A New Work about the Ramban’s Additions to his Commentary on the Torah

By Eliezer Brodt

.תוספות רמב“ן לפירושו לתורה, שנכתבו בארץ ישראל, יוסף עופר, יהונתן יעקבס, מכללה הרצוג, והאיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות, 718 עמודים

In this post I would like to explain what this work is about.

One of the most important Rishonim was Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman, famously known as Ramban. Ramban was famous for numerous reasons and has been the subject of numerous works and articles.[1] This year alone two important works were written about him, one from Dr. Shalem Yahalom called Bein Gerona LeNarvonne, printed by the Ben Tzvi Institute and another one from Rabbi Yoel Florsheim called Pirushe HaRamban LeYerushalmi: Mavo, printed by Mossad Harav Kook.

One of Ramban’s most lasting achievements was his commentary on the Torah. This work is considered one of the most essential works ever written on the Chumash. Scholars debate when exactly he write this work, but it appears that he completed the commentary before he left Spain for Eretz Yisroel in 1269. For centuries this commentary has been one of the most studied works on Chumash. However, what is less known is that some time after he arrived in Eretz Yisroel he continued to update his work and sent numerous corrections and additions back his students in Spain.

Correcting and updating works was not an unusual phenomenon in the time of the Rishonim in the Middle ages, as Professor Yakov Spiegel has documented in his special book Amudim Betoldos Hasefer Haivri, Kesivah and Ha’atakah, and many authors at the time practiced this.

We find that R’ Yitzchak Di-min Acco already writes:

.וראיתי לבאר בו המדרש שכתב הרמב”ן ז”ל באחרית ימיו בארץ הצבי, בעיר עכו ת”ו בתשלום פירושו התורה אשר חברו [מאירת עינים, עמ’ שכז]\

Many knowledgeable people know of some pieces where Ramban clearly writes that when he arrived in Eretz Yisroel he realized he had erred in his commentary. One of the most famous of such pieces is what he writes in regard to the location of Kever Rochel[2]:

זה כתבתי תחילה, ועכשיו שזכיתי ובאתי אני לירושלם, שבח לאל הטוב והמטיב, ראיתי בעיני שאין מן קבורת רחל לבית לחם אפילו מיל. והנה הוכחש הפירוש הזה, וגם דברי מנחם. אבל הוא שם מדת הארץ כדברי רש”י, ואין בו תאר רק הסכמה כרוב השמות, והכ”ף לשמוש שלא נמדד בכוון… וכן ראיתי שאין קבורה ברמה ולא קרוב לה, אבל הרמה אשר לבנימן רחוק ממנה כארבע פרסאות, והרמה אשר בהר אפרים (ש”א א א) רחוק ממנה יותר משני ימים. על כן אני אומר שהכתוב שאומר קול ברמה נשמע .(ירמיה לא יד), מליצה כדרך משל… [רמב”ן בראשית לה:טז]\

A different correction to Ramban’s commentary was a letter found at the end of some of the manuscripts of his work, where he writes about the weight of the Biblical Shekel, retracting what he writes in his work on Chumash. Early mention of this letter can be found in the sefer Ha-ikryim

וכן העיד הרמב”ן ז”ל כי כשעלה לארץ ישראל מצא שם בעכו מטבע קדום של כסף שהיה רשום בו צנצנת המן ומטה אהרן שהיה כתוב סביבו כתב שלא ידע לקרותו, עד שהראו לכותיים לפי שהוא כתב עברי הקדום שנשאר אצל הכותיים, וקראו הכתב ההוא והיה כתוב בו שקל השקלים. ואלו הם הדברים שהגיה בסוף פירושו וששלח מארץ ישראל…[ספר העיקרים מאמר ג פרק טז]

This important letter was printed based on a few manuscripts by Rabbi Menachem Eisenstadt in the Talpiot journal in 1950. Rabbi Eisenstadt included an excellent introduction elaborating on the background about this letter and its importance. In 1955 Rabbi Yonah Martzbach was made aware of this article by Rabbi Kalman Kahana while he was preparing the entry ‘Dinar’ for the Encyclopedia Talmudit. He wrote a letter to Rabbi Eisenstadt with some minor comments and requested a copy of this article. A short while later Rabbi Eisenstadt responded thanking him for his comments.[3]

Ramban’s above mentioned letter has been dealt with at length by Rabbi Yakov Weiss in his Midos Umishklos Shel hatorah (pp. 96-97, 113-116) and by Rabbi Shmuel Reich in his Mesorat Hashekel (pp. 83-98).[4]

But no one realized just how many such corrections there were.

In 1852, and again in 1864, Moritz Steinschneider discovered that there were several manuscripts of Ramban’s commentary that had lists of numerous additions at the end of the work. However, he was not sure who authored them.

In 1950, Rabbi Eisenstadt [in the aforementioned article] mentions that in back of a manuscript of Ramban’s commentary there are additions to the pirush, which were written in Eretz Yisroel. In 1958, Rabbi Eisenstadt began printing his edition of Ramban’s commentary with the pirish called Zichron Yitzchak. In his notes throughout the work, he points out the various additions he found highlighted in the manuscript. Unfortunately he never completed his work and only the volume on Bereishis was printed.

In 1969, Rabbi Kalman Kahana printed an article which had a list of all the corrections and updates found in a few manuscripts of Ramban’s commentary. Rabbi Kahana’s list numbered at 134 corrections and additions to Ramban’s commentary. He also included explanations to some of these additions to show their significance in understanding various pieces of Ramban’s commentary. Rabbi Kahana reprinted this article in 1972 in his collection called Cheikar Veiun (volume three). After this article, the subject was barely discussed.

In the edition Ramban’s pirush, printed in 1985 by Rabbi Pinchas Lieberman, with his commentary Tuv Yerushlayim, I did not find that he makes any mention of Rabbi Kahana’s article.

In 2001, Rabbi Dvir began printing an edition of Ramban’s commentary with a super-commentary called Beis Hayayin. In the back of volume one, he reprints Rabbi Kahana’s article, however he barely deals with the topic throughout the sefer.

In 2004, Artscroll began printing a translation of Ramban’s pirush along with a super-commentary. In their introduction, the editors write that besides making use of various manuscripts for establishing their text of Ramban’s pirush, they also used Rabbi Kahana’s list and that they identify the corrected pieces of Ramban’s pirush throughout the work.

In 2006, Mechon Yerushalyim started printed an edition of Ramban’s commentary. In the beginning of their edition, they mention that Ramban added pieces to the commentary after he arrived in Eretz Yisroel and that they will identify those pieces. However, they do not mention the source for those identifications.

In 2009, Mechon Oz Vehadar began printing an edition of the Pirush with a super-commentary. In their Introduction (p. 26), the editors write that they also made use of Rabbi Kahana’s list:

אחרי שעלה רבינו לארץ ישראל הוסיף והגיה בפירושו בכמה מקומות, אשר נמצאו רק במקצת כתבי היד, הוספות אלו נדפסו ללא כל סימן היכר, ובמהדורותינו זיהינו אותם וציינו אליהם, כי לפעמים ההוספה של רבינו אינה נקראת בתוך שטף דבריו, והלומד מתקשה בשינוי הלשון [וגם כי לפעמים מה שהוסיף רבינו אינו אלא כאחד מן הפירושים שהביא מתחילה, ונראה כביכול שהכריע בהוספתו שלא כשאר פירושים, ועל כן חשוב לציין כי זו הוספה שנוספה לאחר מכן…] הוספות אלו ציינו על פי עבודתו ופרי יגיעת הר”ר קלמן כהנא ז”ל, שחקר ובירר ענין זה והדפיסו בחקר ועיון (ח”ג)

All of the above work was done based solely upon the 134 corrections listed by Rabbi Kahana.

In 1997, Hillel Novetsky submitted a paper to Professor David Berger titled “Nahmanides Amendments to his Commentary on the Torah”. In this paper Novetsky deals with what we can learn from these 134 additions to the Pirush and why Ramban added them in. Amongst the reasons for Ramban’s changes, Novetsky points to a firsthand knowledge of the geography of Eretz Yisroel, newly obtained literature (such as Pirush Rabbenu Chananel on Chumash) and general additions based on new thoughts and the like. Recently, Novetsky has returned to this topic, as can be seen here. He also put up online the numerous additions he found while going through the various manuscripts of the Pirush.[5] He discovered that there are actually much more than 134 updates and corrections. However he recommends checking back as not all of his information has been uploaded.

In 2005, Dr. Mordechai Sabato printed a lengthy article[6] dealing with Ramban’s additions to his commentary to Bereishis, showing that a study of the manuscripts shows there are more additions than the number published by Rabbi Kahana. He discovered what he believes are other pieces that were added into the work at a later time which were not included in the lists at the end of some of the manuscripts. In this study he also shows the importance of some of these additions.

Which brings us to the focus of our review Tosfot HaRamban LiPirusho LeTotrah. In this new work , Dr’s Yosef Ofer and Yonasan Jacobs deal with all of issues mentioned the above, and then some. In recent years these scholars have been working on Ramban’s additions, building off of Dr. Sabato’s work and lectures. In various articles they have added much to this subject. For example, see here and here. In this new work of theirs they collected over 300 additions and corrections by Ramban, based on over 50 manuscripts of Ramban’s commentary. Along with Dr. Sabato’s methods, they identified additional ways to note the additions within the Pirush. They were able to categorize the various manuscripts into two divisions; earlier versions and later versions. All this is elaborated carefully in their lengthy introduction to this work. They are able to show how they identified numerous new additions and corrections not found in the previous lists. Almost all of these additions and corrections can be found in the standard editions of the Pirush, however they are not identified as such. In many cases, these unmarked additions cause Ramban’s meaning to become unclear. In the current work, each piece of Ramban’s commentary where they note an addition or correction has been reprinted based on the manuscripts along with a standard academic apparatus of variant readings of the particular text. They then highlight the exact addition or correction made by Ramban to the piece. After laying this textual foundation, they then provide a well written, clear, and concise discussion about the particular piece, explaining why they believe Ramban amended the text in question or what he was adding to the original commentary. Numerous pieces of Ramban’s commentary, which were not properly understood until now, can now be more clearly grasped.

Based on these additions, Dr’s Ofer and Jacobs provide a very good summary in the introduction to their work of various aspects of Ramban’s life and his commentary, along with a section beneficial to understanding how Ramban wrote his work, such as the role played by the various newly obtained literature he saw in Eretz Yisroel and had become a part of his source material.

Also worth pointing out is their edition of the aforementioned letter where he writes about the weight of the Biblical Shekel, retracting what he writes in his work on Chumash based on all the manuscripts (pp. 337-342).

This work is very important and highly recommended for any serious student of Ramban’s commentary, who wishes to understand numerous hitherto fore unclear passages in the Pirush.

Interestingly enough, although the Chavel edition of the Ramban, printed by Mossad Rav Kook, is based on some manuscripts and is for itself an important contribution to the understanding of Ramban’s commentary,[7] while the editor does note that there are some new pieces in the manuscripts, he did not fully grasp their significance nor did he gauge the full sum of these changes. Although he first printed his work in 1960, he was apparently not aware of Rabbi Menachem Eisenstadt in the Talpiot journal in 1950, as is evident from his comments to the letter of the Ramban printed in the back of his edition of the Ramban Al Hatorah (pp. 507-508), despite the fact that though he does cite the entry ‘Dinar’ from the Encyclopedia Talmudit which itself quotes Rabbi Eisenstadt’s article a few times. What is even stranger is over the years Rabbi Chavel updated his edition of Ramban Al Hatorah numerous times, yet apparently he never heard of Rabbi Kalman Kahana’s article listing 134 corrections and additions.

Professor Ta-Shema notes about Ramban:

ותשומת הלב העיקירת במחקר הוסטה על עבר מעמדו של הרמב”ן בתחום חכמי הקבלה הספרדית המתחדשת, ובמעט גם לעבדותו בתחום פרשנות המקרא. המעט שכתב הרמב”ן בחכמת הקבלה, שאינו מצרטף ליותר מכריסר עמודים בסך הכול, לא חדל מלהעסיק את המחקר המדעי שנים רבות, ואילו עבודתו המקיפה בפרשנות התלמוד, המהווה את עיקר פרסומו והשפעתו בשעתו ולדורות לא זכה לעיון ביקורתי… [הספרות הפרשנית לתלמוד, ב, עמ’ 32]

Although some serious advances have been seen recently in the field of Ramban’s Talmudic Novella, especially by Dr’s Shalem Yahalom and Yoel Florsheim in their works mentioned in the beginning of this article, however much research still remains to be done.

Daniel Abrams, in an article first printed in the Jewish Studies Quarterly and then updated in his recent book Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory (pp.215-218), outlines a project to print a proper edition of Ramban’s commentary on Torah, based upon all extant manuscripts and including all the known super-commentaries written on the work, both printed and those still in manuscript.[8] This would help reach a proper understanding of Ramban’s Pirush. Abrams’s main concern is with reaching a proper understanding of Ramban’s Torat HaKabalah, but as the bulk of the Pirush is not of a kabbalistic nature, such an edition would benefit everyone greatly. Unfortunately due to lack of funds nothing has yet happened with Abrams’s proposal.

Dr’s Ofer and Jacobs’s new work, based on the numerous extant manuscripts of the Pirush has definitely helped us in getting closer to a proper understanding of Ramban’s work on Torah.[9] We can only hope with time Abrams’s proposal will bear fruit.

For information on purchasing this work, contact me at: Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com Copies are available at Biegeleisen in New York. E-mail if you are interested in a table of contents or a PDF of Rabbi Kalman Kahana’s article.

[1] For a useful write up about the importance of the Ramban, see Yisroel M. Ta-Shema , Ha Safrut Haparshnit LiTalmud, 2, pp. 29-55. I am in middle of attempting to write a complete bibliography of all his writings and studies related to everything he wrote.
[3] On the location of Kever Rochel see Kaftor Vaferach [1:246-247; 2:69]; Tevuot HaAretz, pp. 131-135. See also Tosfot HaRamban LiPirusho LeTotrah, pp. 229-233, 287-292
[3] This article of Rabbi Eisenstadt was reprinted recently in his a collection of his writings called Minchat Tzvi, New York 2003, pp. 125-138. The letter of Rabbi Martzbach is also printed there (pp. 139-140) along with Rabbi Eisenstadt response. The letter of Rabbi Martzbach is also printed in Alei Yonah with some additions but without Rabbi Eisenstadt response (pp. 155-157). The Alei Yonah edition does not say to whom the letter was written to. They also edited out his request for a copy of the article.
[4] See also here.
[5] Thanks to Professor Haym Soloveitchik for pointing this out to me.
[6] Megadim 42 (2005), pp. 61-124.
[7] That is besides for the various criticism of the work, beyond the scope of this article. [See this earlier post].
[8] The recent edition of the Ramban printed by Mechon Yerushalayim is a far cry from what needs to be done for this purpose.
[9] See here for another article of Dr. Ofer which demonstrates the benefit of the manuscripts of the Ramban to reach an understanding of the Ramban.

R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and the Army, and Joe DiMaggio

by Marc B. Shapiro

1. There is a lot of talk these days about haredim serving in the army. Understandably, the famous essay of R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin has been cited. In this essay, R. Zevin rejects the notion that yeshiva students shouldn’t have to serve.[1] The essay used to be found at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/32904 but it was removed, together with other “problematic” books. (You can see evidence of it having been on hebrewbooks by this archive.org snapshot of the page.)

Here is the essay in its entirety.[2]

 

You can find an English translation here.

In my series of classes on R. Zevin at Torah in Motion, I discussed this essay and stated that while the sentiments expressed in it are wonderful, I am aware of no evidence that R. Zevin actually wrote it. People say he wrote it but that is not evidence. I also stated that it is not even accurate to say that everyone assumes he wrote it, since his family denies his authorship. That, at least, was the impression I was under.

David Eisen participated in the classes (which were from 4-5am Israel time!), and after hearing what I said decided to pursue the issue further. I am grateful for his research. Here is the first email he sent to me on the topic.

I surfed the web a bit and came across the following website created by Hanan Zevin, R. Zevin’s great-grandson dedicated to R. Zevin and that includes many of his writings: http://ezevin.com/. As the site made no reference to the article from 1948, I contacted Hanan via the e-mail address on the site (see attached).

I just received a phone call from Hanan’s father, [R.?] Yaakov Zevin, who told me that Hanan had forwarded my e-mail to him to respond to me. I subsequently saw that Yaakov also has a website with his own hiddushim on parashat hashavua and the holidays (http://jzevin.com – the cell phone on the website is the same number that called me; interestingly, Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim are included in the list of holidays and the divrei Torah are quite cynical). He called to tell me that he did not wish to respond in writing as this indeed is a very sensitive matter to the extended family, yet he felt a need to not simply ignore my e-mail. In short, he would not outright confirm that his grandfather indeed wrote the article and repeatedly told me that “if ‘ahad harabbanim’ decided not to disclose his name, he must have had very good reason to do so, yet the authorship of the article is apparent to anyone who is sensitive to the ‘signon’ of the writing in the article.” In other words, he led me to believe that R. Zevin indeed wrote the article but wished to state that “whoever” wrote it had very good reason to have written it anonymously.

I proceeded to ask him if indeed his grandfather ever addressed the question of the article’s authorship, yet he evaded that question. I also told him that the catalog of the Israel National Library attributes his grandfather as the author (see here) and he simply said that indeed this is what is widely accepted but the family does not confirm this. I told him that I heard that his brother, R. Nahum, denies that his grandfather wrote the article, yet he wished to say that he simply does not confirm that their grandfather wrote the piece. I mentioned the Hapardes article that R. Zevin wrote in 1973 (attached is the journal) where he sharply attacked the Mafdal party for supporting the draft of yeshiva students as if to ask if this contradicted the 1948 article, and he simply responded by saying that his grandfather’s views were relevant for each context in which they were made. Personally, I do not see a contradiction either as the war of 1948 was indeed an existential battle for Israel’s survival and its extremely limited and untrained military as opposed to the radically improved situation that existed 25 years later, post-67.

I suggested that Eisen call R. Nahum Zevin, the grandson of R. Shlomo Yosef, and here is the lengthy email he sent me. It is an important document and deserves to be placed in the public sphere.

I just had a lengthy call with R. Nahum Zevin; though we never spoke with one another before, I was very pleased with his accessibility and willingness to speak to a complete stranger on the phone (he answered the phone himself), and above all, I was most impressed by his honesty and candor, which he seems to have inherited from his grandfather.

He wished to clarify that neither he nor anyone else in his family denies that his grandfather wrote the 1948 pamphlet לשאלת הגיוס של בני הישיבות; I did not mention your name, but simply told him that it recently became known to me that the family denies the attribution to him and that this flies in the face of what I grew up upon as a product of Religious Zionist yeshivot and my great admiration for R. Zevin’s writings. He simply said that the family had absolutely no indication that he wrote the pamphlet and proceeded to present the following facts:

1. Of all the grandchildren, he was the closest with R. Zevin, and he went through all of his grandfather’s writings and had a major role in publishing R. Zevin’s posthumous works. He says that he meticulously went through his grandfather’s study and never found a copy or any draft of this pamphlet among the many manuscripts he found in the house.

2. The attribution of this pamphlet to his grandfather was made only years after his grandfather’s petira in 1978. The first time he had heard about this attribution was during the early 1980s from R. Menahem Hacohen when he was still an MK in the Labor party. As such, no one in the family had the opportunity to discuss it with his grandfather. He said that if anyone would have known about his grandfather’s authorship of the article it would have been his father, R. Shlomo Zevin’s only son, yet he told him that he also first heard about this attribution only after his father passed away.

3. He referred to the article entitled אל תגעו במשיחי that was published in 1973 on the heels of the Mafdal’s decision to support drafting yeshiva students. I told him that I am very familiar with that article published in the Iyar 5733 (47:8) edition of Hapardes[3] he told me that he just happened to have a copy of that article on his desk as we spoke yet was unaware of its publication in Hapardes as it was first published on the 12 Adar 5733 edition of Hatzofe and that he (R. Nahum) was the one who personally delivered the text of the article to the editorial staff of Hatzofe. He said that this article created a veritable earthquake in the Dati Leumi camp, and R. Zevin was greatly attacked on the pages of Hatzofe and other related media over the proceeding weeks and months, yet despite the voluminous criticism no one mentioned the pamphlet as if to show that R. Zevin had radically changed his views. I responded that I, too, had the very same question yet nonetheless did not see these two articles as contradicting one another given the existential threat facing the nascent State of Israel as sharply opposed to the hubris-filled post-6 Day War era and preceding the sobering aftermath of the Yom Kippur War that took place half a year later. He agreed with the distinction, yet [to my mind, correctly] noted that had it been known that R. Zevin wrote the 1948 pamphlet it is impossible to think that this connection would not have been made by the numerous pundits.

Apropos the article that originally appeared in Hatzofe and R. Menahem Hacohen’s assertion that his grandfather wrote the pamphlet, R. Nahum told me that there was a good deal of criticism against his grandfather’s article against drafting yeshiva students in the Dati Leumi magazine Panim el Panim. R. Nahum said that he contacted R. Menahem Hacohen after he attributed the pamphlet to his grandfather and reiterated the point that none of the critiques in Panim el Panim mentioned the apparent about-face from 1948, and noted that the editors of Panim el Panim were none other than his brothers, R. Shmuel Avidor Hacohen and R. Pinhas Peli. That said, I probably misunderstood the reference R. Nahum made to Panim el Panim as according to Wikipedia, the magazine was discontinued in 1970, three years before the publication of R. Zevin’s article against drafting yeshiva students.[4]

4. Beyond all of the above points, R. Nahum said that what makes the attribution puzzling is the fact that his grandfather was never reserved about his beliefs, and that it makes no sense to him that he would have published that pamphlet anonymously. After all, his highly positive views on the State of Israel and annual celebrations of Yom HaAtzmaut were well known. He told me that he was so closely linked with the Mizrahi party that he remembers up to the 60’s that R. Zevin would affix his signature along with R. Meshulam Roth and R. Zvi Yehuda Kook on endorsements prior to elections to vote for the Mafdal party (and its Mizrahi and Hapoel Hamizrahi precursors). He also mentioned the parenthetical phrase of “ואשרנו שזכינו לכך” in Moadim B’Halakha with respect to the establishment of the State of Israel and the suggestion that one is no longer required to perform qeriah on Arei Yehuda, and that when it was removed from the English translation (and perhaps a subsequent Hebrew edition).[5] This was used to claim that he no longer held these positive feelings towards the Medina, but R. Nahum utterly rejected this assertion as wholly false and that he never changed his views in this regard.

5. That said, and similar to what his brother Yaakov told me, he said that one cannot avoid comparing the writing style of the pamphlet with R. Zevin’s unique and eclectic writing style; moreover, he said the substance and analysis of the Torah reasoning in the pamphlet is indeed very similar to his grandfather’s Torah writings and very good Torah indeed. R. Nahum clearly has no agenda and was completely honest in saying that this could very well have been written by his grandfather though there is no proof to this effect, and he acknowledged that לא ראינו אינו ראיה so the fact that the family has not found the existence of any manuscripts showing that he wrote the kuntres certainly does not constitute cogent evidence that he did not write it. 

I must agree that if indeed no attribution to R. Zevin was made until after he passed away, then this is a major hurdle to address, and while I appreciate his cautious approach in refusing to conclude one way or the other, it seemed to me a bit naive on R. Nahum’s part to think that it was implausible for him to have written this piece anonymously; I remind you of what his brother, Yaakov Zevin, told me that there is no doubt as to the similar writing styles and that if the author felt a need to write it under the pen name of “אחד הרבנים” he must have had very good reason to do so (shiddukhim, etc.?).

As R. Nahum claims that he first heard the attribution from R. Menahem Hacohen who is alive and well, I guess the next step in delving deeper into this investigation would be to contact R. Hacohen himself. What do you think? If I had the time, which I certainly do not, then I would think that it would make sense to find the first time the pamphlet became attributed to R. Zevin in Israeli newspapers and other writings and track down the paper trail.

Some time later I received the following email from Eisen, which only thickened the plot.

I just came back from the Bat Mitzva party of Naama Rosenbaum, Prof. Zvi Yehuda’s granddaughter, whose daughter, Talli, is a very good friend in my Bet Shemesh neighborhood (unfortunately her father was unable to make the trip to Israel from Florida due to an extended illness). The paternal grandfather of the bat mitzvah girl is Irving Rosenbaum Z”L, the founder of Davka Software and who was very friendly with R. Menahem Hacohen, who attended the party this evening. I seized the opportunity to ask him about the attribution of the 1948 essay to R. Zevin. I actually began the conversation by asking him if he is familiar with you, and his eyes lit up and he said, “Yes, he e-mailed me twice in the past few years… though I forget what it was he contacted me about.” When I then mentioned that R. Nahum Zevin claims that R. Hacohen is the one who attributed the essay to his father only after R. Shlomo Zevin passed away, he then confirmed that it was precisely on this issue that you had approached him.

He quickly got to the heart of the matter and said that he had held in his hands an original copy of the essay and said that there was no question that R. Zevin was the author, though he said that he has misplaced the copy and had no proof to substantiate his assertion. He did say that R. Nahum is incorrect in saying that the attribution to his grandfather was made only after his grandfather passed away and that he had already seen the letter in the early 70’s when he was working alongside R. Goren; and that he believes that R. Zevin himself was asked to confirm that he indeed wrote the letter. In R. Hacohen’s words, R. Zevin neither denied nor confirmed that he wrote the letter inasmuch as R. Nahum essentially says the same thing, yet R. Hacohen added that R. Nahum at the time had (as he still has today) an agenda to disassociate himself from the position taken in the 1948 essay as he is well ensconced in the haredi rabbinate. That said, I told him that R. Nahum’s “proof” by omission that in all the criticism levied against his grandfather’s “Al Tig’u BiM’shihai” by religious Zionists, the fact, as he claims, that no one had noted the seemingly about-face that he had made from the essay he supposedly penned 25 years earlier, was pretty compelling to me. He responded by reiterating that R. Nahum’s allegiances render him unable to confirm what R. Hacohen maintains is the simple truth and that he unfortunately does not have any documented proof regarding R. Zevin’s authorship. He also rebuffed the claim that R. Nahum knows everything that his grandfather had written and preferred Yaakov Zevin’s nebulous formulation that the person who wrote that essay must have had good reason to have done so anonymously. With that, we parted.

So, it seems to me that in order to forge ahead on this issue, it remains vital to read the reactions to the Panim el Panim article along with those generated from R. Hacohen’s assertion made when he was a Labor MK.

Here is Eisen’s fourth email to me, which I believe also raises questions about the attribution of the essay to R. Zevin. At the very least, it discounts the notion that this attribution was widely known, which raises the problem as to when and why people started attributing the essay to R. Zevin.

I have additional information that I have been meaning to write to you after spending a number of hours at the National Library going through the 1972-1973 issues of Panim el Panim and the lengthy articles that appeared in the secular (Yediot, Maariv, Haaretz and Davar) and religious newspapers (Hatzofe, Yated and Hamodia) during the 30 month period following his [R. Zevin’s] passing between February to March 1978. In short, I found NO reference to this article in any of the many articles in which his position against drafting the haredi yeshiva students was discussed following his fiery speech delivered before the members of the Chief Rabbinate Council on the heels of the Mafdal’s support of legislation to draft yeshiva students. . . . I then spoke with one of the chief librarians at the National Library asking what is the basis for its attribution of this article to R. Zevin and when was it made. He made an inquiry and said that the attribution indeed was made many years ago (he believe it goes back to the 60’s though he had no documentation to substantiate this).

In his fifth email, Eisen wrote as follows:

            On the R. Zevin authorship controversy, I had some meaningful conversations on Friday with Prof. [David] Henschke, who put me in touch with his hevruta at Yeshivat Hakotel, R. Yossi Leichter, who is a senior librarian at the National Library, who in turn put me in touch with R. Yitzhak Yudlow, the now retired head of מפעל הביבליוגרפיה הלאומית that was likely the body that attributed the article back in the 60’s to R. Zevin, and he put me in touch with R. Nahum Neria who said he is quite certain that his father [R. Moshe Zvi Neria] told him that R. Zevin indeed was the author and that he would look through his papers and asked that I follow up with him this week. R. Neria also suggested that I contact R. Shear Yashuv Cohen, which I intend to do tomorrow. In short, none of them had any solid information. David Henschke looked into the matter out of curiosity many years ago and concluded that the attribution made by the National Library was made years before R. Zevin passed away and reliable. . . . It seems that that the first time the article was reprinted with the R. Zevin attribution was back in 1980 in a thin booklet of articles compiled by Dr. Yehezkel Cohen, the founder of נאמני תורה ועבודה. Unfortunately, he passed away this past Sukkot, and as someone who devoted a great deal of research on the topic of military exemptions for yeshiva students and actively worked to stem this tide, he is someone who would have been a vital source. I may call his wife for any leads, especially since he was attacked by R. Mordechai Neugorschel in his polemic haredi work entitled “למה הם שונים” for making this attribution when he claims that there was no way that R. Zevin could have written the article given his impassioned speech delivered in 1973 and the fact that no one noted the change in his position from 1948 as noted by R. Nahum Zevin. When Tradition translated the article into English in 1985, they credited נאמני תורה ועבודה as being the original source for attributing the article to R. Zevin in 1980, see here. Truth be told, when Yehezkel Cohen reprinted the 1948 article, he made a point to also include a photocopy of the National Library’s catalog entry as if to show that he was preceded by the National Library in making this attribution.

Here is Eisen’s final email to me on the topic.:

Regarding the essay and its attribution to R. Zevin, R. Chaim Rapoport has commented to me that since the essay has two references to Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav, this too would seem to point to R. Zevin’s authorship. There is little doubt that in this sort of essay only a Habad author would refer to Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav.

In his research, Eisen discovered this interesting interview with R. Zevin and his son and grandsons that appeared in Maariv, July 31, 1970. 

  

I thought that I found proof for R. Zevin’s authorship in the Torah journal Yagdil Torah, the last Torah journal  published in the Soviet Union. The first issue of this journal appeared in 1927 edited by R. Yehezkel Abramsky. The second and last issue appeared in 1928 edited by R. Zevin. In the table of contents there are some contributions by אחד הרבנים. Could this be proof that R. Zevin used this pseudonym already in the 1920s? It turns out, however, that אחד הרבנים in this issue of Yagdil Torah is actually R. Abramsky, and this information has been inserted in the reprint of the journal that is found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.

 

Surprisingly, however, the person who inserted this information apparently did not know what to make of the pseudonym ב”מ-ו עזפמט. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that in atbash this equals ש”י-ף זעוין. See Aharon Sorasky, Melekh be-Yafyo ((Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 188-189. See also ibid., p. 241 n. 12, for another time when R. Abramsky signed an article אחד הרבנים.

Finally, here is something very nice put together by Yisrael Kashkin. Most of the great rabbis included were what we can call card-carrying Religious Zionists, and the remaining few were positively inclined to the movement. Not surprisingly, R. Zevin’s picture is found here. Kashkin informs me that anyone interested can order framed 8.5 x 14″ and laminated 8.5 x 14″ copies. The former are meant for a wall and the latter for a Succah. He can prepare and ship the frames for $25 and the laminated for $10. You can contact him at yisrael@email.com. I recommend that every Modern Orthodox school order an enlarged copy in order to hang it in the hallway.

2. Many people wanted to hear more from R. Mordechai Elefant, late Rosh Yeshiva of the ITRI yeshiva, but first, here is his picture.

And now, R. Elefant speaks:

I called Sholom Spitz in Queens the other day. I gave him the phone number of Joe DiMaggio’s secretary, Nick Nicolozzi, and I asked him to wish Joe DiMaggio well from me. Five minutes later he called me back to say that they announced on the radio that he died.

Joe and I were very good friends. I met him through a man from Miami named Kovins, a wealthy man, big in the construction business. He met DiMaggio through Nicolozzi, who had worked in a Sheraton hotel he owned in New Jersey. To make a long story short, I became a partner in the Sheraton. It was a 520-room hotel. Joe, Kovins, and I each had a third. I didn’t buy it. I had made a deal and got it as an agent’s fee. There were halachic problems involved concerning the operation of the hotel on Shabbos, so I wanted to unload it, and I talked Joe into it.

Joe DiMaggio had a suite on the fifth floor of that hotel called ”The Joe DiMaggio Suite.” Rav Zelig Epstein, one of the great Talmudists of our day, came to see me when I happened to be staying on the fifth floor of that hotel. We’re walking along the corridor when out steps Joe. So I introduced Rav Zelig Epstein to Joe DiMaggio. He knew who DiMaggio was. He’s a very intelligent man.

Two years ago when I was sick in bed I got a letter from Joe. There was a picture of him in the paper with a big yarmulke. He sent the accompanying article. Mel Allen died, so he went to the memorial service in the synagogue. Joe writes me, “I did it for you, Rabbi.” He wore the yarmulke just for me.

Joe was from the old days. He was born in America, but had a European sensibility. He never went to school but he had style and he was smart. He wasn’t good looking, but he had great charm. He gave me an autographed copy of his autobiography. He hated the Kennedys. He claimed they killed Marilyn Monroe. It wasn’t a normal husband and wife relationship between them. He was like Marilyn’s patriarch.

They didn’t make big money in baseball in his day, but he would do a lot of advertisements. Joe loved a dime because it wasn’t a nickel. He’s from a place called Hackensack [not true – MS] and he came up the hard way.

I saw the respect people would give. It was like they give Rav Shach (one of the most esteemed rabbis in Israel). I said to him, “You’re nothing but a little wop. I’m the chief rabbi of Bethlehem. They don’t give me the kind of respect you get. And they pay you fifteen or twenty thousand dollars just to come to a party.” It was said in a spirit of good humor. Joe wasn’t offended. He said,  “One day I’ll explain it to you.”

Once I was at the hotel in New Jersey, and he said to me, “Rabbi, I have to go to the Super Bowl. Come along.” I didn’t know what Super Bowl meant at the time. Naturally, I paid for his ticket. He loved that. He took me into a fancy hotel on Wilshire Boulevard, into a big ballroom. All the chairmen of the big companies were there. Carl Icahn was there. They had come in for the Super Bowl. Joe was paid to just be there. He walks in, and they all stand up for him, just like for Rav Shach. I can’t imagine what went through their minds when they saw me together with Joe. He said to me, “You see, I’m not just a little wop.”

One Sunday morning he comes into my hotel room – it’s right across from his – and says, “Rabbi, turn on the TV at 2:00 today.” I asked him what’s going to be on. He says, “You’ll see.” He went to Washington on the shuttle. He was invited to meet Gorbachev by President Reagan. Reagan had been a baseball announcer and he was a great fan of DiMaggio’s. Reagan asked him to sign a ball for Gorbachev. Joe tells him, “No problem, Mr. President, but let’s make that three baseballs, one for each of us, and all three of us will sign them.” This is all on TV.

He comes back at night and shows me the ball. I said, “Joe, give it to me.” He said, “Are you crazy, You know what that’s worth?” He did give me ten balls with his autograph. I gave them to children of friends. They would go wild over them.

When Joe was on that trip to Washington, he was on the White House lawn. Everybody gathered around Joe and left Reagan standing alone. I saw it on television. But Joe was so smart. He stepped back and stood next to Reagan. He didn’t want to show that he’s above Reagan. He was humble.

I would sit with him in the lobby of a hotel and people would stand in line to get his autograph. He was really an aristocrat. He was a pleasure to be with.

3. In case anyone is interested, for some reason Amazon is now selling my book Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy for the low price of $16.63. This is a 33% discount.. 
           

Notes
       

Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon

by Rabbi Yosaif Mordechai Dubovick

The 25th of Av of this year marks 1000 years since the passing of Rav Shmuel ben Hofni, Gaon Sura in Baghdad. R. Avraham Ibn Daud writes of him: “he too composed many books”.[1] It is thus fitting that the Seforim Blog dedicated a page presenting a brief biographical sketch in his memory.[2]

Rav Shmuel ben Hofni HaKohen, was born into an aristocratic family among the hierarchy of the Pumbadithan Yeshiva in Baghdad. His grandfather, Rav Kohen Zedek ben Yosef was appointed Gaon of Pumbaditha by the Resh Galuta, David b. Zakkai in 926. Rav Sherira, in his
renowned epistle to Rav Yaakov b. Nissim of Kairouan states: “there was a disagreement between the Yeshiva’s Rabbis and Rav Mevasser HaKohen ben Rav Kimoi Gaon was appointed Gaon, with David Nasi appointing Rav Kohen Zedek b. Rav Yosef HaKohen. This split lasted until Elul 921, at which point a peace was brokered between David Nasi and Rav Mevasser Gaon, [with the elite students remaining with Rav Mevasser, while Rav Kohen Zedek had his own students. In Kislev 924 Rav Mevasser passed away] with his students joining Rav Kohen
[Zedek], who in turn passed away in 934”.[3]

Despite Rav Sherira’s report that the elite students remained with Rav Mevasser, we are informed that Rav Saadiah arrived in Baghdad at the time of the split, and joined Rav Kohen Zedek’s yeshivah, attaining the honorific ‘Alluf’.[4] Hence, Rav Sherira’s words should be taken within the context of the author’s views.

Upon Rav Mevasser’s passing in 942, the two yeshivot were reunited under Rav Shmuel’s grandfather, Rav Kohen Zedek. However, the peace was not a lasting one; in 943, with the passing of Rav Hananiah ben Yehudah Gaon (father of Rav Sherira), Rav Aharon Sarjado appointed himself Gaon of the yeshiva, causing yet another split. Rav Shmuel’s uncle, Rav Nehemiah, rejected Sarjado’s appointment, and formed a break-away yeshiva, himself serving as Gaon and his brother, Rav Hofni (Rav Shmuel’s father) serving as Av Beit Din. We have very scanty information regarding Rav Shmuel’s father, only his appointment as Av Beit Din as well as a list of works he authored: commentary on Devarim, Commentary on Bamidbar, as well as a work of the Laws of Testimony.[5] In 960, upon Rav Aharon Sarjado’s passing, Rav Nehemiah was installed as Gaon of the newly reunited yeshiva. However, upon his passing in 968, with the installation of Rav Sherira as Gaon (taking his father’s place), Rav Nehemiah’s faction again broke away, forming a concurrent yeshiva, with Rav Shmuel assuming a position as its head.

In a effort to broker a peace between the factions within Pumbaditha, sometime after 987 it was decided to re-open the Suran Yeshiva, which had closed with Rav Saadiah’s passing in 944.[6] The first Rosh Yeshiva of the newly reopened Sura was Rav Zemah Zedek ben Yitzchak. Rav Zemah Zedek’s son, Rav Paltoi passed away during his father’s lifetime, leaving him no heir to the Gaonate. Presumably, Rav Shmuel held the position of Av Beit Din, and upon Rav Zemah Zedek’s passing sometime before the turn of the century, Rav Shmuel was appointed Gaon of Sura. Along with the reopening of Sura, a further effort to broker peace between Rav Shmuel’s faction and Rav Sherira’s was advanced; a political marriage between one of Rav Shmuel’s daughters and Rav Sherira’s son, Rav Hayya. However, despite all these efforts, the two Gaonim were engaged in lively dispute over the donations sent by the Diaspora. This is witnessed by the letters both sent to the Diaspora, informing them of each Yeshiva’s superiority over the other, and entreating them to send their queries as well as support to their respective Yeshiva.

Rav Shmuel passed away on Monday, the 25th of Av, 1013.[7] Upon his passing the Gaonate of Sura passed to Rav Dosa, Rav Saadiah’s son, and upon his passing to Rav Shmuel’s son, Rav Yisrael.[8]

As mentioned, Rav Shmuel was noted for his literary oeuvre. Through several booklists of his writings preserved in the Genizah, we can estimate his literary output at close to sixty five works.[9] However, despite this prolific volume of accomplishment, almost none of his works have survived outside the Genizah.[10] The most likely explanation for this is the language he wrote in, Judeo-Arabic, which, while having been the lingua-franca of the Mediterranean, was unknown in European lands. This lack of translation most likely prevented his many halachic and exegetic works from being disseminated in European lands.[11] With the discovery of the Genizah, many Torah Scholars as well as researchers expended great effort to restore Rav Shmuel’s former glory to the bookshelves, and were successful in locating many
fragments of his works and publishing them. The great many of these articles were collected in one volume,[12] and recently of his several works have been published as critical editions.[13]

1) Sefer HaBagrut, ed. T. Meacham, Yerushalayim 1999[14]

2) Sefer HaGerushin, ed. Z.Y. Shtampfer, Yerushalayim 2009[15]

Additionally, G. Libson published a second article containing further chapters of Sefer HaMitzranut: ‘Additional Chapters from Sefer HaMitzranut (Kitab al-Shuf`a) by Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon’ (Hebrew), Kabetz al Yad 13 (1996), pp. 43-89.[16]

It bears noting that a new edition of Rav Shmuel’s Introduction to the Study of the Mishnah and Talmud is currently in preparation.[17]

Scholars of the Geonim era are aware of Rav Shmuel’s rationalistic approach to Torah and Mitzvot. With the publication of D.E. Sklare’s groundbreaking volume on Rav Shmuel,[18] his cultural background in M`utazilite Kalaam (Philosophy), has become more readily understood. Rav Shmuel’s approach was already noted by his son in law, Rav Hayya in a teshuvah,[19] who takes his father in-law to task for delving too deeply into Arabic Philosophy.[20] Perhaps the most well known comment by Rav Shmuel expressing his rationalistic viewpoint is his commentary to the ‘witch of `Ein Dor’ episode (1 Sam. 28:3-25). His view is cited by Radak ad loc as well as in the fragmentary
commentary of R. Yehudah ibn Bala’am, and in a responsa preserved in a Genizah fragment.[21] In short, King Shaul seeks out a witch to raise the spirit of Shmuel HaNavi, who in turn informs him that he will perish tomorrow in battle.

As a rationalist, Rav Shmuel does not accept that there are evil forces in the world (Ruach HaTumah) and as such, sorcery can not conjure up the dead, but rather is nothing more than slight of hand. While Rav Saadiah and Rav Haaya are in agreement with this basic premise, they see the episode as factually having occurred, declaring that HaShem created a miraculous event whereby allowing the witch to raise Shmuel HaNavi’s spirit, and allow for Shaul to converse with him. Thus, while Chazal view the entire episode as factual, based upon their acceptance of evil forces as a reality, and so expounded upon the event, Rav Saadiah and Rav Hayya accept only part of the event as fact, and so accept only part of the midrashim, while rejecting those which are based upon evil forces existing.

In contrast, Rav Shmuel rejects the entire episode, and explains that the witch had concealed someone to speak on ‘behalf’ of the spirit, while she merely acted as if she saw a ‘ghost’. When Shaul arrived, she recognized him as the King, but only pretended not to, so as to strengthen the effect of the ‘spirit’s’ visit. She discerned from his demeanor that he was apprehensive of the upcoming battle, a battle which the nation was already aware would take place in the morning, and she knew of his guilt for executing the Kohanim of Nov, as well as his transgression in not eradicating Amalek along with his punishment for this, and had her accomplice use this knowledge to speak in the name of Shmuel.

Rav Shmuel proposes this explanation because, in his words: ‘the rational mind rejects any other explanation’. In other words, a complex explanation with little textual grounding trumps the literal reading of the text, because in Rav Shmuel’s belief system, evil forces, or even a miracle to raise the dead, is untenable. It is interesting to note the ‘reversal’ of roles in the following issue. Regarding Balaam’s ass, the commentaries[22] cite Rav Saadiah as rejecting the ass as having possessed actual speech, but rather an angel was created and tasked with speaking in the proximity of the ass so as to mislead Balaam.[23] The commentaries inform us that Rav Shmuel opposed Rav Saadiah’s view and accepted the text at face value.[24]

It is our hopes that this biographic sketch, as well as this additional vignette of Rav Shmuel’s Torah commentary[25] serves to promote further discussion both in Rav Shmuel’s works and views, and in the cultural world of the Geonim as well.