Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction
Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction
By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer Brodt
Legacy Auction Judaica is holding its Spring auction on May 30th (link) and it provides us the opportunity to discuss some interesting bibliographical and historical books and items.
Item #7 is the first edition of Charedim printed in 1601. This is the first appearance of R. Elazar Azkiri’s song Yedid Nefesh in print. For a full discussion of this Tefilah see Bentcy Eichorn, Zemirot Zion, pp. 91-106. This volume also has many unidentified glosses.
Another entry of note is Item #147, the Hida’s copy of the 1545 edition of the Sifra with what may be his marginalia.
An item with important glosses is Item #160 which has the notes of R’ Chaim Sofer known as ‘the Hungarian R’ Chaim,’ on the work Sharei Torah. See also Item #61 which has glosses from R’ Hirsch Berlin.
Item #79, is the first edition, Seder Zera’im. While small portions of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna proved controversial, this volume contains the approbation of R. Akiva Eiger, who is also listed on the subscriber list.
Another controversial work, the late R. Nosson Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol, is Item #97. This is the first edition, not the later edition which censored material from the first. We discuss some of the controversy, bans, and differences between the editions, in a series of articles here, here, here, and here.
Also a controversial work is Item #100, Pulmus haMussar which discusses the dispute regarding the Mussar movement. Revealing the inner machinations between the parties proved controversial itself and Pulmus was printed just once and it has never been reprinted. Regarding this work, see Eitam Henkin, Ta’arokh le-fani Shulkhan, 123-139.
Item #136’s description contains an interesting cryptic note about the copy of Pe’as Hashulchan: “Includes the rare final page of corrections and polemics”.
Here is the story behind this sentence: In 1799 one of the earliest authorized works of the Gra printed was the Shenos Eliyahu. In the back there was a section called Likutim.
Here is the text of the Gra Related to Mesorah:
In 1821 R’ Wolf Heidenheim wrote about this:
This is what R’ Shklover is referring to in the last page of his work without naming who he was referring to:
Interestingly enough R’ Yitzchaki of Bnei Brak in an article in Yeshurun 5 (1999) pp. 535-537 concludes that R’ Heidenheim was correct. In later editions of the Pe’as Hashulchan has the piece of R’ Shklover added into the proper place in the important introduction of the work. (Thanks to Y. Yankelowitz for his sources and materials).
Another work of the Gra is the first edition of the Biur ha-Gra on Shulhan Orakh (Item #137). This edition removed many standard commentaries (Taz, etc.) but not the Be’er ha-Goleh because he was related to the Gra. A Shulhan Orakh with just the Gra’s commentary proved not viable because when people purchased a Shulhan Orakh they wanted all the standard commentaries in addition to the Gra’s. In the middle of the publication of the Even ha-Ezer volume the publishers decided that they would include the other commentaries even if it meant moving the Gaon’s commentary to the bottom, they received permission from R. Chaim Volozhin to do so.
About Item #18 Messechtas Purim see our discussion earlier on the blog here.
Item #25 is Peirush Megilas Achashverosh, Venice 1565. The description states:
R. Zechariah ben Saruk (1450-c. 1540), was one of the great Chachamim of Spain… With an important introduction, which provides a rare historical glimpse into the travails of Jews who were exiled from Spain as well into as other challenges of that period.
Worth quoting is part of another piece from this interesting introduction:
שהראשונים הניחו לנו לדבר אבל לא לקנטר ואני תמה מאד מן החכם העניו ה”ר שמואל די בידאש נ”ע איך נפל ברשת מאמר האומר אין משיבין על הארי אחר שמת? וזה לשתי סבות הא’ שהוא ידוע לקטני עריסה [רץ המונחים בעריסה] כי קטנם עבה ממתנינו, וההקש והערך שיש בין ידיעתם לידעתנו הוא בערך גלגל ערבות אל נמלה אחת, השנית שהחכמים ההם ע”ה שחברו מה שחברו, האירו לנו בחיבוריהם מפיהם אנו חיים, אם כן מה נהיה כפויי טובה ששתינו מים זכים מבורם ועתה נקנטר כנגדם. ובעת שאמר החכם הנזכר על בעל העטור והרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל שהוכו בסנורים, ודברים אחרים, זרים לכל חכם לב לאומרם מאשלי רברבי. ותמהני מחכמתו שאני הייתי מכיר אותו היטב שהוא חכם ועניו איך אמר בהקדמת ספרו מה שסתר אחר כך בספרו? כי אמר בהקדמתו שהסתירה אשר לא יכוןי הסותר לבייש את האשר נעלם ממנו דבר, כי אין זה מורידו מחזקתו. והאמת כן הוא. ובספרו, כשחלק על הגאונים הנזכרים אמר שהוכו בסנורים
ונראה לי דילמא מר נאים כדנפק שמעתתיה מפומיה, כמו שאמרו על רבי יהושע בן לוי, כדאיתא במסכת נדה פרק המפלת. ולא זו בלבד הזהיר לנו חז”ל, אבל גם כן אמרו במוסריהם שלא יחלוק אדם על רבו אפילו בעודו בחיים חייתו, ולכן אמרו בירושלמי לית ריש לקיש מתריס כלפי רבי יוחנן, למפיגל עליה לאפוקי מיניה עובדא. העובדא היה שהוראה רבי יוחנן לתלמידו ריש לקיש שהצפורן אינה מטמא, כמו שהמחלוקת הוא בירשלמי במסכת הורית פרק כהן משוח
ובעבור שזה האיש היה חשוב במדותיו, נאמר שזה היה כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ולכן בכל מה שחלק כנגד גאונים עולם, לא אדבר אלא באחד, בעבור שנשבעתי ואקיימה להיות כנגד כל איש שיחלוק נגד הרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל וכו’
על כל שאר הדברים שהטיח כנגדם, ובפרט נגד הראב”ע ז”ל אשר אחר חתימת התלמוד היה רשום ככל הגאונים, אף אלפי שהיה הוא גאון, וראו מה שכתב עליו הרמב”ם לבנו, והוא היה חכם כולל ושלם בכל חכמה. ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב”ע ממסכת קידושין [ותוס’ הביאו בקידושין לו א], והם בתכלית הדקות האימות, ובא החכם ר’ שמואל די וידאש, האל יכפרהו לומר עליו, ולא אמר אמת ואינו נכון ודברים אחרים, שאינם ראויים לדבר כנגד האשל הגדול הראב”ע. ומה שאמרתי לא הייתי אומר, אלא שנקרת בפי’ אחד שלו מהמגלה הזאת
Last year this rare work was reprinted based on the first edition and manuscripts with notes and a useful introduction about the work.
Item #37 is the rare work Tal Oros. This work is almost completely unknown to most poskim. One important exception was the Magen Avraham who quoted it numerous times in his classic work on Shulchan Aruch. For additional information about this author see this earlier post on the blog (here).
Previously we have mentioned how we can learn about works found in different people’s libraries. Item #163 is the Beis Halevi’s copy of the classic work of the Malbim on Orach Chaim which sadly was never completed.
An interesting bibliographical scoop about this work can be found in an interview in Mishpacha Magazine in the September 4, 2019 (Issue #776, p. 50) by Rabbi Yonason Sacks. He describes purchasing the Malbim’s own copy which had an important gloss to a specific passage.
The catalog’s letters section is always an important way to learn about interesting unknown historical documents and the like.
Item #229 we learn about a newspaper written in Yeshivas Telz for Purim. This tradition is found already in Volozhin as described by Shaul Stampfer and continues until today.
Item #182 is another Letter of R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, author of the Orakh ha-Shulhan.
This letter has a very interesting passage (which the entry downplays) we already wrote about back in 2007 (here). In this letter he wrote not to write to R’ Spektor as he is מוקף מסביב and write to the Netziv even though he is sick.
Shockingly enough R’ Chaim Kanievskey advised R’ Horowitz, the editor of this edition, not to edit out this line.
Item #224 must be highlighted as this is an incredible manuscript, which relates to the famous controversy in Yerushalayim in the 1880’s.
This is a letter from 1887 written by R. Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik, the author of the Bes ha-Levi, to his friend R’ Hildesheimer. The catalog description states in part:
During the late 1880’s the old Yishuv of Yerusholayim, then led by the great R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin, was supported by the “Chalukah” system, which was funded by Jews from the Diaspora… He continues that there is still one place that the plague of secular studies has not infiltrated and that is Yerusholayim, and despite the fact that scoffers want to implement secular studies there, the Yishuv, under the leadership of “Rabbeinu HaGadol Me’or Ha’Golah Yochid B’Doreinu B’Torah V’Yirah HaGaon MaHaRIL Diskin Shlit”a, have prevailed and held on to their sacred tradition. However, those who are opposed to the Chachomim are totally persistent in their publications against the Yishuv and the MaHaRIL”. The Beis Ha’Levi therefore requests that R. Hildesheimer publicize that he disagrees with this view, and that he reaffirm that it is forbidden for the school system in the Old Yishuv, which was constituted primarily of students with Lithuanian backgrounds, to implement these changes…
In this letter we see the incredible respect that the Beis Halevi had from R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin, something known to us from many other sources.
R’ Hildesheimer’s role in this controversy has been discussed a bit by David Ellenson, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy, pp. 110-112,123-126.
Many aspects of this fascinating controversy have been dealt with by R’ Eitam Henkin HY”d in various articles.
One important point is from the Beis Halevi letter it sounds like all Lithuanian Gedolim sided with R’ Diskin but this is not so simple at all. R’ Shmuel Salant definitely did not agree with R’ Diskin on this. IYH this will be discussed at greater length in the future.
18 thoughts on “Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction”
Good Post.
Question is if the publishers don’t know or purposely miss the point in their descriptions. For example
Lot 180- they describe as:
Rare autograph letter by R. Reuven Ha’Levi Levin to R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe regarding the Torah thoughts of R. Mordechai Gimpel that appeared in a recent HaMeilitz journal.
When even without checking it is cleanly not about “Torah Thoughts”..
Here is the piece from hamelitz
I think this Rav Reuven was the Rav Ruvele of Dvinsk who was Rav Kook’s teacher from the ages of 9 to 13.
“Orakh ha-Shulhan” that’s a very strange transliteration. Either Aruch or some here claim Aroch but yours is clearly a mistake.
Although I see in https://seforimblog.com/2008/03/purim-and-parodies-by-eliezer-brod/ you also transliterate it as Orach, so maybe I’m missing something.
It is clearly a mistake. And with Arukh ha-Shulhan, this is the only correct way to pronounce it. See
https://seforimblog.com/2014/12/self-censorship-in-arukh-ha-shulhan/
LOT 174. They say they dont know to who it is adressed even though it says the name of the book inside .
Rabbi Tvi Hursh and his father Benzion Shlez
The Bais Halevi’s letter has the highest opening bid, by far. 15,000!
I don’t have any experience with the world of collecting so I am curious why it’s so much higher than the other letters in the auction.
‘Pulmus Hamussar’ is easily available as a print-on-demand from Amazon or the excellent site AddAll.com. I have no idea whether it is still in copyright, and therefore cannot comment on the legality of the reprint.
https://amazon.com/Pulmus-HaMussar-R-Dov-Katz/dp/1973938960/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3KDQO5YY1MN1J&dchild=1&keywords=pulmus+hamussar&qid=1622686481&sprefix=pulmus+hamu%2Caps%2C190&sr=8-1
The original two volume set, at the time of this comment, is bid at $900. Careful internet searching recently turned up a mint copy of the two volumes for $400 including shipping from Europe which I bought. It is a fascinating text and certainly shows that the gedolim are as human as any baal adam whose hagiographic presentations in frum literature is pure rubbish.
No wonder that this incredible piece of biographical research was banned by the “gedolim” mentioned in your articles. Why are they so afraid of the truth?
Worship of these men is pure avoda zora.
An unrelated question. I have 2 old chumashim Bromberg 1548 and Basil 1618 that both have the upside down נ in בהעלותך as part of the posuk. In other words instead of how our Sefer Torah has separate upside down נ these printings show בנסע and כמתאננים with upside down נ printed as part of each word. Is there a source for this ?
See Teshuvot Maharshal, no. 73
Re the statement “This edition removed many standard commentaries (Taz, etc.) but not the Be’er ha-Goleh because he was related to the Gra.”
Is this reason stated in the work itself, or is this speculation? ISTM that there’s a better reason for them to have included the BHG, which is that the Biur Hagra is itself based on it. (IIRC, the Biur HG sometimes says “sham” and means to refer to the source noted in the BHG.)
I just came to comment on that. The באר הגולה and ביאור הגר”א are themselves closely related. It would be impossible to print the latter without the former, as it would be unuseable.
In fact, D.Z. Hillman pointed that out in a note to Haim Liberman, where the latter had offered the same reason, about the Gra being a descendant of the BHG, and Hillman corrected him (https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=24649#p=719&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= ).
When I read the Pulmus Hamussar, I was left with the impression that the main opposition to Mussar was from Maskilim, and the Rabbonim who opposed it were merely opposed to some extreme forms of it.
If I was a mussarnik, I would be very happy with this work. It removes the steam from the engine of the anti-mussarniks.
It does not explain the conceptual argument that they had with mussar, nor the claims and counter-claims that were spread at the time.
Maybe the book is accurate, but it is not ‘anti-mussar’.
I heard many times from r Moshe Shapiro ztl he said it was a tradition in brisk that when the malbim once came to brisk the Bais halevi came to greet him with the sefer torah from shul. He said that since the malbim defended the Torah from the maskilim it is appropriate that the Torah comes to greet him.
I hope I put this comment in the correct place
i have a Bombirgi Rabbeinu Bechai
1546 ש”ו wonderful condition.
2 letters from reb isser zalmen meltzer
3 letters from reb tzvi pesach frank
3 letters from rav hertzog
the only copy of reb chaim shmulevitz handwriiten mareh mekomos (always six lines ten words for40 years)
AVAILABLE