A Footnote on What the Chasam Sofer Did Not Say
A Footnote on What the Chasam Sofer Did Not Say
By Shnayer Leiman
The Problem. I’m the proud owner of a copy of Rabbi Shimon Finkelman’s Rav Pam: The Life and Ideals of Rabbi Avrohom Yaakov HaKohen Pam (second edition, seventh impression, June 2023, ArtScroll History Series, Mesorah Publications, Rahway, N.J.). It is a magnificently written and produced biography of Rav Pam, a close friend of my father, who like Rav Pam was a disciple of both Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz and Rav Dovid Leibowitz. The biography captures Rav Pam as our family knew him. Indeed, it is the definitive model of how a biography of a גדול בישראל should be written. It informs and inspires as it tells the truth.
As we shall see, a minor error made its way into the volume, and no one can really be faulted for the error. Nonetheless, I am confident that Rav Pam being the איש אמת that he was, will surely not fault me (in עולם האמת) for making the correction.
The reader, at p. 336, is informed that at the 1991 Torah Vodaath dinner at which Rav Pam was the Guest of Honor, he thanked the one thousand guests for coming, and then said:
Often, I think to myself that I go around with a “false pass,” for people think I am that which I am not. But I take comfort in a comment of the Chasam Sofer. Rema is of the opinion that if a stranger enters a shul and claims to be a Kohen, we may rely on his word and call him to the Torah for the Kohen’s aliyah, for even if he is, in fact, not a Kohen, calling him to the Torah would not involve a biblical transgression. Asks the Chasam Sofer: Why would calling up a non-Kohen not be a transgression of “Vekidashto” (And you shall sanctify him),[1] the requirement that we accord honor to those who truly are Kohanim? He answers that this mitzvah is fulfilled when we show honor for the Kehunah (the exalted status of the family of Kohanim). Therefore, even if the person whom we honor is, in fact, not a Kohen, we are fulfilling the mitzvah of “Vekidashto” if we honor someone whom we think is a Kohen.
Therefore, even though, in fact, I am not deserving of honor, if people honor me thinking that I deserve it, then they are considered as having shown k’vod HaTorah (honor for the Torah).
This is truly an inspiring דבר תורה – worthy of the Chasam Sofer – and appropriately selected by Rav Pam, a Kohen, for the occasion. Alas, it was not said by the Chasam Sofer.
A Brief Survey of the Chasam Sofer’s Attitude Toward the Publication of His Writings.
Much has been written about the Chasam Sofer (1762-1839), and much more remains to be written. He was a remarkable גדול הדור and פוסק הדור. He lived in a world without radio, TV, telegraph, telephone, or digital communication, yet was recognized during his lifetime as גדול הדור and פוסק הדור. What makes this even more remarkable is the simple fact that he refused to publish any of his Torah insights or halakhic rulings during his lifetime. Of course, the fact that he served as Chief Rabbi of Pressburg (today: Bratislava) and simultaneously as Rosh ha-Yeshiva of the Pressburg Yeshiva – with thousands of disciples during his long reign (1806-1839) – spread his fame throughout the Jewish world. And while he refused to publish his Torah insights, he had a gifted pen and wrote thousands of Jewish legal responsa which he sent to all who asked. All of Torah Jewry knew who the Chasam Sofer was and what he could do.
It is worth examining what the Chasam Sofer had to say about publishing one’s Torah insights. In 1841, his son R. Shimon Sofer, who would later serve as Chief Rabbi of Krakow, published for the first time a personal letter of the Chasam Sofer dated 1829, where he addressed the issue.[2] It reads in part:
Regarding the rumor that you heard that I published a particular volume, and you requested that I send you a copy,[3] I never considered such a matter; it has not even entered my mind, at least until the present time. For the majority of the [Torah] world, that are greater and better than I am – or, at the very least, at the same level that I am – they have no need for me. For the minority of a minority that are less learned than I am, why should I weary myself for a minority? And if, perhaps, it were true that the majority of the [Torah] world needs me – heaven forbid – I am unaware that I would have the obligation to publish my Torah insights and distribute them to the public. So long as G-d grants me life and strength, I am prepared to study [Torah] with all who are interested in learning with me. I will neither pause nor rest – as the L-rd my G-d has commanded me “Just as I teach without charge, so you shall teach without charge”[4] – in responding, as far as my hand and mind reach, to all who ask, at no charge. It is my practice to record in writing whatever Torah insights G-d has graced me with, whether in Halakhah or Aggadah. These writings are freely available. Whoever wishes to copy them is welcome to do so. Such was the practice before the invention of the printing press. More I am not obligated to do. If, heaven forbid, one publishes in order to increase his fame, I worry about the curse of our Sages, of blessed memory: “He who seeks fame will lose his name.”[5] Indeed, such has been the fate of most authors of seforim. How much more so is it prohibited for an author to publish his sefer for financial gain! For these reasons, it never entered my mind to publish a sefer.
Only once did several of the Chasam Sofer’s Responsa and Torah insights appear in print during his lifetime. A disciple of the Chasam Sofer who had access to manuscript copies of his writings, published an edition of חידושים על מסכת שבועות מאת רבינו יוסף הלוי אבן מיגש (Prague, 1826), and appended some 14 large folios of Chasam Sofer’s Responsa and Torah insights to the volume. The Chasam Sofer was livid when he learned about this unauthorized publication of his writings, but ultimately granted his approval. Towards the end of his life, and at the constant urging of members of his family, he agreed to publish some materials, including a review of R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes’ תורת נביאים . The project fell through, perhaps due to the illness and subsequent death of the Chasam Sofer, but not before he addressed an important note to Rav Zvi Hirsch Chajes, which sheds light on his view of the publication of Torah insights in general, and on his sensitivity to the effect his writings could have on others. The letter was written in 1837, when the Chasam Sofer was 75 years old, and at the height of his fame. Rav Chajes, was 32 years old, still at the start of a brilliant career.[6]
I keep the L-rd before me always. Pressburg, the evening preceding Monday, 27 Marchechvan, 598 according to the short account.
Greetings and blessings for all that is good to my friend and dear Rabbi, the great Rabbi and Gaon, master of Torah, discerning in study and expert in mastery of texts, whose many words are beautifully expressed, the honorable teacher and rabbi Zvi Hirsch, may his light glow, Chief Rabbi and Head of the Yeshiva of Zolkiev, may G-d watch over it.
Dear Friend,
I have a request to make of you. It has never entered my mind to publish a sefer. However, several years ago, some pages of my Responsa and Torah insights were published by a certain rabbi, R. Mordechai Schlank, who set out to publish Ramban’s commentary on Kiddushin and R. Yosef Ibn Migash’s commentary on Shavuot. He had copies of some of my writings with him and published them in the back of the books mentioned. This was done initially against my will, but ultimately with my permission, for he was not with me here [in Pressburg], but was rather in Prague.
Now the following has occurred. A worthy individual from Brody, R. Mordechai Bisliches,[7] a printer who publishes the works of the Rishonim, has managed to get copies of 3 or 4 of my Responsa and copies of some of my Torah insights. He plans to append them to one of the above publications of the Rishonim. Initially, this was done against my will and protest, but my family forced me to acquiesce and remain silent. (For all my Torah insights and writings are freely available for anyone to copy them. I do not discourage anyone from doing so, for nothing I wrote was intended as a secret.) The above mentioned printer is already engaged in the process of publishing my material. These include two responsa that I addressed to you, one on whether a physician who is also a Kohen can administer to a dying or already dead patient,[8] and the other regarding my comments on your sefer, Torat Nevi’im.[9] Now I said: “I can do as I please regarding my property; but I cannot do as I please regarding someone else’s property.” Perhaps you don’t want your name, and the name of your community, mentioned regarding that matter. Or, perhaps you will find some passage that, heaven forbid, is a slight to your honor. For those reasons, I implore you to review my comments and let me know what you think. In my humble opinion, there is nothing in my responsa that in any way slights you, heaven forbid. Quite the opposite, they are sources for you of glory and praise. And if, when engaged in halakhic discourse, I criticized something you said, it means nothing. Such are the ways of Torah discourse. Perhaps you will publish yet another sefer and you will be able to defend yourself against any and all criticism. But heaven forbid that I should allow my pen to record anything that would dishonor you! Should you feel that anything I wrote [about you] is improper, I will erase those words, or if necessary, I will neither mention your name or the title of the book. I hope this won’t be the case, and anxiously await your quick reply, before the volume goes to press. I sign with all the usual blessings, the one who loves your soul,
Moshe ha-Katan Sofer of Frankfurt-am-Main
We have included this brief survey of the Chasam Sofer’s attitude toward the publication of his writings, in order to bring home the message that, with one or two exceptions, the Chasam Sofer did not edit, or prepare for publication, any of his writings during his lifetime. He left a vast literature, literally thousands of manuscripts, ranging over a wide variety of topics (such as Responsa, Lectures on the Talmud, Sermons, Commentaries on the Torah, Notes on the Shulchan Arukh, Poetry, personal letters, and more), all still being published – and always in better editions – to this very day.
The Solution. What remains to be addressed is:
1. Why did Rav Pam ascribe the passage (that justifies why a stranger who claims that he is Kohen is allowed to get an aliyah to the Torah as a Kohen, even though we have no evidence other than his say-so) to the Chasam Sofer?
2. How do I know that it wasn’t said by the Chasam Sofer?
3. Who did contribute the insightful justification that ultimately was misattributed to the Chasam Sofer?
Rabbi Finkelman provides a helpful footnote, in an attempt to identify the source of the alleged Chasam Sofer comment.[10] He sends the reader to Toras Moshe on Vayikra 21:8. Alas, in all of the recent editions of Toras Moshe published under the auspices of Makhon Chasam Sofer, the official collection of all of the genuine Chasam Sofer commentaries on the Torah published in the various editions of Toras Moshe (as distinct from his sermons [דרשות] or other collections of Torah commentary that never appeared under the name Toras Moshe ), no such passage appears. See, e.g., the massive six-volume edition of Toras Moshe ha-Shalem veha-Mefoar (Jerusalem, 2021), vol. 3, p. 255, to Vayikra 21:8. There is a comment on Vekiddashto, but not a word about the fact that a stranger who claims that he is a Kohen is allowed to get an aliyah to the Torah as a Kohen, even though we have no evidence other than his say-so.
Almost certainly, neither Rav Pam in 1991, nor Rabbi Finkelman in later years, had access to a Makhon Chasam Sofer edition of Toras Moshe. But they certainly had access to earlier editions of Toras Moshe, which is what led them astray. It’s best to begin our examination with one of the earliest editions of Toras Moshe – and little more needs to be said.
Like almost all the writings of the Chasam Sofer, his Toras Moshe was published posthumously. It first appeared in print in a three-volume set published in Pressburg between 1879 and 1893. The editor of the three-volume set was an אדם גדול, a grandson of the Chasam Sofer, Rav Shimon Sofer (1850-1944). He was the son of Rav Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer (1815-1871), the כתב סופר, who succeeded the Chasam Sofer as Chief Rabbi and Rosh ha-Yeshiva of Pressburg. Rav Shimon Sofer, a distinguished rabbinic scholar in his own right, served as Chief Rabbi of Erlau and was the founder of the Erlauer Chasidic dynasty. In 1893, he published for the first time the third and final volume of Toras Moshe, the volume with the Chasam Sofer’s comments on Vayikra-Devorim. Later editions were usually printed in 2 to 5 volume sets.
Here is what Rav Pam saw and quoted (almost certainly from one of the many later photo-mechanical reprints of the 1893 volume that appeared throughout the 20th century).
He may have owned a copy of a reprinted edition, and if not, he surely would have had access to a copy at the famed Torah Vodaath Library, curated for many years by the late R. Yitzchok Meir Traube and catalogued by the late R. Shlomo Biegeleisen. It is a library I remember well that (in my day) was just-off to the side of the main Bais Medrash at the South Third Street campus in Williamsburg.
No one could really fault Rav Pam for citing a passage – and with great precision – in the name of the Chasam Sofer, when that very passage appears in a sefer entitled Toras Moshe, and whose title page clearly identifies the author of its content as being none other than the Chasam Sofer! Moreover, the sefer was edited by the grandson of the Chasam Sofer, who surely wouldn’t misrepresent what his grandfather wrote!
But it is clearly a case of אליה וקוץ בה. If one examines carefully the text that Rav Pam cited (as seen in the scan above), one notices a coded abbreviation at the end of the paragraph that reads in parentheses: (מש“מ). (Other passages on the page are coded with an asterisk at the start of each paragraph; they need not concern us.) No dictionary of Hebrew abbreviations will solve the strange abbreviation מש“מ. But what will solve the problem for us is the editor’s full introduction to his edition of Toras Moshe.
It appears only, as one might expect, at the start of the volume on Bereshis. Here is the key passage, which appears at the very end of the lengthy introduction.
Translated it reads: “I also had in my hands a handwritten book, named Shir Ma’on. The author’s name is not recorded in it. But I felt comfortable taking some of its fruits and inserting them into the present text, for there is a proper time for everything, a fixed time for every desirable matter.”
Incredibly, there are many passages, marked with the code מש“מ strewn throughout the Toras Moshe volume! What the editor was really telling us is that he had access to a handwritten notebook with no personal name recorded in it. Of course no personal name was recorded in it; it was his private notebook! The Hebrew title Shir Ma’on clearly alludes to the name “R. Shimon.” And מש“מ is surely an abbreviation for מספר שיר מעון. As a gifted rabbinic scholar, and as the grandson of the author of most of the passages in Toras Moshe, he felt comfortable adding appropriate passages to the volume. But being scrupulously honest, he knew that he could not do so without informing readers of what he was doing, and clearly identifying which passages belonged to his grandfather, and which passages belonged to him.
It is all to the credit of the editors of the latest editions of Toras Moshe that they now publish two separate sections of the book, each with its own title page, and both with notes and commentary. One section is called Toras Moshe and prints only what the Chasam Sofer wrote, and the other section is called Shir Ma’on and prints only what R. Shimon Sofer wrote.
In sum, Rav Pam resonated to a beautiful דבר תורה he saw in an early edition (or reprint) of Toras Moshe, and cited it in the name of the Chasam Sofer at a Torah Vodaath dinner held in his honor. Opening to a page in Sefer Vayikra of the multi-volume set of Toras Moshe, there was no obvious reason for him to assume that it was not a Torah insight of the Chasam Sofer. In fact, it was a Torah insight of the Chasam Sofer’s grandson, R. Shimon Sofer, who served with great distinction as Rabbi and Rosh ha-Yeshiva of Erlau in Hungary for over 50 years, and authored the multi-volume שו“ת התעוררות תשובה (printed mostly in Budapest, 1923-1944), and died a martyr’s death in Auschwitz at age 94.
Notes
[1] The reference is to Vayikra 21:8. See b. Gittin 59b, where the verse is understood as a general obligation to honor all Kohanim.
[2] R. Shimon Sofer, “פתוחי חותם,” introduction to R. Moses Sofer, ספר חתם סופר חלק יורה דעה (Pressburg, 1841). It is reissued in שו“ת חתם סופר, חלק יו“ד, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2000), introductory pages, p. 15.
[3] The reference is to the unauthorized publication in 1826 of several of the Chasam Sofer’s responsa and Torah insights, for which see below.
[4] See b. Bechorot 29a.
[5] M. Avot 1:13. Cf. שו“ת חתם סופר, או“ח, סימן ר“ח.
[6] The letter is included R. Yisrael Stern’s anthology, לקוטי תשובות חתם סופר (London, 1965), pp. 92-93.It was first published in 1842 by the recipient of the letter himself, R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes. See presently: כל ספרי מהר“ץ חיות (Jerusalem, 1958), vol. 1, p. 206. For a comprehensive study of the relationship between the Chasam Sofer and R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, see Mayer Herskovics, מהר“ץ חיות: תולדות רבי צבי הירש חיות ומשנתו – מהדורה מתוקנת (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 143-189.
[7] Mordechai Leib Bisliches (1756-1851) was a bibliophile, dealer in manuscripts, and printer. He printed books that were published in Carlsruhe, Lvov, Prague, and Pressburg. At least two of his printed books carried הסכמות from the Chasam Sofer (אוצר נחמד: חדושי הרמב“ן על מסכת שבת , Pressburg, 1837; and מנחת קנאות מהרב הגדול אבא מרי ב“ר משה מחכמי לוניל , Pressburg,1837). In 1846, Bisliches and his partner S.G. Stern sold 111 manuscripts in 102 volumes to the archduchess Marie Louise of Parma, which were added to the de Rossi Collection in the Biblioteca Palatina. See the entry “Bisliches” in Encyclopaedia Judaica and cf. N.M. Gelber’s תולדות יהודי ברודי (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 204.
[8] In the standard printed editions, this responsum appears in שו“ת חתם סופר, יו“ד, סימן של“ח.
[9]In the standard printed editions, this responsum appears inשו“ת חתם סופר, או“ח, סימן ר“ח .
[10] Rav Pam: The Life and Ideals of Rabbi Avrohom Yaakov HaKohen Pam, p.336, note 9.











24 thoughts on “A Footnote on What the Chasam Sofer Did Not Say”
Excellent — Yasher Koach!
(Beautiful D’var Torah too)
Thank you for sharing
Excellent article, as befitting Dr. Leiman’s high standard.
I would just add to footnote #6 that Bruriah David’s well known PhD thesis also has a lot about the relationship between the CS and MHC.
Fascinating, thank you!
Two nitpicks.
(1) While one might be forgiven for referring to the Erlau group as “Chasidic” over the past ten years, and arguably even for the past sixty years or so, it surely wasn’t at the time of R. Shimon Sofer.
(2) עוד היה בידי ספר כ”י שמו שיר מעון שם המחבר איננו כתוב שם does not sound “scrupulously honest” to me. Mind you, I have no טענות against him; I just don’t think that “scrupulously honest” is a good description of this sentence, whose intent is clearly to make us think that someone other than he is the author.
Thanx! I promise I left my comment below even before reading yours! Thank you for beating me to it.
Rabbi Leiman means honest in the sense that he didn’t try to pass off his own words as the CS’s words. Hiding the fact that he actually wrote them himself is not considered a pegam in honesty.
Since in this case it’s probably his great humility that drove him to stay anonymous then I guess it WOULD fit scrupulous honesty; see ksubos kallah naeh etc.
עוד היה בידי ספר כ”י שמו שיר מעון שם המחבר איננו כתוב שם
By writing איננו כתוב שם , not the more customary “I don’t know who it is”, it seems pretty clear that he DID know who the author was.
“founder of the Erlauer Chasidic dynasty. ”
Rabbi Leiman, thank you so much for this article and the myriads of others. However, this statement is with all due respect – laughable. Erlau is not a chasidic dynasty and even if it is it was certainly not “founded” by the Erlauer Rav.
in fact, there were few “chasidim” if any, in Erlau during Rav Shimon’s service. although he lived till he was killed by the germans
Wonderful to see a new post from dr. leiman-I hope more are coming.
FYI The Torah Vodaas library has been completely sold off over the last several years.
I am confused. Did Rabbi Shimon Sofer himself write שיר מעון or did he include divrei Torah from that anonymous work in Toras Moshe?
Zev, there were Chasdim in Erlau, my father the Shochet and Ball Tfilla of the community being one of them. Reb Shimon became a Belzer Chasid and adopted the title Admor. So he did found an new Erlauer Chasisic dynasty. In any event to characterize anything said by Rabbi Leiman as “laughable” is at best inapproriate.
Sorry but you get my point.
1. Of course all the towns had some or many chasidim but as you say yourself they were of bigger more famous courts like bells.
2. How do you know he founded a dynasty. What’s the shaychus of being a belser chasid to becoming an admor. By the way many roshei yeshiva of yore were called admor even the chasam sofer and much earlier. Yet you wouldn’t call them founders of chasidic dynasties.
Anyway, hope you have no hard feelings and if I’m wrong then והוא רחום יכפר וגומר
1. I did not say there were bigger and and more famous courts, just that there were chasidim in Erlau.
2. I did not say there was shaychus between being a Belzer chasid and becoming an admor. It makes him a chasid.
3. He became an Admor and his son Shlita succeeded him. Dynasty if a modest one. BH there is a large nerwork of Erlauer yeshivas in Eretz Yisrael.
3. I reread my comment and I was unclear. It was the recently niftar tzadik Reb Yochanan who assumed the title Admor.According to my father Z”L who had a close and reverential relationship with Reb Shimon HYD and travelled with him in one cattle car to Auschwitz on 21 Iyar Reb Shimon was most definitely not enamored of Chasidim.
4. Why would there be hard feelings? I would respectfully suggest that words like “laughable” and “too lazy” are better left those not of your stature.
If the group of R. Yochanan Sofer of Erlau-Katamon, davening nusach Ashkenaz and wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed is considered a Chassidic group, that sort of breaks new ground for Chasidus. So one can have such practices and still be considered Chasidic, as long as one wears shtreimel, etc. it seems. Nice to know.
When Reb Yochonon died and his son came to Jerusalem from London to take over, they stopped wearing tefillin on Chol Hammoed, and started calling the Rosh Yeshivo “the Admor / Rebbe”, maybe even started calling themselves “Chasidim”. That’s why I said “While one might be forgiven for referring to the Erlau group as ‘Chasidic’ over the past ten years”. But they still davven Nusach Ashkenaz!
In about 2008 (when R’ Yochanan was still alive), my cousin was in the Erlau shul on Chol HaMoed Pesach, and when he took out his tefillin they told him to go into the Ezrat Nashim. Then my father (who doesn’t wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed- that cousin is from my mother’s side) asked where the Rebbe was, and they answered that because the Rebbe wears tefillin they make him go into the Ezrat Nashim too.
Yes, I remember those days quite well. I was there a few times during that era. The Rebbe and a whole group of men were up there, at least a minyen, and the Rebbe led pesukei dezimro from there.
I mean the Rosh Yeshivo. Though at that point they were already calling him the Rebbe, at least informally.
Of course they can rejoin the main minyan at Hallel, when the tefillin come off.
Yes.
Even later, though, around 2011, they allowed tefillin in the main beis medresh. And then it all ended when R’ Yochonon died.
PERMISSION IN A VISION
The Toras Moshe Chasam Sofer Al Hatorah was compiled by Harav R. Shimon Sofer zt”l son of the Ksav Sofer. He writes he used the notes of R Yehuda Frankfurter and the Maharam Shick zt”l* and also added Toirehs from a Sefer in a Ksav Yad named שיר מעון that has no Mechabers name
Eventually, it was discovered the Mechaber of the Sefer שיר מעון is nonother but R. Shimon Sofer himself.
There are more than 200 Shtiklach Torah from the שיר מעון printed in the Chasam Sofer. Some of them are clearly marked at the end מספר שיר מעון most are marked simply מש”מ
Many who learn the Chasam Sofer Al Hatorah are not aware
that some entries of Divrei Torah are not from the Chasam Sofer but from his grandson.
An Einikel from R. Shimon Sofer, R. Moshe Yosef Paskesz, reprinted the Chasam Sofer 21 times. In the 21st edition, R. M.Y.P. explains why his Zaidah published his own Torah together with the Chasam Sofer.
He says “ His Zaidah (R.S. Sofer) wrote the Sefer שיר מעון and because of his Anivus didn’t publicize himself as the Mechaber.
He was struggling with himself if it is the right thing to do to combine his own Toireh together with the Chasam Sofers.
One day they noticed that he was fasting. When asked, he told them he had a vision of the Chasam Sofer revealing himself and gave him permission to combine his Toireh with the ChasamSofer’s Toireh.
Hence, there are many who quote these Toirehs in the name of the Chasam Sofer and have no clue that it is not Toiras Moishe (Chasam Sofer) but from his Einikel.
*both, Talmidei Chasam Sofer
Thanx to Rabbi Dr. Leiman for finally putting down clearly the story of Toras Moshe. I always wanted to figure it out but was too lazy to do the research.
I enjoyed this post as I enjoy all of Professor Leiner’s writings. A minor correction:
“…and R. Yosef Ibn Migash’s commentary on Shavuot.” should say “Shevuot”.