1

R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and Yeshiva Students being Drafted to the Army, views of women, and more

|

Shlomo Yosef Zevin and Yeshiva Students being Drafted to the Army, Views of Women, and More

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In an earlier post I wrote about R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and the famous essay about how yeshiva students need to serve in the army, an essay which is widely attributed to him. See here. In the post I cited important information uncovered by David Eisen that complicates the issue (as we see the Zevin family itself is of two minds on the matter), and we were left with no absolute proof that R. Zevin wrote the essay. I encourage all readers interested in the topic to read the six emails from Eisen quoted in my post, as they became the primary source material for all who wish to explore this matter.

One of the points that Eisen’s sources disagree about is when the essay was attributed to R. Zevin. R. Nachum Zevin, R. Zevin’s grandson, claims that it was only attributed to him after R. Zevin’s passing in 1978, but R. Menachem Hacohen states that already in the early 1970s he had seen the essay and it was believed that R. Zevin wrote it. As Eisen reports, one of the chief librarians at the National Library told him that he believes that already in the 1960s the essay was attributed to R. Zevin.

I am now able to put the matter to rest and establish beyond any doubt that R. Zevin is indeed the author of the essay. One of R. Zevin’s close friends was the author R. Zvi Harkavy, who served as an army chaplain. Harkavy regarded R. Zevin as his teacher, referring to him as מו”ר. In 1959 it was announced that Harkavy would publish a bibliography of all of R. Zevin’s writings, which were estimated to be over 1000 items, including material written under a pseudonym.[1] As far as I can tell, this never appeared. In Harkavy’s Ma’amrei Tzvi, p. 26, he includes a 1969 letter he received from R. Zevin is which Harkavy is addressed as ידידי הדגול. I mention all this only to show that when Harkavy speaks about R. Zevin you rely on what he says.

It has often been said that the identification of R. Zevin with the essay on yeshiva students and the army was only made years after its 1948 appearance, and this casts doubt on it having been being written by R. Zevin. I can now say that this is incorrect. In 1951 (Iyar 5711) Harkavy published an article in the Jerusalem Torah periodical Ha-Hed, which was a journal that R. Zevin himself often published in. (Unfortunately, very few issues from this periodical can be found on Otzar haChochma.) In Harkavy’s article he identifies R. Zevin as the author of the essay. Not only was Harkavy, because of his close friendship with R. Zevin, in a position to know that he wrote it, but R. Zevin never denied authorship in subsequent issues of Ha-Hed.

This shows without any doubt that R. Zevin is the author of the essay, and from this point on no one—including members of the family—should deny his authorship. Here is Harkavy’s article.

R. Nochum Shmaryohu Zajac called my attention to the recently published memorial volume for R. Yehoshua Mondshine,Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sipur. On p. 327 R. Mondshine wonders why R. Zevin—whom he seems to believe was indeed the author of the essay—would have felt it necessary to keep his authorship secret. R. David Zvi Hillman suggests that R. Zevin felt that if it was known that he wrote it, he would not have been welcome at the Brisker Rav’s home. He adds that it could have also created problems with the Habad synagogue he attended, as well as with his good friend R. Yehezkel Abramsky.

In going through the various issues of Ha-Hed, I discovered a picture of great interest in the Shevat 5711 issue.

On the right is Leah Seliger. She was a learned woman who edited the collected writings of her late husband, R. Joseph Seliger, 

Kitvei Ha-Rav Dr. Yosef Seliger (Jerusalem, 1930). The woman in the middle is R. Kook’s wife, Raize Rivka. Until recently I knew of only one other published picture of her, and this appears at the beginning of Pinchas Grayevski, Benot Tziyon vi-Yerushalayim, vol. 7 (Jerusalem, 1929; I think Dr. Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to this picture). The woman on the left is Miriam Berlin, the widow of R. Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin. I do not know of any other published pictures of her.

Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to this additional picture of R. Kook’s wife that can be found here.

2. In my post here I discussed these words from Exodus 15:16:

בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן

However, I neglected to mention one additional point. How come there is a dagesh in the כ when according to the grammatical rules it should not be there? R. Aaron of Lunel in his Orhot Hayyim offers an explanation. He states that if there was a dagesh people would read the last two words as יִדְּמוּךׇ אָבֶן, “stones are similar to you,” which is not a respectful thing to say to God.[2]

3. In my last post here I discussed the Hazon Ish’s opinion on the dispute between Maimonides and Rabad about an unwitting heretic, and the Hazon Ish’s assumption that Maimonides actually agreed with Rabad in this matter. It must be clarified that the Hazon Ish is not certain about his suggestion that there was no disagreement between Maimonides and Rabad when it came to someone who was completely “innocent” in his heresy. The Hazon Ish4. A couple of years ago in my post here I mentioned that in part two of the post I would have an excursus on the nature of women. For some reason I forgot to include this excursus in all the subsequent posts, so here it is.[4]

On the matter of the creation of women, and whether they are created “better” or “worse” than men, Shaul Regev calls attention to a strange comment by R. Jacob Matalon, Toldot Yaakov (Salonika, 1597), p. 7d (printed together with his She’erit Yaakov).[5] There are many comments in rabbinic texts that have a negative view of women, and most of these comments are based on a belief that women are inherently inferior to men. Yet not many texts are as explicit as R. Matalon in regarding women as almost a different species, standing between apes and men.

ובין החי למדבר הקוף ובין הקוף םמדבר [צ”ל למדבר] ומשכיל הם הנשים והאנדרוגינוס

Women obviously speak, so מדבר must mean speak with intelligence.

A passage similar to what R. Matalon says, but without mention of an ape, is found in Gersonides’ comment to Genesis ch. 3 (p. 110 in the Ma’aliyot edition).

והנה קראה האדם שם אשתו ‘חוה’, כאשר השיג בחולשת שכלה, רוצה לומר שלא עלתה מדרגתה על שאר הבעלי חיים עילוי רב, ואם היא בעלת שכל, כי רוב השתמשותה אמנם הוכן לה בדברים הגופיים, לחולשת שכלה ולהיותה לעבודת האדם. ולזה הוא רחוק שיגיע לה שלמות השכל, אלא שעל כל פנים היא יותר נכבדת מהם, וכולם הם לעבודתה

Gersonides is known for his negative view of women, and this reputation comes from passages like this. Here Gersonides states that women are on a higher level than animals, but not by much. Furthermore, just like the animals are at the service of women, so women’s role is to serve men. In discussing this passage, Menachem Kellner writes: “Gersonides apparently found Darwin’s missing link: woman!”[6]

For another explanation which Modern Orthodox women will probably regard as insulting, but more traditional women will probably see as a compliment, see R. Meir Mazuz, Bayit Ne’eman, no. 52 (parashat Terumah 5777), p. 1, who quotes R. Nissim Gaon as follows: The verse in Proverbs 1:8 states: אל תטוש תורת אמך – “Forsake not the teaching of thy mother”. Yet since women don’t have Torah knowledge, תורת אמך cannot mean this. Rather, it means the special holiday foods that the mother makes.

Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe that R. Mazuz’s understanding is correct, and I think R. Mazuz was citing R. Nissim from memory. That is, R. Nissim’s comment has nothing to do with women lacking Torah knowledge and identifying their cooking as תורת אמך. Rather, he cites the verse simply as a general statement about the importance of tradition. Here is the passage of R. Nissim Gaon as cited by R. Maimon the father of Maimonides.[7]

וכתב רבינו נסים במגילת סתרים כי כל מנהגי האומה באלו המנהגות כמו זה. והראש בראש השנה, החלב בפורים ובמוצאי פסח, והפולים ביום הושענא רבה. ואותם המנהגות אין לנו לבזותם ומי שהנהיגם זריז ומשתדל הוא כי הם מעיקרים נעשים ולא יבוזו במנהגי האומה וכבר אמר הנביא ע”ה ואל תטוש תורת אמך, דת אומתך אל תעזוב

Regarding the role and responsibilities of women, R. Mazuz has another interesting comment.[8] As part of his argument that women are not obligated in hearing parashat Zakhor, he says that this commandment is connected to the commandment of destroying Amalek, and women are not able to do this. How do we know that women cannot destroy Amalek and therefore are not commanded in it? “Because if she sees blood and even if she sees a mouse she becomes afraid, so how could she kill Amalek?” While many will not appreciate what they see as R. Mazuz’s flippant tone (which is obviously a joke, as he is well aware that there are women soldiers and doctors), do even feminists wish to claim that killing comes as easy to women as to men? Do they really want to be “equal” with men in this matter? I, for one, have always assumed that if women were running the world, there would be many fewer wars, as only someone who is blind to reality cannot see that men are naturally more inclined to violence than women.

Here is another interesting point relevant to the subject of women: Rashi, Menahot 43b s.v. היינו, in explaining the talmudic passage dealing with the blessings that a man recites in the morning, states that a woman is to regarded as a maidservant to her husband (i.e., to do his wishes), much like a slave is to his master: דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו

Rashi’s comment is not surprising and has often been quoted. Indeed, although it will trouble modern readers, lots of similar comments can be found in rishonim and aharonim.[9] Furthermore, in at least three places the Talmud refers to a wife with the term shifhah.[10] Yet for a reason I can’t explain, R. Moshe Feinstein was very troubled by this comment of Rashi, and this led him to write something quite problematic.[11] See Dibrot Moshe, Gittin p. 511 (also in Iggerot Moshe, vol. 9, Orah Hayyim no. 2):

ולולי דמסתפינא הייתי אומר שצריך למחקו דח”ו לרש”י לומר דברי הבל כזה, דמן התורה הא ליכא שום שעבוד על האשה לבעלה חוץ מתשמיש ולענין תשמיש הוא משועבד לה יותר דהא עליו איכא גם איסור לאו . . . ואינה מחוייבת לעשות רק עניני הבית ולא עבודת שדה ומעט עשיה בצמר שהיא מלאכה קלה ממלאכות שדרכן של בנות העיר בזה

R. Moshe states that in no way can a woman be generally regarded as under her husband’s authority as only in a few areas does she have obligations to him (much like he has to her). He continues to expound on the way a husband is obligated to treat his wife in order to show that she is far removed from being a maidservant.[12] This is all true, and it would be easy to quote authorities who write similarly. Yet they did not see this as in any way contradicting Rashi’s statement. Understandably, some have expressed great surprise upon seeing how R. Moshe refers Rashi’s comment as הבל (as they do not accept R. Moshe’s point that Rashi could never have said דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו).

R. Shlomo Aharon Gans goes so far as to say that if thegadol ha-dorhad not been the one to say this, it would be forbidden to write such a thing. He adds the following, bringing support for the notion expressed in Rashi that a wife is like a maidservant (not that she is a maidservant, but she is like one)[13]:

ולא הבנתי דהא הויא קנין כספו, ועי’ תורא”ש קידושין ה’ דהוא מושל עליה ומשעובדת לו וכדכתיב והוא ימשל בך, וא”כ מאי קשיא ליה כ”כ בדברי רש”י אלו

This conception, that a wife is like a maidservant, was actually criticized by R. Hayyim Hirschensohn who called attention to the “barbaric” way Jews treated their wives in the small towns of Galicia, where the wives did not even eat at the same table with their husbands.[14]

וה’ יסלח לו כי ההרגל הרע של בני מדינתו להתגאה על נשותיהן אשר לוקחים אותן רק לרקחות וטבחות ואין מסיבות בשלחן עם בעליהן וחושבים אותם כחמת כו’ [מ”ש: ראה שבת קנב ע”א] ואלמלי עלמא צריכי להו היו בעי רחמי דלבטלי מן העולם ח”ו, ההרגל הפראי הזה אשר בעירות הקטנות בגאליציא ובקצת ערי פולין גרם להרב הנז’ לבלי להרגיש את העלבון אשר עלב לבנות האבות והאמהות אשר קמו גם הן לאם לבנות את בית ישראל

As a curiosity, it is worth noting the opinion of R. Menasheh Klein that a husband should not help his wife with household tasks such as cleaning the dishes, as that is “women’s work”, while the husband works outside the home. (And what about when the wife also works outside the home?) Instead, the husband should use that time for learning Torah and other spiritual pursuits.[15]

כי לכן נתן לו הקב”ה אשה לאדם שיהי’ לו לעזר שתעשה לו צרכי הבית והוא יהיה פנוי בזמן שיש לו ללמוד תורה ולעבודת השם ולא לכבס ולהדיח הכלים אחרי האכילה ולסדר את המטות החיוב על הבעל לפרנס את אשתו ובניו ושאר הזמן כל רגע ורגע ינצל ללימוד התורה ולעבודת השי”ת שמו. ובעונ”ה נשתנה הוסת שהבעלי בתים הצעירים נעשים בעלת בתים מבשלים ומדיחים הכלים והולכים לחניות לקנות צרכי הבית איינקויפען בלע”ז בקיצור עושים כל מלאכת הנשים והנשים עושים מלאכת האנשים

I can only imagine what the reaction of a newlywed wife would be if her husband would tell her that no, he has no plans to help clean the table and do the dishes because that is women’s work.

Related to this is the following story told by R. Yosef Wineberg, the grandson of the Slonimer Rebbe. It is obviously designed to make the “Litvish” look bad.[16]

A newly married Litvishe couple was once sitting together. The wife asked her husband to please make her a cup of tea. He immediately jumps up, puts on his hat and jacket and walks out the door. About an hour later, the husband returns home, removes his hat and jacket and makes her a cup of tea. Puzzled by his strange behavior, she asks for an explanation.

He explains: when you first asked me to make you a cup of tea, I was upset. I am a Talmid Chacham, a scholar, and you are meant to “serve” me, not the opposite. Not wishing to get into an argument, I went to my Rav to ask him what I should do.

The Rav explained to me that “ishto k’gufo”, that the Halacha considers us like one person. Therefore, making tea for you is identical to making tea for me. As I feel no compunctions with serving myself, I returned home to fulfill your request.

In order to show that the husband is the boss of the household, R. David Kimhi states that while the husband calls his wife by her name, the wife does not call her husband by his name, but by some title which shows his superior status.[17]

כי האיש הוא הקורא לאשתו בשמה ולא האשה לאישה, אלא דרך כבוד בלשון אדנות קוראה לו ולא בשמו, כי כל מי שיש לו מעלה אל אחר אין ראוי לאשר למטה ממנו לקרוא אותו בשמו, כמו אביו או רבו או אדניו . . . וכן האשה לבעלה כי אדניה הוא כמו שאמר: והוא ימשוך בך

One of the proofs he offers for this idea is that in Genesis 17:17 Abraham refers to Sarah by her name, but in Genesis 18:13 Sarah refers to Abraham as “my lord” (אדני). Another proof he mentions is that when God changes the names of Abraham and Sarah he says to Abraham (Gen. 17:15): “Thou shalt not call her name Sarai.” From this we see that Abraham called his wife by her name. However, when Abraham’s name was changed the Torah states (Gen. 17:5): “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram.” Sarah was not told this, Radak states, as she didn’t refer to her husband by his name. This was rather a general statement, that among those people who call Abraham by his name, they no longer would do so.

Although Radak states that a husband calls his wife by her name, we know that this was not always the case. Thus, we are told that R. Jacob Moellin in speaking to his wife would not call her by her name. When he referred to her in conversation with others, he would call her mein hausfrau (my housewife).[18] The text that records this information notes that already in the Talmud, Shabbat 118b, we find that R. Yose referred to his wife as “my house,” and I think most assume that this was done as a term of respect.[19] The text further notes that the general practice was that both husband and wife did not refer to each other by their first name. Such a practice was also found in the Sephardic world.[20] What this shows us is that contrary to what Radak records, the practice need not have anything to do with the husband being regarded as “superior” to his wife.

With all the discussions in rabbinic literature that show the essential differences between men and woman, let me mention another curiosity that, if you want to be cute, you can say that in one place the Talmud actually refers to women as men. I have in mind Zevahim 67b which, in discussing the burnt offerings brought by two women after childbirth, states:

חטאת לזו ועולה לזו עשה שתיהן למעלה . . . אימור דא”ר יהושע בחד גברא בתרי גברי מי אמר

In this passage, the word גברי, which means “men”, refers to the case of the two women (although the principle enunciated applies to all people).[21]

While on the male-female topic, let me mention something else that is relevant. We all know that the name Avi (short for Avraham) is quite popular. Yet how many know that this is already a biblical name, but used for a woman (2 Kings 18:2)?

I want to return to the notion already mentioned in this note, and found in a number of earlier works, that an ape stands between animals and humans. The Sefat Emet, Genesis 18:1, expands on this as follows:

ובין חי למדבר קוף. ואנו נאמר כי אחר מדבר אדם, שעל זה נאמר “אדם” אתם קרוין אדם ולא האומות. וישמעאל הוא הממוצע לכן נקרא פרא אדם, ולכן יד כל בו וידו בכל, כי על ידו יש התקשרות בין מדריגות מדבר למדריגת אדם

When he writes כי אחר מדבר אדם it means that after the level of מדבר, which means “humanity”, there is the level of אדם, which is the level of the Jewish people. He then adds that the Arabs stand between מדבר and אדם which is why they are called פרא אדם. Often פרא אדם is used to show that the Arabs are on a lower level than other nations. However, here we see that the Arabs are on a higher level, and closer to the Jews than the other nations, as among the nations of the world only the Arabs are also called אדם—no doubt because of their monotheism, see Yevamot 61a—even if this word is placed together with the negative term פרא.

The Sefat Emet’s comment is derived from the Zohar,[22] which explains פרא אדם as meaning one who possesses the “beginnings of אדם”. The Zohar also places the descendants of Ishmael on a higher level than the other nations because they are circumcised. Circumcision was widely practiced even in pagan Arabia, so the reference to circumcision alone would not be enough to date this passage of the Zohar to the post-Islamic period.

R. Jacob Emden, however, cites a different passage in the Zohar that assumes the existence of the Islamic world, meaning that it could not have been written by R. Shimon ben Yohai.[23] He writes:

הנה לפניך שבימי בעל ספר הזוהר כבר היתה אמונת מחמד הישמעאלי בעולם (שנתחדשה בימי אמוראים האחרונים על”ב) כי קודם זמן זה היו כל הישמעאלים עובדי אלילים גמורים, ככל יתר גוי הארצות.

R. Emden also cites another Zoharic passage that assumes Islamic rule in the Land of Israel. He comments:[24]

הרי כי בימי בעל ספר הזוהר היתה אומת ישמעאל שולטת בארץ הקדושה, ודבר ידוע הוא ומפורסם, שלא הגיעו הישמעאלים לממשלה כללית עד שנת שע”ד לאלף החמישי . . . נמצא עכ”פ יותר מחמש מאות שנה אחר רשב”י חובר ספר הזוהר, ואולי מאוחר עוד הרבה מזה, ואיך אפשר להסכים זה עם שמות האומרים אותם הדברים, והמה חבריו או תלמידיו של רשב”י, לפי המובן בלשונו של בעל ספר הזוהר, הלא זה כדבר שאין לו שחר

He cites a third such example and writes:[25]

מלכות ישמעאל לא נתפרסמה ולא נתפשטה בימי תנאים ואמוראים. כי היו אז ממלכה שפלה קטנה וירודה

Returning to the matter of how women have been viewed, R. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo mentions that jokers—ליצני הדור—come up with all sorts of gematrias. When it comes to women not all of them are negative. For example, the gematria of אשה is דבש, and אשה יפה = שמחה גדולה. However he also cites a gematria which is not very complimentary to women. זכר=ברכה and נקיבה=בקללה. R. Delmedigo sees this as a big joke, but it is actually mentioned by R. Hayyim the brother of the Maharal in his Iggeret ha-Tiyul, section ז, and it is also found in Ba’al ha-Turim, Gen. 1:27 (with some differences as to which letters are actually included in the gematria).

In 1807 R. Jacob Samson Shabbetai Senigallia[26] published his talmudic commentary Shabbat shel Mi. Here is the title page of the Livorno first edition. (It has been reprinted a number of times).

Here is what appears in the book on p. 89b. He is trying to explain why chapters 5 and 6 in tractate Shabbat are next to each other. Chapter 5 begins במה בהמה and chapter 6 begins במה אשה, and according to R. Senigallia this is because “birds of a feather flock together.”

If he was trying to make a joke, I can understand what he wrote. But who ever heard of making a joke in the middle of a talmudic commentary? Presumably, he was being serious, which leaves us with a very offensive comment.

There is, to be sure, humor in the Talmud, but I don’t know of any examples in talmudic commentaries. Yeshayahu Leibowitz quipped that the Sages must have had a good sense of humor, since they included the following text in the Talmud [27]: תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם. In all seriousness, however, there are indeed humorous passages in the Talmud, as pointed out by R. Moses Salmon.[28] Here is one example he gives (Bava Batra 14a):

The Rabbis said to R. Hamnuna: R. Ammi wrote four hundred scrolls of the Law. He said to them: Perhaps he copied out the verse תורה צוה לנו משה

R. Salmon claims that anyone with a bit of sense can see that R. Hamnuna’s reply is a wisecrack made in response to the obvious exaggeration about R. Ammi.

Nehemiah Samuel Libowitz states that even in the Zohar we have passages that show a humorous side.[29] One of the many examples he points to is Zohar, Bereshit, p. 27a:

וימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בקושיא. בחומר קל וחומר. ובלבנים בלבון הלכתא. ובכל עבודה בשדה דא ברייתא. את כל עבודתם וגו’ דא משנה

I have no idea what to make of the following comment from R. Oury Cherki, dealing with humor, which does not sound like something that would be said by a leading kiruv figure (De’ah Tzelula: Olam ve-Adam be-Mishnat ha-Rav Kook [Jerusalem, 2015], p. 246). Rather, it sounds like something one of the maskilim of old would say.

התורה שבעל-פה אינה מובנה ללא שותפות רוח האומה. לכן כשלומדים הלכה רצוי להצטייד בחוש הומור, שכן לפעמים הדברים נראים משונים למדי. למשל, הכנת כוס תה בשבת. התלמוד אומר שאסור לשפוך מים קרים לתוך החמים אבל מים חמים לתוך הקרים מותר, כי יש כלל ש”תתאה גבר”, התחתון גובר. כששופכים מים חמים לתוך הקרים המים הקרים מתחממים ומתבשלים מה שאין כן ההפך – המים החמים מתקררים. יש כאן בהחלט סוג של הומור

I also found the following interesting comment by Moshe Meisels, the editor of Ha-Doar, in a letter to Chaim Bloch.[30] He suggests that the talmudic prohibition against a non-Jew observing the Sabbath is an example of rabbinic wit, and is not to be understood literally.

ואגב, לא אהא בבחינת מורה הלכה לפני רבו אם אינני מתאפק מלהביא מעין חידוש שנתחדש לי הקטן באחד המאמרים התמוהים בתלמוד מן הסוג הנ”ל, והוא אמרם: עכו”ם ששבת חייב מיתה, שנאמר יום ולילה לא ישבותו וכו’. ואין צורך להרבות דברים על הזרות שבדבר: מה איכפת למי אם שבת או לא שבת, ומה היא הראיה מאותו פסוק, המוסב על קיץ וחורף וכו’, ומה ענינו לכאן ולעכו”ם דוקא? ונראה לי שכל המאמר בא בדרך חידוד, וזה מובנו: עכו”ם ששבת מן הדין שיהא חייב מיתה בדיניהם. מדוע? ישראל שלא שבת חייב מיתה, משום שעל א-לוהיו נאמר וישבות ביום השביעי וכו’, אבל עובד כוכבים ומזלות, שעליהם נאמר יום ולילה לא ישבותו, מן הדין שעובדיהם יהיו חייבים מיתה אם שינו מדרך אלהיהם ושבתו

On the matter of non-Jews observing the Sabbath, R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz makes a fascinating suggestion, which he acknowledges has no support in the rishonim and therefore he has doubts whether it is correct.[31] The prohibition against labor on the Sabbath is in remembrance of the fact that we were slaves and God redeemed us. Therefore, it is understandable why non-Jews are forbidden to commemorate the Sabbath by abstaining from work, as this has no connection to them. However, there is another reason given for the Sabbath and that is so that we remember the creation of the world. Non-Jews are also supposed to acknowledge this and therefore there should be nothing wrong with non-Jews having some sort of celebration in honor of the Sabbath.

אבל הכיבוד והקידוש של יום השבת, שהוא משום אמונת חידוש העולם, שייך שגם הגויים יהיו בהם ואינם מנועים מלכבד ולענג את השבת

If we follow R. Schwartz’s approach, this is something that could be suggested for Noahides whose “religion” is lacking any rituals, which for most people is an essential component of their religion.

* * * * * * * *

[1] Ha-Tzofeh, June 16, 1959, p. 2.

[2] Orhot Hayyim, Or Etzion ed. (Merkaz Shapira, 2017), p. 106, quoted by R. Joseph Karo, Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 51 (end). Regarding negative expressions directed against God, there is an interesting passage in R. Yedidiah Solomon Raphael Norzi, Minhat Shai, Deut. 8:3. To understand it one must know that the old French word “fi” expressed disdain or disgust. See here. The issue Norzi discusses is that the verse reads:

‘כִּי עַל-כָּל-מוֹצָא פִי-ה

Norzi cites a view that in this case there should be a dagesh in the word פי even though that is not in accord with the general rule, because without the dagesh, reading it as “fi” would be disrespectful to God:

כי לשון גנאי הוא בלשון צרפת וחלילה לשם יתברך

Norzi completely rejects this and states that the rules of biblical grammar are not to be changed because of how words sound in languages other than Hebrew (and there are indeed examples where biblical Hebrew words sound like profanity in other languages).

ואין לנו לחוש ללשון צרפת שאין מבטלין דרכי לשון הקדש מפני שאר לשונות

See also Samuel David Luzzatto, Prolegomena to a Grammar of the Hebrew Language, trans. Aaron D. Rubin (Piscataway, N.J., 2005), pp. 133-134.

Regarding the pronunciation of פ, R. Meir Mazuz points out that the Vilna Gaon, Commentary to Tikunei Zohar, section 19, p. 38d (p. 166 in R. Zuriel’s edition), mistakenly believed that Sephardim pronounce פ with and without a dagesh the same way (just as they pronounce ת with and without a dagesh the same way). R. Mazuz notes that the Vilna Gaon’s point is repeated by R. Baruch Epstein, Mekor Barukh, vol. 1, p. 397b (without mentioning the Gaon). See Mazuz, Bayit Ne’eman (Humash), vol. 1, p. 13 (first pagination).

[3] Hazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 62:21.

[4] In my earlier post I cited R. Samson Raphael Hirsch as adopting the notion that women are created on a higher spiritual level than men. I neglected to note that Shaye J. D. Cohen earlier discussed Hirsch’s approach. See Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised (Berkeley, 2005), pp. 165ff.

[5] “Eshet Hayil: Kavim li-Demutah u-le-Ma’amadah shel ha-Ishah be-Hagut ha-Yehudit ha-Shesh Esreh,” in Ephraim Hazan and Shmuel Refael, eds. Mahbarot li-Yehudit (Ramat-Gan, 2012), p. 286.

[6] Torah in The Observatory (Boston, 2010), p. 287. I earlier discussed Ralbag here.

[7] See R. Yaakov Moshe Toledano, Sarid u-Falit (Tel Aviv, [1945]), p. 8.

[8] Bayit Ne’eman no. 153 (parashat Vayikra 5779), p. 2.

[9] See e.g., R. Israel Ibn Al Nakawa, Menorat ha-Maor, ed. Enelow, vol. 4, pp. 32-33, who instructs a wife as follows (using the word שפחה that so troubled R. Moshe):

ועושה צרכיו בעצמה ולא על ידי אחרים. ואפי’ היו לה כמה עבדים וכמה שפחות, תעמוד היא ותשרתנו, ותקראנו אדוני . . .ויהיו עיניה תלויין לו, כעיני שפחה אל יד גבירתה

For a translation of this passage, see here. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut 15:20, says that a wife should regard her husband כמו שר או מלך.

Radak, Gen. 3:16, writes:

והוא ימשול בך: לצוות עליך מה שירצה כאדון על עבד

Ramban, Gen. 3:16, explains that as a result of Eve’s sin, the relationship of man and woman was changed. From that point on:

 והוא יחזיק בה כשפחה ואין המנהג להיות העבד משתוקק לקנות אדון לעצמו אבל יברח ממנו ברצונו

R. Bahya ben Asher, Gen. 3:16, writes:

ואל אישך תשוקתך: שאע”פ שהאשה משועבדת ברשות הבעל ומנהג העבד לברוח מן האדון כדי שלא ישתעבד, גזר בזאת שתהיה משתוקקת לבעל ושתרצה להשתעבד לו בהפך מן המנהג

See also R. Chaim Rapoport’s letter in my Iggerot Malkhei Rabbanan, p. 172.

R. Avraham Blumenkrantz, Gefen Poriah, p. 352, quotes approvingly another rabbi who states as follows (emphasis added):

Her tears are ever ready to flow at the most miniscule suggestion of being dealt with as a maidservant. She will concede you the service of והוא ימשל בך. She will consent to call you בעלי, but don’t accent the דגש in the בית too heavily. She must constantly be reassured that there is honor and dignity in her subservience. Honor her more than you honor yourself. She must be compensated for her subjugation, and be made to feel that she has a genuine share in the dignity of the throne.

Do haredi women really feel that they are subservient or subjugated? Do haredi men feel this way about their wives? Hasn’t haredi society accepted the notion of separate but equal when it comes to men and women?

[10] Sanhedrin 39a, Yevamot 113a, Nedarim 38b.

[11] As is well known, and I have written about previously, R. Moshe often rejected the authenticity of texts that he found problematic. Another example of this with regard to Rashi on the Talmud is found in Iggerot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer, vol. 4, no. 64:1. Here R. Moshe says to delete words in Rashi even though, as he notes, these words are found in “Rashi” on the Rif and in R. Nissim. See the strong responses to R. Moshe quoted in R. Yonason Rosman, Petihat ha-Iggerot, pp. 605-606. One of these responses is from R. Menasheh Klein in his notes to R. Eyal Shraga, Minhat Ish, vol. 1, pp. 302-303. R. Klein writes:

וח”ו ואטו עד כמה נילך ונמחוק בדברי רבותינו ז”ל שנאמרו ברוה”ק, ולולי דמספינא הייתי אומר דאיזה תלמיד טועה כתבו, אבל פשוט דדברי רש”י נכונים וליכא כאן טעות כלל

When R. Klein suggests—לולי דמספינא—that a “mistaken student” is responsible for the problematic passage in Iggerot Moshe, he does not mean it seriously. This is just his respectful way of saying that R. Moshe’s position is completely without basis. He uses the same language in Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 12, Yoreh Deah no. 214. There he responds to R. Moshe’s statement that he doesn’t know who R. Menahem Tziyoni is, but since he quotes a heretical—in R. Moshe’s opinion—passage from R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary on the Torah, therefore R. Tziyoni’s work must be banned together with R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary.

[12] R. Moshe also famously states that women do not have any less holiness than men. See Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 4, no. 49 (p. 81). See also the new Mesorat Moshe, vol. 4, p. 476. This position is at odds with many earlier writers who saw men as holier because they are commanded in more mitzvot. This is also Maimonides’ position in his commentary to Horayot 3:7. See R. Chaim Rapoport’s discussion in Kovetz Hearot u-Veurim, no. 908 (2006), pp. 138ff. Yet see R. Dov Halbertal, Erekh ha-Hayyim be-Halakhah (Jerusalem, 2004), vol. 2, p. 399, who has a different approach and makes the point that just because a Kohen and Levi are to be saved before an Israel, no one would say that the Kohen and Levi have more holiness. See also R. Yitzhak Barda, Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 11, p. 249, that women are holier than men. He offers an original explanation of this notion.

שהאשה שהקב”ה הפריש ממנו, מהצלע שלו, הוא מופרש, וממילא כל מופרש קדוש, ואז האשה יותר קדושה מהאיש. ובזה מובן למה האיש מקדש את האשה, לא אומר לה הרי את אשתי, או כל סממן לשון של נישואין, חברה או שותפה וכו’, זולתי: הרי את מקודשת לי! לפי שהקב”ה קבע כל מופרש קדוש

[13] Kinyan Shlomo, Yevamot, p. 89. See also R. Natan Einfeld, Minhat Natan: Kiddushin, pp. 139-140, who cites other sources in rejecting R. Moshe’s point.

[14] Malki ba-Kodesh, vol. 4, p. 50a. See R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 12, no. 351, for a defense of the practice of husbands and wives eating separately.

[15] Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 7 no. 155 (called to my attention by R. Aviad Stollman).

[16] The story is recorded by R. Chaim Dalfin, Faces and Places Boro Park (Brooklyn, 2017), p. 149.

[17] Commentary to Gen. 17:15. See the rejection of Radak’s opinion in R. Betzalel Stern, Be-Tzel ha-Hokhmah, vol. 1, no. 70.

[18] Maharil, Likutim (p. 610 in the Makhon Yerushalayim edition).

[19] On the other hand, R. Meir Schiff (Maharam Schiff), Gittin 52a, explains that R. Yose referred to his wife this way because she was a bad wife: אשה רעה. Yet the proof he brings for this is actually from a different R. Yose. See R. Judah Leib Maimon, ed., Sefer ha-Gra, vol. 1, p. 110 in the note. Regarding “bad wives”, R. Elazar of Worms is quoted as follows in R. Alexander Suslin, Sefer ha-Agudah, ed. Brizel, Yevamot, no. 78 (p. 41):

מי שיש לו אשה רעה יסבול יקבל ברצון ויקבל בשמחה ולא יראה פני גהינם

What does R. Elazar mean that if you suffer under a bad wife you will not see gehinnom? R. Moses Guedemann explains that with a bad wife you already saw gehinnom in your lifetime, so there is no need to see if after death. See Ha-Torah ve-ha-Hayyim, trans. Friedberg (Warsaw, 1897), vol. 1, p. 194:

כי פני הגיהנם כבר ראה בחייו

Regarding “good wives” see R. Shlomo Hoss, Kerem Shlomo, no. 43, who writes:

אין לך כשרה בנשים אלא אשה שעושה רצון בעלה: אהע”ז ס”ס ס”ט (אך אשת חיל כזאת מי ימצא)

R. Solomon Zvi Schueck was shocked at R. Hoss’ final comment, that one cannot find a wife who does the wishes of her husband. R. Schueck writes that based on this passage he assumed that R. Hoss must not have had a good wife.

נראה לי שהי’ לו אשה רעה, וממנה דן על כל הנשים שבישראל

See She’elot u-Teshuvot Rashban, Even ha-Ezer, no. 99 (p. 88b). He further tells us that he asked one of R. Hoss’ students who confirmed that this was indeed the case.

[20] See Tuvia Preschel, Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 5, p. 142.

[21] See Or Torah, Shevat 5780, p. 460.

[22] Exodus 86a, 87a.

[23] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (at the beginning; p. 20 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition). In R. Reuven Rapoport’s edition of Mitpahat Sefarim, with his commentary Itur Soferim, p. 13, R. Rapoport sees it as obvious that this passage in the Zohar is a later interpolation much like there are Savoraic additions in the Talmud.

[24] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (p. 27 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition).

[25] Mitpahat Sefarim, ch. 4 (p. 54 in the Jerusalem 1995 edition). Regarding the larger issue that R. Emden points to, see Ronald C. Kiener, “The Image of Islam in the Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989), pp. 43-65.

[26] See the recent discussion of R. Senigallia by R. Moshe Maimon in the Seforim Blog here.

[27] Sihot al Pirkei Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 289.

[28] Netiv Moshe (Vienna, 1897), pp. 45-46.

[29] “Halatzot ve-Divrei Bikoret be-Sefer ha-Zohar,” Ha-Tzofeh le-Hokhmat Yisrael 11 (1927), pp. 33-45. For more on humor in the Talmud, see Yehoshua Ovsay, Ma’amarim u-Reshimot (New York, 1946), ch. 1; Meyer Heller, “Humor in the Talmud” (unpublished masters dissertation, Hebrew Union College, 1950), available here; R. Mordechai Hacohen, “Humor, Satirah, u-Vedihah be-Fi Hazal,” Mahanayim 67 (5722), pp. 8-19; and Ezra Brand’s post here. From Brand I learned that David Lifshitz wrote an entire doctorate on the subject. See also my posts here and here where I discuss Siftei Hakhamim’s comment that Moses thought God was joking with him, and how this has been censored in a recent edition. See also J. Chotzner, Hebrew Humor and Other Essays (London, 1905); Nehemiah Samuel Libowitz, Ha-Shomea Yitzhak (New York, 1907).

[30] See here (Chaim Bloch Collection, Leo Baeck Institute, 7155-7156, 1/13).

[31] Likutei Diburim, vol. 4, pp. 24-25.



Genazym Auctions: Illustrations & the Friendship Between the Hazon Ish and R. Zevin

|
Genazym Auction:  Illustrations and the Friendship between the Hazon Ish and R. Zevin

The auction house, Genazym, is holding its third auction (the catalog is available here) this week Thursday, August 30th. This auction includes many Hassidic works, letters, autographs, early editions, and some impressive bindings.  Additionally, as at other auction houses, items are already appearing from the Lunzer/Valmadonna collection whose books were sold and auctioned in the past year. 

There are a few items that have aspects that go beyond their texts.  The book, Hok le-Yisrael, Prague, 1798, (lot 27) is notable for its unusual title page.  It contains Dovid and Shlomo (for a discussion of the inclusion of biblical figures on the title-page see here), with the head of Goliath at David’s feet.  David is shown lifting his shirt to expose his belly which is depicted as one of substantial girth.  It is unclear why the illustrator used that particular pose. The remainder of the illustration is unremarkable.  But the text of the title has its own quirk, where it is printed in a handwritten font, both the Hebrew and the German.   

Just to mention one other unique illustrated item I recently came across about to be auctioned off in the forthcoming Genazym auction (lot 26). In a few copies of the 1840 printing of the classic work on Shecitah, Tevous Shor there is a very nice illustration connected to the title and name of the author. 
Some books are especially valued because of their legendary segulah powers.  Recently this has become even more commonplace with this genre expanding exponentially.[1]  At times the source for how these books fall into that genre are murky, but one that has a long history is Hayim ben Attar’s Or ha-Hayim.  The first edition, Venice 1742, (lot 49), in a very nice binding,  is highlighted for its segulah powers that include protection, healing, and children, and the study of it has the power to purify one’s soul. 

Returning to illustrations, a portrait of R. Dov Ber Meisles, the rabbi of Warsaw (and other cities), from 1891, is among the items.  This is not the only illustration that R Meisels appears.  During the late 1860s, there was substantial unrest in Poland when many sought to force the Tsar to bestow greater civil rights to the populace.  The clergy played a large role in this endeavor and R Meisels was among them.  This was viewed as an opportunity for Jews to be accepted by the population.  In this, Meisels had a profound impact and was among the main influencers of Marcus Jastrow to take part in the movement.  Meisels and Jastrow became very close.  When both were imprisoned for their activities, initially Jastrow was kept in isolation but when he was transferred to Meisels’ cell, Jastrow’s spirits were lifted and was able to deal with the remainder of his imprisonment.  In the end, both were expelled from Poland, although eventually permitted to return.  One of the most notable events during this period was the funeral of five protesters who were killed by government forces.  The funeral took place on Shabbos and both Jastrow and Meisles were in attendance.  Their participation is recorded in Aleksander Lesser’s painting, “Funeral of five victims of the demonstration in Warsaw in 1861.”In the center left, Meisels appears with a fur hat next to Jastrow in his canonicals.[2]   
 Another item of ephemera is a letter from the Hazon Ish to R. Yosef Zevin (lot 68)(the envelope confirms that the addressee was R Zevin).  Although there is no doubt about R Zevin’s Zionist leanings, the Hazon Ish carried on a correspondence with him.[3] This is yet another letter showing the connection between R Zevin and the Hazon Ish. (For others, see Yehoshuah Levin, HaShakdan (Monsey: Tuvia’s, 2010), 117). R Zevin included a profile of Hazon Ish and his style of study in the book Ishim ve-Shitot. 

As we have shown in the past, one can learn all kinds of things from the information found in the writeups in the various auction catalogs including seeing actual clear copies of the manuscripts (lot 55). there is a letter of his from 1886 about his essay on Antisemitism called Shar Yisroel which he was about to print. He writes to his son to check it over as someone told him that perhaps some might get angry about and it would cause problems for him and the Yeshiva. This is not the only time that we find the Netziv nervous about his actions and that it would cause possible problems for the Yeshiva.

Two of R Yaakov Emden’s important works, Mitpahat Seforim and his Siddur, both of which are rare are up for sale (lots 75 & 76).  The first of edition of his siddur is critical to actually determining R. Emden’s opinions regarding the liturgy and its attendant customs.  This is so because although there are many alleged reprints of the Siddur, they, in fact, do not include the text that R Emden so carefully edited.  Only recently has the complete siddur been reprinted.  The Mitpahahat is R Emden’s well-known challenge to the Zohar, or parts of it.  Emden points to many passages that appear to be later than when R Shimon bar Yochi lived, the traditional author of the Zohar. R. Emden’s work was subject to some rebuttals, one is Moshe Kunitz Ben Yochi.  But some allege that Kunits freely borrowed from others and that his rebuttals fall short of the mark. 
One final item, also a siddur, is a first edition of Siddur R’ Shabsai MeiRushkov (lot 95) which is considered very rare starting bid is $50,000 and with a sale’s estimate of  $100,000.

[1] See Avraham Ya’ari, Mehkeri Sefer (Jerusalem:  Yehuda, 1958) who discussed a number of books that were written after the author experienced cataclysimic events. See also Eliezer Brodt’s article in the forthcoming Ami Magazine discussing the ubiquity of this phenomenon. 
[2] See Jastrow, “Baer Meisels, Chief Rabbi,” The Maccabean XI, 5 (Nov. 1906), 208-09; idem. XI, 6 (Dec. 1906), 246-48. For Jastrow’s activities during that time see Michael Galas, Rabbi Marcus Jastrow and His Vision for the Reform of Judaism:  A Study in the History of Judaism in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Anna Tilles (Boston:  Academic Studies Press, 2013), 70-88. Even at the end of his life, Jastrow was in America he still counted Meisel among those who influenced him.  See idem. 170.
[3] That is not to say that some didn’t try to write out R Zevin’s connection to Zionism.  See Jacob J. Schacter, “Facing the Truths of History,” Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (1998-1999): 223-24. 


R. Zevin, R. Ovadia Yosef, Pras haRav Kook and a Minor Case of Censorship

|
R. Zevin, R. Ovadia Yosef, Pras haRav Kook and a Minor Case of
Censorship
by Jacob D.
At the
end of R. Zevin’s introduction to his Sofrim u-Sefarim [1] we read –
In R.
Zevin’s footnote we see that one of the works that he wanted to review but
didn’t yet get to was R. Ovadia Yosef’s two volumes of Yabia Omer. As someone
who enjoys R. Zevin’s pen immensely (both his style and substance, especially
the way he analyzes books and their authors) [2], and as someone that studies
from R. Ovadia Yosef’s prolific halakhic literature quite often, I was curious
to know if R. Zevin ever ended up writing a review on any ​of ​R. Ovadia
Yosef’s works. For this I turned to R. Zevin’s grandchildren.[3] In a phone
conversation with R. Nahum Zevin (of Kiryat Eliyahu,Haifa) I was told that
although he has some unpublished R. Zevin material, ​and also existing are​
some highly critical book reviews that R. Zevin felt should remain unpublished,[4]
he doesn’t think anything was written about R. Ovadia Yosef.
In R.
Ovadia Yosef​’s​ Yabia Omer we find among the numerous approbations this –
Not
exactly an approbation but an explanation why the work deserved the R. Kook
prize ​of​ Torah literature for the year 571​5​ (1955). I have no doubt that
although R. Zevin signs his name along with two other judges​,​ the explanation
was penned by R. Zevin himself​​. From the three periods before​ these​ few
sentences ​​it seemed to me that more had been written than the few lines which
were ​printed in the ​book. I wanted to find the rest of the story​ (although I
wasn’t expecting a full review essay because R. Zevin wrote in his  Sofrim u-Sefarim published in 1959 that he
hadn’t gotten around to reviewing this work)​ and I spoke with the department
in the Tel Aviv municipality that handles these prizes (see here).
They said ​that ​they don’t have any additional information or documents that
pertain to this but ​that ​I should contact the Tel Aviv city archive (here) and they should be able to help. After speaking with the kind staff of that
archive I receive an email with two documents and a short message-
אנו שולחים לך סריקה של ההחלטה על הענקת הפרס לרב עובדיה יוסף וכן
סריקה של מכתבו של ראש העיר חיים לבנון לרב עובדיה המודיע לו על זכייתו ומברך אותו
עליה. אין בידינו נימוקים מפורטים יותר
בברכה,
רבקה פרשל-גרשון
הארכיון העירוני
By now I
kind of gave up, and forgot about the matter.
A short
while later I get a call from my friend Israel Mizrahi of Judaicaused.com (and the Musings of a Jewish Bookseller blog). He
tells me that I’m not going to believe it but in a recent shipment from Israel
of some old books he found a little booklet printed for one years Pras haRav
Kook. Upon opening it he sees that it was the booklet printed in the year
571​5​ (Summer 1955)​,​ the year that Yabia Omer was awarded the prize​​!

​For a
small fee I purchased the booklet ​and although I found ​it​ quite
interesting​,​ unfortunately nothing really more had been written about Yabia
Omer that hadn’t been​ ​printed in the book. Nothing really​ I say​, aside for
one small surprise.

In the beginning of the
little piece written about Yabia Omer we read-
 ​רגילים לחשוב שהתורה
הלכה ונתדלדלה מהעדה הספרדית, ירד קרנה ופנה זיוה הודה והדרה. ולא היא. על כל פנים
לא באותה מידה שחושבים
​
These
​last seven​ words​-
​
על כל פנים לא באותה מידה שחושבים
may seem
offensive to the level of Sephardic scholarship at that time and were therefore
censored out of​ ​ Yabia Omer volume one. Interestingly they were printed in
Yabia Omer volume two. This is consistent in the numerous later editions of the
books as well, including the latest re-typset edition (5775-2015).
We now
learn that Artscroll’s “The Festivals in Halacha” was ​​not the
​only, nor the ​earliest case of R. Zevin censorship (see here).​
It should
be mentioned that in R. Ovadia Yosef’s first volume of responsa Teshuvot Hazon
Ovadia, he receives a nice close to page long approbation by R. ​Zevin, but
still not the full review essay I was hoping for.
​[​​​​1​]​ I thank Eliezer Brodt for finding me the full three volume set. This set
doesn’t turn up in used bookstores too often​​. It’s an exception from most of
R. Zevin’s other books that have been reprinted many times over.​ I remember
the special morning I received his email informing me that he found them like
yesterday.​
​[​2​]​ ​R. Zevin’s ​Ishim ve-Shitot​ includes ten long essays on more famous Torah
personalities ​​,​ and ​his ​three volumes of Sofrim u-Sefarim​ includes about
a hundred and seventy-five (!) short essays​.
​​[​3​]​ I had previously spoken to one grandson Eliyahu who’s an attorney living in Tel
Aviv about having Sofrim u-Sefarim added to Hebrewbooks.org. In the course of
our conversations Eliyahu mentioned that he heard Hebrewbooks.org had already
scanned and posted some of R. Zevins’s other books, and that was
done without permission. He asked me to send them a message that the family
will take legal action if the issue isn’t straightened out. Upon Hebrewbooks
hearing that​,​ they seemed uninterested in dealing with the family to obtain
permission to keep the books on their site​,​ and all of R. Zevin’s
books were instantly removed. Also included in the books removed was the essay
whose true author is still in question about Yeshiva boys serving in the
Israeli Army. See my comment here and see
this post here.
[4] That
came to me a little bit as a surprise because in the three volumes worth of
essays that R. Zevin chose to publish in his Sofrim u-Sefarim, we do find some
highly critical reviews. See for example in volume one (Geonim, Rishonim,
u-Teshuvot)​​ his review on the third volume of Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi by R.
Ovadia Hedaya (pg. 258), and in volume two (Pesakim, Pirushim, ve-Hidushim), a
highly critical review of R. Aryeh Pomoranchik’s first volume of Torat Zera’im
(pg. 221)​.​​ Also in this same volume a pretty serious charge leveled
(delicately) ​at his friend and colleague R. Yehezkel Abramsky’s Hazon Yehezkel
Hullin (pg. 114). However, upon looking through some old issues of Ha-Tzofeh
from the 1930’s and 40’s (where most of the material in Sofrim u-Sefarim first
appeared, ​see ​here​​)​,​ I was able to come across some of the 
extremely critical reviews that R. Zevin chose not to publish in his
books. None of the reviews that R. Zevin published in his books were nearly as
critical as these.
See Ha-Tzofeh
Fri. Aug 5th 1938
and Ha-Tzofeh
Fri. Sep. 27th 1940


R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Kitniyot, R. Judah Mintz, and More

|
R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Kitniyot, R. Judah Mintz, and More
Marc B. Shapiro
1. The last post dealt with R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and I pick up with him here. Before moving forward, I have to thank R. Moshe Maimon who sent me a PDF of the essay attributed to R. Zevin which I discussed in the last post. It comes from the hebrewbooks.org hard drive that was released some time ago.[1] You can see it here. I also thank R. Eliezer Brodt who pointed out that both R. Zvi Pesah Frank and R. Eliezer Waldenberg deal with the essay.[2]
One of the most famous examples of haredi censorship relates to R. Zevin. In his classic Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah, in the section “Ha-Tzomot”, end of ch. 5 (p. 442 in the most recent edition), in discussing if one still needs to do keriah upon seeing the destroyed cities of Judea, R. Zevin writes:
מסתבר, שעם שיחרורן של ערי יהודה משלטון נכרים והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!) בטל דין הקריעה על אותן הערים.
This is not an extreme Zionist statement. It is simply an expression of happiness that the State of Israel came into being. I have no doubt that the typical haredi agrees that this was a good thing (and see in particular the comments of R. Moshe Feinstein quoted later in this post). However, even this very “pareve” statement was too much for Artscroll. Here is how Artscroll translated this passage (The Festivals in Halachah, vol. 2, p. 294):

It could be argued that since the liberation of the cities of the Judean hills from gentile rule, the law of rending the garment for these cities may no longer be in force.

The first thing to notice is that while R. Zevin wrote מסתבר, which must be translated as “it is reasonable”, “it makes sense”, or something similar, Artscroll has turned this into a tentative argument (“it could be argued”). Yet this is not what R. Zevin is saying. “It could be argued” implies that R. Zevin is on the fence on this matter, while מסתבר shows clearly what his view is.[3]
However, the really egregious action of Artscroll comes later in this sentence where Artscroll deletes mention of the establishment of the State of Israel and, most significantly, R. Zevin’s feeling of joy at this event: אשרנו שזכינו לכך!
I have learnt that the men who run Artscroll did not originally know about the censorship just mentioned. They never authorized any distortion of the translation and were surprised to find out what had been done. Yet once learning what had happened, they never took any steps to correct the translation and even defended the alterations. To this day, the matter has not been rectified. It is one thing if in its own works Artscroll tolerates or even encourages distortions, but to take the work of someone else, especially a great Torah scholar, and “correct” it so as to bring it into line with haredi “Daas Torah” is unforgivable. Furthermore, it is a violation of a sacred trust which every translator should be cognizant of. I also wonder if there isn’t a real issue of geneivah involved. If you sell a book supposed to be a translation, and you alter the translation, it is not merely a matter of geneivat da’at but real thievery, since you are selling a product that is not authentic.[4]
When this matter was raised in Tradition by Jack Feinholtz, Rabbis Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz replied by quoting one of the translators, Meir Holder:[5]
Mr. Holder has, for many years, maintained the closest contact with Rav Zevin’s family and has been a prime force in the dissemination of this great Tzaddik’s writings, in both Hebrew and English. It is unthinkable that he would tolerate or engage in any attempt to misrepresent Rav Zevin’s thoughts. . . . According to Mr. Holder, the lines which Mr. Feinholtz quotes were added to the edition published just a few months after the State of Israel was founded, a time when Rabbi Zevin and others still held high hopes for the spiritual impact of the State upon the lives of those Jews living there. As time went on, Rabbi Zevin became disappointed and, in the opinion of the members of his own family, his final Halachic opinion with regard to the law of rending garments on seeing the Judean hills is more accurately reflected in the Artscroll translation than in the version of the passage cited by Mr. Feinholtz.
There is a good deal of falsehood here. To begin with, other than Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah, I think Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah has been reprinted more times than any other modern halakhic text. Neither R. Zevin nor his family ever made any changes to the work. So who are these mysterious family members that Mr. Holder consulted with? R. Nahum Zevin, the one grandson of R. Zevin who is a haredi rabbi, is completely honest in his descriptions of his grandfather’s strong Zionist feelings.[6] R. Nahum tells anyone who asks that the change in the English translation was done without his (or anyone else in the family’s) knowledge or approval. He completely rejects the attempts to distort his grandfather’s legacy, as his grandfather never moved from his Zionist outlook. Thus, in addition to what has already been noted, the distortion of R. Zevin’s words must be seen as a betrayal of the family’s trust. (See also the second to last paragraph of the Hebrew article included in this post.)
More offensive than Artscroll’s distortion of R. Zevin’s halakhic opinion is the omission of his words of thanks for the creation of the State, an omission that goes unmentioned in the letter of Scherman and Zlotowitz. In a typical debating tactic, they offer a response that allows them to pretend that the only issue being discussed is R. Zevin’s halakhic view of rending garments rather than the deletion of his comments about the State of Israel. (Regarding the first matter, does this really have anything to do with Zionism? Is there anyone today, even among the non-Zionist haredim, who rends his garment upon seeing the cities of Judea?[7] Even when it comes to mekom ha-mikdash it seems that for many the practice of keriah has fallen by the wayside, and a number of people have written to justify this. And while I am on the topic, is there any halakhic justification for people not to do keriah when they see places like Bethlehem that have been returned to Arab rule?[8])
Before going further, let me present a short article in Hebrew written by a friend of mine that also details Artscroll’s fraudulence in this matter.

בשו”ת אגרות משה או”ח ח”ה סימן לז כתב, וז”ל: בענין חיובים דקריעה על ראיית ירושלים וראיית מקום המקדש, ודאי הוא חיוב, כמפורש בברייתא דמו”ק דף כ”ו ע”א. וגם על ערי יהודה איתא שם דקורע, ואיפסק כן ברמב”ם פ”ט מאבל ה”ב, ויותר מפורט בסוף פ”ה דתעניות. ובטור וש”ע סימן מיוחד באו”ח סימן תקס”א, וגם ביו”ד סוף סימן ש”מ . . . . [אבל] עתה שבחסדי השם יתברך אין מושלים האומות על ערי יהודה ועל ירושלים, והם גם מיושבים, הוא טעם גדול שלא לקרוע, אף שעדיין לא באה הגאולה ע”י מלך המשיח ואנו מתפחדים מהאומות, אין לקרוע, דהא הקרא שלמדים משם שצריך לקרוע על ערי יהודה . . . ויבואו אנשים משכם משלו ומשמרון שמנים איש מגלחי זקן וקרעי בגדים וגו’, הרי באו אחר שנחרבו ממש, שאין ללמוד מזה אפילו ליום אחד קודם החורבן, אף שהיה ידוע על ידי ירמיהו הנביא ועוד כי יהיה החורבן. וכל שכן עתה שמקווים אנחנו שמלך המשיח יבוא בקרוב כשיהיו כל ערי ישראל על מכונם, שאין צורך לקרוע. אבל כשרואה מקום המקדש שעדיין הוא בחורבנו, ולא שייך שיבנה אלא על ידי מלך המשיח, צריך לקרוע בפשיטות. וכשיבוא מלך המשיח במהרה בימינו, אף אם נימא שיהיה קצת זמן עד שיבנה, יורנו מלך המשיח וסנהדרין איך לעשות עכ”ל.
וכ”כ הגאון ר’ שלמה יוסף זווין זצ”ל בספרו “המועדים בהלכה” בפרק חמישי של חלק “הצומות” (במהדורת תשמ”ג – עמוד תמב), שגם טרם מלחמת ששת הימים “מסתבר שעם שיחרורן של ערי יהודה משלטון נכרים והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!) בטל דין הקריעה על אותן הערים”. עכ”ל. 

אמנם בתירגום “המועדים בהלכה” לאנגלית שנעשה בחסות הוצאת “ארטסקרול-מסורה” חלק שני (הוצאת “מסורה” תשמ”ב), עמוד 294, עשו המו”ל שני שינויים לקטע זה: (א) במקום “מסתבר” כתבו “יש מקום לטעון”; (ב) השמיטו מ”ש הרב זוין: “והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!)”. וכבר עוררו על שינויים אלו במכ”ע “טראדישען” ה’תשמ”ז-ח (במדור ‘מכתבי הקוראים’) – ראה מ”ש מר ג’ק פיינהאלץ (טראדישען 22:4, עמוד 120).

 

העורכים הכלליים של ספרי “ארטסקרול” (הרבנים מאיר זלאטאוויץ ונתן שרמן שיחיו) התייחסו לטענת מר פיינהאלץ במכתב למערכת “טראדישען” [שנדפס ב”טראדישען” שם]. במכתב זה הצדיקו את השינויים האמורים, אשר לפי דבריהם נעשו בשיתוף פעולה עם מר מאיר הולדר ז”ל, (בעל בית הדפוס “הלל” בירושלים עיה”ק, שעמד בראש מלאכת התירגום, ואשר הי’ שותף לארטסקרול בההו”ל של ספרי הרב זוין באנגלית), על יסוד מסורה בע”פ שקיבל הלה ממשפחת הרב זוין. לפי מסורה זו, סיגנון השורות המופיעות ב”המועדים בהלכה” בלה”ק (עד עצם היום הזה) ע”ד ביטול דין קריעה על ערי יהודה אינן מתאימות לסוף דעתו של הרב זוין. שורות אלו ניתוספו ע”י הרב זוין במהדורת הספר שי”ל כמה חדשים לאחרי התייסדות מדינת ישראל, נכתבו בתקופה שהיו, להרב זוין (ולאחרים כמותו), תקוות גדולות לעתידה של המדינה ולהשפעתה על החיים הרוחניים של הגרים בארץ ישראל. ברבות הזמן בטלו סיכויים אלו, אז התאכזב הרב זוין וחזר בו ממ”ש ב”המועדים בהלכה” הנ”ל. עכת”ד מסורת מר הולדר.

 

 

הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ טוענים שאין להעלות על הדעת שמר הולדר, שהי’ [לפי דבריהם] מידידי בית הרב זוין ואיש רב פעלים בהפצת “כתבי הצדיק הזה” [=הגרש”י זוין] זצ”ל, הי’ חשוד על נתינת יד למזייפים. עאכו”כ שלא הי’ עושה בעצמו שום שינוי ב”המועדים בהלכה” שאינו בהתאם גמור ל”מחשבת הרב זוין”. ע”פ שנים עדים אלו (הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ) הסיגנון המופיע ב”המועדים בהלכה” מהדורת ארטסקרול משקף ביתר דייקנות את משנתו האחרונה של הרב זוין בקשר לחיוב קריעה על ערי יהודה.

 

[יש לציין שגם במהדורא חדשה של “המועדים בהלכה” שנדפסה ע”י “ארטסקרול” בשנת תשנ”ט – בה תיקנו כמה שגיאות וכיו”ב – עמדו הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן על משמרתם והניחו את הגירסא החדשה (שע”פ מסורת מר הולדר) במקומה. לאידך גיסא, בכל המהדורות של “המועדים בהלכה” שי”ל בלה”ק לאחרי פטירתו של הרב זוין (שראיתי) נמצאות השורות הנ”ל כצלמן וכתבניתן במהדורות שראו אור בחייו].

 

מר הולדר כבר שחל”ח וע”כ אין אפשרות לברר אצלו אם אכן הי’ ממעתיקי השמועה ומה באמת היתה מדת מעורבתו בהשינויים הנ”ל, שע”פ העדים הנ”ל נעשו ע”פ מסורת שקיבל ממשפחתו של הגרש”י זוין. [אם אמת נכון הדבר שמר הולדר הי’ מחולל השינוי, צע”ק שלא מצא מר הולדר לנכון לעשות השינויים במהדורת “המועדים בהלכה” שהו”ל באותה תקופה בלה”ק, ועכ”פ לציין בשוה”ג שהנדפס אינו אלא משנה ראשונה של המחבר]. ובכל אופן, נ”ל שטענות הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן [ומר הולדר?] ע”ד עמדתו של הגרש”י אינן עומדות בפני הביקורת, ומפני כמה טעמים. [מקצת מטענות א-ב דלהלן כבר הביע בשעתו מר טרי נאוועטסקי במכתב תגובה לטענות הרבנים הנ”ל ונדפס במכ”ע טראדישען שם 23:1 עמוד 98 ואילך].

 

(א) מאז היווסד מדינת ישראל נדפס ספר “המועדים בהלכה” בכו”כ מהדורות בחייו של הרב זוין [
מהדורא שניה – ירושלים תש”ט; מהדורא שלישית – ירושלים תשי”ד; מהדורא חמישית – תל אביב תשט”ז; מהדורא שישית – ירושלים תש”כ. ועוד]. הרב זוין עשה כמה כמה תיקונים והכניס כמה וכמה הוספות קטנות וגם גדולות במהדורות השונות של הספר. על כן, למרות שבספרו זה “לא נתכוון המחבר להקנות לקוראיו דינים ופסקים” (הקדמת הרב זוין ל”המועדים בהלכה”), מ”מ בהתחשב עם זה ש”הספר נועד בעיקר לקהל הרחב . . . מורים ומחנכים” (הקדמה הנ”ל שם) מסתבר שאם באמת חזר בו הרב זוין לא הי’ מניח משנה ראשונה במקומה, וע”ד האמור (איוב יא, יד. כתובות יט, ע”ב) “אל תשכן באהליך עוולה”. ומדחזינן שבענינים אחרים אכן שינה, הוסיף וגרע [אפילו בכה”ג שלא הי’ מקום לחשוש לביטול מצוה או לאפרושי מאיסורא], ובנדו”ד השאיר את הדברים על מכונם, מסתבר לומר שבאמת לא חזר בו, וחזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתח”י דבר שאינו מתוקן.
(ב) אין התשובה ממין הטענה כלל, דאם אמנם על השינוי מ”מסתבר” ל”יש מקום לטעון” [אין ולאו ורפיא בידי’] אנו דנים, אכן יש מקום להסברא שהתאכזבותו ממצבה הרוחני של מדינת ישראל גרם להרב זוין לנטות מצידוד חזק [“מסתבר”] לביטול חיוב קריעה [כשיטת האג”מ הנ”ל] ל”הלכה רופפת” [“יש מקום לחלוק ולומר”] בענין זה, וע”פ המבואר לקמן בפנים שיש אומרים דשלטון מדינת אינו בגדר שלטון ישראל. אבל אין אכזבה זו דורשת (1) העלמת שם “מדינת ישראל”, שם שהרבה הרב זוין להשתמש בו בכ”מ. (2) השמטת ביטוי של שמחה והודי’ להשי”ת – “אשרינו שזכינו לכך” – על הקמת המדינה. הגע בעצמך: אין ספק שהגרמ”פ (שהי’ מחברי מועצת גדולי אגודת ישראל) גם הוא התאכזב ממצב היהדות בארץ ישראל תחת שלטון מדינת ישראל [ראה מ”ש באג”מ יו”ד ח”ב סמ”ה בא”ד ש”במדינת ישראל, אין אנו אחראין להנהגת המלכות דשם שהיא בעוה”ר אצל כופרים ומומרים ואין מתחשבים עם . . . כל איסורי התורה החמורים ביותר והמפורשים בגמרא ובקראי”. וראה גם אג”מ חו”מ ח”ב סו”ס סט, ועוד], ואעפ”כ כתב באג”מ בשנת תשמ”א, וכנ”ל, “עתה שבחסדי השם יתברך אין מושלים האומות על ערי יהודה ועל ירושלים [הוא טעם גדול שלא לקרוע]”, הרי שהעברת השלטון מידי האומות לידי ממשלת ישראל הוא מ”חסדי השי”ת”! ואם הגרמ”פ הי’ מודה להקב”ה על חסד זה, מה הכריח את הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן לעשות את הרב זווין (שגם בסוף חייו פירסם בקהל רב שהוא נוהג להצביע עבור רשימת המפד”ל) לכפוי טובה שאינו מכיר בניסו?
והוא העיקר: יחסו החיובי של הרב זוין למדינת ישראל בא לידי ביטוי בעוד מקומות מפיו ומפי כתביו. הנה שתי דוגמאות לכך: (1) בספרו “לאור ההלכה” (מהדורא שניה, תל אביב תשי”ז, כמה שנים לאחרי הקמת המדינה) תיקן את מאמרו “המלחמה” והוסיף בה דברים שלא היו יכולים להכתב במהדורא הראשונה של המאמר שהדפיס לפני הקמת המדינה (ב”לאור הלכה” ירושלים ה’תש”ו), ובתו”ד (עמוד סה) כתב לאמר: “בימינו אנו שזכינו לתקומת מדינת ישראל העצמאית, משוחררת מעול מלכויות . . . הרי מלחמת השחרור ברור שהיו לה כל דיני מלחמת מצוה וחובה”. [גם ספר “לאור ההלכה” חזרה ונדפסה כמ”פ (במשך ימי חיי הרב זוין) עם תיקונים והוספות, ומשנה זו לא זזה ממקומה]. (2) (2) בראיון שהעניק למכ”ע “הצופה” שי”ל לראש השנה ה’תשל”ו קרוב לשלשים שנה לאחרי הקמת מדינת ישראל וכשנתיים לפני פטירת הרב (בשנת תשל”ח). באותו ראיון אמר הרב זוין: “הרי מדינת ישראל עם כל ליקוייה הרבים בשטח החינוך הלא-דתי וכו’ הרי עם כל זה עלינו לראות את צדדיה החיוביים: הלא רק בחמש השנים האחרונות בלבד היא הצילה יותר ממאה אלף יהודים מטמיעה מוחלטת ושמד רוחני ברוסיה הסובייטית, אשר רבים מהם לומדים עתה כאן בבתי ספר דתיים ואף בישיבות; ועוד היד שלנו נטוי’ לקלוט מהם בעז”ה כהנה וכהנה”.
לית דין צריך בושש שהרב זוין, שהכיר מקרוב את תהליך התפתחות אופיה הרוחני של מדינת ישראל, כבר ידע היטב בשלהי שנת תשל”ה את כל מה שיש לדעת ע”ד צביונה החילוני של מדינת ישראל, ובכל זאת הרי שלך לפניך, שהביע את הערכתו הרבה להקמת מדינת ישראל וחזר והדגיש באר היטב שלמרות כל חסרונותי’ וליקויי’ (‘רבים הם ואי אפשר לפורטם’) הרי הקמת המדינה בארץ ישראל והרווחה בגו”ר שהביאה לעם ישראל הינה זכי’ גדולה וה”ה מהטובות הגדולות שעשה הקב”ה לעמו ישראל וחייבים אנו להודות להקב”ה על קיומה. וא”כ אי אפשר לומר שהשמטת תיבות ההודאה על קיומה של המדינה [“אשרינו שזכינו לכך”] הולמת את שיטת הרב זוין לאחרי אכזבתו.
אמנם למרות כל הנ”ל לא מלאני לבי לבטל מסורתם של מר הולדר ויבלחט”א הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ עד שהתקשרתי עם משפחת הרב זוין ע”מ לברר וללבן את הדבר. ה’משפחה’ שאיתה עמד מר הולדר בקשר מתמיד, ה”ה הרה”ג ר’ נחום זווין שליט”א, רב בעיה”ק חיפה ת”ו. [בנו יחידו של הגרש”י זווין נלב”ע בחייו, ובנו הרב נחום ירש את הכתבים וכו’ של הגרש”י והוא הוא שמכר את רשות ההדפסה באנגלית למר הולדר]. בשיחה טלפונית שקיימתי עם הרב נחום ביום חמישי י”ד טבת ה’תשס”ד אמר לי בלשון צחה וברורה שלא היו דברים אלו מעולם. הרב נחום זוין נתן לי רשות לפרסם בשמו את אשר מסר לי בענין זה: (א) עד יומו האחרון לא זז הגרש”י מעמדתו ויחסו החיובי למדינת ישראל, עמדה שהתבטאה בכמה משיטותיו והנהגותיו [ולדוגמא: עד שנתו האחרון עלי אדמות ועד בכלל נהג הגרש”י לומר הלל (בלי ברכה) ביום העצמאות וביום ירושלים]. (ב) מעולם לא שמע ממנו שחזר בו משיטתו ע”ד חיוב הקריעה על ערי יהודה, ועד היום הזה (שהודעתיו ע”ד השינויים הנ”ל ב”המועדים בהלכה” מהדורת ארטסקרול) לא ידע אפילו שהי’ אי פעם איזו סברא והו”א (בתוך המשפחה או מחוצה לה) לומר שהגרש”י שינה את דעתו בנידון, ולמותר להגיד שמעולם לא דיבר, לא דבר ולא חצי דבר, לא עם מר הולדר ולא עם שום נציג הוצאת ארטסקרול, על דבר ענין זה. והשתא הדברים מחוורים כשמלה, שמעולם לא היתה ולא היתה יכולה להיות ‘מסורת חשאית’ ממשפחת הרב זוין בנדו”ד, כי מעולם לא חזר בו הרב זוין מדעתו הראשונה, ואין שום סתירה כלל במשנת הגרש”י שהיתה קב ונקי. אין כאן המקום להאריך בהשערות, על מה ולמה החליטו המו”ל של כתבי הגרש”י באנגלית לעשות בדבריו כבתוך שלהם ולייחס אליו דברים שהם זרים לרוחו. מה שחשוב למבקשי האמת הוא, בירור דעתו של הרב זוין בנידון, ולזה הגענו בעז”ה – ואין שמחה כהתרת הספיקות.
[דא”ג: ראה זה פלא! לאחרונה יצא לאור “תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן” מהדורת שוטנסטיין (דפוס “מסורה” ה’תשנ”ט) תחת השגחת הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן, ושם דף כו ע”א הערה 43 ציינו (בקשר לחיוב קריעה על ערי יהודה וירושלים בזמן הזה) לדברי הגרמ”פ באג”מ ח”ה הנ”ל, שם כתב שבזמן הזה בטל חיוב קריעה גם על ירושלים עיר הקודש, ולא ציינו כלל להפוסקים הרבים המובאים לקמן בפנים דס”ל שחיוב קריעה על ירושלים במקומו עומד, גם לא ציינו לעמדתו הרופפת של הרב זווין (ע”פ ‘מסורת מר הולדר’) שקנתה שביתה במהדורתם של “המועדים בהלכה” לפיה אין להחליט שחיוב קריעה (אפילו על ערי יהודה – ובמכ”ש על ירושלים) בטל בימינו. וצע”ג].

 

In Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, I called attention to two other examples of censorship (omitting Lieberman’s rabbinic title) in Artscroll’s translation of R. Zevin, so it is obvious that the translators felt it was OK for them to take liberties with the text. I know from speaking to people in the haredi world that this sort of thing is very distressing to them. It is no longer surprising when we see censorship and intentional distortions in haredi works. We even expect this and are surprised when a haredi work is actually honest in how it presents historical matters and issues that are subject to ideological disputes. Yet it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no fundamental reason why haredi works can’t express their position without the all-too-common falsehoods. I think the ones most offended by this are those who are part of the haredi world and believe in its ideology, and don’t understand the need to resort to distortions in order to further the truth.

 

 

In a recent post I gave an example of fraudulence when it came to a haredi newspaper’s obituary of Louis Henkin, the son of R. Joseph Elijah Henkin. In this post, I mentioned that R. Henkin sent his sons to Yeshiva College. R. Eitam Henkin kindly sent me this picture of the tombstone of R. Henkin’s son, Hayyim, who predeceased his father.

 

It is noteworthy that R. Henkin saw fit to mention on the tombstone that Hayyim was a student at Yeshiva College (= Yeshivat R. Yitzhak Elhanan).
I would now like to point to an unintentional error in Artscroll’s translation of Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah. Before last Pesah I took out my copy of The Festivals in Halachah. In reading the chapter on kitniyot, p. 118, I came across the following.
By way of reply, Rav Shmuel Freund, “judge and posek in the city of Prague”
((דין ומו”צ בק”ק פראג published the pamphlet Keren Shmuel, in which he demonstrates at length that no one has the authority to make these prohibited items (kitnios) permissible.
I immediately suspected something wasn’t right, and when I looked at the original I saw that R. Freund was described as דיין מו”ש דק”ק פראג. In translating these words into English, דיין מו”ש  became דין ומו”צ  (since the English version puts vowels on the Hebrew words  דיין became דין), and דק”ק became בק”ק (this latter point is only a minor error).
R. Zevin’s description of R. Freund is put in quotation marks since it is taken from the cover of his Keren Shmuel, as you can observe here.
The translators (who must never have seen the title page of Keren Shmuel) didn’t know what to make of מו”ש  and assumed that it was a mistake for מו”צ. They therefore “corrected” R. Zevin’s text. This is one of those cases where a few well-placed inquiries would have solved the translators’ problem. Some of the blame for this error should be laid at the feet of R. Zevin, for he never bothered explaining what מו”ש  is and he should have realized that that the typical reader (and translator) wouldn’t have a clue as to its meaning.[9]
מו”ש refers to the highest beit din in Prague, as used in the phrases דיין מו”ש and בית דין מו”ש. But what do the letters מו”ש stand for?[10] This is the subject of an essay by Shaul Kook,[11] and he points out that there has been uncertainty as to the meaning of מו”ש.[12] In fact, R. Solomon Judah Rapoport, who was chief rabbi of Prague and a member of the בית דין מו”ש, was unaware of the meaning.[13] After examining the evidence, Kook concludes that מו”ש stands for מורה שוה. This appears to mean that all the dayanim on the beit din were regarded as having equal standing. The בית דין מו”ש of Prague actually served as an appeals court, something that was found in other cities as well, even going back to Spain.[14] R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Havot Yair, no. 124, refers to one of the dayanim on this beit din as  אפילאנט, and the new edition of Havot Yair helpfully points out that the meaning of this is דיין לערעורים.[15]
Some people have the notion that the appeals court of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is a completely new concept, first established during the time of R. Kook. This is a false assumption.[16] (The Chief Rabbinate’s בית דין לערעורים is also known as בית דין הגדול).
R. Moshe Taub has called my attention to another error in the translation of Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah. In discussing what should be done first, Havdalah or lighting the menorah, R. Zevin writes (p. 204):
ברוב המקומות נתקבל המנהג שבבית מבדילים קודם, ובבית הכנסת מדליקים קודם
The translation, p. 89, has this sentence completely backwards: “Most communities have adopted the following custom: at home – Chanukah lights are lit first; in the synagogue – Havdalah first.”
Since we are on the issue of errors in Artscroll, here is another one which was called to my attention by Prof. Daniel Lasker. In the commentary to Numbers 25:1, Artscroll states:
After Balaam’s utter failure to curse Israel, he had one last hope. Knowing that sexual morality is a foundation of Jewish holiness and that God does not tolerate immorality – the only time the Torah speaks of God’s anger as אף, wrath, is when it is provoked by immorality (Moreh Nevuchim 1:36) – Balaam counseled Balak to entice Jewish men to debauchery.
Yet Rambam does not say what Artscroll attributes to him. Here is what appears in Guide 1:36:
Know that if you consider the whole of the Torah and all the books of the prophets, you will find  that the expressions “wrath” [חרון אף], “anger” [כעס], and “jealousy” [קנאה], are exclusively used with reference to idolatry.
The Rambam says that the language of “wrath” is only used with reference to idolatry, but somehow in Artscroll idolatry became (sexual) immorality. This text of the Moreh Nevukhim is actually quite a famous and difficult one, and the commentators discuss how Maimonides could say that ויחר אף is only used with reference to idolatry when the Torah clearly provides examples of the words in other contexts. In his commentary, ad loc, R. Kafih throws up his hands and admits that he has no solution.
ושכאני לעצמי כל התירוצים לא מצאו מסלות בלבבי, והקושיא היא כל כך פשוטה עד שלא יתכן שהיא קושיא, אלא שאיני יודע היאך אינה קושיא
Returning to the issue of kitniyot, in a previous post I raised the question as to why, according to R. Ovadiah Yosef, all Sephardim and Yemenites who live in Israel are to follow the practices of the Shulhan Arukh but he doesn’t insist on this when it comes to Ashkenazim. If R. Joseph Karo is the mara de-atra, shouldn’t this apply to Ashkenazim as well?[17] I once again wrote to R. Avraham Yosef and R. Yitzhak Yosef seeking clarification. Here is R. Avraham’s letter.
Unfortunately, his history is incorrect. To begin with, it is not true that all of the Ashkenazim who came on aliyah before the “mass aliyah” (which apparently refers to the late nineteenth century) adopted the practices of the Sephardim.[18] It is also not true that the beit din established by the Ashkenazim in the nineteenth century is the beit din of the Edah Haredit. The Edah Haredit is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The historical successor of the beit din of R. Shmuel Salant was the Jerusalem beit din of which R. Kook was av beit din, as he was the rav of Jerusalem (and R. Zvi Pesah Frank served on the batei din of both R. Salant and R. Kook). The Edah Haredit beit din was a completely new creation. As for the Yemenites, Moroccans, and Iraqis, when the great immigration of these groups occurred, many thousands came on aliyah together, (i.e., as complete communities) and thus they never saw themselves as required to reject their practices in favor of the Shulhan Arukh. The fact that they didn’t establish special batei din is irrelevant. In fact, R. Avraham’s last paragraph is a good description of how these communities arrived in the Land of Israel, and is precisely the reason why their rabbinic leaders almost uniformly rejected R. Ovadiah Yosef’s demand that they adopt the Shulhan Arukh in all particulars.
Here is R. Yitzhak Yosef’s letter to me, which has a different perspective.
He cites R. Joseph Karo’s responsum, Avkat Rokhel, no. 212, which requires newcomers to adopt the practices of the community to which they are going even if they come as large groups. He then says that Ashkenazim never adopted this viewpoint, but instead held to the opinion of R. Meir Eisenstadt (Panim Meirot, vol. 2, no. 133). According to R. Eisenstadt, only individuals who come to a town must adopt the local practice, but not if they come as a group and establish their own community.[19]
Let me now complicate matters further. If you recall, in the earlier post I discussed how R. Ovadiah Yosef’s writings assume that Ashkenazim have to abstain from kitniyot on Pesah. I raised the question if an Ashkenazi could “become Sephardi” and thus start eating kitniyot (and also follow Sephardic practices in all other areas). R. Avraham Yosef wrote to me that this is permissible while R. Yitzhak Yosef wrote that it is not.
R. Yissachar Hoffman called my attention to the fact that in the recent Ma’yan Omer, vol. 11, p. 8, R. Ovadiah was himself asked the following question:
אשכנזי שרוצה לנהוג כמו הספרדים במנהגים ולדוגמא לאכול קטניות בפסח, אך רוצה להמשיך ולהתפלל כנוסח אשכנז. האם הדבר אפשרי.
R. Ovadiah replied:
 יכול רק בקטניות, אך עדיף שבכל ינהג כמרן
What R. Ovadiah is saying (and see also the editor’s note, ad loc., for other examples) is that R. Avraham’s answer is correct, namely, that an Ashkenazi can “become Sephardi” (and eat kitniyot). It is significant that R. Ovadiah allows such a person to continue praying according to Ashkenazic practice. Here are the pages.
2. On my recent tour of Italy I spent a good deal of time speaking about the great sages of Venice and Padua. One such figure was R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen (1521-1597), known as מהרשי”ק, the son of the famous R. Meir Katzenellenbogen, known as Maharam Padua. While R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen is basically forgotten today, he was the most important Venetian rabbi in his day. He was also the father of Saul Wahl, who became famous in Jewish legend as Poland’s “king for a day.”[20]
In 1594, R. Katzenellenbogen’s collection of derashot, entitled Shneim Asar Derashot, appeared. Here is the title page.
When the volume was reprinted in Lemberg in 1798, the publisher made an error and on the title page attributed the volume to מהר”י מינץ , the son of Maharam Padua.
Apart from not knowing who the author of the volume was, the publisher also didn’t realize that R. Judah Mintz (died 1508[21]) was the grandfather of Maharam Padua’s wife, meaning that he was the great-grandfather of R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen.
When the volume was reprinted in Warsaw in 1876 the publisher recognized the problem but confounded matters.
Rather than simply correcting the mistake from the 1798 title page by attributing the volume to R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen, he kept the information from the mistaken title page but tells the reader that מהר”י מינץ is none other than “R. Samuel Judah Mintz”, a previously unheard of name.
The most recent printing has gets it even worse.
Now the original title of the book, שנים עשר דרשות, is simply omitted, and the book is called דרשות מהר”י מינץ
The authentic R. Judah Mintz of Padua is known for his volume of responsa that was published in Venice in 1553, together with the responsa of R. Meir Katzenellenbogen. Here is the title page.
R Judah Mintz’s responsa were reprinted in Munkacs in 1898 together with a lengthy commentary by R. Johanan Preshil.
The book was also reprinted in 1995, edited by R. Asher Siev.
Unfortunately, Siev was unaware of the 1898 edition. He also makes the mistake (see p. 353) of stating that R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen was referred to as מהר”י מינץ because his mother’s family name was Mintz. I have seen no evidence that he was ever referred to as such in his lifetime or in the years after, and as mentioned, this was simply a printer’s mistake. I consulted with Professor Reuven Bonfil and he too is unaware of any reference to Katzenellenbogen being referred to as מהר”י מינץ, which supports my assumption that this all goes back to the mistaken title page.[22]
3. In my last post I mentioned how in years past there were shiurim combining students from Merkaz and Chevron and also Merkaz and Kol Torah. This is obviously unimaginable today. For another example showing how Yeshivat Kol Torah has changed, look at this picture, which appears in Yosef and Ruth Eliyahu, Ha-Torah ha-Mesamahat (Beit El, 1998), p. 105.
I guarantee you that even on the hottest of days, none of the Kol Torah students will be wearing shorts. For those who don’t know, Kol Torah was founded by German Orthodox rabbis and was originally very different than it is today. Here is how it was described upon its founding, in a short notice in Davar, August 27, 1939.
It is hard to imagine today, but this was a yeshiva that actually intended for some of its students to take up agriculture. See also here which cites R. Hayyim Eliezer Bichovski, Kitvei ha-Rav Hayyim Eliezer Bichovski (Brookyn, 1990), p. 180, that the Chafetz Chaim said that yeshiva students in Eretz Yisrael should learn nine months a year and work the land the other three months
Speaking of shorts, here are a couple of pictures showing how the boys of the German Orthodox separatist Adass Jisroel community looked when playing sports (also notice the lack of kippot).
This was the community of R. Esriel Hildesheimer and R. David Zvi Hoffmann. The pictures come from Mario Offenburg, ed., Adass Jisroel die Juedische Gemeinde in Berlin (1869-1942): Vernichtet und Vergessen (Berlin, 1986).
Here is how the girls dressed for sports, also with shorts and sleeveless.
And here is how the boys and girls looked when not at a sporting event.
These pictures come from Max Sinasohn, ed., Adass Jisroel Berlin (Jerusalem, 1966).[23]
4. Some people didn’t appreciate the humor in my post with regard to the Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz. I think they should lighten up, and in a previous post, available here, I gave some references to humor in rabbinic literature. This was followed up by a more extensive post by Ezra Brand, available here.
According to the commentary Siftei Hakhamim, it is not just the talmudic sages who would at times show their humorous side, but on at least one occasion Moses thought that God himself was joking with him!
In Ex. 33:13 Moses says to God: ועתה אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. Rashi explains this to mean: “If it is true that I have found favor in Your eyes.” This means that Moses was in some doubt as to whether he found favor in God’s eyes, but this is problematic since in the previous verse Moses quotes God as saying to him, “you have also found favor in My eyes.” So if God told Moses that he found favor in His eyes, how can Moses be in doubt and say to God, “If I have found favor in Your eyes”?
Here is the Siftei Hakhamim.
According to Siftei Hakhamim, Moses was in doubt if he really found favor in God’s eyes, since even though God said he did, perhaps God was joking just like people joke around!
דלמא מה שאמרת מצאת חן בעיני מצחק היית בי כדרך בני אדם
5. I want to call readers’ attention to a recent book, Shevilei Nissan, which is a collection of previously published essays from R. Nissan Waxman. There is lots of interesting material in the book, and let me mention just a few things.
In Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, p. 75 n. 302, I referred to R. Yaakov Avigdor’s strong criticism of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s approach. R. Avigdor also criticized R. Solomon Polachek, the Meitchiter. R. Waxman was a student of the Meitchiter, and on p. 23 n. 1, he comes to his teacher’s defense.
On p. 150, R. Waxman, who was the rav of Lakewood, mentions the problem of how some yeshiva students are halakhically more stringent than their teachers. He quotes R. Yaakov Kamenetsky in the name of R. Aharon Kotler how a student once visited R. Kotler and when the latter offered the student some cookies, the student was reluctant to take before asking which bakery they came from. (Perhaps this behavior can be explained by what I have heard – and maybe someone can confirm this – that in R. Aharon Kotler’s day the Lakewood bakery Gelbstein was not under hashgachah, and yet R. Kotler bought his challot from it. See also here and here The original post referred to in these links has definitely been taken down.)
On p. 233, R. Waxman notes that even though we have the principle, “A Jew who sins remains a Jew”, in actuality, it is possible for a Jew to so remove himself from the Jewish people (e.g., apostasy) that as far as most things are concerned, he is indeed no longer regarded as Jewish. This essay was written concerning the “Brother Daniel” case, and R. Waxman’s approach is similar to that of R. Aharon Lichtenstein who also wrote a famous article on the topic, “Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity,” republished in Leaves of Faith, vol. 2, ch. 3.
On pp. 251ff., R. Waxman deals with Menahem Mendel Lefin’s Heshbon ha-Nefesh, an influential mussar text which as many know was influenced by a work of Benjamin Franklin.
6. I want to also call readers’ attention to two other books recently sent to me. The first is R. David Brofsky, Hilkhot Moadim: Understanding the Laws of the Festivals. This is very large book (over 700 pages) dealing with the Holidays and is a welcome addition to the growing number of non-haredi halakhah works in English.. In a future post I hope to deal with it in greater depth. The second book is Haym Soloveitchik, Collected Essays, vol. 1, published by Littman Library, my favorite publisher. This book is required reading for anyone with an interest in the history of medieval halakhah. I was happy to see that it also includes two essays that appear here for the first time. Furthermore, Soloveitchik’s classic essay on pawnbroking (which was his first significant article) has been expanded to almost double the size of the original. In the new preface to the essay, he writes: “Every essay is written for an imagined audience, and mine was intended for the eyes of Jacob Katz, Saul Lieberman, and my father.”
[1] I also must point out that someone involved with hebrewbooks.org informed me that the essay was not removed from the site because it was viewed as “problematic”, but because they were requested to do so by one of the members of R. Zevin’s family who claimed to hold the copyright to the work. This is obviously a false claim, since as we have seen there is no proof that R. Zevin wrote the essay.
[2] See R. Waldenberg, Hilkhot Medinah, vol. 2, pp. 14, 60, 62, and R. Frank’s haskamah, ibid., pp. 17.
[3] See Jack Feinhotz’s letter in Tradition 22 (Winter 1987), p. 120. R. Zevin’s view, that there is no need for keriah, was also advocated by R. Reuven Katz, Sha’ar Reuven (Jerusalem, 1952), p. 32.
[4] See Terry Novetsky’s letter in Tradition 23 (Summer 1987), pp. 98-99.
[5] Tradition 22 (Winter 1987), p. 120.
[6] In the interview with R. Zevin that appeared in my last post, R. Nahum’s comments tended to be somewhat dogmatic, even “haredi”, and should be contrasted with his grandfather’s words.
[7] Even among the vast majority of Lubavitchers this is the case (so I am informed by R. Chaim Rapoport). This is quite strange since the Rebbe held that you have to do keriah. What this shows us is that not everything advocated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe was adopted by his hasidim.
[8] See R. Dov Lior, Devar Hevron (Kiryat Arba, 2009), Orah Hayyim no. 567
[9] Even the incredibly learned Meir Benayahu was stumped by מו”ש. See this page from his Tiglahat be-Holo Shel Moed (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 21.

 

Regarding Benayahu, a recent book argues that the missing pages of the Aleppo Codex were not destroyed in Aleppo, but were actually stolen by Benayahu after arriving in Jerusalem. See Matti Friedman, The Aleppo Codex (Chapel Hill, 2012).
[10] I have found one occasion where it is written מ”ש, although this is probably a typo. See R. Yaakov Reischer, Shevut Yaakov, vol. 2, no. 129. R. Reischer was a member of this beit din,
[11] Iyunim u-Mehkarim (Jerusalem, 1963), vol 2, pp. 179ff.
[12] In the Vilna Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, there is a commentary by R. Jacob Emden. Yet R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Menuhat Shalom, vol. 6, p. 116, shows that it was not written by him, and one of his proofs is that the commentary refers to הגאון אב”ד וב”ד מו”ש, implying that the author lived in Prague.
[13] See Kook, Iyunim u-Mehkarim, p. 180.
[14] See Simhah Assaf, Batei ha-Din ve-Sidreihem Aharei Hatimat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1924), ch. 11.
[15] See ibid., pp. 80ff. for other examples of אפילאנט
[16] This statement should not be taken to imply that the leading rabbis in Eretz Yisrael were happy with the institution of this court, which was pretty much forced upon them by the British. See Amichai Radzyner’s book-length article, “Ha-Rav Uziel, Rabanut Tel Aviv-Yafo, u-Beit Din ha-Gadol le-Irurim: Sipur be-Arba Ma’arakhot” Mekhkerei Mishpat 21 (2004), pp. 120-242.
[17] R. Ovadiah Hadaya, in his approbation to R. Amram Aburabia, Netivei Am (Jerusalem, 1964), states that everyone in Jerusalem should follow “minhag Yerushalayim”. If his opinion is accepted, it would mean the end of any Ashkenazic practices in the city.
[18] Regarding earlier in the nineteenth century, see Yehoshua Kaniel, “Kishrei ha-Edot be-Inyanei Halakhah u-Minhag bi-Yerushalayim ba-Meah ha-Yod Tet,” Morashah 4 (5736), pp. 126-136. In the eighteenth century, the Vilna Gaon was of the opinion that Ashkenazim who come on aliyah should indeed adopt Sephardic practices. See Bezalel Landau, Ha-Gaon he-Hasid mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 250, n. 30.
[19] This has indeed been the Ashkenazi approach, yet R. Abraham Danzig disagreed. See Hokhmat Adam: Sha’ar Mishpetei ha-Aretz 11:23:
נ”ל דהבאים לא”י אם יקבעו עצמם בעיר שיש שם מנין אעפ”י שהבאים הם מרובים יש להם דין יחיד וחייבים לנהוג חומרי מקום שהלכו לשם ופקעו מהם החומרות שהיו נוהגין במקומם.
[20] As far as I know, R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen was the first great rabbi to have his picture made (unfortunately, it no longer exists). See R. Moses Porti, Palgei Mayim (Venice, 1608), p. 6b (referred to by R. Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoteinu be-Yadenu [Monsey, 2012], p. 451):
והלא אנכי הייתי הראשון שבקשתי להציב תמונתו לנגד עיני ע”י הצייר ואותה לקחתי לי והצבתיה בבית מדרשי לקיים מה שנאמר והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך
While this picture was hung in the beit midrash, see this post where I mention how R. Pinchas Teitz took down the poster of R. Elchanan Wasserman that I hung up in a room used for tefillah. (R. Porti’s Palgei Mayim is devoted to the famous dispute about the mikveh in Rovigo.)
[21] The standard biographies all record that R. Judah Mintz lived a very long life. This is based on R. Joseph Yavetz, Hasdei Ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1934), Introduction, p. 9, where R. Yavetz’s son mentions that R. Mintz recited birkat ha-hamah when he was כבן מאה שנה. This would have been in 1505, and he lived another three years after that. R. Meshulam Fishel Behr, Divrei Meshulam (Frankfurt, 1926), pp. 147ff., rejects the younger Yavetz’s testimony and claims that R. Mintz died in his seventies. See, however, R. Naftali Yaakov ha-Kohen, Otzar ha-Gedolim (Haifa, 1967), pp. 35ff.
[22] See also Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Katzenellenbogen, Samuel Judah. R. Yissachar Hoffman called my attention to She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Zvi, no. 15, where R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen is (mistakenly?) referred to as מהר”י מפאדואה. See also R. Aryeh Yehudah Leib Lifshitz, Avot Atarah le-Vanim (Warsaw, 1927), p. 48 n. 44
[23] When I was in high school in the early 1980s, in the New Jersey-New York yeshiva league only the girls of Bruriah wore sweat pants during basketball games (and the boys were not allowed to attend home games). At the other high schools the girls wore shorts. Today, the league requires all girls to wear sweat pants (i.e., not even long shorts). For a wonderful discussion of the yeshiva basketball league, see Jeffrey S. Gurock, Judaism’s Encounter with American Sports (Bloomington, 2005), ch. 7. Gurock discusses how for six years in the early 1950s, Yeshiva Chaim Berlin was part of the basketball league together with the Modern Orthodox co-ed high schools, something that could never happen today. During this time co-ed schools had cheerleaders, and this was a major factor in forcing Chaim Berlin to leave the league. (Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem was also in the league for two years.) When I mention cheerleaders, don’t think of current NFL cheerleader outfits. Here, for example, is how the Brooklyn Central girls looked (from Gurock, p. 143).
Yet Gurock, ibid., points out that “as the 1950s progressed, the Brooklyn Central cheerleaders’ skirts also got shorter and shorter.” (Speaking of short skirts, anyone who has looked at Modern Orthodox yeshiva high school yearbooks from the early 1970s will see that the mini-skirt craze was also tolerated at these institutions.)


R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and the Army, and Joe DiMaggio

|
R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and the Army, and Joe DiMaggio
by Marc B. Shapiro

1. There is a lot of talk these days about haredim serving in the army. Understandably, the famous essay of R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin has been cited. In this essay, R. Zevin rejects the notion that yeshiva students shouldn’t have to serve.[1] The essay used to be found at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/32904 but it was removed, together with other “problematic” books. (You can see evidence of it having been on hebrewbooks by this archive.org snapshot of the page.)
Here is the essay in its entirety.[2]

 

You can find an English translation here.
In my series of classes on R. Zevin at Torah in Motion, I discussed this essay and stated that while the sentiments expressed in it are wonderful, I am aware of no evidence that R. Zevin actually wrote it. People say he wrote it but that is not evidence. I also stated that it is not even accurate to say that everyone assumes he wrote it, since his family denies his authorship. That, at least, was the impression I was under.
David Eisen participated in the classes (which were from 4-5am Israel time!), and after hearing what I said decided to pursue the issue further. I am grateful for his research. Here is the first email he sent to me on the topic.

I surfed the web a bit and came across the following website created by Hanan Zevin, R. Zevin’s great-grandson dedicated to R. Zevin and that includes many of his writings: http://ezevin.com/. As the site made no reference to the article from 1948, I contacted Hanan via the e-mail address on the site (see attached).
I just received a phone call from Hanan’s father, [R.?] Yaakov Zevin, who told me that Hanan had forwarded my e-mail to him to respond to me. I subsequently saw that Yaakov also has a website with his own hiddushim on parashat hashavua and the holidays (http://jzevin.com – the cell phone on the website is the same number that called me; interestingly, Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim are included in the list of holidays and the divrei Torah are quite cynical). He called to tell me that he did not wish to respond in writing as this indeed is a very sensitive matter to the extended family, yet he felt a need to not simply ignore my e-mail. In short, he would not outright confirm that his grandfather indeed wrote the article and repeatedly told me that “if ‘ahad harabbanim’ decided not to disclose his name, he must have had very good reason to do so, yet the authorship of the article is apparent to anyone who is sensitive to the ‘signon’ of the writing in the article.” In other words, he led me to believe that R. Zevin indeed wrote the article but wished to state that “whoever” wrote it had very good reason to have written it anonymously.
I proceeded to ask him if indeed his grandfather ever addressed the question of the article’s authorship, yet he evaded that question. I also told him that the catalog of the Israel National Library attributes his grandfather as the author (see here) and he simply said that indeed this is what is widely accepted but the family does not confirm this. I told him that I heard that his brother, R. Nahum, denies that his grandfather wrote the article, yet he wished to say that he simply does not confirm that their grandfather wrote the piece. I mentioned the Hapardes article that R. Zevin wrote in 1973 (attached is the journal) where he sharply attacked the Mafdal party for supporting the draft of yeshiva students as if to ask if this contradicted the 1948 article, and he simply responded by saying that his grandfather’s views were relevant for each context in which they were made. Personally, I do not see a contradiction either as the war of 1948 was indeed an existential battle for Israel’s survival and its extremely limited and untrained military as opposed to the radically improved situation that existed 25 years later, post-67.
I suggested that Eisen call R. Nahum Zevin, the grandson of R. Shlomo Yosef, and here is the lengthy email he sent me. It is an important document and deserves to be placed in the public sphere.
I just had a lengthy call with R. Nahum Zevin; though we never spoke with one another before, I was very pleased with his accessibility and willingness to speak to a complete stranger on the phone (he answered the phone himself), and above all, I was most impressed by his honesty and candor, which he seems to have inherited from his grandfather.
He wished to clarify that neither he nor anyone else in his family denies that his grandfather wrote the 1948 pamphlet לשאלת הגיוס של בני הישיבות; I did not mention your name, but simply told him that it recently became known to me that the family denies the attribution to him and that this flies in the face of what I grew up upon as a product of Religious Zionist yeshivot and my great admiration for R. Zevin’s writings. He simply said that the family had absolutely no indication that he wrote the pamphlet and proceeded to present the following facts:
1. Of all the grandchildren, he was the closest with R. Zevin, and he went through all of his grandfather’s writings and had a major role in publishing R. Zevin’s posthumous works. He says that he meticulously went through his grandfather’s study and never found a copy or any draft of this pamphlet among the many manuscripts he found in the house.
2. The attribution of this pamphlet to his grandfather was made only years after his grandfather’s petira in 1978. The first time he had heard about this attribution was during the early 1980s from R. Menahem Hacohen when he was still an MK in the Labor party. As such, no one in the family had the opportunity to discuss it with his grandfather. He said that if anyone would have known about his grandfather’s authorship of the article it would have been his father, R. Shlomo Zevin’s only son, yet he told him that he also first heard about this attribution only after his father passed away.
3. He referred to the article entitled אל תגעו במשיחי that was published in 1973 on the heels of the Mafdal’s decision to support drafting yeshiva students. I told him that I am very familiar with that article published in the Iyar 5733 (47:8) edition of Hapardes[3] he told me that he just happened to have a copy of that article on his desk as we spoke yet was unaware of its publication in Hapardes as it was first published on the 12 Adar 5733 edition of Hatzofe and that he (R. Nahum) was the one who personally delivered the text of the article to the editorial staff of Hatzofe. He said that this article created a veritable earthquake in the Dati Leumi camp, and R. Zevin was greatly attacked on the pages of Hatzofe and other related media over the proceeding weeks and months, yet despite the voluminous criticism no one mentioned the pamphlet as if to show that R. Zevin had radically changed his views. I responded that I, too, had the very same question yet nonetheless did not see these two articles as contradicting one another given the existential threat facing the nascent State of Israel as sharply opposed to the hubris-filled post-6 Day War era and preceding the sobering aftermath of the Yom Kippur War that took place half a year later. He agreed with the distinction, yet [to my mind, correctly] noted that had it been known that R. Zevin wrote the 1948 pamphlet it is impossible to think that this connection would not have been made by the numerous pundits.
Apropos the article that originally appeared in Hatzofe and R. Menahem Hacohen’s assertion that his grandfather wrote the pamphlet, R. Nahum told me that there was a good deal of criticism against his grandfather’s article against drafting yeshiva students in the Dati Leumi magazine Panim el Panim. R. Nahum said that he contacted R. Menahem Hacohen after he attributed the pamphlet to his grandfather and reiterated the point that none of the critiques in Panim el Panim mentioned the apparent about-face from 1948, and noted that the editors of Panim el Panim were none other than his brothers, R. Shmuel Avidor Hacohen and R. Pinhas Peli. That said, I probably misunderstood the reference R. Nahum made to Panim el Panim as according to Wikipedia, the magazine was discontinued in 1970, three years before the publication of R. Zevin’s article against drafting yeshiva students.[4]
4. Beyond all of the above points, R. Nahum said that what makes the attribution puzzling is the fact that his grandfather was never reserved about his beliefs, and that it makes no sense to him that he would have published that pamphlet anonymously. After all, his highly positive views on the State of Israel and annual celebrations of Yom HaAtzmaut were well known. He told me that he was so closely linked with the Mizrahi party that he remembers up to the 60’s that R. Zevin would affix his signature along with R. Meshulam Roth and R. Zvi Yehuda Kook on endorsements prior to elections to vote for the Mafdal party (and its Mizrahi and Hapoel Hamizrahi precursors). He also mentioned the parenthetical phrase of “ואשרנו שזכינו לכך” in Moadim B’Halakha with respect to the establishment of the State of Israel and the suggestion that one is no longer required to perform qeriah on Arei Yehuda, and that when it was removed from the English translation (and perhaps a subsequent Hebrew edition).[5] This was used to claim that he no longer held these positive feelings towards the Medina, but R. Nahum utterly rejected this assertion as wholly false and that he never changed his views in this regard.
5. That said, and similar to what his brother Yaakov told me, he said that one cannot avoid comparing the writing style of the pamphlet with R. Zevin’s unique and eclectic writing style; moreover, he said the substance and analysis of the Torah reasoning in the pamphlet is indeed very similar to his grandfather’s Torah writings and very good Torah indeed. R. Nahum clearly has no agenda and was completely honest in saying that this could very well have been written by his grandfather though there is no proof to this effect, and he acknowledged that לא ראינו אינו ראיה so the fact that the family has not found the existence of any manuscripts showing that he wrote the kuntres certainly does not constitute cogent evidence that he did not write it. 
I must agree that if indeed no attribution to R. Zevin was made until after he passed away, then this is a major hurdle to address, and while I appreciate his cautious approach in refusing to conclude one way or the other, it seemed to me a bit naive on R. Nahum’s part to think that it was implausible for him to have written this piece anonymously; I remind you of what his brother, Yaakov Zevin, told me that there is no doubt as to the similar writing styles and that if the author felt a need to write it under the pen name of “אחד הרבנים” he must have had very good reason to do so (shiddukhim, etc.?).
As R. Nahum claims that he first heard the attribution from R. Menahem Hacohen who is alive and well, I guess the next step in delving deeper into this investigation would be to contact R. Hacohen himself. What do you think? If I had the time, which I certainly do not, then I would think that it would make sense to find the first time the pamphlet became attributed to R. Zevin in Israeli newspapers and other writings and track down the paper trail.
Some time later I received the following email from Eisen, which only thickened the plot.
I just came back from the Bat Mitzva party of Naama Rosenbaum, Prof. Zvi Yehuda’s granddaughter, whose daughter, Talli, is a very good friend in my Bet Shemesh neighborhood (unfortunately her father was unable to make the trip to Israel from Florida due to an extended illness). The paternal grandfather of the bat mitzvah girl is Irving Rosenbaum Z”L, the founder of Davka Software and who was very friendly with R. Menahem Hacohen, who attended the party this evening. I seized the opportunity to ask him about the attribution of the 1948 essay to R. Zevin. I actually began the conversation by asking him if he is familiar with you, and his eyes lit up and he said, “Yes, he e-mailed me twice in the past few years… though I forget what it was he contacted me about.” When I then mentioned that R. Nahum Zevin claims that R. Hacohen is the one who attributed the essay to his father only after R. Shlomo Zevin passed away, he then confirmed that it was precisely on this issue that you had approached him.
He quickly got to the heart of the matter and said that he had held in his hands an original copy of the essay and said that there was no question that R. Zevin was the author, though he said that he has misplaced the copy and had no proof to substantiate his assertion. He did say that R. Nahum is incorrect in saying that the attribution to his grandfather was made only after his grandfather passed away and that he had already seen the letter in the early 70’s when he was working alongside R. Goren; and that he believes that R. Zevin himself was asked to confirm that he indeed wrote the letter. In R. Hacohen’s words, R. Zevin neither denied nor confirmed that he wrote the letter inasmuch as R. Nahum essentially says the same thing, yet R. Hacohen added that R. Nahum at the time had (as he still has today) an agenda to disassociate himself from the position taken in the 1948 essay as he is well ensconced in the haredi rabbinate. That said, I told him that R. Nahum’s “proof” by omission that in all the criticism levied against his grandfather’s “Al Tig’u BiM’shihai” by religious Zionists, the fact, as he claims, that no one had noted the seemingly about-face that he had made from the essay he supposedly penned 25 years earlier, was pretty compelling to me. He responded by reiterating that R. Nahum’s allegiances render him unable to confirm what R. Hacohen maintains is the simple truth and that he unfortunately does not have any documented proof regarding R. Zevin’s authorship. He also rebuffed the claim that R. Nahum knows everything that his grandfather had written and preferred Yaakov Zevin’s nebulous formulation that the person who wrote that essay must have had good reason to have done so anonymously. With that, we parted.
So, it seems to me that in order to forge ahead on this issue, it remains vital to read the reactions to the Panim el Panim article along with those generated from R. Hacohen’s assertion made when he was a Labor MK.
Here is Eisen’s fourth email to me, which I believe also raises questions about the attribution of the essay to R. Zevin. At the very least, it discounts the notion that this attribution was widely known, which raises the problem as to when and why people started attributing the essay to R. Zevin.
I have additional information that I have been meaning to write to you after spending a number of hours at the National Library going through the 1972-1973 issues of Panim el Panim and the lengthy articles that appeared in the secular (Yediot, Maariv, Haaretz and Davar) and religious newspapers (Hatzofe, Yated and Hamodia) during the 30 month period following his [R. Zevin’s] passing between February to March 1978. In short, I found NO reference to this article in any of the many articles in which his position against drafting the haredi yeshiva students was discussed following his fiery speech delivered before the members of the Chief Rabbinate Council on the heels of the Mafdal’s support of legislation to draft yeshiva students. . . . I then spoke with one of the chief librarians at the National Library asking what is the basis for its attribution of this article to R. Zevin and when was it made. He made an inquiry and said that the attribution indeed was made many years ago (he believe it goes back to the 60’s though he had no documentation to substantiate this).
In his fifth email, Eisen wrote as follows:
            On the R. Zevin authorship controversy, I had some meaningful conversations on Friday with Prof. [David] Henschke, who put me in touch with his hevruta at Yeshivat Hakotel, R. Yossi Leichter, who is a senior librarian at the National Library, who in turn put me in touch with R. Yitzhak Yudlow, the now retired head of מפעל הביבליוגרפיה הלאומית that was likely the body that attributed the article back in the 60’s to R. Zevin, and he put me in touch with R. Nahum Neria who said he is quite certain that his father [R. Moshe Zvi Neria] told him that R. Zevin indeed was the author and that he would look through his papers and asked that I follow up with him this week. R. Neria also suggested that I contact R. Shear Yashuv Cohen, which I intend to do tomorrow. In short, none of them had any solid information. David Henschke looked into the matter out of curiosity many years ago and concluded that the attribution made by the National Library was made years before R. Zevin passed away and reliable. . . . It seems that that the first time the article was reprinted with the R. Zevin attribution was back in 1980 in a thin booklet of articles compiled by Dr. Yehezkel Cohen, the founder of נאמני תורה ועבודה. Unfortunately, he passed away this past Sukkot, and as someone who devoted a great deal of research on the topic of military exemptions for yeshiva students and actively worked to stem this tide, he is someone who would have been a vital source. I may call his wife for any leads, especially since he was attacked by R. Mordechai Neugorschel in his polemic haredi work entitled “למה הם שונים” for making this attribution when he claims that there was no way that R. Zevin could have written the article given his impassioned speech delivered in 1973 and the fact that no one noted the change in his position from 1948 as noted by R. Nahum Zevin. When Tradition translated the article into English in 1985, they credited נאמני תורה ועבודה as being the original source for attributing the article to R. Zevin in 1980, see here. Truth be told, when Yehezkel Cohen reprinted the 1948 article, he made a point to also include a photocopy of the National Library’s catalog entry as if to show that he was preceded by the National Library in making this attribution.
Here is Eisen’s final email to me on the topic.:

           I just got off the phone with Eliyahu Zevin, 60, the youngest brother of Yaakov and R. Nachum (their father, Aharon, had 3 sons and he passed away in 2006; R. Zevin also had 1 daughter, Shoshana, but I have not been able to track down her family), who is an attorney in Tel Aviv. I believe he is religous-Zionist. He told me that he is certain that his grandfather was not the author of the 1948 article, again, based on his clearly-stated position in 1973, though, he then greed with me that 1948 was an entirely separate matter relating to an existential threat upon the state and the thrust of the article relates only to sugyot of pikuah nefesh and whether or not talmidei hakhamim require protection, without addressing the separate question of whether or not full time yeshiva students should receive an exemption of a military draft. He had no idea what was the source of the attribution to his grandfather and simply said that the similar “signon” of the writing is likely what caused this attribution to be made. I did not discuss with him the fact that I spoke with his other 2 brothers and specifically did not tell him that his oldest brother, Yaakov, led me to believe that his grandfather indeed wrote the article yet had “good reasons” to publish it anonymously.

Regarding the essay and its attribution to R. Zevin, R. Chaim Rapoport has commented to me that since the essay has two references to Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav, this too would seem to point to R. Zevin’s authorship. There is little doubt that in this sort of essay only a Habad author would refer to Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav.

In his research, Eisen discovered this interesting interview with R. Zevin and his son and grandsons that appeared in Maariv, July 31, 1970. 

  

I thought that I found proof for R. Zevin’s authorship in the Torah journal Yagdil Torah, the last Torah journal  published in the Soviet Union. The first issue of this journal appeared in 1927 edited by R. Yehezkel Abramsky. The second and last issue appeared in 1928 edited by R. Zevin. In the table of contents there are some contributions by אחד הרבנים. Could this be proof that R. Zevin used this pseudonym already in the 1920s? It turns out, however, that אחד הרבנים in this issue of Yagdil Torah is actually R. Abramsky, and this information has been inserted in the reprint of the journal that is found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.

 

Surprisingly, however, the person who inserted this information apparently did not know what to make of the pseudonym ב”מ-ו עזפמט. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that in atbash this equals ש”י-ף זעוין. See Aharon Sorasky, Melekh be-Yafyo ((Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 188-189. See also ibid., p. 241 n. 12, for another time when R. Abramsky signed an article אחד הרבנים.


Finally, here is something very nice put together by Yisrael Kashkin. Most of the great rabbis included were what we can call card-carrying Religious Zionists, and the remaining few were positively inclined to the movement. Not surprisingly, R. Zevin’s picture is found here. Kashkin informs me that anyone interested can order framed 8.5 x 14″ and laminated 8.5 x 14″ copies. The former are meant for a wall and the latter for a Succah. He can prepare and ship the frames for $25 and the laminated for $10. You can contact him at yisrael@email.com. I recommend that every Modern Orthodox school order an enlarged copy in order to hang it in the hallway.
2. Many people wanted to hear more from R. Mordechai Elefant, late Rosh Yeshiva of the ITRI yeshiva, but first, here is his picture.

And now, R. Elefant speaks:
I called Sholom Spitz in Queens the other day. I gave him the phone number of Joe DiMaggio’s secretary, Nick Nicolozzi, and I asked him to wish Joe DiMaggio well from me. Five minutes later he called me back to say that they announced on the radio that he died.
Joe and I were very good friends. I met him through a man from Miami named Kovins, a wealthy man, big in the construction business. He met DiMaggio through Nicolozzi, who had worked in a Sheraton hotel he owned in New Jersey. To make a long story short, I became a partner in the Sheraton. It was a 520-room hotel. Joe, Kovins, and I each had a third. I didn’t buy it. I had made a deal and got it as an agent’s fee. There were halachic problems involved concerning the operation of the hotel on Shabbos, so I wanted to unload it, and I talked Joe into it.
Joe DiMaggio had a suite on the fifth floor of that hotel called ”The Joe DiMaggio Suite.” Rav Zelig Epstein, one of the great Talmudists of our day, came to see me when I happened to be staying on the fifth floor of that hotel. We’re walking along the corridor when out steps Joe. So I introduced Rav Zelig Epstein to Joe DiMaggio. He knew who DiMaggio was. He’s a very intelligent man.
Two years ago when I was sick in bed I got a letter from Joe. There was a picture of him in the paper with a big yarmulke. He sent the accompanying article. Mel Allen died, so he went to the memorial service in the synagogue. Joe writes me, “I did it for you, Rabbi.” He wore the yarmulke just for me.
Joe was from the old days. He was born in America, but had a European sensibility. He never went to school but he had style and he was smart. He wasn’t good looking, but he had great charm. He gave me an autographed copy of his autobiography. He hated the Kennedys. He claimed they killed Marilyn Monroe. It wasn’t a normal husband and wife relationship between them. He was like Marilyn’s patriarch.
They didn’t make big money in baseball in his day, but he would do a lot of advertisements. Joe loved a dime because it wasn’t a nickel. He’s from a place called Hackensack [not true – MS] and he came up the hard way.
I saw the respect people would give. It was like they give Rav Shach (one of the most esteemed rabbis in Israel). I said to him, “You’re nothing but a little wop. I’m the chief rabbi of Bethlehem. They don’t give me the kind of respect you get. And they pay you fifteen or twenty thousand dollars just to come to a party.” It was said in a spirit of good humor. Joe wasn’t offended. He said,  “One day I’ll explain it to you.”
Once I was at the hotel in New Jersey, and he said to me, “Rabbi, I have to go to the Super Bowl. Come along.” I didn’t know what Super Bowl meant at the time. Naturally, I paid for his ticket. He loved that. He took me into a fancy hotel on Wilshire Boulevard, into a big ballroom. All the chairmen of the big companies were there. Carl Icahn was there. They had come in for the Super Bowl. Joe was paid to just be there. He walks in, and they all stand up for him, just like for Rav Shach. I can’t imagine what went through their minds when they saw me together with Joe. He said to me, “You see, I’m not just a little wop.”
One Sunday morning he comes into my hotel room – it’s right across from his – and says, “Rabbi, turn on the TV at 2:00 today.” I asked him what’s going to be on. He says, “You’ll see.” He went to Washington on the shuttle. He was invited to meet Gorbachev by President Reagan. Reagan had been a baseball announcer and he was a great fan of DiMaggio’s. Reagan asked him to sign a ball for Gorbachev. Joe tells him, “No problem, Mr. President, but let’s make that three baseballs, one for each of us, and all three of us will sign them.” This is all on TV.
He comes back at night and shows me the ball. I said, “Joe, give it to me.” He said, “Are you crazy, You know what that’s worth?” He did give me ten balls with his autograph. I gave them to children of friends. They would go wild over them.
When Joe was on that trip to Washington, he was on the White House lawn. Everybody gathered around Joe and left Reagan standing alone. I saw it on television. But Joe was so smart. He stepped back and stood next to Reagan. He didn’t want to show that he’s above Reagan. He was humble.
I would sit with him in the lobby of a hotel and people would stand in line to get his autograph. He was really an aristocrat. He was a pleasure to be with.

3. In case anyone is interested, for some reason Amazon is now selling my book Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy for the low price of $16.63. This is a 33% discount.. 
           
Notes
       
[1] I don’t want to go into the matter in too much detail in this post, but I think there has been a lot of confusion in recent months regarding the issue. While the current controversy is often portrayed as the haredim insisting that yeshiva students not be required to serve in the army, my sense is that this is a distortion. It appears to me that the mainstream haredi position in Israel is that no haredi should have to serve, even if he is not in yeshiva and even if his service would be in a haredi unit. In this mindset (which appears to be slowly changing), the rest of the population’s primary purpose is to monetarily support and protect (and if necessary die for) haredi society, while haredi society has no reciprocal obligations and for those in yeshivot not even any financial obligation to support their own children, as this obligation falls upon the population at large which provides the money for welfare payments. (The existence of haredi hesed organizations that also assist non-haredim does not affect my assumption, as I am speaking here about obligations.)

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote (Collected Writings, vol. 7, p. 270): “Judaism believes that a truly viable state cannot be founded solely on collective power or individual need; it must be based on a sense of duty shared by all and on a universal respect for human rights.” (emphasis added) As for the obligation of fathers to support their children, the Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 71:1 writes:
חייב אדם לזון בניו ובנותיו עד שיהיו בני שש אפילו יש להם נכסים שנפלו להם מבית אבי אמם ומשם ואילך זנן בתקנת חכמים עד שיגדלו
Seeing the terrible mess Israeli haredi society has created for itself, in which the leadership purposely keep the masses poor and unskilled in the name of ideological conformity (of course, the Knesset members pushing this agenda make a very nice salary, and see this unbelievably sad story about the forced shut-down of a part-time kollel for those who were also working), I thought of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s words in a letter he wrote in 1849 while he was rabbi in Nikolsburg (see Ha-Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch: Mishnato ve-Shitato [Jerusalem, 1962], p. 337). What he says is neither complicated nor profound, but its value is that it reminds people of what happens when you ignore and even reject the clear teaching of our Sages, who always assumed that not everyone is suited for only Torah study:
ואם שבר בת ציון תעלה על לבך, וראית כי אחת היא מחלתינו ובאחת תעלה ארוכתינו, היא עזיבתנו תורת חכז”ל הצוחת ועומדת מימי קדם: יפה תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ ואם אין תורה אין דרך ארץ, ואם אין דרך ארץ אין תורה, ומאז מאסנו לשמוע דברי חכז”ל האלה באמת דרך ארץ שלנו חסר יראת ה’, ואנשי התורה יכשלו רגליהם במעגלי דרך הארץ. והנה רק יגיעת שניהם משכחת עון ויבור רוח הטומאה מבינינו, ופרידתם השכיחה שניהם הדרך ארץ והתורה מבני דורנו
See also my post here where I quoted R. Aharon Leib Steinman’s advocacy, and idealization, of haredi poverty (which by definition means that the welfare state [which in some ways is even worse than the nanny state] will have to provide financial support, which in turn means higher taxes for what is nothing less than enforced charity on behalf of able-bodied people).
In the future, I think people will look back and realize what terrible mistakes the haredi leadership made. Just a few years ago it was obvious that changes were needed and rather than take the bull by the horns and institute these changes and thereby control the direction, the leadership did nothing, meaning that when changes came it was the non-haredim who were in charge. Haredi Judaism, like its pre-haredi predecessors, is completely reactive, never proactive and thinking ahead. It was this trait that led Isaac Breuer to become so disillusioned with Agudat Israel, as he describes in his autobiography. It was also this lack of proactivity that in the early nineteenth century let Reform grow in Germany and in later years allowed secularism to grow in Eastern Europe. Just think about how many young women left traditional Judaism before Beis Yaakov was established, and then consider how many could have been saved if instead of creating Beis Yaakov as a reaction to the widespread defections, it had actually been created thirty years prior by people thinking ahead and acting proactively (traits that while found among German rabbis and R. Israel Salanter, are very hard to find in a traditional conservative society).
My own opinion is that the haredi community has no one to blame but itself for the situation it is in. Much of the ill-will could have been avoided by taking appropriate steps years ago. For example, the haredi community in Israel is the recipient of an enormous amount of what in the U.S. we call “entitlements” (a crazy term if there ever was one). Yet they have never shown any appreciation for this. They are protected by the Israeli army, and yet they refuse to express any thanks for this or say a prayer for the soldiers. Think how public opinion would have been different if the haredim in Israel had acted like American haredim. Just think how people in Israel would view the haredi community if, when the rockets started falling in certain places, instead of yeshivot leaving, young men came to these cities precisely in order to learn Torah. Imagine how people would have reacted if great yeshivot devoted days of Torah study specifically in the merit of the soldiers, or if yeshiva students en masse attended funerals of soldiers, or visited wounded soldiers in the hospital, or paid shiva calls to grieving families to let them know how much they value the sacrifice of those in uniform. Just think how much better the haredi situation would be at present if in past years the haredi community as a whole had simply shown that it cared about what was going on in the rest of the country. One would have thought that this approach would have been followed if only from a purely utilitarian perspective, but again, as Isaac Breuer pointed out, being proactive in meeting challenges has never been a strong point of this community.
A number of years ago I asked someone in Merkaz ha-Rav how his yeshiva differed from the haredi yeshivot, since in both yeshivot one could find people learning instead of going to the army. He replied that there is a great difference since in Merkaz those learning are doing so for the sake of the nation, while in the haredi yeshivot those learning are doing so for themselves. I can’t say how true this statement is, but I mention it to show the sentiment that existed even twenty years ago.

Since I mention Merkaz, let me also note two little known facts that would be unimaginable today. For a long time there was a special shiur given by R. Zvi Yehudah Kook in his home for students and graduates of the Chevron yeshiva. Also, for one winter “zeman” R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach gave a shiur for students of the highest class at Kol Torah together with students of Merkaz (and it was the Merkaz students who took the initiative in organizing the shiur). See R. Yitzhak Sheilat, “Mi-Seridei Dor ha-Nefilim” in Itamar Warhaftig, ed., Afikei Yehudah (Jerusalem, 2005), p. 18.

Two more points about haredim and the army: (1) There have been some incidents of violence directed against haredi soldiers from extremist haredim. This is not unexpected and one can expect more of this in the future, and it also has historical precdent. See e.g., Degel Mahaneh Ephraim (Elitzur Memorial Volume; Bnei Brak [2012]), p. 304, regarding how a group of Ponovezh students beat up one of their co-students who joined the Irgun. This led to the beaten student entirely abandoning religious life. (2) I might have missed it, but in all the haredi attacks on efforts to draft haredim, I haven’t seen anyone cite Nedarim 32a which states that Abraham was punished and his descendants doomed to Egyptian slavery “because he pressed scholars into his service, as it is written, He armed his dedicated servants born in his own house (Gen. 14:14).”

Regarding the haredi stress on Torah study above all else (and certainly army service) a reader called my attention to R. Hayyim Kanievsky, Derekh Sihah, vol. 2, p. 300, who explains why at a circumcision we speak of raising a boy  to “Torah, huppah, and ma’asim tovim.” Shouldn’t “ma’asim tovim” come before “huppah“? R. Kanievsky explains that before marriage the young man should only be focused on Torah, nothingelse. Ma’asim tovim, i.e., hesed, can come after marriage, but should not interfere with a young man’s intensive Torah study..  

[2] In the original publication, the author was identified as אחד הרבנים. Saul Chajes, Otzar Beduyei ha-Shem (Vienna, 1933), p. 20, identifies this pseudonym as belonging to R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and refers to its use in Yagdil Torah, the journal published by R. Meltzer and R. Moses Benjamin Tomashoff. Chajes does not offer any source for this identification. If correct, it would be tempting to see R. Meltzer as the author of the essay we are discussing. He was part of the circle of R. Kook, and later R. Herzog, and his positive attitude towards Zionism is well known.
With regard to R. Herzog, there is a good deal that could be cited about their close relationship. R. Meltzer’s admiration of R. Herzog entered the halakhic realm as well. See e.g., his 1939 responsum in R. Hananyah Gavriel, Minhat ha-Hag, vol. 1, Even ha-Ezer no. 8, where R. Meltzer makes his ruling dependant on the concurrence of R. Zvi Pesah Frank and ידידי הגאון הגדול מוה’ יצחק אייזיק הלוי הרצוג שליט”א הרב הראשי לאה”ק
Nevertheless, any identification of R. Meltzer as the author of the essay attributed to R. Zevin would be incorrect for the simple reason that Chajes was mistaken in stating that אחד הרבנים was R. Meltzer. In Yagdil Torah 9 (1917), p. 136, R. Tomashoff reveals that אחד הרבנים was R. Isaac Jacob Rabinowitz of Ponovezh.
Let me make a few more comments on R. Meltzer: According to an unpublished collection of Brisker stories in my possession, R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski opposed R. Meltzer’s selection to the Agudah Moetzet Gedolei ha-Torah since אינו תוקף בדעת, פעם אומר כך ופעם כך
Moshe Tzinovitz, “Gadlut ve-Amkut,” in Pinkas Kletzk (Tel Aviv, 1959), p. 46, claims that R. Meltzer was a member of Nes Tziyonah, the secret Hovevei Tziyon society in the Volozhin yeshiva. Tzinovitz was an expert on the Lithuanian yeshivot and presumably his information is accurate. However, I can find no reference to R. Meltzer in Yisrael Klausner, Toldot ha-Agudah Nes Tziyonah be-Volozhin (Jerusalem, 1954) or in Yedael Meltzer, Be-Derekh Etz ha-Hayyim (n.p., 2006)..
R. Meltzer’s outlook when it came to Zionism was obviously much different than that of his son-in-law, R. Aaron Kotler. In his memoir, Slutzk, Johannesburg, Jerusalem (Pittsburgh, n.d.), Moshe Chigier writes (pp. 41, 42):

I began to think about Palestine. My imagination played strongly and emphatically upon my mind, so that at last I decided to try. I went to Rabbi Meltzer and told him that I would like to go to Palestine with him. At first he hardly realized what I was driving at, but when I unfolded my plan that I would like to go to Rabbi Kook’s Yeshiva, he immediately agreed, possibly because he himself was zionistically inclined and he liked the plan. I immediately wrote  a letter to Rabi Kook to which Rabbi Meltzer added a few words of praise about me. . . . 

When it became known that I intended to go to Palestine, Rabbi Kottler [!] became furious. He called me and strongly scolded me for my venture. When he saw that I was adamant, he reminded me of my first act of disobedience and rebellion. He simply told me that I had no place in his Yeshiva anymore. This was a hard blow to me. Where could I go? How could I find food to eat? But the Almighty had not forsaken me. When Rabbi Meltzer heard of this situation, he offered me to come to stay in his house until I could go to Eretz Israel. . . . Now that I was provided with board and lodgings, I could manage without the allowance which Rabbi Kottler had withheld from me, and I could continue planning on how to get to Israel.  

(I thank David Eisen for providing me with a copy of the memoir.)
[3] Here is the article.

  

The letter of R. Moshe Feinstein on the first page is directed against R. Emanuel Rackman. He was also the subject of the following attack which appeared in the Nisan 5733 issue of Ha-Pardes.

 

[4] This is incorrect. Contrary to what it says in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Panim el Panim was still published in 1973 (it stopped sometime that year) See the JNUL catalog (MS)

[5] I am unaware of any removal of this phrase from a Hebrew edition. I will deal with the Artscroll censorship of R. Zevin in my next post (MS).


Simchas Torah and its Customs Including an Appendix from: R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round

|

Simchas Torah and its customs
Including an Appendix From R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l
Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round

By Eliezer Brodt

At the end of the Yom Tov of Succos there is a special Yom Tov called Simchas Torah. While in Eretz Yisroel it’s celebrated on the eighth day of Succos, Shmini Atzeret; in Chutz L’Aretz it’s celebrated the day after Shmini Atzeret. Simchas Torah is a day of great Simcha and like all of our Yom Tovim is replete with its own unique customs. This article is in no way an attempt to cover all of the many aspects of this Yom Tov, but rather to touch upon some of its rich minhaghim, an intellectual smorgasbord of sorts.[1]

The Name of the Chag

The Tur and other Rishonim write that the reason behind the name Simchas Torah is that on this day we complete our weekly reading of the Torah and as such it is proper to be BeSimcha. The Tur also points out that the custom is to begin reading Parshos Bereishis on this day to prevent the Satan from denigrating the Jewish people.

The Hagahos Haminhagim on R’ Issac Tirnah’s Sefer Minhagim expands this point thusly: the Satan berates the Jews before Hashem with the claim that they study Torah but never complete it, and even when they finish the Torah, they do not begin their study anew.[2] Therefore, the minhag is to begin the Torah anew immediately upon its completion in order to preemptively silence the Satan from offering any critique.

The Tur continues by noting that in some communities many Piyutim are said, some of them having the custom to take out all of the Sifrei Torah from the Aron Kodesh while doing so. Other communities make a big Seudah to celebrate the Simcha of completing and starting the Torah anew.[3] From other Rishonim it appears that those responsible for the Seudah are the Choson Torah and Chosson Bereishis.[4]

The Rama adds to above explanation of the Simcha on Simchas Torah as a celebration of completing reading the Torah by correlating the minhag to circle the Bima with the Sifrei Torah to that with the Daled Minim on the earlier days of Succos.[5]

However, in a late-antiquity work called Chilukim Bein Bnei Bavel L’bein Bnei Eretz Yisroel we find that while Bnei Bavel celebrated Simchas Torah every year, the custom in Eretz Yisroel was to finish the Torah once every three and a half years (or so), and only then did they celebrate ‘Simchas Torah’.[6] This custom is mentioned by the Rambam who notes that most communities finished once a year but some had a custom to do so only once every three and a half years. The famous traveler, R’ Binyomin of Tudela, mentions[7] seeing these two customs still in practice in Egypt in the 1160’s-1170’s, as does R’ Avraham ben HaRambam a few years later.[8] [I deal with this last aspect in my Presentation on All Daf Here.]

Additional insight into this special day can be found in the Netziv who writes:

ובהעמק שאלה סוף סימן קע”א הראינו לדעת דסיום התורה הוא גם כן יום שמחה לישראל, ובסימן קמ”ו אות ה’ הכרחנו משיטת רבותינו התוספות, דזה שאומרים הלל ומברכים ביום שמחת תורה, אינו משום ספיקא דיומא של שמיני עצרת, אלא משום שמחת גמרה של תורה, והיינו משום דזהו כעין חנוכת בית המקדש. ונראה דמשום הכי משונה קריאת התורה דזה היום מדיני קריאת התורה בכל השנה, והיינו משום דהוא כמו יום חנוכת המזבח דמשונה הבאת הקרבנות מדיני הקרבנות בכל השנה, כמו שכתבתי לעיל ז’ י’ עיין שם, כן היום ביום סיום התורה משונה מנהגיה מכל השנה. ובאמת הוא זה בעת שאנחנו בגלות והשגחת ה’ עלינו על ידי ד’ אמות של הלכה הוא דבר אחד עם חנוכת המזבח בזמן שישראל בארץ ישראל ובית המקדש קיים, שהשגחת ה’ עלינו ושכינתו היה תלוי בעבודת בית המקדש, שמשום הכי כתיב בכרובים שעשה שלמה ופניהם לבית, ללמדנו שגם עיני ה’ וגם עינינו תלויות על הבית כמש”כ בפרשת תרומה ובפרשת פקודי. כך בזמן הזה סיום התורה והתחלתה הוא שמחת לבבנו. דרך כלל אין שמחת ישראל כמו בזמן שאנחנו עושים סיבה להשכין את אלהי ישראל בקרבנו, כי הוא חיינו הרחב דבר, פרשת בהעלותך, י:י אות (ב) ]9

Simcha and Dancing

One of the ways to find data and get a glimpse of how Yom Tovim were celebrated in the past is through personal memoirs and autobiographical accounts.

Rabbi Elozor Reich described Simchas Torah in Eretz Yisroel in 1953, while he was learning there, thus:

On Simchas Torah in Yerushalayim, Chevron is the center of attraction and hundreds of people pack the beis hamedrash for hakafos and the actual dancing is a showpiece here. The queue of spectators waiting to get into the gallery stretches for a distance. So as to enable them to dance with energy the oilam makes kiddush and has a snack straight after maariv, and in the morning session the hakafos are also preceded by dinner! Even though the chevron performance was outstanding with special shticklech and minhagim I must say that the simchah in Yeshivas Hamasmidim with a heimishe oilam appealed to me more. Just before Yom Tov ends the yeshiva makes a rekkidah which is joined by hundred’s and watched by hundreds more in a square near the yeshiva called Kikar Shabbos. It is near to the entrance to the Meah Shearim area and has been the scene of many battles against chillul Shabbos.[10]

Further on R’ Reich describes[11] Simchas Torah in 1954:

“On Simchas Torah all, or nearly all, Yerushalayim comes to Chevron. The art of singing and dancing has been developed to a fine degree and it is one of the sights of the year. One of the specialties is “Se’u she’arim rasheichem” when the sifrei Torah are taken out. The is a block of about a hundred jumping up and clapping over their heads in front of the aron kodesh, whilst behind them are seim-circle and semi-circle charging backwards and forwards to the magnificent tune. The hakafos ended at 2 a.m. but singing continued until 3:30. You must be wondering when we ate – well, Kiddush was made before Maariv and dinner was served all through the night and the oilam went down in groups. To return to Simchas Torah. In the morning the seder was davening until after mussaf and then dinner followed by hakafos which carried on until four, when after mincha the ulam went out to the main crossroads and several hundred watched by many more, continued enthusiastic rekidos (if not without alcoholic support) until well after nightfall, when the crowd danced up to the Brisker Rav shlit”a and back. What a sight!

Rabbi Reich’s lengthy descriptions grant us a rare glimpse of the Yerushalayim Yeshivah world in the 1950’s.

Rav Chaim Stein, Rosh Yeshivah of Telz kept a diary throughout his travels during World War II. It chronicles his great mesiras nefesh for whatever mitzvos he was able to perform during that bleak period. The entry on Simchas Torah in his home town in 1940 relates Yom Tov was celebrated with great simcha despite the foreboding and funereal atmosphere.[12]

In an account about Mir Yeshivah before the war we find:

בשמחת תורה היה שמח משהו משהו! ר’ ירוחם היה נוהג לתת בשמחת תורה שיחה קצרה בין כל הקפה להקפה. הבחורים רקדו ורקדו זמן ממושך, ואז בתום כל הקפה היו נאספים ליד הבימה, ור’ ירוחם התיישב ודיבר כעשר דקות עד רבע שעה… [שמך לא שכחנו, א, עמ’ 190-191].

In a different account of pre-World War Two life, we find many very familiar details:

Simchat Torah begins, there were processions… the reins are almost completely released. We start with the verse “You have learned to know” and at times the right of distributing to prominent townsmen the honor of reciting the appropriate selections, verse by verse, was sold for the benefit of the synagogue.Sometimes this led to quarrels and to a diminution of the honor, since the person buying the right would privilege only his own relatives and friends, which the town considered to be spiteful. Eventually, selling the right to distribute these verses was abandoned in our town. Then the synagogue official or officials begin to distribute the honor of carrying the Torahs in procession: First the kohanim and Levites, then the town dignitaries, and after them the others. And woe to the official who does not follow the rules of precedence, especially with the procession during which the verse “Helper of the weak” is recited.The cantor leads those holding the Torah scrolls and the children follow them, holding flags. They circle the bimah, then stop before the ark to sing and dance, and the first circuit is completed. And we dare not stop until seven circuits around the synagogue are completed. After the processions, members of the congregation are honored by being called up for the reading of the Torah,… and then people disperse to their homes to eat and to rejoice in the spirit of the holiday.”[13]

A Galician author details the tremendous Simcha felt on Simchas Torah, relating how everyone would visit the Chasan Torah, Chasasn Bereishis and other important members of the city to take part in a kiddush… and how during the Hakafah of ‘Ozer Dalim’ the simcha felt was incredible; in the main shul people from all backgrounds dancing together…[14]

Why is Dancing Permitted?

An important Halachic question that needs to be addressed is, how is all aforementioned dancing etc. permitted if the Halachah rules[15] is one may not dance on Yom Tov?

The Rama, in his Darchei Moshe (OH 699), cites a Maharik who quotes the Geonim as having ruled to permit dancing on Simchas Torah since it is for the Kovod of the Torah.[16]

It is worth noting that the original German Minhag was not[17] to perform any sort of Hakofos with the Sifrei Torah[18] or dancing on Simchas Torah, neither by night or by day!

However, The Arizal and Gra did dance with great Simcha with Sifrei Torah.[19] As the Chayay Adam writes:

והגר”א היה מקיף שבע פעמים ואמר הנוסח שנדפס בסידורים ואחר כך אתה הוא אלהינו, והאדרת והאמונה כמו שנדפס במחזורים, והיה מקיף ומרקד לפני הספר תורה בכל כחו [כלל קנג]

R’ Nochumka of Hordona would also show tremendous simcha on Simchas Torah and even sang special niggunim.[20]

R’ Yaakov Ettlinger writes that one should not say that it’s not befitting my Kovod and Kovod Hatorah, to dance as this was exactly the sin of Michal, Shaul’s daughter.[21] Since the Mishna Berurah cites this ruling,[22] it is quite interesting to find in his son R’ Aryeh’s glowing biography of his father, the Chafetz Chaim, a description of the Chafetz Chaim’s display of intense Simcha during the Hakofos; encouraging all present to take an active part, he himself danced with the Sifrei Torah each Hakafah… he also wanted everyone to get a chance to dance with the Torah and avoid fights.[23]

In Rav Chaim Stein’s World War II diaries (quoted above) he describes how in 1941 he and his friends danced with great simchah; having no Sefer Torah, they danced instead with Chumashim.[24]

In a similar vein, it is reported that R’ Meir Shapiro of Lublin would dance with Gemaras printed by the Slavita publishing house.[25] R’ Aryeh Kagan, son of the Chafetz Chaim, recalls how in his youth the children would dance with the Megilot of Neviyim, but this lead to physical fights among the children at which point the Chafetz Chaim gave his son R’ Aryeh a copy of the Semag to dance with, explaining to him this is an important work that included both the written and oral Torah.[26]

Which brings us to point regarding children and Simchas Torah.

Children and Simchas Torah[27]

It hardly bears saying that this Yom Tov was extremely special for children all over, and they took an active part in the singing and dancing. Thus we find quoted in the account above “the cantor leads those holding the Torah scrolls and the children follow them, holding flags”.

In another account we find:

Every child carried a paper flag or banner on which were painted a lion and hare and the words: “Be swift as a hare and strong as a lion to carry out the commandments of the Torah.” On the flag was perched a large red apple and on top of the apple a lit candle. I still picture all the townspeople gathered in the Beis Medrash , the Torah Scrolls taken out of the Holy Ark, the seven Hakafot (processional circuits) around the synagogue, the men taking turns in carrying the Torah Scrolls and the singing and the dancing. We children joined the processions and heard the Yiddish expression “Derlebt iber ah-yohr” (may you have a good year and be privileged to celebrate again next year) repeated over and over again.[28]

This minhag is noted as early as the Orach Hashulchan.[29] In 1824 a parody called the Sefer Hakundas (trickster) printed in Vilna. Through this parody we get a very interesting glimpse into Jewish life in those days. When talking about Simchas Torah he mentions the big flags carried by ‘the trickster’.[30]

There is a special minhag in Stolin that before the Hakofot they say the 13 Anei Mamin with the children in Yiddish. Rabbi Abish Shor points to early origins for this minhag.[31]

Children participated in numerous other ways and even receive Aliyot; some chicken out or are too young and just stay under the Talis during Kol HaNe-Aryim!

Dancing around a Bonfire

The Magan Avraham rules the following: it is prohibited to light Pulvyer to produce Noise as a form of Simcha. What is he referring to?

The answer is ‘Pulvyer’ is gunpowder and the sentence refers to a custom of making a fire, leaping over it and shooting gunpowder. As mentioned earlier, the custom in many German communities was not to dance with Sifrei Torah or to perform any sort of Hakofos. However, in an early account of life in Worms by Rav Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) we find a lengthy description at how later on in the day, when the Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis would make their Seudah, they would light a big fire and eventually they would dance around it. The hagahos to R’ Yuzpeh sefer describe how the Pnei Yehoshua took part in one such fire, during his temporary residence in the city (1753-4).[32]

Interesting enough the Maharil (already quoted by the Darchei Moshe) relates how some children would take apart the Sucah and burn it on Simchas Torah in this fire. The Maharil’s father did not let him do it but the Maharil himself did allow the children do it because of simchas Yom Tov.[33]

Another item that was burned in this fire, according to R’ Pinchas Katzenelenbogen’s account in his fascinating autobiography, was the Shul’s sheimos.[34] Apparently at some point they began adding gun powder to the fire and this is what the Magan Avhrhom is referring to in his aforementioned prohibition.[35]

These are not the only minhaghim the children were involved in.

Fruit and Fruit throwing[36]

In R’ Binyamin Halevi’s Machzor Maagalei Tzedek (first printed in 1550) we find that the adults would give out fruits to the children.[37] Much later, we find this custom mentioned by Y. Gibralter in his memoirs of pre-World War II Kovno, describing how the Gabbai would give out fruit to the children.[38]

Certain Rishonim mention that the adults would through the fruit at the children. Eliyahu Raba says that Rabbenu Bechayah was against this, but he says there is a source for this custom in the Midrash. Although he does not give precise details to his source, it appears that he is referring to a midrash quoted in the Targum Sheini on Esther (3:8), which says that on Atzeres they would go to the roofs of their shuls and they would throw down stuff, which is then gathered. In Amsterdam in 1770 a commentary on this Targum was printed, which added in a few words to this Midrash, to wit that they threw down apples and grass. This is the source for many to show that spreading out grass on Shavuos is a very early minhag. However, the words apples and grass are absent in all earlier editions of Targum Sheini; neither do they appear in other midrashic works that quote this same midrash. Still, there are numerous early sources in the Rishonim to throw apples on Simchas Torah; some chassidim still do so today, understanding the word ‘Atzeres’ as referring to Sukkos-Shemini Atzeres and not Shavuos. Thus, this midrash is not a source for Shavuos but rather for Simchas Torah.[39]

In Rav Yuzpeh Shamash’s work on Worms, while discussing throwing fruit at the children, he describes how a non-Jewish woman bequeathed the Jewish Community her garden upon her death, on condition that they use her garden for the Simchas Torah fruit. R’ Yuzpeh writes that he saw fruit from this garden used.[40]

Related to this last point, this is not the only “involvement” of Goyim with Simchas Torah.

One of the more famous accounts is the British diarist Samuel Pepys’ unexpected visit to Congregation Shaar Hashamayim in London on Simchas Torah in 1663. In his diary entry for Wednesday, October 14th, he writes:

after dinner my wife and I, by Mr. Rawlinson’s conduct, to the Jewish Synagogue: where the men and boys in their vayles, and the women behind a lattice out of sight; and some things stand up, which I believe is their Law, in a press to which all coming in do bow; and at the putting on their vayles do say something, to which others that hear him do cry Amen, and the party do kiss his vayle. Their service all in a singing way, and in Hebrew. And anon their Laws that they take out of the press are carried by several men, four or five several burthens in all, and they do relieve one another; and whether it is that everyone desires to have the carrying of it, I cannot tell, thus they carried it round about the room while such a service is singing. And in the end they had a prayer for the King, which they pronounced his name in Portugal; but the prayer, like the rest, in Hebrew…”.[41]

Women

We now return our focus to the custom to throw fruit; according to some accounts, it was the women who threw the fruit. This in turn leads our attention to the role of women and Simchas Torah.

Rebbetzin Ginsburg, R. Yechezel Levenstein’s daughter, while describing Simchas Torah in Yeshivas Mir in Europe said: “the woman stood behind the mechitzos and watched”. However, I had heard that other witnesses of Simchas Torah in the Mir in Europe had said that the women were not relegated behind the Mechitzah.[42] While checking up the source of Rebbetzin Ginsburg’s interview, I saw that it’s a Hebrew version of an article originally printed in English in the book Daughters of Destiny (Artscroll). However, in the original English version it says, as I had heard from others: “The woman would stand in a corner of the bais medrash separated from the men and wait excitedly for the Hakofos to begin” (p.76). No mention of the woman standing behind a Mechetziah.

Elsewhere I found someone write about the Mir;

בשמחת תורה היה… מעמד זה היה מאד יפה… כל העיירה היתה באה גם נשות העיירה באו לחזות בשמחת תורה מעזרת הנשים… [שמך לא שכחנו, א, עמ’ 190-191].

There are few other sources from other communities that woman came in to the Beis hamedrash on this night to watch the dancing up close.[43] Rav Yuzpeh Shamash of Worms describes how the woman would gather in a circle outside of shul and sing with the wives of the Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis.[44] In Baghdad, R’ David Sasson relates a local custom involving woman; all of the shuls would leave the Sifrei Torah out and men and woman would go from shul to shul to kiss them.[45] We find a similar custom mentioned a bit earlier, in his letters, R’ Ovadia Bartenurah relates seeing women doing so on Yom Kippur and Hoshanah Rabah night.[46]

In yet another account we find as follows:

“Simhat Torah is considered the most joyous day in the Hebrew calendar. It is the holiday to commemorate the occasion when the reading of the Pentateuch is finished. On the eve of this day the cantor leads the hakafot as it encircles around the almemer, and girls as well as married women are permitted to take part in some of the exercises usually reserved for men in the bet hamidrash. Everyone lines up to kiss the Torah and to participate in the singing when the hakafot changes hands. The services of the following morning were a repetition of those of the evening before and were characterized by singing and dancing”.[47]

In an Italian work from 1801 we find:

חיפוש דשלושה ס”ת, שאנו עושים תכף אחר ערבית, וכשגמר… פותחים הארון הקודש ומוציאים הג’ ס”ת, וס”ת נותנים אותו למע’ הרב ויוצא עם הס”ת לעזרה, עם זקן א’ ללוות הס”ת כדי לזכות את הנשים שבאות לנשק התורה… [פינקסי קהילות אשכנזיות באיטליה, עמ’ 89]

One other point regarding woman and Simchas Torah; Rivkah Tiktiner (died in 1605), the first Jewish woman to write a complete work (Minkes Rivkah) composed a Yiddish song for Simchas Torah. Yaari suggested that this song was sung while the woman decorated the Sifrei Torah.[48]

Excessive Drinking[49]

By way of introduction to this topic, the Mishna Berurah writes here in his introduction to the Siman about Simchas Torah

מה שנוהגין באיזה מקומות שאחר מנחה של יום טוב ראשון קובעין עצמן לשתות עד הערב ולפעמים נמשך ד”ז עד שעה ויותר בלילה שלא כדין הוא מפני כמה טעמים א) דקי”ל בסימן צ”ט דאם שתה יין כדי רביעית אל יתפלל אף שיכול לדבר עדיין בפני המלך וה”ה אם שתה שאר משקין המשכרין עי”ש בסק”א ואפילו אם שותה שאר משקין שאין משכרין כיון שהגיע ספק חשיכה חל עליו חובת קידוש ואסור לטעום עד שיקדש ואפילו לאחר קידוש הלא מעוכב לאכול מחמת ק”ש של ערבית ואינו מותר רק טעימה בעלמא דהוא מיני פירות או פת כביצה ולא יותר אכן יש לחפש עליהם זכות דרבים מדכרי אהדדי ולא יבואו לשכוח תפלת ערבית אבל עכ”פ יש ליזהר שלא לשתות אז משקה המשכר ומבואר הכל לעיל בסצ”ט ס”ק א’ וב’:

The Source for this (even though the MB does not cite it here) is the Shulchan Shlomo (1771) who writes:

מה שנוהגין בכל י”ט אחר מנחה של יום ראשון שותין ומשתכרין מאוד שאסור לקבוע לשתות דבש או יין ע”ש לעיל ועוד דמשתכרין ואין יכולים לעשות הקידוש ובפרט בשמחת תורה כי אז אחר המנחה מסורין הפתקין מה שנחתם על כל כל השנה ואין להשיב לכן יזהר ללמוד באותו הזמן א”א או להתפלל או לדבר צרכי מצוה…

Then the Shulchan Shlomo writes: that when they would dance around the Bima there were many fights, oftentimes leading to violence especially as some offenders were drunk and people were jealous who got to hold the Torah first. To prevent any altercations, he suggested assigning the honors through Gorel.[50] He then concludes this siman by again encouraging people not to get drunk and fight.[51]

As mentioned, the Chosson Torah and Chosson Bereishis made a Kiddush for the town or shul. In different accounts it was held in shul before Mussaf. Numerous sources describe how the participants would become a bit tipsy and even drunk.[52]

Drunkenness had “Halacha ramifications” too. The Levush writes that although the Kohanim normally Duchen on Yom Tov[53] but as drunkenness is common on Simchas Torah, we do not Duchen on Simchas Torah!

The Mishna Berurah writes:

בא”ר כתב שבפראג נוהגין לעלות במוסף ויש עולין בשחרית וכל מקום לפי מנהגו ויזהרו שלא ישתו [ס“ק יז]

The Menucha uKedusha writes:

תקנו לקדש על יןן טוב המשמח… לעבוד ה’ בשמחה, וכל זה לשתות מעט יותר מהרגלו עד לשמחה, וחס ושללום להשתכר אף בשמחת תורה, ואסור הוא! אבל המתקבצים בבית היין וששים ושמחים ומרקדים בשירים על מלוי תאותם, ובפיהם יתברכו לאמר לכבוד התורה, גונבים דעת של מעלה וסוברים שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא יודע עשתונותיהם [מנוחה וקדושה, עמ’ רעא].

Others got tipsy later on in the day. Pauline Wengeroff (b. 1833 in Minsk), writes:

“On simkhas torah this joy burst all bounds. On this day, you saw drunken Jews in the streets, something we otherwise only very rarely had occasion to experience. In our house, too, there was plenty of excitement. All kinds of drinks were prepared; the Jewish kitchen had to offer the best foods. Many guests were invited to lunch; the children and servants, too, were given full freedom, and strict discipline was abolished. My father, like all the guests, considered it a mitsve (a religious deed) to get tipsy at the table. My parents did not stop the young men when they danced and sang playfully, indeed wildly; Father even sang gaily along with them. Only the notes of the fiddle were missing, since the Jew was never allowed to touch a musical instrument on the festivals. There were also many religious table songs that made allusion to this joyful day and were sung in chorus. For my father, simkhas torah day had particular significance. As I have already said, my father’s main occupation was Talmud study, which he was even more eager to pursue whenever his business suffered losses. He would turn his back to the world, escape into his study room, and live only al hatauro ve‘al ho‘avaudo, as the Jew put it succinctly, that is, only in learning the laws and in prayer, which was the chief purpose of his life. Thus, from time to time, he would make a siyyum; such an event was celebrated very joyously and brought respect and honor, especially when it was a siyyum over the whole shas, that is, completing study of the entire Talmud, whose extent and unfathomable depth our sages compared to the ocean! My father used to keep his siyyum for a simkhas torah”.[54]

This account is of particular significance, as her father was R’ Yehudah Epstein, a talmid of R’ Dovid Tevel, author of Nachalas David; who was a talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner.[55]

In another account we find:

“After the processions, members of the congregation are honored by being called up for the reading of the Torah, … and then people disperse to their homes to eat and to rejoice in the spirit of the holiday. Again, the reins are loosened. People go from house to house and drink no end of liquor. Even those who have taken a vow of abstinence don’t abide by it strictly on this day; they get drunk and engage in all sorts of childish behavior, all in the name of rejoicing over the Torah”.[56]

See this special letter of R’ Zundel of Salant, Talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner from 1865 who wrote asking for Mechilah from a friend of his which happened when he was younger due to drinking in Yeshiva. The original letter was recently sold by Genazym Auction 8 (2020) item #90 for $4000.

While the Mishna Berurah is against getting drunk, he does encourage A seudah with Simcha quoting the Bikurei Yakov and others:

כתב הא”ר מבואר מהפוסקים דיש לשמוח לרבים בכל מה דאפשר בשמחה של מצוה ודלא כיש שמכין ודוחין אלו לאלו עד שהשמחה נהפך לתוגה ח”ו גם מתוך כך מונעין משמחה של מצוה ולכן יש לגעור בהן עכ”ל גם מהרי”ק בשורש ט’ האריך מאוד שלא לבטל שום מנהג שנהגו לכבוד שמחת התורה ע”ש ולכן רעה עושין בהרבה מקומות במה שביטלו מקרוב שלא לעשות משתה ושמחה בשמחת תורה אף גם ששמחין בשארי ימים וכל ימיהם כחגים ובעו”ה ביזוי כבוד התורה גרם זה שהתורה מונחת בקרן זוית ואין דורש ואין מבקש ומי יתן ישיב וירחם שבר ב”י ב”ב [בכורי יעקב]

R’ Avhrhom Zakheim writes in his memoirs, about Simchas Torah of Volozhin in 1874:

בשמחת תורה נערכה סעודה לכל התלמידים. אם מספרם לא היה גדול עשו את הסעודה בבית הנצי”ב, ואם היו תלמידים רבים ערכו את הסעודה בבית הישיבה. והנצי”ב היה נוהג ביום זה לשרת בעצמו את התלמידים, מגיש להם משקאות, עוגות ופרות. בסעודה היו מאריכים עד השקיעה. תיכף אחר הסעודה מהרו כל התלמידים לתפוס את החזקות. וזה דבר החזקה: כל תלמיד קנה לו זכות על מקום קבוע ללמודיו, והתפיסה נכללה מזה שהוא מהר על המקום שנתן עיניו בו, הניח את הגמרא על השלחן פתחה ולמד בה שעה קלה, וע”י כך קנה לו חזקה על מקומו לכל השנה. ומחר התחדשו הלמודים כסדרם על פסח… [נטעי איתן, ה, עמ’ 50]

Strange custom of Bowing

In 1921, Yitzchak Rivkind described a strange custom he saw when he was learning in Volozhin (after it was reopened and headed by R’ Rephael Shapiro); they would open the Aron when saying Aleinu and then, with the Niggun reserved for Mussaf of Yom Kippur, they would sing and bow on the floor exactly like we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of the Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra. Upon visiting Vilna, sometime after, he found the only place where this unique Minhag was observed was in the Gra’s Kloiz, and nowhere else in Vilna.[57]

In 1933, R’ Meir Bar-Ilan printed his memoirs in Yiddish; there he describes the great Simcha in Volozhin on Simchas Torah, both his father, the Netziv’s and the Talmidim’s. Amidst this recollection he relates that when they reached Aleinu the Aron was opened and then, with the Yom Kippur Mussaf Niggun, they would sing and bow on the floor exactly like we do on Rosh Hashona and Yom Kippur – just as Rivkind described.[58] Curiously, this custom is not mentioned in the Maaseh Rav or any of the other collections of the Gra’s Minhagim.

Recently, R’ Dovid Kamenetsky printed a very important manuscript related to the Maaseh Rav, which sheds light on how this important sefer of the Gra’s Minhaghim was written. The Gra had a very close talmid named R’ Saadyah who wrote down various customs he witnessed by his Rebbe, which formed the basis of the Maaseh Rav. He then embellished his work with material from other sources. The original work was recently discovered by Rabbi Kamenetsky who subsequently published it Within, we find that R’ Saadyah writes that on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur the Gra would prostrate fully when saying Aleinu and did the same when saying Aleinu Simchas Torah night.

בר”ה וי”כ וש”י כשאומר הש”ץ זכרנו:… כשהגיע לכורעים הי’ כורע ונופל על אפיו בפשיטת ידים ורגלים וכן בשמחת תורה בלילה היו אומרים מזמורים ותפילות …בים ואח”כ היו נופלים על אפיה’ כנ”ל באימ[ה] בעלינו

Thus for the first time we have the exact source of the Gra’s and Volozhin custom in regards to Simchas Torah.[59]

In an incredible manuscript called Sefer LiKutim written in Vina during the life time of the Gra we find about RH and YK But not about ST:

הנה ראיתי הרבה ב”א מתמיהי‘ם על מנהג החסיד דקהלתינו בענין ההשתחואה בר“ה וביוה“כ – שהוא משתחו‘ה בפישוט ידים, לא כמנהג העולם. אבל אדרב‘ה, הם מן המתמיהי‘ם, שהחסיד הנ”ל קיים דינ‘א דגמר‘א, דאי’ בדף הנ”ל [מגילה ד’ כב] ע”ב דיליף מקרא, ד’השתחואה’ זו פישוט ידים ורגלים, ע”ש. רק על כל ישראל יש לדונו ג”כ לכ‘ף ז‘כות, שא”א להם לעשות כן אא”כ נעשה לנו נס כמו שהי‘ה בזמן שבהמ”ק הי‘ה קיים, שהיו עומדי‘ם צפופים ומשתחוים רווחים כי סדנא דארעא חד הוא, שבימים נוראים שחיוב להתפלל בכנופיא ובפרט ע”פ זוה”ק ובכל המדינות בב”כ ובבתי מדרשות דחוק מאוד [ספר הליקוטים, הובא ב’ישורון ו, עמ’ רמז-רמח].60

A possible explanation for this Minhag is when things were getting a bit wilder, i.e. too Lebidick, this served to remind those gathered of Kedushas Yom Tov. This is not the only Simchas Torah minhag based upon the Yomim Noraim; in one account we find: “The Musaf was chanted with the music of the New Year’s ritual”.[61]

Interesting we find in the memoirs[62] of R’ Avrohom Zakheim about Volozhin in 1874, where he describes the Simchas Beis HaShoeva as follows:[63]

 

Leining at night

Returning to the Night of Simchas Torah. After the dancing and after the Sifrei Torah are returned, Rav Isaac Tirna writes in his Sefer Minhagim that the custom was to again take out the Sifrei Torah and make sure they are prepared for the next day’s leining. However, the Rama both in his Darcei Moshe and in his Mapa writes they the minhag is not so; rather Parshas Nedarim was read. This statement is very puzzling for a few reasons: One there does not appear to be any early sources that mention such a custom; in point of fact, we never find any Leinig from the Torah at night the rest of the year.[64] Two, what does he mean by ‘Parshas Nedarim’? Three, does he mean to do so with a Beracha and call up others.

The Chayay Adam writes that in Prague they did not lein at night. In the various numerous collections of Minhaghim of German Jews we do not find any of them mentioning such a Leining. Neither did the Chasam Sofer Lein in his minyan.[65] The Orach Hashulchan says it’s a strange custom and thus many do not lein at night.[66] However, the Gra did do s [67] and R’ Efrayim Zalman Margolis brings it down in his classic work, Sharei Efrayim.[68]

A possible suggestion as to where this Minhag came from could be based on the fact that some Rishonim bring a custom that some had to finish leining the whole Torah on Simchas Torah night while some had the custom to do so Hoshana Rabbah at night (others did just Sefer Devaryim).[69] In a recent manuscript printed for the first time just a a year ago called Emek Succos we find that at the beginning of the fourteenth century there was a custom in Provence to Lein the whole Torah on Simchas Torah at night in front of the men, woman and children.[70] Most possibly this Minhag has to do with what the Rama brings and eventually they just leined only a small part.

Some other Halacha Questions

What happens when there are only Kohanim and Yisraelim that did not get an Aliyah do we call up a Levi that already got one?

So the Netziv writes once we do the five Aliyot than we do not need to call up the Levi again.

בעזהי”ת יום ה’ ה’ ניסן, תרמ”ג: להרב וכו’ מ’ אליהו ליבאן נ”י מו”צ בקאלאניע זאטישאק מכתב מע”כ מיום ב’ תזריע הגיע במועדו, ומחמת טרדות הימים נתאחר תשובתו, ועתה באתי בעזרו ית“ש…

עוד שאל מע”כ נ”י בשמחת תורה שמרבים לקרות את כל הנמצאים בביהכ”נ, וקורין כ”פ כהן, ואם אין שם לוי שלא עלה לתורה אם יותר טוב לקרות עוד הפעם אותו לוי, או לקרות הכהן במקום לוי, זה הדין מבואר באו”ח (סי’ קל”ה ס”י) נהגי לקרות כהן אחר כהן בהפסק ישראל ביניהם, והקשה הב”י הרי יש לחוש לפגם השני, ויישב דקורא עוד הפעם ללוי בין הכהן וישראל, והקשו האחרונים אם אין שם לוי מה יעשו, ויישב המג”א דקורא הכהן פעמים, וסיים ואפשר לומר דכולי האי לא שרינן לקרות כהן באמצע ושיקרא פעמים, והט”ז יישב בא”א. הא כו”ע מודו שא”א לקרות את הלוי שקרא בראשונה עוד הפעם, והכי מוכח בטור שם שכתב בשם רב עמרם ובתר דקרי כהן לוי וישראל קרי מאן דבעי אי בעי כהן למיתני ומיקרי שפיר דמי, וכשאין שם כהן וקורא לישראל במקומו אומר במקום כהן כדי כו’, אבל העולה במקום לוי א”צ לומר במקום לוי כו’. ולכאורה אינו מובן היאך אפשר לעלות במקום לוי הלא הכהן קורא פעמים, אלא צ”ל דמיירי בפעם השני אחר שקרא ישראל שקורין כהן ואח”כ ישראל במקום לוי, כיון שאין שם לוי שלא קרא עדיין, וכך המנהג אצלנו בש“ת… ומרוב טרדא הנני בחותמי שים שלום וברכה יאושר חילו ויושבי בצלו ישאו ברכה לרגלו כנפשו ומשאלו וכנפש העמוס בעבודה: נפתלי צבי יהודא ברלין. [שות משיב דבר, ב ,סי’ מח].71

In addition, see the Mishna Berurah

במקום צורך ודחק וכו’ – כגון בשמחת תורה וכה”ג יש לסמוך דמיד שקרא ג’ קרואים הראשונים כהן לוי וישראל מותר לקרות אח”כ כהן או לוי וכמ”ש לעיל בדעת המחבר… [קלה ס”ק לז]

Chasan Torah

Much has written about different aspects of the Chasan torah.

Just to mention two sources:

R’ Efrayim Zalman Margolis writes in his, Sharei Efrayim

יש מקומות שנהגו לעשות חתן תורה אף הקטן פחות מבן יג שנה אך ברוב המקומות נוהגין סלסול בעצמם לכבוד גמרה של תורה ומהדרי’ שיהיה ת”ח הגון ועכ”פ אדם נכבד וגדול במקומו מחמת חשיבתו ועשרו וכך ראוי לעשות [שערי אפרים, שער ח’ אות סא].

Here is a Takanah from Prague 1823 from R’ Eleazar Fleckeles and his Beis Din[72]

Appendix:

By R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l

Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round[73]

Yes, I know that Sukkos is already over. Sorry, I am simply not ready to get back to the weekly parshah just yet. The month of Elul, Rosh Hashanah, Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, Shabbos Shuvah, Yom Kippur, preparing for Sukkos, Sukkos, Simchas Beis Hashoeivah, Hoshanah Rabbah, Shemini Atzeres, tefillas geshem, Simchas Torah… It is no small feat to return to “plain ordinary” life. On the other hand, that is exactly what Hashem wants of us. Moreover, the true test of what the Yamim Tovim did for us —did to us— is, of course, the manner we return to what most of our lives consist of —the routine, the standard, the customary. Are we different, did we gain anything more than pounds or inches to our waistlines? It is told that a Rebbe of mine, Hagaon Harav Mendel Kaplan zt”l, was asked the inevitable question, “Nu, Rebbe, how was Yom Tov?” His answer? “I don’t know, come back to me in about a year and I’ll be able to tell you.” Clearly, Reb Mendel had a definitive grasp of what a Yom Tov is and what is supposed to be accomplished through it.

Let us at least dwell on the last day of Yom Tov, Simchas Torah, on which we rejoiced with the Torah and our accomplishments in learning Torah.   This is a universal celebration, encompassing the more learned, the less learned, men, women and children. We rejoice with our communion with the wisdom and ratzon of Hashem, and with our ability to understand it with our human, finite minds and intelligence. Let us delve into this a bit deeper, and try to understand it on a more profound level.

It is really quite interesting that we are so insistent on immediately starting Bereishis after finishing Vezos Haberachah and Sefer Devarim. However, we do so, barely giving the ba’al koreh a chance to catch his breath. We have a Chasan Bereishis, as we have a Chasan Torah. The poem we sing to the Chasan Bereishis when we call him to the Torah speaks darkly in one line of the Satan trying to trip us up in the Heavenly Court if we would dare not start again upon finishing. What is that all about?

Hashem is perfect. That premise is absolutely true by definition, not by happenstance. Which makes it quite peculiar to find as we go through the Torah that —ostensibly— everything He seemed to want to happen —did not! From Adam’s original sin which changed the course of all of history, to Cain’s  inability to share a world with just four other people, to the Flood (which apparently has Hashem saying, “Ok, let’s try this again…”), to Bnei Yisrael’s sin at the very giving of the Torah, which resulted in the breaking of the original Tablets of the Ten Commandments resulting in their having to be “re-given.”, to the sin of the spies which irrevocably changed the history of Bnei Yisrael’s entry into their land, the land of Israel… Why is our history so peppered with doing it over again? Why is Hashem’s world always developing through second chances?

The answer lies in the very purpose of the world’s creation. Hashem said, “Na’aseh Adam,” “Let us make man.” This can be interpreted to mean that man actually shares in the creation. It is man’s input, humankind’s struggles, in which Hashem wants to be a partner in the development of history and humankind. We struggle, we attempt, we try, we fail, and we try again. Hashem is interested in the human struggle. Therefore, imperfection is perfect —for it is exactly and precisely what Hashem is looking for— for that indeed is human nature.

We do not have Torah in an ex-post facto situation. Hashem’s world is not a world of ex-post facto. Eretz Yisrael was not obtained in a second-class way. The failures of mankind are in effect their successes —if, of course, they repair that which they have wrought. For such a world manifests the handiwork of humankind, rather than one handed to humankind on a silver platter.

The Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 13:8) makes clear that the reading of Vezos Haberachah on Simchas Torah is not simply because that is the end of the Torah and, after all, we are now concluding the Torah and celebrating Simchas Torah.  Rather, there is some aspect of parshas Vezos Haberachah that is inyana deyoma —a timely topic, having to do with the celebration of Simchas Torah. What would that be though?

I would suggest that the answer lies in the famous passuk at the beginning of the parshah, “Torah tzivah lanu Moshe, morashah Kehillas Yaakov.” “Moshe Rabbeinu commanded us concerning the Torah; it is a heritage for the Congregation of Jacob.” Rashi provides some context for this verse, explaining that despite the many persecutions, pogroms, expulsions, killings, attempted forced baptisms and all of the other forms of oppression that the Jewish people have endured; we still maintain the Torah, understanding that it is our heritage.

Now, the word morashah is closely related to the word yerushah —an inheritance. And what is a morashah if not an inheritance of sorts? However, the difference between the two is that an inheritance that I have received is mine, and I am free to do with it as I please. A heritage, a morashah, on the other hand, implies that I have something very unique and special to a particular group. Thus, even when I get it, I have a responsibility to future generations to maintain it and treasure it and make sure that it survives me, and is handed over intact to the future. Truly, the Torah is our morashah.

It is truly our Torah; it is ours to treasure, ours to maintain. Na’aseh —we too have a share in the Torah’s existence in this world. We had to go through the ordeal of the Golden Calf to get the luchos sheniyos (the second tablets). We had to survive centuries of persecution… but the reading of Simchas Torah is the statement that the Torah is indeed our morashah —and we have it in our peculiarly human way. We finish it and we immediately start it again. We may never relinquish our diligence in studying it and maintaining it. We have it as our morashah.

This is a truly inspiring and practical message to take with us into the sometimes cruel, sometimes just cold and indifferent world. Something to teach to and a message with which to inspire our children.

[1] This piece was originally written but not published in 2018. I updated it since then and hope to elaborate on it more in a future Hebrew version IYH.

For useful collections on this topic, the most comprehensive work on this day was written by the legendary expert on Seforim, Avraham Yaari, Simchas Torah (530 pp.) See also the Recently published comments of R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi, in Igrot Shmuel pp. 273-274, 291-293 to his Friend Avraham Yaari. Many later authors who wrote on the Chag seem to have “borrowed” material from Avraham Yaari and “forgot” to attribute it to him. A more recent, comprehensive work, written in a different style is called Simchas Torah from Rabbi Tzvi Varshner.

For general information see R’ Y. Reifmann, Shulchan HaKriyah, Berlin 1882, pp. 92a-99b; Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky, Mikraei Kodesh, 2, pp. 61-74; R’ S.Y. Zevin, HaMoadim BeHalacha, pp. 158-164; R’ Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp. 153-182; R’ Ovadiah Yosef, Chazon Ovadiah (Sukkos), pp. 455-478; Luach HaHalachos Uminhaghim; R’ Deblitsky, Kitzur Hilchos HaMoadim (Sukkos), pp. 244-281; R’ Tchezner, Sharei Chag HaSukkos, pp. 273-305, 472-491; Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim L’Simchah, 1, pp. 452-529; R’ Y. Mondshine, Otzar Minaghei Chabad, pp. 345-400; R’ Cohen, Olat Cohen (2014). See also the recently published manuscript by R’ Yakov Stahl [from 1359-1390] published in Yeshurun 37 (2017), pp. 167-199.
[2] In regards to when to do Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum See R’ Yismach, HaOtzar 20 (2019), pp. 244-289.
[3] Tur, no. 669. See Beis Yosef ibid.
[4] See Darchei Moshe ibid.
[5] For recent discussion about the Rama See R’ Shaul Bar ilan, HaMayan 239 (2022), pp. 54-68; Ibid, HaMayan 243 (2023), pp. 44-53.
[6] Chilukim Bein Bnei Bavel, no. 48. See R’ Ezra Altshuler’s comments on this chiluk. See also R’ Greenspan, Melches Machsheves, 2, pp. 353-355; R’ Greivisky, Bris Halevi, p. 480; the final piece of Meshech Chochma, V’Zos Habracha. For the most current bibliography on this work, see Rabbi Y.M. Dubovick, Yeshurun, 34, pp. 15-24.
[7] The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, (Adler Ed.), p. 70.
[8] HaMaspik (Dana Ed.), p. 180.
[9] The following ideas were sent to me by my friend, R’ Benish Ginsburg based on ideas he heard from R’ Chaim Malinowitz (and can be found in his book R’ Benish Ginsburg, Ki BaSukkos Hoshavti, Insights into Sukkos, 2016, pp. 299-307): “Shemini Atzeres is a day on which one can achieve tremendous closeness to HaKadosh Baruch Hu... After achieving kedusha and tahara on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we experience the simcha of Sukkos, when we feel the hashra’as hashechina in the sukka. In the sukka, one is in the same dwelling, so to speak, as the Shechina. He is very close to Hashem. But there is an even higher level, and that level can be reached on Shemini Atzeres. I heard a mashal… from Rav Chaim Malinowitz… If you have a roommate in yeshiva, that creates closeness. After all, you share a room. But if your roommate is a family member, there is an extra level of love and connection. On Sukkos, we share a dwelling with Hashem, but on Shemini Atzeres, we become, in a sense, family with Hashem, “בנים למקום.” You don’t need any ma’aseh mitzva to help you focus on your simcha and closeness when you are with a family member, because the closeness is just there… However, Chazal understood that this is difficult for us. To focus on the special closeness without doing anything special… That is why the minhag developed to complete the Torah reading cycle so that we celebrate Simchas Torah on Shemini Atzeres. The way we express our highest level of closeness to HaKadosh Baruch Hu is through limud Torah and our dedication to limud Torah. On Shavuos, we celebrate kabbalas haTorah and the opportunity to learn. Shemini Atzeres is when we celebrate learning itself, as that is what helps us develop this direct connection with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. This is why we dance with the sifrei Torah on Simchas Torah. We are celebrating the special closeness with HaKadosh Baruch Hu that results from our limud Torah.
[10] A Treasure of Letters, pp. 57-58
[11]  A Treasure of Letters, pp. 148-149
[12] Mi-Telz Ad Telz, pp. 147-148.
[13] A Jewish Life on Three Continents, pp. 160-161
[14] Zichronos Av Ubno, p. 352
[15] See Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu (Shonot), pp. 134-147.
[16] See Bikurei Yakov, 669:5,6,9; Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 41-46. See also VaYishma Koli, (Yaakov Spiegel Ed,) pp. 165-166.
[17] See R’ Geiger, Divrei Kohlet, p. 340. See Yerushaseynu 10 (2019), pp. 654-655.
[18] About the Amount of Sifrei torah and the origins of this aspect of ST See Yari, pp. 287-290; Yakov Spiegel, Moriah 37:7-9 (2019), pp. 49-61.
[19] See Maseh Rav, #232-233.
[20] Toldos Menachem, p. 41 see also ibid, p. 128. See Yari, pp.259-318.
[21] Bikurei Yakov, 669:9.
[22] Shar HaTzion, 669:10.
[23] Dugmah MeDarchei Avi, p. 33.
[24] Mi-Telz Ad Telz, p. 277. See also p. 319.
[25] Eleph Kesav, 2, p. 44.
[26] Dugmah MeDarchei Avi, p. 33. See also See also R’ Benish Ginsburg, Ki BaSukkos Hoshavti, Insights into Sukkos, 2016, pp. 328-331; R’ Asher Weiss, Minchas Asher, Sichos al HaMo’adim, pp. 225-226 (cited by R’ Ginsburg).
[27] See Yari, pp. 243-250; Tali Berner, Al Pi Darkom, pp. 237-240, 268-273.
[28] A. Gannes, Childhood in a Shtetl, p. 94-95.
[29] 154:11.
[30] Sefer HaKundas, p. 66. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p. 69. On flags, see R’ Shevat, L’Harim Es Hadegel; Aron Arend, Pirkei Mechkar LeYom Ha’atzmaut (1998), pp. 103-117.
[31] Ketavim, pp. 1216-1219.
[32] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), pp. 229-232.
[33] See MaHaril, pp. 376-377; Bikurei Yakov, 669:5. On the significance of this passage in the MaHaril see R’ Peles, Sifri Maharil, p. 38, 399.
[34] Yesh Manchilin, pp.319-320. On the author see Maoz Kahana, From the Nodeh Be-Yehudah To the Chasam Sofer, pp.53-60,77-79.
[35] See Herman Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp.174-177.
[36] This custom has been the subject of a many recent articles. See: A. Yaari, Toldos Chag Simchas Torah, pp.231-237; D. Sperber, Minhaghei Yisroel, 6, pp.140-154; R’ S. Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 4, pp. 430-461; R’ Y. Goldhaver, Minhaghei Hakehilos, 2, pp. 147-152; R’ Y. Tessler, Hiechiel Habesht, issue 20, pp. 75-100; Or Yisroel, 41, p. 187.
[37] See Maglei Tzedek, p. 142.
[38] Yosor Yasrani, p. 110. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p.72.
[39] See My article in Ve-Hinneh Rivkah Yotzet, (2017), pp. 215-217.
[40] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), pp. 228-229.
[41] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 4: 1663, eds. Robert Latham and William Matthews (London: HarperCollins, 2005), 334-336. My thanks to Menachem Butler for this source. See also Yaari, pp. 255-258 for more sources on this.
[42] Mi-pehem (p. 199) which is a collection of interviews with various Gedolim.
[43] See also Toldos Chag Simchas Torah. pp.251-252.
[44] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), p. 220.
[45] Masseh Bavel, p. 227.
[46] Igros Eretz Yisroel, p. 106.
[47] Between Worlds, p. 93
[48] Toldos Chag Simchas Torah, p.464. This song was recently reprinted by Y. Levine with an introduction and a translation in Hebrew (Simchat Torah Leyad). On Rivkah Tiktiner, see Levine’s Introduction (ibid); Z. Gries, Hasefer Kesochen Tarbut, p.172. Meneket Rivkah, with Introduction of Frauke Von Rohden (2009).
[49] See the results of drunkenness in R’ Avhrhom Zakheim, Nitei Eytan 3 (1927), pp. 11-12.
[50] Shulchan Shlomo, 669:3-4
[51] About this important work see Yeshurun 35 (2016), pp. 788-814
[52] See Kotik, Ma Sherueti, p.330; David Daiches, Two Worlds, p. 127; A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), pp. 198-204.
[53] See Zichronos Umesoras Al HaChasam Sofer, p. 203; Aderet, Tefilas Dovid, p. 147; R’ Yechiel Goldhaver, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp.169-170; Yaari, pp. 237-240; Rabbi Akiva Males, Friends Don’t Let Friends Drink and Dukhen: Birkat Kohanim and Simhat Torah in the Diaspora, Tradition 49:2 (2016), pp. 53-64. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p.71.
[54] Memoirs of a Grandmother, pp. 167-168.
[55] Her father authored an important work called Minchas Yehudah. On this work see S. Abramson, Sinai, 112 (1993), p. 1-24; N. Steinschneider, Ir Vilna, pp. 248-249.
[56] A Jewish Life on Three Continents, pp. 160-161.
[57] HaIvri, 10:35, (1921), pp. 6-7. See Yaari, p.366.
[58] MeVolozhin Ad Yerushlayim, 1, p. 115. See also Yeshurun 40 (2019). P. 775; HaTzadik R’ Shlomo Bloch, pp. 112-113, (cited in the Yeshurun article).
[59] See Toras Hagra, p. 212. On this work see: Toras Hagra, pp. 127-226.
[60] See also R’ Slutzki, Etz Efrayim, p. 4A; Yakov Spiegel, Moriah 38:10-12 (2023). Pp. 43-54.
[61] Between Worlds, p. 93
[62] Nitei Eytan 5 (1931), p. 50, quoted by Rabbi Feffer, Simchas Beis HaShoeva LeHagra, pp. 216-217.
[63] For discussion about the Gra and the tremendous Simcha in regards to the Simchas Beis HaShoeva See Rabbi Feffer, Simchas Beis HaShoeva LeHagra.
[64] See Yaari, pp. 194-203; Bikurei Yakov, 669:13; R’ Yechiel Goldhaver, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp.161-165, 271-277; Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu, 1, pp.164-184; Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 47-49.
[65] Zichronos Umesoros Al HaChasam Sofer, p. 202.
[66] 669:2.
[67] Maaseh Rav, #230.
[68] See also Aderet, Tifelas Dovid, p. 110, 146.
[69] See my previous article in Ami Magazine “The Mysteries of Hoshana Rabbah”, for sources about this.
[70] See R’ Yakov Stahl, Ginzei Chag HaSuccos, p.95, 152.
[71] See the Luach Halachos Uminhaghim who brings this down, p. 155 and Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 208-212 challenges the Pesak of the Netziv.

This Particular Teshuvah of the Netziv is special to me. I heard it mentioned many times by my Rav, R’ Yisroel Reisman, growing up as a Teenager, along with the following beautiful story. R’’ Reisman was a Levi, he related:

“Twenty years ago, as I began developing a relationship with Rabbi Pam, an incident tozok place, on a Simchas Torah night at the Yeshiva. I had a she’eila, which would come up the next day. At a break in the hakafos, I asked Rabbi Pam this query. He replied that the question had been addressed by the Netziv, in his Meishiv Davar, but struggled to remember the response. (The sefer was then out of print, and not available at the Yeshiva.) After a few moments, his face lit up. He remembered the Netzivs ruling, and the Tur on which it was based. I was certainly satisfied, and returned to the hakafos. A little while later, as I was dancing, I felt a tap on my shoulder. It was Rabbi Pam. “Do you have a raincoat? Come. I have a Meishiv Davar at home. Let’s look up the teshuva (responsum).” I was surprised, and very excited to have the opportunity for such a close personal experience. I rushed to get my coat. As we were leaving, Rabbi Avrohom Talansky, a member of the Yeshiva staff, approached us. He had heard of my question. He told us that Rabb Yaakov Kamenetzky had been asked the she’eila, and had responded in the same manner. My heart sank. I thought our walk home was lost. Rabbi Pam politely thanked Rabbi Talansky and then – together -we went to his home, where we learned through the teshuva. It was exactly as he had said. Rabbi Pam’s Meishiv Davar was full of notations. Numerous teshuvos were marked off; he had listed others in the back cover. (Rabbi Pam enjoyed learning teshuva sefarim. His personal notes contain many pages of she’eilos tha crossed his path and the sefer in which he had come across a p’sak.) We learned through two other teshuvos before heading back to Yeshiva It was a wonderful experience but quite unusual. During the walk back to Yeshiva, I gently asked Rabbi Pam what had prompted him to walk home during the hakafos. Was he unsure if he had remembered the teshuva correctly? Rabbi Pam answered that the bachurim from the dorm had visited his home that day for a Simchas Yom Tov. Rabbi Pam had spoken of dedication to learning, and in particular, mentioned Reb Zalmen of Volozhin’s mesiras nefesh in traveling a distance to look up a teshuva. He explained, “Initially, I could not remember the teshuva. It disturbed me that, at that moment, I didn’t plan to go home to check the teshuva. I had just spoken about this! This is why I had to walk home to check the sefer. “A person must always be honest with himself. (Jewish Observer, 2001, pp. 15-16).”

[72] Published in Kerem Sholomo 8 (1985) (80), pp. 46-47. I found this in R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi’s copy of Avraham Yaari, Simchas Torah which he had received as a gift from Yaari in 1965.
[73] This is an article of the Rav’s published in a Local Newspaper a few years ago. Published here with Permission from the Malinowitz Family.