In a previous post I wrote as follows:

In Kitvei Ramban, vol. 1, p. 413, Chavel prints the introduction to Milhamot ha-Shem. The Ramban writes:

In his note Chavel explains the last words as follows:

Yet what Ramban means by למתחיל פרק אין עומדין are the children who begin their talmudic study with Tractate Berakhot. In other words, it is only the explanations and pesakim of the Rif that are obvious even to the beginner that have not been challenged.[1]

Ephraim responded as follows

Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

I presented these comments to R. Mazuz and he replied as follows:

With regard to his point about the Sephardim beginning their instruction from Berakhot, in R. Mazuz’s new book, Arim Nisi, p. 364, he notes that R. Shakh, Shimushah shel Torah p. 88, refers to the Maskilim’s attempt to institute this in Europe as a “reform.” Yet in reality, this practice has a long history. R. Mazuz writes:

Since I mentioned R. Mazuz’s comment vis-à-vis what R. Shakh wrote, I should add that he criticized him on other occasions as well. These criticisms were always offered with proper respect. Yet there are those in the Lithuanian world who have no interest in hearing what another gadol has to say if it not in line with current Daas Torah.[2] R. Mazuz states that he once sent a letter to Yated Neeman pointing out an error R Shakh made, and they refused to publish it. After this paper refused to publish two more of his letters, he stopped sending them, as the hazakhah had been established.[3]

He also tells us that if the editors had a different attitude, he would have also sent in something dealing with the proper way to pronounce the word אחד in Shema, since there was a great deal of discussion in the newspaper by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. The truth is that a dalet without a dagesh is very similar to a zayin[4] and is still preserved among the elders of Yemen and Iraq. He cites one of Ibn Gabirol’s poems which reads:

In Peter Cole’s translation:

In other word, the bee’s buzzing (zzz) shows us how one can extend the dalet. It is pronounced in the way that the letter can be extended, which cannot be done with a hard dalet.

R. Shakh was a man of truth, and he certainly would have wanted to be corrected. All true scholars are happy when this happens, and this is what intellectual honesty is all about. But Yated Neeman has never been interested in truth or intellectual honesty, but in pushing a religio-political agenda, and therefore not only do they refuse to print such corrections of their gedolim, but they have even published material which they know is untrue. I refer in particular to their slander of R. Kook, stating that he applied the verse Ki Mitzion Tetze Torah to the Hebew University. Even though the truth was pointed out to them they continued to print the slander. One can read all about this in Moshe Maimon Alharar’s book Li-Khevodah shel Torah.

Returning to R. Mazuz and R. Shakh. R. Shakh had written

Whence did Hazal know that the earth was forty-two times larger than the moon, and that the sun was approximately one-hundred-and-seventy times larger than the earth (as explained in the Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 3:8), if not from the power of the Torah?

Some might recognize this passage as it was subject to a very strong critique by R. Aharon Lichtenstein. I am sure that many in the haredi world were very upset by what R. Lichtenstein wrote, but it pales in comparison to what R. Shakh wrote about the Rav’s Hamesh Derashot.[6] Among his negative comments, he referred to Rav’s Zionist ideas as ממש דברי כפירה.

R. Lichtenstein actually has two replies to the quote from R. Shakh. They are both found in the same essay, but the essay has appeared in two different versions. In the original version he wrote as follows.

Upon reading the passage, one can only reflect, first, that the description cited is nowhere to be found in Hazal, but derives, rather, from medieval astronomers; second, that it is in conflict with the rudiments of contemporary scientific assumptions, and, third, that it hardly consorts with the fact that the selfsame Rambam had explicitly stated, with respect to these very issues, that they were beyond the pale of Hazal’s authority. . . . The high regard properly due the author of the Avi Ezri notwithstanding, one can only conclude that, evidently, when their reach exceeds their grasp, even acknowledged and esteemed talmdei hakhamim may falter.[7]

Yet when this essay was reprinted in Leaves of Faith, vol. 2, the criticism was softened:

In raising this question, he is wholly oblivious not only of the rudiments of astronomy but also of the fact that the selfsame Rambam explicitly states, with respect to these very issues, that they are beyond the pale of Hazal’s authority.

כן בדברי חז”ל. וכמבואר להדיא בהקדמתו לפירוש המשניות (בש”ס ברכות דפוס ווילנא דף נה סע”א וע”ב) שהמקור לזה מספר אלמגסט”י. והוא ספרו של בטלמיוס הידוע בחכמת האסטרונומיא. ועפ”ז כתב הרמב”ם בהלכות יסודי התורה (שם) שהשמש גדולה מן הירח פי 6800. ורלב”ג עה”ת (בפסוק ויאמר אלקים יהי מאורות) חולק על זה וכתב כי השמש גדולה מהירח פי חמשים אלף, כמו שביאר בח”א ממאמר חמישי מס’ מלחמות ה’ ע”ש. וכיום ידוע שהשמש גדולה מן הארץ פי מליון שלש מאות אלף

In response to this citation of R. Shakh in Yated Neeman, R. Mazuz wrote as follows (Or Torah, Adar 5753, pp. 461-462):

R. Mazuz’s second letter deals with the nature of darkness. Yated Neeman had printed the Vilna Gaon’s opinion that darkness is not simply the absence of light but its own creation. R. Mazuz responded that this is in opposition to the opinions of the Rambam, Ramban, R. Joel Sirkes, R. Elijah Mizrahi and the Siftei Hakhamim. Subsequent to writing the letter he learnt that this view was also held by R. Saadiah Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and the Kol Bo (see ibid., p. 946) After pointing out that the Vilna Gaon’s view is held by R. Jacob Emden and the Hida. He concludes:

As already mentioned, Yated Neeman does not like to print letters from those who are able to show that the newspaper has erred. Only newspapers interested in the truth do that.

In his Kovetz Ma’amarim, pp. 102ff., R. Mazuz includes another letter he sent to Yated which also was not printed. The paper had published the view of the Steipler and R. Chaim Kanievsky that even Sephardim should pronounce the final vowel of אד-ני as Ashkenazim pronounce the kamatz, since otherwise it appears as it if there is more than one God.

R. Mazuz shows how mistaken this is, and illustrates though various texts that the way the Sephardim pronounce the kamatz today is precisely how it was pronounced in medieval times. For example, he cites one of Ibn Gabirol’s Azharot:

One can easily see that the words are designed to rhyme, so obviously the last syllable of Ado-nai was pronounced the same way as Sinai and panai.

2. Since I just mentioned R. Aharon Lichtenstein, let me quote something else he wrote that relates to what I noted in a previous post.[8] I pointed to the common phenomenon of people rejecting the authenticity of texts that don’t agree with their preconceptions. R. Lichtenstein states:

The Rav had no patience for philosophies that glorified passivity and reliance on miracles. At the beginning of the 1960’s, a few years after the launch of Sputnik, I had occasion to talk with the Rav about those people who claimed that man should not reach out for the heavens, for “the heavens are the heavens of God,” and only “the earth is given to human beings.” The Rav heaped scorn upon them. One of those present jumped up to protest: “But Rabbi, the Ramban in Bechukotai (Vayikra 26:11) speaks about how a person should have faith in the Holy One, and not to delve into matters that are too wondrous for him.” The Rav replied, “I heard from my father, in the name of my grandfather, that the Ramban never uttered that statement!”

Although not identical to the Ramban’s position, there was also a medieval Jewish view that doctors should only be consulted for things like sprained arms, but that when it came to internal diseases one should only resort to prayer. Lest one think that this idiosyncratic position has totally disappeared, I have even found a twentieth-century author who adopts it,[9] leading R. Ovadiah Yosef to strongly reject this view in his haskamah.

3. In a previous post[10] I called attention to an error made by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur Silver. They claimed that according to Radak’s commentary to Gen. 14:14, after the conquest of the Land of Israel the reading of this verse was changed to read “and pursued as far as Dan.” Dr. Strickman has informed me that in the Afterword to his translation of Ibn Ezra to Leviticus, p. 291, he himself corrected the errror. The correct reference is to Radak’s commentary to I Sam. 4:1. Here Radak leaves no doubt that he indeed believes that the text of the verse was changed.

With this text, we can now understand Radak’s commentary to Gen. 14:4 as also referring to a post-Mosaic change. Without this text, there would be no reason to assume that Radak in Gen 14:14 is not referring to Moses’ prophetically writing the word “Dan.”

As I pointed out in my previous post, in the introduction to his Commentary on the Torah Radak insists on complete Mosaic authorship. In order that there be no contradiction between the sources, we must assume that Radak means that no sections (or even verses) were written by someone other than Moses, but not that there are no minor post-Mosaic changes. In my book I pointed out that Radak understood tikkun soferim literally, that is, the Scribes actually made minor changes to the text of the Torah.[11]

(With regard to false ascription of critical views vis-à-vis the Torah’s authorship, I should also mention that Abarbanel, Commentary to Numbers 21:1, accuses both Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides of believing that the beginning verses of this chapter are post-Mosaic. Yet Abarbanel must have been citing from memory, since neither of them say this. In fact, Ibn Ezra specifically rejects the notion that the verses were written by Joshua.)

4. In a previous post I mentioned R. David Zvi Hillman’s strong attack on R. Kafih. It is only fair to point out that Hillman’s letter was the impetus for an even sharper attack on Hillman. See here, here, and here for the relevant documents.

R. Kafih was a follower of the Rambam who wrote that one should be “among those who are insulted, but not among those who are insulting” (Deot 5:28). While the articles make many good points, the crude language used is entirely unacceptable.

5. With regard to the Netziv and reading newspapers on Shabbat, Dr. Yehudah Mirsky has called my attention to the Netziv’s article in R. Kook’s journal, Ittur Soferim (1888), pp. 11-12, where the Netziv offers halakhic justification for this practice. Unfortunately, this short article was not included in Meshiv Davar, vol. 5, which appeared in 1993. (Presumably, the editors were unaware of it.) This most recent volume of Meshiv Davar is a bit strange, because the editors don’t tell us anything about where they found previoiusly unpublished responsa included here. From a historical standpoint, the most interesting responsum is no. 44. Here the Netziv blasts the new analytic approach of R. Isaac Jacob Reines, which is found in his Hotam ha-Tokhnit and Urim Gedolim.

Other than an anonymous article in Ha-Peles 5 (1903), pp. 673-674, in which Reines’ approach is regarded as falling into the category of “that which is new is forbidden by the Torah,” I don’t know of any other attacks on him. For some strange reason, Saul Lieberman thought that R. Yaakov David Wilovsky’s famous attack against the Brisker method, found in the introduction to his Beit Ridbaz, was directed against Reines. Shaul Stampfer quoted this in Lieberman’s name in the first edition of his masterpiece, Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita’it be-Hithavutah (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 113 n. 29, but omits Lieberman’s comment in the second edition of this book (Jerusalem, 2005).

6. In a previous post I wrote about the issue of kosher sturgeon. Shortly after the post appeared I read David Malkiel’s article on R. Isaac Lampronte’s Pahad Yitzhak.[12] Malkiel, p. 129, points out that the most famous entry in the work deals with the authority of customs, and focuses on whether a certain type of sturgeon is kosher. Lampronte tell us that the custom in Ferrara was to eat it.

I wrote the post without doing an internet search, which is now the first place people go when beginning their research. Only after the post appeared did I do such a search and I came up with the following very interesting post by Rabbi Seth Mandel.[13] He writes as follows:

I have asked several rabbonim about how it came to pass that if the Noda’ biY’hudah paskened unequivocally that sturgeon is kosher, every book says black on white that it is not. Of the two rabbonim who even were aware of the issue, one said that of course sturgeon is kosher, and the fact that there is none with a hekhsher is either because the rav hamakhshir doesn’t know about the issue, or you can’t get a rav hamakhshir to the fishing plants. . . . The other rov said that of course, no recognized halakhic authority would contradict the Noda’ biY’hudah on this, but since Jews believe they are not kosher, and the only ones pushing their kashrut are the C or R, why should an O rov fight to show they are kosher, as if we accept the way they arrive at their decision? . . . 

I challenge anyone to find a posek who deals with the issue and refutes the Noda’ biY’hudah. I am _not_ saying that I “know” that there is no one; what I am saying is that I have been looking for years, and have found no one. Please do not hesitate to correct me if anyone knows of a source (but one that knows that the Noda’ biY’hudah had a t’shuva on this). The books on the kashrus of fish just take it as a given that since sturgeon, as R. Josh says, do not have scales but rather bony tubercules, they are not kosher. My bottom line is I don’t care if people hold that they are not kosher (I don’t like fish eggs, anyway), but it seems to me inexcusable for these books to distort the Torah by giving the impression that everyone agrees on this issue. The Noda’ biY’hudah is not just anyone. My goodness, he is not even MO, L, or Chareidi, so there go most of the opportunities for saying “WADR to the Noda’ biY’hudah, he is MO/L/ wears a grey hat, and so cannot be representative of true Torah.” The only thing you can say is that he was an opponent of chasidus, but even according to the Chasidim, that is not an issue, since a famous story of the Chasidim is that he repented on his deathbed from all the not nice things he said condemning chasidus (and the story _must_ be true, since it is retold in the CIS Shulman “authorized” biography of him).

Rabbi Mandel wrote this before he was appointed to his current important position in the OU kashrut organization. Somehow, I don’t think he would have expressed himself this way if he was then working in the kashrut industry.[14]

7. I was fortunate to spend back-to-back Shabbatot with Prof. Daniel Sperber. I learnt much from my conversations with him, and I think people will enjoy listening to his presentations. He is currently president of the Jesselson Institute for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar Ilan University, and was kind enough to give me a recent volume published by them, Mi-Sinai le-Lishkat ha-Gazit by Shlomo Kassierer and Shlomo Glicksberg. This book analyzes the relationship between the written and oral law, and the nature of rabbinical authority. What makes the book significant is the combination of traditional and academic study. Anyone who wants to understand the latest thinking on this topic would be wise to consult this book.

8. Many people contacted me following my last post on Rabbis and Communism, so let me add a few further comments. R. Baruch Oberlander called my attention to Likutei Sihot, vol. 33, pp. 248-249. Here the Lubavitcher Rebbe states that there is no contradiction between Judaism and socialism. He adds that in Russia, before the Revolution, he knew many socialists, even radical ones (which I assume means real communists), who were completely Torah observant. See also Iggerot Kodesh, vol. 22, p. 497.

Since my last post mentioned R. Jacob Emden and Abraham Bick’s communist ties, I should also mention Mortimer Cohen, the author of Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy. This was the first academic defense of Emden, and was subjected to withering criticism by Scholem. Marvin Antelman, who has made attacking Eybschuetz one of his life’s goals, also sets his guns on Cohen, accusing him of having been the “’rabbi’ of a secret sect of Sabbatean communists, who carried on the Frankist conspiracy in Philadelphia” (Bekhor Satan, p. 44).

R. Nathan Kamenetsky wrote to me pointing out that when R. Dovid Leibowitz was let go from Yeshiva Torah va-Daas in the 1930s, one of the complaints against him was that he was promoting communism (whether the complaint was justified I cannot say. Kamenetsky continues: “My son, R’ Yoseph, pointed out that the Torah divides wealth evenly when it sets the law of Yovel. At the conquest of Canaan, the land was divided evenly, and every fifty years thereafter, by which time there would be wealthy lanlords and poor ones, the Torah redistributed the land in its original lots. (The difference between large estates and small ones would then result only from family sizes, by which families with many children would have smaller fields than and those with many children.)”

I had wondered about the meaning of the word ,סוללים and suggested that it refers to a white-collar profession. Kamenetsky writes:

You do not base your suggestion on philology – and nor will I. I also do not think that you are correct sociologically that white-collar workers were assumed to be less religiously observant than other Jews. I believe that Rabbi Graubart meant pharmacists, because, like doctors, they were not expected to be observant. I know this from my father’s attitude (which was grounded in the pre-World War I Jewish environment). For example, when my father would speak of my native Tzitevian, the town where he served as rabbi, and telling an involved story about how a Jewish woman who was suspected by my mother of not using the mikveh found that her husband was carrying on with their goyisheh maid, he added, (not in these exact words) “Naturally, besides the pharmacist’s wife, all the women in the shtetl used the mikveh.” Insofar as doctors, and likely pharmacists too, they weren’t trusted to be profesionally reliable if they were observant! See my Making of a Godol, page 557, (within my discussion about Dr. Einhorn, a mysterious figure), where I quote an article about that doctor which said, “The [townspeople] realized that [Dr. Einhorn’s] way of life, his devoutness, did not harmonize with his profession.”

9. Dr. Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to Mordechai Zalkin, “Bein ‘Bnei Elohim’ li-Vnei Adam’: Rabbanim, Bahurei Yeshivot ve-ha-Giyus le-Tzavah Ha-Russi ba-Meah ha-19,” in Avriel Bar-Levav, ed., Shalom u-Milhamah be-Tarbut Ha-Yehudit (Jerusalem/Haifa, 2006), pp. 165-222. I was unaware of this fabulous article which is a detailed survey of the issue of rabbis and the Cantonist problem. Let me just quote his concluding paragraph, which I was happy to see supports a suggestion I made. Coming from Zalkin, who is an expert in the history of Russian Jewry, it should be taken very seriously.

Notes

[1] See R. Meir Mazuz’ note in R. Hayyim Amselem, Minhat Hayyim, vol. 2, p. 15.
[2] I stress the “current” Daas Torah, since Daas Torah has been known to change. For example, Yated Neeman will, for obvious reasons, no longer mention the Daas Torah set forth by the Brisker Rav, the Steipler, and R. Shakh, and which was the official haredi position for many decades, namely, that one is not permitted to serve in the Israeli government batei din. With regard to Daas Torah, the quote from R. Itzele that I mentioned in my last post is very interesting

In the haredi version of Daas Torah, the opinions of the masses are meaningless, indeed they are said to be – by definition – in opposition to Daas Torah (which always makes me wonder how laypeople such as Jonathan Rosenblum are able to understand and explain Daas Torah). Yet R. Itzele places the opinion of the religious masses on a higher level than that of the rabbis (à la kol hamon ke-kol shadai). One reader informed me that R. Avraham Shapira quoted this passage in defense of Zionism, i.e., the religious intuition of the people, who supported Zionism, trumped the view of the gedolim, most of whom opposed Zionism.

[3] Or Torah, Adar 5753, pp. 461ff., 946.

[4] See Shamma Friedman, “Le-Inyan ha-Devorah be-Shiro shel Ibn Gabirol, u-Minhag Ehad bi-Keriat Shema,” Lashon ve-Ivrit, Dec. 6, 1990, p. 31.

[5] Selected Poems of Solomon Ibn Gabirol (Princeton, 2000), p. 69.

[6] See Mikhtavim u-Ma’amarim, vol. 4, p. 107. See also his strong attack on the Rav’s ideology, ibid., pp. 35ff.

[7] “Legitimization of Modernity: Classical and Contemporary,” in Moshe Z. Sokol, ed., Engaging Modernity (Northvale, 1997), pp. 21-22

[8] See here.

[9] R. Reuven ben David, Meshiv Davar (Jerusalem, 1979), no. 2.

[10] http://seforimblog.com/2008/01/clarifications-of-previous-posts-by.html

[11] Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 99. I also note that Radak doesn’t usually mention the various tikkunei soferim, which probably means that he did not accept them.

[12] “The Burden of the Past in the 18th Century: Authority, Custom and Innovation in the Pahad Yitzhak,” Jewish Law Annual 16 (2006), pp. 94-132

[13] See here.

[14] In a future post I hope to deal with the history of the kashrut industry. For now, let me just note that among the many ways we are more fortunate than those of previous generations is that we can even buy toilet bowl cleaner with a hashgachah (it is parve.). See here. Here is the actual letter of certification.

[15] See http://torahinmotion.org/store/store.htm