R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much

May 27, 2016, 8:27 am

≫ Next: As The Kohen Exits The Sancta: A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha-Tzadik

≪ Previous: Some Recollections of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, Love Before Marriage, and More

$

0

0

R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

There is an interesting responsum of R Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Havot Yair, no. 60, that deals with a man and woman who were in love and get married despite the strong opposition of the woman’s father. The story is quite romantic. It describes how during an epidemic in Worms in 1636 the beautiful and intelligent only daughter of one of the rich leaders of the local Jewish community falls ill. There is a man who had fallen in love with her and wants to take care of her in her illness. We are told that this man is tall and handsome, yet he comes from “the other side of the tracks” (i.e., from the lower class). He is able to get the agreement of both the father and daughter that if he takes care of the woman, which would be at great personal risk to himself, and she recovers, that they will marry. The woman indeed recovers but the man himself becomes sick, and the roles are reversed. The woman now takes care of him, which is only fitting since he caught the illness taking care of her. She too has fallen in with him and fortunately he survives, meaning that they are now able to marry. However, the father wishes to go back on his side of the agreement, which obligated him to provide a dowry, and that is the halakhic matter that the responsum focuses on.

Elchanan Reiner has argued that the entire story is a fiction, and what R. Bacharach, one of the most important 17^th century halakhic authorities, has done is create a love story in line with the romantic stories that were appearing at this time in general literature. The story can therefore be seen as similar to a parable that is created for use in a sermon.[1]

The story R. Bacharach records is about a woman, indeed an only daughter, from a rich and important family. On the other side you have a poor man with no financial future. These are two people who in traditional Jewish society (and general society as well) normally would never be allowed or even want to come together. Yet because of the unusual circumstances of the epidemic, the man who dreams of the woman he could normally never have, is able to arrange a way to spend time with her and cross the boundary that otherwise would have kept them apart.

In the end we are inspired to see how love conquers all. For the sake of love the woman defies her father and gives up all the wealth that would be hers if she would only listen to her father and reject what her heart is telling her. It is a case of love vs. money, position, and power, and love wins. R. Bacharach mentions that when the father refuses to allow the marriage, the daughter says to him שעל כל פנים תזדקק לו הן בהיתר הן באיסור. What this means is that she threatens her father that if he doesn’t allow her to marry the man she loves, that she will be with him, i.e., sleep with him, anyway. For his part, the father says that he will not give her a dowry, and in the end ולקחה המשרת חנם. In other words, they married, but without any money from her father. They did what virtually no one else in 17^th century Jewish society did. They married for love, choosing their own partners, without concern for status or money. According to Reiner, what R. Bacharach has given us in abridged form is nothing less than a Jewish version of Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story.

The late R. Raphael Posen responded to Reiner’s article, rejecting completely the latter’s hypothesis.[2] He acknowledges that the case described in R. Bacharach’s responsum may be theoretical, and notes that there are many such theoretical cases in the responsa literature. As for the romantic elements in the responsum, he states that in responsa one can find much “juicier” stories than the one discussed by Reiner, and there are also cases of lovers’ entanglements from completely different eras. Posen refers in particular to two responsa that appear in the Tashbetz. These responsa predate R. Bacharach by a couple of centuries. They also were written in North Africa, a place that did not have the sort of romantic literature that according to Reiner was the model for R. Bacharach’s responsum.

Reiner has a short and somewhat biting response to Posen.[3] He states that Posen’s article shows the very mentality that created the need for R. Bacharach to “cover up”, as it were, the love story he inserted into his responsa.

לא ניתן היה להעלות על הדעת דוגמא טובה הימנו להציג לקורא את פניה התרבותיים של השכבה החברתית שמפניה היה על חיים יאיר [!] בכרך מוורמס להסתיר לכאורה את סיפורו: שכבה העשויה מתלמידי חכמים בינוניים ובעלי בתים למדנים למחצה, הקוראים את הטקסט באופן חד ממדי, מפרשים אותו פירוש אחד ויחיד, שאינו סוטה מערכי היסוד הבסיסיים ביותר של סביבתם.

Reiner also states that what upset Posen was that Reiner’s portrayal of R. Bacharach diverges from the standard portrayal of “gedolei Torah” in that Reiner assumes that R. Bacharach was aware of the world around him and responded with originality to its intellectual challenges. Reiner obviously did not know Posen, as he assumed that Posen was an unsophisticated haredi ideologue with no appreciation for complexity in great rabbinic figures. The truth is that Posen, who represented the best of the German Orthodox tradition, was the exact opposite of this, as anyone can see by examining his essays in Ha-Ma’yan and elsewhere. As for the substance of the dispute between Reiner and Posen, I would love to hear which side readers come down on.

Regarding love prior to marriage, which we also discussed in the last post, it is noteworthy that there is a non-Jewish song focused on this theme that was turned into a religious song. Here is a Yiddish version of the original song, recorded by R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald. It would have originally been sung in German or Hungarian [4]

וואַלד, וואַלד, ווי גרויס ביסטו

ראָזא, ראָזא, ווי ווייט ביסטו

וואָלט דער וואַלד ניט גרויס געווען

וואָלט דאָך מיין ראָזא נענטער געווען

וואָלט מען מיך פון וואַלד אַרויסגענומען

וואָלטן מיר זיך ביידע צוזאַמענגעקומען

This translates as:

Forest, Forest, how large you are,

Rosa, Rosa, how distant you are,

If the forest was not so large,

My Rosa would be closer,

If I would be taken out of the forest,

We would both come together.

By changing only a few words, R. Isaac Taub, the Kaliver Rebbe (1744-1828) turned this love song into a religious song, the title of which is גלות, גלות.[5]

גלות, גלות, ווי גרויס ביסטו

שכינה, שכינה, ווי ווייט ביסטו

וואָלט דער גלות ניט גרויס געווען

וואָלט דאך די שכינה נענטער געווען

וואָלט מען מיך פון גלות ארויסגענומען

וואָלטן מיר זיך ביידע צוזאַמענגעקומען

All this is well known in the hasidic world. It is so well known that one can only wonder how R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel could attempt to deny what I have just mentioned. In his Va-Yashav ha-Yam,[6] R. Hillel states, “Heaven forbid” to believe that any love songs were ever turned into religious songs by great rabbis:

(וכן מה שמפיצים שמועות כאלו על גדולים אחרים שהיו שומעים מהגוים שירי עגבים ומעתיקים אותם אל הקדושה, להלחין עליהם גם שירות ותשבחות גם קדישים וקדושות) אנא דאמינא ולא מסתפינא דחלילה להאמין כזה על גדולי ישראל שכבר כתבנו לעיל דלדעת כל הפוסקים אסור לשמוע שירי עגבים, ובעצם השמיעה לבד יש איסור, ואיך יתכן שגדולי ישראל יתעסקו בדברים מכוערים כאלו, חלילה להעלות כן על הדעת.

I have often written about how people are sometimes so convinced of something that when they are confronted with an alternative perspective in the writings of authoritative sages or in a report by a trustworthy person, they argue that the text is a forgery or the report is fraudulent, because gadol X never could have said or done such a thing. The situation with R. Hillel is even beyond this. The fact that the Kaliver Rebbe took a love song and turned it into a religious song is something that is known by all pretty much all educated Hungarian Hasidim (and not only Hasidim). It is worth noting that he didn’t just take the tune and add religious words, which is the case with other songs taken from the non-Jews. He actually kept the words, just changing a few of them.[7] Yet R. Hillel refuses to believe any of this. R. Hillel is a Sephardic Jew from India who probably knows close to zero about the history of Hasidism. Yet somehow he feels that he can declare that all the people who know the truth about this matter are not only incorrect, but are also degrading the honor of the Kaliver Rebbe.

Regarding love between husband and wife, I found an interesting passage from R. Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev.[8] He asks, why does the Torah tell us that Isaac loved Rebekkah? He answers that there are two ways a man loves his wife. One is that he loves her because of his physical lusts, “and this means that she is not his wife at all, rather, he [really] loves himself.” The other way of loving ones wife is because she is the “vessel” by which he can fulfill God’s commandments,[9] just like a person loves other mitzvot. “This is what it means that Isaac loved her, because he didn’t think at all about his physical desires, but was only intent on fulfilling God’s commandments.”

ויש אדם שאוהב אשתו ואינו מחמת תאות גוף שימלא תאותו רק מחמת שהיא כלי לקיים על ידה מצות הבורא ית'שמו כמו שאדם אוהב שאר מצות וזה נקרא אוהב את אשתו וזהו ויאהבה יצחק שלא חשב כלל מחמת תאות הגוף שלו רק כדי לקיים מצות הבורא ית'שמו ויתעלה זכרו.

R. Daniel Eidensohn has called attention to a similar approach attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, that you should love your wife as you love your tefillin. That is because with each of them you have the opportunity to fulfill mitzvot. See here. I don’t think this sort of interpretation will find much appeal in modern times, as it completely ignores the most obvious, and most important, type of love from husband to wife, which one hopes is present in every marriage. In fact, it is not only in modern times that such an interpretation would not be appealing, as all of the pre-modern sources that speak about loving one’s wife are indeed referring to real love.

R. Levi Yitzhak’s stress on love of one’s wife since she gives one the ability to perform mitzvot (i.e., purely utilitarian) is also at odds with other hasidic sentiments. For example, there is a famous story about a hasidic rebbe who was ill. A Lithuanian rabbi came to visit him late one night. He knocked on the door and when the rebbe answered the door, the rabbi said, “I have come to fulfill the mitzvah of bikur cholim”. The rebbe replied, “It is very late now, and I am tired and not in the mood to be the cheftza for your mitzvah.” This story is told among hasidim as a way to knock the non-hasidim. The lesson is that the Lithuanian rabbi should have come to visit the rebbe because he had the basic human emotion of wanting to show empathy to another who was suffering. Instead, he showed that this was foreign to his way of thinking, and his primary goal was simply to fulfill the mitzvah. And for that, the rebbe was not interested in taking part.

Since we are talking about love, I can’t resist sharing the following story told about R. Jacob Lorberbaum of Lissa. Like all of these types of stories, we can’t say if it actually occurred, but the fact that it is told is itself significant even if in this case I find it hard to believe that the sentiments expressed would be widely shared by any group. The story is found in R. Israel Beckmeister’s Ahavat Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 49-50.

According to the story, a student once came to R. Lorberbaum and told him that since his wife hadn’t given birth in ten years he wished to divorce her. R. Lorberbaum asked him what his wife says about this, and he replied that she doesn’t want to be divorced as she loves him greatly. He also added that he too loves his wife greatly. R. Lorberbaum told him that he shouldn’t love her so much, and he should return home and God would grant him a child.

The student could not understand what R. Lorberbaum was telling him, since how could he tell a husband not to love his wife so much. When he returned home his wife asked him what R. Lorberbaum said, and he replied sharply that it does not concern her. This led to an argument and he slapped his wife, causing her to faint and leading to a great rift between them. The wife’s parents intervened and they were able to make peace between the couple, and following this the wife became pregnant and had a son.

R. Lorberbaum, who served as sandak, asked his student if he followed what he told him, i.e., not to love his wife so much. The student replied that he did, and that he also slapped her. R. Lorberbaum told him that the slap was too much, but that he should know that the scientists have stated that if a husband and wife are very much alike they cannot have children. Thus, when he heard that his student and his wife loved each other greatly, he understood why they couldn’t have children, and that is why he told the student that he shouldn’t love her so much. In other words, only if there is some distance between them will they be able to have children. (The nonsense that earlier generations believed in never ceases to amaze me. I realize, of course, that future generations might think the same about us.)

Another relevant text is found in R. Hayyim ben Betzalel of Friedberg’s Sefer ha-Hayyim. As part of my Torah in Motion tour of Germany this summer, we are going to Friedberg. The most famous of the rabbis of Friedberg was R. Hayyim ben Betzalel, the brother of the Maharal and a great scholar in his own right. In preparation for the trip I am reading material by and about R. Hayyim, and the following is one of the fascinating things I found.

In his Sefer ha-Hayyim,[10] R. Hayyim notes that the demons want to connect themselves with scholars or even with any men. However, this is difficult since men are on the highest spiritual level, and thus distant from the demons. Therefore, the demons connect themselves to women who are on a lower spiritual level than men, and thus closer to the demons. In other words, at the bottom you have demons, women are above them, and men stand at the top. As R. Hayyim explains, both demons and women share an important characteristic, namely, that they are naturally defective: חסירי היצירה. As proof for this contention about women, he cites Sanhedrin 22b:

אשה גולם היא ואינה כורתת ברית אלא למי שעשאה כלי

“A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump, and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her [into] a [useful] vessel.”

The fact that the Talmud refers to a woman as a “shapeless lump” is proof for R. Hayyim that she is on a lower level than a man, and this basic division is not altered after marriage.

This then leads R. Hayyim to call attention to Exodus 22:17 which states מכשפה לא תחיה, “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” He asks, why is only a sorceress mentioned, and not a sorcerer מכשף? He also calls attention to Avot 2:8, מרבה נשים מרבה כשפים, “The more wives, the more witchcraft,” which also makes the connection of sorcery to women. R. Hayyim explains that because of the closeness of women and demons the Torah was concerned that women would seek to “go down” and achieve completeness by connecting themselves with the demonic forces below them. This wasn’t such a worry when it came to men since they were “two levels above” the domain of the demons.

All of this is quite interesting, and R. Hayyim ben Betzalel was very happy with this explanation (which must be causing some readers to pull their hair out.) After offering it he expressed pride in what he wrote:

והנה לא קדמני אדם בפירוש זה והוא ענין נכון אצלי.

So what does this have to do with what I have been discussing in the post? R. Hayyim warns men not to be too connected to women (which includes their wives) since this will mean that they are trying to complete themselves and find perfection by means of someone who is on a lower level than them. I believe this to be in complete opposition to the modern romantic notion that men and women can be soulmates, for one cannot be a soulmate with one whose soul is literally on a lower level.[11]

Since I mentioned love between future husbands and wives, I should also note that there was concern that because young men and women were engaged, that they might initiate a physical relationship before the marriage. This explains the takkanot in Candia (1238) and Corfu (1642) forbidding an engaged man to even enter the house of his future father-in-law (where his fiancée lived).[12] The Corfu takkanah also states that an engaged woman is not permitted to be in the house of her future husband. The Corfu takkanah does make an exception that a month before the wedding the man and woman can be in the homes of their future in-laws. This is because there are wedding plans that need to be taken care of. But the takkanah specifies that the engaged couple must not be left alone.

The Candia takkanah states that if for some reason the man has to enter his future father-in-law's home, he has to bring two men with him to act as his "guards". The only exception to this rule is if the young man is studying Torah with his future father-in-law. In that case he can be at the home, since "the study of Torah is such as to weaken the force of the tempter."

Solomon Buber records a 1776 oath signed by a man in Lvov declaring that he will not enter the house of his future bride under any circumstanced.[13] This was no doubt required by the rabbi. According to the text of the oath, if the man violates his pledge

אהיה נדון כעובר על השבועה בכל מיני עונשין וקנסים עצומים וחרפות ובזיונות בלי שום המלטה בעולם

R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz, in a sermon delivered in Metz in 1744, declared that “from this point on” he would only write a betrothal contract if the man and woman give their solemn agreement not to touch one another until after the wedding.[14]

As is clear from the sermon of R. Eybeschuetz just referred to,[15] many engaged couples were ignoring the law of negiah. Even Mendelssohn did not follow it, as we see from a letter he wrote to his fiancée. “Even the kisses that I stole from your lips were mixed with some bitterness, for the approaching separation made me heavy of heart and incapable of enjoying a pure pleasure.”[16]

In his autobiography, R. Leon Modena records the following about his young fiancée who was on her deathbed. He was 19 years old at the time.

On the day she died, she summoned me and embraced and kissed me. She said, “I know that this is bold behavior, but God knows that during the one year of our engagement we did not touch each other even with our little fingers. Now, at the time of death, the rights of the dying are mine. I was not allowed to become your wife, but what can I do, for thus it is decreed in heaven. May God’s will be done.”[17]

This story reminded me of an incident R. Jacob Emden records in his autobiography, although the details are entirely different. The translation of this lengthy passage is by Jacob J. Schacter in his outstanding dissertation on R. Emden.[18]

A miracle also occurred to me, especially relevant to matters spiritual. (It was) a miracle similar to that of Joseph the righteous and (even) slightly more so. I was a young man, tender in years, in the full strength of my passion. I had been separated from my wife for a long time and greatly desired a woman. A very pretty unmarried young girl who was my cousin happened to meet me there and was alone with me. She brazenly demonstrated great love to me, came close to me and almost kissed me. Even when I was lying in my bed, she came to cover me well on the couch, in a close loving manner. Truthfully, had I hearkened to the advice of my instinct she would not have denied my desire at all. Several times it (indeed) almost happened, as a fire (consumes) the chaff. Frequently there was no one in the house with me but her. They (i.e. the members of her family) were also not accustomed to come for they stayed in the store on the marketplace, occupied with their livelihood all day. Had God not given me great strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power (Gen. 49:3), to overcome my fiery instinct which once almost forced me to do its bidding, (and) were it not for the grace of God which was great upon me, (I would have been unable) to withstand this very powerful temptation, greater than all temptations. I was a man at the prime of my strength and passion. There was a very pleasant beautiful woman before me who demonstrated for me all manner of love and closeness many times. She was related to me, unmarried, a tender child and recently widowed. She may have been ritually pure or would have ritually purified herself had I requested it. If I had wanted to fulfill my passionate desire for her, I was absolutely certain that she would not reveal my secret. I controlled my instinct, conquered my passion and determined to kill it. My heart was hollow and I did not . . . Blessed be the Lord who gives strength to the weary for I was saved from this flaming fire.

Schacter does not translate the next sentence in the memoir in which R. Emden expresses the wish that as a reward for standing firm, he and his descendants until the end of time will be protected from sexual temptation.

Here are the pages from the Warsaw 1896 edition of Megilat Sefer, pp. 82-83.

In 2012 a new edition of Megilat Sefer appeared, edited by R. Avraham Yaakov Bombach. Here is page 106 from this edition.

As you can see, the Bombach edition has omitted the entire story R. Emden tells. While R. Emden thought it was important for people to know about how he overcame his evil inclination, and he therefore recorded it for posterity, Bombach obviously felt that this is “too much information.” Instead of discussing the significance (and strangeness) of R. Emden allowing us entry into his most personal memories, Bombach chooses the other path and censors that which he is uncomfortable with.

On the other hand, in the introduction to the recently published memoir of the Sephardic scholar, R. Joseph Hayyim Abuhbut,[19] the editor calls attention to the very passage I have quoted, and which was censored by Bombach. He notes how much value the reader can derive from this passage in seeing how R. Emden was able to overcome temptation.

מה מאוד מופלאים הם דברי הגאון יעב"ץ זצ"ל . . . כמה תועלת תצמח לקורא כאשר יווכח לראות באיזה נסיונות נתנסה זה האיש המרעיש ארץ, מי מילל ומי פילל.

R. Elijah Rabinowitz-Teomim mentions in his autobiography that he lived in the home of his future father-in-law together with the girl he was engaged to.[20] At that time he was around sixteen years old and she was under fifteen. He mentions that she was in love with him: והיא דבקה אחרי בלבה. As with R. Emden, he makes a point of telling us that although he engaged in much conversation with her, as they had become very close (“like brother and sister”), he never touched her in all the time he lived in her home. Unlike R. Emden who tells us how much he was tempted and that he “greatly desired a woman,” R. Rabinowitz-Teomim tells us that his relationship with the girl was purely platonic, and he never even thought about her in a sexual way. 

בשלהי שנת תרי"ט העתיק אאמו"ר ז"ל משכנו לעיר ראגאלי ועמו יצאו כל ב"ב, ונשארתי לבדי בשילעל בבית המחותן . . . בכל משך היותי בבית המחותן לא הייתי רחוק מהמשודכת והיינו מדברים זע"ז, ובשגם אחרי נסע בית אאמו"ר ז"ל משם ונשארתי בבית אביה, כל היום, והיא דבקה אחרי בלבה, כאשר ראיתי וידעתי גם שמעתי כי יקרתי בעיני'. . . היינו קרובים זה לזה כאח לאחות, לשוחח כנהוג בבני הנעורים, אבל לא עלה לבי על דבר אחר, חלילה, ולא נגעתי בה אפילו באצבע קטנה כל משך שבתי עמהם, כדת שלת תורה.

So we have three memoirs by leading rabbis, all of which mention them with a girl. Both R. Emden and R. Rabinowitz-Teomim feel it is important to inform the reader that they never touched the girl. As we have seen, R. Emden was very proud of how he overcame his evil inclination and that is why he tells the story. I don’t know why R. Rabinowitz-Teomim thought it was important to mention the matter, especially as no one would have assumed that he had any physical contact before marriage.

I found another interesting source in R. Eleazar Kalir’s Havot Yair.[21] R. Kalir, who died in 1801, was the rabbi in Kolín, today in the Czech Republic. He discusses the common phenomenon of engaged couples having physical contact, and he tells us that no rebuke can stop the practice. He also says that the fault for this must be placed mostly upon the parents, since they are happy to see this behavior by the engaged couple and thus make no efforts to stop it.

בעו"ה רבו המספחת זו בישראל שתיכף אחר התקשורת התנאים, החתן הולך אל הכלה ואינו נזהר מח"ו [חיבוק ונישוק], והיא גם היא אסור לו משום נדה שהיא בכרת . . . ובעו"ה הדבר הזה הוא כמנהג הקבוע, ואולי הוא ממנהגות סדום ודור המבול שהשחיתו את דרכם, והיתר זה אינו בא רק כמאמרם, עבר ושנה נעשו לו כהיתר, ובעו"ה אין התוכחה מועלת בזה, שאמר יאמר מה בכך, שאני הולך אל הכלה שלי, שהיא המיועדת לי, על זה סיים הנביא וכלה מחופתה שאינה נקראת כלה אלא לאחר חופתה, ואז רשאי ליחד עמה, ואמרו כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה, וק"ו בעודה לא טהרה מטמאת נדתה.

ולא על החתן לבד יש להתלונן אלא ביותר על אבותיהם שרואים דבר זה, ולא די שהם שותקים אלא אף משמחים אלי גיל בראותן מעשים הללו בעיניהן ממש כצאן לטבח יובל . . . והוא מסייע ידי עוברי עבירה, בראותו תולדותיו כיוצא בזה ולא די דאינו מוחה אלא אף מסייע לדבר עבירה, ואדרבה מוטל על האבות להיות מוחים ובפרט מי שסיפק בידו לעשות.

Elsewhere in his book, we see that R. Kalir told his female congregants that on Shabbat morning they should leave the synagogue and go home before the end of services. This was to prevent men and women mixing which would happen if the women were still there when services ended.[22] It is hard to believe that he found much of a receptive audience for this request.

To Be Continued

1. In my last post I mentioned Maxine Jacobson’s new book on R. Leo Jung. Anyone who is interested in purchasing a soft-cover copy of the book for $25 can contact her directly at maxine.jacobson at sympatico.ca.

2. One of the most prolific authors of halakhic works in English is Rabbi Ari Enkin. His most recent book (which is his eighth such publication) is Halichot V’halachot. Anyone who is interested in modern issues and their halakhic ramifications will enjoy this book and his previous volumes. The topics he discusses run the gamut, from Shabbat and holidays, to kashrut, interpersonal issues, and civil and monetary law. As one can see from the numerous references in each essay, Rabbi Enkin has great erudition in the responsa literature, particularly the modern halakhic authorities. He cites these authorities no matter which ideological camp they are found in, and as such should be a model for all. Those who wish to order the book can contact the author at rabbiari at hotmail.com. His website is here.

3. On June 5, 2016, in honor of Yom Yerushalayim, I will be speaking at the Community Synagogue of Monsey, 89 West Maple Avenue. The title of my talk is “R. Shlomo Goren: The Revolutionary Chief Rabbi.” The talk will follow minhah which is at 8:15pm.

---

[1] See Reiner, מעשה שאירע בק"ק ווירמייש"א ברעש הגדול שנת שצ"ו, Ha-Aretz, Oct. 4, 2006, available here.

[2] See Posen, מגדלים פסיכולוגיסטיים, Ha’aretz, Oct. 17, 2006, available here.

[3] See Reiner, שערי פירושים לא ננעלו, Ha’aretz, Oct. 24, 2006, available here.

[4] Toyznt yor Idish lebn in Ungarn ([New York, 1945]), p. 173.

[5] See ibid.

[6] Vol. 2, no. 7 (p. 145).

[7] See R. Avraham Mordechai Katz, “Be-Inyan Shirat Nigunim ha-Musharim Etzel ha-Goyim,” Minhat ha-Kayitz 8-11 (2006), pp. 73-74, who makes this point and responds to R. Hillel. Regarding using non-Jewish music, Dov Weinstein called my attention to this shiur on the Yeshivat Kise Rahamim website which begins with music from Abba’s song “Dancing Queen.” I can’t imagine that the person who inserted the music has any clue where it comes from.

The Kise Rahamim website is where you can find R. Meir Mazuz’s shiurim, but a number of short videos are not included on the website. For example, this video appeared on Yom ha-Zikaron 2016:


R. Mazuz refers to the day as “kadosh ve-nora” and calls for synagogues to recite the prayer for Israeli soldiers every Shabbat. As he notes, if someone donates ten shekalim you make a blessing for him, so how could you not make a blessing for one who spills his blood for the Jewish people? I understand full well why haredim don’t say the prayer for the State of Israel. Yet I have never understood how haredi society could refuse to recite a mi-sheberakh prayer for the soldiers, the same soldiers who are the only reason why there can be a haredi society in Israel in the first place. Interestingly enough, in all the conversations over the years that I have had with haredim regarding this matter, to my recollection I have never met one who agreed with, or was willing to defend, his community’s avoidance of the prayer. (I am referring to mainstream haredim, not Satmar or other anti-Zionists.)

[8] Kedushat Levi (Warsaw, 1902), p. 15b, s.v. ויביאה יצחק

[9] The text has מצות which could be read as singular or plural.

[10] (Jerusalem, 1993), p. 153 (Sefer Selihah u-Mehilah, ch. 10). See Byron Sherwin, “In the Shadows of Greatness: Rabbi Hayyim Ben Betsalel of Friedberg,” Jewish Social Studies 37 (Winter 1975), pp. 49-50.

[11] Since this post has dealt a good deal with love, let me add one more point about a different sort of love. There is an old question, why when the kohanim bless the people do they say וצונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה? Where do we find that the kohanim were told to bless the people “with love”?  A number of different answers have been given, and one famous answer, intended as a joke, is as follows.

Before giving us the text of the priestly blessing , the Torah, Numbers 6:23, states:

דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמור, כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם.

This word, אמור, sounds a lot like the French and Italian words for love, so we see that God is telling the kohanim to love the people.

As mentioned, this is a famous answer. Not so famous is that it was actually stated by R. Leon Modena with reference to Italian. He, of course, also intended it as a joke. See Ziknei Yehudah, no. 127:

ואמרתי על דרך צחות דכתיב כה תברכו אב"י אמו"ר להם אמור בלע"ז היינו באהבה.

[12] See Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages (New York, 1964), pp. 271-272, 279, 320-321.

[13] Solomon Buber, Anshei Shem (Cracow, 1895), p. 132.

[14] See Ya’arot Devash (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. 1, p. 62, s.v. ואתם עם ה'. The last three sources I have cited are mentioned by Salo Wittmayer Baron, The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1942), vol. 3, p. 206. For other relevant sources, see David Biale, Eros and the Jews (Berkeley, 1997), pp. 70ff.

[15] See Ya’arot Devash, vol. 1, pp. 61, 62

[16] Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn (Portland, 1998), p. 93.

[17] The Autobiography of a Seventeeth-Century Venetian Rabbi, trans. Mark R. Cohen (Princeton, 1988), p. 91.

[18] “Rabbi Jacob Emden: His Life and Major Works” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), pp. 55-57.

[19] Meoraot Yosef (Elad, 2014), p. 14 (first pagination).

[20] Seder Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 22-23.

[21] (Jerusalem, 2004). p. 76.

[22] Ibid., p. 75.

---

As The Kohen Exits The Sancta: A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha-Tzadik

May 31, 2016, 10:36 am

≫ Next: Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora

≪ Previous: R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much

$

0

0

:As The Kohen Exits The Sancta

A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha-Tzadik

By Josh Rosenfeld

Josh Rosenfeld is the Assistant Rabbi at Lincoln Square Synagogue and on the Judaic Studies Faculty at SAR High School. 

This is his fourth contribution to the Seforim Blog.

Tzidkat ha-Tzaddik

Commentary, Notes, & Excurses Ne’imot Netzah by R. Aharon Moseson

2 Vols. 532 + 564 pp.

Arad: Makhon Ne’imot ha-Tzedek, 2015

"The Books of the ‘Kohen’, written by the very own hand of our Master, the Holy man of God, the Kohen Gadol, without peer, Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, may his merit protect us… have taken an important place amongst the works of Jewish thought and Hasidut amongst the legions of those who seek God in every place. They serve as a magnet for all those who desire [to know] God, who find in it a veritable treasury of general instruction and guidance in the service of God - especially in the area of refining one’s character traits, and [his words] contain entire frameworks for understanding verses in Tanakh and sections of Rabbinic stories in the Talmud and Midrashic literature.”

With these words, R. Aharon Moseson introduces his impressive new edition of what is arguably the central work of the “Kohen,” Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (1823-1900), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik.[1] There is much already written on Reb Zadok and various different aspects of his thought, such that it would be redundant for me to recapitulate here,[2] although before we discuss this particular work and it’s advantages over previous editions, it behooves us to spend a moment on the book Tzidkat ha-Tzadik itself.

If the rest of Reb Zadok’s writings can be described as a sort of “Beit Yosef for Hasidut” (language of R. Moseson in the preface, on page 11), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik can be said to be a Shulhan Arukh, a type of concentrated version of Reb Zadok’s general ideas. R. Moseson categorizes Reb Zadok’s chief concerns into the following eight general categories, into which almost every single section of Tzidkat ha-Tzadikfall: (1) Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will (2) Repentance (3) Prayer (4) ‘Guarding the Covenant’ and Rectifying the Failure to do so (5) Human Inability to Fully Overcome Desire (=Yetzer) (6) The Interplay Between Physical Desire and Anger (7) The Trials of Desire (8) Positive Hutzpah. The reader is directed to the end of the second volume, where a number of short essays deal with some of these topics more fully.

Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was first published by the son-in-law of Reb Zadok, R. Barukh Dovid ha-Kohen in Lublin, 1902. Since then, a number of different editions of the Sefer have appeared, some of them notably censored in a number of piska’ot, or sections.[3] Beginning with the Lublin, 1913 edition,[4] a Hasid by the name of R. Yisrael b. R. Yosef Yozel of Lublin added in source references that Reb Zadok omitted from the manuscript. Later, R. Abba Zvi Naiman of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore published an index of the works of Reb Zadok, Mafte’ah Kitve Rebbe Zadok ha-Kohen mi-Lublin (2nd ed. Jerusalem, 2006), which aided locating particular topics and sources cited in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik along with many of Reb Zadok’s numerous other works. The most widely-used and available edition I know of today is the red-covered, anonymously printed Jerusalem, 1998 edition. This printing has a square (as opposed to “Rashi” script) typesetting and also contains a well done topical and source index in the back put together by one R. Chaim Hirsch.

About thirty years ago, Yeshivat Beit El began to publish editions of the Reb Zadok’s major works, with major additions of full quotations of the sources cited in the works, and limited indices and additional works cited for comparison and further study under the imprint of Yeshivat Har Bracha. According to the title page, their edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was based off of the 1968 Jerusalem printing of R. Oded Kitov, which itself was based off of manuscript. The reason the printings are important to us, as we shall see, is because of the following statement in the Har Bracha Edition: “printed… with the addition of deleted sections copied from the very handwriting [of Reb Zadok] that have previously not been published” (Emphasis mine). All previous printings have omitted several passages from the text of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik save for the Har Bracha, 1987 Yad Eliyahu KiTov, and now, the Ne’imot Netzah editions. In the chart below, I have outlined the various censored passages, and their omissions across four printings.[5]

One of the central reasons R. Moseson cites in the preface for the decision to include the various passages that were censored in many previous editions is borne of necessity due to the misinterpretation and danger inherent in an untrained and loopy presentation of these potentially explosive passages by neophytes or worse, deliberate misrepresentation of the Kohen’s words.[7] It is for this reason that R. Moseson prints these passages in an edition that enjoys the approbations of venerable Haredi authorities, although only the first two previously censored sections (nos. 54, 69) enjoy the introductions and cautionary words discussed in the preface in this new volume.

All told, this new edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik truly pulls back the parokhetfrom what for many was previously a “closed book.” The explanations section, entitled Ne’imos Tzedek presents each section in a lucid, ArtScroll-esque manner, with the words of Reb Zadok bolded, and regular text filling in the various lacunae that typify this work, especially in the earlier sections. Footnotes and cross-references lead the reader to the parallel discussions in Reb Zadok’s other works. The often obscure references to Rabbinic, Zoharic, Halakhic, and Hasidic literature that underlie Reb Zadok’s writing are often presented in full, allowing the learner to fully grasp the paroxysm of religious revelation, the concentrated bursts of wisdom, founded upon a lifetime of deep Torah engagement that I believe is represented in each of Reb Zadok’s short passages in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, as opposed to the protracted thematic presentations that are to be seen in some of Reb Zadok’s other works. Particularly helpful, especially for the latter sections of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik in which the passages become much longer, are paragraph headers containing short precis of the topic under discussion, and side notes that helpfully summarize key turns and points in the text of the elucidation. For whatever a neophyte dabbler in Reb Zadok’s works’ recommendation is worth, I enthusiastically encourage all those who desire to embrace and engage with the wisdom of the Kohen to explore this new, valuable edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, and remain in tremendous appreciation of R. Moseson and Makhon Ne’imot Netzah’s scholarly efforts.

           

Notes:

I am deeply indebted and grateful to yedid nafshi Reb Menachem Butler and the editors of the Seforim Blog for the fantastic platform the blog serves as a virtual beis va’ad l’hakhamim and for their willingness to consider this and my previous short pieces for publication on it.

[1] While Reb Zadok’s written corpus is quite large, consisting of several original works written in his own hand, some point to the Torah she-Ba’al Peh (oral Tradition) of Peri Tzadik, a monumental 5 volume collection of Reb Zadok’s discourses on the Torah and Jewish calendar written by his students as the most comprehensive presentation of Reb Zadok’s thought. The Peri Tzadik is known as a “closed” book, due to the length and obscurity of the presentation of Reb Zadok’s discourses. Last February, a Talmid Hakham from Ashdod by the name of Y. Yakob began to release high-quality PDFs on the Otzar ha-Hokhmah forums with experimental, but extremely detailed and meticulously footnoted sections of Peri Tzadik, online here. To date, only a few sections of the discourses have received this treatment, and there is no indication from the representative of the author that there is a larger work in progress.

[2]  I am in full agreement with what yedidi Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here, writes that “[t]he academic study of Reb Zadok is surely in debt to Prof. Yaakov Elman, who brought the thought of Reb Zadok to the English speaking academic world in a series of articles published over the past twenty-five years. His analysis of many of the central themes simultaneously charted new grounds in Hasidic scholarship and remain the standard from which subsequent scholarship on Reb Zadok is measured.” See Yaakov Elman, “R. Zadok Hakohen on the History of Halakah,” Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985): 1-26; Yaakov Elman, “Reb Zadok Hakohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process,” Jewish Law Association Studies 1 (1985): 1-16; Yaakov Elman, “The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 3:1 (1993): 153-187; Yaakov Elman, “Progressive Derash and Retrospective Peshat: Nonhalakhic Considerations in Talmud Torah,” in Shalom Carmy, ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 227-87; and Yaakov Elman, “The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 2 (2003): 199-249; and also Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2002). More recently, see Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here; and Dovid Bashevkin, “A Radical Theology and a Traditional Community: On the Contemporary Application of Izbica-Lublin Hasidut in the Jewish Community,"Torah Musings (20 August 2015), available online here here. See, as well, the important work in Amira Liwer, “Oral Torah in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, 2006; Hebrew), and see, as well, her earlier work in Amira Liwer, “Paradoxical Themes in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (MA thesis, Touro College, 1992; Hebrew), as well as in Me'At Latzadik: Anthology of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen, ed. Gershon Kitzis (Bayit Publishing, 2005), which contains essays from various Torah and Academic personalities in Israel on aspects of Reb Zadok Torah, including from R. R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (ShaGaR) and R. Yeshayahu Hadari.

Finally, for an attempt at a systematic presentation of Reb Zadok’s thinking on particular topics across his written corpus, see R. Hanokh Ben-Arza, Tevel be-Tzedek (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1999). This attractive work culls from all of Reb Zadok’s works and weaves disparate statements into short, heavily footnoted essays in a clear presentation. There is also a beautiful approbation from R. Mordechai Eliyahu in the first volume.

[3] Contrary to the longer, essay-like format of some of Reb Zadok’s other works (exceptions include shorter expositions like Divre Halomot, which are usually printed along with one of the more expansive works), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik is written in an almost aphoristic form, consisting of paragraph-length Torah ideas, usually prefaced with an opening line that encapsulates the Teaching. There are 264 such sections in the Sefer.

[4] Photomechanical offset reproduction, B’nei Brak, 1973.

[5] In an expanded version of this short review I propose to compare and theorize the various reasons for the specific omissions. Most, but not all of the censored piska’ot and passages deal with the doctrine of determinism and sin, or matters related to p’gam ve-tikkun ha-berit. On the latter, see for example Brill, Thinking God, 181-184.

[6] R. Moseson cites, as he does in other instances “וכמה מדפיסים החזירוה ע״פ משהעתיק אחד ממקורבי רבינו מכב יד קדשו של רבינו זי״ע” and then refers the reader to Tzidkat ha-Tzadik ha-Malei (Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1987) published by R. Avraham Eliyahu Mokotovsky (R. Eliyahu Kitov, 1912-1976, whose father was a close Hasid of Reb Zadok and), which I have been unable to locate a copy of, although it is cited by R. Moshe Wolfson in his Emunat Itekha vol. 1, p. 24 (Parshat Vayishlah) as his source for Tzidkat ha-Tzadik no. 54.

[7] Ne’imot Netzah ed., pp. 11-12. It seems that in note ב, R. Moseson perhaps casts shade on the Har Bracha edition in writing: אכן חדשים מקרוב באו והחזירו את השמטות אלו במהדורות שלהם ואכן בלי לבאר את יש מקום לסילוף גדול כאמור.

Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora

June 5, 2016, 2:18 pm

≫ Next: אמירת פיוטי 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'בחג השבועות

≪ Previous: As The Kohen Exits The Sancta: A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha-Tzadik

$

0

0

Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora *

By Rabbi Daniel Sperber

Question: May Cohanim outside the Land of Israel give the priestly blessing (Birkat Cohanim, or Nesiat Kapayim) on weekdays and on regular Shabbatot?

Answer: The Torah explicitly requires the Cohanim to bless the people (Numbers6:23), but does not tell us where or when they should do so. Rambam (Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Mitzvat Assei 26) who gives no details, but refers us to B. Megillah 24b, Taanit  2b, and Sotah 37b, to work out the details. However, there are versions of the Rambam's text (edited by R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Kefir) when there are the additional words "every day", and this, indeed, is his ruling in the heading of his Hilchot Tefillah and Birkat Cohanim; and see further ibid chapter 14, and this also is the ruling in Sefer ha-Hinuch, Mitzvah 367. However, there we find the additions that "the Mitzvah applies in all places at all times…"Hagahot Maimoniyot, to Rambam Hilchot tefillah 15:12 note 9 writes, on the basis of R. Yehoshua ha Levi's statement in B. Sotah 38b, that any Cohen who does not bless the people transgresses three commandments, splitting as it were the biblical verse in Numbers ibid. thus: "So shall you bless the children of Israel/ say unto them", adding verse 27 ibid., "And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel…" The Hagahot Mordechai modifies this by adding that if the Cohen has not been summoned to bless the people, he does not transgress by not doing so, referring to the Yerushalmi text, and this view is accepted by the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim128. There is also a minority view, rejected by mainstream authorities, that of Rabbenu Manoah, that even if the Cohen was not called, if he did not bless the people, he transgresses at least one commandment.

Outside Israel it is the practice for the Cohanim not to give the priestly blessing, even though the mitzvah clearly applies abroad (see R. Hayyim Hezkel Medini, Sdei Hemed vol.3, p.271, vol.8 pp.177 and 381), and for the congregation not to request that they do so, - this with the exception of musaf on the foot-festivals and Yom Kippur – even during Neilah. The Beit Yosef was very perturbed by this practice. He writes (Orah Hayyim 128):

The Agur wrote that Mahari Kolin [the Maharil] was asked why the Cohanim do not give the priestly blessing every day, since it is a positive commandment. And he answered that it was the custom of the priests to make a ritual ablution [in the Mikvah] before blessing,

* This is an expanded version of an article published under this title in Conversations20, 2014, pp.150-155.

as is recorded in Hagahot Mordechai, and to do so every day in the winter would be very difficult for them.

Hence, the custom evolved to do so only on the festivals. Furthermore, [doing so] would curtail the business activities (mi-taam bitul melachah), and in any case if the Cohen is not summoned he does not transgress.

However, the Beit Yosef continues:

He forced himself to justify his local custom; but the reasoning is insufficient. For that which he said that they were accustomed to make a ritual oblution every day, this is a stringency – i.e. it is not really required – which leads to leniency… Since ritual ablution as a requirement for the priestly blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud. And even if they took upon themselves this stringency, why would they cancel three commanments, even if they were not transgressing since they had not been summoned. Surely it would be better that they carry out these three commandments clearly and not make the ritual ablutions, since there are not required, and by not doing so they could fulfill the three commandments.

He ends by saying:

And praise be to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and all Egypt who give the priestly blessing every day, and do not make ritual oblutions for it.

Indeed there are some congregations that still follow the Beit Yosef's position. Thus, the Syrian community has birkat Cohanim every day, (see H.C. Dobrinsky, A treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs, Hoboken N.J., New York 1986, p.168). This too was the Amsterdam custom of the Portuguese community, (Shemtob Gaguine, Keter Shem Tov, vol.1, Kédainiai 1934, pp.222-227 note 268, who also quotes Even Sapir, that this was the practice in Yemen, and possibly in some Moroccan congregations), while in Djerba they did it on Shabbatot and festivals, (R. Moshe HaCohen, Brit Kehunah, Orah Hayyim, pp.101-102, and note 30). Thus, there are several precedants for this practice.

However, the Ashkenazi Rema, R. Mosheh Isserles, in his Darkei Mosheh ibid. 21, seeks to justify the Ashkenazi custom. He writes:

Because [doing so] would curtail business activities for the people in these countries, for the Cohenim are struggling to support themselves in the exile, and they can barely support their families, other than the bread they gather by the sweat of their brows daily, and they are not happy. And it is for this reason that they do not carry out the priestly blessing, which leads to bitel melachah la-am. And even on Shabbat they do not do so, because they are troubled and concerned about their future…, and they are only joyful on the festivals. And thus the custom evolved only to bless the people on the festivals. So it would appear to me.

The notion that the Cohen must be joyful when blessing the congregation has its roots in the early Rishonim, (in Rash's teacher, R. Yitzhak ben Yehudah).

The Mateh Efraim, of R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot, added that this was an ancient practice, even more than five hundred years old, going back to the Tashbetzha-Katan, a disciple of the Maharam Mi-Rothenburg, and the Kol Bosect.128, and accepted by the Maharit, the Agur, the Darkei Mosheh etc., "and one may not stir from this custom" . He also gives additional reasons to support this custom.

R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot (1760-1811) in his response, Beit Efraim, Orah Hayyim 6, Lvov 1818, also suggested that the reason for the absence of birkat Cohanimabroad is because in our days the pedigree of Cohanim is questionable, and a Zar, non-Cohen, may not bless the people (see B. Ketubot 24b), and doing so several times every day would be making a berachah le-vatalah– an idle, that is to say, unnecessary, blessing, which is forbidden – on numerous occasions by many people. However, since birkat Cohanim is a mitzvat aseh, a positive commandment, and we rule that even in questions of uncertainty – safek -, when we are dealing with a mitzvat aseh, we rule le-humra, stringently; and certainly it is superceded by the seriousness of the mitzvah. Furthermore, if the Beit Efraim's argument were correct, how come the Cohanim abroad do bless the people on festivals during musaf?  [1]

The Sefardi Kaf ha-Hayyim, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, on the other hand (Orah Hayyim ibid note 16), cites French R. Yaakov of Marvege, (in his Shut Min-ha-Shamayim no.38), who writes that:

In a place where there are suitable Cohanim to bless the people, and they do not do so even once a year, both the congregation that do not call them to do so, and the Cohanim themselves, who do not make the blessing, transgress, also because they seem not to be relying on their Father in Heaven.

This was cited by the Egyptian Radbaz, R. David ben Zimra, and especially  the Hesed le-Avraham of R. Avraham Azulai, who writes at length censuring those who do not bless the people, enumerating the negative effects of their flawed thinking, concluding that "it be proper to do so in every place, and not to seek out strategies to avoid doing so."

And even the Ashkenazi Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishnah Berurah 128:12 in the BeurHalachah wrote:

It is only because of weekness that the Cohanim can go out and not go up [to bless the people. For if not so, certainly they are not acting well to needlessly nulify a positive commandment.

Indeed, there are some Ashkenazi congregations where they do carry out the priestly blessing at least once a month, as we learn from the Sefer ha-Miktzoot, or even every Shabbat, as is mentioned in the Mateh Efraim.

Finally, we may cite the words of R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, in his Aruch ha-Shulhan, Orah Hayyim 128:4, who writes:

And behold, it is certainly the case that there is no good reason to nullify the mitzvah of birkat Cohanim the whole year long, and [it is] a bad custom. And I have heard that two great authorities of former generations – probably the Gaon Eliyahu of Wilna and R. Hayyim of  Volozin – each one wished to reestablish birkat Cohanim daily in their location, and when they decided on a given day [to begin], the issue become confused and they did not succeed, and they said that from Heaven it was thus decreed.

In view of all the above we may state that Birkat Cohanim does not require ritual oblution, and in present day diaspora countries, blessing the people will not effect or curtail any business activities, and people in the diaspora are not downtrodden nor do they live in permament misery, so that they cannot be joyful enough to bless the congregation. And according to some opinions (e.g. the Pri Hadash) even if they are not called to give the blessing, they may/should do so, (see e.g. Piskei Maharitz, Orah Hayyim vol.1, Bnei Brak 1987, pp.259-260, with the note of R. Yitzhak Ratzabi ibid. Note 7, ibid. Beerot Yitzhak). Thus, the reasons given for avoiding giving the priestly blessing are for the main part largely irrelevant in present-day diaspora conditions.

On the other hand, not doing so means not carrying out three positive biblical commandments, and according to some ,albeit minority, opinions this is also the case when the congregation does not summon the Cohanim. Some, somewhat mystical sources also stress the great spiritual benefits of the priestly blessing, and the considerable negative effect of their absence. Furthermore, we have seen evidence that in some Ashkenazi communities Birkat Cohanim was practiced on Shabbatot or monthly, and not merely on the festivals.

Taking into account all of the above, I would think that nowadays, there is little justification for not carrying out the priestly blessing daily in our diaspora congregations.

I would like again to refer to the Hesed le-Avraham:

מי שאינו מברך מאבד טובה הרבה ומראה שאינו חפץ במצות ולא חפץ בברכה, ובז לדבר יחבל לו, לכן הכהן הירא את דבר ד'ובמצותיו חפץ, לא יעבור מלברך לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו, כי טוב בעיני ד'לברך את ישראל ומה טוב ומה נעים מנהג איזה מקומות, שהכהנים נושאים כפיהם בכל יום וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל מקום, שלא לבקש תחבולות לבטל מ"ע מן התורה.

To summarize:

This is a biblical commandment obligating the Cohanim to bless the people.

Not doing so means not fulfilling that biblical commandment, and, according to some authorities, even transgressing three biblical commandments.

Here we may add yet another element to our discussion. There is a well-known opinion of R. Eliezer Azikri, in his Sefer Haredim chapter 4 (with the commentary of R. Yitzhak Leib Schwarz, Kunszentmiklos 1935, p.19), that "those who stand before the Cohanim in silence and direct their hearts to receive the benedictions as the words of God, they too are included in the mitzvahas parts of the 613 [mitzvot]".

The commentator, ad loc. (note 18-19) discusses this opinion, printing out that it is a subject of considerable controversy among the greatest of authorities, but he quotes the author of the Haflaah, R. Pinhas ha-Levi Horowitz, (in his notes to Ketubot 24b and Rashi ibid.), that just as there is a commandment to the Cohanim to bless Israel, so too is there a commandment to Israel to be blessed by the Cohanim. He states that there are other examples where the torah, explicitly commands only the active partner and not the passive recipient, but nonetheless both are obligated. He brings as one example to mitzvah of yibum which devolves both on the levir (yavam) as well as the sister-in law (yevamah), even though the Torah commandment is directed towards the levir alone. The Haredim's novum was widely accepted, even though his source remained to many unclear.

Furthermore, the Gemara in B. Sotah 38b states in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, that God Himself yearns to hear Birkat Cohanim, basing himself on the verse in Numbers6:27, "And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them", further adding that "Every Cohen who blesses [the people] is blessed", and he that does not do so is not blessed", as it is written, "And I will bless them that bless thee" (Genesis12:3).

This view is already found in a statement of the Tosafist R. Yaakov of Mervege,Sheelot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (ed. R. Reuven Margaliot, Jerusalem 1957, no.37, p.69), already briefly  cited above, who writes as follows:

I was also uncertain as to those places where there are Cohanim who are suitable to carry out birkat cohanim and were accustomed not to do so even once a year. And I asked [advice] concerning this issue, whether [in their not doing so] there is a transgression, or whether one can rely upon R. Yaakov who said that the Cohanim are not obligated to bless other than when the people tell them to do so.

And they [i.e. from Heaven] replied: Both these and these transgress; namely, the people (literally: Israel who do not tell  them [to bless], and appear not to be  fearful of [the requirement to receive] the blessing of  Father in Heaven, and the Cohanim, who do not bless on their own accord the nesiat kapayim, for is it not written, "And I will bless those that bless thee" (Genesis12:3), and from the positive [statement] we may deduce the negative, (i.e. that from the positive statement that God will bless the blessers, we may deduce that he will curse them that do not bless).

Admittedly this is an opinion of a Kabbalistic nature, and we do not necessarily rule accordingly when there is an opposing view of the niglah (the rationalist position), as is well known. However, this same view was also indicated in the commentary attributed to the Raavad to Tamid 33b, [2] but which is actually by the rationalist Tosafist R. Baruch be-R. Yitzhak Vermaiza, [3] the  author of Sefer ha-Terumah. This commentary in this instance bases itself on (the largely lost) Sefer Miktzoot. [4]  The editor of this commentary pointed out (in note 48) that this was the view of the Haredim, adding that it was also noted by R. Zeev Pomeranchik, in his Emek Berachah, Jerusalem 1948, sect.7, further cited by R. Pinhas Horowitz, in his Sefer Haflaah (to Ketubot24b), and so also in Hagahot R. Akiva Eiger to Shulhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 128:1, and similarly in the Beur Halachah ibid.

It should however not be overlooked that this point of view was not accepted by all authorities. Thus, it was questioned by R. Yosef Babad, in his Minhat Hinuch, Mitzvah 378, (ed. Machon Yerushalayim, vol.3, Jerusalem 1991, p.66)  [5], basing himself on the Ritba to Sukkot 31b,  [6]  who writes explicitly that there is noobligation on the part of "Yisrael to be blessed. [7]

Nonetheless, considering the gravity of the iussue, [8] we should surely take servious account of the Haredim's view, appearing as it does in a number of significant rishonim and aharonim, and not deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora from having opportunity to participate in this important mitzvah.

The reasons given by the various authorities for not fulfilling this mitzvah regularly in the diaspora, are, of themselves problematic, but in any case quite irrelevant to present day diaspora communities. There exist precedents in different congregations, even outside Eretz-Israel, for daily, weekly or monthly priestly blessings. [9]

In Jerusalem and in some parts of Eretz Yisrael the priestly blessing is carried out daily.

This being the case, why should we deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora and its Cohanim, and even, as it were, God Himself, from the opportunity to participate in this all important mitzvah?

In view of all of the above, I see no reason why the daily, or at least weekly, blessing on the part of the Cohanim not be reinstated in diaspora communities.

---

[1] R. Shaar Yishuv Cohen, Shai Cohen vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.54, discusses this issue in detail, showing that the view of that a Zar is forbidden to bless was not mentioned in the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh, and that there is no issue of a berachah le-vatalah, etc. We shall not repeat his detailed argumentation, which is beyond the scope of this study.

[2]Ed. Yair Goldstoff, Jerusalem 1989, p.131.

[3]See E. E. Urbach, Baalei ha-Tosafot: Toldotehem, Hibburehem, Shitatam, 2^ndedition, Jerusalem 1980, vol.1, pp.346-361, on this personality. He was a disciple of Rabbenu Tam (ibid. p. 347 note 13), and definitely of the rationalist school.

That this commentary is by R. Baruch be.R. Yitzhak was demonstrated by A. Epstein, in his pamphlet on Sefer Yihusei Tannaim ve-Amoraim p.16; Poznansky, Anshei Kairuwan, (Harkavy Festschrift, Petersburg 1909), p.22; Hayyim Michel, Or ha-Hayyim 2^ndedition, Jerusalem 1965, p.28; M.M. Kasher and Y. Mandelbaum, Sarei ha-Elef2^nd edition, Jerusalem 1979, vol.1, p.330 no.4; vol.2, p.629, referring also to Eliav Schochetman, Alei Sefer 3, 1979, p.83. Goldstoff, in his introduction seems to have been quite unaware of all of the above.

[4] Ed. Simhah Assaf, Jerusalem 1947, pp.39-40, no.47. In his note at the end of the passage, he brings a wealth of bibliographic references, which supplements that which was cited in the preceding note.

[5] For some reason that sentence is bracketed in that edition.

[6] Ed. Eliyahu Lichtenstein, Jerusalem 1975, p.97. And see editor's note 319 ibid.

[7] The editor also refers us to R. Avraham Dov Shapira, Dvar Avraham, vol.1, Warsaw-Pietrokow 1906, sect.31, basing himself on YerushalmiMegillah4:8, and cited by the Tosafot in Hagigah 16a, s.v. be-Cohanim, and the Shiyarei Korban to Nazir 7:1, R. Reuven Margaliot, in his note ibid., also refers to the Rashba to Sukkah ibid. However, here I think his albeit (prodigious) memory failed him, since there is no Rashba to Sukkah, and no doubt he really meant the Ritba. And perhaps his mistake came about because the Ritba to Sukkah was first published in Sheva Shitot la-Rashba, Berlin 1757, so that many authorities mistakenly attributed it to the Rashba. See Lichtenstein's introduction, ad init and his note 1.

[8] We may further note that this has a lively current discussion in Habad circles. See, for example, Hearot Ha-Temimim ve-Anash, published by Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim Lubawitzha-Merkazit, Kfar Habad, issues 219-221, 224, 233, 239, and in Pardes Habad 15-18. There the discussion is primarily directed to Eretz Yisrael. And the case for Eretz Yisrael was argued very persuasively and in great detail by R. Shaar Yashuv Cohen, in his Shai Cohen, vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.3-79. And on p.24 he brings a letter from the Lubawitch Rebbe, in which he mentions that the Baal ha-Tanyaexpressed his desire to reinstitute the daily birkat Cohanim, especially since in his words this blessing "is rapidly drawn throughout all the worlds, without prevention or hiderance and with no examination of the forces of stringency" (Likkutei Torah, Korah ad fin.).  However, despite this, he did not do so for some unknown reason. And it was for this reason that the Rebbe preferred to let the existing situation be, rather than reactivating the daily blessing. Very recently this subject has also been discussed in Mosheh Rahamim Shayo's Mehkerei Aretz: Hilchot Birkat Cohanim Jerusalem 2015, chapter 10, pp.128-129, who, however, makes no significant novum to the whole issue.

A more comprehensive discussion may be found in Eitan Shoshan, Minhat Eitan, vol.1, Bnei Brak 2003, sect. 7 note 1, pp.141-144. He refers us to Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim sect.22, who seems to find support for this view from the Tosafot to Rosh ha-Shanah 16b, s.v. ve-Tokin; but he notes that in a different responsum, (sect. 167), he wrote that most decisors are of the opinion that there is no obligation upon the Yisrael to be blessed. The problem of this apparent contradiction is left unsolved. The Maharsham, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, vol.8, Satmar 1910, sect.25, cites the view of the Ritba, but concludes that, nonetheless, there is an obligation on the part of the Yisrael, since he is assisting the Cohen to carry out the mitzvah. (See Bentzion A. Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, vol.2, Jerusalem 2002, p.2, note 4.) Shoshan brings a number of additional sources supporting this view, but also the opposing position, e.g. Mahari Assad (R. Yehudah Assad) Yehudah Yaaleh, Lvov-Petersburg 1873-1880, sect.46, Aruch ha-Shulhan, Orah Hayyim 128:4; and that this was apparently the view of the Hazon Ish, according to R. Hayyim Kanievsky, (referring to R. Shalom Yuda Gross, Nesiat Kapayim ke-Hilchata p.14). (Incidentally, his references are not altogether reliable, and his attributions likewise.) Finally, he examines the implications (nakfa mina) of these two opposing views. And see his summarizing remarks on p.611.

[9] Indeed, this is exactly what R. Y.M. Tycocynsky wrote concerning Eretz Yisrael…"for the reasons given by the Poskin for abolishing a positive mitzvahoutside Israel every day, and the reasons… because of the need for ritual ablution and also the problems of livelihood that cause them to be without being joyful, and birkat Cohanim has to be [carried out] with joy and good will, since we end the blessing 'be-ahavah', 'with love'– [these reasons] were not sufficient for the greatest of Poskim to abolish a great mitzvah that [actually] comprises three mitzvot, and [consequently] they praised the people of Eretz Yisrael who keep this positive commandment…, (cited by Shaar Yiashuv Cohen, ibid. pp.16-17).

אמירת פיוטי 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'בחג השבועות

June 7, 2016, 10:24 am

≫ Next: Book week 2016

≪ Previous: Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora

$

0

0

אמירת פיוטי 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'בחג השבועות

by Eliezer Brodt

The following post tracing many aspects​ of the famous Piy​ut  Akdamot originally appeared in my recently completed doctorate פרשנות השלחן ערוך לאורח חיים ע"י חכמי פולין במאה הי"ז, חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור אוניברסיטת בר אילן, רמת גן תשע"ה  pp.341-353. This version is extensively updated with many corrections and additional information. The subject has been dealt with by many including here a few years back.

אמירת הפיוטים 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'

הקדמה

בספרות ההלכה הפופולרית של ימי הביניים – סמ"ג, רמב"ם ומרדכי – לא מצאנו התייחסות לחג השבועות, שהרי חג זה מתייחד בכך שאין לו כל ייחודיות הלכתית. לקראת מוצאי ימי הביניים, המקור העיקרי ללימוד ההלכה היה ספר הטורים, שכתיבתו הסתיימה בין השנים 1330-1340. בטור או"ח סי'תצד הוא מתייחס באופן ישיר לחג השבועות ולמנהגיו ומונה כמה הלכות הנוגעות לחג השבועות, וזו לשונו בדילוגים ובהוספת סעיפים:

א.     סדר התפילה כמו ביום טוב של פסח אלא שאומרים... יום חג שבועות... זמן מתן תורתינו.

ב.      במוסף מזכיר קרבנות המוספין וביום הבכורים וגו'עד ושני תמידין כהלכתן.

ג.       גומרין ההלל.

ד.      מוציאין ב'ספרים וקורין ביום הראשון ה'בפרשת וישמע יתרו מבחדש השלישי עד סוף סדרא, מפטיר קורא בשני וביום הבכורים.

ה.      מפטיר במרכבה דיחזקאל ומסיים בפסוק ותשאני רוח.

ו.        ביום השני קורין בפרשת כל הבכור... ומפטיר קורא כמו אתמול.

ז.       מפטיר בחבקוק מן וה'בהיכל קדשו...

ח.      נוהגין בכל המקומות לומר במוסף אחר חזרת התפלה אזהרות העשויות על מנין המצות...

למרות ההתייחסות הישירה לחג השבועות, עדיין נותר הרושם שהוא חג ללא מאפיינים מיוחדים, והמחבר מוצא מקום להידרש לסדרי התפילה בלבד. מתוך סדר התפילה, רק מנהג אמירת האזהרות הוא ייחודי לשבועות.

בשנת ש"ינדפס לראשונה חיבורו של ר'יוסף קארו, 'בית יוסף', כפירוש לספר הטורים. המחבר מבאר בהקדמה לספרו, שמגמתו להראות את מקורותיו של הטור וגם להוסיף עליו ידיעות נוספות. בסימן שאנו עוסקים בו הוא מוסיף על הטור כמה דברים:

א.     איסור להתענות במוצאיחג השבועות.

ב.      קיים מושג של "אסרו חג"גם לחג השבועות.

ג.       לדברי הטור שגומרין בו ההלל הוא מציין את מקורו במסכת ערכין פרק שני (דף י ע"א).

ד.      כלפי מה שכתב הטור לעניין קריאת התורה וההפטרה, הוא מציין למקורות במסכת מגילה.

הלכה נוספת הקשורה לשבועות נזכרת בספר 'בית יוסף', אך שלא במקומה. הכוונה למנהג קריאת מגילת רות. בהלכות תשעה באב, סימן תקנט, כתב 'בית יוסף': "כתבו הגהות מיימוני: יש במסכת סופרים דאמגילת רות וקינות... מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מקרא מגילה. וכן נהג הר"ם. אכן יש לאמרה בנחת ובלחש. עכ"ל. והעולם לא נהגו לברך כלל על שום מגילה חוץ ממגילת אסתר".

בשנת שכ"ה הדפיס ר'יוסף קארו את חיבורו 'שלחן ערוך', שהוא הלכה מתומצתת בלי מקורות מתוך ספרו בית יוסף, ושם חוזר על דברי הטור בענייננו מבלי להוסיף עליו כלום. כמו כן, הוא לא הביא את מנהג קריאת מגילת רות בחיבור זה, והדבר מצריך הסבר.

כאמור, בספרי הלכה חשובים אין יחס מיוחד לחג השבועות. ההתייחסות היא בעיקר לסדרי התפילה, הדומים לשאר החגים. הטור מביא מנהג אחד מיוחד – אמירת אזהרות.

בסביבות שנת ש"לחלה תפנית חדה בזירת ספרות ההלכה ביחס לחג השבועות. באותה שנה מדפיס הרמ"א את הגהותיו ל'שלחן ערוך'. כידוע, חלק נכבד מהגהותיו הן הוספות ממקורות אשכנזיים שלא הובאו בבית יוסף. הרמ"א הוסיף כמה מנהגים בהלכות חג השבועות:

א.     "נוהגין לשטוח עשבים בשבועות בבית הכנסת והבתים, זכר לשמחת מתן תורה".

ב.      "נוהגין בכל מקום לאכול מאכלי חלב ביום ראשון של שבועות; ונ"ל הטעם שהוא כמו השני תבשילין שלוקחים בליל פסח, זכר לפסח וזכר לחגיגה, כן אוכלים מאכל חלב ואח"כ מאכל בשר. צריכין להביא עמהם ב'לחם על השלחן שהוא במקום המזבח, ויש בזה זכרון לב'הלחם שהיו מקריבין ביום הבכורים".

ג.       לענין קריאת מגילת רות הוא כותב בסי'תצ: "נוהגין לומר רות בשבועות. והעם נהגו שלא לברך עליהם על מקרא מגילה ולא על מקרא כתובים".

כאן המקום לציין שבחיבורו של הרמ"א 'דרכי משה', הדומה במגמתו ל'בית יוסף', שנכתב לפני שהוסיף את הגהותיו לשו"ע, לא נמצא דבר בעניין חג השבועות.

לאחר שנים ספורות, בשנת ש"ן, מדפיס תלמידו ר'מרדכי יפה את ספריו – ספרי הלבושים. בהלכות שבועות הוא מוסיף – לצד המנהגים שהביא רבו הרמ"א – מספר דברים שלאהובאו בחיבורו של רבו:

א.     "ואומרים אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון – בשעת העלייה הראשונה".

ב.      "ונוהגין לומר יציב פתגם... אחר פסוק ראשון שיש בו ג"כ מענין המרכבה והמלאכים".

ג.       "במוסף אחר התפלה אומרים אזהרות"– מנהג שלא הובא ב'בית יוסף'ובהגהות הרמ"א, אבל הובא ב'טור'.

הרמ"א והלבוש מביאים בדרך כלל מקורות אשכנזיים קדומים, כגון מנהגי מהרי"ל, מתוך חיבורים שנכתבו זמן רב לפני דורו של ר'יוסף קארו. ואכן, בספרי ר'אברהם קלויזנר, מהרי"ל, ר'אייזק טירנא ובהגהות ומנהגים שנוספו עליו, יש כמה מנהגים לחג שבועות שלא מצאנו ב'טור'ו'בית יוסף', כמו שטיחת פרחים ועשבים בחג, אכילת מאכלי חלב, אמירת 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'וקריאת מגילת רות.

בשנת ת'נדפס לראשונה חיבורו של ר'יואל סירקישלטור או"ח. בסימן זה אינו מוסיף כלום על דברי הטור, מסיבה פשוטה: בהקדמה לחיבורו הוא כותב שכוונתו לבאר דברי הטור, וכאן אין מה להוסיף או להעיר עליו, שהרי הכל מובן.

אמירת הפיוטים 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'

אחת הסוגיות שהעסיקו את נושאי כלי השו"ע היא אמירת פיוטי 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'. כידוע, אחד הפיוטים שעדיין נאמרים בכל בתי הכנסת, גם בקהילות שמחקו בקפדנות את כל הפיוטים, הוא הפיוט הנאמר בחג השבועות - 'אקדמות מילין'.[1]וכפי שאמר מי שאמר:"Akdamus may well be Judaism's best known and most beloved piyut".[2]F

החוקר הגדול של תחום התפילה והפיוט, פרופ'עזרא פליישר, כותב אודות האקדמות:

שיריו הארמיים של ר'מאיר זכו לתפוצה גדולה בקהילות אשכנז ועוררו התרגשות והתפעלות בלב הרבה דורות של מתפללים. בתוך אלה או בראשם, עומד שירו המוכר ביותר של המשורר 'אקדמות מילין', פתיחה לתרגום הקריאה ביום ראשון של שבועות. קטע זה הנאמר בימינו אפילו בבתי כנסיות שאין אומרים בהם עוד שום פיוט, נעשה סימן היכר של חג השבועות. שגבו ועוצמת לשונו, צורתו המשוכללת ותכניו המרגשים, מצדיקים בהחלט את פרסומו.[3]

הפיוט 'אקדמות'התחבר בידי ר'מאיר ש"ץ, בן זמנו של רש"י.[4]אמנם מנהג אמירת אקדמות בשבועות לא הוזכר בספרי הלכה מתקופת הראשונים, ר'יוסף קארו לא מזכירו בחיבוריו 'בית יוסף'ו'שלחן ערוך', וכן הרמ"א נמנע מלהזכירו ב'דרכי משה'או בהגהותיו. יצויין כי אין בכך דבר יוצא דופן, שהרי פיוטים בשבתות ובימים טובים היו חלק אינטגרלי מהתפילה, ולא מעשה חריג, ועל כן לא נדרשו להזכיר את הפיוטים בספרי ההלכה.

המנהג גם לא מוזכר בב"ח, נחלת צבי או עולת שבת. לעומתם, החיבור ההלכתי הראשון שמביא את המנהג הוא ה'לבוש'שנדפס, כאמור, לראשונה בשנת ש"ן: "ואומרים אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון – בשעת העלייה הראשונה". כנראה מצא לנכון להזדקק למנהג, בשל ייחודיותו – אמירתו בתוךקריאת התורה, בין הברכות. ייחודיותו של עניין זה מעוררת קושי הלכתי, כפי שהעיר על כך ר'דוד הלוי, באמצע המאה השבע עשרה, בספרו 'טורי זהב':

על מה שנוהגים במדינות אלו לקרות פסוק הראשון ואח"כ מתחילין אקדמות מילין כו'. יש לתמוה הרב'[ה] היאך רשאים להפסיק בקריאה, דהא אפי'לספר בד"ת אסור כמ"ש בסי'קמ"ו וכל ההיתרי'הנזכרים שם אינם כאן כ"ש בשבח הזה שהוא אינו מענין הקריאה כלל למה יש לנו להפסיק. ושמעתי מקרוב שהנהיגו רבנים מובהקים לשורר אקדמות קודם שיתחיל הכהן הברכה של קריאת התורה וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל הקהילות...

לדעת הט"ז, אמירת אקדמות אחר הפסוק הראשון נחשבת הפסק, ופיוט זה 'אינו מענין הקריאה'ואמירתו נוגדת את ההלכה. הוא מתעד שמועה שרבנים מובהקים הנהיגו לשורר אקדמות קודם הברכה, כדי שלא יהיה הפסק, וכן לדעתו ראוי לנהוג. לא ידועה זהותם של הרבנים האלו, אבל אולי הכוונה לרבני ונציה המוזכרים בחיבורו של בן הדור, ר'אפרים ב"ר יעקב הכהן, אב"ד וילנא (חי בין השנים שע"ו-תל"ח), שו"ת שער אפרים, שנדפס לראשונה בשנת תמ"ח (לאחר פטירת הט"ז):

אשר שאלוני ודרשוני חכמי ק"ק ויניציאה העיר... אודות דברי ריבות אשר בשעריהם בענין הפיוט אקדמות שנוהגים האשכנזי'לאומרו בחג השבועות בשעת קריאת התורה אחר פסוק ראשון של בחודש השלישי. וחדשים מקרוב באו לבטל המנהג ההוא מטעם שאסור להפסיק בקריאת התורה ורוצים שיאמרו קודם קריאת התורה אם יש כח בידם לבטל מנהג הקדמונים מטעם הנז'או נאמר שלא יכלו לבטל מנהג אבותינו הקדושים... מטעם אל תטוש תורת אמך ואף שהוא נגד הדין מנהג עוקר הלכה.[5]

חכמי ונציה האיטלקים לא הורגלו למנהג האשכנזי וניסו לשנותו על פי כללי ההלכה שבידיהם. על כל פנים, גם אם לא נקבל השערה זו ולא נזהה את חכמי ונציה כאותם הרבנים המובהקים שמזכיר הט"ז, למעשה דעת הט"ז היתה כמותם, שאין להפסיק בקריאת התורה. אם כי הוא נזהר שלא לבטל אמירת אקדמות לגמרי, אלא רק לשנות את מועד אמירת הפיוט.

ולאמיתו של דבר, כבר בשו"ת 'נחלת יעקב', בתשובה שנכתבה באיטליהבשנת שפ"א, נאמר בין השאר: "והיום הסירותי חרפת מצרים המצרים הדוברים עתק על מנהג האשכנזים הנוהגים לאמר שבח אקדמות מילין ביום חג השבועות ומספיקין בין הברכות רק שקוראין פסוק ראשון בחודש השלישי...".[6]

על כל פנים, ר'אפרים הכהן מעיד בתשובה הנ"ל שנכתבה באותו הזמן שר'דוד הלוי כתב את ספרו: "שבמדינת פולין ורוסיא ואגפיהם בקצת מקומותאומרים אותו קודם קריאת התורה...".[7]כארבעים שנה לאחר שהט"ז נדפס לראשונה כתב ר'יעקב ריישר: "ומקרוב שהיו רוצים לשנות המנהג בשביל דברי הט"ז ולא עלתה בידם לשנות המנהג".[8]וכן העיד ר'משה יקותיאל קופמאן כ"ץ חתנו של המג"א בחיבורו 'חקי חיים'שנדפס לראשונה בת"ס: "מנהג שלנו שאנו קורין בחג השבועות אקדמו'אחרי פסוק ראשון...".[9]

המקורות הקדומים ביותר של אמירת אקדמות כפי המנהג המקורי, דווקא לאחר הפסוק הראשון של קריאת התורה, הוא ספר המנהגים לר'אברהם קלויזנר,[10]מהרי"ל,[11]ר'איזיק טירנא[12], ר'זלמן יענט,[13]'מעגלי צדק',[14]'לבוש'[15]ו'בספר המנהגים'מאת ר'שמעון גינצבורג שנכתב ביידיש-דויטש.[16]

וכן נהגו למעשה באשכנז: בפרידבורג[17], פרנקפורט,[18]פיורדא,[19]וירצבורג[20]ובקהילות האשכנזים בווירונה שבאיטליה.[21]

הט"ז חולק על המנהג הקדום ועל המקורות הקדומים שתיעדו את המנהגים האלו. אין ספק שהט"ז מכיר את מקור המנהג, ולא עוד אלא שהוא עצמו משתמש במקורות אלו בחיבורו פעמים רבות, אבל דווקא בשל חשיבותם בזמנו בפולין ובאשכנז העדיף להשיג עליהם מבלי להזכיר את שמם, כדי למעט בתעוזתו.

והנה, ר'אפרים הכהן מוילנא הגן בתשובתו הנזכרת על אמירת אקדמות כמנהג המקורי, ובתוך דבריו הוא כותב:

בענין הפיוט אקדמות לומר אחר פסוק ראשון שהקבלה של האשכנזים הוא מרבים וגדולים ומפורסמים וכתובים על ספר הישר הלא המה הרב מהר"י מולין בספרו שהיה גדול בדורו וכל מנהגי האשכנזים נהגו על פיו וחכמי דורו היו גדולים ומופלגים ונכתב דבריו בספר בלי שום חולק שנהגו לומר אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון וגם הרב מהר"א טירנא בספרו במנהגים אשר אנו נוהגים אחריו כתב גם כן כנזכר ואחריהם הגדול בדורו הרב מוהר"מ יפה בעל הלבושים אשר היה מחכמי פולנייא והביא דבריהם לנהוג כן בלי שום חולק...

מכאן שהמחלוקת בהלכה זו נובעת משאלת היחס הראוי לחיבורי מהרי"ל ור'אייזק טירנא, שהם המקור למנהג המקורי. ר'אפרים הכהן סבור שאין לערער אחריהם, גם במקרה שדבריהם אינם עולים בקנה אחד עם כללי ההלכה, ויש לנו לסמוך על המסורת המקובלת ועל המחברים שקבעו את מנהג אשכנז לדורותיו. לעומתו, הט"ז חולק, וסובר שעל אף החשיבות המרובה של חיבורים אלה, אין למנהג תוקף כאשר הוא מתנגד עם ההלכה.[22]

כמובן שהויכוח לא נעצר במאה הי"ז. במשך הדורות הבאים התפתח פולמוס פורה וחריף גם בשאלה הכללית של היחס למנהג כאשר הוא נוגד את ההלכה המפורשת, ובמיוחד בשאלה פרטית זו, אם יש לשנות את המנהג המקורי ולהפסיק את הקריאה לאמירת אקדמות. הרבה קולמוסים נשתברו בפולמוס זה, כדלהלן.

ר'מאיר איזנשטאט (ת"ל-תק"ד) כותב בספרו 'פנים מאירות':

ודע לך כי נהירנ'בימי חורפי שרצה רב אחד לנהוג כדעת הט"זולא הניחו הקהל לשנות מנהגם ואני ג"כ כל ימי לא הנהגתי כמותו וכל המשנה ידו על התחתונה... והמפורסמי'אין צריכין ראי'שמנהג זה נתיסד משנים קדמוניות לפני איתני וגאוני ארץ והלבוש מביא מנהג זה... ולדעתי המבטל פוגע בכבוד ראשונים.[23]

מן הצד השני עומד ר'יעקב עמדין, נינו של ר'אפרים הכהן, הכותב:

והאומרים פיוט אקדמות יאמרוהו קודם שמברך הכהן. כך הנהיגו גדולי הדורות חס ושלום להפסיק בו תוך קריאת התורה... אף על גב דמר אבא רבה הגאון החסיד בעל שער אפרים בתשובותיו דחיק טובא וניחא ליה למשכוני נפשיה אהך מנהגא... ומה מכריחנו לכל הטורח הלז. ולקבל עלינו אחריות גדול בחנם. אם אמנם גם בעיני יקר הפיוט החשוב הלז. גם אנו אומרין אותו לפי שאדם גדול חברו. ונאה למי שאמרו. אבל חס ושלום להעלות על הדעת שמחברו תקן להפסיק בו בתוך קריאת התורה. אשר לא צוה ולא עלתה על לבו. אלא שהדורות הבאים חשבו להגדיל כבודו בכך. אמנם כבוד שמים הוא בודאי שלא להפסיק... והיותר טוב לאמרו קודם שנפתח ספר תורה...[24]

מסופר שכאשר בעל 'שגאת אריה'התמנה כרבה של העיר מץ, רצה שקהילתו תשנה את המנהג ותנהג כהוראת הט"ז, ומחמת זה כמעט הפסיד את רבנותו שם.[25]

למעשה ניתן ליישב את השגת הט"ז על מהרי"ל וסיעתו. הטיעונים שנאמרו בעד ונגד אמירת 'אקדמות'בתוך קריאת התורה, דומים להפליא לטענות שהועלו בויכוח שהתנהל במשך דורות בעניין אמירת פיוטים בתוך התפילה ובפרט בתוך ברכות קריאת שמע. ידועים דברי בעל 'חוות יאיר'שכותב בתוך דיונו:

ואיך שיהיה, כבר כתבתי שלא נתפשט אמירות פיוטים אלו שמפסיקין תוך ברכות דק"ש בכל מקום, ומ"מ בגלילות אלו שנתפשט אין ליחיד לפרוש כלל אף שהיה נראה פשר דבר שיאמרם אחר תפילתו בפני עצמן או לבחור דרך ומקום לאמירתם אחר גמר ברכה או בשירה חדשה גבי זולתות, מ"מ נראה דאפילו החסיד בכל מעשיו אל ישנה מנהג הציבור מאחר שיש לנו גדולי עולם לסמוך עליהם מלבד כל המחברים עצמן...[26]

וכן כותב במפורש ר'גרשון קובלענץ בנוגע לענייננו:

והנה השבח הזה [=אקדמות] חברו וגם יסדו לשבח ה'ועמו ישראל הפייטני ר"מ ש"צ שבסוף הא"ב חתם שמו מאיר, והוא ר"מ ש"צ כמ"ש בשו"ת חוות יאיר שאלה רל"ח ושם הפליג מאד ממעליותיו שהם כמו פיוטי הקליר וחביריו שמפסיקין בהן בברכות באמצע אפי'אותם שאינם מיוסדים בלשון שבח ותחנונים רק סידורי דינים אפ"ה מפסיקים עמהן...

ובתוך דבריו שם מבאר ר'גרשון קובלענץ למה אינו נחשב הפסק:

ואף שהחמירו חכמים מאוד בהפסק ק"ש וברכותיו שאפילו מלך ישראל שואל בשלומו, ונחש כרוך על עקיבו לא יפסיק ובפיוטים מפסיק אפילו בי"ח והטעם שפיוטים אלו שיסד הקליר וחביריו הם ע"פ סודות נוראים עמוק עמוק מי ימצאנו ע"כ כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכן הוא... ספר חסידים סי'קי"ד המשנה מנהג קדמונים כמו פיוטים וקרובץ שהנהיגו לומר קרובץ הקלי"ר ואומר קרובץ אחרים עובר משום לא תסיג גבול עולם... אלא ודאי צ"ל דאין כאן משום הפסק כלל דאין משגיחין בזה כיון דנתקן כן מגדולי עולם גדולי ישראל וחכמים מטעם הכמוס עמהם ע"פ הסוד כנ"ל וא"כ אין שייך הפסק כלל מידי דהוי אשארי פיוטים שמפסיקים בהן בברכות ק"ש וי"ח כמ"ש בסי'ס"ח בהג"ה ויעוין שם בד"מ מה שכתב בשם מהרי"ל... וא"כ כ"ש שמפסיקים בתורה בפיוטים שנתקנו על כך דהא ברכות ק"ש חמור יותר מקריאת התורה דהא אין מפסיקין מק"ש וברכותיה לתורה וכמ"ש בטור ובב"י סי'ט"ו שאין מפסיקין לתורה כשהוא עומד בק"ש וברכותיה ואפי'כשהוא כהן ויש חשש פגם אפ"ה אינו מפסיק מק"ש וברכותיה לעלות לתורה ואפ"ה מפסיקים בהן בפיוטים כנ"ל וכ"ש שמפסיקים בקריאת התורה בפיוטים שנתקנו על כך...[27]

יישוב אחר כתב ר'אפרים הכהן בשו"ת שער אפרים:

ונלע"ד ליתן טעם לשבח כי בודאי שלא לחנם קבעו הפיוט של אקדמות דוקא אחר פסוק ראשון ולא אחר פסוק שני או אחר פסוק ג'ולא קודם פסוק ראשון אחר הברכה, לפי שקודם פסוק ראשון פשיטא דהוי הפסק קודם התחלת המצוה כמו סח בין ברכת המוציא לאכילה וצריך לחזור ולברך ואחר פסוק שלישי כבר גמר המצוה וצריך לברך... גם אחר שקרא שני פסוקים לא רצו לתקן לומר הפיוט אקדמות שהרי כתב הרב מהרי"ק... שאם קרא הא'אף שני פסוקים שיצא ידי קריאה וא"צ לחזור...

ר'מאיר איזנשטאט, בתשובה שחלקה הובא למעלה, כותב ליישב השגת הט"ז:

ומה שתמה הט"ז דהא אפילו לספר בד"ת אסור כו'יש סתירה גדולה לדבריו דהתם הטעם שלא ישמע קריאת התורה מהש"ץ אבל הכא שגם הש"ץ מפסיק ומתחיל לשורר ואח"כ קורא בתורה והכל שומעים הקריאה מהש"ץ אין ענין כלל להתם... ואדתמה ההפסק בהקדמות יותר הי'לו לתמוה על שאנו מפסיקים בקרובץ שכתב הטור א"ח בסי'ס"ח שתמהו על המנהג הזה שבפירוש אמרו במקום שאמרו לקצר אינו רשאי להאריך ועוד שנינו כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות לא יצא ידי חובתו אפ"ה אין אנו מבטלין מנהגינו ק"ו בקריאת האקדמות שאין בהפסקה נגד הש"ס כיון שקורא פסוק ראשון אחר הברכה ואינו מפסיק בין הברכה ובין הקריאה אין כאן חשש ברכה לבטלה דדומה כמו שמברך על המזון המוציא והתחיל לאכול דמותר להפסיק ולדבר באמצע אכילה הכי נמי הכא...[28]

עד כה ראינו את ההיבטים העיקריים השונים שהועלו בנוגע לשאלה ההלכתית.

כעת אבקש להעיר משהו יותר עקרוני בסוגיה. עובדה בולטת היא שדיוני הפוסקים כולם סובבים סביב סמכותם של מהרי"ל ור'אייזיק טירנא במקרה של התנגשות עם ההלכה התיאורטית, לצד טענה דומה שמחבר הפיוט היה אדם גדול שראוי להפסיק בשבילו. אך הפוסקים לא דנו במהות פיוט האקדמות ובמטרתו, וכמו שהט"ז כתב בתוך דבריו: "כ"ש בשבח הזה שהוא אינו מענין הקריאה כלל למה יש לנו להפסיק...". וכן יש לדייק בדברי ר'יעקב עמדין שהבאתי לעיל.

אולם דומה בעיני שהבנת מהות האקדמות תסייע להבנת הסוגיה.

המדקדק המפורסם ר'וואלף היידנהיים (1757-1832)[29], בספרו 'מודע לבינה'שנדפס לראשונה בשנת 1818, עוסק בטעם מנהג קריאת עשרת הדיברות בשבועות בטעם העליון,[30]ובתוך דבריו נוגע גם בפולמוס זה והוא מביא דברי החזקוני שכותב:

יש ברוב הדברות שתי נגינות ללמד שבעצרת שהיא דוגמא מתן תורה, ומתרגמינן הדברות קוריןכל דברת לא יהיה לך וכל דברת זכור בנגינות הגדולות לעשות כל אחת מהן פסוק אחד שכל אחד מהן דברה אחת לעצמה...[31]

בהמשך כותב ר'וואלף היידנהיים שהוא מצא כ"י של מחזור ישן,[32]וזה תיאורו:

הקריאה... של א'דשבועות... היתה כתוב שם המקרא עם התרגום כי בזמן ההוא עדיין היה המנהג קיים להעמיד מתרגם אצל  הקורא... ואופן כתיבתו מקרא עם התרגום הוא על זה הסדר תחלת כתב פסוק בחדש השלישי וגו'ואח"כ אקדמות מילין וכו'והוא רשות ופתיחה למתורגמן, מענינא דיומא. בסוף אקדמות, כתב בירחא תליתאה וגו'שהוא תרגום של בחדש השלישי. ואח"כ כתב פסוק ויסעו מרפידים. ואח"כ תרגומו, ועד"ז כתב והולך מקרא ותרגום מקרא ותרגום, עד פרשת וידבר אלהים שהקדים לפניה פיוט ארוך ע"ס א"ב תחלתו ארכין ה'שמיא לסיני...[33]ועד"ז כתב עשרת הדברים בעשרה פסוקין ובעשרה תרגומים עד גמירה... וכל התרגומים לקוחת מתרגום ירושלמי המכונה אצלנו ת"י עם קצת שינויים ותיקונים. וכל הפיוטים האלה שבתוך הקריאה מתוקנים בלשון ארמי וחתום בתוכם מאיר ברבי יצחק...[34]

דברים אלו הם המפתח לכל סוגיית ה'אקדמות'. שכן מתבאר מדברי החזקוני ומתוך כה"י הנ"ל שהיה מנהג בשבועות ובשביעי של פסח להעמיד מתרגם אצל הקורא כמו שהיה בכל קריאה בזמן חז"ל עד לתקופת הגאונים (לכל הפחות),[35]והוא היה מתרגם כל פסוק. הפיוט המקורי של ר'מאיר ש"ץ, 'אקדמות', הוא רק הפתיחה ו'הרשות'מענינא דיומא לפיוט ארוך שעניינו עשרת הדברות, היינו תרגום ארוך על עשרת הדברות שהיה מבוסס על תרגום הירושלמי. אמירת הפיוט כלל לא היה נחשב הפסק הואיל ונכלל בתקנה הראשונה שהיו מתרגמים בשעת קריאת התורה.[36]

זאת הסיבה שפיוט 'אקדמות'נאמר דווקא לאחרהפסוק הראשון, כי הוא בא סמוך להתחלת התרגום לפסוק הראשון, דהיינו אחר קריאת הפסוק הראשון, ובעיקרו לא היה נחשב הפסק כלל. במרוצת הדורות הופסק מנהג התרגום גם בשבועות וכן הושמט רוב הפיוט הארוך. בשל סיבה זו לא היתה אמירת האקדמות בכלל הפולמוס הכללי בעניין אמירת פיוטים בתוך התפילה.

בין השנים תרנ"ג-תרנ"ז נדפס בעיר ברלין על ידי חברת 'מקיצי נרדמים'חיבור חשוב מבית מדרשו של רש"י, בשם 'מחזור ויטרי',[37]על ידי הרב שמעון הורוויץ.[38]בחיבור זה נמצאים הרבה פיוטים ארמיים ורשויות למתרגם שנהגו לומר בשביעי של פסח ובשבועות, וחלק מהם מוסבים על עשרת הדיברות,[39]בדומה למה שמצא ר'וואלף היידנהיים בכת"י ישן, וגם נמצאים שם פירושים על פיוטים אלו.[40]חלק מפיוטים אלו נכתבו על ידי ר'מאיר ש"ץ. במאה האחרונה נמצאו עוד כת"י של הרבה פיוטים מן הסוג הזה,[41]וחלקם קדומים מאוד.

יש לציין שר'שלמה חעלמא, בעל 'מרכבת המשנה' (1716-1781) כבר כתב כן מסברת עצמו בחיבורו 'שלחן תמיד' (נדפס מכ"י בשנת תשס"ד):

ונ"ל דמש"ה היה מנהג ראשונים לשורר אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון, שבזמן המחבר היה המנהג כמנהג האיטלאנים עד היום שאחד קורא ואחד מתרגם כמו שהוא מדינא דגמרא, הילכך אחר שגמר הקורא פסוק אחד קודם שהתחיל ליטול רשות אקדמות מילין וכו'ודרש כל אקדמות, ואח"כ תירגם הפסוק הראשון, וה"ה ביציב פתגם שגם את ההפטרה מתרגמין האיטלאנים עד היום, ובזה יובן החרוז האחרון יהונתן גבר ענוותן וכו'ששם הקורא היה יהונתן, והקורא היה צריך להיות גדול מהמתרגם, ואמר המתרגם בדרך ריצוי שיחזיקו טובה להקורא אעפ"י שאני דורש שהוא גדול ממני, ולפ"ז כיון שאדם אחר משורר אקדמות אפ'אחר פסוק ראשון אין לחוש.[42]

על פי התיאור ההיסטורי העולה מכל הגילויים יש ליישב השגת הט"ז שהעיר: "שהוא אינו מענין הקריאה כלל למה יש לנו להפסיק". דברים אלו מתאימים רק למציאות זמנו של הט"ז, אולם מעיקרא כשנתקן הפיוט כחלק מאמירת המתרגם הוא היה חלק מעניין הקריאה, ולכן לא היה נחשב הפסק. מציאות זו נעלמה מעיניו של ר'יעקב עמדין וזה הביאו לכתוב מה שכתב.

אך בזמן מהרי"ל ובית מדרשו עדיין ידעו מה היה התפקיד המקורי של ה'אקדמות', וכן עדיין נהגו לומר חלק מהפיוטים הללו, כפי שכתב בן דורו ר'אייזק טירנא:

ואומר אקדמות מילין אחר פסוק ראשון ובחדש השלישי [עד באו מדבר סיני]. ואומרין ארכיןאחר וירד משה קודם וידבר. ואומרין אמריצחק לאברהם אביך, קודם כבד את אביך...[43]

פיוט 'ארכין'הוא בענין משה ומלאכים ומתן תורה,[44]ופיוט 'אמר יצחק לאברהם אביך'הוא פיוט על אברהם ויצחק.[45]תחילה, לאחר שאמרו פיוטים אלו גם נהגו לתרגם הפסוקים.

מכל מקום, הערת הט"ז התקבלה והביאוה הרבה פוסקים כמו 'גן נטע',[46]'באר היטב',[47]'הלכה ברורה',[48]'חק יוסף',[49]ר'שלמה אב"ד דמיר בחיבורו 'שלחן שלמה'[50]שנדפס לראשונה בתקל"א, ר'שלמה חעלמא,[51]ר'יוסף תאומים ב'פרי מגדים',[52]שלחן ערוך הגר"ז,[53]'מליץ יושר',[54]ר'רפאל גינסבורג,[55]מחצית השקל,[56]חתם סופר,[57]שער אפרים,[58]שלחן קריאה,[59]ר'שלמה שיק,[60]ר'יוסף זכריה שטרן,[61]ר'יוסף גינצבורג,[62]ר'ישראל חיים פרידמאן,[63]האדר"ת,[64]ערוך השלחן,[65]משנה ברורה,[66]ר'צבי הירש גראדזינסקי,[67]ר'עזרא אלטשולר,[68]ר'אברהם חיים נאה,[69]ר'יוסף אליהו הנקין[70]ור'יחיאל מיכל טוקצינסקי.[71]

נראה שגם אם הפוסקים הללו לא ידעו את ההקשר ההיסטורי והנסיבות של אמירת האקדמות, מכל מקום אין הדבר נוגע ישירות לעמדתם, ואפשר שאף אילו ידעו היו סוברים שבמציאות הנוכחית, כשאין התרגום נאמר, אמירתו של הפיוט חוזרת ונחשבת הפסק. ולכן דעתם עדיין תהיה שאמנם אין לבטל את אמירתו, אך יש להקדימו לפני הברכה.

דעת המגן אברהם

הרבה לא שמו לב לכך שהמג"א חולק על הט"ז, וכמו שציינו ר'ישעיה פיק,[72]רע"א,[73]ר'מרדכי בנעט,[74]והחת"ס[75], לדברי המגן אברהם לעיל סי'קמו, בנוגע לאיסור היציאה מבית הכנסת בשעת קריאת התורה: "אסור לצאת - אפי'בין פסוק לפסוק [טור]. ונ"מ בשבועות שאומרים אקדמות".

לפי הבנת האחרונים, מדברי המג"א משתקף בבירור שאומרים אקדמות לאחר שקראו הפסוק הראשון של קה"ת, כפי המנהג שהיה מקובל בימיו.[76]ניתן להניח שאם הערתו של המגן אברהם היתה נאמרת במקומה בהלכות חג השבועות, חלק מן הפוסקים היו סומכים עליו ולא על הט"ז. ואילו במקרה זה לא היתה לדבריו ההשפעה הרגילה.[77]

לדעתי, המגן אברהם חולק על הט"ז גם משום שהוא היה מודע לנסיבות ההיסטוריות שגרמו לפיוט להיקבע לאחר הפסוק הראשון.

בסימן זה – תצד – המג"א דן בשאלת קריאת עשרת הדברות לפעמים בטעם העליון ולפעמים בטעם התחתון. הוא מביא שבשו"ת משאת בנימין והחזקוני דנו בשאלה זו, והוא מביא את לשונו של החזקוני:

"ובחזקוני פ'יתרו כת'שבעצרת שהיא דוגמת מ"ת ומתרגמין הדברות קורין כל דבורלא יהיה לך ודבור זכור בנגינות גדולות לעשות מכל א'פסוק א'ודברות לא תרצח בנגינות קטנות אבל בשבת יתרו קורין לא יהיה לך וזכור בנגינות קטנות ולא תרצח וגו'בנגינות גדולות לעשותם פסוק א'כי לא מצינו פסוק בתורה מב'תיבות וגם באנכי וגו'יש נגינה גדולה ע"ש.

עיון ב'משאת בנימין'מעלה שהוא כבר ציין ל'חזקוני'ול'הכותב', אבל הוא לא מביא באופן מדויק את דברי שני המקורות. המג"א בדק בעצמו באותם הספרים ומביא את דבריהם מתוך הספרים שהיו כולם ברשותו. ואנו יודעים שהספר היה מצוי בספרייתו. [78]

מלים אלו הן בדיוק המלים שהביאו את ר'וואלף היידנהיים להבין את מהות הפיוט. נראה שלכל הפחות המג"א ידע שבעצרת נהגו לתרגם עשרת הדברות.[79]

והנה, בסי'קמה נאמר דין ה'מתורגמן'ובסוף הסימן כתב המחבר שבזמן הזה לא נוהגין לתרגם ומיד לאחר מכן בסי'קמו כתב המחבר: "אסור לצאת ולהניח ס"ת כשהוא פתוח, אבל בין גברא לגברא ש"ד [=שפיר דמי]". וכתב בביאור הגר"א: "ואפי'בין פסוקא לפסוקא אסור דתיקו דאורייתא לחומרא. תר"י [תלמידי רבינו יונה] וטור. והשמיט הש"ע שאינו נוהג עכשיו שאין מתרגמין עכשיו ואין מפסיקין בין פסוק לפסוק".[80]

אבל המגן אברהם העיר על כך: "אסור לצאת - אפי'בין פסוק לפסוק [טור]. ונ"מ בשבועות שאומרים אקדמות". דהיינו, אכן כיום אין מתרגמים, וכמו שכתב הגר"א, אבל עדיין דין זה נוגע פעם אחת בשנה – כאשר בשבועות אמרו אקדמות לאחר שהתחילו קריאת התורה, וכמו שמבואר בחזקוני שהובא בסי'תצד.

כאמור, לעניין אקדמות אנו יודעים שדברי הט"ז התקבלו ולא דעת המגן אברהם.

עוד על מחלוקת זו

כזכור, כנראה שדעת הט"ז שניתן לחלוק על מהרי"ל ור'אייזיק טירנא, כאשר ההלכה הפשוטה מחייבת זאת. נראה שהמגן אברהם חולק על גישה זו. במקום אחר הוא כותב עיקרון כללי במנהגים, הלקוח מתוך שו"ת הרמ"א בשם מהרי"ק:

וכ'רמ"א בתשו'... בשם מהרי"ק... דאם נמצא המנהג באיזה פוסק אין לבטלו. אפי'בשעת הדחק אין לשנות מנהג, כדאמרי'בבני בישן. ואפי'יש במנהג צד איסור אין לבטלו, כמ"ש מהרי"ק...[81]

ואולי המג"א סובר שאפילו כיום שאין מתרגמים ולכאורה אמירת הפיוט היא הפסק, מ"מ יש מקור למנהג ולכן יש להשאיר את המנהג על כנו ולומר אקדמות דווקא לאחר קריאת הפסוק הראשון.

ובדרך אפשר יש להוסיף שזה תלוי בגישה של המג"א שמרבה להעתיק מספרי מנהגים אלו וגם מפרט ודן בפרטי מנהגים שונים ומתייחס אליהם בחיוב, לעומת הט"ז שאינו מרבה להביא מספרים אלו בחיבורו ואינו דן הרבה במנהגים כמו המגן אברהם.

'יציב פתגם'

אמנם הערת הט"ז לא היתה רק על 'אקדמות'אלא גם על 'יציב פתגם'שנכתב ע"י רבינו תם^[82]ונאמר בקריאת התורה של שבועות ביום טוב שני של גלויות. וכך הוא כותב: "וגם ביציב פתגם שאומרים ביום שני אחר פסוק ראשון של הפטרה ראוי לנהוג כן, אלא שאין ההפטרה חמירא כ"כ כמו קריאת התורה".

גם במקרה זה כותבים האחרונים שזה היה פיוט של רשות למתורגמן, כמו אקדמות, אך במשך השנים שכחו ממנו, ולכן בתחילה אמרו אותו דווקא אחר שקראו פסוק אחד מן ההפטרה.[83]ואולם, מנהג אמירת תרגום להפטרה של שביעי של פסח ושבועות נהג אפילו לאחר תקופת הראשונים. ראה למשל ב'מחזור כמנהג רומה'שנדפס ע"י שונצין קזאל מיורי בשנת רמ"ו, שם מופיע התרגום בקריאת הפטרה של פסח, ליום ראשון,[84]שני,[85]שבת חול המועד,[86]לשביעי,[87]שמיני של פסח,[88]ושבועות יום ראשון[89]ושני.[90]

לדעת כמה אחרונים נוהגים כדעת הט"ז[91]גם במקרה זה: 'שלחן שלמה',[92]שלחן ערוך הגר"ז[93]והאדר"ת.[94]

מעניינת מסקנתו של המשנה ברורה: "והמנהג לומר אקדמות... קודם שמתחיל הכהן לברך... וכן המנהג כהיום בכמה קהלות. אכן יציב פתגם שאומרים ביום שני בעת קריאת הפטרה נתפשט באיזה מקומות לאמרו אחר פסוק ראשון של הפטרה".[95]

---

[1]בענין אמירת אקדמות ראה: אליעזר לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ' 164-165; י'דוידזון, אוצר השירה והפיוט, א, עמ' 332, מספר 7314; אלכסנדר גרעניץ, 'השערה על דברים אחרים', המליץ שנה ג (1863) גלי' 12 עמ' 12 (192); פלמוני, 'יציב פתגם', עלי הדס, אודיסה תרכ"ה, עמ' 105-107 [מאריך כדעת הט"ז]; ר'חיים שובין, מבוא לסדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות, ווילנא תרס"ב, עמ' 11-25; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, תל-אביב תשמ"ח, עמ' 143, 251; ר'יהודה ליב מימון, חגים ומועדים³, ירושלים תש"י, עמ'רסד-רסח; ר'נפתלי ברגר, 'תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר התפילה ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות', בני ברק תשל"ג [חיבור זה ראוי לציון. זוהי עבודת דוקטורט שנכתבה בבודפסט בהונגרית, ורק בתשל"ג תורגם לעברית. הוא מקיף היטב את כל הנושא]; ר'שלמה יוסף זוין, מועדים בהלכה, עמ'שעא-שעב; מיכאל ששר, 'מדוע חובר פיוט ה"אקדמות"בארמית?', שנה בשנה, כה (תשמ"ד), עמ' 347-352; שלמה אשכנזי, אבני חן, ירושלים תש"ן, עמ' 116-118; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, ירושלים תש"ס, עמ'י ועמ'כח ואילך; עזרא פליישר, שירת הקודש העברית בימי הביניים, ירושלים תשס"ח, עמ' 471-472; הנ"ל, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 1096, 1166-1167; ר'בצלאל לנדאו, 'על פיוט אקדמות ומחברו', ארשת: קובץ מוקדש לעניני תפילה ובית-הכנסת ב (תשמ"ג), עמ' 113-121; ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, 'גדולי הדורות על משמר מנהג אשכנז', בני ברק תשנ"ד, עמ' 108-113; ר'דויד יצחקי, בסוף 'לוח ארש', ירושלים תשס"א, עמ'תקמ"א-תקמב; ר'יהונתן נוימן, 'התרגום של חג השבועות', קולמוס 112 (תשע"ב), עמ' 4 ואילך; ר'צבי רבינוביץ, עיוני הלכות, ב, בני ברק תשס"ד, עמ'תנ"ב-תסז; פרדס אליעזר, ברוקלין תש"ס, עמ'קצח-רכו; ר'טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ו, עמ'תסה-תעה; ר'אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס"ח, עמ'קטו-קכד;ר'יצחק טעסלער, פניני מנהג, חג השבועות, מונסי תשס"ח, עמ'רכח-רמט;Menachem Silver, "Akdomus and Yetziv Pisgom in History and Literature, Jewish Tribune, May 29^th 1990, p. 5[תודה לידידי ר'ישראל איזרעל שהפנני לזה]; Jeffrey Hoffman, "Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning," Jewish Quarterly Review 99:2 (Spring 2009), pp. 161-183; E. Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz, Detroit 2013, pp .387-388.

לענין הסיפור על בעל האקדמות ו'עשרת השבטים'ראה: אליה רבה, סי'תצד ס"ק ה שכתב: "נמצא בלשון אשכנז ישן נושן מעשה באריכות דעל מה תקנו אקדמות". וראה אליעזר לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ' 165; משה שטיינשניידער, ספרות ישראל, ווארשא תרנ"ז, עמ' 417 והערה 1 שם; ר'אברהם יגל, נדפס מכ"י ע"י אברהם נאיבואיר, 'קבוצים על עניני עשרת השבטים ובני משה', קובץ על יד ד (תרמ"ח) (סדרה ראשונה), עמ' 39; יצחק בן יעקב, אוצר הספרים, עמ' 384 מספר 1825 והערות רמש"ש שם; הערות שלמה ראבין, בתוך: ר'יהודה אריה ממודינה, שלחן ערוך, וויען תרכ"ז, עמ' 67; ר'דובערוש טורש, גנזי המלך, ווארשא תרנ"ו, עמ' 109; יצחק ריבקינד, 'די היסטארישע אלעגאריע פון ר'מאיר ש"ץ', ווילנא תרפ"ט; הנ"ל, 'מגלת ר'מאיר ש"ץ', הדואר 9 (1930) עמ' 507-509; ישראל צינברג, תולדות ספרות ישראל, ד, תל-אביב תשי"ח, עמ' 90-92; [ובהערות של מנדל פיקאז'שם עמ' 253]; ישראל צינברג, מכתב ליצחק ריבקינד, בתוך: תולדות ספרות ישראל, ז, עמ' 216-217; ר'יהודה זלוטניק (אבידע), בראשית במליצה העברית, ירושלים תרצ"ח, עמ' 33; מכתב של ר'יחזקיהו פיש הי"ד מהאדאס [נדפס מכ"י בתוך: ר'יחיאל גולדהבר ור'חנני'לייכטאג (עורכים), גנזי יהודה, ב, חמ"ד תשע"ה], עמ'רנח; אברהם רובינשטיין, 'קונטרס 'כתית למאור של יוסף פערל', עלי ספר ג (תשל"ז), עמ' 148; עלי יסיף, 'תרגום קדמון ונוסח עברי של מעשה אקדמות', בקורת ופרשנות 9-10 (תשל"ז), עמ' 214-228; הנ"ל, סיפור העם העברי, ירושלים תשנ"ד, עמ' 384, 659; יוסף דן, 'תולדותיו של מעשה אקדמות בספרו העברית', בקורת ופרשנות 9-10 (תשל"ז), עמ' 197-213; ר'משה בלוי, 'הסיפור המוזר של חיבור אקדמות', קולמוס 26 (תשס"ה), עמ 12-15; ר'טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ו, עמ'תעו-תפט; ר'נחום רוזנשטיין ור'משה אייזיק בלוי, 'מנהג אמירת אקדמות והמעשה המופלא שנקשר בו', קובץ בית אהרן וישראל, שנה כט, גליון ה (קעג) (תשע"ד), עמ'צא-קו [בלוי אף הדפיס גירסה מורחבת של המאמר בחוברת אנונימית]. יש לציין שר'ישראל משקלוב האמין שסיפר של בעל אקדמות ועשרת השבטים היה אמת, ראה במכתב שלו לעשרת השבטים, בתוך: אברהם יערי, אגרות ארץ ישראל, רמת גן תשל"א, עמ' 347-348 [=אברהם נאיבויאר, 'קבוצים על עניני עשרת השבטים ובני משה', קובץ על יד ד (תרמ"ח) (סדרה ראשונה), עמ' 54]; ר'דוד אהרן ווישנעויץ, קונטרס מציאת עשרת השבטים, בסוף: מטה אהרן, ירושלים תרס"ט, בדף פא ע"א]; וראה המכתב שנדפס ממנו ע"י אריה מורגנשטרן, גאולה בדרך הטבע, ירושלים תשנ"ז, (מהדורה שניה), עמ' 125. [על המכתב ור'ישראל משקלוב ראה מאמר המקיף של ידידי ר'יחיאל גולדהבר, 'מאמציו של רבי ישראל משקלוב למציאת עשרת השבטים', חצי גיבורים - פליטת סופרים, ט (תשע"ו), עמ'תשסט-תתנו].

הפיוט זכה לפירושים רבים כמו: ר'חיים שובין, סדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות, ווילנא תרס"ב; ר'אהרן מיאלדער, באור שירת אקדמות, ווארשא תרס"ד; ר'חיים יאנאווסקי, קנין טוב, פיעטרקוב תרס"ח; ר'שמואל ווענגראב, פיעטרוקוב תרפ"ו. ביבליגרפיה של פירושים נמצא בסוף Rabbi Salomon,Akdamus Millin, New York 1980, pp. 149-151.

וראה עדותו של הרב יעקב משה חרל"פ על פגישתו הראשונה עם הרב קוק, הובאה ע"י יאיר חרל"פ, שירת הי"ם, בית אל תשע"ב, עמ' 321.

עוד מקורות שנהגו לומר פיוט זה ראה: זכרונות ומסורות על ה'חתם סופר', בני ברק תשנ"ו, עמ' 206; על רוסיא בערך 1840 ראה Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, California 2010, Vol. 1, p. 150;על מינסק בשנת 1860 בערך, ראה: אלכסנדר הורוויץ, א, זכרונות פון צוויי דורות, ניו יורק תרצ"ה, עמ' 143; על ישיבת מיר בשנת 1938, ראה: Letters From Mir, Editor: Claude Gugenheim, New York 2014, p.147.; ר'שלום מקאידינאוו, משמרת שלום, ירושלים תשס"ג, עמ'רמד; על מנהג חב"ד ראה: ר'אברהם לאוואוט, שער הכולל, ברוקלין תשנ"א, פרק מ אות יז, עמ'צב; ר'יהושע מונדשיין, אוצר מנהגי חב"ד, ניסן-סיון, ירושלים תשנ"ו, עמ'שב-שד.

ויש לציין שאף כמה חיבורים סאטיריים נכתבו במבנה דומה לאקדמות או בניגון שלו. ראה: Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, New York 1966,ברשימה בסוף הספר מספר 89, 121,142,172,191, 207, 229,232.

[2]Rabbi Avi Gold, The Complete Artscroll Machzor, Shavuos, New York 1991, p. 288.

[3]עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 1112.

[4]על ר'מאיר ש"ץ ראה: Leopod Zunz, Literaturgeschichte Der Synagogalen Poesie, Hildesheim 1966, pp.145-151; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ'20 ; ר'וואלף היידנהיים במבוא לפיוטים בתוך 'מחזור לשמחת תורה', רעדלעהיים תקצ"ב, דף ד ע"ב-ה ע"א; אליעזר לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ' 162-167; ר'חיים שובין, מבוא לסדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות, ווילנא תרס"ב, עמ' 11-25; ר'נפתלי ברגר, 'תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר התפילה ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות', בני ברק תשל"ג, עמ'כז-כח; אברהם גרוסמן, חכמי אשכנז הראשונים, ירושלים תשס"א, עמ' 292-296; ישראל תא- שמע, התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ' 35, 39; Katrin Kogman-Appel, A Mahzor from Worms, Cambridge 2012, p. 66, 223.

 לענין חתימת שמו ראה מה שכתב ר'אליהו בחור, ספר התשבי, בני ברק תשס"ה, עמ'רמח ערך רב. וראה 'אגרות הפמ"ג', אגרת ה, אות יא [שם, עמ'שפה], שאחר שהעתיק דברי התשבי כותב: "כי התשבי נאמן יותר ממאה עדים".

עוד פיוטים ממנו ראה: ר'משה רוזנווסר, 'פירוש ומקורות ליוצר לשבת נחמו' (שחיבר ר'מאיר בר יצחק - בעל האקדמות), ירושתנו ב (תשסח), עמ'רנט-רעו; Alan Lavin, The Liturgical Poems of Meir bar Isaac, Edited with and Introduction and Commentary, PhD dissertation JTS Seminary 1984.

וראה: פיוטים לארבע פרשיות עם פירוש רש"י ובית מדרשו, ירושלים תשע"ד, עמ'קט ועמ'קנא מה שהובא בשמו [תודה לידידי ר'יוסף מרדכי דובאוויק על עזרתו במקור האחרון].

[5]שו"ת שער אפרים, זולצבאך תמ"ח, סי'י. עליו ראה: מאיר וונדר, אלף מרגליות, ירושלים תשנ"ג, עמ' 396-397; יש לציין שדברי השער אפרים הובאו אצל ר'שלמה זאב קליין, 'דברי הפיוטים וזעקתם', מילהוזין תרי"ט, עמ' 2. [ספר נדיר זה נדפס ע"י ידידי דר'שלמה שפרכר, בחוברת בשם 'קובץ ארשת שפתנו', בברוקלין תשס"א].

[6]ר'יהושע יעקב היילפרין, שו"ת נחלת יעקב, פדוואה שפ"ג, סי'מו. דבריו הובאו בנוהג כצאן יוסף, עמ'רלז. וראה מקור חיים סי'קמו בקיצור הלכות, ד"ה אפ'בין גברא לגברא, עמ'ריח.  על הספר ראה: שמואל גליק, קונטרס התשובות החדש, ב, ירושלים תשס"ז, עמ' 738-349

[7]שו"ת שער אפרים, סי'י.

[8]חק יעקב, שם ס"ק ג. עליו ראה: רב צעיר, תולדות הפוסקים, ג, ישראל תש"ז, עמ' 187-191; ש'שילה, 'הרב יעקב רישר בעל הספר שבות יעקב', אסופות, יא (תשנ"ח), עמ'סה-פו.

לשו"ת שער אפרים מציינים: 'חקי חיים', דף קעח ע"א; אליה רבה, שם, ס"ק ה; ר'יוסף שטיינהרט, שו"ת זכרון יוסף, פיורדא תקל"ג, סי'ה, (ד"ה תשובה); נוהג כצאן יוסף, עמ'רלח.

[9]חקי חיים, ברלין ת"ס, דף ל ע"א. והשווה דבריו שם, דף קעח ע"א- ע"ב: "ש"א סי'יו"ד טעם לשבח על מנהג שלנו". עליו ראה: א"י בראדט, פרשנות השלחן ערוך לאורח חיים ע"י חכמי פולין במאה הי"ז, חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור אוניברסיטת בר אילן, רמת גן תשע"ה, עמ' 44.

[10]ספר המנהגים לר'אברהם קלויזנר, ירושלים תשס"ו, עמ'קכא.

[11]מהרי"ל, עמ'קסב.

[12]ספר המנהגים לר'אייזיק טירנא, עמ'סט.

[13]נדפס בתוך: ספר המנהגים לר'אייזיק טירנא, ירושלים תש"ס, עמ'קעא.

[14]מעגלי צדק, עמ'פח. ה'מעגלי צדק'נדפס לראשונה במחזור בשנת שי בשאלוניקי, ולאחרונה הודפס חלק ההלכות מתוך המחזור ע"י יצחק הערשקוויטש, ירושלים תש"ס. ראה עליו: י"ש עמנואל, מצבות שאלוניקי, א, ירושלים תשכ"ג, עמ' 36, 68-69; מ'בניהו, 'רבי שמואל יפה אשכנזי', תרביץ, מב, תשל"ג, עמ' 423-424 והע' 37; מ"ש מולכו, מצבות בית העלמין של יהודי שאלוניקי, תל אביב תשל"ה, עמ' 59-60; י'ריבקינד, דיקדוקי ספרים, קרית ספר ד (תרפ"ז), עמ' 278, מס' 32; ד'גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, עמ' 252-265; מאיר בניהו, הדפוס העברי בקרימונה, ירושלים תשל"א, עמ' 141-178.

המג"א הביא הרבה פעמים בשמו, כמו נה:יז, פח:ג, קלא:י, תכז:א, תלא:ה, תלז:יז, תכז:א, תנ:יב, תנג:יא, תקפא:ד, תקפא:ז, תקפא:ח, תקפב:ח, תקפג:ב תקפד:ג, תקפט:ד, תרכד:ז, תרכט:ה, תרנא:יט, תרנא:כא, תרנח:יב, תרסא:, תרע:ב [2X], תרעב:ה, תרעג:ז, תרפא:א, תרפח:יא, תרצ:יט, תרצא:ח. ולפעמים בלי לציין למקורו.

[15]מקור קדום יותר למנהג אמירת אקדמות נמצא במחזור עתיק של וורמייזא שכתיבתו נגמרה בשנת 1272. ראה ע"ז: ד'גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, ירושלים תשנ"ו, עמ' 17; עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 1166-1167. ורק מזמן כלשהו ומטעם בלתי ידוע הפסיקו לאומרו בשבועות, ראה: ר'יאיר חיים בכרך, מקור חיים, סי'תצד, שהעיד על וורימיזא בזמנו שלא אמרו אקדמות. והשווה: ר'יוזפא שמש, מנהגים דק"ק וורמיישא, א, עמ'קיב. וראה מה שכתב בזה ר'יודא ליווא קירכום, מנהגות וורמייזא, ירושלים תשמ"ז, עמ'רנח. וראה עוד פליישר, שם, עמ' 1167; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ' 70; ר'איסר בער וולף, 'היהודים בווארמס', ירושתנו ד (תש"ע), עמ'רפד.

[16]חיבור זה נדפס לראשונה במנטובה ש"ן. מכון מורשת אשכנז עובד על תרגום הספר לעברית ותודה לר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר ששלח לי את קטע התרגום הרלוונטי: "קוראים רק את הפסוק הראשון, אחרי כן אומר החזן מתוך המחזור 'אקדמות מילין', והקהל עונה לו בפסוק השני, וכן עד גמירא. (בוורמיישא אין אומרים 'אקדמות')... (בפולין ופיהם אומרים פיוטים רבים, מתחילים 'ארכין'ואומרים אותם בתוך הקריאה. יש קודם שקוראים 'וירד משה', ויש קודם שקוראים את עשרת הדברות)".

חשיבות הספר היא, כפי שכתב יצחק זימר ('גזרות תתנ"ו בספרי המנהגים בימי הביניים ובעת החדשה', יום טוב עסיס ועוד [עורכים], יהודים מול הצלב, ירושלים תשס"א, עמ' 163]: "עדות לפופולריות הרבה לה זכה הספר היא ארבעים ושתים המהדורות שלו, שנדפסו כמעט בכל רחבי אירופה, מאמסטרדם במערב עד ורשה במזרח. מראשית הדפסו עד שנת תרנ"ב במשך למעלה משלוש מאות שנה נדפס הספר כמעט בכל מקום בגרמניה שהיה בו בית דפוס יהודי". וראה: 252-256Oxford 2005, pp.Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature,Jean Baumgarten,

[17]ראה ש"מ לונטל, "מנהגים דק"ק ורנקבורט דמיין" (מנהגי פרנקפורט מכת"י שהועתקו בשנת של"ז \ בשביל קהילת פרידבורג), המעין, לו (תשנ"ו), עמ' 28.

[18]ראה ר'יוסף יוזפא סג"ל, נוהג כצאן יוסף, תל-אביב תשכ"ט, עמ'רלז-רלח; ר'זלמן גייגר, דברי קהלת, פפד"מ תרכ"ב, עמ' 446.

[19]מנהגי פיורדא, פיורדא תקכ"ז, דף יב ע"א, סי'עא [=ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה בפיורדא, א, בני ברק תש"ע, עמ' 527].

[20]ר'נתן הלוי באמבערגער, לקוטי הלוי, ברלין תרס"ז, עמ' 19.

[21]ר'מנחם נוויירה, מנהג ותיקין [נכתב בערך בשנת תק"ח], אנטוורפן תשס"ה, עמ' 30: "אומרים אקדמות מלין אחר פסוק א'וכן כתב בעל שער אפרים בתשובותיו סימן, ואין לנו לזוז ממנו וכן הנהיגו וכן ינהגו לעולם". [תודה לידידי הג"ר אפרים בנימין שפירא שהפנני לחיבור נדיר זה והשיג לי עותק ממנו.]

[22] וראה ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, 'גדולי הדורות על משמר מנהג אשכנז', בני ברק תשנ"ד, עמ' 108-113

[23] שו"ת פנים מאירות, ג, סי'לא.

[24]סידור רבי יעקב מעמדין ב, ירושלים תשנ"ג, אות ט"ז, עמ'קנ-קנא.

[25] ראה: ; A. Cahen, Le Rabbinat de Metz, REJ 12 (1886) pp. 295-296ר'אהרן מרקוס, החסידות, תל-אביב תשי"ד, עמ' 28-29; חיים ברקוביץ, מסורת ומהפכה, עמ' 120; ר'יוסף פראגר, 'תולדות קהילת מיץ', ירושתנו ב (תשס"ח), עמ'שנו.

[26] שו"ת חות יאיר, סי'רלח. לגבי התייחסותו לפייטנים כבעלי הלכה, ראה: ר'יאיר חיים בכרך, מר קשישא, ירושלים תשנ"ג, עמ'קפא-קפג; ר'אלעזר פלעקלס, שו"ת תשובה מאהבה, א, סי'א; ר'יוסף זכריה שטרן, שו"ת זכר יהוסף, א, סי'יט. עצם הענין של אמירת פיוטים היה נתון בפולמוס גדול, ועד היום לא נודעו כל הדיונים עליו. מעשה בני אשכנז תמכו בו כל השנים, ראה: ר'יוסף זכריה שטרן, שם;יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט קהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ' 167-171;ישראל תא-שמע, מנהג אשכנז הקדמון, עמ' 89 ואילך; הנ"ל התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ' 35-36; Ruth Langer, To Worship God Properly, Cincinnati 1998, pp. 110-187; Daniel Sperber, On Changes in Jewish Liturgy; Options and Limitations, Jerusalem 2010, pp. 181-191.וראה י'גלינסקי, 'ארבע טורים והספרות ההלכתית של ספרד במהאה ה14, אספקטים היסטוריים, ספרותיים והלכתיים', עובדה לשם קבלת תואר דוקטר, האוניברסיטה בר אילן, רמת גן תשנ"ט, עמ' 271-278.

 [27]שו"ת קרית חנה, מיץ תקמ"ה, סי'ז, ונדפס ג"כ בשבות יעקב, א, סי'יב.

[28] וראה מה שר'חיים עהרענרייך העיר ע"ז ב'שערי חיים'בתוך: שערי אפרים, ברוקלין תשס"ד, דף ל ע"א-ע"ב.

[29] עליו ראה: יצחק אייזיק קובנר, ספר המצרף, ירושלים תשנ"ח, עמ' 86-87; ר'ישראל לוינגר, 'ר'וואלף היידענהיים חייו ומפעלו', המעין כו:א (תשמ"ו) עמ' 16-27; הנ"ל, שם כו:ב (תשמ"ו) עמ' 35-42; ר'דוד קמנצקי, 'פסקי דין ותקנות קהילת פרנקפורט בתקופת רבנו ההפלא"ה [ב]', ישורון כה (תשע"א), עמ' 213-215; ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה בפיורדא, ב, בני ברק תש"ע, עמ' 113-115. במוסף התורני 'קולמוס'גלי' 47 (תשס"ז), עמ' 18 ואילך, פרסם ר'ראובן אליצור מאמר כנגדו [שוב נדפס בתוך אוסף מאמריו: ספר זכרון דגל מחנה ראובן, בני ברק תשע"א, עמ'שצ-תג]; ור'שמואל לוינזון הגין עליו ב'קולמוס'גלי' 51 (תשס"ז), עמ' 24-29.

[30]על זה ראה: ראה: לקט יושר, עמ' 30; ר'ידידיה שלמה נורצי, מנחת שי, ירושלים תשס"ה, עמ' 192-193; ר'אשר אנשיל ווירמש רופא, סייג לתורה, פרנקפורט דמיין תקכ"ו, בסוף הספר; ר'שלמה זלמן הענא, בשערי תפילה, [בתוך: לוח ארש, ירושלים תשס"א, עמ'רצו-שה [דבריו הובא בלי לציין מקורם אצל השו"ע הרב, שם, סעיף ח-יא, ובביאור הלכה, ואצל ר'שלמה חעלמא בשמוב'שלחן תמיד', ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ'קה, סי'יט, זר זהב, אות ה.]; ר'יעקב עמדין, לוח ארש, עמ'קמג-קמח; ר'וואלף היידנהיים, מודע לבינה, וילנא תרמ"ח, (אחר חומש שמות), דף יג ע"א-יד ע"ב [ראה לעיל הערה 57]; ר'משה קערנער, ברכת משה, ברלין תקצ"ד, עמ' 93; ר'זלמן גייגר, דברי קהלת, פראנקפורט תרכ"ב, עמ' 112-114; ר'דוב ריפמאן, שלחן הקריאה, בערלין 1882, דף פ ע"א ואילך; ר'שבתי לישפיץ, שערי רחמים [בתוך: ר'אפרים זלמן מרגליות, שערי אפרים], ברוקלין תשס"ד, עמ' 92; ר'שלמה שיק, סדור המנהגים, א, מונקאטש תר"ם, דף פב ע"ב; הנ"ל, שו"ת רשב"ן, מונקאטש סי'קצב; אדר"ת, תפלת דוד, עמ'פו (בשם ר'בצלאל הכהן); ר'פנחס שווארטץ, ניו יורק תשכ"ט, מנחה חדשה, עמ'כב-כג; J. Penkower, 'Maimonides and the Alepp Codex', Textus IX (1981), pp. 115-117 [תודה ליצחק פנקובר שהפנה אותי לזה].

עוד על כל זה ראה: מרדכי ברויאר, כתר ארם צובה והנוסח המקובל של המקרא, ירושלים תשל"ז, עמ' 56-66; הנ"ל בתוך: בן ציון סגל (עורך), עשרה הדיברות בראי הדורות, ירושלים תשמ"ו, 'חלוקת עשרת הדיברות לפסוקים ולדיברות', עמ' 223-254; אמנון שילוח, 'הערות לעניין ניגוני הטעם העליון בעשרת הדיברות', הנ"ל, עמ' 255-263; אניציקלופדיה תלמודית, כ, ירושלים תשנ"א, עמ'תרו-תרח; יוסף עופר, 'הטעם העליון והטעם התחתון בעשרת הדיברות', דף שבועי, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, 238 (תשנ"ח); ר'דויד יצחקי, בסוף לוח ארש, ירושלים תשס"א, עמ'תקכד ואילך, שם, עמ'תקלז-תקמ; ר'אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס"ח, עמ'קכח-קלז.

[31] ר'חיים דוב שעוועל (מהדיר), חזקוני, ירושלים תשמ"א, יתרו (כ:יד), עמ'רנט.

[32]יש לציין שידידי ר'חיים ישראל טעסלער, 'מאמר הרמן ורשותא', קובץ פעלים לתורה כב (תשע"ה), עמ'קלב-קלג ועמ'קלו-קלז, מברר איזה כ"י היה לפניו ואפי'הביא תמונות של כתה"י.

[33] על פיוט זה ראה לקמן.

[34]הסבר זה נדפס לראשונה על ידיו ב'מודע לבינה'רעדלהיים תקע"ח, שמות, דף קכו ע"א- קלא ע"א; מודע לבינה, וילנא תרמ"ח, (אחר חומש שמות), דף יג ע"א-יד ע"ב. ולאחרונה ע"י ר'דויד יצחקי, בסוף מהדורת 'לוח ארש', ירושלים תשס"א, עמ'תקכד ואילך עם הערות. וראה שם, עמ'תקמא-תקמב.

מהלך זה צוטט רבות: שד"ל, כרם חמד ג (תקצ"ח), עמ' 201-202; הנ"ל, פירושו על התורה, ירושלים תשנ"ג, עמ' 319; ר'יהודה לעווענברעג, אמרי חן, ב, לייקוואוד תשמ"ו, עמ'עג-עה; פרדס אליעזר, עמ'רא-רג. וראה מה שהעיר ע"ז ר'חיים שובין, במבוא, ל'סדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות', ווילנא תרס"ב, עמ' 16-20.

עצם הביאור, ללא דברי החזקוני ורז"ה, נמצא גם בשם ר'מאיר א"ש, ע"י בנו ב'זכרון יהודה' [נדפס לראשונה בתרכ"ח], ירושלים תשנ"ז, עמ'פו; ר'חזקיה פייבל פלויט, ליקוטי חבר בן חיים, ב, מונקאטש תרל"ט, דף לד ע"א; ר'נתנאל חיים פאפע, 'מאמר על אקדמות', המאסף יא (תרס"ו) (חוברת ג, סיון) סי'כג, דף לט ע"ב- מ ע"ב; הנ"ל, 'אקדמות ויצב פתגם', וילקט יוסף טו (תרע"ג) קונטרס יט, עמ' 148-149, סי'קע"ה; ר'יהודה ליב דאברזינסקי, שו"ת מנחת יהודה, פיעטרקוב תרפ"ח, סי'כג; ר'עזרא אלטשולר, שו"ת תקנת השבים, או"ח, בני ברק תשע"ה, עמ'קמג-קמד; ר'נפתלי ברגר, 'תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר התפילה ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות', בני ברק תשל"ג, עמ'לב-לד, פב-פו; ר'חיים ישראל טעסלער, מנהגי חג השבועות, לאנדאן תשע"א, נספח, עמ'א-ה [תודה לידידי ר'מנחם זילבר שהפנני לזה]; הנ"ל, 'מאמר הרמן ורשותא', קובץ פעלים לתורה כב (תשע"ה), עמ'קיד-קלה.

[35]על מקום המתרגם בקריאת התורה ראה מש"כ ר'יהודה ברצלוני, ספר העתים, עמ' 266-268. וראה יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, תל-אביב תשמ"ח, עמ' 140-144; יצחק גילת, פרקים בהשתלשלות ההלכה, רמת גן תשס"א³, עמ' 358-359; S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranen Society, 2, Califiorinia 1999, pp. 175-177 [שעדיין בזמן הגניזה נהגו לתרגם הקריאה לארמית]; ר'יצחק ווייס, בית יצחק, על מסכת מגילה, בני ברק תשס"ט, [נדפס לראשונה במונקאטש 1896], עמ'שנג.

יש לציין שבתימן נוהגים כן עד היום הזה. ראה למשל: ר'יוסף קאפח, הליכות תימן, ירושלים תשכ"ח, עמ' 68: "בשבתות ובחגים עומד נער כבן שש שבע או שמונה שנה, ומתרגם תרגום אונקלוס אחרי הקורא פסוק פסוק...".

[36]יש לנו עוד מקורות מזמן הראשונים שנהגו בשבועות ושביעי של פסח, לתרגם הקריאה ולהקדים פיוטים לתרגום. ראה: תורתן של גאונים ה, ש"ז הבלין וי'יודלוב (עורכים), ירושלים תשנ"ב, עמ' 349-350; ספר המנהיג לראב"ן הירחי, ירושלים תשנ"ד עמ'נח; כל בו, ירושלים תשמ"ח, סי'נב, שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנברג, (פראג), בודאפעסט תרנ"ה, סי'נט; ר'מנחם מטרוייש, סדר טרוייש, פראנקפורט דמיין תרס"ה, עמ' 33; מנהגי ר"ח פלטיאל, (בתוך: דניאל גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, ירושלים תשנ"ו), עמ' 58;פירושים ופסקים לרבינו אביגדור צרפתי, (מהדיר: ר'יצחק הערשקאוויטש), ירושלים תשנ"ו, עמ'שיט [ראה שם הערת המהדיר, אות נו]; ר'יאיר חיים בכרך, מקור חיים, סי'קמה ס"ק א [מביא תוס']; ר'יוסף חזן, חקרי לב, או"ח, סי'מא; ר'ראובן מרגליות, נפש חיה, מילואים, סי'תצד, עמ' 11; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ' 62; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, עמ' 143; ר'מרדכי מנחם הוניג, 'על מהדורתו החדשה של ספר המשכיל (ספר חסידים) לר'משה בר'אלעזר הכהן', ירושתנו א (תשס"ז), עמ'רכט.

[37]על הספר ראה: יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ' 19; ישראל תא-שמע, התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ' 15-20; הנ"ל, כנסת מחקרים, א, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ' 62-76; אברהם גרוסמן, חכמי צרפת הראשונים, ירושלים תשס"א, עמ' 395-402.

[38]עליו ראה: עזרא שרשבסקי, החכם מלייפציג, ירושלים תשנ"ג.

[39]כמה חוקרים כבר ציינו לכל זה רק מתוך ה'מחזור ויטרי'– על פי כתב היד. ראה למשל: שד"ל, כרם חמד ג (תקצ"ח), עמ' 201-202; שי"ר, במכתב שנדפס ע"י אברהם אליהו הרכבי, זכרון לראשונים ואחרונים, ב, ווינלא תרמ"א, עמ' 37; י"ל צונץ, הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית, ירושלים תש"ז, עמ' 512.

[40]ראה: מחזור ויטרי, נירנבערג תרפ"ג, ב, [מהדורת ר'הורוויץ], עמ' 158 ואילך, עמ' 304- 345 [=מחוזר ויטרי, (מהדורות ר'גולדשמידט), ב, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ'תפג- תקעד]. וראה 'פירוש אלפביטין על י"ג פיוטים ארמיים לחג השבועות', שנדפס לאחרונה ע"י מנחם שמלצר, מחקרים בביבליוגרפיה יהודית ובפיוטי ימי הביניים, ירושלים תשס"ו, עמ' 1-92. על פיוטים אלו ב'מחזור ויטרי', ראה ישראל מ'תא-שמע, כנסת מחקרים, א, עמ' 77-86.

[41]ראה: י"ל צונץ, הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית⁴, ירושלים תש"ז, עמ' 194, 512; חיים שירמן, 'פיוט ארמי לפייטן איטלקי קדמון', לשוננו כא (תשי"ז), עמ' 212-219; שרגא אברמסון, 'הערות ל'פיוט ארמי לפייטן איטלקי קדמון', לשוננו כה (תשכ"א) עמ' 31-34; יוסף היינימן, עיוני תפילה, ירושלים תשמ"ג, עמ' 148-167; אברהם רוזנטל, 'הפיוטים הארמיים לשבועות', עבודת גמר האוניברסיטה העברית תשכ"ו; מנחם שמלצר, מחקרים בביבליוגרפיה יהודית ובפיוטי ימי הביניים, ירושלים תשס"ו, עמ' 242-245; י"מ תא-שמע, כנסת מחקרים, א, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ' 77-86; לאחרונה נדפס אוסף של פיוטים בארמית שבו נמצאו בין השאר פיוטים כרשות למתרגם, ראה: יוסף יהלום ומיכאל סוקולוף, שירת בני מערבא, ירושלים תשנ"ט. [על חיבור זה ראה מאיר בר-אילן, 'פיוטים ארמיים מארץ ישראל ואחיזתם במציאות', מהות כג (תשס"ב), עמ' 167-188[. וראה יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, ירושלים תש"ס, עמ' 397-564 שם נדפסו כל הפיוטים ששיך לשבועות.

[42]שלחן תמיד, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ'קד, סי'יט, זר זהב, אות ג. עליו ראה: אברהם בריק, רבי שלמה חעלמא, ירושלים תשמ"ה.

[43]ספר המנהגים לר"א טירנא, עמ'סח. וראה ספר מנהגים לר'אברהם קלויזנר, עמ'קכא; מהרי"ל, עמ'קסא; אליה רבה סי'תצד ס"ק ה.

[44]ראה: אוצר השירה והפיוט, א, עמ' 347, מספר 7648; שירת בני מערבא, ירושלים תשנ"ט, עמ' 110-116; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, עמ' 397-400.

[45]יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, עמ' 467-469. וראה ר'שלמה שיק, סדור המנהגים, א, מונקאטש תר"ם, דף פב ע"ב.

[46] שם.

[47] שם, ס"ק ב.

[48] שם.

[49] שם, ס"ק ה.

[50] שלחן שלמה, סי'תצד סע'ד.

[51]שלחן תמיד, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ'קד, סי'יט, אות ב.

[52]משבצות זהב ס"ק א.

[53]שלחן ערוך הרב, שם, סעי'ז

[54]מליץ יושר, אמשטרדם תקס"ט, דף ה ע"ב. החיבור כולל תקנות של ר'אהרן משה יצחק גראנבום שהיה רב בקהילה באמסטרדם. וראה מה שכתב ר'יצחק בהאג ב'אור האמת', נדפס בתוך אוצר החיים ט (תרצ"ג), עמ' 117. על חיבור זה ראה: ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה בפיורדא, ב, בני ברק תש"ע, עמ' 355-368; דניאל שפרבר, מנהגי ישראל,  ג, ירושלים תשנ"ה, עמ'קנח-קנט.

[55]ר'רפאל גינסבורג, דינים ומנהגים לבית הכנסת דחברת האחים, ברעסלויא תקצ"ג, עמ' 14. יש לציין שספר זה נדיר ביותר ועותק של הספר אינו נמצא בספרייה הלאומית! והעותק שנמצא על האתר של Hebrew Booksחסר עמודים אלו.

[56]סי'קמו: "ולפי מנהגינו שאומרים אקדמות קודם שמתחיל הכהן...".

[57]גליון שו"ע, סי'תצד: "כי כל המעיין בשער אפרים סוף התשובה יראה כי כל ראיותיו הם צנומות דקות...". מעניין מסקנתו זו לאור יחסו החיובי למנהגי עיר מולדתו פרנקפורט, שכאמור לעיל נהגה דלא כט"ז. ראה מעוז כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר: הלכה והגות לנוכח אתגרי הזמן, ירושלים תשע"ו, עמ' 276-282, בענין יחסו לפרנקפורט.

[58] שער אפרים, שער ד אות טו.

[59] ר'דוב ריפמאן, שלחן הקריאה, בערלין 1882, עמ' 158

[60]סדור המנהגים, א, מונקאטש תר"ם, דף פב ע"ב.

[61]שו"ת זכר יהוסף, א, סי'י"ט, דף לב ע"א, ד"ה ובט"ז סי'תצד.

[62]עתים לבינה, ווארשא תרמ"ז, עמ' 254.

[63]ליקוטי מהרי"ח, ג, ירושלים תשס"ג, דף מז ע"ב.

[64]אדר"ת, תפלת דוד, ירושלים תשס"ד, עמ'פה.

[65] ערוך השלחן, סעי'ד.

[66]משנה ברורה ס"ק ב.

[67]ר'צבי הירש גראדזינסקי, מקראי קודש, ב, נוי יארק תרצ"ז, עמ'לג-לד.

[68]שו"ת תקנת השבים, או"ח, בני ברק תשע"ה, עמ'קמד: "וכן נהגו עתה בכל גלילי רוסיא ע"פ גדולי הדור". וראה לוח עברי טייטש עם מנהגי בית הכנסת, וילנא תר"פ, עמ' 30.

[69]לוח לשנת תרצ"ב, ירושלים תרצ"ב, עמ'כט.

[70]שו"ת גבורות אליהו, א, לייקוואוד תשע"ג, עמ'רסא.

[71]ספר ארץ ישראל, ירושלים תשט"ו, עמ'סה. וכ"כ ר'שמואל מונק, קונטרס תורת אמך (בסוף שו"ת פאת שדך או"ח, ב, חיפה תשס"א), אות קפח.

[72]סי'תצד, בילקוט המפרשים שבסוף שו"ע מהדורת מכון ירושלים.

[73]סי'תצד, בגליון רע"א שם.

[74] סי'תצד, בילקוט המפרשים שבסוף שו"ע מהדורת מכון ירושלים.

[75]סי'תצד. למעשה מסקנתו הוא: "אבל היותר נכון לאומרו קודם ברכה כלל".

[76]ראה מחצית השקל, פמ"ג באשל אברהם, ולבושי שרד בסי'קמו. וראה: ר'גרשון קבלענץ, שו"ת קרית חנה, מיץ תקמ"ה, סי'ז ונדפס ג"כ בשו"ת שבות יעקב, לר'יעקב רישר, א, סי'יב.

[77]ראה ר'בנימין שלמה המבורגר, 'גדולי הדורות על משמר מנהג אשכנז', בני ברק תשנ"ד, עמ' 112.

[78]ראה: מג"א סי'קכה ס"ק ב וזית רענן דף יט ע"ב, לח ע"ב, נ ע"ב, ע ע"א, פא ע"ב.

[79]ר'מאיר א"ש, ב'זכרון יהודה', ירושלים תשנ"ז, עמ'פו, שכיוון מעצמו לביאורו של ר'וולף היידנהיים, ידע על הרעיון של התרגום בשבועות מתוך המג"א, כמו שהוא כותב שם.

[80]ביאור הגר"א, סי'קמו. אגב יש לומר שהגר"א לשיטתו, השוללת אמירת פיוטים בכלל, לא מזכיר את אקדמות כלל. וראה מה שכתב ר'יעקב שלום סופר, תורת חיים, סי'קמו ס"ק א.

[81]מגן אברהם, סי'תרצ, ס"ק כב. וראה  שו"ת שער אפרים, זולצבאך תמ"ח, סי'י; ר'יוסף שטיינהרט, שו"ת זכרון יוסף, פיורדא תקל"ג, סי'ה, ד"ה תשובה; ור'שמשון מורפורגו, שו"ת שמש צדקה, א, ונציה תק"ג, סי'יא דברים חשובים בעניין.

[82]על מחבר 'יציב פתגם': ר'מנחם קשענסקי, 'יציב פתגם', הפלס ה (תרס"ה), עמ' 471-473; י'דוידזון, אוצר השירה והפיוט, ב, מספר 3577; ר'ישיעהו זלוטניק, הצפירה, שנה 67 גליון 119, (1928) 24 מאי, עמ' 5; ר'שאול ח'קוק, עיונים ומחקרים, ב, ירושלים תשל"ג, עמ' 203-204; ר'ראובן מרגליות, עוללות, ירושלים תשמ"ט, סי'כג, עמ' 61- 63; הנ"ל, נפש חיה, סי'תצ"ד, ובמילואים שם; יצחק מיזליש, שירת רבינו תם, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 51-54; ר'משה אייזיק בלוי, 'מיהו יהונתן ביציב פתגם', קולמוס 63 (תשס"ח), עמ' 16-18; E. Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz, Detroit 2013, pp. 393-395.

בענין אמירת יציב פתגם ראה: אלכסנדר גרעניץ, 'השערה על דברים אחרים', המליץ שנה ג (1863) גלי' 12 עמ' 12 (192); פלמוני, 'יציב פתגם', עלי הדס, אדעסא תרכ"ה, עמ' 105-107 [מאריך כדעת הט"ז]; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, תל-אביב תשמ"ח, עמ' 144; עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 1113, 1093; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, ירושלים תש"ס, עמ' 570-572; הנ"ל, פסח, ירושלים תשנ"ג, עמ' 632-634; ר'יצחק טעסלער, פניני מנהג, חג השבועות, מונסי תשס"ח, עמ'תיז-תכ.

[83]ראה: ר'מאיר א"ש, 'זכרון יהודה', ירושלים תשנ"ז, עמ'פו; ר'נתנאל חיים פאפע, 'מאמר על אקדמות', המאסף יא (תרס"ו) חוברת ג סי'כג, דף לט ע"ב- מ ע"ב; הנ"ל, 'אקדמות ויציב פתגם', וילקט יוסף טו (תרע"ג) קונטרס יט, עמ' 148-149, סי'קע"ה; ר'פנחס שווארטץ, ניו יורק תשכ"ט, מנחה חדשה, עמ'כט-ל; ר'יהודה ליב דאברזינסקי, שו"ת מנחת יהודה, פיעטרקוב תרפ"ח, סי'כג; ר'עזרא אלטשולר, שו"ת תקנת השבים, או"ח, בני ברק תשע"ה, עמ'קמד; ר'חיים טעסלער, מנהגי חג השבועות, לאנדאן תשע"א, נספח, עמ'ו-ז; הנ"ל, 'הפיוט יציב פתגם', בתוך: לוח דרכי יום ביומו מונקאטש, לאנדאן תשע"ב, עמ'נז-סט.

[84]'מחזור כמנהג רומה', שונצין קזאל מיורי רמ"ו, מהדורת פקסימיליה, ירושלים תשע"ב, דף 82 א-ב. וראה מה שכתב ר'יצחק יודלוב, 'המחזור כמנהג רומה דפוס שונצינו', קובץ מחקרים על מחזור כמנהג בני רומא, בעריכת אנג'לו מרדכי פיאטלי, ירושלים תשע"ב, עמ' 19 הערה 32, ועמ' 27.

[85] שם, דף 88א

[86]שם, דף 90 א.

[87]שם, דף 93 ב- 94 א.

[88]שם, דף 97 א-ב.

[89]שם, דף 136 א.

[90]שם, דף 140ב-141א.

[91]יש לציין לדברי המקור חיים, סי'תצד, שאין אומרים בוורמייזא 'יציב פתגם'כלל.

[92]שלחן שלמה, סעי'ד.

[93]שלחן ערוך הרב, סעי'ז.

[94]תפלת דוד, עמ'פה.

[95] משנה ברורה, סי'תצד ס"ק ב.

Book week 2016

June 16, 2016, 8:07 am

≫ Next: Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More

≪ Previous: אמירת פיוטי 'אקדמות'ו'יציב פתגם'בחג השבועות

$

0

0

Book week 2016

By Eliezer Brodt

Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. As I have written in previous years every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer - Book Week (for previous years lists see here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here and here).

Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out just for the sales. 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.

 In my lists I sometimes include an older title if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad interest. Some books I cannot provide much information about as I just glanced at them quickly.

As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped greatly worldwide, Academic books on Jewish related topics are still coming out in full force.

As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.

מאגנס

1. שמחה עמנואל, מגנזי אירופה,, א, 512 עמודים

2. דוד הנשקה, מה נשתנה, ליל הפסח בתלמודם של חכמים, 650 עמודים

3. מנחם כהנא, ספרי במדבר, חלק ד-ה, ב'חלקים

4. שי עקביא ווזנר, חשיבה משפטית בישיבות ליטא, עיונים במשנתו של הרב שמעון שקופ, 332 עמודים

5. יאיר פורסטנברג, טהרה וקהילה בעת העתיקה, מסורות הלכה בין יהדות  בית שני למשנה, 479 עמודים

6. יקיר אנגלנדר, הגוף הגברי החרדי ליטאי בספרות המוסר ובסיפורי הצדיקים

7. קבלה מיסטיקה ופואטיקה, המסע אל קץ החיזיון,  בעריכת אבי אלקיים שלומי מועלם

8. שרה צפתמן, צא טמא, גירוש רוחות ביהדות אשכנז בראשית העת החדשה, 597 עמודים

9. אבינועם רוזנק [עורך], הלכה כהתרחשות, פילוסופיה של ההלכה, 472 עמודים

10. דוד רוקח, סוגיות בענייני דיומא ושאר ירקות 160 עמודים

11. צחי וייס, קיצוץ בנטיעות, עבודת השכינה בעולמה של ספרות הקבלה המוקדמת, 170 עמודים

12. שרה קליין ברסלבי, פירוש הרלב"ג לסיפורי בריאת האדם ולסיפור גן העדן

13. אלכסנדר קריסטיאנפולר, חלומות ופשריהם בספרות חז"ל, מגנס, 174 עמודים

14. תרביץ פג א-ב

15. תרביץ פג ג

16. תרביץ פג ד

17. קובץ על יד, כרך כד

18. יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, האיגוד העולמי, 447 עמודים

ביאליק

1. זאב גריס, הספר העברי פרקים לתולדותיו, 435 עמודים

2. אסף ידידיה, לגדל תרבות עבריה, חייו ומשנתו של זאב יעבץ, 232 עמודים

3. משנת הזוהר, כרך המפתחות

4. נאוה וסרמן, מימי לא קראתי לאשתי, זוגיות בחסידות גור,

5. איתמר לוין, קאפו באלנבי: העמדת יהודים לדין בישראל באשמת סיוע לנאצים, 573 עמודים

מרכז זלמן שזר

1. ולדימיר לוין, ממהפכה למלחמה הפוליטיקה היהודית ברוסיה, 1914-1917, 503 עמודים

2. מעוז כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, הלכה והגות לנוכח אתגרי הזמן, 486 עמודים

4. שלמה טיקוצינסקי, למדנות מוסר ואליטיזם, ישיבת סלבודקה מליטא לארץ ישראל, 394 עמודים

4. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד העברית, ימי הביניים, יא, ספר הזוהר, 515 עמודים

5. רחל מנקין, יהודי גליציה והחוקה האוסטריה, ראשיתה של פוליטיקה יהודית מודרנית, 287 עמודים

6. אבני דרך, מסות ומחקרים בהיסטוריה של עם ישראל, בעריכת עמנואל אטקס דוד אסף ויוסף קפלן, 537 עמודים

7. פאבל מצ'ייקו, ערב רב, פנים וחוץ בוויכוח הפרנקיסטי, 352 עמודים

8. זוהר מאור, מרטין בובר

9. ויצמן מנהיג הציונות, אורי כהן מאיר חזן (עורכים)

10. עפרי אילני, החיפוש אחר העם העברי: תנ"ך ונאורות בגרמניה

בר אילן

1. פירוש ר'אברהם בן שלמה התימני לספר ישעיהו, מהדיר א'שלוסברג, בר אילן, 540 עמודים

2. מנחם קלנר, גם הם קרויים אדם, הנכרי בעיני הרמב"ם, בר אילן, 249 עמודים

3. משנת ארץ ישראל, עם פירוש ספראי, חלה, 258 עמודים

4. עלי ספר, כד-כה, 362 עמודים

5. סידרא ל

6. בדד 30

7. דעת 79-80

8. דב שוורץ, הגותו הפילוסופית של הרב סולובייצ'יק, ג: התפילה כחוויה

9. שירת ההגות, עיוני ביצירתו של ר'יהודה הלוי, בעריכת אפרים חזן ודב שוורץ

10. שמואל גליק, שרידי תשובות מחכמי האימפריה העות'מאנית, ב'חלקים

11. Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, Addenda et Corrigenda, 88 pp.

יד יצחק בן צבי

1. מנחם כ"ץ, תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת קידושין, מהדורה וביאור קצר, 480 עמודים

2. מרד בר כוכבא, העדות הארכאולוגית, 158 עמודים

3. ניסים יושע, אנוס בחבלי משיח: תאולוגיה, פילוסופיה ומשיחיות בהגותו של אברהם מיכאל קארדוסו, בן צבי, 282  עמודים
4. כנה ורמן, ספר היובלים, מבוא ופירוש, 627 עמודים

5. גבוה מעל גבוה: בית הכנסת תפארת ישראל והקהילה החסידית בירושלים, עורכים: ראובן גפני יוחאי בן גדליה אוריאל גלמן, 272 עמודים

6. סתרי נדחים: יהודים עם זהויות חבויות עורכים אבי אלקיים, יוסף קפלן, 359 עמודים

7. אפרים יעקב, אלוה מתימן יבוא, פרקים בתולדות הקבלה בתימן, 351 עמודים

8. דוד בן זזון, נבוכים הם, מסע בביאורו של דון יצחק אברבנאל ל'מורה נבוכים', 408 עמודים

9. גנזי קדם, כרך יא

10. ספונות כרך כד, 560 עמודים

קורן-מגיד

1. מעשה חשב, אמונה הגות ומחשבה נושאי מרכזי דעת אלוקים, כרך א, 270 עמודים

2. ר'אהרן ליכטנשטיין, מוסר אביב על מוסר אמונה וחברה, 320 עמודים

3. Rabbi David Eliezrie, The Secret of Chabad, Inside the world's most successful Jewish Movement

4. Rabbi Meir Soloveichik etc, Torah and Western Thought; Intellectual Portraits of orthodoxy and Modernity

ידיעות ספרים

1. גרשם שלום, זרמים ראשיים במיסטיקה היהודית, 502 עמודים

2. אבי רט עם רבנים וחוקרים, באמת ובאהבה, על גדולי החסידות עולמם ותורתם, 377 עמודים

3. חביבה פדיה, קבלה ופסיכואנליזה, מסע פנימי בעקבות המיסטיקה היהודית, 391 עמודים

4. אריאל פיקאר, לראות את הקולות, מסורת יצירה וחירות פרשנית, 310 עמודים

דני ספרים

1. עמנואל אלאלוף, הרי"ף בין ספרד לאשכנז, השתלשלות ההלכה ודרכי הלימוד בספרד ובאשכנז ומקומו של הרי"ף כמגשר ביניהם, 560 עמודים

יד ושם

1. יחזקאל ליכטנשטיין, והסנה איננו אכל: סוגיות מימי השואה בראי ההלכה, 363 עמודים

קיבוץ המאוחד - ספריית הילל בן חיים

1. יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ, אחד בכל דמיונות, הגותם הדיאלקטית של חסידי אשכנז, 234 עמודים

2. בועס הס, שאלת קיומה של מיסטיקה יהודית, גנאלוגיה של המיסטיקה היהודית והתיאולוגיות של חקר הקבלה, קיבוץ המאוחד-ון ליר, 185 עמודים

3.יונתן גרוסמן, גלוי ומוצפן, על כמה מדרכי העיצוב של הסיפור המקראי, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 435 עמודים

4. עזריה בייטנר, הכהנים רגזנים הם, לדמותם של הכהנים באגדה, 304 עמודים

5. עופר חן, המשכיות ומפנה, מגרמניה לארץ ישראל האורתודוקסיה המודרנית לנוכח האתגר הציוני

6. יעל שמש, אבלות במקרא, דרכי התמודדות עם אובדן בספרות המקראית

מכללת הרצוג

1. ר'יואל בן-נון, זכור ושמור, טבע והיסטוריה נפגשים בשבת ובלוח החגים [הרבה חומר על הלוח] מללכת הרצוג, 544 עמודים

2. ר'יעקב מדן, המקראות המתחדשים, עיונים בנביאים ובכתובים, 563 עמודים

3. יצחק גייגר, היציאה מהשטעטל, רבני הציונות הדתית אל מול אתגר הריבונות היהודי, 537 עמודים

כרמל             

1. חלמיש למעיינו מים, מחקרים בקבלה הלכה מנהג והגהות מוגשים לפר'משה חלמיש, כרמל, 667 +33 עמודים

2. פירוש שד"ל על התורה, ה'חלקים על פי כ"י, כולל הרבה הוספות

3. חנה קהת, משהפכה התורה לתלמוד תורה, תמורות באידאה של תלמוד תורה בעידן המודרני, 744 עמודים

4. אפרים חמיאל, האמת הכפולה, עיונים בהגות הדתית המודרנית במאה התשע עשרה ובהשפעתה על ההגות היהודי במאה העשרים, [על רש"ר הירש, שד"ל, מהר"ץ חיות, רד"צ הופמן ועוד], 477 עמודים

5. רוברט ליברלס, יהודים וקפה, מסורת וחדשנות בגרמניה בעת החדשה המוקדמת, 240 עמודים

6. חננאל מאק, מבראשית לבראשית רבה 2

Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More

June 20, 2016, 7:25 am

≫ Next: אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך

≪ Previous: Book week 2016

$

0

0

Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More

Marc B.Shapiro

Continued from here

1. Regarding engaged couples having physical contact, this is actually the subject of a section of the book Penei Yitzhak by R. Hezekiah Mordechai Bassan. Here is the title page.

This book was published in Mantua in 1744 by Menahem Navarra who was a descendant of R. Bassan. Navarra, who was at this time a doctor, not a rabbi, was nevertheless very learned in Torah matters. (He would later be appointed rabbi of Verona.[1]) Navarra included three essays of his own in the volume, the second of which is called Issur Kedushah. In this work he criticizes members of the Jewish community for allowing engaged couples to have physical contact before marriage. Here are the first two pages of the work.

Navarra and the others I have referred to are only dealing with an engaged couple touching before marriage, but not with actual sexual relations. Yet this too is mentioned many centuries before Navarra. Ezra 2:43 and Nehemiah 7:46 refer to בני טבעות. A commentary attributed to R. Saadiah Gaon[2] explains this as follows:

בני טבעות: שקלקלו אבותם גם [צ"ל עם] ארוסותיהם קודם שיכניסו אותם לחופה והיו סומכין על קדושי טבעות ומקלקלין עם ארוסותיהן.

What this means is that after kiddushin, which was effected by aטבעת  (ring), but before actual marriage (the two used to be separated, sometimes for many months), the engaged couple would have sexual relations. The children who resulted from this were referred to negatively as בני טבעות. As S. H. Kook points out,[3] R. Saadiah’s explanation is also mentioned by R. Hai Gaon.[4]

R. Hayyim Benveniste, in seventeeth century Turkey, also speaks about how engaged couples would have physical contact. This shows again that there was a divergence between what the halakhah requires and what the people were actually doing (much like you find in a large section of Modern Orthodox society today). Here are R. Benveniste’s words:[5]

להתייחד שניהם כמו שנוהגים פה תירייא ואיזמיר, שאחר השדוכין אחר עבור קצת ימים מתייחדין החתן והכלה ומכניסים אותה לחדר וסוגרין אותן הסגר מוחלט כמו שמסגרין הנשואה אחר ז'ברכות, מנהג כזה רע ומר הוא, ואיכא איסורא מכמה פנים . . . ועוד שנכשלים באיסור נדה, וברוב הפעמים תצא כלה לחופתה וכריסה בין שיניה, וכמה מהם הודו ולא בושו שבאים עליה שלא כדרכה. אלא א-להים הוא יודע שטרחתי הרבה לבטל מנהג זה פה תיריא ועלה בידי, ועשיתי הסכמה בחרמות ונדויים על זה, ולסבת בעלי זרוע בעלי אגרופין אשר אין פחד א-להים לנגד עיניהם חזר המנהג לסורו רע.

There are a few different points that are of interest in what R. Benveniste writes. The first is that he says that in the majority of cases the bride arrives at the huppah וכריסה בין שיניה. This means that she is pregnant. Even if there is some exaggeration here, R. Benveniste is telling us that many Jewish women were getting pregnant before marriage. Readers might recall my post here where I mentioned R. Ovadiah Bertinoro’s assertion that most Jewish brides in Palermo were pregnant at the time of their wedding.

R. Benveniste mentions how he was able to improve matters by using the power of the herem to keep people in line, but that his success was short-lived as powerful members of the community were able to undermine his authority. This shows us, just as we saw in the text I quoted from R. Eleazar Kalir, that parents were often happy when their children had physical contact before marriage, and they opposed what they regarded as the overly puritanical approach of the rabbis. When R. Benveniste refers to those who באים עליה שלא כדרכה, this means that some of the couples had a sexual relationship, but wanted the woman to be a virgin at the wedding.

R. Jonah Landsofer (Bohemia, died 1712) also testified to the problem we have been discussing:[6]

בבית ישראל ראיתי שערוריה איכה נהיית'כזאת שאין איש שם לבו להוכיח בשער בת רבים על התקלה וקלקלת שוטי'שקלקלו והרגלו הרגל דבר עד שנעשה טבע קיים לבלתי הרגיש ברעה אשר ימצאם באחרית הימים והוא אשר נעשה בכל יום ערוך השלחן וצפה הצפית מיום שגומרין שידוכין בין בחור ובתולה מושבים אותם יחד ומוסרי'הבתולה לזנות בית אביה בחיבוקים ונשוקים ומעשה חידודי'וכל הקרואים והמסובי'מחזיקי'בידו.

Because the masses had no interest in what the rabbis had to say about this matter, R. Landsofer concludes that one need not even rebuke them, as they won’t listen anyway. Not long ago I heard a rabbi going on about the holy communities of Europe of a few hundred years ago, about their support of Torah, the respect they gave to the rabbis, and their commitment to halakhah. All of this is true, but if you look a little closer you find that these communities were actually very much like contemporary Modern Orthodox communities, in that together with a commitment to halakhah, many people also felt that they could determine which halakhot could be ignored. Or perhaps they didn’t even think they were violating halakhah. Maybe they assumed that the rabbis were making their lives difficult with extreme humrot. Either way you look at it, it is very obvious that there were many in traditional Jewish societies who created their own standards of practice which did not always correspond to what the rabbis insisted on, and they had no interest in changing their ways because of what the rabbis were saying.[7]

While the standard rabbinic view has always been that bride and groom are not to have any physical contact until after the wedding ceremony, the rabbis in Germany were a little more lenient. Sefer Maharil records that the practice was for the bride and groom to touch before marriage, but only on the morning of the wedding, a time that also included celebration.[8]

בעלות השחר ביום הששי היה קורא השמש לבא לבה"כ . . . ומביאים הכלה וחברותיה. וכאשר תבא עד פתח חצר בה"כ הלך הרב והחשובים והיו מוליכין את החתן לקראת הכלה. והחתן תופש אותה בידו ובחיבורן יחד זורקין כל העם על גבי ראשן חטין ואומרים פרו ורבו ג"פ. והולכין יחד עד אצל פתח בה"כ ויושבין שם מעט ומוליכין הכלה לביתה.

This detail, that the groom held the bride’s hand prior to the wedding, is found in a number of other German sources.[9] I don’t know how this practice of holding the bride’s hand before the wedding ceremony can be reconciled with what appears in Tractate Kallah, ch. 1:

כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה.

The word כלה here means a woman who is betrothed but not yet married.

R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Kisei Rahamim, Kallah, ch. 1, comments on this passage:

כלה בלא ברכה אסורה כלומר אפי'לחבק או ליגע בה כנדה.

I also find it noteworthy, and strange from our perspective, that Sefer Maharil tells us that for the wedding ceremony the rabbi would bring the bride to the groom, holding her by her robe:[10]

והרב היה תופס אותה בבגדיה והוליכה והעמידה לימין החתן.

R. Israel David Margulies (19^th century) cites this text from Sefer Maharil and correctly notes that in medieval times the brides were much younger than in his day. He assumes that the typical bride was under 12 and a half years old, and therefore there was no problem of impure thoughts with such brides.[11]

ואיזה הירהור יהי'בכלה קטנה או נערה כזאת, ולכן לקח אותה הרב בעצמו אצל מפתן הבית מן יד הנשים, והביאה אל החתן ושארי הנשים נשארו ולא היה להם שום עסק בבהכ"נ ולא היה חשש הרהור במקום קדשו.

2. Recently I heard a shiur where the rabbi said that if there is a Torah or rabbinic commandment to do something, only the talmudic sages can, as an emergency measure, forbid the action. The classic example is the Sages telling us not to blow the shofar if Rosh ha-Shanah falls out on Shabbat. There is nothing controversial in what the rabbi said, and I think most would agree, even if there some exceptions to this general rule. The rabbi further noted that post-talmudic authorities cannot make gezerot as this power is also reserved for the talmudic sages. This viewpoint is shared by many, yet there are important authorities who disagree, and perhaps more significantly there is evidence of post-talmudic gezerot.

I mention this now, after Passover [this post was written a few weeks ago], since those who reviewed the laws of Pesach would have seen Shulhan Arukh 453:5 which states:

האידנא אסור ללתות בין חטים בין שעורים.

“Nowadays, it is forbidden to moisten either wheat or barley [for grinding].”

If you look at the Mishnah Berurah he explains that while the Sages forbid moistening barley because it will easily leaven, according to the Talmud it is permitted to moisten wheat. In fact, according to the Talmud, Pesahim 40a, Rava held that it is an obligation to wash the grains of wheat: מצוה ללתות.

The Mishnah Berurah explains that it is the geonim who forbid moistening wheat since we are not expert at doing it properly, and it might come to be leavened, or we might delay removing the wheat after the moistening (before grinding) and this might lead to leavening. If the geonim forbid something that the Talmud permitted (or even required), isn’t this to be regarded as a gezerah?

3. Let me now mention something relating to Sukkot, which I had hoped to post closer to the holiday, but as the rabbinic saying goes, מה שהלב חושק הזמן עושק.

Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 649:4 states:

גנות הצעירים של עובדי כוכבים וכיוצא בהם מבתי שמשיהם מותר ליטול משם לולב או שאר מינים למצוה.

[Regarding what has grown in] the gardens of the צעירים of idolators and similar [gardens] of the houses [or: buildings] of their attendants, one is permitted to take from there a lulav or the other minim for the mitzvah.

Who are the צעירים of the idolators? The Taz states that he does not know:

                                                                                                                                

איני יודע פירושו, אבל הוא ענין ממשרתי עבודת אלילים.

It is not just the Taz who doesn’t know, as none of the traditional commentaries have a clue. The Feldheim English translation of the Shulhan Arukh with Mishnah Berurah (which I make use of when I provide translations) doesn’t translate the word הצעירים, and instead simply transliterates it.[12]

In fact, I  am sure that R. Joseph Karo, living in the Muslim world, did not know what the צעירים are either. You might find this a strange assertion. After all, if R. Karo recorded the halakhah, how could he not know what he was writing? However, in this case R. Karo was just recording what appears in R. Aaron Hakohen of Lunel’s Orhot Hayyim (Florence, 1750), Hilkhot Lulav, no. 8, in the name of the Ritva:

כתב הר'יום טוב אשבילי ז"ל בשם רבו ז"ל הוי יודע שגנות הצעירים והדורסים וכיוצא בהם מבתי הכומרים אינם משמשי ע"ז ולא נויי ע"ז ופירותיהם וכל אשר בהן מותרין בהנאה ומותר ליטול משם לולב או שאר מינין למצוה עכ"ל.

From a halakhic standpoint the importance of the halakhah is that it tells us that one can take a lulav and other other minim from the garden of an idolator, and it is not important exactly what type of idolator the צעירים are.

As mentioned, the halakhah in the Shulhan Arukh is taken from the Orhot Hayyim. It is first quoted in the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 649, where it cited more exactly from the Orhot Hayyim than what appears in the Shulhan Arukh:

כתוב בארחות חיים ]הל'לולב סי'ח[ נגות הצעירים והדורסים וכיוצא בהם מבתי הכומרים מותר ליטול משם לולב או שאר מינים למצוה.

In the Beit Yosef (and also in Orhot Hayyim) it says הצעירים והדורסים. Furthermore, instead of מבתי שמשיהם that appears in the Shulhan Arukh, we have מבתי הכומרים, which means the houses (or buildings) of the priests. I have no doubt that the the word שמשיהם is a censor’s replacement of the original הכומרים. In the first printing of the Beit Yosef, Venice 1550, the sentence quoted above appears in its entirety. Yet when the Beit Yosef was next printed, Venice 1564, the entire sentence was deleted, obviously a requirement of the censor. The Shulhan Arukh was first printed in Venice, also in 1564. It thus makes sense that the deletion of the word הכומרים is due to censorship, and it could be that it was this alteration that prevented the entire halakhah from being deleted.

Before we get to הצעירים, what is the meaning of הדורסים that appears in Orhot Hayyim and is copied in the Beit Yosef? If you look at the Ritva that the Orhot Hayyim is citing, he states:[13]

והוי יודע שגנות השעירים והדוכסים וכיוצא בהם מבתי הכומרים, אינם משמשי ע"ז ולא נויי ע"ז, ופירותיהם וכל אשר בהם מותרים בהנאה, ומותר ליטול משם לולב או שאר מינין למצוה וכן קבלנו מרבותינו ז"ל הלכה למעשה.

The first thing to notice is that instead of הצעירים we have the word השעירים. This is a clear mistake, and the editor notes that the word הצעירים appears when the passage is cited in Orhot Hayyim. Unfortunately, the editor doesn’t note that are also least two other places where in speaking about benefit from avodah zarah the Ritva refers to גנת הצעירים.[14]

The text from Ritva quoted above also has, instead of הדורסים which appears in Orhot Hayyim, another strange word, הדוכסים. This means “dukes” (or noblemen, princes, rulers, etc.) and makes no sense here since the context is avodah zarah which has nothing to do with a duke’s garden.

So we now have to explain not just what צעירים means but also דורסים or דוכסים. R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai[15] suggests that צעירים is derived from Zechariah 13:7: והשבתי ידי על הצוערים, “And I will turn my hand upon the little ones.” It is hard to see how telling us that צוערים is related to צעירים helps us to understand the point of the Shulhan Arukh. R. Azulai also refers the reader to Rashi’s commentary on Zech. 13:7:

על הצוערים: על השלטונים הצעירים מן המלכים.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see what this passage adds other than showing us thatצוערים  and צעירים mean the same thing. Why does R. Azulai have to tell us this? The wordצעיר  is found elsewhere in the Bible, so we already know what it means.

R. Azulai’s short note also refers the reader to Abarbanel’s comment to Zech. 13:7. It is Abarbanel who will help us to understand what is going on with the word צעירים. (As R. Azulai was commenting on the Shulhan Arukh, he did not attempt to explain דורסים/דוכסים which is only found in the Beit Yosef. We shall return to this word soon.)

Abarbanel writes:

והשיבותי ידי על הצוערים שראוי שיפורש כפי זה הדרך על כומרי אדום הדורשים להם אמונתם וכזביהם והם עצמם נקראים אצלם צעירים להורות על ענוותנותם ושפלותם כי בעבור שאלה חטאו והחטיאו את אחרים בלמודם ודרושותיהם [!] אמר השם שישיב ידו ומכותם עליהם.

While this passage has nothing to do with the Shulhan Arukh, R. Azulai saw the relevance of it as Abarbanel makes the connection between צוערים and צעירים as we saw already with Rashi. Abarbanel also specifically connects this to Catholic priests, telling us that these priests would call themselves צעירים as a sign of modesty.

From this we can understand that when the Shulhan Arukh refers to gardens of the צעירים he means gardens belonging to Catholic priests. But who in particular are the צעירים? To answer this question let’s return to the Beit Yosef which referred to both צעירים and דורסים/דוכסים. As already noted, this entire passage is taken from the Orhot Hayyim.

In 1902 R. Moses Schlesinger published the second volume of the Orhot Hayyim. In the introduction he included a helpful list of all the times that the Beit Yosef cites the Orhot Hayyim. When he comes to our example, p. xv, he has a note in which he cites the great Abraham Berliner[16] that the proper reading is גנות הצעירים והדורשים. In other words, instead of דורסים/דוכסים, which appears in the Ritva and the Orhot Hayyim, it should say דורשים. When he wrote the Beit Yosef, R. Joseph Karo probably just copied the word דורסים that was in his copy of the Orhot Hayyim without knowing exactly what it meant (as its exact meaning, while of interest to historians and Seforim Blog readers, is not relevant to the underlying halakhah).[17]

So what does הצעירים והדורשים mean? Berliner explains this as well (and it was actually earlier explained by Leopold Zunz[18]). The two most important medieval Catholic orders were the Franciscans and the Dominicans. The actual name of the Franciscans is the “Order of Friars Minor.” They were often called “Little Brothers” or “Minorites.” Thus, when the Ritva and Orhot Hayyim refer to the צעירים this is just the Hebrew translation of "Minorites”, i.e., the Franciscans. As Abarbanel correctly pointed out, this term was adopted as a sign of humility.[19]

As for the דורשים, the meaning of this is obvious (after Berliner and Zunz have enlightened us). The actual name of the Dominicans is the “Order of Preachers,” so דורשים (preachers)=Dominicans. What the Ritva and Orhot Hayyim are telling us is that when it comes to the mitzvah of lulav, one can use that which grows in the gardens of the Franciscans and the Dominicans (and the same halakhah would apply to other Catholic orders. The monasteries would often have gardens and Jews would be able to purchase things from there.) 

In Nahmanides’ Disputation[20] he too refers to theצעירים  and the דורשים.

והיו שם ההגמון וכל הגלחים וחכמי הצעירים והדורשים.

In his note, R. Hayyim Dov Chavel identifies the צעירים as the Franciscans. However, he doesn’t know that the דורשים are the Dominicans, and he therefore explains that the word means הנואמים. In his English translation, Chavel writes, “Among them were the bishop [of Barcelona] and all the priests, Franciscan scholars, and preachers.”[21]

It is noteworthy that the fifteenth-century R. Solomon ben Simeon Duran, who lived in North Africa, was apparently also unaware of the meaning of צעירים, and therefore applied it to all young Catholic religious figures, not merely Franciscans. )At least, that is what I think he means, as opposed to understanding his use ofצעיריהם  to refer to young men as a whole.) After contrasting the sexual purity of the Jews with what occurs in surrounding society, he writes, in very strong words:[22]

וצעיריהם הם כולם מטונפים בעריות מנאפים עם נשי רעיהם ובאים על הזכור והטוב שבהם מוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה בידו וזה מפורסם אצלם.

4. Since in a prior post I discussed Jacob’s love of Rachel and Leah, let me share a strange interpretation I recently found, involving love and Jacob’s brother, Esau. The general understanding is that Esau loved Isaac. Indeed, it is very difficult to read the Torah and conclude differently. Therefore, I was quite surprised to find that the medieval R. Abraham Bedersi is of the opinion that, after Isaac gave Jacob the blessing intended for Esau, not only did Esau not love Isaac, but he was ready to cause his death! This would be accomplished by killing Jacob, since Isaac’s great sorrow would bring on his end. To arrive at this interpretation, Bedersi offers a novel understanding of Gen. 27:41: יקרבו ימי אבל אבי ואהרגה את יעקב אחי. The standard understanding of these words is that when the days of mourning for his father arrive, then Esau will kill Jacob. As he didn’t want to cause his father pain, he decided to wait until he was dead to kill Jacob. However, Bedersi understands ואהרגה to mean, “when I will kill Jacob” this will cause my father to die.

Here are his words from his Hotem Tokhnit:[23]

ועשו הרשע ידוע שלא היה אוהב יצחק אביו כמו שתראה שאמר יקרבו ימי אבל אבי ואהרגה את יעקב אחי וביאור נכון בו אהרגה את יעקב אחי ובאמת יקרבו ימי אבל אבי שהוא יצטער על בנו וימות.

As mentioned, this is a strange interpretation so I Iooked around to see if I could find a similar approach. I didn’t see anything in Torah Shelemah. I looked in the ArtScroll extended commentary to Genesis (not the Stone Chumash) and it does not bring any interpretations that suggest that Esau intended to cause Isaac’s death. However, the commentary states as follows:

Ralbag interprets similarly:[24] Even if it accelerates my father’s death [lit. brings near the days of mourning for my father] I nevertheless will kill my brother Jacob (cited by Tur).

I don’t know where they got this from, as Ralbag does not say what is attributed to him. All Ralbag says is that Esau wished to kill Jacob after Isaac’s death. The Tur, who was a contemporary of Ralbag, does not cite him. 

R. Abraham Bedersi’s Hotem Tokhnit focuses on Hebrew synonyms and in an era before concordances and computers would have required an enormous amount of work. It found on hebrewbooks.org, but it is not on Otzar ha-Hokhmah. 



Among the many interesting things you will find in Hotem Tokhnit is that he says that unlike the word יהודי, the word עברי is only used in the Bible in the context of slavery, and he provides examples of this (p. 152). With this in mind, I can see why some people would prefer the term Mishpat Yehudi instead of Mishpat Ivri.

On p. 202  he quotes an otherwise unknown comment of Ibn Ezra that the meaning of the word סלה is “truth”.

כי ענין סלה אמת ונכונה ועל זה אמר אשרי יושבי ביתך עוד יהללוך סלה (תהלים פ"ד ה') באמת וביושר.

Beginning on p. 1 in the second section, there is a long letter from Samuel David Luzzatto. He refers to an unnamed scholar who could not accept that Rabad, in his comment to Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7, would say that people greater than Maimonides thought that God had a physical form. He therefore suggested changing גדולים וטובים ממנו to גדולים וטובים מעמֵנו (tzeirei under the mem). 

Luzzatto completely rejects this point, arguing that גדולים וטובים מעמנו means people greater than our nation, i.e., non-Jews. Furthermore, he adds, where do we find Rabad, Rashi, etc. using the word עמנו to refer to the Jewish people.

On p. 2 Luzzatto records the following lines from one of Bedersi’s poems, in which one word summarizes each of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles:

נמצא כיִחודו והֶבדלו                    קדמות עבודתו נבואתו

משה ותורתו אֲנצחַ                       ידע גמול גואל בהחיותו

Luzzatto also publishes a long poem from Bedersi together with Luzzatto’s commentary, without which it would be very difficult to understand much of what Bedersi was saying. One of my favorite lines is found on p. 13:

ולא תבין שפת כל-עם בשירים        לבד טרחם, כפז על גב בעירי

What this means is that poems are difficult for the masses, of every nation and language, to understand. They regard them as a burden, much like an animal, if you place gold on its back, won’t appreciate what it is carrying. It will only feel the burden of the weight.

5. Since I mentioned Mendelssohn in the last post, let me note the following. I recently saw that Eliezer Segal, in his wonderful book, Introducing Judaism (London and New York, 2009), p. 110, uses a picture of Mendelssohn. You can see it here. (Copyright prevents me from posting the picture.) We are told that the image is from the 18^th century, yet there is no doubt that this is not a picture of Mendelssohn. You can look at authentic pictures of Mendelssohn here and they look nothing like this image. Incidentally, in a student’s description of Mendelssohn’s 1777 meeting with Kant, he is described as  having a goatee.[25]

6. In a comment to my last post, Maimon wrote: “On the subject of R. Bachrach's responsum - it bears noting that the pre-reform homogeneous [should be: heterogeneous] Jewish society (especially in Germany) contained people of varying levels of observance from across the spectrum and as such many behavioral patterns that would be unthinkable in contemporary Orthodox society are detailed in the Halakhic writings from that era.” Maimon is correct, and it is not only in recent centuries or in Germany that one finds communities with people of different levels of religious observance. This is how Jewish societies have always been, in every era and place, at least until the second half of the twentieth century and the creation of haredi societies. I have already cited numerous examples that justify this statement, but let offer one more that shows how even in medieval times young men and women would socialize in a way that Maimon might say “would be unthinkable in contemporary Orthodox society.” I would only add that instead of “contemporary Orthodox society,” I prefer to say “contemporary haredi society,” since as mentioned already, Modern Orthodox society still has significant variations in level of observance. (When I speak of variations in level of observance, I have in mind bein adam la-Makom halakhot. I am not referring to halakhot having to do with monetary issues and dina de-malchuta dina, regarding which I believe the Modern Orthodox community is superior to what we find in the haredi world.)

R. Meir of Rothenburg was asked about young Jewish men and women who were drinking together. As a joke, one of the young women asked one of the men if he would betroth her. He took a ring and threw it to her, and recited the text of kiddushin. (At a future time I can discuss the halakhic arguments that R. Meir used to free the woman from having to receive a get.) One cannot overlook the fact that the way the young men and women were socializing together, much like you would find among kids at Modern Orthodox high schools, shows that there was no strict separation between the sexes. Here is the question, as it appears in Irving Agus, ed., Teshuvot Ba’alei ha-Tosafot, no. 85.

R. Meir of Rothenburg’s answer is found in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam mi-Rothenburg, Prague ed., no. 993.

7. Two people have asked me to comment on Rabbis Yitzchok Adlerstein's and Michael Broyde's article here arguing that hasidic schools shouldn't be forced to offer secular education. While the Seforim Blog is not the place for commenting on these sorts of matters, after reading the article I felt I had to make one point. Adlerstein and Broyde cite the famous Supreme Court case which allowed the Amish to opt out of secular education and they apply this logic to the hasidic communities. While it is true that if it went to court the hasidic communities would probably prevail, there is a big difference between the Amish and the hasidic communities. The Amish do not take welfare, food stamps, and other forms of government assistance. Thus, they make choices and live with the consequences. However, the hasidic communities refuse to provide their children with the basic skills needed to function in the modern economy, and as a result rely heavily on the welfare state. No one who believes in limited government and is opposed to the welfare state can support a situation where kids are allowed to grow up almost guaranteed to be in need of public assistance.[26] 

---

[1] Regarding Navarra, see Cecil Roth, “Rabbi Menahem Navarra: His Life and Times. 1717-1777,” Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1925), pp. 427-466.

[2] Perush al Ezra ve-Nehemiah (Oxford, 1882), p. 30.

[3] Iyunim u-Mehkarim (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 1, p. 259.

[4] Ginzei Kedem 4 (1930), p. 52. While there is no historical evidence for this explanation, it does show that the practice of using a ring for kiddushin existed already in the geonic period. For other sources from this era, see Mordechai Margaliot, ed., Ha-Hilukim bein Anshei Mizrah u-Venei Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1938), no. 25. For a very detailed discussion of use of a ring for kiddushin, see Pardes Eliezer: Erusin ve-Nisuin (Brooklyn, 2010), vol. 4, ch. 30.

Only in Yemen did the practice of using a ring not become widely accepted (though even there it was used in some places). See R. Yitzhak Ratsaby, Shulhan Arukh ha-Mekutzar, vol. 7, pp. 27-28. There is no mention of using a ring for kiddushin in the Talmud. It does, however, appear in Tikunei Zohar, nos. 5, 10 (as pointed out by R. Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh Even ha-Ezer 27:1), but Tikunei Zohar does not date from the tannaitic or amoraic period. The Sefer ha-Hinukh, no. 539, says that the reason we use a ring for kiddushin is so that every time the woman looks at her hand she remembers the following things (which apply to all means of kiddushin, but wearing a ring allows her to remember them).

שהיא קנויה לאותו האיש ולא תזנה תחתיו ולא תמרוד בו ותתן לו יקר והוד לעולם כעבד לאדוניו.

Regarding what I have underlined, even if today some men like being treated like that, going into a contemporary marriage expecting to get this sort of treatment is a recipe for marital disaster.

The ring for kiddushin has nothing to do with the engagement ring. I always wondered why the practice of giving a diamond engagement ring was not condemned as hukkot ha-goyim, especially by those who have an expansive understanding of this halakhah. Even if it is not halakhically forbidden, it is clearly a practice that came from non-Jewish society. How is it that people who refuse to have anything to do with things like Mother’s Day or Thanksgiving have no problem giving a diamond ring as an engagement present? R. Chaim Rapoport pointed out to me that R. Zvi Hersh Ferber of London (d. 1966) condemned the giving of engagement rings as hukkot ha-goyim. See Kerem Tzvi: Bereishit, vol. 1, p. 132.

As for wedding rings for men, R. Meir Mazuz states that there is absolutely no problem with a man wearing a ring. See Asaf ha-Mazkir, p. 194, Bayit Ne’eman, pp. 441ff. He calls attention to Shabbat 62a, וחילופיהן באיש, from which we see that this was not regarded as a problem. He also quotes Kaf ha-Hayyim 161:31 who writes (summarizing an earlier source):

דת"ח שתורתם אומנתם וכן בעלי בתים שעוסקים במו"מ ואין להם מלאכה גרועה א"צ להסיר הטבעות בשעת נט"י אע"ג דמהדקי טובא.

R. Mazuz states that on his wedding day his father, the great R. Matzliach Mazuz, gave him a ring to wear, and that in Tunisia this was the general practice, that a groom received a ring and wore it for the rest of his life. However, upon coming to Israel R. Mazuz saw that it is not accepted for talmidei hakhamim and “fearers of heaven” to wear a ring so he stopped wearing it. (This is his language in Asaf ha-Mazkir. In Bayit Ne’eman he writes that the haredim do not wear rings.) R. Mazuz adds that he does wear the ring on the night of Passover to commemorate the words of Genesis 15:14: “Afterward shall they come out with great substance.” (“Great substance” includes jewelry.)

R. Mazuz notes that in a picture of the Moroccan sage, R. Isaac Bengualid (1777-1870), author of the responsa work Va-Yomer Yitzhak, he is wearing a ring. Here is the picture.

He also mentions a picture of R. Elijah Hazan (1848-1908) of Alexandria, author of the responsa work Ta’alumot Lev, where he is wearing a ring. I have not been able to find this picture. See also here where S. has a picture of R. Bernard Illowy wearing a ring as well as a picture of R. Samson Wertheimer's wedding ring.

R. Hayyim Amselem, here (from May 5, 2105), writes very strongly against those who oppose wedding rings on religious grounds, using the opportunity to once again blast the Ashkenazic haredim.

איפה ההגיון הבריא?

הבוקר בעתון ישראל היום ובערוץ 7 מפרסמים בהבלטה ובהתפעלות פסק הלכה "חדש"המתיר ואפילו ממליץ בעידן המודרני לגברים נשואין לענוד טבעת נישואין, בעולם הדתי והחרדי, שוללים זאת כי זה "מנהג גוים", לדעתם וכו'וכו' .

מה שהם אינם יודעים שאין כאן כל חדש ובעדות הספרדים היה זה מנהג פשוט שרבים מאוד מהגברים ענדו על ידם טבעת נשואין, או טבעת בכלל ולא היה פוצה פה ומצפצף, ידועות כמה תמונות של גדולי תורה והלכה שבאצבעם טבעת כגון תמונתו של הגאון רבי יצחק בן וואליד רב ודיין בעיר תיטואן במרוקו, וכן עוד רבנים, שכך עשו מעשה, עיין בספר אסף המזכיר עמוד קצ"ד.

מה הבעיה? הבעיה היא שהרבנים האשכנזים ובעיקר החרדים, מה שהם חושבים בדעתם שזה אסור, ובמיוחד אם זה דומה להנהגה לא "חרדית"אז זה כבר אסור וחילול השם וכו'והם לא מסוגלים להכיל בסובלנות דעה אחרת, מה גם שהם בטוחים לגמרי שהתורה היא רק שלהם ואין לאחרים זולתם כלום, וכמובן ההמון הפשוט שומע ונוהה אחריהם בעינים עוורות.

גם אם תוכיח להם שאפילו בתלמוד כך משמע [עיין מסכת שבת (דף ס"ב ע"א)] לא יעזור כלום, ואם תעיז גם להביע את דעתך, אוי ואבוי אתה חולק על גדולי ישראל? אתה נגד "ההשקופע"החרדית, דמך בראשך.

איי איי איי איפה היהדות השפויה והמתונה נעלמה?

[5] Keneset ha-Gedolah, Even ha-Ezer 66, Tur no. 1.

[6] Meil Tzedakah, no. 19.

[7] In the prior post I gave examples of takanot forbidding an engaged man to enter the house of his fiancée. For another example from 1594 in Italy, see R. Solomon ha-Levi, Divrei Shlomo (Venice, 1594), p. 299a. R. Hayyim Palache mentions that in nineteenth-century Izmir they also proclaimed such a takanah. See Hayyim ve-Shalom, vol. 2, no. 89, Masa Hayyim, ma’arekhet shin, no. 124 (p. 27a). R. Elijah ha-Levi (16^th century) of Constantinople, Zekan Aharon, no. 117, discusses the matter as well. He states that in his community there is no “evil practice” of having the engaged couple spend time together at her home, which leads to all the problems that have been mentioned. However, he notes that this was an old practice in some places in Rumania, and therefore in order to prevent serious sins the rabbis instituted that at the engagement the wedding blessings were recited and the woman would also go to the mikveh at this time.

Regarding the engaged couple before the wedding, it is also worth noting that among some hasidic groups from the Chernobyl line, there is a festive meal, called a חתן מאהל, the evening before the wedding. At this time, the future bride and groom dance together using a long handkerchief or gartel. At the wedding itself, the practice in a number of hasidic groups (and not only among the Hasidim) is that the bride and groom dance together actually holding hands. See Pardes Eliezer: Erusin ve-Nisuin, vol. 5, p. 538; Ohel Moshe 6 (Heshvan 5749), p. 67. Here are two examples of this from Youtube.

Regarding dancing while holding hands, I found something quite interesting in R. Joseph Hahn (d. 1637), Yosif Ometz (Frankfurt, 1928), p. 344:

המספר מעות לאשה כדי להסתכל בה אף על פי שמלא תורה ומעשים לא ינקה מדינה של גיהנם וכל שכן הנוגע בידה ממש, ובמחול של מצוה המדקדקים כורכים סביבות ידיהם בגד שקורין וטשינלן, ואם יודע בעצמו בודאות שלא יבא לידי הרהור שרי.

R. Hahn tells us that during a Mitzvah dance, when there are men and women dancing together, those who are careful about halakhah would wear a type of glove. This means that even if they held hands with a woman they would not touch her skin. R. Hahn says that one who knows that he will not be driven to sexual thoughts is permitted to do this.

R. Ezekiel Feivel, Toldot Adam (Jerusalem, 1987), ch. 15 (p. 215), says that R. Shlomo Zalman of Vilna (the brother of R. Hayyim of Volozhin) used to dance with brides holding their hand. A handkerchief or something other covering ensured that he didn't touch their skin::

אחז ביד החתן ודבר עמו דברי תורה אשר זורו במזור האמת והאמונה . . . אחר כן רקד עם הכלה אחוזי יד על ידי מטפחת בנועם לב ופנים מאירות ובסדר מתוקן ונעים מאד.

R. Abraham Hayyim Schorr, Torat Hayyim: Avodah Zarah 17a, was very opposed to this practice of holding the bride’s hand, even if separated by something like a handkerchief, which he says was done by some talmidei hakhamim. (He means actually holding hands with the handkerchief ensuring that skin does not touch. He is not referring to when the man and woman each hold a different end of the handkerchief. See R. Yosef Rapoport’s letter in Or Yisrael 24 [Tamuz 5761], p. 245.)

ונר'דאסו'ללכת במחול עם הכלה בשבעת ימי המשתה אפי'אינו אוחז בידה ממש אלא בהפסק מטפחת כדרך שנוהגין מקצת ת"ח שבדור הזה אפ"ה לאו שפיר עבדי.

I will deal with the larger issue of mixed dancing, and the rabbinic responses, in a future post.

Regarding R. Shlomo Zalman covering his hands, we are told that he never touched the pages of a sefer with his bare hands. He always turned the pages while wearing gloves or with a handkerchief. One time he didn't have either with him, and he turned the pages with his lips. See Toldot Adam, p. 214.

We are also told that when he slept he wore gloves in order that his bare hands not touch his body. This way when he woke up he could start studying Torah immediately without washing his hands, so careful was he not to waste even a moment away from Torah study. See Toldot Adam, p. 218. This approach of R. Shlomo Zalman ignores the main reason offered for washing in the morning, namely, that it is to remove the ruah ra'ah. Therefore, R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira could not believe that the story of R. Shlomo Zalman wearing gloves was true. See Nimukei Orah Hayyim, 4:1

על כן אין להאמין על אותו צדיק טעות ומעשה כזה

.
See also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol. 4, Orah Hayyim no. 2:8-9; and R. Moshe Yehudah Leib Rabinovich's letter at the beginning of R. Zev Zicherman, Otzar Pelaot ha-Torah, vol. 1 (Brooklyn, 2014)..

[8] Ed. Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1989), p. 464.

[9] See Yaakov Yisrael Stall’s note in R. Judah he-Hasid, Sefer ha-Gematriot (Jerusalem, 2005), p. 309 n. 71. (R. Judah he-Hasid states that the groom would lift up his future bride.)

[10] Sefer Maharil, p. 465.

[11] Har Tavor (Pressburg, 1861), p. 33b. Regarding the age of Jewish brides in medieval times, See Avraham Grossman, Hasidot u-Mordot (Jerusalem, 2001), ch. 2. He makes the following interesting point (Pious and Rebellious, trans. Jonathan Chipman [Waltham, 2004], pp. 47-48):

The phenomenon of beating wives may also have been exacerbated by marriage of girls at an early age. The fact that at times the wife was extremely young led the husband to relate to her as he would to his own daughter. This was particularly true in those places where young girls were married to husbands significantly older than themselves, which was, as we have seen, a common phenomenon in Jewish society, and particularly in Muslim countries. Moreover, it may well be that the beating of the wife, which was a part of the life of the young couple, also continued thereafter.

[12] R. Yihye Moses Abudi, Magen Ba’adi (Jerusalem, 1904), vol. 2, p. 30b, also doesn’t know what the word means. What he thinks is the obvious meaning is, as we will soon see, mistaken.

ול"נ פשוט כיון שהם קורין לה גנות הגדולים אנו מכנים להם שם לגנאי לקרות להם גנות הצעירים.

[13] Hiddushei ha-Ritva: Sukkah 29b, Mossad ha-Rav Kook ed., cols. 278-279.

[14] Hiddushei ha-Ritva: Avodah Zarah 51b, Mossad ha-Rav Kook ed., col. 259; Hiddushei ha-Ritva: Rosh ha-Shanah 28a, Mossad ha-Rav Kook ed., col. 264.

[15] Birkei Yosef, Orah Hayyim 649:3. R. Moses Sofer also refers to Zech. 13:7. See the Makhon Yerushalayim ed. of Shulhan Arukh, ad loc.

[16] Abraham Berliner was an outstanding representative of German Orthodoxy. He was a member of R. Azriel Hildesheimer’s separatist Orthodox community, and he taught for many years at the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin. Nevertheless, the annual Yerushatenu, which is devoted to the study of all aspects of German rabbinic history, prayers, customs, etc., saw fit to publish a letter which attacks Berliner and places him in what the letter-writer regards as the “anti-Torah” camp. See Yerushatenu 3 (2009), p. 396. This was an unfortunate lapse in judgment by the editors of what is otherwise a fabulous publication. The editors intended to show their open-mindedness by publishing even the nonsense of an extremist, but the job of the editors is to ensure the high quality of their publication, and this means that they have to reject that which is unsuitable.

[17] Unfortunately, the Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Beit Yosef simply points out that instead of דורסים the text should perhaps read דוכסים. In other words, the editors were unaware that דורשים is the correct reading. Hopefully, in the next printing they will correct this matter. If they do so, based on this post, it will be my second “contribution” to this magnificent edition. Here is the Makhon Yerushalayim Tur, Even ha-Ezer 173, p. 539.

In note 3 at the bottom of the page it refers to a קושיא גדולה printed in the journal Or Torah in 1992 (Heshvan 5753, no. 23). This was a question I asked R. Meir Mazuz and he replied that instead of ונשא בתו the text should apparently read ונשא בת אשתו .

[18] Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, 1845), p. 181.

[19] In his defense of R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto and his circle, R. Jacob Hazak uses the phrase גנות הצעירים to make a nice melitzah. See Iggerot Ramhal u-Venei Doro, ed., Shriki (Jerusalem, 2008), p. 357:

ואל יחשבו אותנו כמורדים וכפושעים ח"ו, וכל מי שתורת אלקיו בקרבו, ואהבתו ית'גברה בו, ילבש בגדי קנאה ולא ישמע גנ"ות הצעירים.

[20] Kitvei Rabbenu Moshe ben Nahman, ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 308.

[21] Ramban: Writings and Discourses (New York, 1978), vol. 2, p. 668.

[22] Milhemet Mitzvah (Leipzig, 1855), p. 14.

[23] (Amsterdam, 1865), p. 16.

[24] The word “similarly” makes no sense here, as the commentary does not previously cite an interpretation similar to the one given by “Ralbag.”

[25] See Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, eds., The Jew in the Modern World (Oxford, 1995), p. 61.
[26] According to the last census, Kiryas Joel has a higher percentage of residents receiving food stamps than any other city or town in the entire country. See here. The taxpayer should never be required to subsidize communities when the poverty is self-imposed.

אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך

June 22, 2016, 10:47 am

≫ Next: Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life

≪ Previous: Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More

$

0

0

אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך

מאת דוד פרקש*

במדבר רבה (ט:מח)

מטרונה שאלה את ר"א מפני מה חטייה אחת בעגל והם [בני ישראל] מתו בה ג'מיתות, אמר לה אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלכה דכתיב וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו. אמר לו הורקנוס בשביל שלא להושיבה דבר אחד מן התורה איבדה ממנו ג'מאות כור מעשר בכל שנה? אמר לו, ישרפו ד"ת ואל ימסרו לנשים.

קושייות המטרונה יותר ברורה בהמקביל ביומא (יומא סו:) שם הגירסא "שאלה אשה חכמה את ר'אליעזר, מאחר שמעשה העגל שוין מפני מה אין מיתתן שוה", והוא הוא. ומאמר זה של ר"א צריך להקרא יחד עם מאמרו בסוטה (ג:ד) "כל המלמד תורה לבתו כאילו מלמדה תפלות."והנה, הא ודאי מענין שעד כה הגיע עמידתו של ר"א נגד תלמוד תורה לנשים, עד כדי כך שוויתר על 300 מאות כור מעשר [שהמטרונה היתה מתנדבת] מפני שיטתו, ואפילו לא ללמדם תורה באופן מסודר, רק שלא להשיב לשאלת המטרונה. אולם, מה שנוגע לנו עתה הוא הלשון המדויק של ר"א: "אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלכה."

פלך, כידוע, הוא מה שקוראים באנגלית spindle, היינו כלי המשמש בטווית צמר לשם תפירה או אריגה. (לראות צורתו ע'ויקיפדיה ערך פלך, או כאן: (/http://schachtspindle.com/item/hand-spindles). מסגנון מאמרו זה ר"א לבד היה יתכן לומר שהיה פתגם עממי שגור בצבור הרחב בזמנו, בדרך "היינו דאמרי אינשי."אבל ממקומות אחרים רואים ההדגשה מיוחדת שרבי אליעזר בפרט ראה בהפלך, ויחוסו לאשה. בבתובות (ט:ד) תנן "המושיב את אשתו חנונית או שמנה אפוטרופא – הרי זה משביעה כל זמן ירצה [שלא לקחה משלו כלום.] רבי אליעזר אומר: אפילו על פלכה ועל עיסתה."הרי נקט ר"א דוקא דוגמאות אלו – פלך ועיסה – כסימן למלאכתה של אשה.

יותר מזה – בכתובות (ה:ה) למדנו שבעה מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה, כולל הטחנה, הכבסה, הצעת המטה, ועוד. ברם, לפי הת"ק שם, אם היא מכניסה מספיק שפחות לנשואין, אין היא צריכה לעשות כלום, ו"יושבת בקתדרא."אבל "רבי אליעזר אומר, אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות כופה לעשות בצמר, שהבטלה מביאה לידי זמה."מתוך שבעה מלאכות הנזכרת שם במשנה, ר"א נקט דוקא מעשה צמר - דהיינו, מעשה פלך – כחיובה של אשה, אפילו אם יש לה שפחות ואיננה צריכה לכך. הרי ברור לנו שביטוי זה, "אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך"הוא מאמרו של ר"א לבד, בדרך "מרגלא בפומיה", ומאפיין לשיטתו בכלל. אבל מהו פירושו של הביטוי?

 לפי פשוטו כוונת המאמר מבוססת על דברי הכתוב "וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו" (שמות לה:כה) כמו שאכן המדרש לעיל מסיימת בההמשך. נקודה זו גם משתקפת במשלי (לא:יט) "ידיה שלחה בכישור וכפיה תמכו פלך". לאמר, האשה מתוארת בכתבי קדש כמצטיינת בפלך, ולכן זהו קאמר ר"א, שכל חכמת האשה כרוכה אך ורק בחכמה זו, כלומר, אריגה, תפירה, וכדו'. ברם, מכמה מקומות בש"ס נראה שיש שכבה נוספת טמונה בדברי ר"א.

ראשית, יצוין כי אשה יכולה לעשות עוד כמה דברים באותו זמן שהיא משתמשת בפילכה. ע'מגילה (יד:) - כי הוות מיפטרא מיניה [אביגיל מדוד] אמרה ליה והטיב ה'לאדוני וזכרת את אמתך. אמר רב נחמן היינו דאמרי אינשי, "איתתא, בהדי שותא, פילכא."פרש"י "עם שהאשה מדברת היא טווה, כלומר עם שהיא מדברת עמו על בעלה, הזכירה לו את עצמה שאם ימות ישאנה."זאת אומרת, אשה יכולה גם לדבר וגם לארוג בב"א, והכא נמי, בעוד שאביגל היתה מדברת לדוד אודות בעלה נבל, גם רמזה לדוד שאם מקרה יקרה לבעלה (כמו שאכן קרה) שדוד ישאנה. הרי הרווחנו בזה יסוד חשוב: שמוש בפלך אינו מגביל או מעכב את האשה מעסקים אחרים, אפילו באותו זמן, וכש"כ בזמנים אחרים.

שנית, שמוש בפלך אינה מלאכה גרועה או בזויה, והאשה יכולה להתעשרת מכך. ע'  בראשית רבה (נו:יא) "משל לאשה שנתעשרה מפלכה, אמרה הואיל ומן הפלך הזה התעשרתי, עוד אינו זז מתחת ידי לעולם. כך אמר אברהם, כל שבא לידי אינו אלא בשביל שעסקתי בתורה ובמצות, לפיכך אינו רוצה שתזוז מזרעי לעולם."יוצא לנו יסוד אחר: אין זה עלבון להיות מומחה בחכמת הפלך.

יותר מזה, מצינו שמוש בפלך במגוונים רחבים ומצבים שונות. ראה לדוגמא כתובות (עב:) -  "אמר רבה בר בר חנה זימנא חדא הוה קאזילנא בתריה דרב עוקבא חזיתיה לההיא ערביא דהוה יתבה. קא שדיא פילכה וטווה ורד כנגד פניה [לשון נקי]. כיון דחזיתינן פסיקתיה לפילכה שדיתיה אמרה לי עולם [בחור], הב לי פלך." -  פי'האשה הערביא הזאת השתמשה בהפלך באופן בלתי-צנוע, כדי לתפוס את רבב"ח לדבר עבירה. לשם כך, היא השליכה את פילכה בערמומיות, ובקשה מרבב"ח שיחזיר אותה לה, כדי להתקרב לו. הרי גם כאן, הפלך שרת כאמצעי לחכמתה ויוזמתה.

סנהדרין (צה.) -  "בהדי דקא מסגי חזייה לערפה אמיה דהוות נוולא. כי חזיתיה, פסקתה לפילכה שדתיה עילויה. סברא למקטליה. אמרה ליה, עלם, אייתי לי פלך."  באגדה זו, הענק ישבי בנוב [אחיו של גלית, שהיה בא להרוג דוד בנקמה על הריגת אחיו] תפס את דוד והיה מצער אותו. בדרך נסי, אבישי בן צרויה שמע את המצב, ורכב על סוסו להציל אותו. ערפה, אמא של הענק, ראתה את אבישי, וכדי להרוג אותו זרקה פלכה אליו. (וכשלא הצליחה, אמרה באמתלא שהפלך רק "נפל ממנה"ובקש מאבישי לחזור אותו לה.) הרי הפלך בידיה היה משרת כעין נשק. ובדרך צחות נוכל לומר, כמו שאמרו (יבמות קטו.) "אשה כלי זיינה עליה."שוב פעם, חכמה בפלך היא חכמה רב-גווני, וכוללת אפילו ידע בנשק.

וכן יש עוד דוגמאות. במס'שבת (יז:ב) מצינו: "נוטל אדם קרנס לפצע בו את אגוזים... את הכוש ואת הכרכר לתחוב בו."פי'הרע"ב, "כוש: פלך שטוות בו הנשים. לתחוב בו: לאכול בו תותים וכל מיני פרי רך."הרי כאן הפלך יכולה לשמשת כעין מזלג.

 ומלבד חז"ל, כבר מצינו קללת דוד ליואב בשמואל ב (ג:כט) "ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצורע ומחזיק בפלך ונפל בחרב וחסר לחם."פרש"י ורד"ק שם, "מחזיק פלך, נשען על מקלו מחמת חולי הרגלים."הרי הפלך גם היה יכול לשרת כמשענת. (מיהו, נחלקו המפרשים שם, ויתכן שמלת פלך שם באמת היינו משענת, ולאו פלך בשמוש כמשענת.)

היוצא מכל הנ"ל היא שחכמת נשים בפלכה מתבטאת בכמה גוונים, לא רק טוויה בלבד. כמו אולר שוויצרי (Swiss Army Knife), בשמוש של פלכה אשה חכמה יכולה לעשות הרבה דברים. ואמנם אמת היא שלדעתו של ר"א חכמת נשים מוגבלת, לפחות שמטעם זה לא רצה להשיב לקושיית המטרונה. מיהו, אינה כ"כ מוגבלת כפי אשר נראה באופן שטחי. חכמת הפלך אכן היא חכמה גדולה.[1]

* Mr. Farkas, an attorney practicing as in-house labor counsel for FirstEnergy Corporation, received his rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in 1999. He lives with his family in Cleveland, Ohio.  This is his third appearance in the Seforim Blog. See his articles Rashbam theTalmudist, Reconsidered and אור חדש במעשה ברבי אלעזר בהגש"פ.

---

[1]יש להעיר,שני ביטויים שמקשרים נשים לפלך - "אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך", ו"איתתא בהדי שותא פילכא"נאמרו ע"י רבי אליעזר ורב נחמן. במגילה (יד:) מצינו "אמר רב נחמן לא יאה יהירותא לנשי" [לא נאה גאוה לנשים]. ובגמרא מ"ק (כח.) "[אין מניחין את המטה ברחוב שלא להרגיל את ההספד] ולא של נשים לעולם מפני הכבוד אמרי נהרדעי לא שנו אלא חיה אבל שאר נשים מניחין. ר'אלעזר אמר אפילו שאר הנשים [לא מניחין], דכתיב וכו'."ומענין שר"א ור"נ שניהם היו נשאוים לנשים ממשפחות מפורסמות: ר"א לאמא שלום, אחות רבן גמליאל מיבנה; ורב נחמן לילתא, בת ריש גלותא. ושני נשים האלו נזכרים בש"ס כמה פעמים בקשר לדברים מוסריים, ע'למשל קידושין (ע:) ושבת (קטז.) כמו"כ יצוין מה שמסופר על ר"א בנדרים (כ.) "שאלו את אימא שלום מפני מפני מה בניך יפיפין ביותר אמרה להן אינו מספר עמי לא בתחלת הלילה ולא בסוף הלילה אלא בחצות הלילה וכשהוא מספר מגלה טפח ומכסה טפח ודומה עליו כמי שכפאו שד."ולעיל הבאתי שיטת ר"א בהמשנה (כתובות ה:ה) "שהבטלה מביאה לידי זמה."השוה לדברי רשב"ג שם "שהבטלה מביאה לידי שעמום".

 לא נעלם ממני שיש מעמינו שרוצים לעשות הצהרות פולטיות מכל סוגיא כזו והמסתעף. להוי ידוע שאין לי עסק בזה כלל וכלל, ואין לי שום חפץ לכנס לתחום ההוא, ואין אני מסיק לא דבר ולא מידי. אני כותב כמעורר בעלמא מבחנת תלמוד תורה, כי תורה היא, וללמדה אני צריך.

Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life

June 24, 2016, 10:01 am

≫ Next: Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s Motivation to Write Nefesh HaChaim

≪ Previous: אין חכמה לאשה אלא בפלך

$

0

0

Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life

By Eli Genauer

Note: I would like to thank Rabbi Gad Bouskila of Congregation Netivot Israel in Brooklyn for helping me decipher Rav Avraham Reggio’s handwriting

Rav Avraham Chai (Vita) ben Azriel Reggio  (1755-1842) was the Rav of Gorizia, in northern Italy for over forty years. During that time period, he answered Sha’aylot both locally and from abroad, wrote a Sefer Torah, performed 300 circumcisions, and gave many Drashot that changed people’s lives.[1] We are told that the Derashot he gave before Neilah were so inspiring that

  ! החוטאים נתעוררו לשוב לה׳ בתשובה שלימה, והשונאים חבקו זה לזה ונשארו באהבה ואחוה ושלום

We are also informed that the townspeople ascribed their being saved from a Cholera epidemic by Rav Avraham’s righteousness.

Rav Avraham wrote a Sefer on the prohibition of shaving on Chol Hamoed called “Tiglachat Hama’amar” printed anonymously in Livorno (either 1839 or 1844) which was a refutation of his son Isaac Samuel Reggio’s  book “Ma’amar HaTiglachat” (Vienna 1835 ) which argued for permitting it.[2]

One of the arguments put forward in his son’s book was that “times have changed”, therefore the Halacha could be different.  Rav Avraham responds to this argument and writes as follows about changing the Halacha:

I have a Mishnayot Zeraim which was printed in Amsterdam in 1646 as part of the printing of the entire Babylonian Talmud by Immanuel Beneveniste.

As you can see, there are numerous stamps on the title page, but aside from those marks of ownership, we know that the book at one time belonged to Avraham Reggio by this handwriting on the back page.

פלפולה כל שהוא ממני הז׳ אברהם ריגייו

פיאה-פרק א׳ משנה ו׳

לעולם הוא נותן משום פיאה ופטור מן המעשרות עד שימרח ע״כ

הרמ׳ב׳ם פירש ז׳ק׳ל שכל מי שלא הניח פיאה וקצר כל השדה כלו יוציא הפיאה ממה שקצר וכן אם לא הוציא מן השבלים הקצורים יוציא מן החטה אחר שידושו אותה וימרחוה ויבררוה ואפילו טחנה וכו׳ 

קשיא לי טובא שהפירוש הזה מנגד המשנה האומרת   ופטור מן המעשרות עד שימרח. א״כ המריחה קובע למעשר. ומה זהשאומר יוציא הפיאה אפי׳ אחר המריחה ויהא פטור מן המעשרות! 

אם לא שנוסיף תיבת קודם שימרחנה ויבררוה או שנוסיף אחר אומרו מן הקמחהתיבותכלו׳ ובלבדשיוציא קודםהמעשרות הראויות וצ״ע 

The matter under discussion is Mishnayot Peah 1:6 and deals with whether Maaser has to be taken from that which is designated as Peah. Rav Avraham understands from his reading of the Peirush Hamishnayos on this Mishneh, that the position of  the Rambam is that Maaser does not have to be separated from that which is designated as Peah even after Merichah has been done.[3]

The Rambam writes as follows:

 In asking his question, it is clear That Rav Avraham understands the Rambam to be saying that you are obligated to separate a portion for Peah even after the flour made from harvested wheat is ground and that you are never obligated at any stage to separate Ma’asrot. This is not clear to me from the Lashon of the Rambam who might be saying normally one does not have to separate Maaser from Peah and adding that Peah always has to be separated even at the latest stage of crop production. The Rambam actually makes his comment דע שהפאה לא תחחייב להוציא ממנה מעשרותon our Mishneh which says לעולם הוא נותן משום פיאה ופטור מן המעשרות עד שימרח. One would have to agree though, that the Lashon of the Rambam is confusing.

There are many diagrams that are drawn by hand in the book which fill in the blank spaces left by the printer. Here is an example of a fairly complex one which I believe was drawn by Rav Avraham Reggio.[4]

This particular volume of Mishnayot needed some special Siyata D’Shemaya to survive the Nazi annihilation of both Jews and their property. After being owned by Rav Avraham Reggio, the book was the property of the library of the Jewish community of Berlin.

We are informed by the present day website of the Berlin Jewish Library that most of the holdings belonging to this library did not survive the war. This makes this book akin to an ״אוד מוצל מאש״ (זכריה ג:ב).

“The library of the Jewish Community of Berlin was founded in 1898. It opened its doors in 1902 in the community’s administration building on Oranienburger Strasse and quickly became a highly popular scientific resource, open to Jewish community members and the general public. By the time the National Socialist regime dissolved the Jewish community and forced its library to close, the institution had nine branches with more than 100,000 volumes, nearly all of which were lost in the war.” 

The book became part of the restitution efforts of the Jewish Cultural Reconstruction after the war and was eventually sent to Israel to be part of the library of the “Encyclopedia Hatalmudit”

Is it possible that just as Rav Avraham Reggio saved his town from a cholera epidemic, that his writings saved this book from being destroyed in the war?

[1] The main source for his biography is from a series of two articles written in the journal “Yerushalayim HaBenuyah” printed in 1844( Choveret Rishon, Zolkiew) and 1845 ( Choveret Sheniyah, Lemberg) The articles appeared under the title of “Toldot Avraham” whose author was Mordechai Shmuel Ghirondi (1800-1852) Ghirondi laments at length the loss of his teacher and goes into great detail of his life. The two specific example cited above are on page 80 of the “Choveret Rishon”

[2]   For a discussion on shaving on Chol HaMoed including quotations from both Avraham and Isaac Reggio’s books see here. 

Bibliographic Information on Tiglachat Hama’Amar comes from the Israel National Library website.



Note the date of death of 1846 which is incorrect as the eulogies on him by Mordechai Shmuel Ghirondi appeared starting in 1844. Ghirondi gives the date of death as Asarah b’Tevet in 5602 ( 1841). I am confused as to the date of publication of Tiglachat Maamar as the NLI site gives it as תקצ"ט  but פ'ק'ד'ת'ך' would indicate (5)604 or 1844. This date is what is listed in Beit Eiked Sefarim.

The forward of the “Motzei L’Or” indicates that it was written in 1836.

[3]    Tosfot Yom Tov gives us a summary of how Merichah is understood by the various Meforshim. (From Mishnayot Zecher Chanoch) As you can see, Rambam’s definition differs from other Meforshim.

[4]   We know he was a Sofer and the ink looks very similar to writing in the back of the book. (Additionally, his son Isaac Samuel was a skilled artist, and perhaps his artistic talent ran in the family. - Ed.)

---

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s Motivation to Write Nefesh HaChaim

June 28, 2016, 7:40 am

≫ Next: Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise: Revisited

≪ Previous: Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life

$

0

0

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s Motivation to Write Nefesh HaChaim

By Avinoam Fraenkel

Avinoam Fraenkel’s new two volume work, Nefesh HaTzimtzum (Urim Publications), is a full facing page translation and extensive commentary on Nefesh HaChaimtogether with all related writings by R. Chaim Volozhin. It also presents a groundbreaking study on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum which is demonstrated to be the key principle underpinning all of Nefesh HaChaim. The following essay captures some of the key insights in overview from Nefesh HaTzimtzum  which should be referred to for in-depth details and sources.[1]

Life is complex and our most significant actions in life are often motivated by a wide spectrum of catalysts driven by both conscious and subconscious objectives. Therefore it is a considerable challenge when looking deeply into R. Chaim Volozhin’s magnum opus, Nefesh HaChaim, to try to ascertain what may have primarily driven him to compose it and what motivated him to provide an urgent deathbed instruction to his son in 1821, to publish it as soon as possible.[2]

Was it simply a structured presentation, recording the enormously important worldview of R. Chaim’s revered master, the Vilna Gaon? Was it a manifesto to set the tone for his newfound and soon to be world famous Volozhin Yeshiva? Was it a broadside shot at the entire Chassidic establishment to attempt to bring it into line? Was it a defense for the Mitnagdic camp, to shore up their opposition to the Chassidim by providing them with its own authoritative framework to dampen any attraction to the looming specter of what for many was the compelling allure of the competing Chassidic philosophy?

In all likelihood, all of these factors and many more, both communal and personal, may have motivated R. Chaim, at least to some degree. Nevertheless, on investigation, it appears that there was indeed a single primary motivating factor that can be isolated as significantly influencing the presentation of Nefesh HaChaim. However, in order to be able to relate to this factor, it is necessary to first dispel a smokescreen of deep rooted misconception which has persisted for the last 200 years about perceived fundamental differences of faith between the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim. Once dispelled, as explained below, it becomes clear that R. Chaim aimed his urgent message in Nefesh HaChaim at many on the periphery of the Chassidic movement, but not directly at the Chassidic establishment itself. He perceived those on the periphery to be at severe risk of compromising their faith due to their mistaken adoption of practices whose sole objective was to passionately increase their piety to get closer to God at all costs even if this would ironically result in Halachic compromise.

This smokescreen was a result of raging turmoil between the Chassidim and their opponents, the extent of which was so acute that it caused many to be utterly confused as to what the fight was actually about. It prepared the ground for it to be all too easy to believe and accept that the schism was about the fundamental principles of Judaism focusing, in particular, on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum and the degree to which God is directly manifest in this physical world – and therefore to have a different perception of the required balance between the desire to get closer to God and the necessary punctilious observance of the Halacha. So, even though many equivalences can be found between statements in Nefesh HaChaim, the contemporary Chassidic literature of its time in general and Sefer HaTanya in particular, the profound importance of the key message of Nefesh HaChaim to the wider Chassidic community was entirely misunderstood and therefore totally ignored, as Nefesh HaChaim was perceived to have been based on a fundamentally different philosophical outlook that diverged from what was mistakenly thought by many to be the exclusively Chassidic view on the extent of God’s immanence.

It should be noted that this is not just of historic interest in that it was only relevant in R. Chaim’s day. Even though the acuteness of the schism between the Chassidim and Mitnagdim has abated and both camps, although with some exceptions, are generally accepting of each other nowadays, nevertheless the prevalence of Halachic practice becoming the primary casualty of a desire to get closer to God is in many ways just as rife today as it ever was. This impacts all camps across the entire spectrum of Jewish religious affiliation. The less religiously affiliated who are susceptible to possibly view Halachic compromise as sometimes being acceptable if they see it as enabling more of their activities to otherwise be closer to God. The more religiously affiliated who frequently adopt pious self-imposed practices going beyond the letter of Halachic obligation, where out of what they call “Frumkeit,” are vulnerable to possibly look down on, speak about and act disdainfully with baseless hatred towards others who they may view as less pious, flagrantly and often publicly breaching the Halacha. This phenomenon is arguably manifest in its worst form in instances of acts of open aggression in the name of God against Jews by some extremist Jews who try to enforce what they perceive to be a high level of piety, where neither the aggression nor the supposed piety conform with anything even vaguely close to any accepted standard of Halachic practice. R. Chaim’s message is therefore just as urgently required and relevant today and the fact that Nefesh HaChaim has largely been ignored for the last 200 years has prevented its critical message from being properly communicated and absorbed.

It should also be highlighted that while the Chassidic community has ignored the message of Nefesh HaChaim due to their perception of the entire work as being philosophically disconnected from their own outlook, the Mitnagdim on the other hand have had a problem accepting the widespread study of Kabbalah. No-one in the Mitnagdic community has any authority or would dare to challenge the status of Nefesh HaChaim as a seminal work that must be studied. Nevertheless, many in the Mitnagdic community have been generally guilty of attempting to rebrand Nefesh HaChaim, trying to ignore that it is a Kabbalistic work, failing to appreciate, or even denying outright, that engagement in the Kabbalistic concepts it so intentionally presents for public consumption is an absolute pre-requisite to properly relate to its message. They surreptitiously treat it as an ethical work, a work of Mussar, by only focusing study on some selected non-Kabbalistic parts of the book and thereby entirely miss the point of the book.[3] Therefore from either the Chassidic or Mitnagdic perspective, the key burning message of Nefesh HaChaim which so badly needs to be applied to Jewish life today, has sadly and irresponsibly been ignored!

The historic smokescreen of fundamental difference between the Chassidic and Mitnagdic camps has unfortunately been propagated by many of great stature in the Jewish world and also by many in the academic world. Simply put, the general mistaken presentation of difference around the Tzimtzum process which explains why we cannot see the infinite God in this finite physical world, is that the Chassidic view is that God is present everywhere and in everything physical but His presence is concealed, i.e., God is totally immanent. Whereas the Mitnagdic view is that God is removed and absent from the physical world and merely controls all from a distance through Divine Providence, i.e., God is totally transcendent.

This unfortunate presentation was perhaps most famously captured by a letter written in 1939 by R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, which delineates a 4 position approach to the concept of Tzimtzum and presents a picture of stark contrast between each of the views of the Vilna Gaon, the Baal HaTanya and R. Chaim.[4] In this letter R. Schneerson went so far as to state “… the author of Nefesh HaChaim… disagrees with his master, the Vilna Gaon [about the concept of Tzimtzum]. In general, it appears that R. Chaim Volozhin saw the works of Lubavitch – and Sefer HaTanya, in particular – and that he was influenced by them, however, I do not have definite proof of this.” In contrast to the positions of both the Vilna Gaon and R. Chaim, R. Schneerson then continued to explain the Chassidic view, that the Tzimtzum process was only initially applied to “the lowest level of the Light [of the Ein Sof].”

R. Schneerson’s statement here explicitly highlights a diverse difference in fundamental philosophical outlook between the Chassidic world and that of the Vilna Gaon and therefore the Mitnagdic world. His suggestion, without proof, that R. Chaim was swayed somewhat towards what he describes as the Chassidic view was based on the employment of many seemingly Chassidic statements in Nefesh HaChaim.

However, on in-depth study of the positions of the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim and the Leshem[5] it becomes crystal clear that they are identical with the Baal HaTanya, and indeed with the Arizal and the Zohar, regarding the concept of Tzimtzum. In order to see this it is crucial not to initially look at the terminology they employ but to carefully assess the substance of each of their arguments. On face value, the Vilna Gaon and the Leshem seemed to openly express strong dissatisfaction with the Chassidic perspective and there is scope to question if the Baal HaTanya aimed scathing comments on this topic directly at the Vilna Gaon. Notwithstanding this, if we are particular to examine what they actually say about the substance of the topic, and not be deflected about what they may or may not have said about each other, then it will allow us to see that they in fact all agreed.

The critical factor to appreciate the substance of each of their arguments is to understand that they all saw the arena within which the Tzimtzum process occurs as only being in the Sefira of Malchut of any level, including that of the highest level called the “Ein Sof.” [6] Malchut is the lowest Sefira of any level and is in fact in a different dimension to it. This means that any change within Malchut of any level as a result of the Tzimtzum process, does not impact the level itself in any way. Therefore the first instance of the Tzimtzum process which occurred in the Malchut of the first level which was emanated from God’s Essence, the Ein Sof, did not impact the Ein Sof in any way. Therefore, by extension, not only does the Tzimtzum process not change the Ein Sof, it also has no impact on God’s Essence in any way.

Once this is understood then it becomes clear that the debate over whether Tzimtzum means either immanence or transcendence is simply wrong. As the Tzimtzum removal only occurs within Malchut, transcendence only applies to Malchut. Therefore everything above Malchut, i.e., both God’s Essence and also the Ein Sof, is entirely and absolutely immanent. In other words, the Tzimtzum process itself results in a dual simultaneous combination of both immanence and transcendence. The particular stance of immanence or transcendence then becomes a matter of perspective. In the language of the Nefesh HaChaim, immanence is “Mitzido”, the perspective of the higher level (and ultimately God’s perspective) and transcendence is “Mitzideinu”, the perspective of the lower level (and ultimately that of the physical creations).[7] All discussion about the differences between levels therefore becomes relative to the level the discussion is centered upon. This point is so important that it is the key to begin to understand any discussions of the Arizal.[8]

This, in a nutshell, is the concept of Tzimtzum that was held in common by the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim, the Leshem, the Arizal and the Zohar. Any time any one of these sources refers to a “removal”, they are therefore referring to a removal within “Malchut” only of whatever level they happen to be discussing. It is far beyond the scope of this essay to provide sources to explain the concepts and demonstrate how they translate into day to day life and the reader is referred toNefesh HaTzimtzum. [9]

However, just to whet the appetite and demonstrate that our focus must be on the substance of the argument and to not be deflected by terminology let’s look at two simple sources. The Baal HaTanya states “… the characteristic of His Malchut isthe characteristic of Tzimtzum and concealment, that conceals the light of the Ein Sof.”[10] This, unsurprisingly, is consistent with R. Schneerson’s statement that the Tzimtzum process was only initially applied to “the lowest level of the Light [of the Ein Sof].” The Leshem, on the other hand, states the following “…and therefore that place within which the Tzimtzum process occurred is called Malchut of the Ein Sof … it is exclusively in Malchut of every revelation for every Tzimtzum is exclusively in Malchut ….”[11] Therefore, very surprisingly to many, the Leshem, the staunch Mitnaged and follower of the path of the Vilna Gaon, entirely agrees with the Baal HaTanya and with what R. Schneerson presents as the Chassidic view that the Tzimtzum process is only within Malchut!

With all of the above in mind, we are now in a position to step aside and briefly focus our attention on R. Bezalel Naor’s review of Nefesh HaTzimtzum, which was recently published at the Seforim Blog, (here). In his eloquent review, he “cuts to the chase,” as he puts it, to describe his argument against the Tzimtzum thesis of Nefesh HaTzimtzum. Unfortunately, he “cuts” out more than he “chases” and it is astonishing that in his entire review, R. Naor doesn’t even vaguely mention or make any attempt to counter the key critical factor presented above that is emphasized numerous times in Nefesh Hatzimtzum, that all the players in the Tzimtzum discussion agree with each other that Tzimtzum happens exclusively in Malchut! It seems that R. Naor, in common with many of great stature before him, has unfortunately fallen into the classic historical trap which has plagued this topic for centuries of focusing on a presumed understanding of the terminology employed by the various proponents, especially in their expressions of disagreement with their colleagues. In doing so he has failed to investigate the actual substance of their Tzimtzum argumentation and is unaware that they actually agreed with each other! (This response continues in the note.[12])

Stepping back to the main thread of this essay, historically most were severely misled and confused by a smokescreen of difference which was contributed to by two key factors. Firstly, by terminology used by some key Kabbalists, the historic context of which was misunderstood.[13] Secondly, by a famous letter forged in the name of the Baal HaTanya which explained the Vilna Gaon’s position on Tzimtzum as arguing with the view of Chassidut.[14] However, not all were misled. Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, among many other prominent individuals, understood that the argument between the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim was not about the fundamental principles of Judaism. He wrote on the topic of Tzimtzum in 1938 that “in this generation in which there is a need to unite…it is fitting to publicize the fact that there are no differences of opinion in the essence of these issues”.[15]

After fully absorbing the fact that the philosophical outlook in relation to the Tzimtzum concept of the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim, the Baal HaTanya and the Chassidic world are identical, the genius of R. Chaim’s presentation in Nefesh HaChaim can then be clearly seen. The Chassidic works of his day, including Sefer HaTanya, barely quoted their sources. In contrast, when R. Chaim presents his ideas in general, and the concept of Tzimtzum in particular, ideas which at the time were seen by many to be uniquely Chassidic ideas, he frames them in the context of extensive quotations from and references to traditional Jewish sources. As mentioned above, he even uses many similar expressions and sentences to those appearing in the Chassidic works of his day. He is demonstrating that there is no scope for anyone to suggest that there is a fundamental difference between the formal outlook of the Chassidic Movement and that of mainstream Judaism and that the paths for serving God of both the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim are fundamentally the same and are derived from the same Torah and the same Mesorah. Therefore, against a historic backdrop of some who erroneously thought that the new Chassidic Movement had blazed a new trail in Judaism and were using the inspiring Chassidic presentation of these concepts to compromise Halacha, R. Chaim’s key message is, there is no basis for anyone to bend these concepts out of their true context of mainstream Judaism, and as a result, there is no basis to use them to license Halachic compromise in any way whatsoever.

It is fascinating to note that R. Chaim was not alone in this quest to highlight the potential pitfalls of Halachic compromise resulting from an attempt to get closer to God. He was joined by some of the establishment Chassidic figures who expressed themselves in a very similar way.[16] Furthermore it is inconceivable that the Baal HaTanya would have sanctioned any form of Halachic compromise, as he is after all the author of the widely respected and accepted Halachic work, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.[17]

The underlying principle guiding R. Chaim’s presentation in Nefesh HaChaimreflects the position of his master, the Vilna Gaon, that as the Kabbalah is an intrinsic part of the Torah, it cannot be that anything derived from it can prescribe any action which contradicts and is inconsistent with the Torah.[18] Any directive derived from the Kabbalah which contravenes the Torah and Halachic practice must therefore be a misunderstanding of Kabbalah. In addition, this principle was explicitly highlighted by some of the Chassidic masters who were also clearly objecting to the same phenomenon of Halachic compromise on the periphery of the Chassidic world that R. Chaim was objecting to.[19]

The outcome of all the above is that because of R. Chaim’s historic motivation to write Nefesh HaChaim, he has left us with a remarkable work, a motivational framework of how a person is to view and philosophically interact with the world, which substantiates every statement it makes by referencing many traditional Jewish sources in general, and Kabbalistic sources in particular. As a result, the highly structured presentation of Nefesh HaChaim itself is a unique gateway into the highly unstructured world of Kabbalah. It is a tremendous portal through which a genuine introduction to the world of Kabbalah and to the deeper meaning of the Torah has been made accessible to one and all. May the study of Nefesh HaChaim and R. Chaim’s Torah bring a true conscious awareness of unity in the Jewish World.

Notes:

[1] Nefesh HaTzimtzum includes the following:

●     A historical and structural introductory overview.

●     A corrected Hebrew text for Nefesh HaChaim, likely to be the most accurate ever published.

●     An innovative hierarchical presentation of both the Hebrew and facing page English texts for ease of use (see example below).

●     Extensive explanatory annotations on all texts.

●     Expansion in English translation of virtually all sources quoted and referenced in Nefesh HaChaim, including all Kabbalistic sources.

●     An explanation of the concept of Tzimtzum with:

o     Full details of the positions of the Zohar, the Arizal, R. Yosef ben Immanuel Irgess, R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi, the Vilna Gaon, the Baal HaTanya, R. Chaim Volozhin, the Leshem, R. Dessler and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, among others.

o     Extensive source material in both the original Hebrew and facing page translation.

o     A comparison between Nefesh HaChaim and Sefer HaTanya on their key approaches to Torah study, Mitzvah performance and prayer which are all based on their common understanding of the Tzimtzum concept.

o     A demonstration of how the correct understanding of the Tzimtzum concept underpins the concept of Partzuf and therefore all of the Arizal’s Kabbalistic teachings.

o     A presentation of the Vilna Gaon’s messianic outlook which is dependent on knowing Kabbalah and Science.

●     An explanation of the concept of The World of the Malbush.

●     Facing page translation of all of R. Chaim Volozhin’s published writings related to Nefesh HaChaim, including his single published sermon, letters and his introductions to commentaries of the Vilna Gaon on Shulchan Aruch, Zohar and Sifra DeTzniyuta (which includes the largest authentic published repository of stories of the Vilna Gaon by any of his students).

●     Translated and cross-referenced extracts of all Nefesh HaChaim related sections from Ruach Chaim.

●     R. Yosef Zundel of Salant’s brief extract on prayer with translation.

●     Detailed outlines and extensive indexes by themes, people’s names and book references.

[2] As recorded by R. Chaim’s son, R. Yitzchak, in his introduction to Nefesh HaChaim. Nefesh HaChaim was subsequently published in 1824.

[3] Most of the Yeshivot which include the study of Nefesh HaChaimas part of their curriculum only study the last section, the Fourth Gateway. Most of the commentaries and translations that have been published to date omit comment on or even translation of the Kabbalistic material which forms a substantial part of the book.

[4] Iggrot Kodesh, published by Kehot, Volume 1, Letter 11.

[5] For a scholarly portrait of the Leshem which brings together much important biographical information, a succinct overview of the Leshem’s major works and many further sources, see Joey Rosenfeld, "A Tribute to Rav Shlomo Elyashiv, Author of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: On his Ninetieth Yahrzeit," the Seforim blog, 10 March 2015), available here (http://seforim.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-tribute-to-rav-shlomo-elyashiv-author.html).

[6] It is not in the scope of the discussion here to discuss what is meant by a Sefira or a level. In Kabbalistic terminology a level may be called a “World” or a “Partzuf”.  A “Sefira” is a subcomponent of the “World” or the “Partzuf”.

[7] “Mitzido”/”Mitzideinu” are also synonymous with the Zohar’s terminology “Yichuda Ilaah”/ “Yichuda Tataah,” e.g., as per end of Nefesh HaChaim 3:6 (Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 1, pp. 510-511).  Incidentally “Mitzido”/”Mitzideinu” are also synonymous with the terms of “Orot”/”Keilim”.“Mitzideinu”, “Yichuda Tataah” and “Keilim” are all different expressions which mean “Malchut”.

[8] In particular, it is the dual simultaneous perspective which generates the concept of “Partzuf” which underpins all the discussions of the Arizal. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 145-150.

[9] In particular, to the first 2 sections of Volume 2.

[10] Sefer HaTanya 2:7:

... שמדת מלכותו היא מדת הצמצום וההסתר להסתיר אור אין סוף ...

[11] Sefer Hakdamot UShearim, Shaar 7, Perek 5, Ot 1:

... ולכן נקרא אותו המקום שנתצמצם בו בשם מלכות דאין סוף ... הנה הוא הכל בהמלכות של כל גילוי כי כל צמצום הוא רק בהמלכות ...

There are many similar statements across the writings of the Leshem. This source is particularly explicit and the review of all of Ot 1 will be insightful.

[12] In continuation of the response to R. Naor’s review, a number of points have been picked up on as detailed below. Please note that all of these points are side issues and pale into insignificance compared to the details of R. Naor’s stark omission of the concept of Tzimtzum in Malchut as per the main essay text. These points are as follows: In note 1 of his review, R. Naor quotes Dr. Menachem Kallus and mentions that in a note to Etz Chaim, R. Meir “Poppers writes that it sounds to him as if Luria’s disciples Rabbi Hayyim Vital and Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul understood from the Rav [Isaac Luria] that ‘the Tzimtzum is literal’ (‘ha-tzimtzum ke-mishma‘o’).”R. Naor’s suggestion here is that the Arizal is saying that the Tzimtzum process results in total literal removal and transcendence of God from physicality. However, in the light of the fact that we now know that the Tzimtzum process that the Arizal is referring to only took place in Malchut of the Ein Sof, this point is simply not relevant as the removal and transcendence only occurs in Malchut, from the perspective of the creations, Mitzideinu, but at the same time there is a total immanence of God within the unchanged presence of the Ein Sof.Even the Baal HaTanya agrees that there is a removal in Malchut, resulting in physicality from our perspective, as he says e.g., in Sefer HaTanya 2:3 that our “flesh eyes” only see physicality.Also see the particularly explicit statement of the Baal HaTanya in Sefer HaTanya 4:20 which is a direct corollary of the Mitzido/Mitzideinu concept of Nefesh HaChaim: “Relative to [God – i.e., Mitzido], the created physical entity is as if it has no consequence, i.e., its existence is nullified relative to the power and the light which is bestowed within it. It is like the radiance of the sun [before it has emanated and is still] within the sun. This is specifically relative to Him, where His Awareness is from above to below. However, from the perspective of the awareness of [the created entities – i.e, Mitzideinu,] from below to above, the created physical entity is an entirely separate/disconnected entity, with this awareness and perception being [only] from below, as [from its perspective] the power which is bestowed within it is absolutely not perceived at all.”Multiple sources from across Sefer HaTanya directly expressing the Mitzido/Mitzideinu concept are brought in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 94-95, fn. 120. R. Naor quotes from R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil, one of the greatest students of the Baal HaTanya who stated that the Mitnagdim “have no room for this faith that All is God.”It is of interest to note that R. Dessler was a close student of R. Mordechai Duchman who in turn was a close student of R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil (See Nefesh Hatzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 305, fn. 474). R. Dessler was therefore intimately familiar with the works of Lubavitch and would have most certainly been aware of R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil’s comment.  Notwithstanding this he clearly saw that Tzimtzum was not the issue of the Machloket and valiantly tried to publicize this, as quoted in the continuation of this essay.

The Baal HaTanya’s rejection of “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” (Sefer HaTanya2:7) uses scathing, derisive language to describe those who hold by that position referring to them as “scholars in their own eyes” (Yishayahu 5:21) and that “they also do not speak intelligently” (Iyov34:35). The question is who was the Baal HaTanya referring to? Nefesh HaTzimtzum presents a number of arguments to say that it could not have been the Vilna Gaon or R. Ricchi and by a process of elimination would then be referring to the Shabbatians.  R. Naor rejects this position but in doing so starkly omits most of the argumentation from Nefesh HaTzimtzum!A brief summary of the main Nefesh HaTzimtzum arguments is presented as follows (see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 75-79 for much more detail on this).Firstly and most importantly, even if we were to say that the Baal HaTanya was directing his statements at the Vilna Gaon and disagreed with what he may have assumed was the Vilna Gaon’s position, it doesn’t change the fact that the Vilna Gaon actually agreed with the Baal HaTanya on Tzimtzum only occurring in Malchut. So the debate about who the Baal HaTanya was referring to, while it may be interesting, is academic as far as who held what about Tzimtzum is concerned, as both the Baal HaTanya and the Vilna Gaon shared a common position.R. Naor severely underplays the level of vitriol in the Baal HaTanya’s tone and considers that his statements are mild.  In Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 75, fn. 80, a number of sources are brought which demonstrate that Chazal very specifically used both the expressions “scholars in their own eyes” and “they do not speak intelligently” to refer to the “wicked”, e.g., “. . . and even among the wicked there are scholars, as it says . . . ‘Woe to those who are scholars in their own eyes’” (Bereishit Rabbati, Toldot, on Bereishit26:12). Even if one could make a (somewhat forced) argument that the Baal HaTanya is taking these expressions out of their original context, since the Baal HaTanya quotes directly from R. Ricchi’s Mishnat Chassidim twice in Sefer HaTanya, it is highly questionable to suggest that such a punctilious author would quote holy statements from anyone he directly refers to derisively as “a scholar in his own eyes” and implies that he is wicked!The section of Sefer HaTanya which included these statements, although distributed to the Baal HaTanya’s students and is extant in manuscripts of Sefer HaTanya, was only inserted for the first time in a published edition of Sefer HaTanya in the 1900 Romm edition some 88 years after the passing of the Baal HaTanya. It should be noted that this section was not just a few lines containing caustic statements. It actually ran on for a number of pages. The majority of the information it contains is repeated from other places in Sefer HaTanya, although brought together in an effective presentation in one place. Even though this is the only place in Sefer HaTanya that the specific expression “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” is used, the rejection of this position is very clear from the presentation of Tzimtzum in other places in Sefer HaTanya. Therefore, if it were just 2 or 3 caustic statements that were not initially included in Sefer HaTanya and were later inserted in the 1900 edition, it could reasonably be argued (as R. Naor suggests) that they were not included due to the raging arguments at the time of the original printing in 1796 and that they therefore were pointed at the Vilna Gaon. However, if the Baal HaTanya wanted to include this section, it would have been trivial for him to simply edit the 2 or 3 very brief caustic statements to make them politically correct. The fact that he did not edit these statements, but omitted the entire lengthy section, suggests that there was another reason for the omission.It should also be noted that the Vilna Gaon, never used the expression “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” in any of his writings and also, as already explained, did not actually hold this position. This means that if the Baal HaTanya was directing his vitriol at the Vilna Gaon, he was doing so based on rumor. On the Baal HaTanya’s release from prison in 1798, he wrote a letter outlining the importance of remaining silent in the face of controversy, strongly highlighting that this is a characteristic of those close to God (Sefer HaTanya 4:2). Given the devotional premium that he attached to remaining silent in the face of controversy it would have been complete hypocrisy were the Baal HaTanya to have been openly derisive about his main partner in controversy. This is accentuated by the fact that the Vilna Gaon did not actually hold this position and the Baal HaTanya’s attack would have been based on rumor.

R. Naor quotes what he refers to as a key passage from Yosher Levav (Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 260-261): “Therefore relative to us (le-gabei didan), it is as if there was no Tzimtzum and we can say that the Tzimtzum is not literal. However, relative to the Ein Sof (le-gabei ha-Ein Sof) itself, it is literal.”  He argues that as R. Ricchi is saying that relative to the creations the Tzimtzum is not literal, how can Nefesh HaTzimtzum present R. Ricchi as saying that relative to the creations the Tzimtzum IS literal?Unfortunately, R. Naor omits to present the very specific and complex context of R. Ricchi’s statement which appears in Yosher Levav, Ch. 15 – and as a result his statement is misleading!The context is set at the beginning of Ch. 15, arguably the most subtle argument in the Yosher Levav’s overall Tzimtzum presentation, saying “Even though we have proven that the Tzimtzum process itself is literal, nevertheless there is scope to say that the way in which the Tzimtzum process was applied was not literal”.R. Ricchi spent the previous few chapters explaining that the Tzimtzum process is literal and earlier (Yosher Levav, Ch. 13) he makes a key statement: “even though I cannot imagine how this could be [literal], as I have no knowledge of how He can contract Himself since there was no space empty of Him – this is my deficiency, as I have no way of knowing anything about His Exalted Unity.”  He is saying that God’s perspective is unknowable and notwithstanding God’s point of view of there being no space empty of Him, that from the point of view of the creations there is an apparent literal removal of God even though, as R. Ricchi highlights, he cannot logically relate to how this can be so.  Therefore R. Ricchi’s general position is that from our point of view, relative to us, Tzimtzum IS literal.In contrast, the very specific context of the beginning of Yosher Levav, Ch. 15, is discussing a scenario afterthe literal Tzimtzum has already taken place. R. Ricchi explains that after the literal Tzimtzum, there still remained a residue, called a “Reshimu,” which has greater creative intensity than anything we could ever imagine – therefore relative to us, we cannot differentiate between the intensity of the Reshimu and of the Ein Sof, so we would relate to the Reshimu in the same way as we do to the Ein Sof and therefore relative to us there is scope to say that it is as if there was no Tzimtzum – however relative to the Ein Sof it is literal, because compared to the Ein Sof the Reshimu is like something physical.This point is succinctly related to in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 70, fn. 65.

In sum, it should now be crystal clear that R. Naor’s significant omission of much key argumentation and context from Nefesh HaTzimtzum renders his review conclusion, which unfortunately only serves to propagate further fundamental discord and disunity in the Jewish World, as erroneous and misleading!

[13] In particular by R. Yosef ben Immanuel Irgess and R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 63-71, for details.

[14] This forged letter is published in Iggrot Kodesh Admor HaZaken, published by Kehot in 1987, letter 34, p. 85. It was first published as an appendix to Metzaref HaAvodah, 1858 – which was also an entirely forged work. For extensive details and hard evidence of both the letter and Metzaref HaAvodahforgeries, see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 79-88.

[15] This was from a letter written by R. Dessler expressing his position on Tzimtzum. It was R. Dessler’s position which prompted the response by R. Schneerson in his 1939 letter.  R. Dessler’s complete letter is published in Kodshei Yehoshua by his son in-law R. Eliyahu Yehoshua Geldzahler, Volume 5, Siman 421, pp. 1716–1717. It is also partially printed in Michtav MeEliyahuby R. Eliyahu Dessler, Volume 4, p. 324. This part of the letter only appeared in earlier print editions of Michtav MeEliyahu and was removed from the more recent print editions when its editor later decided to include another paragraph which was previously omitted (the complete letter could not be included at that stage as the book layout had been fixed and the contents of this letter had to be restricted to a single page).

[16] E.g., R. Tzvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov, the Bnei Yisaschar, in Derech Pikudecha, Mitzvah Lo Taaseh 16, Chelek Hamachshava 4. Also R. Nachman of Breslov in Sichot Moharan, Siman 267. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 137-138, fn. 217.

[17] E.g., as quoted frequently by the Chafetz Chaim in his Mishneh Berurah, referring to the Baal HaTanya as “HaGraz”, “HaGaon Rabbi Zalman.”

[18] See R. Chaim’s introduction to the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Zoharas brought in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 464.

[19] E.g., R. Tzvi Hirsch of Zidichov in Sur MeRah VeAseh Tov, pp. 79–80 of the Emet publication,

Jerusalem, 1996. Also R. Yitzchak Issac Yehuda Yechiel of Komarna in Zohar Chai, Hakdamat Sefer HaZohar, p. 41b. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 138-139, fn. 217.

Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise: Revisited

July 3, 2016, 10:51 am

≫ Next: עוד שמועות נדירות, ופנינים וסיפרים מדור שעבר ששמעתי ממו"ר הרב שמרי'שולמאן שליט"א בעמ"ס באר שרים ועוד, ומשיירי כנסת הגדולה

≪ Previous: Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s Motivation to Write Nefesh HaChaim

$

0

0

Who can discern his errors?

Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise: Revisited[1]

by Marvin J. Heller

Marvin J. Heller is the award winning author of books and articles on early Hebrew printing and bibliography. Among his books are the Printing the Talmud series, The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Hebrew Book(s): An Abridged Thesaurus, and collections of articles.

 R. Eleazar once entered a privy, and a Persian [Roman] came and thrust him away. R. Eleazar got up and went out, and a serpent came and tore out the other’s gut. R. Eleazar applied to him the verse, “Therefore will I give a man (אָדָםadam) for thee (Isaiah 43:4).” Read not adam [a man] but אֱדֹםedom [an Edomite = a Roman] corrected by the censor to “but a Persian.” (Berakhot 62b)

 “R. Eleazar said: Any man who has no wife is no proper man; for it is said, Male and female created He them and called their name Adam” corrected by the censor to “any Jew who is unmarried” (Yevamot63a).[2]

           

Sensitivity to the contents of Jewish texts by non-Jews, and apostates in their employ, was a feature of Jewish life at various periods, one particularly notable and noxious time being in the sixteenth century when, during the counter-Reformation, the Church undertook to censor and correct those Hebrew books that were not placed on the index and banned in their entirety. In the first example, the understanding based on the reading of adam אָדָםas edom אֱדֹם(Rome) is completely lost by the substitution of Persian for Edom. In the second example “Any man who has no wife is no proper man” was deeply offensive to a Church that required an unmarried and celibate clergy. In both instances the text was altered to adhere to the Church’s sensibilities despite the fact that not only was the original intent lost but that, particularly in the first case, it ceased to be meaningful.

            Books, and even more so Hebrew books, often underwent modifications, textual changes, due to the vicissitudes and complexities of the Jewish condition, frequently involuntary. The subject of “Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise,” addresses textual changes, as well as other errors, intentional and unintentional, that may be found in Hebrew books. Addressed previously in Hakirah, this is a companion article, providing additional examples of book errors, variations, and discrepancies. As noted previously, errors “come in many shapes and forms. Some are significant, others are of little consequence; most are unintentional, others are purposeful. When found, errors may be corrected, left unchanged, or found in both corrected and uncorrected forms. . . . Other errors are not to be found in the book per se but rather in our understanding of the book. This article is concerned with errors in and about Hebrew books only. It is not intended to be and certainly is not comprehensive, but rather explores the variety of errors, some of consequence, most less so, providing several interesting examples for the reader’s edification and perhaps enjoyment.”[3]

Among the errors discussed in this article are 1) those dealing with the expurgation of the Talmud; 2) expurgation of other Hebrew works; 3) internal censorship, that is, of Hebrew books by Jews; 4) accusations of plagiarism and forgery; 5) misidentification of the place of printing;  6) confusion due to mispronunciations.

I

            Returning to the beginning of the article, the Talmud, initially banned in 1553 and placed on the Index librorum prohibitorum in 1559, was subsequently permitted by the Council of Trent in 1564, but only under restrictive and onerous conditions. Reprinted in greatly censored form, the introductory quote refers to modifications in the Basle Talmud (1578-81). A condition of the Basle Talmud was that the name “Talmud” be prohibited. Heinrich Graetz explains the Pope’s and Council's considerations in forbidding the name.

the Council only approved the list of forbidden books previously made out in the papal office, the opinion of the pope and those who surrounded him served as a  guide in the treatment of Jewish writings. The decision of this point was left to the pope, who afterwards issued a bull to the effect that the Talmud was indeed accursed - like Reuchlin's ‘Augenspiegel and Kabbalistic writings’ - but that it would be allowed to appear if the name Talmud were omitted, and if before its publication the passages inimical to Christianity were excised, that is to say, if it were submitted to censorship (March 24th, 1564). Strange, indeed, that the pope should have allowed the thing, and forbidden its name! He was afraid of public opinion, which would have considered the contradiction too great between one pope, who had sought out and burnt the Talmud, and the next, who was allowing it to go untouched. At all events there was now a prospect that this written memorial, so indispensable to all Jews, would once more be permitted to see the light, although in a maimed condition.[4]

           

            Among the most egregious examples of censorship of the Talmud is Bava Kamma 38a. That amud (page) of the Talmud, dealing with financial relations between Jews and non-Jews, was expurgated, almost in its entirety. Prior to the much censored Basle Talmud (1578-1581) the text was completely printed, for example, in the 1519/20-23 Venice edition of the Talmud published by Daniel Bomberg. After the censored Basle Talmud was published, initially, rather than contract the text, large blank spaces were left, clearly indicating that text had been expurgated.  

                                                                                   

            Abraham Karp notes that in some editions of the Talmud “many expurgated passages are restored, and where deletions are retained, blank spaces are left to indicate the omission to the reader and, no doubt, to permit him to fill in by pen what they dared not to print.”[5] An example of the blank spaces can be seen from the Frankfurt an der Oder Talmud 1697-99, printed by Michael Gottschalk. Such omissions are to be found in almost all seventeenth and early eighteenth editions of the Talmud, a notable exception being the Benveniste edition (Amsterdam, 1644-47).[[6]  Rabbinovitch too notes that blank spaces were left for expurgated text, those omissions being consistent with the Basle Talmud. He adds, however, that this policy was followed until the 1835 Vilna Talmud. At that time government officials prohibited the practice so that the omissions would not be so obvious.[7]  In fact, text was consolidated much earlier, as evidenced, by the illustrations of Bava Kama 38a from the 1734‑39 Frankfurt an der Oder Talmud. This expurgated material is restored in current editions of the Talmud.

Frankfurt an der Oder - 1697-99




Frankfurt an der Oder - 1734-39

Another example of interest, one that has not fared as well, the text not yet restored in most editions of the Talmud, is to be found in Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a. The reference there is to Ben Satda, beginning, in the latter tractate “and so they did to Ben Satda in Lod, and hung him on erev Pesah.Ben Satda? He was the son (ben) of Padera . . .”[8] Popper notes that Gershom Soncino, when publishing “a few of the Talmudic tracts at Soncino during the last decade of the fifteenth century, he took care not to restore any of the objectionable words in the MSS. from which he printed.”[9] Here too the text is complete in the Bomberg Talmud. Two subsequent exceptions in later editions of Sanhedrin where the Ben Satda entries do appear are in the Talmud printed by Immanuel Benveniste and in the edition of Sanhedrin printed in Sulzbach in or about 1696. 

Sanhedrin 67a, Benveniste Talmud

However, in two complete editions of the Talmud (1755-63, 1766-70) printed in Sulzbach, the Ben Satda entries are omitted, as is the case of most modern editions of the Talmud.[10]

II

            The Talmud isn’t the only work to have been censored. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin provides several examples of text in books that were modified due to the censor’s ministrations. Among them is R. Abraham ben Jacob Saba’s (d. c. 1508) Zeror ha-Mor, a commentary on the Pentateuch based on kabbalistic and midrashic sources.[11] On the passage “They would slaughter to demons without power, gods whom they knew not, newcomers recently arrived, whom your ancestors did not dread” (Deuteronomy 32:17), referring to “Christians in general and priests in particular as ‘demons’ (shadim): ‘For as the nations of the world, all their abominations and vanities come from the power of demons, hence, the monks would shave the hair of their heads  and leave some at the top of the head as a stain.’” This passage continues, referring to bishops and popes, concluding that their entire heads are shaved like a marble with only a bit of hair about their ears, so that they have the appearance of demons, hairless, and like demons, provide no blessings, are like a fruitless tree, and “thus, it is fitting that they bear no sons of daughters.” Raz-Krakotzkin informs that this passage appeared in the first two editions of Zeror ha-Morprinted by Bomberg, and the Giustiniani edition (1545) but was already expurgated by the Cavalli edition (1566), a blank space in place of the text. That space subsequently disappeared and, although a Cracow edition based on the Bomberg Zeror ha-Mor restored the text it remains missing from most later editions.[12] Raz-Krakotzkin continues, citing additional examples.

            Early halakhic works were also subject to the ministrations of the censor.[13] Among them are such works as R. Samson ben Zadok’s (thirteenth century) Sefer Tashbez (Cremona, 1556). Samson was a student of R. Meir of Rothenburg (Maharam, c. 1220-1293). When the latter was imprisoned in the tower of Ensisheim, Samson visited him regularly, serving as his attendant and carefully recording in Tashbez Maharam’s teachings, customs, and daily rituals, as well as what he heard and observed, from the time Meir rose in the morning until he retired at night, on weekdays, Sabbaths, and festivals. Although a relatively small work (8⁰: [6], 55 leaves), it consists of 590 entries beginning with Sabbath night (1-17), Sabbath day (18-98), followed by festivals, Sefer Torah, priestly benedictions, prayer, slumber, talis and tefillin, benedictions, issur ve-heter (dietary laws), redemption of the first born, hallah, vows, marriage and divorce, monetary laws, and piety. Expurgation by the censor of Tashbez was done sloppily, for terms such as meshumadand goy, normally excised, remain, but with a disclaimer near the end that they refer to idol worshipers only.[14]

III

Not all errors are due to the ministrations of the censor. Jews, too, at times, have taken their turns at modifying the text of books.

            A recent and perhaps quite surprising example of internal censorship is to be found in R. Solomon Ganzfried’s (1804–1886) Kizzur Shulḥan Arukh. First printed in 1864, that work an abridgement of the Shulhan Arukh for the average person, went through fourteen editions in the author’s lifetime, and numerous editions since then, as well as translations into many languages and has been the subject of glosses.[15] Marc B. Shapiro informs that in the Lublin (1904) edition of the Kizzur Shulḥan Arukh and several other editions the entry (201:4) that “apostates, informers, and heretics –for all these the rules of an onan and of mourners should not be observed. Their brothers and other next of kin should dress in white, eat, drink, and rejoice that enemies of the Almighty have perished,” the words “apostates, informers, and heretics” have been removed. In the Vilna edition (1915) the entire paragraph is removed and the sections renumbered from seven to six. In the Mossad Harav Kook vocalized edition a new halakhahwas substituted, but that has since been corrected to reflect the original text. The reason, according to Shapiro, is that with the expansion of Jewish education to include girls, it was felt that schoolchildren, with assimilated relatives, would see this as referring to family members.[16] Several recent editions of the Kizzur Shulḥan Arukh that were examined, in both Hebrew and English, have the original text.

            R. Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), chief rabbi of Jerusalem and first Ashkenazic chief rabbi in Israel (then Palestine), was a profound, influential, and mystical thinker. Highly regarded by his contemporaries, his strongly Zionist views also resulted in some opposition, but even most of his contemporaries who disagreed with him held him in high regard. Shapiro notes that with time, Kook’s reputation changed. Despite the fact that such pre-eminent rabbis as R. Solomon Zalman Auerbach (1910-95) and R. Joseph Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012) were unwavering in their high regard of Kook, strong anti-Kook sentiment developed later in religious anti-Zionist circles. Shapiro notes that “Kook has been the victim of more censorship and simple omission of fact for the sake of haredi ideology than any other figure. When books are reprinted by haredi and anti-Zionist publishers Kook’s approbations (hascomas) are routinely omitted.” One of several examples of this modified opinion Shapiro cites is a lengthy eulogy delivered by R. Isaac Kossowsky (1877-1951) praising Kook. When the eulogy was reprinted inShe’elot Yitzhak, a collection of Kossowsky’s writings, the name of the subject of the eulogy, Rav Kook, was omitted. In the reprint of She’elot Yitzhak the eulogy is deleted in its entirety.[17]

            Shapiro’s observation about Rav Kook’s approbations is confirmed in several books. R. Eliezer Mansour Settehon’s (Sutton, 1860-1937) Notzar Adam: Hosafah Notzar Adam (Tiberius, 1930), discourses on spiritual development, has approbations from R. Abraham Abukzer, R. Moses Kliers, and R. Jacob Hai Zerihan, and R. Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen Kook. In a description of Notzar Adam in in Aleppo, City of Scholars (Brooklyn, 2005), Kook’s name, Kook’s name is omitted from a list of the book’s approbations.[18]

In a variation of this, two internet sites that reproduce the full text of Hebrew books both include Rav Isaac Hutner’s (1906-80) Torat ha-Nazir (Kovno, 1932). This, the first edition, has three approbations; a full page hascoma from R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski (1863–1940), and the following page two approbations, side by side, from R. Abraham Duber Kahana (1870–1943) and Rav Kook. The first internet site, with more than 53,000 books for free download, follows R. Grodzinski’s approbation with a blank page and then the text. The second, a subscription site with more than 76,000 scanned books, goes directly from R. Grodzinski’s hascomato the text, dispensing with the blank page, also not reproducing the second page of approbations. It is not clear whether the copies scanned were faulty, the scanning incomplete, or the omission intentional. Nevertheless, to conclude this section on a positive note, surprisingly, given the omission of Rav Kook’s approbation in both scans of Torat ha-Nazir, both sites list and provide an extensive number of Rav Kook’s works.

IV

Accusations of plagiarism accompany the publication of two works by and/or attributed to R. Nathan Nata ben Samson Spira (Shapira, d. 1577). Spira, born to a distinguished family that was, according to the Ba’al Shem Tov, one of the three pure families throughout the generations in Israel (the others being Margulies and Horowitz), served as rabbi in Grodno (Horodno) until 1572, when he accepted a position in Posnan. His grandson was R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira (Megalleh Amukkot, c. 1585-1633). Among Nathan Nata Spira’s works is Imrei Shefer(2⁰: [1], 260 ff.), a super-commentary on Rashi and R. Elijah Mizrahi (c. 1450–1526). The book was brought to press by Spira’s son R. Isaac Spira (d. 1623), Rosh Yeshiva in Kovno and afterwards in Cracow. Work on Imrei Shefer began in Cracow in 1591 but before printing was finished Isaac Spira accepted a position in Lublin where publication was completed at the press of Kalonymus ben Mordecai Jaffe (1597).[19]

The title-pages states that Spira, “gives goodly words (Imrei Shefer)’ (Genesis 49:21) and he gives, ‘seed to the sower, and bread לזורע ולחם(357=1597) to the eater’ (Isaiah 55:10) of Torah.” In the introduction, Isaac informs that the work is entitled Imrei Shefer from the verse, “he gives goodly words” (and the word “he gives הנתן” in the Torah is without a vav), implying the name of the author [Nathan נתן] and Sheferשפרis language of Spira שפירא the family name of the author. Isaac then addresses the existence of an unauthorized and fraudulent edition ascribed to his father, printed in Venice (Be’urim, 1593),

found and brought out by men who lack the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. A work discovered, who knows the identity of the author, perhaps a boy wrote it and wanted to credit it to an authoritative source אילן גדול), [my father my lord]. God forbid that his holy mouth should bring forth words that have no substance, vain, worthless, and empty, a forgery, “[And, behold], it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered it over” (Proverbs 24:31).

Isaac Spira took his complaint to the Va’ad Arba’ah Artzot (Council of the Four Lands), requesting they prohibit the distribution of the Be’urim in Poland. The response of the Va’ad is printed at the end of the introduction,

It has been declared, by consent of the rabbis, and the [communal] leaders of these lands, that these books shall neither be sold nor introduced into [any Jewish] home in any of these lands. Those who have [already] purchased them shall receive their money back and not keep [such] an evil thing in their home.

What was and who wrote the Be’urim, the reputedly plagiarized copy of R. Nathan Nata ben Samson Spira’s Imrei Shefer? The title-page of the Be’urim (4⁰: 180 ff.), printed in Venice in 1593 “for Bragadin Giustiniani by the partners Matteo Zanetti and Komin Parezino at the press of Matteo Zanetti,” states that it was written by ha-Rav, the renowned, the gaon, R. Nathan from Grodno in the year, “For you shall go out with joy בשמחה(353=1593), and be led forth with peace” (Isaiah 55:12). Be’urim does not have an introduction nor a colophon that provides any additional information.

Isaac Spira’s accusation that the Be’urim is a forgery, not to be ascribed to his father, but rather was written by an unknown young man who then attributed it to Spira, is confirmed by R. Issachar Baer Eylenburg (1550-1623), who writes in his responsa, Be’er Sheva (Venice, 1614) and also in his commentary on Rashi, Zeidah La-Derekh (Prague, 1623) that it is obvious that the Be’urimwere not the work of the holy Spira, but rather of an erring student “who hung (attributed it) to himself, hanging it on a large tree” (cf. Pesahim112a).[20]

Among the distinguished sages of medieval Sepharad is Rabbenu Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava(c. 1255-1340). Best known for his popular, multi-faceted, and much reprinted Torah commentary, written in 1291 and first published in Naples (1491),  Rabbenu Bahya was also the author of Kad ha-Kemaḥ(Constantinople, 1515) and Shulḥan shel Arba (Mantua, 1514). The former, Kad ha-Kemaḥ, is comprised of sixty discourses on varied subjects, among them festivals, prayer, faith, and charity, all infused with ethical content. Among the numerous editions of Kad ha-Kemaḥ is a scholarly edition entitled Kitvei Rabbenu Baḥya (Jerusalem, 1970) edited and with annotations by R. Hayyim Dov Chavel (1906–1982).

Among the essays in Kad ha-Kemaḥ is one entitled Kippurim, on Yom Kippur. Part of that discourse includes a commentary on the book of Jonah, read on Yom Kippur. Chavel, in the introduction to his annotations on Rabbenu Bahya’s commentary on Jonah, suggests that Rabbenu Bahya took his commentary from R. Abraham ben Ḥayya’s (d. c. 1136) Hegyon ha-Nefesh, first published by E. Freimann (Leipzig, 1860). Abraham ben Ḥayya, a resident of Barcelona, was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer, reflected in his several works, including translations from the Arabic. Hegyon ha-Nefesh“deals with creation, repentance, good and evil, and the saintly life. The emphasis is ethical, the approach is generally homiletical – based on the exposition of biblical passages – and it may have been designed for reading during the Ten Days of Penitence.”[21] Kitvei Rabbenu Baḥya andHegyon ha-Nefeshare sufficiently alike to support Chavel’s contention that

Rabbenu utilized the Sefer Hegyon ha-Nefesh (or Sefer ha-Mussar) of the earlier sage R. Abraham ben Ḥayya ha-Nasi, known as ṣāḥib-al-shurṭa . . . In it is found this commentary on the book of Jonah. This was already noted by the author of Zaphat ha-Shemen– the usage by Rabbenu of this book is comparable to his use of other works: according to his needs. The reason that he does not mention it in his commentary is, perhaps, because the books of R. Abraham ha-Nasi were well known, and the leading sages, such as the Rambam, Ramban and other leading rabbis utilized it, comparable to “Joshua was sitting and delivering his discourse without mentioning names, and all knew that it was the Torah of Moses” (Yevamot 96b).[22].

We leave accusations of plagiarism and turn to forgery, a well-known case involving a person of repute, Saul Hirsch (Hirschel) Berlin’s (1740-94) Besamim Rosh.[23] Berlin was a person of great promise; the son of R. Hirschel Levin (ẒeviHirsch, 1721–1800), chief rabbi of Berlin, ordained at the age of twenty and in 1768 av bet din in Frankfurt an der Oder. At some point Berlin became disillusioned with what he believed to be antiquated rabbinical authority. He gave up his official rabbinic position in Frankfurt, removing to Berlin. There Berlin was an associate of Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), providing, in 1778, an approbation for Mendelssohn’s Be’ur(Berlin, 1783) and was a supporter of the enlightenment figure Naphtali Herz Wessely (1725–1805), writing an anonymous pamphlet in defense of  Wessely’s Divrei Shalom ve-Emet (Berlin, 1782) entitled Ketav Yosher (1794).[24]

An earlier forgery of Berlin, described by Dan Rabinowitz, this under the pseudonym of Ovadiah bar Barukh Ish Polanya, was Berlin’s Mitzpeh Yokteil (1789), a vicious attack on R. Raphael Kohen, rabbi of the three communities, Altona-Hamburg-Wansbeck, who had opposed Mendelssohn’s Be’ur, and on Kohen’s Torat Yekuteil (Amsterdam, 1772) on Yoreh Deah. The Communities’ beit din placed Ovadiah, the presumed author, under a ban. The ban’s proponents approached R. Tzevi Hirsch, the chief rabbi of Berlin and Saul Berlin’s father, seeking his signature on the ban.[25] It appears that Tzvi Hirsch initially concurred with the ban, but, as he was close to deciding in favor of signing the ban, someone whispered in his ear the verse “woe is me, my master, it is borrowed שאול” (II Kings 6:5), - which he understood to be a play on שאול(borrowed), referring to his son, Saul, the true author of Mitzpeh Yokteil.[26]

Turning to Besamim Rosh Saul Berlin’s infamous forgery, it claims to be the responsa of R. Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh, c. 1250–1327), among the most preeminent of medieval sages of European Jewry. The title-page describes it as the responsa Besamim Rosh, 392 responsa from books from the Rosh and other rishonim (early rabbinic sages) compiled by R. Isaac di Molina and with annotations Kasa de-Harshana by the young Saul ben R. Ẓevi Hirsch, av bet din, here (Berlin).[27] It is dated “and will keep you in all places where you goושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך  (553 = 1793)” (Genesis 28:15), note Asher אשרin the date. In Besamim Rosh Berlin, having become an adherent of the haskalah, presents ideas inconsistent with and at variance with traditional halakhic positions. Among the novel responsa are removing the prohibition on suicide due to the difficult conditions of Jewish life; permitting shaving on Hol ha-Mo’ed; requiring a shohet to test the sharpness of his knife on his tongue; saying a blessing over non-kosher food; disregarding commandments that are upsetting; not taking Megillat Esther seriously; and that Jews beliefs can change. An example of the responsa, albeit a brief one and without Berlin’s Kasa de-Harshana, is the much quoted responsum concerning “legumes, rice, and millet which some Ashkenazic rabbis prohibit and is the practice in some communities. . .” (105b: no. 138): The responsum states:

This is very strange, for the Talmud permits it and no bet din is known to have made such an enactment. It is not for us to inquire why such an enactment was made and why it was followed by some. Possibly because of the exiles and the confused גירושים והבלבוחים, weighed down in poverty . . . and also due to the small community of Karaites in their midst who were also exiled. . . . unable to distinguish between bread and bread and all leavening from which it is possible to make flour and bread. But, God forbid, that we freely prohibit that which is permitted, and all the more because of the poor and needy, who lack sufficient meat and bread all the days of the festival. . . . “who eat [but] a litra of vegetables for at a meal” (Sanhedrin 94b). Also “a leap year is not intercalated in the year following a Sabbatical year for this reason.” All the more (kal ve-homer) to prohibit most types of food to the poor and needy on festivals and the overly strict (mahmerin) will have to answer on the day of judgement.

            How has Besamim Rosh been received? Soon after its publication R. Wolf Landsberg, in Ze’ev Yitrof(Frankfurt an der Oder, 1793), stated that Besamim Rosh was a forgery, and R. Mordecai Benet (1753-1829) wrote to Berlin’s father, that Besamim Rosh was “from head to foot only wounds and grievous abscesses from sinful, vile men.”[28] R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida, 1724–1806) in his Shem ha-Gedolim, one of several works in which he mentions Besamim Rosh, states “I have heard ‘a voice of a great rushing’ (Ezekiel 3:12) that there are in this book strange things. . . . Therefore the reader should not rely on it.”[29] The Hatam Sofer (R. Moses Sofer, 1762–1839), based on the responsum on suicide, also concluded that Besamim Rosh was a forgery.[30] Among the varied modern authorities who quote Besamim Rosh, albeit critically, are R. Solomon Joseph Zevin (1885–1978) and R. Ovadia Yosef (1920-13) the latter writing an approbation for the 1984 edition of Besamim Rosh.[31]

How influential was Besamim Rosh? Fishman writes that “Besamim Rosh is of itself cast as a work of rabbinic literature, a Trojan horse of sorts, capable of injecting reformist viewpoints directly into the camp of halakhic discourse. Indeed, the sheer frequency with which Besamim Rosh has been cited in subsequent halakhic writings [documented by Samet] raises the question of whether the work may not have been effective in introducing unconventional perspectives into rabbinic thought.”[32] Similarly, Shmuel Feiner notes that “Some scholars regard Besamim Rosh as the beginning of the reform of Judaism.”[33] Finally, knowledge that Besamim Rosh was a forgery was so widespread, that it is even so described in a book dealers catalogue, that of Jakob Ginzburg, in Listing of Rare and Valuable Books(Minsk, 1914), stating “565 Besamin Rosh attributed to the Rosh, poor condition Berlin, 1792, 50 1.”

V

Of less consequence is a common error, if it may be so described, that is, the misleading identification of the place of printing on the title-pages of late seventeenth through the early nineteenth century books. Amsterdam, from the early seventeenth century, was the foremost center of Hebrew printing in Europe. Its reputation was such that printers in other lands, often with the only the most tenuous, if any, connections with Amsterdam, attempted to associate their imprints with that city. In a wide variety of locations the actual place of printing is minimized; what is enlarged is that the letters are באותיות אמשטרדםAmsterdam letters. Mozes Heiman Gans describes this practice,

Amsterdam may have had an embarrassing lack of rabbinical training facilities, but thanks to the Hebrew printing works it nevertheless had a great name in the world of Jewish scholarship. Moreover, the haskamot (certificate of fitness) was also sought by Jewish printers abroad, and so highly-prized were books ‘printed in Amsterdam’ or ‘be-Amsterdam’ that cunning rivals invented the phrase ‘printed ke-Amsterdam’, i.e. in the manner of Amsterdam, hoping to deceive the readers by relying on the similarity of the Hebrew k and b.[34]

            An early example of this practice is in Dessau, where the court Jew, Moses Benjamin Wulff, established a Hebrew press in Anhalt-Dessau.[35] Approval for the press was given on December 14, 1695 by Princess Henriette Catherine of Orange, Prince Leopold I’s mother, acting as regent in her son’s frequent absences in the service of the Prussian army. The first books were published in 1696, among them R. Jacob ben Joseph Reischer’s (Jacob Backofen, c. 1670–1733) Hok Ya’akov and Solet le-Minhah ve-Shemen le-Minhah, and the following yearR. Shabbetai ben Meir ha-Kohen’s (Shakh, 1621–1662) Gevurat Anashim, each with a title-page, with a pillared frame topped by an obelisk and the statement,

Printed here [in the holy congregation of] Dessau

with AMSTERDAMletters

Under the rule of her ladyship, the praiseworthy and pious Duchess,

of distinguished birth HENRIETTE CATHERINE [May her majesty be exalted]

Another notable instance are the title-pages of R. Judah Leib ben Enoch Zundel’s (1645–1705)Hinnukh Beit Yehudah (Frankfurt am Main, 1708), a collection of one hundred forty-five responsa, among them several by the author. Zundel (1645–1705), who succeeded his father as rabbi of the district of Swabia in 1675, subsequently relocated to Pfersee, where he remained until his death. Judah Leib was also the author of Reshit Bikkurim (Frankfurt, 1708), homilies by Judah Leib and his father. The sermons in that work are on festivals and Sabbaths based upon R. Joseph Albo and includes excerpts from a commentary on the Bible which Judah Leib had intended publishing.[36]

 The publisher of these books was Johann Koelner, the distinguished Frankfurt am Main printer (1708-27), credited with publishing half of the Hebrew books printed in Frankfurt up to the middle of the nineteenth century as well as a fine edition of the Babylonian Talmud.[37] Koelner began printing with Hinnukh Beit Yehudah; it is unusual in that there are two title-pages for the book, one noting that it was printed in Frankfurt am Main, the other stating that Hinnukh Beit Yehudah was printed, in an enlarged font with, Amsterdam, in a smaller font, letters, and the place of printing, Frankfurt am Main, also set in a smaller font.[38]

Another way of emphasizing Amsterdam fonts rather than the city in which a book was printed is evident from R. Jacob Uri Shraga Feival’s ben Menahem Nachum’s Bet Ya’akov Esh (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1765) on Job. Here, somewhat unusually, even the reference to the source of the fonts is highlighted, saying with Amsterdam letters. The place of printing is given below in abbreviation in a slightly smaller font as printed hereפ"פ דאדר(Frankfurt an der Oder).

In addition to several locations in Germany, such as Hamburg and Jessnitz, we also find this practice in such varied locations as in Zolkiew, for example, R. Aaron Moses ben Zevi Hirsch of Lvov (Lemberg) Ohel Moshe (1765) on grammar; in Lvov, on the title-page of R. Jacob ben Baruch of Tyczyn’s(c. 1640-1725)Birkat Yosef (1784) on Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat; and with a mahzorthat states, in large red letters, that it was printed in Slavuta and, in a small font in German only, that is, it was printed (gedrukt) in Lemberg. We also find this done, somewhat far afield, in Livorno; the title-page of Seder Nezikin of the Jerusalem Talmud (1770), printed with a frame that is like but not exact of the Amsterdam edition of Seder Nashim (1754), by Carlo Giorgi, stating “printed here, Livorno, with Amsterdamletters.

            And then there are inadvertent errors, such as misreading a colophon. Popular books, frequently reprinted, go through numerous editions. At times it is difficult to identify early editions and, as might be expected, books are occasionally misidentified, attributed to the wrong press, misdated, and there are instances when editions are recorded that never existed. All of these errors can be found in R. Leon Modena’s (Judah Aryeh, 1571-1648) Sur me-Ra.[39]

Sur me-Ra, apopular and much reprinted tract opposing the snares and consequences of gambling, was written by Modena when, according to his autobiography, he was only twelve or thirteen years old. Paradoxically, Modena would later become a compulsive gambler, even gambling away his daughters’ dowries. Translated into Latin, German, Yiddish, French, and English, Sur me-Ra is not a straightforward denunciation of gambling but rather a dialogue between two friends, one opposed to games of chance, the other a proponent of such games, both positions well argued, accounting for its popularity. It was first published in Venice in the year בשמחה(with joy, [5]355 = 1594/95) by the Venetian press of Giovanni di Gara as an anonymous tract on the evils of gambling, Modena initially choosing to be anonymous. Sur me-Ra was republished, not long afterwards, twice, according to several bibliographic sources, in 1615. One edition, attributed to a Venice press, appears to be dubious, it not being recorded in any library collection and the sources that list it do so without descriptive details.[40]

The two 1615 Prague editions are recorded in a library listing, one published at the press of Moses ben Bezalel Katz, octavo in format, here consisting of ten unfoliated leaves. The second Prague edition, a bi-lingual Hebrew-Latin edition, is not so much dubious as mislabeled, having been printed several decades later and elsewhere. The Katz edition has an introduction from R. Jacob ben Mattias Treves which concludes “And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses” (Exodus 1:21) at a goodly בשע"ה(375 = 1615) time, “a time to cast להשלי"ך (75 = 1615) away stones” (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:5).

A bi-lingual Hebrew-Latin edition of Sur me-Ra was purportedly printed in Wittenburg in 1665 by Johannis Haken. This edition is physically small, octavo in format, measuring 18 cm.; otherwise it is an expanded edition of Sur me-Ra, being comprised of [134] pp. and ending on quire Q3 followed by several index pages. There is a Latin title-page with a Hebrew heading, giving the place of printing, printer’s name, and date, followed by considerable preliminary matter in Latin. There is a second Hebrew-Latin title page, lacking all of these particulars about the edition and with a somewhat dissimilar briefer Latin text.

This Wittenburg edition of Sur me-Ra has been incorrectly recorded in at least one major library as a second 1615 Prague Hebrew-Latin edition of that work. The reason for the error appears to be twofold. First, the library copy lacks the first descriptive title-page and the second title page, as noted, lacks identifying information. Moreover, the introduction to the Prague edition is included, with its reference to Prague at the beginning and, at the end, two highlighted dates, although the first “at a goodly בשע"ה(375 = 1615) time” is not highlighted here and a close reading indicates that the second date was set improperly, that is, the Prague edition which concludes with the date “a time to cast להשלי"ך (375 = 1615)” here, reading להשלי"ך, the final khaf being emphasized as if to be included in the enumeration of the letters, which likely misled a reader looking at it too casually, as it results in a figure (395) too large for the Prague edition and too small for the Wittenburg edition.[41]

Another edition of Sur me-Ra was printed in Leiden by Johannes Gorgius Nisselius. An orientalist, Nisselius, poor and unable to obtain a post as a teacher, became a printer. The title-page is misdated תנ"ו(456 = 1696) instead of 1656, attributed by L. Fuks and R. G. Fuks‑Mansfeld to Nisselius’ unfamiliarity with Hebrew chronology, and causing Moritz Steinschneider to describe it as an “edition negligenitissime curate (a very slipshod edition).[42]

Three reported bi-lingualeditions of Sur me-Ra, Hebrew with Latin translation, quarto format, are recorded in bibliographic sources. The dates given are 1698, 1702, and 1767. These editions are listed, without further details, in Julius Fürst’s Bibliotheca Judaica,Benjacob’s Otzar ha-Sefarim, and Vinograd’s Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book, each likely repeating the entries in the previous earlier work.[43] That three editions of Sur me-Ra were printed in Oxford within this time frame seems highly unlikely, given that from the first Hebrew book reported for Oxford, Maimonides’ commentary on Mishnayot, with Latin, printed in 1655, concluding with a Bible in 1790, only sixteen titles with Hebrew text are reported. One printing of Sur me-Ra seems reasonable, two less so, three unlikely.

VI

            Mispronunciations and misunderstandings are the source of numerous errors, a problem that persists from biblical times, as in the following passage from Judges (12:36) 

And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites; and it was so that when those Ephraimites who had escaped said, Let me cross over; that the men of Gilead said to him, Are you an Ephraimite? If he said, No; Then said they to him, Say now Shibboleth; and he said Sibboleth; for he could not pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan; and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty two thousand.

R. David Cohen observes that not all typesetting errors can be attributed to the compositor selecting the wrong letters. In Kuntres ha-Akov le-Mishor: le-Taken ta’uyot ha-Defus shel ha-Shas Hotsa’at Vilna heobserves that there are mistakes that can only be attributed to hearing. Many printers realized that it was possible to save hours of labor by having type set by a pair of workers, one reading to the setter, who either did not hear correctly or misunderstood due to different dialects. Cohen provides several examples from the 1880-86 Vilna Talmud, for example, פסחin place of פתח, and comments that much ink has been has been spent resolving apparent difficulties that are in reality nothing more than printers’ errors. Among the numerous examples are:[44]

Rosh HaShanah 14a: Rashi בקוביא (dice-playing) – a piece of עצם (bone) . . . other reading עצים(wood).

Megillah 14a: Many prophets arose for Israel מי-הוה, (it should say מיהוי) [double the number of [the Israelites] who came out of Egypt].

Zevahim 48a: Rashi Midrasha – (Leviticus 4) . . . Should say 6.

           

Similarly, R. Menahem Mendel Brachfeld (Brakhfeld, 1917-84), in his two volume work, Yosef Halel, based on the Reggio di Calabria (1475) and other early editions, provides a lengthy listing of emendations to current texts of Rashi. He informs that numerous errors in more recent editions of Rashi are due to errors in transmission, frequently compounded by editors, printers, and the unkind modifications of censors. Indeed, R. Solomon Alkabetz, the grandfather of the eponymous author of Lekhah Dodi, in his edition of Rashi’s Torah commentary (Guadalajara, 1476), admittedly corrected it according to his own reasoning. Furthermore, explanations of Rashi are often based on these faulty editions.[45] At the beginning of each volume are the detailed emendations and at the end a brief summary of the changes, for example:

Leviticus 10: 16) The goat of the sin-offering, the goat of the additional service of the month and the three goats of sin-offering sacrificed on that day, the he-goat, the goat of Nahshon, and the goat of [Rosh Hodesh], etc. According to this version it is not clear what Rashi is suggesting by the he-goat. In the first edition (Reggio di Calabria) and the Alkabetz edition, the text is three goats of sin-offering sacrificed on that day, take a he-goat and the goat of Nahshon, etc. and with this Rashi alludesto the verse at the beginning of the parasha that speaks about the obligatory offerings of the day, writing take “a he-goat.”[46]

Leviticus 26: 21) Sevenfold according to your sins, seven other punishments, etc. Seven שבעis in the feminine, and others ואחריםis male. In the first edition and in the Alkabetz edition the text is seven other punishments, as the number of your sins חטאתיכם.[47]

Our text

16)the he-goat, the goat of Nahshon,  and the goat of [Rosh Hodesh].

21) Sevenfold according to your sins, seven other punishments,

Text first edition

16) take a he-goat and the goat (RH) of Nahshon, the goat of Rosh Hodesh.

21) seven other punishments as the number of your sins.[48]

            Another, quite different, inadvertent, error is of interest. In the late seventeenth- early eighteenth century a small number of printers of Hebrew books employed monograms, formed from the Latin initials of the Hebrew printer’s name, as their devices. Several were mirror-image monograms, which can be read directly and in reverse (mirror) image, resulting in more attractive and certainly more complex pressmarks than the simple interlacing of letters; perhaps graphic palindromes.[49] They are, however, often difficult to interpret; the undiscerning reader is often unaware that the mark is a signet rather than an ornamental device.

Gottschalk device correct usage – Frankfort am Main  

 Gottschalk device inverted - Zolkiew

The first usage of a monogram in a Hebrew book is that of the Frankfurt-am-Oder printer, Michael Gottschalk, noted above. Over several decades his mirror-image monogram appears in 

all of his Talmud editions, in three forms, all consisting of Gottschalk’s initials interwoven in straight and mirror images (MG), that is, it can beread in straight and reverse images. The last of his mirror-image monograms, employed on the title-pages of the Berlin and Frankfurt an der Oder Talmud editions (1715‑22, 1734‑39) is an elongated form of his initials. Gottschalk’s place in Frankfurt was taken by Professor F. Grillo, who, in association with the Berlin printer Aaron ben Moses Rofe of Lissa, completed the third Talmud. The printer’s device on the title pages of this edition is the elongated Gottschalk Mirror-monogram.  It is correctly placed on most tractates but inverted on tractate Niddah.  The error was quickly corrected, for on the title page of Seder Tohorot, printed immediately after and bound with Niddah, the monogram is right side up. We also find the elongated Gottschalk monogram, inverted, employed in Zolkiew on the title-page of  the responsa of R. Saul ben Moses of Lonzo’s Givat Shaul (1774) by David ben Menahem, who, in this instance, likely did not realize that it was comprised of Gottschalk’s initials.[50]

            At the beginning of the article it was stated that “this article is concerned with errors in and about Hebrew books only.” While the following example might tend to belie that statement, that is so only if the reader does not accept that the Bible is a Hebrew book, even if in translation. With that caveat, we bring an interesting and, from the printer’s perspective, an especially unfortunate error. For centuries the King James Bible was the authoritative English translation of the Bible by and for English speaking non-Jews. First published in 1611 by Robert Barker, it was reissued in 1631 by Barker, together with Martin Lucas, then the royal printers in London. This edition of the King James Bible is now best known as the Wicked Bible, but is also referred to as the Adulterous Bible or Sinners’ Bible. The error is in the Ten Commandments, in which the prohibition against adultery (Exodus 20:14; Heb. Bible 20:13) reads “Thou shalt commit adultery,” the “not” having been omitted, thus accounting for this edition of the King James Bible being referred to as the wicked Bible.

King Charles I was made acquainted with the error and the printers were called before the Star Chamber, where, upon the facts being proved, the printers were fined £3,000 about 34,000 pounds today). Subsequently, Barker and Lucas lost their printer’s licenses. The Archbishop of Canterbury, angered by the mistakes in this edition of the Bible, stated:

I knew the tyme when great care was had about printing, the Bibles especially, good compositors and the best correctors were gotten being grave and learned men, the paper and the letter rare, and faire every way of the beste, but now the paper is nought, the composers boyes, and the correctors unlearned.[51]

Printed in a press run of 1,000 copies, the wicked Bible was subsequently ordered destroyed; a handful of copies only are extant today.[52]

This article began with censorship, primarily of the Talmud and other Hebrew books, followed by internal censorship of Hebrew books, plagiarism and forgery, errors intentional (misleading) and unintentional, of varying levels of consequence. As noted in the previous article, “what they have in common is the consequence of inadvertently or deliberately misleading the reader. This is a subject that fascinates and certainly deserves further study. Nevertheless, even this overview should caution the reader that not everything in print, no matter how innocuous or well received, is necessarily so, for,”

Who can discern his errors? Clean me from hidden faults. Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me; then shall I be blameless, and innocent of great transgression (Psalms 19:13-14).[53]

---

[1] I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for reading the article and for his many corrections, my son-in-law, R. Moshe Tepfer at the National Library of Israel, Israel Mizrahi of Mizrahi Book Store, and R. Yitzhak Wilhelm and R. Zalman Levine, reading room librarians, Chabad-Lubavitch Library for providing me with facsimiles of the rare books described in this article.

[2] William Popper, The Censorship of Hebrew Books (New York, 1899, reprint New York, 1968), pp. 59, 60.

[3]“Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, and Deceptions, in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise” Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 12 (2011), pp. 269-91, reprinted in Further Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2013), pp. 395-420.

[4] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews IV (Philadelphia, 1956), p. 589.

[5]Abraham J. Karp, From the Ends of the Earth. Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress (Washington, 1991), p. 47.

[6]Despite having a more accurate text than later seventeenth and eighteenth editions, the Benveniste Talmud is, with exceptions, not always highly regarded due to its small size. An interesting early example of this relates to the handsome Lublin Talmud (1617-39), from the perspective of the seventeenth century. In correspondence between a representative of Duke Augustus the Young of Braunschweig [1635-66], founder of the Ducal Library in Wolfenbuettel and R. Jacob ben Abraham Fidanque, author of a super-commentary on the Abarbanel’s commentary on Nevi’im Rishonim and a dealer, Fidanque writes “My lord’s letter arrived today, Wednesday, Erev Rosh Hodesh Tevet, concerning the Lublin edition of the Talmud. I have one to sell, and it is very fine in its beauty and its paper, in sixteen volumes and new. If my lord wishes to give me 40R, that is, forty R. I will send it to him immediately upon receipt of his response. I will sell it for less, but if my lord wants to purchase an Amsterdam edition I will sell it for 14R. . . .” (K. Wilkelm, “The Duke and the Talmud” Kiryat Sefer, XII (1936), p. 494 [Hebrew).

[7]Rabbinovicz, p. 100.

[8]Ben Satda, a surname of Jesus of Nasereth, is, according to Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature(Brooklyn, N.Y., n. d.), p. 972, probably of Greek origin. The section on Ben Satda (Sanhedrin 67a) begins “and so they did to Ben Satda in Lod, and hung him on erev Pesah. Ben Satda? He was the son (ben) of Padera . . ., Padera being a name given to both the mother and father of Jesus.” As noted above, neither this or comparable entries appear in many current editions of the Talmud.

[9] Popper, p. 21.

[10] A somewhat inconsistent exception is the Soncino translation of the Talmud. In the edition of Sanhedrinpublished by the Traditional press (New York, n. d.) the Ben Satda entry is omitted from both the Hebrew and English text. However, in the Judaic and Soncino Classic Library (Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY) edition, translator David Kantrowitz, the Ben Satda entry is available in Hebrew but not in English. However, in the Rebecca Bennet Publications (1959) Soncino edition of Shabbat and the Judaic and Soncino Classic Library edition of that tractate the Ben Satda text appears in both the Hebrew and in the English translation, as well as in the Art Scroll Schottenstein edition of Shabbat. That entry, however, is incomplete, and the Hebrew portion of the Judaic and Soncino Classic Library edition notes that the censor has removed part of the text.

[11] Abraham Saba rewrote Zeror ha-Mor in Portugal from memory, having lost his writings after the expulsionof the Jews from Spain.. Saba was imprisoned in Portugal for refusing to accept baptism. Eventually released, he resettled in Morocco. Less well known is what occurred afterwards. R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida, 1724–1806) informs that Saba, after residing in Fez for ten years, traveled to Verona, Italy. En route, a storm arose. The captain, in despair, requested Saba pray for the ship’s safety. He agreed, but on the condition that, if he were to die at sea, the captain should not bury him at sea, but rather take him to a Jewish community for proper burial. The captain agreed, Abraham Saba’s prayed and the storm abated. Two days later, on the eve of Yom Kippur, Saba died. The captain took his body to Verona, where the Jewish community buried him with great honor. (Hayyim JosephDavidAzulai,Shemha-gedolimha-shalemwithadditionsbyMenachemMendelKrengel I(Jerusalem,1979), pp. 13-14[Hebrew].

[12] Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, The Censor, the Editor, and the Text: the Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century, translated by Jackie Feldman (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), pp. 142. My edition ofZeror ha-Mor, published by Heichel ha-Sefer (Benei Brak,1990) includes this passage.

[13] Among other censored halakhic works are R. Menahem ben Aaron ibn Zerah’s (c. 1310-1385) Zeidah la-Derekh (Ferrara, 1554). The entry in Zeidah la-Derekh on malshinim (slanderers, informers), comprising almost an entire leaf, was removed and the enumeration of the prayers comprising the Amidahwas correspondingly adjusted when the second edition (Sabbioneta, 1567) was printed. The expurgated material has not been restored in subsequent editions. Another contemporary halakhic work that was also censored is R. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d. 1280) of the Ba’alei Tosafot’s Amudei Golah (Cremona, 1556), in which objectionable terms, and occasionally entire paragraphs, were either substituted or suppressed. Concerning Zeidah la-Derekh and Amudei Golah see my “Concise and Succinct: Sixteenth Century Editions of Medieval Halakhic Compendiums,” Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 15 (2013), pp. 122-24 and 114-16 respectively.

[14] Isaiah Sonne, “Expurgation of Hebrew Books,” in Hebrew Printng and Bibliography, Editor Charles Berlin (New York, 1976), p. 231.

[15]Jacob S. Levinger, “Ganzfried, Solomon ben Joseph,” Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 7 (Detroit, 2007), 379-380.

[16] Marc B. Shapiro, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites its History(Oxford, Portland, 2015), p. 85-89.

[17] Shapiro, pp. 142 ff.

[18] David Sutton, Aleppo, City of Scholars(Brooklyn, 2005), p. 334 no. 539.

[19] 1575, Birkat ha-Mazon, Lublin - Birkat ha-Mazon, facsimile reproduction (Brooklyn, 2000), with introductions by Dovberush Weber and Eliezer Katzman, pp. 6-23, 1-10 [Hebrew].

[20] Katzman, facsimile, p. 3; Meijer Marcus Roest, Catalogue der Hebraica und Judaica RosenthalishenBibliotek. Bearbetet von M. Roest, with Anhang by Leeser Rosenthal (Amsterdam, 1875, reprint Amsterdam, 1966), II p. 42 n. 243  [Hebrew].

[21]Geoffrey Wigoder, “Abraham Bar Ḥiyya,” EJ 1, pp. 292-294.

[22]Hayyim Dov Chavel, “Kitvei Rabbenu Baḥya (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 213-14 [Hebrew]. These remarks are preceded by Chavel in the introduction to Kitvei Rabbenu Baḥya (p. 13), where he writes similarly that “the entire commentary on Jonah (in the essay on Kippurim) is from this author (R. Abraham ben Ḥayya). It is not clear to me why he concealed his name. Perhaps the reason is that his books were very well known. . . .”

[23]Besamim Rosh was briefly referred to in “Who can discern his errors? . . .” in footnote (25). It is addressed here in greater detail. Besamim Rosh has been the subject of considerable interest. A sample biography includes the following: Raymond Apple, “Saul Berlin (1740-1794) - Heretical Rabbi,” Proceedings of the Australian Jewish Forum held at Mandelbaum House, University of Sydney, 8-9 February 2004, Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 12, published by Mandelbaum House, here; Samuel Joseph Fuenn, Kiryah Ne'emanah (Vilna, 1860). pp. 295-98 [Hebrew]; Reuben Margaliot, “R. Saul Levin Forger of the book ‘Besamim Rosh’,” Areshet, ed. Isaac Raphael, (1944) pp. 411-418 [Hebrew]; Moses Pelli, The age of Haskalah, (Lanhan, 2010) pp. 171-89; idem., “Intimations of Religious Reform in the German Hebrew Haskalah Literature” Jewish Social Studies 32:1 “(Jan. 1970), pp. 3-13); “No Besamim in this Rosh,” On the Main Line May 12, 2007, here; Dan Rabinowitz, “Besamim Rosh,” The Seforim Blog, October 21, 2005, here; Moshe Samet, “The Beginnings of Orthodoxy,” Modern Judaism, 8: 3 (1988), pp. 249-269;

[24] Abraham David, “Berlin, Saul ben Ẓevi Hirsch Levin,” EJ 3, 459-460.

[25] The ban called for Mitzpeh Yokteil to be burned  and destroyed with “great shame,” and, in Berlin, it was so burned in the old synagogue courtyard (Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature VIII (New York, 1975), translated by Bernard Martin, p. 195.

[26] Dan Rabinowitz, “Benefits of the Internet: Besamim Rosh and its History,” The Seforim Blog, April 26, 2010, here.

[27] Talya Fishman suggests that Berlin selected di Molina because little was known about him and “it is probably of significance that this halakhist was ridiculed by the Shulhan arukh’s (sic) author as one who failed to understand the teachings of his predecessors and who said things of his own opinion, as if ‘prophetically, with no basis in Gemara or poskim [i.e. decisors]’. Halakhically erudite readers of Besamim Rosh who learned that it was discovered and compiled by R. Isaac di Molina might not have suspected the volume’s dubious provenance, but they might well have been negatively prejudiced in their assessment of its reliability as a legal source.” (Talya Fishman, “Forging Jewish Memory, Besamim Rosh: and the Invention of Pre-Emancipation Jewish Culture” in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayyim Yerushalmi, ed. Elishiva Carlebach,John M. Efron, David N. Myers, pp. 78). Zinberg (p. 197) suggests that this di Molina is a fabricated person, noting that the gematria(numerical value) of di Molina equals di Satanow, (137), a maskilic collaborator of Berlin.

[28]Zinberg, p. 197.

[29] Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim II, p. 34 no. 127.

[30] Dan Rabinowitz, “Benefits of the Internet.”

[31] Fishman, p. 75.

[32] Fishman, p. 81.

[33]Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment, tr. Chaya Naor (Philadelphia, 2011), p. 336.

[34] Mozes Heiman Gans, Memorbook. History of Dutch Jewry from the Renaissance to 1940 with 1100 illustrations and text (Baarn, Netherlands, 1977), p. 140.

[35] Concerning Moses Benjamin Wulff see Marvin J. Heller, “Moses Benjamin Wulff - Court Jew in Anhalt-Dessau,” European Judaism 33:2 (London, 2000), pp. 61-71, reprinted in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (hereafter Studies, Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2008), pp. 206-17.

[36]  Yehoshua Horowitz, “Judah Leib ben Enoch Zundel,” EJ 11.

[37]Richard Gottheil, A. Freimann, Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn, “Frankfort-on-the-Main,” JE.

[38] The left image is courtesy of Israel Mizrahi, Mizrahi Book Store.

[39] For a more detailed discussion of Leon (Judah Aryeh) Modena and Sur me-Ra see my “Sur me-Ra: Leone (Judah Aryeh) Modena’s Popular and Much Reprinted Treatise Against Gambling” (Gutenberg-Jahrbuch,Mainz, 2015), pp. 105-22).

[40] Isaac Benjacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim: Sefer Arukh li-Tekhunat Sifre Yiśraʼel Nidpasim ṿe-Khitve Yad (Vilna, 1880), p. 419, samekh 314 [Hebrew]; Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim,(Israel, n.d.), samekh331 [Hebrew]; Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Listing of Books Printed in Hebrew Letters Since the Beginning of Printing circa 1469 through 1863 II (Jerusalem, 1993-95), p. 266 no. 1084 [Hebrew].

[41] The library in question was contacted and has since modified their catalogue.

[42] L. Fuks and R. G. Fuks‑Mansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands 1585 – 1815 (Leiden, 1984-87), I pp. 47-48 no. 53; Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus Liborium Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (CB, Berlin, 1852-60), no. 5745 col. 1351:24.

[43] Isaac Benjacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim, p. 419, samekh317 [Hebrew]; Julius Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica: Bibliographisches Handbuch der Gesammten Jüdischen Literatur . . .II (1849-63, reprint Hildesheim, 1960), p. 384; Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. II pp. 14-15 nos. 6, 8, 15.

[44] David Cohen, Kuntres ha-Akov le-Mishor: le-Taken ta’uyot ha-Defus shel ha-Shas Hotsa’at Vilna (Brooklyn, 1983), pp. 4, 18, 22, 40.

[45] Menahem Mendel Brachfeld, Yosef Halel I (Brooklyn, 1987), pp. 8-9.

[46] Brachfeld, II p. 36. An accompanying footnote notes that this is also the order in the Rome, Soncino, and Zamora editions, as well as in many manuscripts on parchment.

[47] Brachfeld, II p. 102. The accompanying footnotes states that this is also the text in the Rome and Zamora editions.

[48] Brachfeld, II, pp. 13, 33.

[49] A palindrome is a word, line, verse, number, sentence, etc., reading the same backward as forward, for example, Madam, I’m Adam; able was I ere I saw Elba; and mom.

[50] Concerning the usage mirror-image monograms see Marvin J. Heller, “Mirror-image Monograms as Printers’ Devices on the Title Pages of Hebrew Books Printed in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Printing History 40 (Rochester, N. Y., 2000), pp. 2-11, reprinted in Studies, pp. 33-43. The title-page of Givat Shaul, as does other of works printed in various locations, as noted above, states that it was printed, in Zolkiew, in small letters, with fonts, again small letters, and then Amsterdam, in a very large font.

[51]Louis Edward Ingelbart, Press Freedoms: a Descriptive Calendar of Concepts, Interpretations, Events, and Courts Actions, from 4000 B.C. to the Present, (Greenwood Publishing, 1987), p. 40.

[52] A copy was recently offered for sale for $99,500. here. Among other errors in early editions of the Bible are the “Cannibal Bible,” printed at Amsterdam in 1682, with the sentence “If the latter husband ate her [for hate her], her former husband may not take her again” (Deuteronomy 24:3); a 1702 edition has the Psalmist complaining that “printers [princes] have persecuted me without a cause” (Psalm 119:161); and  an edition published in Charles I’s reign, reads “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God” (Psalm 14:1) here.

[53] Having pointed out the errors of others, I thought, in all fairness, to note some errors in my own work, both those of consequence and those less so. Those errors, however, in both categories, being too numerous, might, given the length of this article, prove excessive and tedious for the reader. They need, therefore, to be saved for a later day, for a possible future article.

עוד שמועות נדירות, ופנינים וסיפרים מדור שעבר ששמעתי ממו"ר הרב שמרי'שולמאן שליט"א בעמ"ס באר שרים ועוד, ומשיירי כנסת הגדולה

July 14, 2016, 10:57 am

≫ Next: Torah Under Wraps

≪ Previous: Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise: Revisited

$

0

0

עוד שמועות נדירות, ופנינים וסיפרים מדור שעבר ששמעתי ממו"ר הרב שמרי'שולמאן שליט"א בעמ"ס באר שרים ועוד, ומשיירי כנסת הגדולה

מאת: אברהם י. וילנר

Part two

Continued from here

א] מו"ר נפגש פעם עם רבי דוד קאגאנאוו זצ"ל מבחירי תלמידי רבי איסר זלמן מלצר באירופא, ולימים ר"מ בבית מדרש לתורה בשיקאגא, וסיפר לו שבעת מלחמת העולם הראשונה, הרוסים גייסו אותו להצבא, לכן ברח מרוסיא לאמעריקא, ובדרכו לאמעריקא כשעבר דרך וילנא נכנס לבקר אצל רבי ברוך בער לייבאויץ ששהה שם ביחד עם ישיבתו, ודיברו בלימוד למשך זמן רב עד שרב"ב אמר לו שהוא מבקש מחילה אבל צריך לצאת למסור השיעור, ויצא מהבית, אחר דקות ספורות חזר רב"ב לביתו ואמר לר'דוד, כשיצאתי מהבית התכוונתי שבשיעור אזכיר את החידוש שאמרת לי ואגיד בשם אומרו, אבל בדרך הרהרתי שאולי אינו כדאי להזכיר את שמך ברבים מאחר שאתה עריק הצבא והרוסים מחפשים אותך, ומי יודע מי יכול להיות בשיעור ולמי הדברים יתגלגלו וכו'לכן חזרתי לבקש מחילה ורשות להגיד החידוש בלי להגיד ממי שמע. כזה המידות הרוממיות של הגרב"ב.

ב] מו"ר הכיר בוואשינגטאן רב מרדכי מנובארדוק (שהיה ממקורבי הערוך השולחן, ומחשובי הבע"ב שבוואשינגטאן ומארחו של רבי אלחנן וואסארמאן ורבי אהרן קוטלר ורבי מנדל זאקס בשיהותם בוואשינגטאן), והיה רגיל לומר מהחפץ חיים ביאר על הגמרא ברכות דף לא עמוד א'אל יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרהו, שפירושו הוא רק מדברי הלכה אפשר להזכיר חבירו, שודאי אסור להזכירו לגנות אלא גם להזכיר בשבחו אסור כדאיתא בערכין דף טז עמוד א'לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי גנותו, לכן הרוצה להזכיר את חבירו הדרך היחיד הוא לזכרו תוך דבר הלכה[א].

ג]  מו"ר שמע מהרב יצחק גרינבלאט זצ"ל (מבריסק ורב בוואשינגטאן, ואביו של יבל"ח רב נטע שליט"א ממאמפיס) שאמר בשם הגר"א, שכידוע כל דברי חז"ל בגמרא מרומזים הם בהמשנה[ב], וחז"ל אמרו ביצה דף טז עמוד א'כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים חוץ מהוצאת שבתות והוצאת יום טוב והוצאת בניו לתלמוד תורה שאם פחת פוחתין לו ואם הוסיף מוסיפין לו, מאיזה משנה הוציאו לימוד זה, ואמר הגר"א, מהמשנה בבמה מדליקין (שבת דף כט) כחס על הנר כחס על השמן וכו'מה הלשון כחס עם כ"ף הדמיון, היה צריך לומר חס על הנר, אלא שבאמת היא כ"ף הדמיון, שאם מכבה את הנר שחושב שיחוס על השמן, אינו אלא דמיון, ומה שקצוב לו יהיה בין כך ובין כך ולכן הוא רק כחס בכף הדמיון. ומכאן אמרו חז"ל כל מזוניתיו של אדם קצובים וכו'מהכ"ף של כחס[ג].

ד] שאלתי את מו"ר אם היה לו איזה קשר אישי עם הרב משה ראזין זצ"ל בעמ"ס נזר הקודש ומחשובי הרבנים דאז[ד], ואמר שרק פעם א'התכתב איתו, וזה היה בשנת תשי"ד כשערב פסח היה בשבת באותו שנה, ולקראת החג פירסם הגר"מ פיינשטיין הוראות להציבור מה לעשות, ובתוכם להשתמש במצה עשירה ("אייער מצה") ללחם משנה להג'סעודות. ויצא הרב משה ראזין בתוקף נגד השתמשות במצה עשירה, מחששות הלכתיות (ומהם חשש בל תוסיף[ה]) ובתוך דבריו שנדפסו בהפרדס שנת כח חוברות ז ובספרו שו"ת נזר הקודש סימן נב ערער הרבה לא לשנות מהנהוג בכל תפוצות ישראל לאכול חמץ בערב פסח שחל בשבת. ועל פרט זה התווכח מו"ר איתו ושלח לו מכתב אז, שאין דברים כאלו בכלל "מנהג", דברים שעשו עקב המצב המציאותי שהיה, אינו נהפך להיות מנהג, ובאירופא פשוט מצה עשירה לא היה בנמצא לרוב בזול וכו'לכן לא השתמשו בה ולא מחמת מנהג. (ודימה זה לאלו שמקפידין לאכול דווקא תפוח אדמה לכרפס משום "מנהג אבותם בידם"ואמר שא"א לקרוא דבר בזה מנהג, פשוט היו מקומות רבים באירופא שהירק היחיד שהיה להם אחרי החורפים האירופאים היה תפוח אדמה, לכן השתמשו בהם לכרפס.)  

ה] כשהתחיל מו"ר לעסוק במכירת מניות לפרנסתו, אמר לי שהלך ליעיץ עם הרב מנדל זאקס זצ"ל חתן החפץ חיים, מה לעשות עם חברות הפתוחות בשבת, וחמץ בפסח וכו'ואמר לו רבי מנדל שכל זמן שאין לו מעל חמישים אחוז מהחברה אין לו לדאוג מכל הנ"ל.

[ א"ה מדי דברי בענין עסקו של מו"ר במכירת מניות, אציין סיפור ששמעתי מפיו של הרב פרץ שטיינבערג שליט"א רב בישראל הצעיר בקווינס ובעמ"ס פרי עץ חיים, אודות גדלותו של מו"ר שליט"א. הרב פרץ זכה לשמש רשכבה"ג מרן רבי משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל, ופעם א'כשרב פרץ ישב ליד רבי משה נכנס שואל אחד לשואל אם מותר לו לעסוק במכירת מניות לפרנסתו (האם זה בגדר משחק בקוביא, ע'במשנה סנהדרין כד ע"ב) וענה לו רבי משה בזה הלשון "א סימן אז מיר מאג איז וויל שמריה'שולמאן פארקויפט סטאקס" (סימן שיכולים הוא, ששמריהו שולמאן מוכר אותם)[ו]]

ו] בעסקו במניות, עלה ספק מה לעשות לגבי מה שנקרא בלע"זopen order  והוא כשקובעים מראש שאם המחיר של החברה יגיע לסכום מסויים מיד הוא נמכר, מה יהיה אם זה יקרא שיגיע להסכום ביו"ט שחל באמצע השבוע (בשבת א"א שהשוק סגור) והמניות נמכרו, אם זה עושה סחורה ביו"ט ושאל אז מרן הגר"מ פיינשטיין זצ"ל ואמר לו שמותר [ז].

ז] מו"ר היה מבקר הרבה אצל רבי דוד רקמן זצ"ל בעמ"ס קרית חנה דוד, והכיר אותו היטב, וסיפר שלרב דוד היה כמה מניות בחברה, וכשעלו מחירי רצה למכורם, אבל היסס משום שאינו בהתאם ממה שאמרו חז"ל בברכות דף ה עמוד א'אדם מוכר חפץ לחבירו מוכר עצב ולוקח שמח, וכאן הוא בדיוק הפוך, הוא שמח למכורם והלוקח אינו שמח . ופעם א'כשמו"ר סיפר זה  בשיעורו בקווינס הוסיף שאף אם לא נסכים לחשבונו עדיין כדאי לספר ולשמוע סיפר כזה לידע מה זה "יהודי של פעם"שחיו עם הדף גמרא ועל כל תנוע ותנוע ביררו אם תואמים לדברי חז"ל.

עוד אמר לי שהרב רקמן היה "א ערוך השולחן איד"כל סוגיא שלמד בגמ'למד הערוך השולחן השייך לו.

ח] מו"ר הכיר היטב הגאון רבי יהושוע קלעווין זצ"ל רבה של וואשיגנטאן הבירה, וגם שמע שיעורים ממנו במשך תקופה קצרה בנר ישראל כשהראש ישיבה הרב  רודערמאן יצא לאסוף כסף עבר הישיבה, ושמר קשר איתו ועם בניו. אחרי פטירת הרב קלעווין בקשו בני הרב ממו"ר לסדר כתביו ולהוציאם לאור, ומצא בכתביו שו"ת בינו ובין הרב רודערמאן אודות מילה ביום טוב שני והמוהל הוא דר רחוק מהעיר שדר התינוק ואין שום אפשרות שיבוא המוהל בערב יום טוב אם אפשר שיסע ע"י עכו"ם ביו"ט שני וצידד הרב רודערמאן להקל בזה, ומו"ר חשש שיגרום מזה זלזול ביו"ט שני וקשה להדפיס דבר כזה בימנו שרבים מבקשים התירים על כל דבר וכו'וכמובן שמו"ר לא רצה לשלוח יד בכתבי רבו, לכן שלח לו מכתב, ופתח עם שכמובן ח"ו הוא לא אומר לרבו מה לפסוק וכו'רק שהוא מסביר לו חששיו מהתקלה שאפשר לצאת מזה, והרב רודערמאן השיב לו להוסיף בסוף התשובה "אבל קשה להקל לעשות מעשה בזה דאוושא מילתא". וכן עשה ונדפס בדברי יהושע חלק התשובות סימן ט'דף צו מדפי הספר. (ותמיה רבה מצאתי בדברי יהשוע הנדמ"ח ע"י מכון ירושלים בתשובה זו (סימן נב בדפוסם) ששינה הרבה מהתשובה הנמצאת בדפוס ראשון שי"ל ע"י נאמן ביתו של הרב קלעווין, ממו"ר שליט"א).

אגב אציין, כשנגמר הספר לדפוס ביקשו בני הרב קלעווין ממו"ר לבחור שם להספר, ובחר מו"ר בדברי יהושע לכבד את אשת המחבר ששמה היתה דבורה.

ט]  סיפר לי מה שהגאון רב נפתלי צבי יהודה ריף זצ"ל (אב"ד דקעמדאן, ומגדולי רבני ארצה"ב, מו"ר גם שמע כמה שיעורים ממנו כשהיה מבקר אצל ישיבת נר ישראל והיה ידי"נ של הראש ישיבה הרב רודערמאן) בעצמו סיפר לו,כשאביו הרב ישראל ריף היה בחור שהגיע לגיל השידוכים הציעו לו שני הצעות, אחד בתו של הרב רפאל שפירא ראש ישיבת וואלאזין והשני בת מו"ץ אחד מקלאצק ולא ידע באיזה מהן  לפגוש, ושאל את הרב המקומי שלו וענה לו שהוא שמגדיר את השני הצעות כך, א'הוא שידוך חורפי (א ווינטעארדיגא שידוך) והשני שידוך קיצי ( א זומערדיגא שידוך) ,ר"ל בת הרב רפאל שפירא היא שידוך חורפי שאם תצא איתה,  ומתארס אותה ואתה הולך ברחוב ופוגש מישהו ,ואתה אומר לו "מזל טוב התארסתי"וכדרך העולם ישאלו אותך למי?  ובדרך כלל זה לוקח זמן להסביר מי הוא מאיפו הוא, איפו הוא למד וכדומה, ובהחורפים הליטאים א"א לעמוד בחוץ כזה זמן רב מחמת הקור לכן הבת של הרב שפירא אתה לא יצריך להסביר מי הוא כי מיד ששומעים את השם הרב רפאל שפירא יודעים מיד מי זה וגדלותו משא"כ בת של הרב השני אף שהוא גם כן חשוב אבל יקח זמן להזדאות אותו לאחרים מי הוא אצל מי הוא למד וכו'לכן זה מתאים רק להקיץ שיש האפשרות לעמוד בחוץ ולדבר וסיים שעדיף שידוך חורפי מעל שידוך קיצי.  (פעם לפני כמה שנים הגיע מו"ר לליקוואד ביארצייט של רב אהרן וישב ביחד עם ראשי הישיבה ועוד, וביקשו ממנו לדבר קצת על רב אהרן ועל הישיבה וכו'והוא סיפר להם הסיפור הנ"ל והוסיף שעל ישיבות אחרות צריכים להאריך ולהסביר מי הם ומה הם פעלו וכו משא"כ ישיבה כלייקוואד מיד כששומעים את השם ואת שמו של רב אהרן יודעים מיד כל גדלותם, ואמר שהישיבה היא ישיבה חורפית) וכמה חמור לדרוש יש בסיפור זה!

י] מו"ר סיפר לי שהגאון מווילנא בגלותו היה בעיר מזעריטש והתארח אצל משפחה אחת, ופעם הגאון עבר ליד תינוקת קטנה שבכתה כדרך התינוקיות, והגאון להרגיעה אמר "אל תבכי עוד תמצי שידוך טוב". אחר בערך י"ח או י"ט שנים הגאון שלח מכתב לאותו משפחה בידי בחור א', ובו כתוב שמלפני י"ח שנה בערך הייתי אצלכם ואמרתי להתינוקת שעוד תמצי שידוך טוב, לכן עלי לקיים מה שהבטחתי ופרט שלא אמרתי בלי נדר, לכן הבחור שהביא לך המכתב הוא שאני מציע לבתך. הבחור נפגש איתה ונשאו. מו"ר שמע סיפור זה מפי הרב בוקאוו (אחיו של רב אהרן בוקאוו רב של ברידגפארט קאננ. לא רחוק מנורויטש שמו"ר היה רב) שבעצמו בתור בחור למד במזעריטש והיה סועד אצל משפחה שהיו נכדי אותו זוג שהגאון שידך, והם סיפרו לו כמה פעמים. אגב כל פעם ששמעתי הסיפור ממו"ר תמיד הדגיש שהלימוד מהסיפור הוא מה זה מילה אצל הגאון "א ווארט ביים גאון איז הייליג" (מילה אצל הגאון הוא קדוש, אמר משהו אז עליו לקיימו)

---

[א] מצאתי ביאור זה בספר שדה אליהו על מסכת מגילה דף טו עמוד א'בשם הגר"א, וכשהזכרתי זה למו"ר אמר לי שהרב מרדכי היה אומר זה מהחפץ חיים, ואולי החפץ חיים עצמו היה אומר אותו בשם הגר"א, אבל מו"ר אמר כשהרב מרדכי היה אומר ביאור זה לא אמר שהוא מהחפץ חיים בשם הגר"א. וח"א העיר לי שהמקור שהספר שדה אליהו מביא ד"ז מהגר"א אינו מהספרי הגר"א עצמו, רק שהוא מפי השמועה, והיו כמה שמועות נפוצות בליטא שמייחסים אותם לרבנים שונים  

[ב] וכמו שכתב רבי חיים מוואלזין בהקדמתו לספרא דצניעותא ע"פ הגר"א, וז"ל שם וברוח ה'אשר דיבר בו כלל בהם כל התת"ק סדרים ששנו דורות הראשונים, ליכא מידי מנייהו דלא רמזה במתניתיןוכו'

[ג] ביאורו של הגר"א על מילת כחס מצאתי מובא בכמה ספרים, אבל הנקודה הזאת שבא להמציא מקור לדברי חז"ל שמזנותיו של אדם קצובים וכו'הוי פנים חדשות.

[ד] אגב, מו"ר גם הכיר בנו יחידו של הנזר הקודש, הרב חיים זצ"ל בעמ"ס ביכורי חיים ועין חיים ומו"ר שיבח אותו כמה פעמים, ופעם אמר לי שסיגנון לימודו דומה לדרכו של החזון איש. ופעם א'שאלתי מו"ר לספר לי קצת על הגר"ח ראזין שרציתי לדעת יותר אודותו ענה לי שאין על מה לספר הוא פשוט ישב ולמד ועמל בתורה כל חייו.

[ה] שהוא באמת פלא ותמוה לחשש מבל תוסיף, ע'מה שכתב ידיד נפשו של מו"ר, רבי שלמה שניידער זצ"ל בספרו שו"ת דברי שלמה חלק ד סימן תקיח שהאריך לתמוה על הנזר הקודש, וגם מו"ר כשדיברנו אודות פסקו של הנזר הקודש אמר לי שאין מקום גם לחששות ההלכתיות שהיה לו.

[ו] הרב פרץ שליט"א טען אז להגר"מ שמהרב שולמאן א"א להביא ראיה, שכל הפסול של משחק בקוביא וכדומה אינו אלא במי שאין לו אומנות אלא הוא כמבואר בחושן משפט סימן לד סעיף טז, ואילו הרב שולמאן תורתו אומנתו אלא מה שצריך לחם על שלחונו לכן מוכרח הוא לעשות מה שהוא לפרנסתו, אבל אין זה עיקר עסקו, והגר"מ חייך מדבריו.

[ז] מו"ר הדגיש לי כמה פעמים שהוא בעצמו שאל את הגר"מ זצ"ל, וזאת משום שהוא שמע שבנו של הגר"מ, הרב דוד שליט"א פסק לאסר. (ואולי פסקו של הרב דוד הוא פסק שלו ולאו דוקא שזהו משום שאביו אסר)

Torah Under Wraps

July 27, 2016, 9:03 am

≫ Next: The Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

≪ Previous: עוד שמועות נדירות, ופנינים וסיפרים מדור שעבר ששמעתי ממו"ר הרב שמרי'שולמאן שליט"א בעמ"ס באר שרים ועוד, ומשיירי כנסת הגדולה

$

0

0

Torah Under Wraps

by Yoav Sorek

translated by Daniel Tabak

Their publications are not allowed to get out. Their roiling Internet forums are blocked by filters. The articles they publish omit the names of professors considered verboten. A cohort of Haredi scholars [1] challenge the academy and their natural surroundings, unafraid to deal with subjects deemed taboo in the yeshiva world. Few Religious Zionists have penetrated this alternative ivory tower, but one of them—Eitam Henkin, may his blood be avenged—succeeded in breaking down barriers.

*

“One needs to strengthen oneself with faith; one should not entertain philosophical questions nor even glance at the books of philosophers,” said Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav already at the end of the eighteenth century. This motto is particularly popular today, in the post-modern era of “religious strengthening,” in which religiosity is perceived as synonymous with simplicity and unsophistication. Yet that very approach also runs counter to the Jewish mind, which is by its nature anything but naive. The legacy of Jewish erudition constitutes part of the DNA not only of the academy, but of even the most Haredi sectors of the yeshiva world, and it finds expressioninthe spirited Jewish Studies scholarship flourishing under the radar in circles that are presumed to recoil from it.

            Israelis distant from the world of Jewish Studies were offered a glimpse of it in the amusing film “Footnote,” but it portrayed only the nerve center of the field’s academic milieu, when in reality a great deal more is out there. In the reading rooms of the National Library, and in many houses in Bnei Brak and Jerusalem, many scholars sit and study the same topics as academicsbutwithout academic degree, without traveling to conferences, without aspirations toward an academic appointment.The history of medieval and modern rabbinic authorities, the stories of their compositions, the manuscripts and their provenances, variantcustoms, disputes both ancient and alive—all of these preoccupy a non-negligible group of yeshiva graduates,Haredi in dress and behavior, who publish articles in “non-academic” journals of Torah scholarship and produce corrected editions of sacred texts, some of which can even be considered quasi-critical editions.

            They number Hasidim and Mitnaggedim, the truly God-fearing and those trapped in the Haredi lifestyle who cut corners, those lacking any academic title and others who have earned one—sharp and knowledgeable one and all, still faithful to, and actively participating in, the intra-Haredi discourse. Some of them evidence a dual non-conformism in their lives: on the one hand, they have opted to put distance between themselves and the safe space of the yeshiva, pasturing in the treacherous fields of scholarship; on the other hand, they are Haredim who hail from circles thoroughly suspicious of academia and would not dream of lending credence to its guiding assumptions. Nearly every remarkable personality in the field originates in the circles of Ashkenazi religious zealots, yet the scholarly discussion—which takes place not only on journal pages but in the lively Internet forums of Be-Hadrei Haredim and Otzar HaHochma—is not private, and sometimes a handful of others participate. Rabbi Yoel Catane of Yeshivat Sha‘alvim, editor of the journal HaMa’yan, is one of those others, as his home is in the Religious Zionist world, and his publication represents the enlightened German Zionist Orthodoxy of bygone years. The late Eitam Henkin also was one of them—a Torah scholar and brilliantly wide-ranging scholar who took prominent part in the back and forth of these torani scholars.

            In National-Religious society, there are, to be sure, many others involved in Jewish Studies scholarship, but one would be hard-pressed to find the same kind of polemical verve that exists amongst Haredi scholars. According to K., a young Haredi scholar, the passion attests to the fact that the scholarly endeavor is for them an existential need:

“The Haredi does his research in order to mask his own crisis of faith in a world that forbids thinking. Those who try to identify the composer of a liturgical poem or the copyist of an unknown manuscript, and those who uncover a forgotten rabbinical position held by R. Joel Sirkes, and those who wade through tomes to reconstruct a partially extant word in an Akkadian inscription, are all really fleeing forbidden thoughts. They release the tension between the silent extinguishment of faith in the Haredi world and the soul aflame with newly forged ideas by running for the hills of manuscripts and book archives.”

K.’s criticism begins with the Procrustean bed of Haredi yeshiva education:

“The Haredi kollel fellow is force-fed a diet of Torah study characteristic of the Lithuanian yeshivas of the previous century. Should he not be of a mind to rebel completely, the only somewhat legitimate pursuit open to him is Jewish Studies. In that way he can edit the novellae of the Rosh to tractate Nazirwithout raising too many eyebrows. For that reason Haredi scholars, at least initially, are more involved in editing and less with research or writing articles. And if they are open to producing scholarship, the closer the subject matter is to our time, the better: better on the modern rabbinic authorities than the medieval ones, better on the medievals than the Ge’onim, and God forbid not on the Talmud—don’t even mention the Bible. Preference is given to writing biographicalpieces and endless discussions of historical chronology, such as clarifying the years of rabbi X’s rabbinic post in town Y, rather than anything deep about his method of study.”

Not everyone agrees with K.’s psychological diagnosis. “Some have ventured into the academic world not out of frustration with the kollel world, but because they were introduced toscholarship in minute doses and became enchanted by it,” says R. Yosef Mordechai Dubovick,a Boyaner Hasid who recently completed his doctorate on Rabbenu Hananel. He says that this field presents something the young prodigy would find difficult to resist.

“We have been taught and trained to question, explore, plumb the depths and not be satisfied with a superficial reading or understanding. When the intellectual yeshiva student is exposed to new tools and unfamiliar hermeneutical lenses and modes of understanding, his natural curiosity—nurtured so well—gobbles them up.”

“It’s ‘spontaneous academia,’” says Rabbi J., who would prefer to avoid equating it with academia. “It develops independently, without institutional bodies to dictate rules and regulations. It is anarchic, autodidactic, and exhilarating. It is a breathtaking demonstration of unfettered intellectual ability.”

A Scholar is Born

Rabbi Dr. Zvi Leshem, Director of the Gershom Scholem Library at the National Library of Israel, has occasionally bumped into scholars from the very heart of the Haredi world. “They are not the typical kollel fellow because the scholarly approach is not that of yeshiva students,” he says. He continues:

“Look, when I began working here I met a senior rosh yeshiva from a respected hesder yeshiva, and I told him about those who come from the yeshiva world to do research here. He was at a loss. “What sort of thing do they research?” he asked me, and I responded in turn with the example of Hemdat Yamim.[2] “Why would they research Hemdat Yamim,” the Torah scholar asked me, “when they can buy it in any seforim store?” That is the mainstream approach. Those who embark on scholarship are atypical.”

They may be exceptional and individualist, but one unmistakable quality binds them all together: they are autodidacts.This is evident in how they handle material in a foreign language. Some of these scholars have never studied English or German systematically yet refer to non-Hebrew sources in their articles. Each apparently bridged the gap in his own way.

            Anyone interested in this phenomenon is invited to open, for example, a volume of Yerushaseinu, an annual tome published by theInstitute for German Jewish Heritage (Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz). Some of the articles published therein would be perfectly suitable for any standard academic journal; among the numerous footnotes adorning the pages one finds references to scholarly literature in Hebrew and other languages. Other publications include Yeshurun, Moriah (published by Machon Yerushalayim, which for decades already has been involved in the professional editing of medieval and modern rabbinic literature), the Chabad journal Heikhal Ha-Besht, and others. Toranischolarsfondly remember the journal Tzfunot, which met its demise over a decade ago, and in the meantime they publish in Torah supplements to Haredi newspapers, primarily in Kulmos of the newspaper Mishpacha. Likewise, the new scholarly journal Chitzei Gibborim - Pleitas Soferim, published in Lakewood, NJ, is at the moment taking its first steps.

            Prominent names in the field include Mordechai Honig, a Hasid from Monsey who is extremely knowledgeablein medieval rabbinic literature; Yaakov Yisrael Stahl, a scholar of Franco-German Jewry forced to lower his profile in connection with academia; Moshe Dovid Chechik, a historian who until recently co-edited Yerushaseinu and currently co-edits Chitzei Gibborim; Yehudah Zeivald, a Boyaner Hasid who is quite busy with philosophy and Hasidism; Yitzchak Rosenblum, who had to move from Kiryat Sefer to Bet Shemesh on account of the library he opened, and currently teaches at the Haredi yeshiva high school Nehora; Yaakov Laufer,a scholar who focuses on linguistics and on the conceptual mode of Torah study;Betzalel Deblitsky, a prodigious zealot from Bnei Brak who runs the forum associated with Otzar HaHochma (the monumental digitization project of the Jewish library); Nachum Grunwald of Lakewood, NJ, a Chabadnik who grew up a Satmar-Pupa Hasid and serves as editor of Heikhal Ha-Besht; Aharon Gabbai, a rising star from Bnei Brak who graduated from a Lithuanian yeshiva, of course; Yechiel Goldhaber, slightly older than the rest, a historian and bibliographer whose scholarship is famous, and for whom the National Library is a second home; and Avraham Shmuel Taflinsky, who has toiled for the past few years in uncovering the sources of the aforementioned Hemdat Yamim.

            Once we are mentioning the denizens of the National Library, mention must be made of the all-important tool in their scholarly work—the Internet. The global web of knowledge enables Haredi men from conservative yeshivas, whose library holdings are what you would expect, to come in contact with Jewish Studies scholarship and its historical-critical mindset. Most Haredi scholars have a home Internet connection, but not all. Zvi Leshem relates that some come to the library not to peruse ancient manuscripts or converse with the university’s scholars who use it as their place of study, but simply to work at a place that provides Internet access.

            “In the digital age, Jewish Studies scholarship has successfully managed to wiggle itsway, however constrainedly, into Haredi and yeshiva circles via databases such as Otzar HaHochma,” Mordechai Honig relates. “Until recently, it was the books. The birth of a Haredi scholar was generally triggered by incidental exposure to academic scholarship that invitingly charmed him. For me, it was Ephraim Urbach’s The Tosaphists, which I purchased at age fifteen.”

            No one can deny the love story between digital media and the world of Haredi scholarship, with the latter exercising its acumen also in its use of technology. Along those lines, a weekly Internet journal popped up several years ago which, in the course of a couple years, became an especially favored forum for the group of torani scholars. It bore the name Datshe (ДАЧА), a Russian word that made its way into yeshivish slang, which evokes a leisurely space in which people enjoy life, a kind of rare legitimation of self-indulgence and letting loose a bit. The journal, founded and edited by Yitzchak Baruch Rosenblum, was, according to its subtitle, “where sages of Israel come to relax.”The publication insisted upon respectable discussion and high-caliber argumentation, but one also could find among the directives to its readers and writers the following note of caution, which furnishes an additional explanation to the choice of digital format: “Please preserve the low profile of this publication. One can print it for ease of reading but should not show it to just anyone. Wisdom belongs to the discreet.”[3]

Instead of Polemic, Shock

Along with Internet databases and online journals, forums also have an important place in the discourse of these scholars. After many long years in which the forum Soferim u-Sefarim on the site Be-Hadrei Haredim served as the water cooler for torani scholars, the baton was passed to the forums of Otzar HaHochma. A lengthy, fascinating thread recently began there, for example, whose purpose is to generate a list of “dissenting opinions [made by lone rabbinic scholars],” that is, halakhic positions taken by well-known decisors over the generations when their colleagues were of a different mind. The thread reveals the foundational analytic-halakhic erudition of the discussants, expert not only in bibliography and history but also in a wide range of positions expressed by medieval and modern rabbinic authorities on scores of issues.

            The administrator of the Otzar HaHochmaforums is, as was said above, Betzalel Deblitsky (under the username “Ish Sefer”). What had been permissible on Be-Hadrei Haredim the fearless zealotDeblitsky bans, censoring discussions and silencing voices he deems unworthy of being heard. But even those who miss the great openness that marked the forum of yore understand that the change is permanent—discussions of relevance within the scholarly community take place principally on the new forum.

            Zeal, parenthetically, is a relative matter: the strict filter Netiv, which runs according to the guidance of a confidential rabbinic board, blocks the Otzar HaHochmaforum on account of its content being deemed subversive and problematic. To take but one example, the forum has an intense, politically-charged discussion surrounding one of the veteran decisors of the Edah Haredit in Jerusalem—R. Yitzhak Isaac Kahana. A broadside that circulated in Jerusalem against R. Kahana’s book Orhot Tohorah and his lenient rulings on questions regarding menstruation inflamed not only the physical Haredi street but the virtual one as well, engendering scathing posts on the forum in support of each side. A symptom of one of the forum’s pathologies is partially manifest in this case: the deletion of threads by the moderator, who perceived them as deviating from the Haredi party line. Over three pages of posts inexplicably disappeared from the site, only to return the next day, redacted.

            Rabbi Eitam Henkin was among those disappointed by the limits set on the forum’s discourse as compared with past fora, but he nevertheless realized that this was the place to be. Under the username “Tokh Kedei Dibbur,” Henkin took part in discussions on the forum, and at the same time carried on extensive personal e-mail correspondence with scholars who were active on it. This became the gateway through which Israeli reality penetrated the Haredi ivory tower—users discovered that the man murdered together with his wife, in front of his children, in the middle of Sukkot, was none other than “their very own” Rabbi Eitam. The forum was filled with emotional threads of eulogy and anguish, memorial initiatives and activities to be done in his merit, and the revelation of the many connections that Henkin had weaved amongst his Internet friends.

            It is difficult not to resort to superlatives when speaking about Eitam Henkin. Anyone who had followed his abundant Torah publications — which were marked by eloquent prose, intellectual honesty, and the self-confidence of someone on home turf — had trouble believing the subject of conversation was so young. Even the conversation about him on the forums sketches a fascinating profile. The user known as “Meholat Ha-Mahanayim”wrote:

“The distinguished victim, may God avenge his blood, was wondrously knowledgeable about the entire history of our people, and specifically the history of Lithuanian Torah scholars and their writings. I merited corresponding with him a bit here, and as much as he was honest, fair, and truth-seeking, he was also intensely and diligently exacting […]  None of his responses contained any triviality;his prose was shot through with words of Torah and wisdom, brimming with old wine […] One could discern his constant drive for the truth from his responses. He was never too flustered for a retort, and he always based what he said on the most solid of foundations. Even when he argued for an alternative position, he was a fair and honest opponent, unafraid to admit he was wrong when necessary.”

None other than Deblitsky (“Ish Sofer”), who is so distant from Henkin’s worldviewand rarely treats anything with a velvet glove, eulogized Henkin at length. The forum’s moderator wrote:

“His statements stood out in their richness, sharpness, and precision—they have no equal. The wide range of people who corresponded with him is astounding. Despite their working in various fields, his correspondents unanimously attested to the immense benefit they gained from him and to the rich sources with which he magnanimously and pleasantly inundated them. Many a time in answering some inconsequential question, he would—as soon as you could say Jack Robinson[4]— whip out one of his many lists, chock-full and cornucopian, while noting that he was collecting additional material on the matter and it would have to wait until a future opportunity […]

Many have mentioned honesty and artlessness amonghis noble qualities. I would like to emphasize one thing that no one like me realized until they fell prey to it: his sharp and resolute style tended to invite polemic, but anyone who responded harshly as a tit-for-tat comeback found himself embarrassed and pathetic upon discovering the affable and unpretentious man behind those words.”

Further on, Deblitsky touched on Henkin’s transcendence of the entire sectoral framework. According to him, Henkin noted in a personal communication “that his unique pedigree as a son and grandson of American rabbis who did not fit in with any of the specific groupsof Torah-observant Jews enables him to view himself as free of the shackles of sometimes artificial classification and group affiliation. One could say that this feeling largely allowed him to cast a critical eye upon and evaluate phenomena from all sectors without bias.” Deblitsky claimed this to be evident in the independent stance Henkin took in a slew of polemics, in which his misgivings and speculations were spelled out numerous times in private messages, as he took pains to publish in the forum only those things that he could wholeheartedly stand behind.

            “I, for one, find exaggeration on both sides,” wrote Henkin to Deblitsky regarding the polemic within the forum surrounding the figure of the late Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein. “Be it the disparaging vitriol about him […] or, on the other side, those feigning innocence, as if he was just another link in the chain of Torah sages throughout the ages, some of whom have always engaged to some degree in general culture.” Henkin conceded to Deblitsky that even within the National-Religious community opposition to Rabbi Lichtenstein had existed: “It was undoubtedly quite grating for a regular yeshiva student (excluding those from Har Etzion and to “the left”) to see citations from non-Jewish culture and the like in a Torah article. In this case (of criticism within the National-Religious community—Yoav Sorek), however, opposition to that approach was disjoined from ad hominemattacks.”

            “We should be very sad that ‘sectoral’boundaries make no exceptions for Torah giants,” wrote Henkin in another e-mail to Deblitsky.

“The definitive assignment of each person into specifically this community or that one is often artificial. It is absurd that the public considers many comedians, musicians, and low-brow entertainers(for purposes of this example) as “Haredi” because they attended hederand wear a hat in the synagogue, while thousands of families who give their all for Torah and are punctilious about every jot and tittle(not to mention that for them television, secular newspapers, and the like are not even up for discussion) are “not Haredi" because they wear a colored shirt and also rejoice on Yom Ha-‘Atzma’ut. Although people can only see externals, they can ascertain what they will have to account for in the Heavenly court, whether they will be asked about Torah study, honesty in business, and hoping for the redemption,[5] or whom they cast their vote for in national elections.”

Henkin wrote the following when describing Rabbi Dov Lior’s Torah greatness. “I can say unhesitatingly that we are talking about a serious heavyweight in Torah erudition and jurisprudence who has the entire Talmud and Shulhan Arukh in his head—incredible!” Still, he noted that the Haredim do not respect him simply because his stance on Zionist matters “meant he was to be associated with only one camp and perforce rendered off-limits for the other camp, even if for him the only thing in his world is Torah, pure and simple. (Elements of Western culture or academia, which are accepted in large segments of his camp, he derides at every turn.)”

            In these citations of Henkin one can hear the Haredi lilt. As Deblitsky and others in the forum pointed out multiple times, Henkin had the ability to converse with various people in language they were comfortable with. In private communication with another userin the forum, Henkin disclosed that when he would write on Otzar HaHochma, he would adopt the appropriate style and cautiously promote topics close to his heart.

            What motive could there be for entering this lion’s den? Henkin had faith that every place has its bright spots, and he was happy to become acquainted with people he would not have otherwise met. He described himself as “attempting to pursue peace, even in a place where they pursue the likes of me.” As he wrote another time under the username “Tekhelet Domah” in the somewhat-calmer forum of Be-Hadrei Haredim: “I try my utmost not to hate anyone and not to write off any community that believes itself to be doing God’s will, even those which, in accord with their own aforementioned belief, would write me off and disparage my Rebbe in an unacceptable way.”

Professor in All But Name

            After Henkin’s murder, a debate arose between his acquaintances and family over the the respective value he assigned to the two antipodes of academic study and religious study. Not surprisingly, the tension between the two constantly taxes many torani scholars. In the Otzar HaHochma forum and others, it is not uncommon to find a venomous and disparaging treatment of classic academics, who are caricatured as wasting their time on the trivial or unnecessarybecause they do not know how to study Torah, plain and simple. In the acerbic language of one forum contributor: “they are incapable of studying a page of Talmud without Schottenstein and a dictionary.”

            In this way, the methodology of the elderly professor David Halivni, for example, has been pilloried and subject to sharp ridicule, perhaps also on account of his past affiliation with the Conservative movement. Along the lines of the approach with which he is associated (which presumes that most Talmudic passages were edited by a generation of anonymous sages, termed stamma’im,during the Savoraic period), the user “Afarqasta De-‘Anya” writes that he read Halivni’s introductions to two tractates and concluded: “Halivni did not write them himself; rather, he composed specific passages in which even he did not fully understand what he was writing or what he intended. His editor and publisher added stammaitic passages, thereby integrating the scattered pieces into what appears to be a single, unified text.”

            This derision may, of course, result from an inferiority complex afflicting those with no proper academic training, or from the ignorance of those whose intellectual horizons do not extend beyond the narrative in which they were raised. In any case, it is far from being the consensus of the community of torani scholars: some have integrated into academia in recent years, others recognize that the yeshiva world’s disdain toward Jewish Studies is outdated. As Dubovick notes, Jewish Studies of this past generation is not what it had been previously, when scholars had no connection to the traditional study hall, and their scholarship at times revealed their ignorance and at other timescould not sort the wheat from the chaff. In this generation, the preeminent scholars in the field are also serious Torah scholars.

            Yet, anyone who publishes in Haredi journals or seeks legitimacy from the Haredi street cannot write without inhibition. “They must be careful about how they write, whom they cite, and even what titles they bestow,” explains Zvi Leshem. “I recall someone here who wanted to cite Rabbi Saul Lieberman’s Tosefta Ki-Feshutah, but he could not figure out which was the worse option—writing Rabbi Lieberman or Professor Lieberman. In the end he simply omitted his name.”

            Though many of them already bear the title Dr., generally the torani scholars are not in the academic race for positions and recognition, and that fact profoundly impacts their lives. “The disconnect from the academic world and all its rivalry makes it easy for a scholar to share his wisdom with his colleagues, without having to worry about material or future scholarship being stolen, as well as to partake of his colleagues’ wisdom,” says R. Yoel Catane. “At the same time, the pressure to publish quality articles in the academic world, and the need to subject one’s research to peer review, occasionally yields excellent results that cannot be achieved in torani scholarship.”

            “The fact that we are not part of that competition,” explains G. to me, “grants us peace of mind, intellectual freedom, the freedom to choose our areas of research without the need for prerequisite courses that are not entirely necessary, and the freedom to develop our ideas as we see fit. I see Haredi scholars benefitting from the sort of freedom enjoyed by the first generation of scholars in the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement.”

Between Seclusion and Entrenchment

The heightened awareness of Jewish sages to the developmentof their tradition preceded by centuries the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement, which set the critical modern gaze upon the Jewish library. Across the generations there were Ge’onim, medievals, and moderns engaging in textual criticism, historicizing customs, unearthing deep-rooted errors, and looking askance at what the ignorant perceived as a “Judaism” that could not be questioned.

            Even from the narrower, more modern perspective of relations between the academy and Haredim, the group that forms the subject of this article certainly cannot claim originality. The “Bibliography of the Hebrew Book,” a superb academic project that catalogs all titles printed in Hebrew and other Jewish languages through the ages, is currently led by Yitzchok Yudlov, an erudite Haredi with no academic schooling. Among the founders of the project Rabbi Shmuel Ashkenazy (Deutsch),raised in Batei Ungarin, stands out. Ashkenazi, one of the most famous Haredi scholars of the book, serves today as an honorary member of the Mekize NirdamimSociety,a venerable publisher identified with the Wissenschaft movement. Two Haredi scholars also stand out among the employees of the National Library: Yehoshua Mondshine, an independently-minded Habadnik known for his scholarship on Hasidism, who passed away this past Hanukkah[6] after a terrible illness; and Meir Wunder, may he live a long life, a bibliophile and historian who wrote, among other things, his monumental project Meorei Galitziya (Luminaries of Galicia). A similar undertaking for Hungarian sages was brought into being by the late Haredi scholar Yitzchak Yosef Cohen, who worked within the framework of Machon Yerushalayim, the most famous of the Haredi publishers with a scholarly inclination. Also worthy of note are Yitzchak Yeshaya Weiss and Moshe Alexander ZushaKinstlicher,bothprolific scholars in the field of rabbinic history, who edited the now-defunct Tzfunot.

            What, then, distinguishes the members of this young group from all their predecessors? Perhaps it is the fact that the integration that had once seemed so organic has become more complicated as a result of two parallel processes: the seclusion of Haredi society, and the entrenchmentof the academy’s formality. The world of the learned, from all walks of life, for whom knowledge and curiosity are essential, has been replaced by the reality of evaluative categorieswithinthe halls of the academy, and an inflexible, censorial “hashkafah”within the Haredi camp. Few are those who seek to restore the former glory of scholarship, back when its throne did not have to be an academic chair nor its crown a black hat.

—————————

A DUAL DESTINY

The doctoral advisor of Eitam Henkin, may God avenge his blood, was convinced that his student had chosen academia over the halakhic discourse of the yeshiva. Others attest that Henkin viewed halakhic discourse, in fact, as paramount.

*

Although his world was built upon foundations quite different from those of his Haredi interlocutors, Eitam Henkin had no difficulty finding a shared language with torani scholars. An autodidact to the core, he also held fast to the truth, was intellectually curious, loved profound discussion, and was prepared to swim against the tide. And as can be expected from anyone who has an independent love for knowledge, it turns out that he also wrote for—or at least corrected and made changes to—the Hebrew Wikipedia. On his user page, under the username “Shim‘on Ha-Eitan" (which he used in other contexts, such as on the site Mida), he opted for a pithy self-description that speaks volumes: “a Jerusalemite with diasporic roots, whose world is Torah and whose occupationis writing and research.”

            Henkin began his doctoral research under Prof. David Assaf of Tel-Aviv University. He dedicated it to the biography of R. Israel Meir Ha-Kohen of Radun, the Hafetz Hayyim (1839-1933), one of the mythic personalities who have exercised incredible influence on contemporary Orthodoxy. Assaf, who deeply admiredHenkin, published a eulogy on his blog Oneg Shabbat that aroused immediate contention. He wrote:

“Eitam was a wunderkind.I first met him in 2007. At the time he was an avrekh meshi (by his own definition), a fine young yeshiva fellow, all of twenty-three years old. He was a student at Yeshivat Nir in Kiryat Arba, with a long list of publications in Torah journals already trailing him. He contacted me via e-mail, and after a few exchanges I invited him to meet. […]We spoke at length, and I have cared about him ever since. From his articles and our many conversations I discerned right away that he had that certain je ne sais quoi. He had those qualities, the personality, and the capability—elusive, unquantifiable, and indefinable—of someone meant to be a historian, and a good historian at that.

I did not have to press especially hard to convince him that his place—his destiny—did not lie between the walls of the yeshiva, and that he should not squander his talents on the niceties of halakha. He needed to enroll in university and train himself professionally for what truly interested him, for what he truly loved: critical historical scholarship. […]

Eitam, hailing from a world of traditional yeshiva study that is poles apart from the academic world, slid into his university studies effortlessly. He rapidly internalized academic discourse, with its patterns of thinking and writing, and began to taste the distinct savors of that world.”

In the continuation, Assaf heaps praise upon his young student. The sharp opposition that he posed between “the niceties of halakha” and critical scholarship, however, engendered grievances on the part of several Oneg Shabbat readers, particularly those familiar with Henkin’s other side. His brother Dr. Yagil Henkin criticized Assaf’s piece relatively delicately. “He believes Eitam saw himself primarily as a scholar, not a rabbi with plans to fill a rabbinic post,” he told YosefEhrenfeld in the newspaper Shevi‘i. “I have a different take on the matter […] His first and foremost desire was to be a Torah scholar, but he also wanted to be an academic scholar. In everything that interested him and everything he engaged in, he strove to do his best, to go the extra mile.”

            Rabbi Dr. MichaelAvraham protested Assaf’s denigration of Torah discourse, leading with the following cynical preface:

“I am unable to restrain myself from making the objective academic comparison (apparently the product of systematic methodology and critical-historical scholarship) between “squandering one’s time on the niceties of halakha” and “entering the precincts (heikhalot) of the academy.” I won’t lie: a quiver of holiness washed over me upon reading those words, but I nevertheless summon my courage and dare to murmur something in the heart of the sanctuary (heikhal). May its priests, Levites, and prophets forgive me after kissing their sacred, perfumed feet.”

Offended, Assaf responded with a stinging riposte of his own, explaining that he was not deriding the yeshiva’s methods of study; rather, he was convinced that Eitam, as a young man who had needed to choose his intellectual path, was inclined more towards academic methods of study and writing. This assertion would seem to fit the activity of Eitam’s final years, but it somewhat contradicts the testimony of Deblitsky, according to which Henkin viewed his thoroughly halakhic composition about Sabbath law—a book that has yet to be published[7]—as his most important work.

Translator’s Notes:

This article was first published in Hebrew in Mekor Rishon (30 October 2015), and is translated here with permission of Mekor Rishon and the author. The translator would like to thank Shaul Seidler-Feller for his invaluable assistance. A groysn shkoyekh!

[1] A preliminary terminological distinction in order to forestall confusion:

●       A hoker is someone with the skills to conduct sustained research on a topic of interest and produce noteworthy scholarship. Such a person may have academic training and credentials, but the subjects of this article, for the most part, do not. I translate ‘hoker’ as ‘scholar.’

●       A hoker torani is such a scholar who happens to be firmly ensconced in the world of Torah, and whose research interests center around topics related to that world. Owing to the lack of suitable English adjective, I will leave the adjective in the Hebrew, yielding “torani scholar.”

●       A talmid hakham is someone with measurably significant Torah erudition, but that knowledge does not necessarily have any bearing on his ability to produce scholarship. I will retain the standard translation of ‘Torah scholar.’

[2] A compilation of customs, prayers, and kabbalistic practices printed about 300 years ago that has had tremendous influence ever since. It nevertheless generated controversy regarding its author’s identity and its content due to suspicions of Sabbateanism.

[3] Cf. Prov 11:2.

[4] The closest idiomatic equivalent of tokh kedei dibbur, Henkin’s username.

[5] cf. Shabbat 31a.

[6] Hanukkah 5775 (24 December 2014). A tribute has been published on these pages by Eli Rubin, “Toil of the Mind and Heart: A Meditation in Memory of Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine,” the Seforim blog (13 December 2015), available here.

[7] The book, Zeh Sefer Esh Tamid, has since been published by Mossad HaRav Kook in April 2016.

The Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

August 29, 2016, 9:51 am

≫ Next: Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident

≪ Previous: Torah Under Wraps

$

0

0

The Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

By Mitchell First[1]

MFirstAtty@aol.com

It is clear from the many places that it appears in Tanakh that התפלל connotes praying. But what was the original meaning of this word? I was always taught that it meant something like “judge yourself.” Indeed, the standard ArtScroll Siddur (Siddur Kol Yaakov) includes the following in its introductory pages: “The Hebrew verb for praying is מתפלל; it is a reflexive word, meaning that the subject acts upon himself. Prayer is a process of self-evaluation, self-judgment…”[2]

More recently, when I searched Jewish sites on the internet for the definition that was offered for hitpallel and mitpallel, I invariably came up with a definition similar to the above. Long ago, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch (d. 1888) and R. Aryeh Leib Gordon (d. 1912) also gave definitions that focused on prayer as primarily an action of the self.[3]

In this post, I would like to share a different interpretation offered by some modern scholars, one based on a simple insight into Hebrew grammar. This new and compelling interpretation has unfortunately not yet made its way into mainstream Orthodox writings and thought. Nor has it been given proper attention in academic circles. For example, it did not make its way into the widely consulted lexicon of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner.[4] By sharing this new interpretation of התפלל, we can ensure that at least the next generation will  understand the origin of this critical word.

                                                             ------

There are two issues involved in parsing this word: 1) what is the meaning of the root פלל? and 2) what is the import of the hitpael stem, one that typically implies doing something to yourself?

With regard to the root פלל, its meaning is admittedly difficult to understand. Scholars have pointed out that the other Semitic languages shed little light on its meaning.[5]

If we look in Tanakh, the verb פלל is found 4 times:[6]

1)      It seems to have a meaning like “think” or “assess” at Genesis 48:11: re’oh fanekha lo filalti…(=I did not think/assess that I would see your face).[7]

2)      It seems to have a meaning like “intervene” at Psalms 106:30: va-ya’amod Pinḥas va-yefalel, va-teatzar ha-magefah (=Pinchas stood up and intervened and the plague was stopped).[8]

3)      It seems to have a meaning like “judge” at I Sam. 2:25: im yeḥeta ish le-ish u-filelo elokim…(If a man sins against another man, God will judge him…).[9]

4)      It also appears at Ezekiel 16:52:  את שאי כלמתך אשר פללת לאחותך גם (= You also should bear your own shame that you pilalt to your sisters). The sense here is difficult, but it is usually translated as implying some form of judging.                                                                                     

    

What I would like to focus on in this post, however, is the import of the hitpael stem in the word התפלל.  Most students of Hebrew grammar are taught early on that the hitpael functions as a “reflexive” stem, i.e., that the actor is doing some action on himself. But the truth is more complicated.

One source I saw counted 984 instances of the hitpaelin Tanakh.[10] It is true that a large percentage of the time, perhaps even a majority of the time, the hitpael in Tanakh is a “reflexive” stem.[11] Some examples:

●       “station oneself”; the verb יצב is in the hitpael 48 times in Tanakh (e.g., hityatzev)

●       “strengthen oneself”; the verb חזק is in the hitpael 27 times in Tanakh (e.g., hitḥazek)

●       “sanctify oneself”; the verb קדש is in the hitpael 24 times in Tanakh (e.g., hitkadesh)

●       “cleanse oneself”; the verb טהר is in the hitpael 20 times in Tanakh  (e.g., hitaher)

        But it is also clear that the hitpael transforms meanings in other ways as well. For example: 

●       At Genesis 42:1 (lamah titrau), the form of titrau is hitpael but the meaning is likely: “Why are you looking at one another?”   This is called the “reciprocal” meaning of hitpael. Another example of this reciprocal meaning is found at II Chronicles 24:25 with the word hitkashru; its meaning is “conspired with one another.”

●       The root הלך appears in the hitpael 46 times in Tanakh, e.g., hithalekh. The meaning is not “to walk oneself,” but “to walk continually or repeatedly.” This is called the “durative” meaning of the hitpael. There are many more durative hitpaelsin Tanakh.[12]

Now let us look at a different word that is in the hitpael form in Tanakh: התחנן. The root here is חנן which means “to be gracious” or “to show favor.”  חנןappears in the hitpael form many times in Tanakh (התחנן, אתחנן, etc.). At I Kings 8:33 we even have a hitpael of פללand a hitpael of חנן adjacent to one another:  והתחננו והתפללו.  If we are constrained to view התפלל as doing something to yourself, then what would be the meaning of התחנן?  To show favor to yourself? This interpretation makes no sense in any of the contexts that the hitpael of חנןis used in Tanakh.

Rather, as recognized by modern scholars, the root חנןis an example where the hitpael  has a slightly different meaning: to make yourself the object of another’s action. (This variant of hitpael has been called “voluntary passive” or “indirect reflexive.”) Every time the root חנן is used in the hitpael, the actor is asking anotherto show favor to him. As an example, one can look at the beginning of parshat va-et-ḥanan. Verse 3:23 states that Moshe was אתחנן to God.   אתחנןdoes not mean that “Moshe showed graciousness to himself.” Rather, he was trying to make himself the object of God’sgraciousness.

Let us now return to our issue: the meaning of התפלל. Most likely, the hitpael form in the case of התפלל is doing the same thing as the hitpael form in the case of התחנן: it is turning the word into a voluntary passive/indirect reflexive.[13]  Hence, the meaning of התפלל is to make oneself the object of God’s פלל (assessment, intervention, or judging). This is a much simpler understanding of התפלל than the ones that look for a reflexive action on the petitioner’s part. Once one is presented with this approach and how it perfectly parallels the hitpael’s role in התחנן, it is very hard to disagree.[14]

  

SomeAdditional Comments

1.      It is interesting to mention some of the other creative explanations for התפלל that had previously been proposed (while our very reasonable interpretation was overlooked!):

a.       The root is related to a root found in Arabic, falla, which means something like “break,” and reflected an ancient practice of self-mutilation in connection with prayer.[15] Such a rite is referred to at 1 Kings 18:28 in connection with the cult of Baal (“and they cut themselves [=va-yitgodedu] in accordance with their manner with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them”).[16]

b.      התפלל  is derived from the root נפל (fall) and reflected the ancient practice of prostrating oneself during prayer.[17]

c.       התפלל  did not originate based on a three-letter root, but was a later development derived from a primary noun תפלה. In this approach, one could argue that התפלל  is not even a  hitpael. (This approach just begs the question of where the word  תפלהwould have arisen. Most scholars reject this approach because תפלה does not look like a primary noun. Rather, it looks like a noun that would have arisen based on a verb such as פללor פלה.) 

2. There are other examples in Tanakh of words that have the form of hitpaelbut are either voluntary passives (like  התפללand התחנן) or even true passives, as the role of the hitpaelexpanded over time.[18] Some examples:[19]

a.       Gen 37:35: va-yakumu khol banav ve-khol benotav le-naḥamo, va-yemaen le-hitnaḥem…(The meaning of the last two words seems to be that Jacob refused to let himself be comforted by others or refused to be comforted; the meaning does not seem to be that he refused to comfort himself.)

b.      Lev. 13:33: ve-hitgalaḥ(The meaning seems to be “let himself be shaved by others.”)

c.       Numb. 23:9: u-va-goyim loyitḥashav

d.      Deut. 28:68:  ve-hitmakartemsham le-oyvekha la-avadim ve-li-shefaḥot… (It is unlikely that the meaning is that the individuals will be selling themselves.)

e.       Psalms 92:10: yitpardu kol poalei aven  (The evildoers are not scattering themselves but are being scattered.)

f.       Is. 30:29: ke-leilhitkadeshḥag…(The holiday is not sanctifying itself.)

g.      Prov. 31:30:  ishah yirat Hashem hitithalal

h.      Jonah 3:8: ve-yitkasu sakim ha-adam ve-ha-behemah… (Animals cannot dress themselves!)

i.        II Kings 8:29 (and similarly II Kings 9:15, and II Ch. 22:6): va-yashav Yoram ha-melekhle-hitrape ve-Yizre’el… (The meaning may be that king Yoram went to Jezreel to let himself be healed by others or to be healed.)

              

3.  As we see from this post, understanding the precise role of the hitpael is important to us as Jews who engage in prayer. Readers may be surprised to learn that understanding the precise role of the hitpaelcan be very important to those of other religions as well. A passage at Gen. 22:18 describes the relationship of the nations of the world with the seed of Abraham:

.והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ 

(The phrase is found again at Gen. 26:4.) Whether this phrase teaches that the nations of the world will utter blessings using the name of the seed of Abraham or be blessedthrough the seed of Abraham depends on the precise meaning of the hitpael here. Much ink has been spilled by Christian theologians on the meaning of hitpaelin this phrase.[20]

                                                                ------

Whoever suspected that grammar could be so interesting and profound!

         

             !ונתחזק  חזק חזק

(Does the last word mean “let us strengthen ourselves,” “let us continually be strengthened,” or “let us be strengthened”?   I will leave it to you to decide!)

Notes:

[1] I would like to thank my son Rabbi Shaya First for reviewing and improving the draft.

[2]  P. xiii.

[3]   The edition of Rav Hirsch’s Pentateuch commentary translated by Isaac Levy includes the following (at Gen. 20:7): התפלל means: To take the element of God’s truth, make it penetrate all phases and conditions of our being and our life, and thereby gain for ourselves the harmonious even tenor of our whole existence in God….  [התפללis] working on our inner self to bring it on the heights of recognition of the Truth and to resolutions for serving God...Prior to this, the commentary had pointed out that the root פלל  means “to judge” and that a judge brings “justice and right, the Divine Truth of matters into the matter….”

R. Aryeh Leib Gordon explained that the word for prayer is in the hitpael form because prayer is an activity of change on the part of the petitioner, as he gives his heart and thoughts to his Creator; the petitioner’s raising himself to a higher level is what causes God to answer him and better his situation. See the introduction to Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot (1914), vol. 1, p. 20. The Encylcopaedia Judaica is another notable source that uses the term “self-scrutiny” when it defines the Biblical conception of prayer. See 13:978-79. It would be interesting to research who first suggested the self-judge/self-scrutiny definition of prayer. I have not done so. I will point out that in the early 13^th century Radak viewed God as the one doing the judging in the word התפלל. See his Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root פלל.

[4] TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1994). The authors do cite the article by E.A. Speiser (cited in the next note) that advocates the interpretation. But they cite the article for other purposes only. The interpretation of התפלל that Speiser advocates and that I will be describing is nowhere mentioned.

[5]  For example, E.A. Speiser writes that “[o]utside Hebrew, the stem pll is at best rare and ambiguous.” See his “The Stem PLLin Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963), pp. 301-06, 301. He mentions a few references in Akkadian that shed very little light. There is a verb in Akkadian, palālu, that has the meaning: “guard, keep under surveillance.” See the  פללarticle in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568 (2001), and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933. This perhaps supports the “assess” and “think” meanings of the Hebrew פלל.

[6]  Various forms of a related noun, פלילים, פללים, פלילי and פליליה, appear 6 times. The meanings at Deut. 32:31 (ve-oyveinu pelilim), Job 31:11 (avon pelilim), and Job 31:28 (avon pelili) are very unclear. The meaning at Is. 16:3 (asu pelilah) is vague but could be “justice.” The meaning at Is. 28:7 (paku peliliah) (=they tottered in their peliliah) seems to be a legal decision made by a priest. Finally, there is the well-known and very unclear ve-natan be-flilim of Ex. 21:22. Onkelos translates this as ve-yiten al meimar dayanaya. But this does not seem to fit the words. The Septuagint translates the two words as “according to estimate.” See Speiser, p. 303. Speiser is unsure if this translation was based on guesswork or an old tradition, but thinks it is essentially correct.

[7]  Note that Rashi relates it to the word maḥshavah. Sometimes the verb is translated in this verse as “hope.” Even though this interpretation makes sense in this verse, I am not aware of support for it in other verses. That is why I prefer “think” and “assess,” which are closer to “intervene” and “judge.” Many translate the word as “judge” in this verse: I did not judge (=have the opinion) that I would see your face. See, e.g., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, entry פלל. 

[8] Brown-Driver-Briggs translates ויפלל using a similar verb: “interpose.” See their entry פלל.  Alternatively, some translate ויפלל here as “executed judgment.”

[9] It has been suggested that the “judge” meaning is just a later development from the “intervene” meaning.

[10] The exact number given varies from study to study. I have also seen references to 946, 780 and “over 825.” See Joel S. Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap,” Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010), pp. 33-44, 35 n.7.

[11]  We must be careful not to assume that the hitpael originated as a reflexive stem. Most likely, the standard Hebrew hitpaelis a conflation of a variety of earlier t-stem forms that had different roles. See Baden, p. 33, n. 1 and E.A. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa‘el: A tan-Form,” Journal of the American Oriental Society75 (2) (1955), pp. 118-121.

[12]  See the above article by Speiser. For example, with regard to the hitpael of אבל, the implication may be “to be in mourning over a period of time.” With regard to התמם(the hitpael of תמם; I I Sam. 22:26 and Ps.18:26.), the implication may be “to be continually upright.” Some more examples: משתאה  at Gen. 24:21 (continually gaze),  תתאוהat Deut. 5:18 (tenth commandment; continually desire), ויתגעשו  at Ps. 18:8 (continually shake), and  התעטףat Ps. 142:4 (continually be weak/faint ). Another example is the root נחל. When it is in the hitpael, the implication may be “to come into and remain in possession.”

[13] See T. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (1971), pp. 249-250, and Speiser, The Stem PLL, p. 305.

[14] Rav Hirsch views התחנן as “to seek to make himself worthy of concession.” See his comm. to Deut. 3:23. This is farfetched. Hayim Tawil observes that there is an Akkadian root enēnu, “to plead,” and sees this Akkadian root as underlying the Hebrew התחנן. He views the hitpael as signifying that the pleading is continous (like the import of the hitpael in hithalekh). See his An Akkadian Lexical Companion For Biblical Hebrew (2009), pp. 113-14. But there is insufficient reason to read an Akkadian root into התחנן, when we have a very appropriate Hebrew root חנן.

[15]  See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568, Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 511, Brown-Driver-Briggs, entry פלל, and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933.

[16] The Soncino commentary here remarks that this was “a form of worship common to several cults with the purpose of exciting the pity of the gods, or to serve as a blood-bond between the devotee and his god.”

[17] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol.  11, p. 568,  Klein, p. 511, and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933.

[18] One scholar claims to have located as many as 68 such instances in Tanakh, but does not list them. For the reference, see Baden, p. 35, n. 7. Baden doubts the number is this high and believes that the true number is much lower. Baden would dispute some of the examples that I am giving. Hitpaels with true passive meanings are found more frequently in Rabbinic Hebrew. The expansion of the meaning of the hitpael stem to include the true passive form took place in other Semitic languages as well. See O.T. Allis, “The Blessing of Abraham,” The Princeton Theological Review (1927), pp. 263-298, 274-278.

[19] These and several others are collected at Allis, pp. 281-83.  For a few more true passives, see Kohelet 8:10, I Sam. 3:14, Lam. 4:1, and I Chr. 5:17.

[20] See, e.g., Allis, and Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.3 (2012), pp. 279-296, and Benjamin J. Noonan, “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Reexamination of the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Hebrew Studies 51 (2010), pp. 73-93.

Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident

September 8, 2016, 8:23 pm

≫ Next: Jews in Wonderland

≪ Previous: The Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

$

0

0

Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident

by Yisrael Kashkin

We have seen on this blog several posts that cite examples of censorship and text manipulation in literature within the Orthodox community. Generally, the practitioners of this tendentious editing have been described here as being among our brethren from the right wing of the community. However, the act of text manipulation happens as well among our brethren from the left wing.

One notable example occurred recently in an article that discussed the theory of evolution. The article, Nathan Aviezer’s “The Origin of Mankind – A Torah Perspective” (Hakirah, Vol. 18), lists Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) as one of “many Torah authorities” whose writings indicate that “the Torah and evolution are completely compatible.” Aviezer asserts that “Darwin, Rav Hirsch, Yehuda HaLevi, and Rav Kook all viewed evolution as the mechanism used by G-d to produce the animal kingdom.” In its conclusion, the article reasserts its claim with the words “Theologians refer to the idea of evolution being orchestrated by G-d as ‘theistic evolution.’ This concept is accepted by many Torah luminaries, including Yehuda HaLevi, Rav Kook, and Rav Hirsch (as quoted above).”

What is this quote from Rav Hirsch? The article offers the following statement and purports it to be a quote from an essay in Hirsch’s Collected Writings:

If the notion of evolution were to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Judaism would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence to God, Who in His boundless creative wisdom, needed to bring into existence only one amorphous nucleus and one law of 'adaptation and heredity' in order to bring forth the infinite variety of species that we know today.

Those words, which actually are not an accurate quote of Rav Hirsch as I will show, do not constitute agreement with the theory of evolution. They say only that if the theory is accepted universally by the scientific community that one could look at it as describing a Divine wisdom utilized during the creation of animal species. This does not mean that Rav Hirsch looked at it that way.

How did Rav Hirsch regard the theory of evolution? In the same essay that the article cites as a source for its statement, Rav Hirsch explicitly expresses his view on the veracity of the theory. After asserting that man’s attempts to explain natural laws “does not alter his moral calling,” Rav Hirsch tells us the following:

This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that that genesis of all the multitude of organic forms on earth can be traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. (“The Educational Value of Judaism,” written in 1873, in Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume VII, pp. 263-4)

The theory is a “notion” and a “vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact.” Rav Hirsch's skepticism is unequivocal.

Rav Hirsch embraced science, writing “Judaism does not fear the advances of science; in fact, it rejoices in them and hails them with high hopes for the future.” However, he required that we “distinguish between facts and hypotheses, between premises that have stood the test of time and hasty conclusions often based on half-truths ….” (p. 257)  Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859.

However, there is another problem with the article. Aviezer states that Rav Hirsch’s words can be found in the Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Volume VII, p. 264 and even presents them as a verbatim statement within quotation marks. However, these words do not appear verbatim on page 264 (in either the 1992 or 1997 editions), but rather they appear to be drawn from different parts of the page and to be sown together without the customary ellipses (i.e., …) to indicate omitted material. The actual text from page 264 is as follows:

Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.

Rav Hirsch adds that “This would be nothing else but the actualization of the law of le-mino, the 'law of species' with which God began His work of creation. This law of le-mino, upon which Judaism places such great emphasis in order to impress upon its adherents that all of organic life is subject to Divine laws, can accommodate even this ‘theory of the origin of species.’" [1]

If written with the customary ellipses, the passage as quoted in the article becomes unusable for a citation:

if … [the] notion [of evolution] were … to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, …. Judaism … would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence … to … God[,] Who … in His boundless creative wisdom[,] … needed to bring into existence … [only] one … amorphous nucleus and one … law of 'adaptation and heredity' in order to bring forth … the infinite variety of species [that] we know today ….[2]

With fourteen gaps within two sentences, albeit long sentences, the passage would be suspect as a proof text even if it seemed to concur with the theory of evolution.[3]

The lacunae are significant. Missing is Rav Hirsch’s biting allusion to Darwin as “the high priest of that notion,” suggesting that Darwin’s theory is more mythological than scientific. Rav Hirsch also contrasts Darwin’s reasoning from Jewish thought by saying that Judaism would never conclude as Darwin did that man descends from a “still extant representative of this primal form,” an apparent reference to the ape.

Missing also are the words “Even if,” words that contribute to the tenor of the relevant portion of Rav Hirsch’s essay, which is that this new theory along with other increasingly popular ones in the 19^th century, does not uproot the Torah. Rav Hirsch is not proposing that the theory of evolution is true but is asserting the truth of Torah “Even if” the theory of evolution is accepted. His entire statement hinges on the words “Even if.”

To ignore that is to ignore Rav Hirsch’s main point. He was writing as a defender of Torah who was battling assimilation not as a scientist who was evaluating a newly proposed theory.  He had preceded his comments on Darwin's theory with some comments on astronomy and an assertion that the “purely moral objectives of Judaism” are indifferent as to whether we assume a Ptolemaic or Copernican view of the universe (p. 263). Later in the essay, Rav Hirsch references theories on the age of the earth about which he writes “Judaism is not frightened.” (p. 265)

Also missing from the redacted quotation is the word “ever” which Rav Hirsch seems to use to cast doubt that such a questionable theory will be universally accepted. “Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance” becomes “If the notion of evolution were to gain complete acceptance….” The latter version assumes more confidence in the theory.

Also missing is Rav Hirsch’s depiction of God’s “eternal omnipotence” while the reference to “His boundless creative wisdom,” a phrase more palatable to the contemporary scientist, is kept intact. Similarly, the phrase “from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order” is eliminated, leaving us with an image of the first days of creation more in line with the standard evolutionist’s depiction of primordial soup. Along the same lines, Rav Hirsch's reference to “the one, sole God” is rendered simply as “God.”

The result of all these redactions is an alteration of the meaning of the original material. When you read Rav Hirsch’s essay from start to finish you see a defender of Torah observance trying to find a way to give supporters of new theories about highly esoteric matters of nature a way to stay Torah observant, even as Rav Hirsch himself did not buy into the theories. However, the misquote strips Rav Hirsch's words of all caveats and doubts and leaves us with the one positive thought that Rav Hirsch could muster about the theory of evolution.

This is problematic. Sometime in the future, a reader may recall hearing that Rav Hirsch supported the theory and seeing some kind of quotation from him indicating as much. However, we see from Rav Hirsch's actual words that he was highly skeptical of it, and perhaps more importantly, considered the matter ultimately unknowable and irrelevant to the true purpose of Jewish scholarship. Referring to cosmogony and eschatology, Rav Hirsch wrote that Jewish scholars through the ages “were generally averse to speculations about what was in the past and what will be in the future, because, in their view, such questions transgressed the limits of that which is knowable to man, or, at best, they did not enhance man's understanding of his moral function.” (p. 265) In general, Rav Hirsch advised our reading the Torah “Not for the purpose of making philological or antiquarian investigations, nor to find support and corroboration for antediluvian or geological hypotheses, nor either in the expectation of unveiling supermundane mysteries, but as Jews we must read it – that is to say, looking upon it as a book given to us by God that we may learn from it to know ourselves – what we are, and what we should be in this our earthly existence.” (The Nineteen Letters, “Letter Two”, published in 1836).[4]

---

[1] Here is how it appears:

[2] Here it is in Aviezer:

[3] As Rav Joseph Breuer's introduction to Rav Hirsch's essay in the Collected Writings tells us, the original essay in German does not appear in Gesammelte Schriften, the original German language collection of his writings published in 1911. Written originally for a school graduation exercise, the essay was published in 1937 in the journal Nachalath Z'wi, Vol. VII. One will not find it in the local Judaica shop.

Here is the title page:

[4] For other discussion of Aviezer, see Marc Shapiro’s Seforim Blog post here.

Jews in Wonderland

September 20, 2016, 7:39 am

≫ Next: Rav Kook's Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

≪ Previous: Text Manipulation on the Left – A Recent Incident

$

0

0

Jews in Wonderland

John M. Efron

John M. Efron is the Koret Professor of Jewish History at the University of California-Berkeley and author of German Jewry and the Allure of the Sephardic (Princeton University Press, 2016).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.

Although an important sesquicentennial anniversary took place on September 5, 2016, few people outside of Berlin, and not even that many there will have paid much attention to it.  As generally happens with selective historical amnesia that which was once world famous is now known by very few.  On that very date one hundred and fifty years ago in 1866, Berlin’s Neue Synagoge on the Oranienburger Strasse, which was the largest and most ornate synagogue in the world was inaugurated in the presence of thousands, including scores of dignitaries, royals, as well as political and military figures, including the future Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, General Field Marshal of the Prussian Army, Friedrich von Wrangel, Mayor of Berlin, Karl Theodor Seydel, Chief of the Berlin Police, Otto von Bernuth, and the Prussian Finance Minister, August von der Heydt. 

The spectacular ceremony began at noon on that early autumn day with a procession down the massive central aisle of the synagogue.  Under the musical directorship of the great, liturgical composer Louis Lewandowski, the choir of men and boys sang Psalm 118 to the accompaniment of an organ and a chorus of trombonists: “In the Lord do I glory. Let the lowly hear and rejoice.”  According to one attendee, the rabbi, Dr. Joseph Aub, delivered a soaring sermon in which he expressed his wish that “the humanistic and tolerant spirit of the age” would carry on far into the future.  The inauguration concluded with the afternoon Mincha service and befitting a synagogue that would become renowned for its musical traditions, Psalm 150 rang out: “Hallelujah. Praise God in His holy place, praise Him in the vault of His power.  Praise Him for His mighty acts, praise Him as befits His abounding greatness.  Praise Him with the ram-horn’s blast, praise Him with the lute and the lyre.”  It was an unforgettable day for all in attendance.

Nowadays, and it is understandable, if anything is known and remembered about synagogues in Germany, it pertains to their destruction on the Kristallnacht of November 9, 1938.  Where Kristallnacht signaled and symbolized the end of Jewish life in Germany, the inauguration of the many new synagogues that were built across the country in the nineteenth century symbolized the optimistic future that Rabbi Aub and the rest of German Jewry saw ahead.  Of course, synagogues symbolize more than a future full of possibilities.  They also tell stories about the way a particular congregation sees itself, the way it wants to be seen, and what its relationship is to Jewish history.  While the neo-Moorish, Neue Synagoge stood out for its size and splendor, it was not the only one of its kind nor is its story simply a part of the history of synagogue architecture.  Rather, it is but one part of a still larger and peculiar story of German-Jewish culture and its profound attraction to all things Sephardic.

The modern history of German Jewry begins in the eighteenth century, for it is then that we first see signs of a new and distinctive sense of self, one predicated on that community’s definitive, sometimes aggressive, separation from Polish Jewry, with whom it had previously formed a pan-Ashkenazic civilization.  The process began with the abandoning of Yiddish and the adoption of German language and culture.  This was followed in the nineteenth century by the advent of new forms of Judaism, such as Reform, Positive-Historical (later called Conservative in the United States), and modern Orthodoxy, the turn to Jewish scholarship, the acquisition of university education, and the emergence of Jews into the middle classes.  All of these innovations intended to or served to change the image and appearance of Jews and Judaism. 

One aspect of the great cultural transformation of German Jewry was the special place of honor it accorded medieval Spanish Jewry during its so-called Golden Age.  For the entire German-Jewish elite, the Sephardim were a cultural nobility and over the span of about 120 years, from approximately 1780 to 1900, what first began among community leaders as an appreciation of Sephardic Jewry blossomed into a rhapsodic and full-blown infatuation with the Jews of Sepharad.  In fact, the adulation shown towards Sephardic culture had a deep impact on German-Jewish self-perception, for the celebration of Sephardic Jewry led simultaneously to a self-critique, often a very harsh one, of Ashkenazic culture.  German-Jewish elites portrayed the Jews of Germany and Poland as insular, unattractive and primitive and in response, they felt that the time had come to rectify this and become like they imagined the Jews of Spain to have once been—worldly, alluring, and cosmopolitan.

Beginning in the eighteenth century, with increasing fraternization between upper-class Jews and Christians and exposure to bourgeois tastes and sensibilities, Jews, long considered to be in religious error came to believe that they were also in aesthetic error.  In almost all corporeal and cultural categories, Jews found themselves to be deficient, occasioning among them a crisis of aesthetic confidence.  It was at this point that appearances first began to matter to German Jews, a situation that made them hyper self-conscious and hyper-vigilant, acutely aware of how they sounded, how they looked, and how they carried themselves.  These were among the most important categories that drew them to the Sephardim, who they imagined as dignified, elegant, eloquent, and beautiful.  To be sure, German Jews did not want to mimic Sephardic culture; they only wanted to be German Jews but they did wish to emulate the Jews of Spain and be thought of in similar terms.  In 1820, a young Prussian-Jewish lawyer named Eduard Gans applied to the government for permission to establish an association dedicated to the study of Jewish history and culture.  In his application Gans invoked the Jews of Spain:

“These [Spanish] Jews, resembling all others both physically and mentally but granted by the Arabs equality with Muslims, proceeded to plumb in concert all the known sciences of the day….And they employed [in their writings] not Hebrew but Arabic.  Indeed those Jews expelled from [Spain] to France, Holland, Italy, and England, to the detriment of Spanish economic life…have never formed the contrast to Christian society which was so striking in the other family of Jews, [the Ashkenazim, who were] kept intentionally apart.  They are marked by less discrepancy in morality, purer speech, greater order in the synagogue, and in fact better taste.” [1]

 

By using this example, Gans was suggesting that if Jews in his day were granted equality with Germans then Jewish morality, speech, decorum and taste would likewise improve.

The positive impression of Sephardic Jewry was cultivated in a variety of ways, all part of a new and developing German-Jewish culture.  Maskilim or proponents of the Jewish Enlightenment claimed that Sephardic Hebrew was preferable to Ashkenazic pronunciation.  Anthropologists asserted that the Sephardim were superior to Ashkenazim in terms of physical beauty and comportment while authors and poets wrote scores of wildly popular Sephardic-themed works, and historians penned highly romanticized depictions of Sephardic history.  All of this created an image of the medieval Jews of the Iberian Peninsula as an ideal Jewish community, steeped both in Jewish tradition but also fully at home in secular culture.  Jewish historians also believed that what made for Sephardic superiority was their living under tolerant Muslim rule and as such, nineteenth century German-Jewish historians were tireless promoters of the idea that there had been a Muslim-Jewish symbiosis.  As the founding father of Reform Judaism, Abraham Geiger declared, “Judaism had developed its own fullest potential in closest union with Arab civilization.”

There was, however, one aspect of Sephardicism that stands out from all the rest because it was neither textual nor was it an exhortation to modify behavior; it was architecture.  Between the 1830s and 1860s, the advent of neo-Moorish synagogues, with their towering minarets, giant domes, polychrome exteriors, windows with Islamic-style arches, and stunningly ornate interiors were the most visible, indeed, the most spectacular manifestation of an imagined Sephardic aesthetic and the only one that was created in partnership with non-Jews, in other words, the architects, builders, city planners and councils who approved such structures.

While there are neo-Moorish synagogues all over the world, what makes Germany the most important site for this architectural style is that it was the first place such synagogues were built and secondly, they were the only Orientalized buildings in Germany, a style almost all architects dismissed as suitable only for entertainment and recreational purposes.  Indeed, where Orientalist buildings did exist—Holland, England, and France—most of these were found in parks, gardens, and holiday resorts.  In Germany, however, the only Orientalized buildings  were neo-Moorish synagogues and as such, it was accorded the status of a Jewish national style of architecture.

The neo-Moorish style did not simply appear but rather it evolved.  The earliest such synagogues were erected in the provinces, with the first one opening in 1832 in the small town of Ingenheim.  Designed by Friedrich von Gärtner, the Bavarian court architect, the small synagogue had no neo-Islamic decorations on the interior although it did employ an Egyptian theme for the Torah ark and had an aedicule bedecked with a frieze of palm trees, a botanical feature strikingly out of place in this rural Bavarian landscape.  However, from the outside, the oriental character of the building was unmistakable given the large horseshoe-arched entrance and Islamic style-windows that ran along either side of the synagogue and were modeled on those found on thirteenth and fourteenth century North African and Spanish mosques.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, these synagogues were no longer being built, out of consideration for both the high costs and shrinking regional communities, whose inhabitants were leaving rural areas and moving to big cities.  This did not mean the end of neo-Moorish synagogues, however, for they now began to appear in large cities and in ever increasingly spectacular forms.  In Dresden, the exterior of the Neue Synagoge built in 1840 was composed of an eclectic mix of Christian, Byzantine, and Romanesque elements with no neo-Moorish exterior elements.  However, it was the first synagogue to have a neo-Moorish interior, borrowing decorative motifs from the Alhambra palace in Granada.  The ceiling of the central dome was painted a brilliant blue with the sun’s while the walls were sumptuously painted in a dazzling array of colors, depicting floral and geometric designs.  The Eternal Lamp, or ner tamid, that hung in front of the ark was of Moorish design and it is one of history’s puzzling ironies that upon learning of its beauty those two radical antisemites Richard and Cosima Wagner ordered a replica of the beautiful lamp for their house on Lake Lucerne.  They used it for the first time when their son Siegfried was baptized at home in 1870.

 The synagogue in Dresden was designed by one of Germany’s foremost architects, Gottfried Semper, the man who designed the city’s world famous opera house.  His student, Otto Simonson, was one of the very few Jewish architects in Germany in the nineteenth century and his great contribution was to design what was Germany’s first fully neo-Moorish synagogue, both inside and out.  Built in Leipzig in 1855, and also named the Neue Synagoge, its unusual triangular shape (akin to the Flatiron Building in New York) made it immediately recognizable.  At the very point of this gigantic, 2,000 seat synagogue, where the two angles met, there was a massive, semicircular silo on top of which was a highly polished, fluted copper cupola, framed by a horseshoe arch, crowned with a Star of David.

On the synagogue’s interior, it was this silo that was home to the ark that held the Torah scrolls.  The synagogue’s two massive facades were punctuated by four gigantic relief moldings of Islamic arches.  Running along the top of the outer walls were crenellated parapets.  With battlements, towers, and a rampart-like facade, the building took on the appearance of a fortress mosque.  The interior was a blaze of color, with yellow skirting boards forming the base for green walls, which rose to meet a stunning blue ceiling bedecked with stars and a giant sun.  All of this was further illuminated by the bright light that streamed in through the colored rose window.  A monumentally large and highly decorated horseshoe arch framed the whole eastern end of the synagogue, further enhancing the neo-Moorish appearance of the whole structure.  Simonson was one of the few architects to explain why he chose the neo-Moorish style for his synagogue:

“The Temple is built in the Moorish style, which appears to me to be the most characteristic. Judaism adheres with unshakable reverence to its history; its laws, its customs and practices, the organization of its ritual; in short, its entire essence lives in its reminiscences of its motherland, the Orient. It is those reminiscences that the architect must accommodate should he wish to impress upon the building a typical [Jewish] stamp.”[2]

From humble rural beginnings, Germany’s neo-Moorish synagogues got increasingly bigger and ever more ornate and none was grander than the Neue Synagoge in Berlin, built between 1859 and 1866.  When it finally received permission to build a new synagogue, the congregation announced an international competition to choose an architect for what it envisioned would be a brightly lit synagogue with seating for 3,200 congregants, upstairs galleries for the women, entrances separated according to sex, sufficient space for a 60-person choir, an apartment for the rabbi, as well as administrative offices and classrooms.  There was also to be a library with space enough for 67,000 volumes.  The renowned Eduard Knoblauch was the architect who won the tender and he had the difficult job of making sure that “the total cost was not to exceed 125,000 taler.”

Sadly, Knoblauch did not live to see his great creation, passing away in 1865.  When the synagogue on the Oranienburger Strasse—the very street on which Knoblauch lived—was inaugurated on September 5, 1866, the guests were seated in the grandest neo-Moorish synagogue ever built.  They were also in the most expensive, costs having ballooned to a staggering 750,000 taler.  The synagogue’s external centerpiece was an onion dome that soared majestically some one hundred and sixty feet into the air.  Wrapped in a blanket of zinc and swaddled in gold ribbing, crowned with a Star of David, the great dome was the brightest and most joyful architectural feature to be found anywhere in Berlin.  It was also the tallest structure in the city. The central portal was flanked by towering minarets that borrowed heavily from North African mosques and from the Giralda, a late twelfth century minaret in Seville while the crenellations were typical of those found on Cairene mosques.

 

The synagogue was as massive as it was ornate, its triple-nave 188 feet long and 126 feet wide while the ceiling soared to a height of 87 feet.  The interior was a dazzling kaleidoscope of color, light, and texture.  With Moorish decorative patterns from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the floors were inlaid with intricate mosaics; the walls were covered in richly colored stucco and then painted with stars and flora, while stalactite features hung from the ceiling where geometric and honeycomb patterns were also widely deployed, including on the elaborate friezes that accented the temple’s interior. A technical breakthrough helped bathe the entire synagogue in a palette of many colors.  The windows were double paned, with the outer layer made of clear glass and the inner windows of stained glass.  An innovative system of gas lamps was installed in between the two panes throughout the synagogue.  While the myriad windows allowed for abundant light to pour into the synagogue, the placement of the gas lamps and the way they illuminated the stained glass helped create what one attendee at the synagogue’s dedication ceremony called a “magical effect.”

Indeed, the synagogue had the air and appearance of an Oriental pleasure palace.  A contemporary newspaper account vividly described the synagogue as “a fairy-tale structure.…In the middle of a plain part of the city we are led into the fantastic wonder of the Alhambra, with graceful columns, sweeping arches, richly colored arabesques, abundant wood carvings, all with the thousandfold magic of the Moorish style.”  The Neue Synagoge’s fame quickly spread and it attracted visitors from near and far.  Among the curious was none other than the English author, Lewis Carroll, a man who knew a thing or two about wonderlands and fairy-tale structures.  Just two years after publishing Alice in Wonderland, on Friday July 19, 1867, he stopped in Berlin on his way to Russia and while there, Carroll, a deeply devout Christian, made two visits to the synagogue.  He noted in his diary that after a full day of sightseeing, “later in the evening we strolled out and looked at the Jewish Synagogue, said to be well worth the inspection.”  His first cursory visit was followed by a much longer second stop the very next day and occasioned this beautiful diary entry:

“We began the day by visiting the Jewish Synagogue, where we found the service going on, and remained until it was over. The scene was perfectly novel to me, & most interesting. The building itself is most gorgeous, almost the whole interior surface being gilt or otherwise decorated—the arches were nearly all semi-circular, tho’ there were a few instances of the shape sketched here—the east end was roofed with a circular dome, & contained a small dome on pillars, under which was a cupboard (concealed by a curtain) which contained the roll of the Law: in front of that again a small desk facing west—the latter was only once used. The rest of the building was fitted up with open seats. We followed the example of the congregation in keeping our hats on. Many men, on reaching their places, produced white silk shawls out of embroidered bags, & these they put on square fashion: the effect was most singular—the upper edge of the shawl had what looked like gold embroidery, but was probably a phylactery [sic]. These men went up from time to time & read portions of the lessons. What was read was all in German, but there was a great deal chanted in Hebrew, to beautiful music: some of the chants have come down from very early times, perhaps as far back as David. The chief Rabbi chanted a great deal by himself, without music. The congregation alternately stood & sat down: I did not notice anyone kneeling.”[3]

For just over six decades the synagogue was home to a proud and confident congregation, one where the world’s first woman rabbi Regina Jonas preached and where in 1930 Albert Einstein conducted the orchestra for a concert performance.  Alone among the synagogues mentioned above, the Neue Synagoge survived the Kristallnacht despite being damaged in that night of violence and desecration.  In November 1943, however, it eventually succumbed, almost completely destroyed when struck by Allied bombers during the Battle of Berlin.  After the war, the synagogue was, by dint of the Cold War, located in what became communist East Germany.  In 1958 the main part of the building was demolished, with only those sections adjacent to the street remaining intact.  After the fall of the wall in 1989, those parts of the building that had survived, which included the severely damaged dome and the beautiful facade, were renovated and the synagogue was reopened in 1995.  However, what once was is no longer.  The main sanctuary does not exist. Today, on the premises there is a museum, an archive, classrooms, the administrative offices of the Jewish community and a small synagogue that is used for regular services.

Why did Jews build in the neo-Moorish style, especially in an era when German Jewry fought tirelessly against an antisemitic image that considered them a foreign, Oriental people?  Indeed, critics of the synagogue claimed that its design only confirmed this.  I think that from the Jewish perspective, the neo-Moorish design linked these congregations to their image of the Sephardim, allowing the congregations to appear dignified and sensitive to the importance of aesthetics and good taste.  However, above all, these mostly Reform temples looked nothing like any synagogues ever built before.  And like Reform Judaism itself, they were utterly new, with no historical precedent and that was their appeal and their purpose.

Though none of the synagogues built in the neo-Moorish style bore any resemblance to synagogues that had existed in medieval Spain they were nonetheless just one element of a much larger cultural project undertaken by German Jews, wherein they sought to honor and emulate Sephardic Jewry as part of a transformative process that would see them form a new kind of Ashkenazic Jewish culture.  Doing so led to a highly romanticized depiction of Sephardic Jewry, one where they were seen as superior to Ashkenazim in nearly every way—a curious, if not troubling, Ashkenazic assertion if there ever was one.  Long after the tragic demise of Spanish Jewry, the rays of its so-called Golden Age continued to shine across the Jewish world but without doubt it was in modern Germany that those rays enjoyed their greatest luminosity.

Notes:

[1] Quoted in Ismar Schorsch, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1994), 75.

[2] Otto Simonson, Der neue Tempel in Leipzig (Berlin: F. Riegel, 1858), 3

[3] Lewis Carroll, The Works of Lewis Carroll (London: Hamlyn, 1965), 972-973.

---

Rav Kook's Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

September 22, 2016, 7:01 am

≫ Next: New book by Gabriel Wasserman on Karaite Judaism

≪ Previous: Jews in Wonderland

$

0

0

Rav Kook's Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

By Rav Eitam Henkin, Hy"d

 (Translated into English by Rachelle Emanuel)

This article originally appearedin Hebrew in HaMayan 51:4 (2011), pp. 75-90.

Today is the yahrzeit of the Rav Eitam and Naama Henkin, who were cruelly murdered one year ago. May Rav Eitam’s important writings, surely with us only thanks to Naama’s support, be an aliyat neshama for both. Hy”d.

·         "It is well known that the person who heads the above [body]" supports Keren Hayesod

·         What is the difference between Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod — the United Israel Appeal?

·         The forgery in the 1926 public letter

·         The significance of supporting Keren Hayesod

·         The halakhic letter of 1928

·         The joint declaration with Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer

·         Conclusion

"It is well known that the person who heads the above [body]" supports Keren Hayesod

The philosophy of Rav Elĥanan Bunem Wasserman, follower of the Ĥafetz Chaim and Rosh Yeshiva of the Baranovich Yeshiva (Lithuania), and among the most extreme of eastern European Torah leaders between the world wars in his anti-Zionist approach, is still considered today as having significant influence on the ideology concerning Zionism and the State of Israel prevalent in the Hareidi community. In this respect he constitutes almost an antithesis to the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, in whose philosophy religious Zionism found its main ideological support for its approach and outlook.[1] 

One rare statement made by Rav Wasserman, aimed apparently at Rav Kook, has found resonance with part of the Haredi public, and is used by them as justification for rejecting Rav Kook and his teachings. In fact, we are not talking of a direct reference, but of words that appear in a letter sent to Rav Yosef Tzvi Dushinski, who took over Rav Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld's position as head of the Eidah Ĥareidit, on June 25, 1924:

A proposal has been made to combine the Ĥareidi Beit Din with the Chief Rabbinate. It is well known that he who heads [the Chief Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling on Jews to contribute to Keren Hayesod. It is also known that the funds of Keren Hayesod go towards educating intentional heretics. If that is the case, he who encourages supporting this organization causes the public to sin on a most terrible level.  Rabbeinu Yona in Sha'arei Teshuva explains the verse "The refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, and a man is tried by his praise" (Prov. 27:21)  as meaning that in order to examine a person one must look at what he praises. If we see that he praises the wicked, we know that he is an utterly wicked person, and it is clear that it is forbidden to associate with such a person.[2]

As far as Rav Wasserman was concerned, because the head of the Chief Rabbinate publicized statements in which he called to support Keren Hayesod, which among other activities, funded a secular-Zionist education system, he was causing the public to sin and it was forbidden to be associated with him.[3]

However, it seems that Rav Wasserman's sharp assertion is based on a factual error.[4]According to Rav Kook's son, Rav Z.Y. Kook, his father supported KerenKayemet Le-Yisrael, and called on others to support them, but his attitude towards KerenHayesod was completely different.

… as a result of the claims and complaints about their behavior concerning religion and Judaism, [Rav Kook] later delayed giving words of support to Keren Hayesod, and none of the entreaties and efforts of Keren Hayesod's activists could move him. In contrast, even though he continued to constantly protest concerning those claims and complaints, he never hesitated giving words of support to Keren Kayemet. None of the entreaties and efforts of those who opposed Keren Kayemet could change this. On the contrary, with his sacred fire, he increased his support and encouragement for Keren Kayemet, [considering its projects as] a mitzvah of redeeming and conquering the Land.[5]

If these words are correct, Rav Wasserman's protest loses ground. In light of the above we would have to say that Rav Wasserman's sharp statement about Rav Kook relies on the shaky basis ("It is well known…") of rumors that were widespread in certain localities in East Europe.[6]However, precise research shows that despite Rav Z. Y. Kook's clear testimony, for which we will bring below explicit references from Rav Kook himself, Rav Wasserman's words were not just based on vague rumors alone. It turns out that even while Rav Kook was alive, propaganda attempts were made to attribute to him support for Keren Hayesod. In one case, at least, it was intentional fraud, upon which it seems Rav Wasserman unwittingly based himself.

What is the difference between Keren Kayemet LeYisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod – the United Israel Appeal?

Whatever the case may be, the reader will ask: what is the difference between the Keren Kayemet and the Keren Hayesod? Perhaps in Rav Wasserman's opinion they both were "abominations," since both organizations were headed by "heretics"; and even though Keren Kayemet did not deal with education, nevertheless it enabled heretics to settle on its land. If that was the case even supporting Keren Kayemet falls into the category of lauding the wicked, etc.! However, one cannot ignore the fact that R. Wasserman was talking about Keren Hayesod in particular, on the grounds that its funds were "going towards raising intentional heretics" in the educational institutions – something not relevant to the activity of Keren Kayemet. The Keren Kayemet was a veteran institution, founded at the beginning of the century for very specific, accepted goals – redeeming land from the hands of gentiles, whereas Keren Hayesod was established at the beginning of the twenties in a very different political reality, and its fields of activity were much broader. Rav Kook himself, in a response from winter 1925 to the famous letter from four Hasidic rebbes (Ger, Sokolov, Ostrovtza, and Radzhin) who had heard that "your Honor is indignant over our opposition to giving aid to the Keren Kayemet and Keren Hayesod," and in which they explained their opposition, gave his reasons in full for supporting the Keren Kayemet, and only the Keren Kayemet.[7] In an earlier draft of his response, in his handwriting, preserved in his archive, he explicitly notes the difference in his approach to the two organizations:

I myself, in the past gave credentials for aid to Keren Kayemet alone […] which is busy transferring land from the hands of gentiles to Jewish possession, […] and for that I gave Keren Kayemet's activists a recommendation over the course of several years. This is not the case with Keren Hayesod, which does not deal in redeeming land, but rather in settling it and in matters of education. I have never yet given them a recommendation [and will not do so] until the matter will, please God, be put right, and at least a significant part of the funds will be assigned to settling Eretz Yisrael in the way of our holy Torah.[8]

There is indeed a large amount of information about the extensive relations that Rav Kook had with Keren Kayemet, most of which involved continuous support for its tremendous project of redeeming land, together with constantly keeping his eye on,  and immediately objecting to, any deviation from the way of the Torah that was perpetrated on its grounds.[9] On the other hand, in all the writings of Rav Kook published till now, there are only a few mentions of Keren Hayesod, and they show reservations in principle from the organization.[10] Whoever is fed by rumors and presents Rav Kook as one who "lends his hand to evil-doers" without reservations, will anyway assume, "as it is known," that he similarly called for support of Keren Hayesod. In contrast, for someone who knows about Rav Kook's life story, his work, and his letters, the idea that he would be capable of calling for support for an organization which directly causes ĥilul Shabbat, secular education, and so on, is utterly baseless. Even his support for Keren Kayemet was not complete, but with conditions, restrictions, and even warnings attached. The following are some salient examples that are sufficient to prove that if Keren Kayemet had been involved in projects opposed to the spirit of the Torah — as was the case with Keren Hayesod — Rav Kook would not have agreed to support it either:

In a letter to the chairman of Keren Kayemet, Menahem Ussishkin, from February 4, 1927, concerning violations of Shabbat in the Borokhov neighborhood located on Keren Kayemet land (by the residents, not by Keren Kayemet itself), Rav Kook warned them "that if they do not take the necessary steps to correct these wrongdoings that have gone beyond all limits, I will be forced to publicize the matter in an open letter, loud and clearly, to the whole Jewish People."[11]

In a letter to Tnuva from March 2, 1932, that was sent following a report concerning ĥilul Shabbat on Kibbutz Mizra, Rav Kook announced that so long as the kibbutz members did not mend their ways, their milk would be considered as ĥalav akum (milked by a non-Jew) and Tnuva would be forbidden from using it.[12]

In a letter to Ussishkin from April 3, 1929, Rav Kook complained about the fact that Keren Kayemet had started to publish literary pamphlets, "which are not its subject matter. Money dedicated to the redemption of the Land was not for literary purposes. Moreover, the essence of this literature damages its image in public, spreading false views in direct opposition to the sanctity of our pure faith […] I hope that these few words will have the correct effect, and that the obstacle will be removed without delay, so that we will all together, as one, be able to carry out the sacred work of redeeming the Land with the help of Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael."[13]

The forgery in the 1926 public letter

 However, as has been said, because of the significant weight that Rav Kook's position bore, over the years many attempts were made by the supporters of Keren Hayesod to ascribe to him outright support of the fund. The most prominent case occurred in the winter of 1926 (about a year after the above-mentioned letter to the hasidic rebbes). Several months previously the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael entered a severe economic crisis which seriously hindered its development, causing unemployment of a third of the work force, a decrease in the number of immigrants, and a steady flow of emigrants from the country.[14] This crisis, considered the worst experienced by the yishuv during the British Mandate, was the first time that the impetus of the yishuv's development, which had been increasing since the end of the First World War, was brought to a standstill. Against the backdrop of this situation, the Zionist leadership initiated a "special aid project of Keren Hayesod for the benefit of the unemployed in Eretz Yisrael." Because of the severity of the situation, Rav Kook also volunteered to encourage contributions to improve the economic situation in Eretz Yisrael, and when R. Moshe Ostrovsky (Hameiri) left for Poland to help with the appeal, Rav Kook gave him a general letter of encouragement for the Jews in eastern Europe.[15] At the same time, on November 8, 1926, Rav Kook wrote a public letter calling for support of the Zionist leadership's initiative, in which he wrote, inter alia:

To our dear brothers, scattered throughout the Diaspora, whose hearts and souls yearn for the building of Zion and all its assemblies; beloved brethren! The hard times which our beloved yishuv in the Land of our fathers is experiencing, brings me to raise my voice with the call, "Help us, now." Our holy edifice, the national home for which the heart of every Jew holds great hopes, is now facing a temporary crisis which requires the help of brothers to their fellow sufferers in order to endure […] Therefore I am convinced that the great declaration which the Zionist leadership is proclaiming throughout the borders of Israel, to make every effort to come to the aid and relief of this crisis, will be heard with great attention; and that, besides all the frequent donations for all the general matters of holiness which our brothers wherever they live will give for the sake of Zion and Jerusalem, all the sacred institutions will raise their hands for the sake of God, His people, and His Land, to give willingly to the appeal to relieve the present crisis, until the required sum will be quickly collected.

Although the appeal was made through the organization of Keren Hayesod, Rav Kook avoided mentioning the name of the fund because of his principled refusal to publicize support for it (as he explained in the letter to the hasidic rebbes). The version quoted above is what was published in the newspapers of Eretz Yisrael, under the title "For the Relief of the Crisis."[16]However, amazingly, it becomes apparent that in the version published some weeks later in Warsaw's newspapers, the words "the Zionist leadership" were changed in favor of the words "the head office of Keren Hayesod," and accordingly, the words were presented as nothing less than "Rav Kook's public letter in favor of Keren Hayesod"![17]

Even if we didn't have any information other than the two versions of this public letter, there is no doubt that the authentic version is the one published by his acquaintances, the editors of Ha-Hed and Ha-Tor in Eretz Yisrael, close to, and seen by Rav Kook. In contrast, when members of Keren Hayesod circulated Rav Kook's public letter among Poland's newspapers, they were not concerned that the author would come across the version they had published in a remote location. They even had a clear interest to insert into Rav Kook's words a precedential reference to Keren Hayesod. Even if we only had before us the east-European version of the letter, we could determine that foreign hands had touched it. This is not only because of Rav Kook's words in his letter to the hasidic rebbes sent about a year earlier, but because of a letter that Rav Kook sent to the heads of Keren Hayesod a few weeks prior to writing the public letter. In this letter to Keren Hayesod he informs them in brief that he is prevented from cooperating with the management of the fund or even visiting its offices (!) until the list of demands that he presented them with, in the field of how they conduct religious affairs, would be met. The background to this letter is a request sent to Rav Kook on December 7, 1926, after the inauguration of Keren Hayesod's new building on the site of "the national institutions" in Jerusalem. The directors of the head office of Keren Hayesod wrote: "It would give us great joy, and would be a great honor if our master would be so good as to visit our office – the office of the global management of Keren Hayesod."[18] In reply to this request, Rav Kook wrote a letter – which is published here for the first time – to the heads of Keren Hayesod, (Arye) Leib Yaffe and Arthur Menaĥem Hentke:

8^th Tevet 5687 [December 13, 1926]

To the honorable sirs, Dr. Yaffe and A. Hentke,

I received your invitation to visit your esteemed office. I hereby inform you that I will be able to cooperate for the benefit of Keren Hayesod, and I will, bli neder, also visit Keren Hayesod's main office, after Keren Hayesod's management and the Zionist leadership will fulfill my minimal demands concerning religious issues in the kibbutzim and in education.

Yours, with all due respect …[19]

During the course of the years there were, nevertheless, several opportunities when Rav Kook came into contact with members of Keren Hayesod, mainly in connection with matters of budgets for religious needs.[20]However, as this letter illustrates, even such limited cooperation was dependent, from Rav Kook's point of view, on the demand to change the way the fund conducted its matters with respect to religion.[21] What were Rav Kook's exact demands of Keren Hayesod, in order for it to be considered as having "put things right" (as he wrote in his letter to the hasidic rebbes), and to benefit from his support and cooperation? We can clarify this from a document which is also being published here for the first time. This document, whose heading is "Rav Kook's answers" to Keren Hayesod, was apparently written after the previous letter, in reply to a question addressed to him by Keren Hayesod concerning his attitude towards them. It was probably written against the backdrop of rumors that Rav Kook forbade (!) support of Keren Hayesod.[22] We only have a copy of the document in our possession, but it is written in first person, meaning that Rav Kook wrote it himself, and the person who copied it apparently chose to copy just the body of the letter without the opening and end signature:

1.      I have never expressed any prohibition, God forbid, against Keren Hayesod. On the contrary – I am very displeased with those who do so.
2.      Concerning my attitude towards the Zionist funds: my reply was that I willingly support Keren Kayemet at every opportunity without any reservations. However, concerning Keren Hayesod, at the moment I am withholding my letter in its benefit until the Zionist management corrects major shortcomings that I demand be put right, as follows:
a.       That nowhere in Eretz Yisrael will education be without religious instruction, not just as literature, but as the sacred basis of Jewish faith.
b.      That all the general religious needs be immediately taken care of in every moshav and kibbutz. For example, shoĥet, synagogue, ritual bath, and where a rabbi is necessary – also a rabbi.
c.       That there will be no public profanation of that which is sacred in any of the places supported by Keren Hayesod, such as ĥilul Shabbat and ĥag in public.
d.      That the kitchens, at least the general ones, will be particular about kashrut.
e.       That all the details here which concern the residents of Keren Hayesod's locations, will be listed in the contract as matters hindering use of the property by the resident, and which will give him benefit of the land only on condition that he fulfills these basic principles.
And because I strongly hope that the management will finally obey these demands, I therefore am postponing my support of Keren Hayesod until they are fulfilled. I hope that my endeavors for the benefit of settling and building our Holy Land will then be complete.

It should be noted that these conditions are similar in essence to those that Rav Kook set with Keren Kayemet. However, the latter's dealings were with redeeming the Land, in contrast to Keren Hayesod where the areas referred to in Rav Kook's demands were at the center of its activity. Therefore, as far as the Keren Kayemet was concerned, Rav Kook did not give the fulfillment of his demands as a basic condition for his cooperation and call for support; but he certainly did so with regard to Keren Hayesod.[23]

Whatever the case may be, if R. Wasserman did indeed see the public letter of 1926, without doubt he saw the falsified version published in the Polish newspapers, and therefore he held on to the opinion that: "It is well known that he who heads [the Chief Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling on Jews to contribute to Keren Hayesod."[24]However, as has been clarified, these words have no basis.

The significance of supporting Keren Hayesod

As has been said Rav Kook was not prepared to support Keren Hayesod, which dealt in education and such matters "until the matter will … be put right, and at least a significant part" of the funds activities will be directed to settling the Land according to the Torah. The words "at least a significant part …" seem to give the impression that if a significant part of the fund's activity were directed to activity in the spirit of the Torah, then Rav Kook would give his support even if another part were still directed to secular education. However, in practice, there is no doubt that Rav Kook's demand was much stricter. In Keren Hayesod's regulations it was determined that only about 20% of its resources would be directed to education[25] (and only a certain amount of that budget would be allocated to "problematic" education) — and despite this fact Rav Kook refused to call for its support. It must be emphasized that this policy in Keren Hayesod's regulations was strictly applied. An inclusive summary of the fund's activity between the years 1921-1930, indicates that 61.4% of its resources were invested in aliya and settlement (aliya training, aid for refugees, agricultural and urban settlement, housing, trade, and industry), 19.6% in public and national services (security, health, administration), and only 19.0% in education and culture – from which a certain part was allocated for religious needs: education; salaries for rabbis, shoĥtim, and kashrut supervisors; maintenance of ritual baths, eruvim, and religious articles; aid for the settlements of Bnei Brak, Kfar Ĥasidim, etc.[26] In light of this data, it seems that R. Wasserman's claim against those who call for support of Keren Hayesod, and his defining them as "utterly wicked" people, is not essentially different from the parallel claim against those who demand the paying of required taxes to the State – a claim heard today only by extreme marginal groups within the Ĥaredi sector.

Indeed, not surprisingly, it transpires that there were in fact some well-known rabbis of that generation who did call to contribute to Keren Hayesod, despite the problematic issues of some of its activity.[27] Just several months before the publication of Rav Kook's afore-mentioned public letter, another declaration was published, explicitly calling for support of Keren Hayesod, signed by more than eighty rabbis from Poland and Russia. Among them were well-known personalities such as R. Ĥanokh Henikh Eigash, author of Marĥeshet; R. Meshulam Rothe; R. Reuven Katz, and more.[28]Moreover, in several locations, particularly in America, support of Keren Hayesod was considered as consensus among the rabbis,[29] and even Rav Kook's colleague in the Chief Rabbinate, R. Ya'akov Meir, called for support of Keren Hayesod.[30]Would R. Wasserman have defined all of these scores of rabbis as evil ones "who cause the public to sin on the most terrible level"?[31] Whatever the case may be, it transpires that it was specifically Rav Kook who stands out as being the most stringent among them, and he consistently agreed to publicize support only for Keren Hakayemet. In the light of all the data detailed here, one wonders whether R. Wasserman's extreme words to R. Dushinski[32] were only written in order to deter him from cooperating with the Chief Rabbinate (which he strongly opposed), and perhaps this is the reason that he avoided mentioning Rav Kook explicitly by name.[33]

The halakhic letter of 1928

The public letter of 1926 was indeed the only one in which Rav Kook's words were falsified in order to create support for Keren Hayesod. However, in the following years, too, attempts were made to present what he had written as an expression of direct support of Keren Hayesod. The element the two cases have in common is that they were both published far from Rav Kook's location. In 1928, an announcement from the "Secretariat for Propaganda among the Ĥaredim" was published in the Torah monthly journal Degel Yisrael, published in New York and edited by R. Ya'akov Iskolsky. This secretariat published a special letter from Rav Kook in Degel Yisrael, emphasizing that the letter had not yet been publicized anywhere else. According to the secretariat, the context in which the words were written was the following:

An occurrence in a town in Europe, where the community demanded that all its members contribute towards Keren Hayesod, and the opponents disputed this before the government, and took the matter to court. The judges demanded that the community leaders prove to them that the matter was done in accordance to Jewish law, and on the basis of the above responsum (of Rav Kook) the members of the community were acquitted.[34]

In other words, according to those who publicized the Rav Kook's letter, it was written in order to help the heads of one European community to force all its members to donate to Keren Hayesod. The problem is that examination of the letter (see below) raises different conclusions. Similar to what appears above (note 27) concerning the letter written by R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, here there is also no mention at all of Keren Hayesod. The explanations in the letter are not relevant to the majority of Keren Hayesod's projects, and the letter only deals with clarifying the general virtue of settling Eretz Yisrael and the obligation to support its inhabitants. Even the title prefacing the letter only talks about "one community that agreed to impose a tax on its members for the settlement and building of Eretz Yisrael," without mentioning that this was a tax specifically for Keren Hayesod. Towards the end of the letter it is mentioned only that "the Zionist leadership in Eretz Yisrael deals with many issues concerning settling the Land," without any specific reference to Keren Hayesod, even if the fund was the organization that managed the appeal for the Zionist Organization. Thus, we again find that whereas according to those that publicized the letter — the concerned parties — the letter constitutes declared support for Keren Hayesod, in Rav Kook's actual words there is no mention of that.

The letter, which as far as I know was never printed a second time, is brought here in full:

When I was asked whether a Jewish community can impose on an individual the obligation to give charity for maintaining the settlement of Eretz Yisrael, I hereby reply that there is no doubt in the matter, considering that the halakha is that one forces a person to give charity, and makes him pawn his property for that purpose even before Shabbat, as explained in Bava Batra 8b, and as Rambam wrote in Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 7:10: concerning someone who does not want to give charity, or who gives less than what is fitting for him, the court forces him until he gives the amount they estimated he should give, and one makes him pawn his property for charity even before Shabbat. The same is written in Shulĥan Arukh, Yore Dei'a, 248:1-2. If this is the case in all charities, all the more so is it the case concerning charity for strengthening Eretz Yisrael, for this is explicit in Sifrei, and quoted in Beit Yosef, Yore Dei'a,§251, that the poor of Eretz Yisrael have priority over the poor outside the Land. And because one forces a person to give charity for the poor outside the Land, it is clearly even more the case concerning charity for strengthening the Land and its poor. The obligation to settle in Eretz Yisrael is very great, as it says in the Talmud Ketubot 110b, and is brought by Rambam as a halakhic ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 5:12: A person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, and even in a town where the majority are idol worshippers, rather than live outside the Land, even in a town where the majority are Jews. In Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (mitzvah 4) Nachmanides wrote: that we were commanded to inhabit the Land; "and this is a positive mitzvah for all generations, and every one of us is obligated," and even during the period of exile, as is known from the Talmud in many places.A great Torah principle is that all Jews are responsible for one another. Therefore, those who are unable themselves to keep the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, are obligated to help and support those who live there, and it will be considered as though they themselves are living in Eretz Yisrael so long as they do not have the possibility of keeping this big mitzvah themselves. It is therefore obvious that any Jewish community can require an individual to give charity for the benefit of settling Eretz Yisrael and supporting its inhabitants; and G-d forbid that an individual will separate himself from the community. Someone who separates himself from the ways of the community is considered one of the worst types of sinners, as Rambam writes in Hilkhot Teshuva 3:11. Just as the community must guide the individuals towards all things good and beneficial, and any general mitzvah, thus must it ensure that no individual separates himself from the community concerning matters of charity in general, and all the more so concerning matters of charity relating to Eretz Yisrael and support of its inhabitants, as I have written. No one can deny that which is revealed to all, that the Zionist leadership in Eretz Yisrael deals with al lot of matters concerning settling Eretz Yisrael, hence it is clear that its income is included in the principle of charity for Eretz Yisrael.
And as a sign of truth and justice, I hereby sign … Avraham Yitzĥak HaKohen Kook

The joint declaration with Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer

Just as the public letter of 1926 (in the version published in Poland) quickly came to the notice of the zealots of Jerusalem, who rushed to claim that Rav Kook supports "a baseless fund," the same thing happened with the 1928 letter: following its publication under the above headline, the zealots rushed to upgrade their accusations and to claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may "force a person to give charity to Keren Hayesod" (see below).

This fact brings us to yet another claim, raised only recently, that Rav Kook did indeed sign on a declaration in support of Keren Hayesod. A few years ago, Professor Menaĥem Friedman wrote about an event that occurred in winter 1930, when the zealots of the Jerusalem faction of Agudath Israel, with Reb Amram Blau at their head, came out with a particularly sharp street poster against Rav Kook. The background to the attack was the joint declaration of Rav Kook, R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and R. Abba Yaakov Borokhov, that was published before the convening of the 17^th Zionist Congress in Basel, calling to the attendants of the convention and its supporters to exert their influence to prevent ĥilul Shabbat, etc; at the side of this request, writes Prof. Friedman, was a "call to donate to Keren Hayesod."[35]

However, in fact matters are not so clear at all. Prof. Friedman brings no support at all for his words, and the only source that he brings concerning the event is that same street poster that the zealots published. It seems that Prof. Friedman never actually saw the said declaration, but rather assumed its contents from the information that appears in parallel sources, such as the opposing street poster, in which there is the claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may "force people to give charity to Keren Hayesod," but of course that does not constitute an acceptable historical source.[36]

An addition to this affair appears in a manuscript of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, which was published several years ago. This is a draft of a public announcement from 1921, which shows that indeed there were those who understood that the signature on the declaration meant support of Keren Hayesod (and other such organizations) — but R. Meltzer clarifies that this was not the case:

Being that I signed on a call to the donors of the Zionist funds, demanding that they do not support with their money those who profane the Shabbat, and those who eat non-kosher food, I therefore declare that my opinion is like it always has been: that so long as schools in Eretz Yisrael that instill heretical ideas are supported by these funds, it is forbidden to support them or give them aid in any way whatsoever. Those who support and help them are destroying our holy Torah, and are ruining the yishuv. I added my signature only to ask those who support those funds that at least they should make every effort to influence those funds not to feed Jewish people in kitchens that provide non-kosher food, and not to support those that profane the Shabbat, etc.[37]

This clarification was apparently written after reactions of amazement among some of the Jerusalem public were voiced in the wake of the publication of the joint declaration of R. Meltzer, Rav Kook, and R. Borokhov. From R. Meltzer's words it becomes clear that the joint declaration was not a call to support Keren Hayesod, but a call to the supporters of the fund and to the attendants of the Zionist Congress that they should anyway insist that their money should not be used for unfitting purposes.[38]

Conclusion

Rav Kook's path was falsified many times, both during his lifetime and after his death, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. In what we have written here, it is proven beyond all doubt that R. Elĥanan Wasserman's claim that Rav Kook called for the support of Keren Hayesod — a claim through which he explained his opposition to cooperation between the Eidah Ĥareidit and the Chief Rabbinate — is based on a mistake. The historical truth is that Rav Kook, in his dealings with the institutions of the yishuv, more than once took a more aggressive and stringent stand than did other rabbis of his generation, as is expressed in the issue at hand.

---

[1]In light of this contrast, it is interesting that Rabbi Wasserman, as a youth, was privileged to learn from Rav Kook for a while. In 1890 Rabbi Wasserman's family moved to Bauska (Boisk), and five years later Rav Kook was appointed as rabbi of the town. At the time Rabbi Wasserman was a student in the Telz Yeshiva, and when he returned home during vacation, he would participate in the classes given by Rav Kook (See R. Ze'ev Arye Rabbiner, "Shalosh Kehilot Kodesh,"Yahadut Latvia: Sefer Zikaron [Tel Aviv, 1953], 268; Aharon Surasky, Ohr Elĥanan I [Jerusalem, 1978], 30).

[2]Kovetz Ma'amarim Ve-IgrotI (Jerusalem, 2001), 153; previously in Kuntres Be-Ein Ĥazon (Jerusalem, 1969), 92. Concerning R. Wasserman's dealings with the issues of the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, we bring the words of R. Ĥaim Ozer Grodzensky, R. Wasserman's brother-in-law, which he wrote less than two months later in a reply to R. Reuven Katz's complaint regarding the open letter published by R. Wasserman to Poalei Agudath Israel in Eretz Yisrael, calling on them not to accept help from Zionist organizations: "I, too, am surprised at what [R. Wasserman] saw that he publicized his personal opinion without consulting us, and I did not know of it. He also exaggerated. The matters of the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael cannot be compared to private matters in the Diaspora for several reasons, and certainly it is impossible to give a ruling on such a serious matter from afar without knowing the details…" (Aĥiezer – Kovetz Igrot [Bnei Brak, 1970], 1:299; see ibid., 200-1, a letter to Histadrut Pagi, where the words are repeated. For R. Wasserman's open letter and more material on this subject, see Kovetz Ma'amarim Ve-Igrot I, 133-152).

[3]This statement is based on the words of Rabeinu Yonah Gerondi (Sha'arei Teshuva, 3:148), and R. Wasserman's interpretation of them elsewhere ("Ikvete De-Meshiĥa, § 36, translated into Hebrew from the Yiddish by R. Moshe Schonfeld and printed as a pamphlet in 1942, and in Kovetz Ma'amarim [Jerusalem 1963], 127-28). However, it seems that there is an essential difference between the actual words of Rabeinu Yona and R. Wasserman's interpretation (compare with a parallel commentary of Rabeinu Yona to m. Avot 4:6, and the way his words were interpreted by Rashbatz, "Magen Avot" 4:8, and R. Yisrael Elnekave, Menorat Ha-Ma'or, Enlau edition, 310-11), and let this suffice. For an example of a diametrically opposed position, see: R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen, Pri Tzadik, Vayikra (Lublin 1922), 221.

[4] See R. Yitzchak Dadon, Imrei Shefer (Jerusalem, 2008), 273.

[5]"Li-Shelosha be-Elul" (Jerusalem, 1938) §24(p.22). See also Siĥot Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehuda – Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 2005), 84. On the other hand, R. Shmuel HaKohen Weingarten, who also heard from Rav Tzvi Yehuda about his father's refusal to call for support of Keren Hayesod, pointed out an item in the newspaper Dos Idishe Licht (May 23, 1924), according to which Rav Kook refused to support a proposal raised at the American Union of Rabbis to boycott Keren Hayesod (Halikhot 33 [Tel Aviv, Tishrei 1966], 27). Compare Rav Kook's reasons for not waging a public war against the Gymnasia Ha-Ivrit high school, despite his intense opposition to the school (Igrot Ha-Re'iya II, 160-61).

[6] The existence of false rumors concerning Rav Kook was mentioned already in 1921 by the Gerrer Rebbe, R. Avraham Mordechai Alter, in his well-known letter written on the boat: "Outside Eretz Yisrael what is thought and imagined is different from the reality. For according to the information heard, the Gaon Rav Kook was considered to be an enlightened rabbi who ran after bribes. He was attacked with excommunication and curses. Even the newspapers Yud and Ha-Derekhsometimes published these one-sided reports. But this is not the correct way of behavior – to listen to one side, no matter who it is..." (Osef Mikhtavim U-Devarim [Warsaw, 1937], 68). R. Moshe Tzvi Neriya's description is typical: "…these news items even made their way into sealed Russia. They said: "He's close to the high echelons, and he has an official position. This opinion excluded him from the usual description of a great Rav. And then again it was said, 'He's close to the Zionists,' and he was imagined to be an 'enlightened' rabbi […] however, all those description and imaginations completely melted away on seeing him." (Likutei Ha-Re'iya [Kefar Haro'eh, 1991], 1:13-14). An amazingly similar description was written by R. Yitzchak Gerstenkorn, founder of Bnei Brak: "I imagined Rav Kook, of blessed memory, as a modern rabbi […] and how amazed I was, on my first visit to Rav Kook, when I saw before me a sacred, pious person, few of whom live in our generation…" (Zikhronotai al Bnei Brak I [Jerusalem, 1942], 74).

[7] See Igrot la-Re'iya, 303-306. See also his 1923 declaration in support of Keren Kayemet in which he emphasizes that "it is intended only for redemption of the Land" (Raz, Malakhim ki-Venei Adam [Jerusalem, 1994], 238) — meaning, not for educational and other such purposes as those of Keren Hayesod. In this connection it should be noted that there was sometimes tension between Keren Kayemet and Keren Hayesod because of the impression created that the latter also dealt in redeeming lands (see Protokolim shel Yeshivot Ha-Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, 4:109, 498/33 — protocols from March 31 and July 7, 1922. See also the joint agreement of the two funds, Ha-Olam 10:14 [January 27, 1921], 16). In order to illustrate the Keren Kayemet's well-established status among substantial sections of the rabbinical world, we will refer to the 32^nd annual convention of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, 1937. In the second section of the convention's resolutions it states: "The Union of Rabbis imposes a sacred debt on all Orthodox Jews who will lend generous support to Keren Kayemet Leyisrael." It should be noted that the majority of America's great rabbis of the time participated in this convention (see Ha-Yehudi2:10 [New York, Iyar 1927], 195. A similar resolution was made in previous conventions; see, for example, HaPardes 5:3 [Sivan 1931], p. 31, § 7; HaPardes 6:3 [Sivan 1932], p. 25, § 5-8).

[8] This draft is quoted by R. Yaakov Filber, Kokhav Ohr (Jerusalem, 1993), 21-22 (Slight changes in style have been made according to a photocopy in my possession). Negatives statements about Keren Hayesod were omitted from the response that was actually sent, and only the positive statements about Keren Kayemet were included. R. Filber posits that, based on the letter that Rav Kook sent to his son, Rav Z. Y. Kook, about a week later (ibid.), the reason for the omission was Rav Kook's concern that the negative sentences might be used as a means to attack the Zionist funds in general. In my opinion, taking into account Rav Kook's style, it is unlikely that he had such a concern, but rather the omission is probably connected to his wish not to take part in a public boycott of Keren Hayesod (see above, note 5).

[9] See R. Neriya Goutel, "Hilkhot Ve-Halikhot Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael Ve-Haĥug Ha-Hityashvuti Be-Ma'arekhet Hitkatvuyotav shel Ha-Rav Kook,"Sinai 121 (1998), 103-115; Ĥaim Peles, "Teguvotav shel Ha-Rav A. Y. Kook al Ĥilulei Ha-Shabat al Admat Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael,"Sinai 115 (1995), 180-186; see also Rav Kook, Ĥazon Ha-Geula (Jerusalem, 1937), 220-230; ibid., 33-34, et seq. (I have expanded on the topic of Rav Kook's relationship with the Keren Kayemet elsewhere).

[10] In a letter from winter 1924 to R. Dov Arye Leventhal of the Union of Rabbis, about his trip to America, Rav Kook writes that one of the questions that his trip depends upon is "whether there will not be a tendency to confuse his support for this [the Union of Rabbis] with Keren Hayesod" (Igrot Ha-Re'iyaIV (Jerusalem 1984), 177. In a letter from winter 1925 to R. Akiva Glasner of Klausenburg, he calls on him to make use of "the Zionist funds of Keren Hayesod" for purposes such as sheĥita and ritual baths in a settlement of Transylvanian immigrants in Eretz Yisrael. He comments that when all is said and done, in most places the donors are religious Jews; but of course he should ensure that everything is done according to the Torah (ibid., 216).

[11]Sinai115 (1995), 181; the full letter was printed in Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh(ed. R. David Avraham Mandelbaum, New York, 2003), 588. Here, as in the third example (see below), Rav Kook hints that if they do not take the necessary steps, he will stop supporting the Keren Kayemet, and will even publicize the matter.

[12]Sinai115 (1995), 183

[13] R. Moshe Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re'iya I (Rishon Lezion, 2002), 487.

[14] See inter al.: Dan Giladi, Ha-Yishuv Bi-Tekufat Ha-Aliya Ha-Revi'it: Beĥina Kalkalit U-Politit(Tel Aviv, 1973), 171-192. The cause of the crisis was twofold: on the one hand, the especially large amount of new immigrants in the two years prior to the crisis, for which the economy was unprepared; on the other hand, the severe limitations that the Polish government enforced on taking money out of the country (in an attempt to fight the hyperinflation of the value of the zloty), which harmed both the donations to Eretz Yisrael, and the capability of the new immigrants to bring their possessions with them to Eretz Yisrael.

[15] For details of R. Ostrovsky's trip see Ha-Zefira 66:30 (February 4, 1927), 8. For the blessings for success that he received from R. Yeĥiel Moshe Segalovitz, head of the Mława rabbinical court, see ibid. 66:34 (February 9, 1927), 3. Rav Kook's letter to Polish Jewry was published in Ha-Olam on March 4, 1927, and again in Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re'iya II (1998 edition), 1075.

[16] See the monthly Ha-Hed, Kislev 1926, p.12, and the weekly Ha-Tor 7:16 (November 19, 1926), front page. This version was printed later in Ĥazon Ha-Geula, 180. The version quoted here is based on minor corrections of mistakes that appeared in one of the sources. In the description attached to the public letter in Ha-Hed the following was written: "In honor of Keren Hayesod's special aid program for the benefit of the unemployed in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Kook published a special public letter…."

[17]Ha-Zefira65:50 (Warsaw, November 29, 1926), 3. In the description attached to the public letter it said: "On 2 Kislev [November 8, 1926), the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Rav A.Y. Ha-Kohen Kook sent the following public letter to the head office of Keren Hayesod…." A few days later the letter was also published in Ha-Olam 14:50 (London, December 3, 1926), 944, with the same headline and description as in Ha-Zefira, but without the insertion of "Keren Hayesod" in the body of the letter; see also Ha-Olam14:48 (December 19), 906, where it was reported that "Rav Kook published a public letter to world Jewry to aid Keren Hayesod, thereby easing the crisis in Eretz Yisrael."

[18] Central Zionist Archives, KH4\21036. As is explained in this file, Rav Kook's colleague, R. Y. Meir, visited the offices of Keren Hayesod.

[19] From a copy of the letter in the possession of R. Ze'ev Neuman, to whom I am most grateful. It should be noted that Leib Yaffe was a relative of Rav Kook: his paternal grandfather, R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe, was Rav Kook's paternal grandmother's brother. Nevertheless, at the opening of the letter, Rav Kook does not show any family sentiment, but starts with a completely neutral tone.

[20] About two years before the above letter, in 1925, Rav Kook, together with other rabbis, participated in a meeting with Keren Hayesod where sums allocated for religious needs, and other allocation options, were decided upon (Yehoshua Radler-Feldman [R. Binyamin], Otzar Ha-aretz [Jerusalem, 1926], 72-73; see also note 10 above).

[21] The reader should note the letter of both the chief rabbis from March 27, 1927 – about two months after the above letter – which was sent, among others, to the secretary of Keren Hayesod, Mordechai Helfman, with the demand to prevent the profanation of Shabbat and kashrut in settlements located on the land of Keren Kayemet, or that are supported by Keren Hayesod. In his reply from March 30 (quoted in Motti Ze'ira, Keru'im Anu [Jerusalem, 2002], 172), Helfman justified himself saying: "The management of Keren Hayesod is only a mechanism for collecting money […] We are, of course, ready to help in [attempting to] have moral influence, and we hereby promise his honor, that we will use our influence at every opportunity to emphasize that which is wrong."

[22] The document can be found in the Central Zionist Archive KH1/220/2. I am grateful to Mr. Yitzĥak Dadon, who made me aware of the document's existence and gave me a photocopy. Most of the demands in this document were repeated, with different emphases, in a declaration publicized by Rav Kook in the spring of 1931 (see note 37 below).

[23] Even though Rav Kook repeated in this letter that he was not prohibiting support of Keren Hayesod, later, when in 1932 the Jewish Agency did not fulfill its promise to transfer an allocated sum for religious matters, Rav Kook protested the matter in a sharp letter in which he warned that if at least part of the promised sum was not transferred, he would be forced to turn to the rabbis in America and to members of Mizrachi in Poland, with the demand to prevent support of the Keren Hayesod appeal (letter from April 6, 1932, Central Zionist Archive S25\5894-419).

[24] Information about Rav Kook's supposed support of Keren Hayesod, based on the east-European version of the public letter, quickly reached Rav Kook's opponents in Eretz Yisrael and even in America. In a letter from December 29, 1926, Meir Heller-Semnitzer, one of the most extreme zealots in Jerusalem (around whom, that same summer, a major scandal erupted, concerning a harsh declaration that he published against the Gerrer Rebbe and Rav Kook), informed Reb Zvi Hirsch Friedman of New York (a distinguished zealot himself who, a year previously, had been expelled from the Union of Rabbis in America because of attacks against Rav Kook that he had published in one of his books), that Rav Kook issued a proclamation calling for support of "the baseless fund" [play on words: yesod means base]. See Friedman, Zvi Ĥemed– Mishpati im Dayanei Medinat Yisrael (Brooklyn, 1960), 67.

[25] As R. Y. Y. Trunk pointed out already in 1921 (see note 27 below).

[26] A. Elitzur, "Keren Hayesod Be-mivĥan Ha-zeman" in Luaĥ Yerushalayim – 5706 (Jerusalem, 1945), 259-268; see also Otzar Ha-aretz, 70-76.

[27] In this connection it is customary to mention R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, author of Ohr Same'aĥ, who acceded to the request of an emissary of the World Zionist Organization in preparation for the appeal of Keren Hayesod in Latvia, and wrote his famous letter calling for support of the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael (printed in Ha-Tor, 3, 1922, and also in R. Ze'ev Arye Rabiner, Rabeinu MeirSame'aĥ Kohen [Tel Aviv, 1967], 163-165, et al.). However, even though the historical context involves the Keren Hayesod, the letter itself deals with general support of settling Eretz Yisrael, and contains no explicit mention of Keren Hayesod or any other Zionist organization. Hence it is difficult to see in the letter a ruling concerning the fundamental question of whether to support Keren Hayesod despite the fact that part of its budget goes towards secular education. The same applies to a similar letter written in the same year and in the same connection by R. Eliezer Dan Yiĥye of Lucyn (See Otzar Ha-aretz, 84-86). In contrast, R. Yitzĥak Yehuda Trunk of Kotnya, the grandson of the author of Yeshu'ot Malko and one of the rabbis of the Mizrachi movement in Poland, wrote a detailed letter in the same year, explicitly calling for support of Keren Hayesod. He wrote at length rejecting the arguments against contributing to the fund (See Sinai 85 [Nisan-Elul 1979], 95-96). See also in the following footnotes.

[28] See Otzar Ha-aretz, 78-82. It should be added that the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (later the Rishon le-Tziyon), R. Ben-Tziyon Ĥai Uziel, participated, himself, in the activity of Keren Hayesod (see his books, Mikhmanei Uziel IV (Jerusalem, 2007) 31-32, 283-284, and in vol. VI, 297-299, et al.), as did R. Ostrovsky (as mentioned above), and others.

[29] In an issue ofHa-Olam (18:46 [London, November 11, 1930], 911) in honor of Keren Hayesod's tenth anniversary, "the declaration of Eretz Yisrael's rabbis concerning Keren Hayesod" from September 1930, was published. Hundreds of rabbis signed the declaration, the majority from America, and others from Eretz Yisrael, Europe, and Eastern countries. The declaration included an explicit call to strengthen Keren Hayesod, "which for the last ten years has borne on its shoulders the elevated task of building our sacred inheritance, and faithfully supporting all projects that bring us close to that great aim." It seems that there is not one well-known rabbi who was active in the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada who did not sign this declaration: R. Yehuda Leib Graubart, R. Elazar Preil, R. Ĥaim Fischel Epstein, R. Yosef Kanowitz, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R. Eliezer Silver, R. Ze'ev Wolf Leiter, R. Ĥaim Yitzĥak Bloch, R. Yehuda Leib Salzer, etc., etc. (nevertheless, in light of the scope and rare variety of the signatories, one wonders whether this was a declaration approved by majority vote at the conference of the Union of Rabbis, such that the weight of the opponents was not reflected, and therefore the names of all the Union's members were given as signatories).

[30] See Otzar Ha-aretz, 77, his letter from December 8, 1925 calling for support of Keren Hayesod. See note 18, and more below.

[31] A most interesting fact in this connection is that R. Wasserman's relative by marriage from 1929 (the father-in-law of his son R. Elazar Simĥa), R. Meir Abowitz, head of the rabbinical court of Novardok and author of Pnei Meir on Talmud Yerushalmi, not only was an avowed member of the Mizrachi movement, and in 1923 even signed a call to join the movement (see Encyclopedia of Religious Zionism I [Jerusalem, 1958], columns 1-2), but also was one of the signatories on the aforementioned declaration in favor of Keren Hayesod! (Otzar Ha-aretz, 81). The fact that R. Wasserman was involved in R. Abowitz's younger daughter's marriage, is testimony to the good relationship between the families (see R. Wasserman's daughter-in-law's testimony in the photocopied edition of Pnei Meir on the tractate Shabbat [USA, 1944], at the end of the introduction. R. Abowitz's letters to his son-in-law are published at the end of R. Wasserman's Kovetz Shiurim II [Tel Aviv, 1989], 117-119).

[32] It is worthwhile comparing these words with R. Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld's moderate language in a letter to his brother written in 1921, in which he gives the benefit of the doubt to the donors of Keren Hayesod: "Those naïve ones, who contribute to Keren Hayesod out of pure love in order to aid in the establishment of the settlement in our holy Land, certainly have a mitzvah. I do not know to what purpose they will actually put the money of Keren Hayesod, but if it is given into faithful hands, who will use it honestly for settling the Land, this is anyway a big mitzvah. However, as has been said, it must be in such hands that will use it for building and not for destruction […] 'and because of our sins we were exiled from our Land'" (translated from Yiddish, S.Z. Zonnenfeld, Ha-ish al Ha-ĥoma III [Jerusalem, 1975], 436).

[33] Although R. Ya'akov Meir, who explicitly supported Keren Hayesod, was also one " who heads the above [i.e. the Chief Rabbinate]," nevertheless, R. Wasserman's words are taken to be addressed specifically to Rav Kook. On the other hand, it is interesting that in a letter that R. Wasserman wrote to his brother on July 30, 1935, the following sentence appears: "What is Rav Kook's malady, and how is he feeling now?" (Kovetz Ma'amarim Ve-igrot II, 124).

[34]Degel Yisrael 2:11 (New York, December 1928), 12-13 (the emphasis is mine). The date of the secretariat's letter is April 26, 1928.

[35] Friedman, "Pashkevilim U-moda'ot kir Ba-ĥevra Ha-Ĥareidit," in Pashkevilim(Tel Aviv, 2005), 20. See also his book Ĥevra Va-dat (Jerusalem, 1978), 337.

[36] In the same year, October 1930, in an issue devoted to the tenth anniversary of Keren Hayesod, a declaration from Rav Kook was printed under the heading "Mi-ma'amakei Ha-kodesh," in which a process of awakening in the country among the people and the new yishuv is described, together with a call to base activities on sanctity and to unite (Ha-Olam 18:45 [November 2, 1930], 900). Here, too, there is no explicit mention of Keren Hayesod or any other organization, even though explicit calls by other personalities for support of the fund were published close to his declaration (See also an additional article by Rav Kook, (Ha-Olam 18:47 [November 18, 1930], 926).

[37]Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh, 624. The date of R. Meltzer's signature on the declaration is February 18, 1921. He writes using the plural form: "schools … are supported by these funds," but in fact only Keren Hayesod referred funds to educational institutions, such that his main opposition was actually directed against it in particular, and not against Keren Hakayemet (see next note). For the moment I have been unable to locate the call mentioned in his words, which Prof. Friedman dealt with, however it is probably a very similar declaration to the one published in Ha-Hed, April 1931 (and again in Otzarot Ha-Re'iya II, 426), in which Rav Kook calls, in preparation for the "coming Zionist Congress" to present a series of demands in the field of religion, which have to come together with "material fundraising" and aid to build up the country. It is superfluous to note that there is no mention of Keren Hayesod in the declaration, as well as to no other official institution.

[38] For comparison, see a similar public letter that the three rabbis, Rav Kook, R. Meltzer, and R. Borokhov, together with R. Yaakov Meir, published in 1929, calling to the heads of the Zionist organizations "to immediately send a last warning to the kibbutzim and moshavot supported by you, that if they do not stop profaning our religion, and everything sacred, you will stop your support of them altogether. If our words are not obeyed by you, we will unfortunately be forced to wage a defensive war against these destroyers of our People and our Land […] even though this will harm the funds which support the new yishuv"(printed in Ha-Tor 9:37 [August 9, 1929], and again in Keruzei Ha-Re'iya [Jerusalem, 2000], 90) 

New book by Gabriel Wasserman on Karaite Judaism

September 26, 2016, 1:31 pm

≫ Next: The American Yekkes

≪ Previous: Rav Kook's Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

$

0

0

Royal Attire: On Karaite and Rabbanite Beliefs by Hakham Mordecai ben Nisan

The Karaites are a Jewish group who have been important for centuries of Jewish history, wrote many writings, and are a still extant minority today. Yet most people never get to hear much about them, especially not in their own words. When people in a typical rabbinic beth midrash encounter them, it is often in statements such as that of the Mishna Berura (27:33), that wearing tefillin down on the forehead, rather than further up on the head, is a Karaite practice. In fact, this statement is completely untrue, for Karaites do not wear tefillin at all, but rather understand Deuteronomy 6:8 and the other tefillin verses metaphorically, as meaning to constantly remember the Torah. 

This book offers a rare opportunity for English-language readers to hear a Karaite sage's own explanation of the differences between Karaite and Rabbanite (Talmudic) Judaism. (For example, see pp. 96 ff. for a discussion of the metaphorical understanding of the tefillin verse.) 

The Hebrew text is of a letter by the Karaite sage R' Mordecai ben Nisan of 18th-century Troki, Lithuania, to King Charles of Sweden, explaining differences between Karaite and Rabbanite Judaism: a narrative of how the two groups came to be, a selection of over forty specific commandments about which the groups disagree, and theological/philosophical differences. 

Dr. Gabriel Wasserman, a contributor to the Seforim Blog, did a lovely job of adding nikkud, translating, and annotating. His notes unpack the text for modern readers, and provide quotations of earlier texts, both Karaite and Rabbanite, to show a broader picture. This book will be excellent reading for anyone who wants to learn, or teach a class, about varieties of Judaism and "Judaisms". 

This book is the first work of this size to be published by the recently-started Karaite Press. They have done a beautiful job of lining up the Hebrew and English, and adding an introduction at the beginning and several indices at the end of the volume. Tomer Mangoubi has helped the author supplement the notes with additional material from other Karaite sources. In all, it is a fine and interesting volume, and we look forward to the future success of the Karaite Press in putting out further Karaite texts, to make them accessible to a broader public. 

This book may be ordered here:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0996965726/

Here are several sample pages:

The American Yekkes

September 27, 2016, 7:06 pm

≫ Next: The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

≪ Previous: New book by Gabriel Wasserman on Karaite Judaism

$

0

0

The American Yekkes[1]

By Yisrael Kashkin

As I march around town grasping my Hirsch Siddur, I sometimes am asked, “Are you a Yekke?” to which I answer, “I am an American Yekke.”[2]  This statement draws puzzled looks as if I had said that I were an Algonquin Italian. “America is a Germanic country and my family has lived here for a century,” I say, attempting to explain but provoking usually even more puzzlement. For those who want to hear more, I present my case. 

Consider the country's language. English is technically a Western Germanic tongue. It started when Germanic tribes settled in Britain in the fifth century, displacing Common Brittonic, a native Celtic language, and Latin, which had been introduced by the Romans. The English that was formed then was called Old English. As Wikipedia describes it, “Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or North Sea Germanic dialects originally spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. As the Anglo-Saxons became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain...”[3] Frisia is a coastal region along the Southeastern corner of the North Sea which today sits mostly in the Netherlands. 

The Frisian languages are the closest to English. Wikipedia explains: 

The Frisian languages are a closely related group of Germanic languages, spoken by about 500,000 Frisian people, who live on the southern fringes of the North Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. The Frisian dialects are the closest living languages to English, after Scots.[4]

The language of Scots mentioned here is also a Frisian tongue brought by the Germanic immigrants and not Scottish Gaelic, a Celtic language that people generally associate with Scotland.[5] 

Old English was followed by Middle English which started in the 11th century after the Norman Conquest and continued unto the late 15th century. While Modern English contains vocabulary from several languages, the second most prominent being French which arrived with the Normans, the basic vocabulary and grammar of English is Germanic. Of the 100 most commonly used English words, 97% are Germanic; of the 1000 most commonly used English words, 57% are Germanic.[6]

Look at this example. Here's one way to say, “Hello, my name is Harold” in several languages, the first four being Germanic. 

Dutch: Hallo mijn naam is Harold. 

German: Halo mein numen ist Harold. 

Swedish: Hej, mitt namn är Harold 

English: Hello, my name is Harold. 

French: Je m'appelle Harold. 

Italian: Ciao, mi chiamo Harold. 

Latin: Salve nomen meum HOROLD. 

Russian: привет меня зовут Гарольд. 

Chinese: 你好，我的名字是哈羅德 

See what I mean? 

As mentioned, those Germanic tribes went by the names Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. While most people associate the term Anglo-Saxon with the American aristocracy and the British, the term actually finds its origins in those Germanic settlers of Britain as does the name of the language called English, which derives from the Angles specifically. The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up as follows: 

Anglo-Saxon, term used historically to describe any member of the Germanic peoples who, from the 5th century ce to the time of the Norman Conquest (1066), inhabited and ruled territories that are today part of England. According to the Venerable Bede, the Anglo-Saxons were the descendants of three different Germanic peoples—the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—who originally migrated from northern Germany to the island of Britain in the 5th century at the invitation of Vortigern, king of the Britons, to defend his kingdom against Pictish and Irish invaders.[7] 

The Venerable Bede was an 8th century English monk and historian whose book The Ecclesiastical History of the English People earned him the title "The Father of English History." The name Bede is actually Anglo-Saxon, ie. Germanic, being built on the root bēodan or to bid or command.[8]  Thus, the father of English history has a Germanic Anglo-Saxon name. 

It is possible that a high percentage of the inhabitants of 5th century Britain were not only influenced by the Germanic invaders but were actually comprised largely of those Germanic invaders and their descendants. We see this in the spread of the Frisian-Germanic language throughout Britain. In “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” Nicholas Ostler traces the decline of Latin during the collapse of the Roman Empire against invading armies. Slavic languages took hold in Eastern Europe but Germanic-Frisian held sway in Britain. 

Perhaps something similar happened at the opposite end of the Roman dominions, for Britain too lost its Latin in the face of invasions in this period. It also lost its British. This event of language replacement, which is also the origin of the English language, was unparalleled in its age – the one and only time that Germanic conquerors were able to hold on to their own language.[9] 

Ostler cites a theory by researcher David Keys that the ravages of the bubonic plague facilitated the spread of the Frisian Germanic dialect as it wiped out a high percentage of the Britons who, unlike the Saxons, maintained trade routes with the Roman Empire, from which the plague entered the island. A Germanic language took hold because a large percentage of the populace was actually Germanic. 

Genetic studies support the theory. One study at the University College of London tracked a chromosome that is found in nearly all Danish and North German men to about half of British men.[10] It is not found in Welsh men of Western England where the Angles and Saxons did not invade. 

While anthropologists debate the percentages of the British populace that trace to the AngloSaxons, the sociological discussion is more relevant to the thesis. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons ruled the British Isles for centuries, and rulers tend to dictate cultural norms. The Wikipedia entry on the Britons sums up their demise with the pithy words: “After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the population was either subsumed into Anglo-Saxon culture, becoming "English"; retreated; or persisted in the Celtic fringe areas of Wales, Cornwall and southern Scotland, with some emigrating to Brittany.”[11] The point here is that the nationality called English is built on Anglo-Saxon or old Germanic culture. 

And again, pithily, Wikipedia sums up the entire cultural transformation of Britain under the Germanic invasion: 

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the term traditionally used to describe the process by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the island in the early 5th century. The traditional view of the process has assumed the large-scale migration of several Germanic peoples, later collectively referred to as Anglo-Saxons, from the western coasts of Europe prior to the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that came to dominate most of what is now England and lowland Scotland.[12] 

A connection between the aristocracies of Germany proper and England has endured to modern times. British Kings George I and II were born in Germany, spoke German, and belonged to the House of Hanover.13 Queen Victoria’s mother was born in Germany, and Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, also was born in Germany. Their son King Edward VII, was an uncle of Kaiser Wilhem II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia. Mary, the Queen consort of King George V, was a princess of Teck, a German aristocratic line. The present British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, inherited the throne from Edward VII’s grandson George VI. Thus, she too is part German as are the princes Charles and William, the current heirs to the throne. 

It should be no surprise that the British and other Germanic peoples have much in common. One sees it in their orderliness, rationalist mindset, industriousness, and emotional reserve. Similar too is the Anglo aristocracy that set up the USA, laid down its primary culture, and arguably continues to run the place or did so through the 1950s. The educated American reader certainly needs no overview of the British roots of the USA which started as a British colony. The connection is so strong that the term WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is generally used by Americans to designate a type of American even though, as I have shown, it traces back to the Germanic English and their German ancestors. While the USA is composed today of many ethnic groups, it is governed mostly in an AngloGermanic style, ie. rule-based and organized. 

So there's the Germanic-English connection and its role in the founding of America. What about the American people? There we have an even more recent linkage via 19th century immigration. German Americans, some forty-nine million strong, are the largest ancestral group in the country.[14] By contrast, Irish Americans number thirty-five million and Italian Americans seventeen million. The 2010 census reports the top five as follows:

1      German      49,206,934      17.1% 

2      African      45,284,752      14.6% 

3      Irish      35,523,082       11.6%

4      Mexican      31,789,483      10.9% 

5      English      26,923,091      9.0% 

Incredibly, there are nearly twice as many Americans of German ancestry as English.[15] In 1990, fiftyeight million Americans reported German ancestry, constituting 23% of the entire country.[16] Between 1850 and 1970, German was the second most widely spoken language in the United States, after English.[17]

Germans immigrated in the greatest concentrations to the Midwest where the state legislatures of several of the North-Central states promoted their immigration with funding and support.[18] The area between Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and St. Louis was known as the German triangle.[19] By 1900, more than 40% of the major cities of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati were German American.[20] However, they landed also in large numbers in New York and Pennsylvania and went all the way to the West Coast. In 1790, a third of the residents of Pennsylvania were German immigrants.[21] The following map shows plurality ancestry, ie the largest groups of national origins, in each state in 2010: 

Plurality ancestry in each state.[22]

More states have a plurality ancestry of German than any other nationality, three times the number of the next highest group.[23] Moreover, significant German immigration started in the 1670s and continued in large numbers throughout the 19th century, whereas most of the other ancestral groups of significant numbers arrived much later into a more established culture into which they strove mostly to conform.[24] Africans, whose numbers come closest to the Germans, also arrived early but were not in a position to shape the national culture.[25] 

Now, the word German and any word that contains it such as Germanic are problematic for many Jews, particularly those who were most directly affected by the Holocaust. This is understandable. However, as we have shown, the term Germanic is not limited to Germany proper. Germanic languages are spoken in such places as Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, culturally similar countries from a global perspective, and sources of immigration to the USA, particularly the Midwest. All are considered Germanic peoples.[26] Switzerland and Belgium too are largely Germanic. While technically, English and German belong to the West German family of languages along with Dutch and Afrikaans, North Germanic languages include Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese, which is spoken in the islands off the coast of Norway.[27] The adjective Germanic describes not just the culture of Germany but that of Northern Europe including large parts of Holland, Scandinavia, England, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. The Danes who are famous for protecting Jews during World War II are Germanic, as were the Dutch business associates of Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s father, who assisted her family as they hid in the attic, as was the Swede Raoul Wallenberg, who, by the way, studied in the American Middle West, at the University of Michigan, before he risked (and likely lost) his life saving Jews during the Holocaust. 

Accordingly, England, Germany, and the United States are not culturally identical. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons merged with the Britons and Pics of the British Isles. The British colonialists cohabited the New World with French settlers, Native Americans, Africans, Dutch, Irish, and an idiosyncratic group of Germans who came to the New World in search of religious freedom. As the USA formed and evolved millions of immigrants from all over the planet joined them. Germans are more intense than the other two groups. The British have the best sense of humor. Americans are the least formal of the three. Additionally, Americans are the least class conscious, have by far the best record regarding treatment of the Jews and religious freedom in general, and lack the ethic of blind obedience to authority that once characterized the Germans and enabled the Holocaust. In fact, the phrase “question authority” originated in the USA during the sixties movement and is arguably traceable to American sensibilities in general. Nobody knows what the future holds, but as I write, America, though Germanic, is not Germany, even as it picked up many traits from German immigrants. The same applies to England. But all three societies start to look quite similar when you compare them to Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Turkey, India, China, Nigeria, or the Arab countries. 

Even though my great-grandparents, who I never met, lived their lives in shtetls in the Ukraine, I am more Western and Germanic in style than Eastern European. Many Jewish Americans of Eastern European extraction can claim the same since peak immigration occurred at the turn of the last century. In those days, immigrants were encouraged to Americanize. The situation might be somewhat different for the people who attended yeshivos in New York City and lived in enclaves there, but for those who lived “out of town”, moved to the suburbs, or attended public school, the culture could be quite distinct from that of Eastern Europe. In American public schools until very recently, literature classes consisted of British and American authors and history classes British and American leaders, the latter being of Anglo descent. 

Granted, America has many sub-cultures, some not Anglo at all. You can visit neighborhoods in Metropolitan New York City such as Spanish Harlem and Chinatown in Manhattan or Little India in Jersey City and experience the difference. However, many Jewish Americans were raised in the suburbs, and their culture was defined by the public education system which took its cues from the universities which themselves are Anglo-Saxon in style, at least they used to be. Consider the archetypal professor in a tweed jacket with elbow patches ‒ the British gentleman. So, too, are most corporations Anglo-Germanic in style with their command and control organizational structure. 

The German influence is seen from coast to coast. Some people argue that the whole notion of a public education, funded and administered by the government, comes from the Germans.[28] Elsewhere, schooling was a private matter. This may be one reason that the Midwest developed such strong public schools, as German American writer Kurt Vonnegut often noted[29], and such strong state universities. In the Northeast, private colleges are more prominent. The concept of kindergarten comes from Germany.[30] The concept of the research university, used by many of America’s most prominent institutions, comes from Germany, as does the practice of faculty following their interests and students choosing their courses – the model used in most colleges today.[31] The old British model called for a rigid curriculum. The prizing of home ownership, which is a strong American value, was common among German immigrants. In the words of La Vern J. Rippley, “There was a low rate of tenancy among early German immigrants, who purchased homes as early as possible. German Americans have traditionally placed a high value upon home ownership and prefer those made of brick.”[32] Not surprisingly, home ownership is highest in the Midwest.[33] And let us not fail to mention hamburgers with pickles and frankfurters with sauerkraut, German imports, named for German cities but as American as the flag. Few Americans have 4th of July picnics or any picnics without them. 

Even socially, America resembles Germany. I recall as a youth visiting Europe and noting the contrasting styles of the people in various societies, particularly in comparison to Americans. As I entered each new country, I felt as if I were meeting entire new breeds of people. For example, the English were more classy (more than me) and sticklers about social propriety. They had complex rules about social interactions that I had never heard before, when to call, when not to call, how long a visit should be, what topics to discuss and not to discuss. The French were more cultured and had rules about food, dining, and clothing, rules that I had never heard before. I was impressed by aspects of both groups but felt like an outsider. However, with the Germans I seemed to know the rules and to care about them as well. The smooth running of society was a central concern. Our very practical goals for education seemed similar. They were ambitious and interested in engineering, commerce, politics, and history. The gaps between their style and mine were the narrowest − even physical mannerisms and social cues seem to be the same. For example, while the British, French, and Germans all displayed senses of humor, the Germans tended to take serious topics more seriously and refrain from joking about them.[34] I felt much of the time that I was with Americans, which is not something I felt with any other group. 

Blogger Dana Blankenhorn makes a similar observation: 

Here is something you weren't told in school.  

America is a Germanic country.  

Our food is German. Our dress is German. Our distances, both personal and urban, are German. Our sense of beauty is German, not French. Our bread and sweets are German. Our loud laughter is German. America has people of French and Spanish and Polish and English and Irish and a hundred other descents, but the Germans set the mood, and the mood remains the same.[35] 

On the darker side, some argue that the notion of compulsory peacetime military service and general militarism come from the Germanic kingdom of Prussia and lead to the World Wars.[36] As James Gerard, the US ambassador to Germany during World War I noted, “Prussia, which has imposed its will, as well as its methods of thought and life on all the rest of Germany, is undoubtedly, a military nation.”[37] Mirabeau the French orator said, “War is the national industry of Prussia” and Napoleon said that Prussia “was hatched from a cannon ball.”[38] The USA, with a larger military budget than the next fifteen nations combined and five times the budget of the second biggest spender, seems to have inherited much of this militaristic sensibility.[39] The USA, despite having oceans for natural boundaries, has military personnel in over one hundred countries, far exceeding the global military presence of any other country.[40] 

With all of this said, we can return to the term that I have set out to explain: American-Yekke. What is a Yekke? Is he or she a descendant of Yepeth, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and the Germanic tribes that migrated from Asia Minor to Central Europe, warring with and pushing out the Roman legions?[41] No, he or she is a descendant of Shem, Abraham, and Sarah who practiced Judaism in the countries built by those Germanic peoples, extracting some of their better qualities. An American-Yekke is a Jew who lives not in European Germanic countries such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, or Holland but in Germanic America. 

Just this week, I received a phone call from a long, lost elder cousin. He was born in Cuba in the 1930s after my great-uncle immigrated there from a shtetl in the Ukraine. One brother gained entrance to the United States and the other to Cuba where he stayed until the communist takeover, immigrating eventually to Miami, Florida. My cousin was raised in Cuba and absorbed some of the best features of the Latin personality. He is easygoing and super-friendly, almost musical in his speaking manner. Certainly, I observed myriad universal Jewish qualities in my cousin and traces of Eastern Europe as you’ll find in me. But you can hardly call him an Eastern European even though his father, a wonderful man, was very much an old world yid from the shtetl. In talking to my cousin after a break of four decades, I could see how much we are shaped by the societies in which we are reared even as we retain Jewish identity and practice as he has. I have made similar observations of South African Jews whose parents are from Lithuania, British Jews whose parents are from Poland, and French Jews whose parents are from North Africa. We absorb much from the societies in which we live. I once had a Shabbos meal with a Haredi family in Paris. They served traditional Eastern European type food – chicken and kugel – but in tiny portions on large plates, in the manner of French cuisine.[42] After only one generation in France the influence was visible. 

So what are the repercussions of this? They are that some American Jews will be attracted to German Orthodoxy as it developed to suit the needs and reflect the sensibilities of pious Jews in Germanic lands. Each of the different camps of Orthodoxy work from the same literature, principles and laws. They are substantively the same, differing only in the margins, in style, via the parts of the Torah that they emphasize. 

I have observed a curious phenomenon. Many Russian Jewish baalei teshuvah thrive in the Eastern European portion of the Haredi world, looking completely at home there. They embrace the isolation from and lack of identification with the general society that characterizes much of that world. After all, they don’t even want you to call them Russian. “I am a Jew from Russia, not a Russian Jew,” they’ll say. Now, how many American Jews don’t want to be called American? Even those who make aliyah often still refer to themselves as American. Same with the British, Canadians, Australians, Swiss, and other Westerners. One can see in these recent immigrants from Russia how Eastern European Jewry in the 19th century put less emphasis on concepts like ‘light unto the nations’ and ‘tikun olam.’ This can happen when an entire nation is cast into an apartheid situation like the Pale of Settlement and mistreated there. 

By contrast, many American baalei teshuvah were attracted to Torah because of those ideas. One of the pillars of education in the USA is civics. Public school education in the United States of the 1920's centered on the teaching of citizenship and civic service.[43] Scores of American youth envision for themselves careers in the public service. This is very American. Certainly before the 1970s it was.[44] It was German too.[45] Civic duty and national loyalty ‒ those were important parts of the culture in Germany. Certain nefarious people manipulated that value for wicked purposes as we know. One sees those values addressed in a constructive way in the writings of numerous German rabbis. In the words of Rav Joseph Breuer of Frankfurt, Germany: 

“And promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to God, for with its welfare, you too, will fare well” (Yirmeyahu 29:7). Because the Prophet has given this message to our people, banished from its homeland by the Will of God, each Jew, wandering through the world and faithful to the Torah, is obliged to keep faith towards the country which gives him refuge and a home.[46]

This idea being rooted in the Prophets is not alien to any Orthodox Jewish group but is emphasized in the German Jewish community. Rabbi Leo Jung, who attended the Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin, wrote, “Judaism is a national religion in that it is the religion which God has given to Israel. According to the Torah, He has chosen us as His peculiar people, 'to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' But Judaism is also universal, for that very choice implies that, as a priest to his congregation, the whole nation should be an example unto the gentile world of a life lived with God – upright, just, and kind. Our rabbis tell us that Judaism is the way of salvation for the Jew, but the righteous men of other religions will also partake of eternal salvation.”[47] 

Interestingly, I know one young woman who was born in the Ukraine but raised from a very young age in the United States. She even speaks fluent Russian but having been raised and educated in a Germanic country, the USA, she is attracted to the German Jewish approach on these matters. I know another that moved to the USA as an adult and she views both her native country Russia and her new host society the USA from the perspective of an outsider, with palpable suspicion and an often amusing derision. 

Of course, there are limits within German Orthodoxy to identification with one's host country. If German Jews are anything, it is self-disciplined and they know where to draw the line. As Mordechai Breuer noted, “S.R. Hirsch was not alone in his aversion to Prussiandom and manifestations of German flag-waving. There were observant Jews in all parts of Germany who consciously distanced themselves from such display, either because they tended toward the old piety, where their 'Jewishness' did not leave room for German national consciousness, or because they shared an overriding affection for the local urban or rural surroundings.”[48] The idea within German Orthodoxy is to act with gratitude and loyalty towards one's host country and to serve as a light when possible. But it is a host country; it is not our country. The very identification of it as a host puts us on the outside. 

Also appealing to the American sensibility is the order and decorum of the German Jewish approach. The first time that I walked into K’hal Adath Jeshurun the main synagogue of the German Orthodox community in Washington Heights, New York City, I was dazzled by the tidiness and order of the place. Their bank of light switches is numbered and color coded. It was a thing of beauty. The tefillah schedule is accurate and displayed outside the front door. The siddurim are grouped by type as they sit neatly on the shelves.[49] I cannot tell you how many times I have tidied up the sefarim in shuls around the world only to find them a mess again days later. In KAJ, I felt at home. I felt like I was back in the Midwest. 

The sense of discipline and order is found as well in the German approach to minhagim. The German Jewish loyalty to every detail of minhag avoseinu is well known and has served to safeguard authentic practice. In the words of Lakewood Mashigiach Matisyahu Salomon: 

As we know, over the years it became common to poke fun at the customs of the ‘Yekkes’, until someone proceeded to show the world that it is specifically the Yekkes who continue the ancient traditions, and that their customs originated during the time of the Geonim and Rishonim.[50]

Maintenance of the many details of minhagim right down to the nusach of fine points of the Siddur and piyutim requires a special kind of commitment and attitude. The Yekke beis ha-kenneses puts this all on display with its unique atmosphere of decorum, seriousness, and refined sentiment. 

One sees a similar sort of decorum in many American institutions from government to military to education much as one does in other Germanic countries. However, this does not mean that the German Jewish approach is to imitate the German gentiles. As Rav Joseph Breuer pointed out, “Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific 'German Jewishness.'”[51] According to Rabbi Avigdor Miller, the idea of order and punctuality as Jewish virtues traces back to the great generation of Har Sinai as depicted in the Chumash: 

But before Moshe, the Am Yisroel were so good that even Bilaam, al corchei had to praise them. Now it states, Vayisa Bilaam es einav. Bilaam lifted up his eyes. Now he wasn't looking for good things in the Am Yisroel. You have to know that. If Bilaam could have found faults, he would have pounced on it like a fly pounces on a speck on the rotten apple. He was looking for faults. Vayar es Yisroel shochain l'shvatim. He saw Yisroel dwelling according to their shevatim. Now this I'll say in passing although it's not our subject. He saw that they were orderly. That they didn't mix. Everything was done with a seder. Now that's off the subject. Someday I'll talk about the importance of the orderliness of the ancient Jewish people. The ancient Jewish people were punctual in time. It's a mistake when you say Jewish time. It's a big lashon hara. There's a zman krias Shema and that's the time. You got to be punctual. No fooling around with that time. And other things in Halacha. Oh no, Jewish time is the most punctual, precise time. They were baalei seder.[52]

While some people view German Jewish punctuality as a quaint idiosyncrasy, we see that it represents the preservation of ancient practice that predates the German golus by thousands of years. What is happening is that the environment of the host country allows for better enactment of important parts of halacha. This doesn't mean that the gentile hosts are encouraging halachic excellence but it just so happens that their style works in our favor on occasion. 

The incentive apparatus for observance is another distinguishing trait of German Orthodoxy – at least the Hirschian portion of it – that works better for many Americans. One finds in some parts of the frum world an intense focus on divine wrath. It may work successfully for many people. However, it is not productive for some, particularly when administered in large doses. I know of people who literally suffered nervous breakdowns from the continuous feeling of failure and terror. Moreover, the “terror of Heaven” approach does not go well with the American sensibility of optimism, responsibility, selfrespect, and healthy ambition as primary motivations in life. 

Fittingly, we do not see a persistent terror-based approach in the writings of Rav Hirsch, not a continuous emphasis on it. One finds openly threatening talk towards people who take advantage of the innocent and the helpless (Horeb 353 for example), and certainly, Rav Hirsch often discussed divine judgment (Siddur, Pirkei Avos, 3:1; Horeb, chapter 8; Collected Writings, Vol. I, p. 216; Vol. II, p. 398, and Vol. IX, p. 123 are a few examples), warning us of the “stern justice in the hereafter weighing all in an unerring balance” (Judaism Eternal , Vol. 1, “Adar”). He even translated passages from the medieval work Sefer Chasidim, which, while presenting love of and obedience to God as the primary 9 motivations for its stringent call to piety (Sefer Chasidim 62, 63), reference palpable concern over divine reward and punishment as well. For example, “Whatever you may have done to give your neighbor even a moment's grief will be subject to punishment by Divine judgment, for it is written (Ecclesiastes 11,9;12,14) that God will call you to account for all this, even for secret things.” (Sefer Chasidim 44 in Collected Writings, Vol. VIII, pp. 160-1). However, overall Rav Hirsch’s approach was multi-faceted, utilizing love and awe of God, self-respect, fear of Divine retribution, and yearing for Divine reward. He did not resort to fire and brimstone at every turn. In the words of the gaon R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg:

Rav Hirsch reestablished the principle of the fulfillment of religious duties with a spirit of joy and love, that is, from a satisfaction of the natural yearning of the Jewish soul for authentic religious expression. Mitzvos, as understood by Rav Hirsch, are the conduit of the Divine blessing in this world, the cord which binds man’s soul to his Creator, and which binds his fundamental spiritual nature with his physical presence. Rav Hirsch constantly appealed for the living of a religious life enriched by spiritual vitality, not by fear of Divine retribution in this life and the next.[53]

According to Rav Weinberg, an excessive reliance on fear of punishment as motivation for religious observance was an unfortunate byproduct of antisemitism. In his article “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” he said the following in a discussion of medieval European Jewry, which presumably included medieval Germany, and the effects of persecution, pogroms, banning of Jews from trades, and expulsions. 

Judaism no longer drew direct sustenance from life; it no longer was synonymous with the abundant power which dwells in the Jewish soil. Rather, it began to be viewed as being nourished by fear -‒ of death and of awesome punishments in the world to come. It is true that belief in reward and punishment is a fundamental of Judaism, and indeed, no religion worthy of the name can dispense with a concept which logically follows from the idea of an omniscient and omnipresent Supreme Being, as clearly elucidated by Saadia HaGaon in his Emunot V’deiot. However, the use of this belief as a central pillar or religious feeling and the sole motivating force for the fulfillment of one’s duty served only to cast a pall over religious sensibility and weakened any spiritual vitality, as decried by the Chassidic masters.[54]

One can become so accustomed to the punishment-only approach to Judaism that he or she may be surprised to find that there can be another. In Rav Hirsch one finds another. In drawing from the Torah to motivate German Jews of the modern era, he served Americans too. 

While gentile German immigration to the Americas started early by American historical standards, it transpired deep into European history, two centuries after the close of the Middle Ages. The Napoleonic Wars, which affected meaningful Jewish emancipation in Europe, particularly Germany, were a major impetus for immigration as they caused severe disruption in the Germany economy.[55] During the same period, France under Napoleon granted Jews full rights as citizens and this included the Jews living in the Rhine Valley, which had been annexed by France.[56] Thus, the German immigrants who formed so much of American culture were not the same people who had so intensely persecuted the Jews in Medieval times. They were for the most part 19th century contemporaries of Rav Hirsch. Thus, it makes sense that the approach to religious motivation and divine reward that Rav Hirsch formulated for Jews in 19th century German society would be meaningful to Jews who are raised in an American society that was shaped to a major extent by immigrants from 19th century Germany. 

As Rav Weinberg points out, Rav Hirsch accomplished this by returning to a traditional Jewish outlook. He did not invent something new. Says Rav Weinberg, “Nor were these ideas unique to him – they were as old as the founding Sages, who called this attitude הרוממות אהבת הרוממות יראת : awe and love of the Almighty’s elevated nature, and the greatness in man which it implies.” Rav Hirsch brought us back to where we stood before persecution “cast a pall over religious sensibility.” Since the multi-faceted approach is rooted basic Talmudic thought, Rav Hirsch was not the only one to turn to it. As Rav Weinberg noted, the Chassidic masters of Eastern Europe also pursued this approach, as did others. The same applies to many of the distinguishing traits of German Orthodoxy. They are not necessarily exclusive to German Jews. As mentioned, the differing styles of the various derachim often come down to a matter of emphasis. When I sing the praises of German Orthodoxy, I do not intend to slight other groups or discount the worth of their approaches, nor do I always intend to contrast them with the vast and magnificent world of Eastern European Judaism. Even when I do contrast West and East, I am pointing out only differences in style. Each has its merits and shortcomings. 

And of course the two groups are cousins. Ashkenazi Jews in general can count a long stay in Germany as part of their golus story. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans took many Jews as slaves across the Mediterranean to Rome proper, which in our times is called Italy. Sometime after earning their freedom and building communities in Italy, they migrated to France and elsewhere in Southern Europe and then to Germany where the language of Yiddish, a German dialect was formed. After several hundred years persecutions drove them East to Poland and Russia. The vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews have German Jewish ancestry which is why they are called Ashkenazi, a term used since Medieval times for Jews living in the Rhine Valley in Germany. 

Another area of overlap between Germany and America is recognition of the value of secular studies. According to Professors Mordechai Breuer[57] and Marc Shapiro[58], openness to quality secular learning was nothing unusual in Germany. As Professor Mordechai Breuer wrote, “Among German Jewry, there had always been rabbis who had recognized the need for Jews to acquire some general culture and who saw no offense against tradition in this.” This makes sense given that there was much quality material.[59] The same applies in the United States, which, until recently, displayed in many quarters a distinct concern for morality and faith and a knack for memorializing them in literature and law. Accordingly, Torah observance need not stand in opposition to the best of “secular” knowledge. It is the next step above it. They are not always opposites. A person need not toss aside his secular education if that education was of a proper kind. This is an important idea for Americans as the USA is intensely focused on higher education. In the most recent Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 13 of the 25 top ranked universities are located in the USA[60] and in the London Times rankings 17 of the top 25 are in the USA.[61] Rav Hirsch stresses of course that “the knowledge of the Torah and the understanding we derive from it is to be our principle concern and…must be the yardstick by which we measure all the results obtained by other spheres of learning.” (R’ Hirsch on Vayikra 18:5)[62] 

Steven M. Lowenstein’s Frankfurt on the Hudson, which is a history of the German Jewish community of Washington Heights in Manhattan, discusses other Germanic qualities such as thrift.[63] Germanic peoples are known for it. Along with thrift comes savings. The book talks about immigrants who espoused the philosophy of “saving for a rainy day” even deep into their elder years when that rainy day had come.[64] Accordingly, the contemporary trend of forgoing job training for the young and living with no financial plan is quite alarming to many culturally Germanic Americans.[65]

Being practical-minded comes into play here too. As Russian immigrants encountered German immigrants at the turn of the last century, each formulated generalizations about the others. Polish born Educator Israel Friedlander summed them up as follows: 

The German Jews were deliberate, reserved, practical and sticklers for formalities, with a marked ability for organization; the Russian Jews were quick-tempered, emotional, theorizing, haters of formalities with a decided bent towards individualism (Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915)[66]

Sociological generalizations are considered not “politically correct” these days, but we all know that they often contain grains of truth. German Jews (and Germans) do tend to be concerned with the practical. Rav Hirsch uses the words “practical” and “practice” more than a dozen times in the eighteenth letter of his book Nineteen Letters. So, too, are the British and the Americans inclined towards the practical. 

The leaning towards practicality can play a role in an entire religious philosophy. In the Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch, apparently basing himself on the Kuzari, challenges a notion that developed in parts of Medieval Spanish Jewry that the goal of man was philosophic perfection for which mitzvos were a handmaiden, rather than the reverse. In Rav Hirsch’s view this approach was the result of an attempt to reconcile Judaism with Greek thought. Aristotle had said, “The highest individual perfection is speculative wisdom, the excellence of that purely intellectual part called reason.” (Comp. Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6.) Professor Harry Wolfson described this encounter with Greek thought as follows: 

Like Philo, the philosophers of the Middle Ages aimed at reconciling Jewish religion with Greek philosophy, by recasting the substance of the former in the form of the latter. The principles upon which they worked were (i) that the practical religious organization of Jewish life must be preserved, but (ii) that they must be justified and defended in accordance with the principles of Greek philosophy. Thus Hellenic theory was to bolster Hebraic dogma, and Greek speculation became the basis for Jewish conduct. The carrying out of this programme, therefore, unlike that of Pauline Christianity, involved neither change in the practice of the religion, nor abrogation of the Law. There was simply a shifting of emphasis from the practical to the speculative element of religion. Philo and the mediaeval philosophers continued to worship God in the Jewish fashion, but their conception of God became de-Judaized. They continued to commend the observation of the Law, but this observation lost caste and became less worthy than the "theoretic life." Practice and theory fell apart logically; instead there arose an artificial parallelism of theoretic with practical obligations.[67]

This outlook was influential on kelal Yisrael, in Rav Hirsch’s view negatively so as it lead to a devaluation of mitzvos. It seems to me that parts of Jewry in general more enthusiastically embraced “the speculative element of religion.” By contrast, as Israel Friedlander described it, the Germans were “practical.” The term in this sense conveys the meaning of something that one puts into practice. Not surprisingly, Rav Hirsch repeatedly stressed the importance of putting study into practice. He wrote, “You must study for practical life — that is the fundamental principle of the law. With attentive mind and with receptive heart you must study in order to practice. You must aim at learning from the law a way of life, which is its true teaching; only then can you learn it properly, only then will it disclose to you its inmost meaning.” (Horeb 75, 493) And he wrote, “Knowledge of the Law alone is not enough to gain Paradise in world to come; if that Paradise is to be won and the earth is also to be transformed into a Paradise, this Law must be not only known but also observed. And there remains a very wide gap between the knowledge of the Law in theory and its observance in practice.”[68] And once again, let us remark that German Jewry is not unique in this value, ie., it is not the only group that emphasizes the putting of learning into practice.[69] However, it is one of the most fervent. 

As Rav Shimon Schwab tells us, Rav Hirsch did not create his derech out of thin air. He got it mostly from his rebbes (who were German Jews) who got it from their rebbes: “But Rav Hirsch also had behind him a solid mesorah from gadolim who showed him the way. From the time of Chazal through the period of the Geonim; the Rambam, the Chachmei Sepharad through the Talmidei Hagra all the way down to his own Rebbe the Oruch L’ner and his disciples. Rav Hirsch had his mesorah.” (Selected Speeches, p. 243).[70]

Aside from the Germanic trait of pragmatism, Friedlander mentioned also emotional reserve, deliberation in action, and formality. Lowenstein elaborates: 

Among the many formal values that were highly praised were dignity, discipline, punctuality, structure, and order. Spontaneity was less prized than stability. Many German Jews expressed disapproval of the loud wailing at eastern European funerals as undignified; at their own funerals, weeping was restrained and silent.[71] 

Conduct at funerals was not the only issue. The book goes on to describe actual confrontations at Simchas Torah celebrations where the old-timers from Germany struggled with attempts by the youth to bring Eastern European style boisterous dancing into KAJ and other German Orthodox synagogues in Washington Heights. As it stands now in the 21st century, shtick and exuberant dancing at weddings and other gatherings seems, well, Jewish. In actuality, it is Eastern European Jewish, probably Russian Jewish for the most part (along with numerous Sephardic groups). German Jews conducted themselves differently. 

None of this is intended to equate German Jews with German gentiles nor American Jews with American gentiles. I am saying only that we are influenced by our host societies, sometimes in negative ways, sometimes in neutral ways, and sometimes in positive ways. For example, many of us feel quite Jewish when we refer to horseradish as כרײן. But this word, like most in Yiddish, does not have a Hebrew etymology: 

The Southern German term Kren is a loan from a Slavonic tongue, where cognates of Kren are widespread (Czech křen, Sorbian krěn, Russian khren [хрен], Ukrainian khrin [хрін] and Polish chrzan) and ultimately of unknown origin. Some other non-Slavonic European languages have also borrowed that name, e. g., French cran, Italian cren, Yiddish khreyn [כרײן] , Romanian hrean and Greek chreno [χρένο].[72]

That would be a purely neutral influence. Then there are some that are mixed. Take for example the philosophy of Kant. Many Orthodox Jews have studied it and claim to have grown from it. Yet, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik noted the following problem with Kant: 

…the religious person is given not only a duty to follow the halakha but also a value and vision. The person performing the duty seeks to realize this ideal or vision. Kant felt that the duty of consciousness expresses only a "must" without a value. He demanded a routine form of compliance, an "ought" without aiming at a value. As a soldier carries out his duty to the commanding officer, one may appreciate his service or just obey through discipline and orders. Kant's ethics are a "formal ethics", the goal is not important. For us it would be impossible to behave this way. An intelligent person must find comfort, warmth, and a sense of fulfillment in the law. We deal with ethical values, not ethical formalisms. A sense of pleasure must be gained by fulfilling a norm. The ethical act must have an end and purpose. We must become holy.[73] 

So a German Jew is not a German, even this very distinguished German. Nevertheless, German Jews often possess certain sensibilities that may work best with German Orthodoxy. And so it goes for many American Jews. 

Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, ever sagacious, told his students, “I cannot understand how it is possible for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters."[74] The Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch’s first published book, explained Torah Judaism to the Western world, particularly to German Jewish youth. Coming from Eastern Europe, Rav Shraga Feivel could see how Americans would take to its approach, would need its approach. 

Many observant Jews struggle to find a derech. Some leap from Haredism to Modern Orthodoxy in search of a home. They may like the seriousness of Haredism but are uncomfortable with the striving for complete isolation from general society. They may like the appreciation of secular studies in Modern Orthodoxy but deem the filtering process inadequate. They may like the Modern Orthodox inclusion of Nach in the educational curriculum but cannot wrap their minds around the image of teenage boys and girls studying it in the same classroom.[75] 

Round and round it goes. However, German Orthodoxy, particularly as practiced via Torah Im Derech Eretz, contains elements of both. It is an approach to Torah observant Judaism which, unfortunately, one does not see substantially in action nowadays. One has to seek it out. For many it may resolve much confusion vis à vis derech when the others, all noble paths if done in sincerity, remain an uncomfortable fit. 

It is not an easy road. As Rav Shimon Schwab noted, “Torah Im Derech Eretz is not a kulah but a chumrah.” (Not a leniency but a stringency.)[76] In other words, the goal of Torah Im Derech Eretz to bring holiness to all aspects of one’s life, including the ‘secular’ parts, even while engaging general society, is formidable. Perhaps it is handled best by the German Jewish character, with its discipline on all sides, its sense of balance and proportion, its pragmatism, and its concern for piety, propriety, politeness, and community. 

Now, German Orthodoxy is not necessarily equivalent to Torah Im Derech Eretz. Many German Jews dating back to Rav Hirsch’s day and through today, demonstrate a different approach to German Orthodoxy even as they carry many of the traits that produced Torah Im Derech Eretz. For example, many people in Eretz Yisroel who maintain minhag Ashkenaz do not involve themselves with secular studies. And many German Jews have taken on other derachim entirely. This article, which may seem to merge German Jewry and Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not intended to parse out and categorize all the subtle differences between them. Its purpose is to say that America is largely a Germanic country and the different strains of German Jewry may be appealing to Americans and to Jews from other Germanic countries. I would expect that Torah Im Derech Eretz would hold the broadest appeal. 

One may legitimately question whether contemporary American culture is still concerned with piety, propriety, politeness, and community. The same can be asked of contemporary Germany. What person who has laid his eyes on television or the NY Daily News could answer confidently in the affirmative? One wonders if any society in modern history, other than Germany in the 1930s, has changed as much as has the USA and the West in general over the last half-century. It’s truly night and day, just an astonishing collapse in values. 

Rav Hirsch warned us about the mutability of ‘Hellenic culture,” ie. culture that draws from the blessing of Noah’s son Japheth to ennoble human kind through the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, and symmetry in contrast to the fear, ignorance, and violence of idolatrous, pre-Hellenic societies. Rav Hirsch’s lengthy discussion of this complex topic can be found in the chapter “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome” in the book Judaism Eternal. He tells us as follows: 

The Hellenic culture only stimulates the intellect, only creates the thirst for knowledge and truth, but is not capable in itself of assuring knowledge and producing truth. The mind indulges in surmises and conjectures, forms fanciful and hypothetical assumptions in order to solve the enigmas with which man is confronted both by the world outside and within himself and the solution of which his yearning soul passionately seeks. And as long as Hellenism assumes that the human mind alone-which, as reason, is created to "perceive" only the truthsimultaneously creates, reveals and dispenses truth, so long does the misty wisdom of the Hellenic spirit arrive at results which swing from one extreme to the other in everrecurring cycles, as has been evident in the history of human thought seeking wisdom for nearly 2,500 years in the Hellenic spirit.[77] 

Once upon a time, the USA, upon whose currency is emblazoned the creed “In God we trust,” was largely a faith-based society as was Germany. Arguably, those days are gone despite some superficial activity that is merely reminiscent of the past. At minimum, the departure from religion correlates with the collapse. It is more likely the primary cause as it left us vulnerable to the wild “swings” of Hellenistic based culture. As Rav Hirsch said, “Hellenic culture contains only one single fraction of that truth which some day will bring salvation to mankind. It is only a small preparation for that happiness which will some day flourish on earth through Shem's "tents wherein God dwells"; and as long as it is not wedded to that Hebraic spirit, as long as it prides itself on being sublime and exclusive, it falls into error and illusion, degeneration and servitude.”[78] 

My maternal grandmother was from Uman in the Ukraine ‒ yes the actual Uman made famous by the Chassidic leader Rebbe Nachman. She returned to a Germanic land on the other side of our millennial family history. I would argue that my upbringing was more Germanic than that of many second generation German Jews from Washington Heights as that community started merging with the rich Eastern European yeshivish culture four decades ago. The America of my youth was much more distinctly Germanic for the most part. It should be no surprise that German Orthodoxy is the closest thing to it. I have met numerous others like me and am confident that there are many more out there, many more American Yekkes.

________________________________________________________

[1] Yekke is a colloquialism for German Jew. The term possibly originates in the German word Jacke (with the J pronounced as a Y) which means jacket as German Jews tended to wear shorter coats (jackets) than Eastern Europeans. Another theory posits that it stems from the Western European pronunciation of the name Jacob as Yekkef. (“Yekke,” Wikipedia) There are other explanations for the term. My apologies to those in the German Jewish community who are not fans of it. The usage here obviously is with affection and esteem as you shall see. 

[2] The Hirsch Siddur (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2013) contains the commentary of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) of Frankfurt, Germany. 

[3] “Old English,” Wikipedia. 

[4] “Frisian languages,” Wikipedia. 

[5] “Scots Language,” Wikipedia: “Scots is the Germanic language variety spoken in Lowland Scotland and parts of Ulster (where the local dialect is known as Ulster Scots). It is sometimes called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic, the Celtic language which was historically restricted to most of the Highlands, the Hebrides and Galloway after the 1500s. The language developed during the Middle English period as a distinct entity.” 

[6] Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 477 in “English Language,” Wikipedia. 

[7] “Anglo-Saxons,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 

[8] “Bede,” Wikipedia. 

[9] Nicholas Ostler, “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” (Harper Collins: New York, 2005), p. 312. 

[10] “Are the English really Germans or Spaniards?,” The Telegraph, 

[11] “The Britons,” Wikipedia. 

[12] “Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain,” Wikipedia. 

[13] “Hanover,” English Monarchs . 

[14] 2000 US Census in Wikipedia, 

[15] “Race and ethnicity in the United States,” Wikipedia.org. 

[16] “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link).

[17] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . The first recorded usage of the name “America” as the name of the New World is found on the 1507 map Universalis Cosmographica by German Cartographers Martin Waldseemuller and Matthias Ringmann. “Martin Waldseemuller,” Wikipedia.org. 

[18] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation 

[19] “1890,” “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 

[20] “German Americans,” Wikipedia. 

[21] “Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 

[22] “Race and ethnicity in the United States, “ Wikipedia. 

[23] Ibid., Applysense - Map from Blank USA by Lokal Profil. Information and colors from USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG by Porsche997SBS, who sourced the info from Census-2000-Data-Top-USAncestries-by-County.svg, copy permission granted. 

[24] “German American,” Wikipedia,. 

[25] “Sentiment among German Americans was largely anti-slavery, especially among Forty-Eighters.” “German American,” Wikipedia from Wittke, Carl (1952), Refugees of Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press. 

[26] “Germanic Peoples,” Wikipedia. 

[27] “Germanic Languages,” Wikipedia. 

[28] “Henry Philip Tappan,” Wikipedia 

[29] In particular, see his last book “Man Without A Country.” 

[30] “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . Freidrich Froebel started the first kindergarten in Germany and German immigrants George Schurz and his wife Margaretha Meyer, a student of Froebel, transplanted it to the USA in 1855. 

[31] Steven Muller, “After Three Hundred Years: A Keynote Address in 1983,” “America and the Germans, An Assessment of a Three-Hundred Year History,” Edited by Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), p. xxvi-xxviii. 

[32] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . 

[33] “Homeownership in the United States,” Wikipedia. Interestingly, home ownership in 21st century Germany is relatively low by European standards. Amelie Constant, Rowan Roberts, Klaus Zimmerman “Ethnic Identity and Immigrant Homeownership.” September 2007, IZA DP No. 3050. [34] A similar observation is made in John Ardagh, “German and the Germans,” (Penguin: New York, 1991), p. 4. 

[35] Dana Blankenhorn 

[36] Irving Gordon, “World History Review Text,” (New York: Amsco Publications, 1988), p. 206. See also B. Ann Tlusty, “The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms,” (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). The publisher’s book summary notes as follows: “For German townsmen, life during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was characterized by a culture of arms. Because the urban citizenry, made up of armed households, represented the armed power of the state, men were socialized to the martial ethic from all sides. This book shows how civic institutions, peer pressure, and the courts all combined to create and repeatedly confirm masculine identity with blades and guns. Who had the right to bear arms, who was required to do so, who was forbidden or discouraged from using weapons: all these questions were central both to questions of political participation and to social and gender identity. As a result, there were few German households that were not stocked with weapons and few men who walked town streets without a side arm within easy reach. Laws aimed at preventing or containing violence could only be effective if they functioned in accordance with this framework.” 

[37] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 75. 

[38] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 76. 

[39] CIA World Factbook, CIA.gov in GlobalFirepower.com (link) “Military budget of the United States,” Wikipedia. 

[40] “Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases,” Politifact.com here. 

[41] Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, “The Migration of Torah Tradition from the Land of Israel to Ashkenazic Lands," This explanation of the origin and migration of Germanic peoples to the Rhine Valley differs from that of many academic historians who argue that the Germanic tribes originated in Scandinavia. See Wikipedia, “Germanic Peoples.” 

[42] “French lessons: East petite, take your time,” Karen Collins R.D., NBCNews.com 

[43] Robert Reich, “The Next American Frontier” (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) pp. 55-56. See also Diana Owen, “Citizenship Identity and Civic Education in the United States,” Paper presented at Conference on Civic Education and Politics in Democracies, Center for Civic Education and the Bundeszentrale fur Politische Bildung, San Diego, September 26, 2004 (link). 

[44] See James Wilson, John DiIulio, Jr., Meena Bose “American Government, Essentials Edition,” (Boston: Centage Learning: 2015), p.83. They cite a study that shows Americans display higher rates of faith in their public institutions, belief in the imperative of civic duty, and sense that a citizen can affect government policies than people in several other countries. 

45 Joseph Breuer, “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). EDiplomat.com, “Germany” writes “Germans value order, privacy and punctuality. They are thrifty, hard working and industrious. Germans respect perfectionism in all areas of business and private life. In Germany, there is a sense of community and social conscience and strong desire for belonging.” 

[46] Joseph Breuer, A Unique Perspective, “Our Duty towards America,” (New York: Feldheim, 2010) p. 310. Joseph Breuer (1882-1980). 

[47] Leo Jung, Between Man and Man (New York: Jewish Education Press, 1976) p. 150. Leo Jung (1892-1987). 

[48] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992) p. 304. 

[49] R’ Joseph Breuer wrote, “Physically, the Kehilla’s German-Jewish character is immediately visible in the Synagogue. Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific “German Jewishness.” “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). In other words, the cleanliness of the German Orthodox synagogue is rooted in the halakha. It is not merely a reflection of German traits. However, German Jews excel in observing the halachos on this matter. 

[50] Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, 2010), p. 9. 

[51] “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). 

[52] Avigdor Miller, “True Modesty,” tape 412, 42:27. Rabbi Miller was born in Baltimore, studied at Slabodka Yeshiva in Lithuania in the early 1930s, and lived most of his life in Brooklyn, NY. He once remarked, “I have plenty to say about the German kehillah. I love the German kehillah. As a boy I davened every Shabbos in a German shul. I can sit four hours in the afternoon, Shabbos afternoon, in a German shul.” Loving His People 2, #528 1:06. 

[53] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 

[54] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 

[55] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation . The beginnings of tolerance date from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a treaty granting tolerance to Christian minorities; although Vienna banned Jews in 1670 and Worms in 1689. “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute (link). 

[56] “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute, p. 13 . Prussia granted Jews the status of “native residents and Prussian citizens” in 1812. 

[57] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (Columbia University Press: New York, 1992), p. 73. See also Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 

[58] Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 

[59] Consider this quotation from German-born Friedrich Frobel, the founder of the first kindergarten, “Education consists in leading man, as a thinking intelligent being, growing into self-consciousness, to a pure and unsullied, conscious and free representation of the inner law of Divine unity and in teaching him ways and means thereto.” “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . 

[60] Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 2014. 

[61] Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 . 

[62] Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:5, translated by Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1989) 

[63] The Wikipedia article “Prussian Virtues” lists the following: austerity, bravery, courage. discipline, frankness, godliness, humility, incorruptibility, industriousness, loyalty, obedience, punctuality, reliability, restraint, self-denial, self-effacement, sense of duty, sense of justice, sense of order, sincerity, subordination, and toughness. Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have an article on Russian virtues but does have one on the “Russian Soul.” Certainly, Prussians have soul and Russians virtue. Both terms concern human ideals, but approach it in a different manner. 

[64] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). 

[65] kwintessential.co.uk, “German Society and Culture.” writes “In many respects, Germans can be considered the masters of planning. This is a culture that prizes forward thinking and knowing what they will be doing at a specific time on a specific day. Careful planning, in one's business and personal life, provides a sense of security. Rules and regulations allow people to know what is expected and plan their life accordingly. Once the proper way to perform a task is discovered, there is no need to think of doing it any other way. “ See also“German Cultural Values” at . 

[66] Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915 in Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). Friedlander (1876-1920) was a founder of the Young Israel movement. 

[67] Harry Wolfson, "Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages" in Michael Makovi, “The Kuzari as Contrasted With Rabbi S. R. Hirsch's Conception of Tiqun Olam - The Place of Universalism and Morality in Judaism.” . 

[68] Collected Writings, Vol. II, p. 398. 

[69] See for example the Ramban’s famous letter to his son. 

[70] Shimon Schwab, Selected Speeches (Lakewood: CIS, 1991) p. 243. 

[71] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), ebook, Loc 2480. 

[72] Gernot Katzer’s Spice Pages, “Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. M. Sch.) “, (link). 

[73] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Mesorat HaRav Siddur (Jerusalem: Koren, 2011) p. 112-3. 

[74] Klugman, p. 66. 

[75] They may also jump to and from Chassidism, enjoying the emphasis on community and song. And we find this too in German Orthodoxy, particularly in Frankfurt and Washington Heights with its implementation of the complete kehilla and the choir. In Washington Heights, NY, Rav Joseph Breuer built a totally self-sufficient community with a huge synogogue, day school, kollel, beis din, mikva, kashrus organization, senior center, and chevra kiddushah. The feeling of community and togetherness is palpable there on Benett Ave. as is the dignity and good manners of its community members in a manner reminiscent of the musar movement. 

[76] Cited by R’ Yisroel Mantel, KAJ, “60th Anniversary Gathering.” . 

[77] Samson Raphael Hirsch, “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome,” Judaism Eternal, Vol. 2 (London: Judaica Press, 1972) p. 191. 

[78] This is all most relevant for choosing educational strategies for the young people of today. I argue that Hirsch’s Torah Im Derech Eretz is still needed if only because it is not possible to hide from a wireless society and its equally invasive government. The Czars actually granted Jewish communities in Russia a fair amount of autonomy in comparison to ours. However, the exact form of Torah Im Derech Eretz for the 21st century likely needs to differ somewhat from that which may suit the people of my generation even as the basic principles as outlined by Rav Hirsch still apply. I recognize sadly that the America that many of us knew is largely but a memory. However, for some the memory is strong enough to inform their religious outlook.

The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

October 6, 2016, 12:28 pm

≫ Next: Hitzei Giborim, Tzitzit, and R. Meir Mazuz

≪ Previous: The American Yekkes

$

0

0

The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

By Eliezer Brodt

The following is a chapter from my sefer Ben Kesseh Le’assur [still available for purchase, for more information contact me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.]

מעלת התפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה

אליעזר יהודה בראדט

א. ר'יונה מגירונדי בספרו 'שערי תשובה'מדריך את האדם כיצד יתנהג בעשרת ימי תשובה:

וראוי לכל ירא אלוקים למעט בעסקיו, ולהיות רעיוניו נְחִתִּים, ולקבוע ביום ובלילה עתים להתבודד בחדריו ולחפש דרכיו ולחקור, לקדם אשמורות, ולהתעסק בדרכי התשובה וכשרון המעשה, ולשפוך שיח ולשאת תפילה ורינה ולהפיל תחינה, שהעת עת רצון והתפילה נשמעת בה, כענין שנאמר: 'בעת רצון עניתיך, וביום ישועה עזרתיך'; ואמרו רבותינו ז"ל (ראש השנה יח ע"א): 'דרשו ה'בהמצאו', אלו עשרת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים[1].

מבואר בדבריו, שעשרת ימי תשובה הינם ימים המסוגלים לקבלת התפילה. גם בן דורו, ר'משה מקוצי, כותב כיוצא בזה: "אף על פי שהתשובה והצעקהיפה לעולם, בעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפוריםהיא יפה ביותר, ומיד היא מקובלתשנאמר: 'דרשו ה'בהמצאו'; במה דברים אמורים? ביחיד, אבל בציבור - כל זמן שצועקין ועושין תשובה בלבב שלם מיד הם נענים"[2]. וכך גם כותב ר'בחיי ב"ר אשר ן'חלאווה  בספרו כד הקמח: "שכן בעשרה ימים אלה שהן ימי הדין והמשפט הנוראים, הנקראים בכל ישראל 'עשרת  ימי תשובה', ומיוחדים לעולם לתפילהולבקש שערי תשובה"[3].

באותה תקופה נתחדד הרעיון בדברי ר'מנחם המאירי , בעל בית הבחירה: "אף על פי שהתפילה חביבה אף ביחיד, תפילת הציבור חביבה ביותר... ומכל, בזמן, רצוני לומר עשרת ימי תשובה, מתוך שהתורה נתנה הערה לכל, הרי אף תפילת היחיד חביבה חיבוב יתר"[4]. כלומר, מחמת שבעשרת ימי תשובה האדם קרוב ביותר לאלוקיו, איננו נצרך להתפלל בציבור כדי שתתקבל תפילתו כמו בשאר ימות השנה, והיינו משום שבעשרת ימים אלה הקב"ה מצוי לכל יחיד ויחיד[5], בימים אלו יש השראת שכינה מיוחדת, "בהללו עשרה ימי תשובה הקב"ה שרוי ביניכם"[6], לפיכך אפילו תפילת היחיד מתקבלת, שהרי תפילה במקום או בזמן השראת השכינה - מתקבלת[7]. כך כתב גם ר'אהרן הכהן מלוניל (נפטר בשנת ה'צ), בעל 'ארחות חיים': "שלשה תפילות נשמעות: תפלה בדמעות... תפילתיחידבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים"[8].

התפיסה שבימים אלו מתקבלת ברצון גם תפילת יחיד- שנזכרת גם בדברי כמה מהאחרונים[9]- לא נשארה בעולם הרעיוני בלבד. ר'חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי פוסק, שבמקרה הצורך יש להקל בחובת התפילה בציבור בעשרת ימי תשובה, משום שתפילת יחיד בימים אלו שווה לתפילה בציבור[10]ועוד, גם כשמתפלל ביחידות אינו צריך להכליל תפילתוו עם הציבור, לאומרה בלשון רביםכדי שתתקבל תפילתו, כפי שיש לנהוג כל ימות השנה[11], אלא יאמרה בלשון יחיד![12]ולא עוד אלא שיכול לאומרה בארמית, שלא כמו בשאר ימות השנה[13].

ב.סגולת עשרת ימי תשובה בקבלת התפילות אינה רק בנוגע לתפילות שנושא בימים אלה, אלא גם כל תפילותיו הבלתי ראויותששפך בכל ימות השנהמתקבלים ומתרצים לפני בוראו באמצעות תפילה ראויהשישא בימים נשגבים אלה. כך כותב ר'דוד ב"ר אברהם הנגיד, דור שלישי לרמב"ם: "...אם היה נעור ומדבר דברים בטלים, בשמחה והוללות, ובסוף הלילה הולך לישון עד שליש היום ויקום להתפלל - אותה תפילה תשאר תלויה ועומדת; לא תוכל לעלות לפני ה'עד שיגיע יום הכיפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלמה, אז יעלו תפילותיו, זו עם זו"[14].

אכן במקורם נאמרו דבריו על יום הכפורים בלבד[15], אך ברור שסגולת יום הכפורים להכשרת התפילות של ימות השנה היא משום שיום זה הינו שיאו של עשרת ימי התשובהבהן התפילה רצויה ביותרמחמת קרבת הקב"ה ('קראוהו בהיותו קרוב'). ולמרות שבמקורות קדומים לא נמצא במפורש שהתפילות בעשרת ימי תשובה (ולא רק תפילות יום הכפוריםבלבד!) מכשירות את התפילות של ימות השנה, זכר לדבר יש. ר'רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי (תמז-תקג), מגדולי מקובלי איטליה ששהה 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"[16]. אם כל יום מעשרת ימי תשובה מכפר אפילו חטאים חמוריםשחטא בימי השנה, אם כן ודאי שאדם הרגיל להתפלל שלא בכוונה, תפילות ימים אלה יתקנו את תפילותיו שלא בכוונה. מה עוד, שהדברים מתקבלים על הלב אם נצרף לכך את סגולת קבלת התפילה הקיימת בעשרת ימי תשובה.

כמו חיבורים אחרים, גם משנת חסידים הינו סיכום מתורתו של האר"י כפי שקיבלו המחבר מתלמידי גורי האר"י, ואכן עיקרו של הרעיון מצוי בכתבי ר'חיים ויטאל, אשר רשם את כל תורת רבו:

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 ימיו[17].

בחיבורים מאוחרים יותר נאמר מפורששהתפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה את כל התפילות של ימות השנה. כך כותב ר'יעקב ב"ר יוסף, בעל זרע ישראל: "...מבואר גם כן בכמה ספרי מוסר מגודל מעלת התפילה, באם שמתפלל בכוונה באותם הימים מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים, דאף מי שלא היה מכוון בתפילתו בשארי ימות השנה, באם שהיה מכוון בתפילתו באותם הימים - בזה הוא מתקן התפילות של כל השנה"[18].

ג.הסיבה שתפילה בכוונה הנאמרת בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה ומעלה עמה את התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל אותו אדם בימות השנה היא גם משום, שבימים אלו מצוי גילוי שכינה, ואנו כבר מקובלים מרבותינו הראשונים כלל גדול שתפילה הנאמרת בזמן או במקום השראת שכינה מתקנת עמה תפילות שאינן ראויות.כך מוסר לנו אחד מגדולי המקובלים בדורו, ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה (ספרד ה'ח - סה) בספרו שערי אורה (נכתב בשנת ה'לד[19]), בבואו לבאר את החילוק שבין תפילה שביחיד לתפילה בציבור:

וכשהיחיד מתפלל... [תפילה ש]אינה הגונה, קורים [המלאכים] לאותה תפילה 'תפילה פסולה'... והכרוז קורא: אל תכנס אותה תפילה לפני השם יתברך... ואם תאמר, נמצאו רוב התפילות שמתפלל היחיד נפסדות ונאבדות, כי אחת מני אלף יכול להתכוון בתפלת יחיד בענין שתהא ראויה להתקבל. דע כי אין הדבר כן, אלא כל אותן התפילות הפסולות... כשדוחין אותן לחוץ ואינן נכנסות, השם יתברך נתן להם מקום להכנס בו, שהשם יתברך ברא רקיע ומסר עליו ממונים ושומרים, וכל אותן התפילות הפסולות הנדחות, מכניסין אותן באותו רקיע, ועומדות שם. ואם חזר זה היחיד שהתפלל תפילות פסולות... ועמד והתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, ותפילתו זו הגונה ושלימה - אז אותה התפילה הכשרה מסתלקת והולכת ונכנסת באותו היכל החיצון שהתפילות הפסולות שהתפלל מקודם עומדות שם, ומוציאה משם כל אותן התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל, ועולות כולן עם אותה התפילה הכשרה...[20].

וכל העניינים האלו שאמרנו הם בתפילות היחידים, אבל בתפילת הציבור - אין כל ממונה וכל שוער יכול לעכב, אלא כשהציבור מתפללים תפילתם נכנסת ומתקבלת על כל פנים[21]... כשהיחיד מתפלל - בודקין את תפילתו אם היא ראויה להתקבל, וכמה מערערים יש עליה; אבל כשהציבור מתפללין - 'לא בזה את תפילתם', אף-על-פי שאין תפילתם כל כך הגונה, מקבלים אותה מלמעלה...[22].

הסיבה שתפילת ציבור מתקבלת אפילו שאינה בכוונה, היא משום שתפילתם נאמרת במקום השראת שכינה, ש"כל בי עשרה - שכינתא שריא"[23]. ובכך שר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה משווה את תפילת היחיד שבכוונה לתפילת הציבור שלא בכוונה, מוכח שהגורם להתקבלות תפילת היחיד הוא הכוונה, ש'התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה', היינו יחידהאומר תפילתו ב'כוונה גדולה' - שכינה שרויה אצלו, וכאמור תפילה זו מתקנת את כל תפילותיו הבלתי ראויות. הוי אומר: תפילה שנאמרה במקום השראת השכינה -מתקנת עמה תפילות שאינן ראויות[24].

יסודו של ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה שהתפילות הפסולות מעוכבות עד שיכוון בתפילתו, אינו חידושו שלו אלא נטלו מספר הזוהר שהיה מצוי אצלו, ובו נאמר:

ההוא ממנא קדישא דקיימא על ההוא פתחא, כל אינון צלותין דבקעי אוירין ורקיעין למיעאל קמי מלכא, אי צלותא דסגיאין אינון - פתח פתחא ואעיל ההוא צלותא, עד דאתעבידו כל צלותין דעלמא עטרא ברישא דצדיק חי עלמין; ואי צלותא דיחיד - סלקא עד דמטי לפתחא דהיכלא דא דהאי ממנא קיימא ביה, אי יאה ההיא צלותא לאעלא קמי מלכא קדישא - מיד פתח פתחא ואעיל לה, ואי לא יאה - דחי לה לבר, ונחתא ואתשטיא בעלמא, וקיימא גו רקיעא תתאה מאינון רקיעין דלתתא דמדברי גו עלמא. ובההוא רקיעא קיימא חד ממנא די שמיה סהדיא"ל, וממנא על האי רקיעא ונטיל כל הני צלותין דאתדחיין, דאקרון צלותי פסילאן, וגניז לון עד דתב ההוא בר-נש לגבי מאריה כדקא יאות, וצלי צלותא אחרא זכאה, ההיא צלותא זכאה כד סלקא, נטיל ההוא ממנא סהדי"אל האי צלותא וסליק לה לעילא עד דאערע בההיא צלותא זכאה וסלקין ואתערבון כחדא ועאלין קמי מלכא קדישא[25].

תפיסה זו מופיעה גם בכתבי האחרונים. ר'יהונתן אייבשיץ אמר באחת מדרשותיו : "חטא היוצא מפי איש ואשה כל יום, וביחוד שיחה ובטלה בבית הכנסת, ומכל שכן בעת תפילה, הכל הוא עולה בעב וענן, ומונע לתפילה לעלות.אך אם אדם התפלל אחר כך בכוונה ובבכי ודמעה - מעלה כל תפילות מכמה שניםאשר סביב נקבצו לו, כי נשארו עומדים ברפיון מבלי עלייה, וכעת על ידי תפילה הם עולים במעלה בית אל"[26].

מעתה, אם השראת השכינה מחמתתפילתו בציבור מתקנת את תפילותיו שהתפלל בעבר, ודאי שתפילה בציבור מתקנת את תפילתו של עתה. וכך אכן כותב המבי"ט: "תפילת היחיד, בהיותה בלתי הגונה או בלתי נאמרת בכוונה - אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים, לפעמים תתקבל בזכות תפילת הרבים,כי אפילו לחובה היחיד נגרר אחר הרוב..."[27].

חידוש נוסף אנו למדים מתורתו של המבי"ט המתקשר באופן ברור לתפיסת תיקון התפילות של ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה; כשם שהשראת שכינה הבאה מחמת איכותהתפילה (שנאמרה בציבור) מעלה ומתקנת את תפילותיו הקודמות, כך גם השראת השכינה הבאה בגלל סגולת המקום, היינו שקבע מקום לתפילתו[28], מתקנת את תפילתו הקודמת. וכך כתב המבי"ט בבואו לבאר את מאמר התלמוד (ברכות ו ע"ב): "כל הקובע מקום לתפילתו - אלהי אברהם בעזרו":

בעומדובמקוםשהתפללבראשונה[29], גםכילאיתפללעתה, הואנענה, בהיותועומדבמקוםשהתפללבו... כןהמתפלללאליתברךעלדברפרטיבמקוםמיוחד, כשחוזרלאותוהמקוםבכוונתהתפילהשהתפלל - הקב"השומעתפילתושהתפללקודם.וזהו'הקובעמקום' - לתפילותשהתפללכבר[30].

היינו, אדם שהתפלל תחילה תפילה שאינה ראויה(שהרי לא נתקבלה תחילה), אם בימים הבאים יהפוך את מקום תפילתו למקום תפילה קבוע - תתקבל תפילתו של קודם. ואם יתמה המעיין מדוע, הנה הדברים ברורים כי בכך שמקום תפילתו הפך למקום תפילה קבוע - שורה בו השכינה, והרי כבר מקובלנו מר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה שהשראת השכינה מתקנת ומעלה את תפילותיו![31]

ולא זו אף זו. ר'שמואל ראבין מחדש על פי היסוד האמור דבר נפלא. וזו לשונו:

בכל התפלות צריך לפרש ולבאר היטב הכוונה, לבל ישאיר מקום למקטרג שיקח הדברים על כוונה אחרת, זולת הכהן גדול ביום כיפור בקודש הקדשים לא היה נצרך לזה, אחרי ששם היה התפלה מגיע אליו יתברך זולת אמצעות המלאכים,שאפילו מלאכי השרת לא היו יכולים להכנס לקדש הקדשים[32].

הוי אומר, התפילות הנאמרות בקודש הקודשים מתקבלות ברצון ואפילו ללא כל כוונה, בגלל שהוא המקום בו מצוי גילוי שכינה הגדול ביותר.

ד.רבותינו האחרונים הזכירו הרבה –גם אם לפעמים לא ידעו מבטן מי יצאו הדברים - את פתרונו של ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה לתיקון תפילות, ושקלו וטרו בדבריו; יש מהם שצמצם את פתרונו ויש מהם שהרחיב, ויש שהקיש את הרעיון והסיעו גם לענין אחר. 

1.לתפילה פגומה באותיותיהאין אפשרות תיקון. אם היה ניתן להבין משיטת ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה שכלתפילה מקבלת את תיקונה אגב תפילה ראויה, בא ר'ישראל איסר מפוניבז'ומחלק בין שתי מיני תפילות פגומות –זו מחמת חוסר כוונה וזו משום חסרון אותיות ותיבות, שלשיטתו, לפגם מן הסוג האחרון אין אפשרות תיקון, שהרי היא 'מחוסרת אבר'. ואלה דבריו:

אף שכתוב בספרים, שאם אדם זוכה להתפלל תפלה אחת בכוונה רצויה, עולין עמה כל התפלות שלא בכוונה שהתפללו עד הנה ונדחו, ומסתברא שכך הוא אם התפלל כל תיבה בשלמות, רק בחסרון כוונה, והיא כמתה, תוכל לקבל חיות על ידי התפילה החיה. אכן, אם התפלה חסרה אותיות, והיא כמו מחוסר אברים, איך אפשר שימלא אבר החסר?...[33]

2.תיקון תפילות פסולות של אדם שנפטר. לעומת צמצום פתרון התיקון של ר'יוסף גי'קאטיליה,היו שנהגו להפך והרחיבואת פתרונו והסכימו שאף ניתן לתקן תפילות של אדם שנפטר לבית עולמו. כך כותב ר'ידידיה טיאה ווייל (אשכנז תפב - תקסו), בעל לבושי בדים, לאחר שהעתיק תורף הדברים שנאמרו בספר שערי אורה:

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[34].

3.תיקון אכילות פסולות. אמנם למרות שר'ישראל איסר מפונביז'צמצםאת יכולת התיקון של תפילות, מאידך גיסא הרחיבאת השיטה לענין תיקון אכילה, היינו, אכילה שלא ברך עליה בכוונה ראויה. ואלו דבריו:

בברכת אכילה ושתיה תכוין להשפיע בהם נפש השכלית. ודע, שאף אם לא יעלה בידך הכוונה הרצויה הזו אלא פעם אחת בחודש, מעלה גדולה השגת; ואף שלא תזכה לזה כי אם פעם אחת בשנה - דבר גדול הוא. כי הספרים כתבו, שתפילה אחת בכוונה גוררת אחריה את כל התפילות שבלא כוונה להעלותם איתה[35]. 

---

[1]ר'יונהמגירונדי, שערי תשובה, שערשני, אותיד, ירושליםתשמה, עמ'עו.

[2]ר'משה מקוצי, ספר מצוות גדול, עשין, סי'טז.

[3]רבינו בחיי, כד הקמח, ערך'ראשהשנה', בתוך: הרבח"דשעוועל (מהדיר), כתבי רבינו בחיי, ירושליםתשל, עמ'שעג. כברר'יצחקב"ריהודהאבןגיאת,הלכות רי"ץ גיאת, הלכותתשובה, ירושליםתשנח, עמ'ס, כותב: "שעשרתימיתשובה... שביןראש השנהליום הכפוריםלאלמיקבעינהובתעניתהואדדריש, אלאלהתפללולהתחנןולהודותולעמודבתחנוניםולחזורבתשובה".השווה גם לצוואתו של ר'ישראל ליפשיץ, בעל 'תפארת ישראל': "הזהרו מאד להתפלל בכוונה... ובכל התפלות שבעשרת ימי תשובה, שאז קרוב ה'לכם, בני... ומצוי טפי שתקבל אז תפלתכם ברחמיו יתברך". נדפס בתוך: המעין, יא (תשלא), גל'ד, עמ' 44-28, סי'כה [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים תשסד, עמ'רסט ואילך; ר"ש דבליצקי, בינו שנות דור ודור,בני ברק תשסו]. ר'דוב בער קאראסיק, פתחי עולם ומטעמי השלחן, סי'תרב, ס"ק ב: "ובספרד נוהגים, שגם בשבת אומרים סליחות ותחנונים... וכיון דבעשרת ימי תשובה התפלה נשמעת יותר מבימים אחרים, וגם באותן הימים האדם מוכן להיות נגמר דינו ביום הכיפורים, אין לך דבר נחוץ יותר מזה".

[4]ר'מנחםב"רשלמההמאירי, בית הבחירה, ראשהשנהיזע"א.

[5]ראהראשהשנהיחע"א: "'דרשוה'בהמצאו'... ביחיד... אלועשרהימיםשביןראשהשנהליוםהכפורים".

[6]דבריםרבה, מהדורתליברמן, סו"פהאזינו. וכךבפסיקתאדר"כ, מהדורתמנדלבוים, נספחים, פיסקהז; תנחומא, האזינו, ד.

[7]הרעיון שתפילת היחיד מתקבלת ברצון כתפילת הציבור בזמן השארת השכינה ביאר המבי"ט. לדעתו, ב"דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה שתקנו נוסח כל הברכות, "לא התפללו בציבור, כי באותם ימים לא היה צורך בכך, משום שהשכינה שרתה בישראלהיתה נשמעת תפילת כל יחיד ויחיד". וזו לשונו בספרו בית אלהים, שער היסודות, פרק לח, ירושלים תשמה, עמ'שעח-שעט: "דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה שתקנו נוסח כל הברכות, היו שומרים ענין כוונת כל ברכה וברכה בדברים ההכרחיים... לא כנוסח זה שאנחנו מתפללים אלא כל אחד כפי צחות לשונו. כי מזמן משה רבינו עליו-השלום עד אנשי כנסת הגדולה היתה השכינה נגלית במקום הקרבן... והיתה נשמעת תפלת כל יחיד ויחידוברכתו לאל יתברך על הנאתו מזה העולם. וזהו הטעם אצלי על מה שנראה, כי באותו הזמן לא היו מתקבצים ישראל בכל מקומות מושבותם ערב ובקר וצהרים במקום מיוחד להתפלל בו תפלת ציבור, אלא כל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו... שכל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו והיתה תפלתו נשמעת כשל רבים לפני השכינה הנגלית במקום הקרבן".

[8]ארחות חיים, סוף הלכות ראש השנה, דף קג ע"א.

[9]ראה, לדוגמא, ר'יעקבישראלקניבסקי, קהילות יעקב, ברכות, סי'ג: "מבואר, דיחידבעשרתימיתשובהכוחויפהכציבורבכלימותהשנהלעניןשתשובתוותפילתומתקבלת".וראה עוד: ר'אלעזרפלעקלס, עולת חודש השני (עולת ציבור חלק ראשון), מונקאטש תרסז, דף ע ע"א.

[10] [הרבש'אריאלי], חזון טוב, ירושליםתשנח, עמ'קצז. ידידיהרבאברהםשפילמןהפננילמקורחשובזה.

[11]ראה ברכות ל רע"א: "לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא". ופירש רש"י: "לישתף נפשיה, אל יתפלל תפלה קצרה בלשון יחיד אלא בלשון רבים, שמתוך כך תפלתו נשמעת".

[12]כך מחדש ר'משה יהודה ליב ברמאן (פולין תרכו – תשב), חק משה, שבת יב ע"ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ'כא-כב. תחילה תמה על שבנוסח התפילה לחולה שהציעו ר'מאיר ור'יהודה לא נכללו בה חולים אחרים, ולא כנוסח תפילת ר'יוסי: "המקום ירחם עליך בתוך שאר חולי ישראל", הכוללת אחרים ו"תפילתו נשמעת בזכות הרבים" (רש"י, שבת שם); ולכאורה נמצא, שר'מאיר ור'יהודה אינם מסכימים עם הכלל "לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא". לפיכך הוא מסביר, שנוסח התפילה של ר'מאיר ור'יהודה נועד להאמר רק בעשרת ימי תשובה (כשיטת התוספות, שם, ד"ה רבי יהודה אומר, עיי"ש), כי "באותם הימים גם היחיד יש לו מעלת רבים, לכן סבירא להו [לר'מאיר ור'יהודה] דאין צריך לכלול את עצמו ברבים, דגם בתפילת יחיד הקב"ה שומע באותם הימים".

[13]עי'סוטה לג ע"א, שיחיד אסור להתפלל בלשון ארמית, וציבור מותר (ועי'הרב עובדיה יוסף, שו"ת יחוה דעת, ח"ג, סי'מג, לסיכום הנושא). מכך למד ר'משה יהודה ליב ברמאן: "אם כן, בעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום כיפורים, דדין יחיד אז כציבור, מותר ליחיד לבקש אז צרכיו בלשון ארמי" (חק משה, שבת יב ע"ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ'כב. וראה להרב נסים דיין, ברכת מועדיך על ימים נוראים, בני-ברק תשסב, עמ'כז-כח). לשני מקורות אלו הפנני ידידי פרופ'יעקב שמואל שפיגל.

[14]ר'דוד הנגיד,מדרש דוד, אבות פ"ב מ"ה, מהדורת בן ציון קרינפיס, ירושלים תשד, עמ'לא.

[15]וכךבהתקדשיום כפוראנואומריםבתפילה זכהשנתחברהע"י ר'אברהםדאנציג, בעל'חייאדם': "ועלידיזכותהתפילותשנתפללביוםהקודשהזה, יעלוויבואוויגיעוויצטרפועמהםכלהתפילותהפסולותשהתפללנובכלהשנהבלאכוונה, ויהיוכולםנכללותבתפילתהיוםהזה". מסתימתלשונומשמעשכלתפילהשתאמרביוםכפורתעלהותטהראתהתפילותהפסולות, ולארקתפילהבכוונהכדבריר'דודהנגיד ("עדשיגיעיום-הכפוריםויתפללבכוונהובתשובהשלימה..."). בענין 'תפילה זכה', התפשטותה ודפוסיה, ראה: מ'מאיר, "על תפילה זכה", כנישתא, ב,רמת-גן תשסג, עמ'קיט-קלח.

[16]ר'רפאלעמנואלחיריקי, משנת חסידים, ח"ג, מסכתימיתשובה, אותג, ד"צ: ירושליםתשמב, דףקמבע"ב.

קביעתשנתתפבכתאריךכתיבתהחיבור, הואלפי הנאמרבשערהמהדורההראשונה (משנת חסידים, אמשטרדםתפז): "...שחברתיאני... עמנואלחיבלא"אאברהםריקיתנצב"הבעירליוורנובשנתד"ללימישניחיי, הואשנתה'כ'ו'נ'ו'ת'ליצירה". דהיינו שנתתפב.

[17]ר'חיים ויטאל, שער הכוונות, דרושיראשהשנה, סוףההקדמה.

[18]ר'יעקבב"ריוסף, זרע ישראללמסכתראשהשנה, ראשהשנהדףלדע"ב, אמשטרדםתצו, דףכגע"ב.

אמנם לדעת ר'דוד שלמה אייבשיץבעל 'ערבי נחל', רק תפילות ראש השנהבכוחן לתקן את התפילות הפגומות. וזו לשונו: "ואיתא,דבראשהשנהישכחלתקןכלהתפלותפסולותשלכלהשנה, דהיינוהתפלותשהיהבהםמחשבותזרותורעות... ובראשהשנהיכוללהעלותן.ומסתמאעיקרהזמןלזההואביוםהשני,דאזמדתהדיןגובר" (ערבי נחל, ב, יוםב'דראשהשנה, בניברק חש"ד,עמ'שצ).

[19]ראה: א'פרבר-גינת (מהדירה), פירוש המרכבה לר'משה די ליאון, מבוא, לוס אנג'לס תשנח, עמ' 42,סוףהערה128.

[20]אגב, ר'זכריה סימנר, מציע אפשרות תיקון אחרת לתפילות הפסולות המעוכבות, הנעשה באמצעות צירוף חלקי התפילות הכשרות: "ובאם שאחד לא כיון בכל הברכות בפעם אחת מחמת טרדות, רק היום מכון בברכה אחת או שתים או שלש ולמחר גם כן בשאר ברכות, באופן כשמגיע ראש השנה ויום כיפור היה בודאי מכון כל הברכות בכוונה נכונה, אז מלאך סהדיא"ל מוסרה לסנלפו"ן להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכוון בכולה – מעכבה אצלו עד יום כיפור, ואם לא נתכוין כן כל השנה עד יום כיפור, אז המלאך הנזכר למעלה משליכה אל מקום פסולי המקדשים שהוא סוף רקיע" (ספר זכירה [נדפס לראשונה בהמבורג תסט], מהדורת ש'אבא-שאול, ירושלים תשנט, עמ'לד).

הדברים האחרונים מבוססיםעלדברי ר'נפתליהירץבכרך,עמק המלך(נדפסלראשונהבאמשטרדםתח),כפי שאכן נאמר במפורשבספר זכירה,אלאשבעמק המלךלאנזכרשלאחריום-הכפוריםאיןתקנהלתפילותהפסולות, אלא שהוא כותב: "כיאפילושלאיתכויןהיחידבכלהברכותבבתאחת, רקאםהיוםיכויןבברכהאחתאושתיםוכמוכןלמחרבברכהאחתאושתיםאחרות, ברכותמצטרפות. וכשנמצאשנתכויןבכלהתפילה, אזמלאךסהדיאלמוסרהלסנדלפוןלהוליכהלמעלה. אבלכלזמןשלאנתכוויןבכולן, אזסהדיאלמעכבהאצלו" (עמק המלך, אמשטרדםתיג, דףקעבע"ב).גםלשיטתר"יג'יקאטיליהאיןגבול של זמן, כמשמעמרהיטת לשונו, ולפיכך לאידעתימקורושלספר זכירה, וצ"ע.

וראהגםחמדת ימים[נדפסלראשונהבאיזמירתצא-תצב], חלקימיםנוראים, דףסחע"ב: "ואמרוהמקובליםז"ל, כיבשארימותהשנה– מחסדוהגדוליתברך– אפילושלאנתכווןהאדםבכלברכותשל'שמונה עשרה'בבתאחת, רקאםיוםאחדיכויןבברכהאחתאושתים, וכמוכןביוםאחרבברכהאחתאושתיםאחרות– ברכותמצטרפות,וכשנמצאשנתכווןבכלהתפלה, אזהמלאךסהדיאלמוסרהלסנדלפוןלהוליכהלמעלה. אבלכלזמןשלאנתכוויןבכולן, המלאךהנזכרמעכבאותהאצלהעדיוםכיפור, ואםלאנתקנהעדהיוםההוא, אזהמלאךמשליכהלמקוםפסוליהמוקדשין...". וככלהנראהבעל'חמדתימים'עירבאתשתיהשיטותהאחרונות.

[21]אמנםנראהשלדבר זהלאהסכים המבי"ט,בית אלהים, שערהתפילה, פרקיא, ירושלים תשמה,עמ'מה, שכתב: "כיתפלתהיחידבהיותהבלתיהגונהאובלתינאמרהבכוונה– אינהמקובלתכלל. וכשאומרהברבים– לפעמיםתתקבלבזכותתפלתהרבים, כיאפילוהואצדיקלפעמיםאיןתפלתונשמעתלסיבתהרביםשאינםהגונים". וצריךעודעיון.

[22]ר'יוסףג'יקאטיליה, שערי אורה, שערשני, ספירהתשיעית, ד"צ: ירושליםתשנד, דףלע"ב– לאע"א.

יסוד זה הועתק כמעט ללא שינויים מספר 'שערי אורה'בידי רבים מהאחרונים. ראה: ר'מאיר ן'גבאי, תולעת יעקב, 'היכל ראשון יוצר אור', ירושלים תשנו, עמ'לט; תפלה לדוד, נדפס במאמרו של י'יודלוב, 'תפלה לדוד', ישורון, ב, ירושלים תשנז, עמ'תקכא-תקכב [והשווה: י'יודלוב, "קובץ תפילות מירושלים, מקושטא שנת רצ"ה או רצ"ח", קרית ספר, סא (תשמו), עמ' 931-929]; ר'מנוח הענדל, הגהות חכמת מנוח, ברכות ו ע"א; ר'ישעיה הלוי הורוויץ, סדור שער השמים, חמו"ד, דף עז ע"ב; ר'יעקב עמדין, סדור שערי שמים, א, ירושלים תשנג, עמ'נב; ר'מאיר מוילנא, נחלת אבות, ירושלים תשמג, דף יד ע"א [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים תשסד, עמ'קצח]; ר'יחיאל העליר, הגדה לליל שמורים עם ביאור אור ישרים, קעניגסבערג תריז, עמ'כב; ר'יוסף מסלוצק, דרשות רבינו יוסף מסולצק, ירושלים תשנה, עמ'ס; ר'משה נתנאל פוטשובסקי, אמונת התחיה, פתח השער, ברדיטשוב תרנד, דף יג ע"ב; ר'יצחק ווייס, בינה לעתים, בני ברק תשסח, על אלול, עמ'קיג, אות א'תקס; ר'ראובן מרגליות, מלאכי עליון, ירושלים תשה, עמ'קמד, הערה קפה.

ועלפייסודזהכתבר'יהודההלר (נפ'תקעט) ביאוריפהלמאמר (ברכותלדרע"ב) "גדולהתפילהיותרמןהקרבנות", ואלהדבריו: "גדולהתפילהיותרמקרבנות... אמנםגםאםאיננהבכוונהאינהנדחיתלגמריאבלהיאמונחתבקרןזוית, ואםיתפללאחרכךבכוונה– ישבוכחלהעלותהאףאתהתפילהאשרהיתהבלאכוונה, וזושאמרהכתובגביקרבנות'למהלירובזבחיכםוגו', קטורתתועבההיאלי', אבלגביתפילהלאאמראלא'אַעְלִיםעֵינַימִכֶּם', אבלאינודוחהאותהרקמעליםעיניועדאשרהוכשר,ועדייןתוחלתישבה. וזואשרכיוונובהחז"ל, שגדולהתפלהמהקרבנות. והואנכון" (ר'יהודה הלר, תרומת הכרי, פתחהשער, אותג, ברטיסלבהתריח).

[23]סנהדריןלטע"א. ובברכותוע"א: "ומניןלעשרהשמתפלליןששכינהעמהם? שנאמר: 'אלהיםנצבבעדתאל'".

ראהסוטהלגע"אשציבוריכוללהתפללבלשוןארמילמרותשאיןמלאכיהשרתנזקקיןלשפהזו, "משוםדבציבורהוא, שהשכינהשורהשם" (אור זרוע, הלכותשבת, סי'נה, ד"ה'והאדאמרינן'), ומשוםכך"איןהמתפללצריךשיזדקקולומלאכיהשרתלהכניסתפלתולפניםמןהפרגוד" (ע"פרש"י, שבתיבע"ב). וכךבראשוניםנוספים, לדוגמא, ר'יהודהב"ריקר, פירוש התפילות והברכות, א, עמ'יט [=שו"ת תמים דעים, סי'קפה]: "אבלציבור, כיוןדשכינהעמהן, יכוליןלהתפללבלשוןארמי..."; ר'מנחםב"רשלמההמאירי, בית הבחירה, שבתיבע"ב: "...כתבוהגאונים, בתפלתהציבורשהואבכללשוןמטעםזה, שהציבורשכינהעמהם"; שבלי הלקט, סדרראשהשנה, סו"סרפב, ועודהרבה.

[24]יתכן, שלפי יסודו של ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה ניתן אף להבין מדוע מי שאינו יכול לכוון בכל ברכות התפילה, עליו לכוון לכל הפחות בברכת 'אבות' (ראה: ברכות לד ע"ב; ר'יוסף קארו, בית יוסף, או"ח, סי'קא, אות א), או בברכות 'אבות'ו'הודאה' (כך לשיטת ר'יהודה החסיד, ספר חסידים, מהדורת ר'מרגליות, סי'קנח; ספר רוקח, הלכות חסידות, שורש זכירת השם, ירושלים תשכ, עמ'ט; סמ"ק, סי'יא; רי"י קניבסקי, קהילות יעקב, ברכות, סי'כז, אות א; קובץ שעשועי אורייתא, ג, ברוקלין (כסליו תשסה), עמ'עד-פד). כי כשם שתפילה שבכוונה מכשירה תפילות פסולות שהתפלל קודם לכן, כך גם חלק מן התפילה – ברכה אחת או שתי ברכות – שנאמרה בכוונה, בכוחה להכשיר את שאר הברכות שלא בכוונה שבתפילה הנוכחית. ולמרות שלא מצאתי מקור לרעיון זה, הדברים מסתברים במיוחד לאחר השוואתם לדברי ר'שלום בוזאגלו (מקדש מלך על זוהר, ח"ב, רמה ע"ב, זאלקוויא 1864): "כתב הרב, שאין צריך האדם שיתפלל י"ח ברכות כולה בכוונה, ואז יעלו התפלות שאינם הגוונים עמה. אלא אפילו בכל תפילה ותפילה, אם כיון באחת מכל הברכות עד שמראש השנה עד ראש השנה צירף הקב"ה שמונה עשרה ברכות בכוונה מכל תפלותיו – אגבן עולים כל תפלות של כל השנה שאינום הגונות".

[25]זוהר, ח"ב, רמהע"ב. הביאו (בתרגוםללשוןהקודש) ר'צביהירשקוידאנובר (פפד"מ תה – תעב), קב הישר, א, פרקח,ירושלים תשנג,עמ'לו.עיי"ש.גםבחמדת ימים, חלקימיםנוראים, דףלאע"א, העתיקדבריזוהראלו, וגםהוסיףלהם דבריתוכחהומוסר: "ומיהאישאשרלאישיתלבואתזאתלשובמדרכוהרעהבקרבהימיםהאלה [הימיםהנוראים], להכונןבמחשבתו, ולהעלותכלתפילותהפסולותשלכלימותהשנהבתפלותהיום, וישיםעללבואתמהשהתפללבלאכוונהועדייןלאנענהבאותםהתפילות, ועתההואמתודהומתחרטעלעוןזהשהקלבכבודויתברךויאמר: אוילימהשעשיתי! מדועאתדברה'בזיתי?...".

[26]ר'יהונתן אייבשיץ, יערות דבש, ח"א, דרושא, בני ברק תשמג, דףלבע"ד.

[27]כלומר, אם לחובה היחיד נגרר אחר הרוב, ודאי שהיחיד נגרר אחר הרוב לזכות – שתפילתו תתקבל. הציטוט שבפנים הוא מספרו בית אלהים, שער התפילה, סו"פ יא, ירושלים תשמה, עמ'מה. העתיקו דבריו החיד"א, מדבר קדמות, מערכת צ אות ו (ערך 'ציבור'), ירושלים תשכב, עמ'נא; ר'יצחק ווייס, שו"ת שיח יצחק, סו"ס מד.

[28]לכךשמקוםהנקבעלתפילהשורהבוהשכינה, ראהירושלמי, ברכותפ"דה"ד: "צריךאדםלהתפללבמקוםשהואמיוחדלתפילה, ומהטעם? 'בכלהמקוםאשראזכיראתשמי'...". והמשךהפסוקהוא (שמותככא): "אבואאליךוברכתיך". היינו, שכינתותשרהשם [ראהתרגוםירושלמי, שמותשם: "בכלאתרדתדכרוןיתשמיקדישא, מימרימתגליעליכוןומברךיתכון"]. וכךמפורשבספר ראבי"ה, ח"א, ברכות, סי'צ, מהדורתא'אופטוביצר, עמ' 67, הכותבדבריוע"פירושלמיזה: "צריךאדםלהתפללבמקוםהמיוחדלתפילה, דכתיב: 'בכלהמקוםאשראזכיראתשמי'וגו', היהמקוםמיוחדלתפילה– שםהשכינהשורה".

[29]על חשיבות מקום התפילהבדעת המבי"ט אנו למדים מדבריו הבאים: "וכמו כן המקום שהוא מוכן להתפלל בו כבר הוכן להיות תפלת ישראל נשמעת בו, ולכן המתפלל בו אפילו יחיד ואפילו בלי כוונה שלימההוא קרוב להיות תפלתו נשמעת, וכמו שמצינו בכלב שהלך להשתטח על קברי אבות" (בית אלהים, שערהתפילה, פרקה, ירושליםתשמה, עמ'כ). אמנם פיסקא זו איננה מדברת על הקובע מקום לתפילתו, אלא על מקום הקבוע לתפילת רבים, ככל הנראה בית הכנסת. אך יש מן הטעם להשוות את הדברים.

[30]מבי"ט, בית אלהים, שערהתפילה, פרקה, ירושליםתשמה, עמ'יז.

[31]בדרך אגב יש להעיר, שמ'בניהו בדיונו על ידיעות הקבלה של המבי"ט (ראה: הנ"ל, יוסף בחירי, ירושלים תשנא, עמ'קלב), לא התייחס לדברי המבי"ט הנוכחים בהקשרם לשיטתו הקבלית של ר'יוסף ג'יקאטיליה והאחרים. גם ידוע לנו שהמבי"ט הכיר את ספרו השני של ר"י ג'יקאטיליה – 'גנת אגוז', כפי שכתב במפורש: "וכן כתב גם כן ה"ר יוסף גיקטליי"א ז"ל בספר 'גנת אגוז'אשר לו..." (בית אלהים, שער היסודות, סו"פ ה, ירושלים תשמה, עמ'קעב). עוד בענין ידיעת הקבלה של המבי"ט, ראה דבריו שם, שער היסודות, פרק סא, עמ'תקמא: "ושמעתי מפי מקובל אחד...". אמנם כנראה כוונתו על מקובל בן דורוממנו הוא שמע.

[32]ר'שמואל ראבין, בגדי אהרן, מערכת ת, אות ו (ערך 'תפילה'), בני ברק תשנז, עמ'קלג. וראה מה שהעיר על כך ר'יעקב חיים סופר, תורת יעקב, ירושלים תשסב, עמ'שמב.

[33]ר'ישראל איסר מפוניבז',מנוחה וקדושה, שער התפילה, סי'כא,ירושליםתשנד, עמ'עג.

[34]ר'ידידיהטיאהווייל, לבושי בדים, ירושליםתשמח, עמ'קיט.

[35]ר'ישראל איסר מפוניבז',מנוחה וקדושה,שער התורה, סי'ה,ירושליםתשנד,עמ'קעה-קעו.

Hitzei Giborim, Tzitzit, and R. Meir Mazuz

October 14, 2016, 5:11 am

≫ Next: Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

≪ Previous: The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

$

0

0

Hitzei Giborim, Tzitzit, and R. Meir Mazuz

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In 1969 the journal Moriah appeared, published by Makhon Yerushalayim. From its beginning, this journal published manuscript material from geonim, rishonim, and aharonim, together with Torah articles by contemporary scholars. This created a model that was later followed by a number of other journals. It also became a model for how to publish memorial volumes, as these generally also contain a section of material published from manuscript. Together with the interest in manuscripts, there has developed what can only be described as an Orthodox academic approach, and one can often find articles of this sort that meet a very high scholarly standard. A well-known representative of this genre is Yeshurun, a volume that appears twice a year and includes material from manuscript as well as halakhic and scholarly articles. What is most impressive about Yeshurun is not only its massive size, but the fact that the editors can fill it with so much quality material.

A competitor to Yeshurun has recently appeared on the scene and its title is Hitzei Giborim. Its model is exactly what I have described, with a section devoted to publishing material from manuscript, followed by Torah essays and Orthodox academic articles, many of which are really fantastic. The editor of Hitzei Giborim is R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller, whose own articles show impressive erudition. Volume 9 recently appeared, but since I haven’t yet had a chance to examine it, let me speak about volume 8 which appeared last year. Volume 8 contains 1030 pages which I think makes it the largest volume of its kind. I wonder if the point of having so many pages was precisely in order to exceed even the largest Yeshurun.

Among the articles that I think will be of particular interest to Seforim Blog readers are R. Eliyahu Nahum Waldman’s ninety page study of Maimonides’ responsa to the sages of Lunel, designed to show that R. Kafih was mistaken in thinking that these are forgeries. I only wonder if such an effort was required on R. Waldman’s part, since it is hard to believe that anyone who examines the matter without preconceptions can agree with R. Kafih.[1]

R. Yehoshua Assaf deals with Rashbam’s commentary to the beginning of Genesis, the portion that ArtScroll censored and which I dealt with in prior posts here and here.[2] In this article Assaf cites R. Hillel Novetsky’s important comments here. Novetsky discovered another manuscript that not only contains the words of Rashbam in his commentary to Gen. 1:31, words that ArtScroll censored, but also the continuation of the passage that was missing until now. In fact, ArtScroll should be happy with this discovery as we now see that Rashbam affirmed that even if “day” started in the morning for the first six days of creation, the Shabbat of creation indeed began at sunset on Friday.[3] Unfortunately, I think that even if ten other Torah scholars would write articles along the lines of R. Novetsky’s and R. Assaf’s it won’t have any effect on ArtScroll.

R. Avraham Yissachar Konig’s article on the international dateline and the dispute between the Hazon Ish and other rabbis is full of interesting points and discoveries (including new material from manuscript) that significantly advances our understanding of this episode. Unfortunately, the language Konig uses about certain rabbis, in particular R. Yehiel Michel Tukatzinsky, is completely improper. Just because Konig’s point is to defend the Hazon Ish does not give him the right to belittle people who were greater than he. Interestingly, this article by Konig was removed from the volume when it was placed on Otzar ha-Hokhmah. 

Here is the table of contents that is also missing the article.

Here is the uncensored table of contents.

Otzar ha-Hokhmah has become the library for so many of us, and it is thus completely unacceptable for books to be altered no matter what the reason. The editor of Hitzei Giborim insisted that the book be shown in its entirety or taken down, and it no longer appears on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.

In Changing the Immutable, pp. 191 n. 16, 224 n. 46, I noted other examples of censorship on Otzar ha-Hokhmah. I found an additional instance in the Otzar ha-Hokhmah version of The Rabbi Leo Jung Jubilee Volume (New York, 1962). Two articles are deleted, and here is how the table of contents appears on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.

Here is the uncensored table of contents.

I understand why Otzar ha-Hokhmah would want to delete an article by Heschel, but what possible reason could there be to delete R. Isidore Epstein’s article? I can only assume that the person responsible for this mistakenly thought that Epstein was not Orthodox.

Here is a page from Otzar ha-Hokhmah’s version of Peninei Rabbenu ha-Avi Ezri, p. 266.

Here is how the uncensored page looks.

Returning to Konig’s article, on p. 770 he prints from manuscript a letter from a Sephardic rabbi to R. Ben Zion Uziel, but the name of the rabbi has been deleted. Konig tells us that he removed the rabbi’s name in order to protect his honor, because his letter shows that had no understanding of the dateline issue. It is indeed true that the rabbi did not understand the matter but that is no reason to delete his name. If we are going to start deleting names of rabbis every time we are convinced that they made a basic error, there would be no end to it. In this case the editor should have insisted that the letter appear in full. After all, everyone makes mistakes and there is no problem is seeing that even a learned rabbi did not understand this complicated issue.

Among the articles in Hitzei Giborim focusing on contemporary issues, R. Eliyahu Levine deals with dina de-malchuta dina. On p. 1012 he notes that the government requires homeowners to keep their property looking nice, and this includes cutting the lawn. R. Levine asks if this is also included in dina de-malchuta dina. He concludes that it is not, and writes the following.

וגם נראה שיסוד חוקים אלו הם מעוגנים בתרבות הגויים, שהעיקר אצלם הוא היופי החיצוני, וכל עמלם ויגיעם הוא ליפות את המראה החיצוני של רכושם, ולכן הם מעונינים שחצירו הפרטית של כל אחד מהם תשלים את מראה המקום כנאה ומטופח, וא"כ דבר זה כלול בדברי הרשב"א והש"ך שחוקים שביסודם הם כשל תוה"ק, אין נוהג בהם דדמ"ד, משום שבשעה שיגיעתו של הגוי היא לצחצח את רכושו, יגיעתו של הישראלי היא להקפיד על דברים אחרים, והמאמץ לעצמו את חוקי וגינוני המלכות, ודאי שמקפיד להיות מתאים להופעת הגוי, ממילא ההרגל בכך מזניח את ההקפדה והטיפוח של הישרליות שבישראל.

גם הרבה מחוקי הבניה והדיור כנראה מקורם בתרבות אמריקאית זו, ומשפחות יהודיות גדולות שעיקר תשוקתם אינה בדוקא בריבוי נכסים, החוקים הנ"ל אינם תואמים להשקפת עולמם, וזוהי עוד סיבה שבמסגרת חוקי הגויים לא נוהג דדמ"ד.

For those who don’t read Hebrew, he claims that zoning laws, and the whole idea of having a beautiful environment, originate in non-Jewish cultural norms, and therefore Jews are not obligated to follow these laws. I guess this means that in a “Jewish” environment, people won’t need to cut their lawns, their property can fall apart etc., since Jews look at what is on the inside and are not concerned with outer appearances. It is no secret that in some segments of the haredi world people assume that zoning laws (and sometimes even fire codes) are not Jewish concepts and thus don’t need to be followed, but to see this sort of approach in print will probably be a surprise for many.[4]

On p. 1121 we find something quite uncommon, an apology that in the previous volume an article appeared that is plagiarized from two other writers. I can’t think of another Torah publication that has ever had such a notice, and it shows both the honesty and the courage of the editor.

Beginning on p. 362, R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller publishes from manuscript Torah letters concerning shaving one’s beard when the Czarist authority required this. The question that obviously needed to be considered was if this decree was to be regarded as a she’at ha-shemad in which case Jews would be required to martyr themselves rather than obey. Not surprisingly, the rabbis whose letters are published by R. Miller did not go this far. These rabbis are R. Judah Bacharach, R. Jacob Zvi Mecklenburg, and R. Hayyim Wassertzug (also known as R. Hayyim Filipover, from one of the Lithuanian towns he was rabbi in). These letters come from an unpublished volume by R. Wassertzug which hopefully will soon appear in print as it has the potential to be a very significant publication.

Although R. Wassertzug is today unknown, this was not the case in the 19^th century, and R. Miller provides a nice introduction which shows some of R. Wassertzug’s originality. In addition to a reputation for being very pious as well as a great scholar, he was also known as a lenient posek who did not feel bound by certain practices which while generally accepted, did not, in his opinion, have a firm halakhic basis. Not surprisingly, this led to conflict with some other rabbis.

Here are two responsa from R. Wassertzug that appeared in Ha-Melitz, 14 Sivan 5629, pp. 225-226. The first permits one to drink non-Jewish milk (especially travelers), and the second permits a married woman to show some of her hair.

Not mentioned by R. Miller is that one of the opponents of R. Wassertzug was R. Isaac Haver. It is reported that he and some other rabbis went to R. Leibel Shapiro, the rav of Kovno, to complain about R. Wassertzug and to gain his support in order to have R. Wassertzug removed from his rabbinic position. Yet they were rebuffed as R. Leibel told them how great R. Wassertzug was and sent them away.[5] 

In 2015 R. Mordechai Gifter’s Milei de-Iggerot appeared. This is quite a significant work and anyone interested in the history of American Orthodoxy will want to consult it. On p. 213 he deals with R. Eliezer Berkovits’ liberal halakhic approach. R. Gifter comments that unfortunately R. Berkovits did not follow the path of his teacher, R Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, who was much more conservative in how he approached halakhah.

The person R. Gifter was writing to had asked why R. Gifter was so critical of R. Berkovits’ approach when R. Wassertzug also had a liberal approach. In R. Gifter’s reply he reveals a hitherto unknown piece of information that he received from an elderly Lithuanian rabbi, namely, that one of the responsa of R. Akiva Eger in which there is no addressee given was actually sent to R. Wassertzug. R. Gifter also states that when R. Berkovits reaches R. Wassertzug’s level of piety, then he will be able to forgive him for much of what he has written.

ומה שיביא לי ראי'מהגאון ר'חיים פיליפובר זצ"ל, ידע נא ידידי שכשיגיע דר. ברקוביץ לדרגת חסידותו ופרישותו של אותו גאון וצדיק אוכל למחול לו על הרבה מדבריו, אבל באיש של דורנו לא אוכל לתלות דבריו בחסידותו של גאון מדור קדום.

והאמת שמיחס גאוני הדור להגר"ח פיליפובר ז"ל יש לנו ללמוד איך להתיחס לכל דרישה לחלוק על הלכות קבועות אפי'כשיצאו מפי גאון וצדיק. ועיין תשובת מרן הגרעק"א ז"ל סי'נ"ה – שקבלתי מפי רב גדול וישיש בליטא שהתשובה מכוונת להגר"ח פיליפובר ז"ל.

Here is the responsum of R. Akiva Eger, vol. 1, no. 55, referred to by R. Gifter.

As you can see, while the addressee is referred to as המופלא, his name and town are not given. R. Eger criticizes R. Wassertzug for his liberal approach in which he disagreed with rishonim and in the case discussed diverged from the Shulhan Arukh. In his conclusion, R. Eger refers to himself as one who is rebuking from hidden love.

While on the topic of criticism of R. Berkovits, here are some other relevant documents that I found in the archive of Chief Rabbi Isaac Nissim at Yad ha-Rav Nissim in Jerusalem. The first is a New York Times article from June 23, 1969. (I have no doubt that the second quote attributed to R. Berkovits in the article – where he mentions reconsidering the "traditional laws"– was taken out of context.)

In response to this story the following two documents were sent out to various Orthodox figures. Since the Hebrew document is not always easy to read, I have provided a transcript and also added paragraph breaks.

בהתרגשות ורגש חרפה קראנו בזמן האחרון בעתון "הניורק טיימס"על דר. אליעזר ברקוביץ, פרופסור בבית מדרש לתורה בשיקגו, שהוא השתתף עם איזה וועידת מתבוללים בקאנאדה: שמתיימרים הם להתחבר שלשת הזרמים של יהדות (אורטודוקס) (קונסורביטיב) (ריפורם). בנאום לפני העתונעיים [!] הגיבו המשתתפים שאין האיסור לאכול חזיר עוד מותאם לנסיבות הזמן: ובשלובי זרע עמהם הגיב דר. ברקוביץ שמצות שמיטה הנוהגת באה"ק היא שערוריה סקנדלית, ולא יתכן שמירת השביעית ב"דת מודרנית": והיא בכלל יהדות מזוייפת: ולמותר הבהיר דר. ברקוביץ שהוא: "דובר של יהדות אורטודוקסית", למרות שאין לו שום בסיס להיקרא אורטודוקסי, אחרי שהוא מפורסם כמלעיג עד"ת, שכל דעותיו הן שהאורטודוקסיה "משרשת ומפיגה את היהדות מן ההמונים לרגלי העצמת האיסורים."והנה אין בעצתו מן החדוש וההפתעה, שכבר שמענוה אצל הקונסוב[ר]טיבים והריפורם כמותו – אמנם איך שהוא מצהיר ומצייר את עצמו בתור חובב ואדוק ביהדות האורטודוקסית הוא תמהון – מאין שאף דר. ברקוביץ שהרומס ברגל גאוה וגסה את עיקרי התורה והמתחבר עם הלצים והמתבוללים יכונה "דובר אורטודוקס"?

ומאידך – הרב אהרן סולביצ'יק, הראש ישיבה של ב"מ לתורה, המראה עצמו כצדיק וחסיד, המחמיר על פרטי התורה – איך הוא לא נרתע ונזדעזע מדברי הפרופסור, ולא שת לבו להסכנה החבויה בתוך הישיבה, דר. אליעזקר ברקוביץ? התירוץ: נחזה לר"א סולביצ'יק בעצמו, שלמשתה השנתי של היוניון אף אורטודוקס קאנג., שהמתחברים ברובם הם קונסורביטיב ומחללי שבת, וכל הגדולי תורה הצהירו בפומבי איסור מוחלט ללכת שמה – ראינו איך שר"א סולביצ'יק הואיל לנסוע להשתתף בועידתם, והם [ושם?] הוא נשא נאום להוכיח בעזרת "פסוקים"שאפשר להתחבר לצורך שעה עם הסטרא דשמאלא! – ומי זה שהיה יכול להעלות על הדעת שהר"מ ר"א סולביצ'יק יואיל להיות מהאורחים נואמים בארגון שכולו טריפה! אמנם היות וקראנו תגובותיו של דר. ברקוביץ הסכמות לנאומי ר"א סולביצ'יק, שמצוה גדולה להתחבר עם הרשעים, מוכרח שבאישורו הבהיר דר. בורקוביץ להעתונעיים, היות ואחרת לא היה מרשה הר"ם להפרופסור להישאר בישיבה, ובפרט בתפקיד מורה דרך על חניכיו בני הישיבה.

כעת לדאבוננו הוסרה [!] הצעיף החופף הדו-פרצוף שלר"א סולביצ'יק, מראה לזולת שהוא צדיק וחסיד, אך אינו מן הנמנע אישורו כ"דובר אורטודוקס"פרופסור המבהיר מינות וכפירה בתורה שבכתב, ובעצמו להתחבר עם המתבוללים, לעומת פסק איסור של כל גדולי התורה.

אדישות של הרמי"ם והרבנים בשיקגו להמצב קטסטרופילי הלזה היא כאובה, והחלה לשכנענו ששתיקתם כהודאתם, וכבר הגיע העת שתיפקחנה העינים והוקיע [!] בפרהסיא בעמוד הקלון את מפירי התורה בב"מ לתורה ולמחות בנזיפה לזבובי מות ושפעת דברים של הראש ישיבה המתבטא לתלמידיו דעות [כפרניות?] תחת החפשת צדקות: המחנף רשעים ומכבד פעלי עוול.

In addition to what it is said about R. Berkovits, R. Ahron Soloveichik is also attacked in these documents for not firing R. Berkovits (he actually didn’t have the authority to do so), and for attending an OU convention, an organization that in the 1960s had many mixed seating congregations which are referred to as “Conservative” synagogues. There is nothing about the latter episode in the book about R. Soloveichik, Ha-Rav Yosef Yeled Sha’ashuim (Jerusalem, 2011), published by his son, R. Yosef Soloveichik. In fact, R. Berkovits is only mentioned on two pages in the book. On p. 244, it is pointed out that R. Soloveichik opposed R. Berkovits’ approach, which is described as advocating “that halacha should be allowed to develop freely to accommodate people’s needs.” On p. 243 we see that R. Berkovits joined with other faculty members in opposition to R. Soloveichik being given any administrative power at Hebrew Theological College.[6]

Let me make one final point about all the journals and memorial volumes, Yeshurun, Hitzei Giborim, and the rest. Numerous selections from commentaries on talmudic tractates have appeared in these publications. The problem is that when it comes to talmudic commentaries, all these publications are basically useless. For example, let’s say Moriah published a portion of an anonymous medieval commentary on a few pages of Tractate Nedarim twenty years ago. Only someone who was “in the sugya” would have been able to appreciate what the commentary was saying when it first appeared. Therefore, 99 percent of the readers twenty years ago skipped over it, and they continue to skip over all of the continuously published selections of commentaries that scholars spend so long deciphering and adding learned notes to. Since almost no one reads these published commentaries, I sometimes wonder if it is a waste of the scholars’ time to work on them. If I finally decide to learn Nedarim this year, is there any chance that I will remember that a few pages of a medieval commentary appeared in Moriah over two decades ago.

Fortunately, there is a solution, and that is to follow the approach of Otzar ha-Geonim. The project I have in mind would take a good deal of effort, but it would be very valuable. What we need is for an individual, or group of people, to go through all the various journals, memorial volumes, etc., and pull out all of the commentaries on the different tractates in order create a compendium. It can be called Otzar Mefarshim or something like that, and it would be divided into tractates, just like Otzar ha-Geonim. With such a work, when someone, for example, is studying Nedarim, he will easily find the 3 page section of the anonymous medieval commentary published years ago in Moriah. This is the only way to rescue so many scattered texts from oblivion.

3. In Changing the Immutable and in earlier posts I have discussed how in previous years in some communities wearing a kippah was not standard as it is today. (I think the only exception is the Syrian community.) R. Ovadiah Yosef even says that unlike in previous years, wearing a kippah today is more than just “midat hasidut,” as it has become a sign of a religious Jew, while going bareheaded is a sign of an irreligious Jews.[7]

I was asked if the same point can be made about tzitzit and it indeed can. It is now pretty standard in the Orthodox world for men to wear tzitzit. We even start little boys wearing them in school at age 3. Yet the practice of wearing tzitzit, i.e., a tallit katan,[8] was unknown in talmudic days and is not mentioned by the geonim or Maimonides.[9] It appears to have begun with the Hasidei Ashkenaz,[10] and eventually became a regular practice in the Ashkenazic world.[11] Yet even in the twentieth century throughout the Sephardic world tzitzit were not generally worn. In these places they regarded tzitzit as a holy item, not something to be given to a child who can easily soil his garment. Even among adults, tzitzit were reserved for the especially pious. (I hope to expand on this in the future, where I will provide sources documenting what I have just mentioned.) In the past half century much has changed, and just as the kippah is now a sign of a religious Jew, so too is tzitzit. As R. Meir Mazuz puts it in a recent issue of Bayit Ne’eman, his new weekly “parashah sheet”[12]:

היום זה סימן היכר בין אדם שומר תורה ומצוות לבין מי שלא כזה, ואפילו שמן הדין אפשר להיפטר מטלית קטן . . . מ"מ מצוה מן המובחר שאדם ילבש טלית עם ארבע כנפות כדי לקיים את המצוה.

Interestingly, R. Joel Sirkes writes that while a father is obligated to provide his minor son with tefillin so that he can learn how to use them, he is not obligated to provide his son with tzitzit, “since even he [the father] is not obligated to buy a four cornered garment.”[13] This view is in opposition to the Tur who writes that a father does have to provide his minor son with tzitzit if the latter is of the age to wear it.[14]

Since I just mentioned R. Sirkes, let me share another interesting view of his. Avodah Zarah 70a quotes Rava as saying: רובא גנבי ישראל נינהו. In context, what this almost certainly means is that the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha were Jewish.[15] Yet R. Sirkes shockingly understands it to mean that most Jews are thieves! It would be shocking enough if he understood it to mean that most thieves are Jewish (and not just most thieves in Pumbeditha), but explaining the passage to mean that most Jews are thieves sounds like something one would find in the writings of an anti-Semite, not in a work authored by one of the outstanding halakhists. It is true that one can find other negative judgments of the Jewish people in rabbinic literature. For example, the Maharal speaks of Israel’s inclination to sin as something unique to them and not found among non-Jews. He writes:[16]

כי ישראל מסוגלים היו לחטא מה שלא תמצא בכל האומות.

Yet this is part of a theoretical discussion, and although Israel has this negative characteristic, the flip side is that Israel is at a much higher spiritual level than the non-Jews. R. Sirkes’ opinion, on the other hand, is about the real world, here and now, and is said in a halakhic context. See Bayit Hadash, Yoreh Deah 2:6 (kuntres aharon):

ולפי עניות דעתי נראה דבכל שאר עבירות יש להחמיר . . . מה שאין כן בגונב דבר מאכל . . . דאפילו במוחזק בכך הרבה פעמים אין לו דין משומד ותדע שהרי אמרו רוב גנבים ישראל ואם כן לא יהיה סתם ישראל כשר לשחיטה אלא בידוע שאינו גנב וזה לא שמענו לעולם.

When we come across strange passages like this, it is often the case that someone will say that the author never wrote it. Rather, it was inserted by an erring student or someone seeking to undermine traditional Judaism. In this case, we get the next best thing, as R. Shabbetai Cohen, Shakh, Yoreh Deah 2:18, writes that R. Sirkes retracted what he wrote and asked for it to be deleted.

ומה שכתב הב"ח בזה בקונטרס אחרון [ד"ה מומר] כבר צוה הוא ז"ל בעצמו למחקו.

Nevertheless, I wonder if this is actually the case. Is it possible that R. Shabbetai wrote this not because R. Sirkes actually said what he attributes to him, but because R. Shabbetai wanted the embarrassing passage of R Sirkes removed from the public eye? The best way to do this would be to say that R. Sirkes regretted writing it, and this hopefully would lead to it being deleted by future printers. 

Those who have read Changing the Immutable, especially the last chapter, know that there is plenty of precedent for what I am suggesting. The reason that I think this might be the case is that nowhere else do we have evidence of R. Sirkes saying that what he wrote here should be deleted. Furthermore, in a later work, Sefer Ha-Arokh, Yoreh Deah 2, R. Shabbetai does not mention anything about R. Sirkes giving instructions to delete what he wrote. Rather, R. Shabbetai simply criticizes R. Sirkes for what he regards as his error. If R. Sirkes really said what R. Shabbetai attributes to him in his commentary to the Shulhan Arukh, why doesn’t he mention it in Sefer Ha-Arokh? What sense is there in criticizing R. Sirkes if R. Sirkes himself regretted what he wrote? In Sefer Ha-Arokh R. Shabbetai writes very sharply, accusing R. Sirkes of an error that even an amateur wouldn’t be caught making:

אבל בב"ח (סעיף ו בקונטרס אחרון) כתב דברים בלא טעם ומחלק בין עבירה לעבירה עיין שם ומה שכתב ותדע שאמרו רוב גנבים ישראל וכו'כאן טעות נזדקר לפניו אפילו בר דבי רב לא יטעו בזה דמה שכתב רוב גנבים ישראל הוא דלא אמרינן דמותר אלא כשיש גנבים בעיר ורוב מהגנבים הם ישראל אבל שיהיה רוב ישראל גנבים חלילה לא תהא כזאת בישראל ועתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר תקיצנה בבית זה שלא כדעת דברו.

R. Shneur Zalman Hirschowitz also calls attention to what he regards as R. Sirkes’ error. R. Hirschowitz is best known as a student of R. Israel Salanter, and it was he who published R. Salanter’s Even Yisrael, which became a basic text of the Mussar movement.[17] Here is the title page.

R. Hirschowitz’s talmudic notes were included in the Romm Talmud and are now included in the new Talmud editions. His comment about R. Sirkes is found in his note to Hullin 12a:

מצוה לפרסם להסיר חרפה מעל ישראל דהנה אויבי עמינו אומרים כי חז"ל בעצמם העידו עלינו כי רוב גנבי ישראל ומה לה לעיסה שהנחתום מעיד עליה, ובאמת העולם טעה כי חז"ל אמרו זה על כל ישראל אשר בכל כדור הארץ ובכל זמן כי רוב הגנבים ישראל הם, וחלילה לומר זאת וטעות גדולה היא. וכבר טעה בזה אדם גדול הוא ניהו אדונינו רוח אפינו בעל הב"ח זצוק"ל בקונטרס אחרון ליו"ד סי'א. ולא עוד אלא שנתחלף להב"ח ז"ל במחכ"ת גאון קדשו ועצמותיו הקדושים בין רוב גנבי ישראל ורוב ישראל גנבי . . . וכל הרואה יחרד וישתומם על זה שמשים לכל ישראל בחזקת גנבים . . . אבל לא יאונה לצדיק כל און, כי הב"ח בעצמו צוה בחייו למוחקו כמ"ש הש"ך ביו"ד סי'ב.

4. Earlier in this post I mentioned R. Meir Mazuz’s parashah sheet, Bayit Ne'eman. You can see recent issues here and you can sign up to receive it here. Each issue is a transcript of his Saturday night shiur, broadcast live all over Israel. Fortunately, the transcript is complete, by which I mean that the people putting it out have not censored it in any way, thus preserving R. Mazuz’s spoken style and his numerous off-hand comments. It is pretty unique which is why I recommend that readers check it out. The people who publish the shiur even claim that it is the most popular shiur in the world, a claim that is supported by a recent media report here that R. Mazuz's Saturday night shiur has almost twice as many listeners (around 30,000) as R. Yitzhak Yosef's competing Saturday night shiur.

Readers should be prepared for a good dose of what can only be termed “Sephardic supremacy.” It is with regard to this that I have to correct a point that R. Mazuz has often made, but which is really misleading. R. Mazuz has compared the kelal yisrael sense found in the Sephardic world with the extremism in the Ashkenazic haredi world, an extremism that leads to never-ending disputes and delegitimization of others. It is true that a basic feature of Ashkenazic haredi society is the tendency to delegitimize those who don’t carry the “party line.” This of course does not mean that all haredi individuals have this tendency; however, it is found in haredi society as a whole. In the last decade or so we have seen how, when there are not many opponents outside the haredi world to focus on, the society turns on itself and creates internal battles.

As mentioned, R. Mazuz has contrasted this with the Sephardic approach which has always welcomed people of different outlooks and levels of religiosity, always looking to bring close and not separate one Jew from the other. In contrast to the Ashkenazic world which has used the herem again and again, R. Mazuz states that other than the battle against Spinoza, the Sephardim have never gone for this approach. For R. Mazuz, the upshot of all this is that Sephardic society is a much better reflection of what Judaism and Jewish life are supposed to be.

Before the great split between R. Mazuz and the Shas party, R. Mazuz commented that ש"ס is supposed to stand for שחורה and סרוגה, meaning that the party should include both black kippot and knitted kippot, since the wearers of both were faithful Jews. As many readers know, the head of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, R. Shalom Cohen, instead saw fit to refer to the religious Zionists as Amalek (among other choice comments). This in turn led R. Mazuz to increase his attacks against the leadership of the Shas party which he saw as abandoning the Sephardic tradition and adopting the worst aspects of Ashkenazic haredi culture. Those who follow the Israeli religious scene know that at present there is a battle taking place for leadership of the Sephardic religious world between the two most important Sephardic rabbis. One is R. Yitzhak Yosef, who sees himself as the rightful inheritor of his father’s position and protector of his legacy.[18] The other is R. Mazuz. Among R. Mazuz’s supporters is former chief rabbi R. Shlomo Amar. R. Amar is himself quite popular, but since the passing of R. Ovadiah has subordinated himself to R. Mazuz. Seeing R. Mazuz's great popularity today, I am proud to recall that the very first English article to deal with him appeared in 2007 on the Seforim Blog here. This post was the first introduction of most readers to R. Mazuz, and since that time I have quoted from his voluminous writings in almost every one of my subsequent posts.

There is a good deal more to discuss regarding the dispute over leadership of the Sephardic world, the strategy of the Yachad party and why it didn’t succeed, and the growing attacks on R. Mazuz from small-minded people who object to his independent mind. (He has even been attacked for quoting poems by Yehudah Alharizi and Hayyim Nachman Bialik in a shiur.) But for now, let me just make a couple of points:

A. Contrary to what R. Mazuz has said, it is not true that the only time Sephardic sages have used the herem is against Spinoza. The scholars of Aleppo, who could be quite extreme, banned the Torah commentary of R. Elijah Benamozegh, a figure whose works are quoted by R. Mazuz.

B. R. Mazuz’s description, while correct in its major points, is offered without any context and therefore leads to a distortion of the historical record. Nothing R. Mazuz describes makes sense without remembering that unlike in the Sephardic world, the Ashkenazic sages were confronted with the Reform movement and later with the East European Haskalah. It is in the context of these battles that the Ashkenazic rabbinic leadership felt forced to resort to bans and other types of exclusionary behavior and language, and this led to the creation of an extremism that is with us until today. Lacking Reform and Haskalah, the Sephardic world could develop in an entirely different fashion, but had the Sephardic world confronted such anti-traditional movements, it is likely that its rabbinic leadership would have reacted exactly as the Ashkenazic rabbis did. In other words, we are dealing with apples and oranges, and it doesn’t make sense to point to characteristics of the Ashkenazic world and contrast them negatively with the Sephardic world without explaining why it is that the Ashkenazic world developed its extremist tendencies.

I must, however, point out that R. Mazuz assumes that there is something in the Sephardic spiritual makeup that itself prevents the development of anti-traditional forces. You see this from various comments that he throws out. For example, in a recent shiur, published in Bayit Ne'eman, no. 32 (6 Tishrei 5777), p. 1, in speaking about R. Abraham Ibn Ezra's piyut Lekha Elai Teshukati, he states: "If only the Ashkenazim had this piyut; I would guarantee them that if they would have recited this piyut, they would not have had maskilim, Reformers, or assimilationists."

This particular shiur has a number of other interesting points. For example, on p. 2 he discusses the verbal attacks upon haredi soldiers. (So far there have only been verbal attacks, but no one will be surprised when an actual physical attack occurs.) As far as I know, none of the Ashkenazic haredi leaders have spoken publicly about this unfortunate development (and if they have, it has not been covered in the Ashkenazic haredi press). The Ashkenazic haredi leadership in both Israel and America has a policy of not criticizing bad behavior on "its side" (unless they are dealing with really bad behavior such as allying with Iran). This is a pattern that has been going on for almost a hundred years. I say this since the leaders of Agudat Israel in Palestine never criticized or took any real action against the extremists who were defaming R. Kook. In fact, when the authentic history of Agudat Israel is written, the question of the culpability of the World Agudat Israel in this entire affair will have to be dealt with, for despite all of its private outrage with what was taking place under the auspices of its branch in Eretz Yisrael, the extremists and their enablers were never distanced from the organization. It seems that it is always much easier to criticize those to your left than to your right. 

Thus, had a typical anti-Israel group staged an event in which kids were taught to throw eggs at a car said to be carrying the prime minister of Israel, you can be sure that Agudat Israel would have been at the forefront of attacking this event. So how come when this exact thing happens in the Satmar community there is only silence from the Agudah? 

Agudat Israel readily attacks the BDS groups and others who try to delegitimize the State of Israel. Yet how come Satmar can have a rally attacking the State of Israel in a way that gives cover to BDS and all the rest who want to destroy Israel, and we don't hear a word from the Agudah? If you listen to the propaganda of Satmar, it also gives cover to the anti-Semites, as it uses anti-Semitic imagery in speaking about the all-powerful Zionists who control the media and who through their devious means are able to pull the wool over the world's eyes.[19] If such imagery is rightfully condemned as anti-Semitic when "outsiders" use it, how is it that Satmar gets a pass when it uses anti-Semitic imagery?

Returning to R. Mazuz's comments about the haredi soldiers, he says simply: "These soldiers who come to pray are not sinners but are tzadikim! How can we call them sinners? They defend Israel with their bodies!"

3. I am happy to see that a number of new books and articles refer to posts that have appeared on the Seforim Blog. The most recent example of this is that I have know of is Chaim Dalfin’s just-published book, Rav and Rebbe, which deals with the relationship between R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

4. God willing, I will once again be leading Torah in Motion trips to Europe in Summer 2017. You can see the details here.

---

[1] I say this even though R. Yitzhak Barda, Kinyan Torah (Ashkelon, 2014), vol. 3, p. 87, states that R. Kafih is correct. R. Barda’s volume is itself of interest, as he argues that when it comes to Jewish law, Maimonides’ opinion is absolutely binding, even if the Shulhan Arukh disagrees.

[2] Based on conversations and emails, I think that my posts on ArtScroll’s censorship of Rashbam have had a wider impact than any other posts. In fact, not long ago someone in my town who knew that I wrote a book on censorship shared with me that she had heard that ArtScroll censored Rashbam. This person does not read the Seforim Blog, and indeed had never heard of it. She thus had no idea that her knowledge of ArtScroll censoring Rashbam had its ultimate origin in my posts, which I think shows the great reach of this blog.

[3] This idea was earlier suggested by Aharon Marcus. See the note in his edition of She’elot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (Tel Aviv, 1979), p. 34. R. Yoel Bin Nun was unaware of R. Novetsky’s discovery and because of this offers a mistaken interpretation of Rashbam. See his recently published Zakhor ve-Shamor (Alon Shvut, 2015), pp. 229ff. (called to my attention by Zachary Grodzinski).

In my post here on Artscroll’s censorship of Rashbam, I cite a number of authorities who claim that before the giving of the Torah night came after day. Subsequently, I found that the Malbim says the same thing and cites an interesting proof for this position. See his commentary to Exodus, chapter 12 note 50:

גם הלילה שאחריו שייך ליום ארבעה עשר, כי קודם מ"ת היה הלילה הולך אחר היום, כמ"ש בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב תאכלו מצות.

See also R. Meir Mazuz, Bayit Ne'eman, no. 17 (19 Sivan 5776), p. 3 n. 17; R. Moshe Zuriel, Otzrot Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Bnei Brak, 2016), pp. 35ff.

[4] In Israel, the mainstream haredi rabbinic opinion is that one can build illegally and ignore the various zoning laws which are not thought to reflect haredi values. (The mainstream hardali rabbinic opinion is that one can build illegally in Judea and Samaria.) One exception to this generalization is R. Asher Weiss who insists that “the world is not lawless” and even haredim must follow zoning laws. See the discussion of his view, and the opposing views of R. Israel Grossman and R. Shmuel Wosner, in Ron S. Kleinman, “The Halakhic Validity of Israel’s Judicial System among Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Halakhic Decisors,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 18 (2015), p. 227-259. On pp. 250-251, Kleinman reports on a meeting that R. Weiss had with a group of Israeli lawyers. R. Weiss’s important remarks were later published and Kleinman summarizes as follows:

Rabbi Weiss maintains in the meeting that “it is a great challenge, a great and holy undertaking” for Orthodox Jews to engage in all professions, including the practice of law, despite the fact that practicing as a lawyer raises halakhic questions. In his words, “we need lawyers who are punctilious in their observance of the commandments . . . [as well as] judges who are punctilious in their observance of the commandments and who attempt as far as possible to render judgments according to . . . Jewish law.” These judges are important for ensuring that Israel’s judicial system “is not totally alienated from the spirit of the Torah.” He states that “a[n] [Orthodox] judge [in a civil court of law] provides a vital service to the nation” because there are many matter in which the rabbinical courts are not equipped to rule. Furthermore in his opinion, the prohibition against resorting to Gentile courts applies only to litigants and not to judges or lawyers.

                                                                                                                                            

As Kleinman notes, one of the points R. Weiss relied on for this last statement (which I have underlined) is  the fact that the Hazon Ish was friends with Yitzhak Kister who was a judge. (Kister would later be appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court, and is the only such justice who identified with the haredi community.) Yet as far as I know, the sentence that I have underlined is unprecedented among rabbinic decisors, even among the Religious Zionist poskim.

A Hebrew version of Kleinman’s article appears in Tehumin 36 (2016), pp. 346-358. The articles are not identical so anyone interested in the topic is advised to consult both the English and Hebrew versions.

[5] David Matityahu Lippmann, Le-Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Kovna u-Slobodka (Keidan, 1930), pp. 226-227. A different version of the story, with the same conclusion, is told by Hayyim Karlinsky, “Ha-Gaon Rabbi Aryeh Leib Shapiro,” Moriah 76 (Sivan 5744), pp. 95-96. The earliest version of the story, and perhaps the original source, is found in Asher Margulies, “Sheloshah Matmonot Hitmin Yosef,” Ha-Melitz, 25 Tevet 5687, col. 76 (called to my attention by R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller).

[6] While it could not have been easy for R. Yosef Soloveichik to revisit the painful history he discusses, the documents he reproduces are important for the history of American Orthodoxy. The book I have referred to is not the same thing as the 2016 book on R. Ahron Soloveichk, Yeled Sha'ashuim

[7] Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 4, no. 1 (pp. 7-8). Regarding removing the kippah (but still leaving one’s head covered) before entering the bathroom, the following appears in R. Simhah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 21 n. 58.

וכן מובא בשם מוהר"א מבעלזא זי"ע שהיה פושט מעליו המלבוש עליון והכובע והגארטל לפני הכנסו לביהכ"ס, ואא"ז זצ"ל היה מקפיד גם על הכיפה והיה מניח במקומו איזה מטלית על ראשו.

Has anyone else heard of such a practice?

[8] Why isn’t this called טלית קטנה? R. Meir Mazuz explains that in the period of the rishonim, when the expression טלית קטן first began, they were not concerned with the grammatical point that a word ending with ת is feminine. See Bayit Ne’eman 29 (14 Elul 5776), p. 4.

[9] See R. Yitzhak Ratsaby, Olat Yitzhak, vol. 2, no. 11 (p. 28).    

[10] See R. Yehiel Goldhaber, Minhagei ha-Kehilot, vol. 1, pp. 93ff.

[11] Here is one source that shows that in 12^th century Ashkenaz tzitzit were not generally worn: R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mainz, Sefer Ra’avan, ed. Deblitzky, vol. 1, no. 40:

שאלני חתני רבי אורי. מצוה חמורה כמו ציצית שהיא שקולה כנגד כל המצות, מאי שנא דמקילין בה רוב ישראל שאין מתעטפין בכל יום. והשבתי לו לפי שאין ציצית חובת גברא. מי כת'לבוש ציצית, ציצית חובת טלית הוא דכת'ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם, אם יש לך טלית של ד'כנפים עשה לו ציצית ואם אין לך טלית אינו חייב בציצית. דומיא דמזוזה ומעקה דאם יש לו בית חייב במזוזה ומעקה ואם אין לו בית אינו חייב.

[12] Bayit Ne’eman 18 (26 Sivan 5776), p. 1.

[13] Bah, Orah Hayyim 17.

[14] Orah Hayyim 17:    קטן היודע להתעטף אביו צריך ליקח לו ציצית לחנכו

[15] See Tosafot, Bava Batra 55b s.v. Rabbi Eliezer, and the discussion in R. Zev Wolf Zicherman, Otzar Pelaot ha-Torah, vol. 3, pp. 759ff. (R. Zicherman refers to the Shakh and R. Hirschowitz that I mention.) See also Beitzah 15a: רוב ליסטים ישראל נינהו. The note in the Soncino Talmud to this passage reads: “The Rabbis were broad-minded enough to realize that in a town containing an overwhelming Jewish population the majority of thieves would be Jewish.”

[16] Netzah Yisrael, ed. Hartman (Jerusalem, 1997), vol. 1, ch. 2, p. 20. For R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg’s negative comments about the Jewish people, see my Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, p. 183.

[17] Regarding Hirschowitz, see Hayyim Dov Genachovski, Shneur Zalman Hirschowitz (Jerusalem, 1951).

[18] In this video R. Yosef explains why he has spoken out against R. Mazuz and his followers. I have no doubt that there are also political factors involved. The various "religious" attacks on R. Mazuz, especially during the last Israeli election, remind me of the following memorable passage in Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Philadelphia, 1896), p. 3: "[U]nfortunately religious struggles are usually conducted on the most irreligious principles."


[19] This anti-Semitic imagery is already present in R. Joel Teitelbaum, Al ha-Geulah ve-al ha-Temurah, chapters 46, 79.