The Lost Library, Missing Manuscripts, Saul Lieberman, and More
Marc B. Shapiro

When I finished my new post, it ended up being so long that I had to split it into five parts. Here is part 1.

1. All of us are able to benefit from the Seforim Blog because of the efforts of Dan Rabinowitz, who founded the blog almost fifteen years ago. In the early days, there was only a relatively small amount of people who knew about it, and Dan wrote all the posts. I encourage everyone to check out these early posts which are full of fascinating information. Today, the blog has grown very large, and is a major resource for both traditional and academic scholars. Dan has generously allowed people from all walks life to use the Seforim Blog as a place to post their scholarship and ideas.

Dan’s recent wonderful book, The Lost Library: The Legacy of Vilna’s Strashun Library in the Aftermath of the Holocaust, actually began as a Seforim Blog post.

You can learn about the book in Dan’s talk available here. I mention all this now because in the latest Jewish Review of Books there is a great review of The Lost Library by Allan Nadler, who as former research director at YIVO is able to provide his own insights that add to the story Dan tells. You can see the review here.

Since I began by speaking about the nature of the Seforim Blog, it is also worth recalling that things could have developed very differently had Dan not stood strong in his principles that the blog remain a site for “the free and open exchange of ideas and of opinions in the belief that as Jews you have a right to hear and to be heard.”[1] Some readers might recall the following announcement that appeared on the blog on June 24, 2008 (here).

Dear Seforim Blog Readers,

It is with great pleasure that we announce today that Tradition Online (TraditionOnline.org) will be adopting the Seforim blog onto its website.

We believe that the Seforim blog is a premiere source of online Jewish learning, and we hope that our resources and expanding website will help the newly-named Tradition Seforim Blog (TSB) continue to grow. TSB remains easily accessible at its new URL – seforim.TraditionOnline.org, and can also be accessed through Tradition’s website.

Allow me to assure you that the current Seforim editors will continue to exclusively direct the content and direction of the blog, and that TSB will continue to welcome your comments on the site. We salute Dan Rabinowitz for his excellent work, and look forward to helping him bring TSB to greater audiences.

This would have been an excellent partnership as it would have given the Seforim Blog technical assistance, while at the same time brought readers to Tradition’s website which had recently launched. Some commenters on the post expressed doubt that the partnership could last, and it turned out that they were correct. Although the people involved with the Tradition website were gracious, forward thinking, and fully committed that there would be no interference with the content on the Seforim Blog, this sentiment was not shared by some others in the Rabbinical Council of America. Demands were made that the content of posts and readers’ comments be overseen by someone approved by the RCA. In particular, it was my posts that these unnamed people wanted to censor. (Ironically, around this time I was actually invited to give a lecture at an RCA convention.)

To his great credit, Dan immediately made it clear that under no circumstances would the Seforim Blog be put under such censorship control, and it was back to the old website (which itself brought some financial costs). The years since have shown this to be a very good decision as the readership and influence of the Seforim Blog only grew. In retrospect, it should have been obvious to all that a rabbinical organization as large as the RCA, which represents a constituency with sometimes widely divergent views, would not be able to give its imprimatur to a blog whose purpose is to post interesting and occasionally even controversial material, and which refuses to censor comments. This would have made the RCA responsible for every post that went up, which would have put them in an impossible situation. Needless to say, many members of the RCA are themselves avid readers of the blog and they recognize the value of it being independent.

I think the same difficulty was seen with the journal Tradition. It is no accident that shortly after appearing on the scene, Hakirah had become the most popular of the Orthodox journals, entirely overshadowing Tradition. Hakirah, precisely because it was independent, was not afraid to be cutting edge and take on controversial issues, and thus created excitement and became a must read, while Tradition continued to stagnate.

One major difficulty in keeping the Seforim Blog going is that it costs money. There are also plans to make significant improvements to the site, and improvements obviously cost money Those who enjoy the Seforim Blog, and are able to donate something to keep it going, are encouraged to go here for a Paypal link. Whatever you can give is appreciated and will help the Seforim Blog continue its important work. The site is incorporated as a 501(c) charity and all donations are tax deductible. You will receive documentation of any donation. If everyone reading this now gives a little, it will go a long way.

2. Since in his recent book Dan deals with YIVO and its issue of ownership of books, let me turn to a similar issue, the ownership of manuscripts. In its June 2019 catalog, Kestenbaum offered for sale two letters from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and one letter from R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski. For reasons I will soon explain, I almost fell off my seat when I saw these being offered at auction. First, I must note that I know these letters very well. I even published the letter from R. Grodzinski inKitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, vol. 1, pp. 275-276. The letter was then republished, without acknowledging where it first appeared, inIggerot R. Hayyim Ozer (Bnei Brak, 2000), vol. 1, no. 481.

Here is the original letter from Kestenbaum’s website.

Here is part of the letter as printed in Kitvei R. Weinberg.

Take a look at the very end of the letter. I couldn’t make out a word, and neither could anyone else I asked, so I inserted three dots. (If anyone can make out the word, please let me know.)

Here is the second page of the letter in Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer. Take a look at the end.

The first thing they did was good, in that they corrected a typo. מוהר”א should be מוהר”ע and refers to R. Ezra Munk (in Hebrew he went by Azriel). However, they also inserted the word נסע which anyone can see is not correct. They did this even though they did not have a copy of the manuscript. They just assumed it must be the missing word, but how can anyone make a guess like this without actually seeing the manuscript?

As for the letters from R. Weinberg to R. Unna, here is how they are shown on Kestenbaum’s website.

I published one of these letters in the appendix to my dissertation and refer to both of them in Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, p. 125 n. 69.

So why did I almost fall off my chair when I saw the three letters (one from R. Grodzinski and two from R. Weinberg) in the Kestenbaum catalog? Because these letters were kept in an archive at Bar-Ilan University. Apparently, the archival material was regarded as belonging to both the Institute for Holocaust Research and the Institute for Diaspora Jewry, as both names were used to designate where it was held. That is why in different publications of mine, when I cite this material, I sometimes refer to it by one name and sometimes the other. It was in this archive that I found the letters, made copies, and then published two of the three (and I have copies of other documents from there as well). If you look at the images of the documents in the upper left-hand corner, you can see the Bar-Ilan manuscript number.

Here is the first page of Kitvei R. Weinberg, vol. 1.

For the appendix, no. 6, I identify the document as coming from the Institute for Diaspora Jewry 102:7/18. Now look at the upper left of R. Grodzinski’s letter. You can clearly see VII 18.

I was disturbed to see items that belonged to Bar-Ilan University being sold. I realized that there are two options. One is that Bar-Ilan itself had arranged for the sale, or had sold the letters to someone who was now reselling them. We have lots of examples of libraries that have sold material in them. However, in this case a sale would be very inappropriate. The Unna family gave the archive of R. Yitzhak Unna to Bar-Ilan with the purpose of preserving it for posterity and allowing researchers to have access to this material. If for some reason Bar-Ilan could not fulfill this task, the only appropriate thing would have been to give it to another archive. To have sold this material would be a complete abandonment of Bar-Ilan’s most basic responsibility as holder of an archive.

The other option is that the material was stolen, and unfortunately, we also have plenty of examples of stolen material ending up at auction.

The first thing I did was contact Bar-Ilan, as I thought that they would be interested in investigating this matter and perhaps stopping the auction until the issue could be sorted out. The response I got was somewhere between apathy and annoyance. They had absolutely no interest in what I was telling them, and even seemed annoyed that I was taking the time to tell them this. The fact that materials that they assumed responsibility for were being sold at auction, and thus not available for scholars to access anymore (as no copies had been made), was of absolutely no interest to them. I was shocked and speechless.

Eventually, I was able to figure out what I think happened. I was told by someone who was involved in one of the institutes that one of the people who worked with the archival materials had taken documents home to help with his research. When he died in 2000 the material was at his home, and it was thought that it was disposed of, no doubt by someone who did not realize what it was or that it belonged to Bar-Ilan. But now we know that it was not disposed of.

It is clear that Kestenbaum, which is known as a scrupulously honest auction house, had no way of knowing that the material it was given belonged to Bar-Ilan (assuming that what I wrote in the previous paragraph is what happened). Before it reached Kestenbaum, it could have gone through a few different hands without anyone realizing this either. Since even after I alerted Bar-Ilan no one there cared about this material, there really wasn’t anything that could be done. The problem, however, as in all such cases, is that material that was designed to be available for scholars to examine has now vanished. Although I haven’t been back to Bar-Ilan for many years, one of the things I was planning to do next time I was there was to return to these archival collections which have much important material and which I haven’t seen in over twenty years.[2] But now neither I nor anyone else will be able to do so.

What motivated me to write about this now is that in April 2020 another “old friend” of mine, a letter from R. Weinberg to R. Unna from the same Unna archive at Bar-Ilan, was offered for sale at a different auction house. You can view it here.

Here is the copy that I made (which also has some of my own handwriting). You can clearly see the Bar-Ilan manuscript number.

After this post was completed, I was alerted to another auction house in London which on May 18, 2020 (today!) is auctioning a letter from R. Weinberg to R. Ben Zion Uziel. You can see it here. After the auction concludes the page might be removed, but you can still see the catalog here, no. 176. This letter was stolen from the Israel State Archives, file number 000i7uz (old number: 887/12-פ). You can see the archive file here. A copy of this letter was made by Professor Amihai Radzyner in 2010, before the archive was digitized. In 2013 he sent a copy to me. Prior to this, I was sent a copy of the letter by someone who purchased it, yet neither of us then knew that it was stolen. Unlike Bar-Ilan University, I am sure that the Israel State Archives will want this letter returned to it after learning about its fate.

3. In my last post here I included a letter from Saul Lieberman to Max Rowe that many people found interesting.[3] I forgot to mention that it was Ariel Fuss who alerted me to the correspondence between Lieberman and Rowe. Although I carefully went through the Lieberman archive years ago in preparing Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, I did not make copies of all the documents, and I thank Ariel for reminding me of this interesting material. Here are the letters in the archive from Rowe to Lieberman, from which we see not only who received the first Rothschild awards, but that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik was also consulted in this matter.[4]

In the last post I also gave a couple of examples where it appears to me that the editors of books did not realize that the Jewish Theological Seminary is not an Orthodox institution. R. Moshe Maimon called my attention to the following example, from Mesorat Moshe, vol. 3, p. 213, no. 81, where we also see confusion about JTS.

The people who put the book together from R. Mordechai Tendler’s notes did not realize that when he asked R. Moshe if it is permitted to send a book to the “library of the Seminary,” that he and R. Moshe were referring to JTS. The editors mistakenly thought, as we can see from the heading, that this referred to “the” Christian seminary (as if there is one such place).

R. Yitzhak Nahman Eshkoli calls attention to what he sees as another mistake made by those who published R. Moshe Feinstein’s works.[5] Here is Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim5, 22:21.

According to the text of R. Moshe’s responsum, animals are muktzeh, even those that children play with. This means that R. Moshe held that pets are also muktzeh. Yet in the small print the editor added that pets are permitted, even though this completely contradicts the first part of the sentence. See also Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 4, no. 16 (end), where R. Moshe forbids[6] moving a fish tank on Shabbat and Yom Tov: דבע”ח מוקצין.

Here is one more story about the Orthodox response to JTS. It was told by R. Joseph Buxbaum, the director of Machon Yerushalayim:[7] When R. Abraham Sofer came back to Jerusalem after teaching at the Seminary, the Brisker Rav, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, stopped talking to him “in learning”. This upset Sofer and he complained to the Brisker Rav, what is the difference between him and Shraga Abramson. Abramson also taught at the Seminary and yet everyone knew that he was welcome to come speak in learning with the Brisker Rav.

The Brisker Rav replied with a story: The beit din in Vilna ruled that a woman should be divorced without receiving her ketubah because she did not cover her hair and thus had the status of עוברת על דת יהודית. The woman objected that just yesterday the beit din ruled that another woman who also did not cover her hair did not have the status of עוברת על דת יהודית, so what is going on? The dayanim explained to her that the woman from yesterday grew up in Vilna where it is common for married women not to cover their hair, so she is not regarded as עוברת על דת יהודית, but you come from Hungary where the practice is to shave the heads of married women. A Hungarian woman who goes without a head covering[8] is certainly an עוברת על דת יהודית. (The point is clear, but I wonder, in the twentieth century did any non-hasidic Hungarian women shave their heads?)

The Brisker Rav explained to Sofer that when a descendant of the Hatam Sofer teaches for the Conservatives, “he is a ‘sheigetz,’ but Shraga, where does he come from? From Lomza, nu . . . it is not so far away.”[9] His point was that Lithuanian Torah scholars, who are generally more open-minded than Hungarian scholars, have often not seen it as problematic to have relationships with non-Orthodox scholars.[10]

Along these lines, R. Eliezer Brodt called my attention to the fact that, together with numerous great rabbis, Louis Ginzberg was named one of the honorary presidents of the Telz alumni association, something that today appears unimaginable. The following appears in R. Aaron D. Burack, Pirhei Aharon (New York, 1954), vol. 2, p. 278.

In my post here I mentioned how R. Abraham Sofer’s edition of Meiri’s Hibbur ha-Teshuvah is dedicated to Ginzberg. Ovadya Hoffman called my attention to the fact that Sofer also dedicated another work to Ginzberg, this time in his memory. This work is Tractate Shekalim with two medieval commentaries (New York, 1954; the dedication is missing in the Copy Corner printing found on hebrewbooks.org).

Hoffman also informed me that there are three pages of Ginzberg’s notes at the end of the volume.[11] Hoffman also mentioned that there are notes from Lieberman at the end of the Meiri on Niddah.

Finally, regarding Lieberman and the Brisker Rav, it is of note that in Tosefta ki-Feshutah, Pesahim, p. 562, Lieberman writes:

וערבים עלי דברי מרן הגאון הרב ר’ זאב מבריסק

I don’t know of anyone else whom Lieberman refers to as “Maran”.

4. In my last post here I mentioned Samson Bloch’s witticism that מבקר stands for מתכבד בקלון חבירו. Let me now add the following, related to the word קלון, which for reasons of space I could not include in the previous post.

Bereshit Rabbah 18:24 states:

.ודבק באשתו: ר’ אבהו בשם ר’ יוחנן בני נח על הנשואות חייבין, על הארוסות פטורין, ר’ יונה בשם שמואל זונה שהיא עומדת בשוק ובאו עליה שנים הראשון פטור והשני חייב משום בעולת בעל

In this passage, the words I have underlined make perfect sense: “If a harlot was standing in the street.” The Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 1:9, is a parallel passage, but there the text reads: זונה עומדת בחלון, “If a harlot was standing in the window.” What does it mean that the harlot was standing in the window? Korban Edah explains that she was standing in the window waiting for customers, as is the practice of harlots. While this makes sense in modern times, when we know that in some places (like Amsterdam) this is the practice of harlots, is there any evidence that in ancient times harlots would stand in the windows? Perhaps the contrary is true, as R. Shimon Amorai[12]  writes: שסתם זונות הולכות בחוץ. Yet while Korban Edah’s interpretation might seem anachronistic, what else could עומדת בחלון mean?

Jacob Reifman brilliantly suggests that instead of חלון the text should read: זונה עומדת בקלון, and he provides other examples of the use of the word קלון with reference to sexual immorality and prostitution.[13]

In general, Reifman’s writings, widely scattered throughout books and periodicals, should be gathered in one place. Readers will find in them many very insightful comments as well as many far-fetched interpretations.[14] Reifman often focuses on textual criticism but sometimes he offers other interpretations as well. For instance, he discusses Shabbat 55b-56b which gives a number of examples of “Whoever says that Reuben [David, Solomon, etc.] sinned is in error.” Reifman sees it as obvious that these are aggadic statements not meant to be taken literally.[15] He sees their purpose as twofold. The first is to train people to judge others favorably. Maimonides goes so far as to say that when dealing with a righteous person who it seems is doing something wrong, you should judge him favorably even if it is not easy to view matters in this fashion.[16]

The second purpose of the aggadic statements is so that the masses not be led astray by seeing how great people can also fall. The concern is that the masses will say that if these great people sinned, then we who are far below their level should not be too concerned about sinning. Reifman says that although the explanations given in the Talmud to explain the various sins are unconvincing, for the masses and the women it is possible that they would be effective. He refers to Rashi, Shabbat 30b, s.v. mutav, who speaks of aggadic expositions intended for these populations.

לאו מהכא יליף חלול שבת דפיקוח נפש נפקא לן מוחי בהם ולא שימות בהם אלא להטעימן הדבר באגדה המושכת את הלב לפי שהיו באים לשמוע הדרשה נשים ועמי הארץ והיו צריכין הדרשנין למשוך את לבבם

Reifman concludes similarly with regard to the passages he is focused on, which deny that certain great figures committed sins even though the biblical text states that they did:

והמאמרים הנ”ל, הם אפוא מן האגדות שהזמן גרמא והאגדות האלה אינם לא משפטים מקובלים ולא משפטים מושכלים כי אם תחבולות אשר קנו נבוני לב למשוך בהם את ההמון אחרי הטוב ולהרחיקו מן הרע.

It is noteworthy that R. Eliyahu Zini also concludes that the Talmud never intended to say that the biblical figures under discussion did not sin. That is why, R. Zini claims, the Talmud uses the language, “Whoever says [the biblical figure sinned]”, as the issue here is that we are not supposed to publicly mention these matters, and that that is what is problematic.[17]

שאכן יש בעיה, אלא שאסור להעלותה על דל שפתותינו ברבים או בפרהסיא. וכונתם ברורה: המפרסם את הדבר אינו אלא טועה, אף אם הדבר אמת

Before leaving Reifman, let me call attention to another comment of his that appears on the same page in Ha-Magid as the one I just dealt with. He deals with the following statement in Shabbat 119b which explains Psalms 105:15:

אל תגעו במשיחי אלו תנוקות של בית רבן ובנביאי אל תרעו אלו ת”ח

“Touch not mine anointed refers to school children; and do my prophets no harm, to disciples of the Sages.”

We can understand why “my prophets” might refer to Torah scholars, but what does “mine anointed” have to with school children? There have been any number of homiletic explanations of this, yet Reifman suggests that the passage has been corrupted and it really should be reversed so that “my prophets” are identified with the school children and “mine anointed” with the Torah scholars. Here is what he says, and I think everyone must acknowledge that it makes great sense:

נ”ל ברור, כי צ”ל להפך: אל תגעו במשיחי אלו ת”ח ובנביאי אל תרעו אלו תנוקות של בית רבן, וכי כנוי משיחי לת”ח הוא ע”ש: דרדוגי דמשחא ארישא דרבנן (כתובות י”ז ב’) וכנוי נביאי לתנוקות של בית רבן הוא ע”ש: א”ר יוחנן מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה נבואה מן הנביאים וניתנה לתינוקות (ב”ב י”ב ב’), וע”ש: ר’ יוחנן בדיק בינוקא (חולין צ”ה ב’) וראה והביטה, כי ר’ יוחנן אשר בדק בינוקא הלך לשיטתו שהנבואה נתנה לתנוקות אחרי חורבן ביה”מ. ועל בדק בינוקא פי’ רש”י: דשייל ליה פסוק לי פסוקיך עכ”ל, והוא מתאים היטב עם אשר אמר ר’ יוחנן: השכים ונפל לו פסוק לתוך פיו הרי זו נבואה קטנה (ברכות נ”ה ב’) , והבן.

I realize that we can’t change the text of the Talmud, but will you ever read the passage again without thinking about Reifman’s suggested emendation? As far as I know, the only commentator to take note of Reifman’s suggestion is R. Reuven Margaliyot, Nitzotzei Or, Shabbat 119b [18] He doesn’t even remember where he saw the suggested emendation, as he writes:

בזכרוני שצ”ל להיפך אל תגעו במשיחי אלו ת”ח כמש”א בכתובות י”ז ב דרדוגי דמשחא ארישא דרבנן, ובנביאי אל תרעו אלו תנוקות של בית רבן דמיום שנחרב ביהמ”ק ניתנה הנבואה לקטנים (בבא בתרא י”ב א)

Much more can be written about Reifman, both with regard to his own writings and also his relationship with the rabbinic world, but this will have to await a future post.[19] Here is his picture.

5. In my last post I wrote:

When it comes to the word דִבׇּה, which means “slander” in biblical Hebrew, it has a very different meaning in medieval texts. “As Jacob Klatzkin [in his Thesaurus] notes, dibbah in medieval Hebrew does not mean ‘slander,’ but rather a false claim, nonsense, or absurdity.” Y. Tzvi Langermann, “Rabbi Yosef Qafih’s Modern Medieval Translation of the Guide,” in Josef Stern, et al., eds., Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed in Translation (Chicago, 2019), p. 268.

Although this might seem like a tidbit of pedantry, it actually is much more than this, and many people have been misled because they did not realize what the word דִבׇּה means in medieval texts. For example, the following appears in Maimonides’ Introduction to Helek, in the medieval translation by Solomon ben Joseph found in the back of the Talmud:

ואף על פי שהנראה מקצת דבריהם יש מהם מן הדבה והריחוק מן השכל, עד שאילו סופר על פשוטו לעמי הארץ כל שכן לחכמים היו תמהים בהתבוננם בהם והם אומרים היאך יתכן שיהיה בעולם אדם שיחשוב כזה או שיאמין שהיא אמונה נכונה קל וחומר שייטב בעיניו.

In this passage, Maimonides is describing the first category of those who take aggadot literally. Here is how Fred Rosner translates these words (his translation is from the Hebrew, not from the original Arabic):[20]

And this, in spite of the fact that in their literal sense, some of the words of the Sages would seem to be so slanderous and absurd that if they were related to the uneducated masses in their literal sense—and all the more so to the wise—they would reflect upon them in amazement and exclaim “How is it possible that there exists in the world anyone who would think in this manner or believe that such statements are correct, much less approve of them.”

Clearly, the word “slanderous” makes no sense in this sentence, and that is because when the medieval translation uses the word דִבׇּה it means something else entirely. In his note to the passage, Rosner writes: “Kafah omits the word ‘slanderous.’” This is an incorrect formulation. R. Kafih was translating the commentary anew, so he was not tied to the medieval Hebrew translation. He translates:

ואף על פי שיש בפשטי מקצת דבריהם מן הזרות

Furthermore, R. Kafih actually refers to the medieval translation on p. 136 n. 35 of his edition. In his typical sharp fashion, R. Kafih writes:

בנדפס “מן הדבה” ודבה היא

In his play on words, R. Kafih is saying that the medieval translator engaged in slander by falsely translating the passage as “slanderous.” The only thing that is surprising here is that R. Kafih seems to have also been misled and did not realize that when the translator uses the word דִבׇּה it means “false claim,” “nonsense”, “absurdity,” or a similar word.[21]

In seeking to make sense of the word דִבׇּה and assuming it means slander, the Rambam le-Am, p. 118 n. 12, explains:

הוצאת דיבה על חז”ל, ביחסם להם דברים תפלים שאין להם שחר

These are nice words, but they have nothing to do with what Maimonides said, or for that matter, with what appears in the medieval translation.[22]

The same word דִבׇּה also appears in Maimonides’ Introduction to Helek in his discussion of the second group of people who distort the meaning of Aggadot. In the medieval translation:

והם באים לסכל אותם ולגנותם ומוציאים דבה על מה שאין בו דבה וילעיגו על דברי חכמים לרגעים

Rosner translates: “They eventually call these (rabbinical assertions) foolish, and deprecate them and slander that which should not be slandered. From time to time, they deride the words of the Sages.” Once again, “slander” has nothing to do with what Maimonides wrote. R. Kafih translates:[23]

וחשבו למוזר מה שאינו מוזר

In his note (p. 136 n. 43), he writes:

בנדפס “ומוציאים דבה על מה שאין בו דבה” ואינו נכון

However, the medieval translation makes perfect sense once we understand that when it uses דִבׇּה it does not mean “slander”. Thinking that this is what the word means, it makes sense that R. Kafih would say that it is incorrect.

Yitzhak Shilat translates:[24]

ולגנות מה שאין בו גנאי

In his translation of Guide 1:51, Samuel Ibn Tibbon uses דִבׇּה in the same way:

ולאמתם בצעקות ובהוצאת דבות והרחקות ובפנים רבים מורכבים ממחלוקת נצוח והטעאה

Strangely enough, and presumably because the printers did not know the meaning of דבות in the sentence, most printings (including the standard one with the commentaries)[25] replace ובהוצאת דבות with ובהוצאות רבות, which itself has no meaning.[26]

* * * * * * * * *

[1] For many people in the New York area in the 1980s and 1990s, these words—replacing Jews with “American citizens”— will bring back memories of driving home from work. For those who want to hear this opening line again, listen here. I actually know of one gadol who used to listen to the Bob Grant show at home.
[2] The letter from R. Hayyim Lauer that I published in Milin Havivin 2 (2006), pp. 25-33, also came from the archive we are discussing. You can see it here. R. Lauer discusses whether in contemporary times, in a she’at ha-dehak, a pilegesh can be permitted.

Regarding a pilegesh, R. Jacob Emden, in his recently published Em la-Binah, p. 82, explains in an original fashion that the root of the word is פלג אשה. (As noted in the text, he already mentioned this explanation in Lehem Shamayim, Parah 1:3; regarding the vocalization of Em la-Binah, see Berakhot 57a).

Em la-Binah, which is a commentary on the entire Torah, is a very significant publication and required reading for anyone with an interest in R. Emden. It is noteworthy that the editor, R. Elimelech Zwiebel, leaves out some harsh comments from R. Emden about earlier commentators (including Ibn Ezra, see p. 98). However, when he does so he indicates this in the text, so when the manuscript from the British Library is eventually put online, readers will be able to find out what was left out. We must all be grateful to Zwiebel that he took this important step, rather than just omitting the “problematic” comments.

On pp. 60-63, Zwiebel cites R. Emden’s famous passage about circumcision that is only found in a few surviving copies of the first printing of Migdal Oz (Altona, 1748). I discuss this passage in Changing the Immutable, p. 204, where, following Scholem and others who have dealt with the matter, I state that R. Emden himself removed this passage. Zwiebel, on the other hand, argues that R. Emden initially did not include the passage in the first printing, but before the printing was complete he added it to some copies. See Yeshurun 32 (2015), pp. 851-852.

In my opinion this is incorrect and makes no sense at all. In what I assume is the self-censored Altona 1748 “edition”, the missing passage is preceded by these words:

ובאמת דבריו הללו מתאימים כו’

The word ‘כו appears on the second line and there is a big space after it, and also a little space before it. Here is what the page looks like as found in Zwiebel’s article.

Zwiebel writes that:

מילת כו’ מוכיחה כי כוונתו היתה להרחיב עוד בענין זה

This makes no sense. First of all, no one prints a book intending at the outset to redo the pages (with all the work this entails), and adds ‘כו to let the reader know that a new section is coming. Second, even if this was the case, there would be no need for the spaces before and after ‘כו. Here is what p. 2b in the “uncensored” version looks like.

Look at lines 1 and 2 and compare to the “censored” version shown above. It is obvious that the “uncensored” version is the original text, and the material from line 2 and on was removed by R. Emden.

One final passage which caught my attention is on p. 110 where R. Emden says that despite Proverbs 31:30: “Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain,” women’s beauty is nevertheless important and is something Scripture mentions, and “Jacob our forefather went after his eyes.”

לא לחנם כתב תורה את זאת והדומה לזה שמשתבח הכתוב ביופי נשים, ושיעקב אבינו עליו השלום הלך אחר עינים

What this means is that Jacob saw that Rachel was beautiful, and this is why the Torah writes in Gen. 29:17: “Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.”

What then are we to make of the verse in Proverbs? R. Emden says that “beauty is vain” only when it comes without fear of Heaven, and that is why this appears in the second half of the verse from Proverbs. Yet when it is combined with fear of Heaven, then beauty is a positive thing. He continues by explaining how one’s outer appearance is connected to one’s inner spirituality. In other words, Rachel’s outer physical beauty was, in Jacob’s eyes, also a sign of her inner spiritual beauty.

אין היופי הבל אלא כשהוא בלי יראת שמים, אבל בודאי שיופי הגשמית הוא צורת אדם [הפנימי] . . . ולכן ודאי הכיר כי הגשמות ציור הרוחנית היא, ואם נמצא אשה בפגם וסרת טעם, דע שלא נזהרו בה כראוי ונתקלקלה בחברה רעה

[3] The website Matzav not only posted the letter together with two paragraphs from my post, but made it seem as if I wrote the piece for Matzav, as there is no mention that it originally appeared on the Seforim Blog. See here. Even after Matzav was told that this is inappropriate and that they should take down the post, nothing was done. I am sure that Matzav’s interest in the letter was because of how Lieberman praised R. Chaim Kanievsky.
[4] Documents provided courtesy of the Saul Lieberman Archives (ARC 76/8) of the Jewish Theological Seminary Library.

In Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, I published Lieberman’s letter against ordaining women. The last sentence of this letter  reads:

אבל אשה שפסולה לדון, ולא תהא ראויה לכך, אין להסמיך אותה בתואר זה (ואפילו כמליצה בעלמא, עיין בתוספות ע”ז ה ע”א ד”ה אלא) ובל נעשה את עצמנו חוכא ואיטלולא.

While preparing the book, I did not know what the meaning of the reference to Tosafot is. R. Chaim Rapoport explained it to me.

The Tosafot in Avodah Zarah suggest that the figurative expression “ha-eynei ha-anashim ha-heim tenaker” (Numbers 16:14) – clearly a melitzah – would not have been written in relation to people who were physically blind. Lieberman’s claim is that since a woman is not able to be a rabbi in the true, talmudic, sense of the word, therefore the title should not even be applied to her “be-derech melitzah”, hence the reference to the Tosafot.

It is interesting that in R. Herschel Schachter’s article against women rabbis, Hakirah 11 (Spring 2011), pp. 19-23, one of his major sources is “Rabbi Shaul Lieberman”.
[5] Tza’ar Ba’alei Hayyim be-Halakhah ve-Aggadah, p. 514 n. 1171.
[6] R. Menasheh Klein discusses other issues related to an aquarium. See Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 6, no. 216 (called to my attention by R. Aviad Stollman).
[7] It is recorded in R. Eliyahu Soloveitchik’s unpublished memoir, p. 16 (unnumbered).
[8] The same approach, in which the lack of head covering among Lithuanian Jewish women—as opposed to Hungarian women— was not viewed as reflecting negatively on their general religiosity, is seen in the following story recorded by Moshe Potolosky of what the Hazon Ish told his father (Mevakshei Torah 49 [Tamuz 5769]), p. 71, called to my attention by Joel Wolowelsky).

.אמר רבנו לאבי: כשאתה תארח בבית שבו אין האשה נוהגת לכסות את ראשה, אם היא מליטא – יתכן שאף המהדרים והמחמירים ביותר יכולים לסעוד אצלה בלב שקט. אבל אם היא מהונגריה – אסור לטעום מתבשיליה

ומדוע? כי בליטא לא הקפידו רוב הנשים על כסוי ראש (א”ה, בתקופה ההיא בליטא היה פרוץ הדבר) ואף נשים צדקניות רבות מאד הקלו בזה. אבל בהוגנריה, היתה בקהלות האורתודוקסיות הקפדה רבה בענין זה, ובדרך כלל,רק אשה שזלזלה במצוות היתה נמנעת .מלכסות את ראשה, ועל אחת כזו אי אפשר לסמוך בעניני כשרות

Moshe Botchko writes simply (Mikhtavim u-Ma’amarim ha-Rav Botchko, p. 252):

.בליטא לא נהגו נשים דתיות לכסות ראשן אף מחוץ לביתן, חוץ מנשות הרבנים

The following appears in the anonymous Ha-Keter ve-ha-Kavod le-Hai Olamim (Jerusalem, 2017), p. 102:

.והנה האמת היא שאין שום מקום להרגיש, את ההרגשה המוטעת אשר ינסה היצר לטעת בלב חלק מההורים, כאילו הדור הצעיר שחפץ לתקן את הדבר, ולקיים את המצוה הזו כתיקונה, הרי זה – חס ושלום – מחמת מעלתו ויתרונו על הדור הקודם

מחשבה זו אינה נכונה כלל, מפני שהאמת היא שהדור הקודם אינו אשם בזה כלל וכלל, כי התחלת הדבר היה מחמת הקושי הגדול שהיה בחוץ לארץ, בין הגוים, ובהתגברות מחריבי הדת, שעקרו לגמרי את קיום מצות כיסוי הראש, עד שאפילו מבתים של יראים ושלמים בליטא, היו נשותיהם מהלכות בגילוי ראש ממש, וכמו שמפורש בערוך השלחן סימן ע”ה סעיף ז.

Binyamin Zev Jacobson,Divrei Ben Shlomo(Jerusalem, 1957), vol. 1, p. 306, tells the following story:

לפני יותר מחמש ועשרים שנה הייתי בעיר גדולי בלטויה ובקרתי שם את הרב ואשתו כבדה אותי בכוס יין, ואז הייתי מדקדק ולא רציתי לשתות מפני שערה המגולה, והרב גער בי מאוד ואמר לי שרבות מנשי רבני ליטא הולכות כן

(He also records R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski’s sharp response when told of what this rabbi said.)

Regarding Hungary, the Orthodox community in Budapest was very strict about the matter of women’s head covering. If a married woman did not cover her hair, her family would not be accepted as a member of this community. See Shmuel Weingarten, “Ha-Shelilah she-be-Shitat ha-Pirud be-Ungaryah,” Areshet (1944), p. 438.
[9] Abramson studied in Lomza but he was actually from Ciechanowiec (near Grodno), the birthplace of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg.
[10] See my Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox; Moshe Maimon, “Perek be-Hithavut ha-‘Olam ha-Torah’ be-Artzot ha-Berit le-Ahar ha-Milhamah,” Hakirah 26 (2019), pp. 31-52; and the discussion at the Otzar haHochma forum here. R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Menuhat Shalom, vol. 6, p. 124, in mentioning R. Joseph Zechariah Stern’s citation of “problematic” works, refers to שיטת קצת חכמי ליטא בענין.

It continues to amaze me that, as noted in Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, p. 31 n. 110, even in a 1935 private letter to R. Shlomo Heiman, R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski referred to Louis Ginzberg as ‘הרה”ג מו”ה לוי ד”ר גינזבורג שי. See Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer, vol. 2, no. 1004. In Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox I included a letter from R. Grodzinski to Ginzberg where understandably he gives Ginzberg the typical fancy titles. This letter was later included in Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer, vol. 3, no. 276, with no acknowledgment of where the letter first appeared. At the end of the letter there is a name that neither I nor anyone else could make out. I transcribed it as מאיר באראן and then added a question mark. In Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer they removed the question mark. Uriel Bener called my attention to Shenot Dor va-Dor (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 271, from where we see that the name is מאיר באסין, who happened to be the father-in-law of R. Yisrael Gustman.
[11] Regarding Ginzberg, see also R. Zev Leiter, Mi-Toratan shel Rishonim (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 61, who refers to him as מהר”ל גינצבורג. R. Gedaliah Felder, Yesodei Yeshurun, vol. 3, p. 146 refers to ר”ל גינזבורג. Here is the title page of the 1946 edition of Ma’alot ha-Torah by R. Abraham ben Solomon Zalman, the brother of the Vilna Gaon. R. Nissan Waxman and R. Yehiel Michel Feinstein were willing to collaborate with Ginzberg and to even put his name on the title page.

[12] Ha-Posek, 9 (Tamuz-Av 5708), p. 1529. He offers his own far-fetched interpretation.
[13] Beit Talmud 4 (Vienna, 1883), p. 16, also printed in his Ruah Hadashah (Pressburg, 1885), pp. 2-3. Reifman’s interpretation is cited by R. Azriel Hildesheimer, Hiddushei Rabbi Azriel (Jerusalem, 1992), Kiddushin 9b (p. 316). Without mentioning Reifman, the same emendation is suggested by A. Rosenberg, Al Devar Tikunei Nushaot bi-Yerushalmi (Lodz, 1928), p. 71. In a future post I will discuss who this “A. Rosenberg” was.
[14] R. Meir Mazuz discusses one of Reifman’s comments in my Iggerot Malkhei Rabbanan, p. 314. Those who wish to purchase this volume can do so here. Those in Israel who are interested in the book should contact me directly.
[15] Ha-Magid, May 14, 1873, p. 175. See my Changing the Immutable, p. 5, for many examples of sages who understood David’s sin with Bathsheba literally.

[16] It is fascinating to note that the kabbalist R. Judah Fatiyah was not happy with the talmudic explanation, also found in the Zohar, that Uriah had given a get to Bathsheba. He regarded this as a forced explanation. In his Matok la-Nefesh, pp. 56a-b, he offers an explanation which came to him from someone in a dream, according to which King David voided the marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba. He did this by himself, as he was too embarrassed to involve the Sanhedrin. As the most distinguished member of the Sanhedrin, he had this authority to void a marriage. R. Fatiyah was told in his dream that this explanation had never before been told to anyone else, because the spirit telling him this he was too embarrassed to have shared this information before then.

לבי ולבך ידעי שכל התירוצים הם דוחק ומוכרחין אנן לעייל פילא בקופא דמחטא מפני כבודו של משיח ה’ שהיה יקר בעיני ה’ . . . יש תירוץ רביעי הנגלה אלי בחלום . . . כי ראיתי כאלו אדם שאינו נראה כלל אומר אלי הנה אנן קיימא לן בדיני הקדושין שכל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן איהו מקדש ויכולין רבנן הנמצאים בדור ההוא לעקור ולבטל הקידושין של איזה אדם ותהיה אשתו פנויה למפרע . . . וכשאירע מעשה דבת שבע ראה דוד את עצמו שאינו יכול לכוף את יצרו עמד בינו לבין עצמו בלא צירוף הסנהדרין עמו ובטל את קדושי אוריה ובחר הרע במיעוטו שלא לפגוע באיסור ערוה ח”ו כי היה בוש לבטל את קדושי אוריה בצרוף הסנהדרין עמו שלא לצורך, ויש כח בדוד שהוא לבדו יכול לבטל הקדושין כי הוא היה מופלא שבסנהדרין . . . כל זה נאמר אלי בחלום בקיצור נמרץ כי המדבר אלי היה בוש ונכלם להרחיב הדברים, גם אמר אלי כי מיום שאירע ביטול זה עד היום הזה לא נתגלה עוד ענין זה לשום אדם מעולם לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום כי היה בוש להגיד ענין זה הביטול, ובפי’ הד’ הזה יותרו כל השאלות מעל עבד ה’ ועל משיחו נעים זמירות ישראל.

After citing R. Fatiyah’s statement, R. Ovadiah Yosef writes (Meor Yisrael, Shabbat 56a):

ובמחכ”ת דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין ואין ממש בדבריו . . . ואין לנו אלא דברי רבותינו שהם דברי אלקים חיים

Ovadiah was clearly upset that R. Fatiyah, whose expertise was in Kabbalah, chose to weigh in on a halakhic matter and offer the incorrect view that a great Torah scholar can simply invalidate a Jewish marriage without aget. For another response to R. Fatiyah, see R. Nissim Kaduri,Ma’aseh Nissim, p. 12. These sources are cited by R. Meir Mazuz, Bayit Ne’eman 56 (5 Nisan 5777), p. 4 n. 23.

For more dreams of R. Fatiyah, this time with reference to the book Hemdat Yamim, see Avraham Yaari, Ta’alumat Sefer(Jerusalem, 1954), ch. 8.
[17] Etz Erez, vols. 1-2, pp. 287-288 (emphasis in original). Since I have discussed Saul Lieberman in this post, it is worth noting that R. Zini does not regard him positively. This is what he writes in Etz Erez, vol. 4, p. 224.

.וכרגיל בעל תוספתא כפשוטה נהג כאן כחוקרים רבים אחרים, שברמות רוחם מדברים כאלו הם מתנבאים מפי השכינה, וקובעים עמדות ללא כל הוכחה, אפילו לא נתן את דעתו לסתירה הפנימית שבדבריו

Etz Erez, vol. 3, p. 25 n. 10 (emphasis in original):

ובעל תוספתא כפשוטה בלהיטותו לפרש כל דבר עפ”י המידע המדעי, היסטורי או אחר, כמעט כילד קטן שלא החזיק צעצוע מעולם ונותנים לו אחד, לא הבין כלום, לכן כתב (ברכות פ”ד שם) “הלכה זו מתארת את מנהגי הסעודה בזמן העתיק אצל נכבדי העם ונכללו כאן כמה פרטים שאין להוציא מהם מסקנות להלכה, מפני שמקורם נעוץ בנימוסי המקום ולא בהלכה. ובדרך כלל הסדר מתאים למנהגי הרומאים בסעודה וגם של היונים בתקופה המאוחרת, ואין כאן ‘הלכה בסעודה‘.” הרי הוכחני שיש כאן הלכות ממש, אבל ודאי לא מה שחשב.

Etz Erez, vol. 3, p. 35:

.אינני מסתמך אף פעם על חבור של מי שמיסד את היהדות הקונסרבטיבית בא”י, וכוונתי למחבר התוספתא כפושטא עצמו, אף אם הוא היה בן דוד של ה’חזון איש’

Etz Erez, vol. 1, p. 124 n. 191:

וזה דומה לחוקרי מדעי היהדות הכותבים ‘מהרי”ן אפשטיין’, ‘מהר”ש ליברמן’ וכדו’, תוך נסיון נואש להעביר את הסמכות התורנית לחוקרי האקדמיה, כאילו הם עמדו בראש ישיבות. מדובר במגמה פסולה לחלוטין בעיני איש ירא ה’. חוקר תלמוד, אף אם למדן גדול הוא, איננו איש תורה על תקנו זה, אלא סתם ידען, ולהעניק לו תואר המיועד למשמשים בקודש, היא חילול הקודש וגניבה במחתרת, ורק עם הארץ יעשה זאת.

Hesed Leumim Hatat, pp. 19-20 n. 29:

בתוספתא כפשוטה (עמ’ 756) כתב כל מיני דברי הבל (כמו שהתחיל לעשות מאז מכר נשמתו לקונסרבטיבים) . . . רק מי שאיבד כל תחושת של כבוד האומה הישראלית, עם ה’, מי שאיבד את דרכו האמונית, יכול לומר שלא ברור מהיכן איסור זה. ליברמן בעל הזכרון המופלג, בעל הבקיאות הרחבה מאד, שכל כך שקע במקורות של תושבע”פ אינו זוכר עוד תוכן של פסוקים אלמנטריים ביותר, שכל ילד ידע בע”פ בגלות, ואינו מסוגל להבחין שאין צורך במקור, כיון שתורה מפורשת היא!! . . . ועל חטא זה הוא מוסיף פשע פרשנות עפ”י שיטה ‘דרוויניסטית’ היסטורית מטופשת, פרי עבדות לדעות הנכרים.

Unfortunately, none of R. Zini’s books are on Otzar HaHochma.

[18] Regarding R. Margaliyot, whose writings are of great interest to many, I have recently discovered a few articles of his that are completely unknown and have not been reprinted in the various collections of his writings. I will discuss them in a future post.
[19] See the letters to him from R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim published in Mikabtze’el 36 (2009), pp. 47ff., ibid. 37 (2011), pp. 75ff. See ibid., p. 76, that when R. Joseph Zechariah Stern published his responsa which were sent to Reifman, he abbreviated his name.
[20] Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah: Tractate Sanhedrin (New York, 1981), p. 141.
[21] If I am correct, this was only an early mistake and R. Kafih must have later realized this. I say this because Al-Harizi used the term in his translation of the Guide a number of times. See Langermann, “Rabbi Yosef Qafih’s Modern Medieval Translation of the Guide,” pp. 168ff.
[22] The same mistake is made by R. Shlomo Aviner in his edition of Hakdamat ha-Rambam le-Perek Helek (n.p., 2013), p. 82.
[23] Just to show you how times change, Rosner translates R. Kafih’s words: וחשבו למוזר מה שאינו מוזר, “and consider queer that which is not queer.” If Rosner were translating this today, instead of “queer” he would use “strange,” as queer has come to mean something entirely different.
[24] Hakdamot ha-Rambam la-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1992), p. 134.
[25] See Yehudah Ibn Shmuel’s textual note in his edition of Moreh ha-Nevukhim, vol. 2, pp. 27-28 (third pagination).
[26] See also David Kaufmann, Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der Jüdischen Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters (Gotha, 1877), p. 273 n. 64, for what seems to be an example of replacing דבה with רבה.