Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings
Chaim
Sunitsky
It is well known that
Simchat Torah is not mentioned anywhere in the two Talmuds or Midrashim[1]. In
fact we have no proof that in the times of Talmud they used to finish the Torah
cycle reading on Simchat Torah. The prevalent minhag in the land of Israel was
to read the Torah not in one year but approximately in three[2]. In
fact it seems that every synagogue read at its own speed[3]
without any established cycle, so speaking of the specific “day” when they
would finish the reading is meaningless[4].
However in Babylon
where they read Torah in one year, it is important to establish when did they
finish? One would assume that reading in one year meant finishing on Shabbat
before Rosh Hashanah[5] or
Shabbat before Yom Kippur (since the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom
Kippur while technically being already in the next year are also related to the
previous year[6].)
Indeed R. Rueben Margolis[7]
claims that the original custom was to finish reading the Torah cycle on
Shabbat before Yom Kippur[8]. One
of his proofs is the statement in the Talmud[9] that
R. Bibi bar Abaye wanted to finish reading all parshiyot on the eve of
Yom Kippur, and when he was told this day should be reserved for eating, he
decided to read earlier. Had they finished the cycle after Yom Kippur, why
didn’t R. Bibi bar Abaye instead postpone it for later[10]?
This idea also explains the tradition that there are altogether 53 parshiyot
in the Torah[11],
and therefore Nitzavim and Veyelech[12]
should be counted as one. According to this all 53 parshiyot were always
read on Shabbat and there never was a special parsha that is read only
on Yom Tov[13].
Even though the Talmud
(Megilah 31a) mentions that on Simchat Torah, “Vezot Habracha” is read,
there is absolutely no proof that they read the entire parsha till the
end of Torah. What is more likely is that this parsha was chosen for
this particular day of Yom Tov, just as all other parshiyot chosen for
various holidays in the same sugia. Maybe the reason is that they wanted
to finish Sukkot with the general blessing of all the Jewish tribes[14].
This also explains the
Haftorah for this day. According to the Talmud (ibid) it is from the prayer of
Shlomo (Melachim 1:8:22) right before the Haftorah of the previous day
(1:8:54). The prayers and blessings of Shlomo fit perfectly with the prayers
and blessings of Moshe[15].
However our custom is to say the Haftorah from the beginning of Yehoshua.
Indeed the Tosafot (Megilah 31a) ask why our custom this contradicts the Talmud[16]?
However according to the assumption that only during Gaonic times did we start
reading the entire last parsha of the Torah on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret[17], it
makes sense that this caused the change in Haftorah, as the beginning of Sefer
Yehoshua is a natural continuation of the Torah and it starts with the death of
Moshe.
The second topic of
this post is regarding the obligation[18] to
make 100 blessings every day. This is codified as halacha in the
Shulchan Aruch[19].
However the common practice seems to be not to count[20] the
number of blessings and make sure to say 100 every day. Indeed on the holiest
day of our year – Yom Kippur[21] it’s
virtually impossible to make so many blessings. Indeed the Brisker Rav – R.
Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik is quoted as counting the blessings he made every day
except on Yom Kippur since making 100 blessings on Yom Kippur is impossible
anyway, he did not even try to make as many as he could[22].
Another problem is that
most women who don’t pray 3 times a day almost never pronounce 100 blessings per
day. This led some poskim to write that women are not obligated in this
mitzvah[23].
All of this led some Rishonim
to look for alternative ways one can be considered to have made 100 blessings.
One of approaches it to count some of the blessings one hears as if he made
them[24].
Another approach is to count the prayer “Ein Kelokenu” as a number of
blessings[25].
This approach obviously seems somewhat farfetched[26].
In this short article
we will try to see if the is a different reason why the practice of 100
blessings was not originally followed by the majority of Jews. It is known that
not all halachik obligations are treated equally[27].
There are various reasons for this[28] but
at least one has to do with traditionally following what our ancestors did. If
the Jews originally resided in areas where the majority of grain was “yashan[29]” and
later moved to northern countries where the crop is planted after Passover and
all the grain of that crop is “chadash”, they continued ignoring the
prohibition against it[30].
Similarly the Brisker Rav said the reason very few people ever ask a rabbi
questions regarding trumot and maaserot is because they never saw
their parents who lived outside the Land of Israel do so[31].
At times however it
seems that the Jewish people originally followed an alternative opinion in halacha
and later when the Shulchan Aruch paskened according to a different
opinion the old custom did not change[32]. In
my humble opinion it seems the custom of making 100 blessings a day was also
originally not obligatory[33], and
even when the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch effectively made it so, the people
continued not to “count their blessings”.
The wording of the
Talmud (Menachot 43b) is as follows:
תניא
היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה’ אלקיך שואל
מעמך רב חייא בריה דרב אויא בשבתא וביומי טבי טרח וממלי להו באיספרמקי ומגדי

It was taught[34]: R.
Meir used to say, a man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is
written, “And now, Israel, what doth the L-rd thy G-d require of thee[35]”? On
Sabbaths and on Festivals R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavored to make up
this number by the use of spices and delicacies.

The obvious question is
why does the Talmud mention only R. Hiyya ben Awia as making a special endeavor
to compensate the missing blessings[36]?
What did everyone else do? It would seem logical that if there was a legal obligation
for everyone to make 100 blessings, the Talmud should have asked: and how do we
make up for missing blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov[37]? It
would seem that R. Meir does not actually require to count the blessings one
makes during the day and make sure there are 100, and only one sage went out of
his way to always make 100 blessings. We similarly find other laws of the
Talmud that are stated as actual prohibitions but are possibly only
stringencies. These examples may include the prohibition of entering a business
partnership with an idolater or the prohibition of lending money without
witnesses[38].
Similarly the Rashba[39]
considers the prohibition against drinking bear with idolaters to be just “the
custom of holy ones (minhag kedoshim)”.
Even more compelling is
the version of the statement of R. Meir in Tosefta and Yerushalmi (end of Berachot)
implies that one would just normally end up[40]
making 100 blessings on regular weekdays:
תני
בשם רבי מאיר אין לך אחד מישראל שאינו עושה מאה מצות בכל יום. קורא את שמע ומברך לפניה
ולאחריה ואוכל את פתו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ומתפלל שלשה פעמים של שמונה עשרה וחוזר ועושה
שאר מצות ומברך עליהן

We learned in the name
of R. Meir that every Jew does [at least] 100 mitzvot [by making 100 blessings]
every [week]day. He reads Shma with blessings before and after[41],
eats bread with blessings before and after[42], and
prays 3 times 18 blessings[43] and
does other mitzvot[44] and
makes blessings on them.

I found the same proofs
in the Metivta edition of the Talmud in the name of R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow[45]. He
also brings that R. Meir’s statement in our Talmud Bavli is according to some versions:
 מאה ברכות חייב
אדם לברך בכל יום[46] and he suggests it can be translated as “100 obligatory
blessings does one make per [week]day” rather than “100 blessings is one
obligated to make per day”. He also brings some Gaonim and Rishonim
who understood that the mitzvah of making 100 blessings a day is not a full
obligation[47].
In conclusion I’d like
to mentions that obvious: this article was only meant to explain why many are
not as careful about the law of making 100 blessings per day as they are
regarding other laws contained in the Shulchan Aruch right next to this law
(i.e. the laws of morning blessings). This short essay is definitely not meant
as a halachic guide. We certainly should try to fulfil the letter of the law by
either listening carefully on Shabbat and Yom Tov to the blessings on the Torah
and Haftorah as well as the repetition of Shmone Esre[48], or
eat a few snacks which contain foods that require different blessings[49].


[1] It is however
mentioned in the Zohar 3:256b.
[2] Megilah 29. It
was already linked to their general dividing many of the sentences into much
smaller verses (Kidushin 30a).We may actually have this preserved in Devarim
Rabbah where each new chapter starts with: Halacha, Adam MeYisrael and we have
21 such beginnings instead of 10 or 11 for parshiyot of Sefer Devarim. 
[3] See Hiluke
Minhagim between Eretz Yisrael and Babel.
[4] Although they
would presumably make the “siyum” and celebrate when they did indeed finish the
Torah (see Kohelet Rabbah 1:1).
[5] See Levush, 669
who gives a somewhat strange explanation that the reason we don’t finish the
cycle of Torah reading by Rosh Hashanah is to “deceive the Satan”.
[6] GR”A to Sifra
Detzniuta, see also a similar idea in TB Rosh Hashanah 8b.
[7] Shaare Zohar,
Megilah 30b, Nitzutze Zohar 1:104b, 3rd note.
[8] He seems to
claim this for Eretz Yisrael but it seems more reasonable to say this is true
regarding Babel.
[9] Berachot 8b.
[10] Indeed for us
the halacha is that someone who didn’t read the parsha on time, should finish it
before Simchat Torah.
[11] See for example
Tikune Zohar, 13th Tikun, GR”A there.
[12] Indeed at the
end of these two parshiyot we have one Masoretic note that counts all their
verses together – 70, rather than 30 verses for Nitzavim and 40 for Vayelech as
is usual for other parshiyot that are sometimes joined. Regarding their
splitting see also Tosafot, Megilah, 31b and Magen Avraham, 228.
[13] According to
this on certain years, when there was no Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot,
two other parshas were joined.
[14] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Sukka.
[15] See also Rashi,
Megilah 31a that Shlomo sent away the people on the eight day and this is why
the Haftorah for Shmini Atzeret was taken from this chapter.
[16] See also Rosh
and Tur that claim our custom is based on Yerushlami, but this is found not in
our Yerushalmi.
[17] Note that one
can’t bring any proof for this from the fact that the Talmud (Megilah 30a) does
not mention that on Simchat Torah 3 Sifrey Torah are taken out as it mentions
regarding Hanukkah that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, and regarding Rosh
Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat. Aside from being an argument from silence,
the custom to read a passage regarding the mussaf sacrifice from Parshat
Pinchas is not of Talmudic, but of Gaonic origin (see Bet Yosef, 488). So we
would at most expect there to be two Torah Scrolls on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret, but if our argument is correct, they read only from one scroll.
[18] Talmud,
Menachot 43b. There are some sources that seem to attribute this law to King
David (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21).
[19] Orach Chaim
46:4.
[20] On a typical
weekday one pronounces 100 brachot anyway due to large number of blessings in 3
Shmone Esre prayers (3*19=-57). However on Shabbat and Yom Tov the 4 Amidahs
with 7 blessings each make only 28 blessings, and the only way to make 100
blessings is by eating fruits and snacks and smelling fragrances throughout the
day.
[21] Even though we
pray five Amidahs on Yom Kipur, each has only 7 blessings and since there are
no meals throughout the day we can only compensate the missing brachot by
smelling various fragrances and making blessings on them.
[22] See Tshuvot
Vehanhagot 4:153.  Others say one should
still try to maximize the number of blessings even if you can’t reach 100 (R.
Haim Kanevsky quoted in Dirshu edition on Mishna Berura, 46).
[23] Shevet Halevi
5:23, Tshuvot Vehanhagot 2:129. However R. Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam,
Vayeshev) obligates women in making 100 blessings.
[24] See Orach Chaim
284:3.
[25] See Machzor
Vitri,1; Sidur Rashi,1; Rokach; Kol Bo, 37.
[26] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Dinei Tefillah (page 31) ולפי דעתי אין שורש וענף
לזה המנהג.
[27] The GR”A explains
that the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 155b): “there is no one poorer than a
dog or richer than a pig” hints to two prohibitions: eating pork and speaking
lashon hara (evil speech). While every Jew is careful about the former (this
mitzvah is “rich”), very few people fully keep the latter (and this mitzvah is “poor”).
[28] Some mitzvot
are just very difficult to keep, like the obligation for every man to write his
own Sefer Torah.
[29] The five main
grains that took root after Passover are forbidden to be eaten until the day
after next Pesach and are called “chadash” – new [crop]. The grain from the
old, permitted crop is called “yashan” – old. Some poskim hold that the
prohibition does not apply outside the land of Israel, but the GR”A thought
these laws are applicable everywhere.
[30] See the GR”A
Yore Deah 293:2 אלא שנמשך ההיתר שהיו זורעין קורם הפסח.
[31] Similarly the
Chofetz Chaim says the reason most people ignore the prohibition against evil
speech is also because their parents did not stop them from speaking Lashon
Hara from childhood (Haga in the end of his 9th chapter of Chofetz
Chaim).
[32] I brought an
example of this in an article about mezuza, where it seems there used to be an
opinion followed that a house with more than one entrance only requires one mezuza.
[33] It is
interesting that according to the Manhig (quoted above) ונראין
הדברי’ שאחר שיסדן משה רבינו ע”ה שכחום וחזר דוד ויסדם לפי שהיו מתי’ ק’ בכל יום Moshe first instituted this law and it was
later “forgotten” and reinstituted by David. I am not sure how it’s possible
that this law would ever be “forgotten”.
[34] I am quoting
Soncino’s translation.
[35] There are a few
different interpretations regarding how this verse hints to 100 blessings, see
Rashi and Tosafot.
[36] See Hida,
Machazik Beracha to Orach Chaim 290.
[37] See similar
logic in Tosafot Baba Metzia 23b that we don’t pasken like Rav that meat that
was not watched becomes forbidden since the Gemora asks: “how does Rav ever eat
meat” and does not ask: “how do we eat meat”. See also Rosh, Pesachim 2:26 that
only one sage was careful to start the “Shmira” of matza so early, and
therefore the halacha for us does not follow him (Yabia Omer 8:22:24).
[38] See for example
Ritva, Megillah 28a, see also Ran on the Rif, end of first perek of Avoda Zara.
[39] See Bet Yosef,
Yore Deah 114 in the name of Torat Habayit.
[40] It’s also
possible R. Meir’s statement is in realm of agada rather than halacha.
[41] That’s 7
blessings.
[42] If he eats 2
meals a day and makes Birkat Hamazon with a cup of wine, he will make 2+4+2
blessings during each meal, i.e. 16 blessings a day.
[43] 57 blessings.
[44] The blessings
on tefillin and tzitzit make 2 or 3 blessings, blessing on the washing hands
and two or three blessing on the Torah add another 5-7 blessings. Altogether we
get 7+16+57+5/7=85/87 blessings. If we add all the morning blessings we will
get more than 100.
[45] Commentary to
R. Saadia’s Sefer Hamitzvot (Aseh 2).
[46] This is the
Girsa of Tur and some other Rishonim.
[47] See R. Perlow
on Sefer Hamitzvot quoted above.
[48] At any rate one
should listen carefully and if there is a small minyan, when people don’t pay
attention to the blessings on the Torah or to the repetition of Shmone Esre,
they cause a “bracha levatala”.
[49] For example an
apple, some watermelon, a piece of chocolate and some cake will add 4 blessings
before and 2 after.



Hitzei Giborim, Tzitzit, and R. Meir Mazuz

Hitzei Giborim, Tzitzit, and R. Meir Mazuz
Marc B. Shapiro
1. In 1969 the journal Moriah appeared, published by Makhon Yerushalayim. From its beginning, this journal published manuscript material from geonim, rishonim, and aharonim, together with Torah articles by contemporary scholars. This created a model that was later followed by a number of other journals. It also became a model for how to publish memorial volumes, as these generally also contain a section of material published from manuscript. Together with the interest in manuscripts, there has developed what can only be described as an Orthodox academic approach, and one can often find articles of this sort that meet a very high scholarly standard. A well-known representative of this genre is Yeshurun, a volume that appears twice a year and includes material from manuscript as well as halakhic and scholarly articles. What is most impressive about Yeshurun is not only its massive size, but the fact that the editors can fill it with so much quality material.
A competitor to Yeshurun has recently appeared on the scene and its title is Hitzei Giborim. Its model is exactly what I have described, with a section devoted to publishing material from manuscript, followed by Torah essays and Orthodox academic articles, many of which are really fantastic. The editor of Hitzei Giborim is R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller, whose own articles show impressive erudition. Volume 9 recently appeared, but since I haven’t yet had a chance to examine it, let me speak about volume 8 which appeared last year. Volume 8 contains 1030 pages which I think makes it the largest volume of its kind. I wonder if the point of having so many pages was precisely in order to exceed even the largest Yeshurun.
Among the articles that I think will be of particular interest to Seforim Blog readers are R. Eliyahu Nahum Waldman’s ninety page study of Maimonides’ responsa to the sages of Lunel, designed to show that R. Kafih was mistaken in thinking that these are forgeries. I only wonder if such an effort was required on R. Waldman’s part, since it is hard to believe that anyone who examines the matter without preconceptions can agree with R. Kafih.[1]
R. Yehoshua Assaf deals with Rashbam’s commentary to the beginning of Genesis, the portion that ArtScroll censored and which I dealt with in prior posts here and here.[2] In this article Assaf cites R. Hillel Novetsky’s important comments here. Novetsky discovered another manuscript that not only contains the words of Rashbam in his commentary to Gen. 1:31, words that ArtScroll censored, but also the continuation of the passage that was missing until now. In fact, ArtScroll should be happy with this discovery as we now see that Rashbam affirmed that even if “day” started in the morning for the first six days of creation, the Shabbat of creation indeed began at sunset on Friday.[3] Unfortunately, I think that even if ten other Torah scholars would write articles along the lines of R. Novetsky’s and R. Assaf’s it won’t have any effect on ArtScroll.
R. Avraham Yissachar Konig’s article on the international dateline and the dispute between the Hazon Ish and other rabbis is full of interesting points and discoveries (including new material from manuscript) that significantly advances our understanding of this episode. Unfortunately, the language Konig uses about certain rabbis, in particular R. Yehiel Michel Tukatzinsky, is completely improper. Just because Konig’s point is to defend the Hazon Ish does not give him the right to belittle people who were greater than he. Interestingly, this article by Konig was removed from the volume when it was placed on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.Here is the table of contents that is also missing the article.

Here is the uncensored table of contents.
Otzar ha-Hokhmah has become the library for so many of us, and it is thus completely unacceptable for books to be altered no matter what the reason. The editor of Hitzei Giborim insisted that the book be shown in its entirety or taken down, and it no longer appears on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.
In Changing the Immutable, pp. 191 n. 16, 224 n. 46, I noted other examples of censorship on Otzar ha-Hokhmah. I found an additional instance in the Otzar ha-Hokhmah version of The Rabbi Leo Jung Jubilee Volume (New York, 1962). Two articles are deleted, and here is how the table of contents appears on Otzar ha-Hokhmah.

Here is the uncensored table of contents.

I understand why Otzar ha-Hokhmah would want to delete an article by Heschel, but what possible reason could there be to delete R. Isidore Epstein’s article? I can only assume that the person responsible for this mistakenly thought that Epstein was not Orthodox.
Here is a page from Otzar ha-Hokhmah’s version of Peninei Rabbenu ha-Avi Ezri, p. 266.

Here is how the uncensored page looks.

 

Returning to Konig’s article, on p. 770 he prints from manuscript a letter from a Sephardic rabbi to R. Ben Zion Uziel, but the name of the rabbi has been deleted. Konig tells us that he removed the rabbi’s name in order to protect his honor, because his letter shows that had no understanding of the dateline issue. It is indeed true that the rabbi did not understand the matter but that is no reason to delete his name. If we are going to start deleting names of rabbis every time we are convinced that they made a basic error, there would be no end to it. In this case the editor should have insisted that the letter appear in full. After all, everyone makes mistakes and there is no problem is seeing that even a learned rabbi did not understand this complicated issue.
Among the articles in Hitzei Giborim focusing on contemporary issues, R. Eliyahu Levine deals with dina de-malchuta dina. On p. 1012 he notes that the government requires homeowners to keep their property looking nice, and this includes cutting the lawn. R. Levine asks if this is also included in dina de-malchuta dina. He concludes that it is not, and writes the following.
וגם נראה שיסוד חוקים אלו הם מעוגנים בתרבות הגויים, שהעיקר אצלם הוא היופי החיצוני, וכל עמלם ויגיעם הוא ליפות את המראה החיצוני של רכושם, ולכן הם מעונינים שחצירו הפרטית של כל אחד מהם תשלים את מראה המקום כנאה ומטופח, וא”כ דבר זה כלול בדברי הרשב”א והש”ך שחוקים שביסודם הם כשל תוה”ק, אין נוהג בהם דדמ”ד, משום שבשעה שיגיעתו של הגוי היא לצחצח את רכושו, יגיעתו של הישראלי היא להקפיד על דברים אחרים, והמאמץ לעצמו את חוקי וגינוני המלכות, ודאי שמקפיד להיות מתאים להופעת הגוי, ממילא ההרגל בכך מזניח את ההקפדה והטיפוח של הישרליות שבישראל.
גם הרבה מחוקי הבניה והדיור כנראה מקורם בתרבות אמריקאית זו, ומשפחות יהודיות גדולות שעיקר תשוקתם אינה בדוקא בריבוי נכסים, החוקים הנ”ל אינם תואמים להשקפת עולמם, וזוהי עוד סיבה שבמסגרת חוקי הגויים לא נוהג דדמ”ד.
For those who don’t read Hebrew, he claims that zoning laws, and the whole idea of having a beautiful environment, originate in non-Jewish cultural norms, and therefore Jews are not obligated to follow these laws. I guess this means that in a “Jewish” environment, people won’t need to cut their lawns, their property can fall apart etc., since Jews look at what is on the inside and are not concerned with outer appearances. It is no secret that in some segments of the haredi world people assume that zoning laws (and sometimes even fire codes) are not Jewish concepts and thus don’t need to be followed, but to see this sort of approach in print will probably be a surprise for many.[4]
On p. 1121 we find something quite uncommon, an apology that in the previous volume an article appeared that is plagiarized from two other writers. I can’t think of another Torah publication that has ever had such a notice, and it shows both the honesty and the courage of the editor.
Beginning on p. 362, R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller publishes from manuscript Torah letters concerning shaving one’s beard when the Czarist authority required this. The question that obviously needed to be considered was if this decree was to be regarded as a she’at ha-shemad in which case Jews would be required to martyr themselves rather than obey. Not surprisingly, the rabbis whose letters are published by R. Miller did not go this far. These rabbis are R. Judah Bacharach, R. Jacob Zvi Mecklenburg, and R. Hayyim Wassertzug (also known as R. Hayyim Filipover, from one of the Lithuanian towns he was rabbi in). These letters come from an unpublished volume by R. Wassertzug which hopefully will soon appear in print as it has the potential to be a very significant publication.
Although R. Wassertzug is today unknown, this was not the case in the 19th century, and R. Miller provides a nice introduction which shows some of R. Wassertzug’s originality. In addition to a reputation for being very pious as well as a great scholar, he was also known as a lenient posek who did not feel bound by certain practices which while generally accepted, did not, in his opinion, have a firm halakhic basis. Not surprisingly, this led to conflict with some other rabbis.
Here are two responsa from R. Wassertzug that appeared in Ha-Melitz, 14 Sivan 5629, pp. 225-226. The first permits one to drink non-Jewish milk (especially travelers), and the second permits a married woman to show some of her hair.

Not mentioned by R. Miller is that one of the opponents of R. Wassertzug was R. Isaac Haver. It is reported that he and some other rabbis went to R. Leibel Shapiro, the rav of Kovno, to complain about R. Wassertzug and to gain his support in order to have R. Wassertzug removed from his rabbinic position. Yet they were rebuffed as R. Leibel told them how great R. Wassertzug was and sent them away.[5]
In 2015 R. Mordechai Gifter’s Milei de-Iggerot appeared. This is quite a significant work and anyone interested in the history of American Orthodoxy will want to consult it. On p. 213 he deals with R. Eliezer Berkovits’ liberal halakhic approach. R. Gifter comments that unfortunately R. Berkovits did not follow the path of his teacher, R Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, who was much more conservative in how he approached halakhah.

The person R. Gifter was writing to had asked why R. Gifter was so critical of R. Berkovits’ approach when R. Wassertzug also had a liberal approach. In R. Gifter’s reply he reveals a hitherto unknown piece of information that he received from an elderly Lithuanian rabbi, namely, that one of the responsa of R. Akiva Eger in which there is no addressee given was actually sent to R. Wassertzug. R. Gifter also states that when R. Berkovits reaches R. Wassertzug’s level of piety, then he will be able to forgive him for much of what he has written.
ומה שיביא לי ראי’ מהגאון ר’ חיים פיליפובר זצ”ל, ידע נא ידידי שכשיגיע דר. ברקוביץ לדרגת חסידותו ופרישותו של אותו גאון וצדיק אוכל למחול לו על הרבה מדבריו, אבל באיש של דורנו לא אוכל לתלות דבריו בחסידותו של גאון מדור קדום.
והאמת שמיחס גאוני הדור להגר”ח פיליפובר ז”ל יש לנו ללמוד איך להתיחס לכל דרישה לחלוק על הלכות קבועות אפי’ כשיצאו מפי גאון וצדיק. ועיין תשובת מרן הגרעק”א ז”ל סי’ נ”ה – שקבלתי מפי רב גדול וישיש בליטא שהתשובה מכוונת להגר”ח פיליפובר ז”ל.
Here is the responsum of R. Akiva Eger, vol. 1, no. 55, referred to by R. Gifter.
As you can see, while the addressee is referred to as המופלא, his name and town are not given. R. Eger criticizes R. Wassertzug for his liberal approach in which he disagreed with rishonim and in the case discussed diverged from the Shulhan Arukh. In his conclusion, R. Eger refers to himself as one who is rebuking from hidden love.
While on the topic of criticism of R. Berkovits, here are some other relevant documents that I found in the archive of Chief Rabbi Isaac Nissim at Yad ha-Rav Nissim in Jerusalem. The first is a New York Times article from June 23, 1969. (I have no doubt that the second quote attributed to R. Berkovits in the article – where he mentions reconsidering the “traditional laws” – was taken out of context.)

In response to this story the following two documents were sent out to various Orthodox figures. Since the Hebrew document is not always easy to read, I have provided a transcript and also added paragraph breaks.

בהתרגשות ורגש חרפה קראנו בזמן האחרון בעתון “הניורק טיימס” על דר. אליעזר ברקוביץ, פרופסור בבית מדרש לתורה בשיקגו, שהוא השתתף עם איזה וועידת מתבוללים בקאנאדה: שמתיימרים הם להתחבר שלשת הזרמים של יהדות (אורטודוקס) (קונסורביטיב) (ריפורם). בנאום לפני העתונעיים [!] הגיבו המשתתפים שאין האיסור לאכול חזיר עוד מותאם לנסיבות הזמן: ובשלובי זרע עמהם הגיב דר. ברקוביץ שמצות שמיטה הנוהגת באה”ק היא שערוריה סקנדלית, ולא יתכן שמירת השביעית ב”דת מודרנית”: והיא בכלל יהדות מזוייפת: ולמותר הבהיר דר. ברקוביץ שהוא: “דובר של יהדות אורטודוקסית”, למרות שאין לו שום בסיס להיקרא אורטודוקסי, אחרי שהוא מפורסם כמלעיג עד”ת, שכל דעותיו הן שהאורטודוקסיה “משרשת ומפיגה את היהדות מן ההמונים לרגלי העצמת האיסורים.” והנה אין בעצתו מן החדוש וההפתעה, שכבר שמענוה אצל הקונסוב[ר]טיבים והריפורם כמותו – אמנם איך שהוא מצהיר ומצייר את עצמו בתור חובב ואדוק ביהדות האורטודוקסית הוא תמהון – מאין שאף דר. ברקוביץ שהרומס ברגל גאוה וגסה את עיקרי התורה והמתחבר עם הלצים והמתבוללים יכונה “דובר אורטודוקס”?
ומאידך – הרב אהרן סולביצ’יק, הראש ישיבה של ב”מ לתורה, המראה עצמו כצדיק וחסיד, המחמיר על פרטי התורה – איך הוא לא נרתע ונזדעזע מדברי הפרופסור, ולא שת לבו להסכנה החבויה בתוך הישיבה, דר. אליעזקר ברקוביץ? התירוץ: נחזה לר”א סולביצ’יק בעצמו, שלמשתה השנתי של היוניון אף אורטודוקס קאנג., שהמתחברים ברובם הם קונסורביטיב ומחללי שבת, וכל הגדולי תורה הצהירו בפומבי איסור מוחלט ללכת שמה – ראינו איך שר”א סולביצ’יק הואיל לנסוע להשתתף בועידתם, והם [ושם?] הוא נשא נאום להוכיח בעזרת “פסוקים” שאפשר להתחבר לצורך שעה עם הסטרא דשמאלא! – ומי זה שהיה יכול להעלות על הדעת שהר”מ ר”א סולביצ’יק יואיל להיות מהאורחים נואמים בארגון שכולו טריפה! אמנם היות וקראנו תגובותיו של דר. ברקוביץ הסכמות לנאומי ר”א סולביצ’יק, שמצוה גדולה להתחבר עם הרשעים, מוכרח שבאישורו הבהיר דר. בורקוביץ להעתונעיים, היות ואחרת לא היה מרשה הר”ם להפרופסור להישאר בישיבה, ובפרט בתפקיד מורה דרך על חניכיו בני הישיבה.
כעת לדאבוננו הוסרה [!] הצעיף החופף הדו-פרצוף שלר”א סולביצ’יק, מראה לזולת שהוא צדיק וחסיד, אך אינו מן הנמנע אישורו כ”דובר אורטודוקס” פרופסור המבהיר מינות וכפירה בתורה שבכתב, ובעצמו להתחבר עם המתבוללים, לעומת פסק איסור של כל גדולי התורה.
אדישות של הרמי”ם והרבנים בשיקגו להמצב קטסטרופילי הלזה היא כאובה, והחלה לשכנענו ששתיקתם כהודאתם, וכבר הגיע העת שתיפקחנה העינים והוקיע [!] בפרהסיא בעמוד הקלון את מפירי התורה בב”מ לתורה ולמחות בנזיפה לזבובי מות ושפעת דברים של הראש ישיבה המתבטא לתלמידיו דעות [כפרניות?] תחת החפשת צדקות: המחנף רשעים ומכבד פעלי עוול.
In addition to what it is said about R. Berkovits, R. Ahron Soloveichik is also attacked in these documents for not firing R. Berkovits (he actually didn’t have the authority to do so), and for attending an OU convention, an organization that in the 1960s had many mixed seating congregations which are referred to as “Conservative” synagogues. There is nothing about the latter episode in the book about R. Soloveichik, Ha-Rav Aharon Yeled Sha’ashuim (Jerusalem, 2011), published by his son, R. Yosef Soloveichik. In fact, R. Berkovits is only mentioned on two pages in the book. On p. 244, it is pointed out that R. Soloveichik opposed R. Berkovits’ approach, which is described as advocating “that halacha should be allowed to develop freely to accommodate people’s needs.” On p. 243 we see that R. Berkovits joined with other faculty members in opposition to R. Soloveichik being given any administrative power at Hebrew Theological College.[6]
Let me make one final point about all the journals and memorial volumes, Yeshurun, Hitzei Giborim, and the rest. Numerous selections from commentaries on talmudic tractates have appeared in these publications. The problem is that when it comes to talmudic commentaries, all these publications are basically useless. For example, let’s say Moriah published a portion of an anonymous medieval commentary on a few pages of Tractate Nedarim twenty years ago. Only someone who was “in the sugya” would have been able to appreciate what the commentary was saying when it first appeared. Therefore, 99 percent of the readers twenty years ago skipped over it, and they continue to skip over all of the continuously published selections of commentaries that scholars spend so long deciphering and adding learned notes to. Since almost no one reads these published commentaries, I sometimes wonder if it is a waste of the scholars’ time to work on them. If I finally decide to learn Nedarim this year, is there any chance that I will remember that a few pages of a medieval commentary appeared in Moriah over two decades ago.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and that is to follow the approach of Otzar ha-Geonim. The project I have in mind would take a good deal of effort, but it would be very valuable. What we need is for an individual, or group of people, to go through all the various journals, memorial volumes, etc., and pull out all of the commentaries on the different tractates in order create a compendium. It can be called Otzar Mefarshim or something like that, and it would be divided into tractates, just like Otzar ha-Geonim. With such a work, when someone, for example, is studying Nedarim, he will easily find the 3 page section of the anonymous medieval commentary published years ago in Moriah. This is the only way to rescue so many scattered texts from oblivion.
3. In Changing the Immutable and in earlier posts I have discussed how in previous years in some communities wearing a kippah was not standard as it is today. (I think the only exception is the Syrian community.) R. Ovadiah Yosef even says that unlike in previous years, wearing a kippah today is more than just “midat hasidut,” as it has become a sign of a religious Jew, while going bareheaded is a sign of an irreligious Jews.[7]
I was asked if the same point can be made about tzitzit and it indeed can. It is now pretty standard in the Orthodox world for men to wear tzitzit. We even start little boys wearing them in school at age 3. Yet the practice of wearing tzitzit, i.e., a tallit katan,[8] was unknown in talmudic days and is not mentioned by the geonim or Maimonides.[9] It appears to have begun with the Hasidei Ashkenaz,[10] and eventually became a regular practice in the Ashkenazic world.[11] Yet even in the twentieth century throughout the Sephardic world tzitzit were not generally worn. In these places they regarded tzitzit as a holy item, not something to be given to a child who can easily soil his garment. Even among adults, tzitzit were reserved for the especially pious. (I hope to expand on this in the future, where I will provide sources documenting what I have just mentioned.) In the past half century much has changed, and just as the kippah is now a sign of a religious Jew, so too is tzitzit. As R. Meir Mazuz puts it in a recent issue of Bayit Ne’eman, his new weekly “parashah sheet”[12]:
היום זה סימן היכר בין אדם שומר תורה ומצוות לבין מי שלא כזה, ואפילו שמן הדין אפשר להיפטר מטלית קטן . . . מ”מ מצוה מן המובחר שאדם ילבש טלית עם ארבע כנפות כדי לקיים את המצוה.
Interestingly, R. Joel Sirkes writes that while a father is obligated to provide his minor son with tefillin so that he can learn how to use them, he is not obligated to provide his son with tzitzit, “since even he [the father] is not obligated to buy a four cornered garment.”[13] This view is in opposition to the Tur who writes that a father does have to provide his minor son with tzitzit if the latter is of the age to wear it.[14]
Since I just mentioned R. Sirkes, let me share another interesting view of his. Avodah Zarah 70a quotes Rava as saying: רובא גנבי ישראל נינהו. In context, what this almost certainly means is that the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha were Jewish.[15] Yet R. Sirkes shockingly understands it to mean that most Jews are thieves! It would be shocking enough if he understood it to mean that most thieves are Jewish (and not just most thieves in Pumbeditha), but explaining the passage to mean that most Jews are thieves sounds like something one would find in the writings of an anti-Semite, not in a work authored by one of the outstanding halakhists. It is true that one can find other negative judgments of the Jewish people in rabbinic literature. For example, the Maharal speaks of Israel’s inclination to sin as something unique to them and not found among non-Jews. He writes:[16]
כי ישראל מסוגלים היו לחטא מה שלא תמצא בכל האומות.
Yet this is part of a theoretical discussion, and although Israel has this negative characteristic, the flip side is that Israel is at a much higher spiritual level than the non-Jews. R. Sirkes’ opinion, on the other hand, is about the real world, here and now, and is said in a halakhic context. See Bayit Hadash, Yoreh Deah 2:6 (kuntres aharon):
ולפי עניות דעתי נראה דבכל שאר עבירות יש להחמיר . . . מה שאין כן בגונב דבר מאכל . . . דאפילו במוחזק בכך הרבה פעמים אין לו דין משומד ותדע שהרי אמרו רוב גנבים ישראל ואם כן לא יהיה סתם ישראל כשר לשחיטה אלא בידוע שאינו גנב וזה לא שמענו לעולם.
When we come across strange passages like this, it is often the case that someone will say that the author never wrote it. Rather, it was inserted by an erring student or someone seeking to undermine traditional Judaism. In this case, we get the next best thing, as R. Shabbetai Cohen, ShakhYoreh Deah 2:18, writes that R. Sirkes retracted what he wrote and asked for it to be deleted.
ומה שכתב הב”ח בזה בקונטרס אחרון [ד”ה מומר] כבר צוה הוא ז”ל בעצמו למחקו.
Nevertheless, I wonder if this is actually the case. Is it possible that R. Shabbetai wrote this not because R. Sirkes actually said what he attributes to him, but because R. Shabbetai wanted the embarrassing passage of R Sirkes removed from the public eye? The best way to do this would be to say that R. Sirkes regretted writing it, and this hopefully would lead to it being deleted by future printers.Those who have read Changing the Immutable, especially the last chapter, know that there is plenty of precedent for what I am suggesting. The reason that I think this might be the case is that nowhere else do we have evidence of R. Sirkes saying that what he wrote here should be deleted. Furthermore, in a later work, Sefer Ha-Arokh, Yoreh Deah 2, R. Shabbetai does not mention anything about R. Sirkes giving instructions to delete what he wrote. Rather, R. Shabbetai simply criticizes R. Sirkes for what he regards as his error. If R. Sirkes really said what R. Shabbetai attributes to him in his commentary to the Shulhan Arukh, why doesn’t he mention it in Sefer Ha-Arokh? What sense is there in criticizing R. Sirkes if R. Sirkes himself regretted what he wrote? In Sefer Ha-Arokh R. Shabbetai writes very sharply, accusing R. Sirkes of an error that even an amateur wouldn’t be caught making:

אבל בב”ח (סעיף ו בקונטרס אחרון) כתב דברים בלא טעם ומחלק בין עבירה לעבירה עיין שם ומה שכתב ותדע שאמרו רוב גנבים ישראל וכו’ כאן טעות נזדקר לפניו אפילו בר דבי רב לא יטעו בזה דמה שכתב רוב גנבים ישראל הוא דלא אמרינן דמותר אלא כשיש גנבים בעיר ורוב מהגנבים הם ישראל אבל שיהיה רוב ישראל גנבים חלילה לא תהא כזאת בישראל ועתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר תקיצנה בבית זה שלא כדעת דברו.
R. Shneur Zalman Hirschowitz also calls attention to what he regards as R. Sirkes’ error. R. Hirschowitz is best known as a student of R. Israel Salanter, and it was he who published R. Salanter’s Even Yisrael, which became a basic text of the Mussar movement.[17] Here is the title page.

R. Hirschowitz’s talmudic notes were included in the Romm Talmud and are now included in the new Talmud editions. His comment about R. Sirkes is found in his note to Hullin 12a:
מצוה לפרסם להסיר חרפה מעל ישראל דהנה אויבי עמינו אומרים כי חז”ל בעצמם העידו עלינו כי רוב גנבי ישראל ומה לה לעיסה שהנחתום מעיד עליה, ובאמת העולם טעה כי חז”ל אמרו זה על כל ישראל אשר בכל כדור הארץ ובכל זמן כי רוב הגנבים ישראל הם, וחלילה לומר זאת וטעות גדולה היא. וכבר טעה בזה אדם גדול הוא ניהו אדונינו רוח אפינו בעל הב”ח זצוק”ל בקונטרס אחרון ליו”ד סי’ א. ולא עוד אלא שנתחלף להב”ח ז”ל במחכ”ת גאון קדשו ועצמותיו הקדושים בין רוב גנבי ישראל ורוב ישראל גנבי . . . וכל הרואה יחרד וישתומם על זה שמשים לכל ישראל בחזקת גנבים . . . אבל לא יאונה לצדיק כל און, כי הב”ח בעצמו צוה בחייו למוחקו כמ”ש הש”ך ביו”ד סי’ ב.
4. Earlier in this post I mentioned R. Meir Mazuz’s parashah sheet, Bayit Ne’eman. You can see recent issues here and you can sign up to receive it here. Each issue is a transcript of his Saturday night shiur, broadcast live all over Israel. Fortunately, the transcript is complete, by which I mean that the people putting it out have not censored it in any way, thus preserving R. Mazuz’s spoken style and his numerous off-hand comments. It is pretty unique which is why I recommend that readers check it out. The people who publish the shiur even claim that it is the most popular shiur in the world, a claim that is supported by a recent media report here that R. Mazuz’s Saturday night shiur has almost twice as many listeners (around 30,000) as R. Yitzhak Yosef’s competing Saturday night shiur.
Readers should be prepared for a good dose of what can only be termed “Sephardic supremacy.” It is with regard to this that I have to correct a point that R. Mazuz has often made, but which is really misleading. R. Mazuz has compared the kelal yisrael sense found in the Sephardic world with the extremism in the Ashkenazic haredi world, an extremism that leads to never-ending disputes and delegitimization of others. It is true that a basic feature of Ashkenazic haredi society is the tendency to delegitimize those who don’t carry the “party line.” This of course does not mean that all haredi individuals have this tendency; however, it is found in haredi society as a whole. In the last decade or so we have seen how, when there are not many opponents outside the haredi world to focus on, the society turns on itself and creates internal battles.
As mentioned, R. Mazuz has contrasted this with the Sephardic approach which has always welcomed people of different outlooks and levels of religiosity, always looking to bring close and not separate one Jew from the other. In contrast to the Ashkenazic world which has used the herem again and again, R. Mazuz states that other than the battle against Spinoza, the Sephardim have never gone for this approach. For R. Mazuz, the upshot of all this is that Sephardic society is a much better reflection of what Judaism and Jewish life are supposed to be.
Before the great split between R. Mazuz and the Shas party, R. Mazuz commented that ש”ס is supposed to stand for שחורה and סרוגה, meaning that the party should include both black kippot and knitted kippot, since the wearers of both were faithful Jews. As many readers know, the head of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, R. Shalom Cohen, instead saw fit to refer to the religious Zionists as Amalek (among other choice comments). This in turn led R. Mazuz to increase his attacks against the leadership of the Shas party which he saw as abandoning the Sephardic tradition and adopting the worst aspects of Ashkenazic haredi culture. Those who follow the Israeli religious scene know that at present there is a battle taking place for leadership of the Sephardic religious world between the two most important Sephardic rabbis. One is R. Yitzhak Yosef, who sees himself as the rightful inheritor of his father’s position and protector of his legacy.[18] The other is R. Mazuz. Among R. Mazuz’s supporters is former chief rabbi R. Shlomo Amar. R. Amar is himself quite popular, but since the passing of R. Ovadiah has subordinated himself to R. Mazuz. Seeing R. Mazuz’s great popularity today, I am proud to recall that the very first English article to deal with him appeared in 2007 on the Seforim Blog here. This post was the first introduction of most readers to R. Mazuz, and since that time I have quoted from his voluminous writings in almost every one of my subsequent posts.
There is a good deal more to discuss regarding the dispute over leadership of the Sephardic world, the strategy of the Yachad party and why it didn’t succeed, and the growing attacks on R. Mazuz from small-minded people who object to his independent mind. (He has even been attacked for quoting poems by Yehudah Alharizi and Hayyim Nachman Bialik in a shiur.) But for now, let me just make a couple of points:
A. Contrary to what R. Mazuz has said, it is not true that the only time Sephardic sages have used the herem is against Spinoza. The scholars of Aleppo, who could be quite extreme, banned the Torah commentary of R. Elijah Benamozegh, a figure whose works are quoted by R. Mazuz.
B. R. Mazuz’s description, while correct in its major points, is offered without any context and therefore leads to a distortion of the historical record. Nothing R. Mazuz describes makes sense without remembering that unlike in the Sephardic world, the Ashkenazic sages were confronted with the Reform movement and later with the East European Haskalah. It is in the context of these battles that the Ashkenazic rabbinic leadership felt forced to resort to bans and other types of exclusionary behavior and language, and this led to the creation of an extremism that is with us until today. Lacking Reform and Haskalah, the Sephardic world could develop in an entirely different fashion, but had the Sephardic world confronted such anti-traditional movements, it is likely that its rabbinic leadership would have reacted exactly as the Ashkenazic rabbis did. In other words, we are dealing with apples and oranges, and it doesn’t make sense to point to characteristics of the Ashkenazic world and contrast them negatively with the Sephardic world without explaining why it is that the Ashkenazic world developed its extremist tendencies.I must, however, point out that R. Mazuz assumes that there is something in the Sephardic spiritual makeup that itself prevents the development of anti-traditional forces. You see this from various comments that he throws out. For example, in a recent shiur, published in Bayit Ne’eman, no. 32 (6 Tishrei 5777), p. 1, in speaking about R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s piyut Lekha Eli Teshukati, he states: “If only the Ashkenazim had this piyut; I would guarantee them that if they would have recited this piyut, they would not have had maskilim, Reformers, or assimilationists.”

This particular shiur has a number of other interesting points. For example, on p. 2 he discusses the verbal attacks upon haredi soldiers. (So far there have only been verbal attacks, but no one will be surprised when an actual physical attack occurs.) As far as I know, almost none of the Ashkenazic haredi leaders have spoken publicly about this unfortunate development (and if they have, it has not been covered in the Ashkenazic haredi press). The Ashkenazic haredi leadership in both Israel and America has a policy of not criticizing bad behavior on “its side” (unless they are dealing with really bad behavior such as allying with Iran). This is a pattern that has been going on for almost a hundred years. I say this since the leaders of Agudat Israel in Palestine never criticized or took any real action against the extremists who were defaming R. Kook. In fact, when the authentic history of Agudat Israel is written, the question of the culpability of the World Agudat Israel in this entire affair will have to be dealt with, for despite all of its private outrage with what was taking place under the auspices of its branch in Eretz Yisrael, the extremists and their enablers were never distanced from the organization. It seems that it is always much easier to criticize those to your left than to your right.

Thus, had a typical anti-Israel group staged an event in which kids were taught to throw eggs at a car said to be carrying the prime minister of Israel, you can be sure that Agudat Israel would have been at the forefront of attacking this event. So how come when this exact thing happens in the Satmar community there is only silence from the Agudah?

Agudat Israel readily attacks the BDS groups and others who try to delegitimize the State of Israel. Yet how come Satmar can have a rally attacking the State of Israel in a way that gives cover to BDS and all the rest who want to destroy Israel, and we don’t hear a word from the Agudah? If you listen to the propaganda of Satmar, it also gives cover to the anti-Semites, as it uses anti-Semitic imagery in speaking about the all-powerful Zionists who control the media and who through their devious means are able to pull the wool over the world’s eyes.[19] If such imagery is rightfully condemned as anti-Semitic when “outsiders” use it, how is it that Satmar gets a pass when it uses anti-Semitic imagery?

Returning to R. Mazuz’s comments about the haredi soldiers, he says simply: “These soldiers who come to pray are not sinners but are tzadikim! How can we call them sinners? They defend Israel with their bodies!”

3. I am happy to see that a number of new books and articles refer to posts that have appeared on the Seforim Blog. The most recent example of this is that I have know of is Chaim Dalfin’s just-published book, Rav and Rebbe, which deals with the relationship between R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.4. God willing, I will once again be leading Torah in Motion trips to Europe in Summer 2017. You can see the details here.

 

[1] I say this even though R. Yitzhak Barda, Kinyan Torah (Ashkelon, 2014), vol. 3, p. 87, states that R. Kafih is correct. R. Barda’s volume is itself of interest, as he argues that when it comes to Jewish law, Maimonides’ opinion is absolutely binding, even if the Shulhan Arukh disagrees.
[2] Based on conversations and emails, I think that my posts on ArtScroll’s censorship of Rashbam have had a wider impact than any other posts. In fact, not long ago someone in my town who knew that I wrote a book on censorship shared with me that she had heard that ArtScroll censored Rashbam. This person does not read the Seforim Blog, and indeed had never heard of it. She thus had no idea that her knowledge of ArtScroll censoring Rashbam had its ultimate origin in my posts, which I think shows the great reach of this blog.
[3] This idea was earlier suggested by Aharon Marcus. See the note in his edition of She’elot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (Tel Aviv, 1979), p. 34. R. Yoel Bin Nun was unaware of R. Novetsky’s discovery and because of this offers a mistaken interpretation of Rashbam. See his recently published Zakhor ve-Shamor (Alon Shvut, 2015), pp. 229ff. (called to my attention by Zachary Grodzinski).
In my post here on Artscroll’s censorship of Rashbam, I cite a number of authorities who claim that before the giving of the Torah night came after day. Subsequently, I found that the Malbim says the same thing and cites an interesting proof for this position. See his commentary to Exodus, chapter 12 note 50:
גם הלילה שאחריו שייך ליום ארבעה עשר, כי קודם מ”ת היה הלילה הולך אחר היום, כמ”ש בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב תאכלו מצות.
See also R. Meir Mazuz, Bayit Ne’eman, no. 17 (19 Sivan 5776), p. 3 n. 17; R. Moshe Zuriel, Otzrot Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Bnei Brak, 2016), pp. 35ff.
[4] In Israel, the mainstream haredi rabbinic opinion is that one can build illegally and ignore the various zoning laws which are not thought to reflect haredi values. (The mainstream hardali rabbinic opinion is that one can build illegally in Judea and Samaria.) One exception to this generalization is R. Asher Weiss who insists that “the world is not lawless” and even haredim must follow zoning laws. See the discussion of his view, and the opposing views of R. Israel Grossman and R. Shmuel Wosner, in Ron S. Kleinman, “The Halakhic Validity of Israel’s Judicial System among Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Halakhic Decisors,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 18 (2015), p. 227-259. On pp. 250-251, Kleinman reports on a meeting that R. Weiss had with a group of Israeli lawyers. R. Weiss’s important remarks were later published and Kleinman summarizes as follows:
Rabbi Weiss maintains in the meeting that “it is a great challenge, a great and holy undertaking” for Orthodox Jews to engage in all professions, including the practice of law, despite the fact that practicing as a lawyer raises halakhic questions. In his words, “we need lawyers who are punctilious in their observance of the commandments . . . [as well as] judges who are punctilious in their observance of the commandments and who attempt as far as possible to render judgments according to . . . Jewish law.” These judges are important for ensuring that Israel’s judicial system “is not totally alienated from the spirit of the Torah.” He states that “a[n] [Orthodox] judge [in a civil court of law] provides a vital service to the nation” because there are many matter in which the rabbinical courts are not equipped to rule. Furthermore in his opinion, the prohibition against resorting to Gentile courts applies only to litigants and not to judges or lawyers.
As Kleinman notes, one of the points R. Weiss relied on for this last statement (which I have underlined) is  the fact that the Hazon Ish was friends with Yitzhak Kister who was a judge. (Kister would later be appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court, and is the only such justice who identified with the haredi community.) Yet as far as I know, the sentence that I have underlined is unprecedented among rabbinic decisors, even among the Religious Zionist poskim.
A Hebrew version of Kleinman’s article appears in Tehumin 36 (2016), pp. 346-358. The articles are not identical so anyone interested in the topic is advised to consult both the English and Hebrew versions.
[5] David Matityahu Lippmann, Le-Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Kovna u-Slobodka (Keidan, 1930), pp. 226-227. A different version of the story, with the same conclusion, is told by Hayyim Karlinsky, “Ha-Gaon Rabbi Aryeh Leib Shapiro,” Moriah 76 (Sivan 5744), pp. 95-96. The earliest version of the story, and perhaps the original source, is found in Asher Margulies, “Sheloshah Matmonot Hitmin Yosef,” Ha-Melitz, 25 Tevet 5687, col. 76 (called to my attention by R. Yaakov Yitzhak Miller).
[6] While it could not have been easy for R. Yosef Soloveichik to revisit the painful history he discusses, the documents he reproduces are important for the history of American Orthodoxy. The book I have referred to is not the same thing as the 2016 book on R. Ahron Soloveichk, Yeled Sha’ashuim
[7] Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 4, no. 1 (pp. 7-8). Regarding removing the kippah (but still leaving one’s head covered) before entering the bathroom, the following appears in R. Simhah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 21 n. 58.
וכן מובא בשם מוהר”א מבעלזא זי”ע שהיה פושט מעליו המלבוש עליון והכובע והגארטל לפני הכנסו לביהכ”ס, ואא”ז זצ”ל היה מקפיד גם על הכיפה והיה מניח במקומו איזה מטלית על ראשו.
Has anyone else heard of such a practice?
[8] Why isn’t this called טלית קטנה? R. Meir Mazuz explains that in the period of the rishonim, when the expression טלית קטן first began, they were not concerned with the grammatical point that a word ending with ת is feminine. See Bayit Ne’eman 29 (14 Elul 5776), p. 4.
[9] See R. Yitzhak Ratsaby, Olat Yitzhak, vol. 2, no. 11 (p. 28).
[10] See R. Yehiel Goldhaber, Minhagei ha-Kehilot, vol. 1, pp. 93ff.
[11] Here is one source that shows that in 12th century Ashkenaz tzitzit were not generally worn: R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mainz, Sefer Ra’avan, ed. Deblitzky, vol. 1, no. 40:
שאלני חתני רבי אורי. מצוה חמורה כמו ציצית שהיא שקולה כנגד כל המצות, מאי שנא דמקילין בה רוב ישראל שאין מתעטפין בכל יום. והשבתי לו לפי שאין ציצית חובת גברא. מי כת’ לבוש ציצית, ציצית חובת טלית הוא דכת’ ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם, אם יש לך טלית של ד’ כנפים עשה לו ציצית ואם אין לך טלית אינו חייב בציצית. דומיא דמזוזה ומעקה דאם יש לו בית חייב במזוזה ומעקה ואם אין לו בית אינו חייב.
[12] Bayit Ne’eman 18 (26 Sivan 5776), p. 1.
[13] Bah, Orah Hayyim 17.
[14] Orah Hayyim 17:    קטן היודע להתעטף אביו צריך ליקח לו ציצית לחנכו
[15] See Tosafot, Bava Batra 55b s.v. Rabbi Eliezer, and the discussion in R. Zev Wolf Zicherman, Otzar Pelaot ha-Torah, vol. 3, pp. 759ff. (R. Zicherman refers to the Shakh and R. Hirschowitz that I mention.) See also Beitzah 15a: רוב ליסטים ישראל נינהו. The note in the Soncino Talmud to this passage reads: “The Rabbis were broad-minded enough to realize that in a town containing an overwhelming Jewish population the majority of thieves would be Jewish.”
[16] Netzah Yisrael, ed. Hartman (Jerusalem, 1997), vol. 1, ch. 2, p. 20. For R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg’s negative comments about the Jewish people, see my Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, p. 183.
[17] Regarding Hirschowitz, see Hayyim Dov Genachovski, Shneur Zalman Hirschowitz (Jerusalem, 1951).
[18] In this video R. Yosef explains why he has spoken out against R. Mazuz and his followers. I have no doubt that there are also political factors involved. The various “religious” attacks on R. Mazuz, especially during the last Israeli election, remind me of the following memorable passage in Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Philadelphia, 1896), p. 3: “[U]nfortunately religious struggles are usually conducted on the most irreligious principles.”

[19] This anti-Semitic imagery is already present in R. Joel Teitelbaum, Al ha-Geulah ve-al ha-Temurah, chapters 46, 79.




The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah

The Power of Tefilah during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah
By Eliezer Brodt
The following is a
chapter from my sefer Ben Kesseh
Le’assur
[still available for purchase, for more information contact me at
eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.]
מעלת התפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה
אליעזר יהודה בראדט
א.
ר’ יונה מגירונדי בספרו ‘שערי תשובה’ מדריך את האדם כיצד
יתנהג בעשרת ימי תשובה:
וראוי לכל ירא אלוקים למעט בעסקיו, ולהיות
רעיוניו נְחִתִּים, ולקבוע ביום ובלילה עתים להתבודד בחדריו ולחפש דרכיו ולחקור,
לקדם אשמורות, ולהתעסק בדרכי התשובה וכשרון המעשה, ולשפוך שיח ולשאת תפילה ורינה
ולהפיל תחינה, שהעת עת רצון והתפילה נשמעת בה, כענין שנאמר: ‘בעת רצון
עניתיך, וביום ישועה עזרתיך’; ואמרו רבותינו ז”ל (ראש השנה יח ע”א):
‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו‘, אלו עשרת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים[1].
מבואר
בדבריו, שעשרת ימי תשובה הינם ימים המסוגלים לקבלת התפילה. גם בן דורו, ר’ משה
מקוצי, כותב כיוצא בזה: “אף על פי שהתשובה והצעקה יפה לעולם, בעשרה
ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים היא יפה ביותר, ומיד היא
מקובלת
שנאמר: ‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו’; במה דברים אמורים? ביחיד, אבל בציבור
– כל זמן שצועקין ועושין תשובה בלבב שלם מיד הם נענים”[2].
וכך גם כותב ר’ בחיי ב”ר אשר ן’ חלאווה 
בספרו כד הקמח: “שכן בעשרה ימים אלה שהן ימי הדין והמשפט הנוראים,
הנקראים בכל ישראל ‘עשרת  ימי תשובה’, ומיוחדים
לעולם לתפילה
ולבקש שערי תשובה”[3].
באותה תקופה נתחדד הרעיון בדברי ר’ מנחם המאירי
, בעל בית הבחירה: “אף על פי שהתפילה חביבה אף ביחיד, תפילת הציבור חביבה
ביותר… ומכל, בזמן, רצוני לומר עשרת ימי תשובה, מתוך שהתורה נתנה הערה
לכל, הרי אף תפילת היחיד חביבה חיבוב יתר“[4].
כלומר, מחמת שבעשרת ימי תשובה האדם קרוב ביותר לאלוקיו, איננו נצרך להתפלל בציבור
כדי שתתקבל תפילתו כמו בשאר ימות השנה, והיינו משום שבעשרת ימים אלה הקב”ה
מצוי לכל יחיד ויחיד[5],
בימים אלו יש השראת שכינה מיוחדת, “בהללו עשרה ימי תשובה הקב”ה
שרוי ביניכם
“[6],
לפיכך אפילו תפילת היחיד מתקבלת, שהרי תפילה במקום או בזמן השראת השכינה – מתקבלת[7].
כך כתב גם ר’ אהרן הכהן מלוניל (נפטר בשנת ה’צ), בעל ‘ארחות חיים’: “שלשה
תפילות נשמעות: תפלה בדמעות… תפילת יחיד בין ראש השנה ליום הכיפורים”[8].
התפיסה שבימים אלו
מתקבלת ברצון גם תפילת יחיד– שנזכרת גם בדברי כמה מהאחרונים[9]
– לא נשארה בעולם הרעיוני בלבד. ר’ חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי פוסק, שבמקרה הצורך יש
להקל בחובת התפילה בציבור בעשרת ימי תשובה, משום שתפילת יחיד בימים אלו שווה
לתפילה בציבור[10]
ועוד, גם כשמתפלל ביחידות אינו צריך להכליל תפילתוו עם הציבור, לאומרה בלשון
רבים
כדי שתתקבל תפילתו, כפי שיש לנהוג כל ימות השנה[11],
אלא יאמרה בלשון יחיד![12]
ולא עוד אלא שיכול לאומרה בארמית, שלא כמו בשאר ימות השנה[13].
ב. סגולת עשרת ימי תשובה
בקבלת התפילות אינה רק בנוגע לתפילות שנושא בימים אלה, אלא גם כל תפילותיו הבלתי
ראויות
ששפך בכל ימות השנה מתקבלים ומתרצים לפני בוראו באמצעות תפילה
ראויה
שישא בימים נשגבים אלה. כך כותב ר’ דוד ב”ר אברהם הנגיד, דור שלישי
לרמב”ם: “…אם היה נעור ומדבר דברים בטלים, בשמחה והוללות, ובסוף הלילה
הולך לישון עד שליש היום ויקום להתפלל – אותה תפילה תשאר תלויה ועומדת; לא
תוכל לעלות לפני ה’ עד שיגיע יום הכיפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלמה, אז יעלו
תפילותיו, זו עם זו
“[14].
אכן במקורם נאמרו דבריו על יום הכפורים בלבד[15],
אך ברור שסגולת יום הכפורים להכשרת התפילות של ימות השנה היא משום שיום זה הינו
שיאו של עשרת ימי התשובה בהן התפילה רצויה ביותר מחמת קרבת
הקב”ה (‘קראוהו בהיותו קרוב‘). ולמרות שבמקורות קדומים לא נמצא במפורש
שהתפילות בעשרת ימי תשובה (ולא רק תפילות יום הכפורים בלבד!) מכשירות
את התפילות של ימות השנה, זכר לדבר יש. ר’ רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי (תמז-תקג), מגדולי
מקובלי איטליה ששהה בצפת ובירושלים מספר שנים, כותב בשנת תפב בספרו משנת
חסידים: “ובעשרת ימי תשובה… המתענה בהם ועושה תשובה גמורה, מוחלין לו
בכל יום מימי השבוע שבעשרת ימי תשובה מה שחטא ביום ההוא לעולם
“[16].
אם כל יום מעשרת ימי תשובה מכפר אפילו חטאים חמורים שחטא בימי השנה, אם כן
ודאי שאדם הרגיל להתפלל שלא בכוונה, תפילות ימים אלה יתקנו את תפילותיו שלא בכוונה.
מה עוד, שהדברים מתקבלים על הלב אם נצרף לכך את סגולת קבלת התפילה הקיימת בעשרת
ימי תשובה.
כמו חיבורים אחרים, גם משנת חסידים הינו סיכום
מתורתו של האר”י כפי שקיבלו המחבר מתלמידי גורי האר”י, ואכן עיקרו של הרעיון
מצוי בכתבי ר’ חיים ויטאל, אשר רשם את כל תורת רבו:
אמר לי הרב משה גאלאנטי, ששמע
ממורי ז”ל
: שאם האדם יתענה בשבעת ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים ויעשה
בהם תשובה גמורה, כל יום מהם מכפר על כל העונות שחטא כל ימיו ביום שכיוצא בו
ואם התענה ועשה תשובה בכל שבעת הימים ההם, יתכפרו לו כל עונותיו שעשה כל ימיו[17].
בחיבורים מאוחרים יותר נאמר מפורש
שהתפילה בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה את כל התפילות של ימות השנה. כך כותב ר’ יעקב
ב”ר יוסף, בעל זרע ישראל: “…מבואר גם כן בכמה ספרי מוסר מגודל מעלת
התפילה, באם שמתפלל בכוונה באותם הימים מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים, דאף מי
שלא היה מכוון בתפילתו בשארי ימות השנה, באם שהיה מכוון בתפילתו באותם הימים – בזה
הוא מתקן התפילות של כל השנה
“[18].
ג. הסיבה שתפילה בכוונה
הנאמרת בעשרת ימי תשובה מכשירה ומעלה עמה את התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל אותו אדם
בימות השנה היא גם משום, שבימים אלו מצוי גילוי שכינה, ואנו כבר מקובלים
מרבותינו הראשונים כלל גדול שתפילה הנאמרת בזמן או במקום השראת שכינה מתקנת עמה
תפילות שאינן ראויות.
כך מוסר לנו אחד מגדולי המקובלים בדורו, ר’ יוסף
ג’יקאטיליה (ספרד ה’ח – סה) בספרו שערי אורה (נכתב בשנת ה’לד[19]),
בבואו לבאר את החילוק שבין תפילה שביחיד לתפילה בציבור:
וכשהיחיד מתפלל… [תפילה ש]אינה
הגונה, קורים [המלאכים] לאותה תפילה ‘תפילה פסולה’… והכרוז קורא: אל תכנס אותה
תפילה לפני השם יתברך… ואם תאמר, נמצאו רוב התפילות שמתפלל היחיד נפסדות ונאבדות,
כי אחת מני אלף יכול להתכוון בתפלת יחיד בענין שתהא ראויה להתקבל. דע כי אין הדבר
כן, אלא כל אותן התפילות הפסולות… כשדוחין אותן לחוץ ואינן נכנסות, השם יתברך
נתן להם מקום להכנס בו, שהשם יתברך ברא רקיע ומסר עליו ממונים ושומרים, וכל אותן
התפילות הפסולות הנדחות, מכניסין אותן באותו רקיע, ועומדות שם. ואם חזר זה
היחיד שהתפלל תפילות פסולות… ועמד והתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, ותפילתו זו
הגונה ושלימה
– אז אותה התפילה הכשרה מסתלקת והולכת ונכנסת באותו היכל החיצון
שהתפילות הפסולות שהתפלל מקודם עומדות שם, ומוציאה משם כל אותן התפילות הפסולות
שהתפלל, ועולות כולן עם אותה התפילה הכשרה
…[20].
וכל העניינים האלו שאמרנו הם
בתפילות היחידים, אבל בתפילת הציבור – אין כל ממונה וכל שוער יכול לעכב, אלא
כשהציבור מתפללים תפילתם נכנסת ומתקבלת על כל פנים
[21]…
כשהיחיד מתפלל – בודקין את תפילתו אם היא ראויה להתקבל, וכמה מערערים יש עליה; אבל
כשהציבור מתפללין – ‘לא בזה את תפילתם’, אף-על-פי שאין תפילתם כל כך הגונה, מקבלים
אותה מלמעלה
…[22].
הסיבה שתפילת ציבור מתקבלת אפילו שאינה בכוונה,
היא משום שתפילתם נאמרת במקום השראת שכינה, ש”כל בי עשרה – שכינתא
שריא”[23].
ובכך שר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה משווה את תפילת היחיד שבכוונה לתפילת הציבור שלא בכוונה,
מוכח שהגורם להתקבלות תפילת היחיד הוא הכוונה, ש’התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה
גדולה
‘, היינו יחיד האומר תפילתו ב’כוונה גדולה’ – שכינה שרויה אצלו,
וכאמור תפילה זו מתקנת את כל תפילותיו הבלתי ראויות. הוי אומר: תפילה שנאמרה
במקום השראת השכינה –
מתקנת עמה תפילות שאינן ראויות[24].
יסודו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שהתפילות הפסולות
מעוכבות עד שיכוון בתפילתו, אינו חידושו שלו אלא נטלו מספר הזוהר שהיה מצוי אצלו,
ובו נאמר:
ההוא
ממנא קדישא דקיימא על ההוא פתחא, כל אינון צלותין דבקעי אוירין ורקיעין למיעאל קמי
מלכא, אי צלותא דסגיאין אינון – פתח פתחא ואעיל ההוא צלותא, עד דאתעבידו כל צלותין
דעלמא עטרא ברישא דצדיק חי עלמין; ואי צלותא דיחיד – סלקא עד דמטי לפתחא דהיכלא דא
דהאי ממנא קיימא ביה, אי יאה ההיא צלותא לאעלא קמי מלכא קדישא – מיד פתח פתחא
ואעיל לה, ואי לא יאה – דחי לה לבר, ונחתא ואתשטיא בעלמא, וקיימא גו רקיעא תתאה
מאינון רקיעין דלתתא דמדברי גו עלמא. ובההוא רקיעא קיימא חד ממנא די שמיה
סהדיא”ל, וממנא על האי רקיעא ונטיל כל הני צלותין דאתדחיין, דאקרון צלותי
פסילאן, וגניז לון עד דתב ההוא בר-נש לגבי מאריה כדקא יאות, וצלי צלותא אחרא זכאה,
ההיא צלותא זכאה כד סלקא, נטיל ההוא ממנא סהדי”אל האי צלותא וסליק לה לעילא
עד דאערע בההיא צלותא זכאה וסלקין ואתערבון כחדא ועאלין קמי מלכא קדישא[25].
תפיסה זו מופיעה גם בכתבי האחרונים. ר’ יהונתן
אייבשיץ אמר באחת מדרשותיו : “חטא היוצא מפי איש ואשה כל יום, וביחוד שיחה
ובטלה בבית הכנסת, ומכל שכן בעת תפילה, הכל הוא עולה בעב וענן, ומונע לתפילה
לעלות.
אך אם אדם התפלל אחר כך בכוונה ובבכי ודמעה – מעלה כל תפילות מכמה
שנים
אשר סביב נקבצו לו, כי נשארו עומדים ברפיון מבלי עלייה, וכעת על ידי
תפילה הם עולים במעלה בית אל”[26].
מעתה, אם השראת השכינה מחמת תפילתו
בציבור מתקנת את תפילותיו שהתפלל בעבר, ודאי שתפילה בציבור מתקנת את תפילתו
של עתה. וכך אכן כותב המבי”ט: “תפילת היחיד, בהיותה בלתי הגונה
או בלתי נאמרת בכוונה – אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים, לפעמים תתקבל בזכות
תפילת הרבים,
כי אפילו לחובה היחיד נגרר אחר הרוב…”[27].
חידוש נוסף אנו למדים מתורתו של המבי”ט
המתקשר באופן ברור לתפיסת תיקון התפילות של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה; כשם שהשראת שכינה
הבאה מחמת איכות התפילה (שנאמרה בציבור) מעלה ומתקנת את תפילותיו הקודמות,
כך גם השראת השכינה הבאה בגלל סגולת המקום, היינו שקבע מקום לתפילתו[28], מתקנת את תפילתו הקודמת. וכך
כתב המבי”ט בבואו לבאר את מאמר התלמוד (ברכות ו ע”ב): “כל הקובע
מקום לתפילתו – אלהי אברהם בעזרו”:
בעומדו במקום שהתפלל בראשונה[29],
גם כי לא יתפלל עתה, הוא נענה, בהיותו עומד במקום שהתפלל בו… כן המתפלל לאל יתברך על דבר פרטי במקום מיוחד, כשחוזר לאותו המקום בכוונת התפילה שהתפללהקבה שומע תפילתו שהתפלל קודם.
וזהו ‘הקובע מקום’ – לתפילות שהתפלל כבר[30].
היינו, אדם שהתפלל תחילה תפילה שאינה ראויה
(שהרי לא נתקבלה תחילה), אם בימים הבאים יהפוך את מקום תפילתו למקום תפילה קבוע – תתקבל
תפילתו של קודם. ואם יתמה המעיין מדוע, הנה הדברים ברורים כי בכך שמקום תפילתו הפך
למקום תפילה קבוע – שורה בו השכינה, והרי כבר מקובלנו מר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
שהשראת השכינה מתקנת ומעלה את תפילותיו![31]
ולא זו אף זו. ר’ שמואל ראבין מחדש על פי היסוד
האמור דבר נפלא. וזו לשונו:
בכל התפלות צריך לפרש ולבאר היטב הכוונה, לבל
ישאיר מקום למקטרג שיקח הדברים על כוונה אחרת, זולת הכהן גדול ביום כיפור בקודש
הקדשים לא היה נצרך לזה, אחרי ששם היה התפלה מגיע אליו יתברך זולת אמצעות המלאכים,

שאפילו מלאכי השרת לא היו יכולים להכנס לקדש הקדשים[32].
הוי
אומר, התפילות הנאמרות בקודש הקודשים מתקבלות ברצון ואפילו ללא כל כוונה,
בגלל שהוא המקום בו מצוי גילוי שכינה הגדול ביותר.
ד. רבותינו האחרונים הזכירו
הרבה –
גם אם לפעמים לא ידעו מבטן מי יצאו הדברים – את פתרונו של ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה
לתיקון תפילות, ושקלו וטרו בדבריו; יש מהם שצמצם את פתרונו ויש מהם שהרחיב, ויש
שהקיש את הרעיון והסיעו גם לענין אחר. 
1. לתפילה פגומה באותיותיה
אין אפשרות תיקון. אם היה ניתן להבין משיטת ר’ יוסף ג’יקאטיליה שכל תפילה
מקבלת את תיקונה אגב תפילה ראויה, בא ר’ ישראל איסר מפוניבז’ ומחלק בין שתי מיני
תפילות פגומות – זו מחמת חוסר כוונה וזו משום חסרון אותיות
ותיבות, שלשיטתו, לפגם מן הסוג האחרון אין אפשרות תיקון, שהרי היא ‘מחוסרת
אבר’. ואלה דבריו:
אף שכתוב בספרים, שאם אדם
זוכה להתפלל תפלה אחת בכוונה רצויה, עולין עמה כל התפלות שלא בכוונה שהתפללו עד
הנה ונדחו, ומסתברא שכך הוא אם התפלל כל תיבה בשלמות, רק בחסרון כוונה,
והיא כמתה, תוכל לקבל חיות על ידי התפילה החיה. אכן, אם התפלה חסרה אותיות,
והיא כמו מחוסר אברים, איך אפשר שימלא אבר החסר?
…[33]
2. תיקון תפילות פסולות
של אדם שנפטר. לעומת צמצום פתרון התיקון של ר’ יוסף גי’קאטיליה, היו
שנהגו להפך והרחיבו את פתרונו והסכימו שאף ניתן לתקן תפילות של אדם שנפטר
לבית עולמו
. כך כותב ר’ ידידיה טיאה ווייל (אשכנז תפב – תקסו), בעל לבושי
בדים, לאחר שהעתיק תורף הדברים שנאמרו בספר שערי אורה:
אמנם נראה, אם מת אותו יחיד
ולא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה, וכי יעלה על הדעת שח”ו יפסיד כל התפילות שהיה
מתפלל?! ואולי יש לומר, אם בנו היה מתפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה גדולה, אז מעלה בנו
כל תפילות של אביו
(ואפשר דזה הטעם דאבל מתפלל בציבור), כי ברא מזכה דאבא.
ויען, אם גם בנו לא התפלל תפילה אחת בכוונה או אם אין לו בן, אם כן הפסיד כל
התפילות, לזה אם יגולגל נשמתו לבוא בעולם ויתפלל עוד תפילות אחרות בכוונה גדולה
– מעלה כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפלל בגלגולים אחרים
[34].
3. תיקון אכילות פסולות.
אמנם למרות שר’ ישראל איסר מפונביז’ צמצם את יכולת התיקון של תפילות,
מאידך גיסא הרחיב את השיטה לענין תיקון אכילה, היינו, אכילה שלא ברך
עליה בכוונה ראויה. ואלו דבריו:
בברכת אכילה ושתיה תכוין
להשפיע בהם נפש השכלית. ודע, שאף אם לא יעלה בידך הכוונה הרצויה הזו אלא פעם
אחת בחודש
, מעלה גדולה השגת; ואף שלא תזכה לזה כי אם פעם אחת בשנה
דבר גדול הוא. כי הספרים כתבו, שתפילה אחת בכוונה גוררת אחריה את כל התפילות
שבלא כוונה להעלותם איתה
[35]. 


[1] ר’
יונה מגירונדי, שערי תשובה,
שער שני, אות יד, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ עו.
[2] ר’ משה מקוצי, ספר מצוות גדול, עשין, סי’ טז.
[3] רבינו בחיי, כד הקמח, ערך ‘ראש השנה’, בתוך: הרב ח”ד שעוועל (מהדיר), כתבי רבינו בחיי, ירושלים תשל, עמ’ שעג. כבר ר’ יצחק ב”ר יהודה אבן
גיאת, הלכות רי”ץ גיאת,
הלכות תשובה, ירושלים תשנח, עמ’ ס, כותב: “שעשרת ימי תשובה… שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים לא למיקבעינהו בתענית הוא דדריש, אלא להתפלל ולהתחנן ולהודות ולעמוד בתחנונים ולחזור בתשובה”. השווה גם לצוואתו של ר’ ישראל ליפשיץ, בעל ‘תפארת ישראל’:
“הזהרו מאד להתפלל בכוונה… ובכל התפלות שבעשרת ימי תשובה, שאז קרוב ה’ לכם,
בני… ומצוי טפי שתקבל אז תפלתכם ברחמיו יתברך“. נדפס בתוך: המעין, יא (תשלא), גל’ ד, עמ’ 44-28,
סי’ כה [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים
תשסד, עמ’ רסט ואילך; ר”ש דבליצקי,
בינו שנות דור ודור, בני
ברק תשסו]. ר’ דוב בער קאראסיק, פתחי
עולם ומטעמי השלחן, סי’ תרב, ס”ק ב: “ובספרד נוהגים, שגם בשבת
אומרים סליחות ותחנונים… וכיון דבעשרת ימי תשובה התפלה נשמעת יותר מבימים
אחרים
, וגם באותן הימים האדם מוכן להיות נגמר דינו ביום הכיפורים, אין לך דבר
נחוץ יותר מזה”.
[4] ר’
מנחם ב”ר שלמה המאירי,
בית הבחירה,
ראש השנה יז ע”א.
[5] ראה ראש השנה יח ע”א: “‘דרשו ה’ בהמצאו’… ביחיד… אלו עשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים”.
[6] דברים
רבה, מהדורת ליברמן, סו”פ האזינו. וכך
בפסיקתא דר”כ, מהדורת מנדלבוים, נספחים, פיסקה ז; תנחומא, האזינו, ד.
[7]
הרעיון שתפילת היחיד מתקבלת ברצון כתפילת הציבור בזמן השארת השכינה ביאר
המבי”ט. לדעתו, ב”דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה שתקנו נוסח
כל הברכות, “לא התפללו בציבור, כי באותם ימים לא היה צורך בכך, משום שהשכינה
שרתה בישראל
היתה נשמעת תפילת כל יחיד ויחיד“. וזו לשונו בספרו בית אלהים, שער היסודות, פרק לח,
ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ שעח-שעט: “דורות הראשונים, הקודמים לאנשי כנסת הגדולה
שתקנו נוסח כל הברכות, היו שומרים ענין כוונת כל ברכה וברכה בדברים ההכרחיים… לא
כנוסח זה שאנחנו מתפללים אלא כל אחד כפי צחות לשונו. כי מזמן משה רבינו עליו-השלום
עד אנשי כנסת הגדולה היתה השכינה נגלית במקום הקרבןוהיתה נשמעת תפלת
כל יחיד ויחיד
וברכתו לאל יתברך על הנאתו מזה העולם. וזהו הטעם אצלי על מה
שנראה, כי באותו הזמן לא היו מתקבצים ישראל בכל מקומות מושבותם ערב ובקר וצהרים
במקום מיוחד להתפלל בו תפלת ציבור, אלא כל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו…
שכל אחד היה מתפלל ביחיד במקום שיזדמן לו והיתה תפלתו נשמעת כשל רבים לפני
השכינה הנגלית במקום הקרבן
“.
[8] ארחות חיים, סוף הלכות ראש השנה, דף קג ע”א.
[9] ראה,
לדוגמא, ר’ יעקב ישראל קניבסקי, קהילות יעקב,
ברכות, סי’ ג: “מבואר, דיחיד בעשרת ימי תשובה כוחו יפה כציבור בכל ימות השנה לענין שתשובתו ותפילתו מתקבלת”. וראה עוד: ר’ אלעזר פלעקלס, עולת חודש
השני (עולת ציבור חלק ראשון), מונקאטש תרסז, דף ע ע”א.
[10] [הרב ש’ אריאלי], חזון טוב,
ירושלים תשנח, עמ’ קצז. ידידי הרב אברהם שפילמן הפנני למקור חשוב זה.
[11]
ראה ברכות ל רע”א: “לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא”. ופירש
רש”י: “לישתף נפשיה, אל יתפלל תפלה קצרה בלשון יחיד אלא בלשון רבים, שמתוך
כך תפלתו נשמעת
“.
[12] כך
מחדש ר’ משה יהודה ליב ברמאן (פולין תרכו – תשב), חק משה, שבת יב ע”ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ’ כא-כב. תחילה תמה על
שבנוסח התפילה לחולה שהציעו ר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה לא נכללו בה חולים אחרים, ולא כנוסח
תפילת ר’ יוסי: “המקום ירחם עליך בתוך שאר חולי ישראל“, הכוללת
אחרים ו”תפילתו נשמעת בזכות הרבים” (רש”י, שבת שם); ולכאורה נמצא, שר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה אינם מסכימים
עם הכלל “לעולם לישתף אינש נפשיה בהדי ציבורא”. לפיכך הוא מסביר, שנוסח
התפילה של ר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה נועד להאמר רק בעשרת ימי תשובה (כשיטת התוספות, שם, ד”ה רבי יהודה אומר,
עיי”ש), כי “באותם הימים גם היחיד יש לו מעלת רבים, לכן סבירא
להו [לר’ מאיר ור’ יהודה] דאין צריך לכלול את עצמו ברבים, דגם בתפילת יחיד
הקב”ה שומע באותם הימים”.
[13]
עי’ סוטה לג ע”א, שיחיד אסור להתפלל בלשון ארמית, וציבור מותר (ועי’ הרב
עובדיה יוסף, שו”ת יחוה דעת,
ח”ג, סי’ מג, לסיכום הנושא). מכך למד ר’ משה יהודה ליב ברמאן: “אם כן,
בעשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום כיפורים, דדין יחיד אז כציבור, מותר ליחיד לבקש
אז צרכיו בלשון ארמי
” (חק משה,
שבת יב ע”ב, תל-אביב תשלג, עמ’ כב. וראה להרב נסים דיין, ברכת מועדיך על ימים נוראים, בני-ברק
תשסב, עמ’ כז-כח). לשני מקורות אלו הפנני ידידי פרופ’ יעקב שמואל שפיגל.
[14] ר’
דוד הנגיד, מדרש דוד, אבות פ”ב
מ”ה, מהדורת בן ציון קרינפיס, ירושלים תשד, עמ’ לא.
[15] וכך בהתקדש יום כפור אנו אומרים בתפילה זכה
שנתחברה ע”י ר’ אברהם דאנציג, בעל ‘חיי אדם’: “ועל ידי זכות התפילות שנתפלל ביום הקודש הזה, יעלו ויבואו ויגיעו ויצטרפו עמהם כל התפילות הפסולות שהתפללנו בכל השנה בלא כוונה, ויהיו כולם נכללות בתפילת היום הזה”. מסתימת לשונו משמע שכל תפילה שתאמר ביום כפור תעלה ותטהר את התפילות הפסולות, ולא רק תפילה בכוונה כדברי ר’ דוד הנגיד (“עד שיגיע יום-הכפורים ויתפלל בכוונה ובתשובה שלימה…”). בענין ‘תפילה זכה’, התפשטותה ודפוסיה, ראה: מ’ מאיר,
“על תפילה זכה”, כנישתא,
ב, רמת-גן תשסג, עמ’ קיט-קלח.
[16] ר’
רפאל עמנואל חי ריקי, משנת חסידים,
ח”ג, מסכת ימי תשובה, אות ג, ד”צ: ירושלים תשמב, דף קמב ע”ב.
קביעת
שנת תפב כתאריך כתיבת החיבור, הוא לפי הנאמר בשער המהדורה הראשונה (משנת חסידים,
אמשטרדם תפז): “…שחברתי אני… עמנואל חי בלא”א אברהם ריקי
תנצב”ה בעיר ליוורנו
בשנת דל לימי שני חיי, הוא שנת הכונות
ליצירה”. דהיינו שנת תפב.
[17] ר’ חיים ויטאל, שער הכוונות, דרושי ראש השנה, סוף ההקדמה.
[18] ר’
יעקב ב”ר יוסף, זרע ישראל למסכת ראש השנה, ראש השנה דף לד ע”ב, אמשטרדם תצו, דף כג ע”ב.
אמנם
לדעת ר’ דוד שלמה אייבשיץ
בעל ‘ערבי נחל’, רק תפילות ראש השנה בכוחן לתקן את
התפילות הפגומות. וזו לשונו: “ואיתא, דבראש השנה יש כח לתקן כל התפלות פסולות של כל השנה, דהיינו התפלות שהיה בהם מחשבות זרות ורעות… ובראש השנה יכול להעלותן. ומסתמא עיקר הזמן לזה הוא ביום השני, דאז מדת הדין גובר” (ערבי נחל,
ב, יום ב’
דראש השנה, בני ברק חש”ד, עמ’ שצ).
[19] ראה: א’ פרבר-גינת
(מהדירה), פירוש המרכבה לר’ משה די ליאון,
מבוא, לוס אנג’לס תשנח, עמ’ 42, סוף הערה
128.
[20] אגב, ר’ זכריה סימנר,
מציע אפשרות תיקון אחרת לתפילות הפסולות המעוכבות, הנעשה באמצעות צירוף חלקי
התפילות הכשרות
: “ובאם שאחד לא כיון בכל הברכות בפעם אחת מחמת טרדות, רק
היום מכון בברכה אחת או שתים או שלש ולמחר גם כן בשאר ברכות, באופן כשמגיע ראש
השנה ויום כיפור היה בודאי מכון כל הברכות בכוונה נכונה, אז מלאך סהדיא”ל
מוסרה לסנלפו”ן להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכוון בכולה – מעכבה אצלו עד
יום כיפור
, ואם לא נתכוין כן כל השנה עד יום כיפור, אז המלאך הנזכר
למעלה משליכה אל מקום פסולי המקדשים שהוא סוף רקיע” (ספר זכירה [נדפס לראשונה בהמבורג תסט], מהדורת ש’ אבא-שאול,
ירושלים תשנט, עמ’ לד).
הדברים
האחרונים מבוססים על
דברי ר’ נפתלי הירץ בכרך, עמק המלך
(נדפס לראשונה באמשטרדם תח), כפי שאכן נאמר במפורש בספר זכירה, אלא שבעמק המלך לא נזכר שלאחר יום-הכפורים אין תקנה לתפילות הפסולות, אלא שהוא כותב: “כי אפילו שלא יתכוין היחיד בכל הברכות בבת אחת, רק אם היום יכוין בברכה אחת או שתים וכמו כן למחר בברכה אחת או שתים אחרות, ברכות מצטרפות. וכשנמצא שנתכוין בכל התפילה, אז מלאך סהדיאל מוסרה לסנדלפון להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכווין בכולן, אז סהדיאל מעכבה אצלו” (עמק המלך,
אמשטרדם תיג, דף קעב ע”ב). גם לשיטת ר”י ג’יקאטיליה
אין גבול של זמן, כמשמע מרהיטת לשונו, ולפיכך לא ידעתי מקורו של ספר זכירה,
וצ”ע.
וראה
גם חמדת ימים
[נדפס לראשונה באיזמיר תצאתצב], חלק ימים נוראים, דף סח ע”ב: “ואמרו המקובלים ז”ל, כי בשאר ימות השנה – מחסדו הגדול יתברך – אפילו שלא נתכוון האדם בכל ברכות של ‘שמונה עשרה’ בבת אחת, רק אם יום אחד יכוין בברכה אחת או שתים, וכמו כן ביום אחר בברכה אחת או שתים אחרותברכות מצטרפות,
וכשנמצא שנתכוון בכל התפלה, אז המלאך סהדיאל מוסרה לסנדלפון להוליכה למעלה. אבל כל זמן שלא נתכווין בכולן, המלאך הנזכר מעכב אותה אצלה עד יום כיפור, ואם לא נתקנה עד היום ההוא, אז המלאך משליכה למקום פסולי המוקדשין…”. וככל הנראה בעל ‘חמדת ימים’ עירב את שתי השיטות האחרונות.
[21] אמנם
נראה שלדבר זה לא הסכים המבי”ט, בית אלהים, שער התפילה,
פרק יא, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ מה, שכתב: “כי תפלת היחיד בהיותה בלתי הגונה או בלתי נאמרה בכוונה – אינה מקובלת כלל. וכשאומרה ברבים – לפעמים תתקבל בזכות תפלת הרבים, כי אפילו הוא צדיק לפעמים אין תפלתו נשמעת לסיבת הרבים שאינם הגונים”. וצריך עוד עיון.
[22] ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה, שערי אורה,
שער שני, ספירה תשיעית, ד”צ: ירושלים תשנד, דף ל ע”ב – לא ע”א.
יסוד
זה הועתק כמעט ללא שינויים מספר ‘שערי אורה’ בידי רבים מהאחרונים. ראה: ר’ מאיר ן’
גבאי, תולעת יעקב, ‘היכל ראשון
יוצר אור’, ירושלים תשנו, עמ’ לט; תפלה
לדוד, נדפס במאמרו של י’ יודלוב, ‘תפלה לדוד’, ישורון, ב, ירושלים תשנז, עמ’ תקכא-תקכב [והשווה: י’ יודלוב, “קובץ
תפילות מירושלים, מקושטא שנת רצ”ה או רצ”ח”, קרית ספר, סא (תשמו), עמ’ 931-929]; ר’
מנוח הענדל, הגהות חכמת מנוח,
ברכות ו ע”א; ר’ ישעיה הלוי הורוויץ, סדור שער השמים,
חמו”ד, דף עז ע”ב; ר’ יעקב עמדין, סדור שערי שמים, א, ירושלים תשנג, עמ’ נב; ר’ מאיר מוילנא, נחלת אבות, ירושלים תשמג, דף יד
ע”א [=אשר יצווה, א, ירושלים
תשסד, עמ’ קצח]; ר’ יחיאל העליר, הגדה
לליל שמורים עם ביאור אור ישרים, קעניגסבערג תריז, עמ’ כב; ר’ יוסף מסלוצק,
דרשות רבינו יוסף מסולצק, ירושלים
תשנה, עמ’ ס; ר’ משה נתנאל פוטשובסקי, אמונת
התחיה, פתח השער, ברדיטשוב תרנד, דף יג ע”ב; ר’ יצחק ווייס, בינה
לעתים
, בני ברק תשסח, על אלול, עמ’ קיג, אות א’תקס; ר’ ראובן מרגליות, מלאכי עליון, ירושלים תשה, עמ’ קמד,
הערה קפה.
ועל
פי יסוד זה כתב ר’ יהודה הלר (נפ’ תקעט) ביאור יפה למאמר (ברכות לד רע”ב) “גדולה תפילה יותר מן הקרבנות”, ואלה דבריו: “גדולה תפילה יותר מקרבנות… אמנם גם אם איננה בכוונה אינה נדחית לגמרי אבל היא מונחת בקרן זוית, ואם יתפלל אחר כך בכוונהיש בו כח להעלותה אף את התפילה אשר היתה בלא כוונה, וזו שאמר הכתוב גבי קרבנות ‘למה לי רוב זבחיכם וגו’, קטורת תועבה היא לי‘, אבל גבי תפילה לא אמר אלא אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם,
אבל אינו דוחה אותה רק מעלים עיניו עד אשר הוכשר,
ועדיין תוחלת יש בה. וזו אשר כיוונו בה חז”ל, שגדולה תפלה מהקרבנות. והוא נכון” (ר’ יהודה הלר, תרומת
הכרי, פתח
השער, אות ג, ברטיסלבה תריח).
[23] סנהדרין
לט ע”א. ובברכות ו ע”א: “ומנין לעשרה שמתפללין ששכינה עמהם? שנאמר: ‘אלהים נצב בעדת אל'”.
ראה
סוטה לג ע”א שציבור יכול
להתפלל בלשון ארמי למרות שאין מלאכי השרת נזקקין לשפה זו, “משום דבציבור הוא, שהשכינה שורה שם” (אור זרוע,
הלכות שבת, סי’ נה, ד”ה ‘והא דאמרינן’), ומשום כך “אין המתפלל צריך שיזדקקו לו מלאכי השרת להכניס תפלתו לפנים מן הפרגוד” (ע”פ רש”י, שבת
יב ע”ב). וכך בראשונים נוספים, לדוגמא, ר’ יהודה ב”ר יקר, פירוש התפילות והברכות, א, עמ’ יט [=שו”ת תמים דעים,
סי’ קפה]: “אבל ציבור, כיון דשכינה עמהן, יכולין להתפלל בלשון ארמי…”; ר’ מנחם ב”ר שלמה המאירי,
בית הבחירה,
שבת יב ע”ב: “…כתבו הגאונים, בתפלת הציבור שהוא בכל לשון מטעם זה, שהציבור שכינה עמהם“; שבלי הלקט,
סדר ראש השנה, סו”ס רפב, ועוד
הרבה.
[24] יתכן, שלפי יסודו של ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה ניתן אף להבין מדוע מי שאינו יכול לכוון בכל ברכות התפילה, עליו
לכוון לכל הפחות בברכת ‘אבות’ (ראה: ברכות לד ע”ב; ר’ יוסף קארו, בית יוסף, או”ח, סי’ קא, אות א),
או בברכות ‘אבות’ ו’הודאה’ (כך לשיטת ר’ יהודה החסיד, ספר חסידים, מהדורת ר’ מרגליות, סי’ קנח; ספר רוקח, הלכות חסידות, שורש זכירת השם, ירושלים תשכ, עמ’ ט; סמ”ק, סי’ יא; רי”י קניבסקי, קהילות יעקב, ברכות, סי’ כז, אות א; קובץ שעשועי אורייתא, ג, ברוקלין (כסליו
תשסה), עמ’ עד-פד). כי כשם שתפילה שבכוונה מכשירה תפילות פסולות שהתפלל קודם לכן,
כך גם חלק מן התפילה – ברכה אחת או שתי ברכות – שנאמרה בכוונה, בכוחה להכשיר את
שאר הברכות שלא בכוונה שבתפילה הנוכחית. ולמרות שלא מצאתי מקור לרעיון זה,
הדברים מסתברים במיוחד לאחר השוואתם לדברי ר’ שלום בוזאגלו (מקדש מלך על זוהר, ח”ב, רמה ע”ב, זאלקוויא 1864): “כתב הרב, שאין
צריך האדם שיתפלל י”ח ברכות כולה בכוונה, ואז יעלו התפלות שאינם הגוונים עמה.
אלא אפילו בכל תפילה ותפילה, אם כיון באחת מכל הברכות עד שמראש השנה עד ראש השנה
צירף הקב”ה שמונה עשרה ברכות בכוונה מכל תפלותיו – אגבן עולים כל תפלות של כל
השנה שאינום הגונות”.
[25] זוהר, ח”ב, רמה ע”ב. הביאו (בתרגום ללשון הקודש) ר’ צבי הירש קוידאנובר (פפד”מ תה – תעב), קב הישר, א, פרק ח, ירושלים תשנג, עמ’ לו. עיי”ש. גם
בחמדת ימים,
חלק ימים נוראים, דף לא ע”א, העתיק דברי זוהר אלו, וגם הוסיף להם דברי תוכחה ומוסר: “ומי האיש אשר לא ישית לבו את זאת לשוב מדרכו הרעה בקרב הימים האלה [הימים הנוראים], להכונן במחשבתו, ולהעלות כל תפילות הפסולות של כל ימות השנה בתפלות היום, וישים על לבו את מה שהתפלל בלא כוונה ועדיין לא נענה באותם התפילות, ועתה הוא מתודה ומתחרט על עון זה שהקל בכבודו יתברך ויאמר: אוי לי מה שעשיתי! מדוע את דבר ה’ בזיתי?…”.
[26] ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ, יערות דבש, ח”א, דרוש א, בני ברק תשמג, דף לב ע”ד.
[27] כלומר, אם לחובה היחיד
נגרר אחר הרוב, ודאי שהיחיד נגרר אחר הרוב לזכות – שתפילתו תתקבל. הציטוט שבפנים
הוא מספרו בית אלהים, שער התפילה,
סו”פ יא, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ מה. העתיקו דבריו החיד”א, מדבר קדמות, מערכת צ אות ו (ערך ‘ציבור’),
ירושלים תשכב, עמ’ נא; ר’ יצחק ווייס, שו”ת
שיח יצחק, סו”ס מד.
[28] לכך שמקום הנקבע לתפילה שורה בו השכינה, ראה ירושלמי, ברכות פ”ד ה”ד: “צריך אדם להתפלל במקום שהוא מיוחד לתפילה, ומה טעם? ‘בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי’…”. והמשך הפסוק הוא (שמות כ כא): “אבוא אליך וברכתיך”. היינו, שכינתו תשרה שם [ראה תרגום ירושלמי, שמות שם: “בכל אתר דתדכרון ית שמי קדישא, מימרי מתגלי עליכון ומברך יתכון”]. וכך מפורש בספר ראבי”ה,
ח”א, ברכות, סי’ צ, מהדורת א’ אופטוביצר, עמ’ 67, הכותב דבריו ע”פ ירושלמי זה:
“צריך אדם להתפלל במקום המיוחד לתפילה, דכתיב: ‘בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי’ וגו’, היה מקום מיוחד לתפילהשם השכינה שורה“.
[29] על
חשיבות מקום התפילה בדעת המבי”ט אנו למדים מדבריו הבאים: “וכמו
כן המקום שהוא מוכן להתפלל בו כבר הוכן להיות תפלת ישראל נשמעת בו, ולכן המתפלל
בו אפילו יחיד ואפילו בלי כוונה שלימה
הוא קרוב להיות תפלתו נשמעת, וכמו
שמצינו בכלב שהלך להשתטח על קברי אבות” (בית אלהים, שער התפילה, פרק ה, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ כ). אמנם פיסקא זו איננה מדברת על הקובע מקום לתפילתו,
אלא על מקום הקבוע לתפילת רבים, ככל הנראה בית הכנסת. אך יש מן הטעם להשוות
את הדברים.
[30] מבי”ט, בית אלהים,
שער התפילה, פרק ה, ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ יז.
[31]
בדרך אגב יש להעיר, שמ’ בניהו בדיונו על ידיעות הקבלה של המבי”ט (ראה:
הנ”ל, יוסף בחירי, ירושלים
תשנא, עמ’ קלב), לא התייחס לדברי המבי”ט הנוכחים בהקשרם לשיטתו הקבלית של ר’
יוסף ג’יקאטיליה והאחרים. גם ידוע לנו שהמבי”ט הכיר את ספרו השני של ר”י
ג’יקאטיליה – ‘גנת אגוז’, כפי שכתב במפורש: “וכן כתב גם כן ה”ר יוסף
גיקטליי”א ז”ל בספר ‘גנת אגוז’ אשר לו…” (בית אלהים, שער היסודות, סו”פ ה,
ירושלים תשמה, עמ’ קעב). עוד בענין ידיעת הקבלה של המבי”ט, ראה דבריו שם, שער
היסודות, פרק סא, עמ’ תקמא: “ושמעתי מפי מקובל אחד…”. אמנם כנראה
כוונתו על מקובל בן דורו ממנו הוא שמע.
[32] ר’ שמואל ראבין, בגדי אהרן, מערכת ת, אות ו (ערך
‘תפילה’), בני ברק תשנז, עמ’ קלג. וראה מה שהעיר על כך ר’ יעקב חיים סופר, תורת יעקב, ירושלים תשסב, עמ’ שמב.
[33] ר’
ישראל איסר מפוניבז’, מנוחה וקדושה, שער התפילה, סי’ כא, ירושלים תשנד, עמ’ עג.
[34] ר’
ידידיה טיאה ווייל, לבושי בדים,
ירושלים תשמח, עמ’ קיט.
[35] ר’
ישראל איסר מפוניבז’, מנוחה וקדושה, שער התורה, סי’ ה, ירושלים תשנד, עמ’ קעה-קעו.



The American Yekkes

The American Yekkes[1]
By Yisrael Kashkin
As I march around town grasping my Hirsch Siddur, I sometimes am asked, “Are you a Yekke?” to which I answer, “I am an American Yekke.”[2]  This statement draws puzzled looks as if I had said that I were an Algonquin Italian. “America is a Germanic country and my family has lived here for a century,” I say, attempting to explain but provoking usually even more puzzlement. For those who want to hear more, I present my case. 
Consider the country’s language. English is technically a Western Germanic tongue. It started when Germanic tribes settled in Britain in the fifth century, displacing Common Brittonic, a native Celtic language, and Latin, which had been introduced by the Romans. The English that was formed then was called Old English. As Wikipedia describes it, “Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or North Sea Germanic dialects originally spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. As the Anglo-Saxons became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain…”[3] Frisia is a coastal region along the Southeastern corner of the North Sea which today sits mostly in the Netherlands. 
The Frisian languages are the closest to English. Wikipedia explains: 

The Frisian languages are a closely related group of Germanic languages, spoken by about 500,000 Frisian people, who live on the southern fringes of the North Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. The Frisian dialects are the closest living languages to English, after Scots.[4]

The language of Scots mentioned here is also a Frisian tongue brought by the Germanic immigrants and not Scottish Gaelic, a Celtic language that people generally associate with Scotland.[5] 
Old English was followed by Middle English which started in the 11th century after the Norman Conquest and continued unto the late 15th century. While Modern English contains vocabulary from several languages, the second most prominent being French which arrived with the Normans, the basic vocabulary and grammar of English is Germanic. Of the 100 most commonly used English words, 97% are Germanic; of the 1000 most commonly used English words, 57% are Germanic.[6]
Look at this example. Here’s one way to say, “Hello, my name is Harold” in several languages, the first four being Germanic. 
Dutch: Hallo mijn naam is Harold. 
German: Halo mein numen ist Harold. 
Swedish: Hej, mitt namn är Harold 
English: Hello, my name is Harold. 
French: Je m’appelle Harold. 
Italian: Ciao, mi chiamo Harold. 
Latin: Salve nomen meum HOROLD. 
Russian: привет меня зовут Гарольд. 
Chinese: 你好,我的名字是哈羅德 
See what I mean? 
As mentioned, those Germanic tribes went by the names Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. While most people associate the term Anglo-Saxon with the American aristocracy and the British, the term actually finds its origins in those Germanic settlers of Britain as does the name of the language called English, which derives from the Angles specifically. The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up as follows: 

Anglo-Saxon, term used historically to describe any member of the Germanic peoples who, from the 5th century ce to the time of the Norman Conquest (1066), inhabited and ruled territories that are today part of England. According to the Venerable Bede, the Anglo-Saxons were the descendants of three different Germanic peoples—the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—who originally migrated from northern Germany to the island of Britain in the 5th century at the invitation of Vortigern, king of the Britons, to defend his kingdom against Pictish and Irish invaders.[7] 

The Venerable Bede was an 8th century English monk and historian whose book The Ecclesiastical History of the English People earned him the title “The Father of English History.” The name Bede is actually Anglo-Saxon, ie. Germanic, being built on the root bēodan or to bid or command.[8]  Thus, the father of English history has a Germanic Anglo-Saxon name. 
It is possible that a high percentage of the inhabitants of 5th century Britain were not only influenced by the Germanic invaders but were actually comprised largely of those Germanic invaders and their descendants. We see this in the spread of the Frisian-Germanic language throughout Britain. In “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” Nicholas Ostler traces the decline of Latin during the collapse of the Roman Empire against invading armies. Slavic languages took hold in Eastern Europe but Germanic-Frisian held sway in Britain. 

Perhaps something similar happened at the opposite end of the Roman dominions, for Britain too lost its Latin in the face of invasions in this period. It also lost its British. This event of language replacement, which is also the origin of the English language, was unparalleled in its age – the one and only time that Germanic conquerors were able to hold on to their own language.[9] 

Ostler cites a theory by researcher David Keys that the ravages of the bubonic plague facilitated the spread of the Frisian Germanic dialect as it wiped out a high percentage of the Britons who, unlike the Saxons, maintained trade routes with the Roman Empire, from which the plague entered the island. A Germanic language took hold because a large percentage of the populace was actually Germanic. 
Genetic studies support the theory. One study at the University College of London tracked a chromosome that is found in nearly all Danish and North German men to about half of British men.[10] It is not found in Welsh men of Western England where the Angles and Saxons did not invade. 
While anthropologists debate the percentages of the British populace that trace to the AngloSaxons, the sociological discussion is more relevant to the thesis. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons ruled the British Isles for centuries, and rulers tend to dictate cultural norms. The Wikipedia entry on the Britons sums up their demise with the pithy words: “After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the population was either subsumed into Anglo-Saxon culture, becoming “English”; retreated; or persisted in the Celtic fringe areas of Wales, Cornwall and southern Scotland, with some emigrating to Brittany.”[11] The point here is that the nationality called English is built on Anglo-Saxon or old Germanic culture. 
And again, pithily, Wikipedia sums up the entire cultural transformation of Britain under the Germanic invasion: 

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the term traditionally used to describe the process by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the island in the early 5th century. The traditional view of the process has assumed the large-scale migration of several Germanic peoples, later collectively referred to as Anglo-Saxons, from the western coasts of Europe prior to the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that came to dominate most of what is now England and lowland Scotland.[12] 

A connection between the aristocracies of Germany proper and England has endured to modern times. British Kings George I and II were born in Germany, spoke German, and belonged to the House of Hanover.13 Queen Victoria’s mother was born in Germany, and Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, also was born in Germany. Their son King Edward VII, was an uncle of Kaiser Wilhem II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia. Mary, the Queen consort of King George V, was a princess of Teck, a German aristocratic line. The present British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, inherited the throne from Edward VII’s grandson George VI. Thus, she too is part German as are the princes Charles and William, the current heirs to the throne. 
It should be no surprise that the British and other Germanic peoples have much in common. One sees it in their orderliness, rationalist mindset, industriousness, and emotional reserve. Similar too is the Anglo aristocracy that set up the USA, laid down its primary culture, and arguably continues to run the place or did so through the 1950s. The educated American reader certainly needs no overview of the British roots of the USA which started as a British colony. The connection is so strong that the term WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is generally used by Americans to designate a type of American even though, as I have shown, it traces back to the Germanic English and their German ancestors. While the USA is composed today of many ethnic groups, it is governed mostly in an AngloGermanic style, ie. rule-based and organized. 
So there’s the Germanic-English connection and its role in the founding of America. What about the American people? There we have an even more recent linkage via 19th century immigration. German Americans, some forty-nine million strong, are the largest ancestral group in the country.[14] By contrast, Irish Americans number thirty-five million and Italian Americans seventeen million. The 2010 census reports the top five as follows:
1      German      49,206,934      17.1% 
2      African      45,284,752      14.6% 
3      Irish      35,523,082       11.6%
4      Mexican      31,789,483      10.9% 
5      English      26,923,091      9.0% 
Incredibly, there are nearly twice as many Americans of German ancestry as English.[15] In 1990, fiftyeight million Americans reported German ancestry, constituting 23% of the entire country.[16] Between 1850 and 1970, German was the second most widely spoken language in the United States, after English.[17]
Germans immigrated in the greatest concentrations to the Midwest where the state legislatures of several of the North-Central states promoted their immigration with funding and support.[18] The area between Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and St. Louis was known as the German triangle.[19] By 1900, more than 40% of the major cities of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati were German American.[20] However, they landed also in large numbers in New York and Pennsylvania and went all the way to the West Coast. In 1790, a third of the residents of Pennsylvania were German immigrants.[21] The following map shows plurality ancestry, ie the largest groups of national origins, in each state in 2010: 
Plurality ancestry in each state.[22]
More states have a plurality ancestry of German than any other nationality, three times the number of the next highest group.[23] Moreover, significant German immigration started in the 1670s and continued in large numbers throughout the 19th century, whereas most of the other ancestral groups of significant numbers arrived much later into a more established culture into which they strove mostly to conform.[24] Africans, whose numbers come closest to the Germans, also arrived early but were not in a position to shape the national culture.[25] 
Now, the word German and any word that contains it such as Germanic are problematic for many Jews, particularly those who were most directly affected by the Holocaust. This is understandable. However, as we have shown, the term Germanic is not limited to Germany proper. Germanic languages are spoken in such places as Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, culturally similar countries from a global perspective, and sources of immigration to the USA, particularly the Midwest. All are considered Germanic peoples.[26] Switzerland and Belgium too are largely Germanic. While technically, English and German belong to the West German family of languages along with Dutch and Afrikaans, North Germanic languages include Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese, which is spoken in the islands off the coast of Norway.[27] The adjective Germanic describes not just the culture of Germany but that of Northern Europe including large parts of Holland, Scandinavia, England, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. The Danes who are famous for protecting Jews during World War II are Germanic, as were the Dutch business associates of Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s father, who assisted her family as they hid in the attic, as was the Swede Raoul Wallenberg, who, by the way, studied in the American Middle West, at the University of Michigan, before he risked (and likely lost) his life saving Jews during the Holocaust. 
Accordingly, England, Germany, and the United States are not culturally identical. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons merged with the Britons and Pics of the British Isles. The British colonialists cohabited the New World with French settlers, Native Americans, Africans, Dutch, Irish, and an idiosyncratic group of Germans who came to the New World in search of religious freedom. As the USA formed and evolved millions of immigrants from all over the planet joined them. Germans are more intense than the other two groups. The British have the best sense of humor. Americans are the least formal of the three. Additionally, Americans are the least class conscious, have by far the best record regarding treatment of the Jews and religious freedom in general, and lack the ethic of blind obedience to authority that once characterized the Germans and enabled the Holocaust. In fact, the phrase “question authority” originated in the USA during the sixties movement and is arguably traceable to American sensibilities in general. Nobody knows what the future holds, but as I write, America, though Germanic, is not Germany, even as it picked up many traits from German immigrants. The same applies to England. But all three societies start to look quite similar when you compare them to Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Turkey, India, China, Nigeria, or the Arab countries. 
Even though my great-grandparents, who I never met, lived their lives in shtetls in the Ukraine, I am more Western and Germanic in style than Eastern European. Many Jewish Americans of Eastern European extraction can claim the same since peak immigration occurred at the turn of the last century. In those days, immigrants were encouraged to Americanize. The situation might be somewhat different for the people who attended yeshivos in New York City and lived in enclaves there, but for those who lived “out of town”, moved to the suburbs, or attended public school, the culture could be quite distinct from that of Eastern Europe. In American public schools until very recently, literature classes consisted of British and American authors and history classes British and American leaders, the latter being of Anglo descent. 
Granted, America has many sub-cultures, some not Anglo at all. You can visit neighborhoods in Metropolitan New York City such as Spanish Harlem and Chinatown in Manhattan or Little India in Jersey City and experience the difference. However, many Jewish Americans were raised in the suburbs, and their culture was defined by the public education system which took its cues from the universities which themselves are Anglo-Saxon in style, at least they used to be. Consider the archetypal professor in a tweed jacket with elbow patches ‒ the British gentleman. So, too, are most corporations Anglo-Germanic in style with their command and control organizational structure. 
The German influence is seen from coast to coast. Some people argue that the whole notion of a public education, funded and administered by the government, comes from the Germans.[28] Elsewhere, schooling was a private matter. This may be one reason that the Midwest developed such strong public schools, as German American writer Kurt Vonnegut often noted[29], and such strong state universities. In the Northeast, private colleges are more prominent. The concept of kindergarten comes from Germany.[30] The concept of the research university, used by many of America’s most prominent institutions, comes from Germany, as does the practice of faculty following their interests and students choosing their courses – the model used in most colleges today.[31] The old British model called for a rigid curriculum. The prizing of home ownership, which is a strong American value, was common among German immigrants. In the words of La Vern J. Rippley, “There was a low rate of tenancy among early German immigrants, who purchased homes as early as possible. German Americans have traditionally placed a high value upon home ownership and prefer those made of brick.”[32] Not surprisingly, home ownership is highest in the Midwest.[33] And let us not fail to mention hamburgers with pickles and frankfurters with sauerkraut, German imports, named for German cities but as American as the flag. Few Americans have 4th of July picnics or any picnics without them. 
Even socially, America resembles Germany. I recall as a youth visiting Europe and noting the contrasting styles of the people in various societies, particularly in comparison to Americans. As I entered each new country, I felt as if I were meeting entire new breeds of people. For example, the English were more classy (more than me) and sticklers about social propriety. They had complex rules about social interactions that I had never heard before, when to call, when not to call, how long a visit should be, what topics to discuss and not to discuss. The French were more cultured and had rules about food, dining, and clothing, rules that I had never heard before. I was impressed by aspects of both groups but felt like an outsider. However, with the Germans I seemed to know the rules and to care about them as well. The smooth running of society was a central concern. Our very practical goals for education seemed similar. They were ambitious and interested in engineering, commerce, politics, and history. The gaps between their style and mine were the narrowest − even physical mannerisms and social cues seem to be the same. For example, while the British, French, and Germans all displayed senses of humor, the Germans tended to take serious topics more seriously and refrain from joking about them.[34] I felt much of the time that I was with Americans, which is not something I felt with any other group. 
Blogger Dana Blankenhorn makes a similar observation: 

Here is something you weren’t told in school.  

America is a Germanic country.  

Our food is German. Our dress is German. Our distances, both personal and urban, are German. Our sense of beauty is German, not French. Our bread and sweets are German. Our loud laughter is German. America has people of French and Spanish and Polish and English and Irish and a hundred other descents, but the Germans set the mood, and the mood remains the same.[35] 

On the darker side, some argue that the notion of compulsory peacetime military service and general militarism come from the Germanic kingdom of Prussia and lead to the World Wars.[36] As James Gerard, the US ambassador to Germany during World War I noted, “Prussia, which has imposed its will, as well as its methods of thought and life on all the rest of Germany, is undoubtedly, a military nation.”[37] Mirabeau the French orator said, “War is the national industry of Prussia” and Napoleon said that Prussia “was hatched from a cannon ball.”[38] The USA, with a larger military budget than the next fifteen nations combined and five times the budget of the second biggest spender, seems to have inherited much of this militaristic sensibility.[39] The USA, despite having oceans for natural boundaries, has military personnel in over one hundred countries, far exceeding the global military presence of any other country.[40] 
With all of this said, we can return to the term that I have set out to explain: American-Yekke. What is a Yekke? Is he or she a descendant of Yepeth, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and the Germanic tribes that migrated from Asia Minor to Central Europe, warring with and pushing out the Roman legions?[41] No, he or she is a descendant of Shem, Abraham, and Sarah who practiced Judaism in the countries built by those Germanic peoples, extracting some of their better qualities. An American-Yekke is a Jew who lives not in European Germanic countries such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, or Holland but in Germanic America. 
Just this week, I received a phone call from a long, lost elder cousin. He was born in Cuba in the 1930s after my great-uncle immigrated there from a shtetl in the Ukraine. One brother gained entrance to the United States and the other to Cuba where he stayed until the communist takeover, immigrating eventually to Miami, Florida. My cousin was raised in Cuba and absorbed some of the best features of the Latin personality. He is easygoing and super-friendly, almost musical in his speaking manner. Certainly, I observed myriad universal Jewish qualities in my cousin and traces of Eastern Europe as you’ll find in me. But you can hardly call him an Eastern European even though his father, a wonderful man, was very much an old world yid from the shtetl. In talking to my cousin after a break of four decades, I could see how much we are shaped by the societies in which we are reared even as we retain Jewish identity and practice as he has. I have made similar observations of South African Jews whose parents are from Lithuania, British Jews whose parents are from Poland, and French Jews whose parents are from North Africa. We absorb much from the societies in which we live. I once had a Shabbos meal with a Haredi family in Paris. They served traditional Eastern European type food – chicken and kugel – but in tiny portions on large plates, in the manner of French cuisine.[42] After only one generation in France the influence was visible. 
So what are the repercussions of this? They are that some American Jews will be attracted to German Orthodoxy as it developed to suit the needs and reflect the sensibilities of pious Jews in Germanic lands. Each of the different camps of Orthodoxy work from the same literature, principles and laws. They are substantively the same, differing only in the margins, in style, via the parts of the Torah that they emphasize. 
I have observed a curious phenomenon. Many Russian Jewish baalei teshuvah thrive in the Eastern European portion of the Haredi world, looking completely at home there. They embrace the isolation from and lack of identification with the general society that characterizes much of that world. After all, they don’t even want you to call them Russian. “I am a Jew from Russia, not a Russian Jew,” they’ll say. Now, how many American Jews don’t want to be called American? Even those who make aliyah often still refer to themselves as American. Same with the British, Canadians, Australians, Swiss, and other Westerners. One can see in these recent immigrants from Russia how Eastern European Jewry in the 19th century put less emphasis on concepts like ‘light unto the nations’ and ‘tikun olam.’ This can happen when an entire nation is cast into an apartheid situation like the Pale of Settlement and mistreated there. 
By contrast, many American baalei teshuvah were attracted to Torah because of those ideas. One of the pillars of education in the USA is civics. Public school education in the United States of the 1920’s centered on the teaching of citizenship and civic service.[43] Scores of American youth envision for themselves careers in the public service. This is very American. Certainly before the 1970s it was.[44] It was German too.[45] Civic duty and national loyalty ‒ those were important parts of the culture in Germany. Certain nefarious people manipulated that value for wicked purposes as we know. One sees those values addressed in a constructive way in the writings of numerous German rabbis. In the words of Rav Joseph Breuer of Frankfurt, Germany: 

“And promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to God, for with its welfare, you too, will fare well” (Yirmeyahu 29:7). Because the Prophet has given this message to our people, banished from its homeland by the Will of God, each Jew, wandering through the world and faithful to the Torah, is obliged to keep faith towards the country which gives him refuge and a home.[46]

This idea being rooted in the Prophets is not alien to any Orthodox Jewish group but is emphasized in the German Jewish community. Rabbi Leo Jung, who attended the Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin, wrote, “Judaism is a national religion in that it is the religion which God has given to Israel. According to the Torah, He has chosen us as His peculiar people, ‘to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ But Judaism is also universal, for that very choice implies that, as a priest to his congregation, the whole nation should be an example unto the gentile world of a life lived with God – upright, just, and kind. Our rabbis tell us that Judaism is the way of salvation for the Jew, but the righteous men of other religions will also partake of eternal salvation.”[47] 
Interestingly, I know one young woman who was born in the Ukraine but raised from a very young age in the United States. She even speaks fluent Russian but having been raised and educated in a Germanic country, the USA, she is attracted to the German Jewish approach on these matters. I know another that moved to the USA as an adult and she views both her native country Russia and her new host society the USA from the perspective of an outsider, with palpable suspicion and an often amusing derision. 
Of course, there are limits within German Orthodoxy to identification with one’s host country. If German Jews are anything, it is self-disciplined and they know where to draw the line. As Mordechai Breuer noted, “S.R. Hirsch was not alone in his aversion to Prussiandom and manifestations of German flag-waving. There were observant Jews in all parts of Germany who consciously distanced themselves from such display, either because they tended toward the old piety, where their ‘Jewishness’ did not leave room for German national consciousness, or because they shared an overriding affection for the local urban or rural surroundings.”[48] The idea within German Orthodoxy is to act with gratitude and loyalty towards one’s host country and to serve as a light when possible. But it is a host country; it is not our country. The very identification of it as a host puts us on the outside. 
Also appealing to the American sensibility is the order and decorum of the German Jewish approach. The first time that I walked into K’hal Adath Jeshurun the main synagogue of the German Orthodox community in Washington Heights, New York City, I was dazzled by the tidiness and order of the place. Their bank of light switches is numbered and color coded. It was a thing of beauty. The tefillah schedule is accurate and displayed outside the front door. The siddurim are grouped by type as they sit neatly on the shelves.[49] I cannot tell you how many times I have tidied up the sefarim in shuls around the world only to find them a mess again days later. In KAJ, I felt at home. I felt like I was back in the Midwest. 
The sense of discipline and order is found as well in the German approach to minhagim. The German Jewish loyalty to every detail of minhag avoseinu is well known and has served to safeguard authentic practice. In the words of Lakewood Mashigiach Matisyahu Salomon: 

As we know, over the years it became common to poke fun at the customs of the ‘Yekkes’, until someone proceeded to show the world that it is specifically the Yekkes who continue the ancient traditions, and that their customs originated during the time of the Geonim and Rishonim.[50]

Maintenance of the many details of minhagim right down to the nusach of fine points of the Siddur and piyutim requires a special kind of commitment and attitude. The Yekke beis ha-kenneses puts this all on display with its unique atmosphere of decorum, seriousness, and refined sentiment. 
One sees a similar sort of decorum in many American institutions from government to military to education much as one does in other Germanic countries. However, this does not mean that the German Jewish approach is to imitate the German gentiles. As Rav Joseph Breuer pointed out, “Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific ‘German Jewishness.’”[51] According to Rabbi Avigdor Miller, the idea of order and punctuality as Jewish virtues traces back to the great generation of Har Sinai as depicted in the Chumash: 

But before Moshe, the Am Yisroel were so good that even Bilaam, al corchei had to praise them. Now it states, Vayisa Bilaam es einav. Bilaam lifted up his eyes. Now he wasn’t looking for good things in the Am Yisroel. You have to know that. If Bilaam could have found faults, he would have pounced on it like a fly pounces on a speck on the rotten apple. He was looking for faults. Vayar es Yisroel shochain l’shvatim. He saw Yisroel dwelling according to their shevatim. Now this I’ll say in passing although it’s not our subject. He saw that they were orderly. That they didn’t mix. Everything was done with a seder. Now that’s off the subject. Someday I’ll talk about the importance of the orderliness of the ancient Jewish people. The ancient Jewish people were punctual in time. It’s a mistake when you say Jewish time. It’s a big lashon hara. There’s a zman krias Shema and that’s the time. You got to be punctual. No fooling around with that time. And other things in Halacha. Oh no, Jewish time is the most punctual, precise time. They were baalei seder.[52]

While some people view German Jewish punctuality as a quaint idiosyncrasy, we see that it represents the preservation of ancient practice that predates the German golus by thousands of years. What is happening is that the environment of the host country allows for better enactment of important parts of halacha. This doesn’t mean that the gentile hosts are encouraging halachic excellence but it just so happens that their style works in our favor on occasion. 
The incentive apparatus for observance is another distinguishing trait of German Orthodoxy – at least the Hirschian portion of it – that works better for many Americans. One finds in some parts of the frum world an intense focus on divine wrath. It may work successfully for many people. However, it is not productive for some, particularly when administered in large doses. I know of people who literally suffered nervous breakdowns from the continuous feeling of failure and terror. Moreover, the “terror of Heaven” approach does not go well with the American sensibility of optimism, responsibility, selfrespect, and healthy ambition as primary motivations in life. 
Fittingly, we do not see a persistent terror-based approach in the writings of Rav Hirsch, not a continuous emphasis on it. One finds openly threatening talk towards people who take advantage of the innocent and the helpless (Horeb 353 for example), and certainly, Rav Hirsch often discussed divine judgment (Siddur, Pirkei Avos, 3:1; Horeb, chapter 8; Collected Writings, Vol. I, p. 216; Vol. II, p. 398, and Vol. IX, p. 123 are a few examples), warning us of the “stern justice in the hereafter weighing all in an unerring balance” (Judaism Eternal , Vol. 1, “Adar”). He even translated passages from the medieval work Sefer Chasidim, which, while presenting love of and obedience to God as the primary 9 motivations for its stringent call to piety (Sefer Chasidim 62, 63), reference palpable concern over divine reward and punishment as well. For example, “Whatever you may have done to give your neighbor even a moment’s grief will be subject to punishment by Divine judgment, for it is written (Ecclesiastes 11,9;12,14) that God will call you to account for all this, even for secret things.” (Sefer Chasidim 44 in Collected Writings, Vol. VIII, pp. 160-1). However, overall Rav Hirsch’s approach was multi-faceted, utilizing love and awe of God, self-respect, fear of Divine retribution, and yearing for Divine reward. He did not resort to fire and brimstone at every turn. In the words of the gaon R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg:

Rav Hirsch reestablished the principle of the fulfillment of religious duties with a spirit of joy and love, that is, from a satisfaction of the natural yearning of the Jewish soul for authentic religious expression. Mitzvos, as understood by Rav Hirsch, are the conduit of the Divine blessing in this world, the cord which binds man’s soul to his Creator, and which binds his fundamental spiritual nature with his physical presence. Rav Hirsch constantly appealed for the living of a religious life enriched by spiritual vitality, not by fear of Divine retribution in this life and the next.[53]

According to Rav Weinberg, an excessive reliance on fear of punishment as motivation for religious observance was an unfortunate byproduct of antisemitism. In his article “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” he said the following in a discussion of medieval European Jewry, which presumably included medieval Germany, and the effects of persecution, pogroms, banning of Jews from trades, and expulsions. 

Judaism no longer drew direct sustenance from life; it no longer was synonymous with the abundant power which dwells in the Jewish soil. Rather, it began to be viewed as being nourished by fear -‒ of death and of awesome punishments in the world to come. It is true that belief in reward and punishment is a fundamental of Judaism, and indeed, no religion worthy of the name can dispense with a concept which logically follows from the idea of an omniscient and omnipresent Supreme Being, as clearly elucidated by Saadia HaGaon in his Emunot V’deiot. However, the use of this belief as a central pillar or religious feeling and the sole motivating force for the fulfillment of one’s duty served only to cast a pall over religious sensibility and weakened any spiritual vitality, as decried by the Chassidic masters.[54]

One can become so accustomed to the punishment-only approach to Judaism that he or she may be surprised to find that there can be another. In Rav Hirsch one finds another. In drawing from the Torah to motivate German Jews of the modern era, he served Americans too. 
While gentile German immigration to the Americas started early by American historical standards, it transpired deep into European history, two centuries after the close of the Middle Ages. The Napoleonic Wars, which affected meaningful Jewish emancipation in Europe, particularly Germany, were a major impetus for immigration as they caused severe disruption in the Germany economy.[55] During the same period, France under Napoleon granted Jews full rights as citizens and this included the Jews living in the Rhine Valley, which had been annexed by France.[56] Thus, the German immigrants who formed so much of American culture were not the same people who had so intensely persecuted the Jews in Medieval times. They were for the most part 19th century contemporaries of Rav Hirsch. Thus, it makes sense that the approach to religious motivation and divine reward that Rav Hirsch formulated for Jews in 19th century German society would be meaningful to Jews who are raised in an American society that was shaped to a major extent by immigrants from 19th century Germany. 
As Rav Weinberg points out, Rav Hirsch accomplished this by returning to a traditional Jewish outlook. He did not invent something new. Says Rav Weinberg, “Nor were these ideas unique to him – they were as old as the founding Sages, who called this attitude הרוממות אהבת הרוממות יראת : awe and love of the Almighty’s elevated nature, and the greatness in man which it implies.” Rav Hirsch brought us back to where we stood before persecution “cast a pall over religious sensibility.” Since the multi-faceted approach is rooted basic Talmudic thought, Rav Hirsch was not the only one to turn to it. As Rav Weinberg noted, the Chassidic masters of Eastern Europe also pursued this approach, as did others. The same applies to many of the distinguishing traits of German Orthodoxy. They are not necessarily exclusive to German Jews. As mentioned, the differing styles of the various derachim often come down to a matter of emphasis. When I sing the praises of German Orthodoxy, I do not intend to slight other groups or discount the worth of their approaches, nor do I always intend to contrast them with the vast and magnificent world of Eastern European Judaism. Even when I do contrast West and East, I am pointing out only differences in style. Each has its merits and shortcomings. 
And of course the two groups are cousins. Ashkenazi Jews in general can count a long stay in Germany as part of their golus story. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans took many Jews as slaves across the Mediterranean to Rome proper, which in our times is called Italy. Sometime after earning their freedom and building communities in Italy, they migrated to France and elsewhere in Southern Europe and then to Germany where the language of Yiddish, a German dialect was formed. After several hundred years persecutions drove them East to Poland and Russia. The vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews have German Jewish ancestry which is why they are called Ashkenazi, a term used since Medieval times for Jews living in the Rhine Valley in Germany. 
Another area of overlap between Germany and America is recognition of the value of secular studies. According to Professors Mordechai Breuer[57] and Marc Shapiro[58], openness to quality secular learning was nothing unusual in Germany. As Professor Mordechai Breuer wrote, “Among German Jewry, there had always been rabbis who had recognized the need for Jews to acquire some general culture and who saw no offense against tradition in this.” This makes sense given that there was much quality material.[59] The same applies in the United States, which, until recently, displayed in many quarters a distinct concern for morality and faith and a knack for memorializing them in literature and law. Accordingly, Torah observance need not stand in opposition to the best of “secular” knowledge. It is the next step above it. They are not always opposites. A person need not toss aside his secular education if that education was of a proper kind. This is an important idea for Americans as the USA is intensely focused on higher education. In the most recent Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 13 of the 25 top ranked universities are located in the USA[60] and in the London Times rankings 17 of the top 25 are in the USA.[61] Rav Hirsch stresses of course that “the knowledge of the Torah and the understanding we derive from it is to be our principle concern and…must be the yardstick by which we measure all the results obtained by other spheres of learning.” (R’ Hirsch on Vayikra 18:5)[62] 
Steven M. Lowenstein’s Frankfurt on the Hudson, which is a history of the German Jewish community of Washington Heights in Manhattan, discusses other Germanic qualities such as thrift.[63] Germanic peoples are known for it. Along with thrift comes savings. The book talks about immigrants who espoused the philosophy of “saving for a rainy day” even deep into their elder years when that rainy day had come.[64] Accordingly, the contemporary trend of forgoing job training for the young and living with no financial plan is quite alarming to many culturally Germanic Americans.[65]
Being practical-minded comes into play here too. As Russian immigrants encountered German immigrants at the turn of the last century, each formulated generalizations about the others. Polish born Educator Israel Friedlander summed them up as follows: 

The German Jews were deliberate, reserved, practical and sticklers for formalities, with a marked ability for organization; the Russian Jews were quick-tempered, emotional, theorizing, haters of formalities with a decided bent towards individualism (Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915)[66]

Sociological generalizations are considered not “politically correct” these days, but we all know that they often contain grains of truth. German Jews (and Germans) do tend to be concerned with the practical. Rav Hirsch uses the words “practical” and “practice” more than a dozen times in the eighteenth letter of his book Nineteen Letters. So, too, are the British and the Americans inclined towards the practical. 
The leaning towards practicality can play a role in an entire religious philosophy. In the Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch, apparently basing himself on the Kuzari, challenges a notion that developed in parts of Medieval Spanish Jewry that the goal of man was philosophic perfection for which mitzvos were a handmaiden, rather than the reverse. In Rav Hirsch’s view this approach was the result of an attempt to reconcile Judaism with Greek thought. Aristotle had said, “The highest individual perfection is speculative wisdom, the excellence of that purely intellectual part called reason.” (Comp. Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6.) Professor Harry Wolfson described this encounter with Greek thought as follows: 

Like Philo, the philosophers of the Middle Ages aimed at reconciling Jewish religion with Greek philosophy, by recasting the substance of the former in the form of the latter. The principles upon which they worked were (i) that the practical religious organization of Jewish life must be preserved, but (ii) that they must be justified and defended in accordance with the principles of Greek philosophy. Thus Hellenic theory was to bolster Hebraic dogma, and Greek speculation became the basis for Jewish conduct. The carrying out of this programme, therefore, unlike that of Pauline Christianity, involved neither change in the practice of the religion, nor abrogation of the Law. There was simply a shifting of emphasis from the practical to the speculative element of religion. Philo and the mediaeval philosophers continued to worship God in the Jewish fashion, but their conception of God became de-Judaized. They continued to commend the observation of the Law, but this observation lost caste and became less worthy than the “theoretic life.” Practice and theory fell apart logically; instead there arose an artificial parallelism of theoretic with practical obligations.[67]

This outlook was influential on kelal Yisrael, in Rav Hirsch’s view negatively so as it lead to a devaluation of mitzvos. It seems to me that parts of Jewry in general more enthusiastically embraced “the speculative element of religion.” By contrast, as Israel Friedlander described it, the Germans were “practical.” The term in this sense conveys the meaning of something that one puts into practice. Not surprisingly, Rav Hirsch repeatedly stressed the importance of putting study into practice. He wrote, “You must study for practical life — that is the fundamental principle of the law. With attentive mind and with receptive heart you must study in order to practice. You must aim at learning from the law a way of life, which is its true teaching; only then can you learn it properly, only then will it disclose to you its inmost meaning.” (Horeb 75, 493) And he wrote, “Knowledge of the Law alone is not enough to gain Paradise in world to come; if that Paradise is to be won and the earth is also to be transformed into a Paradise, this Law must be not only known but also observed. And there remains a very wide gap between the knowledge of the Law in theory and its observance in practice.”[68] And once again, let us remark that German Jewry is not unique in this value, ie., it is not the only group that emphasizes the putting of learning into practice.[69] However, it is one of the most fervent. 
As Rav Shimon Schwab tells us, Rav Hirsch did not create his derech out of thin air. He got it mostly from his rebbes (who were German Jews) who got it from their rebbes: “But Rav Hirsch also had behind him a solid mesorah from gadolim who showed him the way. From the time of Chazal through the period of the Geonim; the Rambam, the Chachmei Sepharad through the Talmidei Hagra all the way down to his own Rebbe the Oruch L’ner and his disciples. Rav Hirsch had his mesorah.” (Selected Speeches, p. 243).[70]
Aside from the Germanic trait of pragmatism, Friedlander mentioned also emotional reserve, deliberation in action, and formality. Lowenstein elaborates: 

Among the many formal values that were highly praised were dignity, discipline, punctuality, structure, and order. Spontaneity was less prized than stability. Many German Jews expressed disapproval of the loud wailing at eastern European funerals as undignified; at their own funerals, weeping was restrained and silent.[71] 

Conduct at funerals was not the only issue. The book goes on to describe actual confrontations at Simchas Torah celebrations where the old-timers from Germany struggled with attempts by the youth to bring Eastern European style boisterous dancing into KAJ and other German Orthodox synagogues in Washington Heights. As it stands now in the 21st century, shtick and exuberant dancing at weddings and other gatherings seems, well, Jewish. In actuality, it is Eastern European Jewish, probably Russian Jewish for the most part (along with numerous Sephardic groups). German Jews conducted themselves differently. 
None of this is intended to equate German Jews with German gentiles nor American Jews with American gentiles. I am saying only that we are influenced by our host societies, sometimes in negative ways, sometimes in neutral ways, and sometimes in positive ways. For example, many of us feel quite Jewish when we refer to horseradish as כרײן. But this word, like most in Yiddish, does not have a Hebrew etymology: 

The Southern German term Kren is a loan from a Slavonic tongue, where cognates of Kren are widespread (Czech křen, Sorbian krěn, Russian khren [хрен], Ukrainian khrin [хрін] and Polish chrzan) and ultimately of unknown origin. Some other non-Slavonic European languages have also borrowed that name, e. g., French cran, Italian cren, Yiddish khreyn [כרײן] , Romanian hrean and Greek chreno [χρένο].[72]

That would be a purely neutral influence. Then there are some that are mixed. Take for example the philosophy of Kant. Many Orthodox Jews have studied it and claim to have grown from it. Yet, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik noted the following problem with Kant: 

…the religious person is given not only a duty to follow the halakha but also a value and vision. The person performing the duty seeks to realize this ideal or vision. Kant felt that the duty of consciousness expresses only a “must” without a value. He demanded a routine form of compliance, an “ought” without aiming at a value. As a soldier carries out his duty to the commanding officer, one may appreciate his service or just obey through discipline and orders. Kant’s ethics are a “formal ethics”, the goal is not important. For us it would be impossible to behave this way. An intelligent person must find comfort, warmth, and a sense of fulfillment in the law. We deal with ethical values, not ethical formalisms. A sense of pleasure must be gained by fulfilling a norm. The ethical act must have an end and purpose. We must become holy.[73] 

So a German Jew is not a German, even this very distinguished German. Nevertheless, German Jews often possess certain sensibilities that may work best with German Orthodoxy. And so it goes for many American Jews. 
Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, ever sagacious, told his students, “I cannot understand how it is possible for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters.”[74] The Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch’s first published book, explained Torah Judaism to the Western world, particularly to German Jewish youth. Coming from Eastern Europe, Rav Shraga Feivel could see how Americans would take to its approach, would need its approach. 
Many observant Jews struggle to find a derech. Some leap from Haredism to Modern Orthodoxy in search of a home. They may like the seriousness of Haredism but are uncomfortable with the striving for complete isolation from general society. They may like the appreciation of secular studies in Modern Orthodoxy but deem the filtering process inadequate. They may like the Modern Orthodox inclusion of Nach in the educational curriculum but cannot wrap their minds around the image of teenage boys and girls studying it in the same classroom.[75] 
Round and round it goes. However, German Orthodoxy, particularly as practiced via Torah Im Derech Eretz, contains elements of both. It is an approach to Torah observant Judaism which, unfortunately, one does not see substantially in action nowadays. One has to seek it out. For many it may resolve much confusion vis à vis derech when the others, all noble paths if done in sincerity, remain an uncomfortable fit. 
It is not an easy road. As Rav Shimon Schwab noted, “Torah Im Derech Eretz is not a kulah but a chumrah.” (Not a leniency but a stringency.)[76] In other words, the goal of Torah Im Derech Eretz to bring holiness to all aspects of one’s life, including the ‘secular’ parts, even while engaging general society, is formidable. Perhaps it is handled best by the German Jewish character, with its discipline on all sides, its sense of balance and proportion, its pragmatism, and its concern for piety, propriety, politeness, and community. 
Now, German Orthodoxy is not necessarily equivalent to Torah Im Derech Eretz. Many German Jews dating back to Rav Hirsch’s day and through today, demonstrate a different approach to German Orthodoxy even as they carry many of the traits that produced Torah Im Derech Eretz. For example, many people in Eretz Yisroel who maintain minhag Ashkenaz do not involve themselves with secular studies. And many German Jews have taken on other derachim entirely. This article, which may seem to merge German Jewry and Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not intended to parse out and categorize all the subtle differences between them. Its purpose is to say that America is largely a Germanic country and the different strains of German Jewry may be appealing to Americans and to Jews from other Germanic countries. I would expect that Torah Im Derech Eretz would hold the broadest appeal. 
One may legitimately question whether contemporary American culture is still concerned with piety, propriety, politeness, and community. The same can be asked of contemporary Germany. What person who has laid his eyes on television or the NY Daily News could answer confidently in the affirmative? One wonders if any society in modern history, other than Germany in the 1930s, has changed as much as has the USA and the West in general over the last half-century. It’s truly night and day, just an astonishing collapse in values. 
Rav Hirsch warned us about the mutability of ‘Hellenic culture,” ie. culture that draws from the blessing of Noah’s son Japheth to ennoble human kind through the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, and symmetry in contrast to the fear, ignorance, and violence of idolatrous, pre-Hellenic societies. Rav Hirsch’s lengthy discussion of this complex topic can be found in the chapter “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome” in the book Judaism Eternal. He tells us as follows: 

The Hellenic culture only stimulates the intellect, only creates the thirst for knowledge and truth, but is not capable in itself of assuring knowledge and producing truth. The mind indulges in surmises and conjectures, forms fanciful and hypothetical assumptions in order to solve the enigmas with which man is confronted both by the world outside and within himself and the solution of which his yearning soul passionately seeks. And as long as Hellenism assumes that the human mind alone-which, as reason, is created to “perceive” only the truthsimultaneously creates, reveals and dispenses truth, so long does the misty wisdom of the Hellenic spirit arrive at results which swing from one extreme to the other in everrecurring cycles, as has been evident in the history of human thought seeking wisdom for nearly 2,500 years in the Hellenic spirit.[77] 

Once upon a time, the USA, upon whose currency is emblazoned the creed “In God we trust,” was largely a faith-based society as was Germany. Arguably, those days are gone despite some superficial activity that is merely reminiscent of the past. At minimum, the departure from religion correlates with the collapse. It is more likely the primary cause as it left us vulnerable to the wild “swings” of Hellenistic based culture. As Rav Hirsch said, “Hellenic culture contains only one single fraction of that truth which some day will bring salvation to mankind. It is only a small preparation for that happiness which will some day flourish on earth through Shem’s “tents wherein God dwells”; and as long as it is not wedded to that Hebraic spirit, as long as it prides itself on being sublime and exclusive, it falls into error and illusion, degeneration and servitude.”[78] 
My maternal grandmother was from Uman in the Ukraine ‒ yes the actual Uman made famous by the Chassidic leader Rebbe Nachman. She returned to a Germanic land on the other side of our millennial family history. I would argue that my upbringing was more Germanic than that of many second generation German Jews from Washington Heights as that community started merging with the rich Eastern European yeshivish culture four decades ago. The America of my youth was much more distinctly Germanic for the most part. It should be no surprise that German Orthodoxy is the closest thing to it. I have met numerous others like me and am confident that there are many more out there, many more American Yekkes.
________________________________________________________
[1] Yekke is a colloquialism for German Jew. The term possibly originates in the German word Jacke (with the J pronounced as a Y) which means jacket as German Jews tended to wear shorter coats (jackets) than Eastern Europeans. Another theory posits that it stems from the Western European pronunciation of the name Jacob as Yekkef. (“Yekke,” Wikipedia) There are other explanations for the term. My apologies to those in the German Jewish community who are not fans of it. The usage here obviously is with affection and esteem as you shall see. 
[2] The Hirsch Siddur (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2013) contains the commentary of R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) of Frankfurt, Germany. 
[3] “Old English,” Wikipedia. 
[4] “Frisian languages,” Wikipedia. 
[5] “Scots Language,” Wikipedia: “Scots is the Germanic language variety spoken in Lowland Scotland and parts of Ulster (where the local dialect is known as Ulster Scots). It is sometimes called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic, the Celtic language which was historically restricted to most of the Highlands, the Hebrides and Galloway after the 1500s. The language developed during the Middle English period as a distinct entity.” 
[6] Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 477 in “English Language,” Wikipedia. 
[7] “Anglo-Saxons,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 
[8] “Bede,” Wikipedia. 
[9] Nicholas Ostler, “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” (Harper Collins: New York, 2005), p. 312. 
[10] “Are the English really Germans or Spaniards?,” The Telegraph, 
[11] “The Britons,” Wikipedia. 
[12] “Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain,” Wikipedia. 
[13] “Hanover,” English Monarchs . 
[14] 2000 US Census in Wikipedia, 
[15] “Race and ethnicity in the United States,” Wikipedia.org
[16] “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link).
[17] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . The first recorded usage of the name “America” as the name of the New World is found on the 1507 map Universalis Cosmographica by German Cartographers Martin Waldseemuller and Matthias Ringmann. “Martin Waldseemuller,” Wikipedia.org. 
[18] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation 
[19] “1890,” “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[20] “German Americans,” Wikipedia. 
[21] “Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[22] “Race and ethnicity in the United States, “ Wikipedia. 
[23] Ibid., Applysense – Map from Blank USA by Lokal Profil. Information and colors from USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG by Porsche997SBS, who sourced the info from Census-2000-Data-Top-USAncestries-by-County.svg, copy permission granted. 
[24] “German American,” Wikipedia,. 
[25] “Sentiment among German Americans was largely anti-slavery, especially among Forty-Eighters.” “German American,” Wikipedia from Wittke, Carl (1952), Refugees of Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press. 
[26] “Germanic Peoples,” Wikipedia. 
[27] “Germanic Languages,” Wikipedia. 
[28] “Henry Philip Tappan,” Wikipedia 
[29] In particular, see his last book “Man Without A Country.” 
[30] “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . Freidrich Froebel started the first kindergarten in Germany and German immigrants George Schurz and his wife Margaretha Meyer, a student of Froebel, transplanted it to the USA in 1855. 
[31] Steven Muller, “After Three Hundred Years: A Keynote Address in 1983,” “America and the Germans, An Assessment of a Three-Hundred Year History,” Edited by Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), p. xxvi-xxviii. 
[32] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . 
[33] “Homeownership in the United States,” Wikipedia. Interestingly, home ownership in 21st century Germany is relatively low by European standards. Amelie Constant, Rowan Roberts, Klaus Zimmerman “Ethnic Identity and Immigrant Homeownership.” September 2007, IZA DP No. 3050. [34] A similar observation is made in John Ardagh, “German and the Germans,” (Penguin: New York, 1991), p. 4. 
[35] Dana Blankenhorn 
[36] Irving Gordon, “World History Review Text,” (New York: Amsco Publications, 1988), p. 206. See also B. Ann Tlusty, “The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms,” (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). The publisher’s book summary notes as follows: “For German townsmen, life during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was characterized by a culture of arms. Because the urban citizenry, made up of armed households, represented the armed power of the state, men were socialized to the martial ethic from all sides. This book shows how civic institutions, peer pressure, and the courts all combined to create and repeatedly confirm masculine identity with blades and guns. Who had the right to bear arms, who was required to do so, who was forbidden or discouraged from using weapons: all these questions were central both to questions of political participation and to social and gender identity. As a result, there were few German households that were not stocked with weapons and few men who walked town streets without a side arm within easy reach. Laws aimed at preventing or containing violence could only be effective if they functioned in accordance with this framework.” 
[37] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 75. 
[38] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 76. 
[39] CIA World Factbook, CIA.gov in GlobalFirepower.com (link) “Military budget of the United States,” Wikipedia. 
[40] “Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases,” Politifact.com here
[41] Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, “The Migration of Torah Tradition from the Land of Israel to Ashkenazic Lands,” This explanation of the origin and migration of Germanic peoples to the Rhine Valley differs from that of many academic historians who argue that the Germanic tribes originated in Scandinavia. See Wikipedia, “Germanic Peoples.” 
[42] “French lessons: East petite, take your time,” Karen Collins R.D., NBCNews.com 
[43] Robert Reich, “The Next American Frontier” (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) pp. 55-56. See also Diana Owen, “Citizenship Identity and Civic Education in the United States,” Paper presented at Conference on Civic Education and Politics in Democracies, Center for Civic Education and the Bundeszentrale fur Politische Bildung, San Diego, September 26, 2004 (link). 
[44] See James Wilson, John DiIulio, Jr., Meena Bose “American Government, Essentials Edition,” (Boston: Centage Learning: 2015), p.83. They cite a study that shows Americans display higher rates of faith in their public institutions, belief in the imperative of civic duty, and sense that a citizen can affect government policies than people in several other countries. 
45 Joseph Breuer, “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). EDiplomat.com, “Germany” writes “Germans value order, privacy and punctuality. They are thrifty, hard working and industrious. Germans respect perfectionism in all areas of business and private life. In Germany, there is a sense of community and social conscience and strong desire for belonging.” 
[46] Joseph Breuer, A Unique Perspective, “Our Duty towards America,” (New York: Feldheim, 2010) p. 310. Joseph Breuer (1882-1980). 
[47] Leo Jung, Between Man and Man (New York: Jewish Education Press, 1976) p. 150. Leo Jung (1892-1987). 
[48] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992) p. 304. 
[49] R’ Joseph Breuer wrote, “Physically, the Kehilla’s German-Jewish character is immediately visible in the Synagogue. Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific “German Jewishness.” “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). In other words, the cleanliness of the German Orthodox synagogue is rooted in the halakha. It is not merely a reflection of German traits. However, German Jews excel in observing the halachos on this matter. 
[50] Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, 2010), p. 9. 
[51] “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). 
[52] Avigdor Miller, “True Modesty,” tape 412, 42:27. Rabbi Miller was born in Baltimore, studied at Slabodka Yeshiva in Lithuania in the early 1930s, and lived most of his life in Brooklyn, NY. He once remarked, “I have plenty to say about the German kehillah. I love the German kehillah. As a boy I davened every Shabbos in a German shul. I can sit four hours in the afternoon, Shabbos afternoon, in a German shul.” Loving His People 2, #528 1:06. 
[53] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[54] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[55] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation . The beginnings of tolerance date from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a treaty granting tolerance to Christian minorities; although Vienna banned Jews in 1670 and Worms in 1689. “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute (link). 
[56] “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute, p. 13 . Prussia granted Jews the status of “native residents and Prussian citizens” in 1812. 
[57] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (Columbia University Press: New York, 1992), p. 73. See also Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[58] Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[59] Consider this quotation from German-born Friedrich Frobel, the founder of the first kindergarten, “Education consists in leading man, as a thinking intelligent being, growing into self-consciousness, to a pure and unsullied, conscious and free representation of the inner law of Divine unity and in teaching him ways and means thereto.” “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . 
[60] Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 2014. 
[61] Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 . 
[62] Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:5, translated by Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1989) 
[63] The Wikipedia article “Prussian Virtues” lists the following: austerity, bravery, courage. discipline, frankness, godliness, humility, incorruptibility, industriousness, loyalty, obedience, punctuality, reliability, restraint, self-denial, self-effacement, sense of duty, sense of justice, sense of order, sincerity, subordination, and toughness. Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have an article on Russian virtues but does have one on the “Russian Soul.” Certainly, Prussians have soul and Russians virtue. Both terms concern human ideals, but approach it in a different manner. 
[64] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). 
[65] kwintessential.co.uk, “German Society and Culture.” writes “In many respects, Germans can be considered the masters of planning. This is a culture that prizes forward thinking and knowing what they will be doing at a specific time on a specific day. Careful planning, in one’s business and personal life, provides a sense of security. Rules and regulations allow people to know what is expected and plan their life accordingly. Once the proper way to perform a task is discovered, there is no need to think of doing it any other way. “ See also“German Cultural Values” at . 
[66] Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915 in Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). Friedlander (1876-1920) was a founder of the Young Israel movement. 
[67] Harry Wolfson, “Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages” in Michael Makovi, “The Kuzari as Contrasted With Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s Conception of Tiqun Olam – The Place of Universalism and Morality in Judaism.” . 
[68] Collected Writings, Vol. II, p. 398. 
[69] See for example the Ramban’s famous letter to his son. 
[70] Shimon Schwab, Selected Speeches (Lakewood: CIS, 1991) p. 243. 
[71] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), ebook, Loc 2480. 
[72] Gernot Katzer’s Spice Pages, “Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. M. Sch.) “, (link). 
[73] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Mesorat HaRav Siddur (Jerusalem: Koren, 2011) p. 112-3. 
[74] Klugman, p. 66. 
[75] They may also jump to and from Chassidism, enjoying the emphasis on community and song. And we find this too in German Orthodoxy, particularly in Frankfurt and Washington Heights with its implementation of the complete kehilla and the choir. In Washington Heights, NY, Rav Joseph Breuer built a totally self-sufficient community with a huge synogogue, day school, kollel, beis din, mikva, kashrus organization, senior center, and chevra kiddushah. The feeling of community and togetherness is palpable there on Benett Ave. as is the dignity and good manners of its community members in a manner reminiscent of the musar movement. 
[76] Cited by R’ Yisroel Mantel, KAJ, “60th Anniversary Gathering.” . 
[77] Samson Raphael Hirsch, “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome,” Judaism Eternal, Vol. 2 (London: Judaica Press, 1972) p. 191. 
[78] This is all most relevant for choosing educational strategies for the young people of today. I argue that Hirsch’s Torah Im Derech Eretz is still needed if only because it is not possible to hide from a wireless society and its equally invasive government. The Czars actually granted Jewish communities in Russia a fair amount of autonomy in comparison to ours. However, the exact form of Torah Im Derech Eretz for the 21st century likely needs to differ somewhat from that which may suit the people of my generation even as the basic principles as outlined by Rav Hirsch still apply. I recognize sadly that the America that many of us knew is largely but a memory. However, for some the memory is strong enough to inform their religious outlook.



New book by Gabriel Wasserman on Karaite Judaism

Royal Attire: On Karaite and Rabbanite Beliefs by Hakham Mordecai ben Nisan

The Karaites are a Jewish group who have been important for centuries of Jewish history, wrote many writings, and are a still extant minority today. Yet most people never get to hear much about them, especially not in their own words. When people in a typical rabbinic beth midrash encounter them, it is often in statements such as that of the Mishna Berura (27:33), that wearing tefillin down on the forehead, rather than further up on the head, is a Karaite practice. In fact, this statement is completely untrue, for Karaites do not wear tefillin at all, but rather understand Deuteronomy 6:8 and the other tefillin verses metaphorically, as meaning to constantly remember the Torah. 
This book offers a rare opportunity for English-language readers to hear a Karaite sage’s own explanation of the differences between Karaite and Rabbanite (Talmudic) Judaism. (For example, see pp. 96 ff. for a discussion of the metaphorical understanding of the tefillin verse.) 
The Hebrew text is of a letter by the Karaite sage R’ Mordecai ben Nisan of 18th-century Troki, Lithuania, to King Charles of Sweden, explaining differences between Karaite and Rabbanite Judaism: a narrative of how the two groups came to be, a selection of over forty specific commandments about which the groups disagree, and theological/philosophical differences. 
Dr. Gabriel Wasserman, a contributor to the Seforim Blog, did a lovely job of adding nikkud, translating, and annotating. His notes unpack the text for modern readers, and provide quotations of earlier texts, both Karaite and Rabbanite, to show a broader picture. This book will be excellent reading for anyone who wants to learn, or teach a class, about varieties of Judaism and “Judaisms”. 
This book is the first work of this size to be published by the recently-started Karaite Press. They have done a beautiful job of lining up the Hebrew and English, and adding an introduction at the beginning and several indices at the end of the volume. Tomer Mangoubi has helped the author supplement the notes with additional material from other Karaite sources. In all, it is a fine and interesting volume, and we look forward to the future success of the Karaite Press in putting out further Karaite texts, to make them accessible to a broader public. 
This book may be ordered here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0996965726/
Here are several sample pages:





Rav Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

Rav
Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal
By Rav Eitam Henkin, Hy”d
 (Translated into English by Rachelle Emanuel)
This
article originally appeared
in Hebrew in HaMayan 51:4 (2011), pp. 75-90.

Today is the yahrzeit of the Rav Eitam and Naama Henkin, who were cruelly murdered one year ago. May Rav Eitam’s important writings, surely with us only thanks to Naama’s support, be an aliyat neshama for both. Hy”d.

·        
“It is well known that the person
who heads the above [body]” supports Keren Hayesod
·        
What is the difference between Keren
Kayemet Le-Yisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod — the United
Israel Appeal?
·        
The forgery in the 1926 public letter
·        
The significance of supporting Keren
Hayesod
·        
The halakhic letter of 1928
·        
The joint declaration with Rav Isser
Zalman Meltzer
·        
Conclusion
“It
is well known that the person who heads the above [body]” supports Keren
Hayesod

The
philosophy of Rav Elĥanan Bunem
Wasserman, follower of the Ĥafetz
Chaim and Rosh Yeshiva of the Baranovich Yeshiva (Lithuania), and among the
most extreme of eastern European Torah leaders between the world wars in his
anti-Zionist approach, is still considered today as having significant
influence on the ideology concerning Zionism and the State of Israel prevalent
in the Hareidi community. In this respect he constitutes almost an antithesis
to the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, in
whose philosophy religious Zionism found its main ideological support for its approach
and outlook.[1]
 
One
rare statement made by Rav Wasserman, aimed apparently at Rav Kook, has found
resonance with part of the Haredi public, and is used by them as justification
for rejecting Rav Kook and his teachings. In fact, we are not talking of a
direct reference, but of words that appear in a letter sent to Rav Yosef Tzvi
Dushinski, who took over Rav Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s position as head of the Eidah Ĥareidit, on June
25, 1924:
A proposal has been made to combine the Ĥareidi Beit
Din with the Chief Rabbinate. It is well known that he who heads [the Chief
Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling on Jews to
contribute to Keren Hayesod. It is also known that the funds of Keren Hayesod
go towards educating intentional heretics. If that is the case, he who
encourages supporting this organization causes the public to sin on a most
terrible level.  Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei
Teshuva
explains the verse “The
refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, and a man is tried by his
praise” (Prov. 27:21)  as
meaning that in order to examine a person one must look at what he praises. If
we see that he praises the wicked, we know that he is an utterly wicked person,
and it is clear that it is forbidden to associate with such a person.[2]
As
far as Rav Wasserman was concerned, because the head of the Chief Rabbinate
publicized statements in which he called to support Keren Hayesod, which among
other activities, funded a secular-Zionist education system, he was causing the
public to sin and it was forbidden to be associated with him.[3]
However,
it seems that Rav Wasserman’s sharp assertion is based on a factual error.[4]
According to Rav Kook’s son, Rav Z.Y. Kook, his father supported Keren Kayemet
Le-Yisrael
, and called on others to support them, but his attitude towards Keren
Hayesod was completely different.
… as a result of the claims and complaints about
their behavior concerning religion and Judaism, [Rav Kook] later delayed giving
words of support to Keren Hayesod, and none of the entreaties and efforts of
Keren Hayesod’s activists could move him. In contrast, even though he continued
to constantly protest concerning those claims and complaints, he never
hesitated giving words of support to Keren Kayemet. None of the entreaties and
efforts of those who opposed Keren Kayemet could change this. On the contrary, with
his sacred fire, he increased his support and encouragement for Keren Kayemet, [considering
its projects as] a mitzvah of redeeming and conquering the Land.[5]
If
these words are correct, Rav Wasserman’s protest loses ground. In light of the
above we would have to say that Rav Wasserman’s sharp statement about Rav Kook
relies on the shaky basis (“It is well known…”) of rumors that were
widespread in certain localities in East Europe.[6]
However, precise research shows that despite Rav Z. Y. Kook’s clear testimony, for
which we will bring below explicit references from Rav Kook himself, Rav
Wasserman’s words were not just based on vague rumors alone. It turns out that
even while Rav Kook was alive, propaganda attempts were made to attribute to
him support for Keren Hayesod. In one case, at least, it was intentional fraud,
upon which it seems Rav Wasserman unwittingly based himself.
What
is the difference between Keren Kayemet LeYisrael – the Jewish National Fund –
and Keren Hayesod – the United Israel Appeal?

Whatever
the case may be, the reader will ask: what is the difference between the Keren
Kayemet and the Keren Hayesod? Perhaps in Rav Wasserman’s opinion they both
were “abominations,” since both organizations were headed by “heretics”;
and even though Keren Kayemet did not deal with education, nevertheless it
enabled heretics to settle on its land. If that was the case even supporting Keren
Kayemet falls into the category of lauding the wicked, etc.! However, one
cannot ignore the fact that R. Wasserman was talking about Keren Hayesod in
particular, on the grounds that its funds were “going towards raising
intentional heretics” in the educational institutions – something not
relevant to the activity of Keren Kayemet. The Keren Kayemet was a veteran
institution, founded at the beginning of the century for very specific,
accepted goals – redeeming land from the hands of gentiles, whereas Keren
Hayesod was established at the beginning of the twenties in a very different
political reality, and its fields of activity were much broader. Rav Kook
himself, in a response from winter 1925 to the famous letter from four Hasidic
rebbes (Ger, Sokolov, Ostrovtza, and Radzhin) who had heard that “your
Honor is indignant over our opposition to giving aid to the Keren Kayemet and
Keren Hayesod,” and in which they explained their opposition, gave his
reasons in full for supporting the Keren Kayemet, and only the Keren Kayemet.[7] In an
earlier draft of his response, in his handwriting, preserved in his archive, he
explicitly notes the difference in his approach to the two organizations:
I myself, in the past gave credentials for aid to
Keren Kayemet alone […] which is busy transferring land from the hands of
gentiles to Jewish possession, […] and for that I gave Keren Kayemet’s activists
a recommendation over the course of several years. This is not the case with
Keren Hayesod, which does not deal in redeeming land, but rather in settling it
and in matters of education. I have never yet given them a recommendation [and
will not do so] until the matter will, please God, be put right, and at least a
significant part of the funds will be assigned to settling Eretz Yisrael in the
way of our holy Torah.[8]
There
is indeed a large amount of information about the extensive relations that Rav
Kook had with Keren Kayemet, most of which involved continuous support for its tremendous
project of redeeming land, together with constantly keeping his eye on,  and immediately objecting to, any deviation
from the way of the Torah that was perpetrated on its grounds.[9] On
the other hand, in all the writings of Rav Kook published till now, there are
only a few mentions of Keren Hayesod, and they show reservations in principle
from the organization.[10] Whoever
is fed by rumors and presents Rav Kook as one who “lends his hand to
evil-doers” without reservations, will anyway assume, “as it is
known,” that he similarly called for support of Keren Hayesod. In
contrast, for someone who knows about Rav Kook’s life story, his work, and his
letters, the idea that he would be capable of calling for support for an
organization which directly causes ĥilul Shabbat, secular education, and
so on, is utterly baseless. Even his support for Keren Kayemet was not
complete, but with conditions, restrictions, and even warnings attached. The
following are some salient examples that are sufficient to prove that if Keren
Kayemet had been involved in projects opposed to the spirit of the Torah — as
was the case with Keren Hayesod — Rav Kook would not have agreed to support it
either:
In
a letter to the chairman of Keren Kayemet, Menahem Ussishkin, from February 4,
1927, concerning violations of Shabbat in the Borokhov neighborhood located on
Keren Kayemet land (by the residents, not by Keren Kayemet itself), Rav Kook
warned them “that if they do not take the necessary steps to correct these
wrongdoings that have gone beyond all limits, I will be forced to publicize the
matter in an open letter, loud and clearly, to the whole Jewish People.”[11]
In
a letter to Tnuva from March 2, 1932, that was sent following a report
concerning ĥilul Shabbat on Kibbutz Mizra, Rav Kook announced that so
long as the kibbutz members did not mend their ways, their milk would be
considered as ĥalav akum (milked by a non-Jew) and Tnuva would be
forbidden from using it.[12]
In
a letter to Ussishkin from April 3, 1929, Rav Kook complained about the fact
that Keren Kayemet had started to publish literary pamphlets, “which are
not its subject matter. Money dedicated to the redemption of the Land was not
for literary purposes. Moreover, the essence of this literature damages its
image in public, spreading false views in direct opposition to the sanctity of our
pure faith […] I hope that these few words will have the correct effect, and
that the obstacle will be removed without delay, so that we will all together,
as one, be able to carry out the sacred work of redeeming the Land with the
help of Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael.”[13]
The
forgery in the 1926 public letter

 However, as has been said, because of the
significant weight that Rav Kook’s position bore, over the years many attempts
were made by the supporters of Keren Hayesod to ascribe to him outright support
of the fund. The most prominent case occurred in the winter of 1926 (about a
year after the above-mentioned letter to the hasidic rebbes). Several months
previously the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael entered a severe economic crisis which
seriously hindered its development, causing unemployment of a third of the work
force, a decrease in the number of immigrants, and a steady flow of emigrants
from the country.[14] This
crisis, considered the worst experienced by the yishuv during the
British Mandate, was the first time that the impetus of the yishuv‘s
development, which had been increasing since the end of the First World War, was
brought to a standstill. Against the backdrop of this situation, the Zionist
leadership initiated a “special aid project of Keren Hayesod for the
benefit of the unemployed in Eretz Yisrael.” Because of the severity of
the situation, Rav Kook also volunteered to encourage contributions to improve
the economic situation in Eretz Yisrael, and when R. Moshe Ostrovsky (Hameiri)
left for Poland to help with the appeal, Rav Kook gave him a general letter of
encouragement for the Jews in eastern Europe.[15] At
the same time, on November 8, 1926, Rav Kook wrote a public letter calling for
support of the Zionist leadership’s initiative, in which he wrote, inter alia:
To our dear brothers, scattered throughout the
Diaspora, whose hearts and souls yearn for the building of Zion and all its
assemblies; beloved brethren! The hard times which our beloved yishuv in
the Land of our fathers is experiencing, brings me to raise my voice with the
call, “Help us, now.” Our holy edifice, the national home for which
the heart of every Jew holds great hopes, is now facing a temporary crisis
which requires the help of brothers to their fellow sufferers in order to
endure […] Therefore I am convinced that the great declaration which the
Zionist leadership is proclaiming throughout the borders of Israel, to make
every effort to come to the aid and relief of this crisis, will be heard with
great attention; and that, besides all the frequent donations for all the
general matters of holiness which our brothers wherever they live will give for
the sake of Zion and Jerusalem, all the sacred institutions will raise their
hands for the sake of God, His people, and His Land, to give willingly to the appeal
to relieve the present crisis, until the required sum will be quickly
collected.
Although
the appeal was made through the organization of Keren Hayesod, Rav Kook avoided
mentioning the name of the fund because of his principled refusal to publicize
support for it (as he explained in the letter to the hasidic rebbes). The
version quoted above is what was published in the newspapers of Eretz Yisrael,
under the title “For the Relief of the Crisis.”[16]
However, amazingly, it becomes apparent that in the version published some
weeks later in Warsaw’s newspapers, the words “the Zionist
leadership” were changed in favor of the words “the head office of
Keren Hayesod
,” and accordingly, the words were presented as nothing
less than “Rav Kook’s public letter in favor of Keren Hayesod“![17]
Even
if we didn’t have any information other than the two versions of this public
letter, there is no doubt that the authentic version is the one published by
his acquaintances, the editors of Ha-Hed and Ha-Tor in Eretz
Yisrael, close to, and seen by Rav Kook. In contrast, when members of Keren
Hayesod circulated Rav Kook’s public letter among Poland’s newspapers, they were
not concerned that the author would come across the version they had published
in a remote location. They even had a clear interest to insert into Rav Kook’s
words a precedential reference to Keren Hayesod. Even if we only had before us
the east-European version of the letter, we could determine that foreign hands
had touched it. This is not only because of Rav Kook’s words in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes sent about a year earlier, but because of a letter that Rav
Kook sent to the heads of Keren Hayesod a few weeks prior to writing the public
letter. In this letter to Keren Hayesod he informs them in brief that he is
prevented from cooperating with the management of the fund or even visiting its
offices (!) until the list of demands that he presented them with, in the field
of how they conduct religious affairs, would be met. The background to this
letter is a request sent to Rav Kook on December 7, 1926, after the
inauguration of Keren Hayesod’s new building on the site of “the national
institutions” in Jerusalem. The directors of the head office of Keren
Hayesod wrote: “It would give us great joy, and would be a great honor if
our master would be so good as to visit our office – the office of the global
management of Keren Hayesod.”[18] In
reply to this request, Rav Kook wrote a letter – which is published here for
the first time – to the heads of Keren Hayesod, (Arye) Leib Yaffe and Arthur
Menaĥem Hentke:
8th Tevet 5687 [December 13, 1926]
To the honorable sirs, Dr. Yaffe and A. Hentke,
I received your invitation to visit your esteemed
office. I hereby inform you that I will be able to cooperate for the benefit of
Keren Hayesod, and I will, bli neder, also visit Keren Hayesod’s main
office, after Keren Hayesod’s management and the Zionist leadership will
fulfill my minimal demands concerning religious issues in the kibbutzim and in
education.
Yours, with all due respect …[19]
During
the course of the years there were, nevertheless, several opportunities when
Rav Kook came into contact with members of Keren Hayesod, mainly in connection
with matters of budgets for religious needs.[20]
However, as this letter illustrates, even such limited cooperation was
dependent, from Rav Kook’s point of view, on the demand to change the way the
fund conducted its matters with respect to religion.[21] What
were Rav Kook’s exact demands of Keren Hayesod, in order for it to be
considered as having “put things right” (as he wrote in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes), and to benefit from his support and cooperation? We can
clarify this from a document which is also being published here for the first
time. This document, whose heading is “Rav Kook’s answers” to Keren
Hayesod, was apparently written after the previous letter, in reply to a
question addressed to him by Keren Hayesod concerning his attitude towards
them. It was probably written against the backdrop of rumors that Rav Kook
forbade (!) support of Keren Hayesod.[22] We only
have a copy of the document in our possession, but it is written in first
person, meaning that Rav Kook wrote it himself, and the person who copied it
apparently chose to copy just the body of the letter without the opening and
end signature:

1.      I
have never expressed any prohibition, God forbid, against Keren Hayesod. On the
contrary – I am very displeased with those who do so.
2.      Concerning
my attitude towards the Zionist funds: my reply was that I willingly support
Keren Kayemet at every opportunity without any reservations. However,
concerning Keren Hayesod, at the moment I am withholding my letter in its
benefit until the Zionist management corrects major shortcomings that I demand
be put right, as follows:
a.      
That nowhere in Eretz Yisrael will
education be without religious instruction, not just as literature, but as the
sacred basis of Jewish faith.
b.     
That all the general religious needs be
immediately taken care of in every moshav and kibbutz. For example, shoĥet,
synagogue, ritual bath, and where a rabbi is necessary – also a rabbi.
c.      
That there will be no public profanation
of that which is sacred in any of the places supported by Keren Hayesod, such
as ĥilul Shabbat and ĥag in public.
d.     
That the kitchens, at least the general
ones, will be particular about kashrut.
e.       That
all the details here which concern the residents of Keren Hayesod’s locations,
will be listed in the contract as matters hindering use of the property by the
resident, and which will give him benefit of the land only on condition that he
fulfills these basic principles.
And because I strongly hope that the management will
finally obey these demands, I therefore am postponing my support of Keren
Hayesod until they are fulfilled. I hope that my endeavors for the benefit of
settling and building our Holy Land will then be complete.

It
should be noted that these conditions are similar in essence to those that Rav
Kook set with Keren Kayemet. However, the latter’s dealings were with redeeming
the Land, in contrast to Keren Hayesod where the areas referred to in Rav
Kook’s demands were at the center of its activity. Therefore, as far as the
Keren Kayemet was concerned, Rav Kook did not give the fulfillment of his
demands as a basic condition for his cooperation and call for support; but he
certainly did so with regard to Keren Hayesod.[23]
Whatever
the case may be, if R. Wasserman did indeed see the public letter of 1926,
without doubt he saw the falsified version published in the Polish newspapers,
and therefore he held on to the opinion that: “It is well known that he
who heads [the Chief Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling
on Jews to contribute to Keren Hayesod.”[24]
However, as has been clarified, these words have no basis.
The
significance of supporting Keren Hayesod

As
has been said Rav Kook was not prepared to support Keren Hayesod, which dealt
in education and such matters “until the matter will … be put right, and
at least a significant part” of the funds activities will be directed to
settling the Land according to the Torah. The words “at least a
significant part …” seem to give the impression that if a significant part
of the fund’s activity were directed to activity in the spirit of the Torah,
then Rav Kook would give his support even if another part were still directed
to secular education. However, in practice, there is no doubt that Rav Kook’s
demand was much stricter. In Keren Hayesod’s regulations it was determined that
only about 20% of its resources would be directed to education[25] (and
only a certain amount of that budget would be allocated to
“problematic” education) — and despite this fact Rav Kook refused to
call for its support. It must be emphasized that this policy in Keren Hayesod’s
regulations was strictly applied. An inclusive summary of the fund’s activity
between the years 1921-1930, indicates that 61.4% of its resources were
invested in aliya and settlement (aliya training, aid for refugees,
agricultural and urban settlement, housing, trade, and industry), 19.6% in
public and national services (security, health, administration), and only 19.0%
in education and culture – from which a certain part was allocated for
religious needs: education; salaries for rabbis, shoĥtim, and kashrut
supervisors; maintenance of ritual baths, eruvim, and religious
articles; aid for the settlements of Bnei Brak, Kfar Ĥasidim, etc.[26] In
light of this data, it seems that R. Wasserman’s claim against those who call
for support of Keren Hayesod, and his defining them as “utterly
wicked” people, is not essentially different from the parallel claim
against those who demand the paying of required taxes to the State – a claim
heard today only by extreme marginal groups within the Ĥaredi sector.
Indeed,
not surprisingly, it transpires that there were in fact some well-known rabbis
of that generation who did call to contribute to Keren Hayesod, despite the
problematic issues of some of its activity.[27] Just
several months before the publication of Rav Kook’s afore-mentioned public
letter, another declaration was published, explicitly calling for support of
Keren Hayesod, signed by more than eighty rabbis from Poland and Russia. Among
them were well-known personalities such as R. Ĥanokh Henikh Eigash, author of Marĥeshet;
R. Meshulam Rothe; R. Reuven Katz, and more.[28]
Moreover, in several locations, particularly in America, support of Keren
Hayesod was considered as consensus among the rabbis,[29] and
even Rav Kook’s colleague in the Chief Rabbinate, R. Ya’akov Meir, called for
support of Keren Hayesod.[30]
Would R. Wasserman have defined all of these scores of rabbis as evil ones
“who cause the public to sin on the most terrible level”?[31] Whatever
the case may be, it transpires that it was specifically Rav Kook who stands out
as being the most stringent among them, and he consistently agreed to publicize
support only for Keren Hakayemet. In the light of all the data detailed here,
one wonders whether R. Wasserman’s extreme words to R. Dushinski[32] were
only written in order to deter him from cooperating with the Chief Rabbinate
(which he strongly opposed), and perhaps this is the reason that he avoided
mentioning Rav Kook explicitly by name.[33]
The
halakhic letter of 1928

The
public letter of 1926 was indeed the only one in which Rav Kook’s words were
falsified in order to create support for Keren Hayesod. However, in the
following years, too, attempts were made to present what he had written as an
expression of direct support of Keren Hayesod. The element the two cases have
in common is that they were both published far from Rav Kook’s location. In 1928,
an announcement from the “Secretariat for Propaganda among the
Ĥaredim” was published in the Torah monthly journal Degel Yisrael,
published in New York and edited by R. Ya’akov Iskolsky. This secretariat
published a special letter from Rav Kook in Degel Yisrael, emphasizing
that the letter had not yet been publicized anywhere else. According to the
secretariat, the context in which the words were written was the following:

An
occurrence in a town in Europe, where the community demanded that all its
members contribute towards Keren Hayesod, and the opponents disputed
this before the government, and took the matter to court. The judges demanded
that the community leaders prove to them that the matter was done in accordance
to Jewish law, and on the basis of the above responsum (of Rav Kook) the
members of the community were acquitted.[34]

In
other words, according to those who publicized the Rav Kook’s letter, it was
written in order to help the heads of one European community to force all its
members to donate to Keren Hayesod. The problem is that examination of the
letter (see below) raises different conclusions. Similar to what appears above
(note 27) concerning the letter written by R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk,
here there is also no mention at all of Keren Hayesod. The explanations in the
letter are not relevant to the majority of Keren Hayesod’s projects, and the
letter only deals with clarifying the general virtue of settling Eretz Yisrael
and the obligation to support its inhabitants. Even the title prefacing the
letter only talks about “one community that agreed to impose a tax on its
members for the settlement and building of Eretz Yisrael,” without
mentioning that this was a tax specifically for Keren Hayesod. Towards the end
of the letter it is mentioned only that “the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with many issues concerning settling the Land,” without any
specific reference to Keren Hayesod, even if the fund was the organization that
managed the appeal for the Zionist Organization. Thus, we again find that
whereas according to those that publicized the letter — the concerned parties —
the letter constitutes declared support for Keren Hayesod, in Rav Kook’s actual
words there is no mention of that.
The
letter, which as far as I know was never printed a second time, is brought here
in full:
When I was asked whether a Jewish community can impose
on an individual the obligation to give charity for maintaining the settlement
of Eretz Yisrael, I hereby reply that there is no doubt in the matter, considering
that the halakha is that one forces a person to give charity, and makes
him pawn his property for that purpose even before Shabbat, as explained in Bava
Batra
8b, and as Rambam wrote in Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 7:10:
concerning someone who does not want to give charity, or who gives less than
what is fitting for him, the court forces him until he gives the amount they
estimated he should give, and one makes him pawn his property for charity even
before Shabbat. The same is written in Shulĥan
Arukh
, Yore Dei’a, 248:1-2. If
this is the case in all charities, all the more so is it the case concerning
charity for strengthening Eretz Yisrael, for this is explicit in Sifrei, and quoted in Beit Yosef, Yore
Dei’a
, §251, that the poor of Eretz Yisrael have priority over
the poor outside the Land. And because one forces a person to give charity for
the poor outside the Land, it is clearly even more the case concerning charity
for strengthening the Land and its poor. The obligation to settle in Eretz
Yisrael is very great, as it says in the Talmud Ketubot 110b, and is brought by Rambam as a halakhic
ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 5:12: A person should always live in Eretz
Yisrael, and even in a town where the majority are idol worshippers, rather
than live outside the Land, even in a town where the majority are Jews. In Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (mitzvah 4) Nachmanides wrote: that we were
commanded to inhabit the Land; “and this is a positive mitzvah for all
generations, and every one of us is obligated,” and even during the period
of exile, as is known from the Talmud in many places.
A great Torah principle is that all Jews are responsible for one another.
Therefore, those who are unable themselves to keep the mitzvah of living in
Eretz Yisrael, are obligated to help and support those who live there, and it
will be considered as though they themselves are living in Eretz Yisrael so
long as they do not have the possibility of keeping this big mitzvah
themselves. It is therefore obvious that any Jewish community can require an
individual to give charity for the benefit of settling Eretz Yisrael and
supporting its inhabitants; and G-d forbid that an individual will separate
himself from the community. Someone who separates himself from the ways of the
community is considered one of the worst types of sinners, as Rambam writes in Hilkhot
Teshuva
3:11. Just as the community must guide the individuals towards all
things good and beneficial, and any general mitzvah, thus must it ensure that
no individual separates himself from the community concerning matters of
charity in general, and all the more so concerning matters of charity relating
to Eretz Yisrael and support of its inhabitants, as I have written. No one can
deny that which is revealed to all, that the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with al lot of matters concerning settling Eretz Yisrael, hence
it is clear that its income is included in the principle of charity for Eretz
Yisrael.
And as a sign of truth and justice, I hereby sign … Avraham Yitzĥak HaKohen
Kook
The
joint declaration with Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer

Just
as the public letter of 1926 (in the version published in Poland) quickly came
to the notice of the zealots of Jerusalem, who rushed to claim that Rav Kook
supports “a baseless fund,” the same thing happened with the 1928
letter: following its publication under the above headline, the zealots rushed
to upgrade their accusations and to claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force a person to give charity to Keren Hayesod” (see below).
This
fact brings us to yet another claim, raised only recently, that Rav Kook did
indeed sign on a declaration in support of Keren Hayesod. A few years ago,
Professor Menaĥem Friedman wrote about an event that occurred in winter 1930,
when the zealots of the Jerusalem faction of Agudath Israel, with Reb Amram
Blau at their head, came out with a particularly sharp street poster against
Rav Kook. The background to the attack was the joint declaration of Rav Kook,
R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and R. Abba Yaakov Borokhov, that was published before
the convening of the 17th Zionist Congress in Basel, calling to the
attendants of the convention and its supporters to exert their influence to
prevent ĥilul Shabbat, etc; at the side of this request, writes Prof.
Friedman, was a “call to donate to Keren Hayesod.”[35]
However,
in fact matters are not so clear at all. Prof. Friedman brings no support at
all for his words, and the only source that he brings concerning the event is
that same street poster that the zealots published. It seems that Prof.
Friedman never actually saw the said declaration, but rather assumed its
contents from the information that appears in parallel sources, such as the opposing
street poster, in which there is the claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force people to give charity to Keren Hayesod,” but of course that
does not constitute an acceptable historical source.[36]
An
addition to this affair appears in a manuscript of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer,
which was published several years ago. This is a draft of a public announcement
from 1921, which shows that indeed there were those who understood that the
signature on the declaration meant support of Keren Hayesod (and other such
organizations) — but R. Meltzer clarifies that this was not the case:
Being that I signed on a call to the donors of the
Zionist funds, demanding that they do not support with their money those who
profane the Shabbat, and those who eat non-kosher food, I therefore declare
that my opinion is like it always has been: that so long as schools in Eretz
Yisrael that instill heretical ideas are supported by these funds, it is
forbidden to support them or give them aid in any way whatsoever. Those who
support and help them are destroying our holy Torah, and are ruining the yishuv.
I added my signature only to ask those who support those funds that at least
they should make every effort to influence those funds not to feed Jewish
people in kitchens that provide non-kosher food, and not to support those that
profane the Shabbat, etc.[37]
This
clarification was apparently written after reactions of amazement among some of
the Jerusalem public were voiced in the wake of the publication of the joint
declaration of R. Meltzer, Rav Kook, and R. Borokhov. From R. Meltzer’s words
it becomes clear that the joint declaration was not a call to support Keren
Hayesod, but a call to the supporters of the fund and to the attendants of the
Zionist Congress that they should anyway insist that their money should not be
used for unfitting purposes.[38]
Conclusion

Rav
Kook’s path was falsified many times, both during his lifetime and after his
death, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. In what we have
written here, it is proven beyond all doubt that R. Elĥanan Wasserman’s claim
that Rav Kook called for the support of Keren Hayesod — a claim through which
he explained his opposition to cooperation between the Eidah Ĥareidit and the
Chief Rabbinate — is based on a mistake. The historical truth is that Rav Kook,
in his dealings with the institutions of the yishuv, more than once took
a more aggressive and stringent stand than did other rabbis of his generation,
as is expressed in the issue at hand.


[1] In
light of this contrast, it is interesting that Rabbi Wasserman, as a youth, was
privileged to learn from Rav Kook for a while. In 1890 Rabbi Wasserman’s family
moved to Bauska (Boisk),
and five years later Rav Kook was appointed as rabbi of the town. At the time
Rabbi Wasserman was a student in the Telz Yeshiva, and when he returned home
during vacation, he would participate in the classes given by Rav Kook (See R.
Ze’ev Arye Rabbiner, “Shalosh Kehilot Kodesh,” Yahadut Latvia:
Sefer Zikaron
[Tel Aviv, 1953], 268; Aharon Surasky, Ohr Elĥanan I [Jerusalem,
1978], 30).
[2] Kovetz
Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot

I (Jerusalem, 2001), 153; previously in Kuntres Be-Ein Ĥazon (Jerusalem,
1969), 92. Concerning R. Wasserman’s dealings with the issues of the Jews in
Eretz Yisrael, we bring the words of R. Ĥaim Ozer Grodzensky, R. Wasserman’s
brother-in-law, which he wrote less than two months later in a reply to R.
Reuven Katz’s complaint regarding the open letter published by R. Wasserman to
Poalei Agudath Israel in Eretz Yisrael, calling on them not to accept help from
Zionist organizations: “I, too, am surprised at what [R. Wasserman] saw
that he publicized his personal opinion without consulting us, and I did not
know of it. He also exaggerated. The matters of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael cannot be compared to private matters in the Diaspora for several reasons,
and certainly it is impossible to give a ruling on such a serious matter from
afar without knowing the details…” (Aĥiezer – Kovetz Igrot [Bnei Brak, 1970], 1:299; see ibid., 200-1, a letter to Histadrut
Pagi, where the words are repeated. For R. Wasserman’s open letter and more
material on this subject, see Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot I, 133-152).
[3] This
statement is based on the words of Rabeinu Yonah Gerondi (Sha’arei Teshuva,
3:148), and R. Wasserman’s interpretation of them elsewhere (“Ikvete De-Meshiĥa,
§ 36, translated into Hebrew from the Yiddish by R. Moshe Schonfeld and
printed as a pamphlet in 1942, and in Kovetz Ma’amarim [Jerusalem 1963],
127-28). However, it seems that there is an essential difference between the
actual words of Rabeinu Yona and R. Wasserman’s interpretation (compare with a
parallel commentary of Rabeinu Yona to m. Avot 4:6, and the way his
words were interpreted by Rashbatz, “Magen Avot” 4:8, and R. Yisrael Elnekave,
Menorat Ha-Ma’or, Enlau edition, 310-11), and let this suffice. For an
example of a diametrically opposed position, see: R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen, Pri
Tzadik
, Vayikra (Lublin 1922), 221.
[4] See R. Yitzchak
Dadon, Imrei Shefer (Jerusalem, 2008), 273.
[5] “Li-Shelosha
be-Elul” (Jerusalem, 1938) §24
(p.22). See also Siĥot Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehuda – Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem,
2005), 84. On the other hand, R. Shmuel HaKohen Weingarten, who also heard from
Rav Tzvi Yehuda about his father’s refusal to call for support of Keren Hayesod,
pointed out an item in the newspaper Dos Idishe Licht (May 23, 1924),
according to which Rav Kook refused to support a proposal raised at the
American Union of Rabbis to boycott Keren Hayesod (Halikhot 33 [Tel
Aviv, Tishrei 1966], 27). Compare Rav Kook’s reasons for not waging a public
war against the Gymnasia Ha-Ivrit high school, despite his intense opposition
to the school (Igrot Ha-Re’iya II, 160-61).
[6] The existence
of false rumors concerning Rav Kook was mentioned already in 1921 by the Gerrer
Rebbe, R. Avraham Mordechai Alter, in his well-known letter written on the
boat: “Outside Eretz Yisrael what is thought and imagined is different
from the reality. For according to the information heard, the Gaon Rav Kook was
considered to be an enlightened rabbi who ran after bribes. He was attacked
with excommunication and curses. Even the newspapers Yud and Ha-Derekh
sometimes published these one-sided reports. But this is not the correct way of
behavior – to listen to one side, no matter who it is…” (Osef
Mikhtavim U-Devarim
[Warsaw, 1937], 68). R. Moshe Tzvi Neriya’s description
is typical: “…these news items even made their way into sealed Russia.
They said: “He’s close to the high echelons, and he has an official
position. This opinion excluded him from the usual description of a great Rav.
And then again it was said, ‘He’s close to the Zionists,’ and he was imagined
to be an ‘enlightened’ rabbi […] however, all those description and imaginations
completely melted away on seeing him.” (Likutei Ha-Re’iya [Kefar
Haro’eh, 1991], 1:13-14). An amazingly similar description was written by R.
Yitzchak Gerstenkorn, founder of Bnei Brak: “I imagined Rav Kook, of
blessed memory, as a modern rabbi […] and how amazed I was, on my first visit
to Rav Kook, when I saw before me a sacred, pious person, few of whom live in
our generation…” (Zikhronotai al Bnei Brak I [Jerusalem, 1942],
74).
[7] See Igrot
la-Re’iya
, 303-306. See also his 1923 declaration in support of Keren
Kayemet in which he emphasizes that “it is intended only for redemption of
the Land” (Raz, Malakhim ki-Venei Adam [Jerusalem, 1994], 238) —
meaning, not for educational and other such purposes as those of Keren Hayesod.
In this connection it should be noted that there was sometimes tension between
Keren Kayemet and Keren Hayesod because of the impression created that the
latter also dealt in redeeming lands (see Protokolim shel Yeshivot Ha-Keren
Kayemet Le-Yisrael
, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, 4:109, 498/33 —
protocols from March 31 and July 7, 1922. See also the joint agreement of the
two funds, Ha-Olam 10:14 [January 27, 1921], 16). In order to illustrate
the Keren Kayemet’s well-established status among substantial sections of the
rabbinical world, we will refer to the 32nd annual convention of the
Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, 1937. In the second
section of the convention’s resolutions it states: “The Union of Rabbis
imposes a sacred debt on all Orthodox Jews who will lend generous support to
Keren Kayemet Leyisrael.” It should be noted that the majority of
America’s great rabbis of the time participated in this convention (see Ha-Yehudi
2:10 [New York, Iyar 1927], 195. A similar resolution was made in previous
conventions; see, for example, HaPardes 5:3 [Sivan 1931], p. 31, § 7; HaPardes 6:3 [Sivan 1932], p.
25, § 5-8).
[8] This draft is
quoted by R. Yaakov Filber, Kokhav Ohr (Jerusalem, 1993), 21-22 (Slight
changes in style have been made according to a photocopy in my possession).
Negatives statements about Keren Hayesod were omitted from the response that
was actually sent, and only the positive statements about Keren Kayemet were
included. R. Filber posits that, based on the letter that Rav Kook sent to his
son, Rav Z. Y. Kook, about a week later (ibid.), the reason for the omission
was Rav Kook’s concern that the negative sentences might be used as a means to
attack the Zionist funds in general. In my opinion, taking into account Rav
Kook’s style, it is unlikely that he had such a concern, but rather the omission
is probably connected to his wish not to take part in a public boycott of Keren
Hayesod (see above, note 5).
[9] See R. Neriya
Goutel, “Hilkhot Ve-Halikhot Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael Ve-Haĥug Ha-Hityashvuti
Be-Ma’arekhet Hitkatvuyotav shel Ha-Rav Kook,” Sinai 121 (1998),
103-115; Ĥaim Peles, “Teguvotav shel Ha-Rav A. Y. Kook al Ĥilulei Ha-Shabat
al Admat Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael,” Sinai 115 (1995),
180-186; see also Rav Kook, Ĥazon Ha-Geula (Jerusalem, 1937), 220-230;
ibid., 33-34, et seq. (I have expanded on the topic of Rav Kook’s relationship
with the Keren Kayemet elsewhere).
[10] In a letter
from winter 1924 to R. Dov Arye Leventhal of the Union of Rabbis, about his
trip to America, Rav Kook writes that one of the questions that his trip
depends upon is “whether there will not be a tendency to confuse his
support for this [the Union of Rabbis] with Keren Hayesod” (Igrot Ha-Re’iya
IV (Jerusalem 1984), 177. In a letter from winter 1925 to R. Akiva Glasner of Klausenburg,
he calls on him to make use of “the Zionist funds of Keren Hayesod”
for purposes such as sheĥita and ritual baths in a settlement of
Transylvanian immigrants in Eretz Yisrael. He comments that when all is said
and done, in most places the donors are religious Jews; but of course he should
ensure that everything is done according to the Torah (ibid., 216).
[11] Sinai
115 (1995), 181; the full letter was printed in Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh
(ed. R. David Avraham Mandelbaum, New York, 2003), 588. Here, as in the third
example (see below), Rav Kook hints that if they do not take the necessary
steps, he will stop supporting the Keren Kayemet, and will even publicize the
matter.
[12] Sinai
115 (1995), 183
[13] R. Moshe
Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya I (Rishon Lezion, 2002), 487.
[14] See inter al.:
Dan Giladi, Ha-Yishuv Bi-Tekufat Ha-Aliya Ha-Revi’it: Beĥina Kalkalit U-Politit
(Tel Aviv, 1973), 171-192. The cause of the crisis was twofold: on the one
hand, the especially large amount of new immigrants in the two years prior to
the crisis, for which the economy was unprepared; on the other hand, the severe
limitations that the Polish government enforced on taking money out of the
country (in an attempt to fight the hyperinflation of the value of the zloty),
which harmed both the donations to Eretz Yisrael, and the capability of the new
immigrants to bring their possessions with them to Eretz Yisrael.
[15] For details of
R. Ostrovsky’s trip see Ha-Zefira 66:30 (February 4, 1927), 8. For the
blessings for success that he received from R. Yeĥiel Moshe Segalovitz, head of
the Mława rabbinical court, see ibid. 66:34 (February 9, 1927), 3. Rav
Kook’s letter to Polish Jewry was published in Ha-Olam on March 4, 1927,
and again in Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya II (1998 edition), 1075.
[16] See the monthly
Ha-Hed, Kislev 1926, p.12, and the weekly Ha-Tor 7:16 (November
19, 1926), front page. This version was printed later in Ĥazon Ha-Geula,
180. The version quoted here is based on minor corrections of mistakes that
appeared in one of the sources. In the description attached to the public
letter in Ha-Hed the following was written: “In honor of Keren
Hayesod’s special aid program for the benefit of the unemployed in Eretz
Yisrael, Rav Kook published a special public letter….”
[17] Ha-Zefira
65:50 (Warsaw, November 29, 1926), 3. In the description attached to the public
letter it said: “On 2 Kislev [November 8, 1926), the Chief Rabbi of Eretz
Yisrael, Rav A.Y. Ha-Kohen Kook sent the following public letter to the head
office of Keren Hayesod….” A few days later the letter was also published
in Ha-Olam 14:50 (London, December 3, 1926), 944, with the same headline
and description as in Ha-Zefira, but without the insertion of
“Keren Hayesod” in the body of the letter; see also Ha-Olam
14:48 (December 19), 906, where it was reported that “Rav Kook published a
public letter to world Jewry to aid Keren Hayesod, thereby easing the crisis in
Eretz Yisrael.”
[18] Central Zionist
Archives, KH421036. As is explained in this file, Rav Kook’s colleague, R. Y.
Meir, visited the offices of Keren Hayesod.
[19] From a copy of
the letter in the possession of R. Ze’ev Neuman, to whom I am most grateful. It
should be noted that Leib Yaffe was a relative of Rav Kook: his paternal
grandfather, R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe, was Rav Kook’s paternal grandmother’s
brother. Nevertheless, at the opening of the letter, Rav Kook does not show any
family sentiment, but starts with a completely neutral tone.
[20] About two years
before the above letter, in 1925, Rav Kook, together with other rabbis,
participated in a meeting with Keren Hayesod where sums allocated for religious
needs, and other allocation options, were decided upon (Yehoshua Radler-Feldman
[R. Binyamin], Otzar Ha-aretz [Jerusalem, 1926], 72-73; see also note 10
above).
[21] The reader
should note the letter of both the chief rabbis from March 27, 1927 – about two
months after the above letter – which was sent, among others, to the secretary
of Keren Hayesod, Mordechai Helfman, with the demand to prevent the profanation
of Shabbat and kashrut in settlements located on the land of Keren Kayemet, or
that are supported by Keren Hayesod. In his reply from March 30 (quoted in
Motti Ze’ira, Keru’im Anu [Jerusalem, 2002], 172), Helfman justified
himself saying: “The management of Keren Hayesod is only a mechanism for
collecting money […] We are, of course, ready to help in [attempting to] have
moral influence, and we hereby promise his honor, that we will use our
influence at every opportunity to emphasize that which is wrong.”
[22] The document
can be found in the Central Zionist Archive KH1/220/2. I am grateful to Mr.
Yitzĥak Dadon, who made me aware of the document’s existence and gave me a
photocopy. Most of the demands in this document were repeated, with different
emphases, in a declaration publicized by Rav Kook in the spring of 1931 (see
note 37 below).
[23] Even though Rav
Kook repeated in this letter that he was not prohibiting support of Keren
Hayesod, later, when in 1932 the Jewish Agency did not fulfill its promise to
transfer an allocated sum for religious matters, Rav Kook protested the matter
in a sharp letter in which he warned that if at least part of the promised sum
was not transferred, he would be forced to turn to the rabbis in America and to
members of Mizrachi in Poland, with the demand to prevent support of the Keren
Hayesod appeal (letter from April 6, 1932, Central Zionist Archive
S255894-419).
[24] Information
about Rav Kook’s supposed support of Keren Hayesod, based on the east-European
version of the public letter, quickly reached Rav Kook’s opponents in Eretz
Yisrael and even in America. In a letter from December 29, 1926, Meir
Heller-Semnitzer, one of the most extreme zealots in Jerusalem (around whom,
that same summer, a major scandal erupted, concerning a harsh declaration that
he published against the Gerrer Rebbe and Rav Kook), informed Reb Zvi Hirsch
Friedman of New York (a distinguished zealot himself who, a year previously, had
been expelled from the Union of Rabbis in America because of attacks against
Rav Kook that he had published in one of his books), that Rav Kook issued a
proclamation calling for support of “the baseless fund” [play on words:
yesod means base]. See Friedman, Zvi ĤemedMishpati im
Dayanei Medinat Yisrael
(Brooklyn, 1960), 67.
[25] As R. Y. Y.
Trunk pointed out already in 1921 (see note 27 below).
[26] A. Elitzur, “Keren
Hayesod Be-mivĥan Ha-zeman” in Luaĥ Yerushalayim – 5706 (Jerusalem,
1945), 259-268; see also Otzar Ha-aretz, 70-76.
[27] In this
connection it is customary to mention R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, author
of Ohr Same’aĥ, who acceded to the request of an emissary of the World
Zionist Organization in preparation for the appeal of Keren Hayesod in Latvia,
and wrote his famous letter calling for support of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael (printed in Ha-Tor, 3, 1922, and also in R. Ze’ev Arye Rabiner, Rabeinu
Meir
Same’aĥ Kohen [Tel Aviv, 1967], 163-165, et al.). However, even
though the historical context involves the Keren Hayesod, the letter itself
deals with general support of settling Eretz Yisrael, and contains no explicit
mention of Keren Hayesod or any other Zionist organization. Hence it is
difficult to see in the letter a ruling concerning the fundamental question of
whether to support Keren Hayesod despite the fact that part of its budget goes
towards secular education. The same applies to a similar letter written in the
same year and in the same connection by R. Eliezer Dan Yiĥye of Lucyn (See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 84-86). In contrast, R. Yitzĥak Yehuda Trunk of Kotnya, the
grandson of the author of Yeshu’ot Malko and one of the rabbis of the
Mizrachi movement in Poland, wrote a detailed letter in the same year,
explicitly calling for support of Keren Hayesod. He wrote at length rejecting
the arguments against contributing to the fund (See Sinai 85 [Nisan-Elul 1979],
95-96). See also in the following footnotes.
[28] See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 78-82. It should be added that the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (later
the Rishon le-Tziyon), R. Ben-Tziyon Ĥai Uziel, participated, himself, in the
activity of Keren Hayesod (see his books, Mikhmanei Uziel IV (Jerusalem,
2007) 31-32, 283-284, and in vol. VI, 297-299, et al.), as did R. Ostrovsky (as
mentioned above), and others.
[29] In an issue of
Ha-Olam
(18:46 [London, November 11, 1930], 911) in honor of Keren
Hayesod’s tenth anniversary, “the declaration of Eretz Yisrael’s rabbis
concerning Keren Hayesod” from September 1930, was published. Hundreds of
rabbis signed the declaration, the majority from America, and others from Eretz
Yisrael, Europe, and Eastern countries. The declaration included an explicit
call to strengthen Keren Hayesod, “which for the last ten years has borne
on its shoulders the elevated task of building our sacred inheritance, and
faithfully supporting all projects that bring us close to that great aim.”
It seems that there is not one well-known rabbi who was active in the Union of
Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada who did not sign this
declaration: R. Yehuda Leib Graubart, R. Elazar Preil, R. Ĥaim Fischel Epstein,
R. Yosef Kanowitz, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R. Eliezer Silver, R. Ze’ev Wolf
Leiter, R. Ĥaim Yitzĥak Bloch, R. Yehuda Leib Salzer, etc., etc. (nevertheless,
in light of the scope and rare variety of the signatories, one wonders whether
this was a declaration approved by majority vote at the conference of the Union
of Rabbis, such that the weight of the opponents was not reflected, and
therefore the names of all the Union’s members were given as signatories).
[30] See Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 77, his letter from December 8, 1925 calling for support of Keren
Hayesod. See note 18, and more below.
[31] A most
interesting fact in this connection is that R. Wasserman’s relative by marriage
from 1929 (the father-in-law of his son R. Elazar Simĥa), R. Meir Abowitz, head
of the rabbinical court of Novardok and author of Pnei Meir on Talmud
Yerushalmi
, not only was an avowed member of the Mizrachi movement, and in
1923 even signed a call to join the movement (see Encyclopedia of Religious
Zionism
I [Jerusalem, 1958], columns 1-2), but also was one of the
signatories on the aforementioned declaration in favor of Keren Hayesod! (Otzar
Ha-aretz
, 81). The fact that R. Wasserman was involved in R. Abowitz’s
younger daughter’s marriage, is testimony to the good relationship between the
families (see R. Wasserman’s daughter-in-law’s testimony in the photocopied
edition of Pnei Meir on the tractate Shabbat [USA, 1944], at the end of
the introduction. R. Abowitz’s letters to his son-in-law are published at the
end of R. Wasserman’s Kovetz Shiurim II [Tel Aviv, 1989], 117-119).
[32] It is
worthwhile comparing these words with R. Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s moderate
language in a letter to his brother written in 1921, in which he gives the
benefit of the doubt to the donors of Keren Hayesod: “Those naïve ones,
who contribute to Keren Hayesod out of pure love in order to aid in the
establishment of the settlement in our holy Land, certainly have a mitzvah. I
do not know to what purpose they will actually put the money of Keren Hayesod,
but if it is given into faithful hands, who will use it honestly for settling
the Land, this is anyway a big mitzvah. However, as has been said, it must be
in such hands that will use it for building and not for destruction […] ‘and
because of our sins we were exiled from our Land'” (translated from
Yiddish, S.Z. Zonnenfeld, Ha-ish al Ha-ĥoma III [Jerusalem, 1975], 436).
[33] Although R.
Ya’akov Meir, who explicitly supported Keren Hayesod, was also one ” who
heads the above [i.e. the Chief Rabbinate],” nevertheless, R. Wasserman’s
words are taken to be addressed specifically to Rav Kook. On the other hand, it
is interesting that in a letter that R. Wasserman wrote to his brother on July
30, 1935, the following sentence appears: “What is Rav Kook’s malady, and
how is he feeling now?” (Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-igrot II, 124).
[34] Degel
Yisrael
2:11 (New York, December 1928), 12-13 (the emphasis is mine). The date
of the secretariat’s letter is April 26, 1928.
[35] Friedman,
“Pashkevilim U-moda’ot kir Ba-ĥevra Ha-Ĥareidit,” in Pashkevilim
(Tel Aviv, 2005), 20. See also his book Ĥevra Va-dat (Jerusalem, 1978),
337.
[36] In the same
year, October 1930, in an issue devoted to the tenth anniversary of Keren
Hayesod, a declaration from Rav Kook was printed under the heading
“Mi-ma’amakei Ha-kodesh,” in which a process of awakening in the
country among the people and the new yishuv is described, together with
a call to base activities on sanctity and to unite (Ha-Olam 18:45
[November 2, 1930], 900). Here, too, there is no explicit mention of Keren
Hayesod or any other organization, even though explicit calls by other
personalities for support of the fund were published close to his declaration
(See also an additional article by Rav Kook, (Ha-Olam 18:47 [November
18, 1930], 926).
[37] Mikhtavim
Ve-Igrot Kodesh
, 624. The date of R. Meltzer’s signature on the declaration
is February 18, 1921. He writes using the plural form: “schools … are
supported by these funds,” but in fact only Keren Hayesod referred funds
to educational institutions, such that his main opposition was actually
directed against it in particular, and not against Keren Hakayemet (see next
note). For the moment I have been unable to locate the call mentioned in his
words, which Prof. Friedman dealt with, however it is probably a very similar
declaration to the one published in Ha-Hed, April 1931 (and again in Otzarot
Ha-Re’iya
II, 426), in which Rav Kook calls, in preparation for the
“coming Zionist Congress” to present a series of demands in the field
of religion, which have to come together with “material fundraising”
and aid to build up the country. It is superfluous to note that there is no
mention of Keren Hayesod in the declaration, as well as to no other official
institution.
[38] For comparison,
see a similar public letter that the three rabbis, Rav Kook, R. Meltzer, and R.
Borokhov, together with R. Yaakov Meir, published in 1929, calling to the heads
of the Zionist organizations “to immediately send a last warning to the
kibbutzim and moshavot supported by you, that if they do not stop
profaning our religion, and everything sacred, you will stop your support of
them altogether. If our words are not obeyed by you, we will unfortunately be
forced to wage a defensive war against these destroyers of our People and our
Land […] even though this will harm the funds which support the new yishuv”
(printed in Ha-Tor 9:37 [August 9, 1929], and again in Keruzei
Ha-Re’iya
[Jerusalem, 2000], 90)