Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy
Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy
By Shnayer Leiman
Whatever else the world may require, it certainly doesn’t need more bans emanating from the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. No one is insulted and no apologies are necessary.
All sober comments and criticisms are most welcome – איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. I try to learn from everyone. I’m also a card-carrying member of the class of כל אדם, and I am a teacher, and pray that – at least on occasion – the passage in Pirkei Avos licenses others to learn from me.
Time constraints, and lack of knowledge on my part, make it impossible for me to respond to all the comments, which for the most part addressed everything except the specific focus of my essay: the פני יהושע and his alleged blindness during the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.
In general, scholars and amateurs have written extensively on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz and R. Jacob Emden, often without having read all, or even most, of their works. It is commonplace to write on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, with great confidence, without having read a single word of his אורים ותומים or כרתי ופלתי. Indeed, some of the scholars who have written much about him, were – and are – not capable of reading a word of his חידושי תורה. Similarly, everyone feels free to comment on R. Jacob Emden, never having read a word of his ויקם עדות ביעקב, or בית יהונתן הסופר, or ספר התאבקות, or מגלת ספר. Such selective reading of the primary sources can only lead to a one-dimensional and skewed view of history.
I shall respond directly to only one of the comments. After citing a line from the opening of the essay (which reads: “Emden…surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them [i.e., his father and grandfather (szl)] in the rabbinate…”), the commentator raises the following question: “Are we talking about the same R. Yaakov Emden who writes in several places of his gratitude to Hashem שלא עשני אב“ד?”
Citing a famous passage from the writings of R. Yaakov Emden, the commentator feels comfortable that he has captured Emden’s true feelings about the subject and nothing more needs to be, or can be, said. Unfortunately, the commentator chose not to mention the following:
1. R. Yaakov Emden served as Chief Rabbi (אב בית דין) of Emden from 1728 to 1733. One wonders if he recited the blessing on the day he was informed of, and accepted, his appointment as Chief Rabbi?
2. R. Yaakov Emden was one of the 7 finalists among the many candidates who applied to succeed R. Yechezkel Katznellenbogen (d. 1749) as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbeck. The finalists who lost were: R. Aryeh Leib b. R. Saul, Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam; R. David Frankel, Chief Rabbi of Berlin; R. David Strauss, Chief Rabbi of Fürth; R. Samuel Helman Heilprin, Chief Rabbi of Mannheim; R. Moshe Segal Polak, Chief Rabbi of Mainz; and R. Yaakov Emden of Altona. The finalist who won was R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. See Zinz, גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 28.
3. Addressing the propriety of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz’ acceptance of the offer to become Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck, R. Yaakov Emden had this to say in בית יהונתן הסופר (Altona, 1763), p. 7a [authored entirely by R. Yaakov Emden, who, as in several volumes authored by him, created an imaginary narrator who speaks in the third person about him]:
ואולם חי אני כי גם מזה אות ומופת על מיעוט יראתו של המי“ן הלז, כי אם היה לו רק איזה רושם של יראת שמים, וכבוד
ת“ח, היה לו למנוע מזה, ואפילו אם היו מבקשים אותו ומחלים פניו להיות לרב בג“ק, היה מחויב לסרב מפני כבוד מ“ו
.שהוא שוכן שם, ושמו הטוב ומעשיו נודעים בשערים, ויש לו חזקת אבות שלשה דורות, ומובטח שלא תופסק תורה מזרעו
4. Addressing why he was removed from the list of candidates (who would succeed R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck) in 1765, R. Yaakov Emden writes in מגלת ספר (Warsaw,1897), p. 209:
שנת תקכ”ה] בשבט התועדו ג”ק על אודות מינוי רב חדש, והיו רבים חפצים להשיבני לנחלת אבותי, וכשעמדו למנין לעשות
רשימה מהראוים לאצטלא זו, נעשית מריבה ביניהם על אודותי, וכמעט היה הרוב על צדי, וכך
היה בודאי אם היו עושים דבר זה בגלוי, לא היה אדם אחר עולה להתמנות רב בג”ק בפעם הזאת. אכן
.התחכמו שלשה מאויבי [פושעי ישראל]…ועשו כן והצליח בידם מה שרצו לסלקני מן מנין הראוים
5. Among the many historians who state specifically that R. Yaakov Emden felt strongly that he should have been appointed to succeed his ancestors as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck are Yechezkel Duckesz (אבל מתחילה חרה לו מאד וקנאה ושנאה בוערת בו על שלא בחרו אותו הג“ק לאב“ד) and David Leib Zinz (גם מספריו נראה שחרה לו על רבינו [ר‘ יהונתן] שישב על כסא הרבנות דג“ק המגיע לו מנחלת אבות). Both were distinguished תלמידי חכמים. Duckesz was a מוסמך of the Pressburg Yeshiva and spent 50 years as rabbi of the “Kloiz” (founded by the חכם צבי) in Altona. Zinz was a Galitzianer whose biographies of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, R. Jacob Joshua Falk, and R. Nesanel Weil are frequently reprinted. For the Duckesz passage, see חכמי אה“ו (Hamburg, 1908), p. 56; for the Zinz passage, see גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 29.
In sum, the commentator is free to explain away all this evidence (and there is more), dismiss it as irrelevant, and claim that the blessing recited every day by R. Yaakov Emden – שלא עשני אב“ד – captures the essence of his belief and practice throughout his life. What he cannot do is claim that anyone who reads this material differently than he does is creating a second R. Yaakov Emden. There was only one R. Yaakov Emden, and he was far more complex and sophisticated than the commentator makes him out to be.
59 thoughts on “Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy”
What an honor it is for RSZ Leiman to share his incredible knowledge with Seforim Blog readers and to respond to points raised, but I have to question the wisdom of attempting to debate the blog’s latest troll who’s out to share his cutting insights (no doubt accumulated from years spent in his yeshiva lunchroom) with a readership that is mostly coming from a completely different perspective.
The fellow spamming the other post clearly accepts as axiomatic that history is divided between heroes and villains, and that all gedolim are heroes and can do no wrong, and all who attempt to speak honestly about gedolim’s flaws are villains (unless it’s the gedolim themselves pitted against each other, in which case the accused still did no wrong but the accusers get a pass). He is not troubled by the historical question of how R. Yaakov Emden behaved as a human being and what his character flaws were, nor by the very real issue of the various problematic writings attributed to R. Yonasan Eibeschuetz, and he is thus completely unable to participate in an actual, substantive conversation on those topics. He is only capable of repeating variations of the axiom that they could do no wrong, and he is willing to say anything to make that point.
He also has clearly not read even the minutest amount of the material on the topic, such as Sefat Emet V’Lashon Zehorit by Emden or Luchot Edut by Eibeschuetz. He hasn’t read Leiman’s articles on the amulets and other aspects of the controversy nor the other works that have dealt with Eibeschuetz’s theology. He instead comes armed with a mesivta-level familiarity with the subject which consists of quotes from Berel Wein, a passing familiarity with one article by Chaim Lieberman, and the incredible self-confidence that all the accusations against Eibeschuetz were disproven and that anyone who suggests otherwise is plainly a villain.
It is transparently obvious to regular readers of this blog familiar with the background to this story that R. Yaakov Emden the human being was a complex and troubled person who was certainly capable of telling a lie. It is also plainly obvious that none of the questions surrounding R. Yonasan Eibeschuetz have ever been answered satisfactorily and that the haredi world deals with this issue by simply pretending it doesn’t exist. A mature student of history knows that all gedolim were human beings who could be flawed in various ways large and small, and that both RYE’s left behind an especially large trail of troubling content, and that one can choose to still respect them for their accomplishments which are also numerous. But there is no point in arguing with someone who no matter what will never be willing to consider that a rabbi could tell a lie, or that another rabbi could subscribe to sectarian ideas. His only recourse is to avoid any detailed texts on the subject and to continue repeating his simplistic slogans about how the gedolim were heroes who could do no wrong, that anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously a villain with untoward motivations out to smear the heroes, and that the haredi consensus is always the final say on any matter.
Once again, thanks to RSZ Leiman for addressing the question which is certainly one worth clarifying for his educated audience, but perhaps the post should be edited to reflect the fact that there is no need to use history to debate someone opposed to the basic concept of what it means to study history. Leiman should certainly not be put off by his online adversary who is unworthy of engagement both on the count of historical knowledge as well as that of rational debate.
Emden was a difficult person with a personal agenda. Eybeshuts was a genius and his works are invaluable.
The truth is Emden is correct on facts. Emden was a Shabbatean Gnostic and utterly depraved.
No more idol worship of scholars.
Take a deep breath, and edit before pressing enter.
My thanks to Dr. Leiman for his response, and for the additional sources on the subject. I’m not entirely sure, though, whence the observations about my thought processes, such as “nothing more needs to be, or can be, said,” or that I’m unaware that R. Yaakov Emden was “far more complex and sophisticated.” To be sure, חכם עדיף מנביא, but אין אדם יודע מה בלבו של חבירו. Might it not be assumed that I’m looking for more than just Nachum’s simplistic answer “sour grapes”? If we accept that R. Yaakov was a man of truth, then it seems to me that we should try to understand what led him to use this expression, not just dismiss it out of hand.
Thinking further about it, it may well be that his experiences in Emden (Dr. Leiman’s point 1 here) soured him for some time on holding a rabbinical position, which would have led him to start saying this berachah. Further, as a perfectionist (“embittered and disturbed by human shortcomings, in others and in himself,” to borrow another phrase of R. Berel Wein’s), he may well have hoped and expected the conditions of being a rav to change for the better, such that he’d be able to take up such a position again, without the drawbacks he had experienced previously. Until such time, then, he would be disappointed that this wasn’t the case, while still grateful (and reciting a berachah) that he wasn’t holding a position that wouldn’t be up to such standards.
(His statement about R. Yonasan (point 3) can also be viewed in this light. In his view, R. Yonasan, rather than accepting the position as is, should have informed the community that they ought to make such improvements and thereby make the position meet R. Yaakov’s exacting standards.)
It is, of course, also possible that he meant this berachah in the sense of חייב אדם לברך על הרעה כשם שהוא מברך על הטובה – not as “sour grapes,” but out of sincere belief in Hashem. That, of course, wouldn’t negate practical hishtadlus to obtain such a position (points 2 and 4), any more than saying ברוך דיין האמת negates trying to save a person’s life.
I would hope, then, that Dr. Leiman sees this reply _not_ as trying to “explain away all this evidence… dismiss it as irrelevant,” but to try to understand R. Yaakov in a more nuanced way.
I didn’t say “sour grapes.” The only evidence I’d have to say that is common sense. It was Professor Kaplan who said that, and he knows far more than I.
Indeed I did misattribute it, probably because I had then continued the conversation with you, and also because I’ve seen more of your comments (at least I assume it’s you based on the style) on other forums. My apologies to you and to Prof. Kaplan.
And no, I’ve never studied at Gruss.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Out of curiosity, did you ever study at the Gruss Kollel?
This is an excellent, excellent post. In addition to the material itself, the post is a valuable display of the difference between a scholar who has done thorough, deep research on a subject and an adolescent (let us be generous) trying to ground a knee-jerk reaction in an inch of text. In a 140-character world, reminders of this kind are desperately needed and always appreciated.
Readers take note: this is what scholarship looks like.
I agree with much of what the above commentators wrote.
However, they too miss an important point that Dr. Leiman made. The above comments were correctly critical of the superficial Yeshiva student with little critical knowledge, and seemingly enamored with the “Scholars.”
Not so Dr. Leiman. Read his words carefully. He is harshly critical of many “scholars” in the field as well, who, with all their scholarly apparatus, are just as ignorant as our coffee room educated Yeshiva student.
Lo Eilu, Velo Eilo, Divrey Elokim Chaim.
As for Old Reader and his casual dismissal of me as a “troll,” I think the following quote from Aldous Huxley is apposite:
“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
I think it’s also a microcosm of how the dispute between R. Yaakov and R. Yonasan got to where it did in the first place – because of people such as Old Reader and their so-called “righteous indignation.” Or, to quote a statement attributed to R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (like R. Yonasan, a target of baalei machlokes), “Unfortunately, however, outside parties became involved and maximized the dispute.”
(And no, to be clear, I’m not saying that I’m of the caliber of R. Yaakov or R. Yonasan or R. Kook, or even that I’m on a level of scholarship anywhere near that of Dr. Leiman. But for those who are looking for “a chance of maltreating someone,” any situation will do.)
Was my original comment, and follow-ups to it, “simplistic”? Perhaps. But it’s the simplistic approach of ישראל סבא, the Jew who has emunas chachamim, and who bristles at those who try to cut them down to size. Who learns R. Yaakov’s commentary on the siddur and responsa, etc., and R. Yonasan’s Yaaros Devash and Kreisi U’Pleisi, and who knows of their machlokes but relegates it as much as possible to the history books, preferring to focus on their positive contributions to our people. Who pointedly say (to cite Eshkol’s note in their bibliography of R. Yaakov Emden’s sefarim, in the back of their edition of his siddur), לא נכללו ספרי הריב.
That Old Reader considers this worthy of mockery and ridicule – fine, that’s what his spiritual ancestors the maskilim did too, considering the cheder-educated Jew beneath contempt. History, I think, has borne out and will bear out which approach will last and which will wither.
It’s too bad that this commenting system doesn’t allow edits. A better way to put what I wrote in my next-to-last paragraph:
“…who knows of their machlokes but, when discussing it, does so in a way that expresses respect for both, preferring to focus…”
1] Just a (more technical) thought on the matter of the blindness itself. Take it or leave it:
Perhaps, “blindness” here (as witnessed by R. Eybschutz’s son, etc) didn’t mean in its most literal and fullest form, but that of very weak eyes.
In Point #3 of the original post — for example — R. Falk says “was placed before my eyes”. Perhaps that, and the other examples of “seeing” that follow the above “account” of R. Eybschutz’s son — refer to a very close reading (i.e., up to R. Falk’s face) of any reading material. [And then, *presumably(!)*, when he *did* author a broadside etc — he dictated the words to be transcribed and then had it read back to him and/or read it (close to his face) for further approval that all was as he desired it to be.
2] Just out of curiosity: In the original post, you write that anecdotal evidence suggest R. Falk wore reading glasses in Lvov. — Is this referring to a commonly-told story, about an older, blind Jew of Lvov who chanced upon an old wooden(!) sefer in one of the local shul’s, and felt a reading glasses’ case(?) within the sefer. {I’ll already bring the whole piece for the benefit of your readership:} Upon wearing them, he was able to see! (they turned out to be the Pnei Yehoshua’s glasses, placed in a sefer of Kabbalah that he’d studied, and somehow was left in Lvov after he had left town due to the populace’s unkind treatment of him). And after this man’s passing, so in the narrative I’d seen, his children each wished to keep these miraculous spectacles — and in their haste, the glasses fell to the floor and shattered into pieces! (thus rendering it unusable).
That family came to be known as the “Brill” family (yiddish for “glass”).
I didn’t do research, but it could possibly be that this story has been documented somewhere in a reliable source (in one variant or another), hence giving it stronger evidence to his having worn reading glasses..
Looking forward to hearing input/followup etc from Prof. Leiman or any of the others on either of these two points.
“History will bear out which approach will last and which will wither.” Other than in Lakewood, the yeshivos in America are a fulfillment of a wild dream of the (religious) maskilim. We are fluent in the language of our host nation, study secular subjects for many hours, earn degrees, have professions, even feel a certain kinship with current events in our country (see YWN and Matzav comments for just a taste of that), generally have a decent appreciation for world history, accept basic liberal values. For better or for worse, our yeshivos bear little resemblance to the chadarim of old.
Speaking of the yeshivos in America “other than in Lakewood” is like speaking of the solar system “other than Jupiter.” Something key is missing. And by the way, it’s not “other than in Lakewood”; there are other yeshivos in this country that can be said to be similar to Lakewood in various ways that you’ve listed, although coming from a different derech. (I am a graduate of one; the secular education I have was obtained outside of yeshivah.)
But the real distinction isn’t between those who are and aren’t fluent in the host language, etc. It’s a more fundamental one. Is Torah חכמתו ורצונו של הקב”ה, and those who have transmitted it to us must therefore be מלאך ה’ צב-אות (and if not, then per Moed Katan 17a, לא יבקשו תורה מפיהו)? Or is Torah just another science or legal system or historical tale, in which case the behavior and morals of its transmitters are no more relevant than Marie Curie’s affair or William Shockley’s support for eugenics? The latter attitude towards Torah is what has proven to not have much staying power in the real world, outside of the hothouse of academia.
Firstly, yeshivos in Lakewood are a new phenomenon. Let’s wait and see what their staying power is. Also, they aren’t fundamentally different; their students are culturally similar to the other yeshivos’ just their education is sloppier. Anyway, regardless of the exact numbers, there is no question that a great percentage of yeshivos fit my description above.
Second, sorry to break it to you but the vast, vast majority of those “transmitting Torah” today (and probably not just today) ain’t near a malach of any kind. Perhaps then we shouldn’t be learning Torah from them, but such is life, like it or not.
First of all, it doesn’t take 80 years to see where a movement in Judaism is going.
But my above point about the real cultural divide still stands: in Lakewood as in other American yeshivos, indeed in (I believe) the majority of them, they learn Torah as Divine wisdom, and with respect for its Giver and for its transmitters, with a sense of הראשונים כמלאכים. That is what has lasted, and will last. What language the students and graduates of these yeshivos speak, and what degrees they get, is irrelevant to that.
As for your last paragraph: ‘אינו דומה למלאך ה doesn’t mean that he’s not superhuman; it means that he has been credibly accused of aveiros (סני שומעניה in the words of the Gemara, שאינו הולך בדרך טובה in Rambam’s). If you really think that “the vast, vast majority” of today’s Torah teachers are סני שומעניה, then perhaps that tells us more about you than about them. You might also take the time to figure out whether you’re a תלמיד הגון נאה במעשיו (preceding halachah in the Rambam), which is just as much a prerequisite for learning Torah.
Firstly, I’ll ignore your ad hominem attack as it richly deserves. If they make you feel good then by all means continue, but just know that I won’t respond to them.
Regarding the matter at hand, the sdei chemed actually cites the Divrei Yirmiyah that it applies only to learning directly from his “mouth” (per the lashon of the Gemara), according to which he explains why the Rambam was allowed to learn and cite sifrei chitzoniyos (although see Rivash siman 45).
Secondly, I realized after that Lakewood actually supports my point just as well; all of my descriptions above apply to nearly all of the elementary schools as well as the girls’ high schools, so Lakewood is actually no exception to my point. My argument is that if you like to determine who is right based on whose method triumphs in the following generations, in America the religious maskilim have overwhelmingly won. (You personally, communicating in the foreign tongue, on a modern device, through the internet, discussing history, citing Marie Curie and William Shockley, all in ways completely inconceivable to our ghetto ancestors, are also a great testament to that. ) Does that mean their opponents were wrong?
It is often the case that such statements about teachers of Torah are a prelude to far worse slanders about them. I (wrongly) took your statement in that vein (and am thus guilty of exactly what I questioned Dr. Leiman for doing with my post – taking what was written and extrapolating from it something that the writer didn’t intend.)
So you’re right, that was out of turn, and I ask mechilah for it.
Learning Torah directly or indirectly: That distinction may be valid if we’re talking about something in the person’s lifestyle that is incompatible with Torah or morality (as in the example of Aristotle), but which doesn’t directly bear on what they wrote or discovered. But if the notion is that R. Yaakov Emden or R. Yonasan Eibeschutz were liars, then how would we be able to trust anything they wrote? It’s the difference between a scientist who has an affair vs. one who falsifies his research. So if Dr. Leiman is going to describe R. Yaakov in the terms he did, that’s bad enough, because it goes against the respect we have for those who are part of our chain of mesorah; but on top of that, to say that the berachah that R. Yaakov reports having said doesn’t represent any of his true feelings on the subject, and is just “sour grapes” or whatever, is to say that he had no compunctions about lying in what he published for future generations, which would then mean that his works don’t belong as part of the Torah of truth.
Maskilim, Lakewood, etc.: I may not have been stating it clearly, but the frum maskilim of whom you speak didn’t mock the cheder-educated Jews and their simple faith in Hashem and His Torah. Nor did they say that if we understand something in Torah, then good, and if not, it’s got to go. In short, what they did is to keep the ideals of the Enlightenment that are compatible with emunah in Hashem and His Torah and its bearers, and jettison the rest – much the same as what the Rambam did with Aristotle’s philosophy, as you mentioned. So my original comment about the maskilim referred specifically to the types who, unlike their frum successors, did disdain the simple Jew and fight against his chadorim, even to the extent of getting them closed by government force.
[Mechilah freely granted, no harm done.] As far as Rabbis Yaakov and Yonasan being “liars,” setting aside how distasteful we (should) find it, I think that what we draw from sifrei poskim (and others) is not based on “trust” but on the rectitude of their arguments. At least in the Lithuanian world, the assumption is that we take from the Acharonim when they argue convincingly and not when they do not. (Occasionally, they’ll cite a minhag, which requires trust, but that’s not common.) So that doesn’t really change our practical use of them (aside from דומה למלאך concerns).
My point with the frum maskiliim is that I don’t it’s correct to assume (as you apparently do) that anyone who “wins” for the subsequent generations was necessarily “correct.”
Agav, what does reading a single wording of pleisi or tumim have anything to do with whether R’ Yonasan was a crpto-sabbatean?
See my previous answer. If Pleisi is nothing more than an intellectual tour de force, then no, it has nothing to do; no one has ever claimed that crypto-Sabbateans can’t be smart. But if it’s something that Torah authorities have used to decide questions regarding how to fulfill Hashem’s Will, then yes, הנח להם לישראל, אם אינם נביאים, בני נביאים הם, and it would not have been accepted had its author not himself being someone who acted according to said Will.
None of that reasoning requires reading one word of pleisi.
Sure, one can choose to remain willfully ignorant of R. Yonasan’s Torah contributions. However, such a person’s opinions about him add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t particularly worth listening to.
I think Dave’s question is a good one. you have just re-stated the argument without any actual explanation.
” However, such a person’s opinions about him add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t particularly worth listening to.”
Why are the opinions of someone who can’t read a Pleisi about whether Rav Yonasan was a Sabbatean not worth listening to? How is the fact that he can’t read a Pleisi relevant to the ability to investigate and determine whether he was a Sabbatean?
You didn’t respond to my question.
The way I would understand it is that to have Sabbatean leanings would include a certain at least hint of antinomian tendencies.
Would a Sabbatean put such a stress on the law as Rav Yonasan did?
Not claiming to know any conclusive answers, but this is how I would understand why reading his major Halachic works are so important.
I suppose, but that seems weak. I’m not sure that antinomian tendencies should obviate any use for straight halachic texts. For example, did none of the Chassidic masters who did have at least a hint of antinomian tendencies compose works that seem to put such a stress on the law?
B”H>
It is not really weak at all. Therein lies the difference between one that has studies R’ Yonoson’s work and one who does not.
One who has studied a certain work and is quite familiar with a certain work will come away with a certain feel for who a person is, unlike someone who’s knowledge of that person is based on second hand.
For example, if one were to be quite familiar
with the works of a certain scientist, and will be familiar at the level of time and energy that scientist has expended to expound on a certain matter (like climate change for instance), it would then to be something quite difficult to claim, that the person is really a crypto anti-climate change believer. Again, this is not someone who has spent maybe a bit of time here and a bit of time there. We are talking about something that is in a totally different realm.
In other words: An antinomian can’t write on Halachah in such a level of quantity and quality. If it were possible, why haven’t we seen any other antinomian do it?
Which leads me to my next point, which also explains how relevant this point is:
Can someone point out to any Shabbatean who has ever written a serious traditional Halachic work, let alone something on the level of the Tumim, Pleisi or all the other works?
So even if R. Yonasan expressed some questionable beliefs at some point, the fact that he was a baal Halachah like no Shabbatean ever was, means that he can’t be compared to any of them.
In other words: If he was the only person in the history of a large movement to do a certain thing, then obviously he’s not part of that movement.
Another thing:
Can you please point out to any Chassidic masters, that had antinomian tendencies, and yet wrote serious Halachic works?
Off the top of my head (although he wasn’t quite a Chasidic master), I’d say the Rogatchover, who learned on Tisha B’av and during Shiva. (The pashtus of that story, as he explained it himself, was not that he based his heter on the Yerushalmi).
Rav Kook is another (not Chasidic master, obviously) example, who had antinomian tendencies (e.g., in Shemonah Kevatzim) and who also wrote halachic works. I’ll let more knowledgeable judge whether his halachic writings are “serious” though.
B”H.
Very weak case of antinomians. Shabbateans weren’t antinomian in that way.
When we said “strains” and “tendencies” this is obviously what we meant, not out and out eating on Yom Kippur.
B”H.
I rest my case.
If that kind of thing is going to be considered “antinomian,” then most halachic authorities are going to fall into that category. As far back as the Gemara (Beitzah 30a), you have Abayei offering a reason for not telling off people who violate black-letter laws (אין מספקין ואין מטפחין, and תוספת יום הכיפורים). Clear requirements in halachah about dinei aveilus, such as כפיית המיטה and חליצת כתף, are explained away. Such examples could be multiplied. Are we going to say that all of these cases represent “antinomian tendencies”?
To alex:
How can you compare Abaye thinking מוטב שיהיו שוגגין, to the Rogatchover’s reported comment that he was happy to be punished for learning Torah when it was prohibited? If that’s not antinomian then what is??
Well, הוכח תוכיח is a mitzvah min haTorah too, no? So it’s not just excusing the people for violating these halachos, but the talmidei chachamim for not reproving them.
But okay, if we want a better example, maybe Ben Azzai’s מה אעשה שנפשי חשקה בתורה? I’ll have to see if I can come up with others.
I was wondering if you were driving at הוכח תוכיח, but I assume Abaye means that it’s better (halachically) to not rebuke them. The Rogacthover (allegedly) didn’t think it was halachically better for him to learn, just he felt he HAD to. Ben Azzai is a much better example, but it’s actually quite unique, so perhaps אין הכי נמי, but also I’m confident that it would not be difficult to find Acharonim who justify his behavior halachically.
Alex
Why do you say R. Emden was a man of truth? The evidence indicates the exact opposite. See Leiman’s essay on Emden and Mrs Eibeschuetz grave and read Megilas Sefer.
Emden clearly wanted to be the rav. When he didn’t get it he then said he was happy not to be a rabbi. But this is all ex post facto or sour grapes if you prefer. But we can’t take his blessing shelo asani ab”d seriously and no one other than you does.
Yes, that type of evidence has a long history. They also claimed to have “evidence” that Moshe Rabbeinu was plotting against the people, or having marital difficulties (Sifri to Devarim 1:12). What can we say? Some prefer to look at such passages in the most positive light possible, following R. Yehoshua ben Perachiah’s advice to be דן את כל האדם לכף זכות (and especially when we are talking about a distinguished and near-universally respected transmitter of Torah), while others are differently disposed.
Worth adding, too, that אי אפשר לבית המדרש בלא חידוש. And so, for Dr. Leiman, one of whose specialties is Jewish history, it is only natural that he’ll be looking for the sensational chiddush there, which often will mean bringing up something uncomplimentary about one of his subjects (bad news sells better, after all).
But in the same way as there is a vast difference between a yeshivah student who is happy to find a new way to explain a tough Rambam, and another who comes to the same conclusion but sneers that the Raavad didn’t know what he was talking about, so it is here: there’s “embittered and disturbed by human shortcomings, in others and in himself,” and then there’s “misanthropic, tempestuous, cantankerous, chronically-ill, and incessantly whining social misfit” – and those are poles apart.
Dr. Leiman is not some sort of sensationalist rather he is someone who carefully goes through all possible sources carefully before making his analysis. He is not looking to put down either protagonist and I can tell you based upon my personal conversations with him that he has the highest respect for both of them and has reprinted seforim of both unrelated to the machloket. If he considered Reb Yonoson guilty it is highly unlikely that he would seek to spread unpublished derashos of his as he is not someone who is “echad bipeh viechad balev”. He is writing for the sake of truth and doesn’t let petty feelings enter his writings.
I think you should withhold any critique of him until you have the chance to speak to him personally. As an aside, the blog is not intended for juvenile insults of which you can find many other sites to post on; rather it is intended for an intelligent well-reasoned responses without denigrating anyone.
I would not be so confident that R Leiman has acquitted R’ Yonasan.
No denigration was intended. Every yeshivah boy learns that Beis Shammai tends to be machmir and Beis Hillel to be meikil, and when they get older, they may learn (as in Tanya, Iggeres Hakodesh 13) that this was due to the soul-rooted tendencies of the respective groups. It doesn’t mean that Beis Shammai went hunting for stringencies, or that they wouldn’t even bother listening to the opposing point of view; those would be unacceptable examples of bias, and we certainly wouldn’t give their opinion a respectful hearing in that case. It simply means that, given two possible ways of looking at a case, they’d tend to find one the more logically compelling. Which is natural and normal, as Rambam comments in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah.
In much the same way, then, it is perfectly normal and reasonable and expected for Dr. Leiman to look at the available evidence from all sides, and then decide that one interpretation “speaks to him,” as a historian, more than another. But that need not mean that the discussion is then closed for the rest of us (and if it was, then the commenting system here would serve no purpose).
I don’t think you seem to understand. Dr. Leiman is the world’s foremost expert on this particular machlokes. He has spent literally decades studying this. He is not the type of person who is looking to make any sort of sensational chiddush. This is not just “one of his specialties” this is his primary specialty.
I wouldn’t go so far as “primary.” His thesis is on Tanach, after all. And he knows, well, everything.
If he’s the world’s foremost expert, why won’t he publish a clear opinion regarding the actual substance of the machlokes, rather than these biographical detours?
I presume because by doing so he will end up denigrating the “wrong” gadol which he does not want to do.
He has. Look it up.
Do you have a citation of where he actually weighs in with a definitively stated opinion? Even in “New Evidence on the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy” he dances around the obvious question.
Maybe there is no definite answer. But he (and of course others) have written on the substance.
Has a modern-day linguistic analysis (similar to this- https://seforimblog.com/2019/01/who-wrote-the-late-volumes-of-igrot-moshe/) ever been done on ואבה היום אל העין to determine its authorship?
I am a Jew, fascinated by understanding Torah better and by Kabbalah.
Can you help me with this question? What is the difference between Elokim and YHVH? What determines when one is used in Torah over the other?
Thank you.
see Kuzari or the new book Judaism Reclaimed from mosaica press which has a chapter on it.
On the surface, elohim is a generic word for “god.” Idols can be called “elohim”, so of course the True God is called that as well, which becomes one of His Names and for which we use “Elokim” out of respect.
YHVH is the personal name of the God of Judaism. It either means “The Eternal” or “The Creator.”
The names can be used together or in combination with other Names of God.
On a deeper level, it is said that “Elokim” represents God when He is being strictly judgmental, while “YHVH” is used when He is exercising His values of mercy. This might tie with the literal explanation as well, but it fits into the text nicely.
It’s of course a lot more complicated than that, and there’s a lot of other explanations, but that’s the basic idea.
to Dr Leiman:
I read in Pini Dunners book referencing the controversy that he quotes Rabbi Reuven Margolis as stating that R Yaacov Emden has personal reasons to confront R” Yonoson because of his reaction to the question about the chicken without a heart & living.
Having read many of R Margolis’s seforim its hard to believe that he would say something that disrespectful about R Yaacov Emden unless he had a good reason to say it in which case I don’t believe it to be true. Do you mind to comment about this?
see j j schacters dissertation where he refutes this claim.
I heard on one of the lectures that the two great rabbis met face to face only once.
Were can I find the history of that meeting?
What have you been up to? I am fascinated about covid19. Can you talk about it? If the same thread is opened please redirect my post :). Thanks :).
PS: I don’t know any people with covid and you? rambo 😀
https://graws-things.tumblr.com/post/633693483905024000/roblox-hack-2021-robux-tickets-generator-free
KW:
Where Can You Buy ROBLOX Gift Cards In Colorado 2021
Can U Steal ROBLOX Gift Cards 2021