites to many early piyutuim that mirror this reading found in Meglias Ta'anis. (See Lamu Tzamnu pp. 18, 26, 34, 39, 66, 120, 126, 172.) Generally, Lamu Tzamnu is a scientific edition of Megilas Tannit Batra. For further on this, see also her Piyyutei R. Pinchas ha-Kohen, pp. 240 & 693. See also, Landau, p. 71, who errs in this regard based on a faulty manuscript; S. Leiman, "The Scroll of Fasts: The Ninth of Tevet" in J.Q.R., vol. 74, pp. 174-95, esp. pp. 174-79; Reiner, op. cit., pp. 289-90.


Moadim le-Simcha on Upsherin and Peyos

Now that we have covered the two latest discussions of Lag Ba-Omer and their similar faults, we return to the rest of Moadim le-Simcha. Freund’s next major topic is that of Upsherin. The problem with this article is that it is not objective.

The source for the Upsherin custom is highly problematic. R. Benyamin Shlomo Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz 3:251-267, attacks it for the following reasons: there is no mention of this custom in any of the rishonim. Now do not say they did not bother to write it down as we have very detailed discussions from the rishonim about this time period in a Jewish boy’s life how to take him to cheder etc. (discussed by R. Hamburger at great length in volume two of his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz 2:502-532) but there is no mention of the Upsherin custom.[4] Furthermore, he shows from many places in the times of the rishonim they cut their hair long before three years old. Another big question dealt with by Yaari and later on in more detail by Hamberger is the attributing the custom of Upsherin on Lag Ba-Omer to the Arizal. This attribution is problematic as it is documented that the Arizal did not cut hair the entire sefirah – including Lag Ba-Omer. This particular issue M. Benayahu does not find to be such a problem as it could be what he did to his son and what he himself did were two different things. Another issue R. Hamberger raises is even if there is such a minhag what does it have to do with Rashbi and where do we find such a thing to give a haircut in a grave yard? Further more he brings sources [amongst them a National Geographic Magazine!] which claim that it come from outside – Arabic influences. R. Hamburger does defend it a little that it still makes sense to keep if it comes from outside sources. However after seeing all this documentation of R Hamburger notes that it makes sense why we can not find sources in litvishe or Hungarian sources – as there are no early sources in rishonim!

Professor Sperber [Minhagei Yisrael 8: 13-30] takes Hamberger's discussion much further documenting how this comes from many completely outside ancient sources. R. Yechiel Goldhaber (author of the Minhagei ha-Kehillos) told me that he just saw a manuscript of a letter of R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger who writes very sharply that this whole custom is taken form outside sources. Generally, Freund has no problem mentioning R Hamburger as he quotes this very same volume in another chapter of his in this sefer – saying Tikun on shavuos night. But when it comes to using Hamberger to question or examine Upsherin, Freund seems unable to do so.

After this chapter Freund has a section all about the customs of peyos including different opinions about wearing it behind ones ears. A careful reading of this chapter shows he stole much [and he could of stolen even more] from Yitzchak (Eric) Zimmer's chapter in his Olam Keminhago Noheg (Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1996) devoted to these topics.

Freund continues with a chapter on the development of the tomb over Rashbi’s kever and its history. He has a lot of important information on it. I would add to it the last section of M Benayhu previously mentioned article (which I think for sure Freund was well aware of on this topic of Meron in general).

The Zohar and its History

In connection with Rashbi, Freund examines the Zohar, its authorship and other topics related to the learning of the Zohar. This topic really deserves its own series of posts but for now I will just point out three issues. He does not mention that there was any opposition to the authorship of the Zohar. Now I understand perfectly well why he does not mention Yehudah Aryeh (Leon) Modena and others but there is one work which definitely deserves mention and that is the Mitpachat Seforim from R. Yaakov (Jacob) Emden. This work is not an attempt to undermine Kabbalah at all but rather it shows that there was some tampering done to the Zohar by different people. To be sure this work was considered very important by many as the Hatam Sofer writes in a teshuvah [Choshen Mishpat Likutim, 59] to someone:

הנה נמצא בשכונתך ס' מטפחת ספרים למהריעב"ץ תמצא שם כי דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז"ל בענין זה הלא ישתוממו רואיו וד"ל

Interestingly enough a few years back this sefer was printed by someone than it was put in cherem by the badatz! The printer was cursed by sefardi mekubalim and he died within the year! This edition of the sefer is now considered very rare. Indeed, included in the introduction to this edition, are other sources attesting to the importance of the Mitpachat Seforim. Additionally, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, in his Tzizt Eliezer cites the Mitpachat Seforim. (Tzitz Eliezer 9:51 and 21:5).

Another issue I have with this chapter is he does not even mention the famous discussion of the poskim regarding contradictions between Kabbalah and halakha; much has been written on this I will not even bother to cite sources.

One other issue with this chapter is at the end he lists commentaries on the Zohar although he does not claim to make a comprehensive list there are some strange omissions. One is the work of R. Reuven Margoliyot on the Zohar it is extremely important with all his comments as he draws parallels from all over chazal another thing he does is he references many halakhic discussions from the Eliezer Brodt Shavous Customs Daniel Sperber Book Reviews Plagiarism Thu, 22 May 2008 00:04:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/22/Lag-BaOmer-and-Upsherins-in-Recent-Jewish-literature-Revisionist-History-and-Borrowing-and-Plagiarism Sale On Hebrew Book Harddrives http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/15/Sale-On-Hebrew-Book-Harddrives This year the sale will be 33% off the regular price of Otzar HaChomah. The sale runs from May 13 through June 7. The prices are as follows:
Full version (25,800 vol.) reg. 2275 sale 1520
Bnei Torah version (24,500 vol.) reg 2050 sale 1370
Gemara v'Halacha (18,700 vol.) reg 1525 sale 1020
Tanach u'Midrash (17,200 vol.) reg. 1525 sale 1020
also an additional 2,400 from Kehos Publishing is $70
All of the above include a "search engine" which is very good. It also has the ability to convert the "image" to "text" (at the moment only seforim with "square" print, not "rashi" print).
Also available is the "Library" version which has 28,000 vol. without search. The SALE price for the Library edition is $1050 (reg. 1130).
NOTE: There will be a special BONUS for readers of the Seforim blog (when mentioning Seforim blog)!

Also, Bar Ilan's new version (16) will be arriving in about 2-3 weeks. Pricing is not yet available.
DBS claims that there will be an update before Shavu'os as well.
The Morgenstern Library is supposedly going to be updated on or about Rosh Chodesh Sivan (June 4). They will also be having a BIG sale at that time.
Anyway, if you could post the above I'd greatly appreciate it.

Please contact Moishe Flohr at Computer Maven to take advantage of this pricing and with any questions.
732-363-4941
cell: 917-456-7855

]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 08:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/15/Sale-On-Hebrew-Book-Harddrives Hunted Bears, Cantonists and Nazi Victims http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/1/Hunted-Bears-Cantonists-and-Nazi-Victims

by Yitzhak, בין דין לדין.


I thank Dan Rabinowitz for graciously allowing me to post this essay.


Hunted Bears


This is the cover image of the Gary Larson collection Beyond The Far Side:


I have long found this cartoon profoundly depressing, in its humorous but acute portrayal of the moral degradation of which we are capable. עור בעד עור, וכל אשר לאיש יתן בעד נפשו 1; the desperate bear grins inanely as he attempts to persuade the hunter to shoot his companion instead of himself.



Several months ago, though, I had an epiphany; it is all very well to consider the matter from a literary-psychological perspective, but what is the view of the Halachah 2?


Cantonists and 'Chappers'


The thought lay dormant in my mind, until I read the following paragraph in Dr. Marc Shapiro's typically erudite and fascinating article Rabbis and Communism at The Seforim Blog:


When dealing with anti-clericalism in Russia, we must also not forget the masses’ long memory of how some (many?, most?) rabbis were silent during the era of the chappers. This was when children were grabbed for 25 years of military service in the Cantonists, often never again to see their parents and usually succumbing to incessant pressure (including torture) to be baptized. Yet it wasn’t the children of the rich or the rabbis who were taken, but the poor children. Jacob Lifshitz’ defense of the way the Jewish community dealt with the Cantonist tragedy – which he regards as worse than even the destruction of the Temple! – and his insistence that no one can judge the community leaders unless they themselves had been in such a difficult circumstance, is something we must bear in mind. Yet all such ex post facto justifications would have no impact on the outlook of those that actually suffered during the Cantonist era, and it is no wonder that many of the common people would not regard the rabbis in a sympathetic light. The rabbis were certainly able to come up with a justification why their sons, the future Torah scholars, should not be taken to the army, just as they continue to make this argument. Yet this would only serve to show the masses that some children’s blood was indeed redder than others.

This post shall attempt to clarify the relevant controlling Halachos for both scenarios: may a bear attempt to save his life at the expense of his comrade's, and may a potential or actual draftee, or a friend of his, attempt to evade the draft if the consequence will be the drafting of another instead.3

The Yerushalmi



The locus classicus for this discussion is a passage in the Yerushalmi Bava Kama:



שור שעלה בחבירו ובא בעל השור ושמטו מתחתיו אם עד שלא עלה שמטו ונפל ומת פטור ואם דחהו ונפל ומת חייב


אמר רבי יוסי ותישמע מינה ראה אמת המים שוטפת ובאה לתוך שדהו רשאי לפנותן למקום אחר משנכנסו אין רשאי לפנותן למקום אחר

אהן כריסו ארגירא עד דלא ייתי אהן כריסו ארגירא שרי מימר פלן עביד עבדיתי פלן עביד עבדיתי. מן דייתי אהן כריסו ארגירא אסיר.

הדין אכסניי פרכא עד דלא ייתון רומאי שרי מיחשדוניה ומן דייתון רומאי אסיר.4


The Nimukei Yosef cites the second paragraph of the Yerushalmi, about the Amas Hamayim 5.

Rema rules:

היה רואה נזק בא עליו מותר להציל עצמו אף על פי שעל ידי זה בא הנזק לאחר6

Rema only cites the permissive component of the Yerushalmi; he omits the Yerushalmi's stringency, prohibiting the shifting onto another of a misfortune that is considered to have already befallen. Sema does indeed cite the latter part of the Yerushalmi:

שם בנימוקי יוסף סיים וכתב דאם כבר בא עליו אסור לסלקו ממנו כשגורם בזה היזק לחבירו:7

but why does Rema omit it? This question is raised by Rav Haim Yehudah Leib Epstein, who infers that Rema does not actually accept the stringency of the Yerushalmi L'Halachah, a position for which he offers various justifications, which are beyond the scope of this post 8. Although we shall see that The consensus of the Poskim, however, seems to accept the Yerushalmi in its entirety as Halachah 9.

The Hafetz Haim discusses this Yerushalmi; he is curiously tentative about its application to the question of Lashon Ha'Ra that he is considering, the deflection of blame from oneself in a situation in which so doing will consequently cause another to be accused:


אבל אם על ידי זה [שמשיב מי שנחשד מחבירו בעשיית דבר שלא כהוגן נגדו שאכן הוא לא עשאו] ממילא יוודע לו העושה, כגון שלא היה לו הספק כי אם על שניהם, תלוי בזה: אם הוא באמת דבר שאינו הגון, נראה דמותר לדחות זה מעל עצמו, אף שממילא יתגלגל הדבר על חבירו. אבל אם באמת דבר זה איננו עוולה, רק להשואל נראה שהדבר הזה הוא עוולה, צריך עיון אם מותר להשיב לו אפילו בלשון: אני לא עשיתי את הדבר, כיון שעל ידי זה ממילא יתגנדר הדבר על חבירו.10



ונראה שדבר זה תלוי במה שמבואר בחושן משפט, בסימן שפ"ח (סוף סעיף ב) בהגהה ... ועיין בסמ"ע שם ... ומשמע מביאור הגר"א שם (אות כ"ט) שהוא מסכים להסמ"ע. והכא נמי אם הוא רואה שנחלט לעת עתה חשדא אצל השואל עליו, אסור לו לגלות כדי להסירה מעליו ולתיתה על חבירו, ועיין בביאור הגר"א שם, ואם אינו בגדר זה, מותר. ואף על פי כן, דבר זה אינו מבורר אצלי היטב למעשה.



Draft Evasion


Rav Yosef Ibn Lev discusses a case apparently very similar to one of the scenarios in the Yerushalmi:

שאלה ראובן היה לו אהבה עם השרים ויועצי המלכות ולפעמים היו תופסין מחמת המלכות לקצת יהודים עשירים והיו כותבין לשראפי"ש או לשאר אומניות כמנהג המלכות הלז וזה היהודי שיש לו אהבה עם השרים יש לאל ידו להציל איזה יהודי מאותה הצרה אבל ירא לנפשו שאם יציל לשמעון יקחו ללוי תחתיו ומאן לימא ליה דדמא דשמעון סומק טפי דילמא דמה דלוי סומק טפי ועל זה שאל אם הרשות בידו להציל לשמעון מצרתו:



תשובה עיקרא דהאי מילתא איתא ביבמות פרק הערל אמרינן התם מאי שנא הני אמר רב הונא העבירום לפני הארון כל שהארון קולטו למיתה כל שאין הארון קולטו לחיים מתיב רב חנה בר ביזנא ויחמול המלך על מפיבושת בן יהונתן בן שאול שלא העבירו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אלא שהעבירו וקלטו ובקש רחמים ופלטו ואכתי משוא פנים יש בדבר אלא שבקש רחמים שלא יקלטנו הארון מהך שמעינן בנדון דידן שאם כבר כתבו ליהודי אחד לשארא"ף ותפשו אותו והדבר ידוע שאם ימלט זה שיקחו אחר תחתיו אין להשתדל להצילו אבל אם יצתה גזרה לקחת קצת יהודים לאומנות המלך לשרא"ף וכיוצא בו הרשות נתונה להשתדל להציל לכל מי שירצה


והאי דכתבינא דאם כבר נכתב למלכות דאסור להשתדל להצילו כיון דמנהג הוא לקחת אחר תחתיו היינו דוקא היכא דהוי ודאי דלית ספיקא אבל היכא דאיכא ספיקא די עידנא ישתנה ויעבור זעם ולא יקחו אחר תחתיו אין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי ...11


Shach endorses Ibn Lev's ruling distinguishing between where the royal decree specifies particular individuals and where it merely demands a quota, and he says that the inference from the Mefiboshes passage is compelling12. It is curious, though, that neither Ibn Lev nor Shach mention in this context the Yerushalmi that we have been discussing until now; Rav Akiva Eiger 13, Rav Baruch Frankel14, Rav Meir Ya'akov Ginzberg15, and Pis'hei Teshuvah16 all refer the reader to the Yerushalmi. We shall presently see a suggestion for why Ibn Lev and Shach do not cite the Yerushalmi.

Rav Shmuel Landau discusses whether it is permitted to take action to save particular individuals from a governmental draft, even though the result will inevitably be the seizure of others:

... ועל דבר שאלתו שאלת חכם חצי תשובה קשה להורות בדבר הנוגע לנפשות תחלה ומי ירים ראש בדברים כאלה. ...



אבל לבי מהסס בדבר אם מותר לישראל להשתדל עבור איזה אנשים שלא יקחו אותם. ודבר זה מבואר בתשובות מהר"י בן לב .. הובא בש"ך ... ואם כן גם בנדון דידן אם עדיין לא לקח השר ולא פרט מי שיהיה יכולים להשתדל דרך שלילה על אנשים ידועים שלא יקחו אותם:

ובאמת תמיה לי טובא על הש"ך בסימן [ק]ס"ג שהביא ממרחק לחמו מתשובת מהר"י בן לב הנ"ל הלא דבר זה מפורש בש"ע ברמ"א סימן שפ"ח סוף סעיף ב' ... הרי ממש כפסק של מהר"י בן לב וגם הסמ"ע שם כתב ... הרי ממש כפסק של מהר"י בן לב:

ואפשר ליישב דמהרמ"א לקמן נשמע דאותו אדם עצמו כשרואה דהנזק בא עליו דמותר להציל עצמו אבל שיהיה לאחרים רשות להשתדל עבורו לא שמענו ולכך הביא הש"ך דברי מהר"י בן לב ופסק דגם אחרים יכולים להשתדל עבורו אם עדיין לא בא הנזק וראייתו מדוד שהתפלל על מפיבושת שלא יקלטנו הארון: [ועיין שם שהאריך לפלפל בסוגיא דיחדו לאחד מהם.]17


Rav Avraham Maskil Le'Eisan cites this responsum and suggests that one may permitted to save himself at another's expense even if he has already been selected for misfortune:

ועיין בנודע ביהודה .. שכתב דאם כבר לקחו אנשים ידועים אסור להשתדל להצילם רק קודם שנלקח אף א' מותר להשתדל להציל א'. וכמו שכתב הש"ך .. ובהג"ה שם (ש"פ) [לכאורה צ"ל שפ"ח].


ונראה שהוא עצמו יכול להשתדל אף שנלקח דחייך קודמין:18


This is incomprehensible; as we have seen, the entire point of Rav Landau is that the reason that Ibn Lev and Shach do not derive their permission to save someone at another's expense from the Yerushalmi is because they are allowing a third party to save a victim, whereas the Yerushalmi is discussing efforts by the victim himself, and yet the Yerushalmi explicitly forbids even such efforts when the misfortune is specific to the victim! Perhaps Rav Maskil Le'Eisan holds like Rav Epstein, that the Rema's omission of the Yerushalmi's prohibition indicates that it is not normative, but given that the Sema does cite the prohibition, and none of the major commentaries reject it, if Rav Maskil Le'Eisan really held like Rav Epstein, he should have said so explicitly 19.


"At Risk" Youths


In his article, Shapiro comments that:

Michael Stanislawski notes that in one community the communal leaders wanted to grab a poor tailor since he wasn’t observant, but the local rabbi forbid it. ...


In a strong defense of the rabbis against the charge that they collaborated with the rich people in order to ensure that the poor were taken, R. Moses Solomon Kazarnov calls attention to all that the rabbis did to defend the children of the lower class. But he acknowledges that the rabbis would hand over the non-religious kids, including their own!


In the continuation of his responsum, Rav Landau, no mere local Rabbi, issues an uncompromising rejection of religious laxity as a justification for handing someone over to the government. He unequivocally, passionately and eloquently rejects a suggestion of his questioner that the community satisfy the government's demands with some "נערים קלים ופרוצים ביותר"; indeed, he seems horrified by the idea:

ומה שכתב מעלתו דיש שם איזה נערים קלים ופרוצים ביותר. אהובי ידידי אין אנו יכולים לדון דיני נפשות דעל כל פנים הנערים אינן בכלל מורידין אף שהם נוהגין בקלות קצת והרבה הילדות עושה וניתן להענישם בתפיסה ומכת מרדות וכדומה אבל חלילה למסור אותם בידים ואל ידח ממנו נידח להדיחם לגמרי מקהל עדת ישראל ואף שיש ביד טובי העיר והבית דין לדון בכל עונשים חמורים למגדר מלתא היינו אם העם פרוץ בו וגם לזה צריך שיהיה דוקא גדולי הדור או טובי העיר שהמחום רבים עליהם ... אבל היכא דליכא משום מגדר מלתא שאין העם פרוצים רק איזה נערים הקלים מי ירים ראש לדון בזה. ...


[ועיין שם שפלפל עוד בזה, והעלה:] ויהיה איך שיהיה ... בנדון דידן אף שיש נערים קלים ועוברים על איזה מצות אין אנו רשאין בשביל כן להעניש אותם כפלי כפלים ככל חטאותם ולסכן אותם בידים ובפרט שלא נתברר בעדות ברורה אם עברו על עבירה חמורה בשאט נפש לכן שארית ישראל לא יעשו עולה כזו.20


We must note that Rav Landau's unwillingness to countenance the seizure of the religiously dubious youths is apparently predicated on his assertion that they are not in the category of Moridin; if it were reliably established that they were thoroughly irreligious21, he may indeed not object to their seizure.

Rav Landau concludes with an apparent reiteration of his earlier ruling permitting action which is merely evasive:


אך את זה יכולים לעשות להשתדל דרך שלילה על אדם חשוב וכשר שלא יקחו את זה כל זמן שלא קראו לו בפירוש שאותו הם מבקשים אבל אם כבר בא הפקודה לאחד קשה להורות להתיר להשתדל עבורו אם על ידי שזה יוצא לחירות ילכד אחר במצודה זו ומאי חזית דדמי דהאי סומק טפי מדמי דאיש אחר אשר יבא אחריו.


וידעתי שבנדון זה קשה להורות ועל זה אמרו חז"ל כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע כן מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע והמשכיל בעת ההיא ידום אבל על כל פנים זה מחויב למחות ביד מי שרוצה למסור בידים.


The Hasam Sofer has a similarily strong denunciation of the unfair selection by the community of particular individuals, even alleged "פוחזים וריקים", to be drafted:

ועל דבר עם בני ישראל הנלקחים לצבא המלחמה למלכיות השתיקה יפה מדיבורינו בזה וגדולי ישראל ע"כ יעלימו עין והניחו להם להממונים מקהל לעשות כראות עיניהם לפי הזמן ועת לחשות


ומכל מקום אומר כי גוף ענין דינא דמלכותא להטיל מס על כל עמו להעמיד מהם אנשים לצבא מלחמתו וזה הוא מחק מלכותו ודינו דין וממילא מוטל אקרקפתא דכל מי שראוי לצאת ושאין לו אשה ובנים כפי נימוס וחק מלכותו אך לא אבחורים לומדי תורה שאפילו לא פטרום המלכות בפירוש מכל מקום מדין תורה פטורים דאמרינן בפרק קמא דבבא בתרא ח' ע"א הכל לכרי' פתייא אפילו רבנן והני מילי דלא נפקי באוכלזא אבל נפקי באוכלזא רבנן לאו בני מיפק באוכלזא נינהו ומכל שכן שהמלכות יר"ה פטרם וכבר כמה פעמים כשנתתי אטעסט לבני מדינו' פיהם ומעהר"ין שהם לומדים ויצליחו לנהוג ציבור נפטרו מלהעמיד עצמם לצבא ואם כן כל הנוגע בהם נוגע בבבת עין:



ואידך מהראוי שיעמדו עצמם כולם בשוה לפני העדה ויטילו גורל ועל מי שיפול עליו הגורל הוא ישתדל לעצמו במה שיכול לפטור בממון או להעמיד אחר במקומו או ילך בעצמו וכל ישראל מחויבים לסייעו ויקר פדיון נפשו אבל לאנוס אנשים בלי גורל ולומר שהם פוחזים ורקים אפילו מגלי עריות ומחללי שבת בעיני הוא כגונב נפש ומכרו כי מי נותן זה חליפי זה כיון שחיוב המלכות ופקודתו על כולם בשוה והמוסרו כמוסר לתוא מכמר אפילו מחוי אתיבנא חייב מכל שכן מוסר נפשו ורע ומר יותר כי הטובים הנאנסים עוברים על המצות באונס ולעתים רחוקים ואלו יעשו ברצון ואנו מדחים אחר הנופל עיין פרק קמא דקידושין לענין מכר עצמו לנכרים:


אך מה שנמצאים עתה למאות המוכרים עצמם מרצונם וברצי כסף ולכן אף על גב דהמה גריעי מכולהו שהרי בשאט נפשם מתנים לחלל שבתות ולאכול איסורים מכל מקום כיון דשכיחי טובא ולא הוה כתרי עיברא נהרי ואם אין קהלה זו קונהו ימכור עצמו במקום אחר אם כן קלקלתם בעו"ה תקנה קצת וכן עשו בכל גלילותינו והוא כעין בחירת הרע במיעוטו

והנה קצרתי מאוד כי אין ראוי להאריך בענין זה כמובן ...22

Hasam Sofer prohibits seizing even youths who are מגלי עריות ומחללי שבת, but perhaps he is referring only to those who yield to temptation, and are therefore not considered Apikorsim, Minim or Meshumadim, and are not in the category of Moridin 23.

Although both Rav Landau and the Hasam Sofer are unequivocal in their condemnation of the unfair seizure by the community of particular individuals in order to save others, I do not know if their opposition would extend to a mere request to the government that it draft them, or to the attempt by the targeted bear in the Far Side cartoon to convince the hunter to shoot his companion instead of himself. Normally these actions might constitute Mesirah, but in these situations, where the government will inevitably seize some individuals, and the hunter will certainly shoot a bear, and the request is merely determining who the victim(s) will be, perhaps the permissive rulings of the Yerushalmi and Ibn Lev still apply, since in any event the Yerushalmi seems to be a dispensation of the law of Grama B'Nizakin, which would presumably normally forbid the causing of harm to another even in the indirect forms under discussion.

Kapos, Quotas and Cards


Rav Zvi Hirsch Meisels relates the following heartbreaking story:

מסחר נפשות עם הקאפו"ס


והנה ליום המחרת, שהיא יום א' דראש השנה, אשר כל באי עולם יעברון לפניו כבני מרון, היה יום מהומה ומבוכה, ומפה לאוזן נתפשטה השמועה בכל המחנה, שלעת ערב יקחו את הנערים לבית המוקד, ... ולהרבה אנשים שבמחנה הי' להם בנם יחידם, אשר נשארו להם לפליטה, בתוך אלו הנערים או שאר בשרם הקרובים אליהם, או סתם ידידים אהובים אנשי עירם, והמה רצו כל היום בראש מבולבל מסביב הבלאק המוסגר, אולי יופתח איזה קרן אור להציל משם את הנער היקר להם עד שלא תחשך השמש.


אך השומרים הקאפו"ס לא שעו אל כל תחנוניהם ובכיותיהם להוציא איזה נער וילד, מבין המסוגרים אשר נדונים לשריפה, ... במקרה הלזה הי' גם טענתם בטענה צודקת בפיהם, היות שהם אחראים על סכום הילדים שהופקדו לשומרים אליהם, אשר היה במספר מדויק, ולעת ערב עליהם למסור אותם לידי אנשי הס' ס' ימ"ש במספר ובמנין כאשר מסרו להם, ואם יחסר אחד מהם אז דמם בראשם ויקחו אותם לשריפה, נפש תחת נפש.


אכן סוף סוף אחרי הרבה השתדלות ומו"מ של הקרובים עמהם גברה בהם תאות הממון, והסכימו בעד תשלום סכומים גדולים, לשחרר איזה נער וילד, ותיכף חטפו במקומו איזה נער אחר, מן הבא בידם בתוך המחנה, (מאלו שהצליחו להתחמק מהאוסף של אתמול או שנשתחררו בעת הבירור על ידי נגיעת ראשם בדף) וסגרוהו בהבלאק הנ"ל במקום הנער הפדוי כדי שיהיה המספר שלם.


והנה להרבה אנשים הי' עוד סכומי כספים, או חתיכת זהב או מרגליות, טמון במטמונים ובמנעלים לעת הצורך, וכמובן שהי' כמה אנשים פשוטים ובעלי קוצר השגה שלא עשו שום חשבונות מה נעשה במקום נער הנפדה, וקיבצו במסירת נפש כל הונם הנשאר להם או שהשתדלו לאסוף סכום הנצרך, מאחרים ידידים ומכירים, ופדו את בנם המסוגר מכליון בטוח, וככה נמשך סחר-מכר הלזה משך רוב יום הדין לעיני כל האנשים שבמחנה, ...


אמנם כמובן שהי' הרבה אנשים בעלי השגה, שלא רצו לפדות את בנם, על חשבון חייו של ילד אחר, כמאמר חכמז"ל מאי חזית, ולעולם לא אשכח עובדא נוראה אחת, אשר עיני ראו ואזני שמעו, אז בשעת ענין הנ"ל, אשר מעשה הלזה מסמל את קדושת בני ישראל, והתמסרותם לדרכי התורה הקדושה בתמימות אף בעת צרתם וסבלותם הנוראה.



מסירות נפש של אב מלהציל בנו יחידו

הנה ניגש אלי איש יהודי, שהיה נראה ליהודי פשוט מאויבערלנד, מתמימות הדברים שלו שאמר לי כדברים האלה.

רבי, הבן יחיד שלי, היקר לי מבבת עיני, נמצא שמה בתוך הנערים הנידונים לשריפה, ויש בידי היכולת לפדותו, והיות שידוע לנו, בלי שום ספק, שהקאפו"ס יתפסו אחר במקומו, על כן אני שואל מהרבי שאלה להלכה ולמעשה, לפסוק לי הדין על פי התורה אם אני רשאי לפדותו, וכאשר יפסוק כן אעשה.


[ועיין שם שלא רצה לפסוק הלכה בדבר זה, בלי ספרים, בלי רבנים אחרים ובלי ישוב הדעת, והתחנן אל השואל שאל יטיל עליו את האחריות הנוראה הזו. אולם האב השואל החליט, מתוך סרבנותו של הרב מייזליש להשיב תשובה ברורה, שהדבר אסור, ואמר שאם כן הוא מוכן להקריב את בנו יחידו על פי התורה וההלכה, ושהוא מקבל את זה באהבה ובשמחה, וכך עשה:] וגם ככה קיים דבריו ולא פדה את בנו, והיה כל היום, יומא דראש השנה, הולך ומדבר לעצמו בשמחה שזוכה להקריב את בנו יחידו לה' כי אף שיש ביכולת בידו לפדותו עם כל זה אינו פודהו מחמת שרואה שהתורה לא התירה לו לעשות כזאת ויהיה חשוב לפני השי"ת כעקידת יצחק אבינו שהי' גם כן ביום ראש השנה. ...24


In a footnote, Rav Meisels analyzes the question Halachically. He begins by citing the Rema, Sema (citing the Nimukei Yosef citing the continuation of the Yerushalmi, as above), Shach (citing Ibn Lev), and Rav Landau, and he then proceeds as follows:

ונסתפקתי בנידן דידן אם האב לגבי בנו רשאי להשתדל לפדותו אף שיודע שעל ידי זה יותפס אחר. לפי מה שכתב בהגהות יד אברהם .. דנראה שהוא בעצמו יכול להשתדל בהצלתו אף אחר שנתפס, אף על גב שיודע שעל ידי זה יקחו אחר במקומו, מכל מקום אמרינן חייך קודמין, ודוקא לפדות לאחרים אסור להשתדל להציל, אם על ידי זה יקחו אחר במקומו ע"ש. ואם כן יש להסתפק אם אב לפדות את בנו בכי האי גוונא שיקחו אחר במקומו, אם האב נידון כאחר ואסור להציל בנו בכי האי גוונא או דגם האב לגבי בנו אמרינן חיי בנך קודמין לחיי אחרים. ועיין בבא בתרא (קל"ו ע"ב) פלוגתא אי בנו עדיף ליה מנפשיה ע"ש וצ"ע.


As I have argued earlier, the Yad Avraham's assertion is quite puzzling, since it seems to contradict the Yerushalmi. Rav Meisel's acceptance of it is even more baffling, since he has just cited both the Sema and Rav Landau's responsum, which eliminates my earlier suggestion that the Yad Avraham disagrees with the Sema and does not accept the stringency of the Yerushalmi as normative.

Irving J. Rosenbaum cites the following discussion of Rav Efraim Oshry:

On the twenty-third of Elul, 5701 (September 15, 1941), the German supervisor of the Kovno ghetto (Jordan) provided the Aeltestenrat (Judenrat) five thousand "white cards" to be distributed to workers and craftsmen in the ghetto and their families. Only those having "white cards" would be allowed to remain. At that time there were about thirty thousand souls in the ghetto, of whom about ten thousand were such workers and their families. In consternation, those workers who were the strongest forcibly seized "white cards" for themselver from the Aeltestenrat. Rabbi Oshry perceived two halakhic questions involved in the matter. ... The second: Was it permissible for a worker to snatch a card for himself, even though by so doing he would certainly be causing the death of another - since there were only five thousand cards for ten thousand workers? ...


The second question - the permissibility of seizing a card and saving one's own life at the expense of another - also has precedent in Jewish law. The first is found in the Shakh ... However, Rabbi Oshry rejects this as a precedent for our case, since the Shakh's decision applies only when the men have not yet been seized. Then it is permissible to try to prevent them from being taken, even though others would suffer as a result. However, the Shakh would most probably rule that if two men were already in custody, it would not be permitted to attempt to free them; for it would then be inevitable that two others would be taken in their stead. In the Kovno ghetto situation, one could say that the entire community was already "taken prisoner". If so, the decision of the Shakh would not apply, and it would be forbidden for the workers to seize the "white cards."


Yet it might be held, Rabbi Oshry continues, that in our case it would still be permissible. For as the Yad Avraham .. points out, it is only forbidden for others to try to rescue the imprisoned men when this will simply lead to different victimes being seized. However, it is certainly not forbidden for the prisoner himself to attempt to escape even though someone else will suffer. So too, here, the worker who seizes the card is saving himself, not another. But upon close examination this analogy proves imperfect. For the Yad Avraham is referring to a case where his action does not directly cause another to die. It is simply that if he escapes another is imprisoned in his place. Though the second man may ultimately die because of this, his death is not directly resultant from the act of the first. But in the Kovno ghetto, the seizure of the card by one workman would directly result in the death of one who was denied a card by his action.

It is possible to support this distinction between direct and indirect action from the classic case in the Talmud, Baba Metzia 62a.

If two men are traveling on a journey [far from civilization] and one has a pitcher of water, if both drink they will both die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilization. Ben Patura taught: "It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companion's death." Until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: "'that thy brother may live with thee' (Lev. 25:36), thy life takes precedence over his life."

As Rabbi Oshry explains Ben Patura's point of view, it is the drinking by the one man that causes the death of the other. The saving of his own life is, thus, the direct cause of his fellow's death. Ben Patura does not believe that the injunction of "and live by them" (Lev. 18:5) - not die by them - applies if one gains his own life by not attempting to save his comrade's. And though Rabbi Akiba disagrees with Ben Patura, it is only in this case of the two travelers, where the one takes no direct physical action to injure his fellow, but simply refrains from giving him water, that Rabbi Akiba would sanction his behavior. However, in our case, where as a result of the direct action of seizing the card, a fellow workman will be delivered over to the murderers, it is quite possible that Rabbi Akiba would agree with ben Patura and forbid the action. ... 25


Summary



To summarize, we have the following principles:



  • Actively, directly harming others, even קלים, ריקים, פוחזים, פרוצים ביותר, מגלי עריות ומחללי שבת, in order to save oneself is forbidden.


  • Mere evasive action, even with the inevitable consequence of harm to another, is permitted to both a potential victim himself as well as a friend of his, provided that the harm has not yet befallen the victim.


  • Once the harm has already befallen the victim, it is forbidden to shift it onto another. Some still allow the victim himself to take evasive action, but this view is problematic.





Postscript


The idea that Halachah allows the privileged, the rich and the well connected to utilize their wealth and influence to shift, even indirectly, the burden of military service onto their less fortunate brethren26 will very likely trouble those (such as me) with modern, Western value systems. This is apparently a classic example of the celebrated maxim of Rav Ya'akov Weil:



[פסקי] בעלי בתים ופסקי לומדים שני הפכים הם27



Notes



1 Job 2:4


2 One can, of course, consider the matter from an ethical perspective without invoking Halachah, and there may even be an ethic independent of Halachah, but our discussion will be limited to the Halachah.


3 Dr. Shapiro read a draft of this essay, and commented helpfully thereon.

4 בבא קמא פרק ג' הלכה א


5 Bava Basra, p. 10 in the Rif pagination. He also cites the fourth paragraph, but he apparently understands it to be stating a different rule.


6 הגהת שו"ע חו"מ סימן שפ"ח סוף סעיף ב


7 שם ס"ק י


8 שו"ת פרי חיים חו"מ סימן ד


9 עיין בדברי החפץ חיים שנביא להלן, ובפתחי תשובה סימן קס"ג ס"ק כ"ז, ובתשובת רב שמואל לנדא שנביא להלן. ועיין להלן מה שנביא מהיד אברהם


10 ספר חפץ חיים הלכות לשון הרע כלל י' באר מים חיים אות מ"ג


11 שו"ת מהר"י ן' לב חלק ב' סימן מ


12 חו"מ סימן קפ"ג ס"ק י"ח


13 גליון שו"ע שם


14 חדושי אמרי ברוך שם


15 חדושי מוהרי"ג שם


16 שם ס"ק כ"ז


17 שו"ת נודע ביהודה תנינא יו"ד סימן ע"ד, ציינו הפתחי תשובה חו"מ שם וגם הביא קצת מדבריו ביו"ד סימן קנ"ז ס"ק י"ג


18 יד אברהם, שו"ע יו"ד סימן קנ"ז סעיף א


19 But note that the introduction to the Shulhan Aruch states that the Yad Avraham was published posthumously from manuscript, so perhaps something was lost in transcription.


20 The objection of Rav Landau and of Hasam Sofer (see below) to the seizure of religiously lax youths is noted by Dr. Shapiro in footnote 16 of his article.


21 The question of Tinok She'Nishbeh is beyond the scope of this post.


22 שו"ת חת"ם סופר חלק ששי סימן כ"ט ד"ה ועל דבר, ציינו הפתחי תשובה חו"מ שם


23 עיין רמב"ם הלכות תשובה פרק ג' הלכה ט', הלכות רוצח פרק ד' הלכה י', שולחן ערוך יו"ד סימן קנ"ח סעיף ב', אנצקלופדיה תלמודית ערך אפיקורוס


24 שאלות ותשובות מקדשי השם, שער מחמדים, עמודים ד - ו. Rav Meisel's narrative is cited (in English translation) by Irving J. Rosenbaum, The Holocaust and Halakhah, pp. 3 - 5, and see his discussion of it in the endnote on p. 158. I thank Dr. Shapiro for bringing this story to my attention.


25 The Holocaust and Halakhah, pp. 24 - 30. He is citing Rabb Oshry's Divre Efrayim, p. 95, a work to which I do not currently have access.


26 I have seen no discussion of whether there's any ethical imperative, such as Lifnim Mi'Shuras Ha'Din or Middas Hassidus, to refrain from so doing.


27 שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סוף סימן קמ"ו, הובא בסמ"ע סימן ג' ס"ק י"ג

]]> Yitzhak - בין דין לדין Thu, 01 May 2008 12:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/5/1/Hunted-Bears-Cantonists-and-Nazi-Victims Initial Bibliography of Important Haggadah Literature http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/16/Initial-Bibliography-of-Important-Haggadah-Literature
Initial Bibliography of Important Haggadah Literature
by Eliezer Brodt

All are aware of the proliferation of Haggadahs. Every year more and more are published thus making it difficult to know which versions are worthwhile. Thus, in this post I intend to focus on a listing a small bibliographical list of seforim relating to the Haggadah that are, in my mind, some of the most important ones.

In light of the fact I am going to select a few Haggadahs from the many, a caveat of sorts is in order. When discussing the "best" books it is good to keep in mind the comments of R. Eliyahu ben Avrohom Shlomo HaKohen (d. 1729) in his Shevet Mussar (ch. 28) who writes the following regarding affinities towards particular seforim:

ותראה בני אדם שלומדים ענין אחד מדרוש או ממוסר בספר אחד ואין טועמים ממנו ואין נרשם הדבר בשכלם. והענין או דברי המוסר בעצמו לומדים אותו בספר אחר הבא בשינו לשון ובמלות שונות וטועמים ממנו ונרשם הענין בדעתם ומגדלים ומשבחים אותו ענין. ובהפך אם אחד למד ענין בספר שלמד זה וטעם הוא אינו טועם כטעם הספר שלא טעם חבירו. טעמו של דבר שכל הטועם מענין הספר שלמד יש לו איזה שורש לנשמתו בנשמת מחבר הספר כיון שהם משורש אחד לכן טועם לשונו ונרשמים הדברים בליבו. לא כן מספר שלמד ולא טעם אף על פי שהענין אחד משום שאין לנשמתו שום קורבה ואחיזה בנשמת המחבר אותו ספר.

Basically, according each persons taste of a sefer could be different and the reason has to do with some sort of connection with the author of the sefer. Further, when it comes to the Haggadah and specifically the importance of the Haggadah the comments of the Sefer Hamaskil are instructive (p. 70):

מה טוב ומה נעים לעיין תמיד דבר בעתו בכל שבוע ושבוע בפירוש חומש ומחזיר וסליחות... ואגדת פסח

His basic point being that one should try to prepare before each occasion the tefilos we specific to that occasion – and for Pesach that is the Haggadah. (For more information regarding the Sefer Hamaskil see the excellent article from Rabbi M. Honig in Yerushcanu vol. 1).

One final point regarding the study of the Haggadah. The seder is at most two nights and thus some complain that they have no time to discuss or learn all the torah written about the seder in such a limited time. Many years ago I came across a interesting Netziv who writes that one should discuss Yetzis Mitzrim all Pesach not just the seder night [Hemaek Davar shimos 13:8]. Therefore, according the the Netziv, there is plenty of time to delve into the Haggadah and the seder.

As I have written before there is no other sefer which has more written on it than the Haggadah Shel Pesach. This year, on top of all the Haggadahs printed, Chaim Rosenberg has just added to his website of hebrew books 1000 more Haggadahs ! Moreover, the JNUL also has many rare Haggadahs online as well. Below are some of my recommendations of some good works on the Haggadah with some small points about them. I really should have a individual post about each one of these seforim but due to lack of time this should suffice for now.

Haggadahs discussing the historical development of the Haggadah & the Seder:

Many volumes have been written and will continue to be written about the Haggadah and its development. In 1954, R. Menachem M. Kasher had R. Shmuel Askenazi put together a Haggadah, Haggadah Shelama. [Virtually all of the work was done by R. Ashkenazi not by R. Kasher.] This Haggadah has an excellent introduction of forty chapters comprising 224 pages that discuss all aspects relating to the seder including much about the development of the Haggadah as we have it. As is the case with all R. Ashkenazi's works, this work is very well written and organized. It’s based on a very wide range of sources including manuscripts and genizah fragments. These introductory chapters have formed the bases for virtually all good Haggadahs printed since then. The second half of the Haggadah has an excellent collection of pirishim from many of the classic commentaries. This work has been reprinted many times, and is currently in print.

Another important Haggadah was edition by Professor D. Goldschmidt. This is a critical edition of the Haggadah [this is a updated version of previous editions that he had written] it also has much useful information on the development of the Haggadah and is a bit more scientific than Haggadah Shelama. But it is not nearly extensive as the Haggadah Shelama in what topics and information that it covers.

Another interesting work on the Haggada is called Haggadah and History by Professor Yosef Yerushalmi. This work contains 494 pages printed beautifully, describing five centuries of the Haggadah through facsimilie plates. Yerushalmi deals with many points of the particular Haggadahs. He also shows how the Haggadah is a mirror of Jewish history in general.

Another important volume was printed in 1998 by professors [father & son] Shemuel & Zev Safrai, Haggadah's Chazal. This Haggadah is excellent. In the past fifty years, since the printing of Haggadah Shelama, many more manuscripts and genizah fragments have come to light. The Safrai Haggadah makes prodigious use of this new information. It is well written and very user friendly. The Safrais deal with each part of the seder discussing at length the development of the Haggadah from times of Beis Hamikdash onwards. They also go through the entire text discussing various readings, sources, etc. In all, it is more scientific Haggadah then the Haggadah Shelama but less comprehensive. In the U.S. it is available here.

Another excellent work on the seder is Pessach Doros by R. Yosef Tabory published by Kibitz Hameuchad. This work focuses on many aspects of the seder and Haggadah. But this work does not only focus on the Pesach seder instead it discusses and provides sources for everything remotely touching on the seder – including, among others, the development of kiddish, lechem mishna, nitlas yadm on vegetables, and drinking wine in general this work to has a wealth of information on all these topics.

Turning now to non-scientific works on the seder. The first such work is Vayaged Moshe by R. M. Katz. This sefer is full of valuable information and is one of the first collections of all the halachah aspects of the seder. But since its printing there have been many more and better works written.

One such work written a few years back is R. Weingarten's three volume Seder Ha-aruch. The first volume is all about the halachaic aspects relating to the seder. The second volume discusses the aggadic parts relating to the seder. And the third volume is an excelent edition of the Haggadah. This third volume is based on many of the Haggdahs and includes all kinds of torah. It focuses on peshat based on rishonim and includes many other styles of learning as well including chassidius and kabalah. It is very easy to use and if one is leading a seder and has no time to prepare he will certainly find what to say. In general, this work it is very well researched and organized. It basically became a classic. A few works have come out since than I have not seen one done as well.

Another work on the seder is R. Ovadiah Yosef's Chazon Ovadiah. Many years back he printed two volumes under the same title but that was merely a bunch of articles on random topics. More recently, he printed a new edition of the Chazon Ovadiah where he goes through all the halachas of peasach in his encyclopedic style.

A Few Works on the Haggadah:

A few years back Mossad Harav Kook printed a beautiful edition of the Haggadah, Toras Chaim. This Haggadah contains 12 different prisushim of rishonim on the Haggadah based on manuscripts and contains many excellent notes on the texts. It is well worth one's time to study these commentaries which provide the Haggadahs simple peshat. It does, however, take much time and patience (and is confusing) to go through them all at the same time. Instead, it may be easier to divide it up pick one or two commentaries each year. These peshatim are very important as these are the main rishonim and how they understand each part of the Haggdah. They deal with many of the questions one has on the Haggadah but they are not full of sharp crowd catching stuff if one is trying to get the whole seder table into it. That is, when one learns the Haggadah there are many questions he will have as he has when learning any chazal these rishonim deal with many of those problems but they stick straight to peshat not dealing with fancy things or mussar points that people enjoy saying over to the crowd but they are extremely important to learn and in helping one understand the whole Haggadah.

Two minor complaints I have with this edition. Although the print is beautiful the layout is not. I find it a little annoying to use as when one is reading a particular pirish he has to keep on turning pages which is understandable but they are not all in the same place on each page which makes it kind of confusing. For example, some times the Ritvah you are in middle of you have to turn two pages etc. The best would have been to divide the sefer in half and make six pirushim per section making it much easier to use and easier to follow the notes. Another complaint is they should have printed a separate section of the halachos of the seder of these rishonim. This would make an excellent idea for a future work on Pesach and to include all the halchaic works of the rishonim on Pesach already printed by R. S. Stern.

The next Haggdah well worth ones time is the Abarbnel's Zevach Pesach. This Haggadah was the first printed in 1505 and is the first Haggadah printed with a commentary. Since then this Haggadah has been printed well over hundred times including in English. Last year Mossad Rav Kook printed a beautiful edition of this Haggadah.

This Haggadah provides excellent peshat in the well-known Abarbenel style. He begins by asking 100 questions on the Haggadah and than proceeds to answer each one in his clear manner. This Haggadah was and still is one of the most famous and most quoted in the various seforim. The Me'am Loaz Haggadah is heavily based on this Haggadah.

As far as other works of rishonim on the Haggadah, in the past few years, many have been printed by Professor Yakov Speigel. Speigel's editions are based on manuscripts and providedin critical editions. Recently Rabbi David Holzer printed a collection of rishonim from manuscript some of which had been printed by Professor Speigel and some never printed before.

Another work of rishonim printed is called Haggadahs Balei haTosfos also based on manuscripts of the Balei haTosofos on the Haggadah. This year a critical edition based on manuscripts was R. Yosef Gikatilla's Haggadah including many parts never printed before.

This year Mechon Yerushalim issued a new Haggadah, Otzar Mefrshi Haggadah. This collection is beautiful, well done and well organized. It has loads of information on the Haggadah. The style is the same as their Otzar Mifarshei Hatalmud. The editors write in the introduction that they intend to focus on peshat which they do a great job of it. They write they do not intend to bring down everything good as that would fill volumes but they are trying to put together what they could in a usable fashion. They use many hagdas of rishonim and achronim and they are not embarrassed to quote who they use - many times they quote from Seder Haruch etc. Although I think they did a great job and it is worth the money but I think if not for their time dead line the yarzheit of R. Buxbaum. It could have even been better (this is my opinon one can argue of course). For more on this see here.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Pesach Historical Haggadah Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/16/Initial-Bibliography-of-Important-Haggadah-Literature Marc B. Shapiro - Responses to Comments and Elaborations on Previous Posts II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/9/Marc-B-Shapiro--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-on-Previous-Posts-II
Responses to Comments and Elaborations of Previous Posts II

by Marc B. Shapiro


In a previous post I wrote as follows:


In Kitvei Ramban, vol. 1, p. 413, Chavel prints the introduction to Milhamot ha-Shem. The Ramban writes:



וקנאתי לרבנו הגדול רבי יצחק אלפאסי זכרונו לברכה קנאה גדולה, מפני שראיתי לחולקים על דבריו שלא השאירו לו כפי רב מחלוקותיהם ענין נכון בכל מה שדבר, ולא דבר הגון בכל מה שפרש, ולא פסק ראוי בכל מה שפסק, לא נשאר עם דבריהם בהלכות זולתי הדברים הפשוטים למתחיל פרק אין עומדין


In his note Chavel explains the last words as follows:



רק בסוף הפרק הזה נמצאה השגה אחת מבעל המאור


Yet what Ramban means by למתחיל פרק אין עומדין are the children who begin their talmudic study with Tractate Berakhot. In other words, it is only the explanations and pesakim of the Rif that are obvious even to the beginner that have not been challenged.[1]


Ephraim responded as follows


WRT the reference of Ramban to פרק אין עומדין, both you and R. Chavel are wrong. Ramban is clearly referring to the gemara's explanation of the Mishnah's ruling at the beginning of that chapter of אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש, which is that one should learn an undisputed halakha prior to davening. It is only on those simple and undisputed halakhos that the Maor did not disagree.


Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:


The basic problem with Dr. Shapiro's (or R' Mazuz's, as the case may be) pshat is that Ain Omdin is the fifth chapter of B'rachos, not the first. If the Ramban meant the perek that a kid starting out learns, why would he choose the fifth perek? I think R' Chavel's pshat is somewhat of a better pshat, since Ain Omdin is somewhat unusual in that there is only one haga'a from the Ba'al Hamoar in the whole perek, and I incline to think that this is what the Ramban meant.


I presented these comments to R. Mazuz and he replied as follows:



לפי פירוש כת"ר היל"ל הדברים הפשוטים שבתחלת פרק אין עומדין. אולם ידוע שבעדות המזרח התחילו ללמוד מסכת ברכות (וכ"ה בשו"ת הרי"ף סימן רג"ג). בניגוד לנהוג היום בתלמודי תורה להתחיל פרק אלו מציאות. ואבא זצ"ל התחיל לתלמידים בפרק תפלת השחר (ומסתמא כך נהגו בג'רבא) שהוא הפרק הכי קל בין הפרקים א' ב' ג' ד' במסכת ברכות. לכן יתכן מאד שבימי הראשונים התחילו דוקא בפרק אין עומדין (שהוא קל אפילו יותר מפרק תפלת השחר, ורובו דברי אגדה). וזוהי כוונת הרמב"ן


With regard to his point about the Sephardim beginning their instruction from Berakhot, in R. Mazuz’s new book, Arim Nisi, p. 364, he notes that R. Shakh, Shimushah shel Torah p. 88, refers to the Maskilim’s attempt to institute this in Europe as a “reform.” Yet in reality, this practice has a long history. R. Mazuz writes:



ונעלם ממנו במחכ"ת שכן מנהג הספרדים עד היום הזה, והוא מנהג קדמון מימי הרי"ף והגאונים, ואולי מימי רבי מסדר המשנה שהתחיל בסדר זרעים במסכת ברכות. ולפני כששים שנה הדפיסו באי ג'רבא מסכת ברכות בהשמתטת הקטעים שאין רגילים ללמדם לתלמידים בהסכמת רבני העיר וט"ו מרביצי תורה שבעיר, ויצאו מהם פירות ופירי פירות


Since I mentioned R. Mazuz’s comment vis-à-vis what R. Shakh wrote, I should add that he criticized him on other occasions as well. These criticisms were always offered with proper respect. Yet there are those in the Lithuanian world who have no interest in hearing what another gadol has to say if it not in line with current Daas Torah.[2] R. Mazuz states that he once sent a letter to Yated Neeman pointing out an error R Shakh made, and they refused to publish it. After this paper refused to publish two more of his letters, he stopped sending them, as the hazakhah had been established.[3]


He also tells us that if the editors had a different attitude, he would have also sent in something dealing with the proper way to pronounce the word אחד in Shema, since there was a great deal of discussion in the newspaper by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. The truth is that a dalet without a dagesh is very similar to a zayin[4] and is still preserved among the elders of Yemen and Iraq. He cites one of Ibn Gabirol’s poems which reads:



לאטך דברי שיר דבורה

אשר קרית שמע מפיך יקרא

מיחדת ומארכת באחד


In Peter Cole’s translation:


Take, little bee,

your time with your song,

in your flight intoning the prayer called "Hear"

declaring and stretching "the Lord is one."[5]



In other word, the bee’s buzzing (zzz) shows us how one can extend the dalet. It is pronounced in the way that the letter can be extended, which cannot be done with a hard dalet.


R. Shakh was a man of truth, and he certainly would have wanted to be corrected. All true scholars are happy when this happens, and this is what intellectual honesty is all about. But Yated Neeman has never been interested in truth or intellectual honesty, but in pushing a religio-political agenda, and therefore not only do they refuse to print such corrections of their gedolim, but they have even published material which they know is untrue. I refer in particular to their slander of R. Kook, stating that he applied the verse Ki Mitzion Tetze Torah to the Hebew University. Even though the truth was pointed out to them they continued to print the slander. One can read all about this in Moshe Maimon Alharar’s book Li-Khevodah shel Torah.



Returning to R. Mazuz and R. Shakh. R. Shakh had written


Whence did Hazal know that the earth was forty-two times larger than the moon, and that the sun was approximately one-hundred-and-seventy times larger than the earth (as explained in the Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 3:8), if not from the power of the Torah?


Some might recognize this passage as it was subject to a very strong critique by R. Aharon Lichtenstein. I am sure that many in the haredi world were very upset by what R. Lichtenstein wrote, but it pales in comparison to what R. Shakh wrote about the Rav’s Hamesh Derashot.[6] Among his negative comments, he referred to Rav’s Zionist ideas as ממש דברי כפירה.


R. Lichtenstein actually has two replies to the quote from R. Shakh. They are both found in the same essay, but the essay has appeared in two different versions. In the original version he wrote as follows.


Upon reading the passage, one can only reflect, first, that the description cited is nowhere to be found in Hazal, but derives, rather, from medieval astronomers; second, that it is in conflict with the rudiments of contemporary scientific assumptions, and, third, that it hardly consorts with the fact that the selfsame Rambam had explicitly stated, with respect to these very issues, that they were beyond the pale of Hazal’s authority. . . . The high regard properly due the author of the Avi Ezri notwithstanding, one can only conclude that, evidently, when their reach exceeds their grasp, even acknowledged and esteemed talmdei hakhamim may falter.[7]


Yet when this essay was reprinted in Leaves of Faith, vol. 2, the criticism was softened:


In raising this question, he is wholly oblivious not only of the rudiments of astronomy but also of the fact that the selfsame Rambam explicitly states, with respect to these very issues, that they are beyond the pale of Hazal’s authority.

In response to this citation of R. Shakh in Yated Neeman, R. Mazuz wrote as follows (Or Torah, Adar 5753, pp. 461-462):



והנני להעיר שהרמב"ם כתב כן ע"פ חכמי המדע בימיו ולא נצמא כן בדברי חז"ל. וכמבואר להדיא בהקדמתו לפירוש המשניות (בש"ס ברכות דפוס ווילנא דף נה סע"א וע"ב) שהמקור לזה מספר אלמגסט"י. והוא ספרו של בטלמיוס הידוע בחכמת האסטרונומיא. ועפ"ז כתב הרמב"ם בהלכות יסודי התורה (שם) שהשמש גדולה מן הירח פי 6800. ורלב"ג עה"ת (בפסוק ויאמר אלקים יהי מאורות) חולק על זה וכתב כי השמש גדולה מהירח פי חמשים אלף, כמו שביאר בח"א ממאמר חמישי מס' מלחמות ה' ע"ש. וכיום ידוע שהשמש גדולה מן הארץ פי מליון שלש מאות אלף



R. Mazuz’s second letter deals with the nature of darkness. Yated Neeman had printed the Vilna Gaon’s opinion that darkness is not simply the absence of light but its own creation. R. Mazuz responded that this is in opposition to the opinions of the Rambam, Ramban, R. Joel Sirkes, R. Elijah Mizrahi and the Siftei Hakhamim. Subsequent to writing the letter he learnt that this view was also held by R. Saadiah Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and the Kol Bo (see ibid., p. 946) After pointing out that the Vilna Gaon’s view is held by R. Jacob Emden and the Hida. He concludes:



מכל מקום אין לקרוא לסברא. שהחשך הוא העדר "דברת המינים" ח"ו. ואלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים



As already mentioned, Yated Neeman does not like to print letters from those who are able to show that the newspaper has erred. Only newspapers interested in the truth do that.


In his Kovetz Ma’amarim, pp. 102ff., R. Mazuz includes another letter he sent to Yated which also was not printed. The paper had published the view of the Steipler and R. Chaim Kanievsky that even Sephardim should pronounce the final vowel of אד-ני as Ashkenazim pronounce the kamatz, since otherwise it appears as it if there is more than one God.



R. Mazuz shows how mistaken this is, and illustrates though various texts that the way the Sephardim pronounce the kamatz today is precisely how it was pronounced in medieval times. For example, he cites one of Ibn Gabirol’s Azharot:



אנכי ה' / קראתיך בסינַי/ ולא יהיה על פנַי / לך אלהים אחרים


One can easily see that the words are designed to rhyme, so obviously the last syllable of Ado-nai was pronounced the same way as Sinai and panai.



2. Since I just mentioned R. Aharon Lichtenstein, let me quote something else he wrote that relates to what I noted in a previous post.[8] I pointed to the common phenomenon of people rejecting the authenticity of texts that don’t agree with their preconceptions. R. Lichtenstein states:


The Rav had no patience for philosophies that glorified passivity and reliance on miracles. At the beginning of the 1960’s, a few years after the launch of Sputnik, I had occasion to talk with the Rav about those people who claimed that man should not reach out for the heavens, for “the heavens are the heavens of God,” and only “the earth is given to human beings.” The Rav heaped scorn upon them. One of those present jumped up to protest: “But Rabbi, the Ramban in Bechukotai (Vayikra 26:11) speaks about how a person should have faith in the Holy One, and not to delve into matters that are too wondrous for him.” The Rav replied, “I heard from my father, in the name of my grandfather, that the Ramban never uttered that statement!”



Although not identical to the Ramban’s position, there was also a medieval Jewish view that doctors should only be consulted for things like sprained arms, but that when it came to internal diseases one should only resort to prayer. Lest one think that this idiosyncratic position has totally disappeared, I have even found a twentieth-century author who adopts it,[9] leading R. Ovadiah Yosef to strongly reject this view in his haskamah.


3. In a previous post[10] I called attention to an error made by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur Silver. They claimed that according to Radak’s commentary to Gen. 14:14, after the conquest of the Land of Israel the reading of this verse was changed to read “and pursued as far as Dan.” Dr. Strickman has informed me that in the Afterword to his translation of Ibn Ezra to Leviticus, p. 291, he himself corrected the errror. The correct reference is to Radak’s commentary to I Sam. 4:1. Here Radak leaves no doubt that he indeed believes that the text of the verse was changed.



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



With this text, we can now understand Radak’s commentary to Gen. 14:4 as also referring to a post-Mosaic change. Without this text, there would be no reason to assume that Radak in Gen 14:14 is not referring to Moses’ prophetically writing the word “Dan.”


As I pointed out in my previous post, in the introduction to his Commentary on the Torah Radak insists on complete Mosaic authorship. In order that there be no contradiction between the sources, we must assume that Radak means that no sections (or even verses) were written by someone other than Moses, but not that there are no minor post-Mosaic changes. In my book I pointed out that Radak understood tikkun soferim literally, that is, the Scribes actually made minor changes to the text of the Torah.[11]



(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.)


4. In a previous post I mentioned R. David Zvi Hillman’s strong attack on R. Kafih. It is only fair to point out that Hillman’s letter was the impetus for an even sharper attack on Hillman. See here, here, and here for the relevant documents.


R. Kafih was a follower of the Rambam who wrote that one should be “among those who are insulted, but not among those who are insulting” (Deot 5:28). While the articles make many good points, the crude language used is entirely unacceptable.


5. With regard to the Netziv and reading newspapers on Shabbat, Dr. Yehudah Mirsky has called my attention to the Netziv’s article in R. Kook’s journal, Ittur Soferim (1888), pp. 11-12, where the Netziv offers halakhic justification for this practice. Unfortunately, this short article was not included in Meshiv Davar, vol. 5, which appeared in 1993. (Presumably, the editors were unaware of it.) This most recent volume of Meshiv Davar is a bit strange, because the editors don’t tell us anything about where they found previoiusly unpublished responsa included here. From a historical standpoint, the most interesting responsum is no. 44. Here the Netziv blasts the new analytic approach of R. Isaac Jacob Reines, which is found in his Hotam ha-Tokhnit and Urim Gedolim.


Other than an anonymous article in Ha-Peles 5 (1903), pp. 673-674, in which Reines’ approach is regarded as falling into the category of “that which is new is forbidden by the Torah,” I don’t know of any other attacks on him. For some strange reason, Saul Lieberman thought that R. Yaakov David Wilovsky’s famous attack against the Brisker method, found in the introduction to his Beit Ridbaz, was directed against Reines. Shaul Stampfer quoted this in Lieberman’s name in the first edition of his masterpiece, Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita’it be-Hithavutah (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 113 n. 29, but omits Lieberman’s comment in the second edition of this book (Jerusalem, 2005).


6. In a previous post I wrote about the issue of kosher sturgeon. Shortly after the post appeared I read David Malkiel’s article on R. Isaac Lampronte’s Pahad Yitzhak.[12] Malkiel, p. 129, points out that the most famous entry in the work deals with the authority of customs, and focuses on whether a certain type of sturgeon is kosher. Lampronte tell us that the custom in Ferrara was to eat it.


I wrote the post without doing an internet search, which is now the first place people go when beginning their research. Only after the post appeared did I do such a search and I came up with the following very interesting post by Rabbi Seth Mandel.[13] He writes as follows:


I have asked several rabbonim about how it came to pass that if the Noda' biY'hudah paskened unequivocally that sturgeon is kosher, every book says black on white that it is not. Of the two rabbonim who even were aware of the issue, one said that of course sturgeon is kosher, and the fact that there is none with a hekhsher is either because the rav hamakhshir doesn't know about the issue, or you can't get a rav hamakhshir to the fishing plants. . . . The other rov said that of course, no recognized halakhic authority would contradict the Noda' biY'hudah on this, but since Jews believe they are not kosher, and the only ones pushing their kashrut are the C or R, why should an O rov fight to show they are kosher, as if we accept the way they arrive at their decision? . . .


I challenge anyone to find a posek who deals with the issue and refutes the Noda' biY'hudah. I am _not_ saying that I "know" that there is no one; what I am saying is that I have been looking for years, and have found no one. Please do not hesitate to correct me if anyone knows of a source (but one that knows that the Noda' biY'hudah had a t'shuva on this). The books on the kashrus of fish just take it as a given that since sturgeon, as R. Josh says, do not have scales but rather bony tubercules, they are not kosher. My bottom line is I don't care if people hold that they are not kosher (I don't like fish eggs, anyway), but it seems to me inexcusable for these books to distort the Torah by giving the impression that everyone agrees on this issue. The Noda' biY'hudah is not just anyone. My goodness, he is not even MO, L, or Chareidi, so there go most of the opportunities for saying “WADR to the Noda' biY'hudah, he is MO/L/ wears a grey hat, and so cannot be representative of true Torah." The only thing you can say is that he was an opponent of chasidus, but even according to the Chasidim, that is not an issue, since a famous story of the Chasidim is that he repented on his deathbed from all the not nice things he said condemning chasidus (and the story _must_ be true, since it is retold in the CIS Shulman "authorized" biography of him).


Rabbi Mandel wrote this before he was appointed to his current important position in the OU kashrut organization. Somehow, I don’t think he would have expressed himself this way if he was then working in the kashrut industry.[14]


7. I was fortunate to spend back-to-back Shabbatot with Prof. Daniel Sperber. I learnt much from my conversations with him, and I think people will enjoy listening to his presentations. He is currently president of the Jesselson Institute for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar Ilan University, and was kind enough to give me a recent volume published by them, Mi-Sinai le-Lishkat ha-Gazit by Shlomo Kassierer and Shlomo Glicksberg. This book analyzes the relationship between the written and oral law, and the nature of rabbinical authority. What makes the book significant is the combination of traditional and academic study. Anyone who wants to understand the latest thinking on this topic would be wise to consult this book.


8. Many people contacted me following my last post on Rabbis and Communism, so let me add a few further comments. R. Baruch Oberlander called my attention to Likutei Sihot, vol. 33, pp. 248-249. Here the Lubavitcher Rebbe states that there is no contradiction between Judaism and socialism. He adds that in Russia, before the Revolution, he knew many socialists, even radical ones (which I assume means real communists), who were completely Torah observant. See also Iggerot Kodesh, vol. 22, p. 497.


Since my last post mentioned R. Jacob Emden and Abraham Bick’s communist ties, I should also mention Mortimer Cohen, the author of Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy. This was the first academic defense of Emden, and was subjected to withering criticism by Scholem. Marvin Antelman, who has made attacking Eybschuetz one of his life’s goals, also sets his guns on Cohen, accusing him of having been the “’rabbi’ of a secret sect of Sabbatean communists, who carried on the Frankist conspiracy in Philadelphia” (Bekhor Satan, p. 44).


R. Nathan Kamenetsky wrote to me pointing out that when R. Dovid Leibowitz was let go from Yeshiva Torah va-Daas in the 1930s, one of the complaints against him was that he was promoting communism (whether the complaint was justified I cannot say. Kamenetsky continues: “My son, R' Yoseph, pointed out that the Torah divides wealth evenly when it sets the law of Yovel. At the conquest of Canaan, the land was divided evenly, and every fifty years thereafter, by which time there would be wealthy lanlords and poor ones, the Torah redistributed the land in its original lots. (The difference between large estates and small ones would then result only from family sizes, by which families with many children would have smaller fields than and those with many children.)”


I had wondered about the meaning of the word ,סוללים and suggested that it refers to a white-collar profession. Kamenetsky writes:


You do not base your suggestion on philology - and nor will I. I also do not think that you are correct sociologically that white-collar workers were assumed to be less religiously observant than other Jews. I believe that Rabbi Graubart meant pharmacists, because, like doctors, they were not expected to be observant. I know this from my father's attitude (which was grounded in the pre-World War I Jewish environment). For example, when my father would speak of my native Tzitevian, the town where he served as rabbi, and telling an involved story about how a Jewish woman who was suspected by my mother of not using the mikveh found that her husband was carrying on with their goyisheh maid, he added, (not in these exact words) "Naturally, besides the pharmacist's wife, all the women in the shtetl used the mikveh." Insofar as doctors, and likely pharmacists too, they weren't trusted to be profesionally reliable if they were observant! See my Making of a Godol, page 557, (within my discussion about Dr. Einhorn, a mysterious figure), where I quote an article about that doctor which said, "The [townspeople] realized that [Dr. Einhorn's] way of life, his devoutness, did not harmonize with his profession."


9. Dr. Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to Mordechai Zalkin, "Bein 'Bnei Elohim' li-Vnei Adam': Rabbanim, Bahurei Yeshivot ve-ha-Giyus le-Tzavah Ha-Russi ba-Meah ha-19," in Avriel Bar-Levav, ed., Shalom u-Milhamah be-Tarbut Ha-Yehudit (Jerusalem/Haifa, 2006), pp. 165-222. I was unaware of this fabulous article which is a detailed survey of the issue of rabbis and the Cantonist problem. Let me just quote his concluding paragraph, which I was happy to see supports a suggestion I made. Coming from Zalkin, who is an expert in the history of Russian Jewry, it should be taken very seriously.



אין בידינו כלים לבחון את מידת השפעתו ארוכת הטווח של תהליך זה על מערך היחסים הבסיסי בחברה היהודית המזרח אירופית משלהי המא התשע-עשרה. אולם יש מקום להניח שלתחושת האכזבה והתסכול מאופן תפקודה של הרבנות המזרח אירופית בפרשת הגיוס היה חלק לא מבוטל במגמות החילון ובנהייה אחר תנועות אידאולוגיות שהציעו מודלים מנהיגותיים אחרים, שרווחו בקרב יהודי מזרח אירופה במחצית השנייה של המאה התשע-עשרה



Notes



[1] See R. Meir Mazuz’ note in R. Hayyim Amselem, Minhat Hayyim, vol. 2, p. 15.

[2] I stress the “current” Daas Torah, since Daas Torah has been known to change. For example, Yated Neeman will, for obvious reasons, no longer mention the Daas Torah set forth by the Brisker Rav, the Steipler, and R. Shakh, and which was the official haredi position for many decades, namely, that one is not permitted to serve in the Israeli government batei din. With regard to Daas Torah, the quote from R. Itzele that I mentioned in my last post is very interesting



החלק הפוליטי נחוץ, כי על ידו נמשוך את בני הנעורים והרחוב להסתדרותנו. גם הלא אנו רואים, כי כלל ישראל חפץ בו, בוודאי מאת ד' הייתה זאת. וכלל ישראל הוא גבוה ונעלה מגדולי התורה. ישראל אם אינם נביאים, בני נביאים הם



In the haredi version of Daas Torah, the opinions of the masses are meaningless, indeed they are said to be – by definition – in opposition to Daas Torah (which always makes me wonder how laypeople such as Jonathan Rosenblum are able to understand and explain Daas Torah). Yet R. Itzele places the opinion of the religious masses on a higher level than that of the rabbis (à la kol hamon ke-kol shadai). One reader informed me that R. Avraham Shapira quoted this passage in defense of Zionism, i.e., the religious intuition of the people, who supported Zionism, trumped the view of the gedolim, most of whom opposed Zionism.


[3] Or Torah, Adar 5753, pp. 461ff., 946.

[4] See Shamma Friedman, “Le-Inyan ha-Devorah be-Shiro shel Ibn Gabirol, u-Minhag Ehad bi-Keriat Shema,” Lashon ve-Ivrit, Dec. 6, 1990, p. 31.

[5] Selected Poems of Solomon Ibn Gabirol (Princeton, 2000), p. 69.

[6] See Mikhtavim u-Ma’amarim, vol. 4, p. 107. See also his strong attack on the Rav’s ideology, ibid., pp. 35ff.

[7] “Legitimization of Modernity: Classical and Contemporary,” in Moshe Z. Sokol, ed., Engaging Modernity (Northvale, 1997), pp. 21-22

[8] See here.

[9] R. Reuven ben David, Meshiv Davar (Jerusalem, 1979), no. 2.

[10] http://seforim.blogspot.com/2008/01/clarifications-of-previous-posts-by.html


[11] Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 99. I also note that Radak doesn’t usually mention the various tikkunei soferim, which probably means that he did not accept them.

[12] “The Burden of the Past in the 18th Century: Authority, Custom and Innovation in the Pahad Yitzhak,” Jewish Law Annual 16 (2006), pp. 94-132

[13] See here.

[14] In a future post I hope to deal with the history of the kashrut industry. For now, let me just note that among the many ways we are more fortunate than those of previous generations is that we can even buy toilet bowl cleaner with a hashgachah (it is parve.). See here. Here is the actual letter of certification.



[15] See http://torahinmotion.org/store/store.htm

]]> Marc B. Shapiro Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/9/Marc-B-Shapiro--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-on-Previous-Posts-II A Puzzling Example of Plagiarism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/3/A-Puzzling-Example-of-Plagiarism One of the strange facts connected with plagiarism is that, at times, it is hard to discern what the motivation is to plagiarize. For example, we have seen a person today that continuously plagiarizes entire books even though he is well-known and, if the approbations on his books are any indication, well-respected. Still, he has plagiarized, in their entirety at least three books and seems to continue to do so. While monetary gain may be a reason, I don't see this as making him rich.

Another example where it is hard to figure out why the person plagiarized is an earlier case, a case from the early 19th century. Again, we are dealing with a book that was plagiarized in its entirety. Such examples, where the whole book is appropriated, makes it easy to show that this is a case of plagiarism and not merely that a sentence or two was not cited properly. This particular example also has the benefit that although an entire book was stolen and then republished under the very same title, it appears that detection of this eluded some experts in the field of Jewish books. Specifically, as we shall see that Israel Zinberg, had no knowledge of this. First, the original.

The book in question is a small work, Ha-Matzah Hadasha, published in Amsterdam as part of a collection of works. The entire collection, that includes three other works, is Shir Emunim. The author of these works is R. Moshe Piza. Ha-Matzah Hadasha is a book whose purpose is to demonstrate and list the words that contain the letter Shin and to distinguish between a Shin and a Sin. Additionally, R. Piza included a short commentary on the bottom that provides translation for some of the words he lists. Finally, R. Piza includes a poem of sorts at the end that lists the Sins in Tanach.

Ha-Matzah Hadasha, Amsterdam, 1793

Now, the plagiarized version. For this we travel from Amsterdam to Vilna. Zinberg, (A History of Jewish Literature, New York, 1975, vol. 6, pp. 282-84) in discussing the early rumblings of the Haskalah movement points to an "interesting person" Naftali Hertz Shulman. Shulman was very well-read and may have been proficient in Russian, German and Latin, something very uncommon for Jews of the time. He gave classes in the Rambam's Moreh Nevukim and was a teacher to many wealth students. Shulman attempted to start a journal that would provide information "about commerce and political events, and the lover of science about scientific discoveries." The stated purpose of the journal was so that "much knowledge in the realm of various languages, mathematics, geography, the natural sciences, etc. will be disseminated among our people."

Now, in 1804, Shulman published R. Benyamin Mussafia's lexographic work, Zekher Rav. Additionally, in 1804, under his own name, Shulman published Ha-Matzah Hadasha. On the title page Shulman states that "he gathered the information [in Ha-Matzah Hadasha] from many places" but never says that the entire work is word for word from R. Piza's earlier work. Zinberg, in his three pages on Shulman - most of glowing with Shulman's accomplishments - never mentions this fact. This is so, although the fact that Shulman plagiarism was already noted by Roest in his catalog of the Rosenthal collection, Yodeh Sefer no. 520. Roest notes that Shulman plagiarized Piza's entire work. It is worth noting that in truth Shulman did not plagiarize R. Piza's entire work - Shulman left out the final poem (I have provided it below).

Even auction catalogers, whose job presumably is to increase the value of auction items, were unaware of this fact. In the Judiaca Jerusalem catalog (April, 2008) they had Shulman's work for sale. They merely note that Shulman probably wrote this work - a work to differentiate between a the two similar letters of Shin and Sin - due to the unique Lithuanian pronunciation. Not only do that not mention the work is not original to Shulman, their explanation fails to account for the fact the work was never written in response to Lithuanian pronunciation as it was originally written in Amsterdam by a Sefardic author, R. Piza.

Ha-Matzah Hadasha, Sklov, 1804

Now, in light of Zinberg's description of Shulman, Shulman appears to have been well respected in Vilna, as I mentioned he taught many wealthy children, Shulman published his own works and was involved with many members of the early Haskalah even going so far as to suggest publishing the journal mentioned above. It is therefore perplexing then he would plagiarize an eight page book that for the most part is merely a list of words from Tanach that merely highlights whether there is a Shin or a Sin. Below, are scans from the original and Shulman's edition.



A Page from Shulman's edition


The same page from Piza's original version


The poem that appears at the end of Piza's Version
Note
Additionally, it may be that he actually plagiarized another book as well. While this is highly speculative, another book, discussed here, was plagiarized from R. Abraham ben HaGra in 1804 by a Yehuda ben Naftali Hertz. I don't know if this Yehuda ben Naftali Hertz is related to the Naftali Hertz above but the similarity in name, place of publication, as well as the timing may be an indication that either it is the same person or somehow connected.

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/4/3/A-Puzzling-Example-of-Plagiarism Marc B. Shapiro - Rabbis and Communism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/31/Marc-B-Shapiro--Rabbis-and-Communism

Rabbis and Communism

By

Marc B. Shapiro

I had intended my newest post to be on the Rav’s famous essay “Confrontation,” but I recently received the latest issue of Tradition with Rabbi Yitzchak Blau’s article “Rabbinic Responses to Communism,” so let me make a few comments about it. First, I must say that it is a good read, like all of Blau’s writing, and I was impressed with the range of topics he attempts to tackle. My only suggestion for improvement would have been to examine the larger context of Jewish communist anti-clerical sentiment, which made it very hard for the rabbis to be sympathetic to communism.

Yet this anti-clerical feeling did not arise in a vacuum. Quite apart from the traditional Marxist aversion to religion, the rabbis, like their non-Jewish religious counterparts, were generally aligned with the aristocracy, who paid their salary and took their sons as marriage partners for their daughters. The rabbis were thus seen as standing in the way of economic justice. In fact, there has been a long plutocratic tradition in the Jewish world, which meant complete disenfranchisement of the poor from all communal decisions. I don’t know of any Jewish community in history where people who could not afford to pay taxes were given communal voting rights. (This would be the modern equivalent of not giving welfare recipients the right to vote – wouldn’t the Republicans love to make this the law of the land!)

R. Samuel de Medina goes so far as to argue that the wealthy are qualitatively superior to the poor, citing in support of this horrible notion Eccl. 7:12: “For wisdom is a defense, even as money is a defense.” For him, money and wisdom are two sides of the same coin. [1] He also gives another proof to support his pro-wealth point of view. Gen. 41:56 states: “And the famine was over all the face of the earth (פני הארץ).” Upon this the Midrash comments that the face of the earth refers to the rich people (Tanhuma, ad loc.). From this we see, says de Medina, that the rich are at the head of the community and everyone else in the rear, not a position from which one leads.[2] As he puts it (and note how the poor and the ignorant are treated as one group):

Accepting the will of the majority, when that majority is composed of ignorant men, could lead to a perversion of justice. For if there were one hundred men in a city, ten of whom were wealthy, respected men, and ninety of whom were poor, and the ninety wanted to appoint a leader approved by them, would the ten prominent men have to submit to him regardless of who he was? Heaven forbid, this is not the accepted way (“the way of pleasantness”).[3]

None of this means that de Medina was insensitive to the needs of the poor. This was not the case at all, and he has a responsum in which he requires people to contribute to the building of houses that will be used, among other things, for poor visitors to spend the night.[4] Yet we see in him a sense of paternalism that was common in traditional societies all over the world, and was one of the factors which convinced the lower class that it was time to take matters into their own hands.[5]

When dealing with anti-clericalism in Russia, we must also not forget the masses’ long memory of how some (many?, most?) rabbis were silent during the era of the chappers. This was when children were grabbed for 25 years of military service in the Cantonists, often never again to see their parents and usually succumbing to incessant pressure (including torture) to be baptized. Yet it wasn’t the children of the rich or the rabbis who were taken, but the poor children. Jacob Lifshitz’ defense of the way the Jewish community dealt with the Cantonist tragedy – which he regards as worse than even the destruction of the Temple![6] – and his insistence that no one can judge the community leaders unless they themselves had been in such a difficult circumstance, is something we must bear in mind.[7] Yet all such ex post facto justifications would have no impact on the outlook of those that actually suffered during the Cantonist era, and it is no wonder that many of the common people would not regard the rabbis in a sympathetic light. The rabbis were certainly able to come up with a justification why their sons, the future Torah scholars, should not be taken to the army, just as they continue to make this argument. Yet this would only serve to show the masses that some children’s blood was indeed redder than others.[8]

In his memoir of this era, Yehudah Leib Levin wrote:

"I was relatively calm and personally did not fear the chappers, because my father was an important landlord, distinguished in Torah and highly regarded by everyone. My mother was the daughter of the most famous tzaddik (righteous person) of his generation, Rabbi Moshe Kabrina’at. And I, I was one of the “good children,” a prodigy the likes of whom were not touched by the hand of the masses. Free both of fear and of schoolwork, because the teachers and pupils had all gone into hiding and the chedarim [schools] were closed, I wandered daily around the city streets seeing the little “Russians,” and my heart burst when I realized they were in the hands of non-Jews, who forced them to eat pork – oh dear me!"[9]

Elyakum Zunser was seized when he was away from his hometown. Many years later he wrote:

Many private individuals engaged in this traffic, seizing young children and selling them to the Kahal “bosses.” Reminiscent of the sale of Joseph by his own brothers, these betrayals occurred daily. Lesser rabbis of small towns assented to such transactions, rationalizing that it was more “pious” to save the children of their own towns than to concern themselves with the fate of strangers.

Though many important rabbis wept at these outrages, most dared not protest. They were afraid of the consequences if the Jewish community would defy the Tsar’s quota. The rabbis held their positions at the discretion of the Kahal leaders and feared the consequences of displeasing them. They were afraid to be denounced to government officials and exiled to Siberia.[10]

Michael Stanislawski notes that in one community the communal leaders wanted to grab a poor tailor since he wasn’t observant, but the local rabbi forbid it. Stanislawski also tells us that in Vilna the communal leaders had their sights on a larger prize.

[T]he traditionalist kahal authorities later attempted to forestall the opening of the government-sponsored rabbinical seminaries by drafting the sons of several of its proposed teachers, but this was discovered by the local administration and forbidden.[11]

He also quotes the Hebrew writer Y. L. Katsenson, who describes his grandmother’s shock when she discovered that the chappers in her town were not Gentiles:

No, my child, to our great horror, all khappers were in fact Jews, Jews with beards and sidelocks. We Jews are accustomed to attacks, libels, and evil decrees from the non-Jews – such have happened from time to time immemorial, and such is our lot in Exile. In the past, there were Gentiles who held a cross in one hand and a knife in the other, and said: “Jew, kiss the cross or die,” and the Jews preferred death to apostasy. But now there come Jews, religious Jews, who capture children and send them off to apostasy. Such a punishment was not even listed in the Bible’s list of the most horrible curses. Jews spill the blood of their brothers, and God is silent, the rabbis are silent. . . .[12]

What is incredible is that after all the pressure to convert, some Cantonists remained Jewish. In fact – and here I mention something that I only learnt after my book on R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg was published – Weinberg’s grandfather was a Cantonist. His father was also a soldier in the post-Cantonist Czarist army.[13] In the book I mentioned that Weinberg’s family was undistinguished, yet if I was writing it now I would speak about how the two generations of army service signifies that this was in fact a very low-class family, and shows how significant Weinberg’s rise to fame was. As I pointed out, while in theory the yeshivot were equal-opportunity institutions, in reality the aristocratic element in them was generally well established and self-perpetuating.[14]

In a strong defense of the rabbis against the charge that they collaborated with the rich people in order to ensure that the poor were taken, R. Moses Solomon Kazarnov calls attention to all that the rabbis did to defend the children of the lower class.[15] But he acknowledges that the rabbis would hand over the non-religious kids, including their own![16] (While I have no doubt that the rabbis joined with the parnasim to hand over the non-religious youth, it strains imagination to believe that there were more than a few who did this with their own irreligious sons.) As Kazarnov puts it (51-52, in words that must cause loathing in any contemporary parent, and I would assume in virtually all parents even one hundred years ago):

והרבנים איפא כבנים נאמנים לתלמודם הורו למעשה את אשר מצאו כתוב להלכה, ותמיד הורו לא אך לאחרים, אך גם לעצמם, אם בניהם לא נהגו כשורה, לנדותם להבזותם ולתת גם את חלקם לטובים מהם; כמה אבות רבנים או חרדים גרידא הנך זוכר קורא יקר, אשר בניהם יצאו לתרבות רעה ואשר התפללו לה' תמיד כי יחמול ה' עליהם ויקח את בניהם אלה מהם, כמה מהם השתדלו בעצמם להשיג את בניהם שנתפקרו למען מסרם לצבא תחת יתר בניהם הרודים עם א-ל?

Talk about conditional love! I don’t even want to imagine what it did to the mental state of a child who knew that his father would hand him over to the Czar’s army if he decided that he no longer wanted to be Orthodox. Kazarnov continues:

ואם כן אפוא מי זה יאשימם על הוראתם למסור למלכות לעבודת הצבא את החטאים תחת הכשרים? . . . הלא לא עשו לבני העניים יותר מאשר עשו לבניהם המם. את הכשרים שמרו כבבת עינם, אם שלהם ואם של אחרים, ואת החוטאים מסרו לצבא אם מירכם יצאו או מירך זולתם! . . . במאכלות אסורות ובנבלות, זמה ורשע, בזדונות כאלה שמו החרדים את פניהם להמעיטם מקרב עמם, מקרב משפחתם ומקרב בני ביתם, ומה היא כל החרדה הזאת?

Concerning the general issue of the rabbis being allied with the wealthy, Dan Rabinowitz called my attention to what R. Judah Margaliot wrote in his Beit Middot:

Some of the leaders of Israel do not think of the glory of their Creator but only of their own. They employ all their power merely to terrorize the community. [He then elaborates on how they do this] . . . Do not think that one can turn for help to the great figures of the generation, to our rabbis, whose duty it is to be the protectors and defenders of the people. For they are in league with the oppressors, walk together with the powerful men and rulers of the city, become collaborators of every mischief-maker, give protection to every swindler. They exploit the rabbi’s title and authority for all kinds of evil deeds. Everything obtains the approval of the community rabbi. He who ought to be the guardian of righteousness and justice becomes the protector of robbers and bandits. The righteous judge joins the league of the swindlers. . . . . And these are our judges and lawgivers! Calmly they look on at the robberies and injustices that take place in the community and flatter the rich and powerful from whom every quarrel and plague come.[17]

Returning to the issue of poverty, which de Medina sees as a disqualifier for communal leadership, we can also find more positive evaluations of it. Nedarim 81a tells us not to neglect the children of the poor, for the Torah goes out from them. If you examine the commentaries on this passage you will certainly find those who point out that it is easier for a poor person to study Torah, as he does not have the same attachment to the material world as does the wealthy man, and it is this attachment that prevents one from focusing on Torah. I read these sources as designed to be encouraging. In other words, they are ex post facto judgments of the positive that can be found in poverty, so that people in this unfortunate state don’t think that all is lost.

Yet in the entire history of the Jewish people I don’t know of any source that says that it is good to be poor, and that this is something that one should strive for. In fact, the Talmud states that one who is poor is like one who is dead (Nedarim 64b), and puts poverty in the same category as childlessness, leprosy, and blindness, all things that we hope we never have to deal with. Similarly, R. Phineas b. Hama stated: ”Poverty in one's home is worse than fifty plagues” (Bava Batra 116a). In Eruvin 41b extreme poverty is listed as one of the three things that “deprive a man of his senses and of a knowledge of his Creator.”

The notion that it is harder for a rich person to get into heaven than to put a camel through the eye of a needle has never been a Jewish teaching, and Jews have regarded wealth as a blessing. It is a challenging blessing, but a blessing nonetheless.

Yet when questioned by those who pointed out how difficult poverty is for the kollel students in Israel, R. Aryeh Leib Steinman responded with what, to my knowledge, is a completely new approach, one which idealizes poverty in a manner not very different than the Christian notion of “Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20):

While everyone must distance themselves from unnecessary expenditures and luxuries just as they would be careful of fire, Bnei Torah have an especial obligation as the simple life is recommended for acquiring Torah, and they have it better if they live a life of simplicity and tsnius, and even poverty and want. It says: This is the way of Torah – eat bread with salt. But it is important to stress that what is necessary is strengthening emunoh and dedication to Torah. One should definitely not look for solutions that might cause avreichim to leave learning, G-d forbid.

I was asked if it would be a good idea to open offices for chareidi men in the large chareidi cities so that they could work in an appropriate atmosphere. It is obvious that the idea is a bad one though the intentions are good. The fact that the workplaces would be especially suited to the needs of chareidi men, and set up by chareidi people, might encourage people in difficult financial situations to leave learning. It is a spiritual stumbling block for the community at large. It would be terrible even if it would cause just one man to leave full-time learning. . . .

What are the effects of poverty? The answer is that it is better to be poor than to be rich, as Torah comes forth from the poor; they are the ones that become talmidei chachomim. The Jewish People has always undergone difficult trials. Historically, it's been the poor people who have maintained their commitment to Judaism, despite the difficulties. It was among the rich people that some failed to withstand the temptations and trials. They are the ones that lost their children and grandchildren to Torah. It was the poor who remained especially steadfast in their dedication.

I have personally witnessed, and history testifies, that in all of the places where people learned Torah in poverty, they were able to maintain the Mesorah. In the places where the people had a comfortable standard of living, their learning was not immune to the Haskalah's influences and many abandoned the Jewish and Torah way of life.[18]

Returning to Blau’s article, I was happy to see that he cited R. Jacob Emden who expressed admiration for shared property. I would just note that as with so many other issues in his writings, Emden had an alternate opinion as well, and here he comes out looking like his contemporary, Adam Smith. Emden explains how poverty is essential to a successful economic order. He notes that without the motivating factor of those who are in need – what Gordon Gekko would call “greed”[19] and what others will call “self-interest” – no economic progress will ever be made. If people are not able to improve their economic state, they will not take the risks that stand behind all new ideas and discoveries, which are precisely what keeps the economic engine of a society going. Communism, which took away the hope of personal gain, stifled all of this creativity.

Showing keen insight, Emden writes that if everyone had sufficient economic security, no one would travel on ships to far-away places and bring back the goods that are so important to people, no one would agree to do the back-breaking work required to build society’s great structures, and no one would take the time to come up with new inventions such as clocks and מחזות, which Azriel Schochet[20] suggests means glasses but I think telescopes is just as likely.

The passage appears in Birat Migdal Oz, 138b, but since the edition I have access to (on Otzar ha-Hokhmah) does not have page nos., I will cite it as it appears in Schochet, Im Hillufei Tekufot, 224-225:

והפלא מהשגחת הבורא הפרטית לתועלת עולמו ולהשלים תקנת בני אדם דרי תבל למלא חסרונם בהמצא בהם עניים ודלים. כי זולתם לא היתה הארץ נעבדת לתת יבולה ופריה, ולא היו מתגלים מחצבי הכסף והזהב ואבנים יקרות וסממני הרפואה ומיני הצבעים הנחפרים מן הארץ להודיע טובה ושבחה ושפעה הרב, לא תחסר כל בה. ואם היו כולם שבעים ומושפעים בשוה לא היה אחד מהם טורח להשיג דבר מן הדברים הנזכרים, ואצ"ל שלא היה שום אדם מסכים לרכוב אניות ולדרוך אניות להביא לחמו ממרחק ולמלא חסרון המדינות נעדרי התבואות והדברים היקרים וראשי בשמים והסמים הפשוטים, ולא היה מי מהם שירצה להעמיס על עצמו המלאכות הכבדות כבנית הבנינים הגדולים והיכלות תמלכים ומגדלים, ערים בצורות וחפירות הבורות והבארות, והיה העולם שמם. וכל שכן שלא היה אחד טורח בשכלו ובכח ידו להמציא תחבולות ואומניות נפלאות, כמו כלי השעות והמחזות והדומה להם מהאריגה והציורים ופתוחי חותם, והרבה מה שיארך זכרו, ולא היה ניכר שוע לפני דל, ובסיבת העוני ישיגו בני אדם כל הטובות הגדולות הרבות ההנה, והעני והחסר ישיג בהם די מחיתו והשלמת חסרונו ברצונו. מלבד מה שישיגו ע"י כך אורחות חיים כי יחלץ עני בעניו ע"י שנצרף בכור העוני, והעושר זוכה בו ומהנהו מנכסיו, מאיר עיני שניהם ה'.

I was also happy to see that Blau mentioned R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg’s views, although he overlooked Li-Frakim (2002 ed.), 578-582 and Kitvei ha-Rav Weinberg, vol. 2, 404-408,[21] the latter of which is devoted to Marx.

As can be expected, the rabbinic figures Blau surveys in his recent article in Tradition were no great fans of communism.[22] He writes: “My research failed to turn up a single Rabbi [!] of recognized stature who endorsed the communist program.”

.יגעתי ומצאתי After the February 1917 Russian Revolution which brought Kerensky to power, the Orthodox formed a group called Masoret ve-Herut. It contained both Zionists and non-Zionists and was supposed to send a delegation to the All Russian Jewish Congress, which because of the Bolshevik revolution never took place. The group also envisioned itself becoming a real political power with the establishment of the new government. On the seventeenth of Tamuz, 1917, over fifty rabbis came to Moscow for discussions about this, including R. Avraham Dov Shapiro of Kovno, R. Abraham Aaron Burstein of Tavrig,[23] R. Isaac Rabinowitz of Ponovezh (R. Itzele), and R. Aaron Walkin of Pinsk. The Hafetz Hayyim sent greetings but was too ill to attend.

Since the masses did not have any property, one of the issues the new group would have to take a stand on was agrarian redistribution. With the Czar overthrown, it was possible to take not just his land but also the land that belonged to the wealthy princes, noblemen, and magnates and redistribute it, and this was certainly what the average person wanted. However, is this in accord with Jewish law? Can one confiscate another’s property? This was a subject of great controversy among the rabbis, and as can be imagined, many opposed this step. R. Itzele got up and, as recorded by R. Judah Leib Graubart,[24] said the following

החלק הפוליטי נחוץ, כי על ידו נמשוך את בני הנעורים והרחוב להסתדרותנו. גם הלא אנו רואים, כי כלל ישראל חפץ בו, בוודאי מאת ד' הייתה זאת. וכלל ישראל הוא גבוה ונעלה מגדולי התורה. ישראל אם אינם נביאים, בני נביאים הם.

In other words, if the Jewish people think that the concentration of land in the hands of a minority is unjust and should be redistributed, even if the rabbis claim that redistribution of the land is robbery, the opinion of the Jewish people overrides that of the rabbis.[25] Certainly, all would agree that R. Itzele is a rabbi of recognized stature.

Zalman Alpert called my attention to Jacob Mark’s discussion of R. Itzele in his Bi-Mehitzatam shel Gedolei ha-Dor, 116. Mark mentions that R. Itzele was greatly respected by the radicals (which included at least one of his own sons who was arrested in 1905 for revolutionary activities).[26] He was also very interested in socialism and carefully went through Marx’s Das Kapital. He was greatly impressed by Marx’s ideas, yet Mark notes that he commented: “I cannot agree with his positions, because they oppose the Torah law that protects private property.” I don’t deny that he said as much to Mark, but as we see from Graubart’s book, at the time of the Revolution he had a different perspective.[27] As to how, from a halakhic standpoint, he could have supported redistribution of wealth if the Torah protects private property, this is not a difficult problem. After all, as far as the Rabbis are concerned, governments have the right to engage in all sorts of taxation and redistribution of wealth.[28]

Eliezer Brodt called my attention to R. Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel ve-Doro (New York, 1964), 134-135, who tells an interesting story about R. Menashe of Ilya, one of the great students of the Vilna Gaon. (I can't say whether the story is apocryphal.) R. Menashe was greatly bothered by the terrible poverty in the Jewish community and came up with a revolutionary idea long before Marx. He proposed organizing a meeting of all the great rabbinic and lay leaders in the Jewish community, and their job would be to divide the Jewish wealth evenly. By doing so, the poverty problem would be solved and all would be equal. It is said that he turned to R. Hayyim of Volozhin and asked him to put his stature behind such a gathering. R. Hayyim replied that he is willing to be involved in one half of the program, i.e., the part where the poor receive the money, but the second part, in which the rich have to give up their money, he leaves to R. Menashe. Supposedly, R. Menashe understood from this answer that his plan had no hope.

R. Judah Leib Ashlag was another great rabbi who supported communism (see here ). It is very ironic that today Ashlag’s torch is carried by a few capitalist entrepreneurs, who have become very rich through the Kabbalah Centre.[29]

Isaac Steinberg, while not a rabbi, is a figure that should be mentioned. He was a leader of the Social Revolutionary Party and served as commissar for law in the first Soviet government. There is a lengthy article and picture of Steinberg in the Encyclopedia Judaica. Here is another picture of him.

Steinberg was also an Orthodox Jew. His ability to combine revolutionary views and Torah might be due to the influence of his teacher, the brilliant Rabbi Shlomo Barukh Rabinkow, who was himself “a convinced socialist and revolutionary.”[30]

Pini Dunner B.A (Hons), formerly rabbi of London's Saatchi Synagogue, is an avid collector of polemical and controversial Hebraica, with a very large, diverse private collection of such material. Many items in his collection are unknown and unrecorded, and relate to long forgotten, obscure controversies.

This is Pini Dunner’s second post at the Seforim blog; his first post, “Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931,” is available here.
Photographs of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson z"l, are numerous and ubiquitous. Jews from every area of Jewish life across the globe are familiar with his striking features, his charismatic gaze. Almost all such pictures, however, date from his arrival in the USA in the early 1940s, and particularly from after he became Rebbe in 1951, by which time he was almost 50 years old. Pictures from before he became rebbe, and particularly from his time in Europe, are so scarce that they can be counted on the fingers of one, perhaps two, hands.

I am an avid collector of photographs of rabbis and rebbes, and have built up a large collection of rare photographs of pre-war rabbinic greats. In the course of my internet searches and purchases I have made the acquaintance of several other collectors, and we derive pleasure from sharing photographic images from our respective collections by emailing each other scans. Last week, a non-Jewish web acquaintance of mine emailed me a number of scans, among which was this one that he titled 'unidentified rabbi'. It was apparently taken in Marienbad in the late 1930s. It is unmistakably a photograph – hitherto unknown, as far as I know – of the late Rebbe in the period when he was simply known as the second son-in-law of the then Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson z"l.

In relation to this period may I add that when, in 1997, Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch published Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch, Larger Than Life: The Life and Times of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (New York: Chasidic Historical Productions, 1997), his unauthorized biography of the late Rebbe, I managed to obtain a copy of both volumes (even then it was hard to obtain; now it is out-of-print and extremely rare). I noticed that a large part of Volume 2 described the Rebbe's early 1930s era in Berlin, including his regular visits to the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary (Orthodox). When I next visited my late grandfather, Rav Yosef Tzvi Dunner z"l (his first yahrzeit is this Erev Pesach), who, at his passing in 2007, was the final surviving musmakh of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary – see here for an obituary post at the Seforim blog – I asked him if he remembered the Rebbe from his time in Berlin (1932-36). He smiled and said he remembered him well – he was the rather modern-dressed young man with the neatly trimmed beard who stood at the back of the shiur room and who would talk in learning after almost every shiur with Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg z"l. My father was sitting with us when I discussed this with my grandfather and, quite surprised, he demanded to know why his father had never previously shared the fact that he had spent time with the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Berlin.

Without missing a beat my grandfather replied: 'because no one ever asked me before'!

]]> Pini Dunner Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/30/Pini-Dunner--Unknown-Picture-of-the-late-Lubavitcher-Rebbe-c1930s A Conspiracy Theory To Explain A Racy Title Page http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/28/A-Conspiracy-Theory-To-Explain-A-Racy-Title-Page
We have discussed on multiple occasions the use of illustration of nudes to adorn the title pages of Hebrew books. It appears, again as we have seen before, that even though the appearance of such illustrations are really unremarkable, some will go to great lengths to either expunge or, in this case, explain away the appearance of such illustrations. In the April, 2008, Jerusalem Judaica auction catalog (provided below) they have a rather rare work of R. Yitzhak Hiyut (c. 1538- c.1610). [For biographical information on R. Yitzhak see Yaakov Elbaum, Pituchut Ve-HaSegirut, Jerusalem, 1990, p. 23 n.36.] This small book, some 18 pages, is comprised of R. Hiyut's sermon he gave on the first day of Passover in 1589. The editors of the catalog attempt to deal with the two nudes depicting Adam and Eve [the illustration of Eve is very similar to the one of Eve that appears in the Levush and the Prague Haggadah ] that appear on the title page. They explain
"that this 'Sermon' was [perhaps] printed on the intermediate days of Passover by gentile print workers. They allowed themselves to place immodest engravings on the title page. The print owner did not supervise their work on these intermediate days of the holiday. They chose the images of Adam and Eve with the apple of the evil inclination in their hands."

Thus, according to the catalog editors, the appearance of these illustration is due is basically an error, or if you wish, a rather interesting conspiracy theory.



Now, obviously, it is impossible to prove the negative, that is we have no way of saying 100% the above scenario did not happen, but I think at the very least we can show it is unlikely. First, perhaps the most straightforward item is that we have seen such illustration are not an anomaly - I have provided below one such illustration that appears on the title page of the 1577 edition of the Shulchan Orach.

Second, we are aware of cases of printing that did take place on either Shabbat or Yom Tov. The eminent bibliophile, Abraham Yaari, provides a list of such books. See A. Yaari, Mehkerei Sefer, Jerusalem, 1958, pp. 170-78. The method he employees in deciding which books were published on Shabbat or Yom Tov, is not conjecture. Instead, when a book was published when Jews were unable to oversee the printing, there was a much bigger problem than the title page illustration. When non-Jews printed without the aid of Jews, as one would imagine, the book was then subject to many typographical errors as the non-Jews, for the most part, could not read or understand Hebrew. Thus, typically, there would be a disclaimer somewhere in the book stating that there maybe such errors due to lack of Jewish supervision. In the case of this book of Derashot, there is no such disclaimer.

Finally, the entire assumption is highly questionable. That is, according to some one is allowed to print books on the intermediate days of a holiday. Famously, R. Yosef Karo's maggid explicitly tells R. Karo that he must write down what the maggid tells him even on the intermediate days. (For other illustration and a discussion of the above, in Hebrew, see here.)

Shulchan Orach, 1577 edition

]]> Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/28/A-Conspiracy-Theory-To-Explain-A-Racy-Title-Page The "Holy Woman" in Jewish Literature http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/26/The-Holy-Woman-in-Jewish-Literature
Any discussion regarding prostitution in Jewish literature starts with the various mentions in Tanach. Obviously, some are clearer than others, compare the case of Rachav with that of Tamar. But we will leave those comparisons for the readers of the Seforim blog who consider themselves biblical exegetes. Additionally, we will not focus on the Talmudic or overly legalistic discussions regarding prostitution. Instead, starting in Medieval times, we will attempt to document some of the mentions of prostitution and its effect, prevalence and general history amongst Jews.

Of late, much has been made of high governmental officials and their use of prostitutes. A striking parrall can be found in the writings of R. Yaakov Emden. R. Emden records that one of the parnasim, a representative of the Altona Jewish community, who went to Copenhagen for the inauguration of the king [Frederick III?] on behalf of the Altona Jews. While he was there, he squandered "thousands" from the community funds to engage prostitutes. Similarly, R. Emden relates that in Hamburg in 1764, after Kol Nidrei, a non-Jewish woman made a scene in shul claiming that her three children's father was a Jew, and that he should take the children and support them.

Prostitution, much like today, appears to be a fascination of the public. It appears this is not a new phenomenon, instead, R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, in his travelogue Ma'agel Tov, records his impressions of Paris when he was there in 1777. [The Hida really liked Paris, and although this was not his first visit there, he still provides many interesting details.] He states:
Paris is a huge city, some 15 miles wide, with wide streets so wide that two carriages can pass each other even with people hanging on the sides, and the Seine river flows through Paris and that is where Parisians get their water. There is a bridge, the Pont Neuf, and this bridge is so busy that day or night there are always people on it . . . In fact the saying goes at any hour one can find on the Pont Neuf a white horse, a priest, and prostitute. The city of Paris is beautiful and one can find everything there, however, it is all expensive, the one exception being prostitutes - and it is known that there are 30,000 prostitutes that are available for anyone. That number does not include the thousands that are specialized for particular persons.
Throughout the middle ages, in the Iberian peninsula, there was a debate whether having prostitutes available was better on the whole. Two rationales were offered as a justification for prostitution. The first, that if people use prostitutes they won't fall prey to adultery, a much more serious sin. And second, that there was in various times and places laws that punished by death Jewish and non-Jewish intercourse. Without Jewish prostitutes, Jews may violate that prohibition and be subject to death - typically burning. Thus, having Jewish prostitutes was allowed for the very pragmatic reason as a balance of harms, or the greater good, that is, it avoided these two other negative outcomes.

R. Yitzhak Arama famously decried these justifications. In explaining the sin of the people of Sedom, he put forth the notion that although individuals may sin, any time a community sanctions sins, that creates a much more serious communal crime. And that, he says, was why Sodom was unique in being utterly destroyed although there were numerous other instances of serious sin throughout Tanach that did not suffer the fate of Sodom. R. Armama then continues and applies the explanation for the destruction Sodom to his own times. He explains that for this reason he fought against those communities that sanctioned prostitution. While it may be correct that there is some way to justify prostitution, a community can never sanction illegal behavior. He offered that the ramifications of not having prostitutes was not to be considered, in no way could a community allow for such behavior. [This holding of R. Arama is used by many in many varied instances, see R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabeah Omer, Orach Hayyim vol. 1, no. 30:15).]

R. Yitzhak ben Sheshet Perfet (Rivash) speaks of the "Gedoli Ha-Dor" who used the very rationale rejected by R. Arama to justify prostitution:
"The Gedolei Ha-Dor averted their eyes [from Jewish prostitution] based on the rationale that if we do not allow the sinners to utilize prostitutes they will sin with non-Jews and they will be subject to burning."
Similarly, R. Yehuda ben Ha-Rosh received a similar query in that he was asked whether the position "of some people who say that they should force the prostitutes out of the Jewish area as they are in violation of the prohibition against kadasha and further they do not go to the mikveh thus causing people to be punished with karet, however, there are those who say that it is better to have the prostitutes remain in the city so that Jews will not resort to going to non-Jews thereby putting their lives in danger." R. Yehuda responded, like R. Arama, that "the law does not follow 'those who say' and they should remove the prostitutes. A Latin document records a troubling incident from 1404 where, "a German speaking Jew visited a non-Jewish prostitute on Shabbat and he refused to pay her, he explained that he could not pay her as it would violate the Shabbat."

Skipping ahead a few years to 1675, we come to the Takkanot of Frankfurt which states "that one is required to remove the prostitutes within six month from the Jewish area . . . And they cannot remain even as servants, even if they are kept for free. But, if the householder is willing to pay a two Reichthaller a week fine, then they can be kept, however, should they miss even a week's payment then they must leave." In Fuerth, a law was required to be enacted that single mothers could not circumcise their sons in the shul.

Finally, we turn to R. Yechezkel Landau, author of Shu"t Noda B'Yehuda, and although he is not discussing prostitution in general, but it is worthwhile to mention a specific case of Havah Bernstein, wife of the Chief Rabbi of Brody, R. Areyeh Leib Bernstein. According to the testimony of two people (and perhaps others), Havah was accused of acting as a prostitute. After this testimony came to light there was a celebrated controversy regarding the status of this woman vis-a-vis her husband. It appears, due to the Chief Rabbi's powerful secular connections he was able to shut down any discussion about his wife (although there are several responsa on the topic). And specifically, there was a decree that anyone who called the Chief Rabbi's wife a prostitute would be subject to a fine of 100 adumim for each statement to that effect. So, R. Landau showed up to court and made the following announcement:
"Everyone should know that the wife of the Chief Rabbi is a prostitute and there is a fine, 100 adumim for each utterace that she is a prostitute, and you should also all know that if I had more money I would call her a prostitute again, however I currently do not have the money I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that I have already called her a prostitute."
Thus, R. Landau was able to call her a prostitute four times for the price of one. (Mofes Ha-Dor p. 9).

Sources: For the medieval sources see Grossman, Hassidut U-Morodot Jerusalem, 2003), 229-56 (see also where Grossman cites to those who question the truth of the Latin account and discusses other areas during the medieval period); R. Arama, Akedat Yitzhak, parshat Veyerah, Gate 20; Hida, Maagel Tov, p. 120; for the 16th and 17th sources, including R. Emden, see Azreil Shohet, Im Halufei Tekufot (Jerusalem, 1960), 166-73. For more on the Havah Bernstein incident, see 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), 228-51; and Matthias Lehmann, "Levantinos and Other Jews: Reading H. Y. D. Azulai's Travel Diary," Jewish Social Studies 13:3 (Spring/Summer 2007): 1-34.

]]> Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/26/The-Holy-Woman-in-Jewish-Literature Nancy Sinkoff -- Benjamin Franklin and the Virtues of Mussar http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/25/Nancy-Sinkoff--Benjamin-Franklin-and-the-Virtues-of-Mussar
In response to the recent article by Jay Michaelson in The Forward reviewing two recent works of Mussar - the "New Kabbalah" - Rutgers University professor Nancy Sinkoff has written a letter to The Forward, available below to readers of the Seforim blog. (It has not yet appeared in The Forward.)

Related to the letter below, is Prof. Nancy Sinkoff, "Benjamin Franklin in Jewish Eastern Europe: Cultural Appropriation in the Age of the Enlightenment," Journal of the History of Ideas 61:1 (January, 2000): 133-152, available in PDF courtesy of her Rutgers University faculty page, see here (PDF).

This is Prof. Sinkoff’s first contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.
Dear Editor:

I was pleased to see Jay Michaelson's review of two recent books extolling the virtues of Mussar. However, I was taken aback by the reviewer's comment regarding the work by Alan Morinis, Everyday Holiness: The Jewish Spiritual Path of Mussar, in which readers are told that "Morinis is an affable guide, prescribing daily, weekly and yearly practices to translate the generalities of ethics into the particularities of daily life. For instance, he advocates selecting 13 midot and focusing on each for one week at time -- four cycles of the 13 each year -- . . . with a written cheshbon ha'nefesh that evaluates one's progress," etc. etc.

This method did not originate with Morinis, but with the eighteenth-century enlightenment figure and American founding father, Benjamin Franklin. Detailed explicitly – with a chart! – in Franklin’s French Memoirs, this guide to individual moral self-improvement found its way to Jewish Eastern Europe via an enlightened Polish aristocrat and freemason, Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski, who financially supported a Jewish enlightener (maskil), Mendel Lefin of Satanow, in his efforts to reform traditional Jewish society. Lefin published his Hebrew book that incorporated Franklin's program as Sefer Heshbon ha-Nefesh (Moral Stocktaking) in Lemberg (now L'viv) in 1808.

Franklin's reputation was so great that his method also found its way to Russia, where Leo Tolstoy was known to keep a Franklin journal. For complex and fascinating historical reasons that I cannot belabor here, Lefin's enlightened work, which was clearly anti-Hasidic, was appropriated by Israel Salanter, the "father" of the nineteenth-century Mussar movement. To this day, Salanter's reprinting of Lefin's book has found a home among traditionalist Jewish circles and, apparently given the review, among popularizing ones. Work on Franklin, Lefin, and Salanter is readily available in English, Yiddish, and Hebrew.

Perhaps Mr. Morinis credited his eighteenth- and nineteenth-century predecessors in his book, but the review did not make any such attribution clear. I would like to know.

Nancy Sinkoff

]]> Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:19:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/25/Nancy-Sinkoff--Benjamin-Franklin-and-the-Virtues-of-Mussar New Auction Catalog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/23/New-Auction-Catalog
Kestenbaum & Co.'s latest auction catalog for its auction on April 3, 2008, is available online. The auction includes a collection of important bibliography catalogs including, Koheleth David, the catalog of R. David Oppenheimer's books that eventually went to the Bodleian Libary; Ohel Avraham, catalog of R. Avraham Merzbacher, this catalog was complied by R. Raphael Nathan Nata Rabinowich the author of Dikdukei Soferim; Likutei Shoshanim, the catalog of R. Mattisyahu Straschun's library (this library in part went to YIVO and part to Hecheil Shlomo, Hecheil Shlomo recently sold this library and YIVO has sold parts of the library as well); Koheles Moshe, the catalog of St. Petersberg library compiled by Shmuel Wiener considered one of the best bibliography catalogs (unfortunately Wiener never completed the catalog).

Another book of interest is Johann Jakob Schudt's Judisher Merkwurdigkeiten (Jewish Curiosities) (lot 110). This book contains much in the way of providing evidence of what Jewish practice was in the 18th century. R. Goldhaver in his comprehensive article on the origins and spread of custom of kabbalat Shabbat uses Schudt as Schudt is the earliest mention of some Kabbalat Shabbat customs.

Some of the books here belong to important personages. For example, an edition of the Shabbthai Sofer siddur belonging to Sir David Solomons, the first Jewish Sheriff of London and the Lord Mayor of London, he was also one of the first Jews to serve in the British House of Commons. (lot 218). There is a book on agunah that was Chaim Heller's copy. (lot 245) R. Shlomo Dubno's copy of Meskhtat Derekh Erets. (lot 265) And, then there is R. Nathan Adler of Frankfort's copy of Adugath Mordehai. (lot 4)

A few noteworthy first editions also appear in the catalog. First, there is a sixteenth century copy of a machzor according to the Karite rite. (lot 210) This is a very rare machzor, with the only complete copy in the Bodleian Library. Second, there are a few first editions of the Gra's works including Tospehta Zeraim, Shenoth Eliyahu, Torat Kohanim, and Tikkunei HaZohar. (lots 96-99) There is also the first edition of R. Emden's She'elot Ya'avetz. (lot 100)

The auction includes the Munich-Heidelberg Talmud that was printed with the help of the United States Army after the Holocaust. (lot 171) A miniature Tehillim that is extremely rare. (lot 55). And, an important edition of Rashi's commentary on the Torah - it is a Spanish or Sephardic "version" that is distinct from the German/French and Italian versions. (lot 53)
Two manuscripts of interest. A portion of the Hatam Sofer's commentary to the Torah written in his own hand. (lot 348). Second, is a manuscript of R. Saul Morteira's work on the Truth of the Law of Moses. The manuscript includes information on the Jews of Recife.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Bibliographies Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:14:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/23/New-Auction-Catalog The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature (Revisited) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/18/The-Origins-of-Hamentashen-in-Jewish-Literature-Revisited
The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical-Culinary Survey Revisited*
By Eliezer Brodt

I. Introduction


As Jews, most of our holidays have special foods specific to them; and behind each culinary custom, lays enveiled the reasoning behind them. Shavuot brings with it a vast array of customary dairy delicacies – in some parts of the world, cheesecake is practically obligatory – not to mention different customs in regard to how and when to eat them. Rosh Hashanah in renowned for the different fruits and vegetables eaten as physical embodiments symbolizing our tefillot; Chanukah has fried foods (no trans-fats please); whether latkes sizzling in the frying pan, or the elusive Israeli sufganiyot (jelly doughnuts) seen for a month before but not to be found a minute after Chanukah’s departure, and on the fifteenth of Shevat a veritable plethora of fruits are sampled in an almost 'Pesach Seder'-like ceremony. Of course, on Purim we eat hamentashen.

Hamentashen. Those calorie-inflated, Atkins-defying, doughy tri-cornered confections filled with almost anything bake-able. The Mishpacha reports that this year in Israel alone, an astounding 24.5 million hamentashen will be sold, weighing 1225 tons, and yielding an approximate 33 million NIS in sales.[1] The question that many will be asking themselves is "where did this minhag to eat hamentashen come from?"

Recently I started researching this topic; thus far (and I hope to find more) my results are as follows.



II. Origins


The earliest source I have located so far can be found in the first Jewish comedy called Ztachus Bedechusa Dekidushin. This play was written in Hebrew by Yehudah Sommo (1527- 1592) from Italy. He was a friend of R. Azariah Men Hadomim and is even quoted in the Meor Eynamim (at the end of chapter eighteen). This comedy was written for Purim as he writes in the introduction:

הוא ספר חדש מדבר צחות אשר בדה מלבו פ' בימי בחרותו לצחק בו בימי הפורים ובשעת חדוה


In one of the scenes the following conversation take place:


יאיר: אם בדברים כאלה אכפרה פניו, כבר יש לי קושיא אחת אשר ייעפו כל תוספי התורה להתירה, כי הנה כתוב במגלת פורים "ויתלו את המן" ובפרשת בלק נכתב בפירוש "ויאכלו בני ישראל את המן". ואיך יאכלו היהודים הנשמרים מכל רע את נבלת התלוי ההוא ואל הכלב לא ישליכו אותה?

יקטן: גם זה ראיתי אני וכבר תרץ הקושיא הזאת רב בלעם בן בבי בשם אביו: כי מה שאמרה התורה "ויאכלו את המן" היא אזהרה וציווי לנו שנאכל בימי הפורים האלה מאזני המן – הן המה הרקייקם הנעשים בסולת בלולה בשמן, וזהו שאמר אחרי כן "וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש".

יאיר: יפה פירוש בן ביבי זכור לטוב!


Professor Schirman who printed this play from manuscript notes that רב בלעם בן בבי is the name of one of the characters in the Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus. [2] In connection with Yehudah Sommo's play, it is possible to understand an engmatic statement in the Tishbi. Specifically, R. Elijah Bocher writes:

ערך "מנלן"- מנלן להמן מן התורה שנאמר ויאכלך את המן, גם זו מלה מורכבת מן ב' מלות אן ולן


R. Yeshaya Pick in his notes on the Tishbi asks, the Gemarah in Chulin which asks this same question has a different source for Haman min Hatorah where does the Tishbi get this Chazal from? He suggests that maybe he had different chazal which we do not have. However in the new edition of Tishbi they printed notes of R. Mazauz who suggests that it is highly probable that there was no such Chazal rather the Tishbi was referring to the famous lezunuot about eating hamntashen. This suggestion is all the more probable after seeing the words of Yehudah Sommo in his play written a little after the Tishbi.[3]

The next source I have located is in the poetry of the brothers Yakov and Emanuel Pranosish (1618- 1703) in one piece [4] they write:

אמנם נזרק העט ונקצר ענינים,

כי יום פורים זה בא, נכין לו מעדנים,

נכין מרקחות ממתקים מכל מינים,

נגדיל אזני המן מאזני השפנים,


Ben-Yehudah, in his dictionary also cites to a manuscript excerpt of a Purim comedy penned by R. Yehudah Aryeh de Modena, where he is supposed to mention this food Hamantashen.[5]
Mention can also be found in some liturgical parodies [6] from the seventeenth-century, where it includes references to eating hamentashen:

שתו אכלו אזני המן


Thus, from the above, it seems that the original word was aznei Haman the name Hamantashen only came later.


In an 1846 cook book called The Jewish Manual by Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore we find a recipe for “Haman fritters.”[7] R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Mekor Barukh, relates the following interesting anecdote which highlights the importance his grandfather placed on eating hamentashen:

One year in the beginning of the month of Adar he [my grandfather] noticed that the bakeries were not selling hamentashen. When he inquired as to why this was so, he discovered that there was a shortage of flour. He promptly went ahead and gave the biggest bakers in the city a large sum of money to enable them to buy flour to bake hamantsashen.[8]


In a nineteenth-century Lithuanian memoir again the import of hamentashen is apparent. The author recalls that “my sister spent the day preparing the baked delicacies of Purim. Most important were the hamentashen.”[9] R. Michael Braver in his excellent memoir of Galicia written in the mid 1800’s also describes the sending of Hamantashen on Purim. [10] A. S. Sachs in his memories on shtetl life notes that his “grandma would add a Haman-tash for the kiddies” in the meshloach manot.[11] Chaim Hamburger also mentions the baking of Hamantashen on purim in his memoirs. [12]. Professor Simha Assaf, in an article describing Purim, also writes that people made special foods called hamentashen.[13] Shmarya Levin recollects in his autobiography with great detail the hamentashen:

The much-loved little cakes, stuffed with nuts and poppy seed, which are called ‘Haman’s ears’ – sometimes ‘Haman’s pockets’ – had been prepared for us in vast numbers. Their shape alone was a joy. They were neither round, like rolls, nor long, like the loaf; with their triangular shape they were like nothing else that we ate during the year. The stuffing was made of poppy-seeds fried in honey, but there was not enough of it, so we used to eat the cake cagily, in such wise that with every mouthful we got at least a nibble of honeyed poppy seed.[14]

Similarly, David Zagier in his memoirs of Botchki writes about his childhood there: We commemorated Purim . . . Lesser Miracles came in the wake of the Purim miracle . . . the invention of Hamentashen, the best cakes one could dream of, all poppy seed and honey (p. 69).[15] We also find hamentashen being eaten in Amsterdam[16] and Jews from Bucharia, as well, make אזני המן, similar to hamentashen. [17] לאה אזני המן מנין is a comedy listed in Avraham Yari's bibliographical listing of comedies.[18]



III. Other possible early origins for Hamentashen


As we can see, the custom of eating hamentashen is widespread and common from at least the 16th century. In fact, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pointed to some sources which may demonstrate that hamentashen were eaten even earlier. Ben Yehuda in his dictionary claims that as early as the time of the Abarbanel (1437-1508), hamentashen were consumed. The Abarbanel, discussing the food which fell from heaven, the mon, describes these cakes as:[19]

וצפיחית הוא מאכל הקמח מבושל בשמן כצורת צפחת המים הנאכל בדבש והוא כמו הרקיקים העושים מן הבצק כדמות אזנים מבושלות בשמן ויטבלו אותם בדבש ויקראוהו אזנים

This sounds like our hamentashen although there is no reference to eating them on Purim. But R. Ashkenazi pointed out to me that if this is the source, you might then be able to suggest that hamentashen was already eaten much earlier, as this piece of the Abarbanel is word for word taken from R Yosef ibn Kaspi who lived several hundred years earlier (Kaspi was born in 1298 and died in 1340)!

Another possible early source for our Hamentashen could perhaps be found thru the words of Emanuel Haromi. In Machbres Emanuel [20] he writes:

מה אומר המן? לכל זמן

וזרש? לא תקלל חרש!

And then again:

ואם אמר: ארור המן וזרש! ישיבון: אל תקלל, דוד, לחרש!

Dov Yardan when he was preparing his excellent critical edition of Machbres Emanuel composed a list of statements of Emanuel that Yardan was unable to locate sources for. One of these was this line regarding Haman's deafness. Yaran suggests that this maybe this has to do with why we eat aznei Haman! And maybe that is also tied to the banging and using of gragers when we say Haman name. [21] Interestingly Dov Sadan also writes in his youth he used to hear that Haman was deaf.

So to conclude it seems from all this that the original word was aznei Haman the name Hamantashen only came later and earliest origins are from Italy. [22]



IV. Ta'am ha-Hamentashen


Irrespective when the custom of eating hamentashen began, the question we need to now explore is why hamentashen, what connection do hamentashen have with Purim?


Hayyim Schauss explains that in actuality the origins of the hamentashen are not Jewish, rather, we originally appropriated them from another culture. He explains that “the hamentashen are also of German origin. Originally they were called mohn-tashen, mohn meaning poppy seed and tashen meaning pockets and also signified dough that is filled with other food stuffs. The people therefore related the cake to the book of Esther and changed the mahn to Haman [due to its similarity]. In time the interpretation arose that the three cornered cakes are eaten because Haman wore a three cornered hat when he became prime minister to Ahasuerus. The three corners were also interpreted as a symbolic sign of the three patriarchs whose merit aided the Jews against Haman.”[23]


Another reason offered for eating hamentashen also deals with the meaning (more correctly a pun) of the word – hamentashen, because Haman wanted to kill us out and Hashem weakened him, preventing him from doing evil to us. Thus, the treat is called המן תש (Hamen became weakened). Eating these pastries is representative of our faith that the same result will befall all our antagonists.[24]

The next reason offered by Menucha u-Kedusha has to do with the pastry itself, more specifically, how the filling is hidden. Until the events which occurred on Purim, the Jews were accustomed to open miracles like those in their battle with Sisra, whereas the Purim miracle appeared to be through natural events – only Mordechai knew that this was a miracle. To remember this, we eat pastries that the main part – the filling – is hidden in the dough, similar to the miracle which was hidden in nature. The filling chosen was specifically zeronim (seeds – poppy seed - mahn) to remind us of Daniel having eaten only seeds (and not non-kosher food) while in captivity at Nevuchadnezar's court. Furthermore, according to this source the triangular shape also has meaning. The Talmud (Megillah 19b) records a three way argument from where to start reading the megillah. As the halakhah is to follow all three opinions and start from the beginning, we cut the pastries in triangular shape to symbolize our accordance to all three opinions. Another reason mentioned in Menucha u-Kedusha for the filling is based on the writings of R. Moshe Alsheikh, who states the Jews did not really think they were going to get completely wiped out until Mordechai finally convinced them so. The possibility arises that Mordechai was afraid to keep on sending out letters, so pastries were baked and the letters hidden therein. These pastry-letters saved the Jews; in turn we eat filled pastries. This reason is a bit interesting for itself, but what is even more interesting is that he never calls the pastries hamentashen.[25] A possibility might be kreplach, meat filled pockets boiled in soup, but the theory is unlikely as kreplach are not something special eaten exclusively for Purim – we eat it other times such as Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabah.

R. Yaakov Kamenetsky offers yet another reason for eating hamentashen on Purim. As we eat the hamentashen and eating is a form of destroying the item being eaten. Therefore, in eating hamentashen, we are fulfilling the commandment (figuratively) of destroying Amalek we are eating Hamen.[26]

Yom Tov Lewinsky and Professor Dov New both suggest that the reason for eating the hamentashen is because the custom in the Middle Ages was to cut off the ears of someone who was supposed to be hung,[27] to remember that we eat pastries from which a part had been cut off. Another point mentioned both by these authors is an opinion that the filling in the pastries [this is specific to poppy seeds] is in remembrance to the 10,000 silver coins that Haman offered to contribute to Achashverosh's coffers.[28]

Aside from the general merrymaking on Purim, there is also a long tradition of written fun. Specifically, since the famous Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (1286-1328), there have been many versions of these type of comedies written throughout the ages. One such was R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), which is a complete sefer all about Purim written to be humorous. Included therein is a question regarding changing the way hamentashen should be made from a triangle to make them square shape! He answered that it would be terrible to make hamentashen square. If the hamentashen are square they would have four corners which in turn would obligate the attachment of tzitzet like any clothes of four corners.[29]

One last interesting point in regard to hamentashen can be found within Prof. Elliott Horowitz's recent book-length discussion related to Purim[30] where he notes that as recent as 2002, a Saudi 'scholar' Umayna Ahamad al Jalahma claimed that Muslim blood can be used for the three cornered hamentashen.[31] Horowitz also notes that in middle of the Damascus affair in 1840, a work from 1803 was discovered which claimed that Christian blood was used in the ingredients for Purim pastries.[32] Again in 1846, Horowitz writes that “on the holiday of Purim it was claimed the Jews would annually perform a homicide in hateful memory of Haman, and if they managed to kill a Christian the Rabbi would bake the latter’s blood in triangular pastries which he would send as mishloach manot to his Christian friend.”[33] In 1938 the Jews were once again accused of murdering an adult Christian and drying his blood to be mixed into the triangular cakes eaten on Purim.[34]

Thanks to Rabbis Y. Tessler, A. Loketch and Yosaif M. Dubovick, and the two anonymous readers, for their help in locating some of the sources.

* This article has been heavily updated from last year’s version with many important additions and corrections.

Notes
[1] Mishpacha (27 Shevat 5767), 30.
[2] This play was printed for the first time from manuscript by C. Shirman in a critical edition in 1946 and than reissued by him with additions in 1965. This piece with the quote of aznei Haman can be found in the second edition on page 67. This particular passage was also reprinted by Shirman in his Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, pg 52-53. Shirman includes a nice introduction and background on Yehudah Sommo printed in both these places.

This play is the first known play performed for Purim. From this time period and onwards we have a very rich literature of plays and musicals. They were performed especially on Purim but on other occasions such as Simchas Torah and weddings (Shirman, Ibid, pp. 63-67; 80 -85). To be sure these plays were also met with opposition most notable by R. Samuel Abhuv [See, Shu"t Davar Shmuel, siman daled and Shirman, ibid pg 47, 56]. This is the one and the same that was against Meschtas Purim and cross dressing. However, it could be there was not so much out rage against it as the Rabonim felt it was a lost battle or the lesser of two evils to go to ones of Gentiles. Of the many play writers some were very famous gedolim most notable the author of Ikrei Dinim, R. Moshe Zechuto and the Ramchal. This whole topic has been dealt with very much in depth by C. Shirman in his Letoldos Hashira VHadrama Haivrit, 2, pgs 44-94. On the Ramchal see: Shirman, ibid, pg 84-85 and 161-175.

This era in Italy was followed by a long period of Yiddish plays many of which were collected by C. Shmirk. Until today in many circles especially yeshivas plays are performed on Purim. In Europe some of the plays were performed by the bochrim to raise money for themselves. In many memoirs we have accounts of how much the masses enjoyed these plays. Just to list a few of the very many sources on this topic. See the accounts in Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century pp. 31- 32; A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed, pp. 232-234 ; Zechronot Av Ubeno, p. 356.

On purim plays in general much has been written see: Israel Abrahams, Jewish life in the Middle Ages, pgs 260- 272; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 184- 190 and 332-335; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, p. 201 who writes this was from outside influences; M. Breuer, Ohele Torah, pp. 418-419; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 84-87;
[3] New edition of Tishbi p. 162.
[4] Printed in Kol Shirei Yakov Pronsish p. 363. On these brothers see the Introduction printed in this edition. See also: C. Shirman, Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, pp. 57, 138.
[5] Though I was unable to pin-point the comedy, it might be the one called La Reina Esther; see Mark R. Cohen, The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena's Life of Judah (Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 235. This play was written in Italian and is extremely rare. Recently Marina Arbib wrote an excellent article called ‘The Queen Esther Triangle: Leon Modena, Ansaldo Ceba and Sara Copio Sullam’, printed in the book Aryeh Yeshag pp. 103-135. See also C. Schirman, Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, p. 55.
[6] Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature (New York, 1907), p. 193.
[7] Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, The Jewish Manual (London, 1846)
[8] R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, Mekor Barukh (vol 1, p. 974)
[9] Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman, trans. Henny Wenkart (University Press of Maryland, 2000), p. 29.
[10] Zechronot Av Ubeno, p. 24.
[11] A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), p. 229.
[12] Shlosha Olmos, 3, p. 22.
[13] Simha Assaf, Sefer Hamoadim, p. 29.
[14] Forward from Exile: The Autobiography of Shmarya Levin, ed. and trans. Maurice Samuel (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967).
[15] Botchki, p. 69.
[16] Minhagei Amsterdam p. 149 # 12
[17] Yalkut ha-Minhagim, pg. 210
[18] Hamachazeh Ha-Ivri, p. 76 n.654.
[19] Parashat Beshalach, end of chap. 16; [This source is also quoted in the Otzar ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit, however the editors simply describe it as a "phrase from the Middle Ages" (vol 1 p. 59).] When I first wrote this suggestion from R. Askenazi, R. M. Honig pointed out to me that it is more likely that they were referring to Sufganyuos as it is evident from the words of Rav Mamion the father of the Rambam where he says:

אין להקל בשום מנהג ואפילו מנהג קל. ויתחייב כל נכון לו עשית משתה ושמחה ומאכל לפרסם הנס שעשה השם יתברך עמנו באותם הימים. ופשט המנהג לעשות סופגנין, בערבי אלספינג, והם הצפחיות בדבש ובתרגום האיסקריטין הוא מנהג הקדמונים משום שהם קלויים בשמן לזכר ברכתו (כלומר לנס שבפך שמן)

(See my earlier post on this). This could be further supported with the words of Emanuel Haromi in Machbres Emanuel where he writes (p. 168):

בכסליו... ואחרת תבשל הרקיקים, וצפחית ומעשה החבתים.

This could be another early source for Sufganyuos. However in light of these words of Yehudah Sommo where he says:

לנו שנאכל בימי הפורים האלה מאזני המן – הן המה הרקייקם הנעשים בסולת בלולה בשמן, וזהו שאמר אחרי כן "וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש".

So it could very well be that the Abarbanel and Kaspi were referring to Hamantashen.
[20] Machbres Emanuel pp. 109, 169. According to this that the possible source for eating aznei Haman comes from Emanuel Haromi! It is not clear if he had a source from Chazal for this statement that Haman was deaf as much of what he says is based on Chazal. However there is a good chance that this was just a joke of his. This would not be the first time that a joke of his became accepted in our regular literature. R. Askenazi pointed out to me one such example in the Tur Al Hatoroah, Bresheis (pg 7) where he writes as follows:

ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל. לפי הפשט שהכתני בעץ עד כי שמעתי לדבריה.

The source for this is really Emmanuel Haromi (pg 400) where he writes:

ויגש העשרי ויאמר: אמר נא, פלא יועץ מה רצה הכתוב באמרו היא נתנה לי מן העץ והיה לו לומר מפרי העץ, לפי הנראה ועתה אמר נא, בחסדך מה פרוש בו אתה רואה? ואען ואמר: חייך, ידידות נפשי! פרוש הפסוק הוא: היא נתנה לי מן העץ על ראשי ודכאה לארץ חיתי עד שאכלתי על כרחי, שלא בטובתי.

R. Askenazi noted that this pirish which was meant as a joke was accepted by many besides for the Tur amongst them the Moshav Zekanim R. Yakov Meveinia.
[21] Yedah Haam, 3, p. 70.
[22] See the excellent article of Dov Saden printed in his work Shay Olomos (pp. 25-38) on the development of this word hamantashen, based on an incredible wide range of sources. This piece helped me find some of the rather unknown sources. See also Yehudah Avidah in his work on Yiddish Foods ‘Yideishe macholim’ pp. 46-49. See also Dov New, Machanaim (# 43) and the recent issue of the Kulmos (#60) p. 17.
[23] Hayyim Schauss, The Jewish Festivals (Random House, 1938; Hebrew, 1933), p. 270. The source for the first reason can be found in Judah David Eisenstein, Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim (New York, 1917), p. 336, and for the last reason in Yitzhak Lifshitz, Sefer Ma’atamim (Warsaw, 1889), p. 86.
[24] Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918), p. 131. See also R. Cohen in his book Puirm VChodesh Adar, pp. 116-117 and R. Kamile, Shar Reveun, p. 206.
[25] R. Yisrael Isserl of Ponevezh Sefer Menucha u-Kedusha (Vilna, 1864), pp. 271-72.
[26] Yaakov Michoel Jacobs, Bemechitzas Rabbeinu: Hagaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, zt"l (Feldheim, 2005), p. 142.
[27] Yom Tov Lewinsky, Sefer Hamoadim (pp. 153-154); Dov New, Machanaim # 43. New quotes a piece from Yashar which I have been unable to locate on this topic if any one knows its location please be so kind as to let me know. This source is also quoted by Ben Yehuda in his dictionary under the entry aznei.
[28] Ibid.
[29] R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), pg. 6. See Israel Davidson, ibid. pg 234-235, #191.
[30] Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, 2006)
[31] Ibid, p. 9.
[32] Ibid, p. 218.
[33] Ibid, p. 219.
[34] Ibid, p. 228.

]]> Purim Eliezer Brodt Customs Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/18/The-Origins-of-Hamentashen-in-Jewish-Literature-Revisited Purim and Parodies http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/17/Purim-and-Parodies
Purim and Parodies

by Eliezer Brodt

Happiness During the Month of Adar and its Discontents

The month of Adar begins a time of joy, as the mishna says "mi shenechnas Adar marbim b'simcha." Interestingly, it’s been noted here that this halacha is not codified by either the Rambam or Shulchan Orach. R. Yissachar Tamar in his classic work on Yerushalmi, Ali Tamar, notes that some have suggested that this is the reason why many shuls in Europe hung signs proclaiming Mi Shenechnas Adar with pictures of bottles of wine and Jews happy was to announce this halacha! [1] Furthermore, the Ali Tamar provides additional sources that demonstrate that some were punctilious about in their observation of this halacha and would begin celebrating from rosh hodesh Adar. In light of this concept we could perhaps understand how many halchahos are relaxed during and around Purim-time. For example, after the destruction of the Bes HaMikdash, Chazal enacted a prohibition against "".שחוק This is recorded in the Gemara (Berchos 31a):


אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי: אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה, שנאמר: 'אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה', אימתי - בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה' לעשות עם אלה. אמרו עליו על ריש לקיש, שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה מכי שמעה מרבי יוחנן רביה.


This is codified in Shulchan Orach (O.C. siman 560, 5) to which the Taz (ibid) comments:


בשם רבינו יונה דמשמע גם שלא בזמן הגלות דלא כנוסח הטור שכתב בגלות הזה ונלע"ד שיש חילוק בזה דלענין שמחה שאינו של מצוה ודאי אסור אפי' שלא בזמן הגלות למלא פיו שחוק אבל בשמחה של מצוה היה היתר בזמן שב"ה קיים כגון שמחת בית השואב' ושמחת דוד שהיה מכרכר בכל עוז ובזמן הגלות ערב' כל שמחה ואפי' בשמחה של מצוה כגון בחתונה או פורים מ"מ לא ימלא פיו שחוק כנלע"ד נכון:


Thus, according to the Taz, even during happy events such as a wedding or Purim, there is a a restriction on שחוק. R. Yosef Engle in his Dershos Otzros Yosef (Vienna 1921, pg 36-37) and R. Teichtel author of the Aim Habonim Semechaih, in his Shu"t Mishnat Sachir (# 2) both justify the minhag of Klal Yisroel everywhere to be joyous at weddings and on Purim. [R. Yosef Engle seems to take this concept a bit further than R. Teichtel as he even justifies cross dressing].

In fact, we find times that chazal themselves allowed שחוק as we find מילתא דבדיחותא in Chazal. Those instances, however, appear to be limited to when the purpose was waking a sleeping or otherwise uninterested audience and involving them in Torah study.


Setting aside the opinion of the Taz who holds that שחוק is prohibited even on Purim, it appears that many disagreed with this position. This is borne out by various halachos that relate to Purim. For instance, the Rema in Hilchos Purim (696 end) writes some allow cross dressing and wearing shatnes d'rabanan. Additionally, if someone damaged his friends property due to simchas Purim they do not have to pay. And, perhaps most notable, getting drunk which in general is very much frowned upon. While the Rama and others seems to permit these actions many disagreed for example R. Shmuel Aboab in his Sefer Zichronos [2] writes very strongly against these actions.

Another Italian rabbi, R. Shmuel Me-Sha'ar Areyeh, who was a contemporary of the Rama Me-Fano, writes similarly in his (still in manuscript) commentary on the Bet Yosef [3] :

אין לסמוך על דברי זאת ההגהה לחטוא, לא לענין מלובשי איש ואשה, ולא בכלאים דרבנן, ולא בגזל אפילו כל שהוא, ושומר נפשו ירחקו מהם ולא יסמוך על המתיר כי אין בידו דבר ברור להיתר, ולא כתבו כן הפוסקים הראשונים ובמקום אחר הוא כתב: "מנהגים הללו בורות הם ויש להמנע מהם".


And more recent the Orach Ha-shulchan writes:


ועכשיו בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו נוהגים לשמוח כל כך עד שיבא להיזק ולכן עכשיו כשהזיק חייב לשלם ואפילו בזמן הקדמון חייב בנזק הגוף

A bit later he elaborates:


ומה שנהגו בימים קדמונים בלבישת פרצופים משעטנז ושל איש לאשה עכשיו לא נהגו כן וכן מי שהזיק חייב לשלם דעתה בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו במדריגה זו [ומ"ש הרמ"א בסעיף ח' הוא לקיים מה שנהגו בימיו ולא עכשיו]: [4]


Parodies for Purim

In light of the above, we see that while there is some dispute about how far one can go on Purim, joyful acts (depending on their degree) are encouraged. Parodies and plays (this topic will be dealt with in my next post) which were written and some preformed during Purim-time.

Israel Davidson writes in the introduction to his classic work on this topic, Parody in Jewish Literature, [5] the following:


"The Range of Jewish parody is as wide as the range of general parody. The Jewish parodist has invaded every department of literature and every walk of life. He has drawn upon the various phases of Jewish life for his subject matter and upon the various forms of Jewish literature for his models. . . . It would indeed be easy to make a collection of representing the bible, Talmud, midrash liturgy zohar codes… It is equally no exaggeration to say almost all the great movements in modern Jewish history are reflected in Jewish parody . . . on the other hand the study of this branch of Jewish literature will also reveal the serious side of Jewish humor. . . . Tears and laughter lie very closely together in Jewish humor, and the Jewish parodist is not always a mere clown, but more often is a preacher disguised in the garb of a jester. Like general parody Jewish parody has a moral aim. It is opposed to every kind of untruth to bombast to hypocrisy.”

In this post I would like to point out a few such parodies to show some general customs which are mentioned in them, with a specific eye towards Purim.

One of the earliest such pieces was a piyut printed in the Machzor Vitri (p. 583) to say during Ma'ariv of Purim. It starts out saying:


ליל שיכורים הוא זה הלילה, לשמוח ביין הטוב ולגילה... בליל הזה ישכרו כל יצורים…


This piece was authored by a Menachem ben Aron. It has been debated from exactly which time period this piece was written but Davidson believes that he was active as early as 1140 and as late as 1244. Rav Zevin and others note that it is quiet strange to allow such a crazy piyut to be said during Ma'ariv. But, Rav Zevin does point out that although the halacha is not to get drunk on Purim at night at least in the times of R Eliezer Fleckles people definitely did get drunk then.[6] A. Haberman reprinted a much lengthier version of a piuyt composed in 1695, by a dayan, for the whole Ma'ariv.[7]


Although there are no real sources that one has to get drunk on the night of Purim I did find Rav Nissim Goan writes:


ושנהגו בלילי פורים לעשות מדורות האש וקופצין עליהן אית ליה נמי עיקיר.


This seems to imply that there is a some notion of שחוק or שמחה on Purim night. This custom of Rav Nissim Goan is brought down by the Sefer Hamanhig, Avudraham and others.[8]


One of the most famous parodists in Jewish history was Emanuel HaRomi author of the infamous Machberes Emanuel (also called Sefer Hamachberes). Davidson calls him “the father of of exegetic parody and one of its best masters.” This work was written in circa 1321-28. This work includes a good bit of parodies. One of the parodies is a very detailed description of the excessive drinking and drunkenness of people in his time on Purim.[9] [10]


Just to quote one line from this particular parody as it is extremely graphic:

יצאתי אם השר בימי הנעורים אחר סעודת פורים, לראות בשחוק השכורים...ויאמר כי היא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא והשכרות והפריצות ביום הזה ערמה וקצתם יחולו במחולות בחורים וגם בתולות...


As is very well known this work was banned by the Beis Yosef [11] who writes very strongly against it:

מליצות ומשלים של שיחת חולין ודברי חשק, כגון ספר עמנואל, וכן ספרי מלחמות, אסור לקרות בהם בשבת; ואף בחול אסור משום מושב לצים ועובר משום אל תפנו אל האלילים לא תפנו אל מדעתכם; ובדברי חשק, איכא תו משום מגרה יצר הרע; ומי שחיברן ומי שהעתיקן, וא"צ לומר המדפיסן, מחטיאים את הרבים.


Although the Beis Yosef wrote strongly against it R. Shmuel Askenazi pointed out to me a very interesting source. The Chida in his Shem Hagedolim [12] writes as follows:

שמעתי שאמרו בעל הפרשים שבאיוב יקרא האדם פ' רלב"ג וירוה צמאוני ובמשלי יקרא פ' עמנואל ובתהלים יקרא פ' ר' דוד קמחי ואתנח סימנא שפת אמת תכון לעד. אמת ר"ת איוב משלי תהלים. לעד ר"ת לוי עמנואל דוד והם כסדרן.


What the Chida is saying is that the best work on Mishlei was written by Emanuel!

One other point of interest about this work: I found in the list of works for students to learn thought out a new school system written by R. Meshulam Roth the great Galicianer posek at the request of R. Meir Shapiro amongst the many interesting things he wanted talmdim to read was the Sefer Machberes![13]

Another one of the earliest parodies written was called Mesechtas Purim, written by R. Kallonyms ben Kallonyms (1286-1328) a good friend of Emanuel Haromi.[14] This parody was perhaps the most famous one written on Purim which inspired many others especially of note was two others written a little later by the Ralbag.[15] Masechtas Purim was first written between 1319-1322 and printed in 1513, again in 1552 than again in 1871. This was written in the style of gemarah including drashos and everything found in regular sugyos – mimicking the talmudic style very well. Most of the humor is clean and not pocking fun at anyone. Davidson devotes a large part of his book to discussing the various editions of Masechtas Purim with many important notes. Haberman provides all the printings of this book in a facsimile edition of this sefer which he printed. As many other books this to was banned, by many, most notably R. Shmuel Aboab (siman 193). Others who opposed these works were authors of Chemdas Hayomim, Beris Mateh Moshe and the Chida.[16] At some points certain versions of Mesechtas Purim were even burned![17]


Haberman, however, points out a very interesting observation on all this and that is that this work of Mesechtas Purim was not banned immediately. Rather, it was only much later that any bans were directed at Mesechtas Purim. According to Haberman, this demonstrates that in the beginning there was no great opposition against it. He writes it is clear from the writings of R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag that it was just for Simchas Purim with no evil intent at all.[18] Besides for this both R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag were known as great people and not latzanim. To support this theory a bit one just has to read the end of the edition of R. Kalonymus where he writes:

In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Dan Rabinowitz offered his review of Elliott Horowitz (of Bar-Ilan University and co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review), Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, 2006) -- available here -- and this past shabbat at Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Horowitz delivered a lecture entitled "Was the Massacre at Mercaz Ha-Rav Committed by Amalekites?"

For those who missed this lecture (myself included), you can read his "Between Hebron and Jerusalem," posted at JewSchool.com, and available here.

]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/16/Elliott-Horowitz--Between-Hebron-and-Jerusalem mikhtav berakha from Rav Avraham Shapira to Rav Yitzchak Dadon's Atchalta Hee http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/11/mikhtav-berakha-from-Rav-Avraham-Shapira-to-Rav-Yitzchak-Dadons-Atchalta-Hee
As mentioned at the Michtavim blog, forty-year-old Rav Yitzchak Dadon, shlita, was the first to shoot at the terrorist following the massacre last week at Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav in Jerusalem. Rav Dadon studied for many years at Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav and is the author of over a half-dozen seforim, including the very-celebrated and landmark two-volume set, Atchalta Hee (2005 and 2007), on the relationship between Zionism of religious leaders from the Ashkenaz and Sefaradic communities to Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as an excellently detailed-survey (in both volumes) of poskim of earlier generations who have dealt with the related issue of Geulah be-Derekh ha-Teva in their own writings.

See below for the very-admiring mikhtav berakha from former chief rabbi of the State of Israel and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav, the late Rav Avraham Shapira zt"l, to Rav Dadon's Atchalta Hee, available below. (Copies of Atchalta Hee are available from Biegeleisen in Boro Park 718-436-1165.)
As I wrote at the Michtavim blog:
What a Kiddush Hashem it is, and praiseworthy is Rav Yitzchak Dadon and all other talmidei hakhamim in the yeshivot Hesder who are not only tremendous Torah scholars like David HaMelech, but are also similarly able to protect Am Yisrael and destroy our enemies when necessary.

]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:07:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/11/mikhtav-berakha-from-Rav-Avraham-Shapira-to-Rav-Yitzchak-Dadons-Atchalta-Hee Jordan S. Penkower - Some Notes Regarding the First & Second Rabbinic Bibles http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/5/Jordan-S-Penkower--Some-Notes-Regarding-the-First--Second-Rabbinic-Bibles
Some Notes Regarding the First & Second Rabbinic Bibles
by Jordan S. Penkower
Dr. Jordan S. Penkower is an associate professor in the Bible Department at Bar Ilan University, and has written extensively on the development of the printed Hebrew Bible.

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

In response to the post at the Seforim blog regarding the Pinner Talmud, a correction is in order regarding the first two Rabbinic Bibles (both now available online - see below). The post states

In fact, this would not be the first time a dedication didn't work out that well. The first Rabbinic bible published in 1522, was not a success. Instead, it would be the second Rabbinic bible that became the template for the Mikrot Gedolot Chumash. While both were done by the same publisher and soon after one another. The main difference was the first contained a dedication to the Pope, while the second did not. Perhaps, the same happened here, and Pinner was a victim of poor judgment in securing his approbations, both in the one's that appeared and the ones that did not.
In fact, the following are the correct details.

(1)The first Rabbinic Bible was published by Bomberg in Venice and completed in 1517. The editor was the convert Felix Pratensis. This edition appeared in two versions: one with a dedication to the Pope in Latin (on the verso of the title page), and at the end of Chronicles a short decree by the Pope (in Latin) that this edition had exclusive rights for 10 years. The second - aimed at the Jews - without the Latin material.

(2) The second Rabbinic Bible was published by Bomberg in Venice, and completed in 1525. The editor of this edition was Jacob ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu (who converted to Christianity sometime after 1527).

These two editions differ in a number of ways (the lack of the Latin material is not really to be considered, because such a Latin-free edition had already appeared in 1517 - see above).

Here, I will note the following differences between the two editions: (a) more commentaries in the second edition; (b) the printing of the whole apparatus of the Masorah Parva, the Masorah Magna, and the Masorah Finalis - for the first time in the second (1525) edition; (c) the bible text in the second edition was re-edited anew based on manuscripts and Masorah. As a result, one finds variants in text, vocalization and accentuation between these two editions.

Further details on the differences between these editions can be found in my Jacob ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Rabbinic Bible (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1982; Hebrew); see further my articles in: J.H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Abingdon Press, Nashville 1999), vol. 1: "Bomberg, Daniel," "Jacob Ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu," and vol. 2: "Rabbinic Bible."
Appendix:
Dedication Page to the Pope from the 1517 ed.


Decree at the end of Chronicles from 1517 ed.

]]> Jordan Penkower Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/5/Jordan-S-Penkower--Some-Notes-Regarding-the-First--Second-Rabbinic-Bibles David Glasner -- Responses to Comments and Elaborations http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/1/David-Glasner--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations
Responses to Comments and Elaborations
David Glasner

David Glasner, an economist at the Federal Trade Commission, is a great-grandson of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the topic of his recent post, "The Saga of Publishing the Works of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner: The Issue of Inclusion of Zionism and Rav Kook," at the Seforim blog.

This is his second contribution to the Seforim blog.

I thank all those who have responded to my posting of February 15. I have for the most part not engaged in a back and forth with those who have commented for a variety of reasons but mainly a desire to avoid getting too caught up in discussions that could easily take up an inordinate amount of my time.

Adderabbi wrote to inquire whether my father was his grandfather’s friend in Baltimore. The answer is yes. My parents were very fond of your grandparents, and it was a great loss to them when your grandfather passed away suddenly a number of years ago and again when your grandmother passed away not too long after that. My older brother is the one from State College, PA. And my question to you is whether Eugene is your father or your uncle.

About the fate of my unpublished introduction, I hope to revise it and submit it to a suitable Hebrew language journal for publication. I think we’ll just have to wait and see whether it ever gets posted on this blog.

I thank Yehudah Mirsky for his multiple contributions. After his first mention of Rav Amital, I immediately thought of the achingly beautiful tribute he wrote in memory of his Rebbi, R. Haim Yehudah Levi, a grandson of the Dor Revi’i. Rav Amital delivered a hesped at my father’s burial in Jerusalem just over three years ago and mentioned the closeness that he felt to the family of the Dor Revi’i and how important he believed it is to preserve the legacy of morality and justice and honesty that the Dor Rev’i represented. It is also a pleasure to renew, even if only via cyberspace, my acquaintance with Yehudah, with whom my wife and I enjoyably spent many a Friday evening in the splendid company of my illustrious cousins Menahem and Ruth Schmelzer, their family and friends.

Anonymous (02.16.08 – 6:47 pm) charged me with complicity in suppressing the truth about my great-grandfather. Well, obviously there were multiple values at stake and the outcome represented some sort of balancing of those not entirely congruent values. Did I clarify that for you? I also thank anonymous (2:17.08 – 12:31 am) for what I understood to be a sympathetic comment about the difficulty of the situation in which I found myself.

Thanbo asked about the new edition of Dor Revi’i published about five years ago. I had no role in that enterprise. I can’t really comment about its physical dimensions or about future editions.

Zalman Alpert is clearly more conversant with Haredi demographic trends than I, but I will just add another interesting tidbit, which is that although Hassidus was making inroads in Hungary before WWII, it was only after WWII that the great majority of Haredi Hungarian Jewry attached themselves to one or the other of the Hassidic dynasties. The Klausenburger Rebbe, for example, obviously had many thousands more Hasidim after the war than he ever did before the war. In my own family, my maternal aunt and uncle from fine upstanding Oberlanderish extraction became staunch Belzer Hasidim after the war. Hungarians I think did come to predominate after the war in a number of sects that, like Belz, were not mostly Hungarian before the war. While there may be something in Zalman Alpert’s conjecture that being from a separatist Hungarian background helped preserve the Dor Revi’i’s standing among the Haredim, I am not inclined to think that it mattered very much. His Zionism was of such an outspoken nature that he was reviled in his own time as a turncoat and a traitor to his roots and his upbringing. Indeed, the animosity toward him resulted from an existential feeling that his Zionism was not a mistake but a kind of treachery. By the way, there are at least two places in which he explicitly addresses the question of separation. First in a teshuvah (shut dor revi’i, 2:86, dated seder tetzaveh 5657) defending separation against the criticism of separation made by the rishon l’tzion, Rabbi Yakov Shaul Elisher (interestingly the only (?) other defense of separation against this criticism was by my great-great-grandfather, R. Amram Blum in shut beit she’arim). This teshuvah is largely a rhetorical recitation of the outrages perpetrated by the Neologs in trying to force the Orthodox to yield to their state-sanctioned domination, and a plea to Rabbi Elisher not to be duped by the misrepresentations made by the Neologs. Almost 25 years later, the Dor Revi’i revisited the question of separation in his essay on Zionism (my English translation is posted on http://www.dorrevii.org/). In the latter essay, he took a more analytical approach to the question of separation, arguing that separation was defensible only on the grounds that the hidden agenda of the Neologs was to promote assimilation. Since Zionism was aimed at maintaining the Jewish national identity, the precedent of separation was therefore irrelevant to the question whether cooperation by the Orthodox with irreligious Zionists was justified. He further accused the Haredim of his day of competing with the Neologs in unedifying displays of Hungarian patriotism (e.g., describing themselves as Magyars of the Mosaic faith), a withering condemnation that surely did not endear him to his Haredi antagonists. About Professor Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger, I didn’t forget him, but I wasn’t writing a comprehensive religious history of Klausenburg, so, with all due respect to him, I didn’t feel that he was particularly relevant to the story I was telling. But having warmed to the subject, I will note that in one of his writings (or perhaps a talk that someone once told me about) he described his boyhood experience of being taken by his father to see the Dor Revi’i and the lasting impression that the encounter made on his memory. I don’t have any statistics at my fingertips, but I would be really surprised if the Neolog community was much more than a tenth the size of the Orthodox community in Klausenburg.

Anonymous (2.17.08 – 12:01 pm) asks about the friendship between Rav Glasner and R. Shaul Brach. This relationship was certainly between my grandfather, R. Akiva (about whom more will be said below) and R. Brach. I have no specific information about their relationship except that R. Brach was one of a number of highly regarded Haredi rabbis from whom my grandfather obtained glowing haskamot for his first book, Dor Dorim. The choice of the title (as well as, if one reads carefully, the hashqafic discussion in the introduction) and the choice of rabbis to write haskamot show how delicate a balance my grandfather was trying to maintain between loyalty to his father and achieving a reconciliation with his father’s enemies.

To Yaakov R., without going into any details, I can assure you that the cast of characters involved in the story I told was international. I also did not mean, and am sorry if anyone thinks that I tried, to “bash” Haredim or to satirize them. If they appear in a less than favorable light, it is not because they are bad people, but because they face social pressures to conform that are very difficult to withstand.

Anonymous (2.19.08 – 7:13 am) wants to know if there is unpublished material of the Dor Revi’i. Yes, unfortunately there is a lot that has never been published, and, even more unfortunately, no one seems to know what has become of it. At the end of his introduction to Hulin, he mentions that he hoped to arrange and publish his hidushim on “rov sugyot ha-shas” as well as many hundreds of teshuvot and divrei aggada which he had in manuscript. He presumably took most of that with him to Palestine in 1923. I recall reading in some source, whose identity, to my great consternation, I can no longer recall, that his unpublished manuscripts were held by Mosad ha-Rav Kook. When I contacted someone in the mosad about those manuscripts, I was told that they had no knowledge of their existence and that in any case all extant manuscripts in Israel had been photographed and were held in the microfilm collection of the Jewish National Library. The only holdings of microfiche of works of my great-grandfather held by the JNL are of the 200 or so teshuvot that somehow came to light in the mid-1970s that were published in two volumes of shut dor revi’i.

To Zalman Alpert, since you mention the story about R. Koppel Reich, I will just note that Koppel Reich’s son married a daughter (possibly the oldest) of the Dor Revi’i. They died in the Holocaust and left no survivors. About my grandfather’s speech at the Knessiah Gedolah in 1937 at Marienbad, my father accompanied his father on that occasion (he was then 19). He told me that his father decided to join Agudah at that time, because at that meeting the Agudah dropped its opposition to the creation of Jewish state in Palestine. According to my father, that was the matir for his father to join Agudah, which contributed to his own fence-mending and furthered his (ultimately futile) desire to re-unite the Orthodox community in Klausenburg. As I pointed about above, to achieve that goal, my grandfather always sought to mend fences with his father’s enemies (though certain well known relatives of my dear and learned friend Mechy Frankel were utterly implacable), and he even made every effort to maintain cordial relations with Rabbi Halberstam. I have heard, though I have been unable to confirm, that at the wedding of one of his daughters he was mekhabeid Rabbi Halberstam with a brakhah at the hupa. At any rate, it was the change of position by Agudah that led my grandfather to join Agudah and make the speech from which you quoted. I was once told by my grandmother’s brother that in Mizrahi circles his speech was viewed as a betrayal and resulted in his not being offered a suitable rabbinical post in Israel after 1948 when he might have been receptive to such an offer. In the end, however, the resolution adopted in Marienbad in 1937 (which also precipitated the creation of Neturei Karta in outraged protest) reflecting the position of the majority in attendance at Marienbad was effectively negated by the determined opposition of Rabbis A. Kotler and E. Wasserman with the enthusiastic support of the Hungarian anti-Zionists. I would add as a postscript that b’sof yamav, my grandfather made totally clear his true convictions when in 1956 only a few months before his petirah (29 tishri 5717) he wrote a teshuvah ruling that one is obligated to say Hallel on Yom ha-Atzmaut. My translation of that teshuvah is available on the Dor Revi’i website (http://www.dorrevii.org/).

To Lawrence Kaplan, you are probably right to be surprised. While I knew that Rabbi Kook was not a hero to Haredim and his books were not recommended, I did not imagine that the mere mention of his name in connection with another person would suffice to pahsel the other person as well. I also thought that the fact that Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rabbi Elyashiv were his students and always remained devoted to him and his memory provided a certain amount of cover for him. Nor did I imagine that there was anyone who knew about the Dor Revi’i that did not also know that he was a Zionist. Live and learn.

I’m not sure why the esteemed and learned Dr. Frankel seems to have a problem with my dating of events in Klausenburg near the time of the Dor Revi’i’s departure. Those dates are well established in publicly available sources. He is correct to say that the Klausenburg secessionists were not the first Sephardic community to be formed in Hungary, but the existence of earlier Sephardic communities elsewhere in the vicinity does nothing to establish that the Klausenburg chapter predated 1921. Whatever it was that happened in 1873 (and Dr. Frankel provides no details or documentation to support his assertion about that date), it was evidently short lived. If Dr. Frankel believes otherwise, I would most respectfully invite him to provide any information that he might have about the leadership (rabbinical or otherwise) or the makeup of the community in the nearly five decades between 1873 and 1921. It is well-established that there was a Neolog breakaway in Klausenburg in the 1880s (one oft-cited reason for which was my great-grandfather’s affection for Hassidim and Hassidut). That breakaway, at least, did last until the Holocaust. And I thank my friend for his nostalgic (to me, at any rate) references to bygone times when we were neighbors in geographic as well as hashqafic space.

Comments by Steve Brizel and Michoel Halberstam suggest that my posting misled them into thinking that something that the Dor Revi’i wrote was suppressed. That is not, repeat not, the case. What I withhold, out of consideration for the feelings of those who would have been embarrassed, offended, or would have felt otherwise aggrieved, by seeing such a reference in the newly published volume of his works was my introduction about the life and character of the Dor Revi’i, which mentioned both his Zionism and his close friendship with Rabbi Kook. I would just like everyone to be clear on those facts.

]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/3/1/David-Glasner--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations Shnayer Leiman - Some Notes on the Pinner Affair http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/25/Shnayer-Leiman--Some-Notes-on-the-Pinner-Affair

Some Notes on the Pinner Affair

by

Shnayer Leiman


Kudos to Dan Rabinowitz for his informative account of the Pinner affair and, more importantly, for reproducing the original texts of Pinner’s 1834 Hebrew prospectus and the Hatam Sofer’s 1835 retraction. The comments that follow are intended to add to Dan’s discussion.


1. “In his retraction the Hatam Sofer says the text [of his approbation to the Pinner translation] was published in a Hamburg newspaper.”


It appears more likely that the Hatam Sofer’s words should be rendered: “I have already made public my grievous sin and error – that I wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Dr. Pinner’s German translation of the Talmud – and it [Hebrew: iggerati] was published in Hamburg. In it, I confessed, and was not embarrassed to admit, that due to my sins, my eyes were besmeared and blinded…” What was published in Hamburg, then, was the Hatam Sofer’s first public retraction of the letter of approbation, not the letter of approbation itself. Moreover, no mention is made of a Hamburg newspaper. (In 1835, no German-Jewish or Hebrew newspapers were published in Hamburg.) It was published as a broadside, the text of which the Hatam Sofer sent from Pressburg to Hamburg for publication. In was intercepted by the Chief Rabbi, R. Akiva Wertheimer (d. 1838), who refused to publish the text precisely as the Hatam Sofer had written it. (This was in 1834, when the Hatam Sofer was posek ha-dor and gadol ha-dor, and about 72 years old – and we think we have problems!) The Hatam Sofer had to revise the text of the retraction, after which it was published in Hamburg some time between December 23, 1834 (when Rabbi Wertheimer addressed his objections to the Hatam Sofer) and January 22, 1835 (when the second retraction was published by the Hatam Sofer himself in Pressburg). See R. Shlomo Sofer, איגרות סופרים (Vienna, 1929), part 2, letter 66, pp. 70-71. Indeed, one suspects that the need for a second retraction by the Hatam Sofer was occasioned by this act of censorship on the part of the Hamburg authorities. No copies of the Hamburg broadside seem to have been preserved in any of the public collections of Judaica.


2. “The full text of the retraction appears in three places.”


It also appears in a fourth place: Y. Stern, ed., לקוטי תשובות חתם סופר (London, 1965), letter section, p. 90-91. This edition of the text is particularly important because it was obviously copied from the original broadside. Unlike the other editions of the text, the London edition contains two different fonts, Rashi script and enlarged square Hebrew characters – exactly like the original broadside. In a blatant misstatement of fact, the editor of the London edition, in a footnote, indicates that he copied the text from Greenwald’s אוצר נחמד. If so, he could not have known about the two different fonts and where to use them! In any event, Greenwald’s text lacks words that appear in the London edition! Most important, Greenwald’s text gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 22 Tammuz , 5595 (= 1835). (In 1835, however, 22 Tammuz fell on Sunday, July 19.) The London edition gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 21 Tevet, 5595 (= January 22, 1835). This is precisely the date that appears on the original broadside, as posted by Dan! One suspects that the discrepancy between the editor’s claim and the printed page originated in a parting of the ways between the editor and the great bibliophile and scholar, Abraham Ha-Levi Schischa (see the introductory page to the volume). Schischa’s deft hand is evident throughout the volume, and no doubt he had access to the original broadside. Perhaps when the editor and Schischa parted ways, the editor – who no longer had access to the original broadside – claimed that he copied the text from Greenwald, when in fact Schisha had prepared the text based on the original broadside. There remain some very slight discrepancies between the London edition and the original broadside, probably due to the editor of the London edition. The editor’s misstatement of fact misled, among others, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, שו"ת ציץ אליעזר 15:3, p. 8.


3. “As one can see, the retraction is dated 21 Tevet, 1834.”


As indicated above, 21 Tevet in the year 5595 fell in 1835. In the light of the documents posted by Dan, we can reconstruct the chronological sequence of events. Sometime in mid- 1834, the Hatam Sofer wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud into German. (One should mention for the record that it was much more than a mere translation. Pinner vocalized the Mishnah and punctuated [commas and question marks] the entire text of the Talmud, Rashi, Tosafos, and Rosh to Bavli Berakhoth! He also included occasional חידושים from his רבי מובהק, Rabbi Jacob of Lissa [d. 1832], at whose feet he sat for seven consecutive years.) On August 15, 1834, Pinner published his prospectus in Hebrew, announcing to the world at large that he had received letters of approbation from “all the גדולי ישראל in France, Italy, and German” and from none other than the Hatam Sofer himself! (The English version lists the same date, but makes no mention of the Hatam Sofer.) It was precisely the publication of the prospectus that forced the Hatam Sofer to go public. Now all of the Hatam Sofer’s colleagues knew what he had done, and the criticism that followed was merciless. See the letter of the Dutch communal leader and philanthropist, R. Zvi Hirsch Lehren (d. 1853), to the Hatam Sofer, dated January 11, 1835 (in איגרת סופרים, part 2, letter 69, pp. 73-78). It would no longer suffice to simply send a note to Pinner and ask that he return the letter of approbation. Since it was public knowledge that the Hatam Sofer had lent his name to Pinner’s translation, nothing less than a public retraction would set the record straight. By December 1834, the Hatam Sofer had already prepared an official retraction for publication (by disciples of his in Hamburg who had easy access to the local Jewish publishing houses) in Hamburg. After some delay due to censorship, the retraction was published either in late December 1834 or early January 1835. A second, fuller retraction was published in Pressburg on January 22, 1835. For Pressburg as the place of publication of the second retraction, see N. Ben Menachem, “הדפוס העברי בפרעסבורג,” Kiryat Sefer 33(1958), p. 529.


4. The letter of retraction refers to Rabbi Nathan Adler. This, of course refers to Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler (1803-1890) of Hanover, and later Chief Rabbi of Britain, a much younger contemporary of the Hatam Sofer. He is not to be confused with the Hatam Sofer’s teacher, Rabbi Nathan Adler of Frankfurt (1741-1800), who could not have been consulted by Pinner. Cf. Torah U-Madda Journal 5(1994), p. 131; (see now the corrected version "The Talmud in Translation" in Printing The Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum, 2006, p. 133).



5. Although Pinner insisted on going ahead with the project, despite the Hatam Sofer’s protests, credit should be given where credit is due. Pinner omitted mention of the Hatam Sofer’s letter of approbation in the one volume that he published in 1842.



6. Regarding why no further volumes of Pinner’s translation were published, the simplest answer is: lack of funds and lack of determination to see a project through from beginning to end. Pinner, a moderate Maskil, spent a lifetime dreaming about all sorts of literary projects, none of which came to fruition. These included attempts at listing all Hebrew books and manuscripts, and all tombstone inscriptions of famous rabbis and scholars (including Moses Mendelssohn, Isaac Satanov, Hartwig Wessely, and Israel Jacobson). See his כתבי יד (Berlin, 1861), a partial publication of a book with no real beginning and no real end that captures the very essence of Pinner’s personality. In that volume, pp. 62-64, Pinner published a lengthy fund-raising letter he wrote in 1847 in order to raise funds to publish his diary, a kind of travelogue that would introduce readers to the wonders of the world. It was yet another of his failed projects. In the case of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud, Czar Nicholas withdrew his support and there was no one to pick up the slack. Note too the powerful language at the end of the Hatam’s Sofer’s retraction. Should Pinner insist on publishing the volumes, no Jewish publishing house may agree to publish the volumes, and no Jew may buy or read them. This surely didn’t help either publication or sales. For the powerful impact of the Hatam Sofer’s letters of approbation on the Jewish community at large, see my “Masorah and Halakhah: A Study in Conflict,” in M. Cogan, B. Eichler, and J. Tigay, eds., Tehillah Le-Moshe (Moshe Greenberg Festschrift), Winona Lake, 1997, pp. 305-306.


]]> Pinner Talmud Shnayer Leiman Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/25/Shnayer-Leiman--Some-Notes-on-the-Pinner-Affair Bibliography, Why It's Important http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/21/Bibliography-Why-Its-Important
In Professor Daniel Sperber's latest book, Netivot Pesikah (Jerusalem, Reuven Mass, 2008), one of the areas he discusses the importance of having an awareness of is bibliography. As Eliezer Brodt noted in his review at the Seforim blog, Sperber provides examples where people have gone wrong due to their lack of bibliographical knowledge. Of course, long before Sperber, the importance of Jewish bibliography was already noted by R. Shabbatai Bass, most well-known for his super-commentary on Rashi, Siftei Hakahmim, but also the author of the earliest Jewish bibliography, Siftei Yeshanim.[1] In the introduction to Siftei Yeshanim, Bass discusses generally why bibliography is important. Then, in Ben-Jacob's bibliography of Hebrew books, Otzar haSeforim, R. Shlomo haKohen of Vilna in his approbation lists numerous examples where people erred due to lack of bibliographical knowledge.

A particularly illustrative example was the republication of the work on the laws of Shabbat, Madanei Asher. A kollel had a group of people working on to study the book and then republish it. Although they studied the book in depth they failed to look up the bibliographical information on the book. Had they done so, they would have discovered that the book is plagiarised from another book, Shulhan Shitim by R. Shlomo Chelm, the author of the Merkevet HaMishnah. Instead, they invested considerable time and effort in ensuring that the wider public has access to a plagiarized work.[2]

Another such example of an egregious error due to lack of bibliographical information can be found in the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh. Included in this edition is the commentary of R. Menachem Mendel Auerbach, Ateret Zekeinim. In Orah Hayyim, no. 54, R. Auerbach discusses whether the word "Hai" - het, yud - should be punctuated with a patach or a tzeri.[3].R. Auerbach states "one should have a tzeri under the letter het . . . and this in accord with what R. Shabbatai writes in his siddur, however, the Maharal of Prague says to use a patach." Now, when R. Auerbach references R. Shabbatai and his siddur, the Machon Yerushalayim edition includes an explanatory note "Siddur haArizal in the Barukh She'amar prayer." Thus, according to Machon Yerushalayim, R. Auerbach is quoting the Siddur haArizal compiled by R. Shabbatai Rashkover. That, in and of itself, is a bit odd as this Siddur is more interested - as the title implies - in the Ari and his kabbalistic ideas, rather than on grammar. Therefore, to use it in a discussion of grammar, which the quote in question is dealing with, is a bit odd! Setting that aside, there is a more fundamental mistake here, as the Siddur compiled by R. Rashkover was only published for the first time in Koretz in 1795. R. Auerbach lived from 1620-1689. Thus, he was dead for over 100 years prior to the publication of the Siddur of R. Rashkover. Moreover, the Ateres Zekeinim was first published in 1702 in Amsterdam, also long before the Siddur in question was ever published. The Rashkover's Siddur was only first written in 1755 and not published until 1797.[4] What is particularly striking about this example is that if one actually examines Rashkover's siddur, he doesn't even have a tzeri in the word in question!

Instead, the siddur in question from "R. Shabbatai" is that of R. Shabbatai Sofer, the well-known grammarian. As this R. Shabbatai is a grammarian, and his siddur was written specifically to correct and highlight the proper grammatical readings, - see the lengthy introduction to this siddur, where R. Shabbatai bemoans the carelessness of people towards proper grammar - it makes perfect sense to quote this siddur from this "R. Shabbatai." This is not the only place R. Auerbach quotes R. Shabbatai, one quote in particular is important as it dispels who the "R. Shabbatai" Auerbach is referring to. In Orah Hayyim, no. 122, Auerbach gives R. Shabbatai's full name in another discussion about proper grammar. Auerbach refers to "I also saw this in the Siddur of R. Shabbatai of Przemysl." R. Shabbati of Przemysl is otherwise known as R. Shabbatai Sofer (1565-1635)[5] and that is who is referred to earlier as well.

In conclusion, it is worthwhile noting that the text in question - the correct pronunciation of the word het yud - how R. Sofer actually pronounced that is unclear. There are two versions, but for the details of that one should see the edition of R. Sofer's Siddur (Baltimore, 1994), vol. 2, p. 56.

Notes:
[1] First printed in Amsterdam in 1680 and in an expanded edition in 1806.

[2] This was pointed on by Y. Tosher in Moriah 7:83-84 (1978): 79. This claim of plagiarism was examined by Yonah Burstein, "Shulhan 'Arukh by R. Shlomo Chelm (Review)," Ali Sefer 16 (1990):177-179.

[3] See the work Yashresh Ya'akov where he has a very comprehensive discussion about the this word and its punctuation.

[4] See Pinchas Giller, "Between Poland and Jerusalem: Kabbalistic Prayer in Early Modernity," in Modern Judaism 24:3 (2004): 230, and see Geller's general discussion regarding the importance of Rashkover's edition for the development of Lurianic kabbalah on the siddur.

[5] On R. Sofer see Stefan C. Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and His Prayer-Book (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

]]> Plagiarism Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/21/Bibliography-Why-Its-Important The Hatam Sofer's Retraction of his Approbation to the Pinner Talmud http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/19/The-Hatam-Sofers-Retraction-of-his-Approbation-to-the-Pinner-Talmud
Of late, translations of the talmud have become a popular topic. [1] In the history of translations, the translation done by Dr. Efraim Pinner, is an important one for multiple reasons. Among other firsts, the Pinner translation was the first German translation of the talmud. Pinner envisioned a complete translation of the entire talmud but only one volume was produced, a translation meskhta Berachot. This edition contains multiple approbations, there is, however, one approbation does not appear in the book. (A good summary of the history can be found here at OnTheMainline, where S. has also posted a prospectus for the Pinner talmud, available here.)

The Hatam Sofer gave an approbation to Pinner's translation (no one to date has located the text of the approbation, in his retraction the Hatam Sofer says the text was published in a Hamburg newspaper but all attempts to locate it have proven futile). According to the Hatam Sofer after learning further details of Pinner's translation, he decided he would revoke his approbation and did so in a separate broadsheet. While this is all well known, what seems to have escaped those who have discussed this event is that there are actually two versions of the retraction and even two dates provided for when the Hatam Sofer wrote his retraction. The full text of the retraction appears in three places, N.N. Rabinovich's Ma'amar al Hadfasas haTalmud, in the additions from Habermann, in R. S. M. Adler's Emek haBacha, vol. 2, and in R. Greenwald's Otzar Nechamad (pp. 82-3, this appears at Hebrewbooks.org, but like many of the books available at Hebrewbooks.org, this is not a perfect copy and part is missing). None of these, however, published the actual retraction and instead, Adler's and Greenwald's are copies of a copy. Adler had an anonymous "ya'rei v'charad" provided copied it for him from the British Library, and Greenwalds came Amsterdam by Zidmand Zelegmann from a copy that Dov Ritter had. Habermann doesn't say where he got it; however, as the JNUL has an original perhaps he actually saw it and was not relying on a copy of a copy. But, as he doesn't say one can't be certain. As I mentioned there are small differences between the versions. Thus, to fill this void, below is a scan of the actual single sheet retraction. [Additionally, at the end of the post, is the prospectus for the Pinner edition.]



As one can see, the retraction is dated 21 Tevet, 1834. According to Greenwald's version the retraction is dated Tammuz, 1835. Moreover, the text confirms all of Adler's readings and not that of Greenwald. It appears that Greenwald's copyist did a poor job and thus produced a corrupted text.

Now, aside from the retraction there is another document, although discussed has never been republished - that of Pinner's notice that he was going to publish his translation. This document is also connected to the Hatam Sofer, in that Pinner mentions he received the Hatam Sofer's approbation. Subsequently, as we have seen, the Hatam Sofer retracted that approbation, however, at the time Pinner published his notice he still had the Hatam Sofer's approbation.

At this juncture it is worth noting that the Hatam Sofer held Pinner in high regard. According to R. Ya'akov Hirsch HaLevi, a student of the Hatam Sofer, Pinner spent time studying with the Hatam Sofer. Specifically, when Pinner came to obtain the approbation of the Hatam Sofer "Pinner spent a few weeks in Pressburg, and went daily to the Hatam Sofer." [See Zikrohnot u-Mesorot al Ha-Hatam Sofer (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz, 1996), 306.] This picture of Pinner is counter to that of some who take a dim view of Pinner. [See Iggeret Soferim (Jerusalem, 2000), 74 n.2.] Some, have gone the other way. That is, they cannot fathom that the Hatam Sofer ever gave an approbation nor that he then retracted it. The Munkatcher Rebbi, makes this claim to note that the entire book Iggeret Soferim is a forgery as it mentions, inter alia, that the Hatam Sofer retracted. But, as is discussed in detail in the Zikhronot u-Mesorot, this claim is incorrect; specifically as it relates to Pinner story. The Maharam Schick, notes that the Hatam Sofer retracted, and in fact, according to the Mahram, this demonstrates the greatness of the Hatam Sofer that he is able to admit when he erred. (See Zikhronot, pp. 15-6).


Returning to the Pinner talmud. Why was it that no further volumes were published? According to some it was due to the retraction of the Hatam Sofer. That is, since the Hatam Sofer disapproved of the translation thus Pinner was unable to publish any further volumes.[2] This, however, makes little sense in light of the fact the Hatam Sofer had made known his negative views towards Pinner's translation some 7 years prior to Pinner publishing even his first volume. Additionally, it is hard to see how the Hatam Sofer's opinion would effect the target readership of Pinner's translation those who spoke German. While there is no doubt the Hatam Sofer held sway over many Eastern European Jews, those Jews didn't read German and probably were not interested in Pinner's translation to begin with.

Perhaps a more likely scenario is that Pinner shot himself in the foot. Pinner's edition contains a full page dedication to Czar Nicholas. Czar Nicholas instituted some of the harshest anti-Semitic programs, including mandatory 25 conscription into the Russian army. The point of conscription was to forcibly baptize the Jews. Pinner's translation was aimed at cultured and educated Jews, Jews who would be aware of Nicholas's programs. It is no surprise that there may have been significant reticence to purchase books glorifying such a person.

In fact, this would not be the first time a dedication didn't work out that well. The first Rabbinic bible published in 1522, was not a success. Instead, it would be the second Rabbinic bible that became the template for the Mikrot Gedolot Chumash. While both were done by the same publisher and soon after one another. The main difference was the first contained a dedication to the Pope, while the second did not. Perhaps, the same happened here, and Pinner was a victim of poor judgment in securing his approbations, both in the one's that appeared and the ones that did not.

Notes:
[1] Rabbi Adam Mintz's research on the history of Talmud translations is the most comprehensive work on the subject; see his "Words, Meaning and Spirit: The Talmud in Translation," Torah u-Madda Journal 5 (1994): 115-155, [see here]; later revised and reprinted in the volume, Printing The Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, published in connection with exhibit on the Talmud at the YU Museum. Additionally, in a recent issue of Ohr Yisrael, no. 50 (Tevet, 5768): 36-78, there was also a discussion regarding translations. It is worth noting that none of the articles mention Mintz's articles. PDFs of these articles -- by Adam Mintz and those from the Ohr Yisrael, no. 50 -- are available in a recent post at the Michtavim blog.
[2] Greenwald goes so far as to incorrectly assert that Pinner acquised to the Hatam Sofer and never published the translation at all.

The Original Prospectus for the Pinner ed. of the Talmud




]]> Pinner Talmud Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:33:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/19/The-Hatam-Sofers-Retraction-of-his-Approbation-to-the-Pinner-Talmud The Saga of Publishing the Works of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/15/The-Saga-of-Publishing-the-Works-of-Rabbi-Moshe-Shmuel-Glasner
The Saga of Publishing the Works of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner:
The Issue of Inclusion of Zionism and Rav Kook
by David Glasner
David Glasner, an economist at the Federal Trade Commission, is a great-grandson of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner.

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.
Many readers of the Seforim blog may be interested, perhaps even pleased, to hear about the recent publication of a new volume containing a number of works of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner (1856-1924), chief rabbi (av beit din) of Klausenburg (1877-1923), one of the founding fathers of Mizrahi, author of Dor Revi’i on Hullin, Shevivei Eish on the Torah and on selected sugyot, as well as two volumes of posthumously published responsa (Shu"t Dor Revi’i is available online at HebrewBooks.org), and a new volume, entitled Ohr Bahir, which contains six previously published shorter works (kuntresim) that were published between about 1900 and 1915. In chronological order the six kuntresim are Haqor Davar published in 5661 (1900/01) which addresses the permissibility of conversion in cases of intermarriage; Ohr Bahir published in 5668 (1907/08) on the laws of mikva’ot and a defense of the kashrut of the Klausenburg mikveh against (likely politically inspired) aspersions on its kashrut; Yeshna li-Shehitah, on the laws of shehitah published in 5671 (1911); Halakhah l’Moshe published in 5672 (1911/12) on the laws of shehitah and bedikat ha-sakin; Matzah Shemurah on the requirement of shemirah for matzah and on the kashrut of machine matzah during Passover published in 5675 (1914/15); Hametz Noqsha on the sugya of hametz noqsha in Pesahim published together with Matzah Shemurah. In addition to these six previously published works, the volume also contains a previously unpublished responsum by the Dor Revi’i dating from about 1921 or 1922 as well as three short articles by my late father, Rabbi Juda Glasner, which were previously published in the rabbinical journal ha-Pardes.[1]

In a post at the Seforim blog entitled "From Ma’adanei Eretz to Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz" (link), Rabbi Chaim Rapoport of London discussed the recent publication of a new volume of writings about shemitah by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach entitled Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz, which includes substantial portions of Rabbi Auerbach’s classic Ma’adanei Eretz, a book written specifically to address halakhic questions associated with shemitah. Rabbi Rapoport posed the question why Ma’adanei Eretz, a classic work that has been out of print for over 30 years, was not itself republished in its entirety. Rabbi Rapoport posited two reasons for its not having been republished. First, in Ma’adanei Eretz, Rabbi Auerbach discussed at length the heter mechirah, which, while not his preferred option, Rabbi Auerbach did regard as halakhically valid and treated respectfully as a legitimate option. Second, Rabbi Auerbach discussed at length, and with the utmost veneration, the halakhic positions of his mentor, Rabbi A. I. Kook. Rabbi Rapoport speculated that Haredi opinion regards both the heter mechirah and Rabbi Kook as being beyond the pale of acceptability. To allow contemporary readers ready access to Rabbi Auerbach’s opinions could evidently have two dangerous outcomes. Questions might arise in some minds about the justification for casting the heter mechirah and Rabbi Kook into the outer darkness, and, perhaps even more disconcerting, in other minds doubts might arise about Rabbi Auerbach’s position as a (or the) pre-eminent late twentieth century Haredi halakhic authority.

Rabbi Rapoport noted that this Haredi attitude toward Rabbi Kook had apparently caused the latter to be excluded from the index of authorities on the Rambam in the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. In his Spring 2005 review of the Frankel Rambam in Jewish Action [PDF], Rabbi Rapoport commented on the exclusion of Rabbi Kook (along with such other luminaries as Rabbis Y.Y. Reines, I. Herzog, J. B. Soloveitchik and M. M Schneerson) from that index. He also pointed out with a certain hint of surprise that the filter against religious incorrectness that had apparently screened the above-mentioned authorities had not excluded the name of my illustrious ancestor from the index of notables despite my ancestor’s outspoken Zionism and other (from a Haredi perspective) problematical positions.

This somewhat rambling introduction is intended to set the stage for the following little drama in which I participated during the runup to the publication of the new volume of my great-grandfather’s writings. The idea for the volume began to take shape three or four years ago when my nephew decided that he would like to sponsor the publication of a volume of works by one of our many distinguished ancestors to mark the bar-mitzvah of his oldest son (which was celebrated b’sha’ah tovah u-mutzlahat a few weeks ago on Shabbat Shirah). I suggested to him the idea of republishing the five kuntresim of the Dor Revi’i, which had been out of print for nearly a century and are now almost unknown and unavailable. I took upon myself the task of re-typing the original into a Hebrew word-processor and to the best of my ability flagging problematic spellings, misprints, typos, etc., and providing as many references to citations as I could find on my own. We eventually retained a cousin in Israel to finish the editorial process (find remaining references for citations and add explanatory footnotes as needed) and to guide the project through its final stages. After the passing of my father, we decided to dedicate the volume to his memory as well as to the celebration of my great-nephew’s bar-mitzvah, and therefore included three short articles that my father had published. It was also agreed that I would write an introduction in which I would say something about the life and work of my great-grandfather and about my father.

By last August, when the editorial process was nearing completion, I had finished a draft of my introduction. In the introduction, I tried to give a brief account of the Dor Revi’i’s life and an appreciation of his (in my eyes heroic) character. To me it did not seem possible to portray his life or his character adequately without mentioning his dedication to Zionism and his large role in the founding of Mizrahi. I also thought that it was necessary to point out that he was very much alone among his colleagues in the Hungarian rabbinate in supporting Zionism and, as a result, was much abused and vilified. His response, however, was never in kind, only to work even harder to support and defend his positions with ever more powerful and more rigorous arguments. I also made mention of the high regard in which he was held by the gedolim of his time, e.g., by Rabbi Kook, to whom he became very closely attached after leaving Klausenburg in the spring of 1923 for Jerusalem where he spent the last 18 months of his life before his sudden passing during haqafot on the night of Shemini Atzeret in 1924. But I also pointed out that he was similarly esteemed by other gedolei ha-dor who were not known for their ardent Zionistic tendencies such as the Maharsham of Brezan (who wrote haskamot to Ohr Bahir and Matzah Sh’murah which are also included in this volume), R. Meir Simha of Dvinsk, R. Haim Ozer Grodzinski, and the Tchebiner Rav.

The draft of my introduction was shown to various members of my extended family. The Dor Revi’i had ten children, and the political and religious views of the descendants, as one might expect, cover a pretty wide spectrum of opinions. The feedback from the more Haredi sectors of the family was not positive.

The first objection that I received was from someone who considered it inappropriate to mention the Dor Revi’i’s close relationship with Rabbi Kook, inasmuch as it is no longer acceptable in Haredi circles to mention Rabbi Kook’s name. I was, to put it mildly, shocked when I heard this objection. I would not have been surprised by an objection to my mention of the Dor Revi’i’s Zionism, but I was not prepared for an objection to the mere mention of Rabbi Kook’s name. In view of the friendship between my great-grandfather and Rabbi Kook and the fact that Rabbi Kook had defended my great-grandfather against scurrilous attacks that had been made upon him,[2] I decided that I could not, on principle, delete Rabbi Kook’s name. But I also told my niece and nephew that if they wished, I would withdraw my introduction and they could substitute a more acceptable introduction by someone else in its place. Their response was that they did not want to publish the volume without my introduction and that I should continue to work on it.

Then the other shoe dropped. This time the objection came from a source with whom my niece and nephew have a much closer personal relationship than they have with the first complainant who had objected only to my mentioning Rabbi Kook’s name, but had not objected explicitly to my discussion of Zionism. The new complaint was that politics had no place in the introduction to a book (such as this) about halakhah, and that whatever my great-grandfather had meant by Zionism in his day, it was certainly much different then from what it is today. Moreover, it was asked, what purpose could possibly be served by revisiting all these old issues that no one really understands, or even cares about, today? I was taken aback by the criticisms to say the least, because it seemed to me that if my great-grandfather had devoted so much effort and suffered such heartache in working and writing and speaking on behalf of Zionism and had endured so much abuse as a consequence, then surely it would not be right to pretend that his mesirut nefesh for the sake of Zionism was null and void and unworthy of memory or mention. I then suggested a compromise in which I would delete the word “tzionut” and would substitute “shivat tzion” in its place. However, I said that I would not delete mention of his participation in the founding of Mizrahi and the 1904 conference in Pressburg. That proposal was shot down at once. I was told that in Haredi circles the very word “Mizrahi” is considered a form of nivul peh and that the social standing of my relatives in their communities would be at risk if it ever became known that they had an ancestor who had been a founder of such an organization. When I pointed out that it was a well-known fact that the Dor Revi’i was a Zionist, I was told that in their circles it was not well-known and they would do all they could to keep it from becoming well known.[3] At this point, I realized that my introduction would not be printed as it was, and rather than seek to rewrite it (there was not enough time for me to have done a decent job even if I had wanted to), I took out everything that I had written about my great-grandfather, but left intact the short account of my father’s life that I had written. To replace my introduction, my niece and nephew were able to secure at the last minute a contribution from Rabbi Avraham Yafe Schlesinger of Geneva and Jerusalem, who is also a great-grandson of the Dor Revi’i, a prolific author (several volumes of Shu"t Be’er Sarim) with, as far as I can tell, impeccable Haredi credentials, and who recently published a new edition of Shevivei Eish combined in one volume with a previously unpublished collection of drashot by the father of the Dor Revi’i, Rabbi Avraham Glasner (1825/26-1877) which he called Dor Dorshav.[4]

What is the deeper significance of this sad little tale? First, it solves the minor puzzle about which Rabbi Rapoport wondered in his Jewish Action review, namely, what made the Dor Revi’i an acceptable entry for the Frankel index of authorities when other luminaries of a similar ilk were not acceptable. The answer, I now understand, is that there is nothing that makes the Dor Revi’i more acceptable than the others beyond the (from my perspective) unfortunate fact that there are too few people around who know who the Dor Revi’i was and what his political and hashqafic beliefs were to make the appearance of his name objectionable to most contemporary Haredim.[5] It’s not a matter of the intrinsic acceptability of the authority, just a question of what one can get away with. If enough people recognize the name and associate it with taboo opinions, it has to go. If they don’t recognize it, or don’t know enough about it to mind, then gezunter heit. Second, it shows how extraordinarily powerful are the pressures to conform in Haredi society. Individuals and ideas that do not perfectly fit the accepted norms (and thereby suggest the possibility of different norms) of that society are literally taboo. To mention Rabbi Kook in the context of a halakhic discussion or as something other than an object of scorn is in wide sections of that community to cross a red line. For my Haredi relatives, it is truly a scary thought that their ancestor would be grouped together with one such as Rabbi Kook. I really am on very close and friendly terms with many of my Haredi relatives, including some who are and some who aren’t Dor Revi’i einiklakh, and I have great respect and admiration and very deep affection for them. But this episode has forced me to view their society from a new and, I regret to say, disturbing angle. In the course of my little encounter with Haredi sensibilities, I felt a whole range of emotions, but the one that remains after having (largely) gotten over it is compassion for people who actually have to live in fear lest the events of a life such as the one led by their very own ancestor, the Dor Revi'i, become known within the community in which they live.

Notes:
[1] For further information about my great-grandfather, the Dor Revi’i, see my “Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the Dor Revi’i,” Tradition 32.1 (Winter 1998): 40-56, which is available, along with other translations of his various works -- including all the divrei torah on the parshiot and hagim from Shevivei Eish and translations of various writings of his son and successor as chief rabbi of Klausenburg, Rabbi Akiva Glasner -- online at www.dorrevii.org. If you would like to purchase a copy of Ohr Bahir ($20 a copy plus $3 shipping and handling for single copies), please contact me by email (tovi0214@verizon.net, please put “Ohr Bahir” in the subject heading). If you are in Israel and would like to purchase a copy, please contact Rabbi Shaya Herzog 04-697-4802 or 052-764-6975 for further information. If you are a book seller and would like to order copies, please contact me directly.

[2] The attacks were made in a pamphlet (Mishpat Tzedeq) published by the newly formed Sephardic community in Klausenburg, which was the creation of a small group consisting of perhaps one hundred families (out of a total Jewish population in Klausenburg that exceeded 10,000) who decided that they could no longer remain subject to the authority of a Zionist rabbi. The term “Sephardic community” was a sort of legal fiction designed to gain the recognition of the secular authorities that would recognize only one Orthodox community within a given town or district. The only “Sephardic” aspect of the community was that they recited prayers in “nusah s’fard.” Largely made up of Sigheter Hasidim, the group chose as their spiritual leader Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the future Satmarer Rebbe, whose older brother, the Atzei Haim, was then the incumbent Rebbe in Sighet, original seat of the family dynasty. R. Joelish never took up residence in Klausenburg, and after heading the Klausenburg Sephardic community for about five years, he vacated the position in favor of his nephew Rabbi Y. Y. Halberstam, who eventually was to become famous as the Klausenburger Rebbe. While the brilliance and charisma of the latter were already evident during his years in Klausenburg, he led a community that was never more than one or two percent the size of the community headed by my grandfather, and who, in his own right, was one of the leading rabbinical figures in Europe in the interwar period. It was only after Holocaust destroyed organized Jewish life in Hungary, and after he had left Klausenburg, that the adjective “Klausenburger” became routinely attached to Rabbi Halberstam. For the three quarters of a century prior to the Holocaust the title “Klausenburger Rav” was held by a Glasner. That, as such things go, is a fairly straightforward historical fact, and is not meant as explicit or implicit derogation of Rabbi Halberstam. Unlike his uncle, whose hostility to the successor of the Dor Revi’i was unrelenting, Rabbi Halberstam did maintain a civil, even friendly, relationship with my grandfather during his nearly twenty years in Klausenburg. After publication of Mishpat Tzedeq, the Orthodox community of Klausenburg published a pamphlet (Yishuv Mishpat, now available online on the website of the Jewish National Library in Jerusalem) opposing the breakaway community and defending my great-grandfather against the attacks leveled against him. Rabbi Kook contributed an open letter (a hyperlink to the letter is available at www.dorrevii.org) to the rabbis who allowed their opinions permitting the breakaway of the Sephardic community from the Orthodox community in Klausenburg to be published in a pamphlet containing slanderous accusations against the Klausenburger Rav whom Rabbi Kook described as “gadol ha-dor b’torah b’hokhmah, bi-z’khut avot, u-v’midot terumiot.”

[3] I was also told by one relative that he had it on good authority that after the Dor Revi’i arrived in Palestine and saw with his own eyes the disasters perpetrated by the Zionists, the Dor Revi’i repented of his Zionism and was subsequently shunned by his former Zionist friends. A rumor to this effect actually seems to have circulated during the lifetime of the Dor Revi’i, and a former resident of Klausenburg, Shlomo Zimroni, who settled in Israel after the Holocaust and wrote a number of works about the religious history of Klausenburg, refers to this rumor in a short article about my great-grandfather in Shana b’Shanah, published by Heichal Shlomo (5640): 434-39. He quoted from a letter that the Dor Revi’i wrote to a former lay antagonist who, having heard the rumor, wrote to invite his return to Klausenburg and to propose reconciliation. The letter quoted by Zimroni (pp. 436-37) makes emphatically clear that the writer had not changed his mind. The suggestion that the Dor Revi’i changed his mind about Zionism and was then shunned by his former friends is further refuted by the following story which, my father told me he had heard from his father, Rabbi Akiva Glasner, when his father sat shiva for his mother (the wife of the Dor Revi’i) in the early 1930s (when my father was probably in his mid-teens). According to my father, my grandfather said that when Rabbi Yosef Hayyim Sonnenfeld, a student of the Ketav Sofer, the Dor Revi’i’s uncle and (briefly) teacher, paid a shiva call at the home of the Dor Revi’i in Jerusalem, he begged forgiveness from the Dor Revi’i’s rebbetzin for not having attended the funeral of her husband. He said that he had not meant any disrespect by not attending and indeed had had every intention to attend the funeral, but had been misled as to the time of the funeral by his aides who did not want him to show public respect to a Zionist. That apology and explanation would obviously not make any sense had the Dor Revi’i renounced his Zionist opinions and had he been shunned by his former Zionist friends. In that case, why would Rabbi Sonnenfeld’s handlers have wanted to prevent a show of public respect by Rabbi Sonnenfeld to the Dor Revi’i? Such inventions of “b’sof yamav” have become a characteristic of of Haredi oral traditions (urban legends) and historiography as Rabbi Rapoport noted in footnote 10 of his posting.

[4] Avraham Glasner was a talmid muvhaq of the Ketav Sofer. He married Raizel Ehrenfeld (daughter of Dovid Tzvi and Hindel Ehrenfeld), a niece of the Ketav Sofer and the oldest granddaughter of the Hatam Sofer. In his twenties, he was appointed chief rabbi of Gyonk, Hungary, and after eleven years in that position he became chief rabbi of Klausenburg. He served in that position for 14 years until his premature death at the age of 52. His only son, Moshe Shmuel, though only 21 years old, was appointed to succeed him on erev Hanukah in 1877. Moshe Shmuel was the oldest great-grandchild of the Hatam Sofer, which along with the implicit Zionistic allusion, was the reason that he chose “Dor Revi’i” as the title of his great work.

[5] It’s therefore somewhat comforting to know that the memory of the Dor Revi’i is being kept alive, if not exactly well, among the Satmarers. They have long memories and nurse their grievances with care and feeling. Thus in volume six of the official biography of the Rebbe, Reb Joelish, unpretentiously entitled Moshian shel Yisrael, there is a whole chapter that is largely devoted to my great-grandfather. The title of the chapter is “milhemet ha-shem neged amaleq.”

]]> Censorship Chaim Rapoport Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/15/The-Saga-of-Publishing-the-Works-of-Rabbi-Moshe-Shmuel-Glasner Review of Professor Daniel Sperber's Netivot Pesikah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/13/Review-of-Professor-Daniel-Sperbers-Netivot-Pesikah

Review of Professor Daniel Sperber's Netivot Pesikah

by Eliezer Brodt


Professor Daniel Sperber, Modes of Decision – Methods and Approaches for Proper Halakhic Decision Making, Jerusalem, Reuven Mass, 2008, 207 pages; Hebrew.


פר' דניאל שפרבר, נתיבות פסיקה 'כלים וגישה לפוסק ההלכה' ירושלים, תשסח, ראובן מס, 207 עמודים


Last week a new book from Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber arrived in stores, Netivot Pesikah. This is his third book which he authored in less than a year (see here and here for reviews on them). Before I begin I must say at the outset this book follows in the path of his most recent book Darkah Shel Halakha in that he discusses very sensitive topics and says things that many will take issue with. In this post I will not even attempt to deal with all that is discussed in this book as that would require its own book which others much better suited than I could do. What follows is a review of some of the points which he makes in this book including some of my own opinions for whatever they are worth. This is just some preliminary remarks as many topics contain much information and, in time, will be subject to their own posts.

This book is an expansion of essays that he has written in English first printed in the book Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, and later, reissued in a separate booklet “Legitimacy and Necessity: Scientific Disciplines and the learning of the Talmud.” This volume is an expansion of those essays including many additions and some new chapters never printed before. The first two parts of the book deal with what a Rav specifically needs to know and use modern day tools to reach proper conclusions in halakha. Sperber includes all kinds of samples to prove his points, including many examples from old texts and historical works. As Sperber writes in the introduction of his English edition:

This study seeks to demonstrate that there is a need to use scientific discipline when examining rabbinic texts. These texts include textual clarification based on manuscripts and early printed editions, philological studies to ascertain the exact meaning of difficult terms, seeing the text in its historical, sociological and literary settings and the use of material evidence to understand the physical aspects of an object discussed. Without the appreciation of these methodologies we often miss the main point of the text, and in some cases even err to the particular halachic implications.

He begins this latest volume with the following statement -- which is really picking a fight in a quiet way -- that it is well known that in the yeshiva world they mock the academic world saying they are concerned with what the Tanaim and Amoraim wore, whereas we are concerned with what they actually say. He says although it is certainly very important to know what they say, it is also very important to know what they wore. He shows a few examples that demonstrate this point that by not knowing what they wore, there were mistakes in understanding different areas of halakha such as in hilkhot tefilah and in hilkhot nidah.

Additionally, another example offered by Sperber, is from the laws of tying on Shabbat, where he ably demonstrates that if one has a full understanding of sailor knots, this knowledge allows one to fully understand the gemarah dealing with these issues. These examples, according to Sperber, show the importance in having this kind of knowledge. He than goes in to a lengthy discussion of what is known today as the scientific method of learning gemarah. Professor Sperber shows that this form scientific method of study is not new, rather, it dates to the times of rishonim. Further, he shows that there were great people such as the Sredei Eish who was involved with such methods and that if done properly this method is very important. In this section it is clear that even Professor Sperber is well aware of the great dangers of it and he does not know exactly how to go about mainstreaming it as opposed to the rest of this volume. A quote that Professor Sperber brings from R. Avraham E. Kaplan is appropriate here:


הוגי התלמוד שבארצות המערב מרבים להשתמש בסוד התיקון מתוך מציאות גירסאות. יש מהם שלא זזו מלחבבה, עד שבאו להעמיד את כל דרישתנ בתלמוד עליה בלבד. ויש גם בין חריפי המזרח ובקיאיו שסרו כאן קצת מן הדרך הנאות לצד שני שבדבר, הם הזניחו יותר מדאי את ענין הגירסות, לא כך היה דרך הקודש של רבותינו הראשונים ז"ל, הם הכניסו לתוך עמקי עיונם בגופי הלכות גם את הדיוק הגירסאי בלשון ההלכות, והרוצה בפירוש של אמת וצדק לצאת בדרך זו


From there he moves in to a whole discussion of the usage of manuscripts in general and specifically about the famous opinion of the Hazon Ish. Sperber's discussion is based on on Professor Speigel works Amudim b'Tolodot Sefer HaIvri, but he adds many excellent sources to those of Speigel. Specifically, he shows how many gedolim disagreed with the Hazon Ish as is evident from the haskamot and usage of the work Dikdukei Soferim - an entire work devoted to using manuscript evidence to ascertain the correct text of the Talmud. Sperber quotes the Minsker Godol who praises the sefer Dikdukei Soferim. To this I would add two more quotes from R. Meir Halpern's excellent book on R. Yerucham Leib Perlman, the Minsker Godol [R. Halpern taught the Minsker Godol's son]:

"כל אות ואות שבדברי חז"ל היתה חשובה ושקולה בעיניו לעשותת אותה יסוד ולהעמיד עליה בנין ולקחת ממנה ראיה לדין והלכה. ולכן היו חביבים בעיניו ספרי דקדוקי סופרים, וכמה וכמה פעמים היה מראה כי על פי שנוי קטן בנוסחא מתיישבים כמה דברי גדולי הראשונים, שהבאים אחריהם נתקשו בהם ולא ירדו לסוף דעתם ודחאום מהלכה". (הגדול ממינסק, עמ' 85)

Elsewhere he writes:

"כשעלתה בידו ליישב שיטת איזה מהראשונים על פי נוסחא ישנה שמצא בגירסת התלמוד, היה בעיניו כמוצא שלל רב ואין קץ לשמחתו. ולכן היו ספרי דקדוקי סופרים של הר"ר רפאל נטע רבינוביץ יקרים וחביבים לו". (שם עמ' 159)


Professor Sperber then continues with another topic, showing the need to know about different printings and printing mistakes. He shows how the knowledge of bibliography helps one come to a proper understanding of the topic of parashat Parah being d'oraitah -- and it is somewhat ironic that on this very page there is a mistake where Sperber writes the name of the Prei Chadash as R. Yechezkial, where it should really say R. Chizkiyahu]. Professor Sperber writes that the teshuvot on the topic of smoking today should take in account that all the earlier literature on this topic is from a time when they did not realize the dangers of smoking.

In the second section he has thirteen excellent examples (including pictures) demonstrating how using manuscripts helps one come to a proper understanding of the Yerushalmi. He gets in to a discussion of mesorah, nussach hatefilah. This later point leads him in his notes to deal with all the different printings of the siddur of R. Jacob Emden as much was added in over the years which was not written by R. Emden until the new beautiful edition by Eshkol was printed. [Even Eshkol edition, however, is not perfect and does not fully reflect the opinions of R. Emden, but it is much better than previous siddurim that claimed to reflect R. Emden's positions.] Sperber offers an example how censorship from the censors causes a wrong Pesak on topic of halakhot of lo sichanam. He has a small discussion about the Besamim Rosh, and a more lengthy discussion on how the proper dating of when the Rama died plays a role halakhically. He shows how a Kaarite explanation crept into many rishonim and how a mistake in Rabbeinu Yerucham without using manuscripts causes a wrong halakha. Finally, he has a lengthy discussion of the edited teshuvah of the Rama on yayin nessach. These are just some of the many topics one can find in this sefer.

The last two parts of the sefer are a continuation of his previous work Darkah Shel Halakha, including new information on topics discussed there on the feelings a posek must have to the people asking questions. (Sperber has a separate article on this topic, available here.) To illustrate the point he brings a beautiful story with R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, when after listening to a very complicated question, he told the person that he is sorry but that he can not answer him as he can not put himself in his shoes – it was towards the end of his life so he did not have enough strength.

The last part of Netivot Pesika are additional sources continuing from his Darkah Shel Halakha about how a posek should not to be overly machmir.

As always, Professor Sperber does not let us down with his breathtaking wide range of sources in his famous lengthy footnotes -- 283 notes in total -- quoting both from Hebrew and English sources. Of great interest to note is his tremendous Bikiut in all the seforim of R. Yaakov Chaim Sofer. This volume is also full of many nice stories and anecdotes to demonstrate his points. This book is much more organized than some of the other works of Professor Sperber, a complaint that many have voiced by some in the past. There are no tangents in tangents of tangents, as he sticks with each topic at hand.

One complaint I have with the book although he includes all the tools one needs to have today to render proper halakhic rulings, there is a glaring omission which I feel should be the few pages explaining how it is proper to learn Torah and that all the Torah sources are the first and most important things that one needs to master first. Only afterwards are these tools helpful and necessary, otherwise these tools alone will not help much.

When I finished reading Netivot Pesika I was stuck with the following feeling: A while ago when reading the excellent article of Dr. Shlomo Sprecher on mezizah b'peh I thought to myself that its lucky I am not a Rav, as this evidence is so hard to deal with. I never went to medical school and I have doctors saying each way and besides that I have the excellent documentation of Dr. Sprecher on this whole topic showing the whole historical development of this halakha convincing one how one can do it b'klei. This book also continues showing me how hard it is for one to become a Rav these days and anyone reading it thinking of pursuing such a career might change their minds.

My outcome after seeing all this unbelievable evidence would be that every rav has to make sure to carefully check up the sources he is using to reach his pesak and if it is related to issues of science or knowledge outside of learning to consult an expert of that particular field, but going to school would not teach one all of this as Sperber himself admits that how many languages could one learn already (pg 50) and still have time to learn Torah which is always supposed to be the main thing? There are many sources which show that one can learn other sciences, etc., and the great necessity of knowing them of reach proper conclusions in pesak.

One has to be aware of all these methods and maybe know how to check up manuscripts. But there is no way every topic that one would be able to research from scratch and suspect that everything up until now is a mistake. Besides, who has such libraries, even with the various computer programs, no one has all these manuscripts and early printings so readily available. The Rabannim would never get anywhere with issuing p'sakim. Rather, a rav has to be aware of the issues that Prof. Sperber raises and consult experts of each particular field, whether dealing with bankers or real estate agents to understand what the market is, to consult medical experts with regard to medical and fertility issues, electrical issues, scientists and the like.

Thus, if someone is dealing with questions of hilkhot Shabbat and electricity aside for having to master the extremely complicated topics of Grama he also has to understand electricity a bit besides for this he would have to understand how this particular product he is dealing with works exactly. Today many rabbanim are well aware of this so they are very careful to check into exactly understanding how products work before issuing a pesak to list one example.

One of the greatest poskim of the past century, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, was famous for how he consulted experts and tried to understand the exact facts before issuing a pesak. This is evident in all his writings on all of the modern day issues. One example: In recent years there has been much written on the bottle cap opening of shabbat -- it even has its own huge sefer (as virtually everything else does these days) on the topic! One of the rabbanim who has been involved with this topic for years is R. Moshe Yadler, author of Meor Hashabbat, where he has written on this topic and spent many hours speaking to many gedolim about it. When he was researching the topic he made sure to track down every type of bottle, he visited factories to see how bottles are made so that he would be able to understand exactly how it is made so he would be able to pasken properly. When he gives a shiur about this topic he comes with a bag full of all types of caps to demonstrate to the crowd the exact way it is made, etc. He told me once that he spoke to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach about this many times at one point and requested R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach to put in writing his pesakim to which the latter did. But R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's son told R. Yadler that his father sat for three days with a soda bottle in front of him the whole time he was writing the teshuvah and he kept on taking it on and off. Another of the many samples of this are the writings of R. J. David Bleich in his now five-volume Contemporary Halachic Problems, two-volume Jewish Bioethics and other works.

In conclusion I would like to quote a lengthy passage from one of my favorite books HaGodol m'Minsk that expresses an idea similar to Professor Sperber,on what a Rav should know – [I got to this book after hearing many times from my Rosh haYeshiva R. Zelig Epstein Shlita how great it is] I apologize for not translating it into English

"אף שם אל לבו להשתלם בידיעת עניני העולם. ובאשר ידע כי התמדתו הנפרזה בתורה היא הגורמת לחסרונו זה, ומפני גודל שקידתו כמעט שלא דבר עם איש מלבד לענות שאלה באיסור והיתר או למי שבא לדבר בדברי תורה, והיו הכל נמנעמים מלבוא אל ביתו בראותם כי למשא הם עליו והוא מדבר רק בעל כרחו כאלו כפאו שד, ובו ברגע שמפנים שכמם ללכת הוא שב ללמודו בקול רם כמשפטו באופן שניכר ומורגש היה להם שבביאתם הם מבטלים את הרב מתורתו. . . לכן עלה על רוחו להשלים חסרונו בכל האפשר, ויאמר להנהיג תורתו מנהג דרך ארץ. ועל פי רמז מאתו וגלוי דעתא דניחא ליה, היו באים אליו לפרקים שניים מחשובי העיר. . . הם היו באים אליו בעידנא דמיפגר מתלמודו, והיו משעשעים אותו בשיחותיהם. זה מספר מעסקים ומסחרים שונים ומבאר פרטיהם ודרכיהם, וזה מדבר על גוי ועל אדם, מספר קורותיו והרפתקאותיו ומבאר דעותיו והשקפותיו. וכיון שנפרץ הגדר מעט, היו באים לפעמים גם אחרים מאנשי העיר בשיחם ושיגם. והרב היה מתענין ושומע ומתכוון לקנות ידיעה בעיני התבל והמציאות. אף היה מתיר לעצמו לפעמים ללכת עם אחד מאלה לטייל בסביבות העיר. ומדי עברו לפני בנין שונה ודבר לא רגיל היה שואל לדעת טיבו ומהותו. כן נמשך הדבר כשלשה ירחים לערך. הרב אמנם עשה חיל בלמודיו אלה ויעבור בהם את רבותיו אלה, שהיה קורא להן בדרך הלצה רבנן דאגדתא, מאיר דעובדי ובמשך הזמן הקצר הזה התעשר בידיעות רבות... והנה נשמט מזכרונו דבור אחד מהראשונים המדברים בזה ולא ידע לפי שעה מקומו והוצרך לחפש אחריו תלה את הדבר בביטול תורה של הפסקות האלה בשיחות וטיולים, ויצר לו מאד ויקט בפניו. וישב לחדר למודו ולקביעותו כבראשונה, והבקורים והטיולים חדלו... בעת זקנו אמר לי פעם אחת כד הוה בדיחא דעתיה רב אמר שמונה עשר חדשים גדלתי אצל רועה בהמה, ורבנו הקודש לא נתן לו רשות להתיר בכורות, ואני לקחתי לקח שלשה חדשים אצל בעלי הבתים והעולם לא נתנו סמיכתם לי על ידיעתי עניני הארץ. בכל זאת אוכל לומר כי הידיעות האלה שקינתי לי אז, הן הן שעמדו לי בכל ימי חיי, מהם אני שואף ויונק בכל עת שבא מעשה לידי". (הגדול ממינסק עמ' 59-63).


Many of these points were demonstrated a bit in the convention and than journal Beis Havad previously discussed on the blog. Professor Sperber, however, goes ahead and demonstrates it much more clearly via many excellent examples to prove each point.


The book is available in the U.S. at Beigeleisen and in Israel at Girsa books and directly from the publisher, Rubin Mass. The SOY Seforim Sale at Yeshiva University, has online ordering available (minimum order of $100), and has Darkah Shel Halakha and Netivot Pesika.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:04:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/13/Review-of-Professor-Daniel-Sperbers-Netivot-Pesikah A Response to Dr. Shapiro: A Defense of the Torah Temimah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/9/A-Response-to-Dr-Shapiro-A-Defense-of-the-Torah-Temimah

A Response to Dr. Shaprio: A Defense of the Torah Temimah

by: Y. Lander (of the Ishim v'Shitot blog)

I read with interest Dr. Shapiro’s recent post questioning the accuracy of R’ Baruch Epstein’s tale concerning his dialogue with the Netziv’s first wife, Rayna Batya. Dr. Shapiro points to several discrepancies in R. Epstein's account and based on those discrepancies posits that R’ Baruch deliberately contrived the story in order to call attention to the plight of women in his time. I would like, however, to present a more prosaic but equally plausible interpretation of the discrepancies that Dr. Shapiro notes.


Dr. Shapiro refers to the “the well-attested fact that Epstein was a plagiarizer” [1] and therefore one must be suspicious of anything he writes. That Epstein frequently fails to provide proper attribution when quoting other authors is certainly irrefutable but I am not at all certain that this was due to conscious plagiarism. I found that only two of Epstein’s works show significant signs of plagiarism - Torah Temimah and Tosefes Bracha[2] - whereas the chiddushei Torah cited in Mekor Baruch and Baruch She’Amar (Tefillah and Pirkei Avot) are original.

If Epstein was indeed a plagiarizer then from where did he get the sudden burst of originality that appears in the latter two works? Why would he plagiarize in Torah Temimah, stop for Mekor Baruch and then continue in Tosefes Bracha?


Further, Y. Bezek, in the article cited by Shapiro, points out that among the sources that R’ Epstein plagiarizes is Maimonides Sefer Hamitzvos. Is it really logical to assume that Epstein intentionally tried to pass of a Rambam as his own chiddush? Or that he could get away with plagiarizing a Gra in Mitnaggdic Vilna heavily influenced by the Gra and his teachings. [2a]

It seems far more logical to simply take Epstein’s words in his Introduction to the Torah Temimah at face value. There he writes, (roughly translated) “this work has taken me 15 years to write and has gone through many drafts. During the course of this time much information has gathered in my mind and although I have made an earnest attempt to provide proper attribution the reader is requested to judge me favorably in this.”

Given the large volume of information Epstein was dealing with and the limited time he had at his disposal [3] it is not surprising that he had not the ability to properly identify the sources for all the hundreds (if not thousands) of interpretations he provides in his commentary. I suspect that Tosefes Bracha is based on those notes that he did not incorporate into his Torah Temimah [4] and would therefore have the same defects as the former.

Shapiro also uses Mondshine’s study on R' Epstein. But, Mondshine brings very little proof to support his assertion that the story of the Aruch HaShulchan’s meetings with the Tzemach Tzedek was simply fabricated out of “whole cloth.” Rather, Mondshine points out that R’ S. Y. Zevin who received Semicha from the Aruch HaShulchan never mentioned any of these conversations. This omission, according to Mondshine is key, as R' Zevin was an adherent of Chabad it is only natural that the AS should have mentioned these meetings to him.


It is a pity that Mondshine didn’t read Zevin’s K’sav Horaah (printed in the new Kitvei Aruch Ha-Shulchan). If he had he would have seen that R’ Zevin never met the Aruch HaShulchan. It is written there that “I recognize that this is man is indeed a Talmud Chachamim based on the many letters I exchanged with him.” Those who have read the AS’s correspondence in the Kitvei will see that the AS rarely goes into any extra detail in his letters focusing solely on the question at hand.

But all this is unnecessary, R’ Y. L. Maimon (Fishman), a Talmud of the AS, wrote a series of books with various “Gedolim” stories entitled Sarei HaMeah. In the last volume (vol. 6 pg. 101) he mentions the conversations that “the Aruch Hashulchan himself told me that at the request of some of the (Chassidic) townspeople he went to visit the Tzemach Tsedek.” Their first conversation involved a discussion of the disagreements between Chassidim and Misnagdim…." [5]

Dr. Shapiro finds it impossible to believe that the Tzemach Tsedek should have said “Had it not been for the great dispute about Hasidism, and the Gaon’s strident opposition, the new movement might have led its followers out of the ranks of halakhic Judaism.” I beg to differ. The Tzemach Tsedek’s grandfather the Baal HaTanya held the Gra in great esteem [6] thus he might have tried to find a justification for the Gra’s opposition. Second, the Tzemach Tsedek waged an intense battle against the Maskilim in their attempts to “reform” traditional Jewish education [7]. To this end, the disagreements between the Chassidim and Mitnaggdim were ignored in order to more effectively battle this new greater menace [8]. It is not unlikely that in order to cement this new found alliance [8a] that the Tzeamach Tsedek would have made this kind of conciliatory remark to the Aruch Ha-Shulchan (brother-in-law of the Netsiv who was one of the most influential of the Mitnaggdim) in order to downplay the conflict between the Chassidim and Mitnaggdim

Dr. Shapiro introduces his post admitting that – “When Mekor Barukh was published there were still plenty of people alive who had known her and it would have been impossible to entirely fabricate her personality.” This being the case the report that- “It was her habit to sit by the oven in the kitchen—even in the summertime—next to a table piled high with seforim. These included a Tanach,(Mishnayos) Ein Yaacov, various midrashim, Menoras HaMaor, Kav HaYashar, Tzemach Dovid, Shevet Yehudah, and many other books of this nature.” [9]- must also have been true. This is an important point that is the cornerstone of the whole story.


Dr. Shapiro wonders how “the rebbetzin, sitting in Volozhin, would just so happen to come across this volume on her husband’s bookshelf.” Here is one possibility. We know that there were several large libraries (for example the Strashun Library in Vilna [10]) in the area and it is certainly possible that a copy of Mayin Ganim might have made its way to the intellectual center in Volozhin.


A similar example of a very rare Sephardi book circulating is mentioned in Mekor Baruch (pg. 1224). There he mentions a Maggid who recalled seeing an alchemical recipe in a rare book. The name of the book was Nifla’ot Elokim by Abraham Shalom Chai printed in Livorno. As Shapiro writes “There would have only been a few copies of this book in all of Lithuania.” But we see that it did circulate.


I agree with Shapiro that the TT obviously copied the letter from HaTzefirah. But all this proves is that at the time of the writing of Mekor Baruch he no longer had access to a Mayin Ganim and therefore had to copy from “HaTzefirah”. We do not have any proof that years before, as a student in Volozhin, he had no access to this book.


I also would like to point out that the TT refers to Mekor Baruch in manuscript [11] (Malki BaKodesh vol. 6 pg. 45) in his letter to Hirschenson. It is clear from the letter that the passage on Rayna Batya had already been written before he wrote this letter so he could not have “uses the language in his letter to Hirschensohn to create the following reply to Rayna Batya” as Shapiro writes.

As to the addition of the term “Ulai”, a commenter has correctly noted that the TT must have conflated the term “Efsher L’ Chalek” that appears in the letter with the term “Ullai”. Erroneous readings such as these are fairly common in TT as Kasher has shown in the addendum to Torah Shelemah v. 26.


We have then two possible ways of interpreting the various discrepancies that appear in R’ Epstein’s works. Either as Dr. Shapiro contends he engaged in fraudulent behavior, including intentional plagiarism, and fabricating historical accounts, or as I contend he simply failed to approach his work systematically, meaning he didn’t keep detailed notes, relied overly much on a faulty memory (See Psalms 19:13), and perhaps engaged in some artistic license in order to heighten the effect of his stories.


I leave it to the reader to decide which of the two is more plausible.

[1] On this see the sources cited in D. Rabinowitz – “Rayna Batya and other learned woman: A realuation Rabbi Barukh Halevi Epstein’s sources” Tradition – footnote 4.

[2] Many of the Chiddushei Torah cited in Tosefes Beracha have been previously attributed to the Gr”a. Compare “HaMeor HaGadol” – A collection of the Gra”s Torah from rare source by Yissocher Kreuser to almost any Parsha in Tosefes Bracha.

[2a] Note that in Tosefes Bracha (Gen. 31,1 Exodus 8,17) he writes that “after I thought of this chiddush a sefer of the Gra’s chiddushim (D’var Eliyahu) came out containing the same idea.” It seems that he genuinely thought that these were entirely his own ideas.


[3] He had a full time employment as a bookkeeper. See also M. M. Kasher’s description in a note to Torah Shelemah 26 (300-301)

[4] TB is for the most part a repetition of his Chiddushim in Mekor Baruch and an expansion of some of his writings in Torah Temimah. It gives the impression of a collection of ideas haphazardly “thrown together” rather then following any specific writing plan.


[5] See also the study of the AS's unique use of Kabbalah here. It is not unlikely that he was influenced in this by the Tsemach Tzedek.

[6] See Iggeret Kodesh pg 86 ff. In another place he refers to the Gra as a חד בדרא


[7] See “The Tzemech Tsedek and the Haskalah Movement” – available here.


[8] Mekor Baruch describes the enthusiasm with which the Tsemach Tsedek was greeted in his visit to Lithuania. Cf. the comments of Eliach in HaGaon Vol. 3 Pulmas HaChassidus. See also “B’Mechitasam Shel Gedolei Torah” – Y. Mark on R’ Chaim Soloveitchik for a further description of the Tsemach Tsedek’s actions at the conference.


[8a] In Mekor Baruch he writes that the Tsemach Tsedek begged the AS to make every effort to prevent the rise of Reform (pg. 1291).


[9] Taken from “My Uncle the Netziv” with the addition of one word.


[10] Although the Strashun Library was only officially opened to the public in 1892, (see here), the very existence of a private collection of so many rare seforim leaves open the possibility that some of these rare books may have circulated among the intellectual “elite” in Volozhin.


[11] Specifically he refers to a passage demonstrating that Archivolti was in fact a Talmudic scholar. Since this passage is part of the Rayna Batya story it is not unlikely that the whole passage had been completed before he sent the letter.

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:18:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/2/9/A-Response-to-Dr-Shapiro-A-Defense-of-the-Torah-Temimah Ofeq Institute and the New (English) Version of the Messilat Yesharim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/30/Ofeq-Institute-and-the-New-English-Version-of-the-Messilat-Yesharim
Ofeq Institute and the New (English) Version of the Messilat Yesharim
by Eliezer Brodt

The Messilat Yesharim, by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato (Ramchal), is one of the foundational works of mussar. [1] The Gra, among others, praise the Messilat Yesharim.[2] As such, any addition to its oeuvre is important in its own right. The Ofeq Institute* has recently published an English translation of an alternative version of the Messilat Yesharim. This version is fundamentally different than the standard edition of Messilat Yesharim. The standard edition is divided into chapters based upon various character traits. The second, this new version, eschews the chapter divisions and instead is arranged in a conversation or dialogue format. Specifically, a dialogue between a "wise man" and a "pious person" is the format of this version. This second version comes from a manuscript in the Baron Ginzburg collection in the St. Petersberg Library. The manuscript is in the Ramchal's own hand and is substantially larger than the other version. Although the Hebrew edition of the dialogue version has been available for a bit (also from Ofeq),[3] this version has now been published in an English edition and this edition will be the focus of this post.

First a word about the Ofeq Institute. Over the past twenty years Mechon Ofeq has released many editions of the works of the geonim, rishonim and achronim covering all genres of Jewish literature. All these works are critical editions with extensive notes and introductions. Almost all their editions include extensive footnotes. (One of the only complaints some have is that there's simply too much information in the footnotes). Much like the novel version of Ofeq's Messilat Yesharim, many of the works are based on manuscripts from the Ginzburg collection, a collection that was only recently released to the public.


To highlight but a few of their other titles. A work on Iyov from the bet midrash of Rashi and a commentary on Yecheskel from R. Yosef Heyun. They begun to publish a critical edition of the rishonim on Torat Kohanim as well as a commentary on Tosefta. They have printed works from geonim like R. Natronai Goan. Many works of rishonim on shas, most well-known being the Tosafas HaRosh on Pesachim and Haggigah, and Tosafos Yeshanim on Yevomos. A facsimile edition of Rambam on Madda and Ahava in the Rambam's own hand. They have printed hagadahs from rishonim an excellent critical edition of the Seder Hakabalah of the Meriei. Another work of note is Meah Shaearim a two volume edition on hilchos kibud av v'em.


Ofeq, run by R. Avraham Shoshana and based in Cleavland Ohio utilizes not only Torah scholars (read products of Yeshiva education) but experts who are academics as well. For their editon of the R. Natronai Goan they used Professor Brody a leading expert of the geonim period. For other works of rishonim they have used Professors Emanuel, Hevlin and Speigel all experts in their respective fields. Or, in the case of the Messilat Yesharim, Professor Septimus was involved. That is, Ofeq ensures that the works they put out are of a high caliber. To some, this is an anathema. They view the inclusion of non-Torah scholars to be unconscionable. Most recently objections of this nature were expressed by R. Yehuda Liba ben Dovid in Bes HaVaad (see post here ). As I pointed out, however, R. ben Dovid's position is in the minority.

Aside from Ofeq's Hebrew publications they also have published some books in English. The Messilat Yesharim, however, is their most ambitious English translation to-date.

This English translation includes an introduction discussing the Messilat Yesharim, the two versions, and the English translation employed. The translation does not skimp in the sense that it is annotated with English notes - something that does not appear in all English translation. Instead, many English translations provide the footnotes in Hebrew. While this seems counter-intuitive as if the person wants to read the work in English, they would like to read the whole work including the footnotes. This edition does not suffer from that and instead, almost everything is in English. Additionally, although Ofeq has published the "dialogue" edition, they also include the original version in translation as well. There are, however, two parts that remain in Hebrew. The first are citations to verses, talmudic passages and the like, the second is the final work included which compares the dialogue version with the standard chapter version. This last section, titled Bein HaMesilot, is in Hebrew.

When it comes to English translations, there are typically two options. The first are academic presses which are typically expensive and not aimed at a popular audience. The second, are the traditional Orthodox presses, while these are typically more readable, they (although not always) don't provide some of the scholarly detail. Ofeq's translation of the Messilat Yesharim
 strikes a nice balance between these two - they have produced a highly readable yet include the scholarly detail as well.


As mentioned above, what is unique about this copy of the Mesilat Yesharim is that is is written in a completely different style than the current Mesilat Yesharim. This new version is written in a debate form. The Ramchal wrote other works in debate form as well. For example, his work on defending kabbala. For whatever reason, he chose to print the other, standard, version and the debate version remained in manuscript. It's unclear, however, why the Ramchal chose to do so. Many feel that a debate version is much better for 2 reasons: One, it keeps the reader much more interested and two, it brings out the various points much better as is always in a debate form.

For many years, the sefer Messilat Yesharim was learned as a mussar sefer, becoming one of the classics. Many people used to take it into a dark room and learn it in special tunes saying the words again and again until they penetrated. However, many people have a fear of mussar, having bad memories from yeshiva, forcing themselves to read mussar sefarim during mussar seder that they felt did not talk to them. I would like to suggest a new way to read this sefer. Read it as a regular sefer. Concentrate on the ideas discussed in it, not only focused on the mussar, but rather on the pshatim, aggada and statements throughout the sefer. Just to list a few of these lesser appreciate portions of the Messilat Yesharim:


והנה ודאי שיעזרהו לזה רוב התמדה והעיון במזמורי דוד המלך והתבונוות בם במאמריהם וענינים כי בהיותם כולם מלאים אהבה ויראה וכל מיני חסידות. הבנה בהתבוננו בם. לא ימנע מהתעורר בו התעוררות גדול לצאת בעקבותיו וללכתב בדרכיו. (פרק כא)


Or highlighting the value of reading gedolim books or at least the aggadic section of the gemarah


וכן תועיל הקריאה בסיפור מעשה החסידים באגדות אשר באו שם. כי כל אלה מעוררים את השכל להתיעץ ולעשות כמעשיהם הנחמדים... (פרק כא)

In this passage, the Ramchal takes a positive view vis-a-vis working at least if learning remains a main focus


כי הנה העסק מוכרח הוא לאדם לצרוך פרנסתו, אך ריבו העסק אינו מוכרח שיהיה כל כך גדול עד שלא יניח לו מקום אל עבודותו. על כן נצטוינו לקבוע עתים לתורה. (פרק ה וראה פרק כא)

And, on keeping chumros he has an intresting point


הוא להחמיר בהם תמיד לחוש אפילו לדברי יחיד במחלקות אם טעמו נראה אפילו שאין הלכה כמותו(פרק יד)

Elsewhere he expands on this thought a bit more


באשר כבר יחשבו שהחסידות תלוי בדברי הבל או דברים נגד השכל והדיעה הנכונה. ויאמינו היות כל החסידות תלוי רק באמירת בקשות רבות ווידוים גדולים ובכיות והשתחויות גדולות ובסיגופים הזרים שימית בהם אדם את עצמו כטיבלת הקרא והשלג וכיוצא בדברים אלה... אך מציאות החסידות עצמו הוא דבר עמוק... כי הנה המצות המוטלת על כל ישראל כבר ידועות הן וחובתן ידועה עד היכן היא מגעת. אמנם מי שאוהב את הבוראית"ש אהבה אמתית לא ישתדל ויכון לפטור עצמו במה שכבר מפורסם מן החובה אשר על כל ישראל בכלל... אלא אדרבא... יהיה לי לעינים להרבות בזה הענין ולהרחיב אותו בכל הצדדין שאוכל לדון שרצונו יתברך חפץ בו... נמצא כלל החסידות הרחבת קיום כל המצות בכל הצדדין והתנאים שראוי ושאפשר... (פרק יח)


In the introduction the Ramchal has a puzzling remark, that many have taken issue with, but, in reality, the Ramchal was following in the path of Chovos haLevovvos


היתכן שיגע ויעמול שכלנו בחקירות אשר לא נתחייבו בם, בפלפולים אשר לא יצא לנו שום פרי מהם, ודינים אשר אינם שייכם לנו.


Here R Shoshanah has a nice comment (p. 18) of sources discussing this point.


When he wrote this work the Ramchal wrote a puzzling remark in the beginning showing his humility he writes


אמר המחבר החיבור הזה לא חיברתיו ללמוד לבני אדם את אשר לא ידעו אלא להזכירם את הידוע להם כבר ומפורסם אצלם פרסום גדול

R. Sarna writes in his notes on Messilat Yesharim that this statement is the most puzzling statement in the entire sefer to him.


One more nice piece from Messilat Yesharim is:


והפרישות... הוא התבודדות וההבדל מן החברה המדינית לפנות לבו אל העבודה והתבוננות בה כראוי ובתנאי שלא יטה גם בזה אל הקצה האחר שכבר אמר ז"ל לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורב עם הבריות... (פרק יד)


Turning back to the Ofeq edition in particular, it is important to highlight the footnotes included. While much has been written on the Messilat Yesharim before this edition, especially worthy of mention is the edition of R Sarna. This edition that includes notes by R. Shoshana has included that aside from explaining the text and the concepts therein and providing sources that the Ramchal's comments are based on in Hazel and the rishonim (as R. Shoshana notes that he has spent many years learning this sefer very carefully) also offers historical info such as on page 6 when dealing with learning pilpul or on page 127 about a custom in those days in Italy where there were large plays and comics played before Jewish audiences.

The end section, Bein HaMessilot, is a great section discussing at length a few topics of the Messilat Yesharim and comparing and contrasting how the two different versions with them. This shows, that at times, the debate version is much lengthier than the current version we have. Another thing that was done in this edition is that they fixed up the original version of Messilat Yesharim from all the mistakes that crept in since its printing. This sefer, which the author was subject to much opposition in his lifetime by many great gedolim, as is documented in the Iggeres Ramchal, was zoche that one of his works became a classic until today.

The only criticism I can think of on this edition is that they should have included all their appendices and introductions that they printed in the Hebrew edition previously printed by them. But, with this new edition it should be much easier to learn And I am sure one will enjoy this all time classic even today.


As Ofeq has extensively utilized manuscripts in both this edition of the Messilat Yesharim as well as in the rest of their publications. We should highlight another book, published by Ofeq, that is on the topic of Hebrew manuscripts. Benjamin Richler's book, Hebrew Manuscripts: a Treasured Legacy, (this is available to readers of the Seforim blog for a special price of $24.95 including postage - please contact Ofeq their information is provided below) is a great introduction to the world of manuscripts for anyone. The book contains a lot of information and pictures of all types of handwriting. The book traces and describes briefly many manuscript collections, both private and public including the Ginzburg collection - the collection where the dialogue version of MessilatYesharim as well as other important manuscripts were found. It even lists the numbers that some of these seforim have in the very big collections. Besides for this, the book contains some nice descriptions with pictures of many manuscripts. Of interest is on page 50, a picture of a manuscript of a machzor from 1290 that has pictures of malachim with faces of dogs. The book also includes a bit of a history of the various catalogs of manuscripts that have been written until today. Interestingly enough, Richler writes that the JTS and Hebrew University collections are not completely cataloged. (maybe by now, they are - for an update on the JNUL collection see Richler's post here). He has a chapter discussing the importance of manuscripts besides for ones not printed, which there are many. It also is to check the accuracy of previous editions. This book was written before the Ginzburg collection was released (p. 110). In addition, there's a excellent chapter on the Cairo Geniza from one of the biggest experts on the geonic era, Professor Robert Brody. Here too, Brody discusses many of the basic questions one has about this topic, such as why all this is in the geniza in the first place. He also discusses where all the documents are location today and the progress of the study of these documents.


NOTES


[1] In an earlier post discussing the content and censorship of the sefer Menuchah u-Kedushah, and I note that according to the author of Menucah u-Kedushah, the Messilat Yesharim was written with ruach ha-kodesh.

[2] For a discussion about the Gra and his views towards R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato and the Messilat Yesharim, see Y. Eliach, HaGra, vol. 1 pp. 240-45, where Eliach devotes a chapter to this issue. There is even a statement attributed to the Gra that there are no extra words in the sefer Messilat Yesharim, until chapter 11. This statement sparked a discussion as to exactly which word in chapter 11 is the extra one that the Gra was referring to. Additionally, it seems that the Gra even had some of the Ramchal's works in manuscript.

[3] The Hebrew edition includes an extensive introduction enumerating all the differences between the versions by R. Yosef Avivi, an expert on kaballah and especially the Ramchal's writings.


*As Ofeq's website is a bit dated, those wishing to obtain a catalogue of Ofeq's publications should contact them at: Ofeq Institute, 27801 Euclid Ave., Suite 430, Euclid, OH 44132, fax (216) 731-5567; email ofeqinst@core.com

Their contact information in Israel is 02-653-5920, or e-mail: ofeq@013.net

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/30/Ofeq-Institute-and-the-New-English-Version-of-the-Messilat-Yesharim Mayim Hayyim, the Baal Shem Tov, and R. Meir the son of R. Jacob Emden http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/29/Mayim-Hayyim-the-Baal-Shem-Tov-and-R-Meir-the-son-of-R-Jacob-Emden

Sources contemporary to the Baal Shem Tov that attest to his deeds, or that even discuss him at all, are sparse. Although some secular sources, including tax records and other documents, have recently been unearthed by academic researchers, there is a paucity of Jewish texts. Most of the "historical" record regarding the Baal Shem Tov comes from a collection of stories, Shivhei Ha-Besht.[1] That work, however, was collected much later and is less reliable than others when assessing the Baal Shem Tov. [2] One important text regarding the Baal Shem Tov, however, appears in the Teshuvot Mayim Hayyim.

Mayim Hayyim was published in Zhitomer by Shapira press. The Shapira press is well-known for publishing hassidic works, and the press was originally in Slavita. As a result of dubious circumstances, the press moved to Zhitomer and in 1857 the Mayim Hayyim was published.[2a] While the publication of that book took place long after the Baal Shem Tov's death in 1760, Mayim Hayyim consists of responsa both from the time of the Baal Shem Tov and later. Mayim Hayyim mainly consists of the responsa of R. Hayyim HaKohen Rapoport (1772-1839), was published by R. Hayyim's son, R. Yaakov HaKohen Rapoport. R. Yaakov HaKohen Rapoport included material from other relatives as well (i.e., aside from his father, R. Hayyim). One such responsum is from R. Meir, son of R. Jacob Emden, who we shall return to later.

This undated responsum begins with a technical question regarding a lesion found in the lungs of an animal after shechitah. The slaughterer could not remove the lesion and took it to the local rabbi in Medzhybizh, a Rabbi Falk, who appeared to be unsure of the status of the animal. Based upon the remainder of the responsum, however, R. Falk eventually permitted the animal. It appears that some disagreed with the decision of R. Falk and thus sent the question to R. Meir to see if the local rabbi got it right. In an effort to ensure that R. Meir would get the whole story, it was recorded and signed by R. Mordechai, the ne'eman (literally, the trustee; but in this context, probably the secretary); the following appears after the question:

In our presence, the court signed below, our teacher, the aforementioned Mordecai, related all that is written above as testimony and then wrote all of this in his own handwriting and signed it with his very own signature. Therefore we have confirmed it and substantiated it as proper
Signed Israel BA"Sh [Ba'al Shem] of Tluste [this was the city the Baal Shem Tov lived prior to moving to Medzhybizh]
Signed Moshe Joseph Maggid Mesharim of Medzhybizh [3]

Thus, one of the three signatories was R. Israel Baal Shem Tov. The questioners then continue to flesh out their question as to whether or not Rabbi Falk paskened correctly. As Moshe Rosman notes, this question places the Baal Shem Tov as an important figure within Medzhybizh. That is, the Baal Shem Tov involved himself in this controversy, a controversy that may have resulted in the dismissal of their local rabbi. Furthermore, this episode illustrates how the Baal Shem Tov was important enough to be one of the three persons picked to sign on this letter. As Rosman states: "this incident presents a dimension of the Besht not usually emphasized by the interpreters of the hagiographic stories about him in Shivhei Ha-Beshet. It makes it difficult to portray him - as has often been done - as an unalloyed populist figure, alienated from the rabbinic or political establishment" (118).

Aside from the above value of the letter, there is the additional importance of how R. Meir treated the Baal Shem Tov, thus providing a contemporary account on how others viewed the Baal Shem Tov. Although the letter was from three people, R. Mordechai, R. Moshe Joseph and the Baal Shem Tov, R. Meir in his response only addresses himself to the Baal Shem Tov. Moreover, the honorifics R. Meir uses demonstrates that he surely held the Baal Shem Tov in the highest regard. R. Meir addressed the Baal Shem Tov as:

Champion in Yehuda and Israel! He who succeeds there at the small and the great. He provides balm and medicament to the persons without strength. He is great in Bavel and famous in Teveriah and has prevailed in all things. The great sage, the eminent rabbi, famous for his good name, our teacher Israel, may God protect and bless him. And all of his colleagues, all of them beloved rabbis, the great and eminent sage, our teacher Gershon, may God protect and bless him; and those who I don't know [by name] I greet; may they all be granted the highest blessing.

As is apparent from the titles provided, "champion in Yehuda and Israel" and with the use of the terms "the great sage, the eminent rabbi" that R. Meir held the Baal Shem Tov in very high regard. Additionally, from both the Baal Shem Tov's own use of "Baal Shem" to describe himself and R. Meir's mention that the Baal Shem Tov "provides balm and medicament to persons without strength," the term "Baal Shem" as used here refers to a medicine man. That is, aside from whatever else the Baal Shem Tov was known for, he was known for being a healer - thus Baal Shem means healer. This understanding is confirmed by tax records that refer to the Baal Shem Tov as a "Doctor." From all this is should be apparent that the Baal Shem Tov was respected by his peers and was known outside of Medzhybizh while he was there.[4]

Teshuvot Mayim Hayyim

There is a question, however, regarding when the foregoing letter was written. Most place it sometime around 1744, but, at the latest, 1747. They do so based on the mention of "our teacher Gershon." They understand that the Gershon referenced here is Avraham Gershon of Kutower, the Baal Shem Tov's brother-in-law. As R. Gershon moved to Israel in 1747, and the letter mentions R. Gershon, it must have been while he was still in Medzhybizh.[5] Personally, I think that that conclusion assumes that R. Meir was intimately familiar with R. Gershon’s whereabouts. While there is no doubt that R. Meir heard of R. Gershon, it does not automatically follow that he was informed regarding when R. Gershon moved to Israel. It could very well be the letter was written after R. Gershon left for Israel and R. Meir then merely assumed that R. Gershon was still living in Medzhybizh - it is not as if there was an announcement in the Międzybórz Times or at OnlySimchas.com that R. Gershon had made Aliyah! Either way, this letter was written while the Baal Shem Tov was alive, and provides a virtually unimpeachable source for his participation in the community-at-large and about how others viewed him. I don't think Rosman is exaggerating when he says that "[t]his responsum, then, would seem to be an excellent starting point for attempting to gauge the Besht's position in his community and his relationship to the political and religious establishment" (119).

Aside from the above points that can be gleaned from this responsum, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, in an article that originally appeared in Sinai and has now been reprinted in the nice, new edition of his le-Ohr Halakhah uses this responsum for a different purpose. R. Zevin wants to disprove the notion that "the Hassidim and their Rebbes don't care about studying the revealed Torah and thus they did not spend much time on studying talmud and poskim." R. Zevin notes, as well, that this attitude towards Hassidim was prevalent right from the start of the Hassidic movement. That is, "even today, those who are not hassidim allege that the founder of the Hassidic movement, the Baal Shem Tov, was not a ben torah, heaven forbid." R. Zevin totally rejects this notion as "false and incorrect." As proof the Baal Shem Tov was indeed learned R. Zevin cites to the above responsum. R. Zevin explains:

In the Shu"t Mayim Hayyim from R. Hayyim Kohen Rapoport from Austria, printed there is a responsum from Medzhybizh regarding a lesion in the lung, from the Baal Shem Tov to the gaon R. Meir, the son of R. Jacob Emden, who was the chief rabbi in Constantine, and the response from the goan [R. Meir] to him [the Baal Shem Tov]. As is common knowledge, the Baal Shem Tov was not the Rabbi of Medzhybizh, even so the Baal Shem Tov is one of the signatories to the letter, singing it "Yisrael Baal Shem of Tluste" - "and the Maggid Mesharim of Medzhybizh." [6] The response of R. Meir is a long one. R. Meir was not a hassid. It is important to note the honorifics R. Meir uses at the beginning of his response: "Champion in Yehuda and Israel! He who succeeds there at the small and the great. He provides balm and medicament to the persons without strength. He is great in Bavel and famous in Teveriah and has prevailed in all thins. The great sage, the eminent rabbi, famous for his good name, our teacher Israel, may God protect and bless him. And all of his colleagues, all of them beloved rabbis . . ." And would a goan [R. Meir] who is not a hassid uses such language on someone who is not a godal b'torah?

Therefore, R. Zevin, with this responsum, demonstrates that the notion that the Baal Shem Tov was not learned and not respected is utterly false.

Until now, we have been focusing on the Baal Shem Tov, but there is another important person in this responsum, the author - R. Meir (1717-1795)[7], the first born son of R. Jacob Emden.[8] R. Meir was the rabbi in Constantine in the Ukraine. R. Meir was highly respected in the area, as is demonstrated by this responsum. This is so, as you will recall, in that the purpose of the responsum was to settle a controversy in the town of Medzhybizh - a controversy between the local rabbi and some of the persons in the town. This was a serious controversy -- indeed the petitioners describe it as "a fire burning in the community" -- and, especially in light of R. Meir's response, where he notes that the rabbi was wrong and if the rabbi refuses to admit that he is wrong, he is to be dealt with as a zakan maamrei as the rabbi, according to R. Meir, is denying a portion of the torah. This was no small matter. As the three persons picked R. Meir to adjudicate the matter, they must have respected him and thought that his answer, what ever it would be, would settle the issue.

Unfortunately, until now, we only had a tiny amount of written material from R. Meir, the bulk of which appears in Mayim Hayyim. Specifically, of the six extant responsa from R. Meir, four can be found in Mayim Hayyim. Now the reason they are included in Mayim Hayyim is because R. Meir is related to R. Hayyim HaKohen Rapoport.[9] What is shocking is that in his introduction to the Mayim Hayyim, R. Yaakov HaKohen Rapoport, publisher of the Mayim Hayyim, uses his relationship to R. Meir as the sole reason for publishing R. Meir's responsa. That is, although the Mayim Hayyim was published by the Shapira hassidic publishing house in Zhitomer, and done so in the mid-19th century, R. Yaakov HaKohen Rapoport never mentions that he includes a responsum -- the only one of its kind -- from the Baal Shem Tov. Instead, the reason for the inclusion of the responsum is R. Meir.

As mentioned previously, today, Shmuel Dovid Friedman has attempted to fill the void of R. Meir's works in publishing the first volume of R. Meir's hiddushim. These hiddushim are on Mishnayot Seder Nashim and on the Rambam's Mishneh Torah. The title of the book is taken from the above responsum. As R. Meir was referred to as "HaMeor HaGodol" thus the title of this new work is HaMeor HaGodol. See Meir Konstantine, HaMeor HaGodol, ed. R. Shmuel Dovid Friedman (Brooklyn, NY, 2007), [30], 352. [6]

While the publication of the Hiddushei Torah of R. Meir is indeed welcome, this particular work is plagued with numerous deficiencies. Firstand foremost is the problem with the manuscript itself. It does not appear that the Meor HaGodol was published from R. Meir's actual manuscript. Instead, R. Meir's manuscripts were copied over time by the Bick family and it is from these copies that the Meor HaGodol is comprised. Thus, there is no independent method of verifying that this material actually came from R. Meir. Aside from the manuscript, the introduction is rather bizarre. The introduction includes various stories about R. Meir, most of which focus on his relationship to hassidim. The bulk of the stories are then shown to be false, but only in the footnotes. So, the body of the text are the stories and then a careful reader will see that most of the stories likely never occurred. For instance, there is a story that R. Meir's daughter -- when R. Meir was sick and unbeknownst to him-- sent a request to the Baal Shem Tov to ask him to heal R. Meir. The editors of Meor HaGodol, in note 49, then say it is hard to reconcile the story with the facts known about R. Meir. Or, another example is that the introduction includes a story that after R. Meir became a hassid -- there is no evidence that he ever did so, but the story assumes so -- his father, R. Jacob Emden, disowned R. Meir. Again, the editors, in note 59, state that "there are many difficulties with this story" and then proceed to enumerate them. Why a story for which there is no support would be included to begin with is left unexplained. Perhaps the reason is that the editors are unduly interested in demonstrating that R. Meir was a full hassid (indeed, the main chapter in the introduction is entitled "[R. Meir's] Connection with the Baal Shem Tov"). It is particularly ironic that they present such shaky evidence in light of the fact the responsum in Mayim Hayyim from R. Meir is the only objective contemporaneous evidence of the Ba'al Shem from a Jewish source.

Moreover, the introduction seems to have missed and, in fact purposely left out, some material. Specifically, in note 3, the editors of HaMeor HaGodol note that R. Jacob Emden at some point added the name Yisrael. In the introduction they then attempt to understand what precipitated this change. They cite the following from R. Jacob Emden's Hitavkut, (p. 112,a)

מבטן אמי קראני יעקב, אליו פי קראתי ורומם תחת לשוני, והוא יתברך שלחני בשמי קראני, וכעת הראני לקרוא שמי ישראל וכו', ע"כ


"from birth I was called Yaakov, this is what I was called and my name elevated, and then God sent [a message] to me that I should be called in God’s name, and thus I will now be called Yisrael."

Although we can see from that quote that R. Emden added his name, the introduction does not tell us exactly why. What is astounding is that the editors ought to know why R. Emden added his name. The reason is because the above quote from Sefer Hitavkut continues beyond the portion quoted and explains that the name Yisrael was added because it was a testament that R. Jacob Emden was correct in his battle with R. Jonathan Eybeschütz. Instead, the editors cut off the quote right before R. Emden explains precisely that. Therefore, I assume that the omission is because they would rather not bring up that R. Emden had a fight with R. Eybeschütz, or that R. Emden viewed himself as having been correct. It is worth noting that the Sefer Hitavkut is not the only place R. Emden offers his victory as the reason for the name change. Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, on page 754 (n.11) of his dissertation about Rabbi Jacob Emden (Harvard, 1988), refers to a passage in Mitpachat Sefarim (p. 118 in the Lemberg, 1871 ed. and p. 171 in the most recent 1995 ed. - provided below) where R. Emden says "that after he battled with IS"H [R. J. Eybeschütz] a name was added" -- a play on the verse in Genesis 32:24, 28. So it is incorrect to assert, as the editors of HaMeor HaGodol do, that "why and when R. Emden's name was changed is unclear." Rabbi Schacter also notes that Emden's earliest reference "to himself as 'Yaakov Yisrael' is in a responsum SY [She'elat Yaavetz] II:24) dated February 22, 1765. In another responsum dated just six days later (SY II:144), Emden was addressed as 'Yaakov Yisrael.' For other references to this name, see SY II:25, 71, 72, 73, 112, [and] 146" (p. 754, n.11 - special thanks to Rabbi Schacter for his discussions with Menachem Butler about this aspect about Rabbi Jacob Emden).


Thus, in the editors’ effort to highlight the connection of R. Meir to hassidim, they downplay any opposition R. Meir's father, R. Jacob Emden, had to hassidism (see n.59). They apparently were unaware (?) that an additional important statement from R. Jacob Emden has recently been published. (see here )

One final note. It is particularly disappointing today to find a sefer that does not contain an index. With technology as it is today, publishers easily should be able to provide a decent index to a book; it is quite surprising, then, that Meor HaGodol, does not contain an index.

Notes
[1] There are other sources as well, including letters. Many of the letters are highly controversial as to their authenticity. See Moshe Rosman, Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba'al Shem Tov (University of California Press, 1996), 99-113, 119-126; Nahum Karlinsky, Historia SheKeneged (Jerusalem, 1998); and Immanuel Etkes, The Besht: Magician, Mystic and Leader (UPNE/Brandeis University Press, 2005), chapter six, "The Historicity of Shivhei Habesht," 203-248, among many other sources.
[2] See Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 143-155 and 162-8 (lending credence to some of the stories in Shivhei Ha-Besht based on governmental records), as well as his earlier article, "The History of a Historical Source: On the Editing of Shivhei Ha-Besht," Zion 58 (1993): 175-214, and in his recently published monograph, Stories That Changed History: The Unique Career of Shivhei Ha-Besht (=The B.G. Rudolph Lectures in Judaic Studies, new series, 5) (Syracuse University Press, 2007), Rosman notes how through this text of some two hundred stories, one can "explore such themes as the Besht's miraculous birth and childhood, his initiation into the mystical secrets, his revelations, his prayers, his dreams, his travels, his encounters with noblemen and priests, his contests with doctors, his attraction of various associates, and, most of all, the miracles, large and small, that he performs" (1). Rosman notes, as well, that over the past sixty years alone, "there have been five new Hebrew editions, some printed more than once; one Yiddish and two Hebrew reworkings; a German translation and critical edition, and an English translation printed four times. All this was in addition to various adaptations in fiction and in educational materials used by all types of Jewish schools, from Israeli secular to American Reform and Brooklyn Ultra-Orthodox" (24), and Rosman notes quite humorously how "Shivhei Ha-Besht has been analyzed as inspirational literature, political tract, holy writ, silly stories, historical source, and theological doctrine. It has entertained, inspired, embarrassed, inspired repentance, and formed the basis for doctoral dissertations. For nearly two hundred years it has been read with passion and diligence by people of many approaches and predilections. In search for the wellsprings of modern Jewish culture, it surely represents a unique source" (20).
[2a] For a discussion of the Shapira press see Ch. B. Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography in Poland (Tel Aviv, 1950), 104-09 (discussing the Slavita period) and 135 (discussing the Shapira press in Zhitomer). For what precipitated the move, see Saul Moiseyevich Ginsburg, The Drama of Slavuta, trans. by Ephraim H. Prombaum (Lanham, Maryland, 1991).
[3] I have essentially used Rosman's translation of this responsum.
[4] See Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, at 168.
[5] Dinur, B'Mifaneh HaDorot, vol. 1, pp. 205-6, cited in Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 119 n.29.
[6] This is actually incorrect. The Baal Shem Tov does not sign himself as the Maggid of Medzhybizh, rather the final signatory, R. Moshe Yosef signs himself as the Maggid.
[7] 1795 is the death date given in HaMeor HaGadol, (there are no page numbers provided in the introduction thus I will use the footnote numbers to attempt to give a rough citation) at n.60. The source given is "a letter from R. Mordechai Blechman z"l the chief rabbi of Constantine to R. Hayyim Bick the chief rabbi of Medzhybizh." The editors of HaMeor HaGodol, however, fail to provide where this source is located, i.e. is it in their possession, is it in some library or perhaps somewhere else. Moreover, they do not provide the context of the letter - was R. Meir's death date mentioned in passing or was that the focus of the letter. Nor do they mention how R. Blechman knows this date. Did he pull it off of R. Meir's tombstone or was it simply a legend? This sort of lack of information plagues the entire introduction of the Meor HaGodol.
This same death date, however, is given by Abraham Bick, Rebi Yaakov Emden (Jerusalem, 1974), 17, 182. Bick doesn't either provide a source for this date. See also id. at 17-8, citing to where R. Jacob Emden and others quote R. Meir. About Bick's 1974 biography, Schacter writes in his dissertation, that this work "is uncritical, incomplete and simply sloppy. it is barely more useful than an earlier historical novel in yiddish about emden by the general author with the same title published in New York, 1946. In general, all of Bick's work is shoddy and irresponsible and cannot be taken seriously." See Jacob J. Schacter, "Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Works," (PhD dissertation, Harvard, 1988), 17.
The editors of HaMeor HaGodol explain that most of the biographical information on R. Meir comes from Kitvei HaGeonim (Pietrokov, 1928), 127-30, n.3. Additionally, R. Meir is mentioned a few times in his father's autobiography, Megilat Sefer, Kahana ed., (Warsaw, 1896), 104 and 110. R. Jacob Emden mentions that he was unable to attend R. Meir's wedding in 1732 even as his wife attended, though as Schacter notes in his dissertation, R. Emden had "travel[ed] to Amsterdam during this period" (152, n. 126).
[8] R. Meir was related to R. Rapoport through the marriage of R. Meir's daughter to R. Hayyim HaKohen Rapoport's grandson, Dov Bear. See R. Jonathan Eybeschütz, Luchot Edut (Altona, 1755), 62a. Additionally, R. Meir was the brother-in-law of R. Shlomo Chelm, author of the Merkevet HaMishna. One of the responsum in Mayim Hayyim, no. 28, from R. Meir is to R. Shlomo.
[9] In fact, this is the only reason why the responsum that includes the mention of the Ba'al Shem Tov appears in Mayim Hayyim. As mentioned above, when the Mayim Hayyim was published, it was done so not by R. Hayyim HaKohen Rapoport, the author of the bulk of the teshuvot, but instead by his son R. Yaakov. R. Hayyim had died prior to publishing his own works. Thus, R. Yaakov decided to include not only his father's responsa but those from other relatives, as well. Thus, the Mayim Hayyim contains two title pages. After the first title page, the approbations that R. Hayyim received for his responsa are included (one additional later approbation is included but the main are addressed to R. Hayyim). R. Yaakov then included a second title page after which two additional approbations are included. These approbations were collected by R. Yaakov and mention not only R. Hayyim's responsa but the inclusion of other luminaries including R. Meir. The second title page is used a division between the two types of approbations, those directed at R. Hayyim and those at the book Mayim Hayyim. It is worthwhile noting that in the electronic editions they have removed the second title page. For instance, www.hebrewbooks.org only includes the first. This is but one example of the need to actually obtain a hard copy of a book and not solely rely on such databases. See Anthony Grafton, "Future Reading, Digitization and its Discontents," The New Yorker (Nov. 5, 2007) and his New Yorker web-supplement, "Adventures in Wonderland," for other limitations of digitization.

]]> Censorship Book Reviews Historical Oddities Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/29/Mayim-Hayyim-the-Baal-Shem-Tov-and-R-Meir-the-son-of-R-Jacob-Emden "Derashot Shel Maran: A Little Studied Aspect of Maran Ovadiah Yosef's Weltanschauung" at the Michtavim blog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/25/Derashot-Shel-Maran-A-Little-Studied-Aspect-of-Maran-Ovadiah-Yosefs-Weltanschauung-at-the-Michtavim-blog
In a recent post at the Michtavim blog entitled "Derashot Shel Maran: A Little Studied Aspect of Maran Ovadiah Yosef's Weltanschauung," I discuss a shift within the research and writings of Dr. Kimmy Caplan from the area of sermons of historical American rabbis to the contemporary haredi community and contemporary Orthodox historiography (the latter which will be the subject of an upcoming post at the Michtavim blog). I believe that his varied areas of research have reunited in his recent article, "Studying Haredi Mizrahim in Israel: Trends, Achievements, and Challenges," in Peter Y. Medding, ed., Studies in Contemporary Jewry, vol. 22 (Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews) (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 169-192, specifically as he discusses the differences in the Friday night and Motzei Shabbat sermons of Maran Ovadiah Yosef, in the selection quoted at the Michtavim blog.

See the post here.

]]> Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:56:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/25/Derashot-Shel-Maran-A-Little-Studied-Aspect-of-Maran-Ovadiah-Yosefs-Weltanschauung-at-the-Michtavim-blog Pini Dunner -- Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/21/Pini-Dunner--Mercaz-Agudat-HaRabbanim-BeLita-Kovno-1931
Pini Dunner B.A (Hons), formerly rabbi of London's Saatchi Synagogue, is an avid collector of polemical and controversial Hebraica, with a very large, diverse private collection of such material. Many items in his collection are unknown and unrecorded, and relate to long forgotten, obscure controversies.

This is his first post at the Seforim blog in a series about rare polemical pieces from his personal collection.
Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931
Pini Dunner
(London, England)

In the mid-1920s the rabbi and rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1866-1934), left Lithuania to lead the newly established branch of his yeshiva in Chevron. In his place as rabbi of the Slabodka community he left his son-in-law, R. Yosef Zusmanowitz (1894-1942), renowned in the Lithuanian yeshiva world as the 'Yerushalmi Illuy'. R. Zusmanowitz was a scholar of repute and a great communicator. The heads of the yeshiva, R. Boruch Horowitz (R. Epstein's brother-in-law) and R. Yitzchak Isaac Sher (1875-1952; son-in-law of the Alter of Slabodka), were concerned that the young R. Zusmanowitz would also try and take over the yeshiva. They were totally opposed to his involvement in the yeshiva, especially as he was not enamoured with the strong concentration on mussar. Instead they appointed R. Zalman Osofsky as the rabbi of the town.

A fierce controversy erupted between the 2 factions. R. Zusmanowitz's most vociferous supporter was R. Nota Lipshitz, son of the famous secretary to R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, R. Yaakov Lipshitz. The fight became so personal that R. Lipschitz's nephew was effectively expelled from Slabodka yeshiva simply because of his uncle's support for R. Zusmanowitz. As a result, the nephew, and others, began to learn together with R. Zusmanowitz, thereby starting a rival Slabodka yeshiva. At its height the yeshiva had 50 students. Frightened of the competition, and of the fundraising confusion that was impacting on their income (Zusmanowitz fundraisers included the 2 Teitz boys from America), R. Horowitz and R. Sher arranged for the Agudat Ha-Rabbanim (R. Horowitz was chairman) to issue a psak that R. Zusmanowitz had to close his yeshiva. This decision was met with anger and derision by its supporters, but the yeshiva closed. None of the 50 students were allowed back into Slabodka yeshiva – except for R. Ephraim Oshry (1914-2003), and he was subsequently suspected of being a spy who had been planted by the Slabodka yeshiva in R. Zusmanowitz's yeshiva.

In this stencilled poster, the Agudat Ha-Rabbanim vigourously deny that they had reported R. Zusmanowitz to the authorities as a subversive, as he and his supporters were claiming in posters, pamphlets and correspondence. They also explain that as R. Zusmanowitz refused to sign that he would not open a yeshiva if he won the elections that had been scheduled as a way to resolve the dispute, he had effectively ruled himself out of the election. The status-quo that established itself during this time was that R. Osofsky was the rabbi for the Slabodka yeshiva community and R. Zusmanowitz was the rabbi for the rest of the town. The whole controversy was viewed very negatively by those not involved, and particularly because R. Zusmanowitz's opponents - who used a variety of nefarious tactics to get their way - were meant to represent the mussar movement and its ethical ideals.

R. Zusmanowitz later became the rabbi of Wilkomir – a position for which R. Yaakov Kamenetsky had been vying, and thought he had secured – when the previous rabbi, R. Arye Leib Rubin, father-in-law of the Ponevezher Rov, died in 1937. It was as a result of this that R. Kamenetsky came to America. He would later say that what had at the time seemed like a tragic failure had in fact saved his life and the lives of his family as he was spared from the Holocaust as a result. R. Zusmanowitz was not so lucky. He was killed in 1942. (With thanks to Rabbi Eliezer Katzman for much of the information concerning this controversy).

]]> Pini Dunner Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/21/Pini-Dunner--Mercaz-Agudat-HaRabbanim-BeLita-Kovno-1931 About Rabbi Avraham Korman http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/20/About-Rabbi-Avraham-Korman
In his recent post at the Seforim blog, Prof. Marc B. Shapiro mentioned Rabbi Avraham Korman [at note 33] and as some readers have requested additional information on the latter, please see below:


]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/20/About-Rabbi-Avraham-Korman Marc B. Shapiro - Clarifications of Previous Posts http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/16/Marc-B-Shapiro--Clarifications-of-Previous-Posts
Clarifications of Previous Posts

by Marc B. Shaprio


[The footnote numbers reflects the fact this is a continuation of this earlier post.]

1. I was asked to expand a bit on how I know that R. Barukh Epstein’s story with Rayna Batya is contrived. In this story we see her great love of Torah study and her difficulty in accepting a woman’s role in Judaism. Certainly, she must have been a very special woman, and I assume that she was, for a woman, quite learned. When Mekor Barukh was published there were still plenty of people alive who had known her and it would have been impossible to entirely fabricate her personality. The same can be said about Epstein’s report of the Netziv reading newspapers on Shabbat. This is not the sort of thing that could be made up. Let’s not forget that the Netziv’s widow, son (R. Meir Bar-Ilan) and many other family members and close students were alive, and Epstein knew that they would not have permitted any improper portrayal. It is when recording private conversations that one must always be wary of what Epstein reports.

A good deal has been written about the Rayna Batya story, and Dr. Don Seeman has referred to it as “the only record which has been preserved of a woman’s daily interactions with her male interlocutor over several months.”[15] When challenged about the historical accuracy of Epstein’s recollections, Seeman replied “that there is no evidence to indicate that R. Epstein invented these episodes out of whole cloth.”[16]

I will therefore explain how I concluded that the story is fictional. Let’s begin with the well-attested fact that Epstein was a plagiarizer. My assumption is that when dealing with someone who is not a reputable scholar, one must be very suspicious of what he or she writes when there is no outside evidence to back it up. In fact, when the Torah Temimah first appeared, the editor of this work published a booklet, Sihah Temimah, accusing Epstein of fraudulent behavior.[17] Here are the first few pages of this booklet.


A central feature of his dialogue with Rayna Batya is her producing the book Ma’ayan Ganim by R. Samuel Archivolti. Here it states that mature women who have a desire to study Torah are to be encouraged (Mekor Barukh, p. 1962). Epstein, a young teenager, then attempts to refute her by arguing that the passage from Ma’ayan Ganim is not halakhic, but rather divrei melitzah. The whole dialogue, and in particular the part about her discovering the winning passage in Archivolti, is contrived and designed to lead the reader to sympathize with the fate of the poor woman.

In his Torah Temimah (Deut. ch. 11 n. 68) he cites the passage from Ma’ayan Ganim that as a teenager he supposedly argued against. Anyone reading Torah Temimah would assume that Ma’ayan Ganim is a regular halakhic work, as Epstein refers to it as She’elot u-Teshuvot.[18]

Although at the end of the passage he says that he doesn’t know who the author is, and that Tosafot Yom Tov calls him a grammarian, I believe that this is all part of the literary game he is playing. In other words, he wants to publicize Archivolti’s view, and then to “cover” himself cites Tosafot Yom Tov. In Mekor Barukh, after telling his story, he points out that Archivolti was also a great talmudist and that the only reason the Tosafot Yom Tov refers to him as a medakdek was because he was referring to him in his youth.[19]

Dan Rabinowitz, in his discussion of the issue, writes:

The entire famous Rayna Batya incident must now be called into serious question. Was Rayna Batya so ignorant as to confuse Ma’ayan Gannim with a legitimate book of halakha? How, then, do we reconcile this with her supposed profound learning? It cannot be that R. Epstein was unable to recognize the Ma’ayan Gannim for what it was, for he himself writes that he told his aunt of the true nature of Ma’ayan Gannim. But if he did know what it was, how is it that in his Torah Temima he refers to Ma’ayan Gannim as responsa—and yet in the same paragraph in the Torah Temima he seems to backtrack and wonder how it is that the Ma’ayan Gannim could innovate “new laws about women with reason alone?” The entire Rayna Batya episode is a highly problematic one, raising one perplexing question after another.[20]

As far as the first few questions are concerned, I can only say that the entire report of Rayna Batya discovering the relevant text in Ma’ayan Ganim was made up by Epstein. This book, which was published in Venice in 1553, is an extremely rare volume. There would have only been a few copies of this book in all of Lithuania. (In Torah Temimah Epstein also says that it is a rare book.) It is therefore impossible to imagine that the rebbetzin, sitting in Volozhin, would just so happen to come across this volume on her husband’s bookshelf. Of this, there can be no doubt, and I assumed that Epstein, who was a great bibliophile, later in life came across the book and in his desire to publicize its contents, created the dialogue with Rayna Batya.

Yet thanks to R. Yehoshua Mondshine’s recent article,[21] I see that I was mistaken in my assumption. The truth is that Epstein never even saw the book and thus did not know the true nature of Ma’ayan Ganim. He learnt of the relevant passage, which he places in Rayna Batya’s mouth, from an article that appeared in Ha-Tzefirah in 1894. We see this from the fact that the Ha-Tzefirah quotation mistakenly omits some words, and the same words are omitted in Mekor Barukh. This shows that his knowledge of this book came in 1894 and that he never discussed it with Rayna Batya, who died many years prior to this.

Now that we know where Epstein copied the text from, we can see another element of the literary game he played. He cites Ma’ayan Ganim as follows:


ומאמר חכמינו כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו מלמדה תפלות אולי נאמר כשהאב מלמדה בקטנותה.


Yet in Ha-Tzefirah it states:


מאמר רבותינו ז"ל כל המלמד בתו תורה כאלו מלמדה תפלות אינה צריכה לפנים דאיתתא חזינא ותיובתא לא חזינא כי אפשר לחלק שחכמים ז"ל לא דברו אלא כשהאב מלמדה בקטנותה.


Leaving aside the words Epstein omits, he has substituted אולי for אפשר לחלק. In doing so he softened Archivolti’s point. Whereas Archivolti was stating that one can distinguish between teaching a grown woman and a small girl, Epstein has Archivolti prefacing this idea with “perhaps”. I think this is part of Epstein’s confusing game. He wants to bring this view to the public’s attention, but he doesn’t want to come off as too radical. In fact, this אולי, which is his own creation, assumes a life of its own. Thus, in his letter to R. Hayyim Hirschensohn (Malki ba-Kodesh, vol. 6, p. 47), criticizing the latter’s view of teaching women Torah, Epstein writes:


צר לי כי לא אוכל להסכים עמו בזה הן הוא (הרש"ק בעל המכתב הידוע) אינו בטוח בעצמו בדבריו אלה, כנראה מלשונו שכתב "ומאמר חכמינו כל המלמד את בתו תורה וכו' 'אולי' נאמר כשהאב מלמדה בקטנותה" וכו' ועתה הגע עצמך האם בסברא "פן ואולי" אפשר להתיר מה שנאמר בגמרא מפורש לאיסור. כך דעתי בזה.


In other words, Epstein invents the word אולי and inserts it into Archivolti’s letter, and then he uses this to criticize Hirschensohn! The chutzpah on Epstein’s part is astonishing, but as I see it this is all part of his game.

No one who has discussed Epstein and Rayna Batya was aware of his letter to Hirschensohn, so they could not point out the following obvious fact: When one looks at Mekor Barukh, which was published after his letter to Hirschensohn, one finds him telling Rayna Batya the exact same thing. It is obvious that he uses the language in his letter to Hirschensohn to create the following reply to Rayna Batya, that supposedly occurred some fifty years prior.


והן המחבר בעצמו כמו 'מודה במקצת' בזה, באמרו: 'ומאמר חכמינו' כל המלמד את בתו תורה כאלו מלמדה תפלות 'אולי נאמר כשמלמדה בקטנותה'; הרי שבעצמו אינו בטוח בדבריו, וכהוראת הלשון 'אולי' ולא ב"אולי" ולא ב"פן" מתירים מה שנאמר מפורש בתלמוד.


(It is possible that I am wrong in assuming that it was his positive view towards women studying Torah which explains why he created the story and cited Ma’ayan Ganim. Perhaps he was simply attempting to create a good story, or even some controversy, and that explains why he seems to be on both sides of the issue, as Dan Rabinowitz points out in the passage cited above.)

Here are the relevant pages in Ma’ayan Ganim, Ha-Tzefirah, Mekor Barukh, and Torah Temimah.


I know that there are people who are very upset at me, believing that I have given ammunition to those who chose to censor and withdraw My Uncle the Netziv. I make no apologies. We must combat falsehoods and plagiarism no matter where they emanate from. If, in the process, some of our own sacred cows are slaughtered, that is the price we must pay.

Returning to Mondshine, he is most concerned with the supposed dialogue between Epstein’s father, R. Yehiel Michel (the author of the Arukh ha-Shulhan), and the Tzemach Tzedek, R. Menachem Mendel Schneersohn. He sees it as an opportunity for Epstein to put all sorts of ideas, including criticisms of Hasidism, into the mouth of the great hasidic leader, something that if he did on his own would have brought down storms of criticism upon him. For example, he has the Tzemach Tzedek say that the hasidim have to be grateful for the opposition of the Vilna Gaon. Had it not been for the great dispute about Hasidism, and the Gaon’s strident opposition, the new movement might have led its followers out of the ranks of halakhic Judaism. (p. 1237). This idea was expressed by R. Kook (Ma’amrei ha-Re’iyah, p. 7) and was probably a common non-hasidic notion. But it is impossible to think that the Tzemach Tzedek would have ever expressed himself this way.

At the time that R. Yehiel Michel is said to have had his conversations with the Tzemach Tzedek, he was the rav of the Habad town Novozypkov.[22] In later years R. Abraham Chen and R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin served as rabbis of the town.[23] I know about this place because my grandmother’s second husband (who was like a grandfather to me) was from there. In fact, during World War One word came to the town that a certain group of Jews was being moved and would be passing through, and that among them was an outstanding young scholar named Shlomo Yosef Zevin. The townspeople came up with the necessary money to remove him from the group. He was chosen as the town’s rabbi and lived in my step-grandfather’s house for about six months. I read somewhere that the townspeople were followers of Kopys/Bobruisk, rather than Lubavitch. As R. Zevin was himself a Bobruisker, this would make sense. R. Yehiel Michel was himself born in Bobruisk, as was his son R. Baruch.

I always tell this story to Habad people in order to impress them with my yichus, that the great R. Zevin lived in my family’s house. Yet on two separate occasions after I told the story to young Habad shluchim, they replied, “Who is Rav Zevin?” It is also very rare to find a young Habadnik who has even heard of Kopust/Bobruisk. Yet without knowing about this it is impossible to understand how R. Zevin could have been a Zionist when the Lubavitcher rebbes were all anti-Zionist. After all, who ever heard of a hasid not following his Rebbe? The answer is that all Lubavitchers were Habad, but not all adherents of Habad were Lubavitch. The ignorance among some in Habad of their own movement probably shouldn’t surprise me, as I have met many hasidim who don’t have a clue about the history of the hasidic movement. And of course, how many Modern Orthodox know the first thing about Hirsch and Hildesheimer?

Mondshine assumes that one of the purposes of Epstein’s stories about his father and the Tzemach Tzedek is to build up his father’s halakhic reputation. His pesakim were subject to attack as being too liberal, and certainly in the hasidic world he was not accepted. In the Lithuanian world he was a much more important posek, and R. Joseph Elijah Henkin stated that in a dispute between the Mishneh Berurah and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, the Arukh ha-Shulhan is to be preferred.[24]

Yet many did not share R. Henkin’s viewpoint. A number of years ago I saw in one of R. Yitzhak Ratsaby’s books that he heard from some gedolim that one should not rely on the Arukh ha-Shulhan. I wrote to him objecting to this lack of respect for the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and also expressing my near certainty that the gedolim he referred to must have been Hungarian, for the Hungarian poskim never accepted the Arukh ha-Shulhan as an authoritative work. On Nov. 22, 1990, Ratsaby wrote to me:


בענין הגאון בעל ערוך השולחן, דוקא הדברים נובעים מליטא, והנני מפרש, הגר"י כהנמן זצ"In a recent discussion in the journal Or Yisrael concerning the permissibility of using ArtScroll gemaras -- for PDFs of the articles, see here -- one source deserves closer scrutiny. In particular, some authorities who are against the use of ArtScroll gemaras cite to a passage in the Leket Yosher in support of their opinion. Thus, an examination of the Leket Yosher is appropriate.

The Leket Yosher was compiled by R. Yosef ben Moshe (1423-c.1490), a student of R. Israel Isserlein (1390-1460), the author of the Terumat HaDeshen. The Leket Yosher records R. Isserlein's customs and rulings. The Leket Yosher was the first work to base itself on the four part division of the Turim, however, only the sections on Orach Hayyim and Yoreh Deah are extant. While it appears that there was a third part on Even haEzer which is no longer extant, it is unclear whether there ever was a part on Hoshen Mishpat. [1] Leket Yosher [2] was not published until 1903 (Orach Hayyim; and in 1904 Yoreh Deah was published) by R. Ya'akov Freimann from Munich manuscript in R. Yosef's own hand.[3] It has been published at least three times and today is typically available as part of a set of three minhagim works, Leket Yosher, Yosef Ometz and Noheg KaTzon Yosef.

The passage used by some in the discussion in Or Yisrael regarding ArtScroll, records the disapproval of R. Isserlein of the practice of "spoiled, rich kids" who used a revolving table to avoid having to get up and get a book. (vol. 2, p. 39). The passage reads in full:

"אותם הבחורים העשירים המפונקים שעשו להם שולחנות כשיושבין במקומן הופכין השולחן לאי זה צד שירצו ועליו הרבה ספרים לא טוב הם עושים, אדרבה כשמבקש אחר הספר ובא לו בטורח גודל זכור באותו מעשה מה שרוצה ללמוד, כמדומה לי שמצאתי לו סמך ב[יורה דעה] בסימן ג' (שפח) 'ולא כאלו שלומדין מתוך עידון' וכו"
"Those rich, spoiled students that had made a revolving table which allowed for them to turn the table to get which ever book they wanted [without having to get up] such behavior is inappropriate. Instead, one who gets up to get a book and exerts themselves will remember that they had to look for the book [and will remember what the book said]. It seems to me [R. Yosef] that support for this position [that frowns upon the turntable] can be found in Yoreh Deah where it says "one should not study in luxury.'"
Thus, argue those you compare the turntable to ArtScroll Talmuds, Torah study should not be easy, and one should struggle in preforming that commandment. In other words, because studying with Talmud with an ArtScroll is easy, it is inappropriate for Torah study. As an initial matter, the comparison is somewhat strained in that the Leket Yosher is referring to those who are lazy and does not necessarily speak to someone who uses ArtScroll because they cannot otherwise study gemara (or the additional commentaries that ArtScroll provides) at all. But setting aside this difficulty, it does not appear that the Leket Yosher's opinion in this regard is agreed upon by all. For example, R. Yitzchak Hutner, in his approbation to the Otzar Mifarshei HaTalmud, explains why the Otzar is a good thing. As many are aware, the Otzar collects all (or almost all) the literature on a particular passage of the gemara (or mishna as is the case with the volume on Hallah). This avoids the need to look through many books to see what, if anything, they have to say on a particular passage. R. Hutner cites to a statement from the Hazon Ish, that "people confuse looking (hipush) with study" and, according to R. Hutner, the Otzar eliminates that problem. Thus, it can be argued that both according to R. Hutner and the Hazon Ish, there is no benefit or merit per se in the act of getting a book or looking to see if that book has anything relevant. This appears in conflict with the Leket Yosher.

Similarly, when the Vilna Shas was printed many years ago, the story goes that the printers said that whoever finds a mistake in this heavily invested shas will get rewarded. In the excellent book, Derech Etz Chaim (p. 568) about R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer, they record a story that a printer of a current Yerushalmi visited the Steipler with the idea to print a Yerushalmi in a similar format to the Talmud Bavli and to have, amongst other things, many commentaries in the back. When the Steipler heard this, he said that R. Meltzer used to complain that there’s a very big printing mistake in the Vilna Shas. Specifically, that in the Vilna Shas many commentaries in the back, but each commentary is 3 pages so you have to look 50 times for the same thing. R Isser Zalman wanted that they should put it in order of the Blatt, so he recommended that they not make the same mistake and do the same for the Talmud Yerushalmi.[4]

Setting aside R. Hutner and Hazon Ish, what is worthwhile to point out is the passage immediately preceding the above quoted passage in the Leket Yosher. The Leket Yosher records the following question and answer:
"ושאלתי לו קטן שהולך בדרך לא טובה כגון משכב זכר ועובר על לאו לא תגנוב אם מותר ללמדו תורה ואמר הן"

"And I asked [R. Isserlein] a student who sin, with sins such as homosexuality or stealing should they be taught Torah? Answer, Yes."
To be clear, the the Leket Yosher allows for the teaching of homosexual students. Now, obviously this passage, although immediately preceding the discussion about the revolving table, is not germane to the later topic, but I have never seen this passage quoted anywhere else, even though it appears to be espousing a fairly unique position both in the realm of Jewish education and attitudes towards homosexuality. [I have been informed that it is mentioned in R. M. Ashkenazi, Hilkhot Talmud Torah, however, even so it is not well-known by any definition.]
Since we are on the topic of the Leket Yosher it is also worthwhile to point out some of the other interesting observations related to the Leket Yosher. Perhaps the most important fact to come from the Leket Yosher is that the assumption, first espoused by the Taz and expanded upon by others, that the Terumat HaDeshen was not the product of actual questions and answers and instead R. Isserlein made up the questions himself and therefore, according to some, the Terumat HaDeshen is not authoritative. As R. Freimann demonstrates, however, this is incorrect. Instead, actual events as recorded in the Leket Yosher can be matched with teshuvot in the Terumat HaDeshen thus demonstrating that the questions in Terumat HaDeshen were based upon actual events and were not fabricated.[5]

Perversely, the criticism of the Terumat HaDeshen was turned on its head and applied to the Leket Yosher. Specifically, the Sanzer Rebbi in his Divrei Yatziv (E.A. 39), claims that one cannot rely upon the Leket Yosher as it records actual events and one cannot decide halakha from events. This is inapposite of those who complain that the Terumat HaDeshen is not reliable because the questions do not relate to real events. It appears that the position of the Sanzer Rebbi has not been accepted as R. Moshe Feinstein (which is especially noteworthy in light of his general disapproval of newly discovered works), R. Ovadiah Yosef, Daayan Weiss, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and many others all cite with approval the Leket Yosher. Moreover, the Sanzer Rebbi himself is at least five other places[6] in Divrei Yatziv cites with approval the Leket Yosher. In only one other instance does he couch his citation of the Leket Yosher (E.A. 78) with a disclaimer "that is is unclear whether the Leket Yosher is reliable."

Other interesting comments in the Leket Yosher include: R. Yosef, in 1456, records that he saw Halley's Comet [7] (vol. 2, pp. 17-8), R. Isserlein used to tell Torah riddles on the first days of Pesach and Shavous and Purim (vol. 1, pp. 103-4), R. Isserlein's daughter-in-law, Redel, studied Torah (vol. 2, p. 37), and the restriction against walking behind a woman is no longer applicable (id.).

Notes:
[1] See Freimann's introduction XIII. Friemann's introduction appears at the beginning of volume two on Yoreh Deah. The first volume, on Orach Hayyim has no introduction.

[2] Aside from being unique in it use of the Turim's division, the Leket Yosher, has another unique attribute. As Professor Y.S. Spiegel has pointed out the title employed, Leket Yosher, hints not only to the authors own name (as is a a somewhat common practice - see Spiegel for more on this practice) but also to R. Yosef's teacher, R. Isserlein as well. Specifically, the numerical value of Leket Yosher and is ישראל יוזלין Yisrael is for R. Isserlein Yozlin is for Yosef. See, Y.S. Spiegel, Toldot Sefer haIvrei, vol. 2 p. 411.

[3] For additional biographical and bibliographical information see generally Freimann's introduction. For some reason neither R. M.M. Kasher in Sa'arei HaElef or Glick in Kuntres HaTeshuvot HaHadash or in the earlier version by Boaz Cohen has an entry for Leket Yosher.

[4] It is, however, worth pointing out that R. Isser Zalman Meltzer held that part of ameilus batorah is getting up a taking a sefer out of the bookshelf. Thus he would never allow anyone to get him a sefer. He would get it himself. According to R’ Shach explained that there were 2 reasons for this. One is because he didn’t want anyone to help him, and two because of his ameilus batorah.

Likewise, in the same book (p. 181) they record that R. Aharon Kotler uses the Gemara in Menochot where Avumy forgot something that he said. He turned to his talmid R. Chisda to remind him how he explained a certain topic. The gemara asks why he didn’t send his talmid to come to him. Rashi says that it’s because of yegata u'motzasa (he worked and he found). R’ Aharon deduces that going yourself is part of the learning.

In an effort to avoid having to get up to get books R. Teichtel writes to his father R. Yissachar Teichtel, author of Am habonim Semacha, that when R. Yissachar visited R. Menachem Zemba, he had sitting on the table in front of him, a gemara with Rambam and all of chazal so that way he wouldn’t have to waste time and get up every time he needed to look up something. (letters in Tal Talpios, mentioned here, on page 44).

R. Meir Bar-Ilan, in a beautiful chapter of his classic MiVolozhin l'Yerushalayim (p. 269), in describing how his uncle, the R. Yechiel Michel Epstein, author of the Arukh HaShulhan, wrote his work said that R. Epstein also had a Rambam, shas and Shulchan Orach on the table and reference everything without having to move.

[5] See id. at XIV and id. note 40 discussing those who make the claim that the Terumat HaDeshen was not addressing actual cases and thus cannot be relied upon and specific statements in Leket Yosher that connect to the Terumat HaDeshen. R. Freimann discussed most of the literature on this topic only a few further cites should be added. To wit, Y.A. Dinari, Hakhme Ashkenaz be-Shelei Yemi HaBenayim, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 303-5; Zevin, Soferim veSeforim, vol. Teshuvos, p. 14; R. P. Horowitz, Sefer HaBrit, p. 162, discussing the phenomenon of fictional responsa.

See also the comments of R. Munk in Pa'as Sadecha, who specifically rejects the notion that the Leket Yosher is not a reliable work. Instead, R. Munk states that the Leket Yosher was written with extreme care and can be relied upon.

In the newest edition of the Terumat HaDeshen, edited by Shmuel Avitan (Jerusalem, 1991), the editor is completely dismissive of R. Freimann. Although Avitan neither mentions Freimann by name nor explains why Freimann is wrong. This attitude is particularly striking in that R. Freimann devotes some 50 pages to an extensive and well documented introduction of the Leket Yosher as well as related topics. Avitan, on the other hand, is satisfied with a two page introduction that adds almost nothing to either the Terumat HaDeshen the work or R. Isserlein the person and in fact borrows heavily, many times without citation, from R. Freimann's introduction. [It appears Avitan was not even aware of Dinari's work.] For example, Avitan deals with when R. Isserlein refers to "one of the great ones - אחד מהגדולים" if R. Isserlein is referring exclusively to the Maharil. Freimann was the first to demonstrate that this reference is not exclusive to the Maharil. Avitan, also comes to the very same conclusion, without mentioning Freimann or even as Avitan is wont, "the introduction to the Leket Yosher."

Aside from claiming that the responsa are fictional, others have made a distinction between the "teshuvot" and the "pesakim" of R. Isserlein. See Dinari, Hakhme Ashkenaz, p. 303-4 n. 223.

[6] Divrei Yatziv Orach Hayyim nos. 179, 236, 295, 297; Yoreh Deah 31.

[7] For a later mention of seeing a comet see Glikel Zikhronot, ed. C. Turnyanski, Jerusalem, 2006, p. 605 n. 314.

]]> Book Reviews Arukh HaShulhan Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/14/Leket-Yosher---A-Closer-Appraisal-in-Light-of-a-Recent-Controversy Marc B. Shapiro - Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 3 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/11/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process-part-3
Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 3
By Marc B. Shapiro


I thought that I had exhausted all I had to say about Rabbi Zvi Benjamin Auerbach’s edition of the Eshkol -- see my first two posts at the Seforim blog, here and here [and elaborations] -- but thanks to some helpful comments from readers, there is some more material that should be brought to the public’s attention. Even before looking at this, let me express my gratitude to Dan Rabinowitz who sent me this picture of a youthful Auerbach.
In my first post I cited R. Yitzhak Ratsaby as a very rare example of a posek who is aware of the problems with Auerbach’s Eshkol. A scholar who wishes to remain anonymous, and who has helped me a great deal in the past,[1] called my attention to R. Yehiel Avraham Zilber (the son of R. Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber), who is also aware of the Eshkol problem. In his Berur Halakhah, Yoreh Deah (second series), p. 111, he notes that R. Ovadiah Yosef cites Auerbach’s Eshkol in matters of hilkhot niddah. Yet the authentic Eshkol does not have any section for niddah. In fact, as Yaakov Sussman has pointed out,[2] Auerbach’s Eshkol, vol. 1, p. 117, also refers to the Yerushalmi on Niddah. However, this is impossible as neither R. Abraham ben Isaac nor any of the other rishonim had this volume.

Zilber writes that his own approach is not to rely on anything in either Auerbach’s Eshkol or the Nahal Eshkol. In his Berur Halakhah, Orah Hayyim (third series), p. 16, he also states that a certain passage in Auerbach’s Eshkol, Hilkhot Tzitzit cannot be authentic. Before I was alerted to these two sources I had never examined any of Zilber’s volumes (although I have perused the works of his father). Now that I have looked at them I see that they contain a great deal of learning, but my sense is that they are of no significance in the halakhic world, and are rarely quoted.

This doesn’t mean that they are not valuable in and of themselves, but with so many halakhic books being published, only some can make it to the top. The rest, no matter how learned, remain little studied and even less quoted. One must feel bad for authors who put so much effort into producing their works which could be of great use to people, yet at the end of the day do not have any impact.

As Eliezer Brodt has already pointed out, in a previous post at the Seforim blog, with respect to books on hilkhot shemitah, although new volumes continue to appear, it is hard to believe that much of anything original is being added.[3] The same can be said for the laws of Shabbat, where I don’t see how another new book recording the halakhot can possibly have any value as we already have so many fine books in this area. If the author is going to come up with new rulings, then fine, but it is hard to see how the world will benefit from yet another collection of the various melakhot and what is permitted and forbidden.

This doesn’t mean that up-and-coming halakhic scholars have nothing to write about. For example, there is only one book on the halakhic issues involved in sex change operations, so here is an area that cries out for our best and brightest to direct their talents towards.
For those who are writing books that are not given the attention due them, one should not lose hope. Occasionally a book that is ignored in its time comes back in a future generation and assumes great popularity (e.g., the Minhat Hinnukh), while books which were very popular in previous years fall out of style. One example of the latter is the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh. When I was young everyone seemed to study it. It has been reprinted numerous times and also translated into many languages. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, it went through fourteen editions in the author’s lifetime, which I think is a record for halakhic works. Yet today, I don’t know anyone who uses it as a work of practical halakhah. (Simply writing this ensures that people will e-mail me to point out that there are indeed some who still use it).

Returning to the anonymous scholar mentioned above, he also alerted me to a letter by R. Michael[4] Aryeh Stiegel which appeared in Tzefunot 1 (Tevet, 5749): 108. In this case I had actually seen the letter, as I own the journal and even have my pen mark on this page. But I had forgotten about it, so once again I am in the anonymous scholar’s debt. Before noting what he says, let me repeat what I mentioned in a previous post, namely, that the publication of the fourth volume of the Eshkol is very strange. We are given no information about the manuscript such as where it came from and why no one, including Auerbach’s family, had ever heard of it until it was published.

There is one other point which I neglected to make in my previous post, but it also is relevant. In 1974 Bernard Bergman published an essay on Auerbach in the Joshua Finkel Festschrift (later included as an appendix to vol. 4 of the Eshkol) in which he defended him against Albeck’s attack. At the time of this essay Bergman knew nothing about any unpublished manuscript of Auerbach’s Eshkol. It is very suspicious, to say the least, that Bergman is also the one to publish the newly discovered volume. Are we supposed to assume that it is just coincidence that Bergman, who earlier had published an essay on Auerbach, discovered this manuscript? (Those who are old enough will recall that during these years Bergman had lots of other things on his mind.) Of course, it is possible that some rare book dealer came into possession of the manuscript and knowing Bergman’s interest in Auerbach, sold it to him. In my previous post I stated that despite the problems that can be raised about the new volume, barring any further evidence we should give Bergman the benefit of the doubt.

Yet Stiegel notes something which should force us to reopen the issue. In volume 4, p. 26 n. 24, we find the following in the Nahal Eshkol.

לא ידעתי למה מביא זה, שהרי רבא הקשה אי הכי במקדש היכי תקעינן. אך מצאתי שגם הראב"ן ר"ה מביא דרש זה, ועי' באבן שלמה על הראב"ן שם אות ד' שהאריך ליישב קושיה זו.


The problem is that the edition of Ra’avan with R. Solomon Zalman Ehrenreich’s commentary Even Shlomo only appeared in 1926, many years after Auerbach’s death. This sort of anachronism is often what enables scholars to uncover a fraud.

When problems became apparent in Auerbach’s edition, Albeck called for the manuscript to be produced, and this was never done. Here too, I call for the manuscript of volume 4 to be produced, and for the publisher, Machon Harry Fischel, to join in this demand. Only when we can examine the manuscript will we be able to determine what is going on. If the answer given is that the manuscript cannot be located, which was the same answer given one hundred years ago, then the possibility that Eshkol volume 4 is a late twentieth century forgery will have to be seriously considered.

The anonymous scholar also alerted me to R. Hayyim Krauss’ Toharat ha-Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah. Krauss is known for a campaign he mounted in the 1970’s, culminating in the publication of his books Birkhot ha-Hayyim and Mekhalkel Hayim be-Hesed, which were in large part devoted to showing that the proper – and original -- pronunciation in the Amidah is morid ha-geshem, not gashem. There is no doubt that Kraus was correct, but I don’t know if his campaign bore any fruit. Certainly in the United States when I was growing up, virtually everyone said gashem since that is what the siddurim had, including Brinbaum. Matters have changed greatly in the last twenty years because of the ArtScroll siddur. This siddur vocalizes – or, to use the word that ArtScroll prefers, “vowelizes” – גשם as geshem. I have previously noted one example where the Artscroll siddur has changed the davening practices of the American Orthodox community[5] and this is another. Had the ArtScroll siddur given gashem as the pronunciation, that’s what we all would be saying now.

Since this blog is devoted to seforim, with a great focus on bibliographical curiosities, let me mention the following: It has been awhile since I’ve seen the literature about geshem vs. gashem, but I remember that the side that supported gashem was able to show that it was not only grammarians who supported this reading, but R. David Lida (c. 1650-1696) Ashkenazi rav of Amsterdam, also attested to it. In fact, he might be the earliest authority to do so. But those who cited Lida didn’t know a couple of things about him. Neither do the people who keep publishing his works. To begin with, Lida was a plagiarizer, and not a very skilled one at that.[6]

People can live with plagiarism, especially as it is not uncommon in haredi “mehkar.”[7] But worse, much worse, is that Lida also appears to have been a Sabbatian. In my Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 42 n. 21, I called attention to something similar. The Yemenite kabbalists who attacked R. Yihye Kafih made use of, and defended, a Sabbatian work written by Nehemiah Hayon. It was only after R. Kook pointed out the true nature of Hayon’s work that they excised this defense. As I commented in my book, this shows the elasticity of apologetics, in that if one beleves a work is “kosher,” he will devote great efforts to defending it, but after learning that the author is a Sabbatian the defense is immediately dropped. We must ask, however, why were the ideas in this work acceptable before the author’s biography was known?

Returning to Krauss’ Toharat ha-Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah, in volume 1 of this work he cites Auerbach’s Eshkol. In volume 2, p. 450, Krauss publishes a letter he received from R. David Zvi Hillman. Hillman, in addition to being an outstanding talmid hakham, also has a real historical sense and many years ago edited Iggerot ha-Tanya u-Venei Doro (Jerusalem, 1953). In more recent years he published an interesting, though wrong-headed, article arguing that Meiri’s views of anti-Gentile halakhot are not to be taken seriously but were written due to fear of the censor (which was a concern even in pre-printing days).[8] He has also been involved with the Frankel edition of the Rambam, most recently editing Sefer ha-Mitzvot. Despite its problems, the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah is now the standard edition for both yeshivot and the academic world.[9]

As everyone knows, the Frankel edition has been attacked for systematically ignoring the writings of some prominent non-haredi gedolim. For example, there are no references to R. Kook, even though he wrote a commentary on the Rambam’s shemitah laws, which will be mentioned in an upcoming post at the Seforim blog. (He is cited the ArtScroll Mishnah volume on Shevi’it.) It was because of this affront that R. Kook's followers have put out a separate index of commentaries on the Mishneh Torah, which is now available online. See here.

A particularly harsh criticism of the Frankel edition, which appeared as an “open letter,” is found here:

Hillman chose to answer this critique. He briefly mentions the issue of R. Kook, but has a lot to say about R. Kafih, and his critique of the latter is incredibly sharp. Here is his letter:

Even if one doesn’t agree with him, it should be obvious to all that Hillman has a much broader knowledge than the typical talmid hakham. It therefore should not be surprising that he was critical of Krauss for including Auerbach’s Eshkol. In fact, Krauss does not even print Hillman’s entire letter, but cuts out a section that no doubt would have been seen as disrespectful to Auerbach. Thus, Hillman writes:

ומ"ש באשכול ליתי' באשכול (הוצ' אלבעק) אלא . . .


Krauss inserted the three dots since Hillman’s original letter must have continued by referring to Auerbach’s edition. Similarly, a few lines later Hillman writes

(. . . ובנד"ד יש לנו לזה ראיה נוספת ממה שלא הוזכרה שזה דעת האשכול בספר המאירי שהיה הצאצאיו ושמעתתי' בפומיה תדיר בכינוי גדולי קדמונינו) ואף את"ל . . . ומבעל האשכול יצאו הדברים מ"מ הלכה כהרשב"א דבתראה הוי.


The second ellipsis was inserted by Krauss. In his letter Hillman must have written, “Even if you want to say that Auerbach didn’t forge this section, and it really was stated by the Eshkol.” Yet Krauss didn’t want anything negative about Auerbach to appear in print, so he cut it out. Hillman also calls attention to the comments of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira in the introduction to his Darkhei Teshuvah on hilkhot mikvaot. Here Shapira notes that the Maharsham cited Auerbach’s Eshkol, and this once again raises the problem I have earlier discussed, namely, what to do with pesakim that rely on forged texts? (This is not such a problem in hilkhot mikvaot, as Shapira notes that most of what is quoted from Auerbach’s Eshkol is le-humra).

Shapira states that he is not prepared to decide the matter of the authenticity of Auerbach’s Eshkol, yet according to Hillman נראה מכתלי דבריו שדעתו נוטה לצד המערערים על אמיתותו. It is obvious that the reason Shapira does not definitively decide the matter is because of his feeling of respect for Auerbach as a great talmid hakham. The notion that such an outstanding Torah scholar, one of the German rabbinic elite, could perpetrate such a fraud is difficult for people to accept. Yet Shapira is also surprised that the Maharsham cites Auerbach’s Eshkol entirely oblivious to the problems with this edition.

I don’t see this as unusual at all. Shapira was an incredibly learned man, with knowledge of all sorts of things, but the Maharsham was an ish halakah whose life was spent in Shas and Poskim. Similarly, although R. Moshe Feinstein quotes Auerbach’s Eshkol, I would assume that he too had never heard of the controversy, as it is not something that penetrated the walls of the traditional Lithuanian Beit Midrash (at least not until so many bachurim began reading the Seforim blog!). Shapira writes:

ולא באתי להכריע, יען כי כם כבוד הה"ג ז"ל בעל נחל אשכול המו"ל (ואשר האריך לבאר כשיטתו במבואו והקדמתו) לא נקל בעיני . . . (ולא ידעתי מה הי' לו להג' מהרש"ם ז"ל וכי לא ראה או לא ידע, מ"ש וערערו על ככה והביא כמעט כל דברי ס' האשכול כאלו הי' ברור ומקובל אצלו הללמ"ס שזהוא להראב"ד בלי ספק ופקפוק לעולם).


In his reply to Hillman, Krauss states that he was indeed aware of the problems with Auerbach’s Eshkol, and even referred to Shapira’s introduction, but he did not want to elaborate (and indeed, he never quotes what Shapira says, but only tells the reader to examine it). I think that many people in the traditional world who know about the issue have this problem as well. They are between a rock and a hard place. If they say nothing, then a forgery is allowed to remain part of the Torah world. Yet if they write against it, they must take on someone who in his lifetime was recognized as one of the gedolim of Germany. Like all gedolim, he was also regarded as a great tzaddik.

Krauss does allow himself to say the following:

ובזה צע"ג על שו Censorship Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:14:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/11/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process-part-3 Books Sale and New Auction Catalogs http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/7/Books-Sale-and-New-Auction-Catalogs
Henry Hollander Books is having a 50% off sale on selected books. There are a significant number of books on sale, covering many different genres. The catalog is available online and the sale runs through the end of January.

There are two auction catalogs online. The first, Asufa, who is having their auction on Janaury 24 is available here. The second, Baranovich, is having their auction on the 23 of January and you need to first fill out a form to get the catalog in PDF.

The Asufa auction includes a rare proclamation regarding the Besamim Rosh, a slew of books relating to various controversies, as well as many other interesting books.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Besamim Rosh Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/7/Books-Sale-and-New-Auction-Catalogs Elliott Horowitz -- Isaiah Berlin on Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Saul Lieberman http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/5/Elliott-Horowitz--Isaiah-Berlin-on-Meir-Berlin-BarIlan-and-Saul-Lieberman
In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Prof. Elliott Horowitz of Bar Ilan University and co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review, described Edmund Wilson's unique Christmas card and some thoughts on the Talmud [see here].

This is his third contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.
Isaiah Berlin on Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Saul Lieberman
Elliott Horowitz

Although there have been some fine reviews of the collection of letters by Isaiah Berlin published in England under the title Flourishing: Letters 1928-1946 (Chatto and Windus, 2004), and in the United Sates (by Cambridge University Press) under the subtitle of the British edition,[1] not much attention has been given to the candid comments included therein about some of the twentieth century’s leading rabbis and Jewish scholars. Moreover, although one of the reviewers (Ilan Stavans in Forward) commented on the "overzealousness of its editor" Henry Hardy in annotating and contextualizing Berlin's letters "to the point of dizziness," this zealousness is less than excessive in his annotations of the letter written by Berlin, who had recently become the first Jew to be elected to a fellowship at Oxford’s All-Souls College, from Jerusalem to his parents in London on the first day of Rosh Ha-Shana, 1934 (pp. 96-98). Among the Jerusalemites he mentions having met since arriving a week earlier are "Dr. Scholem the Kabbalist," "Baneth of the University," and "Meir Berlin" - all of whom are dutifully identified by Hardy. The Volozhin-born Berlin, who settled in Jerusalem in 1926 and later changed his name to Bar-Ilan, is described by Isaiah (to whom he was not related) as a "clever cunning man with an unpleasant son in law, who teaches the Yerushalmi at the University." Hardy informs the reader that the Yerushalmi is "the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud," but he has not been as "overzealous" about identifying the "unpleasant son in law," who, as most readers of the Seforim blog have already recognized, was Saul Lieberman, who completed his MA at the Hebrew University in 1931 and married the former Judith Berlin in the following year.

In April of 1943, while serving at the British Embassy in Washington, Isaiah dryly informed his parents that "there were some serious social complications about the Sedarim this year (428)." Among those who had invited him were Chaim Weizmann (sometimes referred to as "Charles" in Berlin's letters), the latter’s "factotum, a certain Weisgal," and "Meyer (sic) Berlin and his daughter Judith." Hardy explains what "Sedarim" are, identifies "[Meyer Wolf] Weisgal," and provides the information that Judith Berlin Lieberman was "married to talmudic scholar Saul Lieberman. (428-29)" Somehow, however, he fails to connect this son-in -law of Berlin’s, who by that time had become a professor at New York's Jewish Theological Seminary, with the "unpleasant" man who during the previous decade had taught Yerushalmi at the Hebrew University. One of the factors complicating Isaiah's decision as to where to spend the Sedarim of 1943 was that three of his potential hosts – Meir Berlin, Vera Weizmann, and Tamar de Sola Pool (wife of Rabbi David de Sola Pool and president of Hadassah) - were "reciprocally not on speaking terms," and thus "to go to one is to insult the other two automatically." He spent the first Seder with the Weizmann’s and the second, which was "fantastic," with Meyer Weisgal. Consequently, as he explained to his parents, he found himself in the position of having to "grovel to Rabbi Meyer Berlin…and Mrs Tamar de Sola Pool, great Zionist powers with whom diplomatic relations must be preserved. (430-31)."

In a subsequent letter to the British diplomat Angus Malcolm, however, Berlin referred the Mizrachi leader less charitably as "Rabbi M. Berlin of Palestine and Riverside Drive, an enemy of Weizmann and a clerical maximalist (438)." Although Weizmann (who died in 1952) and Bar-Ilan (who died three years earlier) had their differences, both now have universities named after them – in only one of which, it may be added, is the Yerushalmi taught.

Note:
[1] See, for example, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, "The Book of Isaiah," The New York Times (June 27, 2004): 11; Simon Schama, "Flourishing," The New Republic (January 31, 2005): 23-30.

]]> Elliott Horowitz Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/5/Elliott-Horowitz--Isaiah-Berlin-on-Meir-Berlin-BarIlan-and-Saul-Lieberman A Comprehensive (or close to it) List of New Seforim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/2/A-Comprehensive-or-close-to-it-List-of-New-Seforim
A Comprehensive (or close to it) List of New Seforim

by Eliezer Brodt

In a recent Mishpacha article [November 28, 2007, ‘Seforim Supplement’, p. 48] they quote Shlomo Biegeleisen, of Biegeleisen Books, as saying that “they receive sixty new seforim every single week!” The seforim market has exploded in the past few years and continues to grow daily. While it is impossible to keep up with everything that comes out we hope to keep the readers updated from time to time with some of the interesting things that are printed. This current list includes some of the many titles printed in the past few months.

Rishonim:

Mechon Haktav reprinted the Magan Avos from R. Shlomo Duran, the Tashbatz (663 pp.). This work was first printed in 1785 and than again in a photo-mechanical edition by Mekor in the 1960’s. The plus of this recent edition is mainly the clarity of the print as the earlier edition is almost impossible to read. The editors of this edition did not, however, include notes of any sort on the sefer.

Sefer Al Esek Hatorah, Shtei Dershos Lrabenu Harosh (Kiryat Sefer, 2007); 76 pp. [08-974-0626].
This volume is a small sefer written by the father of the Rosh on Limud Hatorah. It also includes two dershos of the Rosh. Parts of all this had been printed before in A. Freimann’s book on the Rosh. In this edition the editor rechecked the manuscripts and reprinting the whole thing all together. [For another work by this Mechon see this prior post].

One of the dershos of the Rosh included in this work had been printed partially before by Professor Israel M. Ta-Shma in a few places [Kiryat Sefer, then in the journal MiGinzei L'taslume Kisvei Yad Ha'Ivriyim pp. 51- 52, and most recently in his Knesset Mehakarim vol. two pp. 184 -186]. The second dersha included herein had been printed in its entirety by Y. Galinsky in his doctorate on the Tur, Arbeh Turim V'safrus Halacha Shel Sefard b'Meha ha'arbah Aser (pp. 36-37, 74-75). In one of the dershos the Rosh gives strong mussar to the crowd for shying away to do certain Mitzvos such as lighting the Menorah in shul. There is a small historical argument between Professor Ta-Shma and Galinsky regarding the death of the Rashba (ibid.) based on the correct reading of a few words in the manuscript.

Mechon Yerushalim released their Ramban on Chumash Shemos see here for their earlier volume.

Avkas Rochel (Ashdod, 2007); 103 pp. [08-853-1651]
The author of this work was Rabbenu Macir, a talmid of R. Yehudah, the son of the Rosh. This edition is a nice reprint of the original. It deals with topics such as Gan Eden, Gehenim, Olam Habah, Moshicah amongst many others.

Chumash:

Maggid Meisharim (Jerusalem, 2007); 550 pgs, Ed. R. Y. Cohen [02 586-0457].
This edition is very helpful as it provides a parallel translation of the entire sefer from Aramaic into Hebrew. The editor also included paragraph highlights and many helpful notes on the sefer but hardly adequate for what this work actual deserves. [A while back there was a series of three articles by R. Yehuda Leib Kelers, in the Tzefunous journal (1990-91), where he mentions that someone was actually starting such a project but as far as I am aware, nothing has come from it.]

Nachalei Afersomin (Jerusalem, 2007); 360 pp., [04- 864-0135].
This is a reprinted edition of the sefer from R. Rephael Balzam, a talmid of R. Meir Arik (and others). This work is on the Parsha, Mitzvos and Yomim Tovim. It includes an index and a nice short biography on the author. There are all kinds of styles of Torah in this work dealing with Kabbalah, Halacha and Machshaveh.

She'elot u-Teshuvot:

Shu"t Yeshuos Yakov was reprinted after not having been available for many years. This edition includes some nice new additions of Torah printed in various places. Hopefully there will be a full post on this Goan and his works shortly.

Shu"t Mateh Menashe from R. Menashe Statoh [By Hillel Statohn 368 pp. 718-382-0085].
The author was the Av beis Din of Tzafas over 150 years ago and was the father of R. Chaim author of the famous work Eretz Hachaim. This work was in manuscript for all these years. In the second half of this sefer they include a fascinating work of the author called Knessiah Leshem Shamaim, which had been printed before. The topic of this work is about an interesting custom that existed in many communities when someone was sick or childless. The custom was to do a whole elaborate process to appease the shedim (evil spirits), a sort of offering to them (a korbon of sorts). He discusses the entire topic explaining why it one is prohibited form doing such things. He deals with many topics such as the power of shedim in general. This work includes the Teshuvous of many gedolim of the time amongst them R. Chaim Palagai.

Shu"t Sharei Tzion from R. Ben Zion Sternfeld was reprinted after not having been printed for a while. Besides for including R. Ben Zion's excellent teshuvos it includes many of his deroshos. This Goan is famous for giving the Chofetz Chaim haskamos on his Mishana Berurah, Shimiras Halaoshon and Likitei Halachos. This edition includes the Kuntres Darcha Shel Torah and Kuntras Sharei Tzion on the topic of the importance of a proper education for one's children. This edition includes a small biography of the author. These two works were written in response to Maskilim whom complained about not learning dikduk etc. One point of great interest from these Kuntreisim is the great importance and emphasis these Gedolim held of teaching Chumash properly to the children. They held that through the proper study of Chumash eventually the children will pick up Hebrew. Today, many school systems would do well to learn from these Gedolim to have proper methods to teach Chumash properly.

Shu"t Mishanat Sachir was reprinted. The author, R. Teichtel, was one of the biggest Rabbonim pre World War II in Hungary. As is very well known, originally R. Teichtel was a rabid anti-Zionist, however, later he completely changed his mind and eventually authored the incredible work called Em Habonim Semaicha. He authored many teshuvos over the years and eventually printing one volume of the teshuvos. After his death, his son printed a massive volume of Shu"t thru Mechon Yerushalim. This work has been out of print for many years. It is fantastic in respects of both depth and Bikeius. The son printed another volume a few years later. This current edition includes the whole volume that was printed by Mechon Yerushalim and parts of the volume that was printed afterwards. The original volume that the author himself printed was not reprinted here. This edition also includes some pages of additions based on notes of R. Teichtel not printed before. Just to give one an interesting tidbit on this sefer:

About six years years ago a journal from Chabad in Budapest called Tel Talpiyot (volume two) printed a few pages (pp. 42-55) of very interesting exchange of letters between R. Teichtel and his son R. Shlomo. This son went from Hungary to learn in Slabodkah Yeshivah. In the letters to his father he writes a few times how everyone in Slabodkah Yeshivah heard of his sefer and they enjoy it. He writes how many people asked him for a copy of the sefer but he only gave it to a few people amongst them the Divrei Yecheskel (see pp. 47, 48, 50).

Shas and Halacha:

Mezareph Le'Chachmah (Jerusalem, 2007); 174 pp.
This particular work of R. Yosef Delmedigo (Yashar) has been the subject of much discussion for many centuries. Already R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena wrote that the views in this sefer are not the authors real opinions rather he was playing “games.” After that, Graetz and others and as recent as Barzilay have attempted to prove that Modena was correct. However, I feel after a careful reading of the sefer that it was by no means a joke and this was the author’s real opinions. Recently, Professor David B. Ruderman has shown that Delmedigo did not intend this work to be a joke or game of some sort. Ruderman does so in his classic work Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (pp. 128-152) dealing with all the problems Geretz and others raised. Mezareph Le'Chanchmah is full of interesting topics and information just to list a few: authorship of Zohar (52), Rashi (49) and Rambam's knowledge of Kabalah (37, 51), against R. Avraham Abulafiah (31), and when Nekudos are from (21-22). He has a whole section showing that there are no contradictions between Halacha and Kabblah. The Shach in Yoreh Deah quotes him in regard to eating meat after cheese (89:16).

This current edition is printed beautifully, however, they edited out all the notes of Delmedigo's student, R. Shmuel as well as some of the other stuff that were originally printed in this sefer. It is also lacking an index which would be very helpful with such a sefer enabling one to find all the treasures easily.

One original claim that I saw in the introduction of this edition and is recorded by many people and is in turn based on the Chida who states in R. Moshe Zechut's name that the Delmedigo's knowledge in kabbalah was not impressive based on specific things he writes in Mezareph Le'Chachmah. The page from Mezareph Le'Chachamah that lends credence to that opinion turns out that it was not from Delmedigo but instead from his talmid.

Kisvei Hagri (Jerusalem, 2007); 396 pp. [02 566-5240].
This a collection of the writings of R. Yaakov, Av Beis Din of Letichev. The author was born in 1730 and was rav there for many years. This was printed from manuscript for the first time by his descendants. The sefer has been waiting to be printed for nine generations. The editors put in lots of effort into this sefer giving you historical background. The sefer includes all kinds of genres, Chumash torah based on on old style pilpul, she'elot u-teshuvot, derush for all occasions (yom tovim etc.), hespedim, R. Yaakov's tzavah and others. One of the many interesting things of interest in this sefer is a Megilas Yuchsin that R. Yaakov wrote. The editors put in much effort to track down lots of material about it. Also included is a list of his seforim collection (useful for certain fields of interest see for example Zev Gris, Hasefer K'Sochen Tarbus, pp. 65-72). Its unclear if the author was chassidish but he does quote from the Bal Shem Tov a few times.

Minhaghim and similar genre:

Chikrei Minhaghim (Cholon, 2007); 188 pp., [03- 556-3874]
This is a collection that focuses on Minhaghei Berlin gathered from many seforim including notes.

Orchos Hasofer (London, 2007); 173 pp.
This work is a beautiful collection of material about the Chasam Sofer gathered from a wide range of sources organized very nicely.

Bazel Hakodesh (Jerusalem, 2007); 334 pp.
This work is very interesting collection of material from R. B. Rakow collected together by his great-nephew. Topic ranges from chumash and halacha to stories he used to say over about various gedolim. Among the interesting discussions in this work are his opinions on learning and how to pasken, his connection with the Seridei Eish and his connection with R. Elyashiv resulting in getting R. Jonathan Sacks to take back what he wrote in one of his books [although the author does not mention R. Sacks by name] [See Marc B. Shaprio, Of Books and Bans, Edah Journal 3:2]. Another piece worthy of mention is his take on the Yeridos Hadoros question as it relates to learning.

Maseh Ish (Bnei Brak, 2007); 206 pp. Ed. R. Yabrov.
This is volume number seven of the on going series on the Chazon Ish. As with all such works there is lots of good stuff and some nonsense mixed in. This volume also includes a section on shemitah.

Halichos Kodesh (Brooklyn, 2007); 316 pp.[718 336-8971, 718 972-4078]
This is a collection of the hanhagohs of the whole year of R. Yisroel Rotenberg, Av beis Din of Kossin. He was killed by the Nazis. The sefer is from the notes of a close talmid of his. Its an extremely in depth description, providing a day by day going thru the whole year how he acted in each situation its full of interesting things.

History:

Rishimos Teshuvos Rav Sherira Goan (New York, 2007); 119 pp., ed. R. Nosson Dovid Rabinowitz [917- 753-5178].
This sefer includes an excellent history of Rav Sherira Goan from the most updated sources in the academic world. It also includes listings of all the Teshuvos of Rav Sherira Goan including many that were mistakenly attributed to others.

Tohar Haloshon, ed. Rothschild (Jerusalem, 2007); 80 pp.
The theme of this sefer is to show that the historical acceptance of the Hebrew language – Ivrit, was, according to the author, a very tragic story. The author shows through the statements of Ben Yehudah and Y. Klausner how anti-Jewish they were. He also shows which terrible methods they used to make this the language spoken amongst Jews in Eretz Yisroel. The book, however, is not to objective, rather it is presented in a very kannois way but all in all is still an interesting read to see a glimpse into that time period.

Olkieniki Radin Vilna (Jerusalem, 2007); 454 pgs, by R. Kalman Farber [02 571-1727, 03-731- 2149].
This is a diary of R. Farber of these places before World War Two and especially during the War. Among the interesting sections of this book are his accounts of his Rabaeim R. Naftoli Trop (known as Granat) and the Chofetz Chaim.

Yosor Yasroni (Bnei Brak, 2007); 469 pp., by R. Yitzchak Gibralter [03-618-8360]
This is a book about Kovno, R. Gibralter home town. This is a very interesting book which gives one a very nice picture of Kovno before World War Two not a typical Artscroll like history.

Journals:

Heichel Ba'al Shem Tov, issue 21,189 pp.
There are two articles of interest in this latest issue one, an article from R. Chaim Rapoport on the minhag of Chasidim of seeing ones rebbe in general and other areas relating to this topic.

One of the sources on the topic which he brings is from a teshuvah of R Yakov Kahna in his Shu"t Toldos Yakov (available here) (no. 33, pp. 72-74, in particular). What is specifically interesting about this teshuvah is his discussion of the Gra and his stance against Chassidim. He basically writes that the Gra made a mistake - he was fooled by false witnesses! What is interesting about this is this R. Yakov Kahan grandfather was the Gra brother author of the Maleos Hatorah! [I hope to return to this R. Yakov Kahana in a future post soon as his teshuvos are extremely interesting.]

Another point of interest, found in a different article, is a discussion of a grandson R. Chaim Volzhiner, Reb Eliyahu Zvi Soloveitchik, who became close with chassidus. The author references the extremely rare sefer by the Manhattan doctor, Arthur (Dov) Hyman, on this highly interesting personality.

Additions to earlier lists:

In an earlier post on new seforim I mentioned a sefer from R Chaim Vital.

Here is some updated information on it as I have had more time to go thru it a bit. This sefer was printed by R. N. Levi. This sefer is based on the handwritten copy of R. Chaim Vital himself. This volume was part of the famous Musaef collection. The rumors on the street are that this sefer legally ended up in the hands of dealers who cut it up page by page and sold each page for $15,000. After all the pages of the sefer were sold it was printed in this beautiful edition. This actual work was actually six parts a few of the parts were printed many years ago including haskomos of R. Kook [vol. 2, printed in Jerusalem, 1906] and more recently by Mechon Ahavat Sholom. It appears that there is still a part not printed which was to be found in the Ger Rebbi's pre-World War II collection, which is currently still missing. As to the specific style of this sefer it is not heavy Kabbalah as there is much niglah in here. There are pieces of torah on everything – from chumash, aggdah gemaras and Mesectos Avos. Also included are many dershos which he said at chausunas, brisim and for hespedim. The dating of the sefer has been debated between R. Yakov Hillel and R. Manzur as to if this was before or after he learnt by the Arizal. Basically it seems that the bulk of the work was written before his learning with the Arizal and additions were added in by him throughout his lifetime.

The editor of this edition besides for presenting the work with nice layout and some sources include a basic history of R. Chaim Vital and his works. They consulted R. Y. Avivi who is a renowned Talmid Chacham and expert on Kabblah. Just to point out some minor comments on it. For some strange reason they quote a lot of material from M. Benayhu, but they can not properly write his name and instead refer to him as "the author of the Toldos HaAri" (for example see pp. 18, 19, 24, 31 and many more. They also can not properly write that he wrote the Sefer Yosef Bechrei which they also quote (pg 8, 14) or his Dor Eched baAretz (p. 72). Nor could they quote Avraham Yaari by name (pp. 45, 54) or Professor D. Tamar (pp. 48, 60) or Professor Tishbi (p. 67). What the problem in quoting these scholars name is beyond me. One more point in the end they deal with the sefer Kabalah Maseios of R. Chaim Vital making no mention that parts have been printed already. I have elaborated earlier on this particular sefer in this post (link). As an aside in the latest issue of Mekabtzeul from Ahavat Sholom they printed some more pieces from this work.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/2/A-Comprehensive-or-close-to-it-List-of-New-Seforim Rabbi Yaakov Kahana?? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/1/Rabbi-Yaakov-Kahana
If anyone has any information about this author -- see here (PDF) -- please email Barnettesq@optonline.net.

]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/1/1/Rabbi-Yaakov-Kahana Review of R. Yosef Engel's Tiferes Yosef http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/30/Review-of-R-Yosef-Engels-Tiferes-Yosef
Review of Tiferes Yosef
by Eliezer Brodt

Tiferes Yosef, Sefer Shemos, R. Yosef Engel, ed. Friedman, Mochon Ohavei Torah, Monsey, NY, 595 pages, 2007. [845. 426.6152]
About four years ago I noticed in the seforim store a sefer called תפראת יוסף. It caught my attention immediately because it said מאוצרות הגאון ר' יוסף ענגיל זצ"ל and I am a big חסיד of R. Engel as I am sure many are. I purchased the sefer after looking at it for a few minutes being satisfied with what I saw. This was the first volume which was just on חומש בראשית. A year ago the much awaited first volume of חומש שמות came out. What follows is a short review of this terrific work.

As is well known ר' יוסף ענגיל besides for being a tremendous גאון was also a prolific writer. See, e.g., N. Lamm, Seventy Faces, p. 61 (noting that R. Engel is "one of the most brilliant and underestimated figures of pre-World War II Europe"). On his tombstone it says he left behind over 101 works on all topics ready to be printed. His grandson lists in his book on ר' יוסף ענגיל what they were, including a 36 volume encyclopedia work to complete his בית האוצר. After his death his son in law was able to print a few of the works. Unfortunately, the rest, as was the case with many other great people’s works, the manuscripts were lost during WWII. The one exception being R. Engel’s work of his on מסכת קידושין that the grandson, R. Dovid Morgenstern, was able to save called שארית יוסף (it is also printed under the name חוסן יוסף. R. Morgenstern, however, writes that people who printed the חוסן יוסף stole it from him and even made mistakes when printing it). In the past few years some additional pieces of his have been discovered and printed in various torah journals such as ישורון and כרם שלמה.

In the past few years especially (although it was done to some seforim years ago) the seforim market has witnessed many attempts some successful and many not of systematically gathering torah of different גדולים and putting them in various orders. Meaning gaon x wrote much on shas so they gather all that he said on Chumash or hashkafic topics and put it in order making his torah much more accessible. Rabbi Friedman decided to do the same for all of ר' יוסף ענגיל works. He collected from everything that ר' יוסף ענגיל wrote on including some manuscripts he got a hold of and put it out according to the order of the torah – so far just on בראשית and part of שמות.

But you are probably wondering what is so special about this job? The answer is the amazing skill of Rabbi Friedman at piecing together everything. As is well know ר' יוסף ענגיל had a tremendous בקיאות in all areas of torah including ירושלמי and קבלה, nothing escaped him. Besides for all this he is known for having amazing perspective in everything going deep into understanding everything. Often R. Engel brings amazing proofs from all over. Many times, throughout his writings, he references something he wrote elsewhere and thus the only way to properly understand him is to see all the places he has written on the topic But many times he does not even tell you that he explains this more elsewhere. Many times the additional points are in places you would never expect him to talk about the point you’re looking into. What Rabbi Friedman did was to put it all together every piece is presented beautifully organized with footnotes where necessary including explanations from ר' יוסף ענגיל words elsewhere on the topic. Many times he brings how other אחרונים explain the words of ר' יוסף ענגיל other times he explains it himself.

Besides for all this Rabbi Friedman gives you the exact reference for all the wide range of sources that ר' יוסף ענגיל quotes. He also includes many other references from other people who talk about the same topics. Going thru this work one can find all types and styles of תורה that one might be interested in on the פרשה . Any מגיד שיעור or רב can find a wealth of information or at least a spring board to give lectures on חומש from here. There are also excellent indexes in the back of each volume because of the great wealth of topics included in each sefer. Besides for all this in the back of the first volume he includes a nice biography on .ר' יוסף ענגיל All in all I feel this is a great job and almost anyone can benefit from it. One can just hope that Rabbi Friedman is able to complete the entire חומש.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Plagiarism Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:16:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/30/Review-of-R-Yosef-Engels-Tiferes-Yosef The Ongoing Debate on the Usage of Print vs. Electronic Journals: Perspective from Tradition's Online Editor http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/28/The-Ongoing-Debate-on-the-Usage-of-Print-vs-Electronic-Journals-Perspective-from-Traditions-Online-Editor
To the Editors of the Seforim blog:

I thank C.G. and Menachem for their thoughtful comments regarding Tradition at the Seforim blog (see "The Ongoing Debate on the Usage of Print vs. Electronic Journals: Perspective of an Ivy League PhD Student," available here). Since I understood the post to be using the example of Tradition for a larger phenomenon of deciding between print and electronic journals, I will also try to relate to this ongoing discussion in the context of explaining Tradition's situation. I should note from the outset that I write only from my limited experience and perspective as the online editor, and that these views are strictly my own, although they have certainly been shaped by discussions with Tradition's editor, Rabbi Shalom Carmy, and Rabbi Basil Herring, executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Council of America, publisher of Tradition.

When I first became Tradition's online editor this past spring, I asked the same questions regarding making Tradition free online. C.G. raises the issue in particular with regard to university students, who get electronic access to many journals through their university. I initially raised it, however, in the context of offering it online to the wider public.

This issue has been raised multiple times, by readers and editorial board members alike. Everyone would like to see Tradition available to as wide of an audience as possible. Unfortunately, it has been deemed unfeasible, at least for now, for the following reasons:


1) Despite the fact that Tradition is edited on a volunteer-basis, producing the journal 4 times a year costs tens of thousands of dollars. Rising printing and mailing costs as well as other factors have increased the cost of print journals, which is one of the major factors propelling different journals to publishing an online-only journal. While producing an online journal still costs money, the costs are definitely reduced - you do not have to pay for paper, ink, design, layout, shipping, etc...

If we made Tradition entirely free online, however, the feeling is that the print subscription would drastically decrease, especially with younger subscribers who are willing to print out journal articles for shabbat reading, and thereby undermine the financial stability of the journal.

Many people, however, continue to find a printed journal as a more enjoyable reading experience, as they do with magazines like The New Republic, Commentary Magazine, etc. This was, indeed, the concluding point of the article in The New Yorker by Princeton University professor Anthony Grafton, linked at the Michtavim blog. Yet the initial cost of printing even one copy of the journal is quite expensive, and one needs to preserve a minimum number of print subscribers in order to maintain the financial viability of the printing.

To a small extent, costs could be limited by reducing the number of editions published per year, but then you lose out on the joy of receiving a new edition on a more frequent basis, and the seasonal dialogue that it generates.

2) Tradition's sponsor, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), does not have the funding to entirely absorb these costs. While Tradition Fellows generously cover an important amount of these costs, we must still pass some cost on to the reader. We are, of course, regularly pursuing other sources of revenue, and our outside funding has increased substantially in recent years, but these resources are finite. Tradition also has to be sensitive to not accepting money from organizations or individuals that might attach ideological or editorial strings to their contributions.

If anyone, however, knows of potential donors or foundations, we'd of course be happy to hear from you.

Given that information, I proposed making a number of changes that we have adopted including offering online-only subscriptions for a reduced price, and giving a further reduction for students, which we have now implemented at www.TraditionOnline.org. We continue to have reduced prices for multi-year subscriptions.

We of course want to expand our reach deeper into the academic arena, and are currently working with our institutional subscribers to increase electronic access to affiliates of their universities, which we hope will ultimately happen, in one form or another, in the coming months. In addition to my duties at Tradition and as a Ram in Yeshivat Hakotel, I myself am also pursuing a PhD in Jewish Philosophy at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and understand that our generation of students and professors prefer taking advantage of their electronic library priviliges.

In many ways, the rising costs of printing and digitalization have forced journals to ask themselves whether they are a magazine or a research journal. The former cater to a more popular audience, and expect subscriptions from a larger audience while seeking profits. The latter limits themselves to a more limited, academic audience, and therefore mostly seek library subscriptions (at extremely high prices) to cover the costs of issues that come out on a less frequent basis. I do not agree with C.G.'s assessment that academic journals exclusively (or almost exclusively) impact currents of thought. I think magazines with a scholarly tone but a clear "public intellectual" agenda have a tremendous amount of impact, like First Things.

Having never discussed this with the editors, I'd venture to say that Tradition is somewhere in between a magazine and a journal, leaning more toward the latter in both its frequency and tone. It is a scholarly (though not purely academic) journal with a public service agenda, addressed to an intellectual religious community rather than exclusively a professional academic coterie.

Whatever one might make of that assessment, it remains clear, however, that we do not publish Tradition for-profit, and continue to publish it, lishmah, for the sake of disseminating and encouraging Orthodox Jewish thought.

Another initiative was to "offer more," so to speak, for the subscription. In addition to creating the website to increase availability, we are now in the final stages of an extensive process to digitize all 50 years of Tradition in an indexed and searchable PDF online archives. The alpha release of the full archives will hopefully happen in the next month. When that happens, individual subscribers (both print and online-only) will have full access to all 50 years of Tradition, and non-subscribers will be able to purchase individual articles for a small fee (again comparable to other magazines), as they can do already for those issues currently online.

As Grafton noted in his piece, the OCR technology is far from perfect, and produces a number of typos, particularly when irregular fonts are used, like in footnotes. Hebrew can also be a problem. Nonetheless, the overall technology remains wonderful, and having spent numerous hours this past week going through the archives online, I can testify to the blessings of digitalization, and I think that this will be a wonderful service to both the academic and broader communities.

I should also note that all of Rav Soloveitchik's writings that were first published in Tradition will be available for free to the wider public. (For copyright reasons, The Lonely Man of Faith will be available in a read-only format).

Especially given access to 50 years of Tradition, we think that our subscription prices are pretty reasonable. You can check them out here.

Another new and popular phenomenon common to magazines, but not to journals, involves special online-only features on the website. Our new books of interest section has already begun and is in the process of being expanded, and we hope in the next months to have blogs and other online-only features, all of which will be available for free to the wider public. Obviously, these changes also cost money, and we have worked to procure grants for the archives scanning (over 1300 articles!).

Anyone interested in sponsoring or dedicating other features of TraditionOnline should please contact me.

When these changes go into effect, we plan to explore online advertising, which we hope will create revenue to keep subscription costs down or even reduce them. Of course, we want to make sure that all ads are appropriate for our site, and that our intellectual and religious integrity is not compromised by any of our financial affiliations. That is why we have, for now, elected not to use Google ads.

In other words, I think within its resources, Tradition is doing a thoughtful job of balancing its agenda, different audiences, and new technology. If at some point we can make Tradition available for free online, we will do it. We continue to explore different options, seeking to spread our articles to as broad of an audience as possible. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have further questions or suggestions.

On a separate but related note, another element of the online world is that it expands the opportunities of different people to be involved with the journal. TraditionOnline is looking for limited number of qualified volunteers to assist with certain editorial elements of our expanding online presence. If you are interested, please be in touch with me.

Shlomo (Myles) Brody
Online Editor, Tradition
TraditionOnline@rabbis.org
www.TraditionOnline.org

]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/28/The-Ongoing-Debate-on-the-Usage-of-Print-vs-Electronic-Journals-Perspective-from-Traditions-Online-Editor Neziv on Ancient Near East http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/27/Neziv-on-Ancient-Near-East Neziv on Ancient Near East at the Michtavim blog.

]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/27/Neziv-on-Ancient-Near-East Prof. Elliott Horowitz -- Edmund Wilson, Hebrew, Christmas, and the Talmud http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/25/Prof-Elliott-Horowitz--Edmund-Wilson-Hebrew-Christmas-and-the-Talmud

In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Prof. Elliott Horowitz of Bar Ilan University and co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review, responded to a discussion of Bugs Bunny's purported Jewish identity.

This is his second contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.

Edmund Wilson, Hebrew, Christmas, and the Talmud
by Elliott Horowitz

As is well known, during the 1950's Edmund Wilson, the great (and perhaps greatest) American man of letters, began studying Hebrew, both in order to read the Hebrew Bible on his own, and in order to write in an informed manner about the controversies surrounding the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls. As Shalom Goldman noted in his excellent chapter on Wilson in God's Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination (Chapel Hill, 2004), Wilson "delighted in teasing his Jewish friends" about their having jettisoned their (usually limited) Hebraic learning while he was steadily increasing his. As an example, Goldman cites the Christmas card Wilson sent to Alfred Kazin in 1952, which included (in Hebrew) the words "I shall learn Hebrew," followed by the Wilsonian barb: "I'll bet you can't read this."

If one consults the card itself, reproduced in Edmund Wilson, Letters on Literature and Politics, 1912-1972 ed., Elena Wilson (New York, 1977), it may be seen that before the oddly vocalized words "elmod lashon yisrael," Wilson added, in the same square script, the blessing "barukh ata la-shem" - probably the first time these words (with the actual tetragrammaton) were used in a Christmas greeting.

Readers of the Seforim blog may also be interested in a subsequent letter of Wilson's to the Brooklyn-born Kazin, written from the New Yorker office in October 1954, shortly after the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls was completed.

"I am still struggling in the toils of the three thousand years of Jewish history. Once you get into it, you find there is no easy way of getting out again. Have you ever tried reading the talmud? It is a very strange work - difficult at first to get the hang of - but it exercises a certain fascination. I think that I may settle down to reading it through. There seems to be no other way of really finding out what is in it..." (Ibid., 528).

Of course, daf yomi tapes were not yet available...

]]> Elliott Horowitz Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/25/Prof-Elliott-Horowitz--Edmund-Wilson-Hebrew-Christmas-and-the-Talmud Bibliography of Articles and Books on Nitel http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/24/Bibliography-of-Articles-and-Books-on-Nitel
There are three books devoted to the topic of Nitel.

Mordechai Menachem Goren, Hefaru Torasecha, Ma'amar Makif miMinhag Avosanu b'Yadanu Odos Lil haAfel Nitel Nacht UMinhag Yisrael l'Vatel meEsek haTorah,[4],52, [10] pages, 2004.

This first contains a two page introduction and the next 52 pages discuss the custom, its sources, and the various opinions. The final 10 pages are some sources that are quoted in full.

[Mordechai Menachem Goren], Hefaru Torasecha, (helek bet, b'inyanei haTekufa) . . . u'Migilas Nitel, [40] pages, 2005. This is the last chapter from the prior book and discusses the tefkufa. Additionally, it includes some additional sources about nitel, quoted in their enterity and some Rabbinic statements about Jesus. The work "Megilat Nitel" is also included. This Megilah comes from the work Iggeret R. Yochonon ben Zackai, that work is discussed by Prof. Meir Bar-Ilan in an article here, where he provides, as well, a bibliography of the various editions of Iggeret R. Yochonon ben Zackai.

Yisrael Barukh Messinger, Nitel uMerosroso, Union City, NJ, 251, [4] pages, 1999.
This work is similar to the above and based substantially on Marc B. Shapiro, "Torah Study on Christmas Eve," Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 319-353. At the end there is a highly charged discussion about R. Kook and Jesus in note 137 [for more on R. Kook and other controversial statements regarding Jesus, Shabbetai Zevi and others, see Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, NY, 1999), pp.109-13, 203-05].

In Messinger's book he provides a bibliography of other articles that discuss the topic. One final article that is not mentioned as it came out after Messinger's book is the chapter in R. Freund's Moadim l'Simcha, vol. 2, pp. 397-427.

]]> Bibliographies Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:11:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/24/Bibliography-of-Articles-and-Books-on-Nitel The Ongoing Debate on the Usage of Print vs. Electronic Journals: Perspective of an Ivy League PhD Student http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/24/The-Ongoing-Debate-on-the-Usage-of-Print-vs-Electronic-Journals-Perspective-of-an-Ivy-League-PhD-Student
I recently had an enjoyable conversation with a former roommate and friend, back from our days at Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh, who is currently nearing completion of a doctorate at the graduate school of an Ivy League institution in computer science, about his views on using print vs. electronic journals. Our discussion centered on the notion that a journal Tradition, published by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), a leading institution of American Modern Orthodox Judaism, charges a fee of $25.00 per year (or $15.00 to students) for non-Tradition subscribers. Parallel journals from within the Modern Orthodox community, like The Meorot Journal (formerly The Edah Journal), published by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and the Torah u-Madda Journal, published by the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) of Yeshiva University, are published in both print and electronic formats, thus allowing their publications to be read by individuals from throughout and beyond the geographic and ideological world of Orthodox Judaism.

Below is a lightly-edited version of a letter that I received from my roommate and friend C.G., posted at the Seforim blog with his express permission.
Dear Menachem,

Regarding our conversation about Tradition, we discussed whether graduate students use online journal access through their universities. In my experience, not only do they use the online access, they only use the online access. I know that in 4 years as a PhD student at Columbia I have looked up an article that wasn't online exactly once. There is just too much material online and too many accessible journals for me to bother going to the library to photocopy a journal that is behind the times. (The one time I did go was for a seminal article from the 70's that it is de rigueur in my field to cite.) If I had to pay for the article, even a few dollars, there is no way I would have done so. My experience is that other PhD students take the same approach - for all intents and purposes, an article that isn't freely available to us online doesn't exist. (By free, I mean "free to me," as in either free or available through a University's e-journals program.) Free abstracts isn't much of a help either, if the article isn't free. It isn't even that I'm particularly cheap - it simply makes no economic sense for me to pay. There is always another article you can cite, and considering the hundreds of articles I read before each paper I write, the cost of a few dollars per article would add up pretty fast. It's the equivalent of replacing a library with a bookstore - if I have to pay for every book I read, I'll read a lot fewer books, and if most of the books I want are free but a few cost money, it would take a lot to interest me in the ones that I need to pay for.

The New York Times discovered this recently; charging even a small fee for their opinion pages drastically reduced the impact of their columnists on popular thought, which is part of the reason that they are suddenly free again. (Incidentally, they were smart enough to make themselves free to academics even when they were charging the general public). New York Times continues to charge (the general public) for archived articles and I guarantee that this has reduced the frequency that archived articles are cited by non-academic researchers. New York Times can afford to do this because the fact is that they were the paper of record for more than a century and if you are researching news from the 1930's you don't have a lot of other choices. However, a small journal that isn't widely known outside of a relatively small circle doesn't have the same power.

I will admit that $15 a year is a fairly nominal cost, and if I was planning on citing Tradition a lot I would pay it, much as I pay for various magazines. However, the key here is that I would only do that if I already knew that Tradition was full of material for me. If I came across a Tradition article and I wasn't familiar with the journal or didn't think I'd be citing many Tradition articles, I'd just click along to the next result on Google. This is the reason that it's standard practice in my field to make your own articles available online for free - the easier it is for someone to get it, the more likely it will have an impact. I also concede that my field (computer science) is more "online" than other fields. However, a lot of my friends are in graduate programs and an informal straw poll says that the same is true for other fields. A friend in psychology told me that an article that isn't free online "doesn't exist" and a close friend who was researching a Jewish Studies topic in conjunction with the chair of a university department told me that anything he needed to pay for or even needed to go to the library for wasn't worth his time when there were ten other articles that were free.

My opinion: Tradition's current pricing is perfectly fine for a magazine. If that's the model they are aiming for, it's entirely sustainable, and it's what most magazines do, as their goal is to maximize subscriptions and revenue. However, an academic journal usually has a different goal of having an impact on the currents of thought in the broader field, and in that respect, if even 25% of researchers are like me and my friends (though, to be honest, I suspect that 95% are) then Tradition is making a big mistake.

Just my opinion of course. Be well,

C.G.

]]> Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/24/The-Ongoing-Debate-on-the-Usage-of-Print-vs-Electronic-Journals-Perspective-of-an-Ivy-League-PhD-Student New Torah u-Madda Journal, available online in PDF; and Criticisms of Menachem http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/23/New-Torah-uMadda-Journal-available-online-in-PDF-and-Criticisms-of-Menachem
After I posted the Table of Contents to the latest volume of the Torah u-Madda Journal, no. 14 (2006/2007), at the Michtavim blog last week -- note, this post has been updated with the links to the PDFs, hosted at YUTorah.org -- I received some very harsh criticisms for my laxity in providing links to the PDFs, including one noteworthy email.

To add insult to injury, the accuser sent me criticisms via an anonymous email address! See here [PDF].

]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/23/New-Torah-uMadda-Journal-available-online-in-PDF-and-Criticisms-of-Menachem Moritz Steinschneider and Ugaritic http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/Moritz-Steinschneider-and-Ugaritic
ManuscriptBoy:
Moritz Steinschneider's online presence has been significantly augmented by the Jewish National Library's Digitized Book Repository. They seem to have scanned all of his German books, as well as the Hebrew translation of his general work 'Sifrut Yisrael'.
And also includes an interesting anecdote that
someone once told me how Prof. Moshe Bar Asher shut himself in a room for a couple of days, and emerged having taught himself Ugaritic.

]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/Moritz-Steinschneider-and-Ugaritic Rabbi Hillel Goldberg on Prof. Saul Lieberman http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/Rabbi-Hillel-Goldberg-on-Prof-Saul-Lieberman
Published several weeks ago, Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, Executive Editor of both the Intermountain Jewish News and of Tradition, has written a 'Review Essay' ("Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman," reviewing Elijah J. Schochet and Solomon Spiro's Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work), in Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007): 69-75. A PDF of this article is only available to subscribers to TraditionOnline and/or members of the Rabbinical Council of America.

While the aim of a "Review Essay" is usually focused on broadening the perspective of a particular topic with the author making use of the most recent contributions from within the extant scholarly literature, "Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman" lacks any such focus.

Continue reading this post ("Rabbi Hillel Goldberg on Prof. Saul Lieberman") at the Michtavim blog.

]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/Rabbi-Hillel-Goldberg-on-Prof-Saul-Lieberman An Attack and Defense of the ArtScroll Talmud and Addendum to the Dec. 2007 Book List http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/An-Attack-and-Defense-of-the-ArtScroll-Talmud-and-Addendum-to-the-Dec-2007-Book-List
Ohr Yisrael no. 50 (Tevet, 5768); 256 pages.

The new issue of Ohr Yisrael, no. 50. has a couple of articles I wanted to highlight. First, they have a section devoted to essentially whether the ArtScroll Gemara is a good thing or not. While in the United States the English version has been around for awhile, only recently has the Hebrew edition been on the market and it appears that it is very popular. Thus, there are those who are questioning if this is a positive step or not. Many of the articles are highly negative towards Artscroll and some even claim that if a person cannot learn Gemara without such an aid they should not be doing so at all.

The final article in this section is by R. Chaim Rapoport, a frequent contributor at the Seforim blog, and is the most comprehensive of the bunch. R. Rapoport demonstrates that ArtScroll -- and he points out it is not only ArtScroll anymore but others have published Gemaras that explain the text -- is not new. Rather, in the late 19th and early 20th century a similar work, HaMadrich, was published with many outstanding approbations. [This portion of the article, as R. Rapoport notes, is heavily based upon R. Yehoshua Mondshein's article on HaMadrich that appears in Kovets Zekhor l'Avrohom, (2000-2001), 349.]

Thus, R. Rapoport argues if those gedolim gave approbations then, they would have no problem today with the ArtScroll.

R. Rapoport in the second half of the article does point out a few (according to him) deficiencies in ArtScroll Gemaras as well as the ArtScroll Siddur. R. Rapoport notes that ArtScroll Gemaras use an academic commentary to explain the half flesh/half dirt mouse discussed in the Mishnah in Hullin (9:6). Specifically, ArtScroll quotes approvingly R. Samson Raphael Hirsch's comments on how to understand such Aggadot. Additionally, R. Rapoport notes that, at times, ArtScroll appears to have selectively quoted Rishonim to "conform with modern sensibilities."

Second, this issue contains an article on the customs surrounding Brit Milah by R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer. Additionally, there is a very comprehensive article on the publication of R. Wolf Boskowitz's works.

Finally, there is a section on Shemittah and "Amirah leAkum."

Menachem Mendel Krochmal, Zemer Na'ah l'Kovod haTorah, (Brooklyn, NY, 2007); 73 pages. This is a reprint of the Amsterdam, 1675 edition and includes an introduction that includes biographical information on R. Krochmal. Additionally, as this work is for Simchat torah and when dedicating a new Torah, included are R. Krochmal's teshuvot discussing hilchot sefer torah. The book can be purchased at Biegeleisen or by contacting Shmuel Stefansky at 718.437.4044

Dovid Felbarbaum, Halichot Kodesh (Brooklyn, NY, 2007), 20, 316 pages. A collection of customs, nusachei teffilah, and other daily acts by Chief Rabbi of Kassan, R. Yisrael Tzvi Rattonberg. To purchase this book, aside from Beigeleisen, the following are provided, 718.336.8971 or 718.972.4078.

]]> New Books Customs Book Reviews Relating to Siddur Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/18/An-Attack-and-Defense-of-the-ArtScroll-Talmud-and-Addendum-to-the-Dec-2007-Book-List New Book List December 2007 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/12/New-Book-List-December-2007
December 2007 New Book List
By Eliezer Brodt

As previously mentioned before from time to time we hope to write up lists of new seforim with a short description. Here is a list of some new seforim that came out in the past few weeks [some of these seforim will be the subject of their own longer posts].

Iggeret Hamussar (Jerusalem, 2007); 269 pages. This sefer is the last will and testament of the Rambam (with nikkud) that he wrote to his son R. Avraham. This work has a lengthy commentary from R. H. Kupperman – 269 pages. The authenticity of this work will be discussed in a future post at the Seforim blog.

Tosaot Chaim from R. Eliyahu De Vedasch author of the Resheis Chochmah. This edition is 437 pages and contains 183 chapters from R. Akiva Yitzchak about various topics in this sefer mostly relating to Orach Chaim topics.

The Sefer Mitzvot Tefillen by R. Yeshaya Horowitz, author of the Shelah HaKadosh, was reprinted. This work was first printed by R. Kreizer over thirty years ago with notes from manuscript for the first time. It’s a complete work on the halakhot of tefillen written by the Shelah. Now R. Kreizer reprinted it with almost double amount of material in the notes than the original printing.

Yerushateinu vol. 2 (Beni Brak: Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz, 2007); 462 pages. Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz released the second volume. This journal will soon be reviewed at greater length at the Seforim blog.

R. Yadler has just printed his fourth volume of the popular work Meor HaShabbas. This work focuses on electrical products and Shabbas.

A new volume of R. Tzvi Pesach Frank's Har Tzvi has been printed. This work is a collection of his notes on various classical acharonim, many of which have been printed before.

A new sefer called Nasiach BeChukechah was just printed by the Rosh Kollel of the kollel in Palo Alto, California, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz. This work is an excellent basic work on the klalaei hamitzvos. The volume is very organized and clear, but not overly exhaustive or encyclopedic. The author focuses on the kelalim that the Chayei Adam brings (in siman 68) and Nasiach BeChukechah has chapters on each of these kelalim, providing citations for the basic sources and relevant discussions on the various kelalim. He also has some chapters on some of the Kelalim that the Chayei Adam omitted. For some samples of this work see here.

Another volume from the Eitz Hadas Tov by R. Hayyim Vital was printed for the first time from manuscript. The introduction to this volume deals with, among other topics, the time when this work was written by R. Vital -- before or after R. Vital studied kabbalah. [A topic which has already been sharply debated between R. Y. Hillel and R. Montzur]. This edition of Eitz Hadas Tov also includes a hundred page work on the history of R. Hayyim Vital and his writings.

Ahavat Sholom released two more volumes, numbers seven and eight, of their set of seforim of the Aderet. Other publishers are putting out other volumes of the Aderet's writings as well. Amongst the seforim in these two volumes is a work of the Aderet's father and a work on klalei Hamitzvot. All the works of the Aderet will be reviewed shortly at the Seforim blog.

HaMeor HaGodol, R. Meir son of R. Jacob Emden, ed. R. Shmuel Dovid Friedman (Brooklyn, NY, 2007), [30], 352, [6]. This is a commentary on Mishnayos Seder Nashim and the Rambam's Mishneh Torah by R. Meir, the first born son of R. Jacob Emden. Included is a biography of R. Meir.

]]> Eliezer Brodt New Books Book Reviews Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:20:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/12/New-Book-List-December-2007 the Michtavim blog, an affiliate of the Seforim blog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/12/the-Michtavim-blog-an-affiliate-of-the-Seforim-blog
In addition to my work that will continue at the Seforim blog -- we've got some great posts going up soon -- I have recently started a new blog, the Michtavim blog, an affiliate of the Seforim blog, where I hope to provide interested readers with up-to-date references and discussions of the latest scholarship from the world of academic Jewish studies and Orthodox Judaism.

Over the next weeks, in addition to posting my musings on a daily basis, I will be adapting a selection of my previous posts from my AJHistory blog (a"h) and the Seforim blog and placing them at the Michtavim blog.

For now, see the following few links for my new posts at the Michtavim blog.

-- "From the Archives of the Royal Library in Metz" (link)
-- "305th yahrzeit of R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach (1638-1702)" (link)
-- "The Sermons and Yeshivot of R. Aharon Kotler" (link)
-- "When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy: The Latest in the Emden-Eybeschütz Controversy" (link)

I hope that you enjoy and I appreciate your feedback.

]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/12/the-Michtavim-blog-an-affiliate-of-the-Seforim-blog The Customs Associated with Joy on Chanukah and Their More Obscure Sources http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/5/The-Customs-Associated-with-Joy-on-Chanukah-and-Their-More-Obscure-Sources
The Customs Associated with Joy on Chanukah and Their More Obscure Sources
by: Eliezer Brodt

In previous posts we have discussed some of the customs relating to Chanukah, in this post I wanted to address those customs connected to Simcha (joy) and do so by highlighting some rather unknown sources. Amongst the topics I will discuss are eating a seudah, dairy products, sefuganiot, playing cards and dreidel.

1. Seudah


R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (1512-85) writes in the introduction to his classic work on Megliat Esther, Yosef Lekakh (first printed in Cremona, 1576), the reason that only on Purim do we celebrate with a seudah and not on Chanukah is because
שעם היות שהמלחמה חשמונאי נצחה, ועל ידו היתה הרוחה אף גם זאת בהיותה על ידי מיתת כמה מישראל לא נס יגון ואנחה. מה שאין כן בזמן מרדכי ואסתר ובימיהם היתה נח מאויבהם והרוג בשונאיהם ואין שטן ואין פגע במחניהם ואיש לא עמד בפניהם


What R. Eliezer Ashkenazi is saying is that since on Chanukah we suffered many causalities so we do not celebrate with a seudah as opposed to Purim where there were no casualties.

The R. Mordechi Yaffa (1530-1612) in his Levush gives a different reason why there is no seudah on Chanukah:
ומפני שלא נמסרו ישראל באותו זמן ביד מושל אחד שהיה מושל עליהם להריגה כמו שהיה בימי המן אלא שבא האויבים עליהם למלחמה ואל בקשו אלא הכנעה ולהיות ידם תקופה על ישראל ולהבערים על דתם כידוע ממעשה אנטיוכס שלא גזר עליהם להרוג ולהשמיד רק צרות ושמדות כדי להמיר דתם
Meaning that since on Purim there was no option to convert as opposed to Chanukah so therefore Chanukah was not as bad as Purim and we do not celebrate with a seudah. [Much has been written on this Levush but we will have to deal with this on a different occasion.]


Many Rishonom hold there is no obligation to eat a seudah and that is what the Mechaber in Shulchan Orach writes ריבו הסעודות שמרבים בהם הם סעודת הרשות שלא קבעום למשתה ושמחה

The Rambam (Hilcos Chanukah Perek Gimel Halacha gimel), however, writes:
ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחלתן מליל חמשה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל
At first glance it does not appear that the Rambam is saying one has to eat a seudah rather its just days of "simcha and joy." However, R. Zev Boskowitz (1740-1809) in his work Seder Hamishana (recently printed from manuscript in 1989) writes the Rambam in fact means a seudah is required and furthermore such a seudah would considered a seudas mitzvah.


While until now, we have been parsing the words of the Rambam to locate an authority that holds there is an obligation to have a seuda, other Rishonim write straight out that there is an obligation to eat a seudah on Chanukah amongst them, Rashaba (vol 1, Siman 699) Tosofos (Tanis 18b), Marshal and Chanukas Habayis (p. 71). Additionally, R. Yeshuah Ibn Shu’eib, a talmid of the Rashaba, in Ibn Shu'eib's Derashot al HaTorah (first printed in Istanbul, 1523 - end of parsha Meketz) also writes ותקנו ז"ל... ולעשותן כמועדים שהם ימי שמחה this could imply a seudah.[1]


Some have used the Megilas Antioches [2] to adduce a seudah obligation on Chanukah. The Megilas Antioches (first printed in Mantau 1557 and typically dated sometime between the 2nd and 5th centuries of the Common Era, for more see the sources in note 2) describes Chanukah as ימי משתה ושמחה thus, according to some, the "משתה" would obligate a meal. But, this line in Megilas Antioches is only found in the Hebrew translations, whereas in the older Aramaic versions it only says שמחה and is lacking the key word משתה


2. Instruments and Jokes.


As far as other aspects of Simcha on Chanukah in the Sefer Hamaskil (end of the 13th century) from the nephew of the Rosh, writes that although during the rest of the year it is prohibited to tell jokes (pg 12) or play musical instruments (pg. 22) on Chanukah it is permitted. This implies that Chanukah is days of joy, a joy on some level more than rest of the year.


3. Maseh Yehudis and eating Dairy products.


Rabenu Bechayu (lived at the end of the 13th century) writes in his work Kad haKemach (first printed in Istanbul, 1515) that וכן דרשו ז"ל בנס חנוכה שהיה על ידי משתה. It is unclear, however, what the source in Chazal for this statement is. R. Chaim Bright in his pirish on the Kad haKemach called Tzipchas Hasheman (first published in the Lvov, 1880 edition of the Kad haKemach) brings that the source for Rabenu Bachayu is the sefer Maseh Yehudis (Book of Judith) [3] as part of what she did was tied to food. Specifically, Yehudis gave the enemy General Holofernes food and then proceeded to cut off his head.(p. 92) All this could be another possible source to make a seudah on Chanukah. The truth is the story of Yehudis is the source for another Halacha related to Chanukah and food. The Ramah writes some eat milchig (dairy) products as the miracle (of Yehudis) came about thru dairy products. Much has been gathered on this topic just to add one more source, R. Avrohom Saba (1440-1508) in his work on Megilas Esther, Eshkol Hakofer, (p. 40) writes
כמו שאמרו בירושלמי על בתו של ר' יוחנן שהי' בימי היונים וגזרו על כל בתולה שתבעל להגמון תחלה... ויהי כאשר נתפסה בתו של ר' יוחנן להבעל להגמון אמרה לו שקודם שישכב עמה היא רוצית שיאכלו וישתו ביחד והאכילתו תבשיל של גבינה... ונרדם והוציאה סכין... ונעשה נס לישראל... ולכן תקנו לאכול תבשיל גבינה בחנוכה זכר לאותו נס.
The Chanukas haBayis also writes to eat Milchigs (p. 136). Chaim Chemerinsky [early 1900’s] also writes that in his home they specifically ate dairy products during their seudah on Chanukah (Eiyuriti Motele p. 181). [4]


However, it is not so clear if one can use the sefer Maseh Yehudis as a source because many write the event in question did not even happen during Chanukah. The Meor Eynaim (end of ch 51), R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena (Shulchan Orach, p. 83), R. Yakov Emden (Meor Uketziah beginning of Hal. Chanukah) and the Orach Hashulchan (siman 670, 8) all write the event was not on Chanukah.


4. Seufgoniot


Another food eaten by Jews on Chanukah is Seufgoniot (doughnuts). In Eretz Yisroel they start selling them a month before Chanukah and incredible amounts of these sefgoniot are sold each year. This custom also has very early sources just to mention two of them. R. Mamion the father of the Rambam writes[5]
אין להקל בשום מנהג ואפילו מנהג קל. ויתחייב כל נכון לו עשית משתה ושמחה ומאכל לפרסם הנס שעשה השם יתברך עמנו באותם הימים. ופשט המנהג לעשות סופגנין, בערבי אלספינג, והם הצפחיות בדבש ובתרגום האיסקריטין הוא מנהג הקדמונים משום שהם קלויים בשמן לזכר ברכתו - כלומר לנס שבפך שמן
[Additionally, from this source, it appears from this that R. Mamion holds one should make a seudah on Chanukah.] Another early source who writes that people used to eat these סופגנין on Chanukah is R. Kalnomus Ben Kolumnus (1286 - died after 1328) in his Even Habochen (p. 30) [more on him in a future post].


5. Latkes

Based on the words of R, Mamion it’s easy to understand how the minhag of eating latkes came about as they are fried in oil as R. Maimon's highlights that the sufganiyot are "fried in oil."

Pauline Wengeroff records in her excellent memoir, Rememberings: "On the fifth night my mother invited all our friends and relatives…. The Invitation read, 'You are invited for latkes.'" It’s very likely that this is the food described by R. D. Sassoon in his travels that people in Baghdad ate on Chanukah (Maseh Bavel p. 183).


6. Getting drunk and Cross-dressing


Besides for eating elaborate seudos and special foods we find other methods of entertainment that Jews did on Chanukah. R. Kalnomus Ben Kolumnus writes in his Even Habochen (p. 30) that people used to get drunk. The Sefer Hamaskil (end of the 13th century) [6] indicates that although he strongly disapproves of the customs, there was a custom to cross-dress on Chanukah. He writes:
טובה תנחל ושלוה תירש אם תשמור מלאו דלא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כגון בחורים הנותנים צעיך בראשיהם ולובשים בגדי נשים בחנוכה... ואל תהיה כאחד מהם בדבר הרע הזה ואפילו אם תעשהו לשם מצוה יצא השכר בהפסד

Meaning do not this terrible sin of cross dressing on Chanukah. [7]


7. Card Playing


Another pastime observed on Chanukah was card playing. [8] Professor M. Breuer brings early sources for card playing on Chanukah (Ohelei Torah p. 355). R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena writes about himself in his autobiography how "during Chanukah of the year 5355 (1594) Satan fooled me into playing games of chance causing me no small amount of damage.” (The Autobiography of a Seventeenth Century Venetian Rabbi, p. 97). R. Yakov Emden writes against this custom in his Meor Uketziah which he says people used to do on Chanukah [introduction to hilchos Chanukah and end of siman 670].

Eliezer Friedman [1870’s] describes in his memoirs (Zikhronos, Tel Aviv, 1926) how his grandfather, an old litvack taught him one Chanukah exactly how to play cards (p. 61).


Both Chaim Chemerinsky (Eiyruti Motele pp. 43, 178) and Pauline Wengeroff (op. cit., pp. 65-6) elaborately describe the card games that used to take place in their homes on Chanukah. R.M. Braver describes in his autobiography [mid 1800’s] how in Galicia the yeshiva boys used to waste their whole Chanukah playing cards (Zecronot Av U'beno p. 67). His son, R. A. Braver in his autobiography also describes the card games that used to take place in Galicia on Chanukah (pp. 244-45). Elsewhere in his book he describes when the month of Kislev began how the boys started getting their cards ready for card playing on Chanukah (p. 352).


8. Dreidel


Another game played by Jews until today is Dreidel although it’s unclear from where it came from but some sources of playing this game are: M. Zlotkin printed an autobiography from a Litvish Rav (available here) who supposedly lived in the time of the Vilna Goan who writes how how in an effort to try to connect to the children on Chanukah he used to give them Dreidels (pp. 244- 245). In 1824 an extremely cynical parody work was printed called Sefer Kundes [in a future post I hope to write an elaborate post on this work] it describes things found in the pocket of a kundes – a trickster one of the items is a dreidel [In 1997, M. Zalkin thru the Dinur Center printed a critical edition of this very rare work, see p. 48].

R. Y. Weiss brings that the Chasam Sofer used to play dreidel on the first night (Eleph Kesav p. 145) Pauline Wengeroff writes that another popular game on Chanukah was dreidel (op. cit., p. 66). R. A. Braver in his autobiography writes before Chanukah they used to prepare their dreidels (p. 231) Later on he describes exactly how the game was played (p. 244).


R. Y. Falk in his Choshvei Machshovos (printed in 1970), an excellent unknown work on minhaghim writes a few reasons for playing dreidel on Chanukah at the end he writes
מה שמשחקין בחנוכה בדרעדרל כי אי' בספרים שהאותיות נגה"ש שכותבים עליו הוא ר"ת נס גדול הי' שם וי"ל משום שראו חכמים שבאותו דור שהנס של חנוכה התחיל להתמעט בעיני העולם על כל קבעו מסמרות והנהיגו לעשות דרעדרל ולכתוב עליו נגה"ש שהוא ר"ת... להזכיר ולעורר בני ישראל שלא יוקטן בעיניהם הנס של חנוכה שהי' באמת נס גדול
(p. 160)




Some recent sources on these topics [just to whet ones appetite]:

[1] On eating a Seudah on Chanukah See; R. S. Shick, Seder Haminhagim p. 32b; Eleph Kesav, 1, p. 37 ; M. Rafeld in Minhaghei Yisroel, vol. 5, pp. 85-101; R. Nosson D. Rabinowitz, Benue Shnos Dor Vdor pp. 47-48; Moadim Lisimcha pp. 230-252; Pardes Eliezer pp. 463- 556; Chazon Ovadiah pp. 15-18.

[2] On this point see: R. Nosson D. Rabinowitz, Benue Shnos Dor Vdor pp.140-142 :M. Rafeld in Minhaghei Yisroel, vol. 5, pp. 85-86; Moadim Lisimcha pp 258- 259; R. M. Leiter, Mamlechet Kohanim pp. 56,117-19.

On this Megilah in general see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim p. 144; N. Fried in Minhaghei Yisroel, vol. 5, pp. 102-20; Areshet vol.4 p. 166; R. Nosson D. Rabinowitz, Benue Shnos Dor Vdor pp. 121- 151; R. M. Leiter, Mamlechet Kohanim pp. 40-159.

[3] On Maseh Yehudis in general see R. Nosson D. Rabinowitz, Benue Shnos Dor Vdor pp. 80-105 (especially p. 109); Moadim Lisimcha pp. 276-312; Chasmunu Ubobov pp. 114-129; R. M. Leiter, Mamlechet Kohanim pp. 359-442.

[4] For more on eating Milchigs see Moadim Lisimcha, pp. 286-292; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 557-581.

[5] On this statement of R. Mamion see S. Abramson, Rav Nissim Goan p. 328.

[6] On the Sefer Hamaskil see the excellent article by R. M. M. Honig, Yerushcanu, 1, pp. 196-240.

[7] On cross dressing and yom tovim see the excellent forthcoming article of Y. Speigel.

[8] On card playing in general see; I. Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, pp.148-151;Y. Rivkind, Yiddishe Gelt; A. Shochet, Em Chelufei Tekufos (pp. 40-41) ; L. Landman J.Q.R.Vol. 57, No.4.(Apr.,1967) pp. 298-318 and J.Q.R.Vol. 58, No.1.(Jul.,1967) pp.34-62.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs Chanukah Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:19:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/5/The-Customs-Associated-with-Joy-on-Chanukah-and-Their-More-Obscure-Sources Mitzvat Ner Ish uBeto: When A Revised Edition is Not Revised: http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/4/Mitzvat-Ner-Ish-uBeto-When-A-Revised-Edition-is-Not-Revised What follows is a guest post discussing a "revised" edition of the sefer Mitzvat Ner Ish uBeto, a work devoted to the laws and customs of Chanukah. For an earlier post on Chanukah see here, here, and here.


על ספרו של הרב אליהו שלזינגר:

מצות נר איש וביתו, חנוכה בהלכה ובאגדה

מאת: עקביא שמש


אחד המאפיינים את הספרות הרבנית ההלכתית בדורנו הוא חיבור ספרים סביב נושא הלכתי אחד.[1] העובדה שהמחבר מרכז את כל הידוע לו סביב אותו נושא, הופכת את הספר למבוקש ושימושי ביותר, לא רק ל"עמך", אלא גם לציבור הלומדים.[2] חלק מספרים אלו יוצא לאור במספר מהדורות, דבר המלמד על חשיבותו הרבה של הספר, ועל הצורך הרב שיש בו. הנה כי כן בהתקרב חג מסוים, אנו עדים להופעת מספר ספרים הלכתיים על ענייני החג, או אף על הלכות מיוחדות בודדות הקשורות עם אותו חג. אחד מהספרים הללו הוא ספרו של הרב אליהו שלזינגר: מצות נר איש וביתו, חנוכה בהלכה ובאגדה. ספר זה, היוצא לאור במספר מהדורות החל משנת תשל"ח, דבר המעיד על חשיבותו הרבה של הספר, יצא לאור זה עתה במהדורה נוספת, ירושלים, תשס"ח. ברצוני לייחד את הדיבור על ספר זה אך ורק בענייני צורה, מבנה וסגנון, ותו לא. מובן מאליו שאין בכל האמור לקמן לגרוע ולו במשהו מערכו וחשיבותו הרבה של הספר. נהפוך הוא, דווקא מפני חשיבותו הרבה של הספר, ודווקא מפני ריבוי המשתמשים בו, ראוי הוא שידקדקו בו.


א. תיאור קצר של הספר

הספר מורכב מארבעה חלקים. חלק ראשון: הלכות חנוכה. חלק שני: בירורים הלכתיים. חלק שלישי: מאמרים ודרשות. חלק רביעי: מדרש לחנוכה. בשערו נאמר: "מהדורה ראשונה יצאה בשנת תשל"ח, מאז נדפסו מהדורות רבות, מהדורה חדשה מורחבת ומשוכללת, עם הוספות וחידושים רבים י"ל בשנת תשס"א ועתה פנים חדשות באו לכאן, מהדורה חדשה ומחודשת עם עוד הוספות וחידושים רבים".

ואכן מהדורה זו היא בת תקפג (583) עמודים, ואילו המהדורה הקודמת שיצאה לאור בשנת תשס"א היא בת תסד (464) עמודים. אין ספק שלפנינו גידול מרשים של כמאה ועשרים עמודים בהיקפו של הספר, וכדברי המחבר בשער הספר שהובאו לעיל: "עם עוד הוספות וחידושים רבים". השוואה בין שתי המהדורות מלמדת כי החלק שלישי והחלק רביעי אינם שונים בשתי המהדורות, ונמצא כי גידולו של הספר הוא בשני החלקים הראשונים.

ואכן בחלק השני נוספו עוד יג בירורים חדשים. היינו, כז בירורים היו בשנת תשס"א, לעומת מ' בירורים במהדורת תשס"ח. סידרם ותוכנם של הבירורים בשתי המהדורות זהה עד לסימן כה. סימן כו וסימן כז במהדורת תשס"א, הם סימן לט וסימן מ במהדורת תשס"ח. כך שהבירורים החדשים הם סימנים כו-לח.

ומה ביחס לחלק הראשון? בחלק זה יש הלכות, וגם מקורות ודיונים בהלכות הללו שנדפסו בהערות. במבט ראשון קשה לדעת מה נוסף בו. אכן מצאתי בו אגב עיוני הוספות בהערות, ועל כך אדבר עוד לקמן. לא בדקתי אם יש תוספת בהלכות עצמן.

בדיקת גודלה של תוספת הבירורים החדשים מראה שהיא בת 65 עמודים, ונמצא כי זו היא רק בערך מחצית מכמות העמודים שנוספה במהדורה זו. מכאן עולה כי שאר העמודים שנוספו הם בחלק הראשון. נמצא כי בשני החלקים הראשונים שבספר נמצאים כל החידושים הרבים, והם מתחלקים כמעט באופן שוה בין שני החלקים הללו.


ב. הערות על הספר

1. גופן הספר

בארבע המהדורות האחרונות של הספר, שיצאו לאור בשנים: תשנ"ג, תשנ"ח, תשס"א, תשס"ח, לא נדפס הספר באותו גופן (פונט), אלא כל מהדורה הודפסה בגופן אחר. נכון הוא שלפעמים יש אילוצים מסוימים לשינוי הגופן, אבל דומה כי מן הראוי להשתדל להדפיס את הספר באותו גופן, כך שאדם שרכש את הספר במהדורה קודמת יוכל לראות בצורה נוחה, מה נתחדש במהדורה שאחריה. לא ברור מדוע יש לשנות את הגופן, או את גודלו, ממהדורה למהדורה. כך לדוגמה במהדורה האחרונה הוגדל הגופן בעיקר בחלק הראשון של הספר, וההגדלה היא רק בחלק העליון של העמוד שבו נמצאות ההלכות, אבל בהערות נשאר הגופן הקודם. הגדלה זו הגדילה את מספר הדפים של הספר, אם כי, כאמור, עיקר הגידול של הספר הוא בתוכן עצמו.

2. כפילויות בספר

לספר יש שתי הקדמות, האחת בשם: "דברים אחדים", והשניה בשם: "הקדמה". הראשונה דומה מאוד לזו של מהדורת תשס"א, אלא שנוספה בה פיסקה בתחילה שאינה ענייננו כאן. בשתי המהדורות הללו כותב הר"א שלזינגר: "במהדורה זו נוספו ענינים חדשים רבים. כמו"כ הרבה מהמאמרים שנדפסו במהדורות קודמות בחלק "בירורי הלכה", הוכנסו הפעם בתוך הספר עצמו למען הקל את העיון".

מהדברים הללו עולה כי כל מה שהיה במהדורת תשנ"ח נשאר גם במהדורה החדשה (אלא שנוספו בה הרבה דברים חדשים). אולם השוואת שתי המהדורות מלמדת אחרת.

המעיין במדור בירורי הלכה במהדורה הקודמת לה, היא מהדורת תשנ"ח, ימצא כט עניינים. כז מהם נמצאים ככתבם וכלשונם במהדורת תשס"א, ושניים מהם: ו, כח, חסרים. בירור ו כולל שני מכתבים של רא"י הופמן ביחס לחובת הדלקה בחוץ. בירור כח מכיל מכתב מרי"ש שרגא הלוי, ושני מכתבים מרח"צ אוללמאנן, ובהם הערות שונות על האמור בספר. על פי דברי המחבר ב"דברים אחדים", היה מקום לצפות כי שני הסימנים שהושמטו ממדור הבירורים, יודפסו עתה במהדורת תשס"א בחלק הראשון, או בהלכות עצמן או בהערות. אבל בחלק ראשון של הספר, סי' ה סוף הערה ה, נאמר: "וראה עוד אריכות דברים בח"ב מספרינו זה סימן ו' וסימן כ"ח". אבל אין מובן למשפט זה, שהרי שני סימנים אלו נמצאים אמנם במהדורת תשנ"ח, אבל הושמטו במהדורת תשס"א, וכיצד יכול המעיין לראותם? נמצא אם כן כי במהדורת תשס"א, חסרים שני בירורים שהיו במהדורה הקודמת.

עתה נבדוק מה כוונתו של המחבר באומרו ש"הרבה מהמאמרים שנדפסו במהדורות קודמות בחלק "בירורי הלכה", הוכנסו הפעם בתוך הספר עצמו".

עיון בחלקו הראשון של הספר מגלה כי סימנים שלמים מתוך מדור בירורים, נדפסו גם בתוך ההערות עצמן, כדמותן וכצלמן. לדוגמה, בירור ב: פרסומי ניסא - הידור מצוה או חלק מהמצוה, נדפס בחלק ראשון בהערות בעמ' יא-יח. כמו כן, בירור ג: הדלקת נר חנוכה - חובת הבית או חובת הגוף, שיש בו מכתב ארוך החתום: א. א. ירושלים, ותשובת המחבר שארוכה הרבה יותר, נדפס כולו בעמודים צ-צד (הערה לד). כדי לא להאריך לא אביא דוגמות נוספות, והמעיין ימצא עוד כהנה וכהנה.

נמצא כי יש בירורים שהודפסו פעמיים. פעם אחת במדור בירורים עצמו, ופעם אחת גם בהערות. נמצא אפוא שכוונת המחבר במשפט דלעיל ש"הרבה מהמאמרים שנדפסו במהדורות קודמות בחלק "בירורי הלכה", הוכנסו הפעם בתוך הספר עצמו", שונה לחלוטין מההבנה הפשוטה. הקורא לתומו משפט זה סבור כי יש בירורים שהוצאו ממדור בירורים והודפסו רק בהערות. ואילו אנו רואים כי כוונתו שונה לגמרי. לאמור, דברים שנדפסו קודם רק בבירורי הלכה, נדפסו הפעם גם בתוך ההערות. השאלה היא אם על דבר זה ניתן לומר, כפי שכתב המחבר, שעשה כן "למען הקל את העיון". איני יודע אם יש כאן הקלה, אבל ודאי הוא שיש כאן יותרת הכבד. יש כאן דברים מיותרים שמגדילים את נפח הספר. דומה בעיני שיש כאן צורה חדשה של סידור ספר, שלא ראינוה עד הנה.

מעניין הדבר שגם במהדורת תשס"ח המשיך המחבר באותה שיטה. חלק מבירורי ההלכה נדפסו פעמיים - גם בחלק הראשון בתוך ההערות, וגם בחלק השני הנקרא בירורי הלכה. הדוגמות שניתנו לעיל ביחס למהדורת תשס"א, שרירות וקיימות גם ביחס למהדורת תשס"ח. נתייחס לשתי הדוגמות שניתנו לעיל: בירור ב נדפס כולו בהערות בדפים יא-יח. בירור ג נדפס כולו בדפים קכא-קכד (הערה לד).[3]

ואם תאמר שמא מצאנו כפילות זו רק בבירורים של מהדורת תשס"א, שאותם משום מה הדפיס המחבר בכפילא, אבל בשלושה עשר הבירורים החדשים שנוספו במהדורת תשס"ח אין הדבר כן. ולכאורה סיוע לכך ניתן למצוא בהקדמה למהדורת תשס"ח, שבה אכן יש דברים מסוימים השונים מההקדמה של מהדורת תשס"א. הנה מצאנו בהקדמה, בעמ' 28, את המשפט הבא, שאינו במהדורת תשס"א: "בחלק השני שבספר זה הבאנו "בירורי הלכה", בו נתבררו הרבה מן ההלכות שבגוף הספר הובאו בקצרה וכאן נתבררו בהרחבה ובפירוט, וגם בפלפולא דאורייתא כדרכה של תורה". מכאן מתקבל הרושם כי במהדורה הזו שינה המחבר את דרכו, והקדיש את החלק השני של הספר, "בירורים", להרחבה ודיון מפורט בהלכות שונות, בעוד "שבגוף הספר הובאו בקצרה".

אבל לא כך הם פני הדברים. גם ביחס לבירורים החדשים חוזרת התופעה של הדפסה כפולה. צא וראה, לדוגמה, את בירור כו במהדורת תשס"ח: חיוב ברכה על נר שמדליק מחמת חשד, שהוא בירור חדש שנדפס רק במהדורה זו. והנה כל הבירור כולו נדפס כדמותו וכצלמו גם בחלק הראשון, סימן ה, בהערה לב, בעמודים קנא-קנד. כן הדבר ביחס לבירור כז, שנדפס כולו גם בחלק הראשון, סימן ד, בהערה לא, בעמודים קיז-קכ. גם בירור כח נדפס כולו גם בחלק הראשון, סימן ו, בהערה טז*, בעמודים קפ-קפה.[4] הגדיל לעשות המחבר בבירור כט, שהכניסו כולו בחלק הראשון, סימן ג, הערה א (פרט לשתי הפיסקאות הראשונות), והוא בן שלושה עשר עמודים! (סוף עמ' סג ועד עמ' עו). והמעיין ימצא עוד בכגון אלו.

3. משפטים שאינם בהירים

כפילות זו, שאותו עניין נזכר הן בהערות והן בבירורים, גורמת שקיימים משפטים שאינם מובנים ואינם בהירים די הצורך.

הנה בסוף בירור ל נאמר: "ובכל זה הארכנו בדברי מרן הגר"ש ואזנר שליט"א בספרינו [5] "מצות נר איש וביתו" חלק בירורי הלכה (סימן ז)" וכו'. המשפט תמוה. הרי אנו נמצאים בספר "מצות נר איש וביתו", ומלשון המחבר עולה כאילו עלינו לפנות לספר אחר. זאת ועוד, הרי אנו נמצאים בחלק "בירורי הלכה", ואם כן די היה לכתוב: ובכל זה הארכנו... לעיל סימן ז, ללא המלים: חלק בירורי הלכה. אלא נראה שהסיבה לכך היא, שבירור זה כולו נדפס גם בחלק ראשון בהערה כח, בעמודים קצב-קצד, ושם הסיומת: "ובכל זה הארכנו בדברי מרן הגר"ש ואזנר שליט"א בספרינו "מצות נר איש וביתו" חלק בירורי הלכה (סימן ז)", מתאימה קצת יותר, כי המחבר מפנה אותנו מההערות הנמצאות בחלק הראשון, לחלק השני שהוא "בירורי הלכה".[6]

הבה נראה דוגמה נוספת שהיא מלמדת על עניין נוסף. בחלק הבירורים סוף סימן ה, עמ' שנו, נאמר: "בספרי [7] ציינתי בהערות שישנן גם דעות אחרות... והבאתי כאן את הדברים למען יראה הקורא דישנן כמה דעות בנושא". הקורא מבין מדבריו שבחלק הראשון של הספר קיצר המחבר בהערות, ואילו כאן הביא את הדברים בהרחבה. אלא שהבנה זו שלנו בדבריו אינה נכונה, שהרי כל האמור כאן בחלק הבירורים, נמצא ככתבו וכלשונו בחלק הראשון, בסוף הערה לד, בעמ' קסא-קסב. אם כן, כבר הובאו הדברים קודם, וכבר ראה אותם הקורא, ואין זה נכון לומר "והבאתי כאן את הדברים למען יראה הקורא", שמשתמע שרק כאן הם הובאו, ורק כאן יראה אותם הקורא לראשונה. נראה שהיה לו לומר: והבאתי כאן שוב את הדברים.

4. הפניות שאינן מעודכנות

מכיון שאנו נמצאים בבירור ה, נוסיף בו עוד עניין. בפתח בירור ה, עמ' שנה, נאמר: "בספרי [8] סימן ה' סעיף ט' אות כ"ד הבאנו דעה" וכו'. אלא שהמחפש את העניין, אליו רומז כאן המחבר, לא ימצאנה בהערה כד. זאת משום שעניין זה אכן נמצא בהערה כד במהדורת תשנ"ח, אבל במהדורת תשס"א, ולאחריה במהדורת תשס"ח, עניין זה נמצא בהערה לד. לפי דרכנו למדנו מדוגמה זו, כי לא כל ההפניות עודכנו ממהדורה למהדורה.

בהקשר לכך אנו יכולים להוסיף, כי את הבירורים אשר השמיט במעבר ממהדורת תשנ"ח למהדורת תשס"א, הלא הם בירורים ו, כח, וכבר הזכרנו השמטה זו לעיל, המשיך להשמיט גם במהדורה זו. אבל גם כאן המשיך לציין אליהם, וכפי שעשה כן גם במהדורת תשס"א. כך כתב בחלק ראשון, סי' ה, סוף הערה ה: "וראה עוד אריכות דברים בח"ב מספרינו זה סימן ו' וסימן כ"ח". מובן שהמעיין באותם סימנים במהדורת תשס"ח, לא ימצא קשר בינם לבין האמור בהערה זו. היינו, חוסר העידכון ממהדורת תשס"א, נמשך גם כאן.

אכן ידוע הוא, שעידכון של הפניות ממהדורה למהדורה, כרוך בטירחה יתירה ובבדיקת כל מראי המקומות, ולכן כמעט אין לך ספר שיצא במספר מהדורות, שלא ימצאו בו הפניות שאינן מעודכנות.

אסיים במה שפתחתי. כל האמור כאן לא בא אלא להצביע על מספר עניינים של צורה, מבנה וסגנון בספר הנדון, שנראה לי כי מן הראוי לתת עליהם את הדעת. אכן ברור לכל, שחשיבותו של הספר אינה נגרעת במאומה מכל האמור.

הערות
[1] ראה עוד י"ש שפיגל, 'משהו על כיווני היצירה התורנית בדורינו', סיני, קז (תשנ"א), עמ' צב-צד.

[2] ר"ג ציננער, שפירסם ספרים רבים בשם "נטעי גבריאל", כשכל אחד מהם מוקדש לנושא הלכתי מסוים, כתב בספרו המוקדש לפורים המשולש, וערב פסח שחל בשבת, ירושלים, תשס"ה, בהקדמה עמ' כג: "בשנת תשנ"ד, בהיותי בארה"ק בשלהי חודש אדר, והבאתי ספרי על ער"פ שחל בשבת לגאון ישראל הגרש"ז אויערבאך זצ"ל... ואז גם מסר לי איזה הלכות והנהגות, כאשר הובא בפנים הספר. ובנו הרה"ג רבי ברוך זצ"ל מסר לי בשעתו שאביו עיין רבות בספרי הנ"ל ונהנה מזה". אם זכרוני אינו מכזב לי, דומני גם שראיתי באחד מהספרים מסוג זה, שמחברו כתב בשם אחד מגדולי הדור שאמר שיש לעיין בספר מסוג זה, כי רבה בו התועלת, משום שהמחבר הקדיש עצמו לנושא אחד, ומסתמא הקיף את כל האמור בזה.

[3] אנו רואים כי קיים אי שויון בעימוד שבין שתי המהדורות. הרי הסיבה לכך: כפי שאמרנו הגופן של ההלכות במהדורת תשס"ח גדול במעט יותר מזה של מהדורת תשס"א. לכן בתחילת החלק הראשון ההשפעה עדיין אינה ניכרת כל כך, ומספרי העמודים של שתי המהדורות תואמים זה לזה. אבל בהמשך נוצר לאט לאט הבדל, ואנו רואים כי מספרי העמודים של ההערה המתאימה לבירור ג, אינם מתאימים בשתי המהדורות. בספרנו.

[4] במהדורת תשס"ח זהה מיספור ההערות למיספור שהיה במהדורת תשס"א. השמירה על המיספור הקודם גם במהדורה זו, יצרה למחבר בעיה בכל מקום שבו הכניס בירור חדש. ברוב המקרים הוכנסו הבירורים החדשים לתוך הערות קיימות. אבל יש מקרים שבהם נאלץ המחבר ליצור הערה חדשה, כמו בדוגמה זו. נמצא כי הערה טז, שהיתה במהדורה תשס"א, נשארה כפי שהיא גם במהדורת תשס"ח, ואילו הערה טז*, נוצרה במיוחד רק כדי להכניס בתוכה את כל הבירור החדש - בירור כח.

[5] היינו: בספרנו.

[6] אם כי ההפניה לספר "מצות נר איש וביתו" עדיין אינה מובנת, שהרי בספר זה קיימינן.

[7] נראה לי שהיה עדיף לנסח: בספר, או: בספר זה, או: בחלק ראשון של הספר. והניסוח שלפנינו אולי יכול להטעות שכוונתו על ספר אחר, וכפי שאראה כן בהמשך.

[8] ראה הערה קודמת על הניסוח הזה.

]]> Book Reviews Chanukah בעברית Bibliographies Bibliographical Oddities עקביא שמש Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:41:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/12/4/Mitzvat-Ner-Ish-uBeto-When-A-Revised-Edition-is-Not-Revised Daniel J. Lasker - "December 6 Is Coming: Get Out the Umbrellas" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/30/Daniel-J-Lasker--December-6-Is-Coming-Get-Out-the-Umbrellas
December 6 Is Coming: Get Out the Umbrellas
By Daniel J. Lasker
Daniel J. Lasker is Norbert Blechner Professor of Jewish Values at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, and is chair of the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought. His landmark work Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages, originally published in 1977, was recently republished with a new introduction in 2007.

This is Professor Lasker’s first post at the Seforim blog.
We Jews in Israel have been praying for rain since the seventh of Marheshvan (the night of Thursday, October 18), but, unfortunately, so far the prayers have generally not yet been answered (especially in Beer Sheva where I live). Next week, it will be the chance of Jews who live in the Diaspora to pray for rain, beginning in Maariv of the night of Wednesday, December 5 (the eve of December 6). As undoubtedly all readers of the Seforim blog know, the dates for asking for rain (adding the words ve-ten tal u-matar li-verakha to the ninth blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh, in the Ashkenazi and Nusah Sefarad rites; or changing the form of that blessing from Barkheinu to Bareikh Aleinu, in what is now usually known as the Edot ha-Mizrah rite) are different for the Land of Israel and for the Diaspora. Perhaps not all readers know 1) why there is a difference; 2) why most years one begins the prayer in Maariv of December 4 (the eve of December 5); and 3) why one begins on December 5 this year.

Why is there a difference?

Mishnah Ta’anit 1:3 reads: “On the third of Marheshvan one is to begin praying for rain; Rabban Gamaliel says: ‘On the seventh of that month, fifteen days after the feast of Tabernacles, so that even the tardiest Israelite may reach the Euphrates [on the return journey from the pilgrimage to Jerusalem].’” The Talmud (Ta’anit 10a) records Rabbi Eleazar as stating that the law follows Rabban Gamaliel. Despite the fact that the pilgrimage on Sukkot is no longer binding, and modern methods of transportation obviate the need to wait two weeks for the pilgrims to return home, the practice has remained constant: in the Land of Israel, she’elat geshamim (the prayer for rain) begins on the eve of the seventh of Marheshvan.

The same Talmudic passage records that, in the Golah, the practice was to wait “until the sixtieth [day] of the [autumnal] equinox (ad shishim ba-tequfah)” before beginning the prayer. No explanation is given for this difference between Israel and Babylonia, but there are good reasons to believe that it has to do with the meteorological and agricultural differences between the countries. Jews in Babylonia did not need, nor did they want, the winter rains to begin until two thirds of the autumn season had passed; therefore, they waited longer before beginning the prayer. Both communities, however, began “mentioning” rain (mashiv ha-ruah) on Shemini Atzeret, and they ceased mentioning rain and saying the special prayer for rain at Passover.[1]

What about Jews in other countries? Should Jews in these areas pray for rain according to the needs of their own country of residence, as did Jews in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia, or should they employ an already established schedule? Since Babylonian procedures were usually followed in the whole Diaspora, it became the practice of Jews almost everywhere outside the Land of Israel to offer their prayers for rain on the same dates as did their Babylonian coreligionists.[2]

This generalization did not go unchallenged, and the most noteworthy attempt to alter the practice was made by Rabbeinu Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh, c. 1250-1328). He tried to establish the principle that each Jewish community would pray for rain when they actually needed it in their country; this attempt was rebuffed by his contemporaries. The Rosh’s failure to innovate a change in the practice, no matter how sensible it might have seemed, was a major reason why no one in the northern hemisphere ever again challenged the prevailing practice. Questions did arise, however, when Jews migrated to areas in the southern hemisphere, when the order of the seasons is reversed. Rabbinic opinion has usually held that the Babylonian pattern should be followed even when the local winter occurs during summer in Babylonia and vice versa. The result is that to this day, Jews throughout the Diaspora set their liturgical calendar in this regard according to the agricultural needs of Iraq, a country which is now almost devoid of Jews.[3]

On most years...

But why December 4? The Talmud says “the sixtieth day of the autumnal equinox,” and the autumnal equinox this year fell on September 23, 2007, at 5:51 AM, on the American eastern seaboard, making the sixtieth day on November 21.[4] The answer to this question is to be found in a miscalculation of the length of the year. Present-day astronomers calculate the mean solar year to be 365.2422 days (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds). This is slightly shorter than the 365.25 days (365 days, 6 hours) assumed by Samuel, the third century amora and astronomer, who gave the rules for calculating the equinoxes and solstices (Eruvin 56a). This is the same assumption which is at the basis of the Julian calendar as well.

The discrepancy between the assumed length of the year and actual length may not seem like much; it is only .0078 days (11 minutes, 14 seconds) a year. Yet, over a period of a thousand years, a difference of 7.8 days (1000 x .0078) exists between a system based on assumed length (the Julian calendar or Samuel’s tequfot) and one based on actual length. It is this difference which led the Catholic Church under Pope Gregory XIII to correct the Julian calendar by dropping 10 days in 1582 (the day after Thursday, October 4 became Friday, October 15), thus creating the Gregorian calendar. To prevent further problems, three leap years were eliminated every 400 years, so that only century years divisible by 400 were leap years. This system, which eventually caught on in the whole world, is not perfect, since in 3300 years another one day discrepancy accumulates.

In Samuel’s calculation, however, there are exactly 365 ¼ days in a year, and each tequfah (solstice or equinox) lasts exactly 91 days and 7 ½ hours (despite the disparate lengths of the various seasons). One autumnal equinox (tequfat tishrei) falls exactly 365 ¼ days after the previous one. Samuel’s calculation has kept in step with the Julian calendar throughout the centuries, and, therefore, just as in Samuel’s time tequfat tishrei fell on the Julian September 24, so, too, today it invariably falls on that date. In this century, however, the Julian September 24 is the Gregorian October 7. The sixtieth day after October 7 is December 5, and one generally begins saying tal u-matar in the Maariv before December 5, namely on December 4.

... but this year.

So why is this year different from all other years, or at least the last three years? This is a function of the exact hour when the equinox falls. Although it is always on October 7, in a four year cycle the tequfah will come at 03:00, 09:00, 15:00 and 21:00 (check your synagogue luah for the times). The fourth year is always a Hebrew year divisible by four (5768), or the year before a civil leap year (2008); in that year, tequfat tishrei is after dark (21:00) and, therefore, it is considered the next day (October 8). Fifty-nine days later is December 6 and tal u-matar begins in Maariv of December 5. Since the coming civil year adds an additional day, next year’s calculated autumnal equinox will again fall on October 7 at 03:00, and tal u-matar will again begin in Maariv of December 4. In the nineteenth century, the prayer for rain began in Maariv of December 3 or 4; since 1900 was not a leap year, it jumped to December 4 or 5 in the twentieth century. 2100 will also not be a leap year, and in the twenty-second century, tal u-matar will begin in Maariv of December 5 or 6. Given enough time, and no calendrical reform, eventually Jews outside Israel will start praying for rain only on the eve of Passover, just in time to stop this prayer when Passover begins.[5]

A few observations can be added to this description of the beginning time of the prayer for rain in the Diaspora. First, the same miscalculation which causes the “sixtieth day of the autumnal equinox” to move forward vis-à-vis the sun is at the base of another Jewish ritual, the once in 28 years “Blessing of the Sun” (Birkat ha-Hammah), scheduled to occur again in one year and five months on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 (coincidentally, fourteenth of Nisan, the eve of Passover; the last time was on Wednesday, April 8, 1981). In the nineteenth century, the Blessing of the Sun occurred on Wednesday, April 7, every 28 years; in the twenty-second century it will be on Wednesday, April 9, every 28 years. Despite the fact that the Blessing commemorates the cyclical repetition of the first vernal equinox at creation, it now falls 18 days after the actual astronomical equinox.

Furthermore, it is clear from the sources that each Jewish community is actually praying for rain for its own needs, and not for rain in the Land of Israel. Nevertheless, many Jews, even relatively knowledgeable ones, think that adding tal u-matar to the prayers on December 5 marks the beginning of the rainy season in Israel, not realizing that she’elat geshamim had already begun in Israel on the seventh of Marheshvan. Perhaps one of the sources of this widespread misconception is the fact that the astronomical sixtieth day of the equinox has meaning only for Iraq, if even there, and the calculated sixtieth day has no meaning anywhere. Thus, when Jews in the Diaspora start praying for rain on December 4, they mistakenly think that they are doing so for the residents of the Land of Israel.

Perhaps their prayers are still valuable. From my experience, often November is a dry month in Israel, and the winds pick up and the rain starts falling only in the first week of December. The sages tell us that the reason Israel has distinct wet and dry seasons and is so dependent upon rainfall (as compared to Egypt; cf. Deut. 11:10-12) is that God delights in hearing the prayers of the righteous who turn to Him in supplication for rain. Perhaps, the beginning of serious rain in the Land of Israel at the beginning of December, just as the prayer for rain starts in the Diaspora, is a sign that God actually delights in the prayers of the ignoramuses, who believe that their supplications for rain at that time are directed for the good of the Jews in the Land of Israel, not realizing that their prayers should be intended to bring rain to their own countries of residence. Whatever the case, we wish along with the High Priest on Yom Kippur that this year in Israel will, indeed, be very wet and not too cold, and that the rain will be only for a blessing!

Notes:
[1] For a discussion of the Babylonian custom, and the reasons behind it, see Arnold A. Lasker and Daniel J. Lasker, "The Jewish Prayer for Rain in Babylonia," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 15 (1984): 124-144.
[2] In the words of the commentary attributed to Rashi on Ta’anit 10a: “Thus we act since all our customs follow the Babylonians (kol minhageinu ahar benei bavel).”
[3] For a fuller description of the long process described in these few sentences, see Arnold A. Lasker and Daniel J. Lasker, "The Jewish Prayer for Rain in the Post-Talmudic Diaspora," AJS Review 9:2 (Fall 1984): 141-174.
[4] The equinoxes and solstices fall at the same instant all around the world, so in Israel, the autumnal equinox was at 12:51 PM; in Hawaii, at 12:51 AM; all times are daylight savings times.
[5] Details can be found in Arnold A. Lasker and Daniel J. Lasker, “The Strange Case of December 4: A Liturgical Problem,” Conservative Judaism 38:1 (Fall 1985): 91-99.

]]> Daniel J. Lasker Historical Oddities Relating to Siddur Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/30/Daniel-J-Lasker--December-6-Is-Coming-Get-Out-the-Umbrellas Review of Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot He-Hadash http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/28/Review-of-Kuntress-HaTeshuvot-HeHadash Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot He-Hadash, A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature published from ca. 1470-2000, ed. Shmuel Glick, vol. II, Jerusalem & Ramat-Gan, 2007, [4], 11, 483, [4].

I have briefly mentioned previously the bibliography on the Teshuva seforim, Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot He-Hadash ("KTH"). The second of four volumes has been published and I wanted to provide a more in-depth review of this work. KTH is an update of Boaz Cohen's earlier bibliography, Kuntres Ha-Teshuvot, of Teshuvos seforim. In truth, however, this is far from a standard bibliography and when viewed as merely a bibliography it falls short. There are two basic types of Jewish bibliography works. The first is a "standard" bibliography and contains a meticulous entry of the publication information of a book. So in this type the reader gets the title, author, page count, size and various editions. The second type, while sometimes less exact on the technical side makes up for that by including additional information either about the contents of the book or the author. An shining example of the second type is the Hida's Shem HaGedolim. KTH, while it has some of the first type is much stronger if viewed as in the Shem HaGedolim category.

KTH provides the basic information for each entry. The information includes: title, author, place[s] the author lived, years the author lived, a description of the book, sources for biographical information on the author, various printings of the book, and where the editors have seen the book recorded. In the bibliographical sense, KTH does not attempt to provide information on every printing of a particular book. Thus, one looking for a complete history of printing will be disappointed. That said, today, with the ease of viewing almost every major library's catalog online locating a particular edition is not too difficult.

Instead, what KTH provides is something a typical library catalog cannot - detailed information on the content of the books. For many, although not all, of the books listed in KTH there are detailed description of many of the questions that appear in the book in question. And, I cannot emphasis enough how much information they provide at times it is amazing as not only do they provide the details of the book itself the editors also provide articles on the topic in question or citations to other books that discuss the same or a similar question. A few examples from the literally hundreds of such entries. In the entry for מלחמות אלקים by R. Bernard Illowy (2266) they list some of the teshuvos in the sefer one is teshuva no. 4:

סי' 4: תשובות מאת המחבר ומאת ר' שמשון רפאל הירש ור' נתן אדלר בעניין כשרות עוף הברברי . . . על הפולמוס בעניין עוף זה, ועל תשובות המחבר, ראה ז' עמר וא' זיבטפסקי, "כשרות הברברי והמולרד", המעין מד, א (תשס"ד) עמ' 35-42, נ"י וינברגר, "והעוף ירב בארץ", ישורון יד (תשס"ד) עמ' תתקט-תתקלא

KTH is full of such entries. Another example, is the entry for מקוה ישראל (no. 2438) one of the books on the controversy regarding the mikvah in Rovigo. Again not only is the controversy mentioned merely as it appears in the book, instead, a nice bibliography on the controversy generally is provided. To wit,

על הפולמוס ראה: גרשון כהן, "לתולדות הפולמוס על סתם יינם באיטליה ומקורותיו," סיני עז (תשל"ה) עמ' סב-צ, יהודה בלוי, כתבי הרב יהודה אריה ממודינא, בודאפשט תרס"ו, עמ' 127-137, י' זנה, "הבדותה על דבר הספר מלחמות ה' בעניין המקוה מרוויגו", קרית ספר י (תרצ"ד), עמ' 360-364, מ' בניהו,"ספרים שחיברם ר' משה חאג'יז וספרים שהוצים לאור", עלי ספר ב (תשל"ו) עמ' 132 הע' 31, וראה עוד על הפולמוס ועל הדף "בשם ה'" שצורף לספר, מחקרי ספר, עמ' 420-429. וראה גם י' יודלוב, "פסקי דין של רבני ויניציאה משנת שס"ט" סיני מג (תשל"ט) עמ' קסו-קעב הע' 11

Or, the entry for the נודע ביהודה, the editors (no. 2627) document the well-worn and imaginary story that some editions of the נודע ביהודה were changed. Specifically, the famous teshuva discussing the recitation of לשם יחוד ends with a sharp barb at Hassidim. R. Landau substituted חסידים for פושעים. Many have recorded that in some editions this was changed back to the original reading. While that might be a good story there is no evidence that in any edition the passage in question was ever altered from the original. The entry lists many of those who record the story albeit with slightly different facts (they analyze the following sources: Beis Rebbi, Mekor Barukh, MiDor Dor, Medi Hodesh b'Hodsho, Imrei Shammai, and Mofesh HaDor) and then demonstrates the falicy of the story. Just two small additions to the entry are worthwhile pointing out. First, although many who record the story are listed, Dr. Sperber, in Minhagei Yisrael also was taken by this story (vo. 2 p. 118). Second, the only source provided that discusses the permissabilty of reciting לשם יחוד is the Hida in Machzik Berakha, O"C, 231:1. At the very least, R. Chaim Czernovitz, Sha'ar Ha-Teffilah should be mentioned as it is an attempt to rebut the position of R. Landau. See also Sperber's discussion in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2 115-18, vol. 3 186-209.

The entry for מספד תמרורים (no. 2366) states:
עמ' 7-8: "נשאלתי בהא דנוהגי' הגבאי' בהלוי' המת כשיש בידם הקופות שקוראי' 'צדקה תציל ממות' דהרי הוי לועג לרש וחרף עושהו וממש דמגרה עם המת שלכן מת כיון שלא נתן צדקה ואלו הי' נותן צדקה לא הי' מת? ע"כ

Aside from the "extraneous" information, information about various printings is provided as well. In the entry for the נחלת שבעה (no. 2667) the editors note that Efrahim Koffer found an autograph manuscript of the work that contains additional teshuvot and information. The editors also note that this new material was included in the 2006 edition of the נחלת שבעה. The editors point out, however, that in the 2006 edition they were "unaware" that Koffer found and published this additional material first. Moreover, the editors provide additional information on other manuscripts of the נחלת שבעה. Other entries contain which editions are lacking or have been changed.

The entries also provide sources for biographical information of the authors. The sources run the gamut from academic sources to biographies in the Yated Ne'eman (see, e.g. no. 2057).
All the information provided makes this a highly readable work and more importantly, provides the reader with much information that is difficult to locate otherwise. This work when competed in four volumes, will be the standard work in the field.

]]> New Books Book Reviews Bibliographies Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/28/Review-of-Kuntress-HaTeshuvot-HeHadash A Review of Beis Havaad by Eliezer Brodt http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/25/A-Review-of-Beis-Havaad-by-Eliezer-Brodt

Beis Havaad, Le'arechat Kitvei Rabboseinu, ed. Yoel Hakoton and Eliyahu Soloveitchik, (Jerusalem, 2003); 272 pp.

Beis Havaad is a collection of articles based on a series of lectures that were delivered in Yerushalayim dealing with many aspects of the proper way seforim should be published. Beis Havaad was originally intended to be a journal but, to date, no other issue has appeared. With its focus on books, it is only proper that a review of this book should appear at the Seforim blog -- albeit somewhat belatedly -- and discuss some of the many important points raised in this book.

This book is a collection of articles from many of the top names in the field of printing and editing of seforim and includes articles by both rabbanim and professors. This sefer is basically a must have for anyone who wants to understand how seforim are printed, how to write them, how to find information and the importance of printing proper texts. Although I believe it is currently out of print, The sefer is available at Beigeleisen and many of the articles can be accessed online here. I will list some of the many points of interest raised in the various articles in the book.

The book begins with an excellent article by Professor S.Z. Havlin regarding the importance of establishing the correct text of the seforim and using manuscripts. He gives some great practical samples demonstrating his points. Havlin also explains and examines the Hazon Ish’s position regarding the use of manuscripts and the need (or lack thereof) to establish a correct text. At the end of the article, Havlin highlights a source not typically used in the discussion about manuscripts etc. Havlin notes that the topic was touched upon in Chaim Potok’s novel The Promise. Havlin is not the only one to deal with this topic in Beis Havaad, R. Eliyahu Soloveitchik, in his article also discusses this topic. Both of these discussions add some more points to this ongoing discussion amongst talmidei hakhamim and scholars alike regarding the use of manuscripts and correcting texts. [I shall return to this topic at greater length in a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.]

Professor Havlin also mentions a bit about the derech halimud of R. Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Additionally, included in this journal is a reprint of much of R. Kaplan's work on the topic. This work of R. Kaplan is a very special blueprint of how to print an extensive commentary on shas. [This great goan and his works will be the subject of a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.] With permission of the family, they printed parts of this fascinating project which unfortunately never came to full fruition.

Another important article in this journal is from R. Hillel Parush of Machon Harav Herzog and deals with other aspects of the nusach of the Talmud. Amongst the topics that he discusses is the the Hagahos of the Maharshal on the gemara, if they were from based on logical deduction or manuscripts. [For more on this topic, see Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, Amudim b’Toldot Sefer HaIvri, Haghot u’Maghim, pp. 279-85.]

There are at least three articles discussing exactly how one should edit seforim. Each of these articles contribute different, yet offer very important points for discussion. The first is from R. Y. Weiss who was the editor of the excellent journal, Tzefenous. He gives many practical samples on mistakes found in various classical seforim and how he would suggest these mistakes be corrected. Following R. Weiss’s article on the topic is another article on the topic from Professor Robert Brody of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, famous for his work on the geonim. Specifically, Brody's article discusses how after tracking down all the manuscripts of a specific sefer, the next step is to establish which manuscript is the most accurate text to base the actual text of the sefer. He also points out how one has to be very careful to be crystal clear when printing a sefer to note one's methods in coming to the decision of which manuscript to use. [As Prof. Brody notes, this whole topic is a very complicated one, one that takes him a few months to teach how exactly this is done. Here, however, he provides an outline of some of the more salient points.]

R. Yoel Koton, co-editor of this volume and editor of the Hamaayan, has an in-depth article with all the rules of writing an article or sefer. Amongst the topics are all rules of grammar and how to quote the sources exactly. This is an extremely important article and anyone who is printing anything for the public should look at it as he raises many important issues. Amongst the points he raises are: the need to cite exactly what source is being quoted, including the edition used as many times there can be many works with the same name or even of the same author with different printings and one trying to track it down has great difficulty doing so; and, consulting experts on particular topics. Koton gives the example of if one is working on Mesechtas Rosh Hashana and comes to the topics relating to Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh, he should consult people who are familiar with astronomy. [One who looks at the work of R. Chaim Kanivesky on Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh will see how he consulted an expert on these topics.] As R. Zev Lev writes, in his introduction to Marchei Lev, how he used to explain and discuss the various aspects of science with R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he was working on his teshuvos about opening a refrigerator on Shabbos.

Another article of interest is from Benjamin Richler where he discusses the history of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), situated in the Manuscripts and Archives Wing on the ground floor of the Jewish National and University Library, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[2] Richler writes that 95% of the Jewish manuscripts in the world can be found there, either through microfilm, or actual text. This was written a few years ago. More recently, Richler writes only 90% can be found here. Be that as it may, an extremely large percentage of the Jewish manuscripts in the world are found there. He writes that a very large percentage of the halachic works of the Rishonim have been printed. But on kabbalah and other topics there are still many works in manuscript. Richler encourages anyone working on a work of the Rishonim or Achronim to check if perhaps there’s another manuscript that will help them print a more accurate text of the work. See also Benjamin Richler's posts (here and here) offering some examples on the benefits of the JNUL manuscript room. The catalog is available online, and it is very easy to navigate through. The staff of the manuscript room is very helpful.

Another article is by Ezra Schwat, also of the JNUL Manuscript Room. His article has a list of all the different helpful websites for one to find different manuscripts. These sites are very helpful for all different kinds of research related to all Jewish areas. Another article is from Professor Spiegel, one of the heads of the Bar Ilan Responsa project. He writes that it is very important for any person working on a sefer to use the Bar Ilan program and similar programs, as they are extremely helpful, especially for locating sources. This article was written before the waves of hard drives from Otzar Hachochma, Otzar Haposkim, Otzros Hatorah, and Hebrewbooks.org which are also important to use.

Another important article was written by Rabbi Mordechai Honig. This article is a continuation of an article from Professor Simcha Emanuel, available here, about the great necessity of an updated version of the sefer Sarei Haelef from Rabbi Menahem M. Kasher. The last updated print edition of the Sarei Haelef was in 1979 and much has been printed since then. Emanuel began to list in his article some of the updates and Hoenig gives another few hundred additions. The work is extremely important. Many times when one is working on a topic, one is curious to know if a work quoted by a Rishon was actually printed, or if there was any historical information about the Rishon. One can turn to this reference. But, as both Emanuel and Hoenig show, Sarei Haelef really requires an comprehensive update.

Included in this journal is an article from Rav Yitzchak Shilat dealing with one of his pet projects, the reprinting of the Perush HaMishnah of the Rambam. There is also an article describing the important project of Halacha Berurah based on R. Kook.

One of the articles which seems to be completely out of place of the spirit of this journal is written by R. Yehuda Liba ben Dovid. This author has written many excellent articles in different Torah journals, some of which he collected and printed in a very interesting sefer called Shevet Mi’Yehuda. Reprinted here is an article that was printed many times before, which is his macha’a (objection) on the way many frum authors write their works. His first problem is on two works printed from Machon Ofek, one called the Teshuvos Hagaonim Hachadashos by Prof. Simcha Emanuel and another called Teshuvos R’ Naturnai Gaon by Professor Robert Brody. His main complaint is that both of these works use Christian, Greek, Karai and Maskilic sources. He says that there’s no reason for a frum work to quote any of these works today. He writes that there is a reason why these works aren’t found in the local beis medrash or yeshiva library. Another example he gives is Ahavat Shalom reprinted a work on minhagim called Kesser Shem Tov from Shem Tov Gagen. This author also brings quote in his work from Christians, Karaim, and Reform Jews. Again, R. ben Dovid writes that he doesn’t understand how a respected publishing house could reprint this work. He goes on to list some other examples and complaints.

In my humble opinion I beg to differ on this point. The basic problem with R. ben Dovid’s article is that what he is suggesting runs directly counter to a significant portion of Beis Havaad and general common sense. As the Rambam teaches: Halomed Mikol Adam. Even if the sources aren’t religious or Jewish at all, if they have a good point, they may be quoted. Granted, this approach has been debated throughout the generations by many. In litvish circles, most notably, R. Yosef Zecharia Stern held that one may quote all sources as long as one realizes who he is quoting. Today in the field of Jewish academics and printing new seforim, there’s much to be learned from the way scholars, even non-Jewish ones, have presented their works, and sometimes they might have good point or two that’s beneficial for the work at hand. For example, if one is working on medical halakhic questions, he can’t just rely on the words of the poskim, but he must be familiar with updated studies in the scholarly world of medicine and to be at least aware of what they write about the various medical conditions before he reaches his conclusions. Knowledge of history is also very important especially in learning halakha as one needs to know who learnt by whom and who was born first, all of which plays a great role in deciding halakha. It is quite obvious to all that the Chida in his classic work Shem Hagedolim was not wasting his time when he wrote it.

There are many other examples of why this is important. For another example, see the excellent Haskamah of R. Shlomo Cohen to the Otzar Haseforim [a bibliography of Hebrew books] by Ben Yakov a Maskil - yes, a maskil – how, according to R. Yehudah, could he give a haskamah to such a work. So to in printing these works of Gaonim, Rishonim and even Achronim many times it is very helpful to be aware of history of the time in order to understand there words. Many times statements of the Geonim it has been proven how many things they wrote were specifically against the Karaim (there are numerous examples of this). Of course, no one is suggesting to pasken based on these Karaim or Christian sources, but it just helps one understand the specific words of the Gaonim and Rishonim. Great people had no problem using works that quoted such sources just to list a few: R. Mordechai Gifter, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg and R. Reuven Margoliyot all quote Prof. Saul Leiberman in their writings, as they did not seem to be bothered by R. ben Dovid's concern. (many others have hid it see Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox).

Another example is when Professor A. Sofer, who also taught at JTS, passed away late at night. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who was a good friend of his, was feeling very weak than yet he made it his business to attend the funeral as a hakarat hatov for all R. Sofer’s work on the Meiri’s writings. (See Yeshurun, vol. 15, p. 501). When one works on minhagim it’s very helpful to be familiar with the history of the time in order to understand the development of certain things as Professor Daniel Sperber ably demonstrates time and time again in his now-eight-volume set of Minhagei Yisrael. Recently an excellent work on minhaghim came out from the ultra-Orthodox -- as opposed to academic -- circles called Mihnaghei Hakehilos by R. Yehiel Goldhaber. R. Goldhaber also uses such sources and he has received many haskamot from various gedolim. In sum it is important to use all available sources to understand what ever topic one is working on.

Of course, there is the very important point to all this which Professor Lieberman said many times, that the most important thing is to learn real Torah. All of these things are helpful but only a tafal to the learning. All of Professor Lieberman's excellent writings on Greek in Jewish Palestine were on the side his main learning goals was to complete his works on the Tosefta and Yerushalmi.

In all, Beis Havaad, is an extremely important collection of articles on the topic of seforim in general.


]]> Eliezer Brodt New Books Book Reviews Benjamin Richler S.Z. Havlin Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/25/A-Review-of-Beis-Havaad-by-Eliezer-Brodt Where's Shai Agnon Revisited http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/21/Wheres-Shai-Agnon-Revisited
You may recall that in a prior post we noted that in the Reinetz edition of the Pirush Ba'al HaTurim al HaTorah is a victim of censorship. Specifically, Reinetz quotes a story about how quickly the Tur wrote his commentary on the Torah. In the early edition of Reinetz's work, Shai Agnon is cited as the source while in later editions Agnon is removed.

In the comments, however, some took issue with the need to cite to Agnon as Agnon was ultimately citing to another work, Kol Dodi, and thus, according to some commentators, so long as Reinetz cites to the Kol Dodi it is ok. These commentators' opinion is premised on the notion that Kol Dodi is another work. As was noted in the comments there is no such published work. Although there is no published work with that name that contains this story, there is still some abiguity as it could be Agnon was cited to an earlier work in manuscript. Now, however, we can put that all to rest and conclusively show that the only source is Agnon.

As mentioned previously, we hope to provide comprehensive reviews of Y.S. Spiegel's Tolodot Sefer HaIvri, in that vein, we came across the following footnote (vol. 1, p. 29 n.8) where Spiegel discusses Agnon's Kol Dodi:

יש לציין לדברי ש"י עגנון בספרו ספר סופר וסיפור, ירושלים, תשל"ח, עמ' ק, בשם ספר קול דודי:"בשעה שהיו ישראל עולין לרגל היו מביאין עמהם ספרי תורה שלהם והיו מגיהין אותם מספר עזרא הסופר שהיה מונח בעזרה." פירוש מעניין שלא מצאתיו במפרשים. אמנם כפי שכתבה לי בטובה בתו גב' אמונה ירון, ותודתי נתונה לה בזה, כינה אביה בשם קול דודי את חידושיו עצמו (וראה שם ברשימת המקורות, עמ' תנט, שנאמר על ספר קול דודי שהוא כת"י המחבר.) וכן אמר עגנון עצמו לדוד כנעני, כפי שכתב האחרון בספרו ש"י עגנון בעל פה, תל אביב, תשל"ב, עמ' 34-35

I wish to cite to Shai Agnon's statement in his work Sefer Sofer v'Sippur where he cites in the name of the work Kol Dodi . . . this statement in the name of Kol Dodi is very nice, however I have not found it in any other commentaries. But, according to what Emunah Yaron, Agnon's daughter told me, her father used the title Kol Dodi for stories of his [Agnon's] own creation . . . Furthermore, Agnon himself told David Kenanin as much . . . .


Thus, there is no doubt that in fact the only source for this story regarding the Ba'al HaTurim is Agnon and Reinetz cannot be absolved removing Agnon's name and citing to Kol Dodi, a fictitious work.

Update:
In the comments to this post Professor Lawrence Kaplan kindly brought to our attention a great article by G. Scholem that appeared in Commentary Magazine titled 'Reflections On S.Y. Agnon' (Commentary Dec. 1967 44:6) where Scholem reviews Agnon the person and his works.
Scholem refers to Agnon's famous anthology, Yamim Noraim and writes "With his caustic sense of humor he [Agnon] included a number of highly imaginative (and imaginary) passages, cullled from his own vineyard, a nonexistent book, Kol Dodi ('The Voice of my Beloved'), innocently mentioned in the bibliography as 'a manuscript in possession of the author.'''

Professor Kaplan then adds: It also follows that one cannot excuse Agnon for this (in my view rather innocent) deception on the grounds that he only referred to Kol Dodi in Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur, which he did not prepare for publication.

The truth is that Scholem made a mistake as in the bibliography of both Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur and Yamim Noraim, Kol Dodi is listed and described as "כת"י המחבר" meaning a manuscript of the author - himself not as Scholem translates it "a manuscript in possession of the author." Scholem's description of Kol Dodi is based on the English version translation! Addtionally, in the three places which Agnon quotes from this work in his Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur it appears to be a collection of stuff he heard from people on topics similar to the Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur. But it do not appear that Agnon was trying to fool anyone to a nonexistent book

]]> Censorship Amudim bTolodot Sefer HaIvri Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/21/Wheres-Shai-Agnon-Revisited Rabbi Chaim Rapoport on the Contemporary &#39;Tribe of Levi&#39; in Maimonides&#39; Mishneh Torah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/18/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport-on-the-Contemporary-39Tribe-of-Levi39-in-Maimonides39-Mishneh-Torah

In response to Professor Menachem Kellner's thoughtful post at the Seforim blog regarding Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz's recent article in the latest issue of Tradition and subsequent response at the Seforim blog, frequent contributor to the Seforim blog, Rabbi Chaim Rapoport of London, presents his latest offering below:

שבט לוי" בספר 'משנה תורה' להרמב"ם[1] ובזמן הזה"

תגובות למאמר החכם פרופסר מנחם קלנר

הרב חיים רפופורט

לונדון אנגלי'

הקדמה

בספר 'משנה תורה', בסוף הלכות שמיטה ויובל (פי"ג הי"ב והי"ג) ובסיום 'ספר זרעים', כתב הרמב"ם[2]: ולמה לא זכה[3] לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל ובביזתה עם אחיו, מפני שהובדל לעבוד את ה' לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים[4], שנאמר (פ' ברכה לג, יו"ד) 'יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל'.[5] לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם; לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל, ולא נוחלין, ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן[6], אלא הם חיל השם שנאמר (שם, יא) 'ברך ה' חילו', והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם שנאמר (פ' קרח יח, כ) 'אני חלקך ונחלתך'. ולא שבט לוי בלבד אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו[7] להבדל לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה[8] את ה' והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלקים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם[9] הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים[10] ויהי' ה' חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים ויזכה לו בעולם הזה[11] דבר המספיק לו[12] כמו שזכה לכהנים וללוים[13], הרי דוד עליו השלום[14] אומר (תהלים טז, ה), 'ה' מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי'. עד כאן לשון הרמב"ם.

והנה זה עתה מצאתי ב'אתר הספרים', המיוחד למאמרי חכמים וסופרים, שקלא וטריא בביאור דברי הנשר בידו, זה אומר בכה וזה מראה באצבעו לעומתו.

ואמרתי אף אני אענה את חלקי שהניחו לי, פרי עמלי בביאור דברי המיימוני, ואינני אומר קבלו דעתי, רק ירא הקהל וישפוט: הדין עם מי.

"כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם"

א) במאמרו שנדפס זה עתה ב'אתר הספרים', כתב ידידי החכם פרופ. מנחם קלנר, שכוונת הרמב"ם בביטויו "כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם" היא ליהודים וגויי הארצות כאחד.

והנני בזה, לכל לראש, לציין לתנא דמסייע לי' בזה:

באגרת כ"ק אדמו"ר מליובאוויטש זי"ע מיום ג' תמוז ה'תשכ"ד[15] עמד ג"כ על דברי הרמב"ם אלו, ועל המילים "כל באי העולם" כתב בזה הלשון: "כולל גם אומות העולם - ראה ראש השנה פ"א מ"ב ['בראש השנה כל באי העולם עוברין לפניו כבני מרון שנאמר (תהלים לג, טו) היוצר יחד לבם המבין אל כל מעשיהם'] . . . - כי חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא (רמב"ם הל' מלכים סוף פ"ח[16])". עכ"ל.[17]

גם מבואר מדבריו, דס"ל דזה שגם גוי מ'אומות העולם' יכול להגיע לדרגת 'קדש קדשים', אין זה בגלל יכולתו להתגייר[18] ולהתעלות למדריגות גבוהות ככל ישראל ('ככם כגר'), כי אם שגם בהיותו גוי יכול להתקדש עד כדי כך ש"יהי' ה' חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים", וכהא דקיי"ל ש"חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא"[19].

ובמקום אחר[20] ציין אדמו"ר לכמה מקומות בספר 'משנה תורה' שבהם השתמש הרמב"ם בביטוי "באי עולם" או "באי העולם", והכוונה נראית ברורה, שר"ל 'כל בני אדם', ואלו הם:

(א) הל' תשובה פ"ג ה"ג ["בכל שנה ושנה שוקלין עונות כל אחד ואחד מבאי העולם עם זכיותיו ביום טוב של ראש השנה]; (ב) שם פ"ו ה"ג ["ולמה הי' שולח לו ביד משה ואומר שלח ועשה תשובה וכבר אמר לו הקב"ה אין אתה משלח כו' כדי להודיע לבאי העולם שבזמן שמונע הקב"ה התשובה לחוטא אינו יכול לשוב אלא ימות ברשעו"]; (ג) הל' ספר תורה פ"י הי"א "שהוא העד הנאמן לכל באי עולם"]; (ד) הל' סנהדרין פי"ב ה"ג ["הרי כל באי עולם בצורת אדם הראשון הם נבראים"]; (ה) הל' מלכים פ"ח הי"א ["וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל מצות שנצטוו בני נח"].

ועליהם יש להוסיף: (ו) נוסח התפלה הנמצא ב'סדר תפלות לכל השנה'[21] הנקבע בספר 'משנה תורה' להרמב"ם בסוף ספר 'אהבה': "קבץ קויך מארבע כנפות הארץ יכירו וידעו כל באי עולם כי אתה הוא האלקים לבדך לכל ממלכות הארץ".

ויש להעיר גם ממ"ש הרמב"ם ב'פירוש המשנה' עמ"ס ביכורים. במשנה שם (פ"א מ"ד) שנינו: "אלו מביאין ולא קורין, הגר מביא ואינו קורא, שאינו יכול לומר 'אשר נשבע ה' לאבותינו'[22]". ובפירוש המשנה שם כתב הרמב"ם, דלהלכה לא קיי"ל כמשנה זו אלא ש"מביא הגר עצמו בכורים וקורא, וסמכוהו למה שאמר ה' לאברהם (פ' לך יז, ה) 'כי אב המון גוים נתתיך', אמרו[23] לשעבר הייתה אב לארם עכשיו אב לכל העולם כולו, ולפיכך אפשר לכל גר לומר 'אשר נשבע ה' לאבותינו', מפני שאברהם אב לכל באי העולם לפי שלימדם האמונה והדת", וגם בדבריו אלו הכוונה היא לגוים[24], וכמ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' ע"ז (פ"א ה"ג) על אברהם אבינו, ד"כיון שהכיר וידע (אברהם את בוראו) . . . התחיל לעמוד ולקרוא בקול גדול לכל העולם ולהודיעם שיש שם אלו-ה אחד לכל העולם ולו ראוי לעבוד, והי' מהלך וקורא ומקבץ העם מעיר לעיר ומממלכה לממלכה . . . שנאמר (פ' וירא כא, לג), ויקרא שם בשם ה' א-ל עולם".[25]

ואם ישאל השואל: היאך שייך שמי שאין לו קדושת ישראל יוכל "לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה'", אף אתה אמור לו: עבודת ה' ושירותו שייכות גם באומות העולם, וכמבואר ממ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' ע"ז שם, ש"כיון שהכיר [אברהם אבינו] וידע (את בוראו) התחיל . . . להודיע לעם שאין ראוי לעבוד אלא לאלו-ה העולם כו' כדי שיכירוהו כל הברואים הבאים", ע"ש.

וגם לדורות נצטווינו, (כמ"ש הרמב"ם[26]), "שנדרוש ונקרא האנשים כולם לעבודתו יתעלה ולהאמין בו . . . כי כשתאהב אדם תשים לבך עליו ותשבחהו ותבקש האנשים לאהוב אותו . . . ולשון סיפרי[27] 'ואהבת את ה' וגו', אהבהו על הבריות כאברהם אביך, שנאמר (פ' לך יב, ה) ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן', ר"ל, כמו שאברהם בעבור שהי' אוהב השם כמו שהעיד הכתוב (ישעי' מא, ח) 'אברהם אוהבי' שהי' גם כן לגודל השגתו דרש האנשים אל האמונה מחוזק אהבתו, כן אתה אהוב אותו עד שתדרוש האנשים אליו".

[וכן יהי' בימות המלך המשיח ש"ילמד כל העם ויורה אותם דרך ה' ויבואו כל הגוים לשומעו, שנאמר (ישעי' ב, ב[28]), 'והי' באחרית הימים נכון יהי' הר בית ה' בראש ההרים[29] ונשא מגבעות ונהרו אליו כל הגוים'," ויתקן "את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה' ביחד, שנאמר (צפני' ג, ט) כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה', ולעבדו שכם אחד"[30]].

ע"פ כל הנ"ל מבואר שהרמב"ם בסוף הל' שמיטה ויובל מדבר על כל מי ש"נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו", וכל איש ואיש מבאי העולם – אפילו גוי – יכול להתקדש 'קדש קדשים'[31].

"לְבַד רְאֵה זֶה מָצָאתִי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹקִים אֶת הָאָדָם יָשָׁר וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים" (קהלת ז, כט).

ב) הרמב"ם רקם בתוך דבריו את הכתוב בספר קהלת וכתב: "כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו כו' והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלקים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם".

פרופסר קלנר נסתבך קצת בדברי הרמב"ם אלו, והעלה שאולי כוונתו לחלוק על מ"ש המקובלים בענין חטא עה"ד.

אבל באמת נראה שכוונת הרמב"ם פשוטה, ודבריו עשירים במקום אחר - בספרו 'מורה נבוכים' חלק שלישי פרק יב. ב'מורה' שם הגדיר וביאר שלשה מיני 'רעה' שנפגעים בהם בני אדם בעולם הזה, ו"המין השלישי מן הרעות הוא מה שימצא כל אחד מבני אדם מפעולתו בעצמו, וזהו הרוב . . . ומרעות זה המין יצעקו בני אדם כולם . . . ועל זה המין מן הרעות אמר שלמה (משלי יט, ג) אולת אדם תסלף דרכו וגו', וכבר ביאר גם כן בזה המין מן הרעות שהוא פועל האדם בעצמו, והוא אמרו 'לבד ראה זה מצאתי אשר עשה האלקים את האדם ישר והמה בקשו חשבונות רבים', והחשבונות ההם הם אשר הביאו עליו אלו הרעות, ועל זה המין נאמר (איוב ה, ו) כי לא יצא מעפר און ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל, ואח"כ ביאר מיד שהאדם הוא אשר ימציא זה המין מן הרע, ואמר (איוב שם, ז) כי אדם לעמל יולד וגו', וזה המין הוא הנמשך אחר המדות המגונות כולם, ר"ל רוב התאוה במאכל ובמשתה ובמשגל, ולקיחתם ביתרון כמות, או בהפסד סדר, או בהפסד איכות המזונות, ויהי' סיבה לכל החליים והמכות הגשמיות והנפשיות", ע"ש בארוכה.

הרי מבואר שכוונת הרמב"ם במ"ש בהל' שמיטה ויובל "כל איש ואיש . . . אשר נדבה רוחו אותו . . . והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלקים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם", פירושו שלא הביא על עצמו רעה על ידי המשכו אחרי תאוות עולם הזה, וע"כ לא סבל מ"החשבונות ההם". כיון שהלך אך ורק בדרך הישר, לא נגרע מאיכות הטוב אשר בו עשה האלקים את האדם.

"כל איש ואיש . . . אשר נדבה רוחו אותו . . . להבדל"

והנה יש לעיין במה שכתב הרמב"ם בנוגע ל"כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו", דיש לפרש כוונתו בשני אופנים:

(א) שמדבר מכל איש ואיש אשר, כמו שבט לוי ממש, אין לו עסק בנחלת שדה וכרם ואינו זוכה לפרנסתו בכח גופו, כי הבדיל א"ע מכל התעסקות בדרכי העולם וכל ימיו ושנותיו מוקדשים אך ורק לעבודת ה' ולהורות דרכיו לרבים. 32

וממקומו אתה למד, שהרי הרמב"ם כתב את דבריו אודות "כל איש ואיש אשר הבינו מדעו" בהמשך ישר לדבריו מענין התפקידים שהוטלו על שבט הלוי ו'הבדלתם' לעבוד את ה'. וע"כ נראה שכיוון לאותו סוג וגדר של הבדלה המיועדת לשבט הלוי, דהיינו שדיבר כלפי המורמים מעם בכל דור ודור שהבדילו את עצמם להתמסר אך ורק להתפקידים המיועדים לשבט לוי. ומה הם התפקידים המיוחדים לשבט הלוי? גם זה מפורש ב'משנה תורה' על אתר: (א) "לעבוד את ה' ולשרתו"[33]; (ב) "להורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים".

[ויש להוסיף ולהבהיר, שאין בזה סתירה להמבואר לעיל שהרמב"ם הרחיב את המעגל לכלול בתוכו גם אומות העולם, כי "להורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים", שייך, במדה מסויימת, גם באומות העולם, שהרי כבר השריש הרמב"ם ב'ספר המדע' (הל' דעות פ"א ה"ה) מה הם "הדרכים הטובים והישרים" ועל זה הביא (שם ה"ז) הכתוב (פ' וירא יח, יט) "כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו לעשות צדקה", והרי כתב הרמב"ם (בהל' ע"ז שם) שה"אלפים ורבבות" של בני נח (=גוים) שהשפיע עליהם אברהם אבינו עד שהחזירם לדרך האמת34 הם "הם אנשי בית אברהם".35

(ב) שאין הרמב"ם מייחד את דיבורו בהלכה זו לאלו שהובדלו מדרכי העולם לבדם [אשר בהכרח אין סדר זה נחלת הכלל ושייך רק ליחידי סגולה], אלא כוונתו שכל איש ואיש אפילו אלו שאינם נבדלים מדרכי העולם, יכולים להתקדש 'קדש קדשים' על ידי ההתמסרות לחיים מקודשים, דהיינו חיים המוקדשים – כל כולם – לעבודת ה'. ואע"פ שעוסק במשא ומתן ונוהג במנהג דרך ארץ הרי כבר כתב הרמב"ם בהל' דעות (פ"ג ה"ג) שאפשר להיות "עובד את ה' תמיד, אפילו בשעה שנושא ונותן וכו' מפני שמחשבתו בכל כדי שימצא צרכיו עד שיהי' גופו שלם לעבוד את ה'."36]

לפי האופן השני תורף דברי הרמב"ם כך הם: כל אחד ואחד ממש יכול להתדמות ללויים במדה מסויימת. והיינו, דכמו שהלויים היו מיוחדים לעבוד את ה' תמיד, כמו כן כל איש ואיש - אפילו אם אינו משבט לוי ועל כן הוא עוסק בדרכי העולם - יכול להיות עובד ה' תמיד (וכנ"ל מהל' דעות); וכמו ששבטו של לוי זכו למתנות מיוחדות מאת ה' כדי לעזור להם במשימתם המיוחדת, כך יזכה גם הוא לסייעתא דשמיא והקב"ה יספיק לו את צרכיו בזה ובבא.

ואם כי, בדרך כלל, הבינו גדולי הדורות את דברי הרמב"ם באופן הראשון, נראה שמקום הניחו לנו לפרשו גם באופן השני.

ועל פי אופן זה השני יובן מה שינה הרמב"ם בסגנונו: (א) שבהלכה יב, בתיאור שבט לוי, כתב "שהובדל לעבוד את ה' לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים", ואילו בהי"ג, בתיאור נדיבי הרוח מכל באי עולם, כתב "להבדל לעמוד לפני ה' לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את ה'," ואילו "להורות דרכיו כו' לרבים" לא קתני; (ב) שבהלכה יב, בתיאור שבט לוי, כתב ש"הובדלו מדרכי העולם" וביאר כוונתו ש"לא עורכין מלחמה כו' ולא נוחלין ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן", משא"כ בהי"ג בתיאור 'נדיב הרוח', לא כתב שהובדל מדרכי העולם, ובמקום זה הוסיף שני דברים שהם מתפקידי כל אדם הראוי לשמו, ואלו הם: "לדעה את ה'," – וכמ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' דעות ש"צריך האדם שיכוון לבו וכל מעשיו כולם לידע את השם ברוך הוא בלבד"; ש"הלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלקים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם", שכוונתו בזה (כמשנ"ת לעיל ס"ב) שלא נמשך המותרות וכו' המקלקלים את האדם, אשר גם זה הוא הדרך הישר שיבור לו כל אדם וכמ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' דעות.

מחלוקת חכמי המדע: פרופסר קלנר לעומת ר' ארי' לייבאוויץ

ג) והנה במאמרו הנ"ל יצא פרופ. קלנר בסופה ובסערה נגד אלו שהראו מקום לדברי הרמב"ם הנ"ל (הל' שמיטה ויובל פי"ג הי"ג) בקשר לאלו שתורתם אומנתם, [או להורות שיש מקום לחכמי התורה להתלות על נדבות הציבור או להורות על הצורך שיש לתלמידי חכמים להסתפק במועט[37], וכתב דכיון שהרמב"ם מיירי (גם) מגוים, אין לדבריו אלו שום זיק וקשר לאלו שמתמסרים לגמרי ללמוד התורה (והוראת התורה) באופן ד'תורתם אומנתם'.

ואילו הרב לייבאוויץ טען דמה בכך שלשון הרמב"ם 'כל באי העולם' כולל גם גוים, וכי בכלל שהרמב"ם סובר שגם חסידי אומות העולם יכולים להבדל ולהתקדש כשבט לוי, אי אפשר לישראל, מזרע אברהם יצחק ויעקב, להתעלות גם הוא עד כדי כך? יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא!

אמנם נראה שפרופסר קלנר קיצר במקום שהי' לו להאריך. כנראה הוא הבין את דברי הרמב"ם כאופן השני הנ"ל, ד"כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם" לא מיירי באלו (יהודים או גוים) המניחים חיי שעה ועוסקים אך ורק בחיי עולם אלא מכל איש ואיש, כולל אלו שיש להם נחלת שדה וכרם ונהנים מיגיע כפיהם. ועל כן טען שאין ללמוד מדברי הרמב"ם שום דבר בקשר להנהגת חכמי ישראל או (להבדיל) חכמי אומות העולם שהובדלו מדרכי העולם!

אבל ר' ארי' לייבאוויץ הבין דברי הרמב"ם, כמו שהבינו רוב מפרשיו מקדמת דנא, כאופן הראשון הנ"ל, וע"כ ראה בדברי הרמב"ם הדרכה מעשית להתלמידים והחכמים הנבדלים מדרכי העולם.

והבוחר יבחר.

ה' מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי : הא כיצד

ג) והנה, לפי שיטתו הנ"ל, יצא החכם קלנר לחלוק על אלו שמצאו סמוכין בדברי הרמב"ם בסוף הל' שמיטה ויובל הנ"ל, להחזקת בני תורה ורבנים, ישיבות וכוללים וכל הנשענים על תמכין דאורייתא, כמעשה יששכר וזבולון וכשמעון אחי עזרי'[38], ודכוותייהו טובא.[39]

פרופ. קלנר טוען כי אין דברי הרמב"ם שייכים לענין זה כלל, ולא בא הרמב"ם כי אם לומר שהקב"ה הוא הוא ה'תומך שבט' לוי ודכוותי' כל איש ואיש מכל באי עולם, יהיו מי שיהיו, המקדישים את עצמם לגמרי לעבודת ה' – יהי' באיזה אופן שיהי'. [40]

וגם בזה יש מקום לבע"ד לחלוק על דברי פרופ. קלנר.

הנה אמת נכון הדבר, שבדברי הרמב"ם באותה הלכה [המתחלת בתיבות "ולא שבט לוי בלבד"] בלבדה, אין שום הוכחה למעשה תמכין דאורייתא ואופן החזקת תלמידי חכמים ומורי הוראה בימיו ובימינו, כי: (א) לפי האופן השני הנ"ל (שכנראה נקט בו פרופ. קלנר) אין הרמב"ם מדבר בהלכה זו מאלו שתורתם אומנתם כלל, וכמשנ"ת; (ב) גם לאופן הראשון הנ"ל, יש לפרש דמ"ש הרמב"ם "ויזכה לו בעולם הזה דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים וללוים", פירושו שהוא יתברך, בכבודו ובעצמו, ימציא עבורם "בעולם הזה דבר המספיק לו" למלאות צרכיו. [41]

מכל מקום, נראה שעדיין יש מקום בראש לטעון ולומר, שהנהוג בימינו (ועד"ז בדורות קודמים) שתלמידי חכמים ורבנים מוסמכים מקבלים מחייתם מן הציבור, יש לה מעין מקור בדברי הרמב"ם בהלכה זו בצירוף דברי הרמב"ם בהלכה שלפני' ובהלכות אחרות.

הסברת הדברים: בדבר שבט לוי קבע הרמב"ם שבגלל "שהובדל לעבוד את ה' לשרתו . . . לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם; לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל, ולא נוחלין, ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן".

וכאן הבן שואל: התינח שאין בני שבט לוי עורכין מלחמה, הרי אחיהם, בני שאר השבטים, נלחמים בעדיהם. אבל אם אינם נוחלין ואינם עובדים – מהיכן שבט זה חי?

והנה בנוגע לנחלה כבר כתב הרמב"ם בתחלת הפרק ש"שבט לוי אע"פ שאין להם חלק בארץ כבר נצטוו ישראל ליתן להם ערים לשבת ומגרשיהם", אבל עדיין יש מקום לתמוה, דהתינח בתים לשבת בהם, אבל כיון שאין להם נחלת שדה וכרם, מנין יגיע להם (בדרך הטבע) לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש?

ישוב תמיה זו אינו צריך לפנים: הרי הוא מפורש בתורה ושנוי ב'משנה תורה' להרמב"ם ומשולש ומבואר בספרו 'מורה נבוכים'.

כתוב בתורה:

(א) בפרשת ראה יב, יא-יב: וְהָיָה הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹקֵיכֶם בּוֹ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם שָׁמָּה תָבִיאוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם עוֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְזִבְחֵיכֶם מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם וּתְרֻמַת יֶדְכֶם וְכֹל מִבְחַר נִדְרֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר תִּדְּרוּ לַה'. וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי ה' אֱלֹקֵיכֶם אַתֶּם וּבְנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְעַבְדֵיכֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיכֶם וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם, כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה אִתְּכֶם";

(ב) שם יד, כו-כז: "וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאָלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם לִפְנֵי ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ וְשָׂמַחְתָּ אַתָּה וּבֵיתֶךָ. וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לֹא תַעַזְבֶנּוּ כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ";

(ג) שם יד, כט: "וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְאָכְלוּ וְשָׂבֵעוּ לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה"

שנוי ב'משנה תורה' להרמב"ם:

(א) בנוגע לשבט לוי, ברמב"ם הל' חגיגה פ"ב הי"ד: "חייב לשמח העניים והאומללים שנאמר (פרשת ראה טז, יא) 'והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה', מאכיל הכל ומשקן כפי עשרו. ומי שאכל זבחיו ולא שמח אלו עמו, עליו נאמר (הושע ט, ד) 'זבחיהם כלחם אונים להם, כל אוכליו יטמאו, כי לחמם לנפשם', ומצוה בלוי יותר מן הכל לפי שאין לו לא חלק ולא נחלה ואין לו מתנות בבשר, לפיכך צריך לזמן לויים על שולחנו ולשמחם, או יתן להם מתנות בשר עם מעשר שלהם כדי שימצאו בו צרכיהם, וכל העוזב את הלוי מלשמחו ושוהה ממנו מעשרותיו ברגלים, עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר (פרשת ראה יב, יט), 'השמר לך פן תעזוב את הלוי'."[42]

(ב) בנוגע לכהנים, ברמב"ם הל' ביכורים פ"י ה"ה: "כיון שזיכה לו הקב"ה בתרומות שהן לחמו ויינו, וזיכה לו במתנות בהמה וקדשי מקדש שהבשר שלו, זיכה לו בראשית הגז ללבושו, ובגזל הגר והחרמים ושדה אחוזה ופדיון בכורות להוצאותיו ושאר צרכיו, שהרי אין לו חלק בנחלה ובבזה".

ומשולש במורה נבוכים:

ב'מורה נבוכים' חלק שלישי (הנ"ל) עמד הרמב"ם ג"כ על תפקידו המיוחד של שבט לוי וטעמי מצוות מתנות כהונה ולוי', וכתב (בסגנון המקביל למ"ש בהל' שמיטה ויובל), וזה לשונו: "מתנות עניים ענינם מבואר גם כן, ענין התרומה והמעשר כבר ביאר סיבתם, 'כי אין לו חלק ונחלה עמך', וכבר ידעת סיבת זה כדי שיהי' זה השבט כולו מיוחד לעבודת השם ולידיעת התורה, ולא יתעסק לא בחרישה ולא בזריעה רק יהי' להשם לבד, כמ"ש יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל ישימו קטורה וגו', ותמצא דברי התורה במקומות רבים הלוי הגר והיתום והאלמנה, ימנה אותו תמיד בכלל העניים בעבור שאין לו קנין[43]".

[וע"פ כל הנ"ל נראה דמ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' שמיטה ויובל שם, שהכהנים והלויים שהובדלו מדרכי העולם "הם חיל השם . . . והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם", פירושו שהקב"ה מזכה להם מתנות כהונה ולוי' כדי שעי"ז יהי' להם מזון ולבוש, [44] ולשון הרמב"ם "והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם" הוא ע"ד מ"ש בהל' ביכורים שם: "כיון שזיכה לו הקב"ה כו' לחמו ויינו, וזיכה לו במתנות . . . זיכה לו בראשית הגז"].

הוה אומר: לפי דעת הרמב"ם קבעה התורה שהכהנים הלויים אינם מתעסקים בחרישה וזריעה ושאר שבילי פרנסה וכלכלה, וע"כ יהיו 'עניים' ותלויים באחיהם בני שאר השבטים שיפרנסו ויזונו אותם משלהם בתרומות ומעשרות ועוד מתנות עניים.

ועל פי כל הנ"ל הי' נראה לכאורה, שההנהגה (השכיחה גם בימינו) שהמובדלים לעבוד את ה' בלבד יסמכו על הציבור לצורך פרנסתם ופרנסת בני ביתם, אף שאין מקור ברור לזה מדברי הרמב"ם, ה"ה מושרשת ומעוגנת היטב בהיסודות ההגיוניים שהציק הרמב"ם בקשר לשבט לוי.

ואכן מצינו שרבים מגדולי ישראל בימיהם ובימינו ראו ב'שבט לוי' שורש לההשקפה המבססת את תמיכת חכמי התורה בכספי ציבור.

הרי שלש דוגמאות מני הרבה:

(1) בשו"ת 'חתם סופר' אורח חיים סימן רח כתב, וז"ל בא"ד: "כי כשישראל יושבים על אדמתם מלאים כל טוב, כל אחד פונה לכרמו ולזיתו, הבדיל הקב"ה שבט הנבחר והמציא להם פרנסתם בריוח בלי שום עבודה, חרישה וקצירה, וכל שבט אין לו חלק אלא אחד משנים עשר מה שמוציא האדמה דגן תירוש ויצהר, ואותו שבט נוטל חלק העשיריות דגן תירוש ויצהר בלי שום עמל ויגיעה כדי שיהיו פנויים לעבודת ה' ולהורות נתן, אע"ג דתרומת פירות לאו דאורייתא, מכל מקום סגי להו בדגן ותירוש בריוח ותענוגים כלל לא ומשום הכי הטיל עליהם ההוראה, ושבט יששכר הפנויים גם כן על ידי שמצוי להם פרנסתם מזבולון על כן ידעו 'בינה לעתים'[45], אבל הוא הדין כל מי שעושה מלאכתו עראי ותורתו עיקר ומטיל על עצמו עול תורה ועול הציבור ומסתפק במה שהציבור מזמינים לו פרנסתו ואינו רודף אחרי רהבים ושטי כסף, הן המה הכהנים הנגשים אל ה' בכל עת ובכל זמן ובכל מקום מקטירים ומגישים לה' ריח ניחוח".[46]

(2) בשו"ת 'בנין שלמה' להרה"ג ר' שלמה הכהן מווילנא, סימן לג, כתב: ולענין אי שייך האידנא מצות לשמוח את הלוי ברגל, נראה לי דאף דהאידנא לא שייך לשמוח ללויים ממש, כיון שאין להם עבודה ושירות כלל בזמן הזה והם עוסקים במשא ומתן וסחורה כשאר בני ישראל, ואין שייך כלל דיהיו חייבים לשמוח אותם. אבל מכל מקום יש ללמוד מזה דכמו שחייבה התורה לשמוח את הלוי ברגל בזמן הבית, וע"כ דהטעם הוא משום דהכהנים הלויים לא נטלו חלק בארץ וכמו דכתיב בפרשת שופטים (יח, א-ב) 'לא יהי' לכהנים הלויים כל שבט לוי חלק ונחלה עם ישראל אשי ה' ונחלתו יאכלון, ונחלה לא יהי' לו בקרב אחיו ה' הוא נחלתו כאשר דבר לו'. . . ואמנם כל אלה בהיות ההיכל על יסודותיו ומקדש הקודש על מכונו והכהנים היו עוסקין בעבודתן ולויים בדוכנם, אבל מעת חסרנו כל אלה בעוונותינו הרבים, ואין לנו לא כהן בעבודתו ולא לוי בדוכנו ולא מזבח ולא קרבן ואין לנו שיור רק התורה הזאת, לכן עתה התלמידי חכמים ורבני הקהלות ורבני המו"צ אשר בכל דור ודור הם הם המורים והם המלמדים ומהם תצא תורה והוראה לישראל, גם הם הכהנים והלויים העוסקים בעבודה . . . היוצא לנו מזה, דתלמידי חכמים העוסקים בתורה ובהלכות עבודה בזמן הזה, הם דוגמת הכהנים והלויים ממש, ודומה ממש כאילו בית המקדש בנוי וכהנים עוסקים בעבודה . . . והלכך כמו דהטילה התורה מצות עשה על הישראלים בזמן הבית ליתן תרומות ומעשרות ושאר מתנות כהונה ולוי' לכהנים הלויים המחזיקים בתורת ה', הכי נמי מוטל מצות עשה האידנא על הישראלים ליתן שכירות והספקה לתלמידי חכמים ולרבני הקהלות מדי שבוע בשבוע כדי שיוכלו להחזיק בתורת ה', וכמו שהטילה התורה מצות עשה לשמוח את הכהנים הלויים ברגל ולתת להם צרכי החג, בעבור שברגל הוטל עליהם עול התורה והעבודה ביותר מכל השנה כולה, הכי נמי מוטל ממצות עשה האידנא לשמוח את התלמידי חכמים ורבני הקהלות ברגל, יען שברגלים מוטל עליהם עול התורה ביותר ולהשיב לכל שואל בדבר ה' זו הלכה למעשה בהלכות החג ובאיסור והיתר כן נראה לעניות דעתי בעז"ה.

(3) בשו"ת 'קול מבשר' (להגאון ר' משולם ראטה זצ"ל) ח"א סי"ז כתב, וז"ל: "ועיין ברמב"ם סוף הלכות שמיטה ויובל שכתב, למה לא זכה לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל עם אחיו, מפני שהובדל לעבודת ה' ולהורות דרכיו ומשפטיו לרבים שנאמר 'יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל', ולא שבט לוי לבד אלא כל איש ואיש וכו' ויזכה לו בעולם הזה דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים וללויים, יעו"ש לשונו הזהב. הרי, דמי שתורתו אומנתו ויושב להורות לרבים ואינו עוסק בשום מלאכה צריך לקבל פרנסתו משל ציבור, כמו מעשרות ומתנות כהונה שזכתה התורה לכהנים וללוים".

אבל עכ"ז לא הגענו אל המנוחה, כי כפי שהרגישו כמה מפרשים (וביניהם הרדב"ז והמעשה רוקח על הרמב"ם הל' שמיטה ויובל שם), מה נעשה ביום שידובר בו דברי הרמב"ם בהל' תלמוד תורה (פ"ג ה"י)[47] ובפירוש המשנה עמ"ס אבות[48], שם כתב הרמב"ם דברים כדרבנות וכמסמרות נטועים נגד העוסקים בתורה בלא דרך ארץ ומטילים עול פרנסתם על הציבור! ולכאורה: אם לשבט לוי הותר ליקח ממון הציבור כדי שיוכלו להבדל מן העולם ולעבוד את ה' בלבד, למה לא יעשה כן כל איש ואיש אשר נדבה רוחו אותו להיות תורתו אומנתו ולקיים מש"נ "יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל"?

אכן אולי אפשר ליישב קושיא זו לפי שיטותיהם של כמה מנושאי כלי הרמב"ם שכתבו לחלק בין המטיל עצמו על הציבור, שעל הנהגה כזאת צעק הרמב"ם ככרוכיא, לבין מי שהציבור מטילים אותו עליו ולפרנסו ברצון קיבלו עליהם, שבכה"ג גם לפי דעת הרמב"ם אין בזה שום איסור.[49]

אמנם שערי התירוצים והחילוקים לא ננעלו, והרשות והיכולת נתונה לחלוק גם על חילוק זה.[50] מה שנוגע לעניננו הוא, שלפענ"ד, אי אפשר למבטל במחי יד את דעתם של אלו האחרונים הרואים בדברי הרמב"ם מקור הגיוני לתמיכת רבנים וחכמים ע"י יחידים וציבורים.

[1] בכל המקומות שציינתי לשינויי גירסאות בדברי הרמב"ם בספר משנה תורה ה"ה ע"פ 'ילקוט שינויי נוסחאות' אשר ברמב"ם מהדורת שבתי פרנקל.

[2] חלק מדברי הרמב"ם הללו הובאו (בשינויים קלים) גם ב'ספר החינוך', סוף מצוה שמב.

[3] י"ג: "זכה" וי"ג "זוכה".

[4] ויש להוסיף שלפי דעת הרמב"ם ייחודו של שבט לוי הוקבע כבר בשנים קדמוניות – טרם היתה ישראל לגוי, וכמ"ש בריש הל' עבודה זרה (פ"א ה"ג): "יעקב אבינו לימד בניו כולם והבדיל לוי ומינהו ראש והושיבו בישיבה ללמד דרך השם ולשמור מצות אברהם, וציוה את בניו שלא יפסיקו מבני לוי ממונה אחר ממונה כדי שלא תשכח הלימוד, והי' הדבר הולך ומתגבר בבני יעקב ובנלוים עליהם ונעשית בעולם אומה שהיא יודעת את ה', עד שארכו הימים לישראל במצרים וחזרו ללמוד מעשיהן ולעבוד כוכבים כמותן חוץ משבט לוי שעמד במצות אבות, ומעולם לא עבד שבט לוי עבודת כוכבים".

ומבואר מדברי הרמב"ם אלו, שכבר מאז ומקדם היו הלויים (ואבוהון דכולהו – לוי בעצמו) נבדלים, ומיועדים לגדלות: ללמוד וללמד, להזהר ולהזהיר.

[5] להעיר ג"כ ש"מצוה להיות בסנהדרין גדולה כהנים ולויים שנאמר (פ' שופטים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים" (רמב"ם הל' סנהדרין פ"ב ה"ב).

[6] המעיין בספר 'מורה נבוכים' חלק שלישי פרק לט, יראה שדבריו ב'מורה' וב'יד' משלימים זה את זה ויחדיו יהיו תואמים. וז"ל במו"נ שם: ". . . כי אין לו חלק ונחלה עמך, וכבר ידעת סיבת זה כדי שיהי' זה השבט כולו מיוחד [א] לעבודת השם ו[ב]לידיעת התורה, ולא יתעסק לא בחרישה ולא בזריעה רק יהי' להשם לבד, כמ"ש יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, ישימו קטורה וגו'," ע"ש בארוכה.

[7] י"ג: "והבין מדעתו".

[8] י"ג: "לדעת".

[9] ע"פ קהלת ז, כט: "לְבַד רְאֵה זֶה מָצָאתִי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹקִים אֶת הָאָדָם יָשָׁר וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים".

[10] ע"פ דברי הימים-א כג, יג: "בְּנֵי עַמְרָם אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה וַיִּבָּדֵל אַהֲרֹן לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא וּבָנָיו עַד עוֹלָם לְהַקְטִיר לִפְנֵי ה' לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בִּשְׁמוֹ עַד עוֹלָם".

[11] יש שאין גורסים תיבה זו.

[12] ברדב"ז שם: "ודקדקתי בדבריו ז"ל שכתב 'ויזכה לו בעוה"ז דבר המספיק לו', שהקב"ה יזכה לו להרויח בעולם דבר המספיק לו ולא שישליך עצמו על הציבור".

[13] י"ג "כמו שזכה ללוים".

[14] יש שאין גורסים שתי תיבות אלו.

[15] נדפסה ב'לקוטי שיחות' חלק ח' עמוד 325.

[16] ראה גם: הל' תשובה פ"ג ה"ה; הל' איסורי ביאה פי"ד ה"ז.

[17] לאחרונה ראיתי שכיוונו לזה שנים מרבני דורנו: (א) "דברי הרמב"ם הם חובקי עולם: 'כל איש ואיש מכל באי-עולם', אפילו גוי! אם אך ירצה באמת ובתמים לדעת את ה' יהי' קודש קדשים!" ('שיחות לספר במדבר' להרה"ג ר' אביגדור יחזקאל הלוי נבנצל שליט"א, פרשת קרח, עמוד קסח); (ב) "שמעתי מפי מרן הרב מפוניבז' ז"ל בקידוש עלי' לתורה של הרב הגאון ר' ישראל מאיר זכריש שליט"א שדייק מלשון הרמב"ם 'כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם' שאפילו גוי יכול להתעלות" ('גליונות על הרמב"ם ונו"כ' להרב שמואל הלוי שולזינגר, רב ואב"ד דקרית אתא, נדפסו במאסף תורני 'ישורון' חט"ז, ארץ ישראל תשס"ה, עמוד רטו ואילך. קטע זה נמצא בעמוד רלב).

[18] וע"ד מ"ש הרמב"ם בהל' מלכים שם: "משה רבינו לא הנחיל התורה והמצות אלא לישראל כו' ולכל הרוצה להתגייר משאר האומות".

[19] דאלה"כ – מה ענין 'חסידי אוה"ע' לכאן?!

[20] ב'לקוטי שיחות' שיצא לאור לקראת ש"ק פ' קרח התשד"מ (נדפס בלקו"ש חכ"ח עמוד 104).

גם פרופסר קלנר במאמרו ציין למקומות אלו – ע"פ פרוייקט השו"ת של בר-אילן.

[21] קרוב לתחילתו.

[22] לשון הכתוב בפרשת ביכורים – פרשת תבא כו, ג.

[23] ירושלמי ביכורים פ"א ה"ד.

[24] אבל יש להעיר, שבספר משנה תורה הל' ביכורים (פ"ד ה"ג) כתב: "הגר מביא וקורא שנאמר לאברהם 'אב המון גוים נתתיך', הרי הוא אב כל העולם כולו שנכנסין תחת כנפי שכינה, ולאברהם היתה השבועה תחלה שיירשו בניו את הארץ". ובספר 'משנה תורה' הביטוי 'כניסה תחת כנפי השכינה' הוא תואר נרדף ל'גירות'. ראה: הל' איסורי ביאה פי"ג ה"ד ("כשירצה הגוי להכנס לברית ולהסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה ויקבל עליו עול תורה"); הל' דעות פ"ו ה"ד ("אהבת הגר שבא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה"); הלכות מלכים פ"ח ה"ה ("אם קבלה עלי' להכנס תחת כנפי השכינה מטבילה לשם גרות"). וכ"ה בספר המצוות להרמב"ם מל"ת רנב ("ועכשיו נכנסת תחת כנפי השכינה"). וראה גם אגרת הרמב"ם להרב עובדי' הגר (תשובות הרמב"ם מהדורת פריימאן, תל אביב תרצ"ד, סימן שסט; תשובות הרמב"ם הוצאת 'מקיצי נרדמים', ארץ ישראל תש"ך, סימן תמח - עמוד 728). שם מתאר הרמב"ם את הגר צדק בזה הלשון: "אדם שהניח אביו ומולדתו ומלכות עמו . . . ורדף אחר ה' ועבר בדרך הקדש ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה, ונתאבק בעפר רגלי משה רבינו רבן של כל הנביאים ע"ה".

[25] ועוד יש להעיר שמצינו בספר 'משנה תורה' (הל' ]]> Maimonides Chaim Rapoport בעברית Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/18/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport-on-the-Contemporary-39Tribe-of-Levi39-in-Maimonides39-Mishneh-Torah JQR Forum in honor of 25th anniversary of Prof. Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi's "Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/16/JQR-Forum-in-honor-of-25th-anniversary-of-Prof-Yosef-Hayim-Yerushalmis-Zakhor-Jewish-History-and-Jewish-Memory

In honor of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Professor Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi's Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, the Jewish Quarterly Review published a special forum with articles by David N. Myers, Moshe Idel, Peter N. Miller, Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi and Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, in the latest issue of Jewish Quarterly Review 97.4 (Fall 2007).

Jewish Quarterly Review, established in 1889 and currently the oldest English-language journal in the field of Jewish studies, is published by the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Advanced Judaic Studies. Elliott Horowitz of Bar Ilan University and David N. Myers of UCLA are the editors of Jewish Quarterly Review. (Full disclosure: I am the Editorial Intern of Jewish Quarterly Review).

]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:07:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/16/JQR-Forum-in-honor-of-25th-anniversary-of-Prof-Yosef-Hayim-Yerushalmis-Zakhor-Jewish-History-and-Jewish-Memory Aryeh Leibowitz - Response to Professor Menachem Kellner http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/15/Aryeh-Leibowitz--Response-to-Professor-Menachem-Kellner
Response to Professor Menachem Kellner
By Aryeh Leibowitz

To the editors of the Seforim blog:

In Professor Menachem Kellner’s spirited and scholarly post ("Who is the Person Whom Rambam Says Can be ‘Consecrated as the Holy of Holies’?") at the Seforim blog, he argues that my inclusion of Rambam’s hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel passage is “based on a demonstrable misunderstanding of the Rambam,” and that this passage, understood properly, is not germane to the issue I am addressing. In this short response, I would like to address the cogency of Kellner’s claim that my failure to including gentiles in the Rambam’s intent “weakens” my argument, and comment on Kellner’s reading of the Rambam passage under discussion.

Kellner claims that “Leibowitz weakens his own argument by apparently not realizing that Rambam in hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel (13:13) is not talking about Jews in particular, let alone talmidei hakhamim.” I fail to see how this is so. I contend that the passage in hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel is Rambam’s statement of the lot and expectations of an individual who dedicates himself to God, and more importantly, the spiritual and moral responsibilities of such a person. Even if Kellner is correct that Rambam in this statement is also addressing gentiles, it certainly addresses Jews as well. We can debate if these expectations and responsibilities of the one who is consecrated to God described by Rambam apply to righteous gentiles, but that Rambam does refer to righteous Jews is beyond debate.

If we are in agreement that the passage in hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel addresses a Jew (and perhaps a non-Jew) who dedicates himself to God,[1] why would the following conclusion in my article not be appropriate and forthcoming?
Maimonides endorses an individual dedicating himself to a life of Torah study and refraining from pursuing a profession, so long as such activity does not require burdening the general population. This is expressed in his famous comments at the end of Hilkhot Shemitta ve-Yovel (13:13)…Maimonides is not stating that this individual, who has dedicated his life to God, can rely on financial support from the community; rather Maimonides is stating that such an individual can also sustain himself on less and will reap the benefits of heightened spirituality and increased divine assistance.
The (disputable) fact that Rambam also includes gentiles in this statement does not exclude its relevance vis-à-vis Jews and their pursuit of a heightened spiritual existence. Had I written an article about a gentile who wished to live such a life, I would need to engage Professor Kellner’s suggestion regarding this passage.

In summation, I fail to understand why Kellner states regarding the passage in hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel that “Rambam here is talking about God's support of all human beings who consecrate themselves,” and yet maintains that this passage does not shed light on God’s support of Jews who consecrate themselves.[2]

In regards to Kellner’s actual reading of the Rambam, I tend to agree.[3] As he notes, the Rambam uses this term in multiple contexts as a reference to all of humanity. Moreover, in the literature of Hazal, this is a standard expression for all the nations of the world.[4] In fact, I’m not sure how else one could read the words kol ba’ei ha-olam.

My translation (actual Prof. Twersky’s), as he notes, reflects this, as it is not Jew-specific. “Not only the Tribe of Levi, but every single individual from among the world's inhabitants whose spirit moves him…” Indeed, an earlier draft of this article noted the universalistic tone of this passage in a footnote. However, I specifically removed it because I felt it was off topic, and not relevant to the discussion.

Lastly, I appreciate Prof. Kellner’s reference in his last footnote to Mordechai Friedman’s important article on this topic.[5] Unfortunately, my article was written and submitted early in 2005 and hence I did not have access to that article.

All in all, Prof. Kellner raises an important issue regarding how we Jews view the spiritual potential of our gentile neighbors, and is deserving of a fuller exploration within the religious thought of Rambam and other Jewish thinkers. However, it has no apparent bearing on the specific issue discussed in my article.

Aryeh Leibowitz
14 November, 2007

Notes:
[1] Prof. Kellner seems to present a confusing image of the Rambam’s intent. He suggests that I missed a crucial point, yet he claims: “Rambam is not talking about Jews, be they talmidei hakhamim supported by the community or not. He is talking about (unconverted) Gentiles who, through their devotion to God, become ‘as consecrated as the Holy of Holies.’” It is hard to imagine the Rambam is only talking about gentiles! And indeed, in the next sentence Kellner himself admits “Rambam here is talking about God's support of all human beings who consecrate themselves…” (emphasis added).
[2] And that is why the commentators of Rambam that I quote indeed understand that this passage is relevant to Rambam’s comments in Pirkei Avot.
[3] It is crucial to note that the form of dedication to God that will be undertaken by a gentile will likely vary greatly from that of a Jew. See for example Rambam’s view regarding a gentile’s opportunities for Torah study and Sabbath observance in hilkhot Melakhim 10:9. This passage in Melakhim is also significant for our discussion as the end of the passage seems to bear a negative tone to the enterprise of an unconverted gentile seeking greater dedication to God through increased mitzvah observance.
[4] Besides the references made by Kellner, the Talmud Yerushalmi, and the “halakhic midrashim,” such as the Mekhilta, Sifra, and Sifre, all use this expression repeatedly to denote all of mankind.
[5] See Mordechai A. Friedman, “Rambam, Zuta, and the Muqaddams: A Story of Three Bans,” Zion 70 (2005): 473-528 (Hebrew).

]]> Maimonides Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/15/Aryeh-Leibowitz--Response-to-Professor-Menachem-Kellner Menachem Kellner - Who is the Person Whom Rambam Says Can be &#8216;Consecrated as the Holy of Holies&#8217;? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/14/Menachem-Kellner--Who-is-the-Person-Whom-Rambam-Says-Can-be-8216Consecrated-as-the-Holy-of-Holies8217
Who is the Person Whom Rambam Says Can be
‘Consecrated as the Holy of Holies’?
By Menachem Kellner

Menachem Kellner is Professor of Jewish Thought at the University of Haifa. Author of several dozen articles on Jewish philosophy, Kellner has written/edited fourteen books, including, most recently, Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz's learned and interesting article in the most recent issue of Tradition ("The Pursuit of Scholarship and Economic Self-Sufficiency: Revisiting Maimonides' Commentary to Pirkei Avot," Tradition 40.3 (Fall 2007): 31-41) contained a passage which really surprised me, even though, perhaps, it should not have. (A PDF of this article is only available to online/print subscribers of Tradition.)

In his article, Leibowitz discusses Maimonides' position vis-à-vis the appropriateness of scholars receiving communal funds. In doing so, Leibowitz surveys the Maimonidean sources, including the well-known statement of Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah in hilkhot Shemittah ve-Yovel. Leibowitz in his discussion of this particular source, however, appears to have made a common mistake. As this mistake has broad implications, it is necessary to set the record straight on Maimonides' true meaning.

Leibowitz weakens his own argument by apparently not realizing that Rambam in Hilkhot Shemittah (13:13) is not talking about Jews in particular, let alone talmidei hakhamim. The passage in question is one of the clearest examples of universalism to be found in the Mishneh Torah. It may be that because that universalism goes against the grain of so much of what passes for Torah Judaism today that it is so easily missed.

Before turning to what Rambam says, let it be noted that he divided his Mishneh Torah into fourteen books. The seventh book of the fourteen is itself divided into seven sections (and is the only book divided into precisely that number of sections). This seventh section is itself divided into thirteen chapters. The thirteenth of these chapters is itself divided into thirteen paragraphs (halakhot) in the printed editions.[1] Thus, the thirteenth halakhah of the thirteenth chapter of the seventh section of the seventh book of the Mishneh Torah marks the precise mid-point of that work.

The number thirteen is, of course, significant in Judaism generally, but has special significance for Rambam. Not only did he promulgate thirteen principles of Judaism, but in "Laws of Circumcision," 3.9 he emphasizes the fact that the word "covenant" (brit) is found precisely thirteen times in the account of Abraham's circumcision (Gen. 17).[2]

The number seven is significant in many human societies, and not just in Judaism (Judah Halevi to the contrary – see Kuzari 2.20); according to Leo Strauss (1899-1973) it is of particular significance to Rambam.[3] I am in general no enthusiast for Straussian numerology, but this case seems too contrived not to have some significance.

Let it be further noted that for Rambam the halakhot of shemittah and yovel have messianic significance (Hilkhot Melakhim 11.1). I have proven (to my complete satisfaction at least) that according to Rambam the distinction between Jew and Gentile will lose all significance by the time the messianic era reaches fruition.[4]

So, what precisely does Rambam write in this special place in the Mishneh Torah? Here are his words:
Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every individual human being, whose spirit moves him and whose knowledge gives him understanding to set himself apart in order to stand before the Lord, to serve Him, to worship Him, and to know Him, who walks upright as God created him to do,[5] and releases himself from the yoke of the many foolish considerations which trouble people -- such an individual is as consecrated as the Holy of Holies, and his portion and inheritance shall be in the Lord forever and ever. The Lord will grant him adequate sustenance in this world, the same as He had granted to the priests and to the Levites. Thus indeed did David, peace upon him, say, O Lord, the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup, Thou maintainest my lot (Ps. 16:5).[6]
Leibowitz translates the beginning of this passage as follows: "Not only the Tribe of Levi, but every single individual from among the world's inhabitants whose spirit moves him…" (p. 32) and the penultimate sentence as follows: "Behold this person has been totally consecrated…" He then goes on to say:
Maimonides is not stating that this individual, who has dedicated his life to God, can rely on financial support from the community; rather Maimonides is stating that that such an individual can also sustain himself on less and will reap the benefits of heightened spirituality and increased divine assistance. (p. 33)
In an erudite footnote to this sentence Leibowitz makes it abundantly clear that he has missed a crucial point here: Rambam is not talking about Jews, be they talmidei hakhamim supported by the community or not.[7] He is talking about (unconverted) Gentiles who, through their devotion to God, become "as consecrated as the Holy of Holies." Rambam here is talking about God's support of all human beings who consecrate themselves; he could hardly imagine that this sentence would be turned into an argument in support of kollelim!

Why do I say this? The operative term in our passage is kol ba'ei olam. In every other place in the Mishneh Torah where Rambam uses this expression the context makes it clear that he means human beings as such, in contradistinction to Jews specifically.[8] In none of these places could the term mean proselytes or Noachides. There is no reason in the world to think that davka here Rambam had a more restrictive meaning in mind.

The expression "each and every individual human being" translates the Hebrew, kol ba'ei olam. This expression finds its classic use in a debate between the school of Rabbi Akiva, who maintained that the Torah was revealed to the Jews alone, and the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who insisted that the Torah was ultimately meant to reach kol ba'ei olam, "each and every individual human being."[9] Here there can be no doubt but that the expression literally means all human beings (as opposed to Jews, native or converted).[10]

The expression is best-known to most contemporary Jews from a text which Rambam himself may or may not have known the liturgical poem (piyyut) unetaneh tokef.[11] The poem is based on Mishnah Rosh Ha-Shanah 1.2, which in turn is based on Ps. 38:15. It is a safe bet that most Jews who recite this passage on the yamim nora'im do not realize that the clear intent of these texts is all human beings, not Jews. Rambam, on the other hand, certainly knew it.[12]

The entire debate – ably analyzed by Rabbi Leibowitz – over whether Rambam's statement at the end of Shemittah ve-Yovel represents a retreat from his strictures against compensation for Torah study is thus based upon a demonstrable misunderstanding of Rambam.[13]

Notes:
[1] Rambam did not number the specific halakhot in the Mishneh Torah; unfortunately for the elegance of the point I am making here, the best mss. count our halakhah as the 12th, not 13th. My thanks to Rabbi Shalomi Eldar for pointing this out to me.
[2] Isaac Abravanel discusses various other reasons for Maimonides' use of precisely thirteen principles in Rosh Amanah chapter ten.
[3] Strauss, "How to Begin to Study the Guide of the Perplexed," in trans. Shlomo Pines, Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. xi-lvi, p. xiii. Further on the significance of the number seven in Maimonides see Joel Kraemer, "Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait," in Kenneth Seeskin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 11-57, especially pp. 20 and 42.
[4] See my discussion in Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People (Albany: SUNY Press, 1991).
[5] I wonder if this expression ought to be read as an implied critique of notions of original sin? Such notions are not only native to Christianity, but also attracted a number of (post-Maimonidean, Kabbalistic) Jewish figures. For a recent study on expression of original sin in Jewish exegesis, see Alan Cooper, "A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: Ephraim of Luntshits on Leviticus 12," Harvard Theological Review 97:4 (2004): 445-460. For some studies on the notion among Jewish philosophers, see Daniel J. Lasker, "Original Sin and Its Atonement According to Hasdai Crescas," Da'at 20 (1988): 127-35 (Hebrew), and Devorah Schechterman, "The Doctrine of Original Sin and Commentaries on Maimonides in Jewish Philosophy of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries," Da'at 20 (1988): 65-90 (Hebrew).
[6] I cite the translation of Isaac Klein, Book of Agriculture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 403.
[7] In that footnote (no. 11), Leibowitz cites medieval authorities who take Maimonides to be talking about Jews and also an essay by a Rabbi Steven Weisberg who understood Maimonides to making a point about "an elevated state of utopian existence for a God-fearing Jew, rather than an operative point of law" (emphasis added).
[8] Actually, my Bar-Ilan "responsa project" database found them; I just pushed the buttons. In any event, the places are: "Repentance," 3.3 and 6.3,"Tefillin," X.11, "Sanhedrin," 12.3, and "Kings," 8.10. See further Ya'akov Blidstein, "The Promulgation of Religion as an Aim of War in Maimonides' Teachings," in Avriel Bar-Levav (ed.), Shalom Vi-Milhamah Bi-Tarbut Ha-Yehudit (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2006): 85-97 (Hebrew). On p. 86, note 7 Professor Blidstein points out that the expression is "beloved of Rambam, and he uses it to denote humanity, generally in a spiritual or cultural context."
[9] This debate was made the subject of a penetrating study by Marc (Menachem) Hirshman, Torah Lekhol Ba'ei Olam: Zerem Universali be-Sifrut ha-Tana'im ve-Yahaso le-Hokhmat he-Amim (Torah for the Entire World: A Universalist Stream in Tannaitic Literature and its Relation to Gentile Wisdom) (Tel Aviv; Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 1999). The book's main findings were presented in English in idem., "Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries," Harvard Theological Review 93:2 (2000): 101-15.
[10] A scan of the one hundred ninety one citations of this expression in the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project database of rabbinic literature shows that in the vast majority of cases it means human beings simply, and in many places it is used in explicit contradistinction to Jews.
[11] For a useful discussion of what is actually known about the poem (as opposed to what we have all been taught about Rabbi Amnon), see Ivan G. Marcus, "Kiddush HaShem in Ashkenaz and the Story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz,” in Isaiah M. Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky (eds.), Sanctity in Life and Martyrdom: Studies in Memory of Amir Yekutiel (Jerusalem; Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1992), 131-147 (Hebrew); Menahem Shmelzer, “Sefer Or Zarua and the Legend of Rabbi Amnon,” in Adri K. Offenberg (ed.), Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana: Treasures of Jewish Booklore: Treasures of Jewish Booklore Marking the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Leeser Rosenthal, 1794-1994 (Amsterdam University Press, 2003), available online; David Golinkin's discussion online; as well as Jacob J. Schacter's lecture, "U-Netaneh Tokef Kedushat Ha-Yom: Medieval Story and Modern Significance" (sources [PDF]).
[12] My latest book is an extended discussion of the implications of Rambam's universalism. See Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006).
[13] For a very important discussion of the historical background to Rambam's attack on Torah scholars who accept community funds in his commentary on Avot, see Mordechai A. Friedman, "Rambam, Zuta, and the Muqaddams: A Story of Three Bans," Zion 70 (2005): 473-528 (Hebrew). This article supports Rabbi Leibowitz's overall point by showing the specific historical back ground to Rambam's spirited attack on those who accept (let alone demand) money for Torah study. On the subject in general I would also like to draw attention to: Ephraim Kanarfogel, "Compensation for the Study of Torah in Medieval Rabbinic Thought," in Ruth Link-Salinger (ed.), Of Scholars, Savants, and Their Texts: Studies in Philosophy and Religious Thought: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 135-47.

]]> Maimonides Menachem Kellner Historical Oddities Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:57:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/14/Menachem-Kellner--Who-is-the-Person-Whom-Rambam-Says-Can-be-8216Consecrated-as-the-Holy-of-Holies8217 R. Yehuda Hachasid & Natural Phenomenon: A Review of Amaros Tehoros http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/12/R-Yehuda-Hachasid--Natural-Phenomenon-A-Review-of-Amaros-Tehoros
R. Yehuda Hachasid & Natural Phenomenon: A Review of Amaros Tehoros
by: Eliezer Brodt

In Kovetz al Yad (new series), volume 12, Professor Y. Ta-Shma published, for the first time from manuscript, a small kuntres of R. Yehuda Hachasid, that he titled Zecher Asa Lenifleosav. More recently, this article was reprinted and included in Ta-Shema’s collected writings, Kenesset Mekharim, (vol. 1, chap. 14). Two years ago, R. Yaakov Stal decided to turn this small pamphlet in to a beautifully edited book. He turned the work into a 517 page sefer!

Professor Ta-Shma, for the most part, printed the text almost as is, and did not add citations for the statements of R. Yehuda Hachasid. Furthermore, Ta-Shema included only a brief introduction to this work (which in general is not like him, as I will elaborate in an upcoming post). R. Stal, however, in his work on Chasedei Ashkenaz in general and more specifically R. Yehudah Hachasid, decided to reissue this work in a proper critical edition.

First, R. Stal shows that the name of the sefer is really Amaros Tehoros Chizionis U’Pnemeis. Additionally, R. Stal went out of his way to research all the statements in this work and show parallels to other works of Chasidei Ashkenaz. He includes very lengthy notes to all the statements in this work. Moreover, R. Stal shows that there were many inaccurate readings of the actual words in the text by Ta-Shma. The end result is an excellent scientific edition of this sefer by R. Yehuda Hachasid.

This sefer is heavily influenced by R. Sa’adia Gaon’s haEmunah V’Deos. It is worth pointing out that R’ Yehuda Hachasid and the other Chasidei Ashkenaz had a different translation of this work than the standard ibn Tibbon translation of haEmunah V'Deos. This alternative translation has only recently been found by R.C. Kiener that he published in his PhD dissertation, The Hebrew Paraphrase of Saadia Gaon's Kitab Al-amanat Wa'l-Ictiqadat (Penn. 1984) [according to Kiener's website, he is working on a critical edition of haEmunah V'Deos]. [1] R. Stal highlights R. Sa’adia’s influence throughout the sefer and note the important distinctions between the two translations of the haEmunah v’Deos and its effect on R. Yehuda Hachasid’s work.

Turning now to the content of Amaros Tehoros. The main theme of the sefer is to explain difficult philosophical concepts and to do so the sefer uses items appearing naturally to explain the supernatural. Consequently, the sefer is full of topics relating to nature, how the world works, and animals. There is much about the topic of nevuah, and many topics relating to and about malachim. For example, R. Y. Hachasid writes everyone knows that Hashem is everywhere, but that’s incomprehensible. To help understand it, he gives the example of a magnet. A magnet has a force that we can’t see but everyone knows that hat force is there. This can help us understand a bit the concept that Hashem is everywhere even though we can’t see Him (pp. 6-7).

Another example of utilizing everyday occurrences to explain otherwise incomprehensible topics is a discussion of how Hashem knows the future. R. Yehuda Hachasid says that we can understand this from the fact that people sometimes see the future in their dreams (p. 33).

Or, the question of how the world was able to be created in six days, when a pregnancy takes nine months so the creation should have taken much longer. R. Yehuda Hachasid points to the fact that there are certain things are able to grow overnight, for example, certain mushrooms so the power exists to create fast and god has that power (pp. 36-37).

This work is the first mention of the compass in Jewish sources, again this mundane phenomena is used to show more complex notions. Specifically, R. Y. Hachasid writes:

ועוד רב החובל בים מנסה בה לאן ספינתו הולכת מביא אבל בספל מצד אחד, והמחט מצד אחד, ואיש אומר לחבירו: אנה נחפוץ שתלך הספינה? אם יאמר למזרח, והספינה פונה למעריב תלך המחט סביב לאבן דרך עקלתון, ותכנס המחט כמעט כולו באבן, ואם פונה למזרח תלך המחט דרך ישר

Aside from the focus on explaining philosophical questions, the work contains other interesting points as well. For instance, R. Yehuda Hachasid says some interesting things about a pregnancy of triplets (pp. 50 -51):

ואם תאמר הלא המעשה משתנה לפעמים? כגון... ואשה ג' ילדים... ויש לומר כל אלו השנויים רומזים על בעליהם אשה שילדה ג' ילדים לפי שגזר השם על בעל להעמיד תולדות הרבה ופשע בגופו בחטאו, וכדי לקיים גזירתו בתולדותיו, מיהר והרבה לו ביחד ג' או ד' בנים כדי להמיתו מהרה"..

On this topic R. Stal brings a wide range of sources about twins and triplets and whether or not such a pregnancy is a good or bad sign (pp. 371-388).

R. Y. Hachasid mentions the using of a sword to protect one from Demons by going around the bed with it. Here R. Stal includes many sources for this which was done especially by the bed of a woman who just gave birth (pp. 176- 178).

R. Y. Hachasid discusses and rejects the notion that a person can think two different thoughts simultaneously. (p.11). R. Stal, however, provides an excellent collection of sources that document many gedolim who were able to think two thoughts at the same time ( pp.304-312).

As R. Yehuda Hachasid mentions many unique ideas, R. Stal includes a 200 page section with lengthy articles about many of these topics. For example, R. Yehuda Hachasid discusses how many colors exist. R. Stal includes a chapter discussing the differences of opinion from early Jewish sources about the number of colors. R. Y. Hachasid has a discussion about magnets so R. Stal has a whole article on the topic of magnet from many sources – how it works, what the point is, etc. As mentioned above, this work is the first Jewish reference to a compass, so R. Stal includes a chapter from early Jewish sources about the compass and how it works, even getting into a discussion of the Bermuda triangle. R. Y. Hachasid mentions the famous Even Takumah, again, R. Stal includes a chapter on this to. R. Stal includes an excellent chapter on the topic of lengthy pregnancies – more than nine months and some as long as fourteen and fifteen months such as Yitzchak and Yissacar.

In sum, this work is great for anyone interested in philosophy, nature or a plain old real interesting read from a great rishon.

In the U.S. the book is available at Beigeleisen Books.

Note
[1] See also Kiener's article, "The Hebrew Paraphrase of Sa'adia Gaon's Kitab al-Amanat Wa'l-I'tiqadat," AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, (Spring, 1986), pp. 1-25.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/12/R-Yehuda-Hachasid--Natural-Phenomenon-A-Review-of-Amaros-Tehoros Marc B. Shapiro - Responses to Comments and Elaborations on Previous Posts http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/7/Marc-B-Shapiro--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-on-Previous-Posts
Marc B. Shapiro holds the Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Scranton. He is a frequent contributor to the Seforim blog and his most recent posts are "Forgery and the Halakhic Process" and "Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 2."

The post below was written as part of "Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 2," which the baale ha-blog have split up for the convenience of the readers of the Seforim blog. As such, the footnotes continue from the conclusion of the previous post.
Responses to Comments and Elaborations on Previous Posts
by Marc B. Shapiro

1. Some were not completely happy with an example I gave of an error in the Chavel edition of Ramban in a previous post at the Seforim blog. So let me offer another, also from one of Ramban’s talmudic works (since that was the genre I used last time). In Kitvei Ramban, 1:413, Chavel prints the introduction to Milhamot ha-Shem. The Ramban writes:

וקנאתי לרבנו הגדול רבי יצחק אלפאסי זכרונו לברכה קנאה גדולה, מפני שראיתי לחולקים על דבריו שלא השאירו לו כפי רב מחלוקותיהם ענין נכון בכל מה שדבר, ולא דבר הגון בכל מה שפרש, ולא פסק ראוי בכל מה שפסק, לא נשאר עם דבריהם בהלכות זולתי הדברים הפשוטים למתחיל פרק אין עומדין

In his note, Chavel explains the last words as follows:
רק בסוף הפרק הזה נמצאה השגה אחת מבעל המאור

Yet what Ramban means by למתחיל פרק אין עומדין are the children who begin their talmudic study with Tractate Berakhot. In other words, it is only the explanations and pesakim of the Rif that are obvious even to the beginner that have not been challenged.[21]

Regarding the example I gave in my last post at the Seforim blog, I forwarded to R. Mazuz one of the questions I received, which dealt with the form of the verb אסף found in the Ramban:

וחכמי הצרפתים אספו רובן אל עמן

He answered as follows:
אפשר לפרש אָסְפוּ מלשון ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה, ולשון קצרה הוא. ואפשר לומר אָסְפוּ כמו נאספו. ודומה לו (תהלים קה, כה) "הפך לבם לשנוא עמו", שהכוונה נהפך. אבל עדיף להגיה אֻסְפוּ מבנין פֻעַל אם כי לא מצינו דוגמא לזה במשמעות זו

I must note, however, that while R. Mazuz’ understanding of Ps. 105:25 is in line with the Targum, this is not how the standard Jewish translations understand the verse.

(Shortly before writing this, I read about the outrage taking place in Emanuel, where in the local Beit Yaakov Sephardi students are being segregated from Ashkenazim to the extent that the two are not even permitted to play together. The Shas party has referred to this as nothing less than Apartheid, which it surely is.[22] What’s next? Mehadrin buses where the Sephardim sit in the back? Of course, when this happens the justification given will once again be that Ashkenazim are on a higher spiritual level and that’s why they can’t sit with Sephardim, not that they are racist, chas ve-shalom.

I mention this because R. Mazuz has made a comment that is relevant in this regard. Speaking to Ashkenazim who like to imagine the tannaim as “white”, he has called attention to Negaim 2:1, where R. Yishmael states that Jews are neither black nor white, but in between. In other words, the tannaim looked like Sephardim.)

2. One of the e-mails to me stated that we Modern Orthodox types love to criticize Artscroll, but how come we never point out errors in the Rav’s works. I can’t speak for anyone else, and it is true that the Rav has now assumed hagiographic standing, meaning that it has become much harder to criticize him or point out supposed errors in his works. However, if I detect what I think is an error I will definitely call attention to it, and I believe the Rav would expect as much, for this is a sign that you are taking his writing seriously. If the Rambam could make careless errors (the focus of a large section of my forthcoming Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, available for pre-order on Amazon for only $8) then anyone can err, and it is no disrespect to call attention to these errors. There are actually a number of seforim which have sections in which they call attention to careless errors or things overlooked in the writings of various aharonim.

I understand why students of the Rav and his modern day hasidim might be reluctant to do so, but I never had any real relationship with him and can approach matters as an outsider. My only connection to the Rav was one summer in the Boston kollel (1985, the last year of the kollel. When I lived in Brookline in the 1990’s the Rav was no longer well). I was, however, privileged, together with Rabbi Chaim Jachter, to drive him back and forth to the Twersky’s house, and was thus able to hear some memorable things from him which I will record in a future post at the Seforim blog.

While on the topic of the Rav, let me also state that I used the Rav’s Machzor on Yom Kippur. I found the commentary uplifting and great credit must go to Dr. Arnold Lustiger for the effort he put into the volume. But there is one thing in the Machzor that annoyed me. It relates to what is called Hanhagot ha-Rav. This section includes all of the various practices of the Rav. This is certainly worth knowing and it wouldn’t have bothered me had it simply appeared at the beginning of the Machzor. But that is not the case.

Before I explain the problem, let me start with the following: A number of years ago I asked Prof. Haym Soloveitchik what the practice of his father was in a certain matter. His response was short and crisp. He told me that he never answers questions about his father’s hanhagot, and that to do so would be in total opposition to his father’s outlook.

I assume that today, if it was clear that my concern was of an academic nature, he would be more forthcoming. But back then I was another unknown kid writing to him trying to find some interesting practice of the Rav.

The way I understood Prof. Soloveitchik is that his father, like many gedolim, had practices that diverged from the mainstream. They came to these practices based on their original reading of the sources. Yet these were entirely private practices, reserved at most for other family members and perhaps some very close students. Because they went against the mainstream, they were not for mass consumption. Along these lines, R. Zevin reports, in his article on R. Hayyim Soloveitchik in his Ishim ve-Shitot, that it was such an outlook that explained why R. Hayyim did not want to decide practical halakhah. His original mind would lead him to overturn many accepted halakhot, yet he was not prepared to do so.

Returning to my problem with the Rav’s Machzor, we are told the following in this book: The Rav reversed the order of the final two phrases in the benediction ולירושלים in the Amidah, saying וכסא דוד מהרה לתוכה תכין prior to saying ובנה אותה בקרוב בימינו בנין עולם. This is the way the Sephardic siddurim have it, but certainly the Rav did not expect the entire Ashkenazic world to abandon their long-standing practice because of his practice. Yet when this paragraph (in minhah before Yom Kippur and maariv following Yom Kippur) appears there is a note telling people how the Rav read it. This is certainly encouraging people to abandon the Ashkenazic tradition in favor of the Rav’s reading. From all that I know about the Rav, this is not something he would have wanted.

Another example is that we are told that the Rav omitted the blessing הנותן ליעף כח as it is post-Talmudic. What possible purpose can such information have when provided on the page where this blessing appears, other than to lead people to omit the blessing? Is one to assume that the Rav really wanted people to reject the universal Ashkenazic practice? The Rav never got up at an RCA convention and told people that this is what they should do. Even at the Maimonides minyan and school there is no official minhag to omit this blessing. R. David Shapiro reported to me that almost all those who daven from the amud at the Maimonides synagogue minyan recite the blessing, and everyone does so at the Maimonides school minyan. Yet I wonder how many followers of the Rav are now omitting the blessing after seeing what appears in the Rav’s Machzor.

There are other examples, and as I said above, I don’t believe that this information should be secret. However, when you put it on the relevant pages of the Machzor, where the instructions to the worshipper are designed to be for practical application, you are telling people that if they see themselves as followers of the Rav, then they should follow his practices.

Since my correspondent made the false assumption that I would never point out an error of the Rav, and indeed almost challenged me, let me offer one. In Halakhic Man, page 30, in writing about halakhic man’s relationship with transcendence, the Rav writes:
It is this world which constitutes the stage for the Halakhah, the setting for halakhic man’s life. It is here that the Halakhah can be implemented to a greater or lesser degree. It is here that it can pass from potentiality into actuality. It is here, in this world, that halakhic man acquires eternal life! “Better is one hour of Torah and mitzvot in this world than the whole life of the world to come,” stated the tanna in Avot [4:17], and his declaration is the watchword of the halakhist.
I am not an expert in scholarship on the Rav,[23] so I may have missed it, but I have not seen any articles on Halakhic Man which call attention to the fact that the Rav has misquoted Avot. What the Mishnah says is “Better is one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than the whole life of the world to come.” Also surprising to me is that the learned translator did not mention the problem with the Rav’s quotation.[24] Is it possible that the Rav’s intellectualism and “halakho-centrism” led him to unknowingly replace בתשובה ומעשים טובים with בתורה ומצוות?

While on the topic of the Rav, which is always of interest to people, let me note another error in the Rav’s writings, although this time the printer is at fault.[25] It has been reprinted a number times and the sentence has also appeared in translation. I realize that it is difficult to say that a text that appeared in the Rav’s own lifetime a few times without correction is a mistake, so I would love to be proven wrong. Yet it does seem that we are confronted with a typo. I would assume that the Rav never knew of the mistake, since people often don’t read their own material after it appears in print. In “U-Vikashtem mi-Sham”[26] the Rav writes:

אבא מרי דיבר תמיד על אודות הרמב"ם. וכך היה עושה: היה פותח את הגמרא; קורא את הסוגיא. אחר כך היה אומר כדברים האלה: זהו פירושם של הר"י ובעלי-התוספות; עכשיו נעיין נא ברמב"ם, ונראה איך פירש הוא. תמיד היה אבא מוצא כי הרמב"ם לא פירש כמותם ונטה מן הדרך הפשוטה

Can there be any doubt that instead of הר"י the text should read רש"י?

R. Aharon Kafih, in his new book Minhat Aharon, 416, calls attention to a similar type of error in Shiurim le-Zekher Abba Mari, 1:14-15, n. 5 (I don’t have this book, so I can’t determine if Kafih is correct). Here the Rav writes:

ועיין ברמב"ן סוף מס' פסחים (במלחמות) שמתוך דבריו וביאורו בירושלמי . . . עולה שאם לא קרא את ההלל בביהכ"נ חייב לברך על ההלל בהגדה

Kafih writes:

אחר המחילה נראה שיש כאן טעות, ומדובר בר"ן ויובאו דבריו לקמן בגוף החיבור ד"ה וזה שאמרו בירושלמי

3. A few people asked me about R. Mazuz’s reference to the homosexual poem in Judah Al-Harizi’s Tahkemoni (see my previous footnote 15, here). The relevant section, which appears in Gate 50, reads as follows
לאיש עשה שיר מלא זמה וטומאה

לו שר בנו עמרם פני דודי מתאדמים העת שתות שכר
ויפי קוצותיו והוד יופיו לא חק בתורתו ואת זכר
The translation is:
To a man who wrote a poem full of filth and lewdness

Were Amram’s son to see my friend’s face
Blushing when he drinks strong drink
And for the loveliness of his locks and the splendor of his beauty
He would not have inscribed in his Torah
“If a man lie with mankind” (cf. Lev. 20:13).[27]
Following this, Al-Harizi, quotes the poems of nine others, and himself, who condemn the homosexual poet. Some contemporary readers might be shocked to see the language used. It is certainly not anything that those preaching a message of “hate the sin and love the sinner” vis-à-vis the gay community – and this includes R. Chaim Rapoport, the world’s expert on halakhah and homosexuality – would endorse. For example, one of the poems reads:

מוכר קדושת אל בעד טומאה מהר ליד הורג יהי נמכר
He who sells the sanctity of God for defilement
Let him quickly be sold into the hand of the slayer.
Another reads:
שדי שלח מהר עדי מות האיש אשר דתך בחטא מכר
Almighty, deliver speedily into the hand of death
The man who has sold Thy law into sin.
In fact, all of the poems quoted by Al-Harizi call for the gay poet to be struck down, in one way or another.

The gay poet speaks of the face of the young man, and this is actually a popular theme. In particular, the poets focus on the cheeks. There are a number of examples of this in R. Moses Ibn Ezra and Ibn Gabirol, but let give two examples from R. Judah Halevi:

מלחייו עדן בשמי כאשר מעיניו סמי

This means “From his cheeks is my spice garden, as poison comes from his eyes.”[28] Brody notes that the first part is working off Song of Songs 5:13, where the woman says לחיו כערוגת הבושם, “His cheeks are as a bed of spices.” The last section means, to use a modern expression, “his look can kill.” That is, if he gives you non-approving look, it is crushing.

Elsewhere, Halevi writes:[29]
לחי כרצפת אש ברצפת שש

In Norman Roth’s translation: “Cheeks like coals of fire on a pavement of marble,” or as he paraphrases, “ruddy cheeks on pale skin.”[30]

I was asked about the meanings of these poems. I am hardly expert in this area and must leave it to others to determine the exact sense. There has been some dispute about them, although the current scholarly consensus is not something that will make the Orthodox community very happy.[31] I would like to believe that Nehemiah Allony is correct that all of these poems are to be understood as simple imitations of the dominant Arabic style, or as akin to the Song of Songs, where the love poems are to be understood allegorically as symbolizing spiritual matters. R. Shmuel ha-Nagid actually says this explicitly about his poems dealing with man-boy love.[32] (I think we can all agree that writing such verse today will certainly, and deservedly, get a rebbe fired![33])

The issue of homosexuality in the medieval Jewish world even came into the great conflict between R. Saadiah Gaon and David ben Zakkai. This was because the future gaon of Pumbeditha, R. Aaron ben Joseph ha-Kohen Sargado, who was on David ben Zakkai’s side, accused R. Saadiah of having homosexual relations with young men. If that is not bad enough, he adds that this was done with sifrei kodesh in the room and that witnesses can attest to it![34] This is, of course, an abominable accusation, and Harkavy, in his introduction (p. 223), apologizes for having to print what he terms

דברי שמצה ונבול פה שאין הנפש היפה סובלתם

Of course, this is hardly the first example of rabbis, even great ones, hurling outrageous accusations at each other, but it is hard to find anything more disgraceful than this. The only example I can think of that is in this league is found in R. Jacob Emden’s Hit’avkut, 76b-77a, where he publicizes the disgusting accusation that R. Jonathan Eybeschütz fathered a child with his own daughter! If that’s not bad enough, this horrible story is repeated by R. Marvin Antelman in his Bekhor Satan, 37-38. (Antelman and his unusual writings deserve their own post at the Seforim blog.) It was regarding this sort of mudslinging that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook is quoted as follows (Gadol Shimushah [Jerusalem, 1994], 20):

הדגיש בכאב עצום שתחילת המחלוקות החריפות בין גדולים מעבר לאמות מידה מקובלות של מחלוקות, התחילו מבית-מדרשו של רבי יעקב עמדין

Academic scholars such as Scholem have also noted the destructive affect on traditional Jewish society of the battle against Sabbatianism in general, and the Emden-Eybeschütz conflict in particular.

4. Since in my earlier post at the Seforim blog on the Eshkol I mentioned R. Yitzhak Ratsaby, and his negative attitude towards R. Joseph Kafih, I should note that one of Kafih’s students, R. Aharon Kafih (no relation) has recently published his Minhat Aharon.[35] On pages 211 n. 13 and 255 n. 45, there are some very strong attacks on Ratsaby, even accusing him of plagiarism. He also mentions how Ratsaby, when he needs to quote something from R. Yihye Kafih (known among his followers as מו"ר הישיש), will omit the last name so that people won’t know to whom he is referring. As Tamir Ratzon has pointed out, in the 1970’s Ratsaby referred positively to R. Joseph Kafih,[36] yet unfortunately, this is no longer the case. In fact, R. Aharon Kafih reports that Ratsaby tells people that it is forbidden to have any of R. Joseph Kafih’s books, and they must be burnt![37]

This dispute between Ratsaby and Kafih is simply a continuation of the great Yemenite dispute over the legitimacy of Kabbalah. It began with Kafih’s grandfather, R. Yihye, who stood at the head of the anti-Kabbalah forces.[38] Matters reached such extremes that the pro-Kabbalah side was successful in having R. Yihye thrown into jail (much like some mitnagdim conspired to have the same done to R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady). Here is the cover of a rare pamphlet published about 20 years ago. It is directed against both R. Yihye and R. Joseph.5. In my earlier post at the Seforim blog I referred to the anti-Habad book Ve-Al Titosh Torat Imekha. A few people asked me how they can get this book. The author, who wishes to remain anonymous so that he can be spared the personal price paid by anyone who goes up against Habad messianism, told me that when I quote his letter (see below). I should also announce that anyone who is interested in the book should write to him at the following address

הרב יב"א הלוי, ת"ד 57615, ירושלים

This book is interesting because you see that the author is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, he recognizes how great the Rebbe was and all the positive things Habad has accomplished. On the other hand, he sees what is going on today and reluctantly concludes that the Rebbe himself crossed the line into heretical statements. I asked him why, if he thinks the Rebbe advocated heretical notions, he still shows him great respect? Why doesn’t he treat him as an enemy of traditional Judaism, as he would all others who advanced heresy? He wrote to me as follows.

זו אכן שאלה שכבר נשאלתי עליה מרבים וטובים, והתשובה היא שאם היה מדובר בסתם אדם אז בודאי שאסור להתייחס אליו בכבוד, לעומת זאת הרבי האחרון מחב"ד, שלמרות הבקורת העזה עליו, הוא ג"כ עשה פעולות גדולות והפיץ הרבה תורה בעולם, ולכן צריך לחפש ללמד עליו זכות (הגם שאני בעצמי אינני יודע מה אפשר לומר עליו זכות במה שכתב שהוא "מרגיש" שהקב"ה התלבש בו). ולכן העדפתי לעשות פלגינן, אליו אישית להתיחס בכבוד, ולעומת זאת לכתוב שדבריו הם מנוגדים לי"ג עיקרים, ומי שרוצה להסיק מזה מסקנא לגבי הרב בעצמו עושה זאת על דעתו, כי באמת לא ידוע לי איך צריך להתיחס למי שמצד אחד כתב דברים נוראים ומצד שני הפיץ הרבה תורה, ודוק והבן

So Rabbi Halevi feels that the Lubavitcher Rebbe denied certain of Maimonides Principles and yet he won’t regard him as a heretic because of all the good he accomplished. Once again, theological error in the Thirteen Principles, and the consequences that are supposed to result from this, have been trumped by other considerations. I don’t know how many more examples I need to bring where even the most traditional scholars are not prepared to accept Maimonides’ statement that rejection of one his Principles ipso facto removes one from the faith.[39] Of course, followers of the Rebbe will deny that he has violated any of Maimonides’ principles, but what is important for my purpose is that Rabbi Halevi has no doubt, and elaborates at length, on how the Rebbe has indeed done so. Yet despite this, he still does not regard him as a heretic.

6. In my earlier post at the Seforim blog I wrote that it is unfortunate that one of the only things R. Joseph Messas is known for is being the posek who permitted married women to uncover their hair. Someone wrote to tell me that he was not the only Moroccan rabbi to do so, as R. Moshe Malka, the late chief rabbi of Petah Tikvah, also ruled this way in his responsa Ve-Heshiv Moshe. (Malka published six volumes of responsa entitled Mikveh ha-Mayim; I don’t know why, for his last volume, he picked a new title). The correspondent began his e-mail regarding Malka by noting “I don’t know if you are aware . . . ” In fact, I am well aware of Rabbi Malka’s teshuvot on this topic, as they were addressed to someone I know very well. Since not everyone has access to the volume, here are the responsa. A quick internet search revealed that R. Irving Greenberg picked up on this source.[40] (He obviously saw it in one of R. Michael Broyde’s articles, as Greenberg also cites R. Yehoshua Babad, whose understanding of women’s hair-covering has been one of the bases for Broyde’s own lenient opinion in this matter, and it was Broyde who first publicized Babad’s view.)



7. In my last post at the Seforim blog I mentioned that the version וכל נוצר יורה in Yigdal is found in Birnbaum but not in earlier sources. Noam Kaplan pointed out that this is incorrect and that it is found in at least two early siddurim.[41] It is incredible that Abraham Berliner, who was an expert in manuscripts and early prayer books, overlooked this. R. Mazuz was also unaware of this version, and the Siddur ha-Meduyak only gives וכל נוצר יודה as an alternate. I am grateful to Noam for the correction. It is a good illustration of how the accumulated knowledge of many readers is a great help to all of us.

8. In my first post on the Eshkol, I raised the issue of whether one can accept a pesak even if one is convinced that it is incorrect from the standpoint of modern scholarship. I quoted Prof. David Berger’s view that it is acceptable to do so. Subsequently, I found that Berger also discusses this matter in a recent essay, where he raises the problem without advocating any position.
In the realm of concrete decision-making in specific instances, it is once again the case that the impact of academic scholarship does not always point in a liberal direction. In other words, the instincts and values usually held by academics are not necessarily upheld by the results of their scholarly inquiry, and if they are religiously committed, they must sometimes struggle with conclusions that they wish they had not reached Thus, the decision that the members of the Ethiopian Beta Israel are Jewish was issued precisely by rabbis with the least connection with academic scholars. The latter, however much they may applaud the consequences of this decision, cannot honestly affirm that the origins of the Beta Israel are to be found in the tribe of Dan; here, liberally oriented scholars silently, and sometimes audibly, applaud the fact that traditionalist rabbis have completely ignored the findings of contemporary scholarship.[42]
I have to say that I too struggled with this question, as I was involved in the Ethiopian Jewry cause.[43] My first trip there, in 1987, was memorable, as we were the first group allowed into the villages of Gondar after Operation Moses. (It was also great to be together with Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky, who in recent years has done such important work on various communal traditions that are in danger of being forgotten.) Yet I vividly recall how even then, when I was quite young, I knew that the notion of the Ethiopian Jews being descended from Dan was a legend without any historical value. The Ethiopians themselves never claimed that they had any connection to the tribe of Dan.

The legend goes back to Eldad ha-Dani and was accepted as authentic by the Radba ]]> Censorship Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/7/Marc-B-Shapiro--Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-on-Previous-Posts Marc B. Shapiro - Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 2 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/5/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process-part-2

Marc B. Shapiro holds the Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Scranton. He is the author of Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966 (London: Littman Library, 1999), The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (London: Littman Library, 2003) and Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton Press, 2006).

Prof. Shapiro is a frequent contributor to the Seforim blog and his recent posts include: “Uncensored Books”; a response to Rabbi Zev Leff (with a subsequent exchange with Rabbi Chaim Rapoport); "What Do Adon Olam and ס"ט Mean?," and obituaries for Rabbi Yosef Buxbaum and Prof. Mordechai Breuer.

This post is a follow-up to his recent "Forgery and the Halakhic Process."

Forgery and the Halakhic Process, part 2
by Marc B. Shapiro

In this post I would like to finish up with Rabbi Zvi Benjamin Auerbach's Eshkol. But first, I must clear up another matter about which I was asked, as I discussed it right at the beginning of my first post dealing with the Eshkol. I mentioned that the late fourteenth-early fifteenth-century kabbalist, R. Menahem Zioni, quotes R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s comment that a section of the original Torah was removed by David and placed in the book of Psalms. After being shown this passage, as part of the effort to defend the authenticity of R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s commentary, R. Moshe Feinstein replied that Zioni’s commentary was also forbidden to be used.[1]

R. Moshe also writes that he doesn’t know who R. Menahem Zioni is. Presumably, this is designed to show Zioni’s insignificance, and make it easier for R. Moshe to ban his book. The problem is that Zioni is hardly an unknown figure; his commentary on the Torah is actually quite famous. He was also “one of the few kabbalists in 14th-century Germany.”[2] For R. Moshe to state that he is unfamiliar with Zioni is an acknowledgment that he is not particularly learned in Kabbalah. I don’t think anyone should find this surprising, much like they shouldn’t find it surprising that R. Moshe was not a savant of Jewish philosophy. He was an ish halakhah, and his time was spent focused on Shas and Poskim. Just as the Rav reports that R. Moshe Soloveitchik never held the Rambam’s Guide, we can also say about R. Moshe Feinstein that his interests were in line with the typical Lithuanian gadol, and that meant that Talmud and halakhah were what he devoted himself to.

While I don’t find R. Moshe’s lack of knowledge about a medieval kabbalist surprising, not all share this sentiment. After my last post someone wrote to me asking if it is true that R. Menasheh Klein rejected R. Moshe’s disqualification of Zioni. This is indeed true, and Klein’s responsum appears in his Mishneh Halakhot, new series, vol. 2, no. 214. Klein also points out that Zioni is quoted in halakhic sources, including the Magen Avraham, and he adds:

הציוני מקדמוני בעלי המקובלים וגדולי הפוסקים גאון וקדוש ה' ואשרי מי שזוכה להבינו ולחקרו וללמדו, וח"ו להוציא לע"ז על קדוש ה

As to how R. Moshe could have banned such a work, Klein has his own solution: “I don’t believe that these words came from the Gaon R. Moshe, but in my humble opinion a mistaken student wrote them and placed them among his papers after his death.” He also states that it is impossible for him to believe that R. Moshe never heard of Zioni since he is quoted in the commentaries on the Shulhan Arukh, and R. Moshe knew the Shulhan Arukh backwards and forwards. He concludes that God should forgive the one who is responsible for what appear in Iggerot Moshe, that which is now falsely attributed to R. Moshe.[3]

This is, of course, comical. R. Moshe insists that Zioni’s commentary should be banned, and Klein insists that R. Moshe never wrote this. The fact that the relevant volume of Iggerot Moshe was published in R. Moshe’s lifetime and the letter in which he writes against Zioni was sent to Rabbi Daniel Levy of Zurich and is dated 1976 does not deter Klein is what is surely one of the strangest things to appear in his volumes of responsa (which contain a good many strange things[4]).

As for R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s commentary, which R. Moshe also banned, Klein writes as follows (Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 16, no. 102):

מהעתקת הציוני כת"י של רבינו יהודה החסיד זה הוא עדות נאמנה גם על הכת"י של רבינו יהודה החסיד שהוא קודש קדשים וח"ו לרחקו ולומר שמינים כתבוהו

R. Moshe’s rejection of the commentary of R. Yehudah he-Hasid is not entirely unexpected. In fact, there are about ten different places where R. Moshe denies the authenticity of an earlier text because it does not agree with his preconceptions. In a future post I hope to list all of these examples, which show that R. Moshe could be quite daring (and this led to sharp responses to him by other poskim). Yet, as with R. Yehudah he-Hasid, every one of the texts that R. Moshe rejects is unquestionably authentic. In at least one of the cases we even have the author’s own manuscript.

A number of years ago I was studying R. Mordechai Spielman’s Tiferet Zvi. This is a multi-volume commentary on the Zohar which shows incredible bekiut. In fact, the Zohar is often just a springboard for the learned author to discuss all sorts of Torah matters. His first book, Tziyun le-Nefesh Tzvi, shows the same characteristics, and it is devoted to the issue of whether kohanim can go to the graves of tzadikim. While most poskim rule that they cannot, there is also a tradition, popular among the kabbalistically inclined, that tzadikim are exempted as they do not cause impurity. In one of his final articles, the late Prof. Israel M. Ta-Shma dealt with this issue.[5]

I noticed that Spielman cited Zioni and was curious to hear his reaction to R. Moshe’s teshuvah. In a lengthy letter, dated July 14, 1994, in which he discussed a variety of matters, he wrote:

וכשהייתי לפני כמה שנים בירושלים עה"ק ובקרתי אצל מרן פוסק הדור מו"ה ש"ז אויערבאך הנ"ל הסכים עמי ואמר לי בפירוש במעמד א' מיקירי רבני ירושלים עה"ק שליט"א שאין הצדק עם הגאון ר' משה זצ"ל לאסור למכור את הספר הקדוש הזה


[Quite by coincidence, a couple of years later my havruta at the Scranton yeshiva was the great-nephew of Rabbi Spielman. He told me that his uncle, who was a follower of the Munkatcher rebbe, R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira (and also a native of Munkatch), used to celebrate Thanksgsving each year. Such was his feeling of gratitude to be living in the United States.]

Returning to Auerbach’s Eshkol, the controversy really started when R. Shalom Albeck, in an open letter, later followed by his Kofer ha-Eshkol, accused Auerbach of forging the work. (Albeck himself, and his son Hanokh, later published the authentic Eshkol.) Yet it must be noted that Albeck was not the first to accuse Auerbach of this, as right after the work was published there appeared an anonymous article in He-Halutz[6] saying the same thing. There is a widespread assumption that this article was written by the outstanding scholar Raphael Kirchheim. Yet I don’t know how this assumption arose, as I can find no evidence to justify it. I believe that the author was Joshua Heschel Schorr, the publisher of the journal.

I must thank Rabbi Baruch Oberlander of Budapest[7] who called my attention to the fact that in another article in He-Halutz, eleven years later,[8] Schorr once again attacks Auerbach and his edition of the Eshkol. Among his choice words are the following:

וחטא למחבר הספר וחטא לקוראים ההוגים להתלמד, וחטא לאמת ולמי שחותמו אמת וחטא לנפשו, והוא עתיד ודאי ליתן את הדין ומי יודע אם יצא נקי בדין, כי אין מרחמין בדין

Oberlander also called my attention to the following, which is quite interesting. In my previous post I quoted R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin’s assessment that Albeck was correct in judging Auerbach’s Eshkol a forgery. Yet in the Talmudic Encyclopedia, edited by Zevin, Auerbach’s Eshkol is cited! I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the people working on the various entries, who are all great talmidei hakhamim, have never even heard of the dispute over the volume. Unlike the case of Besamim Rosh, the reliability of Auerbach’s Eshkol is almost never mentioned in traditional rabbinic literature, and the great poskim continue to cite it as a rishon. Yet Auerbach’s Eshkol is also cited numerous times in the volumes that appeared while Zevin was still alive. How can one explain this?

Auerbach’s Eshkol was shown to be a forgery in that it contained formulations taken from post-medieval works. In my last post I quoted R. Ratsaby’s comment in his letter to me that the work contains material from the Beit Yosef. Oberlander points out that R. Menahem M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9:140, also raises this possibility.

באשכול הנדפס בכת"י ע"י ר"ש אלבעק דף 46, ליתא קטע זו וצ"ע אם אין זו הוספה ע"פ הב"י

It is in this area, of post-medieval material in the Eshkol, that Prof. S. Z. Havlin has made a fascinating discovery. I refer to his article in Yeshurun 13 (2003), which should satisfy even the final doubters that the work is indeed a forgery.

Havlin quotes a passage from R. Abraham ben ha-Rambam that is found in the Orhot Hayyim of R. Aharon of Lunel and also appears in Auerbach’s Eshkol. The question is obvious: How could the Eshkol, whose author, R. Abraham ben Isaac, died in 1159, quote anything from R. Abraham ben ha-Rambam. Of course, one could say that this is a later addition to the manuscript from someone who used the Orhot Hayyim. But as Havlin notes, this is no help either because where would this person have come across this text, as it is lacking from the standard edition of Orhot Hayyim and is today only found in one Jerusalem manuscript?

The answer is that the Beit Yosef cites this passage in the name of Orhot Hayyim (without noting that the Orhot Hayyim is quoting R. Abraham ben ha-Rambam). R. Joseph Karo had access to a manuscript of Orhot Hayyim which had this text, which, as mentioned, does not appear in the standard version of Orhot Hayyim. Auerbach saw this text in the Beit Yosef and simply incorporated it into his Eshkol, perhaps even assuming that this was another example of Orhot Hayyim quoting the authentic Eshkol, as he often does. Only now, when we have access to the Jerusalem manuscript of this work, do we see that Orhot Hayyim is actually quoting a teaching of R. Abraham ben ha-Rambam. This was information that Auerbach did not have, and explains how he could include it in his edition. R. Abraham ben Isaac was a great scholar (and father-in-law of the Ra’avad). Yet even he was not able to quote from works that would not appear until after his death.

Havlin concludes:

נמצא אפוא שיש בנוסח מהדורת הרב אויערבך הוספות שנבלעו בפנים בלא אות או סימן, שנעשו לא לפני שנת שי"א (1551), שבה הופיע לראשונה ספר בית יוסף

I was asked to explain a bit about the Eshkol, vol. 4, that Bernard Bergman published. First some background: In the introduction to volume 3 of his edition of the Eshkol, Auerbach wrote that the halakhot of the Eshkol found in his manuscript that remained to be published were Hilkhot Yom Tov, Rosh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur, Orlah, Kilayim, Hallah, Hekdesh, Vows and Oaths, Tzedakah, and Rabbinic laws. In his Kofer ha-Eshkol, Albeck, who insisted that Auerbach had no Eshkol manuscript but created his edition using various other sources (including the authentic Eshkol), challenged Auerbach’s supporters to at least produce Auerbach’s transcribed copy of his manuscript. It was asserted that the original manuscript had been lost, presumably put into geniza by the family which owned it and didn’t realize its value. But, Albeck claimed, certainly Auerbach had made a copy of it.

Auerbach’s request was never fulfilled, and it is obvious that all of Auerbach’s defenders, who were in close touch with his family, assumed that there was no such copy. Had anyone known of it, its existence would have been a central feature of the defense of Auerbach’s honesty.

In 1986 Bergman published volume 4 of Auerbach’s Eshkol, which contains some of the missing sections. This shows that Albeck was not correct in his assumption, and accusation, that no such text existed, But its existence says nothing about the authenticity of Auerbach’s Eshkol. All it means is that Auerbach had written down certain sections, and added his commentary Nahal Eshkol which he had to do before publication. Even forgers have to present a written text to the printer!

With regard to Bergman’s volume, it is very curious that the reader is given no insight in the introduction as to where this manuscript came from (or even a picture of it). I can’t think of any other publication of a rishon where this information is not provided. I would not be surprised if some think that the new edition is itself a later forgery designed to protect Auerbach’s legacy. After all, how is it that Bergman came to this work when Auerbach’s family and defenders knew nothing about it? Despite these questions, I think that barring new evidence we should give Bergman the benefit of the doubt and assume that the manuscript did originate with Auerbach.

I realize that it was, and remains, hard for people to accept that a gadol be-Yisrael was capable of such an outrage, namely, forging the work of a rishon. I think we should simply assume that he had some sort of schizophrenic personality, and leave it at that. Even great Torah scholars sometimes do weird things.

It is of course understandable that people who knew Auerbach as a pious sage were not able to accept this. Professor Jacob Barth, who taught at both the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin and the University of Berlin, and was one of the world’s leading Semitic scholars, is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Although he was R. Esriel Hildesheimer’s son-in-law and a leading figure in German Orthodoxy, he also had a critical mind and was not one to be led by convention. It was thus possible for him to argue that Isaiah 40-66 was a later addition, and to reject the talmudic dating of various post-biblical books. He even claimed that the Song of Songs was not originally intended as an allegory, a position that today would probably get him put into herem. Yet even this giant of critical scholarship could not approach the Eshkol problem objectively. Instead, he reflected on how forty years prior he had studied Talmud under Auerbach, and how much he was impressed by him, from both an intellectual and personal standpoint. As he put it, whoever had any contact with Auerbach knows that it is “absolutely impossible that he could have committed the smallest literary dishonesty.”[9] He concludes his essay by stating that the learning and character of Auerbach stand tall, despite the shameful attack of Albeck.

In my first post I noted that R. Hayyim Heller pointed out to the Rav that Auerbach’s Eshkol is a forgery. In this regard, it is interesting to mention something that appears in Shimon Yosef Meller, Uvdot ve-Hanhagot le-Veit Brisk. In recent years there has been great interest in “Brisk.” I am not referring to the Brisker method of Torah study which has been popular for a long time, but rather a great interest in the personal lives of the outstanding figures of Brisk.

As every bit of information is precious, and every book wants to offer new stories, it is important for the authors to look anywhere they can. Unfortunately, at least one such book has plagiarized from R. Herschel Schachter.[10] Another unfortunate element in these books is the lack of respect shown to figures who did not share the Brisker anti-Zionism. This is more understandable, as at times R. Chaim and R. Velvel themselves had negative views of the religious Zionist gedolim.[11] It would be censorship if their attitudes were not recorded properly, but most people reading this will still regard it as unfortunate that these great rabbis were not more tolerant. (The irony, of course, is that they are expected to be tolerant of those who supported what in their mind was bringing great devastation upon the Torah world.)

Speaking personally, I must say that some of the stories recorded in these books are so strange that I wonder if most people in this generation would be led to admire these figures more after hearing the stories, or if the result would be the opposite. For example, what is one to make of the following story, told in order to inspire awe of the Brisker Rav? Once he was served something which, while kosher, did not measure up to his standards. Upon learning of this, he immediately stuck his finger down his throat, causing himself to throw up on the host’s expensive rug. Rather than this upsetting the host, we are told that this further increased his admiration for the Brisker Rav.[12]

Can people today grasp what it means to be a pure ish halakhah of the sort the Rav describes in Halakhic Man, whose behavior can come across as very cold and unfeeling (e.g., R. Moshe Soloveichik’s rebuke of the Baal Tokea, and the story of R. Elya Pruzhener and his dying daughter)?[13] Another such example of this is the report that when one of R. Velvel’s sons died shortly after birth, and the family was crying, he was insistent that they stop their tears, since there is no avelut before thirty days.[14] Whether this type of pan-halakhism is inherently positive or negative I will leave to the judgment of others, but I think that in modern times it is clear that the average person who hears stories like this, even if he is a haredi, will not be spiritually inspired. I think that many times he will even be spiritually turned off, for obvious reasons.

I know that Rabbi Pinchas Teitz, who headed my high school, the Jewish Educational Center, didn’t like the similar sort of stories told about the Rogochover. He felt that people today would hear these stories and the only thing that would stay with them is that the Rogochover was eccentric. Since the point of stories of gedolim is to inspire respect and awe, telling stories that stress his eccentricity would therefore be counterproductive. For example, hearing about how the Rogochover threw a chair at R. Hayyim Ozer, or how he proclaimed that R. Yitzhak Elchanan didn’t know how to learn or that Tosafot is full of errors, are hardly the sort of tales that will inspire awe.

In fact there are many gedolim about whom R. Teitz’ point is applicable. I remember when a high school rebbe of mine got all excited telling the class about his trip to the Steipler, and how while he was there the Steipler chased another fellow out of the house. (Subsequently I learnt that this was not so uncommon). After the rebbe finished his story, no doubt thinking we would be impressed, one of the students blurted out something along the lines of “Do you think that was a nice thing to do?” Now I certainly am not going to judge the Steipler, and it is likely that the man was deserving of being thrown out, but the rebbe didn’t know the details and thought that it would be exciting to tell us high schoolers how the great Steipler lived up to his reputation as one who didn’t suffer fools. Yet the acculturated Modern Orthodox response was to wonder why he wasn’t a nicer person. In other words, Rabbi Teitz was correct about the need to be careful when it comes to telling the masses stories of gedolim.

To give another example, I recently read a hesped where R. Yitzhak Yosef recorded how the deceased talmid hakham, R. Moshe Levi, didn’t miss a moment of Torah study. He described how when R. Levi was at a communal meal he kept a book under the tablecloth, and every free second he could be seen be looking at it. The eulogizer saw that as something positive, whereas in my town, everyone would regard it as very rude. This point illustrates why I find haredi hagiography so fascinating, as it clearly reveals the culture gap between the haredi world and the Modern Orthodox world. Some of the stories that are told, and are part of haredi myth making, would be regarded with horror by the Modern Orthodox world.[15] How better to determine the ethos of a community than by seeing how it chooses to remember and praise its leaders? If anyone thinks that the Rav shared the Modern Orthodox ethos, just look at the stories he tells in Halakhic Man.

Sometimes truly horrible stuff is found in haredi “gedolim books” as well. Let me offer just one example. There is a very helpful book by Dov Ber Schwartz entitled Artzot ha-Hayyim (Brooklyn, 1992). This book contains short biographies of numerous American rabbis, a list of rabbinic books published in the United States, and an essay on Orthodoxy in America. Yet in the midst of the book, on page 52a in the note, one finds the shocking passage which you can see here, and which I am too embarrassed to translate. One can only hope that sentiments such as these are not very common among Schwartz’ fellow Satmar hasidim.

Another real problem with all of the haredi hagiography is that one never knows if the stories are trustworthy. That doesn’t mean that the stories have no value, for even if gadol x never did what is recorded, the fact that this story is told about him reveals the mindset of the generation telling the story. In other words, we can adapt the point Neusner has made about talmudic tales of tannaim really telling us about the amoraim; late twentieth and early twenty-first-century tales of gedolim really reveal what the current haredi ethos is (especially since anything that doesn’t agree with this ethos will be censored.)

While in many cases the stories told are strange and one wonders whether they are accurate, in some cases it can be determined with virtual, or even complete, certainty that they are false. Yehoshua Mondshine has authored a number of articles showing the falsehoods in (mostly) hasidic stories. Among the non-hasidic works he takes aim at is R. Barukh Epstein’s Mekor Barukh.[16] Mondshine’s prime concern is with the famous story recorded by Epstein about his father’s meeting with the Tzemah Tzedek, and Mondshine attempts to show that there is no reason to believe the report.

To this I would only add that, knowing Epstein’s reputation as a plagiarizer and how he manufactured stories, one should not take seriously any of his “recollections.” I know the feminists will be upset with this, but we must assume that the entire dialogue between him and Rayna Batya,[17] which shows her as a proto-feminist, is contrived and has no historical significance other than revealing that Epstein himself wanted to call attention to the sad fate of talented women who are not permitted to study Torah In the unlikely event that he does accurately portray Rayna Batya, all I can say is that the punishment of one who tells tall tales is that even when he tells a true story he is not believed. We must, however, remember that even when it comes to stories that are certainly false (and there are loads of them being invented all the time, and then repeated by the gullible), one should not be discouraged when reading them. Rather, one should keep in mind Saul Lieberman’s famous comment: “Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship.”

What does all this have to do with Auerbach’s Eshkol? In Uvdot ve-Hanhagot le-Veit Brisk, 3:291, we are told in the name of someone who heard it directly from R. Velvel that when Auerbach’s Eshkol was published, “I [R. Velvel] immediately said that this is not the Eshkol.” R. Velvel is also quoted as saying that it was actually written by another rishon. Here is a perfect example of why these sorts of books are so unreliable. I am not saying that the person who reported this story is lying, only that he didn’t understand what R. Velvel said, or perhaps after forty years no longer remembered properly. I say this because R. Velvel never could have said what he is alleged to have said, as he wasn’t even alive when Auerbach’s Eshkol appeared in 1868. The only kernel of truth that can be gleaned from this text is that R. Velvel knew that Auerbach’s Eshkol was not the authentic Eshkol. Seeing how badly the informant messed up, I am not even willing to trust him that R. Velvel said that Auerbach’s Eshkol is the work of another rishon. Perhaps he only said that it contains information from rishonim, without committing himself to it being an authentic medieval work.

The great problem is what to do with pesakim that rely on Auerbach’s Eshkol. For example, the authentic Eshkol does not have hilkhot niddah, but Auerbach’s does. Unlike Saul Berlin, Auerbach was not simply making up pesakim and attributing them to rishonim. He was taking information in the Beit Yosef and other works and putting this in the mouth of ]]> Censorship Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/5/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process-part-2 Part Five of the "The Eruv in St. Louis" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/4/Part-Five-of-the-The-Eruv-in-St-Louis
As previously noted at the Seforim blog, Eruv Online has an excellent series on the history of eruvin controversies. In his most recent offering, he has posted the fifth segment of "History of City Eruvin − The Eruv in St. Louis." For earlier posts, see 1,2,3,4.

On a related topic, see Rabbi Adam Mintz's earlier post about "The Manhattan Eruv" at the Seforim blog.

]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/4/Part-Five-of-the-The-Eruv-in-St-Louis Towards A Reappraisal of the Recent Works of Rabbi Shelomoh Luriah (Maharshal) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/2/Towards-A-Reappraisal-of-the-Recent-Works-of-Rabbi-Shelomoh-Luriah-Maharshal
Towards A Reappraisal of the Recent Works
Of Rabbi Shelomoh Luriah (Maharshal)
By Rabbi Eliezer Brodt

As previously mentioned on the Seforim blog by myself and others, our generation is privileged to something no previous generation has seen, a sheer volume of Jewish books being printed and reprinted. Many of these works are seeing print for the first time - works of Rishonim and Achronim on all sorts of topics brought to the public eye from manuscript form. Some of these printings are beautiful editions, critically edited, and even glossed with illuminating marginal annotations. Other times the only benefit is to see the change from an illegible typeface to a clear block print (oft as not without any particular in the editing). In many cases, specific institutions are founded solely to deal with works from a particular religious group, while at other times, entire publishing houses are established that deal with the writings of one particular author. Recently one Godol, the great prolific writer, the Aderet (Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim), famous for, amongst many things, being the father-in-law of R Kook, has had over five distinct groups working on printing his writings although almost none of his writings were published in his lifetime.

Recently, a rather modest institute called Makhon Iyay HaYam has begun reprinting as well as publishing for the first time, the many writings of the great gaon R. Shelomoh Luria, Maharshal. To date, this Makhon has already printed a few of his works and is currently working on many more. In this post, I would like to discuss this great person, the Maharshal, some of his printed works, and the current and future projects of this particular Makhon. As much has already been written on this great goan, including several biographical sketches, as well as a dissertation by Dr. Meir Raffeld on the Maharshal's magnum opus, Yam Shel Shelomoh (more later), I have limited myself to but a few highlights.

The Maharshal was born circa 1510 (most likely in the city of Brisk or Posen), and died in 1573 in Lublin. He was a Rav in many cities, including Brisk,[1] Ostra and Lublin.[2] Alongside the rabbinate, the Maharshal established and ran yeshivot, training many famous students. Amongst these students are, notably, R. Yehoshuah Falk Katz (author of the Preisha), R. Moshe Meis (author of Mateh Moshe on minhagim as well as Hoel Moshe on Rashi; more on him later), R. Shelomoh Efrayim Lunschitz (author of the Kli Yakar), R. Chayim of Friedberg (author of Sefer HaChayim and brother of the famous Maharal of Prague), and R. Eliyahu of Chelm (the great-great-grandfather of the Hakham Zvi and Rabbi Jacob Emden, famous for being the only latter day Godol to have created a documented golem (see here for Prof. Shnayer Z. Leiman’s post, "Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem?" at the Seforim blog) all studied in the Maharshal’s Yeshiva. As an historical aside, it is worth pointing out that in the biography printed by R. Chechik, Sefer Chasdei Hashem (Yerushalayim, 5767, pg. 3), R. Chechik makes the claim that the major talmidim of the Maharshal studied in his yeshiva in Lublin. This appears highly implausible as the Maharshal only came to Lublin in 1569, and by then most of his talmidim were already accomplished poskim. More likely these students studied in one of the Yeshivot the Maharshal headed prior to the Maharshal’s Yeshiva in Lublin.

R. Shelomoh Luria was a contemporary of and related to R. Moshe Isserles, the Rama. In his Maalot Hayuchsin (Yerushalayim, 5764), p. 15, R. Efraim Zalman Margolis traces the various ways in which the Rama and the Maharshal were related. Among those was through the marriage of Maharshal's daughter Miriam to Rama's brother Eliezer. Additionally, these two Gedolim carried on extensive correspondence between themselves, some taking a rather sharp tone (most noted are those letters regarding the study of philosophy and dikduk). Yet, as R. Efraim Zalman Margolis notes, the utmost respect and esteem was maintained between the two. In fact, they seem to have been keenly interested in the other’s works, there is evidence that they read the other’s work prior to publication. (See Klilas Yoffe p. 9b and Maalot Hayuchsin of R. Efraim Zalman Margolis, pp. 27-28.) [3]

While both the Rama and the Maharshal were well respected and many of the Poskim of that generation were the Maharsha’s students, in a choice between the two regarding how to decide halakha, the Rama is the clear winner. The Shelah HaKadosh, however, bemoans the fact the Maharshal’s decisions were not accepted. This is so as the Maharshal followed the Rama (i.e. the Maharshal died later) and, as such, should have been awarded consenting rulings out of principle (halachisha k’basrayi). As a result, the Shelah HaKadosh calls upon those who fear Hashem to take upon themselves all stringent dissenting opinions of the Maharshal in opposition to the Rama (Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Shaar Ha’Otiyot, #100, Kedushah).

The Maharshal is well-known for his caustic tone in his writings. Many biographers note his use of rather sharp epithets in his works concerning other Gedolim. R. Chaim Dembitzer cites many instances where the Maharshal writes sharply against various Rishonim (Klilas Yoffe p. 11). But, some have questioned the focus on the Maharshal’s tone. For instance, Shmuel Abba Horedesky, who authored a biography on the Maharshal, Kerem Shlomo, included a discussion of the Maharshal’s caustic tone. Horedesky sent his book to the Sdei Chemed, and in a recently published letter, the Sdei Chemed sharply critiques Horedesky’s inclusion of that portion on the Maharshal.[4] (Dr. M. Raffeld, in his dissertation also bemoans the misguided focus of previous historians at these caustic remarks instead of researching the more unknown eras of the Maharshal’s life).

Aside from his goanus, the Maharshal was an extremely prolific writer, writing on many areas. Some of his more famous works include an outstanding work on Shas called Yam Shel Shelomoh. For itself, the work is pretty well known, unfortunately it is not used to its full potential in today’s yeshivah world (this due to many reasons, most importantly the current mahalach halimud) although of late it has been reprinted in a nice block print edition. The style of the Yam Shel Shelomoh is oriented toward halakha. Typically, each topic is examined systematically from its beginning sources, through the Rishonim and through (the then) current minhag (see further Dr. M. Raffeld). This work has not reached us in its entirety, as parts are missing from those mesechtos present. Furthermore, it is clear from many places in his writings as well as quotes from his talmdim that he wrote more than what we have. (To date we have volumes on seven masekhtot, but according to various sources, the Maharshal wrote on sixteen masekhtot. Dr. Raffeld attempts to construct a list of the remaining nine; not all agree to this listing and several substitutes have been suggested). I seem to recall that recently they discovered the volume of Yam Shel Shelomoh on masekhet Baba Batra, but the collector who owns it does not allow anyone to print it and is only willing to sell it for a very large sum of money. Likewise, rumors of Yam Shel Shelomoh on masekhet Shabbat have been circulating among professional circles, without any concrete evidence.

In addition to the Yam Shel Shelomoh on the Gemara, the Maharshal penned many other notes on many masekhtot, dealing with, among his personal novella, the correct girsa’ot of the Gemara. Known today as Hagahot Hokhmat Shelomoh, this work was originally printed as a separate volume. Present-day editions of Gemara find some of the comments having added into the text of the Gemara and Rashi over time, and the authorship erased along with the original gloss. The remaining glosses are printed in the back of almost all recent editions of the Gemara. In his editing, the Maharshal used old manuscripts, as well as variant texts. In a lengthy article in Alei Sefer, vol. 15, Y. Ron deals with this work. Later on Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel dealt with this work in his classic Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivry, Hagot u-Maghim (pp. 279-285). Hokhmat Shelomoh on Masekhet Gitten has been recently reprinted by R. Y. Satz, (Toronto: Otzreinu, 1990). The foreword includes a detailed article elaborating on the need to reprint this work, basing the glosses on the exact comments of the Gemara used by the Maharshal. Large amounts of the glosses have been deleted by editors who mistakenly attributed them to lines already corrected, while in fact the Maharshal had another point in mind.

A partial list of the Maharshal's other famous works include Teshuvot Maharshal, responsa quoted by all poskim; glosses on Rashi al haTorah called Yerios Shlomo, reprinted several times of late; glosses to Sefer Shaarey Dura by R. Yitzhak of Duren called Ateret Shelomoh. He also wrote glosses on the Sefer haMitzvot haGadol (SMaG) by R. Moshe of Coucy, called Amudei Shelomoh. Makhon Yerushalayim has issued a critical edition of this work, in three volumes, based on manuscripts and first prints, replete with footnotes by R. Yosef Luban. In addition to stand-alone volumes, the Makhon has also included the Maharshal's valuable glosses in their critical edition of the Sefer haMitzvot haGadol.

Now for the works printed by Makhon Iyay HaYam:

As previously mentioned, the Maharshal routinely wrote marginal notes on a vast number of seforim. Of the most popular, were his glosses on the side of the Tur. In large, these notes are quoted by his talmid, R. Yehoshua Falk Katz, the Preisha, as well as the Bach (Sefer Bayit Chodosh) and many other Poskim, but until this century, these notes were never printed. In 1957, the editors of Tur Hotzaat ‘El Hamikoros’ commissioned R. S. Werner to ‘liberate’ these notes from manuscript ‘captivity,’ allowing for a tremendous find for the halakhic world. Unfortunately, thirty simanim in Yoreh Deah were lost from the copyist, and were listed as missing in the manuscript. In 1995, R. A. Chavatzelet published these simanim in a Sefer Zikaron for R. Werner, with the intention of completing the sefer on Yoreh Deah.

While researching another work, R. Y. M. Dubovick found citations to glosses not printed in R. Chavazelet's addendum. Further perusal revealed the existence of more manuscripts in libraries worldwide that R. Werner was unaware of, and of which R. Chavatzelet had not availed himself. With more accurate texts, and numerous additional pieces not found in the manuscripts R. Werner had been given, it was clear of the need to edit the hagahot from the beginning. R. Dubovick decided to print this whole work again with all the corrections and missing pieces. First, R. Dubovick published an expository article in the journal Yeshurun (vol. 11) listing many missing parts on Yoreh Deah. In 2000, he issued a limited printing of the hagahot on Even HaEzer (including hagahot on the last ten simanim, a notable lack in R. Werner's edition). More recently, he released a critical print of the first sixty simanim of Tur, Yoreh Deah with footnotes, surrounding the text of the Tur (Crimea, 1558) as used by the Maharshal. Therein, he references all the relevant writings of the Maharshal and his talmidim to the glosses on the Tur, as well as citations of these glosses by the poskim.

R. Dubovick intends to conclude the rest of Yoreh Deah in the near future and deal with Orah Hayyim and Hoshen Mishpat next, and finally, a reissue of Even HaEzer.

The focus of this recent volume on Yoreh Deah is the Sefer Ateret Shelomoh a commentary on the Shechitos u'Bedikos of R. Yaakov Weil, the hagahot on Tur an addendum to this rare work. As little as less than a hundred years ago every shochet had been tested specifically on this work, and virtually every small-town rav had to be an expert in this area as well. Many of the she’elot presented to a local rav were on these very topics and could not be referred to another Rav, as by than the animal would spoil. Nowadays, a shochet is tested on Sefer Beit David (R. David Tschechovitz), and unfortunately, the shechitot and bedikot of R. Yaakov Weil are almost unknown by anyone today, save for the occasional excerpt in other seforim.

Seeing how this valuable work has not been reprinted with the Maharshal's notes in the past 400 years, Makhon Iyay HaYam recently undertook this project to enrich the public with yet another one of the Maharshal's many invaluable works, reprinting the text based on the only two printings, and a manuscript fragment. R. Dubovick set himself to the task, painstakingly annotating along the way with extremely thorough notes on the entire sefer. Albeit some times his notes are a bit lengthy, there is a wealth of singular information contained in them, both on the halakhic field as well as the bio-bibliographic, which the editor could not deny the public, and did not omit them from print. A few examples; when the Maharshal quotes his grandfather, R. Yitzchok Klauber, noted are many of the places where the Maharshal cites his grandfather, throughout his many seforim (p. 3, n.6), along with a brief biographical sketch. [5] The same style note can be found when the Maharshal mentions his father-in-law R. Kalonymus (Kalman) Havarkstein-Yerushalmi; a listing of other citations, along with a thumbnail bio, including the Maharshal's wife's name (p. 38, n.28). With an eye on the halakhic ramifications of reprinting this sefer, R Dubovick notes that R. Efraim Zalman Margolis highlighted the importance of studying this sefer for those learning shechita, and yet, due to the sefer having been published as an addendum to the sefer, Sha’arei Dura, and not having a distinct title page from the Sha’rei Dura, remained unknown. (Introduction to Ateres Shlomo, see also Ma’alos haYhuchsin, p. 35) Additionally, regarding R. Efraim Zalman's work on treifus in lungs (Rosh Efraim), R. Efraim Zalman states that Shechitot u'Bedikot were written last, even after Yam Shel Shelomoh, and the Halakha should be fixed accordingly, even against a dissenting opinion in Yam Shel Shelomoh (p. 38, n.27). In addition, he includes interesting sources to the practice of watering cattle before shechita (p. 55, n.92), as well as bringing to light a fascinating source to the puzzling minhag of peeling off sirchos (lesions) from the lung (p. 64, n.129).

The Maharshal's extreme regard for maintaining minhagei Ashkenaz and their halakhic impact are spread throughout both his and his talmidim’s many writings. One can especially find this true with regard to R. Moshe Meis’ classic work Mateh Moshe. A while back, a manuscript was discovered of some minhaghim of the Maharshal called Hanhagot HaMaharshal. Dr. Y. Refael printed this work in a Sefer Hayovel and then later on as a separate pamphlet. These minhagim were written anonymously, and the editor attributes them to R. Moshe Meis, author of Mateh Moshe, and known to have been a personal member of the household of his teacher, R. Shelomoh Luria. As these minhagim do not cover the whole year, Dr. Refael concludes that the text is only a segment of a much larger work, which had unfortunately been lost. Interestingly enough, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi told me recently he did all the work in annotating this sefer and preparing it for print, although for some reason he wasn't credited for it. (While this edition was printed from a manuscript, copied expressly for R. Nachum Ber Friedman of Sadigura (Areshet, vol. 1 397-98), there is another, variant edition, printed in the back of some copies of Nagid uMitzaveh (Sinai, vol. 63, p. 96)).

Among the interesting minhagim included in here is: [6]

מורי מוהר"ש אמר שקצת מינות באמירת י"ג עיקרים שתקנו באני מאמין שיש בו י"ג עיקרים, כי קצת אומרים וחושבים בלבם כשמאמינים בי"ג עיקירים אף על פי שעשו כל התועבות שבעולם ר"ל מכל מקום יש להם תקנה ואינו כן אלא אפילו מדברי חז"ל הוא עיקיר אחד, כמו שמצינו שאמר מה נאה הלכה זו ולא משבח האחרות גם כן אינו עושה כהוגן. ולא נתקנו אלו הי"ג עיקירים רק בשביל פילסוף מימים הקדמונים שהיו עושים עיקרים בכללים ולא עשו כמנין הללו באו חז"ל ותקנו גם כן בכלליהם וכן ביגדל אלקים חי נתקן י"ג עיקירם גם כן ולא אמר מורי אחד מהם ולא יגדל ולא אני מאמין".

Also, the Maharshal discusses the Shir HaYichud, and offers a rather radical explanation of who the author of Shir HaYichud was: [7]

ביום טוב אחרון של פסח ביום ב' אירע שנפל נר על דף של סידור ואמר בחור אחד בבית הכנסת של מורי מהר"ש לכבות אותו ולהציל ספרי קודש מדליקה. ואמר אפשר מותר ובפרט ביום ב' של יום טוב שהוא דרבנן ובחור אחד אמר שהוא משיר היחוד ואמר מורי מהר"ש אל תבכו, גם זה לטובה שנשרף, שהוא סובר שלא בר סמכא עשאו, שמין עשאו

Similarly, in the Siddur Siddur Shabtei Sofer, vol. 1 pp. 89-90, R. Shabtei records in the name of the Maharshal:

והנה נוהג' ברוב קהלות אשכנז לומר שיר היחוד הזה בכל יום רק במדינת רוסיא בקהלות אשר נהג בהם רבנות הגאון מהר"ר שלמה לוריא ז"ל אין אומרים אותו כל עיקר. ושמעתי מפי רבים מזקני הדור שהגידו לי ששמעו את מהרש"ל שהיה דורש בק"ק לבוב ובק"ק לובלין בתחלת בואו לנהוג שם רבנות ואמר בדרשותיו שאין לומר שיר היחוד מפני שמצא שחיבר אותו מין, ובעבור זה היה מוחה בכל הקהלות מושבותיו מלאמרו

Another rather unknown work of the Maharshal, is his Zemirot for Shabbat. While this work has been printed many times, not one of these editions has been reprinted based on the first printing and manuscript and many of the modern printings have actually detracted from the sefer's integrity. This rare sefer is comprised of songs the Maharshal composed for Shabbat and Motzei Shabbat, with the author's commentary to those songs. Included in his explanations are many halakhot and minhagim of Shabbat. Some examples of which are; women should wear a special garment when lighting the Shabbos candles; a reference to the custom of wearing a kittel on Shabbos. Another example, he praises the people of Ashkenaz for having a set system with regard to hosting yeshiva students for Shabbat meals. (Interestingly enough, while Prof. Simha Assaf mentions this minhag in his biographical sketch of the Maharshal printed in Sefer haYovel Lichvod Prof. L. Ginzburg, he makes no note of it in his Mekorot LeToldot HaChinuch biYisrael, even though he does mention several other sources to this custom pp. 229, 236, 633). [8]

Here too, R. Dubovick is working on reprinting these zemirot, along with an excellent commentary of his own on this work. A few samples of his efforts have been published in the journal Yeshurun (vol. 16). Here, I was simply amazed at the sources and comments of R. Dubovick regarding the various points of the Maharshal. One only hopes he will finish this work soon along with all his many projects relating to the Maharshal.

Notes:
I would like to thank R Y. M. Dubovick and Dan Rabinowitz in for their extremely helpful suggestions and sources in writing this post.

[1] On the Maharshal’s tenure in Brisk see the letter of R. Nosson Rabinovitch (author of Dikdukei Sofrim) in Eyur Tehilah p. 198.

[2] On the Maharshal’s time in Lublin, see the story brought in Simchas Hanefesh (see here for an earlier post, "Simchat ha-Nefesh: An Important But Often Ignored Work on German Jewish Customs," at the Seforim blog) from R Yehudah Chassid pg 109-110. A similar story is quoted by the Chida in Shem haGedolim, erech R Avrhoum Mocher Yerokos.

[3] For a recent lengthy discussion of these correspondences, see Y. Elbaum in his Pisichut Vehistagrot (pg 156 and onwards), as well Dr. Asher Siev's biography of the Rama (1972). For the exchange of letters between Rama and Maharshal on philosophy, as part of the appendix of translations of primary texts from 16th-century East-European Jewish Thought, see Leonard Levin, "Seeing With Both Eyes: The Intellectual Formation of Ephraim Luntshitz," (Ph.D., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2003), 299-284, esp. 299-311.

[4] On the caustic comments of the Maharshal see Iggerot S’dei Chemed, vol. 1, siman 11, pp. 24-25; see also R. Barukh haLevi Epstein, Mekor Barukh, Introduction, pp. 89-93.

[5] For more on the Maharshal’s grandfather see M. Rafeld, in Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2007), 8:174-96.

[6] For more on Ani Manmin see HaSiddur, pp. 232-36; Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), pp. 19-20 (citing opinion of the Maharshal).

[7] For more on this topic see: A. Berliner, Kesavim Nevcharim, vol 1 pg 145-170; R. Dovid Hanazir , Kol Haneveha pgs 124, 143-144; H.J. Zimmels, Askenazim and Sephardim, pp. 132-134; A Haberman, Shiur Hayichud Vhakovod (intro), Y. Dan, Shiur Hayichud (facsimile edition) with the commentary of R. Yom Tov Muelhausem, Introduction; R.Y. Stal, Sefer Gematryios L'Rabenu Yehudah Hachassid, vol 1 pg 32-38; R. Y. Golhaver Minhaghei Hakehlos, vol 1 p. 132: and my forthcoming article in the Yerushasenu volume two.

[8] Another person who missed this source while discussing this topic is Mordechai Breuer, in his comprehensive book on the Yeshivot, Oholei Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure and History (Merkaz Zalman Shazar 2003), pp. 405-409.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/11/2/Towards-A-Reappraisal-of-the-Recent-Works-of-Rabbi-Shelomoh-Luriah-Maharshal Modena, Gilgul, and an Unpublished Letter http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/24/Modena-Gilgul-and-an-Unpublished-Letter
Someone in a comment to a recent post mentioned an article that appears in the latest issue of the journal Ets Hayyim. This journal is published by the “students and hassidim of Bobov.” [Supposedly this journal is a break-off of the excellent journal Kerem Shlomo.]
The journal is comprised of what most torah journals are today, there is a section publishing manuscripts hiddushei torah, general hiddushei torah, some articles on halacha etc. In this fourth and most recent issue there is an article that I think deserves wider dissemination.

R. Shmuel Aboab (1610-1694), author of the Davar Shmuel (as well as Sefer Zikrohonot, discussed here, and Tavat Dovid) was one of the leading rabbis in Italy and Europe of his day. He corresponded with numerous people, part of that correspondence was published in Davar Shmuel. Davar Shmuel, published posthumously by his son, was a mahdurah kama (first edition -that Spiegel doesn't mention in his discussion regarding mahdurah kama/tinyana - although it is a printed book and not a manuscript), and does not include all R. Shmuel Aboab's responsa (something that was not corrected in the latest reprint of the Davar Shmuel). For many years, a collection of R. Abaob's letters (approximately 300!) were in the Montefiore Library and now they have passed into private hands. (These letters are mentioned in Hartwig Hirschfeld's Descriptive Cataloue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Montefiore Library - but the Google books version is for some reason missing the relevant page.) According to the description provided in Ets Hayyim, many of these letters have never been published or used by scholars (see below for a discussion of this claim). In Ets Hayyim, they have published one of the letters in its entirety. A detailed introduction about the manuscript generally and R. Aboab is included. This was written by R. Betzalel Divlitski. R. Divlitski uses traditional as well as academic sources in his introduction. Also an index of all the letters from the Montefiore collection is provided that includes some important snippets of these letters. For instance, one letter (no. 125) includes information when R. Ya'akov Hagiz came to Italy, something, according to R. Divlitski, that was previously not definitively known (again, see infra for more on this claim). According to the index, this letter tells us R. Hagiz came to Italy in 1659 (see infra note 2 ). Moreover, the letter that is published is in no way pedestrian. Rather, it is about a controversial topic and takes, what can be seen, as a controversial position.

While the above comes from R. Divlitski’s introduction and notes, it is worthwhile pointing out some serious shortcomings in R. Divlitski’s comments. R. Divlitski claims that most of these letters have never been published. This is wrong, and R. Divlitski knows it is wrong. Most of these letters were published by Meir Benayahu in his Dor Echad B’Aretz. R. Divliksi is aware of Benahyahu’s work as he cites it throughout. Divliski also made the claim the letter discussing when R. Hagiz came to Italy [1] was unknown, while again Benayahu has it in his work and discusses its implications (Dor Echad pp. 304-5). [2] Moreover, although R. Divlitski is willing to use the book he is unwilling to say who actually wrote it. Thus, every time R. Divlitski cites Dor Echad he never mentions Benayahu’s name. Lest one think Benayahu is somehow “treif” (whatever that may mean), R. Shlomo Zalman Aurbach seem to have no problem with Benayahu and read Benayahu’s works. (See Benayahu, Yosef Becheiri, Jerusalem, 1991, p. 364, 380). [3]

A bit of history regarding Benayhu’s work - Dor Echad B'Aretz - published in Jerusalem, 1988. A while back Benayahu while traveling the world and discovered this excellent collection of letters of R. Shmuel Aboab. He even writes that he could not believe his luck on finding them - these untapped sources full of this incredible wealth of information.[4] He noted that they were extremely important for multiple areas. Therefore, Benahayu went ahead and started printing them in many different journals. These articles started appearing as early as 1954. He divided the letters into different topics, inter alia, history of Eretz Yisroel, seforim and Sabbatianism. In 1988 Benayahu collected many of these letters from these varied journals and added some more from this collection (over 100) and printed them in one volume – Dor Echad B’Aretz. In this volume he included a comprehensive history of R. Abaob and R. Moshe Zaccuto (as Benayahu is well-known for his comprehensive biographies and works). For some odd reason he did not print all the letters from this collection nor did he even print all the letters he had already published. It could be that he never noted this important letter (now published in Ets Hayyim) perhaps because he planed on coming to it in a future work as it is well known he has over thirty years worth of seforim in manuscript!

Turning back to the article, R. Divlitski is correct that the letter regarding Modena has never been published and is thus important. [It is unclear why Benayahu decided not to publish this letter.] Thus, what Diviltski should have done was prefaced his article stating that although much has been written on R. Aboab and on the letters formerly housed in the Montefiore Library and many were published by Benayahu, for some reason, a very important letter has thus far escaped publication and now to remedy that, the letter is now being published – now on to the actual letter.

The letter in question discusses the belief, or lack thereof, in gilgul (transmitigation of souls). This subject has been a hot topic for centuries and much has been written on it in general and will be the subject of a different post. [For now, see Kol Hanevuah from R. Dovid Hanazir pp. 230-36 for an excellent collection of material on this topic and see R. Reuven Margolis in Sharei Zohar, Bavaeh Metziah, 107a.]

One of the persons to have denied belief in gilgul was R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena in his work Ari Noham. While Modena explicitly denied gilgul, some questioned whether that was truly his position. The Hida, first in Shem HaGedolim and later on in his travelogue, Ma'agel Tov, (pg 113) Hida states that he saw Modena’s then unpublished autobiography and the Hida claimed that Modena wrote that he changed his opinion on gilgul because of an event he witnessed towards the end of his life. Joseph Michael Hayim in Or haHayyim (pg 443) mentions that he never found evidence of Modena’s change of heart in any manuscripts of Modena’s autobiography. [Divlitski alludes to Hayim, but like the other “academics” doesn’t cite to him or mention him explicitly.] Today, we have two printed editions of Modena’s autobiography and neither has any reference to Modena’s alleged change of heart. It is worth noting that the autobiography contains other fascinating material – much of which would not be considered flattering as it portrays Modena in a very human sense. Thus, in the Sefer HaTerumos published by Mechon Yerushalim with the commentary of the Gedulei Terumah, by R. Azariah Figo, a student of Modean, an amazing allegation is made to deal with Modena’s Autobiography. A. Goldschmidt in the introduction claims that because of the content of the Autobiography it is “a forgery.” The reason being “it is unconscionable that a qualified Talmid Hakham such as R. Yehuha Areyeh Modena [would write things] that [even] simple people would not want publicized.” (p. 25 n.8).

The letter now published in Ets Hayyim is not from Modena but instead from R. Aboab to R. Moshe Zacuto about R. Yehuda Areyeh Modena. [5] Specifically, R. Zacuto heard that R. Modena was denying and publicizing that gilgul was not a Jewish belief. R. Zacuto wanted to put Modena in herem or come out against him, and wrote to R. Aboab to get his opinion. As R. Divlitski demonstrates this letter is key to disproving the notion that although Modena initially did not believe in gilgul he changed his mind later. Due to the timing of this letter it appears that either literally at the end of Modena's life he repudiated his belief on gilgul or, the more likely conclusion is that Modena never did.

In the letter, R. Aboab counsels against disputing Modena. R. Aboab makes a simple argument in that there are sources that dispute the claim of gilgul. Thus, there have been others who don't believe. How then can we reconcile those positions with R. Aboab's and R. Zacuto's idea that gilgul is a central tenet - it must be that only worthy people appreciate and therefore believe in gilgul. It would be pointless to criticize someone for not believing when it is not really their fault.

Basically, this is a great article with important new material but proper credit is not given. Furthermore, as Divlitski notes, and in light of the fact Benayahu clearly has not yet published all these letters, hopefully, with this letter being published in Ets Hayyim someone will finally publish all these letters.

Notes:

This post is the product of the combined efforts of myself and R. Eliezer Brodt.

[1] For some reason it seems E. Carlebach did not use Dor Echad, although she does use Benayahu’s prior articles, and thus was unaware of Benayahu’s discussion of this particular letter. See Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy, New York, 1990, p. 21, 284 nn.11-12. Although Benayahu rejects using the dates of R. Hagiz’s works to place Hagiz in Italy, Carlebach does just that. See Benayahu, Dor Echad, pp. 304 and Carlebach, id. Additionally, Carlebach does not mention the letter discussed above that explicitly establishes Hagiz in Italy.

[2] For some reason Divlitski says the letter was written in 1659 while Benayahu says the letter was written in 1657. Additionally, Divlitski says that he can figure out who the recipient of the letter is, although “coincidentally” Benayahu uses the same materials to come to the same conclusion.

[3] This is not the only time Divlitksi leaves out the authors name. He also uses Tishby’s edition of Tzitz Novel Tzvi, but doesn’t mention Tishby.

[4] Divlitski uses similar language when discussing how important the letters are as an untapped resource.

[5] It is worth noting that Modena and Aboab corresponded directly see Benayahu, “Yediyah al Hadfasat Seforim vehafatzasm b’Italia” in Sinai, 34 pp. 157-58, 186-87.


]]> Censorship Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Historical Oddities Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/24/Modena-Gilgul-and-an-Unpublished-Letter Chaim Rapoport - From Ma&#8217;adanei Eretz to Kitvei Ma&#8217;adanei Eretz (5704-5767) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/23/Chaim-Rapoport--From-Ma8217adanei-Eretz-to-Kitvei-Ma8217adanei-Eretz-57045767
From Ma’adanei Eretz to Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz (5704-5767)
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport
(London, England)

As Rabbi Eliezer Brodt has recently noted in a post at the Seforim blog the advent of the sabbatical year has been blessed with a plethora of new books and pamphlets related to the laws of shemitah.

Prominent amongst these is a publication entitled Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz on Masechet Shevi’it, from the writings of the world renowned halachic authority, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), published by Zehav haAretz on the “eve of the shemitah year, 5768”.

The sefer (341 pages) is divided into two parts. The first part is arranged according to the order of Masechet Shevi’it and presented as a commentary on it. The second half is comprised of a series of chapters on a broad variety of halachic topics related to shemitah.

In the preface we are told that the editors received much support and encouragement from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s sons, including Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach shlit”a. We also learn that much of the material in the sefer was never intended for publication by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman. [It was often written in note-form for his own perusal etc.] Nevertheless, given the enormous interest in the writings of Rabbi Auerbach, it was decided that these chiddushim should be edited and published. This feat was accomplished to the delight of the publishers and their intended audience.[1]

For the sake of producing a comprehensive work the publishers inform us that they have included segments of the author’s previously published works that relate to the Masechet Shevi’it and its halachot.

Indeed, the second half of the sefer, which consits of chiddushim on Rambam and halachic discussions pertaining to shemittah, appears to have been gleaned almost entirely from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s earlier works, most particularly his Ma’adanei Eretz on the laws of shevi’it.

However the publication of this sefer raises two related bibliographical questions: (a) Rabbi Auerbach’s classic on Shevi’it, namely his celebrated Ma’adanei Eretz, published originally by the author himself in anticipation of the shemitah year 5704,[2] and republished with the blessing of the author in anticipation of the shemitah year 5733, has been out of print and unavailable for many years.[3] Why has this book not yet been re-published? (b) Why has only some, but not all of the material in the original Ma’adanei Eretz been reproduced in Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz?

I cannot offer a definitive answer to these questions. Yet it is possible that two features of the original work are the cause for these ‘omissions’.

Firstly, the original Ma’adanei Eretz dedicates much discussion to the ‘heter mechirah’ and its dynamics. Although Rabbi Auerbach clearly expresses a preference for the observance of shemitah without recourse to the heter mechirah, he does recognise the plausibility of the ‘heter mechirah’ and seeks to buttress this mechanism with halachic argumentation. Moreover, (as is evident from his introduction), Rabbi Auerbach’s defense of the ‘heter mechirah’ - which he considered to have been endorsed by ‘minhag yisroel’ - was one of the primary purposes of his work.[4]

In times bygone, this apect of Ma’adanei Eretz apparently presented no cause for concern, even amongst the most chareidi Jews. Rabbi Zelig Reuven Bengis (1864-1953), then Rosh Beth Din of the ultra-Orthodox Edah Chareidit in Jerusalem, was aware of Rabbi Auerbach’s ‘agenda’ (towards which he was not particularly sympathetic), yet this did not prevent him from writing a complimentary letter of approbation in honour of the author and the book.[5] The same is true for Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer, (1870-1953), then rosh yeshiva of the Etz Chaim yeshivah in Jeruslaem. Yet nowadays this is no longer the case. Some of Rabbi Auerbach’s biological and/or 'spiritual' heirs who completely deny the validity of the heter mechirah and/or its application in the contemporary social and economic climate, may be deeply embarrassed by the original Ma’adanei Eretz.

Secondly, Rabbi Auerbach refers with the most reverential terms to the late Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook (1865-1935), and attributes much weight to his halakhic opinions.[6] In contradistinction to many other illustrious authorities to whom Rabbi Auerbach refers to as “ha-gaon . . . of blessed memory’ his appellation for Rav Kook includes the honorific “maran [ha-gaon ha-Rav Kook of blessed memory].”[7]

In today’s ultra-orthodox climate, in which Rav Kook has almost been written out of existence[8] [or worse still, ‘demonised’], it should come as no great surprise that some would like to disassociate the prestigious Rabbi Auerbach from one of his primary mentors.[9] Accordingly, it is only natural that they would endeavour to orchestrate matters in such a way that the original Ma’adanei Eretz (with its ‘offensive’ contents) fades into oblivion.[10]

An examination of the ‘privileged’ segments of the original Ma’adanei Eretz that have been ‘preserved’ in the Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz supports my thesis. Rav Kook, whose views and vision clearly inspired Rabbi Auerbach, has been wiped off the face of the map. Likewise the heter mechirah, a central feature of the original work, has, for all practical intents and purposes, become a non-issue in the new work.[11]

In a world in which honesty means little and history means even less, Kitvei Ma’adanei Eretz has performed a successful face-saving tactic, for ‘what the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve’! [12]

Notes:
[1] The publication of this sefer seems to be in partial overlap with “Minchat Shlomo – Chiddusim uViurim al HaShas” on Masechet Shevi’it which was published by Rabbi Auerbach’s sons in Jerusalem, 5761.

[2] נוסח דף השער של הספר הוא: 'ספר מעדני ארץ כולל חדושים וביאורים וחקרי הלכות בעניני שביעית, ונלוה אליו קונטרס לאפרושי מאיסורא בענין הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות' חובר בס"ד מאת שלמה זלמן אויערבאך מישיבת עץ חיים בהרב הגאון המפורסם מוהר"ר חיים יהודה ליב שליט"א, יצא לאור על ידי ישיבת מדרש בני ציון בסיוע מוסד הרב קוק שעל יד המזרחי העולמי - ירושלים תש"ד – ערב שנת השמיטה

[3] A number of years ago I was fortunate enough to be able to find and purchase a somewhat worse for wear copy of Ma’adanei Eretz in a second hand seforim store in New York.

[4]בהקדמתו ל'מעדני ארץ' כתב הגרשז"א: "לתועלת המעיינים אקדים סקירה קצרה לתולדות היתר ההפקעה משביעית שהותר לראשונה ע"י גדולי ישראל מגאוני הגולה ז"ל ושוכלל אח"כ ע"י רבותינו הגאונים מארי דארעא דישראל". לאחרי ה'סקירה הקצרה' הוסיף הגרשז"א, וז"ל: "אחרי כל האמור הנני מוצא לנכון להעיר לבל יתקבל ח"ו שום רושם כאילו הכנסתי ראשי בין הרים גדולים ורמים גדולי הדורות אשר מימיהם אנו שותים ומפיהם אנו חיים ואף גם את שמותיהם אזכיר במורא ופחד אלא מכיון שההיתר הזה שיסודותיו בהררי קודש נתקבל ונהוג למעשה בכל אה"ק [מלבד יחידי סגולה גבורי כח עושי דברו ששומרים שביעית כדת וכהלכה ד' יגן עליהם ותחזקנה ידיהם קודש וכל העוזרים והמסייעים להם אשרי חלקם] לכן הרשיתי לעצמי לבאר ולברר יסודותיו עד כמה שידי יד כהה מגעת ולהציע לגדולי תורה היושבים על מדין את אשר נלענ"ד לנכון להעיר".
בפתיחה ל'מעדני ארץ' סימן ט כתב הגרשז"א: "כידוע היו רבים מגאוני הדור הקודם שהתנגדו להיתר המכירה, וגם היו ביניהם כאלה שאמרו שאופן המכר הנעשה על ידינו אין לו שום ערך וחשיבות . . . אע"פ שבכמה מקומות מוכח יותר כדברי המחמירים עם כל זאת מנהג ישראל תורה, וכללא הוא דכל הלכה שהיא רופפת בידך צא וראה איך המנהג, והמנהג הוא מקדמת דנא לקולא . . . ואם היינו באים להחמיר הי' נראה הדבר כגזירה חדשה, וגם הלכה כבתראי שהכריעו רובם ככולם שההלכה מסכמת גם להמנהג . . . רק נתתי אל לבי לברר בפרק זה את יסודי הדברים של המתירים".
וראה בהסכמת הגרא"ז מלצר, בעל 'אבן האזל', הנדפס בתחלת ספר 'מעדני ארץ' שכתב בתו"ד: " עיינתי בכמה סימנים בספרו ונהניתי מאד מדבריו הנאמרים בהרחבה גדולה בכל פרטי ההלכות ובסברא נכונה וישרה, ואם אמנם לא אוכל להצטרף בקביעות דבריו להלכה משני טעמים, אחד בשביל שלא עסקתי הרבה במסכת זו בדברי הראשונים והאחרונים בהלכות אלו, עוד זאת בשביל שרוב דבריו הם לברר פרטי הדינים היוצאים לפי היתר המכירה שהנהיגו גאוני ארה"ק, ומכיון שיש בעיקר ההיתר מחלוקת גדולה בין גאוני הדור בדור שלפנינו לא אחפוץ להכניס ראשי בין ההרים גדולים".

[5] ראה בהסכמת הגרר"ז בענגיס, בעל 'לפלגות ראובן', הנדפס בתחלת ספר 'מעדני ארץ' שכתב בתו"ד: "ויהי' דברי אלה ליקר סהדותא על גודל ערך הספר ועל יקרת הגאון המחבר שליט"א. אבל חס לי להצטרף למסקנותיו גם להחמיר וכ"ש שלא להקל ובכונה רצוי' סלקתי א"ע מלחוות דעה באלה הלכות למעשה".

[6] גם בהקדמתו מסתייע הגרשז"א מזה שהרב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק "נלחם מאד לחזוק ההיתר נגד הקמים עליו לבטלו, בחששו שבביטולו יחרב כל הישוב ח"ו וגם משום הוצאת לעז על הגאונים שהתירו שכבר פשטה ההלכה והמנהג כמותם".

[7] ראה 'מעדני ארץ' סימן א אות ו: "ועיין גם בס' משפט כהן למרן הגאון מוהרא"י הכהן קוק ז"ל שכתב בתשובה להגאון הרידב"ז ז"ל"; שם אות ז: "אולם בשנת תר"עיין סידר מרן הגרא"י הכהן קוק ז"ל את תיקון המכירה . . . "; שם אות טו: "ומשמטה רביעית היא שנת תר"עיין סודרו כל שטרי מכר ע"פ נוסחו של מרן הגאון מוהרא"י הכהן קוק ז"ל".

[8] Thus, for example, the Sefer HaMafteiach in the Frankel edition of the Rambam does not include any references to the chiddushim of Rav Kook on the Mishneh Torah. Present day works on shemitah rarely include the contributions of Rav Kook (even with regard to matters unrelated to the heter mechirah). Needles to say, Rabbi Chaim Kanievski’s Derech Emunah on Rambam’s Sefer Zeraim (inc. Shemitah veYovel) does not refer to Shabbat HaAretz etc.
Rav Kook’s haskamah that was, in his heyday, often the crown of glory on many seforim is now viewed with derision by many, and has even been ‘removed’ from later editions of the same works (sometimes, apparently, by the author himself!).

[9] Recent explorations into Rav Kook’s (heretofore) esoteric thought may add to the evident anxiety that exists in certain circles regarding the relationship between Rav Kook and Rav Auerbach. [See Avinoam Rosenak, "Hidden Diaries and New Discoveries: the Life and Thought of Rabbi A.I. Kook," Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 25:3 (Spring 2007): 111-147. See also his review article, “Who’s Afraid of Secret Writings? Eight Files from the Manuscripts of Rabbi Kook,” Tarbiz 9:2 (2000): 257–291]. Most recently, see Yehudah Mirsky, "An Intellectual and Spiritual Biography of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Ha-Cohen Kook from 1865 to 1904," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), esp. 450-485.

[10] In the course of time we may yet witness the birth of reports to the effect that Rabbi Auerbach (and/or: the Rabbis who gave their glowing haskamot) regretted ever having published (written approbations for) his Ma’adanei Eretz. Clearly Rabbi Auerbach’s regret will have to have been expressed ‘be-sof yamav’, since in 1972/5732 he was evidently still enthusiastic about the project.

[11] לדוגמא בעלמא: סימן ט בספר 'מעדני ארץ' נערך מחדש "ע"י בן רבינו הגאון רבי אברהם דוב אויערבאך שליט"א רב ואב"ד טבריה", ונדפס בתוך 'כתבי מעדני ארץ' (בחלקו השני) סימן כג. בצורתו החדשה חסרים כמה דברים ובעיקר דברי הפתיחה לסימן זה ע"ד תוקף היתר המכירה (ראה מה שהעתקתי לעיל בהערה 4). גם לסימן יו"ד בספר 'מעדני ארץ' באו פנים חדשות בגלגולו החדש ב'כתבי מעדני ארץ' סימן כ"ד [ונשמט מ"ש ב'מעדני ארץ' שם אות א ע"ד היתר המכירה]. ואם כי לא זכיתי להבין את טעמי כל ההשמטות והשינויים שעשו העורכים בסימנים אלו, מ"מ נראה ברור שהטעם לחלקם הוא בגלל יחסם החיובי (או הקשרם) להיתר המכירה הנהוג למעשה.
להווכח מה היתה כוונת העורכים מחדש די להביט על השינויים שעשו בכותרות לשני הסימנים האלה:
בכותרת ל'מעדני ארץ' סימן ט כתב הגרשז"א: "יסודי ההיתר של תיקון המכירה כדי להפקיע את הפירות מקדושת שביעית, ובירור דעת הסוברים דאף שאין קנין לנכרי להפקיע ממעשר ושביעית, מ"מ כל זמן שהקרקע היא ברשות העכו"ם הרי היא מופקעת שפיר ממעשר ומשביעית", ואילו בכותרת לסימן כ"ג ב'כתבי מעדני ארץ' נדפס: "ביאור שיטת הכסף משנה בדין קנין הנכרי בארץ ישראל" [כאילו דברי הגרשז"א נכתבו במקורן מבלי כל קשר להיתר המכירה הנהוג למעשה].
בכותרת לסימן יו"ד ב'מעדני ארץ' כתב הגרשז"א: "המשך לסימן הקודם בבירור יסודי תיקון המכירה, עם עוד טעמים אחרים המועילים רק להפקעת דיני שביעית מגידולי שדות נכרים ולא לענין היתר עבודה, ובענין איסור האכלת פירות שביעית לנכרים, ודין פירות שביעית לאחרי הביאור", ואילו בכותרת ל'כתבי מעדני ארץ' סימן כ"ד כתבו העורכים: "עוד בשיטת הכסף משנה בהא דאין נוהג קדושת שביעית בפירות נכרים", והוציאו את הדברים מהקשרן הראשון.

[12] The purpose of this article was to explore one example of a particular trend in contemporary rabbinic censorship. It was not written in order to express a view on, or assess the virtues of, the heter mechirah or its proponents. [Whilst this is totally irrelevant (at least to the subject matter at hand), I will attempt to save the time of many potential speculators by putting on record that I personally do not rely on the heter mechirah. The Lubavitcher Rebbe zy”a, whose rulings I attempt to follow, was far from enthusiastic about the heter mechirah and encouraged all Jews to observe the shemitah without recourse to the heter mechirah].

]]> Chaim Rapoport Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/23/Chaim-Rapoport--From-Ma8217adanei-Eretz-to-Kitvei-Ma8217adanei-Eretz-57045767 The Animals http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/22/The-Animals
"A man enters synagogue on Yom Kippur with his dog and tells the gabbai this is a very smart dog, he can talk. "If he will talk for you," says the man, "will you let him sit next to me?" The gabbai says "let's hear him." Man turns to dog and says what is on top of this building which keeps the rain out? the dog says ruf ruf. The guy says see he said it was a roof. But if you are not satisfied with that, I will have him answer another question. He says to the dog, who was the most famous baseball player of all time? Dog says ruf ruf. Man says see he said Babe Ruth. The gabbai throws man and dog out. Dog looks up at the man and says, "Should I have said Willie Mays?"
-- Jewish Joke
I thought it may be instructive to examine what Judaism says about animals. In the course, I hope to highlight some lesser known bibliographical items. The Torah appears to place significant obligation on people vis-à-vis animals. For instance, we are commanded to remove an overburdened animal (Deut. 22:4), we are told to feed one’s animals prior to one eating themselves (TB, Berachot, 40a), and finally there is a general injunction against mistreating animals. It is from this final prohibition – tzar ba’alei hayyim – that we continue with the remainder of our discussion.

Although we are commanded to treat animals well, Jews are also not prohibited from eating animals. The combination of these two ideas were for some rishonim an understanding of how and why shehita is the obligatory process for eating meat. They explain that purpose of shehita is to minimize pain to the animal even when we do kill it.[1] They point to law of a smooth knife as well as cutting specifically on the neck as trying to minimize pain. The issue of animal pain, was raised on numerous occasions for some to argue that shehita should be prohibited. In the defense of shehita the idea that it is the least painful method of killing was usually marshaled. In at least one instance, at the turn of the 20th century, this defense “caused even non-Jews to only use Jewish shehita and the Society for [the prevention] of Cruelty to Animals in America attempted to obligate this in all places.”[2]

In America as well there was a question of the legitimacy of shehita as a humane method. A book was published, originally in Hebrew and subsequently to English, which bore the title Tub Taam, or Vindication of the Israelitisch Way of Killing Animals by R. Aaron Zev Friedman (downloadable here). According to a family legend, this book convinced Ulysses S. Grant to eat only kosher meat.[3]

While all the above is true, there appears to be an opposite view of animals, one which places less respect to the animal world. R. Moshe Isserles, in his commentary on Shulhan Arukh, states “Anything that is necessary for health, or for anything else there is no prohibition against inflicting pain on animals; therefore, it is permissible to pluck quills from live duck and there is no consideration of causing pain to the animal. But, it is best to avoid all this as it is heartless.”[4] Thus, according to Rama, whenever there is any need, there is no prohibition of causing pain. According to this understanding, one need not understand the commandment of shehita to have anything to do with minimizing pain, as there is no need to minimize pain as the meat will be used.[5]

The view of Rama was applied by R. Yaakov Reischer when he asked [in an undated responsum] whether it is permissible to use an animal to test the efficacy of a drug.[6] He responded that based upon this Rama, animal testing is permitted. He explained that the caveat of Rama, that “it is heartless” and therefore should be avoided, is inapplicable to this case; as in the case of animal testing, the animal may not feel pain immediately, and as a result, according to R. Reischer, poses less of an issue of tzar ba’alei hayyim.

R. Ezekiel Landau, in his Noda BeYehudah[7] similarly applies Rama to a different question. He was asked whether it is permissible for a Jew to hunt animals. R. Landau says based upon Rama, there is no issue of tzar ba’alei hayyim. While he counsels against this practice for other reasons[8] these reasons are not out of concern for animals. R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, in Haamek Davar, places Noah as the first to own pets. R. Berlin explains that the raven and dove were Noah's own pets and not part of the animals he collected into the ark. R. Berlin alleges that the dove was actually trained similarly to a homing pigeon. (Haamek Davar, vol. 1, 8:7)

In discussing animals and Judaism there is a related discussion concerning the propriety of dog ownership and dogs in particular in Jewish thought. R. Jacob Emden rails against dog ownership.[9] He decries dog ownership solely for pleasure or as a companion and goes so far to claim that dog owners are suspect of engaging in bestiality.[10]

On the other hand, historically, the dog specifically, has actually been used as a positive icon. For instance, in the Hamburg Miscellany, there is a depiction of a wedding scene with a dog at the feet of the groom.[11] Similarly, the Washington Haggadah contains a depiction of a dog (see here).

The Sefer Hasidim claims that all animals can teach humans positive traits.[12] He singles out the dog for teaching loyalty, which is easily what the depiction in the Hamburg Miscellany could be depicting in the wedding scene – a scene which describes what is essentially a loyalty ceremony.

While the positive aspect of a dog can be found in some illustrations, the negative view of animals and specifically dogs can also be found in illustrations. In the Prague 1526 haggadah we find a depiction of a hare hunt being used for the mnemonic YaKNeHaZ (the order the blessing are recited when Pesach night falls on a Saturday night). The usage of the hare hunt is in German, the term for hare hunt or Jagen-has sounds like YakNeHaZ. In Augsburg, 1534 haggadah, Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi notes it not only shows a hare hunt, but the hare escaping.[13] He says the hare is representative of the Jewish people and the dogs their enemies and therefore, “it is plausible to conclude that hate two successive representation of the Jagen-has are not only an innovation in themselves, but together comprise an allegory of the persecution and salvation of the Jewish people.”[14] In this depiction the dogs are actually the enemies of the Jews conforming with the prior negative views of dogs.

Finally, in the apocryphal work Tobit, in many versions there is a positive mention of a dog. In some editions, however, the dog is missing. One scholar posits the removal was deliberate in that, according to him -- and as we have seen above this is not universal -- Jews (and other Eastern cultures) do not depict dogs positively.[15] Thus, the dog had to go. Again, this follows the negative view of dogs.

In conclusion, there appears to be two schools of thought regarding animals and specifically dogs. Some view them and animals positively and is borne out in practice, while there is another tradition inapposite.

Notes:
I wanted to thank Eliezer Brodt and Menachem Butler for their additional insights and sources which added significantly to this post.

[1] See Sefer haHinuch, commandment 451; see also Eshkoli, Tzaar Baalei Hayyim, [], 2002, 79-80 (collecting sources).
[2] See Greenwald, ha-Shohet ve-haShehita be-Safrut ha-Rabbunut (New York, 1955), p. 19.
[3] For the source and a description of this book in general see Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America (New York, 2006), 2:1092. See also, Shnayer Z. Leiman, "Montague Lawrence Marks: In a Jewish Bookstore," Tradition 25:1 (Fall, 1989): 66, 69, nn.12-13.
For more on the German attempt to ban shehita and R. Y.Y. Weinberg's response, see Hirsh Jakob Zimmels, The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust in Rabbinic Literature (New York, 1977), 181-193 and Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy (Littman Library, 1999), 117-129; and regarding the highly controversial nature of R. Weinberg's responsum, Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog hesitated to allow it in print at all, see p. 192. Shapiro also cites a letter where it is suggested that "Herzog later agreed that publishing the responsum would not create difficulties" (ibid., n.86).
[4] Rama, Even haEzer, 5:14; see generally Eshkoli, supra n.1, chapter 12.
[5] R. Yosef Toemim, in his introduction to Pri Megadim discussing shehita cautions against applying rationales generally for commandments, and specifically for shehita. Pri Megadim, Peshiha Kollelet l’Hilchot Shehita.
[6] R. Yaakov Reischer, Shevut Ya’akov, vol. 3, no. 71.
[7] R. Ezekiel Landau, Noda b’Yehuda, Mahdurah Tinyana, Yoreh Deah, no. 10.
[8] He offers that Biblically, the only hunters were Esau and Nimrod thus hunting is not a “Jewish pastime.” Further, he argues that one is prohibited from putting himself in danger. He goes so far to claim that the simple reading of Esau’s statement “I am going to die” as an expression that Esau was aware that he was involved in a dangerous profession.
David Katz recently noted that R. Ezekiel Landau "laughingly applied" to R. Jacob Emden the Talmudic dictum (BT, Yoma, 30b) concerning mad dogs: "They bark and bark but no one hears!" David Katz, "A Case Study in the Formation of a Super-Rabbi: The Early Years of Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, 1713-1754" (University of Maryland, 2004), 17, 420-421.
[9] R. Jacob Emden, She'elat Ya’avetz, vol. 1 no. 17; Eshkoli, supra n.1, pp. 221-224; id. 225-28 (discussing cats).
[10] There is a related discussion about the Antisemitic use of the dog to depict Jews. See Ruth Mellinkoff, Antisemitic Hate Signs in Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts from Medieval Germany (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 38-9; now, see generally, Kenneth Stow, Jewish Dogs: An Image and Its Interpreters (Stanford, California, 2006), 28-32 and passim. Additionally, it is worth noting that there is actually a Jewish explanation as to why non-Jews have called Jews dogs. See R. Y.Y. Stahl, ed., Sefer Kushiyot (Jerusalem, 2007), no. 128 p. 100 (finding scriptural basis for the dog epithet!).
[11] Bezalel Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts (Israel, 1984) plate 59 p. 185; this illumination also appears in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1967), vol. 16, opp. col. 616. Sperber notes other instances of dogs in Jewish items but attributes it to Christian ideology. See Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 4 pp. 84-5, n.12. But, as is shown above from the Sefer Hasidim, the use of a dog to display loyalty has Jewish roots as well.
[12] Margoliyot ed., no. 47, p. 106. See also, Sefer Hasidim (Sefer HaMaskil) p. 12 "at all times one should have in their home animals or birds, at the very least a rooster or duck. One should then feed the animal first to fulfill the obligation to feed animals prior to one eating themselves." For a discussion regarding this Sefer Hasidim vis-a-vis the Sefer HaMaskil, see R. M.M. Honig, in "al Mahduroso haHadasha shel Sefer HaMaskil (Sefer Hasidim) l'R' Moshe Bar Eliezer HaKohen," Yerushashanu, vol. 1 (2007): 196-240.
[13] Both of these are available in their entirety from the JNUL site.
[14] Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History (Jewish Publication Society 1997), plate 15. For a fuller discussion of this imagery, see Elliott Horowitz, "Odd Couples: The Eagle and the Hare, the Lion and the Unicorn," Jewish Studies Quarterly 11:3 (August 2004): 243-258, and idem., "The People of the Image," The New Republic 223:13 (September 25, 2000): 41-49.
[15] Israel Abrahams, "Tobit's Dog," Jewish Quarterly Review (old series), I, 3 (1888/1889): 288.

]]> Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:19:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/22/The-Animals Mad magazine and Peanuts &#8211; moralists for today? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/19/Mad-magazine-and-Peanuts-8211-moralists-for-today
Mad magazine and Peanuts – moralists for today?


By Dov Silberman*


With all the messianic overtones that the Jewish people are regaled with over Tishrei, one beloved by Chassidim is the Zohar's view (I, 117a) is that we are privileged to live in an era where similar results occur in both the natural and religious worlds, where "the gates of knowledge above, and the fountains of knowledge below, will be opened".

Academics and scientists are always aware that similar breakthroughs in knowledge occur at approximately the same time in different places without either party knowing about the other.

But it can occur in the realms of book methodology as well. Many readers will be familiar with the utilization by Rabbi Abraham Twerski of the Charlie Schulz "Peanuts" cartoons to make his points in several of his popular selling self help books.

In an interview in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle in 2000, Twerski said that Schulz's wisdom first appealed to him when he was trying to teach students and found that the cartoons made effective tools. The first time was in his 1988 book When Do the Good Things Start.

But this was not the first time a religious writer used popular culture in the form of comic strip characters to illustrate religious ideas for students. Not twenty years before Twerski used Schultz cartoons, in 1970 Vernard Eller B.A., B.D., M.A., Th.D. (1927-2007) wrote "The Mad Morality" first published by Abingdon Press, subsequently by Signet in the 1970's Mad book form. It was a book trying to explain the Ten Commandments which illustrated them with examples of similar messages from Mad magazines.

Eller was an Xtian professor of religion at La Verne College in California. He was trying to reach teenagers at church camps without success, so he asked them what popular culture they were interested in.

On being shown Mad magazines, he found that Mad's satires of deceptive advertising, racism, phoniness, white lies and hypocrisy taught morality but did so without preaching. "...Beneath the pile of garbage that is Mad there beats, I suspect, the heart of a rabbi."

But Mad publisher William M. Gaines and editor Al Feldstein, were uncomfortable with that. "We reject the insinuation that anything we print is moral, theological, nutritious, or good for you in any way, shape, or form."

Compare this to what Schulz told Twerski before he died, "Abe," he said, at their last meeting, "you keep on saying I'm wise. That's just not true. I'm not a philosopher or a psychologist. I'm just a cartoonist."

Similar scenarios. We must truly be living in wondrous times.


*Dov Silberman is a commercial litigation lawyer in Melbourne Australia, and is overjoyed to find that he can now justify the time he spends at second hand bookshops.

]]> Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/19/Mad-magazine-and-Peanuts-8211-moralists-for-today Who Wrote the Mekore Minhagim?(Part II) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/16/Who-Wrote-the-Mekore-MinhagimPart-II
This is a continuation of this prior post, in order to fully understand the following it may pay to reread the older post here.

Previously, I had attempted to reconstruct when Finkelstein had published his seforim and thus deduce that Finkelstein copied the Mekore Minahgim. Now, through internal evidence I can further bolster that theory and, perhaps, explain exactly what happened. Additionally, I hope to demonstrate that although Finkelstein copied, he was unaware the work Mekore Minhagim had ever been published. As one "fact" that supports Finkelstein's position is that if he did merely copy why does his edition only have 41 entries, how hard would it have been to copy the others? This is so, as Lewyson's was printed first with 100 entries and Finkelstein's was printed close to five years after Lewyson's.

In the earlier edition by Lewyson (the Dr./Rabbi in Germany) (henceforth ML) there are more entries than in the later edition by Finkelstein ("MF"). Now if Finkelstein had copied why did he leave out so many? If you recall, Finkelstein explained how he got this book and really it is his although he published later. Finkelstein explained that while his edition was published later, really he wrote it first. Finkelstein said that while he was traveling he stayed with Lewyson and Lewyson saw a copy of the manuscript and asked to borrow it. According to Finkelstein it was at that time Lewyson copied Finkelstein's manuscript. Thus, although ML was published first really MF was written first.

As I said, if that was the case, isn't at the very least Lewyson a bigger Talmid Chochom as in ML there are 100 question and answers while MF only has 41 of the 100? This of course assumes that Finkelstein told the story correctly but I think there is some truth in the story the story is actually slightly and materially different.

The real story was Finkelstein did in fact travel through Germany and did stay at Lewyson's house. But, it was Finkelstein that at that time saw Lewyson's manuscript and copied it then. Unlucky for Finkelstein, Lewyson had not finished thus Finkelstein only took what he had (or perhaps ran out of time to copy it).

This theory is I think provable. While 41 of the 100 appear in both works, even those there are slight differences. The differences point to an earlier or rougher draft of the work.
Let's take a couple of examples. in no. 16 of ML (and in no. 11 in MF) the question is why do we sell Mitzvot in shul during the week and on Shabbat. In both ML and MF both have a vort on the verse Isaih 29:13, in fact the very same explanations appears in both. The only difference is in the ML he tells us where this comes from the Misphat Tzedek, while in the MF that is missing. Or later the ML says that something appears in the Sefer Shushan HaEdut and the Sefer Haradim and he has it as follows

ואתי' בס' שושן עדות סי' קפ"ז וז"ל: לא יעשה המצות בקלות ראש ובביזוי כמו דגרסינן בפ' כיסוי הדם . . .ושפכת את דמו וכסהו בעפר, במה ששפך יכסה, שלא יכסנו ברגל, שלא יהיו המצות בזויות עליו וכו' ע"ש וכ"כ החרדים ומסיים: זה בנין אב לכל המצות, ובמדרש תנחומא
Now in MF we have it like this:
ואיתא בספר שושן עדות ובספר חרדים ומדרש תנחומא

That is it, the author expects you will know where in the obscure sefer Shushan Edut this appears and what it says. Obviously, no author would do that, instead, in a rough draft not everything had been filled in. Or, another possibility is in the haste to copy some of the content got lost.

Another example from the same siman. The author is explaining a further reason to do away with selling the mitzvot is due to the fights that arise over the selling.
In the ML he says

ובפרט כבר בימיהם נסתעפו מחלוקות ע"י מכירת המצות, עיין בס' החסידים סי' תשס"ד שכ' וז"ל: גברה יד עוברי עבירה ובקשו להם כבוד ושררה לגלות ס"ת וקשרו קשר ורצו להרבות כבודם ונתוועדו יחד שנים עשר מהם לגלות ס"ת, כל אחד בחודש שלו וליתן כ"א זקוק, כדי שיעלו שנים עשר זקוקים לשנה לצדקה וכל זה לא עשו אלא למצא טענה וערעור לומר אנו נותנים יותר ממך וכו' ע"ש והב"י באו"ח סי' קל"ה וז"ל: וכתב מהר"י קולון בשרש טית על הקהל שהיו נוהגים
while in the MF it only reads
בפרט כבר בימיהם נסתעפו מחלוקות ע"י מכירת המצות עיין בס' חסידים ובמהר"י קולון מה שאירע מזה

So although the Mahri Kolon appears in the Bet Yosef, all MF has is see Mahri Kolon (nor does it include where in the Sefer Hassidim or the quote). Again, it is missing any hint to where this is located, and unlike the ML where the text is included and thus it is less necessary to include a citation, in MF the text doesn't appear.

Lest one say this is limited to that single entry, a similar pattern appears in other entries as well. For instance, in the entry discussing spitting during the Alenu prayer. Both editions have a quote from the sefer Teffilah Nehora, however, the ML (no. 20) edition includes more of the quote and then additionally has one more source the Kitzur Shelah. In the MF edition (no. 13), however, a shorter quote from the Teffilah Nehora appears and there is no Kitzur Shelah. Now, if Lewyson is the copier, why would he include a bit more of a quote? But, if the shorter quote was a product of an earlier unfinished draft it is understandable.

In entry no. 23 (ML) and 16 (MF) ML has a three part quote from Sefer Hassidim, while MF has only the first part.

Now the final example. In the entry discussing wearing special clothing for Shabbat and Yom Tov. First, ML (no. 24) explains why Shabbat and then he turns to Yom Tov clothing and the ML reads as follows:
וביו"ט משנים עוד למעליותא משבת כדאית' באו"ח ס' תקכ"ט סעי' א', והוא מהגה"מ פ"ו
now in MF (no. 17) it reads like this
וביו"ט משנים עוד למעליותא משבת והוא מהגה"מ פ"ו
the והוא is lacking a predicate in this version.

Again, all these examples, and there are additional examples of shorter quotes, missing citations, missing lines, are found in MF. [1] Assuming Finkelstein's story is correct, how was it that Lewyson was magically able to add all the missing citations, and in some cases add additional material, when Lewyson was unable to come up with part of 41 of the entries on his own? And, if Finkelstein was the author why couldn't he fill in the citations? Didn't he know them as he was providing the sources to begin with?

Moreover, it seems that Finkelstein did not in fact copy from the printed ML. As if Finkelstein had the printed edition why are all these omissions found in his edition? Instead, Finkelstein must have only had access to a slightly different edition, and based upon Finkelstein's own story, it seems that he saw it in Lewyson's house and thus it must have been an earlier draft.

Note

[1] Compare for example MF (no. 14) with ML (no. 21). ML contains an entire extra section. Furthermore, even in the part that does appear in MF, it is lacking significant portions. As in ML it has quotes from Rabbenu Bachya and Eliayahu Zuta and then a quote from Hechel HaKodesh. Whereas in MF on the Hechel HaKodesh appears.

Compare MF (no. 16) with ML (no. 23). Both discuss whether on Yom Tov a woman first lights or first makes the blessing on the candles. They cite the wife of the author of the Sema
in ML it states:
דביו"ט תברך ואח"כ תדליק, ומג"א בסי' רס"ג ס"ק י"ב חולק עליו . . . ובעל משפט צדק מביא המג"א הנ"ל וכתב שהדגול מרבבה הסכים להלכה כאותה הצדיקות ודלא כהמג"א
now in MF it says:
דביו"ט תברך ואח"כ תדליק, ומג"א בסי' רס"ג ס"ק י"ב חולק עליו . . . והדגול מרבבה הסכים להלכה כאותה הצדיקות ודלא כהמג"א
so it is missing the Mishpat Tzedek.
Compare MF (no. 24) with ML (no. 85). ML contains about four times the amount of content.
Compare MF (no. 37) with ML (no. 40) again missing significant parts.

Compare MF (no. 38) with ML (no. 42). In this case some citations are missing in Finkelstein (see the discussion of the Chok Ya'akov) as well as the material regarding waiting 6 hours and whether it means a full 6 or something else.

Compare MF (no. 32) to ML (no. 5). ML has triple the material.

Compare MF (no. 5) to ML (no. 8) the additions and missing portions are rather clear.

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/16/Who-Wrote-the-Mekore-MinhagimPart-II R. Yaakov Lipshitz and Heter Mechirah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/11/R-Yaakov-Lipshitz-and-Heter-Mechirah
R. Yaakov Lipshitz and Heter Mechirah
by R. Eliezer Brodt

As per Sheuy R's request a short post on shemitah:

It is virtually impossible to write up a review of the literature out there on shemitah seforim as the seforim keep on coming out. For some odd reason people out there feel this is their place to contribute to our vast torah literature. As of last shemitah in the middle of the year I inquired at a local seforim store how many books did he get on the topic of shemitah. He said over seventy five! By now that number has certainly doubled. My personal recommendation is if someone is working on a sefer on shemitah, unless it is incredible, do not waste your time printing it.

I will list just one recent very important reprint, the sefer Torat Yonasan (originally printed in Vilna, 1888) written by R. Yonasan Abelmann (1854-1903). This sefer was not without critics. R. Abelmann , however, responded in his teshuvot, Zikhron Yonason, Vilna, 1904, Kuntres Devar HaShmita (see pages 158b-187b). He discusses, among others, the opinion of the Bet HaLevi.

Interestingly enough with all the reprints and new stuff coming, out the Madanei Eretz of R. Shlomo Zalman on Mesechtat Shmitta has yet to be reprinted. The sefer, as everything this godal Hador (not that he needs my recommendation) wrote is excellent and very important to many issues of Shemitah but being that it deals with R. Kook so chas vesholom they could not reprint it.

The main point of this post is to share with you an incredible story relating to shemitah that I read a while back. This story is found in one of the best and most honest books (at least in my humble opinion) written about many gedolim from Yakov Mark. Dan has posted on this book a while back. There is much to add to what he wrote, perhaps I will return to it another time. For now just the story. Yakov Mark records a story (Gedolim fun Unzer Tzeit, New York, 1927, pp. 117-18 and translated into Hebrew, B'Mechtizah shel Gedolim, Jerusalem, 1958, p. 104) of a meeting he had with R Yakov Lipshitz, the famous secretary of R Yitchack Elchonon Spector (and for purposes of the story below, it is important to note that R. Lipshitz was an anti-Zionist):

פעם אחת היתה לי שיחה מענינת עמו בענין שאלת השמיטה. הדבר היה בשנת השמיטה של שנת תרמט, והוא גילה לי סוד, שלו חלק גדול בהיתר שהוציא ר' יצחק אלחן מפני שהוא הפציר בו שיתן היתר ואם תאמר: איך זה מתיישב שיענקל ליפשיץ ישתדל עבור הציונים? מפזם לו ליפשיץ בניגון של גמרא, הענין הוא:שהציונים עשו נזק לעצמם בזה שחיפשו היתר יותר משהיה יכול להזיקם כל מתנגד שהוא. שער בנפשך, אלו היה הסטודנטים מכרכוב חוזרים ומקיימים את מצות השביעית אחרי אלף ושמונה מאות שנה, והרי מסורת היא שבעון שמיטה חרב הבית דומה שהיו מטילים על יענקל ליפשיץ כל האבנים הנמצאות ברחוב קובנה, כיצד הוא העיז לדבר על צדיקים כאלו? ומלבד זאת איזו פרסומת טובה היתה יוצאת מזה: כל העולם החרדי היה נושאם על הידים והיו ממש טובעים בזהבר, אבל יצרם הרע דחפם לבוץ ואני סייעתי בו

]]> Eliezer Brodt Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/11/R-Yaakov-Lipshitz-and-Heter-Mechirah Where's Shai Agnon? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/11/Wheres-Shai-Agnon In the latest issue of Yeshurun (a fuller review will be coming shortly), they published a letter from R. Y.M. Gordon to Shai Agnon. In light of this, an erudite reader, Yisroel Rottenberg, was kind enough to provide another instance where Agnon is quoted and in this instance, where Agnon's name was then removed from a later edition.

In the Pirush Ba'al HaTurim al HaTorah by Y. Reinetz, in his introduction (p. 10) he relates the well-known story that R. Ya'akov composed the portion of his commentary "parparot" - numerologies and the like - in a single night. In the second edition (1971), he includes an endnote (p. 494) where he provides a source for this statement. He says (reproduced below)

בס' "ספר סופר סיפור" לש"י עגנון דף ס"ח מובא סיפור זה בשם ספר קול דודי וז"ל פעם אחת הוכיח הרא"ש ז"ל את בנו ר' יעקב בעל הטורים על שכל עיסוקיו אינם אלא בתורה שבעל פה בלבד אינו עוסק בתורה שבכתב. נתן הדברים אל לבו ובליל חמישי ישב כל הלילה וחיבר את ספרו על התורה

"in the book 'Sefer, Sofer, Sippur' from Sha"i Agnon p. 68 this story is recorded in the name of the work Kol Dodi [and then he provides a fuller accounting of the story]. . . ."

(second edition endnote - click to enlarge)

In the third edition (1974) of R. Reinetz's book, there is a major change. Instead of relying upon the endnote, he has moved up part of the endnote to the text in the introduction. In this edition, the introduction (p. 10) contains a parenthetical, which reads (reproduced below):

כן מובא בס' קול דודי וז"ל פעם אחת הוכיח הרא"ש זצ"ל את בנו ר' יעקב בעל הטורים על שכל עיסוקיו אינם אלא בתורה שבע"פ בלבד אינו עוסק בתורה שבכתב. נתן הדברים אל לבו ובליל חמישי ישב כל הלילה וחיבר את ספרו על התורה

"this is brought in the Kol Dodi [and then he provides a fuller accounting of the story]."
(third edition introduction - click to enlarge)

While essentially the same, the words "In the book 'Sefer, Sofer, Sippur' from Sha"i Agnon" have somehow gone missing when the text appears in the introduction. Perhaps, in the course of the move, like socks, they were lost.

]]> Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/11/Wheres-Shai-Agnon International Conference in Memory of Moritz Steinschneider http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/8/International-Conference-in-Memory-of-Moritz-Steinschneider
In memory of Moritz Steinschneider's unrivaled studies in Hebrew Bibliography and the actuality of his research 100 years after his death an International Centennial Conference will be held in Berlin (November 20-22, 2007). For the conference program, see here.

Benjamin Richler and Charles H. Manekin, among others, will be presenting at the conference and Dr. Manekin will covering the conference for the Seforim blog. See also Dr. Charles H. Manekin's earlier post ("Moritz Steinschneider's Indecent Burial") at the Seforim blog.

]]> Moritz Steinschneider Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:41:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/8/International-Conference-in-Memory-of-Moritz-Steinschneider New Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/7/New-Books
1. Machon Yerushalayim has begun to publish a new edition of the Ramban on the Torah. In this edition they include the Ramban, based mostly on the Lisbon, 1489 edition. The commentaries of the Techeles Mordechai, Kur HaZahav, Kesef Muzukkah, and R. Meir Arik's are included. For an earlier post at the Seforim blog touching on the Chavel-Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Ramban, see here.

2. The Onkelos translation has come out on Bereishit, I have previously discussed this translation here. This new volume includes an introduction discussing Onkelos more generally.

3. A newly typeset edition of the Siddur haArizal Rebi Shabbati has come out.

4. All four volumes (complete) of the Siddur HaArizal Kol Ya'akov are now available in a newly typeset edition.

5. The Siddur Vilna has put out a Rosh HaShana machzor.

]]> New Books Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:17:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/7/New-Books The Pitfalls of Disagreeing with the Gra http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/2/The-Pitfalls-of-Disagreeing-with-the-Gra Sunday, the second day of Hol HaMo'ad, was the 210th yahrzeit of the Gra. The Gra, a towering figure in modern Judaism, was not immune from criticism. His views, like any other's were subject to scrutiny. And, at times, there were those who disagreed with the Gra's conclusions. While this criticism should come as no surprise (and especially so in light of the Gra's dim view of deference to prior authorities), some felt the Gra should be immune from any criticism. Thus, we find the Gra's dissenters taken to task for merely arguing with the Gra's position.
Additionally, this post will be the beginning of a series of posts devoted to reviewing and highlighting one of the most important books in the history of the Jewish book to be published in recent memory. Dr. Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel (who has a terrific Hebrew Wikipedia entry here)has published two volumes of Amudim b'Tolodot Sefer HaIvri. Both volumes are tremendously rich in material and appear to have gone virtually unnoticed. (Unfortunately, Spiegel soon after the publication of the first volume came out with a revised edition. All citations are to the first edition of the first volume.)
As mentioned above, the first part of this post, is the first in a series discussing Spiegel's book. The second part, although related to Spiegel is not discussed by Spiegel, and instead, is from another important bibliography work, Ohel Rochel.
There is but one review in HaMayaan [and in the latest AJS review of Spiegel's second volume]. In fact, although those who have read it have recognized its import it has not stopped some from hiding their use of the book. Thus, a couple of weeks ago the Hiddushei HaBach were published on portions of the Talmud. Spiegel has an amazing discussion about the Hagot haBach. Spiegel discusses the history, what the Bach was doing, which edition of the Talmud he had. Perhaps most importantly, Spiegel discusses the errors that have crept into the Bach - mainly because the editors of the Vilna Shas removed the introduction to the work. The introduction explains certain devices that were employed to make clear which words the Bach was removing. Both the device (quotation marks) as well as the explanatory notes no longer appear, thus Spiegel provides numerous examples of people who based their Torah on an incorrect understanding of what the Bach was doing.

Returning to the new Hidushei HaBach, in the introduction they discuss the Bach's other works. Of course, they discuss the Hagot HaBach and they rely heavily (read almost in entirety) on Spiegel. But, the only times they cite (p. 19 n. 1; p.43 n. 55; p. 46 n.65, n. 67) to Spiegel they use the following abbreviation עמודים בתולדות ה"ה. They do not provide what that means, and only a reader who was already aware of Spiegel's book would have any idea. This is deliberate as although they are willing to use his book they are unwilling to let others know that.

In this post, however, I will not focus on the Bach, rather as mentioned above, we are going to discuss the Gra, and the first example focuses on the Hagot HaGra. This portion of the post mainly comes from Spiegel (Amudim: Haghot u'Maghim pp. 422-426, 461).

R. Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radzyner Rebbi, published Sidrei Tahros. Sidrei Tahros is an attempt to fill a gap in the talmud. There are some mesechtot that do not have any talmudic commentary. While some, Zeraim for instance, have at least Yerushalmi, the mesechtot of Tahoros do not. Thus, R. Leiner culled the corpus of Rabbinic literature, Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, etc. and collected the relevant statements to create a "talmud" (it is even labeled as such - the legend on the page reads Gemara) on the two mesechtot of Ohelot and Kelim. Additionally, he wrote his own commentary on these volumes. The volume on Kelim was published in 1873 and included a map that can be seen here. The volume on Ohelot was published in 1903. After that both books were not republished until 1960 in a photomechanical reproduction.

Soon after it came out, people took issue with the entire concept - the concept of "creating" a gemara. Those who came out against him, did so in the newspaper Halevonon (available here - see the 1875 nos. 34, kovod levonon (machberes sheni year 11) 6 tamuz edition and see Ir Vilna vol. 1 p. 60 n. 7 for some choice quotes). Someone responded in Hamaggid (also available online see 17 Av, 1875). Much of this criticism was more focused on the concept of the Sidrei Taharos, (creating a "new" gemara) for our purposes, however, we are going to focus on one point, R. Leiner's disagreements with the Gra.

In his commentary, R. Leiner takes issue with some of the Gra's textual emendations. For instance R. Leiner states:
ודע דדברי הגר"א ז"ל בזה בספרו . . . לא איתברר לן ולא זכינו לעמוד בסוד דבריו ז"ל . . . דרכו בקודש נסתרה ונעלמה מאתנו

This is but one of the times R. Leiner disagrees with the Gra. At one time, R. Leiner is willing to attribute his disagreement not to the Gra, but instead, R. Leiner claims that perhaps the difficult statements in the Gra were not made by the Gra. Instead, a student misunderstood and thus it is now necessary to figure out what in fact the Gra said. Setting aside this justification (which, when it comes to the Gra's notes on the Talmud is difficult to believe in light of the fact much comes from the Gra's hand itself), R. Leiner still disagreed with the Gra for whatever reason it may be.

R. Yosef Refael and R. Betzalael HaKohen, Dayanim in the Vilna Bet Din were against the whole notion of the Sidrei Tahros. But, they also singled out R. Leiner's disagreements with the Gra. Specifically, they say
ובהשגות המחבר [ר' גרשון] על רבינו מאור הגולה הגר"א ז"ל כתב הרבה נגד כבוד הגר"א ז"ל בכמה מקומות ומדקדק עליו בדקדודי עניות לבד אשר אין מהצרוך להשיב עליהם כלל, וגם במהלליו את רבינו הגר"א ז"ל התנכר כנגדו כובד וכאילו היה חלילה אחד מחבריו . . . ובכמה מקומות תלה דברים זרים בפירוש הגר"א ז"ל, אשר לא יטעה כל המתחיל ללמוד לפרש כזאת

Another example is that of R. Barukh Brody in his book Bet Ya'akov where he states:

ועל של עתה באתי כי זה לא כביר נדפס ילקוט על מס' כלים . . . והנה בעברי על פני דבריו באיזה מקומן ראיתי כי יצא בילקוטו באבני נגף נוכח תורת הגר"א ופגע ונגע בכ"מ [= בכמה מקומות] בכבוד רבינו הגר"א ומשיג על דבריו בעזות וחוצפה מאד, ושמתי עיוני על השגותיו ומצאתי ראיתי כי מלבד שאין קטן ערך כמוהו ראוי להתוכח עם ארי ארי[ה] דבי עילאה הגר"א ז"ל, בר מכל דין לא הבין ולא רצה להבין דברי הגר"א הקדושים רק שנאה וחוצפה מדברת מתוך גרונו . . . חכמתו המעט נסתקלה ממנו ולא הבין אפילו פשט הפשוט שבדברי הגר"א ז"ל

R. Brody thus accuses R. Leiner of brazeness, chutzpah, and that R. Leiner "is unable to understand even the simplest explanations." Harsh words indeed all for disagreeing with the Gra.

The second example deals with a recently discussed book. In our discussion of Teffilah Zakah, we noted that various editions of the Hayye Adam were altered. In this case, we are going to deal with R. Danzig's other well-known work the Hokhmat Adam. In the prior discussion the removal was due to the inclusion of a controversial book, in this case it was R. Danzig's own words. [1]

The Hokhmat Adam was published after the Hayye Adam. In the Hayye Adam at various times, he take issue with the opinions of the Gra. R. Danzig was no stranger to the Gra, R. Danzig's son married the grand-daughter (Gittel Vilner) of the Gra. It appears that R. Danzig's disagreements with the Gra did not go unnoticed or unopposed.

In the first edition of the Hokhmat Adam, R. Danzig addresses criticisms. R. Danzig notes, inter alia, that the Gra himself would be more than happy to have people disagree with him. It appears, however, that only one copy remains of R. Danzig's original words. This copy was discovered by Chaim Lieberman, one of the great bibliographers of the past generation, in what was R. Shmuel Straushun's former library (a portion of the library is now housed in YIVO). The page, in relevant part, reads as follows:

והנה לא נמצא בחיבור זה מדברי מחותני הגאון רשכבה"ג מו' אלי' החסיד, והוא לסיבת כי שמעתי דבת רבים המתרעמים עלי שהשגתי עליו באיזה מקומות בחיבורי [חיי אדם] ובלתי ס[פק] שהאנשים המתרעמים לא ידעו דרך הפוסקים שכך דרך תה"ק זה בונה וזה סותר והתלמיד חולק על הרב כמש"כ בש"ע [יו"ד ס' רמ"ב סע' ג] ודרך זה היה נוהג אף בזמן תנאים ואמורים, ובודאי ניחא להגר"א מה שאני מפלפל בדבריו ממי שהוא אומר שפיר קאמר כדאר"י [=כדאמר רבי יוחנן] על בר לקישא. ולכתוב דבריו אף אם לא יהיה נ"ל זה לא אוכל, ולכן אחזתי במדת השתיקה להסיר תלונתם מעלי והם עתידים ליתן את הדין כי מנעו נ"ר [=נחת רוח] להגר"א לפלפל בדבריו, ודין אותי לכף זכות ידונו אותו משמים לזכות

This is not the text that appears in Hokhmat Adam, rather a slightly different text appears. These changes, however, as been demonstrated by Ch. Lieberman are significant. The following is how it appears (prior to the Binat Adam section):

והנה דברי מחותני גאון ישראל וקדושו אשר מימיו אנו שותים המקובל אלקי החסיד המפורסם מהו' אלי' חסיד דקהילתינו לא הבאתי כלל דבריו כמעט רק איזה גרגרים והוא לסיבה כי שמעתי דיבת רבים המתרעמים עלי על שבאיזה מקומות בחיברי חיי אדם השגתי עליו, ובלתי ספק שאנשים האלה אינם בקיאי' בלימוד הפוסקי' שכן דרך תה"ק זה בונה וזה סותר והתלמוד חולק על הרב והטור על אביו הרא"ש כמש"כ בש"ע ובפוסקי', וזה ניחא להון כדאמר ר' יוחנן על ר"ל דמיני ומיני' רווח שמעתתא, ובודאי זהו נחת רוח להגואן יותר ממי שיאמר שפיר קאמר ועתידין ליתן את הדין על שמונעים נחת רוח מהגואן, והדן לכף זכות ידונו משמים לזכות

Lieberman points to four major changes. First, the honorifics surrounding the first mention of the Gra. Second, in the first iteration, R. Danzig decided to totally avoid any mention of the Gra while in the second iteration he cites "some small statements" of the Gra. Third, in the later iteration the statement of R. Yochonon is filled in. That is it provides the text. Lieberman allows that perhaps this was done to avoid "confusion" with another statement of R. Yochonon. R. Yohonon (Ketubot 84,b) says about Resh Lakish "what can I do my peer disagrees with me." Rashi explains that "peer" means equal. Thus, perhaps the reader would think that R. Danzig was comparing himself with the Gra. Instead, the reader is now directed to the statement of R. Yohonon (Pesachim 88,a; Megilah 14,b) generally discussing Resh Lakish providing numerous answers to questions. Finally, in the later iteration the language "it is impossible for me to write what I don't actually believe" is missing in it entirety. (For Lieberman's article see Ohel Rochel, vol. 1, 473-74 [first printed in Kiryat Sefer, 37 (1962) pp. 413-14]).

Note:
[1] For examples of R. Danzig's disagreements and some responses see Eliach, HaGoan, vol. 2 pp. 706-09.

]]> Amudim bTolodot Sefer HaIvri Book Reviews Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:33:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/10/2/The-Pitfalls-of-Disagreeing-with-the-Gra Shaving on Chol HaMo'ad the Never-ending Controversy http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/30/Shaving-on-Chol-HaMoad-the-Neverending-Controversy While we are generally aware that denominations other than Orthodox changes and adapt to the times, in reality Orthodoxy has also made significant changes. Of course, these changes are all within the parameters of Halakah, but they are in part concession to the times.

By way of example, the Mishha and in turn the Gemera record various practices when a person is an אבל (mourner). One such practice is עטיפת הראש winding or wrapping of the head. Tosefot, however, note that although this practice is recorded without controversy – in their time, as it was uncommon to wrap one’s head there is no longer an obligation to do so.

At the time Tosefot offered this decision – a decision which took into account then modern sensibilities – it was fairly unremarkable. This would change significantly when a movement sprung up which took conforming Judaism to modernity to the extreme. The Reform movement which altered numerous, significant practices precipitated a greater hesitancy to effect change – even legitimate change within Orthodoxy.
One example of the battle over changing long established practices relates to Hol haMo’ad. The Mishna in Mo’ad Koton [1] enumerates but a small class of people who are permitted to shave on Hol haMoad. This class is comprised of people, who for reasons out of their control were unable to shave before the holiday. One who is released from prison on the Holiday is one example. But, anyone other than this small class of persons according to the Mishna, are prohibited from shaving on Hol haMo'ad. The Gemera explains the restriction in light of human nature. One, in theory, has more free time on Hol HaMo'ad (assuming one is not working) thus one may procrastinate to shave and get a haircut until Hol HaMo'ad. This would mean that they would begin the holiday unkempt, unshaven. Thus, to avoid this sort of procrastination, one is prohibited from shaving on Hol haMo'ad thus removing any temptation to delay until Hol HaMo'ad.

The question which we will now turn out focus to – is whether this reason is dispositive. That is, assuming one did in fact shave before the holiday can he then shave on Hol HaMo’ad as he did comply with the law.

For hundreds of years the answer to this question was no. Rabbenu Tam (1100-1171) did allow for someone who shaved before the holiday to do so on hol haMoad. This position, however, was uniformly rejected by everyone who voiced an opinion on this matter until the 18th century. The 18th century, however, saw an increase in emancipation and closer contact between Jews and non-Jews. This was on an unprecedented level, Jews did not want to appear strange and thus many Jews began, what is common today, dressing in contemporary style and the like. Jews also, although there were also examples earlier, began to appear clean shaven. Now, during the rest of the year, maintaining a clean shaven look did not pose too significant of a problem. But, there was one time where, based upon precedent, it would be difficult to remain clean shaven – during Hol HaMo'ad.

The first to readdress this issue was R. Yehezikel Landau, the author of the Noda B’Yehuda and one of the greatest Rabbis of his time. In approximately, 1775, R. Landua was asked (O.C. Tinyaha, no. 101) if there was any way for those who shave year round, and did so prior to the holiday, to do so on Hol HaMo'ad. R. Landau ruled in the affirmative, with one important condition – that it be done with a poor barber. This condition was an attempt to conform with the various prior opinions. Namely, R. Landau understood the rejection of Rabbenu Tam’s opinion limited to instances which the person would shave themselves. But, a poor person who needed this to survive and thus was able to do work on Hol HaMo'ad anyways, everyone would agree shaving would be permitted. As R. Landau was highly respected his opinion did not go unnoticed. With the publication of this responsa in his work Noda B’Yehuda, the reaction was almost immediate and negative. From all over Europe various people either directly addressed R. Landau or wrote their own private responses expressing their opinion to maintain the status quo. In the end, R. Landau included four responsa on this topic. The reaction was summed up by R. Hayim Yosef Azulai, the Hida (Yosef Ometz, no. 7),
ואולם בו בפרק ראיתי אשר תיכף אזרו חיל הגאונים רב של ברלין ורב של אמשטרדם וחלקו עליו, ונדפס בספר בינן אריאל. גם ידעתי נאמנה שרבני גאוני פולין ואשכנז היטב חרה להם היתר זה וכמעט נגעו בכבוד הרב. ואין ספק כי רבני ארץ ישראל . . וכל טורקיאה ומצרים . . . וערי המערב . . . כולם יסמכו עם רבני אשכנז ופולין
“During that time I heard immediately they quickly girded themselves, the great ones, the Rabbi of Berlin, the Rabbi of Amsterdam and they disagreed [with R. Landau] and this was printed in Binyan Areiel. I also heard from trustworthy sources that the Rabbis of Poland and Germany were extremely disturbed by this leniency and they went so far as to disparage R. Landau. And I have no doubt that the Rabbis in Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and all the Eastern lands agree with the Rabbis of Poland and Germany.”

There were those, who could not reconcile their high esteem of R. Landau with his permissive stance on shaving, and thus made the claim (which has no support) that R. Landau retracted his statement. [Such a claim - that the author retracted or an errant student was the author of a controversial respona - is rather common. See Speigel, cited below, pp. 271-75 for other examples.]

One particularly fantastic (and well-known) explanation attempting to reconcile the R. Landau’s position was offered by R. Moshe Sofer, the author of Hatam Sofer. R. Sofer (Shu"t Hatam Sofer O.C. no. 154) wants to understand R. Landau’s position in light of another shaving question. One is prohibited from using a straight edge razor on their face. But, as this was before electric shavers many of the other options for shaving were not appealing to some and they used a straightedge anyways. R. Landau was offered a possible justification for this practice, which R. Landau in turn rejected. The justification was one is prohibited from removing “hair” with a straight edge. Hair is only hair, for many other laws, if it is long enough to turn back on itself. Thus, if one shaved every day or so, even with a straightedge they would not be removing hair as it was too short. Now, as I mentioned R. Landau rejected this, however, R. Sofer claims as this position was perhaps the only available understanding of what many did to not consider them sinners, R. Landau in fact accepted this. But, R. Landau also knew that if he came out that shaving was prohibited on Hol HaMo'ad many people even those who use a straightedge will follow that opinion. Thus, at the end of the holiday they would have long enough facial hair to be shaving “hair.” While ascribing such motivation to R. Landau is somewhat far-fetched, it does demonstrate how far people would go to reconcile their views of R. Landau with this position.

This, as would be expected was not the end of this issue. Soon after the Noda B’Yehuda was published, another book – which was controversial in its entirety – was published. This book, Besamim Rosh, (previous discussions here) was published in 1793 but attributed to R. Asher b. Yehiel who lived at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries. Almost immediately after its publication there were those who questioned this attribution and instead said it was not the RoSH who wrote this but instead it was the publisher, R. Saul Berlin. Although there were many controversial statements in this book, R. Saul Berlin retracted only one – his statement regarding shaving on Hol HaMo’ad (no. 40). This was the only pronouncement R. Saul agreed was not from the RoSH.

Thus far, this discussion was limited to single or a few responsa, however, in the 19th century we have the battle of the books. Isaac Samuel Reggio (1784-1855) (mentioned previously here), an Italian Rabbi and admitted maskil, devoted an entire work, Ma’amar HiTeglachat (Vienna, 1835), to the issue of shaving on Hol HaMoad. Reggio was one of the most accomplished Rabbis of his day, he was fluent in numerous languages, founded the Rabbinic Seminary in Padua and was an amazingly prolific writer (and he also went clean-shaven as is evidenced by the portrait accompanying the article on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia here). Perhaps his most accessible book is a translation in Italian and commentary in Hebrew (titled Torat HaElokim, Vienna, 1818)of the bible based upon the simple meaning (pehsat)was recently reprinted. [It appears the sponsor of this reprint was unaware of Reggio's maskilik leanings and - as the story was related to me - was horrified to find this out and thus this edition is now difficult to obtain.]

Reggio takes the position of R. Landau one step further. You will recall that R. Landau allowed for a poor Jew to cut one’s beard but not the person himself. Reggio, however, offers that even the person themselves can shave. This is so, as he understands that in the time of the original enactment, it was highly uncommon to shave weekly and certainly daily. From this assumption Reggio notes that (1) those who shave more often the hair returns quicker and thus before it was no big deal not to shave over 8 days but today, even in such a short time the hair returns too quickly and (2) since everyone now shaves often this is not the set of circumstances the original enactment was aimed at. That is, only for those for whom shaving was infrequent was there a true fear of forgetting or pushing off shaving but today that is not nearly as much of a consideration. Of course, Reggio notes that if one did not shave prior to the holiday he can not shave on Hol HaMa'od.

This being the most sweeping ruling on this issue and the most comprehensive, an immediate reaction was not short in coming. In fact, there were two books written for the sole purpose of refuting Reggio’s position. The first, a play on Reggio’s title was Tegalachat haMa’amar (Livorno, 1839), was published anonymously. However, we now know that in fact the author was R. Avrohom Reggio, R. Yitzhak’s father!

To this day, shaving on Hol HaMoad remains a contentious issue. R. Moshe Feinstein one of the greatest American Rabbis post-Holocaust allowed for similar reasons to Reggio, one to shave on Hol HaMo'ad. R. Feinstein explains (O.C. vol. 1 no. 163) that “today for those who shave daily, they can shave on Hol HaMo'ad.” Although there is again a permissive opinion, one from a highly respected person it still did not end this issue. In the Shmerat Shabbat K’Helchata (vol. 1 p. 274), on the top portion of the text he records that it is prohibited to shave on Hol HaMo'ad. Then in a footnote he is willing to only cite to R. Feinstein’s responsa without explaining what it contains.

Additionally, in an English book devoted to the laws of Hol HaMo’ad [2] they have taken it one step further by judiciously quoting R. Feinstein to give a different impression than the actual respona. As is provided in this book, R. Feinstein concludes his responsa with “I only offer this permissive opinion to those who have a great need or are in pain from not shaving.” (p. 26 n. 7). This is where the quote ends in the English book [of course, this does not actually appear in the English section, rather this is all relegated to a Hebrew footnote - in the English portion, the authors only allow that if refraining from shaving would result in a loss - davar ha'avod - only then is it permitted]. But R. Feinstein actually continues with “if one wishes to rely upon my permissive stance for appearances sake only [i.e. not only for 'great need' or 'pain'] there is no need to stop him as in reality this is permitted.”

אבל מ"מ איני נוהג להתיר אלא למי שיש לו צורך ביותר או מצטער ביותר, ואם אחד ירצה לסמוך ע"ז גם בשביל היפוי לבד אין למחות בידו כי מעצם הדין הוא מותר לע"ד



Sources: The vast majority of the above comes from M. Samet article on the topic of shaving on Hol HaMo'ad. This article appears in M. Benayhu, Tegalachat B'Holo shel HaMo'ad, Jerusalem, 1995. Benayhu's book also reprints both Reggio's books as well as a significant amount of material from manuscript and he provides a history as well. Interestingly, Benayahu attempted to convince R. Shlomo Zalman Aurebach that today it would be permissable to shave on Hol HaMo'ad. Benayahu, however, notes that right when he finished this book, he was planning on showing it to R. Aurebach for his thoughts and comments but R. Aurebach passed away.
[Of course, the primary material contains additional important information]. This book is the most comprehensive discussion on the topic. Samet's article has now been reprinted in his Hadash Assur min HaTorah, Jerusalem, 2005. Samet, among other things, discusses R. Feinstein and the controversy over his opinion. There are others who discuss this topic, however, as they mainly use the two above sources (with and without attribution), and they do not add much of anything I have not provided additional citations.

I want to thank M. Solomson for providing both editorial corrections and material for this post.

Notes
[1] On the name of this Mescheta and whether it is Mashkim or Mo'ad Koton, see Y. S. Speigel, Amudim b'Toldot Sefer HaIvri, Kitvah v'HaTakah, pp. 326-27; 348-56 (discussing which rishonim referred to it as Mashkim and which referred to it as Mo'ad Koton and whether any conclusions can be drawn from that data).

[2] D. Zucker & M. Francis, Chol HaMoed, Brooklyn, NY, 1981. The book even contains an approbation from R. Feinstein, although R. Feinstein says he did not look in great detail at the book and instead his approbation is based upon the reputation of the authors.

]]> Censorship Bibliographical Oddities Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/30/Shaving-on-Chol-HaMoad-the-Neverending-Controversy Latest Hebrew Journals http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/26/Latest--Hebrew-Journals Although, I hope to do a more complete posts on these, two Hebrew journals, Yeshurun, and Or Yisrael have come out with their Tishrei editions. Or Yisrael contains a section, from various authors, discussing the Kashrut of whiskey. They have a section devoted to halachik issues of Sukkos. Additional material includes an article by R. Gedaliah Oberlander (continuing on his prior articles dealing with minhagim) discussing the custom of lighting candles on Yom Tov.

]]> Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/26/Latest--Hebrew-Journals Jay R. Berkovitz -- The Napoleonic Sanhedrin: Halachic Foundations and Rabbinical Legacy http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/24/Jay-R-Berkovitz--The-Napoleonic-Sanhedrin-Halachic-Foundations-and-Rabbinical-Legacy
In earlier post at the Seforim blog, Dan Rabinowitz reviewed the Jay R. Berkovitz's book מסורת ומהפיכה-תרבות יהודית בצרפת בראשית העת החדשה, which discusses French Jewry and specifically the changes and challenges of modernity. On a similar topic, included in a CCAR Journal symposium marking the 200th anniversary of the "Assembly of Jewish Notables," is Jay R. Berkovitz, "The Napoleonic Sanhedrin: Halachic Foundations and Rabbinical Legacy," CCAR Journal: A Reform Jewish Quarterly 54:1 (Winter 2007): 11-34, available (for free) online here (PDF).

]]> Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/24/Jay-R-Berkovitz--The-Napoleonic-Sanhedrin-Halachic-Foundations-and-Rabbinical-Legacy Review of R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil&#8217;s Levushi Badim: With An Eye Towards Yom Kippur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/20/Review-of-R-Yedidyah-Tiyah-Weil8217s-Levushi-Badim-With-An-Eye-Towards-Yom-Kippur
Review of R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil’s Levushi Badim:
With An Eye Towards Yom Kippur
By Rabbi Eliezer Brodt

One aspect of our rich literature that is rarely tapped into properly is the area of Sifrei Derush. We have a complete literature of seforim in this genre from Rishonim until modern times, including many styles, from all kinds of gedolim, from completely different schools countries, etc. There are Sifrei Derush strictly written according to peshat, while others deal with allegorical interpretations, Halakha, Kabbalah, Derush, Mussar and Chassidus. This area is extremely important in our quest for information in many different fields. First and foremost, we have the actual interpretations said by the various darshanim. When reading through these works of derush, you will generally find answers to many topics that might interest you, explanations to many passages in chazal which until than you had been unsuccessful in locating satisfactory explanations. Unfortunately, there is no proper index for all of this material, although some attempts have been made over the years to fill this lacuna. Second of all, these seforim provide us with a rich history of the Jews through out the ages. When we read what the darshanim choose to deal with in the mussar section of these derashos, we can see the various areas they were lax in. We can see that Jews, in all eras, always had various issues in which they were lax. Besides for this, many times we can see various minhagim that Jews observed and why they observed them.

In an upcoming post at the Seforim blog, I will discuss more of the broader implications of studying Sifrei Derush, but in this post I shall discuss one such sefer and how it helps us prepare for Yom Kippur.

In 1988, the manuscript of the derashos Levushi Badim from R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil were printed for the first time. In a previous post at the Seforim blog I briefly discussion a little about this great goan, R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil, who was the son of R. Nesanel Weil, the author of the well-known commentary on the Ro”SH – the Korban Nesanel. Just a bit of biographical information about R. Yedidiah. Born in 1722, R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil died in 1806 at the age of 84. He was a student of both his father, the Korban Nesanel, and R. Yonason Eybeschutz, and served as the Rav of Karlsruh, and as the Rosh Yeshiva there. He wrote much; however, aside for his Haggadah, nothing else was printed until 1977. (See the Introduction to R. Weil’s Hiddushe Rabbi Yedidyah Weil: Masekhet Niddah (Makhon Ahavat Shalom, 2003). And, although some has recently been published, much of his work remains in manuscript. However, recently the important and excellent notes of his on Hilkhot Shabbat (over 60 pages of material) have been printed in a Kovetz called Deror Yekro.

This sefer is a collection of thirty three derashos that R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil gave over thirty-three years on Yom Kippur before Kol Nedrei. He writes that he saw this time was a successful time to give the derasha as this is the best time to have the crowd focused as they are not hungry or tired yet from fasting because the fast just began.

The style of these derashos are very interesting, one can see that people on many levels could enjoy them. He included all kinds of explanations on Gemarah and other difficult statements in chazal. Many times he veried off into a little kabbalah. He almost always included a mashul (parable) which is a highly effective way to captivate the masses to listen to ones derasha. The breadth of sources that he spoke about from Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim is just incredible. One can see a complete list of this in the very through index included in the back of the sefer. Many times he threw in specific examples of areas which the people were lax in (more on this soon).

As I mentioned this sefer has a wealth of information especially in regard to Yom Kippur. I will just give a partial list here of some of the minhaghim mentioned in this work.

As noted above, these derashos were said before Kol Nidrei, delaying the time when Kol Nidrei was said. This custom of saying a derasha and when to say it is widespread and has very early sources as is discussed by R. Freund in his Moadim le-Simcha (pp. 318-322). He also deals with pushing off Kol Nidrei a bit later for these derashos. One of the sources he missed is this sefer Levushei Badim. [For more on this topic, see my forthcoming article in the upcoming issue of Yerushateinu, vol. 2 (5768).] He explains a few reasons why we begin Yom Kippur with Kol Nidrei (pp. 3, 27, 103). For a very comprehensive article on Kol Nedrei see Minhaghei Hakehilos, pp. 209-226.

Many of R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil’s derashos include an explanation for the Minhag of the Arizal as to why we say the passuk אור זרוע לצדיק (amongst them p. 14 in the introduction, pp. 3, 8, 11, 15 and 20). For more on this topic see Pardes Eliezer pp. 261-267 and Minhaghei Hakehilos, pp. 104-105.

One of the topics he returns to throughout the derashos is explanations for wearing white clothes – and the kittel on Yom Kippur. In his introduction he lists ten reasons for this Minhag amongst them is the famous one to remind one of death. Other reasons include that we are like malachim on Yom Kippur and that we are like the Kohen Gadol. (For a partial list, see introduction and pp. 6, 11, 20, 73, 94). For more on this topic in general see the Pardes Eliezer pp. 124-169 and my forthcoming work on Rosh Hashna and Yom Kippur (mentioned previously at the Seforim blog).

He has many reasons for the Minhag of asking ones friends Mecheilah (see pp. 11, 39, 84, 106, 123 and 143). For a recent discussion of this topic see Minhaghei Hakehilos (pp. 204-208). He also discusses the reason why one has to immerse oneself in a mikvah before Yom Kippur (p. 18).

R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil writes that Minhag Polin was to end davening of Yom Kippur after the tekios with everyone saying לשנה הבאה בירושלים (p. 196). He repeats many times in the derashos that crying during davening is very important (pp. 99, 126, 171, and 193) and it even helps ones tefilos to be accepted (p. 159).

Besides for minhagim and interesting points in regard to Yom Kippur there are many other points of general interest; for example, R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil has a discussion about making a golem, where he provides a source that R. Avigdor Kra created one (p. 37). See my earlier post at the Seforim blog on this great Goan. He also has a discussion on reading the ability of different Gedolim to read foreheads.

He has a very interesting discussion about giving Zedaka to a fraud saying even though you know he is a fraud still give him (p. 135) I will quote it in Hebrew as it loses a little in translation.
ונראה דאיתא בגמרא אר"ל באו ונחזיק טובה לרמאים שאלמלא הן היינו חוטאין, והנה אם מיירי בעניים מהדרי פתחין שידעינן בודאי שהן רמאין ואינם מהוגנים אין מן הראוי לתת להם צדקה ובעבור זה רבים נמנעין ליתן להם צדקה כי יודעין שהם רמאים ואינם מהוגנים ולא שייך דברי ריש לקיש, אבל האמת לפי החיקרה דתירץ זה ליתא לפי האמת, דהא אנו אומרים בתפילה אבינו מלכנו חננו ועננו כי אין בנו מעשים עשה עמנו צדקה וחסד והושיענו ואנחנו ודאי רמאים לפני הקב"ה כי הוא יודע כל הנסתרות וחופש כל חדרי בטל ולא יצדק לפני כל חי, והיאך ישעה עמנו צדקה הלא גם אתם אינכם נותנים צדקה לרמאים, לפיכך אנחנו חייבים לתת צדקה אפילו לרמאים, אם כן כמו שאנו עושין צדקה לרמאים, כן תעשה עמנו צדקה.
Another beautiful piece of his is on two other phrases in Aveinu Malkeinu. Here too, I will quote it in Hebrew.
כמו שתקנו אבינו מלכנו עשה למען הרוגים על שם קדשיך, אבינו מלכנו עשה למען טבוחים על יחודך, אבינו מלכנו עשה למען באי באש ובמים על קידוש שמך, ויש להבין וכי טבוחים לאו בכלל הרוגים כי כמה מיני הרג ואבדון הי' לחסידי עליון, ועוד למה מזכיר גם הרוגים שם קדשך שהי' מקדשים שמו ברבים, וגבי טבוחים אמר לשון יחודך, ונראה בזה בשעת גזרת שמד היו מתאספים אנשים ונשים ושחטו עצמן ואת בניהם ובנותיהם וצורחים שמע ישראל כדי לצאת נשמתם באחד... וכן רבינו קלונימוס בקינה מי יתן ראשי מים, וזהו למען טבוחים על יחודך שה' טובחים עצמן על יחודך באמירת ה' אחד והא דאמר' למען באי באש ובמים אף על גב דהם נמי בכלל הרוגים, נראה לענית דעתי דאית' בתעניות דף כט דכתות כתות של פרחי כהונה קפצו לתוך האש בשעת שנשרף ההיכל בבית הראשון, וכן בבית שני הפילו עצמן ד' מאות ילדים וד' מאות ילדות לתוך הים כדאיתא בהניזקין, לכך אמר באי מעצמן באש בחורבן ראשון ובמים בחורבן בית שני, והואיל שיצאת נשמתן לא הי' באחד אמר למען קדוש שמך מה שאין כן בטבוחים על יחודך, שהיו מכוונים בגמר שחיטה אבות לבנים בה' אחד.
One more piece of which I would like to quote is R. Yedidyah Tiyah Weil’s elaboration of an idea in the Zohar and R. Yosef Gitliah in his Sharei Orah which is a very important concept for Davening (p. 119):
בשערי אורה... וז"ל אם יחיד מתפלל תפילה שאינו הוגנת אז נקראת תפילה פסולה ודוחים אותה לחוץ, ואם תאמר נמצא רוב תפילות של יחיד נפסדות ונאבדות כי אחת מני אלף לא נוכל לכוין את תפילתנו בענין שראוי להתקבל, דע שיש רקיע למעלה ושם ממונים ושמורים, וכל אותן תפילות הפסולות מכניסין באותו הרקיע ואם חזר זה היחיד והתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה והגונה ואז אם היא עולה למעלה מתדבקים כל התפילות הפסולות עמה ע"ש שהאריך. אמנם נראה, אם מת אותו יחיד ולא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה, וכי יעלה על הדעת שח"ו יפסיד כל התפילות שהיה מתפלל?! ואולי יש לומר, אם בנו היה מתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, אז מעלה בנו כל תפילות של אביו (ואפשר, דזה הטעם דאבל מתפלל בציבור), כי ברא מזכה דאבא. ויען, אם גם בנו לא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה או אם אין לו בן, אם כן הפסיד כל התפילות, לזה אם יגולגל נשמתו לבוא בעולם ויתפלל עוד תפילות אחרות בכוונה גדולה - מעלה כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל בגלגולים אחרים.
In my forthcoming work on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (mentioned previously at the Seforim blog) I have devoted an entire chapter on this topic.

Besides for all these interesting pieces and gems in the sefer there are many things which give us a historical picture of the author’s era. We see many of the problems that people had in those times. One very rich passage (p. 48) which I will quote in Hebrew is as follows:
ובענין המחלוקות מקורן מכמה סיבות שונות הגורמות לזה א, בעינן התורה והפלפול משרבו התלמידים שלא שמשו כל צרכן נעשתה התורה כשתי תורות. ב, מחמת סיבות ממון ופרנסה... וכל אחד מסיג גבול רעהו ומקנא במשא ומתן וגורם כמה מחלוקות. ג, מחמת שכנים וכבר צוח הנביא הוי נגע בית בבית ובונה עליותיו בלא משפט. ד, דרך אחים ואחיות להיות מריבות וקטטות ביניהם הן מחמת ירושה או מאהבת האבות לבן בין הבנים כמו ביוסף עם אחיו. ה, רגיל להיות מחלוקות בין השותפין שחושדו שלא עשה כהוגן ולא עסק כראוי ובכלל זה קטטת איש ואשתו דנקראין שותפין. ו, לפעמים נופל מחלוקת בבתי כנסיות הן מחמת עליות התורה או מחמת מקום שיושבים עליו או מחמת שמביאין טף עמהם.
I think its incredible how all these problems which we thought only exist today did even back than.

Amongst the sins that he mentions in the derashos that he wanted them to improve on and do teshuvah which gives us more of a picture of that time were: talking during davening (p. 134), shaving with a razor (pp. 2, 133), shaving on chol hamoad (p. 185), woman not dressing properly (pp. 143-144), drinking yayin nessach (p. 133) and buying food from goyim on shabbos sometimes by means of their children (p. 144).

]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs Yom Kippur Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/20/Review-of-R-Yedidyah-Tiyah-Weil8217s-Levushi-Badim-With-An-Eye-Towards-Yom-Kippur Teffilah Zakah: History of a Controversial Prayer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/19/Teffilah-Zakah-History-of-a-Controversial-Prayer
Teffilah Zakah:
History of a Controversial Prayer*

Yom Kippur has many unique prayers, many of them have been added through the centuries. For instance, R. Hayyim Yosef Dovid Azulai (Hida) has a longer viduy. Another such addition is the prayer known as Teffilah Zakah. In this prayer the person enumerates and connects their various sins with various acts and asks for forgiveness. Additionally, the person forgives any who have caused them pain or harmed them. This prayer was popularized by R. Avraham Danzig, in his Hayye Adam.

There are two reasons offered for reciting this prayer. Dr. Sperber opines (Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2, p. 37 and esp. n.10) that the purpose of this prayer is to fulfill the opinion of the Ramban who holds that is an additional viduy on directly prior to Kol Nedrei on Erev Yom Kippur. (He offers that either Teffilah Zakah or a piyyut from R. Abraham ibn Ezra, fulfills this purpose). R. Abraham Ashkenazi (Brit Abraham, Warsaw, 1884, no. 129) offers a different reason for Teffilah Zakah. The purpose according to him, is to accept Yom Kippur early. At the end of Teffilah Zakah, one voices that they are accepting "kedushas Yom Kippurim." In fact, R. Ashkenazi holds that for the purposes of fulfilling the opinion of the Ramban Teffilah Zakah would be insufficient as it differs significantly from the standard viduy. R. Ashkenazi, however, also holds that one should fulfill the Ramban's opinion and thus recite the regular viduy after Teffilah Zakkah. (Surprisingly, Dr. Sperber doesn't discuss R. Ashkenazi's concern).

As mentioned above, Teffilah Zakah has a passage where one forgives others who may have sinned against him. This is necessary, as although Yom Kippur takes care of sins between man and God, it can't take care of sins between man and man. Thus, it is necessary for each to receive forgiveness from their fellowman to achieve full forgiveness. Teffilah Zakah is long, and this paragraph that forgives others, appears at the end. The Chofetz Chaim attempted to alleviate this problem "and contacted the printers to change the placement of this paragraph of Teffilah Zakah . That is, to place this later paragraph earlier in prayer, to place the paragraph where one forgives others in the middle or the beginning." According to the Chofetz Chaim's son, R. Areyeh Leib, some siddurim did in fact shift around the prayer. (Michtevei Chofetz Chaim, p. 21-2 no. 52; quoted in Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 4, 274).

The source to popularize this prayer is the book Hayye Adam.[1] Hayye Adam was first published in 1809, then in 1819 (the discussion regarding Teffilah Zakah only appears in this second edition - and thus, perhaps should be called a mahdurah [2]), and the third edition in 1825 - it would be this third edition that would be used for subsequent printing. [3] And, thereafter there was a flood of reprints - by 1960, Hayye Adam had been published at least 103 times (!) - a very popular book by any measure. While the book was reprinted on many occasions there were slight changes (some for the worse - there were many printing errors that crept in). As relevant to our discussion, in some editions, the portion discussing Teffilah Zakah changed as well.[4] The source that R. Danzig lists for Teffilah Zakah (klall 144), is the Sefer Hemdat Yamim. [5] In light of the fact that Hemdat Yamim is controversial in some editions of the Hayye Adam they removed words "Hemdat Yamim" so as not to have that as the source for this prayer.[6] Not all publishers dealt with the mention of Hemdat Yamim in the same manner. The full passage, as per the second edition of the Hayye Adam (see above - this is the first time this prayer appears in the Hayye Adam):
אח"ז ילך לבית הכנסת באימה ורעדה והמנהג בקהלתינו בכל בתי מדרשים להוציא ס"ת מהיכל כמש"כ בכתבי האר"י ז"ל וכבר נדפס בחמדת הימים התפילה שיסדר ואמנם לא כל אדם מבין הדברים רק מי שבא בסוד ה' ומי שא"י הוא להם כדברי ספר החתום ולכן העתקתי בספרי' קדמונים תפלה בלשון קל . . . וכו

In the Zolkeiv(1838) edition the words "וכבר נדפס בחמדת הימים" are missing (this makes the next clause - "but not everyone understands those words" and "those words will be like a closed book" unintelligible); while in the Vilna (1849) edition only the words
אח"ז ילך לבית הכנסת באימה ורעדה והמנהג בקהלתינו בכל בתי מדרשים להוציא ס"ת מהיכל כמש"כ בכתבי האר"י ז"ל

and the rest of the paragraph explaining why R. Danzig was required to create a new prayer in a "simple language" doesn't appear. In the Vilna (1895) edition they have as follows:
אח"ז ילך לבית הכנסת באימה ורעדה והמנהג בקהלתינו בכל בתי מדרשים להוציא ס"ת מהיכל כמש"כ בכתבי האר"י ז"ל והעתקתי בספרים קדמונים לומר אז וידיו בלשון קל

This way they avoid the ambiguous pronoun (the problem with the Zolkeiv) and provide background for the prayer generally, of course they have still altered what R. Danzig found unremarkable.

The twin factors [7] of the use of a suspect work, Hemdat Yamim, and the creation of a new prayer, made some hesitant to adopt Teffilah Zakah. In the Tosefot Hayyim, a commentary on the Hayye Adam written by R. Meshulum Finkelstein, [8] deals with both of these issues and defends the recitation of Teffilah Zakah (klall 144 n.31). First, he alleges the prayer is not the same as that in Hemdat Yamim.[9] Second, he argues that the concern of saying a later prayer - this concern is attributed to the AriZal and is why, according to some the Yigdal prayer is not recited in some circles - is applicable to "yehidei segulah" (special people) and not to the masses. This is demonstrated by the many piyyutim we recite which are later than the cut-off date for prayers (R. Eliezer HaKalir - whenever he may have lived). Additionally, according to some, any prayer that has been accepted by the masses, this concern is not applicable.[10]

What is worthwhile mentioning is that R. Danzig is not the only talmid HaGra to use the Hemdat Yamim. He is also not the only talmid HaGra to have his work censored for such an inclusion. R. Eliach (Avi HaYeshivos, pp. 184-186) notes that the talmidei HaGra had no problem using and praising the Hemdat Yamim. Aside from R. Danzig, R. Alexander Suesskind, author of the Yesod V'Soresh HaAvodah, in his Last Will and Testament he praises the study of Hemdat Yamim. In at least one edition of R. Suesskind's Last Will and Testament, Tzavah Yesod V'Soresh HaAvodah, Jerusalem, 1955, the reference to the Hemdat Yamim was removed. Thus, on the one hand we have a group of people who had no issues using the Hemdat Yamim, while on the other hand, there is another group of people who wish to remove any such references.

Whatever the ultimate source of this prayer, there is no doubt that today, it is a popular one.

Notes

*The fullest discussion of this prayer can be found in Mordechai Meyer's article "On 'Teffilah Zakah'" in Kenishta, vol. 2 pp. 119-138 including the language above of the various editions of the Hayye Adam.

[1] According to R. Barukh haLevi Epstein, (Mekor Barukh, vol. 3 p. 1260 [end of chapter 21]), R. Danzig titled the book Hayye Adam to avoid any attempt to abridge it as it would then be titled Kitzur Hayye Adam (Shortening the Life of Man). If this is true, it appears it did not help as in 1854 an abridged version was published although the title was Kitzur M'Sefer Hayye Adam (An Abridgement of the Work Hayye Adam). Interestingly, R. Y.S. Nathenson refers to the Sefer Hayye Adam as Kitzur Hayye Adam. Shu"t Shoel u'Meshiv, vol. 2 no. 14 (it is unclear whether there should be a Hey prior to Hayye Adam that would have R. Nathenson as merely listing the Sefer Hayye Adam as an abridgment and the "kitzur" part would not be part of the title.)

[2] For the use of this term "mahdurah" and when it should be applied and more specifically should this second edition of the Hayye Adam should be deemed a mahdurah m'Tukenet or mahdurah Sheneiah, see Y.S. Speigel, Amudim b'Toldot Sefer HaIvri: Kitveah v'Hatakah, Ramat Gan, 2005, 109-60.

[3] Teffilah Zakah was published separately numerous times under the title Teffilah Zakah (it was here it seems the usage of Teffilah Zakah became popular - R. Danzig never refers to it as Teffilah Zakah). The first time it was published was in Minsk, 1833 (see Meir, supra, p. 122)(there is possibly one earlier print by a year or so, in Russia also around 1830 but this is not definite) and republished as a seperate prayer on numerous occasions (by 1900 it had been published close to 50 times). It was first incorporated into the Machzor in 1882 in the Romm edition of the Machzor. (Meir, p. 124) Although the title of Teffilah Zakah was well established as late as 1856 this prayer was published under the title Teffilah HaEtkah M'Sefer Hayye Adam and not Teffilah Zakah.

[4] While the exact nusach of Teffilah Zakah does not appear in Hemdat Yamim, much of it does (see notes below for more). There are those who claim that since the teffilah is not the same, thus, Teffilah Zakah doesn't really come from Hemdat Yamin. This is wrong. First, R. Danzig states it does - so he had no problem with it. Second, even if it is not word for word, and R. Danzig "improved" on the one in Hemdat Yamim, at the very least the basis for it, and much of it does in fact come from Hemdat Yamim. But, it is unsurprising that people would go to great lengths to void Hemdat Yamim as the source for this popular prayer.

[4] The removal of the mention of Hemdat Yamim both here and in other cases (including the discussion below regarding R. Suesskind's work) is discussed by R. S. Divlitsky, "HaShmotot Mahdirim," in Taggim, 1 (1969), 76-77 [Ya'ari, in Talmuot Sefer, also mentions the change to the Hayye Adam see under index under Hayye Adam]. For other examples of removal or changes to various editions of the Hayye Adam see R. A.I. Goldroth, "Al HaSefer 'Hayye Adam' U'Mechbro," in Sefer Margoliyos, Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 262-67 esp. n.1. For a discussion about Teffilah Zakah, as well as the Hayye Adam see R. E. Levin & M. I. Blau, "Teffilah Zakah," in Mishpacha, Kulmus, Tishrei, 2008, 16-19; and Blau's earlier article, "Al Sefer Hemdat Yamim," in Kovetz Bet Ahron v'Yisrael, Nissan, 2004 (112), pp. 161-164.

[5] In the Zolikav, 1838, Vilna, 1849; Tchernowitz, 1864; editions the words Hemdat Yamim are cut out and instead, the line reads, "in the works of the AriZal" and then has Teffilah Zakah. This is not the only mention of Hemdat Yamim in Hayye Adam. When discussing (klall 145) what happens if one has a nocturnal emission on Yom Kippur the Hayye Adam again cites to the Hemdat Yamim. In some editions the words "Hemdat Yamim" are missing, in others, it is abbreviated ("ח"ה"), so only those "in the know" will be able to understand.

[6] There is a third concern raised by the former Pupa Rebbi, who notes that as Teffilah Zakah discusses inappropriate sexual behavior, one should avoid saying it as it may lead to improper thoughts about the possible improper behavior. See R. G. Zinner, Neta Gavreil, Hilchot Yom HaKippurim, Jerusalem, 2001, p. 185 n.4. For a list of those who did not say Teffilah Zakah, see Y. Mondshein, Otzar Minhagei Chabad, [Jerusalem], 1995, pp. 200-01. Among other reasons, a similar reason to the Pupa Rebbi is offered by the wife of the Tzemach Tzedek. Additionally, a entirely new reason is given - that Teffilah Zakah is actually a deficient or inadequate prayer. As it is so bad is why, perversly, it has become so popular because, it seems, people like junk. See id. at n.1 in the name of the Sefer Areyeh Sha'ag.
See also, R. T. Ohrenreich, Katseh haMateh, in Mateh Efrahim, no. 619:17 who offers other methods to fulfill the opinions who hold one must do a viduy prior to the onset of Yom Kippur in lieu of Teffilah Zakah.

[7] It was first published in the Warsaw, 1888 edition of the Hayye Adam. R. Finkelstein wrote not only a commentary on Hayye Adam but also on the Matteh Efrahim, Elef HaMogan, first published in Mateh Efrahim HaShalem, Pitrokov, 1908. He also published a collection of commentaries on the Mishna under the title Tosefot Hakhomim, Warsaw, 1916.

[8] See note 4 above. This justification is bizarre. First, as noted above, the Hayye Adam says he is using the Hemdat Yamim - so at the very least he had no problem if it was there. Second, there are entire passages that do appear in Hemdat Yamim. For instance, the Hemdat Yamim has using kissing the sefer Torah to fix various sins (p. 291 of Tzuriel ed. - all citations are to this edition). Or there is an extensive discussion about the inability to fix something that someone stole from someone else (p. 229-36). There is another list of sins that mimic that in Teffilah Zakah (p. 252-57).

[9] This reasoning appears somewhat circular in that how did the prayer get started if one is prohibited from saying it to begin with? Even if one assumes this is merely extending the concept of "im ain neviem, beni neviem hamah," it doesn't excuse the R. Danzig from advocating for something that is prohibited.

]]> Censorship Customs Yom Kippur Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/19/Teffilah-Zakah-History-of-a-Controversial-Prayer Of Tahanun and Yarhrzeit bukhs http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/19/Of-Tahanun-and-Yarhrzeit-bukhs
A fascinating anecdote in a recently published biography of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel struck me as very worthy of sharing with the readers of the Seforim blog:
[Heschel] confided to Samuel Dresner that in his daily devotions he did not recite the Tahanun prayer, a confession of sin and supplication that was usually omitted only on the Sabbath and festivals. Heschel explained that it was a Hasidic custom to omit these woeful entreaties on the Yahrzeit (anniversary of death) of a rebbe, for such was not a day of sorrow but a mark of renewal and celebration. Because almost every day after the war was the Yahrzeit of a rebbe, Heschel did not say Tahanun at all. By means of his silence, each day he memorialized another leader, acknowledging his heartbreak before God alone. Publicly, however, Heschel would sing, literally and figuratively. He loved nigunim, and he wrote English essays in musical prose that praised - and idealized - East European Jewry.[1]
Within the non-Hasidic world, today is the yahrzeit of, among others, Rabbi David Oppenheimer(er), renowned throughout the rabbinic world as the Chief Rabbi of Nikolsburg from 1689-1702 and of Prague from 1702-1736.[2] Since 1829, his great rabbinic library of thousands of seforim and manuscripts -- until recently unmatched within the rabbinic world -- has formed the Oppenheimer Collection at the Bodleian Library at Oxford University with nearly 4,350 volumes
covering the entire range of Hebrew literature from the Bible up to early 18th cent. Particularly strong in Bible editions with commentaries, rabbinics, service-books. c60 Hebrew incunabula. Includes c70 per cent of all products of the first century of Yiddish printing, say from the 1530s to 1650. A set of the first edition of the Talmud printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, and a complete Talmud on vellum in 24 v (Berlin and Frankfurt a O, 1715-21).[3]
For Rabbi Reuven Margoliyot's yarhrzeit bukh, see here (PDF).

Notes:
[1] Edward K. Kaplan, Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 99.
[2] On Rabbi Rabbi Oppenheim, see Charles Duschinsky, "Rabbi David Oppenheimer: Glimpses of His Life and Activity, Derived from His Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library," Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 20:3 (January, 1930): 217-247.
[3] See here (scroll down)

]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/19/Of-Tahanun-and-Yarhrzeit-bukhs Candles on Yom Kippur: Reinstating a Lost Minhag http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/18/Candles-on-Yom-Kippur-Reinstating-a-Lost-Minhag
The Physical and Spiritual Light of Yom Kippur:
Reinstating a Lost Minhag to Enhance the Spirituality of Today’s Synagogue
by: Rabbis Aaron Goldscheider & Barry Kornblau*

Introduction
“Or Zarua la’tzadik – Light is sown for the righteous.” Each year, we begin our Yom Kippur prayers with these repeated, resounding words which Aruch Hashulchan tells us refer to “great matters that are beyond explanation.” If there is one evening of the entire Jewish year when we most seek the great, inexplicable light of God’s shechina, it is Yom Kippur eve. We enter the synagogue with great expectations, to feel close to the Divine, and to feel the warmth of His light and presence. As we say throughout the penitential season, Hashem ori ve’yishi – God is my light and salvation.

Below, we shall see that rabbinic literature prescribes the lighting of candles in the synagogue on Yom Kippur eve. We believe that, for many, reinstating this practice could enhance the spirituality of Yom Kippur eve.

An ancient practice

The practice we seek to reinstate is neither the kindling of Yahrzeit candles, nor the lighting of candles lit by women at home on each Shabbat and Yom Tov evening, including Yom Kippur eve. Rather, it is a third practice – usually not seen here in the United States – that dates back nearly two millennia, to the Mishna. Let us consider the Misnha (Pesachim 4:4 in its entirety, which begins with the custom of candle lighting in the home:

מקום שנהגו להדליק את הנר בלילי יום הכפורים – מדליקין; מקום שנהגו שלא להדליק - אין מדליקין

A place where they have practiced to kindle the light on Yom Kippur eves – they kindle.
A place where they have practiced not to kindle – they do not kindle.

The Tosefta and both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds all explain that these differing practices regarding whether to kindle lights in private homes are both intended to prevent marital relations on the night of Yom Kippur, when that activity is forbidden. The custom to kindle was intended to remind a couple to refrain from marital relations on Yom Kippur eve by creating a lit setting in which such relations are forbidden by Talmudic law, and in which people would be naturally sexually reticent.[1] The custom not to light on Yom Kippur eve, on the other hand, was intended to diminish the husband’s desire for relations with his wife by eliminating the light which allows him to see her and thereby desire her.

Having considered differing practices regarding lighting in private homes, the Mishna goes on to discuss the uniform practice of lighting in public venues – the main focus of this post at the Seforim blog:

ומדליקין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות. ובמבואות האפלים, ועל גבי החולים

They kindle in synagogues, study halls, and dark alleyways, and near the ill.

The Tosefta (Pesachim 3:11) expands this list to include other public places such as inns, bathhouses, and restrooms (or, according to one interpretation, mikvaot.) The need to illuminate these various public locations is strictly practical: so people can see where they are going, what they are doing, do not trip, can relieve themselves, immerse themselves in a mikvah,[2] and the like. Since the above sources generally confine themselves to rules on halachic, not practical matters, the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 4:4) explains that this last phrase of the Mishna teaches a halachic point, as well: namely, that even where kindling in private homes is forbidden, kindling in public venues is permitted since there is no concern for marital relations occurring in such settings.

The Mishna, Tosefta, and Talmuds, then, note the uniform practice of kindling lights in synagogues and study halls on Yom Kippur eve. It is a practical matter, whose halachic background relates to the specific issue of the prohibition of marital relations on Yom Kippur. This was true beyond the Talmudic period, as well. R. Eliezer b. R. Yoel HaLevi in Sefer Ravyah (section 528) states explicitly that his community did follow the Talmudic custom to kindle lights in synagogues and study halls, relating this kindling to the Talmudic concerns.[3]

Rosh and the Establishment of a Halachically Mandated Lighting

The halachic works of French Jewry, however, invest the kindling of lights on Yom Kippur with symbolic, ritual, and mandatory meanings. In 11th Century France, for example, Machzor Vitri (Seder shel Yom Hakippurim) describes the formal minhag in his community to kindle lights on Yom Kippur, and provides a Midrashic basis for this custom [the Machzor Vitri also records that the Geonim followed this custom as well]. The Midrash (Tanchuma YaShan 24, P. Emor) asserts that God does not require the mitzvoth of Man, and that the light of the menorah in the Temple is therefore for Man’s benefit – to protect him – and not for God’s benefit. Similarly, since Proverbs 20:27 likens a person’s soul to a candle, Machzor Vitri concludes that kindling lights on Yom Kippur protects. Machzor Vitri, however, does not detail that protection or how it connects to Yom Kippur.

In 13th Century France, Rosh (Yoma 8:9) also recognizes this minhag, indicating that an abundance of candles were typically lit in synagogues. Unlike Machzor Vitri, however, Rosh places this custom into a broader and more familiar halachic framework, namely, kavod Yom Tov. To do so, he begins by citing the Talmud’s requirement (b. Shabbat 119a) to wear clean clothes on Yom Kippur to honor the day in the absence of food and drink through which one honors other holidays.Then, he cites Targum Yonaton to Isaiah 24:15 to show that kindling lights is a form of honoring God. Therefore, he concludes, “yesh le’chavdo (one should honor it)” through all means considered to be honor. For Rosh, kindling lights on Yom Kippur eve fulfills this halachic requirement to honor the day. Rosh’s son, the author of the Arba’ah Turim, follows the approach of his father in this area.

Kol Bo (early 14th Century France and Spain)(sec. 68) introduces two further practical considerations favoring this kindling. First, the recitation of the less familiar Yom Kippur prayers “all day and night” necessitates lighting candles in synagogues. Second, such a candle can be used to fulfill the special halachic requirement of ner she’shavat for the havdalah candle used at the close of Yom Kippur.

Mordechai equates the lighting with the judgment of one’s soul

Rosh’s immediate contemporary,R. Mordechai b. Hillel Ashkenazi in his Mordechai, (comment #723 to b. Yoma) provides an entirely different basis for this kindling.17 As we shall see, his rationale will take us far away from the issues of honoring Yom Tov and the practical considerations we have seen so far. It is noteworthy that Mordechai prefaces his novel explanation by stating his conscious intent to strengthen this minhag. As we shall see, Mordechai succeeded in this regard, perhaps beyond his own expectations.

Mordechai begins by quoting a statement from the Talmud (b. Horiot 12a, b. Kritut 5b) indicating that if one wants to see if he will live out the year, he should light a candle and place it in a windless room from Rosh Hashana until Yom Kippur. If the flame lasts, then he will live out the year. (Below we will discuss this practice in light of the Torah prohibition of nichush (divination).) Mordechai rules that “in our time, the practice is to kindle a candle on Yom Kippur for every person since it is the gmar din (the final day of judgment).” Apparently, Mordechai means that, since Jews in his time no longer lit candles during the entire period of judgment from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur, we symbolically include that entire time period by lighting a candle at its close, on Yom Kippur.

In late 14th Century Germany, R. Yaakov Moelin in Maharil (Hilchot erev Yom Kippur) cites Mordechai, suggesting that the lighting is a personal obligation that symbolizes the soul of man standing before God on the day of judgment, Yom Kippur. He also notes that the practice was for only men and boys to light but not women or girls, providing a number of homiletic and halachic suggestions for why this might be so. The simplest of them is that a married woman fulfills her obligation through her husband’s lighting. Maharil’s student Mahariv (Responsa Mahiri Weil 192) also elaborates on these matters, and prohibits the then common practice of instructing a gentile to rekindle one’s candle that went out on Yom Kippur.

Codification in Shulchan Aruch, Rema and beyond

How are the differing traditions of Rosh and Mordechai reflected in the voices found in the standard code of Jewish Law, Shulchan Aruch? R. Yosef Karo cites Mordechai’s approach in his Beit Yosef, but his final codification in Shulchan Aruch reflects the tradition of Rosh; i.e., there should be lights in the synagogue and elsewhere, not that there is an individual obligation to kindle such lights.

In his glosses to the Beit Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch, however, Rema (R. Moshe Isserles) codifies the approach of Mordechai, mandating an individual lighting. As he does so, he adds further stringencies to this kindling. For example, Rema rules that if one’s light is extinguished on Yom Kippur, one must relight it at the conclusion of Yom Kippur and allow it to burn down completely. Similarly, although one whose light burned throughout Yom Kippur could extinguish it out at the end of Yom Kippur, one whose candle went out during Yom Kippur must accept upon himself that neither he nor others will ever extinguish his candle at the end of Yom Kippur. Apparently, these build upon an implication of Mordechai’s Talmudic source; namely, that it is a bad sign if one’s candle goes out on Yom Kippur.

A century later, R. Mordecahi b. Abraham Jaffe in his Levush accepts these rulings of Rema, and adds a further stringency based upon the reasoning of Machzor Vitry. First, he sharpens Machzor Vitry’s reason of “protection” by indicating that the Yom Kippur eve light kindled in the synagogue atones for the soul of the one who lights it. Therefore, he (and subsequent authorities, as well) prohibits lighting a candle for a meshumad (an apostate) so that his soul cannot gain an atonement which it does not deserve.

These varied codifications of the practice to light candles in the synagogue by Tur, Beit Yosef, Shulchan Aruch, Rema, and Levush both reflected and contributed to its spread to all of world Jewry. Indeed, in his comments to the Shulchan Aruch, Magen Avraham notes that concerns about fire safety had prompted a widespread practice to hire a Gentile to guard the synagogue throughout the night of Yom Kippur. That, in turn, prompted him to decry infractions of the regulations pertaining to what such a Gentile may be instructed to do in the context of the laws of Yom Kippur.

So far, then, we have seen at least six separate reasons to kindle candles on Yom Kippur eve in the synagogue (in addition to Yahrzeit and Yom Tov candles lit at home): to protect (Machzor Vitri) or gain atonement (Levush); to fulfill the halachic obligation to honor Yom Kippur day (Rosh); to dramatize the final judgment for the forthcoming year that is given for each person on Yom Kippur (Mordechai); and to address practical issues of having a ner sh’shavat and to provide adequate illumination for the extended, unfamiliar nighttime prayers of Yom Kippur (Kol Bo).

A theoretical problem becomes a practical one

Before continuing to follow this practice’s further development, let us return to a problem in Mordechai’s Talmudic source. It indicated that if one lights a candle at Rosh Hashana time which remains lit until Yom Kippur, then this is a sign that one will live out the year. In his comments to Horiot 12b, Maharasha (16th C) states the problem succinctly: “This practice is apparently forbidden by the prohibition of ‘You must not practice divination’ (Vayikra 19:26). For what reason is this [and other similar practices mentioned in the Talmud] permitted…?”

Maharsha’s answer is that this practice of lighting is permitted because it is an act symbolizing one’s hope for a future good (a siman tov) which does not imply the inverse belief that the absence of that sign will negatively affect the future with certainty. Correspondingly, the Talmud only states the positive sign of the candle remaining lit but does not mention the significance of its going out.

However, the widespread popularity of Mordechai’s approach as well as its intensification over time through the successive stringent rulings of Rema, Levush, and others, created a corresponding intensity about this matter in the minds of Jews. Apparently, the Jewish masses did not maintain Maharsha’s caution about the non-significance of their light going out. Put simply, it appears that ordinary people considered this flame to bear a heavenly sent message regarding their very lives in the forthcoming year. If their flame was extinguished before the end of Yom Kippur, then this implied they would not live out the year. Aruch Hashulchan (OC 610:6) and Mishna Berura (OC 610:14), for example, both write that the Jewish masses were distraught if their candle went out on Yom Kippur. As a result, what was a theoretical problem for Maharsha became a practical problem for these later halachic authorities.

They address this problem in three distinct ways. First, they provide practical ways to avoid seeing whether one’s light goes out. Aruch Hashulchan suggests lighting one’s candle amidst those of others so that one’s own candle is no longer specifically identifiable. (OC 610:6) Similarly, Mishna Berura suggests having a shul representative light all the candles so that people cannot identify their own candle. Second, while still encouraging individuals to light their candles, Aruch Hashulchan exhorts the people to be “whole with your God,” and that “it is not becoming for the Holy People [of Israel] to walk in the ways of divination.”

Finally, Aruch Hashulchan also extends the reasoning of Rosh, writing that the lights are not only to honor the day of Yom Kippur, but that “the practice is to honor the King with great lights and this, indeed, is the practice of all Israel, to multiply lights to honor this holy day…in all of the rooms of one’s home, in synagogues, in study halls, in dark alleyways, near the ill, in order that the light should be great and found in all places…”

Where did this centuries old minhag go in the US?

It is clear, then, the preponderance of standard halachic works from the Mishna to the Mishna Berura consider the kindling of candles on Yom Kippur in the synagogue to be the standard, widely practiced, custom. Mateh Ephraim even records its Yiddish moniker, dos gezunteh licht – the light of health and well-being (603:8). And yet in America, this practice has fallen by the wayside.[4] Where did it go? We don’t know for sure. We can conjecture that electric lighting and fire safety concerns in American synagogues displaced it.

Reintroducing a lost minhag, and practical implementation

We believe that the rabbis and synagogue lay leaders should consider reintroducing this beautiful practice to their sanctuaries. This is opportunity for even the most traditional synagogue to do something new and unexpected that is, at the same time, an ancient tradition of our people, practiced for millennia across all the lands of our dispersion. A synagogue already adorned with a white parochet, white kittels and white talitot can now be aglow with the flames of candles lit by each and every member of the synagogue. This will create a unique setting of purity and awe that is conducive to prayer, introspection, and distinct holiness of Yom Kippur itself. [5]

Notes
[1] Interestingly, this reasoning assumes that the prohibition to have marital relations by candlelight was more widely known and observed by the people then the prohibition of marital relations of Yom Kippur itself.

[2] According to some opinions, a ba’al keri was permitted to immerse himself on Yom Kippur, despite the general prohibition to wash or immerse oneself on Yom Kippur.

[3] It is worth noting Rambam, (Hilchot Shvitat Asur, 3:10) for example, codifies these Talmudic sources and mentions the two varying practices regarding kindling in one’s house, but entirely omits discussion of kindling in all public venues. Magid Mishneh (explains Rambam’s omission in a manner similar to the Jerusalem Talmud’s comment (above), noting that the practice not to kindle in private venues never extended to public ones since couples are not secluded there.

Similarly, writing in Vienna at the turn of 13th Century, Or Zarua elaborates at great length upon many familiar minhagim of Yom Kippur eve, yet entirely omits mention of kindling lights in synagogues.


[4] We have seen a practice in some American synagogues that seems related to the tradition we have delineated; i.e., women light their Yom Tov candles for Yom Kippur in synagogue, instead of at home. There are many reasons, however, why this is not the lighting we are advocating. First, since the days of Maharil, only men have done the lighting we describe, but not women. Second, these women are reciting the blessing for Yom Tov kindling over these candles. Unlike most other Shabbat and Yom Tov evenings, women on Yom Kippur are not at home but rather in synagogue. It would seem, then, that they light where they will be while their candles are lit. Indeed, they may feel it unsafe to leave unattended candles lit at home.

[5] Here are some recommendations for those interested in introducing this practice to their synagogues:

*Dim the electric lighting for Yom Kippur eve if technically possible.
*Each synagogue will need to think creatively about how to arrange the candles to be light, given the layout of its sanctuary. Note that a wide variety of candle holding devices are available for sale today through the Internet and other venues.
*In keeping with the ruling of R. Yosef Karo, candles can be arranged without any correspondence to the number of individuals or families in the synagogue.
*Alternately, in keeping with Ashkenazic tradition, lighting can be done by each individual man on behalf of himself and his family. Women, too, can light their own candle if they wish29. It will be necessary in advance of the holiday to encourage those who will be lighting of the need to participate in this practice. Presumably, this could be done by a letter, a class, at the time of ticket distribution, or in other ways. To accommodate the concern first articulated by Maharil, time would also need to be scheduled for people to do this in an orderly and safe manner prior to the onset of Yom Tov. Coming to synagogue earlier might also encourage congregants to enter Yom Kippur in a more reflective manner, recite tefillah zaka, etc.
*Of course, as Magen Avraham pointed out, each synagogue will need to attend to fire safety concerns within the confines of halacha, as well.

[Ed. note - For Additional Reading: for more on the custom of lighting candles on Yom Kippur, see R. Y. Goldhvaer's Minhagei HaKehilot, Jerusalem, 2005, 88-96, available here (PDF)]

* Aaron Goldscheider serves as the Rabbi of the historic Mount Kisco Hebrew Congregation in N. Westchester, NY.
Barry Kornblau serves as rabbi of the Young Israel of Hollis Hills-Windsor Park, and the Director of Committees and Operations at the Rabbinical Council of America.

]]> Customs Yom Kippur Relating to Siddur Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/18/Candles-on-Yom-Kippur-Reinstating-a-Lost-Minhag Two Links of Note http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/17/Two-Links-of-Note
First, just about the entire volume in memory of Dov Rappel is available for free online here. This includes articles by, inter alia, Moshe Halmish, Yosef Tabory, and Stefan Rief.

Second, there is a new site which is attempting to compile a complete bibliography of books related to Jewish genealogy here. The site is run by a collector of Jewish genealogy books and hopefully he will be able to satisfy his goal.

]]> Bibliographies Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/17/Two-Links-of-Note History of Eruvin Controversies http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/11/History-of-Eruvin-Controversies
Eruv Online has an excellent series on the history of eruvin controversies. Specifically, the series traces the history over the use of 16 amot to define a reshut haRabbim. The discussion is enlightening in that it would appear that much of what some rely upon today has long been rejected. Furthermore, it is amazing to see how unaware many are of the history of the long-running eruv controversy when wading into the discussion.
Additionally, a discussion regarding the Gra's (and his followers) opinion and the underpinnings of that opinion. Including, the rejection of the notion that legal precedent has the power to determine issues of Jewish law. That notion, the lack of binding precedent, is necessary to overturn the long-accepted practice of using 600,000 people to define reshut HaRabbim.

]]> Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/11/History-of-Eruvin-Controversies Website with Epherma Material on the Shmitta Controversy http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/11/Website-with-Epherma-Material-on-the-Shmitta-Controversy
The JNUL has an excellent site regarding the history of the Shmitta controversy. They have the materials divided by year and the materials contain broadsides and other important but difficult to obtain materials. The site is here.

]]> Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/11/Website-with-Epherma-Material-on-the-Shmitta-Controversy Machnesi Rachamim - Praying to Angels http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/10/Machnesi-Rachamim--Praying-to-Angels
For those interested in the topic of the permissibility of praying to angels and the controversy surrounding this topic see the post on Machnesi Rachamim and Plagiarism which has been updated a bit and now includes some interesting scans. One scan in particular, the title page, is a case of a very elaborate and somewhat unique illustrated title page. In the next couple of days I hope to return to this topic and debunk a popular explanation regarding a well-known illustrated title page.

]]> Customs Illustrated Seforim Relating to Siddur Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/10/Machnesi-Rachamim--Praying-to-Angels The Custom of Refraining from Meat on Rosh HaShana http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/9/The-Custom-of-Refraining-from-Meat-on-Rosh-HaShana What follows is a post from the Seforim blog's frequent and erudite contributor, R. Eliezer Brodt. This post is an excerpt of a chapter from his upcoming book on the halachos and minhagim of Rosh HaShana. The post below deals with the statement, whose source is from R. Yosef Karo's maggid, (known as Mishna), to refrain from eating meat on Rosh HaShana. This statement appears to be contrary to an (actual) Mishna in Chulin.

R. Brodt hopes to have this book available for next year Rosh HaShana.

אי-אכילת בשר בראש-השנה

א.

א.

כשם שלכמה מן הראשונים והאחרונים אין לאכול דגים בראש-השנה מחמת טעמים שונים, וכפי שהובא בהרחבה בפרק הקודם, כך אנו מוצאים שיטה כזו לגבי בשר - שאין לאכול בשר ביום זה.


כך אמר המלאך המגיד הדובר למרן ר' יוסף קארו (שאלוניקי וצפת, רמח-שלד), ה'בית יוסף': "מכל מקום איבעיא דלא למיכל בהו בשרא ודלא למשתי חמרא[1], ואוף בשאר אוכלין ומשקין למזער בהו. ואף-על-גב דאמר עזרא (נחמיה ח י): 'אכלו משמנים'[2], ההוא לכלל עמא, ואנא ממלל ליחידי סגולה; ותו, ד'משמנים', היינו שמן וחמאה וחלב, אבל לא בשר, וכן בשתיה, דלא אמר 'שתו יינות'[3], אלא משקין אחרים דאינון מתוקים"[4]. והביאו דבריו כמה מן הפוסקים, כמו: ר' אברהם אבלי גומבינר מקאליש (פולין, שצה-תמג), בעל 'מגן אברהם'[5]; ר' יאיר חיים בכרך (מוראביה ואשכנז, שצח-תסב), בעל 'חות יאיר'[6]. וגם הובא בספר חמדת ימים (חובר סביבות שנת תצ)[7].


אמנם רבים העירו על איסור מחודש זה. הרי מאחת המשניות מוכח שבראש-השנה אכלו בשר. שכך נאמר במשנה, חולין, פ"ה משניות ג-ד: "בארבעה פרקים בשנה, המוכר בהמה לחבירו צריך להודיעו: אמה מכרתי לשחוט, בתה מכרתי לשחוט, ואלו הן: ערב יום טוב האחרון של חג, וערב יום טוב הראשון של פסח, וערב עצרת, וערב ראש השנה.... בארבעה פרקים אלו, משחיטין את הטבח בעל כרחו". וטעמה של תקנה זו היא: "שדרך ישראל לעשות סעודות בארבעה פרקים הללו, וסתם הלוקח בהמה אינו לוקח אלא לשחוט מיד..."[8]. היינו, דרך ישראל מקדמת דנא 'לעשות סעודות' בראש השנה ולאכול בהן בשר בהמה! כך הקשו ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין (וואלאז'ין, תקט-תקפא)[9], ור' יהודה אסאד (הוגריה, תקנד-תרכו), בעל שו"ת 'יהודה יעלה'[10]. ויש שהעירו ממשנה אחרת (שביעית פ"י מ"ב): "השוחט את הפרה וחילקה בראש השנה..."[11]. היינו, שבראש-השנה הקצב חילק את בשר הפרה לאכילה[12


וסיף להקשות ר' אפרים הקשר (האמבורג [אשכנז], נפטר בשנת תקיט), בעל 'אדני פז': "קשה קצת, הא מקרא מלא: 'לכו אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים ושתו ממתקים, ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו'"[13], שהבין ש'אִכְלוּ משמנים' ביאורו: אִכְלוּ בשר שמן. וכך גם העיר בקצרה ר' מאיר פוזנר: מה שה'מגן אברהם' מביא בשם 'מגיד משרים' שלא לאכול בשר, לא נראה כן מן הפסוק - 'אכלו משמנים'"[14].


מספר יישובים נאמרו בכך[15]:


1. ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין (וואלאז'ין, תקט-תקפא), מתרץ באופן פשוט ביותר, וכבדרך-אגב מודיענו, שכל כוחו של ה'מגיד' היה בא מה'בית יוסף', ולפיכך אם נעלמה מר' יוסף קארו משנה מסויימת או מקור אחר - גם ה'מגיד' לא ידענה באותה שעה. ואלו דבריו: "ודאי מהרב 'בית יוסף' היתה שכוחה באותו רגע המשנה ההיא, או היה לו בה איזו רפיון בחזרה ועיין בה, אשר על-ידי-כן לא האירה כח משנה זו גם בהמגיד באותו שעה"[16].


2. אולם לר' דוד לוריא, הרד"ל (רוסיה הלבנה, תקנב-תרטז), לא ניחא ליה תרוץ זה ששמע 'בשם שאר בשרי הגאון האמיתי מהור"ח מוואלאזין זצ"ל', הוא העדיף את תרוצו הראשון: "ומכל מקום, הענין אמת למעשה... שליחידי סגולה הוא שנאמר, שראוי להם להחמיר שלא לאכול בשר בראש-השנה, ולקיים 'אכלו משמנים' בשמן וחלב". היינו, כל המקורות המעידים בנו ששלומי אמוני ישראל אכלו בשר בימי ראש-השנה מדברים על פשוטי העם, בעוד שה'מגיד' אוסר אכילת בשר על יחידי סגולה, וכמפורש בלשונו: "דלא למיכל בהו בשרא... ואף-על-גב דאמר עזרא: 'אכלו משמנים', ההוא לכלל עמא, ואנא ממלל ליחידי סגולה"[17]. וכך גם תירצו מדיליה ר' זאב וואלף אב"ד טלז, בעל 'הגהות בן אריה'[18], ר' מנחם מנדל קרענגיל (גאליציה, תרז-תרצ), מהדיר 'שם הגדולים' לחיד"א[19].


וחילוק גדול בין שני התרוצים. לתרוץ הראשון, אין שום חומרה שלא לאכול בשר בראש-השנה, ואפילו 'יחיד-סגולה' ובן-עליה אין צריך להקפיד בכך, ואדרבא, הוא חייב לאכול בשר בדווקא, לקיים את 'אכלו משמנים'. אך לתרוץ השני, אדם המרגיש בעצמו שהינו בעל נפש ו'יחיד-סגולה' עליו להתנזר מאכילת הבשר, וכמפורש בדברי התרוץ. וככל הנראה, אף מחבר חמדת ימים (חובר סביבות שנת תצ) הסכים לשיטת התרוץ השני. שלאחר הביאו דברי ה'מגיד' הוא מסיים: "ואוחז צדיק דרכו". היינו, כל אחד לפום חורפא דיליה ולפי יראת השמים שלו.


נמצאנו למדים, ששלש שיטות יש בענין זה: א, 'מגן אברהם' ובעל 'חות יאיר' הביאו בסתם דברי המגיד[20], ומשמע שקיבלוהו כפשוטו, שכל אדם אסור לאכול בשר בראש-השנה; ב, שיטת התרוץ השני, שרק 'יחידי-סגולה' ימנעו מאכילת בשר; ג, שיטת התרוץ הראשון, שאין איסור לאכול בשר, אלא ההפך, יש חיוב לאוכלו.


3. נתעכב עוד מעט על התרוץ האחרון. לתרוץ זה נמצא, ש'אכלו משמנים' שפשוטו - גם לדברי ה'מגיד'! - הוא אכילת בשר שמן, נאמר רק על המון העם ולא על יחידי סגולה. אך התמיהה עומדת מאליה: זו מיניה ליה? מדוע להפקיע את הפסוק מפשוטו? שהיכן נזכר או נרמז בפסוק שדבריו אמורים על מגזר אנושי מסויים - רק על המון העם?


אולם, כידוע, יש פלוגתא דרבוותא אם יש להתענות בראש-השנה[21]. ועל השיטה המחייבת תענית תמהו, בין היתר, מאותן משניות בהן מפורש שאכלו בשר ביום זה[22], ותרצו, שאכילת הבשר הנזכרת באותן משניות נאמרה על ליל ראש-השנה, שאז אין להתענות אפילו לשיטה המחייבת תענית בראש-השנה[23]. ואכן, ר' שמואל אליעזר אידל'ס, המהרש"א, סובר, שדברי הפסוק 'אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַּקִּים' נאמר רק על סעודות לילי ראש-השנה[24]. ולפיכך ניתן לומר, שאף ה'מגיד' הלך בדרך זו ש'אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים' נאמר רק על סעודות הלילה (וגם כל אכילת הבשר הנזכרת במשניות, מדובר בסעודות הלילה), וכל איסורו לאכול בשר נאמר על סעודות היום בלבד!


4. תרוץ דומה מיישב ר' ירוחם ליינער: לפי ביאורם של בעלי התוספות שסיבת אכילת בשר בראש-השנה הוא: "לעשות סימן יפה", כפי שנוהגים לאכול 'סימנים'[25], נמצא איפוא, שכשם שמנהג ה'סימנים' נוהג בלילה בלבד ולא גם ביומו כך גם אין לאכול בשר אלא רק בלילה, בעוד שאיסורו של המגיד נאמר על היום[26


5. יישוב אחר אם-כי דחוק ביותר, מציע אחד ממחברי דורינו: "לולי דמסתפינא הוה אמינא, [ש]פשר לפרש דברי ה'מגיד משרים' בדוחק, דלעולם לא מנע אף הוא אכילת בשר גם מ'יחידי סגולה' בראש-השנה, אלא מנעו מהם בשאר עשרת ימי תשובה"[27]. תרוץ זה דחוק הוא ביותר וכפי שבעליו מעיד עליו, ואין כל צורך לדון בו[28


ב.

אולם כל המצוי מעט בדברי הראשונים יודע, ששיטת ה'מגיד' מחודשת ביותר ולא מצאנו כמותה בכל הדורות. כל הראשונים מסכימים, שבראש-השנה יש לאכול בשר כמו בכל יום-טוב.


כבר 'תשובת קדמונים' (ולמקורות אחרים: 'תשובת הגאונים'!) שהובאה בכמה ראשונים, מעודדת את המנהג הנפוץ לאכול בשר שמן בראש-השנה: "מצאתי ב'תשובת קדמונים': שחקקתם[29] שאנו נחשי נחישות במה שאנו רגילים ליקח ראשי כבשים בראש השנה... ואוכלים טיסני עם בשר שמן... הנה זה הניחוש טוב הוא, ורובו מן יסוד המקרא והאגדות... ומה שאנו אוכלים טיסני עם בשר... כדי שיהיה השנה הבאה עלינו שמינה ומתוקה"[30].


והסכימו לכך הרבה ראשונים מאשכנז וצרפת. רבן של ישראל - רש"י (צרפת, ד'תתא-תתסה): "ראש השנה, יום-טוב הוא, ואוכלים בשר"[31]; ר' ישעיה ב"ר מאלי דטרני, הרי"ד (איטליה ואשכנז, ד'תתקמ-ה'כ): "שכל טעם בארבעה פרקים [=שאחד מהם הוא ראש-השנה] אינו אלא משום שמחה, שדרך כל ישראל לקנות בשר ולשמוח ביום-טוב..."[32]. וכך גם משמע מדברי ר' מנחם ב"ר שלמה המאירי (פרובנס, ה'ט-עה), בעל 'בית הבחירה'[33]; ר' יהונתן הכהן מלוניל[34]; ר' יוסף חביבא, בעל 'נמוקי יוסף'[35], ועוד קדמונים.


וכך גם כותב ר' יהודה החסיד (אשכנז, ד'תתקי-תתקעז): "ע' ימים בשנה חייב אדם לאכול בשר, ואלו הן... וראש השנה וערב יום כיפור..."[36]. וממנו שאבו תלמידיו ושואבי מימיו ומביאים דבריו בשינויים ובסגנונות שונים, כמו, ר' אלעזר מוורמייזא, ה'רקח' (אשכנז, ד'תתקכה-ה'ב): "...הם כמניין הימים שחייבים לאכול בשר בשנה... ראש השנה"[37]. וכך כותב ר' אפרים ב"ר שמשון, שנמנה על חסידי אשכנז[38], בשם ר' יהודה החסיד: "כל אלו ימים עולים ס"ח כנגד ס"ח ימים בשנה שישראל חייבין לאכול בשר ואלו הן... ושני ימים של ראש השנה"[39]. וכפל הענין במקום אחר: "כנגד שלושה רגלים שמצוה לאכול בשר... וכן: ברית, שבת, ראש-חודש, ראשי תיבות בשר; או ראש השנה[40], שנאמר: 'אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים'[41]. ושוב מופיע ענין זה באחד הקבצים שאספו את פירושי בעלי התוספות לתורה: "ס"ז ימים ... ושני ימים מראש השנה... כל אותן הימים שיאכלו בשר"[42]. ורעיון זה של ר' יהודה החסיד נשאר זכרו גם בדורות מאוחרים יותר, שגם ר' יוחנן לוריא (אשכנז, נולד בשנת ר) מביאו בשינויים: "כי יש ס"ט ימים בשנה שראוי וחובה לאכול בשר... ראש השנה"[43].


גם מדברי הגאונים והראשונים המחייבים לאכול ראש כבש או ראש איל 'לסימן טוב', ומודיעים לנו שנהגו כך בפועל[44], ניתן להבין שאכילת בשר בראש-השנה הוא דבר חיובי.


על מנהג שנהגו בפועל בשלהי תקופת הראשונים, אנו שומעים מר' יוסף יוזפא אוסטרייכר (אשכנז, קפג-רמח), בעל 'לקט יושר', המעיד על רבו ר' ישראל איסרלין (אשכנז ואוסטריה, קנ-רכ), בעל 'תרומת הדשן': "שהוא אכל בשר שמן... בראש השנה"[45]

ג.

ולאחר ששמענו שכל הראשונים הסכימו שאכילת בשר בראש-השנה היא חובה, אנו מבינים מדוע ר' שלמה ב"ר יהודה, 'מהרש"ל השני', אשר תיקן 'סדר תשובה' לאשה שזנתה תחת בעלה, התיר לה לאכול בשר בראש-השנה כמו בשבתות ובשאר ימים-טובים למרות ש'סדר התשובה' שנתן היה מחמיר ביותר: "...ולא תאכל בשר רק בשבתות וימים-טובים. דהיינו, שלש רגלים - ואפילו בחולו של מועד תאכל גם כן - ושני ימי ראש השנה"[46]. שהיה לו פשוט שחובת אכילת הבשר בראש-השנה היא ממש כמו בימים-טובים![47]


ואם הראשונים הסכימו וחייבו לאכול בשר ביום זה, ודאי שהאחרונים יאשרו זאת. וכך אנו מוצאים לרבותינו האחרונים המתירים בשופי - ואף מחייבים - אכילת בשר בראש-השנה. ויותר מכך, ר' יעקב עמדין, היעב"ץ (אלטונא [אשכנז], תנח-תקלו), מחדש, שאכילת בשר ביום זה (שהוא מכלל חובת ה'שמחה') היא יותר חיובית מיום-טוב הראשון של סוכות! ואלו דבריו: "הוי יודע, שהיום הזה הוא אחד מהארבעה פרקים שמשחיטין בו את הטבח. שמע מיניה, שמצוה לאכול בשר בראש השנה ולשמוח בו יותר מיום-טוב-ראשון של סוכות"[48].


ודברים חריפים כותב ר' רחמים נסים יצחק פאלאג'י (איזמיר, תקעד-תרסז), בעל 'יפה ללב', מהם אנו לומדים על חשיבותה של אכילת בשר ביום זה:

דקיימא לן, דאין שמחה אלא בבשר בהמה, לכן יש לאכול בו [=בראש-השנה] בשר בהמה כמו בשאר ימים-טובים... ואם מצינו לרבין חסידא, הרב חיד"א... שכתב: בראש-חודש אב נהגנו לאכול בשר לכבוד ראש חודש, קל-וחומר הדברים שמן הדין יש לאכול בשר בראש-השנה... דאיכא תרתי לטיבותא, כבוד יום-טוב וכבוד ראש-חודש. ולבי אומר לי, דמי שנוהג לאכול בראש השנה ומענה נפשו מבשר ושאר מאכלים טובים שראוי לאכול בו ביום, עובר על 'בל תוסיף', דכתיב (ויקרא יג כז): 'אך בעשור לחודש וגו', ועניתם את נפשותיכם', דמילת 'אך' הוא למעט, שדווקא בעשור בו הוא דיש לענות נפש, ובא לאפוקי ראש-השנה [ש]בתחילת החודש, דאין לעשות בו שום עינוי כלל[49].


כך אנו שומעים שנהגו בפועל בתקופת האחרונים. ר' יעקב קאסטרו (מצרים, רפה-שעב), בהגהותיו על 'ארבעה טורים' מעיד על מקומו: "ואוכלים בשר שמן, ואומרים: 'תתחדש עלינו שנה שמינה'"[50]. ואילו ר' מרדכי יפה, בעל ה'לבושים' (פולין ובוהמיה, רצ-שעב), מספר על מנהג פולין-בוהמיה: "ונוהגים לאכול בשר שמן וכל מיני מתיקה כדי לאכול מעדנים ולשתות ממתקים לסימנא מילתא לכל השנה"[51]. ועל אותו מקום, מתקופה יותר מאוחרת, אנו שומעים עדות אחרת מר' שלמה מחלמא (פולין, תעו-תקמא), בעל 'מרכבת המשנה', כותב: "ונוהגים לאכול בשר שמן וכל מיני מתיקה"[52]. ומקיים את דבריו ר' ברוך יהודה בראנדייס (בוהמיה ואשכנז, תקטו-תקפה), בעל 'לשון חכמים': "ונוהגים לאכול בשר שמן"[53]. על המנהג במדינות ליטא ורוסיה לפני כמאה וחמישים שנה אנו יודעים מר' אברהם דאנציג (ליטא, תקח-תקפא), בעל 'חיי אדם', הכותב: "אוכלים בשר שמן וכל מיני מתיקה, כדכתיב: 'לכו אכלו משמנים', והכל לסימן טוב"[54]. ואלו גם דבריו של ר' יחיאל מיכל אפשטיין, בעל 'ערוך השלחן' (רוסיה, תקפט-תרסח): "ונוהגים לאכול בשר שמן וכל מיני מתיקה, שתהא חלקנו שמן ומתוק"[55].


ולסיום נציין, כי למרות ששיטת ה'מגיד' שאין לאכול בשר בראש-השנה מחודשת ולא נמצא לכך סמך מדברי הראשונים, וכאמור, עם-כל-זאת אחד מגדולי הדור שבשלהי תקופת הראשונים, ר' ישראל איסרלין (אשכנז ואוסטריה, קנ-רכ), בעל 'תרומת הדשן', שנהג לאכול 'בשר שמן' ביום זה[56] הקפיד - מחמת סיבה מיוחדת - מאידך גיסא שלא לאכול בשר בקר, היינו, בשר פרה ועגל, כעדות תלמידו ר' יוסף יוזפא אוסטרייכר (אשכנז, קפג-רמח), בעל 'לקט יושר': "ולא אכל בשר פרה ועגלים בראש השנה, משום מעשה העגל"[57].



מקור ידיעות ה'מגיד' שנתגלה ל'בית יוסף'


כהמשך לנושא הקודם בו נידון חידושו של ה'מגיד' שאמר לר' יוסף קארו (שאלוניקי וצפת, רמח-שלד), ה'בית יוסף', שאין לאכול בשר בראש-השנה, הנהגה הסותרת כמה מקורות מפורשים ולפיכך נזקק ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין (וואלאז'ין, תקט-תקפא), לסתור את דברי ה'מגיד', כי לשיטתו כל כוחו של ה'מגיד' היה בא מה'בית יוסף', ולפיכך אם נעלמה מר' יוסף קארו משנה מסויימת או מקור אחר - גם ה'מגיד' לא ידענה באותה שעה, וכלשונו: "ודאי מהרב 'בית יוסף' היתה שכוחה באותו רגע המשנה ההיא[58], או היה לו בה איזו רפיון בחזרה ועיין בה, אשר על-ידי-כן לא האירה כח משנה זו גם בהמגיד באותו שעה"[59]. נתמקד עתה בנושא זה, ואין כוונתי לגלוש לנושאים אחרים, רבים ורחבים, השייכים לנושא ה'מגיד' בכלל ול'מגיד' שנתגלה ל'בית יוסף' בפרט.


גרעין ויסוד דבריו של ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין מצויים בדברי ר' חיים ויטאל (ארץ-ישראל, שג-שפ), תלמידו הגדול של האר"י. הוא מדבר באופן כללי על ה'מגידים' אך, כמובן, דבריו תקפים גם על ה'מגיד' שנתגלה לר' יוסף קארו: "על-ידי עוסקו בתורה או קיומו איזו מצוה... קונה לו פרקליט אחד, ונוצר ממנה מלאך ממש; אך בתנאי, שיקיימנה תמיד וברוב כוונה כהלכתה. ואז, יתגלה אליו המלאך ההוא. וזה ענין מה שנמצא כתוב בספרים ענין המלאכים הנקראים 'מגידים'. אלא שאם לא תהיה המצוה כהלכתה, יהיה המגיד ההוא מעורב טוב ברע, אמת ושקר"[60].


דברי ר' חיים ויטאל הועתקו בידי ר' פנחס אליהו הורוויץ (פולין וגאליציה, תקכה-תקפא), בעל 'ספר הברית', ובדרך העתקתו נתבארו הדברים יותר: "אם עוסק בתורה או במצוה ההיא לשמה ושלא לשמה, ויש בה איזו פניה, או שלמד אותה התורה בשבושים, או המצוה אינה כהלכתה בכל פרטיה - יש תערובות רע באותו המלאך, אם מעט אם הרבה, כפי רוב הפניה או השבושים או חסרון פרטי הלכות המצוה; וכן בדבריו יש תערובת שקר, אם מעט אם רב, כפי רוב הרע שבמלאך"[61].


אלו ואלו דיברו על ה'מגידים' באופן כללי ולאו דווקא על אותו 'מגיד' שחזה ר' יוסף קארו. אולם ר' יעקב צמח מכוון את אותם הדברים כנגד ה'מגיד' שנתגלה ל'בית יוסף', ואלו דבריו שנאמרו כהקדמה ל'ספר המגיד' [הוא 'מגיד משרים'] שהעתיק לעצמו:

ויש 'מגידים' אמתיים לגמרי, והם הנעשים מן התורה ומן המצות הנעשית בשלמות. ויש 'מגידים' משקרים במקצת, כי אף-על-פי שהוא נעשה מצד הקדושה, עם כל זה האדם גרם לו אם היה איזו בחינה רעה או דבר שקר באותה תורה או מצוה שעשה - אותו המלאך הנברא ממנה, כלול טוב ורע, והטוב שבו אומר דברי אמת, והרע שבו אומר דברי שקר... והנה כפי הנזכר, אין להקשות על ה'מגיד' למה אמר לפעמים היפוך הדין או הזוהר או הרב זלה"ה. ודי זה למבין דבר אמת[62].


והם הם דברי ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין.


וכך גם מביא ר' יעקב עמדין, היעב"ץ (אלטונא [אשכנז], תנח-תקלו), בשם ר' יצחק לוריא, האריז"ל (ארץ-ישראל ומצרים, רצד-שלב): "וכבר העיד האר"י ז"ל, שאפילו ה'מגידים' הקדושים אינם נקיים מטעות, וכתוב (איוב ד יח): ובמלאכיו יָשִׂים תָּהֳלָה', ואין משגיחים אף בבת-קול לשונות אפילו קוצו של יו"ד [מ]תורה שבכתב ושבעל-פה..."[63]. והשווה גם לדברים שהביא בשם אביו, ר' צבי אשכנזי, ה'חכם צבי' (מורביה וגאליציה, תיח-תעח): "אבי מורי החסיד זצ"ל היה אומר: הרב 'בית יוסף' היה למדן יותר גדול ממגיד שלו"[64].


וזו הסיבה שר' אברהם ישעיה קרליץ, ה'חזון איש' (ליטא ובני-ברק, תרלט-תשיד), לא חשש לפסוק בענין מסויים כר' יוסף קארו אלא כבר-פלוגתא למרות שה'מגיד' אמר ל'בית יוסף' שהלכה כמותו באותו ענין, כי "ה'מגיד' של ה'בית יוסף' הוא גם כן 'בית יוסף'!"[65], כלומר, "'מגיד' הנשלח מישיבה של מעלה לכאן, הוא משורש נשמתו ודרגתו של זה אשר אליו נשלח"[66]. ואם ניתן לסבור כבר-פלוגתא של ה'בית יוסף' אין הסכמתו של ה'מגיד' מעלה או מורידה.


לאור כל זאת שאלתו של ר' יחיאל יעקב וויינברג (ליטא-שוויץ, תרמה-תשכו), בעל שו"ת 'שרידי אש', מקבלת תשובה ברורה. הוא פנה לחברו ושאל: "האם ידוע לך ספר המטפל בספר 'מגיד משרים' לה'בית יוסף' ועל הסתירות שבינו לבין ה'שלחן-'ערוך' בכמה דינים?"[67]. והדברים ברורים.

הערות

1 בעוד שכל הדנים בדברי ה'מגיד' שיובאו להלן, שקלו וטרו על איסורו לאכול בשר, עיקר דיונו של ר' חיים אלעזר שפירא (גאליציה והונגריה, תרלב-תרצז), בעל שו"ת 'מנחת אלעזר', הוא באיסורו לשתות יין. הוא סובר, שאין כוונתו לאסור את שתייתו ב'קידוש', ואלו דבריו: "עיין ב'מגן אברהם' בשם 'מגיד משרים' למרן הבית יוסף, דאין לאכול בשר ולשתות יין בראש השנה. ועל כל פנים, לא היה כוונתו על יין ד'קידוש'... רק על סעודת יום-טוב של בשר ויין המחוייב בשארי ימים-טובים" (הגהות הירושלמי, מועד קטן פ"ג ה"ו, ירושלים תשמ, עמ' רכו).

2 הפסוק: "וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם: לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַּקִּים, וְשִׁלְחוּ מָנוֹת לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ, כִּי קָדוֹשׁ הַיּוֹם לַאֲדֹנֵינוּ...".

3 אלא 'ושתו ממתקים'. ראה לעיל, הערה 2.

4 מגיד משרים, פרשת נצבים (אור ליום שבת, כה אלול), מהדורת הרב י' בר-לב, פתח-תקוה תשנ, עמ' 359-360.

5 מגן אברהם, ר"ס תקצז.

6 מקור חיים, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז.

7  חמדת ימים, חלק ימים נוראים, איזמיר תצא, דף לג ע"ג.

8 לשון פירוש ר' עובדיה מברטנורא, שם, משנה ג. והעתיק מפירוש רש"י, חולין פג ע"א, עיי"ש.

9 כך הביא ר' דוד לוריא, הרד"ל (רוסיה הלבנה, תקנב-תרטז), קדמות ספר הזוהר, ענף חמישי, אות ג, ס"ק ב, תל-אביב תשמה, עמ' צד-צה. ומשם הביאם ד' אליאך, כל הכתוב לחיים, ירושלים תשנה, עמ' קמג-קמד, אות ט; הנ"ל, הגאון, ב, ירושלים תשסב, עמ' 522, הערה 78.

10 שו"ת יהודה יעלה, או"ח, סי' קסג.

11 ומשם הובא בשבת קמח ע"ב.

12 כך העירו ר' שלום מרדכי שוואדרון (גאליציה, תקצה-תרעא), דעת תורה, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז, בשם 'חכם אחד'; ר' צבי פסח פרנק, מקראי קודש, ירושלים תשנו, ימים נוראים, סי' יח, עמ' יח; ר' ראובן מרגליות (גאליציה וארץ ישראל, תרן-תשלא), נפש חיה, ר"ס תקצז.

13 אדני פז, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז, אלטונה תקג, דף כח רע"ג.

14 בית מאיר, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז, יוזעפאף תרלו, דף צד ע"ב.

15 רוב המתרצים ידעו רק מקור אחד הסותר, לכאורה, לשיטת המגיד, ולפיכך באו ליישב רק את המקור אותו הם ידעו. אך לא חילקתי בכך, כי כל אחד מהתרוצים דלהלן מיישב גם את שאר המקורות התמוהים.

16 כך הביא בשמו ר' דוד לוריא, קדמות ספר הזוהר, שם (לעיל, הערה 9), עמ' צה.

וראה מגיד משרים, מהדורת הרב י' בר-לב, פתח-תקוה תשנ, הסכמת הרב שריה דבליצקי ('הערה קצרה מסביב לספר הקדוש'), מה שלמד מדברי ר' חיים מוואלאז'ין לענין ה'סיוע הרוחני' שניתן לכל אדם ואדם.

17 ראה לעיל, ליד הערה 4, ושם הובאו דבריו המלאים.

18 הגהות בן אריה על שו"ע, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז; נדפס בסוף שלחן ערוך, מהדורת מכון ירושלים.

19 רמ"מ קרענגיל (מהדיר), שם הגדולים השלם (לחיד"א), ב, הגהות שארית ציון, מערכת מ, ס"ק מז, פאדגורזע תרצ, עמ' 234-235.

20 ראה לעיל, ליד הערות 5-6.

21 הארכתי בענין זה להלן/לעיל, פרק...

22 משניות אלו הובאו לעיל, ליד הערות 8, 11. הערה זו העיר ר' יחיאל מיכל היבנר (גאליציה, תקצד-תרסז), שו"ת משכנות הרועים, ח"א, סי' א, לעמברג תרנה, דף י ע"א. ראה שם.

23 כך מיישב ר' יעקב יהושע פאלק, ה'פני יהושע' (גאליציה ואשכנז, תמא-תקטז), פני יהושע, קונטרס אחרון לכתובות ה ע"א. הובאו דבריו בשו"ת משכנות הרועים, שם (לעיל, הערה 22). והסכימו לכך אחרונים נוספים, ראה: ר' שלמה קלוגר (פולין וגאליציה, תקמו-תרכט), ספר החיים, או"ח, ר"ס תקצז, ירושלים תשסד, עמ' תתקצג; ר' שלום מרדכי שוואדרון (גאליציה, תקצה-תרעא), דעת תורה, סי' תקצז, סעיף א; ר' נחמן כהנא מספינקא (הונגריה, נפטר בשנת תרסד), ארחות חיים, סי' תקצז, סעיף א, ס"ק א.

24 מהרש"א, חידושי אגדות, ביצה טו ע"ב, ד"ה 'בעלי מארה'.

25 ראה: תוס', עבודה זרה, ד"ה 'ערב יום טוב'.

26 ר' ירוחם ליינער, מאמר זהר הרקיע, בתוך: ר' דוד לוריא, קדמות ספר הזוהר (לעיל, הערה 9), עמ' קמח-קמט.

אמנם כמובן, שלסוברים שיש לקיים את מנהג ה'סימנים' אף ביומו של ראש-השנה, אין התרוץ הנוכחי עולה יפה. על שיטה זו, ראה לעיל, פרק...

27 הרב עקיבא אריה יצחק, שדי יער, הוספות ומילואים, סי' לט, ירושלים תשנח, עמ' רמב.

28 עוד בענין איסור אכילת הבשר שציוה ה'מגיד' לר' יוסף קארו וסתירתו למקורות מפורשים המתירים ומחייבים זאת, ראה: ר' רחמים נסים יצחק פאלאג'י (איזמיר, תקעד-תרסז), יפה ללב, סי' תרצז, ס"ק א; ר' חיים חזקיהו מדיני (ירושלים וחברון, תקצג-תרסה), שדי חמד, מהדורת פרדימן, כרך ט, מערכת ראש השנה, סי' ב, אות ג; ר' חיים צבי עהרענרייך (סלובאקיה-הונגריה, תרלג-תרצז), קצה המטה (על ספר 'מטה אפרים'), סי' תקפג, ס"ק ז; ר' מרדכי שפילמן, תפארת צבי, ה, ניו-יורק תשנט, עמ' קצו; מגיד משרים, מהדורת הרב בר-לב, פתח תקוה תשנ, הסכמת הרב שריה דבליצקי; הרב י"ל קלירס, 'עניני הלכה שבספר 'מגיד מישרים' למרן הבית יוסף', צפונות, ט (תשנה), עמ' לא; הרב יששכר דובער שוורץ, מנחת דבשי, אנטוורפן תשסז, עמ' ריג, עמ' ריח.

29 צ"ל: ושחקרתם. ראה: י' ברודי (להלן, הערה 30), עמ' 305, שינויי נוסחאות, הערה יב.

30 ספר ראבי"ה, ח"ב, מסכת ראש השנה, ר"ס תקמז. והובאה גם (בשם 'תשובות הגאונים'!), בשינויים קלים ובלתי משמעותיים, באור זרוע, ח"ב, הלכות ראש השנה, ר"ס רנז; מרדכי, יומא, סי' תשכג. תשובה זו, בשינויי סגנון, נדפסה על-פי כמה עדי נוסח אצל י' ברודי, תשובות רב נטרונאי גאון, א, ירושלים תשנד, עמ' 305-306.

31 רש"י, עבודה זרה ה ע"ב, ד"ה 'כן לראש השנה'.

32 תוספות רי"ד, עבודה זרה שם, ד"ה 'בארבעה פרקים'.

33 בית הבחירה, חולין פג ע"א: "צריך להודיע לזה, שכבר מכר את האם או את הבת לשחוט, מפני שבארבעה פרקים אלו הכל רגילים להרבות בסעודה, וסתם הלוקחים - לשחיטה הם לוקחים, ואלו הם: ....וכן בערב ראש השנה, לסימן טוב, ולכבוד החג".

34 פירוש ר' יהונתן מלוניל, חולין שם: "ערב ראש השנה מרבין בשמחה לסימן שישמחו בו כל השנה כולה".

35 נמוקי יוסף, חולין שם: "בארבעה פרקים [אלו] דרך ישראל לעשות סעודות, וסתם הלוקח בהמה אינו לוקחה אלא לשוחטה מיד... [וגם] ראש השנה, מרבין בשמחה, לסימן שישמחו כל השנה".

36 ספר גימטריאות לרבינו יהודה החסיד, ב, פרשת מסעי, אות ה, מהדורת י"י סטל, ירושלים תשסה, עמ' תרלח, וראה שם הערות 14-21.

37 פירוש הרוקח על התורה, ג, פרשת בהעלותך, בני-ברק תשסא, עמ' מא.

38 לא ידוע מתי בדיוק הוא חי, אך ברור שנמנה על חסידי אשכנז מדורו של ר' אלעזר מוורמייזא או מהדור שלאחריו.

39 פירוש רבינו אפרים וגדולי אשכנז, ב, פרשת בהעלותך, ירושלים תשס, עמ' פג.

40 כלומר, במקום לחשב את אות ר' שב'ראש-חודש' עבור ראשי-התיבות 'בשר', ניתן למנות את 'ראש-השנה'.

41 פירוש רבינו אפרים וגדולי אשכנז (לעיל, הערה 39), פרשת ראה, עמ' קפא.

42 דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות, במדבר יא ט.

43 משיבת נפש, מהדורת י' הופמן, ירושלים תשנח, עמ' רכב.

44 מנהג זה נזכר כבר ב'תשובת קדמונים' שהובאה בספר ראבי"ה, ח"ב, מסכת ראש השנה, ר"ס תקמז: "מצאתי בתשובת קדמונים: שחקקתם שאנו נחשי נחישות במה שאנו רגילים ליקח ראשי כבשים בראש השנה... הנה זה הניחוש טוב הוא, ורובו מן יסוד המקרא והאגדות. ראשי כבשים שאנו רגילים לאכול בראש השנה, כדי שישימנו הקב"ה - שהוא ראש לכל - לראש ולא לזנב...". תשובה זו הובאה (בשם 'תשובות הגאונים'!) באור זרוע, ח"ב, הלכות ראש השנה, ר"ס רנז [ותומצתה בקיצור נמרץ בהגהות אשרי, ראש השנה, פרק א, סי' ה]; מרדכי, יומא, סי' תשכג [ותורף דבריו הובאו בבית יוסף, או"ח, סי' תקפג, אות ב].

וראה עוד ספר חסידים, סי' נט: "ואין לנו ניחוש לסימן אלא במה שאמרו חכמים, כענין שאמרו, בראש השנה יאכלו ראש איל, על שם נהיה לראש..."; אבודרהם, סדר תפילת ראש השנה, ירושלים תשכג, עמ' רסו: "ויש נוהגים לאכול ראש כבש ודגים... על שם 'והיית לראש ולא לזנב'; מחזור מכל השנה [עם פירוש 'מעגלי צדק'], לאחר ערבית ליום ראשון דראש-השנה, סביוניטה שיז-שכ, דף רכה סע"ב [=י' הרשקוביץ (מהדיר), מעגלי צדק, ירושלים תשס, עמ' קח]: "ונוהגים לאכול ראש איל" (ענייני הלכה והמנהג שנדפסו שם בשם 'מעגלי צדק', לוקטו מפסקי ההלכות שהוסיף ר' בנימין ב"ר מאיר הלוי להמחזור הגדול מכל השנה, שאלוניקי שי, אשר משקף את המנהג האשכנזי שעל אדמת איטליה". ראה לעיל, פרק..., אות..., הערה .

כך נהג מהר"ם מרוטנבורג, ראה תשב"ץ, סי' קיח: "מהר"ם ז"ל היה רגיל לאכול בליל ראשון של ראש השנה ראש של איל, זכר לאילו של יצחק" [מנהגו של מהר"ם מרוטנבורג הובא בהרבה ראשונים, לדוגמא, ראה: אבודרהם, סדר תפילת ראש השנה, ירושלים תשכג, עמ' רסו; טור, או"ח, סי' תקפג, ומשם לספר מנהגים דבי מהר"ם ב"ר ברוך מרוטנבורג, ענין ראש השנה, מהדורת י"ש אלפנביין, ניו-יורק תרחצ, עמ' 40].

וגם מהרי"ל נהג כיוצא בכך. ראה ספר מהרי"ל - מנהגים, הלכות ראש השנה, אות ח, ירושלים תשמט, עמ' רעז: "דרש מהר"י סג"ל, דמצוה לאכול בליל ראש השנה ראש של איל, זכר לעקידה, ולמען שנהיה לראש ולא לזנב. והוא נהג, לאכול בשר הראש עם דבש".

ואף ר' ישראל איסרלין, בעל 'תרומת הדשן', נהג כך: "ובכל פעם שאכל בשני ימים בראש השנה... ומיד אחר כך אכל מראש של איל בלא לחם, וטובל בדבש" (לקט יושר, א, עמ' 129).

בפרובאנס (דרום צרפת) נהג כך כל הצבור. ראה טור, או"ח, סי' תקפג: "ובפרובינצא נוהגין להביא על השלחן כל מיני חידוש, ואוכלין ראש כבש והריאה, לומר, נהיה לראש ולא לזנב...". ומשם העתיקו, בשינויים גדולים, ר' אייזיק טירנא, ספר המנהגים, ענין ראש השנה, עמ'..., וכפי שכתוב בסופו 'הכל מ[טור] אורח חיים'. והשווה ספר המנהיג, הלכות ראש השנה, עמ' שד-שה, המעיד על אותו מקום - פרובאנס: "יש לי סמך למנהג פרובינצא לקחת כל עינייני חידוש ולתת על השלחן בלילי ראש-השנה לסימנא טבא לכל שנה הבאה, ראש כבש - שיהיו לראש ולא לזנב... ומנהג אבותינו תורה היא". שכאן הוא מזכיר מנהג להניח על השלחן ראש כבש ועדיין איננו יודעים שהם אכלוהו. אולם נראה, שאין לטעון שבתקופת 'ספר המנהיג' היה מקובל רק להניחו על השולחן, ומספר דורות לאחר מכן - בתקופת ר' יעקב בן הרא"ש, בעל ה'טור' - שינו את מנהגם ואכלוהו. כי הנאמר ב'מחזור ויטרי', שקדם מעט ל'ספר המנהיג', תואם לדברי ה'טור'. ראה מחזור ויטרי, א, סי' שכג, עמ'...: "מכאן נהגו בני צרפת, לאכול בראש השנה תפוחים אדומים. וכן בפרוונצא, אוכלים ענבים לבנים ותאנים לבנים וראש כבש... לסימן טוב לכל ישראל".

האחרונים שהכירו את מנהג אכילת ראש כבש בראש-השנה בעיקר מהגהת הרמ"א ל'שלחן ערוך' (סי' תקפג, סעיף א) שהביא את דברי המרדכי, יומא, שם, כבר העירו שמנהג זה נוגד לדברי ה'מגיד', ראה: ר' מאיר סולובייצ'יק (ליטא), המאיר לארץ, חידושים על טור ושו"ע או"ח, סי' תקצז, סלוצק תרעא, דף מח רע"ב; ר' ישראל חיים פרידמן (טשכוסלובאקיה, תריב-תרפב), ליקוטי מהרי"ח, ג, [סדר תפלת מנחה דר"ה], ירושלים תשסג, דף פא ע"ב, ראה בדבריהם.

45 לקט יושר, א, עמ' 129. אך ראה להלן בפרק הנוכחי, אות ג, ליד הערה 57.

46 ר' יצחק הרשקוביץ (מהדיר), פסקי ושו"ת מהר"ש לובלין, סי' נח, ברוקלין תשמח, עמ' טו. ונדפס שוב מאותו כתה"י על-ידי י' אלבוים, תשובת הלב וקבלת יסורים, ירושלים תשנג, עמ' 233.

מהרש"ל השני חוזר על דבריו בסיומו של ה'סדר תשובה': "ולא תאכל בשר... רק בשבתות וימים-טובים. דהיינו, ... ושני ימים ראש השנה" (פסקי ושו"ת מהר"ש לובלין, שם, עמ' יז; י' אלבוים, שם, עמ' 236).

47 אגב, כך גם פסק בדורינו ר' שלמה זלמן אוירבאך (ירושלים, תרע-תשנה). ראה הרב נ' סטפנסקי, ועלהו לא יבול, א, ירושלים תשסה, עמ' ריב: "אין חיוב גמור לאכול ביום-טוב בשר בהמה. הרב [=ר' שלמה זלמן אוירבאך] סיפר לי, שהוא עצמו כן אוכל בשר בהמה ביום-טוב. ומי שנוהג כך בכל יום-טוב, הוא הדין לראש השנה". וכך גם אצל: הרב ט' פריינד, שלמי מועד, פרק ח (ליל ראש השנה), ירושלים תשסד, עמ' ל.

48 סידור שערי שמים, ב, שער שביעי, שער הצאן, חודש אלול וערב ראש-השנה, אות עב, מהדורת י' וינפלד, ירושלים תשנג, עמ' רטו.

49 יפה ללב, או"ח, סי' תקצז, אות א.

50 ערך לחם, או"ח, סו"ס תקפג. נדפס ב'שלחן ערוך', מהדורת מכון ירושלים, שם, על הגליון.

51 לבוש החור, סי' תקפג, סעיף ב.

52 שלחן תמיד, הלכות ראש השנה, סי' ג, אות א, ירושלים תשסד, עמ' קסג.

53 לשון חכמים, או"ח, סי' כא, פראג תקעה, דף סא ע"א.

54 חיי אדם, כלל קלט סעיף ו.

55 ערוך השלחן, סי' תקפג, סעיף ב.

ר' חיים אלעזר שפירא (גאליציה והונגריה, תרלב-תרצז), בעל שו"ת 'מנחת אלעזר', נהג לאכול בשר בהמה אפילו ביום שני של ראש-השנה: "בסעודה זו של יום שני דראש-השנה הקפיד שיהיה לו כזית בשר בהמה כמו שאר יום טוב" (יחיאל מיכל גולד, דרכי חיים ושלום, ענין ראש-השנה, אות תשלא, ירושלים תשל, עמ' רמב).

56 ראה לעיל בפרק הנוכחי, אות ב, ליד הערה 45.

57 לקט יושר, א, עמ' 129.

58 כוונתו למשנה, חולין פ"ה משניות ג-ד, מהם עולה שנהגו לאכול בשר בראש-השנה, ראה לעיל, פרק..., אות א, סביבות הערה 8.

59 כך הביא ר' דוד לוריא, הרד"ל (רוסיה הלבנה, תקנב-תרטז), קדמות ספר הזוהר, ענף חמישי, אות ג, ס"ק ב, תל-אביב תשמה, עמ' צה.

60 שערי קדושה, חלק ג שער שביעי, ירושלים תשמה, עמ' צט.

61 ספר הברית, חלק ב, מאמר יא פרק ד, ירושלים תשמא, עמ' 310.

62 כת"י בניהו. הפיסקה המצוטטת הובאה אצל: מ' בניהו, יוסף בחירי, ירושלים תשנא, עמ' שצג-שצד.

63 מטפחת ספרים, פרק ה ('הערות על ספר הזוהר וחלקיו'), ירושלים תשנה, עמ' נח. ולדבריו כאן תבין מה שכתב שם להלן, פרק ט ('הערות על עדות ר' יצחק דמן עכו'), עמ' קמב: "ואין ערך לדברי ספר 'מגיד מישרים' אל עצמת חכמת האר"י...". כי בעוד שה'מגידים' לפעמים אינם דוברים אמת וטועים, האריז"ל זכה ש"נשמות צדיקים ונביאים מגן-עדן גילו לו אותן הסודות העמוקות הנשגבות" (שם, עמ' קמג).

64 תורת הקנאות, סי' ח ('חקירה בענין המגידים בכללן'), אלטונא תקיב, דף מח ע"א.

65 ר' צבי יברוב, מעשה איש, א, בני ברק תשנט, עמ' קיט. וכך אצל א' קורמן, אגדה ומהותה, עמ' 120 בהערה.

66 כך ביאר ר' יואל קלופט, אליו ה'חזון איש' אמר את דבריו אלו. ראה: ר' צבי יברוב, שם.

67 כתבי ר' יחיאל וויינברג, א, סקרנטון תשנח, עמ' קכט.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs בעברית Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/9/The-Custom-of-Refraining-from-Meat-on-Rosh-HaShana Azariah de Rossi on Chad Gadya http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/6/Azariah-de-Rossi-on-Chad-Gadya
As a somewhat belated followup to an earlier discussion at my AJHistory blog (z"l), I would like to add the following to the list of interesting-academic-footnotes:
There is something reminiscent of Jorge Luis Borges in the seemingly infinite series of translations represented in [Azariah] de Rossi's Hebrew translations of the Latin translation of the Greek account of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, made only more dizzying by Joanna Weinberg's English translation of de Rossi's Hebrew translation of the Latin translation of the Greek account of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.
Source: Deena Aranoff, "In Pursuit of the Holy Tongue: Jewish Conceptions of Hebrew in the Sixteenth Century," (unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 2006), 129 (n.4).

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/6/Azariah-de-Rossi-on-Chad-Gadya Marc Shapiro: What Do Adon Olam and ס"ט Mean? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/4/Marc-Shapiro-What-Do-Adon-Olam-and--Mean
What Do Adon Olam and ס"ט Mean ? [1]

by

By Marc B. Shapiro ס"ט


1. People often refer to me as a Modern Orthodox intellectual. There are actually quite a number of us out there. If you hear someone using words like “ontological,” “existential,” “mimetic,” and now, “tergiversation”[2] you can assume he in in our club. Also, another telltale sign is that when we give divrei Torah you will hear us refer to Philo, the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha (if we are confident that we can pronounce the word properly[3]), Shadal, or Cassutto.[4] Of course, we are careful to only say Midrash, and never Medrish, as the latter pronunciation is a sure sign of a Philistine.

It is no secret that Modern Orthodox intellectuals like to look down on Artscroll, and to let others know about this. So we must find places where Artscroll makes mistakes. It is not enough to point to the vastly different historical conceptions between us and Artscroll; we need to find places where Artscroll simply got it wrong (for one such example see here). This will show that even if they are conquering the world, they shouldn’t think that they are so brilliant. I am not speaking about the Artscroll Talmud (which we use when no one is looking) or the Artscroll “History” series, which is not popular with the Modern Orthodox.[5] I am referring to the Artscroll siddur and chumash which have taken over the Orthodox world. (The Modern Orthodox intellectuals must have been so busy these last twenty years producing articles read by each other that it never occurred to them to produce their own siddur and chumash.)[6]

But finding these errors is easier said than done. I am not referring to run-of the-mill errors, but the sort that will impress people at your Shabbat table. That way you can show them that you are a Modern Orthodox intellectual, and not afraid to stand up to Artscroll, this generation’s anti-Messiah. Artscroll is the Goliath, and if it can be felled, then Feldheim, Targum and certainly the minor leaguers at Aish Ha-Torah will be that much easier to take down. If the obscurantists are not yet shaking in their feet, once they see our ever-forthcoming translation of the Arukh ha-Shulhan, which will bring back the 1950’s and the “mimetic tradition”, this will put them in their place.

As I state, it is not so easy to find the perfect mistake. One could point out that in the Artscroll siddur, p. 320, it refers to a “responsa” of Maimonides, when the word they should have used is “responsum.” But this clearly won’t do the trick. After all, no one assumes that Artscroll is an expert in English; it is because Artscroll is expert in Jewish things that it has become so popular. For a while I thought that I could impress those ever-impressionable Shabbat guests by pointing out that contrary to what the Arscroll siddur, p. 870, states, R. Eleazar Kalir was not a tanna. But again, this is not something that most people care about. Besides, someone always ended up pointing out that no less than Tosafot claims that he was a tanna, and my protestations about what Shir proved were always met with blank stares, for what does a Prague song have to do with anything?


And what about when I showed people that in the chumashim printed until 1999, Lord Jakobovits, who died in that year, is referred to as Emeritus Chief Rabbi of the British Empire (see one of the first pages of the chumash where it lists the important people involved with Artscroll). On the title page of Hertz’s chumash he is referred to as “Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire,” and the Jakobovits reference might be trying to parallel this. All my protestations that Jakobovits was never Chief Rabbi of an Empire (which had ceased to exist before he came into office) but of a Commonwealth have never found anyone showing much interest. (The technical title is Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. The title is more grandiose than the office. At most, there are 300,000 Jews in the United Kingdom (as, at present, no one in Australia, Canada, Zambia, etc. looks to the British Chief Rabbi for religious guidance). Subtract the unaffiliated, Reform and Masorti from this, and then subtract the Haredim and the Sephardim and this will give you the number of Jews represented by the Chief Rabbi.)


There was actually a very big error I used to point out, and this was found in the Artscroll Shabbat Zemiros (it has since been corrected). At the beginning of the Shalosh Seudos section Artscroll wrote:

The three meals of the Sabbath symbolize the three Patriarchs, the three divisions of Scripture: Torah, Prophets and Hagiographa, and the three feasts through which Esther brought about Haman’s downfall. Many matters of awesome spiritual significance are dependent on the Third Meal as the Zohar discusses frequently (Aruch HaShulchan 291).






This is a very strange passage, since what does Esther have to do with the Three Sabbath meals? Furthermore, since when did Esther organize three feasts? Everyone who attends synagogue on Purim knows that there were only two feasts. This is what the Arukh ha-Shulhan states:


ויהא זהיר מאד לקיים סעודה שלישית ואמרו חז"ל דכל המקיים סעודה ג' ניצל משלש פורעניות . . . ואם אפשר שאינן ממש מן התורה מ"מ ודאי מתקנת משה רבינו הם שכן קיבל מסיני והם מרמזים נגד ג' אבות, נגד תורה נביאים וכתובים, ובשעה שניתן להם המן ניתן להם על ג' סעודות

What happened was that whoever wrote the commentary to the Zemiros understood the word המן (the manna) to mean Haman, and that he was given into the Jews’ hands because of three feasts![7]


Artscroll did what everyone should do when an error is brought to their attention, namely, correct it in a future edition.. (In another post I plan on noting a couple of corrections to my own writings.) In fact, this is a good lesson to all of us, because if Artscroll, whose writers are big talmidei hakhamim, could make such a simple mistake, then all of us should realize that we too can make simple errors.


The important thing is that they corrected the error. If only the same could be said about Mossad ha-Rav Kook. There has already been discussion on this blog about some problems with the Chavel edition of Ramban. In fact, although both the Commentary on the Torah and Kitvei Ramban have been reprinted about twenty times, many obvious errors have still not been corrected. I was planning on giving one example, but I wasn’t sure which one to use. About five minutes before writing this I received a call from the owner of www.publishyoursefer.com, which will soon be reprinting Kitvei R. Weinberg. He informed me that there are many students at the Ner Israel yeshiva who follow the Seforim Blog, pleasant news indeed. In their honor, since unlike myself, they spend most of their day involved in the intricacies of the Talmud and its commentators, my example will be from the introduction of Ramban to his Dina de-Garmei, a work which only a real talmid hakham would try to tackle. The text is found in Kitvei Ramban, vol. 1, p. 417. Ramban writes

אבל יש אשר קולמוס הראשונים סתמן
ועתה נעלם טעמן מעיני תלמידי הזמן
וחכמי הצרפתים אספו רובן אל עמן
הם המורים, הם המלמדים, הם המגלים לנו נטמן


Chavel explains the third line to mean

חכמי הצרפתים אספו רובן של הטעמים הללו לתוך ספריהם להיות לעינים של תלמידי הזמן

Yet this is incorrect. What the Ramban means is that most of the French sages have left this world and gone on to their eternal reward.

Getting back to Artscroll, I was pleased when I found the perfect example of an Arscroll error, and this in a prayer that we all know well, Adon Olam. What do these words mean? To answer this, most people will open their Arscroll siddur.[8] Artscroll translates, “Master of the Universe”. This, or similar translations (e.g., Lord of the Universe, Master of the World) seem to be standard. Yet for a while I was convinced that the proper translation was “Eternal Lord.” After looking at the song as a whole, and seeing how it speaks of God’s eternity, it appeared clear to me that this is what the first two words mean.

I was happy to find that both Birnbaum and De Sola Pool (both of which are now almost impossible to find in any synagogue) understood the first two words this way as well. So happy was I with my idea that I made sure to tell lots of people about it, all of whom were very impressed, since here was a bona fide correction to Artscroll. I was in London a couple of months ago and was davening with the new siddur published by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Lo and behold, I found that he too translated the words as did Artscroll. After davening the rabbi of the shul asked me if I liked the new siddur and I told him yes. I also used the opportunity to point out that even this wonderful siddur mistakenly translates the first words of Adon Olam. It seemed that he too was impressed. I certainly thought that for the rest of my life I would be able to pull this out of my back pocket whenever I needed to show that even Artscroll, the veritable Urim ve-Tumim, can make a mistake.

But alas, all good things come to an end. The very next morning after speaking to the London rabbi, I went to a hashkamah minyan and the siddur I chose to use was Ha-Siddur ha-Meduyak. This siddur is produced by the Kise Rahamim Yeshiva in Bnei Brak. This is a Tunisian yeshiva under the leadership of R. Meir Mazuz, who is known by the acronym נאמן ס"ט. In addition to the siddur, they have also produced a variety of other books with the title "Meduyak." This is because every line has been carefully examined by R. Mazuz, who does not hesitate to make corrections, even if the version he is correcting has been in use for many hundreds of years.[10] This has been very controversial and R. Dovid Yitzchaki, in various articles, has harshly polemicized against R. Mazuz. As we have come to expect, Yated Ne’eman quoted the condemnation issued by maranan verabonon gedolei Yisroel, in which these books were described as terrible breaches in Judaism. The implication to be drawn from the attack is that R. Mazuz and his students are dangerous reformers.[11]

R. Mazuz did not rest, and the 2005 edition of the siddur (which I purchased from mysefer.com) contains letters of support for R. Mazuz from R. Ovadiah Yosef, R. Shlomo Amar, R. Shmuel Wosner, and R. Shimon Alouf of the Brooklyn Syrian community. There is also a letter from “Ha-Gaon he-Hasid” R. Dov Kook, the son-in-law of R. Yitzhak Zilberstein, who is himself the son-in-law of R. Eliashiv. This is significant since R. Elyashiv was at the forefront of the condemnation. As the Yated article states:
Woe to a generation in which every man does as he sees fit. And the matter should be publicized to prevent others from being drawn in by their ways," write maranan verabonon gedolei Yisroel headed by Maran HaRav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv shlita, in a letter opposing the publication of "precise" ("meduyak") editions of Chumoshim and Tehillim as well as new siddurim and machzorim that contain grave breaches and changes from the accepted tradition handed down to us.

Yet R. Dov Kook writes to R. Mazuz about how much he benefited from using the Siddur Ha-Meduyak!

R. Mazuz is a very interesting personality. To begin with, he had a close connection to Habad for many decades, having taught in a Habad school in Tunis in the 1960’s. Yet when he saw the Messianic fever and other problems in Habad, he publicly condemned what was going on and wrote a long letter detailing his objections.[12] In addition, he was very vocal in support of the Gaza settlers.[13] He is also the only one of our gedolim who is an expert in arcane areas such as grammar,[14] Masorah, and medieval Hebrew poetry.

In fact, since he is an expert in this latter field, I knew that I could ask him a question about which most other gedolim would probably have no clue what I was talking about. One doesn’t need to have read Steve Greenberg’s book, or have listened to some of the gay advocates speaking around the time of the recent Jerusalem parade, to know that man-boy love is a theme in a number of medieval Hebrew poems.[15] I raised this issue with R. Mazuz, and was pretty sure that he would answer the way he did:

חס וחלילה להאמין שחכמי ספרד כתבו שירים מענין משכב זכור. וראה בסוף ס' תחכמוני שהביא עשרה שירים לקלל ולארר נבל אחד שכתב "לו שר בנו עמרם פני דודי" וכו'. צבי חן הוא כינוי לעלם יפה ואין בו כל דופי. חוקרי זמננו מהרהורי לבם ותעתועי רוחם כותבים מה שכותבים

(The reference to the Tahkemoni can be found in the Warsaw, 1899 edition, ed. Kaminka, pp. 430ff.)

R. Mazuz is also the final halakhic authority for the Tunisian community. With the death of R. Shalom Messas, chief rabbi of Jerusalem, I think that after R. Ovadiah, R. Mordechai Eliyahu and R. Shlomo Amar, R. Mazuz is the most important of the Sephardic rabbis in Israel. He is also very close to R. Ovadiah, who has had a long attachment to Kise Rahamim. The yeshiva is unique in that it focuses on the old Tunisian approach to the study of Talmud (the Tunisian iyyun), and from very young the students are taught to master the art of Hebrew writing [16] and to acquire wide-ranging knowledge of Tanach. We are clearly dealing with an unusual man and an unusal yeshiva. Returning again to the Chavel edition of the Ramban, I should mention that R. Mazuz is pretty harsh in his evaluation of it, and he lists a number of errors.[17]

When I first starting looking into the Thirteen Principles, I wondered how, in the Eighth Principle, Maimonides could insist on complete Mosaic authorship, and assert that denial of this equals heresy. After all, there is a view mentioned in the Talmud, and quoted by Rashi on chumash, that the last eight verses were written by Joshua. And yet, people were saying that since kelal Yisrael accepted the Ikkarim, this view must now be regarded as kefirah. I asked R. Mazuz about this and he replied:

ולענין שמנה פסוקים אחרונים ודאי האומר שכתבן יהושע אינו נחשב אפיקורוס ח"ו

I was also curious to know what he would say about study of the Ralbag’s Milhamot ha-Shem, which differs with Maimonides’ principles when it comes to creation ex nihilo and God’s knowledge of particulars.[18] He wrote to me as follows:

ודברי רלב"ג במלחמות ה' ידועים. וזו היתה צרת הפילוסופיא היונית שלכדה ברשתה רבים וכן שלמים (כמו שלכד יצה"ר דע"ז בזמנו את מנשה בן חזקיה וחבירו ואפ"ה למדים מהם הלכה למעשה ע' סנהדרין דף קב ע"ב). בס' מלחמות ה' אסור ללמוד רק מי שמילא כריסו ש"ס ופוסקים וצריך לעיין בו משהו לפי שעה. וכבר כינוהו הרב אברבנאל והיעב”ץ "מלחמותיו עם ה'" (ח"ו). אבל בפירושו על התנ"ך מותר ללמוד ויש בהם דברים נפלאים וחכמה עמוקה, אם כי לפעמים נטה מדרך היושר. וה' הטוב יכפר בעדו

Throughout R. Mazuz’s writings, one finds interesting comments about the great medieval Jewish philosophers. Let me offer one such example.

In Guide 2:32 Maimonides speaks about the nature of prophecy and the prophet. One of the qualifications for a prophet is that he be intellectually advanced. Maimonides writes:

But with regard to one of the ignorant among the common people, this is not possible according to us – I mean, that He should turn one of them into a prophet – except as it is possible that He should turn an ass or a frog into a prophet.


Both Efodi and Shem Tov understand the last words as an allusion to Balaam’s ass and the fish that swallowed Jonah (and to whom God spoke), and understand both stories to have happened in dreams. Maimonides is, of course, explicit about the Balaam episode, and Efodi and Shem Tov see no difference between this and the Jonah story. Interestingly, Efodi says this elsewhere as well, but as Lawrence Kaplan has pointed out it was censored from the 19th century edition of the Guide that remains the standard edition (full details will be found in my forthcoming book). But the reason why that passage was censored was not because of the Jonah reference. After all, no less a figure than the Vilna Gaon saw the Jonah story as an allegory. The problem with the censored passage, and the reason it had to be taken out, was because there Efodi writes that according to the Rambam the Akedah also only happened in a dream.

According to R. Mazuz, Efodi and Shem Tov misunderstood Maimonides here, and if he was alluding to what they claim, he would have written fish, not frog. The key to understanding Maimonides are his words earlier in the chapter:

It is not possible that an ignoramus should turn into a prophet; nor can a man not be a prophet on a certain evening and be a prophet on the following morning, as though he had made some find.


In R. Mazuz’s opinion, this is a clear allusion to Muhammad, who according to Muslims was an illiterate man to whom Gabriel appeared and commanded “Read” (or “Proclaim”), and he was thus turned into a prophet. R. Mazuz concludes, “It is this sort of ‘prophet’ that Maimonides refers to as an ass or frog.”[19]

What does any of this have to do with Adon Olam? When I was using the siddur I began to study R. Mazuz’s notes (pp. 660ff.) to R. Yehudah ha-Levi’s piyyut Mi Kamokha, which Sephardim recite on Shabbat Zakhor. (For those who are Haim Sabato fans, this piyyut makes an appearance in ch. 10 of his recent book, Ke-Afapei Shahar) The first stanza of the alphabetical piyyut begins with the word אדון. On this word, R. Mazuz explains why the first letter has a kametz under it, and he contrasts that with אדון עולם אשר מלך, in which the aleph has a hataf patah since it is a construct, and means אדון של עולם.

When I saw this I was quite surprised, and upset, because here was R. Mazuz, whose knowledge of the ins and outs of the Hebrew language is perhaps unmatched except by a few specialists who spend their lives on this (while R. Mazuz’s forays into Hayyuj, Ibn Janach, and Radak’s Shorashim are as rakahot ve-tabahot to the study of Talmud and halakhah). Yet here he was explaining Adon Olam as Master of the World. I wrote to him asking why he assumed this is what it meant, especially as the piyyut as a whole seems to be speaking of Eternal Lord, the one who was here before the world and who will be here when the world ceases.

Although Adon Olam is a post-biblical prayer, as a side point I also noted that as far as I knew, the word עולם in Tanakh never means "world" (for which תבל is used) but always means ancient, eternal, eternity, or something along those lines. In fact, I was actually certain of this, and I had first heard this point twenty years ago when I was spent my junior year at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew Studies. I was fortunate to be able to study Biblical Hebrew, one-on-one, for an entire year with Professor Jeremy Hughes, author of Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Hughes was a strange combination of hippie and Bible scholar, and I learnt a great deal from him. I still remember my surprise at being told, when I used the word חזר in one of my exercises, that this is not a biblical Hebrew word, and I must use שב. He also pointed out the error in Weingreen’s Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, p. 110, which gives “world” as one of the translations of עולם. I wasn’t sure that he was correct, but a glance at the BDB confirmed his point.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from R. Mazuz, and well, let’s just say that I won’t be trying to impress people any more by pointing out that Artscroll has mistranslated Adon Olam. To begin with, R. Mazuz insists that Adon Olam is identical with Ribbono shel Olam. As for my point about “olam” never meaning “world” in the Bible, he writes:

זו דעת החוקרים האחרונים שעולם בתנ"ך פירושו נצח, אבל חז"ל לא הבינו כן

As proof for this he refers to Berakhot 54b

כל חותמי ברכות שבמקדש היו אומרים: עד העולם. משקלקלו הצדוקין ואמרו אין עולם אלא אחד התקינו שיהו אומרים מן העולם ועד העולם

At the conclusion of the benedictions said in the Temple they used at first to say simply, “forever.” When the Sadducees perverted their ways and asserted that there was only one world, it was ordained that the response should be "from world to world” [i.e., two worlds].

He also called attention to a passage in Sanhedrin 58b where the verse in Ps. 89:3, עולם חסד יבנה, is understood not as “forever is mercy built,” but as “the world shall be built up by grace.”

As I said, I am forced to conclude that in this case Artscroll gets a pass. What then is a Modern Orthodox intellectual to do? Anyone want to hear about Kalir?

Since everything with me seems to come back to the Thirteen Principles let me make one more point about Adon Olam. This time, I refer to the appearance of these words in Yigdal, and here there is no question that the words mean “Master of the Universe”. The passage reads


הנו אדון עולם לכל נוצר יורה גדולתו ומלכותו


Artscroll translates: “Behold! He is Master of the universe to every creature, He demonstrates His greatness and His sovereignty.” The translation is correct, but the problem is that this has nothing to do with the Fifth Principle. The Principle says that one cannot worship any other being but God (or use these beings as intermediaries to reach God). Because of this Birnbaum has the following in his siddur:


הנו אדון עולם וכל נוצר יורה גדולתו ומלכותו


By changing one letter, the stanza now agrees with the Principle. The problem here is that Birmbaum’s emendation, while it makes sense, is not actually a “version”. That is, there is no manuscript that reads as such. It is a speculative emendation. Abraham Berliner,[20] on the other hand, cites an actual variant text:


הנו אדון עולם וכל יוצר יודה גדולתו ומלכותו


The word יוצר is presumably a mistake for נוצר, although יודה makes sense. In fact, the Siddur ha-Meduyak offers וכל נוצר יודה as an alternate version for those who prefer that Yigdal actually correspond to the Principles.

2. Since I mentioned the Gaon נאמן ס"ט now is as good a time as ever to explain what the acronym ס"ט means. I am sure that even after what I write people will continue to err, but at least the yehidei segulah who make up the Seforim blog readership will know the truth, and will be ready offer a correction next time they hear someone refer to a ספרדי טהור.

Contrary to widespread belief ס"ט does not mean ספרדי טהור!! To be sure, you can find people today, even Sephardim, who will assert that this is what it means. But historically, it never meant this, and today, among the talmidei hakhamim who use it, this is not what it means.

How, you might be thinking, do I know this? The easiest answer is that the Hakham Zvi and R. Yaakov Emden both use the abbreviation, and neither of them were Sephardi. What it does show, however, is that the Hakham Zvi, who studied in Sephardic yeshivot and served as hakham to the Sephardic community in Sarajevo, adopted an abbreviation common in the Sephardic world. Those who study Sephardic works know that this is hardly the only example of an abbreviation which is not found in Ashkenazic works.

Furthermore, we have to ask what could the very expression ספרדי טהור mean? Presumably, it would refer to those who are not descended from Marranos. Yet we find that the abbreviation was used in an era before there was religious persecution in Spain. For example, R. David Abudarham, in the introduction to his work, attaches ס"ט to his name. Also, in Teshuvot R. Yehudah ben ha-Rosh, no. 75, two people sign with the abbreviation. What possible sense could ספרדי טהור have in early fourteenth century Spain, before the religious persecutions, not to mention in a place where everyone was Sephardic and there was no need to differentiate oneself from the uncultured Ashkenazim?


So what does ס"ט mean? Some have suggested that it stands for סין טין which is the Aramaic for רפש וטיט (Isaiah 57:20) and means mire and dirt. This would be like many other rabbinic expressions that show the author’s humility. H. J. Zimmels has correctly noted that “this explanation is not convincing as one would expect SvT = Sin ve-Tin (mire and dirt).[21] I would also add that while authors often use similar expressions – e.g., עפר ואפר – when referring to themselves, who ever heard of referring a great rabbi in such a way? It would be the height of disrespect, and yet we do find people writing to sages and attaching ס"ט to their names, showing that they didn’t have this explanation in mind.


Zimmels notes that Zunz already pointed out that the abbreviation stands for סופו טוב, which means, “may his end be good.”[22] It is also possible that the Aramaic סיפיה טב was intended.[23] This is parallel to the Ashkenazic שליט"א, the difference being that, unlike with ס"ט, no one adds שליט"א to his own name. R. Mazuz sums up the matter as follows (Or Torah [Tamuz 5733], no. 110):


ומכלל האמור תבין, שמה שכותבים כמה מאחינו האשכנזים (כגון בספר שם הגדולים וואלדען) על רבנים ספרדים ס"ט לאחר פטירתם, ויש אפילו הכותבים רב פלוני ס"ט זצ"ל, הכל טעות, ויסודו בפירוש המשובש הנ"ל ספרדי טהור, כאילו ישנה התנשאות הגזע לספרדים על אחיהם האשכנזים. ולפי הבאור הנכון "סיפי טב", נמצא הכותב ס"ט זצ"ל ככותב שליט"א זצ"ל בנשימה אחת. ופשוט שגם "אשכנזי טהור" יכול לחתום ס"ט בלי שום פקפוק, כמו שחתמו הגאונים חכם צבי והיעב"ץ הנ"ל. ותשקוט הארש


(The last words are a play on the expression ותשקוט הארץ that appears a number of times in Tanakh. Its meaning here is that all speech or utterance will cease, i.e., there is no need for any more discussion or argument about the issue.[24])


If there are still any who have doubts, let me also quote the words of the great R. Shalom Messas, late Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and unquestioned leader of the Moroccan community until his death a few ]]> Customs Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Relating to Siddur Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/9/4/Marc-Shapiro-What-Do-Adon-Olam-and--Mean In Search of Memory:Towards an Understanding of Baladhur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/In-Search-of-MemoryTowards-an-Understanding-of-Baladhur
In Search of Memory:
Towards An Understanding of the Baladhur
By Rabbi Eliezer Brodt

In a recent post at the Seforim blog, while reviewing R. Ovadiah Yosef's recent work, Chazon Ovadia, I wrote as follows:
"R' Ovadiah Yosef is world famous for his unbelievable memory, resulting in a tremendous bekius. I once joked that he must have had someone develop a computer program and attach it to his brain to help him retain so much information and recall it at all times."
To this, one anonymous commenter wrote as follows:
"Actually, there is a (unconfirmed) shmu'a that R. Ovadya partook of the Jewish mythological memory-booster known as Balzar. It is mentioned in different sources as being very dangerous, but granted one survives, it leaves the one who ingested it with a superlative memory. (The Sefer Hakanah refers to this when it says: "chazor chazor, v'al titz'tarech l'balzar"). The Chida is said to have accidentaly ingested it as a child, and fortunately came away with only a few paralyzed fingers -- and a great memory. I recently heard a "ma'aseh nora" regarding someone who recently attempted to track this (grass?) down and how min hashamayim he was stopped. Very scary."
I would like to thank this anonymous commentator for giving me a great excuse to discuss this interesting topic of baladhur, the topic of the post below, which will elaborate on the anonymous above. I would like to explain some possibilities of what this baladhur is, whether or not it's dangerous to use, and list various gedolim who have actually used it. I will be tracing this through early Jewish and Arabic works – some rather rare and unknown – and I will, as well, provide the background to the authors of those works.

Memory Improvement and Chazal:

Methods for improving memory has been around for a considerable amount of time. Chazal were very concerned with memory, as orignally Torah Shel Ba'al Peh was not allowed to be written. Thus, to ensure correct transmittal, a good memory was essential. Further, (and perhaps based in part on the above concern,) the Mishna in Avos (3:9) states if one forgets his learning, this “sin” is punishable by death. Indeed, throughout Chazal we find many different techniques to help one remember. For instance, the use of Asmachtos, according to some rishonim, is to aid memory. The use of simanim such as the one which appears in the Haggadah from R. Yehuda of Detsach-Adash-Beachav are also for purposes of memory. Many of these simanim are the subject of a recent sefer printed from manuscript of the Aderet called Miglat Samanim. [Additionally, there is an entire work devoted to explicating the simanim, Simanim HaShalem.] Aside from memory tools, we find many things one should refrain from eating or doing because it will cause one to forget. It is also commonplace, to find many different segulos (as opposed to ashmachtos and the like which have a rational connection to memory) to improve one’s memory. R. Yehudah Aryeh (Leon) Modena devoted an entire sefer to this topic, called Lev HaAreyeh. Recently, R. Chaim Kanievsky has also written a complete work on this topic. Even more recently, R. Lerner has devoted a part of his now bestseller (currently over ten printings) Shmirat Haguf VeHanefesh to this topic. This year R. Avraham Zion printed a very comprehensive work on the topic, Zekher Oseh, some 562 pages gathered from many sources (pgs. 323-324 helped me a bit in my preparation of this post).

Returning to the memory segulah, some mention ingesting baladhur as one such segulah. Baladhur became so popular that it even became used in a pisgam used to remind one to review ones learning.

Early Usage of baladhur:

The use of baladhur has early roots. R. Emmanuel Loew in his Die Flora Der Juden (Vol 2 pg 203) cites a source that attributes this discovery of Baladhur to Shlomo Hamelech. The Zohar Chadash relates a story where baladhur was eaten to help them understand Torah; referred to as balad on pg. 8b Margolis edition.

Professor Gerrit Bos has written a very comprehensive article tracing this baladhur, regarding how early one can find that it was used at all and in particular to improve ones memory[3]. Bos provides examples showing how Galen was aware of the baladhur, but the earliest specific reference to it can be found in the writings of Alexander of Tralles (mid-sixth century), with subsequent references found amongst the Arabic physicians Ibn Masawayh (d. 857), Sabur ibn Sahl (d. 869) and ibn Yahya al-Razi (d. 932).

Ibn al-Jazzar, a famous Arab physician (d. 980) and medical author, wrote a treatise entitled Risala Fi Al Nisyan Wa Ilajihi. This work is on “Forgetfulness and its Treatments.” "In 1995 Gerrit Bos printed a critical edition of this Arabic text and all the subsequent Hebrew translations of this work, with an excellent introduction and commentary. The title of this new volume is “Ibn Al-Jazzar on Forgetfulness and Its Treatment.” (This work had been translated into Hebrew many times.) Ibn al-Jazzar writes about baladhur several times – how to use it exactly to help ones memory (pg. 50, 52, 69-70). For more on this work see here.

We now turn to the Jewish sources advocating for the use of baladhur for improved memory. They include: R. Moshe Narboni,[4] R. Meir Aldabi (grandson of the Rosh), R. Yehudah Aryeh (Leon) Modena, R. Hayyim Vital and R. David de Silva (son of the Prei Chadesh). R. Hayyim Vital, besides for providing a recipe for baladhur[5], writes that there were people who used to give it to their sons every day for petihat lev.[6]

What is baladhur?

Chulsis:

Now that we have seen that there is a history to baladhur (and later on we will discuss specific examples of baladhur use), we must now turn to the question of what exactly baladhur is. Meir Benayahu cites “old people in Jerusalem” that baladhur is חלתית (chulsis). Chulsis appears frequently throughout Chazal including in the Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi. Many of these places are quoted by R. Moshe Perlman (Midrash Ha'Refuah, 1:80).[9] In Masekhet Shabbat, chulsis (140a) appears in a discussion about the permissibility of soaking it in water as a medical cure. The Yerushalmi (Shabbat 20:3) brings from Shmuel that chulsis is a healthy food.

The gemara in Chulin (58b) discusses whether swallowing chulsis renders a bird a treifah. Shmuel says it does, as it punctures the bird’s throat. But, the Talmud concludes that it depends whether it is the branch of the chulsis or it was swallowed in its liquid form. Additionally, the Yerushalmi in Shabbat records that R. Yehudah says that if someone eats chulsis on an empty stomach, he will start to burn up and his skin will start peeling. Rav Avuhah says he actually ate chulsis and luckily he was standing in water when he did so as the water cooled him down. From these sources it appears that chulsis is something very sharp physically, as it could harm the throat of a bird, and it also has a sharp effect on the body, i.e. raising one’s temperature.

The Rambam (hilkhot de’ot 4:8) writes that in the rainy season, one should eat a little bit of chulsis. The Avodat Hamelech in his comments on this Rambam references the two statements above discussing the effects of chulsis on body temperature. He most likely means to explain that the Rambam's source to eat chulsis is based on the gemara in Shabbat that says it’s healthy, however his source to eat only eat a little bit is based on the gemara in Chulin that shows that eating a lot is dangerous.

R. Tanchum Yerushalmi writes that chulsis was a plant whose seeds are eaten for medical purposes (Ha'madreich Ha'maspek, pg. 151). Meiri writes that chulsis was used for heart problems, and R. Ovadiah Bartenurah writes that chulsis is something hot eaten by people in cold places (probably based on the above Rambam). [See also Arukh Hashalem, 3:421.]

Rashi in Shabbat (140a), Avodah Zarah (35b) and Chulin (58b) translates chulsis as לזר"א. Lazei Rashi does not know what this word means in old French (#1251), but לזר"א sounds like it’s our baladhur. The Rosh states explicitly that chulsis is in fact baladhur and there is nothing as sharp as baladhur (Avodah Zarah, 3:166). The Beit David accepts that this is the correct definition of chulsis (Yoreh Deah, #36). Rabbeinu Yerucham writes that the chulsis is the baladhur and although eating it does not pose a problem for hilkhot tereifah, it is prohibited for another reason - sakanat nefashot (Sefer Ha'dom Netiv 15:5, pg. 121b). We see from the above sources that the definition of the “old people” quoted by Meir Benayahu has some support.

The Shulhan Arukh writes that if a bird eats something that punctures its intestines, for example, a branch of chulsis, the bird is rendered a treifah (Yoreh Deah 51:4). The Prei Chadash, after quoting the Rabbeinu Yerucham, says that it can't be that baladhur is deadly, as we know that people eat this baladhur and it helps the memory. According to the Prei Chadash, the method of eating baladhur was actually by means of a bird (I assume he means they ate birds that were feed the baladhur). He writes that although the gemara in Chulin says that it can dangerously raise one’s temperature, this was only when it was eaten on an empty stomach, as it states explicitly. The Tevos Shor disagrees with this and he says there is a printing mistake in the Rabbenu Yerucham. He meant to say that chulsis is, in fact, assur because it renders the bird a treifah. When he says it is dangerous, he is actually referring to a something else mentioned there, unrelated to chulsis. The Shulhan Gavoah writes that the chulsis is baladhur and he heard that baladhur is extremely sharp and dangerous to eat, but nonetheless improves ones memory. The Shulhan Gavoah brings that in his country, Salonkia (Thessaloniki), there was a great talmid hakham who was famous for his memory and he later found out that they said this memory was a result of his eating the baladhur. The Shulhan Gavoah writes he is not sure exactly what the connection is between baladhur and a bird, but it seems that they would feed a bird this baladhur before shehitah and than one eats this bird.

Chulsis, thus baladhur, is Coffee:

The Kanfei Yonah cites the work Otzar Ha-Hayyim who says the chulsis is coffee! The Kanfei Yonah writes that although we know that coffee is not so sharp, being that the Otzar Ha-Hayyim was a big hakham in his time, especially in medicine, we therefore must follow his opinion. Additionally, according to the Otzar Ha-Hayyim, baladhur is coffee. The Darkei Teshuvah cites the Maaseh Tuviah that chulsis is the actual coffee bean, but not in its more common ground state. The Malbim in his Alim Le'treufah (Rambam, hilkhot de’ot, #21) writes that it’s very hard to accept that chulsis is coffee, as chulsis is supposed to be extremely sharp and we know that coffee is not. (However, this truly really depends on the specific type of coffee, as there are both sharper and milder strains.) Furthermore, the Malbim notes that today people drink coffee on empty stomachs and nothing happens, whereas the gemara said that your skin starts peeling and one’s temperature rises. Therefore, he concludes it is an error to link coffee with chulsis.

The Segulat Yisrael dismisses the Malbim’s question from the gemara in Chulin that the statement that chulsis will cause one’s skin to peel and raise one’s temperature is only when chulsis is eaten alone – that is, without water. But as coffee is typically mixed together with water, that is the reason we don’t see this effect on people who drink coffee even on an empty stomach. Thus, the Segulat Yisrael concludes that coffee does help the memory a bit (pg. 33). This is then quoted in Shmirat Haguf VeHanefesh (2:794) to prove that coffee helps ones memory. The Da’at Torah writes that he experimented with coffee and never found it to be so sharp as to qualify for what the gemara is referring to so it can not be that it is chulsis[10].

Interestingly enough today medical studies show that coffee does help the memory (see here) although some of the sources seem to say it only helps women who drink coffee (see here). It is worth pointing out that that in the popular and excellent historical fiction work by David Liss, The Coffee Trader, one of the main characters, a woman, eats coffee and it has a profound effect on her.

It is clear that R. David de Silva did not think that baladhur is coffee as he has a special entry for the medical benefits of coffee in his Peri Megadim and he does not write its Baladhur. R. David de Silva knew what baladhur is as clear from the story with his grandfather (quoted soon).

R. Samuel Joseph Finn in his Ha'otzar explains that chulsis is Asa Foetida (2:93). R. Emmanuel Loew in his Die Flora Der Juden (3:454) translates it to mean Asa Foeitida. Dr. Katzenelson in his notes on the Midrash Refuah (pg. 147 is missing – by mistake – in the new reprint of this sefer) writes that chulsis is Asa goefida, and that Persians use it for spices. Professor Saul Lieberman also writes its Asa Foeitida (Tosefta Kifshutah, Shabbat, pg. 265 and Baba Kama, pg. 57). Yehudah Feilkeis, in his Hazomach Vhachai Bamishna (pg. 65), and Michael Sokoloff, in his Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramic Of The Talmudic And Geonic Periods, translate chulsis to mean Asa Foeitida (pg. 456).

So it seems that chulsis is not the same as our baladhur.

So what is the baladhur?

R. Hayyim Vital writes baladhur is Anacardium. [5] Much later Ben Yehudah writes this same this baladhur is Anacorde (Milon, pg. 545 "Erech Baladhur").

Gerrit Bos also documents that it is Anacardium which is the marking nut. Bos writes this is used even today in many medicines. Ibn Al Jazzar in his work on "Forgetfulness and its treatments" gives some exact recipes for this cure. R. Hayyim Vital gives an exact recipe for this baladhur. As noted above (at footnote three), Gerrit Bos brings different recipes for this cure.

People who used baladhur:

There is an old legend that the Rambam when he was twenty he had not learnt anything and he had been working somewhere. Than his master had to go out of town so he told him not to eat from the baladhur. When the master left Moshe ate the baladhur. and he became smart instantly (see Shivchei Harambam pg 76) [Of course this story is not true at all historically and is an embarrassment to the Rambam as much has been written on another such similar legend to this in regard to the youth of the Rambam in the past few months.]

R' Avraham Kalifon, who knew the Chida personally [7], writes that the Chida, when he was young, ate baladhur. and as a result, the middle finger of his left hand became paralyzed (Sefer Hachida, pg. 185). Incidently Meir Benayahu writes that the Chida had an incredible memory; he remembered whatever he saw (Hachida, volume 1, pg. 91). Others that have used it include the Prei Chadash and R. Chaim Saton - the author of the Aretz Chaim (Benayahu Sinai ibd).

Dangers of using baladhur:

R Avrohum Gibson in his Omer Hashicha writes of a person who he knew who heard of the Baladhur.that it helps ones memory he went and used it incorrectly and died (pg 133). Benayhu brings that R. Chaim Saton mind was effected by his using of the baladhur.
R Yehudah Aryeh Modena writes that people try different ways to help their memories one of the ways is thru the baladhur. However he does not recommend it as it's very dangerous he knew many people who lost their minds completely from using it (Lev Haryeh pg 13) [8]. R' Yaakov Emden says that one should be careful not to use the baladhur. because it's more likely that the person who takes it will lose their memory rather than gain memory (Migdal Oz, pg. 50).

Meir Benayhu printed a letter from a manuscript where the Jews from Fez asked R Yakov ibn Zor to write to R Yosef Konki that some of the Talmidi Chachmim who learn the whole day but forget some of what they learn had heard about the Baladhur. On the one hand they heard that it helps ones memory but on the other hand they heard that its dangerous if used incorrectly so they asked me to write to you R Yosef Konki being that they heard you use it successfully to explain how exactly does one use it. We do not have R Yosef Konki response (Sinai, 36, 1937, 67-70).

In the Prei Megadim of R. Dovid de Silva records an interesting story that happened with himself in regard to this baladhur. He had read somewhere the statement of Chazal that 'Chazor, chazor val titztarech l'Baladhur' [more on this soon] so he went and started to eat a lot of this baladhur. His mother saw this and went to ask her father R Refal Malchi who was a doctor if what her son is eating is healthy. R Refal came and saw what his grandson was eating he gave it to him - telling him how could you eat something you do not know about it its something that could make you lose your mind he told him it is lucky you did not eat it wet. He told him the only way you could eat it with it causing damage is to eat it with a bird [more on this soon] (pg 58-59). [These two great people, R Dovid and R Refal will be the subject of an upcoming post.] Interestingly enough Meir Benayhu brings an old rumor that R Dovid's father the Prei Chadash used the baladhur.

Professor G. Bos brings many non-Jewish medical sources which also say how dangerous the incorrect use of baladhur could be. Bos even brings those who say that Galen died from using baladhur (pg 236). There was a 9th century Persian historian named Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri who lived at the court of the Chaliphs al-Mutawakkil and Al-Musta'in and was tutor to the son of al-Mutazz. He died in 892 as the result of using a drug called Baladhur, hence his name.

Recent Usage of baladhur:

In a recent printing of Lev Ha-Aryeh, R. E. Monzor writes (pg. 31 and on) that he asked his father and many experts in ancient seforim about this baladhur, and he was told that this refuah consists of a few different plants, and the mixture must be exact. He writes about R. Yaakov Katzin, who had a phenomenal memory. He writes that he remembers when he was young, that people heard of the baladhur, and there were three rabbanim who used it. These rabbanim went to consult someone who was an expert in the correct measurements of baladhur. After using it each one suffered from different side effects. One was cold even the summer and R. Yaakov Katzin (who was known for having an incredible memory), who was one of the three, had problems with his intestines. In the Or Torah Journal (Tishrei 5751): 10, there is another source which also claims that he heard that R. Yaakov Katzin used baladhur. In the same journal in a later issue (Tevet 5751): 280, there is a source which brings from R. Ovadiah Yosef that a rebbi of his, R. Eliyahu Lupas, went to purchase this baladhur and the seller told him that it does not really help.

Sources for the Pisgam, ‘Chazor, Chazor V’al Titztarech l’Baladhur’:

As I have mentioned earlier this baladhur, was used in a Pisgam (saying) to remind one to review his learnings. In regard to the sources and evolvement of this pisgam of ‘Chazor, Chazor V’al Titztarech l’Baladhur’. One of the first places to consult is as always the Alpah Beta Kadmita D'shemuel Zeirah of R. Shmuel Askenazi. R. Askenazi has a short comment about it (pg. 595) and than he writes more will be in the second volume. In the back of the sefer amongst the list of future topics he plans on writing about he mentions that this pisgam is one of the topics of the next sefer (pg. 842). For whatever reasons, as of now volume two is not happening. So I asked R. Askenazi if he could give me the material he was planning on printing but unfortunately thus far, he was unable to locate the material. So – as the saying goes – Bemokom Shein Ish, I will attempt to trace it a bit, in a similar style to R. Ashkenazi.

One of the first sources is found in a sefer recently printed from manuscript from R. Yosef Alashkar in his Marchevet Hamishna on the Mishneh in Avot (pg. 139) (see my forthcoming post at the Seforim blog on this topic) where he brings this quote חזור חזור ואל תצטרך לבלדור. R. Yosef Alashkar was a youngster during the Spanish Expulsion. A bit earlier, the Abarbanel in his commentary on Avot, entitled Nachalat Avot (pg. 351) brings this same exact quote. R. Tobias Cohen in his Ma’aseh Tuviah (pg. 133b) brings this quote but adds that it’s mentioned in the gemara. R. David de Silva, a younger contemporary of R. Tobias Cohen also quotes this statement saying it is from Chazal in his Peri Megadim (pg 59). R. Jacob Emden in Migdal Oz (pg. 100) brings the same quote except he says בלאזור. Professor Simha Assaf printed a letter from manuscript that a melamad in Italy who instructed his students רק חזור חזור טוב מבלאזור apparently this is alluding to our pisgam (Toldos Hachinch Byisroel 2:391). R. Yehezkel Feivel, in his Toldot Adam, writes "that there is a famous Mamaor that people say חזור חזור ואל תצריך לבלאזור (vol 1 pg 70)." Levinsohn in his Zerubavel already writes the source for this Toldot Adam is the Eliezer Brodt Historical Oddities Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/In-Search-of-MemoryTowards-an-Understanding-of-Baladhur Bibliography of English Translations of Medieval and Modern Rabbinic Bible Commentaries http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/Bibliography-of-English-Translations-of-Medieval-and-Modern-Rabbinic-Bible-Commentaries
Parshanut: English Translations of Medieval and Modern Rabbinic Bible Commentary (Exegetical, Philosophic, Kabbalistic and Hasidic)

Yisrael Dubitsky*


Commentaries are arranged in chronological order, and then by book. For space and simplicity sake, works are identified only by their author's and translator's names or publishers; for further bibliographical information, copy and paste the call numbers into the JTS online catalog under "Search: Call Number begins with..." Items not (yet?) found in the JTS Library do not have call numbers associated with them and contain instead only basic bibliographic information. Only significantly lengthy (more than a chapter or two) and systematic translations are included. Unless delimited otherwise, items cover the entire book, number of volumes notwithstanding (e.g. 4 vols on the five books of Torah). Items marked "currently…" imply a work in progress. Paraphrases, anthologies or digests of translations, such as are found in the Hertz, Soncino Press, Judaica Press, ArtScroll, Living Torah and Living Nach or Etz Hayim bible commentaries, are not included. Condensed versions, as are sometimes found in Munk translations, are included. The JPS Commentators Bible (so far on Exodus alone), in addition to its systematic translation of four major commentators, also occasionally includes selections from Bekhor Shor, Radak, Hizkuni, Gersonides, Abarbanel and Sforno. These latter have not been included in the list. Further, academic or modern critical commentaries, even those written by rabbis, are excluded. Finally, no implication regarding quality of the translation should be drawn from inclusion in this list.

Medieval

I. Sa`adiah ben Joseph Gaon [882-942]

A. Torah

1. Linetsky [Gen 1-28] BS1235.X2 S213 2002

B. Job

1. Goodman BS1415.2. S143 1988

C. Daniel

1. Alobaidi (Bern; NY: Peter Lang, 2006)



II. Rabenu Hananel ben Hushiel [d. 1055/6]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X2 M8 2003 6 vols.



III. Rashi [Solomon ben Isaac, 1041-1105]

A. Bible

1. Rosenberg <online>

B. Torah

1. Lowe [only on Gen] BS1235.X2 S62 L6

2. Doron [Gen 1-6] BS1235.3. D6 1982

3. Rosenbaum/Silbermann BS1222 1934 5 vols.

4. Ben-Isaiah/Sharfman BS1222 1949 5 vols.

5. Metsudah BS1222 1991 5 vols.

5a. Online

6. Milstein BM724. V5 1993 10 vols.

7. Artscroll (Herczeg) BS1225.X2 S6 1994 5 vols.

8. Feldman et al ("Ariel Chumash") [currently on Gen] (Jerusalem: United Israel Institute, 1997) 2 vols.

9. Moore [currently on Gen] BS1225.X2 S6 M66 2002

10. JPS (Carasik) [currently on Ex] BS1223. C3713 2005

C. Joshua

1. Davis (Metsudah) BS1292. D28 1997

D. Judges

1. Rabinowitz/Davis (Metsudah) BS1302. D28 2001

E. Samuel

1. Pupko/Davis (Metsudah) BS1322. D28 1999 2 vols.

F. Kings

1. Pupko/Davis (Metsudah) BS1335.3. D38 2001 2 vols.

G. Psalms

1. Gruber BS1429.X2 S26 1998

H. Five Scrolls

1. Schwartz [Esther, Canticles, Ruth] BS1309. A2S3

2. Davis/Pupko (Metsudah) BS1309. A2M4 2001

I. Ruth

1. Beattie BS1315.2. B4



IV. Rashbam [Samuel ben Meir, ca. 1080-1174]

A. Torah

1. Lockshin BS1225.X2 S2313 1989 4 vols.

2. Munk BS1225.X2 M8 2003 6 vols.

3. JPS (Carasik) [currently on Ex] BS1223. C3713 2005

B. Ecclesiastes

1. Japhet/Salters BS1475.X2 S2713 1985

C. Canticles

1. Thompson BS1485.X2 S26 T5 1988



V. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra [1092-1167]

A. Torah

1. Oles [Gen] (PhD, HUC, 1960)

2. Linetsky [Gen 1-6] BS1235. I36513 1998

3. Shachter [Lev, Deut] BS1225.X2 I3513 1986

4. Strickman BS1225.X2 I3513 1988 5 vols.

5. JPS (Carasik) [currently on Ex] BS1223. C3713 2005

6. Benyowitz (Jerusalem: A.R. Benyowitz, 2006) 3 vols.

B. Isaiah

1. Friedlander BS1515. I2 1964 (1873)

C. Hosea

1. Lipshitz BS1565.X2 I213 1988

D. Psalms

1. Strickman [currently on Pss 1-41] (NY: Yashar, 2007)

E. Ruth

1. Beattie BS1315.2. B4



VI. Moses ben Shesheth [fl. ca. 1190-1200?]

A. Jeremiah/Ezekiel

1. Driver BS1525. M65 1871

1a. <online>



VII. Radak [David ben Joseph Kimhi, ca. 1160-ca. 1235]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X2 M8 2003 6 vols.

B. Isaiah

1. Cohen [Isa 40-66] BS1520.X2 K5 1954

C. Zechariah

1. M'Caul BS1665.X2 K513 1837

1a. online

D. Psalms

1. Greenup [Pss 1-8] (London Palestine House, Hackney, 1918)

2. Finch [Pss 1-10, 15-17, 19, 22, 24] BS1429.X2 K55

3. Baker/Nicholson [Pss 120-150] BS1429.X2 K54 1973

(E. Ruth?)

1. Beattie BS1315.2. B4

F. Chronicles

1. Berger (PhD, YU, 2003)



VIII. Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona [d. ca. 1238]

A. Canticles

1. Brody BS1485.X2 M632 1999



IX. Ramban [Moses ben Nahman = Nachmanides, ca. 1195-ca. 1270]

A. Torah

1. Chavel BS1225.X2 M6613 5 vols.

2. Artscroll [currently Gen-Ex] BS1225.X2 M68 B7 2004 4 vols.

3. JPS (Carasik) [currently on Ex] BS1223. C3713 2005

B. Ecclesiastes

1. Chavel BM45. M6313 1978 v. 1



X. Shem Tov ben Joseph Falaquera [ca. 1225–1295]

A. (Torah)

1. Jospe B759.F334 J68 1988



XI. Zohar [ca. 1280]

A.Torah

1. Sperling/Simon (Soncino) BM525 .A52 1931 5 vols.
2. Matt (“Pritzker edition”) [currently on Gen] BM525.A52 M37 2004 3 vols.



XII. Midrash ha-Ne`elam (Zohar) [ca. 1280]

A. Ruth

1. Englander/Basser BM525.A6 M513 1993



XIII. Unknown (Anonymous, probably compilatory) [13th cen]

A. Job

1. Hirsch BS1415.C5813 1905



XIV. Ba`al ha-Turim [= Jacob ben Asher, ca. 1269-ca. 1340]

A. Torah

1. Artscroll BS1225.X2 J232 1999 5 vols.

2. Munk BS1225.X2 J2313 2005 4 vols.



XV. Gevi`a Kesef [= Joseph ben Abba Mari Ibn Kaspi, 1279–1340]

A. Genesis

1. Herring B759. C37K4 Z31



XVI. Ralbag [Levi ben Gershom = Gersonides, 1288-1344]

A. Job

1. Lassen BS1415.X2 L4 L3

B. Canticles

1. Kellner BS1485. L39 1998



XVII. Rabenu Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava [d. 1340]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X31 B2313 1998/2003 7 vols.



XVIII. Abraham ben Isaac ha-Levi TaMaKH [d. 1393]

A. Canticles

1. Feldman BS1485.X2 A24 1970



XIX. Avvat Nefesh [Unknown, end of 14th cen]

A. Genesis

1. Gartig BS1225.X2 I35 G37 1995



XX. Akedat Yitshak [= Isaac ben Moses Arama, ca. 1420-1494]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X3 A7 2001 2 vols.



XXI. Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno [ca. 1470-ca. 1550]

A. Torah

1. Stahl [Deut] (PhD, HUC, 1975)

2. Artscroll BS1225.X2 S4413 1987/1997 2/1 vols.

3. Munk BS1225.X2 M8 2003 6 vols.



(Pre-)Modern

XXII. Moses Alshekh [1507-1593]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X2 A4313 2000 3 vols.

B. Jonah

1. Shahar BS1605.3. A413 1992

C. Psalms

1. Munk BS1429.X31 A4213 1990 2 vols.

D. Proverbs

1. Munk BS1465.X31 A413 1991

2. Hirshfeld/Braude (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 2006) 2 vols.

E. Job

1. Shahar (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1996) 2 vols.

F. Ruth

1. Shahar/Oschry BS1315.X31 A4213 1991

G. Esther

1. Honig BS1375.X31 A413 1993 2 vols.

H. Lamentations

1. Hirshfeld BS1535.X31 A5513 1993

I. Canticles

1. Shahar BS1485.X31 A4813 1993

J. Ecclesiastes

1. Shahar BS1475.3. A413 1992

K. Daniel

1. Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1994)



XXIII. Eliezer ben Elijah Ashkenazi [1512-1585]

A. Esther

1. Brown (PhD, BHU, 2006)



XXIV. Keli Yakar [= Ephraim Solomon ben Aaron, of Luntshits (Lenczycza), 1550-1619]

A. Torah

1. Levine [currently on Ex] BS1225.X31 E6913 2002 2 vols.

2. Kanter [Deut] BS1225.X31 E6913 2003 v. 5



XXV. Tze'enah u-Re'enah [= Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi of Janow, 1550-1628]

A. Torah

1. Hershon [Gen] BS1235. J3 1885

2. Artscroll [Torah & Scrolls] BS1225. J259 1983 3 vols.



XXVI. Shlah [Shene Luhot Ha-berit = Isaiah Horowitz, ca. 1565-1630]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X33 H613 1999 3 vols.



XXVII. Me`am Loez [= Jacob Culi, d. 1732]

A. Bible [excluding Ezek; Job; Ezra-Neh; Dan; Chronicles]

1. Kaplan et al. BS1158. H4C8 1978 43 vols.



XXVIII. Or ha-Hayim [= Hayyim ben Moses Attar, 1696-1743]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X2 I28613 1995 5 vols.



XXIX. Hatam Sofer [= Moses Sofer, 1762-1839]

A. Torah

1. Stern [currently Gen-Lev] BS1225.X31 S3513 1996 3 vols.



XXX. Ha-Ketav veha-Kabalah [= Jacob Zevi Hirsch Meklenberg, 1785-1865]

A. Torah

1. Munk BS1225.X31 M3813 2001 7 vols.



XXXI. Shadal [Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865]

A. Torah

1. Klein [currently on Gen] BS1235.3. L89 1998



XXXII. Samson Raphael Hirsch [1808-1888]

A. Torah

1. Levy BS1222 1958 6 vols.

2. Haberman [currently Gen-Lev] (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2000-2005) 4 vols.

B. Psalms

1. Hirschler BS1430. H5 1978

C. Proverbs

1. Paritzky BS1465.3. H5



XXXIII. Malbim [Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weiser, 1809-1879]

A. Torah

1. Faier [through Ex 12] BS1225. M313 5 vols.

B. Proverbs

1. Wengrov/Zornberg BS1555. M34

C. Job

1. Pfeffer BS1415. M35 P44 2003

D. Esther

1. Taub BS1375.5. T28 1998

2. Weinbach BS1375.5. W4

E. Ruth

1. Kurtz (New York: Feldheim, 1999)


XXXIV. Netziv [Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893]

A. Canticles

1. Landesman BS1485.X2 B4413 1993

[1a. (second part) Joseph BM560. B42513 1996 ]



XXXV. Bet Ha-Levi [= Joseph Baer Soloveichik, 1820-1892]

A. Torah

1. Herczeg [currently Gen - Ex] BS1225.X3 S63513 1990 2 vols.



XXXVI. Joseph Breuer [1882-1980]

A. Jeremiah

1. Hirschler BS1522 1988

B. Ezekiel

1. Hirschler BS1543. H57 1993



XXXVII. Nechama Lebowitz [1905-1997]

A. Torah

1. Newman BS1193. L521 5 vols.



XXXVIII. Da`at Sofrim [= Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, 1909-2001]

A. Bible

1. Starrett [currently on Jos-Jud; Sam; Kgs; Isa; Jer; Ezk; 12; Job; Chr; Dan-Neh] BS1151.2. R33 2001 10 vols.



Hasidic:

XXXIX. Menachem Mendel of Rimanov [1745-1815]

A. Torah

1. Levine BS1225. R9513 1996



XL. Mei ha-Shiloah [= Mordecai Joseph Leiner, 1802-1854]

A. Torah

1. Edwards BS1158.H4 X31 L413 2001



XLI. Sefat Emet [= Judah Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905]

A. Torah

1. Green BS1225.X34 A39713 1998


* Yisrael Dubitsky served as Public Services and Research Librarian at The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary until March 2007. He recently made aliyah and currently works part-time for the Saul Lieberman Institute as well as the Igud le-Farshanut ha-Talmud. He can be reached at yidubitsky-at-gmail -dot-com.

]]> Bibliographies Yisrael Dubitsky Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/Bibliography-of-English-Translations-of-Medieval-and-Modern-Rabbinic-Bible-Commentaries A New Book Collecting Commentaries on Targum Yonason http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/A-New-Book-Collecting-Commentaries-on-Targum-Yonason
The Targum Yonason is a fairly standard commentary on the Torah (we are only discussing the Torah one). Now, as most are aware, in fact this is not from Yonason but instead is more correctly called Targum Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Targum). In academic circles it is referred to as Pseudo-Jonathon. In all likelihood, the original name was in fact Targum Yerushalmi but was abbreviated as ת"י and thus mistakenly expanded to be תרגום יונתן and not the correct תרגום ירושלמי. Various editions of this commentary have been published and you can find a listing in Kasher's Sa'arei HaElef. (you can see a bibliography of translations here and more stuff here.)

Be that as it may, there is much discussion about the content of this Targum. For instance, perhaps most famously, this Targum "translates" the prohibition against cross-dressing as prohibiting women from donning Tallit and Teffilin. While there are some complete works on the Targum (see the lists in Kasher, supra, as well as Kasher's discussion on the Targum generally in Torah Shelemah, and Kressel, Ma'ada haMikrah), most of the discussion which touches on this Targum appears in books which are not directly related to this Targum. This makes it difficult to locate but now this has been remedied with a new edition (thus far on Berashis, Shemos, and most recently Devarim) which collects just about everything on this Targum.

The work is titled Sa'resi Ba'Midinah and is edited by R. Henoch Levine.* As mentioned above, a major difficulty is locating the discussions on this Targum, this edition has uses hundreds of books and collected the relevant material for the reader. Additionally, an especially nice touch and one lacking (if you are sensitive don't read the rest of the sentence) in many seforim today, it includes a bibliography of all the works used. This bibliography is not just a list of titles but even provides which edition was used to make it easy for the reader to check the source themselves. Further, the author as well as the topic (many books have the same name) are included to further insure ease of location of the sources. The breadth of sources is astounding. Further, a index which includes Tanakh, Shas, Midrash, and Shulhan Arukh, is included as well. All of this is printed on nice paper in clear text. The Targum is included as well as the text of the Torah, Onkelos, Rashi, and Toldot Aaron.

As for the Targum itself, according to the introduction (which appears in the Shemot volume) the editor attempted to correct the text. But, it is unclear how or what he did on that front. There are critical editions of this work (see the sources supra) but I can not tell if he used them.

The one shortcoming appears in the introduction. There, the editor, using the book Yanchanu which is devoted to defending the notion that this targum is in fact from R. Yonason, attempts to show that this work is truly from R. Yonason b. Uzzeil the Tanna. He spends the bulk of the introduction on this task. As we know this has been shown to be wrong. Additionally, what is particuarly disturbing is one manner in which the editor (recounting as it appears in Yanchanu) "proves" his point. The editor marshalls R. Tzvi Hirsch Chayes (Maharetz Hiyot), the editor alleges, the Maharetz in a footnote also allows the author is in fact the Tanna. The citation is to a footnote in Minhat Kinot, Mahritz's defense of Orthodox Judaism against Reform Judaism. (there is no pagination in the introduction but it appears in the second page of the introduction) The footnote in fact is not really on point. But setting that aside, Maharetz wrote an entire work discussing the various Targumim, and specifically discusses the Targum Yonason. Maharetz says explictly the commentary on the torah is NOT from the Tanna. (See Imrei Binah no. 4). Maharetz is not the only "traditional" scholar to argue this, a bit earlier, R. Shlomo Chelm, author of the Merkevet HaMishna (a fascinating character in his own right) also says this Targum is not from the Tanna. (Merkevet HaMishna, Ma'chelet Assurot, 1:8). Thus, while a quote in isolation may support the notion Yonason was in fact the author, the R. Chayes himself was clearly of the opinion this Targum was not from Yonason.

In the US, the books are available at Beigeleisen and possibly others and in Israel try Girsa.

*[To make this clearer, as there seems to be some confusion, I will first discuss the positive points of this work and then discuss some drawbacks. Perhaps this format will enable anyone who doesn't want to know about the drawbacks to stop reading or, if need be, cover over the final paragraph.]

]]> Book Reviews Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/31/A-New-Book-Collecting-Commentaries-on-Targum-Yonason Rabbinic Portraits http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/29/Rabbinic-Portraits
There is a discussion on the always-wonderful-blog On The Main Line regarding a portrait attributed to Rashi. Someone MENACHEM BUTLER raised the well-known collection of famous Rabbinic personalities which appeared on an edition of the Shulhan Arukh. The edition to which they are referring to is the Shulhan Arukh printed in Mantua in 1721-23. This edition includes the standard commentaries as well as the commentary of R. Gur Areyeh Finzi (d. 1753). On the title page Finzi (or the printer) included Rabbis in the Shulhan Arukh, R. Karo, R. Isserles, and Rabbis whose works form the basis of the Shulhan Arukh (although not all) - Rashi, Rambam, and Maharil, as well as R. Finzi's portrait. As you can see below these are not the most flattering portraits done (that of course doesn't speak to whether they are correct, although it is unlikely that one could produce a portait in some cases hundred of years after the death of a person) it appears some were offended at the way in which they were depicted. Thus, these appear only on the title page for Orah Hayyim but not the other volumes. The same background was used, the gate, just the portraits are absent. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that some focus on the depiction of the Rambam for whether he had peyos as it seems in this portrait he may have (either that or long hair).
Title page of the Shulhan Arukh with the Commentary of the Gur Areyeh, Mantau, 1721

]]> Illustrated Seforim Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/29/Rabbinic-Portraits Midrash Lekah Tov, part Deux http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/28/Midrash-Lekah-Tov-part-Deux
In a follow-up to Professor Carmi Horowitz's recent post at the Seforim blog, I wanted to discuss, in a bit more detail, the new reprint of the Midrash Lekah Tov and further bolster Prof. Horowitz's conclusion that this new reprint falls short of expectations as well as the Makhon who did this. In the world of Hebrew books there are many books published almost daily, while there is much quantity should not be mistaken for quality. In truth this is not a new phenomenon, rather R. Jacob Emden in the 18th century decries the mass amount of poor Hebrew literature and that although there is much published not much is that good. R. Yitzchak Satanow, R. Emden's contemporary, also points out the dearth of quality literature and, perhaps more importantly, the masses willingness to accept this literature. He claims that he was thus forced to publish his own works under pseudonyms attributing the works to persons much earlier than was actually the case. With these comments we can turn to what will be the first part of a two part post discussing a particular publishing house as well as their most recent publication, the Midrash Lekah Tov. First, the "new" edition of this Midrash. This Midrash which was authored by R. Tuvia b. Eliezer who lived in the 11th century in the Byzantian Empire. Bibliographically, this Midrash has somewhat of a storied history. It was first published from an incomplete manuscript in 1546 in Venice and titled Pisketa Zutra. Only the portions on Vayikra through Devarim were published.

It was not until 1880 was the full edition on the Torah published by Dr. Solomon Buber. I have used the Dr. appellation as he had a doctorate but I am unsure if he had semikha, this however, is not a bar to the use of the Rabbi appellation, as in the Vilna Shas in the Achrit Davar at the end of Mesekhet Niddah, he is referred to as R. Solomon Buber. Dr. Solomon Buber dedicated this work to the memory of his father, R. Yeshaiah Avraham Halevi. Additionally, the portions on the five Meggilot were published around that time for the first time as well, Esther 1886, Ruth in 1887, Eicha in 1895 (there was an edition published the next year in Calford, England, which was touted as the first edition, in actuality it was the second edition), Kohelet in 1904, Shir haShirim in 1909. Now, as Prof. Horowitz has noted, Makhon Zikhron Ahron has republished the section on the Torah and five Meggilot with Buber's comments as well as a few notes from R. Yerucham Fishel Perla.

Although they neglect to mention where they located that R. Perla's notes, appeared 50 years ago in the journal Hadarom which they most probably found in Sa'rei haElef. Aside from the above they reset the type. Importantly, however, the text remains the same as it was in 1880. A simple search of the Jewish National and University Library (JNUL) catalog reveals that there are at least sixty some manuscripts available, most were neither available nor used by Buber in his edition, but nor are they used in this edition.

Instead, our edition is frozen in the late nineteenth-century. These manuscripts contain much additional information as was already pointed out by Prof. Yisrael Ta-Shema in his article on this work. Now, lest one think that Buber's edition the type was unreadable, rather it was a highly readable edition, further, it was not unavailable, but instead reprinted on many occasions in photomechanical offsets, and in fact, as Prof. Horowitz noted, this new edition the Greek is almost unreadable as they did it by hand or via cut and paste. Why then this work was republished in this "special" edition but remained as it was is rather unclear.

This is not the only time this Makhon has failed to use important manuscripts when reprinting something. Additionally, this same Makhon reprinted the Perkei D'Reb Eliezer. What is shocking about this is that there are very important manuscripts, manuscripts which this Makhon did not bother using, which one doesn't have to even go to a library, they are online! There is an entire project devoted to the correct text of the Perkei D'Reb Eliezer. Instead, as they did here, they merely reset the type and reprinted the Perkei D'Reb Eliezer. Of course, no one is obligated to use every manuscript, but when as is the case both here and in the case of the Perkei D'Reb Eliezer, the prior editions are available, what is the point in merely resetting the type and reprinting the books? A good example of a reprint where it was valuable was the case, by this same Makhon where they reprinted and reset the type of some important unavailable works on the Shulhan Arukh, including R. Chaim Buchner's Or Chadash, Nachlat Tzvi, and Olat Shabbat (which the Magen Avraham refers to by the abbreviation O.S. on many occasions). This as an excellent reprint as the earlier editions were difficult to come by and difficult to read. Or, again the same Makhon, reprinted the Levush. This edition is beautiful. They reset the type included, in the proper place both the Eliyahu Rabba and Zuta, the commentary of the Hida's grandfather from manuscript, as well as notes and other commentaries. This is excellent and has now been reprinted in a smaller format. The Makhon also printed an edition of Perek Shira which has three commentaries from manuscript one being from R. Dovid Oppenheim, that was also very good. Thus, I want to make clear, that while the books such as Lekah Tov are disappointing, this Makhon has published some excellent works.

Now, however, it is worthwhile noting that this Makhon is set up as a public service and as such is not out to make money. And, it is highly laudable to reprint seforim, my point here, is to merely point out some areas where the Makhon can improve.

It may be instructive to discuss how we know what we already do about this work, and I apologize to those readers who already know this. First, as mentioned above, for bibliographical information on this sort of work, R. Menachem M. Kasher's Sa'arei HaElef is irreplaceable. As noted above, he records that R. Y. Perla's comments had been printed. Additionally, he provides the location of reviews on Buber's edition. As this work was updated by Kasher's student, Mandelbaum he also adds to this information as well. Recently, Prof. Simcha Emmanuel has updated Sa'arei HaElef as well but only the poskim portion, hopefully a full update will happen soon.

Setting aside the more general tutorial, wWe can turn to the work itself. Prof. Ta-Shema wrote an article which he intended to publish in Sidra, however, he died before he was able to submit the final version for publication. Nevertheless, in the posthumously published Keneset Mechkarim vol. 3 (pp. 259-94) we have this article, "Midrash 'Lekah Tov' - Its Historic Place and Purpose." Prof. Ta-Shema reviews the work and points out important details. He discusses the various laws and customs gleaned from this work.

Particularly timely is the appearance, in this work, of the custom to blow the shofar during the month of Elul.[1] this work contains much in the way of explicating the law, one of the purposes is to demonstrate the close connection between the written and oral Torah and thus much is devoted to showing how the laws are derived from the Torah. This focus was in part to disprove the Karaites. And, as Ta-Shema notes, it was not only strictly legal questions which the Lekah Tov disputes with the Karaites, rather substative theory is addressed as well. This is one of the many times the various available manuscripts come into play. (See Ta-Shema pp. 269-71). There are numerous examples where Lekah Tov takes issue with the Karaites, including lights on Shabbat, Yemi Taharah, an established calendar, and Shavuot.

Ta-Shema notes that the style of this work is to explicate the verses in a fairly peshat oriented manner similar, although not the same, as Rashi. In fact, they were contemporaries. This fact is particularly important for understanding Rashi. Specifically, there is a question whether Rashi's commentary on the Torah as we have it today is all from Rashi or have there been additions. Obviously, whether we can say all which is attributed to Rashi is in fact from him is rather important. The question with the Lekah Tov is that there appear quotes from the Lekah Tov in Rashi. Well then we must decide when the Lekah Tov was disseminated. As if it was not until after Rashi then it is clear that there must be at least some later additions to Rashi's commentary, if Lekah Tov significantly predates Rashi then this poses no problem. But, this is all complicated by the fact the Lekah Tov seems to have used Rashi and visa versa. One possibility which would explain this is that both these works went through more than one edition, thus in the very first edition of Rashi he did not include the Lekah Tov, but after he got a hold of it and Rashi was revising his commentary he included those comments and the same for the Lekah Tov's use of Rashi. According to this explanation the fidelity of Rashi is not questioned.[2] But, as is apparent this is a very important question, one which could have been explored had an attempt to reconstruct when and how many editions the Lekah Tov was originally written in and when.

As should be apparent, Prof. Horowitz's criticism of this edition are well-founded. It is especially unfortunate that today when it is so easy due in part to the advances in technology that it seems at times we have not progressed at all.

Notes
[1] For more on this topic see, among others, Pardes Eliezer, Chap. 1, 29-88; Yehiel Goldhaber, Minhagei HaKehilot, pp. 5-8; Oberlander, Minhag Avoteinu, Vol. 1, chap. 1, 3-23; Daniel Sperber, Minhagi Yisrael, vol. 2 pp. 204-14.

[2] For more and additional sources discussing this question see Yisrael Ta-Shema pp. 266-7 n. 25; on the various edition of Rashi's commentary to the Talmud see Y. S. Speigel, Amudim B'Tolodot Sefer HaIvri Kitva V'Hataka, pp. 113-22. The claim that a work attributed to an author is not fully from him is used by many to explain various perceived inconsistencies. As Prof. Marc B. Shapiro pointed out, in his recent post at the Seforim blog, R. Moshe used this to explain controversial comments of R. Yehuda HaHassid. See Speigel, id. pp. 271-75 and generally id. chapter 6 discussing responsa literature. For an example of this in the case of a Torah commentary see the comments of R. M.M. Kasher Torah Shelmah where he claims that a particularly controversial passage of the Ibn Ezra's commentary where he seems to imply Moshe did not write various portions of the Torah was inserted later.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/28/Midrash-Lekah-Tov-part-Deux Carmi Horowitz: A Critique of Two New Reprints http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/27/Carmi-Horowitz-A-Critique-of-Two-New-Reprints
A Critique of Two New Reprints
by Carmi Horowitz *

Two new works have recently appeared on the market: a new edition of Midrash Lekah Tov and a new edition of the Perush on Sefer Yezirah of R. Yehudah b. Barzilai Barceloni. The following is based on an initial perusal of the two works. I have not read through the entire volumes.

I.

The new edition of Lekah Tov consists of three volumes published by Zikhron Aharon Jerusalem with a forward by Yonatan Blier. The first volume is on Bereshit and Shemot, the second on Vayikra, Bemidbar and Devarim and the third the five Megillot. All three volumes are newly typeset, clearly and beautifully printed with the Biblical verses commented on printed in clear bold type on very good quality paper, and handsomely bound. The volumes are aesthetically attractive and elegant.

The first volume contains R. Salomon Buber’s edition of Lekah Tov on Bereshit and Shemot, with his introduction and comments. The only addition that has been added beyond the original Buber edition are the scattered comments of R. Yeruham Perlow (author of the encyclopedic commentary on R. Saadia Gaon’s Sefer Hamitzvot). If collected, the comments would make up not more than two or three pages at the most. Buber’s introduction was moved to the end of the third volume. The typesetters of the new volume obviously did not have Greek on their computers. Thus Buber’s Greek references in the introductory essay were simply skipped. The Greek references in the footnotes to the text were literally (physically) cut and pasted from a printed edition. Thus beyond the aesthetics there is almost nothing new in this volume.

The second volume of Lekah Tov contains Vayikra, Bemidbar and Devarim with the commentary of R. Aharon Moshe Padwe of Karlin, all reset from the original Vilna 5681-4 edition. In addition this volume contains newly printed the commentary by R. Avraham Palaggi, the son of R. Hayyim Pallagi (author of Kaf Hahayyim et al). The commentary itself has very little to do with the Lekah Tov. It is a series of derashot or pilpulim based mainly on the works of the Ketav Sofer and adds very little to the understanding of the work. This volume also has scattered comments of Rabbi Perlow.

The only volume that is really useful is the third volume which contains the Lekah Tov to all the five Megillot with whatever comments the original editors added. To the best of my knowledge the Lekah Tov to the Megillot has not been collected until now, and thus only in this volume is there some real added value beyond the new typesetting.

II.

The Perush Sefer Yezirah of R. Yehuda b. Barzilai Barceloni was published once before by Shlomo Zalman Hayyim Halberstam in Berlin in 1885 with a detailed introduction. The present edition was published in 5767 (2007) by Aharon Barzani and Son, Tel Aviv with an introduction by Amnon Gross. The book is clearly printed and well bound; the text is divided into sentences and paragraphs, which was not done in the original edition. The division into sentences and paragraphs is the main contribution of this edition. The original edition did not contain any footnotes or sources. It contained an introduction by Halberstam which was partially reprinted in this volume. The editor Amnon Gross eliminated form the introduction the list of R. Yehuda Barceloni’s sources saying that they are now noted in the new text and hence it is unnecessary to include them in the introduction (!!). Indeed Gross inserted source references in the text, but they are inserted on a haphazard and inconsistent basis.

The original edition of the commentary on Sefer Yezirah contained important appendixes of Halberstam, David Kaufmann and Jacob Reifman. Those appendixes were not reprinted in this volume although only some of the corrections in these appendixes were incorporated into the text, again on an inconsistent basis.

I did not check the integrity of the text itself to see whether Gross accurately reproduced Halberstam’s text; in light of all the other inconsistencies in the editing – hashdehu.

In summary both publications are disappointing. The first has very little that is new, and the second is edited in such a careless fashion as to make one prefer the original printing.

*Professor Carmi Horowitz received his semikhah at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), an affiliate of Yeshiva University, where he studied with R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He received his doctorate from Harvard University (1979) where he wrotes his dissertation was on “A Literary-Historical Analysis of the Sermons of R. Joshua Ibn Shu’eib,” under the direction of Prof. Isadore Twersky. He has published on that topic as well as on the Rashba, the Mabit and on the Derashah literature. After teaching at Ben Gurion University he headed Touro's Graduate School of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem and is now Rector of Machon Lander in Jerusalem (an independent academic institution). This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

]]> Book Reviews Carmi Horowitz Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/27/Carmi-Horowitz-A-Critique-of-Two-New-Reprints Elliott Horowitz responds to David Kaufmann on Bugs Bunny http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/24/Elliott-Horowitz-responds-to-David-Kaufmann-on-Bugs-Bunny
In response to the recent article by Dr. David Kaufmann in The Forward questioning Bugs Bunny's purported Jewish identity, Bar Ilan University professor and Jewish Studies Quarterly (new series) co-editor Dr. Elliott Horowitz has written a letter to The Forward, available below to readers of the Seforim blog. (It has not yet appeared in The Forward.)

As noted in the letter below, Prof. Elliott Horowitz has written two articles on the very question that Kaufmann discusses. See his "Odd Couples: The Eagle and the Hare, the Lion and the Unicorn" Jewish Studies Quarterly 11:3 (August 2004): 243-258, and "The People of the Image," The New Republic 223:13 (September 25, 2000): 41-49.

This is Prof. Horowitz's first contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.
Dear Sirs:

The subtitle of David Kaufmann's entertaining essay ("Carrot and Shtick," Aug, 10, 2007) provocatively asks: "Can we claim Bugs Bunny as Jewish?'' I would like to point out that I have already made that claim more than once; first in a review essay in The New Republic ("The People of the Image," Sept. 25, 2000), and more recently, fortified with footnotes, in the Jewish Studies Quarterly (vol. 11, 2004). In both essays I sought to trace the Bugs vs. Elmer rivalry, reminiscent of that in the Bible between wily Jacob and Esau the hunter, visually back to the hares pursued by hounds in sixteenth-century Ashkenazi illustrated Hagadot, such as those of Prague and Augsburg.

Kaufmann is correct to stress that "the 'Looney Tunes' shorts in which Bugs appears are always structured around extinction and endurance, the two great poles of Jewish thought and dream," but he might have done a bit more with the Holocaust and post-Holocaust context of Bugs Bunny, who premiered in the 1940 animated film Wild Hare. Five years later Warner Brothers released Herr Meets Hare, in which "Buggsenheimer Rabbit" is pitted against Herr Hermann Goering, and in 1946 they brought out Hare Remover (my personal favorite), in which Elmer Fudd is cast as a chemist seeking (unsuccessfully) to perform scientific experiments on Bugs. Soon afterwards, like other American survivors, Bugs began to speak more candidly about his origins and childhood. In a Hare Grows in Manhattan (1947), he returned to his childhood on the Lower East Side, where constant hounding by the neighborhood dogs sharpened his survival instincts, and in What's Up, Doc (1950), he talked about the piano and music lessons he took as a youngster, and the bit parts he played on Broadway until he was discovered by Warner Brothers.

As Kaufmann points out, neither Chuck Jones nor Tex Avery or any of the other writers or directors who created the Bugs Bunny cartoons were themselves Jewish, but as their contemporary Claude Levi-Strauss, who himself only narrowly escaped the fate of Buggsenheimer Rabbit, might have said, Jews were "good to think with." Not only was the rabbit's voice assigned to Mel Blanc, who combined, as he later explained, equal parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx, but by making Bugs a New York native who toiled in obscurity until he was discovered by the Warner Brothers, those sly gentiles may have poked fun at their famously self-hating employers, who had earlier rejected George Jessel for the lead role in The Jazz Singer (1927) on the grounds that he was "too Jewish."

Elliott Horowitz
New York

]]> Historical Haggadah Historical Oddities Elliott Horowitz Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/24/Elliott-Horowitz-responds-to-David-Kaufmann-on-Bugs-Bunny Dan Rabinowitz -- "The Custom of Reciting l'Dovid HaShem Ori" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/17/Dan-Rabinowitz--The-Custom-of-Reciting-lDovid-HaShem-Ori
From last year (with a small update) at the Seforim blog, Dan Rabinowitz's "The Custom of Reciting l'Dovid HaShem Ori."

]]> Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/17/Dan-Rabinowitz--The-Custom-of-Reciting-lDovid-HaShem-Ori Barukh Dayan Ha-Emet: Rabbi Dr. Noah Rosenbloom http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/14/Barukh-Dayan-HaEmet-Rabbi-Dr-Noah-Rosenbloom
For those who have not seen the obituary notice in the New York Times (Aug 14, 2007; B6), the Seforim blog records the passing of Rabbi Dr. Noah Rosenbloom, a pulpit rabbi for over fifty years and longtime faculty member at Yeshiva University's Stern College for Women.

He was the author of Luzzatto's Ethico-Psychological Interpretation of Judaism: A Study in the Religious Philosophy of Samuel David Luzzatto (New York: Yeshiva University, 1965); Tradition in an Age of Reform: The Religious Philosophy of Samson Raphael Hirsch (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1976); Malbim: Exegesis, Philosophy, Science and Mysticism in the Writings of Rabbi Meir Lebush Malbim (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1988), among other scholarly articles and books.

Noah Rosenbloom received his rabbinic ordination from RIETS and his graduate dissertations were entitled: "The God-Ideas of the Leading Hebrew Poets During the Period 1933-1948" (PhD, New York University, 1958) and "The 'Taz' and Its Author: A Study of the Life and Work of Rabbi David Halevi, author of the 'Turei Zahav'" (DHL, Yeshiva University, 1948).

]]> Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/14/Barukh-Dayan-HaEmet-Rabbi-Dr-Noah-Rosenbloom Charles H. Manekin -- Moritz Steinschneider's Indecent Burial http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/14/Charles-H-Manekin--Moritz-Steinschneiders-Indecent-Burial
Moritz Steinschneider's Indecent Burial
Charles H. Manekin
University of Maryland, College Park / Bar Ilan University

Over a century has passed since the death of Moritz Steinschneider, the great orientalist, bibliographer, and historian of Jewish literature and culture. When Steinschneider died in 1907 at the age of 91, he was recognized by many as the greatest Jewish scholar of the previous century. His scholarly output numbered over fourteen hundred publications, ranging from short notices to books of over a thousand pages, a number that does not take into account many of his brief book reviews, not to mention his correspondence, which still awaits to be studied.[1] The breadth of Steinschneider’s knowledge was extraordinary. Unlike other nineteenth-century Jewish scholars of Wissenschaft des Judentums, the movement initiated by Immanuel Wolf and made great by men like Leopold Zunz and Abraham Geiger, Steinschneider’s work was not limited to subjects with a direct Jewish connection. He wrote classic works on the European translations from the Arabic and the Arabic translations from the Greek,[2] and was familiar with almost everything that had been written about premodern science, philosophy, and medicine. Yet a glance at his voluminous bibliography shows that he was first and foremost a scholar of medieval Judaica.

What sort of recognition has posterity accorded to one of the great scholars of Judaism, arguably the greatest of the nineteenth century? Sadly, Steinschneider’s contribution to the history of Jewish literature in all its aspects has gone virtually unnoticed outside a small circle of scholars. If he is remembered at all, it as a cold, antiquarian scholar who reportedly said that “the task of Jewish studies is to provide the remnants of Judaism with a decent burial.” This is the portrait, or better, caricature, of Steinschneider drawn by Gershom Scholem in his well-known diatribe against Wissenschaft published in 1945.[3] Scholem, an ardent zionist, viewed Steinschneider and his mentor Zunz as “gravediggers” and “liquidators” of the Jewish national values that they considered no longer relevant after the advent of emancipation and liberalism. Scholem’s negative evaluation of Steinschneider’s scholarly motivation and outlook in no way implied a disparagement of the nineteenth-century scholar’s achievements. On the contrary, Scholem writes in the Hebrew edition of his memoir From Berlin to Jerusalem “Despite the enormous distance I felt from the men of the [Wissenchaft] group, I revered Steinschneider and pursued his works, major and minor, as well as off-prints of his articles, all of my life.”[4] He also relates that as a university student, his familiarity with Steinschneider endeared him to his teacher, and later doktorvater, the great scholar of scholastic philosophy, Clemens Bäumker.

I come here not to praise Steinschneider, but rather to bury him more decently than did Scholem. To do so I will sketch a preliminary picture of his contribution to the ideology of Wissenschaft des Judentums that is less biased than the polemical one offered by Scholem. I say “preliminary” because Steinschneider made few theoretical statements on the subject of Wissenschaft. His views on that subject, like on so many others, must be gleaned from his voluminous writings and correspondence. For over a century articles on Steinschneider have begun with a call for a full-fledged intellectual biography of the man. That call has not yet been answered.

Steinschneider’s principal reflections on Wissenschaft are found in his short essay, Die Zukunft der jüdischen Wissenschaft, published in1869, a half-century after Zunz had issued his programmatic-statement on Etwas über die rabbinische Literatur.[5] The science of Judaism during the last fifty years, writes Steinschneider, was motivated externally by the struggle for emancipation and internally by the desire for religious reform. Scholars thought that examining the Jewish achievements of the past would pave the way for greater acceptance of the Jews in the present, and would provide models and precedents for modernizing the religion. In recent years, a third motivation for Wissenschaft has been proposed, namely, the training of modern rabbis, and a modern rabbinical seminary in Breslau had been opened. But as important as these practical motivations were, they do not address other fundamental questions: “What about Jewish history and literature as a link and source of history and cultural history in general? Is it a part of theology? What will become of it if the universities, according to the Dutch example, leave theology as a practical science to the care of the various religious communities?” “Where and how should this academic study be conducted -- in Jewish communal institutions or in German universities? “Where will it find its support -- in the community or the government?”

Although Steinschneider’s expressed intent was merely to raise these questions, his personal opinions are not hard to infer from his article. The task of scholars of Judaism is to investigate their subject as objectively as possible, without ideological tendencies, and in its intellectual and historical context, i.e., as connected with other cultures. This sort of study can be conducted best only in universities, not in the faculty of theology, whose focus is narrowly religious, but in the faculty of philosophy, i.e., the humanities. Jewish religious seminaries, even modern ones, are primarily interested in the training of rabbis; they focus almost exclusively on areas of importance to Jewish theology, and their students and faculty are exclusively Jewish. Jewish studies within the framework of even the most enlightened seminary cannot be free and independent.

Who should support Wissenschaft? Steinschneider implies that this is an obligation for the state and not for the Jewish community, not only because of the general importance of exploring civilization’s past -- after all, the state supports scientific research into the pyramids and the ruins of Pompeii -- but because “the spirit that created the great works of Jewish literature is still alive in the citizens of their state.” This is an interesting argument which refutes, by the way, the view of Steinschneider as a curator of a dead or dying religion. For he seems to be implying that the state has a special obligation to support the research and teaching of subjects that inform the identity, even the group identity, of minorities within the state. In fact, there should be no difference in principle between minority and majority cultures. According to Steinschneider -- again, by implication -- as long as the state supports the education of Christian teachers of religion, it has the obligation to support Jewish teachers of religions, through supporting Jewish seminaries.

Certainly Steinschneider was aware that the likelihood of the German state supporting the teaching of Jewish history and literature in universities, much less Jewish religion in seminaries, was remote. In fact, not a single chair devoted to Jewish history or literature was established in German universities until well after World War II. He was also aware that private money -- Jewish, of course -- would have to be found to support academic Jewish studies. In a letter written to his friend, the historian Meyer Kayserling in 1876, in which he refused Kayserling’s offer of a position at the Budapest Rabbinical Seminary, he writes,

It seems to me that the task of our times is to prefer the endowment of untenured instructorships in Jewish history and literature in the philosophy faculties, thereby compelling the authorities to establish professorships and schools in which regular high school students can be prepared for the study of Jewish literature. We certainly do not want boarding schools in which bachurische clumsiness, impoliteness, and beggarliness is preserved and glossed-over.[6]

The last statement reveals Steinschneider’s prejudices against the Eastern European yeshiva students who made up a good proportion of the students at the rabbinical seminaries. The aims of Wissenschaft required the proper preparation of students in high schools. For this Jewish donors had to be found.

In the same letter Steinschneider claims that his principled opposition to Jewish Studies outside the university did not conflict with his own association with the Veitel Heine Ephraimschen Leharanstalt (Beth ha-midrasch), the old school of the Berlin Jewish community. Steinschenider was a part-time lecturer for nearly fifty years for that institution, which counted Jews and Christians, including Paul Lagarde, Georg Hoffman, and Hermann Strack, among its students. The school was open to all, its faculty all had university doctorates, and it did not confer doctoral degrees. Steinschneider had declared publicly that he would resign were it to offer a single doctorate.[7]

Steinschneider did not address a question that has remained with us to this very day, namely, why wealthy Jewish individuals would wish to endow instructorships in Jewish history and literature at German universities, where the return to the Jewish community was neither immediate nor guaranteed. Perhaps he thought that he could get others to share his own passion for the study of what he called the “international literature of the Jews,” e.g., works of philosophy, science, medicine, and belles-lettres. After all, his teaching had been supported, in part, by the Berlin Jewish community for half a century. And, to my knowledge, at this stage of his life he expressed neither pessimism nor apprehension about the future of the academic study of Judaism.

Nor is there any support, at least to my knowledge, for the strange idea that Steinschneider became progressively detached from Judaism culture or religion, or that he saw its inevitable assimilation into secular culture. Steinschneider remained throughout his adult life a liberal Jew whose ideals were those of the enlightenment and the revolution of 1848, in which he took part as a student. In the remarkable credo that makes up the Foreword to one of his last works, Die Arabische Literatur der Juden, he lashes out against those who use the insufficiency of reason, “this weapon of all kinds of unreason,” to justify “the forcing of myths in new clothes or of monstrosities of fantasy, let alone the clinging to institutions of fake authority or to obsolete customs.”[8] Given that this line follows a reference to the zoologist Ernst Haeckel, it is clear that Steinschneider is taking aim against the myths of racial supremacies, which he felt had replaced the myth of religious supremacies. His reference to the “obsolete customs of religion” reaffirmed his decades-long abandonment of orthodoxy, nothing more.

But nothing in the Forward suggests a weakened commitment to Judaism per se, not even the claim that “it is the task of whoever feels entitled to lead the sum [of society] to stress what is common to the different circles of mankind, to point towards the ‘one Father of us all’ – towards what brings human beings nearer to each other.”[9] Steinschneider expresses these sentiments in a book chronicling the Jewish literature that was dearest to his heart, that of the Jews living in Muslim lands. After characterizing Ashkenazic Jewish life as one of “segregation in government, trade and society; expulsion, inquisition, agitation, and persecution” and Ashkenazic Jews as possessing “a surplus of mental acumen, squandered in casuistic and hermeneutical quibbles, faith and superstition linked to each other like Siamese twins,” he writes in an intensely personal passage,

The historian likes to direct his attention to places where a human existence was granted to the tolerated subject, an existence in which his spirit was allowed to soar above and beyond the national barriers towards the highest existential questions. Such a person believed to have attained already on earth the ideal of human thought, the conjunction with the active intellect.[10]

Steinschneider strongly identified with a literature that was not confined by the narrow parochialism of a national culture. He was under no illusion that such a literature was representative of Judaism, much less than it constituted its “essence.” With his unparalleled knowledge of Jewish books, he knew precisely what its place had been. But it was a literature with which he felt a strong personal affinity, and which reinforced the Jewishness of his commitment to liberalism and universalism, at a time when the growth of nationalism and antisemitism had made him pessimistic.

As for Steinschneider’s alleged comment that it is the task of scholars to provide the remnants of Judaism with a decent burial, it has not been found in his writings, but was attributed to him in a necrology published shortly after his death in the German zionist periodical Jüdische Rundschau by the young orientalist Gotthold Weil, who had recently been one of Steinschneider’s students.[11] Weil had participated in the short-lived zionist “National-jüdische Verein der Hörer an der Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin,” which numbered among its members Arthur Biram, Judah Magnes, and Max Schloesinger.[12] An active zionist leader in Germany, he later came to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem after the Nazis dismissed him from his post as professor of oriental literature at the university of Frankfurt.

The context of Steinschneider’s reported comment is a discussion that Weil conducted with Steinschneider about the latter’s alleged proto-zionistic activity in his youth, when he supported Jewish colonization in Palestine as a possible solution for anti-Jewish discrimination in Germany. One imagines that this was a topic of considerable interest among Steinschneider’s zionist students, considering the elderly scholar’s open antagonism towards zionism. According to Weil, Steinschneider admitted to participating in a scheme in the1830’s to further the colonization of persecuted German Jews in Palestine. But he felt that the events of 1848 obviated the need for a separatist political solution to the Jewish problem. According to Steinschneider, Weil informs us, the history of the Jews had ceased in 1848 and that as a result, “the only task we have left is of giving the remains of Judaism a decent burial.”[13] It is easy to see how political zionists like Weil and Scholem would see an offhand comment as an epitaph for Jewish people as a nation; according to Scholem, “a breath of the funereal did in fact cling to the atmosphere of this discipline for a century; occasionally there is something ghostlike about this literature.”[14] They interpreted Steinschneider as holding that Jewish national existence was rendered obsolete by political emancipation, and that assimilation was inevitable and desirable.

But there is no indication from Steinschneider’s writings that the scholar felt that the end of Jewish history, or for that matter, the extinction of the Jews as a “nation” had occurred in 1848, or that it was inevitable or even desirable. True, political emancipation had at least in principle removed the necessity for the Jews to segregate themselves in their own land in order to escape persecution. But almost fifty years later Steinschneider would write that the Jews indeed constituted a nation,

in the original meaning of that word…united, at least thus far, by an ideal fatherland and Scripture reaching back into their remotest antiquity…We affirm, in fact, that the concept “Jewish” cannot be understood merely in terms of dogmas and rituals, but that the entire Jewish cultural evolution must be viewed as a mirror of the underlying religious and moral ideas and national convictions.[15]

It was not the history of the Jews that ceased in 1848, according to Steinschneider, but the history of the Jews as an entity that required a political solution in its own state. He considered anti-Jewish discrimination not to be a Jewish problem but rather a human problem that should be solved within the confines of the modern liberal state.

What Steinschneider increasingly detested was the romanticism, sentimentality, and separatism that he found in nationalism in general and zionism in particular. Not a great admirer of nationalism to begin with -- according to Weil, he would occasionally say that “Nationalism is brutality; humanity is freedom and truth” -- he never missed an opportunity to show his despisal of romantic Jewish nationalism, even in the oddest of places. Thus in his great work on the Hebrew translations of the Middle Ages, while mentioning that Judah ha-Levy had been driven to emigrate to Palestine by a somewhat mystical -- another disparaging term for Steinschneider -- national sentiment, he adds in a footnote that the Hungarian scholar David Kauffman, “der Apologet von Daniel Deronda,” called such an attraction “realistic.”[16] This was a disparaging reference to Kaufmann’s enthusiastic review of George Eliot’s proto-zionistic novel that Steinschneider had sharply criticized.[17] The reference, completely out of place in a footnote on translations of Halevy, showed how passionate this supposedly cold, rationalist scholar could be on the subject of Jewish national revival.

Steinschneider’s ironic remark to his student Weil on the task of scholars of Wissenschaft is best seen within the context of his deeply rooted antipathy towards zionism, as well as his opposition towards tendentious scholarship of all sorts. The task of Jewish scholarship, he wished to say, is not to serve the interests of Jewish political interests, national or otherwise. “My intention,” he wrote in 1902 “is the most objective and historical portrayal possible, neither apologetically nor polemically painted, nor nationally or theologically prepared.”[18] Steinschneider intended to produce an objective scholarship possible that avoids apologetics, polemics with Christians, nationalism, and theology. Given this antipathy, his comment to Weil was perhaps intended to preach the gospel of independent scholarship. Although his students may have thought that the task of Wissenschaft was to help revive the spirit of the nation, Steinschneider did not. Given his negative views of Graetz,[19] it is not difficult to see how he would have viewed the excesses of the Jewish nationalist historians of the twentieth century.

But this explanation of Steinschneider’s comment seems inadequate. For there are many ways to emphasize the virtues of objective scholarship without using the image of death and burial. Why did he employ this particular phrase? Perhaps his remark should be read as an ironic appropriation of Samuel Raphael Hirsch’s attack on Wissenschaft des Judentums. Hirsch wrote that the scholars of Wissenshaft keep alive the memory of the old Judaism as it is carried to its grave; in another metaphor of death, he called Wissenschaft “the fine dust wafting from the stone coffins of moldering corpses.”[20] Steinschneider was a master of the ironic retort. Perhaps he was saying to his student Weil, “Just as Hirsch and the orthodox have said, we are burial societies -- let’s at least make sure that the burial is an honorable one.”

On the other hand, Steinschneider may have been genuinely pessimistic about the future of the Jews in Germany, not because of assimilation, but because of the steep rise of antisemitism in the last two decades of the nineteenth-century. In 1893 he writes “The history of the daughter religions is a constant series of attempts to murder their own mother; if one of them ever succeeds, the crime will bring down the criminal.”[21] Nine years later he commented dryly on a historical pamphlet written by a Prussian gymnasium teacher that calls on Germany to emulate the example of Spain and Portugal and expel its Jews. “The self-appointed historian wisely omits that the brutality of the mob was aroused not only by bull fights but by the live burnings of hundreds of Jews and apostates.”[22] Steinschneider feared German nationalism, according to Weil. Perhaps he felt that the remains of Judaism deserved a decent burial because the Jews themselves were in for difficult times from antisemitism.

But these are mere speculations. It is futile to read too much into the sarcastic quip of an aged scholar, which, if reported accurately, was never intended for publication. Can there be anything more indecent than having this comment serve as the summation of Steinschneider’s attitude towards the academic study of Judaism, or the task of its scholars? It is not surprising that both neo-Orthodox Jews like Hirsch and secular Zionists like Scholem assigned to the practitioners of Wissenschaft the role of gravediggers of Jewish nationalism.[23] If their visions of the Jewish nationalism were not only mutually exclusive but exhaustive, then it is a role that Steinschneider would have accepted willingly. But his vision of the Jewish nation was different from theirs.

It is ironic that in articulating the differences between the visions of Wissenschaft “now” and “then,” Scholem reaffirmed much of the vision of Steinschneider – not of Steinschneider the “gravedigger,” but of Steinschneider the advocate of an open, unapologetic, and untendentious scholarship that only a university-setting could enable. Steinschneider would indeed have been pleased with the establishment of centers of the academic study of Judaism, such as the Institute of Jewish Studies at Hebrew University, where, in Scholem’s words, “everyone is free to say and to each whatever corresponds to his scholarly opinion without being bound to any religious (or anti-religious) tendency.”[24] After all, Steinschneider was the most consistent advocate of the idea that Jewish studies can only flourish in such an atmosphere. Scholem also reaffirmed Steinschneider’s distaste for nationalist history when he noted with regret that “the heritage of an apologetics in reverse, an apologetics which now, so to speak, has revised everything in terms of zionism, has produced notable examples in our scholarly work.”[25] Steinschneider consistently opposed apologetic scholarship of all kind.

In sum, what connects the scholarship of Steinschneider and Scholem seems vastly to outweigh the differences, once we have adjusted the scale to allow for changing tastes and fashions in scholarship. The view of the Jewish people as a living and organic phenomenon was no doubt foundational in Scholem’s scholarly approach, but the growth in Jewish studies in the second half of the twentieth century had more to do with the sociology, economic abilities, and changing identities of the Jewish communities than with the growth of Jewish national consciousness. More to the point -- if the “antiquarian” scholarship of the nineteenth century had given way to the “scientific and empirical” scholarship of the twentieth – both of Scholem’s phrases seem a bit quaint today – the reason was not because of Jews had undergone a national revival, but because scholarly tastes and methods had changed. Steinschneider’s scholarly approach was no more “antiquarian” than that of contemporary orientalists like LeClerc, Wenrich, or Wüstenfeld; just as Scholem’s scholarly approach was shaped by his intellectual training and cultural context. One shouldn’t make judgments about the scholarship of a bygone age by using contemporary fashions as a yardstick. The presence of university-trained scholars in the history of medieval Jewish culture and history would have pleased Steinschneider greatly, even more so when he learned that some of the leading scholars are not Jewish. One suspects that here too Scholem would agree.

Notes:

This post for the Seforim blog -- dedicated to Dan Rabinowitz's weekly shiur following hashkamah minyan at his local synagogue -- is based on my article, “Steinschneider’s ‘Decent Burial’: A Reassessment,” Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought Vol. I., ed., Howard Kreisel (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 2006), 239-251.

[1]Some of the correspondence has recently been published. See Briefwechsel mit seiner Verlobten Auguste Auerbach, 1845-1849: ein Beitrag zur jüdischen Wissenschaft und Emanzipation, eds., Marie Louise Steinschneider and Renate Heuer (Frankfurt/New York, 1995). The longest biographical treatment is still Alexander Marx, “Moritz Steinschneider,” in his Essays in Jewish Biography (Philadelphia, 1947), 112-184. Marx has a very useful bibliography on pp. 294-95. For a list of Steinschneider’s writings, see George Alexander Kohut, “Bibliography of the Writings of Professor Dr. Moritz Steinschneider,” in Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider’s (Leipzig, 1896), v-xxxix. Steinschneider’s secretary, Adeline Goldberg, published additions to the bibliography in Zeitschrift fur hebräische Bibliographie 5 (1901): 189-91; 9 (1905): 90-92; 13 (1909): 94-95.

[2] Die Arabischen Überzetungen aus dem Griechischen (Leipzig, 1897) and Die Europäischen Übersetzungen aus dem Arabischen (Graz, 1956). See D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbâsid Society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries) (London/New York, 1998), p. 195: “There is as of yet no modern bibliographical survey of the Arabic translations of all the Greek philosophers; Steinschneider’s Die Arabischen Überzetungen aus dem Griechischen remains the only single treatment.”

[3] “Mi-tokh hirhurim al hokhmat yisrael” in Devarim be-go (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 385-405. This celebrated essay was published first in Luah ha-Arez and republished several times during Scholem’s lifetime. It has recently been translated into English by Jonathan Chipman as “Reflection on Modern Jewish Studies,” in On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in our Time and Other Essays, ed. A. Shapira (Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 51-71. Scholem, who planned to publish a similar critique in Walter Benjamin’s journal in the early 20’s, returned to the same issue several times during his career, notably in “Wissenchaft vom Judentum einst und jetzt” ]]> Moritz Steinschneider Charles H. Manekin Historical Oddities Bibliographies Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/14/Charles-H-Manekin--Moritz-Steinschneiders-Indecent-Burial Mayer I. Gruber -- How Did Rashi Make a Living? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/13/Mayer-I-Gruber--How-Did-Rashi-Make-a-Living

How Did Rashi Make a Living?[1]
Mayer I. Gruber
Professor in the Department of Bible Archaeology and the Ancient Near East
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel

It has long been taken for granted that Rashi engaged in viticulture, which is to say, the cultivation of vineyards and the preparation and sale of wine made from the grapes he cultivated.[2] However, in 1978 the question of how Rashi made a living was reopened by Haym Soloveitchik.[3] Indeed, Soloveitchik asserted: "Indeed the presumption is against anyone being a winegrower in Toryes. Its chalky soil is inhospitable to viticulture. . . ."[4] Soloveitchik went further and declared, "Rashi may nevertheless have been a vintner; but by the same measure he may have been an egg salesman."[5]

Since, on the face of it, Soloveitchik had declared that being a vintner, i.e., a cultivator of vineyards, and being an egg salesman were equally plausible careers for Rashi, notwithstanding Soloveitchik's unequivocal declaration that the soil of Troyes was "inhospitable to viticulture," it seemed worthwhile to me to explore three questions. These were 1) Rashi's association with eggs; 2) the plausibility and implausibility of viticulture in Rashi's vicinity; and 3) alternative careers for Rashi in view of the alleged inhospitability of Rashi's native city of Troyes to viticulture.

Eggs

A perusal of the published responsa of Rashi reveals that, in fact, eggs were a favorite in Rashi's diet. Rashi's famous disciple Shemayah[6] tells us that on more than one occasion he had seen that Rashi was served grilled meat[7] or fried eggs with honey.[8] The latter delicacy was called in Old French ab-bstr.[9] Moreover, Shemayah informs us that Rashi was wont to pronounced the berakah shehakkol 'by whose will all things come into being' and consume these foods prior to beginning the meal with washing of the hands and the berakah over bread.[10] Shemayah explans that Rashi informed him that the reason he did not wash his hands and recite ha-motzi over bread before eating eggs fried with honey is as follows: "This is much more enjoyable to me than bread, and I like bestowing my benedictions to laud my Creator with respect to [the food that I love]."[11]

What this halakhic text tells us about Rashi and eggs is that fried eggs mixed with honey were among his favorite foods, which he enjoyed so much that he ate them as an appetizer before the meal itself which began with the washing of the hands and ha-motzi. Fried eggs mixed with honey[12] were among the food items for which Rashi had no patience to wait. Notwithstanding Rashi's enjoyment of fried eggs, neither this text nor any other text so far published intimates that Rashi was engaged in either the retail or wholesale trade in eggs. On the contrary, the following responsum demonstrates that Rashi received eggs and other edible products for his personal consumption from others:
It happened to me, Solomon ha-Yitzhaqi. A Gentile sent me cakes and eggs on the eighth day of Passover. The Gentile entered the courtyard and called to my wife, and my wife sent a messenger to the synagogue. Thereupon, I gave instructions to keep the eggs in a corner until the evening. In the evening [after the end of Passover] I permitted their use allowing the amount of time that it would have taken [to bring them to my house had they set out for my house after the this time [when the holiday had already ended].[13]
Cows and Sheep

Several of Rashi's responsa suggest that he and other Jewish residents of Troyes from time to time owned pregnant cows and ewes.[14] None of these texts accounts suggest that either Rashi or the other Jews mentioned in these responsa owned herds of cattle or flocks of sheep. The one cow or sheep was probably the family's source of dairy products. In each of the recorded instances Rashi advised divesting oneself of ownership in favor of a Gentile so as to avoid being subject to the mitzvah of redeeming the firstborn male of a cow or ewe, a mitzvah which cannot be accomplished in the absence of the Temple (see Deut. 12:6, 17: 14:23). In the one instance where one of Rashi's Jewish neighbors made the mistake of acquiring and slaughtering for meat a firstborn lamb born of a ewe of which the Jew was legal owner, Rashi decided that the only recourse was to bury the slaughtered lamb half on Rashi's property and half on the other Jew's property so that the act of burying all that meat would be less conspicuous and the Jews would not be suspected by their neighbors of engaging in some kind of witchcraft.[15]

According to Rashi's own testimony he acquired and ate eggs. To date, however, there is no evidence that he was an egg salesman. Likewise, on more than one occasion Rashi owned a cow or a sheep. However, owning an occasional cow or sheep did not make Rashi into a rancher or a cowboy. Likewise, numerous testimonies both in his response as well as in his commentary to Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 18a and in his biblical commentary on Jer. 25:30 to Rashi's familiarity with the details of wine production do not prove that Rashi actually cultivated vineyards either for private use or for commercial purposes.[16] As argued by Soloveitchik, all the texts bearing upon Rashi's familiarity with wine production serve only to demonstrate that, in fact, the Jews of Troyes in Rashi's era had to produce their own wine because halakhah prohibited Jews from consuming wine produced by Gentiles.[17]

Wine barrel with Rashi's seal

The reference in a responsum by Rashi to a wine barrel that bore Rashi's seal[18] does not necessarily make Rashi a commercial producer of either grapes or wine any more than does his ownership of a pregnant cow make him a cowboy. On the other hand, another responsum by Rashi refers to a Jewish borrower who pledged a vineyard as collateral for a loan.[19] The latter text is one of a number of texts[20] which suggest that Soloveitchik may have gone too far in arguing that one of the reasons that Rashi could not have been a vintner is that the region in which he lived could not support viticulture.[21]

So how then did Rashi make a living?

In the conventional presentation of Rashi's biography[22] Rashi is assumed to have been a vintner by profession and the head of an academy of Jewish learning as an avocation. However, when Baron so described Rashi, the corpus of Rashi's Responsa had not yet been published by Elfenbein.[23] The facts, which can be culled from examination of the responsa, hardly portray Rashi as an amateur rabbi/scholar or his yeshivah as a hobby.

In fact, the conventional presentation of Rashi's biography also fosters the widely accepted notion that religious instruction, the study of sacred texts whether from a historical, halakhic, or a theological perspective, whether in the university, the yeshivah, the modern rabbinical seminary, the Jewish day school, or seminaries for teachers, or wherever, is or should be essentially a leisure activity. Careful reading of Rashi's responsa for what they tell us about daily life among Rashi and his disciples reveals that Rashi himself succeeded by his very professionalism in his very careful and by no means subtle design for making his yeshivah an intellectual and spiritual center for all of world Jewry and indeed, for all persons both friendly and hostile, who wished to understand the Torah.
Rashi as Gaon

It is no accident therefore that Rashi's yeshivah was called Yeshivat Geon Yaakov "the Yeshivah of the Glory of Jacob," the official name of the academy that still functioned in Baghdad in Rashi's time, and which claimed to have been founded by Rav in 219 CE in Sura. Likewise, Rashi's title was Rosh Yeshivat Geon Yaakov, "Head of the Yeshivah of the Glory of Jacob.”[24] Also, like the heads of the Babylonian Jewish academies, Rashi referred to himself by the title of the spiritual leaders of Babylonian Jewry, Gaon.[25]

Apparently, it was from the funding he received from communal assets paid on behalf of his students by the communities from which they came,[26] Rashi was able to dress himself, his wife, and his daughters in the style that befits a spiritual, intellectual, and communal leader of Jewry far beyond the boundaries of Troyes.
Implications for Today

Indeed, it may change the way we relate to our schools of Jewish learning and our programs of Jewish learning, both religious and secular, if we can liberate ourselves from the view that for Rashi, Rabban shel Yisrael,[27] our mentor, par excellence, studying Torah, teaching Torah, and adding to the corpus of Torah literature, were all hobbies, rather than aspects of a profession. Once it is grasped that Rashi's Torah activities constituted a profession, we may begin to treat not only the people who raise money for and administer Torah institutions and programs for the academic study of Judaism as persons who deserve to make a living from what they do but also those who study and teach to extend the frontiers of our knowledge and to broaden the base of persons, who are privy to this rich heritage. Likewise, seriously treating day school teaching as a profession might have a positive effect on both the working conditions and pay of day school teachers and the way in which the children of the fortunate treat their teachers.


Notes:
[1] This article is based upon material found in the Introduction to Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi's Commentary on Psalms (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 18; Leiden & Boston, Brill, 2004), and is published at the Seforim blog with permission of Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden. Special thanks are due to Editor Michiel Klein Swormink of Koninklije Brill in Boston.

[2] Maurice Liber, Rashi, trans. Adele Szold (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1906), 56; Irving Agus, The Heroic Age of Franco-German Jewry (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1969), 173; Israel S. Elfenbein, "Rashi in His Responsa," in Rashi, His Teachings and Personality, ed. Simon Federbusch (New York: Cultural Divison of the World Jewish Congress, 1958), 67; Salo W. Baron, "Rashi and the Community of Troyes," in Rashi Anniversary Volume, ed. H. L. Ginsberg (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1941), 60.

[3] Haym Soloveitchik, "Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?" AJS Review 3 (1978): 153-196.

[4] Ibid., p. 172, n. 54.

[5] Ibid.

[6] For the important contributions of Shemayah, who was Rashi's personal secretary, who edited Rashi's personal correspondence, wrote commentaries on the piyyutim of Eliezer ha-Kalir, helped Rashi edit the final versions of Rashi's commentaries on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Psalms, and composed glosses on Rashi's commentary, which are preserved in Leipzig Stadtbiliothek, Ms. Wagenseil, B.H. fol. I, see the extensive discussion in Avraham Grossman, The Early Sages of France (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997), 174, 347-426 (in Hebrew).

[7] For the different possible textual readings and their respective meanings see Israel Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi (New York: Shulsinger, 1943),114 #86, nn. 4-5.

[8] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 310-11 #270.

[9] Ibid., 310, n. 1.

[10] Ibid., 215.

[11] Ibid.

[12] The text of the responsum refers, in fact, to eggs fried in honey. In light of the commentary of Nissim Gerondi (commonly known in the yeshivah world as "the RaN, at the top of Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 52b, it appears that "fried in honey" is a literary convention in Rabbinic Hebrew for "mixed in honey and fried [in oil]." For this information I am indebted to Professor Alan Witztum, Professor of Botany at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel.

[13] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 142 #114. Here Rashi takes for granted the principle attributed to Rav Papa in Babylonian Talmud, Betza 24a: If a Gentile brought a Jew a present at night just after the end of a Jewish festival, the Jew may benefit from the gift only after the elapse of enough time for the Gentile to have prepared the gift after the end of the festival.

[14] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 202-03, #182-184; contrast Emily Taitz, The Jews of Medieval France (Contributions to the Study of World History, no. 45; Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1994), 85.

[15] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 202 #182.

[16] Contrast Moche Catane, La Vie en France aus lle siecle e'apres les ecrits de Rachi (Jerusalem: Editions Gallia, 1994), 130-31; cf. Taitz, 72-77.

[17] Soloveitchik, 172-73. Of course, the original reason for the prohibition was the presumption that virtually all Gentiles worshipped a multiplicity of gods and that wine from virtually any barrel of wine they sold or gave to Jew had been poured out as a libation in the worship of "other gods." Later the Rabbinic Sages (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 17b) extended this prohibition to any wine that had been touched by any Gentile so as to discourage socializing that might lead to intermarriage and thereby to the total assimilation of the Jewish people.

[18] Oxford Bodleian Ms. Oppenheim 276, p. 35a, cited by Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 132; 135, n. 45.

[19] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 66, #61; see also the discussion in Taitz, 84.

[20] Note, for example, the "ordinance of Rashi" in Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages (2d printing; New York: Feldheim, 1964), 147, which specifically exempts from taxation by the self-governing Jewish community of greater Troyes household items, houses, vineyards, and fields; see the discussion in Robert Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and Social History (Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 16. See also the account of the case that came before R. Joseph b. Samuel Tob-Elem (Bonfils) at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century CE concerning the attempt of the community of Troyes to ignore, with respect to a certain Leah, the community's traditional exemption of vineyards from taxation. Fortunately for this Leah, the learned R. Joseph agreed with her that the traditional exemption should be upheld. See Chazan, 15-16. Irving Agus, Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade (2 vols.; New York Yeshiva University Press, 1965), 438-446 anticipates Soloveitchik's attempt to play down the importance of vineyards in the economic life of the Jews of Troyes in the time of Rashi, and he goes so far as to argue from silence that Leah was at that time the only owner of a substantial vineyard. In any case, both the litigation in question and the reference to vineyards along with household goods and houses in the so-called "ordinance of Rashi" should put to rest the contention that the soil of greater Troyes was inhospitable to viticulture. See also the numerous references to wine production in Rashi's commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud where Rashi frequently contrasts the realia referred to in the Talmud with the corresponding realia in 11th-12th century CE Troyes; these sources are listed and analyzed in Catane, La Vie en France aus lle siecle d'apres les ecrits de Rachi, 130-133; see also the references in Rashi's responses to Jews' hiring Christians to carry wine casks; see Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, #160; #260; see Taitz, 84.

[21] Soloveitchik, 172, n. 54.

[22] In addition to Baron and the other authorities cited in n. 2 above, see passim in Taitz; and see also Herman Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963), 268, nn. 10-11; Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 121, n. 1; 130, n. 31; and see also Mordechai Breuer, "Toward the Investigation of the Typology of Western yeshivot in the Middle Ages," in Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period: Presented to Professor Jacob Katz on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. E. Etkes and Y. Salmon (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 49, n. 26 (in Hebrew).

[23] See above; additional responsa are discussed in Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 127-159; see also Soloveitchik, 153-196.

[24] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 93 #73.

[25] Ibid., 245-246 # 115.

[26] Gruber, Rashi's Commentary on Psalms, 20-22; see Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 154-196.

[27] For the sources of this explanation of the acronym Rashi see Gruber, Rashi's Commentary on Psalms, 1, n. 1.

Mayer I. Gruber is Professor in the Department of Bible Archaeology and Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheva, Israel. He received his Ph.D. in Ancient Semitic Languages & Literatures at Columbia University in the City of New York (1977). Gruber also earned Rabbinic Ordination at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York (1970). Prior to aliyah with his family in 1980, Gruber taught at Spertus College of Judaica in Chicago and was rabbi of Mikdosh El Hagro Hebrew Center in Evanston, Illinois.

Gruber's Rashi's Commentary on Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 2004), which includes the Hebrew text of Rashi's Commentary, an English translation, a supercommentary on the form of notes, and a comprehensive introduction to Rashi's life and work. Gruber's other publications include a series of articles on the diagrams, which Rashi included in his biblical commentaries, a collection of Gruber's articles entitled, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992; now available from University Press of America in Lanham, Md.); additional studies on women in the biblical world and early Judaism; Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), which deals with gesture language and its impact on the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and other ancient Semitic languages; the commentary on Job in the Oxford Jewish Study Bible (2003); and the revision of the entry "Job" in the 2d edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2006).

]]> Historical Oddities Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:07:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/13/Mayer-I-Gruber--How-Did-Rashi-Make-a-Living Upcoming Auction and Catalog http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/10/Upcoming-Auction-and-Catalog Asufa is having an auction next week on Monday Aug. 13, the catalog is available online here or in the US at Biegeleisen books in NY.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/10/Upcoming-Auction-and-Catalog The Unintended Perils of Plagiarizing http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/9/The-Unintended-Perils-of-Plagiarizing
While we have previously discussed several instances of plagiarism, I wanted to discuss one more which is interesting in its irony.

Originally printed in Vienna, in 1820, Hut HaMeshulash b'Sha'arim, was reprinted in 1998. This sefer is actually three-seforim-in-one arranged based on the order of the parshiyot. The three are from a grandfather, father and son. They are, respectively, Sha'ar Asher by R. Asher Lemel HaLevi, chief rabbi of Eisenstadt; Sha'ar HaMayim by his son-in-law, R. Jehiel Mihel, also the chief rabbi of Eisenstadt; and Sha'ar HaKoton by R. Asher's grandson and R. Jehiel's son, R. Moshe, the chief rabbi of Tzeilheim. This book was published by R. Moshe and has haskamot from the Hatam Sofer, R. Tzvi Hirsch Brody, and R. Dovid Deitch, which all offer extensive praise of these works. As I mentioned, this sefer was reprinted in a nice edition in 1998 which includes a newly set type, citations, an index, as well as a short introduction. The introduction notes that this reprint is the third printing of the sefer, with the second reprint in Munkatch, in 1931. While this is technically correct, a portion of the sefer was reprinted, but under a different name a different author.

In 1910 a similar family type sefer was published in Warsaw. As with the Hut HaMeshulash, it contains multiple commentaries from relatives. In this case, the Amudei Yonason by R. Jonathan Eybeschütz and the Amudei Shmuel by R. Nachman Shmuel Miodoser, a descendant of R. Jonathan Eybeschütz. The Amudei Yonason is claimed to be from a manuscript, however, it is R. Nachman's commentary which we will focus on. Both of these seforim have rather nice haskamot from R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski, R. Eliezer Rabinowich, R. Eliyahu Meisels as well as R. Chaim Soloveitchik. It seems that R. Nachman actually had a more difficult time securing R. Chaim Soloveitchik's haskamah due to R. Nachman's first piece in his sefer. In that piece, R. Nachman ties the controversy of the earth or sky being created first, to that of Moshe and Betzalal about the construction of the mishkan and use it to explain a Midrash. R. Chaim said that such a interpretation is inappropriate, as according to R. Nachman's explanation there are opinions which argue with Moshe and no one can argue with Moshe. [It would appear that R. Chaim took the ani ma'amins literally although, as we have recently seen at the Seforim blog, such a formulation has little support and even the Rambam's position is not unopposed.] R. Nacham attempted to assuage R. Chaim Soloveitchik's concern by pointing out the Hafla'ah has a similar explanation with the same end result - someone disagreeing with Moshe. R. Chaim Soloveitchik was unsatisfied with this justification so R. Nachman agreed to remove that explanation. But, when R. Nachman reached Warsaw, that page had already been printed thus, R. Nachman instead of removing the piece, included the above story to let R. Chaim's position be known. [Reproduced below - you can click on any of the images for a larger version.]

R. Chaim Soloveitchik's Haskama and R. Nachman's Disclaimer
R. Nachman attempted to justify his position by pointing to earlier authorities who said similar ideas; however, R. Nachman could have pointed to an earlier authority which said the exact same thing. The vast majority of R. Nachman's commentary is taken almost word for word from the Sha'ar HaKoton, including the controversial explanation. It appears this plagiarism went undetected as the book was reprinted three years later in 1913 (and even more approbations appear which due to their late arrival were not included in the first edition) and then again in Bnei Brak in 1946. R. Nachman died in 1948 in Bnei Brak.

From the Amudei Yonason
the Original - Sha'ar HaKoton

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:13:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/9/The-Unintended-Perils-of-Plagiarizing Kest-Leibowitz Seforim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/9/KestLeibowitz-Seforim
The Kest-Leibowitz Seforim are available online at large discounts at www.torahlab.org Kest-Leibowitz republishes many interesting seforim in small or paperback format. New Seforim are added daily to the site. All questions welcome!

Please email your questions to yhaber@torahlab.org

]]> Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/9/KestLeibowitz-Seforim Benjamin Richler -- "Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library: NEJ Redux" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/8/Benjamin-Richler--Manuscripts-at-the-Jewish-National-and-University-Library-NEJ-Redux
Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library:
NEJ Redux
By Benjamin Richler

In a previous post at the Seforim blog, Shnayer Z. Leiman reviewed New Encyclopaedia Judaica (NEJ) and I should like to add a few observations from my admittedly narrow perspective as a student of Hebrew manuscripts and former director of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), situated in the Manuscripts and Archives Wing on the ground floor of the Jewish National and University Library, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


The main entry on “Hebrew Manuscripts” consists of a verbatim reprinting of the entry by D.S. Loewinger z”l and E. Kupfer z”l in the first edition of EJ followed by a reprint of A. Katsch’s article on "Hebrew Manuscripts in Russia" from the EJ Yearbook of 1977/78. The article by Katsch is disproportionately longer than the main entry on Hebrew Manuscripts, and a competent editor should have noticed that. No attempt was made to revise or update the entries and no errors were corrected. Any reviewer can easily criticize the choice of material included in the entry and the material omitted, the number of words devoted to a particular aspect of the subject and the lack of attention to other aspects, and it is not my attention to do so (though I just did so). However, some obsolete passages should never have escaped the eye of an editor even if he had just perused the entry casually. It is ludicrous to read, for instance, the following statement in the Loewinger-Kupfer entry, accurate as it may have been in the first edition:
The Institute for the Photography of Hebrew Manuscripts was founded in 1950 by the Israel Government (Ministry of Education and Culture) in order to enable a comparative processing and registration of all possible material. In 1962 the institute was placed under the authority of the Hebrew University and became affiliated with the National and University Library. During its 20 years of activity the Institute has photographed – mainly in the form of microfilms – approximately half of the collections of manuscripts and fragments scattered throughout the libraries of the world.
'During its 20 years of activity'!! Does the entry have to stress that it is valid only until 1970? In fact, the Institute, known for almost 40 years as the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), and not as it appears in the entry, now has photographed over 90% of the extant Hebrew manuscripts in the world. The editors of the entry on the “Jewish National and University Library” updated the statistics concerning the number of printed volumes preserved in the Library in 2005, but recorded that in 1971 the Institute of Microfilms of Hebrew Manuscripts had photocopies of 25,000 manuscripts neglecting to note that by 2005 the figure had surpassed 75,000.

The entry on Hebrew Manuscripts includes a list of the major collections and their catalogues. No catalogue published after 1970 is included. No attempt was made to update the list. No recent literature at all was included, no books by Malachi Beit-Arié, by Colette Sirat, by yours truly or anyone else. No mention of the publications of the Hebrew Palaeography Project (which is not mentioned at all in the NEJ, if the search engine can be trusted; see below). However, the bibliography does include the following gem: “D.S. Loewinger and E. Kupfer, List… Parma Library (in preparation)”. Not only was that “List” never published but the 2001 catalogue of the “Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma” prepared by the staff of the IMHM was not mentioned, neither in the main entry nor in the entry on Parma copied verbatim from EJ where only the 1803 catalogue by De Rossi is mentioned. On the other hand, we can be relieved that the entry on the “Bodleian Library” does include a reference to the Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to vol. I of Neubauer’s catalogue (Oxford, 1994) also compiled mainly by the staff of the IMHM and the Hebrew Palaeography Project.

Fortunately, the article on the Cairo Genizah has been rewritten by a team of competent experts and supplies up to date information and the article on Illuminated manuscripts includes an updated addendum.

Epilogue:

1. Using the search engine to compile this report has revealed a fatal flaw. As the reader may notice the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM) was mentioned in at least two entries. However, a search for the words “Institute” and “Manuscripts” appearing together in the “Basic Search” turns up only one reference to the IMHM in the entire NEJ – by its correct name this time – in the article on Liturgy. A similar search in the “Advanced Search” engine turns up three references in the articles on Liturgy, Genizah and the Institute for the Research of Medieval Hebrew Poetry. Somehow, it missed the two entries we noted (Hebrew manuscripts and Jewish National Library). So, caveat lector let the reader beware when using the search engine.

2. After reviewing the entries on Hebrew manuscripts it is obvious that in some or many of the entries in NEJ , no attempt was made to update or revise the bibliographies. Some entries in the encyclopedia do include “Add. Bibliography,” but in other entries the bibliographies are valid only until ca. 1970. Since 1970 digital resources have advanced so far that with minimal effort a few moments devoted to searching the Jewish National Library’s Aleph catalogue and/or RAMBI or similar online catalogues in other institutions could reveal most relevant publications that appeared since 1970. In order to determine the scholarly value of the entries in NEJ one must carefully check not only the text of the entries to see if they were not copied verbatim from EJ, but also the bibliographies to see if they include any post-1972 publications.

]]> Book Reviews Benjamin Richler Encyclopeadia Judaica Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/8/Benjamin-Richler--Manuscripts-at-the-Jewish-National-and-University-Library-NEJ-Redux Two Notes on Censorship and Plagiarism on the Ramban's Commentary on the Torah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/8/Two-Notes-on-Censorship-and-Plagiarism-on-the-Rambans-Commentary-on-the-Torah
There are a significant number of seforim that are considered “classic” commentaries on the Torah, including, for example, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Ralbag and Ramban, et.al. In this post, we shall discuss the Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, as it is also on important work in the history of Hebrew printing.

The first edition, published between 1469-72,[1] in Rome was the first book published in that city and is available online here [it was also reprinted by Mekor with a short introduction by A.M. Habermann]. Over the years the Ramban's commentary increased in popularity and in commensurate with that popularity many books have been written to further understand this commentary. The most commonly used edition today is the edition by Charles B. Chavel.[2] This edition, published by Mossad HaRav Kook, in two volumes contains a critical edition of the text as well as explanatory notes.

There are two interesting points about the above edition that are perhaps less well-known. The first, a fairly minor point, is the “problem” some apparently have with the fact Mossad HaRav Kook published this edition. In R. Wreschner's excellent commentary on Masekhet Avodah Zarah, Seder Ya'akov first printed in 1988 (reprinted in 2004, third edition), in his introduction he discusses the problem of censorship (in the “Jewish/Non-Jewish” sense, i.e. removal of mentions of Jesus) in Hebrew books. While he rightfully decries the numerous instance of censorship in the history of the Jewish book, he notes with that of late we have been partially able to rectify the omissions due to censorship.

He singles out various editions and says:
ובעזרת הית"ב החומל על דלותם באורך גלותם, נדפסים היום ספרים כאלו [אם המילים החסרים] מחדש כגון ספר הרמב"ם בהוצ[ת] פראנקל, וכן פרש"י והרמב"ן ורבנו בחיי עה"ת . . . בהוצאת ה.ק. עכ"ל

“With the help of God who has pity on our impoverished state due to the lengthy exile, today we have many such books [with the censorship replaced] anew, for instance the Frankel edition of the Rambam, and also Rashi's commentary and the Ramban and the Rabbeinu Bachya on the Bible printed by Hey. Kuf.”
What does ה”ק stand for? R. Wreschner a two pages later provides a full page explaining all the abbreviations in his book - this one, however, does not appear there. Of course, this abbreviation is for HaRav Kook, that is, Mossad HaRav Kook. It appears that even fully mentioning the name of this publisher was, in R. Wreschner's mind, unconscionable, even while bemoaning other forms of censorship. That is, not R. Kook, but a publishing house named after him is also taboo.

What is worthy of noting is that there may actually be a reason not to mention this particular edition - not because of the publisher but of the content. In one of the more interesting introductions, R. Moshe Greenes, in his commentary on the Ramban Karen Peni Moshe, takes the Mossad HaRav Kook edition to task for, in his mind, serious errors in that edition.

R. Greenes opens (after going on a couple of tangents including claiming that then [1988] people were so lazy they can't get up to look for a sefer, or even turn pages they are so lazy) by praising R. Chavel’s work on the Ramban. Soon after that praise, however, R. Greenes spends the next 8 pages or so pointing out all the inadequacies of R. Chavel's edition. First, he claims that R. Chavel plagiarized on many occasions from the earlier commentary on the Ramban by R. Mordechai Gimpel, Techelet Mordechai. R. Greenes then accuses R. Chavel of plagiarizing from R. Menachem Zvi Eisenstadt's edition (recently reprinted both volumes in a single volume but unobtainable by R. Greene at the time).[3]

R. Greenes includes numerous examples of the alleged plagiarisms and even explains that the footnotes with asterisks one can identify with the Techelet Mordechai. These, alleges R. Greenes, were put in only after R. Chavel got the Techelet Mordechai and thus required the insertion into the existing footnotes which necessitated not altering the number scheme and instead we have numbers with asterisks. Whether or not R. Chavel quoted these sources without proper attribution is still up for debate. But, irrespective of whether there was in fact plagiarism, the fact remains that R. Greenes introduction is one of the more unique ones out there.

Notes:
[1] On the date of publication see Moses Marx, "On the Date of Appearance of the First Printed Hebrew Book," in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950) pp. 485-501. For additional information on the Ramban's Commentary see M.M. Kasher, et al., Sa'arei haElef (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 90-91, 571.
[2] For bio-bibliographical details about Chavel, see Moshe D. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport; Greenwood, 1996), s.v. "Charles B. Chavel."
[3] Perush ha-Ramban al ha-Torah (Brooklyn: 5762)

]]> Censorship Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/8/Two-Notes-on-Censorship-and-Plagiarism-on-the-Rambans-Commentary-on-the-Torah Marc B. Shapiro - Forgery and the Halakhic Process http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/2/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process
Forgery and the Halakhic Process
by Marc B. Shapiro


What is the role of academic learning in the determination of halakhah? In particular, I am referring to knowledge which is not available to the posek and which would affect his halakhic decision. This is, of course, a wide-ranging issue of which I will only discuss one aspect here, that relating to forgery. However, since the issue of the Mosaic text and R. Moshe Feinstein is relevant here, and I mentioned both of them in my last posting, let me make a few brief preliminary comments on this.

In The Limits of Orthodox Theology I quoted the following comment of R. Bezalel Naor, who was quoting his teacher, the Gaon R. Shlomo Fisher of Jerusalem: “The truth, known to Torah scholars, is that Maimonides’ formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief is far from universally accepted.” For those who don’t know, R. Fisher is one of the gedolim of our time, and you can see many of his shiurim on yeshiva.org.il. Many of these shiurim focus on Talmud (and he has published the great rabbinic work, Beit Yishai), but R. Fisher is also the only one of our gedolim who is an expert in Jewish philosophy. This explains why his Derashot Beit Yishai are very different than other collections of derashot. Professor Zev Harvey told me that from R. Fisher’s edition of Crescas’ Or ha-Shem, it is clear that he used Wolfson’s Hebrew text found in Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle.[1]

Someone I know currently attends R. Fisher’s weekly shiur on Avnei Miluim, the last half-hour of which is devoted to issues of hashkafah. Interestingly enough, he reported to me that a few weeks ago R. Fisher declared that he believes the Rambam abandoned his system of 13 Principles, the proof being that they are never mentioned as a unit in the Mishneh Torah.[2] In my book, I noted that R. Shlomo Goren held the same view. R. Goren also makes another interesting point, that while in the Commentary on the Mishnah Maimonides requires one to actually believe in certain principles, in the Mishneh Torah he only requires you not to deny any principles. One who has never heard of a principle obviously does not believe in it, which makes him a heretic according to the Commentary on the Mishnah. But according to the Mishneh Torah, since this person does not actually deny the principle, he is not regarded as a heretic.

Getting back to R. Moshe, as is well known, he ruled that the Commentary of R. Yehudah he-Hasid was a forgery, as he could not imagine that a rishon would acknowledge that there were some post-Mosaic passages in the Torah.[3] Only after my book appeared did Rabbi Naor tell me that the comment I quoted above in the name of R. Fisher was stated precisely with reference to R. Moshe’s positon on this issue. After R. Moshe banned R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s Commentary, R. Fisher commented that R. Moshe assumes that R. Yehudah he-Hasid has to accept the Rambam’s Principles, but in truth there were many disagreements with the Rambam, and R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s position on Mosaic authorship is one of them.

Along these lines, I read a recent shiur by R. Moshe Zuriel, a well-known baal machashavah in which he affirmed that all must accept the Thirteen Principles. I wrote to him asking what he would say about those who accepted the views of sages who disagreed with the Rambam, and I specifically referred to Ibn Ezra’s (exoteric) position that the last twelve verses were written by Joshua, which is a rejection of Maimonides’ insistence in the Eighth Principle that the entire Torah is Mosaic. He replied (emphasis added):

ודאי אני מודה שהסומך על ראב"ע (או אברבנאל וכיו"ב) ביחס לפסוקים הנוספים, איננו
נחשב לכופר, והוא נחשב ישראל . . . וכן כל דבר שיש מחלוקת ראשונים

In fact, in addition to the sources I cited in my book, Ralbag also says something interesting in this regard. Joshua 24:6 states:
ויכתב יהושע את הדברים האלה בספר תורת א-להים
Regarding this verse, the Talmud records a view that the reference is to the last eight verses of the Torah. But Ralbag explains it as referring to different verses:

ויכרת יהושע ברית לעם: על זה להיותם עובדים את ה' ולהשאיר זכר לזה המעשה למען יבושו ישראל אם יסורו מאחרי ה' כתב יהושע את הדברים האלה בספר תורת הא-להים

Another relevant source, which I also recently found, is R. Solomon David Sassoon, who wrote as follows (Natan Hokhmah li-Shelomo, p. 106; emphasis in original):

הדגש הוא על מה שאומר כי משה אמר זה מפי עצמו, אבל אם יאמר פסוקים אלה נביא אחר כתב אותם מפי הגבורה ומודה שקטע זה הוא מן השמים ומפי הגבורה, אדם שאומר כך אינו נקרא אפיקורוס, מה שהגדיר אותו כאפיקורוס אינו זה שאמר שלא משה כתב את הקטע אלא בזה שהוא אומר שדבר שזה מדעתו ומפי עצמו אמרו ושאין זה מן השמים

According to R. Sassoon, one who believes that parts of the Torah were written by a post-Mosaic prophet is not a heretic. (In another post I might speak more about the great R. Sassoon and his unique family.)

One of the strange passages in R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s Commentary is his assertion that the Hallel ha-Gadol (Psalm 136) was originally part of the Pentateuch and was later removed by David and placed in the Book of Psalms. In my book I note that this idea is also found in both R. Avigdor Katz (a rishon) and R. Menahem Zioni. I wrote: “Apparently, there was some tradition regarding this verse, the source and nature of which is unknown.” After my book appeared, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer published his Hadar Yaakov, vol. 1. On page 39, he notes that in two works of R. Eleazer ben Judah of Worms (the Rokeah), he mentions that Hallel ha-Gadol was recited by the Israelites at the Red Sea, a notion that is not found in extant rabbinic literature. (In Pesahim 117a it states that they recited the regular Hallel.) In R. Eleazar’s Siddur, p. 214, he cites Seder Olam as the source for this tradition. The editors refer the reader to Seder Olam Rabbah, yet nothing relevant appears there. Either R. Eleazar had a different version or he was referring to another book with this title. What is important for our purposes is that this tradition ties in with what is quoted by R. Yehudah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, even though the Rokeah doesn’t mention anything about this section being removed by David. Hopefully, more research into the writings of Ashkenazic rishonim will further illuminate matters.

Let me now speak of another issue, not of falsely ascribing forgery where there is none, but accepting as authentic that which is actually a forgery. The classic example is, of course, Besamim Rosh. There is no doubt that the volume is a forgery. There are those who have believed that at least some of the responsa are authentic, but it is more likely that the non-controversial material is a smokescreen for the controversial responsa. I plan to write an article about Besamim Rosh so I will not now reveal an internal proof, arrived at by use of a computer, that the book is a forgery. In an earlier article, I called attention to the fact that the Besamim Rosh assumes that a suicide has no share in the world to come, which is a popular 18th century conception, but not found among Ashkenazic or Sephardic rishonim.[4]

There is a talmid hakham, Rabbi Reuven Amar, who republished the Besamim Rosh and argues in his introduction that Saul Berlin was one of the gedolim. For all of his talmudic learning, Amar is very ignorant in this matter. He knows nothing about the history of Berlin and his haskalah ties. If he did, he would not have wanted to defend him. Yet Amar did know that many halakhic authorities quoted the Besamim Rosh, and he therefore wanted to turn it into a kosher book.

The problem Amar was faced with is what concerns me. What is one supposed to do with pesakim that rely on the Besamim Rosh? Fortunately, there can’t be many. In fact, offhand, I don’t know of any responsum in which a decision is based entirely, or even heavily, on Besamim Rosh, so that if you took this work away the decision would fall.

However, this is not the case with another forgery, as here the forgery is cited by all halakhic authorities of the last 140 years. I am referring to the Sefer ha-Eshkol, attributed to Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac. It was published by Rabbi Zvi Benjamin Auerbach (1808-1878), one of the leading German rabbis of his time. He was also the most prominent member of the famous Auerbach rabbinic family, which together with the Bamberger and Carlebach families (the ABCs, as they were known) were the most prominent rabbinic families in Germany.

According to Auerbach, his Sefer ha-Eshkol came from a Spanish manuscript. The work quickly became popular among scholars and was adorned with Auerbach’s commentary Nahal Eshkol, which is a mine of rabbinic knowledge. It came as quite a shock when in 1909, many years after Auerbach had died, the great scholar R. Shalom Albeck accused him of having invented the story of the Spanish manuscript in order to enable him to forge the work. This accusation aroused a great storm and four of the leading Orthodox scholars – David Zvi Hoffmann, Abraham Berliner, Jacob Schor, and Hanokh Ehrentreau – rushed to defend Auerbach, publishing the booklet Tzidkat ha-Tzadik (Berlin, 1910).

It is obvious that Auerbach’s defenders never gave Albeck’s charge any serious consideration. In their eyes, the fact that Auerbach was universally regarded as a tzadik, as well as one of the gedolim of Germany, rendered the accusation invalid from the start. There was no way they could impartially consider the evidence. In their mind they knew that for a pious Jew, some things are just impossible. Albeck responded to Tzidkat ha-Tzadik with the booklet Kofer ha-Eshkol (Warsaw, 1911), which explains how Albeck knew that the work is a forgery. In discussing the dispute between the four scholars on one side, and Albeck on the other, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin[5] showed which side he was on.


אחד מול ארבעה – וההרגשה היא, שהנצחון לצדו של האחד

As far as I know, every academic scholar who has examined the evidence has concluded that Albeck is correct, and Auerbach’s Sefer ha-Eshkol is a forgery. This is so despite the defense of Auerbach by Issachar Dov (Bernard) Bergman in his essay in the Joshua Finkel Festschrift (New York, 1974;[6] it also appears in Sefer ha-Eshkol, vol. 4 [Jerusalem, 1986]).[7]

Needless to say, the supposed Spanish manuscript has never been found. In the words of Prof. Haym Soloveitchik, “Auerbach’s Eshkol appears as a clear forgery, incorporating arguments found in sixteenth, seventeenth, and even eightennth-century writings. . . . [The work] should not be used for historical purposes.[8] For this reason, I criticized Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar for citing Auerbach’s Eshkol in their Giyur u-Zehut Yehudit.[9] R. Bezalel Naor writes:
I was told the following anecdote by Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein. Licthenstein’s father-in-law, Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveitchik (of Boston) expressed to Rabbi [Hayyim] Heller his amazement that the same obscure opinion of Mordecai in Niddah was to be found in the Eshkol, to which his mentor Hayyim Heller responded: “That is all?! You can find in Auerbach’s Eshkol a peckel Peri Megadims.” (Yiddish, a pack of Peri Megadim). . . . Prof. S.Z. Leiman informs me he found other irregularities in Auerbach’s historical works.”[10]
The late Prof. Israel M. Ta-Shma assumed that Auerbach’s Eshkol is a fourteenth-century forgery that he innocently published.[11] In discussing the issue, Ta-Shma makes the following incredible statement:

לדעתי עשה זאת משה די ליאון, וכך שמעתי גם מפי חברי פרופ' י. זוסמן

De Leon is commonly said to have died in 1305, so unless the forgery was done at the very end of his life, we would be dealing with a 13th century forgery. In his Ha-Nigleh she-ba-Nistar, p. 144 n. 203, Ta Shma indeed writes

ויש רגליים לדבר כי זיופו, במגמה לקרבו לספר הזהר ותכניו, נעשה כבר במאה הי"ג

Yet Ta-Shma’s assumption doesn’t take into account that Auerbach’s Eshkol almost certainly contains material from later centuries. Furthermore, Ta-Shma ignored the well-founded assumption Auerbach forged other documents. According to Moshe Samet, some of Auerbach’s forgeries were actually designed to further a Neo-Orthodox agenda.[12] (It is well known that people who forge rarely do so once. Rather, seeing that they got away with it, they continue in this path, getting some sort of perverse pleasure from fooling the world.)

In Mordechai Breuer’s Modernity Within Tradition, p. 202, in discussing Orthodox scholarship and how it was often not rated highly by others because of its binding preconceptions, he writes:
One such example was the attempt of some scholars, especially R. Kirchheim in Frankfurt and Schalom Albeck in Poland, to expose the chief scholarly work of the late Rabbi B.H. Auerbach of Halberstadt (Ha-Eshkol, with commentary and notes, Nahal Eshkol, Halberstadt, 1861), as a plagiarism and a forgery. In spite of certain discrepancies in Auerbach’s work, this attempt failed after his defenders could prove that the attacks had not been free of prejudice.

In Between The Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, p. 77 n. 8, I responded to this as follows:

Breuer seems to be mistaken in pointing to the dispute over the authenticity of B. H. Auerbach’s edition of the Eshkol as an example of this phenomenon [i.e., Orthodox scholarship being looked down on]. To begin with, the main assault on Auerbach was led by Shalom Albeck (1858-1920), himself an Orthodox Jew. Secondly, this dispute had nothing to do with dogma interfering with scholarship, but was simply a question of whether Auerbach had forged the text. Finally, it is not so clear that Albeck’s attempt failed, as Breuer would have it. On the contrary, the authenticity of Auerbach’s edition is still highly questionable.

When I wrote this paragraph I didn’t want to appear disrespectful to Prof. Breuer, which is why I used soft language. In truth, as far as scholars of medieval halakhic literature are concerned, Albeck was entirely successful. As I note above, the attack of Albeck on Auerbach had nothing to do with the sort of “Orthodox scholarship” Breuer was referrring to, and which was subject to criticism by non-Orthodox scholars. Albeck wasn’t attacking Auerbach because of his supposed Orthodox close-mindedness.

Yet the point Breuer makes actually has relevance to another aspect of this dispute, and here I refer to the defense of Auerbach by the four scholars. Here we do find dogma of a sort, since they make it clear in their defense that the whole accusation is ipso facto invalid, and they even cite the Rambam, Commentary to Avot 1:6, that if you see a tzaddik do something that looks like a sin, you must assume that there is a reasonable explanation, even if it is very far-fetched.

Albeck’s response to this is that the Rambam is referring to a tzaddik who commits a sin between him and God, but not someone who


מתעה את לבות גדולי ישראל מורי ההלכה ודורשי החכמה, ודאי מצוה וחובה על כל איש המכיר בו, להוציא את בלעו מפיו, למען יהיה לאות לבני מרי, ולא יוסיפו לחלל ש"ש ולזייף את התורה

The issue mentioned by Albeck, that of the poskim being misled by a forgery, is what I would now like to raise. What is one to do if one sees that a posek has decided a halakhah based on the forged Eshkol? Is this person obligated to reject the pesak, or can he rely on the authority of the posek, even though the posek himself was misled. This obviously has implications for the use of the Zohar in pesak as well, as the poskim regard it as a tannaitic work. Yet I think everyone outside of the haredi community who has studied the issue assumes that it is a medieval work.

Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg raised a similar concern with regard to the Shulhan Arukh. There are certain halakhot which are based on false readings. He wondered if in a case like this we have to establish a new halakhah, or since we have accepted the Shulhan Arukh’s ruling we don’t change the halakhah but rather find a different justification for it.

Some might also see some connection with another position of R. Weinberg. As I noted in my book. R. Tam’s states that sex with a Gentile does not cause a woman to become forbidden to her husband. R. Weinberg had ethical problems with the reason R. Tam gives, and I don’t think it goes too far to say that he thought that, from our modern perspective, R. Tam’s justification is to be regarded as immoral.[13] Yet I also note that in seeking to find a heter for a woman who committed adultery with a non-Jew to return to her husband he is prepared to make use of R. Tam’s position.[14] I don’t think this raises any problems, since at the end of the day, R. Tam’s position is part of the halakhic tradition. If it can be used to to reach a lenient decision, then it serves a purpose, even if the contemporary posek doesn’t agree with the underlying assumptions of R. Tam’s pesak (Parallel to this is the widely accepted view that there is nothing wrong with using information derived from Nazi experiments on humans if it can help people. Obviously, everyone agrees that the experiments should never have been carried out, but once they were, the information can be used) As I said, I don’t see this as problematic, but I mention it since some might see it as an inconsistency in R. Weinberg.

An example which is more directly relevant is the following. In June of this year Prof. David Berger gave a presentation at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah on Jewish views of Christianity (as well as how to relate to Chabad). In his discussion of Christianity he explained the concept of shittuf, first mentioned by the Tosafists, and how in its original meaning it did not mean that non-Jews are permitted to believe in one God divided into different parts. Those who want the details on this can see Katz’ discussion in Exclusiveness and Tolerance. Katz was the first academic scholar to point to what he regarded as the common misinterpretation of the Tosafot. In addition, a number of poskim have concluded similarly, most notably the son of the Noda bi-Yehudah, whose responsum was published in his father’s work.

In my response to Berger I asked the following question (addressing myself to him):

You are certain that the common understanding of Tosafot is mistaken. Yet this understanding became the standard for poskim in Western Europe. It is also shared by the Rama. Do you feel that there is anything wrong with someone who agrees with you as to the historical truth nevertheless relying on those poskim who misinterpreted the Tosafot? In other words, do the decisions of the poskim based on Tosafot have independent validity even if their interpretation of Tosafot is incorrect?[15a]

Prof. Berger replied that he did not regard as illegitimate to rely on a pesak even if from the standpoint of historical scholarship, the pesak is incorrect. In the case we were discussing, one could legitimately rely on heterim which are based on the notion that according to Tosafot Gentiles are not obligated in shittuf, even though from a historical, i.e., factual perspective, Tosafot never said this. Historical truth and halakhic pesak thus occupy different realms.

While I understand Berger’s point, I think some reading this might be very uncomfortable with such a notion, namely, that one can have a historical truth and a halakhic truth, with the two being at odds with each other; or to put it another way, that a halakhic truth can be based on a historical error and yet still have validity. This brings us dangerously close to the old Latin Averroist notion of "double truth." [15b]

Returning to Auerbach’s Eshkol, I am aware of only one posek who has refused to grant it any validity, and I daresay that the overwhelming majority of poskim are not even aware that it has been subject to controversy. The posek I am referring to is Rabbi Yitzhak Ratsaby. For those who don’t know, R. Ratsaby is one of the leading – if not the leadiing – Yemenite posek in Israel. He is an incredible scholar whose many works are particularly valuable as he records a variety of Yemenite practices and quotes from relatively unknown Yemenite writings, including from manuscript. He comes from the Kabbalah-friendly Yemenites, as uses the appellation of אחר in referring to R. Joseph Kafih. [16] Reflecting the typical haredi outlook, when he needs to refer to R. Kook, he writes "הרא"ק." Doing so denies R. Kook the rabbinic titles given other great rabbis, and also spares haredi eyes from even seeing the name “Kook” in print.[17] Most haredi readers won’t even recognize who he is referring to. This is particularly unfortunate as it was R. Kook who stood together with many of the great Yemenite rabbis in opposing R. Yihye Kafih’s anti-Kabbalah stand. In Emunat ha-Shem, the volume published against R. Yihye Kafih, R. Kook’s two letters appear at the beginning. R. Kook is referred to as

רבנו הכהן הגדול נר ישראל וקדושו גדול הדור ונזרו מרן

R. Ratsaby is an example of how Ashkenazic haredi extremism and close-mindedness has also influenced those who do not come from this tradition.

Despite this flaw, there are many very interesting things in his works. Because my last post dealt with issues of dogma, let me refer to what R. Ratsaby states in Olat Yitzhak vol. 1 no. 259. He refers to the list of 24 heretics with no share in the world to come, enumerated by Rambam in Hilkhot Teshuvah, ch. 3. Among those are people who say there is no God, or there is more than one god – in other words, classic heretics. But according to R. Ratsaby, even though these people are heretics with no share in the world to come, that doesn’t mean that they can’t fulfill someone else’s religious obligation. As R. Ratsaby puts it

אפילו אותן עשרים וארבעה והנוספים עליהם שברור ומוסכם שאין להן חלק לעוה"ב, לא שמענו שאינן מוציאין אחרים ידי חובתן בברכות וכיוצא בזה, דסוף סוף הוא מחוייב בדבר וכל המחוייב מוציא יד"ח

R. Ratsaby is not referring to allowing such a person to daven for the amud, for which someone must be a proper Jew. Rather, he is speaking of the halakhah per se, i.e., if a heretic can be motzi someone else. I think the instinctive response of people would be that, of course, someone who is a heretic cannot be motzi someone else, and R. Moshe Feinstein states so explicitly. R. Ratsaby removes the issue from one of belief, and instead focuses on the obligation.which all Jews share.

In this same teshuvah, R. Ratsaby also points out something else quite interesting. Following the list of the twenty four who have no share in the world to come, Rambam gives a list of another group who, if they persist in certain evil actions (e.g., embarrassing someone in public, shaming scholars, etc.) also have no share in the world to come. He quotes R. Avraham ben ha-Rambam (hiddushim at the beginning of Ma’aseh Rakah) who cites his father as explaining that the way this works is that someone who is accustomed to do such bad things things will, almost of necessity, not be inclined to do what needs to be done to achieve immortality. In fact, it is much more likely that he will be led to those sins that really do deprive you of the world to come. But one should not take what Rambam writes literally, namely, that these sins by themselves cause one to lose his share in the world to come.


Returning to the Eshkol, many years ago I was studying R. Ratsaby’s Olat Yitzhak, vol. 1, and on page 410 I came across the following:

לענ"ד אין לחוש לדברים מחודשים שבספר זה שהוא בחשש גדול של זיוף, ואין להכחיש מה שהלב מרגיש

I found this quite amazing, since I knew of no other posek that recognized what modern scholars had determined. I was curious if he came to this on his own or had read Albeck’s pamphlet. He replied to me on 13 Iyar 5750


חשד הזיוף אצלי הוא מתוך העיון בדברים החדשים שם בקרב הראשונים ולקוחים מדברי אחרים (מה שראיתי דר"כ [=דרך כלל] היה לקוח מהבית יוסף) וגם הסגנון, שחנני השי"ת להכיר כזאת בטביעות-עין והלואי שאני טועה, אבל רחוק בעיניי מלצרפו עכ"פ לענין הלכה. ספר כופר האשכול לא בא לידי


I wrote back to him asking why, if he regards Auerbach as a forger, does he cite the Nahal Eshkol. He replied

נחל אשכול שאני מביא על אף החשד שלי נגד ספר האשכול גופו משום שאין לפסול גוף הדברים אם הם ניתנים להאמר מצד עצמם, רק לא לסמוך על ספר האשכול כמשקל בהכרעה בהלכה

R. Ovadiah Yosef offers the same justification in his haskamah to Amar’s 1983 edition of Besamim Rosh

חרף הביקורת שנמתחה על הספר "בשמים ראש", במילי מעלייתא דאית ביה דרשינן

The last words come from Sanhedrin 100b, where R. Joseph says about the book of Ben Sira, “we may expound the good things it contains.” It would seem that using this logic, there can be no objection to studying the talmudic commentaries and halakhic writings of non-Orthodox rabbis, since one might find there a good argument or explanation of the sources. After all, Saul Berlin, the forger of Besamim Rosh, was a subversive, trying to destroy traditional Judaism from within. This makes him much worse than the typical Reform rabbi who has nothing to do with the Orthodox.


The summer is fast coming to an end, and with it, my free time to ]]> Censorship Besamim Rosh Marc B. Shapiro Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/2/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi's Death: Truth or Fiction? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/30/The-Legend-of-R-Yehuda-Halevis-Death-Truth-or-Fiction
The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi's Death: Truth or Fiction
by Eliezer Brodt

Among the more famous kinos that we recite on Tisha B'Av is Zion Halo Tishali. This kinah was written by one of the greatest paytanim, R. Yehudah Halevi author of the classic Kuzari. This piyut is about the author’s passion to walk on the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael. In the Artscroll commentary on the kinos, R. Avraham Chaim Feuer writes
an ancient manuscript states that R. Yehuda Halevi composed this kina while journeying towards Eretz Yisroel and recited it when he reached Damascus, facing the direction of Zion. Although many historians believe that R. Yehuda Halevi only got as far as Egypt, never even reaching Damascus, tradition has it that he finally reached Jerusalem (in 1145). There he fell to the ground in a state of ecstasy. . . . As he was embracing the dust near the temple mount, he was trampled and killed by an Arab horseman.
In this post I intend to discuss the above legend of R. Yehuda Halevi's death, did he actually reach Eretz Yisrael? When did he compose the piyut of Zion Haloeh Tishali? I will conclude with a discussion on R. Yehuda Halevi's connection to R. Abraham Ibn Ezra. I do not, however, intend to discuss R. Yehuda Halevi's classic work the Kuzari nor his life in general for more on those topics one can see the excellent study by Adam Shear, "The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi's Sefer HaKuzari" (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2003); soon to be printed in book form.


R. Abraham Zacuto (1452-1514) in Sefer Yuchsin (first printed in 1566) writes that "R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty [years old] when he came to Eretz Yisroel and he is buried together with his first cousin, the Ibn Ezra." (p. 217, Filipowski ed.). Later, however, R. Zacuto writes that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried with R. Yehudah Bar Elayh in Tzefat. (idem., p. 219). Setting aside the apparent contradiction regarding R. Yehuda Halevi's burial place, in both of these descriptions R. Yehuda Halevi actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, the legend of an Arab horseman killing him is absent. The earliest source for Arab horseman legend appears in R. Gedaliah Ibn Yachi, Shalsheles Hakabbalah (first published in Venice, 1587) and he states that he heard this legend from "an old man" (p. 92). Although the Shalsheles Hakabbalah appears to be the source for the R. Feuer's statement, the Shalsheles Hakabbalah has one addition to the legend -- omitted by R. Feuer -- that R. Yehuda Halevi recited the kinah of Zion Halo Tishali right before the Arab horseman killed him.

The next time that this legend appeared, after the mention in the Shalsheles Hakabbalah, is by R. David Conforte (1618-c.1678) in Koreh Hadoros (first printed in Venice, 1746), p. 13, followed by R. Yechiel Halprin (1660- died sometime between 1746-1749) in Seder Hadoros (first printed in Karlsruhe, 1769), p. 201, it is then repeated by R. Wolf Heindheim in his edition of the Kinos. By the 19th century, this legend became perhaps the most famous story about R. Yehudah Halevi as not much else was known about him.

R. Matisyahu Strashun, however, questions the legend. He explains that Jerusalem, in the times of R. Yehuda Halevi, was ruled by Christians and not by Arabs. R. Strashun allows that although it is possible R. Yehuda Halevi composed Zion Halo Tishali when he got to Jerusalem -- not that we know that he did -- but the part of the story with the Arab killing him is certainly not true. As a general matter, R. Strashun notes that it is well known that the Shalsheles Hakabbalah is not a reliable sefer at all (Mivchar Kitavim, pp. 215-216). R. Shmuel David (ShaDaL) Luzzatto in his collection of poems from R. Yehuda Halevi, Besulas Bas Yehuda (Prague, 1840), also questions the the legend due to the Christian and not Arab control during the time of R. Yehuda Halevi. Further, even if there were Arabs around they would not have done such a blatant act right at the city gate (pp. 25-26). So Shadal concludes that he died on his way from Egypt never even reaching Eretz Yisroel. Interestingly enough, David Kaufmann uses other evidence to prove that the poems of R. Yehudah Halevi have Jerusalem under Christian rule (Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim p. 194).

Israel Zinberg writes that most likely R. Yehuda Halevi returned home to Spain, after visiting Eretz Yisrael, based on the fact that R. Shlomo Parcon, a student of R. Yehuda Halevi who lived in Spain, quotes a statement from R. Yehuda Halevi "after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt" (Machberes Hauruch p. 5). Specifically, R. Yehuda Halevi had told Parcon that he was doing teshuva and therefore no longer composing. Independently, we know that during while R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt he composed much, Zinberg therefore argues that this statement to Parcon must have taken place after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt, thus R. Yehuda Halevi must have returned to Spain (Toldos Safrus Byisroel, vol. 1, p. 115). David Kaufman also uses R. Shlomo Parcon to adduce how R. Yehuda Halevi died. Kaufman points out that had R. Yehudah Halevi died in such a spectacular fashion as the legend has it, R. Shlomo Parcon was sure to note it. As R. Parcon makes no note of an extraordinary death, R. Yehuda Halevi must have died a natural death. (Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim, p. 195). In Amudei Avodah, Landshuth also questions the legend due to lack of evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi ever made it to Eretz Yisrael. (p. 70).

In regard to the piyut, Zion Haloh Tishali, Landshuth brings different opinions where this was written, in Spain or Damascus, Syria (p. 76). Yitzhak Baer (Kinos p. 130) and David Kaufmann (supra, p. 195) cite an manuscript -- housed at Oxford -- which says that R. Yehuda Halevi said this piyut when he got to the Yerushalayim. Shadal writes it was written in Spain (supra).

Earlier I mentioned that the Sefer Yuchsin writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty years old when he came to Eretz Yisrael and he is buried with his first cousin, Abraham Ibn Ezra. Later he writes that he is buried with R. Yehuda Bar Elayh in Tzefas. In the Travels of R. Benjamin of Tudela, written around 1170 - thirty years after the R. Yehuda Halevi died - Benjamin records that he visited the grave of R. Yehuda Halevi in Teveriah (there are actually various readings of these words in the manuscripts, but Adler accepts this as the correct reading; p. 29). In the travels of R. Yitzchak Ben Alfurah, written around 1441, he writes that he visited the grave of the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi (Avraham Yari, Masos Eretz Yisrael, p. 110). Both of these provide strong evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, an anonymous traveler in 1473 (Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 113) and R. Yosef Sofer in 1762 (Iggrot Eretz Yisroel, p. 301) write that they visited the grave of the Ibn Ezra but make no mention that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried there as well. In the travels of R. Moshe Yerushalmi from 1769, he writes that he visited the graves of the Ibn Ezra and R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel (Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 438). I would venture to say the author confused R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel with R. Yehuda Halevi both being famous composers and are sometimes confused. Furthermore, we have no source that R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel ever came to Eretz Yisrael (aside from a very late letter written in 1747 printed in Egrot Eretz Yisrael, p. 273). (See also David Kaufmann, p. 205 and Sinai, vol. 28, p. 290). In a manuscript from the author of the Koreh Hadoros (printed in Sinai vol. 28, p. 284) it seems that the R. Yehuda Halevi was buried in Jerusalem.

Over one hundred years ago the Cairo Genizah was accidentally discovered and due to this incredible find every areas of Jewish Literature and History have been greatly enriched. Before this discovery the history of R. Yehuda Halevi written by the early scholars of Jewish History was based on the poems of Halevi that were printed by Shadal and others. However, much has been discovered in Geniza Manuscripts in the past sixty odd years which adds an incredible amount of detailed information to what we knew about the end of R. Yehuda Halevi's life including original autograph letters of Halevi. [One can view some of these online here, and here is an example of one of documents relating to R. Yehudah Halevi.] These discoveries were made by the great scholar of the Cairo Genizah, Shlomo D. Goitein. Starting in 1954, Goitein printed his discoveries with his explanations of the material, in various journals mostly in Tarbitz. Later on, in his classic A Mediterranean Society (volume V, pp. 448-468), he included an excellent chapter on R. Yehuda Halevi based on all the material which he had found over the years. Most of his interpretations of the material he discovered have been accepted by Professors C. Sherman and Ezra Fleischer. In A Mediterranean Society Goitein writes “a full publication of all the geniza letters referring to Judah Halevi would fill a book.” (p. 462). Although Goitein never got around to writing such a book, in 2001 Professors Moshe Gil and Ezra Fleischer did write such a book. The title of the book is Yehudah Halevei U'bnei Chugo this book is a six hundred and forty page study of all the material from the genizah discovered by Goitein. This book includes all the original documents with notes and an in-depth history of all that can be gleaned from these letters. It is simply incredible to read what Goitein and than Gil and Fleischer discover in these letters.

The relevant documents are from a Cairo business man named Abu Said Halfon who was a very close friend of R. Yehuda Halevi. What follows is a brief time line of R. Yehuda Halevi's journey to Eretz Yisrael based on the research of these professors. In 1129, when R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty four years old he decided to make the journey to Eretz Yisrael. In the year 1130, R. Yehuda Halevi began his journey. He intended to travel through Egypt. We don’t know why he didn’t. But we do know that he ended up in North Africa. In North Africa, he became good friends with the Ibn Ezra. For some unknown reason, he ended up back in Spain. Not too much information is known about why this journey to Eretz Yisrael did not end up happening. Ten years later, in 1140, R. Yehuda Halevi began the journey again. He ended up in Alexandria on September 8. He had intended to leave from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael immediately, but was delayed. He ended up going to Cairo until Pesach. After that he returned to Alexandria. A few days before Shavuos of 1141, he boarded the boat, and on Shavuos, he set sail to Eretz Yisrael. In a letter written about 6 months later indicates that R. Yehuda Halevi was no longer alive. It seems that he was alive for 2 months in Eretz Yisrael. We don’t have any information about his stay in Eretz Yisrael. It would seem that either he got sick or died a natural death. There is no clear answer whether the legend is true or not. It’s rather sad that with all the manuscripts discovered in the Cairo geniza that enriched us with an in-depth, heavily detailed history of R. Yehuda Halevi’s last years until he left to Eretz Yisrael, does not tell us anything more. However, there was one letter written three months after the death of R. Yehuda Halevi that does indicate that perhaps the legend is true. The letter (the ellipsis appear in the original) says as follows:
ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק"ל אשר עליו באמת ניבאו נביאי האמת עין לא ראתה, ההיה גבור ביראת אלהים ובתורתו, ומאמרי פעליו מעידים צדקו, באודותיו ירונו כצפורים בעתותן למנוחת עולם הוטע כבוד גן אלהים, וברמה הוא נשא נס גדולותיו והליכות גבורותיו, אשר תרונה ביקרו, והתיקר... וביקרו, ותמונת ה' הביט... בשדה צען להאירה... זק"ל לא... צור... מחנה שדי... להתנחל לרשת... עזי...וישם... בדמות השכינה ובמראה... בשערי ירושלים
This letter was first printed by Jacob Mann, Goitein highlights the line ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק"ל which would seem to indicate that his death was not natural (calling him a kodesh is typically reserved for a martyrs) and especially the end where it says בשערי ירושלים but the letter is damaged and hard to read so one can not say anything conclusively. But Fleischer (pg 255) is willing to use the letter even with it’s missing parts to support the legend! Especially, he says, the author of the letter using the word קודש twice in the phrase זק"ל instead of the usual ז"ל. From this concludes Fleischer that we are not far off at all about Halevi death. Fleischer concludes by noting that one should be careful not to make fun of legends!

Notes:
There was certainly a strong connection between the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehudah Halevi. Professor D. Kaufman (supra p. 206) gives a listing of the many times which the Ibn Ezra quotes Halevei throughout his works. R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me'or Eynaim, writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was the Ibn Ezra's father-in-law (chapter 42). Koreh hadoros also brings that he heard this (p. 13). Shalsheles Hakabblah brings a whole legend which he had heard how exactly the Ibn Ezra became the son-in-law of R Yehudah Halevi (pp. 92-93). Interestingly enough the Meiri in his Seder Hakablah and the Sha'ari Zion make no mention of this relationship between the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi. Both Goitein and Fleischer say that although R. Yehuda Halevi was not the father in law of the Ibn Ezra the son of the Ibn Ezra, Yitzhak did marry R. Yehuda Halevi's only daughter (see Yehuda Halevei U'bnei Chugo pp. 247-251). However, M. Gil writes that in the end Goitein changed his mind and realized there was no relation through marriage (p. 250-251). Also, see N. Ben Menachem, Inyai Ibn Ezra, pp. 224-240, 346-356 regarding the relationship between Ibn Ezra and Yehuda Halevi including any relationship through marriage.
It is worthwhile noting that R. Immanuel Aboab in his Bemavak 'al Erko shel Torah, written in 1615, claims that the Ibn Ezra was both R. Yehuda Halevi's son-in-law as well as a cousin. (p. 247).

On this topic in general see also: Adam Shear, The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer Ha Kuzari, pp. 95, 513-514; C. Shirman, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 441-443. On the Ibn Ezra and Eretz Yisrael in general, see N. Ben Menachem, Sinai, vol. 10 p. 276 and onwards; see also N. Ben Menachem, Inyai Ibn Ezra, pp. 182-190.

More sources on R. Yehuda Halevi and Eretz Yisrael see: Adam Shear, supra, pp. 516-517; C. Shirman, Letoldos Hashirah Vehadramah Haivrit, vol. one, pp. 319-341; C. Shirman, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 466-480. Franz Kobler, A Treasury of Jewish Letters, vol. one, p. 155; Abraham Haberman, Toldos Hashirah Vhapiut, vol. one, p. 185;

On the reliability of Shalsheles Hakabbalah in general see: A David’s doctorate and E. Yassif in Sippur Ham Haevrei pp. 351-371)

]]> Eliezer Brodt Kuzari Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/30/The-Legend-of-R-Yehuda-Halevis-Death-Truth-or-Fiction New Book on Weddings http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/26/New-Book-on-Weddings
Now, with the passing of Tisha B'Av and the three week period, we now enter the wedding season. Appropriately, there is a new book on the laws and customs of weddings. The book, Beyom Chasunaso, by R. Zev Cinamon, is in English with Hebrew footnotes. The book is highly readable and covers just about every practical aspect of a modern Jewish wedding. There is a discussion about untying knots, the recent emphasis on praying under the Chuppah, removing jewelry and the list goes on. The book does a very good job of distinguishing which customs and laws are obligatory and well-accepted and which are not. Thus, for example, the custom of praying under the Chuppah with long lists of names or having singles go under the chuppah after the ceremony, R. Cinamon notes that this is a new custom and carries with it some possible halakhic problems. Or he discusses the custom some have of singling out the wedding witnesses to the exclusion of all others and why one would do that.

The footnotes are all in Hebrew as has become common in a growing number of English Judaica books. The notes, while not comprehensive do provide ample basis for one to look further into a particular topic. The English written in a very clear fashion which makes this accessible for almost anyone. It is also nice that each time a person is quoted, his birth and death dates are included which enables one to put the comments in perspective. Included are the opinions and customs of modern day rabbis including R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and R. Yisrael Chait of Far Rockaway.

The book can be purchased directly from R. Cinamon's Yeshiva, Yeshiva Gedolah of West Hempstead by calling 516-882-3765 or emailing office@ygwh.org and indicating you want the book. The book is $12.

]]> Customs Book Reviews Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:59:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/26/New-Book-on-Weddings The Besamim Rosh's Son What Can Be Gleaned from an Introduction http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/23/The-Besamim-Roshs-Son-What-Can-Be-Gleaned-from-an-Introduction
Most books, and Hebrew books are no exception, contain introductions. The introduction may lay out the author's vision for the book, or describe the motivation for publication. Additionally, it is not uncommon to find material which has little to nothing to do with the work which follows. One example, is the introduction to the third edition of the work Or Enayim.[1] This work by R. Shlomo b. Abraham Peniel discusses "the fine attributes of the Jews and the good that is awaiting for them in the world to come." It is divided into three parts, the first part discusses the heavens and their effects on the Jews, the second part discusses the Creation story, and the final part discusses the Avot.

In 1806, this work was republished with an introduction from the editor of this edition. The editor was R. [Yisrael] Aryeh Leib ben Saul, the Chief Rabbi of Stettin.[2] The editor was the son of R. Saul Berlin, the latter who is perhaps most well-know for editing/authoring the Teshuvot Besamim Rosh. (For earlier discussions of the Besamim Rosh at the Seforim blog, see here.) The introduction contains some unusual items. It mentions Thomas Paine, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, as well as the French Revolution and the bloody aftermath.[3] He specifically vocalises the name Abarbanel with that reading.[4] As is common in introductions, R. Aryeh Leib includes a brief history of his upbringing and eduction. He notes that he studied with both his grandfathers, R. Tzvi Hirsh Levin the Chief Rabbi of Berlin, as well as his maternal grandfather. Additionally, R. Aryeh Leib studied with R. Pinchas Horowitz, the author of the Haflah.

While all the above is interesting in its own right, the more interesting and important portion of the introduction discusses R. Areyeh Leib's father, R. Saul. R. Aryeh Leib notes that his father left numerous works in manuscript and specifically lists them. R. Saul himself also discusses his unpublished works in his last will and testament - although only to issue a warning that "all of [his] writings, however... shall be forbidden to anybody to take even one leaf and to read it. Everything shall be left in paper, be sealed up and sent to my above-named father or to my children..." R. Saul doesn't provide any other information about these "writings." R. Aryeh Leib, however, discusses them in detail. First, he explains his father left notes and thought on the entire Sha's titled Perek Hasheg Yad. The other titles, also on GeFeS, include Deh Lachmo, Resisi Lilah, as well as Ateres Zekanim on various aggadot. Finally, R. Saul left "his piskei dinim."

R. Aryeh Leib continues that his father left extensive notes on a work, Or Zarua of R. Isaac of Vienna. At this time the Or Zarua had not been published, instead, the Or Zarua although well-known, wasn't actually first published until 1862 and then only a portion of it. R. Aryeh Leib wanted to publish this work, it seems with his father's notes.[5] As R. Aryeh Leib was well aware of the controversy his father prior works had caused, he took a proactive stance and sent the manuscript to two persons, R. Chanina Lipman Meisels of Peiterkov and R. Tzvi hirsch David HaLevi of Krakow. R. Aryeh Leib was fearful of "the kat ha'tzvoim who are unfortunately very common in this generation, they always treat as suspect the holy works as perhaps they will find something objectionable in these works, and [when they locate something they claim is objectionable] they stir up the populace with this."

R. Aryeh Leib never was able to publish the Or Zarua, however, his discussion enabled one scholar[6] to cast serious doubts on the traditional story associated with the discovery and printing of the Or Zarua. Specifically, in the introduction to the Or Zarua, there is a description of the travels of the manuscript, and the relevant part states "[i]n earlier days this beautiful book used to be the proud possession of the author of the work Besamim Rosh, R. Saul, son of Tzvi Hirsch, Chief Rabbi of Berlin, as it is written on the cover of the [manuscript].... After [R. Saul's] death the book was sent to another city ... by ship over the sea, and the ship and everything that was in it was wrecked, and the manuscript that was inside went under the sea and the waves went over it ... God ... protected this book and prevented it from going down to the depths and saved it from destruction. He sent a stream through the mighty waters a brought the book to the border ... and led a fisherman to the place. He saw the book, lifted it from the sea and brought it to a certain Jew." From there it was transfered to another and was then published. While this story makes for good reading, based upon the introduction in the Or Enayim it seems that it is not true. Contrary to the story, R. Saul did not send the manuscript only to have the ship wreck - instead, as R. Aryeh Leib says, he received the book from his grandfather, R. Yitzhak Yosef Toemim who R. Saul had given it to. It was not then lost in the sea, rather, as we have seen, in 1806 R. Areyeh Leib had it and was hoping to publish it.

What is true from the above story, and is confirmed in part by R. Aryeh Leib, is that the manuscript which the Or Zarua was published from, contains the notes of R. Saul. These notes have never been published although the manuscript is still extant in the Bibliotheca Rosenthalina in Amsterdam and is available at the JNUL (Mss. R. R. Film No. F 10455).

Notes:
[1] On the title page of this edition it states that it is the second edition of this work. This is incorrect. The Or Enayim was first published in Istanbul in approximately 1520. It was then published for a second time in Cremona in 1557. In 1806, we reach the edition discussed above. Thereafter, in 1967, a photomechanical reproduction of the Cremona edition was published together with R. Emmanuel Benevento's Leviat Chen. [It is worth noting that although the Leviat Chen is also a photomechanical reproduction of the earlier, and only, 1557 Mantua edition, for some reason there are two pages missing at the end. Specifically, these two pages are a dirge bemoaning the 1554 burning of the Talmud in Ancona.]

[2] On the title page his name appears as Aryeh Leib - as the two approbations address him, while he signs the introduction with the additional Yisrael Aryeh Leib. R. Aryeh Leib had a rather colorful life, including converting to Christianity later in life. According to some, however, he repented and returned to Judaism. For more on Aryeh Leib, see Landshuth, Toldot Anshe ha-shem u'Polosum (Berlin, 1884) pp. 109-110. Landshuth cites E. Rosenthal, Yode'a Sefer p. 16 no. 93 as the source for the story that Aryeh Leib converted and that at the end of his life returned to Judaism. R. Saul also had a daughter, Hena, who married R. Abraham Hertz and they had a son, Saul.

[3] These persons and events are included to highlight the distinction, according to R. Aryeh Leib, between Jews and non-Jews. He claims that although one may find wisdom in non-Jewish as well as Jewish sources, in order to fully appreciate wisdom one can only do so through the study of the Torah and fulfilling its commandments. Thus, Duschinsky's conjecture that R. Areyeh Leib mention was "to impress the reader with his profound knowledge in all subjects," has little basis. See Charles Duschinsky, "The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London, from 1756-1842," Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 9:3/4 (January - April, 1919): 383.

[4] See S. Z. Leiman, "Abarbanel and the Censor," Journal of Jewish Studies (1968): 49, n. 1.

[5] Although Schrijver, see next note p. 78 n. 63, alleges there is "no clear textual evidence to support [the] assumption that Aryeh Leib wanted to include his father's notes in a printed edition." It seems from the fact R. Aryeh Leib went so far out of his way to defend the work against possible detractors I don't think it far fetched to understand that the detractors would question the work of his father.
The above noted works are not the only works of R. Saul, R. Saul himself mentions other works he authored, none of which were published, in his notes Kasa D'harsena. For a complete list see Landshuth, supra n. 2, pp. 105-106.

[6] Emile G.L. Schrijver, "Some Light on the Amsterdam and London Manuscripts of Isaac ben Moshs of Vienna's Or Zarua'," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 75:3 (Autumn 1993): 53-82, esp. 73-82 where he includes an appendix on "The Story of the Shipwreck of the Rosenthaliana Or Zarua' and its Demystification."

]]> Historical Oddities Besamim Rosh Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/23/The-Besamim-Roshs-Son-What-Can-Be-Gleaned-from-an-Introduction Iggeres Ha'Mussar: The Ethical Will of a Bibliophile http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/22/Iggeres-HaMussar-The-Ethical-Will-of-a-Bibliophile
Iggeres Ha'Mussar: The Ethical Will of a Bibliophile
by Eliezer Brodt

A few days ago, the sefer Iggeres Ha'mussar from R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon, was reprinted. What follows is a short review of this beautiful work.

R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon was born in 1120. Not much is known about him but from this work one learns a few more things about him, he was a doctor, close to the Ba'al Ha'meor (pp. 50, 63). R. Yehudah appears to have been working on another work (see p. 46) although it is unclear whether this work was a full work. He also loved his only son R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon very much and wanted him to succeed him as a doctor and translator of seforim -as Yehudah Ibn Tibbon was famous for his own translations. R. Yehuda ibn Tibbon's son, Shmuel, refers to his father as "father of translators" as he translated many classics, among them, the Tikun Nefesh of Ibn Gabreil, Kuzari, Mivhar Peninim, Emunah Ve'dais of Reb Sa'adia Gaon, Chovos Halevovos, and two works of R. Yonah Ibn Ganach.

In general, most people do not enjoy reading ethical wills for a few reasons. Amongst the reasons given is that wills, by nature, can be a depressing reminder of death and the like, topics most people would rather not focus on. Another reason given is (and this they say they find applies to many older mussar seforim as well) is people feel the advice is dated and does not speak to them at all. In this particular case, however, the Iggeres Ha'mussar is not a typical will as it does not focus on death at all. Furthermore, although it was written around 1190, over 800 hundred years ago, it is full of valuable advice that speaks to one even today. Besides for all this, there are some interesting points found in this will that are very appropriate for a seforim blog to talk about- specifically, how one should maintain their library.

Iggeres Ha'mussar is an ethical will which R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon wrote to his son R. Shmuel Ibn Tibbon. This work has been printed earlier, but not that many times. [1] The most recent reprint is Israel Abrahams' Hebrew Ethical Wills, originally printed in 1926 and reprinted in 2006, with a new forward by Judah Goldin. Now, Mechon Marah has just reprinted this work based on four manuscripts. This edition also includes over three hundred comments from the editor, R. Pinchas Korach, which explain the text and provide sources for many statements in the book. This new version also includes an introduction, short biography of the author, and a listing of R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon sources. Additionally, this edition also includes a letter from R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon to R Asher M’luniel regarding Ibn Tibbon's translation of Chovos Halevovos.

Some of the many points found in this work. Regarding learning and other areas of ruchnius R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes to his son make sure to learn torah as much as possible, (p. 38), make sure to teach it to your children, (p. 59) to one's students (p. 61). One should study chumash and dikduk on Shabbos and Yom Tov (id.). R. Yehudah writes to make sure not to waste your youth as at that stage of life it is much easier to learn than later in life (p. 38). He also exhorts him to be on time to davening and be from the first ten for the minyan (p. 67).

He tells his son to study medicine (p. 38). Elsewhere he writes that his son should learn the ibur – how the calendar works (p. 57). R. Yehudah is very concerned, throughout the will, that his son learn how to write clearly and with proper grammar and R. Yehudah offers many tips on how to accomplish these goals (pp. 33-36,45-48). R. Yehudah tells his son to learn Arabic (pp. 34-35) and to do so by to studying the parsha every Shabbos in Arabic (p. 43). R. Yehudah expresses the importance of double checking written material prior to sending it as one tends to make mistakes (p. 45) and notes that "even the Ba'al Ha'meor, who was the godal hador, showed R. Yehudah writings before they were sent out" (p. 50).

On life in general, R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes that one should be very careful with the mitzvah of kibud av v'em going so far as to tell his son to review the parsha of Bnei Yonoduv (which deal with this topic) every Shabbos (pp. 62 and 32). He tells him to make sure to seek advice from good people, people whom he's confident in their wisdom (pg 42). Not to get in to arguments with people, (id.), dress oneself and their family nicely, (p. 43), acquire good friends (p. 39), be careful to eat healthy, (p. 54), and make sure to keep secrets people tell you (p. 70). He advises his son to treat his wife respectfully and not to follow the ways of other people who treat their wives poorly. (p. 57) Later on, R. Yehudah adds to make sure not to hit one's wife (a unfortunate practice that was all too common in that period, see A. Grossman, "Medieval Rabbinic Views on Wife Beating, 800-1300," in Jewish History 5, 1 (1991) 53-62) and, if one must rebuke their wife to do so softly (p. 58).

Regarding seforim and libraries R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon writes many interesting things. He writes that he bought his son many seforim which covered a wide range of topics, at times buying multiple copies of the same book in order his son would not need to borrow from anyone else (pg 32-33). He writes that "you should make your seforim your friends, browse them like a garden and when you read them you will have peace” (pg 40 - 41). It’s important to know the content of seforim and not to just buy them (pg 33). He also writes “that every month you should check which seforim you have and which you lent out, you should have the books neat and organized so that they will be easy to find. Whichever book you lend out ,make a note, in order that if you are looking for it you will know where it is. And, when it is returned make sure to note that as well. Make sure to lend out books and to care for them properly” (pp. 60 – 61).

One rather strange point throughout the Iggeres Ha'mussar is the tone R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon uses, the tone leaves the impression that his son, R. Shmuael Ibn Tibbon, was very lax in the area of kibud av (see, e.g., pp. 33, 34, 52). Although, I highly doubt that his son completely failed at honoring his father, one thing is certain that in the end R. Shmuel listened to his father and read and fulfilled the suggestions in the will. Specifically, R. Shmuel became fluent in Arabic and became the most famous translator of his generation, translating many works, the most well-known being the Rambam's Moreh Nevukim, making his father quiet proud of him in the Olam Ha'elyon.

This new print of the Iggeres Ha'mussar is aesthetically very appealing - the print is beautiful and the notes are very useful. But, this edition, which claims to have used multiple manuscripts, should not be mistaken for a critical edition as it has serious shortcomings in this area. For example, the will many times references the poems of R. Shemuel Ha'naggid's Ben Mishlei but R. Korach, in this edition, never provides a citation where they are located in Ben Mishlei. This deficiency is in contrast to Israel Abrahams' edition where Abrahams does cross-reference these external works. The latest edition states that they used four different manuscripts but do not explain what, if any, major differences are between the manuscripts. Nor do they explain the differences with Abrahams' edition and theirs. The history in the introduction is very unprofessional, quoting spurious sources - this part in too could have been a bit better. Although the introduction includes some nice highlights of the will they should also have included a full index, which is standard in most contemporary seforim. All in all, however, aside for these minor points this ethical will, and this edition, is worth owning and reading from time to time as R. Yehudah Ibn Tibbon wanted his son to do.


Notes

[1] This work was only first published by the famed bibliographer Moritz Steinschneider in 1852. Steinschneider did so as part of a larger work VeYavo Ya'akov el Ha'A"Yan, which Moritz Steinschneider published in honor of his father Yaakov [which is rather appropriate as this will contains much on the obligation to honor one's parent] reaching age 70. The work was then republished in 1930 by Simcha Assaf under the title Mussar haAv.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Moritz Steinschneider Book Reviews Bibliographical Oddities Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/22/Iggeres-HaMussar-The-Ethical-Will-of-a-Bibliophile S.Z. Havlin - Additional Notes on the New Encyclopeadia Judaica http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/20/SZ-Havlin--Additional-Notes-on-the-New-Encyclopeadia-Judaica
הערות על אנ"י
מאת: ש"ז הבלין

הרב הנקין הזכיר מכשול בערך מערכי האנצ"י, ואולי ראו להוסיף, כי אכן נכון הדבר, ואף הרב הנקין שליט"א בעצמו, נכשל בעבר בהסתמכו על מידע שלקח מאצ"י. באחת מחוברות 'קושט', עלון רבני שעורך הרב הנקין (לצערי איני זוכר את מס' חוברת, ואף אני עכשיו רחוק מביתי ומארצי), ציין הרב כמקור ראשון ל'אני מאמין' שבסידורים, את הגדת ונציה שכ"ו. פרט זה לקוח מהערך על י"ג העיקרים שבאנציקלופדיה יודאיקה (שכתב פרופ' אלטמן מברנדייס). והנה לא זו בלבד שאין שם ה'אני מאמין', אלא שככל הנראה אף אין הגדה שנדפסה בונציה בשנה זו!

ציון זה הכשיל גם את עורך הסידור היפה מאוד, הן בתוכנו ובמקורותיו והן בצורתו הנאה מאוד, 'עליות אליהו',[1] שציין פרט זה כמקור ל'אני מאמין'.

מקורו של 'אני מאמין' לענ"ד עדיין נעלם. אמנם רבים חושבים שהוא הוא על פי דעת הרמב"ם, אך מי שיעיין וישוה ימצא ניגודים לא מעטים ואף חשובים בין דברי הרמב"ם ובין נוסח ה'אני מאמין'. בסידורים שבדפוס, דומני שהקדום מהם שראיתי בו את השיר הזה הוא סידור פראג רצ"ו (אני כותב כנ"ל מרחוק ומחוסר ספרים[אני בדקתי וזה אמת ד.ר.]), וכנראה הוא מצוי גם בכתבי יד של הסידור, אך מסופקני אם יימצא בהם קדום יותר מאשר המאה הט"ז.

במיוחד חשוב פרט אחד, שנאמר בשם הגאון מבריסק ר' וולוולע זצ"ל, ואשר רבי מ"מ שולזינגר בספריו הפך אותו לאחד מעיקרי הדת ופלפל בו הרבה מאוד, והוא שהצורה הנכונה של האמונה בביאת המשיח, היא כמו שנאמר בסידור: 'בכל יום שיבוא', והיינו לפי פירושו שיש להאמין שמשיח יבוא בכל יום, היינו היום הזה, וכך יש להאמין בכל יום. ידוע ששאלוהו על דברי הגמרא בעירובין שאין משיח בא בשבתות או בערבי שבתות, והשיב, קודם כל יבוא, ואנו כבר נמצא תירוץ מתאים!

על כל פנים יש לעיין, מיהו מחבר ה'אני מאמין' ומה סמכותו כפוסק בענין זה, והלוא ברמב"ם לא נאמר שיש להאמין שמשיח יבוא בכל יום! (פרט לכך אפשר לדחוק ולומר שגם ב'אני מאמין' הפירוש להאמין בכל יום, שיבוא, ולא שיבוא בכל יום. . .)

וגם ברצוני להגיב על מאמרו היפה של פרופ' ש"ז ליימן, על האנציקלופדיה יודאיקה החדשה. חשוב מאוד לדון כך, באנציקלופדיה שמהווה מקור עיקרי למידע, ובעיקר לחשוף מגמות ונטיות לא ענייניות ולא אובייקטיביות. כמובן שיש לבקר גם את הרמה ואת המקצועיות.

מסקנתו של פרופ' ליימן, שרמתה של המהדורה הישנה גבוהה יותר מהחדשה. וזה פרדוכס שכמדומני מאפיין במידה רבה את המצב במדעי היהדות בכלל, לרבות התחומים הטכניים והאינפורמטיביים. בנהוג בעולם, בעיקר במדעי הטבע והרפואה,שמקיימים את צו התורה, וישן מפני חדש תוציאו. לא אחת ראיתי בספריות, שהגיעו מהדורות חדשות, ואף של סדרות גדולות,ומיד השליכו החוצה את הישן, כאבן שאין לה הופכים. אין הדבר כך לא ביהדות, לא במדעי היהדות, ואף לא בביבליוגרפיה שעדיין עלינו למשמש ולהשתמש בספרים הישנים, כגון ספרי הרחיד"א, חיים מיכל ועוד, ומוצאים בהם לעתים, גילויים שחוזרים ומתגלים כעת מחדש, ואין מחסור בדוגמאות.

כדי לשבר את האוזן, הרי אירוע שאירע לי בערך שכתבתי למהדורה הישנה (כתבתי בה למעלה מחמישים ערכים). הזמינו ממני ערך 'הגהות'. נושא זה היה חדש, ולא מצאתיו בספרים קודמים (ראה למשל אצל יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות וכו'. הע' 1, שלא מצא שכתבו על נושא ההגהות פרט ל'ערך' זה באנצ"י), הסתפקתי אם הכוונה היא לתופעת ההגהות, או לתולדות ספרות ההגהות והשתלשלותה. פניתי למערכת ומתשובת העורך הבנתי שהשאלה לא הובנה, ואי לכך כתבתי על שניהן (ובמיוחד שנוכחתי שיש כנראה קו ישר והתפתחותי מהתופעה אל הספרות).

לאחר הכתיבה, לאחר העריכה, התרגום, הבדיקה וההגהה, לקראת סגירת העבודה, קבלתי קריאה בהולה מן המערכת, שקרתה תקלה, וכלל לא התכוונו לערך זה. אמנם מאחר שכבר נכתב ונערך וכו' הם ישמחו להדפיסו, אך בגלל הטעות נמצא שעכשיו חסר להם הערך 'הגהות מיימוניות' שאותו התכוונו להזמין בשעתו. בקשוני אפוא להכין להם בדחיפות ובמהירות ערך כזה . . .

זוכר אני את הרעש ואת המהומה שהתחוללה בארץ, כאשר נודע שפרופ' י' לייבוביץ שהיה אז אחד מעורכי האנציקלופדיה העברית, מתעתד לכתוב בעצמו את הערך על דוד בן גוריון באנציקלופדיה. היו צעקות רמות, שלא יתכן שאדם בעל דעות כשלו, ושעמדותיו הפוליטיות והערכותיו לראשי המדינה היו ידועות ברבים, יקח על עצמו כתיבת ערך חשוב זה.

ברור שיש להבליט בכל מקרה כזה כמו לפנינו, את המגמות המעוותות, חוץ מהכשלונות האובייקטיביים, והשקפות מסוימות של חוגים מסוימים, שמשתמשים בהזדמנויות להשליט את דעותיהם על הצבור.


הערות [1]סידור 'עליות אליהו' הוא גם סידור הגר"א, היינו שאמנם אינו סידור שעשה הגר"א, שכידוע אין סידור כזה, אלא סידור על פי מה שמשוער להיות נוסחת הגר"א ודעתו בהלכות הנוגעות לסידור, כמו שנהגו בסידורי הגר"א כולם.
והנה לאחרונה הופיעה מהדורה חדשה של סידור, זה, על ידי המחבר והמהדיר של 'עליות אליהו' ובהשתתפות האדמו"ר מנוואומינסק שליט"א, בשם 'קרני הוד', ובנוסח ספרד. הרי לנו אפוא, סידור הגר"א בנוסח ספרד! ת

]]> Book Reviews S.Z. Havlin בעברית Encyclopeadia Judaica Yehuda Henkin Relating to Siddur Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/20/SZ-Havlin--Additional-Notes-on-the-New-Encyclopeadia-Judaica No more Bentchers: A Review of a Sefer Given as a Wedding Gift http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/18/No-more-Bentchers-A-Review-of-a-Sefer-Given-as-a-Wedding-Gift
No more Bentchers: A Review of a Sefer Given as a Wedding Gift
by Eliezer Brodt

A wedding carries with it many customs, one of which is an attempt to use this ceremony to disseminate Torah. There was an old custom in many communities for people to write poems in honor of the simchas chasan and kallah. Others even wrote plays in honor of the bride and groom. One example is the Ramchal who wrote the play Ma’ashe Shimshon (as well as other poems for various weddings). In other communities there was a custom for someone to say a derasha at the chasunah for the same reason (in certain circles this still exists). Recently a newer custom evolved to print a sefer and give it out at the wedding.

It used to be a plain old bentcher was given out at a wedding, some, wanting something more substantial than a bentcher began giving out siddurim or chumashim. Today, in many circles, a sefer of some sort is given out to the wedding guests. Some times it’s an old work of some old famous relative of the family that has never been printed before, other times is a reprint from a relative of one of the wedding parties work which had been out-of-print. Some times its it’s torah from the groom or from some family member that’s making the wedding. What’s even more interesting about these seforim is many times they never reach the stores even the famous Biegeleisen who generally gets close to everything printed (to some known as Gan Eden). The market for these seforim many times is very small so the family never bothers bringing it to any stores. [Although, recently, various works of R. Reuven Margoliyot were reprinted for a wedding. It seems these were more widely disseminated as the republication forced Mossad HaRav Kook to reprint the works and to note that, according to them, the wedding reprint was a violation of their copyright.] The only way one gets the sefer is by being at the wedding or knowing someone who has been there. Other times it’s just pure luck - somehow one gets lucky and stumbles upon it. It’s a shame that a complete bibliography of such works can not really be written because there is no way to know all the works that have been published for these occasions.

A few months ago I was at the wedding of a good friend. As is now commonplace, the guests received a sefer – more correctly a collection of seforim – at this wedding. What follows is a review of that wedding gift.

First, I can only refer to this work as Mazkeret Nisuin Yehudah Vyael Hershowitz (a keepsake from the wedding of Yehudah and Yael Hershkowitz) as no other title is provided. The sefer is a paperback and is one hundred and thirty six pages long. It includes a few parts some of which have never printed before. The book was edited by the groom - R Yehudah Hershkowitz. R. Hershkowitz has authored many articles some of which appeared in Or Yisroel and Yeshurun dealing with many areas of learning and history.

The sefer contains four sections: section one is the sefer Ashes Chayil from R. Avrohom Yagel, section two are Shelios Uteshuvot from R. Avigdor Kara, section three is the Mamar al targum from R.Yakov Ben Chaim (ibn Adonijah), and section four is a Kuntres from R. Noach Berlin. I assume the reason why he printed it in this order is because Ashes Chayil is the most relevant to the wedding and then the other placement is based on chronological order. Prior to each section R. Herskowitz includes an excellent historical introduction to the work which follows.

The first part is the sefer Ashes Chayil from R. Avrohom Yagel. This work has been printed a few times even at a chasunah in 1994 of Zvi and Sarah Friedman in this edition R Herskowitz reset the type, which had not been done in the prior reprint, and added some notes.

The author R. Avrohom Yagel has been discussed at great length by Professor David Ruderman in his book Kabblah, Magic and Science. R. Avrohum Yagel was born in 1553. He corresponded with many gedolim of the time, amongst them the Ramah Mepano and R. Mordechai Dato. He was highly respected by the Ramah Mepano. He wrote many works on all areas especially science, many of which are still in manuscript and await publishing. One of his seforim is called Gaie Chezyon this work has been recently reprinted in English and Hebrew by Professor David Ruderman. It is a highly original work written in the form of dreams dealing with many topics. Many aspects of R. Yagel’s personal life can be gleaned from this work.

Ashes Chayil was first printed in Venice in 1606 and is a commentary on the thirty-first chapter of Mishlei which contains the verse of Ashes Chayil . R. Yagel wrote this work in honor of a friend’s wedding. The main idea of the work is to discuss what the role of a wife in marriage, to fear and love god, fear and love her husband and not to sit idle. R. Yagel notes that these same attributes apply not only for marriage but also when serving God. In the work there are many interesting explanations to different aggados of Chazal. Besides for this he writes many practical pieces of advice relating to marriage. For example, he writes, how the wife should get up early to prepare the household needs (pg 36). He writes that her voice should not be heard outside (Pg 40). Another point he makes is she should be careful to dress in a ts’neius manner and not to dress up like many woman to impress everyone (pg 49-50).

The next section are the Shelios u’Teshuvot of R Avigdor Kara. These teshuvot are printed here for the first time from manuscript. Here too R. Hershkowitz includes an excellent historical background about R. Avigdor Kara and his times. Although not much is known about R Avigdor Kara, R. Hershkowitz includes a brief history as well as a listing of the writings of two of his contemporaries which help with R. Kara's biography: R. Yom Tov Melehuzan and R. Menachem Shalem. They were all active on the beis din in Prague during the same time periods (approx. 1390-1439). Besides for this R. Yom Tov Melehuzan was involved in kabblah as many of his works show whereas R. Menachem Shalem was more involved in philosophy. R Avigdor Kara was somewhere in between them as he was involved with both areas. In one of the teshuvot printed in this collection we see how R Avigdor Kara struggled trying to reconcile contradictions between Kabblah and philosophy. In the end R. Kara writes that he was successful and felt that he was able to show that there were no contradictions between the two. Both R. Yom Tov Melehuzan and R. Menachem Shalem were close with R Avigdor Kara quoting him in their respective works. R Avigdor Kara wrote many works on all areas. Some were printed many others remain in manuscript. One work, the Sefer Hapliah (more on this in a future post) was attributed to him but as has been recently proven is certainly not from him. The Sefer Hapliah although many write it is from R Nechunyah Ben Hakonah (see the many sources R Hershkowitz cites) but Professor Ta Shema (see his Kneset macharim Volume 3) and others have demonstrated that it’s a much later work.

R Herskowitz was perhaps unaware of some more sources on R Avigdor Kara. R. Yididiah Tiyah Weil brings that R Avigdor made a golem (Levushim Levadim pg 37). There is a nice chapter on R. Avigdor Kara in the controversial book Hachasidus from R. Ahron Marcus (chapter 28). Another point R. Hershkowitz missed is that the Zemir Achud Yuchud is attributed to him . This song is sung in many circles when the chasun gets an aliyah and has been subject to an excellent article by one of the experts on minhagim, R. Hamburger in his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz (volume 3 Pg 373- 397). While these contemporary sources are not mentioned, R. Herskowitz does provide many other sources.

The teshuvos which are included in this volume are on some very interesting topics. He discusses davening to angels and in general what function they serve exactly in tefilah. This is another great source for the well-known discussion of Machnesei Rachamim which has been treated thoroughly in the classic article of R. S. Sprecher (Yeshurun, vol. 3, pp. 706-29). It is also an important source for the debate, recently restarted again on this blog, regarding Professor Marc B Shapiro book. Another teshuvah deals with a work of R. Avigdor Kara’s which we do not have called Even Sappir. R. Avigdor explains what this work was, it appears to be rectifying contradictions between Kabblah and philosophy. For both these teshuvot R. Hershowitz provides some excellent background behind these topics. One other (of the many) interesting points found in this section is a early source that one should remove ones shoes before entering shul. This subject has been treated by many, most recently by R. Yecheil Goldhever in his now classic Minhaghei Hakehilos (volume one pg 3-7).

The next section is the Mamar Al targum from R.Yakov Ben Hayyim. This Mamar was very rare and exists in less than five chumushim in the world. R. Yakov Ben Hayyim was the famous editor for the Bomborg publishers in Venice. Much has been written about Bomberg, but suffice it to say it played a very important role in the history of the printing of seforim. Many of the seforim printed in this printing house have remained the same layout to this day such as the Mikros Gedolos Chumash, Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi and Rambam. R. Hershkowitz has a nice discussion on how exactly did R.Yakov Ben Hayyim edit the seforim. One of the famous points of interest with R.Yakov Ben Hayyim is that he became a Christian, not much is known as to when and why. R. Hershkowitz wants to suggest an interesting possibility that R.Yakov Ben Adoneiah did not do so willingly but rather was forced. [The inclusion of R. Yakov and R. Yagel has another connection, in that R. Yagel was erroneously accused of converting to Christianity.]

The Mamar Al targum discuses many interesting things amongst them when was Targum Onkelos given and written. He also has a big chidish L’ehalacha that sh'naim mikra ve'achad targum needs to be done during K'reias hatorah.

The last section is a Kuntres from R. Noach Berlin. This kuntres was never printed before. In this section R Hershkowitz does not provide that much of a biography about R. Noach Berlin as he and a friend are currently working on another work of R. Berlin the Meyin Hachacmah (which we eagerly await). R. Noach Berlin authored many famous works amongst them the Atzei Arazim (on Shulchan Orach Even Ezer) and Aztei Almughim (on eruv chaserios and netlayas yadaim). R. Chaim Volozhiner writes that after the Gra died the only person he had to consult with was R. Noach Berlin. This kuntres is on the topic of woman doing semicha. While discussing this topic he goes thru many others (as was the style of learning in those days) and deals with woman and mitzvos aseh sheha'zman grama especially Tefilin.

]]> Golem Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Customs Book Reviews Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/18/No-more-Bentchers-A-Review-of-a-Sefer-Given-as-a-Wedding-Gift Rabbi Yehuda Henkin -- Opposite of Plagiarism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/17/Rabbi-Yehuda-Henkin--Opposite-of-Plagiarism
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin is the author of Shu"T Bnei Banim in four volumes and the commentary Chibah Yeteirah on the Torah. He learned privately with his grandfather, Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, and served as Area Rabbi of the Bet Shean Valley in Israel. He now lives in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Henkin has two degrees from Columbia University, and has written extensively in English: Equality Lost--Essays in Torah Commentary, Halacha and Jewish Thought, (Urim Publications); New Interpretations on the Parsha (Ktav); Responsa on Contemporary Jewish Women's Issues (Ktav); and the forthcoming Understanding Tzniut--Modern Controversies in the Jewish Community (Urim).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.
Opposite of Plagiarism
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

Plagiarism is a lack of attribution; less common is its opposite, mistaken attribution; rare indeed is the attribution of a defamatory work to the object of the defamation himself! An example of the latter can be found in the entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica [1] concerning my grandfather, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin zt"l.

The offending sentence reads: "His published responsa appear in Chaim Bloch's Even me-Kir Tizak (1953) and his own Perushei Lev Ivra (c. 1925)."[2] But in fact, not only does the pamphlet Even me-Kir Tizak contain no responsa of R. Henkin, it is an unbridled personal attack on him on the part of one who lost a din Torah heard before him. Bloch refused to accept the verdict, and resorted to defamation of the judges. If I recall reading correctly about the affair, he was subsequently put in cherem by the Agudas HaRabbonim.

How did the mix-up in attribution occur? Since the card-catalogue of the Jewish Reading Room of the 42nd Street Library in New York listed Bloch's pamphlet under R. Henkin, one can surmise that the researcher[3] for the EJ copied the listing without bothering to look up the reference.

Since then the mistake has been copied in Rafael Halperin's Entziklopedia l'Bet Yisrael and, earlier this year, in the new edition of the EJ (2007). Surely a case of shigegat talmud oleh zadon [4].

Notes:
[1] First published in 1972, vol. 8 column 324. The EJ contains a number of incorrect or partial biographical details; for a comprehensive account see my Equality Lost (Urim), chap. 16. See here for Shnayer Z. Leiman's review of the NEJ at the Seforim blog.
[2] This confuses two separate works: Perushei Ivra [PDF] (1925) and Lev Ivra [PDF] (1957). Together with Edut leYisrael (1946), all were reprinted in Kitvei haGri"a Henkin, vol. 1 (1981). In addition, Kitvei haGri"a Henkin, vol. 2 (1989) is a collection of his responsa and articles, edited by his son (my father) Avraham Hillel zt"l. (The volumes may or may not be available from Ezras Torah in NY. I have some of vol. 1 and a few more of vol. 2.)
[3] Not to be confused with the rosh yeshiva of the same name, but an otherwise reputable academic scholar.
[4] Avot 4:13.

]]> Censorship Encyclopeadia Judaica Yehuda Henkin Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/17/Rabbi-Yehuda-Henkin--Opposite-of-Plagiarism Prof. Marc B. Shapiro response to Rabbi Chaim Rapoport http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/13/Prof-Marc-B-Shapiro-response-to-Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport
In response to Rabbi Chaim Rapoport's recent response to Prof. Marc B. Shapiro's response to Rabbi Zev Leff (see original review), Prof. Marc B. Shapiro has shared with the Seforim blog his original response to Rabbi Chaim Rapoport from several years ago.
ועש"ק פרשת בא תשס"ד

לכבוד ידידי אהובי הרה"ג החסיד המפואר, איש חמודות ונדיב לב, אוצר בלום לתורה ולחכמה, מוה"ר חיים ראפפורט שליט"א, אב"ד דק"ק אילפורד יע"א
אחדשה"ט באהבה נאמנה

תחילה אני מודה למע"כ על טירחתו לכתוב לי ולהעיר על דבריי הפעוטים . . . וכעת אבא לעיקר הנידן במכתבו, וטרם אתייחס לטענתו במישרין, הנני מצהיר שדבריי בזה הם כיהודה ועוד לקרא, שהרי רבנו הגר"א, אשר כל רז לא אניס ליה, כתב בפירוש שהרמב"ם מכחיש את הקמיעות והשמות, ואנן מה נענה אבתריה. וכל הנידון אינו אלא האם אפשר למצוא את זה במפורש בדברי הרמב"ם. ויאמין לי ידידי, כי אני זהיר מאד בכל לשונותי, ולפני שאני כותב דבר בשם הנשר הגדול יושב אני שבעה נקיים, ורק אח"כ הנני מעלה את הדיו על הנייר. וכמובן, מוכן אני להודות שטעיתי, כי אין אדם תחת השמש שיכול לומר שלא שגה, ולא אפונה כי יש בספרי דברים הצריכים תיקון, ושגיאות מי יבין, כל קבל דנא מחזיקנא טיבותא לך אם יעמידני על האמת, ואת הצריך תיקון אשוב ואתקן, אבל בנידון דידן, אינני חושב שטעיתי.

כתב האג"מ שהרמב"ם מודה שאיכא שמירה בשמות מלאכים ושמות קדושים ופסוקים, ובפירושו לסוטה ז, ד כתב הרמב"ם נגד אלה הטפשים שכותבים קמיעות ושמים בתוכם שמות קדושים ושמותיהם של מלאכים. זה פירושו של קמיע. וכשהאג"מ כותב "שמות קדושים" כוונתו לאלו השמות שנזכרים ע"י גדולי אשכנז, ולפי דעת הרמב"ם הכל הבל ואלו הכותבים קמיעות טפשים הם כי בדו מלבם כל השמות הללו, שמות ה' ושמות מלאכים, ורבים הם וא"א לפורטן. ובספרי כתבתי שהרמב"ם שלל את כחם של שמות המלאכים ושמות קדושים (או "קדושים") ואכן בפיהמ"ש ובמו"נ ברור מללו, וראה גם בפירושו של הרב קאפח להלכות מזוזה פרק ה אות יד.

נכון, כמו שכתב כת"ר, שהרמב"ם אינו שולל בפירוש את סגולת השמירה של שם המפורש או א' משמות ה' הנמצאים בתורה. אולם. כל מי שמכיר את דרכו של הרמב"ם יודע שמושג זה ממנו והלאה, וע"כ במבט לשעבר הנני מודה שכדאי היה לי להאריך קצת ולכתוב שאע"פ שהרמב"ם אינו שולל בפירוש את כח השמירה של שם המפורש, בכ"ז לפי הפילוסופיה שלו והשקפת עולמו אין מקום לרעיונות כאלו, כמו שהבין הגר"א ובעל שומר אמונים (א, יג) וכל אלו שהעמיקו בדברי הרמב"ם בלי יוצא מן הכלל, וע"כ תמהתי על האג"מ.

והנני בזה ידידו מוקירו דושה"ט באהבה, מודה ומכיר טובה על ענותנותו וטוב לבו לעיין ולהעיר בדברי.

מלך שפירא

]]> Chaim Rapoport Marc B. Shapiro Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/13/Prof-Marc-B-Shapiro-response-to-Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport Rabbi Chaim Rapoport on Prof. Marc B. Shapiro and Rabbi Zev Leff http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/12/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport-on-Prof-Marc-B-Shapiro-and-Rabbi-Zev-Leff
In response to Prof. Marc B. Shapiro's recent response to Rabbi Zev Leff (see original review), Rabbi Chaim Rapoport has submitted the following letter exclusively posted at the Seforim blog.
בס"ד. שלהי חודש תמוז ה'תשס"ז
לכבוד הרבנים מנהלי 'בלוג הספרים', וכל העוסקים במלחמתה של תורה לשם שמים, ה' עליהם יחיו ויחיינו מיומים

בקשר להמחלוקת שפרצה מחדש בין המשפתים, בענין שיטת הרמב"ם ע"ד פעולת השמות הקדושים והטהורים, אף שאינני רוצה להכניס ראשי בין הרים גדולים[1], אבל הנני בזה כמעיר ובא לפני חכמים, להביא לכללות שיטת פרופ. שפירא סמוכין, מדברי הגאון יעב"ץ בספרו 'לחם שמים'.
בפירושו 'לחם שמים' עמ"ס סוטה פרק שביעי כתב היעב"ץ על דברי הרמב"ם בפיהמ"ש שם משנה ד[2] בזה"ל: "לכאורה יראה מלשונו זה, שהי' [הרמב"ם] מהביל כתיבת קמיעות לגמרי, ואם כן נגע ח"ו בכבוד חכמי התלמוד. ועיין מה שכתבתי ב'עקיצת עקרב', משם תראה קצת התנצלות על מה שכתב גם בספר מורה נבוכים מענין זה כדומה לזה. אך מה שהפריז על המדה בענין באור שם המפורש, עם שהאמת אתו בזה שכן קורין חז"ל לשם הוי"ה ב"ה, אבל ניקודו ודאי צריך למסורת עכ"פ כמו שנראה בבירור בכמה מקומות בתלמוד, ביחוד ביומא ובפ"ד דקידושין וזולת. דוק ותשכח . . . וכמדומה שהי' חושב גם כן משתגע למי שעוסק בידיעת צרופי שמות וכן שם בן ע"ב וכ"ב (והמה מוזכרים בתלמוד שהפליגו חז"ל בשבח היודעם וזהיר בהם) והדומים הידועים ומקובלים ליחידי סגולה, והנם אצלו נחשבים מהבילים ומשוגעים חלילה. אבל מחשבה כזאת היא חסרון ידיעה מסתרי תורה ודאי והעדר קבלה שלא זכה אלי', היא שגרמה לו לשום במלאכי ה' תהלה, שרי לי' מרי' וימציא לו מחילה. ופעולת השמות אמנם מפורש במקרא [3] מאז בעלי המגדל ידעו מזה כמ"ש (פ' נח יא, ד) 'ונעשה לנו שם' (אלא שרצו להשתמש בו לפנייה חיצונית, לכן לא עלתה בידם, ע"י בלבול שפתם נתבטלה, לולי זאת היתה מחשבתם מתקיימת, כי חכמים גדולים היו כמ"ש בס"ה) בסוד 'ויעש דוד שם' (שמואל-ב ח, יג), המ"י [=המשכיל יבין]". עכ"ל היעב"ץ.
מלשון היעב"ץ וסגנונו נראה בעליל, שהרמב"ם לא האמין בכח השמות וביטלו כליל, וזאת בגלל שהי' לו חסרון מסורה, העדר הידיעה בחכמת האמת וסודות התורה.
[על דבר "העדר הקבלה" של הרמב"ם - ראה גם מ"ש היעב"ץ בספרו 'מטפחת ספרים' פי"ד המדבר "במעשיו הגדולים של הר"מ ז"ל ומדותיו האלקיות, כן הודיע גם בספר צדה לדרך בהקדמתו. גם האר"י ז"ל גלה עמוקות בסוד אחיזת נשמתו כי גבהה מאד, יעוין ספר הגלגולים. לכן חובה ודאי להפך בזכותו, ולא לתלות בי' בוקי סריקי דספר מורה נבוכים[4], כי אמנם זולת זה כל חבוריו בתורה ובאמונה, ממנו יתד ממנו פנה. כולם נכונים למבין וישרים ליודעי בינה. חוץ איזה פרטים ומעטים, שלא יפלא אם שגה בהם מחסרון קבלה[5], ושכל אנושי עלול לחטוא, גם מבחר מין האנושי טעה איזה פעמים, לכן לא יחסר ממעלתו דבר. בפרט דרחמנא לבא בעי, וכל כוונתו ז"ל היתה לטובה, וכל מגמתו לחזק מוסדי הדת"].

בכבוד ובברכה לכל העוסקים בפרפראות לחכמה, יישר חילכם לאורייתא – הן הן גופי תורה, עלי ה'בלוג' לא יבולו, ותורה יבקשו מפיהו
הרב חיים רפופורט
לונדון, אנגלי'.

נ. ב. לתועלת הרבים הנני בזה להעתיק קטע ממכתבי ששלחתי בשעתו לפרופ. שפירא כצורתו וכצלמו:
ב"ה. ג' שבט ה'תשס"ד
שלום לרחוק בגשם וקרוב ברוח,
ידידי ורעי, ברכה על ראשו תנוח,
חוקר חריף ובקי, משנתו קב ונקי,
מפענח צפונות ופותר תעלומות,
קנה לו חבר, עט סופר מהיר,
הרב דר. מלך שפירא שליט"א
. . . ספרך על קצה הגבול של התיאלוגיה (האורטדוקסית), בו הבקיאות והחריפות משמשים בעירבוביא, קנה שביתה על שולחני, באמת - אוצר בלום של תורה ומחקר מדעי. וכבר הודעתי לחברים מקשיבים לעצתי, שעליהם לקנות את הספר היסודי, - גם זקנים שכבר קנו חכמה, גם מתחילים שיודעים לדבר בדברי תורה. ובעז"ה אם ירשה הזמן אכתוב דברי סקירה וביקורת כפי מסת ידי, אבל עכשיו באתי לפרש שיחתי, לבאר ביתר פירוט את שאלתי. ובהקדם:
בשו"ת אגרות משה (יו"ד ח"ב סימן קמא, ענף ג, עמוד רלט) כתב לאמר "שגם הרמב"ם מודה שאיכא שמירה בשמות מלאכים ושמות קדושים ופסוקים, ולכן פשוט שגם פרשיות דמזוזה לא גריעי משאר פסוקים ושמות ששייך לכותבם בקמיע לשמירה, ורק מה שסוברין שהנחת המזוזה בפתח הבית היא לשמירה גשמית דהנאת עצמן הוא בטול המצוה, ולכן שלא במקום המצוה אף ששם נכתבו לשמירה דקמיע אין בזה גרעון וחסרון לכתיבת הפרשיות והנחתן בפתח הבית למצוה, כדחזינן דפסוקים ושמות הם דברים שיש בהן ענין שמירה אף להרמב"ם ממה שכותבין בצד השני, שא"כ יש להבין מזה שגם הפרשיות יש בהו ענין שמירה אף שלא מצד המצוה, ומ"מ מודה הרמב"ם שאין בזה בטול וגריעותא להמצוה דאף דאיכא בה גם שמירה עכ"פ הוא מניחן בפתח למצוה ולא לקמיע, א"כ גם כשכותב אחד את הפרשיות לקמיע מה בכך הא כן הוא האמת שאיכא בהו ענין שמירה. ולכן אין למילף שהרמב"ם יאסור שם לכתוב פסוקי הפרשיות לקמיע כשמניחים במקום שלא שייך ענין מצות מזוזה, דאין ראי' שסובר דאסור להאמין שכתיבת פסוקים ושמות יועילו לשמירה בכלל ואף לא שפסוקי הפרשיות יועילו, היפוך מה שמפורש בגמרא בשבת דף סא שהיו כותבין קמיעין מענינות הרבה ויש בהן משום קדושה ואיפסק כן ברמב"ם פ"י מס"ת ה"ה [הקמיעין שיש בהם ענינים של כתבי הקודש אין נכנסין בהן לבית הכסא אלא אם כן היו מחופות עור], וגם בכאן אינו כותב שהן טפשין שמאמינים בדבר שאין להאמין, אלא כתב שהן טפשין במה שמבטלין המצוה שעושין מצוה גדולה שהיא יחוד השם כאילו הוא קמיע שזהו הטפשות וגם איסור גדול לדעתו".

ובספרך אשר כתבת (עמוד 157 בשולי הגליון) ציינת, לדברי האג"מ הנ"ל כ"דוגמא מדהימה", לאי-ידיעתו של הגרמ"פ זצ"ל בספרי החקירה, של הנשר הגדול בעל משנה תורה. כתבת שהרמב"ם שולל בפירוש את כוחן של השמות הקדושים, לשמור מפגעים רעים ושאר מרעין בישין. (1) בפיהמ"ש סוטה פ"ז מ"ב ו(2)במו"נ ח"א פס"א.
והנה, כפי שכבר אמרתי: לית דין צריך בושש, שאם באנו להביא ראיות ואותות, לאשר דברנו ולקבעם במסמרות, מוכרחים אנו לתוקף של יתד בל תמוט. אמת נכון הדבר, שלפי השקפת עולמו ה'רציונליסטית' של הרב המורה, קשה למצוא 'מקום' בהגיון, לפעולה על-טבעית של שמות העליון. גם מצינו בספריו דברי ביקורת חריפים, דברים כדרבונות כחיצים יורים, כנגד בעלי הקמיעות למיניהם, ביד החזקה הל' מזוזה ובספריו הנ"ל שציינת אליהם.
אבל הנידון עלי' עמדתי היתה, האם שלל הרמב"ם בפירוש את השיטה, המייחסת כח שמירה נסי לשמות ופסוקים, וע"ז טענתי שבמקומות שהזכרת אין הדברים מפורשים. ניתי ספר ונחזי:
בפיהמ"ש שם קאי על מה ששנינו בסוטה, "במקדש אומרים את השם ככתבו", וע"ז כתב: "וכתבו [=השם ככתבו] הוא מה שנהגה מן יוד הא ואו הא, וזהו שם המפורש המרומם, דע זה, ואל תטריד את מחשבתך במה שהוזים כותבי הקמיעות וטפשי בני אדם". וכוונתו במ"ש ["ואל תטריד את מחשבתך וכו'"] פשוטה, דכנגד הטפשים דיבר המורה, כלפי שאמרו בעלי הקמיעות, שהשם המפורש מרובה באותיות. לפי דבריהם שם בן ד' קדושתו פחותה, משמות המרובים באותיות שחיברו לשמירה, "השם ככתבו" הינו שם ארוך בכמות, ולא שם הוי' שאין בו אלא ארבע אותיות. וע"ז כתב הרמב"ם – להד"ם, אל תשגיחו בדברים חסירי טעם, את שם המפורש המירו הטפשים, בשמות שבדו להם הוזים בכוכבים. גם הרמב"ם מודה שישנן שמות קדושים לבורא, וכמ"ש בהלכות יסודי התורה; "השם ככתבו" דהיינו שם בן ארבע המורה על עצמו, בנוסף לשאר שמות ותוארים המורים על פעלו, שבעה שמות הם הקדושים במעלה, ושם המפורש העולה על כולנה.
איפה מצאת בדברי הרמב"ם בפירוש המשנה, ביטול דעת האומרים שהשמות האמיתיים כחן יפה, לשמור את האדם בשמירה מעולה, הלא מזה לא דיבר הרמב"ם מאומה?!
שמא תאמר הלא קרא לכותבי הקמיעות "טפשים", ועל כרחך שלל מכל וכל את ערכן של הקמיעות והמחברים, לזה אני אומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, וכבר אמרו דברי תורה עניים במקום זה ועשירים במקום אחר. הלא עוד יצא כברק חצו במורה הנבוכים, לתקן הדיעות וליישר המעקשים, לא חס על הקמיעות וה'מכשפים', הטועים ומתעים את העם בדברים מסולפים. שם (פס"א) נטה ידו לבאר החילוק בין שאר שמותיו שהם "שמות הנגזרים מן הפעולות . . . שהם כולם שמות הונחו לפי הפעולות הנמצאות בעולם" לשם המפורש המתייחס להבורא עצמו, "לא יהיה לו שם נגזר בשום פנים, אבל שם אחד מיוחד להורות על עצמו, ואין אצלנו שם בלתי נגזר אלא זה והוא יו"ד ה"א וא"ו ה"א אשר הוא שם המפורש גמור, לא תחשוב זולת זה". ובהמשך לזה כתב: "ולא יעלה במחשבתך שגעון כותבי הקמיעות, ומה שתשמעהו מהם או תמצאהו בספריהם המשונים, ומשמות חברום, לא יורו על ענין בשום פנים, ויקראו אותן שמות, ויחשבו שהם צריכים קדושה וטהרה, ושהם יעשו נפלאות, כל אלה הדברים לא יאות לאדם שלם לשמעם, כל שכן שיאמינם, ואינו נקרא שם המפורש כלל זולת זה השם בן ארבע אותיות הנכתב אשר לא יקרא כפי אותיותיו". עוד מתח עליהם את שבט הביקורת בסוף פרק סב: "וכאשר מצאו האנשים הרעים הפתאים אלו הדברים התרחב להם הכזב, והמאמר שיקבצו אי זה אותיות שירצו ויאמר שזה הוא שם יעשה ויפעל כשיכתב או כשיאמר על תאר כך, ואחר כך נכתבו הכזבים ההם אשר בדאום הפתאים הראשונים, ונעתקו הספרים ההם לידי הטובים רכי הלב הסכלים אשר אין אצלם מאזנים ידעו בהם האמת מן השקר, והסתירום ונמצאו בעזבונותם ונחשב בהם שהם אמת".

שתים רעות עשו אלו, בעלי הקמיעות - במעלם אשר מעלו, על כן בצדק קרא להם הרמב"ם טפשים, גם לפי דעת האג"מ שאינו חולק על כחן של השמות הקדושים. (א) בדו להם שמות אשר "לא יורו על ענין בשום פנים", והטעו את "רכי הלב הסכלים אשר אין אצלם מאזנים", (ב) את השם המפורש המירו ברעתם, באותיות פורחות באוויר לעומתם.
ועוד בה שלישיה, מ"ש הרמב"ם בהלכות מזוזה, שהכותב שמות בפנים המזוזה עבודתו פסולה, ואם קבעה בדלת ביטל את המצוה. ואת רובע עשו האוילים, מוכרי הקמיעות והאלילים, במקום מצוות לאו ליהנות, החליפו ועשו ונתנו 'סגולות'.
מקום הניח להגרמ"פ לבא ולטעון, שהרמב"ם לא חלק על הנסיון, וכפי שהעיד לנו בעצמו, בהלכות שבת אשר כתב ידו בחיבורו: "יוצאין בקמיע מומחה, ואי זה הוא קמיע מומחה זה שריפא לשלשה בני אדם או שעשהו אדם שריפא שלשה בני אדם בקמיעין אחרים, ואם יצא בקמיע שאינו מומחה פטור, מפני שהוציאו דרך מלבוש" (הלכות שבת פי"ט הי"ד).
הלא הוא הדבר אשר דברתי בתחלה, שאני הקטן לא מצאתי להדיא, בפירוש המשנה או במורה, ביד החזקה – משנה תורה, שלילת הדברים שכתב הגאון רבי משה. כולי עלמא מודים, ששמות בדויים אינם עוזרים, פיסול המזוזה ה"ה עון פלילי, הלא הגמרא (שבת לב, ב) אומרת שע"י ביטול מזוזה ימות ערירי.
הרואה באג"ם יווכח לדעת, שלא הצדיק ר' משה את כותבי הקמיעות, במעלם אשר מעלו להמיר ולהחליף, ולעשות ככל העולה על דעתם הכוזב. אלו השמות לא יועילו, ואת כח השמירה לא יכילו, לא דיבר הגרמ"פ אלא מפסוקים הכתובים בתורה, ומשמות שנכתבו בקדושה ובטהרה.

בוודאי לא יקפיד כת"ר על המעורר, הלא כך הוא הדרך – זה בונה וזה סותר, נא אל תשיבני ריקם מלפניך, תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך ממך.
אסיים מעין הפתיחה, בכבוד ובברכה לכת"ר ולכל המשפחה, המקום ירחם עליהם ועל כל הנמצאים מאמיתת המצאו, ברוך עדי עד שם תהלתו
ידידו דושה"ט בלונ"ח תכה"י
חיים רפופורט.
Notes:
[1]
ה"ה הרה"ג ר' זאב לעפ שליט"א ממושב מתתיהו באה"ק תובב"א והרב פרופ. מלך שפירא שליט"א מארה"ב יצ"ו.
[2]
וזה לשונו שם (לפי מהדורת קאפח): ". . . ואל תטריד את מחשבתך במה שהוזים כותבי הקמיעות וטפשי בני אדם".
[3]
ראה גם מ"ש היעב"ץ – ע"ד פעולת השמות - בספרו 'בירת מגדל עוז' חלק 'אוצר הטוב' אות יו"ד: ". . . ההוא יקרא מעשה בראשית כשיושג ענין היצירה בעצם ובסבותיו, באופן שיגיע האדם לתכליתו ויוכל להמציא ג"כ יצירה חדשה מעיקרה, כענין ר"ח ור"א דעסקי בס' יצירה ומיברי להו עיגלא, להורות יכות וחכמת הממציא העליון אשר חלק מחכמתו ליראיו, וגלה להם סודו לפרסם כח שמותיו הקדושים, ולידע שחולק לאוהביו מכבודו להשתמש בשרביטו שיתדמו לבוראם להוציא הוייות חדשות, ונתן כח בידם לברוא עולמות בכח צירוף השמות המתבאר בספר יצירה למי שיודעו, זוהי חכמת עצמת מעשה בראשית שהפליגו חז"ל בשבחה והעלימוה מאד, (כי אמנם עוונותינו הבדילו בינינו לבין אלקינו, וחטאתינו מנעו הטוב הגמור ממנו עד שאין אתנו יודע עד מה, ולא אחד בדור שראוי וכדאי להבין אותה חכמה), ועלי' צוו חכמים במשנה (חגיגה רפ"ב) 'אין דורשין במעשה בראשית בשנים', לא על ידיעת שמות חומר וצורה ולידע שכל הגופים השפלים מורכבים מארבע יסודות ארמ"ע ושחומר הגלגל הוא גשם חמישי בלתי מושג ומנין גלגלים המדומה שבזה נכללו שני פרקים גדולים מהלכות יסוד התורה באריכות גדול ואין בהם עומק כלל ורובן סברות קלות והשערות מבני אדם חכמי העכו"ם אשר חכמת מה להם, אינן מקנות שלמות לא באמונה ולא בשכל ולא אפילו חידוד".
[4]
השווה מ"ש על דבר הרמב"ם ב'אגרת בקורת' ו, רע"ב: "חלילה לתלות בוקי סריקי ברבן של ישראל [!] ולהעמיס בלשונו הצך מה שאין במשמעו ושלא עלה על דעתו ז"ל".
[5]
להעיר ממ"ש היעב"ץ בספרו 'בירת מגדל עוז' (הנ"ל הערה 3) על דברי הרמב"ם בהל' יסוה"ת פ"ג ע"ד הגלגלים, וז"ל היעב"ץ שם: "כל הגלגלים אינן לא קלים ולא כבדים כו', לא אוכל לדעת מניין לו דברים הללו, מי עלה שמים וירד ויגידה לנו גבהי שמים, מי ידע מה טבעם . . . אכן באמת הוא נטוי' מדעת התורה ששמה מים מעל לרקיע, ואין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, ואיני יודע מה בא הרב ללמדנו בכך, וכי כבוד הבורא תלוי בכך אם הגלגלים כבדים או קלים".
ועל דבר מי שמאמין בפירוש הרמב"ם להמושגים מעשה מרכבה ומעשה בראשית –פשוטו כמשמעו, כתב היעב"ץ בספר 'מטפחת ספרים': "תכלית הדברים, כל המעלה בדעתו שהבלי הפלוסופים הם מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה, הוא ודאי אפיקורוס. כופר לא לבד בדברי חכמים, כי גם בתורת משה, שריבוי השמות והכינויים, ופעולות הנראות גשמיות ומסורות יתרות וחסרות, ותיבות ולשונות זרות, ואותיות מלופפות ונזורות ונוספות, ונקודות ותגים ופרשיות, ומאמרים המתנכרים ומשקלות מורכבות והנקראים אצל בעלי הפשט זרים, הלא כל אלה צווחות ואומרות, דע כי לא דבר רק הוא, ואם הוא, מכם הוא. ואולם ודאי שחכמת הטבע תתכן להקרא מעשה בראשית ביחס אל מדרגת פשט המקרא. וכמו שלא יכול הפשטנים לתת טעם וסבה לזרים הנמצאים בו לרוב, וככה בטבע ימצאו זרים למהלך הטבעי, לא ידעו הטבעי, לא ידעו הטבעיים עלתם. אמנם חכמת הטבע של אנשי העולם, היא מלבוש הגס העב למעשה בראשית, שהוא הפרי הגנוז ועצם הענין במהותו, וחכמת מה היא הטבעית של פלוסופים, שעוסקים בקליפות החיצונות הנזרקות, שאינן למאכל ולא נחמדים להשכיל, כי אין להם השגה רק במקרים, ככל מעשה החושים החיצונים". ואכ"מ להאריך בכ"ז.


]]> Chaim Rapoport בעברית Marc B. Shapiro Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:56:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/12/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport-on-Prof-Marc-B-Shapiro-and-Rabbi-Zev-Leff Marc B. Shapiro -- Response to Rabbi Zev Leff http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/11/Marc-B-Shapiro--Response-to-Rabbi-Zev-Leff
Response to Rabbi Zev Leff
by Marc B. Shapiro

Rabbi Zev Leff (of Moshav Matityahu) reviewed my book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised, in the most recent issue of Jewish Action [see review]. I don’t feel that he gave the readers a correct sense of what the book is about. To rectify that, I can only ask people to read for themselves and determine if his portrayal is accurate. For now, I would like to challenge him on the specific points he makes.

1. He writes “The Chatam Sofer in his responsa (Yoreh Deah 356) cites a source even older than Rambam who refers to Thirteen Principles of Faith.” As I noted in the book (p. 36 n. 176) the Hatam Sofer was mistaken about this. The source he refers to was actually composed by R. Yom Tov Lipmann Muelhausen (14th-15th cent.) and has recently been published. (I also point out that in another responsum, Even ha-Ezer II, no. 148, Hatam Sofer himself realizes that the source we are talking about has nothing to do with the Thirteen Principles which, he acknowledges, originate with Rambam.) The fact that R. Leff could include such a sentence, even though I showed it to be incorrect, leaves me with some doubts as to how closely he read my book.

2. He writes: “Today the [Thirteen] Principles are universally accepted.” I do not believe this to be the case, and whenever I hear prayers or selihot directed towards angels (a violation of the fifth principle), I am reassured of the correctness of my belief. If one is simply using the Thirteen Principles as a loose term to define traditional Jewish belief, then yes, R. Leff is correct. The purpose of my book was to show that, despite the widespread acceptance, there has nevertheless been a great deal of dispute regarding the Principles throughout Jewish history.

3. He writes: “One who denies any of them is outside the pale of the faith community of Torah Judaism.” Yet this sentence is followed by another sentence which contradicts it: “The Sages [1] do not agree whether to deem one a heretic for harboring this belief.” Which is it? Is one who believes in a corporeal God a heretic or simply an ignorant person who must be enlightened? As I discuss in my book, our sages have disputed this very point, with no less a figure than R. Arele Roth rejecting the Rambam’s view that such a belief turns a person into a heretic.

4. R. Leff then says that I misunderstand “so many Torah sources.” The first one he refers to Rashbam to Numbers 22:1. I referred to Rashbam as an example of one who believed that certain small parts of the Torah are post-Mosaic. Rabbi Leff writes that Rashbam “does not even intimate when this section was written. Rather, Rashbam simply explains that ‘beyond the Jordan’ was written to reflect what would be in the future.” Here are Rashbam’s exact words, as found in Martin Lockshin’s translation:
“The phrase ‘across the Jordan’ is appropriately written after they [i.e. the Israelites] had crossed [to the west side of] the Jordan. From their point of view the plains of Moab [on the east side of the Jordan] are called ‘across the Jordan’”

I assume that R. Leff’s understanding of Rashbam is based on David Rosin’s text (or one of the other editions or CD-Roms that use this text). Rosin’s edition removes anything radical from Rashbam. But as Lockshin has written, Rosin’s “reading is based on a conjectural emendation... I am convinced that Rosin’s emendation is based on his desire to make Rashbam’s comment here seem less heterodox.”

In my book, I also noted that according to a medieval Tosafist collection of Torah commentaries, Rashbam also identified Gen. 36:31-39 as post-Mosaic; yet R. Leff does not mention this.

5. I quoted sources that indicate that the notion of tikkun soferim is to be taken literally. Among these sources are Midrash Tanhuma and Yalkut ha-Makhiri (as well as the Arukh and a number of other texts which R. Leff does not mention, leaving the reader with the wrong impression).

He writes: “What Dr. Shapiro fails to mention is that those portions of the Tanchuma and Yalkut are not found in most early editions.” Let’s assume that this is correct (although to prove this one would need to actually examine the manuscripts, not simply refer to two apologetic comments found in the standard rabbinic commentary to Tanhuma). This would make perfect sense, as later copyists would be inclined to leave out that which they regarded as controversial or even heretical. What then does this prove?

Furthermore, the sources R. Leff mentions are only referring to Tanhuma. Neither of them mention anything about Yalkut ha-Makhiri. Of course, I am sure that he will also assert that this text is a forgery, or was written by a “mistaken student,” and will do the same with any other text that presents an alternate understanding of tikkun soferim.

6. The next section of his review concerns how to understand a passage in R. Nissim and the Midrash. In presenting this, I wrote that it was hard to see how the approach of these sources can be brought into line with Rambam’s understanding of revelation of the entire 5 books of Moses. Nothing that R. Leff writes has changed my mind in this respect. The reader should note, however, that before discussing this I stated that these views “seem to contradict Maimonides’ Principle” (emphasis added). I was well aware that the matter was not completely certain, for exactly the reasons that Rabbi Leff sets out.

7. R. Leff completely misunderstands my view about Principles of Faith and halakhah, so let me try to clear it up. I have said, and I repeat now, that no rishonim that I am aware of, and certainly not Rambam, believed that Principles of Faith can be decided in a halakhic fashion. Hatam Sofer says that they can. According to the Hatam Sofer, Principles of Faith can change in accordance with the halakhic decisions of the times; what used to be an obligatory belief can cease being so, and what is now an obligatory belief need not have been so in the past.

Yet nothing could be more at odds with the Rambam’s understanding. According to the Rambam, Principles of Faith are eternal truths. They define the essence of what Judaism was, is, and forever will be. If the majority of poskim determine that God has a body, this will not change the fact that it is still a basic principle of the Jewish faith to assert the opposite. For the Rambam, Principles of Faith don’t depend on the majority, be they right or wrong, for they are part of the essence of Torah. Principles of Faith have not, and indeed can never, change. Unlike the Hatam Sofer's pan-halakhic approach, in the Rambam’s conception, one doesn’t need a halakhic decision for the Principles to be binding. As Menachem Kellner has put it, “Dogmas, it must be recalled, are beliefs taught as true by the Torah; is the truth taught by the Torah historically conditioned?”[2]

We can see that the rishonim held this view by how they dispute with the Rambam. When they want to show that one of his Principles is mistaken, they cite a talmudic passage to show that one of the tannaim or amoraim disagreed with him. Thus, to give an example which I only saw after my book was completed, R. Isaiah ben Elijah of Trani’s proof that belief in God’s incorporeality is not a Principle, denial of which is heresy, is that there were sages of the Talmud who held this belief![3]
אבל אם יחשוב אדם שהקדוש ברוך הוא בעל תמונה, לא הקפידה תורה בכך, וכמה היו מחכמי התלמוד הקדושים, שמהם תצא תורה לישראל, שלא נתנו לבם להתבונן בענין האלהות, אלא הבינו המקראות כפשוטם, ולפי תומם חשבו כי הקדוש ברוך הוא בעל גוף והתמונה, וחלילה שנקראו מינים לאשר נאמר עליהם לקדושים אשר בארץ המה

R. Isaiah doesn’t assume, or even raise as a possibility, that it used to be permitted to believe this, but now, since the halakhah has been decided, it is forbidden. On the contrary, he asserts, based on the fact that some talmudic sages believed in a physical God and they are not, Heaven forbid, to be regarded as heretics, that God’s incorporeality cannot be a Principle. This, to him, is the greatest proof that the Rambam is wrong in declaring that all who deny his third Principle are heretics. In other words, R. Isaiah also believes that for something to be a Principle of Faith, it has to be eternally true.

Thus, R. Leff is incorrect (with regard to the Rambam and other rishonim) when he writes that “faith and belief are mitzvot like all other mitzvot. Hence, the halakhic decision-making process applies to matters of faith in the way it does to other mitzvot.” In my book I acknowledge that this was the Hatam Sofer’s opinion, but it was not the Rambam’s view. In fact, the Rambam could not be more opposed to Rabbi Leff’s statement, as it means that his own Principles of Faith can be “voted out.” I can only wonder, after explaining my position, why Rabbi Leff sees this as “yet another example of Dr. Shapiro’s misunderstanding of Torah sources.”

Incidentally, R. Leff quotes from my book (p. 142 n. 15) that R. Abraham Isaac Kook also held the Hatam Sofer’s opinion. But in that note, I also call attention to other sources from R. Kook that have a different approach. Why does Rabbi Leff ignore them?

6. Finally, R. Leff claims that I “make a brazen attack on Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.” I am not sure why a valid criticism of R. Moshe qualifies as a brazen attack, but let’s move onto substance. (Anyone who has heard my lectures on R. Moshe at TorahInMotion.org, can have no doubt as to my great esteem for him.)

R. Moshe stated that the Rambam believed in the protective power of holy names and the names of angels, as used in amulets. R. Leff, in his criticism of me, states that in Hilkhot Mezuzah 5:4 “Rambam rules that God’s name ‘Shakai’ should be placed on the outside of the mezuzah, indicating his belief that the Shem does have protective powers.”

Yet the Rambam never says that the name of God “should be placed” there; rather, he permits people, in accordance with the widespread custom, to do so if they want to, as this action has no relevance to the mitzvah per se and does not violate any halakhic prohibition. But to say, as R. Leff does, that the Rambam believes that a name of God can protect you (and R. Moshe even says this about names of angels) is a complete perversion of Rambam’s philosophy. Relevant in this regard are R. Kafih’s short remarks in his commentary to Mezuzah 5:4, which could also be seen as a reply to R. Leff.
והדברים תמוהים מי זוטר תפקידה של המזוזה דתנטריה לבעל הבית בצאתו לרה"ר מלשגות בהרהורים, מי זוטר מה שמזכירה לאדם בצאתו למרחב את יחוד ה' ואהבתו ולא יבוא לידי חטא אפילו במחשבה

In his commentary to Mezuzah 6:13 he writes:
ואין כוונת חז"ל לדעת רבנו שהמזוזה מהנה בעניני העולם הזה, אלא שבזהירות במזוזה ישווה ה' לנגדו תמיד, ובכך תהיה השגחת ה' עליו גדולה

Two hundred years ago, the great R. Wolf Boskowitz wrote:[4]
אלא ודאי מוכח מזה דרבינו ז"ל סובר דמצות מזוזה אין בו תועלת השמירה כלל בטבעה ובסגולתה, רק כי היא כמו אחת מכל מצוות ה' אשר צוה אשר אין בהם תועלת לעניני עולם הזה רק לעשות רצון קונו יתברך אשר צוה על כך וקבלת פרס בעולם הבא, שתי אלה הם תכלית כל המצוות, ותכלית תכליתן היא קרבת אלקים כי זה חפצו יתברך וזה הוא גם כן תכלית מצות המזוזה ואפס זולתו

In his Commentary to Sotah 7:4, the Rambam speaks strongly against those who write amulets. These people put various holy names and names of angels in the amulets. In fact, this is the definition of a Jewish amulet. When R. Moshe speaks of holy names he is referring to the names of God that are mentioned in medieval works (such as כוזו במוכסז כוזו ). Yet according to the Rambam, this is all nonsense.

The Vilna Gaon recognized this.[5] Although he notes that the Talmud has stories of special powers associated with holy names, he also states that according to the Rambam .הכל הוא שקר R. Joseph Ergas wrote:[6]
הרמב"ם ז"ל, כיחש בזה, ולגלג הרבה על המאמין שיש כח בשמות לעשות שום פעולה
In my book, I assumed that R. Moshe’s position could be explained by the fact that he, like so many other poskim, did not immerse himself in philosophy. The fact that R. Leff could also assert this leaves me speechless. What is at issue is not the meaning of a citation of the Rambam from here or there, but a proper understanding of his entire philosophical worldview.

Sources:
[1] According to the scholarly convention, the word “sages” is only capitalized when referring to the Sages of the Talmud.
[2] See his review of my book ("Returning the Crown to its Ancient Glory: Marc Shapiro's The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised") in The Edah Journal 4:1 (2004): 6.
[3] Sanhedrei Gedolah le-Masekhet Sanhedrin (Jerusalem, 1972), volume 5, section 2, p. 118. On the previous page, in direct contradiction to Rambam, he writes:
מי שיטעה בכך ולא ירד לעמקו של דבר, ומבין המקראות כפשוטן וסבור שהקדוש ברוך הוא בעל תמונה, לא נקרא מין, שאם כן הוא הדבר, איך לא פרסמה תורה על דבר זה ולא גילו חכמי התלמוד להודיע דבר זה בגלוי, ולהזהיר נשים ועמי הארץ שלא יהוא מינים ויאבדו עולמן. הלא כמה איסורים קלים כגון איסור מוקצה וכיוצא בו, חיברו חכמים כמה הלכות והרבו כמה דקדוקין להעמיד כל דבר על מכונו, ועל דבר זה שכל האמונה תלויה בו ויש בו כרת בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא, איך לא הורו חכמים על דבר זה בגלוי. אלא ודאי לא הקפידו לכך, אלא יאמין אדם [את] הייחוד כפי שכלו, ואפילו הנשים כפי מיעוט שכלן . . . שלא צותה תורה להורות על אלה הדברים
[4] Seder Mishneh, ad loc. (p. 197).
[5] See Beur ha-Gra, Yoreh Deah 179:13.
[6] Shomer Emunim 1:13.

]]> Book Reviews Marc B. Shapiro Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/11/Marc-B-Shapiro--Response-to-Rabbi-Zev-Leff Critique of the Oz VeHadar Edition of the Arukh HaShulhan http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/10/Critique-of-the-Oz-VeHadar-Edition-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan
In some of the recent posts we have discussed various new publications of Rabbi Yehiel Mihel Epstein, author of Arukh HaShulhan.

Recently, Makhon Oz VeHadar reprinted the Arukh HaShulhan, and that reprint has been the subject of some harsh criticisms. The critique points to two major problems. First, this edition includes the Piskei Mishnah Berurah which, in the reviewer's mind, unconscionable. His reasoning is as the Arukh HaShulhan is a "piskei" work in its own right, there is no need to include the work of someone else as it undermines the force of the Arukh HaShulhan's pesak.

Second, the review highights the biography which is included in the introduction. The reviewer demonstrates that much of this biography comes from two sources, R. Meir Bar-Ilan's MiVolohzhin l'Yerushalim and R. Maimon's Sa'are haMeah, neither of which are ever mentioned. R. Lior posits the reason for this exclusion is both of these works are "Zionist" works and thus can not even be cited by some.

Of course, this would not be the first time Oz VeHadar is guilty of such viewpoint censorship. As pointed out previously, another recent Oz VeHadar edition has similar flaws.

You can read the entire article here.

]]> Censorship Book Reviews Arukh HaShulhan Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:20:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/10/Critique-of-the-Oz-VeHadar-Edition-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/10/god-or-God-A-Review-of-Two-Works-on-the-Names-of-God
god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God
Eliezer Brodt

Last week I picked up a new sefer titled Nekadesh es Shimcha. What caught my attention was that it included not only Nekadesh es Shimcha but also the work Meleches haKodesh from R. Eleazar Fleckeles (most well-known for his Teshuva m'Ahava). What follows is a short biography of R. Fleckes, a review of Meleches haKodesh, and a review of the new sefer - Nekadesh es Shimcha.

R. Eleazar Fleckeles was born in 1754 in Prague. He was a direct descendant of R. Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Keli Yakar, whom R. Fleckeles quotes many times throughout his writings. When R. Fleckeles was 14, he went to study with R. Ezekiel Landau and spent ten years studying there. R. Landau, as is evident from his haskamot to R. Fleckeles works, held R. Fleckeles in high regard. Additionally, many teshuvot in Noda b'Yehuda are penned to R. Fleckeles. In R. Fleckeles's writings, he quotes many interesting statements from R. Landau [for one example see here]. When R. Fleckeles was twenty-four, he became the Rabbi of Kojetin, a town in Moravia. After four years, however, R. Fleckeles returned to Prague to sit on R. Landau's Bet Din and serve as a head of a yeshiva.

R. Fleckeles authored many works, works covering halakha, derush, and a commentary on the Haggadah. R. Fleckeles was a skilled halakhist as is evident from his Teshuva m'Ahavah, but his fame also rests on his skills as a darshan. His derashot were published in a four volumes, Olat Chodesh. The fourth volume contains, R. Fleckeles series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank (this section has a seperate title, Ahavat Dovid). One of themes which run throughout his derashot is an emphasis on learning Shas and Poskim and not Kabbalah. Recently, Professor Marc B. Shapiro printed an interesting correspondence between R. Fleckeles and Karl Fischer, a government censor, about Nittel Nacht, which first appeared as "Torah Study on Christmas Eve," Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999): 350-55, and then as "A Letter of R. Eleazar Fleckeles Concerning Torah Study on Christmas Eve," Ohr Yisrael 30 (2002): 165-168. This was not the only correspondence between the two, as a well-known teshuva appears in Teshuva m'Ahavah in response to Fischer's question about Jew's taking oaths. Teshuvah m'Ahavah, vol. 1, no. 26.]. In 1826, R. Fleckeles died after serving for 43 years on the Prague Bet Din.

Amongst R. Fleckeles lesser known seforim is the Meleches ha'Kodesh. The book differentiates between the names of Hashem, which are kodesh and which are chol, using the Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash, three Targumim, and all the various m'farshim on the Chumash. The reason the differentiation is important is that every time a sofer writes a kodesh name of Hashem, he needs to makes sure it is l'Shem Kedushas HaShem. If the sofer does not do so, the Sefer Torah is invalid. Although there are many instances it is obvious when the name is kodesh, there are many times it is unclear. Over time, there have arguments amongst the various poskim what to do in the ambiguous situations. R. Fleckeles collected all the prior opinions and provides his own conclusion for these questionable Shems.

R. Fleckes begins each of his discussions by quoting an earlier work on the topic Meir Netiv by R. Yehuda Piza [this first appeared in the Chumash R. Piza published in Amsterdam in 1767, Ezras HaSofer - R. Piza will be the subject a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.] R. Fleckeles then provides additional sources not considered or quoted by R. Piza and then R. Fleckeles comes to his conclusion. In the process, R. Fleckeles demonstrates a tremendous breadth of knowledge in the works of Chazal, the Rishonim, and Achronim. What is extremely interesting about both of these works are the sources used to reach their conclusions. They use, amongst others, the Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and the Ralbag, these sources are not typically used to form a halachic conclusion. Even more noteworthy, are some of the sources R. Fleckeles uses, the Me'or Eynaim by R. Azariah di Rossi, as well as Mendelssohn's Biur (pp. 4, 52, and 88). R. Fleckeles also quotes R. Shlomo Dubnow a few times (pp. 92, 115). What is particularly striking about the quotes from Mendelssohn, is that R. Fleckeles, like R. Landau [although R. Landau's opinion is subject to some debate] was firmly against the Biur. (See Alexander Altman, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 486-88; Moshe Samet, Chadash Assur Min haTorah, pp. 76-7; Meir Hildesheimer, "Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth Century Rabbinical Literature," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (PAAJR) 55 (1988): 79-133, esp. p. 87 n. 23.)

The Meleches haKodesh is divided into two parts, the first, discussing the ambiguous verses, and the second, a through exposition of writing holy-names more generally. Throughout the book, while discussing the specific questions, he includes many of his own explanations of the pesukim. Additionally, he discusses many things of interest in halacha and aggadah not directly related to the main topic. Both of these factors make this an important work even for someone not involved in the topic of the usage of Hashem. [The second part is not reprinted in this new work.]

For instance, there is a discussion when did the author of Onkoles live. (pp. 4, 77). A discussion about the famous controversy of reciting Machnesei Rachamim. R. Fleckeles cites his teacher, R. Landau, that R. Landua when he said Neliah was careful not to pray to the angels. (p. 15). R. Fleckeles writes that tzadikim are greater than angels. (p. 42). Elsewhere he writes that even regular people are greater than angels. (pp. 104-5). At least twice he quotes Torah he thought of in his dreams. (pp. 14, 95). He records an interesting rule that wherever Chazal use "lamah" (למה) it is because they want to find out the reason for doing something that they do not know any reason for. This is in contrast to the usage of mipneh mah (מפני מה) which is used when there is a known reason but are not satisfied with that reason. (p. 110).

When it comes to the Zohar, R. Fleckeles uses interesting language. After quoting one statement from the Midrash of R. Shimon bar Yochi, he notes that there is a contradictory statement found in the Zohar, to which R. Fleckeles writes:
והיא נפלאת בעיני כפי המפורסם זה שלש מאות שנים חבור הספר הזוהר מהתנא האלקי רשב"י עליו השלום . . . יאמר נא יראי ה' אם זה הספר תולדות אדם גדול וקודש רשב"י הוא הוי ליה על פנים להזכיר דעתו בזה וצריך עיון רב ליישב על פי פשוט
ו
(pp. 5-6). Elsewhere he writes with regard to having special kavanot when saying the name of God "ומעולם לא עלה על הדעת קדושים הראשונים חכמים וסופרים לחשוב מחשבות וספירות כי בימיהם לא ידע מאומה, בלי מה מספירה." (p. 133).

In general, throughout R. Fleckeles writings, there are interesting statements about Kabbalah and the Zohar especially, in the above mentioned Ahavat Dovid. In the introduction to that work he quotes a letter from R. Naftai Hertz Wessley which says
כי שמעתי מפי הגאון המקובל הגדול שהי' ידוע הזוהר וכל ספרי האר"י ז"ל בעל פה הוא הרב ר' יהונתן אייבשיטץ זצ"ל שהיה אומר לשומעי דבריו בעיני הקבלה כשראה שהם מפקפקים בהם ואמר אם לא תאמינו אין בכך כלום כי אין אלו מעיקרי אמונתנו, וכן היה אומר לאלו המביאים הקדמות מדברי קבלה לישב איזה גמרא או מדרש לא חפצתי בזאת ומה חדוש על פי קבלה תוכל ליישב מה שתרצה אמור לי הפשט הברור על ידי נגלה ואז אודך וכל זה אמת עי"ש עוד

Aside from the content of the letter, it is noteworthy that R. Fleckeles quotes R. Wessley at all, as Wessley was one of the early leaders of the haskalah movement and close to Mendelssohn.

The book ends with eulogies and has a separate title, Kuntres Nefesh Dovid v'Nefesh Chayah. This section is comprised of eulogies R. Fleckeles said on his parents, and includes many wonderful explanations of derush on all kinds of topics.

All of this is included in the back of the new work, Nekadesh es Shimcha. This work also is on the topic of the names and status thereof, of God in the Torah. Its author, R. Yehuda Farakas, includes many haskmos including that of R. Elyashiv. The main purpose of this book is to update R. Fleckeles work with the many sources which were unavailable to R. Fleckeles. There are also discussions of pesukim R. Fleckeles did not discuss at all.

Again, R. Farkas uses many works which are not typically used in a halachic context, this includes recently published manuscripts. Amongst the more noteworthy are the Pirush R. Avrohom ben HaRambam, Radak, and Bechor Shor. The use of these runs counter to the well-known opinion of the Chazon Ish regarding newly published manuscripts. R. Farkas also uses many commentaries on the Targumim and Ibn Ezra not otherwise used by most. Throughout, he quotes the pesakim of R. Elyashiv.

In conclusion, this an impressive, encyclopedic work on the topic of God's name. This is helpful in understanding the meaning of various pesukim in the Chumash. It is noteworthy that the controversial quotes remained, such as that of Mendelsshon. It is possible R. Farkas was unaware the Nesivos Shalom is the title of Mendelssohn's Biur. The one criticism is R. Farkas's decision not to republish the second part of Meleches haKodesh which would have made this a complete one-volume compendium on this topic.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Tanakh Book Reviews Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/10/god-or-God-A-Review-of-Two-Works-on-the-Names-of-God Rabbi Michael J. Broyde on "The Missing Sections of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Search for the Complete Text" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/9/Rabbi-Michael-J-Broyde-on-The-Missing-Sections-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan-The-Search-for-the-Complete-Text

As a followup to the two recent posts at the Seforim blog -- see here ("The Other Works of R. Yehiel Mihel Epstein, Author of the Arukh HaShulhan") and here ("Printing of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Missing Line About Rabbi Epstein's Daughter"), we are proud to present Rabbi Michael J. Broyde's short post about the Arukh HaShulhan.

Three Missing Sections of the Arukh HaShulhan:
The Search for the Complete Text
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Anyone who regularly learns the Arukh HaShulhan knows that his restatement of the Shulhan Arukh is incomplete in three places, and perhaps in three different manners.

Firstly, he is missing some sections on mitzvot hateyulot ba'aretz. For example, Yoreh Deah 331 and 332 are missing and Rabbi Epstein explains himself that these matters are (1) not practiced nowadays, (2) complex and long and (3) not related to Yoreh Deah and thus he omits them from this section and places then in the Arukh HaShulhan Ha'atid.

Secondly, the Arukh HaShulhan is missing Yoreh Deah 223-282 which deals with setam yenam (gentile wine), idolatry, ribbit (usury) and magic. I have no explanation as to why these sections were left out, and I have no indication that they were actually written, either -- although it would surprise me that any writer on Yoreh Deah would leave these sections out. I have always assumed that they were awaiting publication, although I have no proof as to such.

Thirdly, the Arukh HaShulhan is missing all of hilkhot ketubot which is Even Haezer 66-118. It is clear that the Arukh HaShulhan wrote these sections, as he makes reference to them a number of times in other areas of his writings. (For example, if you look in Arukh HaShulhan hilkhot sotah 178:25, he makes clear reference to his commentary on Even Haezer 115, paragraphs 27-32, which means that he must have written that section already and he assumes that the reader can look this up.) However, as far as I know, they were never published.

So, I was wondering if anyone knew anything else about these missing sections?

]]> Michael J. Broyde Arukh HaShulhan Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:13:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/9/Rabbi-Michael-J-Broyde-on-The-Missing-Sections-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan-The-Search-for-the-Complete-Text Printing of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Missing Line About Rabbi Epstein's Daughter http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/9/Printing-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan-The-Missing-Line-About-Rabbi-Epsteins-Daughter
In the prior post, R. Brodt discussed the new work of R. Yechiel Michal Epstein. R. Epstein is most famous for his Arukh HaShulhan a comprehensive halakhic work. Although the work itself is very well-known there is one point about the work that is not as well known.

Today, the Arukh HaShulhan is sold as a set, a set which covers most of Shulhan Arukh. However, when it was orignally published, R. Epstein did not put out all the volumes at once, rather it was published piecemeal. The first volume, on Hoshen Mishpat, was published in 1884. The volume on Orach Hayyim wasn't completed until 1909 after R. Epstein had died (he died in 1908). Even after a portion of Shulhan Arukh was completed, in most cases, the Arukh HaShulhan continued to be published in small volumes comprising a few simamin and not more. [It was first published in a "full set" in 1950.]

After R. Epstein died, his children took over publication. Although, today, for the most part, the Arukh HaShulhan is merely a photo-mechanical reproduction of the earlier editions, one line is typically missing - which child was the publisher. That is, the title page of the orginally posthumously published editions contain the following legend (reproduced below - you can click for a larger version):
Printed by the well-known Rabbanit Mrs.
Brina Walbrinska
the daughter and legal successor [inheritor] of the Goan, the author of all the volumes of the above mentioned Arukh HaShulhan

So the person who ended up publishing the bulk of the Arukh HaShulhan was R. Epstein's daughter. While this is not all that remarkable, there were many notable women publishers (most well-known, the Widow Romm), it is interesting that it was not R. Epstein's famous son, R. Barukh, but instead, this task fell to his daughter. This line no longer appears in today's copies of the Arukh HaShulhan.

Additionally, some of the volumes contain important genological information (reproduced below - you can click for a larger image) on the Epstein family. For instance, as you can see below, Brina discussses the fact that (a) she is strapped for money and looking for someone to help defray the printing costs; and (b) that her son Dovid, died young in "New York, the Bronx, in America." Further, she discusses her husband. Additionally, she notes that she has "published 15 volumes [of the Arukh HaShulhan] and four more volumes remain in manuscript." Finally, she notes that there is a second volume of R. Epstein's work, Or L'Yisharim which also remained in manuscript.


]]> Arukh HaShulhan Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:34:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/9/Printing-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan-The-Missing-Line-About-Rabbi-Epsteins-Daughter The Other Works of R. Yehiel Mihel Epstein, Author of the Arukh HaShulhan http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/6/The-Other-Works-of-R-Yehiel-Mihel-Epstein-Author-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan
A Review of: Kitvei Ha'Arukh HaShulhan
Eliezer Brodt

Almost every Friday morning, I get a call from a fellow seforim addict asking me what's new on the market. The past few weeks, he had been complaining to me that the market is dry, and nothing of note has been put out. Yesterday, he told me that finally one interesting thing came out the night before: a collection of the writings R. Yehiel Mihel Epstein (1829-1908), the author of the Arukh HaShulhan, called Kitvei Ha'Arukh HaShulhan. So off I ran to the seforim store to get this new piece. What follows is a review of this new sefer.

Kitvei Ha'Arukh HaShulhan is divided into multiple parts. The first part is a reprint of the "Or La'Yesharim" by R. Epstein. The Or La'Yesharim is a commentary on the classic work, Sefer HaYashar of Rabbeinu Tam. R. Epstein wrote this when he was very young, although it wasn't published until 1869.

The Sefer HaYashar of the Rabbeinu Tam[1] (this is not to be confused with the mussar work with the same title which is incorrectly attributed to the Rabbeinu Tam – there is some debate exactly who the author is, with some claiming it is R. Zerachia HaLevi, author of the Ba’al HaMe’or, others attribute it to R. Zerachiah HaYevani, and finally others claim the author is Rabbeinu Yonah) which is today available in two parts – Hiddushim and She'elot u-Teshuvot. The Sefer HaYashar was first published (both parts together) in 1811 in Vienna, but this edition was full of errors. Later, in 1898, it was reissued – but only the She'elot u-Teshuvot section, by R. S. Rosenthal for Meketzei Nerdamim. He included both his own notes as well as notes from R. Ephraim Zalman Margolis in an effort to correct the seriously corrupted text. In 1959 R. S. Schlesinger republished the the Hiddushim section of this sefer in a more critical edition. Professor E. E. Auerbach writes that it is ironic that the Sefer HaYashar should have so many textual errors, when one of the purposes of the Sefer HaYashar was to provide a correct text of the Gemara. (Balei Hatosfot p. 94). In Kovetz Al Yad (volume 7), R. Yosef Kapach printed some more teshuvot of Rabbeinu Tam. Today, however, there are still still many pieces which rishonim quote from the Sefer HaYashar of Rabbeinu Tam which are not found in either section of the Sefer HaYashar that we have.

The Or La'Yesharim by R. Epstein is an extensive commentary covering the Nashim and Niddah masekhtot of the Hiddushim section of the Sefer HaYashar. The original edition was very rare and now, thanks to work R. Horowitz, the editor of the newly published Kitvei Ha'Arukh HaShulhan, it is now available to all. This part of the volume comprises 200 pages and is nicely printed and includes a thorough index.

Or La'Yesharim has many haskamot from: R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor; the author’s brother-in-law, R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv); the author's uncle R. Meir Berlin; R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin; and even from a Hasidic Rebbe, R. Aaron M’Chernobyl. It seems that there also was a haskama from the R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson, third rebbe of Lubavitch known as the Tzemach Tzedek, but it was lost.

The next part of the Kitvei Ha'Arukh HaShulhan is a collection of the Arukh HaShulhan’s She'elot u-Teshuvot on all areas of halakha. It’s known that the Arukh HaShulhan wrote a very large amount of She'elot u-Teshuvot to thousands of questions that he was asked from all over the world. But, he writes that he was too busy to keep copies of all of them and thus, unfortunately, we do not have too many copies of these letters. However, R. Horowitz collected the letters that we do have from various sources: publications of the time, people he corresponded with that printed his letters in their seforim and manuscripts. There are some interesting statements in the teshuvot such as “Chas vesholom to rely on the shekia of Rabbeinu Tam as the Gra and Shulhan Arukh Harav already come out not like him” (p. 7). Another interesting letter is where R. Epstein writes after trying to find a leniency, he writes “even though I always try to leniencies where needed here I could not” (p. 74).

Interestingly enough, this new edition included all letters of the Arukh HaShulhan based on the advice of R. Chaim Kanievsky, to produce a complete work and not to censor any of the letters. This includes the famous letter of the Arukh HaShulhan permitting one to use electricity on Yom Tov. But, as has already been pointed out by many people, this was based on a faulty understanding of the exact science of how electricity works (pg. 12-13). Another famous letter of his printed here is his allowing of Metzizah through an instrument (p. 50).

The next part of the sefer is a collection, but not all, of derashot (sermons) of R. Epstein. One only wonders why the editor chose to put in these and not all, (or perhaps none) as we already have all this in a recently released volume. These derashot are excellent continuing in the path familiar already through his commentary on the Haggadah called Leil Shimurium.

The volume continues with a collection of letters related to community work, various semikhot that he gave to Gedolim and haskamot that he gave to various works. These come from private collections, including those from Hebrew University and the Schocken Collection of Jerusalem.

One interesting letter that seems to have bypassed the radar of the editors is a letter where someone had asked him about something, and R. Epstein responded:
“unfortunately, we cannot ask my brother in law, the Netziv, because he’s ill, and we can’t ask R. Yitzchok Elchanan Spector because he’s surrounded by people (מוקף מסביב)” (p. 141).
He seems to be hinting to what is claimed by many – the R. Yitzchok Elchanan was greatly influenced by his secretary, R. Yaakov Lifshitz. For examples, see Yaakov Mark’s work: Bemechitzasam Shel Gedolei Hador (p. 102), where he reports such a confession from R. Yaakov Lifshitz himself. (See also Nathan Kamenetsky, Making of a Gadol, pp. 458-463). However, interestingly enough, there is a letter in regard to another issue, where R. Yitzchak Elchanan himself writes:
“I have been a Rav for tens of years authored thousands of teshuvos on every area of halakha to inquires from all over the world and in regard to many areas relating to the zibur and no one has ever questioned that I was not going according to my own mind and it’s a great chutzpah to say publicly that I have no da'at and people in my household use me!”
(Iggerot R’ Yitzchok Elchanan Spector, vol. 1 pp. 59-60 [2]). Another interesting letter included is against Zionism (pp. 139-140) and R. Epstein’s defense of the Mussar movement (pp. 132-136).

After each piece throughout the sefer R. Horowitz writes its exact source. I personally find this method much more user friendly than other similar works where they include this material in the back of the sefer which many times confuses the reader.

The volume ends off with a short biography of R. Epstein. The only point of criticism on the biography is that not enough credit is given to the sources. One of the sources is R. Meir Bar-Ilan, a nephew of the Arukh HaShulhan, who is only mentioned in one footnote, but should have been mentioned in many more.

In sum this is a beautifully presented volume of the writings of the R. Epstein and is well worth adding to one’s collection.

Notes:
[1] See generally, E.E. Aurbach, Ba’alei HaTosefot, 80-91; Y. Felix, “Sefer haYashar l’Rabbenu Ya’akov ben Meir,” Sinai, 39 (1956): 52-61, 106-15, 172-83, 224-39.
[2] It is possible that R. Yaakov Lifshitz actually authored this letter.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Arukh HaShulhan Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/6/The-Other-Works-of-R-Yehiel-Mihel-Epstein-Author-of-the-Arukh-HaShulhan New Volume of Rav Ovadiah Yosef's "Hazon Ovadiah," on the halakhot of the Four Fasts, the Three Weeks, Nine Days, Tisha B&#8217;Av, and Zekher le-Hurban http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/2/New-Volume-of-Rav-Ovadiah-Yosefs-Hazon-Ovadiah-on-the-halakhot-of-the-Four-Fasts-the-Three-Weeks-Nine-Days-Tisha-B8217Av-and-Zekher-leHurban
New Volume of Rav Ovadiah Yosef's "Hazon Ovadiah:"
On the halakhot of the Four Fasts, the Three Weeks,
Nine Days, Tisha B’Av, and Zekher le-Hurban
by Eliezer Brodt

A new sefer just reached the seforim stores today, just in time for the three weeks. The newest volume of Chazon Ovadiah of the great gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef. This sefer includes halakhot on a few areas: the halakhot of the Four Fasts, the Three Weeks (& Nine Days), Tisha B’Av, and halakhot related to Zekher le-Hurban, including going to the Kotel, etc. In the back there are hespedim which Rav Ovadiah delivered for various Gedolim amongst them R. Yitzchak Herzog, R. Zvi Pesach Frank and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Chazon Ovadiah is 577 pages and includes a very thorough index.

In the past few years we have been privileged to a complete encyclopedic collection on all the Yom Tovim from Rav Ovadiah Yosef. It all started many years ago when he wrote a set of seforim called Chazon Ovadiah on Pesach related topics. These seforim received impressive haskamot from many gedolim, amongst them R. Tvi Pesach Frank and R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin. It appears that this particular project was put on hold and Rav Ovadiah turned his attention to printing his Sheelot u-Teshuvot. Then, a few years ago he started printing his shiurim and notes on the sefer Ben Ish Chai. This resulted in an eight volume set called Halikhot Olam. Finally, after all that, Rav Ovadiah returned to the Yom Tov series, Chazon Ovadiah, starting with Purim than Hilkhot Yom Tov. He then continued with Pesach, Succot, Yomim Noraim and Chanukah. Earlier this year, Tu B’Shevat and Hilkhot Berakhot were printed. Thus far, the set is eight massive volumes. One only hopes that Rav Ovadiah continues this set with Hilkhot Shabbat.

Amongst the reasons why I recommend this particular set of seforim, even if one is not of sefaradic origin is as follows: Rav Ovadiah Yosef is world famous for his unbelievable memory resulting in a tremendous bekiut. [I once joked that he must have had someone develop some computer program and attached it to his brain to help him retain so much information and recall it at all times.] When one uses this work, as with all of his other works, one can find hundred of sources from the Rishonim to extremely obscure Sheelot u-Teshuvot on virtually every topic related to the Yomim Tovim. He even quotes many, very recent seforim. He covers many sugyot quite comprehensively, whereas others Rav Ovadiah simply brings down a few sources. Besides for all this, one has literally hundreds of pesakim of a great gaon on all of these topics.

All this results in making it an excellent reference for Rabbanim, Maggedei shiurim, interested laymen, and any one interested in researching any topic related to the Yomim Tovim. From all the many seforim which are printed every year on the Yomim Tovim, the entire set of Hazon Ovadiah is by far the most impressive in terms of its sources and information.

One interesting point I found in this most recent volume of Chazon Ovadiah was that Rav Ovadiah mentions in the introduction that he uses the highly 'controversial' sefer Hemdat Yamim [see here for Dan Rabinowitz's post on Tu B'Shvat]. Rav Ovadiah justifies his use of this sefer, as many great Sephardi gedolim have used this sefer, ever since it was printed, so although the R. Jacob Emden comes out very strongly against Hemdat Yamim, Rav Ovadiah still quotes from it.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/7/2/New-Volume-of-Rav-Ovadiah-Yosefs-Hazon-Ovadiah-on-the-halakhot-of-the-Four-Fasts-the-Three-Weeks-Nine-Days-Tisha-B8217Av-and-Zekher-leHurban Will The Real First American Jews Please Stand Up?: A Review of Machon Yerushalayim's New Book About the Jews of Recife http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/24/Will-The-Real-First-American-Jews-Please-Stand-Up-A-Review-of-Machon-Yerushalayims-New-Book-About-the-Jews-of-Recife
In the history of Jews on the American continent, many are unaware that the first Jewish settlement in the Americas was not in North America, but instead South America. Specifically, the Brazilian city of Recife was the first formal Jewish community in the Americas. Recife, for a brief period of time, came under the control of the Dutch government. In 1630 they took Recife from the Portuguese, this event was key in establishing a Jewish community, as the Portuguese enforced the inquisition. The Dutch, however, did not, Amsterdam being a city where Marrano could return to Judaism.

When the Dutch took Recife, a Jewish community was established soon after, and eventual for the next 14 years, a the community flourished. There were two synagogues as well as all the trappings of a budding Jewish community - Rabbis, schools etc. The Rabbi of Recife was R. Isaac Aboab da Fonseca (his original surname is Aboab, but later in life he took his mother's name Da Fonseca as well) - and Machon Yerushalayim has published some of his writings as well as historic documents relating to the Recife community - Kitvei Rabbenu Yitzhak Aboab (De Fonseca) - Hakhmei Recife v'Amsterdam (Machon Yerushalayim, 2007).

The earliest responsum relating to the Americas concerns the community of Recife. As Recife is in the southern hemisphere and their season are the opposite of those in the northern hemisphere, they asked if they should still say ve'ten tal u'mattar at the time it is normally said as it is not the correct season for them.

R. Aboab, a student of R. Isaac Uzziel, was then appointed to the position of hakham and became the assistant of R. Saul Morteira and eventually took his position as Chief Judge of the Amsterdam court. R. Aboab was successed by R. Yakkov Sassportas.

In 1641 R. Aboab was sent to Recife to become the rabbi and head of the Dutch community there. Although the community was doing well, other forces spelled the demise of the community. In 1646, the Portuguese attacked Recife and although initially they were held off, they eventually were successful in reconquering the city and the rest of Brazil. The Jews were given three months to evacuate or come under the inquisition. R. Aboab, and many others returned to Amsterdam. Other refugees went and established communities in the Caribbean while one group, went to then New Amsterdam (eventually New York) and became the first Jews in New York.

In this new book, there is an extensive introduction, by R. Yosef Veitman, the Chabad shaliach in São Paulo, which gives all the above history and more. R. Veitman has done extensive research and this shows throughout the work. The history is very detailed and the sources consulted -- both traditional and academic -- are quite extensive. The one minor criticism is his use of statements of the prior Lubavitch Rebbi to prove a point of history (see, e.g., p. 39 n. 19 - also see p. 73 n. 123 which, as R. Veitman recognizes is highly suspect), otherwise the research is very good.

Aside from providing a history of R. Aboab and Recife, this work contains Torah from R. Aboab. The most important is the Machberet Nishmat Hayyim. This work was originally in Porteguse, and has now been translated into Hebrew. It has previously been translated into English by Alexander Altmann, "Eternality of Punishment: A Theological Controversy Within the Amsterdam Rabbinate in the Thirties of the Seventeenth Century,' in Publications of the American Academy of Jewish Research 40 (1972): 1-88, which R. Veitman used with permission. [1] This work dealt with what was a "hot" topic in Amsterdam at the time - whether there is such a thing as eternal damnation. This was very important as many Jews in Amsterdam had relatives in countries under the control of the inquisition and were "practicing" Christians. What would be their status - could their souls ever be redeemed?

R. Saul Morteira essentially said that there is such a thing as eternal damnation. R. Aboab disagreed and penned this work to explain his disagreement. This work has much broader implications for just the inquisition, but to any Jew who for whatever reason did not practice.

Both Nishmat Hayyim as well as R. Morteira's comments are found in this new volume as well as extensive notes. (Also, R. Meneshe Klein, in his approbation has his own take on this issue.)

Aside from this work, the communal laws of Recife are included, as well as a poem R. Aboab wrote on the Portuguese siege of Recife. It is worth mentioning that R. Aboab did not abandon the Recife community when faced with the Portuguese attack, rather he stayed and ministered to the community during this time of need. There are other smaller Torah pieces (including on the Amsterdam eruv) as well as the teshuva discussing ve'ten tal mentioned above.

The work contains excellent footnotes throughout and all in all this is an excellent work, especially for one interested in either the philosophy of reward/punishment or American Jewish history.

I purchased the book from Biegeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165), and I assume in Israel, Machon Yerushalayim should have copies.

Note:
[1] Although Altmann published this already in 1974 the "new" Encyclopeadia doesn't update the Cecil Roth entry on R. Aboab and still has that R. Aboab's "work on reward and punishment entitled Nishmat Hayyim [has] not been published." vol. 1 p. 269.

]]> Book Reviews Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/24/Will-The-Real-First-American-Jews-Please-Stand-Up-A-Review-of-Machon-Yerushalayims-New-Book-About-the-Jews-of-Recife Daniel Sperber's New Book - "The Path of Halakha" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/19/Daniel-Sperbers-New-Book--The-Path-of-Halakha
As was noted in a prior post, Prof. Daniel Sperber has published another book - Darkah shel Halakha Kiryat Nashim b'Torah. As the title implies the main focus of the book is to discuss the permissablity of women being called to the Torah. Much has already been written on the topic, however, Prof. Sperber's focus is distinct. He focuses on two aspects (aside from other halachic considerations) kavod ha'briyot and more generally, how halakha has adapted over time. In his inimitable fashion he marshals terrific sources - the footnotes contain a treasure trove of material. It is especially interesting to see, for instance, R. Yissocher Frand and Prof. Michael Silber cited in the same footnote.

The book, however, is not limited to the narrower issue of women and Torah reading but instead, there is an extensive discussion throughout regarding changes which happened throughout history in the halakhic practice. To clarify any ambiguity Prof. Sperber includes an appendix listing many laws from the Shulhan Arukh which are no longer practiced in the same manner as advocated by the Shulhan Arukh. He also has chapters or appendixes devoted to specific instances [interestingly, he doesn't mention the tosafot, Moed Katan, 21a, s.v. elu which appears to support his thesis] where there have been changes in practice, including inter alia menstruating women attending the synagogue, the Bat Mitzvah ceremony, and even the inclusion of an ezras nashim (women's section) in the synagogue. In this last one, we are provided with a terrific history of architecture of synagogues from the Temple period onward.

There are, however, a few places where, Prof. Sperber is not as comprehensive as he is in some of his previous works. While these are a mere handful of footnotes, nevertheless it is worth noting. For instance, in a note he discusses the issue of blowing shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat. While his sources are rather impressive, he misses (on purpose perhaps?) the Mo'adim l'Simcha's discussion [although he does mention an entire work on the topic which I was unaware - Shofar b'Rosh haShana sh'Chal L'hiyot b'Shabbat, by R. Menachem Bornstein]. Or where he discusses the historic evidence of whether it is permitted to read the newspaper on Shabbat he mentions the controversy about the translation of R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein's Mekor Barukh which states the Netziv read the paper on Shabbat. Prof. Sperber doesn't mention that there is now a entire book devoted to the topic, R. Y. S. Bifus, Mikrayei Kodesh HaKiryah haMutteres ve'haAssurah b'Shabbat, Jerusalem, 2003 (122 pages) as well as Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter's article "Facing the Truths of History," Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (2000): 200-273 [PDF]. These are minor points and should not take away from the whole of the book.

Of course, the ultimate subject matter is the propriety of women and reading the Torah. In this area, Prof. Sperber is very convincing. Again, the sources used are wide ranging. Irrespective of one's views on the topic, there is much to gain by this book. In fact, whether one is even interested in the particular topic of women and Torah reading is really no matter, this book is worthwhile reading.

The book can be purchased at Biegeleisen books in the US, or it is published by, and can be obtained from, Rubin Mass in Israel.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:12:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/19/Daniel-Sperbers-New-Book--The-Path-of-Halakha Two News Items http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/18/Two-News-Items First, the sale on the Seforim Hard Drives has been extended until June 22 for the Otzar haChomah and the 25th for the Morgenstern hard drive.
Second, a new issue of Ohr Yisrael has just come out and includes more articles on wheat for matzot from Arizona, an article on definition of Darkei Emorei and the related laws, the second installment on the custom of candle lighting. Additionally, there is another article by R. B. Oberlander, related to the Yerushalmi on Kodshim, this one discussing the Friedlander family. Finally, R. Yitzhaki has an article on publishing of a Tanach.

]]> Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:42:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/18/Two-News-Items Review - New Volume of Peskei Teshuvos on Mishna Berurah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/18/Review--New-Volume-of-Peskei-Teshuvos-on-Mishna-Berurah
Over the centuries, throughout our rich history, every time there has been a codification of halacha of any sorts there has been some opposition; the examples abound - the Rif who was opposed by the Bal Hamaor; the Rambam who was opposed by the Raavad. Even after that the Shach and Taz were also not accepted right away. One of the (many) reasons for this opposition was a fear of giving the law “to the simple people” who would then stop asking Rabbanim their questions as they could find the answers themselves in these works.

Another type of secondary source for halacha can be catagorized as likutim (collections). For example this catagory would include commentaries on the Shulchan Orach such as the Keness HaGedolah, Be’er Hetiv, and Sharei Teshvah. With these sorts of books there was an additional fear that the halachos might be not always be quoted correctly and people will fail to check the sources themselves. That fear appears prescient as in recent times many contemporary works err in the way they quote sources – making it almost impossible to even check the original sources. Some Gedolim even write in there haskamos on these works the author is a good person "but as this is a halachic work I can not back everything he says."

An awareness of the above concerns is illustrated by the story surrounding the Shmiras Shabbas K’hilchasa. This sefer quotes literally thousands of pesakim of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. After seeing the unexpected success to this sefer, R. Shlomo Zalman sat in a room a few hours a day for a few years and reviewed everything making sure anything quoted from him was one hundred percent accurate. This resulted in the third volume of Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa. Unfortunately, many works the authors themselves do not double check there own work let alone have a great person review it.

Today, there is no lack of books whose purpose is to be a repository of knowledge on a single topic. For instance, we have books devoted solely to the laws of washing one’s hands, how to bow properly (690 + pages), laws of lechem mishna (348 pages), the yarmulke (112 pages), and the list goes on. As it takes an almost heroic effort to write an entire book of hundreds of pages on but a single, minor topic, in most of the aforementioned cases, the authors indeed put forth a valiant effort to obtain anything and everything that, in the slightest way, remotely impacts on their selected topic.

Relatedly, there is another category of book, in which the author collects everything which discusses yet another book. The book that epitomizes this category of works is called Piskei Teshuvos al’pi Seder HaMishna Berurah (hereinafter “PT”). PT collects and addresses anything and everything which discusses the Mishna Berura. Just as the authors of the first category of books mentioned above go to great lengths, so too did the author of PT glean material from the most obscure sources on some of the most arcane topics.

At the turn of the century two excellent works were written almost the same time one on the whole Shulhan Arukh and one on just the volume of Orach Chaim. One is the Arukh Hashulhan and the other the Mishna Berurah. Each have their benefits (as will perhaps be discussed a different time) however, both were of great necessity as halacha is an endlessly complicated topic which, at that time, was especially evident. Before WWII the Arukh Hashulhan was much more widely accepted than the Mishna Berurah but after the war the Mishna Berurah became the more accepted one. What precipitated this change is unclear, some want to attribute it to the influence of the Chazon Ish who writes that the Mishnah Berurah is like the lishkas hagaziz etc. This is a rather ironic reason in that the Chazon Ish takes issue with the Mishna Berurah hundreds of times. Be that as it may today the more widely used work is the Mishna Berurah. There is even a Mishna Berurah cycle completing the whole Mishna Berurah every few years. However, as the years go by halakha has become larger especially with modern technology applications and the like, making it very hard for one person to master it all. The truth is throughout history there were various Gedolim that were experts in specific areas but not in everything - today such specialization is happening more and more.

As a result, R. Rabinowich came up with a great idea. He decided to put together all the newer sources according to the order of the Mishna Berurah. This idea of collecting the modern sources was actually one of the original goals of the Mishana Berurah as he writes in his introduction – to include all the recent literature from the seforim printed after the Sharei Teshuvah. R. Rabinowich’s work is the PT.

The first volume he released was on the laws of Shabbos. This first volume suffered a bit being the first born child. The sources were not that comprehensive and it did not cover many of the recent issues. The next volume, on the six volume of the Mishna Berurah, did get a bit better in the sources area. After that, the volume on fifth volume of Mishna Berurah came out here the sources got even better (as it much easier to put out a work on this volume thanks in part to the seforim Vayagid Moshe and Seder Arukh). After this he came out with a volume on the second volume of Mishna Berurah which he really out did himself on the sources. And recently the volume on first chelek on the Mishna Berurah came out.

The problem with this work is not that it does not have a wealth of information but rather one has to be careful to double check the sources to see if he quotes the pesak right and if he understood it.

So, thus far, five volumes of the PT have been published – the most recent, fifth volume covers volume one of the Mishna Berura. It is a very popular book. This latest volume was sold out in Israel within a week of publication and a distributor in the US ordered some 5,000 copies. R. Ovadia Yosef in a recent photograph in the Mispachah newspaper has a copy of the book on his table! This new volume of the PT weights in at a mere 995 pages. Readers may wonder how someone could write close to 1,000 pages on the first volume of the Mishna Berura alone? We now have our answer – it can’t be done.

The PT has a numerous flaws. First, the introduction. We are told that it is imperative to closely examine the words of the Mishna Berura because not doing so, “God forbid, could cause a person to err in the minutia of the laws and correctly interpreting them.” (p. 36). This statement is astounding. In the remainder of this volume’s introduction, there is no similar imperative to examine closely, or even cursorily look up, the many books the PT quotes. For that, we are expected to rely upon R. Rabinowich (the author of the PT) for his interpretations of the many, many books quoted – of course, he assumes that there is no need to double-check his work. However, if one were to go directly to Rabinowich’s collection without first reading the Mishna Berura, then one virtually is guaranteed to err. As we shall see, then, if one wants to avoid erring in a matter of law and its minutia, one should look up every single citation in the PT, as many are demonstrably wrong as will be explained below.

The PT instructs that when reading about unheard of laws, “one should make sure to test it logically.” (p. 37). So one would assume that the PT applied the same caveat when he was writing his book – unfortunately he does not. For instance, the PT informs us “that righteous and holy people have the custom [to wear a yarmulke] even when they are in the bath [mikvah] and only when they actually immerse do they remove it.” (p. 26). Or that it is a law that “one must close the door when using the restroom.” But, thankfully, the PT also informs us that “in cases that it is very dark or no one is around one can be lenient and not close the door.” (p. 29). Or, this gem, for example: one needs to wash his hands before invoking God’s name after “touching a Nochri, Yehudi Mumar . . .” but also, thankfully, that is “not an absolute obligation, [but that] one should be careful and strict whenever possible.” (p. 58). And this advice is vital, to be sure: one should not reveal more then necessary when using the bathroom – “however, that which is necessary not to soil oneself or the bathroom floor, or toilet” is permissible. (p. 28).

The PT also suffers from a lack of completeness. For example, the PT has a few columns on the custom of shuckelin (swaying) – but misses many of the sources. (p. 418) (See E. Zimmer, Olam k’Minhago Noheg pp. 72-113 for the sources). Or the entry related to the placement of the Ten Commandments in a synagogue (p. 17-18) -- while the PT has a few sources, the bulk are missing. (See R. Goldhaver, Minhagi Kehilot (pp. 45-47) for a much more complete and balanced set of sources).

Next, we have the PT’s comments on the obligation to wear a yarmulke. The PT first quotes the passages in the MB, which in turn quotes the well-known opinion of the Turei Zahav, that not wearing a head covering is a halachic violation. The PT explains the violation is of the command be’chukosheihem lo sei’leichu. Unfortunately, the PT fails to cite anyone who disagrees with that opinion, including, most notably, the Vilna Gaon in his Biur haGra (Orach Hayyim, siman 8 – which is quoted in the famous first teshuva in the Iggeres Moshe). The PT does manage, however, to cite the same Gra to obligate a “complete covering of the head”?! (p. 24 n. 55). In addition, the PT does not cite, or even mention, R. David Tzvi Hoffmann’s view that follows the Gra. It is not only in this section that the PT appears to be blissfully unaware of the Gra's view. Later in the book, where the PT discusses what someone should do if he prays by accident without a head covering, the PT makes no mention of the Gra’s view. (p. 719) Obviously, the Gra’s opinion on that topic is relevant, even if one were to hold that the Gra’s view is not optimal in the firs instance (i.e., in a post facto scenario, perhaps one can rely upon it).

Not only is the section on yarmulkes lacking in very important sources, it also completely distorts history. The PT makes the amazing statement that one must wear a yarmulke which is “noticeable” and, furthermore, that “this is what all Jews have done forever, in every generation.” (p. 24-25). This is absolutely not the case. There is a long history of even well known rabbis not wearing yarmulkes (or head coverings) at all, let alone ones that are capable of being seen from all sides. One example is a well known portrait of R. Hirsch. In that portrait, R. Hirsch appears bare headed. Of course, there are two possibilities – that he is actually bareheaded or that he is wearing a wig which gives the impression that he is bareheaded (and thus not complying with the PT’s requirement that a yarmulke be a “noticeable covering”). In either case, then, the PT’s absolutist claim is wrong. Not only is the PT’s ruling contrary to historical sources, it is erroneous with respect to halachic sources as well. There are numerous other examples where people either did not wear noticeable head coverings or they went completely bareheaded. Although the PT doesn’t have know about R. Hirsch, he should know that in fact R. Moshe Feinstein explicitly allows for someone to wear a non-obvious head covering. R. Feinstein allows for the wearing of a toupee which (if one has a decent one) will not be obvious.

In support of the position that one must wear a “noticeable covering,” the PT explains (p. 24 n. 57) that this understanding is premised on the prohibition of women wearing wigs. His “logic” is that because both women and men have obligations of head coverings, what is mandatory for one gender, must be for another. Although the PT cites to some sources holding that a wig is insufficient for women, as everyone knows there are many other opinions – as evidence by common custom today – which permit women to wear wigs. No such sources are cited or mentioned in the PT.

There are other similarly misleading statements throughout the PT. For example, the PT discusses the custom which some have to recite L’Shem Yichud prior to performing mitzvoth. He says that “as there are deep secrets in this recitation, there are some who disapproved of this custom . . . [H]owever, this custom has been justified and if Jews are not prophets, they are sons of prophets.” (pp. 63-64). This gives the erroneous impression that the concerns of those who disapproved of such recitations are no longer an issue. The source for this idea, inter alia, is the Siduro shel Shabbos. (p. 63 n. 21). It is correct that that sefer does justify this custom; however, many authorities, both before and after the Sidduro shel Shabbos, have strongly held it is inappropriate to recite this formulation. In no way did that sefer settle the issue.

The PT claims there is a tremendous obligation to wash one’s hands right after getting out of bed even before putting his feet on the ground – he notes a failure to comply is punishable by death. (pp. 5-8) First, he says that this stringency is based on the Zohar(which we do not actually have) , however, he failes to mention that it doesn't appear in the Gemara or early poskim. Furthermore, buried in a footnote in passing he cites to the Gra who said that after the death of the Ger Tzedek the particular ruach ra which produces the stringency of the washing is no longer present. Nor does he even quote the Sheti Yados (already highlighted by the Hatam Sofer in his notes on Shulchan Orach) that one should not take the death penalty idea literally.

The PT also discusses the issue of reciting partial verses of the Torah and rules that this is not a problem “as it is already known that we are not concerned to split sections and even verses we find many times.” (p. 243) To whom is the PT referring (by use of the word “we”)? Indeed, there are some people who maintain the custom to not split verses. Most famous, perhaps, is the statement of R. Hayyim Volozhin regarding the veZos HaTorah passage when showing the Torah to the congregation.

Aside from misleading statements, there are some statements in the PT, out of which I can make no sense. For example, the PT discusses whether to use a patach or tzerei for the first two words of kaddish. (p. 506). He records that in R. Emden’s siddur and in the Siddur haRav, there is a patach, but “in all the other siddurim it is with a tzerei.” (Id.). First, what does the PT mean by all? Did he check every single siddur, both in published and in manuscript form? Or does he mean the siddurim at his shul or that he had on his bookshelf? Readers are left to guess because the PT does not elaborate further. Similar ambiguities (e.g., statements like “most siddurim”) abound. In any event, the PT is 100% wrong. In historical terms (i.e., how the siddurim vowalized the words in question), the custom up until the 18th century was to have a patach. (For a listing of the siddurim and the history see my article in the latest Ohr Yisrael).

Another example of this type of misstatement is in the PT’s discussion about praying where a married woman’s uncovered hair is visible. First, the PT states “we find that many achronim are lenient in this matter.” But, he then continues: “however, the majority of achronim” disagree. (p. 600). Who is the majority? Is the PT referring to contemporary persons or historic achronim (the period generally is considered to extend from approx. late 15th early 16th century until today)? Additionally, those in the “minority” include R. Moshe Feinstein, the Ben Ish Chai, the Oruch haShulchan, the Seridei Eish – and those are just the ones listed in the PT. Perhaps there are cases where usage of the term “majority” is appropriate but what about when there are such distinguished authorities in the “minority?”

Another example of the necessity to check the PT’s sources is the entry relating to the use of musical tunes whose origins were not Jewish. There, the PT misquotes the Kerach shel Romi. The PT says that even the Kerach shel Romi holds when a tune is specific to idolatry, then it cannot be used. (p. 470 n. 209) But, if one looks up the source, that sefer actually says the opposite.

The above represent some of the issues in the latest volume. I have not gone over the entire 995 pages with a fine tooth comb, but I have no doubt that there are numerous other examples of the kind discussed above. The biggest problem with the PT is, in fact, as Dayan Weiss states in his approbation: that the PT “has lovingly been accepted among klal yisrael.” [He also states that he greatly enjoys the PT.] While it is admirable that people are interested in expanding their knowledge, such efforts should not be at the expense of quality. This appears to be a clear case of trying to make available as much as possible irrespective of the content. Moreover, what is particularly troubling about the above discussed examples is that the PT consistently highlighting either chumrahs or outlandish and dubious “laws.” Relatedly, it seems that the PT’s the errors of omission always manage to omit out sources which would temper or obviate some of the more stringent statements found in the PT. This displays an ideological bias in favor of stringencies over leniencies (or in many cases over actual historical practice).

* I want to thank R. Eliezer Brodt for writing the introduction to this post.

]]> Book Reviews Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/18/Review--New-Volume-of-Peskei-Teshuvos-on-Mishna-Berurah Shavuah HaSefer: A Recommended Reading List http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/13/Shavuah-HaSefer-A-Recommended-Reading-List

Shavuah HaSefer: A Recommended Reading List

by Eliezer Brodt

Every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of around ten days called Shavuah Hasefer-book week. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out for the sale. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Every year we witness the publishing of hundreds of new seforim and books by the various publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time. In this post I would just like to mention to some of the very recent titles from the various publishing houses which are available at this years Shavuah HaSefer.

Magnes Press did not put out anything special in the past few months and their prices are quite high in comparison to other years. The one exception is the very reasonable price for the set of Machzorim of Professor Daniel Goldschmidt on the Yom Tovim. Of course, one must get the Shivrei Luchos from Professor Simcha Emanuel released earlier this year. However, an older title worthy of mention is the Sefer Toseftas Targum Le’nevim it is basically a collection of lost pieces on targum on niviem (some pieces were printed over a hundred years ago). The Rishonim such as the Radak quote from it numerous times. To just to list one example of a more famous point quoted by the Radak from this Tosefta: In the discussion of the miracle of Chanukah a statement is attributed to R’ Chaim Solevetchick and others (see Making of a Godal pp. 727-729) that the oil in the original miracle was not technically shemn zeis rather it was shemn ness (miracle oil). As part of this statement a Radak is quoted by various achronim such as the Klei Chemda that the oil from the miracle of Elisha was patur from masser. This statement the Radak comes from a tosefta until recently we did not know the source of this tosefta it was assumed to be a lost tosefta now we know that its from a completely different work as it appears in the Tosefta Targum Le’nevim.

The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities has advertised, in their catalog, that the long awaited Yerushalmi on Seder Nizkin is available. However, it seems that it will take another month or two for it actually to be released. Another older title by offered by them for a very reasonable price is the two volume set of the Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts in The British Isles by Bezalel Narkiss.

Merkaz Zalman Shazar has released some new titles among them a Sefer Chasidim. This work is an anonymous work written in 1819 which is virulently against Chasidim. This is the first time this work has been printed. Another new title is a work on R’ Yehudha Hanasiah. This is another book which is part of their recent series on the great leaders throughout the generations (previously they have done on Rashi and R. Yehuda HaChasid among others). Another point of possible interest which is worth mentioning is they reprinted a few titles of Professor Jacob Katz that had not been available for some time.

Reuvan Mass recently began a new series called Reshoot. They began the series with R Moshe Feinstein Teshuvot on the hot topic of Chaluv Akum. It includes an overview of the topic and a brief history of R’ Moshe life. They plan on releasing a few more in the near future such as from R’ Herzog. Another new release is from Professor Daniel Sperber called Darka Shel Halacha it deals with the sensitive topic of woman getting aliyos. One of the main points of the sefer is to discuss the halacha process more generally. Amongst the other topics in Professor Sperber’s work are Kovod Habriyos, Darkei Naom, and mitseios (reality) changing. As always there is a wealth of sources on a wide ranging amount of topics in the notes.

The Bialik Institute has a very impressive new book, the second part of the Livyat Chain. This sefer was written in the era of the Rashba. The Rashba did not allow it to be released as it uses allegorical interpretations for some of the Aggdah. It remained in manuscripts for centuries. At the turn of the century small parts were printed. But, a few years ago Professor Howard Kreisel printed one part of this work - on the creation -which is sold by Magnes Press. Recently he released another part of this work. This new volume is a massive volume of over 1000 pages on many topics. Also worth mentioning is the Sefer Hasagah from R’ Yonah Ibn Ganach it’s a critical edition translated from the Arabic for the first time. An older title that had not been around for some time is Professor Robert Brodie’s Book on the Shiltos.

Meketzei Nerdamim has released a new title - a collection of poetry from the father of the Aruch- R’ Yechiel it contains an extensive introduction about the author.

Bar Ilan University did not put out all that much this year although there catalog shows some interesting titles in press such as another volume on the Gra. But they did put out one thing special, a pirish from the fourteenth century on the Sefer Kuzari from a R’ Shlomo Mluniel it’s a nice size work around 500 pages. Besides for this there is yet another study on the works of R’ Ovadiah Yosef.

Mechon Ben Zvi has released some new titles such as a book on marriage in Italy called Nissuin Nusach Italia. Besides for that they have not released much new. But its worth mentioning the Index of the Cario Geneziah From N. Allony looks excellent for more on this book see Manuscript Boy's post here. Also the price on the recently released Pirish of R’ Matisyhu Hayesari on Avos (from Professor Y Spiegel) has dropped a bit.

Mechon Yerushalim promises a new volume to their critical edition of the Teshuvos of the Rishonim the Shut Harif but its not out yet. They also advertise a new volume of the Kovetz Zecor Leavrohm on the topic of Marriage.

Beis El released another volume from R’ Eliyahu ben Amzug called Mussar Yehudi Lumos Mussar Notsri. This is a critical edition of the work edited by Professor Eliyhu Zeini. It has been retranslated from the French as a while back it had been printed by Mossad Rav Kook. This is the second in the series of R’ Eliyahu ben Amzug works, the editor promises the rest of the works in the future.

Another interesting new title, by Shalem Press, is called Hashevah Le'yerushalaim from Professor Aryeh Morgenstern. This book seems to have generated some interest in the political circles in Israel session will be devoted to it in Ben Zvi Institute. I have gotten a look at this book - it is massive some 596 pages which discuss Jewish resettlement of the land 1800-1860.

The Hamodiah book sale is nice as well, they even have separate hours for men and women. There one sees many people just staring at the Otzar Hachoma and Otzar Hatorah programs watching their search engines. Of course none of these people intend to buy it. Feldheim and Oz Vhadar are there in full force. Worthy of mentioning is the great price of Feldheim on the set of Rodleheim Machzorim. However the main highlight of this sale at least for me are the displays of the Shem Olam Mechon. This publishing house prints many interesting seforim every year but for some reason most of it is never sold in stores. For example, they recently printed a two volume collection of letters of the S'dei Chemed which was virtually not sold anywhere. Another highlight is the booth of Otsros Hatorah where they sell old reprints of rare seforim for great prices. One is bound to find something good there.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/13/Shavuah-HaSefer-A-Recommended-Reading-List Marc B. Shapiro: Obituary for Prof. Mordechai Breuer zt"l http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/11/Marc-B-Shapiro-Obituary-for-Prof-Mordechai-Breuer-ztl
Obituary: Professor Mordechai Breuer zt”l
By Marc B. Shapiro

Professsor Mordechai Breuer passed away on the twelfth of Sivan, 5767. It is a great loss for the world of Jewish scholarship as well as that of Orthodox Jewry. Breuer, born in Frankfurt in 1918, was the great-grandson of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, the grandson of R. Shlomo Zalman Breuer, who succeeded Hirsch as Rav of the Frankfurt separatist community, and the son of Dr. Isaac Breuer, the leading theoretician of the Agudah (although the latter’s philosophy would later diverge from what came to be known as the Agudah Daas Torah).

Breuer came to the world of academic Jewish studies rather late, earning his PhD in 1967 for a study of the Ashkenazic yeshiva in the late Middle Ages. (He had previously earned an MA at the Hebrew University, writing on David Gans.) At that time, he was principal of the Horeb school in Jerusalem. He later became professor of Jewish history at Bar Ilan. It is more than a little ironic that a great-grandson of Hirsch would devote himself academic Jewish studies.[1]

Returning to Prof. Breuer, it is hard to do justice to such a productive scholar in a short post. One can be sure that the next issue of Ha-Maayan, with which Breuer was associated since its founding, will have an important obituary.

As one who has worked a great deal in the field of German Orthodoxy, I can state that my work would be much the poorer if not for Breuer’s many writings. His classic Modernity Within Tradition is a marvelous study of the German Orthodox community and a model for how to write the history of American Orthodoxy. For those who read German, I recommend the original version, published by the Leo Baeck Institute. While containing the same text as the English, the German version has additional information in the footnotes.

For those interested in the full range of his scholarship (up until eight years ago) the volume Asif (Jerusalem, 1999) contains a number of his best articles, including his classic study of Hirsch’s Torah im Derekh Eretz principle. (This article was translated into English and published as a booklet, but has been out of print for many years.) The volume also contains a bibliography of his many writings.[2]

Of particular interest to readers of this blog is his final work, Oholei Torah, on the history of the yeshivot.[3] The only criticism I can give of this work is that it tries to do too much, and throws too much information at the reader. Yet it is an enormously helpful volume. I leave aside for now his contributions in a number of other areas of Jewish studies, as well as in general German Jewish history.

As I was in touch with him for many years, allow me to offer some personal comments, and excerpts from letters and e-mails I received, as I think they will be of interest to the readers.

My first contact with Breuer was actually not the most pleasant for me. I was a graduate student and had just published an article in Ha-Maayan (Tishrei, 5754), in which I included a strong attack on R. Esriel Hildesheimer’s Eisenstadt yeshiva by an anonymous nineteenth-century critic.[4] Breuer wrote to me expressing his unhappiness that I had chosen to publicize what, in his mind, were the ignorant ravings of a benighted yeshiva bachur. I thought then, and still think, that — to paraphrase someone else — while ignorant ravings remain ignorant ravings, the history they illuminate is scholarship. The editor, the late, lamented Yonah Emanuel, took my side in this dispute, and I was happy to have his support when confronted by the man who had become one of my idols in scholarship. (Emanuel actually censored my article, taking out a reference to an attack on the Ketav Sofer, an attack that was already in print and which I found helpful in illuminating the dispute taking place in Hungary. The Ketav Sofer was actually a great friend of Hildesheimer, and even invited him to come to Pressburg to serve with him in the rabbinate.)

Following this, our relationship improved, and I often turned to him with my questions. This became much easier when he too acquired e-mail access. Two months ago, in what was one of my last e-mails to him, I wrote:

I take this opportunity to encourage you to think about writing your autobiography. Your great father did so, and all of kelal Yisrael benefited from it. The same would apply to you.

Unfortunately, this was not to be. Already I feel a great loss at not having someone to turn to with all my questions. He was a veritable Urim ve-Tumim when it came to anything dealing with the lost, wonderful world of German Orthodoxy.

A couple of months ago, someone contacted me and wanted information about Hirsch’s visits to the opera. I looked around the internet a bit, and apparently it is “common knowledge” that Hirsch attended the opera. There have even been online discussions about what the halakhic justification of this was. Despite my extensive reading in German Orthodox literature, I had never heard that Hirsch went to the opera. Therefore, I was very skeptical of this piece of "common knowledge." I was also aware that very often "common knowledge" turns out to be incorrect. But rather than offer my opinion, I did what I always did at times like this. I turned to Professor Breuer, the man who had read everything written by and about Hirsch, and who had painstakingly gone through every page of the German Orthodox newspapers and magazines of the nineteenth century. I also asked him about the general German Orthodox practice of going to the opera.

He replied:

Here and there you can find hints in German printed sermons disapproving going to the opera. When I went to the opera as a boy of 13-14 years my father did not express his dissatisfaction. I don't know if Hirsch was an opera lover, but I know that he went to concerts when he was at a holiday resort.

All I can say is that if Breuer had never heard that Hirsch went to the opera, how is it that others seem to know this as a fact, and if asked for a source, will reply that it is “common knowledge”?

In another e-mail he wrote similarly:

I know of no Orthodox rabbi in Germany who regularly visited the opera. This applies also to Rav S.R. Hirsch. Very musical as he was, he sometimes visited a concert, especially while on holidays, but never, to the best of my knowledge, the opera.

I also asked Breuer, who attended the Hirschian school in Frankfurt, what the situation was with regard to boys covering their heads (we all know the teshuvah of R. David Zvi Hoffmann testifying as to how they did not do so in the nineteenth century). He replied:

None of the pupils covered their heads all day. I know there were nominally orthodox homes where heads were covered only for prayers and the like. One such case is documented not in Frankfurt, but in Munich. See Adolph Fraenkel’s biography of his father Sigmund Fraenkel, one of the leading members of Bavarian Orthodoxy.

He also pointed out to me that when Hirsch was Chief Rabbi of Moravia, he protested against a rule that Jewish children were forbidden to cover their heads during class. In other words, only in Germany, where that was the common practice, did children sit with uncovered heads. It was not a “shitah” of Hirsch that they do so.

I told Breuer that some people understand Hoffmann’s teshuvah as referring to him taking off his hat when he went into Hirsch’s office, but still having a kippah underneath. He replied that Hoffmann

is obviously dealing with cases which, when the hat was removed, left the head without any cover. Carrying a kippah underneath the hat was very unusual in Germany. If that had been the case, Hoffmann would certainly have mentioned it. By the way, I remember that the principal of the school had his head always covered with a kippah, as did other teachers who carried the title of rabbi.

In another e-mail he wrote:

I left the Hirsch school in Frankfurt in 1934. The rule of uncovered heads while studying “secular” subjects (a concept which should not have actually been used at a school adhering to the principle of Torah im Derech Eretz) was enforced without exception (it was not enforced upon teachers who served as rabbis in one of the local synagogues). However, during the last years of the school’s functioning, when the impact of the Nazi regime became increasingly palpable, pupils and teachers reacted by covering their heads in “secular” subjects as well.

I wrote to Breuer:

In Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger’s new biography of Rabbi Merzbach, pp. 17-18,[5] he says that German rabbis were obligated by law to receive a university degree. As a blanket statement this is false. Yet I believe that there were some times and places when the government did require this. Do you know any particulars about this, i.e., where and when this was required? Also, was Hirsch’s school co-educational (i.e., boys and girls). If so, were the classes mixed or only the school?

He replied:

There was certainly no German law requiring rabbis to have a university degree. In mattters of religion the many German states (“Laender”) were autonomous. At the beginning of emancipation there were states which passed administrative rules concerning the qualifications of rabbis. There were no such regulations anywhere in the Weimar period.

There were no mixed classes in S.R. Hirsch’s school except in the very first years when enrol which is present [!] and also in the very last years when students and teachers were continually disappearing. However, throughout its existence the girls’ school (“Lyceum”) and the boys’ school were in separate wings under one roof and one principal and adminstration. Co-education was very rare in Germany before WWI.

I asked him about congregational singing in Germany. He replied:

There was some congregational singing in Orthodox synagogues, but usually the choir sang those portions, with the congregation singing or humming with the choir.

I asked him if his great father was a rabbi (since he is usually referred to as Dr.). He replied:

My father z.l. had two semichot morenu. In Germany no one was titled “Rabbi” unless he was an officiating rabbi, which my father was not. Here in Israel the title of rabbi, gaon, etc. has undergone a process of inflation and my father is regularly referred to as rabbi, which in his case is more justified than in many others.

On another occasion he wrote a bit more about the Hirschian school in Frankfurt and the relationship between his grandfather and Rabbi Marcus Horovitz:

I cannot vouch that my grandfather never accidentally found himself in the presence of Rabbi Horovitz. He certainly tried hard to avoid this. The social rift in Frankfurt between the two orthodox congregations was proverbial. It existed even between different branches of the same family. There were quite a few members of the IRG, even such that were not also members of the other community, who transgressed the tabu [against entering the Gemeinde synagogue] and their number probably increased after World War I. There was no Austritt indoctrination in the IRG school, probably out of consideration for the students whose parents were non-members. There were also members of the faculty who were less than enthusiastic Austritt fanatics.

After reading my dissertation he wrote to me:

Leaving aside your study a certain affinity occurred to me between Rav Weinberg and R. Jacob Emden.

To what you write about R. Weinberg’s responsum about co-education in the Yeshurun organization, I might add that in the late fifties I wrote to R. Weinberg asking him whether his p’sak was applicable to the Esra movement in Israel in which I was active. He never replied, but sent word by a messenger encouraging me to continue my educational activity without swerving to the right After his death I discovered that he had asked two of his students in Montreux to draft a response to my letter. The drafts are in my possession. They contradict each other. One of the two authors now teaches at a yeshiva in Bene Berak.

In his German volume on the history of German Orthodoxy, Breuer mentions that in R. Seligman Baer Bamberger’s synagogue there was no Frauengitter. I assumed that this meant that there was no mehitzah in the famed Wuerzberger Rav’s shul, and I wrote to him to inquire. He replied:

The “Frauengitter” mentioned in my note on p. 375 is the common German translation of mechitzah. It signifies some sort of lattice which was put on top of the parapet which surrounded the women’s gallery (or balcony). The parapet was low enough to allow the women to watch what was going on in the men’s hall downstairs. The lattice (“Gitter”) did not quite conceal the women from the men’s eyes; its significance was mainly symbolical. The lack of this lattice was one of the compromises made here and there with the Reform synagogues where women sat on the balcony, yet in full view of the men since there was no lattice.

This was very helpful to me since in the next issue of Milin Havivin I am publishing something relating to the great controversy in Frankfurt over who would succeed Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Breuer as rabbi of the Hirschian kehillah. Prof. Breuer’s uncle, Rabbi Raphael Breuer, was the rabbi of Aschaffenburg, and the family obviously wanted him to step into his father’s position. However, the members of the community refused to give him their support. One of the issues brought up against Rabbi Raphael was that his synagogue did not a proper mehitzah. I was unable to find any description of exactly what the problem was. Prof. Breuer could not recall either, although as a child he had been to the synagogue on a couple of occasions. He did, however, remind me that his uncle’s predecessor was R. Simcha Bamberger, a son of the Wuerzburger Rav. I therefore assume that the “problem” with the Aschaffenburg mehitzah was the lack of latticework on top of the partition.

After gaining so much from Professor Breuer, I was happy that I was able to give him a present — a copy of a manuscript letter from Hirsch. I didn’t even know what it said, as I found it impossible to read the old handwriting. He wrote to me as follows:

The letter is quite important. R. Hirsch was asked about the relative significance of the Sabbath in Jewish law. I guess the question arose through some discussion with German authorities. They compared the Sabbath to the Christian Sunday. R. Hirsch showed by citing biblical and rabbinical sources that in Jewish law and practice the Sabbath ranked much higher than any other day of rest or festival.

I had hoped that Breuer would be able to publish the letter himself, complete with an introduction. But alas, it was not meant to be. Beli neder, I shall do so.

Despite his age, Prof. Breuer was always prompt in answering all of my questions, and I will be forever grateful. I am also in his debt for another reason. No doubt realizing that he would not be able to write about everything in his files, he offered to give me unpublished material relating to the controversy over the talmudic commentaries of R. Joseph Zvi Duenner, chief rabbi of Amsterdam. Needless to say, I was thrilled, and I thank my friend, Aharon Wexler, who went to his house, picked up the material, and mailed it to me. I hope to be able to publish it before too long.

For those who don’t know, Duenner’s approach anticipated that of Halivni in some respects, primarily in the assumption that the answers given by the amoraim, while binding for halakhic purposes, are not necessarily the best explanation of the Mishnah. Duenner also pointed to a couple of passages in the Talmud — both of which are in the current daf yomi tractate — which he believed are interpolations from the heretics, intended to mock the rabbis. He claimed that the rabbis would never have discussed the case of one who falls off a roof and while landing on a woman has sex with her (a highly improbable scenario, to put it mildly), or that a holy sage would come into a new town and announce that he was looking for a wife for the night (Yevamot 37b, 54a). According to Duenner, these texts are the product of those intending to mock the rabbis, and were unfortunately taken by later scholars as authentic.

Breuer’s grandfather, Rabbi S. Z. Breuer, was one of the leading opponents of Duenner, going so far as to threaten to place him into herem if he didn’t stop publishing his hiddushim, and put the ones already in print into genizah. Duenner refused, and the threat of a herem was never carried out. His hiddushim were later reprinted by Mossad ha-Rav Kook, and some unpublished material was also included in this new edition.

Dr. Marc B. Shapiro holds the Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Scranton. He is the author of Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966 (London: Littman Library, 1999) previous posts at the Seforim blog include “Uncensored Books” and an obituary for Rabbi Yosef Buxbaum zt"l, founder and publisher of Machon Yerushalayim.

Notes:
[1] It is even more ironic that the bête noire of Hirsch and S. Z. Breuer, R. Mordechai Horovitz (the Matteh Levi), has a descendant, R. Baruch Horovitz, who runs the fairly haredi Dvar Yerushalayim Yeshiva. In fact, when Rabbi Horovitz reprinted the Matteh Levi in 1979, he received a haskamah from R. Yitzhak Yaakov Weiss, Av Beit Din of the Edah Haredit and a man far removed from the cultured and tolerant Orthodoxy of the Matteh Levi. (Of course, what some would call “tolerant Orthodoxy,” Hirsch and S.Z. Breuer regarded as fraudelent Orthodoxy.)
[2] See Mordechai Breuer, The "Torah-im-derekh-eretz" of Samson Raphael Hirsch (Jerusalem, New York, Feldheim, 1970)
[3] See Mordechai Breuer, Oholei Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure and History (Merkaz Zalman Shazar 2003)
[4] See my “A Letter of Criticism Directed Against the Yeshivah of Eisenstadt,” Ha-Maayan 34 (Tishrei, 5754 [1993]), 15-25 (in Hebrew).
[5] Ha-Rav Yonah Merzbach: Pirkei Hayyim, Darko U-Fe'alav (Bnei Brak, 2004)

]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/11/Marc-B-Shapiro-Obituary-for-Prof-Mordechai-Breuer-ztl The Story of the Publisher of the Forged Yerushalmi Kodshim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/11/The-Story-of-the-Publisher-of-the-Forged-Yerushalmi-Kodshim
Most are aware of the famous forgery perpetrated by Shlomo Yehuda Friedlaender at the beginning of the 20th century - the Yerushalmi on Seder Kodshim. (For background see here). Recently, R. Baruch Oberlander has written a series of articles, which appeared in Or Yisrael, further illuminating this episode.

Now, the great-grandson of the publisher (Ya'akov Weider who was killed in the Holocaust) of this Yerushalmi offers the story behind his great-grandfather decision to publish this book. (link) He also defends the decision of his ancestor to publish this work, noting that prior to publication he received approval from various Rabbinic authorities. Unfortunately, due to the large expense involved and that it quickly became apparent that it was a forgery, the great-grandfather lost a significant amount of money on this endeavor.

The article also notes that two announcements were published heralding the publication, one to Rabbis and the like and the other, a slightly different version to academics. It is worthwhile noting that not only were their two announcements, there were actually two editions of the Yerushalmi. One aimed at Yeshiva students and the like and again, the other, academics. The former was printed on poor paper and only contains a Hebrew title page. The latter was printed on good paper and includes a German title page (where Friedlaender becomes Dr. Friedlaender).

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/11/The-Story-of-the-Publisher-of-the-Forged-Yerushalmi-Kodshim Shnayer Leiman - The New Encyclopaedia Judaica: Some Preliminary Observations http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/5/Shnayer-Leiman--The-New-Encyclopaedia-Judaica-Some-Preliminary-Observations

The New Encyclopaedia Judaica: Some Preliminary Observations

by

Shnayer Leiman

1. In 1972, the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica appeared in print. With 25,000 entries, it moved well beyond its distinguished predecessors, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1906), the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1939-43), and the short-lived German language Encyclopaedia Judaica (Berlin, 1928-34). Its special focus on the Holocaust and its aftermath, on the State of Israel, and on the centrality of the Jewish community in the United States, rendered it the most current and useful of all the Jewish encyclopedias. But 35 years have passed since its publication, and there was a felt need for a new version that would update many of the entries in the light of scholarly advance. Also, new entries had to be provided for all that was new in Jewish life during the past 35 years. Early in 2007, the 22-volume second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica appeared in print – in hard copy and electronic versions – and it was heralded as yet another milestone in the history of Jewish encyclopedias.


2. A striking difference between the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (henceforth: EJ) and the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (henceforth: NEJ [= new Encyclopaedia Judaica]) is the almost complete lack of visual images in NEJ. Whereas EJ contained some 8000 photographs and portraits (judiciously selected from a larger pool of 25,000), NEJ has only 8 pages of photographs in the center of each volume. Thus, for example, the entry on Solomon Dubno (d. 1813) in EJ is accompanied by a striking portrait of him [reproduced below]. The portrait is lacking in NEJ. Similarly, the entry on Vilna in EJ is accompanied by some 9 photographs that make the city come to life; none appear in the NEJ entry on Vilna. The almost complete lack of visual images in NEJ is a fatal flaw that renders it the least attractive (and arguably, the least informative, for often pictures inform even more than words) of all the Jewish encyclopedias listed above in paragraph 1.


3. One of the key selling points of NEJ is that it updates – and allegedly supersedes – the 1972 edition of EJ. In the general introduction to NEJ, we are informed that more than 2,650 new entries were incorporated into NEJ, and that over half of the original entries (in EJ) were revised and updated for NEJ. Indeed, it is a delight to see entries in NEJ for Dina Abramowicz, Zvi Ankori, Gerson Cohen, Lucy Dawidovich, Marvin Fox, Ismar Schorsch, Yosef Yerushalmi and the like – none of whom were accorded entries in EJ. But upon inspection, it turns out that many key entries that needed to be revised and updated were neither revised nor updated. And regarding the new entries, there are serious errors of commission and omission.

Samples of entries that should have been updated, but were not, include:

a) Abraham b. Elijah of Vilna (d. 1808). NEJ reprints EJ, apparently unaware that some 130 printed pages of Abraham b. Elijah of Vilna’s writings on Bible, Talmud, Midrash, and Jewish bibliography were published for the first time, from manuscripts, in 1998 (see Yeshurun 4[1998], pp. 123-254). EJ and NEJ list Abraham b. Elijah of Vilna’s date of birth as 1750. Recent historical studies indicate otherwise and suggest he was born in 1766 (see, e.g., Yeshurun 14 [2004], pp. 982-996). These and other post-1972 studies on Abraham b. Elijah of Vilna surely merited mention in a revised and updated entry. In this instance, NEJ does not reflect the present state of modern scholarship.


b) Adam Ba’al Shem. NEJ reprints the EJ entry by Gershom Scholem, who – in one of the most controversial passages he ever wrote – identified the writings of the Sabbatean prophet Heshel Zoref (d. 1700) with the writings ascribed by Hasidic lore to the legendary Adam Ba’al Shem. The latter’s writings, according to Hasidic legend, formed the basis for the uniquely Hasidic teachings of R. Israel Ba’al Shem Tov. Scholars were quick to challenge Scholem’s identification during his lifetime and after his death. None are cited in the NEJ entry. An entire literature has grown around this particular issue. Much (but not all) of the relevant bibliography appeared in Y. Liebes, ed., גרשם שלום: מחקרי שבתאות, Tel Aviv, 1991, pp. 597-599. None of this appears in the NEJ entry. Once again, NEJ does not reflect the present state of modern scholarship.


c) Chajes, Zevi Hirsch (d. 1855). NEJ reprints the EJ entry. In the intervening years, numerous studies and two major books were published on Chajes, none of which is mentioned in NEJ. Here it will suffice to mention the titles of the two books:

Bruria Hutner David, The Dual Role of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes: Traditionalist and Maskil, Columbia University Ph.D., University Microfilms, 1971.

Mayer Herskovicz, רבי צבי הירש חיות, Jerusalem, 1972 (reissued: Jerusalem, 2007).

Here too, NEJ does not reflect the present state of modern scholarship.

d) Kalmanovitch, Zelig (d. 1944). NEJ reprints the entry in EJ. The diary (mostly in Yiddish and partly in Hebrew) of this Yiddish scholar -- and victim of the Holocaust – is one of the most poignant of the Holocaust diaries. In 1977, Kalmanovitch’s son, Shalom Luria, publish an annotated Hebrew translation of the diary, together with a 50 page introduction that reveals much about Kalmanovitch that was not previously known. See Z. Kalmanovitch, יומן בגיטו וילנה, Tel Aviv, 1977, pp. 9-59. A sizeable and significant fragment of the diary, entirely in Hebrew, was discovered in the Lithuanian Central Archive in Vilna, and published in 1997. See Yivo Bleter 3(1997), pp. 43-113. None of this information appears in the NEJ entry. Regarding the Kalmanovitch entry, then, NEJ does not reflect the present state of modern scholarship.


e) Luria, David b. Judah (d. 1855). NEJ reprints the entry in EJ. No mention is made in either EJ or NEJ that a portrait of Luria is extant (in Vilna) and has been frequently published. See, e.g., Yahadut Lita,Tel Aviv, 1967, vol. 3, p. 62. More importantly, some 230 printed pages of Luria’s hiddushim on Bible, Mishnah, the Jerusalem Talmud, and Midrash Mishle, as well as responsa, were published for the first time, from manuscripts, in 1998-9. See Yeshurun 4(1998), pp. 489-647 and 6(1999), pp. 285-359. NEJ does not reflect the present state of modern scholarship regarding this entry as well.


4. Sins of commission are inevitable in any encyclopedia. The name of the game is to keep them at a minimum, and it is largely the responsibility of the editors to check and recheck possible misspellings, mistaken dates and facts, discrepancies, imaginary references, exaggerated claims, and the like. NEJ is not lacking in sins of commission in all of the above categories. One amusing instance will have to suffice for our purposes.


NEJ contains two entries of interest that appear several pages apart in volume 3. The first entry is entitled: Bloch, Chaim Isaac. The second entry is entitled: Bloch, Hayyim Isaac ben Hanokh Zundel Ha-Kohen. Innocent readers will assume, as they have every right to assume, that these represent two different persons. Alas, they are one and the same person. The first entry is a new one, designed especially for NEJ. The second entry is the old one, reprinted from EJ (minus the handsome photograph [reproduced below] that accompanied the original EJ entry). There are some interesting differences between the two entries. In the first entry, the reader is informed that Rabbi Bloch was born in 1867. Several pages later, however, Rabbi Bloch aged some 3 years, as we are informed that he was born in 1864. In the first entry, we are told mostly about essays he contributed to a variety of Torah journals – though mention is made of the fact that he published books as well. None of their titles are listed. In the second entry, not a word is said about his contribution to Torah journals. Instead, the titles of all his published works are listed. In the bibliographies appended to the two entries, each lists an item not in the other. The primary blame here hardly rests with the authors of the entries; presumably, they performed their assigned tasks as best they knew how. It is the sloppiness of the editors that allowed for the publication of two (sometimes contradictory) entries for one and the same person. Given the premium placed on space in any encyclopedia, this is a sin of no small import.

5. Sins of omission are inevitable in any encyclopedia. As the editors indicate in the general introduction to NEJ: “An obvious problem in the compilation of any encyclopedia is the decision as to which entries are to be included and which excluded …there is always a body of “borderline” entries which potentially could fall in either category. This problem becomes particularly sensitive when dealing with biographies of contemporaries. Which scholars receive entries and which do not? Where is the line to be drawn for rabbis or businessmen or lawyers or scientists? In some subjects, it was possible to fix objective criteria. For example when it came to U.S. Jewish communities, it was decided to include only those numbering more than 4,500.”

One can only sympathize with the impossible task before the editors. It was a no-win situation for them; whatever their decision, they would surely be open to criticism. If nonetheless I join the chorus of critics, it is not because of “borderline” entries. My own sense is that serious sins of omission occurred throughout NEJ, and in a broad range of categories. I shall attempt to illustrate this by selecting at random 5 categories of Jewish life that were of sufficient interest to me that I was even willing to leaf through the pages of NEJ in order to see how they were treated. I am well aware that others may consider unimportant what I consider important. What follows is no more than the personal opinion of one observer. The names listed below have no independent entry in NEJ and, at best, are mentioned in passing in other, often thematic entries.

a) Women. In the publicity relating to NEJ, it was stated openly that in earlier encyclopedias, including EJ, Jewish women were marginalized. They accounted for no more than 1.25% of the entries in EJ. This was a matter that would be rectified in NEJ. I do not know whether, in fact, this has been rectified in NEJ. But here are some omissions that seem striking to me.


1. Adele Berlin. A noted Bible scholar in the Department of Hebrew and East Asian Languages at the University of Maryland, her published books include:

Biblical Poetry Through Medieval Jewish Eyes; Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism; Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative; JPS Bible Commentary: Esther; Lamentations: A Commentary; Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary; and more.

2. Esther Rubinstein (1883-1924). An early advocate of religious Zionism, she was a leading Hebraist, Zionist, educator, and social activist in Vilna. Her learned essays on women’s suffrage paved the way for a change in rabbinic attitudes toward this issue. She founded the first religious day school for Jewish women in Lithuania. See the entry in אנציקלופדיה של הציונות הדתית, Jerusalem, 1983, vol. 5, columns 582-585.


3. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer (d. 1992) served as Edmonton Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University. Her many books on Kabbalah and Hasidut (e.g., Hasidism as Mysticism; The Thought of R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto [Hebrew]; The Messianic Idea from the Spanish Exile On [Hebrew]; R. Dov Baer of Mezhirech’s Maggid Devarav Le-Yaakov: An Annotated Edition [Hebrew] ) are landmarks in the history of Jewish mysticism.


4. Sara Schenierer (1883-1935), educator and author, founded the first Beth Jacob school in Cracow in 1917. In 1923, she founded the first Beth Jacob teacher’s seminary, also in Cracow. By 1927, there were 87 Beth Jacob schools, with over 10,900 students, in Poland alone. The movement spread throughout Europe, and ultimately to the United States and Israel, where it continues to thrive – with well over 50,000 students – to this very day. She also spearheaded a Jewish youth movement for young girls in Poland, wrote children’s literature and plays. Her collected writings were published in 4 volumes in Hebrew in Tel Aviv, 1955-60.


b) Rabbis.


1. R. Shneur Kotler (1918-1982) succeeded his father, R. Aharon Kotler, as Rosh Yeshiva of the Lakewood Yeshiva. He served in that capacity from 1962 until his death. Under his watch, the Lakewood Yeshiva grew from a student body of 200 students to a student body of over 1000 students. He established a system of Kollels throughout the larger Jewish communities in the United States. He was active in Agudat Israel, Chinuch Atzma’i, Torah U-Mesorah and other educational organizations. It was largely due to his leadership that the Lakewood yeshiva and its affiliate institutions number today well over 4000 students.

2. R. Eleazar Menachem Shach (1898-2001) was Rosh Yeshiva of the Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak. From 1970 until his death, he was generally recognized by the Yeshiva world and by much of the Haredi world as the Gadol Ha-Dor. He was an occasional supporter of the Shas party, and was the founder of the Degel ha-Torah party. As such, he wielded enormous power in Israeli politics and the world over. He was the author of a monumental commentary on Maimonides’ Code, entitled Avi Ezri.

3. R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (b. 1910) succeeded Rabbi Shach as Gadol Ha-Dor. He is, arguably, the single, most powerful figure in the Yeshiva world and in much of the Haredi world. An expert in Jewish law, he has published some 26 volumes of hiddushim on the Talmud and Shulhan Arukh, as well as collections of responsa.

c) Academic Scholars. Two of the women listed above, Adele Berlin and Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, could just as easily have been listed under this rubric, with absolutely no bending of the rules. They were listed above only because of the claim that a special effort was made to include as many women as possible in the new entries for NEJ. Despite the claim, they were not accorded entries in NEJ.

1. Gerald Blidstein holds the Miriam Martha Hubert Chair in Jewish Law at Ben-Gurion University. His publications are simply too numerous to be listed here. Suffice to say that he was awarded the Israel Prize in Jewish Thought in 2006.

2. Menachem Cohen, Professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, is the head of the Mikra’ot Gedolot Ha-Keter Project – a project that is preparing for publication the Aleppo Codex and its Masorah, the Aramaic Targums, and critical editions of medieval Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Some 10 volumes have already appeared in print under his aegis. They represent the finest edition of Mikra’ot Gedolot ever produced.

3. Yehuda Liebes holds the Gershom Scholem Chair in Kabbalah at the Hebrew University. His many publications include: Studies in the Zohar; Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism; and Elisha’s Sin (Hebrew). His annotated versions of Scholem’s studies are indispensable for scholarly research.

4. Haym Soloveitchik, University Professor at Yeshiva University, taught for many years at the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Yeshiva University. His published books include: Halakhah, Economics, and Communal Self Image (Hebrew); Pawnbroking in the Middle Ages (Hebrew); Wine of Non-Jews (Hebrew); Responsa as Historical Sources (Hebrew). Some of his shorter essays (e.g.“Three Themes in Sefer Hasidim”; “Rupture and Reconstruction”) have stimulated more discussion than books by others on the same topics. He was a recipient of the prestigious National Foundation for Jewish Culture Jewish Cultural Achievement Award in Jewish scholarship.


5. Yaakov Sussman is a world class Talmudic scholar who was awarded the Israel Prize for Talmudic Research in 1997. His many publications on the manuscripts, editions, and the history of the publication of the Mishnah, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the Babylonian Talmud; his edition of the “Miqsat Ma’aseh Torah” fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls; and his edition of the Rechov inscription are the point of departure for all scholarly discussion of those topics.


d) Jewish Communities. As noted above, NEJ allows for an entry on any Jewish community in the United States with 4,500 Jewish residents or more. Thus, e.g., there is an entry on Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania which, perhaps, once had that many Jewish residents. According to the entry in NEJ, there were only 3000 Jewish residents in Wilkes-Barre in 2005. It is therefore somewhat surprising that there are no separate entries in NEJ on:


1. Monsey, N.Y.


2. Teaneck, N.J.


3. Far Rockaway, N.Y.


4. Lawrence, N.Y.


5. Cedarhurst, N.Y.


6. Woodmere, N.Y.

7. Kew Gardens Hills, N.Y.

I do not know the exact Jewish population of any of the towns listed above, but I suspect that each has at least 3000, and in all likelihood more than 4500, Jewish residents. In all fairness, NEJ presents a somewhat detailed discussion of Monsey and Teaneck under other rubrics (Rockland County and Bergen County). But I could not locate any discussion of Far Rockaway, the Five Towns, or Kew Gardens Hills. Each of these communities has a rich history, with many
synagogues, schools, and often institutions of national and international repute. They surely merit entries in NEJ.


6. The previous paragraph presents a rather long list of sins of omission relating to women, rabbis, academic scholars, and Jewish communities. One could easily add more names to each of the categories; and certainly so if yet other categories are examined. Doubtless, some will argue that there is simply no room in a 22-volume encyclopedia for so many “borderline” entries. In order to counter such an argument, I will list here four entries – exactly as they appear on the printed page – that found their way into NEJ.

1. Calwer, Richard (1868-1927). German socialist, economist, and politician. He belonged to the reformist wing inspired by Ferdinand Lasalle within the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). Calwer harbored a strong anti-Jewish bias. In a brochure published in 1894, he attacked the SPD’s radical wing as having been “incited by a few Jews who make slander their business,” and deplored that such “specific” Jewish characteristics as “zealousness, contentiousness, and commercial craftiness” had found their way into the party press and literature. He also criticized the SPD for combating anti-Semitism to the extent of creating the impression that Social Democracy had been “Judaized” (verjudet). Calwer left the SPD in 1909. He was a pioneer in Western socialist non-Marxian economics, which he taught until his suicide in Berlin.

2. Cohen, Philip Melvin (1808-1879), pharmacist and civic leader in Charleston, South Carolina. Cohen, born in Charleston, was the son of Philip Cohen, lieutenant in the War of 1812. During the Second Seminole War Cohen served as surgeon to a detachment of troops in Charleston Harbor (1836). In 1838 he became city apothecary. He was a member of the city board of health (1843-49). Cohen was a director of the Bank of the State of South Carolina (1849-55). He was one of the citizens who served as honorary guard at the funeral of John C. Calhoun in 1850.

3. Nagin, Harry S. (1890- ), U.S. civil engineer. Born in Romny, Russia, Nagin went to the U.S. in 1906. From 1924 he was executive vice president of a large steel products company in Pennsylvania. He took out over a hundred patents on steel structures, bridge floors, gratings, concrete, and plastics.

4. Abrams, “Cal” (Calvin Ross; 1924-1997), U.S. baseball player, lifetime .269 hitter over eight seasons, with 433 hits, 32 h ]]> Book Reviews Encyclopeadia Judaica Shnayer Leiman Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/6/5/Shnayer-Leiman--The-New-Encyclopaedia-Judaica-Some-Preliminary-Observations Sale On Seforim Hard Drives http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/31/Sale-On-Seforim-Hard-Drives As discussed previously, there are two hard drive systems which contain thousands of seforim. Both of these will be on sale starting on Sunday June 3 for two weeks. For more information one can contact Mr. Flohr, who provided the information which appears below. Here are the sale prices:

Otzar Hachochma - Hard Drive System
Full version (23,000 seforim)- $1380 (reg. $1980)
Bney Torah (21,500 seforim) - $1240 (reg. $1780)
G'mara V'Halacha (15,800 seforim) -$930 (reg. $1320)
Torah U'Midrash (15,800 seforim) - $930 (reg. $1320)
Library Edition (23,000 seforim) - $950 (no search option)
FREE shipping on all orders.

Updates for previous owners available at 20% discount (i.e. owners of Otzar HaChochma who have not updated to the latest version can now do so during the sale and receive a discount price on the update).

It should be noted that if someone buys any of the "smaller" versions, they can update the program whenever they wish to a "higher" version (i.e. from Bney Torah to Full, or Gmara Vhalacha to Bney Torah etc.). The price would be based on the current sale price at the time they do the update.

There is an option for paying for the program in THREE payments.

Otzrot HaTorah (Morgenstern) - Hard Drive System
Full version (13,000 seforim) - $1296 (reg. $1600)
(if payed by cash or check discount of $156, final price - $1140)
Small version (12,000 seforim) - $990 (reg. $1200)
(If payed by cash or check discount of $120, final price - $870)

Morgenstern is also giving a free upgrade to the next version (version 5) which will include an additional 2,000 volumes as well as the complete Bayis Molay Seforim (Rosenberg) and will also have an update to the Otzar HaShu"t program (inc. parts of Yoreh De'ah). There is an option for paying for the program in 36 payments (three years).

The sale for both Otzar HaChochma as well as Otzrot HaTorah is scheduled to last for TWO weeks. After the sale is over the prices will go back up so if anyone is interested NOW is the time.

Also, readers of the Seforim Blog who mention it when purchasing will be given an EXTRA bonus.
Thanks much.
Moshe Flohr / Computer Maven
732-363-4941
917-456-7855
OTZARinfo@gmail.com
ezf613@hotmail.com

Finally, both Bar Ilan and DBS have updated their respective databases and Mr. Flohr has those available as well
Bar Ilan ver. 15 update from ver. 14 is $99.
DBS ver. 13 update from ver. 12 is $80.
there are prices for updating for earlier versions as well but please contact Mr. Flohr for those specifics.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Thu, 31 May 2007 10:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/31/Sale-On-Seforim-Hard-Drives The Custom of Akdamut on Shavuot http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/21/The-Custom-of-Akdamut-on-Shavuot R. Brodt has already discussed the custom of azharot on Shavous, I wanted to discuss another Shavous custom – akdamut. Akdamut is the poem in Aramaic which is said around the time of the reading of the Torah on the first day of Shavuot.

This poem, composed by R. Meir ben Isaac who lived in Worms in the 11th century. He was also know as R. Meir Sha”tz (Shiliach Tzibor). The poem itself describes what happens in heaven when the angels sing their praises to god as well as god’s relationship with the Jewish people. The earliest source which records the custom to say akdamut is R. Ya’akov Molin (MaHRiL). The custom is then mentioned in most of the traditional codifiers of Ashkenazic custom.

The placement of akdamut is the subject of some controversy. According to the earliest sources which record the custom, they place the recitation of akdamut after the first passuk is read from the Torah. This was the accepted custom for many years. In the 17th century some began to question the propriety of interrupting the Torah reading with this poem. This controversy was brought to head in Venice where there were both Ashkenazim and Sefardim. As the Sefardim did not say akdamut at all, they found it highly questionable whether one can insert such a late poem in the middle of the Torah reading. This became a large controversy in Venice. The question was raised about the propriety of Ashkenazi customs in general and whether the Sefardic majority (in Vencie) could pass judgment on customs which they do not follow.

R. Ephraim HaKohen was asked a host of questions related to this controversy. First, can a Sefardic court decide about the propriety of an Ashkenazic custom, or are they considered “suspect” as they do not follow that custom? Second, is the custom of akdamut correct – to read it after the first passuk? And, finally, what is the effect of Sefardic customs vis-à-vis Ashkenazic ones when one group is in the majority?
He responded that first, there is no issue of a Sefardic court deciding on the customs of Ashkenazim. But, he explained that although in Venice the majority is comprised of Sefardim, that fact alone does not affect the Ashkenazic custom – as majority is not decided by a raw majority of people, but rather, a majority of people who follow a particular custom. Thus, you would look only at the Ashkenazic community to decide this issue based on majority. Or as he puts it “the majority of Sefardim is nothing when it comes to Ashkenazim.”

Finally, he discusses whether it is correct to pause and recite akdamut during the Torah reading. He explains that this is a correct custom, in part, because those who decided to do this to begin with were obviously aware of this issue and decided to do so anyways. He concludes that as this is a well-established custom it should remain in effect.

While R. Ephraim HaKohen spent a considerable amount of time justifying this practice (it is a very long responsa), his descendant R. Ya’akov Emden felt, irrespective of his great-grandfather, that it was wrong to interrupt the Torah reading. In his siddur, R. Emden takes issue, recognizing that although his great-grandfather justified the practice, there can in fact be no justification. The only proper place is prior to the start of the entire Torah reading – but one can not interrupt the Torah reading for akdamut. R. Emden argues that R. Ephraim’s assumption that the ones who instituted akdamut also knew about this problem, is meaningless. R. Emden explains that the early Ashkenazim had no problem interrupting in all sorts of instances for piyyutim, thus it is unsurprising to find they did it again here. But, R. Emden, says when it is no longer acceptable to recite many piyyutim there can be no justification for reciting akdamut during the Torah reading.

A similar stance to that of R. Emden is found in R. David ben Shmuel haLevi’s work – Turei Zehav or TaZ. He also complains about interrupting the Torah reading with this piyyut.

Based himself upon the same concerns as R. Emden and the TaZ, R. Aryeh Gunzberg (Sha'agas Aryeh) when he took the Chief Rabbi position of Metz argued that the community should change their custom from reciting akdamut after the first passuk and move it before the Torah reading. The community, however, would have none of that and refused to agree to the change. The Sha'gas Aryeh then threatened to leave Metz. In the end, the "compromise" was the Sha'agas Aryeh only came to the main Shul four times a year to give a derasha in protest of the community keeping their custom of akdamut.

Although one may justify the practice, as R. Ephraim HaKohen did, based upon the notion this is an established custom, the ultimate question is why was this established in the Torah reading at all? In the journal Ve’Laket Yosef, an interesting explanation is offered. Akdamut is in Aramaic, and it was the custom to have a translator during the Torah reading. This translation was done into Aramaic. There are two rather estoric readings – the Torah reading of the first day of Shavuot and the haftorah of the second day of Shavuot. Perhaps, prior to attempting to translate these difficult readings, the translator offered a justification and request from the congregation to allow him to translate this. Akdamut was the translators introduction – thus as his first time he would translate would be after the first verse – his introduction, and akdamut is after the first verse.

Setting aside when one is supposed to say akdamut, who was R. Meir the author? R. Meir lived in Worms, but the custom in Worms was not to say akdamut. This is a bit strange as one would assume the author’s home town would say his piyyut. R. Yehuda Leib Kirchheim, one of the recorders of Worm’s custom and history, says that once someone read akdamut in a beautiful fashion, and with a tremendous amount of concentration and right after he finished – he died. Thus, they stopped saying akdamut in Worms. However, R. Kirchheim, argues that this can not be the reason akdamut is not said as this would only prove how great akdamut is, it would not justify not saying it (although one could argue that it is a great piyyut, but after the person died, in Worms, they couldn’t find anyone else to recite it).

There are all sorts of legends told about R. Meir. Although it is typically understood that R. Meir Shatz was a chazzan, there is another explanation to this name. There is a legend which has a priest challenging the Jews in Worms to a debate. This threw the Worms Jewish Community into a tizzy, they didn’t know what to do. R. Meir stood up and said someone should go to the other side of the sambatyon river. The rabbi responded, fine – you be the one to go. Well R. Meir went off, first to Israel to ask a kabbalist where the sambatyon river is and then on to the sambatyon. When he got there, sure enough, the river was impassable, except on Shabbos. Although he would have been prohibited from crossing the river on Shabbos, as he was doing so only to save the lives of those in Worms, he did so. He found someone to go back and defend the Worms community. But, R. Meir got stuck, as he no longer had a dispensation to cross the river – there was no longer any mortal danger as he had found someone, so he remained behind the sambatyon river. According to this legend, Sheliach Tzibor – or the community emissary is literal and not a chazzan.

It is unclear where R. Meir is buried, some say in Tiberius, others place him somewhere in Europe.

Sources:

R. Ephraim HaKohen, Sha’arei Ephraim, no. 10; Va'yelaket Yosef, no. 175 (1916); Landshuth, Amudei Avodah, pp. 164-65; Jacobson, Netiv Benah, vol. 4, pp. 99-105; R. Weinstock, Sheni Asar Shevtei Yisrael, pp. 70-77; Yuspah Shames, Minhagi Worms, vol. 1 ; Grossman, Hakmei Ashkenaz, 292-96; Frankel ed., Goldschmit Shavous Machzor, pp. 28-35; T. Rabinowitz, Iyunei Halacha, vol. 2 pp. 452-67; Hamburger, Gedolei haDoros 'al Mishmar Minhag Ashkenaz, pp. 108-112.

Also, see A. Habermann, Toldos HaPiyyut V'hashirah, vol. 2, p. 184 where he says that akdamut is in Aramaic as it is such a marvelous piyyut if it was in Hebrew (a language the angels can understand) the angels would be jealous.

For further online sources see here, here and here.

]]> Shavous Customs Relating to Siddur Mon, 21 May 2007 13:21:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/21/The-Custom-of-Akdamut-on-Shavuot The Custom of Azharot on Shavous http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/20/The-Custom-of-Azharot-on-Shavous
The Custom of Azharot on Shavous
by R Eliezer Brodt

The Yom tov of Shavous called Yom Matan Torahsenu as it is the day we received the Torah thousands of years ago at Har Sinai. It has many minhaghim that we do to remind us of this such as putting up grass and flowers or eating dairy dishes. Another minhag which many Jews have is to say azharot today. In this post I would like to discuss a bit of interesting bibliographic information about some specific azharot and their authors. On this topic, we will (1) discuss the numbering of the mitzvos in general; (2) next the meaning of azharot; (3) those who took exception to reciting the azharot; and (4) specifically which azharot are frowned upon.

In order to understand this topic a small introduction is needed. According to most opinions Jews are commanded to follow 613 mitzvos from the Torah. While 613 the most common number used, it is actually disputed by a few people. R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow records that R Yonah Ibn Ganach questioned the number. A little later than R. Ibn Ganach, we find that the Ibn Ezra questions this number and does so at great length in his Yesod Moreh, Shar Shenei (pg 91 and onwards). After that we find that the famous kabbalist R. Yosef Gikatilla, says (in his K'lalei Hamitzvos Erech Manah) that it’s impossible to give a number to the mitzvos. The Ramban also questions this number at length in the beginning of his work on the mitzvos. Gersonides (RaLBaG) in his commentary on shmos also questions the number (pg 76 Mossad Harav Kook edition). If we now skip a few hundred years, there is an interesting statement, attributed to the Gra, recorded by his brother R Avrohom at the beginning of his work Ma’alos haTorah where he has the Gra saying that the 613 is only the shoroshim (see there at length and the menucha vekedusha pg 20). R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes that this is the reason why we do not find that the Gra wrote on this area although he wrote on every other area of torah (Halichos Shlomo, Shavous, pg 374) due to its unending nature.

Aside from the above opinions, the 613 number has been accepted by most. After one agrees on a final number, the next question is commandments are included in this number. There was two main groups of numbers counters - the BaHaG who gave one listing of the 613 mitzvos and for a few hundred years this was the accepted method of counting the commandments. Then along came the Rambam with many arguments on the BaHaG’s method of counting which he devotes his introduction to his Sefer haMitzvos where he explains why he why he argued against the other shitos and counted the ones he did. Afterwards a whole collection of literature has been written on this topic from many rishonim and achronim.

Besides for the actual count of the mitzvos, there were many composers in the era of the Geonim and Rishonim who composed poems (piyyutim) counting the mitzvos some of these poems are known as azharot.

First, what is the meaning of the word Azharot? Professor Ezra Fleischer writes (Shirat Hakodesh Haivrit B'yemi Habenyayimm pg 73) that it’s not clear from where did the name אזהרת come from, it appears to be the opening sentence of a piyyut now lost. Others point out that אזהרת is the gematriah of 613. Moritz Steinschneider writes (Jewish Literature pg 159) that these piyyutim were based on halachic subjects which instruction was to be given on the Shabbos before the Yom tovim therefore they were called azharot meaning instructions. There are also azharot said on Shabboas Hagodal. A sample of one from R Klonomius can be found in the Shomer Zion Haneman (issue 95-97 year תרטו) (see also Davidsin Otzar Hashira Vhapiyyut vol 2 # 1042). Professor Ezra Fleischer also writes (Shirat Hakodesh Haivrit B'yemi Habenyayimm pg 384) that others such as R Yehudah Halevi wrote azharot for Pesach.

Zunz says the earliest azharot we have are from the end of Eighth century called אתה הנחלת (see also Otzar Haseforim from Ben Yakov pg 33). Amongst the other early ones we have are from R Saddiah Goan, R Binyomin ben Shmuel, R Eliyha haZaken R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R. Yitchack Albargeloni.

The Chida in Shem Hagedolim says that the recitation of azharot on Shavous, is done by most Jews. Much earlier we find in the Tzeda laDerach (mamar 4 klal 4 perek 6) that in Spain they said from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s and in Ashkenaz and France they said the one from R. Eliyahu Hazakan The Abudrham (p. 246) also brings that they said from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel. Even earlier we find both the Siddur Rav Amram Goan (Goldshmidt edition pg 131) and R Saddiah Goan (pg 156 and onwards) also discuss when exactly azharot were said during mussaf. R Saadiah Goan went even further he writes that he saw that everyone says during mussaf the 613 mitzvos from a piyyut called אתה הנחלתה (the earliest known azharot) but saw that it was missing a bunch of mitzvos so he composed a completely new version including all the mitzvos. One of the versions he composed was showing the 613 mitzvos in the asres hadebros (see the article of R Shmual Askenazi in Kovetz Beis Aaron V'yisroel 1991 issue 5 pg 109-114).

The Shelah, Sedar Hayom, and Chida bring that there were those that said the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel when they stayed up Shavous night (See Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Vol 3 pg 296-298).

The reason for saying the azharot on Shavous suggests Profesor Frankel is perhaps based on a medrash which says that at matan torah the Jews were told after every mitzvah do you accept it with all its applications and after each one they said yes so it could be on shavous the day we got the torah we do this as its like a review of what happened than (Goldshmidt Machzaor Pg 11).

Aside from all the above, not everyone was so enamored with azharot. Two people specifically – Ibn Ezra and the Rambam – were against at least some azharot.

The Ibn Ezra writes in his Yesod Moreh (Bar Ilan 2002 pg 107) “that the authors of azharot are like people who count the blades of grass mentioned in the medical books not realizing the purpose of each one thus these people count the same thing twice because its mentioned twice.” The Rambam writes in his introduction to Sefer haMitzvos while talking about the different minyan hamitzvos that “there are many azharot from Spain and you can not blame them for making mistakes as they were composers not Rabanim.”

It is possible that the Rambam’s opinion was influenced by Ibn Ezra. In the Rambam’s last will and testament, he spoke highly of Ibn Ezra and recommended his son R. Abraham study Ibn Ezra. (See the Koreh haDoros pg 19 and R Emanuel Abuhav in his Bemavak Al Archa Shel Torah pg 247). But, using this source would be a mistake. As was already noted by the Mahrshal who questions whether in fact the will attributed to the Rambam is in fact from the Rambam. Similarly, R Yakov Emden in his Mitpachas Seforim (pgs 101-02) also writes that it must be a forgery. Today, Yitchzach Shilat, has demonstrated conclusively that in fact the will, attributed to the Rambam is a forgery. (Iggros Harambam vol 2 pg 697-698; see also G Scholem in Mechkeria Kabblah Vol 1 pg 190). While the will may not be real, this is still some evidence that the Rambam was influenced by the Ibn Ezra’s work Yesod Moreh in general (see R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow in his introduction to his work on R Saddaih Goan pg 15).

Setting aside where the Rambam got this anti-azharot idea, the next issue is which azharot were the Rambam and Ibn Ezra disapproving of?

R Chaim Heller in his notes (#34) on the Sefer Hamitzvos references a teshuva written by the Radbaz (vol. 3 siman 645) where the Radbaz writes that the Rambam is referring to Reb Shlomo Ibn Gabriel. R Y. Kapach also writes the Rambam is referring to R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni. The Sefer HaYechsin (pg 219) also assumes the Rambam was referring to both R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni. The Koreh Hadoros when quoting the Rambam’s above statement about the azharot takes this attribution one step further where the Koreh Hadoros just includes in the quote from the Rambam R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni making it appear as if the Rambam says these names specifically. Landshuth, in his Amudei Avodah also assumes the Rambam is referring to R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel (pg 313).


The attribution to R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel is problematic, mainly because it seems both him and his piyyutim where highly regarded. Although the Tashbatz already writes in his Zohar Harokea (a commentary on azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel) that this composer was not a great expert in Talmud; most others dispute this characterization. The Rogachaver Goan in his notes (see also Tiferes Zvi on the Zohar Vol 1 pg 189) on the Tashbatz writes that it’s a chutzpah to write such a thing on this amazing composer! [In a joking manner I wanted to suggest its strange that the Rogatchver would stick up for a a rishon as its well known he argued on Rishonim all the time so I wanted to suggest that he wanted to defend R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel so that he would be able to argue on the Tashbatz.]

But one thing we see from this for certain is that the Rogatchver held he was a great Talmud Chacham. Further more there is a different teshuvah (vol 3 siman 532) from the Radvaz where he writes that R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was a great person and Ibn Gabriel’s words are holy! This would seem to contradict the previously quoted words of the Radbaz. R. Matsyahu Strashun (Mivchar Kesavim Pg 116-118) suggests because of this apparent contradiction and some others that the Radbaz lived a very long life of 110 years and he wrote over 2000 teshuvot so its possible that over this great length of time he forgot his own earlier words.

R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s contemporaries also held him in high regard. The Ravad (Sefer Hakablah pg 81) Meiri (Sefer Hakablah, Ofek ed., pg 136) Avudraham and Yechsin all call him a great chacham. In one place the Sefer haYeuchsin writes that לא קם כמוהו לפניו ואחריו. The Chida also writes that it can not be that the Rambam was referring to R Shlomo ibn Gabriel. R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow in his work on the Sefer haMitzvos of the Rasag he calls R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel a Godal. The Yechsin writes (and from there the Tzemach Dovid and Koreh Hadoros) that he was the rebbi of Rashi! However R Shmuel Askenazi already points out that the years are impossible because Rashi was ten years old living in France when R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel died in Spain (see his notes to the Kav Hayashar pg 20).

The Kav Hayashar writes that R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was a great mekubal. The Sefer Metzref Lechochma even (pg 9b) brings that he created a woman golem! (see M Idel, Golem pg 200 and 343) This story shows he was familiar with kabblah maseyois.

There is a famous story brought down by many people [Shalsheles Hakablah (pg 89) Yesod Yosef (perek 87) Kav Hayashar (perek 86) Sefer Zechirah (pg 243) others bring down this story with R Shlomo Alkabetz see Amodei Ha'avodah pg 310.] in regard to R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s death. A non-Jew was jealous of Ibn Gabriel’s wisdom so he killed him burying him under his fig tree. In time, the tree started bearing excellent figs, so great were these figs, that the king heard about it. The king wanted to know what his trick to get such good figs. The fig tree owner obviously did not want to reveal his secret. The king was not satisfied and had the fig tree owner tortured. The fig tree owner eventually confessed that he killed a Jew and buried him there. The king had the fig tree owner killed.
The Kav Hayashar and others use the above story to demonstrate the authors of our piyyutim were great people so we should be say them having the authors name in mind and that his merits should help us. However R. Shmuel Ashkenazi has already pointed out based on the Sefer Tachmoni that this story is not true and instead, R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel died at the age of twenty nine from a harsh sickness in 1040 (see his notes to the Kav Hayashar pg 19 not the date 1070 given by the Sefer Yuchsin and Zinberg Toldos Hasafros B'yisroel vol 1 pg 72 For more on his sickness see Chaim Shirman in Toldos Hashira Haivrit b'Sefard Hamuslamit pg 265-268).

Abraham Haberman brings down in his Toldos Hapiyyut V'haShira (vol 1 pg 179) a legend from a Temani manuscript that describes the story behind R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel writing of his azharot. R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was learning in a Yeshivia where the Rebbe had a daughter of marriageable age. The Rebbi said who ever gives me a new fruit can marry her. That night R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel wrote the azharot gave it to the Rebbe and the Rebbe announced the engagement. They got married eruv Shavous!

Another piyyut which R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel is famous for is Keter Malchus which in nusach Sefard machzorim it was said on Yom Kippur at night others say it during the day (see I. Davidson, Otzar Hashira Vehapiyyut # 581). Many people discuss how there are many kabblastic concepts in this piyyut (see Chaim Shirman, Toldos Hashira Hivrit B'sefard Hamuslmit pg 331-345).

Besides for composing songs R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel authored a few seforim one called Tikin Midos Hanefesh others attribute to him the Mivchar Pinenim. However besides for this he authored another sefer which was a classic in philosophy called Mekor Chaim. An interesting thing happened with it it was translated to Latin called Fons Vitae and it became a world classic but the authors name was written as Avicebron and know one knew that a Jew was the real author. In 1846, S Munk figured out that it’s really from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and he printed it. Eventually it was printed in Hebrew. There has been much written on this sefer to show that R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was familiar with kabblah (see G. Scholem, Mechkeria Kabblah Vol 1 pg 39-66).

[For more on R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel see Elbogen, Hatefilah B'yisroel pg 258-259: Zinberg in Toldos Safrus B'yisroel vol 1 pg 34-73: A Haberman Toldos Hapiyyut Vehashira vol 1 pg 175-180: Chaim Shirman in Toldos Hashira Hivrit bsefard hamuslmit pg 257-345.]

From all this, it is clear that neither the Rambam or Ibn Ezra were referring to Ibn Gabriel, so we now turn to another candidate - R Yitzchack Albargeloni. R. Albargeloni lived in the era of the Rif and Ravad. The Sefer Hakabalah also says that R. Albargeloni was a great talmid chacham who wrote works on Kesuvos and Eruvin. The Meiri in Sefer HaKabbalah also (pg 134) writes that he was a great chacham. These works of his on kesuvos and eruvin were lost however Profesor Ta-Shma has found some pieces of his in other works of Rishonim (See his Hasafrut Haparshnut Le'talmud volume 1 pg 168-169). Besides for this he also translated the sefer Mekeach umemkar of Rav Hai Goan from Arabic to Hebrew when he was thirty five years old (see amudei havodah pg 126 and Or hachaim Chaim Michael pg 510). Thus the Chida writes the Rambam was not referring to R Yitzchack Albargeloni.

Another early composer of azharot which was recently found active before R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni was from R Binyomin Ben Shmuel. Professor Ezra Fleischer printed them in kovetz al yad (vol 11 pg 1-77) R Binyomin lived according to Zunz before Rashi in the first half of the eleventh century. According to some he was the brother of R Yosef Tov Elem. [For more on this Rishon see Fleischer in his extensive intro to his work and Professor A Grossman in Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 47-51.]

Another early composer of azharot – before R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was R Eliyayhu Hazakon his azharot are quoted in Tosafot throughout shas and by many other Rishonim so its highly unlikely that the Ibn Ezra and Rambam were referring to him. The Marshal (shut siman 29) and Chida write that he was the brother in law of Rav Hai Goan but recent historians show that he might have been mistaken and he was a bit later than that See Prof A Grossman in Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 88-90 . [For a listing of the rishonim who bring him down see Amudei Avodah pg 14-15: Chaim Michael, Or Hachaim pg 180: Davidson, Otzar Hashira Vehapiyyut vol 1 #6022 and the introduction of the Mezack Azharot by R Yisroel Shaprio.] Professor A Grossman discusses his life and works at great length in his work Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 84-107.

Many commentaries were written on these different azharot by Rishonim and Achronhim. On the azharot of R Saadiah Goan we have the excellent encyclopedic work of R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow where he basically has and average of ten pages per every word of R Saadiah Goan he also discusses all the other opinions of the geonim and rishonim on the relevant topics. On the azharot of R Yitzchack Albargeloni we have the commentary Nesiv Mitzvosecha from R Shaul Hakohen from Gerba (he also wrote on the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel.) On R Eliyhau Hazakan we have an early in depth commentary from him printed in the Kovetz al Yad (vol 11 part 1) from E Kuffer from some talmidim of talmidi Rabenu Tam. In 1900, R Mordechaei Slutski printed a pirish called Hiddur Zakon. This work has haskamas from the Meshech Chochma and Minchas Borouch. In 1972 R Yisroel Issur Shaprio (son of R Refael Shaprio) wrote an excellent in depth work called Matzack Azharot where he has a lengthy commentary on every word of R Eliyahu Hazakan. In 2001, Yitzhach Meiseles put out a complete critical edition of these azharot.

On the azharot of R shlomo Ibn Gabriel we have many works amongst them the Tashbatz's Zohar Ha'rokeah. The Zohar Ha'rokeah has its own recent extensive edition from R A David including many useful footnotes and the notes of the Shoel U'mashiv, Rogatchver, R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow and R Menachem Kasher. A while back in a sinai a few pieces of the Adres's notes were printed on the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel.

Another person who we find wrote a commentary on the azharot of אזהרת ראשית was R Shmuel Chassid the father of R Yehudah Hachassid but they are only in manuscript as of now (see E E Aurbach ed., Arugot Habosem vol 4 pg 89 ) For a complete history of R Shmuel Hachassid see the article from Abraham Epstein in his Ketvim vol 1 pg 247-268.

So at least these few authors can not be the ones the Ibn Ezra and Rambam were referring to. So the Chida writes it must be they were referring to the many other composers of azharot. It is clear that this is the case as the Ramban writes in the beginning of his notes on the Rambam shorshim that there were many piyyutim and azharots written of the mitzvos.

General sources see: Chida in Shem Hagedolim Erech Azharot: Elbogen, Hatefilah b'yisroel pg 163: Extensive introduction of Prof. Yonah Frankel in the Goldshmidt Machzor on Shavous pg 11-14 and pgs 36-48: Introduction of R. A. David to his Zohar Harokeah.


]]> Eliezer Brodt Shavous Customs Relating to Siddur Sun, 20 May 2007 15:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/20/The-Custom-of-Azharot-on-Shavous Review of a new edition of the Sefer Chasidim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/16/Review-of-a-new-edition-of-the-Sefer-Chasidim

Review of a new edition of the Sefer Chasidim

by R. Eliezer Brodt

As recently mentioned on this blog this generation is privileged to have many seforim especially rishonim being reprinted in critical editions based on manuscripts etc. One of the publishing houses which has been involved in publishing such works is Mechon Otzar haPoskim. A few years ago they released a few volumes of a critical edition of the Mahzhor Vitri which to date its still not complete. And now, a few weeks ago they published two volumes (of eventually four volumes) of the Sefer Hassidim. In this post I would like give some background on Mechon Otzar haPoskim, the Sefer Chassidim in general and this recent version in particular.

Mechon Otzar haPoskim was founded in the 1950’s by two great gedolim R. Isser Zalman Meltzer and R. Yitzchak Isaac Herzog. R. Herzog explained (introduction to Otzar haPoskim compendium on Even haEzer) the reason for founding of the organization was due to the almost limitless nature of Halacha and thus at times poskim find themselves having to deal with very difficult topics and do not have access to most of the seforim of the many great Gedolim of the past that would help them deal with these difficult topics. Attempts to deal with the vast amount of halacha literature had been previously attempted by the Peschei Teshuva and Darkei Teshuvah. But, today, both of these works are limited as the body of literature has expanded significantly since these earlier works came out. R. Herzog thus had the idea to create a modern compendium using what he had available. He then heard that R. Isser Zalman had the same thoughts so they decided to work together and gather a group of Gedolim to systematically go thru the teshuvot literature, abridge it, and place it in the parallel place in the order of the Shulchan Orach. R. Isser Zalman had an additional reason why he wanted to start this organization. He felt that many talmdei chachamim needed parnasah so this was a great way to help them by employing them to go thru all the seforim (Derech Etz Chaim vol. 2 p. 327).

With the help of Dr. L. Magnes, R. Herzog was able to raise funds to start this organization. Card catalogs were made and the seforim were cataloged according to topics forming the now-famous Otzar haPoskim catalogs. These catalogs are the notes culled from thousands of seforim. A look in the index of earlier volumes of the Otzar haPoskim will show that they in the fifties were going thru more volumes of seforim than the Frankel edition of the Rambam did in their recent, final volume! Interestingly, R. Isser Zalman inherited an excellent library from R. Chaim Berlin which contained thousands of rare seforim which were unknown to most people. R. Isser Zalman made sure these seforim were used and quoted in the Otzar haPoskim (Derech Etz Chaim vol. 2 p. 328). R. Isser Zalman also the one who made the decision which works would make it into Otzar haPoskim and which would not. To date this catalog has helped many seforim such as the many volumes of Mo’adim l’Simcha.

Otzar haPoskim’s main work has been the Otzar haPoskim on Even haEzer. Anyone needing sources on topics relating to Even haEzer; this has a tremendous amount of sources. One interesting point about this work is that one finds all kinds of Rabbonim getting along – quoted side by side. A few years ago they mentioned that the volumes of Otzar haPoskim on Orach Chaim are in preparation one only hopes that they will come thru to create such an important necessary work on Orach chaim [This is actually available on the Morgenstern, Otzrot haTorah, hard drive as well as on the Otzar haPoskim on Hoshen Mishpat.]

Recently they have expanded their repertoire to include the publication of Rishonim such as the Machzor Vitri and, now, the Sefer Chasidim.

The Sefer Chasidim has been reprinted many times ever since it was first printed in Bologna in 1538. R. Saadia Helvona in his introduction to his commentary on the Sefer Chasidim, Mishnat Chasidim, notes that the Sefer Chasidim is encyclopedic in nature as it includes both halacha and aggadah. The Sefer Chasidim is extremely popular and it is quoted by many rishonim and achronim for all kinds of things. Aside from quotations, there seems to be a certain awe about it which is hard to explain especially when it comes to the tzavah (the ethical will) which was printed in many of the editions (first printed in Yesod haTeshuva, Cracow, 1585).

The tzavah itself is the subject of many teshuvot and even some entire seforim. Without going into the whole history of this topic (which R Gutman promises us will be one of the forthcoming volumes) its worth mentioning aside from the well-known teshuva in the Nodah beYehudah (Even haEzer Tinyanah no. 79), where he writes that there are many things in the tzavah which conflict with Chazal and those statements do not need to be followed. There is an additional, lesser known statement from the Noda BeYehudah about the tzavah. R Eleazer Fleckels (most well know for his Teshuvah m’Ahahva), in his Olat haChodesh (vol. 1 p.15) records that the Nodah beYehudah would respond when asked if there is a problem marrying someone if that will cause the future father-in- law and future son-in-law will share the same name (which the tzavah states is a problem) “before you ask me about following the tzavah of R. Yehudah haChasid ask me about the tzavah (or statement) of Chazal which decries marrying the daughter of a am ha’aretz! [This sentiment, however, is disputed in the Teshuvos Matzav haYashar (volume 2 pg 44) where he writes “in his old age that whenever he saw people going against various statements in the tzavah nothing good ever came from it!]

The true authorship of the Sefer Chasidim is unclear. Some attribute it to R. Yehudah haChasid (Chida and others) but R Avrohm ben haGra records that his father, the Gra, held R. Eleazer Rokeach wrote it (Yeshurun, vol. 4 p. 250). R Frumkin also records this statement from the Gra– R. Frumkin’s source is a manuscript of R. Yisrael of Shklov’s Pas haShulchan (Toldos Chachmei Yerushalim, vol. 2 p. 102 the end of note 1; see also Chaim Michal, Or haChaim p. 456). Abraham Epstein writes that the Sefer Chasidim doesn’t have a single author but instead it is from three different people – R Shmuel haChassid, his son R Yehudah haChasid, and R. Eleazer Rokeach (Kitvei R. Avrohom Epstein, vol. 1 pp. 258-261). R. Gutman in the introduction to his new edition of the Sefer Chasidim brings many other different sources in regard to the authorship of this sefer. Recently Professor Haym Soloveitchik shows in a beautiful article based on Yakov Reifman that not only are is the work of different authors but there are completely different styles and what one writes completely contradicts what the other does. (JQR XCII no. 3-4 pp. 455-493).

Many manuscripts exist of the Sefer Chasidim , however, from the 1538 until 1891 there was basically one version printed based on only one of the manuscripts. In 1891, Yehudah Wistinetzki printed a new edited from another manuscript - the Parma manuscript - published by Chevra Mekitsei Nerdamim.

This Parma manuscript contains a almost double the material of the original edition. Aside from just adding material, the Parma edition is also important for the different versions of the previously published pieces. This edition was recently reprinted by Moznaim publishing house but without the important introduction of Y. Frieman. However, the Kest Leibowitz publishers also recently reprinted this edition and they reprinted the whole sefer including the introduction. Interestingly although the footnotes which appear in this edition are not that extensive as some of the prior editions, there are important notes on this edition albeit they don’t appear in the actual work. Instead, Wistinetzki, prior to printing this edition sent about fifty questions to R. Yosef Zechariah Stern in an attempt to locate sources for different statements of the Sefer Chasidim and the answers are included in R. Stern’s Zecher Yehosef (vol. 1 no. 78).

In 1955, Rabbi Avrahom Price from Toronto with the permission of Mekitsei Nerdamim reprinted the Parma edition in three massive volumes with extensive footnotes. But, one thing which R. Price stays clear from – which he admits in his introduction – is the kabalah aspects of the Sefer Chasidim as he was not familiar with this part of torah. These three volumes are available for free download at seforim online at Hebrewbooks.org..

In 1924, R. Reuven Margolis first published in Lemberg, what would become the most popular version of the Sefer Chasidim, in a critical edition . Subsequently, this was corrected and updated and eventually published by Mossad HaRav Kook. This edition to date is the best job done on the Sefer Chasidim. He has excellent notes, as many are familiar with from his many seforim - he writes straight to the point referencing all kinds of sources from everywhere – showing the sources which form the basis of the Sefer Chasidim. He also shows, with his unbelievable bikyus, whether the various authorities - rishonim and achronim - agree with the statements of the Sefer Chasidim. Besides for all this he has many excellent and original comments on the Sefer Chasidim which he is famous for in all of his works. He also includes notes from nine different people on the Sefer Chasidim. Until now, there was one other worthwhile addition to the Sefer Chasidim. In 1984, R. Moshe Herschler printed in his Kovetz Genuzot (vol. one) some thirty more pieces of the Sefer Chasidim which he found in a different manuscript.

We now come to this most recent version published by Otzar HaPoskim and edited by R. Gutman. As mentioned above, thus far, two volumes have been issued of what is supposed to be four volumes of the Sefer Chasidim. The first impression one has when one picks it up is this is a beautiful job as the print is very clear and the layout it very organized. This is keeping with the famous statement of R Akiva Eiger where he writes to his sons in the introduction of his teshuvot that “one should print his sefer on nice paper and ink because one learns much better from such a sefer”. Although this statement is attributed to R. Eiger, in fact, this idea is found much earlier in the famous introduction to the Maeseh Efod (p. 13) of where he writes this concept at great length it’s quoted by R Yakov Emden in his work Migdal Oz (p.50 ) in short.

Prior editions of the Sefer Chasidim included the perush of the Chida, Bris Olam, but it seems that many pieces were missing. R Gutman corrects these omissions. In addition to those corrections to that commentary, another common commentary Pirish Kadmon by R. Dovid Greinheit also suffered from lack of completeness and R. Gutman has correct that as well. Besides for all this R. Gutman includes a collection of comments of R Eliezer Papua from his Yalkut Chasidim that relate to the Sefer Chasidim and the Perush Mishnat Chasidim from R Sadiah Chalonah (it is only on the first seven simanim in the sefer).

Rabbi Guttman includes many notes (totaling twenty-nine) from different gedolim on the Sefer Chasidim many of them which he obtained from unpublished manuscripts amongst them from the Adres and R. Y. Palagai. In the back of volume two he includes a sixty page kuntres of notes from R. Chaim Sofer who is famous for his incredible bikyus. In addition to all this he has many lengthy comments on the whole sefer from a wide rang of sources to explain the Sefer Chasidim. He also has a section on each page where he brings down various readings from the different manuscripts on the particular pieces.

All the above are the positive things about this reprint, unfortunately, there are notable points of criticism. It is true its is always easier to criticize than to the actual work oneself but here are some points I feel worthy of mentioning.

To begin with the entire history and literature of the Chasidei Ashkenaz in general have been the subject of many articles and books. However, even today after all that has been published there is much left unclear. Just to list a few of the people who were and are involved in the study of the Chasidei Ashkenaz, Moritz Gudemann (haTorah v’Hahayim, vol. 1, pp. 119-156), A. Epstein (vol. 1 pp. 245-269), Y Y Frieman (introduction to Sefer Chasidim Meketzei Nerdamim ed.), Gershom Scholem, Y Baer, Ivan Marcus (all in Da’as v’Chevrah b’Mishnat Chasidei Ashkenaz), E. E. Aurbach (Balei haTosfos, vol. 1, pp. 345- 447 and volume four of his edition of Arugot haBosem), Yisroel Ta Shema (Keneses Mechkarim, vol. 1 pp. 181-317), E. Kanarfogel (Peering thru the Lattices), Yosef Dan (in his recent book on R. Yehudah haChasid published by Zalman Shazar), Eric Zimmer, Simcha Emanuel (in his introduction to the recently published Drasha of Rokeach) and Haym Soloveitchik (AJS Review vol. 1 (1976) pp. 311- 357).

Some of what has been found in these manuscripts has been the subject of great controversy causing great people to claim these manuscripts must be forgeries (see Kovetz Minchas haKayitz vol. 6 pp. 251-252). But besides for this there has been a great many manuscripts found in the past twenty-five years and printed such as the Rokeach al haTorah and Megilos or the Rokeach’s work on siddur and many other of his works, R. Efraim al haTorah. Other works by the Chasidei Ashkenaz have been put out in critical editions such as the Sefer Gematriyos of R. Yehudah haChasid and the Amaoros Tehoros (which I hope to return to in later posts) all containing many important explanations about all sorts of topics from the Chasidei Ashkenaz.

To date there is no way to many unknowns (for me at least) to even paint a brief picture of this group of rishonim but one hopes with the help of the recent seforim printed and what will be printed in the future we will be able to get a clearer understanding of these great rishonim. Being aware of the explosion in this genre of literature, any version of the Sefer Chasidim should keep this companion literature in mind and should take it in account as much of the printed torah of the Chasidei Ashkenaz as it relates to this most famous work, Sefer Chasidim, of this school.

Now R. Gutman seemed to be aware of this and he does use some of these new seforim. For example, he quotes the Sefer Gematriyos many times however the rest of this no mention to the many other recent seforim of Chasidei Ashkenaz. [For a comparison see the recent edition of the Sefer Gematriyos where the footnotes are full of such cross-references (although he might of done to much).] The purpose of referencing the other literature of the Chasidei Ashkenaz is many times they can help understand certain comments if one can see all the ways similar ideas are brought down by the different talmdim. In learning Gemara with rishonim this is very important to help one understand the particular shitos and so to here.

For example, the Sefer Chasidim (siman 548) writes if one wants to see if he will live the year light a candle during assert yemih teshuvah if it remains lit you will live the year if not, not. On this R. Gutman references nothing. Where as without going much into this topic I will just give a reference to the Sefer Hashem of the Rokeach (recently printed from manuscript for the first time) where he talks about this (p.140) which complements the statement found in the Sefer Chasidim.

I feel this is a very important part to anyone writing on the Sefer Chasidim and R. Gutman should have put in more work in regard to this part. If he could not do it himself because he is not trained in this sort of work he should of gotten people who are familiar with such this field. R. Reuven Margolis who did know how to do this in general unfortunately could not do this as most of these seforim of Chasidei Ashkenaz were not available in his lifetime.

Another point that I would like to highlight is the many times R. Gutman cites to the Sefer Gematriyos he almost never references the exact page (see, e.g, pp. 23, 35, 39) in the Sefer Gematriyos making it very hard to find the piece he is quoting as it’s a massive two volume work. The same failing is apparent when R. Gutman quotes from the Sefer Amoros Tehoros (p. 23) or when R. Gutman cites the Sefer Hashem of the Rokeach (p. 429).

A more glaring omission is when Sefer Chasidim (p. 424) discusses the weird creature called שטריאה R. Gutman references the Sefer Gematriyos again not quoting the page and then R. Gutman writes ובסוף המאמר נשים הליליות ברושאם הנ"ל כתב which is an unintelligible citation. What R. Gutman means to say is that R. Stal in the back of his edition to the Sefer Gematriyos has a whole chapter devoted to this topic, however, this is totally unclear to the reader. Aside from the cryptic citation R. Gutman should have mentioned this is a comprehensive article on the topic.

Another point I would like to criticize is the use or lack thereof of R. Reuven Margolis edition. As I have mentioned earlier the Margolis edition is the best work to date on the Sefer Chasidim. It’s quite interesting that there is not a single mention of R. Margolis’s name in the introduction mentioning that R. Gutman used this work. However, it is obvious from hundreds of places throughout this Gutman’s edition that in fact he did use this edition.

What is perhaps even stranger is the many times that R. Gutman says nothing on a very important point and R. Margolis has already discussed it in depth. Some examples are on page 180 -181 where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 158) writes against tefilah בקול רם and the Margolis edition references the famous collection on this topic called Yanenu B’kol there is no reason why R. Gutman could not mention this. Another example is on page 172 where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 155) has a long discussion about stealing torah from someone so R Gutman has a lengthy note of sources about this but once he is on the topic one should quote the Sefer Shem Olem of R. Margolis where he discusses this topic at great length. This omission is even more bizarre as later on R. Gutman does cite this work (p. 744).

One more example is on page 274 the Sefer Chasidim (siman 258) ויום כיפור קרוי כמו כן ראשית דכתיב ביחזקאל בעשרים וחמש שנה לגלותינו בראש השנה בעשור לחדש אלמא בעשור קרוי ראש השנה on this R Margolis references a comment of his from other places (see his Toldos haMahrsha p. 51 and the notes therein and his Nitzozei Or p. 158) proving that sometimes it says Rosh Hashanah and it refers to Yom Kippur affirming the statement in the Sefer Chasidim –again no mention at all on this by R. Gutman. Another such example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 822) talks about wiping ones feet off before entering a shul in the R. Margolis edition there are many sources on this topic. But, again R. Gutman mentions nothing about this custom.

Another example is where the Sefer Chasidim (Siman 858) talks about saving seforim from a fire on Shabbos again R. Gutman does not quote the excellent reference of R. Margolis citing in turn the Adres who says that if one has manuscripts of his own that he worked hard on he may save them from the fire first because it’s like pikuach nefesh! Throughout R. Gutman’s edition there are many such examples. Perhaps R. Gutman assumed what whomever purchases his edition already has R. Reuven Margolis edition and R. Gutman was merely adding to that. Even so, he should mention it in the introduction.

Another deficiency in this edition is R. Gutman, in the section he includes comments collecting sources etc., his style is difficult as much of what he has could have been done shorter and more to the point. Unfortunately, this is a common weakness that many authors have today as I have previously mentioned on this blog. Besides for that I feel there are many more sources that he could have added to this part making it a true encyclopedic work that it should be.

Just to list a few examples of sources that he missed and on this there for sure is an element of lo alechu hamlacha ligmor. One where R. Gutman talks about the cherem to live in Spain (p. 394) he misses much on the topic amongst the omissions is the famous discussion of the Teruos Melech in Rosh Hashanah (siman 13 sec. 2) (for more on this see the great article of Marc B. Shapiro in Sefarad 49:2(1989) pp. 381-394).

Another such example is both times where the Sefer Chasidim talks about stealing torah from someone (pp. 172 and 774) he could have added the piece of R. Efraim Zalman Margolis in his introduction to the edition of the Maseh Rokeach which he printed. Another such example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 822) talks about wiping ones feet off before entering a shul so besides for not mentioning R. Margolis’s comments at all he could of referenced to the excellent discussion in the Minhaghei haKehelos of R. Golhaber (vol 1 pp. 3-8).

Another example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 158) writes against tefilah בקול רם he missed the very original discussion of the Matzevh Hayashar (volume 2 pg 28 and onwards). One last example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 461) discusses the topic of if something bad happens three times it is a bad sign he could of added the teshuvah of the Avnei Chefetz from R. A. Levine (siman 64). Many more examples could be given but this is not the place.

Some minor bibliography points one on page R. Gutman records a statement from the Shach al haTorah which he attributes the Shach (p. 173). But, it is obvious he did not check into this source because the Shach did not write this sefer rather a talmid of talmid of the Ari”zal did which R. Gutman himself quotes correctly later on page 774.

Another point is in the introduction R. Gutman speculates that based on the pieces he has included it seems that the Adres wrote an entire work on the Sefer Chasidim called Mishnat Chasidim. There is no need for speculation – this is correct – as the Adres in his autobiography (pg 33) writes “I bought a Sefer Chasidim with wide columns and I learnt it twice and I wrote a biur on it with sources … and I called it the Mishnat Chasidim.” Unfortunately, later in his autobiog ]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Wed, 16 May 2007 17:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/16/Review-of-a-new-edition-of-the-Sefer-Chasidim Kabbalah Books Online http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/16/Kabbalah-Books-Online I am not sure why but it appears that a website in Czech (?) contains numerous Kabbalah seforim in their entirety free. These include the literature from Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato, Ari"Zal, R. Abraham Abulafia, and many others.

]]> Wed, 16 May 2007 12:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/16/Kabbalah-Books-Online Anti Neturei Karta Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/10/Anti-Neturei-Karta-Book

There is a new book discussing the recent tactics of the Neturei Karta. What is perhaps unique about this book, Milchemet Charma by R. Daniel Biton, is that it devoted to demonstrating the Neutrei Karta are wrong; and doing so this from their own perspective. That is, he uses anti-Zionist texts – V’Yoel Moshe, letter of R. Elchonon Wasserman and the like – to show that although they are anti-Zionist they do not advocate praising anti-Semites or advocating for the demise of Israel.

R. Biton pulls no punches when he discusses his views of He uses rather flowery language to attack the Neturei Karta for instance he says

ככל הדברים . . . אצל כת החדשה שהתעטפו באצטלא של קנאות ונוטרי קרתא . . . [ו]נתכתרו בג' כתרים, כתר תורה עמי הארצות, וכתר כהונת כסילות, וכתר מלכות העזות . . . ובארבע אבות הנזיקין הללו, עמי הארצות, כסילות, עזות, ודמיונות, הולידו והצמיחו שורש פורה ראש ולענה

The book is divided up into three works, Machrive Karta, Derech HaShem, and Ve’Yestarfu Rabim. The first book, discusses mostly the various events the Neturi Karta has recently participate in and how their philosophy runs counter to that of the R. Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbi. The second book which is a play on a Neturei Karta work describing their reasons titled Derech HaHatzolah, is comprised of letters and a speech R. Biton gave regarding the falicies of the Neturi Karta’s position. The third part is mainly an expansion on the prior section. R. Biton finishes with letters from members of the “old” Neturei Karta on how this new strategy of joining with anti-Semites etc. does not comport with their ideals.

]]> Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/10/Anti-Neturei-Karta-Book Kuntres &#8216;al Inyan Shabbat HaChatuna - A "Found" Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/4/Kuntres-8216al-Inyan-Shabbat-HaChatuna--A-Found-Book Many times the rarity of a book is due to a controversy; either because it was limited in scope, i.e. was a polemic, and thus was no need to print thousands of copies or because of bans and the like. One such book is Kuntres ‘al Inyan Shabbat HaChatuna by R. Eliezer Supino (d. 1746). Until recently, it was thought this book no longer existed. But, a single copy (Unicum) was located and it has now been reprinted.

The book, as the title implies, discusses the Shabbat following ones wedding know as Shabbat HaChanutah or Shabbat haHatan. It was customary in many communities, mainly Sefardic but there is also evidence for some Ashkenazi as well, on this Shabbat, aside from the regular reading from the Torah, the parsha of V’Avrahom Zakan Bo B’Yamim was read for the groom. One may be asking so what could have possibly have been the controversy? In one community, Pisa, Italy, where R. Eliezer Supino was the Rabbi, rather then read the special parsha as the maftir, they read it for the 7th aliyah. That is, they finished the torah portion in 6 alyiot and for the seventh read the special parsha.

The question is whether as part of the seven obligatory aliyot can you read a parsha that is merely a custom? To this, R. Supino said yes. Well, somewhere between 1735-36 on one such Shabbat, there was a vistor from another city, Livorno, who witnessed this. [There is some question who this person was.] What basically happened was he went back to Livorno and told R. Dovid Meldola (1714-1810), a hazan, judge, and teacher in the Yeshiva in Livorno. R. Meldola thought strongly that R. Supino was 100% incorrect in allowing for such a custom, and now we have the start of the controversy. In the end, R. Meldola, in his Divrei Dovid (Amsterdam, 1753) devotes a considerable number of pages (18 simanim) to this topic – all attempting to show that R. Supino is wrong. R. Meldola didn’t stop there, he first elicited the help of a host of other important Rabbis who would say he was correct. This include, inter alia, R. Aryeh Lowenstamm the chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, R. Ya’akov Yehoshu Rabbi in Frankfort and the author of the Peni Yehosha, R. Yehzkeil Katzenelllenbogen the chief Rabbi of the tripe community AH”W, and some additional, lesser known (today) Rabbis.

R. Meldola didn’t stop at printing his own book on the topic, he wanted to make sure his book would be the only record of events. First, I must point out that R. Meldola published his book after R. Supanu (and other important figures) died so there was no one to dispute his events. Second, R. Supino, did not wait until anyone died, rather he published his version and the defense of his position in Kuntres ‘al Inyan Shabbat HaChatuna. Sometime around 1743, R. Supanu sent this to Amsterdam to be printed (Livorno, at the time didn’t have a printing press). But, after it was printed, R. Meldola got wind of the publication, and when it arrived by ship to Livorno, all the copies were seized. After reading it, word was sent to Amsterdam that all remaining copies should be destroyed. The printer gave everything up and all were destroyed. Thus, until now, it was thought this book was totally lost.

Shmuel Glick, the editor of the new Kuntres haTeshuvot, was looking through all the libraries to find all the responsa literature, and in Schocken Library he found the only remaining copy in the world of this book. The copy he found also contains some annotations which Glick thinks are that of R. Supanu himself. In this republication, Glick has done a beautiful job (as well as Mossad HaRav Kook). First, he includes an extensive introduction where all the above is from. Second, as mentioned above, until now we had a one sided story of the events, now we have both sides. Glick discusses and highlights the various differences between R. Meldola’s and R. Supino’s versions of the events. Third, he has completely reset the type of the book and included notes as well. Fourth, he then includes a photo reproduction of the actual work. And, finally, he includes to letters from R. Supino which were in manuscript.

In part, the reason this work is important aside from the actual question is its broader implications for the force of custom. R. Supino’s basic argument is the additional reading for the groom is a custom – but as a custom has the same status as the rest of the regular parsha. R. Meldola disputes this understanding of custom.

While this edition is excellent, I want to point out two small things, one is typographical error and the other not an error but an elaboration. The main footnote (which is terrific in scope) which discusses the custom of the special reading for the groom is in the Introduction, footnote 6. But, the references to it in the actual Kuntres (e.g. footnote 2, 62, 158) it refers to it as footnote 2. The second minor point is in a footnote (p. 28 n. 146), Glick discusses the usage of the saying מנהג ישראל תורה, but left off perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of this usage in R. Shmuel Ashkenazi’s Alfa beta kadmita, pp. 210-18.

In all, Shmuel Glick should be commended for an excellent work of a fascinating book. The book is printed by Mossad HaRav Kook and should be available wherever finer seforim are sold.

]]> Censorship Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 04 May 2007 09:21:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/5/4/Kuntres-8216al-Inyan-Shabbat-HaChatuna--A-Found-Book Stolen Title Pages http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/30/Stolen-Title-Pages
"Stolen Title Pages":
The Case of An Unknown Contemporary Plagiarist*

The title of this post – “Stolen Title Pages” – is not mine, instead, I have borrowed it from Chaim Lieberman.[1] I have used this title because there are many forms of plagiarism – some, totally innocent – others involving lack of citation, borrowing a sentence here or there, but the plagiarism under discussion in this post is much worse than all of the above.[2] The plagiarism discussed in this post is limited to just changing the title page – that is, the entire book is the same with the only alteration being the name of the author and, at times, the title of the book. For example, if I republished Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet but instead of putting Shakespeare’s name I substituted mine.

The kabbalistic work on the holidays of the year, by R. Yitzhak Isaac ben Yoel HaKohen, Brit Kehunat Olam, was recently republished. This work was first published in 1796 in Lvov, and has been reprinted many times since then. In the introduction of this new edition, the publishers list the various printings of this work. But, they neglected to mention one reprint of this work. One can’t really fault them as this reprint was not published under the name Brit Kehunat Olam, nor did R. Yitzhak Isaac’s name appear anywhere in this reprint. Instead, although the book is word for word the same as Brit Kehunat Olam, a totally different title and a totally different author is given. As we shall see this is not the only time this person has taken someone else book for his own. This reprint which was done sometime around 2000 is instead titled Pardes haMo’adim ‘al Moadi Yisrael. The author is הצב"ר which, according to the many approbations he has received, is an abbreviation of R. Tzyion ben Ratson Lahat.

The Pardes haMo’adim contains approbations from R. Shimon Sherabi, the Rabbis of Kiryat Melachi – R. Hayyim Pinto and R. Yisrael Areyeh Gerstenkorn, R. Meshumar Tzubri, and R. Yisrael Sherabi. Some of these praise Lahat for his erudition in writing this work, others note his "great fear of sin," but none of these haskamot note that every word in this book is plagiarized.

For purposes of accuracy, I must note, that Lahat did alter one thing aside from the title page. Perhaps in an effort to avoid detection he shifted the sections around. So, one can’t take page one and match it up, instead, you just need to find the section. This is not as hard as it would seem as Lahat used the same chapter headings as the original. So, for instance, the scan below you have the chapter titled מאמר מצות משוחים בשמן from both works. The newer type (on the right), without the commentary of the Sha’ar Shimon, is Lahat’s edition while the other (on the left) is the original.










Lest one think it is just that section or just the Brit Kehunat Olam that Lahat copied, I have provided another section – מאמר סכת שלם. Again you can see it is copied word for word. But, I also want to point out it is not just the Brit Kehunat Olam he copied but the commentary, Shem miShimon by R. Shimon Englander as well. As one can see, the notes on the bottom provide citations as well as further elucidations of the Brit Kehunat Olam. Although Lahat did not use footnotes – he used endnotes – they are the same as well.

I have provided below the pages from both Brit Kehunat Olam (on the left) which includes the Shem miShimon at the bottom. The other pages (to the right and bottom) are Lahat’s page from this section and the final page is Lahat’s notes which match up perfectly with the Shem miShimon.











As I mentioned above this is not the first time Lahat has stolen a prior work and substituted his name for that of the author. Instead, I have found at least two other times, where he did the same thing. In fact, one of the approbations for Pardes haMo’adim actually makes mention of this prior plagiarized work. This other work is Lahat’s book Minhagei haAriza”l. This work was published sometime after 1996. It contains four parts. Again, הצב"ר appears on the title page and all the approbations are written to R. Tzyion ben Ratson Lahat (as an aside his last name may actually be רווה [Ravah] as he dedicates this book to his brother Naftali bar Ratson Ravah). This work, with one slight change which I will discuss in a moment, is word for word from the book Minhagei haArizal haNikrah Petura d’Abba by R. Uri ben Asher Strizinitzer [3] first published in Jerusalem 1905.

This work takes fifth and the sixth sha’ar from R. Chaim Vital’s Shemonah She’arim which contain the bulk of the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria(Ari"ZaL). R. Strizinitzer, then includes his commentary, titled Beni Abba, which explains and offers sources for the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria. This work contains the approbation of R. Shalom Mordechi haKohen (the Braziner Rebbi). When he originally published this work, R. Strizinitzer did so anonymously. When he published a similar work Me'ori Tzion he revealed himself based upon an acrostic on the title page. The Meori Tzion was the fourth and final part of R. Strizinitzer’s work on the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria – as we shall see this was also copied. So R. Strizinitzer has three titles – Petura d’Abba, Beni Abba, and Meori Tzyion. The Petura d’Abba contains the portion from Shemonah She’arim and Beni Abba is Strizinitzer’s notes.

Now, we go to sometime after 1996, and a new book, again re-typeset, comes out with the title Minhagei HaAri”Zal with the three works Darkei Tzyion, Sha’ari Tzyion, and Me'ori Tzyion with הצב"ר’s name as the author.

The only thing Lahat did, however, was alter the titles of the first two sections, he didn’t even bother moving things around to avoid detection. In Lahat’s edition the Darkei Tzyion contains the portion from Shemonah She’arim and Sha’ari Tzyion contains the notes. Below, I have provided two pages, one from each book, to demonstrate the plagiarism.









In fact, in Strizinitzer’s book at the end he has “השמטות” – things he left out. Lahat, also has at the end things he left out – and coincidentally, they are the same as well. There is one other small change aside from the title page, and that is in the introduction. In Strizinitzer’s introduction at the end he explains why he decided to title his books as he did. Now, Lahat’s titles are different, so Lahat (left) removed that one line from the original introduction (right). The relevant passages are below.









Now, we return to the third title – Me'ori Tzyion, which Strizinitzer published separately in 1911,[4] and Lahat has included in this book. For this one, Lahat couldn’t be bothered with coming up with a new title so he uses the same title – perhaps to finally be able to say he really did copy everything perfectly. Both pages are below (Lahat, left; original, right).







Finally, we get to the at least the third example of Lahat's stolen title pages. In this case it was fairly easy to locate the original. Lahat titled this work Pirush 'al Birkat Kohanim, which as the title implies is a commentary and discussion about Birkat Kohanim. But, Lahat was kind and at the top of each page he has כה תברכו. This title כה תברכו is the same as a book published in 1881 in Solenika by R. Chaim Hemzi. And, it turns out not only is the title the same but the content is as well.














Lahat is by no means the first to merely switch the title pages – as I noted at the beginning of this post, Lieberman has examples of this phenomenon and there are other articles which discuss other instances of plagiarism as well.[5] What is perhaps unique about Lahat is that he seems to have done it more than once, in fact, I can not say for sure the rest of Lahat’s 13 (!) other books [6] are not merely copies as well. Additionally, many have assumed that in the digital age, when from the comfort of one’s home they can call up the card catalogs of almost every major library in the world and thousands books are available online or on one of hard drives – some of which are even searchable, this would have been detected. In fact not a single catalog entry in any library notes that these are copied – even when Lahat did not change the title of the book.

Further, aside from the approbation to Lahat’s Pardes haMo’adim, in his Minhagei haAriZal, Lahat includes approbations from his other works. Some of these are leading Rabbis who also have failed to detect their approbations are on stolen works. These Rabbis include (aside from those already mentioned above): R. Ovadia Yosef, R. Mayer Getz, R. Shalom Messas, R. Yosef Tzubeyri, and R. Tzion Tzubeyri.

Perhaps, now, this can be corrected and Lahat will cease stealing the works of others.

* I apologize as most of this post appeared last week, however, as the images stopped working and they are important to this post I removed the post until I could correct it. In the interim, however, I was able to confirm another instance of Lahat's plagiarism. Also, prior to posting I have attempted to locate Lahat without success. His books generally provide none of the standard information such as publisher/printer or any contact information.

Notes:
[1] Chaim Lieberman, Ohel Roch”el, vol. 1 (New York, 1980), 477-480, 529-531.

[2] There are no lack of examples, both real and imagined in this category. For one example of lack of proper citation, see R. Natan Neta Leiter, Tzyion l’Nefesh Hayyai (Jerusalem, 1964), no. 109.

[3] His surname comes from a town outside of Lvov.

[4] In some reprints of Strizinitzer’s Minhagi AriZal, Me’ori Tzyion is included.

[5] See Lieberman supra n. 1. Lieberman notes [p. 477] the case of Hemdat Tzvi, where the original was printed in 1876 and the stolen version with the same title was printed in 1879. However, he leaves out one worthwhile point. Although in the stolen version he knew enough to remove the original authors name, apparently he didn't even read through the whole book as on p. 72b, the original author quotes his grandfather by name, and this same passage appears in the stolen version. Further, on p. 87, the original author includes a teshuva which he signs by name. In the stolen version it appears without change signed by the original author!). See also Kitvei Pinchas Turburg, ed. A. R. Malachi, 24-36; C. Leshem, Shabbat u’Mo’adi Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1969), 379-409; Y. Sternhill, Kochavi Yitzhak (Brooklyn, 1969), Introductions to volumes I & II; Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (Scranton, 2006), 5 n. 9, discussing the example of Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich which was also discussed in a previous post at the Seforim blog; Shraga Abramson, "Chasad b'Ameirat Daver shelo b'Shem 'Omro," Sinai 112 (Nissan-Iyyar 1993): 1-24; Alei Sefer 16 (1990): 177-79; Moriah 83-84 (Adar I,1978) 79-80; A. Perls, "Das Plagium," in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums / MGWJ 28 (1879): 305-322; R. Margolis, Shem Olam, Jerusalem, 1989, introduction.

Regarding the halakhic permissibility of plagiarism, see Nahum Visfish, Mishnat Zechuot haYotser (Jerusalem, 2002), esp. 95-115; Nahum Rakover, Zechut haYotsrim beMekorot haYehudim (Jerusalem, 1991), 17-72, a portion of which appeared as "Plagiarism of Torah Teachings," Areshet 6 (1980): 222-226; and idem., "Plagiarism and the Obligation to Cite Sources: Aspects of Copyright Law in the Halakhah," Dinei Yisrael 6 (1975): 93-120;

[6] There is one book which is particularly suspect, as Lahat's book is titled מאיר לארץ and it is kabbalistic interpretations on ברכת המזון and there is another book with the same name on the same topic. Thus far, however, I have been unable to secure a copy to compare the two.

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:33:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/30/Stolen-Title-Pages Eliezer Brodt: A Behind The Scenes Look at Two New Editions: Part One http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/23/Eliezer-Brodt-A-Behind-The-Scenes-Look-at-Two-New-Editions-Part-One
A Behind The Scenes Look at Two New Editions: Part One
by Rabbi Eliezer Brodt

A few weeks ago, while perusing through the new Seforim at the Girsa Seforim store in Jerusalem, I noticed a new מנחת פתים from ר' מאיר אריק. At first I thought it was another plain old reprint of the original one. But a few friends tipped me off to it being much more than a reprint. So off I went to purchase the seforim. This is a short review what this version is exactly.

It's a well known fact that, ר' מאיר אריק left over a great deal of written works; as opposed to his brother ר' פישל who was also a great gaon, but wrote nothing. One of his more famous works is the מנחת פתים on ד' חלקי שלחן ערוך. The concept behind the sefer is a published listing of his comments on שלחן ערוך, some lengthy with the expected back and forth, others short with only references. Many of these citations are to rare seforim, or other not-usually available sources, all locally annotated with his tremendous בקיאות. One point of interest is his usage of new ראשונים such as the מאירי and אור זרוע. Anyone learning הלכה knows how valuable this work is- it does not require my personal הסכמה (who am I to even dare give it one!) as the work speaks for itself! The work on אורח חיים was reprinted a few times, most recently a few years ago by מכון עוז והדר. The part on יורה דעה חושן משפט ואבן העזר was also reprinted a few years ago in a photo-mechanical reproduction of the 5658 (1898). This new version only came out with two volumes so far – on אורח חיים ויורה דעה. The individuals responsible for its publishing have already proven themselves with the טל תורה החדש and שו"ת אמרי יושר (both the original editions as well as a new volume compiled from manuscripts and responsa published in rare journals) that they put out 10 years ago.

There are many great additions to this new version of the מנחת פתים. Firstly, over the years ר' מאיר אריק had many additions to his מנחת פתים which he planned on printing. He never got around to it but right before WWII, two of his תלמידם gathered everything together including many manuscripts of his and they printed it, in Krakow in 1938. Being that it was right before the war it seems no copies survived the war – to the extant that no one seemed to even know about this edition. Miraculously, Rabbi Zweibel's own Rosh Yeshivah had found a copy of this print from Krakow, and gave it to his student for reproduction! Aside from this, Rabbi Zweibel was privileged to see the actual שלחן ערוך thatר' מאיר אריק used, which had many notes written in the margins. Further, he continued to track down other notes and novellas that ר' מאיר אריק had written related to שלחן ערוך. All of this was included in this new edition. In addition, the editors did the kind favor of letting one know before each piece from where it comes from a manuscript or the Krakow edition etc. Almost every page contains a few new pieces so one can easily see how much exactly was added to this new printing. Along with all additions, the publisher included notes from two of his talmidim ר' יהודה הורביץ andר' צבי פרומר , famous for his work שו"ת ארץ צבי. They also separated all the תשובות that ר' מאיר brings throughout the מנחת פתים from the body text, and put them in the back - so as not to confuse the user. In the back they include a תשובה from ר' מאיר אריק to his תלמיד, הגאון ר' משולם ראהט. Also included is an index of his other seforim, שו"ת אמרי יושר, ואמרי יושר חלק ג' collating the topics relating to אורח חיים ויורה דעה (each index in its specific volume). All in all, this is a beautiful job and a good buy for those whose interests include these kind of seforim.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Book Reviews Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/23/Eliezer-Brodt-A-Behind-The-Scenes-Look-at-Two-New-Editions-Part-One Obituary for R. Yosef Tzvi Dunner, zt"l (Dei'ah veDibur) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/20/Obituary-for-R-Yosef-Tzvi-Dunner-ztl-Deiah-veDibur
As a followup to a previous post, here is an excerpt from the obituary for R. Yosef Tzvi Dunner, zt"l, that appeared in Dei'ah veDibur:
At the age of 19 he wanted to leave home to study in one of the illustrious yeshivas of Lithuania, but his father felt that given the dearth of rabbonim in Germany communities, before going to yeshiva he should study at a place that provides rabbinical training (smichus). He sent the young man to Beis Hamedrash Lerabbonim in Berlin, which was headed by HaRav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the author of Seridei Eish. There he continued his intensive learning day and night, amassing tremendous knowledge of Shas and poskim.

]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/20/Obituary-for-R-Yosef-Tzvi-Dunner-ztl-Deiah-veDibur Some Harder to Get Seforim and Where to Obtain http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/19/Some-Harder-to-Get-Seforim-and-Where-to-Obtain
In previous posts at the Seforim blog, we have attempted to highlight some of the more recently printed books, which are fairly easy to come by. However, I thought it worthwhile to mention some slightly older books, which are generally more difficult to obtain and where they can be obtained. I will highlight the contents of one store -- Moznaim (718-438-7680) -- in Boro Park.

First, for literature of the Geonim, they have the Teshuvot HaGeonim. In this set, the majority of volumes are fairly easy to get, but there are two volumes which are less common - Ginzei Schechter and Louis Ginzburg's Geonica. Both of these are available from Moznaim.

Second, the four volume Auerbach's edition of R. Avraham b. Azriel's Arugat HaBosem, which is a key work on piyut/siddur, is available there as well.

Third, Mordecai Wilensky's Hasidim u-Mitnagdim collects the various early polemics for and against the Hassidic movement, is available in two-volume paperback.

Aside from the Geonim, Moznaim also has an extensive selection of Midrashim - most of the time the most important critical edition of a particular Midrash.

Finally, although not out-of-print or the like, Moznaim also has redone the Mishnayot for Seder Zeraim and Teharot. These include the standard commentaries (e.g. Ra"SH and Rambam) and some other less common ones all with a nice layout. Additionally, they have made corrections based upon manuscript data and the older version of the text is available in footnote form.

These are a sampling of a few which I came across, I am sure there are many more hidden gems to unearth.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/19/Some-Harder-to-Get-Seforim-and-Where-to-Obtain Eliezer Brodt - A Lively History of Reprinting Rabbeinu Yeruchem http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/17/Eliezer-Brodt--A-Lively-History-of-Reprinting-Rabbeinu-Yeruchem
A Lively History of Reprinting Rabbeinu Yeruchem
Rabbi Eliezer Brodt

In recent years, a host of critical editions of works on various rishonim have been published on all topics – some seeing the light of day for the very first time – on topics related to halakha, kabbalah, and chiddushim on the Talmud. These works have been made available via the major printing presses such as Mossad HaRav Kook, Machon Yerushalyim, Machon Talmud Yisraeli, Machon Harry Fischel and others.[1] However, one very important work has noticeably been omitted from being reprinted, except for a photomechanical off-set of the second printing. This work is Sefer Toledot Adam ve-Chava and Sefer Meisharim, the halakhic works of Rabbeinu Yeruchem Meshullam (c. first half of the 14th century) who was a student of R. Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh), R. Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashb"a), and R. Abraham ibn Ismaeil – author of Chiddushei Talmid HaRashb"a on Baba Kamma. In this post I would like to discuss the story behind why it was never retype-set, until a few weeks ago.

Rabbeinu Yeruchem authored his works many years ago, in years of the range of צד (1334). He was a student of the Rosh and his works are quoted extensively by the Beit Yosef throughout Tur and Shulhan Arukh. The Maggid (an angel who learned torah with the Beit Yosef) of the Beit Yosef told him ואוף ירוחם טמירי רחים לך אע"ג דאת סתיר מלוי בגין דמלאכת שמים היא (מגיד משרים פרשת צו).

Rabbeinu Yeruchem’s work contains three parts one called Meisharim and the remaining two parts entitled Toledot Adam ve-Chava. The part Adam contains everything relating to the man from birth until marriage; whereas Chavah contains everything from after marriage until death. This work was first printed in Constantinople in רעו (1517) and is extremely rare; only two complete copies are known to be extant. It was reprinted a second time in שיג (1553) in Venice; this is the version available today in photomechanical off-set editions. But, the Chida already notes that “this edition is full of mistakes.”[2] He also writes that he saw a manuscript of this sefer and was amazed as to the large amount of missing text as well as gross errors in the printed edition. The question remains as to why this work was never retype-set as opposed to the works of other Rishonim?

The answer might be found in the words of the Chid"a[3] where he brings as follows:
שמעתי מרבנן קשישאי בעיר הקודש ירושלים שקבלו מהזקנים דספר העיטור וספר רבינו ירחום הם מבחינת סוד עלמא דאתכסיא וכל מי שעושה באור עליהם או נאבדו הביאור או ח"ו יפטר במבחר ימיו"

I have heard from old Rabbi in the holy city of Jerusalem that they have a tradition that the books, Sefer haIttur and Sefer Rabbeinu Yeruchum, they are a high secret and anyone who writes a commentary on these books either the work will be lost or they will die in the prime of their life.
He than goes on to list a few people who started working on expounding the sefer, and either died in middle or the work was lost. In a different place the Shem Hagedolim brings the words of the Maggid to the Beit Yosef in the Maggid Meisharim (end of parashat Vayakhel) where he writes as follows:
וכן במאי דדחית מילוי דירוחם טמירי שפיר עבדת וכן בכל דוכתא דאת משיג עליה יאות את משיג עליה וקרינא ליה ירוחם טמירי דאיהו טמיר בגינתא דעדן דאית צדיקייא דלא משיג זכותא דילהון למהוי בגינתא דעדן בפרסום אלא בטמירו אבל במדריגה רבא ויקירא איהו
This, says Professor Meir Benayahu, is the reason why there is a curse on retype setting the work. What is not understood is that this is a completely halakhic work, not kabbalistic in any way, so why was there such a curse?[4]

One such work, which the Chida already mentions, is R. Hayyim Algazi’s Netivot Hamishpat.[5] The title page already records with regard to R. Algazi, “תנוח נפשו בעדן” (may his soul rest in heaven) intimating he died in the process of writing this commentary.

Another work in this category is that of R. Reuven Chaim Klein’s Shenot Chaim.[6] Unfortunately, he also died amidst writing the sefer, at the age of 47. The title page also records that the author did not want his name to appear, one can suggest that perhaps he thought if his name did not appear, he would not be subject to the curse. What’s interesting to note is in the haskamah of R. Joseph Shaul Nathenson, author of Shu”t Shoel u-Meshiv, to R. Klein’s work, as he makes no mention of any cherem to this work, but does quote the Maggid Mesharim cited earlier. Additionally, R. Chaim Sanzer, in his haskamah to this sefer, makes no mention of any cherem.

The other work which the Chidah brings was under this curse was the Sefer HaItur. This sefer was privileged to be reprinted with a critical edition by the great R. Meir Yonah, who called the glosses 'Shar Hachadash and Pessach Hadiveir.' Dr. Binyamin Levine, author of the Otzar Hagaonim series, writes in his short biography on him – as he used this work in many his own seforim – that he also suffered many tragedies; i.e. he lost many children.[7]

Interestingly enough, I found a nice size work on Rabbeinu Yeruchem and the author did not die young. His name was R. Yehudah Ashkenazi (1780-1849) the work is called Yisa Bracha (available at HebrewBooks.org), printed in Livorno 1822. He authored many famous seforim such as the Geza Yeshai (klallim) (Livorno, 1842), Siddur Beit Oved (Livorno, 1843), Siddur Beit Menucha (Livorno, 1924), Siddur Beit HaBechirah (Livorno, 1875), and Siddur Shomer Shabbat (Livorno, 1892).

In spite of all the above, a portion of the Rabbeinu Yeruchum has now been printed based of the first printing as well as manuscript, by on R. Yair Chazan.

Based on the above, we find ourselves asking the question 'why did this R. Yair Chazan decide to reprint this work?'

The answer is found in the haskamah to the sefer from R. Ovadiah Yosef, who wrote that the whole curse is only if one is writing a pairush/commentary – expository text - on the work. But if one's whole intent is to just fix the printing mistakes, which is R. Chazan whole intention here, it's not a problem. Besides for the haskamah of R. Ovadiah Yosef, there are a few other haskamot; amongst them R. Shmuel Auerbach and R. Chaim Pinchus Scheinberg.

Just to give a brief overview of this work, as mentioned before the earlier editions of the Rabbeinu Yeruchem are full of printing mistakes and is missing many pieces. What R. Chazzan did was to track down the existing manuscripts of the sefer and try to fix the mistakes and put in the missing pieces. He also puts in the sources of Rabbeinu Yeruchem and he brings down where it is quoted in various poskim. He retype-set it beautifully making it a pleasure to read and use in compared to the old print.

So far only the third volume (the חוה section) has been printed I hope to see the rest of R. Yerucham printed soon.

Notes:
[1] See here for Marc B. Shapiro's appreciation for R. Yosef Buxbaum, founder and director of Machon Yerushalayim, posted at the Seforim blog.
[2] Shem Hagedolim, Mareches Gedolim, letter yud, number 382, quoting the Ralbach, (siman 109); see also R. Chaim Shabtai HaKohen, Shu"t Mahrch"sh, Even HaEzer p. 153,b ("it is already known that the book of Rabbenu Yeruchum has many errors and unnecessary wordage"); R. Y. Sirkes, Bach Y.D. no. 241 s.v. U'mah Sechatav Avor Aviv ("I have already studied this work [Rabbenu Yeruchum] and it is full of error - too many to count"); Y.S. Speigel, Amudim B'Tolodot Sefer HaIvri : Hagahot U'Magimim p. 247 n.121 for additional sources.
[3] idem.
[4] Pirush Sifri, Rabbenu Eliezer Nachum, Meir Benayahu, ed., (Jerusalem, 1993), Introduction.
[5] (Istanbul, 1669; reprinted by Pe'er HaTorah in Yerushalyim, circa 1975)
[6] (Lemberg, 1871; reprinted by Machon Yerushalayim, Jerusalem, 1985)
[7] Binyamin Levin, Mesivos: Talmud Katan leSeder Mo’ed, Nashim, u-Nezikin (Jerusalem, 1973), end of this book.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Book Reviews Herem Historical Oddities Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:07:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/17/Eliezer-Brodt--A-Lively-History-of-Reprinting-Rabbeinu-Yeruchem Review of Dr. Michael Stanislawski, "A Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/17/Review-of-Dr-Michael-Stanislawski-A-Murder-in-Lemberg-Politics-Religion-and-Violence-in-Modern-Jewish-History
Some have already pointed out that Columbia University Professor Michael Stanislawski has a new book/thriller.[1] This book describes the murder of R. Abraham Kohn and the events leading up to it and its aftermath.

Prof. Stanislawski attempts to discern whether, in fact, R. Kohn was murdered -- Stanislawski thinks so -- and in doing so, provides a wonderful description of Lvov (Lemberg) during the mid-nineteenth century. The basic background is that R. Kohn was a Reform Rabbi who became the main Rabbi in Lemberg. This allowed him to enact various rules, some such as the abolition of the various Jewish taxes which were collected by Orthodox Jews and thus they profited from it at the expense of the poor could be viewed as postive. But, as he was Reform, even the poor who benifited from this, still complained about such changes. As Stanislawski shows, much of R. Kohn's actual reforms to Jewish practice were to be found in his articles (and his prior pulpit) rather than his public speeches or proclamations in Lemberg. While the book is interesting and Stanislawski does a good job on the whole, there are several points which I think need to be addressed.

The first is his conclusion. Although he does allow there may be room to doubt whether Kohn was murdered, anyone reading the book comes away with the impression that Stanislawski thinks Kohn was murdered. Stanislawski chides prior authors who don't conclude Kohn was murdered. The problem with this, is Stanislawski provides the entire legal history after Kohn's death, which seriously questions whether Kohn was murdered. That is, after Kohn died one person stood trial for his murder and was convicted. However, on appeal this was overturned. After the verdict was overturned, it was again reviewed by the highest court and the appellate court's judgment was upheld.

While there are some issues with both of these appellate decisions, I don't see how, after 150 years, and the fact that he admits he doesn't have all the documentation, Stanislawski could then chide these other authors for relying upon these contemporaneous decisions! If Stanislawski unearthed some document which pointed to the perpetrator that would be one thing, but that is not the case here.

Additionally, Stanislawski intimates that as the accused was Orthodox, later Orthodox writers and publishers attempted to cover up the whole incident and label it as a death. He singles out the publishing house Mossad HaRav Kook and lays claim they also deliberately got it wrong. [2] Setting aside the possiblity that these Orthodox publications decided to rely upon the decision of the abovementioned courts, it is disingenuous to accuse Mossad HaRav Kook when in fact, another one of their publications -- one that they have reprinted just a few weeks ago -- includes the story as Stanislawski wants to believe it happened. Included in Prof. Meir Hershkovics' biography on R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes (Maharetz Chajes) published by Mossad HaRav Kook, it is noted that Kohn and his child were murdered by Orthodox Jews.[3]

While, a conspiracy theory makes for more exciting reading, the facts don't seem to support it.

Notes:
[1] Michael Stanislawski, A Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History (Princeton University Press, 2007)
[2] See esp. id. p. 77
[3] See Meir Hershkovics, Maharetz Chayot: Toledot Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Chayot u-Mishnato (Mossad HaRav Kook, 2007), p. 103-05.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/17/Review-of-Dr-Michael-Stanislawski-A-Murder-in-Lemberg-Politics-Religion-and-Violence-in-Modern-Jewish-History The Eighth and Final Volume of Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael Has Appeared http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/15/The-Eighth-and-Final-Volume-of-Daniel-Sperbers-Minhagei-Yisrael-Has-Appeared
Mossad HaRav Kook has just published the eighth and final volume of Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael. This final volume includes a complete and comprehensive index of all eight volumes volumes of Minhagei Yisrael. For this reason alone this volume is worthwhile, as anyone who has used the prior volumes knows, at times topics are spread over multiple volumes, sometimes in footnotes, which makes it difficult to locate particular topics. The first index is comprised of multiple indices; Mishna, Talmud, and Midrashim/Zohar. Additionally, there is an index using the Tur/Shulhan Arukh. The second index is done topically. Aside from the index, this volume includes a rather nice introduction where Professor Sperber discusses most of the recent literature on minhagim. Although not intended to be a full bibliography, it does include almost all the important books published on this topic in the last 15+ years, a topic that we will return to in forthcoming posts at the Seforim blog.

As with all the other volumes of Minhagei Yisrael there are also additional articles discussing minhagim. This volume starts off with a long quote from Rabbi Chaim Williamowsky. This quote, typifies the vast majority of Professor Sperber's articles in this volume. R. Williamowsky notes that it is important to trace the history of minhagim as some are non-Jewish in origin and instead were borrowed and adopted from foreign cultures. Sperber then spends the next 100+ pages discussing minhagim which fall into that latter category. Sperber discusses the following customs -- I have provided citations only if the custom is not the main focus of an article -- the groom stepping on the foot of the bride (p. 14 n. 4 [and should make this person happy that in fact it has non-Jewish roots]); upsherin; round-matzot which are not linked to a non-Jewish custom, only that there is no reason to prefer round over square (p. 29-30 n. 26); which day of the week to get married, including a discussion of Friday marriages (p. 33 n. 13); marriage during a waxing of the moon (p. 37-40); bride and groom fasting on their wedding day; the huppah canopy; not having knots at the wedding (p. 71 n. 11); throwing a shoe at a wedding; burning clothing at the graves site of R. Shimon bar Yochai; feeding mourners eggs after the burial (p. 72); the additional "holy" names in mezzuzot, tzizit as protection (p. 112 n. 61 - this one may have gone from Jews to non-Jews as well as the notion of a door post protect, see idem); the use of פי פי פי to concentrate during prayers (p. 113); dipping bread in salt to protect from evil spirits.

Sperber is able to trace back almost all of these topics and offer why and when the Jews accepted what was common amongst from within the particular culture they were living. Sperber's sources are especially helpful as, at times, others have made arguments that customs are originally non-Jewish in nature but provide no sources. For instance, both R. Gavriel Zinner and then R. Benyomin Hamburger both note the possibility that upsherin comes from non-Jewish sources. But neither provides any detail on this point. Sperber fills a significant lacuna.

Although the above makes up the bulk of this volume there are few other items of interest. Sperber offers a possibility why the custom arose to say the verse ויהי בנסע ארון at the removal of the Torah and then also discusses the recitation of the Ten Commandments at קריאה שמע על המטה. The rest of the articles are additions to this one. That is a discussion about the placement of the Ten Commandments generally by Professor Meir Schwartz. Additionally, as the source for the recitation is R. Yitzhak Klover, grandfather of the R. Shelomoh Luria (Maharshal), Dr. Meir Rapfeld provides biographical and bibliographical information about this important figure. Dr. Rapfeld also has a discussion about a custom in the synagogue of the Maharshal. There is an article from R. Meir Kodesh discussing the custom amongst mourners to wear black.

Finally, as in all of the previous volumes, Prof. Sperber has included additions and corrections covering all of the volumes.

In all, this is an excellent end to a terrific series on minhagim. The book is available in Israel directly from Mosad HaRav Kook who currently is running a sale and in the US at Biegeleisen books (and in due course) at your local seforim store.

]]> Customs Book Reviews Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:18:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/15/The-Eighth-and-Final-Volume-of-Daniel-Sperbers-Minhagei-Yisrael-Has-Appeared Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dunner (1913-2007), the final surviving musmakh of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/13/Rabbi-Yosef-Tzvi-Dunner-19132007-the-final-surviving-musmakh-of-the-Berlin-Rabbinical-Seminary
Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dunner (1913-2007):
The Final Surviving Musmakh of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary
by Menachem Butler

HaRav Yosef Tzvi Dunner, who recently passed away in London at the age of 94, was the scion of a prominent European rabbinical family and father and grandfather of noted British Orthodox rabbis, Rabbi Abba Dunner and Rabbi Pini Dunner, respectively. In a recent email correspondence with Professor Marc B. Shapiro, author of the landmark biographical study of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg[1] and several articles related to the leaders of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary,[2] he informed me that Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dunner was the final surviving musmakh of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary (Orthodox).

In the April 12, 2007 edition of Hamodia: The Newspaper of Torah Jewry, there is a very nice obituary for Rabbi Dunner, (see PDF); however, it is interesting to note how they neglected to make mention of Rabbi Dunner's studies at Berlin Rabbinical Seminary as they write:
At 19 he wanted to study in the yeshivos of Lithuania, but his father felt that due to the shortage of Rabbanim in Germany, it would be better for him to remain in the country and study in the beis medrash of Harav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, zt”l, author of Seridei Eish. For four years, the young Rav Yosef Tzvi studied in this beis medrash, where he was awarded semichah at a young age after astounding those testing him with his penetrating understanding of all four sections of the Shulchan Aruch. He was granted the title yoreh yoreh, yadin yadin.

Professor Shapiro further noted that
This appears to be the first time that the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary has been referred to as the Beis Medrash of R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (with all that this implies). Next time they don't want to mention that someone received semichah at RIETS, they can say he studied in the Beis Medrash of (supply the name).
For additional biographical information on Rabbi Dunner zt"l, see here and here.

Sources:
[1] Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966 (London: Littman Library, 1999); For a brief discussion of the founding of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin in 1873, see ibid., page 76. See also Michael Meyer, "The Establishment of Rabbinical Schools in Germany - A comparative Analysis" [Hebrew], in Immanuel Etkes, ed., Yeshivot and Battei Midrash (The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History and The Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2006), pp. 199-207.
[2] For an assortment of Shapiro's article/reviews on leaders of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, see "Letters of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg [Hebrew]," Ha-Ma'ayan 32 (Tammuz, 5752 [1992]): 6-20; Review of "David Ellenson, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy," Tradition 26 (Spring, 1992): 104-107; "The Autobiography of Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer [Hebrew]," Alei Sefer 17 (1993): 149-150; "Letters of Rabbi David Zevi Hoffmann, Rabbi Moses Feinstein, and Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg [Hebrew]," Ha-Ma'ayan 34 (Tevet, 5754 [1994]): 9-20; "Rabbi David Zevi Hoffmann on Torah and Wissenschaft," Torah u-Madda Journal 6 (1995-1996): 129-137; "Scholars and Friends: Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas," Torah u-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 105-121; "Responsa and Letters of Rabbi David Zevi Hoffmann [Hebrew]," Ha-Ma'ayan 37 (Tammuz, 5757 [1997]): 1-14; "On Targum and Tradition: J. J. Weinberg, Paul Kahle and Exodus 4:22," Henoch 19 (1997): 215-232; "Rabbi David Tsevi Hoffmann on Orthodox Involvement with the Hebrew University," Tradition 33 (Spring, 1999): 88-93; "Understanding the Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg," Algemeiner Journal (June 6, 2000); "Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer's Program of Torah u-Madda," Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000): 76-86; "R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg on the Limits of Halakhic Development," Edah Journal 2:2 (2002; online at www.edah.org); "Thirteen Additional Letters by Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg [Hebrew]," Ha-Ma'ayan 45 (Tevet, 5765 [2005]): 1-17.

]]> Pini Dunner Censorship Marc B. Shapiro Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:10:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/13/Rabbi-Yosef-Tzvi-Dunner-19132007-the-final-surviving-musmakh-of-the-Berlin-Rabbinical-Seminary Mossad HaRav Kook Sale 2007 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/12/Mossad-HaRav-Kook-Sale-2007
The Mossad HaRav Kook annual sale every year after Pesach is a major event for Seforim lovers in Israel, similar to the annual SOY Seforim Sale at Yeshiva University in New York. This year the sale marks the the 70th anniversary of Mossad HaRav Kook and will be the biggest sale ever. The sale will take place from the 22-29 of Nissan 5767 which is 10-17 April 2007.

Again the Judaica Archival Project and VirtualGeula offers its active subscribers and members a chance to participate from anywhere in the world at the same discount prices you would pay as if you attended the sale yourself (and without the line-ups). See here to view the 30 page catalog and to place your order.

]]> Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/12/Mossad-HaRav-Kook-Sale-2007 Eliezer Brodt - Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/2/Eliezer-Brodt--Pesach-Drasha-of-the-Rokeach
The Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach
by Eliezer Brodt

Every once in a while we are privileged to have the venerable printing house Mikezei Nerdamim release something special from the great rishonim (aside from their great journal Kovetz Al Yad). Last year they published the drasha of R. Eliezer Rokeach for Pesach edited by Professor Simcha Emanuel. In this post I would like to discuss some of the many things of interest in the work and also comment on the great job of Simcha Emanuel did in general with this work.

This drasha seems to have been an actual drasha that the Rokeach said although it is pretty obvious from the length that it was not said at one time but probably broken up over a few times. The style of the drasha is mostly halacha and a bit of aggdah in the beginning and also scattered in the middle and end. He goes through many halchos of Pesach starting with koshering the utensils getting rid of the chametz and baking the matzos. He than continues on at great length to discuss all the aspects of the Seder. Then he deals with what to do if one finds chametz on Pesach and he ends with some halchos of Yom Tov in general.

First I would like to mention some of the interesting points found in the actual drasha. First, the Rokeach records that his family custom was when they burned the chametz they would do so with the lulavim and hoshanos which they had saved from Sukkos. [1]. While talking about the minhag to bake matzos Eruv Yom Tov he writes do not bake the matzos for the second night until the second night because of chavivah mitzvah bi’shaytah (pg 92). He writes that if the Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos we do not smell hadassim for besamim on Motzei Shabbos because there is no loss of the extra soul as the soul remains for the duration of Yom Tov. (pg 93). Professor Emanuel points out that others disagree with this point and hold one does in fact make a blessing on the besamim when Saturday night is still Yom Tov. While talking about the washing for karpas he writes that one should make a ‘al nitelas yadaim (pg 96) whereas we today do not. [2] He than goes on to say that we eat a full kazais for karpas something we also do not do – we eat less than a kazais. [3] (pg 97, 152). He notes his family minhag was to hold the cup of wine during the recitation of v’hei she’umdah (pg 99 and pg 126) [4]. He than goes on to describe how his family pours out the wine when we say the ten plagues. (pg 101 see also pg 127). The importance of this last custom is that until the publication of this drasha, although many have recorded this custom in the name of the Rokeach, it appeared in none of his writings (as I plan on discussing at length in a forthcoming article). In regard to washing mayim achronim although others argue he writes one should wash (pg 106). [5]

Another point worth mentioning about this sefer and this edition is the inclusion of Professor S. Emanuel excellent and lengthy notes. He discusses and provides additional sources for various things mentioned in the drash such as making matzos with pictures on them (pg 129-134), about the nussach of the Haggdah that some said רבון עלומים וכו' after ביד חזקה (pg 53- 57) [6] and reasons for the issur of kitnyot (pg 51). One very interesting thing which he points out is the difference about how a name is spelled in various manuscripts. Specifically, whether the Rokeach’s father-in-law was Eliezer or Elazar. If it was Elazer than it turns out that the Rokeach, whose first name was also Elazer, apparently ignored the will of his teacher, Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid – who disallows such marriages. Although, most likely, the Rokeach was married prior to coming in contact with Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid, his practice demonstrates that people, prior to Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid’s pronouncement did not observe this custom. (pg 57- 59). In addition to this Professor Emanuel has included excellent exstensive notes and comments throughout the drasha. He references many important points related to the issues the Rokeach says also including interesting sources from manuscripts.

Aside from this small work (152 pages) containing this very important drasha of the Rokeach it also includes many important pieces of information in regard to the Rokeach in general and especially to two works of his that until now were unknown. There is a lengthy discussion about a sefer of the Rokeach on shecitah and treifos as well as another sefer - Sefer Ma’seh Rokeach – and the many new items for it.

NOTES

[1] Page 79. For further on this custom see Sefer HaMaskil pg 33-34; the important comment of R Honig in Yerushasanu pg 208-209; Sefer Kushyuos pg. 168-169 and the notes therein; D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2 pg. 193.

[2] See also the Haggdah Shivivi Eish in Me’orot HaRishonim, pg 152; see also Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pg 216- 244.

[3] See also Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pg 264-265.

[4] See also Haggdah Shivivi Eish pg 109.

[5] See also Tabory, pg 244-249.

[6] See also Pirush Miyuchas l’Rashi in the Torat Hayyim Haggdah, pg 110.





]]> Eliezer Brodt Pesach Customs Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/4/2/Eliezer-Brodt--Pesach-Drasha-of-the-Rokeach Important New Book from the Ba'alei haTosafot http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/28/Important-New-Book-from-the-Baalei-haTosafot
What follows is a press release from Ofeq Institute regarding their new book

תוספות ר"י הזקן ותלמידו

וראשוני בעלי התוספות

על מסכת שבת

Tosafot R. Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre

(Ri the Elder)

and early Tosafists on tractate Shabbat

edited for the first time from

MS Guenzburg, Mos 636

with

references, notes and comments

by

Rabbi Avraham Shoshana

Rabbi Yehuda Amitai Shoshana

Volume I

Introduction · Chapters 1-6 · Indices

This is a unique collection of the early Tosafists, a treasure trove of first-generation Tosafot from France and Germany. Published for the first time from Guenzburg Manuscript 636, considered by scholars to be the most important manuscript extant in the world today, especially in the field of Tosafot literature. The collection includes Tosafot Ri ha-Zaken and his disciple and first-generation Tosafists, such as RIBA, R. Porat, Rashbam, Rabbenu Tam, etc. [Volume II of this collection, to be published shortly, will include Tosafot Ri ha-Zaken and his disciple on chapters 7-17, and the Tosafot R. Yehuda Sir Leon of Paris, and Tosafot Riva, written by his disciple, R. Moshe b. R. Yoel Zaltman of Regensburg on the remainder of the tractate.]

This collection of Tosafot preserves complex and novel material which served as the foundation for the redaction of all later collections of Tosafot on Tractate Shabbat. As proven in the scholarly introduction to this volume, Rishonim, such as Ramban, Rashba, Ritva and Tosafot Harosh, used these very Tosafot or a close genre. The author was a disciple of Ri ha-Zaken who transmitted his lectures in the Yeshiva and wrote down verbal exchanges he had with his mentor dealing with complex matters. Aside from his mentor’s Torah, the author included material from earlier Sages of Tosafot, such as Rabbenu Tam, Riva, Rashbam, Rabbenu Porat, etc. Another outstanding feature of this manuscript is the outstanding and profuse glosses (gilyonot) that accompany it. These glosses were intended to serve as supplementary material. They are drawn mainly from the early Sages of Ashkenaz. It may be said with certainty that there isn’t one passage in this collection that does not introduce novel ideas which open up new vistas for the understanding of the vast Tosafot literature and matters relating to Tractate Shabbat. All in all, this is an outstanding discovery of great consequences to rabbinical literature.

The volume is accompanied by source references, comparisons to Tosafot literature and other Rishonim, notes and expanded illuminations, which comprise a comprehensive commentary to the entire work. The volume also includes a substantial scholarly introduction dealing with the manuscript provenance and its contents, the identification of the authors and an analysis of first-generation Tosafot in general. The discovery of Tosafot of Rabbi Yehuda Sir Loen of Paris included in this manuscript, is a first and a delightful surprise.

The volume provides detailed indices. They include index of sources of the work itself, sources discussed in the notes, and an index of subjects classified by topics.

Edited by Rabbi Avraham Shoshana and Rabbi Yehuda Shoshana

58 + 479 double-columned pages

Available now at Biegeleisen’s in Boro Park. It will have wider distribution after Pesach in bookstores or directly from Ofeq Institute.


]]> Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:59:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/28/Important-New-Book-from-the-Baalei-haTosafot New Or Yisrael http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/New-Or-Yisrael
There is a new volume of the journal Or Yisrael (no. 47) out. First, it includes a back and forth on the issue of who wrote the Mekore Minhagim. It also includes an very interesting article discussing whether there is any rhyme or reason to the order of the Mesechtot haShas. Additionally, it includes a couple of articles discussing wheat for Pesach from Arizona(?). On the Pesach front there is also an article on whether one can eat maror on Erev Pesach. Finally, (although these are just a few highlights of the articles contain therein) the first part of an article discussing the custom of candle lighting.

As a general matter, Or Yisrael consistently provides excellent articles, for instance they had a seminal series of the forged Yerushlami on Kodshim, important articles on customs, and halacha, as well as many other important articles. Issues of Or Yisrael are included in the Otzar haChochmah database for those who have access to it - or for free at Hebrewbooks.org under Journals.

]]> Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:34:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/New-Or-Yisrael Haggadah and the Mingling of the Sexes http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/Haggadah-and-the-Mingling-of-the-Sexes I have previously attempted to highlight some of the intricacies and history of illustration in haggadahs.

While many of the illustrations which appear in the haggadah are directly related to the text of the haggadah, some also pre-date the haggadah and seder service. That is, although searching for hametz (leaven) happens the night prior to the seder service many times an illustration of cleaning out the hametz and, in turn, searching for it, appears in many haggadahs. Another such illustration is that of the matzo making. There are five basic steps in this process, mixing the flour and water, kneading the dough, rolling out the dough, putting little holes in the dough, and then actually baking it.

In the Mantau, 1560 haggadah, an illustration presenting all these steps appears. As you can see, to the far left the process begins with the mixing of the flour and water. This continues through the far right, where the matzo is being put (taken out?) of the oven. An interesting facet of this illustration is the combination of the sexes. That is, both men and women are involved in this process. If one looks closely, (you can click on any of the pages below for a larger image) at the baking stage, a man and a woman are actually jointly operating the oven.

Mantua, 1560

This mixing of the sexes was actually highlighted in the next edition which used this illustrations. In the Mantau, 1568 haggadah the same illustration appears. In this edition, however, there is one addition which does not appear in the original. On top of the illustration appears a legend. It says,

"צורת אנשים המסרקים ונשים עשות חלות זקנים עם נערים בחורים גם בתולות"

“this is an illustration of the men making holes [in the matzo] and the women rolling the dough, the old with the young, both the bachelors and the virgins [unmarried women]”

Mantua, 1568

The editors of this edition felt that the inclusion of the sexes in this mitzvah, was a fulfillment of the verse from Psalms 148:12 “the old with the young, both the bachelors and the virgins.” Thus, the combination of a man and a woman at the oven may actually be by design to further highlight this point. It is worthwhile to note that in the Venice, 1609 haggadah, although the same basic illustration appears (the clothing worn is updated) there is no longer a woman at the oven. It is unclear whether this was intentional or not.

Venice, 1609

It is not a minor point that the editors of the Mantau, 1568 haggadah used this verse to explain the mixing of the sexes. The interpretation of this verse and specifically the use to justify the mixing of the sexes is the subject of some controversy.

R. Yosef Steinhardt [1] (1705-1776) records that soon after he became the Rabbi of a town in Alsace it was brought to his attention that it was “customary” to have mixed dancing on the Holidays. The only restriction on the mixed dancing was a government tax was required to engage in mixed dancing. R. Steinhardt, however, refused to allow for the dancing to proceed. As the government lost some of its revenue he was called to account for his actions. In an effort to convince the official of the correctness of his decision to prohibit mixed dancing, he appealed to the Bible. R. Steinhardt noted that the official was also fluent in the Bible and thus it was appropriate to use in this instance. He cited the verse in Jeremiah 31:13 “Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together.” He noted that it only says the young men and old engaged in dance together but not the virgin. He went on to cite other verses as well. Although he does not cite the above verse from Psalms, one can safely assume that he would explain this verse in a similar fashion to that of the verse in Jeremiah. Namely, it doesn’t state explicitly that the men and women were together only that they both took part in the praise of god.

NOTE:

[1] Shu”t Zikrhon Yosef, Fuerth, 1773, O.H. no. 17, it can also be found in Mishna Berura, Biur Halacha, no. 339. This work also contains an interesting introduction. He quotes his wife, Kreindal, who offered the well-known explanation as to why Yosef lost 10 years of his life for listening to his brothers referring to his father, Ya’akov, as Yosef’s master. For each time Yosef heard this inappropriate title used, he lost a year of his life. But, in the Torah, this title only appears five times. Kreindal explained that as Yosef, to keep the charade that he did not understand his brothers, used an interpreter, Yosef heard and understood it ten times, five times from his brothers and five from the interpreter.

Additionally, the introduction to the Shu’T Zikrhon Yosef is also well known for his scathing comments about Hassidim. According to most auction catalogs, this introduction was ripped out by Hassidim. But, in every edition that I have seen, and every time it has come up for auction it always includes the introduction leading one to question whether this is merely apocryphal.

]]> Pesach Historical Haggadah Illustrated Seforim Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/Haggadah-and-the-Mingling-of-the-Sexes Rabbi Eliezer Brodt on Haggadah shel Pesach: Reflections on the Past and Present http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/Rabbi-Eliezer-Brodt-on-Haggadah-shel-Pesach-Reflections-on-the-Past-and-Present
Haggadah shel Pesach:
Reflections on the Past and Present
by Eliezer Brodt

Perhaps the topic which has engendered the most commentary in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are all kinds, in all languages, and with all types of commentary, pictures, etc. Whatever style one can think of, not one, but many Haggadahs have been written. So, whether it’s derush, kabbalah, halakha, mussar or chassidus there are plenty of Haggadahs out there. Then, there are people who specialize in collecting haggadahs although they do not regularly collect seforim. In almost every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggadahs. In 1901 Shmuel Wiener, in A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, started to list all the different printings of the Haggadah. Later in 1960, Abraham Yaari, in his work titled A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, restarted the listing and reached the number 2700. After that, many bibliographers added ones which Yaari omitted. In 1997, Yitzchak Yudlov printed his bibliography on the Haggadah, entitled The Haggadah Thesaurus. This thesaurus contains a beautiful bibliography of the Pesach Haggadahs from the beginning of printing until 1960. The final number in his bibliography listing is 4715. Of course ever since 1960 there has been many more printed. Every year people print new ones; even people who had never written on the Haggadah have had a Haggadah published under their name, based on culling their other writings and collecting material on the Haggadah. When one goes to the seforim store before Pesach it has become the custom to buy at least one new Haggadah; of course one finds themselves overwhelmed not knowing which to pick!

Every year, besides for the new Haggadahs being printed, old ones are reprinted, some in photo off-set editions, others with completely retype set. One such Haggdah that has been reprinted and retype-set is the Haggadah Marbeh Lesaper. The author is R. Yididiah Tiyah Weil the son of R. Nesanel Weil, the author of the well-known commentary on the Ro”SH – the Korbon Nessanel. This Haggadah was first printed in 1791 and until 2002 it was never reprinted. See Yudolov, The Haggadah Thesaurus pg. 32 #355). Others point out an interesting bibliographical note, specifically that there is no mention of the author on the title page. There is, however, a haskamah (letter of approbation) from Reb Yididiah Weil to the sefer. However, we know that aside from giving a haskamah, he is also the author. R. Eliezer Fleckeles in his sefer Teshuva MeAhavah (vol. 2 siman 239) writes that Reb Yididiah Weil is the author. R. Fleckeles points out that in the Haggadah, the author cites from his father the Korbon Nessanel. Additionally, today we can be certain that R. Yididiah is the author as we have the original manuscript of this work in R. Yedidyah's handwriting is sitting at the Jewish National and University Library on the Givat Ram campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Ms. Heb. 8°2744).

A bit of biographical information about R. Yedidiah. He was born in 1722 and died in 1806 at the age of 84. He was a student of both his father the Korban Nesanel, and R. Yonason Eibyshutz, and served as the Rav of Karlsruh, and as the Rosh Yeshiva. He wrote much, however, aside for this Haggadah nothing else of his was printed until 1977.[1] And, although some has been published, much of his work remains in manuscript as is apparent here.

The style of this Haggadah is not limited to peshat, rather he includes much in the style of derush and remez. It has many original and interesting explanations on the Haggadah. He also quotes a few things from his father the Korbon Nessanel. Additionally he cites to “old manuscripts” which he found as well.

I would like to give a few samples of the many interesting points I found throughout this Haggadah not specifically related to Pesach. He brings that he heard Jews have one more tooth then non-Jews, 16 on top and 16 on bottom (pg. 33). While discussing if there was the plague of lice afflicted even the Jews, as it appears from the well known Midrash that Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt as he didn’t want his body affected by the lice plague. R. Weil wants to suggest that in fact the lice did enter even Goshen, however, this was limited to the animals and did not affect the people themselves. (pg 58). He has an interesting explanation regarding the Midrash that says Yishai, the father of Dovid haMelech, had planned a relationship with his handmaid which supposedly should have resulted in Dovid haMelech's birth; Dovid's mother having switched places with the handmaid resulted in Dovid haMelech being a suspect mamzer in his father's eyes. [2] (pg 100) He brings from an “old manuscript” that the author of Nishmas was ר' שמעון בן כיפא . (pg 114).[3] Another point which he cites to an “old manuscript” is that Shlomo Hamelech wrote ישתבח.(pg 121).[4] He writes that on Yom tov there is a נשמה יתירה although we do not make a מיני בשמים after Yom Tov (pg 115). He also says there are two types of נשמה יתירה on shabbos, although not everyone gets them (pg 115). He brings an interesting discussion from his uncle R. Avraham Brodie about the possibility that Sarah's pregnancy with Yitzchak lasted 12 months (pg 124- 125).[5] He says that he heard the פיוטים חד גדיא ואחד מי יודע were found on a manuscript from the Beis Medrash of the R. Elazar Rokeach (pg 140 and pg 151).[6] He writes that many do not like to say הרחמן הוא יקים לנו סוכת דוד הנופלת on Shabbos and Yom tov because the Beit Hamikdash can not be built on shabbat and Yom Tov. However he writes they are mistaken because Rashi and Tosafot both write (see Rosh Hashanah 30a) that the third Beit Hamikdash will be built by Hashem Himself, which could be even on shabbat and Yom Tov (pg 138). He poses an interesting question in regard to the minhag brought down in the Shulhan Arukh. On Pesach the custom is to use fancy flatware as well as other fancy utensils. The rest of the year, however, we refrain from doing so due to zecher le-churban. Why then, on Pesach can we ignore the concept of zecher l’churbon. He answers from his father that this is the hidden meaning behind חד גדיא, that we remember the churban of both batei mikdash. He then goes on to explain exactly how it is hidden (pg 148).

Feldheim Publishers is to be commended for their choice in investing to reprint this valuable Haggadah, and making it accessible to the Torah community. I heard the sefer has recently gone out of print; my hopes are that Feldheim will see to make the sefer available once again.

Sources:
[1] See the Introduction to R. Weil’s Hiddushe Rabbi Yedidiah Weil: Masekhet Niddah (Machon Ahvat Shalom, 2003).
[2] Yalkut Mechiri 118:28. See also Birkei Yosef O"Ch 240:4, Siddur HaYaavetz; Siddur HaShL"H to Hallel, and Pesach Einayim to Sotah 10b and Shivli hamaneuh pg 61; Sefer Kushiyot pg 115 and the notes there and Alpha Bet Kadmitah D’Shumuel Zeira from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pg 239 and onwards.
[3] See also Elbogen, Ha-Tefillah b’Yisrael, pg 86- 87; M. Bar Ilan, Sisrei Tefilah pg 84 and onwards; Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 pg 206 – 209 and the Mispacha, Kulmos, issue 34.
[4] See also the Siddur Rokeach pg 233; Siddur R. Shlomo M’Germazia pg 75 and Abudraham (with pairush Tehilah l’Dovid) pg 153 who say the same thing. See the Sha’ar HaKollel (chap. 6, no. 13) and Siddur Tzlusa d’Avraham (vol 1 pg 238) who bring others that argue. However I found that R. Yitzchak Sagi Nohar (the blind) who was the son of the Raavad writes in his pamphlet titled Sod HaDlakas Neros Chanukah at the end (printed in Sefer Zicharon to Rav Yitzchak Hunter and reprinted in back of the Shvut Yitzchak on Chanukah) that Avraham Avinu was the author. See also Ha-Tefillah b’Yisrael pg. 67 and Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 pg 210.
[5] see also the lengthy discussion in the recently printed Sefer Amaros Tohros Chitzonis U’Pnimis from R. Yehuda Ha’Chasid in the miluim at the end of the sefer from R. Stal, #6, pg 328-332.
[6] see also R. Yosef Zechariah Stern in his Haggadah Zecher Yosef (pg 30) who writes that he did not find this piut printed before the Sefer maseo Hashem. See also the Haggadah Shelaimah ad. loc.; Assufot, vol 2 pg 201-226; Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 chapter 11; Y. Tabory, Pesach Doros, pg. 341-342 and the note on pg 379.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Pesach Customs Book Reviews Historical Haggadah Historical Oddities Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/27/Rabbi-Eliezer-Brodt-on-Haggadah-shel-Pesach-Reflections-on-the-Past-and-Present New Books from Mossad ha-Rav Kook AND Marc Shapiro lecture (online) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/21/New-Books-from-Mossad-haRav-Kook-AND-Marc-Shapiro-lecture-online
The rumour that we've all been waiting for has been confirmed!

Mossad ha-Rav Kook is publishing volume eight of Prof. Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael and also reprinting the late Prof. Meir Hershkovics' biography of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes (Maharetz Chajes); both will be available next week in Jerusalem. Copies of these volumes will be available at Mossad ha-Rav Kook (02-652-6231) starting the end of this week and should be arriving in America at Biegeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165) within a week or two of being published.

Additionally -- earlier tonight, Prof. Marc B. Shapiro delivered the second annual Dr. Asher Siev Memorial Lecture at Yeshiva University, entitled "A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach: Reflections on the Authority of the Moroccan Rabbinate." The lecture was very well received by those in the audience and the lecture is available for download here [17 megabytes].

]]> Marc B. Shapiro Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/21/New-Books-from-Mossad-haRav-Kook-AND-Marc-Shapiro-lecture-online Pesach Journals, Had Gadyah, Plagiarism & Bibliographical Errors http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/20/Pesach-Journals-Had-Gadyah-Plagiarism--Bibliographical-Errors

Two journals have put out special collections devoted to Pesach. The first, Moriah, has continued their holiday specific journals and collected their third volume of articles devoted to Pesach. Yeshurun, for the first time has also collected choice articles related to a specific holiday and published a volume devoted to Pesach as well.

Yeshurun’s effort, being their first, is the focus of this post. This volume is much smaller than their typical volumes. Usually, each volume of Yeshurun is huge – over 700+ pages – with this volume, however, the articles comprise a “mere” 300+ pages. Aside from articles related to Pesach, this volume contains an index to the first 10 volumes of Yeshurun. [1] The index contains indexes of persons, books, topics, and sources (Bible verse, Mishna, Talmud etc.). Although any index is most welcome (especially in light of how large the volumes are) and this index is pretty comprehensive but I am unsure why they decided to leave out an index of authors. That is, the index of persons is limited to persons discussed in articles, not those who actually wrote the articles. So if one wants to look up all the articles written by person X, they are out of luck for now.

Aside from the issue of lack of an author index I found a much more glaring problem in this volume. The volume includes an article discussing the song Had Gadyah. This article has numerous flaws. First, the author of the article is Tuvia Fruend. Tuvia Fruend has authored a series of books on the holidays “Mo’adim l’Simcha.” These books contain articles related to the holidays. Fruend’s modus operandi for Mo’adim l’Simcha is to find a good article on the topic and then repackage it – or at times – just plagiarize it. What is particularly surprising in this context is that one article he is clearly guilty of plagiarizing is one which appeared in Yeshurun – by one of the editors of Yeshurun! As I have previously shown, Fruend copied it verbatim, without citation, and even repeated typographical errors. Why then, Yeshurun would give Fruend a forum is difficult to understand.

Second, the article itself is problematic. This article appears in Fruend’s Mo’adim l’Simcha and this is a reprint of that article. [2] This time, however, all the footnotes are removed. Additionally, even though there are no footnotes, there are also almost no citations in this article. Instead, we have statements such as this “according to many scholars” [3] – without saying who those scholars are or where they can be found. Further, Fruend, in one of the few actual citations, says “in the journal Machnim issue 54, 1961 there appears” where he notes the article in Machnim records a different version of this song. Fruend doesn’t tell us who the author of the article was – A. M. Habermann. Additionally, Fruend makes it appear that the only value of this article is the alternative language. But, if one looks up the article, the article discusses not only the alternative reading but includes other sources which shed light on Had Gadyah, sources which Fruend uses in his article.

Further, Fruend’s reliance on Habermann’s article are apparent in the last part of Fruend’s article. Fruend lists (and discusses some) of the books devoted to explaining Had Gadyah. Fruend, although never notes that Habermann had complied a list previously – in an article that Fruend had already noted he had seen.

Finally, there are some bibliographical errors which appear in the article. First, while minor, Fruend, for the number of Haggadah published uses Ya’ari’s bibliography. Although Ya’ari’s bibliography of the Haggadah is a fine bibliography it is significantly incomplete. Yudlov’s, more recent, bibliography ("The Haggadah Thesaurus") contains almost double the amount of Haggadahs. Second, the bibliographical information Fruend provides for some of the books devoted to Had Gadyah are in error. The first book on the list is Mogen David by R. David b. Meshulam. Fruend gives the date 1745, this, however, is incorrect. The actual printing date is 1755. [4] The second bibliographical error is according to Fruend the commentary on Had Gadyah, Pesach Tikvah, was published in Frankfort in 1785. Again this is incorrect. The London edition was published in 1785, however, this was not the first edition. Instead, the first edition, which was published in Frankfort, was published in 1727. [5] All of these errors could have been easily corrected by looking in Yudlov or even Ya’ari, or even copying from Habermann correctly. Finally, if Fruend had actually used Yudlov he would have found an additional commentary on Had Gadyah unlisted by Habermann. Although Yudolov did not see it, he records a commentary Milas Even, Fuerth, 1730. [6]

[1] The editors note that the index to the balance of the volumes is in process and will be published in due time.

[2] It may be that Fruend also previously published this article in Yeshurun as well, but as they have no author index I was unable to confirm that this article appeared in Yeshurun before. Even if this the first time he published in Yeshurun, I don’t understand why some of the errors below were not corrected by any of the editors of Yeshurun.

[3] This statement also appears in the original article in Mo’adim l’Simcha without citation there either.

[4] In order to figure out the date one must add up the bold letters which appear in the legend בשנת ליל שמורים הוא לה' which adds up to 515 i.e. the year 5, 515 which converts to 1755. Perhaps Fruend’s date was due to a mathematical error.

[5] The date of publication may not actually be this date. This is so as included on the title page is a legend which reads “to know the week and the year [of the printing of this book] when it was finished completely.” Yudolov admits that he is unable to figure out what the publisher meant by this line. Yudolov, however, bases his dating on C.D. Friedberg. Although there may be some question about the exact date, the date offered by Freund is impossible. This is so, as the printer was Johann Kelner. Kelner printed between the years 1708-1730. Thus, Fruend’s date of 1785 is impossible – at least if Kelner printed this book.

[6] In truth there is a more troubling error to the whole article. Fruend fails to discuss the significant evidence that Had Gadyah is merely a popular folksong which was borrowed and converted for use at the Seder. While Fruend does discuss those who downplay this assertion, he doesn’t discuss any of the counter-evidence or fully explain the issue.

]]> Pesach Customs Bibliographies Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/20/Pesach-Journals-Had-Gadyah-Plagiarism--Bibliographical-Errors A Behind the Scenes Look at the Banning of HaGaon http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/20/A-Behind-the-Scenes-Look-at-the-Banning-of-HaGaon
It appears that at least one controversial book can not escape being criticized even after a significant passage of time. In this case, R. Dov Eliach's book the R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna, published five years ago and, at the time, subject to some harsh criticism, is the subject of a new magazine - אמת מול שקר (Truth Against Lies) published by "the Institute for Truth and Faith." That is, the entire purpose of this magazine is to disproving and exposing alleged misstatements in R. Eliach's book.

The first issue -- see below for two excerpted pages -- contains, inter alia, the text of the various bans on the book. The editors also claim - according to the ban they reproduce - that R. Chaim Kanievsky issued a ban on the book. On the other side of this particular claim is an article which appeared in Dei'ah veDibur which states that the book was done with R. Kanievsky's approval. For an earlier discussion (circa August 2006) at the Seforim blog of the BaDaTz herem against R. Dov Eliach's HaGaon, see here; and for pictures of burning copies of HaGaon, see here. Aside from the various bans and the like, the magazine also contains examples where they attempt to show R. Eliach distorted sources or took out of context.

Additionally, I am unsure if the book is even available anymore, from my admittedly unscientific survey of Seforim stores, the book appears to be out-of-print.




]]> HaGaon Censorship Out-of-Print Seforim Book Reviews Herem Historical Oddities Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:02:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/20/A-Behind-the-Scenes-Look-at-the-Banning-of-HaGaon Eliezer Brodt: Review of Halikhot Shlomo, by R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/16/Eliezer-Brodt-Review-of-Halikhot-Shlomo-by-R-Shlomo-Zalman-Auerbach
Review of Halikhot Shlomo, by R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
By Eliezer Brodt

There is a well known joke which claims that some gedolim have actually been "writing from their graves."[1] The most famous person to be "guilty" of this charge is R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer) as he printed nothing[2] in his lifetime and yet we have volumes and volumes of his Torah on literally every area and - to this day - they continue to be published.[3] Obviously, all of this material has come to light through his own notes and those of his many students.

Non-Republished works of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

Another such person, who has had a similarly prolific posthumous literary output – although he did publish Torah novella in his own life time – is R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995). After his death there has been a printing explosion of his writings covering all topics, including reprints of everything he has ever written! The only works of his not to be reprinted are two amazing works: the Meori Aish – a classic study on electricity and muktzah – and his Madeni Aretz on Shevi'it, as these two works have connections to one of the more controversial gedolim of the past century, R. Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook. As the Meori Aish has a haskamah from Rav Kook and the Madenei Aretz deals at great length with Rav Kook’s views on Shevi'it.

Halikhot Shlomo

For this post, however, I would just like to limit my focus to one of these recent works on R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach -- Halikhot Shlomo.

A few years ago R. Aron Auerbach and R. Y Terger started to print this work. It was printed by Feldheim for a rather low price. The first volume began with Hilkhot Tefilah and Berakhot. After that, they published a second volume discussing the Yom Tovim starting with Rosh Hashana until and including Purim. (Last year they released a limited edition of the Pesach section.) And this year, the third volume has just been published, completing the Yom Tovim, on Pesach and the rest of the year. The goal of this work is to collect everything spanning the gamut of R. Shlomo Zalman’s halakhic interests related to these topics of Tefilah, Berakhot and the Yom Tovim. These volumes are all well organized, culled from all the printed sources and from incidents recorded by his various students. Aside from these sources, they used many manuscripts and notes of R. Shlomo Zalman which have remained unpublished until this point. They try to reference exactly where everything came from; but, at times, this too becomes a bit confusing. The sefer has a nice layout the top part contains the statement of R. Shlomo Zalman, as well as his reasoning for the various pesakim. In the extensive footnotes, the editors demonstrate the breadth of where everything comes from. Sometimes they cite other sources on the topics under discussion. They also include many interesting stories, statements, and anecdotes of advice that R. Shlomo Zalman gave to different people. In addition to all this they include many interesting discussions of R. Shlomo Zalman on Aggadah. At the end of each volume, there is a collection of some lengthier pieces on relevant topics. Besides for all this they included a very thorough index assisting the interested reader in finding almost anything mentioned throughout in the sefer.

I would just like to quote a few interesting discussions from each volume for examples of what makes this work so special as there are literally thousands of gems scattered throughout this work.

Halikhot Shlomo, vol. 1

While talking about having perfectly squared tefillin, R. Shlomo Zalman says that its good enough if, according to viewing it with your eyes and that you do not have to measure the tefillin with a ruler. He than goes on to say - at great length - that the Torah goes according to ones eyes for everything including examining for bugs and checking etrogim (Halikhot Shlomo 1:53, and the footnotes therein).

On the topic of chumrot he writes that one should not just be machmir because he feels like it. Instead, such a position should be reached from one’s own understanding of the topic and that, in this instance, it is in fact the correct position. He contrasts this with the tendency, which can be attributed to many chumrot, which is a result of only utilizing secondary sources and not focusing on the primary sources. He goes on to write that he was very bothered when he would see people walking on shabbat and their wives would be pushing the baby carriages because the man held for himself it was prohibited to use an eruv. He writes that when he was young he was machmir and did not rely on the eruv but, when he got married, he was mater neder (annulled his vow) to be able to help his wife (Halikhot Shlomo 1:55).

Elsewhere they record, that R. Shlomo Zalman once met a chattan walking to shul without a shomer so he accompanied him until he got a shomer. R. Shlomo Zalman explained his actions that already the motzei shabbat before one gets married he is already called a chattan in regard to this that he needs a shomer (Halikhot Shlomo 1:63 [note 26]). He writes that a matmid is not one who learns many hours in the day but rather it is someone who learns set times carefully keeping them everyday (Halikhot Shlomo 1:67 [note 56]). He writes that a mourner can learn hilkhot aveilut in-depth during the week of shiva (Halikhot Shlomo 1:75 [note 11]). Also included is an interesting and in-depth step-by-step teshuva process (Halikhot Shlomo 1:77 [note 23]).

At the end of this volume, the editors printed a very interesting piece on the topic of saying ר' פלוני בן ר' פלוני – specifically the use of the Rabbi appellation – when calling someone up for an aliya at kriyat haTorah. R. Yosef Zechariah Stern writes that one should not say the title Reb because it is a problem of גבהות in front of God. R Shlomo Zalman, however, defends this custom at great length as we find everyone uses this title. He explains that the reason for its usage was because there are many different prayer customs that Chazal made to go against the tzedukim (צדוקים) to show that we have the Torah - both written and oral. So too, in the times of the Rishonim, there were people who denied the historicity of torah shebal peh, and these individuals were called Karaites; whereas the more-traditional sect of Jews were called Rabanim, and this is why when we call someone to the Torah we say “Reb” to show that he is not a karaite (Halikhot Shlomo 1:370-373; also included, in short, in the third volume, Halikhot Shlomo 3:33- 34).

Halikhot Shlomo, vol. 2

Some interesting points from volume two include: The famous topic of the prayer Machniseh Rachamim and how can it be said as it appears that we are praying to the angels. R. Shlomo Zalman responds to this concern and explains that one can pray to an angel if it is his job to carry the prayers – that is his job! Further, this is why one can sing the song Shalom Aleichem on Friday night as we are only asking them to do their job. However, he said the nussach which appears in kiddush levanah "כשם שאני רוקד כנגדך וכו' כל לא יוכל כל אויבי לנגוע בי לרעה" makes it appears as if we are praying to the moon and is a mistake! Instead, it should read כשם שאני רוקד כנגדה (Halikhot Shlomo 2:4). When asked which kavonot one should have during the blowing of the shofar he said just that the Torah simply says to blow shofar! (Halikhot Shlomo 2:24). Another interesting idea is that R. Shlomo Zalman did not bless people with sticking out his hands except on very infrequent occasions. He quoted R S Alphandrei that there is no source for giving ones hand in chazal but rather its chukat hagoyim! (Halikhot Shlomo 2:10). At the end of the sefer include, as well, is a very interesting selection as to why the holiday of Hoshanah Rabbah, as a day of judgment or not, is not mentioned in the Torah (Halikhot Shlomo 2:428-434).

Halikhot Shlomo, vol. 3

The third volume of Halikhot Shlomo is the largest thus far, comprising over six hundred pages with many, many interesting and fascinating pieces.

Just to list a few: R. Shlomo Zalman writes that it’s very important to learn Masekhet Moed Koton and Hilkhot Aveilut as well, even though the Hatam Sofer (and others) said that one should not learn it (Halikhot Shlomo 3:439). On Tisha B’Av, R. Shlomo Zalman would read books about the Holocaust (Halikhot Shlomo 3:440). There is also an interesting discussion about the reason of the Mishneh Berurah as to why we eat dairy on Shavuot (Halikhot Shlomo 3:380-381). In regard to Pesach there is an amazing original piece as to why the bechorim (first born) fast on Erev Pesach. R. Shlomo Zalman writes that if it is solely due to the fact that the bechorim were saved from death, then all of the descendants of the bechorim should also fast – not just bechorim! (The answer is a bit more complex and includes several other components to this answer, as well.) To this, R. Shlomo Zalman says that the reason for the fast is not for the fact that they were saved but rather it was because the bechorim were supposed to do the avodah in the Beit Hamikdash, but that they lost it due to the sin of the Golden Calf. So on the fourteenth day of Nissan when they came to the Beit Hamikdash and they saw the kohanim and levi’im doing the beautiful avodah they felt very sad so they did not eat. So they decided to make a day to remember this as there was one time they were able to do this – when Hashem skipped over the houses and to atone for the Golden Calf which caused them to lose this great job (Halikhot Shlomo 3:179-180).

In sum, the Halikhot Shlomo is an excellent work and all in all, I feel that this is a beautiful work and well worth the money.

Sources:
[1] Upon hearing this aphorism, one cannot help but reflect on the passage in the Talmud: "R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon bar Yochai: Any talmid hakham whose teachings are recited in this world, his lips move in the grave" (Yevamot 97a).
[2] Although the Hatam Sofer is the most popular target of posthumous publishing, in fact he did publish one work in his lifetime – although this is not well known. This is probably because his most famous work, his responsa volumes SHU"T Hatam Sofer, were published after he died. The Hatam Sofer died in 1839 and his teshuvot were not published until 1855. But, in the 1826 edition of the Hiddushei R”I Megash on Masekhet Shavout, there was appended a "Kuntres" which contains two Torah pieces and six teshuvot from the Hatam Sofer.
[3] For a discussion of the famous 1799 ruling of the Vilna beit din where they officially prohibited the ascribing any work to the R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna which had not been personally sanctioned by that rabbinical body, see Gil S. Perl, "Emek ha-Neziv: A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006), pp. 219, 226. Notwithstanding this prohibition, works ascribed to R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna continued to appear for over two centuries. See also the introduction Yeshayahu Vinograd, Ozar Sifre ha-GRA (Jerusalem, 2003) for an extensive discussion surrounding the 1799 ruling of the Vilna beit din.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Book Reviews Historical Oddities Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:10:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/16/Eliezer-Brodt-Review-of-Halikhot-Shlomo-by-R-Shlomo-Zalman-Auerbach Second Annual Dr. Asher Siev Memorial Lecture at YU http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/15/Second-Annual-Dr-Asher-Siev-Memorial-Lecture-at-YU
The Second Annual Dr. Asher Siev Memorial Lecture will be delivered by

A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach:
Reflections on the Authority
of the Moroccan Rabbinate
Dr. Marc B. Shapiro (University of Scranton)

Tuesday, March 20th 8:00 PM
Rubin Shul - Yeshiva University Wilf Campus
Refreshments will be served

Sponsored by the Torah u-Madda Lecture Series,
Center for Jewish Future

For more information, please contact mbutler@yu.edu

Dr. Marc B. Shapiro is the Harry and Jeannette Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies and director of the Weinberg Judaic Studies Institute at the University of Scranton and author of "Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966" (Littman, 1999), "The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised" (Littman, 2004) and "Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox" (University of Scranton, 2006).

]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/15/Second-Annual-Dr-Asher-Siev-Memorial-Lecture-at-YU Marc B. Shapiro: Obituary for R. Yosef Buxbaum zt"l http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/15/Marc-B-Shapiro-Obituary-for-R-Yosef-Buxbaum-ztl
Obituary: R. Yosef Buxbaum zt"l
by Marc B. Shapiro

The Torah world lost a very important figure earlier this month, with the passing of R. Yosef Buxbaum at age 62. In fact, I can’t think of anyone, in the entire history of Torah publishing, who achieved as much as he.

There is a lot that can be said about Rabbi Buxbaum, but for the purposes of the Seforim blog his relevant achievement is the founding, and directing for many years, of Machon Yerushalayim. While at one time Mossad ha-Rav Kook was the center for critical editions of the rishonim, this is no longer the case. Make no mistake about it: Mossad ha-Rav Kook deserves enormous credit for its wonderful Kafih and Chavel editions as well its the critical editions of the Ritva, Ran, Rashba and others. But in recent decades Machon Yerushalayim has taken center stage in this area and truly revolutionized Torah study. This is an amazing achievement that began some forty years ago with Otzar Mefarshei ha-Talmud.

Who can learn today without the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Tur? Only in this editions has the Tur been restored to its pristine glory. Much like the Frankel Rambam -- finally completed earlier this month -- is now the only acceptable edition for those who are serious about Mishneh Torah, so too the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Tur has become a requirements for serious Torah scholars.

The Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh is also indispensable (although in this case, other publishers are also involved in producing what will be, when complete, the only reliable edition). It is possible to go on about the numerous other important works, from rishonim and acharonim, published by Machon Yerushalayim, as well as the groundbreaking journal Moriah.[1] However, I would like to call attention to what I think is Rabbi Buxbaum’s most lasting achivement, and it has to do with sociology.

It was Rabbi Buxbaum who brought a central tool of crtical scholarship, namely, the ability to edit manuscripts, to the haredi world. He also who taught the haredi world at large how to appreciate a critical edition. It is now no longer regarded as “maskilish” to produce, or use, a critical text. In fact, to repeat what I have already said, those serious about learning know that when they need to examine a responsum of the Rosh, Rashba, Rivash and so many others the Machon Yerushalayim edition is the only place to turn.

Another great achievement — and it remains to be seen if it will last — was that he was able to preside over a unity in Torah scholarship in a way not seen in the last fifty years. Much like his teacher, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, was unique in that all segments of the Torah world related to with the greatest esteem, Machon Yerushalayim was also able to achieve this rare feat. Rabbi Buxbaum did this by inviting gedolim from all the different camps, and from both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic worlds, to be involved with Machon Yerushalayim. Many of them were given honorary positions in the various sections most suited for them and there was a section devoted to Sephardic Jewry, German Jewry, Hungarian Jewry, etc.

Who else but Rabbi Buxbaum would have been able to bring together in one undertaking, gedolim with such different hashkafot as R. Yitzhak Yaakov Weiss (author of SHU"T Minhat Yitzhak), R. Ovadiah Yosef (author of, among other works, SHU"T Yabia Omer and SHU"T Yehave Da'at), and R. Avraham Shapira, Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz ha-Rav (who edited Machon Yerushalayim’s edition of Zekher Yitzchak by the gaon of Ponovezh, R. Isaac Jacob Rabinowitz).

Machon Yerushalayim, at one and the same time, has projects with the Edah Haredit, various haredi yeshivot, Yeshivat Shaalvim and Yeshiva Beit El, among others. Where else but under the auspices of Machon Yerushalayim can you find yeshiva bachurim with such divergent hashkafot engaged in the holy work of editing the writings of rishonim and acharonim?

Machon Yerushalayim’s wings extend to the Diaspora as well, and let me just note one example: The R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor project is being carried out together with Yeshiva University and when completed will include ten volumes.

To learn more about this incredible man whose loss must be mourned by the entire Torah world, see here (Hebrew).


Sources:
[1] Some might wish to compare Moriah with Yeshurun, and indeed they do have a lot in common. But note that while Yeshurun is more liberal than the typical haredi journal, and will thus publish writings by R. Kook, articles by contemporary gedolim of the religious-Zionist camp, not to mention leading figures of Yeshiva University, are still regarded as off limits by this publication.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Marc B. Shapiro Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/15/Marc-B-Shapiro-Obituary-for-R-Yosef-Buxbaum-ztl Upcoming Kestenbaum Auction and FREE sefer! http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/13/Upcoming-Kestenbaum-Auction-and-FREE-sefer
Kestenbaum & Company will be holding a auction on March 22 and their catalog is available online here.

For those interested in a free sefer, someone is offering the KeMotzei Shalal Rov for free[!], you can contact them at avadar21-at-gmail.com.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Historical Haggadah Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/13/Upcoming-Kestenbaum-Auction-and-FREE-sefer Rabbi Adam Mintz: Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/13/Rabbi-Adam-Mintz-Rabbi-Henkin-and-The-First-Heter-Agunot-in-America
Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America
By Adam Mintz

The tragedy of the agunah, the woman who is unable to receive a get from her husband, has plagued the Jewish people since time immemorial. Rabbis and scholars throughout the centuries have contended with this issue in an attempt to free agunot to remarry. In the United States this issue was first formally addressed following World War I. European Jews soldiers, fighting on both sides of the war, were among those killed in battle. As soldiers are generally young, they often left childless widows who required a halitzah from the dead husband’s brother in order to remarry. A number of these brothers had immigrated to the United States where visas were difficult to acquire. Therefore, the Agudath HaRabbanim sent a letter to its membership in 1922 alerting them to this situation and offering assistance in helping these women acquire temporary visas to the United States thereby allowing these women to obtain a halitzah and to remarry.

With the growth of the American Jewish community in the early part of the twentieth century, Jews began to assimilate and the predicament of the Jewish wife whose husband had abandoned her to live with a non-Jewish woman became an ever increasing phenomenon.[1] Many rabbis attempted to free the Jewish wife to remarry, even though she was unable to find the husband and receive a get. Some of the solutions were based on broad institutional enactments, while others dealt with the problem on a case-by-case analysis. One of the principles underlying the foundation of much of this discussion is the halakhic status of civil marriages and of weddings performed by Reform rabbis. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed about the status of these marriages and this disagreement played an important role in their view of the agunah problem. Understanding their particular views is vital for the understanding of the agunah issue and for the appreciation of the important roles that these two American rabbinic giants played on this issue.

Rabbi Henkin discussed this issue in a number of articles and teshuvot. His earliest treatment of civil marriage appears in a series of articles in Hapardes in 1934, where Rabbi Henkin argued that a civil marriage is considered a marriage according to Jewish law and that a get would be required to terminate such a marriage.[2] He explained that a couple is considered halakhically married even though they did not have a Jewish ceremony and do not intend to be married according to Jewish law. According to Rabbi Henkin, the validity of the marriage is achieved by the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife. He added that the Jews who see them together as a couple satisfy the requirement of witnesses in establishing the halakhic status of the marriage. In an article in his book, Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained the rational for his position through the comparison to a similar historical situation.[3] He quoted a fascinating responsum of Rivash, Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408), communal rabbi in Algeria who had fled Spain following the anti-Jewish riots of 1391.[4] Rivash described that he was approached by a woman who had been a converso in Majorca. After she had escaped to North Africa she asked whether she could remarry even though she did not have a get from her first husband. She explained that she had been married by a priest after both she and her husband had been forced to convert to Christianity. After the marriage they had lived together as a married couple. The husband was not available to give her a get. Rivash decided in this case that the woman could remarry and did not require a get. Rabbi Henkin argued that Rivash’s case is unique as this couple was married by a priest and no longer lived among Jews. This situation, argued Rabbi Henkin, cannot be compared to the American situation where a man and woman are married by a civil authority and live together among Jews.

Rabbi Feinstein responded to Rabbi Henkin’s decision in a number of teshuvot in Iggerot Moshe. In the earliest teshuvah, dated June 28, 1959, Rabbi Feinstein argued that a civil marriage does not require termination via a get.[5] Rather, the couple can remarry even without a get. He explained that in the United States where people easily move in and out of relationships, the fact that a couple gets married in a civil ceremony and then lives together is not considered proof that they are married according to the halakhah. He relied on the precedent of Rivash and argued that American civil marriages can be equated to that situation of the fifteenth century. Interestingly, he wrote that even though the halakhah does not require a get, if it is possible for the wife to obtain a get she should follow the opinion of Rabbi Henkin and terminate the marriage through a get. It would appear that Rabbi Feinstein would agree that in a situation where the wife received a get she would not be able to marry a kohen.

Concerning a couple that was married by a Reform rabbi, Rabbi Feinstein wrote in a number of teshuvot that this wedding is not recognized according to the halakhah and a get is not required to terminate this marriage.[6] He explained that the only time the wedding would be valid is in a situation where there are two observant Jew who witness the ceremony. However, he claimed that even in that case the Reform rabbi often does not perform the marriage ceremony properly so the wedding would not be valid. Concerning the question of whether the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife is a factor, Rabbi Feinstein wrote that a Reform ceremony is worse than a civil ceremony. A couple that gets married in a civil ceremony understands that this ceremony is not a Jewish one and that the fact that they live together binds them as a Jewish couple. However, a couple that is married in a Reform ceremony believes that this ceremony is a religious one and do not have the necessary intention of consummating the marriage when they live together. Nevertheless, he believed that if possible the woman should arrange to receive a get.[7]

In 1964, Rabbi Henkin wrote a letter to an unnamed rabbi who had ruled that a get is not needed to terminate a marriage when the ceremony had been performed by a Reform rabbi. Rabbi Henkin explained:
And the wonder of wonders, which makes one’s hair stand on edge, is that you are lenient regarding a marriage performed by a Reform rabbi. Is there really a need for an officiating rabbi? If a Jewish man says to a Jewish woman “you are mine” in front of witnesses, then she becomes his wife. And, if there are no witnesses at the ceremony, the fact that they live together as a married couple for many years is considered acceptable testimony. What difference does it make if the witnesses were Reform?[8]
Rabbi Henkin admonishes this unnamed rabbi that he must not allow other rabbis to rely on this incorrect lenient opinion.

Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed regarding both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies. While the issues are connected, they revolve around different considerations. Rabbi Feinstein looked at American society as a promiscuous one in which a man and woman living together did not reflect a relationship of commitment while Rabbi Henkin saw a more traditional society where relationships reflected commitment. It is fascinating that two Torah scholars who lived several blocks from one another could see American society so differently. The generation of rabbis and scholars who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe were forced to reconcile their recollections of the past with the realities of the present. That reconciliation took different forms for different rabbis.

It would appear that with regard to a couple married in a Reform ceremony, the differing rulings of these two Torah giants were based on their understanding of the Reform movement. Rabbi Feinstein believed that Reform rabbis were attempting to undermine halakhic Judaism and anything that they did was problematic and needed to be avoided. On the other hand, Rabbi Henkin, while rejecting the religious positions of the Reform movement, did not feel that the Reform rabbis were a threat to the Orthodox. Consequently he felt that whether a wedding was conducted by a Reform rabbi was immaterial. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed as to the extent to which the Reform movement created a risk to the Orthodox movement.[9]

The positions of Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin had critical implications for the issue of agunah. According to Rabbi Feinstein, if a couple was married civilly or by a Reform rabbi and then the husband refused to give a get, the wife may remarry as this marriage is not considered halakhically valid. According to Rabbi Henkin, in such a situation, the woman would require a get. It would appear that Rabbi Henkin’s understanding of civil and Reform marriages stands as a serious impediment to the resolution of the agunah problem. However, in an article written in 1928, Rabbi Henkin alerted the community to the fact that he was very much concerned with the problem of the agunah and began by describing the current situation:
In the past few years the problem of the agunah has increased in Europe and here in America. This is a question that burns in the entire world as to what we can do for our sisters to save them from the chains of agunah when their husbands disappear…For this reason there have been leniencies suggested here [the termination of civil marriages without a get]. However, since we have proven that these leniencies have no basis in halakhah, these leniencies are really stringencies to destroy lives and such should not be done in Israel.[10]
According to Rabbi Henkin, since civil marriages require a get, to allow women to remarry without a get creates illegitimate children from the second marriage.

While Rabbi Henkin felt that this approach of terminating civil marriages without a get was not a legitimate one, he was deeply committed to trying to find an acceptable solution to the agunah problem. Accordingly, Rabbi Henkin was the first American rabbi to offer a proposal to solve the Agunah problem. This proposal was suggested in the above article written in 1928 soon after his arrival in the United States. Henkin noted that the problem of agunah, experienced by women whose husbands had disappeared or by women who were unable to receive the necessary halitzah, was “a daily occurrence,” and he made the following suggestion: at the time of the wedding the husband must authorize that a get may be written and delivered in the future. He must allow the get to be written to cover a number of situations including one in which the husband refuses to provide a get to his wife for three years. At that time, the claim would be brought to a central beit din (in the original proposal, he wrote that this should be the Jerusalem beit din) and, if the beit din agrees, then a get would be written even if the husband opposes the writing at that time. Rabbi Henkin called for this proposal to be discussed and voted upon in a meeting of rabbis and that if approved, it would remain the standard practice for fifty years.[11]

However, in 1930 a development impacted on Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it had the chance to be acted upon. Rabbi Louis Epstein, a leading Conservative rabbi from Boston and the president of the Rabbinical Assembly and its Committee on Jewish Law, suggested that prior to every marriage, the husband should appoint his wife as an agent to execute a divorce on his behalf. Thus, if the husband disappears or refuses to grant the get, the wife can, in effect, divorce herself. In that same year, Rabbi Epstein published a volume entitled Hatza’ah Lemaan Takanat Agunot that attempted to prove the halakhic foundation for this proposal. In 1935, the Rabbinical Assembly, the rabbinic body of the Conservative movement, initially voted to accept this proposal.

In his volume, Rabbi Epstein described how he sent copies of his book to close to 1,000 rabbis asking for their opinions on his proposal. He explained that he received very few responses. While one of the letters was critical of his work, most of the letters were complimentary but argued that he could not proceed without the consensus of the leading halakhic authorities. He seemed encouraged by the nature of these responses inasmuch as they were not critical of his halakhic reasoning.[12] Among the letters that he received was a letter from Rabbi Henkin dated February 18, 1931. In this letter, Rabbi Henkin apologized for not having the time to study the book carefully. While Rabbi Henkin proceeded to make certain halakhic suggestions to Rabbi Epstein, the letter was in no way dismissive of his efforts. He even concluded the letter with the practical advice that if he wanted to send copies to all the rabbis of Europe as he proposed, it would become a very expensive undertaking.[13]

The Orthodox rabbinate responded to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal with disapproval and the Agudath HaRabbanim convened a meeting of rabbis during which various halakhic presentations were made arguing that Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was both impractical and halakhically unsound. In 1937, a volume was published by the Agudath HaRabbanim entitled Le’Dor Aharon which included correspondence from leading rabbis around the world opposing Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. In 1940, Rabbi Epstein published Le’Sheelat Ha-Agunah in which he attempted to support his view in light of the strong rabbinic opposition. The Orthodox rabbinate did not respond to this second volume and Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was never actually adopted in practice by the Conservative movement.[14]

Rabbi Henkin wrote an article that was included in Le’Dor Aharon.[15] In his lengthy essay, he explained his halakhic opposition to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. Among other considerations, he concluded that it is nonsensical for the husband to appoint his wife to serve as the agent to write the get as she is the one who will be receiving the divorce.

Then he added:
“And I have already written that the reason that I have become involved in this battle is due to the fact that he [Rabbi Epstein] mentioned my proposal for the freeing of agunot … and I must escape from this comparison…My proposal was merely a suggestion and not meant as a halakhic decision…and when the volume Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin was published, I retracted from my position for even the greatest scholar has to follow the majority view.”[16]
Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin is a volume published in Vilna in 1930 by Judah Lubetsky, an Eastern European rabbinic scholar who served for many years as a rabbi in Paris. The volume was published in response to a decision by the Agudat Rabbanei Tzarfat in 1908 to allow a Jewish woman to remarry after a civil divorce based on a condition made at the time of the wedding that if the couple where to be divorced by the civil authorities then retroactively the original marriage would be nullified.[17] Rabbi Lubetsky collected letters from rabbinic scholars from around the world condemning this opinion and explaining that such a condition at the time of the marriage would not be valid and that the couple would still need a get.

Indeed, it would seem probable that in 1931 when Rabbi Henkin had written his initial letter to Rabbi Epstein he had not yet seen Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and therefore did not reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal at that time. By 1937, he had read Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and felt compelled to both reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal and to retract his own view. In the reprinted edition of Perushei Ibra, the pages that contain his initial proposal are bracketed with the words “hadru be” (I have retracted) written in the margin. While it is not clear whether this remarkable editorial decision was made by Rabbi Henkin or the editor of the later reprinted volume, it reflects both the seriousness and the sensitivity with which this issue was taken.

In the Iggerot Moshe, Rabbi Feinstein never made any reference to Rabbi Henkin’s proposal regarding agunot. While Rabbi Feinstein did not arrive in America until 1936 and may not have been aware of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it was retracted in 1937, Rabbi Henkin was well-known among Eastern European rabbis and his decisions would have been available to Rabbi Feinstein even before his arrival in New York.[18] However, there is another variable that must be considered to explain Rabbi Feinstein’s lack of reference to this proposal. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took different approaches to the attempt to solve the agunah problem. Rabbi Feinstein tried to free individual agunot as they approached him with their unique situations. As a posek, Rabbi Feinstein responded to individuals on a case by case basis and did not look for institutional policies. As a communal rabbi, Rabbi Henkin dealt both with individual cases and broad policies. His position concerning civil and Reform marriages was important for American Jewish life but did not impact on his institutional proposal for the resolution of the agunah problem. His agunah proposal was never enacted but nevertheless reflects the rabbinic approach that Rabbi Henkin embodied.

Rabbi Henkin’s proposal, although "officially" retracted, has been cited in halakhic literature since 1937. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, the foremost disciple of Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg and a leading Jewish philosopher of the American Orthodox community, offered a resolution to the agunah problem in 1967 in a volume entitled Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get. In this volume he reviewed the history of halakhic literature concerning the validity of a conditional marriage and argued for the introduction of a conditional marriage to prevent the tragedy of agunah. At the end of the book, he referred to Rabbi Henkin’s retraction of his proposal in 1937. Rabbi Berkovits wrote “We revere Rabbi Henkin’s greatness and piety. Yet, one is not permitted to sway from the truth as it appears to him.”[19] Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his critique of Rabbi Berkovits’ thesis, relied on the fact that Rabbi Henkin had rejected conditional marriages.[20] Rabbi Henkin, thirty years after he retracted his proposal, is still being utilized for both sides of this argument.

Finally, in an article in The Edah Journal in 2005, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, an Atlanta-area rabbi, professor of law at the Emory University Law School and dayan in the Beth Din of America, offered a theoretical proposal to help free agunot. He explained that for the proposal to have any chance of acceptance among the rabbinic community it would need to combine three mechanisms into a single document:
"The three elements would be: conditions applied to the marriage (tenai be-kiddushin), authorization to give a get (harsha’ah), and broad communal ordinance to void a marriage (taqqanat ha-qahal)… Indeed, in the twentieth century alone, one can cite a list of luminary rabbinic authorities who have validated such agreements in one form or another, including Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin…”[21]
While this proposal is still only in the theoretical phase, Rabbi Henkin’s argument plays an important role in its formulation.

In the introduction to Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained that he wrote this volume to correct the mistakes that have arisen in America in the area of marriage and divorce and to restore “the law to its proper foundations.”[22]

Rabbi Henkin’s innovation and courage continue to set a model in this difficult yet critical area.

Sources:
[1] One rabbi who tirelessly dealt with issues of husband desertion was Rabbi Shaul Yedidyah Shochet, author of the Responsa volumes Sefer Tiferet Yedidyah (St. Louis, 1920), where nearly two-thirds of the first volume relates to agunot and gittin. See Jeremy Bressman, “‘Hurled into a World of Freedom’: Marital Breakdown in the American Jewish Immigrant Community,” (unpublished seminar thesis, Columbia University, 2006), 18. I thank Menachem Butler for providing this source.
[2] Hapardes 8:6 (September, 1934): 3-4; Hapardes 8:7 (October, 1934): 7-10 and Hapardes 8:8 (November, 1934): 10-12, reprinted in Lev Ivra (New York, 1956), 12-20. For an extensive and well-researched analysis of the disagreement between Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin concerning both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies, see Norman Frimer and Dov Frimer, “Reform Marriages in Contemporary Halakhic Responsa," Tradition 21:3 (Fall 1984): 7-39.
[3] Perushei Ibra (New York, 1943) pp. 87-117. Perushei Ibra was reprinted as the first volume of Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin (New York, 1981).
[4] Rivash, no. 4; For a brief discussion of this period, see Philippe Wolff, "The 1391 Pogrom in Spain: Social Crisis or Not?" Past & Present 50 (1971): 4-18.
[5] Iggerot Moshe (New York, 1961), Even Haezer I, no. 74.
[6] Iggerot Moshe Even Haezer I, no. 76.
[7] Iggerot Moshe, Even Haezer IV, no. 75.
[8] Hapardes 38:7 (October, 1964): 5-6 and reprinted in Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin vol. 2, pp. 123-125.
[9] Neither Rabbi Feinstein nor Rabbi Henkin discussed whether their decisions would be extended to a ceremony officiated by a Conservative rabbi. According to Rabbi Henkin there should be no difference. However, the question remains whether Rabbi Feinstein would have required a get to terminate a wedding officiated by a Conservative rabbi.
[10] Perushei Ibra, p. 110
[11] Perushei Ibra, pp. 110-117.
[12] Le-She'elat Ha-Agunot (New York, 1940), p. 16
[13] This letter can be found in Tzvi Gertner and Bezalel Karlinsky, “Ain Tnai Be’Nisuin,” Yeshurun 9 (2001): 888.
[14] See Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Women in Jewish Law (New York, 1978), 105-107, and Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton Press, 2006), 11-13, for various descriptions (and full documentation [!] in the latter source) of the events surrounding -- and the Orthodox responses to -- the Epstein proposal.
[15] Le’Dor Aharon (Brooklyn, NY, 1937), pp. 105-110.
[16] Le’Dor Aharon, p. 109
[17] The events leading to the writing of this volume are described in the introduction to Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin (Vilna, 1930), 11-15. According to a letter in the London Jewish Chronicle written by a longtime rabbinical judge on the London Beth Din, Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin first appeared in 1928. The reissued 1930 edition appeared in an enlarged edition with a new forward by Rabbi Hayyim Ozer Grodzensky. See Dayan Harris M. Lazarus, "Liberalism and Orthodoxy: The Problem of the Aguna," London Jewish Chronicle (November 1, 1946), 11.
[18] Rabbi Aharon Kotler, who did not arrive in the United States until 1941, was aware and sharply critical of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal. See Mishnat Rabbi Aharon, vol 2 (Lakewood, NJ, 1985), no. 60. It is possible that Rabbi Kotler’s criticism influenced Rabbi Henkin’s decision to retract.
[19] Eliezer Berkovits, Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 170.
[20] “Be-Inyan Tnai be-Nisuin,” Noam 12 (1970): 148. For a plethora of meticulous citations and a lucid description of the debate between Rabbis Berkovits and Kasher, see Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg 1884-1966 (Littman Library, 1999), 190-192, especially the extensively researched footnote 83.
[21] Michael J. Broyde, "Review Essay: An Unsuccessful Defense of the Bet Din of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman: The Tears of the Oppressed," The Edah Journal 4:2 (Winter, 2005): 17, available here.
[22] Perushei Ibra, p. 16.

]]> Censorship Historical Oddities Adam Mintz Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:27:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/13/Rabbi-Adam-Mintz-Rabbi-Henkin-and-The-First-Heter-Agunot-in-America C.D. Ginsburg: Demuto Shel ha-Meshumad http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/7/CD-Ginsburg-Demuto-Shel-haMeshumad
OnTheMainLine has an informative post about C.D. Ginsburg, with links to some of the latter's publications, and includes a stellar picture of the famous apostate. For his The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts, Lexically and Alphabetically Arranged, see I, II, III, IV, V, VI [PDF].

]]> Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:33:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/7/CD-Ginsburg-Demuto-Shel-haMeshumad R. Avraham ben haGra: A Victim of Plagiarism? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/6/R-Avraham-ben-haGra-A--Victim-of-Plagiarism
R. Avraham ben haGra: A Victim of Plagiarism?


In several previous posts at the Seforim blog, I have discussed instances of plagiarism and, in this post, I would like to mention one of the more famous instances of plagiarism within Jewish literature. To be clear, the issues of plagiarism under discussion lack any ambiguity, these discussed are limited to when the entire book is republished with the only difference being the authors name at the beginning.

One of the smaller and lesser known Midrashim is one titled Midrash Aggadat Bereishit. This Midrash was originally published in a collection of other small works by R. Menachem de Lonzano titled Shetei Yadot (Venice, 1618).[1]

This Midrash languished in obscurity until 1802, until it was brought to light by R. Avraham, the son of R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna.[2] R. Avraham had an intense interest in Midrashic literature and published a bibliography on the topic, entitling the work Rav Pealim.[3] R. Avraham decided to reprint this Midrash in its own edition, although he included other small Midrashim at the end, the focus is on the Aggadat Bereishit. R. Avraham includes an extensive introduction – the subject of a minor critique by R. Matityahu Strashun of Vilna[4] -- where R. Avraham also quotes from his father, R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna.

It appears that R. Avraham did too good of a job. Not two years later, in 1804, R. Yaakov b. Naftali Hertz published Midrash Aggadat Bereishit. Now, obviously, the Midrash itself was not copyrighted and both note that they are merely republishing what originally appeared in Lonzano's work, but Hertz's work did not only republish the text of this obscure Midrash, as was common within Vilna rabbinic circles at that time,[5] but Hertz also included with small exception (discussed below) the entirety of R. Avraham's introduction.

There are, to be sure, several additional problems with Hertz's 1804 reprint. On the most basic of levels, the title page is the same as that of R. Avraham's 1802 edition [reprinted below], including the sentence which implies that this is but the second printing and that it hasn't been republished since Lonzano. The title page (in both edition) reads:
נדפס פעם ראשון בעיר ויניציא שנת שע"ח וברוב הימים נתמעטו זו אבידה שאין לה שיעור וחליפין לכן קוי ה' יחליפו כח בהתחדש העטרה ליושנה ונדפס עוד הפעם

This book was first printed in Venice in 1618 and over time this has been lost, a loss which is difficult to quantify, therefore with the help of God who gives strength to the weak, I have renewed this old crown [to its glory] and reprinted it once more.
Obviously, this assertion would be applicable to the first publication after close to two hundred years, not to a volume republishing something which had been published just two years prior.

The second issue of plagiarism, however, is a much bigger one. As mentioned above, R. Avraham didn't just republish the text of Aggadat Bereishit itself; instead, he included an introduction quoting his father, R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna. In Hertz's edition the same introduction similarly appears, but with several differences. Instead of ending with R. Avraham’s signature, as it does in the 1802 edition, Hertz’s is unsigned although the introduction is the same. Additionally, R. Avraham, as mentioned above, quotes from his father noting "ושמעתי ממר אבא הגאון," (I have heard from my father the Gaon); as Hertz's father wasn't the Gaon, he needed to change this or otherwise reveal his plagiarism and thus his only says "ושמעתי" ("I have heard").[6]

Finally, there is one additional distinction that is most indicative of the two personalities. R. Avraham finishes his introduction by minimizing his contribution he states
כי לא עשיתי פה מאומה רק קבצתי ברייתות איידי דזוטרא מרכסי' וחברתי לאחד בכרך הזאת

I did not do all that much, rather all I did was gather the small berisot and placed them together in this book.
In Hertz’s edition, however, he decided to edit this sentence – this sentence which implies humbleness – out. Perhaps one can suggest that as Hertz's intention in plagiarizing from R. Avraham was to make it appear he had done something worthwhile, including such a statement would undermine his plan.

To conclude, although one may assume that a plagiarizer would typically steal from someone lesser known to minimize his chances of being found out. This instance demonstrates that no one, even the son of the Vilna Gaon, is immune from this type of behavior.

Sources:
[1] On R. Menachem de Lonzano, see the bibliography collected in David Loewinger, "Lonzano, Menahem ben Judah de," Encyclopaedia Judaica 13 (2007): 187-188; On his recovery of obscure Midrashic texts, see Isidore Epstein, "Books and Bookmen: A Lost Midrash," London Jewish Chronicle (March 9, 1934), 24.
[2] On R. Avraham, the son of R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna, see R. S.Y. Finn, Kiryah Neemanah (Vilna, 1905), 210-221; and, more recently, see R Shlomo Gottesman, "Kuntres Chomat Avraham," Yeshurun 4 (1998): 123-154.
[3] Published posthumously in Warsaw, 1894.
[4] See R. Matityahu Strashun, Mivchar Ketavim (Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1969), 229-230. On the famed Strashun family of Vilna, see here and, earlier, Zvi Harkavy, "Rabbi Matityahu Strashun," Areshet: An Annual of Hebrew Booklore 3 (1961): 426; and Rabbi Shmuel Strashun mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1957).
[5] For an excellent and significant survey of nineteenth century rabbinic scholars who researched and published the Midrashic literature, see Gil S. Perl, "Emek ha-Neziv: A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006), 145-146.
[6] As is too often the case, the individuals who republish works are unaware of the bibliographic history, this case is no exception. In the Warsaw 1866 reprint and photomechanical reproduction (Jerusalem, 2000[!]) with numerous commentaries on this Midrash, the editors reprinted Hertz's 1804 introduction with just the שמעתי with the proper attribution that in fact this comment is from the Vilna Gaon. For a listing of the various editions of this Midrash and commentaries composed on it, see R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Sari ha-Elef (Jerusalem, 1984), 22-23.

Appendix:

Title page 1802 edition (of R. Avraham)

Title page 1804 edition (R. Yaakov b. Naftali Hertz)

Introduction, 1802 edition (of R. Avraham)

Introduction, 1804 edition (of R. Yaakov b. Naftali Hertz)


]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Plagiarism Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/6/R-Avraham-ben-haGra-A--Victim-of-Plagiarism House of Goldman Rare Books [est. 1978] http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/5/House-of-Goldman-Rare-Books-est-1978
The famed and prestigious Goldman Rare Books [est. 1978] has announced their new web-presence, where remarkable items from their collection of Hebraica & Judaica -- including: American Judaica, Amsterdam, Bible, Children, Early Printing, Ephemera, German Judaica, Haskalah, Judeo Arabic, Liturgy, Manuscripts, Miscellaneous, Old Yiddish, Periodicals, Rabbinics and Yiddish -- are now available for viewing and purchase at GoldmanRareBooks.com.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:02:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/5/House-of-Goldman-Rare-Books-est-1978 Judah Wistinetzky and Mishloach Manot to his American friends http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/2/Judah-Wistinetzky-and-Mishloach-Manot-to-his-American-friends
Ari Kinsberg is one of the great young scholars of American Jewish History (under 40), as he has spent several years researching and editing the two-volume magisterial Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926: A History and Annotated Bibliography (see Seforim blog reviews here and here).

In honor of Purim 5767 [2007], Ari has recently written about Judah Wistinetzky (1844-1908) and the latter's Ayelet ha-Shahar, given as mishloach manot gift to his friends. For those of us who have not yet seen a copy of Ayelet ha-Shahar, Kinsberg provides a description of the small volume and also provides some biographical background to Judah Wistinetzky, highlighting the latter's American connections. (For example: Did you know that he had arrived in America several years prior to publishing Sefer Hasidim in 1892?!?)

See here for Ari Kinsberg's "A Litvish Maskil and His Literary Mishlo'ah Manot," where he also provides a brief biography of Wistinetzky, based on Hebrew Printing in America (vol. 1, p. 376).

]]> Purim Out-of-Print Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:41:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/3/2/Judah-Wistinetzky-and-Mishloach-Manot-to-his-American-friends Eliezer Brodt - The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/28/Eliezer-Brodt--The-Origins-of-Hamentashen-in-Jewish-Literature
The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature:
A Historical-Culinary Survey
By Eliezer Brodt

I. Introduction

As Jews, most of our holidays have special foods specific to them; and behind each culinary custom, lays enveiled the reasoning behind them. Shavuot brings with it a vast array of customary dairy delicacies – in some parts of the world, cheesecake is practically obligatory – not to mention different customs in regard to how and when to eat them. Rosh Hashanah in renowned for the different fruits and vegetables eaten as physical embodiments symbolizing our tefillot; Chanukah has fried foods (no trans-fats please); whether latkes sizzling in the frying pan, or the elusive Israeli sufganiyot (jelly doughnuts) seen for a month before but not to be found a minute after Chanukah’s departure, and on the fifteenth of Shevat a veritable plethora of fruits are sampled in an almost 'Pesach Seder'-like ceremony. Of course, on Purim we eat hamentashen.

Hamentashen. Those calorie-inflated, Atkins-defying, doughy tri-cornered confections filled with almost anything bake-able. The Mishpacha reports that this year in Israel alone, an astounding 24.5 million hamentashen will be sold, weighing 1225 tons, and yielding an approximate 33 million NIS in sales.[1] The question that many will be asking themselves is "where did this minhag to eat hamentashen come from?"

Recently I started researching this topic; thus far (and I hope to find more) my results are as follows.

II. Origins

The earliest source I have located so far is in a liturgical parody from the seventeenth century, where it includes a reference to eating hamentashen.[2] In an 1846 cook book called The Jewish Manual by Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore we find a recipe for “Haman fritters.”[3]

R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Mekor Barukh, relates the following interesting anecdote which highlights the importance his grandfather placed on eating hamentashen:
One year in the beginning of the month of Adar he [my grandfather] noticed that the bakeries were not selling hamentashen. When he inquired as to why this was so, he discovered that there was a shortage of flour. He promptly went ahead and gave the biggest bakers in the city a large sum of money to enable them to buy flour to bake hamantsashen.[4]
In a Nineteenth Century Lithuanian memoir again the import of hamentashen is apparent. The author recalls that “my sister spent the day preparing the baked delicacies of Purim. Most important were the hamentashen.”[5] A. S. Sachs in his memories on shtetl life notes that his “grandma would add a Haman-tash for the kiddies” in the meshloach manot.[6] Professor Simha Assaf, in an article describing Purim, also writes that people made special foods called hamentashen.[7] Shmarya Levin recollects in his autobiography with great detail the hamentashen:
The much-loved little cakes, stuffed with nuts and poppy seed, which are called ‘Haman’s ears’ – sometimes ‘Haman’s pockets’ – had been prepared for us in vast numbers. Their shape alone was a joy. They were neither round, like rolls, nor long, like the loaf; with their triangular shape they were like nothing else that we ate during the year. The stuffing was made of poppy-seeds fried in honey, but there was not enough of it, so we used to eat the cake cagily, in such wise that with every mouthful we got at least a nibble of honeyed poppy seed.[8]
We also find hamentashen being eaten in Amsterdam[9] and Jews from Bucharia, as well, make אזני המן, similar to hamentashen. [10] לאה אזני המן מנין is a comedy listed in Avraham Yari's bibliographical listing of comedies.[11]

As we can see, the custom of eating hamentashen is widespread and common from at least the 17th century. In fact, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pointed to some sources which may demonstrate that hamentashen were eaten even earlier. Ben Yehuda in his dictionary claims that as early as the time of the Abarbanel (1437-1508), hamentashen were consumed. The Abarbanel, discussing the food which fell from heaven, the Mon, describes these cakes as:[12]
וצפיחית הוא מאכל הקמח מבושל בשמן כצורת צפחת המים הנאכל בדבש והוא כמו הרקיקים העושים מן הבצק כדמות אזנים מבושלות בשמן ויטבלו אותם בדבש ויקראוהו אזנים
This sounds like our hamentashen although there is no reference to eating them on Purim. But R Ashkenazi pointed out to me that if this is the source, you might then be able to suggest that hamentashen was already eaten much earlier, as this piece of the Abarbanel is word for word taken from R Yosef ibn Kaspi who lived several hundred years earlier (Kaspi was born in 1298 and died in 1340)! Ben-Yehudah, in his dictionary also cites to a manuscript excerpt of a Purim comedy penned by R Yehudah Aryeh de Modena, where he writes יום שבו שלחן ערוך ומזומן בני ישראל הכו את המן יום שבו עשרת בניו תלו ואת תנוך אזניו אכלו and in the comments to this manuscript, it connects these foods to hamentashen.[13]

III. Ta'am ha-Hamentashen

Irrespective when the custom of eating hamentashen began, the question we need to now explore is why hamentashen, what connection do hamentashen have with Purim? Hayyim Schauss explains that in actuality the origins of the hamentashen are not Jewish, rather, we originally appropriated them from another culture. He explains that:
“the hamentashen are also of German origin. Originally they were called mohn-tashen, mohn meaning poppy seed and tashen meaning pockets and also signified dough that is filled with other food stuffs. The people therefore related the cake to the book of Esther and changed the mahn to Haman [due to its similarity]. In time the interpretation arose that the three cornered cakes are eaten because Haman wore a three cornered hat when he became prime minister to Ahasuerus. The three corners were also interpreted as a symbolic sign of the three patriarchs whose merit aided the Jews against Haman.”[14]
Another reason offered for eating hamentashen also deals with the meaning (more correctly a pun) of the word – hamentashen, because Haman wanted to kill us out and Hashem weakened him, preventing him from doing evil to us. Thus, the treat is called המן תש (Hamen became weakened). Eating these pastries is representative of our faith that the same result will befall all our antagonists.[15]

The next reason offered by Menucha u-Kedusha has to do with the pastry itself, more specifically, how the filling is hidden. Until the events which occurred on Purim, the Jews were accustomed to open miracles like those in their battle with Sisra, whereas the Purim miracle appeared to be through natural events – only Mordechai knew that this was a miracle. To remember this, we eat pastries that the main part – the filling – is hidden in the dough, similar to the miracle which was hidden in nature. The filling chosen was specifically zeronim (seeds – poppy seed - mahn) to remind us of Daniel having eaten only seeds (and not non-kosher food) while in captivity at Nevuchadnezar's court. Furthermore, according to this source the triangular shape also has meaning. The Talmud (Megillah 19b) records a three way argument from where to start reading the megillah. As the halakhah is to follow all three opinions and start from the beginning, we cut the pastries in triangular shape to symbolize our accordance to all three opinions. Another reason mentioned in Menucha u-Kedusha for the filling is based on the writings of R. Moshe Alsheikh, who states the Jews did not really think they were going to get completely wiped out until Mordechai finally convinced them so. The possibility arises that Mordechai was afraid to keep on sending out letters, so pastries were baked and the letters hidden therein. These pastry-letters saved the Jews; in turn we eat filled pastries. This reason is a bit interesting for itself, but what is even more interesting is that he never calls the pastries hamentashen.[16] A possibility might be kreplach, meat filled pockets boiled in soup, but the theory is unlikely as kreplach are not something special eaten exclusively for Purim – we eat it other times such as Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabah.

R. Yaakov Kamenetsky offers yet another reason for eating hamentashen on Purim. As we eat the hamentashen and eating is a form of destroying the item being eaten. Therefore, in eating hamentashen, we are fulfilling the commandment (figuratively) of destroying Amalek we are eating Hamen.[17]

Yom Tov Lewinsky and Professor Dov New both suggest that the reason for eating the hamentashen is because the custom in the Middle Ages was to cut off the ears of someone who was supposed to be hung,[18] to remember that we eat pastries from which a part had been cut off. Another point mentioned both by these authors is an opinion that the filling in the pastries [this is specific to poppy seeds] is in remembrance to the 10,000 silver coins that Haman offered to contribute to Achashverosh's coffers.[19]

Aside from the general merrymaking on Purim, there is also a long tradition of written fun. Specifically, since the famous Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (1286-1328), there have been many versions of these type of comedies written throughout the ages. One such was R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), which is a complete sefer all about Purim written to be humorous. Included therein is a question regarding changing the way hamentashen should be made from a triangle to make them square shape! He answered that it would be terrible to make hamentashen square. If the hamentashen are square they would have four corners which in turn would obligate the attachment of tzitzet like any clothes of four corners.[20]

One last interesting point in regard to hamentashen can be found within Prof. Elliott Horowitz's recent book-length discussion related to Purim[21] where he notes that as recent as 2002, a Saudi 'scholar' Umayna Ahamad al Jalahma claimed that Muslim blood can be used for the three cornered hamentashen.[22] Horowitz also notes that in middle of the Damascus affair in 1840, a work from 1803 was discovered which claimed that Christian blood was used in the ingredients for Purim pastries.[23] Again in 1846, Horowitz writes that “on the holiday of Purim it was claimed the Jews would annually perform a homicide in hateful memory of Haman, and if they managed to kill a Christian the Rabbi would bake the latter’s blood in triangular pastries which he would send as mishloach manot to his Christian friend.”[24] In 1938 the Jews were once again accused of murdering an adult Christian and drying his blood to be mixed into the triangular cakes eaten on Purim.[25]

Thanks to Rabbis Y. Tessler, A. Loketch and Yosaif M. Dubovick, and the two anonymous readers, for their help in locating some of the sources.

Sources:
[1] Mishpacha (27 Shevat 5767), 30.
[2] שתו אכלו אזני המן - Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature (New York, 1907), pg. 193; Davidson also suggests eating twenty-seven dishes on Purim (see p. 22).
[3] Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, The Jewish Manual (London, 1846)
[4] R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, Mekor Barukh (vol 1, pg. 974)
[5] Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman, trans. Henny Wenkart (University Press of Maryland, 2000), pg. 29.
[6] A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), pg 229.
[7] Simha Assaf, Sefer Hamoadim, p. 29.
[8] Forward from Exile: The Autobiography of Shmarya Levin, ed. and trans. Maurice Samuel (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967)
[9] Minhagei Amsterdam pg 149 # 12
[10] Yalkut ha-Minhagim, pg. 210
[11] Hamachazeh Ha-Ivri, p. 76 n.654.
[12] This source is also quoted in the Otzar ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit, however the editors simply describe it as a phrase from the Middle Ages (vol 1 pg 59).
[13] Parashat Beshalach, end of chap. 16; Though I was unable to pin-point the comedy, it might be the one called La Reina Esther; see Mark R. Cohen, The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena's Life of Judah (Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 235.
[14] Hayyim Schauss, The Jewish Festivals (Random House, 1938; Hebrew, 1933), pg. 270. The source for the first reason can be found in Judah David Eisenstein, Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim (New York, 1917), p. 336, and for the last reason in Yitzhak Lifshitz, Sefer Ma’atamim (Warsaw, 1889), p. 86.
[15] Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918), p. 131.
[16] R. Yisrael Isserl of Ponevezh writes in his Sefer Menucha u-Kedusha (Vilna, 1864), pg 271-272.
[17] Yaakov Michoel Jacobs, Bemechitzas Rabbeinu: Hagaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, zt"l (Feldheim, 2005), p. 142.
[18] Yom Tov Lewinsky, Sefer Hamoadim (153-154); Dov New, Machanaim # 43; See also the forthcoming post at the Seforim blog about Hanging Haman.
[19] Ibid.
[20] R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), pg. 6.
[21] Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, 2006)
[22] Ibid, pg. 9.
[23] Ibid, pg. 218.
[24] Ibid, pg. 219.
[25] Ibid, pg. 228.

]]> Purim Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Customs Historical Oddities Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/28/Eliezer-Brodt--The-Origins-of-Hamentashen-in-Jewish-Literature Adam Mintz -- The Manhattan Eruv http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/26/Adam-Mintz--The-Manhattan-Eruv

In a previous contribution to the Seforim blog, Rabbi Adam Mintz discussed the significant roles of Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in the development of a unique halakhic response to the issue of the mehitzah in the American synagogue, based on a previous lecture delivered as part of his "History of American Poskim" series at Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The following historical and halakhic overview of the issues surrounding the Manhattan eruv is based on Rabbi Mintz's doctoral dissertation, "The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv" (New York University, forthcoming).

The Manhattan Eruv
By Adam Mintz

The first Manhattan eruv was created in 1905 by Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel who was one of the most notable rabbinic scholars of the time. He was born in Poland and served as a rabbi in Sherps before immigrating to the Unites States. He maintained the title Sherpser Rav in America and quickly became the leader of the Polish community in New York. He described the eruv and his impetus for creating it in his volume Eruv ve-Hotza'ah (New York, 1907).[1] Rabbi Seigel's eruv only encompassed the Lower East Side, utilizing the natural riverbanks of Manhattan on three sides and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. There was rabbinic opposition to Rabbi Seigel's eruv. This view is elaborated upon by Rabbi Yehudah David Bernstein in Hilkhata Rabta le-Shabbata (Brooklyn, 1910). Rabbi Bernstein, who studied at Slabodka, was one of the founders and early teachers at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva in New York.[2] This eruv was utilized by many within the Polish and Galician communities throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Rabbi Henkin's first encounter with the rulings on the eruv related to Rabbi Seigel's eruv. In his volume Edut Le-Yisrael published in 1949, he wrote, "There are many observant Jews and especially those Hasidim from Poland who carry here on the street on Shabbat relying on the permission of Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel of Sherps."[3] He went on to explain that this eruv is no longer valid due to changes that have been in the waterfront and in the Third Ave El. In addition, Rabbi Henkin explained that one of the requirements of the eruv is that the city be rented from the local authorities and that Rabbi Seigel had rented the city for only ten years which had long since expired.

The rejection of Rabbi Seigel's eruv by the Lithuanian community and the gradual relocation of the Orthodox community to the Upper East and West Sides led to an attempt to create an eruv around the entire borough. In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe, Rabbi Shimon Shalom Kalish, asked Rabbi Tzvi Eisenstadt to explore the possibility of creating a Manhattan eruv. Rabbi Eisenstadt, who had studied at Slabodka and was recognized as a rabbinic scholar in both the Lithuanian and Hasidic communities, investigating the Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was enclosed by man-made walls and that an eruv could be established. The eruv came into existence in the Spring of 1962 under the leadership of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, a well-known rabbinic scholar and author who lived on the Upper West Side.[4] The long duration between the introduction of the concept and its realization was due in part to the fact that several adjustments had to be made to these man-made boundaries. However, it was largely caused by the opposition and uncertainty within the New York rabbinic community to the creation of a community eruv. While there had been eruvin in the large cities in Europe before World War II, there were very few, if any, functioning community eruvin at the time in North America.[5] The rabbinic community was confronting an issue that would shape Shabbat observance to this day.

The first extensive treatment of this issue is found in Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 1, nos. 138-140. In these teshuvot, written in 1952 and addressed to Rabbi Eisenstadt, Rabbi Feinstein outlined his belief that an eruv cannot be built around Manhattan. His arguments in these teshuvot were legal and elaborated upon in great detail and it is clear from them that he had a high regard for Rabbi Eisenstadt.

Rabbi Yosef David Moskowitz, the Shatzer Rav, was one of the strongest proponents of the Manhattan eruv. In 1954, he had taken over the leadership of the project following the passing of the Amshinover Rebbe. Five years later, in 1959, Rabbi Moskowitz published a volume entitled Tikkun Eruvim (New York, 1959) in which explained the halakhic reasons for the viability of an eruv around Manhattan. Both Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein wrote haskamot for this volume. Rabbi Henkin began by praising Rabbi Moskowitz's scholarship and commenting on the pleasure he received knowing that there are great rabbinic scholars in America. He continued as follows: "I do not feel that we can criticize the lenient ones merely as a precaution."[6] However, he does state that he remained uncertain as to whether the bridges and tunnels create a breach in the eruv. Rabbi Feinstein also complimented Rabbi Moskowitz on his work and wrote:[7]

"Even though there are areas in which I believe there are other opinions, this is the way of Torah where God watches two scholars disagreeing for the sake of heaven and unquestionably Rabbi Moskowitz has written for the sake of heaven."

Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin continued their communications regarding the Manhattan eruv in the years preceding the completion of the project. Rabbi Feinstein wrote two letters in which he stated that while he would not join with those who permitted the Manhattan eruv, he believed that there was significant basis on which those who permit it could rely. In a letter published in Hapardes 33:9 (June, 1959) Rabbi Feinstein elaborated on this theme and explained that in America where there is indoor plumbing and the shuls are well stocked with books, there is no need for a community eruv. However, he concluded, "If there are those who still believe that there is need for an eruv for the sake of the children and for those who violate Shabbat unintentionally, I do not object, but I do not participate."[8] In a letter to Rabbi Leo Jung, rabbi of the Jewish Center on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, dated December 16, 1960, Rabbi Feinstein reiterated his refusal to condemn those who supported the eruv even though he would not participate in the project. In this letter he explained his reasons for not participating. "Even though there would be an advantage for those who are carrying on Shabbat... there would be a disadvantage for those who want to conduct themselves according to the halakhah and not carry in Manhattan who might now be inclined to carry."[9] The eruv was completed in May 1962. In June 1962, the Agudath HaRabbanim distributed a letter which reported on a meeting that took place on June 20, 1962. The letter read:[10]

In the meeting of the Agudath HaRabbanim that took place on Wednesday, Parashat Beha'alotcha, the 18th of Sivan, 5762, it was decided to publicly announce the decision already made by the Agudath HaRabbanim that it is absolutely forbidden to establish an eruv in Manhattan and that it is forbidden to carry in Manhattan even after the repairs that have been made or that will be made by some rabbis. Whoever relies on the Manhattan eruv is considered a Shabbat violator.

Aharon Kotler

Yaakov Kamenetsky

Gedalia Halevi Schorr

Chaim Bick

Moshe Feinstein

This letter was reprinted in Hapardes 40:7 (April, 1966) announcing that a meeting of the Agudath HaRabbanim had taken place on the first day of Chol Hamoed Pesach of that year (April 7, 1966) under the leadership of Rabbi Feinstein at which time the decision was made to confirm the decision of 1962 and to call upon the rabbis to urge their communities not to rely on the Manhattan eruv.[11]

Rabbi Feinstein mentioned his participation in this communication of the Agudath HaRabbanim in two places in his Iggerot Moshe. In an addendum to his responsum to Rabbi Jung, Rabbi Feinstein reviewed his earlier letter comparing the situation in Manhattan with the eruv in Brooklyn and Kew Gardens Hills. He concluded this addendum as follows:[12]

However, shortly after my letter to Rabbi Jung, on the 18th of Sivan 5762 the rabbis of the Agudath Harabonim under the leadership of Rabbi Aharon Kotler and other heads of yeshivot met and decided to announce publicly that it is absolutely forbidden to establish an eruv in Manhattan and that it is forbidden to carry in Manhattan even after the repairs that have been made or that will be made by some rabbis.

Rabbi Feinstein also referenced this decision of the Agudath HaRabbanim in his responsum to Rabbi Peretz Steinberg regarding the eruv in Kew Gardens Hills. In this letter dated April 1, 1974, Rabbi Feinstein supported the establishment of an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills and distinguished this area from Manhattan where he stated, "This is not to be compared to New York which was done against our will and the will of Rabbi Aharon Kotler and other Torah giants from the Agudath HaRabbanim."[13] In both these references, Rabbi Feinstein placed Rabbi Kotler as the chief spokesman of the Agudath HaRabbanim on this matter. It is uncertain whether Rabbi Kotler's influence convinced Rabbi Feinstein to change his mind vis-a-vis the Manhattan eruv.[14]

Rabbi Henkin also remained involved with the eruv project. Rabbi Kasher described that on March 25, 1959, the rabbis who were involved with the creation of the eruv met in Rabbi Henkin's home. At that meeting Rabbi Eisenstadt reviewed his findings and discussed the bridges and tunnels explaining how each one could be incorporated into the eruv. Rabbi Henkin's position at this meeting is not discussed by Rabbi Kasher but the fact that he hosted the meeting suggests, at the very least, a strong interest in creating a halakhically permissible eruv.[15]

On March 15, 1960, Rabbi Henkin signed as a member of the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" on a letter written to the rabbis of Manhattan. In this letter, the committee reviewed the history of the eruv project and explained that the committee was ready to complete the project. They called on any rabbi or lay person with a comment either in favor or opposed to the eruv to respond within a month's time. In this communication, it is clear that Rabbi Henkin supported the creation and completion of the eruv.[16]

Rabbi Kasher included two letters that Rabbi Henkin wrote to him. In the first letter, dated November 1, 1960, Rabbi Henkin expressed his support for the eruv while expressing some reservations especially about the bridges and the potential break they created in the eruv. At the conclusion of the letter, Rabbi Henkin wrote that he did not feel that he was the ultimate authority concerning this eruv as there were many worthy rabbis who were working on the project.[17] In the next letter to Rabbi Kasher which is undated and which appears in the original at the conclusion of the eruv section of Divrei Menachem, Rabbi Henkin wrote that "I hang on the coattails of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who does not criticize those who support the eruv even though he will not participate in this project."[18] In this letter Rabbi Henkin seemed to retreat slightly from his previous view.

However, Rabbi Henkin wrote a final letter to the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" which clarified his opinion. In a letter dated July 12, 1961, Rabbi Henkin outlined his position. He wrote that it is crucial to complete the eruv in Manhattan and that Manhattan is not worse than other cities where an eruv has been established. He explained that the committee was waiting for approbations from other rabbis and then would convene a conference of rabbis to finalize the eruv project. Rabbi Henkin disapproved of waiting for a rabbinic conference as he wrote, "For I know from experience that it takes much time to gather the rabbis. Rather, make the necessary repairs and then announce that the repairs have been made and that the rabbis are supervising the eruv." He noted that until the committee received the approbation of the majority of the rabbis, the eruv remained one that can only be relied upon in times "of great need." He then listed the situations he considered to be "of great need."

1. For the sake of women and children who want to go outside, especially in the summer months.

2. For the sake of doctors who need to carry on behalf of patients who are not in life threatening situations.

3. For the sake of those who need to carry on the Shabbat of Succot to the succah.

He explained that New York is an exceptional city as there are many rabbis so that the eruv cannot be considered acceptable in all cases until the majority of the rabbis agree to its creation. Finally, he wrote that there is a need to publicize the fact that the eruv extends only to Manhattan and not the other boroughs.[19]

Rabbi Henkin never clarified whether he believed that this eruv had received the approbation of the majority of rabbis that he had felt was necessary. Due to lack of evidence, one can only conclude that he continued to believe that the eruv could only be relied upon in the situations he described in the July 12, 1961 letter. There was at least one Orthodox rabbi in Manhattan who advised his congregants that they could rely on the eruv as per the limitations in Rabbi Henkin's letter. However, these limitations allow us to understand Rabbi Henkin's view concerning the eruv. If the creation of an eruv was unacceptable, then carrying would not be permitted even in a situation of great need. The fact that he allowed carrying on Shabbat in a situation of great need showed that he was satisfied with the acceptability of the eruv. His problem revolved around rabbinic acceptance of the eruv and not its fundamental status. Given this consideration, it is understandable why Rabbi Henkin did not sign the letter of the Agudath HaRabbanim in 1962.[20]

In conclusion, both Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took active roles in the history of the establishment of the Manhattan eruv. While during the process they each expressed their approval of the project with certain hesitations, in the final analysis, Rabbi Feinstein opposed the eruv while Rabbi Henkin approved it with reservations. Neither of these great Torah sages explained what led them to follow the paths that they did. Why did Rabbi Feinstein follow Rabbi Kotler and the decision of the Agudath HaRabbanim and what was Rabbi Feinstein's role in that deliberation? Why did Rabbi Henkin ultimately sign with the members of the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" and why did he not write a final conclusion concerning whether this eruv has received the necessary approbation?

The history of halakhah does not provide all the answers but it gives us a window into a fascinating and important process.

[To be continued...]

Sources:
[1] The entire volume can be accessed here. His biography can be found in Moshe D. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport, CT., 1996), pp. 193-94.

[2] Sherman, pp. 30-31

[3] Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Edut Le-Yisrael (NY, 1949), p. 151

[4] Rabbi Kasher described the entire eruv project in great detail in the second half of the second volume of his Divrei Menachem (Jerusalem, 1980). All subsequent references will refer to this section of his work. In 1986, a short thirty page pamphlet appeared in English edited by Shalom Carmy, entitled The Manhattan Eruv: From the Writings of Rav Menachem M. Kasher (Ktav Pub. House, 1986).

[5] For an extensive discussion of the history of city eruvin, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

[6] Divrei Menachem vol. 2, pp. 7-9.

[7] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 9

[8] Hapardes 33:9 (June, 1959) reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 31.

[9] Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 4, no. 89.

[10] This letter can be found here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

[11] Hapardes 40:8 (May, 1966)

[12] Iggerot Moshe, final volume, p. 428. It is interesting that in this responsum, Rabbi Feinstein omitted the final line of the Agudath HaRabbanim declaration calling all who rely on the eruv Shabbat violators.

[13] Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, vol. 4, no. 86.

[14] For a discussion of Rabbi Kotler’s view on city eruvin, see here courtesy of EruvOnline).

[15] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 38.

[16] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp.10-11

[17] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 14

[18] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 135

[19] This letter was printed originally in Hapardes 36:4 (January, 1962), and reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp. 14-15; and Kitvei Hagriah Henkin, pp. 32-33.

[20] For a discussion of the erroneous claim that Rabbi Henkin signed on the 1962 letter of the Agudath Harabonim, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

]]> Historical Oddities Adam Mintz Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:34:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/26/Adam-Mintz--The-Manhattan-Eruv To Adolf, from Cecil http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/26/To-Adolf-from-Cecil
During a Sunday afternoon trip to Biegeleisen in Boro Park, I came across 650-page collection of rare letters from the personal collection of R. David Solomon Sassoon (of Jerusalem, Israel) that has just been published in Israel,[1] I hope to discuss this new publication in some detail in the following weeks, however, I did want to first make mention of the 1941 biography of the Sassoon family, written by British scholar and Oxford-trained historian Prof. Cecil Roth.

In the short official obituary for Dr. Cecil Roth in the London Jewish Chronicle following his passing in Jerusalem in June 1970, there is a short and peculiar reference to Roth's study of the famed Sassoon merchant family. The brief mention within the obituary refers not to the contents of his "comprehensive history" of the renown Bombay-born and London-based Jewish family, [2] where he dispels the notion that the Sassoon family were simply to be considered "the Rothschilds of the East,"[3] but rather to his unfathomable inscription of the work to Adolf Hitler.[4]

The following is Cecil Roth’s inscription to The Sassoon Family:[5]

To Adolf Hitler
Fuehrer of the German Reich

For two reasons I desire to inscribe your name at the beginning of this book. The first is, that I consider its topic to be a useful object-lesson to the unfortunate people whom you have misled into thinking themselves a pure and superior "race" (whatever that may mean). The most rudimentary political commonsense should make it obvious that the absorption of gifted foreign families cannot be other than an advantage for a civilized state. England and English life have in particular been enriched for centuries past by receiving fresh elements from other sources, and there can surely be no reason to regret a liberality that has endowed her with soldiers, philanthropists and poets such as the Sassoon family and many life it have produced. Germany under you guidance has deliberately set herself on the path not merely of self-destruction (which while her present temper lasts would be a peculiar book to humanity at large) but of self-dementation.

In the second place, I am happy to have this opportunity to express once again, as publicly as I may, my profound execration and abhorrence, not merely as a Jew and an Englishman but as a human being, of you, your ideals, your ideas, your methods and all that you stand for. Should God punish the sins of the world by allowing you a momentary victory, I trust that this declaration will bring upon me the honour of the most drastic attention of your nauseous tools, for life in such circumstances would not be worth the having.

Cecil Roth
Sources:
[1] Nahalat Avot: Teshuvot, Michtavim, Tefillot, Minhagim (Yad Samuel Franco, 2007); published on the occasion of Chanah Sassoon's recent wedding to R. Yehuda Michel Nissel.
[2] In 1968, a later work on the Sassoon family [Stanley Jackson, The Sassoons (London, 1968)] appeared and "superseded" the earlier work by Roth, as the author of this later work "had a clear advantage" as he had access to the personal papers of many Sassoon family members. See London Jewish Chronicle (May 3, 1968), 25. Notwithstanding this criticism, it was already noted in a 1941 review of Roth’s book that he had "not been granted access to 'family' records... [and] gathered a vast amount of authentic information, including many delightful stories, that has enabled him to present a comprehensive history of the Sassoon clan with his customary literary skill and thoroughness." See London Jewish Chronicle(May 30, 1941), 22.
[3] For early uses of this phrase, see, for example, London Jewish Chronicle (April 19, 1907), 21; ibid, (March 22, 1912), 16.
[4] "Obituary: Dr. Cecil Roth," London Jewish Chronicle (June 26, 1970), 38.
[5] The dedication appears in Cecil Roth, The Sassoon Family (London, 1941) and I thank Joshua Lovinger for kindly directing me towards this fascinating and little-known source.

]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/26/To-Adolf-from-Cecil New Book on R. Saul Wahl, King of Poland for a Day http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/25/New-Book-on-R-Saul-Wahl-King-of-Poland-for-a-Day
Dr. Neil Rosenstein, who has already published some rather important works on Jewish genealogy generally, as well as on R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna, has published a new book, devoted to R. Saul (Wahl) Katzenellenbogen. His earlier two-volume landmark work, The Unbroken Chain: Biographical Sketches and Genealogy of Illustrious Jewish Families from the 15th-20th Century, lists in great detail, the descendants of R. Saul (Wahl) Katzenellenbogen. R. Saul is best known for the legend that he became king for a day over Poland. The story goes that that after the Polish king died, the nobles were unable to come to an agreement who would replace him. The law, however, mandated that there not be a day go by without a king in place. The nobles decided to temporarily grant R. Saul Wahl the kingship until they could come to a consensus. In the end, R. Saul Wahl remained king for one day and during that time enacted various law for the benefit of the Jews.

Dr. Rosenstein, has now collected in English for the first time, just about everything there is about this legend and more generally about Saul Wahl (including Saul Wahl's library). He uncovered a document which has bearing on the dating of Saul Wahl's death date as well as much other primary material. Additionally, he includes an extensive discussion about how this legend developed, as well as an article (by Professor S. A. Bershadsky) about Saul Wahl, as recorded in Polish and Russian literature. As Dr. Rosenstein is an expert in Jewish Genealogy and on the Katzenellenbogen family, he includes an extensive genealogy of Saul Wahl and his family. The book also includes about the history of the some of the figures involved in the Saul Wahl king story as well as more general history of the time. Most everything in the book includes photocopies of either the relevant documents or materials.

While the book contains much fascinating material on Saul Wahl, I think that it is worthwhile to make note of a few things that Dr. Rosenstein was apparently unaware of their existence. Dr. Rosenstein notes the first mention of Saul Wahl being king, there were prior mentions of Saul Wahl and his standing, but not the king legend – and Rosenstein includes these earlier mentions as well – appears in the work Yesh M'Nechalin (previously touched upon at the Seforim blog here) authored by R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen (no. 53-55), a descendant of Saul Wahl. But, Rosenstein appears to be unaware that this book is actually published; he notes that it remains in manuscript form, but never notes that in fact it has been printed in 1986! While obviously there is nothing wrong with going to the source – here, the manuscript - it helps the reader to know that they can also view the details somewhere for themselves.

Another omission is Dr. Rosenstein includes a discussion of the medical school in Padua but appears to be unaware that this school and its Jewish connection and graduates was discussed extensively by Prof. David Ruderman (Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe [Yale University, 1995], esp. pp. 100-118) and Dr. Ruderman's discussion would enhance Dr. Rosenstein's considerably.

The book is available at Beigeleisen, as well as here.

]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/25/New-Book-on-R-Saul-Wahl-King-of-Poland-for-a-Day Barukh Dayan Ha-Emet. Rabbi Prof. Mordechai (ben Shamshon) Breuer (1921-2007) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/25/Barukh-Dayan-HaEmet-Rabbi-Prof-Mordechai-ben-Shamshon-Breuer-19212007
Barukh Dayan Ha-Emet. Rabbi Prof. Mordechai (ben Shamshon) Breuer (also here), scion of the prominent German rabbinical family and world expert on Tanakh and on the Aleppo Codex, has passed away in Yerushalayim. (He was a cousin to the noted Jewish Historian, who shares his same name.)

An appreciation to Rabbi Breuer and his work appeared in the Orthodox Forum volume, Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Jason Aronson, 1996), a project of Yeshiva University. He received the Israel Prize for Torah Studies in 1999.

Hamakom yenacheim etchem betoch shaar avelei tziyon v'yerushalayim.

]]> Tanakh Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:12:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/25/Barukh-Dayan-HaEmet-Rabbi-Prof-Mordechai-ben-Shamshon-Breuer-19212007 Rabbi Chaim Rapoport -- Open Letter to the Yated Ne'eman http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/23/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport--Open-Letter-to-the-Yated-Neeman
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport has penned an Open Letter to the Yated Ne'eman, wherein he seeks to place, among other topics, the views of the late Rav Eliezer Shach into the contemporary discourse. Following Rabbi Rapoport's brief biography is his "Yated Ne'eman Gives a 'Hechsher' to Yeshiva University and its 'Torah Sage,'" posted at the Seforim blog with his full permission.
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport was born in Manchester, England, in 1963 where his father served as the Rabbi of one of the largest synagogues – Higher Crumpsall Synagogue – for some 40 years. After his school years, Rabbi Rapoport attended the Yeshivot of Manchester, Gateshead, Torat Emet in Jerusalem and the central Lubavitch Yeshivah in New York. After receiving his Rabbinic diploma (semichah) and his marriage in 1984 he continued his studies in the States. In 1987 he went with his wife Rachel Clara to join the community Kollel in Melbourne, Australia, where – in addition to his post graduate studies – he officiated and lectured in several communities, including the far flung Launceston in Tasmania.

In 1989, Rabbi Rapoport took up position as head of the Leeds Kollel, a position which he occupied until the end of 1994. In the years 1994 – 1997 Rabbi Rapoport served as Minister in Birmingham and the Head of the Birmingham Rabbinic Board. From September 1997 to February 2005 Rabbi Rapoport served as Rabbi to the Ilford Synagogue, Beehive Lane.

In 1998 Rabbi Rapoport was appointed as member of the Chief Rabbi’s Cabinet and Advisor to the Chief Rabbi on matters of Jewish Medical Ethics. In 2005 Rabbi Rapoport was appointed dean of the newly founded Machon Mayim Chaim - an institution that offers unique opportunities in Jewish learning.

Rabbi Rapoport is the author of several books and articles in both Hebrew and English. These include: (a) Kappei Chayim (a lomdisher sefer on Birkas Kohanim); (b) Dinei UMinhagei Rosh Chodesh (Kehot, 1990); (c) Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View (Vallentine Mitchell, 2004), with foreword by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, preface by Dayan Berel Berkovits (d) The Messiah Problem: Berger, the Angel and the Scandal of Reckless Indiscrimination (Ilford 2002).
Yated Ne’eman Gives a ‘Hechsher’
to Yeshiva University and its ‘Torah Sage’
By Chaim Rapoport

Dear Editor,

I was shocked to read your article on the so-called 'Open Orthodox YCT' located in Manhattan, founded by Rabbi Avi Weiss. The article implies throughout that YCT’s counterpart, namely the organization known as 'Yeshiva University' - albeit 'modern' or 'centrist' - is actually deserving of the title 'orthodox' rachmana litzlan. Oy le-Ozneinu she-kach shomos!

This implied hechsher for the Yeshiva University and its 'Torah Sage' that the Yated article gives is in direct defiance of the rulings of the gedolim. Moreover the Yated's founder, the late Rav Eliezer Shach, stated repeatedly that 'Yeshiva University' is absolutely treif & that no recognition may be given to [what the YN describes as] its 'Torah Sage' rachmana litzlan!

Although both YU and YCT have departed from the derech ha-Torah as taught by our gedolim, it is clear le-chol mi she-yesh lo moach be-kodkodo [=to anyone who has a modicum of common-sense] that YU presents a much greater threat to Torah-true Yiddishkeit than does the YCT. For the non-traditional leanings of the YCT are mefursam [=well-known] and there is therefore less of a chashash [=concern] that people will be drawn after its heresy. Whereas YU, since it is perceived as being to the right of YCT and also projects, to a degree, a pseudo-charedi image, (‘a kosher chazir fissel’), is far more dangerous. Naive bachurim [ve-gam besulos] are far more likely to be fooled by the charedi veneer of YU and thus become ensnared by its mesisim u-madichim than by the representatives of the recently established YCT.

There have even been known cases (kevod Elokim haster davar) of boys from heimishe, even Torah’diker homes in NY and Monsey who have actually moved away from the Olam HaTorah and entered the academies of the YU. In contrast however, there is not even one alleged case of an ehrlicher Yeshivah bochur signing up for YCT.

Moreover, YCT does not even try to seduce our children to attend their rabbinical college. Yet YU and its agents clearly target even heimishe boys and girls and have succeeded in causing them to be poresh from the yeshivos ha-kedoshos and the charedi seminaries le-tarbus ra'ah - Hashem yerachem!

The fact that the Yated invites the leaders of YU to join them in the milchomoh against YCT and is mefalpel in the shitos of YU’s ‘Torah Sage’ [ke-ilu mi-piv anu chayim] suggests that YU is part of yahadus ha-Torah [=traditional Judaism]. The suggestion implicit in the Yated that YCT is beyond the pale whereas YU is still be-toch ha-machaneh can only add to the confusion that already exists (amongst those who are on the margins of the Olam HaYeshivos) about the true identity of Yeshiva University. My heart shudders at the thought of the many young and gullible yeshivish’e people who will become even more vulnerable to the severe sakanah of YU and Stern College as a result of the Yated’s ‘propaganda’ in favor of Yeshiva University.

Parenthetically, the fact that several gedolei yisroel allowed their talmidim to teach at YU can not be used as a proof that they held that it is essentially orthodox. Firstly, some gedolim such as Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky (and to a lesser degree Reb Moshe Feinstein) have written that it may be permissible for Benei Torah to teach even in reform or conservative schools – provided that they can teach their own syllabus. Secondly, since the time of the gedolim that may have given a heter to teach in YU, the circumstances have changed. Whereas in yester-year at least the ramim in YU did not teach kefirah mamash [=unequivocal heresy], nowadays some of the teachers of kodesh in YU unabashedly preach divrei minus u-kefirah be-farhesya [=heretical & blasphemous ideas in public] rachamana litzlan.

In Rav Shach's Michtavim UMa'amarim he says that even high school - needless to say university - education or for that matter any interest in secular literature or occupation with the arts or the sciences is forbidden by the Torah.

He says that there is no need – and no heter - to learn a trade before it becomes an immediate concern & that every single Yeshivah student has the potential and talent to become a Rosh Kollel, Rosh Yeshiva or Maggid Shiur at least in a Yeshivah Ketanah. Only if and when all else fails may one pursue a ‘mundane’ source of livelihood.

Moreover, Rav Shach states that secular studies come under the category of Seforim Chitzonim that the Talmud and the Poskim ban. He writes that History and Psychology are particularly heretical disciplines (vol. 3, page 39). High schools that expose their students to the Darwinian theory of evolution “transform their charges into heretics” at least for the duration of these studies. Human Biology lessons that include details of the function of the pro-creative organs are proscribed for high school boys. Such subjects come under the category of zenus and its attendant severity.

Surely these considerations alone suffice to define YU as an institution of Minus and Zenus. How much more so when we know that real minus [and abizrayhu of other toeivois] is a regular feature of YU. [One of the so-called 'ramim' at YU recently suggested - in a shiur which was broadcast bechol kitzvei tevel [=via the internet r”l] - that if a person feels compelled to say that all the events related in the Torah ha-kedoshah from Bereishis to Mattan Torah [including the very existence of the Avos and the Imahos] lo hayu ve-lo nivreu [=never existed or transpired] he may do so and he is not guilty of heresy!!! - afra lepumeih!

In addition, Rav Shach held that YU type institutions are an entirely negative phenomenon posing a threat to the very endurance of authentic Judaism. These modern conceptions, he said, were an absolute disaster “causing the destruction of our Holy Torah” (vol. 4 no. 319 pg. 35). Even the so-called ‘Touro College’ in the USA is a terrible disaster, a churban ha-das!

Rav Shach writes that the success of those people who were able to achieve greatness in Torah despite their involvement in secular studies is ma'aseh satan [=the doings of the satanic forces] for the existence of such role models will entice others to follow suit, only to be doomed (vols. 1-2, page 109, no. 53. See also ibid., page 128, no. 76).

[Rav Shach wrote that even the establishment of a Kollel designed to train potential community Rabbis and equip them with the skills necessary for their vocation is absolutely forbidden. No one dare support such an initiative (vol. 3, page 31). Such institutions are an unwelcome intrusion, threatening the viability of the Jewish People. Rav Shach opposes the establishment of any Rabbinical seminaries designed to prepare students for positions of leadership in Jewish communities. Nothing other than the traditional Kollel maybe supported (vol. 3, page 31)].

As for the YU’s ‘Torah Sage’ Rav Shach writes - in a lengthy & blistering attack on Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, the mentor of centrist orthodoxy & YU - that Rabbi Soloveitchik was guilty of endangering the survival of Torah true Judaism r"l by indoctrinating the masses with minus ve-apikursus [=heretical shitos]! Rav Shach wrote that Rabbi Soloveitchik's views were so outrageous that those Rabbis who contributed to an anniversary volume dedicated to his honor were guilty by association. He said that by paying homage to a man who disseminated such anti-Jewish views, these Rabbis were also contributing to the tremendous harm caused on vulnerable Jewish students by works such as Soloveitchik’s 'Chamesh Derashot' (see at length Michtavim U-Maamarim 4:320. See also 4:370, page 107].

In light of all the above it is clear that the misleading nuances of the Yated’s recent anti-YCT article constitute a terrible ziyuf haTorah and an unprecedented Chillul Hashem that could easily mislead thousands of innocent yidden to embrace false hashkofos and even kefirah mamash rachmana litzlan!

Mr Editor! I believe that you have a chov gomur to do whatever is within your power to at least minimize the damage that has already been done. I urge you to publish a robust condemnation of the false hashkofos that have been conveyed between the lines of the anti-YCT article.

I plead with you: Please have rachmonus on the innocent neshomos of your young readers & declare: Tous hayesah be-yadeinu. Make it abundantly clear that YCT & YU and all similar institutions are all equally beyond the pale of True Yiddishkeit & that they are all responsible for the tremendous churban ha-das and denigration of kevod HaTorah that we are (ba-avonoseinu ha-rabim) witnesses to in our generation - Hashem yerachem!

There is only one consolation: The proliferation of colleges in the mould of YU & YCT which constitute an incredible & an intolerable manifestation of the prediction of Chazal that be-ikvesa di-meshicha chutzpah yasgei and smacks of ha-malchus nehepeches le-minus is clearly a sign that we are only a stone's throw away from the geulah sheleimah!

May the Ribbono shel Olam help you be mesaken what is essentially a me'uvas lo yuchal liskon and may we be zocheh to see the eradication of all minus ve-apikorsus, be-vias goel tzedek, amen!

Yours Sincerely,

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport
London, England

]]> Chaim Rapoport Herem Historical Oddities Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/23/Rabbi-Chaim-Rapoport--Open-Letter-to-the-Yated-Neeman Adam Mintz -- Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin: A Forgotten American Posek http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/21/Adam-Mintz--Rabbi-Yosef-Eliyahu-Henkin-A-Forgotten-American-Posek
Rabbi Adam Mintz is a visiting professor of Jewish History at Queens College and the immediate past president of the New York Board of Rabbis. He lectures widely on a variety of topics in Jewish History and his weekly streaming video entitled "This Week in Jewish History" is featured on the internet at www.rayimahuvim.org. Rabbi Mintz served in the pulpit rabbinate for over twenty years and is one of the founders of Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He has recently published a book entitled Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law (Ktav, 2005) and is completing his dissertation “The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv” (New York University, forthcoming). Rabbi Mintz serves on the advisory committee of Sh'ma and is a member of the Board of Directors of The Orthodox Caucus, Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim and Plaza Memorial Chapel.

The post below on Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin was previously delivered as part of his lecture series "History of American Poskim." We hope that Rabbi Mintz will contribute several posts, based on this fantastic series, to the Seforim blog.

--Dan Rabinowitz
Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin:
A Forgotten American Posek
by Adam Mintz

Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin died in his apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan on Shabbat Nachamu, August 12, 1973. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky delivered eulogies at his funeral and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik attended the funeral but did not speak. Rabbi Henkin was born in White Russia in 1881. He studied, primarily, in the yeshiva in Slutzk and spent ten years as a rabbi and rosh yeshiva in Georgia on the Black Sea. Rabbi Henkin emigrated to America in 1923 and was appointed the rabbi of Congregation Anshei Shtutsen on the Lower East Side. In 1925, he became secretary and then director of Ezras Torah, a rabbinic organization founded in 1915 to assist Torah scholars imperiled by the turmoil of World War I. The organization was later expanded to assist rabbis and their students who attempted to flee Europe during the dark years surrounding World War II. Rabbi Henkin remained at the helm of Ezras Torah for the next forty-eight years. He served as a posek for rabbis and laymen throughout America and wrote numerous articles for a variety of Torah journals. Many of his essays and teshuvot are reprinted in a two-volume work entitled Kitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (New York, 1980).

In spite of Rabbi Henkin’s illustrious rabbinic career, we live today amidst a Torah and scholarly community "who knew not Yosef." When poskim from the Lower East Side are considered, it is Rabbi Feinstein whose name and works are still authoritative twenty years after his passing. Yet, the first volume of Iggerot Moshe was published in 1959, when Rabbi Henkin was almost 80 years old and had spent a lifetime answering rabbinic questions and recording them for others.

The reasons for the popularity of a posek depend on the culture of the contemporary Orthodox community as much as on the quality of the p’sak. Rabbi Feinstein lived for thirteen years after Rabbi Henkin’s passing. Those years, from 1973-1986, were critical years in the growth of the Torah community of America. Many of Rabbi Feinstein’s teshuvot date from that period and many more teshuvot became known during the last years of his life. Most of Rabbi Henkin’s teshuvot date to an era when interest in the intricate questions of halakhah in America was limited to the scholarly rabbis of the time. Yet, these teshuvot remain relevant for all students of halakhah and of the history of American Orthodoxy. The richness and originality of those teshuvot give us insight into the challenges of that generation of American Orthodoxy and into the pivotal role played by Rabbi Henkin during this period.

I would like to address three issues in which Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein reached different halakhic conclusions concerning areas of grave importance to American Orthodoxy.

1. The Mehitzah

While Orthodox leaders have always defined mixed seating in synagogue as the great divide between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox, the 1950’s and 1960’s saw a growing number of Orthodox synagogues which introduced mixed seating. One source claims that in 1961 there existed "perhaps 250 Orthodox synagogues where family seating is practiced." While it is difficult to verify the accuracy of this report, it is certain that rabbis serving in mixed-seating synagogues continued to belong to the Rabbinical Council of America without fear of expulsion.[1] The tide began to turn in the late 1950’s as many Orthodox leaders declared their opposition to congregations with mixed-seating. A major step in this direction was introduced by Baruch Litvin, a businessman who belonged to Beth Tefilas Moshe, an Orthodox congregation in Mt. Clemens, Michigan which voted to introduce mixed-seating in 1955. Litvin took up the battle against this ruling based on an established American legal principle that a religious congregation cannot introduce a practice opposed to the doctrine of the congregation against the wishes of even a minority of the congregation. His attorneys, supported by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), introduced a significant amount of evidence to support the claim that mixed-seating was "clearly violative of the established Orthodox Jewish law and practice." The lower courts sided with the congregation and refused to become involved. However, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision and accepted the minority’s claim.[2]

Litvin gathered the evidence that he had collected and published it, in 1962, in a volume entitled The Sanctity of the Synagogue. Included in this book are letters from rabbis and roshei yeshiva on the necessity of a mehitzah in an Orthodox synagogue. Litvin incorporated an article by Rabbi Feinstein on the background and requirements of a Mehitzah. Rabbi Feinstein’s opinion is summarized by a personal communication to Litvin dated June 17, 1957 and printed at the conclusion of the article.[3] The correspondence states:
Dear Mr. Litvin,

In reference to what is written in my name, that "the prohibition of mixed pews is Biblical law," it would be better to change the words to read: "the prohibition against praying in a synagogue without a mechitzah of at least eighteen tefachim (handbreadths) or sixty-five inches high is a Biblical law." Stronger emphasis should be put on the point that it is prohibited to pray in a synagogue without a proper mechitzah, even though there is separate seating.

Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
This view of the necessity for a mehitzah is shared by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi Aharon Kotler whose letters are also included in Litvin’s volume.

Rabbi Henkin’s view is not recorded in Litvin’s volume. Rabbi Henkin does, however, take a stand on the issue of mehitzah in a responsum dated 1961 which is included in the second volume of his collected writings.[4] The teshuvah addresses the question whether a Shabbat violator can receive an aliyah. He responds that in our generation in which the Reform movement has "cast its net upon the Jewish people to ensnarl them in their ways" it is incumbent upon the Orthodox community to welcome all Jews without reservation into our synagogues and our communities. In this way many have returned to Orthodoxy and hopefully many will continue to return.

He continues in the following way:
Every individual should live in a place of observant Jews if possible. However, if this is not possible, we should not be strict concerning these matters because it will lead to a potential catastrophe.

However, if the place itself is corrupt in that it has mixed-seating, it has already been established that it is preferable to pray by yourself at home. But, if this is the only synagogue in the area and you will always have to pray at home, you must examine the situation and evaluate the corruption versus the hope that through the involvement of the observant in this congregation, the community will become Orthodox. Yet, in all situations you must reprimand them if you pray in their midst.
While the details of the question addressed to Rabbbi Henkin differ from the issue directed by Mr. Litvin to Rabbi Feinstein, these two great poskim take two very different approaches to the mehitzah issue. Rabbi Feinstein defends the principle of mehitzah and argues that it is a Biblical requirement with no room for compromise or flexibility. Rabbi Henkin, on the other hand, while arguing in favor of the importance of mehitzah and the risks inherent in the movement toward mixed-seating in the synagogue, clearly understands the complexity of the social situation and the possibility that prohibiting someone from praying in a non-mehitzah synagogue may ultimately force that person out of the organized Jewish community and prevent him or her from influencing the community toward observance. Rabbi Henkin argued that the principle of mehitzah must be balanced with an appreciation of the social complexities of the situation and the potential for religious outreach while Rabbi Feinstein contended that the principle is so critical that it cannot be influenced even by the difficult practical problems that may arise.

[to be continued]

Sources:

[1] Jonathan D. Sarna, "The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue," in The American Synagogue: A Sanctuary Transformed, ed. Jack Wertheimer (Cambridge, 1987), 380-81; For a recent overview of the mehitzah within historical context, see Gil Student, "The Mehitzah Controversy: Fifty Years Later," Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu/BaDaD 17 (September 2006): 7-43.
[2] Jonathan D. Sarna, "The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue," 384.
[3] Baruch Litvin, The Sanctity of the Synagogue (New York, 1962), 125.
[4] Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin (New York, 1989), II: 11.

]]> Historical Oddities Adam Mintz Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/21/Adam-Mintz--Rabbi-Yosef-Eliyahu-Henkin-A-Forgotten-American-Posek Photocopying JNUL Manuscripts http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/21/Photocopying-JNUL-Manuscripts
ManuscriptBoy has an interesting post on photocopying manuscripts from the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Givat Ram campus).

Read all about it here.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/21/Photocopying-JNUL-Manuscripts Eliezer Brodt: A Censored Work by a Student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin: The Case of Menuchah u-Kedushah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/19/Eliezer-Brodt-A-Censored-Work-by-a-Student-of-R-Hayyim-of-Volozhin-The-Case-of-Menuchah-uKedushah
A Censored Work by a Student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin:
The Case of Menuchah u-Kedushah
By Eliezer Brodt

A few years ago (c2000) a fascinating sefer was reprinted called Menuchah u-Kedushah. The sefer was written by R. Yisrael Isserl from Ponevezh. Not much is known about the author except that he was a talmid of R. Hayyim of Volozhin. It’s clear from the sefer that he was a very special person and a big talmid hakham. The haskamot that he received from the R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin (Neziv), R. Bezalel HaKohen and R. Avraham Eisenstadt, author of the Pitchei Teshuva, show that he was a very prominent, well-known person (for some reason these haskamot were omitted in the reprinted edition). R. Shlomo Elyashiv, the author of the Leshem, also writes that he was an Ish Kadosh, a Holy Man. It appears that he was a melamed [teacher], and (as we will see) it seems that he must have been an excellent one. In the recent reprint, R. Shmuel Auerbach writes that the sefer was famous in particular as a guide in raising children and many followed it and became true Ovdei Hashem. Interestingly, the sefer was originally published anonymously (Vilna, 1864).

In this post I would like to discuss this sefer a bit. The author in his introduction (which, oddly enough, was omitted in the newest reprinted version of the sefer) outlines very clearly what he had wanted to accomplish with this work. Divided into three parts, the first is called Sha’ar HaTefillah, an explaining as to what one should do in order for his tefillot to be accepted. Included are many explanations on different parts of Tefillah. The second part is called Sha’ar HaTorah, which is the way the author feels one should teach children. The third part is called Sha’ar Yichud HaMa’aseh which includes advice how to battle the Yetzer Hara in all different situations.

The sefer reviews many interesting things especially vignettes from R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna (the Gra) and R. Hayyim of Volozhin. Also, included are many beautiful explanations on different areas of Tanakh and Aggadah. Aside from the explanations, this the sefer also includes many halakhot and minhagim. The sefer begins with a nice collection of halakhot of kavod seforim including that the prohibition to use one sefer under another one to bring it closer to you, or leaning completely on seforim like a shtender. To list a few examples of Ta’amei Minhagim brought throughout the sefer: the reason behind the mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur (pg 51) and giving tzedakah (pg 204). He is very against talking at all during davening; even talking in learning between aliyot (pg 75). The author also wrote a lengthy discussion regarding the proper time to light the Chanukah menorah; opining to light after ma’ariv. The author states that the only reason why R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna lit earlier was because of concern that if he would have waited until after ma’ariv he would have this on his mind the throughout davening, similar to a groom who is exempt from kriat shema (pg 160) due to his preoccupation. When he discusses sitting shiva on ones parents he exclaims 'do not just sit there making the same mistake most do'; namely, they claim that since it is prohibited for a mourner to learn Torah, they leave a Sefer Iyyov on the stool nearby just to glance at from time to time and fall asleep. Rather, one is supposed to learn the topics that a mourner is allowed to so that one could give one's parent many merits; there is enough material to learn for three weeks (pp. 88-89)! He writes to his son any shiur that he goes to after he dies he should always say the kaddish de’rabbanan for him; not only the first year (pg 95-96).

Many interesting discussions on various topics, such as the Neshama Yetairah that one gets on shabbat (pp. 49-50) are found throughout the sefer. He also has a lengthy discussion on the now-famous topic (in light of all the biographies on the gedolim) that no great person achieved anything great in life without working very hard for it. The talmudic use of the term "Noch Nafshei" a term of resting, was not hapenstance. Instead, it was used to demonstrate that, in many instance, those persons did not have easy lives, and thus only after death is it approriate to use a term of rest - hence Noch Nafshei. This is in reference to Tana’aim and Amoraim; how much more so in regard to regular people (pp. 79-82). Elsewhere in the sefer he has a long discussion on chumrot, writing very strongly: “one should be concerned that the yetzer hara is bribing him and allowing him to do them so he will be too occupied to observe the ikkar.” As an example for this he gives, he points out that in Minhagei Ha-Gra that he had eaten Matzah Shemurah the whole Pessach. Whereas the author realizes that if because of this chumrah he will have to eat separately from the rest of his family and not have proper simchat yom tov which is a de’oraita, he should not be makpid on eating matzah shemurah which is just a pious action (pp. 155-156).

Another point of interest that he writes is that the Messilat Yesharim was written with ruach hakodesh so listen to what he says (pg 158). When he talks about the sefer Nefesh Ha-Hayyim from his teacher R. Hayyim of Volozhin, he writes “listen to his holy mouth as the sefer is exactly like its name 'life for the soul' and one should know that ruach hakodesh is in all the words in the sefer so that it should be accepted by its readers” (pg 69).

After reading all this it would seem to appear that this is a very good work and there should be no problems with anything written in it. However this is not the case. The people who printed it write that in the section called “Sha’ar HaTorah” we were advised by gedolim not to print some parts. This is very strange because as mentioned earlier he had very prominent haskamot from some big gedolim and as the Leshem writes he was a Holy Man, and he was also a known student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin. One is left wondering what in the world could have been wrong with what he had written prompting censor?

In the 1967 reprint of the original edition by Meir Kleiman, the missing pages are included, about five all together. In short, what the deleted material is as follows, he saw many people who had no business becoming teachers taking the job only for the money. He writes that he was a teacher and he would spend a few weeks trying to understand each student what was the best way to deal with him. Another thing he writes is the importantance that boys have a proper understanding of the Hebrew language; not that he has to be a baki in dikduk just to know the basics than it’s easier to learn chumash. Once the boy knows chumash only than should you go on to learn Gemara. When he begins this limud, be careful to go slowly so as not to over burden him. The main point is not to learn enmass, rather emphasis on making sure the student fully understands everything before going further. Instead what happens is the boy only knows how to parrot what the teacher says and on shabbos he shows this off to the father; however nothing of value ever comes out of this. Another thing he writes is in regard to the failure to teach the boys tanakh; not only Gemara as the study of Tanakh is extremely important. Professor Simha Assaf brings much of this edited part in his Mekorot le-Toledot ha-Hinnukh be-Yisrael (vol. 1 Pg 607-613). R. Yitzchak Abadie discusses this whole section in his Teshuvot Ohr Yitzchak (pp. 444-450), available for download at www.HebrewBooks.org.

Reading all of the above, one can only wonder as to what was wrong with printing these parts; the author can not be accused of having haskalic leanings for a few reasons: One, if he did have haskalic leanings, then why allow the rest of the sefer be reprinted. In all honesty, the very thought is quite ridiculous; the Leshem writes he was a Holy Man and a reading of the sefer will show how true that is. Also he was very against learning philosophy saying that only the Rishonim were they on the level to learn it (pg 47).

What’s interesting about all this is many schools in the United States would do well to follow this advice in their educational methods; I am sure it would help many. Not that it’s the solution to all the problems with the children of today but it's certainly a good start. Interestingly enough R. Yakov Horowitz in a recent article in his column 'Chinuch Matters' in the English Mishpacha 143 (Pg 10) called 'It Doesn't Start in Tenth Grade' writes the same point. R. Yakov Horowitz continues with this theme in the next issue in an article called 'Training Wheels'. Of course these columns have been met with opposition. One reader writes (English Mishpacha 145, pg 6) "Torah is acquired thru yegia through no other method can Torah become yours. Making torah easy at the beginning only makes it harder later on. The author mentioned that he is backed by various Achranoim who have suggested alternative methods for teaching torah. It should definitely be mentioned that these methods were unaccepted in Klal Yisroel. Mesorah means tradition passed on Midor Ldor not looking in seforim for unaccepted methods.”

One only wonders what this reader is talking about as shown here a Holy Man and talmid of R. Hayyim of Volozhin wrote these same suggestions as R. Yakov Horowitz and received good haskamot from important known gedolim. Further more as I have mentioned R. Shmuel Auerbach writes that the sefer was famous, in particular, as a guide in raising children and many followed it and became true Ovdei Hashem.

]]> Censorship Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Customs Book Reviews Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/19/Eliezer-Brodt-A-Censored-Work-by-a-Student-of-R-Hayyim-of-Volozhin-The-Case-of-Menuchah-uKedushah "Research Refutes Thesis of Unified Diaspora in Ancient Jewry" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/15/Research-Refutes-Thesis-of-Unified-Diaspora-in-Ancient-Jewry
Hagahot notes the appearance of a new study by two Tel Aviv University scholars, Arye Edrei and Doron Mendels, "A Split Jewish Diaspora: Its Dramatic Consequences," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16:2 (2007): 91-137, wherein the authors demonstrate
that the Jewish diaspora in Europe basically disappeared after the destruction of the Second Temple. Probably, they felt cut off from the spiritual center in Jerusalem, and eventually melded into their host culture.

This is very significant for medieval Jewish history, especially those interested in the roots of Ashkenazic halakhah. The Jewish settlement along the Rhine identified itself as being rooted in Northern Italy, and when it first surfaces in literary form, the Ashkenazic halakhah is already a hoary tradition. On the other hand, while we have extensive epigraphical remains from the Jews of Roman Italy, they don't reflect what we know about rabbinic Judaism. So this theory suggests that there was a break between Roman Italy and early medieval Italy, with the later Jewish population coming from a totally different, more rabbinic culture.
For those interested, the abstract of this article reads:
This article proposes that a language divide and two systems of communication have brought to a serious gap between the western Jewish Diaspora and the eastern one. Thus the western Greek-speaking Jews lost touch with the Halakhah and the Rabbis, a condition that had far-reaching consequences on Jewish history thereafter. The Rabbis paid a high price for keeping their Halakhah in oral form, losing in consequence half of their constituency. An oral law did not develop in the western diaspora, whereas the existing eastern one was not translated into Greek. Hence it is not surprising that western Jews contributed nothing to the development of the oral law in the east. The Jewish communities that were isolated from the Rabbinic network served as a receptive basis for the development of an alternative Christian network by Paul and the apostles, which enabled it to spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. The Jews that remained ‘biblical’ surfaced in Europe in the Middle Ages.

]]> Historical Oddities Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/15/Research-Refutes-Thesis-of-Unified-Diaspora-in-Ancient-Jewry Shnayer Z. Leiman: Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/8/Shnayer-Z-Leiman-Did-a-Disciple-of-the-Maharal-Create-a-Golem
What follows is a short essay by Prof. Shnayer Z. Leiman, whose article on this topic, "The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London: R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague," appeared in Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58 [PDF].
Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem?
Shnayer Z. Leiman

I. In March 2006, Dei’ah VeDibur, a Charedi internet newsletter, published an essay on the Maharal and the Golem. Its conclusion was that “it is unclear whether or not the Maharal ever made a golem.”[1]

At the time, I responded on the internet with a congratulatory note praising Dei’ah VeDibur for its sober assessment of the evidence, and for its readiness to admit that it may be that the Maharal did not create a Golem.[2]

Shortly thereafter I received what appeared to be an angry email note from a distinguished academician at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It read
“You still haven’t responded to the evidence that a talmid of the Maharal is known to have created a Golem and that this factoid is documented.”

Since I had never claimed that a disciple of the Maharal either did or did not create a Golem, it was unclear to me why I had to respond to such a claim. Nonetheless, I knew precisely what my academic colleague had in mind. The author of the Dei’ah VeDibur essay mentioned in passing that the story connecting the Maharal to the making of a Golem was ”invented at some stage or, alternatively , it was mistakenly attributed to the Maharal while in fact it was his talmid HaRav Eliyahu Baal Shem of Chelm who made a golem (though the Maharal might have played a part).”[3]

Alas, we know precious little about R. Eliyahu (b. R. Aharon Yehudah) Ba’al Shem of Chelm (16th century).[4] In 1564, he joined a coalition of distinguished rabbis including R. Solomon Luria (the Maharshal, d. 1574) -- that permitted an agunah to remarry.[5] Most importantly, he was an ancestor of R. Yaakov Emden (d.1776), who preserved the following tradition about him:[6]
As an aside, I’ll mention here what I heard from my father’s holy mouth regarding the Golem created by his ancestor, the Gaon R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of blessed memory. When the Gaon saw that the Golem was growing larger and larger, he feared that the Golem would destroy the universe. He then removed the Holy Name that was embedded on his forehead, thus causing him to disintegrate and return to dust. Nonetheless, while he was engaged in extracting the Holy Name from him, the Golem injured him, scarring him on the face.

Thus, there clearly existed a 16th century rabbi by the name of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm (contemporary sources prove this), and the creation of a Golem was ascribed to him (so according to 17th and 18th century sources).[7] Not a word is mentioned about his being a disciple of the Maharal.

So I sent off a note to my academic colleague in Jerusalem. It read in part:
“There is no evidence that any talmid of the Maharal created a Golem. You write: “this factoid is documented.” Let me assure you that no such “factoid” is documented. The claim has been made – I am well aware of that, but the claim is based on a misreading of texts that I plan to expose in a footnote or essay in a future publication.”

The remainder of this essay is devoted to fulfilling the promise I made to my academic colleague in Jerusalem.

II. The claim that a disciple of the Maharal created a Golem appears most prominently in an essay published by a close friend -- and scholarly colleague – of mine, Dr. Shlomo Sprecher, in the Torah periodical Yeshurun. [8] I am certain he will forgive me for correcting him, if I am right. And if I am wrong, I urge him to correct my error publicly, thereby advancing discussion, and pray that he forgives my indiscretion.

The ישורון essay reads in part:[9]
“Regarding R. Eliyahu of Chelm, we know that he studied Torah under the Maharal and that he was a colleague of the Rabbi, author of the Tosafot Yom Tov.... The “true” Golem -- according to a reconstruction based upon trustworthy sources -- was the creation of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem, Chief Rabbi of Chelm, who was a disciple of the Maharal (as mentioned earlier). For whatever reason, the Master and the disciple were confused, with the resulting confusion [as to who created the Golem.]”
In fact, R. Eliyahu of Chelm was neither a student of the Maharal nor a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov. Sprecher can hardly be faulted; he was misled by the source he quotes, namely R. Menahem Mendel Krengil (d. 1930) in his commentary to R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai’s Shem Ha-Gedolim.[10] In turn, Krengil was misled by the source he quotes, R. Yitzhok Shlomo of Ozorkov’s introduction to Mikhlol Yofi (Warsaw, 1883).[11] In turn, R. Yitzhok Shlomo was misled by the source he quotes, R. Yehiel Heilprin’s (d. 1746), Seder Ha-Dorot.[12] In common, all these sources – and others not mentioned here – confused two different rabbis with the same name and cognomen, Eliyahu Ba’al Shem, and compressed them into one person. Despite the best efforts of nineteenth and twentieth century Jewish historians to expose this error,[13] shabashta keyvan d’al ‘al.

The above-mentioned R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm, the ancestor of R. Jacob Emden, may have created a Golem. But he was not a disciple of the Maharal, and he was not a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov, and -- so far as anyone knows – he never set foot in Prague. Yet another R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem was R. Eliyahu (b. R. Moshe) Loanz (1564-1636) of Worms.[14] Distinguished kabbalist and author, he was a disciple of the Maharal[15] and a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov, but no one ever suggested that he created a Golem! This is not even a case of the proverbial “two Yosef b. Shimons.” For R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm’s father’s name was R. Aharon Yehudah, whereas R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Worms’ father’s name was R. Moshe.[16] Moreover, each was buried in the city where he served as Rabbi. Pilgrimages to the grave of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm -- in Chelm --were commonplace until World War II.[17] The tombstone inscription on the grave of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Worms – in Worms – was published in the nineteenth century.[18]

Other famous disciples of the Maharal include his son, R. Bezalel; his son-in-law, R. Yitzhok b. R. Shimshon; R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, author of Tosafot Yom Tov; and R. David Ganz, author of Tzemah David.[19] No source prior to the twentieth century ever imagined that these -- or any other – disciples of the Maharal were involved in creating a Golem. In sum, until new evidence is forthcoming, the answer to the question raised in the title of this note appears to be: “No.”

Notes:

[1] B.Y. Rabinowitz, “The Golem of Prague – Fact or Fiction?” Dei’ah VeDibur, March 1, 2006.

[2] Posting on Mail-Jewish, March 6, 2006.

[3] See note 1.

[4] In general, see J. Günzig, Die Wundermänner in jüdischen Volk, Antwerpen, 1921, pp. 24-26; A. Brik, "רבי אליהו בעל שם זצ"ל מחעלם," Moriah 7 (1977), n. 6-7, 79-85; and M.D. Tzitzik, "מהר"ר אליהו בעל שם מחעלם," Yeshurun 17 (2006), 644-667.

שו"ת ב"ח החדשות, ס' ע"ז [5]

[6]

שו"ת שאילת יעב"ץ, ח"ב, ס' פ"ב. Cf. his בירת מגדל עוז, Altona, 1748, p. 259a; מטפחת ספרים, Altona, 1768, p. 45a; and מגילת ספר, ed. Kahana, Warsaw, 1896, p. 4. See also שו"ת חכם צבי, ס' צ"ג, and the references cited in שו"ת חכם צבי עם ליקוטי הערות, Jerusalem, 1998, vol. 1, p. 421 and in the periodical כפר חב"ד, number 351 (1988), p. 51.

[7] See the sources cited by M. Idel, גולם, Tel Aviv, 1996, pp. 181-184 (English edition: Golem, Albany, 1990, pp. 207-212).

[8] S. Sprecher, בסתר בצל':קווים לדמותו הסמויה של הג"ר בצלאל בנו יחידו של המהר"למפראג זצ"ל in Yeshurun 2 (1997), 623-634.

[9] See the text on p. 629; and the end of note 24 on p. 632.

[10] R. Menahem Mendel Krengil, ed., שם הגדולים השלם, Podgorze, 1905, vol. 1, p. 11b, n. 85. Cf. Krengil’s remarks at p. 12a, n. 90, and at p.117a, n. 12.

[11] R. Eliyahu Loanz, מכלול יופי, Warsaw, 1883, introduction. R. Yitzhok Shlomo of Ozorkov (near Lodz), who wrote the introduction, arranged for this reissue of R. Eliyahu Loanz’ commentary on Koheleth. The introduction is particularly confused and misleading.

[12] סדר הדורות , Karlsruhe, 1769, p. 64a. Cf. סדר הדורות השלם, Jerusalem, 1985, part 1, p.248. The passage reads:
הג"מ אליהו בעל שם אב"ד דק"ק חעלם בווירמז חבר ספר אדרת אליהו פירוש על הזוהר כ"י (הוא היה מקובל גדול ובעל שם וברא ע"י שמות אדם.)
[13] See, e.g., H.N. Dembitzer, כלילת יופי , Cracow, 1888, part 1, pp. 78b-79a; H. Michael, אור החיים , Frankfurt, 1891, pp. 170-171; and E.L. Gartenhaus, אשל הגדולים, Brooklyn, 1958, pp. 92-94.

[14] See J. Günzig, op. cit. (above, note 4), pp. 37-39; N.Y. Ha-Kohen, אוצר הגדולים, Haifa, 1966, vol. 2, p. 184; and the entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 11, column 420.

[15] See R. Barukh b. R. David of Gniezno, גדולת מרדכי, Hanau, 1615, letters of approbation (reissued: Jerusalem, 1991, p. 3). R. Eliyahu Loanz, in his letter of approbation to this volume, writes:
“ והנה ידוע שמ"ו ה"ה הגאון מהר"ר ליווא מפראג היתה תורתו אומנותו מיום הכיר את בוראו.”
For legendary accounts of R. Eliyahu Loanz and his meetings with the Maharal of Prague and the author of the Tosafot Yom Tov, see R. Moshe Hillel, בעלי שם, Jerusalem, 1993, pp. 10-87.

[16] Already noted by A. Brik (above, note 4), p. 81.

[17] A. Brik (above, note 4), p. 85. Cf. J. Günzig, op. cit., p. 26.

[18] L. Lewysohn, נפשות צדיקים, Frankfurt, 1855, p. 59-60. Cf. E.M. Pinner, כתבי יד, Berlin, 1861, p. 166 and notes.

[19] See A. Gottesdiener, המהר"ל מפראג, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 88-97.

]]> Golem Historical Oddities Shnayer Leiman Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:41:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/8/Shnayer-Z-Leiman-Did-a-Disciple-of-the-Maharal-Create-a-Golem Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider's Ir Vilna http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/6/Hillel-Noach-Magid-Steinschneiders-Ir-Vilna
Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider's Ir Vilna
by Dan Rabinowitz

Vilna being one of the most important cities in Jewish history has a fair amount written about it. One of the classic works discussing the history and persons of Vilna is that of Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider's Ir Vilna. This book was originally published in 1900 by the Romm press. This was only the first volume and Steinschneider envisioned publishing a second volume in short time, however, due to financial constraints he was unable to do so. Steinschneider did was not a historian by profession and instead was employed as a stone etcher for burial monuments - hence his surname Steinschneider which means "stone cutter." [1] Although he was not a professional historian, his work on Vilna was universally recognized. He not only write this book on Vilna but was also intimately involved with Shmuel Yosef Fuenn's work on Vilna - Kiryah Ne'emana. Steinschneider gave Fuenn material and eventually, in the second edition, wrote extensive notes. [2]

As for Steinschneider's own work, it was not until 2003 Magnes published the second volume of this work (and included a nice introduction both about Steinschnider and his work). In part, the reason Steinschneider was unable to publish the second volume, was because people were hesitant to purchase just one volume of a multi-volume work. I have heard people make the same comment about the second volume, namely, they don't only want the second of two volumes. But, now this has been remedied as someone has republished the first so both are now in print. (Both are available at Biegeleisen of Boro Park 718-436-1165.)

Aside from the importance of this work for the history of Vilna, there is also something curious in this addition - the publishers introduction. Steinschneider included information about all the important (and lesser important) people in Vilna. In doing so, he includes information [3] which from an Orthodox perspective some would find objectionable. Rather than censor this material out or not reprint this at all, the editors deal with this up front. In the introduction they note that Steinschnider was a maskil and that his writing was influenced by the haskalah. They also note that he included people who others found objectionable. For instance they state that Steinschneider discusses the poet "Abraham Dov Lebensohn (Adam HaKohen)" of whom the Hafetz Hayyim would add ימ"ש (may his name be erased).

But, at the end, the publishers explain they decided that even though there was "פסולת" (lit. chaff) the good content outweighed the bad and therefore they have decided to republish this book.

Of course, this is stark contrast to numerous contemporary instances of either removal of the פסולת or not reprinting books that contain any פסולת at all.

Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider


Notes:
[1] See Ir Vilna vol. 2 p. 1.
[2] Id. at 4-7 for how extensive Steinschneider's involvement was.
[3] Although it is the second volume which is more or less dedicated to biographies and history of maskilim the first volume also contains some of that information as well.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Historical Oddities Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/6/Hillel-Noach-Magid-Steinschneiders-Ir-Vilna Library of Siddur (Prayer) For Sale http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/2/Library-of-Siddur-Prayer-For-Sale
A library of approximately 1,700 books all either prayer books themselves or books about prayer are for sale. These include סדורים ,קינות ,תיקון ליל שבעות as well as some manuscripts. The date range of the books range from ש's (1540) until recent. Additionally, there are Slavita and Zhitomer prints as well. As this entire collection is devoted to a single subject - prayer, it is somewhat unusual and important. For more information (there is a complete catalog of all the books) you can email judaicaantique-at-aol.com or call 845-729-0817.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Relating to Siddur Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:10:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/2/2/Library-of-Siddur-Prayer-For-Sale Goldschmidt Machzorim On Sale http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/31/Goldschmidt-Machzorim-On-Sale Magnes Press is having a sale on the Goldschmidt Yom Tov Machzorim (edited by Yonah Frankel). The sale price is $43 for all three - Pesach, Shavout, and Sukkot. They can be purchased here.

]]> Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/31/Goldschmidt-Machzorim-On-Sale Marc B. Shapiro: "Mi-Yosef ad Yosef Lo Kam ke-Yosef" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/29/Marc-B-Shapiro-MiYosef-ad-Yosef-Lo-Kam-keYosef
Seforim blog contributor Dr. Marc B. Shapiro, professor of Judaic Studies at the University of Scranton, has just published a review essay ("Mi-Yosef ad Yosef Lo Kam ke-Yosef") in English of the following three books Hayyav, Mishnato u-Mahalkhav ha-Politiyim shel ha-Rav Ovadiah Yosef by Zvi Aloush and Yossi Elituv (Ben Porat Yosef: Or Yehudah, 2004); Maran Ovadiah Yosef: Ha-Biographyah by Nitzan Chen and Anshil Pepper (Jerusalem, 2004); Mi-Maran ad Maran: Mishnato ha-Hilkhatit shel ha-Rav Ovadiah Yosef by Binyamin Lau, (Tel Aviv, 2005) in Meorot Journal - A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse, formerly The Edah Journal, published by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

To download Professor Shapiro's article, see here [PDF].

]]> Book Reviews Marc B. Shapiro Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/29/Marc-B-Shapiro-MiYosef-ad-Yosef-Lo-Kam-keYosef Review: Jay Berkovitz's"Rites and Passages: The Making of Jewish Culture in Modern France" (Hebrew) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/29/Review-Jay-BerkovitzsRites-and-Passages-The-Making-of-Jewish-Culture-in-Modern-France-Hebrew
Merkaz Zalman Shazar has published Jay Berkovitz's book מסורת ומהפיכה-תרבות יהודית בצרפת בראשית העת החדשה discussing French Jewry and specifically the changes and challenges of modernity. This book is an expanded version of the English Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-1860 (UPenn Press) which is available at the previous link and here. Both versions are invaluable for viewing French Jewry and France gernally, a county typically neglected in milieu of Jewish history which tends to focus on Central or Eastern Europe. But, as France experienced emancipation in the late 18th century it is important to see how French Jews dealt with their new found freedom. As Berkovitz correctly points out to understand the impact of emancipation, one needs to examine the history beforehand as well – thus he begins in the 17th century.

Additionally, this book is important in some of the persons it discusses. For instance, there is an extensive discussion of R. Aaron Worms the author of the Me'ori Or. The Me'ori Or – a seven volume work which some may be familiar due to his suggestion that one should recite the blessings of "thank God for not making me a woman or a non-Jew" silently. (See Tradition 29:4 and the articles by Joel B. Wolowelsky and Emanuel Feldman and Shu"t Beni Banim 4:1).

While this is perhaps his most well known opinion, this work contains a treasure trove of information. As is evident from R. Yosef Zechariah Stern, a rather erudite person in his own respect, who cites the Me'ori Or extensively. As one can tell from R. Aaron Worm's opinion for the blessings, he was a sort of iconoclast. While there have been a handful of articles discussing R. Aaron, this book now places him in his full historical context. Berkovitz fleshes out how R. Aaron fits with French change generally and further develops the thought and impact of R. Aaron. Aside from his Me'ori Or, R. Aaron was also part of the Sanhedrin which Napoleon convened, and Berkovitz includes R. Aaron's address to that body. And while Rabbi David Sintzheim is perhaps the most well known, Berkovitz discusses the (important) impact R. Aaron had on this body. This impact is not limited to the Sanhedrin, but a deeper understanding of what R. Aaron was advocating places him in the forefront of modernity.

All in all, Berkovitz's book is a worthwhile contribution to understanding modernity and some of the methods that prior generations have adopted in dealing with its challenges.

]]> Book Reviews Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/29/Review-Jay-BerkovitzsRites-and-Passages-The-Making-of-Jewish-Culture-in-Modern-France-Hebrew Uncensored Books (Dr. Marc B. Shapiro) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/25/Uncensored-Books-Dr-Marc-B-Shapiro
Uncensored Books
Marc B. Shapiro

Dan Rabinowitz has provided many examples of censorship in seforim (examples which I look forward to using – with acknowledgment of course – in my own forthcoming book on the subject). What I would like to call attention to are two examples where the publishers would have certainly censored these texts had they known whom was being discussed. Presumably, what I mention now has already been pointed out to them and will be excised if the books are reprinted.

1. In the recently published volume of R. Eliyahu Dessler’s letters (Bnei Brak, 2004), p. 166, there is a 1942 letter to Dr. Dov Hyman discussing the Gateshead Kollel. After mentioning how the kollel includes the best young bochurim in England, those who studied in the great yeshivot in Eastern Europe, he writes:
יש שמה צעיר א' יליד מנשסתר (הוא היחיד מילידי המדינה) ולא אגזם אף מה שהוא אם אומר שמעודי לא ראיתי עלוי בעמקות יחד עם שאר הכשרונות כמוהו זולתי אחד, הוא גדול גדול ממש וכמעט א"א לרדת לסוף עומק דעתו
This passage is referring to none other than the late Rabbi Louis Jacobs -- then referred to as Leibl -- who was born in Manchester in 1920. In Jacob’s autobiography, Helping with Inquiries (London, 1989), pp. 42, 54, 59 he writes:
When I joined the Kolel, soon after its inception, the other members had all studied at one or other of the famous Lithuanian Yeshivot – Telz, Mir, Slabodka, Kamenitz, Baranowitz, Grodno, and Radin – before coming to England, with the exception of a fiery young Hungarian, Zusya Waltner. . . . As the “babe” of the Kolel (I was only twenty years of age, while some of my colleagues were several years older) and as one who had only studied in a Lithuanian Yeshivah in spirit (I was, so to speak, an honorary Telzer) I was welcomed very good-heartedly by the other members, but with an amused tolerance. . . . Before leaving my account of the Gatesehad Kolel, I feel it would be incomplete unless I said something more about Rabbi Dessler, one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. . . . .I cannot and do not want to forget what I owe to Rabbi Dessler. Although I was never officially his pupil, he was, in many respects, my teacher par excellence. He taught me and so many others to see Judaism in sophisticated terms. He was a great man whose place among the Gedoley Yisrael of the twentieth century remains uncontested.

2. Recently many books by the Gaon R. Eliyahu Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet) have appeared, by publishers with very different hashkafot. The volume of teshuvot, Ma’aneh Eliyahu, was published by Yeshivat Or Etzion in Israel, whose Rosh Yeshivah is R. Hayyim Druckman. It is obvious that the editors have no knowledge of American Jewish history, otherwise, the words I quote (from p. 352) would never have been allowed to appear. The editors no doubt assumed that the Aderet was attacking some phony. The name Jacob Joseph means nothing to them.

וידענו היטב היטב את האיש ואת שיחו תהלוכותיו ותחבולותיו מתחילה ועד סוף . . . ואותו הרב ר' יעקב, שלא שמש תלמידי חכמים ומלך מעצמו, ע"פ תבונתו, כי פקח גדול הוא, אינו מגיע לקרסולי תלמידי תלמידיו של הגאון חתם סופר ז"ל, לא בתורה ולא במעשים טובים, והרי לפנינו שעזב עיר ווילנא תפארת ליטא, והלך לנוע אל ארצות אמעריקא להיות שם רב ראשון בנויארק כחלומו אשר חלם. והרואה דברי הר"מ פ"ו ה"א מדיעות, יעוי' שם היטב בלשונו, יראה עד כמה מלאה לבו יראת שמים לעשות כן
He goes on demeaning the Chief Rabbi of New York, but you get the picture.

As long as I am talking about the very interesting sefer Ma’aneh Eliyahu, let me also call attention to something in it that is relevant to what is in the news today. I refer to the problem of rabbis covering up cases of sexual abuse. In no. 32 the Aderet deals with a case where a girl was raped by two young Jewish men. Her family wanted to report this to the police, so that the rapists would receive a fitting punishment. The Aderet writes:
ודברתי אל לבם להשקיט הדבר, לבל יתחלל שם ישראל בעמים מהפקרות ופריצות צעירי הנערים, לאנוס ולנאוף ולחלל שבת ולרצוח, וגם יש סכנה בדבר לריב עם עזי פנים כמותם, ושמעו אלי
We see from this that the practice of covering up these sorts of things is hardly a recent phenomenon.

]]> Censorship Historical Oddities Marc B. Shapiro Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:13:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/25/Uncensored-Books-Dr-Marc-B-Shapiro R. Eliezer Waldenberg's Hilkhot HaMedinah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/22/R-Eliezer-Waldenbergs-Hilkhot-HaMedinah
In light of the previous post regarding the Hilkhot HaMedinah, I have been able to obtain further information of the ban. The BaDaTz issued an Issur (reproduced below) noting that Hilkhot HaMedinah was published without the permission of the descendants of R. Waldenberg and the descendants object to its publication. Although Hilkhot HaMedinah is not mentioned by name - instead only "the books printed after his [R. Waldenberg's] death" - to my knowledge the only book published after his death has been Hilkhot HaMedinah.

What is ironic is R. Waldenberg appears to have addressed this very issue - people printing books of those who have died without the permission of the descendants. R. Waldenberg (in Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 20, no. 51, pp. 129-130) was asked about books published where the author reserved the right to publication and is now dead and his descendants are not going to publish it can it be published without their permission? R. Waldenberg responded that in such a case one is allowed to republish such a book. R. Waldenberg marshals the case of the where the author of the Kitzur Shulhan Orach, R. Ganzfried, was asked to republish his own work with the commentary of the Mesgeret haShulhan. R. Ganzfried declined. But, when R. Ganzfried died the author of the Mesgeret haShulhan did exactly that - he republished the Kitzur with his own commentary. The Mesgeret haShulhan obtained haskamot to justify what he did, one from the author of the Shaul u-Mashiv who explicitly permitted the republication even though the author objected during his lifetime.

Thus, R. Waldenberg argued that in cases where the author objected to the republication of his work, such objections are insufficient to stop publication after his death. Consequently, it would appear that if R. Waldenberg's descendants are not otherwise intending on republishing Hilkhot HaMedinah, at least according to R. Waldenberg, one would be permitted to republish the work, even without their permission, even if they object.


]]> Censorship Out-of-Print Seforim Historical Oddities Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/22/R-Eliezer-Waldenbergs-Hilkhot-HaMedinah Two New Books - Two Further Examples of Censorship http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/22/Two-New-Books--Two-Further-Examples-of-Censorship
Once again we have two new incidents of censorship in the Hebrew book world.

R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who recently passed away, is well-known for his teshuvot "Tzitz Eliezer," and also authored another work - which has recently been reprinted. This book, Hilkhot HaMedinah, originally published in 1952, deals with issues affecting the Jewish state. The book is three volumes in one and includes topics such as the renewal of semikha (Rabbinic ordination), the question of drafting men and women (he includes an exemption for those decedents from the Levite class!), and this issue of voting rights. [For those interested in R. Reuven Margoliyot, there is a letter to R. Waldenberg (vol. 2 pp. 240-41 and see also R. Tzvi Pesach Frank's letter, p. 20)].

This work was only printed in 1952 and until last week remained somewhat unknown (although is included in R. Waldenberg's wikipedia entry here). But then last week, someone decided that this book should be available to the wider public and had it reprinted.

On Thursday, however, a few hours after the reprint became available R. Waldenberg's family had it removed from all the stores claiming it is an embarrassment to them!

The second incident of censorship also concerns a older contemporary of R. Waldenberg - R. Tzvi Pesach Frank.

Makhon Oz ve-Hadar has reprinted Megilat Tannis. This reprint, which is available separately as well as part of their series Mesivta, targeted at those studying Daf Yomi, would be unremarkable. This edition they included punctuation to the text and included some standard commentaries. One of those commentaries - "Eshel Avraham" by R. Avraham Bornstein was originally printed in Jerusalem in 1908. In this edition they have included the haskamot (approbations) from the original book which include, inter alia, R. Yosef Hayyim Sonnenfeld and R. Hayyim Berlin. But, for some reason they have decided to remove the haskama from R. Tzvi Pesach Frank. To be fair Oz ve-Hadar thought the haskama good enough as they include the text of it - they just leave out the signatories. First, anyone can see this omission as the book is available for free at Hebrewbooks.org (see here). Second, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank did not only give a haskama, R. Bornstein also included a letter from R. Frank in his commentary (see p. 120b in the original). Now, aside from removing the haskama Oz ve-Hadar was able to avoid having this mention of R. Frank by not including half of R. Bornstein's work. Instead, R. Borenstein's work is split into two parts the first a simple commentary more to just explain the text of Megilat Tannis and the second half is a more in depth discussion. Oz ve-Hadar only included the first part and not the second. R. Frank's letter appears in the second part. Of course, this is not to say they did not include this portion solely because R. Frank's letter, instead, this is merely to point out how R. Borenstein viewed R. Frank. This exclusion of the second half is still somewhat ironic in that Oz ve-Hadar note on the title page of Megilat Tannis as one of the commentaries they include is that of R. Avraham b. Yosef haLevi which they included based upon the first edition "as later editions left out almost half of his commentary." Oz ve-Hadar could say the same about themselves and R. Borenstein's commentary.

]]> Censorship Out-of-Print Seforim Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/22/Two-New-Books--Two-Further-Examples-of-Censorship The Perils of Ignoring Precedent: Alterations in the Kaddish Prayer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/18/The-Perils-of-Ignoring-Precedent-Alterations-in-the-Kaddish-Prayer
The Perils of Ignoring Precedent:
Alterations in the Kaddish Prayer
by Dan Rabinowitz

Recently there has been a renewal in interest in the structure and make up of the liturgy or siddur. While there have previously been critical editions of the siddur or articles on topics related to the siddur,[1] today’s renaissance of the siddur has been precipitated by a different series of events. Specifically, this has been fostered by the publication and republication of some important source material on the topic; these include, among others R. Shabbetai Sofer of Przmysl’s Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer and R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh.[2] The Siddur Rav Shabbetai is key in the development of the siddur, in so far that this edition was considered by many to be considered the edition par excellence of the siddur.[3]

While there has been a flurry of source material, at the same time there has been movement in the opposite direction - a movement which tends to ignore this rich legacy and instead has decided issues of the siddur not based upon critical investigation but rather on reliance on sources that my not be trustworthy. The results have been less than salutary.

One example of both of these trends – the new evidence as well as a seemingly blindness to this evidence – can be found regarding the punctuation of the kaddish prayer.

The Early Evidence Regarding Kaddish

There is a dispute how to punctuate the first two words in kaddish – yisgadel v’yiskadesh (as well as other words in the kaddish, as will become apparent). The controversy is whether they have a patach or a tzeirei under the letter dalet.

The historical evidence is absolute – all the early siddurim punctuate these words with a patach.[4] For example, starting from the 1475 (?) Selichot,[5] the 1486, Soncino Machzor,[6] 1519, Prague Teffilot m’Kol HaShana,[7] 1536, Ausberg Machzor k’seder HaAshkenazim, [8] 1541 Bolonga Machzor k’fei Minhagi k’k Roma, [9] and the 1616 Hanau Seder Teffilot k’Minhag Ashkenaz u’Polin [10] all punctuate the first two words of the kaddish with a patach.[11]

The first to raise and discuss the issue of the punctuation was R. Shabbetai Sofer.[12] In his monumental introduction he discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish.[13] He cites the two possibilities mentioned above – a patach or a tzeirei. He explains that the evidence from the Bible seems to point to both. Specifically, he points to contradictory verses in the Book of Daniel. One verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei while the other has it with a komatz. R. Sofer explains that the latter must have been punctuated with a patach. The reason is this word appears at the end of the verse. When words appear at a stopping point with a komatz, their regular form can only be with either a segol or a patach. In this case it would be a patach. Thus, we have two verses which seem to lend credence to both readings.

R. Sofer, continues and explains that although one may argue that since the verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei that would be the more correct pronunciation, this is not the case. He rejects this due to other grammatical considerations. R. Sofer explains that at least one word in the kaddish passage must be punctuated with a patach and thus, “to keep the words the same (l’zaveg et ha’melot) all should be punctuated with a patach.”[14]

Thus, R. Sofer was the first to entertain the notion the word should be punctuated with a tzeirei and he rejected this reading. Additionally, based upon the proof texts R. Sofer marshals from numerous biblical verses, it is clear that he made no distinction between whether the words are Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, it seems R. Sofer was treating the bulk of kaddish as Hebrew. He discusses other words in kaddish and their counterparts in the Bible.[15]

Perhaps, aside from the grammatical considerations, R. Sofer also wanted to justify the long standing practice regarding the pronunciation. If this is the case, he does not mention precedent. But, one can not rule this out as a possible subconscious motive.[16]

The First Change to Kaddish

For the first to actually advocate for the alteration of the pronunciation to a tzeirei, we need to wait until the early 18th century.[17] In the early 18th century, R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau (Katz) published a work on Hebrew grammar entitled, Binyan Shlomo.[18] He published this at the relatively young age of 21.[19] In this work he advanced that the correct pronunciation of the kaddish is with a tzeirei.[20] But, it is not only the first two words. Instead, based upon the rules of grammar all similarly constructed words in kaddish should also have a tzeirei. Thus, yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam all have a tzeirei.[21]

While at first R. Hanau only wrote a grammar work, he eventually incorporated his alterations into both his work on the siddur – Sha’ari Teffilah[22] – as well as his edition of the siddur – Bet Teffilah.[23] In this instance, this alteration to the kaddish only appears in his siddur.[24] In his siddur, he punctuates the kaddish with a tzeirei throughout.[25] Thus, he has a tzeirei for yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam in the kaddish. Additionally, he is thoroughly consistent in his siddur, any other instance of either the same formulation or the same word, R. Hanau always uses the tzeirei. For example, the same opening words of kaddish appear in the prayer after the removal of the Torah. There R. Hanau has a tzeirei for ‘al ha-kol yisgadel v’yiskadesh.[26] In the Shemoneh Esreh where a similar formulation appears – v’al kulam yisbrach v’yisromam again R. Hanau has a tzeirei.[27] As we shall see, most who followed him were not nearly as careful in their punctuation even when they adopted R. Hanau’s understanding of the kaddish punctuation.

Before we leave R. Hanau, we must first understand how his contemporaries viewed his alterations. When he published his Binyan Shlomo aside from the change in kaddish he also took issue with many of his predecessors understanding of Hebrew grammar. It seems that he did so in a less than respectful fashion. In light of this, he was threatened with a ban on his book unless he would print a retraction of his harsh comments. Needless to say, R. Hanau complied. At the end of his Binyan Shlomo he inserted a page (somewhat smaller than the rest of the book) asking forgiveness from those he may have offended.[28]

Not only was his Binyan Shlomo controversial, but his works on the siddur were as well. R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh is a rebuttal of many of R. Hanau’s changes.[29] R. Emden whose was well known for his acerbic remarks spared none for R. Hanau. He accused Hanua of even forging an approbation Hanau received from R. Emden’s father- R. Tzvi Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi).[30]

Thus, it seems far from clear whether R. Hanau’s alteration regarding kaddish would in fact be accepted.[31] In fact, based upon his reputation and the historical precedent this alteration would not be accepted. But, due to two unrelated events, his change has gained more and more credence as time has passed.

The Siddurim Which Followed R. Hanau

While R. Hanau was a singular individual whose own edition of the siddur was printed once, he still had a tremendous impact on the development of the siddur. His influence was felt through the inclusion of some of his changes in two important editions of the siddur. The first is Wolf Heidenheim’s and the second is Seligmann Baer. Both of these siddurim included many[32] of Hanau’s changes.[33]

But, for this change to kaddish these siddurim which did not have qualms about incorporating other changes did not for this. Instead, the prevalence of this change is due to two entirely different events. In fact, Seligmann Baer in another of his works, defends the use of the patach.[34]

The Two Events Which Precipitated the Inclusion of R. Hanau’s Change

The first event[35] which promoted R. Hanau’s alteration was the inclusion of it in R. Yosef Teomim’s Peri Megadim. In his comments on the kaddish, R. Teomim includes R. Hanau’s alteration of a patach to a tzeirei.[36]

While at first glance this may appear strange, incorporating a change of questionable accuracy from a questionable source, a closer look at both R. Teomim’s life as well as his own comments, clarifies why he did so. Originally of Eastern European stock, R. Teomim spent two years in Berlin. During this time he studied in the Beit Medrash of Daniel Yaffo. At the time, this Beit Medrash was populated by the leading maskilim of Berlin. It seems that R. Teomim studied with them and may have been exposed to some of the literature. At the very least, R. Teomim appears to have studied one on one with R. Yitzhak Satnow, a leading maskil and a propend of numerous alterations to the siddur.[37]

R. Teomim absorbed the some of the general ideas which were flourishing in Berlin at the time. R. Teomim advocates for a sweeping reform of the education system. He advocates for a more structured system which includes an emphasis on Bible and proper Hebrew.[38] This is reminiscent of some of the later changes advocated by R. Naftali Hertz Wessley another of the leading Berlin maskilim. It is one of these suggestions which returns us to R. Hanau.

R. Teomim provides a list of books he recommends one teach their child. One of these is one of the works of R. Hanau. Specifically, R. Teomim lists R. Hanau’s work on grammar, Tzohar L’Tevah,[39] as one of these texts.[40] Therefore, far from rejecting the innovations of R. Hanau, R. Teomim embraced him and his works. Thus, his citation to R. Hanau in the kaddish is not an anomaly but instead perfectly in line with R. Teomim’s general view of R. Hanau and these sorts of innovations.

While R. Teomim’s citation to Hanau should not be viewed as an anomaly, a later citation should be. R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen (Kagan), otherwise known as the Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishneh Berurah discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish. In doing so, he cites the comments of R. Teomim that the words yisgadel v’yiskadish should be pronounced with a tzeirei.[41] The Hafetz Hayyim did not display the same view towards the haskalah or to innovation as R. Teomim did. Thus, his comment which, when properly traced to its source, should be viewed as nothing less than shocking. One can not say, as was the case with R. Teomim, that the Hafetz Hayyim agreed with or advocated for any of the books or application of R. Hanau. One imagines had the Hafetz Hayyim been aware of the true nature of this comment, he would not have followed it.[42]

Furthermore, one assumes that had the Hafetz Hayyim known of the clear and unambiguous tradition regarding the pronunciation of the kaddish he would not have offered this alternative reading. But, rather ironically, due to the import and the popularity the Hafetz Hayyim’s Mishneh Berurah enjoys today, R. Hanau’s alternation has become the norm in some circles.

We have now discussed the first strange use of R. Hanau’s position on the kaddish. The second to advocate for this pronunciation was allegedly the Vilna Gaon or the Gra. In the posthumous collection of his customs, Ma’aseh Rav, the Gra is recorded as saying the first two words of kaddish with a tzeirei. The rational offered is that these words are in Hebrew as opposed to the rest of kaddish which is in Aramaic.

As an initial matter, it bears mentioning, that although today many have blindly accepted anything mentioned in this collection of customs, Ma’aseh Rav, as in fact the practice of the Gra, this is far from a certainty. When this book was first printed R. Hayyim of Volozhin, in his approbation,[43] already noted at least two possible errors. It is unclear whether the two he mentions explicitly are the only ones or there are others as well.[44]

Putting aside, however, the problems with the Ma’aseh Rav generally, in this specific instance it is far from clear the comment attributed to the Gra is actually correct. According to the Masseh Rav the rational for the change in the punctuation is the classification of the words as Hebrew and not Aramaic. Yet, we have seen already that R. Sofer makes no such distinction. In fact, he assumes they are in fact Hebrew, but still one should pronounce them with a patach. Thus, the fact that these words may or may not be Hebrew is a distinction without difference. It does not immediately follow that once one has decided the words are Hebrew they must be pronounced using a tzeirei.

The Strange Repercussions of the Alteration of the First Two Words of the Kaddish Elsewhere in the Siddur.

Even assuming the custom as recorded in Masseh Rav is correct, the change in punctuation of those two words raises additional problems. As mentioned before there are other words which are either similar to the grammatical structure of the first two words in kaddish and in at least one case in the siddur the very same words appear – all of which are in Hebrew. Thus, these words should get the same treatment as the kaddish words, i.e. be punctuated with a tzeirei. But, in siddurim which claim to follow either the position of the Gra[45] or that of the Chofetz Hayyim, only the kaddish has been altered and the rest retain a patach.

As here has been a renewed interest in the Gra and his customs and those who follow him, there is no lack of siddurim which this point has been borne out. In the first siddur based upon the Gra – Ishe Yisrael – kaddish (the first two words) get a tzeirei while the other instances throughout the siddur all get a patach. In the more recent Siddur Vilna although the change appears in kaddish in the Shemoneh Esreh where the similar formulation appears there is no change.[46] The Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu which was “edited and reset from anew . . . with great care . . . based upon the text of . . . the Gra” changes the first two words of kaddish. Yet, when it comes to both the Shemoneh Esreh and the very same words – yisgadel v’yiskadesh after the removal of the Torah – it employs a patach.[47]

In the recently printed Yom Kippur Machzor which includes the commentary and customs of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik the same result occurs. This Machzor which also includes a list of R. Soloveitchik’s relevant customs, includes that of R. Soloveitchik’s views on kaddish. One these customs “based on the tradition of the Vilna Gaon that the opening two words of Kaddish” should be pronounced with a tzeirei. This is so because those “two words are Hebrew words . . . and the proper Hebrew pronunciation of each of those words is with a tzeirei.”[48] The editors are not satisfied with the mention of this custom at the beginning of the book, instead, each and every time kaddish appears they make mention of this custom. While they are punctiliousness regarding kaddish they make no mention by either the shemoneh esreh nor by the very same words after the Torah is removed.[49]

To be fair at least one siddur which is based upon the Gra has been partially[50] consistent. In the Siddur Ezor Elyiahu, when the actual words yisgadal v’yiskadah appear during the removal of the Torah, the editor changes those as well to a tzeirei. He notes explicitly that this change is an extension of the Gra’s custom regarding the kaddish.[51]

The problem of altering the kaddish text but retaining the other examples in the siddur was already noted in the late 18th century! R. Isaac Satanow in decries the “haughty simpletons (am aratzim)” who change the kaddish to a tzeirei but fail to note the others. These who “speak in contradictions,” Satanow applies the verse in Proverbs (18:2) “a fool does not delight in understanding.”[52] The expression “better leave well enough alone” is extremely apt.[53]

In conclusion, it would seem that perhaps what may be viewed as a minor change has much broader implications. These implications include the propriety of the change itself as well as the consequences of the change. It seems that many were unaware of these outcomes and both made the change without full awareness of the history. Further, they were also oblivious to the necessity to alter other portions of the text as well. As one scholar has put it “the critical study of Jewish liturgy is in any case too important to be left exclusively to the ‘daveners’!”[54] In the end, unfortunately, these words have proven to be extremely prescient.

Notes:
[1] For critical edition of the siddur see, e.g., Seligmann Baer, Avodat Yisrael (Rödelheim, 1868); Wolf Heidenheim’s series on siddurim and machzorim published in the 19th century; Machzor l’Yamin Noraim, ed. Daniel Goldschmit (Jerusalem, 1970); Shlomo Tal, Rinat Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1972).
There has also been a significant amount written on the siddur, both its development as well as the text itself. See, e.g., Leopold Zunz, Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1859); Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivcharim (Jerusalem, 1969); Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, 1993), trans. of the original 1913 German edition; B.S. Jacobson, Netiv Binah (Tel Aviv, 1964); Daniel Goldschmidt, Mehqerei Tefillah u’Piyyut (Jerusalem, 1978); Naftali Wieder, Hitgabshut Nusach HaTefillah ba-Mizrach uva-Ma’ariv (Jerusalem, 1998); Stefan Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1995).
[2] D. Yitzhaki ed., Luach Eresh, Otzoranu (Toronto, 2001). This edition includes other works related to R. Emden’s work as well. While both of these speak to the Ashkenaz Rite (more correctly the Ashkenaz-Polish Rite) there has also been a renewed interest in the Nusach Sefard Rite (the Hassidic not to be confused with those who originated in the Eastern countries) as well. Some of these early prayer books have been republished including Y. Koppel, Kol Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 2005-2006); Siddur Admor HaZakan, Kehot (Brooklyn, 2005). There has also been a critical edition of the Siddur haAriZal published as well, Siddur ha-Ari, ed. Daniel Rimmer (Betar, 2004).
[3] On the import of this edition see S. Reif, Shabbetai Sofer and his Prayer-book (Cambridge University Press, 1979); Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer, ed. Yitzhak Satz, vol. 1 (Baltimore, 1987): 7-10 (all citations to the Siddur R. Shabbetai are to this edition).
[4] There is one exception – the Lisbon 1490 (?) Teffilot m’Kol HaShana. In this edition these two words have a komatz. This appears to be in error. This error is based upon the use of the verse in Daniel 11 which has the word yisgadal with a komatz. But, the only reason for the komatz there is due to its placement in that verse, at the end. Shabbetai Sofer records that this error continued to his day. He says “one should not pronounce the word with a komatz like I heard one incorrect hazzan do, perhaps [this hazzan] did so due to the verse in Daniel, but the hazzan was unaware that the reason it was punctuated with a komatz was because it was at the end of the verse.” Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83.
[5] Non-paginated, appearing on the Hebrew University copy (which I have used for the other citations and all are available online) at page 10 (all page citations are to the “page” the relevant quote appears in the online version).
[6] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 10. Only the second word – v’yisgadash is punctuated (with a patach) in this edition. Yet, there is no reason to assume the first word would be punctuated in a different manner.
[7] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 196.
[8] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 2.
[9] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 13.
[10] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 55.
[11] Additionally the following twenty-four machzorim or siddurim use the patach: 1490 Napoli, Seder Teffilot; 1503 Fano, Machzor; 1526, Venice Machzor k’Minhag Roma; 1527, Venice, Machzor k’Minhag Aram Soba, 1527 Prague; 1527 Pissarro; 1528 Constantinople, Seder k’Nusach Romania, 1530 Prague; 1532 Constantinople, Machzor l’Rosh HaShana v’Yom Kippur k’Minhag Sefardim; 1551 Lublin; 1562 Mantua, Teffilot m’Kol HaShana; 1566 Lublin; 1567 Lublin; 1584 Venice Machzor; 1585 Cracow Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1598 Venice, Machzor; 1601, Venice, Seder Teffilot k’Minhag K’K Sefard; 1608, Hanau, Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1623, Hanau; 1647, Amsterdam, Teffilot; 1661, Amsterdam, Seder Teffilot Sefardim; 1699/1700, Venice, Machzor Hadrat Kodesh; 1713, Berlin, Teffilah Derekh Si’ah ha-Sadeh; 1727, Amsterdam, Siddur HaShelah. As is apparent, the use of the patach is not dependent upon custom – sefard versus ashkenaz – or geographic location.
[12] R. Sofer lived from c. 1565-1637. His death date reflects the find in the Jewish Theological Seminary library of a manuscript of R. Sofer’s defense of R. David Kimhi’s Sefer HaShorashim which R. Sofer notes was completed in 1637. Reif, in his work on R. Sofer had dated R. Sofer’s death as 1635. R. Sofer’s siddur was first published in 1617 in Prague although nothing remains of this edition. The current edition was published from a manuscript.
[13] Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83.
[14] Idem.
[15] See Rief, op. cit., at p. 29-38 discussing considerations in punctuating the siddur.
[16] R. Sofer’s student, R. Hayim Bokhner also defends the use of a patach even though he also considers the first two words of kaddish to be in Hebrew. See R. Hayim Bokhner, Or Hadash (Amsterdam, 1671): 46b. Specifically, R. Bokhner cites to the verse in Psalms 104:1 as a similar conjugation which contains a patach. On R. Bokhner see Yitzhak Yudolov, "HaGa’on Rebi Hayim Bukhner Z’tl Mehaber Sefer Or Hadash," in Birkat HaMazon l’Mh”r Shabbetai Sofer (2002): 274-276.
[17] This was noted by Hayim A. Cohen, “Yitgadal v’Yitkadash (Iyun b’Zemichat shel Mesorot HeGiyah Hadasha),” Mesorot 8 (1994): 59-69. While Cohen’s article contains some of the history of this change, he neglects some of the historical evidence and does not note what perverse consequences the changes have had on modern-day siddurim.
[18] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708).
[19] He was born in 1687.
[20] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708): 79b-80a. Hanau does not deal with R. Sofer. The reason for this omission is that in all likelihood he was unaware of R. Sofer’s comments. Instead, R. Hanau address the comments of R. Yitzhak b. Shmuel of Posen in his Siach Yitzhak. There, R. Yitzhak makes the claim the words in kaddish should be punctuated with a patach.
[21] See id.
[22] First published (Jessnitz, 1725).
[23] Also published in Jessnitz that same year.
[24] This is contrary to the incorrect assertion in the Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh. They erroneously claim this comment appears in his Sha’ari Teffilah. This appears no where in the Sha’ari Teffilah. Instead, it seems the editor of this edition was unaware of R. Hanau’s siddur and thus was forced to locate any place they could attach as a source for R. Hanau.
[25] Bet Teffilah p. 29a.
[26] Idem., p. 40a.
[27] Idem.,at 21b.
[28] See non-paginated page which follows page 108 in his Binyan Shlomo.
[29] See David Yitzhaki’s Introduction to the Luach Eresh p. 26-66. While Yitzhaki is incorrect in some of his assertions – he is correct in that Hanau’s changes were viewed with distain by some. For more on this issue, see Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), chapter four, passim.
[30] This was later proved to be incorrect. The actual approbation was located and it appears that in fact R. Hanau did receive it. See Dukkes, Hakmei AH”V (1908): 55. This source appears to have escaped the notice of Jacob J. Schacter; see his introduction to the new edition of Luach Eresh (24), where he credits Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald’s 1954 biography with this find. Additionally, see Jordan Penkower, "Minhag and Massorah: On the Recent Ashkenazic Custom of Double Vocalization of Zekher Amalek," in Iyuni Mikra U’Parshanut 4 (1997): 127-128 [Hebrew], where he provides other examples of R. Emden’s over zealousness and questionable tactics in this debate. Yitzhaki, supra n. 29, appears to either have been unaware of Penkower’s article or chose to ignore it. Many of Penkower’s findings contradict Yitzhaki’s assertions.
[31] Prior to the discussion below, there is but one siddur which incorportates R. Hanau’s change. In the Altona 1826 edition of the Machzor edited by R. Meir Ganz, he changes kaddish as well as the other permutations to a tzeirei. R. Ganz in his introduction says he was careful with the grammar of the Machzor, however, he does not provide a source for this or any of his alterations.
[32] These include, inter alia, the change in the yehi ratzon following birkat ha-sachar from yashlet to tashlet.
[33] These siddurim also included some of the changes of R. Isaac Satanow, who will be discussed in more detail below. The inclusion of these changes has disturbed some. This is so, as these siddurim were considered the “gold standard” and the lack of deference towards precedent many found difficult to reconcile. Additionally, Heidenheim’s edition received the blessing of one of the great opponents toward change, R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer). In the Haredi press there has been some discussion on how to reconcile these seemingly incongruous events.
[34] See Seligmann Baer, Tosa’ot Hayyim, reprinted in R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eresh (2001), Kitzerat haOmer, pp. 497-500.
[35] It is noteworthy that Heidenhiem did not include this change in any of his editions of the siddur. While Heidenhiem did include other such alterations this one was apparently went too far.
[36] Misbetsot Zahav, no. 55. Although it is unclear why, R. Teomim only applies R. Hanau’s proposition for the first two words in the kaddish and not the complete kaddish as R. Hanau actually has it.
[37] See Satnow’s comments in his edition of the Kuzari (Berlin, 1795) p. 2, where he claims to have studied with R. Teomim. Additionally, many of Satanow’s books contain approbations from R. Teomim. While some of these are undoubtedly forgeries, there is no reason to assume they all are. On Satnow see Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature vol. 5, chap. 7, p.112 et. seq.; Fuenn, Kennest Yisrael, Vilna 1886, s.v. Yitzhak Satanow. For biographical information on R. Teomim see R. Tzvi Yehezkel Michelson, Toledot Yosef, in R. Teomim’s Sefer Notrikin (Bilguria, 1910 [Jerusalem, 1964; photomechanical reproduction]), non-paginated introduction.
[38] See his introduction to his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh especially Iggeret Shnei no. 6. R. Teomim provides to lists of recommended reading/teaching materials in his letters. The recommendation for R. Hanau’s book only appears in the second listing.
[39] First printed (Berlin, 1733). It seems the famed town of Volozhin had as their single book of Hebrew grammar present in the Beit Medrash, this work of R. Hanau. See Gershon David Hundert, “The Library of the Study Hall in Volozhin, 1762: Some Notes on the Basis of a Newly Discovered Manuscript,” Jewish History 14 (2000): 237.
[40] Id.
[41] See Mishna Berurah, 56:2; Sha’ar haTzion, id.
[42] It is unclear whether R. Teomim would have either followed this in practice. The siddur Hegyon Lev, ed. Eliezer Landshuth (Königsberg, 1845) which is based upon the comments of R. Teomim, does not alter the punctuation of the kaddish. While it is possible that Landshuth was either unaware or ignored the comments of R. Teomim, it is at least worthwhile to point out this incongruence.
[43] Perhaps it was to avoid his criticism that his approbation was removed from the 1857 and the 1858 editions. See Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Books of the Vilna Gaon (Jerusalem, 2003), #812, 814 (while Vinograd notes the missing approbation in the 1857 edition he neglects to mention it was missing in the 1858 edition as well).
[44] See Penkower, op. cit., at 85-87 discussing problems with the Ma’aseh Rav.
[45] The Gra never wrote or published his own edition of the siddur. Instead, the siddurim which purport to be that of the Gra are only attempting to reconstruct what they view what the Gra would have done had he in fact edited a siddur.
[46] Siddur Vilna (Jerusalem, 1994): 55 (kaddish), 107 (Shemoneh Esreh passage).
[47] Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1999): 45 (kaddish where the editor notes his change is based upon the Chofetz Hayyim and the Gra), p. 79 (shemoneh esreh), p. 297 (yisgadel v’yiskadesh with a patach).
[48] Yom Kippur Machzor with Commentary Adapted from the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, (New York, 2006): xxxv. The formulation of this custom is in and of itself problematic. One assumes that R. Soloveitchik did not alter kaddish due to the Maaseh Rav, but instead he followed the custom of his own father and grandfather.
[49] See, e.g., p. 18 (shemoneh esreh) and p. 464 (v’al ha’kol yisgadal v’yiskadah with a patach).
[50] There is no change to the Shemoneh Esereh or the other words in kaddish which contain the same grammatical structure.
[51] Ezor Eliyahu ‘al pe Nusach HaGra (Jerusalem, 1998): 216. Additionally, it bears noting that ArtScroll retains the correct punctuation utilizing a patach for kaddish.
[52] Isaac Satanow, Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah (Berlin, 1769): 21a,b. Satanow himself in his later work, Va’Yetar Yitshak (Vienna, 1815): 47- 48, advocates change to a tzeirei of the kaddish. He claims, contrary to R. Sofer, that there are three verses which illuminate this question of punctuation. While one, Daniel 11:36 points to the patach th ]]> Historical Oddities Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:16:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/18/The-Perils-of-Ignoring-Precedent-Alterations-in-the-Kaddish-Prayer Review: ספר קושיות (Rabbi Yaakov Stal) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/16/Review---Rabbi-Yaakov-Stal
Review: ספר קושיות (Rabbi Yaakov Stal)
By Rabbi Eliezer Brodt
Recently a new sefer hit the stores called ספר קושיות. The publisher, Rabbi Yaakov Stal, is well known, having already established his name with his editions of two seforim by ר' יהודה החסיד one called ספר גימטריאות and another called אמרות טהורות חיצוניות ופנימיות. Like his previous works, once again he has done a great job. I would like to discuss his latest book a bit.

While Rabbi Stal was working on his various projects a friend introduced him to a recently discovered manuscript which was in the form of questions and answers. His interest raised, he immediately began working on editing it for print. Unfortunately, when he was close to finishing the sefer, another more complete manuscript was found forcing him to go through the whole volume again comparing, correcting, and adding the additions. (A third manuscript has been located, but he was not able to see it as it resides in a private collection). The result of all this labor is this beautiful sefer titled ספר קושיות.

The author of the קושיות is unknown, but based on various ways of identifications he seems to be from the time period of the תלמידים of the מהר"ם מרוטנברג thus dating the book to approximately the 14th century. The way this was deduced was by examining which works the author quotes. Not finding any quotes later than the רא"ש, it can be assumed that the author is from the same era. Along these lines, Rabbi Stal composed a list of all sources quoted by name thereby showing that the author had been heavily influenced by חסידי אשכנז, thus giving the reader yet another clue as to the identification of the author

The idea of the sefer, in short, is explanations of accepted halakhot and minhagim as well as various מדרשים ואגדות. These explanations are all posed in the form of questions and answers. Some of the answers are very simple; straightforward quotes from the Gemara; others are more interesting, questions that no one else discusses. The range of topics is amazing; there are 392 questions and answers some of the 392 topics include a few parts. The topics are about many areas such as תפילה, שבת יום טוב, קבורה, מילה and נישואין.

While some of the topics the author does not add much to what has already been said by earlier sources, many times he adds interesting points. There are also many things that Rabbi Stal could not find any similar sources to (I will give examples soon). All in all, this sefer is very interesting and easy to go through, many of the topics are things many people are curious about. The sefer comes included with an extensive index; with just a quick perusal one is appraised to the many interesting topic there are in the sefer.

I would like to give a partial list of some of the things found in this volume; just to give one a taste of this wonderful work.

First, in the area of מנהגים that we have other sources for include: wearing white on שבת (pg 24), covering the knife during ברכת המזון (pg 73), how many נרות one should light ליל שבת (pg 85), candles by the חתונה (pg 209), the order how one should cut his fingernails (pg 130) and burning the לולב with the חמץ (pg 168).

Second, topics that, as of now, this sefer is the only source for include: hitting the עדים during the קידושין (pg 8), putting ashes on ones head ערב תשעה באב (pg 136), signs how to tell if an animal is כשר (pg 190), that a חתן should not go to the בית הקברות during שנה ראשונה (pg 206) and if one is sitting in the bathroom and hears someone learning he has to cover his ears (pg 221).

In other areas there are many gems of great interest such as אברהם was מגייר הגר before marrying her (pg 270). Another point of interest is a discussion of the sources for the names of the months (pg 75-79). (I really would like to include much more but I want to save some of these gems for the reader to see himself.)

The footnotes are beautiful; Rabbi Stal attempts to reference almost everything relevant to the topic discussed in the body of the text. He provides the בעל הקושיות sources, and expounds on what the בעל הקושיות is trying to add. He includes all the cross-references in חז"ל through the help of the Bar Ilan Responsa program (which he uses expertly). He also cross-references all the ראשונים who deal with these topics; here we can see Rabbi Stal's great knowledge and בקיאות in many ראשונים not searchable on any computer program to date. One can only find this by going through these seforim and indexing the מציאות as he finds them. He does the same with theפיוטים and נוסחות התפילה quoted by the author; all annotated against the best editions printed to date. Aside from this, Rabbi Stal has beautiful discussions on many topics, such as whether persons in גיהנם rest only on שבת or on Yom Tov as well, (pg 59), why the תפילה והוא רחום was written (pg 27-31) and why one should use הדסים for בשמים (pg 38).

Another point of interest worth mentioning are the many nice points provided from Prof. Simcha Emanuael, a recognized authority in the field of unknown manuscripts. Many of these points are from otherwise unknown sources in manuscripts.

It is often stated that it's much easier to criticize someone else's efforts rather than doing so oneself. Further, in this case critique was particularly difficult, as (Full Disclosure:) Rabbi Stal is also a good friend. Still, I would like to point out two issues with his work on this sefer.

A point I feel lacking is that while at times he does the reader the favor of referencing articles on the topics that the ספר קושיות discusses, many times, however, he failed to reference relevant articles. For example, when discussing the topic of fasting during אלול he quotes extensively from the classic article of Professor יעקב גרטנר (pg 49) but when talking about the מנהג of throwing wheat on theחתן (pg 174) he fails to mention the extensive article by ר' בנימן המברגר in שרשי מנהג אשכנז (volume 3, pp. 392-429). There are two answers why Rabbi Stal did not quote this article. One, unfortunately when he works he does not have all his seforim in front of him. Two, had he quoted all of the interesting sources on each topic, this sefer would have been 1000 pages long, so he had to cut down the sources. This leads me to the next criticism; the length of the notes.

While talking with ר' שמואל אשכנזי regarding this sefer he mentioned the following point. The footnotes although they are good and very interesting many times the same exact thing could have been written shorter. He said that we find this ability to write in an exact way was very hard even many ראשונים did not have this ability such as ר' שמואל בן חפני גאון הר"י ברצלנוני and the אברבאנאל. The most famous person who excelled at writing very little and including everything in his words was רש"י. The main reason why Rabbi Stal did not do such is simple editing takes a lot of time (more time than writing lengthier) which he wants to use to put out more works. So in the end, the lengthy footnotes could have been better served by including more material but at the same time careful editing.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Customs Book Reviews Bibliographies Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:56:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/16/Review---Rabbi-Yaakov-Stal Yigdal: A Case Study in Modern Customology http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/14/Yigdal-A-Case-Study-in-Modern-Customology
Yigdal: A Case Study in Modern Customology
by Dan Rabinowitz

Another blog recently raised the question was raised about the origin of saying Yigdal at the end of services on Friday night. Specifically, they wanted to demonstrate that this custom is not a “modern” or “Young Israel” custom and instead was very old. Although in practice today, this view is perhaps the prevalent custom, with most yeshivot and similar minyanim not reciting this and Young Israel and those similar do. In an attempt to refute this, the Hertz siddur was marshaled as Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz records that in 1722 in England they said Yigdal Friday night, thus, according to that post, the custom is old.

While the above provides a basic introduction, this topic, and that of Yigdal in general, deserves a great explication.

First, we should establish when people said Yigdal on Friday night, to do so we should check early siddurim. Today this is fairly easy via the JNUL’s digital project where they have online numerous early siddurim. The earliest I have located this was in the 1486 edition of the siddur, and then in just about every subsequent edition of the siddur, Yigdal appears at the end of Friday night prayers. This is the case irrespective of the nusach. So it would appear historically, at least from the late 15th century on, the almost universal custom was to say Yigdal Friday night. [This is not to say the recitation Friday night is the only custom, in fact there are others, but merely to point out the custom of reciting Yigdal on Friday night has a clear precedent.]

We now must turn to see if there are other issues with the recitation of Yigdal which would label it as “modern.” Admittedly in this search we are somewhat handicapped in that we don’t know what would qualify as a “modern” or as some refer to it “Young Israel” custom, thus, we are forced to utilized gross generalizations, which unfortunately may not be the exact definition of “modern.” Perhaps, as the study of Hebrew grammar has been referred to by some as “modern” it is an emphasis upon grammar which makes Yigdal “modern.” This, however, is not borne out by the commentaries. R. Yitzhak Satanow, in both his earlier work on prayer – Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah – and his later and more comprehensive work – V’etar Yitzhak decries the grammar in Yigdal. He notes that Yigdal, among other Hebrew poems, uses incorrect grammar to satisfy the meter of the poem. R. Shelomoh Zalman Hanau also makes the same point. So it would appear there is not an overemphasis on grammar, rather the opposite is the case, it actually presents some grammatical problems.

R. Jacob Emden disapproves of Yigdal because it makes it seem that there are only thirteen requirements to Judaism, while in fact there are many, many others. While this may be an issue with Yigdal it would equally be a problem with reciting the Ani Ma'amin prayer which many do at the end of the daily prayers. Additionally, this does not speak to the specific question at hand – reciting Yigdal on Friday night. Even though many do not say Yigdal Friday night, and in some siddurim today it does not appear there, many still include it as part of the morning prayers. Again, it appears this would not be the issue with the Friday night recitation.

Now, we must turn to the authorship of Yigdal. For many years it was an open question who actually authored Yigdal. As there is no clear acrostic it was difficult to prove conclusively who was the author. Some said since it is based upon Maimonides’s formulation of the Thirteen Principles of Faith he must also be the author. Others said it was R. Yehiel b. Barukh. They argued his name appears in the last verse of Yigdal – יחי אל and "ברוך" עדי עד. The first option is somewhat problematic for two reasons. The first, is that although the Maimonides did formulate Thirteen Principles that does not mean he then wrote every single thing about them which followed. In fact Yigdal is not the only poem to use the Rambam’s principles – there are about ninety-one some poems which utilize the Rambam’s principles. Second, at first glance it appears that one of the principles is actually missing from Yigdal. The one which does not appear is that one can only pray to God and to nothing else. But, this has been solved by noting there is in all likelihood a very small error in the text of Yigdal. Two very similar letters – the Resh and the Daled – have been switched. Instead of יורה למכותו it should read יודה למלכותו.

In the 19th century, R. Samuel David Luzzatto (“Shadal”) claimed to have discovered the real author of Yigdal. He did so based upon two manuscripts he called attention to. These state that ר' דניאל בן יהודה הדיין was סדר Yigdal. Thus, we now have explict evidence of who was the author – we have a author byline as it was.

Although this would have appeared to settle the issue, it did not. Soon after, Shadal’s thesis was challenged and instead another person was claimed to be the true author of Yigdal – Immanuel b. Isaac of Rome. The basis for this assertion was Immanuel has a similar poem to Yigdal which actually contains the word Yigdal and then continues to go through the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Additionally, Immanuel’s name can be found in Yigdal – לעמו אל.

But what to do with the manuscript Shadal found which explicitly states it was not Immanuel but instead Daniel b. Yehudah? According to those who espouse Immanuel as the author, they note the word is not חיבר – authored- but instead סדר – which typically means edited.

Now if in fact Immanuel did author Yigdal it would be somewhat understandable why some may take issue with Yigdal. The Yigdal corollary appears in Immanuel’s Machberet, which also contains some risqué poems. This was offensive to some and R. Yosef Karo actually mentions this book by name, a somewhat unusual occurrence in his Shulhan Arukh, and says one should not read it on the Shabbat.

Nevertheless, it appears the consensus on the authorship of Yigdal follows Shadal and declines to read סדר as edited. So we are left with a rather innocuous author of Yigdal. So, on its face it seems there is nothing which leads to the conclusion that Yigdal is a “modern” custom. Instead, in all likelihood the reason that some do not say Yigdal is not due it modernity but rather due to a modern concern. This concern is that of the 16th century Kabbalist, R. Isaac Luria, ("Ari"). The Ari states that certain poems were written without the necessary kabbalistic intent and therefore they should not be recited – Yigdal is one of them. Thus, it would seem that this modern concern is why some have stopped saying Yigdal on Friday night.

Sources: As mentioned above, one can see the siddurim which include Yigdal Friday night at the David and Fela Shapell Family Digitization Project at the Jewish National and University Library; Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah (Berlin, 1772): 7b-8a; Y. Satanow, V’etar Yitzhak (Vienna, 1815): 9; Landshuth, Amudei Avodah (Berlin 1857): 101; D. Oppenheim, “Ha’arot ve-Heherot ‘al Shir Yigdal v’Yud Gimel Ikkarim,” in HaMaggid 11:21 (29th May 1867): Immanuel of Rome, Machbarot, Steinschneider ed. (Lemberg, 1870): 39, end of the fourth section; Samuel David Luzzatto, Mevo l’Machzor Beni Roma, p. 44; Reifmann, Michtavim, in HaKarmel, Shana Bet, 103-04, 165-66; Hartwig Hirschfeld, "Immanuel of Rome and Other Poets on the Jewish Creed," Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 5:4 (April, 1915): 529-542; idem., “The Author of the Yigdal Hymn,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 11:1 (July, 1920): 86-88; Alexander Marx, “A List of Poems on the Articles of the Creed,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 9:3-4 (January, 1919): 305-36; Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), 327; Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, pp. 17-20.

]]> Customs Relating to Siddur Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/14/Yigdal-A-Case-Study-in-Modern-Customology Simchat ha-Nefesh: An Important But Often Ignored Work on German Jewish Customs http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/4/Simchat-haNefesh-An-Important-But-Often-Ignored-Work-on-German-Jewish-Customs
Simchat ha-Nefesh:
An Important But Often Ignored Work on German Jewish Customs
By Eliezer Brodt

While doing research for a forthcoming article on the topic of saying דרשות at wedding celebrations, I kept noticing secondary sources citing to the work שמחת הנפש. Yet, after obtaining many editions of the שמחת הנפש I was still unable to locate the quotes regarding wedding speeches! After a while, I came across a citation to a specific edition of the שמחת הנפש and came to the realization that there was a second volume to this title, one that is very rare, and has only reprinted once. While the first volume was reprinted numerous times, it was this second volume of שמחת הנפש that contained the information I needed. It was in 1926 that Professor Yaakov Shatsky published an edition of שמחת הנפש which includes this second section and thus I was finally found the elusive source!

The question remained, though, as to why this source was not in all the other editions that I had looked at; in order to understand why, a discussion of שמחת הנפש is warranted.

The author of the שמחת הנפש was ר' אלחנן קירכהן – son-in-law of the famous author of קב הישר, R. Tzvi Hirsch Kaidanov – was born in 1666 in קירכהן (hence his surname) which is not far from Hamburg. ר' אלחנן קירכהן was a quite a Talmid Hakham and is evident from his sefer and correspondences with many גדולים of his time such as ר' יהונתן אייבשיץ. (See בינה לעתים הלכות יום טוב פרק א הלכה כג ; שמחת הנפש, ירושלים, תשנ"ט Introduction, pp. 31-32 ; כל בו על אבילות .עמוד 200-201)

ר' אלחנן קירכהן wrote seforim on many topics, but only one of his other seforim, חידושים מספר (see שמחת הנפש, Shatsky ed., 1926, pp. 29-30.), was published and the others still remain in manuscript. It seems from his writings that he was a professional darshan. It is also clear that he traveled all over Europe, as throughout the sefer, he gives accounts of his travels. In 1707, he printed anonymously the first two parts of what would ultimately become his famous work, שמחת הנפש. The first two parts were printed many times in many places, while the third part, the one printed in 1727, was printed only once. (See Shatsky’s introduction, especially pp. 23-28, where there is an extensive bibliography of the exact printings. See אוצר הספרים לבן יעקב ; עמוד 594 אות 864.)

It is this mysterious third part, which is very rare; indeed, few copies exist in libraries worldwide. In 1926, however, it was reprinted by Professor Yaakov Shatsky in a facsimile edition.

Many important personages praised שמחת הנפש. For example, ר' יהונתן אייבשיץ (in his יערות דבש, א, דרוש יב, באמצע), strongly praise the שמחת הנפש ;ר' יוסף מאיר אב"ד האנובר in his הסכמה writes that one could פסקן from this sefer, a point we will return to later! (הסכמה למהודרא פירדא תפז); the חתם סופר also spoke very highly of the sefer, (הסכמה של ר' שמעון סופר למהדורת פאקש תרנט, Intro to the ירושלים edition pg 36-37.)

ר' שמען סופר writes that his father, the כתב סופר, used to learn theשמחת הנפש on שבת with his sister. He also writes that within the copy of the שמחת הנפש of his grandfather, ר' עקיבא איגר, he had seen comments in the sefer. Interestingly enough, we find that ר' עקיבא איגר quotes from the sefer in his notes שלחן ערוך גליון רע"א סי' תרצו סעיף ד. The sefer was among the list of seforim in the library of ר' פנחס קאטצענאליבויגען. (See יש מנחלין עמוד נ אות קכב; and Dan's post Ghosts, Demons, Golems and their Halachik Status about ר' פנחס קאטצענאליבויגען.) In 1898, in Faux, Hungary, at the suggestion of ר' שמעון סופר, a copy of שמחת הנפש was reprinted with a פירוש by ר' יהודה קרויס. For other examples of those praising the שמחת הנפש, see the introduction to the most recent edition by ר' שמואל לוריא.

שמחת הנפש was extremely popular amongst the general populace as is evident from the fact that it was reprinted throughout Europe at least twenty-eight times. Even the most recent edition (a Hebrew translation) was reprinted just a year later. What is so exceptional about the sefer? I believe that the answer lies in the way it was written. With its very captivating and down-to-earth language, the sefer speaks to the reader in a clear manner and keeps one interested using many stories and parables (seeתולדות ספרות ישראל עמוד 103-108.) In addition, שמחת הנפש was an excellent halakhic guide for the masses for regular day-to-day situations.

Unfortunately as with many of our seforim, at one point this book was banned, and even, according to some, burnt. Zinberg explains that the reason it was burnt was because at the end of the first volume, there is a second part containing halakhot, about which the printer wrote in the shar blatt “שלחן ערוך, אורח חיים ויורה דעה ומנהגים של כל השנה." People felt it was dangerous to give a sefer which allowed the masses to easily find the law (תולדות ספרות ישראל,ד, עמוד 107 ; ספר וסייף, עמוד174-176). This was despite the fact, as mentioned previously, thatר' יוסף מאיר אב"ד האנובר says in his הסכמה to the sefer, that one couldפסקן from the sefer, and despite the fact that ר' עקיבא איגר actually did פסקן from it. However, after this one incident, there is no indication of any other strong opposition as is self evident from the amount of subsequent printings.

As mentioned previously, שמחת הנפש is composed of three volumes. The author lists the contents of his sefer on the title page. Amongst them are: (1) מוסר and תוכחה with many משלים ומעשיות; (2) Proofs of why one should not get upset about anything, as everything that happens is from G-d and for ones benefit; (3) Proof of the existence of the נשמה; (4) The הלכות of the whole year including הלכות for woman on חלה ונדה (this was the second part of the first volume). In his introduction he adds that he wrote the part of הלכות because there are many places where people do not haveרבנים to ask there questions to. So he included the הלכות so everyone could now what to do. He even writes that one could rely on it not like other seforim that have many mistakes. (This is in contrast to many Halakha seforim where the author writes “do not rely on me.”) This last part stating that one could rely upon the sefer, however, was not reprinted in all the editions of the sefer. In the introduction he writes even more clearly the goal of the sefer:
“I prove that one does not have to worry I give many solutions to deal with pain… I show that the נשמה is created to serve g-d. With this I have included all the דינים, so one should know how to serve him. All that you do should be with שמחה therefore I called the sefer שמחת הנפש.”
In 1727 he wrote a third part which (called part two). This part consists of הלכות ומוסר in the form of songs for שבת, יום נוראים, סוכות, פסח, חנוכה, פורים, חתונה, מילה, וכל השנה. He even included the musical notes for the songs. The inclusion of musical notes was an innovative method of giving mussar. The author’s goal was to reach the masses, even the people who lived in the villages he had visited and had seen that they were negligent in many of the areas discussed in the sefer.

שמחת הנפש, is a practical, down to earth book. We can see this through many points mentioned in the sefer such as: when doing תשובה , one should do it slowly and not be too hard on oneself with excessive fasting (ירושלים ed., p. 154); don’t hit a child before age four (Idem at p. 175); a recurring theme throughout the book is the author comforting people who lost children (Idem at pp. 27,28,30,55,62), which was a common occurrence in those days. The author mentions that he himself also lost a child (Idem at p. 47). שמחת הנפש contains many interesting topics, such asנשמות, ניסים , andשדים . The sefer is full of interesting stories about these topics, some of which the author was eyewitness to or was actually involved in. For example, in the chapter on demons, the author writes that he personally saw a boy of three speaking about concepts of Torah and Kabbalah that he didn’t understand (Idem at p. 52). He also mentions that when he was in Poland, there was a woman whose children were killed by a demon (Idem at p. 53). Also mentioned in שמחת הנפש is the famous legend that when the רמב"ם died, his ארון traveled to ארץ ישראלby itself (Idem at p.106). [For more on this legend see ספר יוחסין עמ' 220;שלשלת הקבלה עמ' ק ;במאבק על ערכה של תורה עמ' 246;אגרת ארץ ישראל (יערי) עמ' 302;ארשת חלק ו עמ' 63]

The book quotes from a wide range of sources: חז"ל, ראשונים, ספרי קבלה, and many interesting seforim such as: צרי היגן, שבט מיהודה, נשמת חיים, מקוה ישראל, מסעות ר' בנימן and many others. It is evident that the author must have had access to an unusually extensive library for his time.

שמחת הנפש is a pretty much untapped wellspring of מנהגים of Germany. The reader can also get a clear picture of life in those times, especially in the small villages. As the author traveled, he wrote מוסר based on what he felt the people he met on his travels were lax in.

One of the first people who tapped into this source was Zinberg (תולדות ספרות ישראל חלק ד עמ' ,144-146,102-110). After that, Professor Simcha Assaf quotes the שמחת הנפש once in his masterpiece, (מקורות לתולדות החינוך בישראל, א, עמוד 164-165). Professor Yaakov Shatsky printed his edition after that. After Professor Shatsky,אברהם יערי used it a few times in his classic work תולדות חג שמחת תורה (pp. 320, 328, 378, 465, 476, 505). Then Professor Jacob Rader Marcus introduced it to Herman Pollack who quotes from it extensively in his book, “Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands,” as a quick look in the Pollack’s book and its footnotes will show. Despite this, today the שמחת הנפש is a pretty much unknown book in the field, with the exception of Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger, who uses it as a source in his books on minhagim. To the extent that Professor Zev Gris in his book ספרות ההנהגות which is devoted to the topic of the seforim of מוסר והנהגות and their impact, does not even mention it. But later on, it seems that the book was brought to his attention. He discusses the שמחת הנפש in a later book of his, called הספר כסוכן תרבות (pp. 58, 69, 96). In his analysis of Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling, Leo Landman refers to שמחת הנפש as he writes:
"A seventeenth century German moralist complained bitterly about some professional gamblers who would pawn their Talit and Tefillen or their Arba Kanfot in order to raise money for gaming."
See his "Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling the Professional and Compulsive Gambler," Jewish Quarterly Review 57:4 (April, 1967): 311.

Some interesting samples of מנהגים and daily life that are mentioned in the sefer are: saying יגדל every day ירושלים) ed., p. 89), dinnim of זכר לחורבןsuch as leaving a spot in the house unpainted (Idem at pp. 75,123), חתן and כלה fasting on the day of their chupah (Idem at p. 174). The reader is able to see from the book which areas people were negligent in. For example: they were not careful about shaving with a razor (Idem at p. 94), and people used to play cards all night (Idem at p. 121). The author describes how the people dealt harshly with each other in business matters (Idem at p. 149). He speaks againstחזנים that do not understand what they’re davening and says that this is a cause for the long galus (Idem at pp. 153-154). Interestingly, he writes that parents sent their kids to dance school (Idem at p. 122).

All of the above is in the first part of volume one. The following are examples from the second part of the volume which is, in a sense, a complete handbook on אורח חיים andיורה דעה . When the author talks about ראש השנה, he says, “we do not sleep onראש השנה, rather we learn the whole day but it’s worse not to sleep and talk".דברים בטלים (See הלכות ראש השנה עמוד נח סוף העמוד.)

He also includes an extensive chapter on תחומין as it seems many villages were lax in this area (See “Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands,” p. 323 note 104; ירושלים ed., pp. 30-31). In the third part, (called volume two) which is written in song, as previously mentioned, the author speaks against women that drank excessive amounts of alcohol at wedding and בריתי מילה (vol. two, p. 18). People in the villages children dealt with the farm animal’s onשבת (see תולדות ספרות ישראל עמוד 145), and people wrote מגלת אסתר on paper (Idem).

One topic which is dealt with throughout the sefer is tznius. The author goes so far as to say that the reason why many Jews died in ת"ח ות"ט and other גזירות was because of lack of tznius (ירושלים ed., pp. 64, 124). Examples of tznius the people of his times were lax in include: men and women who weren’t married to each other danced together in public, some women were very involved in dressing in order to be attractive to men. In contrast to all this, the author was told that in Turkey, the people were so careful with tznius that men hardly ever saw women. Women didn’t go to shul, and when guests stayed in someone’s house, the man of the house didn’t allow his wife and daughters to see the guests (Idem at p. 64).

Another issue the author takes a strong stance was the education system. In the first part of the sefer, he recommends that when starting to teach children to learn, you ought to begin with תנ"ך and דקדוק. Only after that should one continue on to משנה and גמרא. That’s the only way people will have success in learning. He states that many people leave the field of learning at a young age, and because they don’t know the basics of תנ"ך and דקדוק, they can’t understand the tefillos they say daily. To quote the sefer, “I’m writing this in German so that everyone can understand, especially women who are busy with child raising. The women should not think that their sons have to learn גמרא at an early age. The מהר"ל and others already said that one should first learn תנ"ך, then דקדוק, and only then move on to משנה and גמרא.” He repeats this in the third part of the sefer, in short, where he mentions that people only teach their children גמרא and not תנ"ך. (See מהדורת תפז עמוד יח. Professor Simcha Assaf in מקורות לתולדות חינוך בישראל only quotes the last source on education.)

In conclusion, the שמחת הנפש is a truly unique sefer. The first part of שמחת הנפש was translated but it could use much more extensive notes. It would be very worthwhile for someone to undertake to translate all three parts of the sefer with extensive footnotes, as was recently done to Gluckel von Hameln.

Many editions of the שמחת הנפש is available online here, including the first - the 1707 edition as well as the rare 1727 edition. Aside from שמחת הנפש the site, from the Frankfurt University Library, contains over 700 Yiddish prints, all free.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Out-of-Print Seforim Customs Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:38:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/4/Simchat-haNefesh-An-Important-But-Often-Ignored-Work-on-German-Jewish-Customs A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz's New Journal: Yerushateinu http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/3/A-Look-at-Makhon-Moreshet-Ashkenazs-New-Journal-Yerushateinu
A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz’s New Journal: Yerushateinu
By Eliezer Brodt

There is a new journal published by מכון מורשת אשכנז titled ירושתנו. This מכון is well known for producing some excellent works, amongst them זכרונות ומסורות על החת"ם סופר and the four volumes ofשרשי מנהג אשכנז . This journal they promise to put out once a year but only time will tell, as anyone familiar with this מכון knows; they do great work but it takes forever for the seforim to come out. Many reasons have been given as to why that is so (money amongst them) however, the main reason I feel is because they strive for perfection – which is the biggest mistake many make as the משנה in אבות says לא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

With this in mind I would like to review this work (not in-depth so as to keep your interest). There are articles on all topics – basically whatever your interest you’re sure to find something there.

This sefer has about thirty articles including many articles which include hereto unpublished Torah from the great גדולים of אשכנז.

Amongst them from the בעל חינוך בית יהודא ,ערוך לנר ,רב הירש ,רב עזריאל הילדסהימר ,ר' יונה מרצבך and ר' דוד הקשר. There is an in-depth discussion as to the שיעור מיל according to the קליר between ר' יצחק אדלר and ר' יונה מרצבך. For those interested in poetry there is a great piece from the מהר"ם מרוטנברג on חנוכה which includes many interesting things about חנוכה. There is another article on the זמר of דרור יקרא and a piece on שירה during davening in general.

There are a few articles on contemporary halakhic issues such as הגעלת כלים from the בעל שמירת שבת כהלכתה and on יארצהייט when it’s a leap year.

Besides this there are about six articles on מנהגים all of the articles just whet one’s appetite – leaving one feeling that suddenly they took the משנה of שלא עליך המלאכה לגמור too far. For instance, one article discusses the custom of waiting between milk and meat is an extreme example of having too little information. I and many others were waiting for an exhaustive article on the topic – this is not it. Even the article from the generally great ר' בנימן שלמה המבורגר (the author of the works שרשי מנהג אשכנז), discussing קדיש after קריאת התורה, leaves us feeling teased. We are used to much more from such an expert on מנהגים. He probably wants to save it for his own works שרשי מנהג אשכנז - which we are anyway long overdue for another one.

There are, however a few stand out articles. There is an important article from Professor יעקב שפיגל, whose articles and books are consistently excellent, discussing the בית יוסף’s usage of ראשונים - specifically which editions the בית יוסף had in front of him. שפיגל covers, among others, the שבלי הלקט and the sefer אגור. This is very important in fully understanding the בית יוסף in general and his sources.

After שפיגל’s article there is a much talked about article from ר' מרדכי הוניג. This article is a review of a recent printing of the ספר חסידים החדש from the nephew of the רא"ש, sometimes referred to as the ספר המשכיל. This sefer has many many interesting things on many topics many of whichר' הוניג is kind enough to point out – he has extensive comments from a wide range of sources. One can only hope that one day he puts out this sefer with all his notes and the many more I am sure he could have put in this article of 45 pages. Perhaps he was keeping with the above themeלא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

After that there is an article, from ר' יחיאל גולדהבר, on ר' עזריאל הילדסהיימר during his time in אייזנשטט. Although the article is good, it appears he missed out on one important source from ר' עזריאל הילדסהיימר’s daughter all about her father. See Gertrude Hirschler and Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Esther Hildesheimer Calvary: The Hildesheimers in Eisenstadt,” Tradition 26:3 (1992): 87-92.

After that there is an extensive article on the life of ר' יוסף אלטמאן including many items from rare German newspapers.

The articles conclude with a short piece from ר' אברהם סולומון about a future edition of דברי קהלת from שלמה גייגר that he plans on publishing. דברי קהלת is, of course, an extremely important source for מנהגים and anyone familiar with the sefer will definitely understand the great necessity for such a job as it’s a very hard sefer to use but one could only hope that the authors dream comes true and he is able to put out the work as he intends to.

Finally, the inaugural issue of ירושתנו also includes a לוח השנה של מנהגי בית הכנסת לבני אשכנז בארץ ישראל and two articles in English.

]]> Eliezer Brodt Book Reviews Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:12:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/1/3/A-Look-at-Makhon-Moreshet-Ashkenazs-New-Journal-Yerushateinu Who Wrote the Mekore Minhagim? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/28/Who-Wrote-the-Mekore-Minhagim
As I have previously discussed, there is a well known work on the sources and rationale for various customs titled Mekore Minhagim. Indeed, there are two works with that very same title – by two different authors – that cover the same material. The question is which author stole from the other? I hope that I can clear this up as there still appears to be a misconception about who is the plagiarizer.

First, a brief history about prior attempts to decipher who is the real author of Mekore Minhagim is in order. As I noted in my original post, the first edition of the sefer to come out was published in Berlin in 1846 with the author listed as R. Avrohom Lewysohn (1805-1861). That edition contained 100 questions and explanation about various customs. Then, in 1851, R. Yosef Finkelstein published under the same title a work with the very same information, but that contained only 41 of the 100 questions and explanations from the work published in 1846. Almost immediately, it was claimed that Finkelstein had plagiarized his work from Lewysohn. And if one had to guess – absent any additional information –it would appear that this is the case simply because Lewysohn's work came out first; that is, unless Lewysohn could have read Finkelstein's mind, the latter must be the plagiarizer.

But, this is not a simple case. Instead, the appearance of the plagiarism claims in a German periodical did not settle the issue. Thus, R. Lewysohn's brother, Yehudah Leib Lewysohn, a Rabbi in Stockholm, after seeing Finkelstein's name mentioned in a different capacity in the journal ha-Maggid, again pointed out that Finkelstein had plagiarized Mekore Minhagim from Lewysohn. R. Y.L. Lewysohn gave a run down of the controversy and included the fact that, eventually, the dispute was taken to court, which ultimately concluded that Finkelstein had plagiarized from Lewysohn. But, it seems that Finkelstein had someone swear on his behalf that he was indeed the author.

After R. Y.L. Lewysohn published that account, including the court case coverage, Finkelstein himself answered the charge in a later issue of ha-Maggid. Finkelstein claimed that he was indeed the author and Lewysohn had stolen from him. But, how to account for the fact his sefer came out later? Finkelstein claimed that as he was traveling through Germany, he stayed with Lewysohn and eventually showed him his (Finkelstein's) manuscript of Mekore Minhagim. Lewysohn was extremely taken by this book. According to Finkelstein, Lewysohn must have copied his version and published it before Finkelstein was able to.

R. Y.L. Lewysohn responded – with a point by point rebuttal – that Finkelstein’s account was all untrue and challenged Finkelstein to go in front of a court again - but this never happened.

That is more or less a summary of the written record with respect to the controversy. So it seems there remains the possibility that Lewysohn did copy Finkelstein’s manuscript when they met in Berlin. And, in fact, many have come to Finkelstein's defense. For instance, R. Tzvi Efraim Babad in Der Yid has an article where he uses the ha-Maggid article to show that Finkelstein was indeed the author. In particular, it seems that R. Babad didn't like Lewysohn, as he was a German Rabbi and university educated, while Finkelstein was from a distinguished rabbinic Hungarian family. There is also an article in the latest Or Yisrael about this incident of plagiarism.

I think, however, that I can prove who the real author is. I can do so by using Finkelstein's own defense from ha-Maggid to demonstrate that he, in fact, is the plagiarizer. As is many times the case, he created the noose by which to hang himself.

Finkelstein, in his defense, states as follows:
When I was in Prague I wrote the work "Rivid ha-Zahav" which discusses the laws of ritual slaughter and checking for imperfection of the lungs. Many great Rabbis praised this work amongst them the famous Gaon R. [Shlomo] Yehuda Leib Rapoport and, because so many people liked it, the book sold out and I had to publish it again. After this I published another book "Tzafnas Panach" on blemishes in the lungs [of an animal].
He then continues and discusses the “Mekore Minhagim” and how Lewysohn got it:
When I traveled to Germany to sell my book I stayed with [R. Lewysohn] . . . when he saw my work the ‘Mekore Minhagim,’ which I wrote in 1839, he asked to look at it.
From there Finkelstein posits that Lewysohn eventually copied it and printed it as his own.

So, now, in order to see who is actually right, we need to see if R. Finkelstein's story works. The way to do this is to check the books that Finkelstein actually was selling. First, it is important to know that Finkelstein published three books aside from Mekore Minhagim. As mentioned above, he wrote Rivid ha-Zahav and Tzofnas Panach. In addition he published a book his father- in–law, R. Meir Avraham Csaba, wrote - Pri Tzadik. Pri Tzadik was published in 1839, Finkelstein’s first published work. Now, according to Finkelstein, in his response in ha-Maggid, he published Tzofnas Panach after he published Rivid ha-Zahav for the second time. So, that would make Tzofnas Panach the last book published. Also, according to Finkelstein there were two editions of Rivid ha-Zahav (these are the only editions of Rivid ha-Zahav) but when was Rivid ha-Zahav published? According to the title pages, one was published in Prague (1846) and the other in Ofen (1845). But, according to Finkelstein's own testimony, these dates must be wrong -- or at least one. The reason being, if you recall, is that Finkelstein said Rivid ha-Zahav was written in Prague and was praised by R. Rapoport -which you can see as there is an approbation from R. Rapoport. In particular, the first edition of Rivid ha-Zahav has this approbation according to Finkelstein's own words. But, the only edition which has this approbation is the one with 1846 on the title page and the approbation itself is even dated the 6th of Av 5606 (1846). That means that, although the other edition of Rivid ha-Zahav states was published in 1845, in fact, it was published after the 6th of Av 5606. Which also means that Tzofnas Panach was also published sometime after the second edition of Rivid ha-Zahav was published.[1]

Now, for Finkelstein's story to be true, he states that he was selling "his books" -"ספרי" that means his personal books. That means we can rule out Pri Tzadik as that was his father-in-law's book and Finkelstein wouldn't have called it "his." So when did he travel to Germany to sell his books and to which books did he refer? Well, let's take the earliest of his books - which according to what we have figured out - is the first edition of his Rivid ha-Zahav. That edition of the Rivid ha-Zahav had to have been published sometime after the 6th of Av, the time of the approbation. That doesn't leave that much time in the year 5606, being that Av is the second to last month in the Jewish calendar. But, let's say he had Rivid ha-Zahav published really fast and during the month of Av he was able to publish it and was already in Germany meeting up with Lewysohn. Well, and here comes the funny part, Lewysohn's introduction to Mekore Minhagim (which is copied in Finkelstein's as well) is dated 16th of Kislev 5606, which would be around December 1845. This, of course, means that if our calculations are correct and we take all of Finkelstein's story as true, Lewysohn wrote the introduction at least ten months before Finkelstein ever came to town to sell his then, unpublished, Rivid ha-Zahav. Which means Finkelstein is a liar.

Thus, it would appear that we can now conclude who is the plagiarizer – Finkelstein. And, the fact is that Lewysohn is the real author of Mekore Minhagim.

Note:
[1] There is another reason the Tzafnas Panach must be the final book published although again according to the title page there is an earlier date. According to the title page it was printed in 1845, but now that we know the 1845 edition of Rivid ha-Zahav was in fact published after 1846 the Tzafnas Panach must also be published after that. This is so, because in the Rivid ha-Zahav with the title page which claims 1845 it also says the approbations for this will be published in my future work Tzafnas Panach (which in fact Tzafnas Panach includes). Thus, Tzafnas Panach must be after this second edition and thus must be after 1846 even though it claims an earlier date.

Sources: ha-Maggid No. 24 June 17, 1863 p. 192; No. 27, July 8, 1863, pp. 211-12; No. 36, September 9, 1863 pp. 283-84; No. 40, October 14, 1863, p. 316 (which are all available online here); R. Tzvi Ephraim Babad, "Printers, Copiers, Shasin, and Censor," Der Yid 25 (Friday, September 22, 2000), section 2.

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/28/Who-Wrote-the-Mekore-Minhagim A Survey of Contemporary Electronic Resources: Two Hard Drives of Hebraica http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/26/A-Survey-of-Contemporary-Electronic-Resources-Two-Hard-Drives-of-Hebraica
Aside from purchasing a hard copy of a book, there are currently many other methods are available in obtaining seforim. The easiest and cheapest is the Shapell Family Digitization Project of the Jewish National & University Library, where many rare and expensive books are available for free. While this is a terrific resource if the particular book and/or edition is available, this digital project is far from comprehensive, and its purpose is not to have every (or even close to) every book online. To fill that demand, there are two external hard drives which contain about 18,000 - 20,000 seforim, both of which are around the same price of $1,400 (estimated). I have been using both for the last few months and wanted to give my impressions.

The two hard drives are Otzrot haTorah and Otzar HaChochmah. I have the hard drive of the first, and have been using an online version of the second.

The first, Otzrot haTorah was originally the vision of R. Morgenstern, who has unfortunately since passed away. This edition includes the collection of thousands of seforim, as well as Otzar haPoskim (widely known as Otzrot haShu"t). This program allows for one to search responsa works and also classifies responsa based upon their relevance to section in Shulhan Arukh. Thus, you can click and see what the responsa has to say about Siman Gimmel in Orah Hayyim etc. Additionally you can do a text search of the responsa which appear on this program. This program, however, only covers 3 of the 4 volumes of Shulhan Arukh – Orah Hayyim, Even haEzer, and Hoshen Mishpat. I found the interface and the ease of locating material to be very good. Once you know which chapter in Shulhan Arukh you need they have the material.

The more important portion of the hard drive is the collection of the 18,000+ seforim. This section is not text searchable. So if you are just hoping to use this to find material via a word search this is not the hard drive for you. But, this hard drive still has tremendous value. This is so, as it contains a terrific amount of material. Additionally, this material was systematically collected so you are less likely to find gaps on this then on the other hard drive. Whoever made the decision what to copy chose very well. Further, the seforim are divided topically (if you want) which if you are doing research let's say on siddur is invaluable. You can in two clicks call up all the editions of the siddur they have. Or if you want to find about a town you would go to the History section then pick the section on communities etc.

Generally, you will find what you are looking for, however, as with almost any library or hard drive, this does not have every sefer printed, but if it is important or good, they probably do have it. If desired, you can print out the entire book, or convert it to a PDF to save to your hard drive. When you print it prints a water mark with their name in the middle, which is not a big deal (the other hard drive does the same). Aside from books, the hard drive also contains many journals as well.

The other hard drive, Otzar HaChochmah, is text searchable. But, not every book which is on the drive is nor is it 100% accurate. Additionally, on the online version it tells you if found a hit in a book, but then there is no get more than the first hit in the book (there may be a way but it is not readily apparent or obvious). This is rather frustrating if the first hit is not the one you need. The reason this is not perfect as this drive uses OCR technology as opposed to typing in all the books. This means it searches the actual books as they appear with Rashi script etc., and at time all OCR makes some mistakes. But, the sheer number of books does make this feature valuable.

One must state that this hard drive is much less comprehensive than the first one. It does not seem that the person who decided what to put on this has any rhyme or reason at times a basic book is missing while a useless one is included. There are serious gaps when it comes to some areas. Furthermore, with the online version, you can only print and there is no way to save the material. Otzar HaChochmah is constantly adding books, so they may eventually correct this. But it seems that are focusing on contemporary works rather than fixing the items in their catalog.

If I had to summarize who would benefit from each of these I would say a person who is just looking to come across something they were not aware of and doesn't need access to seforim should go with Otzar HaChochmah. But, if you are looking for something to complement other research and you need access to seforim that are otherwise too expensive or impractical to own I would go with the Otzarot haTorah.

Otzar HaChochmah is available here; and you can email kidosheypolin-at-bezeqint.net for more on Otzarot haTorah

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Relating to Siddur Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/26/A-Survey-of-Contemporary-Electronic-Resources-Two-Hard-Drives-of-Hebraica Books for Sale http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/19/Books-for-Sale
R. Landy has purchased a library of 19th century books, mainly consisting of she'elot u'teshuvot and hiddushim on Shas for sale. All are obscure prints and many have never been reprinted. He can be reached at 917-676-0762.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/19/Books-for-Sale The Custom of Playing Cards on Channukah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/19/The-Custom-of-Playing-Cards-on-Channukah
One of the more interesting customs relating to Chanukah is that of a relaxation of the restriction against gambling. As Menachem Mendel has pointed out, this relaxation was not limited, as some think, to those of Hassidic decent. Rather, some of the earliest mentions come long before the creation of the Hassidic movement, in places such as Worms and Frankfort. Further, this custom has continued to be almost universal (amongst Ashkenazim) irrespective of origin.

To demonstrate this point, it is worth mentioning a lesser known book, which although lesser known is rich in the history of customs of Lithuanian Jews during the 19th century. This book, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, (which I have previously mentioned at the Seforim blog) is the memoir of Pauline Wengeroff. She grew up in Lithuania and eventually moved to St. Petersburg Russia (along with many detours). Her book, originally written in Yiddish, was translated into English (and abridged, you can download the full translation here).

In the course of discussing how she celebrated the Jewish holidays as a child she discusses card playing.
"On the fifth night [of Chanukah] my mother invited all our friends and relatives. That was the night she gave us Chanukah gelt . . . You stayed up later than usual that evening, and played cards longer. . . . It was a day of rejoicing for us children. Even we little ones were allowed to play cards that night. . . . On such evenings my father skipped even learning Talmud and sat down to cards although, like my mother, he had no idea of the rules of any game."
She is not the only Lithuanian to record such a practice. R. Yosef Hayyim Sonnenfeld, the Rabbi of Jerusalem and the leader (of his time) of the Yishuv haYashan was asked why do so many people, some of which spend their days learning Torah, neglect Torah study and play cards on Chanukah? R. Sonnenfeld responded that not everyone can learn all the time and people need a break and playing cards is better than doing nothing. The questioner, however, was unsatisfied with this response, and questioned the notion that card playing could be considered a legitimate necessary break. The questioner allowed that exercise would be allowed but couldn't understand how card playing could be considered an allowed break from Torah study. R. Sonnenfeld refused to back down regarding his original pronouncement and said, while some at some times may value exercise at other times people have other needs which apparently cards fulfill.

Sources: Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 65-66; R. Yosef Hayyim Sonnenfeld, Simlat Hayyim, nos. 48-49; for more on the custom of dreidel see my post from last year here.


]]> Chanukah Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/19/The-Custom-of-Playing-Cards-on-Channukah A Forgotten Work on Chanukah: חנוכת הבית http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/17/A-Forgotten-Work-on-Chanukah--
Rabbi Eliezer Brodt of Jerusalem has authored articles in the journals Ohr Yisrael and Yeshurun, both familiar to many readers of the Seforim blog, and is contributing what is hoped to be the first of many guest-posts.
While learning הלכות חנוכה, I noticed that the very first מגן אברהם quotes a sefer called חנוכת הבית. I had never heard of the sefer before, and I was curious about it. I asked several people about the sefer until I found someone who was familiar with it. He was kind enough to purchase it for me. I started reading through the sefer last week, and I completed it over shabbos. It was a fascinating read.

In the introduction, the author begins with a list of questions about the נוסח of הנרות הללו. He then proceeds to answer his questions with the interesting concept that almost all of the הלכות חנוכה are hidden in the text of הנרות הללו. I believe that this is a virtually unknown idea, as I have yet to see this concept quoted in any sefer about חנוכה -- including the outstanding sefer חזון עובדיה by ר' עובדיה יוסף. Even the generally exhaustive מפתח על שבתי פרנקל on מסכת בבא קמא in the גמרא relating to חנוכה he makes no mention of his piece on this גמרא!

Not much is known about ר' שאול בן ר' דוד, the author of חנוכת הבית. His date of birth appears to have been around the year 1570. We do know that he learned from the מהרש"ל השני and ר' הירש שור, the father of the תורת חיים. He was a ראש ישיבה in Russia. ר' שאול wrote a few seforim, the most well known being טל אורות on the ל"ט מלאכות of שבת. The טל אורות received many very חשוב הסכמות, including הסכמות from the מהרש"א, the כלי יקר and the של"ה. It’s quoted by the מגן אברהם and מרכבת המשנה many times. A beautiful edition was reprinted in ירושלים in 1996. Another sefer by this author is תפלת הדרך which was printed by his son in 1641 [this book includes an unusual illustration of a ship at sea on the last page]. The sefer חנוכת הבית was first printed in פראג in 1616. It was not reprinted until in 1981 in a photo offset version. It was reprinted a year later, and in 2002, a very nice edition with notes was printed.

חנוכת הבית seems to be almost completely unknown to many bibliographers. The חיד"א makes no mention of it in his שם הגדולים although he has two entries on the author. The bibliographer יצחק בן יעקב has two separate entries on the sefer, one of which says “this might be the sefer that the מגן אברהם quotes a few times,” but he doesn’t write any details about it. Then two entries later he talks about our sefer showing he never saw it – because it’s the same one that the מגן אברהם mentions.

As previously mentioned, חנוכת הבית starts with the concept that almost all of הלכות חנוכה are hidden in הנרות הללו. There are three additional parts to the sefer. The first is a song which contains many of the halachos of חנוכה in the lyrics. Another part is מליצות based on הלכות חנוכה containing clever גמטריות and kabbalistic ideas about חנוכה. The third part is a דרשה connecting פרשת תצוה to חנוכה in many ways. The author was fond of writing in song. He also wrote similar kinds of songs in his work ט"ל אורות. In his introduction to ט"ל אורות, he writes that he likes this method because it’s a great memory tool. We have other songs he composed, such as a song in the שלשלת הקבלה, which was a הספד on his רבי, the מהרש"ל השני. Another song he wrote could be found in one of the manuscript’s of סידור שבתי סופר, which was written by his nephew.

חנוכת הבית discusses almost all the important topics related to חנוכה and makes many interesting points. The author goes through many of the גמרות in מסכת שבת about חנוכה at great length. He deals with topics such as the famous question of the בית יוסף. (See סקווירא תשסג p. 33), why חנוכה isn’t nine days because of ספיקא דיומא (Idem at p. 50), why the מנורה wasn’t טמא etc (Idem at p. 36). He takes sides on some of the big halachick questions in the פוסקים such as whether to light נר שבת or נר חנוכה first (Idem at p. 58), whether to make הבדלה before נר חנוכה on מוציא שבת or not (Idem at p. 60), and many other topics. The author also takes a stance in the big controversy about the נוסח of the ברכות. Like the מהרש"ל, he says that the correct way is to say שלחנוכה as one word (Idem at p. 32). The sefer mentions that the מהר"י סגל lit נרות in the place where he gave his שיעור (Idem at p. 120). Also mentioned is the reason for the מנהג to eat milchigs on חנוכה (Idem at p. 136). חנוכת הבית is also the earliest known source for giving gifts on חנוכה. In his song, the author uses the words "לחלק מתנות." In the הלכה part of the sefer, he writes that one should give צדקה, especially to the children who are learning תורה (Idem at p. 72, 83). It is this statement the מגן אברהם quotes when he quotes from the חנוכת הבית. The חנוכת הבית is quoted another time by the מגן אברהם in הלכות פסח.

Sources:
שלשלת הקבלה עמוד קנ; מגן אברהם סימן תפט סעיף ז ובהלכות חנוכה ריש סימן תרע; אוצר הספרים אות ח מספר 732 ו734; והמבוא של הטל אורות באריכות שיצא לאור בירושלים תשנ"ו

Appendix:
Title Page from Chanukas HaBayit (Prague, 1616)



Ship Illustration from Teffilat HaDerekh, Prague, 1641


]]> Eliezer Brodt Chanukah Historical Oddities Bibliographical Oddities Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/17/A-Forgotten-Work-on-Chanukah-- Two Books Sales http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/8/Two-Books-Sales
First, Hollander Books is selling their overstocks at 50% off until December 16th and 25% if you order by December 31. You can download the catalog here. Second, Seforim World, has just purchased a significant library which includes many out-of-print books. Seforim World can be reached at 718-438-8414.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/8/Two-Books-Sales The Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam: A Jewish Convert http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/6/The-Chief-Rabbi-of-Amsterdam-A-Jewish-Convert
Converts have been involved with seforim in many capacities. But, there is one book which was actually authored by a convert – Zera Yitzhak, Amsterdam 1789. This book is on Pirkei Avot and was written by R. Yitzhak (b. Avraham) Graanboom. R. Yitzhak was born in Sweden a non-Jew. His father Jacob moved his family to Amsterdam in 1749. At age 69, after moving to Amsterdam, Jacob and his wife Leah converted to Judaism. At the time, Jacob took the name Avraham. His youngest son Mattis, also converted and became Yitzhak (his full name appears to be Aharon Moshe Yitzhak, however, in his book both on the title page and the approbation he is referred to only as Yitzhak, perhaps these names were added later, or he didn't use them).

R. Yitzhak was extremely successful in his studies and was widely respected within the Amsterdam community; so much so, that when he attempted to move to Israel, R. Saul (ben Aryeh Löb) Löwenstamm (1717-1790) – then Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam – convinced him not to for the sake of the Amsterdam community. R. Yitzhak was for a short period of time a gem cutter, after which he moved to full time study and working. After R. Löwenstamm died, R. Yitzhak became the interim chief Rabbi of Amsterdam. Later, he became the Chief Rabbi of a new synagogue in Amsterdam, Adat Yeshurun. As this was a new synagogue, there were some from his old synagogue who were upset with the move. R. Yitzhak was known as "Yitzhak the Ger" (Yitzhak the Convert), some members of the old synagogue began referring to him instead as "Yitzhak Getz" (Yitzhak the Fool).

R. Yitzhak died in 1807 and his epitaph reads as follows:
זאת מצבת קבורת אדונינו מורנו ורבינו אב"ד ור"מ דקהלתנו, הנודע שמו בישראל בשם הגאון הצדיק החסיד מוהר"ר אהרן משה יצחק בן כ"ה אברהם זצוק"ל. רועה צאן עדת ישרון, גאה וגאון השליך נגדו, הצנע היה לכתו, רק לאמונה גבר בארץ, להורות עם ה' את הדרך ישכון אור, להטות לבבם ליראת ה' כל הימים, ולגלות למסור אזנם, ויקם עדות ביעקב ותורה שם בישראל, אף אם הציון הלז יכסה את גויתו, אהבתו תשאר תקועה
בלבנו, כי בזרע יצחק עוד יאיר שמשו ואור חכמתו ותורתו לעד בעולם

This is the monument of our master, our teacher, our Rabbi, the Chief Rabbi and Teacher of our community, who is known as the great one, pious, and righteous Rabbi Aharon Moshe Yitzhak son of the wise on Avraham ztsuk"l. The leader of Congregation Adat Yeshurun, the great and high one, who was humble in his ways, his relied upon faith, and taught the path to light, to lead their hearts to fear God all their days, and to reveal the ethical path to their ears, and he upheld the congregation and gave Torah to Israel, even though this monument covers his body, our love for him remains in our hearts, with the seed of Yitzhak will still guide by his light, and his light of wisdom and Torah will remain forever.
After he died, there were some who questioned some of his minor innovations and his son, Yisrael printed Melitz Yosher, to defend these practices.


There appears to be but one depiction of R. Yitzhak, a statue of him which unfortunately disappeared during the Holocaust. The statute is reproduced on the side and as you can see his book, Zera Yitzhak, is also included next to the statute.

Sources: For biographical information see: Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, Kenesset Yisrael (Warsaw, 1886), entry R. (Ahron Moshe) Yitzhak b"r Avraham Graanboom; A. Ya'ari, "R' Yitzhak ben Avraham haGer” in Mizrach u'Ma'ariv 5 (1931), 323-325. On converts who were involved in other aspects of Hebrew books, see A. Ya'ari, Mehkere Sefer (Jerusalem 1958), 245-255. The picture of R. Yitzhak as well as some biographical information is taken from Mozes Heiman Gans, Memorbook: History of Dutch Jewry from the Renaissance to 1940 (Netherlands, 1977), 291. Aside from R. Yitzhak's Zera Yitzhak, he also composed a song for the inauguration of the Synagogue of Adat Yeshurun which was published in 1797 and is titled Zot Hanukat HaBayit.

Appendix:
Zera Yitzhak (Amsterdam, 1789)

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/6/The-Chief-Rabbi-of-Amsterdam-A-Jewish-Convert The Case of the Missing Books: Besamim Rosh in Berlin and St. Petersburg http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/4/The-Case-of-the-Missing-Books-Besamim-Rosh-in-Berlin-and-St-Petersburg
While we have previously discussed how the Besamim Rosh to this day remains an enigma, there are two important texts which may have bearing on this issue. Benjamin Richler has been kind enough to provide additional information about these two sources. We therefore pick up from Benjamin Richler at the Jewish National and University Library:

The Case of the Missing Books: Besamim Rosh in Berlin and St. Petersburg
by Benjamin Richler

There are two sources concerning the Besamim Rosh that researchers would like to consult but cannot find.

One is a manuscript copy that belonged to Abraham Geiger and was briefly described in the list of Geiger’s manuscripts presented to the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin in Hebraeische Bibliographie, 17 (1877), p. 11, no. 3.[1] According to the description the manuscript that may have been an autograph was dated 1757 and includes the introduction by R. Zvi Hirsch Berlin. Until 1984, nothing was known about the fate of the manuscripts in the Hochschule; it was assumed that the Nazis confiscated the library but it was not found after the War. In 1984 Sotheby’s offered a collection of Hebrew manuscripts for sale and before the sale it was identified as belonging to the Hochschule. These books had been smuggled out of Germany before the War. [2] Two of the manuscripts in Geiger’s list were not included in the sale. One of them is the Besamim Rosh. For years after 1984 it was considered lost, but recently it came to light in a collection of archives and manuscripts looted by the Nazis and later captured by the Red Army. These documents and books were kept in what was called the "Special Archives" recently renamed "The Center for Safekeeping of Historical Collections of Documentation" in the Russian State Military Archives in Moscow. The manuscript was microfilmed for the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem where I examined it. The manuscript seems to be a neat copy, rather than an autograph draft, and when compared with the printed edition, I could find no significant differences in the text. I must admit, however, that I only checked a few passages at random, especially the beginning and end. My impression is that the manuscript is written in an Ashkenazic script of the 18th century. It may have been the copy that was sent to print or a copy that was made for R. Tzvi Hirsch before it was printed.

The second source that has not been examined for decades, perhaps for over a century, is a copy of the first edition with notes and additions by R. Saul Berlin himself. This copy was described by Shemuel Wiener who edited קהלת משה, the catalogue of the library of Moshe Aryeh Leib Friedland donated to the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of Russia located in St. Petersburg. [3] While the Friedland Library survive the War unscathed, and the manuscripts are accessible at the Oriental Institute, the 14,000 printed books were sent to storage and according to a senior fellow of the Oriental Institute who tried to extract this volume, it is impossible to locate any titles as the books are piled up to the ceiling in no particular order. Until premises are found to shelve the collection, the annotated copy of Besamim Rosh will remain inaccessible.

Sources:
[1] Geiger’s name is not mentioned in the description, but Moritz Steinschneider, the editor of HB who probably wrote the descriptions, identified Geiger as the owner in his Vorlesungen über die Kunde hebräischer Handschriften (Berlin 1897), p. 64, n. 29.

[2] The manuscripts were in the possession of Prof. Alexander Guttmann, formerly a professor in the Hochschule, who claimed that the manuscripts were given to him in 1936 for safekeeping. After it became known that the MSS were originally the property of the Hochschule, the State of New York disputed the sale. A settlement reached by the parties resulted in the formation of the Judaica Conservancy Foundation, a joint undertaking of Jewish institutions of higher learning in the United States, England and Israel. Twenty-two lots, including nineteen MSS sold at the auction, were recalled and given to the Foundation, which deposited them in the libraries of some of its members. It also authorized the proceeds of the sale of two of the MSS, to be awarded to Guttmann in consideration of his role in saving the MSS.

[3] Volume 1, Petersburg 1893, no. 1793, Wiener noted that the manuscript was purchased from the bookseller and scholar R. Raphael Nathan Rabinovicz, author of Dikdukei Soferim.

]]> Moritz Steinschneider Benjamin Richler Historical Oddities Besamim Rosh Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/12/4/The-Case-of-the-Missing-Books-Besamim-Rosh-in-Berlin-and-St-Petersburg Benjamin Richler: "Putting the Pieces Together: The 'discovery' of Gershon b. Meir Heilprin (Heilbronn)" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/28/Benjamin-Richler-Putting-the-Pieces-Together-The-discovery-of-Gershon-b-Meir-Heilprin-Heilbronn
What follows is an original contribution by noted scholar Benjamin Richler to the Seforim blog. Any typographical errors are my fault alone. -- Dan

Biographical blurb: Benjamin Richler was born in Montreal, graduated from Yeshiva University in 1960 and from the Hebrew University Graduate Library School in 1963. From 1965 to 1995, he served as the Librarian at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library, on the Givat Ram Campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1995-2005, he was the Director (now retired) of the Institute. His books include Hebrew manuscripts, a treasured legacy (Cleveland-Jerusalem 1990); Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections (Jerusalem, Israel Academy of Sciences, 1994); The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library (London 1998); Hebrew manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma (Jerusalem 2001); Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, edited by Benjamin Richler (in preparation, to be published in 2007). His three dozen articles (in Hebrew and English) include: "Isaac Abravanel's 'lost' commentary on Deuteronomy," in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century I (1999), 199-204; "Resources for the study of Tosafist literature at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts," in Rashi et la culture juive (1997), 383-392; "Rabbeinu Tam's 'lost' commentary on Job," in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume I (1993), 191-202; "The scribe Moses ben Jacob Ibn Zabara of Spain; a Moroccan saint?" in Jewish Art, 18 (1992), 141-147; "Manuscripts of Moses ben Maimon's 'Pirke Moshe' in Hebrew translation," in Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 345-356; "Resources for the history of medicine at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts," in Koroth 8:9-10 (1984), 407-413; "A Hebrew paraphrase of the Hippocratic Oath (from a fifth-century manuscript)," in Medical History 22:4 (1978), 438-445 (with S. Kottek).
Putting the Pieces Together:
The "discovery" of Gershon b. Meir Heilprin (Heilbronn)
Benjamin Richler

The manuscripts in the collection of the great bibliophile Heiman (Hayyim) Joseph Michael (1792-1846) were purchased in 1848 by the Bodleian Library in Oxford University. One of the manuscripts [1] was described by Adolf Neubauer in his Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford 1886), no. 1265 as:
מורה דרך commentary on the 1st part of the Moreh han’N’bokhim by Gershom. ...He quotes R. Abraham Broda and מהר' לובלין (f. 8). For the enumeration of the author’s books in his preface, see Steinschneider’s מפתח האוצר, p. 324.[2]
Steinschneider listed the following works by the author, Gershon[3]: דבר הלכה; בדי שולחן on Shulchan Arukh; חיקור דין responsa; דבר תורה on the Torah ; מאמר אסתר on Megillat Esther; דבר הגדה on the Haggadah; מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles of Faith and extracts and sermons.

Most of these works are not recorded in any bibliography, and the full name and identity of the author remained a mystery to Steinschneider.

Another manuscript in the Jewish National and University Library, MS Heb. oct. 711[4], contains commentaries on the Torah, Ruth and Eikhah (Lamentations), based on philosophical and scientific perspectives. The anonymous author quotes Moses Mendelssohn and Copernicus, among others. He mentions several other books he composed, including some of those listed in his preface to מורה דרך , namely מאמר אסתר and דברי הגדה as well as משאת הגרשוני on the 13 Principles of Faith – perhaps another title for מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles listed above – as well as commentaries or novellae on the Prophets, Moreh Nevukhim and others. One of the works he mentions is a sermon titled אבל יחיד. The author mentions an explanation he heard from Rabbi Avraham Tiktin, the dayyan of his community ושמעתי פי' ... מהגאון מה' אברהם טיקטין אב"ד קהילתינו. Needless to say, none of these other sources are recorded in bibliographies.

We can now establish that our author, Gershon, was a pupil, of R. Avraham Tiktin, or at least a resident of the same city in which R. Tiktin officiated. R. Avraham b. Gedaliah Tiktin (1764-1820), was a Rabbi in his birthplace Schwersenz (Polish: Swarzedz) near Posen (Poznan), then in Lenshits (Leczyca) and from 1803 in Glogau and from 1816 until his death in Breslau. We can assume, then, that Gershon resided in one of these communities. Which one? The answer is supplied by a manuscript in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, MS 646, a copy of אבל יחיד, the sermon mentioned in the JNUL manuscript. It contains a 24 page eulogy (“hesped”) on R. Avraham Tiktin written or composed in Schwersenz on the eve of Rosh Hodesh Shevat 5581=January 3, 1821 by גרשון היילפרין or היילפרון (Gershon Heilprin or Heilpron).

A search for other works by the author listed in the Oxford and Jerusalem manuscripts revealed a manuscript in the Jewish Theological Seminary - University of Jewish Studies (Országos Rabbiképzo Intézet - Zsidó Egyetem) in Budapest titled משאת הגרשוני. It is a curious work based on the Thirteen Principles of Moses b. Maimon and its 169 folios include a Fourteenth Principle that incorporates all the other principles and contains a critique of Kant’s theories on the soul. It also includes some explanations of passages in Moreh Nevukhim, on difficult verses in the Bible and a commentary on the piyyut “Ehad Mi Yodea” in the Passover Haggadah. One section התילדות המשפחה deals with the the practice of assigning family surnames and delves into gynecology quoting physicians from Heraclitus until contemporary experts. He describes the wonders of the microscope and relates how a physician in Danzig showed him the sperm of a rooster under a microscope (f. 14r). There are a few poems by the author with the acrostic Gershon b. Meir, that establish the name of the author. The title page reads:
חלק ראשון מספר משאת הגרשני הוא מאיר עינים לאמונת והדיעות האמיתית מוסד על שלשה עשר העיקרים מהרמב"ם ז"ל, יוסף עליו עיקר הארבע עשר הכולל כל העיקרים ונקרא ... עיקר הכולל בו אמצא ויכוח עם החכם קאנט בענין השארות הנפש ... והראיתי מקורה ממקום נורא נקרא מקור הפילסופיאה ... והוספתי התילדות המשפחה ותפארת אדם ופירש על כמה מאמרי ספר המורה להרמב"ם ז"ל וספר המידות לאריסטו ... ומאמרי חז"ל הנאמרים בדרך חידה ומשלים ... גם מהדברים המוקשים ביותר בתורה ובנביאים ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס .
Additional information about the author is found in an inscription by his son, Pinchas Heilbronn, on the title page in which he adds the date of his father’s death, 9 Heshvan 5629=October 25, 1868 אמר פינחס בן מ"ר גרשון הילבראנן ניפטר ט חשון תרכ"ט.

We have now identified the author of these four manuscripts, Gershon b. Meir Heilprin or Heilbronn. We can assume that since he studied under R. Avraham Tiktin or audited his lessons in Schwersenz where Tiktin officiated until ca. 1800 when Gershon was in his late teens or older, that Gershon was born around 1780-1785 and lived well into his eighties, residing for most or all of his life in Schwersenz. On the basis of the cross references to his works in the various manuscripts we can date them approximately. מורה דרך is perhaps the earliest of his works to survive, though by the time he wrote it he had already composed four or five other books or essays. אבל יחיד was composed in 1821. משאת הגרשני is mentioned in the compilation in the Jerusalem manuscript which is the latest composition of Gershon’s extant. If משאת הגרשני on the 13 Principles is the same work on the Principles entitled מליצת עיקרים in the Oxford manuscript then it should be considered the earliest work by Gershon to survive.

The figure that emerges from his extant writings is one of a talmid chacham, or at least of one fairly well-versed in Bible, Talmud and the writings of the Rambam with leanings towards the haskalah. He is familiar with some of the works of Aristotle and the teachings of Kant, though we cannot know if he read Kant in German or if his knowledge is from second-hand sources. He is interested in the sciences and has at least an elementary understanding of biology, astronomy and geography. Yet he remains an enigma. Apart from these four manuscripts no other details about Gershon Heilprin have surfaced. If he was so little known, why should Heiman Michael acquire a manuscript of his? Michael obviously acquired the manuscript before his own death in 1846. Was he offered the manuscript for sale? Did he purchase it because he considered it a worthwhile addition to his collection or did Gershon send it to him hoping to receive a generous donation? Likewise, we do not know how the other manuscripts reached the libraries in Budapest, Cincinnati and Jerusalem that now preserve them. It is ironic that so many unpublished works by better known rabbis and scholars did not survive the ravages of time and the Holocaust while four manuscripts by an otherwise unknown personality remained intact and are kept in libraries on three continents.

This detective work could not have been accomplished without a union catalogue of all the Hebrew manuscripts in the world. While no such tool encompasses 100% of all existing Hebrew manuscripts, there is available on the internet a catalogue that describes over 90% of this corpus, namely the catalogue of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

For over fifty years the Institute has been collecting microfilms of Hebrew manuscripts and its present holdings of 75,000 manuscripts together with the 8,000 original manuscripts deposited in the Jewish National Library represent an estimated 90-95% of all known Hebrew codices.

In the near future, I hope to write another entry at the Seforim blog about the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

Sources:
[1] MS Mich 126, listed as no. 658 in the posthumous catalog of his library אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[2] The reference is to Moritz Steinschneider’s appendix on manuscripts אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[3] Neubauer called him Gershom, but Steinschneider called him Gershon.
[4] There is no record in the Jewish National Library concerning prior provenance or from whom the manuscript was acquired. We can assume that it was acquired in the early 1930’s. The catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Library by B.I. Joel, רשימת כתבי-היד העבריים ... (Jerusalem 1934), describes octavo manuscripts numbered 1-719, but, strangely, omits no. 711, even though the manuscript was in the Library by 1934.

]]> Moritz Steinschneider Benjamin Richler Historical Oddities Bibliographies Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:14:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/28/Benjamin-Richler-Putting-the-Pieces-Together-The-discovery-of-Gershon-b-Meir-Heilprin-Heilbronn The Enigma of the Besamim Rosh - Solved by an Amateur - Not! http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/28/The-Enigma-of-the-Besamim-Rosh--Solved-by-an-Amateur--Not
It seems that my recent posts on the Besamim Rosh have been placed into the wilds of the internet. Someone, however, took issue with the very notion that the Besamim Rosh was a forgery. He claimed he could demonstrate that the Besamim Rosh was legitimate and solve this problem which has vexed people for the last three hundred years. Not only could he do so, he could do so in under a minute by executing a search on the Bar-Ilan responsa CD.

This person did so and he came up with hits mentioning the Besamim Rosh prior to its publication in 1793. One of these luminaries includes R. Tzvi Hirsch Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi). Additionally, he found R. Yehezkiel Landau (according to the CD) quotes the Besamim Rosh and the person points out this should be impossible as R. Landau died the very year the Besamim Rosh was published - 1793. These together, according to this person, demonstrates that people were aware of the existence of the Besamim Rosh prior to R. Saul Berlin’s discovery and thus it is a legitimate work.

Of course, anyone with the most basic familiarity with the Besamim Rosh realize this is a ludicrous claim. Let’s first deal with the Noda B’Yehuda "issue." First, the year 1793, or more exactly 5553, was a full 12 months and the Noda B’Yehuda died in April some 6 months into the year. Second, there is absolutely no doubt the Noda B’Yehuda was aware of the Besamim Rosh – he in fact gave an approbation to the work! The second approbation given to Besamim Rosh came from R. Saul Berlin’s father, R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin, Chief Rabbi of Berlin.

Second, the supposed earlier sources that quote the Besamim Rosh. This claim on its face is astounding as well. The name "Besamim Rosh" was not the actual name which appeared on the manuscript. Instead, this was the name R. Saul Berlin picked. He decided on the name due to the numerical value of Besamim = 392 the same number of responsa which appear in the work (Rosh is self evident). Thus, unless these earlier citation were mind-readers as well, there is no way they could be citing this Besamim Rosh. So, who in fact are they citing? The answer is no one. Instead, this person was unaware the Bar Ilan CD includes notes which appear in the text of the responsa from the editors of the Bar Ilan project! These notes are set off by + signs so that people don’t make this very mistake and think these are part of the text. Thus, for instance, in the case of the Hakham Tzvi the passage in question looks like this:
שו”ת חכם צבי סימן א ד”ה וראיתי להרב
+/רצ”ה לוין/ נ”ב. מיהו גם הרא”ם ז”ל בסי’ כ”ד התיר מטעמים אחרים וכן מצאתי בתשו’ כ”ו דאתי לידי נקרא בשמים ראש (סי’ רע”ו) ועם היות שאין דבריהם מוכרחים מ”מ הא חזינן דנסבי אפי’ שלא במקום מצוה ואין מוחה בידם+
As I mentioned previously, there is no dearth of literature discussing the Besamim Rosh after its publication (see Samet and the sources cited therein) but it is 100% erroneous to claim anyone beforehand was citing to this work.

Appendix:
R. Yehezkiel Landau haskamah to the Besamim Rosh (1793)


]]> Besamim Rosh Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/28/The-Enigma-of-the-Besamim-Rosh--Solved-by-an-Amateur--Not A Bizarre Case of Censoring the Besamim Rosh http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/27/A-Bizarre-Case-of-Censoring-the-Besamim-Rosh
In the majority of cases of self-censorship it is fairly easy to surmise why something has been removed. Most typically, it is due to the current writer or publishers either fear of offending their audience or their own ideological sensibilities. Thus, commonly statements, approbations and the like which at the time seemed innocuous, today some may take offense for ideological reasons and thus some people remove them. This, of course, is not to say this justifies such practices but instead is merely to point out the reasons underlying them.

But, it seems there is a very curious case of such self-censorship. This case, where a teshuva [responum] has been removed does not readily conform with the above understanding. Instead, the teshuva in question espouses a rather popular view and while discussing a controversial topic comes out on the traditional side. This case deals with the well known work Besamim Rosh attributed to R. Asher b. Yechiel and claimed to be a forgery. [For more on the history see my earlier post here and upcoming posts.]

Now, to discuss our instance of censorship. One of the more well-known statements against the Besamim Rosh is by R. Avraham Bornstein (Sochaczew Rav) author of the Avnei Nezer and Eglei Tal. His statement was recorded in the book Piskei Teshuvot. The Piskei Teshuvot is a collection of interesting responsa, which have been abridged and notes added by the editor R. Avraham Pietrekovski. It was published in three volumes and included a fourth volume which contained comments from others about the work and was thus titled Divrei Chachamim. In the Divrei Chachamim, R. Nachum Kamikna wrote in to express his puzzlement at R. Pietrekovski's mention, in one of his notes, of the Besamim Rosh. R. Kamikna includes the opinion of R. Bornstein on the entire Besamim Rosh issue.

R. Bornstein writes:
I believe that the person [the author and editor of the Besamim Rosh – R. Saul Berlin] is not one who is worthy of quoting any halakha in his name, any person who has a fear of heaven should not have the book Besamim Rosh in his house . . . I believe the book is worthy to be burnt [even] on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat.
Needless to say, this is not a ringing endorsement of the Besamim Rosh. But, in 2001, a reprint of the Piskei Teshuvot was done, with reset type and organized according the Shulhan Arukh's divisions. For some reason, however, this teshuva does not appear. In the earlier editions it was number 5 in Divrei Chachamim in this edition the numbering skips from four to six.

While recently, some have attempted to rehabilitate the Besamim Rosh, most notably in the 1984 reprint, these attempts are not part of the mainstream and it does not appear the Besamim Rosh is any more accepted today than he was previously. This is not to say he is never quoted, only that most are aware of the storied history and the question of whether in fact it is representative of the Rosh. In fact, since 1984 no further attempts to reprint this work have materialized. Thus, in light of this, it is rather odd this particular teshuva has been removed.

In addition to my previous post on the Besamim Rosh, see Moshe Samet, "R. Shaul Berlin's Besamim Rosh: Bibliography, Historiography and Ideology," (Hebrew) Kiryat Sefer 48 (1973): 509-523; and upcoming posts at the Seforim blog.

Appendix:
Divrei Chachamim: Before/After


]]> Censorship Besamim Rosh Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:38:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/27/A-Bizarre-Case-of-Censoring-the-Besamim-Rosh Shnayer Leiman on "A Puzzling Passage in a Book Intended for Jewish Children" http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/22/Shnayer-Leiman-on-A-Puzzling-Passage-in-a-Book-Intended-for-Jewish-Children
A Puzzling Passage in a Book Intended for Jewish Children, with a Tentative Bibliography of ספרי קודש that Treat the Mitzvah of Answering “Amen”
Shnayer Z. Leiman

In 2004, an anonymous book entitled Serenade the King appeared in print.[1] Addressed primarily to a young audience, it is an anthology of inspirational stories that focus on one teaching only: the importance of answering "Amen." The stories are accompanied by photographs of the great Jewish sages mentioned in them, and by short inserts, mostly quotations from famous rabbis emphasizing the significance of answering "Amen." Letters of approbation (in Hebrew) from distinguished rabbis appear at the beginning of the book, encouraging prospective buyers to acquire the book.

On p. 240, the following short insert appears:
Failure to Answer Amen Desecrates Hashem's Name

Failure to respond Amen to a beracha that one hears is equivalent to actually cursing Hashem, and the punishment for one who is guilty of this sin is equal to the punishment that one who curses Hashem receives.

There is no greater desecration of Hashem's Name than the desecration caused by not answering Amen to a beracha, particularly if the beracha was recited in public. In fact, if it was recited before ten men, the hearer is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than not answer Amen!
Whereas Serenade the King prints mostly inspiring stories, here we have a halakhic ruling -- and an astounding one at that. Ordinarily, there are only three instances where a Jew is obligated to lay down his life (i.e., allow himself to be killed) rather than commit a violation of Jewish law. These are: idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. Thus, if a Jew is ordered to kill an innocent person, or be killed, he must refuse the order and allow himself to be killed, if no other options present themselves. The above rule applies primarily when the violation of Jewish law is in the private domain. But if the violation takes place in the public domain, i.e., in the presence of ten or more Jews, then one needs to examine the motivation of the person issuing the illegal order. If the purpose is to force the Jew to abandon his faith, then the Jew must be prepared to lay down his life rather than violate any mitzvah of the Torah. If the purpose is for the personal pleasure of the person issuing the illegal order, then the Jew is obligated to violate the law and stay alive, except in the cases of idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. In a period of general persecution of the Jews, one is obligated to lay down his life even if ordered to violate a mere customary practice of the Jews. Even in those instances where a Jew is obligated halakhically to violate the law and stay alive, there are some halakhic authorities who rule otherwise. They allow a Jew the option to lay down his life (rather than violate a Jewish law and remain alive) in instances other than the three exceptions listed above. All halakhic authorities agree, however, that the Jew -- in those instances -- is not obligated to lay down his life. Thus, a Jew who is ordered at gun-point to eat non-kosher food or be killed, must violate Jewish law and remain alive (according to some halakhic authorities), or may refuse to do so and die (according to other halakhic authorities), but he is not obligated to refuse to eat the non-kosher food. In instances where the Jew is ordered by the enemy to take no action (e.g., not to recite the obligatory prayers or not to wear tefillin), the obligation to lay down one's life is virtually non-existent.

Thus, R. Moshe Isserles rules:[2]
The rules apply only if they order him to violate a negative commandment. But if they issue a decree against observing a positive commandment, he need not observe it and be killed. But if the circumstances require it, and he wishes to observe it -- knowing that he will be killed -- it is permissible for him to do so.
Similarly, R. Mordechai Jaffe rules:[3]
All the above applies only when they order him to violate a negative commandment, so that when he violates it he must engage in an act that violates the Torah. But if they decreed in a persecution that one may not fulfill a positive commandment, one is not obligated to fulfill it and be killed. This is because complying with the decree does not require an act of violation of the Torah; one can simply cease and desist and comply with the decree. Moreover, the enemy can force him to violate the law against his will, by either imprisoning him so that he will be unable to perform any of the commandments, or by depriving him of his tzitzit or tefillin so that the specific mitzvah cannot be performed. Therefore, let it go unperformed and let him not be killed. Nonetheless, even in this case, if he chooses to be stringent and to observe the commandment -- even though he knows that he will be killed -- he may do so. He is not considered as one who brings injury upon himself, for this too is an act of piety and fear of G-d, and a sanctification of G-d's Name.
In the light of the above, it is astonishing indeed that Serenade the King rules that it is obligatory to lay down one's life when ordered not to answer "Amen" to a blessing recited before ten men. At best, it may be permissible to lay down one's life in such a case; it is certainly not obligatory according to the Shulhan Arukh.[4]

To the best of our knowledge, no such ruling appears in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, or in any of the halakhic codes, whether Rif, Rambam, Tur, or Shulhan Arukh. Indeed, the ruling appears to contradict the Shulhan Arukh, i.e. the R. Moshe Isserles passage cited above. So we were curious as to the source of this ruling in Serenade the King. One did not have to look very far. At the bottom of the insert, the source is clearly given as: Keser Melucha, page 284. It turns out that Serenade the King is simply an English version of an earlier work in Hebrew entitled שירו למלך, Jerusalem, 2002, also addressed primarily to a young audience.[5] The anonymous author of both books, apparently a reputable rabbinic scholar in Jerusalem, drew most of his material from an earlier work of his entitled כתר מלוכה, Jerusalem, 2000.[6] It is a comprehensive anthology in Hebrew of talmudic, midrashic, medieval, and modern sources relating to the mitzvah of answering "Amen" --- and it is addressed to adults. [There is a rich literature, especially in Hebrew, on this topic. Since we have not seen a bibliographical listing of such books, we have appended to this essay a tentative bibliography of books in Hebrew that treat the mitzvah of answering "Amen."]

Turning to page 284 of כתר מלוכה, one discovers that the source of the insert is: מנח"א י"א ב. Since neither Serenade the King nor כתר מלוכה contain bibliographies or lists of abbreviations, some readers will experience difficulty deciphering the abbreviation.

Amateurs attempting to decipher the abbreviation will doubtless suggest that it stands for מנחת אלעזר, the classic collection of responsa by the late Munkatcher Rebbe, Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937). But the responsa in that collection are always referred to by volume and by the number of the responsum (e,g., IV:19), never by page number (e.g., 11b). More importantly, our passage does not occur on p. 11b (or anywhere else) in any of the printed volumes of מנחת אלעזר.

While leafing through the pages of כתר מלוכה, it became apparent to me that מנח"א (cited throughout the volume) was itself an anthology of sources on the significance of answering "Amen." It was a simple matter to peruse the titles of all previous anthologies on the significance of answering "Amen," and to see which one had a title that matched the abbreviation in כתר מלוכה. The only volume to do so was R. Yehudah Leib Rogalin's מנחיל אמונה, Poltava, 1913.[7] And sure enough on p. 11b, there appears the full text of the passage summarized in כתר מלוכה.

The passage reads:
וכמו ששכרו של העונה אמן כמה דאצטריך אין ערך ושיעור וכמובא במדרשי חז"ל, כמו כן להיפוך חלילה עונש של האינו עונה אמן, וכמובא גם כן שבאמת הוא ניאוץ וחירוף וגידוף כלפי מעלה, אלא שזה בשב ואל תעשה, אבל עונשו שוה למגדף בפועל שזה בזיון למלך הכבוד דמי שלא חש לכבד את המלך בעת שנותנין לו כבוד הוא בזיון גדול אין דגמתו, ואינו דומה מי שאינו נותן כבוד למלך למבזה ברכת המלך, וברבים הוא חילול שם שמים בפרהסיא, ובעשרה מישראל מחוייב למסור נפשו על זה מקל וחומר, שאם הוא מחוייב למסור נפשו לקדש שם שמים בפרהסיא, כל שכן שמחוייב למסור נפשו שלא לחללו, ואין לך חילול שם שמים גדול מזה שלא חש לאמן ברכותיו של המברכו וגורם שברכת המברך יהיה חלילה כברכת שוא, עיין מכילתא (משפטים ס' כ"ג) משום ר' אלעזר וכו'. ומכאן אזהרה למי שרואה את חבירו שאינו עונה אמן אחר השליח ציבור שמחוייב לגעור בו בנזיפה יהיה מי שיהיה, דבמקום שיש חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד.
The claim, while certainly interesting, will hardly persuade most halakhists.[8] In any event, this is surely a matter for Gedolei Ha-Poskim to decide, and not the authors of treatises on the importance of answering "Amen." One wonders whether such a halakhic decision -- of life and death import -- should appear in a children's book. Heaven forbid that a child be put to the test, and instead of consulting a posek, he will rely on the ruling of Serenade the King that "the hearer is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than not answer Amen." One wonders whether the rabbis who wrote letters of approbation for Serenade the King also gave their approval to this ruling. If not, perhaps we need to rethink what a letter of approbation really means.

Notes:

1] Serenade the King, Jerusalem: Vehagisa, 2004. The book's spine bears the imprint of Feldheim's Books.

2] Shulhan Arukh: Yoreh De'ah 157:1.

3] Levush Ateret Zahav 157:1.

4] For possible support for the halakhic ruling in Serenade the King, see the sources cited in R. Hayyyim Yosef David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 157, paragraph 2, ד"ה הגהה

5] See שירו למלך, Jerusalem: Vehagisa, 2002.

6] כתר מלוכה, Jerusalem: Makhon Mayim Hayyim, 2000. An earlier and much abridged preliminary version of כתר מלוכה appeared in print with no place and no date on the title pages. It appears to have been published in Jerusalem, circa 1998.

7] The volume was published without הסכמות. On Rogalin, an accomplished rabbinic scholar who served as rabbi of Alexandrovsk in the Yekaterinoslav province from circa 1888 until 1913, see S.N. Gottlieb, אהלי שם, Pinsk, 1912, p. 9.

8] It will not persuade most halakhists for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the קל וחומר suffers from a serious פירכא. Indeed, a person may be obligated to lay down his life rather than actively commit a violation of Jewish law (under the right set of circumstances, as outlined above). But this cannot obligate a person to lay down his life rather than passively violate a Jewish law – by not answering “Amen.” Moreover, the halakhic source (Mekhilta to Exodus 23:1; ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 322) cited by Rabbi Rogalin does not treat the issue of laying down one’s life at all.

A claim similar to that of Rabbi Rogalin appears in a much earlier work: R. Moshe Kahana, דרך משה, Amsterdam, 1699. I am indebted to R. Eliezer Brodt for calling this claim to my attention (via Dan Rabinowitz). On p. 41 (of the Jerusalem, 1983 edition of דרך משה), the text reads:
על כן כל איש מישראל ששומע הברכה מישראל מחוייב לענות אמן אפילו שומע מאשה או מקטן, ואם שומע ואינו עונה חייב מיתה. וסימן אמ"ן נוטריקון א'ני מ'וסר נ'פשי, שכל אחד מישראל מחוייב למסור נפשו על עניית אמן
No halakhic source is cited for this פסק הלכה, (that not answering "Amen" is a capital offense; and that a person must lay down his life for the sake of answering "Amen"), either from the Talmud, Rishonim, or Aharonim. And while a famous story about R. Mordechai Jaffe, author of the לבושים, suggests that not answering “Amen” under normal circumstances is a capital offense (בדיני שמים), it does not suggest that a person must lay down his life if forced not to answer “Amen” (see דרך משה, loc. cit.; cf. R. Mordechai Jaffe, לבוש החור, Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 579-580).

Bibliography:

The tentative bibliography that follows lists ספרי קדש that treat the mitzvah of answering "Amen." The list does not include books that treat a variety of mitzvot, including the mitzvah of answering "Amen." Thus, for example, the list does not include R. Aharon Avraham b. R. Barukh Ha-Levi, אגרת הטעמים (Mantua, 1582), even though pp. 12b-15a of that treatise treat the mitzvah of answering "Amen." For similar reasons, we have not listed R. Aharon Roth, שומר אמונים (Jerusalem, 1942), though see item 8 on the list. Books in foreign languages are not listed, though many exist. R. Menahem Nahum Bochner's ספר עניית אמן (Tchernovitz, 1913) is also omitted from the list; it does not treat the mitzvah of answering "Amen." The list certainly needs to be expanded. I've included only the titles of books I have held in my hand.

רשימת ספרים העוסקים במצוות עניית אמן

1] ואמרו אמן, לר' יהושע אלטר ווילדמאן, ב' כרכים, ירושלים, תרפ"ז-תרפ"ט

2] ונאמר אמן: יצחק לשוח, לר' שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תשמ"א

3] חוברת לימוד בנושא מעלת עניית אמן יהא שמיה רבא, בלי שם מחבר, ב' כרכים, ירושלים, תש"ס-תשס"ב

4] חובת עניית אמן, לר' הלל דוד ליטוואק, ברוקלין, תשנ"ט

5] כתר מלוכה, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, בלי שנת דפוס (לפני שנת תש"ס), והיא הוצאה ראשונה וצנומה של ספר כתר מלוכה דלהלן

6] כתר מלוכה, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תש"ס

7] לקוטי תורת אמן, לר' נחום זק"ש, ווילנא, תרס"ז

8] מאמר פתחו שערים מספר שומר אמונים, לר' אהרן ראטה, בית שמש, תשנ"ה

9] מדריך לעניית אמן, לר' שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תשמ"א

10] מנחיל אמונה, לר' יהודה ליב ראגאלין, פאלטאווא, תרע"ג

11] נוטרי אמן, לר' אברהם קסלר, ב' כרכים, בני ברק, תש"ס-תשס"ד

12] עניית אמן כהלכתה, לר' ישכר דוב רומפלער, מאנסי, תש"ס

13] קובץ ונאמר אמן, בלי שם מחבר, בת-ים, תשס"ד

14] קונטרס הבו לה' כבוד: התעוררות וסיפורים...בעניני...עניית אמן, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תשנ"ג

15] קונטרס מהלכות עניית אמן, לר' אברהם דוד בלאך, ווילנא, תרס"ט. נלוה לספרו ציצית הכנף, ווילנא, תרס"ט

16] קונטרס עניית אמן כהלכתה, לר' שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תש"ם

17] קונטרס שומר אמונים, בלי שם מחבר, ברוקלין, תשי"ג

18] שומר אמונים, לר' אליהו וויגאדזקי, פיעטרקוב, תרס"ו

19] שירו למלך, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תשס"ב

20] תשובת נפש תיקון אמן תשובת תענית, בלי שם מחבר, לובלין, תל"ז

]]> Bibliographies Shnayer Leiman Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/22/Shnayer-Leiman-on-A-Puzzling-Passage-in-a-Book-Intended-for-Jewish-Children Another Case of Historical Censorship at Volozhin or Simply Poor Research? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/20/Another-Case-of-Historical-Censorship-at-Volozhin-or-Simply-Poor-Research
One of the more important sources for the history relating to the famed Volozhin Yeshiva is Moshe Shmuel v’Doro, by R. Moshe Shmuel Shapiro (Shmukler), which is is full of important material on this yeshiva and the related personalities. R. Schapiro also published a monograph on the founder of the Yeshiva, R. Chaim of Volozhin. This work, Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin, was first published in 1909 in Vilna, republished a year later in Vilna and then published twice in Israel, once in Bnei Brak in 1957 and once in Jerusalem in 1968. Recently, in 2000, Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin, was republished by R. Schapiro’s descendants.

In the 2000 edition of Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin, R. Schapiro’s descendants include a brief introduction about the history of the book, yet they were unaware of some key facts. First, they claim the book was only published twice, when in fact it was published four times. Additionally, then erroneously note that their edition is the third when in fact it is the fifth. Finally, they claim the first edition was the 1910 edition, when in fact the first edition appeared in 1909.

In addition to these three inaccuracies and omissions, there is a much more glaring one; not bibliographical in the abstract, but related to the content of the book – they have left out something which appeared in the earlier editions. In the first (1909) edition, a letter from R. Dr. Abraham Eliyahu Harkavy (1839-1919), a former student at the yeshiva in Volozhin, appears which contains both his warm approval of the book as well as a few comments on the book. Further, the fact Harkavy’s letter was included was no small thing as this was noted on the title page of the book. Specifically, the title page states the book includes:

עם הערות ומלואים מאת הרב החכם הגדול
ד"ר אברהם אליהו הרכבי

In the 1909 edition of Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin, Harkavy’s letter and notes were included by R. Moshe Schapiro. In the current reprint, the time that the fifth edition of Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin, published in 2000, by Schapiro’s grandchildren, Harkavy’s letter and notes are mysteriously missing. Perhaps this letter was removed intentionally as Harkavy was a maskil (intellectual) and later the head librarian at the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg.

It is possible these are missing due to a corrupted reprint the current publishers are relying upon. But, even if that would be the case, it does not absolve them of getting the first (or their “first” edition – the 1910 edition). Moreover, the title page they include does not give the current editions date, instead, the date and thus the reference is to the Vilna 1910 edition. Thus, giving the appearance they are merely reproducing the 1910 edition which is incorrect.

As an interesting aside, in 1999 the Artscroll publishing house released the first of two volumes of Shenot Dor v’Dor (the second was published in 2004) by Reuven Dessler, of a collection of priceless letters from important rabbinical personalities culled from the invaluable manuscript collection of the Dessler family, wherein an entire section (in vol. 1) is devoted to correspondence between Harkavy and some of the greatest rabbis of his time, many of them his colleagues and teachers at the yeshiva in Volozhin, including R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv) and R. Chaim Soloveitchik.

Appendix:
Title page of Toldot Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin (1909)

]]> Censorship Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:17:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/20/Another-Case-of-Historical-Censorship-at-Volozhin-or-Simply-Poor-Research Dr. Leiman's Post - Two Cases of Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/16/Dr-Leimans-Post--Two-Cases-of-NonJews-with-Rabbinic-Ordination
What follows is an article by Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman, who I trust is well-known to the readers of this blog. But for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar, Shnayer Leiman is a noted talmid hakham, a professor of Bible and Jewish History and a renowned bibliophile. He has been kind enough to provide the first of (hopefully) many short articles on bibliographical topics of interest. As I am the one who posted this, any typographical errors are my fault alone.
--Dan Rabinowitz
Two Cases of Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination:
One Real and One Imaginary
Shnayer Z. Leiman

1. Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815) was a distinguished Christian Hebraist.[1] A confirmed Lutheran, he devoted his life to Oriental studies, where aside from seminal contributions to Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac studies, he also made a significant contribution to the decipherment of cuneiform. In 1752, while a student at the Christian Academy in Altona, he also attended the lectures of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. From 1755 on, he perused Oriental studies at the University of Jena and then at the University of Halle. In 1759-1760, he served as a missionary to the Jews -- with little success -- travelling through much of Denmark and Germany. He was thrown out of Altona when he attempted to deliver a conversionary sermon in its main Synagogue. Toward the end of 1760 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages at the newly established University of Bützov in Mecklenburg. He later served as Chief Librarian and Museum Director at Rostock. He was a prolific author who published some 40 volumes of scholarly studies during his academic career.

While little honor came his way from the Jewish community in Altona, a rabbi in Kirchheim in Hesse would award Tychsen with rabbinic ordination! Before we present the text of the rabbinic ordination, a word needs to be said about the rabbi and about rabbinic ordination. The rabbi's name was R. Moshe b. R. Zvi Hirsch Lifshuetz and he served as Dayyan of the Jewish community of Kirchheim in Hesse. Alas, nothing else seems to be known about him.[2] In eighteenth century Germany, two types of rabbinic ordination were prevalent.[3] The higher level of rabbinic ordination bestowed the title of “Morenu” on the recipient. It was usually awarded to a rabbinic candidate who devoted full time to his Torah studies even after marriage, and was intent on serving professionally as a rabbi and rosh yeshivah. The lower level of rabbinic ordination bestowed the title “Haver” on the recipient. It was usually awarded to an accomplished talmudic student when he was about to marry and begin his professional career outside the rabbinate. The rabbinic ordination awarded to Tychsen resembles the lower level of rabbinic ordination. As the text itself makes clear, it was an honorary rabbinic ordination. The text reads as follows:[4]
ויעבור טיכזן מארץ מרחק נדוד מביתו וילך מחיל אל חיל ומישיבה לישיבה למד ויצק מים על ידי גאוני עמו רבים עוסק במלאכת שמים בפלפול ובסברה ה"ה הבחור נחמד המופלא כמ' אלוף גירהרט טיכזן מהאלזטיין וגם פה עבר עלי הבחור הלז כאשר ראיתיהו שמחתי ואע"ג שאינו בעו"ה נמול רק היה כשותה מים מבארות עמוקות חכמת חז"ל וכמצות ה' ואהבת לרעך כמוך שמתי על לב לעטרהו ולכבדהו ולסמכהו בסמיכת חכמים שזו תורה וזו שכרה מן השמים להיות קרוא בשם

החבר ר' טיכזן

לכל דבר שבקדושה ונוצר תאנה יאכל פריו פרי קודש הילולים' להיות בידו לתפארת ולכבוד התורה ולומדים ולמען שלא תהא האמת נעדרת חקקתי רשמתי וכתבתי דברי בעופרת לכבוד ולתפארת להיות חקוק על לבו ובידו לאות ולמשמרת.

כ"ד המדבר על כבוד התלמידים היום א' כ"ו למב"י תקי"ט לפ"ק לסדר אלה הדברים אשר דבר.

משה ב"הרב מהור"ר מצבי הירש ליפשיץ יצ"ו מצפה בקרתא קדישא קורך-היים במדינת העסן יע"א
Tychsen traveled a great distance from his home, going from strength to strength, studying at one yeshivah then another, serving the great Gaonim of his people, engaged in the work of the Lord, in pilpul and logical discourse. He is the delightful young lad, the excellent Oluf Gerhard Tychsen of Holstein. He passed through my community as well. When I saw him I rejoiced. Despite the fact that due to our sins he is uncircumcised, he drank from the waters of the deep wells the wisdom of our Sages of blessed memory. And as required by G-d's commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself, I resolved to crown him and honor him and bestow upon him rabbinic ordination, for such is the Torah and such is its reward from heaven that he be called by the title

The “Haver” R. Tychsen

for all sacred purposes. He who tends the fig tree will enjoy its fruit, an offering of praise, all to his glory and honor, and for the honor of the Torah and those who study it. So that the truth not be withheld, I have recorded this in ink, for honor and glory, to be engraved on the tablet of his heart, and to hold in his hand as a permanent sign.

These are the words of the one who speaks in honor of the students, today, the first day of the week, 26 days in the counting of the Omer, in the year 519 not counting thousands, the parashah of “These are the words that [Moses] spoke,”[5]

Moses the son of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Lifshuetz, may his Rock and Redeemer watch over him, the rabbinic judge[6] in the holy community of Kirchheim"[7] in Hesse, may He protect it.
2. Elias Hutter (circa 1553-1609), a pious Christian, studied Oriental languages at the University of Jena and was appointed Professor of Hebrew at the University of Leipzig.[8] His fame rests not so much on his scholarly research as it does on his career as an editor and publisher. He published a series of polyglot editions of the Bible, as well as editions of the Hebrew Bible alone. He is perhaps most famous for his Hamburg, 1587 edition of the Hebrew Bible.[9] Usually bound in one thick folio volume, it is distinguished by the large font he used for the Hebrew letters. Moreover, he printed the root letters of every Hebrew word in the Bible in thick, heavily inked font. In contrast, he printed the non-root letters (such as “vav” copula “and”; or “vav” consecutive, which changes the tense of the verb) in a hollowed-out outline form. Thus, he introduced a major educational tool where a simple glance at the printed biblical text enabled the reader to recognize the root letters of any Hebrew word.

One of the many great Gaonim who lived in the eighteenth century was R. Joseph Teomim (1727-1792) Chief Rabbi of Frankfort on the Oder.[10] His classic commentary on Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim and Yoreh De'ah, the פרי מגדים, is frequently reprinted. In the first edition of the פרי מגדים on Orah Hayyim (Frankfort on the Oder, 1787), R. Joseph Teomim prefaced his commentary with six “letters.” The “letters” were actually an encyclopedic introduction to Jewish law, thought, and practice. Some of the “letters” address such matters as the ideal curriculum for a young Jewish student, and even present lists of which books need to be read and mastered. The “letters” were not always included in the later editions of the פרי מגדים. When Makhon Yerushalayim -- a distinguished publishing house for rabbinic literature -- undertook to reissue the Shulhan Arukh in a massive, comprehensive, and majestic new edition, it made sure to include the six “letters.”[11] Moreover, as the editors put it: “We have re-edited the letters in clear print, with proper paragraphing and punctuation. We also added notes and references in order to render it easier for the reader to wade his way through these sometimes complex materials.”[12]

In the sixth “letter” (on p. 339 of the Makhon Yerushalayim edition), R. Joseph Teomim notes that the first book that needs to be studied by a Jewish child is the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. He then lists a series of biblical commentaries and tools that are essential for the proper study of תנ"ך. He adds:

גם תנ"ך עם אותיות חלולים, השורש בדיו, והשימושים והחסרים לבינים, טובים מאוד לנער בבחורתו ללמוד מהם

“A young student will gain much by studying from the Tanakh with the hollowed-out letters, i.e., with the root letters inked-in and with the prefixes and suffixes and the vowel letters hollowed-out.”

Since most readers would have no idea which edition of the Hebrew Bible was intended by R. Joseph Teomim, or where to look for it, the editors of Makhon Yerushalayim wisely and correctly indicate in a footnote that the reference is to the Hutter Bible. Alas, they also bestowed a posthumous rabbinic ordination on Elias Hutter, calling him:
הר"ר ע. הוטר

“The Rabbi, Rabbeinu [or: Reb] E. Hutter”
This, of course, is the imaginary case of bestowal of rabbinic ordination on a non-Jew.[13]

Footnotes:
1] See, e.g., Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, Hamm, 1997, vol. 12, columns 761-766.

2] It is tempting to identify him with R. Moshe b. R. Zvi Hirsch Lifschuetz of Mannheim (Germany) and Modena (Italy), a supporter of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. See לוחת עדות, Altona, 1755, pp. 20b-21b. But R. Jacob Emden assures us that the latter Rabbi Lifschuetz was no longer among the living in 1759. See his ויקם עדות ביעקב, Altona, 1755-1756, p. 85a.

3] In general, see M. Breuer, “הסמיכה האשכנזית” in ציון 33) 1968), pp. 15-46.

4] The text is drawn from L. Donath, Geschichte der Juden in Mecklenburg, Leipzig, 1874, pp. 326-327.

5] The date is problematic. In 1759, the 26th day of the Omer (= 11 Iyyar) fell on a Tuesday (May 8), not on a Sunday. Also, the parashah was פרשת אמור, not פרשת דברים. The latter objection is easily met. The author of the rabbinic ordination was simply introducing his signature with an appropriate biblical flourish: These are the words that Moses [the son of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Lifschuetz] spoke. Regarding the former objection, one suspects that the typesetter of the Donath volume misread a “ג” for an א.

6] Almost certainly the printed Hebrew text needs to be emended and read: מ"צ פה = מורה צדק פה, and we have translated accordingly.

7] Kirchheim here is perhaps to be identified with the town of Kirchhain in Hesse. On the history of the Jewish community in Kirchhain, see K. Schubert, Juden in Kirchhain, Wiesbaden, 1987.

8] See, e.g., Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, Hamm, 1990, vol. 2, columns 1226-1227.

9] See H.C. Zafren, “Elias Hutter's Hebrew Bibles” in The Joshua Bloch Memorial Volume, New York, 1960, pp. 29-39.

10] See the entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 15, columns 1011-1012.

11] Shulhan Arukh Ha-Shalem: Orah Hayyim, Jerusalem, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 319-343.

12] Op. cit., p. 320.

13] Turning non-Jews into rabbis (without prior conversion) is not unprecedented in Jewish literature. Apparently, J. D. Eisenstein, in his אוצר ישראל, included a non-Jew on a list of talmudic rabbis who worked for a living. See R. Abraham Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook's critique of Eisenstein in אגרות הראיה, Jerusalem, 1962, vol. 1, pp. 161-162.

Appendix:
Title Page of 1587 Hutter Bible

]]> Shnayer Leiman Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:04:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/16/Dr-Leimans-Post--Two-Cases-of-NonJews-with-Rabbinic-Ordination Akedah, Art, and Illustrations in Hebrew Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/9/Akedah-Art-and-Illustrations-in-Hebrew-Books
The Akedah (binding of Isaac) is a very popular theme in the arts. It appears in music, most recently (from a decidedly Christian perspective), the critically acclaimed indie musician Sufjan Steven's who has the song Abraham (on his Seven Swans CD). In the visual arts, numerous representations of the Akedah can be found, from Rembrandt to Chagall. Some of the earliest Jewish art also contains the Akedah. In both the Dura_Europos Synagogue and the Beth-Alpha Synagogue there are depictions of the Akedah. This trend was continued in Hebrew manuscripts throughout the Middle Ages. In Hebrew books, however, there is a dearth of illustrations generally. At most in Haggadot or on title pages, at times, there are minor illustrations. But, there is a notable exception.

In 1685, the work Pachad Yitzhak was published in Amsterdam. This book, written by Rabbi Dr. Isaac Vita (or Hayyim) Cantarini (see note 1), is about the attack on the Jewish ghetto of Padua in 1684. Preceeding the title page there is an elaborate illustration of the Akedah. The simple reason for the inclusion of this is due to Cantarini's first name Isaac and thus an allusion to his name. But, as we will see, there is more to this illustration.

In his later work Et Kets, also published in Amsterdam in 1710 he includes another depiction of the Akedah. This work is devoted to figuring out when the Messiah will come, (he thinks in 1740), a much more upbeat topic than his prior work. As you can see both illustrations, it bears discussing them in some detail.

The illustrations are most likely done by two different artists. This is so, as there are slight distinctions between the two. For instance, in the earlier one, Abraham has a full beard, while in the later one he only has a mustache. The ram in the first has straight horns, while in the second has circular ones. These distinctions, however, are not as meaningful as others.

The overall depictions are of two different time periods. In the first, the illustrations depicts Abraham just as he was about to slaughter Isaac and the angel calling out to stop him. But, in the second the illustration is of Abraham going after the ram and not Isaac. The signifcance of this is tied to the actual books. In Pachad Yitzhak the book discusses a terrific threat to the Jews and their salvation. Thus, the illustration is of the same - the terrific threat to Isaac and the salvation. The second work, Et Kets, is a much more positive book. This work has none of the fear of the prior instead, is fully devoted to Messiah and thus the illustration is only of the ram and its sacrifice.

Further, there are different Hebrew words which appear on both the illustrations. On the first the word ערכה (prepared or set up) appears across Abraham's chest. This word conotates Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac. It would seem, similarly, the Jews of Padua were willing to sacrifice themselves for God. But the word ערכה only means to prepare and not to actually sacrfice. Thus, Isaac was only prepared but not sacrificed and so too the Jews of Padua were placed in danger but ultimately redeemed.

In Et Kets, the words ירא יראה appear. These words are a reference to what Abraham called the place where the Akedah took place. Importantly, Abraham uttered these words after the entire episode. These were words of jubilation on both him passing his test and Isaac's redemption. Again, these words fit well with the content of Et Kets.

These allusions are unsurprising knowing the style of R. Dr. Cantarini. His books are written rather cryptically, with many many allusions to Biblical and other themes throughout.

Now, a word or two about the author. R. Dr. Isaac Cantarini lived in Padua. He came from a family of cantors or hazzanim. Thus, his name was בן חזן (ben hazzan - son of a hazzan) or in Italian Cantarini which has the same meaning. He received his medical degree from the University of Padua on the 11th of February 1664. He was a prominent Rabbi and the head of the Yeshiva in Padua. Among his students was R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato (Ramchal). The Ramchal wrote a dirge on R. Dr. Cantarini's death. R. Dr. Cantarini was a very popular speaker. One Shabbat, there were so many non-Jews in attendance, the Jews were forced to sit in the woman's section. He authored repsonsa and appears in some of the contemporary responsas of his contemporaries. One work he appears in is R. Isaac Lamporti's encyclopedia Pachad Yitzhak. Sharing the same first name and titling their books the same caused at least the Jewish Agency to conflate the two and erroneously claim about R. Dr. Cantarini that he "Published Pahad Yizhak (Fear of Isaac), a rabbinical encyclopedia which also described the attacks on the Padua community the year before."

In his medical practice he was highly respected by both Jews and non-Jews. He left in manuscript some of his medical writings.

Note 1. At the end of his life the name Rafael was added, see Shmuel David Luzzato, Otzar Nechmad III p. 147.

Sources: Mordecai Ghirondi, Toldot Gedoli Yisrael, p. 143 no. 154; Joseph Gutmann, The Sacrifice of Isaac in Medieval Jewish Art, in Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 8 no. 16 (1987), pp. 67-89; Simon Ginzburg, The Life and Works of Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, index under Cantarini; S.D. Luzzato, Otzar Nechmad, III pp. 128-149; also the Jewish Encyclopedia has an entry (better than EJ) here.

]]> Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/9/Akedah-Art-and-Illustrations-in-Hebrew-Books New Hard Drive http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/7/New-Hard-Drive
With modern day technology it is now possible to store tremendous amounts of information on hard drives. In the Jewish arena some have begun harnessing this power by placing thousands of seforim on a single hard drive. While there are others, which I hope to discuss at a later date, there is a new such hard drive. This hard drive contains 11,000 seforim and journals. These are searchable to an extent, as I will explain below. This hard drive contains the contents of Copy Corner, which for many years was the place to get reprints of rare and obscure (although important) seforim. Perhaps the greatest feature of the hard drive is the price, while other such hard drives cost in excess of $1,000, this one is $300. The $300 price is really just the cost associated with the drive, and making it searchable.

The hard drive was put together by the person who started HebrewBooks.org, Chaim Rosenberg, which originally was devoted to American seforim and since has moved to encompass a significant amount of other seforim - as the drive is a testament to. Aside from the Copy Corner collection, the drive is heavy in She'elot u'Teshuvot as well as commentaries on the Shulchan Orach, haggadot, and journals. Every book is fully printable and viewable.

Additionally, aside from just viewing a random book, you can also execute searches on all the books. The search process is actually two-step. First you search for a term and it pulls up all the books which contain the term you are looking for, then you search the book, as you would any PDF document for the specific page your term appears. The more expensive hard drives the search function is more streamlined, however, one pays for that ease.

I have been using this for a couple of weeks now, and I am very pleased with the drive. While, it does not encompass everything, that is not it's mission - yet. The hope is to constantly offer upgrades, again for cost, which will add more content. The viewer actually provides a link for feedback. Further, this hard drive does not require that you install anything on your computer rather it runs fully from the hard drive. This is rather convenient if you use it with more than one computer.

In the end, anyone looking for a fairly low cost method of obtaining a significant reference library this can not be beat. It is available from hebrewbooks.org or emailing directly to oldhebrewbooks -at- aol.com. In New York - Biegelisen, Eichlers, Tuvia's all have it as does Judaica Plaza in Lakewood.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/7/New-Hard-Drive Ghosts, Demons, Golems and their Halachik Status http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/7/Ghosts-Demons-Golems-and-their-Halachik-Status
One explicit mention of a ghost appears in the Talmud Ketubot 103a. The Talmud records that every week Rebbi used to return to his house after he died. The Talmud, however, does not record what Rebbi used to do when he came back. The Sefer Hassidim states that Rebbi was different than other dead people in that he was considered almost fully alive. Rebbi, according to the Sefer Hassidim, would make Kiddush for his family.[1]

A much later instance of an interaction with a ghost is found in R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen’s (1691-1765/1767) Yesh M’Nechalin. R. Katzenellenbogen happened across a man who had the last two of his fingers bent back and connected to his palm. R. Katzenellenbogen inquired whether the man was born that way. The man explained that he was not and instead this happened when he had attended a fair. There were hundreds of people in a large room preparing for the next day’s events. Suddenly, the door of the room opened on its own. Standing at the doorway was a women dressed in tachrichim (death clothes). One person, screamed that it was his dead mother. Someone got up and slammed the door shut only to have the door open by itself again with the woman standing there. This man then went and pushed the “ghost” and from that day on his fingers were permanently connected to his palm.

Continuing on the theme of dead or other beings which interact with those still alive, we come to a rather strange question which has occupied the minds of many people for the last 800 years. The question is what is the status of someone who has intercourse with a demon? The first to mention this question is R. Isaac of Vienna (1200-1270) in his work Or Zarua. He states that intercourse with a demon is halackically meaningless. He cites a midrash which has a hassid (pious one) who was seduced by a demoness on Yom Kippur. Afterwards he felt very bad about this, but Elijah the Prophet visited him and asked him why he was sad. After the hassid explained what happened Elijah said don’t worry it was only a demon. The Or Zarua therefore says as Elijah appeared to him and he told him it was ok, intercourse with a demon is not a problem.

Now, the Or Zarua was not addressed at an actual question, however, R. Meir of Lublin (1558-1616) was asked about an “actual” case where a woman had intercourse with a demon and thus could she remain married to her husband. Although R. Meir was unaware of the Or Zarua he independentally came to the same conclusion – she was still permitted to remain married as intercourse with a demon has no effect. Least one say this is all in the realm of theory or not followed, the Beit Shmuel the classic commentary on Shulhan Orach Even haEzer quotes this law of R. Meir of Lublin (Even haEzer 6:17).

The question of intercourse with a demon seems to have come up without respect to the local or time period. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) discusses “groups of women who go out to the forest” and conduct rituals with music and it seems they were visited or engaged in intercourse with demons. The Hida follows the ruling of R. Meir of Lublin and permits these women.

In Hungary in the 19th century there was a celebrated case where a woman became pregnant while her husband was away and she claimed the “father” was a demon. It appears the child was not deemed a mamzer (bastard) and the woman was allowed to remain married.

Now, there were some who questioned this whole line of reasoning and said that if one engages in intercourse with what appears to be human even if they are a demon it is of no moment. Thus, a married woman would be prohibited to remain married. The first to come to this conclusion was R. Yitzhak Binyamin Lipman (17th century) in his Nahlat Binyamim. Additionally, R. Yosef Zechariah Stern says if one follows the above rulings, what is stopping anyone who commits adultery to just claim it was a demon.

Moving on from demons, we now go to beings created via the Sefer Yetzirah. The Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) is a work which allows via manipulation of various names of God to create things. Many have dealt with the halakhic status of such creations. For instance, R. Meir Leibush (1809-1879) in his work the Malbim says the reason Abraham was able to give the angels milk and meat together was Abraham did not give them meat from a born cow. Rather, the Malbim points to the verse which says “the calf which he [Abraham] made.” Malbim explains the words “he made” are literal, i.e. Abraham created the calf via the Sefer Yetzirah and thus was able to feed them both this meat and milk at the same time.

R. Isaiah Horowitz in his work Sheni Luchot HaBrit (Shelah) similarly understands the controversy between the brothers and Joseph. Specifically, Joseph, according to some Midrashic sources three negative things about the brothers – they at ever min ha-hai, they engaged in intercourse with Canaanite females and they embarrassed the children of the servants. The Shelah explains all three were based upon the Sefer Yetzirah. He explains that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham and passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob. The brothers, however, felt the sons of the servants were not worthy of such an important work (thus speaking ill or embarrassing them). Additionally, the brothers acted on the book and created animals which they ate from before killing them as there was no need being they were created via the Sefer Yetzirah. Further “it is possible that the tribes [the brothers] had created a woman” and it was these things Joseph saw and misunderstood to be regular beings. Again, according to the Shelah, intercourse or otherwise with beings from other worlds pose no halakhic issues. It is not surprising the Shelah took this position as the Shelah’s teacher was R. Meir of Lublin the one who permitted the woman who had intercourse with a demon to remain married.[2]

Perhaps the brothers were not the only ones to make women for this purpose, it is recorded (albeit much later) that R. Solomon Ibn Gabriol (1021-1058) created a woman to “serve” him. But, when the authorities found out he was forced to show it was merely wood and not a person.[3]

At the end of the forgery Niflot HaMaharal (the most comprehensive source for the false legend the Maharal of Prague created a golem) there is a discussion of various aspects of a golem. For instance, whether a golem would create impurity after it was “killed” (it would not) and the like. In regards to intercourse they state that “a golem can not reproduce nor does it have desires for the opposite sex.” It would seem that in the Paul Wegner 1920 silent movie classic "Der Golem" he disagreed with that premise. Part of the plot line is the Golem falling in love with the Maharal’s daughter; the nobleman’s son also does and she in fact runs off with him only to have the Golem rescue her. (It seems the Simpsons also follows with a similar plot line.)

As a final note, it is worthwhile mentioning that going the route of trying to connect with the other world does have it perils. R. Yaakov Ettlinger, in his Binyan Tzion describes a case where a woman met a man who told her he was Elijah the prophet and through their union the Messiah would be produced. The woman believed him, only to find out after the fact the person was con man. R. Ettlinger deals with whether in such a case she can remain married to her husband. So, ultimately one should make certain they verify the credentials of any demon, golem or ghost prior to engaging in any questionable acts.

Sources: Yesh M'Nechalin, 267-68; Hannah Sprecher, "Diabolus Ex-Machina: An Unusual Case of Yuhasin" in Jewish Law Association Studies VIII: The Jerusalem Conference Volume, 183-204; J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (who although discusses the topic of intercourse with a demon appears to have been unaware of Sprecher's article which contains many more sources than Chajes cites or discusses); Moshe Idel, Golem, esp. pp. 213-241 (which was reprinted almost in its entirety in a Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000) article by Dr. John Loike available here (PDF); R. Yudel Rosenberg, Niflot HaMahral (Pitrokav, 1909), pp. 71-74; R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Binyan Tzion, no. 164; Shnayer Z. Leiman, "The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London; R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague," Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58; see also the account in Kav Ha-Yashar from R. Moshe Koidonover, translated by Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 161-63.

[1] See the discussion in the R. Reuven Margulies edition how he could have been motzei them if he was dead. Sefer Hassidim, no. 1129.

[2] Interestingly, Idel in his book Golem, appears to have been unaware of the connection between the Shelah and R. Meir of Lublin.

[3] In the halakhic realm, most are already familiar with the well-known question first posed by R. Tzvi Ashkenazi and elaborated on by his son R. Ya’akov Emden, whether a golem could be counted for a minyan (quorum).

]]> Golem Historical Oddities Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/7/Ghosts-Demons-Golems-and-their-Halachik-Status Kitzur Shelah, Sabbatianism, and the Importance of Owning Old Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/1/Kitzur-Shelah-Sabbatianism-and-the-Importance-of-Owning-Old-Books
R. Jacob Emden, in his Torat haKenot claims a well known and fairly popular book is written by a Sabbatian (a follower of the false-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi). This book, Kitzur Shelah, authored by R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, which although its title implies is merely an abridged version of the Shelah (Sheni Luchot HaBrit) by R. Isaiah Horowitz, is much more than that. While the Kitzur Shelah does include some content from the larger Shelah it also includes much else which appears no where in the Shelah. Perhaps the most well-known custom to come out of the Kitzur Shelah is the custom to recite a verse which beginning and end letters of the verse correspond to the first and last letters of ones name. (Although this does have another source as well, the Kitzur Shelah is the first to include actual verses and it is those verses which appear in the siddurim.)

R. Emden claims that R. Epstein makes a reference to Sabbatai Zevi in the Introduction to the Kitzur Shelah. R. Emden's exact language is "גם רמז על הצוא"ה בהקדמת קשל"ה" [R. Emden uses צואה (excrement) to refer to Sabbatai Zevi in that the numerical value of צואה is the same as צבי]. The Introduction is in fact but a single paragraph and at first glance it would seem to imply that the author was not a follower of Sabbatai Zevi. This is so, as the author expresses his hope that the publication of this book will be a merit for the coming of the Messiah. Such a line implies that the Messiah has not in fact come, which is counter to the idea of Sabbatai Zevi already coming and being the true Messiah.

But, with this, we need to start on our journey through multiple editions of the Kitzur Shelah. Although you will find it nowhere on the title pages of any of the editions, in fact there are at least four different editions of this work. (There was what is known as a מהדורה בתרא of the Kitzur Shelah, however, for our purposes that is irrelevant.) That is, there are at least four distinct versions.

First we need to understand where it is explicit in the Introduction that the author is a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and for that we must turn to the early editions. In the early editions the very line which discusses the hope for the Messiah appears as follows, " ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות משי"ח האמ"תי וגם יזכו אל ימו"ת משי"ח." If you note, you can see that four words contain quotation marks. These marks are the key to understanding R. Emden's claim. These marks, generally, have two purposes one to signify the use of an abbreviation and the second to indicate that aside from the plain meaning of the word, one should also use the gematria - numerical value of the word. This device is extremely common on title pages of books where verses are used to indicate the date of publication. The words which the printers wish to use have the marks.

In this instance, it is the same. That is, the value of the four words or more specifically, the two sets of two words, are equal to 814 (משי"ח האמ"תי = 814 and ימו"ת משי"ח = 814). Sabbatai Zevi is also equivalent to 814 (שבתי צבי = 814). Thus, the "true Messiah" the author is referencing is in fact Sabbatai Zevi.

Now, in the later editions, these quotation marks were removed. Thus, there is no longer a signal to the reader to use the value of the words. But, it seems the removal was insufficient for some. In at least one edition (Frankfurt am Main, 1745) the entire Introduction was removed.

So we now have three different versions, the early ones with the quotation marks, the later with those removed and the final without the Introduction. In 1998 the Kitzur Shelah was reprinted with some additional notes and nikkud. In this edition it seems it was no longer good enough to just leave out the quotation marks, instead, the text itself was altered. In place of the line we have been discussing in this edition the line reads "ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות ביאת משיח צדקנו." I have been unable to locate this language in any edition I have checked, thus leading one to believe this change was deliberate to "address" the claim of R. Jacob Emden.

Thus, this is an example of why it pays to own (or at least have access) to multiple editions and that although subtle a minor change can have a major effect. All three versions appear on the side for the reader to see for themselves. The top is a copy of the Amsterdam 1724 edition (which is the same as it appears in the first edition). The second is a photo-mechanical reproduction of the Lember 1862 edition. And the final one is from the 1998 edition. You can click on the picture for a larger version.

Sources: Shnayer Z. Leiman "ספרים החשודים בשתאות: רשימתו של הגאון יעב"ץ זצ"ל" in ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ זצ"ל pp.885-894 esp. n. 12. On the topic of Sabbatianism in books see Naor, Post Sabbatian Sabbatianism

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/11/1/Kitzur-Shelah-Sabbatianism-and-the-Importance-of-Owning-Old-Books Chofetz Hayyim His Death, the New York Times and Research Tools http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/31/Chofetz-Hayyim-His-Death-the-New-York-Times-and-Research-Tools
I have gotten multiple emails (and now S. has posted it on English Hebraica) in the past couple of days regarding an obituary which appeared in the New York Times for the Chofetz Hayyim. The email explains that after hearing someone mentioning the Times covered the Chofetz Hayyim's death the person couldn't believe it and decided to investigate the matter. He then went to the New York Public Library and poured over microfiche to finally locate the story on the Chofetz Hayyim's death. The story, which did indeed appear in the Times, is merely a republication of a Jewish Telegraphic Association article.

There are two points I would like to mention about this whole email and story surrounding it. First, I am at a loss to understand why this person had to go the New York Public Library. While I am all for libraries, for this research he could have done it from the comfort of his home in under 5 seconds. All he had to do was go the New York Times website and search using the words Chofetz Chaim. He would have found the article he located as well as another one, this second one actually written by the Times describing the memorial services held in Brooklyn. This second article discusses the various eulogies held at Tifereth Israel and had Rabbis Simha Solovetchick, Israel Dushowitz and M. Somanowits in attendance and participating in various degrees. Anyone who has a Times Select subscription (if you subscribe it is free) can download the articles.

Second, according to both articles the Chofetz Hayyim was 105 years old when he died. His actual age, however, is in dispute. Some place him at a mere 94 when he died. R. Nathan Kamenetsky, in his Making of a Godol, attempts to prove how old the Chofetz Hayyim actually was. He does so in a rather ingenious manner. First, he attempts to figure out how old the Chofetz Hayyim was when his father father died during the cholera epidemic. Also, at age 70 there was a birthday celebration that R. Kahanneman (Ponivezher Rav) attended in Radin. R. Kahanneman was in Radin in 1909 thus putting the Chofetz Hayyim's birthday in 1839. Finally, R. Kamenetsky points to the recently published request of the Chofetz Hayyim's to emigrate to Israel and the birth dates used there. In the end, R. Kamenetsky concludes that in fact the Chofetz Hayyim was a spring chicken of 94 when he died. (See Making of a Godol, pp. 1106-1108).

It is also worth mentioning that America was not the only other country (outside of Radin or Europe) where there were eulogies for the Chofetz Hayyim. R. Elchonon Wasserman was in England when the Chofetz Hayyim died and participated in a service for the Chofetz Hayyim where Rabbi I. J. Unterman gave a eulogy. London Jewish Chronicle, October 6, 1933, p. 8. (Thanks to Menachem of AJHistory fame.)

]]> Making of a Godol Historical Oddities Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/31/Chofetz-Hayyim-His-Death-the-New-York-Times-and-Research-Tools The RCA "Edition" (Or Lack Thereof) Siddur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/16/The-RCA-Edition-Or-Lack-Thereof-Siddur
When a Yom Tov falls out on Shabbat, we add additions to the standard Yom Tov shemonei esrei that relate to Shabbat. One of these additions is found in the V'haseanu והשיאנו blessing, where we add "elokenu v'lokei avosanu retzah bemunchatanu (אלקנו ולאקי אבותנו רצה במנוחתנו)." There is very little question about this addition is Shacharit.[1] The more complex question is the Mussaf. The reason for the complexity is that in the Shaharit there is no place where the formula of elokenu v'lokei avosanu appears, so one is forced to add the entire addition. But, in Mussaf there is an elokenu v'lokei avosanu, that is, right after one says the various verses relating to the offering of the day appears "elokenu v'lokei avosanu melk rachamun rachem alenu ... (אלקנו ולאקי אבותנו מלך רחמן רחם עלינו)". Because there already the alokenu v'lokei avosunu, thereby God's name is already mentioned, R. Yitzhak Isaac Tyrnau (end of the 14th century) in his book on Minhagim (page 56 Makhon Yerushalayim edition) says to just add here the words, retzeh bmunuchatanu here. By placing this addition here one avoids mentioning God's name later on. But the R. Mordecai Jaffe (1530-1612), in his Levush (Orach Hayyim no. 488), argues and says that just as in Shacarit one mentions this addition later on right next to "kadeshanu" therefore it is not proper to mention it here after the passages of the offerings as there is no mention of kadeshanu. Additionally, R. Jaffe argues we should be consistent between Mussaf, Shacharit, and Mincha/Ma’ariv. Just as in those prayers, this addition appears in v’haseanu so we should do the same for Mussaf. Therefore, according to the Levush, one has to say the entire formulation later on, including the elokenu v'lokei avosanu, a repetition of God's name, because though God's name appears earlier it is just not the right place to add this.[2]

What emerges from this is that there are two distinct customs, either one adds just the words "retzah bemunuchatun" right after the verses for the offerings and does not add anything later on, as that would defeat the whole purpose - avoiding repeating God's name. Or one does not add anything different after the recitation of the offerings, instead just as in the Morning Prayer, one adds the entire formula at the end of the blessing. Both of these customs have support in older siddurim. What has NO support and makes no sense is what appears in the Artscroll siddurim. In the Artscroll siddurim, BOTH additions appear.[3] That is, Artscroll advocates saying both the retzah bemuchutanu after the offerings and including the entire formulation later on. It would appear that they are unconcerned with the unnecessary repetition of God's name or custom. It seems that in an effort to conform to all the customs, they have conformed to none. What is rather bizarre, is that in the first edition of the Artscroll Siddur, only the second appears, it seems they altered it to include both?!

But, to be fair to Artscroll there is perhaps a bigger problem. Artscroll, while they print some nice books, are not a Rabbinic organization. The RCA (Rabbinical Council of America), as the name implies, is a Rabbinic organization. One assumes a Rabbinic organization would be tasked with getting something like this correct. Historically, the RCA did get it right. The original RCA commissioned siddur is edited by R. David de Sola Pool. In this siddur they only have the second mention (like the Levush). But, now the RCA has moved to a new siddur. This – the RCA edition of the Artscroll siddur – contains both (incorrect) mentions. In the introduction, the (then) president of the RCA states that part of the reason the RCA commissed a siddur at all was due to the many errors which had crept into the siddur. But, with this edition that does nothing other than slapping on an introduction by then-RCA president R. Saul Berman and adding the teffilah l’medinah, is the type that the RCA was claiming it was fixing.

Sources:

[1] Though there is some controversy about this, that is, R. Jacob Emden says that the elokenu v'lokei avosnu should always be recited even when it is not Shabbat. He claims that these words were bracketed by mistake and in early siddurim they are not bracketed. I have found that in the Prague, 1516 Siddur they are not bracketed. See Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, appendix. On the other extreme the Vilna Gaon who says that one never recites these words even when it is Shabbat.

[2] The Eliyahu Rabbah defends R. Tirna from the Levush and also asserts that all the older siddurim follow R. Tyrnau. In truth, the old siddurim are split between these two customs; see Additions to Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer for page 522.

[3] In the new Artscroll Hebrew-only siddurim they say "Yesh Mosifim" (there are those that add) by the first one, i.e. the one following the recitation of the offerings. But they still fail to recognize that those Yesh Mosifim also don't add the later one.

]]> Relating to Siddur Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:21:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/16/The-RCA-Edition-Or-Lack-Thereof-Siddur Artscroll = Pornography?! http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/11/Artscroll--Pornography
I recently received a sample of the new Artscroll work "A Daily Dose of Torah." This work, which is more or less a modern-day Hok l'Yisrael, parcels out 18 minute learning sections covering Gemara, Siddur, Mussur, etc. But setting aside the content, in the introduction there is a very curious quote.

In the introduction the editors thank Reb Sheah Brander for his "graphics genius." They explain "As someone once said in a different context, 'I can't put it into words, but I know it when I see it.'" They then apply the quote as "It is hard to define good taste and graphics beauty in words, but when one sees Reb Sheah's work, one knows it."

Now, the quote they have "I can't put it into words, but I know it when I see it" doesn't actually appear anywhere exactly as that. It is obvious, however, this quote is most likely taken from a well known Supreme Court concurrence authored by Justice Potter Stewart. The case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is about whether a movie was pornographic, or more correctly obscene. Justice Stewart said that although it was difficult to define or articulate what exactly fit the definition of pornography "I know it when I see it." (Id. at 197.)

So, they are absolutely correct that "someone once said in a different context" but I am unsure if they knew exactly what context that was.

]]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:05:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/11/Artscroll--Pornography Tussle Over Horowitz's Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/11/Tussle-Over-Horowitzs-Book
As I mentioned before, Elliott Horowitz wrote an excellent book on Purim and its connection with violence. But, as some are wont to do, instead of reading a book objectively they come into a book with all sorts of preconceived notions. This was typified by Hillel Halkin's review of Horowitz's book. In the June 2006 issue of Commentary Magazine, Halkin reviewed Horowitz's book. I did not bother to mention this, solely because it was painfully obvious Halkin did not read the first half of the book, or chose to ignore it (as Horowitz points out in his response), and that Halkin was only interested in finding fault. Halkin takes issue with the very notion that Jews could be violent and thus can not believe (or address) most of Horwitz's points. In fact, much of Horowitz's thesis had already been published years ago in his articles on the topics. (Perhaps Halkin doesn't read academic journals? Although he feels it fine to review an academic work).

Well in the October 2006 issue of Commentary Magazine, Elliott Horowitz responses as does Halkin. Halkin's response, however, is so juvenile and void of content, he does more to undermine his position than anything Horowitz could have done. Halkin to buttress his position resorts to name calling and a general ad hominem attack. So, for example, Halkin starts by noting
As I stated in my review, Elliot Horowitz wrote an interesting but not entirely honest book. How he has written an uninteresting and thoroughly dishonest letter.
Setting aside Halkin's vitriolics, Horowitz, as he is wont to do, uses the terrific image of the Godfather movies to prove his point. He notes that there is a distinction between the Godfather and Bonnie and Clyde, one which just has violence and the other which explores it. Horowitz, thus illuminates his purpose of exploring the sources and theological underpinnings of his thesis. [Now, there are not that many Jewish academics who cite to movies (or as he does in another of his articles compares the imagery in a haggadah to Bugs Bunny) so this somewhat is refreshing.] Halkin, of course, fails to note this (apparently he is not one for subtleties) and instead turns the movie quote into a childish retort of
If Horowitz wanted to write a Jewish version of The Godfather . . . he should have done a movie script.
Additionally, Halkin fails to address most of Horowitz's most salient points. So, Halkin still ignores the entire first half of Howowitz's book and fails to explain the rampent use of the term Amalek to this day. It is disappointing that Commentary publishes such drivel, but does demonstrate that one should not judge a book by its cover nor a review (or reviewer) by its inclusion in Commentary.

You can read the full exchange here for yourself until the end of October 2006.

]]> Purim Book Reviews Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:58:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/10/11/Tussle-Over-Horowitzs-Book R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, Tikkat Shofar on Shabbat & plagiarism (of course) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/20/R-Akiva-Yosef-Schlesinger-Tikkat-Shofar-on-Shabbat--plagiarism-of-course
Menachem Mendel has a very good post discussing the issues and the history regarding the propriety of blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana when it falls on Shabbat. A central figure in this discussion is R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger. R. Schlesinger is perhaps best known for his book Lev haIvri a commentary on the last will and testament of the Hatam Sofer. In this book, which perhaps can be used to trace much of Haredi ideology today, the bulk is devoted to putting down the "reformers." He discusses Mendelssohn's Biur, speaking in the vernacular and a host of other issues. There is no doubt he held what many would consider extremists views. R. Schlesinger has a less well known side - his love of Israel and dislike or almost vehement hatred of inertia.

R. Schlesinger who was born and raised in Hungry emigrated to Israel. When he got to Israel, at the time, most people were supported by the various kollelim. These kollelim would be set up by country, Hungarian Kollel etc. (the American Kollel was controversial). These kollelim in turn wielded tremendous power - they had the money. R. Schlesinger took a very dim view of these kollelim. First, he felt the money was not given out based upon need and merit, rather it was given based upon status and connections. Additionally, this system only ensured that people would never actually try and make money themselves. To be clear, these kollelim did not only support people learning full time, rather, almost everyone was supported by them.

R. Schlesinger came out strongly against the kollelim and decided to set up his own system. This system he outlined his book Kollel HaIvirim. First, he explains his system would be democratic. He explains that the Torah requires one to follow the majority. This is so, even when a Godol or the like holds different views. He proves this by pointing to the system of the Sanhedrin. There, they did not just go with greatest Rabbi on the Sanhedrin, rather, they started polling the views of the lowest one. (p. 7).

According to R. Schlesinger's system the Kollel or Board would be in charge of almost everything. They would oversee the education of the children. He advocated for marriage at 18 and then a 3 year period to devote to study. However, R. Schlesinger notes, not too many people are successful at just studying Torah full time, therefore, the Kollel should see who is not or who does not have an interest and they should learn a proper profession. This study should not be half hazard. Instead, they should study from a expert and devote a significant amount of time to this endeavor. He includes agriculture among these professions. (p. 9-10)

R. Schlesinger did not shy away from accountability. Even today many religious organizations do not have open books. R. Schlesinger, however, advocated for a yearly accounting which would be sent to all where they could view all the expenses and the accounting of the Kollel. (p.11).

He also seems to have taken what today would be considered a religious Zionist view of the then current status of Israel. Although at the time, Israel was under the rule of the Turkish government, due to the fact, they were fairly benevolent he understood that it was already then - long before the founding of the State of Israel - the messianic era. Specifically, he points to the Talmudic passage which explains the only change during the messianic era will be the removal of government oppression (אין בין עולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד). (p. 19) Additionally, he chides his former countrymen on their aversion to move to Israel. He says R. Isaiah Horowitz in the 16th century moved to Israel although it took a year to do. Today, he says, it is easy. The government gives anyone who wants a pass and it on the fast ships and rail it takes a mere 10 days. (p. 16).

Although it was fairly safe, R. Schlesinger was aware there still should be a security force. Thus, he advocated for a month long rotation for everyone. These watchers would serve for a month and then others would take their place. He says they should do so even on Shabbat. (p. 26b).

He wanted everyone to have a flag. There would be a general Kollel haIvrim flag with white, green, purple and turquoise. Then each shevet would have their own as well. (p. 27).

All of these plans met with serious resentment from the established Kollelim. They viewed him as undermining their system and way of life. So, as anyone who wants to get someone in trouble does - they searched his books to find something they could ban. Sure enough, they were successful. In his book Bet Yosef Hadash, which is on the Bet Yosef, he discusses a terrible problem and attempts to find a satisfactory answer. In Russia at the time there was forced conscription for a 25 year period. This was a Jewish death sentence - some people, were taken as young as 8. So, some would flee Russia and move to Israel to avoid this. At times, their wives refused to come. R. Schlesinger, therefore, discusses the possibility of getting around the Herem of Rabbenu Gershon on two wives. R. Schlesinger's enemies, however, accused him of doing away with and not respecting the Herem.

They consigned his books to the fire and put a ban on them.

In the end, however, his students (and he had many) were successful in setting up the city of Petach Tikvah (see here for more). They wanted R. Schlesinger to join them, and he did. He purchased land, but to honor his father in law, purchased it in his father in laws name.

Unfortunately, this had terrible ramifications. When R. Schlesinger returned to Hungary to gain support for his movement, his enemies went to his father in law. His father in law was old and could not take this. His father in law signed over the land he owned in Petach Tikvah, the land which was the culmination of R. Schlesinger's dream to his enemies, the Hungarian Kollel. R. Schlesinger then attempted to get it back. He did win some court victories. His opponents, however, used his own means against him. They ignored the pronouncements of the Bet Din, knowing that R. Schlesinger would never go to a non-Jewish court.

It seems that not only was R. Schlesinger a tragic figure, but other things he touched as well. Shmuel Weingarten was an avid Zionist. He published, among other things, a book demonstrating the collection of anti-Zionist letters in Dovev Siftei Yeshanim were forgeries. At the end of his life he obtained letters sent to R. Schlesinger's group (although they don't mention it, Weingarten shows they in fact were)and published them in a volume titled B'Shevach Yishuv Ha'aretz. These letters were from many Rabbis, some who were not that well known. Weingarten, as he notes, had to spend considerable effort tracking down and providing biographical information about these persons. He also transcribed the letters. He, unfortunately, did not live to see this book published.

In 1999/2000 some in Beni Brak B. Margolius (most likely a woman due to the lack of first name), published a book, Ragli Mevasar. This book is divided into three parts. The first two are biographies of R. Schlesinger and his father in law. The last part are the very same letters originally published by Weingarten. Additionally, they include the very same biographies that Weingarten did. There is absolutely no attribution at all! I have included a page from each were the reader can see how they are the same. The top page is from Weingarten and the bottom from Ragli Mevasar. None of the library catalogs I have seen note that this is plagiarized.

]]> Customs Herem Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/20/R-Akiva-Yosef-Schlesinger-Tikkat-Shofar-on-Shabbat--plagiarism-of-course Custom, Confusion, and Remembrances http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/19/Custom-Confusion-and-Remembrances
There is an excellent book in which a women describes growing up in Lithuana in the early and mid 1800's. This book, Rememberings, originally written in German, has recently been translated into English. The author, Pauline Wengeroff, grew up in a traditional Orthodox home. She records a terrific amout of customs and how life was then. Eventually, due in part to the influence of the haskalah she, her husband and her family did not remain Orthodox. The book was fully translated and the complete unedited version is available online for free here (although there seems to be issues with the first part) or you can purchase a more readable version here.

There is a terrific story relating to Yom Kippur and how, perhaps, some customs get started.

In Europe, it was somewhat common to have what was known as a zoger (a man) or zogerkes (a woman). This, literaly translated, means a sayer or repeater. This person served to allow women who otherwise could not read to be able to recite the proper prayers. The zoger would say the prayer and this was then repeated. When it was a man doing this, he had to crawl into a barrel which was put in the women's section.

With this background we can now move to the story as recorded by Pauline Wengeroff.
"On Yom Kippur the zogerke was supposed to recite the paryer in a tearful voice." The butcher's wife was hard of hearing so "she begged the zogerke to pray a little louder: she'd give her an extra large liver from the shop if she [the zogerke] would do it for her. The zogerke answered in her weepeing prayer voice, weaving her reply into the recitiation: 'The same with the liver, the same without the liver.' A moment later the men were startled to hear the entire women's gallery sob aloud in a full voice: 'The same with the liver, the same without the liver.'"
The story continues when one of the women were leaving Shul and another was entering. The one coming in asked what they were up to, to which she got the reply
"Nu, the prayer about the liver." "Liver? Last year we didn't say anything like that!" "Today, efsher (maybe), because it's a leap year . . ."

]]> Customs Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/19/Custom-Confusion-and-Remembrances Machnesi Rachamim and Plagerism http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/12/Machnesi-Rachamim-and-Plagerism
This Saturday night many begin to say the Selichot prayers. There is one prayer in particular that has raised question throughout the centuries, Machnesi Rachmim. This prayer, which asks the angels to take our prayers is controversial. The reason for the controversy is that we generally avoid praying to angels, instead, we pray to God. Now, in truth there are many, many prayers that are either directly or indirectly addressed at angels, but Machnesi Rachmim is perhaps the most overt although one should keep this point in mind should one decide to drop Machnesi Rachmim.

Already from the times of the Geonim, they have dealt with angels in prayers (they said it was ok). As the generation progressed there were those who questioned this and claimed these prayers ran afoul of the prohibition of praying to someone other than God. This debate was brought to head in the 18th century in Italy, where both camps were represented by long letters for and against. In the end, it was decided that it was ok for people to continue saying these prayers. Of course, this decision did not appease those who thought it was blasphemous to do so, and the debate continued on (as almost all Jewish debates).

In the case of the 18th century debate, the various positions were recorded in one of the earliest Jewish encyclopedias, Pachad Yitzhak. Those who said it was ok based this upon two authorities (although there are others, some of which they were aware of and some of which they were not). These two were the Etz Shetul commentary on R. Joseph Albo’s Sefer HaIkkrim (first printed Venice, 1618) and the commentary on the Machzor, Hadrat Kodesh (this commentary was first printed in 1567 in Lubin, however, this commentary was then "updated" in the Prague by the editor R. Moshe Shedel. This Prague edition was reprinted numerous time, however, in all these early editions there was no specific title to the commentary and instead was called "haMifaresh." The title Hadrat Kodesh was first used in the 1600 Venice edition and then in subsequent reprints.) [What is of passing interest, and one wonders whether it precipitated this controversy, is that this commentary was just republished right before the debate broke out in Venice 1711 - this editions title page is reproduced below. As one can see it is very elaborate with rather interesting illustrations. Additionally, the Hadrat Kodesh commentary relating to the above discussion from this edition is also reproduced below.] On the other hand, the opponents discounted the justifications offered by these two (at times in rather irreverent terms) and claimed based upon a simple reading these types of prayers were prohibited. Two leading Rabbis were called to adjudicate the matter, and as I mentioned above, they ruled the practice could continue. One, R. Shmuel Abaob, actually had to respond again as the opponents refused to accept his initial decision.

One of the other more common places this comes up is in the prayers Shalom Alechim said on Friday nights. Again, this is more or less the same debate regarding the stanza asking the angels for a blessing. R. Jacob Emden in his Siddur as well as his commentary on the Tur/Shulchan Orakh actually offers the same justification as that of the Hadrat Kodesh and then realizes that it is the same and they would be equally applicable. R. Emden ultimately decided to remove all the passages from Shalom Alechim with the exception of the first stanza (although in most purported editions of R. Emden’s Siddur including the most recent one, the entire Shalom Alechim appears.)

All of the above and more was collected in an article which appeared in the journal Yeshurun. This article was so good and so comprehensive it was then plagiarized in the book Mo’adim l’Simcha. In fact, R. Fruend the “author” of Mo’adim l’Simcha even took the errors which appear in the Yeshurun article. For instance, they cite to the work Sheboli haLeket no. 252 when the correct citation is to 282; and Fruend repeats this. Fruend, seems to have a very different view of plagiarizing than is currently accepted. He does cite to the Yeshurun article a few times, but this does not absolve his copying verbatim of the article. This is not the only time Fruend does this. Instead, he does this over and over again with many of the articles which appear in his books. Sometimes he gives passing credit to the original authors and sometimes he doesn’t. While it is somewhat troubling that Fruend does this, it is worthwhile pointing out that Fruend's books, Mo'adim l'Simcha are very good (in part because he uses excellent sources) and at the very least compiling and condensing the many articles on the many topics he covers is worthwhile. Finally, not everything in his books is plagiarized, instead, there are whole articles which are Fruend's and they are also very good.

Sources: R. Dr. Shlomo Sprecher, “The Controversy About Machnesi Rachmim” in Yeshurun no. 3 p. 706-729; R. Fruend, Mo’adim l’Simcha, vol. Elul – Tishrei p. 37-62; also for more on Machnesi Rachmim including manuscript evidence see S. Emmanuel's article available here. Of course, the above does not discuss the more general question of whether one should say any piyuttim which is for another post.

Title page from the Venice 1711 Machzor Sha'ar Bat Rabim which includes the Hadras Kodesh commentary
Commentary of the Hadrat Kodesh discussing the Machnesi Rachamim prayer

]]> Customs Plagiarism Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/12/Machnesi-Rachamim-and-Plagerism The Hatam Sofer's Humor http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/12/The-Hatam-Sofers-Humor
For Nachi and Matt and their love of noses.

I heard the following from Dr. Leiman. In the Hatam Sofer's yeshiva in Pressburg, it was the custom for all to wear hats while learning. This included fairly young boys. One day a ba'al ha'bus (a community member not part of the Yeshiva) came in and saw a young boy learning. As he was a youngster, his hat was a bit oversized. The ba'al ha'bus went over to him and said "Shalom aleichem Hat, where is the bucher [boy]." The boy turned around and was rather disturbed by this insult, noticed the man's rather prominent nose. The boy replied, "Shalom aleichem Nose where is the ba'al ha'bus." This reply incensed the ba'al ha'bus and he immediately went to the Hatam Sofer to complain.

The Hatam Sofer called the boy over to hear his side of the story. The boy explained he was minding his own business when this person made a comment about his hats size to which he just replied in kind. Upon hearing this, the Hatam Sofer responded, using a verse from this week's Torah portion (Det. 29:23), if this is so, "מה חרי האף הגדול הזה." (A play on words to mean "what anger [spite] this great nose displays.")

]]> Historical Oddities Shnayer Leiman Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/12/The-Hatam-Sofers-Humor Tikkun Soferim - Later Amendations to the Torah? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/10/Tikkun-Soferim--Later-Amendations-to-the-Torah
For the full recovery of HaRav R. J. Wasserstein

I heard a very interesting speech this weekend [which S. had previously discussed here as well], and I have decided to expand some on it.

In this weeks Torah reading we were treated to a rather strange occurrence. Although, throughout the Torah, there are words read different than they are written, at least in the Torah (Nakh provides plentiful examples of significantly altered words), these are minor corrections. Most of these corrections are merely the maleh or hasar (plene and defective) spellings. Yet, in last week’s reading two words appeared which instead of reading the actual words we substitute two totally different words (chapter 28, 27 & 30). The substituted words are not different in the sense of their meaning – their meanings are very similar just they express the same in a different manner – just in their pronunciation. These alterations are based upon the TB, Meggilah 25b. The Talmud explains these words were altered as the way they written was considered too crass and thus required substitution.[1]

Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, states that these words are the product of the Tikkun Soferim, corrections of the Scribes.[2] What are the Tikkun Soferim? There are two basic ways to understand what these soferim did. If one looks at Rashi’s first mention of the Tikkun Soferim, both of these are represented. That is, in the first mention, there are three different versions of Rashi. Depending upon which version one has, will in turn inform the debate about what the Tikkun Soferim did.

Rashi’s first mention of the this concept is found in Genesis, when God visited Abraham. God came to visit after Abraham circumcised himself. However, this visit was interrupted by the appearance of the three angels (who appeared like men to Abraham). After they left God came back as it was, however, it was viewed inappropriate to say that God came and stood or waited before Abraham. Therefore, the verse was altered to say that Abraham still stood before God. Rashi explains this change is one of the Tikkun Soferim. The simple way to understand this concept is just the Rabbis came and explained that although there should have been a different reading, this one was chosen so not appear offensive to God. But, importantly, the Rabbis did not actually make the change, rather they came to explain it.

In some editions[3] of Rashi, there are a few additional words which offer a very different insight into the Tikkun Soferim process. These are “שהפכוהו רבותינו לכתוב זה” or “The Rabbis altered it to state thus.”[4] This means that after the Torah was written, some later Rabbis came and altered to the text.

This understanding presents a problem in light of the creed offered by Maimonides, among others, that the Torah never changed.[5] But, before we get to that we need to first locate Rashi’s source for this understanding.

It seems, the source for the additional words is based upon a Midrash Tanhuma (Beshalach 16). In this Midrash it states that the men of the Great Assembly (אנשי כנסת הגדולה) were the ones who did the Tikkun Soferim. Thus, this Midrash is stating that these changes were actually done – done by the men of the Great Assembly. This Midrash is in conflict with other statements, most notably by the Bereishit Rabbah (36,7). There, there is no mention of the men of the Great Assembly and thus no human alterations.

Now, some have claimed based in part upon this conflict and the problem mentioned above that the Tanchuma has been corrupted. This position was espoused by R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Einayim. He says that the words regarding the men of the Great Assembly were later emendation based upon an error. Specifically, de Rossi states “that some impetuous person, as I think, wanting to honor the Men of the Great Synagogue, wrote those words in the margin of his copy of the Yelammedenu [Tanhuma]. His colleage, the printer, than instead his words into the body of the text for the sake of clarity.”[6] De Rossi, then argues that not only was that Tanhuma altered in this fashion, but the previously cited Rashi was as well. He says that the additional words are “unquestionably an error.” (For other examples of this phenomenon see R. Zilber, Ohr Yisrael 41, p. 201-223.) De Rossi’s position was quoted favorably by some traditional commentaries[7] attempting to deal with the problematic Rashi as well as the Tanhuma. This is of course ironic in that de Rossi’s work was banned for taking liberties with various statements of the Rabbis.

Yet, for all these justifications, as Lieberman has shown, even if one discounts the Tanhuma, there are still other examples of similar statements regarding Tikkun Soferim. Thus, we are forced to conclude that there are in fact two traditions regarding how to understand Tikkun Soferim. One holds the Rabbis did not alter the text while the other is inapposite. In truth, the latter position is not nearly as problematic as it is at first glance. Already R. Hai Goan[8] deals with a similar issue regarding the accuracy of Torah’s text. Specifically, the TB, Kiddushin is in conflict with the way we have our Torahs. R. Hai explains, that we for our purposes, we only have our Torahs and that we need not worry about perceived conflicts. According to R. Hai, so long as we follow the halakhic process we need not worry about historic inaccuracies. One could argue, the Tanhuma and perhaps Rashi took a similar position, so long as the Tikkun Soferim was based upon established Talmudic principles, there was room to even amend the Torah.

Sources and further reading: see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 64-67 (and the sources cited therein); Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 28-37; Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374; C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 347-363; Marc B. Shapiro, Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 98-100.

[1] The written words are coarser versions of the ones which are actually read.

[2] Rashi’s assertion that this change is from the Tikkun Soferim is problematic. None of the various Massorah lists include this example in their lists. See, e.g., Okhlah we-Okhlah, list 168 (p. 113 of the Frensdorff ed.); C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, vol. 2 (vol. 4 at seforimonline.org) p. 710 list 206. Instead, as Liberman has noted, generally the Tikkun Soferim were inappropriate references to God and not generally problematic words, as is the case here.

[3] This includes the first edition, Reggio, [1475]. Other early editions, however, do not include these words, for a discussion of these see Rashi HaShalem, vol. 1 202-203 n. 75, 357.

[4] The third version contains these words in parenthesis.

[5] On this topic see generally B. Barry Levy, Fixing God’s Torah, and Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 91-121.

[6] Translation from Weinberg ed. of Me’or Einayim, p. 327.

[7] See Etz Yosef commentary to the Tanhuma; R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374.

[8] Harkavey, Teshuvot HaGeonim, no. 3.

]]> Tanakh Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:41:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/10/Tikkun-Soferim--Later-Amendations-to-the-Torah The Custom of Reciting l'Dovid HaShem Ori http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/6/The-Custom-of-Reciting-lDovid-HaShem-Ori
A fairly universal custom is to recite the passage from Psalms l'Dovid Hashem Ori twice a day during the month of Elul. A question which has received renewed scrutiny recently is where this custom came from. The most obvious answer is the work Hemdat Yamim. This work, however, is rather controversial. Many claim this book (which has many other well-accepted customs) was written by Nathan of Gaza, the prophet of the infamous false-Messiah Shabbetai Zevi. Thus, if the Hemdat Yamim is in fact the source, that would not be a good thing.

So, some have claimed that in fact there is another source for the recitation of l'Dovid HaShem during Elul. They point to the book Shem Tov Kotton. In this book, which is a collection of additionally kabbalistic prayers, there is a mention to say l'Dovid HaShem during Elul. The problem, however, is that a) Shem Tov Kotton only says to do so on Monday and Thursday and the 10 days of repentance but not everyday in Elul; (b) he also says that not only one should say l'Dovid but also additionally prayers some of his own compilation and others such as the 13 middot haRachmim and the Psalm Rananu Tzadikim; (c) finally, he says to say l'dovid HaShem immediately after Shmonei Esreh. So it would seem that in all likelyhood the Shem Tov Katton is not the source of our custom to say l'Dovid daily, at the end of prayers, without any additional prayers.[1]

So we are back to square one. Lest one despair some have come to fill this gap. They say anyways the Shem Tov Koton would not have been the best source as they would rather this custom ultimately come from the Ari'zal (which the Shem Tov Koton would not). Now, some just claim the Hemdat Yamim is really a student of the Ari and is perfectly kosher. This solves everything, but that is not the general consensus. Instead, they have located that R. Hayyim haKohen who was known as student of the R. Hayyim Vital and himself an important conduit for the Ari'zal's writtings, says to say l'Dovid HaShem during Elul. Now, as it was we have a Ari'zal source so the custom has been saved.

Not so fast. First, a rather interesting work was recently redone and republished on the Shir Shel Yom. This book, Shirei haLevim, is everything and anything having to do with the Shir Shel Yom. The book, discusses all the Ari"zal's customs as connected to the Shir Shel Yom, the book was originally published in 1677. However, no where in this book is there any discussion of l'Dovid, which tends to show that although the author was well versed in all the other Ari'zal's Shir Shel Yom customs, it seems not this one. Thus, it seems doubtful this custom actually emerged from the Ari'zal.

But, even more questionable is that in the manuscript from which R. Hayyim Kohen's comments were published that manuscript contains nothing about l'Dovid haShem instead, it appears the publisher inserted into the R. Hayyim's work. And as already has noted by some (see Yudolov's comments for the entry of Sha'arei Rachmim [No. 0182652] on the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book 1470-1960) many insertations to the work in question, the Sha'arei Rotzon, are found in the Hemdat Yamim.

2007 Update: Also, it is worth pointing out the lengths persons will go to obscure the Hemdat Yamim source. For instance, in the Siddur Alyiyat Eliyahu and the Machzor by the same editor, Mikrai Kodesh, in both these siddurim the editor offers the following as the source for l'Dovid: "Sha'arei Tefilah which attributes this custom to R. Hayyim Kohen, a student of the AriZa"L, Shem Tov Koton." So, the earliest source is this work Sha'arei Tefilah which attributes it tho R. Hayyim Kohen - this apparently is a new source, which, although we have seen other sources which attribute it to R. Hayyim we saw that source was questionable at best. While the editor did not explain which of the many Sha'arei Tefilah he is referring to[2], in fact he is referring to R. Ya'akov Raccah's work published in 1870. Now, as this work is published in 1870 and supposedly is the source for what R. Hayyim Kohen who died in 1655 and authored many of his own works which discuss similar topics should immediately be a red flag . When one actually looks at the Sha'arei Teffilah the quote (p. 48) one sees that he is not the source, instead, all the Sha'arei Teffilah does is quote the Sha'arei Rotzon, which, as noted above, we now know is not actually a quote from R. Hayyim, and instead merely the later insertation of the editors of that work. Now, why would the editor go so far out of his way to reference a rather obscure work from the late 19th century as the first source for this custom but never make any mention of the earlier source Hemdat Yamim at all? It would seem that he wanted to avoid as much as possible any connection to this source.

Notes:
[1] R. Katz, in Divrei Yosef (p. 175) uses the differences between the custom advocated for the Hemdat Yamim - l'dovid should be recited prior to selichot, as a "proof" that our custom can not be based upon Hemdat Yamim. Katz, however, is silent about the numerous differences between our custom and what the Shem Tov Koton advocates for.

[2] It is especially ironic that the editor did not explain which Sha'arei Tefilah he is referencing as the editor spends a considerable portion of his introduction castigating R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau's Sha'arei Tefilah (the most well-known work with the title Sha'arei Teffilah) for numerous precieved sins. Such a bland citation my lead an innocent reader to make the grave error that the editor is now citing to this "horrible" work.

Sources: Shirei HaLevim was reprinted and retypeset in the book Shirat Shmuel; on l'Dovid see Ohr Yisrael no. 1 by R. Katz (reprinted in his Divrei Yosef); Shem Tov Koton, Chernowitz, 1855 12a-13a (available online at Hebrewbooks.org; R. Goldhaber, Minhagei Kehillot vol. 2 p. 8 (he is the source for the manuscript evidence) Goldhaber's work is generally excellent; on Hemdat Yamim (the recent controversy) see R. M. Tzuriel's recent reprint and his introduction; R. N. Greenwald "The Attitudes of the Leaders of Hassidim towards the book 'Hemdat Yamim'," Hechal HaBesht no. 6; 34-64; R. Mondshien's response in the next issue of Hechal HaBesht and Greenwald's response to R. Mondshein in that issue; for even more on Hemdat Yamim as well as where you can get your own copy for free see my prior post here ; for more on R. Hayyim Kohen, see here about half way down the page.

]]> Customs Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:13:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/9/6/The-Custom-of-Reciting-lDovid-HaShem-Ori Auction Catalog & New Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/29/Auction-Catalog--New-Book
Kestenbaum has put up their latest catalog for their auction of September 12 2006. It has some rather nice pieces.

Just to highlight one. They have the Siddur by R. Jacob Emden. While this siddur in and of itself is somewhat rare due to the fact R. Emden self-published this, the copy Kestenbaum has is even more unique. This copy contains pages which do not appear in most of the copies. R. Emden disagrees with Maimonides regarding the purpose of circumcision. R. Emden argues, contrary to Maimonides, that circumcision does not reduce sexual excitement in fact it enhances it. In the majority of copies all that appears is "In truth, [Maimonides'] remarks are most astonishing" but nothing about R. Emden's contrary view. The lot with this book as well as a fuller discussion is number 53.

Second, recently David Assaf published a collection of his articles. While his articles did engender that much notice - his book on the other hand has. Tzemach Atlas of Mentalblog has been following this and has collected various newspaper reviews as well as his own. The book in question deals with various hassidic stories, some of which have been suppressed due the perceived slight on their participants. These include an apostasy of a Rebbe's son as well as other interesting facts.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/29/Auction-Catalog--New-Book Jews, Beards and Portraits http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/28/Jews-Beards-and-Portraits
"If men be judged wise by their beards and their girth, Then goats would be the wisest creatures on Earth."
With the High Holidays approaching one of the more interesting attributes which takes a more prominent position is that of shaving or facial hair. Of course, prior to any Shabbat or Yom Tov, one is supposed to shave and take a haircut. Yet, for the High Holidays, there is a special emphasis on facial hair. One of the attributes that the Hazan should have is a beard. Although a beard is not the only qualification for the Hazan, nor is it the dispositive one, it is still mentioned. The importance of the beard is mentioned in the Hazan’s prayer prior to the Mussaf prayers. In that prayer, he lists some of his possible faults including his lack of a full beard (זקן מגודל). [As an aside, this prayer is public and a general one listing in a general manner the various shortcomings everyone really has, Artscroll has that one should say silently some of the faults which seems to belie the fact that every hazzan says this thus removing any individual stigma. Yet, were I pray most years, the Hazzan goes one step further and says half if not more silently. I don’t know if this is due to his immense piety or in fact all those things are applicable to him or perhaps he doesn’t think any of those are applicable and is really just skipping them.]

While the Torah prohibits shaving one’s face with a razor, according to most, one can still remove facial hair. There is a long and tortuous debate about what exactly one can use to remove facial hair, however, putting that aside, it is assumed that there are permissible methods of removal. Now, aside from the straight halakhic (Jewish Law) debate there is another issue that is implicated in removing one’s beard – kabbalah. Some hold that although one is not prohibited from shaving according to a strict reading of the law, one must still be cogent of the kabbalah, which they argue, prohibits any trimming or shaving of the beard.

While some claim kabbalah prohibits shaving, there are others who question this. This debate while ostensibly centered around the interpretation of kabbalah texts, instead revolves around the practice of a single person, R. Menachem Azariah of Fano (Rama m’Fano).

The Rama m’Fano was considered one of the greatest kabbalisits of his generation. He authored many important works on kabbalah and was considered, among many, the heir for Lurianic kabbalah. Thus, his practices regarding shaving can shed light on whether kabbalah really advocates for a beard or if one can still conform with kabbalah and be clean shaven.

R. Shabbtai Baer (d. 1674) in his Be’er Esek was asked whether kabbalah mandates that one keep a beard. He replied by first discussing all the relevant texts and in the end makes the argument that perhaps in the Diaspora kabbalah doesn’t mandate growing a beard. He then gets to the crux of what would become the debate for the next 300 years – the practice of the Rama m’Fano. R. Baer states that he attempted to find out exactly what the practice of the Rama m’Fano was in this area. He learnt that every Friday, the Rama m’Fano would trim his beard or shave his beard “as is the custom in Italy.” And in fact, his students, including R. Baer’s father in law, followed in the practice of their teacher and also shaved. As R. Baer correctly points out, someone of the stature of the Rama m’Fano, obviously is extremely telling for whether kabbalah mandates keeping a beard. From his evidence, R. Baer concludes that kabbalah can not mandate keeping a beard.

Yet, R. Baer’s testimony regarding the Rama m’Fano did not go unchallenged. R. Yosef Ergas, in his Divrei Yosef claims R. Baer got it wrong. Specifically, R. Ergas investigated the practice of the Rama m’Fano as well. R. Ergas came to contrary conclusion than that of R. Baer – the Rama m’Fano had a full beard and he never shaved. R. Ergas’s evidence is based upon a portrait of the Rama m’Fano. In this portrait the Rama m’Fano has a full beard.

This debate continued on to the 19th century with R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer) and R. Eliezer Shapiro (Munkatcher Rebbe). R. Sofer was asked the very same question as R. Baer was, whether one shouldn’t shave based upon kabbalah. After first professing that “we do not follow kabbalah” and that “he does not occupy himself with that which is hidden” he then goes on to discuss the Rama m’Fano. He uses, as did R. Baer, the Rama m’Fano to demonstrate that kabbalah does not mandate a full beard. Instead, R. Sofer points out that based upon testimony the Rama m’Fano did not keep a beard.

R. Shapiro in his Minhat Eliazer takes strong issue with R. Sofer. He notes that R. Sofer’s evidence must be based upon the Be’er Esek and R. Shapiro argues that R. Ergas’s portrait of the Rama m’Fano has settled this issue and R. Shapiro alleges that had R. Sofer been aware of R. Ergas’s evidence R. Sofer would never have said what he did.

So, in the end, it seems in part this hinges on the portrait of the Rama m'Fano. Well in 1904 in a biography on the Rama m'Fano, the author included a portrait of the Rama m'Fano. In this portrait it is clear as day the Rama m'Fano has a full beard. In fact the author of the biography, devotes a chapter to the beard of the Rama m'Fano. He claims, however, with his publication of the portrait this issue is truly settled. What the author neglects to mention is how in the world do we actually know this in fact is the portrait of the Rama m'Fano. Although the author does provide how he obtained the portrait, no where on the portriat does it actually state this is the picture of the Rama m'Fano. Now, if you will recall, even R. Joseph Ergas testimony regarding the portrait was rather late - close to 125 years after the Rama m'Fano died. R. Baer, in fact, was actually much closer, at least in time, to the Rama m'Fano, and had his father in law who studied under the Rama m'Fano personally to talk to. Thus, it would appear that although the author with the publication of this portrait deemed this issue settled, in fact it is far from settled.

This was not the only (possibly) erroneous portrait to be brought into the debate about beards. The famous portrait of Maimonides was also discussed in the beard context. There are those who claim based upon their reading of Maimonides that using scissors on the beard is prohibited. The question then becomes, the portrait of Maimonides clearly shows a trim beard. The issue with this line of inquiry is that the portrait doesn't necessarily depict Maimonides at all. This portrait was first published in 1744 and was allegedly based upon a medallion - a medallion which was never produced or seen by anyone other than the one who published it. You can see this portrait as well as the page from the book it originally from here (scroll down half way).

Finally, it is worth noting that Jews, even important Rabbis were far from universal in their facial hair. R. David Nieto is a good example. In this portrait, he has a wig and is sporting a stilleto beard which one assumes was the style of the times. R. Joseph Baer Solovetchik during the 1950s had a goatee.

Sources: Shu't Be'er Esek no. 70; Shu't Divrei Yosef, no. 28, Shu't Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim no. 159; Shu't Minhat Eliezer, vol. 2 no. 48; see also, Elliot Horowitz, "The Early Eighteenth Century Confronts the Beard: Kabbalah and Jewish Self-Fashioning," Jewish History 8 (1994):95-115; and by Horowitz as well, "On the Significance of the Beard in Jewish Communities in the East and in Europe in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times," Pe'amim (1994):124-148 [in Hebrew].

There is much more on this topic, however, I can't right now provide a complete bibliography.

]]> Customs Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/28/Jews-Beards-and-Portraits Controversial Book on the Development of the Siddur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/22/Controversial-Book-on-the-Development-of-the-Siddur
In the Jewish liturgy there is a fundamental question dealing with the composition of the Hebrew found therein. There are two major types of Hebrew - Rabbinic and Biblical. The question becomes which should one be using when praying. This at first blush may appear to be of minor significance, however, most controversies regarding various words throughout the prayer book can be traced to this one point. This issue of which Hebrew to follow was brought to head in the 18th century. During this period there were a few books published dealing with the proper nusach (composition of the prayers). Some of these works advocated for various changes in the prayer book based upon the authors understanding of which Hebrew to follow when praying. This in turned provoked a fairly large controversy which can be felt today by anyone sensitive to the nusach of the prayers.

Today, although most may be unaware, many changes effected during the above referenced time period are still to be found in almost all the standard prayer books. This is so, as Wolf Heidenheim in his prayer book, which became the standard for most which followed him, relied and incorporated numerous changes based upon these 18th century works. Heidenheim’s book became, in part, the standard after he was able to secure an approbation from one of the most traditional Orthodox rabbis of the day – R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer). R. Sofer, whose well known statement “anything new is prohibited” was either unaware of the “newness” of Heidenheim’s work or perhaps agreed with his alterations, ensured Heidenheim’s work would become the exemplar for all subsequent prayer books.

One of the more interesting books to come out of this period has recently been reprinted. This book, Yashresh Ya’akov, was originally published around 1768 and, according to the title page, was authored by R. Ya’akov Babini. The work is supposedly based upon a question which R. Babini was asked. Specifically, someone wrote that he entertained an Italian guest. This guest when it came time to say birkat hamazon (grace after meals) said the prayer with numerous changes from the standard format. The host wrote to R. Babini to ask whether these changes were in fact correct. All of these changes are more or less based upon the notion that one should follow the Biblical Hebrew as opposed to the Rabbinic Hebrew. R. Babini defends the guest’s alteration and demonstrates that in each instance the changes were correct.

That is the basic background on the book. Yet, there are numerous other important facts that are not necessarily apparent from just a casual read of the book. First, as I mentioned, taking a position that Biblical Hebrew is the correct Hebrew and thus one should alter the standard was highly controversial. In an effort to avoid controversy the true author of the book – not R. Babini – hid his name. The true author is really R. Ya’akov Bassan.[1] R. Bassan gave an approbation to this work although he did not use his own name as the author. Instead, R. Bassan picked someone who had less than a stellar reputation – R. Babini. R. Babini in 1759 published a book under his own name titled Zikhron Yerushalayim which listed various holy places in Israel as well as where certain Rabbis are buried in Israel. R. Babini, neglected to mention in this publication that this work had already been published in 1643 under the very similar title Zikhron B'Yerushalayim, which contains, with minor changes, the very same text R. Babini offered as his own. Thus, looking for a patsy, R. Bassan picked someone who already did not have such a great reputation. R. Bassan although unwilling to offer his name to his own publication decided to instead offer his approbation to his own work.

Aside from hiding the authorship, the place of publication was also altered. The title page reads Nürnberg as the place of publication. This is incorrect, in actually this was published in Altona. The date on the title page reads 1768, however, the date on the approbation reads 1769 thus making the date offered an impossibility. All of these “hints” should lead an observant reader to realize something funny is going on here – namely nothing is what it appears. These types of hints to the ultimate author were actually somewhat commonplace during this period. Most famously, R. Y. Satnow would publish books not under his own name, instead either in the approbation or the title page he would offer hints that only an astute reader would notice demonstrating that R. Satnow was in fact the true author.[2]

As R. Bassan correctly surmised, his work was in fact controversial. R. Binyamin Espinoza wrote a work directed at disproving the underlying premise of R. Bassan’s that one should stick with the standard liturgy and not change it to conform with Biblical Hebrew. R. Espinoza, originally from Tunisia was unsuccessful in publishing his rebuttal and it remained in manuscript, although its existence was known to many. R. Espinoza pulls no punches and takes R. Bassan to task in very sharp terms for his advocating these changes. As mentioned above this was to no avail as either surreptitiously or knowingly many of the changes and other similar ones have in fact become standard today.

Recently both the Yashresh Ya’akov and R. Espinoza’s work Yesod HaKium have been republished together. This edition which includes an extensive introduction which contains all the history above and more is excellent. Obviously, for understanding the development of the liturgy of the prayer book this is extremely important. Also those interested in bibliographical quirks will also enjoy these books. The book is available from Beigeleisen books (718-436-1165) who has informed me he has recently received a new shipment of these as the prior one had been sold out. This new edition was edited by Rabbis Moshe Didi and David Satbon from Kiryat Sefer, Israel (ת.ד 525 and 154 respectively).

For more on these books see here.

Sources:
[1] This understanding that R. Ya’akov Basson is the actual author runs counter to many earlier assertions that the author was R. Avrohom Basson. In the new edition of this work, however, they demonstrate the problems with associating R. Avrohom and instead argue that in fact it is R. Ya’akov.

[2] Satnow was not the only one; according to some, R. Saul Berlin, in the Besamim Rosh, offered similar hints to his authorship of this controversial work.

]]> Book Reviews Relating to Siddur Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/22/Controversial-Book-on-the-Development-of-the-Siddur Where are the Temple Vessels? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/1/Where-are-the-Temple-Vessels
It seems that among many, it is assumed the temple vessels (klei haMikdash) are housed in the Vatican.

In 2004, Rabbis Amar and Metzger asked the Pope to return the temple vessels. Earlier, Shimon Shetreet, the minster of religion, also asked the Pope to return these, and, according to Shetreet's account, told the Pope he was unwelcome in Israel until he did so. But, it seems that although these people were willing to issue demands about these vessels, they did not do any research prior to establish whether in all likelyhood the vessels are actually in the vatican.

Josephus records that various vessels, clothing and materials were taken by Titus and brought back to Rome. These were eventually housed in the Temple of Peace. In all likeyhood, this is were various Tanaim saw some of the vessels. Most notably, the headplate (tzit) as well as the curtain (perochet) was seen in Rome in about the second century CE. Additionally, famously, the Menorah and the Table from the Temple is recorded (a point to which we will return in a bit) on the Arch of Titus.

So, up to around the second century we have some evidence of the location of the vessels, but what happened after that? To simplfy Roman history, Roman was sacked and its treasures were taken. It seems that the Vandals or Gizrac took the various treasures, including the "treasures that Titus took." According to one account these were sent back to Jerusalem to a Church (not longer extant and its location unclear) or they were plundered by someone else. Yet, it would appear this has ignored and instead been assumed that if the vessels were in Rome at some point they would remain there for close to 2,000 years. Additionally, if one assumes that these vessels remained in Rome, why is that they were never displayed? One cannot claim out of fear that Jews would claim them as there own. Jews, for much of the period under discussion were in no position to make such a claim.

Now to return to the Arch of Titus. In truth, it is far from clear that the Menorah depicted on the Arch is actually that which was in the Temple. The most basic problem is the base. The base as depicted is hexagonal, while according to Rambam and Rashi, the base rested upon three legs. Additionally, the base contains depictions of a sea dragon which would more or less run afoul of the commandment not to have idols. Although for this last issue, the Tosefta in Avodah Zara does allow for smooth (no scales?) sea dragons, it still seems a bit strange to have this in the Temple, in the Holy section.

To answer the first problem R. Herzog, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, offered that the legs broke during transport and the Romans replaced it with this base. (This is somewhat questionable as this type of base does not seem to be common even among Roman vessels of the time). Or, some claim this was a Hellenstic change done to the Menorah or the legs are really there and the "base" merely surrounds the legs. Be it as it may, what results is that this is less than conclusive and perhaps not even a Jewish invention.

This leads us to another issue, the State of Israel. The State of Israel adopted as its emblem the Menorah as it appears on the Arch of Titus. This very Menorah with the sea dragons and the "wrong" base. Rabbi Herzog aside from his comments above, questioned the use by the State for this very reason. He said, that they should use a three legged Menorah instead. What is curious is that the State actually slightly altered the original version. Originally, it was as it more or less appeared on the Arch. Subsequently, the dragons or animals on the base were changed from facing each other to their current position which makes them look more like jumping gazelles than sea dragons. Perhaps, this was to accommodate the religous sensiblities of those like R. Herzog.

Sources: Hans Lewy, Olmot Nifgashim, 255-58; A. Berliner, Divrei Yemi HaYehudim B'Rome, vol. 1 107-110; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 6,8,3 (357); id. 7,5 (148-152); id. (158-161); the best work on the Arch is Yarden, "Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus." Yarden attempts to reconstruct the Arch to its original state and discusses all the various issues with it, including the change in the State of Israel emblem. What is surprising is that Prof. Daniel Sperber's article on this topic fails to use Yarden, leading to a few errors in Sperber's article. Sperber's article can be found in Minhagei Yisrael vol. 5 171-212. See also, the fairly recent work on the history of the entire temple destruction Elef Dor by Y. Horowitz vol. 1 380-397 where he discusses some more stories of others who assumed the vatican still houses the temple vessels. See Sefer haYovel l'Kovod Shmuel Mirsky 220-21 for R. Herzog's position.

]]> Historical Oddities Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:33:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/1/Where-are-the-Temple-Vessels Bedatz Bans HaGaon http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/1/Bedatz-Bans-HaGaon
As discussed previously, there are some, mainly Hassidim, who had strong objections to R. Eliach's biography HaGaon. Now it appears that Bedatz of Jerusalem has also issued a ban on the work (thanks to all those who sent this to me). The ban is reproduced on the side. The ban itself contains some interesting language. Specifically, the ban claims that the sources relied upon by Eliach were "maskilik." You will recall that all Eliach did was reproduce many of the herems and the like from the non-Hassidim at the time. Now, it is correct that most of those polemics were collected by Wilensky in his Hassidim u'Mitnagdim, but the actual texts are those of some of the greatest Rabbis (not maskilim) of that time period.

Additionally, far from advancing haskalah (enlightenment) R. Eliach repudiates it. Many academics claim that the Gra was the precursor to modernity as the Gra advocates for studying secular subjects (among other things). Eliach, however, devotes an entire chapter demonstrating the Gra was against the haskalah. Eliach also includes additional material on this topic in other places as well. In doing so, he demonstrates that far from accepting maskilik or hasklah literature he actually accepts as true many anti-maskilik assertions. One example is particuarly telling. R. Eliach accepts that the Noda B'Yehuda banned R. Naftali Hertz Wessely. The source for this is an article which appeared in the Journal Kovetz Bet Ahron v'Yisrael by R. Y.A. Heschel. R. Heschel's article is full of errors and wild assumptions. Most notably, R. Heschel assumes that the ban in question is from the Noda B'Yehuda solely because it was found in a stack of papers also from the Noda B'Yehuda. There is no other cooberating evidence. Instead, this is an unsigned letter that contains no other internal or external indica of reliablity. R. Eliach, however, in his attempt to prove the vehemence as well as the universiality of condemnation of the haskalah accepts this as true. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to understand how R. Eliach could be accused of accepting and advancing maskilik ideas and positions.

Finally, it is rather unclear why in August of 2006 the Bedatz is banning a book published in 2002. It was not as if this book was "under the radar." Instead, immediatly with its publication there were other bans, articles and condemnations of the book. Further, R. Eliach secured the approbation of R. Chaim Kanievsky and was featured in Dei'ah veDibur the Haredi newspaper. While this wouldn't be the first controversy between Beni Brak and Jerusalem, (famously the controversy over using the Ben Asher Nach was essentially between the two communities) it is a bit strange in its timing.

]]> HaGaon Herem Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/8/1/Bedatz-Bans-HaGaon A Flat or Round Earth and the Zohar http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/24/A-Flat-or-Round-Earth-and-the-Zohar
The Babylonian Talmud ("BT") clearly held the Earth was flat. R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me'or Enayim devotes more or less a chapter to understanding the view of the BT on this issue.

De Rossi explains that there a various passages in the BT which assume a flat earth. For instance, De Rossi quotes the BT Baba Basra "the world is like an exadera [three sides are closed] and the north side is open. When the sun reaches the nothwestern side, it bends back and goes above the sky." De Rossi explains that "anybody who understands this passage correctly realizes that . . . the sun's circuit is not from above to below . . . and they agree that the nightly darkness is not caused by the sun being at that time below the horizon . . . this is all calcluated on the basis that the earth is flat and that the heavens only cover it like a roof of the exadera."

De Rossi after noting that this opinion is pervasive in the BT, it is based upon the understanding of some at the time the BT was complied. He explains, however, that if "the sages of blessed memory who believed that the world was flat . . . been informed of what has become known in our times, namely, how the Spaniards . . . discovered the New World in the Northern Hemisphere where the inhabitants have their rest opposite the place where we put our feet. And the same is true of the place under the equator and also beyond it to the south above and below. With one voice [the sages] would have acknowledged that the earth was spherical."

This last line, of course, was in part why De' Rossi was controversial. By claiming Hazal based some of their statements upon the science of the day and that had they been exposed to what we now know would have changed their minds was, and continues to be a touchy subject.

But to return to our topic at hand - the flat earth - De Rossi points out that although the BT held the earth was flat not everyone at the time agreed. Specifically, he notes that the Jerusalem Talmud as well as Berashis Rabba seem to imply the earth is round. Additionally, the Zohar states the earth is round. It is this last source, however, which is somewhat problematic. Assuming the BT held the earth was flat and that appears to have been the prevailing attitude, why then would the Zohar disagree. R. Jacob Emden used this passage in the Zohar as one of the many which points to a later dating of when the Zohar was written. R. Emden states succinctly "this opinion is not one shared by Hazal and instead comes from later science." Thus, according to R. Emden, the fact the Zohar assumes the earth is round lends itself to the notion it could not have been written (at least this part) by R. Shimon bar Yochi.

R. Emden's challenge of the Zohar was not left unrebutted. R. Moshe Kunits in his Ben Yochi which is devoted to rebutting R. Emden, attacks this statement of R. Emden. Although he attempts to refute R. Emden, one who is aware of the above discussion, realizes how hollow R. Kunits' argument is. R. Kunits agrees that the BT assumes a flat earth, but then he cites the two sources which do go with the round earth -Jerusalem Talmud and Berashis Rabba. In essence, Kunits is merely regurgitating De Rossi's sources. In fact, he cites De Rossi as being one who demonstrates that Hazal held the earth was in fact round. Of course, De Rossi's only sources were the Zohar and the others cited by Kunits. Thus, in the end, Kunits' arguments are circular. This fallacy is noted by R. Shlomo Yehudah Rappoport in his book to rebut Kunits - Nahlat Yehuda.

Finally, it appears that the idea of a flat earth persisted until at least the 18th century (and if the recently published book, Afeki Mayim, is an indication even until the 21st century). The person in the 18th century to follow this view is a rather surprising one in light of how knowledgable he supposedly was in secular wisdom (at least according to some). The Vilna Gaon is recorded as stating the earth must be flat in order to properly understand the verse in Job (38:13) "that it might take hold of the ends of the earth."

Sources: De' Rossi, Meor Einayim (ed. Weinberg) Imrei Binah, Section 1 chap. 11. Zohar, Vaikra, 10a; R. Jacob Emden, Mitpahat Sefarim; R. Shlomo Yehudah Rappoport, Nahlat Yehuda (Lemberg, 1873); R. Kunits, Ben Yochi. On the Vilna Gaon, see R. Y. Engel, Gilyoni HaShas, Shabbat, 74a and R. Reuven Margulies, Nitzozi Ohr on the Zohar cited above.

]]> Historical Oddities Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/24/A-Flat-or-Round-Earth-and-the-Zohar 17th of Tamuz and Edgar Allan Poe http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/12/17th-of-Tamuz-and-Edgar-Allan-Poe
The Mishna in Tannit records that 5 bad events occured on the 17th of Tamuz, one being the cessation of the daily sacrifice, the tamid. However, the Bavli does not as it does for the other four events, tell the story of what happened. Only in the Yerushalmi does the complete story appear.

There, in the Yerushalmi, the Talmud records that the Jews were obtaining the necessary animals for their offerings by paying the Romans. Everyday they would lower down a basket full of coins, and in its stead, the Romans would return the animal. As Jerusalem was under siege, this whole process took place from a distance. One day, the 17th of Tamuz, however, after the Jews gave the requisite money, instead of the correct animals the Romans replaced them with pigs. Thus, the Jews were unable to bring the tamid and the sacrifice stopped from that time on.

As mentioned, this story only appears in the Yerushalmi and not the Bavli. Further, Josephus does not record it either. Although these works do not record it, Edgar Allan Poe does. Specifically, he has a story titled "A Tale of Jerusalem" which, more or less, is this story repackaged. You can read the whole story here. But, basically, it describes the two priest whose job it was to lower the baskets of gold. Poe ends with the pigs being raised instead.

Not only does Poe use this somewhat obscure story, he even injects some detail that one would need to be versed in the orignal story to fully appreciate. The priest in question are who belonged to the sect called "The Dashers (that little knot of saints whose manner of dashing and lacerating the feet against the pavement was long a thorn and a reproach to less zealous devotees–a stumbling-block to less gifted perambulators)." This is a play on the talmudic description of the priests - that they are quick - kohanim zerizim hem.

Poe assumes familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet to a degree that one would know the letter yud is the smallest. As he says "thou canst not point me out a Philistine–no, not one–from Aleph to Tau–from the wilderness to the battlements–who seemeth any bigger than the letter Jod!"

The question is where in the world did Poe get this. Now, it seems Poe got this from another novel from "1828, Zillah, a Tale of Jerusalem, by Horace Smith (1777-1849). Poe incorporated whole phrases and sentences from Smith's story: "Poe's story is more than a parody; it is literally a collage of snatches of the Smith novel, cut out and pasted together in a new order." That being said, it seems that Poe was still more familar with this story than Zillah and we are left to wonder did Poe study Talmud? He wouldn't be the first famous American author to do so. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of a volume or two of the Bavli. Although, here, it would appear Poe one upped Jefferson by being a baki in Yerushalmi as well.

]]> Historical Oddities Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/12/17th-of-Tamuz-and-Edgar-Allan-Poe Listing of New Seforim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/12/Listing-of-New-Seforim
What follows is a list of new seforim I have recently purchased; for prior lists see the "New Books Lists" on the sidebar.

1. Indices To The Emden-Eybeschuetz Controversy Literature by Gershom G. Scholem. As the title implies, this is an index, divided by person, book, and geographic place. Additional, many of the abbreviations used (R. Emden constantly uses abbreviations, many obscure) are explained. This index was culled from Scholem's index cards where he kept these records. The editors have done nothing to update them nor have they attempted to ensure consistency. So, in essence they had these cards typeset and published.

But, as part of this publication Hebrew University has scanned all of the books and manuscripts covered by this index and put them on a CD. This is especially important, as many of these are very rare and hard to come by. This CD is supposed to be available directly from Magnes Press, however, I could find no other information on this on their website.

2. On the topic of Scholem there is a fairly recent book, Pithe 'Olam which is a critical edition of R. Solomon ben Samuel's work by that name. This is a work of kabbalah. However, perhaps the most interesting piece of this book in not the manuscript but what the editor, Rafeal Kohen, has appended to it. R. Kohen has included his own polemic against modern kabbalah scholars. He accuses them, among other things, to have stymied the publication of numerous manuscripts to benefit their own careers, racism against those not in academia, as well as plain sloppy scholarship. He backs some of these claims up with concrete examples. In particular he savages Paul Fenton's edition of R. Yosef b. Avrohom's Sheroshi HaKabbalah with numerous examples of errors and mistakes. R. Kohen, also goes University by University and points out who he has issues with. R. Kohen is particular of appending each of the names of the people he discusses with the ignominious abbreviation meaning שם רשעים ירקב ימח שמו וזכרון תימקן ותשחקן עצמות אוסר לעסוק בקבורתו or שר"י יש"ו תו"ע אל"ב at every single mention of their names. He covers Hebrew University, Bar Ilan, Sorbonne, and the Schechter Institute. It makes for some entertaining, if over the top, reading.

3. Journal Mayni HaYeshua from Biala Hassidim contains a 23 page article against Eliach's Sefer HaGaon.

4. Ziv haSemot or What's in a Name. This book on everything having to do with names and naming is perhaps the 4th book on this extremely important, life or death topic which has come out in the past few years. This one is in both Hebrew and English. Curiously, although there is a chapter on using a name that a wicked person had such as Yismael. The author does not cite to or quote the Shu't Besamim Rosh on the topic. Whose pronouncement has broad implications for naming. He says even if a evil person happen to have the name, if it is a nice name then you can use it.

I purchased these at Biegeleisen in Boropark.

]]> HaGaon Book Reviews Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/12/Listing-of-New-Seforim Seforim For Sale http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/9/Seforim-For-Sale
R. Landy of the Lower East Side has purchased a significant library and is now selling them. Unfortunately, I have yet to see these in person, however, from what has been related to me via telephone, he has some terrific books. If one wants to go, they should first call him at 917 676 0762. He is located at 264 east broadway C104.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/9/Seforim-For-Sale R. Shabbtai the Bassist, the First Hebrew Bibliographer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/9/R-Shabbtai-the-Bassist-the-First-Hebrew-Bibliographer
The JNUL has just put up the first Hebrew bibliography, Siftei Yeshenim. This work is written by R. Shabbtai Bass. R. Shabbtai is perhaps most well known for his commentary on Rashi 'al haTorah titled Siftei Hakhamim.

R. Shabbtai was born in 1641 in Kalisz, Poland. When he was 14, both his parents were killed in a pogrom by the Cossacks. R. Shabbtai went to Prague. It was in Prague where he would gain his last name and begin his career as a printer. In Prague he began taking music lessons and became a bassist for the Altneushul. He, in all likelihood participated in that shul's choir which would weekly welcome in the Shabbat with musical accompaniment. [Later on, this music would become central to the debate of allowing for an organ in the Shul as well as playing music in any religious services]. R. Shabbtai took his musical calling seriously and the printers mark he used had musical elements to them. [The two relevant ones are reproduced on the side]. Additionally, he became known as alternatively, R. Shabbtai the Bassist Singer or just R. Shabbtai the Bassist. Aside from gaining an interest in music as well as his general Torah education, he also studied Latin while in Prague.

From Prague, R. Shabbtai, went west, eventually ending up in Amsterdam. It was during these travels he visited numerous libraries and began compiling his bibliography. [Although he did begin the project in Prague, it seems to have really taken off after he left.] In 1680, he published the bibliography in Amsterdam and titled it Siftei Yeshenim the lips of the sleeping ones. This title is appropriate for many reasons. First, it comes from Shir haShirim which has the highest density of book titles, and thus, I think is appropriate for a book listing books. Second, as R. Shabbtai points out in his introduction where he offers ten reasons for bibliography, just reciting the names of books the ignorant can earn a similar reward to those who actually study them. R. Shabbtai based this upon R. Isaiah Horowitz (Shelah).

This work lists about 2,200 titles. Of these, 825 were manuscripts. R. Shabbtai provides an index by category at the beginning of the book. Although the bulk of the lists are books by Jewish authors, he also included about 150 Judaica works by non-Jewish writers.

The work was "updated" in 1806 by Uri Zvi Rubenstein, however, he "demonstrated weak bibliographical abilities and his effort is to be considered a step backwards in the history of Jewish Bibliography." (Brisman at 13).

After spending about 5 years in Amsterdam, R. Shabbtai he moved to Dyhernfurth and opened his own press. He began to print works of Polish Rabbis and printed some of the seminal works on Halakha. He printed R. Shmuel b. Uri Shraga's commentary on Even Ezer, the Bet Shmuel as well as R. Avrohom Abeli's commentary, Mogen Avrohom.
While he was in Dyhernfurth, he hoped to reprint his Siftei Hakhamim which had been printed in Amsterdam in 1680. He had made extensive corrections and additions which he hoped to include. During the interim, he found out that the publisher in Amsterdam was also readying a reprint and had secured the normal copyright harems. Thus, R. Shabbtai was forced to buy out the Amsterdam printer so he could reprint he own book! This is of particular interest in one's understanding of copyright under Jewish law. It would seem from this case that the author does not automatically hold a copyright to his own works. Instead, copyright is dependent upon who has a money interest. Unfortunately, none of the many articles or books on Jewish law and copyright cite or discuss this case.

R. Shabbtai's commentary on Rashi has been reprinted many, many times, and now is standard fare even with Humashim which contain no other commentaries other than Rashi and Onkelos. However, this commentary is typically an abriged version - Ikar Siftei Hakhamim. This abrigment was done by the famed Romm Press in Vilna in the 1872 edition of their Torah Elokim. Although we don't know for certain who did the abrigment as the title page just allows "two talmdei hakamim" were the ones who did this. It is assumed these would have been editors at the Romm Press. At that time R. Mordechi Plungin was the editor at the press. He was involved with the printing of many "classics" such as the Eiyn Yakkov and the Shulkhan Orakh. In this last book, although he always remain anonymous and never takes any credit for anything he does, he included in Yoreh Deah a few comments under the title Miluim. Now, some don't like R. Plungin (he was a maskil) most notably the father of the Hazon Ish. Thus, in the Tal-man edition of the Shulkahn Orakh his comments were excised.

So, if one follows that opinion, one should view as important and sensitive task as abriging a commentary with some skepticism. Perhaps, as the editors remained anonymous this hasn't been noticed - yet. Or, the two talmdei hakamim were not R. Plugin. Be it as it may, R. Shabbtai, the bassist, printer, bibliographer, has left an indelible mark across numerous disciplines.

Sources. For biographical sources, you can look at any one of these as they all just regurgitate what the others prior to them do without adding much, if anything. EJ vol. 4 col. 313. Friedberg, B. History of Jewish Typography of Amsterdam et. al., Antwerp, 1937, 53-64; Y. Rafel, Sinai vol. 8 and 9 reprinted in his Rishonim v'Achronim; and the JE here. See also on R. Shabbtai and Jewish bibliograpy in general S. Brisman, "A History and Guide to Judaic Bibliography." It is worth reading Zinberg's nice biography of R. Bass in The History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 150-52.

For his printers marks, see Ya'ari, Printers marks. On his Siftei Hakhamim see the new bibliography on Rashi commentary, P. Krieger, Parshan-Data, p. 41-46.

Finally, there is a discussion regarding the first edition of Siftei Yeshanim and why in some edition a Siddur is apended to it. For this, see H. Liberman, Ohel Rochel vol. 1 p. 370-71.

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/7/9/R-Shabbtai-the-Bassist-the-First-Hebrew-Bibliographer Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926 - Review II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/29/Hebrew-Printing-in-America-17351926--Review-II
The post below is a continuation from this prior post.

America posed some unique questions regarding marriage and divorce laws. In the early period of American Jewish history, many people were not erudite. In an apparent effort to help with this deficiency, in 1901, R. Dov Baer Abramowitz published his Sefer Ketubah. This book contains tear out, pro forma ketubot. Thus, the Rabbi could just rip one out whenever he needed to. (No. 588). Another work which dealt with marriage issues is a small pamphlet published in 1909. This dealt with the question of a man who was induced to marry a woman who was "mentally unbalanced." The husband was allowed to marry a second wife via a heter me'ah rabbanim (the consent of one hundred rabbis). Typically, these 100 must come from different countries, however, here, for the first time, R. Rosenfeld, the author, "explained that it could be issued by American rabbis alone because 'at one time [the United States] were separate countries. And even today each state is, to a certain extent, [a] separate [entity].'" (No. 1144).

While on the one hand there were many in America that were in the Jewish sense, illiterate, there were also those on the opposite end of the spectrum as it was, who published scholarly works. Dr. Louis Ginzberg, published in 1909 Seriedi HaYerushalmi min HaGeizah asher b'Mitzrayim. This book contained, as the title indicates, fragments from the Cairo Genizah which enabled Ginzberg to offer correction to the standard edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. It seems that this was deemed so important even outside the U.S. As "Ginzburg's research was included - without attribution - in the Vilna 1922 edition of the Yerushalmi" (No. 606).

This copyright infringement was actually a two way street. In 1919, The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada published, for the first time in America the complete Talmud. While this signaled a new era in the Jewish learning in the US, it seems that the publishers did not secure all necessary rights before embarking on this printing. Specifically, this edition is a photo-reproduction of the Romm, Vilna edition of the Talmud. This did not go unnoticed. "Moses Rosenberg wrote to R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski of Vilna on behalf of the Romm publishing house. He accused Agudath Harabbonim of reproducing the Romm edition without permission and requested that Agudath Harabbonim be summoned to a rabbinical court." (No. 635). This letter is reproduced at the end of volume II of the work. (p. 1181). The end of the second volume contains many historical letters from Yosef Goldman's collection. Additionally, there are photographs and autographs of some famous American Rabbis as well in this last section.

On the theme of lack of religious observance, there is no lack of books dealing with this. Moses Weinberger's book, which Sarna translated into English, "People Walk on their Heads" is but one example. R. Elijah Kochin, Sefer Aderet Eliyahu (Pittsburgh, 1917) where he complains "the city of Pittsburgh is still hefker [anarchic] and it lacks everything necessary for the highest level of observance." He decried the "accepted evil custom in this land which says that he who lies the most by bluffing, as it is called, is to be praised." (No. 784).

Already in 1872, Nahum Streisand who I have no idea if any relation to the now woman singer Barbara, which would be rather ironic in light of the fact this book "contains an analysis of the rabbinic debate over the prohibition for a man to hear a woman singing. Streisand had originally sent its contents to Henry Vidaver after the latter issued a ruling permitting women to sing in the choir of his congregation, Bnai Jeshurun." (No. 1091).

Other issues which came up include metzizha b'peh and whether one can use a sponge. See nos. 1117. In 1915 a book on circumcision was published which, in part dealt with metzizah b'peh by the milah board. This board was "recognized by the New York City Commissioner of Health . . . [who said] the educational value of such work as the Milah Board has done in this matter is of the greatest help to the City, and particularly to our department." (No. 1158).

Another issue was the use of wine during Prohibition. Dr. Louis Ginzburg published a responsa which argued that grape juice was sufficient for ritual that would otherwise require wine. He did this as "during the era of Prohibition, the government granted special licenses allowing the sale for sacramental purposes. Some Jews abused these licenses." Ginzburg, wanted to void the use of wine, thus obviating the need for such licenses. This responsa "elicited enough interest in the secular world to merit a press conference and coverage in a major newspaper [i.e. the New York Times]." (no. 1177).

This was not the only work influenced by Prohibition. Isidore Koplowitz published "Midrashic Exegetics on Wine and Strong Drink." He endeavored to prove "that the Hebrew prophets and a host of Talmudic Rabbins, were outspoken in the great cause of prohibition." No. 1179.

To be continued. . .

]]> Book Reviews Bibliographies Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:55:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/29/Hebrew-Printing-in-America-17351926--Review-II New Book Lists http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/28/New-Book-Lists
There are two new list of out-of-print seforim available. The first, is via email, you can request the list from sba-at-sba2.com. The second is mainly a list of German imprints (it includes a couple of books Solomon Schechter owned) and can be viewed here. Additionally, Kestenbaum recently had their latest auction, unfortunately their catalog is no longer available online, but if you previously downloaded the catalog you can see the price results here.

]]> Book Reviews Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/28/New-Book-Lists Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926 - Review I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/27/Hebrew-Printing-in-America-17351926--Review-I
There is a new work in Jewish bibliography focusing on American Jews. This work "Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926: A History and Annotated Bibliography" by Yosef Goldman. (It can be obtained by contacting Y. Goldman at ygbooks -at- yahoo.com). As the subtitle states, is much more than a bibliography. This work, is at the very least the starting point for any research on American Jewery, and can be viewed as a history of American Jewry.

The book includes a listing of all the books published in American under the covered time relating to Jewish topics. So we have books done by non-Jews, apostates, and, of course, Jews. It includes Rabbinics, Drama, Fiction, Missionary and Humor to name but a few topics. Each entry aside from listing the publication data also includes a short biography on the author, as well as a description of the contents of the book, especially highlighting interesting tidbits. Each book is cross referenced and sources are provided. The sources include references for further reading as well as where the person's portrait can be found.

The bibliography for this book is in itself a wonderful reference for American Jewish history. The books are divided by topic which enables the reader to see the growth or trends in a particular area.

I wanted to highlight some of the more interesting entries to enable people to see the comprehensiveness of this work; as well as to discuss American Jewish history.

As Goldman notes, America provided a unique home for the translation. Although, in other places in the world, whenever either the Talmud or the Torah was translated this was generally accompanied by controversy. In America that was never the case. Books were almost immediately published in English without anyone raising an eyebrow. This is evident throughout the subjects. Whether it be in Torah or Prayer or law. It is almost as if America was made for Artscroll and the like. There is but one exception is the book (no. 612) Ohel Sara 1902 which discusses laws for women. The author, Abraham Ever Hischowitz states in the preface "in 1902 when I considered the publication of this first edition of this work, I found great difficulty in obtaining a written statement admitting the advisability of putting this book on the market. The objection being of course, the Law concerning Niddah." It seems that including in English the laws relating to menstruation were possibly problematic, although the author was able to overcome it and publish this work. However, as is noted, "there was apparently still some opposition as late as 1912, since some copies of the second edition were printed without the section on menstruation."

The first section is the Liturgy section. No. 41, the First Reform Siddur in America, 1855, by Dr. Leo Merzbacher. Apparently, aside from this siddur, he also received ordination (semikah) from R. Moses Schreiber of Pressburg (Hatam Sofer) the leading adversary to the Reform movement. In 1860, in light of the differences in the highest governmental position, between the US and other countries, a siddur is published which alters the traditional prayer for the government from הנותן תשועה to רבון כל העולמים this was done so "whereas הנותן תשועה refers to a monarch, רבון כל עולמים refers to the president, vice president, governor, lieutenant-governor, mayor, city council, and the residents of New York City." Additionally, a copy of the page with the new prayer is provided. (no. 46). On the issue of the prayer for the government, in 1912, one Siddur the prayer for the government included a prayer for the Supreme Court as well. (No. 114).

We have Marcus Jastrow's Siddur which "creatively modified the classical contours of the Siddur . . . and added many new prayers." (no. 58). As well as his edition of the Haggadah which changed ha lahma anya from the traditional words to "whoever is now a slave, next year he should be free."

The Siddur l'Bet Sefer u'Lam which was designed for "school children and the general public." The author, R. Joseph Magil, sarcastically states "Don't purchase this prayer book if the extra five cents that this one costs is worth more to you than the tens and hundreds of dollars you spend on tuition for your children." (No. 97)

N'gintoh Baruch Schorr, which contains songs by the noted hazzan Baruch Schorr from Lemberg. In the biographical portion of the entry we learn that Schorr "was a pious Jew." And that he immigrated to the US after "his Yiddish opera Samson was performed . . . he appeared on stage with the main actress following a performance, he was censured by his congregation and suspended from his position for four weeks. Insulted, he immigrated to America." Five years later his congregation was able to convince him to return. (No. 98).

There is what appears to be an error in this section. In one entry (no. 70) the note states "the text is identical to the regular evening liturgy, the only change being the insertion of the two sentances into the Kaddish prayer (יהי שם ...and עזרי מעם) there is no precedent for adding these two sentances." This is incorrect. Many siddurim, including many of the German Rite, include these sentences in the kaddish.

For the Bible Studies entry, we have a very timely one. R. Hayyim Hirschensohn published a book on Jewish chronology to "to prove that historians erred in their chronologies." This book in turn, engendered "a libelous criticism" "to which R. Hirschensohn answered" in another book Anah Kesil (Answer the Fool). However, as is almost always the case "the author testified that the criticism was good for sales." (No. 208).

Beginning in 1912 R. Moses Alberts began an English dictionary on Old French terms used in the commentary of Rashi. Unfortunately only volumes on Genesis and Exodus appeared. Nos. 212, 218).

In 1908, Judah D. Eisenstein published a broadside (one of the few single page broadsides included in the bibliography. The majority of broadsides are multi paged ones, thus making it more apparent how they qualified as a books rather than ephemera) for advertising his encyclopedia Otzar Yisrael. This included a portrait of the Vilna Gaon, which was included in the Otzar Yisrael. However, although this is "identified . . . 'as a copy form a picture in the house of Samuel Wilner of New York' a direct descendant of the Vilna Gaon. This picture does not appear in the collection of Vilna Gaon portraits in Vinograd." (No. 231).

Ephraim Deinard, who was the first to catalog American prints and was a real character, when he produced a catalog of Judge Mayer Sulzberger included some nasty comments about Solomon Schechter. Specifically, he accused Schechter of" being ignorant in matters of Hebrew paleography . . . and was 'irrelevant, since he does not know how to distinguish between old mss. [manuscripts].'" Sulzberger did not want this printed and told Dienard to remove that leaf. So Dienard did so . . . for the copies he gave Sulzberger. (No. 255).

On Hebrew Grammer no. 283 is of Abraham Kohn's "Hebrew Reader and Grammar." Kohn was "a radical maskil. . . . He and his youngest son died from poisoning in 1848. Two Orthodox Jews were arrested and charged with murder, but they were released after one year due to lack of evidence." [For more on this see Hirschowitz's book on the Mahritz Hiyot p. 103-05 and the sources cited therein as well as Zinberg (English translation) vol. 8 103-09.]

In 1915 Reuben Grossman's book "MePri Ollel" (From the mouths of the Youth) which as its title implies was written by a young boy. Grossman was 10 years old at the time! He was the youngest Hebrew author in America. He published (with the help of his father) other books as well. (No. 352). There is also a picture of the ten year old with white shoes and a bow tie.

One book listed and explained the acronyms of 129 from 1080-1880. (No. 517). Another did a play on the Talmud (Kiddushin 49b) and stated "ten measures of telegraph and electrical lines descended to the world - nine for America and one for the rest of the world. . . ten measures of rest and enjoyment the Sabbath and holidays descended to the world- one for America and nine for the rest of the world." (no. 518)

"In 1909, [R. Ezekiel Preisser] attempted to establish a daf yomi program whereby the study of the Talmud could be completed every seven years." This was 15 years before such a program was established under R. Shapiro. (no. 734).

To be continued...

]]> Book Reviews Bibliographies Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:59:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/27/Hebrew-Printing-in-America-17351926--Review-I The Vilna Gaon's Talmud http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/23/The-Vilna-Gaons-Talmud
Mississippi Fred McDowell, has posted re: the Vilna Gaon's Yerushalmi edition. However, I would like to discuss which edition of the Bavli the Vilna Gaon had. This is a rather important especially in light of the numerous emendations to the text the Vilna Gaon made. As when one is amending something it is important to know what exactly they have amended.

Every morning Birkat HaShahar are recited. Among these blessings are three anomalous ones. These there, as opposed to the rest, are in the negative. Specifically, these blessing are for ones legal status, gender, and religion. It is the last one, religion is the one we will focus on.

The Talmud has these blessing, however, there is some difficulty with the text of the religion one. Some editions have this blessing in the positive, i.e. "thank you for making me a Jew," and some have it in the negative, "thank for not making me a non-Jew." This confusion prevailed into the medieval period, with some texts containing one iteration of the blessing and some the other. What is unclear, however, is whether this change to the positive was wrought due to censorship or is there some reason this blessing should be in the positive.

R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, in his Ma'adani Melekh, claims any passage which is in the positive ("thank you for making me a Jew") is due solely to censorship. And with this, we get to the crux of our discussion here - the Vilna Gaon's edition of the Talmud.

The Vilna Gaon, in his commentary on Shulhan Orach says that one should say this blessing in the positive form. He comes to this conclusion because "our editions of the Talmud have the blessing for 'making me a Jew.'" In theory, the Vilna Gaon's conclusion is dependent upon whether "our editions" are corrupted or not. That is, if "our editions" are censored then they prove nothing. This contention, that the Vilna Gaon used a corrupted edition is noted by R. Shmuel Feigenshon in the Otzar HaTefilot. Specifically, R. Feigenshon claims that had the Vilna Gaon seen the Amsterdam 1644 edition he would never made this mistake. [Additionally, based in part upon this, Y.S. Speigel notes the Vilna Gaon did not use manuscripts or earlier printed editions when he amended the text.]

It is worthwhile noting that R. Raphael Natan Rabinowich, in his Ma'amar 'al HaDpasat haTalmud (which has just been reprinted by Mosad HaRav Kook) claims that the Vilna Gaon used the 1644 edition of the Talmud, the very one if he had used it would have avoid this error!!

In the end, we don't know exactly which edition the Vilna Gaon used and according to Speigel, it is likely that the Vilna Gaon did not use one edition. Instead, it is likely the edition was dependent on the particular volume of the Talmud he had and for each volume it may have been a different edition.

Sources on the blessing: T.B. Menachot 43,b; Dikdukei Sofrim ad. loc.; Rosh, Berakot chapt. 9; Ma'dani Melekh id. at note 24; Tur Orakh Hayyimno. 46:4; id. Bach; Shulchan Orakh and Rama id.; see also, first edition of Rama Prague, 1588 for the proper placement of his comments available here; Biur HaGra id.; see also R. Y. Satnow, Va'yetar Yitzhak, no. 44; R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eres Toronto, p. 24 no. 64; Siddur Otzar haTeffilot, on the blessing in question; On the Vilna Gaon's edition of the Talmud: Y.S. Speigel, Amudim b'Toldotha Sefer HaIvri: Haga'ot U'Magim, 404-405, 416 and the sources cited therein.

]]> Censorship Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:25:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/23/The-Vilna-Gaons-Talmud R. Yechiel Heller and the Status of Non-Jews http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/22/R-Yechiel-Heller-and-the-Status-of-NonJews
Some have recently posted regarding the status of non-Jews vis-à-vis Jews. Although, they are more focused upon the medieval time period, I though it would be instructive to discuss a more contemporary view. This view, is striking in its breath as well in its authorship.

R. Yechiel Heller, author of the teshuvot Amudi Ohr, is well-known in Yeshiva circles. While respona literature is generally not studied as one of the commentary on Talmud, there are at least two of R. Heller's responsa which are standard fare in Yeshivot when studying Talmud. (One is a discussion regarding toch k'edi dibur k'dibur and the second deals with misasek). However, R. Heller has a lesser known responsum, which does not appear in his Amudi Ohr but in a different and rare work. This work, Sheni Perakim'al Davar haHov l'Ohev haKazar (Two Chapters on the Obligation to Love the Czar) printed in St. Petersburg in 1852. One of these chapters is authored by R. Heller. In this chapter he makes a very novel and very important arguement regarding the status of non-Jews.

R. Heller argues that non-Jews today, have the status of Geri Toshav. This is so even without any formal acceptance of that status. R. Heller explains that such formal acceptance is necessary only for individuals, but when an entire nation (he focuses on Christians) falls into the category there is no need for any formal acceptance. Today, he argues, the nations of the world more or less follow the seven Noahide laws (he explains idolatry for this catogry allows for shituf) and therefore automatically considered geri toshav.

This position has tremendous ramifications which R. Heller himself notes. Specifically, all the laws in the Talmud regarding non-Jews are not applicable to geri toshav. Thus, R. Heller explains, that yayin nesach is not applicable with a ger toshav. Nor is the special prohibition against selling weapons, returning a lost object, or yihud (seclusion). Additionally, one can lend with usery to a ger toshav. All of this, R. Heller explains, is applicable to the non-Jewish people we find our self living with.

This stunning opinion did not go unchallenged. There are those who question whether, without a formal acceptance one can be considered a ger toshav. In fact, there is an entire work written to refute R. Heller's position, however, this work is still in manuscript form and has never been printed. (If someone is willing, I would like to get a copy of this from the JNUL- you can email me).

However, it is important to note, that irrespective of whether this position is the correct one, at the very least it is an important historic position, one that bears further dissemination and study.

Sources: For more on R. Heller see R. E. Katzman's biography, "Mofet haDor, HaGoan R. Yechiel Heller ZT"L - Ba'al Amudi Ohr" in Yeshurun 4 (1998) 648-681; 682-695 (reprint of the eulogy of R. David Luria for R. Heller); R. A. Mandelstamm, Sheni Perakim, St. Petersburg, 1852; Peli [R. Pinchas M. Heilprin] Iggeret Cheil Bet HaElyi, The Jewish National and University Library Ms. Heb. 8°5224, [1855].

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/22/R-Yechiel-Heller-and-the-Status-of-NonJews Inverted Nuns http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/19/Inverted-Nuns
While Mississippi Fred recently discussed the missing nun (that is the Hebrew letter and not the people), last week we were treated to those Oh, Inverted World Nuns. Although, today this odd textual device is standard at least in its use, although there are some variations as to exactly how one does it (Sefardim do it more like a z and Ashkenazim have the upside down backwards nuns -more about this later). You can see some examples here, including one where the text was changed.

In fact, it is far from clear whether one should do this at all. Most notably, R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal) argued that the Talmudic passage this custom is based upon only mandates the typical break for a parsha and not any upside down or otherwise letters. The passage only states that a sign should be made for this parsha and nothing more. He argues that such letters in the Torah render the Torah passul (unfit for use). R. Luria also notes the lack of uniformity in presenting such nuns, there are 19 different ways he came across to make the nuns. Some even flip the nuns of the text of the Torah and do not place the strange letters prior to and after the parsha in question. Thus, according to R. Luria, all of our Torahs which contain such nuns are passul.

R. Yechezkial Landau (Noda B'Yehuda), however, among others, defends the custom. He claims that the use of such a non-letter i.e. an upside down or z shaped non-letter is the key to allowing such a practice. As since this is not a letter at all therefore it is just a sploch of ink which doesn't render the torah unfit for use.

Although the nuns in last weeks reading are almost universal, there is another inverted nun in the Torah that is attested to by R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) which, it seems, is not accepted at all. Rashi at the end of Parshat Noach says that the name of Abraham's father, Haran has an inverted nun. But this doesn't appear at all. (Another missing nun as it was.)

For more on this topic see here and here. Read She'alot u'Teshuvot Maharshal, no. 73; She'alot u'Teshuvot Mahram m'Lublin, no 75; She'alot u'Teshuvot Noda B'Yehuda, vol. 1 yoreh Deah no. 73; R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Torah Shelmah, vol. 29 p. 124-130 (where he provided pictures of the various methods of writing the nuns); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible p. 341; Shnayer Z. Leiman, "The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad" in Journal of Biblical Literature 93:3 (Sept. 1974): 348-55; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 38-43; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible p. 54-55.

]]> Customs Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:40:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/19/Inverted-Nuns Names of Seforim I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/12/Names-of-Seforim-I
The names utilized for Seforim are rather unique. As opposed to most cultures who title their books based upon their content (think Da Vinci Code about a code Da Vinci did), Jewish book titles, for the most part, have no relationship to their content. Additionally, for many, the title of the books supersedes that of the actual author to such an extent that many authors are only known by their book titles. So while many are aware of the Shach and the Taz (shortened forms of the titles Siftei Kohen and Turei Zahav commentaries on the Shulhan Orakh most are not aware who actually wrote these works. Instead, one would say "(the) Shach says" etc. Now if we were to return the above titles, Siftei Kohen - the Lips of the Priest and the Turei Zahav the Pillars of Gold, from first glance one would assume the former is about Priests while the latter is about either metallurgy or perhaps some Indiana Jones like pillars.

Some have been critical of the use of such obscure titles for Jewish books. Isaac D'Israeli the father of Statesman Benjamin (Isaac was the one to remove himself and his family Benjamin included and convert them to Christianity after Isaac was angered over his synagogues dues) was highly critical of such titles, in his Curiosities of Literature he writes:

The Jewish and many oriental authors were fond of allegorical titles, which always indicate the most puerile age of taste. The titles were usually adapted to their obscure works. It might exercise an able enigmatist to explain their allusions; for we must understand by The Heart of Aaron,” that it is a commentary on several of the prophets. “The Bones of Joseph is an introduction to the Talmud. The Garden of Nuts, and The Golden Apples,” are theological questions, and The Pomegranate with its Flower,” is a treatise of ceremonies, not any more practised. Jortin gives a title, which he says of all the fantastical titles he can recollect, is one of the prettiest. A rabbin published a catalogue of rabbinical writers, and called it Labia Dormientium, from Cantic. vii. 9. Like the best wine of my beloved that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak. It hath a double meaning, of which he was not aware, for most of his rabbinical brethren talk very much like men in their sleep.

Almost all their works bear such titles as bread,— gold, —silver, —roses, —eyes,— &c., in a word, anything that signifies nothing.

Isaac Reggio (perhaps it is the Isaacs) was equally critical, in his introduction to Delmigido's Behinat HaDa'at. "Amongst the incorrect customs which has been exacerbated over time . . . when authors title their books with titles that do not speak to content, or at best they use titles which only hint to the books content which can only be decoded after reading the introduction . . . there are those who use titles which contain the authors name." Reggio then proceeds to list some of thcategories those catagories. "There are those who use titles from the vessels in the Temple ארון עדות,מזבח הזהב, מנורת המאור, שלחן ארבע, זר זהב, קערת כסף or some use the clothing of the priest for titles שרשות גבלות, המצנפת, מעשה אפוד, משן אהרן, כליל תכלת," and the list goes on.

Reggio mentions two catagories of interest, one the author placing his name (or hinting to it) and the other hinting to the content via an obscure title. As to the second there was such a book reviewed by the Jewish Chronicle (London)

Very wittily is the pun-title, City of Sihon (Heb: Ir Sichon), for a mathematical book by R. Joseph Zorphathi, alluding to Numb. xxi 27, "For Hesbon (reckonin [caculating]) is the City of Sihon."

Jewish Chronicle (London), June 21, 1889, page 15

There are also similarly titled or pun titled books which are hinting at the name of the author. For instance authors whose name was Avrhom utilize puns on various verses relating to Avrohom. So we have the books Pesach haOhel (1691) which is referencing that Gen. 18:1; Yukach Na (1881); Sa'du Lebchem (1881) both referencing Gen. 18:4-5.

Then we have books which are not as creative and just use the persons name in the title. Perhaps the person to go wild with this theme was R. Hayyim Palaggi. Who wrote over 25 seforim and almost all carry the name Hayyim in the title. So we have Otzrot haHayyim, Genzi Hayyim, Darki Hayyim, U'Baharta B'Hayyim, Zechirah L'Hayyim, Huke' Hayyim, Hayyim b'Yad, Hayyim V'Shalom etc. (you get the picture).

Asided from these we have other books which make reference to something that happened in the authors life, generally unrelated to content of the book. So we have Homat Aish (1799) a commentary on the Ibn Ezra's song Tzama Nafshe which was written soon after the author lost his house and all to a fire. He decided to write this in the hope it would prevent a future fire. Or we have the various books written by blind people, Eynai Avrohom and the like which generally reference eyes or sight.

Aside from these curiosities, there is still the final one of substituting the authors name for that of his book. Menachem has a rather interesting story related to this practice here.

Perhaps the reason for this practice can be gleaned from the following story was told. There was a city which was filled with less than learned or interested people who were in need of a rabbi. However, when each candidate would come through they would be turned off by the populace. The town decided to do something about this and had commisioned tombstones with famous personages such as the Shach, Taz, Rama etc. and placed them in the graveyard. With the next candidate they made sure to tour the cemetary. Needless to say, although the rabbi had some misgivings he decided to take the job figuring if the Shach etc. were here it couldn't be all that bad. After he accepted one of the townspeople took him aside and told him the truth immediately the Rabbi complained saying he was tricked. However, the town board explained he was not. As in the various cities where the Shach, Taz etc are actually buried they study their works and the Talmud says that when one studies the works their lips move - they are still alive. In this town, however, no one studies any of their wotrulyd they are truely dead here.

Perhaps the idea that the Torah of the person is the most important thing and the authors derive life from that caused some to substitute their works.

Sources: Zlotkin, Shemot haSeforim and entire work devoted to the names of books; Y. S. Spiegel, Amudim b'Toldot HaSefer Haiviri, Ketiva v'Hataka, 384-428 discussing the use of the authors name in the title (Spiegel's two volumes of Amudim are excellent and are a must read for anyone interested in the history of Seforim); for a list of books about various events, famine, jailing, blind people etc. see A. Yaari, Mekeri Sefer. [Thanks Menachem for the Jewish Chronicle (London) citation.]

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/12/Names-of-Seforim-I One more Book on Stam Yayin http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/6/One-more-Book-on-Stam-Yayin
I neglected to mention one other book that was just published. The book Dimyon Areyeh was originally printed in 1616 in Prague, this was the only edition until now. This book is addressed to those of Nikolsburg who were leinient in regards to Stam Yayin. This practice had been justified by R. Moshe Isserless (Rema) in his teshuvot which were subsequently removed in many editions. However, many questioned this practice this book, Dimyon Areyeh, is one of them. There is a nice introduction about the author, R. Yehudah Leib Pisak, and collects what little we know about him. It also discusses some of events and history about the stam yayin controversy. The type has been reset and includes new footnotes throughout. Additionally, it includes the Kuntras Pesak B'Inyan Taknot HaKehilot from R. Shmuel ben David Moshe haLevi author of Nahlat Shivah (which according to this publisher lends support to the Dimyon Areyeh). It is interesting that this was its original title but was removed (for no reason) in later editions of the Nahlat Shivah. Also in at least one edition of the Nahlat Shivah there are no real haskomat (m'ta'am ha'kamut) in a effort to shield those giving the approbation from criticisim which was leveled against the book. It is the Berlin 1763 edition.

If one wants to read more about the Rema leiniency see Asher Ziv's edition of the Teshuvot HaRema no. 124. For more on the removal of that teshuva see Ziv, pages 66-67 and now Y.S. Spiegel Amudim b'Tolodot HaSefer haIvri - Kitiva v'Hataka p. 273 (also see his footnotes for more on the controversy generally); Daniel Sperber Minhagi Yisrael vol. 2 56 note 26. And, of course, on this topic generally see Haym Soloveitchik, Yenam.

Finally, I should mention in light of R. Dr. Shlomo Sprecher's excellent article in Hakirah, a book he relies upon heavily - R. Tertis's Dam Brit - is available from Biegeleisen in copy format, albeit smaller than the original folio size but does include pictures of the "Tertis Apparatus."

]]> Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/6/One-more-Book-on-Stam-Yayin New Feature - Listing of New Seforim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/6/New-Feature--Listing-of-New-Seforim
As a service for those who either don't have access or the time to browes the seforim stores to see what new has been printed I will now on a periodic basis list the seforim I have recently purchased/seen. The vast majority of these I will have seen/purchased will be from Biegeleisen books in Boropark (718) 436-1165.

At times I will have lenghter comments and some books I will just list and leave to the reader to investigate further.

1) The second volume of the Siddur Kol Ya'akov. This a newly set type of the classic Hassidic Siddur.
2) Pirush Mesacktat Avot l'Rebi Mattishayu HaYishari edited with an introduction by R. Ya'akov Shmuel Spiegel as well as an introduction by Dov Schwartz on R. Mattityahu's philosophy based upon this commentary.
3) HaNehmadim miPaz a 862 page work on everything and everything having to do with mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah as well as Haknatat sefer Torah.
4) Hazar Rebi Yehudah HaHassid this discusses the Hurva Shul and includes some interesting historical pictures and documents relating to it. Which I think is being fully rebuilt now.
5) Rigshe Lev Tefilatam shel Nashim a book all about women's prayer although not prayer groups. The implict point of the book, however, is to say that women should be ok without prayer groups or the like. The book inlcudes various "laws" applicable as well as all the myriad of scenarios one needs to come up with when writing a book of this type - can a woman pray where there is no mehitzha, what do if she slept through the proper time of prayer, etc.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/6/New-Feature--Listing-of-New-Seforim Shavout Night and Coffee http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/1/Shavout-Night-and-Coffee
There are many customs associated with Shavout, you can read about some here and here. One, is staying up all night and learning Torah (or at least part). This custom, which began in the 16th century in Safet spread rather quickly throughout the Jewish world. R. Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulkan Orakh lent a spiritual side. R. Karo stayed up all night and was studying with his student R. Shlomo Alkabtz (author of Lecha Dodi) and the following occurred:

Rav Yosef Karo and I agreed to stay up all night on Shavuot... we did not sleep for one minute... and when we began to study the Mishna.. we heard the voice of the Divine Presence, [with a feeble voice] speaking through Yosef Karo: 'May you be blessed; return to your studies, do not stop for one minute, and go to Eretz Yisrael... Do not have pity on your vessels [material goods], because you will be sustained by "the upper realms"... so hurry to Eretz Yisrael, because I will be your sustainer, and I will provide for you and the peace of your house.' And we all raised up a great cry of joy, when we heard the Divine Presence, her voice pleading with us...

Thus, feel the Divine and give Him honor.. and God will cause your hearts to merit becoming one with the Holy Land, to work it together, Amen.


Elliott Horowitz, who we had mentioned previously, has a rather interesting explanation to the quick spread of the custom. Horowitz notes that the rise in popularity of remaining up all night was due to the new drink - coffee. Coffee with its stimulant powers allowed more people to participate in this ritual. Thus, Horowitz notes in a period of thirty years no less than five editions of Tikkun lel Shavout are published in Venice. The same is true in other areas of Europe. This coincided with the rise of coffeehouses. Venice, the same city with all the printings of the Tikkun lel Shavout, in the 18th century, had some 200 coffeehouses (even prior to the rise of Starbucks). In Worms, the community was tasked with supplying coffee specifically for Shavout night. These facts precipitated greater parcipitation in a ritual with its demand upon wakefullness through the night.

While the above is rather interesting explaination for the spread of this custom, it is worth noting that Horowitz's article appears incomplete. Specifically, he doesn't touch on two other rituals which would benefit from coffee. The first would be Pesach night. As one is obligated to stay up (and this is min HaTorah) coffee it would seem would be perfect. (In fact, Briskers only stay up on Pesach night and do not stay up on Shavout to highlight this.)

But, perhaps coffee was not used on Pesach because a) it was a private - in the home and b) some considered hametz or kitnyot or at least susceptible to admixture with them.

The second area is the custom to say Shilchot at midnight. Many say it in the morning or some even say it early evening, but many hold midnight is the best time, why did this not benefit from coffee? In other words, why do we not see a rise in people reciting Selichot at midnight after coffee is introduced.

Finally, Horowitz does not discuss how almost all of the kabalistic customs from Safed where quickly adopted by the rest of Europe even when they had nothing to do with coffee. So the remaining awake all night can be seen as just an outgrowth of the acceptance of the others, think kabbalat shabbat etc.

Although Horowitz doesn't touch upon these, his thesis is one to bear in mind when one is indulging in coffee (today RedBull) and cheesecake at 2 am.

Sources: Elliott Horowitz, "Coffee, Coffeehouses and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry," AJS Review 14:1 (Spring, 1989) 17-46; For a fascinating view of the spread of coffee to Amsterdam Jews and the rest of the world, one should read David Liss's historical fiction work "The Coffee Trader."

]]> Customs Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/6/1/Shavout-Night-and-Coffee An Example of Women & Learning Removed from the Bavli? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/30/An-Example-of-Women--Learning-Removed-from-the-Bavli
There is what appears at first glance to be a technical passage (although some may find it of interest on its own) in the Talmud dealing with the issue of which types of impurity bars one from Torah study. The Talmud states "הזבים והמצורעים ובעולי נדות קורין בתורה ושונין מדרש הלכות והגדות ובעלי קרי אסור בכולן" "A zav, a metzorah, boli niddot, are permitted to read from the Torah, study Midrash, Laws, and 'agadot, however a ba'al keri can study none of these." So according to this all these types of men, as this is in the masculine, are able to study these things even though they have some level of impurity. This is how it appears in the Talmud Bavli.

However, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta preserve a different reading. They have both men and women in the list. Hence "זבין וזבות נדות וילדות קורין בתורה וכו" "zavim and zavot (the feminine) and menstruating women, and a women who just gave birth can read from the Torah etc." according to this reading women would need to know whether they could engage in study of Midrash and Law etc. So what happened?

Lieberman states "I think that the women would intentionally removed [from the Munich manuscript of the Talmud Bavli and hence our corrupted texts] and were replaced with men." So the menstruating women were replaced with a man who had marital relations with a menstruating woman. And instead of a woman who gave birth we have a metzorah. The reason is obvious to have the Talmud discussing whether women in this state of impurity could study these texts assumes that they regularly studied them, something that for some may not have been accepted.

Sources: Saul Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim vol. 1, 15; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, 3:4; Talmud Bavli Berakhot 22, a; Tosefota, Berakhot 2 :12; Lieberman, Tosefta K'Peshuto p. 20.

]]> Censorship Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 30 May 2006 22:30:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/30/An-Example-of-Women--Learning-Removed-from-the-Bavli Errors in Seder Olam? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/18/Errors-in-Seder-Olam
When one discusses the "Jewish" date of the world, the source used is the book Seder Olam. In fact, this is the source where we get to our counting of this being the 5766 year of the world. There was a rather intriguing controversy about whether the edition we have of Seder Olam is a corrupted edition or not.

R. Moshe Hagiz, pehaps most well know for his campaign against R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato, had a very interesting correspondence with R. Jacob Emden. R. Hagiz was incensed when a published siddur by R. Uri Lipmann in Sulzbach.

This siddur offered an explaination for the recitation of Tzedkaska (צדקתך) at Shabbat mincha. "As Moshe died on Friday, King David on Shabbat were therefore recite tzeduk hadin at Shabbat mincha." R. Hagiz took issue with the statement that Moshe died on Friday. R. Hagiz first attacked this siddur in an wholly unrelated book. R. Hagiz added his comments to the book Birkat Eliyahu, Wandsbeck 1728. There, R. Hagiz claims that the publisher altered the death date of Moshe from the Shabbat to Friday in an effort to answer how Moshe could have written on the Shabbat. Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the publisher had Moshe die on Friday when writting is permitted.

This justification enraged R. Hagiz. He says
who is this person in todays day and age who calls himself a Jew . . . how terrible is it to change, to change even the dot of the letter yud of our perfect Torah. . . and this type of diesease which spreads among those lacking in faith and lacking in wisdom . . . god should pay back these comesurate with thier wickedness.
But R. Hagiz did not stop there. Instead, he wrote a long letter to R. Emden highlighting this terrible deed to have Moshe die on Friday. We now come to the issue of the book Seder Olam. R. Hagiz was faced with a problem. While it is correct that some sources have Moshe dying on Shabbat, others - specifically the Seder Olam - have Moshe dying on Friday.

R. Hagiz therefore decided that the Seder Olam must have been corrupted. "A wise person can see that is some places a later person . . . put in his own thoughts . . . as is common when persons write their notes on the side eventually printers incorporated these personal notes into the actual text of the book." Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the statement that Moshe died on Friday is one that was not from the actual Seder Olam but was inserted erronously into the book.

R. Emden takes issue with this explanation of the Seder Olam. He first notes this idea that later additions were incorporated into the Seder Olam is really from R. Azariah de Rossi the author of the controversial Me'or Einayim. R. Emden then continues and notes that while it is true that numerous additions to our texts by later persons have been incorporated into the text, including even in Nach (he cites R. Kimchi (RaDaK) on Joshua 21:7). R. Emden says that the Seder Olam did not suffer such a fate and is "clean and pure."

In the end R. Emden is satisified in admitting that there is a controversy amongst the midrashim about Moshe's death date, and therefore R. Hagiz should accept that there are those who disagree with him.

This debate regarding the Seder Olam was not only between R. Emden and R. Hagiz but continues to today. Among most scholars the concensous is that although portions of the Seder Olam date to at least Talmudic times there were later insertions. Among others, the entirety of Seder Olam is attributed to the tanna R. Yose ben Halfta.

Sources: First, if one wishes to read more about marginalia which have become part of the text, see R. Yitzhak Zilber excellent article "Yedi maTikim Shaltu Bo" in Ohr Yisrael 41, 201-222. Additionally, Zilber discusses the above controversy and also includes an extensive discussion regarding R. Emden's views on R. Azariah de Rossi and his Me'or Einayim. On the controversy discussed above see R. Eliyahu ben Yaakov, Birkat Eliayhu (Wandsbeck, 1728), 56b-57a; R. Jacob Emden, She'elot Ya'avetz, vol. 1 no. 33; see also the Ratner edition of Seder Olam.

]]> Thu, 18 May 2006 09:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/18/Errors-in-Seder-Olam Kehati Revision http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/17/Kehati-Revision Menachem Mendel has posted about a very interesting revision to the English Kehati edition of the Mishna.

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 17 May 2006 15:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/17/Kehati-Revision Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot Review http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/12/Kuntress-HaTeshuvot-Review
I have previously briefly mentioned a couple of problems with the new work Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot haHadash, now I would like to give a full review. First, I am no expert in the teshuva literature, that being said I was somewhat disappointed with this book.

The book first contains a long introduction into the teshuva literature in general. It discusses such topics as the importance of the literature, the pervasiveness or lack there of, as well as censorship in the teshuvot and different bibliographic topics. On this last point, the introduction discusses how, at the advent of printing, teshuvot do not seem to have been that important. They come do this conclusion by comparing amounts of other types of books printed during the same period with that of teshuvot. Books on other topics were printed in mass, while teshuvot made up only a very small portion of the books printed.

The introduction is fairly informative, although for much of this ground there are far better works out there (documented in the extensive footnotes), this does provide a basic understanding. Finally, there is a discussion about the book itself and what Boaz Cohen’s work (the predecessor to this one) is out to accomplish. This last topic is also covered in an English translation of the introduction, however, all the rest of the introduction is not translated.

The bulk of the book is devoted to the actual bibliographical entries of the teshuva books. This volume covers books with titles between aleph and lamed. But it is far from clear what exactly the standard for these entries are. If I had to categorize my main complaint with this, it would unevenness. That is, for some entries there is a significant amount of information such as some important teshuvot from that book, what other books discuss this one, and other points of interest. For other books with equally important and interesting teshuvot there is nothing.

So for Luach Eres by R. Jacob Emden (no. 1950) there is a long entry dealing with all the content of the work as well as others who he discusses and those who discuss the work as well. They also include articles on the book as well. This runs over three densely packed columns. The same is true for Eleh Divrei HaBrit (no. 222) as well as many, many others.

But for the book Har Tabor (no. 1129) which discusses the proper place of the bimah in the center of the synagogue there is no mention of any other books which discuss this topic, or any other books which disagree with this book either.

Another example, the book Be’ar Esek (no. 406) contains a teshuva about the R. Menacham of Fano and whether he had a beard. This teshuva was highly controversial and R. Yosef Erges, R. Moshe Sofer, and R. Eliazer of Munkatz all wrote about it. There is no mention of this teshuva in the entry nor is there any mention of the literature this teshuva spawned.

This last point, that at times they fail to reference other books about the one entered happens time and time again. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the Divrei Iggeret by R. Menhem Steinhardt (no. 759). Although the entry does note this book contains a teshuva on kitnyot (he permits it) it doesn’t mention any of the books discussing this topic, e.g. Ashro Hametz (which has no entry at all), nor does it mention the teshuva from R. Moses Sofer against R. Steinhardt’s permitting kitnyot. Additionally, it doesn’t mention an article devoted to the book itself. Professor Judith Bleich wrote an article titled “Menahem Mendel Steinhardt’s "Divrei Iggeret", Harbinger of reform” in the Proceedings for the World Congress of Jewish Studies 10 (1990): 207-214.

The next problem with the work is incompleteness. This is apparent in the entries as well as the bibliography provided. So some of the problems mentioned above are the worst, in that they don’t list anything about the book, at times even when they do they do a shoddy job. Already in my previous post I mentioned the poor entry on the organ. But there are numerous others. For instance, they have a fairly comprehensive entry on the book Hayi Olam (no. 1456) which deals with the issue of cremation. They discuss the content of the book as well as others who disagree with the author. They list other books dealing with the same subject matter as well. However, they fail to mention Michael Higger’s coverage (perhaps the most comprehensive) on this topic. (This appears in his Halakhot ve’Aggadot, 1933).

Or we have the entry for Modena’s works. Perhaps it is worthwhile to compare this entry with another. We first have the entry for the Zakan Ahron by R. Ahron Walken. As each entry includes biographical information and sources this entry reads “על המחבר ראה: דור רבניו וסופריו, ו, עמ' 31-32; אהלי שם, עמ' 201; אנציקלופדיה של הציונות הדתית, ב, עמ' 175-177. וראה לאחרונה, אליעזר הכהן כ"צמאן, "נעימות התורה- הג"ר אהרן וואלקין אב"ד פינסק בעל בית אהרן, זקן אהרן, וכו'", ישורון יא (תשס"ב), עמ' תתצא-תתקד; יב (תשם"ג) עמ' תשכז-תשלט." So, for this we have three entries plus a recent article discussing the biographical details. Now we turn to Modena. For Modena we have the following: “על המחבר ראה "אריה ישאג – ר' יהודה אריה מודינה ועולמו” and then provides the detail for that book. So we have one entry for Modena biography. So was Modena unknown? No, far from it, he wrote his own autobiography. There have been numerous articles on him as well as a full lengthy doctoral dissertation by Adelman. His autobiography is available in both Hebrew and English. The English version contain articles on him as well. But none of these are mentioned.

Now we get to omissions. The book Avot ‘Atrarah L’Banin (no. 4) contains, as the entry notes, an extensive teshuva on the permissibility of being photographed. It includes a list of Rabbis who had their photograph or more likely, their portrait done. This is all well and good. However, the entry leaves out perhaps the most interesting part, the author of Avot included a photograph (loose) of himself in the first edition. Thus, his teshuva was in a sense to justify his own practice.

There is no entry for the book Hadrat Panin Zakan which is a collection of teshuvot on beards. Nor is there an entry for the book Da’as HaRabanim which is two long teshuvot from R. Menachem Mendal Kasher and R. D. Polonski (Kli Hemdah) discussing women’s suffrage.

The editors claim this list only goes up to the year 2000. However, for some entries they include editions even after the year 2000. For R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin’s Beni Banim (no. 555) they include his fourth volume printed in 2004. However, for R. Teichtel’s Em HaBanim Semacha (no. 239) where there have been two recent translations which are different they do not include this. But again for R. Menachem Kasher’s Hatekufa haGedolah (no. 1144) (how this even qualifies as a teshuvah book is left unanswered) they include his 2001 edition.

Or we have the entry for the Helkat Ya’akov (no. 1496) where they note the first edition date and then the rest they claim are photo-offsets of the original. This is wrong. In the subsequent editions R. Herzog’s approbation was removed and thus they are not just copies of the original.

However, perhaps the answer to some of these shortcomings comes from the introduction itself. The editors explain how this work came to be. They explain that this was initially an "auxiliary tool for another project" a project on "Jewish education in the halakhic literature." This is perhaps most telling. They are explaining to the reader that (a) they are not bilbiographers; (b) they did not initially set out to do this; (c) they are not experts in teshuvot. These shortcomings are apparent. This being said, it is important to recognize that this is a vast improvement over Cohen's work and a welcome entry for Jewish biliography.

]]> Book Reviews Bibliographies Fri, 12 May 2006 11:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/12/Kuntress-HaTeshuvot-Review R. Y. Emden, Hassidim & the Vilna Shas http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/11/R-Y-Emden-Hassidim--the-Vilna-Shas
The Vilna edition of the Shas printed by the Romm Press has become the standard edition of the Shas. This Shas had many important additions and corrections that prior ones did not. One of those was the inclusion of the comments of R. Jacob Emden.

However, it appears that one comment, a rather important one was left out. R. Emden in Gitten page 60 made a comment regarding the Hassidim, this does not appear in the Vilna Shas. In the Mozonim edition they partially rectified this by providing a partial transcription of the passage. But it seems they were unable to reproduce the entire passage and thus, even in their edition it contains numerous ellipses. Now, in the most recent volume of the journal Ohr Yisrael, R. M.M. Goldstein has provided the complete passage. As will be apparent, this is a very important passage. R. Goldstein got this from the manuscript of R. Emden's comments which is now housed in the Oxford Library. In the article, R. Goldstein provides of copy of the original manuscript.

In it R. Emden discusses Kabbalah and that this subject is really only for a select few. (He also explains the term aggadah in relation to kabbalah). He then continues to explicate the limited distrubution of kabbalah and says
ואינו מתגלה אלא ליחידי סגולה לא עמוד איש בליעל ורע בסודה, ולהוציא גם ממה שנהגו מתחסדים חדשים מקרוב באו לעסוק בספר הזוהר ואר"י בקבע, ועשו תלמוד והלכות עראי וטפל, אין חפץ ה' בהם, הלא מזקנים נתבונן שעיקר למודם ותורתם לא היה אלא בנגלה בלבד, וסתרי תורה לא היה נמסרים אלא ליחיד עמוד בחצי ימיו על פי תנאי פרישות הרבה כמו שאמרו פרק אין דורשין, ואף זה לא אשכח ותני רק למבין מדעתו וחכם, והללו עשו פומבי לדבר פתאים בל ידעו מה, כסילים נעדרי דעת, השה אלוה חכמה ולא חלק להם בבינה

[kabbalah] should only be given to a limited set of person, one who can understand its secrets, this excludes the new hassidim who spend their time reading the Zohar and the works of the AR"I, but only spend amount of time on the Talmud and the laws, God does not want them, from our ancestors we have learnt that the majority of ones time should be only in the revealed Torah, the seceret Torah was only for special ones, who where older [at the mid point in life] with conditions of ascetism as is described in the Talmud Haggiah, it is only given to those who can understand by themselves, however, these [the hassidim] they make public things which should be private to those who don't know anything, idiots totally lacking in knowledge, God who gives wisdom did not give them understanding.
While this is not the only critique R. Emden had of Hassidim it is curious that the Romm printers did not inlcude it. Unfortunatly we don't know why. It was not as if the Romm press was considered particularly friendly with Hassidim. In fact, one of the reasons Hassidim used the Shapira press was they viewed the Romm one as not in line with Hassidic values. This was so, as the Romm press printed works of maskilim. But, now that this passage has been printed one can hope that in future editions of the Shas this will be included, in it entirety.

Sources: R. M.M. Goldstein, Iyunim u'Biurim b'Mishnato shel Rabbenu haYavetz, in Ohr Yisrael vol. 43 (Nissan 5766) 203-215; for another passage in R. Emden's writings discussing Hassidim see Wilensky, Hassidim u'Mistnagdim, p. 380; for more on what the Romm edition included see their Achrit Davar at the end of Niddah.

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 11 May 2006 08:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/11/R-Y-Emden-Hassidim--the-Vilna-Shas Note to Email subscribers http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/Note-to-Email-subscribers Those who subscribe via email, the prior service, bloglet, appears to be dead. I have now switched to feedblitz. If you have already subscribed you need not do anything you have been automatically switched. However, if you would like to subscribe it is on the left side of the page.

]]> Wed, 10 May 2006 19:37:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/Note-to-Email-subscribers The Meshumad Hazzan http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/The-Meshumad-Hazzan
As some of you know I have an interest in meshumdim and their wide affect on modern day Judaism. Thus, Yehoshua Mondshine's latest installment in his series on corrupted stories is especially good. Some may recall our earlier post on Mondshine's earlier piece about the "classic" ba'al teshuva story and its root in a Shai Agnon story, I think this one is equally as good.

This story is a Habad story and it basically goes like this. There was a Hazzan in Habad known as Reb Yechiel the Meshumad. His story was that as a young boy his entire village was wiped out by a progrom. The Poritz kept him as his own son and did not tell him that he was Jewish. The boy had no idea who his true ancestors were. As the boy grew up it became appearent he had a talent for music and was sent to a music school. At school some kids taunt him for being Jewish (there are slightly different variations here) and he has no idea why. He goes back to his "father" and he is then told what happened and eventually hooks up with Habad and becomes the Hazzan.

This entire story is not in the least bit true. First, they have letters from the Hazzan Yechiel to his (real Jewish) father. Second, in those letters he discusses his lineage so he was well aware where he came from. Third, he was never a meshumad. Instead, it seems he was the meshulach for Yeshivat Tomkhei Torah. It seems that meshulach and meshumad are close enough that people got them mixed up!? However, once the meshulach became a meshumad it was only a small leap to create an entire legend surrounding his childhood.

The full article is available here.

Additionally, it seems the niggun which the story revolves around - the one for hu' 'elokanu in the mussaf of Shabbat is based upon a non-Jewish one.

]]> Wed, 10 May 2006 12:09:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/The-Meshumad-Hazzan R. Reuven Margulies II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/R-Reuven-Margulies-II
I have already discussed the most recent book of R. Margulies and provided a bibliography of his works, I now want to turn to a brief biography of him.

R. Margulies was born in 1889 and was known, from the time of his youth, as extremly erudite. Although he recieved ordination, he did not become a Rabbi and instead opened a bookstore in Lemberg. It is said that although his store was always full of talmidi hakhmim it was unclear if he actually sold anything. During his time in Lemberg he began publishing his own books. Many of his early books focus on hassidim. One of his early works, a biography on R. Hayyim ben Attar (Ohr haHayyim haKodesh) included comments by R. Dan Polonski, the author of the Kli Hemdah. In 1935 R. Margulies moved to Israel and became the librarian at the Rambam Library in Tel Aviv.

After moving to Israel he produced some of his most well known works. He began to focus on the Zohar literature and produced a fully annotated version of the Zohar, Zohar Hadash, Tikkunei Zohar and the Bahir. Additionally, during this time, he was involved in a controversy with Gershon Scholem over the R. Jacob Emden/R. Jonathan Eybeshuetz controversy. R. Margulies produced a pamphlet defending R. Eybeshuetz and in response Scholem produced his own disagreeing with R. Marguleis's conclusions.

R. Margulies also produced an annotated Shulhan Orach, Nefesh Hayiah which he lists, in his typical encyclopedic manner, other books which deal with the same issues. It was this book that some in the comments to a previous post have raised questions about plagerism. The source for this accuasation comes for R. Wolf Leiter. He cites to sixty-one examples from R. Margulies's book Nefesh Hayiah where R. Leiter notes others have said the same thing prior to R. Margulies. In fact, R. Leiter says these are just the tip of the iceberg. He says "there are hundreds of other examples which I have written on the side of my copy, there is no end I have only provided some examples." R. Leiter's examples include citations to articles and other books.

It is important to note, however, that R. Margulies wrote this during World War I. R. Margulies himself notes that this was written during a particular trying time "I remember the long winter nights when I was closed up, alone, lacking everything . . . I wrote and studied from the light of the oven fire, laying upon the floor." Thus, it is a possiblity that during this time he neglected to look up everything and produced much from memory. In turn, the result may have been to include what he had seen before without attribution.

Additionally, some accuse him of plagerizing from R. Yosef Engel and R. Engel's comments to the Zohar. I have never seen this in print (aside from the comment).

That being said, to accuse R. Margulies of not being extremely well read and very, very, erudite is wrong. If one looks to R. Yosef HaKohen Schwartz, who himself was one of the biggest bikeim of his day. He corresponded with R. Margulies and among other notes that R. Margulies's "praises are known to all" that he is "an amazingly sharp mind." Furhter, if one looks at his bibliography in three parts in the journal Areshet is very apparent R. Margulies's breath of knowledge. Finally, as evidenced by the bibliography below, R. Margulies produced many, many books and if in one or two he may have been sloppy in attribution it is equally clear that the vast majority of his works he was not.

R. Margulies passed away in 1971.

Sources: Sefer Margolios, ed. Dr. Y. Refael; R. Z.W. Leiter, Tzion l'Nefesh Hayyiah no. 109; R. Y. Schwartz, Ginzei Yosef.

]]> Bibliographies Wed, 10 May 2006 08:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/10/R-Reuven-Margulies-II R. Reuven Margulies I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/9/R-Reuven-Margulies-I
First, I want to post a bibliography of R. Margulies's works and then I shall discuss some biogrpahical details in the next post. This bibliography is not a scientific one in that I do not attempt to list every edition. Rather, I am listing just the works and some bibliogrpahical information as I see fit. Most of this information comes from Naftali Ben Menachem's bibliogprahy of R. Margulies's books which was printed in Sefer Margolious.

1) Toldot Adam (Lemberg 1912) on R. Shmuel Edels
2) Kav Besamim (Lemberg 1913) 102 notes on Tosefot
3) Drush l'yom 'alot 'al kesi moshlim 'adonanu haKeiser Karal haRishon (Lemberg 1918)
4) Kavi Ohr (Lemberg, 1921) laws pertianing to Israel as well as articles on history, including yesod hamishna among others
5) Yesod HaMishna V'Arikachto (Lemberg, 1933) on the creation of the Mishna
6) Sefer Hassidim with his notes (multiple printings)
7) Tolodot Rabenu Hayyim ben Atar (Lemberg, 1925), biography on the Ohr Hayyim includes the notes of R. Meir Dan Plotzki (Kli Hemdah)
8) Ohr Meir (Lemberg, 1926), biography of R. Meir from Perlmishiya
9) Margenuta d'Reb Meir (Lemberg, 1926), sayings of the above R. Meir
10) Shealot u'Teshuvot min HaShamyim, R. Margulies's extensive notes on the teshuvot as well as a comprehensive introduction discussing Torah lo' Bashmyim and other related topics (multiple printings)
11) Yalkut Margolious ([Lemberg], 1927), derashot of R. Margulies
12) Imrei Kodesh haShalem (Lemberg, 1928)
13) Vikuach Rabbanu Yehiel m'Paris (Lemberg, 1928), with biography of R. Yehiel
14) Shemot v'Kinuim B'Talmud, discussing names in the Talmud, including when two names started, (multiple printings)
15) Helulua d'Tzadika (Lemberg 1929), lifespan and death dates of Tzadikim
16) Vikuach HaRamban (Lemberg, 1928)
17) Yalkut Peninim (Lemberg, 1929), derashot
18) Butzna d'Nehora HaShalem (Lemberg, 1930), about R. Barukh of Metzerich
19) Gevurot Ari (Lemberg, 1930), biography of R. Leib Srhson
20) Toldot Rabbenu Avrohom Mimoni, biography of Rambam's son, (multiple printings)
21) Rishimah (Lemberg, 193-) list of books in his bookstore
22) Mekor Barukh (Lemberg, 1931), biography of R. Barukh of Metzerich and other historical documents
23) Shem Olam, to reveal the anonymous people in hazal (multiple printings)
24) HaModiah journal
25) Nefesh Hayyia, on Shulchan Orakh multiple printings
26) Hagadah shel Pesach (Tel Aviv, 1937)
27) Shichot Chakhamim
28) Mekor haBerakha discussing blessing and why and when before one does something (recently reprinted)
29) Zohar with his extensive notes (multiple printings)
30) Sibah hisnaguto discussing R. Emden/R. Eybeschitz controversy (very controversial Scholem wrote a pamphelet against this) Tel Aviv 1941
31) Reb Saul Levin M'Ziaf haSefer Besamim Rosh, in Aresehet 1944
32) Malechi Elyon on angels in Hazel (multiple printings)
33) Ollalot various articles (multiple printings)
34) Tikunei Zohar notes, multiple printings
35) Sefer haBahir same as above
36) Zohar Hadash same
37) L'Toldot Anshei Shem b'Lvov, Jerusalem 1952
38) Milchmot HaShem (R. Avrohom ben HaRambam) (including the biography on him) (multiple printings)
39) haRambam v'Hazohar now reprinted in Penini Margolios
40) Sha'ari Zohar collecting relvant passages from the Zohar to Hazal (multiple printings)
41) Margolios HaYam on Sanhedrin (multiple printings)
42) Divrarim b'Itam dershot
43) L'Heker haMisparam beTalmud, Sinai 44
44) Tzioyunim Bibliographim a comprehensive biobibliography in Areshet 1-2,4
45) Tziyunim l'Ha'arot l'Seder haDorot, Sinai 46
46) HaMikrah v'Hamesorah multiple printings
47) Mekharim b'Darkei haTalmud v'Hidosov multiple printings

]]> Bibliographies Tue, 09 May 2006 22:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/9/R-Reuven-Margulies-I "New" R. Reuven Margoliyot Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/9/New-R-Reuven-Margoliyot-Book
Mossad HaRav Kook has published Peninem u-Margoliyot which is a collection of articles by R. Reuven Margoliyot. These articles originally appeared in the journal Sinai and are now republished in a single volume. It seems that the impetus to collect and publish these was not so that people could have access to them (although perhaps this played a small role). Instead, Mossad HaRav Kook was forced, as it was, to publish these.

In the last few years, in honor of someone's child's wedding, someone published some of R. Margoliyot's articles and books, including the articles which appeared in Sinai. Now, this seems to have upset Mossad HaRav Kook as they note in the introduction where they explain these articles are not that well known "with the exception of one publisher in America, who stole, without first obtaining permission, and Jews will not have a stumbling block in their homes." While it may be the case that many are unaware of the journal Sinai or where to find R. Margoliyot's writings it seems that Mossad HaRav Kook who had these for years, some for 30 years, they would have been content to let them langiush had it not been for this violation of copyright.

In fact, Mossad HaRav Kook has only published those articles which appeared in Sinai, they did not, as the American publisher did, republish other works (long out of copyright) of R. Margoliyot. The American publications include Toledot Ohr Hayyim haKadosh and Toledot Maharsha. The latter was originally published in Lemberg in 1932 it contains a portrait of the Maharsah (R. Shmuel Edels) as well as a discussion by R. Margoliyot of other Rabbis who had their portraits done (the picture of him in the chair is from the 1814 Vienna edition of the Maharsha and the frontal picture is from R. Margulies's book).

The articles in these books include among others: Ha-Rambam v'HaZohar, Defusi haShulhan Arukh, Defusi haShulahan Ohrah haRishonim, Zionunei HaPesukim b'Talmud u-Midrashim, and Toledot Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi.

I purchased both the American and the Mossad HaRav Kook versions at Beigeleisen Books.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 09 May 2006 08:12:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/9/New-R-Reuven-Margoliyot-Book Eruv Controversy and Website http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/4/Eruv-Controversy-and-Website
There is an excellent site discussing various issues with eruvin, many of them contemporary (especially in light of the seforim which have been published on the topic in the last couple of years, many dealing with the Brooklyn controversy). Today, he has the second part of his series on the St. Louis eruv controversy which includes a rather fascinating discussion regarding two seforim printed at the turn of the 20th century.

Both of those seforim are available online, if one is interested in reading further.

]]> Thu, 04 May 2006 18:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/4/Eruv-Controversy-and-Website Hatikvah, Shir HaMa'alot, & Censorship http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/3/Hatikvah-Shir-HaMaalot--Censorship
There is a rather interesting teshuva which appears in R. Avrohom Weinfeld's Lev Avrohom. In it he discusses whether one can recite Shir HaMa'alot to the tune of Hatikvah.


He first explains that this question involves the question of whether a tune from an impure source is appropriate to use. He begins by discussing the two well-known teshuvot (the Teshuvot haBakh and the Krach shel Romi) dealing with using non-Jewish tunes for Jewish songs.




However, without getting into all of his halakhic discusion, I would like to focus on his final proof that using a tune or the like for an impure source is inappropriate. He finishes with a quote from the book Shivchei Rav Hayyim Vital. This quote demonstrates, for him, that it does matter what the source of something is. The quote is as follows:
אמת הוא שהפזמונים שחיבר הם בעצמם טובים, אבל הוא בעצמו אסור לדבר עמו, ומי שמוציא מפיו הפזמונים שחיבר רע לו. כי תמיד פיו דובר נבלה וכל ימיו שיכור While it is true that the songs he composed are themselves good, he [the composer] it is not permitted to speak with him, and whomever sings the songs he [the composer] wrote, it is bad. Because [the composer] is always speaking profanities and spends his days drunk.

Thus, according to R. Weinfeld, this shows that R. Hayyim held it is very important to know who the source is and if that source is bad, one should not use it even if it is a nice song. In fact, R. Hayyim continues (although this does not appear in the Lev Avrohom) with other rather serious allegations against this person. However, this proof is premised on the fact that we accept this. That is, if we were to figure out who this person was and we in fact do sing his songs, obviously we would not follow R. Hayyim's understanding.


Now, as is apparent, in the Shivchei this person is anonymous. But all is not lost. The Shivchei is in fact an abriged version of a longer work. That work, Sefer Hezyonot the Book of Visions, is in fact published.

The Sefer Hezyonot was first published in 1954 by Mossad HaRav Kook. Admittedly, this book contains rather shocking material and was therefore claimed that it was not in fact from R. Hayyim. R. Reuvan Margolios, among others, protested outside of Mossad HaRav Kook after this was published. Needless to say Mossad HaRav Kook never republished this. Now in truth it seems the manuscript which was used to print this book was actually from R. Hayyim's own hand. And therefore this book has actually been republished recently in three different editions.

The first was in 1999 in an English edition "Jewish Mystical Autobiographies, Book of Visions." The second was in 2002 by a Yeshiva in Jerusalem and was edited and includes a commentary by R. Nesonel Monsor. However, as we shall see, this was not a complete edition. And then finally, this year Mochon Yad Ben Tzvi put out a critical edition of this book.

So to return to our question, who was this unnamed composer, one just needs to open a Sefer Hezyonot to find out. There the very same passage as was in the Shivchei appears, however, it includes the name of the person. That person is the composer R. Yisrael Nagara. R. Yisrael was not unknown, in fact he authored a very well-known zemer which is sung universally, kah rebon 'olam.

Now that we know who this is, we now see that it would appear we do not hold like R. Hayyim, in that we sing this song, even though R. Hayyim declared it was improper to do so. Thus, R. Weinfeld's proof is no longer a proof, but if R. Hayyim is correct in his claims of drunkeness etc. it actually demonstrates that we do not care that the source may be impure as it was.

But, as we alluded to before, not every edition of Sefer Hazyonot contains the name. The Jerusalem edition in the place of the name has an ellipse. Now one can say perhaps the manuscript they used had that. That is wrong. There is only one manuscript in existance today and that manscript contains the name. Therefore, it seems the Jerusalem edition was censored. One can see on the side themselves the passages in question. The page which has the legend on the top Sefer Hezyonot/Darkehi Hayyim is the Jerusalem edition while the other Hebrew one is the Ben Zvi and I have supplied the English as well.

Sources: Teshuvot Lev Avrohom no. 134 (if one is interested in a rather nuanced view of R. Weinfeld on the State of Israel one should also see nos. 139-141); Faierstein, "Jewish Mystical Autobiographies" introduction; Catalog of Gershon Scholem in Kabbalah no. 4331

]]> Censorship Wed, 03 May 2006 09:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/3/Hatikvah-Shir-HaMaalot--Censorship Errors in New Kuntras HaTeshuvot http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/2/Errors-in-New-Kuntras-HaTeshuvot
As some have already noted, there is a completely new edition of Boaz Cohen's Kuntras HaTeshuvot. This edition edited by Shmuel Glick totally reworks Cohen's work. Supposedly this new work benefited from many subsequent bibliographies as well as the Institute for Jewish Bibliography.

While this is an vast improvement in my quick read (I only received it today) I was amazed at what this lacked and in my mind errors.

The first is for the entry for the Besamim Rosh the famed possible forgery attributed to R. Asher b. Yecheil. In their entry they first note that examined the Krakow 1881 edition. Now aside from not looking at the first edition which is not hard to come by there is a greater error here. Specifically, they do not note that this edition is missing two teshuvot. So while they provide a bibliography listing articles discussing the Besamim Rosh they fail to mention the most important thing that if one gets the wrong edition they will not have the full text. Even though they comment there are 392 teshuvot they did not bother to count or to even read the articles they cite (which note this absence). This are not minor teshuvot either, in fact, the one on suicide which this edition leaves out is perhaps the most well-known and cited one from the entire volume.

The next error is in regards to the Hatam Sofer. Again they have a long entry about the various editions and then list the various editions. But here they totally missed out on the first edition of this work. The first time teshuvot from the Hatam Sofer appeared was not as a separate work but as part of another work. In Prague 1826 edition of the Ri Megash from pages 31b until 42a there is Kuntras Hiddushi Torah v'Gam She'alot v'Teshuvot m'admu HaRav HaGaon . . . R. Moshe Sofer. In fact, on the title pages it even notes that this includes teshuvot from Hatam Sofer. This is listed in the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book and a simple computer search would have revealed this information.

Additionally, the sources which are provided are rather uneven. Again, this is only from my limited viewing of it and I may revise but if one looks at the entry for Eleh Divrei HaBrit which deals with, among other things, the controversy regarding placing an organ in shul. In that entry they provide Haberman's article on the topic but not Binayahu's article or Samet's which both appeared in Asuphot vol. 1 and 5 respectively. In fact, the book Ohr Nogeh which is Liberman's book on the topic does not have an entry. While perhaps they considered this part of the work Nogeah HaTzedek there doesn't seem to be a reason to do so. Also, they do not include the book Tzror Hayyim which was published a year after Eleh and is devote to the very same topics in their list of books and articles discussing the organ. This is so eventhough the first teshuva discussed the organ exclusively.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 02 May 2006 20:52:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/5/2/Errors-in-New-Kuntras-HaTeshuvot Buring the Hametz and the Goan Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/24/Buring-the-Hametz-and-the-Goan-Book
To the left are pictures what are supposed to be the Klausenberger Rebbe burning the book HaGaon (discussed here previously) with the Hametz. Additionally the final picture is him saying the Yehi Ratzon from the Ateresh Yehoshua when burning books of heresy. If you click on the images you can see them enlarged. Here is the full text of the Yehi Ratzon
יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלוקי ואלוקי אבותי, כשם שאנכי באתי לבער את ספרי החיצונים והמשכילים אלה, כן יסור את הצפוני מזרע ישראל, וביותר מן הבחורי חמד אשר ההשכלה מצאה קן בלבם ובמוחם והיצר מבלבל מחשבותם. בעל הרחמים ירחם עליהם ונטע בקרבם אמונת הבורא ואמונת הצדיקים כדכ(תיב), ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו ועתה בזמן ביעור חמץ אשר היא עת מוכשר על זה לגרש ולבער את השאור שבעיסה הטמ(ו)ן בקרבנו, יעלה תפילה זו לרצון לפני אדון כל, אמן כן יהי' רצון

"עטרת ישועה על חמישה חומשי תורה", ח"ב, קראקא, תרפ"ה דף פז, ב' סי' א

]]> HaGaon Herem Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/24/Buring-the-Hametz-and-the-Goan-Book Talk on the Valmadonna Trust Library http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/24/Talk-on-the-Valmadonna-Trust-Library
JACK LUNZER, Custodian
THE VALMADONNA TRUST LIBRARY
Opening remarks by Arthur Kiron, University of Pennsylvania.

The Valmadonna Trust Library, located in London, is the world’s foremost private collection of rare Hebraica and the most comprehensive collection of early books printed in Italy.

THURSDAY, APRIL 27 at 7:00 pm

Center for Jewish History - 15 West 16 Street - New York City
For more information see here

]]> Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/24/Talk-on-the-Valmadonna-Trust-Library Old Haggadot for Free http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/10/Old-Haggadot-for-Free
Many of the haggadot that we have mentioned previously as well as many other interesting ones are available for free in there entirety at the JNUL's site here. All you need is a printer (just make sure to switch to landscape printing for the double paged ones) and you too can have a copy of 1482 haggadah, 1526 Prague haggdah (first fully illustrated haggadah), Venice Ladino haggadah, 1833 English translation, or the 1844 haggadah printed in Calcutta, India to name but a few.

]]> Pesach Out-of-Print Seforim Historical Haggadah Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/10/Old-Haggadot-for-Free Haggadah, First Hebrew Map, and Forgery http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/10/Haggadah-First-Hebrew-Map-and-Forgery
One of the most beautifully done haggadot is that of the Amsterdam, 1695. This haggadah for the first time used copperplate instead of woodcuts to produce the illustrations. Consequently, the illustrations are sharper and more intricate. The illustrator, Avrohom bar Ya'akov mimispchto shel Avrohom avenu, as is apparent from his name, was a convert. Before converting he was a preacher.

His edition of the haggadah was special not only for the copperplate and the illustrations, but for a specific illustration, one of the earliest Hebrew maps of Israel (the map on top, you can click to see a zoomable view). This haggadah included a fold out map (it was rather large) of the travels of the Jews through the desert and into Israel. Many (Yerushalmi and Yaari) incorrectly assert this was actually the first Hebrew map, however, as we will see in a moment that is wrong. But this map and the haggadah was rather popular and was reprinted four times in a little over one hundred years. [It was reprinted this year, however, the reprint is terrible. It seems they photocopied it and then had a three-year-old add color. The map is included in this reprint, not a fold out page, but as the end papers of the binding.]

The map itself has north on the right and east on the right as was common for maps of that time a compass is supplied in the bottom middle of the map. The legend on the top reads "This will allow every person to see the route of the forty year journey . . . " And in keeping with previous Jewish books there is a nude in the lower right hand corner perhaps representing an Egyptian(?).

This was not the first Hebrew map of Israel. Instead, that milestone goes to a book with its own interesting history. The Biurim on Rashi was published in 1593 in Venice and attributed to R. Nathan Shapiro. This work includes two illustrations. The first is of the menorah (reprinted many times to this day) and the second is a map of Israel. This is the first Hebrew map. However, although on the title page this book is supposedly written by R. Shapiro, this was not the case. Instead, R. Shapiro's son published his fathers comments on Rashi in 1697 in a work titled Imrei Shefer. In the introduction he explains why there are two books from his father both on the same topic.
ואתם קדושי עליון אל תתמהו על החפץ שזה שתנים ימים יצא בדפוס איזה ביאורים הנקראים על שם הגאון אדוני אבי ז"ל, כי המציאוהו אנשים, אנשי בלי עול מלכות שמים, חיבור אשר מצאו, ומי יודע המחבר אם נער כתבו ורצו לתלותו באילן גדול אדני אבי ז"ל, חלילה לפה קדוש להוציא מפיו דברים אשר אין בהם ממש, כי הכל תוהו ובוהו ומזויף מתוכו, כלו עלו קמשונים כסו פניו חרולים. וכאשר הגיעו הספרים ההם בגלילות אלו הכרוז בהסכמת כל רבני ורשאי המדינות שלא ומכרו ויהיו בבל יראה ובבבל ימצא בכל ארצות אלו. ואשר קנו מהם יחזר להם המעות ולא ימצא בביתך עולה

["Do not wonder why I am publishing what was published just two years ago, the Biurim, in my father's name. As wicked people, people who found a book, a book which may have been written by a child. However, they wanted to use my father's good name to publish their work. But, my father would never say such stupidities which appear in that book, their book is worthless and a forgery. When this was discovered all the Rabbis agreed that this book [Biurim] should be under a ban, no one should be allowed to keep it. Whomever purchased it should have their money returned, they should not allow a stumbling block into their home."]
So this book was actually a forgery and not really from R. Shapiro however, it still did provide the first map, albeit a crude one. In the Imrei Shefer there is no map.

His son was not the only one to question the authenticity of the Biurim. R. Yissachar Bear Ellenburg in his Be'er Sheva and in his Tzedah L'Derekh states unequivocally that R. Shapiro did not write the Biurim.

Sources: A. Yaari Maps of Israel in the Haggadah, Machanyim, 55 (1971) 152-159; (for more on converts in printing see Yaari, Mehker Sefer, 245-55); Introduction Imrei Sefer, Lublin 1697 (on differences in the printings of the Imrei Shefer see Yudolov, Areshet, 6 (1981) 102 no. 7); Biurim, Venice 1693; R. E. Katzman, "Rabbi Nathan Nata Shapiro - Ha-Megaleh Amukot" in Yeshurun 13 (Elul 2002) 677-700; Introduction [R. E. Katzman]Seder Birkat HaMazon im pirush shel R. Noson Shapiro, 2000 Renaissance Hebraica, 1-10; Yeushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 69.

]]> Pesach Historical Haggadah Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:12:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/10/Haggadah-First-Hebrew-Map-and-Forgery Review of Reckless Rites http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/7/Review-of-Reckless-Rites
While it is a bit out of season, I wanted to review Elliott Horowitz's new book Reckless Rites. In this book, subtitled "Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence," everything is viewed through the prism of the violence inflicted by the Jews upon their enemies at the end of Esther.

While arguably, the violence at the end is only a minor part of the story for some that aspect has clouded everything about the Book of Esther and Purim. First Horowitz looks at how the Book was viewed by non-Jews. Some had a very negative view due to the Jewish revenge. They considered that motif, un-biblical (read non-Christian). Horowitz goes through each of the characters and how first non-Jews interpreted their actions. For instance, Mordechi was treated rather harshly by many of these commentators as was Esther due to her passivity. What is especially fascinating is how these non-Jewish understandings, at times, crept into Jewish thought as well. Thus, Horowitz documents Jews parroting these rather un-Jewish, at it were, interpretations.

Horowitz then tackles the overarching theme of Amalek and how this has been understood throughout history. Some hold there is no obligation of destroying Amalek today while others are willing to label any perceived enemy of Jews as deserving of the harsh consequences of Amalek. Some of these examples are rather disturbing.

After dealing with the Book of Esther specifically, Horowitz turns his focus to Jewish practice on Purim. Specifically, he deals with Jewish violence or violent acts on Purim directed at non-Jews. He provides a discussion of the stereotype of the "mild" (read the wimp) Jew including its origins and whether it is borne out by history. He then discusses numerous, diverse examples spanning from the 5th century until today of Jewish violence. Some is not physical violence, instead it is host desecration or general enmity of non-Jewish symbols while other, most recently Barukh Goldstein is physical violence in its worst form.

In an effort to play down some of these incidents, we have Jewish historians who decided to avoid discussion of such matters, or at times downplay their significance. However, in light of the many examples here, it is very difficult to ignore such examples. Horowitz is very convincing in the scope of this idea and how prevalent this is. It is especially telling when tracing and seeing how systematically Jews have decided to sweep under the rug these examples, it demonstrates that censorship is not limited to any one group and even amongst supposedly dispassionate scholars, they too can fall prey to their own biases.

The detail and research is amazing , Horowitz leaves no stone unturned. All in all, this book sheds new light of the story of Purim, the Book of Esther and Jewish history. It provides a new way of viewing the story of Esther and Jewish ideas towards violence.

]]> Purim Book Reviews Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/7/Review-of-Reckless-Rites Separate Beds More on Illustrated Haggadot http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/4/Separate-Beds-More-on-Illustrated-Haggadot
As part of the hagadah there is an extensive discussion where various verses are discussed in depth. One of the verses, Devarim 26:7, says that "God heard our pain" (וירא את ענינו), this is interpreted in the hagadah as refraining from martial relations. In the Venice 1629 edition of the hagadah this is illustrated by having husband and wife sleeping in separate beds.

[As you can also see, for some reason the text of this edition has two yuds in the word ענינו I don't know why.]

Also, you can see in the top left hand corner of the illustration (click on the picture for a more detailed view) a lamp is lit as well. I assume this was also to show the lack of marital relations. The law on Yom Kippur is that one needs to have a light on, according to one understanding this is so one will not come to have relations with ones wife. Perhaps this was used here for the same effect. This understanding is bolstered by the fact the Talmud in Yoma learns the prohabition against marital relations on Yom Kippur from the Eygptian slavery. (Yoma, 74b)

According to one scholar, Israel Yuval, this understanding of the verse is polemical in nature. He explains that when the Jews were prohibited from martial relations this was "pain" as this "counteracts the claim of Jesus' miraculous birth." If one could have a child born through miraculous means, then it would mitigate the effect of abstinence. Consequently, we are emphasizing the Jewish view is that such abstinence is harmful.

[However, some have questioned Yuval's emphasis on finding Christological elements in the hagadah.]

Sources: Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 50; Joshua Kulp, The Origins of the Seder and Haggadah, Currents in Biblical Research, 4.1(2005) 109-134 (discussing Yuval and summarizing the state of the current literature); Safrai and Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages, 136-138.

]]> Pesach Historical Haggadah Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:36:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/4/Separate-Beds-More-on-Illustrated-Haggadot Az Yashir, Another Kabalah Custom Gone Wrong? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/3/Az-Yashir-Another-Kabalah-Custom-Gone-Wrong
One of the most common and troublesome customs based upon kabalah is the addition of verses and targum to אז ישיר.

Everyday, at the end of pesuki de’zimra we recite az yashir. However, we for one, don’t start at the beginning of the shira. The beginning is at the verse that starts ויהי באשמורות הבוקר we begin at the אז ישיר. Secondly, we don’t end at the end of the shira either. Instead, we add either 4 or 6 verses at the end.

The threshold question is why was this change effected? Rashi, R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040-1105) in his Sefer haPardes (p. 321) explains, “Whenever we finish anything we end by reciting the verse twice [the end of tehillim, for example] for this reason we double the verse of ה' ימלוך the reason being that really the entire parsha of the shira that is, from ויהי באשמורות הבקר has 18 mentions of gods name. Every name has 4 letters thus forming the 72 letter name of god. The רשאונים, the early ones, enacted that we recite the shira everyday to remember this great miracle . However, we only recite the important or ikar portion thus we start from az yashir. We are therefore lacking 4 mentions of gods name. Therefore we repeat the verse twice and add the four verses afterwards. The last verse’s mention of God’s name does not count as it is future tense.” Thus, according to this passage, we now understand why it is we add the four verses at the end and repeat the verse and why we left out the first four verses. There are many other rishonim that offer similar explanations for this.[1]

Importantly, according to Rashi, the end of the Shira is at ה' ימלוך thus he repeats that verse. It is also clear that he did not say the verse that follows, כי בא סוס as a) he would not have repeated ה' ימלוך as it would not have been the end and b) because there is a mention of God’s name in that verse and thus we would have too many mentions and therefore we lose the numerology as we do not get the 72 letter name.

The many רשונים follow this understand and thus end the שירה and the daily recitation of אז ישיר at ה' ימלוך. In fact, early Ashkenazi Siddurim all end at ה' ימלוך. For example, the earliest printed siddur in Prague, 1513 does that. As does the סידור of R. Shabbti Sofer, first published in the mid-16th century, who was considered the סידור for his time, has the same reading.[2] The Rama, R. Moshe Isserles (1525-1572) in his מפה also cites the custom of repeating ה' ימלוך. Thus, up until the late 16th century we were only repeating ה' ימלוך and not saying כי בא. However, two people changed that. The first was the ארי"זל and the second was R. Yakkov Emden. The R. Avrahom Gombiner (1635-1682), in his commentary the מגן אברהם, (who cites numerous customs from the ארי), on the comments of the רמ"א previously mentioned, states that the ארי said the verse of כי בא after he repeated ה' ימלוך. R. Gombiner does not offer any explanation as to why theארי did so. However, R. Shmuel Kelin (1720-1806), in his מחצית השקל a super-commentary on the מגן אברהם, does offer an explanation. Before we look at his explanation we need to look at one other source for proper background.

The רמב"ן in his commentary on the Torah on the verse of כי בא, notes that although some hold that כי בא is part of the שירה he holds it is not.[3] Some may be questioning why this all matters. However, it is actually quite important. The rule is that in order for a ספר תורה to be כשר the שירה portion must be written in a specific manner. That is called ריח על גבי לבינה or as brickwork. One writes words then leaves a space and then directly underneath that space one writes the next line and so forth. Thus, according to Rashi, and those other cited by רמב"ן one cannot write the verse of כי בא in the שירה format. And according to רמב"ן one MUST write it in the שירה format.

It would appear that in deciding whether to say or not to say כי בא would depend on how our ספר תורה is written.

Getting back to the מחיצת השקל, he argues this very point. He states that the reason that the מגן אברהם and the ארי said to recite כי בא is for the sake of consistency as in our ספרי תורה we include it in the שירה4 However, there is a difficulty with this position or understanding of both the מגן אברהם and the ארי. As both are still advocating repeating ה' ימלוך but also saying כי בא which as we discussed disrupts the numerology and also, if you include כי בא, it makes little sense in repeating ה' ימלוך as it is no longer the end. Because of these questions some commentators note that R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (HIDA), the well-known bibliographer, stated that many statements attributed to the ארי are not actually from the ארי. These commentators claim that this is one of those statements that can not be relied upon.[5]

R. Yakov Emden (1698-1776) published his own edition of the siddur. This siddur included both a commentary and notes on the נוסח. 6 He had many alteration in the נוסח. However, his commentary became very popular and was reprinted numerous times. But in these reprints instead of using his נוסח they would put his commentary and notes on the bottom of a regular סידור 7 Thus, one could read in the bottom “don’t say such and such” and on the top you would have that very thing. In regards to the אז ישיר issue, R. Emden notes that his father, the חכם צבי, only said ה' ימלוך once and he included כי בא as because that is how it appears in our תורה. This, of course, works with the numerology, the מסורה, and the correct ending of the שירה. [In the new edition of R. Emden’s siddur which was supposed to utilize his נוסח and correct all the years of neglect, does not correct his error, nor many others. Instead it includes the double recitation and the תרגום and כי בא.]

In truth, it was not clear how we should write our תורה. For instance, the noted Mesora scholar and משומד– Jewish convert to Christianity, Christian David Ginsburg in his edition of the Tanach which is based upon over 70 manuscripts and 19 of the earliest printed editions does not include כי בא. In fact, numerous manuscripts, mainly of Italian or Sefardic origin, which as a side note are generally not considered מידויק , have only up to ה' ימלוך. For us, however, the Rambam includes כי בא in the שירה. Furthermore, the oldest complete and מדויק manuscript, the Leningrad Codex which is very similar to the Allepo Codex which the Rambam based his תורה on has כי בא as part of the שירה.8

For us, as is apparent by looking at any תורה today, we all include כי בא as part of the שירה thus, if we wanted to be consistent we would only say ה' ימלוך once and include כי בא.

In conclusion, the purpose of this was not for anyone to change what their current custom may be, as has been demonstrated there is authority for all practices. Instead, I think that this discussion is demonstrative of how complex and nuanced the תפילות are. If this one verse has so much behind it, there are treasure troves of complexity throughout the סידור.

Sources:

1] See e.g. from the school of Rashi, Machzor Vitri, 2004, p. 10; see also אבודרהם , אורחת חיים.

[2 See also סדור תפילות כמנחג אשכנז, Hanover, 1616; סדר תפילות לכל השנה כמנהג אשכנז ופולין, Frankfort 1691 available at http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/html/bk_all.htm

3] The Ibn Ezra and Rasbam hold that is part and the Ramban and Rashi hold it is not.

4] R. Kelin argues that if one wants to repeat any verse, according to the Ari, one should repeat the verse of כי בא as that is the end.

5] For more on the Ari’s writings and the transmission of those writings, see R. Hillel, כתבוני לדורות.

[6 This was published in 1745-1747.

7] This edition was known as סידור בית יעקב, the original was called עמודי שמים.

[8 Although, there is some discrepancy on this point in the manuscripts of the Rambam. That is, the manuscripts mainly from אשכנז do not include כי בא which would be in agreement with Rashi and the Ramban. However, many of the Rambam’s manuscripts do include כי בא, especially of note is the signed copy of the יד which includes it. See Jordan Penkower, עדות חדש בנוסח כתר ארם צובא chapter 3.

]]> Customs Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/4/3/Az-Yashir-Another-Kabalah-Custom-Gone-Wrong Gettting Kabbalah Customs Wrong, Removing Teffilin on Hol HaMoad http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Gettting-Kabbalah-Customs-Wrong-Removing-Teffilin-on-Hol-HaMoad
On the Main Line had a discussion regarding whether one should or should not follow customs based upon kabbalah. He brought up the custom of removing teffilin on Rosh Hodesh "before Mussaf." However, what is facinating about this custom of removing the teffilin is that most people actually get it wrong. That is, according to just about everyone that discusses this one should not remove ones teffilin right before mussaf.

The first to address this custom in a meaningful manner was R. Azariah m'Fano, one the leading kabbalists of his day.
This is what one should do if they want to properly remove their teffilin on Rosh Hodesh. One should remove the teffilin right after shemoneh esreh and one should not wait until after u'va l'tzyion like other days . . . it is proper to remove them before one reads from the torah the portion discussing the mussaf sacrifice . . . and if one removes them before hallel this is even better . . . u'va l'tzyion on the day of Rosh Hodesh is really part of the mussaf . . . and it is wholly improper to wait to remove the teffilin right before one is going to start mussaf as this is worse than Yeravam who removed his teffilin before the king (Sanhederin 101b), there he only removed them in front of an earthly king but one who waits to remove his teffilin until right before mussaf is doing so in front of God.
Thus, R. Fano has two basic points. First, one should not wear teffilin for any portion of the prayers connected with Rosh Hodesh and therefore one should preferably remove them before hallel but at the very least before reading the Torah. Second, one should certianly not remove them right before starting mussaf as this is highly disrespectful to God.

R. Mordechi Yaffo, in his Levush also says that one should remove them before the reading of the torah. R. Eliyahu Shapiro in his Eliyahu Rabba and Zuta quotes R. Fano and agrees that one should not remove them right before mussaf. R. Karo in Shulchan Orakh just states that one shouldn't wear them for mussaf but does not say when one should remove them. R. Moshe Isserles does the same. In fact, on Hol HaMo'ad, those who wear teffilin remove them not right before mussaf but instead before hallel.

So one may be asking themselves, well if everyone that disucsses when one should take them off says to do so much earlier than we do, how come no one does that now. And for that, we need to turn to R. Avroahom (hamechune Abeli) Gombiner in his Mogen Avrohom. The Mogen Avrohom cites a passage which is attributed to R. Issac Luria that one should wait to remove the teffilin until after the reading of the torah. Now, asute readers will realize that even according to this, one can still fullfill all the opinions (or close enough) and wait to remove the teffilin until after the torah reading but long before mussaf. However, again, most don't do this, instead they wait until right before mussaf, right at the time R. Fano, no lightweight said one is disrespecting God.

So we now turn to the another passage in the Magen Avraham for the answer. There is a custom to have the teffilin on for 4 kaddashim and 3 keddusot (kedusha in yotzer, kedusah in Shemoneh esreh, and the kedusah of u'va l'tzion). So the question becomes what does one have to do on Rosh Hodesh. Does one need to leave the teffilin on for those kaddashim or because of these other reasons, namely the mussaf can one ignore that requirement on Rosh Hodesh. The Mogen Avrohom says that Rosh Hodesh is different than Hol haMo'ad and on Rosh Hodesh one can not ignore that requirement and therefore one must keep the teffilin on until after the kaddish following u'va l'tzyion.

But here is the issue with the Mogen Avrohom, R. Yeshaya Horowitz (Shelah) holds that really this requirement is switched and one only need 3 kaddashim and 4 kedushot (he counts barakhu as the fourth). So according to him, one has already gotten their three kaddashim after the reading of the Torah.

So to recap, in order for one to require removal of the teffilin right before mussaf one needs to ignore R. Fano (and others who follow him), and ignore R. Horowitz as well.

[As an aside, R. David ben Levi in his Taz says that one need not remove his teffilin at all. R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik held that if one doesn't have time to wrap them before begining mussaf one should follow the Taz and just say mussaf with them on.]

Sources and further reading: Shu't Rama M'Fano no. 108 (reprinted in Siddur R. Shabtai Sofer, vol. 2 p. 238-39; R. Mordechi Yaffo, Levush, Orakh Hayyim, no. 25 (at the end) and no. 423; R. E. Shapiro, Eliayhu Rabba, Zuta on the Levush; R. Y. Karo, Shulchan Orakh, no. 423:4; R. M. Isserlles Rama, 25:13; Shulchan Orakh Ari"zal, no. 423; R. A. (hamechune Abeli) Gombiner, Mogen Avrohom, no. 25:28; id. at 30; 423:6; R. Nerelanger, Yosef Omets, no. 696; R. J. Kierchheim, Minhagai Vermisia, p. קפג; R. B. Hamburger, Gedoli HaDorot 'al Mishmar Minhagi Ashkenaz, p. 102-03; R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller, Hilchot Teffilin, Ma'adeni Yom Tov. no. 74

]]> Customs Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:14:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Gettting-Kabbalah-Customs-Wrong-Removing-Teffilin-on-Hol-HaMoad Pesach Shir HaShirim Contest http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Pesach-Shir-HaShirim-Contest
Two other Pesach issues.

First, as we are discussing haggadas, if people have favorites or others they feel are worthwhile letting others know about please comment.

Second, as this blog is ostensibly about seforim and over Pesach we read Shir HaShirim I figured we could have a contest. While others concentrate on more important things, Shir HaShirim, to my knowledge has the greatest concentration of names of seforim in any book in the bible. So the contest is - who can come up with the largest list? The longest list is that one which uses the most amount of words in Shir HaShirim and not just the most seforim. So if you have multiple books with the same title that only counts as one. I think we can also count journal titles unless people think that is unfair.

]]> Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:43:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Pesach-Shir-HaShirim-Contest Pesach posts http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Pesach-posts Also, if you haven't already seen it Menachem Mendal has a very interesting post about using oat matzo for pessach. He also has a great post on another story assumed to be of Jewish origin which is not (the story of the two brothers and the temple mount).
Also one hopes that Mississippi Fred McDowell will post on his excellent site English Hebraica, on the early haggadas printed with English or in England.
Finally, although not directly related to pesach, although it would not be that hard to tie it in, there is a new Mishna Berura Yomi blog for all those wishing to devel deeper into this work.

]]> Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:34:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Pesach-posts Prague 1526 Haggadah http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Prague-1526-Haggadah
The first fully illustrated haggadah was the Prague 1526 haggadah. This haggadah was reprinted in 1977 by Mekor and is now available for everyone at the Jewish National University Library site here. (They have other important haggadas available for viewing including some of the earliest haggadas).

The Prague haggadah is filled with fascinating and important illustrations. As we have seen previously, the Prague haggadah contained nudes, which when appropriated later were removed. This included in the haggadah context as well as in other works.

Aside from these illustrations, there is an illustration of Abraham when God takes him "from the other side of the river." In the Prague haggadah we have Abraham in a row boat. However, when this was appropriated in the Mantau, 1560 haggadah, the row boat was changed into a gondola.

Also, this haggadah contains brief comments or instructions as well as the text of the haggadah. There are two which bear mention. The first is the passage underneath the Tam - simple - son. Typically, the simple son is understood to be less than stellar. However, in this haggadah, the verse תמים תהיה עם ה' אלקך (One should be simple with God) (Devarim 18:13). As this verse is claiming this simplemindedness is a good attribute, this seems to indicate that the simplemindedness of the son is something positive.

The second passage comes in the form of an instruction. In the margin at the mention of marror the bitter herb, is the following "It is a universal custom to point at one's wife [at the mention of marror] as the verse says 'I have found the woman worse [more bitter] than death. (Kohelet 7:26)'"

]]> Pesach Historical Haggadah Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:29:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/30/Prague-1526-Haggadah Eliyahu Drinking from the Cup http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/29/Eliyahu-Drinking-from-the-Cup
I hope to have a few posts in the coming days discussing some of the artwork found in various haggdah. While for hundreds of years artwork played an integral part of the haggadah recently this has fell into disuse. While there are few notable exceptions to this, Raskin, Moss Haggadahs, this practice of richly illustrating the haggdah has been replaced with a focus on commentaries.

One of the reasons, however, the practice of illustrating the haggadah, can be found in the discussion which sheds light on the custom of pretending or assuming that Eliyahu, who according to legend, visits each home on Pesach night.

The last cup of wine poured is for Eliyahu. While originally this cup was not necessarily connected to Eliyahu, today it has become associated with him. The cup of Eliyahu is not mentioned until the 15th century. Various reasons are given. The Gra explains as there is a controversy whether one must drink 4 or 5 cups, a controversy which will be resolved only when Eliyahu comes. (Divrei Eliyahu, Parshat Va'arah p. 35). The earliest source to discuss the cup, R. Zeligman Benga (student of Mahril), says that the custom to pour a cup for Eliyahu is as the night of Passover is an auspicious night for redemption, we await Eliyahu's coming and therefore we need a cup for him.

A rather interesting custom sprang up in connection with Eliyahu's visit on Pesach night. R. Jousep Schammes (1604-1678), records that the custom in Worms was to draw depictions of Eliyahu and the Messiah in order to bring to life the belief in these figures. As you can see from the pictures on the side, this was common in the Haggadah. The first picture is a depiction of Messiah on his donkey. This was originally depicted in smaller format in the Prague 1526 haggadah, but in this edition, Mantua, 1560 is greatly enlarged. The second picture comes from the Venice 1629 hagaddah. As you can see it is again the Messiah coming in to Jerusalem, but note the prominence of the Dome of the Rock in the center.

In Frankfort they went one step further than just drawing Eliyahu and the Messiah. R. Yosef Jousep Hahn (1570-1637) says they used to hang a dummy who looked like Eliyahu or the Messiah behind the door. When they would open the door for Eliyahu the dummy would drop down and seem as if he had appeared. (He then goes on to record a long story of a dybuk who invaded the body of a women who questioned whether the Exodus happened.) It is worthwhile noting that not everyone was thrilled with these depictions. R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach (1639-1702) who became the Rabbi in Worms at the very end of his life, says these types of things only make a mockery of the seder.

However, we see from the above, that there was, at least among some, an effort to create a feeling that Eliyahu actually would visit the seder. Some did it through pictures, others through reenactments. Although today those have fallen to the wayside, it would seem the idea that Eliyahu actually drinks from the cup is a form of those methods.

Sources: Yerusalmi, Haggadah and History; Shmuel and Zev Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages, p 177-78. Minhagei Vermisai, p. פז; R. Y. Bacharach, Mekor Hayyim.

]]> Pesach Historical Haggadah Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:00:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/29/Eliyahu-Drinking-from-the-Cup The Ban on the book HaGaon http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/27/The-Ban-on-the-book-HaGaon
Now, as the Yiddish newspaper Der Yid has gotten around to commenting on the book HaGaon, I thought it would be worthwhile flesh out the entire controversy surrounding this book. Interestingly, R. Kamentsky in Making of a Godol actually discusses this very topic, although not in the context of HaGaon.

HaGaon written by R. Dov Eliakh in three volumes discusses everything and anything having to do with the Vilna Gaon. Most of the book is not controversial at all, instead, in painstaking detail R. Eliakh chronicles what we know about the Gra and the times he lived in. However, the third volume was the one that many took issue with. That volume, which discusses the controversy between the hassidim and the non-hassdim, also includes most of the primary literature on the topic. That means, R. Eliakh quotes extensively from many of the early anti-hassidic tracts which were published. Some of these contain scathing critiques of the hassidim and accuse them of rather disturbing acts.

However, as many are aware this was not the first time these were published. All of these, and more, have been published by Mordecai Wilensky, in his Hasidim u-Mitnagdim (which is now available again). In fact, much of this has even been translated into English in Elijah Schochet's The Hasidic Movement and the Vilna Gaon. But, for some who are unaware of these, Eliakh's book was highly disturbing.

The main complaints came, as is not a surprise, from hasidic circles. For instance, in the magazine Olam haHasidut, has three issues devoted to the book. On the cover of two of those issues, the book HaGoan appears in flames. Needless to say they were not fans of the book. The title reads אוי לדור שכך עלתה בימיו (how unfortunate we are to have this happen in our time). Among the major complaints about the book is that it is "written in the style of the maskilim (enlightenment)." I assume that means that as Eliakh documented everything he wrote that is in the style of the maskilim.

Additionally, they complain that as this controversy is no longer applicable (as the hasidim of today don't do what they did back then), it serves no purpose in relating this again.

Now, here is where Making of a Godol comes in. R. Nathan Kamenetsky records what his father, R. Yaakov's opinion on whether to discuss the history of the controversy between the hasidim and the non-hasidim. "My father [R. Yaakov] approved of snubbing of 'a book on the Goan of Vilna by an outstanding author' because 'the author had purposely omitted chapters dealing with the Gaon's opposition to Hasiduth and that he [R. Yaakov] said, 'It is prohibited to conceal substantive and important issues such as these. Such distortion is tantamount to falsehood.'" R. Nathan Kamentsky goes on to relate that the book in question was R. Landau's biography of the Gra and that his father [Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky] actually confronted R. Landau and accused him of "falsifying the image of the Gaon." See Making of a Godol vol. 1 pp. xxvii (available here).

Consequently, R. Yaakov felt that leaving out such a seminal fact in a biography was equivalent to lying. However, as we see, the publishers of Olam haHassidut appear to disagree. They are not the only ones. R. Yaakov Perlow, the Novominsker Rebbi, wrote a long article where he also takes issue with Eliakh's book. He also claims that R. Eliakh should have left out the details of the controversy.

It would appear that there is a fundamental controversy as to whether or not one should lie regarding history. In fact, in the journal Ohr Yisrael, there was an article addressing this very point - whether one should lie to tell stories that create yirat shamyim. The author concludes "if the teacher is telling stories which are not true, but is doing so leshem shamyim, so long as he doesn't make a habit out of it, there is a place to be lenient in this matter, however, one should try to minimize this."

Interestingly, in the next volume the Admor from Slonim has a stinging rebuttal of the article. He starts by saying, "Our tradition is based upon truth . . . how terrible it is to inject lies into our tradition." He then explains such a view undermines our entire religion "whomever permits [one to lie] it is as if he is creating uncertainty in the truth of our entire tradition, which is based upon the passing from generation to generation. My teachers have taught that one should only accept truthful stories."

So it would appear that there is an ongoing controversy, one which implicated the book HaGaon, with some arguing lying or covering up fundamental historical facts, is ok. While others claim this is totally unconscionable.

Sources: Olam haHassidut no. 88, Shevat 2002; 89, Adar 2002; 90, Nissan, 2002. Rabbi H. Oberlander, "HaIm Mutar l'Saper Ma'siyot shaninom amitim kedi l'orrer al yedi zeh l'Torah v'lyerat shaymim, Ohr Yisrael, 29 p. 121-123; R. Avrohom Weinberg (Admor M'Slonim Beni Brak), Letter, Ohr Yisrael, 30, 244. See also, Ari Zivotofsky, Perspectives on Truthfulness in the Jewish Tradition, Judaism 42:3 (Summer, 1993): 267-288. R. Yaakov Perlow, Yeshurun vol. 10 starting on page 831. Der Yid, Talumat Seftei Sheker haDovrot al Tzadik Atik, March 17, 2006. See also here for a discussion of the book. There are others that discuss this as well, and in R. Nathan Kamenetsky's introduction he quotes them. Further, as a helpful reader/movie buff has noted, I should have included R. Dr. Jacob J. Schacter's article on this topic available here.

]]> HaGaon Making of a Godol Herem Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/27/The-Ban-on-the-book-HaGaon Review of Where there's Life there's Life http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/27/Review-of-Where-theres-Life-theres-Life
Rabbi David Feldman, who is well known for his book on issues relating to Jewish law and the beginning of life (abortion, birth control etc.), has now published via Yashar Books, a book on end of life issues and Jewish law. This book covers such topics as reproductive technology, stem cells, organ transplants, suicide, and determining death. Although it covers such weighty topics it is a rather easy read. Rabbi Feldman eschews highly technical discussion and instead has opened the book for everyone. Each topic gets about ten pages of treatment and Rabbi Feldman lays out the basic principles underlying each of these issues.

He begins with an extensive introduction on pikuach nefesh which much of the subsequent discussions are premised upon. The book is a little over 130 pages, which means none of the topics are treated in great depth. However, as Rabbi Feldman states in the introduction his purpose was not to provide a comprehensive book on the topic, rather to give some general guidance on this hot button issues. In this area he succeeds. He does provide a very basic introduction to the topics and does provide some of the key sources. Consequently, one who reads this book will have the basics to further investigate these issues.

However, with this approach there are some significant draw backs. Rabbi Feldman, while stating what he feels the commentaries say, does not provide sources for these. He give almost no citations to any source he quotes (there are two exception to this, once he gives a citation to R. Feinstein's responsum and once he gives a cite to a responsum from R. Moshe Sofer). For example, when discussing organ transplants he tells us the key responsum is from R. Yechezkel Landau (Noda Biyehudah) where he holds when the organ donor is "in front of us." That is, on a simple level, one can only do a transplant when one has a ready person to accept the organ. Rabbi Feldman then goes on to discuss others who have applied this statement all without ever providing where R. Landau said it, nor where the subsequent discussion can be found. This seriously hampers any follow up a reader wishes to do or for that matter, to ensure Rabbi Feldman's reading is the correct reading.

To be fair, Rabbi Feldman does offer that is one contacts him via email he will provide citations and additional sources, however, his email doesn't appear anywhere in the book. Assuming these citations were omitted to enable easier reading, why they could not be included on a page or two at the end I do not understand. Instead, we are left to blindly trust Rabbi Feldman in his assessment of the sources.

Further, Rabbi Feldman is far from the first to write on these topics. Instead, a simple search of RAMBI one can see there are numerous articles on all of these topics, none of these are provided. While Rabbi Feldman is not obligated to cite the works of others, it is difficult to understand Rabbi Feldman's claim that "the need to address [these issues] is both urgent and constant," as these very issues have been already comprehensively discussed by many, many others.

Additionally, as I mentioned previously, this book does provide an excellent starting point for these discussions. We are bombarded with many who claim to know what the Bible says for these important topics, but most are blissfully unaware of what the Bible and more specifically Jewish law says and has said about these topics, this cures that. But, it is hard to say it will facilitate further discussion when one doesn't know where to go next.

In the end, this book, in a clear and straightforward manner, if a bit curt, which provides the groundwork for understanding extremely important issues regarding the end of life and new technologies relating that implicate life and death.

]]> Book Reviews Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/27/Review-of-Where-theres-Life-theres-Life Dei'ah veDibur on the MOAG Ban http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/23/Deiah-veDibur-on-the-MOAG-Ban
Not that this is surprising, as Dei'ah veDibur is the English version of the Yated Neeman, but they have also posted the article and the new ban from below on their site in English.

]]> Making of a Godol Herem Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:04:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/23/Deiah-veDibur-on-the-MOAG-Ban Plagiarism II (Talmudic Terminology) http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/23/Plagiarism-II-Talmudic-Terminology
In 1988, Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich published a book titled Talmudic Terminology. However, as was noted in brief by Dr. Marc Shapiro, this was plagiarized from Moses Mielziner's Introduction to the Talmud, first published in 1894. This omission, however, has been corrected in Rabinowich's reprints of his Talmudic Terminology where the title now reads that Rabinowich's work is "adapted" from Mielziner's.







While this would appear to be the end of the matter it is not. Dr. Shapiro has investigated this issue further and has sent the following:
After I published my book on Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox a number of people pointed out to me that Nosson Rabinowich's plagiarism of Mielziner is more extensive than what I point out. I didn't know what they were referring to since I had the first edition of his book M. Mielziner's Talmudic Terminology, published in 1988 (in my kuntres there is a typo, as it says 1998). Or so I thought. I succeeded in locating another copy by interlibrary loan, and lo and behold, the title page does not say M. Mielziners Talmudic Terminology adapted by N. Rabinowich but it identifies him as the author. What's even more fascinating is that the other edition has haskamot of Rabbis Ovadiah Yosef and Aharon Feldman. Obviously when the scandal broke, Rabinowich quickly produced a new title page and took out the haskamot (and also added a note on p. xv and made a slightchange in note 2 on. p. xv (replacing "some" with "most".) It is obvious why the haskamot were taken out, since they praise Rabinowich for producing a book which he didn't write. In fact, Rabinowich is responsible for something very interesting. We find here the first example in history where gedolim put a haskamah on a work written by a Reform rabbi! Unknowingly Rabbis Yosef and Feldman gave a haskamah to Mielziner. You can be sure this is not something that makes them happy.
Additionally, in an effort to keep the two "editions" the same, Rabinowich did not alter the pagination, this is so, even though he removed the haskamot. Consequently, the "new" edition is missing those pages. I have provided both title pages as well as Rabbis Yosef's and Feldman's haskamot (as one can no longer get them).

Additionally, in an effort to keep the two "editions" the same, Rabinowich did not alter the pagination, this is so, even though he removed the haskamot. Consequently, the "new" edition is missing those pages. I have provided both title pages as well as Rabbis Yosef's and Feldman's haskamot (as one can no longer get them).

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/23/Plagiarism-II-Talmudic-Terminology Latest MOAG Ban Runs Counter to an Agreement with R. Eliyashiv http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/22/Latest-MOAG-Ban-Runs-Counter-to-an-Agreement-with-R-Eliyashiv
A reader has sent me the following letter from R. Kamenstky discussing the possiblity of a ban on the improved edition of MOAG. The letter says "if people will come to complain to R. Eliasiv about the new edition and say such and such is written there, he will not listen to them until he first calls me, and I will need to present when they translate my book for him."

Additionally, I have received the following relevant information.
"The letter quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that the request that the author should be called and given a fair chance to defend himself is just. This was repeated by a number of meetings that the author had with R' Elyashiv. Before the letter was sent out it was shown to Aryeh Elyashiv - the grandson in charge of all the appointments and present in the room during all meetings to assist his grandfather - and he stated that the quote was correct and it conveys faithfully his grandfather's say on the matter.

The letter was delivered to the following Rabbis:
Steinman
Sheinberg
Karelitz
Kanyevsky
Markowitz
Auerbach
It was not sent to Rabbi Shapiro because he already apologized for the first time that he signed against the book, and had already said that he will not have anything more to do with this affair. Sure enough he kept his word now and didn't sign.
R' Wolbe was omitted because he's not alive.
R' Elyashiv didn't have to receive this letter because he was the subject of the letter.
R' Lefkowitz was not sent this letter because he was very vicious the time before, and could not be expected to be fair.

The author has made it his habit to daven in the morning in R' Elyashiv's minyan from time to time, so that if anything arises he can be informed of immediately.

This last Friday and Sunday he was at the minyan and no one (including Yisroel Elyashiv - another grandson) said anything when asked if everything is fine. It was only after he came home that he found out about the ad and article in Yated Neeman."

]]> Making of a Godol Herem Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/22/Latest-MOAG-Ban-Runs-Counter-to-an-Agreement-with-R-Eliyashiv Plagiarism I http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/22/Plagiarism-I
As some of you have brought up in the comments regarding other works that had been plagiarized I thought it would be appropriate to discuss some of the more famous and those less so of instances of plagiarism.

The first example, is perhaps the most well-known one, that of the work Mekore Minhagim. This work which in question and answer form, discusses the sources and reasons for various customs was first printed in 1846 in Berlin by R. Avrohom Lewysohn (1805-1861). This work contained 100 of these questions and answers and consequently ended with a , ויזרע אברהם מאה שערים ויברכו ה and Avrohom planted 100 gates. This, of course referenced the authors name and the fact he wrote 100 questions. This is lifted from the verse in Genesis 26:12 ויזרע יצחק . . .מאה שערים ויברכו ה.

However, if today one tries to purchase this book (any one still can it has been reprinted many times) instead of a photocopy of the 1846 edition by Lewysohn, one gets a book with the same title but the author's name is actually Yosef Finkelstein (originally published in Vienna in 1851). Also, instead of 100 questions there are only 41. Those differences aside, the remaining 41 questions and answers are word for word the same as Lewysohn's.

This plagiarism was noted almost immediately in MGWJ vol. 1, 1852 p. 34(available here.) However, this did not stop Finkelstein, and his edition was published possibly twice in 1851 alone and from then on numerous times to this day.

While Finkelstein's is word for word, he was forced to change a few minor things. One in particular was the play on the verse at the end, his reads, ויזרע ויסף מא' שערים. Although he attempted to retain the play on the verse, this fails as there was only 41 gates in his edition.

Finkelstein did not stop there. When his treachery was revealed in the paper HaMagid, he actually went on to argue that it was Lewysohn who copied from him and not the other way around. Finkelstein claimed when he was passing through Berlin, Lewysohn asked to borrow his manuscript and surreptitiously copied it. Finkelstein, however, does not explain how Lewysohn was able to add the additional 59 question and answers. Additionally, we will see in the next installment on this book, how Finkelstein gives himself away.

For more on plagiarism especially the halakhic discussion see here.

(Continued here)

]]> Plagiarism Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/22/Plagiarism-I Text of the New Ban on Making of a Godol http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/21/Text-of-the-New-Ban-on-Making-of-a-Godol
A helpful reader has scanned the Yated with the latest ban against Making of a Godol ("MOAG"). It is notable that R. Eliashiv has signed again as have others who were part of the original ban. Also, as you can see this appeared on the top of the front page as well as a separate article. Those who signed claim that this edition of MOAG although ostensibly "fixed" the "problems" it was unsuccessful and they state "the second edition is the same as the first." Addtionally, the orignal ban is reprinted with a note that it is still in force. You can click on the scans for a larger view. For some of the differences between MOAG I and MOAG II see here, here and here.

]]> Making of a Godol Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:34:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/21/Text-of-the-New-Ban-on-Making-of-a-Godol Upcoming Auctions http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Upcoming-Auctions
There are three upcoming auctions. Two of those have their catalogs online. Kestenbaum whose auction will happen this Thursday has some very nice pieces, including R. Hirsch's manuscript on Devarim est. $50,000, you can view the catalog here. And Asufa will have their auction this Sunday the 26th, and their catalog is here. They also have some unique pieces, well worth checking out. The final auction is Jerusalem Judaica which will take place the 30th but unfortunatly their catalog is not online so you will have to find a store which carries it (Biegeleisen has it).

]]> Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:57:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Upcoming-Auctions Making of a Godol Banned - Again http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Making-of-a-Godol-Banned--Again
An astute reader emailed me that it appears the new and improved edition of Making of a Godol has been banned. Although this edition attempted to "fix" some of the "problems" of the first, it appears that it has not satisfied it detractors. See here. I hope to get a copy of the letter referenced in the article, when I do I will post it.

]]> Making of a Godol Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Making-of-a-Godol-Banned--Again Comparison Between De'ah veDibur and Shafan haSofer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Comparison-Between-Deah-veDibur-and-Shafan-haSofer
While I don't have the time to go through the entire Dei'ah veDibur article and demonstrate the extant of the copying, I will provide some of the more egreious examples.

Here is a quote from the Dei'ah veDibur article (in italics) with the orginal Hebrew intersperced and my commnets in bold. One should remember that the original article was written in first person.

The first manuscript that the Romm family obtained was Rabbenu Chananel's commentary which now appears alongside the gemora on many masechtos. The manuscript was kept in the Vatican archives but it had not been well preserved. The pages were very worn and were marked by rust stains, while the edges of the sheets had been eaten away. Moreover, the commentary was written in Latin characters, which made deciphering and copying it much harder.

כי הנה בראשית שמנו לבנו להעתיק כתב יד פירוש של רבנו חננאל בר חושיאל ז"ל על מסכת רבות מתלמוד בבלי שנמצו באוצר ספרים שבוואטיקאן ברומו והכתב באותיות רש"י בצורות איטאליאניות [נוסח איטלקי] אשר רוב ישראל בזמננו לא כהלין כתבא דא למקריה.


Now, the article continues on to explain who they found who was still able to read this script. The article discusses that the person, R. Mordechi Yakov Yosef, was in the midst of copyingfor Solomon Buber for his Midrash Tanchuma and worked with R. Raefal Nata Rabinowitz. As Buber was also a Maskil, this entire discussion is left out as is the name of the copyist.


Instead, we have the following which sums up this discussion without mentioning the "sorrid" details of who and what they were busy with.


Permission was also not granted to remove the manuscript from the Vatican, which necessitated bringing copyists in to do the work there. The few copyists in Rome who were sufficiently qualified to do the job, were fully occupied with other work and it seemed that things had reached an impasse. The copyists however, accorded great significance to the printing of the Shas and they agreed to interrupt their other work in order to devote their time to copying Rabbenu Chananel's commentary.

After several months of work, another problem loomed with the approach of the official holidays in Rome. The Vatican library would be completely closed for their duration; nobody at all had access to it at this time. A four-month stoppage of the work at that stage would prove very harmful to the printing house. Missing the deadline for the appearance of the first volumes might lead subscribers to cancel, wreaking havoc with the whole project.

ויהי בהגיענו להעתקת פירוש רבנו חננאל למסכת עירובין והנה עצרה חדשה קמה נגדה, כי הגיעו ימי הסגר האוצר בימי המנוחה בקיץ לארבעת חדשי השנה אשר לא יותן לאיש לבוא אל בית האוצר כל הימים ההם, ויצר לנו מאד, כי עצרת ההעתקה את פירוש רבנו חננאל לכמה מסכתות שבאוצר ההואתחבל את כל סדר הדפסת הש"ס וחלוקת חלקיו להחותמים על מקנתם בזמניהם אשר יעדנו להם


The members of the Romm family tried to reach every contact they had that might possibly be of assistance in this situation. They succeeded in obtaining special permission, contrary to the Vatican's laws, to open up the library during the recess for them alone, so that work could proceed on copying Rabbenu Chananel's commentary. The Romm family would have to pay the cost of a guard for the archives but otherwise, the place would be completely open to them, even during hours that it was usually closed to the public.

והנה שלח ה' מלאך מושיע לנו את הג"מ רפאל נטע ראבינאוויץ ז"ל אשר לו מודע הגענעראל-קאנסול במינכן לממלכת זאכסען, הוא השוע החכם הר, מאיר ווילמערסדארפער והוא השיג בעדו מכתב-מליצה מהנסיך האהענלאהע לאחיו הנסיך הקארדינאל האהענלאהע ברומו וגם הפרופיסור ג"ר שעג במינכען נתן לנו מכתב מליצה להקארדינאל הערגענרעהטער ושני הקארדינאלים הששתדלו לפתוח לו לבדו או לבא כוחו את שער האוצר לכל ימי הסגרו. והוא הושיב תחתיו את המעתיק הנ"ל לפירוש רבינו חננאל על הש"ס בעדנו ורק הוטל עלינו לשלם שכר שומר האוצר לזמן ההוא ועוד יותר הגדילו לעשות להעתקותינו, להפר בעדה עוד שני חוקים אשר לבית האוצר ההוא מעולם לסגרו אחר הצהריים וגם בימי חגיהם, ולהמעתיק שלנו הרשו לעשות בו גם אחרי צהרים וגם בימי חגיהם הקטנים

So this time the discusion with the detail regaring R. Rabinowitz and the cardinals has been compressed into "they tried to reach evey contact they had that might possibly be of assistance."


One of the workers on the project wrote, "Looking in retrospect, the Vatican had always been the source of deadly hatred of the Jewish nation and even more so of our literature, [hatred] that spread to every Christian land, often leading kings to level decrees of forced apostasy, slaughter, killing, destruction and harsh exile . . . Worst of all, they confiscated and burned Jewish books on many occasions, sometimes decreeing that the Jew be burned together with the holy books . . .

This unamed "worker" is of course Shafan haSofer והנה בהביטנו אחרינו אל הוואטיקאן הזה אשר ממנו ירדה מעולם

שנאת מות לישראל, וביותר לספרותנו, בכל ממלכות הנוצרים, ובעטיו גזרו מלכיהם על ישראל פעמים אין מספר גזירות שמד, הרג, חרב ואבדן וגלויות קשות עד. . . ! ועל כלם החרימו ושרפו את ספרי ישראל פעמים רבות גם גזרו לפעמים לשרוף באש את היהודי יחד עם הספר העברי


"Now, wonder of wonders, out of the very furnace into which they always threw Jewish books for burning, kindness and goodwill that are unparalleled even towards Christian rulers lehavdil are being extended towards those very same seforim. The only explanation is that the great merit of Rabbenu Chananel -- everything written by whom is faithful transmission -- is standing him and his commentary in good stead, so that his powerful light be thus revealed from the darkness to illuminate the Talmud, so that the eyes of its scholars be illuminated to see Torah's truth."

This quote is taken from Shafan haSofer.


]]> Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:17:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Comparison-Between-Deah-veDibur-and-Shafan-haSofer Widow Rom and Shafan haSofer http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Widow-Rom-and-Shafan-haSofer
As per Menachem's suggestion I have posted the pictures of the Widow Rom (Devorah) and Shafan HaSofer. These appear in Yahadut Lita, 1960, p. 296.

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:11:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/20/Widow-Rom-and-Shafan-haSofer Haredi Robbers http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/17/Haredi-Robbers
Although we have alluded to the fact that Haredim "borrow" from others without attribution, I have come across a particularly egregious example. Here, is an article discussing the Romm Press and what became known as the Vilna Shas. Although the byline states that it was written "by Yated Ne'eman Staff" this is a wholesale reproduction of R. Shmuel Feigenshon's article on this topic. Shmuel Feigenshon (Shafan HaSofer) was the editor of the Rom press for many years. He wrote a history of the press which first appeared in part in the journal HaSofer (vol. 1 27-33 and vol. 2-3 46-57, 1954-55). It was then published in its entirety in Yahadut Lita vol. 1. 1959.

The Yated via Dei'ah veDibur, has in turn copied this word for word, including the title headings. Of course, as some of the discussion may be deemed unpalpable to it Haredi readership they skipped a couple of things and in turn this ended up conflating some of the history. And, importantly, although Safan HaSofer wrote some of the article from a first person perspective as he was intimately involved in some of the facts, the Yated has removed that. In fact, there is absolutely no mention of Shafan HaSofer at all. I assume this is because he was a bit of a Maskil and although it is fine to plagerize from a maskil his name should never escape one's lips.

]]> Plagiarism Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:16:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/17/Haredi-Robbers Dei'ah veDibur Fabrication - Dr. Leiman http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/10/Deiah-veDibur-Fabrication--Dr-Leiman
As I noted previously, the Haredi mouthpiece Dei'ah veDibur had a rather insightful piece on the falicy of the Golem of Prauge. However, although the article ended with the hope that after bringing this fabrication to the readers attention people will only tell true stories. Shnayer Z. Leiman, however, notes that the story itself in Dei'ah veDibur contains a rather glaring inaccuracy.
The March 1, 2006 issue of _Dei'ah Ve-Dibur_ -- a haredi journal -- includes an essay entitled: "The Golem of Prague -- Fact or Fiction?." Adducing evidence from a variety of sources, the essay concludes that "it is unclear whether or not the Maharal ever made a golem."

Much of the blame for leading people to think that the Maharal had made a golem, the essay suggests, rests with Y.Y. Rosenberg [sic: while all the other rabbis mentioned in the essay are entitled "Rav" or "Rabbi," only Y.Y. Rosenberg, who was a distinguished rabbi with ordination from the greatest rabbis in Poland, is defrocked], whose 1909 volume on the Golem of the Maharal (Sefer Nifla'ot Maharal) is identified as a forgery. The essay concludes with appropriate warnings that one should rely only on literature that is "historically reliable."

Such a critical reading of Jewish literature -- and concern with Historical truth -- is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air from a circle that has not always covered itself with glory regarding such matters. Alas, the essay fell into the very trap about which it was warning others: beware! One paragraph reads:

"At one point the author [Y.Y. Rosenberg] of the book actually admitted that he had invented the story. In _Halelu Avdei Hashem_, which contains stories in Yiddish about HaRavMoshe Aryeh Freund zt"l, av beis din of the Eida HaChareidis, Rav Yechezkel Halberstam zt"l of Shineveh, author of _Divrei Yechezkel_, is quoted as having made the following comment. "A shochet ubodek from Antwerp heard from the Rov z"l, who heard from his father the Rov of Honiad (an important Jewish community in Hungary), who heard from the Rov of Shineveh (eldest son of the Divrei Chaim zt"l of Sanz). The Shinever Rov said that whenever he sees the book _Niflo'os Maharal_ it pierces him because the author of the stories personally admitted to him that he fabricated the whole thing."

Leaving aside significant errors of translation, the Shinever Rov -- Rav Yechezkel Halberstam, author of _Divrei Yechezkel_ and eldest son of the Divrei Chaim -- died on 6 Teveth, 1898. Rabbi Yehudah Yudl Rosenberg published his _Nifla'ot Maharal_ for the first time in Warsaw, 1909. It can easily be proven that the book did not exist until shortly before it was published in 1909. The Shinever Rov never heard of the book, never saw it, and was not "pierced" by its content.

Indeed, one should rely only on literature that is "historically reliable."

]]> Golem Shnayer Leiman Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:03:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/10/Deiah-veDibur-Fabrication--Dr-Leiman Purim, Mixed Dancing and Kill Joys http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/6/Purim-Mixed-Dancing-and-Kill-Joys
Although the Megilah only lists mishloch monot, matnot l'evyonim, and reading the Megilah as the customs on Purim, many others have become accepted. Most are of the ilk of boofunery or merrymaking. From making noise to drinking in excess, all have become part of the Purim landscape. With these, however, there are some lesser known customs. What is perhaps of interest is that it seems that there are those authorities that permit much if not all of these types of customs, there are others who seem set on shutting down much of the Purim fun.

For instance, the Rabbi Judah of Minz permits cross-dressing on Purim. This is so, even though this runs counter to a law in the Torah prohibiting these actions. What is lesser know, is that R. Minz also permits mixed dancing on Purim as well. In the Taknot of Padua it says "we decree that no one is permitted to dance with a married woman, no man with any married woman, with the exception of Purim." (emphasis added).

Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin in his Beni Banim vol. 1 no. 37 (5), links the two statements of R. Minz. R. Henkin says, just as R. Minz permitted cross-dressing as it was done for the joy of Purim, he permitted the mixed dancing under the same rational. That is, the dancing was just an outgrowth of the joy and not for licetnioius purposes.

Or, in the Customs of Worms, they not only celebrated Purim on the day, on the Shabbat after Purim they celebrated with similar merrymaking. Including, after the Friday night prayers all the people would first go to the Rabbi for a blessing, and then proceed to the women's section where the Rabbi's wife "would place her hands on their heads and bless them." Additionally, R. Hayim Yosef Azulai in his travelogue, Ma'agel Tov, records that the Jews in Amsterdam would party all night long on the Friday night after Purim.

Although R. Minz was a proponent of happiness and its outgrowth on Purim, there were others that did not view Purim in the same vein. Rather, they seem bent on outlawing as much as possible even on Purim.

For instance, R. Samuel Aboab takes issue with at least two such Purim customs. First, he says in his Sefer Zikhronot, an ethical work and published anonymously, that he was befuddled his entire life how R. Minz and in turn R. Moshe Isserles in his Rama could allow for cross dressing on Purim. He spends at least four pages to demonstrating why this is incorrect. He states even if R. Minz is correct he should have kept that to himself. This is not his only negative opinion regarding Purim. In his responsa, Devar Shmuel, he says it is absolutely prohibited to read or even own the parody Mesachat Purim. He says any such copies should be destroyed.

Another person who looked with askance on the merry making was R. David ben Shmuel haLevi (Taz). He first follows the ruling of his father-in-law, R. Joel Sirkas (Bach), that cross-dressing is prohibited. R. Levi then also states in the law of Tisha B'av, that the prohibition of filling ones mouth with joy, is applicable even at at wedding and even on Purim.

So it seems that just as in society at large there are those who dislike the merrymaking on Purim, this is reflected in the Halakhic authorities as well. And conversely, there are those that viewed the merrymaking as a positive thing and therefore permitted many other things in connection with that merrymaking.

]]> Purim Customs Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/6/Purim-Mixed-Dancing-and-Kill-Joys More on story fabrication - The Golem http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/2/More-on-story-fabrication--The-Golem
As some have mention in the comments to my previous post, the story of the Mahral and the Golem although many take it as true, it is not. Popularized by Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg, the work is a work of fiction, something even noted in a bibliography published of Rabbi Rosenberg's works. Some of the people who discuss this are Ira Robinson, "Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: the Case of Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg," Judaism 40 (1991), pp. 61-78), Shnayer Z. Leiman, "The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London; R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague," Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58 and Eliezer Segal.

However, surprisingly, in the online publication Dei'ah veDibur, there is also an article on this topic (hat tip A Simple Jew). The article "borrows" heavily from the above mentioned articles (without citation). It also references some early sources which cast doubt on the veracity of the story, the article does so without identifying the source. One of the unnamed sources I think is a reference to R. Shlomo Yehuda Rappoport's introduction to Kalmen Leiben's Gal Ed however, the dates don't work out exactly (Gal Ed 1856). It would make sense to leave this unidentified, as though R. Rapoport was the son-in-law of the famed author of the Ketzot HaHoshen and even added the index and some notes to his Aveni Milumim, R. Rapoport is not considered the most traditional Jew (See Barzaily typically terrible biography on Rapoport). Additionally, although the article in Dei'ah veDibur is rather detailed it also leaves out R. Shlomo Schick's criticism (based upon Rapoport) of the story as well. Again this may be due in part to some people's views regarding Schick (see this post where some of Schick's work was censored). [Additionally, the article mentions a small book by R. Eckstein titled Sefer Yetzirah which appears to be available on the Rare Hebrew Books from Harvard's Collection Microfilm].

But perhaps the most surprising thing in the entire article is its conclusion
Rabbi Eshkoli emphasizes that we should be raising our children with literature that is historically reliable, for which our extensive traditions about the greatness and holiness and the powerful prayer of the tzakkikimand Torah giants of earlier times amply suffice. Niflo'os Maharal therefore ought no longer to be circulated unless each copy carries a clear disclaimer stating that the story is fiction. Neither, he also points out, should the book be quoted from as though it was reliable information.
Dei'ah veDibur bills itself as "A Window Into The Charedi World," so perhaps this emphasis on truth will signal a new trend in haradei biographies only time will tell.

[One interesting side note a Polish TV crew went into the attic of the Altena Shul in Prague and filmed the contents. The pictures they found were published in a Polish book. These pictures show a big mound of dirt but no Golem as far as I can tell.]

]]> Golem Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:54:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/3/2/More-on-story-fabrication--The-Golem New CD of Talmud MSS http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/28/New-CD-of-Talmud-MSS
The newest version of the Talmud mss CD (the "Lieberman CD" or the "Sol and Evelyn Henkind Talmud Text Databank"), is now available. The newest version, using the Bar Ilan Responsa interface, includes transcriptions of all known mss of Talmud, including Cairo Genizah fragments at JTS, Cambridge and Oxford as well as scans of various mss (NOT those available via JNUL) of Talmud and Mishnah.

It normally sells for $750 but if five (5) individuals get together they can each buy it for $500 (please mention Yisrael Dubitsky's name when ordering. He does not get a cut, it's for statistical purposes only). For more information see here.

]]> Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/28/New-CD-of-Talmud-MSS Haredi Story "borrowed" from Shai Agnon Story http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/28/Haredi-Story-borrowed-from-Shai-Agnon-Story
Gil has a nice post on the latest mythmaking regarding the Hazon Ish. Along those same lines, there is a farily well known story that goes something like this:
An Orthodox person is sitting in the Jewish National Library and gets hungry. He takes out his lunch and then benches however, he does so in an audible tone. In his recitation he says the words שלא נכשל לעולם ועד. The librarian who is not Orthodox comes over to complain about his eating and he loud blessing. Additionally, she points out the he does not even know how to properly bless in that he used a version that doesn't appear in the blessing, namely, שלא נכשל. He is preturbed by her assertion and claims that is his custom. She then proceeds to pull out all the siddurim to show him that none have it. He goes home and comes across a siddur which does have his version and photocopies it and sends it to her. He circles in red the relevant passage - שלא נכשל.

A few years later he recieves an invitation to attend a wedding of someone he does not know. However, he decides to go anyways. Upon getting there the woman - who is the librarian - tells him that now she is marrying an Orthodox person. However, this was not always the case. In fact, she was schedualed to marry a non-Jew (in some stories an Arab). His letter with the circled words שלא נכשל reached her right before the wedding and she took it as a sign. She became Orthodox and now is marrying an Orthodox man.
Anyways this is the basic gist of the story. The story appears in a bunch of different places and in slightly differing versions. At times the "man" is identified and at times not. For instance, Ruchuma Shain in her book Reaching the Stars has this story as does the book "The Kiruv Files," Rabbi Sholom Schwadron also has a version of this story. Here is another take on it. In all these instances this story is passed off as true. However, in truth, this is actually a much earlier story written by Shai Agnon. It was published in 1937 in a slightly different format. You can read the original here.

Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshein has collected the various stories and noted the original source in a typically excellent article available here. Also there is a thread on Hyde Park about this article here.

]]> Plagiarism Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/28/Haredi-Story-borrowed-from-Shai-Agnon-Story Ten Commandment Displays http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/16/Ten-Commandment-Displays
Menachem Mendel has a nice post collecting a lot of the material on the Ten commandments. However, there is one point that I think is worth discussing.While 10 Commandment displays are ubiquitous in synagogues, it is far from certain this is the correct approach. Specifically, the Talmud records that public recitations of the Ten Commandments are banned because there were those who understood these readings to mean only the Ten Commandments are important to the exclusion of the rest of the Torah. R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller in his commentary Ma'adani Melekh (or Ma'adaani Yom Tov) says this reasoning should apply to Ten Commandment displays and he questions the practice of putting such displays up in synagogues. This statement is quoted in the Ma'gen Avrhom's commentary on the Shulkhan Orakh. Many others question this practice including R. Ahron Lewin, (Reischer Rav) in his commentary on Berkahot.None of this, however, stopped the Agudah, the OU, and Nathan Lewin (R. Ahron Lewin's grandson) from filing a brief in the Supreme Court advocating for Ten Commandment displays. While there is one person who permits such displays - they do so only in the context of a synagogue. That is, because in a synagogue the Ten Commandments would be part of the rest of the ornaments - Torah etc. it is clear that one is not imbuing them with any additional import. But, it is equally clear that the types of displays the Court would allow for - those totally devoid of any other Jewish context would run afoul of the Talmudic injunction.

]]> Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:11:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/16/Ten-Commandment-Displays Bibliography on Synagogues http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/16/Bibliography-on-Synagogues Professor Yosef Tabori's bibliography on synagogues is available online here. As well as other bibliographical lists here.

]]> Bibliographies Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:39:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/16/Bibliography-on-Synagogues New Book on Rabbinic Authority http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/14/New-Book-on-Rabbinic-Authority
A new sefer came out titled Ohron shel Chachomim. This work purports to collect the various laws and philosophy one should have for the Rabbis. The first section is just the basic law applicable to a talmid chacham, standing, not addressing by first name etc. In this section there is also a brief discussion about the "laws" of emunat chachmim. We are treated however to such laws as "not only is one obligated to follow the chachamim but also their children and their secretaries (mishamsheham) one should not question." Or this one: "When a person goes to a tzadik and discusses his problems but doesn't understand what the tzadik responds [I assume it was unintelligible] or it appears the just ignores his request - don't let this blessing be small in your eyes. Rather believe God will send your salvation." For many of these laws, the citations are to either aggadic passages in the Talmud or to Midrashim.

The second section discussion yeridat haDorot the lowering of the generations. This begins by telling the reader the concept of yeridat haDorot is not in relation to the tzadik rather it is to the generation. That is, the tzadik is of course as great as in previous generation rather it us that are unable to appreciate this. But then you may ask, it continues, why then do we hear of the great miracles these tzadikim did in previous generations, why not now? Of course, it is due to us - we have created a situation where the tzadikim can't work their miracles today.

The author then treats us to a discourse on whether the achronim can argue on the rishonim. He explains that this is prohibited. In a footnote he deals with the many achronim that seem to disagree with this. However, he writes these off by noting they are like rishonim. Of course, this then poses another problem (or not) for him as if they are truly like the rishonim then it follows that their peers couldn't argue on them as they are obviously greater. He just says that this doesn't appear to be the case and this is allowed. He extends this prohibition against arguing against earlier ones and says this is applicable to the pronouncements of the Shulhan Arukh and the Rama. He appears to be unaware that R. Hayim Volhzin says the Gra said this is not the case and that ever Rav should just do what they see fit irrelevant of the opinion of the Shulkah Orakh and the Rama. Additionally, he doesn't seem to be aware that R. Moshe Feinstein said the same thing. Or perhaps it is just a case of selective memory.

The next couple of chapters are devoted to the law of a Talmid Chacham today as well as the role of a Rebbi for Chassidim. The chapters include information on "Just Looking at the Rebbi Allows One To Gain In Torah and Avodah," "The Belief in The Tzadik" as well as lesser topics such as "The Trip to the Rebbi," "The miracles of the Rebbi" etc.

All in all, this book presents a rather interesting view into what some consider the laws and customs governing the interaction with the Rabbinic class.

I got the book at Biegeleisen in Brooklyn.

]]> Book Reviews Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/14/New-Book-on-Rabbinic-Authority Is Tu-beshevat a Sabbatian Holiday? http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/7/Is-Tubeshevat-a-Sabbatian-Holiday
There are those who claim the custom to celebrate Tu-beshevat as a holiday is based upon the book Hemdat Yamim. This book, according to many, was either written by Nathan of Gaza (Shabbati Zvi's "prophet") or one of follower of Shabbati Zvi. (This is contrary to the assertion in the Philogos that Nathan is not author, a contention which has little to no source). In Ha'aretz, an article appeared with this contention, namely the source for the Tu-beshevat custom is Sabbatian or as the headline reads "The New Year for the Trees, Isn't is Shabbati Zvi."

However, a closer look at the history reveals, that although some of the customs on Tu-beshevat can be traced to Hemdat Yamim the actual celebration dates much earlier. Avraham Ya'ari, the noted bibliographer, in an article traced the history of Tu-beshevat. He explains that much of the early mentions of Tu-beshevat were only in the negative, i.e. one can't fast or say tachanun. Obviously, the first mention is in the Mishna in Rosh Hashana which states, according to Bet Hillel, Tu-beshevat is the new year for trees. The new year does not conotate a New Years like celebration, instead, this only has implications for questions of tithing. One can't tithe fruits from one year using a different years fruits. Thus the 15th of Shevat is the cut off point.

Ya'ari, however, notes the first mention in connection to a celbration or the like is in the 16th century. Specifically, R. Issachar ibn Susan (c. 1510-1580) in Ibur Shanim, published in 1578 (the book was published earlier, in 1564, this was done without the knowledge or R. Issachar and according to R. Issachar, with numerous errors) he mentions "the Ashkenazim have the custom [on Tu-beshevat] to eat many fruits in honor of the day." Mention of this custom also appeared in a Jedeo-German Minhagim book first published in 1590. "The custom is to eat many fruits as it is the New Year of the trees."

In the community of Worms there was a rather interesting permentation of the custom. As R. Jousep Schammes in his Minhagim de Kehilah Kedosha Vermaysa, states:
On Purim and the 15 of Av and Shevat these were vacation days for the Rabbis, especially the 15ht and the 33rd day of the Omer for the students and their teachers. On these days the students did not go to school nor did the teachers go in. The teachers were required to distribute to the students as they left that morning, on the 15th and the 33rd day of the Omer whiskey and sweet cake from the teachers' own pocket, they should not charge the students, this is the custom.

He repeats this in his comments to the 15th of Shevat. "One doesn't say tehina even during the morning prayer. It is a vacation day for the students and the teachers, especailly the younger students, it is a holiday for the teachers. The custom is for the teachers to distribute whiskey to the students and make merry with them."

While we have shown there was a custom for those Ashkenazim to celebrate Tu-beshevat, amongst the Sefardim, it is correct the source is Hemdat Yamim. Hemdat Yamim, first published in 1732 anonymously has the entire seder for Tu-beshevat. This includes passages from the Bible as well as specific foods. This in turn was popularized to a greater degree when it was included in the book Pri Etz Hadar first published in 1753 and republished an additional 29 times by 1959. This book included the entire Hemdat Yamim service.

So at the end of the day, although some of the customs of Tu-beshvat may come from the Hemdat Yamim he clearly is not the only or the first source for celebrating Tu-beshevat.

For more on the Hemdat Yamim, a controversy that has recently been stirred up again with the republication by R. Moshe Tzuriel of the Hemdat Yamim with an extensive introduction. Additionally, Ya'ari has a book Talmuot Sefer which his conclusion has been disproven by Tishbi in his Nitvi Emunah U'Minut. R. Tzuriel's publication engendered the publication of a small pamphelet Hemdat Yosef as well as a bunch of articles in the journal Hechal HaBeshet. Rabbi Dr. Leiman in his latest article in Ohr haMizrach has a footnote with all the citations. [R. Dr. Leiman's article collects all of R. Y. Eybeschit's and R. Y. Emden's approbations].

Also, anyone can get a copy of Hemdat Yamim. There are two places on the web where it is available free. The first is at the Jewish National Libraries site for rare books online here. For this one you need to download their viewer. Or at SeforimOnline.org (which for some reason is not online as I write this). Who has it in PDF format?

Additionally, Ya'ari has an article on the piyutim for Tu-beshevat here.

]]> Customs Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:31:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/2/7/Is-Tubeshevat-a-Sabbatian-Holiday Onkelos Translation http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/29/Onkelos-Translation
There is a new sefer which offers a translation of Onkelos published by Gefen books. Onkelos, which is considered the authoritative translation of the Torah has, unfortunatly, suffered from the difficulty people have in reading it. Instead, most English speakers rely upon other translation, some which do not follow Onkelos. This has now been remidied by this new book "Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text" by Israel Drazin and Stanley Wagner.
The book is very user friendly. It contains the Hebrew text of the Torah, Onkelos and Rashi (vocalized). Additionally, it contains an English translation of Onkelos. The translation bolds any words that Onkelos changed from the literal meaning. The authors then have a commentary on each of those changes explaining why this was changed. Additionally, the authors provide an even more in-depth commentary in the Appendix, for those who want to go even further. Drazin, has edited a more scholarly treatment of Onkelos published by Ktav (for a lot more money).

One example from last weeks Parsha. Exodos 8:2 discusses the begining of the frog plauge. The translation is as follows: "Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of the Egyptians, and the frogs ascended and covered the land of Egypt." Thus, both Egyptians and frogs have been chaged by the targum. We will focus on the "frogs" change. The authors explain
FROGS The biblical reading is "bring up the frog" (in the singular), suggesting that one frog covered the entire land. Indeed, Rashi cites an opinion found in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 67b) and the Midrash (Exodus Rabbah 10:4) that a single from came, split into other frogs and swarmed over Egypt. Our targumist prefers to interpret the biblical singular as "frogs," which is closer to the intended meaning. Rashi also states that the singular form represents a swarm of frogs, just as the word kinam in verse 13 and 14, in the singular, refers to many lice. Our tagumist translates kinam in the plural in keeping with his understanding of the intended meaning of the word.
The authors in a section titled "Onkelos Highlights" offer an additional reason why the targumist picked this explaination.
Onkelos most often attempts to translate Scripture in accordance with the view of Rabbi Ishmael, rather thatn that of Rabbi Akiva - both spiritual giants of the second centruy CE. Rabbi Akiva, recognizing the sacredness of every word in the Bible, understood Scripture literally. Hence, when the Bible describes the second plauge in verse 8:2, stating that a "frog," in the singular, covered Egypt, he understood it to mean that it was a single frog that miraculously afflicted Egypt. Rabbi Ishmael, on the other hand, insisted that "Scripture speaks in human language," and that it often metaphoric and imprecise, a view embraced by Onkelos. The tragumist, therefore, translates the Hebrew word as "frogs," to reflect the intention of the Bible, which frequently uses the singular in the place of the plural.

Thus, there is a basic controversy how to understand the Bible, with Onkelos taking one position which is reflected in his targum.

It is worthwhile to note how other translations have translated this verse (8:2) to compare and understand what they were doing.

Artscroll actually differs depending upon which book one is looking at. In the Artscroll translation that includes a translation of Rashi, the verse is translated in the singular - "frog." This, as noted above, reflects Rashi's understanding of the verse based upon the Midrash and the Talmud. Artscroll in their introduction claim they follow Rashi in their translation.
In the Artscroll Stone edition which is just a translation of the Torah with a commentary, the verse is translated as "frog-infestation." The commentary notes that they followed Rashi on this as well (the second explaination offered in Rashi). However, a closer reading of Rashi actually leads to a different translation. Rashi states "The simple understading of this verse is that a singular form of frog can mean frog infestation." Thus, Rashi is saying although only the singular is used it can mean multitudes. Therefore, Rashi would actually translate the verse, according to this understanding, as "frog" which would mean frog infestation, not that the translation is actually frog infestation.

Additionally, Artscroll does not explain why in one book they translated it one way and in the other a different way.

JPS follows Onkelos and translates "frogs."

I do have one criticism of the an otherwise excellent work. I think it would have been even better if they had aside from bolding the English to bold the actual targum words that are changed. However, beside for this, this work allows many, who constrained by the difficult language employeed by the Targum to now study this invaluable work.

I purchased this from Biegeleisen for $27. As of yet the only volume published is the Exodus volume, however, the authors note that Genisis is almost complete. One can also buy this directly from the publisher and also see page samples here

]]> Book Reviews Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:28:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/29/Onkelos-Translation I See Dead People http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/12/I-See-Dead-People Mary Roach in her excellent book "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" discusses some of the facinating facts relating to dead bodies. However, she does not discuss some of the more interesting Jewish incidents of dead bodies.

The first is the fairly well known story of R. Yehuda Aszod (1794-1866). R. Aszod's grandson wrote a biography of his grandfather. Portions of this biography are included in R. Aszod's commentary on the Torah, Divre Mahri.

"My grandfather never allowed for a picture or portrait of himself [based upon halachik reasons, for more on these reasons see G. Oberlander's article in the latest Hechal haBeshet]. However, many of his students wanted his picture to remember their teacher. Therefore some of his students decided amongst themselves that after R. Aszod will die they will dress him in his Shabbat clothes, place him on his chair and this is how they obtained his photograph which is found in many people's homes. However, those that participated in this bad befell them. It was not longer before the participants all died." This event even engendered a discussion whether such a practice is permitted. R. Zev Tzvi Klien in his teshuvot Kehana Mesaya Kehana (no. 12) discusses this practice and concludes although not recommended it is not prohibited.

While this story does appear in R. Aszod's commentary on the torah (p. 32) it is only is the older editions, the most recent the entire story including the relevant footnote was removed.

Additionally, there is a picture of R. Aryeh Leib ben Asher Gunzberg (Sha'agat Areyeh) which it appears he is dead. However, the legend underneath the picture reads "This is the picture of the Sha'agat Areyeh at the time he is dying." I assume this "disclaimer" was placed there to mitigate any criticism of the kind the picture of R. Aszod is subject to. One can see this picture in the book R. Y.M. Stern, Gedoli HaDorot Jerusalem 1996, vol. 1.

There is another case, although not with a dead Rabbi, but with a Jewish question regarding the dead. In University College in London the noted philosopher Jermey Bentham had an interesting request in his will. As it appears on Wikipedia,

A further reason for Jeremy Bentham's fame within UCL is due to the fact that his body is on display to the public. Jeremy Bentham specified in his will that he wanted his body to be preserved as a lasting memorial, and this instruction was duly carried out. This 'Auto-Icon' has become famous. Unfortunately, when it came to preserving his head, the process went disastrously wrong and left the head badly disfigured. A wax head was made to replace it, but for many years the real head sat between his legs. However, this head was frequently stolen and subjected to many student pranks, with students from rival King's College London often the culprits. The head is said to have at one time been found in a luggage locker at Aberdeen station, and to have been used as a football by students in the Quad. These events led to the head being removed from display and placed instead in the College vaults, where it remains to this day.

Other rumours surrounding the Auto-Icon are that the box containing his remains is wheeled into senior college meetings, and that he is then listed in minutes as 'present but not voting'. He is also said to have a vote on the council, but only when the vote is split, and that he always votes in favour of the motion.

When the Upper Refectory was refurbished in2003, the room became renamed the Jeremy Bentham Room (sometimes abbreviated JBR) in tribute to the man.


The London Bet Din for a few years put out phamphelts where they would discuss a in depth topics of interest. One of those titled "B'Inyan Ohel ha-Met" Dayan Grosnas no. 14, 1965, discusses whether a Kohen can go through the lobby, or today the JBR where Bentham's body is. They actually state in the begining, which is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article that the head is kept in a special box, which although not on public display, if one asks it will be shown to you. Obviously, the same question of whether one could photograph it as was raised in the case of R. Aszod would apply as well.


You can see Bentham's body here.

]]> Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/12/I-See-Dead-People Censored Texts - Website http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/11/Censored-Texts--Website There is an interesting post, in Hebrew, on Hydepark, which has a list of censored texts. Although the list is not complete, (for more examples see my article in the latest issue of Hakirah), it still is rather good.
There are also numerous other gems on the site for those that take the time.

]]> Censorship Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:38:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2006/1/11/Censored-Texts--Website Manasseh of Ilya and Y. Barzilay http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/29/Manasseh-of-Ilya-and-Y-Barzilay
I recently finished reading Yitzhak Barzilay's book on R. Manasseh of Ilya. R. Manasseh was a fascinating character. He was a student of the Vilna Goan, but wrote a pamphlet arguing for reconciliation between Hassidim and non-Hassidim. He wrote another work discussing the trop or cantilation marks and yet another, his mangum opus, on the Talmud. It is the later work that he is most well known for, although not necessarily in a positive way. The Tefferet Yisrael (R. Yisrael Lifshitz) on the Mishna quotes a brief passage from this commentary. R. Menasseh's comments appear on the first Mishna in Perek Alu Mitzhut. (Baba Metziah 1:1). He understands the Mishna in a different fashion than the Talmud, thus provoking some to argue such a position is heritical.

R. Manasseh was a controversial figure. His book on the reconciliation, Pesher Davar, was publicly burnt. His work on Talmud, Alphei Menashe, after either the publisher or some outsider (depending on the source, there are a couple versions of the story), destroyed it right before it was completed. R. Manasseh was forced to reproduce the entire work from memory and find a different printer.

Additionally, although he had a close relationship with the Vilna Goan, the Vilna Goan severed that relationship after learning R. Manasseh had been in contact with R. Shneur Zalman of Lida (Ba'al haTanya).

All this being said, he is ripe for an excellent biography. Unfortunately, Barzilay does not deviate from his norm, and put out another poor work. Although Barzilay has written on many other interesting figures of Jewish history, almost always he fails to do anything substantive or worthwhile with the subjects.

This work is full of gross supposition that are never supported by any facts. For instance we have sentences like this "It may be assumed that in a talented person like Manasseh, his critical faculties must have awakened rather early, and already in his youth he may have arrived at some of his nonconformist views with regard to the Halakhah and its historical development." (p. 24). Therefore, Barzilay wants to then claim and project back on Manasseh's early years and label him as a radical even then based only upon "his critical faculties." While that may be the case, there are also a million other possibilities. For instance, Manasseh was influenced later in life by someone else or he came to his "nonconformist views" based upon years of study and when he was 17 (according to Barzilay, again a guess) he did not hold these views.

Another example, where Barzilay is discussing Manasseh's frequent trips to his wealthy relatives house who had a terrific library, Barzilay makes the following statement: "The role of this library in Manasseh's life and intellectual growth cannot be overestimated . . . It may be further assumed, with a high degree of probability, that there also were to be found there the recent works of the Berlin maskilim, as well as those of the enlightened orthodox Jews from both Eastern Europe and the Germanies." Barzilay then goes on to cite to the many subscribers of various haskalah literature as "proof" this library contained these books. There a basic problem with this argument. Since Barzilay is able to point to where these books went to as the subscriber list, lists both person and place, why then isn't this rich relatives name ever listed if he was a collector of such works? Instead, Barzilay is satisfied to assume that the books were there as there were many haskalah books that "found [their] way among the Jews of Eastern Europe."

These are but two examples from a book that is rife with such sloppy work. The only redeeming fact of the book is the extensive quotation from R. Manasseh's works. As mentioned above, this is not the first book Barzilay wrote that fails miserably. He also did another biography on R. Shlomo Yehudah Rapoport (Shir), the son-in-law of the Ketzot HaChoshen and one of the leading figures of 19th century Eastern European Haskalah. This book is also disappointing.

unfortunate, the only other biography, Ben Porat Yosef, is no gem either. It was written by Mordechai Plungian an editor at the famed Romm press. This is more of an anecdotal than scholarly work. However, this work got Plungian in trouble as some claimed he attempted to make R. Manasseh into a maskil.

What is particularly strange is that a book review of Plungin's book appeared in HaMagid. At the JNUL site, which contains old Hebrew newspapers, the version they have appears to have that portion blacked out. The review in question appeared in HaMagid on March 8, 1858.

The full citation for Barzilay's book is Manasseh of Ilya: Precurser of Modernity Among the Jews of Eastern Europe (Manges Press, 1999).

]]> Book Reviews Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:47:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/29/Manasseh-of-Ilya-and-Y-Barzilay Chanukah Customs and sources http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/25/Chanukah-Customs-and-sources
While the only mandated mitzvot for Chanukah consist of lighting candles and saying the full hallel, there are numerous other customs that have come to be associated with Chanukah.

The custom to play driedel on Chanukah is steeped in mystical allusions. From the letters which appear on the driedel to the way the driedel spins, people have offered explanations to link this to Chanukah. The Beni Yisscar, R. Tzvi Elimelch says that the reason the dreidel is spun from the top and the gragger on Purim is turned from the bottom has to do with how each holiday's miracles were effected. On Chanukah the miracle came from above, directly from God. However, on Purim, the miracles were directly brought about by the actions of Ester, Mordechi and the Jewish people. Thus, the dreidel is spun from the top showing the miracle came from above, and the gragger from the bottom showing the miracle came from below. Others explain the symbolism of the letters that appear on the dreidel, נ, ג, ה, ש. According to one explanation these hint to the mitzvot that we have on Chanukah, נרות שמונה (candles all eight nights) and הלל גמר (the complete hallel). Others note the gematria (numerical value) of the letters which correspond to the same gematria as משיח (the Messiah). Others still, link the letters with גשנה the city Yosef secured for his family in Egypt.

According to at least one source, the custom of playing dreidel was actually started in the time of the Maccabis. They say that in an effort to circumvent the Greek decree against studying the Torah, children and their teacher would have a dreidel handy to start playing in case the Greeks came upon them studying the Torah. They would claim they were not studying instead they were just playing dreidel.

Despite all of these explanations, in truth, dreidel is not Jewish in origin. Rather, driedel is really the rather old game of teetotum. Teetotum, which uses a top with four sides and four letters is one and the same with dreidel. The letters that appear on the dreidel are really just the Hebrew letters that appear on a German or Yiddish teetotum, G, H, N, S. G= ganz (all), H halb (half), N nischt (nothing) and S schict (put). Teetotum dates back to at least the 16th century long before we have any Jewish allusions to dreidel(it was originally totum or top, but became TEEtotum due to the use of T for take all, on the top). The well-known depiction of children's games done by Brueghel in 16th century includes Teetotum(see here and here for the complete painting). The earliest Jewish mention of dreidel or the significance of it dates to the late 18th century.

The story connecting dreidel to the ruse of the Maccabis was first published in the book Minhagi Yeshurun, which was first published in 1890 (the name was changed to Otzar Kol Minhagi Yeshurin in the third edition, which is available online here from Hebrewbooks.org . The author included a nice picture of himself at the beginning, although he was a Rabbi in Pittsburgh at the turn of the twentieth century, he is holding a quill pen.) His source is a contemporary of his. [As an aside, although his explanation of dreidel is well-known he offers a similar explanation for playing cards on Chanukah, i.e. that the Maccabi did so. However, that one is not nearly as well know.]

The custom of Chanukah Gelt appears to have changed over time. The earliest sources that mention money on Chanukah connect it with either collecting money for the poor (presumably for money to purchase the necessary implements for the Chanukah lights)(Sefer Mataamim) or giving money to ones children's teachers. (Hemdat Yamim, Chapter 3 Chanukah early 18th century, anonymous author, some claim was Nathan of Gaza, Shabbtai Tzvi's "prophet" others just a student of the Ari).

Again, especially amongst the Hassidic commentators, the custom took on a life of its own, both in its scope to include giving money to children and in its significance. There was also a special emphasis on giving their respective Rebbi money as well. R. Chaim Palache (Pellagi) (1788-1869) is the first to mention giving children money. He offers a kabbalistic reason "as children are representative of נצח והוד (eternity and glory). Something I don't profess to have any idea what that means.

Another custom, again somewhat late in origin, is the custom to not study Torah on Christmas eve. Menachem Butler has a post here on some sources, however, one should add that there is now a full length sefer devoted to this topic, Yisrael Barukh Mestinger, Nitel U'Meorosav, 2000. As well as a pamphlet, Hefaru Toresecha, maamar maktif mminhag avotanu bi-yadun (sic) odot lel ha-ofel nitel nacht, u-minhag yisrael l'vatel ma-asek ha-torah, 2004. Additionally, R. Gavreil Zinner, devotes a section of his work, Neta Gavreil on Chanukah to Nitel.

For more on the various customs associated with Chanukah, see Neta Gavreil Chanukah; Pardes Eliezer Chanukah 2 vol.; R. Yitzhak Tessler, HaDreidel (Sivvivon) B'Chanukah: Mikoroteha, Tameha, u'Minhageha, in Ohr Yisrael 50-62, vol. 14 (Tevat תשנ"ט).

]]> Customs Chanukah Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:49:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/25/Chanukah-Customs-and-sources Attack on Rabbinic Judaism and Historical Orthopraxy http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/20/Attack-on-Rabbinic-Judaism-and-Historical-Orthopraxy
What is perhaps one of the more intreging sefarim ever published. Behinat HaKabbalah is two books in one. The first, Kol Shakal (the voice of a fool), is a scathing attack on Rabbinic Judaism. Basically, anything not found explictly in the Torah is claimed as false. For example, the requirment of mikva is deemed wrong as the verse only requires one to "wash one's body." This first portion takes up the majority of the book. The second half, Sa'agas Areyeh, (roar of the lion) is a defense of Rabbinic Judaism. However, the defense in some sense proves the first half as it is so sparse leaving the reader to posit that the author of Sha'agas Areyeh actually agreed with the author of Kol Shakal. Some even go so far to claim the author really wrote both works in an extremly sly attempt to gain wider readership. That is, they created a work which externally would be viewed as a defense of Rabbinic Judaism i.e. Sha'agas Areyeh, only to be able to slip in the most more persausive Kol Shakal.

Typically, the second portion is attributed to R. Yehuda Areyeh of Modena. (Mar Gavriel has an excellent post on him here). If that is so, some then argue he was a closet heritic or perhaps in today's vernacular- Orthoprax. That is, although R. Modena sat on the Venice Bet Din, wrote numerous traditional sefarim, and even authored on the selichot that is said on Yom Kippur Katan, in his heart he really did not believe in any of it. This, of course, is rather shocking.

In truth, the authorship of both of these works is somewhat up in the air. As mentioned, some attribute it to R. Modena, however, this is not certian. The reason being, this work was not published until 1852 and Modena died in 1648. The work was first published by Isaac Shmuel Reggio (YaSHar) a rather interesting character in his own right. [As an aside, Reggio was far from what many would consider "traditionally orthodox" he permitted shaving on Hol HaMoad which got him into trouble. (His father wrote a pamphelet against him on that issue). However, this year someone from Monsey reprinted his commentary on the Torah, apparently Reggio's biography was unknown to the sponser of the printing.] Reggio claimed to have published this from a manuscript in Modena's own hand. He has an extensive introduction as well as notes thourhout.

Others have questioned Reggio's assertion that it emenates from Modena. One has even pointed to Saul Berlin the author of the noted forgery Besamim Rosh as the author of this. However, that has been discredited.

In the end, whom ever the author maybe this work still stands as one the most interesting and entertaining attacks on Rabbinic Judaism.

There is much in this area and the interested reader can consult Reggio's introduction; T. Fishman, Or Hadash al Zemano shel Sefer Kol Shakal v'al Mekom Hibburo, in Tarbiz 59 (1990) 171-190; Fishman's book length treatment in "Shaking the Pillars of Exile'Voice of a Fool,' an Early Modern Jewish Critique of Rabbinic Culture;" E. Rivkin, Leon da Modena and the Kol sakhal; B. Kahlar, Shagas Areyeh al Kol Shakal in Mehkarim v'Inyuim (Tel Aviv, 1954) 357-378.

]]> Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/20/Attack-on-Rabbinic-Judaism-and-Historical-Orthopraxy Racy Title Pages Update II http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/1/Racy-Title-Pages-Update-II
While I do not intend to focus solely on racy title pages, I do have a futher update to my previous posts I, II. It appears that the title page used in the Levush (Prauge, 1590) was actually a recycled page. It was first used in the Prague 1526 Haggada.

Now aside from this page, which we have seen is objectionable to some today, there were other objectionable illustrations in this edition. Yerushalmi in his Haggadah and History, notes that there was an illustration accompaning the verse found in haggadah from Exekiel 16:7. That verse reads "I cause you to increase, even as the growth of the field. And you did increase and grow up, and you became beautiful: you breasts grew, and your hair has grown; yet you were naked and bare" Accompaning this verse the following illustration appeared, which as you can see, really just shows just what the verse describes.


Now in the Venice 1603 they wanted to illustrate this verse, however, they did not want to use a nude, so they replaced it with a picture of a man, which of course, has little to do with the verse. In fact, they felt the need to place a legend on the picture so the reader would not be too confused the legend reads "A Picture of a Man!" (on the right)

]]> Censorship Pesach Historical Haggadah Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/12/1/Racy-Title-Pages-Update-II Magnes Press Sale http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/23/Magnes-Press-Sale
For a limited time, Magnes Press is having a sale, buy one book get the second at 70% off. They have some great new titles including Censorship, Editing and the text Catholic Censorship and Hebrew Literature in the Sixteenth Century; two books from the Italia series one devoted to Shmuel David Luzzato (Shadal) and other about R. Yehuda Areyah of Modena and many others including some other noteworthy ones that Manuscriptboy has recently blogged about.

]]> Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:22:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/23/Magnes-Press-Sale Racy Title Pages Updated http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/23/Racy-Title-Pages-Updated
As I had previously noted, many older seforim include what may be deemed objectionable by today's standards. I had mentioned how one book had attempted to rectify this, the new edition of the Levush. In this edition the title pages from some early editions of the Levush are included in the introdoction, however the title pages has been "touched up." Now that I have learned how to include images, I present both the original and the touched up version.

Although, the publishers of the Levush decided to alter the original, the new edition of the Tashbatz Koton did include a reprint of the first edition (1556) with the original title page unaltered. However, as is apparent, there are images on this title page that some might find objectionable.

[Unfortunately, I can't get the pictures to layout nicely, if someone knows how to fix that please let me know]


]]> Censorship Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:06:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/23/Racy-Title-Pages-Updated Anonymous Sefarim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/8/Anonymous-Sefarim
Although, taken for granted today, there is a rather interesting discussion regarding putting ones name on one’s sefer. The early Jewish books we have- Tanak, Mishna and Talmud, the authors or compliers did use their names. It appears that this practice started in the times of the patanim. R. Yehuda haHasid says
In the early days, the patanyim - the ones that appear in Tanakh - did not use acrostics. Further, early blessings that were fashioned by the Great Assembly do not either have such attributions. However, when wicked people began creating songs of nothing . . .and people could not discern what the righteous people had written and what these wicked people wrote, the righteous people began putting their names in the acrostic . . . and with this the wicked could no longer take credit for poems that were not theirs.
Sefer Hasidim (ed. Wistinetzki), Frankfort 1924, no. 470, p. 133.

Thus, the practice of taking credit for one’s written came in order to allow the reader to know the provenance of the work. Others claim the use of the acrostic was just borrowed from non-Jewish sources. Be it as it may, these claims only date the usage of the writing the authors name to the time after the Talmud.

Some, however, go to some length to show that even in the books of Tanakh and the Mishna the authors or compliers did, at the very least, hint to their name. The Midrash Tanchuma explains why the letter Hey in the verse in Hazenu (Devarim 32:6) H-l’shem tigmilu zot (ה-לה')is separate from the name of God. The Midrash explains that this unusual separation is to “tell the reader to take the first letters of the verses up until this verse. The Hey (ה) from האזינו, the Yud (י) from יערף, the Kuf (כ) from כי שם, the Hey (ה) from הצור, the Shin (ש) from שחת לו, and finally the Hey (ה) from ה-לה'. Those letters numerical value equal the name of Moshe as this is Moshe signing his name just as a person who finishes his book signs his name to it.” (Tanchum Hazenu 5). Though some note that this quote may have actually been inserted later, it does demonstrate that at a fairly early time people felt it was important to claim authorship to their own work.

At times, however, there were some even long after the Talmud who wrote works in an anonymous fashion. One book provoked a discussion that sheds some light on the above discussion. R. Shmuel Aboab (1610-1694), wrote the ethical work Sefer HaZikronot, first published in 1631 in Prague, recently reprinted in 2001. However, the book was published anonymously. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) in his bibliographical work, Shem HaGedolim, has an extensive discussion on the entry for the Sefer HaZikronot whether one should or should not note that one is acatully the author of a book. Hida quotes another passage in the Sefer Hasdim that offers an explanation why some do not note they are the author. “The early ones did not write their names on their works for example who wrote Torat Kohanim, Mehilta etc. so that they would not derive benefit from this world and lose any reward they will have in the world to come.” Sefer Hasidim, ed. R. R. Margolis no. 367. However, Hida notes that although for the “early ones” such as the those before the time of the Geonim, they did not reveal their authorship, from the times of the Geonim this has become common practice and thus in today there is no longer a reason to hide who the author is. Hida explains that the nature of R. Aboab’s book was the reason he did not reveal his authorship. The Sefer HaZikronot is a book of exhortations, a mussar book, as R. Aboab did not want to appear as more righteous in giving ethical direction he decided to remain anonymous.

Interestingly, the Hida nor anyone else, ever mention any prohibition in revealing the name of an anonymous work.

Sources: Yakov Shmuel Speigel, Amudim b’Toldot HaSefer HaIvri - Kitiva V’Hatakato, Ramat-Gan 2005, pp. 307-317; R. Hayyim Yosef David Azuali, Shem HaGedolim, Jerusalem 1997, vol. 2 Sefarim, 46-49.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: for further on the pronunciation of the word ה-לה' see David Yishaki, in R. Jacob Emden, Luah Eres, 2000, appendix.

]]> Amudim bTolodot Sefer HaIvri Bibliographical Oddities Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:32:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/11/8/Anonymous-Sefarim Minhagim Books No. 1 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/28/Minhagim-Books-No-1
I hope to present a couple of post on various Minhagim books. Some will focus on communal Minhagim books, and others on the minhagim of specific people.

The Tashbetz, also known as the Tashbetz Koton to distinguish between this the teshuvot haTashbetz, are the customs of R. Meir of Rothenburg as recorded by his disciple. The disciple's name formed the title, however, it is unclear what exactly was his name. Obviously, it is linked to the title, Tashbetz. Some explain the title as Talmid Shimon ben Tzodok others say he was Talmid Shmuel ben Tzodok, or Tosefot Shimon ben Tzodok, Tosefot Shimon ben Yoitz, orTikkun instead. The book was supposedly written when R. Meir was imprisoned.

The book collects all the customs of R. Meir dealing with the holidays, prayers and everything in between. As R. Meir is one of the gedoli Ashkenaz many of his customs were followed by subsequent generations. Of course, his customs were generally highly influential also due to his students, R. Mordechi ben Hillel haKohen, author of the Mordechai code on the Talmud, R. Asher b. Yehiel (Rosh) as well as his son R. Jacob (Tur) as well as many others.

There are many fascinating customs, whose sources are from the Tashbetz. , standing during the recitation of the Torah, washing ones hands after the kiddush, eating head of a ram on Rosh haShana, saying Zikhron Terura when Rosh haShana is on Shabbat, reciting both Eloki 'ad shelo netzarti and aloki netzor on Yom Kipppur and the list goes on. There are also some key passages, which explain other unclear customs. For instance, Naftali Wieder explains a rather cryptic passage in the Tashbetz as offering a totally new rational for why some people switch the word b'Fie (Bet-Peh-Yud) in Barukh She'amar to b'Feh (Bet-Peh-Hey). According to Wieder, Fie, is a curse in numerous languages, [think fie fi fo fum] and thus, the Tashbetz is saying for that reason one must alter the word.

There is actually a new edition of this book, however, it has some rather glaring flaws. The editor of this edition, [Sefer Tashbetz haKoton, Israel, 2005 Machon Torah S'beketav] states that he used a specific manuscript for this version, namely the one that he matched up with R. Yosef Karo. From the fact that this manuscript conformed with R. Karo's readings, this was the manuscript of the Tashbatz. Why the manuscript R. Karo, who lived some 300 years after the time of the transcription of the book, is left wholly unanswered. Further, aside from matching up a couple of passages from the Tashbetz with that of R. Karo, nothing further is offered about this manuscript. The editor never dates the manuscript, talks about where it was written and by whom. In fact, the reader is left to guess whether this manuscript was written after the Shulhan Orakh and Bet Yosef and was done with the specific purpose of conforming with the readings of R. Karo. The editor never says which of the "hundreds" of manuscripts there are of the Tashbetz is actually the oldest. Only that if R. Karo may have used one then that one is dispositive of R. Meir of Rotenberg's statements. Obviously, this is absurd.

This fundamental flaw aside, there are some positive points of this reprint. The first is that they have reproduced the first edition of the Tashbetz, Cremona 1556. This is reproduced fully, including a interesting title page which can be added to a previous post of mine. The editor has also added some notes, which at times are helpful. He generally uses abbreviation in referencing other books, he includes a key to explain these abbreviations. However, he cites to R. Daniel Goldsmit's Machzor as well as Weider (cited above) but for those abbreviations, the reader is left on there on. I assume he did not want to "taint" anyone with citations to scholars that although he saw fit to use, did not wish to fully reveal to his readers.

For further reading on both R. Meir and the Tashbetz, see Arbach Ba'alei haTosefot, 552-564; Yode'a Sefer (in vol. 2 of the Roest Catalog) no. 2525; Encyclopedia Judaica 11:1247-53; N. Wieder, Hisgabsut Nusakh haTeffila b'Mizrak u'Ma'ariv (The Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West) Jerusalem 1998 469-491.

]]> Customs Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:26:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/28/Minhagim-Books-No-1 Simchat Torah Book http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/24/Simchat-Torah-Book I was going to post about the most comprehensive book on Simchat Torah, Avraham Ya'ari's Toldot Hag Simchat Torah, however, Miriam has already posted a very nice summary of it.

]]> Customs Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:08:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/24/Simchat-Torah-Book Besamim Rosh http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/21/Besamim-Rosh
In the previous post, I mentioned a new book which is a collection of articles by Moshe Samet, who is well-known for his studies of the Besamim Rosh. In the comments section it appeared that some wanted more information regarding the Besamim Rosh. I hope this will answer some of the questions raised and give a more comprehensive background.

The Besamim Rosh is a book of reponsa first published in Berlin in 1793. It contained two parts, the teshuvot and a commentary titled kasa d'harsena. The person who published it, R. Saul Berlin was the Berlin Chief Rabbi's son. R. Saul claimed the teshuvot were from a manuscript which he attributed to the Rosh, R. Asher ben Yehiel. The commentary, kasa d'harsena, was from R. Saul. Right after it appeared there were some that doubted the authenticity of atleast some of the teshuvot. They claimed that those teshuvot were not from the Rosh.

There were many novel teshovot. Among these was one permitting shaving on Hol haMo'ad, permitting kitneyot and claiming kitneyot was actually a Karite custom, and relaxing the restrictions on a suicide.

The first book to come out against the Besamim Rosh was written by R. Ze'ev Wolf, titled Ze'av Y'trof and was published that same year, 1793. In it he takes issue with some of the teshuvot that are in the Besamim Rosh. He also, claims that R. Saul retracted one, the teshuva permitting shaving on hol haMo'ad. However, it is unclear whether R. Saul admitted it was a forgery or he retracted in a less sensational manner.

After this book, there were numerous others who doubted either the entirety or at least portions of the book. However, R. Saul's father, R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin (Berlin) defended the work of his son and vouched for the authenticity of it. He claimed to have seen the actual manuscript, something that no one else had seen. There were others who also supported the book. It appears that R. Yosef Hayyim David Azulai, Hida, also vouched for it, based upon the testimony of R. Tzvi Hirsch.

R. Saul, actually had a history that may explain why some were suspect of him. He published under a pseudonym a book title Mitzpeh Yekutel which attacked R. Rafeal Hamburg, the chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wansbeck (AH"U). This book was put in herem and burned in some cities. [As an aside after he was unmasked there were at least two teshovot published by different authors dealing with jurisdiction in herems. That is, whether the herem of one city, namely AH"U, can be enforced in another, namely Berlin. Obviously, this has many modern day implications, but it appears that many are not aware of such jurisdictional limitation of herems.]

Thus, it appears that some people already had rather negative opinions of R. Saul and this may have influenced their opinion of the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh.

As mentioned above, the Besamim Rosh was first published in 1793, however, it was not republished until 1881, nearly 100 years later. In this edition, two teshuvot were removed. The teshuva relaxing the rules for a suicide as well as one that permitted one riding on a horse on Shabbat. This second teshuva dealt with a case where one was riding on a horse and the Shabbat was approaching. The rider was faced with a dilemma, should he stop and thus have to scourge and rely on the hospitality of others or continue on to avoid that type of "embarrassment." The teshuva permits him to continue based upon the rule kovod habreiot dokhe l'o s'ashe. That is, for respect one can violate certain prohibitions.

Finally, the Besamim Rosh was republished from the original edition in 1984. This edition has an extensive introduction that attempts to rehabilitate the Besamim Rosh. However, there are numerous flaws with the introduction. The publisher twists and in some instances perverts statements of those that question the authenticity of Besamim Rosh. He also make absurd arguments in support of his goal.

For example, one of the people that doubted the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh was R. Moshe Sofer, Hatam Sofer. Hatam Sofer calls the Besamim Rosh the Ketzvi haRosh -the lies of the Rosh. (Orakh Ha'ayim no. 154) However, the publisher claims this is an error. He explains that the Vienna edition (1895) of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer don't read kitzvi haRosh, rather it reads kitvei haRosh- the writings of the Rosh. Thus, according to the publisher, all the editions of the Hatam Sofer that people relied upon were incorrect.

This, of course, is silly. The first edition of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer of this volume, was NOT the Vienna edition, rather it was Presburg, 1855. In that edition, which the publisher conveniently ignores, it says "kitzvei haRosh" the lies of the Rosh. This is but one of the numerous examples that can be found in this 1984 reprint.

In conclusion, there is a long running debate about the authenticity of this work, which has not been fully resolved, although at least one blogger may have a method to do so.

]]> Herem Besamim Rosh Bibliographical Oddities Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/21/Besamim-Rosh Moshe Samet and Manuscripts vs. Books http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/12/Moshe-Samet-and-Manuscripts-vs-Books
Manuscriptboy has two very nice posts today. One discusses a new book and various talks connected to the book. The book is a collection of articles by Moshe Samet. Moshe Samet has written some of the best pieces most notably on the Besamim Rosh, the teshuvot that were atributed to R. Asher b. Yehiel (Rosh) but are most likely a forgery and the product of the publisher, R. Saul Berlin. Samet has also written on the R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer) and more generally on the clash between the Reform movement and the Orthodox movement.

The second post discusses the conference held in honor of Benjamin Richler, the head of the manuscript department at the Jewish National University Library at Hebrew University. There was, what appears to have been, a facinating talk on the "evils" or more correctly the effect of printing on the preservation of manuscripts.

]]> Besamim Rosh Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/12/Moshe-Samet-and-Manuscripts-vs-Books Update- Temple Service on Yom Kippur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/10/Update-Temple-Service-on-Yom-Kippur Amshinover has a very nice post on the piyyutim connected to the temple service on Yom Kippur.

]]> Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:18:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/10/Update-Temple-Service-on-Yom-Kippur Temple Service on Yom Kippur http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/10/Temple-Service-on-Yom-Kippur
A significant portion, and perhaps the highlight, of the repetition of the Yom Kippur mussaf is the description of the Yom Kippur service as preformed in the temple. Many, however, are unfamilar with this service. There is an excellent book on the korbonot generally which devotes a portion to describing the Yom Kippur service, including the disagreeements amongst some Medievil commentors. The portion on the Yom Kippur service is highly readable and full of facintating details.

R. Raphael Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz, famous for his Dikdukei Soferim, (also recently reprinted) published the work of his Rebbi and father-in-law, R. Yosef Fadua, Ikrei haAvoda, in 1863.

The first printing was titled Ikrei haAvoda and the second printing in 1910, the book's title became Ikrei haKorbonot.

R. Yisrael Meyer Kagan, (Hafetz Hayyim) promoted the republication in 1910 and according to the publisher, the Hafetz Hayyim himself wanted to republish this book due to its importance. The Hafetz Hayyim thus allowed for the inclusion of his introduction to his own work on the korbonot, "Asefat Zekanim." This introduction includes why studying the korbonot is so important event today when one can't offer them. The publisher also states that at that time (1910) the first edition was exteremly rare and thus there was a need to republish the book.

Although, the printer does not offer why he changed the title, perhaps due to the inclusion of this additional materials that he felt he was kone b'shinu ma'ashe.

This book was recently republished by Mochon Mishnat Rebi Ahron. In this new edition they have reset the type and added footnotes and some minor corrections. (Although, they have also added some typograpical errors as well. (See, e.g. pp. 82 and 83)). They have kept the second title, Ikrei haKorbonot. I purchased this book at Beigeleisen books in Boro Park.

]]> Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/10/Temple-Service-on-Yom-Kippur Collection of Articles on Sabbatianism Online http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/7/Collection-of-Articles-on-Sabbatianism-Online
The book The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism, edited by Rachel Elior, is available online, in its entirety, for free (see here).

The book includes articles by Elisheva Carlebach, "The Sabbatian Posture of German Jewry," Jacob J. Schacter, "Motivations for Radical Anti-Sabbatiansim: The Case of Hakham Zevi Ashkenazi," as well as an excellent article in Hebrew by Moshe Fogal "Sabbatianism of the book Hemdat Yamim: A New Exploration."

]]> Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/7/Collection-of-Articles-on-Sabbatianism-Online Where to get out-of-print seforim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/6/Where-to-get-outofprint-seforim
Question: Where can one get out-of-print seforim?

Answer: Some can be purchased via auction. There are a few auction houses that specialize in seforim. Kestenbaum, Baronovitch, Asufa, and Jerusalem Judaica are some.

Then there are dealers and stores. I would always first check Biegeleisen (718) 436-1165 to see if it is truly out-of-print. Then there is Seforim World, which is right next door to Biegeleisen who has out-of-print seforim.

Then there is also Pinters Hebrew Book Store, 4408 14th Avenue (718)-871-2260 who in theory is a repository of seforim people no longer want, however, if you dig one can find some gems there.

I also use Rabbi Eliezer Katzman (718)-851-0490 and R. Wigder in Mount Kisco (914) 242-0324. I have also received via email, a catalog from a dealer in Melbourne Australia, Adir, the catalog has some terrific items, and the contact email is sba-at- sba2-dot-com

One can also try bookfinder which has some Judaica dealers as well as well as Ebay.

The easiest place to get out-of-print seforim is at the library, most major university libraries contain Judaica.

These are some of the ones that I am familiar with, if you know of others please let me know.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:50:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/6/Where-to-get-outofprint-seforim Book on Yeshivot http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/6/Book-on-Yeshivot
Shaul Stampfer has republished a revised and expanded edition of his HaYeshiva haLita'ot b'Hitavato. The book which is devoted to three yeshivot, Volozhin, Slobodka, and Telz, as well as the Kovno kollel. The book tracks the Volozhin yeshiva from its inception to its closure and the Slobodka and Telz yeshivot until the turn of the twenteenth century.

This book was originally Stampfer's dissertation, Shlosh Yeshivot Litayot b'Meah haTisha Asarah (1981) and was published in book format in 1995. This edition includes numerous updates as well as much new information, especially regarding the closure of Volozhin. Stampfer now argues, based upon new Russian governmental documents, which he includes Hebrew translation of, that the Yeshiva was closed due to the its own internal upheaval. This internal strife was caused by R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) attempting to install his son as Rosh haYeshiva. At Telz a similar fight broke out also regarding succession, as well as in Volozhin itself, on two separate occasion. However, the last fight caused such a rapid decline in the internal going ons of the Yeshiva, the government had it shut. The closure did not have to do with the haskala, the Russian government wanting to meddle into Jewish education or any of the other reasons offered. Instead, as has been borne out throughout Jewish history, the Jews brought it upon themselves. For example, the burning of the Talmud in France after the controversy regarding Rambam's writings as well as the banning of the Talmud in the 16th century were caused or at least the catalyst was internal fighting amongst the Jews.

The book also debunks other theories regarding the opening of Volozhin. Some claim the R. Hayyim Volozhin ask R. Eliyahu of Vilna (Gra) and received his blessing to open the what was the first Yeshiva. Stampfer, however, questions this and notes that in the initial Kol Koreh R. Hayyim Volozhin makes no mention of this, something that would have bolstered his fundraising efforts. Second, Stampfer also proves that the opening of Volozhin was not in response to the Hassidic movement.

Aside from the above, the book is full of first hand accounts of the Yeshivot. These include, Volozhin started praying in the morning at 9 am and the prayers only ran 15-20 minutes. Stampfer qualifies this by noting haNetz haHama in Vilna (just north west of Volozhin) during the winter is 9:17 and also notes the 15-20 minutes is probably slightly exaggerated. Telz yeshiva was the first to institute grade levels in a yeshiva. Also, according to Simcha Assaf's account, R. Lazer Gorden encouraged him to learn Russian and had his son teach Assaf in his own home. Stampfer includes much about the influence of Zionism and the haskalah on the yeshivot. All you ever wanted to know about all the infighting in the Yeshivot. The first to move to establish a kollel was R. Yitzhak Ya'akov Reines, who was highly controversial with the establishment of his yeshiva in Lida - arguably a precursor to Yeshiva University. These are only a tiny portion of the terrrific nuggets that can be found in this book.

I purchased this book at Beigeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165)

]]> Book Reviews Historical Oddities Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:53:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/10/6/Book-on-Yeshivot Rabbinic Pictures http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/29/Rabbinic-Pictures
Menachem Butler notes that the custom of having portraits done of Rabbinic figures dates back to the 16th century and has now been applied to YU. He also raises the issue of the permissibility of such portraits in like of the injunction against making graven images.

There is a fairly substantial literature on the topic of Rabbinic pictures. In my previous post, I note that Mark included a picture of himself in his book. This was fairly common to include on the frontispiece of ones book a portrait. Menashe ben Israel, Yosef Delemdigo, Yehudah Modena as well as numerous others did so. In Cohen's book, mentioned by Menachem, he discusses this. R. Reuven Margulies in his Toldot Adam, Lemberg, 1921, 8-9 and Aviad Cohen, De'uknot Hakhamim bein halakha u'masse in Machanayim 2 (1995).

However, the most complete discussion as to the halakhic implications of this custom as well as a fairly extensive list of seforim containing rabbinic frontispices, can be found at the end of book having very little to do with this topic. R. Areyeh Yehuda Leib Lifshitz's first published in Warsaw in 1927 and reprinted in Israel, 1965. The book is devoted to the somewhat mythical R. Saul Wahl. In the first edition, however, R. Lifshitz included a picture of himself. This picture was placed loose in the book. At the end, R. Lifshitz includes a lengthy teshuva devoted to demonstrating that portraits pose no halakhic problem. [There is also a well know from R. Jacob Emden discussing both a portrait of his father, the Hakam Tzvi as well as a medal struck in honor of the chief rabbi.]

Another, more contemporary article discussing this issue can be found in the book Mo'adim l'Simhah b y R. Tuvia Fraind vol. 1 where he has an article on this.

Perhaps one of the strangest pictures is that of R. Yehuda Aszod. R. Aszod held that it did violate Jewish law to take pictures. His students, however, really wanted a picture of their teacher. They decided on a plan to obtain his picture, that after he was dead to prop him up and take his picture. Sure enough, that is exactly what they did. They also decided that proceeds from the sale of his picture would go to his widow and his children. At his funeral, there was a rather big to do about this especially in light of the fact that it is generally not allowed to profit from the dead. However, some permitted this and his picture was sold. [You can see this picture in the book Gedoli Dorot the three vol. picture/biography book.]

This story is recounted in biography done by his grandson that appears at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah Divrei Maharia. This was first published in 1931 and republished in 1970, in both these editions this story appears, however, in the most recent reprint in 1986 this story has been removed.

]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:48:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/29/Rabbinic-Pictures Biography of Gedolim http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/28/Biography-of-Gedolim
Long before Making of a Godol there was another book that contained terrific stories of Gedolim. These stories are especially refreshing in that they give a "human" look at gedolim. This book was originally published in Yiddish and subsequently portions were translated into Hebrew. The book written by Ya'akov Mark, (1857-1929) is titled Gedolim fun Unzer Tziet (or the great ones of our time). This book was first published in New York in 1927 and included a picture of the author. Mark was from Palanga, Lithuania (or Latvia depending upon how the wind is blowing). Palanga is a resort town on the Baltic Sea where many gedolim came for vacation. Mark, thus was afforded first hand contact with many of the greatest Rabbis at the end of the 19th and the turn of the 20th century. Eventually, in 1920 Mark moved to America and his book was published there.

The book is divided by type of person, namely, Rabbonim, Manhigim, 'Askonim, and Maskilim. It includes biographies and stories about, among others, R. Y. Salanter, R. Yitzhak Elkhonon, R. Hildesheimer, Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, R. Ma'atishyau Staushun.

Mark's work was utilized by many. R. Dov Katz in his Tenuat haMussar uses it extensively. In another work on the early ba'ali mussar, haMeorot haGedolim by R. Ha'ayyim Zaichyk, (New York, 1953) also uses Mark, especially in the section devoted to R. Y. Salanter. The use of Mark is documented in the footnotes. In the most recent reprints of haMeorot haGedolim, all footnotes that reference Mark have been removed. Of course, the publishers that reprinted haMeorot haGedolim don't mention this, let alone offer a reason for this omission. Perhaps it was one of the following "sins" that "warranted" the exclusion of Mark from this edition. The first, he was an accountant and not a Rav. The second was that he offers a more human portrait of the persons mentioned in his book. The third is that includes "questionable" people in his book such as Saul Pinhas Rabinowitz (Shepher) or Dr. Harkavy. Again, I don't know that these were the reasons, however, I think they are plausible although inexcusable.

In 1958, Mark's work was partially reprinted and translated into Hebrew. The Hebrew title is b'Mihitzham shel Gedolei haDor. This edition only included the portion of the original Ra'abanim and Manhigim those in the second half of the original under 'askanim and maskilim were not included. The publishers stated that they planned on publishing a second volume which would include those, however, it seems that never happened. The one exception was R. Ma'atishyu Staushun, who although was in the later category was included in this edition.

Either edition is worthwhile reading full of fascinating anecdotes and stories. The Yiddish is more difficult to obtain, but not impossible.

]]> Censorship Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:44:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/28/Biography-of-Gedolim Differences btwn the "Improved" Making of a Godol and the Original http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/26/Differences-btwn-the-Improved-Making-of-a-Godol-and-the-Original
Differences between the "Improved" Making of a Godol and the Original
by Dan Rabinowitz

As previously mentioned at the Seforim blog, Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky's Making of a Godol has been reprinted in an "improved" edition. In the new edition there are a few significant changes, which appear to have been done to appease those that originally banned the original.

It is fairly easy to find these changes with the help of the index in the "improved" edition.

Here are some of the highlights of these changes:

First Edition ("FE") - Also like my father, R' Aaron Kotler dabbled in secular studies at this time. He was more interested in literature than in the sciences which attracted my father's interest. (305)
Improved Edition ("IE")- Like our protagonist, young Aaron Pinnes picked up some secular knowledge as an early teenager in Minsk. (305)

FE- . . . during a visit with a young, intellectual protege of the Hazon-Ish who headed a yeshiva in Ramalah, R' Aaron blurted out, "This was expounded by Aleksander Pushkin" (305)
IE- not there

FE- nothing
IE- A story how he utilized this youthful experience to benefit the Torah community in Israel, came to light in an interview with R' Dov-Tzvi Rothstein.

FE- nothing
IE- In the Talmudic Yeshiva of Philedelphia mail is censored till this day: the students are "appeased" by being told "Without censorship, R' Aaron Kotler would have been lost."

FE- It maybe postulated that R' Aaron had too much self-confidence, as per what . . .
IE- In my fater's opinion, R' Aaron had very definate self-confidence, as per what . . . (386)

FE- "What is the difference? Before you go to his [R' Aaron Kotler's(D.R.)] yeshiva, you don't know how to learn anyway; and after you have been there a bit, you will already be considered [by him] that you do know how to learn. . . " Then our protagonist mitigated the seemingly sarcastic remark by explaining
IE- What is the difference. . . [same as above D.R.] Then our protagonist went on to explain his words by adding.

FE- the Lithuanian government issued an edict saying that the students of any yeshiva without secular studies would no longer be eligable for draft deferments. At a rabbinical assembly called to discuss the issue, it became evident that the Telz Yeshiva was ready to bow to the order, while the Slabodka Yeshiva, . . was uncompromisingly opposed. (510)
IE- the Lithuanian . . . eligable for draft deferments. Only the Telz Yeshiva , which despite opposition had started a mekhinah (preparatory school) with secular studies recieved recognition.

FE/IE There are a couple minor changes on 510-13 not worth getting into here

While there are numerous other changes, the above represent the "most controversial" passages from the first edition, and how they appear in the current edition.

]]> Censorship Making of a Godol Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:46:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/26/Differences-btwn-the-Improved-Making-of-a-Godol-and-the-Original Second Rabbinic Bible/Chapter Divisions http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/23/Second-Rabbinic-BibleChapter-Divisions
University of California at Berkeley has purchased a copy of what is known as the Second Rabbinic Bible (seen on PaleoJudaica here). This Bible was published by Daniel Bomberg and edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonyahu. Without denigrating the importance of owning the original, I think the article describing the value added to Berkeley is a bit misplaced or at the very least overblown.

First, this book is now available online via the Hebrew Univesity's program of digitilizing parts of their collection (the First Rabbinic Bible is also available there as well). Second, a photomechanical reproduction of this book was done in 1972 with an additional introduction by the Bible scholar, Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Additionally, one of the most important portions of this Bible, namely Jacob ben Hayyim's introduction was published with an English translation and extensive notes by C.D. Ginsburg in 1867 and republished by Ktav in 1968. Basically, if one wants to examine this book, without paying a huge amount of money to purchase it, there is no lack of places to do so.

The article also neglected to mention a feature of this edition that is particularly important, the inclusion of chapter breaks. Although, Jacob b. Hayyim attempted to obtain the Jewish chapter breaks, the ones created by the ba'alei mesorah, Jacob only got these at the end of the printing a instead utilized the non-Jewish chapter breaks (which we use until today). He did, however, include a list of the Jewish breaks after his introduction but the actual divisions used in this edition are the non-Jewish ones. As the article correctly points out, this bible became the template for almost all future bibles and thus, we are consigned to use those divisions eventhough, at times, they run counter to Jewish law and tradition.

[For an excellent exposition on the chapter divisions, see Shmuel haKohen Weingarten, Halukat haTora l'Perakim, in Sinai vol. 42 (1958) pp. 281-293; R. Pesach Finfer, Mesoret ha-Toah veha-Nevi'im, Vilna 1906 (republished in 2005).]

]]> Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:24:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/23/Second-Rabbinic-BibleChapter-Divisions New Auction Catalog Online http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/21/New-Auction-Catalog-Online
The Baranovitch auction catalog for their Nov. 9th auction is now available online. It has some nice seforim, including one of my favorite, R. Y. Shapotshink's Shas haGodol s'begolim, the largest Shas ever published. Shapotshink, who was a real character, utilized R. Pinner's shas and then added notes on the side of the page, creating the largest in size shas ever published. As many of his books, he only published a single volume. In this case, only Berachot was published.

The auction also includes some books with pictures in them. One of the more interesting ones is the Vienna, 1813 edition of the Marsha (R. Shmuel Edels) that contains his "portrait." R. Edels lived 1555-1631 and there is no known portrait executed during his lifetime. The portrait that appears in the Vienna edition is a product of the artist imagination and probably bears no relationship to what R. Edels actually looked like. In the portrait the Mahrsha appears with long, shoulder length hair, wearing some type of slippers, surrounded by hundreds of books.

At the same time, the Vienna publishers also published an edition of the Rif (R. Yitzhak Alfasi) also with a portrait, which is also a product of the artists imagination.

]]> Out-of-Print Seforim Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:15:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/21/New-Auction-Catalog-Online "Improved" Making of a Godol http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/21/Improved-Making-of-a-Godol
R. Nathan Kamenetsky has republished the first volume of his book, "Making of a Godol." This new edition is labeled "Improved Edition." The reasons for the improvements are well-known. The original edition was placed under a ban due to perceived slights in the honor of certain Gedolim.

In this new edition, there is a helpful index which shows what exactly has been improved upon. According to the index only one story has been removed in it's entirety. That story, in which R. A. Kotler responded to an interruption during his shiur from a "red-bearded scholar." R. Kotler responded by saying "Red Heifer, be still!" This was removed due to the source of the story. Apparently, the source for this particular story did not support R. Kamenetsky when R. Kamenetsky questioned the validity of the ban, and thus R. Kamenetsky did not want to include this persons comments.

According to the index there are no more omissions in this new edition. Instead, there are numerous elaborations, corrections, and a significant amount of new information. R. Kamenetsky states in one of the first "elaborations" that "the unexpected ban issued on the original, unimproved, version" helped the current edition be of value for all time.

unfortunately, this improved edition still suffers from a serious lack of editorial oversight. Although, the book has been altered to conform and appease those that issued a ban, it was not altered to make it more reader friendly. The improved edition still utilizes the same format of text followed by excursuses with numerous footnotes and tangents. It still requires, as R. Kamenetsky points out, a pencil and paper to be able to be able to flip back and forth through the book and keep track of what page one is on.

There is one important addition to the book, while not solving all the difficulties, at least alleviates some of them. R. Kamenetsky included a timeline line which tracks both significant events in world history with a parallel timeline that tracks significant Jewish events. When the Jewish events appear in the book, R. Kamenetsky included a footnote to alert the reader which page they can be found on. This allows, if one so desires, to read the book in a chronological order.

Although, the original book was only $40 (when it was published, subsequent to the ban the book was selling and continues to sell for outrageous prices) this improved version is $125. I assume that the steep raise in price was to allow for R. Kamenetsky to recoup some of his losses he suffered from the first edition. There were only 1,000 copies of the first edition published, however, R. Kamenetsky stopped selling and ordered his distributor to stop distributing them once the ban was pronounced. While it is impossible to know with certainty, this probably left him with numerous unsold copies thus causing significant loss. R. Kamenetsky implemented this policy even though he stood to profit immensely from the ban, he has said he felt bound by the ban even if he felt it was unjust.

]]> Censorship Making of a Godol Herem Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:35:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/21/Improved-Making-of-a-Godol Hebrew Dictionaries http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/7/Hebrew-Dictionaries
The post below focuses on R. Elijah haBahor's dictionary- Sefer haTishbi. There are, however, numerous other Hebrew Dictionaries. R. Elijah haBahor himself wrote another focusing on Aramic words from the Targuimim, titled Sefer haMiturgumin. The most complete exposition on Hebrew Dictionaries is Shimeon Brisman's "A History and Guide to Judaic Dictionaries and Concordances." While the title indicates it also discusses Concordances, in truth, there is a second volume, not yet published, that focuses on those. This volume, however, is devoted to the history of the Hebrew Dictionary. While Brisman does a very good job of giving a very good overview, at times, I found the book somewhat lacking. He focuses much of his attention on the bibliographical details which causes the content to suffer.

Perhaps the most well-known dictionary to students' of the Talmud is Marcus Jastrow's dictionary. While recently there have been a few dictionaries that claim to be comprehensive dictionaries of the Talmud for the English reader, Jastrow's is still king. The University of Pennsylvania has now posted online a permanent exhibit on Jastrow as well as on Hebrew Dictionaries. The exhibit has reproduced many of the title pages and given brief histories on many of the most important Hebrew Dictionaries.

Perhaps one of the more interesting dictionary was done by a Jew who converted to Christianity. Philippe d'Aquin (originally Mordechi) wrote a commentary on the famed dictionary of R. Nathan of Rome - the Arukh. His commentary, Marikh haMarkhot was published just once (you can see the title page here) . His commentary was not that novel, most of it was "borrowed" from earlier commentaries on the Arukh. R. Yosef Toemim, author of the Peri Megadim, states that the commentary that one should use when studying the Arukh is Marikh haMarkhot -the commentary d'Aquin. [There is no other commentary by that name, nor is the fact that the author was a non-Jew hidden. On the title page it states that the author is a professor of Hebrew at the University of Paris.]

]]> Bibliographies Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:45:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/9/7/Hebrew-Dictionaries New Book Censored http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/8/31/New-Book-Censored
R. Elijah haBahur's Sefer haTishbi has just been republished. The Sefer haTishbi is a dictionary devoted to words that do not appear in R. Nathan of Rome's Orukh. This particular reprint contains many important additions. It contains Solomon Buber's biography on R. Elijah as well as an extensive introduction on the various editions and the importance of the Sefer haTishbi. Furthermore, it contains several commentaries, some published for the first time. It contains the commentary of R. Menhem Shmuel Hirschtik, Ragle Mevaser originally published in 1910. However, it also contains the commentary of R. Jacob Emden and that of R. Yeshya Pick, the author of the Mesorat haShas. While R. Emden's commentary had been published in part in two journals, for the first time both those are collected together. R. Pick's commentary had never been published, although there had been some who alluded to it.

This book also contains an index as well as the Iggeret Pri Megadim from R. Yosef Teomim. This letter is typically published at the beginning of his commentary to Orakh Hayyim, however, due to the fact that he a) advocates for the study of R. Elijah's books; and b) has numerous comments on the Sefer haTishbi, this was included here. There is also an index of just these letters.

Now, on to the controversial portion of the book. This book also contains the critique of R. Shlomo Schick on the Sefer haTishbi. R. Schick, in his commentary on the Torah, Torah Shelmah (1909, Satmar) takes issue with many of R. Elijah's statements, not just his Sefer haTishbi. However, the editors of this edition of the Sefer haTishbi have collected R. Schick's comments that relate to the Sefer haTishbi. The editors have also included a rebuttal of R. Schick titled Tzidkat haTzadik.

While this may seem rather innocuous, R. Schick is considered in some circles to be unacceptable. This is especially true amongst the Hungarian Haredim. R. Schick, who was a Rabbi of what was known as a Status Quo community in Hungary, was himself a Haredi. However, he felt that instead of alienating his community and many others in Hungary he would take a more reconciliatory stance. This put him in conflict with the majority of the Haredim in Hungary. They wanted to cut off all the non-Haredim. In fact, they issued an edict that all shecita by members that considered themselves Status Quo, was to be considered non-kosher. Importantly, many in the Status Quo community kept Torah and mitzvot a fact R. Schick pointed out in many of his teshuvot. This placed Schick outside the camp of the "frum" and thus among some his writings are unacceptable.

Therefore, there are two editions of this newly reprinted Sefer haTishbi. One that contains an actual photocopy of the haskama of the Betaz of Jerusalem and a second version that does not. In the edition that contains the haskama both the comments of R. Schick as well as the rebuttal does not appear. In the edition that does not contain the haskama you get what I described above, the comments of R. Schick and the editor's rebuttal.

The editors even note this in the edition that contains R. Schick's comments. They explain that the Betaz gave them a haskama (they even quote it but do not reproduce the actual letter, so they get to say they got the haskama without offending the Betaz) but that the Betaz told them they found R. Schick to be unacceptable and thus would not want to give a haskama to such a work.

Therefore, one now has a choice between the Betaz haskama or the comments and rebuttal of R. Schick.

I obtained both editions from Beigeleisen in Brooklyn.

]]> Censorship Book Reviews Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:01:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/8/31/New-Book-Censored Racy Title Pages http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/8/24/Racy-Title-Pages
Printing was started by non-Jews, however, Jews quickly entered the printing business. However, at times, Jews "borrowed" from non-Jews sources with some interesting repercussions.

Early on many of the Jewish books borrowed title pages from non-Jewish works. This was so, as early title pages utilized woodcuts, which were rather expensive to make. In an effort to cut costs, printers would reuse these woodcuts from other books. Soncino in his early Talmuds as well as in other books used the title page that was used for Aesop's Fables. (See Marvin J. Heller, The Printing of the Talmud, p. 68-70)

In 1697 the Teshuvot haBakh were published for the first time. This first edition actually has two variant editions. The first one was published with a rather elaborate title page that included unclothed women. It appears this edition was immediately pulled and a second title page was substituted. This second page was much simpler with just two cherubs above the text of the title no more nudes. (For more on this topic of altering title pages, see Isaac Rivkind, Sefer Ashir B'Sha'arim, in Studies in Bibliography and Booklore, vol. 1 1953 p. 96-100; A. Freimann, "Ueber Schicksale hebraischer Bucher," in Zeitschrift fur Hebrasche Bibliographie, X (1906) esp. p. 175)
More recently, R. Mordechai Yaffo's Levush was republished. This reprint, aside from resetting the type, adding the Eliyaha Rabba and Zuta, and adding additional notes also includes an extensive introduction. This introduction traces the history of the various editions of the Levush as well as explaining its overall value. When it traces the printing history, it includes reproduces the title page of the first edition (Lublin 1589). However, this title pages has strategic white outs. In the first edition on the title page it includes female nudes, these are now whited out.

The inclusion of nudes was not that uncommon. I have seen other seforim that include such depictions either on the title page or at times even in the text. One notable example is a Mahzor published in Venice in 1710. This edition includes a depiction of semi-nude women right before the start of Barukh She'amar. From an artistic perspective this arguably adds to the book, however, from a religious perspective one must assume that it may offend some. However, there is no explanation for this picture so we are left to wonder what was the motive of the publishers.

]]> Censorship Historical Oddities Illustrated Seforim Bibliographical Oddities Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:20:00 -0400 http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2005/8/24/Racy-Title-Pages