“Seeing the Infinite in Torah” A Memorial to the Gaon Rabbi Shelomo Fisher (Author of Beit Yishai)

“Seeing the Infinite in Torah” A Memorial to the Gaon Rabbi Shelomo Fisher (Author of Beit Yishai)

Seeing the Infinite in Torah”: A Memorial to the Gaon Rabbi Shelomo Fisher (Author of Beit Yishai)

By Rabbi Bezalel Naor

ANCESTRY

Rabbi Shelomo Yehonathan Yehudah Fisher was born in Jerusalem in 1932 to Rabbi Aharon and Devorah Fisher. He was named after his paternal grandfather, Shelomo Fisher (1852-1932), Rabbi of Karlsburg, Siebenbürgen.

Rabbi Shelomo Fisher the Elder, an Oberlander, was a disciple of Rabbi Abraham Samuel Benjamin Schreiber of Pressburg (Ketav Sofer) and of Rabbi Isaac Dov (Seligmann Baer) Bamberger (Würzberger Rav). When Rabbi Fisher assumed the rabbinate of Karlsburg in 1891, it was a Status Quo community. Eventually, he prevailed upon the community to become Orthodox. (In Hungary there were three types of Jewish communities: Neolog or Reform, Status Quo Ante, and separatist Orthodox.) After his passing, his son Aharon published in Jerusalem his sefer, Korbani Lahmi (2 parts, 1933-1937). Besides Talmudic erudition, the work evidences linguistic ability. (His son Aharon was also known to be a talented linguist.) At the beginning of the sefer there is a photo of the author. Our Rabbi Shelomo Fisher bore an uncanny resemblance to his paternal grandfather.

Rabbi Aharon Fisher arrived in Jerusalem in 1919. Settling into the Old Yishuv, he changed his clothing from European couture to the traditional Yerushalmi levush. Thus, the inhabitants of the Old Yishuv viewed him as a “ba‘al teshuvah,” or newcomer in their midst. In 1923, he married Devorah Yager. (See more on her background below.) Aharon became a disciple of the venerated Sephardic sage, Hakham Shelomo Eliezer Alfandari (MaHaRaShA, later known as the “Sabba Kadisha”) (d. 1930). Ideologically, Aharon Fisher followed Rabbi Yosef Hayyim Sonnenfeld, Rabbi of the separatist community of Jerusalem, known as the ‘Edah ha-Haredith. Along with the Dutchman Dr. Jacob Israel de Haan, Aharon Fisher lent a worldliness to Rabbi Sonnenfeld’s camp. Subsequent to de Haan’s assassination in 1924, Rabbi Aharon Fisher named his son “Yisrael Ya‘akov” after him. The Gaon Yisrael Ya‘akov Fisher (1928-2003) would go on to become the Rav of the Zikhron Moshe neighborhood of Jerusalem and dayyan of the Beth Din Tsedek of the ‘Edah Haredit, as well as author of the multivolume set Even Yisrael on Rambam and responsa.

Rabbi Aharon Fisher was the brother-in-law of the renowned posek, Rabbi Alter Shaul Pfeffer (1874-1936) of New York. They were married to two sisters. Rabbi Feffer’s Rebbetsin Hayah Sarah and Rabbi Aharon Fisher’s Rebbetsin Devorah were the daughters of R’ Meir Yehudah (Leib) and Rahel Yager of Bitchkov, Hungary. (Rabbi Pfeffer, a born and bred Galician, went to reside in Bitchkov, where he established a yeshivah, and would later serve as Rabbi of New York’s Beth ha-Medrash ha-Gadol Anshei Ungarn.) Responsum no. 99 of the second volume of Rabbi Pfeffer’s Avnei Zikaron (New York, 1931) is addressed to his brother-in-law Aharon Fisher of Jerusalem. The responsum concerns something Aharon Fisher’s maternal ancestor, “ha-gaon he-‘atsum Tiv Gittin” (i.e. Rabbi Tsevi Hirsch Heller) wrote concerning the mahtot (fire-pans) of Korah’s congregation. Rabbi Pfeffer also wrote to his brother-in-law a letter approving Korbani Lahmi.

ROSH YESHIVAH AND DAYYAN

Rabbi Aharon died prematurely in 1942, leaving young orphans. In the introduction to his Derashot Beit Yishai, his son, Rabbi Shelomo Fisher expresses his gratitude to the gaon and tsaddik, Rabbi Matisyahu Davis who raised him and his brothers. (Rabbi Matisyahu Davis was a kanai, a zealot, who after Rav Kook’s passing, revised his thinking about the man, and pointedly attended the levayah or funeral procession of Rebbetsin Reiza Rivkah Kook in 1951.) Rabbi Shelomo Fisher edited Rabbi Davis’ posthumous work on Rambam, Matat Melekh (Jerusalem, 1968).

In that same preface, the author expresses his eternal gratitude to Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah Finkel, Rosh Yeshivah of Mir in Jerusalem, where Rabbi Shelomo studied for some years. As he put it, he merited Rabbi Finkel’s “great closeness” (“kirvato ha-gedolah”).

Rabbi Fisher married Leah Brandt, the daughter of Rabbi Eliezer Brandt, a Jerusalem Torah scholar. (More on this remarkable tsaddeket later.)

Rabbi Fisher’s first “shtelle” (position) was as a maggid shi‘ur in Rabbi Yissakhar Meir’s Yeshivat ha-Negev in Netivot. Later he would become Rosh Yeshivah of Rabbi Mordekhai Elefant’s Yeshivat ITRI in Beit Tsefafa, Jerusalem. (Rabbi Elefant, an American, called his yeshivah, “Israel Torah Research Institute,” or ITRI.) Rabbi Fisher remained in that position for decades until his passing.

The lifestyle of Rabbi Fisher was spartan, to say the least. The entire week, he resided in a simple room of the yeshivah dormitory. There were no “creature comforts,” to speak of. In Lithuanian tradition, Rabbi Shelomo would learn standing at his “shtender” for hours on end. To that barebones room, would come visitors of various types: questioners seeking halakhic guidance; young men thirsting for knowledge. On one of my visits, Rav Shelomo told me that I had been preceded by three “mekubbalot” (women kabbalists)!

Once a week, for Shabbat, Rabbi Fisher would return home. Originally, the Fisher family lived in Me’ah She‘arim. Later, Rabbi and Rebbetsin Fisher moved to Rehov Hakablan 13 in the new Har Nof section of Jerusalem.

Rabbi Fisher would speak to his wife on the yeshivah phone in the morning at the conclusion of Shaharit. Otherwise, the Rebbetsin was on her own. In the introductions of all his works, Rabbi Fisher sings the praise of his beloved wife, “the tsaddeket Mrs. Leah who … all the days carries alone with true love and amazing devotion the entire yoke of the house and the family, and ‘without her help, Tushiyah (i.e. Torah) would be far from me.’(Rabbi Aharon Fisher had written those last words—a quote from Job 6:13, as interpreted in b. Yevamot 62b—concerning his wife, Shelomo’s mother, Devorah; see Korbani Lahmi, Introduction, p. 12.) Rebbetsin Leah Fisher passed in 2016.

At the invitation of Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapira, Rabbi Fisher also served for a time, in the 1990s, as a dayyan of the Beit Din of Jerusalem.

DEREKH HA-LIMMUD (METHODOLOGY)

Rav Shelomo Fisher’s intellectual hero was the Hazon Ish, Rabbi Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, the sage of B’nei Berak. In the introduction to Beit Yishai Hiddushim, he refers to him as “the greatest of the aharonim (late authorities), the man of God (ish ha-Elohim), our teacher, Maran he-Hazon Ish, of blessed memory.” Though Rav Shelomo encountered the Hazon Ish but once in his life, when, as a youth, he filed by to give “Shalom” to the great man, his printed works exerted an enormous influence upon him.

Rav Shelomo had some exposure to the Brisker Rav, Rabbi Isaac Ze’ev Soloveichik, in Jerusalem, yet his hero was definitely the Hazon Ish.

These two sages—the Brisker Rav and the Hazon Ish—represented two different darkhei ha-limmud or methods of studying Talmud. Rabbi Hayyim Soloveichik of Brisk had innovated a new method of analyzing a Talmudic sugyah. His hasbarah or conceptualization conquered the yeshivah world. The Hazon Ish, on the other hand, maintained the older method of peshat, or simple reading of the text. The Hazon Ish viewed himself as preserving the legacy of the Vilna Gaon, the pashtan par excellence. (It is not coincidental that Rabbi Fisher became proficient in the works of the Gaon, both nigleh and nistar, exoteric and esoteric. He once edited from manuscripts the Gaon’s notes to the Sifra or Torat Kohanim.)

In none of this was there any personal animosity. This was truly a “mahloket le-shem shmayim,” “a controversy for the sake of heaven” (m. Avot 5:17). Rabbi Fisher related that the Hazon Ish’s critique of Hiddushei Rabbeinu Hayyim Halevi (since published) was delivered to the Hazon Ish’s students on the Eve of Yom Kippur, so that none would suspect him of harboring any “negi‘ot” or vested interests.

Rav Shelomo did not think that the two methods of Brisk and the Hazon Ish were mutually exclusive. He viewed them as complementary, and in his teaching and writing, he would present insights of both the Brisker Rav and the Hazon Ish, providing the best of both worlds.

BEKI’UT (ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE)

Besides his photographic recall of the Talmud, Rabbi Fisher was also thoroughly conversant with Hakirah, or Jewish philosophy, and Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism). His penchant for philosophy led him to publish a new edition of Hasdai Crescas’ ’Or Hashem (Jerusalem, 1990). His attraction to Kabbalah expressed itself especially in the expertise he developed in the Kabbalistic writings of the Vilna Gaon.

This made him unique among the sages of Jerusalem. Those in his league in Halakhah, such as Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Hakham ‘Ovadiah Yosef, did not claim proficiency in these other fields of Jewish learning. In this respect, Rav Fisher resembled—Rav Kook.

RAV FISHER AND RAV KOOK

Many wonder about Rav Fisher’s relation to the works of Rav Kook. One might say that he viewed Rav Kook’s sifrei mahshavah (works of Jewish Thought) the way Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed is viewed by some. Which is to say, if one is perplexed, then one needs to study the Guide; if one is not perplexed, then one need not study it. There were individuals whom Rav Fisher advised to study Rav Kook’s works; others, he would dissuade. He found ludicrous the recitation of Orot as if it were the Book of Psalms, just as he derided Breslover Hasidim who recited Likkutei MOHaRaN in this manner. (Rav Fisher himself made a careful study of Likkutei MOHaRaN and occasionally quoted the book.)

Rav Fisher came from a background that was highly critical of Rav Kook, yet he was able to free himself of many of the prejudices of his upbringing. (For the record, this writer [BN] once read a letter written by Rav Shelomo’s father, Aharon Fisher, to the editor of Kol Yisrael, the Agudah’s newspaper in Jerusalem, insisting that the paper not disrespect Chief Rabbi Kook.)

The last time I visited Rav Fisher, on a Friday morning, in his home in Har Nof, he gifted me the second, revised editions of his works, Beit Yishai Derashot and Beit Yishai Hiddushim, which had been recently published. On that occasion, he showed me how he slipped into a footnote a reference to Rav Kook’s Eder ha-Yekar. (See Beit Yishai Derashot [2004], p. 126, end note 3. In the earlier edition of 2000, the footnote is found on page 110.) The context is the important concept of “kabbalat ha-’ummah,” Kelal Yisrael’s acceptance as a Halakhic principle. The chapter in Beit Yishai (chap. 15) is entited “Be-‘Inyan Kabbalat ha-Rabbim.”

Perhaps the best way to sum up Rav Fisher’s perspective on Rav Kook, is by saying that it was “yeshivish” by today’s standards. He shared this outlook with his mehutan, Rabbi Simhah Kook of Rehovot, shelit”a. (Rabbi Fisher’s daughter is married to Rabbi Kook’s son, Rabbi Hayyim Kook.)

KELAL YISRAEL

Rabbi Fisher was unique in yet another aspect: his ability to bridge the gap between the “black hat” yeshivot of the so-called Haredim and the yeshivot of the “knitted kippot” (kippot serugot) or so-called Datiyim-Le’umiyim. (Back in the day, it was the great divide between Agudah and Mizrahi.)

Dressed in his distinctive Me’ah She‘arim apparel, consisting of a long black frock and a low, flat samet hat, Rav Fisher taught in the many yeshivot hesder: Kiryat Arba, Beit El, Gush ‘Etsion, Ma‘aleh Adumim, Sha‘alvim.

THE SPIRITUAL RENASCENCE IN ERETS YISRAEL

Rav Shelomo viewed our post-Holocaust era as being on a par with the generation that followed the Spanish Expulsion of 1492. In the aftermath of that tragic event, there exploded in Tsefat in the sixteenth century a burst of unparalleled creative energy. In a single generation, there was produced both Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan ‘Arukh and the Kabbalah of Rabbi Moses Cordovero and Rabbi Isaac Luria. Rabbi Fisher viewed the rebirth of Torah in Erets Yisrael after the terrible destruction of World War Two on such a grand historical scale.

REPOSITORY OF THE HISTORY OF THE OLD YISHUV

I would be remiss if I did not mention Rabbi Fisher’s role as a historian. Having grown up in the Old Yishuv of Jerusalem, he was often able to set the record straight on many accounts.

For starters, Hakham Shelomo Eliezer Alfandari—unlike the distortion of Rabbi Asher Zelig Margulies and the dramatization of Mas‘ot Yerushalayim (Munkatsh, 1931)—was not a kanai or zealot. (On the other hand, Rabbi Shelomo Eliashov, author of the kabbalistic work, Leshem Shevo ve-Ahlamah, was a kanai.)

Rabbi Fisher knew too of the intimate friendship of Rabbi Akiva Porush and Rabbi Ya‘akov Moshe Harlap before “a mountain rose up between them” (“gavah tura beinayhu”). Once an inseparable havruta, Rabbi Porush would go on to become Rav Kook’s worst detractor, and Rabbi Harlap, Rav Kook’s greatest defender.

LAKU HA-ME’OROT” (“THE LIGHTS WENT OUT”)

Rav Shelomo passed on the fourteenth of Kislev, 5782. He was buried that evening on the Mount of Olives. On that very night, the fifteenth of Kislev, in faraway North America, we witnessed a spectacular lunar eclipse. (Some astronomers called it “a once in a century celestial event”; others, “once in five hundred years”; others, “once in a millennium.”) The beraita in b. Sukkah 29a states: “A lunar eclipse is a bad omen for Israel, for Israel count time by the moon.” (See the discussion in Beit Yishai Derashot, pp. 207-208, note 13, regarding the supposed philosophic problem posed by the scientific predictability of eclipses.)

SEEING THE INFINITE IN TORAH

If one would ask me what was so special about Rabbi Shelomo Fisher, I would respond (in the words of Rav Ya‘akov Moshe Harlap): Through Rabbi Shelomo, hk”m, “we merited to see the aspect of the Ein Sof, the Infinite, that is in Torah.” (See Mei Marom, vol. 8, Bereshit [Jerusalem, 1994], Noah, ma’amar 8, p. 28.)

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

19 thoughts on ““Seeing the Infinite in Torah” A Memorial to the Gaon Rabbi Shelomo Fisher (Author of Beit Yishai)

  1. Thanks.
    Another interesting perspective and some interesting comments: https://mikyab.net/posts/74160

    For instance:
    אוסיף כאן עוד הספדון מהרב שיבי פרומן שנשלח אליי הבוקר:
    פעם חיתנתי זוג מתוק והכלה התעקשה שאישה תברך שבע ברכות בחופה. אין לי אלרגיות למהפכות בתחום, אבל גם לא הרגשתי שיש לי תפקיד בהובלתם, אז ניסיתי להוריד אותה מהסיפור ושלחתי אותה לדבר על זה עם סבא שלה.
    “סבא שלה” היה אחד מפוסקי ההלכה החשובים בעולם החרדי, הרב שלמה פישר, תלמיד חכם עצום ודמות מוכרת בעולם התורה החרדי הליטאי שבוודאי יהיה בחתונה.
    אחרי יומיים הגברת חוזרת ומפתיעה: “סבא אומר שאין בעיה”
    לא האמנתי. בו ביום לקחתי את עצמי אל הישיבה שלו בירושלים, נכנסתי לחדר הלימוד התת קרקעי, שהיה עמוס ספרים בכל כיוון במדפים ישנים ומצהיבים והוא עומד שם כפוף, נשען על הסטנד וזורח מלימוד תורה עם החברותא “הצעירה” שלו (בן 80 בערך), בדיוק כמו בסיפורים ששמעתי עליו בילדותי.
    אחרי שהעזתי להפריע עם השאלה המוזרה על הנכדה, הוא התחיל לשטוף אותי בציטוטים והפניות כמו תוכנת סייבר שפורצת קוד. לא באמת הצלחתי לעקוב אלא רק להבין את השורה התחתונה שאין בעיה, כי הכל משום כבוד הציבור ומדובר בציבור שככה מכבד את עצמו.
    וכך היה, ברכה ראשונה ושנייה ברך גדול הדור של החברה החרדית, את הברכה השביעית ברכה אישה. ככה פשוט. למרות המרחק האין סופי מהעולם החברתי שממנו הוא בא ואפילו מוביל, היתה בו נאמנות להלכה הפשוטה, בלי הפוליטיקה שלה. ובטח גם נאמנות למשפחה שלו, על המורכבות שבה.
    קצת אחר כך אבא שלי נפטר. אחרי ההספדים בלוויה שלו, יצאנו מבית הכנסת לכיוון בית העלמין. אלפי אנשים עמדו בחוץ מכל המינים, הגוונים ואפילו הדתות. מבט ישר וטוב אחד של הרב פישר, שחור לבן בתוך הים הצבעוני שהיה שם, חקוק בי עד היום.
    השבוע האדם הגדול והמיוחד הזה הלך לעולמו, אז הלכתי להחזיר לו מבט.

    באמת חבל שעמידה על ההלכה לאמיתתה בלי פוליטיקות ובלי שמרנות אינסטינקטיבית הפכה בימינו לשבח מיוחד, אבל לצערי זהו אכן שבח והנהגה יוצאת דופן.
    זה מצטרף לאמירתי בטור שההספדים בימינו מעידים עלינו לא פחות מאשר על המוספדים. ככל שדברים בסיסיים יותר הופכים לשבח, זה אומר שכנראה זו לא הנורמה המקובלת וחבל.

  2. “regarding the supposed philosophic problem posed by the scientific predictability of eclipses”
    This is not a “supposed” problem; it’s a real problem, to which the Acharonim (including RYE, whom R’ Fisher cites there) give various answers. R’ Fisher’s own answer is far from pashut, and I don’t know why it would lead someone to refer to the question dismissively.

    1. What is the answer to this question? I would think the same answer given to explain how the rainbow (also predictable) could be an ill omen, would also explain the eclipse. What is that answer, though?

      1. The rainbow is different because it’s not nearly as predictable. Eclipses can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy centuries, and probably even millennia in advance. Obviously, no such predictability applies to rainbows. It’s not hard to conceive of hidden ways through which God could “hide” rainbows from us when we don’t deserve ill omens, but to do the same with eclipses would require outright nissim.

        R’ Fisher’s answer iirc is that God engineered the world in such a way that eclipses would occur during times that we will deserve (since He knows the future and hence, when we will sin). But, as I said above, I don’t think this is so pashut, ואכמ”ל.

        1. Thanks. A friend suggested that not all eclipses are visible, and that the visibility of eclipses (such as by the sky being overcast) are not in fact predictable. This would remove the question.
          Would like to hear other thoughts too.

          I am, as the name above says,

    2. לא על הר”ב נאור שיחיה תלונתך שהרי הגאון המנוח זצ”ל אמר בעצמו על קושיא זו שמקשים “לא קשיא מידי” והר”ב נאור בסך הכל אמר בלשון רבו בהתאם להדרכת חז”ל.

      1. I think there’s a significant difference between the connotation of “לק”מ” and that of “supposed problem.” Case in point, do you think that R Fisher means to be dismissive of RYE’s question? He certainly disputes the question, as is his right, but I think that’s very different from R Naor’s presentation.

        1. Agav, would you consider it proper for R Naor to write – in his own voice – that R Shimon Shkop’s explanation of Rabbinic authority is prohibited for one to hear? After all, that’s what R Fisher wrote.

    1. It’s currently out of print. I personally got mine from the family in Har Nof. If you can, you may be able to get copies from the family.

        1. בבית הרב פישר זצ”ל, רח’ הקבלן 13, הר נוף, ירושלים, אפשר לתאם עם בנו ר’ אברהם ישעיה בפל’ 0533198800.
          או בבית משפ’ שימל, קויפמן 19, רמות ג’. 0777090207 / 0527144440

  3. וכידוע חייב אדם לדבר בלשון רבו, ומענינא דיומא, ראה על זה פירוש מענין של ר”א בן הרמב”ם מהד’ מיימון בפרשת חנוכה הוא פרשת מקץ, “ויען ראובן אתם…ולא שמעתם וגם דמו הנה נדרש” וכתב ר”א “ולאבי אבא ז”ל, כי אמר נדרש בלשון המקובל אצלם מדור לדור, כלשון מאמרו יתעלה לנח “מיד איש אחיו אדרש את נפש האדם” ובה”ש ס’ קכא פי’ המו”ל הנ”ל הרי “שגם לפני שנכתבה בתורה היו אבותינו שומרים על תורה שבעל פה שלהם למסור אותה כלשונה מדור לדור.” הרי ראיה קדומה לענין “חייב אדם לדבר בלשון רבו” ושפתים ישק.

  4. Such an article needs more sources.
    1. How do we know that Reb Mattis Davis changed his position?
    2. What about the Leshem made him a Kano’i? If the stance vis a vis Rav Kook is the defining factor, did he change his mind?
    3. What are your sources regarding Rabbi Alifandri?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *