Quantcast
Channel: The Seforim Blog
Viewing all 667 articles
Browse latest View live

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

$
0
0
Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings
Chaim Sunitsky

It is well known that Simchat Torah is not mentioned anywhere in the two Talmuds or Midrashim[1]. In fact we have no proof that in the times of Talmud they used to finish the Torah cycle reading on Simchat Torah. The prevalent minhag in the land of Israel was to read the Torah not in one year but approximately in three[2]. In fact it seems that every synagogue read at its own speed[3]without any established cycle, so speaking of the specific “day” when they would finish the reading is meaningless[4].

However in Babylon where they read Torah in one year, it is important to establish when did they finish? One would assume that reading in one year meant finishing on Shabbat before Rosh Hashanah[5] or Shabbat before Yom Kippur (since the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur while technically being already in the next year are also related to the previous year[6].) Indeed R. Rueben Margolis[7]claims that the original custom was to finish reading the Torah cycle on Shabbat before Yom Kippur[8]. One of his proofs is the statement in the Talmud[9] that R. Bibi bar Abaye wanted to finish reading all parshiyot on the eve of Yom Kippur, and when he was told this day should be reserved for eating, he decided to read earlier. Had they finished the cycle after Yom Kippur, why didn’t R. Bibi bar Abaye instead postpone it for later[10]? This idea also explains the tradition that there are altogether 53 parshiyotin the Torah[11], and therefore Nitzavim and Veyelech[12]should be counted as one. According to this all 53 parshiyot were always read on Shabbat and there never was a special parsha that is read only on Yom Tov[13].

Even though the Talmud (Megilah 31a) mentions that on Simchat Torah, “Vezot Habracha” is read, there is absolutely no proof that they read the entire parsha till the end of Torah. What is more likely is that this parsha was chosen for this particular day of Yom Tov, just as all other parshiyot chosen for various holidays in the same sugia. Maybe the reason is that they wanted to finish Sukkot with the general blessing of all the Jewish tribes[14].

This also explains the Haftorah for this day. According to the Talmud (ibid) it is from the prayer of Shlomo (Melachim 1:8:22) right before the Haftorah of the previous day (1:8:54). The prayers and blessings of Shlomo fit perfectly with the prayers and blessings of Moshe[15]. However our custom is to say the Haftorah from the beginning of Yehoshua. Indeed the Tosafot (Megilah 31a) ask why our custom this contradicts the Talmud[16]? However according to the assumption that only during Gaonic times did we start reading the entire last parsha of the Torah on the second day of Shmini Atzeret[17], it makes sense that this caused the change in Haftorah, as the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua is a natural continuation of the Torah and it starts with the death of Moshe.

The second topic of this post is regarding the obligation[18] to make 100 blessings every day. This is codified as halacha in the Shulchan Aruch[19]. However the common practice seems to be not to count[20] the number of blessings and make sure to say 100 every day. Indeed on the holiest day of our year – Yom Kippur[21] it’s virtually impossible to make so many blessings. Indeed the Brisker Rav – R. Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik is quoted as counting the blessings he made every day except on Yom Kippur since making 100 blessings on Yom Kippur is impossible anyway, he did not even try to make as many as he could[22].

Another problem is that most women who don’t pray 3 times a day almost never pronounce 100 blessings per day. This led some poskim to write that women are not obligated in this mitzvah[23].
All of this led some Rishonimto look for alternative ways one can be considered to have made 100 blessings. One of approaches it to count some of the blessings one hears as if he made them[24]. Another approach is to count the prayer “Ein Kelokenu” as a number of blessings[25]. This approach obviously seems somewhat farfetched[26].

In this short article we will try to see if the is a different reason why the practice of 100 blessings was not originally followed by the majority of Jews. It is known that not all halachik obligations are treated equally[27]. There are various reasons for this[28] but at least one has to do with traditionally following what our ancestors did. If the Jews originally resided in areas where the majority of grain was “yashan[29]” and later moved to northern countries where the crop is planted after Passover and all the grain of that crop is “chadash”, they continued ignoring the prohibition against it[30]. Similarly the Brisker Rav said the reason very few people ever ask a rabbi questions regarding trumot and maaserot is because they never saw their parents who lived outside the Land of Israel do so[31].
At times however it seems that the Jewish people originally followed an alternative opinion in halacha and later when the Shulchan Aruch paskened according to a different opinion the old custom did not change[32]. In my humble opinion it seems the custom of making 100 blessings a day was also originally not obligatory[33], and even when the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch effectively made it so, the people continued not to “count their blessings”.

The wording of the Talmud (Menachot 43b) is as follows:

תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה'אלקיך שואל מעמך רב חייא בריה דרב אויא בשבתא וביומי טבי טרח וממלי להו באיספרמקי ומגדי
It was taught[34]: R. Meir used to say, a man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is written, “And now, Israel, what doth the L-rd thy G-d require of thee[35]”? On Sabbaths and on Festivals R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavored to make up this number by the use of spices and delicacies.
The obvious question is why does the Talmud mention only R. Hiyya ben Awia as making a special endeavor to compensate the missing blessings[36]? What did everyone else do? It would seem logical that if there was a legal obligation for everyone to make 100 blessings, the Talmud should have asked: and how do we make up for missing blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov[37]? It would seem that R. Meir does not actually require to count the blessings one makes during the day and make sure there are 100, and only one sage went out of his way to always make 100 blessings. We similarly find other laws of the Talmud that are stated as actual prohibitions but are possibly only stringencies. These examples may include the prohibition of entering a business partnership with an idolater or the prohibition of lending money without witnesses[38]. Similarly the Rashba[39]considers the prohibition against drinking bear with idolaters to be just “the custom of holy ones (minhag kedoshim)”.

Even more compelling is the version of the statement of R. Meir in Tosefta and Yerushalmi (end of Berachot) implies that one would just normally end up[40]making 100 blessings on regular weekdays:

תני בשם רבי מאיר אין לך אחד מישראל שאינו עושה מאה מצות בכל יום. קורא את שמע ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ואוכל את פתו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ומתפלל שלשה פעמים של שמונה עשרה וחוזר ועושה שאר מצות ומברך עליהן
We learned in the name of R. Meir that every Jew does [at least] 100 mitzvot [by making 100 blessings] every [week]day. He reads Shma with blessings before and after[41], eats bread with blessings before and after[42], and prays 3 times 18 blessings[43] and does other mitzvot[44] and makes blessings on them.
I found the same proofs in the Metivta edition of the Talmud in the name of R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow[45]. He also brings that R. Meir’s statement in our Talmud Bavli is according to some versions:  מאה ברכות חייב אדם לברך בכל יום[46]and he suggests it can be translated as “100 obligatory blessings does one make per [week]day” rather than “100 blessings is one obligated to make per day”. He also brings some Gaonim and Rishonimwho understood that the mitzvah of making 100 blessings a day is not a full obligation[47].

In conclusion I’d like to mentions that obvious: this article was only meant to explain why many are not as careful about the law of making 100 blessings per day as they are regarding other laws contained in the Shulchan Aruch right next to this law (i.e. the laws of morning blessings). This short essay is definitely not meant as a halachic guide. We certainly should try to fulfil the letter of the law by either listening carefully on Shabbat and Yom Tov to the blessings on the Torah and Haftorah as well as the repetition of Shmone Esre[48], or eat a few snacks which contain foods that require different blessings[49].



[1] It is however mentioned in the Zohar 3:256b.
[2] Megilah 29. It was already linked to their general dividing many of the sentences into much smaller verses (Kidushin 30a).We may actually have this preserved in Devarim Rabbah where each new chapter starts with: Halacha, Adam MeYisrael and we have 21 such beginnings instead of 10 or 11 for parshiyot of Sefer Devarim. 
[3] See Hiluke Minhagim between Eretz Yisrael and Babel.
[4] Although they would presumably make the “siyum” and celebrate when they did indeed finish the Torah (see Kohelet Rabbah 1:1).
[5] See Levush, 669 who gives a somewhat strange explanation that the reason we don’t finish the cycle of Torah reading by Rosh Hashanah is to “deceive the Satan”.
[6] GR”A to Sifra Detzniuta, see also a similar idea in TB Rosh Hashanah 8b.
[7] Shaare Zohar, Megilah 30b, Nitzutze Zohar 1:104b, 3rd note.
[8] He seems to claim this for Eretz Yisrael but it seems more reasonable to say this is true regarding Babel.
[9] Berachot 8b.
[10] Indeed for us the halacha is that someone who didn’t read the parsha on time, should finish it before Simchat Torah.
[11] See for example Tikune Zohar, 13th Tikun, GR”A there.
[12] Indeed at the end of these two parshiyot we have one Masoretic note that counts all their verses together – 70, rather than 30 verses for Nitzavim and 40 for Vayelech as is usual for other parshiyot that are sometimes joined. Regarding their splitting see also Tosafot, Megilah, 31b and Magen Avraham, 228.
[13] According to this on certain years, when there was no Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, two other parshas were joined.
[14] See Sefer Hamanhig, Sukka.
[15] See also Rashi, Megilah 31a that Shlomo sent away the people on the eight day and this is why the Haftorah for Shmini Atzeret was taken from this chapter.
[16] See also Rosh and Tur that claim our custom is based on Yerushlami, but this is found not in our Yerushalmi.
[17] Note that one can’t bring any proof for this from the fact that the Talmud (Megilah 30a) does not mention that on Simchat Torah 3 Sifrey Torah are taken out as it mentions regarding Hanukkah that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, and regarding Rosh Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat. Aside from being an argument from silence, the custom to read a passage regarding the mussaf sacrifice from Parshat Pinchas is not of Talmudic, but of Gaonic origin (see Bet Yosef, 488). So we would at most expect there to be two Torah Scrolls on the second day of Shmini Atzeret, but if our argument is correct, they read only from one scroll.
[18] Talmud, Menachot 43b. There are some sources that seem to attribute this law to King David (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21).
[19] Orach Chaim 46:4.
[20] On a typical weekday one pronounces 100 brachot anyway due to large number of blessings in 3 Shmone Esre prayers (3*19=-57). However on Shabbat and Yom Tov the 4 Amidahs with 7 blessings each make only 28 blessings, and the only way to make 100 blessings is by eating fruits and snacks and smelling fragrances throughout the day.
[21] Even though we pray five Amidahs on Yom Kipur, each has only 7 blessings and since there are no meals throughout the day we can only compensate the missing brachot by smelling various fragrances and making blessings on them.
[22] See Tshuvot Vehanhagot 4:153.  Others say one should still try to maximize the number of blessings even if you can’t reach 100 (R. Haim Kanevsky quoted in Dirshu edition on Mishna Berura, 46).
[23] Shevet Halevi 5:23, Tshuvot Vehanhagot 2:129. However R. Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam, Vayeshev) obligates women in making 100 blessings.
[24] See Orach Chaim 284:3.
[25] See Machzor Vitri,1; Sidur Rashi,1; Rokach; Kol Bo, 37.
[26] See Sefer Hamanhig, Dinei Tefillah (page 31) ולפי דעתי אין שורש וענף לזה המנהג.
[27] The GR”A explains that the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 155b): “there is no one poorer than a dog or richer than a pig” hints to two prohibitions: eating pork and speaking lashon hara (evil speech). While every Jew is careful about the former (this mitzvah is “rich”), very few people fully keep the latter (and this mitzvah is “poor”).
[28] Some mitzvot are just very difficult to keep, like the obligation for every man to write his own Sefer Torah.
[29] The five main grains that took root after Passover are forbidden to be eaten until the day after next Pesach and are called “chadash” – new [crop]. The grain from the old, permitted crop is called “yashan” – old. Some poskim hold that the prohibition does not apply outside the land of Israel, but the GR”A thought these laws are applicable everywhere.
[30] See the GR”A Yore Deah 293:2 אלא שנמשך ההיתר שהיו זורעין קורם הפסח.
[31] Similarly the Chofetz Chaim says the reason most people ignore the prohibition against evil speech is also because their parents did not stop them from speaking Lashon Hara from childhood (Haga in the end of his 9th chapter of Chofetz Chaim).
[32] I brought an example of this in an article about mezuza, where it seems there used to be an opinion followed that a house with more than one entrance only requires one mezuza.
[33] It is interesting that according to the Manhig (quoted above) ונראין הדברי'שאחר שיסדן משה רבינו ע"ה שכחום וחזר דוד ויסדם לפי שהיו מתי'ק'בכל יום Moshe first instituted this law and it was later “forgotten” and reinstituted by David. I am not sure how it’s possible that this law would ever be “forgotten”.
[34] I am quoting Soncino’s translation.
[35] There are a few different interpretations regarding how this verse hints to 100 blessings, see Rashi and Tosafot.
[36] See Hida, Machazik Beracha to Orach Chaim 290.
[37] See similar logic in Tosafot Baba Metzia 23b that we don’t pasken like Rav that meat that was not watched becomes forbidden since the Gemora asks: “how does Rav ever eat meat” and does not ask: “how do we eat meat”. See also Rosh, Pesachim 2:26 that only one sage was careful to start the “Shmira” of matza so early, and therefore the halacha for us does not follow him (Yabia Omer 8:22:24).
[38] See for example Ritva, Megillah 28a, see also Ran on the Rif, end of first perek of Avoda Zara.
[39] See Bet Yosef, Yore Deah 114 in the name of Torat Habayit.
[40] It’s also possible R. Meir’s statement is in realm of agada rather than halacha.
[41] That’s 7 blessings.
[42] If he eats 2 meals a day and makes Birkat Hamazon with a cup of wine, he will make 2+4+2 blessings during each meal, i.e. 16 blessings a day.
[43] 57 blessings.
[44] The blessings on tefillin and tzitzit make 2 or 3 blessings, blessing on the washing hands and two or three blessing on the Torah add another 5-7 blessings. Altogether we get 7+16+57+5/7=85/87 blessings. If we add all the morning blessings we will get more than 100.
[45] Commentary to R. Saadia’s Sefer Hamitzvot (Aseh 2).
[46] This is the Girsa of Tur and some other Rishonim.
[47] See R. Perlow on Sefer Hamitzvot quoted above.
[48] At any rate one should listen carefully and if there is a small minyan, when people don’t pay attention to the blessings on the Torah or to the repetition of Shmone Esre, they cause a “bracha levatala”.
[49] For example an apple, some watermelon, a piece of chocolate and some cake will add 4 blessings before and 2 after.

Strife Between Men

$
0
0
Strife between Men
By Rabbi Shnayor Burton

This is an excerpt from his forthcoming book [אורות יעקב[דרושים נבחרים על חיי האבות, Oros Yaakov [selected essays on the forefathers]. 
This essay, entitled ריב בין אנשים (Strife between Men), deals with Lot and Avraham - their own changing relationship and the relationship of the nations descended from them. It demonstrates that the complex treatment of Amon and Moav, and Ruth's role therein, are rooted in the Sodom narrative, Lot's connection to that city and his daughters' actions; and that all of this is alluded to in an unlikely place: the Halachic parsha of strife between men -  כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים in דברים פרק כה.

ריב בין אנשים

וגם ללוט ההלך את אברם היה צאן ובקר ואהלים׃ ולא נשא אותם הארץ לשבת יחדו . . . ולא יכלו לשבת יחדו׃ ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט . . . אל נא תהי מריבה ביני ובינך . . . כי אנשים אחים אנחנו . . . הפרד נא מעלי וגו'[בראשית יג ה-ט]
לא יבוא ממזר בקהל יי גם דור עשירי לא יבוא . . . לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי גם דור עשירי לא יבוא . . . על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים . . . לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם כל ימיך לעולם׃ לא תתעב אדומי כי אחיך הוא וגו'[דברים כג ד-ח]
כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע׃ והיה אם בן הכות הרשע והפילו השפט והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו במספר׃ ארבעים יכנו . . . מכה רבה ונקלה אחיך לעיניך׃ לא תחסום שור בדישו׃ כי ישבו אחים יחדיו ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה . . . יבמה יבוא עליה . . . ויבמה וגו'[דברים כה א ה]

האדומי לא נדחה עד עולם. אף שהיה בדין להרחיק את אדום מחמת מעשיו הרעים ואכזריים, אך הלוא אח עשו ליעקב; אין לתעב אח והוא מקבל רחמים לפנים משורת הדין. לא כן עמון ומואב: הם סובלים את מלוא תוקף מידת המשפט. כראויים לתיעוב הם מקבלים את גמולם ואין מרחמים בדין. אך גם עמון ומואב אחים הם לנו, לוט זקנם מכונה כך במפורש בפי אברהם אבינו: 'כי אנשים אחים אנחנו'. למה להם לא מגיע אהבת אחים?
הפתרון טמון בפענוח התואר שהעניק האב ללוט: 'אנשים אחים'. שתי בחינות בתואר זה, שני צדדים: איש וגם אח. זאת אומרת, לוט ואברהם יכולים וחייבים להיות אחים מקורבים, אבל אין קרבה זו מובטחת ללוט. איש-אח הוא; איש שעשוי להיות אח ואח שעלול להיות איש נכרי בלבד. מדרגתו תלויה ועומדת: הריב והפירוד מהווים סכנה להמשכיות מעלתו הרמה כאחיו של הצדיק, שמא יקלקל; הריב יתגבר ויתגלע בלא שליטה ולא ייחשב עוד אלא איש נכרי.
ואכן כך היה – האח נהפך לאיש גרידא. לוט נפרד מאברהם ובחר לשבת בערי הכיכר, איש-אח המצטרף עם אברהם בלכתו לארץ כנען התרחק מדודו הצדיק וברכת הארץ אשר יראה לו ה', הלך אחר עיניו והתאווה לשבת בסדום הדומה לארץ מצרים. ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה'מאוד, הם יסובו על הבית להרע למלאכים שירדו לבקר ולראות את מעשיה, אינם מכבדים אורח ומתאווים למעשה נבלה; כך היא מידת אנשי העיר, אנשי סדום, ולוט המצטרף עמהם מתאחד עם סדום ומתנכר מן הצדיק.
אך לא מיד לאחר פרידה זאת נהפך לוט לאיש גרידא, סדומי בלתי ראוי לחנינה – הפירוד נגמר רק אחרי הנסיון להציל את לוט, ויחד איתו שאר אנשי סדום.
כי פעמיים התעסק אברהם בפרשת סדום, ומעמדו של לוט מידרדר מן האחת לשניה מאח לאיש: במלחמת ארבעת המלכים את החמישה ובמהפכת ערי הכיכר. בפעם הראשונה כל דאגתו של אברהם נתונה בעד לוט אחיו היושב בסדום, כפי שנאמר: 'ויקחו את לוט . . . בן אחי אברם . . . וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו . . . וגם את לוט אחיו ורכושו השיב'[בראשית יד יב-טז]. טרם התייאש אברהם מלקרב את לוט; קשרי האחווה מזכים אותו במאמצי דודו להילחם בעדו ולהצילו. באותה שעה, אף שכבר היה הריב והפירוד מן הצדיק שבעקבותיו התיישב בסדום, עדיין נחשב לוט לאחיו של אברהם – מפני שעוד לא היתה רעת אנשי סדום עצמם מוחלטת. כמנצח בקרב הענק הזה היה ראוי אברהם למלוך על כל אנשי סדום וכל הרכוש משעובד לו ואיתם לוט. מתוך כוונה זו – להחזיק בשלל המלחמה – נתן אברהם מעשר מכל, שהרי אין אדם מעשר ממה שאינו מתכוון להחזיק בו. ואם כל אנשי סדום היו נכנעים לאברהם וסרים למשמעתו לא היו אנשיה רעים וחטאים לה'עוד, ואף ניכורו של לוט היה מתבטל. לוקח נפשות חכם היה אברהם וכל הנפש בידו, הכל מוכן לגאולה ותשובה שלמה והצדק שולט, אנשי סדום מכירים במעלת אברהם ובן אחי אביו מתאחד שוב איתו – אלא שיצא מלך סדום לקראתו ואמר: 'תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך'[שם כא]. כלומר: 'אכן נצחת בקרב והרכוש מגיע לך, אך הנפשות כולם עדיין סדומיים הם ורוצים להיות תחת שליטתי, להמשיך להתנהג בדרכה של סדום'. כשמוע אברהם כן נחלש כוחו ועזב את אנשי סדום ולא הכניסם תחת כנפי השכינה. נשארו אנשי סדום רעים וחטאים ונפש לוט אבודה איתם.
בכך נגמר נסיונו של אברהם לשמר את קרבת לוט אחיו, להשקיט את הריב ולהשתיק מדון, בלתי מתייאש מקרובו. כך אמרו חז"ל:
וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו'– וכי אחיו היה? אלא ראה ענותנותו של אברהם: אחר אותה מריבה שכתוב 'ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט', אעפ"כ היה קורא אותו 'אחיו'דכתיב: 'כי אנשים אחים אנחנו'.[1]
האח המתנכר שערק לסדום עודו יכול להתאחד ולא להפוך לאיש גרידא – אבל רק בשעה שאין רעת אנשי סדום מוחלטת, בעוד לא דחו מלכו ואנשי עירו את מעלת אברהם בשתי ידיים.
לכן בפעם השנייה – במהפכת סדום – אין לוט בן אחי אברהם זוכה לטיפול מיוחד מאת דודו. אין אברהם מתפלל בעד לוט ולא מנסה להצילו. מתעלם אברהם מקרובו ומתנהג כאילו אין לו זיקה מיוחדת לאיש היושב בשער סדום. עמדת אברהם אז היתה שגורלו של לוט יוכרע על פי גורל כל אנשי העיר: אם עכשיו אין בה עשרה צדיקים המכריעים את כל המקום לכף זכות אף לוט ילך לאבדון עם שאר אנשי העיר, אנשי סדום. בסוף אכן ניצל לוט בזכות אברהם – ובזה נדון בהמשך – אך אין אברהם שם לבו לגורלו של בן אחיו. אז, כפי שיבואר עוד, כבר נתקלקל לוט בקלקולה של סדום. כשאר אנשי סדום החטאים, מגלי עריות, אף הוא אינו נמנע מלהציע את בנותיו לכל אנשי העיר לעשות להן כטוב בעיניהם. איש הקורא לאנשי סדום: 'אל נא אחיתרעו הנה נא לי שתי בנות . . .'[בראשית יט ח]איננו אח לאברהם. 'אנשים אחים אנחנו'– אך הריב בין האחים השפיע על הקרבה ונהפך לוט לאיש גרידא, אח לסדומיים, וזרעו מתועב עד עולם.[2]
כל ההידרדרות הזו במעמדו של לוט התחילה מכוח הריב בין הרועים, כפוטר מים ראשית המדון, מתרחב והולך; ריב גורם לפירוד והנפרד לא נטש את הריב אלא נהפך לסדומי רע; הפילוג קבוע עד עולם.
'כבוד לאיש שבת מריב וכל אויל יתגלע' [משלי כ ג]– ריבו של לוט המיט עליו קלון תחת כבוד, וכפי שדרשו חז"ל:
'לתאוה יבקש נפרד'[משלי יח א]:זה לוט. 'בכל תושיה יתגלע': שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות – 'לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי'; דתנן – 'עמוני ומאובי אסורין, ואיסורין איסור עולם'[משנה יבמות ח ג].[3]
לא רק פסוקי משלי אלא גם הלכות המריבה – פרשת 'כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים'– רומזות לכל נבכי סיפורו של לוט. אף לימוד זה נפתח במדרש חז"ל:
'כי יהיה ריב'– אין שלום יוצא מתוך מריבה. וכן הוא אומר: 'ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט'. מי גרם ללוט ליפרש מן הצדיק ההוא? הוי אומר: זו מריבה![4]
בדרשה זאת, החושפת את הקשר בין פרשת המריבה לפרשת ריב לוט, רמזו חז"ל ופתחו פתח לקריאת כל פרשת 'כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים'כמדרש לסיפורם של לוט וצאצאיו, עמון ומואב. כפי שיבואר, כל פרטי הפרשה מרמזים לפרטי תהליך דחיית לוט, שנהפך לאיש תחת אח מחמת ריב, זרעו פסול עד עולם, אך בסופו של דבר חוזר ומתקשר לכלל ישראל, בת בתו רות מתקבלת ולא מתועבת, צד האחווה חוזר וניעור והרי הוא כאחיך – הכל מרומז בפרשה זאת. מה כוחו של לוט ומה זכותו להתקבל כאח רק מצד בנותיו? איך מתייחס כלל ישראל אל זרעו, ואיך התנהגות זאת מביאה בסוף להשבת האחווה? הכל מרומז בפרשה זאת. אבל קודם הבה נסוב אל פרשת מהפכת סדום עצמה ונלמוד מה הפך את לוט לסדומי ופסל אותו ואת זרעו, ומהו מקומן של בנות לוט בכל זה.
שני חטאי סדום כתובים בפרשת וירא ומפורטים בפי יחזקאל הנביא: גילוי עריות ושנאת זרים. אנשי העיר אמרו: 'איה האנשים אשר באו אליך הלילה הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אותם'[בראשית יט ה]; מבקשים להוציא את האורחים מבית לוט הנותן להם מחסה ולעשות תועבה כנגדם. ובכן אמר הנביא:
הנה זה היה עון סדום אחותך גאון שבעת לחם ושלות השקט . . . ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה׃ ותגבהינה ותעשינה תועבה לפניוגו'[יחזקאל טז מט-נ]
רוב עושרם – כיכר הירדן היתה 'כולה משקה . . . כגן יי כארץ מצרים'[בראשית יג י], משופעת במים – הביא להם שלווה והשקט, שהביאו לגאווה, ומידה זו למעשי אכזריות ולעשיית תועבה מתוך גבהות. כל זאת ראו המלאכים ההולכים לבקר את סדום ולראות את מעשיה, לראות אם ימצאון שם עשרה צדיקים – ואין, ונגמר דין העיר לכלייה.
בדרכם לסדום ראו שלושת האנשים את ההפך בבית אברהם. הצדיק מכניס אורחים ומטיב להם; ואיה אשתו? הנה באוהל – צנועה היא. מעט מים בבית אברהם, ממהרים להכין לחם, אוכלים ושבעים ומברכים את ה'. שם לא יבואו לשלוות השקט, רום לבב ושכחת ה'.
מהי מדרגת לוט במערכה זאת? בבית אברהם נראה חסד ופרישות מעריות, וברחוב סדום –  ההפך. לוט עצמו, בן אחי אברהם אבל גר בסדום, ממוצע הוא בין אברהם ואנשי סדום. הוא דואג ששום נזק לא יקרה לאורחיו, בעל חסד, מכניס אורחים ומגן עליהם. ואילו לתאוות העריות אין לוט מתנגד באופן עקרוני. 'אל נא אחי תרעו'– אם בנותיו תהיינה מופקרות לתאוות אנשי סדום, אם אנשי סדום כולם יתעללו בהן לעשות להן כטוב בעיניהם, אין זה רע בעיני לוט, אח לסדומיים. 'רק לאנשים האל אל תעשו דבר, כי על כן באו בצל קורתי'– את מידת החסד למד לוט היטב מדודו, אך לא מידת פרישות מעריות.
אלו דברים שבין בית אברהם לרחוב סדום: חסד ופרישות מעריות. כגמול למעשי סדום הרעים שמיה כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד תבלה, יושביה כמו כן ימותון; ואילו אברהם אבינו ושרה אמנו, רודפי צדק ומבקשי ה', הם ראויים לישועת ה', הם חוזרים לנערותם כמדבר החוזר לעדן, ושרה אומרת: 'אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה', זרע הקודש – נולד מן אברהם המהול – לה'הוא.
ולוט באמצע. בכמה דרכים שווה לדודו, ובכמה דרכים מושפע מאנשי העיר: אחרי שמל אברהם נראה אליו ה'ושלושה אנשים בדרך לסדום, והוא יושב פתח האוהל כחום היום; שניים מן המלאכים מגיעים לסדום בערב, ולוט יושב בשער סדום. אברהם רץ לקראתם, משתחווה; אף לוט קם ומשתחווה. אברהם מזמין את האנשים להשען תחת העץ, להתקרר בצל אילן השתול ליד בית הצדיק; לוט מגן עליהם בצל קורתו. שניהם מכניסים אורחים ומאכילים אותם, בעלי חסד. אך לוט גם נמשך לסדום, שלא כאברהם. לשאלת האנשים 'איה שרה אשתך?'באה התשובה: 'הנה באוהל'; ולשאלת אנשי סדום 'איה האנשים?'באה התשובה: 'הנה נא לי שתי בנות . . . אוציאה נא אתהן'וגו'. ואברהם ממהר תמיד ואין שלוות השקט בביתו, רץ לקראתם ורץ אל הבקר, אבל לוט מתמהמה, עודו מפותה ממידות סדום.
והשאלה נשאלת מאליה: אברהם ושרה זקנים הקדושים – העומדים בקצה הקוטבי כנגד אנשי סדום – נתברכו בזרע קודש, זרע קהל ה'הנולד באופן ניסי בעדנה הבאה אחרי בלות, שלא כדרך כל הארץ, בשעה שסדום הדומה לעדן חרבה ובלה לנצח. מה יהיה עם לוט וזרעו? הוא הוצא מסדום ונמלט על נפשו, אך מתמהמה ומשתהה, קשה לו להיפרד מעירו ורכושו ולצאת לגלות – והוא שייך למידות סדום, נמשך אחר תאוות העריות כמותם. האם עוד מחזיק לוט במעמד קרבתו לדודו שנעשה אב לקהל ה'? האם מידת חסדו וחנינתו תציל אותו מלהיחשב כסדומי אבוד? איך אנחנו צריכים לסווג איש רב-פנים זה, המעורב צדק ורשע: כאחיו של אברהם הצדיק או כסדומי רשע?
על שאלה זאת עונה סיפור לוט ובנותיו במערה:
ותאמר הבכירה . . . אבינו זקן ואיש אין בארץ לבוא עלינו כדרך כל הארץ׃ לכה נשקה את אבינו יין ונשכבה עמו ונחיה מאבינו זרע . . . הוא אבי מואב עד היום . . . הוא אבי בני עמון עד היום׃ [בראשית יט לא-לח]
אב זקן – כאברהם. ודרך כל הארץ אבדה – כמו שרה, חדל להיות לה אורח כנשים. אלא שהפתרון באוהל לוט איננו הולדה ניסית קדושה אלא הולדת עריות פסולה. 'כל מי שלהוט אחרי בולמוס העריות סוף שמאכילים אותו מבשרו'[5]– והאיש המציע את בנותיו לכל אנשי סדום לבסוף בא עליהן בעצמו; ובזאת חלט את עצמו לסדומי כשאר אנשי העיר, נכרי לאברהם, ובניו כבני סדום. אבהות לוט היא ההפך של האבהות הקדושה, בשורת שלושת האנשים לאברהם ושרה בדרכם לסדום. זרע קודש ניסי הנולד מן המהול לא יתערב בזרעו של לוט, כארץ פרי נעשתה מלחה נעשתה אשתו נציב מלח והוא הוליד מבנותיו במידת סדום, שלא כדרך כל הארץ. הבנים לישראל – זרע אברהם מבורך; וזרעו של לוט פסול לעולם, גם דור עשירי לא יבוא לו בקהל ה', כממזר.
'מואב כסדום תהיה ובני עמון כעמורה . . . מכרה מלח ושממה עד עולם'[צפניה ב ט]. כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים הריב יתגלע ולא ישקוט, והאחים מתרחקים ומתנכרים עד עולם.
לוט נפסל ונדחה עד עולם ואין יחס בין זרעו לזרע אברהם; הכף הוכרע והוא נידון כסדומי מגלה עריות. אך אם הקלקול נמצא בו, הלוא נמצא בו גם דבר טוב ממידות אברהם: מידת גמילות חסדים והכנסת אורחים – ולמה אין מידתו זו מצילתו ושומרת על מעלתו ויחסו לאברהם? וכי אין במידת החסד לבדה די לקבוע אדם כאחי אברהם?
תשובה לשאלה זאת נמצאת בטעם האיסור שיבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה':
לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יי . . . על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים
חסד לוט נעלם ואיננו. בני בניו של המתחסד ועושה משתה ומצות, אכזריים הם כלפי בני ישראל ולא שמרו על מידת אביהם הזקן. זאת אומרת: מידת החסד לבדה בלי פרישות מעריות אינה מתקיימת. השקוע בחיי החומר ולהוט אחר העריות, מחבב את העושר ורוכש השקפה חומרית כלפי החיים, ומכוח השקפה זאת מתגאה בגופו ונוטה אחר התאוותאדם זה סוף סוף ייעשה אכזרי.המתגאה בגופו ובממונו לא יחמול על אומללים, פחותי יכולת, ולכן בעיניו פחותי ערך ממנו. לוטעכר את שארו ובא על בנותיו, קובע את עצמו כסדומי, ובסופו של דבר נעשה אכזרי כאנשי סדום.בטלה האחווה ואין בינו ולצדיק שום השתוות ודמיון; איש גרידא מרוחק ממשפחת הקדוש. רק חסד אברהם הצמוד לפרישות מעריות נשמר לדורותיו הקדושים.
כך ירד לאבדון ההולך אחר עיניו. תחילה הצטרף לוט ללכת עם דודו אל הארץ אשר יראה לו ה', וכתלמידו של אברהם אבינו היה מוכן לקבל את כל תורתו, מתעלה בקדושה ודגול במעשי חסד. אז נחשב הוא לאחיו של אברהם; אלא שנשא עיניו וראה ארץ הכיכר תחת 'הארץ אשר אראך', נפרד מן הצדיק וחבר אל הרשעים וקדושתו הולכת ונחלשת עד שנשקע בתאווה. הוא עצמו שמר לפחות על מידת החסד, אך מידת התאווה עשתה את שלה מדור לדור, מחלשת כל מידה נכונה, עוכרת ומשחיתה את הנפש הנגועה בה, עד אין צדק בביתו של לוט וזרעו מקולקל לגמרי – הריב התגלע ולא נשארה שום אחווה בין עמון ומואב וכלל ישראל.
לוט נפסל, אין תקנה לזרעו עד עולם, כל אנשי עמון ומואב אסורים לבוא בקהל – לכאורה. אך ישנה דרך אחרת להסתכל על הדברים. מבט מעמיק יותר בסיפורו של לוט, בירור מי הוא האשם בקלקולו של לוט ומי לא, יגלה צד כשרות ולכן צד אחווה וצד היתר ביאה בקהל ה'.
הבה נשפוט את משפט עמון ומואב.
מי נשא את עיניו לראות את כיכר הירדן? לוט. מי הציע להוציא את בנותיו מן הבית ולהפקירן לכל אנשי העיר, קורא לאנשי סדום 'אחי'? לוט. איש זה אכן להוט אחר העריות, וקיבל את מה שראוי לו והאכילוהו מבשרו. הכל מחמתו: הוא נמצא אשם במשפט. אך בבנותיו אין אשמה: מוצעות בעל כרחן לאנשי סדום, משמרות על זרע אנושי מן אביהם בחשבן שאין אדם בארץ לבוא עליהן כדרך כל הארץ, הן תצאנה מן המשפט נקיות, חפות מפשע. לשון חז"ל:
לוט ושתי בנותיו עמו: הן שנתכוונו לשם מצוה – 'וצדיקים ילכו בם'[הושע יד י]; הוא שנתכוין לשם עבירה – 'ופושעים יכשלו בם'[שם].[6]
אל נסקור אותם בסקירה אחת בלי להבחין בין הנפשות העושות – באותו מעשה עצמה ישנו צד עבירה וצד מצווה.
זיכינו ונקינו את בנות לוט מן הפשע הראשי של אביהם. נשפטו ונמצאו תמימות, והצדקה זאת מועברת בקלות לכל נקבות עמון ומואב, ההולכות בעקבות אמותיהן. עכשיו לגבי משפט תוצאת הפשע הזה, אובדן מידת החסד – 'על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך'וגו'. מי האשם?
מי קידם את פני שלושת האנשים ההולכים בדרכם לסדום? אברהם; שרה נשארה באהל. ומי קידם את פני שני המלאכים העומדים ברחוב סדום? לוט; הבנות צריכות להישאר לפנים מדלתות הבית, ולא לצאת מדלתות הבית אל הרחוב. זאת אומרת, כלשון חז"ל:
'על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים'– דרכו של איש לקדם ואין דרכה של אשה לקדם.[7]
הליקוי במידת החסד נבע מלהיטות אחר העריות, והחפים מן הפשע הראשי אף לא איבדו את מידת אהבת החסד. צנועות הן ונשארות בבית – בל נאשים אותן על שלא יצאו לדרך לקדם בלחם ובמים.
זיכינו ונקינו את העמוניות והמואביות מכל מגרעות אביהן לוט. עד הנה משפט מואב. הפסק: עמוני ולא עמונית, מואבי ולא מואבית; האחווה חוזרת עם התאחדות צאצאי לוט הנקבות עם זרע אברהם.
בזאת תבוא רות בקהל; זרעו של לוט שב משדה מואב ולא תיפרד רות מנעמי חמותה, מתקנת פרידת אביה להקים את מלכות בית דוד: בחסד ובפרישות מעריות. בחסד – כי נעמי אמר אליה: 'יעש יי עמכם חסד כאשר עשיתם עם המתים ועמדי'[רות א ח], ובועז אמר אליה: 'בתי היטבת חסדך האחרון מן הראשון'[שם ג י]– היא דגולה במידת החסד, ולעולם חסד יבנה.[8]
ובפרישות מעריות – כי נעמה אמר אליה:
שבנה בנותי למה תלכנה עמי, העוד לי בנים במעי והיו לכם לאנשים׃ שבנה בנותי לכן כי זקנתי מהיות לאיש כי אמרתי יש לי תקוה גם הייתי הלילה לאיש וגם ילדתי בנים׃ הלהן תשברנה עד אשר יגדלו הלהן תעגנה לבלתי היות לאיש אל בנותי וגו' [רות א יא-יג]
אותה מבוכה של אברהם ושרה, ושל לוט ובנותיו: הסיכון הנשקף מן הזיקנה ללידת בנים. בנות לוט, אמותיה של רות, שכבו את אביהן – אם לשם שמים – והובילו את עמון ומואב במורד דרך פגומה, פסול ממזרות דבוק בהם עד עולם. באה רות לתקן את הדבר, לאחוז בדרך אברהם ושרה, דרך ההולדה הניסית של יצחק. בוטחת שתשיג עזר אלוקי למצוא מנוחה בית אישה, אין רות הולכת אחרי הבחורים. ובליל זריית גורן השעורים יורדת היא לגורן ככל אשר ציוותה חמותה, באה בלאט ומגלה מרגלות האיש שהיטיב לבו ביין – ושוכבת. ויהי בחצי הלילה ורות הצנועה לא עושה דבר, אלא מבקשת: 'ופרשת כנפיך על אמתך כי גואל אתה'[שם ג ט]. הגיע הזמן להחזיר את המואביה לחיק ישראל, לבטל את תוצאת מעשי הפריצות – בנות לוט שוכבות את אביהן השיכור – ורות מקבלת את ברכת בועז: 'ברוכה את ליי בתי'[שם י].
זכתה רות לסלול דרך ולגלות את כשרות המואביות לבוא בקהל, בהראותה שאין בהן דופי של פריצות ואכזריות. הריב שבת והרי לוט כאחיך, צאצאיותיו הנקבות ראויות להתאחד עם זרע אברהם ולהקים מלכות בית דוד – עד עולם מוכן זרעו, כסאו בנוי לדור ודור.

'כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום'
כי יהיה ריב בין אחים הם מתהפכים לאנשים. כטבעה של מריבה על דבר אחד קטן לצאת מכלל שליטה, הולכת ומתגלעת ואין מרפא. במצב כזה הם מתרחקים זה מזה לחלוטין ולא יוכלו למצוא איש באיש ריבו שום דבר טוב. אם ירצו להתאחד עוד יש להם אך תרופה אחת – יגשו אל המשפט ושפטום! יותר נוח לאנשי הריב להתעלם כליל זה מזה ולשכוח אחד את השני, וקשה להם להעלות את ענייני הריב עוד פעם ובפומבי, לעיני השופטים – אך אין דרך אחרת לרפא את השבר ולתקן את יחסיהם. רק עינו החדה של המשפט, מצדיק צדיק ומרשיע רשע, בוחנת רע מטוב וטוב מרע, תוכל להציל את ידידותם. עם הבהרת השופט ובהדגישו מה בדיוק הוא העוול והרשע, בהביאו את הפשע לאור עם כל הקלון וההשפלה הכרוך בזה, הרשע בריבו מתבזה ומבויש – בזה הוא מכין את הדרך להגיע לקירוב לבבות. כי רק על ידי מבט מרוכז וחסר פשרות על הרע, יוכל הטוב להתקבל. רק מי שאינו נרתע מלהגדיר את הרע באדם יוכל להבחין ולראות את הטוב שבו – דהיינו כל השאר.
זהו כוח המשפט והקלון הכרוך בו: 'ונקלה אחיך לעיניך'– כיון שנקלה הרי הוא כאחיך.[9]מלא פני הרשע קלון, ועם הצהרת השופט על הרשע, מושך תשומת לב לנקודה הרעה הנמצאת באיש הנדון, יוכלו חבריו להתאחות ולהתאחד שוב עמו ביודעם שהתגלתה הנקודה הרעה שבו: מכאן ואילך יישמרו אך מתכונה מסוימת זאת – השאר מוצדק.
וכה נעשה ללוט משפט מואב. נדחה, נפסל ומבוזה, אולי נשכח ממנו, אולי לא נגעיל את מחשבותינו בסיפור האב ושתי בנותיו במערת פריצות? יותר קל להתעלם כליל מאנשים כאלו; אך אין זה מידת המשפט. זכות היא ללוט שלא נכסה על קלונו ונשפוט אותו. 'בכל תושיה יתגלע': שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, תינוקות של בית רבן משחקין וקורין 'ותהרין שתי בנות לוט מאביהן',[10]נקרא ומתרגם; ומכוח משפט זה, מכוח הריכוז והעיון במעשיו, מבקשים להבין את מידותיו ומה הניע אותו לפעול כמו שפעל, מי התקלקל, מתי, איך ולמה; יצא לאור הצד הטוב שבו, ובנותיו זוכות בדין.
הגישה החדשה לפרשת לוט – גישה של משפט – הפכה את השיטה ושינתה את דרך ההתמודדות איתו. כך הושבת הריב: 'ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים'[רות א א]פעל המשפט והחזיר כבוד לצאצאי לוט, בת בתו אם המלכות. מכאן ואילך – עמוני ולא עמונית, מואבי ולא מואבית, על פי מידת המשפט.
לא כל רשע זוכה למשפט שיוציא לאור את הצדק שבו, ולא כל ריב מושבת. באיזה זכות הוחלה מידת 'ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום'– על לוט? אין זה אלא בזכות מה שכתוב עליו בליל ישיבתו בשער סדום, ליל מהפכת סדום: 'וישפוט שפוט'[בראשית יט ט].
הבה נסביר את כוח מידת המשפט של לוט, הציר המכריע בהצלתו מסדום וגורל צאצאיו, ובשאלת הטיפול בעמון ומואב.
מידות החסד, משפט וצדקה, תופשות מקום מרכזי בכל פרשת מהפכת סדום. גורלה של סדום על כף המאזניים, בית דין של שלושה אנשים יורד מן השמים לשפטה, ואם ימצאוה חייבת יכלו אותה. אליהם רץ אברהם, קורא 'יקח נא מעט מים'במידתו, מידת חסדו. אך לא בדרך החסד הולכים האנשים עכשיו. הדבר היה מכוסה מן האב המתחסד, אך הגיע הזמן לגלות לאברהם את כל דרכי ה', מידות צדקה ומשפט, כמו שכתוב: 'ושמרו דרך יי לעשות צדקה ומשפט'[בראשית יח יט]. בכן בא אברהם בסוד בית דין של מעלה, צופה במהלך השפיטה, דיוני חברי בית הדין. ומכוח זה ניגש אברהם, כידיד בית המשפט, והביע את דעתו: אין זה משפט שיספה צדיק עם רשע; אם ימצאו שם עשרה צדיקים לא תישחת העיר, ולא יהיה כצדיק כרשע.
דעת אברהם התקבלה באוזני ה', והמשיכו שני המלאכים והגיעו לסדום. ואיה השופט השלישי, המכריע? אלא שלוט שופט הוא – הוא ישתתף בדיונים. מתחילה היתה דעתו שהסדומיים זכאים מעונש כליה; כפי שאמרו חז"ל:
כל אותו הלילה היה לוט מבקש רחמים על סדומיים והיו מקבלים מידו. כיון שאמרו 'הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אותם', אמרו לו. . . 'עד כאן היה לך רשות ללמד עליהם סניגוריא, מכאן ואילך אין לך רשות ללמד עליהם סנגוריא'.[11]
אך משעה שאיימו אנשי סדום על אורחיו וכלתה אליהם הרעה מהם, הסב לוט את משפטו עליהם; שפוט שפט אותם על רעתם, מוכיח אותם לשנות את מעשיהם לטובה, להתחסד ולתת מחסה לעוברי אורח, כמעשיו וכמעשי אברהם דודו: 'אל נא אחי תרעו!'באותה שעה, לו קיבלו אנשי סדום את תוכחת השופט וחזרו למוטב, לא היתה העיר אובדת. אלא שהם מיאנו במשפט האחד שנמשך מתחילה אחרי עושרה של סדום ועכשיו מוכיח אותם, ובאמרם: 'האחד בא לגור וישפוט שפוט'[בראשית יט ט], המיטו עליהם את משפט כל השלושה – שניים מהם היטו את הדין לחובה, וכבר אין לו פה לשלישי, ללוט, ללמד עליהם זכות.
כל זה השפיע על הצלת לוט, הנובעת מהכרעת השאלה: האם יהיה נדון כסדומי או כמי ששייך לאברהם. כי ישנם שני פנים במעשי אברהם בסיפור סדום: חסד ומשפט; חסד להולכי דרכים וכניסה לסוד משפט האל. וישנם שני פנים במעשי לוט: חסד ומשפט; וכנגדם שני פנים בהצלתו. כי תביעת המשפט בפי אברהם היתה: 'האף תספה צדיק עם רשע'[שם יח כג]; על פי זה אמרו המלאכים אל לוט, 'קום קח את אשתך . . . פן תספה בעון העיר . . . ההרה המלט פן תספה'[שם יט טו-יז]– כל זה במידת המשפט, מצילים את לוט ששפט את אנשי סדום והפריד את עצמו מהם, מראה התנגדות לשיטה הסדומית, ובכן זוכה למידת צדק ומשפט זאת – 'האף תספה צדיק עם רשע'. הוא נפרד מן אנשי הרשע ושפטם, וזה מזכה אותו שלא לספות איתם, בעוונם. הוא נדון כצדיק – אם אך יקום ויקח את שלו להוציאם מן העיר. אלא שהוא מתמהמה וקשה לו למהר, להיפרד מסדום, ואף אינו רוצה להימלט אל ההר, אי אפשר לו לברוח מהר מן הרע המתפשט – לא! אי אפשר ללוט להיפרד מכיכר הירדן, דבוק הוא במקום שלוות השקט שמשך את עיניו ואדוק הוא באורח חייו. בא לוט לעורר רחמים, התחנן ואמר:
אל נא אדני . . . ותגדל חסדך אשר עשית עמדי . . . ואנכי לא אוכל להמלט ההרה פן תדבקני הרעה ומתי׃ הנה נא העיר הזאת קרבה לנוס שמה והוא מצער . . . הלא מצער הוא ותחי נפשי׃ [שם יח-כ]
וכבר אין לוט ניצל במשפט מכוח צדקו; חסד הוא מבקש כחסד שעשה הוא להם. ואף על פי שהוא מתמהמה כסדומי, אף על פי שמגיע לו לספות בעוון העיר, הוא ניצל בחמלת ה'עליו. כדודו הדבק בחסד, קורא 'יקח נא מעט מים', מבקש לוט שלא תישחת כל המקום שכולה משקה, ועיר מצער תישאר.
ובכן סוף הצלת לוט חוזר רק אל החסד. שתי המידות הוצגו על ידי אברהם, ושתיהן על ידי לוט. אברהם התחיל להראות מידת החסד, ושוב נכנס בסוד המשפט; ולוט מתחילה היה ראוי להינצל במשפט, ולבסוף ניצל רק מכוח החסד. על שני המידות כתוב: 'ויהי בשחת אלהים את עכר הכיכר ויזכור אלהים את אברהם וישלח את לוט מתוך ההפכה'[שם כט]– כל דבר צדקות שהיה בו למד לוט מדודו, ממנו למד להכניס אורח ולהתחסד, ממנו הושפע להיות דבק במשפט; וזכות הצדיק נזכרת ופועלת בעדו. אך סופו ניצל רק בחסד.
והבדל יש בין מי שניצל במשפט ובין מי שניצל בחסד. כי כל שאלת הצלת לוט היתה איך לסווג אותו. אם הוא נפרד מן הסדומיים, שופט אותם וניצל במשפט ולא יספה בעוונם – הרי הוא נדון כאחי אברהם וצדיק הוא. אבל אם קשה לו להיפרד מהם ומגיע לו לספות איתם, אלא שסוף סוף התחסד ותחת זה מקבל אף הוא חמלה וחסד – הרי הוא נדון כאיש סדומי גרידא ולא נצדיק אותו, ומידת חסדו עצמה מידרדרת והולכת עד תומה: 'על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים', זרעו נדחה ונפסל כסדום, לא יבוא בקהל ה'.
אבל לא נשכח לנצח נסיונו של לוט השופט לשפוט את אנשי עירו הסדומיים, ואומץ לבו להוכיחם ולעמוד על שיטתו, שיטת החסד. אם בסוף רפו ידיו ויתמהמה מלהיפרד, הרי מתחילה שפט את בני עירו על התנגדותם למידת החסד בעוז רוח; ובכן זכה שסוף סוף, אחרי כמה דורות, בימי שפוט השופטים, ימי רות המואביה, יישפט אף הוא על הפרת החסד בידי זרעו; זכות הניגש אל שופט כל הארץ ואומר: 'האף תספה צדיק עם רשע', נשמרת לצאצאי בן אחיו:
ונגשו אל המשפט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע
זאת היא זכות משפטו של לוט להצטדק ולהפריד את צאצאיו מן הסדומיים. כי על החסד שפט את אנשי סדום ועל החסד יישפט: כל רעתו נדונה בגלוי ומזדככת, המשפט שומר את חסדו, בלתי מופר ומוכן לנצח, בלתי נאבד מבנותיו. פרשת לוט לא נגמרה, והסוגיה מתפתחת והולכת. נצדיק נא את הצדקניות, בנות לוט – והאחווה חוזרת.

'והיה אם בן הכות הרשע והפילו השפט והכהו . . . ארבעים יכנו . . . מכה רבה ונקלה אחיך לעיניך'
מידת המשפט מצרפת, מידת המשפט מזככת – אבל יש לכך מחיר. השופט מחפש את הרע ומתמקד בו בלי להרפות. ובמוצאו רע תופס הוא בסירחון וחוקר אותו, בוחן את כל בחינותיו ומביא אותן לאור, פרוש כשמלה בבית המשפט. והנוול המתגלה מצריך תגובה הולמת: העונש הראוי מהווה גמול לרשע ומפרסם את הרשע – והוא תיקונו. הרשע סובל ומבויש, חרפה מטה עליו, ושבע קלון יוכל לנחול כבוד עוד.[12]הרוע חשוף וטופל, הצדק חזר למעמדו, והנדון זכאי כאחיך משקיבל עליו את הדין.
התיקון מושג עם הכאה וקלון, וכך היה עם מואב. העניין מופיע במלחמת שלושת המלכים – יהורם מלך ישראל, יהושפט מלך יהודה, ומלך אדום – עם מואב. אלישע בן שפט התנבא על נצחונם והורה להם איך לנהל את המלחמה. וכה אמר:
ונקל זאת בעיני יי ונתן את מואב בידכם׃ והכיתם כל עיר מבצר וכל עיר מבחור וכל עץ טוב תפילו וכל מעיני מים תסתמו וכל החלקה הטובה תכאבו באבנים׃ [מלכים ב ג יח-יט]
כפקודת בן שפט הנביא עשו, מכים מכה משחיתה ומוחלטת, כפי שכתוב:
ויקמו ישראל ויכו את מואב וינסו מפניהם ויכו בה והכות את מואב .  . . וכל עץ טוב יפילו . . . ויכוה׃ [שם כד-כה]
אלא שזה נוגד את החוק הקבוע בספר דברים:
כי תצור אל עיר . . . לא תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן . . . כי האדם עץ השדה לבוא מפניך במצור׃ [דברים כ יט]
כה פתרו חז"ל את הדבר:
אמרו לו: 'התורה אמרה "לא תשחית את עצה", ואתה אומר כן?'אמר להם: 'על כל האומות צוה דבר זה, וזו קלה ובזויה היא'; שנאמר: 'ונקל זאת בעיני יי ונתן את מואב בידכם', שאמר 'לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם'– אלו אילנות טובות.[13]
קלון נשפך על מואב, שאינה נחשבת כאומה הגונה; בניה נבזים ושפלים הם, נולדים בפסול. כבוד לאברהם ולזרעו, צדיק המאכיל אנשים בצל העץ; יורש יש לו – זרע קודש מובטח להמשיך את דרכו, דרך ה', והם מכבדים את עיקרון החיים הנצחיים תמיד. אף בשעת מלחמה, בעת כריתת חיי האדם והפלתו לארץ, יכבדו את העץ הנצחי, סמל החיים הנצחיים. אבל נצחיותו של לוט – צאצאיו לדורותיהם – פסולה היא, אשתו כארץ מלחה, צחיחה ועקרה, ויוחסיו רקובים כמו עץ מת ולא יבוא בקהל ה'. כל עץ טוב יפילו, כי האיש הגומל חסד בהביאו את המלאכים בצל קורתו הוליד אומה בזויה ונקלה, בהולדה שפלה ומבוזה. ונקלה כבוד מואב, אליהם מגיע הכאה וקלון – 'ונקל זאת בעיני יי'.
אך בקלון הזה, בכאב הזה, טבוע גם האפשרות לתיקונו של לוט. ימלאו פני בני לוט קלון, בוז על מחצב מכורותיהם: מתוך כך נוכל לקבל את הטוב שבהם. עם תפיסה נכונה על רעתם נוכל לקבל את טובתם בבטחה. הלוא זוהי דרך המשפט – '"ונקלה אחיך לעיניך": כיון שנקלה הרי הוא כאחיך'.
זכות המשפט מצרפת, מאחה – ומצדיק. וכל העניין מרומז בדרש זה:
'חצות לילה אקום להודות לך על משפטי צדקך' . . . דבר אחר : 'על משפטי צדקך'– משפטים שהבאת על עמונים ומואבים, וצדקות שעשית עם זקני וזקנתי, שאילו החיש לה קללה אחת מאין הייתי בא? ונתת בלבו וברכה, שנאמר, 'ברוכה את ליי'.[14]
זהו הסדר: המשפט עצמו מצדיק, משפט עמונים ומואבים, נאסרים לבוא בקהל ה', מצדיק את רות בת בתו של לוט, צדקה תהיה לצדקת זאת וברוכה היא לה'.
'ונקלה אחיך לעיניך׃ לא תחסום שור בדישו׃ כי ישבו אחים יחדו ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר יבמה יבוא עליה ולקחה לו לאשה ויבמה'
כך מסתיים המעגל. ריב בין רועי מקנה אברהם ורועי מקנה לוט, ולא יכלו האחים לשבת יחדו. על מה רבו? על אודות חסימת השוורים, כפי שאמרו חז"ל:
בהמתו של אברהם היתה יוצאה זמומה ושל לוט לא היתה יוצאה זמומה. אמרו להם רועי אברהם: 'הותר הגזל?'אמרו להם רועי לוט: 'כך אמר הקב"ה לאברהם: "לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת"[בראשית יב ז], ואברהם פרדה עקרה הוא ואינו מוליד ולוט יורשו, ומדידהון אכלין.[15]
הריב התגבר ונפרדו איש מעל אחיו, האחווה בסכנה, אך עדיין קיימת לזמן קצר, עד זמן שסדום ומלכה דחו את שיטת אברהם בשתי ידיים; ואז אין לוט אלא איש גרידא כשאר אנשי סדום, אין אברהם מכיר אותו ולא מנסה להצילו, להעלותו ממהפכת הכיכר. אך מידת משפטו של לוט פעלה הצלה בעד בת בתו רות, זכות האחים היושבים יחדו חוזרת ונזכרת, ואם אחד מהם מת – לוט – ובן כשר אין לו, לא תהיינה בנותיו-נשותיו החוצה לאיש זר, בל תחשבנה לנכריות מחמת מעשיהן, כי לשם שמים נתכוונו. על פי המשפט: תעלה רות השערה אל הזקנים ותתייבם לבועז, ובזאת תבוא המואבית אל קהל ה'.





[1]מדרש תנחומא פרשת לך לך סימן יג.
[2]ראה הוריות י: מאי דכתיב 'אח נפשע מקרית עוז'וכו'.
[3]נזיר כג:
[4]ספרי דברים פיסקא רפו.
[5]בר"ר נא:ט.
[6]נזיר כג.
[7]יבמות עו:
[8]ראה מדרש רבה רות ב:יד.
[9]מכות כג.
[10]מדרש תנחומא פרשת וירא סימן יב.
[11]בר"ר נ:ה.
[12]ראה מש"כ בעל הטורים על 'ונקלה אחיך לעיניך'.
[13]מדרש רבה במדבר כא:ו.
[14]מדרש רבה רות ו:א.
[15]בר"ר מא:ה.

Blood Accusation in Ragusa (Today Dubrovnik, Croatia) 1622 – A bibliographical mistake

$
0
0
Blood Accusation in Ragusa (Today Dubrovnik, Croatia) 1622 – A bibliographical mistake 
Dan Yardeni, an engineer by profession (Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, 1963), is entrepreneur specializing in cutting edge materials and materials production processes. As a sideline, he researches problems in the history of Hebrew books printing and printers. He also contributes articles to the Culture and Literature sections of Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers. This is his second contribution to the Seforim Blog.

במסגרת עבודה על פרשת עלילת הדם שהתחוללה בעיר ראגוזה (היום דוברובניק בקרואטיה) בשנת שפ"ג לפ"ק (1622) נתקלתי בטעות ביבליוגרפית:

האזכור הראשון לעלילת דם זו בספרות היהודית הוא בקונטרס מצורף  בסוף "ספר שמן הטוב על הראש שיורד על הזקן, זקן אהרון"שנדפס בוונציה בדפוס ונדראמין בשנת 1657 בשם "מעשה ישורון". הספור נכתב על ידי אהרון בן דוד הכהן, שהיה עד ראיה כנער קטן לאותו אירוע נורא ומסופר על ידו סמוך למותו בשנת 1956. גיבור האירוע הוא סוחר יהודי בשם יצחק ישורון שהואשם בכך שביקש מתושבת לא יהודייה בראגוזה, לרצוח נערה צעירה כדי להשתמש בדמה לצרכי הפולחן היהודי. הרוצה לקרוא את סיפור המעשה הזה, מופנה לקישור למאמר שכתבתי: here .




והנה, בתיאור הספר  בקטלוג "הספרייה הלאומית" (מספר מדף: R=2=4638, מספר מערכת: 001125100) מופיעים הקישורים הבאים: אוהב שלמה (סבו של המחבר),  אהרון בן דוד הכהן מרגוזה (מחבר הספר) ו-ישורון, יצחק בן אברהם חיים. כיתוב אחרון זה הוא טעות הדורשת תיקון.

גם בתיאור כתב יד שהועתק מהקונטרס "מעשה ישורון", כ"י  דז'אלובסקי מהמאה ה-18 ונמצא בגנזי "הספרייה הלאומית" (מספר מערכת 000045693) מופיע הקישור: "ישורון, יצחק בן אברהם חיים, נפטר ב-1655"וכן

בתרגום "מעשה ישורון"לקרואטית שנדפס ב-1882 (מספר מערכת 001907126). קישור זהה חוזר בכל ההוצאות המאוחרות יותר של "מעשה ישורון"המופיעות בקטלוג "הספרייה הלאומית".

בגוף הסיפור "מעשה ישורון"כפי שנדפס בראשונה, מצטייר יצחק ישורון כאיש פשוט שגורלו אינה לו תפקיד שאם היה נשבר תחת העינויים הקשים שעבר, היה דן למוות לא את עצמו בלבד אלא גם את כל הקהילה היהודית שנכלאה בגטו היהודי בראגוזה כל עת המשפט. לבד מכך, הסיפור אינו מספר עליו מאומה, לא לפני האירוע ולא לאחריו. אם כך, מאיפה לקח הביבליוגרף את היותו בנו של אברהם חיים?

בדיקה גנאלוגית  מגלה שמשפחת ישורון שמוצאה בחצי האי האיברי הייתה נפוצה באותה תקופה בכל ארצות אירופה המערבית וביחוד בארצות השפלה (הולנד ובלגיה של ימינו), צפון גרמניה ואיטליה. רבים מהם עסקו  במסחר בין לאומי, בעסקי ציבור ובלימוד. ועוד, השם יצחק שכיח מאד במשפחה זאת.

נראה שקרתה כאן טעות בזיהוי: איננו יודעים עדין מי היה יצחק ישורון, גיבור "מעשה ישורון", אך יצחק ישורון בן אברהם חיים הוא ללא כל ספק הרב הספרדי של העיר המבורג באותן שנים ממש, מקורבו וידידו של רבי שמואל אבוהב. (תיאור מעניין על קשריהם נמצא בספרו של מאיר בניהו"דור אחד בארץ", בדף מ"ה – מ"ט, ו וכבר כתב על כך אלי שטרן). יצחק ישורון בן אברהם חיים גם חיבר את הספר "פנים חדשות"הכולל חידושי דינים והלכות שונות שנדפס אף הוא בדפוס ונדראמין בוונציה בשנת 1655 (ראה בספרו של בן מנחם על "המשפט העברי", דף 1082) ויתכן שזהו מקור הטעות ברישום הביבליוגרפי.

Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and “Chemistry,” and R. Yitzhak Barda

$
0
0
Altering of Rabbinic Texts?, Shlomo Rechnitz and the Eighth Principle of Faith, R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, the Ridbaz and “Chemistry,” and R. Yitzhak Barda
Marc B. Shapiro
1. People continue to send me examples of censorship and altering of texts. If I would discuss all of them, I would have no time for other matters, but I do intend to get to some of these examples. Let me also share an “updating” of a classic rabbinic text that I discovered on my own in the old fashioned way. This is one of those examples that I wish I knew about when I wrote my book. It is not a case of someone in the Orthodox world altering a text, as this example goes back many centuries. Bereshit Rabbah 36:1 states:
ויהיו בני נח היוצאים וגו': והוא ישקיט ומי ירשיע וגו' (איוב לד, כט)  דרש ר'מאיר "והוא ישקיט"מעולמו "יסתר פנים"לעולמו כדיין שמותחין כילה על פניו ואין יודע מה נעשה מבחוץ ]כך אמרו דור המבול (שם כב) "עבים סתר לו ולא יראה [".א"ל דייך מאיר. אמר להון ומה הוא דכתיב "והוא ישקיט ומי ירשיע"וגו'. אמרו נתן שלוה לדור המבול ומי בא וחייבן.
And the Sons of Noah, that went forth: It is written, When he giveth quietness, who then can condemn, etc. (Job 34:29)? R. Meir interpreted it: He quieteneth Himself from His world, And He hideth His face (ibid.) from His world, like a judge before whom a curtain is spread, so that he does not know what is happening without. [So said the generation of the flood, Thick clouds are a covering to Him, that he seeth not (Job 22:14)] Let that suffice thee, Meir, said they to him. [Soncino: You have said more than enough – heaven forfend that this teaching should be true!] Then what is meant by, When He giveth quietness, who can condemn? he demanded. They replied: Was not ease given to the generation of the flood; who then can condemn them?
The words that I have included in the first brackets are not found in most manuscripts of Bereshit Rabbah consulted by J. Theodor for his critical edition. However, they do appear in Va-Yikra Rabbah 5:1. The words “So said the generation of the flood” are problematic, since if they said the prior sentence, why is Rabbi Meir being rebuked? If you remove those words then the text makes perfect sense, as we see that R. Meir is saying (or is attributing to Job[1]) the notion that God chooses to remove himself from knowledge of and guidance of the world.[2] This is a very radical statement and it is understandable why a later copyist would prefer to attribute such a statement to the generation of the flood, rather than R. Meir. In other words, it appears that the original text of the midrash was altered for theological reasons. 
In its note on the Bereshit Rabbah text, the Soncino translation explains: 
He [God] is unconcerned by what is done in the world and is not incensed by the deeds of the wicked – a remarkable teaching of God’s trancendence. Cur. edd. alter the meaning by adding: so said that generation of the Flood (according to this R. Meir merely puts these words into the mouth of the wicked), Thick clouds are a covering to Him, that He seeth not (Job xxii, 14). But in that case it is difficult to see why his colleagues so sharply rejected this interpretation.
Louis Finkelstein takes note of this midrashic passage and writes:
Even in the school of R. Akiba, we find R. Meir, the sage who so frequently expresses patrician ideas, denying Providence in individual human life. “God,” he says, “is like a judge who spreads a curtain before him and knows not what proceeds without.” The earnest protest of R. Meir’s colleagues against this heresy shows that it was meant seriously, and that R. Meir, in the second century of the Common Era, actually held views akin to those defended by the patricians for six centuries before him.[3]
It is also worth noting that the medieval R. Asher ben Gershom, as part of his defense of the medieval followers of Maimonides, refers to the Bereshit Rabbah passage and his text did not have any reference to the Generation of the Flood. He therefore understands the passage to mean that R. Meir indeed denied God’s providence. He also adds that it appears that R. Meir later rejected this view, although he doesn’t provide any evidence for this assertion. R. Asher contrasts the vehemence of the attacks on the followers of Maimonides with the calmer way the talmudic sages reacted when their colleagues put forth radical views.[4]
ראו מה בין רבותינו וביניכם. הנה להלל באמרו אין משיח לישראל. לא אמרו עליו אלא מריה שרא ליה [!]. ולר'מאיר בדרשו בבראשית רבה הוא ישקיט בעולמו ויסתר פנים מעולמו כדיין וכו'. והוא דבר גדול בענין השגחת הבורא ית'עד שנראה שחזר בו. לא אמרו חבריו אלא דייך מאיר.
2. In a previous post I referred to R. Menahem Navarra’s book Issur Kedushah. This book was published together with another book by R. Navarra called Kero Mikra which deals with grammatical points in the liturgy. On pp. 24a-24b he quotes Maimonides’ Eighth Principle of Faith and a passage by Abarbanel in order to reject the notion that the text of the Torah was ever in a confused state and that Ezra corrected the Torah in any way. He understands Maimonides’ principle to be teaching that the Torah text we have today is the exact same that was given to Moses.

שיחוייב כל בעל דת להאמין והוא שהתורה שבידינו היום היא הנתונ'למשה בהר סיני מבלי חלוף ושנוי כלל . . . ומלתא אגב אורחין קמ"לן כמה יש להחמיר בענין הספרי'וקריאתם.

The assumption of R. Navarra is also found in, of all places, Shlomo Rechnitz’s famous (or infamous, depending your perspective) speech on the Lakewood school situation.


In this incredibly courageous speech, delivered, as it were, in the lion’s den itself, Rechnitz strongly attacked the phenomenon whereby, he claims, many children in Lakewood are not allowed into the schools that their parents would like them to attend, as their families are not of the right sort. Since he is a major philanthropist, in general Rechnitz is given some leeway in what he says, but in this speech he went over the line and the powers that be responded very strongly, forcing Rechnitz to issue an apology and declare that he will no longer speak about this matter. It was interesting to see all the comments on the different haredi news sites that reported on the Rechnitz speech. The people were overwhelmingly in favor of what Rechnitz said. However, this creates an enormous problem for haredi society, since laypeople, even important wealthy philanthropists, are not the ones to be making communal policy, and certainly not to be criticizing this policy in public. By the leadership’s strong response, and seeing how quickly Rechnitz folded, it sent a clear signal who the bosses really are.
The entire video is of great interest in terms of the sociology of the American haredi community, but I want to call attention to a tangential point made by Rechnitz. At minute 21 he says that he has a difficulty with a formulation of Maimonides in his eighth principle of faith. He also states that he never saw anyone who discusses this difficulty (which I assume means he never read The Limits of Orthodox Theology). 

He begins by saying that Maimonides’ principles of faith are eternal, applying for all time. Thus, the principle that God created the world or that the Messiah will come are things that one must believe in all times. He then says that the eighth principle of faith is difficult since it requires belief that our Torah scrolls are the exact same as the one given to Moses. Rechnitz asks, how can this be a principle of faith? How can there be a guarantee that the text never changed? This is not a question of theology but of historical reality, and how could Maimonides know what would happen in the future? Maybe after recording his principle there would be confusion in the Jewish people, and it would lead to a mistake in the text. Rechnitz quotes the Ani Ma’amin version of the eighth principle and wonders, “How could Chazal [!] possibly make such a statement?” He then says that in the “last few thousand [!] years since that Ani Ma’amin was written” much has happened with the Jewish people, wars, pogroms, ghettoes, etc. So how can we know that there haven’t been any changes in the text? “How can we say with a straight face that the Torah we have in our hands today is letter by letter the exact Torah we received at Har Sinai. And more importantly, how did Chazal know that the Torah would never even slightly deviate ad sof kol ha-doros?” He then says that this is based on a promise from God that the Torah would never be forgotten.[5]

All this is of course incorrect, and I don’t mean to criticize Rechnitz on this account. He is not a scholar and isn’t expected to know these things. Yet what he says is illustrative of the common view of many who have no idea about masoretic matters, and it was precisely this sort of perception that Maimonides created with his formulation of the eighth principle. (In The Limits of Orthodox Theology I offer a suggestion as to why Maimonides put forth a formulation that he knew was inaccurate.)

In response to Rechnitz, and I hope someone shows him this post, let me go over what I wrote here where I cited R. Yosef Reinman who has the same basic misconception as Rechnitz (although unlike Rechnitz, he knows that Yemenite Torah scrolls are not identical to Ashkenazic and Sephardic Torah scrolls). 

Reinman writes as follows in One People, Two Worlds, p. 119:

[A]n examination of Torah scrolls from all over the world, from Ireland to Siberia to isolated Yemen, all handwritten by scribes, yielded just nine instances of one-letter spelling discrepancies. Nine! And none of them affect the meaning of the text. Why is this so? Because every week we take out the scrolls and read them in public. The people follow the reading closely and if something is wrong, they are quick to point it out.

Unfortunately, Reinman  [and Rechnitz] doesn’t realize that it was the invention of printing that unified Torah texts by creating a standard version that soferim could have access to and be guided from (and those who review the parashah each week with Rashi will know that Rashi’s Torah text was not identical to the one we currently have[6]). Printed humashim also enabled people listening to the reading to point out errors. Yet let us not forget that most of the differences in Torah scrolls have concerned male and haser. Contrary to Reinman’s implication in his last sentence, there is no way for the people following the reading to catch such an error.

I must also point out that Reinman’s first sentence is an egregious error, and one doesn’t need to go to Ireland or Siberia to prove this (and contrary to what he states no one has ever performed such an examination). If one simply takes fifty Torah scrolls from Lakewood one will find all sorts of discrepancies. I know this because the people who check sifrei Torah by computer claim that the overwhelming majority of scrolls they check, including those that have been in use for decades, have contained at least one error.[7] In other words, contrary to what Reinman has stated, the truth of Torah does not rise or fall because of scribal errors. If it did, then we would be in big trouble because as I just mentioned, almost every Torah scroll in the world has discrepancies. What Reinman doesn’t seem to get is that while contemporary halakhic authorities are in dispute about only nine letters, this has nothing to do with the quality of actual Torah scrolls, which are obviously subject to human errors by scribes.

3. In my post here I discussed a possibly fictional responsum by the fascinating figure R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach.[8] There is so much of interest in his responsa, but I want to offer one further example. In Havot Yair, no. 136, he mentions that some wicked Jews have become accustomed to bribing non-Jewish judges when they have a case before them, and even brag about this. He also mentions that his brother-in-law, R. Isaac, the rav of Mannheim, had a discussion about this issue with Karl Ludwig I, the Elector Palatine. R. Bacharach actually puts ז"ל after Karl Ludwig’s name. ז"ל is almost never added to the name of a non-Jew and thus shows the positive feelings R. Bacharach had for Karl Ludwig.[9]

והיה הדוכס קאריל לודוויג ז"ל המופלג בחכמה משתעשע לפרקים בגיסי הנזכר בדברי שכליים.

R. Bacharach records that Karl Ludwig once told R. Isaac that has a complaint about the Jews whose cases often come to the government courts. He says that they bribe the judges, an action “which is against all religion, and certainly against what is written in your Torah.” He also told R. Isaac that it was his responsibility to fix this problem.

R. Isaac agreed with Karl Ludwig that bribery of judges is a terrible thing, and he doesn’t deny that Jews have been guilty of this. He adds that even if there is no Torah prohibition to bribe a (non-Jewish) judge, it still needs to be forbidden in order for there to be a properly functioning society.

דאפילו לא נאמר איסורו בתורה ראוי לאסרו מצד השכל וישוב העולם ותיקון המדינה כמו רציחה וגזילה וגניבה ואונאה וזנות ועול מידות, וכלם דברים שהשכל מחייב, ודין ודת חק ומשפט עולה על כלנה שאם יקולקל המשפט איש הישר בעיניו יעזה.

R. Bacharach was not in the room when R. Isaac spoke to Karl Ludwig. It is possible that he is recording the gist of what R. Isaac told him he said, but is it also possible that what are seeing is R. Bacharch’s invention of a conversation, and that R. Bacharach is using the opportunity to put forth his own ideas about the matter?

R. Bacharach then records that R. Isaac told Karl Ludwig that if a Jew is owed money by a non-Jew and the non-Jew denies this, while there can be no permission for the Jew to offer the judge a bribe, from God’s perspective if a bribe was given it is not wrong since the Jew is entitled to the money and the only way he can get it was by bribing the judge. He also said that perhaps the bribe can be seen as evening the scales, since the Jew is afraid that his adversary has also bribed the judge. This argument is intended to show that the Jews of R. Bacharach’s time who bribed non-Jewish judges were really not doing something so bad.

R. Bacharach then says the following (again, supposedly in the name of his brother-in-law), which is just as true today as when he said it: והנה ידוע שאין שנאה כשנאת הדת. He explains that when the Jew and non-Jew come before the judge, the judge naturally inclines to favor his co-religionist. The Jew therefore assumes that the only way he can get a fair trial is by bribing the judge. In other words, he is not bribing him to have the case thrown his way, but only to get a fair trial. R. Bacharach concludes that what he has said should not be seen as a justification of bribery, but as a limud zekhut which explains the circumstances that lead Torah observant people to behave this way.

R. Bacharach tells us that Karl Ludwig liked what R. Isaac said but asked him what about when two Jews are having a court case and they still bribe the judge. In that circumstance there is no reason to think that the judge will favor one side, as neither side shares his religion. R. Bacharach reports how R. Isaac was able to respond properly to this question, but again, is it possible that this is an invention of R. Bacharach in order to enable him to get his ideas across?

After recording the supposed conversation between R. Isaac and Karl Ludwig, R. Bacharach elaborates on the matter of bribery and why there is no explicit Torah prohibition on giving a bribe, only on taking a bribe (Deut. 16:19). In this discussion he notes that he does not think that there is a prohibition to bribe a non-Jewish judge if do not know that you are in the wrong, and thus you are not asking the judge to award you something that doesn’t belong to you by right. He also says that one who offers such a bribe does not make it a quid pro quo that he gives the money and the judge rules in his favor. All he intends by the money is that the judge look carefully at his case and listen to his claims, and then render a just decision. In his description of R. Isaac’s conversation with Karl Ludwig, Bacharach reports that R. Isaac said that he was only offering a limud zekhut for those who bribe judges, but “halilah” to say that this is proper behavior. Here, however, R. Bacharach is saying that there is no prohibition. In other words, in the very same responsum R. Bacharach is showing the difference between an answer motivated by apologetics and one that needn’t be concerned with this.

ולכן בשוחד לשופטיהם אין בו חשש דלפני עיור אם הוא מדיני ממונות, שלא נתברר לבעלי דבר עצמן שחבירו עושה עול רק כל אחד סובר שהדין עמו, וגם השופט דעתו לשפוט צדק, וגם נותן השוחד אינו מתנה שיזכהו רק שיחפש זכותו וישים דברי טענתו אל לבו.

Examining what halakhic authorities say about the matter of bribing non-Jewish judges shows very clearly how at least some Jews regarded themselves as living in a parallel universe from non-Jewish society, and did not feel bound by the rules of the latter society, only by internal Jewish rules. Even though most halakhic authorities assume that it is forbidden to bribe non-Jewish judges,[10] the fact that some think it is permitted is also of great significance in showing that this was not regarded as an obvious matter. Thus, R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz[11] raises the question if one can bribe a non-Jewish judge. He refers to R. Bacharach’s responsum and tells us that R. Bacharach did not come to a conclusion in this matter. He then adds that the “world” has long been accustomed to be lenient in this matter, and R. Eybeschuetz provides a halakhic justification for the bribery, which would only be in a case when the Jew was in the right. 

והעולם נוהגין היתר משנים קדמוניות . . . וצ"ל דס"ל דכל הטעם של שוחד דהוא חד דמקרביה דעתיה גביה וזהו בישראל דקרובים אסורים לדון אבל בבן נח שכל הקרובים מותרים לדון אין לך קירוב יותר מזה והכל יודעין שדעת האב קרוב לבן יותר מאדם אחר שנותנים לו אלף דינרים ומכל מקום האב כשר לדון בנו הבן נח, אף ליתן שוחד להצדיק הצדיק וכו'מותר דמ"ש מקרובים.

I think it is very likely that despite the halakhic justification provided, the real motivation for any Jewish bribery of non-Jewish judges was the assumption that the judge would not be fair when dealing with Jews as well as a fear that the non-Jewish litigant was also bribing the judge.

R. Abraham Zvi Eisenstadt, Pithei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 151:1, states that any bribery is only permissible באופן שאין בו חשש גזל, and even for this permissible bribery, it is only OK if the money is not given directly to the judge but to one of his assistants who will then give it to the judge. See also Pithei Teshuvah, Hoshen Mishpat 9:2, who after citing authorities who disagree with R. Eybeschuetz nevertheless justifies offering bribes when it is obvious that the non-Jewish judge is not going to render a just verdict.

R. Simeon Anolik, in a book published in 1907, states that there is no prohibition of lifnei iver if one bribes a non-Jewish judge, as the non-Jewish legal system is not in accord with Torah law. However, this is only permitted if the intent of the bribe is to arrive at the correct, Torah mandated result .[12]

לא שייך בזה לפני עור מה שנותן שוחד לזכות את הזכאי ולחייב את החייב אם דנו עפ"י חק שלהם. ומש"כ רמב"ן בפ'וישלח בשם הירושלמי דב"נ מוזהר בלא תקח שוחד היינו בדין שהוא כדיננו. או דמרא דירושלמי הוא ר'יוחנן ולדידיה מבואר ברמ"א שם [שו"ת הרמ"א סי'י] דב"נ מחוייב בדינים שחקקו להם כרצונם. אבל לדידן דקי"ל דמצווים על הדינים היינו דינים שלנו שפיר פשט ההיתר מטעם זה.

The words that I have underlined would appear to show that Anolik’s position was widely accepted. 
Regarding bribery, in Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, p. 35 n. 93, I mention a forthcoming article which will deal with paying off community leaders in order for someone to be given a town rabbinate. After completing the just-mentioned book, my interests moved in different directions, but I do still hope to write that article which will have a lot of material that has never been discussed in scholarly literature. Here is one interesting source from R. Elhanan Wasserman that I only recently found. In Kovetz Shiurim: Bava Batra no. 71, R. Elhanan suggests that if you are the most qualified to serve as a dayan in the community, then there is no prohibition to pay the community leaders to appoint you to the position, and no prohibition for the community leaders to accept this money. I don’t know of anyone else who holds this position which, needless to say, would open up a can of worms, since lots of people think that they are the most qualified. We obviously can’t have a situation where all such people feel that they can pay off the community leaders in order to be appointed to a position. Furthermore, the Rambam makes no distinction of the sort R. Elhanan does, but states flatly that it forbidden for a dayan to give money in order to be appointed. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 3:9

כל דיין שנתן ממון כדי שיתמנה אסור לעמוד מפניו וציוו חכמים להקל אותו ולזלזל בו. ואמרו חכמים שהטלית שמתעטף בה תהי בעיניך כמרדעת של חמור.
4. In my post here I wrote:

The Ridbaz’s attack on the Brisker method is well known. In the introduction to his responsa, Beit Ridbaz (Jerusalem, 1908), Ridbaz writes as follows:

A certain rabbi invented the "chemical" method of study. Those in the know now refer to it as "chemistry," but many speak of it as "logic." This proved to be of great harm to us for it is a foreign spirit from without that they have brought in to the Oral Torah. This is not the Torah delivered to us by Moses from the mouth of the Omnipresent. This method of study has spread among the yeshivah students who still hold a gemara in their hands. In no way does this type of Torah study bring men to purity. From the day this method spread abroad this kind of Torah has had no power to protect its students. . . . It is better to have no rosh yeshivah than to have one who studies with the "chemical" method.

In his ethical will, printed at the end of his responsa, Ridbaz returns to this criticism and directs his sons: "Be careful, and keep far away from the new method of study that has in recent years spread through Lithuania and Zamut. Those knowledgeable in Torah refer to it as 'chemistry.'" (Just before this post appeared, R. Eliezer Katzman sent word that in his opinion, Ridbaz is not referring to R. Hayyim and the Brisker approach, but rather to Telz and its method of talmudic analysis. I don't believe this is correct, and hope to return to this subject in a future post.)

In the first edition of Shaul Stampfer’s Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita'it be-Hithavutah, p. 113 n. 29, he quotes Saul Lieberman's opinion that Ridbaz’ words were directed against R. Isaac Jacob Reines. This is clearly incorrect. Reines' method had no influence whatsoever, and Ridbaz is speaking about a method of study that was widespread in the yeshivot. It is obvious that he can only be referring to the method of R. Hayyim. Lieberman’s incorrect speculation was removed in the second edition of Stampfer’s book. . . .[13]

Needless to say, because of his attacks on R. Hayyim, Ridbaz did not endear himself to the Soloveitchik family. Once when a student referred to Ridbaz, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik became very angry and told the student never to mention his name again. He also said that some gedolim are always right, some are sometimes right, and some are never right, and the Ridbaz falls into the latter category![14]

Thus far what I wrote in my prior post. It is worth noting that Benjamin Brown defends Lieberman’s suggestion that the Ridbaz’s words were directed against Reines.[15] However, as I have written, I see no justification for this. Daniel Price called my attention to Shai Akiva Wosner’s recently published a book on R. Shimon Shkop, Hashivah Mishpatit bi-Yeshivot Lita: Iyunim be-Mishnato shel ha-Rav Shimon Shkop. On p. 32 he refers to my post and rejects my assumption that the Ridbaz was referring to R. Hayyim Soloveitchik. He claims that his negative comments were directed against Telz and its method, a view that as mentioned is also shared by Katzman.

I don’t deny that the Ridbaz could also have had Telz in mind, but this doesn’t change my assumption that the main target of his words was R. Hayyim Soloveitchik. Is there a source that can settle this argument conclusively? I believe there is, but I was not aware of it when I wrote my previous post. In 1935 Moshe Aharon Perlman published his Mi-Pi Dodi. Here is the title page.


This volume records things he heard from his uncle, R. Moses Kliers, the rav of Tiberias. R. Kliers knew the Ridbaz personally, and the information that appears on p. 35 is obviously of great importance to what we have been discussing: 

מסדר למוד הבריסקאי לא היתה דעתו נוחה וקרא לו חימיא

In other words, R. Kliers told Pearlman that the Ridbaz opposed the Brisker approach and referred to it as “chemistry”. This source is more significant than any speculation by contemporary scholars.
There is a good deal in Mi-Pi Dodi that I think readers will find of interest, but for now I will just mention one example.

P. 25. R. Kliers said that all manner of dress worn by the Slobodka students can be justified, but what can’t be justified is the forelock of hair that the students had. 

(In Changing the Immutable, p. 268 n. 156, I cited a fascinating passage from Mi-Pi Dodi, pp. 9-10, showing that R. Kliers thought that it was better for people to carry on a particular Shabbat and violate a rabbinic commandment rather than learning that a rabbi had made a mistake in setting up the eruv, and thus come to lose respect for him which would violate a Torah commandment. The eruv could be fixed after Shabbat, but the negative effect on the rabbi’s reputation would remain.[16])

5. In my last post I referred to R. Yitzhak Barda and his book Kinyan Torah which argues that Maimonides' view is binding, even if this means rejecting the Shulhan Arukh. Here is the title page of Kinyan Torah, vol. 3. 


At least one reader was wondering if R. Barda is Yemenite. He is not, and his view granting final authority to the Mishneh Torah is unique among Sephardic authorities. (Even among the Yemenites only the small group of Dardaim see the Mishneh Torah as more authoritative than the Shulhan Arukh.) R. Barda is in charge of a group of Torah institutions in Ashkelon called Yitzhak Yeranen. He is also the brother-in-law of R. Meir Mazuz and often appears together with him at events. Here is a picture of them during the last Israeli elections.


Halakhic authorities have had different perspectives on how to relate to newly discovered manuscripts that contain halakhic rulings. The Hazon Ish did not pay these texts much mind, not regarding them as having been part of the halakhic tradition. Most halakhic authorities, on the other hand, had a more positive opinion of such newly published texts. However, even those who welcomed the newly published texts and integrated them into the halakhic system generally agreed that halakhot that that were recorded in the Shulhan Arukh and were thus generally accepted could not be rejected based on a newly published text.[17] That is one reason why the 2014 appearance of R. Yitzhak Barda’s tenth volume of responsa Yitzhak Yeranen is of interest, as in this volume one finds that the author indeed rejects a universally accepted halakhah.[18]

The question R. Barda deals with is whether one can bake or cook on the first day of Yom Tov for the second day (and his conclusion would apply to other relevant matters, such as setting the table on one day for the next). This would appear to be an easy question to answer, as the Talmud, Betzah 17a, states: “Our Rabbis taught: One may not bake on the first day of a festival for the second.” This halakhah is recorded in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 503:1. One might think that this would be the end of the matter, and for centuries it was. However, R. Barda has reopened the discussion. According to him, it is permitted to bake or cook on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day. How does he arrive at such a decision, one at odds with the Shulhan Arukh?

R. Barda begins by pointing out that R. Hananel records a different version of the talmudic text. In his version, the Talmud states that it is forbidden to bake on Yom Tov for Shabbat or for after the holiday, but it says nothing about baking from the first day of Yom Tov for the next next day. R. Isaac Alfasi, R. Asher ben Jehiel, and other geonic and medieval sources also have the version recorded by R. Hananel.[19] Not noted by R. Barda, but certainly a support for his position, is that the Tosefta and Jerusalem Talmud also have nothing about baking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day.[20]

R. Barda further points out that Maimonides must also not have had our version of the talmudic text, since in the Mishneh Torah all he says is that on Yom Tov one may not bake or cook anything that will be eaten after the holiday.[21] He says nothing about not baking or cooking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day. Also important for R. Barda’s case is that Maimonides, Mishneh TorahHilkhot Shevitat Yom Tov 6:14, states that the observance of the second day of Yom Tov is not on account of doubt, but is a minhag. What this means is that it is not a question of maybe the second day not really being a Yom Tov, in which case one could understand the prohibition of baking or cooking on the first day for the second. I would only add that R. Barda’s point also works if you adopt Maimonides’ other formulation that Yom Tov Sheni is an actual decree of the Sages.[22] In either case, the second day is treated like Yom Tov no different than the first day, and thus R. Barda states that there is no reason why one cannot bake or cook on the first day for the second. As for Rosh ha-Shanah, he tells us that the two days of this holiday are regarded by the Talmud as one long day,[23] and therefore there is even more reason for it to be permitted to bake on the first day for the second.

R. Joseph Karo, in the introduction to the Beit Yosef of which the Shulhan Arukh is an abridgment, tells us that he is going to decide the halakhah based on the three central authorities, R. Isaac Alfasi, Maimonides, and R. Asher ben Jehiel. As R. Barda points out, in the case we have been discussing, none of these three authorities state that it is forbidden to bake or cook from one day of Yom Tov to the next, and yet the Shulhan Arukh does forbid this. 

R. Barda notes that there are medieval authorities who record the prohibition, most prominently R. Jacob ben Asher, Tur, Orah Hayyim 503. Prior to this, Halakhot Pesukot[24] and Halakhot Gedolot[25] also record this prohibition, even though according to R. Barda their version of the Talmud did not state that it is forbidden to bake on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day, only that it is forbidden to bake on Yom Tov for after the holiday. In other words, even though baking or cooking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day is forbidden by Halakhot Pesukot and Halakhot Gedolot, this is an original deduction made by these authorities, not a recording of earlier talmudic halakhah. (Actually, it would have made more sense for R. Barda to say that the rulings in Halakhot Pesukot and Halakhot Gedolot originated in an earlier source.) Yet the stringent position codified by these two sources and later by R. Jacob ben Asher and other rishonim is not determinative for R. Barda, since as mentioned this halakhah does not appear in the more important sources, namely, R. Isaac Alfasi, Maimonides, and R. Asher ben Jehiel (R. Jacob ben Asher’s father).

Readers might be convinced by R. Barda’s argument that R. Isaac Alfasi, Maimonides, and R. Asher ben Jehiel did not view it as forbidden to bake or cook on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day. But this still does not mean that it should be permitted today, for as we have seen the Shulhan Arukh forbids this action. R. Barda’s assumption is that R. Joseph Karo’s text of the Talmud was not pristine, but as with our version had incorporated the addition of the Halakhot Pesukot and Halakhot Gedolot, forbidding baking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day. Since the Shulhan Arukh’s ruling is based on an error, namely, R. Karo's false assumption that the Talmud forbids baking or cooking on the first day of Tom Tov for the next day, R. Barda declares that one need not accept the Shulhan Arukh’s ruling. (This statement is directed towards the Sephardic community as a whole, which follows the Shulhan Arukh. R. Barda personally follows Rambam, and since the Rambam does not record the prohibition, that alone is enough for him to permit baking and cooking on the first day of Yom Tov for the second day.)

R. Barda further states that had R. Joseph Karo known what has been mentioned so far, he, too, would have decided differently. He adds that to refrain from baking or cooking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day takes away from some of the joy of Yom Tov, as it makes it more difficult to prepare food for the second day of the holiday.[26] He also calls attention to a responsum of R. Isaac Bar Sheshet from which we see that there were people who indeed baked and cooked on the first day of Yom Tov for the second day. (R. Isaac Bar Sheshet himself states that this is forbidden.[27])

After many pages of justification of his ruling, R. Barda publishes two letters he received from R. Serayah Deblitzky in which the latter takes issue with what R. Barda wrote. R. Deblitzky begins by stating that it is an absolute principle that a halakhah that has been accepted among all of Jewry cannot be overturned due to the discovery of new manuscripts or based on the fact that important earlier authorities did not record this particular halakhah. He further notes that R. Jacob ben Asher did forbid baking and cooking on the first day of Yom Tov for the next day, even though his father, R. Asher ben Jehiel, did not mention this prohibition. R. Deblitzsky does not think it is reasonable that R. Judah would disagree with his father in this matter, and assumes that R. Asher ben Jehiel’s omission of the halakhah does not imply that he had a more liberal perspective.



[1] See Mordechai Margaliyot’s note in his edition of Va-Yikra Rabbah, ad loc.
[2] Malbim, Deut. 13:7 (p. 87a) cites the Midrash without the words כך אמרו דור המבול. Yet as far as I can determine, every printed edition of the Midrash has these words. Does this mean that the Malbim independently concluded that the words should be deleted?
[3] The Pharisees (Philadelphia, 1938), p. 260.
[4] The text is published in Joseph Shatzmiller, “Les tossafistes et la premiere controverse maïmonidienne: le témoignage du rabbin Asher ben Gershom,” in Gilbert Dahan, et al., eds., Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen âge (Paris, 1997), p. 67.
[5] Rechnitz also says that the Torah cannot be changed, “no Reform, no Modern Orthodoxy.” Does Rechnitz really feel that Modern Orthodoxy is akin to Reform? Or was this comment strategic? In other words, since he is attacking a widespread practice in Lakewood, he has to show them that despite the attack he is still on the “right” side, and the way to do this is by slandering Modern Orthodoxy.
[6] See Rashi to Ex. 25:22. Even the ArtScroll-Sapirstein Rashi translation is forced to admit: “Rashi’s Sefer Torah evidently had a ו where ours does not.” Siftei Hakhamim writes:

 אע"פ שאין כתיב ואת בוא"ו בס"ת של רש"י היה כתוב בוא"ו.

See also Rashi to Gen. 25:6. Artscroll writes: “Rashi’s text of the Torah had the spelling פילגשים, without the letter י of the ים suffix which indicates the plural.”
[7] For the information on errors in Torah scrolls, including eye-opening pictures, see Kolmos, Elul 5748. Here is part of R. Shmuel Wosner’s letter quoted on p. 7:

עכשיו שנכנס עבודת הקאמפיוטער בזה למסלולו, ונתברר על ידו לתמהון לבב כולנו, שמבערך ששים ספרים, ס"ת שהיו בחזקת בדוקים יצאו רק תשע ספרים נקיים מכל שגיאה וברובא דמינכר מאד נמצאו שגיאות פוסלות לרוב. וכן בדידן הוי עובדא בס"ת שנכתב ע"ש תלמידים גדולים וצדיקים שנספו בעו"ה, נמצאו ה'טעיות ממש בחסר ויתר.

[8] I am inclined to see the responsum’s description of a storybook romance as fictional, and I think there might be other fictional responsa in Havot Yair. None of this can be proven, and it is just a sense I have that some of the questions were created by R. Bacharach in order to establish halakhic principles. I think this might be the case with no. 183 where he discusses a man confronted with a choice to drink non-kosher wine or have his ear cut off. See also no. 79 regarding a convert to Judaism, if he needs to return money he stole from Jews and non-Jews before he converted.
[9] In no. 139 R. Bacharach mentions the hillul ha-shem that results when a Jew is a thief, as the non-Jews blame the entire Jewish community for his actions. Yet R. Bacharach adds that it is only the masses who have this feeling, while the wise people and the government leaders don’t engage in such stereotyping.

ואף כי יש חילול השם באשר הגוים מרשיעים על כלל יהדות בשביל כך, אין אלו רק דברי המון עם ולא חכמים שבהם ושלטונים.

[10] See R. Asher Weiss, Minhat Asher, vol. 1, no. 92.
[11] Urim ve-Tumim, Hilkhot Dayanim 9:1.
[12] Orah Mishpat (Petrokov, 1907), p. 17a.
[13] [See p. 124, n. 30, where Stampfer quotes Prof. Chimen Abramsky, a descendant of the Ridbaz, that in the family it is accepted that the Ridbaz was referring to R. Hayyim.]
[14] I heard this from an eyewitness. The event took place in the 1950s.
[15] Ha-Hazon Ish  (Jerusalem, 2011), p. 321 n. 44.
[16] See also Shabbetai Dov Rosenthal, Geon ha-Hora’ah (Jerusalem, 2011), vol. 2, pp. 186-187, for two similar cases with R. Samuel Salant and R. Zvi Pesah Frank.
[17] However, what should a posek do if it is clear that a halakhah in the Shulhan Arukh is based on a mistaken text? R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg was unsure. See Kitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, vol. 2, p. 433:

הוכחתי שהב"י השתמש בכת"י מקולקלים וע"י נדחק לפרש ולהסיק הלכה מנוסחאות של ספרי ראשונים שהי'בהם השמטות בשגיאת סופרים – השאלה היא אם להניח הכל כמו שהוא ורק להסביר ולנסח בלשון ובהגיון מתקבלים על הלב, או לשוב למקורות הראשונים ולחקור ולבדוק הכל מחדש.

[18] We will be focusing on nos. 20-24, where R. Barda explains his position and defends it against criticism. Here is the title page of Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 11, R. Barda’s most recent volume of responsa.

[19] R. Barda mistakenly states that the Munich manuscript of the Talmud is also missing the words מיו"ט לחברו. This error does not affect his argument, as the Munich manuscript is from the 14th century and R. Barda acknowledges, p. 262, that there were medieval texts of the Talmud that had מיו"ט לחברו. Yet he believes that these words are not original but were inserted based on what appears in the Halakhot Gedolot (which I will soon discuss).
[20] See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, Beitzah, p. 947.
[21] See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shevitat Yom Tov, ch. 6.
[22] See my Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters (Scranton, 2008), p. 59.
[23] See Beitzah 4b-5a.
[24] Halakhot Pesukot (Versailles, 1886), p. 8. Since I am sure some will be skeptical that a sefer was ever printed in Versailles, here is the title page.

[25] Halakhot Gedolot, Makhon Yerushalayim ed. (Jerusalem, 1992), Hilkhot Yom Tov, p. 215.
[26] See Yitzhak Yeranen, p. 263.
[27] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rivash, no. 254. See also ibid., no. 16.

A Note on R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s משכן בצלאל and its Prenumeranten

$
0
0
A Note on R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s משכן בצלאל and its Prenumeranten
By Shnayer Z. Leiman

            Not much appears to be known about R. Bezalel Alexandrov (circa 1850-1930). Born in Grodno, he would ultimately come under the influence of the teachings of R. Yisrael Salanter (1809-1883), largely through the efforts of R. Yitzchak Blazer, i.e., R. Itzel Peterburger (1837-1907). R. Bezalel considered R. Itzel to be his primary teacher, especially during the period they both resided in Kovno. R. Bezalel was a close associate of R. Yosef Yozel Horowitz (1847-1919) of Nevarodok, perhaps the last of the disciples of R. Yisrael Salanter. A musar enthusiast, R. Bezalel served as a moreh zedek (i.e., a dayyan) in Minsk, where he also founded a kibbutz (a kind of kollel for advanced – and mostly married -- students) in the Minsk suburb of Kamerovka.[1]

            R. Bezalel published two books in his lifetime, משכן בצלאל (Vilna, 1923) and ילקוט בצלאל (Piotrkow, 1927-9). Both are significant, rarely seen, and often miscatalogued by the few bibliographers who managed to hold copies in their hands. Here, we shall focus primarily on משכן בצלאל.


            מפעל הביבליוגרפיה lists only part 1 of משכן בצלאל, with 40 pages. Doubtless, מפעל הביבליוגרפיה’s bibliographer recorded exactly what he saw, a bound volume with 40 pages. But, in fact, aside from the 40 page edition, an edition including parts 1 and 2, and totaling 136 pages, was published in a bound volume, also in Vilna, 1923.[2] The book is largely a polemic against young Jewish men who insist on postponing marriage beyond the age of 20.[3] R. Bezalel’s second book, ילקוט בצלאל expands the polemic to other public manifestations of disregard for the rules of the Shulhan Arukh , such as the disregard of the mitzvot of ציציתתפיליןמזוזה, and Sabbath observance.[4] In brief, R. Bezalel was a musarnik who was addressing the Jewish confrontation with modernity in Lita. At one point in his writings, he summarizes the confrontation as follows:[5]


Even aside from their general content, משכן בצלאל and its companion volume ילקוט בצלאל are of special interest for three reasons:

1.      They were accorded a letter of approbation from R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen, the חפץ חיים.[6]


For the most part, the חפץ חיים wrote הסכמות with the greatest of reluctance. Generally, he refrained from writing הסכמות, offering a wide range of excuses why he could not do so. These included: he was not worthy to do so; he had not the time to do so; his failing eyesight and old age made it difficult to do so; he feared that by acquiescing to one request, he would be inundated with requests from others; and – most importantly – he had resolved long ago not to write הסכמות. After offering one or the other of these excuses, he would invariably close his letter with words of blessing and encouragement for the author – without a word said about the quality of the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the חפץ חיים did write a handful of genuinely enthusiastic הסכמות where he praised the books themselves.[7]

It is difficult to categorize the הסכמה written by the חפץ חיים for R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s משכן בצלאל. Not a word is said about the content of the book, but much is said about the author. Moreover, the חפץ חיים offers his blessing to all who come to the aid of the author. In context, this clearly means a blessing to all who buy a copy of his book.[8] Indeed, the חפץ חיים himself is listed as the first subscriber to the book (see below, item 3)! Nevertheless, the sense one has from reading the הסכמה is that it was an act of חסד by the חפץ חיים, rallying to the aid of a colleague in need.

2.      They record teachings of R. Itzel Peterburger (and other musarniks, such as R. Yisrael Horodner, the Maggid of Minsk[9]) not recorded elsewhere.

Here, one sample will suffice. Although we have many accounts of R. Itzel Peterburger’s “vow of silence” during the 40 day period from Rosh Hodesh Elul through Yom Kippur,[10] R. Bezalel’s account offers details not recorded elsewhere:[11]


3.      A lengthy list of subscribers is appended to משכן בצלאל that sheds light on the history of Vilna’s kloyzen.[12]


Lists of subscribers, known as prenumeranten,[13] are significant for a variety of reasons. Often, they tell us how far and wide authors traveled in order to raise the funds necessary for the publication of their books. They tell us who bought the books, and when and where they were purchased. Our list is particularly significant because it is mostly kloyzen driven, i.e., the books were acquired for the libraries of the various synagogues, בתי מדרשים, and kloyzen in Vilna. Indeedour list includes several kloyzen not listed in the most recent and most comprehensive list of Vilna kloyzen published in 2012![14] Our list also lists key members of the various kloyzen in 1923. There are more such lists of Vilna subscribers and their kloyzen, and they all need to be examined.[15]

Notice that our list includes among the subscribers the חפץ חיים, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, R. Menachem Krakowski (maggid mesharim of Vilna), and R. Boruch Ber Leibowitz (then serving as Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Kneses Beis Yitzchak in Vilna, and as a moreh zedek in Vilna). Each is accorded the title הגאון הגדול. Also among the subscribers (fourth on the list) is R. Isaac Rubinstein, listed is the רב מטעם, i.e., “the crown rabbi.” It is surely no accident that he is listed as הגאון, but not as הגאון הגדול. He was a distinguished – and tragic – rabbinic figure,[16] and it seems quite clear that R. Bezalel Alexandrov wanted to make a distinction between the various rabbis listed as subscribers.

In sum, the list reproduced here serves as a reminder to scholars that it is not enough to examine archival lists and history books. One often needs to examine other kinds of evidence – such as prenumeranten – that shed much light on Jewish social and intellectual history.[17]

Notes:

[1] See S. Even-Shoshan, ed., מינסק עיר ואם (Tel-Aviv, 1975), vol. 1, pp. 99-100. Cf. S. Weintraub, נובהרדוק (Bnei Brak, 2014), vol. 1, pp. 255- 257.
[2] A copy of the 136-page edition is available at the Mendel Gottesman Library of Yeshiva University. Neither the 40-page edition nor the 136 page edition is available online on HebrewBooks.org, אוצר החכמה, and אוצרות התורה.
[3] In general, see the sources cited in S. Stampfer, “Marital Patterns in Interwar Poland,” in Y. Gutman, ed., The Jews of Poland Between Two World Wars (Hanover, 1989), pp. 173-197. Cf. his “The Social Implications of Very Early Marriage,” in S. Stampfer, Families, Rabbis and Education (Oxford, 2010), pp. 7-25. None of the social historians seem to have been aware of משכן בצלאל.
[4] ילקוט בצלאל consists of two parts, the first contains 86 pages, and the second contains 102 pages. Part 1 is available online on Hebrew Books and אוצר החכמה, but not on אוצרות התורה. Part 2 is not available online. A copy with parts 1 and 2 is available at the National Library in Jerusalem.
[5] ילקוט בצלאל, part 1, p. 71.
[6] The letter of approbation was designated for משכן בצלאל, where it first appeared. The author took the liberty of reprinting it (together with two other letters of approbation that first appeared in משכן בצלאל) in his ילקוט בצלאל.
[7] See מאיר עיני ישראל (Bnei Brak, 2003), vol. 6, pp. 782-801.
[8] So, apparently, it was understood by R. Bezalel Alexandrov himself. See משכן בצלאל, p. 2.
[9] See, e.g., משכן בצלאל, p. 66. On R. Yisrael, see M. Heilprin,הגדול ממינסק (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 96, 121-122, and 201.
[10] See, e.g., D. Katz, תנועת המוסר (Tel-Aviv, 1954), vol. 2, pp. 232-235; Ch. E. Zaichyk, המאורות הגדולים (Brooklyn, 1953), pp. 149-165; and M. Blazer, רבי איצלה (Bnei Brak, 2014), pp.475-540. None stresses the fact that R. Itzel, aside from his frequent hortatory Musar talks throughout Yom Kippur eve and day, also led the Kol Nidrei, Musaf, and Nei’lah services! It may well be that R. Itzel didn’t do this ordinarily on Yom Kippur (or in his old age), but R. Bezalel offers eyewitness testimony to what he experienced as a youth in Kovno.
[11] ילקוט בצלאל, pp. 31-32. A lengthy דבר תורה by R. Itzel follows the passage excerpted here.
[12] On Vilna’s kloyzen, see in general Khaykl Lunski, מהגיטו הוילנאי (Vilna, 1921), pp. 48-65, and the much fuller and more comprehensive listing of 135 (and more) kloyzen in A. Cohen-Mushlin et al, eds., Synagogues in Lithuania N-Z (Vilnius, 2012), pp. 281-353.
[13] On prenumeranten, see Berl Kagan, ספר הפרענומעראנטן [Hebrew Subscription Lists], New York, 1975; Shlomo Katzav, ספר החותמים (Petah Tikvah, 1984), vol. 2; and idem, ספר החותמים (Petah Tikvah, 1992), vol. 3. [See the late Tovia Preschel’s review of Berl Kagan’s ספר הפרענומעראנטן in the Jewish Press, May 30, 1975, p. 40; I am indebted to Menachem Butler for bringing the review to my attention. More importantly, see the recently published מאמרי טוביה, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2016) for a treasure trove of reviews and essays by Tovia Preschel, bibliophile and bibliographer par excellence. No Judaica library – public or private – should be without this volume, and without the full set when brought to completion.] These volumes provide indices to all Hebrew books that include prenumeranten by listing alphabetically all the towns and cities where the authors solicited subscriptions. Under each place listed, appear the titles of all Hebrew books that include subscribers from that place. Thus, if your great-grandfather was from Jaroslaw in southeastern Poland, you would locate the entry “Jaroslaw” in the Kagan or Katzav volumes, and immediately see the appended list of Hebrew books that include prenumeranten from Jaroslaw. You would then have to examine (online or at the library of your choice) each of the titles listed to see if your great-grandfather’s name appears on its list of prenumeranten. Cf. below, note 17.
[14] Cf. above, note 12. Thus, for example, בהמ"ד חורשי עציםבהמ"ד קו"ק, and בהמ"ד פועלי צדק are either not mentioned or not properly identified in Synagogues in Lithuaniaבהמ"ד שומר אמונים is mentioned in Synagogues in Lithuania (p. 340) but not identified.
[15] See, e.g., the highly informative list of prenumeranten and kloyzen in Vilna in R. Ch. S. Gluskin, רחשי לב (Bilgoray, 1934), pp. 271-272.
[16] On Rabbi Rubinstein, see G. Bacon, “Rubinstein vs. Grodzinski: The Dispute Over the Vilnius Rabbinate and the Religious Realignment of Vilnius Jewry 1928-1932,” in I. Lempertas and L. Lempertiene, eds., The Gaon of Vilnius and the Annals of Jewish Culture (Vilnius, 1998), pp. 295-304, and the references cited in Bacon’s note 4.
[17] It is with great joy and much anticipation that we welcome the recent publication of the first volume of קונטרס שמות החותמים (Brooklyn, 2016).


Unlike the indices listed above in note 12, it reproduces the full lists of prenumeranten exactly as they appeared when first printed. The volume contains 670 pages of prenumeranten from lists that appeared in books printed between 1790 and 1840. Presumably, the volumes to follow will print all lists from 1840 through the mid 20th century, when such lists mostly fell into desuetude. If brought to fruition, the entire set will probably consist of four volumes. The advantage of the קונטרס שמות החותמים volumes, of course, is that here we have the names of all the subscribers before our very eyes. The first volume is surely a gold mine of information, but questions remain. Lacking an introduction, we are not informed who is really responsible for the volume; what are its goals; whether or not there will be a full index of titles, names, and places; which libraries are providing the material that is being scanned; and which books are being included and which are being excluded. It seems obvious that either all or most of the books scanned by קונטרס שמות החותמים are from the Lubavitch Library in Brooklyn, certainly one of the world’s greatest collections of Judaica. But no single Judaica collection (not even the National Library in Israel) has copies of every Hebrew (and Yiddish) book. Any project attempting to gather all lists of prenumeranten will, by definition, have to be a universal project, involving the great Judaica libraries the world over. It is, for example, unclear, why the first list of prenumeranten in קונטרס שמות החותמים is from 1790, when such lists were quite common throughout much of the last quarter of the 18th century (e.g., יסוד עולם, Berlin, 1777; שבילי דרקיע, Prague, 1784). Despite these misgivings, קונטרס שמות החותמים is certainly a welcome addition to every Jewish bibliophile’s bookshelf. What ultimately needs to be done is to have all the lists of prenumeranten gathered together in one place, digitized and OCRed, so that the information contained in them (especially names of persons, names of towns and cities, and dates and places of publication) becomes searchable and retrievable. The yield for תלמידי חכמים, social historians, genealogists, and linguists (spelling of Hebrew and Yiddish names and places, history of surnames) is inestimable.

As a sample of some of the treasures that one can find in the new volume, we reproduce the title page of R. David Friesenhausen’s מוסדות תבל (Vienna, 1820), and two of its 14 pages of prenumeranten. These appear on pp. 331, 332, and 345-346 in קונטרס שמות החותמים. [ We have reproduced the pages from the original Vienna, 1820 edition, since the editor of קונטרס שמות החותמים sometimes divides a single page into two parts, presenting them as two pages.]



It will be noticed that the opening page of the prenumeranten lists the
ישמח משה, R. Moshe Teitelbaum (d. 1841) of Ujhely as one of the subscribers to מוסדות תבל. A later page of the prenumeranten lists the חתם סופר, R. Moshe Sofer (d. 1839) of Pressburg as a subscriber to מוסדות תבל.  The appearance of these two distinguished names (and there are more) – arguably the two greatest rabbinic leaders of Hungarian Jewry – on the same list of prenumeranten surely attests to the reputation of the author of מוסדות תבל in 1820. On R. David Friesenhausen, an early advocate of the Copernican theory, see my introductory note to the late Chaim Reich’s reissue of מוסדות תבל (Brooklyn, 1997), and the fuller discussion, with references, entitled “R. David Friesenhausen: Precursor of Torah and Derekh Eretz,” in Jacob J. Schacter, ed., Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures (Northvale, 1997), pp. 158-164. See also the bibliographical note in Eliezer Brodt, “יחסה של הספרות היהודית לקופרניקוס במשך הדורות,” Hakirah 13 (Spring 2012), Hebrew section, p. 17, n. 33; and Jeremy Brown, “Rabbi David Friesenhausen’s Zemirah for the Solar System,” Hakirah 14 (Winter 2012), pp. 249-271. I am deeply grateful to Eliezer Brodt for bringing these references to my attention. The haunting account in David Schoen’s שוחרי השם בהרי הקרפטים (Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 43-50, is embedded in a historical novel, and cannot be accorded more esteem and historicity than the esteem and historicity accorded to the best of historical novels. They remain novels. 

A Note on the הסכמות of the חפץ חיים

$
0
0
A Note on theהסכמות  of the חפץ חיים


By Shnayer Leiman

All the comments to the previous posting (“A Note on R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s משכן בצלאל and its Prenumeranten”) are deeply appreciated. It’s what makes the Seforim Blog required reading for anyone interested in serious scholarship. I cannot possibly address all the comments. The references in the notes to the essay address some of the issues raised. To Yisrael Dubitsky’s important  comments, one should add that privately owned copies of the two parts of משכן בצלאל  are available, at the very least, in New York and Silver Spring, Maryland. Having said that, the fuller editions of  משכן בצלאל  and  ילקוט בצלאל  remain rare books. Hopefully, online resources such as Hebrew Books and Otzar Ha-Hokhmah will scan the fuller texts and make them available to all. Lest Yisrael’s comment about YU’s copy of   משכן בצלאל  be misunderstood by an uninformed reader (“Mishkan Betsalel is available at 4 libraries that reported to OCLC [YU is not one of them]”), rest assured that the Mendel Gottesman Library at YU owns a full edition of  משכן בצלאל. The Gottesman Library lists some 200,000 volumes of Judaica on its on-line catalogue, and these are reported to OCLC. Those 200,000 volumes form the basic books necessary for a Jewish Studies research library. But like many Jewish Studies research libraries, YU has many other collections of Judaica, catalogued and uncatalogued. One of those catalogued collections (not on-line) lists the full edition of  משכן בצלאל , which, courtesy of the YU librarians, I was able to consult when preparing the essay.

While the focus of the essay was not on  הסכמות , since the bulk of the comments focused on the  הסכמות of the  חפץ חיים  , I shall attempt to address that issue, and only briefly. 

1. Whether one chooses to recognize the letter of the  חפץ חיים  as a הסכמה  or not, the letter remains one of the three reasons for bringing  משכן בצלאל  to the attention of the public. Any letter of the  חפץ חיים  is a treasure. This particular one is published only in משכן בצלאל   (and in the secondary sources based upon  משכן בצלאל).

2. It should be noted that   משכן בצלאל  contains three letters of approbation. Aside from the letter of the    חפץ חיים, it includes a letter of approbation from R. Avraham Yoffen (1887-1970), Rosh Yeshiva of Nevarodok in Nevarodok, and then of Nevarodok in Bialystok.  The letter is dated 13 Tishre 5680 [October 7, 1919] and was written in Minsk. A third letter of approbation, from R. Yitzchak Isaac Eliezer Hirshowitz (1871-1941), then a Resh Mesivta in the Slabodka section of Kovno, is dated 5 Tishre 5680 [September 29, 1919] and was also written in Minsk. (Rabbi Hirshowitz is famous, in part, for publishing an early translation into Hebrew of the teachings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. His book, מיטב הגיון   [Vilna, 1913] was intended for Lithuanian Jewry and carried an enthusiastic הסכמה from R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski.) The letters of approbation by Rabbis Yoffen and Hirshowitz not only praise R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s learning and piety, they also indicate that both rabbis examined and approved the manuscript of R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s book. All three letters of approbation are printed together immediately following the title page. All three letters are introduced (separately) with the exact same title: מכתב תעודה מהרב הגאון... To consider the last two letters  הסכמות  ,and the first a private letter that has absolutely nothing to do with the book, seems almost ludicrous. A form-critical analysis leads to the ineluctable conclusion that all three letters of approbation are הסכמות. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that R. Bezalel Alexandrov, a musar enthusiast, would have placed a letter (by the חפץ חיים) that had absolutely nothing to do with the book, in its הסכמות section and thereby mislead potential buyers and readers of the book. Worse yet, he published the “misleading” letter during the lifetime of the חפץ חיים, and after the חפץ חיים was kind enough to be among the first subscribers to the book! In terms of the nature of the הסכמה by the חפץ חיים, it is paralleled by many others that he wrote in response to specific requests for a הסכמה. He was impeccably honest, and did not want to praise a book he did not read, and was not likely to read. Instead, he showered priestly blessings on the author, מעומקא דלבא.  
   
3. If one examines the first page of prenumeranten in משכן בצלאל (posted with the essay), one will notice that the חפץ חיים’s name appears under the general rubric: אלה שמות הפרענומעראנטין דק"ק ווילנא, שליט"א. This seems awkward, since the חפץ חיים lived in Radin, some 85.6 kilometers from Vilna. The names of no other residents of Radin appear on the four- page list of subscribers. Indeed, the likelihood that anyone would attempt to gather subscriptions from the residents of Radin was probably as high as the likelihood of a Jewish book dealer seeking a copy of the first edition of the נועם אלימלך (one of the rarest of Jewish printed books) in the Serengeti in Tanzania. (Berel Kagan has no entry for Radin.) It is well known, however, that the חפץ חיים frequented Vilna in the 1920’s in particular, and often stayed with relatives in Shnipishok (a Vilna suburb), and would meet with R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski in order to address the needs of כלל ישראל. Similarly, R. Bezalel Alexandrov was not a resident of Vilna. He was there in 1923 for one purpose only (staying at the home of one of the Vilna subscribers, Shmuel Melamed, at 39 Breite Gass), in order to publish his book. And the letter of the חפץ חיים was written in 1923! It seems likely that the two met in Vilna in 1923 and R. Bezalel asked for a הסכמה, and received the letter he printed at the start of משכן בצלאל.

4. It should be noted that the author of מאיר עיני ישראל (cited in note 7 of the essay), in a chapter entitled “הסכמות מרן החפץ חיים זצ"ל לספרי מחברי תקופתו,” includes the הסכמה  by the חפץ חיים  given to R. Bezalel Alexandrov’s משכן בצלאל.  Also, מפעל הביבליוגרפיה   lists 3  “הסכמות”  for  משכן בצלאל.  It did not imagine that one of the letters was a personal letter unrelated to the book being published.

5. Ultimately the issue is one of definition. What is the definition of a הסכמה ? Or to phrase it another way: what elements must be present in a  הסכמה in order for it to be recognized as a legitimate הסכמה? Here are some possibilities. (I will not bring proofs or disproofs for any of these definitions; in fact, these – and many more – have been suggested as possibilities by leading rabbis throughout the generations.)

1.    הסכמה  is a legal document by an authorized rabbi that provides copyright protection for the author of a ספר. A הסכמה without such a provision is not a הסכמה.  

2.    הסכמה must be written by an authorized rabbi and he must attest to the integrity of the author and to the integrity of the ספר being published . If the הסכמה lacks the one or the other, it is not a הסכמה.

3.     The  הסכמה  must be written by an authorized rabbi and he needs only to attest to the integrity of the author. Nothing else is significant.

4.    הסכמה is a promotional document, signed by an authorized rabbi, and necessary for sales. The content of letter is of little consequence. 

Whichever definition one chooses, a host of questions will remain to be answered. Who is an authorized rabbi? What if the author of the book, an authorized rabbi, writes the הסכמה for himself? Can a father write a  הסכמה for a son? What shall we do with the many הסכמות that do not fit any of the definitions listed above? Thus, there are censored הסכמות, forged הסכמות, reluctant הסכמותהסכמות  written under duress, and retracted הסכמות, just to list a few of the many categories. Even aside from these questions, many great rabbis (in all periods) refused to seek הסכמות, and published their books without them. Some stated unequivocally (about their books): מעשיך יקרבוך ומעשיך ירחקוך 

In sum, given the uncertain (and changing) definitions of the term הסכמה through the ages, I cannot speak with confidence that I know precisely, in every case, what is and what isn’t a  הסכמה. And I certainly have no monopoly on wisdom. Nonetheless, for the reasons listed above, I am persuaded that R. Bezalel Alexandrov asked the חפץ חיים for a הסכמה in 1923, and printed the one he received. Readers will have to decide for themselves the precise status of the חפץ חיים’s letter printed at the beginning of משכן בצלאל. But whatever they decide, they need to bear in mind the variety of definitions of הסכמה through the ages, they need to examine all the evidence, and they need to realize that their conclusion will be only one opinion among many others, and not necessarily the correct one. 

R. Hershel Schachter, Gedolim, Rachel Morpurgo, and More

$
0
0
R. Hershel Schachter, Gedolim, Rachel Morpurgo, and More
By Marc B. Shapiro
1. In listening to a recent shiur[1] on Daas Torah by R. Hershel Schachter, I found a number of noteworthy comments. In this shiur, which has been heard thousands of times, R. Schachter states, “If you have an outlook, if you have what I would consider a crooked, a krum outlook on Yom ha-Atzmaut, then your outlook on eruvin is also crooked. I can’t rely on anything that you say.” I find this difficult to accept, since can't someone be regarded as a great posek, one that can be relied on, even if one disagrees with important ideological positions he holds? In Eastern Europe, the people all relied on their local rav to decide halakhic questions for them. It didn't matter to them whether the rav supported Agudah or Mizrachi. He was the halakhic authority of the town.

I agree, however, that there are limits. What sense does it make to rely on a Satmar posek for a ruling if one wouldn’t accept anything he said in non-halakhic matters? (It is known that when men want a ruling that they don’t have to give their wives a get, they go to a posek in Monsey whom they wouldn’t ask any other questions of.) I think it is important for R. Schachter to explain what his definition of a “crooked” outlook on Yom ha-Atzmaut is? Does he mean someone who says tahanun on that day, or only someone who thinks it is a day akin to avodah zarah?[2]
Among other interesting comments in R. Schachter's shiur is that he states that a posek can give you a binding pesak concerning whom you must marry.[3] This too I find difficult, since where does a posek get the authority to tell someone whom he must marry? An individual can certainly consult with a posek for his advice in this matter, but since this consultation is done voluntarily by the potential groom, how do we go from there to a situation of pesak which binds the person asking the question? 
[Subsequent to writing these words I saw R. Schachter and asked him about this matter. He reaffirmed his position, stating that whom one marries is a halakhic matter and therefore a posek can indeed tell you whom you must marry. He added that this is almost always theoretical since in order to make such a ruling the posek would need to know both the bride and groom for many years so as to be sure that what he is saying is correct. But he also insisted that if the posek does have the requisite knowledge he can indeed give a binding pesak about whom one must marry.] 
In discussing the matter of Israel giving back land for peace, as far as I understand (and this is also the understanding of everyone I have seen who has written on the topic), R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik held that this is not a halakhic matter and therefore there is no place for rabbinic involvement. The political and military leaders should make a decision based on their knowledge of what is in the best interest of the country. However, R. Schachter has a different perspective. He states that according to R. Soloveitchik, first the politicians and military leaders should be consulted, and following this the rabbis need to make a halakhic judgment about what is permissible.[4] Yet the following are R. Soloveitchik’s words from 1967, as transcribed by Arnold Lustiger here:
I give praise and thanks to the RBSO for liberating the Kotel Hamaarovi and for liberating and for removing all Eretz Yisrael from the Arabs, so that it now belongs to us. But I don’t need to rule whether we should give the West Bank back to the Arabs or not to give the West Bank to the Arabs: we rabbis should not be involved in decisions regarding the safety and security of the population. . . . We have to negotiate with common sense as the security of the yishuv requires. What specifically these security requirements are, I don’€t know, I don’t understand these things. These decisions require a military perspective which one must research assiduously. The borders that must be established should be based upon which will provide more security. It is not a topic appropriate for which rabbis should release statements or for rabbinical conferences.
Also of interest in this shiur is that R. Schachter rejects the legitimacy of Daas Torah proclamations by roshei yeshiva who do not deal with practical halakhic questions.[5] In his halakhic-centric approach, there is no room for such proclamations by figures who are talmudically learned but are not poskim. This means that R. Aharon Leib Steinman, for instance, who is not a posek, is not to be regarded as one who transmits Daas Torah. As R. Schachter says, one who does not decide practical halakhic questions dealing with Shabbat, kashrut, and taharat ha-mishpahah is not able to rule on matters that are not explicit in earlier texts, and are often categorized as being in the realm of Daas Torah. He specifically states that the Steipler and R. Shakh, who were not known as poskim, were not the ones people should have been turning to for Daas Torah.[6]
It is hard to imagine a stronger repudiation of the haredi notion of Daas Torah, for while R. Elyashiv was of course a great posek, there has never been an expectation among haredim that the transmitters of Daas Torah must be involved in pesak. Daas Torah depends on the Torah scholar being immersed in Torah and righteousness, but this does not mean that he has to be involved with halakhah le-ma’aseh questions. R. Schachter’s point is obviously in contradiction to the hasidic approach in which the rebbe is the leader, and the job qualifications of a rebbe have nothing to do with deciding halakhic questions.[7]
It is true, however, that R. Schachter’s description of who should be the religious leaders of the Torah community is what historically was the case before the rise of hasidut in the 18th century, the creation of the great yeshivot in the 19th century, and the rise of haredism in the 20th century. But even in previous centuries matters were not absolute. For example, what about R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto? He was not a posek, yet would anyone today deny that he could speak with Torah authority on matters that fall into the category of Daas Torah? What about R. Nosson Zvi Finkel and many of the other mussar greats, or R. Zvi Yehudah Kook? Using R. Schachter’s halakhic-centric yardstick, they too would have to be excluded from what is today referred to as Daas Torah.
All this of course relates to the subject of gedolim, a topic that has recently seen a lot of discussion at the new website Lehrhaus. Professor Chaim Saiman’s essay, “The Market for Gedolim: A Tale of Supply and Demand,” was followed up by a number of insightful responses from people who represent the Centrist and Liberal Orthodox community, and by Rabbi Ethan Tucker who can be termed a leader of the halakhically committed egalitarian community.[8]
I have made the point a number of times that the twentieth century saw the creation of a new model in the haredi world. It is not just gedolim who are important, but the gadol ha-dor (technically: gedol ha-dor), that is, the gadol who stands above other gedolim. Although you had such figures in earlier times, such as the Hatam Sofer and R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor, in the twentieth century the notion of "the gadol ha-dor" has become institutionalized and is a basic feature of haredi society. Gedolim are not enough, but there also needs to be a supreme gadol. Thus, on the passing of the gadol ha-dor, the new gadol ha-dor emerges, (or he can actually be proclaimed, such as what happened when, after R. Elyashiv's passing, R. Chaim Kanievsky declared that R. Steinman was the new leader). This is now an expectation of laypeople in the haredi world,[9] and obviously satisfies a psychological need, so inexorably one gadol ha-dor will be followed by another.[10]
This can lead to disputes as we see now in the haredi world between the majority who follow R. Steinman and the more extreme elements who have lined up behind R. Shmuel Auerbach. A noteworthy point, which is hardly mentioned in the "mainstream" haredi press, is that the opponents of R. Steinman have been very harsh in their evaluation of him, and a steady stream of publications has appeared designed to show that his views are not in line with the haredi Daas Torah going back to the Chazon Ish and continuing through R. Elyashiv’s leadership. These publications have also attempted to show that he does not have the level of Torah scholarship required to lead the haredi world. Yet R. Chaim Kanievsky, who throughout the controversy has been the most vocal in attacking R. Auerbach and his followers, has, as far as I know, never been subject to written criticism. All of the many attacks on R. Steinman simply omit mention of R. Kanievsky even though R. Kanievsky stands together with R. Steinman. One who claims that R. Steinman’s views are not in line with “correct” haredi thinking must assume that R. Kanievsky has also departed from the "proper" haredi path, which is a difficult position for most haredim to adopt. At the end of the day, R. Kanievsky is the most highly regarded Torah scholar in the haredi world, and if he has subordinated himself to R. Steinman, that will be enough for almost all haredim even if they do have questions about some of R. Steinman’s liberal positions.[11]
There is a lot more to say about this, but I would like to make just one more point about the term gadol ha-dor which is now so important and means the most prominent Torah leader of the generation. I think it is the equivalent of the term manhig ha-dor and is parallel to the other term that has popped up in recent decades, posek ha-dor. Regarding posek ha-dor, since the passing of R. Elyashiv, and then R. Wosner, I haven’t seen the term used for anyone in the Ashkenazic haredi world, and there is no one towering halakhic figure (although one is bound to emerge). In the Sephardic world, after the passing of R. Ovadiah Yosef, both R. Yitzhak Yosef and R. Meir Mazuz have emerged as posek ha-dor as well as gadol ha-dor. When it comes to gadol ha-dor in the Ashkenazic haredi world, both R. Steinman and R. Auerbach are regarded as such, and my sense is that many also regard R. Kanievsky as the gadol ha-dor even though he himself claims that R. Steinman holds this position.
Contrary to what some think, the term gadol ha-dor is not a recent term. Tosafot,[12] and many other rishonim, use it in the sense of a great Torah scholar, but as far as I know, there is no implication in the rishonim that the term means the preeminent Torah leader, as it is used today when people say that X is the gadol ha-dor. (I perhaps should write "scholar-leader", since one cannot be the gadol ha-dor without being both a scholar and a leader.) When the rishonim use the term it means that X is a gadol ha-dor, i.e., a great sage. Even today, when “the gadol ha-dor” means the preeminent Torah leader, it need not mean that this individual is also the greatest Torah scholar, although sometimes times it does (e.g., when R. Elyashiv or R. Ovadiah Yosef were described as such, I think people assumed that they were the greatest Torah scholars.) 
At another time I can discuss different uses of the term gadol ha-dor among rishonim. For now, I want to call attention to a passage in Pesahim 49b: “Let a man always sell all he has and marry the daughter of a scholar. If he does not find the daughter of a scholar, let him marry the daughter of [one of] the gedolei ha-dor.” It is obvious that in this passage the term gedolei ha-dor does not mean great Torah scholars. Rashi explains it to mean: אנשי מעשה וצדיקים. Even in the 16th century R. Moses Isserles uses the term gadol ha-dor to mean communal leader, and puts gadol ha-dor together with am ha’aretz.[13]
ואין איסור לקרות ע"ה נכבד עשיר וגדול הדור לפני ת"ח כי אין זה בזיון לת"ח רק כבוד לתורה שמתכבדת באנשים גדולים.
Yet elsewhere, Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 244:10 (based on Terumat ha-Deshen: Teshuvot, no. 138), R. Isserles does use gadol ha-dor to mean an outstanding Torah sage.

Returning to the articles at Lehrhaus, I would like to call attention to a couple of passages that relate to gedolim in rabbinic literature (there are obviously many more). R. Hayyim Palache states that there is a tradition that every gadol be-Torah has opponents who persecute him.[14] Historically, I think this is the case, as I cannot recall a gadol who did not have enemies who tried to tear him down.
Most people assume that dayanim will know halakhah well, and that the elite and small group of dayanim on Israel’s Beit Din ha-Gadol will certainly be experts in all areas of halakhah. I recently picked up R. Yitzhak Yosef’s new volume of responsa, She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rishon le-Tziyon, and he wants to disabuse readers of the understandable notion that dayanim are experts in the breadth of halakhah.[15] He goes so far as to say that there are dayanim on the Beit Din ha-Gadol, men he knows personally, who while knowledgeable in Even ha-Ezer and Hoshen Mishpat, when it comes to Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah
אינם בקיאים כלל וכלל, יודעים קצת מספרי קיצורים, כמו בן איש חי וכף החיים וכדומה. אך אינם בקיאים בב"י ומפרשי השלחן ערוך והשותי"ם.
Being that the Beit Din ha-Gadol is a very small group of dayanim, I am sure people have been trying to figure out who R. Yosef is including in this negative judgment.
Finally, in terms of a definition of a gadol, R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira actually offers us one:[16]
מפורסם בהרבה מדינות ובחיבוריו יורו המורים ולקולו יחתו וכיוצא.
By saying that a gadol is known in many lands, and his works are widely used, it is clear that we are dealing with a definition for the modern era where there is easy international communication. In pre-modern times there was no expectation that a gadol in say Morocco would be known outside this land. But I think that for the modern era R. Shapira’s definition is an excellent one as it captures the fact that the term “gadol” represents a sociological category. I would also add that the status of “gadol” is significant in that it is a lifetime appointment, as it were. It is almost impossible for one to be removed from “gadol” status once he has been elevated to this level. I think we can be very proud that in the long history of gedolim there are no examples – at least I am not aware of any – where gedolim lost their status because of immoral behavior. (We can be less proud of the language some gedolim have used in denigrating their opponents.[17])
2. In recent posts I discussed the idea of love before marriage in traditional Jewish communities. It is worth noting in this regard Rachel Morpurgo’s book of poetry, Ugav Rahel (Cracow, 1890). Here is the title page. 


Rachel Morpurgo was a cousin of Samuel David Luzzatto, and a fascinating and learned figure in her own right. In the introduction to the book, p. 6, R. Isaac Castiglione tells us that Rachel's parents wanted her to marry a certain man, but she refused as she was in love with Jacob Morpurgo. If she could not marry him, she preferred to remain single. (In the end, they did marry.)

Her cousin Luzzatto sent her a poem, trying to change her mind, and she replied also in a poem, expertly using many of the same words that Luzzatto had used. In her poem she says that if she can’t marry the man she wants, she will never marry, not even if given the possibility to marry the Messiah. Here are both of their poems, from Ugav Rahel, pp. 50-51, and Rachel's poem in honor of her marriage, p. 52.

 



Here is another interesting poem from p. 71. We see that Morpurgo wanted to join Moses Montefiore on his journey to the Land of Israel.


On p. 73 she has a poem of joy after an evil Catholic priest died and was buried on Purim.



She was also able to write riddle poems, which was a popular genre among the Hebraists. Here is one from pp. 76-77


3. In the archive of R. Isaac Herzog there are a number of letters from R. Herzog relevant to the issue of science and Torah.[18] He was writing to scientists and historians asking them how certain it is that the world is billions of years old and that humanity has been in existence for more than 6000 years. One of the people he wrote to was Professor George F. Carter. Carter was a believing Catholic, and in his letters to R. Herzog you see that he could not understand why there should be any conflict between Torah and science. It astounded him that R. Herzog seemed to feel that the scientific and historical information in the Torah must be accepted as factual, when from his Catholic perspective the point of the Bible is not to provide facts of this nature. In his letter of November 23, 1953, R. Herzog wrote to Carter.

[L]et me recapitulate my problem. Not that we have as a dogma a certain chronology but the chronology automatically results from the plain text of the Book of Genesis, as you undoubtedly know yourself, that troubled the minds of some great rabbis nearly a century ago with the rise of the science of Geology. Most ignore the data of science altogether. Some, however, replied that the world was created enormous [missing word] of time ago, but that at certain points mankind was recurrently blotted out and the present world is a certain phase in that recurrent process of creation and destruction. Hence they explained the fossils which bear evidence of such high antiquity etc. They based their explanation upon an old saying in a pre-mediaeval Rabbinic collection: “The Holy One Best be His Name kept on building up worlds and destroying them.” Note that the meaning of “destroying” in that connection is not total annihilation as you will easily understand. Now the problem as it presents itself to me is whether the short period of less than six thousand years or (counting from the deluge when according to Genesis only a few persons survived) some 5000 years is sufficient to account for the numbers of mankind, for its distribution all over the globe, for the advance and progress of mankind, which in the natural course require considerable time, say the art of recording or writing etc., etc. If you assume divine interposition, the progress could be achieved in much less time. Think of the time according to science it took wood to be turned into coal, and of the time it takes for that process at the kitchen fire-side! Yet the question remains: Is it possible to speak of such constant divine interposition within say the first 2000 years of the past 6 or 5 thousand years since the beginning of the Biblical chronology to promote civilisation, the distribution of mankind and to multiply mankind to such an extent? I may add that our great teacher Maimonides from whom your Catholic great thinker Thomas Aquinas drew so much, was in his time confronted with Aristotle’s eternity of the universe which contradicted Jewish belief. He started out with the premise that if Aristotle’s point was absolutely proved, he would explain bara in Genesis not in the sense of created but in another sense, and would thus reconcile the divine Towah [!] with scientific truth, but he found that Aristotle had not proved his point and he therefore left bara in its plain sense.[19] I say something similar. If men of science prompted by absolute truth definitely and unanimously decide that the above chronology is not only unlikely but is actually impossible and therefore absurd, I would reinterpret the Biblical text in a different sense, but before doing that, I must be perfectly certain. Remember that the divine truth of every word in the Pentateuch is a dogma of orthodox Judaism, is believed to be the word of G-d through Moses. Yet orthodox Judaism is not a slave to the literal sense. It teaches that G-d is beyond all human thought and imagination and therefore it regards the anthropomorphisms as mere figures of speech: it also lays down that the Torah speaks in the language of humans. But there is of course a difference between understanding the Eyes of G-d as meaning divine Providence and interpreting the chronology of six thousand years as standing for aeons!

In this letter, and in other letters in his archive, the issue R. Herzog is most troubled with is not the creation of the world and the evidence that this took place billions of years ago. Rather, his concern is with the length of time of humanity on earth, for if there is indisputable evidence of humanity for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, then what is one to do with the chronology that “results from the plain text of the book of Genesis,” by which he means the record of generations beginning with Adam? As far as R. Herzog is concerned, this matter is not so much a religious question but a historical question, and that explains why he inquired from experts in this matter.[20] For if we are dealing with a fact, undisputed and recognized by all experts, that humanity has existed for longer than the biblical account would have it, then following Maimonides R. Herzog believes that is no choice but to read the Torah’s account in a non-literal fashion.

Readers can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in the Modern Orthodox world the matter that R. Herzog was so exercised about has been settled. In other words, I don’t see any evidence that people in these communities are concerned that in Modern Orthodox schools, in classes on ancient history, students are taught things such as that around 10,000 BCE farming communities existed in the Middle East and North Africa. I know from personal experience that textbooks used in Modern Orthodox schools offer precisely this sort of information that assumes that human civilization predates the traditional Jewish reckoning. From what I have seen, this is presented to the students without, however, taking the step that R. Herzog mentioned, namely, explaining what then becomes of the biblical chronology when it is no longer viewed as historical.[21]

4. Following up on this post, here is a picture of a group of Slobodka students.[22]



R. Hutner is sitting in the middle. 


Here is another picture of R. Hutner.
Standing next to him is R. Harold Leiman who was principal of general studies at Yeshivat Chaim Berlin’s high school from 1936-1948. Prof. Shnayer Leiman informs me that this picture of his father has to be from 1940 or earlier..
5. In my post here, in discussing the newly published Ha-Mashbir, volume 2, I wrote that one of the articles is by R. Pinhas Zebihi who discusses the practice in Gibraltar that men in mourning do not wear a tallit on Shabbat. I added that this is only the case for the first month of mourning. Mr. Mesod Belilo of Gibraltar has informed me to me that the Gibraltar minhag is that those in mourning do not wear a tallit at all during sheloshim, whether it be Shabbat or during the week. (They do put one on if given an aliyah.) It is Shabbat that makes this minhag halakhically problematic as not wearing a tallit would appear to be an example of “public mourning,” and that is what R. Zebihi deals with. In fact, his conclusion is that the practice should be abolished, but I can’t imagine that the Jews of Gibraltar, even if they knew of R. Zebihi’s position, would give up a minhag that is hundreds of years old and was not abolished by any of the community rabbis. (R. Zebihi’s article is actually a responsum addressed to the rabbi of the small Gibraltar minyan in London.)
One of the editors of Ha-Mashbir is R. Yissachar Dov Hoffman who recently published another book, Avodat Ovadiah, volume 1. It focuses on practices of R. Ovadiah Yosef and deals with the first part of Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim (tzitzit, prayer, blessings, etc.). R. Hoffman’s learned notes include citations from a wide range of contemporary rabbinic works. 
6. Here is a quote from the late Robert Liberles that I find quite interesting, and I think readers will as well.
Historians, imbued with curiosity and a fascination with the dark side, can easily be drawn toward the negative, the hostile, the antinomian side of human behavior. In addition, deviant behavior has much to teach about a society under study. There is also the endless fallacy of being drawn by sources deep into the abyss of misrepresentation. Records in the public archives relate strife and despair more often than happiness and love. Rabbinic responsa pertaining to family life also tend to deal with discord. Abuses in Jewish family life can be abundantly documented, and they should be. These sources have been ignored too often, partly because they were not known, partly because they were at times consciously overlooked. Research based on prescriptive sources has depicted a portrait that is quite distant from the harsher reality that emerges from primary descriptive sources.[23]
7. In my post here I mention that in medieval rabbinic literature the words צעירים and דורשים mean Franciscans and Dominicans. David S. Zinberg called my attention to R. Joseph Ibn Caspi, Mishneh Kesef, vol. 2, p. 257. In commenting on how Moses was not celibate and even took a second wife, he writes:

כי אינו צעיר ודורש, או אגוסטי וכרמלי

“For he was not a Franciscan or a Dominican or an Augustinian or a Carmelite.”

Zinberg also called my attention to Mishneh Kesef, vol. 1, p. 106, where he writes about כת הצעירים מארצנו זאת

I also found that R. Israel Moses Hazan, Nahalah le-Yisrael, p. 84, refers to the Dominicans as כת הדרשנים

8. I know readers will be happy to learn of a significant event in the world of Torah and academic Jewish scholarship: A previously unknown responsum by Maimonides has just been published in Divre Hefetz 7 (Tishrei 5777). You can see it here.

9. The newest book in my series, Studies in Orthodox Judaism, has appeared. It is Darren Kleinberg, Hybrid Judaism: Irving Greenberg, Encounter, and the Changing Nature of American Jewish Identity. Anyone interested in a discount copy of the book should be in touch with me.

A few other books recently appeared that I would like to bring to readers' attention. R. Moshe Zuriel published the following works by Naftali Hertz Wessely: Gan NaulSefer ha-MidotMigdal ha-Levanon, and Hikur Din. The first two books have been published before, but Zuriel has included unpublished material. Migdal ha-Levanon appears in print for the first time. All scholars who deal with Wessely will have to examine these works.

Another recent publication is R. David ben Judah he-Hasid, Sefer ha-Gevul, edited by Bentsion Cohen. This is a kabbalistic work published from manuscript. The author, R. David, is none other than the grandson of Nahmanides. Here is how the book is described on the cover: "This book is one of the first attempts by a contemporary of the Zohar discovery to give a lucid and graphical interpretation to the mysterious complex issues of divinity as discussed in the Idra Rabbah of the Zohar. His approach is one of the earliest to present an interpretation of the Sephirot in the image of a person." The book also includes the numerous illustrations that appear in the manuscript.

10. Readers sometimes ask me about upcoming lectures, so I would like to inform people that on the Shabbat of Dec. 16-17, 2016 (including Saturday night) I will be speaking at Ner Yisrael in London. On Sunday night, Dec. 18, I will be speaking at the Hampstead Synagogue at 8:15pm. The topic is "Some Strange Jewish Christmas Eve Practices." On Wednesday, Dec. 21, I will be speaking at the London School of Jewish Studies at 8pm on the topic of "Touching God: What Are the Limits of Orthodox Theology?" On Thursday, Dec. 22, I will be speaking at Shomrei Hadath at 8pm on the topic of "Sense and Censorship: Is Historical Truth an Orthodox Value?" On the Shabbat of Dec. 24-25 (including Saturday night) I will be speaking at Kehillat Ohev Shalom.

On the Shabbat of Jan. 6-7, 2017, I will be in Flatbush. During services on Friday night at Bnei Yitzhak, I will give a short talk on R. Elijah Benamozegh. After an early tefillah at the Sephardic Institute, I will be speaking at 8:45am on "The Philosophy of Rav Kook: Is It Still Relevant?" On Shabbat afternoon at 3pm I will be speaking at Beth Torah on "Judaism and Islam: Some Historical and Halakhic Perspectives." On Saturday night at 8pm I will be speaking at the Sephardic Institute on "Did the Sages Always Tell the Truth (and Should We)?"




[1] “Da’as Torah – What are Its Parameters in non-Halachic Issues”, available here at 26:40.
[2] Usually it is Hungarian extremist rabbis who use terms like avodah zarah with reference to Yom ha-Atzmaut, but I found that R. Yehezkel Levenstein also uses this language. See Or Yehezkel, vol. 3, p. 118:

וברצוני לעורר כי הנה היום היה [!] יום העצמאות, ומה הוא מהותו של יום העצמאות. יום של עבודה זרה, יום שבו מראים הכל כוחי עוצם ידי.

I agree with a friend who wrote to me regarding this passage:

​יש הבדל בין השימוש בשם 'עבודה זרה'בהקשר של "כוחי ועוצם ידי", זה שווה למי שאומר שהרדיפה אחר הכסף הוא עבודה זרה "אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשה לכם", ובין השימוש שסטמר משתמש בו שעובדים "העגל הציוני".​

[3] At 1:14:30. The Lubavitcher Rebbe had a different perspective. See Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe: The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History (New York, 2014), p. 189, who quotes what the Rebbe told R. Leibel Groner: "When it comes to a marriage, not I can help you, not your father can help you, not your mother can help you, not your seichel [your intellectual faculties] can help you. The only thing that can help you is your heart. If you feel for her, go ahead. If you don't do not."
[4] At 1:11:00. Because R. Schachter is citing from memory, his misremembered one point. At minute 59 he describes a case dealt with by R. Chaim Berlin that took place under communist rule. Yet R. Berlin died in 1912, before the Soviet Revolution. The responsum referred to by R. Schachter can be found in Nishmat HayyimEven ha-Ezer, no. 3, and is from 1911. As R. Schachter notes, it contains the following fascinating words, addressed to someone who was considering whether a certain woman was an appropriate marriage partner:

ויוכל לקיים בה מצות פו"ר להוליד לו בן ובת ויצא ידי חובתו. ובזה"ז דלא אכשור דרי אין להדר להיות לו בנים מרובים, שמי יודע אם ילכו בדרך התורה והמצוה, אך לקיים מצות פו"ר חובה עלינו למלאות חובתינו.

I don’t know of any other rabbinic figure who urged people not to have many children because of a fear that they would not remain religious. The standard rabbinic approach in such matters was to declare בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך. This expression comes from Berakhot 10a where it deals with the exact matter discussed by R. Berlin.

In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet, son of Amoz, came to him and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die and not live etc. (Is. 38:1) What is the meaning of ‘thou shalt die and not live’? Thou shalt die in this world and not live in the world to come. He said to him: Why so bad? He replied: Because you did not try to have children. He said: The reason was because I saw by the holy spirit that the children issuing from me would not be virtuous. He said to him: What have you to do with the secrets of the All-Merciful? You should have done what you were commanded, and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do that which pleases Him

According to R. Berlin, Hezekiah was mistaken in that he chose not have any children. R. Berlin states that one must indeed fulfill the minimal obligation of peru u-revu, but there is no need to have more children than this when there is a strong possibility that the children will not remain on the religious path.
[5] Ibid at 1:01:00.
[6] Hearing this reminded me of R. Avraham Shapiro’s point that certain “Daas Torah” personalities have published Torah works, and in these works they state that what they write is not halakhah le-ma’aseh. “It is as if they are saying that they don’t have the ‘Din Torah,” but they do have the Daas Torah.” See Aharon Eizental, “Ha-Kohen ha-Gadol me-Ehav,” Tzohar 32 (2008), p. 16. A number of times R. Shapiro commented that there is no precedent for the current phenomenon in which Torah scholars who won’t give halakhic rulings on commonplace Shabbat questions feel that they can issue rulings on life and death matters affecting the entire nation. As with R. Schachter, he saw this as a distortion of true Daas Torah.
[7] See R. Israel Berger, Eser Orot (Petrokov, 1907), pp. 13-14, who explains the hasidic perspective that one can be the gadol ha-dor without being an expert in Talmud and halakhah.
[8] None of the responses referred to the following important passage in Aviad Hakohen, “Zot Torat ha-Adam,” in Reuven Ziegler and Reuven Gafni, eds. Le-Ovdekha be-Emet (Jerusalem, 2011), p. 367. It shows that R. Yehuda Amital thought that there is a more important thing to hope for than that one’s sons or students become gedolim, namely, that they should be good Jews.

כמה פעמים סיפר לנו על בר המצווה של בנו היחיד, ר'יואל, שאליה הגיעו הרבה אורחים שנמנו עם משפחת האצולה הלמדנית של הרבנית מרים, משפחתו של הסבא ר'איסר זלמן מלצר. בזה אחר זה קמו האורחים, וכמנהג גוברין יהודאין בירכו את חתן בר המצווה שיהיה גדול בתורה, חריף ובקי, סיני ועוקר הרים, רב לאלפים, יודע ש"ס ופוסקים, עמוד החזק ופטיש הימיני. לאחר שסיימו, ניעור רבנו ממקומו ואמר בצורה אופיינית: "אני מודה לכם על דבריכם הטובים, אבל איני מסכים עמם. אבא שלי לא היה גדול בתורה. גם סבא שלי לא היה גדול בתורה. לא אכפת לי שבני יהיה חייט או סנדלר. העיקר שיהיה יהודי טוב."

[9] Brisk is an exception. A friend writes: 

בבית בריסק אומרים מפורש, מאן לימא שיש גדול הדור?

[10] I am referring to the non-hasidic segment of the haredi world. In the hasidic world the followers of a rebbe generally viewed him as the gadol ha-dor, and he was thought to be chosen for this role from Heaven. See Mendel Piekarz, Ha-Hanhagah ha-Hasidit (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 22ff.; David Assaf, Ne’ehaz ba-Sevakh (Jerusalem, 2006), p. 240. The Steipler actually said that R. Shakh was chosen by Heaven to be the manhig ha-dor. See Avraham Yeshayahu Kanievsky, Toldot Yaakov (Bnei Brak, 1995), p. 263. The Hatam Sofer said that in every generation God establishes one person as the premier posek. Because of his central halakhic position, the Hatam Sofer understandably understood that he was this person. See Maoz Kahana, “Ha-Hatam Sofer: Ha-Posek be-Einei Atzmo,” Zion 76 (2007), pp. 545-546.
[11] In a future post I will discuss R. Steinman in more detail. After examining his writings and public statements, I have to say that I understand well why there is opposition to R. Steinman, and I think that without the support of R. Kanievsky he never would have been regarded as the gadol ha-dor. It appears to me that R. Steinman has indeed attempted  to move haredi society in a different direction, and as such has diverged from some of the previous haredi Daas Torah. Furthermore, there is evidence of his “out of the box” thinking for many decades. As far as I know, there is not even one scholarly article about R. Steinman, which is surprising, to say the least, since he is the single most important haredi rabbinic leader.
[12] Berakhot 31b s.v. מורה. Cf. Rashbam, Pesahim 100a, s.v. ברבי which I also don't think means the preeminent Torah leader or scholar. See also Or Zarua, Hilkhot Rosh ha-Shanah, no. 276, for the story of R. Amnon of Mainz who is referred to as gadol ha-dor. But again, I don’t think the meaning is that he was the greatest scholar of the generation. He certainly was not the greatest leader of his generation (and indeed, he was not even a real person).
[13] Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 282:3.
[14] Nefesh Kol Haima’arekhet ת, no. 80. R. Palache also cites R. Nahman of Bratzlav, Sefer ha-Midot, s.v. צדיק no. 136:

אין לך צדיק שאין עליו מחלוקת ומחקרים.

[15] Vol. 2, p. 159. See also ibid., p. 249.
[16] Minhat Eleazar, vol. 3, no. 64 (p. 54a).
[17] There is a long list of negative things rabbis have said about their opponents, and I have cited some in prior posts. Perhaps the worst I have found was stated by R. Sason Elijah Halevi Samoha, the former hakham bashi of Baghdad. He accused R. Elisha Dangoor, his successor as hakham bashi, of murdering his own brother. See Yaron Harel, Intrigue and Revolution: Chief Rabbis in Aleppo, Baghdad, and Damascus 1744-1914, trans. Y. Chipman (Oxford, 2015), p. 98. 
[18] The letters I refer to come from the Israel State Archives, R. Isaac Herzog file 4243/6-פ.
[19] For my understanding of Maimonides, which diverges from that of R. Herzog, see here.
[20] In the file that contains the letter to Carter is also found a November 2, 1954 letter to Arnold Toynbee in which R. Herzog writes:

I have been struck by the point that you narrate the history of 5000 years of civilisation. Does that mean that in your view recorded history is not older?
I have been trying recently to explain the Hebrew Bible chronology according to which the creation of man took place only about 5700 years ago. This of course is rejected by anthropologists but may it not mean that man, truly civilised man, man properly called, is only of that age? Or do you begin the history of civilisation with the rise of agriculture?
Another letter in the file is from R. Herzog to Abraham Cressy Morrison, author of the book Man Does Not Stand Alone. R. Herzog’s letter is from December 19, 1951, and here is the section relevant to our discussion:
While not necessarily subscribing to all of its statements, I wish to compliment you on your very interesting and inspiring little book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone." It is calculated to help many spiritually.
However, permit me the following observations. Whilst you accept the belief in G-D and in providence in as far as the generalities of nature are concerned, you recognise the dates fixed by science as axiomatic. Let me call your attention to the consideration that the ages of the rocks and the like, are computed in the absence of the premise of the Rock of the Ages. Once you grant the agency of a super nature power and intelligence, it does not follow at all that because with the laws and forces working now in nature after the creational work has ended, this or that kind of operation must take so much time, it has been so during the creational process and hence it is not at all certain that G-D tool [!] milliards of years to perform his work as Creator.
The difficulty is great, I admit, when it comes to historic Biblical chronology. Literally taken, the Biblical chronology allows only 5712 years for the period since the creation of Man and only a space of about 12,000 years of civilisation. This of course is a different matter. If we take agriculture as marking the emergence from the savage state, some 6000 years would, I feel be sufficient. We may have to reinterpret the narrative portions of the Pentateuch, but not necessarily to allegorise them.
The same file also contains most of the Herzog-Immanuel Velikovsky correspondence published and analyzed by Raphael Shuchat in The Torah u-Madda Journal 15 (2008-2009), pp. 143-171.
[21] In the Israel State Archives, R. Isaac Herzog file 4253/6-פ there are other letters from R. Herzog focusing on the matter we have been discussing, namely, the short time given to humanity on earth if one reads the Torah literally. On 10 Av 5712, he wrote as follows to Dr. Yitzhak Etzion:


אפשר לפרש את תוה"ק בצורה אליגורית ושהשמות שבפרשיות הראשונות שבספר בראשית, הן של גזעים ואומות רבים, לא של יחידים, ושהשנים הן לא שנים רגילות אלא תקופות, אבל זהו כבר ענין אחר, ודורש קביעת כללים עד היכן ומהיכן

On 22 Adar 5712 he wrote to Dr. Samuel Belkin. 

זה מזמן שאני הוגה רעיון גדול בלבי והוא להוציא ספר גדול בכמות ובאיכות, מעין מורה נבוכים חדש שיכיל תשובותיה של היהדות הנאמנה לכל מתקיפיה, מצד המדע המודרני, האנטרופולוגיה, הגיאולוגיה, הזואולוגיה וכו', הפילוסופיה, בקורת המקרא, והדתות האחרות, וכן מצד בעלי הכתות שבקרבנו של העבר ושל היום, הצדוקים הקראים והריפורמים

אני קבעתי לי ליסוד את דברי רבינו הגדול הרמב"ם ז"ל, שאם אריסטו היה מוכיח בהחלט את קדמות החומר היה הוא מפרש את פרשיות בראשית בהתאם לה, וד"ל, אך צריך שהחולקים על קבלתנו יוכיחו תחלה את השערותיהם, וכן צריך לקבוע כללים פרשנייים, עד היכן ואימתי מותר להוציא הדברים מפשוטם. זהו מקצוע בתורה שעובד אך מעט מאד

On 11 Shevat 5713, R. Herzog wrote to Professor Ben Zion Dinur, who was then serving as Minster of Education.

ימצא נא בזה סיכום של פעולות שבתכניתי לשם יצירת תנועה רוחנית להגנה על מורשת סיני


בדעתי להתחיל מיד בעריכת ספר גדול על יסוד היסודות של היהדות הנאמנה המאמינה, "תורה מן השמים". בספר ההוא תופענה הגנות כתובות מאנשי מדע ואנשי אמונה כאחד, מיד כל אחד מנקודת השקפת מקצועו: אנתרופוליגיה, גיאולוגיה, תכונה, זואולוגיה וכו'וכו' . . .  כללים הם בידינו מאז מעולם: "דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם", "שבעים פנים לתורה", "התורה נדרשת בפרדס"וכו'וכו', ומאידך גיסא יש לנו כלל גדול "אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו". הספר הזה יקבע גבולות על הפרשיות שבתורה שאינן ענין של הלכה למעשה, עד כמה ובאילו תנאים יש להוציא הדברים מפשטותם. לפנינו יהיו למורה דרך דברי המורה הידועים, שאם אריסטו היה מוכיח בהחלט את קדמות החומרeternity of matter  היה הוא ז"ל מוצא דרך לפרש את פרשיות בראשית בהתאם לה.

בהכרח שהיהדות הנאמנה המאמינה תמצא לה פרקליט בתקופה המודרנית הזאת, אך מפני התקדמות המדע בצעדי ענק אי אפשר לעבודה כזאת להעשות באיש אחד. אפילו הרמב"ם, אילו היה חי בדורנו, לא היה יכול להאבק יחידי בכל הזרמים המרובים ההם


In his 29 Shevat 5714 letter to Dr. Aharon Barth, R. Herzog speculates about a possible solution to the problem we have been discussing, and also a solution for other matters in which the Torah's description does not correspond to what is accepted by modern scientists and historians. He suggests that the Torah's description need not be factually correct, as it was in line with the conceptions of the generation of the giving of the Torah. 


תאמר, שהיא דברה לא רק בלשון בני אדם, כי גם בלשון המסורת של העברים שבאותו הדור שקיבל את התורה, אעפ"י שבעצם הדברים לא מדויקים. נוסיף ללכת ונאמר כדברי רבינו הקדוש הרמב"ן ז"ל שהתורה כולה שמותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, ויש בה בכל אות ובכל תג סודות וסודי סודות, למעלה למעלה מהשכל הרגיל, רזי רזין שרק יחידי סגולה זוכים בהם, ואין חיצוניותה בפנימיותה כלל, והצורה החיצונה נתחברה בהתאמה לדרגת המסורת העברית של הימים ההים  הרבה צריך עוד לדון עד שנקבל תיאוריה כזאת

As can be seen from the last sentence, he was not ready to adopt this approach.


See also the letter from R. Herzog that I published in my "Ha-Im Yesh Hiyuv le-Ha'amin she-ha-Zohar Nikhtav al Yedei Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai," Milin Havivin 5 (2010-2011), p. 19.


In his reply to R. Herzog, Dr. Etzion makes the following interesting point which stands in opposition to the approach of some in the Kiruv world (and, truth be told, it is also in opposition to Maimonides' approach)..



 כבודם של כל חכמי ישראל שהשתדלו להוכיח את האמונה ע"י השכל במקומם מונח, אבל האמונה בה'ובתורה היא אחת ממצוות התורה ולו היה אפשרות להוכיח את האמונה הזאת, היינו לו אפשר היה להכריח את שכל האדם להאמין, הרי אין מקום למצוה, כמו שאין מקום למצוה ולשכר ועונש אם אין בחירה חפשית בחופש הרצון

[22] The picture can be found here where four of the five young men are identified. It was brought to my attention by Elchanan Burton.
[23] Robert Liberles, “On the Threshold of Modernity: 1618-1780,” in Marion Kaplan, ed., Jewish Daily Life in Germany, 1618-1945 (Oxford, 2005), p. 24.

חז"ס ופולמוס חנוכה

$
0
0
חז"ס ופולמוס חנוכה
'מאי חנוכה'
מאת זרחיה ליכט

תמונה מהחכם חיים זליג סלונימסקי
חיים זליג סלונימסקי (1810-1904), המכונה חז"ס, היה אחד מגדולי המשכילים במאה ה-19. חכם גדול בתורה ובמדע שפעל הרבה להפיץ השכלה עולמית בקרב עמו. כמעט עד סוף ימיו נשאר חז"ס נכבד בין בעיני הרבנים מצד חכמתו בתורה ונאמנותו לשמירת המצוות, ובין בעיני המשכילים מצד חכמתו במדע. אך בעת זקנותו אבד עמדתו החיובי בקרב הרבנים ע"י כתבה אחת שפרסם בעיתונו 'הצפירה'[1] (דצמבר 1891). בחנוכה של שנת 1891 פרסם חז"ס מאמר בדפי העיתון, בו הוא פקפק בעובדת הנס של הפך שמן. לא זו בלבד שהכניס ספק בלב המאמינים שהחשמונאים מצאו רק פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד, ונעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים, אלא טען שגם הרמב"ם לא הבין הדברים כפשוטם:








לא נכנס כאן בפרטי הוויכוח אודות אמיתת הסיפור שסיפרו לנו חכמנו ז"ל באופן כללי, ואודות דעת הרמב"ם בפרט, שכן כבר דשו בו רבים, מכל מקום לתועלת הקוראים אציג כאן תיאור הפולמוס בלשונו של ר'יעקב ליפשיץ, מזכירו הנאמן של הגאון רבי יצחק אלחנן זצ"ל:
בשנת תרנ"א[2] (1890) יצא עורך מכ"ע [מכתב עת] "הצפירה"הרה"ח [הרב החשוב?] מר חז"ס, לפי דרכו הישרה בעיניו, במאמר ארוך (!) להוכיח אשר רבן של ישראל הרמב"ם ז"ל לא האמין כלל בהנס של נר חנוכה, שבגלל זה השמיט הרמב"ם את הנס של הנרות כל עיקר [למרות המפורש בהרמב"ם הלכות חנוכה הלכה ג': "ומדליקין הנרות על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה שמונה הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס"– המחבר[3]], ומתוך הכחשתו בהנס של נר חנוכה נמשך אח"כ במאמרו להכחשת עוד נסים המפורשים בכתבי הק'.[4]
כנזכר, עוררה כתבה זו של חז"ס סערת רוח גדולה בקרב העולם היהודי, וסופרים רבים המשיכו להתפלמס בענין זה במכ"ע שונים של אותה תקופה. הרעש התגבר כל כך אשר גם במכ"ע של הגויים דיברו על זה. הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב העיד ש"כמעט בכל מכ"ע הפולנים והרוסים ובחו"ל במכה"ע האשכנזים בוויען, ברלין, פעסט, בכולם נתפשטה השמועה כי 'הצפירה'נאסרה לבוא בקהל היהודים בשביל מאמר אחד הכופר באמונה מפורשת בתלמוד! ושונאינו עשו מזה מטעמים לקוראיהם... ואוי לאותה כלימה"[5].
ובעיתון המליץ תחת הכותרת 'חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם'התלוננו עד היכן הדברים הגיעו שבמה"ע "Slowo"הפולני פרסמו ש"בעולם היהודים נעשתה נבלה. העורך מכתב עת שבועי "הצפירה"ה'סלאנימסקי היה לקללה נמרצה לעברים התלמודיים בגלל מאמרים אשר בהם הוכיח כי בהתלמוד יש ויש כמה וכמה סעיפים... ובעבור זה ירדפוהו עד חרמה. במקומות רבים הנושבים מיהודים נדבקו אזהרות בשפת עבר אשר בהן יכונה ה'סלאנימסקי בוגד באמונה, המדיח את צעירי העברים מנתיב התלמוד. וע"כ נגזרה עליו מארה ויוצא לפני היהודים שומרי מצוה לבלי הביא את מ"ע שלו לביתם. ה'סלאנימסקי מסר לדין איזה מרודפיו[6] היותר נלהבים[7]:


גם נכתבו כמה ספרים שלמים מצד הרבנים, אשר מטרתם הובהרה מראש, להפריך ולהכחיש את דברי חז"ס שאיימו על המסורה. הספר הכי נכבד בתחום זה, נכתב ע"י אחיו של ר'יעקב ליפשיץ הנ"ל, הגאון רבי יהודה הלוי ליפשיץ אב"ד מערטש. בשנת תרנ"ה[8] הוציא ספרו 'דרך אמונה'לאור, ומאה עמודים הראשונים שלו מוקדשים לנושא של נס חנוכה. הספר מתחיל עם תיאור מאד דומה לזה של אחיו ר'יעקב הנ"ל:
החכם החז"ס, לפי דרכו הישרה בעיניו[9], להעמיד כל הנסים הכתובים המקובלים בתנ"ך ובדברי חז"ל על הטבע, יצא בהצפירה שנת הי"ח נומר 278 להכחיש הנסים שנעשו לאבותינו במקדש, ותלה את עצמו באילן גדול מאורנו ומורנו הרמב"ם ז"ל, ויצא להוכיח כי גם רבינו הגדול מאור עינינו הרמב"ם ז"ל, בטל כלאחר יד את הנס הנעשה לאבותינו בפך השמן כפי המסופר במגילת תענית ובגמרא (שבת כ"א), וכפי המקובל באומה זה יותר מאלפים שנה, ואשר לזכר לנס הנפלא הזה תקנו מצות הדלקת נר חנוכה.






בנוסף לספר הנ"ל, חוברו עוד הרבה ספרים ומאמרים להצדיק את הצדיק הרמב"ם מאשמת חז"ס, ולהוכיח אמיתת דברי חז"ל בנוגע לנס של הפך שמן.
'אגדת פך שמן'
למרות שרוב הרבנים התנגדו לדברי חז"ס, היה אברך מופלג גדול בתורה ומשכיל הרב שמואל אלכסנדראוו[10] (1865-1941), חתן לאחד מנכבדי עירו באברויסק, והיה מכובד על הבריות וגם הגיד שיעור גמרא לפני בחורים, שיצא במאמר ב"הצפירה"לחזק את דעת והכחשת חז"ס. נוסף על מאמריו הדפיס גם כן מחברת קטנה בענין פך השמן.[11] הקונטרס שחיבר הרב שמואל אלכסנדראוו נקרא 'אגדת פך השמן' (וורשה תרנ"ב – 1892) ועל השער כתב שהוא "מוקטר ומוגש לכבוד הרב החכם הכולל והחוקר הנפלא פאר ישראל כש"ת מהור"ר חיים זעליג סלאנימסקי הי"ו, ביום מלאת לו שתים ושמונים שנה, ביום כ"ד אדר הבא". והוא חותם ההקדשה "מאת אחד היודע להוקירו ולכבדו כרום ערכו". בקונטרס זה מנסה אלכסנדרוב לבאר שמעולם לא כיוונו חז"ל לדברים כפשוטם, שאכן דלק פך אחד במשך שמונה ימים, רק פירש הכול בדרך אלגורי, שהשמן רומז לחכמת התורה וכו'וכו'. הוא סמך את רעיונותיו על דברי בעלי הדרוש לדורותיהם[12].
הרבנים שכתבו נגד דעת חז"ס שהזהירו לייחס אליו קצת בדרך כבוד, הרבו לעג וקלס בכיוונו של אלכסנדרוב שהודות לצעירותו לא זכה למידת הכבוד שאליה זכה חז"ס. אולי הסיבה לכך היא גם מפני שדברי אלכסנדרוב, שטען שהרבה מגדולי הדורות ובתוכם אדמור"י חסידות הסכימו בדרושיהם לדברי חז"ס, הביאו לידי גיחוך והיה קל ביותר לבטל כלאחר יד, מדיוקו של חז"ס בדברי הרמב"ם שהיה מבוסס הרבה יותר.



הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב



חרטות והכחשות
מעניין מאד שגם אלו מחוג הרבנים שהסכימו עם דעת חז"ס, לא ארכו ימים עד שהתחרטו על מעמדם הבלתי שמרני. קשה לדעת אם הייתה חרטה אמתית או שרבו עליהם חבריהם וכפו אותם עד שאמרו 'רוצה אני'להכחיש ולהתחרט. ונביא כאן שלש דוגמאות לתופעה זו.
1. הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב
הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב שתמך בכל עוז בעמדת חז"ס, לא ארכו לו ימים ושנים, והלחץ שהפעילו עליו פעל את שלו, עד שבשנת תרנ"ה (1894) פרסם רש"א חרטה למחצה שליש ורבעי. בקובץ תלפיות ערך הרב שמואל מכתב למו"ל ובו כתב:
והנני אומר גם מפורש כי כל מה שכתבתי בקונטרסי "אגדת פך השמן"... הוא רק בתור בירור וביאור האגדות האלה ע"ד הביקורת, אולם בנוגע לגוף הקבלות והמסורות העתיקות המסתעפות מהאגדות האלו, הנני אומר מפורש אם (!) קבלה היא נקבל, ואם אולי (!) נמצאו ביטויים בספרי אפ"ה [=אגדת פך השמן] שפלטה קולמוסי, הנוגעים בגוף הקבלה, הנני מתחרט ע"ז חרטה גמורה; מטרתו בכל מאמרינו השונים היא רק לבנות ולנטוע ולא לסתור ולעקור חלילה.[13]
למרות שב-1894 הודה רש"א רק במקצת הטענה, ונהג עם דבריו הראשונים במידת 'פלגינן נאמנות', רצה לומר, שהם צודקים ע"ד הביקורת אבל לא ע"ד הקבלה, מכל מקום בשנת תרנ"ז (1896), בספרו 'טל תחיה'על פרקי אבות, על המשנה "עשרה נסים נעשו לאבותינו בבית המקדש" (אבות ה, ה), הודה רש"א בכול, וכך כותב שם:
אם כי יש לי להאריך הרבה ע"ד העשרה נסים, וכבר נגעתי בקצה עטי בזה במחברותיי השונות [ספר 'אגדת פך השמן', 'דברי שמואל', 'אגדת אש מן השמים'] אולם ירא אנכי להאריך בזה, פן ואולי אכשל בלשוני כאשר נלכדתי בספרי אפ"ה [=אגדת פך השמן], ות"ל [=תודה לא-ל] אשר שקלתי למטרפסי[14] בהאי עלמא, וכבר הודיתי בפומבי [בספרי אאמ"ה (=אגדת אש מן השמים) בסופו במכתבי שם[15]] על עווני זה, והנני אומר עוד הפעם כי הנני מתחרט חרטה גמורה על הביטויים הקשים הנוגעים בגוף קבלת פך השמן הנמצאים בספרי אפ"ה [=אגדת פך השמן], ודעתי ככל שלומי אמוני ישראל בזה…[16]
כאן כבר התחרט בחרטה גמורה על הביטויים הקשים – למרות שלפני כמה שנים היה מסופק אם היו שם מאלה ביטויים הקשים, וכתב רק 'אולי נמצאו ביטויים'כאלה – אבל סביר להניח שעשה כן רק מחמת הלחץ שלחצו עליו, ולא שהתחרט באמת.
2. הרב יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל
בצעירותו למד אלכסנדרוב בחברותא עם הגאון הגדול ר'יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל (1838-1899). כפי הנראה, כתב רב זה הסכמה לקונטרס 'אגדת פך שמן'של אלכסנדרוב, אבל גם לו לא ארכו הימים עד שהוכרח מחמת כן לפרסם הודעה בעיתון המליץ בו הוא מכחיש ההסכמה:
באריסאוו (פ. מינסק). – הנני לפרסם ברבים בדבר מכתבי הקצר שנדפס בקונטרס "דברי-שמואל" [מהרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב הנ"ל], אשר המחבר תולה עלי בשביל זה כי הנני מסכים עמו. חס וחלילה לדעותיו, אשר לפי דברי רבים שראו ספרו, מכחיש הוא בנס פך השמן, ואשר לא עלה על לבי ולא יעלה על לב איש יהודי הנאמן עם תורת חז"ל, ובאמת אני לא ראיתי בעתו את מאמר חז"ס בענין נס חנוכה, והמחבר קונטרס "פך השמן"שהוא בן עירי בשלחו לי קונטרסו היה בעיני כפתרון בלא חלום, ורק בדרך העברה עברתי עליו, ומאשר כי ראיתי בו בקיאות בספרים מבלי דעת תכן ענינו, ובין כה נדרשתי לאחר לפנות עבורו למחבר הקונטרס הנ"ל, שישתדל לטובתו, כתבתי למחבר מכתב בקשה. ומפני הכבוד כתבתי אליו טורים אחדים שאין בהם שום שייכות "לנס חנוכה", כי אם כעין שבח על בקיאותו, ואז ציינתי לפניו התוספתא, יען שמצאתי בה נוסחאות שונות בענין שמן; וכדי בזיון להמכחישים התולים את עצמם בתוכחות צנומות כאלה לתמוך בהם את הכחשותיהם בהדפיסם מכתבים כאלה לעוור עיני רבים, ובלי שאלת פי כותבי המכתבים, ואין ראיה גדולה לביטול דברי הכחשתם מזה, כי כל דבריהם מהבל יחד. הכותב למען כבוד חז"ל וקבלת אבות.
                                   יהודא מעשיל הכהן החופ"ק[17]
הצהרה הנ"ל מופיע בחלק ה'מודעות'שבעיתון המליץ ולא בחלק המאמרים של העיתון. הסיבה למיקומו המוזר לפרסום כזה, מובאת בספר זכרון יעקב הנ"ל. לפי ר'יעקב ליפשיץ נלכד ר'יהודה מעשיל הכהן בפח ע"י הסופר בן-ציון אייזענשטאדט ור'יעקב ליפשיץ הוא זה שהציל את הצדיק ממוקשו ויעצו לפרסם מודעה הנ"ל ולהשים אותה דווקא בחלק המודעות. וכך כותב ר'יעקב ליפשיץ:
אחד מסוכנים שלו [= של אלכסנדרוב] היה הסופר הידוע בשמו מר בנציון א…[18] הוא לכד בערמה את כבוד רב גאון אחד צדיק תמים הרחוק מכל תחבולות הספרות, ומכיון שהשיג מענה ממנו, השתמש במכתבו כחפצו בחסר ויתר, ויעש ממנו מטעמים כאשר אהב החז"ס ועוזרו אלכסנדראוו, והדפיס את מכתב הרה"ג התמים הזה ז"ל [מפני כבודו של תלמיד חכם לא איבה לפרש את שמו[19]] בהצפירה לאות כי גם גאון וצדיק מסכים עמהם.
ר'יעקב ליפשיץ ממשיך לספר שהרב הנ"ל פנה אליו במכתב שיעזור לו ממצוקתו. ואז יעצו ר'יעקב שישלח הכחשה, אבל שלא ישלחנו בתור 'מאמר'אלא בתור מודעה. וכך כותב:
הרה"ג הזה שהיה גם ממכירי וממכבדי, פנה אז אלי במכתב בקשה והפצרה, ויספר לי סיבת המשגה שנלכד בערמת הספור ב. א.[20] ויפצר בי שאסדר אני מאמר ולפרסמו באחד ממכ"ע... הסכמתי אמנם לערוך מאמר כחפצו ולברר הטעות והערמה של חז"ס שהוסיף וגרע בהתשובה, אבל לחתום על מאמר הלא מוכרח בעל המאמר בעצמו כמובן. ויעצתי לו שישלח ההכחשה בתור "מודעה"כי ברעדאקציעס ישנם ממונים שונים על כל מחלקה ומחלקה. יש מחלקה לקרוספדנציוס ולמאמרים וכהנה, ועל מחלקות כאלו עין העורך צופיה, ומדפיס רק אלה מאמרים שהם לפי רוחו; אבל יש מחלקה מיוחדת ל"מודעות", ששם אין יד העורך שולטת, רק מי שמשלם בעד כל שורה ושורה מדפיסים המודעה כמו שהיא מבלי לבקר את תוכנה, ע"כ יאבה כת"ר לשלוח מאמרו בתור "מודעה"ולשלם בעד כל שורה ובעין יפה, ואז ידפיסו דבריו. וכעצתי עשה הרב הנכבד הזה ונדפס הכחשתו ב"המליץ"וצדיק מצרה נחלץ...
לא נסתיים פרשה זו בכך, אלא בא אחריו ר'בן-ציון אייזענשטאדט בעיתון הצפירה והכחיש את הכחשתו של הרב יהודה מעשיל הנ"ל. הוא כותב שכבודו של ידידו "רב וגאון מפורסם ואב"ד בעיר ואם בישראל"גדול מאד בעיניו, אבל מזכיר את 'מאמר החכם'"אהוב אריסטו ואהוב אפלטון, והאמת יותר משניהם". ומספר איך שביקר אצל ידידו האחר "והוא גם כן רב וחכם מצוין הרה"ג החכם הנודע מוהר"ש אלכסנדראוו"והלה הראה לו כתב ידו של "הגאון הגדול מוהר"י מעשיל הכהן הי"ו צירקעל הגאב"ד דבאריסאוו"והכיר שבאמת הסכים הרב יהודה מעשיל לדברי אלכסנדרוב. אולם מסיים אייזנשטט במילים הללו:
וכאשר נוראות נפלאתי על הגאון הזה הנודע לי ולכל מכיריו לאיש אמונים אשר כל עולה לא נמצא בשפתיו איך שנה את דבריו ויתן לחרפה את אחד החכמים המצוינים בישראל אשר כל שמץ עולה לא עשה, ומה גם כי ידעתי זה מכבר כי הוא ממכבדיו וממעריציו שמו?! ויוסף הר"ר אלכסנדראוו ויושט לי את המכתב השני אשר כתב אליו הגאב"ד דבאריסאוו ובו הודיעהו הסיבה אשר תמריצהו לבוא במחאה במכ"ע ע"ד מכתבו, אז נחה שקטה דעתי כי מצאתי פתרון לחלום אשר חלמתי, ומנהמת לבי קראתי: עד מתי בינת נבונים תסתתר!
יקר בעיני כבוד הגאון דבאריסאוו, אך עוד יקרה בעיני האמת אשר היא נר לרגלי תמיד וגם הפעם, ואשר למענה אך למענה כתבתי דברי אלה ואפרסמם.
א"ד המכתב את התורה וחכמיה הדורש אמת וצדק
בן-ציון אייזענשטאטד מקעלץ
באברויסק י"א שבט, התרנ"ג[21]
נראים הדברים שהשמרנים הפעילו לחץ גדול על הרב יהודה מעשיל "אשר המריצוהו"לבוא בכתב מחאה הנ"ל. מאידך גיסא מספר ר'יעקב ליפשיץ שהסופר בנציון א... כתב מכתב בקשת סליחה ומחילה להרב יהודה מעשיל, "ויאמר אנוס הייתי לעשות כדבר הזה, כי נקראתי לענין פקו"נ בב... ולמר אלכסנדר'... שמה היה לו מכירים רבים ובא לעזרתי לחלצני מן המיצר בתנאי שאדפיס מאמרו ומשום שהיה בזה חשש של פקוח נפש, אנוס הייתי למלא חפצו נגד רצוני, ומבקש סליחה ממורו ורבו".
קשה לדעת האמת 'האהוב יותר משניהם'...
3. הרב אייזיק ליב ספיר
הרב יהודה מעשיל הכהן לא היה הרב היחיד שהוצרך להבהיר עמדתו בנידון. בעיתון הצפירה מופיע הבהרה כעין זו גם מאת הרה"ג ר'אייזיק ליב ספיר אב"ד קוזניצא ובעמח"ס שרגי טובא. סביר להניח שמחמת שיצא עליו שם רע כאילו תמך בעמדת חז"ס, מצא הרב אייזיק ליב חובה לנפשו לפרסם קונטרס בו הוכיח שנס פך שמן אירע כפשוטו ממש.







ביבליוגרפי
לתועלת קורא הבלוג, אציג כאן שמות הספרים והקונטרסים, וגם הרבה מאמרים שמצאתי מדברים אודות הפולמוס הנ"ל. אינני מתיימר לתת לקורא ביבליוגרפי מושלם, אבל אפרט כאן ממה שמצאתי שמדברים ישיר לנושא של מאמרו של חז"ס:
ספרים וקונטרסים מאת הרבנים
1.    אמונת חכמים: נדפס ב-1892 – הרב דובער יהודה ליב גינזבורג[22]
הספר כולל ג'מאמרים. מאמר הראשון נקרא 'נס חנוכה'ומטרתו "לבטל דברי מערכת הצפירה במאמר 'מאי חנוכה' [הוא מאמרו של חז"ס] דלא היה נס בפך דחנוכה" (נוסח השער). מאמר השני מוקדש להפריך דברי הרב אלכסדראוו שיצא להגן בעד חז"ס. ספר זה הוא כפי הנראה הראשון שנכתב מצד עמדת החרדים, ונעשה ביוזמתו של האדמו"ר מקאפוסט. המחבר חותם שמו בראש ספרו "המקנא קנאת חז"ל דובער יהודה ליב".
2.    דרך אמונה: נדפס ב-1895 – הרב יהודה הלוי ליפשיץ
בשער הספר כתוב "להוכיח צדקת חז"ל בענין נס חנוכה וכל הנסים בכלל, ולהוכיח צדקת הרמב"ם ז"ל ודעותיו בענין כל הנסים וקדה"ח ותשובות נגד יתר המבקרים נגד חז"ל. 100 עמודים הראשונים של הספר מוקדשים לפולמוס חז"ל ומשם ממשיך הספר לדבר בשאר הענינים המפורטים בנוסח זה.
3.    נס פך שמן או אגדת פך השמן: נדפס ב-1895 – הרב ברוך ברייזמאן
יש בו 31 עמודים מוקדשים לנושא הזה ומתפלמס עם דברי חז"ס (עמוד 7).
4.    נס פך השמן:נדפס ב-1895 – הרב אייזיק ליב [יצחק יהודה] ספיר
הספר כולל י"ב פרקים ותעודתו "לבאר בראיות ברורות ונאמנות ש"נס פך השמן"שמצאו החשמונאים במקדש ה'היה כפשוטו, ושכל הנסים והנפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו היו מחודשים כל אחד בשעתו מעילת כל העילות וסיבת כל הסיבות מבלי שום סיבה טבעית מראשית הבריאה" (נוסח השער).
מכתבים ומאמרים מאת רבנים
5.    'נס להתנוסס': תורת הגאון רבי אלכסנדר משה; סימן כד, עמוד 465 – הרב אלכסנדר משה לפידות (1819-1906)
בראש המאמר כתוב שהוא בדבר הרעש הגדול המתחולל במחנה העברים שהחכם חז"ס בא לפקפק בנס פך השמן דחנוכה ותלה את עצמו בהרמב"ם שלא נזכר תיבות "ונעשה בו נס".
6.    מכתב מאת האדר"ת: קובץ 'מקבציאל'שע"י מוסדות 'אהבת שלום'גליון ל"ז כסלו תשע"א עמ'פא – הרב אליהו דוד רבינוביץ תאומים
בשולי המכתב לר'יעקב רייפמן[23]מתייחס האדרת לפולמוס הנ"ל ומצדיק עמדת רייפמן נגד חז"ס.
7.    'מערכת חנוכה': שדי חמד אסיפת דינים מערכת חנוכה אות ב ד"ה ודע – הרב חיים חזקיהו בן רפאל אשר אליהו (1833-1905)
בעל 'שדי חמד'מדגיש ש"עיקר הנס הנעשה בפך שמן, כאשר מקובל אצל כל ישראל, הוא אמת ויציב בלתי שום ספק"ומציין לדברי המחברים שערכו מאמרים נגד המתחדשים שרצו לעקור אמונה זו מהעם.
8.    'דרוש לחנוכה' [נגד המשכילים]: ספר עץ חיים מרבני משפחת אבלסון; כנסת אברהם יואל סימן ב, עמוד שכה – הרב אברהם יואל אבעלסאן[24] (1841-1903).
הרב אבלסון מזכיר לשבח ספרו של הרב יהודה ליפשיץ ומגנה דברי המפקפקים.
9.    'ערוך לנר': קובץ תורני 'הפסגה'קובץ ראשון  עמ' 18 (נדפס ב-1895) – הרב משה ראזין[25] (1871-1957)
תוכן המאמר הוא יותר פלפולי בנושא למדני מאשר פולמוסי בנושא משכילי, אבל גם הוא נכתב בעקבות מאמרו של חז"ס. עורך ה'פסגה'מקדיש שני עמודים (18-19) להציע לפני הקורא הרקע לנושא המאמר, ובו הוא מזכיר את חז"ס. גם בקובץ השני 'הפסגה' (עמ' 16 ועמ' 52) יש המשך מו"מ בענין הנ"ל.
מכתבים ומאמרים מאת סופרים
10.'מאי חנוכה' - מכתב מאת ר'יעקב רייפמאן: קובץ אור המזרח כרך י"ח, חוברת ב' (ס"ג) שנת תשכ"ט (1969) – הרב דר. מאיר הרשקוביץ
המאמר מוקדש לעמדתו של ר'יעקב רייפמן בפולמוס הנ"ל. הרשקוביץ מתאר קצת הפולמוס ומעתיק מכתבו של ר'יעקב רייפמאן שמבאר בו "השגותיו הקטלניות על מאמרו של הח'חיים זעליג סלונימסקי".
11.'נס חנוכה': זכרון יעקב חלק ג פרק מו, מעמ' 204 – ר'יעקב ליפשיץ (1838-1921)
במאמר זה מאריך ר'יעקב ליפשיץ בתיאור פרטי המעשה של פולמוס זה בפרט, וכמה ענינים אודות חז"ס בכלל, וכפי הנדרש הוא מזכיר לתהילה פעולתו של אחיו הגדול הרב יהודה בתחום הזה.
12.שערי צדק: ספר מאזני צדק מעמ' 94 (נדפס ב-1895) – הרב דובערוש טורש.
המחבר מאריך לפרט כל ה'עבירות'של חז"ס ובתוך הדברים מדבר אודות הפולמוס הנ"ל. הוא מוכיח מסיפור שהוזכר בספר 'זרובבל'[26] (ח"ב צד קכ"ח) ש"המחוקק הנוצרי האמין כי מי שאמר לשמן ידלוק יאמר לפעמים לחומץ ידלוק, ונס חנוכה היה אהוב וחביב נחמד ונעים בעיניו עד שהלך בדחילא ורחימא לירושלים לחוג בחרדת קודש חג החנוכה".
13.יומן של חיים מיכל מיכלין: ספר 'ראי הדורות'אות מח עמ' 81 – חיים מיכל מיכלין (1867-1937)
ביום ח'סיון תרנ"ב (1892) כתב מיכלין ביומנו ש"מכתבים רבים באו ממקומות שונים להגאון הג'ר'שמואל סלאנט הדורשים לדעת פרטי הדברים אשר הודיע החכם הישיש חז"ס, כי ראש הרבנים בירושלים נתן צדק לכל פרטי דבריו בדבר נס חנוכה....".
14.'שמאול אלכסנדרוב': ספר זכרון לקהילת בוברויסק ובנותיה כרך ראשון עמ' 319 – בעריכת יהודה סלוצקי (1967)
מאמר אודות הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב ובאות ב'מתואר איך ש"בשנת תרנ"ב (1891) הסתבך אלכסנדרוב במחלוקת קשה ועקרונית עם החוגים השמרנים ביהדות החרדית ברויסה. הוא פירסם אז קונטרס "אגדת פך השמן", שבו יצא להגנתו של ח. ז. סלונימסקי, שעורר רוגזם של הרבנים במאמרו "מאי חנוכה" (הצפירה 1891, גל' 278).
15.'רבי שמואל אלכסנדרוב': קובץ 'סיני'כרך ק'סיון תשמ"ז (1987) עמ'רב אות ד – גאולה בת יהודה
נושא המאמר הוא רבי שמואל אלכסנדרוב. באות ג'יש אריכות הדברים אודות פולמוס חנוכה הנ"ל שרש"א היה מעורב בו הרבה ע"י שכתב מאמר הגנה לכבוד חז"ס ורבים מהסופרים הנ"ל יצאו גם נגדו.
16.הכפירה ו"הצפירה": מוסף שבת קודש יתד נאמן פרשת מקץ תשע"ב – ד'צפתמן
הכותרת של המאמר הוא "בחנוכה תרמ"ח (!) סער העולם היהודי בעיקר באירופה בשל מאמר שפרסם עורך "הצפירה"ובו ניסה כביכול להטיל ערעור במסורת נס פך השמן שארע בימי החנוכה. עפ"ל [עפרא לפומיה]".




[1] 'הצפירה'החל לצאת לאור בשנת 1862 ע"י חז"ס שהיה העורך שלו במשך שנים רבות.] ב'הפלס' (ד עמ' 574) מודיעים על מיתת "החכם הנודע למשגב מר חיים זעליג סלאנימסקי"וכותבים: "שנות מספר הוציא לאור את העיתון 'הצפירה'וכל הימים אשר ערך הוא את 'הצפירה'היה עיתונו זה באמת אורגן נכבד בערכו. לעת זקנתו אמנם נכשל החכם חז"ס בנס חנוכה ותלה בוקי סריקי בהרמב"ם. אך מבלי השגיח על המקרה לא טהור הזה שמו ישאר לתהילה בקורות הימים כאחד החכמים הגדולים אשר מבית המדרש הישן יצאו למלוך ולא הקדיחו תבשילם ברבים כעורכינו החדשים"..
[2]זו טעות שכן נכתבה בחנוכה תרנ"ב - 1891.
[3] מהמקור.
[4] זכרון יעקב ג פרק מו, עמ' 204.
[5] אגדת פך השמן, ווארשא 1892, הערה 1.
[6] ראוי לציין שחז"ס נפגע קשות מהעומדים נגדו. בספרו "מאסליאנסקי'ס זכרונות" (עמודים 76-77) מספר המחבר צבי הירש מאסליאנסקי איך שפגש חז"ס בוורשה בתקופת הפולמוס אודות נס חנוכה, ומיד התחיל חז"ס לספר לו אודות הפולמוס, והתמרמר אודות מתנגדיו. הוא מצטט שם דבריו של חז"ס באידיש "מיין גאנץ לעבען האב איך זיך בעשעפטיגט מיט תורה און חכמה;איך האב זיך בעטיהט צו לערנען מיין פאלק וויסענשאפט און יעצט, אוף מיינע אלטע יאהרען, - האט ער זיך בעקלאגט פאר מיר – זיינען זיי אנגעפאלען אויף מיר מיט חירופים וגידופים" [תרגום: "כל החיים שלי עסקתי בתורה וחכמה;טרחתי ללמד את עמי מדע ועכשיו, לעת זקנותי – התמרמר לפני חז"ס – נפלו אלי בחירופים וגידופים".
[7] המליץ 1892 גיליון 18.
[8] ר'יעקב ליפשיץ (שם עמ' 209) מסביר שהספר יצא במהירות כדי שיראה אור לפני מות חז"ס. וכך הוא כותב: המחבר [הרב יהודה ליפשיץ] זצ"ל רצה עוד להעיר הרבה דברים ולהגיה, לשפר ולשכלל את ספרו "דרך אמונה"טרם שהוציאו לאור הדפוס, אבל החרדים האיצו בו להוציאו בהקדם האפשרי, כי חז"ס ורבו מר [אייזיק] ווייס [ב"דרך אמונה"ישנם גם הערות רבות המכחישות דעותיו של ווייס] שניהם היו זקנים לימים, ויראו החרדים שמא יאמרו החפשים "אין משיבים לאחר מיתה", לכן הקדים המחבר להוציא ספרו זה מבלי להוסיף בו עוד הערות.
[9] הדגשנו מילים אלו כדי להשוות אותן לדברי אחיו שנעתיק להלן.
[10] ראה אודותיו בספר 'דור רבניו וסופריו'מאת בן-ציון אייזנשטט, חלק א ערך 'ר'שמואל אלכסנדרוב'. מעניין ששם הוא מזכיר "כי בהיותו כבן חמש עשרה שנה למד מפי הגאון האמתי הבקי הנפלא ר'יהודא מעשיל הכהן האב"ד בעירו [באברויסק], וירבה לשקוד בתרוה ויצא שמו לתהלה ויקרא בשם "עילוי". וראה להלן עוד בענין היחסים שבין הרב יהודא מעשיל הנ"ל, אלכסנדרוב, ובן-ציון אייזנשטט.
[11] מ'היה אברך'עד כאן לקוחים מדברי ר'יעקב ליפשיץ בזכרון יעקב שם עמ' 206.
[12] בין היתר הוא מסתמך על דברי הש"ך (אדדת פך השמן פרק א), העוללות אפרים (שם פרק ב), ספר 'בת עין' (שם), מהר"ץ חיות (שם פרק ה), חמדת הימים (שם פרק ז, וראה הערה 6 שם אודות מעמדו של 'חמדת הימים), ומציין לדברי ר'יעקב יוסף מפולנאה, בעל 'תולדות יעקב יוסף'בספרו 'בן פורת יוסף', ולספר 'מאור עינים'להאדמו"ר מטשערנאביל, ולספר 'תורה אור'לבעל התניא, ובספר 'קדושת לו'"ועוד כמה ספרים קדושים שכולם הלכו בזה בדרך בעל 'חמדת הימים".
[13] מכתב מיום ח'ט'מרחשון, תרנ"ה, טימקאוויטש. נדפס בקובץ תלפיות במדור "פליטת סופרים'עמ' 1.
[14] קיבלתי גמולי. ע"פ יבמות קה, ב.
[15]הוא המכתב הנ"ל.
[16] טל תחיה על מסכת אבות, ווילנא 1896.
[17] המליץ שנה ז גליון 9.
[18] הכוונה לבן-ציון אייזנשטט.
[19] אין ספק שהכוונה להרב יהודה מעשיל.
[20] בן-ציון אייזנשטט.
[21] הצפירה, פברואר 3, 1893 עמ' 3. וליתר פרטים אודות הרב יהודא מעשיל, ראה 'דור רבניו וסופריו'מהרב בן-ציון אייזנשטט הנ"ל, ערך 'הרב יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל'.
[22] אביו הגאון ר'נחמיה מדוברובנא היה בעל מחבר ספר שו"ת 'דברי נחמיה'והיה מגדולי תלמידיו של האדמו"ר "בעל התניא", וחתן בנו. לבד מספרו 'אמונת חכמים'הכין גם קונטרס 'מטה לוי'לנגד  ספר המכחיש מצות תפילין שנדפס בימיו. קנאותו לשמירת חומת הדת וכבוד הרבנות, היתה לשם דבר. נפטר בי"ט אדר א'תרנ"ד והוא בן שבעים שנה. עליו ועל אביו, בס'"בית רבי" (דף סט, א-ב). על הבאתו לקבורה בי"ט אד"ר, ב"הצפירה", כ"ד אד"ר תרנ"ד. (מדברי יהושע מונדשייןכאן)
[23]ר'יעקב רייפמן נולד א'ניסן תקע"ח (7 באפריל 1818) ונפטר בי"ד חשוון תרנ"ה (13 בנובמבר 1894). היה חוקר אוטודידקט ומחבר פורה, היסטוריון של היהדות ומלומד עברי. דמות אניגמטית שנעה על קו התפר שבין חדש לישן, חבר החברה הגבוהה של תנועת ההשכלה היהודיתושומר תורה ומצוות. (ויקיפידיה ערך יעקב רייפמן)
[24] רבי אברהם יואל אבלסון היה רבליטאי, מחובבי ציון.
[25] הרב משה רוזין היה רב ליטאי שהיגר לארצות הברית ושימש כנשיא של 'אגודת הרבנים'. חיבר סדרת 'נזר הקודש'על הרבה מסכתות הש"ס.
[26] ספר שחיבר יצחק בר לווינזון (1788-1860) להגן על היהדות מן הנצרות ובפרט מן המיסיון.

Some New Seforim, Books, R' Eleazar Fleckeles, R' Naftali Herz Weisel, Frankism and (of course) Censorship, Pt. I

$
0
0
Some New Seforim, Books, R' Eleazar Fleckeles, R' Naftali Herz Weisel, Frankism and (of course) Censorship*
By Eliezer Brodt

It's been awhile since I posted a list of new seforim. I hope to post an updated list of a few hundred titles within the next few weeks. In this post I want to focus on a few new titles that, aside for being new, all have a connection to one topic. This is also an update to some earlier posts relating to this topic.

As a bochur about twenty years ago, I came across a small sefer called Olas Chodesh by R' Eleazar Fleckeles during one of my daily shopping trips in seforim stores in Meah Shearim. Until then I had only been familiar with his Shu"t Teshuva m'Ahava. Besides the excellent price ($3), I also enjoy derush so I was happy with my purchase. Going through the sefer I was not let down, as it was especially interesting and even included some nice pieces from his rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah. A few years later, while in Monsey, I made a short, enjoyable visit to Tuvia's Bookstore. There I came across another small sefer by R' Eleazar FleckelesMeleches haKodesh. After going through this sefer, I was once again blown away with how never ending Torah is (this is a daily occurrence!) . A bit later I was in a special library in Lakewood where I came across yet another obscure sefer by R' Eleazar Fleckeles called Ahavat David, devoted to attacking Frankism. I immediately photocopied the sefer and went through it, marking off some interesting pieces. (Here is a link to a complete version of the work from the Reich collection, and here is a link to it on Google Books.)

In 2007 I wrote a review of the Meleches haKodesh [here] called 'god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God'. In that post I mentioned a letter found in the beginning of the Ahavat Dovid quoting a letter from R. Naftali Hertz Wesseley which says;

כי שמעתי מפי הגאון המקובל הגדול שהי'ידוע הזוהר וכל ספרי האר"י ז"ל בעל פה הוא הרב ר'יהונתן אייבשיטץ זצ"ל שהיה אומר לשומעי דבריו בעיני הקבלה כשראה שהם מפקפקים בהם ואמר אם לא תאמינו אין בכך כלום כי אין אלו מעיקרי אמונתנו, וכן היה אומר לאלו המביאים הקדמות מדברי קבלה לישב איזה גמרא או מדרש לא חפצתי בזאת ומה חדוש על פי קבלה תוכל ליישב מה שתרצה אמור לי הפשט הברור על ידי נגלה ואז אודך וכל זה אמת עי"ש עוד.

A bit after writing that post, I received an e-mail from Marc Shapiro asking me where I saw that letter, as the edition of Ahavat Dovid that he checked did not have it. I told him I had photocopied the whole sefer from an original. Some time after that, in February 2010, On The Main Line wrote about this censorship:

The book included a 1796 letter from Wessely, which Fleckeles offered… I will just note that I examined the pdf of Ahavas David twice, and I was unable to find the letter. I couldn't understand why I couldn't find it, so I asked several friends (literary men) if they knew what page it was on. Dr. Marc Shapiro replied that this edition -- a Copy Corner reprint -- is censored; it doesn't include the letter! I suppose it's theoretically possible that the censorship, ie, removal of the letter occurred long before the scanning of the book. That is to say, there's no way at the moment to tell who removed it and when, but we can probably guess why. In any case, at the same time I asked Shapiro for clarification, Rabbi Brodt told me that his copy of Ahavas David includes the letter, and he sent it to me.

This censorship was later included and discussed by Marc Shapiro in an article[1] and then again in his work Changing the Immutable, (p.220). 

In 2007 I already noted some of the significance of this letter; i.e. it is notable that R' Fleckeles quotes R' Wesseley at all[2], as Wesseley was one of the early leaders of the haskalah movement, was close to Mendelssohn and was the author of the Biur on Vayikrah. R' Fleckeles, like R' Landau was firmly against the Biur.[3]

The significance of this letter in relationship to all this was already pointed out by Meir Hildesheimer, in a footnote in his excellent article "Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth Century Rabbinical Literature," (Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (PAAJR) 55 (1988), p. 87 n. 23).


As an aside, all this is yet another example why scanned copies of seforim are not enough, as at times the scanner deletes pages on purpose (or even by accident). Examining originals are therefore important.

Both Meir Hildesheimer and On the Main Line[4] already noted that a copy of this letter was printed again in HaMelitz (#48, p. 750) in 1886.


In 1930, Dovid Zinz, in his extensive biography on R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz, Gadlut Yonasan, lists R' Wesseley as a talmid of R' Yonasan (p.280), and also reprints this letter without claiming it’s a forgery (pp.245-246).

In November 2011 I wrote a two part post on the incredible work Parshegen by Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen. In the second post, titled Using the works of Shadal and R. N. H. Wessely, I wrote:

A few years ago in the pages of the excellent journal Ha-maayan, a controversy took place (here) in relationship to how to cite various works of questionable people, in the course of the controversy it turned to quoting Mendelson and Wessely and their stories. Rabbi Posen mentioned that there was nothing wrong with Wessely which others argued. This controversy in regard to Wessely was not a new one[5], a few years back in the Kovetz Beis Aron VeYisroel there was a series of articles based on various manuscripts showing how the Gedolim at the time were very against Wessely. Towards the end of the Series of articles the author did a strange thing, he collected many citations of big name gedolim who did use Wessely’s work even after the controversy (herehere and here). Almost all of these gedolim were well aware of the controversy of Haskalah and came after the early gedolim obviously disagreeing with them. To me this was strange as he undermined his research – he showed that there was a big controversy with many big people on both sides so how in the world did he reach his conclusion that Wessely was bad according to everyone.

The controversy about Wessely did not end there as a few years later two works of Wessely were reprinted, his Sefer Hamidos (2002), and his Yeyn Halevonon (2003). In the introduction of both works there are lists of great people who used Wessely’s works. To be sure the kanoyim did not remain quiet about this, that same year (2003) in the introduction to the Tomer Devorah reprinted by the Mishor publishing house an introduction was printed about the evil works of Wessely that were reprinted. A few months ago the Kovetz Eitz Chaim (15, 2011, pp. 13-30) printed another manuscript on this controversy against Wessely including some letters of various gedolim of today against the evil Wessely.  In the recent work on R. Elyashiv Shlita, Hashakdon (2, pp. 136-137) they also mention how he was against the reprinting of the works of Wessely. The problem to me is how do they explain all the great Gedolim who did use his works? [In that post I included a list of Gedolim who used the works of Wessely, or quoted him in a positive light.[6] I then concluded with the following:]

"I would like to conclude with the following dream just as R. Shlomo Dubno was vindicated in the past few years by R' Dovid Kamenetsky. It is my hope that Wessely will too be vindicated from all false charges against him and people will realize there is nothing wrong with his writings."

Fast Forward to 2014

A few years ago I mentioned a sefer called Rabbenu written by R' Eliyhua Starrit about R' Ovadiah Yosef. This work is very valuable, as the author printed numerous conversations he had with R' Ovadiah Yosef while learning with him and we get a rare, authentic glimpse into his study habits and private learning sessions. Among the numerous interesting pieces in this work we "hear" R' Ovadiah's opinion on different seforim and their authors. However, at times a juicy tidbit or name is censored out and we are left in the dark with just a tease of a conversation.

Here are two such pieces. The first refers to the reprinting of the Chemdas Yamim (hopefully I will return to that in the future). The second refers to the reprint of R. N. H. Wessely's work by Yerid Haseforim a few years ago. As you can see, part is edited out.



We see that R' Ovadiah Yosef was also against the reprinting of R' Wessely's works.

And 2016

In April this year, a complete edition of Ahavat Dovid was put up for auction by Legacy Judaica as was mentioned here, with a signature of it having been owned by R' Binyomin Lowe, author of Sha'arei Torah.

A few months ago a few more volumes of R' Wessely were printed, some for the first time from manuscript, by R' Moshe Tzuriel. One volume includes three new seforim. 1) Sefer HaMidos which includes an additional one hundred and twenty five new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. 2) Sefer Migdol HaLevonon, about one hundred and fifty new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. This work focuses on Shemos Nirdafim (synonyms). 3) Chikur Hadin, a thirty page article on Sechar VeOnesh. The second volume is a reprint of Gan Na'ul (934 pp.) with notes and indexes. There is a whole section of this work printed here from manuscript for the first time, numbering about 250 pages!


Here are two samples of pieces from this beautiful work.





It is worth seeing this haskamah of the Noda Bi Yehuda to Gan Na'ul:



In the introduction to this new work, the editor notes (p. 6) that R' Fleckeles quotes a letter from R' Naftali Hertz Wesseley in his Ahavat David and mentions that it has been censored out of some versions, referring to his introduction of the Yeyin Levonon that he printed in 2003 (p. 26).

A few months ago R' Eleazar Fleckeles' Ahavat Dovid was reprinted by Mechon Netzach Yakov together with his Olas Chodesh Hasheni (more on this further on). 

However when reprinting the Ahavat Dovid, they censored R' Naftali Hertz Wesseley's letter and removed it. They write (p.251) their reasoning for doing so as follows:
בראות רבינו זצ"ל גדול המכשלה שנגרם ע"י לימוד תורת הנסתר ואיך שנמשכו כמה אנשים פשוטים עם ללימוד זה, ומתוך כך נאחזו בסבך כת הפראנקיסטן וירדו להתום, ביקש רבינו לעשות כל פעולה ותחבולה לעוררם ולמונעם מלימוד זה לשם כך יצא מן הקו, ובבחינת עת לעשות ל'וגו'העתיק בתחילת הספר מכתב מהמשכיל הנודע לשמצה נ"ה ויצל, מה שכתב בשנת תקנב לאחד מתובי העיר פראג, הגדת עדות מה ששמע בנעוריו מפי אחד מגדולי ישראל המפורסמים מדור הקודש, ליזהר מלימוד בספרי קבלה, ולעסוק אך ורק בנגלות התורה. במשך השנים נשמט מכתב זה מדפוסי ספר 'אהבת דוד'וכן ראינו לנכון שלא להעתיקו, כי לפי הנראה לא היתה אלא בתורת הוראת שעה, לעורר ההמון והמתחדשים בעם לבל יומשכו אחר כת הארורה הזאת. וראה עוד בענין זה בקובץ בית אהרן וישראל...".
Aside from deleting the letter and claiming that R' Eleazar Fleckeles did not really agree with its contents, they also complete misquote it.

Emes LeYakov

A few weeks ago a work called Emes LeYakov (696 pp.) from R' Yakov Emden[7] was released by R' Goldstein of Monroe.[8] It includes all of R' Emden's notes and novella on the Zohar[9] from a manuscript in Oxford (R' Goldstein has shown a while ago that Bick's edition (printed by Mossad HaRav Kook) of R' Emden's notes on the Zohar is worthless).[10] The volume begins with a 140 page introduction of the significance of these notes on the Zohar and the general history of the Zohar and various works and editions.[11]

In passing, R' Goldstein (p. 20) writes regarding of R' Naftali Hertz Wesseley'letter printed by R' Eleazar Fleckeles.
 בספר אהבת דוד... הביא מכתב מאחד ממשוררי הזמן (שלימים נודע שהוא מראשוני וראשי המשכילים, ואף רבו של רבי אלעזר ה"ה בעל נודע ביהודה זצ"ל, לחם נגדו ונגד דעותיו, והדברים ידועים ואכמ"ל), שכתב שם חי נפשי, כי שמעתי בנעורי מפי הגאון המקובל... הרב מוהר"ר יונתן... כי אין אלו מעיקירי אמונתנו ע"ש ובלי ספק מי שאינו מאמין לו, כי יצאו הדברים האלו מפי הגאון רבי יונתן בוודאי אין בכך כלום, אמנם ראינו חובה להעיר על אלו הדברים מדברי רבנו כאן כי המכחיש קבלת חכמת האמת הוא מין ואפיקורוס גמור'ודי בזה".
Basically he claims it's false and what follows is that R' Eleazar Fleckeles was mistaken to print this letter.

Shu"t Zecher Yehosef

Another recent work that has a connection to this post is the new two volumes of Shu"t Zecher Yehosef on Yoreh Deah by R' Yosef Zechariah Stern. Many years ago Mechon Yerushalayim announced that they would be printing R' Yosef Zechariah Stern's works still in manuscript. In 1994, they printed the shut on Even Haezer. In 2014 they reprinted his shu"t on Orach Chaim, which had been impossible to find, while also adding in some new material. This summer they released two completely new volumes on Yoreh Deah from manuscript (380+413 pp.) (of course it's amazing). R' Yosef Zechariah is the subject of a future post; for now it's worth mentioning Siman 173, his teshuvah connected to this topic.[12] It’s a slightly different version that the one that appears in the Sdei Chemed:





The editor writes in a footnote: 

ראה קובץ בית אהרן וישראל... ועי'במבוא לספר יין לבנון מהדורת תשס"ג שהביאו הרבה גדולי עולם שדעתם כדעת רבינו, ויש לפקפק על הערעורים כנגד. אבל אינו ברור מה ידעו עליו בדור שאחר הפולמוס, ועי'קובץ עץ חיים גליון טו...

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean? That later on we found out he is evil?

Olos Chodesh Sheini

We now return to the new edition of R' Eleazar Fleckeles' work. This is the third volume of R' Eleazar Fleckeles works printed by a Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov. When writing about the last volume they printed, I remarked: "I really hope they continue to print the rest of R' Fleckeles' works". B"H, they are doing good job continuing with reissuing his works. This beautifully produced edition includes an introduction about R' Fleckeles, sources to his words, at times quoting R' Fleckeles references from his other works, and a detailed index of topics and seforim quoted by R' Fleckeles at the end of the volume. 

The first part of the sefer is R' Eleazar Fleckeles Olos Chodesh Sheini.

I would just like to quote a few passages from this beautiful work.

The first point to note about this sefer is the beautiful Haskamah that the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:



Elsewhere in the sefer he writes about himself: 

כך אני אומר, אני אחד מסוחרי הקטנים אין לי כל בבית כי את אשר ראיתי במראה יחזקא"ל, מראה נאוה קודש, פנים מאירות להלכה ופנים שוחקות לאגדה, מעט הון תמורת העבודה אשר יגעתי מנעורי ושמשתי מילדותי עד היום הזה, את רבינו גדול הדור רבן של ישראל [מילי דשמיא, עמ'קעב]. 

The sefer is full of references to material from the Noda Bi-Yehudah, both oral and written.

What apparently was relevant in our day was in his day too:
כאשר בעונינו עד היום, אם המוכיח הוא בעל מעשה, אזן וחקר ותקן משלים, הכל רצין אחריו והכסילים יצאו מבוהלים, אך שהוא למשל ולשנינה, ודבריו לא היה ולא נבראו אלא למשל, ואין מחשבתו כלל לשם שמים, כי מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך המעשה, שמאריך מאד מאד, וחוד חידה, וממשל משל, במעשה הבל, ומעה תעועים, ואינו חפץ כלל להדריכם  בדרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם, להמשל משל אל בית מרי, כי אם תחלת המחשבה על סוף המעשה, לסרס הלכה למעשה, להיות חביב בעיני הבריות, שממשל משלים הוא, משלי שועלים ושעלים הלכו בו, ואמרים קדוש וברוך ומבורך בפי כל משבחים ומפארים מהמעשים אשר לא יעשו ושמו אותו לאדון על כל המעשים. ואיש האלקים אשר מעיו מוכיחין, תוכחות מוסר הכל, גדולים מעי ה', צדק משפט ומישרים דברים אינם נמעים, וחכמתו בזויה, אפילו אם יושב ודורש כמשה מפי הגבורה [מילי דשמיא, עמ'לו].
In another derasha he writes:
ולא כן השורים המשוררים. אין כוונתם לשיר ה'כי אם לשיר חדש. ואינם מדקדקים אם יושר שיר הזה בארץ יהודים. או אם יהיה לצור מכשול כשירת הזונה.... כי אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה ולא אימת רבן... הנה בכל השנה החזנות חזיונות ושעיפי לילה חזון שוא ותפל. מכל שכן בראש השנה ויום הכיפור השתא הלל לא אמרינן. משום שמלך יושב על כסא הדין וספרי חיים וספרי מתים פתוחים כדאמרו ז"ל... וז"ל הרמב"ם בפירוש המשניות שלא היו קורין הלל לא בראש השנה ולא ביום כיפור. לפי שהם ימי עבודה והכנעה ופחד ומורא... ואיך נשיר את שיר הכסילים. כשמסתכל אדם יום המיתה... ואיך להעלות על הדעת שתפלות הללו יעשה רושם למעלה ויעלו חן ויהיו לרצון על מזבח ה' [עמ'קיג].
Of course there are numerous parallels[13] to this in other sources; to cite just one, R' Shabesai Sofer writes in his Siddur:

ויותר מזה צריכים להזהר החזנים בתפלותיהם, הממונים להוציא רבים ידי חובותיהם  ... כי על הרוב אינם מקפידים רק על קול נעים... ולא זו בלבד אלא שהם מנגים נגוני נכרים... [הקדמה פרטית סי'כז].

In another derasha he writes:
לא בשליחי ציבור בלבד רעה זה חולה ראיתי, אלא אף בהתמניות הרבנים יושבי על מדין, מתוועדים בעלי בתים יחד יושבי קרנות, אשר לא יצאו מבית הספר מעולם, ואין להם ידיעות בית רב, ומעידין באיש פלוני שהוא איש האלקים גבר בגוברין, וכדי הוא לסתכל במראה קשת גבורים ללמד בני יהודה קשת, ולאחוז פני כסא הוראה כבוד חכמים מחוכמים, ומקבלים אותו לרב ומורה גדול בזזרוע נטויה וביד חזקה, בלי ידיעות תופשי התורה אשר להם משפט הבחירה, ולא כאשר נהגו אבותינו הקדושים ז"ל שבחורי ישראל הכריעו [עמ'קטז].
Another derasha, dated during Aseret Yemi Teshuvah 1784, is devoted in part to attacking Mendelsohn's Biur.[14] In addition, he quotes a piece from the Noda Bi-Yehudah related to this.
Interestingly enough the great bibliographer Ben Yaakov when writing about this work notes:

דרושים שונים נחלק למאמרים ובו דברי ריבות על העתקת התורה להרמבמ"ן [אוצר הספרים, עמ' 432].


While an examination of all the statements of the Noda Bi-Yehudah about this need to be properly analyzed, it's worth pointing out to a censorship on this subject. 

In the beginning of his new book, Maoz Kahana[15] writes as follows:
ראשון הביוגרפים של ר'יחזקאל לנדא היה בנו יעקב. הקונטרס "דברי ידידות", ששלח לאחיו שמואל לקראת הדפסת ספר נודע ביהודה תנינא בשנת 1810, שבע עשרה שנים אחר פטירת האב, מהווה עד היום אוסף ידיעות ומסורות ראשון ורב ערך. חלק מסוים של דברי ידידות נערך ונדפס בראש הספר הנזכר, וחלקים אחרים שלו נדחו וצונזרו, אותם אפשר להעלות מכתב היד הארוך המקורי של יעקב, מלווה בהערות העריכה של שמואל שנשמר בספריית קרלין סטולין בירושלים. [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ' 23].
Further on in his book he writes:
בשנת 1813 הדפיס ייטליס בהערה צדדית בספרו 'מבוא הלשון ארמית' דיון אוהד מאוד של הנודע ביהודה בתרגום המנדלנסוני ובהכרעותיו הפרשניות. את הדיון הזה לקח ייטליס ממכתב יעקבקא לנדא שהיה בידי אחיו שמואל בפראג. המכתב המדובר הוא 'דברי ידידות'...  שכתב ר'יעקבקא בברודי בשנת 1810, ובו תיעד ביקורו אצל אביו בפראג בשנת תקמ (1780). תארוך העדות האוהדת לשנה זו, סמוך להדפסת 'עלים לתרופה'של ה'ביאור' (1778), אך לפני פרשת וויזל (1782) מאיר יפה את יחסו החיובי של הנוב"י למנדלסון ב'תקופת הביניים' הקצרה הזו, בין 1778 לבין 1782. כתב היד המדובר נדד לבסוף אל גנזי חסידות קרלין סטולין, ומשם צולם לבית הספרים הלאומי בירושלים בשנות התשעים. אך אותה הסיבה שגרמה למשכיל יהודה ייטליס בשנת 1813 לצטט דווקא את הפסקה הזו מתוך כתב היד הארוך, גרמה למי מהעוסקים במלאכת הצילום כעבור כמאה ושמונים שנים לצנזר בעזרת דף נייר חלק את... אותה הפסקה ממש. ראה י'ייטליס, מבוא הלשון ארמית, פראג תקע"ג, הקדמה והשווה לכתב יד קרלין-סטולין ירושלים (F49262מספר 435... הפיסקה לא נכללה גם בדברי ידידות הנדפס... [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ' 190-191 הערה 80].
It's worth mentioning this passage from R' Ber Oppenheimer describing his reaction to reading the דברי ידידות about the Noda Bi-yehuda, whom he knew:




When examining the manuscript in Hebrew University the first page states:
קונטרס בן ל"ב עמודים שכתב הגאון ר'יעקבקא סגל לנדא לאחיו הגאון ר'שמואל סגל לנדא לפני הדפסתו ספר נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא והגאון מהר"ש הוציא מכאן את דברי ידידות... יש כאן כמה וכמה דברים שנשמטו בדפוס וכמובן שבכוונה מכוונת השמיטם הגר"ש ביניהם הוא ענין הביאור של רמ"ד.
This following passage is already quoted by Sandler in 1941,[16] and Moshe Samet in 1970.[17] In 1911 this letter was mentioned in the Encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel (p. 62), where the author writes:
 כי כל דברי האגרת הזאת הם מזויפים, כי סגנון הלשון ושבחו של מנדלסון יעידון כי יצא מפי משכיל ולא מפי רב בימים האלה.






It's silly to say that it was a forgery, as the work has a haskamah from both R' Shmuel Landau and R' Eleazar Fleckeles and was printed in their lifetime in their city and there is not a single trace of any protest or opposition on their part.



Now this is even more interesting; R' Fleckeles, in his work Meleches haKodesh (first printed in 1812), uses Mendelssohn's Biur for halachic purposes.[18] He also quotes R. Shlomo Dubno in his Tikun Sofrim many times.[19] Most printings of this work are in various editions of Mendelssohn's Biur. It's unlikely that he was quoting it from the rare standalone version when it was printed itself without the Biur, if we already know that he used the Biur.[20]

In a work that was printed in 1793, a Hesped on the Noda Bi-Yehudah, we find on the cover it has a picture of Mendelssohn and the Noda Bi-Yehudah embracing. It's already mentioned here by On the Main Line and more recently by Maoz Kahana (ibid, pp. 192-193).



The truth is, a proper analysis of the primary sources (such as the derasha quoted above) shows that the Noda Bi-Yehudah's and R' Fleckeles' main issue with Mendelssohn's Biur was not on the Biur portion[21]; it was on the German translation written by Mendelssohn.

Here are two rare sources[22] which are very important for understanding this subject. The first is an Haskamah signed by both Noda Bi-Yehudah and R' Fleckeles to a Chumash printed in 1785; as one can see on the Sha'ar there is a direct influence of Mendelssohn on this work. However in the Haskamah they explain why they are giving one - it could compete with Mendelssohn's edition, as it also translates for the convenience of the reader, but without Mendelssohn's literary German to which they are opposed.



The second source is a haskamah written by R' Fleckeles to a Chumash printed Prague in 1824 with a German Translation! Here too, R' Fleckeles outlines why he is giving it a Haskamah. 



This Haskamah is printed at the end of Silber and Kahana's above quoted article. They print the Haskamah as it appears in Bereshis, this is the one for the Shemos volume. In the National Library and Mifal Bibliography they only record the volume on Vayikra. But more importantly, they do not note R' Fleckeles' Haskamah. This is an uncatalogued haskamah of R' Fleckeles which helps understand his take on Mendelsohn.[23]

Coffee

Returning to the Olas Chodesh, like other volumes of Derush, this one is rich in giving one a sense of the people and their sins. R' Y. Greenwald already writes:
פה ושם הזכירו גם בדרשותיהם שדרשו והוכיחו את בני עדתם ולא עצרו מלהגיד את פשעם אשר ראו בהם... הרבה יש ללמוד מהדרשות שדרשו גדולי הדור ממעמד המוסרי של ישראל בימיהם בהדרשות של הגאון רבנו יונתן אייבשיטץ ב'יערות דבש'... וכן תמצא כדברים הללו בספר דורש לציון להג"ר יחזקאל לאנדא... [לפני שתי מאות שנה, עמ' 26].
Just to list two samples both of which are related to coffee:[24]
בעינינו ראינו ובאזנינו שמענו כמה פעמים שאומרים לגוי להסיק את התנור וכיריים בשבת אפילו אם אין קור כל, כי אם כדי להחם הקאפע [מילי דשמיא, עמ'קסד]. 
יש כמה אנשים בני בלי שם שאינם עוסקים לא באומנות בורסקי... כי אם יושבים אגודות אגודות מאור הבוקר עד צאת הכוכבים בפונדקאות של גויים, בקאפע הייזר וביר הייזר... ודוברים עתק בגאוה ובוז על מנהיגי עיר ולומדיה, על רבנן ותלמידיהון... [מילי דשמיא, עמ'קט].
 In another passage he describes Yom Kippur at night:
הרי אפילו בשעה הראוי לכל משכיל לעמוד באימה וביראה בזיע ורחת מפני פחד ה'ומהדר גאונו, כל אחד מתנשא לומר אני אמלוך ואני אלך בראש אני תהלה, וגברה הקנאה והשנאה הנקימה והטירה וגסות הרוח יתירה, עד שכבתה אש הראשונה שניה ממהרת לבא, כל אחד רודף אחר הכבוד, לכבדו בשיר הכבוד שיר היחוד,[25] להיות מבעלי השיר היוצאים בשיר, ואם אין הגבאי מכבד לאומר שיר היחוד, מחרחר ריב ומדון בשאט נפש וזדון, ומלקין על היחוד, כל אחד נכבד בעיניו ומעשיו גדולים משל חבירו, זה בתורה הנקראית קנין, וזה בחלום ברוב ענין, זה ברוב בנין, וזה ברוב מנין, וכמה קטטת ומריבות רבות מסתעפות עד שנהפוך השיר היחוד לשיר של פגעים, כשיר כסילים פגיעתן רעים, וכה מחלוקות שלא לשם שמים שמענו בליל כל נדרי [מילי דשמיא, עמ'קמט].
Ahavat David

Turning to the Ahavat David; as mentioned, this work was also just reprinted. In 1799, R' Eleazar Fleckeles gave a series of three derashos devoted to blasting Sabbateanism and Frankism. In 1800, he printed one of them. He learned much from his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, regarding battling them;[26] in his introduction he writes:
גאון הגאונים בעל שו"ת נודע ביהודה... גם הוא ספר לי מעשים רבים משפטים התועבים מכת ש"צ הרשעה פגיעתן רעה... [אהבת דוד, עמ'רנז]. 
רבנו גדול העולם. נודע ביהודה, איך היה מוסר נפשו על קדושת השם יתברך לבער הרשעים אשר בחייהם מטמאין טומאת רקב... זכרו נא לימים מה עשה... רבינו... בליל הושענא רבה תקי"ט... כאשר החל השרץ הטמא... והחרים בארור חרם נוי שמתא בתקיעת שופר ובכבוי נרות את יעקב רמאה... וברוב הדרשות אשר דרש במקהלות הזכיר מכת הרשעה הארורה הזאת [אהבת דוד, עמ'שיז].
The Noda Bi-Yehudah writes:
וצריך אני להראות כי שכלם כוזב.. ותשמע הארץ אם כת הכופרים שבתי צבי שכל דבריהם כפירות ומינות מלא דברי שטות, להפוך דברי אלקים חיים, ולהפוך עבירות למצות עפרא לפומייה... נגד אלו השוטים בעלי ש"ץ ימח שמם נגד טענותיהם המזויפות... [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק"ל[27], עמ' 357].וכת הארורה והגרועה מאוד שבתי צבי [שם, עמ' 362].
Frankism, in the Derashos Beis Peretz

One more passage related to Frankism, from the Derashot Beis Peretz, a contemporary of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, just printed[28] from manuscript states as follows:
זה רמז גדול אשר קרה לנו באחרית הימים בשנת תקי"ט לפ"ק על ידי המינים האפקורסים ש"ץ ימח זכרם, שהיו עומדין עלינו לכלותינו בפני האומות, שהי'להם וויכוח גדול בק"ק לבוב עם כל הרבנים של מדינות פולין, יותר מן מאתים של אפקורסים ש"ץ ונעו כולם משומדים עם נשיהם ובניהם, והי'להם וויכוח בשאלות ותשובות לפני שרים רבים ונכבדים מאומות העולם, ולפני כומרים ובישופים הרבה, והי'להם ראש אחד ביניהם והי'ספרדי מכשף גדול בשמות הטומאה... שרצו לבטל תורה שבעל פה, וכבר נשרף על ידם מן האומות הכומרים כל הש"ס ורמב"ם וטורים באמצע בעיר בפני כל עם ועדה, וגזרו שמד בכל הקהלות ישרפו תורה... ומפורסם בכל מידנות פולין שהי'אז נס גדול ומפורסם, שהכומר השר הגדול שצוה לשרוף הספרים הנ"ל הי'לו מפלה גדולה תיכף מיד אחר מעשה זאת, ומת מיתה משונה, והי'מכין אותו ביסורין קשים מן השמים, והי'צועק קודם מותו שהספרים הנ"ל הם שורפין אותו. ואח"כ כל רשעים הנ"ל נשתמדו, ויצאו מכלל ישראל וכתבתי זאת שיהי'זכרון בספר כמו מחיית עמלק, למען תספר באזני בנך ובן בנך את הנס שנעשה השי"ת בעתים הללו [בית פרץ, עמ'תו-תז].
Broadside

R' Fleckeles writes;
גם פה עיר הגדולה לאלקים, נדפס התפ"ו קול כרוז מגדולי הדור ופרנסי העדה, ונדפס פעם שנית שנה זו ממני ומאחי הרבנים המובהקים המאורות הגדולים בית דין מורה שוה [אהבת דוד, עמ'רפט].

Here is a facsimile of this actual broadside[29]:



In the beginning of the Drasha, R' Fleckeles quotes from Frankist literature:
כל השומע ורואה יכול לקרות, את דברי האגרות, יצחק וישחק... בלעגי שפה... כלו מגומגום לא עברי ולא תרגום, לא ספרד ולא צרפת לא אשכנז וריפת ולא מפני יפת לשונם אשר הגו בגרונם, כאחד המונם, במלות מזויפות וטרופות כדבר אחר המבשלות והאופות... ואראה דוגמא ראשית האגרת,... וכן יתר דברי האגרת מהומה ומגערת, מאיימים ומפחידים... [אהבת דוד, עמ'רנח].
What letter he is referring to? Paweł Maciejko writes that he is referring to the Red Letters.[30] This document was written around 1800. It was printed in Hebrew and English from manuscript by Ben Zion Wacholder, 'Jacob Frank and the Frankists Hebrew Zoharic Letters', Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 53 (1982), pp. 265-293.[31] Examining this document we see that this is the letter that R' Fleckeles was quoting as the exact passages appear there. The reason they were called Red documents, writes Maciejko, is "because of the color of the ink that they were written and the symbolic association between the biblical kingdom of Edom and the Hebrew word adom, red".[32] In one place in the Derasha R' Fleckeles even writes:
 וכל מה שכותבים הוא בצבע אדום [אהבת דוד, עמ'שה].[33]
What was the result of this Derasha? Paweł Maciejko writes: 

Shortly after the sermons were delivered, riots erupted in the city, and although Fleckeles did not mention any names, the mob apparently knew very well whom to assault. During the Funeral of a known Sabbatian, a crowd attacked the procession and the body was profaned. It seems that woman were especially targeted: there was turbulence in the female section of one of the Prague synagogues and many of the wives and daughters of known Sabbatians were insulted or attacked on the city's streets.[34]

When discussing this group he writes:
גם אלה אשר הנשים יושבות ועוסקות אף עמהם, כי שב"י כלהו איתנהו בהו הכל ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים הכל סר יחדו נאלחו בדברי שוא [אהבת דוד, עמ'רפג]. 
יעקב איש רע מעללים... טף ונשים באים לשמוע קבלת יעקב רמאה, ועוסקים יחדיו במעשה מרכבה טמאה למען ספות הרוחה את הצמאה [שם, עמ'שכ].[35]
Oral Derasha Versus a Printed One

In this Derasha we find several times that R' Fleckeles was very graphic while describing the Frankists's depravities (pp. 257,290, 323-324). I would like to suggest the following: In general, there is a known issue when learning derush seforim; are printed Derashos exact translated versions of the oral original, or were they edited for print? For the most part, I would say this was an actual version of what he said in the oral Derasha he gave. However, orally he was not as explicit, thus the reason why he rushed to print this Drasha almost immediately after he gave it was that it's easier to write certain things and he wanted to immediately expose how awful they were.[36]

In a similar context (in relation to the word graphic), in 1936 R' Avrohom DovBer Kahana Shapiro, author of the classic work Dvar Avrohom, gave an incredible Derasha[37] in Yiddish to thousands of woman on the subject of Taharas Hamishpacha. It was then printed in Yiddish with some notes in Hebrew and in 1940 was printed in Hebrew with more notes. A few years ago it was reprinted. In the introduction the editor writes:
כאמור החוברת הזאת היא הרשמה סטינוגרפית, המוסרת בעינם את הדברים הנפלאים כפי שיצאו מפי הנואם הגדול, רק מפני שבמקומות אחדים שבשעת הרצאתו קיצר הרב שליט"א כבר יותר מדי מפני טעמי צניעות מובנים בנוכחותן של אלפי נשים, בקשנוהו למלאות כפי האפשר בהמסר החוברת לדפוס... 
מטעמי צניעות מובנים ומחמת נוכחותו של קהל הנשים הגדול קיצר הרב שליט"א בדבריו שהיו מרומזים מדי. אמנם באשר לכתיבה, המתאפשרת להימסר בהרחבה, נענה לבקשתנו לפרט ולהרחיב...
In the beginning of the Drasha he said:
נושא הרצאתי מעלה בזכרוני את המשנה על הדברים שנקראים ולא מתרגמים נקראים במקורם ולא מתרגמים בשפה המדוברת. בעקב זה נאלץ אני באי אלו מקומות להיות מוגבל בלשוני, לקצר בדברי, לחפש ולברור מלים נאותות ביותר ולהמנע מכמה ביטוים השייכים ישר לענין בכדי לא לפגוע ברגשות ידועים... אמנם כמאור אאלץ באי אלו מקומות לקצר בתכלית ולהסתפק ברמיזה [7-8].
Related to this he writes in the introduction:
החוברת הזאת שלדה ועיקרה הוא הנאום שנשאתי לפני בית יעקב בשפה המדוברת אולם בצאתה פעמיים בדפוס נוספו כמה דברים ובעיקר הערות בפ"ע מתחת לקו עד כי נסבה ורחבה ותשלח בדים וענפים מעל לגבולות נאום עד כי מדת ספר קטן. לזאת יש ממכרי שיעצוני לשנות קצת את סדרה ופניה, פני נאום, לעבדה ולהקציעה ולתת לה פני ספר לאוהבי ומוקירי אלא אענית הבדל עיקרי יש בין ספר לנואם הספר מושגו לשימות איכותית בענין שהוא דן עליו היקף ועיבוד, והנואם הוא בחינת קטע או קטעים מענין הנידון בחינת מקופיא. ובהיות שלא עיבדתי את הדברים עיבוד גמור ובהיות שרובם אינם ממקצועי, לא הייתי חושב להרימם למעלת ספר במובן האמור, לחשבו לדבר שלם ומקיף...


Sefer HaBris

One bibliographical point related to the Drasha can be found where R' Fleckeles writes:
מצות בטלות לעתיד לבוא[38]... ובעל הברית אשר נאמן בבריתו[39] וקים מאמרי רז"ל נעלם ממנו דברי הרשב"א [אהבת דוד, עמ'שב]
The new edition does not reference to what he is referring to, but it's to a passage in R' Pinchas Hurwitz's Sefer HaBris, a work which he quotes two more times further on[40] (also not noted in the sources). Here is the passage:



What is more interesting is that he quotes R' Pinchas Hurowitz's Sefer Habris three times in a drasha which was delivered in 1799, less than two years after the Sefer Habris was first printed (1797); this shows us that he went through parts of the work right away.[41] This is yet an additional source demonstrating the great popularity Sefer Habris enjoyed even right after it was printed. 

Learning Kabbalah

The cause for this evil movement, writes R' Fleckeles, was because:
ושורש כל הקלקול הוא בעבור שאינם עוסקים בגמרא ושלחן ערוך רק במדרשי האגדות ובמאמרי זוהר, לחזק בנינים של שוא ותהו [אהבת דוד, עמ'שו].
In this Derasha he writes out very clearly that one should not learn Kabbalah if one did not yet master other areas of Torah first.
וזה העיקר שיעשה האדם וחי לעולם אם הוא שונה הלכות כדתנא דבי אליהו והובא מגילה... כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא, ופירש"י, משנה ברייתא... לא מצינו לא בבבלי, לא בירושלמי, ולא בתנא דבי אליהו, ולא בספרי וספרא ומכילתא, ומדרש רבות, שאליהו בא לבשר כל העוסק בסודי תורה בכל יום הוא בן עולם הבא [אהבת דוד, עמ'רצב] 
אחי ורעי הנאמנים בבריתי, שמעו ותחי נפשכם, די לנו ולבנינו בתוך הגולה, אם אנו עוסקים לילות כימים, בתלמוד בבלי עם הרי"ף והרמב"ם ותוספות והרא"ש והטור והשלחן ערוך, עם האחרונים הוא תלמוד הקדוש, והעוסקים בו קדושים. וקבלה בידינו מאת גאונים הקדמונים הקדושים אשר בארץ המה, אם משיח ה'אשר יתגלה כבודו ימינו בקרב, לא יהיה בקי בכל הש"ס עם כל הראשונים והאחרונים, אף שיהיה שלם בכל החכמות הרמות ונשגבות, ברור כשמש שאין זה משיח ה', אלא מלבד כל המעלות ומדות שמנו חכמים ונביאים, צריך להיות גם כן גדול שבגדולים בגמרא ובפוסקים, וכלל גדול הזה הוא בכל דברי הנביאים והחכמים, והמשכיל יבין [אהבת דוד, עמ'שח].
This is why the content of the letter from R' Wesseley quoting R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz was very important for him to quote at the outset; this is one of the main themes of the work.

Elsewhere in the drasha he writes:
ידעתי שיביאו ראיות, מספרים אשר לא נשנו בי רבי חייא ורבי אועיה, ואף הרי"ף והרמב"ם ורש"י ותוס'ור"ן והרא"ש לא ידעו מהם, ולאו בעיזקתא דשלמה מלכא, ואף לאו מר בריה רבנא חתים עלייהו, ובפרט כאשר שמענו כן ראינו, הקלקול יותר על השבח המגיע לכתבים, הרבה עסקו בספרים האלה ומצאו מקומות לטעות, ואמרו דיין האמת על שמועות רעות, וקצצו בנטיעות, והמירו טוב ברע, ושמו חשך לאור. אבל מלימוד גמרא ופוסקים, לא יצאה מעולם שום תקלה, ולא מקום לטעות, רק דרכיה דרכי נועם... [אהבת דוד עמ'רצד].
 A parallel to this might be what the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:
אם במה שמקובל בידינו אמרו כלל גדול, כל ברייתא דלא מתניי'בי'ר'חייא ור'אושעיא לא מתבינן מינה, הרי שחששו שלא נמלטו מן הטעות והשיבוש... וכן בכתבי האר"י לאו האר"י חתים וגם לא תלמידו מהרח"ו רק בחליו של הרח"ו גנבו הכתובים ממנו ונעתקו בלילה א'כמה מאות ניירות ע"י כמה סופרים הלא קרוב הדבר שנפלו בהם שגיאות רבות ועצומות [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק"ל, עמ' 355].
This topic was very important to him. In the introduction to his shu"t he writes:



About Kabbalistic Kavanos

Related to all this he writes:
ואחרי אשר דיבר בתקיעה של מצוה, אמר תסתירני מסו"ד מרעים, מאנשים המתנשאים בסוד שיח שרפי קודש, ועושין כוונות שוא בתקיעות, וקוצצים בנטיעות, כאשר הארכתי ובארתי קדש זה עשרים שנה, והוא בחיבור עולת ציבור ונכון להביא הדברים פה שניות, והוא כתפוחי זהב במשכיות, אמנם אמרי אחר שהוצאת הדפוס רבה היא, תמכתי עליך אתה ידידי ורעי הקורא, שתשא עיניך שמה, ומצאת את אהבה נפשך [אהבת דוד, עמ'רעא].[42]
In the Derasha, he referred to what he wrote some twenty years earlier in Olas Chodesh Hashenei, at great length:
אני הגבר ראה ראיתי רבים מתיהדים בסודי סודות הנטועות בתקיעות, בכונות שונות ולשער הפנימית פונות, ונבעו מצפונות. אמנם עקרת הכוונה הנכונה התיכונה, לעשות המצוה כתיקונה על מכונה, שצריך לכוון עליה התוקע והשומע, זו היא לקיים מצות המלך הקדוש, אשר קדשנו במצותיו הקדושות, וצונו זה היום קדוש, תקעו לפני בשופר כי קדוש היום לאדונינו, ושארי כוונות הידועות בסוד התקיעות כולם כלולות בכונה זו, ומינה לא תזוע [מילי דשמיא, עמ'פב].
Then he continues:



He repeats this again elsewhere in his writings:
אין רצונו לומר כוונות הספירות אלא הכונה נאמנה שלא כתב לשם קדושת השם, אלא כשאר דברים בעלמא והוא פשט פשוט בדעת כל הפוסקים ועם נעמים לא אבוא, ומעולם לא עלה על דעת קדושים הראשונים חכמים וסופרים, לחשוב מחשבות ספירות, כי בימיהם לא ידעו מאומה, מספירות בלי מה, ולדעתי העניה בלב ים הקבלה, קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבך להטעות, ומה לי ולך אצל דברים הן כבשונו של עולם, ובהדי כבשי רחמנא למה לך מה דמפקדת על פי הגמרא והרי"ף והרמב"ם והרא"ש איבעי לך למיעבד... [מלאכת הקודש, עמ'קלג].
He concludes this Drasha by bringing the famous Teshuvah of the Maharshal about Kabbalah and some other famous sources and finally two Teshuvos of his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, one of them the famous Teshuvah related to saying Leshem Yichud.  

In my previous post I wrote a bit about Leshem Yichud and I quoted a passage from Sharon Flatto who writes in her 'The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague': 

Notably a Haggadah was recently discovered that was owned during the late 1780s by Fleckeles…. The margins of this Haggadah contain leshem yihud formulas to be recited before the blessing on the four cups of wine penned in Fleckeles' hand. 

In the footnote she writes they seem to have been written between 1784-1790. (pp. 225-226). While I wish I had more clearer sources about this discovery. She does not note that the Haggadah that R' Fleckeles himself printed in Prague in 1818 nor in the manuscript updates of R' Fleckeles to his own Haggadah does he write to say Leshem Yichud or any such Tefilah in the Haggadah.

I recently received a copy of those margins from the owner of this rare Haggadah.



From the Ari Bergmann Collection (Lawrence, NY) 

I am not sure what R' Fleckeles held in his younger years but it appears from his later writings that he "held" strongly of this Responsa of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, as he quotes it often – in this Drasha and in his Meleches haKodesh (p. 132)

Baruch Linda

 At the end of the work R' Fleckeles writes: 
יעקב הסרחן ועיין ראשית למודים שער ששי מבע"ח הנושכים כו'סדר הששי סימן כה [אהבת דוד, עמ'שכט].
 The editors of the new edition do not elaborate which work and passage, are being quoted.

 Here is the sha'ar of the work and the relevant section being referenced.



One source about the author, Baruch Linda, is R' Matisyahu Strashun, who writes:
וכתב על החכם ברוך לינדא תואר ירא ה'אשר אמנם כפי הנודע בברלין עיר מגורתו עד יום מותו, חלף חוק ודת ישראל (אף כי לא המיר), שכח מועד ושבת, ובימי זקנותו לא יכול אף קרוא עברית כמעט [מבחר כתבים, עמ'רמ].[43]

This is yet another source showing how popular this work was at the time. As an aside, this quote shows that R' Fleckeles was into "interesting seforim," and I will deal with this in a future post. Another such sefer which he gave a haskamah to and his name is in the Prenumeranten in the 1793 issue of the Igrot Orchos Olam.

Calculating when Moshiach is coming[44]

Worth mention is one final issue that R' Fleckeles writes a lot against, namely attempting to calculate when Moshiach will come. In the beginning of the derasha he writes that this is one of the purposes of why he wrote it: 
לכן כתבתי דרשות האל לחק ולזכרון בקהל עדת ישורון, למען ידעו עד דור אחרון, ואל ישעו אתכם דברי הרמזים, אף שהם מחורזים בדברי הנביאים והחוזים, ואל תאמינו באומר רזי לי רזי לי ואני חכם הרזים, כי סתומים וחתומים הדברים עד עת קץ הפלאות, אז המשכילים יבינו כל היעודים וכל הנביאות, ועיין רבינו סעדיה גאון ור"י ורבינו אברהם ן'עזרא סוף דניאל ואחרי ששוטים האלו מביאים ראיות מן הזוהר, ומחשבים קץ הפלאות בנוטריקון וגימטריאות, אף אני אביא ראיות מן הזוהר, כי תועים ומתעתעים ומוגעים, בכל חשבונות ודמיונות וחזיונות, חלומות המדומות [אהבת דוד, עמ'רנט-רס].
Later on he writes about it at length here is the fascinating section.



R' Elazar Fleckeles and R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz

One final point, returning to the letter that R' Eleazar Fleckeles printed from R' Wessely quoting R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz which was discussed in the beginning of this post.

I think that one point that is of some significance is not only that he is quoting a letter from R' Wessely but that it quotes R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz. As is well known, the relationship between R' Yonasan Eibeschuetz and R' Eleazar Fleckeles' Rebbe the Noda Bi-Yehudah was "interesting", as fully documented in Sid Leiman's special essay When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy; R. Ezekiel Landau's Attitude Toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Emden Eibeschuetz Controversy. He also refers to his various works in this volume (the Olas Chodesh Hashenei and Ahavat Dovid) with great respect.

ותמה הגאון האמיתי בספרו יערות דבש [מילי שמיא עמ'קכט]. עיין באורים ותומים סי'צז [שם, עמ'קמא]; ומביאו הגאון אהבת יהונתן [שם, עמ'נב]; וקרוב לזה מצאתי באהבת יהונתן [אהבת דוד, עמ'רעח].

One last source on this topic is from the work Sicha bein Shnat 5560 UVein 5561 printed in Prague in 1800 written by R' Baruch Jeiteless[45] another talmid of the Noda Bi-Yehudah which is also a work devoted to fighting Frankisim. 





 




*Many thanks to Shimon Steinmetz for his help with tracking down some of the Rare sources.
[1] In Milin Havivin volume 5 (available here), p.6.
[2] In Teshuva m'Ahava 1:10 he writes וביאור החכם ר"ה וויזל
[3] On R' Wesseley see overview from Professor Chaim Shapiro (son of the Dvar Avraham), Safrut Haskalah BeMerkaz Germany (1784-1829), pp.194-246.
[4] There is a typo about the exact source in On the Main line's post. 
[5] Much has been written on this controversy see M. Samet, Chodosh Assur Min Hatorah, pp. 67-92. But a full scale dissertation on the topic is still lacking.
[6] One other point of interest related to all this: the great Galicianer posek, R. Meshulam Roth, at the request of R. Meir Shapiro towards a new school system, penned a list of works for students to learn. Among the many interesting things he wanted talmidim to read was the Shirei Tiferes! [Printed in back of his R' M. Roth, Mevaser Ezra on Ibn Ezra p. 176 [=Mevaser VeOmer, p. 120]. This is referring to a poetic work by Wesseley.
[7] All this is part of the recent welcomed flood (by book lovers) of his material, including his Shu"t Sheilos Yaavetz (3 volumes) including a volume of new material, (with some mysterious din torah around it), Meturgeman by R' Eliyahu Bachur with R' Emden's extensive glosses (printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon) and Emunas Chachamim with his notes taken from Mitpachas Sofrim (also printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon). This is aside from various marginalia of his printed in some of the recent volumes of Yeshurun. 
[8] It also includes a new edition of ציצים ופרחים, based upon manuscript (the third edition to come out within the past year). In addition it has the R' Emden's marginalia to a few seforim, including: the Meor Eynayim which was printed earlier by him in a journal from Tosh (based on the copy in JTS); Rabbenu Bachaya; Paneach Raza; Marshah Al HaTorah. Worth pointing to is the lengthy discussion about R' Moshe Kunitz (pp.126-140). To this, see what I wrote in Yeshurun 24, p. 466 and here I hope to return to this in the future.
[9] For an understanding of this work see Moaz Kahana's forthcoming study. 
[10] Related to this it's worth pointing to the newest sefer of R' Meir Mazuz called, MeGedolei Yisrael (534 pp.). This work is a collection of his articles about different Rishonim and Achronim written over the years. There is supposed to be 2 more volumes to this set coming out. In his chapter devoted to R' Yaakov Emden, he concludes (pp. 149-150) with some comments on the notes of R' Emden printed by Mossad HaRav Kook and shows that Bick could not read the manuscript, as he already noticed many mistakes while comparing Bick's transcription to the page of the manuscript Bick included in the beginning of his edition. 
[11] Although this introduction is very useful and brings new material etc. it is very weak on naming the sources that helped him, citing academic sources very infrequently and only by title of book not by name (a common occurrence in such works). 
[12] For recent discussion on this see Yaakov Spiegel, Amudim BeToldos HaSefer HaIvri: BiSharei Hadefus, pp. 164-199.
[13] See Leo Landman, The Cantor: An Historic Perspective.
[14] Parts of this dersaha are quoted in the excellent series of R' Dovid Kamentsky on R' Shlomo Dubno in Yeshurun 8 (2001) pp. 740-741; however it appears that a small typo crept in, he writes the drasha is in Olas Chodesh volume one when it's in volume two.
[15] I hope to return, more in depth, to this special work in the near future. But for now a few words on this work, (full disclosure: the author is a good friend). There are two Gedolim in particular who are considered giants in the world of Halacha and their words carry great weight until today in all circles, the Noda Bi-Yehudah and the Chasam Sofer. This book analyzes many aspects of their rich lives (tying many controversies together and showing how both of them wrote and dealt with them). It's well written and researched; it includes a fresh look and in-depth analysis of many famous topics and plenty of discussion about new subjects. The author shows a tremendous command of the primary Torah sources, relevant manuscripts and puts down his thoughts clearly and very chronologically. Some fascinating and unknown people are discussed throughout the book. The author did not attempt to deal with everything both of these Gedolim wrote about as that would require a few volumes. He has already completed a few more articles related to these giants. The first edition already sold out, a second edition is due out shortly.

[16] HaBiur LeTorah, p. 204.
[17] HaChadash Asur Min Hatorah,p. 75.
[18] See pp. 4, 52, 88, 91.
[19] See pp. 3,23,25,26,49,56,61,62,66,92,104,111,115,116. These sources are not noted by R' Dovid Kamenetsky when he writes about the Tikun Sofrim of R' Dubno in Yeshurun 10, pp. 758-761.
[20] In the actual drasha against the Biur (p. 46) he quotes a discussion about a shem Hashem in HaAzeinu. In his Meleches haKodesh (p. 111) when he talks about this pasuk, he quotes Dubno. See also what R' Fleckless writes in תשובה מאהבה, א, סי' א

"עיין בהערה לשירת הים מן השלם המפורסים מוה'שלמה מד"ו רבתי בבאורו לבאר המתורגמן החכם השלם מוהר"ם דאסע"
 The "מתורגמן החכם השלם מוהר"ם דאסע," is of course Mendelssohn. 
[21] As an aside in a forthcoming auction by Jerusalem of Gold, Auction 11 they are auctioning off numerous editions of the Biur.
[22] Many thanks to Shimon Steinmetz for tracking down copies of these works.
[23] This is not the only item related to R' Fleckeles that I could not find mention of it in the National Library and Mifal Bibliography. Ben Yaakov records :
יקר החיים, ה"ר אלעזר פלעקיל דרוש הספד על מות שר וגדול ר'חיים עדלער פאן פאפר פראג תקנ"ה 80 [אוצר הספרים, עמ' 229].
 However, on Google books (here) one can find this small work.


[24] It's worth reading the excellent article by Maoz Kahana who puts this in context with a much bigger picture called שבת בבית הקפה של קהילת קודש פראג, ציון, עח:א (תשע"ג) עמ' 5-50. See also Robert Liberles' recent book, HaCoffee VeHayihudim.
[25] For recent work on Shir HaYichud, see Chitzei Giborim 9 (2016), pp. 258-277.
[26] For more on this see Maoz Kahana, MeHaNodeh Beyehudah Le Chasam Sofer , pp. 37-60 and his article "The Allure of Forbidden knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatean Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Moment, 1756-1761", Jewish Quartely Review 102:4 (2012), pp. 589-616 [available here].
[27] Printed in Kabbalah 21 (2011), available here. See ibid, p. 365.
[28] This work was first printed in 1759 with the author receiving many haskamos, including one from the Noda Bi-Yehudah (although one has to be careful how much to read into it, see Sharon Flatto 'The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague', pp. 105-106, 110, 144). In 2014 this work was reprinted with some drashos added from manuscript, one of which contains the passage quoted above. They also added extensive useful notes just focusing on tracking down his sources and included a very through index. They did not mention (or they were not aware) that Avraham Yaari printed this passage I quoted about the Frankist from the manuscript in 1958 in his Mechkarei Sefer (pp. 455-457). This work is disused in the important work of M. Piekarz, BiYemei Zemicha Hachasidus, pp. 86-88.
[29] Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Čechoslovakischen Republik 9, 1938, after p. 374.
[30] The most recent, updated, academic work on Frankism was written in English by Paweł Maciejko called The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816, Pennsylvania 2011, based on his Ph.D dissertation, The Development of the Frankist Movement in Poland, the Czech Lands and Germany (1755-1816) (Ph.D.), Oxford University, 2003. The work is excellent, well-researched and written, based upon a rereading of all the previously known documents in their original languages and upon many new discoveries. This book has a few pages devoted to of R' Eleazar Fleckeles' Ahavat David (pp. 249-251). The book was just translated into Hebrew called Eruv Rav and published by Zalman Shazar. I am not sure why, but some of the material found in his Ph.D about Prague and Frankism (pp. 241-242) does not appear in his book.
[31] See also The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816, pp. 239-241.
[32] Ibid, p. 184.
[33] Moshe Viener notes this passage in Koheles Moshe (p.31) but does not write what it's referring to. However Eliezer Rosenthal in his Bibliographishes verzeichniss eines grossen theiles, Yodeh Sefer, (p. 293), when writing about this work, does point to a journal where the letter was printed in German. 
[34] Ibid, pp. 250-251.
[35] For discussion of these passages see:  Boaz Huss, KeZohar Harakiah, pp. 275-276; Ada Rapoport-Albert, Chasidim, Shabtos Anoshyim Vnashim, pp. 356-357,359-360.
[36] See Marc Saperstein, Jewish Preaching, pp.  Zev Gries, Hasefer HaIvri Perakyim Letoldosov, pp. 122-165.
[37] I first heard about it when I was 15, when I heard a tape of a derasha by R' Mordechai Gifter who praised it highly. At the time, I tried tracking it down but had no luck. Later, as a Bochur learning in Eretz Yisroel, I located it in the (then-named) Hebrew University and National Library. It was extremely rare and I had to get special permission to look at it. I was always able to see from reading parts then that it was indeed special and that R' Gifter was certainly not exaggerating. A few years later I found an original copy of the rare Yiddish version (available here) for next to nothing in a used bookstore. I always dreamed of finding the Hebrew one and reprinting it. However a few years ago someone beat me to it. (See here for a fascinating post related to this). Instead I hope to return to discuss this special work in a future article. 
[38] On this passage of Mitzvos LeAsid see Saul Lieberman, Shekiyin, pp. 80-81.
[39] This is not the only pun on the Sefer HaBris's title. R' Moshe Koerner writes:
בעסקי... ברלין... הצדיק התמים הרב המחבר סי'הברית לפני נגלה כי הוא חברו היו אז מימינים ומשמאלים, והגאון מהרצ"ה זצ"ל אמר בשחוק הוא המכניס והמוציא הברית (בל"א קוואטר כמ"ש בא"ח סי'תקנא במג"א ס"ק ג ובי"ד ברמ"א סי'רסה סעי'יא) [אגרת רשפי קשת, עמ' 8].
Eliezer Rosenthal in his Bibliographishes verzeichniss eines grossen theiles, Yodeh Sefer, (p.284) quotes this story but does not site his source.
[40] p. 288, 320.
[41] See also David Ruderman, A Best-Selling Hebrew Book of the Modern era: The Book of the Covenant of Pinhas Hurwitz and its Remarkable Legacy, Washington 2104, p. 153.
[42] This new edition is kind enough to bring this piece of the derasha in the footnote. One nitpick; although in the rest of the volume, when he references his other writings or the like this is very useful, here however it is silly to copy five pages that are found earlier in this volume (pp.82-86) – just refer the reader to there. There is a limit to how lazy one would have to be not to turn back and this is a waste of space.
[43] For more about this author and his work see Tal Kogman, HaMaskilim HaMadayim (2013) Magnes Press.
[44] One source on this topic can be found in the Work of R' Ephrayim Yaboroer, BaKoshrot, printed in Cracow 1607. This fascinating work was extremely rare until a few weeks ago when Mechon Zichron Aharon reprinted it in their massive two volume set called אוצר ממעונות אריות. The passage I am referring to is in volume one, pp. 58-59. These two volumes collect much of the Zemiros, Piutyim and historical works written about Tach Vetat by early Polish and Ashkenazi Rabbonim. It's full of many rare works and they deserve special thanks for printing these volumes. One correction; in volume one (pp.539-546) they reprinted the rare work Shirei Yehudah, (not presently found on Hebrew Books or Otzar Ha-hochmah] first printed in Amsterdam 1696. However either they used an incomplete edition or something else went wrong as its missing most of this small rare sefer. On this work, see Elisheva Carlebach, 'Two Amens That Delayed the Redemption: Jewish Messianism and Popular Spirituality in the Post-Sabbatian Century', Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 82:3/4 (1992), pp.241-261.  
[45] For the updated discussion regarding the authorship of this book, see Paweł Maciejko, The Development of the Frankist Movement in Poland, the Czech Lands and Germany (1755-1816) (Ph.D.), Oxford University, 2003, pp. 241-242. Gershom Scholem wrote on the front page of his copy that the author was R' Yehudah Jeiteless.  

Kaddish – His Will

$
0
0
Kaddish – His Will
Leor Jacobi


Note: I wrote the following essay outline several years ago, but shelved it upon discovering that most of its novelty and much more had already been published by David de Sola Pool over a hundred years ago.[1] On the sad occasion of the recent passing of my beloved mother I offer it now in her memory. Prayer and divinity were close to her heart. May our prayers be deepened by their study.


The Kaddish is one of the most familiar and repeated prayers in the liturgy. In various forms, it concludes both the main body of the prayer and smaller sections. It is also recited by mourners and upon the conclusion of learning a tractate or a sermon.

Despite, or perhaps due to its familiarity, few are aware of an alternate interpretation and syntax at the beginning of the Kaddish, accompanied by altering the pronunciation of one word slightly, but significantly. This study will describe and analyze these two interpretations and propose a third.

1. The “Standard” interpretation. R. Yehudah ben Yakar (Ramban's teacher), Rokeah, and Avudraham all followed the standard interpretation. See R. Shmuel Eliezer Stern's concise compilation of their perspectives.
2. The GRA's interpretation
3. Alternate interpretation



1. The Standard Interpretation

...יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא כִרְעוּתֵהּ, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

May his great name be exalted and sanctified in the world which he created according to his will. And may his kingship reign ...

The deity is not referred to directly, but his great name is to be exalted and sanctified in the very world which he himself created, according to his own will and volition. The fact that the world was created according to the will of the deity seems rather obvious, pshita. However, in the liturgy of the evening prayers, we find the divine will associated with the maintenance of the celestial bodies:

ברוך אתה … אשר בדברו מעריב ערבים בחכמה פותח שערים ובתבונה משנה עתים ומחליף את הזמנים ומסדר את הכוכבים במשמרותיהם ברקיע כרצונו

This may be referred to in the Kaddish. Perhaps the divine will is mentioned in the Kaddish to emphasize that the details of the physical world were planned by the creator, not happenstance, hence it is fitting to exalt and praise his great name.

A more serious difficulty with this standard interpretation is found in the prayer על הכל based on the Kaddish which is recited upon removing the Sefer Torah from the Aron Ha-Kodesh. In modern prayerbooks it is found among the Sabbath prayers. In surviving synagogues of Tikocyn (טיקטין) and Krakow and in in other Polish synagogues the text was painted on the wall along with other “extra” prayers and sayings.[2] This prayer clearly parallels the Kaddish, but does not follow the standard interpretation, as will be explained in the next section. R. Yehudah ben Yakar (Ramban's teacher), Rokeah, and Avudraham all followed the standard interpretation. See R. Shmuel Eliezer Stern's concise compilation of their perspectives.


2. The GRA's Interpretation

...יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, כִּרְעוּתֵהּ, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ
May his great name be exalted and sanctified, according to his will, in the world which he created. And may his kingship become regnant...

Notice the additional comma and the concomitant hard vocalization of the כּ with a dagesh in the following word: כִּרְעוּתֵהּ. Here the phrase “according to his will” refers back to the first clause of the preceding phrase, the exaltation and sanctification. It does not refer to the immediately preceding clause as per the standard interpretation.

The minor conceptual difficulty of the standard interpretation is now transformed into a deep and compelling concept. The purpose of the creation of the world was so that the creator's name be exalted and sanctified within it.

This interpretation can be attributed to the Gaon, R. Elijah of Vilna, GRA in Ma'ase Rav 54, where it is noted that he was particular about the pronunciation of the hard כּ. GRA’s Diyyuqim b’nusḥey ha-tefilah v’ha-berakhot were first printed in the first edition of Shulhan Arukh with Biyur ha-GRA, Shklov 1803, and appear at the bottom of the first page of Priy Chodosh in later editions.





There, the concept it is explained more fully, with a proof is presented in the aforementioned על הכל prayer recited upon removing the Torah from the Ark:

עַל הַכּל יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ וְיִשְׁתַּבַּח וְיִתְפָּאַר וְיִתְרומַם וְיִתְנַשּא שְׁמו שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדושׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. בָּעולָמות שֶׁבָּרָא הָעולָם הַזֶּה וְהָעולָם הַבָּא. כִּרְצונו וְכִרְצון יְרֵאָיו וְכִרְצון כָּל בֵּית יִשרָאֵל.צוּר הָעולָמִים אֲדון כָּל הַבְּרִיּות אֱלוהַּ כָּל הַנְּפָשׁות. הַיּושֵׁב בְּמֶרְחֲבֵי מָרום הַשּׁוכֵן בִּשְׁמֵי שְׁמֵי קֶדֶם. קְדֻשָּׁתו עַל הַחַיּות וּקְדֻשָּׁתו עַל כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוד

Note that this Hebrew prayer generally follows the structure of the Kaddish. However, the phrase “According to his will” is accompanied by “the will of those who fear him” and “the will of all of the house of Israel.” This cannot refer to the creation of the world, for mortals were not party to that event. Perhaps it refers to the post-facto consent of men. If so, it would differ conceptually with כרצונו, the will of the creator at the time of the creation. Also, stressing this point runs counter to the thrust of the prayer, exalting and praising the creator.



Wall of Tykocin synagogue, Poland, Leor Jacobi

This source suggests that an ancient tradition does not follow the standard interpretation. Furthermore, we find an association of the words כרצונו and יתגדל in Daniel 11:36, applied to an earthly king:

...וְעָשָׂה כִרְצוֹנוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְיִתְרוֹמֵם וְיִתְגַּדֵּל עַל כָּל אֵל וְעַל אֵל אֵלִים יְדַבֵּר נִפְלָאוֹת

Some medieval prayer books do contain a hard כּ in כרעותיה. In the National Library of Israel there are examples from Provence, Italy, and Ashkenaz on microfilm. I refer to this interpretation as the GRA's, although it probably preceded him by hundreds of years, because he related to the issue and is understood to have favored this interpretation. It should be noted that many early siddurim were not precise in following grammatical rules so the mere presence or absence of a dagesh should not in and of itself be taken as an indicator of syntax or interpretation.

GRA's interpretation, while not well known, was endorsed somewhat in Arukh haShulhan 56 (where much of the previous discussion is found). GRA-oriented prayerbooks also reflect this interpretation via the punctuation, such as Siddur Vilna and Ezor Eliahu. However, Siddur Tefilat Yosef features the hard כִּ but without a comma before it, possibly a compromise approach: have it both ways or either way.

I now raise a couple of difficulties. The most striking aspect of this approach is its awkward word order. A much more straightforward formulation of GRA's interpretation would be:

...יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא. כִרְעוּתֵהּ, בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

Perhaps the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ was a later addition, hence not deemed proper to insert in the middle of the first phrase. In any case, GRA's interpretation does not fit the text as well as the standard interpretation, where no re-ordering is required.

A minor difficulty with the GRA's interpretation emerges upon comparison with the “Great Kaddish” recited upon the completion of a Tractate or Seder. The word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ does not appear in that text at all. This is explainable, and perhaps even necessary, according to the first interpretation, because the Great Kaddish does not refer to the creation of the world at all, but rather to the future redemption:

יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי הוּא עָתִיד לְאִתְחַדְתָּא, וּלְאַחֲיָאה מֵתַיָּא, וּלְאַסָּקָא יַתְּהוֹן לְחַיֵּי עָלְמָא, וּלְמִבְנָא קַרְתָּא דִּי יְרוּשְלֵם, וּלְשַׁכְלְלָא הֵיכָלֵהּ בְּגַוָּהּ, וּלְמֶעֱקַר פּוּלְחָנָא נוּכְרָאָה מִן אַרְעָא, וּלְאָתָבָא פּוּלְחָנָא דִּי שְׁמַיָּא לְאַתְרָהּ, וְיַמְלִיך קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בּמַלְכוּתֵה וִיקָרֵהּ בְּחַיֵּיכוֹן וּבְיוֹמֵיכוֹן וּבְחַיֵּי דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל

However, if כִּרְעוּתֵהּ refers back to יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ, as per GRA’s interpretation, the absence of the word in the Great Kaddish version is puzzling, or at least conspicuous. This suggests that כִּרְעוּתֵהּ refers back to בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא and hence, disappears in the Great Kaddish along with it.

To summarize so far, we have seen two competing interpretations of the same (orthographic) text of the Kaddish. Some evidence contradicts each of the two, with no clear tilt of the scales in favor of either. It seems to me more likely that the GRA’s interpretation would develop into the standard one in order to “correct the syntax” than the reverse direction. Lectio dificilior potior. This situation suggests exploring other alternatives.[3]


3. An Alternate Interpretation

...יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, כִּרְעוּתֵהּ יַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

May his great name be exalted and sanctified in the world which he created. May his kingship become regnant according to his will ...

Rather than throwing the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ back to one clause or another of the previous phrase, in this interpretation the word applies to the text that follows, a prayer for the establishment of the divine kingdom.

This interpretation is aided by the omission of the ו in the word ימלך following the word כרעותיה. The emendation is minor, and we do find an early textual example from a manuscript in the Cairo Geniza, JTS ENA 1983.2:



The absence of the ו assists this interpretation but it does not in and of itself negate the others. However, the interpretation is also suggested by another rabbinic source. The על הכל prayer discussed previously appears to be a later adaptation, an earlier version of which appears in Masekhet Sofrim 14:6:

ועוד צריך לומר, על הכל יתגדל ויתקדש וישתבח ויתפאר ויתרומם ויתנשא ויתהדר ויתעלה ויתהלל ויתקלס שמו של מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא הנכבד והנורא בעולמות שברא בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. כרצונו וכרצון יראיו וכרצון כל עמו בית ישראל תגלה ותראה מלכותו עלינו במהרה ובזמן קרוב, והוא יבנה ביתו בימינו ויחון פליטתינו ופליטת כל עמו בית ישראל בהמון רחמיו וברוב חסדיו לחן ולחסד ולרחמים לחיים ולשלום והוא ירחם עלינו ועל כל עמו בית ישראל בעבור שמו הגדול ואמרו אמן

I added some punctuation above and would translate part of the prayer literally as follows:

… in the worlds that he has created, this world and the next one. According to his will, the will of those in awe of him, and the will of his entire people, the house of Israel, his kingship shall be revealed and appear to us speedily and soon. He shall rebuild ...

One may argue that, here too, the phrase: “According to his will...” refers back to the previous clause. In the adapted form that appears in prayer books, the phrase must be understood as referring back to the previous phrase, since the following phrase simply doesn't appear. However, in this expanded and seemingly earlier form in Masekhet Sofrim, we would expect a connecting ו to follow the phrase, even more so than in the Kaddish itself, yet we do not find one. When על הכל was adapted from this prayer, the syntax was adjusted or corrupted.

The difficulty noted above in reconciling the GRA's interpretation with the Great Kaddish is relieved via this approach, if not eliminated. The absent word כרעותיה is explained if the substantial additions in the Great Kaddish are an expansion[4] of כרעותיה.

May his great name be sanctified and exalted by the reign of his kingdom in the world he created, according to his will.

[1] David de Sola Pool, The Kaddish, Leipzig 1909, pp. 28, 33-35, 111-112. Among issues not covered here, see especially parallels in various verses and to the Christian Lord’s Prayer (Paternoster). [2] In the “Isaac Shul” of Krakow על הכל was written in three different locations which have been restored and are all visible today. It may have moved from location to location at different periods and different layers were restored. Alternatively, it may have been painted in different locations for the convenience of the worshippers, so that they would not have to strain or move to another location during the procession after removing the Torah scroll from the Ark. [3] My first attempt was to propose that the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ is itself an erroneous later scribal addition. An ancient tradition maintains that one should bow during the Kaddish at several places. Sefer Kra’ Ravaṣ, by Rabbi Yehuda Lavi Ben-David is an excellent modern halakhic compendium of the various laws of bowing, accompanied with much original analysis.
The book lists no fewer than seventeen different opinions as to where exactly to do the bowing. Some medieval prayer books have a Hebrew instruction to bow written in the margin: כרע. These might have been misinterpreted as Aramaic and incorporated into the text of the Kaddish itself. However, since I have not located any significant textual evidence to support this theory, I mention it here solely for the reader’s edification and entertainment. [4] If the third alternative is a genuine interpretation of the text of the Kaddish, and an early one, it could hypothetically have developed into the other interpretations.
First, the standard interpretation developed. The word כרעותיה was understood as referring back to the immediately preceding creation of the world and in tandem a ו was introduced verbally in וימלך. Alternatively, the Great Kaddish may have been composed or edited in accordance with the first, standard interpretation. This development may have been the result of a growing influence of the written texts, without vocalization and punctuation, as opposed to earlier oral forms which would have preserved the original interpretation.
Next, this new interpretation collided with the original, possibly in written form, with the ו in וימלך being introduced where the original interpretation was preserved orally along with the hard כּ of כרעותיה. This friction would have been resolved by artificially throwing back כרעותיה to the beginning of the first phrase, giving birth to the GRA's interpretation.
Or כרעותיה originally went in both directions, following both GRA and the alternate interpretation, as De Sola Pool proposed (see note above).

The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah

$
0
0
The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah
By Brian Schwartz

If someone were to ask you of an instance where a rabbi was declared the messiah by his followers, the first example that would probably come to mind is the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, who to this very day many of his chasidim regard as the Messiah, despite his death.  Many people would struggle to point to any other similar times in history, besides for the Shabbethai Tzvi affair and his various successors[1], where someone was thought of as the Jewish Messiah. However, throughout the past few hundred years, there have been a handful of rabbis who have been explicitly or implicitly declared the messiah, suggested it, or have been accused of suggesting it. 

Messiahship was a chasidic and mystical phenomenon, with chasidic rebbes; R’ Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov[2], R’ David of Tulna[3], R’ Yisrael of Ruzhin[4], R’ Nachman of Breslov[5], R’ Yitzchak Isaac Safrin of Komarna[6], R’ David Moshe of Chortkov[7], and mystics; R’ Chaim Vital[8], R’ Chaim ibn Attar[9], R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzato[10], Shukar Kuchayil I[11], and Shukar Kuchayil II[12], and more recently Yisrael Dov Odesser[13], all being labeled one way or another as the Messiah[14].  Despite the characterization of these individuals as the Messiah, most lived on without any scandal associated with the eschatological attribution.  There is one instance however, which unfortunately did cause a great uproar.  I refer to you the case of R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar, the scion of the Vizhnitz chasidic dynasty, and the Transylvanian town of Borşa.

Borşa was a mountain village located in Northern Transylvania, in the Maramureș region of Romania.  In 1830 it had a Jewish population of 250, rising to 1,432 in 1890.  Most of the people in Borşa were chasidim of the Kosov-Vizhnitz dynasty.  In 1855, R’ Yaakov Tzvi Waldman, a chasid himself, though an adherent of R’ Chaim Halberstam of Sanz, was chosen as rabbi of Borşa.  Considered a great talmid chacham by his peers[15], Rabbi Waldman was defrocked by his own kehillah because of his harsh words towards the Vizhnitz Chasidim of his town.  The story behind this is relayed by R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, author of the Sh”ut Kol Aryeh, in two letters he sent; one to the townspeople of Borşa, and one to R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar, the Rebbe of Vizhnitz.  In the letters, he mourns over the great bizuy talmid chacham that transpired because of the people of the town removing Waldman from his position as rabbi, replacing him with a boor, and threatening anyone who still considered him rabbi with excommunication.  

What caused all this to transpire?  In the year 1870, the Chasidim of Borşa decided that since the gematria of “Menachem” (the Vizhnitzer rebbe’s name) is equivalent to that of “Tzemach” (a term used by the prophets to refer to the messiah, see Zachariah 6:12, and Midrash Eicha Rabbah 1:57), Menachem Mendel Hagar, the Rebbe of Vizhnitz must be the messiah.  Reacting to this, Waldman said, “כי אמונה כזאת ועבודת האנשים המאמינים בה זרה.”

Here are the two letters printed in the Toldos Kol Aryeh, and if you look at the footnote to the letter to Borşa on p.147, you’ll notice that it says that it was first printed in the beginning of Shu”t Vayitzbor Yosef:





The Vayitzbor Yosef was written by R’ Yosef Schwartz[16], the grandson of R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz.  The copy I initially had, was the second edition printed by R’ Yosef’s nephew in Brooklyn in 1987[17].  Here is the title page:


  
However, a thorough search for the letter through the entire work came up with nothing.  It seems to have vanished.  After an exhaustive hunt, I was finally able to procure a first edition of the Vayitzbor Yosef, and upon examination, I was able to realize the full extent of how doctored the second edition is.  In the second edition, there are approbations added from R’ Yosef Schwartz’s other work Ginzei Yosef, and the index is in the back of the sefer, unlike the first edition where they were printed in the front, right after the hakdamah and before the pesicha.  These changes are quite innocuous.  However, in the second edition, a picture of the original title page is presented with a glaring omission.

Here is how it is presented:


And here is it in actuality:


Notice anything different?  That’s right, on the original title page, there is mention of a separate part of the sefer, “Naftali Savah Ratzon” which is supposed to be a collection of things that the author heard from his father R’ Naftali Schwartz.  If you guessed that the second edition is devoid of this section in its entirety, you would also be correct.  Here is a picture of the beginning of that missing section, which also happens to be printed in the back of the New York edition of Toldos Kol Aryeh:


Having gone through the Naftali Savah Ratzon, I couldn’t find any objectionable material that would have motivated the publishers from removing it.  So what was their motivation?  Remember the missing letter from R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, the Kol Aryeh?  Well, in the first edition, there is another small section right after the pesicha, called “Hashmatah V’hosafa L’kunteres Naftali Savah Ratzon.”

Here is how the second edition appears:


And here is how it’s supposed to look like:


This section is four pages long, and in it can be found the censored letter from R’ Schwartz to the people of Borşa.  It would seem that this sensitive letter was behind the publisher’s motivation to totally remove any mention of the Naftali Savah Ratzon, since it was officially part of it as a hashmatah.  So not only was an important document lifted from the sefer, a whole section became a casualty along with it.  Why the publishers couldn’t just take the letter out and keep the rest of the Naftali Savah Ratzon, I’m not sure.  I guess they wanted as “clean” of a job as possible.

I must point out how Leopold Greenwald, Yaakov Tzvi Abraham, Dr. Yehuda Speigel, and Gedaliah Stein explain the rationale of the people of Borşa’s belief that Menachem Mendel Hagar was the Messiah, and how their explanation is mistaken.  Greenwald[18], Abraham[19], Speigal[20], and Stein both suggest how the belief was formulated as a reaction to Hagar’s sefer, Tzemach Tzadik.  In his work Zichron Borsa[21], Stein explains that since Hagar gave no explanation to the title of his sefer, which was perplexing since it did not have Hagar’s name within its title as do other sefarim, such as “Kedushas Levi” by R’ Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, or “Ahavas Yonasan” by R’ Yonasan Eibeshutz, his chasidim saw in it an esoteric meaning.  As the gematria of “Tzemach,” which is used to refer the Messiah in Zachariah 6:12, is equivalent to “Menachem,” and likewise the gematria of “Tzaddik,” which is also used in Zachariah 9:9 to refer to the Messiah, is equivalent to “Mendel,” this must mean that their rebbe, R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar is indeed the Messiah! 

This explanation is simply untrue.  In no way, could the work Tzemach Tzadik have had any influence on what happened in Borşa in 1870, when it was only published for the first time in 1885.  As for the reason why it was called Tzemach Tzadik, Hagar’s son Baruch, explains in the preface to the work that he simply named it because the gematria is equivalent to Menachem Mendel.  It is also untenable to argue that a manuscript, or knowledge of one with the title Tzemach Tzadik, was floating around at the time of the dispute, because  R’ Baruch Hagar writes in the preface that the material for the work was only written a few years before his father’s passing in 1885.  Consequentially, we must take the letters of the Kol Aryeh for their simple meaning, that the people themselves came up with the gematria of tzemach and its link to the Messiah and the Vizhnitz Rebbe.

Many leading rabbis of the time came to R’ Waldman’s defense, including; R’ Moshe Schick[22], R’ Chaim Sofer of Munkatch[23], R’ Chaim Halberstam of Sanz[24], R’ Yosef Shaul Nathansohn[25], and the previously mentioned R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz. It seems that the only rabbi that came to the defense of the Vizhnitz Chasidim, was R’ Yehuda Modern[26].  What happened next isn’t very clear, but it seems that a tribunal was held by Schwartz to settle things[27], and Waldman was reinstituted as rabbi of Borşa.  Waldman died in Vienna in 1883.

As a side note, take a look at the last page of the letter of R’ Schwartz, printed in the first edition of the Vayitzbor Yosef, on the very bottom:


That is a stamp referring to the responsum of R’ Moshe Schick to Borşa!  I don’t know if this appears in every first edition copy, or if some private owner went to the trouble to specially stamp this, but it would be interesting to find out!




[1] Mordechai Mochiach of Eisenstaedt, Baruchia Russo, Jacob Querido, Abraham Cordozo, Yehuda Leib Prossnitz, and Jacob Frank
[2] See Ba’al Shem Tov Al Hatorah (Jerusalem 1998) in the Hakdamah #23 in the name of Nachum from Chernobyl, though this is seemingly a contradiction to the Iggeres Hakodesh of the Ba’al Shem Tov where he writes that he spoke with the Messiah.
[3] See Aharon Wertheim, Halachos V’halichos B’Chasidus (Mossad Harav Kook, 2002), pp. 20-21 fn. 52
[4] See David Assaf, The Regal Way (Stanford University Press, 2002), pp. 257-261
[5] See Yehuda Leibes, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (State University of New York Press, 1993) p. 115
[6] See the hakdamah to Chumash Heichal Bracha (Lemberg 1864), "וגם דודי מורי החסיד השלם הצדיק אא"ק מוהר"ר משה הוא קרא אותי בפעם הראשון בשם מורה מורנו בפ'בהר וקרא לפני או דודו יגאלנו ואמר עשיתי אותך גואל ואמר זה באנפין נהרין.".  See Heichal Bracha on Leviticus 25:49 where he says that the verse is referring to Mashiach ben Yosef.  See also Megilas Starim (Jerusalem 1944) where he says he was born in the year משיח בן יוסף,  here.
[7] See Nochum Brandwein, Imrei Tov (1891) p.29a where he writes, "כמו ששמעתי מפי מרן הק'והטהור איש צדיק תמים שמו נאה לו מוהר"ר דוד משה שליט"א. וזאת ידוע כי "משה"עולה :"אלקים אחרים", כי בכוחו נמתק אלקים אחרים , "משה דוד"עולה: "שטן",כי בכוחו להמתיק את השטן מישראל, ואז נמשך גאולה לישראל, כי: "משיח"עם הכולל עולה: "משה דוד", ואז יקויים "ועינינו תראינה מלכותך"ע"י דוד משיח צדקך .  here.
[8] See Chaim Vital, Sefer Hachizyonos (Jerusalem, 2001) pp. 8, 17-18
[9] See Ohr Hachaim, Deuteronomy 15:7 at the end, here.
[10] See Isaiah Tishby, Messianic Mysticism (Littman Library, 2014) pp. 196-199
[11] See Yaakov Sapir, Iggeres Teiman Hasheni (Mainz, 1873)  here and Amram ibn Yachya Kerach, Sa’aras Teiman  (Jerusalem. 1954) pp.36-39 here.
[12] See ibid.
[14]  Though R’ Shalom Shachna of Lublin allegedly wrote on his gemara about the debate in Sanhedrin 98b over the name of the Messiah, "אני אומר שכנא שמו שנאמר לשכנו תדרשו", referring to Deuteronomy 12:5, See Reuven Margolyos, Margolyos Hayam, Sanhedrin 98b #14, it was probably from a disciple in jest.  See Asher Ziv, Rabbeinu Shalom Shachna Milublin, Hadarom No.57, p.119.
[15] His two volume halachic work, Shu”t Tzvi V’Chamid, was printed from a manuscript in 2008.
[16] Here is a picture of R’ Schwartz with his wife:



[17] Unfortunately, hebrewbooks.org doesn’t yet have the sefer online. You can still look at the first forty pages for free on Otzar Ha-Hochma online with this link, here, even if you don't have a subscription.
[18] Matzevat Kodesh (New York 1951) p.24 fn.57 here,  L’toldos Hareformatzian Hadatis B’Germania U’bungaria p.20 fn.40 here.
[19] L’koros Hayahadus B’trasylvania (New York) p.84
[20] Toldos Yisrael V’hispatchus Hachasidus B’Rusia H’Karpatis p.32
[21] (Kiryas Motzken, 1984) part 2 pp.68-71
[22] Shu”t Maharam Schick, Yoreh Deah #219,  here.  The published teshuva is written to an anonymous kehillah, though it is attributed to the town of Borşa.
[23] Toldos Sofrim (London, 1962) pp.37-38, here.  From Sofer’s letter we see how this was also part of the greater dispute between the Sanz and Sadigura chasidim, on this see David Assaf, Heitzitz V’Nifga Ch.19.
[24] Measef Ha’be-er year 7 p.42,  here.  I was very pleased when I first saw this letter. In it, Halberstamm argues that even an evil person that learns torah, his torah isn’t נמאסת, how more so then to a righteous person.  He brings a proof from the famous gemara in Chagiga 15b where a fire came down from heaven in front of Yehuda Hanasi to defend Elisha ben Avuya from disparagement.  I always made the same argument to fanatics who would say disparaging remarks about R’ Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
[25] Shu”t Shoel U’Meishiv Sheviah #16, also in Kerem Shlomo Tamuz 5743
[26] Tzfunos no.10 Teves 5751 p.118, here.
[27] See Toldos Kol Aryeh p.79 #122, here.

Dean of Historians of Jewish Philosophy: Necrology for Professor Arthur Hyman (1921-2017)

$
0
0
Dean of Historians of Jewish Philosophy:
Necrology for Professor Arthur Hyman (1921-2017).
By Warren Zev Harvey

Warren Zev Harvey is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where he has taught since 1977. He studied philosophy at Columbia University, writing his PhD dissertation under Arthur Hyman. He has written prolifically on medieval and modern Jewish philosophers, e.g. Maimonides, Crescas, and Spinoza. Among his publications is Physics and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas (1998). He is an EMET Prize laureate in the Humanities (2009).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.


Arthur Hyman, 1921-2017

 

Photo courtesy of Yeshiva University

Arthur (Aharon) Hyman was born on April 10, 1921 (2 Nisan 5681), in Schwäbisch Hall, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, the son of Isaac and Rosa (Weil) Hyman. In 1935, at the age of 14, three years before Kristallnacht, he immigrated with his family to the United States. He pursued undergraduate studies at St. John’s College, Annapolis, which had recently adopted its Great Books curriculum (B.A., 1944). He did graduate studies at Harvard University, studying there under the renowned historian of Jewish philosophy, Harry Austryn Wolfson (M.A., 1947; Ph.D., 1953). He concurrently studied rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary under the preeminent Talmudist, Saul Lieberman (ordination and M.H.L., 1955). He taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary (1950-1955), Dropsie College (1955-1961), and Columbia University (1956-1991). His main academic affiliation, however, was with Yeshiva University, where he taught from 1961 until last year, was Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy, and Dean of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies (1992-2008). He also held visiting positions at Yale University, the University of California at San Diego, the Catholic University of America, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Bar-Ilan University. I had the privilege of studying with him at Columbia University in the 1960s and early 1970s, and wrote my dissertation under his wise supervision. Among Hyman’s other doctoral students are David Geffen and Charles Manekin (at Columbia University), and Basil Herring and Shira Weiss (at Yeshiva University). Hyman received wide recognition for his scholarly accomplishments. He was granted honorary doctorates by the Jewish Theological Seminary (1987) and Hebrew Union College (1994). He served as president of both the Société Internationale pour l'Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale (1978-1980) and the American Academy for Jewish Research (1992-1996). He was married to Ruth Link-Salinger from 1951 until her death in 1998, and they had three sons: Jeremy Saul, Michael Samuel, and Joseph Isaiah. From 2000 until his death he was married to Batya Kahane. He died in New York City on February 8, 2017 (12 Shevat 5777).

Hyman was a scholar’s scholar. He was an outstanding historian of philosophy, thoroughly at home reading recondite philosophical texts in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German, French, or English. He masterfully taught classical, medieval, and modern philosophy. However, his great love and the main focus of his research was medieval Jewish philosophy. He is the author of more than fifty scholarly studies on diverse philosophical subjects. He was the editor, together with James J. Walsh, of the popular anthology of medieval philosophy, Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions (1967), a volume that did much to shape the study of medieval philosophy over the past four decades (a revised third edition appeared in 2010 with the collaboration of Thomas Williams). He edited and annotated the medieval Hebrew translation of Averroes’ Arabic treatise On the Substance of the Orbs(1986). He founded and edited the scholarly journal Maimonidean Studies (1989-), which became an important venue for interdisciplinary research on the Great Eagle. His book Eschatological Themes in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (2002) was his Aquinas Lecture, delivered at Marquette University. In addition, he wrote pioneering studies on Averroes, Maimonides, Spinoza, and other philosophers.

Hyman was staunchly committed to the teaching of Jewish philosophy asphilosophy. He was not interested in appropriating it as a means to foster Jewish identity or religiosity. Similarly, he was not enamored of academic approaches that put too much emphasis on “esotericism” or “the art of writing,” which, in his view, served to distract one from the hard nitty-gritty work of analyzing the philosophic arguments. Medieval philosophy, he argued, is an integral part of the history of philosophy, and Jewish philosophy is an integral part of medieval philosophy. Thus, medieval Jewish philosophy should be taught in departments of philosophy. Hyman, in practice, did teach medieval Jewish philosophy in philosophy departments at Yeshiva University, Columbia University, and elsewhere. He also believed that modern Jewish philosophy should be taught in philosophy departments, but was less unequivocal about it. He thought that it is difficult to discern a “continuous tradition” of modern Jewish philosophy, and elusive to define the philosophic problems and methods common to it. He often noted that in most universities modern Jewish philosophy is not taught in philosophy departments, but in departments of Jewish studies or religion.

Hyman and Walsh’s Philosophy in the Middle Agespresents medieval philosophy as a tradition common to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Of 769 pages (in the 2nd edition), 114 are devoted to Jewish philosophers (Saadiah, Ibn Gabirol, Maimonides, Gersonides, and Hasdai Crescas), 134 pages to Muslims, and the remainder to Christians. As a general textbook in medieval philosophy that included philosophers from all three Abrahamic religions, Philosophy in the Middle Ages was downright revolutionary.

In his essay “Medieval Jewish Philosophy as Philosophy, as Exegesis, and as Polemic,” published in 1998 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 26, pp. 245-256), Hyman observed that medieval Jewish philosophy was originally of interest to historians of philosophy only as “a kind of footnote to medieval Christian philosophy.” This situation, he continued, began to change in the 1930s with the work of scholars like Julius Guttmann, Leo Strauss, and Harry Austryn Wolfson, and later Alexander Altmann, Shlomo Pines, and Georges Vajda. Owing to their pioneering work, he concluded, “Jewish philosophy…has taken its rightful place as an integral part of the history of Western philosophy” and “[i]n universities in the United States it is now [in 1998] taught regularly in courses on medieval philosophy.” Hyman, always modest, did not add that the anthology he edited with Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle Ages, was in no small measure responsible for enabling Jewish and Islamic philosophy to enter the curricula of courses in medieval philosophy in universities throughout North America. Hyman was mild-mannered and courteous in his personal relations, but as a scholar he was a revolutionary who helped redefine the academic field of medieval philosophy.

Writing on “The Task of Jewish Philosophy” in 1962 (Judaism 11, pp. 199-205), Hyman bemoaned the alienation in the modern world: “though the means for communication have increased immensely, communication itself has all but become impossible.” He argued that the cause of this alienation was the loss of Reason. Jewish philosophy, he urged, has a role to play in “the rediscovery of Reason.” He defined its task as “the application of Reason to the interpretation of our Biblical and Rabbinic traditions.”

More than three decades later, in a 1994 essay, “What is Jewish Philosophy?” (Jewish Studies 34, pp. 9-12), Hyman sought to clarify who is a Jewish philosopher. “One minimal condition for being considered a Jewish philosopher,” he suggested, “is that a given thinker (a) must have some account of Judaism, be it religious or secular; and (b) must have some existential commitment to this account.” Given his requirement of “existential commitment,” he unhesitatingly excluded Spinoza, Marx, and Freud. A second condition for being considered a Jewish philosopher, according to him, is simply that a given thinker must be a philosopher; that is, his or her account of Judaism must be interpreted “by means of philosophic concepts and arguments rather than in aggadic, mystic, literary, or some other fashion.”

The notion of “existential commitment” provides a key that enables Hyman to distinguish the historian of Jewish philosophy from the Jewish philosopher, that is, the scholar from the thinker or practitioner. The Jewish philosopher has an existential commitment to a particular account of Judaism, while the historian of Jewish philosophy must analyze the various accounts of different Jewish philosophers, without preferring one account over another. The historian qua historian remains uncommitted existentially, that is, he or she remains impartial and objective. “It should be clear,” Hyman concludes, “that for the historian of Jewish philosophy there is not one, but a variety of Jewish philosophies.”

Although Hyman excluded Spinoza from the category of Jewish philosophers, he wrote two of the most important studies on his debt to medieval Jewish philosophy, namely, his “Spinoza’s Dogmas of Universal Faith in the Light of their Medieval Jewish Backgrounds” (1963) and his “Spinoza on Possibility and Contingency” (1998). In these essays, he showed how critical arguments in Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise and Ethics reflected arguments found in the Jewish and Muslim medieval philosophers, particularly Maimonides. In uncovering Spinoza’s covert debt to medieval philosophy, Hyman continued the line of research of his mentor, Wolfson. Hyman’s Spinoza was formatively influenced by Maimonides and other Jewish philosophers in his ethics, politics, and metaphysics, but he nonetheless was not a “Jewish philosopher” because he lacked an existential commitment to some account Judaism, whether religious or secular. Hyman’s insistence on an existential commitment is crucial. For a philosopher, according to him, to be considered a Jewish philosopher, it was not sufficient for him or her to be ethnically or culturally Jewish, or even to be well-educated in Jewish law and lore. An existential commitment was required.

In the introduction to the Jewish Philosophy section of Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Hyman gave a simple definition of medieval Jewish philosophy. “Medieval Jewish philosophy,” he wrote, “may be described as the explication of Jewish beliefs and practices by means of philosophical concepts and norms.” It is an explication, not a defense or apology. One might say that, according to Hyman, Jewish philosophy is a philosophic explication of a Jew’s existential commitment.

The medieval Jewish philosopher who stands in the center of Hyman’s research is Maimonides. He wrote important technical studies on Maimonides’ psychology, epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. He always emphasized the difficulties involved in understanding Maimonides. As he put it felicitously in his 1976 essay, “Interpreting Maimonides”: “[The] Guide of the Perplexed is a difficult and enigmatic work which many times perplexed the very reader it was supposed to guide” (Gesher 5, pp. 46-59). The only way to understand Maimonides, he insisted, is by carefully analyzing his philosophic arguments, and comparing them with those of the philosophers who influenced him, e.g., Aristotle, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Algazali. In Philosophy in the Middle Ages, he describes the purpose of the Guide of the Perplexed: “The proper subject of the Guide may…be said to be the philosophical exegesis of the Law.” Hyman quotes Maimonides’ statement that the goal of the book is to expound “the science of the Law in its true sense.” In other words, the purpose of the Guideis to give a philosophic account of Judaism. “Maimonides,” writes Hyman, “investigated how the Aristotelian teachings can be related to the beliefs and practices of Jewish tradition.” He sought, if you will, to explicate philosophically his existential commitments as a Jew.

Perhaps Hyman’s most well-known essay on Maimonides is his 1967 exposition of “Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles” (in A. Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, pp. 119-144). Presuming the unity of Maimonides’ thought, Hyman shows that the famous passage on the “Thirteen Principles” in his early Commentary on the Mishnah coheres well with his later discussions in his Book of the Commandments, Mishneh Torah, Guide of the Perplexed, and Letter on Resurrection. He rejects the view that the Thirteen Principles were intended as a polemic against Christianity and Islam, and also rejects the view that they were intended only for the non-philosophic masses. He argues for a “metaphysical” interpretation according to which the Thirteen Principles are intended to foster true knowledge among all Israelites, thus making immortality of the soul possible for them all, as it is written in the Mishnah, “All Israel has a place in the world-to-come” (Sanhedrin 10:1).

A word should be said here about Hyman’s excellent edition of the Hebrew translation of On the Substance of the Orbs, written by Averroes, the great 12th-century Muslim philosopher who was Maimonides’ fellow Cordovan and elder contemporary. Averroes’ book contains profound speculative investigations into the nature and matter of the heavens. It is lost in the original Arabic, but was extremely popular in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in its Hebrew and Latin translations, and several important commentaries were written on it by Jewish and Christian philosophers. Hyman offers a critical annotated edition of the anonymous medieval Hebrew translation accompanied by his own new English translation. His lucid English translation is based on the Hebrew translation but also uses the Latin translation. His erudite and instructive notes clarify the meaning of the text, and discuss the development of technical philosophic terms from Greek and Arabic to Hebrew and Latin.

In his eulogy for his revered teacher, Harry Austryn Wolfson, printed in the Jewish Book Annual 5736 (1975-1976), Hyman wrote as follows: “[He] showed himself the master of analysis who could bring to bear the whole range of the history of philosophy on his investigations. This scholarly erudition was combined with clarity of thought felicity of style, and conciseness of expression.” I think it would not be amiss if I now conclude my remarks by applying these very same words to Professor Arthur Hyman, my own revered teacher.

Yehi zikhro barukh

מי כעמך כישראל

$
0
0
מי כעמך כישראל                                 
איסר זלמן ווייסברג, לייקוואוד
מסופר[1]שבליל א'דר"ח חשון תשל"ט הי'הצייר החבד"י ר'ברוך נחשון שיחי'מקרית ארבע ביחידות אצל הרבי מליובאוויטש זצוק"ל ושאל אם יכול להראות להרבי את הציורים פרי מעשה ידיו שהביא עמו מארה"ק. הרבי נענה בחיוב. ולשם כך הכינו תערוכה מציוריו בבנין הצמוד ל770. ביום רביעי ו'כסלו הלך הרבי בלוויית מזכיריו לראות התערוכה. הרבי עיין בכל הציורים והעיר כו"כ הערות עליהם. כשניגש לציור בה מצוירים תפילין של הקב"ה ושל ישראל, ובתפילין של הקב"ה נכתב "ומי כעמך ישראל גו'"העיר הרבי: צריך להוסיף כאן "כ" [כישראל]. ישנם שני כתובים, אחד עם כ'ואחד בלא כ', ונוסח אדמו"ר הזקן עם כ'.




















פירוש:  
ציור הנ"ל מיוסד על הגמ'ברכות (ו, א):
אמר רבי אבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק: מנין שהקדוש ברוך הוא מניח תפילין .. אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב חייא בר אבין: הני תפילין דמרי עלמא מה כתיב בהו? אמר ליה: ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ.
והנה בשמואל (ב ז,כג) כתיב וּמִי כְעַמְּךָ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ גו'. ובדברי הימים (א יז, כא) כתיב: וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ גו'. ובתפילת מנחה של שבת בסידורי בני אשכנז[2]הנוסח הוא אַתָּה אֶחָד וְשִׁמְךָ אֶחָד וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ – בלי כ', כלשון הכתוב בדבה"י. אבל נוסח בעל התניא בסידורו הוא כל'הכתוב בשמואל  - כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[3]והוא נוסח עדות המזרח.
וכוונת הרבי היתה דמאחר שהאדמו"ר הזקן קבע דבתפילת מנחה דשבת הנוסח הוא כל'הכתוב בשמואל - כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לכן בציור של תפילין דמרי עלמא יש לחסידי חב"ד לתפוס נוסח הרב בסידורו.
ומתחילה לא הבנתי, דמה השייכות של נוסח הפיוט "אתה אחד"בתפילה של מנחה דשבת להסוגיא בברכות אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא?
ועוד, שבכל הדפוסים ורוב כת"י הידועים[4]הנוסח בש"ס הוא וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וכיון שהציור מיוסד על סוגיא זו לכאורה הנכון לתפוס לשון הש"ס כפי שעשה ר'ברוך הנ"ל.
וי"ל, דהנה בהמשך הש"ס שם איתא:
ומי משתבח קודשא בריך הוא בשבחייהו דישראל? - אין, דכתיב: את ה'האמרת היום (וכתיב) וה'האמירך היום (כי תבוא כו, יז-יח). אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל: אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם, ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם; אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם, שנאמר: שמע ישראל ה'אלקינו ה'אחד. ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם, שנאמר: ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ.
ובאבודרהם מבואר דנוסח העמידה של מנחה דשבת אמנם קשור לסוגיא זו, אלה דבריו:
אתה אחד ושמך אחד. לפי שבשחרית של שבת ניתנה התורה והתפללנו ישמח משה שהוא מדבר במתן תורה תקנו לומר במנחה אתה אחד -
כלומר: כשם שאתה אחד ואין כמוך, כמו כן מי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד, שהם לבדם רצו לקבל תורתך ולא האומות[5].
והיינו דדרשינן בפרקא קמא דברכות (ו, א) וחגיגה (ג, א) את ה'האמרת היום וה'האמירך היום. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם וכו'.
ומאחר דנוסח "אתה אחד.."משתייך להמימרא המובא בש"ס בברכות בהמשך ובהקשר להמאמר אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא, מסתבר שנוסח העמידה מתאים לנוסח הש"ס, וא"כ לפי אדמו"ר הזקן נוסח הש"ס, הן בהמאמר אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא, והן בהמאמר הבא בהמשכו - "אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם.."– לכאורה צריך להיות: כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[6].
ואמנם הקטע "את ה'האמרת היום.."מובא בחגיגה בשם רבי אלעזר בן עזרי', ושם הנוסח בכת"י מינכן[7]הוא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[8].
וחפשתי ג"כ ברוב דפוסים הקדומים של האבודרהם[9], ובכולם הנוסח -כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[10]. 
עכ"פ מצאנו הסבר להערת הרבי לר'ברוך נחשון שיחי'. וכבר אמרו רבותינו (סוכה כא, ב): אפי'שיחת תלמידי חכמים צריכה לימוד שנאמר (תהלים א, ג) ועלהו לא יבול.
אגב, דבר מעניין מובא בס'"הרב" (נערך ע"י הרב נחום גרינוואלד, תשע"ה) ע'מז מספר "זכות אבות"ע"מ אבות מהרב מנחם נתן נטע אויערבאך (ירושלים, תרנד), והוא שמועה בשם אדמו"ר הזקן שהטעם שהעדיף נוסח כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[11]הוא מפני שאסור לקרות בכתובים בשבת בשעת בית המדרש (גזירה משום ביטול בית המדרש שלא יהיה כל אחד יושב בביתו וקורא וימנע מבית המדרש -רמב"ם שבת כג, יט משבת קטז, ב). ולכן הביא הנוסח מספר שמואל (כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל), ולא הנוסח מדברי הימים (יִשְׂרָאֵל).
יחוס דברים אלה לאדה"ז רחוקה מכמה טעמים. אבל כפי אשר העיר הרנ"ג שם, ביאור זהה אבל ביחס לתפילה אחרת נמצא בשו"ת צפנת פענח דווינסק ח"ב ס"ה.
בסוף ברכת המזון בקטע מִגְדּוֹל | מַגְדִּיל יְשׁוּעוֹת מַלְכּוֹ כ'האבודרהם שיש לו מסורה מרבותיו דיש שינוי נוסח בין שבת לחול – דבחול אומרים מַגְדִּיל ובשבת מִגְדּוֹל. נוסח מִגְדּוֹל הוא (הקרי) בנביאים (שמואל ב כב, נא), ונוסח מַגְדִּיל בכתובים (תהלים פרק יח, נא). האבודהם נותן טעמים בדבר ודבריו מובאים במג"א סי'קפז ומשם לשו"ע הרב וכו'. וכן נתפשט בכל תפוצות ישראל[12].
והרוגצ'ובי כ'דטעמא שאין אומרים מַגְדִּיל בשבת הוא משום שאין קוראין בכתובים בשבת[13].
והנה האיסור לקרות בכתובים בשבת הוא רק בשעת בית המדרש כדאי'בשבת שם, ולפרש"י היינו קודם סעודת היום, וא"כ לא שייכא לברכת המזון או לתפילת מנחה.
אלא שדברי הצ"פ יתכנו לשי'הרמב"ם (שם פ"ל ה"י) שכנראה סובר דזמן בית המדרש היינו אחר הסעודה עד מנחה, ועד"ז בשיטה להר"ן שם[14].
אלא שדברי הצ"פ צ"ע מטעם אחר, כי בגמ'שם מובא הברייתא (מתוספתא שם פי"ג  ה"א): "אף על פי שאמרו כתבי הקדש אין קורין בהן - אבל שונין בהן ודורשין בהן, נצרך לפסוק - מביא ורואה בו", דהיינו שמותר לצטט פסוקים מכתובים מתוך דרשה וכיו"ב. וא"כ רחוק שנזהר המחבר של "מגדיל ישועות מלכו"שלא להכליל תיבות אחדות מכתובים מובלעות בתוך פיוט.


ציור מברוך נחשון שיחי'שנת תשע"ו
באתר
nachshonart.com

אכן הפי'המובא בספר "זכות אבות"הנ"ל בשייכות לתפילת "אתה אחד"של מנחה דשבת, הוא ודאי דלא כמאן. דלכל הראשונים זמן "בית המדרש"כלה קודם מנחה[15]. ואדרבה בגמ'שם מובא שבנהרדעא היו רגילים לקרא בבית המדרש פרשה בכתובים בזמן מנחה.





[1]יומן של הר'מיכאל אהרן זליגסון (הידוע בדייקנות) באתר  yomanim.com(משם נעתק בסו"ס שיחות קודש [החדש] חלק נ', תשס"ג – בלי ציון מקורו).
[2]כ"ה בסידור רס"ג ובנוסח הרמב"ם, וכ"ה מנהג בני אשכנז (מחזור ויטרי, רוקח, סידור פראג רע"ט).
[3]כ"ה בסידור רע"ג והוא כמנהג הספרדים. וכ"ה בסידור ספרד רפ"ד (הוא הסידור שהרח"ו בחר לקבוע עליו שינוי נוסחות האריז"ל), בנגיד ומצוה להר"י צמח (ירושלים תשכ"ה ע'קלב, ובהגהה בשמו בפע"ח שער השבת פכ"ג) ובסידור האר"י (ר'שבתי מראשקוב, ר'אשר).בבן איש חי (שנה ב פ'חיי שרה) כ'דכ"ה העיקר, וכ"ה להדיא בעצם כתי"ק של הרח"ו שער א דף קו, ב. (כל אלה המ"מ לקחתי מספר "תפילת חיים", מר'דניאל רימר, תשס"ד, ע'קצז הערה רב). וכ"ה בסי'אור הישר להר"מ פאפריש, וכן קבע הגאון בעל מנחת אלעזר בסידורו.
בסדור היעב"ץ (אשכול תשנ"ג) כתוב בפנים בלא כ', אבל בהפירוש עם כ' (ומציין לשמואל ב)?!
[4]כמובא בפרויקט פרידברג לשינויי נוסחאות בתלמוד הבבלי - 'הכי גרסינן'באתר jewishmanuscripts.org. [רק בכת"י אחד (קטע מהגניזה) הגירסא "כישראל"].
[5]קדמו בזה בפי'ר"י בר יקר. פי'אחר בשייכות תפילה זו לשבת בתוס'חגיגה ג,ב ע"פ מדרש "ג'מעידין זה על זה הקדוש ברוך הוא ישראל ושבת...". מובא גם בס'הפרדס לרש"י ע'שיד, בשבלי הלקט סקכ"ו, ובטור סרצ"ב.
[6]אין לנו ידיעות ברורות מתי נתקן הנוסח "אתה אחד.."ובזמן הגאונים עדיין לא נתפשט בכל תפוצות ישראל, כי הן רע"ג והן רס"ג הביאו די"א נוסח אחר ("הָנַח לנו.."– וברע"ג דהוא העיקר) ולא "אתה אחד". ובמבוא לבעל סידור עבודת הלב הנכלל בסדור "אוצר התפלות"כתב שנוסח כל תפילות שבת, ר"ח ומועדים נוסדו בימי חכמי המשנה והתלמוד זמן רב אחרי אנשי כנה"ג.
בס'יסודות התפילה לר'אליעזר לוי (ת"א תשי"ב) משאר שמימות עזרא עד זמן חז"ל התפללו י"ח בשבת עד שבטלו י"ב האמצעיות, כי בש"ס (ברכות כא, א) איתא "כי הוינן בי רבה בר אבוה, בען מיניה, הני בני בי רב דטעו ומדכרי דחול בשבת, מהו שיגמרו? ואמר לן: גומרין כל אותה ברכה", והטעם משום ד"גברא בר חיובא הוא, ורבנן הוא דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת*", משמע דמתחילה נתקן לברך י"ח כל ימות השנה כולל שבת ויו"ט, דאם לאו הכי למה הוא בר חיובא, מי חייב אותו? ובירושלמי (ברכות ד, ד, ופ"ה ה"ב) מצינו דרבי אמר "תמיה אני היאך בטלו חונן הדעת בשבת אם אין דיעה מניין תפילה", ולכן ס"ל להירושלמי דלענין ברכת חונן הדעת בודאי צריך לגומרו בשבת**. ואיך תמא רבי "האיך בטלו"אם מעולם לא תקנו אמירתו בשבת?
ואחר שבטלו י"ב האמצעות יסדו לומר שלש ראשונות ושלש אחרונות וקדושת השבת באמצע (משנה ר"ה ד, ה. תוספתא ברכות ג, יד). אבל נוסח ברכה האמצעית הי'שווה בכל ג'תפילות דשבת, ואולי התחיל רק מ"קדשינו במצותך" (ראה פסחים קיז, ב). ובזמן האמוראים או (יותר מסתבר בזמן) הגאונים נתחבר נוסחאות השונות הנוספות לכל אחת מתפילות של שבת קודם סיום ברכה האמצעית.
עכ"פ לא רחוק שהנוסח "אתה אחד"אמנם מיוסד על מאמרו של ראב"ע המובא בחגיגה.
ואפי'אי נימא שאין דברי רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מקורושל נוסח התפילה, מ"מ כיון שהיא מבטא אותו הרעיון, יש מקום לומר שאותו הסיבה שנבחר הנוסח כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל ע"י מחבר הנוסח "אתה אחד", כחה יפה גם ביחס לנוסח המימרא של ראב"ע.
*) בכמה ראשונים כתבו הטעם משום איסור שאילת צרכיו בשבת. ראה רמב"ם פאר הדור סק"ל. מחזור ויטרי סק"מ. ספר הפרדס לרש"י ע'שטז. שבה"ל סקכ"ח. (וראה בזה ב"קונטרס בקשות בשבת"להרב יעקב זאב פישר, תשס"ה, ע'מא איך להתאים שיטתם עם המפו'בש"ס דהוא משום דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת. ובביאור הגר"א סצ"ד סק"א דבאמת כ"ה לדעת החכמים בש"ס דילן ברכות לג, א בטעמא דאמרינן הבדלה בחונן הדעת.וראה גם "הסידור – מבנה ונוסח סידורו של.. בעל התניא", היכל מנחם תשס"ג, מאמרו של הרב גדלי'אבערלאנדער בענין בקשת צרכיו בשבת ע'שצז).
**) ברא"ש ברכות (פ"ג סי"ז) הביא מרבי אשר מלוניל דפסק כן להלכה דדוקא בברכת אתה חונן גומר הברכה, ותמא עליו דהוא נגד ש"ס דילן. וראה ב"ח סרס"ח ביאור שיטתו.
[7]וכן בעוד ב'כת"י: כתב-יד הספריה הבריטית 400, כתב-יד גטינגן 3 (כמובא בפרויקט פרידברג הנ"ל הערה 4).
[8]וכ"ה הנוסח במאמר זה המובא במדבר רבה נשא פי"ד(דפוס וילנא, וכ"ה במהדורת יבנה).אבל בילקוט (ואתחנן רמז תתכה, וישעי'רמזים תקו ותסז) הנוסח בלא כ'.
[9]דפו"ראשבונה (ליסבון) ר"נ 1490, קונטשטינא רעג 1513, ויניציאה שכו 1556, אמשטרדם תפו 1726, פראג תקמד 1784.
בדפוס ווארשא תרלח 1878 הוא בלי כ'. וכ"ה במהדורה הנד'בירושלים תשכ"ג ע"י ר'שמואל קרויזר. בפרוייקט בר-אילן כותבים על מהדורה זו שיש בו "תיקונים רבים על-פי הדפוסים הראשונים וכתבי יד", ובשער הספר כתוב "מתוקנת ע"פ דפוס ראשון"אבל במבוא הספר כתב שהשתמש בדפוס ווילנא ובכת"י אחד (של הר"ש שרעבי) ולא הזכיר שום דפוס או כת"י אחר. עד"ז במהדורת אבן ישראל "השלם והמנוקד"ירושלים תשנ"ה – ג"כ בלי כ'.בשער מהדורה זו כתוב "מוגהת ומתוקנת עפ"י דפוסים ראשונים וכת"י נדירים" - אך לא טרח להודיענו באיזה דפוסים וכת"י השתמש. ה"דיוק"בשתי מהדורות האלו נראית בעליל. דאם כי בשתיהן מופיע התיבה הנידונית בלי כ', אעפ"כ ציינו לשמואל ב, ולא לדברי הימים.
[10] וכן בדרשות הר"ןדרוש השביעי ד"ה והנה גרס בגמ'חגיגה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (כ"ה במהדורה המדויקת של מוסד הרב קוק תשס"ט, ע"פ ד'כת"י, דלא כבדפוסים הישנים).
[11]לכאורה אין בחירת לשון הכתוב בנביאים הקודמת לכתובים, הן בכתיבתו (ספר שמואל נכתב על ידו, ודברי הימים ע"י עזרא – ב"ב יד,ב - טו,א) והן בסידורו - צריכה הצדקה. לאידך, כיון שה"כ"של כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הוא רק סגנונית, (מתאים לסגנון אותו הפרק "לעבדי לדוד" [פסוק ח], לעמי לישראל [פסוק י] – כדהעיר בפי'"דעת מקרא"), אולי בחר הפייטן נוסח המתאמת יותר לסגנון הפיוט.
[12]ידוע הצעת בעל ת"ת בספרו ברוך שאמר על הסידור (ע'רטו)שהדבר נשתלשל בטעות, דמתחילה הנוסח הי'מַגְדִּיל, ואחד רשם בכת"י על הצד (להודעה בעלמא) "בשב'מִגְדּוֹל", ור"ל דבשמואל ב'הנוסח הוא מִגְדּוֹל. והמעתק מכת"י ההוא טעה בכוונת הדברים, ופיענח "בשבת מִגְדּוֹל". ומשם נעתק מכת"י לכת"י עד שבא בדפוס. ולבד הקושי להניח שטעותו של מעתיק אחד יתפשט עד כדי שיתקבל בכל תפוצות ישראל - אשכנזים, ספדרים, פוסקים ומקובלים וכו'מבלי מערר - כבר העירו שחלוקת שמואל לב'ספרים (שנעשית ע"י הגמון נוצרי) כנראה לא הי'נפוץ בתפוצות ישראל עד כמאתיים שנה אחרי האבודרהם כאשר בשנת רפ"ו הוציא המדפיס דניאל בומברג את התנ"ך (מקראות גדולות, ויניציאה) עפ"י חלוקת הספרים והפרקים של הנוצרים. [ראה הנסמן בויקיפדי'ערך "חלוקת הפרקים בתנ"ך"].
[13]כרך זה של שו"ת צ"פ יצא לאור רק בשנת תש"א, לכן אין מקום להציע שהדברים ששמע הרב אוירבאך הנ"ל (והדפיסם בספרו בשנת תרנ"ד), מקורם מהרוגוצ'ובר אלא שנתחלף זהותו של בעל המימרא בין חסיד חב"ד (כי הצ"פ נמנה בין חסידי חב"ד, ושימש כמרא דאתרא לעדת חסידי חב"ד-קאפוסט בדווינסק), לבין אדמו"ר הזקן מיסד תורת ושלשלת חב"ד.
ולהעיר שמחבר ס'"זכות אבות"בהגהה שם כתב מעצמו ביאור זה לשינוי מַגְדִּיל | מִגְדּוֹל. ובספר מקור התפילות מאת הרב בנימין פרידמן (י"ל לראשונה ע"י המחבר במישקאלץ [הונגרי'] תרצ"ה, ושוב ע"י בן המחבר בבני ברק תשל"ג) מביא הדברים בשם אביו של רבי ישעיה פיק ברלין [רבי יהודה לייב המכונה ר'לייב מוכיח]. וממשיך להביא ביאור יפה משלו.
[14]וברבינו חננאל שם משמע דאין בזה זמן קבוע, ותלוי במציאות באותו מקום מתי לומדים בבית המדרש.
[15]בדוחק י"ל שמסדר נוסח "אתה אחד"אזיל בשי'ר'נחמי'המובא בברייתא שם שאין קורין בכתובים כל היום, וחולק על סתם משנה שנאסר רק משום "ביטול בית המדרש".

New book announcement; He-Gedolim

$
0
0
New book announcement; He-Gedolim
By Eliezer Brodt
הגדולים: אישים שעיצבו את פני היהדות החרדית בישראל, בעריכת בנימין בראון, נסים ליאון, קובץ מאמרים לכבוד פרופ'מנחם פרידמן ובהשראתו, מגנס מכון ון ליר, 958 עמודים




For the most part academic books are not found or read in regular "layman" or Chareidi circles, nor can one purchase them in most seforim stores. From time to time a volume emerges from the world of academia that captivates and makes waves among various crowds of regular people. An example would be some of the works of Professor Dovid Assaf (here) which many Chassdim were fascinated to read. Another such book was the work of Professor Benny Brown on the Chazon Ish, which the Yeshiva world was very curious to read. When this volume (see here) came out a few years back, over 1000 copies were sold in a period of two weeks. That may well be the record for an academic book (in Hebrew) selling in such a short amount of time. There were advertisements in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak stating that this work is a must have for a Jewish home. Until today it's unknown who put up the signs. Of course within a few months various attacks were written about the book, as mentioned here.

This new volume, hot off the press from Magnes and Van Leer, promises to be another such volume. It contains thirty chapters about the Gedolim. There are articles devoted to the Gedolim of the Yeshivah, Chassidic and Sefardi world, many of which have never really been properly discussed in academia. 

Just to give a plug to the Ceforim Blog – it is quoted three times, (I even made it into a footnote; this is my second "Footnote"– of prominence in academic literature similar to the movie The Footnote :-) ) and Professor Marc Shapiro has an essay in the volume. I am sure some of these essays will be the starting point of much further research and discussion of these Gedolim.

Of course the immediate reaction of many when they look through the table of contents is: "why isn't so and so there?" and "what is the exact criteria to 'get in' to the volume?". The editors anticipated these issues and others, and deal with it in the introduction (PDF available upon request, see my email address below).

The volume is dedicated to Professor Menachem Friedman, who is one of the "founders" of the academic research of the Charedi world.

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work.














































The book can be purchased via Magnes Press or through me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Part of the proceedswill be going to help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

Copies of this work will be arriving at Biegeleisen shortly.

Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

$
0
0
Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew
By Chaim Sunitsky

Rashi[1] on Parshat Tetzave writes that the priests were anointed with oil, poured in the shape of the Greek letter כי.[2] One would assume this is referring to letter Χ[3]– 22ndletter of the Greek alphabet which sounds somewhere between English K and H[4]. This letter spelled χῖ in Greek, is usually spelled “Chi” in English and indeed if one wanted to write it in Hebrew, he would probably transcribe it as כי(where Chaf is intended without dagesh). Moreover[5], when Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek, Chi is used for Hebrew Chaf. In addition, if the Talmud meant this letter it becomes clear why it didn’t use an example of any Hebrew letter, as this shape is not found in Ashuri script of Hebrew.

Despite all this evidence we find various other shapes offered by the Rishonim[6]. In fact in our printed editions of the Gemora only in Rashi on Kritot (5b) the printed illustration looks like an “X.” Some of Rambam’s editions (Kelei Hamikdash 1:9) also printed this shape, but the Frankel edition of Rambam[7]claims that neither Rashi nor Rambam had this shape in mind and it was changed later by some publishers[8]. Still, one is inclined to think that the correct explanation is that it is the letter X, and most Rishonim simply didn’t know Greek or have access to find out, and the correct tradition regarding the shape of “Greek Chi” was forgotten, despite the fact that it pertains to many halachot[9].

Before we go on, I’d like to make another interesting point: Greek X has the same shape as the last letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. Let us first examine the relationship of Greek letters to Phoenician[10] and Paleo-Hebrew[11]. R. Shaul Lieberman[12]brings a very interesting idea with regards to the letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. We find in Yehezkel (9:4) that Tav was marked on the foreheads of people to distinguish the righteous from the wicked who were sentenced to death. According to Hazal (Shabbat 55a) the mark was the actual letter Tav. As we mentioned this letter in Paleo-Hebrew looked like the Greek Chi (X)[13] and indeed became symbolic for a number of reasons[14]. R. Lieberman brings that the X shape was used for crossing out a debt and was therefore represented an annulment of a bad decree. On the other hand, Tav was pronounced similarly to Greek Theta, whose shape was also associated with a death sentence[15]. We thus have a double association of Tav (X) with Theta and with Chi. (Note in general that while most letters in Greek alphabet clearly come from respective[16] letters in Phoenician[17], there are a few Greek letters, where it’s not certain which Phoenician letter they correspond to and the Greek X is one of them[18].)

R. Lieberman further proposes that originally the symbol of X written in blood was taken to mean forgiveness (crossing out the decree) while X in ink was symbolic of death sentence (verdict written in ink). However, since X has a shape similar to a cross, the early Christians started to utilize cross in blood as symbolic of atonement, and therefore our sages reversed that symbolism[19].

Coming back to the shape of “Greek Chi,” it seems logical that the Hazal’s tradition is based on an earlier tradition that the shape was that of letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew[20]– the last letter of the alphabet. It’s also possible that there was some connection between the “sign” on the forehead in Yehezkel and the anointing of a High Priest. Though the correct shape of this letter became subject to multiple disputes over time, we may now be able to restore its ancient symbolism[21].


[1] On verse 29:7 based on the Talmud (Kritot 5b, Horayot 12a). He also brings the same shape in verse 29:2 in regards to the way oil was poured on the meal offerings.
[2] In some places instead of Chi Yevanit there are versions that say Chaf Yevanit, but the preferred girsa is Chi. While it is possible if the original version had Chi, some copyists changed it to familiar Chaf, but if the original was Chaf, why would someone change it to Chi? It is also possible that the Hazal themselves sometimes used an expression Chaf Yevanit and sometimes Chi Yevanit.
[3] See additions to Aruch by R. Benjamin Mussafia (Erech כי יונית) and Tiferet Yisrael on Menachot 6:3 and after the last Mishna in the 10th perek of Zevachim.
[4] The Russian letter Х (kha) also comes from it, and it is usually transliterated as kh into English (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev).
[5] We will discuss this in the 17th footnote below. Similarly for those Greek words that made it into rabbinical Hebrew, כis generally used for χ (e.g. אוכלוסא– populace – όχλος). However there are some exclusions, as קנקנתוס (or קנקנתום) has the first letter χ in Greek but for some reason is not spelled with כ but with ק.  
[6] See Rabeinu Gershom on Kritot 5b and Menachot 74b, Rashi (ktav yad) on Menachot 74b and Kritot 5b, Tosafot Menachot 75a, Rashi on Shemot 29:2, Rambam, Perush Hamishna Menachot 6:3, Rash and Rosh on Mishna Kelim 20:7, Meiri, Horayot 12a.
[7] In the end of Frankel’s edition they have a section where variant girsaot are brought.
[8] At least one of the “corrections” is based on “Mesoret Hashas” in Horayot 12a, but Frankel’s Rambam points out that Rashi’s explanation on the Gemora actually contradicts this shape. Indeed Rashi writes different explanations in various places and the shapes in our editions include that of Hebrew Chet (Horayot) and Tet (Menachot) and Nun (Torah commentary to Shemot, but Tosafot quote him as mentioning the shape of a Gimel there, see also the super-commentaries on Rashi, Shemot 29:2 and the English Artscroll where all the variant shapes of Rashi are explained). Tosafot (ibid) also mentions Kaf and that is the shape in some editions of Rambam. They also seem to understand Aruch to mean a shape like ^ (similar to a Greek Lambda). These shapes are reasonably similar, they all contain a type of semicircle (כ,ט,נ) with possibly a sharp angle (^) or two angles (ח), see Tzeda Laderech super commentary on Rashi ibid. None of these shapes look even remotely similar to X. (Note also that Lekach Tov on Shemot 29 apparently has a shape of Kappa, but I didn’t find anyone who agrees with this).
[9] See for instance Menachot 74b-75a regarding pouring oil on certain types meal-offerings; also this crisscross shape seems to be mentioned in Kelim 20:7, see TIferet Yisrael there. We find another shape based on the Greek Gamma used in various halachot (e.g. Kelim 28:7, Pesachim 8b, Baba Batra 62a, Zevachim 53b and many other places) which was preserved quite well (see commentators to these sugias).
[10] This is ancient Canaanite script very close to Paleo-Hebrew. Note that Ramban (Bereshit 45:12) and Ibn Ezra (Yeshayahu 19:18, see also his perush hakatzar to Shemot 21:2) knew that Canaanites spoke the Hebrew language, (though Hazal also thought that Hebrew was a somehow unique Holy Tongue used only by Avraham and his descendants, see for instance Sotah 36b).
[11] This ancient Canaanite Hebrew script is called Ktav Ivri, see Sanhedrin 21b. In times of Rishonim the shape of Ktav Ivri letters was not too well known (see Haara Nosefet printed in the end of Ramban’s Torah commentary, how when he was shown an ancient coin with Ktav Ivri he had to ask a Samaritan to read it for him). Still these letters apparently did retain some influence in certain communities. Some Yemenite Jews actually make Shin-Dalet-Yod with Tefillin straps on their hands in Ktav Ivri, not like the prevalent custom to make a Shin and Dalet in Ashuri script. R. Reuven Margolios proposed that our “four-headed” Shin on the left side of Tefillin Shel Rosh is actually based on the Shin in Ktav Ivri (which looks similar to English “W”).
[12]“Greek in Jewish Palestine”, pages 185-191.
[13] And interestingly both are the 22nd letters of their respective alphabets. 
[14] Besides being the last letter of the alphabet this letter is taken by Hazal to stand for life or death (Shabbat 55a), but the primary reason for its symbolism according to R. Lieberman is its shape.
[15] This tradition was also preserved in R. Bahye to Yitro (20:14) who discusses why there is no letter Tet in the 10 commandments and associates Tet and Theta with death: כי לשון טיט"א סימן הריגה, see also comments of R. Chavel ad loc. in the name of Emuna Vibitachon.
[16] On an unrelated topic I’d like to mention that R. Reuven Margolios (HaMikra Vehamesora, 22) wanted to prove, based on the shape of Paleo-Hebrew letters, that the so called Arabic numbers (that are assumed to have come from India) were actually invented by Jews. I find this theory far-fetched. If one looks at the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet only Bet, Dalet and Het seem to look like 2, 4 and 8 and moreover the shape of the “Arabic numerals” changed drastically over time and in the times “the Jews” could have possibly invented them, they didn’t look similar to the way we write them today. As for his other proofs that sometimes we find gematrias of numbers used together with the position of the digits as for example in Midrash (see Theodor Albeck edition of Bereshit Rabbah, 96) about the number of animals Yakov had: קבזר: מאה ותרתין רבוון ושבעה אלפין ומאתיין(1027200) that uses קב(102) then ז (7) and thenר  (200), at most this shows that for very large numbers they already started using some letters to indicate thousands and ten-thousands (רבבות) separately. Similarly we write for year 5776: תשעוה, but this is a far stretch from system developed in India where the value of each digit depends on its position. Indeed the Rishonim that R. Margolius himself mentions all attribute this to Indian system. (As a side point, just to illustrate the advantage of current mathematics symbols, look at the Rif on Pesachim, 23b, where he calculates the reviit in terms of cubic fingers. In current notation, his calculations taking half a page, would take one line: 3*243/(40*6*4*4)=10.8=2*2*2.7.) 
[17] Many of them look like Phoenician letters, except they are inverted vertically, since in Greek the writing is from left to right.
[18] Certainly this letter can’t come from Tav since it is pronounced completely differently. Note that the issue of correspondence between Greek and Phoenician letters is not related to the issue of how various Hebrew letters were transliterated in the Septuagint and other Greek translations of Hebrew writings. By the time these translations were made, the pronunciation of many letters changed both in Hebrew and in Greek. For example, Theta is usually used to transliterate Tav, and Tau to transliterate Tet, while their origins are the opposite: Tau came from Tav, and Theta from Tet, as their names and shapes indicate. Perhaps by the time of Septuagint the Tav without dagesh was pronounced in some areas closer to English “th” and so was Theta, and that’s why the translators chose to use Theta for Tav. Similarly, Mitchell First in an article “The Meaning of the Name ‘Maccabee,’ ” (available on this blog here), writes that Kuf is usually transliterated as Kappa and Kaf-Chaf as Chi, even though originally the Greek letter Kappa came from Kaf-Chaf. The reason for this might be similar, at the time of these translations, the pronunciation of Chaf and Chi was similar, while Kuf sounded like Kappa. (Other examples of this include Samech that is transliterated as Sigma, not as Xi which originally came from it, but sounded at the times of Septuagint like English X=KS, not S; similarly in Greek words used by Hazal, Sigma is transliterated not as Sin from which it came but as a Samech, possibly because at that time Sin and Samech were pronounced the same but since Sin is written as Shin, Samech was chosen to make it clear the sound is S, not Sh.)
[19] See the above-mentioned sugia in Shabbat 55a. We find occasionally that the sages had to change the explanation “keneged haminim,” see for example Sanhedrin 31b, see also Berachot 59a, 12a.
[20] It’s not surprising that they used a Greek letter rather than not well known Paleo-Hebrew. Moreover they sometimes used Greek letters instead of Ashuri, see Shekalim 3:2.
[21] It might be possible to suggest that in medieval times this shape was purposefully misrepresented, especially when dealing with the way anointing is performed. The associations regarding Messiah, “the anointed one,” with anointing an X on the High Priest’s head would certainly make many Jews living in Christian lands recoil. Later on, this may have influenced the Jews living in Muslim lands. Interestingly the Frankel edition of Rambam and R. Kapach (in his edition of Rambam’s Mishna commentary) bring that in the manuscript attributed to Rambam’s own writing (Kritot), the picture of Chi was blotted out.

Churches, Ronald McDonald, and More

$
0
0
Churches, Ronald McDonald, and More

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In a recent post I mentioned R. Leon Modena, so let me note the following. In my article on entering churches,[1] available here, I mention that R. Modena entered churches to hear the sermons. I also quote R. Eliezer Waldenberg’s description of R. Modena as an איש הפכפך. Only after my article appeared did I find that R. Solomon Scheinfeld uses similar language in describing R. Modena[2]:
הוא היה גדול בתורה וחכמת העולם, היה גאון בטבעו, אבל כדרך הרבה גאונים שהם קרובים לפעמים אל השגעון, היה הפכפך, איש זר בכל דרכי חייו, איש שאין בו נכונה, אמונה וכפירה התרוצצו בו.
R. Scheinfeld’s point about some great Torah scholars (he actually says “many geonim”), that often they have, let’s call it “unusual” characteristics (R. Scheinfeld actually uses a different term), is certainly worthy of note. I first heard this almost thirty years ago from the late R. Herschel Cohen of West Orange, N.J., who in his youth had studied under R. Judah Leib Chasman. As a young man I used to visit him, and one day he showed me a certain sefer. He very much enjoyed the book, but also commented that the author was a “meshugena.” I replied: “But he is a gaon,” and R. Cohen shot back: “There is often a very fine line between a gaon and a meshugena.”[3] In this regard, I would add that R. Moshe Feinstein was wary of geniuses, commenting that אין לנו הרבה נחת מהעילוים.[4]

Regarding R. Modena, it is also worth noting that R. Mordechai Spielman, who knew exactly who R. Modena was, refers to him as הגאון ר'יהודה ארי'ממודינא ז"ל. This reference comes from R. Spielman’s Tiferet Tzvi, vol. 6, p. 99. I don’t know how many readers are aware of this significant work on the Zohar, and it is unfortunate that it is not found on either hebrewbooks.org or Otzar ha-Hokhmah. In fact, Tiferet Tzvi is one of the most important works of Torah scholarship not to be found on either of these two sites.

Regarding going into churches to hear sermons, it appears that this is mentioned by R. Isaac Arama. At the beginning of his introduction to Akedat Yitzhak, in speaking of Christian preachers speaking to the population, he writes:
ובני ישראל באו בתוך הבאים ושמעו אמריהם כי נעמו נתאוו להם להרים דגל כמותם. אומרים אמור היו יהיה חכמיהם ומביניהם שואלים ודורשים במדרשיהם ובבתי תפלתם ונתנם טעם לשבח על התורה ועל הנביאיםם  ככל חכמי הגוים לאומותם. 
In Hazut Kashah, beginning of sha’ar 4, he writes:
חכם אחד מחכמי הגוים בתוך דבריו אשר דבר במקהלות עם רב ובאזני קצת גוברין יהודאין אשר קרא לנו לשמוע מפיו דבר כמנהגם.
In the introduction to his edition of Akedat Yitzhak, note 6, R. Hayyim Joseph Pollak, suggests that R. Arama is referring to sermons that Jews were forced to attend, but in the first source this doesn’t seem to be what he is referring to.

Returning to my article on entering churches, I am honored that Rabbi J. David Bleich used some of the sources I collected and mentioned a couple of my comments in his own article on the topic that appeared in Tradition 44:2 (2011), pp. 73-101 (available here, and it has also just appeared in Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 7).[5] I now have some additional sources to add. With regard to R. Modena, in my article I neglected to refer to his autobiography where he also describes being present for a sermon in the San Geremia church in Venice, which is very close to the Jewish ghetto.[6]

In my listing of those rabbis known to have entered churches,[7] I referred to R. Jacob Meir, who served as Rishon le-Tziyon. Unfortunately, one word (בכנסיה) was mistakenly omitted from the quotation, and readers might therefore have wondered why I assumed that R. Meir entered the church. Here is the full quotation, with the crucial word underlined. It comes from Gad Frumkin, Derekh Shofet bi-Yerushalayim (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 294:
באותו זמן, נתתי דעתי בתחום אחר לגמרי, והוא למצוא ביטוי חגיגי ברוח לאומית לרגש אשר עטף אותנו לרגל שחרור ירושלים מעול העותומני, כצעד ראשון לגאולה השלימה. סיר רונלד סטורס, כמושל ירושלים, הנהיג לחוג ברוב פאר שנה שנה את יום כניסת צבאות אלנבי לירושלים, בתשיעי לדצמבר. בבוקר היו מתפללים לכבוד היום הזה בכנסית סט. ג'ורג', ולאחר הצהריים היה מקבל אורחים בביתו. גם היהודים השתתפו בטכס בכנסיה ובין הבאים היה הרב יעקב מאיר בתלבושתו הרשמית ענוד אותות הכבוד שנתכבדד בהם על ידי  השולטן ומלכי יוון ואנגליה.
In fact, the mistaken omission of the word בכנסיה created another problem. When I read over the article just before publication, I didn’t realize that the word בכנסיה had been mistakenly deleted. I therefore added a note that maybe the meaning of the passage is that R. Meir only went to the home of Ronald Storrs, who was the Jerusalem Military Governor. (R. Bleich quotes my mistaken assumption.[8]) I also changed my formulation prior to the quotation to say that R. Meir “appears” to have entered a church. However, as we can see from the passage, Frumkin is clear that R. Meir indeed entered the church for the event.

R. Immanuel Jakobovits was asked if he would go into a church. He replied: “Perhaps for a visit, but not during prayers or a religious ceremony.” He also recounted a time when while visiting Russia it seems that he got stuck in a church during a prayer service:
On Sunday I visited Zagorsk, the repository of the treasures of the Russian Orthodox Church, where there are wonderful cathedrals in which many choirs chant. They seated me at a pulpit, where it was difficult to leave in the middle of the service, apparently so I would cancel my visits to the refuseniks in Moscow later that afternoon.[9]
As mentioned in note 7, the British chief rabbis will enter churches for various official events. As R. Jakobovits wrote on another occasion, this policy has the approval of the London Beth Din.

Another relevant text is from R. Shlomo Riskin who wrote as follows[10]:
Question:
Am I allowed to attend my friend’s wedding in a church? Are Jews allowed to enter churches at all?
Answer:
Evangelical churches do not have icons or statues and it is certainly permissible to enter Evangelical churches.[11] Catholic and most Protestant churches do have icons as well as paintings and sculptures. If you enter the church in order to appreciate the art with an eye towards understanding Christianity and the differences between Judaism and Christianity so that you can hold your own in discussions with Christians, then it is permissible.[12] Participating[13] in a church religious service is forbidden unless it is for learning purposes or unless it would be a desecration of God’s name if you don’t attend, as in the case of Chief Rabbi Sacks’ attendance at Prince William’s wedding.
R. Asher Weiss here provides support, bediavad, for R. Haskel Lookstein’s attendance at a prayer service in a church which was part of the celebrations following President Obama’s inauguration.

In my article on entering churches I refer to R. Joseph Messas’ responsum in which he mentions going into a church. I subsequently found that in his Otzar ha-Mikhtavim, vol. 1, no. 280 (p. 133), he tells of a visit to Malaga, Spain, where he also entered a church. Earlier, while still in Spanish Morocco, he explained to some non-Jews that Jews do not hold a grudge against Spain and do not hate contemporary Spaniards because of what their forefathers did. He then said something very strange (p. 131), namely, that contemporary Jews have to be thankful to the earlier Spaniards for how they persecuted the Jews of their time, since this enables everyone to see how connected Jews are to God, that despite the persecution they did not give up their faith! Is there any other rabbinic text that lets murderers “off the hook” so easily?
לדעתי, ראוי להחזיק טובה לאבותיכם על כל הרדיפות וכו', כי על ידם נודע, שאנחנו עבדים נאמנים לא-להינו, ואף כל מיני ענויים ומיתות משונות לא הפרידו בינינו ובין א-להינו.
R. Messas finds other ways to be “melamed zekhut” on those who persecuted and even killed Jews in Spain, and if I didn’t know that he was a truly great rabbinic authority,[14] I might think that what he writes comes from the pen of a Catholic apologist for the Spanish Inquisition.[15]
שכל הרדיפות היו מפני שנאת הדת, שהנוצרים היו אוהבים מאד את דתם, ולכן היו שונאים כל בעל דת אחרת, והיהודים מאהבתם ג"כ לדתם, לא ידעו [ל]כלכל את מעשיהם, והיו ההדיוטים שבהם אומרים בפה מלא, שדת יהודית היא האמת, וזולתה שוא ודבר כזב, וזה הוסיף אש ועצם על המדורה, ובפרט המומרים מאהבת הכבוד, או מאהבת נשים, אשר אחיהם היהודים הקילו בכבודם על תמורתם, הלשינו אותם ואת דתם בדברים שלא היו ולא נבראו, כדי לנקום מהם חלול כבודם, וא"כ הא למה זה דומה, למי שיש לו בן, הוא חביב עליו מאד, ודאי ישנא כל אשר ישנאהו וכל המדבר עליו תועה, ואם תמצא לאל ידו, יהרגהו, והנוצרים היתה לאל ידם, והרגו כל השונא את דתם שהיא חביבה עליהם כבן יחיד, ואף שאין זה שכל ישר, מ"מ דעת אנשי אותו הזמן היתה כך, ואין להאשימם.
Regarding entering churches, also of interest is the report of the sixteenth-century painter and writer, Giorgio Vasari, that Roman Jews would come on the Sabbath to the Church of San Pietro in Rome to stand before Michelangelo’s statue of Moses.[16]

A number of years ago, R. Dov Linzer gave a shiur on this very topic of entering churches. At the time, I called his attention to some responsa that do not deal with this matter, but which permitted Jews to donate money to assist in building a church. These responsa are R. Mordechai Horowitz, Mateh Levi, vol. 2, Yoreh Deah, no. 28, R. Isaac Unna, Shoalin ve-Dorshin, no. 35, R. Shalom Messas, Shemesh u-Magen, vol. 3, Orah Hayyim, nos. 30-31. When there is fear of enmity (and only in this circumstance), R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Benei Vanim, vol. 3, no. 36, also permits donating money for the building of a church, as long as the building can be built without the Jew’s donation or his donation is merely symbolic. R. Henkin also suggests that the person donating the money make it a condition that the money go to building the parking lot or something not connected to worship. (He concludes that these suggestions will also allow one to donate to a Reform or Conservative synagogue if not doing so could arouse enmity.) In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that the first responsum of R. Messas as well as R. Henkin’s responsum were sent to me.

Some time after I showed R. Linzer these responsa, there was an attack on a church in Charleston where nine people were killed. The very next day there was an arson attack by a radical Jew (or perhaps more than one individual) against a church in the Galilee. This followed other acts of vandalism directed against churches in Israel in recent years. R. Linzer sent out the following email.

Rabbosai,

Given the recent horrific attack in Charleston and the terrible burnings of churches that has occurred in the last few days, I encourage all of you to show your support for those who have been attacked, and to act in a way of kiddush shem Shamayim to counteract these terrible hate crimes.

One way you can do this is by donating money to help in the rebuilding of these churches. While there are poskim who rule otherwise (see Melamed li’hoyil 188:2), a number of recent poskim have dealt with this issue on a halakhic basis and ruled that it is totally permissible and at times even obligatory.[17] This is based on the widely accepted ruling that Christianity is not avoda zara for non-Jews. Thus, helping non-Jews in their permissible worship of God can in no way be considered מסייע לדבר עבירה, a form of aiding transgressive behavior. Some of these teshuvot have pointed out that church buildings are often repurposed as synagogues, and this again points to the non-halakhically problematic status of these buildings. Relatedly, Rav Moshe (YD 1:68) ruled that an architect can draw up the plans for the construction of a church, and that mi’ikar ha’din it is permitted to actually participate in the building of a church (and this is even without the argument that it is not avoda zara for them!).

There are some halakhic issues when giving to avoda zara directly implicates the giver in the avoda itself (see YD 149:4 and 143), but that is not relevant to this case.

I am attaching 3 contemporary teshuvot, all thanks to Marc Shapiro, who is the shoel of the teshuva of Rav Meshash [!], and who make the argument as outlined above.

I would like to quote in particular from the teshuva of the Mateh Levi, both the question and a section from the beginning and end of the answer:

ביום א’ של שבוע זה נאספו פה אנשים אשר לא בני בריתנו המה (קאטהאליקים) ובאסיפה זאת נגמר בדעתם לבנות להם בית תפילה בעירנו. ובאשר הם מתי מספר מעט מזעיר זאת העצה היעוצה להם לשאול מאת היהודים אשר פה נדבות אחדות לבנינם ובטח גם אלי יפנו בימים הבאים. לכן הנני בבקשתי שייטיב ידידי להודיעני אם מותר לתת נדבה לדבר זה כי קדוש ה’ הוא אחרי אשר הכהן הקאטהאלי מלא פיו שבח והודיה לנדבת לב בני ישראל לסמוך ידי אחיהם בדברים של קדושה. אמנם ללמוד אני צריך וכדבריו כן אעשה… דן בנרש 
תשובה: ידעת גם ידעת ידידי נ”י כי רבים וכן שלמים מגדולי הקדמונים התירו והקילו בענינים האלה משום דרכי שלום ומשום איבה וע”י כך נעשו בין האחרונים שתי דרכים נפרדות שאף אותם הגדולים שכתבו להחמיר לא כתבו רק להלכה ולא למעשה… ואני כל ימי ראיתי שאין אמת אלא אחת ומה שאינו עולה יפה למעשה גם להלכה אינו. על כן אני אומר אין אני זז מן האמת לא משום דרכי שלום ולא משום איבה. אבל לאחר העיון נראה שהדין דין אמת וכל דרכי התורה לאמתה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבות הדין שלום 
ועל כל הדרכים האלה נגיע לתכלית הדבר ופשוט אצלנו שאין כאן שום איסור כלל וכיון שאיסורא ליכא ממילא הדין עם ידידי נ”י שמצוה נמי איכא היינו מצות קדוש שמו הגדול [וידוע כי שר הגדול בישראל אשר לא ישכח שמו במחנה העברים כש”ת מוה’ משה מנטפיורע ז”ל קדש ש”ש ע”י זה שבנה להם בית תפלה ברמסגט] על ידי עמו ישראל ויראו כל עמי הארץ שאנחנו יהודים נאמנים עתידים בכל שעה למסור את נפשנו באהבה בעד קידוש השם שהוא ד’ אחד ושמו אחד ולהשליך את כל יהבנו ואת כל כבודנו בעולם הזה בעבור אמונתנו הקדושה…וכלנו מודים שכל מי שאינו ישראל יכול להיות אחד מחסידי וגדולי עולם ובני עולם הבא
R. Linzer was attacked after this email was sent out, and some people made it seem as if he had come up with a crazy idea. Yet the truth is that what he suggested – donating to a church – had already been approved by a couple of recognized gedolei Yisrael. Even his point about making a kiddush ha-shem has a precedent in R. Mordechai Horowitz, the Matteh Levi, who said exactly this in discussing Moses Montefiore’s donation to a church, and this is quoted in R. Linzer’s email.

Regarding kiddush ha-shem, even if we don’t go as far as R. Linzer, I think that one can make a good case that donating to a church can be a sanctification of God’s name if, as happened in Israel, the church was set on fire by a radical Jew (or Jews). We cannot have the spectacle of Jews burning down churches in Israel, and the damage this can do to Jews worldwide is immense. Would it be out of line to argue that if Jews burn down a church, that at least to prevent enmity Jews should also help rebuild it? It is easy to see how such an action can be regarded as a kiddush ha-shem, even if most poskim would see it as technically forbidden. (I wonder, can something be both a kiddush ha-shem and a violation of halakhah?) In fact, after the church was burnt in Israel, a number of rabbis, including the great R. Nachum Rabinovitch, helped raise money to repair it.[18] What this shows is that the matter is not as clear-cut as might appear at first glance.

Speaking of Jewish donations to churches, it is of interest that Mordechai Maisel (1528-1601), the leader of the Prague Jewish community, donated to the St. Salvator Church, which is very close to the Jewish Quarter. Rachel L. Greenblatt writes that this was “an alliance-seeking neighborly act not as unusual as it might sound.”[19] Yet I do not know of any other case like this in the sixteenth century or prior, so it certainly sounds unusual to me. Unfortunately, it is not known if any of the Prague rabbis approved of Maisel’s donation, which Maisel must have assumed would create a lot of good will with the non-Jewish population, good will that might later save the community from an expulsion or even a pogrom. Two hundred years later, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) donated money to build a church in Kassel. The local ruler required this in order for Rothschild to be regarded as a “protected Jew” in Kassel, where he often stayed while conducting business.[20]

I have a lot I would like to say about Christianity and its impact on Judaism, in particular when it comes to seforim. For  now, here is something that I very recently found and I am not sure if it is a conscious distortion. In R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s Tikunim Hadashim (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 10, as part of his messianic vision he states as follows:
כלא יתקשר ברישא דברך יחידאה מלכא משיחא לשלטאה ביה על כל עלמא ולאתגלאה נהורך עד סופא  דכלא. וכל רע יתעבר מעלמא ויתהדר כלא לאשתעבדא קמך.
R. Mordechai Chriqui has edited numerous works of Ramhal. In 1986 he published Yesod Olam, which a short book on Ramhal’s life and thought. On p. 43 he provides the following Hebrew translation of part of the Aramaic text just cited:
והכל יתקשר בראש דבריך. המיוחד מלך המשיח שלוט על כל העולם.
Yet this translation is completely mistaken. I wonder if this is an innocent mistake or was intentional so that the reader not see a text that sounds Christian (although Ramhal was not referring to Jesus). What the Aramaic text really means, and I have underlined the crucial part, is that all will align themselves with your only son, the Messiah. I am curious to hear what readers think about this (and maybe someone will even want to defend Chriqui’s rendering).[21]

Further on the subject of Christianity, R. Chaim Rapoport published an interesting responsum by R. Hayyim Galipapa (fourteenth century) of Spain.[22] In this responsum, R. Galipapa states that the Trinity is not to be regarded as avodah zarah. (R. Rapoport claims that he only means that it is not avodah zarah for non-Jews, who are not obligated to have an absolutely pure conception of God, but is indeed to be regarded as avodah zarah as far as Jews are concerned.) Here are R. Galipapa’s words:
וענין השלוש לאו ע"ז היא, אלא שהא-להות אינו מקובל עליהם כראוי, ולדעת חז"ל נקראים הם וכיוצא בהם "קוצצים בנטיעות", וזה ברור. וכן פי'קצת המפרשים ע"ז [= על זה], ר"ל על השלוש, הכתוב בדניאל (י"א ל"ו): "ועל א-ל אלים ידבר נפלאות", כלו'[מר] שמדברים ומאמינים הם בא-ל אלים, רק שמדברים בו נפלאות ונמנעות והוא השלוש.
Finally, in my article on entering churches I noted that R. Jacob Meir, the Rishon le-Tziyon, wore a ceremonial medallion in the shape of a cross (I am not sure which government awarded this to him). 

You can see it here.

Here is an Israeli stamp with R. Meir on it, and you can see the medallion.

Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to this picture of R. Kook that is found in Mar’eh Kohen (Jerusalem, 2002), p. 52. The British medallion, awarded by King George V, is not completely showing.[23] I would assume, and Mirsky agrees,[24] that this was intentional.


2. In his post here, Eliezer Brodt mentioned the new book Ha-Gedolim (available here). My article in the volume is on the Steipler. As you can see from the table of contents posted by Brodt, they wanted to give each article a catchy title. One of the editors suggested Ha-Tamim for the title of my article, and I thought that this was a good suggestion. In traditional rabbinic literature תמים has the connotation of pure and unblemished, and this is how one can describe someone who has a simple, unquestioning faith. This, I thought, was a great description of the Steipler who was opposed to philosophical investigation of Judaism and even opposed polemicizing with the non-Orthodox for fear that this might expose readers to non-Orthodox ideas. (Chabad yeshiva students are also referred to as tamim.)

However, the word tamim can also have the connotation of “unsophisticated”. Even though this is clearly not what I had in mind, since at least a few people wondered about the word, I clarified it in a comment to Brodt’s post. I also asked if anywhere in rabbinic literature does the word tamim mean anything other than what I have written. From the responses I received, I have to say that the answer is no. While the word tam is used to mean “unsophisticated,” the word tamim only has a positive connotation. At least that is the opinion of everyone I have discussed the matter with. I also searched Otzar ha-Hokhmah where I found references to rabbis referred to as הגאון התמים. Otzar ha-Hokhmah also reminded me of how R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg described his deceased student, R. Saul Weingort[25]:
בהנהגתו, באופני מחשבתו ובהילוכו עם הבריות הי'טיפוס נעלה של יהודי תמים ונאמן לאלוקיו ולתורתו.
The Maharal writes[26]:
והתמים הוא שהולך בדרך הישר מעצמו בלי שום התבוננות, רק הולך בדרכו בתמימות.
One of the Seforim Blog readers was helpful in sending a number of relevant texts, illustrating the original meaning of tamim. Among these texts is one from the 1980s by R. Shlomo Tzadok who actually laments how the word tamim, which is supposed to have a positive connotation, has been turned into a negative term.[27]
ומדהים לראות שאף המלה תמים שנקטה תורה כאן סולפה משמעותה האמיתית בפי ההמון, וכשרוצים לקרוא למי שהוא לאיזה אמונה בלי דעת וחכמה ובלי הבנה, אומרים לו תמים תהיה! (אולי בעקבות השמוש השלילי בלשון חז"ל באגדה, תם, היפך חכם).
2. Seth Rogovoy published an article in the Forward titled “The Secret Jewish History of McDonald’s.” What precipitated the article was the recent appearance of the movie “The Founder” about Ray Croc of McDonald’s fame. Rogovoy focuses on Harry Sonneborn, the first President of McDonald’s, who came up with the idea of turning McDonald’s into a real estate empire, by owning the land under the restaurants and leasing it to the franchisees.

There is another “secret” Jewish history of McDonald’s, one which I think is of much greater interest. Ronald McDonald is the world’s most widely recognized commercial mascot, and he has “a recognition factor among children equaled only by Santa Claus.”[28] How many people know that it was a Jewish man, Oscar Goldstein, who was responsible for Ronald McDonald? The story is told in a number of places, most comprehensively in John F. Love’s McDonald’s: Behind the Arches from which I am taking the following description.

The most successful McDonald’s operation in the company’s history is that of Goldstein and his partner John Gibson. In 1956 they made a deal with Kroc for an exclusive franchise for the Washington, D.C. area. Gibson was behind the scenes focusing on financial and real estate matters, while Goldstein was running the actual restaurants which eventually reached 53. (Love says that there were 43 restaurants, but I was given other information.) As part of Goldstein’s advertising campaign, he sponsored a television show in the Washington market called Bozo’s Circus. The person who played Bozo was none other than Willard Scott, who would later find fame on the Today show.

When Bozo’s Circus went off the air, Goldstein decided that he needed another clown to appeal to the children. His ad agency came up with a clown which it proposed to call Archie McDonald. Willard Scott suggested the name Ronald McDonald, which was chosen, and Scott played the first Ronald McDonald. (Scott has often claimed that he invented Ronald McDonald, while in truth all he did – significant in and of itself – is to come up with the name.)

By the mid-1960s, the McDonald's franchise in Washington was spending $500,000 a year on advertising – most of it on Ronald McDonald. It was more than any other local or national fast-food chain was spending on advertising, more than even McDonald's Corporation itself. Goldstein also used Ronald McDonald to open each new store it built, and his personal appearances never failed to create traffic jams.

By 1965, Goldstein was convinced that he had discovered in Ronald McDonald the perfect national spokesman for the chain, and he offered the clown free of charge to Max Cooper, the publicist who by then had been hired as McDonald’s first director of marketing. Surprisingly, Cooper turned him down. “I told him the outfit was too corny and not up to our standards,” Cooper recalls. “Goldstein reminded me that his was the most successful market in the system.” After reflecting on that, Cooper decided not to argue, and he proposed a national Ronald McDonald to Harry Sonneborn.[29]

Here is a picture from Love’s book. Goldstein is second from the right. Harry Sonneborn is on the far right. Ray Kroc is standing in the middle.



I am certain that other than members of my family and old friends, all other readers are wondering why I have such an interest in McDonald’s. The answer is that Oscar Goldstein was my grandfather, my mother’s father. Jews are well known for being responsible for so much in American culture, but for some reason, Ronald McDonald as a Jewish creation has slipped through the cracks. Hopefully that will now change.

One final point: Why do I say that my grandfather owned 53 stores when Love puts the number at 43? Because that is what I heard from my grandmother, Gwendolyn Goldstein Freishtat, who passed away in January 2015 at the age of 99. When I questioned if she was sure it was 53, she insisted that there was no doubt. “I knew every one of those stores,” she said.

3. In my recent interview in the fascinating Der Veker, available here, I mention that I have a forthcoming article dealing with Modern Orthodoxy and modern biblical scholarship. Once the article appears I will have more to say about it on the blog. For now, let me just note that in the article I try to show how in some segments of liberal Modern Orthodoxy there has been a reinterpretation of the core theological principle of Torah mi-Sinai so as to align it with modern scholarship. I see this as a major theological development. There is no need to speak more about this now, as once the article appears readers can evaluate the evidence and see whether they think I am on to something.

One significant publication that appeared too late to be mentioned in the article is a new book by Jerome Yehuda Gellman, This Was From God: A Contemporary Theology of Torah and History. This book is precisely the sort of evidence I cite in the article to illustrate the changes that have taken place in recent years. Rather than summarize the book, let me just quote the first two paragraphs.

Increasingly, well-informed traditional Jews may find themselves distrustful of the reliability of Torah as history because of the conclusions of scholarly research from natural science, history, linguistics, Bible criticism and archaeology. And, they may not be swayed by attempts to restore their trust. If they do not have a fitting theology for their new predicament, they may well give up on Judaism altogether or else give up on their traditional Judaism. Or, they may simply repress their difficulty because they see no way of dealing with it that will allow them to retain their traditional religious loyalty. They will carry on as if they believed in the historical veracity of the Torah, when in fact they do not.

As one who has lived with this problem, I want to now propose that a person with prior emunah, belief and faith/loyalty in God and in the holiness of the Torah remain faithful to keeping God and the holiness of the Torah at the center of his or her life. What is needed is a theology that appreciates the force of the challenge to Torah as history and preserves one’s traditional religious loyalty. That is the task of the present book.

Gellman’s arguments are original and he even makes use of hasidic texts. Particularly interesting is his critique of the so-called Kuzari Argument that is sometimes used in support of the revelation at Sinai.

I mentioned Gellman’s book to someone and expressed the opinion that even if another ten theologians were to write similar books, I don’t see this as having any real impact on the ground – although it will be appealing for certain intellectuals  because at the end of the day traditional Judaism is a religion of halakhah and its leaders are talmudists and halakhic authorities. If a new theological approach does not have the imprimatur of even one outstanding religious authority – gadol for lack of a better term – I don’t see how it can gain traction in the community at large. In previous years I have made the same point about changes in women’s roles and so-called partnership minyanim. These phenomena are also having trouble making headway because they too are lacking the necessary imprimatur. Interestingly, years ago someone responded to me that my point was not valid because I was operating under an outdated “paradigm” in assuming that changes in religious life, and now we can say in theology as well, needed the imprimatur of a gadol. Yet I would like to see one example of a significant change in theology or religious life that reached wide acceptance without such an imprimatur.

4. Among other new books worth mentioning is R. Yonason Rosman’s Petihat ha-Iggerot available here. This book goes through R. Moshe Feinstein’s Iggerot Moshe and records discussions and criticisms of R. Feinstein’s points. It is like the Likutei Hearot on the Hatam Sofer’s responsa with one crucial difference: R. Rosman does not limit himself to citing traditional rabbinic works, but he also refers to English language halakhic writings and even academic works. The Seforim Blog is also mentioned a number of times.



[1] Milin Havivin 4 (2008-2011), pp. 43-50.
[2] Olam ha-Sheker (Milwaukee, 1936), p. 44. R. Solomon Judah Rapoport thought very highly of R. Modena. See Iggerot Shir (Przemysl, 1885), p. 71. As a result of this, he was worried that if R. Modena’s autobiography was published, which showed that he was addicted to gambling, it would destroy his reputation. See ibid., p. 120, where he writes to Samuel David Luzzatto:

עוד הכני לבי פן תגלה ח"ו חרפת הבונה בקהל רב, על דבר תאותו אל השחוק, ותתן מקום לשחוק וללעוג באדם יקר אחד מאלף, ולבזות את הנכבד כפי נטות לבך. ואולי תשלחהו ח"ו לבעלי ציון לבנות ציון תמרור על חרבות גבר מצויין, ותתן קברו את רשעים השמחים אלי גיל ישישו כי ימצאו קבר לגבר אשר דרכו נסתרה עד כה בענין אחד, ויסך אלוקי בעדו, ותשפוך דם נקי בקרב ישראל.

Every summer for the last five years I have led groups to Venice where I tell the story of R. Modena. I tell part of the story when standing in front of his tombstone (his actual burial place is unknown). Rather than losing respect for R. Modena because of his gambling addiction, I think people learn to appreciate that even very learned rabbis can have weaknesses.
[3] When he used the term “meshugena,” he did not mean “insane” in a clinical sense. I mention this because there is some recent research supporting the notion that there is indeed a thin line between genius and mental illness. See here.
[4] R. Michel Shurkin, Meged Giv’ot Olam ( Jerusalem, 2005), vol. 2, p. 23. R. Shurkin also quotes R. Leib Malin as saying that it is not good to be an illui. See Mesorat Moshe, vol. 2, p. 404, where R. Moshe notes another problem with iluyim.
[5] In his article, p. 74, in speaking of shituf and the famous Tosafot concerning it, R. Bleich states that “in historical context, it is obvious that the doctrine which the Tosafot seek to legitimize for non-Jews is Trinitarianism.” I don’t know how R. Bleich can say “it is obvious” when not only do many halakhic authorities not interpret Tosafot in this fashion, but great scholars such as Jacob Katz, Louis Jacobs, and David Berger have also stated that they do not think that Tosafot is in any way legitimizing Trinitarianism for non-Jews, but only permitting a non-Jew to take an oath in which he associates another being, such as Jesus, with God. On p. 74 R. Bleich himself notes that R. Ezekiel Landau, Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadurah Tinyana, Yoreh Deah, no. 148, has the same view as Katz, Jacobs, and Berger. I would only add that the responsum in Noda bi-Yehudah that R. Bleich refers to was not written by R. Ezekiel Landau but by his son, R. Samuel Landau. For Katz, see his Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford, 1961), p. 163. For Jacobs, see his A Tree of Life (London, 2000), p. 82 n. 12. Berger has expressed his opinion orally on a number of occasions, and see also his “How, When, and To What Degree was the Jewish-Christian Debate Transformed in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?” in Elisheva Baumgarten and Judah D. Galinsky, eds., Jews and Christians in Thirteenth-Century France (New York, 2015), p. 135 n. 31.

On pp. 80-81, R. Bleich states that R. Isaac Herzog’s acceptance of the Meiri’s view of the halakhic status of non-Jews was only a “hypothetical acceptance,” and he criticizes Itamar Warhaftig for assuming otherwise. In this matter, I see no way to read R. Herzog as R. Bleich has interpreted him, and thus agree with the understanding of Warhaftig that R. Herzog indeed accepted the Meiri’s view. On p. 81, R. Bleich interprets the words of R. Eliezer Waldenberg so that he also is not really accepting the Meiri. Here too, I see no way of reading R. Waldenberg as R. Bleich advocates, and I agree with David Berger's understanding (Berger is mentioned by R. Bleich.) See Berger, "Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts," in Marc D. Stern, ed., Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age (Lanham, MD, 2005), p. 100.
[6] Hayyei Yehudah, ed. Carpi (Tel Aviv, 1985), p. 63.
[7] R. Bleich, p. 98, writes: “Omitted from Shapiro’s list of rabbinic figures who have entered Christian houses of worship are the British Chief Rabbis who have done so on state occasions.” I did not mention the British Chief Rabbis as this is well known, and as I wrote I wanted to call attention to lesser known examples.
[8] Bleich mistakenly refers to Storrs as the High Commissioner of Palestine.
[9] Michael Shashar, Lord Jakobovits in Conversation (London, 2000) pp. 83, 103.
[11] If we assume that an Evangelical church is a place of avodah zarah, I do not see why the absence of icons or statues has any significance.
[12] Lots of people want to enter churches in order to appreciate the art or to understand Christianity. I have never heard of anyone doing so in order to be able to “hold his own” in discussions with Christians. If R. Riskin’s heter depends on this element being present, then according to him pretty much no one would be permitted to enter a church with icons or statues.
[13] I have no doubt that what R. Riskin meant to say is “Attendance at a church religious service,” since there is no possible way that a Jew is ever permitted to “participate” in a church religious service.
[14] R. Hayyim Amsalem’s just published book is titled Tokpo shel Yosef Messas. R. Amsalem sees R. Messas’ importance as providing a stellar example of the old Sephardic tradition, one that stands in opposition to the haredi ethos which has recently also taken root in some parts of the Sephardic world. For an example of what R. Amsalem is fighting against, here is a proclamation that appeared before Purim, signed by a number of Sephardic rabbis including a member of the Shas Council of Torah Sages. In addition to declaring that children cannot dress up as soldiers or policemen, it also states that “all the gedolei Yisrael” have forbid yeshiva students from enlisting in the army or in any program of national service.



This prohibition is not directed towards women but men. Can anyone imagine a Sephardic sage from earlier years declaring that it is forbidden for yeshiva students to enlist in the army or to do national service? It is this type of extremism, so far from the traditional Sephardic mentality, that has enabled R. Meir Mazuz to develop the largest following among the Sephardic masses. When R. Mazuz explains how important it is to bless the soldiers, as he did again the same week that the anti-army declaration came out, it is this sort of attitude that resonates with Israel’s Sephardic community, all of whom have family members who have served in the army. For the video of R. Mazuz’s most recent statement, see here.
[15] When reading what R. Messas wrote, I was reminded of R. Abraham Reggio’s strange claim that Christians should love Jews because according to them, the Jews’ killing of Jesus is what allowed Original Sin to be forgiven. See his letter to R. Mordechai Samuel Ghirondi published in Asupot 14 (2002), p. 306:

שיחוייבו לאהוב אותנו, יען כי בגללינו, לפי דעתם, נסלח עון אדה"ר [אדם הראשון] אחר פטרת משיחם, שאם לא היה נמצא אז בעולם מי שימיתהו, עדיין עונם על ראשם.

Just as strange are the reasons he gives why Jews must love non-Jews:

וגם אנחנו צריכים לאהוב אותם, שאילולי הם היינו חולים ומתים בשבתות ימי הקור, וגם ע"י שאוכלים כמה בעלי חיים האסורים ואילולי הם לא היתה הארץ יכולה להכיל כמה בהמות טמאות שרבו מארבה.

[16] Hermann Vogelstein, Rome, trans. Moses Hadas (Philadelphia, 1940), p. 263; Cecil Roth, The History of the Jews of Italy (Philadelphia, 1946), p. 195. R. Shlomo Goren recalled that on Tisha be-Av he used to pray on the roof of a church on Mt. Zion so that he could see the Temple Mount. He then began to have doubts about the appropriateness of using a church in this fashion so he moved to another place. See his autobiography, Be-Oz u-ve-Ta’atzumot, ed. Avi Rath (Tel Aviv, 2013), p. 217. (This book has recently appeared in English.) Regarding whether a synagogue can share the same building with a church, see R. Abraham Moses Fingerhut, She’elot u-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 1964), no. 2.
[17] I don’t see where any of the teshuvot that permit donating to churches regard this as obligatory at times, unless we assume that when R. Horovitz writes that it is a mitzvah because of kiddush ha-shem that he means that it is obligatory. The only circumstance I can imagine where such a donation could be obligatory  would be if Jews themselves had damaged a church and posekim thought that to prevent enmity it was vital that Jews therefore help repair it.
[18] See here
[19] To Tell Their Children: Jewish Communal Memory in Early Modern Prague (Stanford, 2014), p.  25.
[20] See Amos Elon, Founder: A Portrait of the First Rothschild and His Time (New York, 1996), pp. 119-120.
[21] While on the topic of R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, R. Jeremy Rosten recently showed me page 14 n. 14 from the 1992 Bnei Brak edition of Kalah Pithei Hokhmah.



As you can see, material has been removed from the work on the advice of certain unnamed gedolim.

R. Rosten also showed me that a famous comment of Sforno to Lev. 13:47 has been censored.


In this passage Sforno states that most Jews, and all (!) non-Jews, are not subject to individual divine providence, but are only under general providence, just like the animal kingdom. These words were removed from the older Mikraot Gedolot.


At first glance, I thought that this censorship was because of the description of non-Jews. Rosten, however, believes that this is a theologically based censorship. In other words, Sforno’s view that most people are not subject to individual providence was viewed as religious objectionable and was thus deleted. My only problem with this suggestion is that even the censored version refers to the נרדמים, i.e., people who are not subject to individual providence, so the theological problem is not “solved” by what was removed.
[22] Se Or Yisrael 56 (Tamuz 5769), pp. 6ff.
[23] For details on R. Kook being awarded the medallion, see Natan Ophir’s note here (called to my attention by Mirsky).
[24] Rav Kook (New Haven, 2014), p. 172.
[25] Yad Shaul (Tel Aviv, 1953), p. 18.
[26] Netivot Olam, ed. Pardes (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 508.
[27] Shulhan Shlomo (Jerusalem, n.d.), p. 249.
[28] John F. Love, McDonald’s: Behind the Arches (Toronto, 1986),  p. 224.
[29] Love, McDonald’s, p. 223.

Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז"ל: In Memoriam

$
0
0
Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז"ל: In Memoriam


אין חכמת האדם מגעת אלא עד מקום שספריו מגיעין,
ולכן ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו ויקנה ספרים, כי דרך
משל מי שאין לו ספרי התלמוד אי איפשר לו להיות
בקי בו, וכמו כן מי שאין לו ספרי הרפואה א"א להיות
בקי בה.

דרכי התלמוד לר'יצחק קנפאנטון


A person’s wisdom reaches only as far as his library. Therefore, a person should sell everything he owns and
acquire books. For example, one who doesn’t own a set of the Talmud cannot possibly master its content. Similarly, one who doesn’t own the basic medical books cannot possibly be expert in the field of medicine.


          It is with deep sadness that the Seforim Blog joins the thousands who mourn the death of our dear contributor and supporter, Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז"ל. A distinguished תלמיד חכם and radiologist, R. Shlomo was a world renowned collector of books, who mastered their content, and spent a lifetime sharing his books and his knowledge freely with others. Doubtless, רבי יצחק קנפאנטון had the likes of R. Shlomo in mind, in the passage cited above.

          R. Shlomo was a מרביץ תורה and a מרביץ חכמה to a degree rarely seen in modern times. Despite a professional medical career that in and of itself would have exhausted others, he somehow found time ללמוד וללמד. He learned Torah incessantly, gave public שיעורים on a regular basis, and managed to arrange for others, often younger scholars, to give שיעורים and lectures in his neighborhood. He served with distinction on the editorial boards of ישורון and Hakirah, where he contributed his own studies and, and no less significantly, recruited, indeed cajoled others to publish the results of their research.

          R. Shlomo’s literary legacy includes such gems as:

1.   Introduction and table of contents for the reissue of R. Meir Dan Plotzki’s שאלו שלום ירושלים (New York, 1991).
2.   מבחר כתבי מו"ה מרדכי גומפל שנאבר הלוי לעווינזאהן ז"ל (Brooklyn, 1995). The  English section includes a lengthy introductory essay (by R. Shlomo and Mati Sprecher) on the life and times of Mordechai Gumpel Schnaber – not surprisingly, an eighteenth century rabbinic scholar and physician.
3.   בסתר בצל: קווים לדמותו הסמויה של הג"ר בצלאל בנו יחידו של המהר"ל מפראג זצ"ל” in
ישורון  2(1997), pp. 623-634.
4.   "הפולמוס על אמירת מכניסי רחמים" in ישורון 3(1997), pp. 706-729.
5.   Mezizah be-Peh – Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige?”
in Hakirah 3(2006), pp. 15-66.
6.   A Gemeinde Gemeinheit,” (by R. Shlomo and Mati Sprecher), posted on the Seforim Blog, June 9, 2009. An earlier version appeared in a pamphlet distributed at the wedding of Uri and Rivi Sprecher on November 13, 2008.

    In common, all of R. Shlomo’s contributions are characterized by dazzling erudition, lucid presentation, and originality. They advanced discussion significantly. It will certainly be a measure of consolation – and an important contribution to Jewish scholarship – if the family will gather his published studies and publish them in a bound volume. 

Above and beyond R. Shlomo’s intellectual excellence was his excellence of character. Others, more talented than us, will have to write about it. For those of us who experienced it, no further descriptions are necessary. For those of us who never experienced it, we doubt that the breadth and depth of his excellence of character can be adequately described in mere words. R. Shlomo leaves a void that will not easily be filled.

חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין.


 Eliezer Katzman
 Shnayer Leiman 

Book announcement: New edition of Avudraham and other works, R. Greensweig, etc.

$
0
0
Book announcement New edition of Avudraham and other works
By Eliezer Brodt

אבודרהם, עם הגהות וביאורים תהלה לדוד, א, ירושלים תשס"א, שכא עמודים
אבודרהם, א, ירושלים תשע"ה, נערך מחדש על פי דפוס ראשון מוגה ומפוסק עם מקורת מלאים, מדור הערות הארות וביאורים מקורות ומקבילות לדברי רבינו, תפילות חול, 429 עמודים
אבודרהם, ב, ירושלים תשע"ו, כהנ"ל, תפילות שבת ומועדים, 625 עמודים
ר'אליהו גרינצייג, קרואי מועד, פסח, שעה עמודים
הנ"ל, קרואי מועד, ראש השנה, שלג עמודים
הנ"ל, קרואי מועד, ספירת העומר שבועות, רמט עמודים
הנ"ל, קרואי מועד, חנוכה, רצה עמודים
מקרא העדה, חידושים וביאורים על סדר פרשיות התורה, א, בראשית-חיי שרה, תקסד עמודים

Many years ago, while still a bochur learning in the Mir, a friend of mine took me along for a Shabbas meal, promising me I'd meet an amazing Talmid Chochum obsessed with seforim. This was my first encounter with R' Eliyhau Greensweig. My friend did not exaggerate in any way. The whole meal I simply sat there drooling at the wall-to-wall seforim library. Later I learned this was only part of his library. This was a collection which I had never before seen the likes of. During the meal we spoke about numerous seforim and random sugyos; I was simply blown away. From that Shabbas, I began visiting him every few weeks and we would speak for a few hours about different topics and seforim. His vast knowledge was, simply put, incredible. One additional attribute which always struck me while talking with R' Greensweig was his tremendous humility. Many times, when specific topics came up, he would say "I wrote a whole kuntres on this". Once, he took out a huge stack of papers and said to me "this is a work on Rambam Sanhedrin". Over time, it came out that he had ghost written numerous articles and works. Once I mentioned to him that I had noticed that a specific volume of a particular set of seforim has a different style than previous volumes and that whoever wrote the notes is familiar with "not the 'standard stuff'". He smiled at me and said "guess who wrote those notes…?" Still, much of his work has appeared under his own name. One of the main projects which he had worked on for many years was  Otzar Mifarshei HaTalmud from Machon Yerushalayim. Without getting into the pros or cons of this work, anyone familiar with it knows it has references to thousands of seforim. This was done long before many of the modern Torah computer programs came on to the playing field (which is beside the point, as R' Greensweig does not know how to use a computer search engine!). One description I had heard of him was "he was Mechon Yerushalyim's 'secret weapon'".

Over the past twenty five years various prominent Torah Journals, such as Yeshurun, Yerushaseinu,Beis Aharon V'Yisroel, Moriah, Kol Torah and others, have featured numerous articles authored by him. Some of the times he would print a section of the Avudraham with his erudite notes; other times the article was related to the Torah reading (Parsha) or an upcoming Yom Tov.

In 2001, an annotated edition of part of the classic work Avudraham appeared on the seforim market. Printed by the Or Hasefer Publishing house, it included an anonymous commentary called Tehilah Ledovid.

The significance of the Avudraham is well known and hardly needs mentioning here; just to cite the well-known Haskamah of the Nodeh Beyehudah to the Prague edition:
כבר נודע בשער בת רבים גודל מעלת החיבור ספר אבודרהם, ורוב מנהגי התפילות והברכות קדושות והבדלות על ספרו בנוים, ובטור אורח החיים מביאו הבית יוסף והאחרונים לרוב מאוד, והוא ספר יקר הערך ויש בו צורך, כי האחרונים העתיקו ממנו דברים בקיצור...

Avrhom E. Harkavy writes:
סי'אבודרהם יקר ונכבד הוא לנו כי בו שרד וימלטו דברים רבים מסדור רב עמרם גאון (שלא בא לידנו בתמונתו וצבינו) ומסדור רב סעדיה גאון ומשאר חבורים קדמונים. [חדשים גם ישנים, עמ' 237]
For anyone looking to learn through an enjoyable sefer about Tefilah and Yom Tovim - this the work for him.

The notes in the Or Hasefer edition impressed numerous experts and Talmedei Chachomim. However almost no one knew who the author was, as he chose to remain anonymous. The author is, of course, none other than R' Eliyahu Greensweig. Interestingly, the introduction of the 2001 volume "claims" to be based upon manuscripts, sadly however, this is not the case. This claim was something the publisher added by himself after he checked up a few things in manuscript; R' Greensweig himself never checked up manuscripts. The primary aim of his notes was to provide the sources for the material quoted (utilized) by the Avudraham and to cite those sources who discuss the sefer. Most accurately, the notes are encyclopedic and full of thousands of sources, many from rare seforim. The notes are also full of "Torah" and at times perhaps a bit lengthy (as is common these days). Additionally, it is clear from the material cited that the author has an excellent command of academic literature, as well. For the most part all these sources could be found in R' Greensweig's incredible library! However, despite the great value in this edition, until recently only one volume was available leaving many to wonder when the rest would (ever?) be completed.

In 2015, volume one was reissued in a limited edition with corrections and many additions by the Keren Re'em publishing house. One useful correction was that some of the longer notes were removed for the body and placed in the appendix. In the summer of 2016, volume two was released privately for the first time.

A few months ago the two volumes were released for sale to the public distributed by Yefeh Nof publishers, with the final volume, volume three, due to be released in the summer, BE"H. I highly recommend this work and am sure that many will benefit from these volumes.

Besides for this new work on Avudraham, as I mentioned previously, R' Greensweig has written voluminously over the years. Thanks to the efforts of his sons and some generous sponsors, some of his other works have just been printed. To date, four volumes on the Yom Tovim have appeared in a paperback edition, each one including the related section of the Avudrahamin the back, with R' Greensweig's invaluable notes. The most recent of the four seforim is on Pesach. A few weeks ago, a hard cover volume on the first half of Chumash Bereishis appeared, with a total of eighty pieces! All this material is pieces he wrote over the years; each week he would write on one topic, and then add to it when he found more material, with a small percentage of the articles having appeared in various journals throughout the years. One does not have to wait until Chumash Bereishis arrives to learn this sefer as the pieces are encyclopedic and useful all year around (see below for the table of contents). One weakness, pointed out in the introduction, is sometimes there can be a certain amount of redundancy and sometimes the pieces smack of a lack of proper editing. The reason for these drawbacks is that proper editing (and condensing the redundant pieces) would hold up and delay printing.

Here are the table of contents of some of these works, showing the wide range of topics discussed. A PDF sample piece of the Avudraham and of one article is available upon request, also available upon request is a much more in-depth Table of contents of the works.














































Copies of the newly published two volume set of Avudraham should be available in regular stores. The paperback works on Yomim Tovim are available for purchase at Begieleisen in Boro Park and Judaica Plaza in Lakewood.

Afikoman - “Stealing“ and Other Related Minhagim

$
0
0
Afikoman - “Stealing“ and Other Related Minhagim*
By Eliezer Brodt


One of the most exciting parts of Seder night for kids is the “stealing” of the afikoman. Children plan well in advance when the best time would be for them to steal it, where they will hide it, as well as what they should ask for in exchange for it. Not surprisingly, toy stores do incredibly good business both during Chol Hamoed and in the days following Pesach because of this minhag. In this article I would like to trace the early sources of this minhag and also discuss rabbinic responses to it.[1]


That the minhag of stealing the afikoman was observed widely in recent history is very clear. For example, Rebbetzin Ruchoma Shain describes how she stole the afikoman when she was young; her father, Rav Yaakov Yosef Herman, promised her a gift after Yom Tov in exchange for its return.[2] Raphael Patai describes similar memories from life in Budapest before World War II.[3] In another memoir about life in Poland before the war, we find a similar description,[4] and in Alexander Ziskind Hurvitz’s Yiddish memoir about life in Minsk in the 1860s, he writes that he stole the afikoman on the first night of Pesach, that his father gave him nuts in return, and that he was warned not to steal it on the second night.[5]


Interestingly, there were occasions when the stealing of the afikoman involved adults as well. For example, in his informative memoir about life in Lithuania in the 1880s, Benjamin Gordon describes stealing the afikoman with the help of his mother,[6] and going back a bit earlier, we find that Rav Eliezer Shlomo Schick from Hungary was encouraged by his mother to steal the afikoman and to ask his father for something in exchange.[7]


But even those who recorded this minhag occasionally referred to it in less than complimentary terms. For example, in 1824 a parody called the Sefer Hakundos (literally, the “Book of the Trickster”) was printed in Vilna,[8] which describes how the “trickster” has to steal the afikoman and claim that someone else stole it.[9] In fact, this custom is even found in the work of a meshumad printed in 1856.[10]


Opposition to the Minhag


Given the implication that this minhag not only encouraged stealing but actually rewarded children for doing so, there were many who opposed it, including the Chazon Ish,[11] the Steipler,[12] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,[13] the Lubavitcher Rebbe[14] and Rav Tzvi Shlezinger.[15] Rav Shemtob Gaguine writes that Sefardim do not have the custom of stealing the afikoman, and he explains that this is because it is forbidden to steal even as a joke since it encourages stealing.[16] And Rav Yosef Kapach writes that this was not the minhag in Teiman as it is forbidden to steal, even for a mitzvah.[17]


Rav Aron of Metz (1754-1836) protests against this minhag in his work Meorei Or, as the goyim will say that the Jews are trying to teach their children to steal, as they did in Mitzrayim.[18] The question is, what does he mean?


In the anonymous work of a meshumad printed in 1738, we find a detailed description of the stealing of the afikoman by the youngest child and how he tries to get a reward for it from his father. He writes that the reason for this minhag is to teach the child to remember what the Jews did in Mitzrayim—that they borrowed from the Egyptians and ran away with the items.[19] This was the concern of Rav Aron of Metz. It is possible that this is why Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach of Worms writes in Mekor Chaim that there is reason to abolish this minhag.


How far back can this minhag be traced, and what is the source for it?


In most of the Rishonim and early poskim, in describing the part of the Seder called Yachatz, we find mention of breaking the matzah. Some go so far as to say that the leader of the Seder puts it on his shoulders and walks a bit with it (others do this only later on, when they eat the afikoman).[20] Some mention putting it under a pillow to watch it,[21] but there is almost no mention of children stealing it. The earliest source for the custom of stealing the afikoman that I have located is the illustrated manuscript Ashkenazic Haggadah, known as the Second Nuremberg Haggadah, written between 1450 and 1500. On page 6b, the boy puts out his hand to get the afikoman from his father. Later on in the Haggadah (p. 26b), in the section called Tzafun, the leader asks for the afikoman that the boy had hidden.[22] However, in almost all the many works related to the Seder, we do not find such a custom mentioned.


Although it’s mentioned in the Second Nuremberg Haggadah, we do not find it mentioned again after that for many years. Worth noting, for example, is that in the famous illustrated Haggadah of Prague (1526), there is no mention or picture of such a thing.[23]


In the work Siach Yitzchak of Rav Yitzchak Chayes (1538-1610), which is a halachic work on the Seder night, first printed in 1587, there is mention of the stealing of the afikoman, but not exactly the way we do it today.[24]


Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach of Worms (1638-1702) writes in Mekor Chaim that the children had a custom to steal the afikoman.[25]


One of the earliest printed references can be found in the work Chok Yaakov on hilchos Pesach by Rabbi Yaakov Reischer (1660-1733), first printed in 1696 in Dessau. He wrote that in his area, children had the custom to steal the afikoman.[26]


Rav Yosef Yuzpha of Frankfurt also cites this custom in his Noheg Ketzon Yosef, first printed in 1717.[27] Rav Yaakov Emden (1698-1776) cites the custom as well.[28]


Where does this minhag come from? Many Acharonim[29] point to the Gemara (Pesachim 109a), which mentions that we are “chotef” the matzos on the night of Pesach for the children.[30] What does “chotef” mean in this context? The Rishonim offer different explanations.[31] The Rambam writes that on this night one has to make changes so that the children will notice and ask why this night is different, and one answers by explaining to them what happened. The Rambam adds that among the changes we make are giving out almonds and nuts, removing the table before we eat, and grabbing the matzah from each other.[32] Rabbeinu Manoach points to the Tosefta as the source for the Rambam that “chotef” means to grab.[33] Some Rishonim, quoting the Tosefta, write clearly that it means to steal.[34]


The truth is that, based on the Rambam, we can understand where this minhag came from. The night of Pesach is all about the children. The Seder night is a time when we do many “strange” things with one goal in mind—to get the children to notice and ask.[35] The purpose of this is to fulfill the main mitzvah of the night—sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. The mitzvah of zecher l’yetzias Mitzrayim lies behind many mitzvos. The reason for this, says the Chinuch, is that Yetzias Mitzrayim was testimony that there is a God Who runs the world, and that He can change what He wants when necessary, as he did in Mitzrayim.[36] Elsewhere, the Chinuch adds that the reason Yetzias Mitzrayim is related to so many mitzvos is that in doing a variety of activities with this concept in mind, we will internalize the importance of this historic event.[37]


“Strange” Things at the Seder


Following are some of the various minhagim that are intended simply to get the children to ask questions.


The Gemara (Pesachim 109a) mentions that they gave almonds and nuts so that the children should stay awake.[38] All the various aspects of the Karpas section of the Seder, according to many, are for the purpose of prompting them to ask[39] what’s going on—from washing before eating vegetables[40] to omitting a brachah on the washing,[41] dipping the vegetable into salt water, and eating less than a kezayis,[42] breaking the matzah at Yachatz,[43] lifting the ke’arah before saying “Ha Lachma Anya,”[44] switching to Hebrew at the end of “Ha Lachma Anya,”[45] removing the ke’arah before reciting the Haggadah[46] (or removal of the table), giving even the children four cups of wine, and pouring the second cup at the beginning of the Haggadah.[47] Although numerous reasons are given for these minhagim, one common reason is that they are intended to spark the children’s curiosity, which leads to a discussion of Mitzrayim and all the miracles that took place there.


According to the Rambam, this is what lies behind the stealing of the afikoman—it is yet one more thing that we do to get the children involved and prompt them to ask questions. All this can explain another strange custom. The Chida writes that at a Seder he attended during his travels, a servant circled the ke’arah around the head of each male at the Seder three times, similar to what many do during kaparos with a chicken.[48] There are even earlier sources for such a minhag.[49]


Additional Sources in Favor of “Stealing”


At the Seder of the Chofetz Chaim and his son-in-law, the children did steal the afikoman.[50] In Persia, we find that some had this custom as well.[51] Rav Yisroel Margolis Yafeh, a talmid of the Chasam Sofer, also defends the minhag of stealing the afikoman.[52]


Earlier, I mentioned that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was against stealing the afikoman. Interestingly enough, his rebbe, Rav Dovid Baharan Weisfish, did allow it.[53] Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl writes that he did not understand the reasoning of his rebbe, Rav Shlomo Zalman, since it did not encourage the children to steal but simply helped them stay awake.[54]


There is a much earlier work that offers a similar premise. Rav Yosef Yuzpa of Frankfurt writes in his work Noheg Ketzon Yosef that one should not discontinue the minhag that children steal the afikoman and get something in return from their father, as this keeps them awake and they discuss Yetzias Mitzrayim.[55] And as far as the argument that stealing is never permitted, Rabbi Weingarten points to Hilchos Purim, in which we find that some level of damage is permissible for the sake of simchas Yom Tov.[56]


Other Reasons for This Custom[57]

Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach of Worms writes in Mekor Chaim that the reason for custom is to teach children to cherish the mitzvos.


Related to all of this is an interesting teshuvah in the anonymous work Shu”t Torah Lishmah. The author was consulted by a talmid chacham who had visited a family on the Seder night, and the head of the household put out a stack of matzah before beginning the recital of the Haggadah so that everyone could recite it over a piece of matzah. When he brought out the matzah, everyone ran to grab a piece. The guest was upset about this, and they explained to him that the purpose was to demonstrate their love for the mitzvah. The guest felt that it was an embarrassment to the mitzvah to act in such a coarse way; in addition, there is an issue not to grab bread greedily. The author of Torah Lishmah pointed to the Gemara in Chullin (133a), which suggests that since they were doing it to show their love for the mitzvah, it was not a problem.[58]


Rav Moshe Wexler, in Birkas Moshe (1902), gives a simple reason for this minhag. We are concerned that we will forget to eat the afikoman; what better way to remember than to have a child remind you since he wants to get his reward?[59]


Deeper Message Behind the Minhag


One last idea about this minhag, which is very much worth quoting, comes from Rabbi Shimon Schwab:


“I personally do not care for the term ‘stealing the matzah.’ It is un-Jewish to steal—even the afikoman! The prohibition against theft includes even if it is done as a prank (see Bava Metzia 61b)... Notwithstanding the fact that children taking the afikoman is not stealing because it is not removed from the premises, it would still be the wrong chinuch to call it ‘stealing.’ Rather, I would call it ‘hiding the matzah,’ to be used later as the afikoman, which is called ‘hidden.’


“There is an oft-quoted saying, although not found in any original halachic source, that all Jewish minhagim have a deep meaning... Thoughtful Jewish parents of old, in playing with their children, always incorporated a Torah lesson into their children’s games. Similarly, the minhag of yachatz, whereby we break the matzah into a larger and smaller piece, with each being used for its special purpose, is also deeply symbolic. The smaller piece, the lechem oni, the poor man’s bread, is left on the Seder plate, along with the maror and charoses. However, the larger piece is hidden away for the afikoman by the children, who who will ask for a reward for its return, and it is then eaten at the end of the meal.


“I heard a beautiful explanation for the symbolism of this minhag from my father. He explained that the smaller piece of matzah, the lechem oni, represents Olam Hazeh, with all its trials and tribulations. This piece is left on the Seder plate along with the maror and charoses, reflecting life in this world, with all its sweet and bitter experiences. However, the larger, main piece, which is hidden away during the Seder, to be eaten after the meal as the afikoman, represents Olam Haba, which is hidden from us during our lives in this world. The eating of this piece after the meal, when one is satiated, is symbolic of our reward in Olam Haba, which can be obtained only if we have first satiated ourselves in this world with a life of Torah and mitzvos. The children’s request for a reward before giving up the afikoman is symbolic of our reward in Olam Haba, which is granted to us by Hakadosh Baruch Hu if we have earned it.”[60]


There is an additional widespread custom of saving a piece of the afikoman for after Pesach.[61] Where does this minhag come from?


In her memoirs, Pauline Wengeroff (b. 1833 in Minsk) wrote: “In some Jewish homes, a single round matzah was hung on the wall by a little thread and left there as a memento.”[62] Mention of this custom is found in the work of a meshumad printed in 1794,[63] and another from 1856.[64] Chaim Hamberger also describes witnessing someone breaking off a piece of the afikoman and saving it as a segulah.[65] The Munkatcher Rebbe used to give out a piece of the afikoman, which some would save for the entire year.[66] In Persia, some also had the custom of saving a piece of the afikoman.[67]


In a book[68] filled with humor, which received a haskamah from Rav Chaim Berlin, a rich man complains to his friend that the mice are eating his clothes. His friend suggests that he sprinkle the clothes with the crumbs of the afikoman that he saves each year. He guarantees that the mice will not eat the clothes as the halachah is that one cannot eat anything after the afikoman!


In an even earlier source, the Magen Avraham—Rav Avrohom Gombiner’s classic work on the Shulchan Aruch, first printed in 1692—he makes a cryptic statement in Hilchos Yom Tov (not in Hilchos Pesach) in a discussion of making holes in meat, saying that one should hang the afikoman in such a way that he can make a hole in it with a knife.[69] What is he referring to?


Rabbi Yaakov Reischer (1660-1733), in Chok Yaakov on hilchos Pesach, first printed in 1696, writes that there is a custom to break off a piece of the afikoman and hang it, and he points to this Magen Avraham as proof.[70] Neither of these sources gives us insight into the reason for the practice, but it is clear that it is a segulah done with the afikoman.


The answer may be found in another work of Rabbi Yaakov Reischer. He was asked about his thoughts on the Kitzur Shlah, who writes that there is a problem with hanging the afikoman since it is a bizayon [disgrace] for the food, which is a halachic issue.[71] Rav Reischer says that it is not an issue since it serves to remind us of Yetzias Mitzrayim. He adds that his father and teachers observed this custom.[72]


Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach of Worms also writes that the reason for the minhag to hang a piece of the afikoman is zecher l’yetzias Mitzrayim.[73]


But why isn’t there an issue of bizui ochlin? Perhaps we can understand it based on Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl’s[74] explanation of the general issur of bizui ochlin, which is that bread is a special gift that Hashem gives us from Olam Haba so it is prohibited to use it in an embarrassing way. However, here one is using it for the mitzvah of zecher l’yetzias Mitzrayim, so maybe that’s why Rav Reisher held that it was not an issue.


From these sources it appears that hanging the matzah has nothing to do with any segulah but is simply zecher l’yetzias Mitzrayim.


The Kitzur Shlah, however, suggests that if one wants to observe this minhag, he should not hang the piece of afikoman but should carry it around with him. He adds that this segulah is a protection from thieves.[75] Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach of Worms also mentions that the piece of afikoman is a segulah for protection when traveling, but he does not quote a source for this.


In other early segulah sefarim, we find different segulos associated with the afikoman. In a rare work first printed in 1646, we find that it protects one from mazikim. At the end of the same work, the author writes that it can protect one from drowning at sea[76]; Rav Binyamin Baal Shem makes the same statement.[77] Rabbi Zechariah Simnar’s Sefer Zechirah, first printed in 1709, states that the piece of afikoman protects one from mazikim. This last source is an additional reason for the widespread observance of the custom because the sefer was extremely popular in its time and was reprinted over 40 times.[78]


One famous personality who actually used this segulah was Sir Moses Montefiore. When he found himself in the midst of a terrible storm, he cast a piece of afikoman into the sea. His family used to commemorate this miracle each year.[79]


In the anonymous work of a meshumad printed in 1738, he says it is used to ward off the evil eye.[80] Rav Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal has a very interesting teshuvah on this segulah. He writes that in the Shulchan Aruch it appears that the afikoman has all the dinim of the korban Pesach; with that comes the problem of leaving behind even one piece. He says that one should leave a piece behind for this segulah only from the matzah of the second night. He says that the people in Eretz Yisrael should save a regular piece of matzah. He then cites the Yosef Ometz, who writes that he made sure not to lose one crumb of the afikoman, so how could one possibly save a piece for the entire year?[81] His suggestion at the end is that it is better to save a regular piece of matzah.


Rav Chaim Hakohen, a talmid of Rav Chaim Vital, writes in his work Tur Barekes that there is a special segulah to save and hang a piece of matzah for the entire year and that it protects one from mazikim.[82] This practice is also cited in the very popular anonymous work Chemdas Yamim, which was first printed in 1731.8[3] Rabbi Moshe Chagiz (1671-1751) writes the same about the segulah, [84] as does Rav Dunner.[85] All of these sources appear to say that the segulah is not specifically associated with a piece of the afikoman.


Until 2010, these was the array of earlier sources known for this custom. In 2010, a fascinating manuscript of Rav Chaim Vital (1543-1620) was printed for the first time—Sefer Hape’ulos.[86]


Rav Chaim Vital is best known in the realm of Kabbalah; he was the primary student of the Arizal, entrusted with disseminating his teacher’s works.


What makes Sefer Hape’ulos especially interesting is that we see Rav Chaim Vital in a different light than he was previously known. In the first part of this work we see him as a doctor of sorts. He provides remedies to people for all kinds of illnesses—asthma, infertility, headaches, toothaches and many other conditions. Much of his advice was based on segulos and the like. In this work, he shows a familiarity with medical procedures of that period. He quotes advice that he had read in various medical works. There is also a section on alchemy.


The whereabouts of the actual manuscript are a mystery.


Rumors are that it is being sold page by page as segulah, and each page fetches a large sum of money. But copies of the manuscript are accessible on various databases.


In this work, Rav Chaim Vital writes that to calm the sea in a storm, one should take a kezayis of the afikoman and throw it into the sea.[87]


According to this statement, we see that Rav Vital does not agree with the sources saying that the afikoman should be regarded as regular matzah. Furthermore, we see that he was not concerned with Rav Teichtal’s issues as he was in Eretz Yisrael and he still said the afikoman should be used.


Burning With the Chametz


One last aspect of the treatment of the afikoman comes from Rav Schick, who says that since the afikoman is eaten as a zecher of the korban Pesach, we should keep a piece of it to burn with the chametz in order to remind us that any leftovers of the korban Pesach were to be burned.[88] Rav Dunner did the same.[89] The aforementioned work of a meshumad, printed in 1856,[90] mentions this aspect of the custom.




* A version of this article was printed in April of last year in Ami Magazine.


[1] For sources on this topic that helped me prepare this article R’ Moshe Katz, Vayaged Moshe, pp. 118-120; R’ Moshe Weingarten, Seder Ha-Aruch 1 (1991), pp. 336-338; R’ Y. Lieberman, Chag Hamatzos, pp. 458-460; R’ Avrohom Feldman, Halacha Shel Pesach, pp. 299-302; R’ Chaim David Halevi, Shonah Bishonah (1986), pp. 144-148; R’ Tuviah Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha (Pesach), pp. 340-354 [=Tzohar 2 (1998, pp. 196-206]; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 158-172; S. Reiskin, Yedah Ha-Am, 69-70 (2010), pp. 114-121 [Thanks to R’ Menachem Silber for this source]. See also, R’ Melamed, Hadoar 69 (1990), pp. 13-14.
[2] Ruchoma Shain, All for the Boss, (Young readers edition) (2008), pp. 6-7.
[3] Raphael Patai, Apprentice in Budapest: Memories of a world that is no more (1988), p. 156.
[4] Norman Salsitz, A Jewish Boyhood in Poland: Remembering Kolbuszowa (1999), pp. 166-167.
[5] A. Z. Hurvitz, Zichronot Fun Tzvei Dorot (1935), p. 138.
[6] Benjamin Lee Gordon, Between Two Worlds: The Memoirs of a Physician (2011), p. 24.
[7] R’ Shlomo Tzvi Schueck, Seder Haminhagim, (1880) p. 69b. About R’ Schueck, see Adam Ferziger, “The Hungarian Orthodox Rabbinate and Zionism: The Case of R. Salamon Zvi Schück”, Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, Israel, July 1993). I hope to return to him in a future piece.
[8] See the critical edition of this work printed in 1997, p. 67.
[9] P. 64.
[10] H. Baer, Ceremonies of Modern Judaism (1856), p. 149.
[11] R’ Z. Yavrov (ed.), Ma’aseh Ish Vol. 5 (2001), p. 19.
[12] R’ A. L. Horovitz (ed.), Orchos Rabbeinu Vol. 2 ( p. 78.
[13] R’ Y. Turner & R’ A. Auerbach (ed.), Halichos Shlomo (Moadei Hashanah: Nissan-Av) (2007) p. 260; R’ T. Freund, Shalmei Moed, (2004) p.400.
[14] R’ M. M. Schneersohn, Haggadah Shel Pesach Im Likutei Tamim Vol. 1 (2014), p. 11. See also p. 179.
[15] R’ Y. Shlezinger, Meorot Yitzchak (2012) p. 345.
[16] R’ S. Gaguine, Keser Shem Tov Vol. 3 (1948), p. 176.
[17] Halichos Teiman (1968), p. 22. See also, R’ Razabi, Hagadah Pri Etz Chaim, p. 337-338; R’ Harari, Mikroei Kodesh, p. 209.
[18] Meorei Or, Od Lomoed, p. 178a. The Orchos Chaim (Spinka). 473:19 quotes this piece. See R’ Yisachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Moed 1, p. 311. On this work see the important article of Yakov Speigel, Yerushaseinu 3 (2009, pp. 269-309. About this specific piece see Ibid, pp. 279-289; R’ Dovid Zvi Hillman, Yeshurun 25 (2011), p. 620.
[19] Gamliel Ben Pedahzur, The Book of Religion, Ceremonies and Prayers of the Jews, London 1738, pp. 54-55. On this work see C. Roth, Personalities and Events in Jewish History, pp.87-90, David B. Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key, Princeton University Press 2000, pp. 242-49.
[20] See Hanaghot HaMarshal, pp. 10-11; Magen Avraham, 473:22; Chidushel Dinim Mei-Hilchos Pesach, p. 38. See Rabbi Chaim Benveniste, Pesach Meuvin, 315; Vayagid Moshe, pp. 116-117. There are numerous sources for putting on short skits at the seder I hope to return to this in the future.
[21] See Rabbi Yechiel Heller, Or Yisharim, p. 3b; R’ Reuven Margolis, Haggdas Baer Miriam (2002), p, 26.
[22] The Haggadah is now online here (http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss-pr/mss_d_0076/). See Bezalel Narkiss and Gabriella Sed-Rajna article about this Hagdah available there. Thanks to Rabbi Mordechai Honig for pointing me to this source.
[23] On this haggadah see Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggadas, p. 2, # 7-8. See also Rabbi Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut, (1967), pp, 69-71; the introduction to the 1965 reprint of this Haggadah; Yosef Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 13; See also Yosef Tabori, Mechkarim Betoldos Halacha (forthcoming), pp. 461-474. I hope to return to this Hagdah in a future article.
[24] Sich Yitzchack, p. 21a. About this Gaon see the Introduction of R’ Adler in his recent edition of his Pnei Yitzchchak- Apei Ravrivi.
[25] Mekor Chaim, Siman 477. This incredible work was first printed from manuscript in 1988.
[26] Chok Yaakov, 472:2. About him see S. Shilah, Asufot 11 (1998), pp. 65-86.
[27] Noheg Ketzon Yosef, p. 222.
[28] See his siddur, volume 2, p. 48. This comment is from the recent additions printed from the manuscript of his siddur.
[29] The first to tie it to this Gemarah was Chok Yakov (1696), R’ Yakov Emden; R’ Yedidya Thia Weil, Marbeh Lisaper, (1791), p. 7a; R’ Shimon Sofer (son of the Chasam Sofer), Mectav Sofer p. 110b; R’ Tzvi Segal, Likutei Tzvi, (1866) p. 28; R’ Shlomo Tzvi Schueck, Seder Haminhaghim, (1880) p. 69b; Sefer Matamim, p. 154; Meir Ish Sholom, Meir Ayin Al Seder Vehagadah Shel Leli Pesach, (1895), p. 34; Rabbi Yeshayah Singer, Mishneh Zichron, (1913) p. 180; R. Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918), p. 136. See also Daniel Goldschmidt, Haggadah Shel Pesach (1948), p. 22 [This piece does not appear in his later edition]. See the interesting Teshuvah on this from R’ Munk, Pas Sudecha, Siman 51.
[30] Related to this, see Shu”t Torah Lishmah, #138 where he describes a custom on the Seder night.
[31] See Rashi; Rashbam; Riaz.
[32] Rambam, Chometz Umatzah 7:3.
[33] See R' Saul Lieberman's Tosefta Kifshuto, Pesachim, p. 653; R’ Yisachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Moed 1, p. 311; Meir Ish Sholom, Meir Ayin Al Seder Vehagadah Shel Leli Pesach, (1895), pp. 34-35; Yosef Tabori, Pesach Dorot, p. 254; Shmuel & Zev Safrai, Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp. 47-48.
[34] See Rashbam; Sefer HaMichtam; Maharam Halewa; Rabbenu Yerchem; Meiri. See also Ri Melunel and the Nimukei Yosef. See also Mahril, p. 114.
[35] This topic is dealt with at great length in Rabbi Mordechai Breuer’s Pirkei Mo’adot, pp. 171-192; Shama Friedman, Tosefta Atiktah, pp. 439-446. See also Rabbi Yosef Dubovick’s unpublished paper on the topic [many thanks to him for making it available to me]. See also Hagada Shel Pesach, Mesivtah, pp. 101-107. For more on this see the excellent recent work of Dovid Henshke, Ma Nishtna (2016), pp.271-299, 397-405.
[36]. See Chinuch Mitzvah 10.
[37] Chinuch Mitzvah 20.
[38] See R' Chaim Berlin, Nishmat Chaim, p. 179. Yechezkel Kotik describes in his memoirs (Ma She'ra'iti, p. 164) getting nuts on Erev Pesach. See also Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings, p. 44 who also describes getting nutson Pesach.
[39] See R' Chaim Berlin, Shut Nishmat Chaim (Bei Brak), Siman 50.
[40] Chock Yakov, 473:28 see also Mahril, p. 98; Yosef Tabori, Pesach Dorot, (1996), pp. 212-244; R’ Yosef Schachar, Hod Vhadar Kevodo, pp. 124-125 [A Letter of Rabbi Chaim Berlin]; my Bein Keseh La-asur, pp. 148-153.
[41] See Yosef Tabori, Pesach Dorot, ibid.
[42] See Drasha of the Rokeach, p. 97
[43] Seder Hayom, p. 153
[44] Drasha of the Rokeach, p.98.
[45] Drasha of the Rokeach, p.98.
[46] See Drasha of the Rokeach, p. 9. But see Magan Avrhom 473:25 and Chock Yakov 473:33.
[47] See Magan Avrhom, 473:27; Seder Haaruch, 1, p. 388-390.
[48] Maagal Tov, pp. 62. On this work see my article in Yeshurun 26 (2012) pp. 853-874 and my earlier article in Ami Magazine, September 27, 2012 Is the Zoo Kosher?
[49] See the collection of sources in Rabbi Tovia Preshel, Or Yisroel 15 (1999),pp. 149-151; Rabbi Yisroel Dandorovitz, Yechalek Shalal (2014), pp. 92-98. It appears that the Barcelona Haggadah, produced after 1350, is the earliest record of the custom to place the Seder Plate on someone’s head during the recitation of Ha Lahma Anya [Thanks to Dan Rabnowitz for this source].
[50] Hagadas HaGershuni, p. 58
[51] Yehudei Poras, pp. 25, 26-27.
[52] Shut Mili D’avos (3:14).
[53] Orech Dovid, p. 107
[54] Hagadah Yerushlyim Bemoadeah,p. 55. See also R’ Harari, Mikroei Kodesh, p. 209
[55] Noheg Ketzon Yosef, p. 222.
[56] Seder Haaruch 1, p. 338. However see the Aruch Hashulchan 696:10 who says today we are not on such a level.
[57] For additional reasons see R’ Shimon Sofer (son of the Chasam Sofer), Mectav Sofer p. 110b; R’ Yisroel Margolis Yafeh, Shut Mili D’avos (3:14); Rabbi Yeshayah Singer, Mishneh Zichron, (1913) p.67a.
[58] Shut Torah Lishma, #138. On this work see: M. Koppel, D. Mughaz and N. Akiva (2006), New Methods for Attribution of Rabbinic Literature Hebrew Linguistics: A Journal for Hebrew Descriptive, Computational and Applied Linguistics; M. Koppel, J. Schler and E. Bonchek-Dokow (2007), Measuring Differentiability: Unmasking Pseudonymous Authors, JMLR 8, July 2007, pp.1261-1276; R’ Y. Liba, Shevet MeYehudah, pp. 213-236; R’ Yakov Hillel, Ben Ish Chai (2011), pp. 410-422; (excellent) intro-
duction to the new edition of this work; Levi Cooper, A Bagdadi Mystery: Rabbi Yosef Chaim and Torah Lishmah, JEL 14;1 (2015), pp 54-60.
[59] Birchat Moshe, pp. 15-16
[60] Rav Schwab on Prayer, pp. 542-543.
[61] R’ Menachem Kasher, Torah Shlemah, 12:286; Rabbi Moshe Weingarten, Seder Ha-Aruch 2 pp.244-245; Pardes Eliezer, pp.172-179. The most recent discussion of this custom is by R’ Bentzion Eichorn where he devoted a complete work called Simchat Zion (2008) (73 pps.) devoted to the many aspects of this minhag. See also D. Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, p. 585.
[62] Rememberings, p. 45.
[63] H. Isaacs, Ceremonies, Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, London 1794, pp. 111.
[64] H. Baer, Ceremonies of Modern
Judaism, Nashville 1856, p. 149.
[65] Tzefunot 11 (1991), p.97.
[66] Darchei Chaim Ushalom, pp. 193-194.
[67] Yehudei Poras, p.27.
[68] Osem Bosem, p. 35.
[69] Siman 500:7. For a possible early source for this dating to 1550 see Y. Yuval, Two nations in your Womb, p.245.
[70] Chok Yakov, 477:3.
[71] Kitzur Hashilah, p. 67a. See Hatzofeh Lichochmas Yisroel 9 (1925), pp.235-241 for an additional problem with observing this custom.
[72] Shut Shevous Yakov, 3:52.
[73] Mekor Chaim, Siman 477.
[74] Yerushalayim BeModeah (Purim), p. 258.
[75][76] Derech HaYashar, p. 8, p. 42.
[77] Amtachas Binyomin, p. 18.
[78] Sefer Zechira, p. 271. On this work see my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 13-25.
[79] See Cecil Roth, Personalities and Events in Jewish History, p. 85. See also Abigail Green, Moses Montefiore: Jewish Liberator, Imperial Hero (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 82-83 and 447 n.104. [Thanks to Menachem Butler for this last source].
[80] Gamliel Ben Pedahzur, The Book of Religion, Ceremonies and Prayers of the Jews, London 1738, p.78. Earlier on p. 55 he mentions some carry it with them as a segulah when traveling to stop a storm.
[81] Mishnat Sachir, # 122.
[82] See also R’ Dovid Zechut, Zecher Dovid, 3:27, p. 183.
[83] Chemdas Yomim, Pesach, p. 26 b. On this work see my Likutei Eliezer, p. 2.
[84] Eleh hamitzvos 19, p. 58.
[85] Minhagehi Mahritz Halevi, p. 167-168.
[86] On this work see Gerrit Boss, extensive article “Hayyim Vital’s Practical kabbalah and Alchemy; a 17th Century book of secrets” in the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Volume 4, pp. 54-112. See also my Likutei Eliezer, pp.46-89.
[87] Sefer Hape’olot p. 241. In 2015 a beautiful haggadah, Hagaddas Medrash BiChodesh, (2015), was printed for the first time of R’ Eliezer Foah (died 1658) talmid of the Remah Mi Pano where he also brings this segulah of throwing it in to the sea (pp. 19-20). The editor incorrectly writes that this is the first source for this segulah.
[88] Siddur Rashban, 33b.
[89] Minhagehi Mahritz Halevi, p. 167-168.
[90] H. Baer, Ceremonies of Modern Judaism, Nashville 1856, p. 149.

The Hanukkah Miracle

$
0
0
The Hanukkah Miracle

Marc B. Shapiro

In an earlier post I mentioned that I hoped to write about the nineteenth-century dispute about the historicity of the Hanukkah miracle of the oil. This dispute broke out after the publication of Hayyim Zelig Slonimski’s article claiming that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle. Fuel was added to the fire when R. Samuel Alexandrov publicly supported Slonimski and argued that the miracle of the oil was intended to be understood in a non-literal fashion, with the oil representing Torah. (He later retracted this view, presumably due to public pressure.) There is no longer a need for me to write in any detail about this matter after Zerachyah Licht’s recent comprehensive Seforim Blog post here, which also includes Slonimski's original article.[1]

However, there are a few points I would like to add.

In my post here I wrote:

To give an example . . . of how [R. Samuel Moses] Rubenstein's later thought broke with tradition, see his Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Aggadah (Kovno, 1937), p. 103, where he claims that the story of the miracle of Hanukkah is almost certainly a late aggadic creation, and like many other miracle stories in aggadic literature was not originally intended to be understood as historical reality:[2]

ספק הוא אם הנס של "פך השמן"הוא אפילו הגדה עממית קדומה, קרוב שהוא יצירה אגדית חדשה מבעל הברייתא עצמו או מאחד מבעלי האגדה, ונסים אגדיים כאלו רבים הם בברייתות וגמרא ומדרשים ע"ד ההפלגה כדרכה של האגדה. ולבסוף הובן נס זה למעשה שהיה. עיין שבת כ"ג א'. [טעם ברייתא זו הובא גם במגילת תענית (פ"ט) אבל כמו שנראה היא הוספה מאוחרת, ועיין (שם) ובפסיקתא רבתי (פיסקא דחנוכה) עוד טעם להדלקת נרות חנוכה[.

During the most recent Hanukkah I was using R. Joseph Hertz’s siddur, the Authorized Daily Prayer Book. Based upon how he describes the holiday and the lighting of the menorah, omitting any mention of the miracle of the lights (pp. 946-947), I assume that he also didn’t accept it literally. Note how he states that the lights were kindled during the eight-day Dedication festival, and this is the reason for the eight days of Hanukkah, rather than offering the traditional reason that the eight days of Hanukkah commemorate the eight days that the menorah miraculously burnt.

Three years to the day on which the Temple was profaned by the blaspheming foe, Kislev the 25th 165, Judah Maccabeus and his brethren triumphantly entered the Holy City. They purified the Temple, and their kindling of the lights during the eight-day festival of Dedication—Chanukah—is a telling reminder, year by year, of the rekindling of the Lamp of True Religion in their time.

Ad kan my words in the prior post. Some time ago I was asked if I know of any other traditional authors who deny the literalness of the Hanukkah miracle. It could be that R. Isidore Epstein should be added to the list, as in his classic work Judaism he describes Hanukkah and the kindling of lights, but mentions nothing about the miracle. However, unlike Hertz whose comments were in a siddur and directed to Jews, Epstein’s book is directed towards a general reader, and can still be used as a college text. Understandably, one would hesitate to include in such a book anything about a miracle. Yet I think it is telling that he does not even say something like, “according to tradition a cruse of oil with enough for one day burnt for eight.” 

Another traditional author who must be mentioned in this regard is R. Zev Yavetz. Here is his picture.


And to remind people of what Slonimski looked like, here is his picture.[3]


And here is a picture of R. Alexandrov.


Yavetz was one of the leaders (and founders) of the Mizrachi movement, and Kfar Yavets, a religious moshav, is named after him. After his death, R. Kook wrote about how Yavetz was able to combine Torah and secular wisdom without being negatively affected and distorting religious values.[4] Yavetz is best known for his writings on Jewish history. His magnum opus is his 14 volume Toldot Yisrael. In volume 4, pp. 89-91, he discusses the Hanukkah story.




As you can see, there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. The eight day holiday is portrayed as a commemoration of the original eight day celebration that took place when the Temple was rededicated. I don’t think there is any other conclusion that can be drawn other than that Yavetz did not regard the miracle of the oil as an actual historical event.

In 1900 R. Aryeh Leib Feinstein published his Elef ha-Magen. On p. 35b he writes that whereas R. Judah (bar Ilai) believed in the Hanukkah miracle, R. Yose and R. Judah ha-Nasi did not, and that is the reason why R. Judah ha-Nasi did not include the laws of the Hanukkah lights in the Mishnah.

חיוב נר חנוכה עתה אינו בשביל המלוכה רק מפני הנס שנעשה בפך השמן שהדליקו בו שמונה ימים, ואף שגם טעם זה תלוי במחלוקת שבין ר'יודא ור'יוסי בהוריות [יא ע"ב] שלדעת ר'יודא נסים רבים אירעו בשמן המשחה, ור'יוסי חולק עליו שלא היה בו שום נס, ומטעם זה ג"כ השמיט רבי דיני נר חנוכה, ולא הזכירו בשום משנה, רק מזכירו לענין ניזקין בשם ר'יודא שפוטר החנוני, לפי שר'יודא לשיטתו סובר שנר חנוכה הוא מצוה לזכר הנס שאירע בפך שמן המשחה. אבל רבי פוסק כר'יוסי לפי שנימוקו עמו. אך התלמוד אוחז בזה כר'יודא לפי שהנס מהשמן כבר נתפרסם בהאומה.

On p. 36a Feinstein refers to the dispute between Slonimski and the rabbis, and says that many good Jews adopted Slonimski’s position. He tells us that he informed Slonimski that the dispute between him and the rabbis was actually an old dispute.

ואחריו נמשכו עוד רבים וכן שלמים שמהרו ויחליטו כדבריו . . . והראיתיו לדעת שבאמת ענין זה כבר דשו בו רבים, ונחלקו עליו משפחות משפחות, וביחוד ר'יודא ור'יוסי בהוריות. אך בכ"ז רבינו הקדוש אף שנטה למלכות בית דוד ולדעת ר'יוסי, לא ערב לבו לנגוע במנהג ישן שקימו וקבלו עליהם הדורות שלפניו.

Not long ago I was listening to some recordings from R. David Bar-Hayim of Machon Shilo. One of them is entitled “The Story of the Macabees, part 2.” You can find it here. In this lecture, beginning at minute 27, R. Bar-Hayim explains that in his opinion there was no miracle of the oil, and it is simply a legend that developed in Babylonia, “because without that Hanukkah makes no sense for a Jew in galut.” Rather than attempt to summarize his perspective, it is preferable for readers to listen to his entire shiur.

Because of his originality, I would not have been surprised had R. Chaim Hirschensohn adopted the same sort of approach. Yet this is not the case, and R. Hirschensohn writes that the Hanukkah miracle was the final open miracle in Jewish history, by which he means that after this Jewish history is to be explained in a more naturalistic way, just like the history of other peoples. However, he adds that it must also be recognized that the very existence of the Jewish people over so many years in exile is itself a miracle.[5]

נר חנוכה הוא חותם הניסים בדברי ימי עמנו, כמלאכי חותם הנביאים.
אחרי נצחון החשמונאים החלו אצלנו דברי הימים כאשר לכל העמים, אם שאין ספק שגם מקודם היה לנו דברי הימים אבל המסופר לנו המה רק מעשה ניסים ובתוכם עלינו לבקש גרעיני דברי הימים, אבל המסופר לנו אחרי מלחמת החשמונאים כלו דברי הימים אבל הדברי הימים בעצמו הוא כלו מעשה נסים כי בארצות הגולה בנס אנו עומדים.

Since Slonimski claimed that Maimonides did not believe in the Hanukkah miracle, I think it is worth noting that although Maimonides could have stated that Hanukkah commemorates the military victory or the rededication of the Temple, he actually appears to say that the entire holiday is in commemoration of the lighting of the Menorah.[6] There are many sources[7] that state that the real miracle commemorated by Hanukkah is not the oil but the military victory, but this does not seem to be Maimonides’ perspective. Here is what he writes in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2-3[8]:

ב. וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.
ג.  ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתן מלילי חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס וימים אלו הןן הנקראין חנוכה.

In fact, this is the talmudic perspective as well. Shabbat 21b asks what is the reason for the holiday of Hanukkah (מאי חנוכה), and rather than speak about the military victory or rededication of the Temple all it mentions is the miracle of the oil. Many will find this strange, since can this really be the reason for the holiday? It is one thing to say that this is the reason for the eight days of celebration, but can this be the reason for the holiday itself? The Sheiltot of R. Ahai Gaon[9] preserves another version of the talmudic text. Instead of מאי חנוכה it reads מאי נר חנוכה. With this as the question, the answer which explains about the miracle of the oil makes much more sense.[10]

Slonimski did not argue that Maimonides’ philosophy does not leave room for the Hanukkah miracle. He simply pointed out that when Maimonides records the talmudic story of the miracle he leaves out three words: נעשה בו נס. Here is the relevant section of the talmudic text in Shabbat 21b. I have underlined the crucial words:

וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה.

Here is what Maimonides writes in Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, and as you can see the underlined words do not appear.

וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.

According to Slonimski, the omission of the words נעשה בו נס indicates that Maimonides does not believe that there was any miracle. Rather, Maimonides is telling us that since there was not enough oil to last for more than one day, they used a little of the oil on each of the eight days, until they were able to get more oil.

A weakness in Slonimski’s argument, which of course was pointed out, is that in the very next halakhah, 3:3, Maimonides appears to explicitly mention the miracle.

ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס

It is hard to see the underlined words as referring to anything other than the miracle of the oil.

Needless to say, Slonimski would have been very happy to learn that these underlined words, although they appear in the standard printed editions of the Mishneh Torah going back to early printings, do not appear in manuscripts and are not authentic (and have thus been removed from the Frankel edition). Presumably, these words were added by someone to “correct” Maimonides’ omission of the miracle of the oil.[11] (Slonimski, who did not know that להראות ולגלות הנס was a later addition, was forced to claim that these words referred to the military victory.[12])

If this was all we had to go by, I might agree that Maimonides is hinting to us that he did not accept the historicity of the miracle of the oil. However, if we examine Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah, chapter 4, we find that Maimonides mentions "the miracle," and again, the miracle he refers to appears to be that of the oil.[13]

In 4:12 he writes:

מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאוד וצריך אדם להיזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח הא-ל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה.
In 4:13 he writes

הרי שאין לו אלא פרוטה אחת ולפניו קידוש היום והדלקת נר חנוכה מקדים שמן להדליק נר חנוכה על היין לקידוש היום הואיל ושניהם מדברי סופרים מוטב להקדים נר חנוכה שיש בו זכרון הנס.

Isn’t the most likely understanding that these two halakhot refer to the miracle of the oil? In 4:12 he first mentions “the miracle,” which I believe refers to the miracle of the oil, and then mentions “the miracles” in plural, which would also include the military victory. I don’t believe that Maimonides generally leaves esoteric hints in the Mishneh Torah, so I don’t think leaving out the words נעשה בו נס are intended to hint to us that he rejects the historicity of the miracle. In fact, since Maimonides denies the historicity of some events recorded in the Bible, regarding them as dreams or visions, it would not have been a theological problem for him to do so with the miracle of the oil, the source of which is a talmudic aggadah. However, as we have seen, he seems to explicitly affirm this miracle in the Mishneh Torah. Therefore, one who wants to claim that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle (despite what he says in the Mishneh Torah), will have to base this claim on an interpretation of Maimonides’ approach to miracles as set out in the Guide.

As mentioned, Slonimski’s rejection of the miracle of the oil created a great controversy, but what appears to be unknown is that he was not the first of the Hebrew writers to bring this matter to the fore. The newspaper Ha-Magid published articles by both maskilim and traditional Torah scholars. On December 9, 1868[14] Nahum Bruell[15] published an article which states: “In truth, the story of this miracle is not accepted by all sages of the Talmud and Midrash.” He then cites Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 2, which asks why we light נרות on Hanukkah. Its answer is not the story of the miracle but that after the Jews entered the Temple they took eight spears and put נרות on them.

נכנסו לבית המקדש מצאו שם שמונה שפודין של ברזל וקבעו אותם והדליקו בתוכם נרות.

Bruell also cites the medieval tosafist R. Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi who in his Pa’neah Raza,[16] in explaining why the Hasmoneans decreed lighting of the נרות, mentions nothing about the miracle:

נסמכה פרשת נרות לחנוכת המזבח וע"ז סמכו בית חשמונאי לתקן נרות בחנוכה

Although Bruell cited this text to show that not everyone accepted the Hanukkah miracle, I find it impossible to believe that R. Isaac (or any other medieval Ashkenazic sage) did not accept the traditional story of the miraculous burning of the oil. If I am correct that R. Isaac’s explanation is not in place of the Hanukkah miracle but only to offer an additional explanation, then perhaps even a text like Pesikta Rabbati cites the explanation it does, not because it did not know or accept the story of the miraculous oil, but because it wanted to offer another explanation, perhaps one not as well known.

Bruell further suggests that the talmudic aggadah about the Hanukkah miracle was never meant to be taken literally:

ואפשר גם בתשובתם על השאלה מאי חנוכה רמזו לנו כעיון גדול ועמוק כי אין מעצר לד'להושיע ברב או במעט ואם גם נמשכו כל כוכבי התקוה ורבים חללו את ברית קדש מ"מ מפך שמן טהור המונח בחותמו של כה"ג דהיינו משארית הצדיקים אשר יחזיקו במעזם ויבטחו בד'נעשה נס, יבא עזרם מעם ד'עשה שמים וארץ ועוד יזרח להם אור התשועה.

One more point worth noting is about the number 8. According to the traditional story of the miracle of the oil, what is special about the number 8? Most people have probably heard the reason, also accepted by Maimonides, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, that in the days of the Hasmoneans this is how long it would take for those in Jerusalem to get new olive oil.[17] I never understood this explanation as why should getting new oil be a problem. It is not like olive trees are a rare thing in the Land of Israel. In any event, this explanation does not appear in the Talmud but is first found in a geonic responsum.[18]

למה אנו עושין שמונה ימי חנוכה מפני הנס שאירע שטמאו יונים וכו'. ומה טעם יש לשמנה לילות ולא הספיקו ממנו פחות או יותר.

מפני שהשמנים באים מחלקו של אשר כדכתיב (דברים לג, כד) וטובל בשמן רגלו ומקום היה לו שנקרא תקוע כדאמרינן תקוע אלפא לשמן שממנו השמנים יוצאים ומשם עד ירושלים היה מהלך שמנה ימים בין הליכה וחזרה והכי אמרינן במנחות ולפיכך המתין להם עד שיביאו משם שמן טהור וזה שנעשה להם נס לשמנת ימים.

There are a number of difficulties with this responsum. To begin with, we are told that olive oil came from the area of the tribe of Asher which is in the extreme north of the Land of Israel. This information is based on the fact that in Moses’ blessing for the tribe of Asher in Deuteronomy 33:24, he states, “let him dip his foot in oil.” This means that there would be lots of olive trees in Asher’s territory, but since there were plenty of olive trees closer to the Temple, why did they have to travel all the way to the land of Asher which, we are told, would require an eight day round trip. Even if one supposes (without any evidence) that normally they would go there since that was where the best olive oil was to be found, if they only had enough to light the menorah for one day, it is hard to imagine that they would not set out to find olive oil closer to the Temple.

The next point in the responsum is that there was a specific place in Asher’s territory called Tekoa, and that was where the oil came from. It cites Menahot 85b where the Mishnah states that “Tekoa ranks first for the quality of its oil.” Yet as I’m sure most people reading this know, Tekoa is near Jerusalem in the territory of Judah, not in the land of Asher. II Chronicles 11:5-6 states: “And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defense in Judah. He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa.”

As proof for the statement that it would take eight days to travel to the north and back in order to get the olive oil, we are told והכי אמרינן במנחות. Yet nowhere in Menahot is this information found. In Sefer Abudarham, Seder Hadlakat Ner Hanukkah, this geonic passage is quoted, but instead of referring to Menahot, we are told that the information is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same reference to the Jerusalem Talmud also appears in Hiddushei R. Yehonatan mi-LunelShabbat 21b, and Sefer ha-Eshkol, ed. Auerbach, vol. 2, p. 20. For those who assume that Auerbach’s edition of Sefer ha-Eshkol is a forgery, this reference is just another example of the work incorporating passages from other writings.

I don’t have an answer as to why anyone assumed that the oil had to come from the land of Asher, but as for the city of Tekoa, it could be that there was another city also named Tekoa, in addition to the one we know about in the territory of Judah. The Soncino Talmud, Menahot 85b, informs us that both Graetz and Bacher think that the Tekoa mentioned there is in the Galilee, which could be said to include part of the territory of Asher.[19] Furthermore, Samuel Klein, the leading geographer of the Land of Israel, also argues that there was a city named Tekoa in the Galilee.[20]

What about the Tekoa that Amos came from? If you look at R. David Kimhi’s commentary to Amos 1:1, he tells us that Tekoa was a large city in the land of Asher (see also his commentary to Amos 7:10). In his commentary to II Samuel 14:2, he writes, quoting the Talmud in Menahot 85b (except for the first four words):

העיר בחלקו של אשר דכתיב ביה וטוב בשמן רגלי שמושך שמן כמעין

The biblical story Radak is commenting on is when Joab fetched a wise woman from Tekoa and told her to go to King David and pretend to be a mourner. I am surprised that Radak would assume that Joab was summoning a woman from all the way in the territory of Asher. In his response to Radak, R. Profiat Duran (Efodi[21]) states that it is obvious that the story is dealing with a city near Jerusalem.[22]

והשכל הישר ישפוט כי תקוע היה קרוב לירושלם כי איך ישלח לקרות אשה מארץ אשר היה רחוק מירושלם.

Again we have to ask, just because a city named Tekoa happened to be known for its olive oil, why should anyone assume that it is in the territory of Asher? The fact that the tribe of Asher was blessed with having a lot of olive trees in its territory does not mean that the other tribes did not also have a good supply. In fact, it appears to me that the peshat of Menahot 85b, where the Mishnah speaks of Tekoa as having good olive oil, is that it is speaking about the Tekoa near Jerusalem.[23] It is true that in the talmudic discussion Tekoa and the land of Asher are mentioned regarding olive oil, but their only connection would seem to be this, not that Tekoa has anything to do with Asher’s territory.[24]

Jeremiah 6:1 states: “Gather the sons of Benjamin from the midst of Jerusalem, and blow the horn in Tekoa.” Here Jeremiah is telling the tribe of Benjamin, who lived near Jerusalem, to blow the horn in Tekoa in order to warn the people about the danger from the approaching enemy. Malbim on this verse comments that Tekoa is part of Asher. I don’t understand how Malbim could view this as peshat. Why would the people of Benjamin travel to the territory of Asher to blow the shofar? This territory was occupied by foreign troops, the local inhabitants having been deported a long time before. Here are Malbim’s words:

העיזו אתה בני בנימין התאספו מקרב ירושלים, כי בני בנימין לא היו מבני העיר ורצו לחסות שם בירושלים, אומר כי יתרחקו משם, וגם בתקוע שהוא בחלק אשר, תקעו שופר.

Based on Jeremiah 6:1, Efodi states that Tekoa is actually in the territory of Benjamin and not, as I mentioned before, in Judah’s territory.[25]

Returning to our discussion of the Hanukkah miracle, R. Sharon Shalom recently published a very interesting book entitled Mi-Sinai le-Ethiopia (Tel Aviv, 2012). This book, which is a code of halakhah for Ethiopian Jews, has haskamot from R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Shabtai Rappaport. It is significant in that it takes into account that it is not so easy for the older generation of Ethiopian Jews to entirely reject their traditions in order to become modern rabbinic Jews. As such, R. Shalom permits certain things that would not make sense in the larger Jewish world but are part of what he terms “Ethiopian halakhah.” For example, R. Shalom permits Ethiopian Jews, especially of the older generation, to carry items regarded as muktzeh when this is related to holy matters, for example, bringing money to synagogue on the Sabbath for charity. This was not regarded as prohibited in Ethiopia and R. Shalom allows the practice to continue today (pp. 170-171).

This is a fascinating book as it attempts to slowly ease the Ethiopian community into the wider halakhic community rather than requiring an immediate abandonment of long-standing practices, something that would certainly be demanded by haredi poskim. You can see R. Shalom discuss his book here, and he is introduced by R. Rappaport.


While the book deserves detailed analysis, I only want to call attention to one additional point that is relevant to this post. Here is R. Shalom’s discussion of Hanukkah, from pp. 214-215 in the book. There is no mention of the Hanukkah miracle in explaining why we celebrate an eight day holiday.








I would like to call readers’ attention to a short essay by R. Nosson Fried on Megilat Antiochus.[26] Here is the title page.


R. Fried points out that in the version of Megilat Antiochus that he published in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael[27] there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. He is quite surprised by this for as he says, “this is the central miracle in commemoration of which they established the lighting on Hanukkah.” He adds that this miracle is not mentioned in Al ha-Nisim or in Pesikta Rabbati which has a good deal to say about Hanukkah. He then notes that all of the Eretz Yisrael paytanim, which includes Yanai and R. Eleazar ha-Kalir, and some of the European paytanim also do not mention the miracle. (Other European paytanim, such as R. Menahem ben Machir, do mention the miracle.) How can this be explained?

R. Fried’s answer is quite unexpected (p. 8): “The sages of the Land of Israel in the time of the Talmudim and Midrashim knew nothing about the miracle of the cruse of oil.” He explains that the story of the miracle is a Babylonian tradition and thus was not known in the Land of Israel, or even by some of the early European paytanim. He writes (p. 9):

שכל אותן המקורות הקודמים, החל מספרי החשמונאים וכלה בפייטני א"י ומקצת מפייטני אירופה הקדמונים, לא ידעו כלל שאמנם היה נס בשמן . . . [הנקודות במקור] לשיטתם נקבע חג החנוכה לזכר הנצחונות והנסים שאירעו לבני חשמונאי במלחמותיהם נגד היונים.

Coming from a haredi writer this is quite surprising, and let me explain why. All of the scholars who have argued against the historicity of the miracle of the oil have pointed out that none of the oldest texts dealing with Hanukkah mention this miracle. This includes 1 and 2 Maccabees, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, tannaitic texts, and Josephus. Josephus even suggests a different explanation for why the holiday is called “Lights.” Those who defend the historicity of the miracle have to explain why these sources chose not to mention it.

Before Fried, no traditional author had ever suggested that the miracle story was unknown to the tannaim and later rabbinic authors, and that is for an obvious reason. If you say that the tannaim did not know the miracle, to say nothing of the authors of the Book of Maccabees 1 and 2, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, and Josephus, how is it possible that someone who lived a few hundred years later in Babylonia would know about the miracle? By saying that the people who lived in the Land of Israel close to the time of the events did not know the miracle, Fried is providing an argument that the miracle never happened and that the much later story recorded in the Babylonian Talmud is an aggadah which is not to be regarded as historical but rather teaches a lesson as many aggadot do. In other words, Fried’s argument leads to the same conclusion as Slonimski and R. Alexandrov, and for some reason he doesn’t see it.

R. Tuvyah Tavyomi has another approach to the matter.[28] He claims that since the miracle of the oil was only seen by a small group, the leaders of the generation were afraid that the masses, many of whom were hellenized, would not believe the story and thus not adopt the holiday. Therefore, they ordained the lighting of נרות without giving a reason, hiding the real reason from the people. The masses would believe that it was because of the military victory, while those who knew that holidays are only proclaimed for “out of the ordinary” miracles, they would find out about the story of the oil and would certainly believe it. According to R. Tavyomi, this explains why in the Al ha-Nissim prayer which is to be said by all people there is no mention of the miracle of the oil.

Finally, I was surprised that an article by Avraham Ohayon could be published in Shenaton Shaanan, the annual of Shaanan, a religious teachers college.[29] Ohayon’s article not only critically examines the story of the Hanukkah miracle, which he calls מיתוס נפ"ה (נס פך השמן)  (p. 59), but concludes that that it is most likely that the miracle never happened and was invented by the Sages for religious reasons. On pp. 58-59 he writes:

שתיקתם של המקורות ההיסטוריים, ובמידה מסוימת גם של חז"ל ומקורות הלכתיים בעניין נפ"ה – מעוררת שאלות בקשר למשמעות העובדתית של נס זה: האם הנס התרחש, וכתוצאה ממנו קבעו חז"ל את סממניו ההלכתיים, או שכדי לקבוע הלכות לדורות היה צריך קודם לסמוך להם נס?
חלק הארי של המקורות דלעיל – מחזק יותר את קיומה של האפשרות השנייה. . . .
חז"ל החילו שני שינויים במהותו של החג, ושניהם קשורים זה בזה:
האחד – שינוי עיקרו של הנס, מסגידה לניצחון הצבאי – לנס על-טבעי שהוא נפ"ה.
השני – הענקת צביון דתי לחג על-ידי קביעת איסורים שונים, תפילות מיוחדות ומצוות הדלקת הנרות שמונה ימים – כזכר לנפ"ה.

In a note on this passage, Ohayon cites Gedaliah Alon who explains what would have led the Sages to invent the Hanukkah miracle:

[אלון] תומך בדעה השנייה מן הטעם, שחז"ל רצו להשכיח את שם החשמונאים וגבורתם מזיכרון האומה, ואולם לא יכלו לעקור את חג החנוכה גופו. לכן קבעו טעם אגדי ובדרך זו "קיפלו"בו את תקופת החשמונאים, שהרי סיפור נפ"ה התחיל ממקורות חז"ל בלבד. הוא מביא גם נימוקים ליחס זה של חז"ל לחשמונאים.

Nothing Ohayon writes would be surprising if it appeared in a general academic journal, but as mentioned, his article appeared in a religious journal and that is what I find significant.

Returning to R. Samuel Alexandrov, who as mentioned at first supported Slonimski, Geulah bat Yehudah has a nice article on him[30] as does Ehud Luz,[31] and there is a master’s dissertation on him by Tsachi Slater.[32] Yet I would like to call attention to a few things that these authors have not mentioned. To begin with, R. Alexandrov reports that after the death of R. Shemariah Noah Schneersohn he was asked to take the latter’s place as rav of Bobruisk (R. Alexandrov's place of residence), yet he refused this offer.[33]

In Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1932), pp. 86-87, R. Alexandrov offers a provocative suggestion in explaining why Maimonides was so opposed to rabbis taking money from the community. He calls attention to Hullin 132b which states: “R. Simeon says. A priest who does not believe in the [Temple] service has no portion in the priesthood.” Rashi explains this to mean a priest who thinks the Temple service is nonsense and rather than having been commanded by God was invented by Moses. As for having no portion in the priesthood, Rashi explains that he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat.

Maimonides, Hilkhot Bikurim 1:1, codifies the law as follows:

וכל כהן שאינו מודה בהן אין לו חלק בכהנים ואין נותנין לו מתנה מהן.

According to R. Alexandrov, this is the key to understanding why Maimonides opposes rabbis taking money from the community. R. Alexandrov assumes based on what Maimonides writes in the Guide of the Perplexed that he did not really believe in the value of sacrifices. )R. Alexandrov himself did not believe that there would ever be a return to the sacrificial system.[34]) He further states that Maimonides realized that if he were a kohen he would have no portion in the priestly dues. Since the rabbinate, as the religious leadership of the community, replaces the old system of the kehunah, Maimonides reasoned that just as if he were a kohen he could not receive any priestly dues, so too as a rabbi he could take nothing from the community.

בספרו המורה הלא איננו מודה בקרבנות לפי המובן המורגל, ולכן חש בנפשו הנפש היפה שאין לו חלק במתנות כהונה . . . [הנקודות במקור] ובכן על פי טבעו ורוחו אוסר לקבל שכר רבנות, כי אמנם הרבנות הוא דמות זעיר אנפין של הכהונה בימים הקדמונים, כנודע.

R. Alexandrov also says a few things that some haredi readers will appreciate. For example, he explains Avot 2:2:  וכל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון in a very original fashion. He understands מלאכה to mean the work of creating Torah novellae! This passage in the Mishnah is always used against the Israeli haredi approach of shunning work in favor of study, and I have never seen a good justification offered as to why the Mishnah’s words can be so easily set aside. Yet with R. Alexandrov’s explanation, this is no longer a problem.[35]

ומה שאמר "כל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון", יש לכוין על מלאכת החדוש והפלפול וההגיון בתורתנו, ואומר כי תורה שאין עמה מלאכה ר"ל מלאכת החדוש סופה בטלה כי באמת רק כח החדוש הנותן פנים להתורה הקדושה בכל דור ודור לפי הרוח השורר אז, הוא הוא המקיים את התורה הישנה בעם ישראל.

* * * * *

1. Dov Weinstein called my attention to the following very significant responsum by R. Ovadiah Yosef that appeared in the journal Beit Yosef, Iyar 5776, no. 169. Over a century ago, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron suggested a way of “cleansing” a mamzer by having the husband send his wife a get and then void it before it is delivered. According to the Talmud, in such a case the marriage is to be regarded as annulled despite the fact that the husband voided the get. The problem the Sages had to deal with was if the husband was allowed to void a get after having sent it, the woman who received it would not know that it was invalid and would remarry. Although it would not be her fault, such a situation would result in her future children being mamzerim. The way around this was to decree that in such a case her original marriage was to be regarded as never having been actualized, something which the rabbis have authority to do. R. Schwadron’s originality comes in suggesting that this mechanism could also be used to solve the problem of mamzerut even after the fact, since if the original marriage is annulled in this fashion, by sending a get and then cancelling it before delivery, there is no subsequent adultery. This proposal, which was never put into practice by R. Schwadron, is discussed by R. J. David Bleich in Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1, pp. 162ff.

R. Ovadiah’s responsum is of great importance since his approach would solve the problem of mamzerut in many case. In earlier years, R. Isser Yehudah Unterman suggested that R. Schwadron's approach be followed in a particular case,[36] and R. Zvi Pesach Frank actually did so in another case.[37]



2. Is it significant that a haredi website recently published an article from a woman in which she argues that women should be able to become halakhic authorities? Was the website just looking to stir up trouble or is this a sign of something afoot even in the haredi world?

3. There has recently been a problem with the commenting whereby many comments that have Hebrew in them are rejected as spam. One of the rejected comments was by R. Moshe Maimon and is very insightful. Responding to R. Hershel Schachter’s point, discussed here, that Daas Torah authorities must be poskim, R. Maimon wrote:

Here is the Rambam's formulation of the ‘Daas Torah’ concept:
כן ראוי להמון שימסרו הנהגתם לנביאים בעלי העינים באמת, ויסמכו על מה שיודיעום שהדעת הפלונית אמתית והדעת הפלונית שקר. ואחר הנביאים - החכמים הדורשים יומם ולילה הדעות והאמונות, עד שידעו ויכירו האמת מן השקר.
I don't recall seeing this passage from אגרת תימן (Sheilat ed. p. 149) quoted in the various articles on the subject, but at any rate it seems to serve as a clear repudiation of Rav Schachter's view that only poskim can issue Daas Torah directives.

Regarding Daas Torah, someone challenged my statement in my post here that R. Kanievsky actually declared in a formal way that R. Steinman is to be regarded as the new leader. Readers can look at the actual words where R. Kanievsky indeed declares that everyone is “obligated” to follow what R. Steinman says. (An English translation is found here.) I don't know of any other such declaration in Jewish history. The gedolim have always been "created" by the religious community at large, and the gadol ha-dor (when there has been such a figure) emerged from this group of gedolim based on public acknowledgment. Yet here we have a declaration from one gadol establishing who the gadol ha-dor is and obligating everyone to follow his guidance. Will this be the new model in the haredi world for how to determine who the gadol ha-dor is?



Thanks to the person who doubted what I wrote, I was motivated to find R. Kanievsky's statement and I see that I did say something incorrect. I wrote that R. Kanievsky’s statement was made after R. Elyashiv’s death, but in fact it was made shortly before R. Elyashiv’s passing, when he was no longer in the position to serve as leader of the generation.




[1] One source not cited by Licht is a recent article by Yisrael Rozenson that focuses on R. Alexandrov and the miracle of the oil. “‘Asukh shel Shemen Ehad,’ Al Nes ve-Hukiyut be-Mishnato shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Badad 30 (Elul 5775), pp. 103-116.
[2] There is a good deal of interesting material in R. Rubenstein’s Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Aggadah. Relevant to what I mentioned in the text is that R. Rubenstein claims that many aggadot are not intended to be viewed as historical, and he refers to a number of such examples. See e.g., p. 101, that when the Talmud states that Solomon came up with the idea of an eruv, this is not to be taken literally but only means that it is an old idea which was later attributed to Solomon.

והמצאת היתר זה נעשה בזמן מן הזמנים שלא נדעהו, ומפני שתקנה זו היא המצאה מחוכמת מאד מאנשים חכמים נתנו למיסדי התקנה שם שלמה ואמרו שבשעה שתקן שלמה ערובין וכו'והוא מאמר אגדי.

He also mentions that some aggadot about biblical figures were created for their dramatic effect and that those who take them literally are missing the point. See p. 94:

אבל באמת ספורים כאלו אינם מעשיות שהיו לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום אלא הן יצירות דרמטיות במעלי האגדה כיד השירה הטובה עליהם. ויצירות כאלו הרבה הן בש"ס ובמדרשים וביחוד מהאנשים הקדמונים שנזכרו בתנ"ך. עיין לדוגמא האגדה ע"ד האבן שבקש עוג מלך הבשן לזרוק על ישראל (ברכות נ"ד א' [צ"ל ב']) [מחזה התולי משונאי ישראל המבקשים להמיט רעה על ראשי ישראל וחוזר על ראשיהם עצמם בעטים של ישראל]. והאגדה ע"ד מיתתו של דוד שבת ל'א' [צ"ל ב']) [מחזה על יקרת ערך החיים]. והאגדה ע"ד מפלתו של המן (מגילה ט"ז א') [מחזה נקמי]. והאגדה ע"ד דוד וישבי בנוב (סנהדרין צ"ה א') [מחזה מרחמי האב על זרעיו . . .] כל אגדות כאלו אינן מעשיות שהיו אלא יצירות דרמטיות.

I know there are some people who treat aggadot as if they are historical, but when it comes to the sort of aggadot mentioned by R. Rubenstein, do any really disagree with his understanding? 
[3] It is perhaps noteworthy that Slonimski’s two sons apostatized and it appears that Slonimski himself, despite being an observant Jew, deserves some blame for this. See Eliyanah Tzalah, “Tenuat ha-Hitbolelut be-Polin,” in Yisrael Bartal and Yisrael Guttman, eds., Kiyum ve-Shever: Yehudei Polin le-Doroteihem (Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 344-345. See also Avraham Aryeh Akaviah, “HaZaS, Hayyim Yehiel Bornstein, Pesah Shapira,” Areshet 5 (1972), p. 387.
[4] S. Arnst, Sefer Yavetz (Tel Aviv, 1934), pp. 34-35.
[5] Apiryon 2 (1925), pp. 99-100.
[6] He also leaves no doubt that the obligation to light the menorah dates from the Hasmonean period. I say this even though R. Moshe Sternbuch argues that Maimonides agrees with R. Sternbuch's own view that the obligation for individuals to light the Menorah only dates from after the destruction of the Temple. See Moadim u-Zemanim, Hanukah no. 89. For a rejection of R. Sternbuch’s position, see R. Simhah Lieberman, Bi-Shevilei ha-Nisim, p. 11. R. Lieberman’s many volumes encompass vast areas of Torah scholarship and show incredible erudition. Yet for some reason, I hardly ever see his works quoted, while other books which don’t approach his level of scholarship are quoted very often.
[7] See R. Simhah Lieberman, Bi-Shevilei ha-Nisim, pp. 52ff.; R. Menahem Kasher, Divrei Menahem, vol. 4, pp. 134ff.
[8] This point is made by R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz, Likutei Diburim (Brooklyn, 2015), p. 159.
[9] Parashat Va-Yishlah, section 26 (p. 177 in the Mossad ha-Rav Kook edition with the commentary of R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin). This source was noted by Nahum Bruell, “Mai Hanukkah,” Ha-Magid, Dec. 2, 1868, p. 373, and Jacob Reifman. See Reifman’s letter in Or ha-Mizrah 18 (Tishrei 5729), p. 95. Regarding this matter, R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin mentions Bruell by name in Ha-Amek She’alah, vol. 1, p. 178. For some reason, the Netziv refers to Bruell as בעל המגי' which is strange, as Bruell only contributed articles to Ha-Magid but was not the editor.
[10] The Sheiltot, vol. 1, p. 178, preserves another important alternate text of the Talmud. Our version of Shabbat 21b reads: ולא היה בו להלדיק אלא יום אחד

The Sheiltot reads:  ולא היה בו להדליק אפילו יום אחד     

The word I have underlined means that the oil they found was not even enough for one day. This means that the burning of the oil for the complete first day was also a miracle, and thus provides an answer to the famous question why there is an eighth day of Hanukkah if there was enough oil for one day, meaning that the miracle was only for seven days. 

Of all the answers to this question, the strangest one has to be that of R. Yerahme’el Yisrael Yitzhak Danziger (1853-1910), the Rebbe of Alexander. He claims that the cruse of oil they found was completely empty, and this empty cruse produced enough oil for eight days. He says this even though the Talmud, Shabbat 21b, states explicitly that they found .פך אחד של שמן See R. Danziger, Yismah Yisrael (Bnei Brak, 2007), vol. 1, p. 98a  (Hanukkah, no. 58).
[11] Another addition that is not found in manuscripts is in 3:2 where Maimonides writes:

ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד

The standard printed versions read:  .ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש Even though the word במקדש is not found in manuscripts in this case for some unknown reason Frankel includes this mistaken word in his text and only in the textual note on the page informs the reader that it is not found in the manuscripts.

[12] Ha-Tzefirah, Nov. 28, 1892, p. 1069.
[13] R. Abraham Joel Abelson, the editor of the Torah journal Keneset Hakhmei Yisrael, which appeared from 1893-1900, polemicizes against those who deny the miracle of the oil. Yet interestingly enough, he accepts Slonimski’s point that Maimonides does not mention the miracle, and even explains why Maimonides omits it. Contrary to what I have written, he assumes that the miracle Maimonides refers to in Hilkhot Hanukah, ch. 4, is the military victory, as the lighting of the candles is a commemoration of this (Keneset Hakhmei Yisrael 6 [1896], p. 131.).

אין מקום כלל להקשות על הרמב"ם מה שלא הביא ביד החזקה מהנס של פך השמן, כי אין מדרכו לכתוב בכל הלכותיו טעמים עליהן כידוע, וגם נס פך השמן הלא רק כעין טעם על מה שקבעו הזקנים ימי החנכה לדורות . . . ועיקר הנס הלא הי'במלחמות החשמונאים שע"ז קבעו להדליק נרות חנכה גם לדורות ולהודות ולהלל לשמו הגדול.


[14] “Mai Hanukkah,” p. 382.
[15] Bruell was the grandson of R. Nahum Trebitch, chief rabbi of Moravia and predecessor to R. Samson Raphael Hirsch in this position. Bruell himself became rabbi of the Reform community of Frankfurt in 1870, succeeding Abraham Geiger.
[16] Beginning of parashat Be-Ha’alotkha.
[17] As we know, the oil in the Temple was made impure by the Greeks, as the Talmud, Shabbat 21b, states: טמאו כל .השמנים שבהיכל

What does this mean? How could the oil have been made impure and what about the halakhic principle of טומאה הותרה בציבור which would have allowed them to light the menorah even with impure oil? Daniel Sperber argues that when the word “impure” is used it does not mean טמא in a technical ritual sense. Rather, it means that the oil was uses for idolatrous purposes and in a colloquial sense it was regarded as טמא. See Sperber, “Al ha-Mesorot be-Hanukat ha-Bayit,” Sinai 54 (1964), pp. 218-225.
[18] Otzar Geonim, ShabbatTeshuvot, p. 23. See also Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, Shabbat 21b; R. Nissim, Shabbat, p. 9b in the pages of the Rif, s.v. תנו רבנן.
[19] I haven’t found the reference in Bacher. For Graetz, see Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1893), vol. 4, p. 183.
[20] Eretz ha-Galil (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 20-21. R. Israel Horowitz also believes that there were two cities named Tekoa. See his Eretz Yisrael u-Shkenoteha (Vienna, 1923), index, s.v. Tekoa.
[21] Duran is known as Efodi because this is how his commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed was named by the first printer. Yet he actually referred to himself as Efod אפד, not Efodi. This is usually understood to be an acronym of אני פרופיאט דוראן. Yet Norman Roth sees this as unlikely. He assumes that the name Efod alludes to Arakhin 16a which states that the efod atones for idolatry, “i.e., he sought atonement for his own conversion and for others in his generation.” See Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison, 2002), p. 192. See also Maud Kozodoy, The Secret Faith of Maestre Honoratus: Profayt Duran and Jewish Identity in Late Medieval Iberia (Philadelphia, 2015), pp. 4-5, 20, 25-26.
[22] Ma’aseh Efod (Vienna, 1865), p. 199. See also Abarbanel, II Sam. 14:2, who cites Efodi.
[23] See R. Yehosef Schwartz, Divrei Yosef, vol. 3, pp. 14a-b.
[24] Regarding oil and the tribe of Asher, there is a theory that the Bene Israel of India, who for centuries were engaged in oil pressing, originated from the upper Galilee which was famous for its oil. See Shirley Berry Isenberg, India’s Bene Israel (Berkeley, 1988), p. 8.
[25] See Ma’aseh Efod, p. 199.
[26] Megilat Antiochus Murhevet (n.p., 1992).
[27] No. 38 (Kislev-Tevet 5752), pp. 111-121.
[28] Tal Orot  vol. 1, pp. 91ff. This source is cited by Yaakov Rosenblum in Datche 17 (27 Kislev 5768), p. 11.
[29]  “Nes Pakh ha-Shemen ve-Derekh Hatma’ato be-Halakhah,”Shenaton Shaanan 19 (2014), pp. 47-60.
[30] “Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov,” Sinai 100 (1987), pp. 195-221.
[31] “Spiritualism ve-Anarchism Dati be-Mishnato shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Da’at 7 (1981), pp. 121-138.
[32] “Leumiut Universalit: Dat u-Leumiut be-Haguto shel Shmuel Alexandrov” (unpublished master’s dissertation, Ben Gurion University, 2014). See also Slater’s recent article, “Tziyonut Ruhanit Datit – Dat u-Leumiut be-Haguto shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Daat 82 (2016), pp. 285-319.
[33] Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (Jerusalem, 1932), p. 56.
[34] See Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (Vilna, 1907), p. 12, where R. Alexandrov writes as follows to R. Kook:

ואמנם כן היא שהמוסריות המתפתחת מעצמה באה להחליט כדעת האומר שכל הקרבנות בטלים . . . גם אנכי הנני מסכים כי כל הקרבנות בטלים מפני שלא היו קדושים רק לשעתן.

In Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1932), p. 24, he speaks of the abolishment of sacrifices as a natural result of humanity’s developing sense of morality:

הנה נודעה היא למדי השקפת הרמב"ם ע"ד עבודת הקרבנות איך היתה מוכרחת בזמן הקדום ואיך היא נבטלת לאט לאט מעצמה ע"י התפתחות הרוח של האדם, ובאופן שמין האדם מבטל מעצמו את מצות הקרבנות וכל אבזרייהו מבלי הופעה דתיית  משמי מרומים, והנה תקון דתיי כזה הוא תקון שהזמן עושה, כלומה זה נעשה על פי התפתחות המוסריית האנושיית התלויה בזמן, ובאופן שהכל נעשה יפה בעתו ובזמנו, ולו עמדו כעת מתקנים במין האדם הנאור שהיו חפצים להנהיג את עבודת הקרבנות מחדש אז היה החפץ הזה נדחה מפני המוסריות האנושיות המנגדת לעבודה דתיית כזאת בכל כחה, ואין כל ספק כי יד המוסרית תהיה על העליונה כי לכל זמן ועת לכל חפץ תחת השמים.

In another letter to R. Kook, Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1907), p. 15. Alexandrov explains that the reason why in their day so many of the Orthodox youth, including sons of rabbis, were “going of the derech,” is because they saw their fathers up close and this turned them off religion.

רואה אנכי כי הנסבה הראשית להרחקת בני הרבנים והחרדים מדרכי אבותיהם ואשר עפ"י הרוב הלכו למקום שלא ישובו עוד לנו הוא מפני שנסתכלו במעשי אבותיהם לפני ולפנים . . . כמובן מעצמו שישנם אבות ובנים יוצאים מן הכלל אבל הרוב הניכר הנראה לעינים ילמדנו דעת כי שחת ישראל דרכו מחטאת כהניו ונביאיו ודור לפי פרנסו.
[35] Tal Tehiyah (Vilna, 1897), p. 8a.
[36] Shevet mi-Yehudah, vol. 2, no. 12.
[37] Details of this will be provided in a future post.
Viewing all 667 articles
Browse latest View live