As some of you know I have an interest in meshumdim and their wide affect on modern day Judaism. Thus, Yehoshua Mondshine’s latest installment in his series on corrupted stories is especially good. Some may recall our earlier post on Mondshine’s earlier piece about the “classic” ba’al teshuva story and its root in a Shai Agnon story, I think this one is equally as good.

This story is a Habad story and it basically goes like this. There was a Hazzan in Habad known as Reb Yechiel the Meshumad. His story was that as a young boy his entire village was wiped out by a progrom. The Poritz kept him as his own son and did not tell him that he was Jewish. The boy had no idea who his true ancestors were. As the boy grew up it became appearent he had a talent for music and was sent to a music school. At school some kids taunt him for being Jewish (there are slightly different variations here) and he has no idea why. He goes back to his “father” and he is then told what happened and eventually hooks up with Habad and becomes the Hazzan.

This entire story is not in the least bit true. First, they have letters from the Hazzan Yechiel to his (real Jewish) father. Second, in those letters he discusses his lineage so he was well aware where he came from. Third, he was never a meshumad. Instead, it seems he was the meshulach for Yeshivat Tomkhei Torah. It seems that meshulach and meshumad are close enough that people got them mixed up!? However, once the meshulach became a meshumad it was only a small leap to create an entire legend surrounding his childhood.

The full article is available here.

Additionally, it seems the niggun which the story revolves around – the one for hu’ ‘elokanu in the mussaf of Shabbat is based upon a non-Jewish one.

I have already discussed the most recent book of R. Margulies and provided a bibliography of his works, I now want to turn to a brief biography of him.

R. Margulies was born in 1889 and was known, from the time of his youth, as extremly erudite. Although he recieved ordination, he did not become a Rabbi and instead opened a bookstore in Lemberg. It is said that although his store was always full of talmidi hakhmim it was unclear if he actually sold anything. During his time in Lemberg he began publishing his own books. Many of his early books focus on hassidim. One of his early works, a biography on R. Hayyim ben Attar (Ohr haHayyim haKodesh) included comments by R. Dan Polonski, the author of the Kli Hemdah. In 1935 R. Margulies moved to Israel and became the librarian at the Rambam Library in Tel Aviv.

After moving to Israel he produced some of his most well known works. He began to focus on the Zohar literature and produced a fully annotated version of the Zohar, Zohar Hadash, Tikkunei Zohar and the Bahir. Additionally, during this time, he was involved in a controversy with Gershon Scholem over the R. Jacob Emden/R. Jonathan Eybeshuetz controversy. R. Margulies produced a pamphlet defending R. Eybeshuetz and in response Scholem produced his own disagreeing with R. Marguleis’s conclusions.

R. Margulies also produced an annotated Shulhan Orach, Nefesh Hayiah which he lists, in his typical encyclopedic manner, other books which deal with the same issues. It was this book that some in the comments to a previous post have raised questions about plagerism. The source for this accuasation comes for R. Wolf Leiter. He cites to sixty-one examples from R. Margulies’s book Nefesh Hayiah where R. Leiter notes others have said the same thing prior to R. Margulies. In fact, R. Leiter says these are just the tip of the iceberg. He says “there are hundreds of other examples which I have written on the side of my copy, there is no end I have only provided some examples.” R. Leiter’s examples include citations to articles and other books.

It is important to note, however, that R. Margulies wrote this during World War I. R. Margulies himself notes that this was written during a particular trying time “I remember the long winter nights when I was closed up, alone, lacking everything . . . I wrote and studied from the light of the oven fire, laying upon the floor.” Thus, it is a possiblity that during this time he neglected to look up everything and produced much from memory. In turn, the result may have been to include what he had seen before without attribution.

Additionally, some accuse him of plagerizing from R. Yosef Engel and R. Engel’s comments to the Zohar. I have never seen this in print (aside from the comment).

That being said, to accuse R. Margulies of not being extremely well read and very, very, erudite is wrong. If one looks to R. Yosef HaKohen Schwartz, who himself was one of the biggest bikeim of his day. He corresponded with R. Margulies and among other notes that R. Margulies’s “praises are known to all” that he is “an amazingly sharp mind.” Furhter, if one looks at his bibliography in three parts in the journal Areshet is very apparent R. Margulies’s breath of knowledge. Finally, as evidenced by the bibliography below, R. Margulies produced many, many books and if in one or two he may have been sloppy in attribution it is equally clear that the vast majority of his works he was not.

R. Margulies passed away in 1971.

Sources: Sefer Margolios, ed. Dr. Y. Refael; R. Z.W. Leiter, Tzion l’Nefesh Hayyiah no. 109; R. Y. Schwartz, Ginzei Yosef.

I recently finished reading Yitzhak Barzilay’s book on R. Manasseh of Ilya. R. Manasseh was a fascinating character. He was a student of the Vilna Goan, but wrote a pamphlet arguing for reconciliation between Hassidim and non-Hassidim. He wrote another work discussing the trop or cantilation marks and yet another, his mangum opus, on the Talmud. It is the later work that he is most well known for, although not necessarily in a positive way. The Tefferet Yisrael (R. Yisrael Lifshitz) on the Mishna quotes a brief passage from this commentary. R. Menasseh’s comments appear on the first Mishna in Perek Alu Mitzhut. (Baba Metziah 1:1). He understands the Mishna in a different fashion than the Talmud, thus provoking some to argue such a position is heritical.

R. Manasseh was a controversial figure. His book on the reconciliation, Pesher Davar, was publicly burnt. His work on Talmud, Alphei Menashe, after either the publisher or some outsider (depending on the source, there are a couple versions of the story), destroyed it right before it was completed. R. Manasseh was forced to reproduce the entire work from memory and find a different printer.

Additionally, although he had a close relationship with the Vilna Goan, the Vilna Goan severed that relationship after learning R. Manasseh had been in contact with R. Shneur Zalman of Lida (Ba’al haTanya).

All this being said, he is ripe for an excellent biography. Unfortunately, Barzilay does not deviate from his norm, and put out another poor work. Although Barzilay has written on many other interesting figures of Jewish history, almost always he fails to do anything substantive or worthwhile with the subjects.

This work is full of gross supposition that are never supported by any facts. For instance we have sentences like this “It may be assumed that in a talented person like Manasseh, his critical faculties must have awakened rather early, and already in his youth he may have arrived at some of his nonconformist views with regard to the Halakhah and its historical development.” (p. 24). Therefore, Barzilay wants to then claim and project back on Manasseh’s early years and label him as a radical even then based only upon “his critical faculties.” While that may be the case, there are also a million other possibilities. For instance, Manasseh was influenced later in life by someone else or he came to his “nonconformist views” based upon years of study and when he was 17 (according to Barzilay, again a guess) he did not hold these views.

Another example, where Barzilay is discussing Manasseh’s frequent trips to his wealthy relatives house who had a terrific library, Barzilay makes the following statement: “The role of this library in Manasseh’s life and intellectual growth cannot be overestimated . . . It may be further assumed, with a high degree of probability, that there also were to be found there the recent works of the Berlin maskilim, as well as those of the enlightened orthodox Jews from both Eastern Europe and the Germanies.” Barzilay then goes on to cite to the many subscribers of various haskalah literature as “proof” this library contained these books. There a basic problem with this argument. Since Barzilay is able to point to where these books went to as the subscriber list, lists both person and place, why then isn’t this rich relatives name ever listed if he was a collector of such works? Instead, Barzilay is satisfied to assume that the books were there as there were many haskalah books that “found [their] way among the Jews of Eastern Europe.”

These are but two examples from a book that is rife with such sloppy work. The only redeeming fact of the book is the extensive quotation from R. Manasseh’s works. As mentioned above, this is not the first book Barzilay wrote that fails miserably. He also did another biography on R. Shlomo Yehudah Rapoport (Shir), the son-in-law of the Ketzot HaChoshen and one of the leading figures of 19th century Eastern European Haskalah. This book is also disappointing.

unfortunate, the only other biography, Ben Porat Yosef, is no gem either. It was written by Mordechai Plungian an editor at the famed Romm press. This is more of an anecdotal than scholarly work. However, this work got Plungian in trouble as some claimed he attempted to make R. Manasseh into a maskil.

What is particularly strange is that a book review of Plungin’s book appeared in HaMagid. At the JNUL site, which contains old Hebrew newspapers, the version they have appears to have that portion blacked out. The review in question appeared in HaMagid on March 8, 1858.

The full citation for Barzilay’s book is Manasseh of Ilya: Precurser of Modernity Among the Jews of Eastern Europe (Manges Press, 1999).

The book The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism, edited by Rachel Elior, is available online, in its entirety, for free (see here).

The book includes articles by Elisheva Carlebach, “The Sabbatian Posture of German Jewry,” Jacob J. Schacter, “Motivations for Radical Anti-Sabbatiansim: The Case of Hakham Zevi Ashkenazi,” as well as an excellent article in Hebrew by Moshe Fogal “Sabbatianism of the book Hemdat Yamim: A New Exploration.”

Shaul Stampfer has republished a revised and expanded edition of his HaYeshiva haLita’ot b’Hitavato. The book which is devoted to three yeshivot, Volozhin, Slobodka, and Telz, as well as the Kovno kollel. The book tracks the Volozhin yeshiva from its inception to its closure and the Slobodka and Telz yeshivot until the turn of the twenteenth century.

This book was originally Stampfer’s dissertation, Shlosh Yeshivot Litayot b’Meah haTisha Asarah (1981) and was published in book format in 1995. This edition includes numerous updates as well as much new information, especially regarding the closure of Volozhin. Stampfer now argues, based upon new Russian governmental documents, which he includes Hebrew translation of, that the Yeshiva was closed due to the its own internal upheaval. This internal strife was caused by R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) attempting to install his son as Rosh haYeshiva. At Telz a similar fight broke out also regarding succession, as well as in Volozhin itself, on two separate occasion. However, the last fight caused such a rapid decline in the internal going ons of the Yeshiva, the government had it shut. The closure did not have to do with the haskala, the Russian government wanting to meddle into Jewish education or any of the other reasons offered. Instead, as has been borne out throughout Jewish history, the Jews brought it upon themselves. For example, the burning of the Talmud in France after the controversy regarding Rambam’s writings as well as the banning of the Talmud in the 16th century were caused or at least the catalyst was internal fighting amongst the Jews.

The book also debunks other theories regarding the opening of Volozhin. Some claim the R. Hayyim Volozhin ask R. Eliyahu of Vilna (Gra) and received his blessing to open the what was the first Yeshiva. Stampfer, however, questions this and notes that in the initial Kol Koreh R. Hayyim Volozhin makes no mention of this, something that would have bolstered his fundraising efforts. Second, Stampfer also proves that the opening of Volozhin was not in response to the Hassidic movement.

Aside from the above, the book is full of first hand accounts of the Yeshivot. These include, Volozhin started praying in the morning at 9 am and the prayers only ran 15-20 minutes. Stampfer qualifies this by noting haNetz haHama in Vilna (just north west of Volozhin) during the winter is 9:17 and also notes the 15-20 minutes is probably slightly exaggerated. Telz yeshiva was the first to institute grade levels in a yeshiva. Also, according to Simcha Assaf’s account, R. Lazer Gorden encouraged him to learn Russian and had his son teach Assaf in his own home. Stampfer includes much about the influence of Zionism and the haskalah on the yeshivot. All you ever wanted to know about all the infighting in the Yeshivot. The first to move to establish a kollel was R. Yitzhak Ya’akov Reines, who was highly controversial with the establishment of his yeshiva in Lida – arguably a precursor to Yeshiva University. These are only a tiny portion of the terrrific nuggets that can be found in this book.

I purchased this book at Beigeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165)

Long before Making of a Godol there was another book that contained terrific stories of Gedolim. These stories are especially refreshing in that they give a “human” look at gedolim. This book was originally published in Yiddish and subsequently portions were translated into Hebrew. The book written by Ya’akov Mark, (1857-1929) is titled Gedolim fun Unzer Tziet (or the great ones of our time). This book was first published in New York in 1927 and included a picture of the author. Mark was from Palanga, Lithuania (or Latvia depending upon how the wind is blowing). Palanga is a resort town on the Baltic Sea where many gedolim came for vacation. Mark, thus was afforded first hand contact with many of the greatest Rabbis at the end of the 19th and the turn of the 20th century. Eventually, in 1920 Mark moved to America and his book was published there.

The book is divided by type of person, namely, Rabbonim, Manhigim, ‘Askonim, and Maskilim. It includes biographies and stories about, among others, R. Y. Salanter, R. Yitzhak Elkhonon, R. Hildesheimer, Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, R. Ma’atishyau Staushun.

Mark’s work was utilized by many. R. Dov Katz in his Tenuat haMussar uses it extensively. In another work on the early ba’ali mussar, haMeorot haGedolim by R. Ha’ayyim Zaichyk, (New York, 1953) also uses Mark, especially in the section devoted to R. Y. Salanter. The use of Mark is documented in the footnotes. In the most recent reprints of haMeorot haGedolim, all footnotes that reference Mark have been removed. Of course, the publishers that reprinted haMeorot haGedolim don’t mention this, let alone offer a reason for this omission. Perhaps it was one of the following “sins” that “warranted” the exclusion of Mark from this edition. The first, he was an accountant and not a Rav. The second was that he offers a more human portrait of the persons mentioned in his book. The third is that includes “questionable” people in his book such as Saul Pinhas Rabinowitz (Shepher) or Dr. Harkavy. Again, I don’t know that these were the reasons, however, I think they are plausible although inexcusable.

In 1958, Mark’s work was partially reprinted and translated into Hebrew. The Hebrew title is b’Mihitzham shel Gedolei haDor. This edition only included the portion of the original Ra’abanim and Manhigim those in the second half of the original under ‘askanim and maskilim were not included. The publishers stated that they planned on publishing a second volume which would include those, however, it seems that never happened. The one exception was R. Ma’atishyu Staushun, who although was in the later category was included in this edition.

Either edition is worthwhile reading full of fascinating anecdotes and stories. The Yiddish is more difficult to obtain, but not impossible.