Interesting Legacy Judaica Auction lots
Legacy Judaica
is holding an auction on June 13, 2017, and we wanted to highlight a few items
of interest (for our previous post regarding the auction house and previous
auctions see here. There are, of course, some old and rare books
from the 16th and early 17th centuries (lots 1-7), and over
forty manuscripts and a number of letters from rabbinical luminaries, R. Yosef
Dov Solovetchik (Beis ha’Levi) (lot 198), R. Yitzhak Ze’ev Solovetchik (Brisker
Rav) (lot 199), R. Hayim Ozer (lot 172), R. Kook (lot 183), R. Henkin, R.
Yechiel Michel Epstein (Arukh ha-Shulkhan) (lot 168), and the Netziv (lots
161-62), (there is also an amulet (lot 163) from his son, R. Chaim Berlin, that
apparently was written at the Netziv’s direction).
is holding an auction on June 13, 2017, and we wanted to highlight a few items
of interest (for our previous post regarding the auction house and previous
auctions see here. There are, of course, some old and rare books
from the 16th and early 17th centuries (lots 1-7), and over
forty manuscripts and a number of letters from rabbinical luminaries, R. Yosef
Dov Solovetchik (Beis ha’Levi) (lot 198), R. Yitzhak Ze’ev Solovetchik (Brisker
Rav) (lot 199), R. Hayim Ozer (lot 172), R. Kook (lot 183), R. Henkin, R.
Yechiel Michel Epstein (Arukh ha-Shulkhan) (lot 168), and the Netziv (lots
161-62), (there is also an amulet (lot 163) from his son, R. Chaim Berlin, that
apparently was written at the Netziv’s direction).
Two
particularly important manuscripts relate to the late 18th century
controversy regarding the nascent Chassidic movement. One, lot 84, is a copy of the 1796 letter
condemning Chassidim that is signed by the Gaon, among others (this is a transcript
of the letter and does not contain the Gaon’s actual signature). The second, lot 85, is contains two virulent
letters against Chassidim, both of which have been shown to be forgeries. The first is written in the name of R. Akiva
Eiger, and the second is attributed to R. Yoel of Amtzislav. Wilensky analyzed both and concluded that
they are forged. The document also
includes the (real) transcript of the proclamations of the Bet Din of Shklov
against the Chassidim. Unrelated to the forgery, the various condemnations against
the early Chassidim were the subject of a recent controversy when many of them were
reprinted in a three volume history of the Vilna Gaon, Ha’Gaon. The book was burnt (with hametz) and subject
to bans, one by the Bedatz Bet Din (see our earlier posts here, here, and here).
particularly important manuscripts relate to the late 18th century
controversy regarding the nascent Chassidic movement. One, lot 84, is a copy of the 1796 letter
condemning Chassidim that is signed by the Gaon, among others (this is a transcript
of the letter and does not contain the Gaon’s actual signature). The second, lot 85, is contains two virulent
letters against Chassidim, both of which have been shown to be forgeries. The first is written in the name of R. Akiva
Eiger, and the second is attributed to R. Yoel of Amtzislav. Wilensky analyzed both and concluded that
they are forged. The document also
includes the (real) transcript of the proclamations of the Bet Din of Shklov
against the Chassidim. Unrelated to the forgery, the various condemnations against
the early Chassidim were the subject of a recent controversy when many of them were
reprinted in a three volume history of the Vilna Gaon, Ha’Gaon. The book was burnt (with hametz) and subject
to bans, one by the Bedatz Bet Din (see our earlier posts here, here, and here).
Other items
include, R. Aaron Shmuel Koidonover, Birkat ha’Zev’ah, Amsterdam, 1669
(lot 12). That book contains a number of
bibliographical items of note. The title page indicates that the book was
printed by two different publishers, the first abandoned because of poor
workmanship. But the identity of the sloppy printer is not provided. This led to complaints by one of the (then) two
Amsterdam publishers, Uri Phoebus. He
alleged that many were wrongly assuming him to be the offending publisher. To address Phoebus, in some number of copies
a page was added that identified the culprit as Joseph Athias, the other
Amsterdam publisher. There was little
love lost between Athias and Phoebus, and ten years later they famously clashed
over competing luxury editions of Yiddish translations of the Bible.
include, R. Aaron Shmuel Koidonover, Birkat ha’Zev’ah, Amsterdam, 1669
(lot 12). That book contains a number of
bibliographical items of note. The title page indicates that the book was
printed by two different publishers, the first abandoned because of poor
workmanship. But the identity of the sloppy printer is not provided. This led to complaints by one of the (then) two
Amsterdam publishers, Uri Phoebus. He
alleged that many were wrongly assuming him to be the offending publisher. To address Phoebus, in some number of copies
a page was added that identified the culprit as Joseph Athias, the other
Amsterdam publisher. There was little
love lost between Athias and Phoebus, and ten years later they famously clashed
over competing luxury editions of Yiddish translations of the Bible.
The title page
of the book itself is elaborately illustrated, and depicts at the top, King
David surrounded by two cherubs, and on the sides of the page, four biblical
scenes with corresponding verses relating to various events in David’s
life. A similar title page, although
significantly more controversial appears in the Amsterdam 1706, book, Hemdat
Tzvi. In that instance, however, the
illustrations were used to broadcast the author, Tzvi Hirsch Chotsh’s affinity
for Shabbatai Tzvi (see Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism,
80-82).
of the book itself is elaborately illustrated, and depicts at the top, King
David surrounded by two cherubs, and on the sides of the page, four biblical
scenes with corresponding verses relating to various events in David’s
life. A similar title page, although
significantly more controversial appears in the Amsterdam 1706, book, Hemdat
Tzvi. In that instance, however, the
illustrations were used to broadcast the author, Tzvi Hirsch Chotsh’s affinity
for Shabbatai Tzvi (see Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism,
80-82).
A book related
to Shabbatai Tzvi appears in lot 16, R. Shmuel Aboab’s D’var Sh’mu’el,
Venice 1702. This copy contains the
section, Zikharon L’veni Yisra’el, that provides two documents regarding
the Shabbatai Tzvi episode. Many copies
of this edition lack this section.
to Shabbatai Tzvi appears in lot 16, R. Shmuel Aboab’s D’var Sh’mu’el,
Venice 1702. This copy contains the
section, Zikharon L’veni Yisra’el, that provides two documents regarding
the Shabbatai Tzvi episode. Many copies
of this edition lack this section.
The book, Zeh
Sefer Shevach v’Zimra, (lot 124) relates to the Napoleonic wars. This book,
printed in 1796, relates that when Fasano, Italy (it is located in the heel of
the boot), was under siege by Napoleon, the Jews were charged as spies on his
behalf. The Jews holed up in the
synagogue and a mob formed outside. When
all seemed lost, a French cannon went off and the mob was scared off, saving the
Jews. This book contains the story and a
poem written in commemoration of the event that was to be said yearly. Napoleon was a mixed bag for the Jews. Many welcomed him and saw him as an opportunity
to improve the lives of the Jews (some even considered him a messianic
figure). R. Shneur-Zalmen of Lyadi, the
founder of the Habad movement, was famously against Napoleon, and explained
that “if Bonaparte wins, the wealth of the Jews will be increased and their
status raised, but they will be distanced in their hearts from their father in
heaven.” On the other hand – and R.
Shneur-Zalman was writing in the Russian Empire – “if Tsar Alexander wins,
poverty will increase among the Jews, their status will be lower, but they will
be bound and tied in their hearts to their father in heaven.”
Sefer Shevach v’Zimra, (lot 124) relates to the Napoleonic wars. This book,
printed in 1796, relates that when Fasano, Italy (it is located in the heel of
the boot), was under siege by Napoleon, the Jews were charged as spies on his
behalf. The Jews holed up in the
synagogue and a mob formed outside. When
all seemed lost, a French cannon went off and the mob was scared off, saving the
Jews. This book contains the story and a
poem written in commemoration of the event that was to be said yearly. Napoleon was a mixed bag for the Jews. Many welcomed him and saw him as an opportunity
to improve the lives of the Jews (some even considered him a messianic
figure). R. Shneur-Zalmen of Lyadi, the
founder of the Habad movement, was famously against Napoleon, and explained
that “if Bonaparte wins, the wealth of the Jews will be increased and their
status raised, but they will be distanced in their hearts from their father in
heaven.” On the other hand – and R.
Shneur-Zalman was writing in the Russian Empire – “if Tsar Alexander wins,
poverty will increase among the Jews, their status will be lower, but they will
be bound and tied in their hearts to their father in heaven.”
For further
information and for online bidding see http://legacyjudaica.bidspirit.com
information and for online bidding see http://legacyjudaica.bidspirit.com
