Parshanut in English: Rabbinic Bible Commentary in Translation

Parshanut in English: Rabbinic Bible Commentary in Translation

Revised updated edition

Yisrael Dubitsky

The following revises, expands upon and updates my previous effort on this forum. Originally it was meant as a ten year retrospective, to see not only which works were completed in that time span but also which commentators were first touched upon. Of course, in the course of my research, I found several errors of mine from the earlier edition, and many items I had neglected to include, or was not even aware of before. Technical difficulties have delayed its appearance until now but what better time to present it than at the beginning of a new Torah reading cycle?

In contrast to the first edition, I struggled with the criteria for inclusion. Ideally, and initially, I had wished to include only items which were

1)  Commentary on Tanakh or an individual book within it (but not a supercommentary upon a commentary);

2)  Rabbinic in substance (so, for example, not Samaritan, or Karaite, or based on modern scientific scholarship);

3)  Generally, from the High Middle Ages and later (thus not classical rabbinic midrash or targum; but medieval midrash compilations/anthologies such as: Midrash ha-Gadol; Midrash Lekah Tov; Midrash Sekhel Tov; Yalkut Makhiri; or Yalkut Shimoni would be eligible; and so would slightly earlier work such as Geonic literature if any existed);

4)  Where the work was an intentional and systematic commentary on the biblical book (meaning, not that every verse in a chapter is commented upon, but most are; not simply essays on “themes” or “issues” in the chapters or parshiyot);

5)  Where the translation was complete, not adapted, digested, excerpted, paraphrased, or selected from the original;

6)  Of significant length, meaning (subjective as the choice was) more than a chapter or two long (unless the entire biblical book was only a chapter, such as Obadiah);

7)  Where no matter in what language the original work first appeared, the translation was into English (meaning, original commentary – even in English — was not eligible);

8)  Appears in a separate monograph publication, either entirely devoted to the work, or even just a chapter within the book, but not simply an article in a periodical, which is more difficult for the average reader to access.

Unfortunately as I progressed in my compilation, I realized I could not stand by many of these requirements. There were simply too many less-than-ideal-as-above works, which a learned public would expect and/or require in such a listing. For example, Abarbanel or Hasidic commentary are not precisely verse by verse but are important, and perhaps expected, additions to a listing of rabbinic commentary. I think I retained fully requirements 2, 3 and 7 above, but the other requirements are less than perfectly observed. Thus, among other breaches, there are supercommentaries as well as some journal articles represented.

There were several items (especially theses from HUC or books at British Library) which I couldn’t examine personally. Nevertheless, I added them to the list. If it should turn out that the items were not actually relevant to this list (i.e. they don’t translate a text systematically, etc.), I will delete them in a later edition. In case they were relevant, however, it is important that readers are aware of them.

Clearly, as a delimited compilation, there will be some works that many will believe should not be included, and some that many may think should be included. Every reader may have a different perspective on what should or should not be included. However, a bibliographer must be granted privilege in determining which items to include. I welcome arguments, complaints, suggestions or recommendations and apologize in advance for inadequacies, deficiencies and/or errors in my compilation.  The nature of the beast is such that this is a work in progress (hopefully to be updated in less than 13 years’ time between editions).

Commentaries are arranged chronologically by author, and then by biblical book (standard Hebrew Bible order). For space and simplicity sake, works are identified only by their author’s and translator’s (or publishers’) names but, for fuller bibliographical data, also linked to a bibliographical record in a library catalog database (usually the National Library of Israel [NLI]; where a record didn’t exist there, or I was unsatisfied with it in some way, I linked to OCLC’s public international union catalog database WorldCat. When needed, I linked to other catalogs instead. Sometimes i recorded a newly published volume not yet represented on any of the WorldCat contributor records). This method of linking to a stable URL of a catalog’s bibliographical record could not be done in the previous edition, as JTS at that time had not provided permanent URLs for their records. Thus, clunky as it may have been, the only alternative to reach the bib records at JTSAL was to request readers copy and paste the Call Number I provided. Thankfully, this method is no longer required. I will expand a bit on my linking to library bib records, rather than standard bibliographical citation, below.

Where a title of an author’s work, rather than his name, serves more popularly as his principal identification, the title is used, with the author’s name appearing parenthetically. Otherwise, the author name is the primary identifier. Translations of entire works are listed before only parts of the same, and then by date of publication. As mentioned, links to online library catalog records (generally, NLI or WorldCat) for the item serve as the full bibliographic data. Publication years in parentheses following the link indicate only the first year of the edition. Generally, where possible, the first edition of the work is listed.

As mentioned, generally only significantly lengthy works (covering more than one or two chapters of Bible text) are included. There are several cases of introductions to works that are included here too. Unless delimited otherwise, items cover the entire book, number of volumes notwithstanding (e.g. 4 vols. on the five books of Torah). Items marked “currently…” imply a work in progress.

Again, as mentioned, adaptations, anthologies, digests, excerpts or paraphrases of translations, such as are found in the Hertz, Soncino Press, Judaica Press (except for Rashi), ArtScroll, Living Torah and Living Nach or Etz Hayim bible commentaries, are generally not included. However, this ideal could not always be observed. Perhaps contradicting the above, but condensed versions, as are sometimes found in Munk translations, are in fact included. The JPS Commentators Bible, in addition to its systematic translation of four major commentators, also occasionally includes selections from Bekhor Shor, Radak, Hazekuni, Gersonides, Abarbanel and Sforno. These latter have not been included in the list.

Further, as per requirement 2 above, academic or modern critical commentaries, even those written by rabbis, are excluded.

It is important to emphasize, no implication regarding quality of the translation (or the commentary itself!) should be drawn from inclusion in this list.

I have endeavored, where feasible, to include in addition a link to a digital copy of the work – whether as a simple PDF (from sites such as Hebrewbooks, Internet Archive, Google Books or the like) or via more sophisticated presentations such as on Sefaria or Alhatorah or the like. I only include links to sites that are free for all, not subscription or paid sites which would limit access. In addition, Sefaria or Alhatorah or other websites sometimes host a work before it has reached print status; as such, it is “online-only” or even “born-digital.” These I included by adding the word “online” in parentheses following the author name; if it wasn’t clear to me when the work was added to the site, it appears with a question mark in place of the year of publication. Moreover, Sefaria and Alhatorah are such wonderful sites that they often add new material so that my listing may be incomplete or obsolete very soon after it appears. Yet another reason for this compilation to be considered a work in progress!

Furthermore, I have colored items in red that are new or newly discovered by me since the first edition some 13 years ago. When the commentator’s name is in red, it means all works/translations beneath it are new. When a new work or an added volume of an already published work has appeared in that time period, that detail (e.g. biblical book name, volume number, publication year) is in red. Thus, readers will be able to spot new materials immediately. 

Romanization of Hebrew titles follows Mahler’s Library of Congress authorized system (e.g. no doubling for dagesh, etc.; except for inferior dots). Thus, for example, Hazekuni, and not Chizkuni. Authors’ names are based on the spelling in VIAF, but not always its form (thus, Rashbam, not simply “Samuel ben Meir”; or Joseph Kara, not “Kara, Joseph”). Further, where an added word (or different date) will make the identification more accessible (e.g. Rabenu Hananel and not just Hananel ben…), it is preferred. Bold-face is used to reflect more popular identifications. 

Finally, a brief word as to reasons for a bibliography linking to library catalog records rather than the standard format of a bibliographical index of works: While standard bibliography format represents the known literature of the subject in a very brief form, there is often little way for an average reader to access all the material, or even know where to turn to reach it. In these times, however, where much of the world is a click away, it is important for the average reader – one not necessarily associated with a university library or geographically near a large library – to have easy access to the material and the choice of whether to see further bibliographical data than the absolute minimum. A library catalog record provides the bibliographical data, and holding information for where the item is held; a particular library’s holdings information is an important gauge in evaluating its worth. Furthermore, a database like WorldCat is important for providing many different library possibilities in varying geographical areas. This helps the average reader access the item. A catalog may be a bit unwieldy, inasmuch as different titles on the different volumes of the same work may result in the work spread out over a few records (see the Sifte Hakhamim records as an example) – or even duplicate records for the same item (as happens often in WorldCat). Those varying details, however, are often covered over in a standard bibliography which may “normalize” all variations so as to be contained in one line entry. A more severe disadvantage of such a system is if/when the library catalog changes (permanent) URL details. However, this is a risk that seems to be outweighed by the advantages of such a system. Referring to a book via its library catalog record will prove beneficial to more readers than a standard bibliography.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF RABBINIC BIBLE COMMENTARIES

Medieval

  1. Sa`adia ben Joseph Gaon [882-942]
  2.   Torah

Linetsky [Gen 1-28] (2002)

  1.     Job

Goodman (1988)

  1.     Esther

Wechsler (2015)

         alhatorah.org

  1.   Daniel

Alobaidi (2006)

  1. Rabenu Hananel ben Hushi’el [d. 1055/6]

Torah

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

  1. Rashi [Solomon ben Isaac, 1041-1105]

A.  Bible

Judaica Press (Hoenig/Rosenberg):

  1. [All] CD (1998) / Chabad
  2. [Gen] (1993) 3 vols.
  3. [Ex] (1995) 2 vols.
  4. [Nakh] (1969) 20 vols. in 24

    B. Torah

  1. Rosenbaum/Silbermann (1929) 5 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. Alhatorah.org

  1. Ben-Isaiah/Sharfman (1949) 5 vols.
  2. Metsudah (Kleinkaufman) (1991) 5 vols.

Mnemotrix

  1. Artscroll (Herczeg) (1994) 5 vols.
  2. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols
  3. Lowe [Gen] (1928)
  4. Doron [Gen 1-6] (1982)
  5. Milstein [currently partial ?] (1993) 9 vols.
  6. “Ariel Chumash” (Feldman et al.) [currently Gen] (1997) 2 vols.
  7. Moore [currently Gen] (2002)

C. Joshua

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  2. Metsudah (Davis) (1997)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

D. Judges

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  2. Metsudah (Rabinowitz/Davis) (1998)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

E. Samuel

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (1999) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

F. Kings

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

G. Isaiah

  1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

         pdf

  1. See above: Judaica Press

H. Ezekiel

  1. VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)
  2. See above: Judaica Press

I. Psalms

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  1.     Gruber (2004)
  2. Feldheim (Herczeg) (2009) 2 vols.

J. Five Scrolls

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  1.     Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

  1. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
  2. Schwartz [Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth] (1983)
  3. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)
  4. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

pdf

  1. Herczeg [Esther] (2016)

K. Daniel

  1. See above: Judaica Press
  2. Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

  1. Joseph Kara [ca. 1065-1135]

  A. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

  B. Lamentations

Anderson (2004)

  1. Pdf
  2. alhatorah.org

 

  1. Rashbam [Samuel ben Meir, ca. 11-12th cens.]

A.  Torah  

  1. Lockshin

           a.   [Gen] (1989)

b.   [Ex] (1997)

c .   [Lev & Num] (2001)

d.  [Deut] (2004)

alhatorah.org

  1. Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

  1. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.

    B. Five Scrolls

  1. Thompson [Song of Songs] (1988)

alhatorah.org

  1. Japhet/Salters [Ecclesiastes] (1985)
  1. Eliezer, of Beaugency [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

  1. Menachem ben Simon, of Posquières [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

 

  1. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra [1092-1167]

   A. Torah

  1.     Strickman/Silver (1988) 5 vols.
  2.     Benyowitz (2006) 3 vols.
  3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
  4.     Oles [Gen] (1958)
  5.     Shachter [Lev, Deut] (1986) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org / alhatorah.org

  1.     Linetsky [Gen 1-6] (1998)
  2.     Lancaster [introduction] (2003)

   B.  Isaiah

  1. Friedlander (1873)

Sefaria.org

  1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

C. Hosea

Lipshitz (1988)

D.  Haggai, Zecharia, Malakhi

Frazer (2017)

E. Psalms

Strickman (2009) 3 vols.

         alhatorah.org

     F. Five Scrolls

  1. Mathews [Song of Songs] (1874)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

  1. Block [Song of Songs] (1982)
  2. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
  3. Strickman (online) [Ecclesiastes] (2017)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

  1. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)

Pdf

  1. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

a. Pdf

b. alhatorah.org

 

  1. Moses ben Sheshet [fl. ca. 1190-1200?]

Jeremiah/Ezekiel

Driver (1871)

pdf

  1. Shmuel ibn Tibbon [1150-1230]

Ecclesiastes

Robinson (2007)

  1. Radak [David ben Joseph Kimhi, ca. 1160-ca. 1235]

  A. Genesis

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org

     B. Isaiah

  1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

  1. Cohen [Isa 40-66] (1954)

     C. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

D.  Hosea

Turner [Hos 1] (1847)

         pdf

    E.  Zechariah

M’Caul (1837)

pdf

   F.  Psalms

  1.     Greenup [Pss 1-8] (1918)
  2.     Finch [Pss 1-10, 15-17, 19, 22, 24] (1919)

Sefaria.org

  1.     Baker/Nicholson [Pss 120-150] (1973)

G.  Ruth

Beattie [Ruth] (1977)

H.  Chronicles

Berger (2007)

  1. Ezra ben Solomon, of Gerona [d. ca. 1238]

Song of Songs

Brody (1999)

  1. Joseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor, of Orleans [12th cen.]

Genesis

  1.     Thompson (online) [Gen 1-2 :3] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

  1.     Lockshin (online) [Gen 2 :4-9 :13] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

 

  1. Unknown [Anonymous, late 12th cen]

Song of Songs

Japhet/Walfish (2017)

 

  1. Ramban [Moses ben Nahman = Nachmanides, ca. 1195-ca. 1270]

  A.  Torah

  1.     Chavel (1971) 5 vols.
  2.     Artscroll (Blinder et al) (2004) 7 vols.
  3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
  4. Newman [Gen 1-6] (1960)
  5. Bick [introduction] (online) (?)
  6. Kanter [introduction] (In: Academic Journal of Hebrew Theological College, 1 (2001): 13–35)
  7. Strickman (online) [currently Ex] (?)

alhatorah.org

    B. Ecclesiastes

Chavel (1978): vol. 1

 

  1. Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi [ca. 1220-1291]

Five Scrolls

  1. Alobaidi [Song of Songs] (2014) 
  2. Wechsler [Ruth/Esther] (2010)
  1. Shem Tov ben Joseph Falaquera [ca. 1225–1295]

(Torah)

Jospe (1988)

  1. Zohar [ca. 1280]

Torah

  1. Soncino (Sperling/Simon) (1931) 5 vols.
  2. Matt (“Pritzker edition”) (2004) 12 vols.
  1. Midrash ha-Ne`elam (Zohar) [ca. 1280]

Ruth

Englander/Basser (1993)

  1. Hazekuni [=Hezekiah ben Manoah, 13th cen.]

Torah

Munk (2013) 4 vols.

  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org

 

  1. Da`at Zekenim mi-Ba`alei ha-Tosafot [probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Torah

Munk (online) (2015)

  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org

 

  1. Yalkut Shimoni [=Shim`on ha-Darshan, of Frankfurt?; compilatory, 13th cen]

  A. Jonah

Greenup (1922)

  B.   Nachum

Greenup (1923)

C.    Zecharia

King (1882)

         pdf

D.  Psalms

  1. Narot (1940)
  2. Fischer [Bk 1] (1962)
  3. Waldenberg [Bk 2-3] (1962)

 

  1. Unknown [Anonymous, probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Job

Hirsch (1905)

         pdf

 

  1. Ba`al ha-Turim [= Jacob ben Asher, ca. 1269-ca. 1340]

Torah

  1.     Artscroll (Touger) (1999) 5 vols.
  2.     Munk (2005) 4 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

  1. Ralbag [Levi ben Gershom = Gersonides, 1288-1344]

A.  Job

  1. Lassen (1946)
  2. Stitskin [introduction] (1963) In: Tradition, 6:1 (Fall 1963): 81-85

B.    Song of Songs

  1. Weis (1983)
  2. Kellner (1998)

 

26. Rabenu Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava [d. 1340]

Torah

Munk (1998) 7 vols.

  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org

 

  1. Yalkut ha-Makhiri [=Makir ben Aba Mari, ca. 1335-1410]

Jonah

Greenup  (1911)

         pdf / pdf

 

  1. Abraham ben Isaac ha-Levi Tamakh [d. 1393]

Song of Songs

Feldman (1970)

 

  1. Midrash ha-Gadol [=Adani, David ben Amram, 14th cen]

Numbers

         Fisch (1940)

                     pdf

 

  1. Avat Nefesh [Unknown, end of 14th cen]

Genesis

Gartig (1994)

 

  1. Akedat Yitshak [= Isaac ben Moses Arama, ca. 1420-1494]

Torah

Munk (1986) 2 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

  1. Isaac Abravanel [1437-1508]

A.  Torah

  1. Tomaschoff [Gen] (2007)
  2. Bar Eitan [currently Gen-Lev] (2012) 5 vols.
  3. Lazar (2015) 5 vols.
  4. Kasnett (2017)

  B.   Jonah

Werner (1979)

  1. Tseror ha-Mor [= Abraham ben Jacob Saba, 1440-1508]

Torah

Munk (2008) 5 vols.

 

  1. Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno [ca. 1470-ca. 1550]

Torah

  1.     Artscroll (Pelcovitz) (1987) 2 vols.
  2.     Munk (2006) 4 vols.
  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org
  1.     Stahl [Deut] (1975)

 

(Pre-)Modern

  1. Moses Alshekh [ca. 1520-1593]

A.  Torah

  1. Munk (1988) 2 vols.
  2. Rose [Gen] (2019) 2 vols.

B.    Jonah

  1. Werner (1979)
  2. Shahar (1992)  

C.    Psalms 

Munk (1990) 2 vols.

D.  Proverbs

  1. Munk (1991)
  2. Hirshfeld/Braude (2006) 2 vols.

E.    Job

Shahar (1996) 2 vols.  

F.    Five Scrolls

  1. Shahar [Song of Songs] (1993) 
  2. Shahar/Oschry [Ruth] (1991)
  3. Hirshfeld [Lamentations] (1993)
  4. Shahar [Ecclesiastes] (1992)
  5. Honig [Esther] (1993) 2 vols.   

g.  Daniel

Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

  1. Eliezer ben Elijah Ashkenazi [1512-1585]

Esther

Brown (2006)

 

  1. Keli Yakar [= Ephraim Solomon ben Aaron, of Luntshits (Lenczycza), 1550-1619]

Torah

  1.     Levine [currently Gen-Ex] (2002)
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus 2 vols.
  1.     Kanter [Deut] (2003)

 

  1. Tse’enah u-Re’enah [= Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazi, of Janow, 1550-1628]

Torah

  1.     Artscroll (Zakon) (1983) 3 vols.
  2.     Faierstein (2017) 2 vols.
  3.     Hershon [Gen] (1885)

pdf

 

  1. Shelah [Shene Luhot Ha-berit = Isaiah Horowitz, ca. 1565-1630]

Torah

Munk (1992) 3 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

  1. Sifte Hakhamim [=Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass, 1641-1718]

Torah

Davis et al.

  1. Genesis (2009) 2 vols.
  2. Exodus (2009) 2 vols.
  3. Leviticus (2012)
  4. Numbers (2013)
  5. Deuteronomy (?)

 

  1. Me`am Lo`ez [= Jacob Culi, d. 1732, et al.; Shmuel Yerushalmi, d. 1997]

Moznaim (Kaplan et al.) (1977) 43 vols.:

  1.                 Torah (1977) 20 vols.
  2.                 Joshua (1990)
  3.                 Judges (1991)
  4.                 Samuel I (1991) Samuel II (1993)
  5.                 Kings I (1994) Kings II (1997)
  6.                 Isaiah (1999)
  7.                 Jeremiah (1994) 2 vols.
  8.                 Trei Asar (1997) 2 vols.
  9.                   Psalms (1989) 5 vols.
  10.                   Proverbs (1993) 2 vols.
  11.                 Ruth (1985)
  12.                   Song of Songs (1988)
  13.               Ecclesiastes (1986)
  14.                 Lamentations (1986)
  15.                 Esther (1978)

 

  1. Or ha-Hayim [= Hayyim ben Moses Attar, 1696-1743]

Torah

  1.     Munk (1995) 5 vols.
  1. Sefaria.org
  2. alhatorah.org
  1.     Artscroll (Herzka) (2016) 10 vols.

 

  1. Moses Mendelssohn [1729-1786]

Ecclesiastes

Preston (1845)

pdf

 

  1. Hatam Sofer [= Moses Sofer, 1762-1839]

Torah

Stern [currently Gen-Lev] (1996) 3 vols.

 

  1. Ha-Ketav veha-Kabalah [= Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, 1785-1865] 

Torah

Munk (2001) 7 vols.

 

  1. Shadal [Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865]

Torah

  1. Munk (2012) 4 vols.
  2. Klein [currently Gen–Ex] 2 vols.
  1. Genesis (1998)

alhatorah.org [only Gen 1-11]

  1. Exodus (2015)

alhatorah.org [only Ex 1-5]

  1. [Leviticus (March 2021)]
  1.     Morais [introduction] (1926)

pdf

 

  1. Samson Raphael Hirsch [1808-1888]
  1.   Torah
  1.     Levy (1956) 6 vols.
  2.     Haberman (2000) 6 vols.
  3.     Breuer [Gen] (1948) 2 vols.

 

  1. pdf (v.1)
  2. pdf (v.2)

     B. Psalms

Hirschler (1960) 2 vols.

C.    Proverbs

Paritzky (1976)

 

  1. Malbim [Malbim, Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weiser, 1809-1879]

A.  Torah

Faier [Gen–Ex 12] (1978) 5 vols.

         alhatorah.org [currently Ex]

B.    Jonah

Werner (1979)

C.    Proverbs

Wengrov/Zornberg (1982)

D.  Job

Pfeffer (2003)

  E.   Five Scrolls

  1. Kurtz [Ruth] (1999)
  2. Weinbach [Esther] (1990)
  3. Taub [Esther] (1998)

 

  1. Netsiv [Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, 1817-1893]

Song of Songs

Landesman (1993)

 

  1. Bet ha-Levi [= Joseph Baer Soloveichik, 1820-1892]

Torah

Herczeg [currently Gen-Ex] (1990) 2 vols.

 

  1. Julius Hirsch [1842-1909]

Isaiah

Breuer (2015)

 

  1. Joseph Breuer [1882-1980]

  A.  [Torah

See above: Hirsch (Genesis)]

B.    Jeremiah

Hirschler (1988)

C.    Ezekiel

Hirschler (1993)

 

  1. Da`at Sofrim [= Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, 1911-2001]

Bible

Starrett [currently Jos-Jud; Sam; Kgs; Isa; Jer; Ezk; 12; Ps; Prov; Job; Dan-Neh; Chr]  (2001) 12 vols.

 

  1. Da`at Mikra [=Mordekhai Zer-Kavod et al., 20th cen.]

  A. Psalms

Berman (2003) 3 vols.

B.    Job

Green (2009)

C.    Proverbs

Kanter & Cohen (2014)

Hasidic:

  1. Levi Isaac ben Meir, of Berdichev [1740-1809]

Torah

Munk [currently Gen-Lev] (2009) 3 vols.

 

  1. Menahem Mendel, of Rymanov [1745-1815]

Torah  

Levine (1996)

 

  1. Me ha-Shiloah [= Mordecai Joseph Leiner, 1802-1854]

Torah

Edwards (2001)

 

  1. Sefat Emet [= Judah Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905]

Torah

Green (1998)



Of Twice-Told Tales and Ockham’s Razor: A Response to R. Moshe Haberman

Of Twice-Told Tales and Ockham’s Razor: A Response to R. Moshe Haberman

By Elli Fischer

Elli Fischer is an independent writer, translator, and rabbi.  He is editor of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s Peninei Halakha series in English and cofounder of HaMapah, a project that applies quantitative analysis to rabbinic literature. He is a founding editor of The Lehrhaus, a web magazine of contemporary Jewish thought, and his writing has appeared in numerous Jewish publications. He holds degrees from Yeshiva University, rabbinical ordination from Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, and is working toward a doctorate in Jewish History at Tel Aviv University.

R. Moshe Haberman’s fascinating recent post on the Seforim Blog, “The Twice-Told Tale of R. Yonason Eybeshutz and the Porger,” traces the provenance of a single copy of the first edition of R. Eybeschutz’s כרתי ופלתי in order to resolve an old and puzzling question about a reference to an apparently nonexistent view of the Semag. The answer – that the reference to Semag (סמ“ג) in the printed edition is a typo and should actually be סה“נ, or Sefer Ha-Nikur – was first suggested in 1930 by Rabbi Solomon M. Neches and further clarified by Prof. Shnayer Leiman. Rabbi Neches claimed that this typo was corrected by R. Eybeschutz himself, as the author’s copy of the work was extant, owned by R. Neches, and contained the handwritten emendation. The case seemed to be closed.

However, upon inspection, it seemed that the book was not owned by the author, but by a different R. Yonason Eybeschutz. The conclusion of R. Haberman’s article is that this copy of the 1763 edition of כרתי ופלתי was owned by two different (and unrelated) people named Rabbi Yonasan Eybeschutz.

The post also states that Rabbi Neches, a leading rabbi in Los Angeles (and, as Fred MacDowell discovered, mesader kiddushin at the wedding of Elaine Ackerman to Jerome L. Horowitz, a.k.a “Curly” of the Three Stooges) from the 1920s until his death in 1954, who claimed to have the book in his possession in 1930, did not really have it in Los Angeles in 1930. Rather, he had seen it in his youth in Ottoman Palestine. The copy remained in Eretz Yisrael until 1963, when it was purchased by UCLA through sponsorship of the Cummings family and sent with tens of thousands of other items to Los Angeles. In other words, rather than take R. Neches at his word, that he possessed the book in Los Angeles in 1930, and presumably kept it until his death in 1954, whereupon his personal library was dispersed, R. Haberman posits that the book never reached American shores, let alone R. Neches’s shelves, during his lifetime, yet arrived in the city where he served within a decade of his passing.

The story thus contains two owners who coincidentally shared the name Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz (RYE), and there is no connection between the fact that it was a Los Angeles rabbi who first mentioned this very item in 1930 and the fact that the item itself was in Los Angeles in 1963. Rather, the book made its way from Europe to Ottoman Palestine some time before 1910 (while its prior owner, the second RYE, was still alive in Poland). There it was viewed by a teenage R. Neches, who remembered, 20 years later, a marginal gloss he found therein. Meanwhile, the book itself falls off the grid for half a century before resurfacing in 1963, in an auction.

After reading the post, I decided that such a great story, filled with the most unlikely coincidences, deserved a Footprint. As I started documenting the copy’s provenance, however, the narrative began to unravel. As I will show, there is a much simpler narrative of the book’s provenance.

R. Haberman determines that two different RYEs owned the book because one signature specifies ownership by “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz” and another signature bears resemblance to the signature of the original, 18th century RYE, author of כרתי ופלתי. Thus, it must have been owned by both RYE of Leshitz and RYE the author. Since R. Neches owned at least one book by RYE of Leshitz, namely, שער יהונתן, he, too, must have discovered that two distinct RYEs owned the book.

The problem with this theory is that there is no “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz”. Rather, in the early 20th century, there were two RYEs. One was the rabbi of Kock (Kotzk) and later of Łosice (Leshitz), Poland and author of תפארת יהונתן. He was not a Levi, and he passed away in c. 1915. The second (or third) RYE, who was indeed a Levi, lived in the Praga district of Warsaw and perished in 1943. He was the author of שער יהונתן among other works, and on the title page that appears in Appendix B of R. Haberman’s post, you can see that the author is listed as living in Warsaw, and there is no mention of Leshitz/Łosice.

The pictures that accompany R. Haberman’s post show clearly that the RYE who owned this copy of כרתי ופלתי was from Łosice, but he does not sign that he was a Levi – because he wasn’t. With this in mind, we can now revisit the question: Is there any indication that the original RYE owned the book as well, or can we attribute everything to the non-Levi RYE of Leshitz?

After a bit of searching, I found an item related to RYE of Łosice on an auction site. This item, a copy of R. Eliyahu Mizrahi’s ספר מים עמוקים (Berlin, 5538/1778), contains both the stamp and signature of RYE of Kotzk (before his arrival in Leshitz). Here his signature is immediately to the left of the word ספר.

And here is his stamp (the smaller one):

The auctioneers also included a picture of a marginal note that the owner inscribed in the book, in the name of one Rabbi Isaac of Leszno (Lissa), son of the rabbi of Mezrich (presumably Międzyrzecz, Poland, in Prussia, close to both Leszno and Lozice, and not Mezhyrichi, Ukraine, home of the famed Maggid, or Międzyrzec Podlaski, in eastern Poland):

(Here is another item that contains RYE of Leshitz’s handwriting.)

Moreover, I am no graphologist, but the two RYE signatures that R. Haberman compares in his post seem far from identical. In the signature of the 18th-century RYE, the leg of the ה is more curved, the bottom of the נ does not extend very far below the line, the ת has a shorter leg, and the top of the ן begins at the same level as the tops of all the other letters. Sure, there is some superficial similarity, but it seems very far from dispositive.

Rather, Ockham’s Razor would encourage us to adopt the simpler explanation, namely, that copy of כרתי ופלתי was owned by only one Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz: the rabbi of Kotzk and then Leshitz, who died in the early 20th century. It was he who wrote the gloss referring to ספר הניקור – an answer that has the ring of truth and which there seems to be no reason to reject, even if the answer was not provided by the author himself. If anything, RYE of Leshitz deserves his due as the one who resolved this question.

Let us now turn to the question of where the book was at various points. Here, the suggestion that R. Neches viewed the book in Eretz Yisrael prior to 1910, when he emigrated to the US, seemed impossible, as the previous owner – whether RYE of Leshitz or RYE Halevi of Warsaw – lived in Europe. When, why, and how would the book have made its way to Ottoman Palestine without its owner? Moreover, R. Neches’s language seemed to indicate quite clearly that the book was in his possession, in Los Angeles, in 1930. This received further confirmation from commenter Ben Sommerfield, who notes that in another article, from 1951, R. Neches again mentioned that the copy of כרתי ופלתי is in his possession and even includes a facsimile of the page with the marginal note. We can thus conclude that the book was in possession of R. Neches in Los Angeles from 1930 to 1951.

In order to have been included in the Cummings Collection, then, the book would have had to get from Los Angeles to Israel and back to Los Angeles in a span of 12 years – 9 years if we presume that R. Neches kept it until his death in 1954. While not impossible, here again, another explanation seems far more likely.

In an article in HaMa’ayan (56:1 [215], Tishrei 5776, pp. 101-2), R. Yaakov Yitzchak Miller, who located the copy of כרתי ופלתי together with R. Haberman (they thank one another in their respective articles), correctly identifies the previous owner of the copy as RYE of Leshitz (even comparing the signature in the copy to the signature in other auctioned items – in which there are likewise marginalia) and thus dismisses R. Neches’s claim that this was the author’s copy. R. Miller also notes (n. 2 ad loc.) that much of R. Neches’s library was donated to UCLA. It would seem far more likely that this copy of כרתי ופלתי was donated to UCLA from R. Neches’s estate than that it was sent to Israel, appended to a much larger collection, and then purchased by UCLA several years later.

So what are we to make of Prof. Arnold Band’s confirmation that כרתי ופלתי was part of the collection whose purchase he orchestrated in 1963, and of the fact that the book is listed in the UCLA catalog as part of the Cummings collection? In my view, the likely answer is that the 1963 purchase indeed included a copy of כרתי ופלתי – perhaps UCLA’s copy of the Vienna 1819 edition. It takes nothing away from Prof. Band and his efforts to secure this collection to suggest that it seems highly unlikely that he remembers, after 57 years, a detail that he never mentioned before about a signature in one specific book out of 30,000. Perhaps he remembered that the purchase included a copy of כרתי ופלתי, even an old one. Or perhaps he mixed up the 1819 copy with the 1763 copy after the former’s arrival in Los Angeles, resulting in the library miscataloging R. Neches’s 1763 copy. Either way, a cataloging error seems more likely than the scenario suggested by R. Haberman.

The final timeline would then look something like this: The copy was owned by RYE of Leshitz until his death in 1915. At some point between 1915 and 1930, R. Neches purchased it – perhaps from a dealer who obtained items from the estate of RYE of Leshitz and convinced buyers that they had been owned by the far more famous 18th century RYE. It remained in R. Neches’s possession until his death in 1954, whereupon it was donated to UCLA and miscataloged.



Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg Eulogizes Rabbi Shlomo Goren

Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg Eulogizes Rabbi Shlomo Goren

Marc B. Shapiro

The recent passing of R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg was a great loss. It was not just a loss for one segment of the Torah world, as R. Zalman Nehemiah was unusual in that he was part of both the haredi world and the religious Zionist world. He was respected in both of these camps and spent his life teaching Torah among haredim and religious Zionists. One of the places he taught at was Yeshivat Ha-Idra, which was established by R. Shlomo Goren (and which closed not long after R. Goren’s death). I was fortunate to discover a eulogy that R. Zalman Nehemiah delivered for R. Goren.[1] From the eulogy you can see that R. Zalman Nehemiah broke with basically the entire haredi world which had written R. Goren off, and wanted nothing to do with him, either in life or after his death. Significantly, R. Zalman Nehemiah also contributed to the memorial volume published for R. Goren.

You can see the original handwritten eulogy in one document here, and my transcription of the eulogy in one document here.

There are a couple of noteworthy points in the eulogy which I would like to call attention to. R. Zalman Nehemiah mentions that R. Goren would complete seven pages of Talmud a day, and in this way would finish the Talmud in a year. In his autobiography, R. Goren mentions that it was R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Chevron Yeshiva, who recommended to the young Shlomo Gorontchik that he learn seven blatt a day. R. Epstein said that this was what he himself did, and he recommended that R. Goren do this in the morning, while in the afternoon he study the Talmud in depth. This was not long after R. Goren entered the yeshiva, when he was not yet twelve years old.[2] Incredibly, he began learning seven blatt a day, and he tells us that during the winter he finished Yevamot twelve times. He also tells us that as he got older he would do 24 blatt a day with Rashi and Tosafot.[3]

The other point worthy of note is that R. Zalman Nehemiah mentions that there was a rumor that R. Goren was going to be engaged with the granddaughter of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and when this turned out to be incorrect R. Isser Zalman was very upset and was comforted by R. Aryeh Levin. In his autobiography, R. Goren discusses this matter but without mentioning any names.[4]

בעת ההיא, החלו גם רבנים ושדכנים שונים לנסות ולשדך לי אישה. אחת ההצעות הגיעה מאחד מגדולי ישראל, מן הגאונים, שהיה מעוניין מאוד לשדך לי את בתו

R. Goren mentions that since his father was a Gur Hasid he had to get the approval of the Rebbe, who for one reason or another was not enthusiastic about the match, meaning that there could be no shiddukh. R. Goren mentions that the woman who was suggested for him ended up marrying a great rabbi, but the marriage ended in divorce.[5]

The woman proposed for R. Goren was none other than R. Aharon Kotler’s daughter, who went on to marry R. Dov Schwartzman. It makes sense that R. Kotler would be interested in R. Goren, as he would have heard from his father-in-law, R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, about the great illui, R. Shlomo Gorontchik. There even exists a letter in which R. Kotler asks his father-in-law about R. Goren in terms of a possible shiddukh. Here is a selection from the letter which first appeared here.

Incidentally, here is a picture of R. Goren and R. Kotler from 1954 at the Agudah Kenessiah Gedolah in Jerusalem. It first appeared here. The man on the right is R. Shabbetai Yogel, who was on the Moetzet Gedolei ha-Torah.

Also noteworthy is that on one occasion R. Kotler accepted an invitation from R. Goren to speak to a group of Israeli soldiers.[6]

As long as we are talking about R. Goren, here are some unknown pictures of him and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

In this picture the man to the left is Rabbi Israel Miller. I don’t know who is standing behind the Rav.

In this picture Rabbi Zevulun Charlop is standing on the left, and on the right are Rabbis Israel Miller and Samuel Belkin.

Here is a picture of R. Goren giving his shiur at YU. Maybe some readers were in attendance.

These pictures are found in the Israel State Archives here, and it is indicated in the file that credit should be given to Yeshiva University. No date is given for R. Goren’s visit, but in the Israel State Archives it indicates that the visit took place when R. Goren was Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv. While he was elected to this position in 1968, he only started serving in 1971. At the end of 1972 he was elected Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel. From this we would conclude that the visit took place in either 1971 or 1972. We can further pinpoint the date of the visit as the file in the Israel State Archives includes the envelope in which the pictures were sent to R. Goren, and it is postmarked May 24, 1972. We thus see that the visit was in the spring of 1972. I then did a Google search, and lo and behold, I found an article on R. Goren’s visit in the May 19, 1972 issue of the Indiana Jewish Post and Opinion.

With this information I went to the online archives of the YU Commentator, and in the May 17, 1972 issue (p. 8), I found a report of R. Goren’s visit. We see from it that R. Goren spoke at YU on May 3, 1972.

*************

[1] The original letter published here is found in the Israel State Archives. Recently, the website for the Israel State Archives was updated, and I can no longer find the file that contains R. Goldberg’s letter, which is why I have not provided a link.
[2] It is commonly said that R. Goren entered the Chevron Yeshiva when he was twelve years old. However, R. Goren stated that he was born at the end of 1917 and he entered the yeshiva in the fall of 1929. See Be-Oz ve-Ta’atzumot, ed. Avi Rat (Tel Aviv, 2013), pp. 21, 61. Some sources, including the English Wikipedia, state that he was born on Feb. 3, 1917. Israel government sources and the Hebrew Wikipedia state that he was born on Feb. 3, 1918. I have no idea where the date of Feb. 3 comes from, as R. Goren himself said he was born at the end of 1917.
[3] Be-Oz ve-Ta’atzumot, pp. 62-63.
[4] Be-Oz ve-Ta’atzumot, p. 97.
[5] Be-Oz ve-Ta’atzumot, pp. 97-98.
[6] See R. Zalman ha-Levi Ury, Kedushat Avraham, vol. 2, p. 199.



Kol Nidrei, Choirs, and Beethoven: The Eternity of the Jewish Musical Tradition

Kol Nidrei, Choirs, and Beethoven: The Eternity of the Jewish Musical Tradition
The Seforim Blog is reposting Dan Rabinowitz’s post from 2018.
On April 23, 1902, the cornerstone to the Taharat Ha-Kodesh synagogue was laid, and on Rosh Ha-Shana the next year, September 7, 1903, the synagogue was officially opened. The synagogue building was on one of Vilna’s largest boulevards and constructed in a neo-Moorish architectural style, capped with a blue cupola that was visible for blocks. There was a recessed entry with three large arches and two columns. The interior housed an impressive ark, located in a semi-circular apse and covered in a domed canopy. But what really set the synagogue apart from the other 120 or so places to pray in Vilna was that above the ark, on the first floor, were arched openings that served the choir. In fact, it was generally referred to by that feature and was known as the Choral Synagogue. The congregants were orthodox, most could be transported to any modern Orthodox synagogue and they would indistinguishable, in look – dressing in contemporary styles, many were of the professional class, middle to upper middle class, and they considered themselves maskilim, or what we might call Modern Orthodox.[1]

The incorporation of the choir should be without controversy. Indeed, the Chief Rabbi of Vilna, Yitzhak Rubenstein would alternate giving his sermon between the Great Synagogue, or the Stut Shul [City Synagogue], and the Choral Synagogue.[2] Judaism can trace a long relationship to music and specifically the appreciation, and recognition of the unique contribution it brings to worship. Some identify biblical antecedents, such as Yuval, although he was not specifically Jewish. Of course, David and Solomon are the early Jews most associated with music. David used music for religious and secular purposes – he used to have his lyre play to wake him at midnight, the first recorded instance of an alarm clock. Singing and music was an integral part of the temple service, and the main one for the Levite class who sang collectively, in a choir. With the destruction of the temple, choirs, and music, in general, was separated from Judaism. After that cataclysmic event, we have little evidence of choirs and even music. Indeed, some argued that there was an absolute ban on music extending so far as to prohibit singing.

It would not be until the early modern period in the 16th century that choirs and music began to play a central role in Jewish ritual, and even then, it was limited – and was associated with modernity or those who practiced a more modern form of the religion.
Rabbi Leon (Yehudah Aryeh) Modena (1571-1648) was one of the most colorful figures in the Jewish Renaissance. Born in Venice, he traveled extensively among the various cities in the region.[3] He authored over 15 books, and made his living teaching and preaching in synagogues, schools, and private homes; composing poems on commission for various noblemen; and as an assistant printer. In 1605, he was living in Ferrara where an incident occurred in the synagogue that kickstarted the collective reengagement with music. Modena explained that “we have six or eight knowledgeable men, who know something about the science of song, i.e. “[polyphonic] music,” men of our congregation (may their Rock keep and save them), who on holidays and festivals raise their voices in the synagogue and joyfully sing songs, praises, hymns and melodies such as Ein Keloheinu, Aleinu Leshabeah, Yigdal, Adon Olam etc. to the glory of the Lord in an orderly relationship of the voices according to this science [polyphonic music]. … Now a man stood up to drive them out with the utterance of his lips, answering [those who enjoyed the music], saying that it is not proper to do this, for rejoicing is forbidden, and song is forbidden, and hymns set to artful music have been forbidden since the Temple was destroyed.[4]
Modena was not cowed by this challenge and wrote a lengthy resposum to defend the practice which he sent to the Venetian rabbinate and received their approbation. But that did not put the matter to rest.
In 1610, as he approached forty, Modena received his ordination from the Venetian rabbis and settled in Venice to serve not only as a rabbi but as a cantor, with his pleasant tenor voice. In around 1628 in the Venetian ghetto, an academy of music was organized with Modena serving as the Maestro di Caeppella . Both in name and motto that academy embraced its subversive nature. It was called the Academia degli Impediti, the Academy of the Hampered, named in derision of the traditional Jewish reluctance to perform music because of “the unhappy state of captivity which hampers every act of competence.” In this spirit, especially in light of Modena’s responsum on music in 1605, the Accademia took the Latin motto Cum Recordaremur Sion, and in Hebrew, Bezokhrenu et Tzion, when we remembered Zion, based paradoxically on Psalm 137, one of the texts invoked against Jewish music: “We hung up our harps…. How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”
On Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah in October 1628, a spectacular musical performance was held in the Spanish synagogue, which had been decorated with silver and jewels. Two choirs from the academy sang artistic Hebrew renderings of the afternoon service, the evening service, and some Psalms. Their extensive repertoire lasted a few hours. A throng of Christian noblemen and ladies attended the Simchat Torah service. The applause was great, and police had to guard the gates to ensure order
Beyond his musical endeavors, Modena also served as an expert in Hebrew publishing. The two would create a confluence that enabled the first modern Jewish book of music.
For Rabbi Leon Modena, his young friend, the musician Salamone Rossi, would herald the Jewish re-awakening. We know very little about Rossi’s life. He was born circa 1570 and died sometime after 1628, possibly in 1630. He is listed as a violinist and composer on the payroll of the Gonzaga dukes, rulers of Mantua, and was associated with a Jewish theater company, as composer or performer or both. In addition, Rossi was also writing motets – short pieces of sacred music typically polyphonic and unaccompanied – for the synagogue using contemporary Italian and church styles. He was specifically encouraged in this endeavor by Modena, who urged the composer to have this music published so that it could have an even greater impact.[5] In 1622 the publishing house of Bragadini in Venice issued thirty-three of Rossi’s synagogue motets in a collection, Shirim asher le-Shlomo, that Modena edited. This extraordinary publication represented a huge innovation. First, the use of musical notations that required a particularly thorny issue to be resolved right versus left. Rossi decided to keep the traditional musical notational scheme and provide those from left to right and write the Hebrew backward, because the latter would be more familiar to the reader. Second, it was the first time the Hebrew synagogue liturgy had ever been set as polyphonic choral music. Polyphony in the Christian church had begun centuries earlier. Rossi’s compositions sound virtually indistinguishable from a church motet, except for one thing: the language is Hebrew – the lyrics are from the liturgy of the synagogue, where this music was performed.
There was bound to be a conflict between the modern Jews who had been influenced by the Italian Renaissance and who supported this innovation, and those with a more conservative theology and praxis. But the antagonism towards music, especially non-traditional music, remained strong. Anticipating objections over Rossi’s musical innovations, and perhaps reflecting discussions that were already going on in Venice or Mantua, Modena wrote a lengthy preface included the responsum he wrote in 1605 in Ferrara in support of music in which he refuted the arguments against polyphony in the synagogue. “Shall the prayers and praises of our musicians become objects of scorn among the nations? Shall they say that we are no longer masters of the art of music and that we cry out to the God of our fathers like dogs and ravens?”3 Modena acknowledged the degraded state of synagogue music in his own time but indicates that it was not always so. “For wise men in all fields of learning flourished in Israel in former times. All noble sciences sprang from them; therefore, the nations honored them and held them in high esteem so that they soared as if on eagles’ wings. Music was not lacking among these sciences; they possessed it in all its perfection and others learned it from them. … However, when it became their lot to dwell among strangers and to wander to distant lands where they were dispersed among alien peoples, these vicissitudes caused them to forget all their knowledge and to be devoid of all wisdom.”
In the same essay, he quotes Emanuel of Rome, a Jewish poet from the early fourteenth century, who wrote, “What does the science of music say to the Christians? ‘Indeed, I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews.’” Using the words of Joseph from the book of Genesis, Modena was hinting that the rituals and the music of the Catholic church had been derived from those of ancient Israel, an assertion that has been echoed by many scholars. Although it can be argued that Modena indulges in hyperbole, both ancient and modern with some attributing the earliest ritual music to Obadiah the convert who noted a Jewish prayer that was only then appropriated for use in Gregorian chants.[6]
Directly addressing the naysayers, Modena wrote that “to remove all criticism from misguided hearts, should there be among our exiles some over-pious soul (of the kind who reject everything new and seek to forbid all knowledge which they cannot share) who may declare this [style of sacred music] forbidden because of things he has learned without understanding, … and to silence one who made confused statements about the same matter. He immediately cites the liturgical exception to the ban on music. Who does not know that all authorities agree that all forms of singing are completely permissible in connection with the observance of the ritual commandments? … I do not see how anyone with a brain in his skull could cast any doubt on the propriety of praising God in song in the synagogue on special Sabbaths and on festivals. … The cantor is urged to intone his prayers in a pleasant voice. If he were able to make his one voice sound like ten singers, would this not be desirable? … and if it happens that they harmonize well with him, should this be considered a sin? … Are these individuals on whom the Lord has bestowed the talent to master the technique of music to be condemned if they use it for His glory? For if they are, then cantors should bray like asses and refrain from singing sweetly lest we invoke the prohibition against vocal music.
No less of an authority than the Shulhan Arukh, explains that “when a cantor who stretches out the prayers to show off his pleasant voice, if his motivation is to praise God with a beautiful melody, then let him be blessed, and let him chant with dignity and awe.” And that was Rossi’s exact motivation to “composed these songs not for my own honor but for the honor of my Father in heaven who created this soul within me. For this, I will give thanks to Him evermore.” The main thrust of Modena’s preface was to silence the criticisms of the “self-proclaimed or pseudo pious ones” and “misguided hearts.”
Modena’s absurdist argument – should we permit the hazzan to bray like an ass – is exactly what a 19th-century rabbi, Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern, who was generally opposed to the Haskalah – and some of the very people who started the Choral Synagogue, espoused. Stern argues that synagogal singing is not merely prohibited but is a cardinal sin. To Stern, such religious singing is only the practice of non-Jews who “strive to glorify their worship in their meeting house [בית הכנסת שלהם] so that it be with awe, and without other intermediaries that lead to distraction and sometimes even to lightheadedness. In the case of Jews, however, there is certainly be a desecration of G-d’s Name when we make the holy temple a place of partying and frivolity and a meeting house for men and women … in prayer. there is no place for melodies [נגונים], only the uttering of the liturgy with gravity [כובד ראש] … to do otherwise is the way of arrogance, as one who casts off the yoke, where the opposite is required: submission, awe and gravity, and added to this because of the public desecration of G-d’s Name – a hillul ha-Shem be-rabbim.” (For more on this responsum see here.)
Similarly, even modern rabbis, for example, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who died in 2006, also rejected Modena’s position, because of modernity. Although in this instance, not because of the novelty or the substance of Modena’s decision but because of the author’s lifestyle. Modena took a modern approach to Jewish life and was guilty of such sins as not wearing a yarmulke in public and permitting ball playing on Shabbos.
Despite these opinions, for many Orthodox Jews, with some of the Yeshivish or Haredi communities as outliers, song is well entrenched in the services, no more so than on the Yomim Noraim. Nor is Modena an outlier rabbinic opinion of the value of music and divine service. No less of an authority than the Vilna Gaon is quoted as highly praising music and that it plays a more fundamental role to Judaism that extends well beyond prayer. Before we turn to the latter point it is worth noting that at times Jewish music was appropriated by non-Jews – among the most important composers, Beethoven. One the holiest prayer of Yom Kippur, Kol Nedri, is most well-known not for the text (which itself poses many issues) but the near-universal tune. That tune, although not as repetitive in the prayer can be heard in the sixth movement of Beethoven’s Quartet in C# minor, opus 131 (you can hear a version here). One theory is in 1824, the Jews in Vienna were finally permitted to build their own synagogue and for the consecration asked Vienna’s most famous composer to write a piece of music.[7] Although Beethoven did not take the commission, he may have done some research on Jewish music and learned of this tune. We could ask now, is Beethoven playing a Jewish music?[8]
R. Yisrael M’Sklov, a student of the Gaon records that he urged the study of certain secular subjects as necessary for the proper Torah study, algebra and few other, but “music he praised more than the rest. He said that most of the fundamentals and secrets of the torah … the Tikkunei Zohar are impossible to understand without music, it is so powerful it can resurrect the dead with its properties. Many of these melodies and their corresponding secrets were among the items that Moshe brought when he ascended to Sinai.”[9]
In this, the Gaon was aligned with many Hassidim who regularly incorporated music into their rituals, no matter where the origin. Just one of many examples, Habad uses the tune to the French national anthem for the prayer Aderet ve-Emunah. The power of music overrides any considerations of origin. Indeed, they hold that not only can music affect us, but we can affect the music itself, we hold the power to transform what was impure, the source and make it pure. That is not simply a cute excuse, but the essence of what Hassidim view the purpose of Judaism, making holy the world. Music is no longer a method of attaining holiness, singing is itself holiness.[10]
Today in Vilna, of the over 140 places of worship before the Holocaust five shul buildings remain and only one shul is still in operation. That shul is the Choral Synagogue – the musical shul. Nonetheless not all as it should be. In the 1960s a rabbi from Israel was selected as the rabbi for the community and the shul. When he arrived, he insisted that choirs have no place in Judaism and ordered the choir arches sealed up. We, however, have the opportunity, as individuals and community to use the power of music to assist us on the High Holidays – that can be me-hayeh ma’tim.
[1] See Cohen-Mushlin, Synagogues in Lithuania N-Z, 253-61. For more on the founding of the congregation see Mordechai Zalkin, “Kavu le-Shalom ve-ain: Perek be-Toldot ha-Kneset ha-Maskili ‘Taharat ha-Kodesh be-Vilna,” in Yashan mi-Pnei Hadash: Mehkarim be-Toldot Yehudei Mizrah Eiropah u-ve-Tarbutam: Shai le-Imanuel Etkes, eds. David Asaf and Ada Rapoport-Albert (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2009) 385-403. The images are taken from Cohen-Mushlin.
[2] Hirsz Abramowicz, Profiles of a Lost World (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), 293.
[3] Regarding Modena see his autobiography, translated into English, The Autobiography of a Seventeenth Century Rabbi, ed. Mark Cohen (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); and the collection of articles in The Lion Shall Roar: Leon Modena and his World, ed. David Malkiel, Italia, Conference Supplement Series, 1 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 2003).
[4] His responsum was reprinted in Yehuda Areyeh Modena, She’a lot u-Teshuvot Ziknei Yehuda, ed. Shlomo Simonsin (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1956), 15-20.
[5] See generally Don Harrán, Salamone Rossi: Jewish Musician in Late Renaissance Mantua (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Michelene Wandor, “Salamone Rossi, Judaism and the Musical Cannon,” European Judaism 35 (2002): 26-35; Peter Gradenwitz, The Music of Israel: From the Biblical Era to Modern Times 2nd ed. (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1996), 145-58.
The innovations of Rossi and Modena ended abruptly in the destruction of the Mantua Ghetto in 1630 and the dispersion of the Jewish community. The music was lost until the late 1800s when Chazzan Weintraub discovered it and began to distribute it once again.
[6] See Golb who questions this attribution and argues the reverse and also describes the earlier scholarship on Obadiah. Golb, “The Music of Obadiah the Proselyte and his Conversion,” Journal of Jewish Studies 18: 43-46.
[7] Such ceremonies were not confined to Austria. In Italy since the middle of the seventeenth century, special ceremonies for the dedication of synagogues had become commonplace. See Gradenwitz, Music of Israel, 159-60.
[8] Jack Gotlieb, Funny, It Doesn’t Sound Jewish, (New York: State University Press of New York, 2004), 17-18; see also Theodore Albrecht, “Beethoven’s Quotation of Kol Nerei in His String Quartet, op. 131: A Circumstantial Case for Sherlock Holmes,” in I Will Sing and Make Music: Jewish Music and Musicians Through the Ages, ed. Leonard Greenspoon (Nebraska: Creighton University Press, 2008), 149-165. For more on the history of the synagogue see Max Grunwald, Vienna (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1936), 205-21.
[9] R. Yisrael M’Sklov, Pat ha-Shulhan (Sefat, 1836).
[10] See Mordechai Avraham Katz, “Be-Inyan Shirat Negunim ha-Moshrim etsel ha-Goyim,” Minhat ha-Kayits, 73-74. However, some have refused to believe that any “tzadik” ever used such tunes. Idem. 73. See also our earlier article discussing the use of non-Jewish tunes “Hatikvah, Shir HaMa’a lot, & Censorship.”


מנהג ה’תשליך’ מאת ר’ איתם הנקין הי”ד

מנהג ה‘תשליך‘ מאת ר‘ איתם הנקין הי“ד

[הותקן לפרסום מתוך רשימה מכת“י]

.מנהג התשליך מוזכר באופן ברור לראשונה בסוף המאה ה-14, בספר המנהגים לרבי יצחק אייזיק טירנא (סוף מנהגי ראש השנה, ד“ה “ושליח צבור“): “ורגילין לילך על הנהר ולומר תשוב תרחמינו וגו‘, ורואים דגים חיים“

בסמוך לו לפניו מוזכר המנהג במהרי“ל (מנהגים, הלכות ראש השנה אות ט‘): “מה שנוהגין לילך בר“ה אחר סעודה אצל ימים ונהרות להשליך במצולות ים כל חטאותינו, משום דאיתא במדרש זכר לעקדה… ומהר“י סג“ל נהג ג“כ להלוך אצל הנהרות. ואמר, כשהולכין אל הנהרות ביום טוב אל יוליכו עמהם שום מזון כדי לזרוק אל הדגים שבנהרות להראות להם לשמוח בהן, דאית ביה חילול יו“ט…”. במקור זה לא נאמר שהיו אומרים אמירה כלשהי, ומתוך דבריו אנו שומעים שהיו מן העם שנהגו לזרוק בהזדמנות זו אוכל לדגים כדי “להראות להם [ו]לשמוח בהן” (בדומה לדברי מהר“י טירנא על כך ש“רואים דגים חיים“).

גם ב‘לקט יושר‘ לרבי יוסף ב“ר משה, בן המאה ה-15, מוזכר מנהג זה כבדרך אגב, שרבו הר“י איסרלין בעל ‘תרומת הדשן‘ לא הקפיד כל כך ללכת לתשליך: “ואינו מקפיד כ“כ אם אינו הולך לתשליך, אבל לפעמים הולך” (ח“א, או“ח עמ‘ 131, עניין ד; מהד‘ מכון שלמה אומן, עמ‘ רצד עניין נב). במקור זה אנו כבר מוצאים שהמנהג מכונה “תשליך“, על שם הפסוק המרכזי הנאמר בו (מיכה ז יט).

הרמ“א מזכיר מנהג זה גם בספרו ההגותי – תורת העולה ח“ג פרק נו: “מנהג ישראל תורה הוא, במה שהולכים על המים ואומרים תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם. להיות כי מן מצולות ים ניכר ענין בריאת העולם, כי מצולות ים הוא התהום, והוא המקום היותר עמוק בים, וכשאנו הולכים שם אנו רואים גבורתו של יוצר בראשית. ולכן אנו הולכים על המים בראש השנה שהוא יום הדין, לשים כל אחד על נפשו ענין בריאת העולם, ושה‘ יתעלה מלך הארץ. ועל זה נאמר תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם, כי באמת המתבונן בענין מצולות ים ומכיר שהעולם מחודש, על ידי זה עומד על מציאות ה‘ יתעלה, ומתחרט על ידי זה על כל עוונותיו וחטאיו נמחלים, ועל דרך זה נשלכים החטאים במצולות הים“.

קיימת במחקר סברה שהועלתה לראשונה ע“י יעקב צ. לאוטרבך (H.U.C.A כרך י“א – 1936) שמקור המנהג בתיאור מתקופת הגאונים, המוזכר גם ברש“י שבת פא ע“ב: “בתשובת הגאונים מצאתי שעושין חותלות מכפות תמרים וממלאין אותם עפר וזבל בהמה, וכ“ב או ט“ו יום לפני ר“ה עושין כל אחד ואחד לשם כל קטן וקטנה שבבית, וזורעים לתוכן פול המצרי או קיטנית וקורין לו פורפיסא וצומח. ובערב ר“ה נוטל כל אחד שלו ומחזירו סביבות ראשו שבעה פעמים ואומר זה תחת זה וזה חליפתי וזה תמורתי ומשליכו לנהר“.

אולם מדובר בספקולציה בעלמא, שכן הקשר היחיד בין המתואר שם לבין מנהג התשליך הוא המילים “ומשליכו לנהר“; כל השאר אינו קשור כלל, וגם מן הבחינה הגיאוגרפית והכרונולוגית אין כל דבר המחבר בין שני המנהגים. גם עצם הראיה מההשלכה לנהר הינה מפוקפקת, שכן רק במהרי“ל מוזכר נוהג לזרוק למים דברים כלשהם בשעת ה‘תשליך‘, ואילו בספר המנהגים ובלקט יושר אין לכך זכר. ואף אם נניח שהמוזכר במהרי“ל הוא המשקף את המנהג הרווח ביהודי אשכנז, עדיין מדובר במנהג בעל טעם אחר מוגדר – לזרוק אוכל לדגים כדי לראות אותם ולשמוח בהם – ושונה לחלוטין מטעם ההשלכה למים במנהג הגאונים.

מקור קדום וסביר יותר כהשראה למנהג זה, נדפס באוצר המדרשים של אייזנשטיין, עמ‘ 406: “…וכשם שהשלג מיד נעשה ממנו מים והולכים לים, כך עונותיו של אדם: מיד כשיעשה תשובה ימסו לְמים, שנאמר ‘[ו]תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם‘” (מדרש כמעט זהה מובא בפירושי סדור התפילה לרוקח, מהד‘ אייזנבך, הוצ‘ מכון סודי רזיא ירושלים תשס“ד, עמ‘ תקה). מוזכר כאן הן הפסוק המרכזי שנאמר ב‘תשליך‘ ושעל שמו קרוי המנהג, והן הרעיון הסמלי שהעוונות כָּלים במים – סמליות שמתבטאת באמירת הפסוק על הנהר.

מדרש דומה מובא בפסיקתא רבתי (מהד‘ איש שלום, סוף פיסקא מד), על הפסוק “שובה ישראל” הלקוח מן הפטרת השבת שבין ראש השנה ליום כיפור: “אמרו: רבונו של עולם, ומה את עושה לכל עונותינו? אמר להם: עשו תשובה והם נבלעים מן העולם… אמרו לו: ולהיכן אתה משליכם? אמר להם: לים – שנאמר ‘ישוב ירחמנו יכבוש עונותינו, ותשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתינו‘ (במקור: “כל חטאתם“)”. למעשה, פסוק זה כשלעצמו כבר מכיל את הרעיון הסמלי שבבסיס המנהג – השלכת החטאים לים – וייתכן אפוא שבזמן מסוים החלו באופן ספונטני לקיים את מנהג זה על בסיס הפסוק לבדו.

הקשר בין פסוק זה לימים הנוראים מוזכר כבר בסדר רב עמרם גאון, שם מובא הפסוק בתוך “סדר אשמורות” – סדר הסליחות לעשרת ימי תשובה. מאוחר יותר, בספר “מנהג מרשלייאה” לרבי משה ב“ר שמואל אחיינו של רבי יצחק בעל ‘העיטור‘, מובאת התפילה “יהי רצון מלפניך ה‘ אלוקינו שתשליך [במצולות ים כל חטאותינו]” (מנהג מרשלייאה, סדר תפילת יום הכיפורים. בתוך: קובץ על יד, ספר כד, הוצ‘ חברת מקיצי נרדמים, ירושלים תשנ“ח, עמ‘ 132).

ההתנגדות הראשונה לעצם מנהג התשליך הועלתה בזמן האחרונים, ע“י המטה אפרים (אלף המגן, על סי‘ תקצח ס“ק ז) והתוספות חיים (על בינת אדם, כלל קלט אות כז), ונבעה מסיבה צדדית: התקהלויות התשליך גרמו לתערובת גברים ונשים, ולכן הפוסקים הללו קראו לבטל את המנהג. גישה זו רמוזה כבר בהקדמה לספר “צבי לצדיק“, שם מובא שהחכם צבי מנע מבנותיו ללכת לתשליך.

לנושא זה התייחס הערוך השלחן וקבע שיש למנוע מהנשים ללכת לתשליך, ואם יש תערובת גברים ונשים אזי אין ללכת כלל; והוסיף הערוה“ש שבלאו הכי יש “בזמננו” הנמנעים ללכת לתשליך מטעמים הידועים להם, “ונכון הוא“. במה מדובר? הערוה“ש סתם את דבריו, אך ניתן אולי לשער שהכוונה לתופעה שהיתה ידועה לאורך הדורות, והוא שהגויים האשימו את היהודים שהם מרעילים את המים, ואולי נתלו במנהג התשליך הנעשה על הנהר ומצאו בו “הוכחה” לטענתם. הרב שפרבר, מנהגי ישראל, ח“ג, עמ‘ קכא, הערה 23, מביא כמה מקורות לעלילה הנוצרית הרווחת בשלהי ימי הביניים של הרעלת הבארות ע“י היהודים.

[הערת העורך: התנגדות הגר“א, מתועדת בספר מעשה רב (אות רט), כי הגר“א “לא היה הולך לנהר או לבאר לומר תשליך“.]

כעין זה, אם כי בצורה שונה מעט, מובא בספר “עמק ברכה” לר‘ אברהם הורוויץ אבי השל“ה (מהד‘ ירושלים תשל“ז, עמ‘ קע), שאין לנער את הכיסים בתשליך ולחשוב שבכך העבירות מנוערות מן האדם, שכן הדבר מביא לחילול ה‘ מצד הגויים המלעיגים על כך. וכך נאמר שם: “הגה“ה. ראוי לבטל מן האנשים שדעתן קלות כנשים, שאומרים בזה הלשון: איך וויל גיין מיין עבירות שיטלן [אני רוצה ללכת להשליך את העבירות שלי] ואוחזין בכנף בגדיהם ונוערין בהם, וסוברין בדעתן שע“י זה יכול האדם לנער כל העבירות שעשה כל השנה. וח“ו לחשוב כן. וכן הוא באמת חילול שם גדול בפני האומות שיודעים מזה, ואם רואים היהודים שהולכים את הנהר אומרים דרך שחוק: היהודים הולכים שיטלן אירי זינד אין וואשר [להשליך את חטאיהם במים]. אלא אם רוצה לקיים המנהג יאמר בזה הלשון: איך וויל גיין תשליך מאכן [אני רוצה לקיים “תשליך“]”.

[הערת העורך: בדיקה בדפוס הראשון של “עמק ברכה“, קראקא שנ“ז, העלתה כי פיסקה זו חסרה שם והיא תוספת ברכה של המו“ל, נכד המחבר, ר‘ אברהם דיין מפוזנא ב“ר ישעיהו סג“ל, במהדורה השנייה של הספר, שנדפסה באמשטרדם תפ“ט.]



The Twice Told Tale of R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz and the Porger

The Twice Told Tale of R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz and the Porger[1]

Moshe Haberman

Moshe Haberman currently lives in Los Angeles and is a businessman. Originally from New York, he learned in Brisk and publishes the Torah journal Chitzei Giborim.

Introduction

The only Halachic sefer[2] published in the lifetime of R’ Yonasan Eybeshuts was the ספר כרתי ופלתי which is a פירוש on Shuchan Aruch Yoreh Deah, dealing with issues of treifos, basar b’chalav, taaruvos, etc. The sefer was published in 1763, a year before his death in 1764 in Altona, which at that time was in the dominion of the King of Denmark.

In his preface to כרתי ופלתי, R’ Yonasan explains that he had already written other seforim, including Urim Vtumin, B’nei Ahuva, and Ya’aros Dvash. However due to the difficult situation he found himself in over the controversies regarding Kameos ascribed to him, that were allegedly Sabbatean in nature, he felt it was impolitic to publish his works earlier in his lifetime. He also shied away from getting the approbations customary upon the publication of a work, and כרתי ופלתי was published without any haskamos.

Despite the seriousness of the Sabbatean allegations, there is no doubt that he was considered to be a genius in Torah, and his influence over his many students was immense. His works are widely used by later generations of Halachic decisors; in many halachic issues, his views are considered normative.

In סוף סימן ס’ה, which is focused on the issur of Gid Hanasheh, the “displaced” nerve that is not allowed to be eaten, he discusses a story illustrative of how difficult the removal of the nerve can be, ie. Porging. There was someone considered to be a Talmud Chochom and expert in porging that claimed that the nerve that the general practice to remove was in actuality the wrong one, and he was being taken seriously in the German communities. When he came to Prague, he met with R’ Yonasan, who was the acknowledged Posek in this field, and (as R’ Yonasan relates the story) he was told by R’ Yonasan that he was wrong, the nerve that this expert was referencing was only found in male animals and not in female animals. R’ Yonasan showed him in the Semag[3] that Gid Hanashe applies to males and females. Apparently this expert accepted this authority and stopped his agitation.

The problem with this is that there is no such סמ”ג. The סמ”ג does not mention anything about males or females in his section on Gid Hanashe at all.

Worse, due to the fact that the סמ”ג is a sefer that counts and expounds on the 613 Mitzvos, many understood the structure of the סמ”ג to be similar to other Sifrei Hamtizvos (such as the Chinuch) where there is a listing of who the Mitzva applies to. Therefore, it was understood that what R’ Yonasan was actually saying was that since the Mitzva applies to male and female people, it should also apply to male and female animals.

This is a strange logic to say the least. It almost seems that he made a mistake where he fundamentally does not understand the issues.

This was the conclusion of R’ Yechezkel Feivel in his sefer, Toldos Adam[4] that R’ Yonason Eybeshutz just made a mistake and that mistakes just sometimes happen, and he goes on to discuss a number of mistakes that he found in Rabbinic literature.

In his article on this subject, R’ Shnayer Leiman[5] lists a number of Maskilim that used the list of mistakes that are mentioned in Toldos Adam to undermine the authority of the rabbinical leadership, stating surprise how one that studies these texts day and night could possibly make such a grave error, one that a child should be able to spot.

Many other authorities discuss this issue. Some take the approach that an emendation is needed, and that the reference is meant to be to a different sefer with a similar acronym such as Semak[6] or possibly Behag.[7]

Most prominently among these rabbinic authorities, the Chasam Sofer[8] grapples with this issue. He also seems to understand the issue as described, that the סמ”ג does make mention of males and females, however referring to male and female people. He also contemplates the possibility that since the proof that R’ Yonason provided was not correct, maybe we should be careful and not eat the other nerve as well.

Based on this question the Chasam Sofer states that as a general rule men and women are included in any מצות לא תעשה as there is no reason to exclude them, however when there is a reason to exclude women, there would need to be some kind of extra לימוד to include them. Therefore if the nerve is particular to the male animal then that would serve as a reason to exclude women, and there would need to be a לימוד to include them, which we do not have.

I believe that the proper understanding of the Chasam Sofer requires one to look at the source of the reasoning behind why the Gid Hanashe is proscribed in the first place. Yaakov was fighting with the angel of Esav, his brother, and his nerve was displaced due to a blow from that angel. The Torah then states, therefore B’nei Yisroel do not eat the Gid Hanashe (עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַיָּרֵ֔ךְ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י נָגַע֙ בְּכַף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּגִ֖יד הַנָּשֶֽׁה). If this nerve was only in males (animals and people), it would make sense that women would be excluded, as the whole reasoning has nothing to do with them.

This logic was disputed by R’ Shlomo Kluger[9] for a couple of reasons. One, he doesn’t believe that the type of logic is appropriate to apply to R’ Yonason, who would have explained his thought process more clearly, and second, the logic of the Chasam Sofer should also apply to Shabbos, for example, as it is a Mitzvas Aseh with a set time, which as a general rule women are excluded from, women should not be included in the negative prohibitions of Shabbos without a limud, based on the principle explained by the Chasam Sofer. Especially as in the prohibition regarding Shabbos it also says “speak to the Bnei Yisroel” why would we not exclude the women?

In 1930 in a publication from Chicago known as Hapardes[10], there was an article written by R’ Shlomo Michoel Neches of Los Angeles. He writes that in his possession (אצלי) he has a first print of the כרתי ופלתי, and R’ Yonasan, the author, emends the סמ”ג to סה”נ and then writes Seder Hilchos Nikkur. It is not entirely clear which Sefer this refers to, as there is no sefer of that exact name.

This answer was picked up by the Pardes Yosef[11], and it appeared to be the final word on the matter. As a matter of clarity, this answer rings true as to what the author’s original intent was, for the following reasons;

  1. This “expert” that came to Prague appeared to be satisfied with the answer given to him by R’ Yonason. It is doubtful that someone that went through all that trouble would accept a source that is non-existent, or logic that appears to be dubious.

  2. It is clear that R’ Yonasan himself was not the one that prepared the text for printing. It was a student named R’ Ahron Katz[12] .I have in my possession a 1763 Altona edition, and there are many annotations that would point out where there is a good question or a good answer. Here is an example:

It is highly unlikely that R’ Yonasan himself would write in his own sefer “good answer”.

Rabbi Neches was born in Jerusalem and came to Los Angeles in 1910. He was the Rabbi of the famous Breed Street Shul in Boyle Heights (now listed on the national register of historic places) and was the founder of what is now Sharei Tfilah, a shul in the Hancock park area of Los Angeles. He was a collector of seforim and he published articles in Torah journals.

When I moved to Los Angeles it became a mission of mine to track down this volume of the כרתי ופלתי with emendations in R’ Yonasan’s own hand. I spoke with those that had attempted to find this sefer and had been unsuccessful. Apparently Rabbi Neches’s collection was auctioned off after his death and parts of it were donated to the Jewish Federation. No records of this volume were found.

I was able to track down one of the old librarians of the Federation and she told me that most of what they had went to AJU, but she did remember there were boxes of notebooks and other items that were never cataloged. I went to the AJU library and indeed they had boxes that appeared to be never opened. I spent an afternoon going through everything they had, and alas, no כרתי ופלתי.

However, I did find a handwritten catalog of the seforim that Rabbi Neches had in his collection, it was hard to tell if there were more pages due to the degraded condition, however there was no Kreiti Upleiti listed. Not only that but I started to notice that there were no first prints or older seforim on the list. It appeared to be that he was primarily collecting seforim that were printed contemporaneously.

This got me thinking, what if he never had it in his collection? Maybe he saw it in someone else’s collection? There weren’t too many seforim collectors in Los Angeles in the 1920’s but maybe someone had it in his possession as a family heirloom. I decided to look at the academic libraries in California and see if they had a 1763 edition of the Kreiti Uplaiti. With the help of R’ Yaakov Yitzchak Miller, we found it in the Theodore E. Cummings Collection in UCLA[13].

Just as advertised, the Shaar Blat showed the signature of R’ Yonasan Eybushutz, and the emendation was there in siman 65. However, something was wrong. The signature was from R’ Yonasan Halevy Eybeshutz of Leshitz. The author of כרתי ופלתי wasn’t a Levi, nor was he from Leshitz.

This volume wasn’t the personal property of the author of כרתי ופלתי, who fixed an unintentional error, it was the property of an entirely different person, albeit with the same name, that lived 150 years later.

This information, that Rabbi Neches provided was wrong, and therefore the issue of R’ Yonason’s mistake was back in play, was made public a few years back[14], and it would appear that we are back to square one, that this apparent mistake has other potential answers, including that of the Chasam Sofer.

Is it possible that Rabbi Neches simply made a mistake? It did not appear likely to me as it is pretty clear what it says, and he would know that R’ Yonasan, the author, was not a Levi.

Furthermore, in the private collection of Dr. Steven Weiss, there is a sefer, Shaar Yonason written by R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz of Leshits, that was acquired from the collection of Rabbi Neches, and it has the distinctive binding that Rabbi Neches would put on his seforim, so Rabbi Neches clearly knew of that there was another R’ Yonasan Halevi Eybesutz of Leshitz.(See Appendix B)

Rabbi Neches was right.

Rabbi Neches did not make a mistake. Incredibly, this particular volume that was owned by Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz, was also owned by Rabbi Yonason Eybeshutz, the author of כרתי ופלתי.

The odds would appear to be stacked against this, however if you look at the Shaar Blatt of the volume, reproduced here you can see two distinct handwritings, both say “Yonason Eybeshutz”, one appear to be more elongated and cursive and the other more rounded and of an older type, where each letter was not formed in one continuous stream.

Towards the top middle you can see under the first signature reproduced here

And on the left side center you can see a very different autograph, reproduced here

I was able to obtain with the kind assistance of R’ Shnayer Leiman images of signatures that have been verified to be R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz (see Appendix A), and if you put them together, the conclusion is inescapable.

From a receipt for money received that is verified to be R’ Yonason Eybeshutz, the author. (Appendix A)

From the Shaar Blatt of the כרתי ופלתי in UCLA.

This is clear evidence that this volume was the personal copy of the author himself.

Now let’s turn to the emendation, reproduced here

The letters are the rounder letters that are consistent with the author’s writing than the angular writing of the other R’ Yonason Eybeshutz.

It turns out that my thought process in tracking down this volume was actually wrong. The Cummings collection in UCLA was not donated by a local collector, it was actually purchased in 1963 from Israel, from the defunct publishing firm of Bamberger and Wahrman.[15] Mrs. Cummings merely footed the bill for the acquisition in honor of her husband.[16] I corresponded with Arnold Band, who was in charge of the acquisition, and he confirmed that it only made it to Los Angeles in 1963, and he had personal knowledge that the Kreiti Upleiti was part of the acquired collection. As Rabbi Neches moved to Los Angeles in 1910 and his article was published in 1931, he must have been working off of memory or notes that he took from when he saw it in Israel.

The only issue with that is the language Rabbi Neches used in the article, which that it was in his possession (אצלי), which it clearly wasn’t.

Sefer Hilchos Nikkur

There are a number of candidates for this sefer. Although there are no seforim with this exact title, Leiman[17] makes a persuasive case that the reference is to a 1577 volume printed in Cracow with the title הלכות הניקור , with the section title of סדר הניקור . With the conflation of the two titles, this is probably what R’ Yonason is referring to. The annotations were made by Rabbi Zvi Bochtner, who states that he consulted with Rabbi Moshe Isserles, the Rema, on his conclusions.[18]

This is a sefer that is unusual in that it is highly focused on one area of halacha, annotated by someone that wrote no other sefer and is not a well-known Rav, yet has authority. This sefer would be familiar to those that were in the practical business of porging, however would be unknown to the general learned public. The Rema’s endorsement, of course as the Posek of the German communities would be accepted by the expert as dispositive.

Conclusion

Despite the many twists and turns of this tale, it appears that R’ Yonason Eybeshutz did not make a mistake. The person that prepared the manuscript for printing made an understandable error due to the very unique nature of this particular sefer, and misunderstood which sefer the author was referencing, and subsequently the author himself fixed the issue. Rabbi Neches also did not make a mistake, although some confusion still exists how he actually saw this volume. To use the phrase that Rabbi Neches wrote in his article regarding his discovery of the emendation in R’ Yonason’s own hand, it is a mitzva to publicize this fact.

Appendix A

 

Appendix B

 

 

[1] Porging, or the act of removal of a nerve to make an animal kosher, is actually an English word, it is both in the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster. The source given is based on Judeo-Spanish. It appears to be highly unusual that a word would be extant in the English language that is specifically related to Jewish halacha, yet does not derive from either Yiddish (טרייבער) or Hebrew (מנקר).
[2] There was a sefer published to defend his case against R’ Yakov Emden called Luchot Edut, published in Altona 1755, and another called V’evoh Hayom El Ha’ayin which had disputed authorship.
[3] Rabbi Moshe of Coucy’s (d.1260) ספר מצוות גדול.
[4] Feivel, Rabbi Yechezkel, “Toldos Adam Chelek Bais”, Vilna 1884, pg. 43.
[5] Leiman, Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Z. “Judaic Studies” No. 4 Fall 2004, “Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshuetz and the Porger” pg. 16.
[6] Rabbi Isaac of Corbeil’s (d. 1280)’s ספר מצוות קטן.
[7] Rabbi Simon Kayyara’s  (d. 8th Century) הלכות גדולות, known in halachic literature as the בעל הלכות גדולות.
[8] In שו”ת חתם סופר סימן ס”ט.
[9] In ‘שו”ת טוב טעם ודעת סימן ק.
[10] Hapardes No. 4 Vol 1 (1930) pg. 18-19.
[11] Pozonovsky, Rabbi Yosef, פרדס יוסף פרשת וישלח.
[12] Introduction to the Kreiti Upleiti, Altona, 1763.
[13] Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA, “Kereti U’Feleti”, Eybeschuetz, Jonathan, H0000017129.
[14] Wild Wild West-Orthodox Jewish Pioneers in LA, https://youtu.be/LEysLjApKOU ; “Kovetz Hama’eyan” (vol. 215; Tishrei 5776, pg 100 – 102).
[15] https://www.jta.org/1963/04/19/archive/university-of-california-gets-collection-of-33520-books-from-israel
[16] Her son Theodore Cummings served as Ambassador to Austria in the Reagan administration.
[17] Ibid, pg. 27,
[18] Valmadonna Trust London England 4822, שחיטות / של מוהר”ר יעקב ווייל, עם ההגהות והחדושים שליקט ואסף הר”ר צבי בר יצחק יעקב, ממה שבא לידו ובדק ונסה זה כמה שנים, והוגה אות באות על פי מוהר”ר משה איסרליס, בי הירש בן יצחק יעקב, מקראקא.