Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Litvak in 1925

Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Litvak in 1925[*]
By Shimon Szimonowitz

Dov Mayani (1903-1952)

A Static and Evolving Chag

Lag B’Omer has infiltrated Jewish culture as a bona fide holiday. While the day is celebrated throughout the Jewish world, it tends to take on added significance in Eretz Yisrael. This age-old disparity has seen a little easement, probably as a result of enhanced communication between the Promised Land and the rest of the world, but the difference is still obvious.

R. Chaim Elazar Shapira of Munkács[1] (1868-1937) states, as a point of fact, “It has been the custom for hundreds of years in the holy land, especially in Meron, to make se’udos accompanied by dancing and music on Lag B’Omer. He goes on to state that conversely, in Chutz L’Aretz, although Chasidim do make Se’udos, “to also have music and dancing as in Meron would be very bizarre[2] since it is not practiced in our lands.”[3] There is no question that a lot has changed since the publication of that Teshuva in 1922.[4]

The purpose of this article is to travel back in time and view Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Lithuanian Yeshivah student studying in the Chevron Yeshivah in 1925. By comparing his attitude to the festivities to the ones prevalent currently, we can bear witness to the evolution that Lag B’Omer has undergone outside of Eretz Yisrael in the last hundred years. At the same time, it will underscore how little it has changed in Eretz Yisrael.

On his first Lag B’Omer in Eretz Yisrael,[5] in May of 1925, Dov Mayani (1903-1952)[6] penned a letter[7] to his close friend Ari Wohlgemuth[8] who was in Europe at the time.[9] In exquisite prose,[10] Mayani vividly describes the Lag B’Omer celebration in Eretz Yisrael. One can sense surprise and even a measure of bewilderment which Mayani in turn thought he would provoke in his friend back home as well.

Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth – Ari’s father

On one hand, we see from this letter that very little has changed in almost a century regarding how Lag B’Omer is celebrated in Eretz Yisrael. On the other hand, we see how much has changed in the rest of the world. Today we are accustomed to the festivities in Meron and we see similar events taking place all over, even outside of Eretz Yisrael. What was entirely novel to a Lithuanian Yeshiva student and his German counterpart in 1925 has now become the norm in many circles.

The letter includes many other interesting and valuable tidbits of information regarding the Chevron Yeshiva,[11] but for the purpose of this article we will focus only on the portion concerning Lag B’Omer.

Presented below is a translation of said excerpt of the letter.

The letter

B’Ezras HaShem, Chevron Ir HaKodesh Tibaneh V’Sikonen, Tuesday- Behar Bechukosai

Chavivi!

[Following several handwritten pages concerning various important matters, Mayani continues…] Now I will write to you about our life [in Chevron] … Let me now go over to lighter matters.[12] Today is Lag B’Omer. Today is the day that the entire Yeshiva was desperately[13] waiting for, since they are now able to remove the mask[14] of hair which was covering their faces. You should know that here [in Eretz Yisrael] there are more stringent customs. Starting from Pesach, no man may raise a hand to touch his beard.[15] [The beard] grows and increases until it matures; the hair sprouts and there is no respite from it.[16] Picture for yourself, that even mine [=my beard] got big and wide, and I already have an idea what I will look like in the future.

Dov Mayani with his friend Yitzchak Hutner in 1928

Rabbi Dov Mayani in his later years

And now on to the topic of the fires… You should know that here there is a custom of lighting a bonfire on Lag B’Omer. And what do they do? They light a bonfire and all the people of the moshav gather next to it and they sing and dance. The source of the custom seems to be in Kabala but it used to have a different character.[17]

Lag B’Omer is the Hilula [lit. a celebration] of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the anniversary of his death. It is brought in the Zohar that his disciples would come to his grave and light candles in his memory and they would spend the day as a quasi-holiday.[18] The Mekubalim in the days of the holy Ari z”l [R. Yitzchak Luria (1534-1572)] renewed the custom and through the influence of Chasidim and their entire sect[19] it was adopted by the entire nation. It is self-understood what kind of form it has already taken on by now…

On the day [of Lag B’Omer] they gather from the entire land [Eretz Yisrael], mostly from the Chasidim, Sefardim, and the Bucharim, at the grave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai in Meron, near Tzefas, and they make a big fire and they light candles and oil; all that they can get their hands on.[20] They throw all kinds of clothes into the fire, expensive items, and notes with requests on them.[21] This custom, although opposed by many of the Gedolim, still remained strong, and the masses believe in it and in its powers[22] It used to be a Yom Tov of Chasidim and Anshei Ma’aseh, but now it has the character described above, and it is certainly not appropriate to be excited about it.

From all corners of the Land, they come with their sick children, and with the young ones which are to get a haircut for the first time[23] and the hair is then thrown into the fire etc. They break out in dances and circles.[24] In short, these festivities are celebrated with magnificence and splendor.[25]

Lighting of smaller fires is also done throughout the land. In Chevron the townspeople made a fire last night and they invited the entire Yeshiva. The Hanhala [management] of the Yeshiva itself with the Rav [Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1866-1933)] at its helm didn’t respond to the invitation at all, and declared that it totally doesn’t recognize it [= the festivities]. But many of the Yeshiva students came to see, and I[26] too was among the onlookers.

They went climbed up on to the roof after Ma’ariv and lit a large bonfire at the center and sang a Chasidic song. The students of the Yeshiva joined in spontaneously and many of them danced around the fire. It was an amazing sight, albeit a bit wild and lacking Jewish flavor. In didn’t find favor in my eyes at all, but it was interesting to watch.

Mainly it was a Chag for their children[27] who went around with fireworks[28] in their hands and with beaming and shining faces.

Analysis

[1] “…here there are more stringent customs…”

Mayani comments that in Eretz Yisroel there are more stringent customs regarding shaving during Sefirah. In HaHar Hatov (p. 49) it is suggested in a footnote that it can be deduced from this comment that in Berlin [whence Wohlgemuth hailed] they were lax regarding the customs of the Sefirah days.

I believe this to be in error. It seems that Mayani was referring to the difference in custom between Lithuania and Eretz Yisroel. In Lithuania, religious Jews refrained from shaving only from Rosh Chodesh Iyar until Lag B’Omer [18 days] and then again from Lag B’Omer until the Sh’loshes Yemei Hagbala [13 days], thus never allowing the beard to grow too long. See Aruch HaShulchan (493:6) where he confirms this to be the custom in Lithuania”.[29] In Eretz Yisrael, the Yeshiva students felt compelled to conform to the local custom which was to observe Sefirah from Pesach until Lag B’Omer. Since they couldn’t shave from Erev Pesach, it forced them to grow their beard for twice as long as they had been accustomed to in Europe.

Regarding laxity with Sefirah, R. Eliezer Brodt pointed me in the direction of a letter dated May 10, 1938, in which Ernst Guggenheim, a French Yeshiva student who traveled to study in the Yeshiva in Mir, reports “everyone has a dirty beard, but in other yeshivot, like the one in Brisk, for example, the whole Yeshiva, with the Rosh Yeshiva in the lead, shaves during this period” (Letters from Mir: A Torah World in the Shadow of the Shoah pp. 127-128). Guggenheim writes again about his beard on May 29^th (ibid p. 137) “I wear a quite gorgeous beard at this moment, six-week-old and cleaned on Lag B’Omer. It’s not simply a piece around the chin, but a collar à la Hirshler before he trimmed it. Moreover, soon I will make it disappear even though it is already popular at the Yeshiva.” See Nefesh HaRav p. 191.

[2] “Lag B’Omer is the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the anniversary of his death”

Lag B’Omer is not mentioned anywhere in the Mishnah or Talmud. An early reference to it can be found in the name of R. Zerachya HaLevi of Gerona (c. 1125-1186). Accordingly, R. Zerachya was in possession of an old Sephardic manuscript of the Talmud which alludes to the fact that Rabbi Akiva’s disciples ceased to die on that date.[30] R. Menachem HaMeiri (1249 – 1306) is probably one of the earliest sources to explicitly mention the day of Lag B’Omer. [31] Despite that fact that these Provencal sages[32] do mention this day as the end of the mourning period, they do not mention it as a reason to celebrate it in any shape or form.

There is also very little in the classical Poskim regarding the origins of Lag B’Omer. R. Moshe Isserls (1520-1572), based on Maharil, simply states that one must ‘celebrate a bit’[33] on Lag B’Omer.[34] The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) indicates that the reason for celebration is the fact that the disciples of Rabbi Akiva ceased to die on that day.[35] This would also appear to be the reason given by the Maharil. The problem is, as pointed out by R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar (1801-1881), that the reason they stopped dying is because there were none left. Why would this be a reason to celebrate?[36]

R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1635-1682) relates in the name of R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620), that someone once said Nachem [a prayer with an expression of mourning] on Lag B’Omer and was punished.[37] It would seem that this event was unrelated to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai or his place of burial. R. Aaron Alfandari (c. 1700–1774) questions this omission and points out that the reason why the man was punished is only because he said Nachem on the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and not because it was Lag B’Omer… if it was because of Lag B’Omer”.[38] R. Menachem Mendel Auerbach (1620-1689) prefaces the abovementioned story by saying that it is the custom in Eretz Yisrael to visit the graves of Rabbi Shimon and his son Rabbi Elazar on Lag B’Omer. He identifies the anonymous man mentioned by R. Gombiner as a Rabbi Avrohom HaLevi, and adds that R. Yitzchak Luria delivered a message from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai to R. Avrohom HaLevi, that the latter is going to be severely punished for saying Nachem on the day of “my happiness”.[39]

Regarding R. Alfandari’s argument that Lag B’Omer was not the reason for R. Avrohom Halevi’s punishment, but rather due to the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, R. Chaim Yosef Dovid Azulai (Chida, 1724-1806) suggests that Lag B’Omer and Hilula of Rabbi Shimon are one and the same. In other words, the source of celebration on Lag B’Omer was the fact that it was the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon. Still, R. Alfandari viewed these as mutually exclusive. In any event R. Azulai also concedes that the opposition to saying Nachem was confined to the place of Rabbi Shimon’s burial. Interestingly enough, R. Azulai ends his remarks by praising R. Gombiner’s ambiguous wording since it leads to what he sees as a positive conclusion, that one should celebrate on Lag B’Omer regardless of whether he is at the gravesite of Rabbi Shimon or not. He merely points out that the intensity of the celebration is greater near the gravesite.

Although we now know that Lag B’Omer is the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon, we are still left in the dark regarding the exact reason for celebration. The most popular explanation is the one which Mayani mentions here, that it was the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon’s death. R. Azulai mentions this possibility, but elsewhere in his writings he questions it. R. Dovid Avitan in his notes on the Birkei Yosef, argues that R. Azulai’s conclusion was that it was not the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s death. This is corroborated by a more reliable manuscript of R. Shmuel Vital’s (1598 – 1677) writings. Instead R. Azulai suggests that perhaps Lag B’Omer was the day that Rabbi Shimon began studying Torah at the feet of Rabbi Akiva.

Lag B’Omer has confounded many halachic authorities throughout the generations.[40] For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, the reader is referred to R. Eliezer Brodt’s Seforim Blog article: http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2011/05/printing-mistake-and-mysterious-origins. and for a great lecture on the subject, Professor Shnayer Leiman’s the strange history of Lag B’Omer is strongly recommended.

[3] “…at the grave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai in Meron, near Tzefas…”

It is safe to say that nowadays the name Meron garners instant recognition among most religious Jews. Yet in 1925 this was apparently not the case. Mayani felt compelled to identify Meron as being situated “near Tzefas.” The Chasam Sofer, in his teshuva about the Lag B’Omer festivities, writes that “they gather from all over in the holy city of Tzefas to celebrate the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai”.[41] Throughout the entire Teshuva he fails to mention Meron by name. While it is true that in those days they would gather from all over the Land and converge in Tzefas and then go on to Meron, as recorded by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kaminetz (1800-1873) in his Koros Ha’itim, it is still noteworthy that the Chasam Sofer does not mention the name of the town. When discussing the custom of gathering in Meron on Lag B’Omer, R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar also feels a need to add that this takes place in the village Meron “which is near Tzefas”.[42]

[4] “They throw all kinds of clothes into the fire, expensive items… opposed by many of the Gedolim…”

The custom of throwing expensive clothes into the fire in honor of Rabbi Shimon is well documented. One of the earliest descriptions available is found in a letter written by a student of R. Chaim Ben-Attar (1696-1743) in which he writes that R. Chaim went to Meron the day after Purim of 1742 and “lit many clothes” in honor of the Tanna.[43] R. Menachem Mendel of Kaminetz (1800-1873) is an early eyewitness who describes how this was practiced on Lag B’Omer itself. He relates that they would sell the honor of igniting the fire for a large sum of money and the one who bought it would take a large scarf in good wearing condition, light it, and throw it into a bowl of oil. Additional historical accounts of burning clothes are compiled in the introduction to the 2011 edition of R. Shmuel Heller’s Kevod Malachim.

This custom merited the ire of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1808–1875). In a Teshuva concerning an event that took place in 1842, R. Nathanson writes that he has a lot to say about the custom of burning clothing in honor of Rabbi Shimon on Lag B’Omer. He maintains that “they are transgressing the prohibition against wasting[44] and are engaging in superstitious practices[45] which are forbidden”. He adds that this custom was obviously not practiced in the days of the Ari z”l and he is certain that R. Yosef Karo would not have allowed it. R. Nathanson ends off by saying that he guarantees that if they were to take all that money [wasted on the burning of clothes] and use it to support the poor of Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would derive much more pleasure from it.[46] These very sentiments are also expressed by the Sephardic Rishon L’Tzion, R. Rafael Yosef Chazan (c.1741 – 1820).[47]

In 1874 the Chief Rabbi of Tzefas, R. Shmuel Heller (1803-1884), authored a pamphlet named Kevod Malachim, in which he vehemently defended this practice and thereby encouraged its continuation despite of the abovementioned opposition. For a more comprehensive treatment of this fascinating subject, the reader is referred to Prof. Daniel Sperber’s Minhagei Yisroel vol. 8 pp. 72-83.

It is also possible that Mayani was referring to the Teshuva of R. Moshe Sofer (1762–1839) in which he takes issue in general with the festivities in Meron. According to R. Moshe Sofer, turning a day on which no miracle occurred into a Chag, constitutes a transgression of the commandment against adding to the Torah.[48] Allusion to the lighting of the fires is treated with similar disapproval.[49]

Kever of Rabbi Shmuel Heller

[5] “It used to be a Yom Tov of Chasidim and Anshei Ma’aseh…”

Mayani obviously did some research on Lag B’Omer. In a letter dated April 25, more than a week before Lag B’Omer, he writes:

Here in the Land, Lag B’Omer, the anniversary of the death of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and many of his disciples, is a great Chag for the people of the Yishuv. Originally it was [intended] only for the Talmidim and people of a high caliber, but now ‘that there are scarcely any men of high caliber and there is an influx of big-mouths and strongmen’, it has lost it pure character. I heard from people in Jerusalem that very few of the very pious[50] visit the village of Meron on that day.[51]

This sentiment that Lag B’Omer used to be celebrated in a more spiritual manner in earlier times is found in some other sources as well. Among others, R. Nathanson (שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט) argues that in all probability back in the days of the Ari z”l, they would only learn by the graveside of Rabbi Shimon and recite prayers so that he should awaken the mercy of Heaven.

[6] “…sang a Chasidic song…”

From his letter one gets the sense that Mayani was a bit prejudiced against chasidim as was typical of a Lithuanian Misnaged. This happens to be far from the truth. On his farewell trip leaving Europe he stayed by a Chasid who was an Agudah leader and in addition to discussing with him Torah topics, Dov Mayani learned many Modzhitzer Nigunim during his stay. According to his daughter this encounter made a deep impression on Mayani’s musical style.[52] She also says that in general her father had an affinity toward Chasidus.[53]

Nevertheless, Mayani can be critical at times of what he called a “Chasid Shoteh”. In a letter describing his fellow passengers on the boat trip to Eretz Yisrael, Mayani describes a Belzer Chasid whose entire Judaism was encompassed in his sidelocks, his beard, his long gabardine, despised Lithuanians, and minimized interaction with any other kind of people (תמצא לו החברה חסיד בלזאי שוטה, אשר כל יהדותו בפאותיו וזקנו וקפוטתו תלויות, ושונא הליטווקים תכלית שנאה וממעט מכל שיח ושיג עם אנשים אחרים.). On the other hand, in that same letter, he describes a Chasid of Chabad in glowing terms, as someone he considers to be a Lamdan and an important man… (גם חסיד ליטאי, מחסידי חב”ד איש למדן וחשוב בעירתו אשר ירד מגדולתו ועשרו לרגל המלחמה ובעוד כוחו עמו עולה לארץ ללמד בה ולהאחז בה).

Later in his life he came even closer to Chasidus. His daughter Rivka states that despite his Lithuanian upbringing and education, her father possessed a Chasidic soul.[54] He especially appreciated the emphasis placed on music. In his later years, he became close to some Chasidic leaders such as R. Yisrael Alter (1895-1977) and R. Simcha Bunim Alter (1898-1992). He was even asked by the latter to deliver sermons in the Gerrer Yeshiva in Tel Aviv in 1941. He also forged a close relationship with R. Chaim Meir Hager of Viznitz (1887-1972) and Reb Arele Roth of Jerusalem (1894-1947), and even prayed with a Gartel given to him by R. Hager.[55]

[*] I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Shlomo Tikochinsky (See note below) and my friend Eliezer Brodt for providing me with important sources for this article. A tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to my mother for spending her precious time editing this article. I also need to mention my friends R. Eli Reisman and Binyamin Steinfeld for reviewing this document and offering insightful edits that have been incorporated in the final version. Many thanks also go to R. Shaul Goldman for reviewing it and contributing to its style and final form.
[1] חלק ג סימן ס
[2] “כזרות יחשב”
[3] “כיון שזהו אינו נוהג פה במדינתנו”
[4] Here the present Munkatcher Rebbe can be seen lighting a Lag B’omer fire and dancing in front of it. This is a clear deviation from the teshuva of his Grandfather, the Minchas Elazar. While one can be sure that he found good reason to institute the change, for our purposes this observation helps document the evolution of the Chag.

The same change has recently been observed in Satmar. The present Satmar Rebbe of Monroe is on record for having once spoken out against bonfires on Lag B’omer in Chutz La’aretz, saying that they are against the custom, yet he later reversed himself and instituted perhaps the biggest bonfire festivity outside of Eretz Yisroel. See here for more details and for a link to his original speech against bonfires. See also חידושי תורה מהר”א ט”ב תשס”א אמור/ל”ג בעומר p. 194 where the Rebbe writes:

וזה הענין מה שנוהגין גם בחוץ לארץ להדליק נרות ומאורות בלילה הזה…

[5] He arrived in Eretz Yisrael on the tenth day of Shevat 5685 (February 4^th 1925).
[6] He was born Dov Karikstansky. In Yeshiva, he was nicknamed ‘Berel Grodner’ after his hometown Grodno. Shortly after arriving in Eretz Yisrael he Hebraized his surname to Mayani. See אעברה נא p. 71 for the story behind the name change.[7] The letter was transcribed in its original Hebrew and published by his daughter Rivka Monowitz in the digital supplement to her אעברה נא, called ההר הטוב. The letter begins on p. 46 of ההר הטוב. Pictures of the original letter were supplied to me by Professor Shlomo Tikochinsky who transcribed the letters published in ההר הטוב. Almost the entire portion of the letter presented here also appears in the original Hebrew in Tikochinsky’s latest and most fascinating book, למדנות מוסר ואליטיזם p. 243. Prof. Tikochinsky was also kind enough to supply me with the pictures of Dov Mayani.
[7] Ari studied together with Dov at the Slobodka Yeshiva in Europe. Later they studied together at the Berlin seminary where they both became attached to the legendary Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Ari was from Berlin, where his father Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth served as a professor of Talmud and Jewish philosophy at the Rabbinical Seminary. The younger Wohlgemuth was constantly struggling to reconcile his “Yekkeshe” upbringing with his Eastern European Lithuanian Mussar education. In this matter Dov and Ari were soulmates who worked together to synthesize these two different worlds. (See אעברה נא p. 127)
[8] Ari studied together with Dov at the Slobodka Yeshiva in Europe. Later they studied together at the Berlin seminary where they both became attached to the legendary Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Ari was from Berlin, where his father Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth served as a professor of Talmud and Jewish philosophy at the Rabbinical Seminary. The younger Wohlgemuth was constantly struggling to reconcile his “Yekkeshe” upbringing with his Eastern European Lithuanian Mussar education. In this matter Dov and Ari were soulmates who worked together to synthesize these two different worlds. (See אעברה נא p. 127)
[9] We can assume that Ari was in his native Germany at the time. One can also glean this information from the last few lines of this letter. Dov writes to Ari that he and another student at the Yeshiva were debating whether Graetz’ book ‘Geschichte der Juden’ [History of the Jews] begins with the Exodus or only after Joshua conquered Eretz Yisroel. Dov says that he remembers reading a half a year ago in a Russian translation of the book about the Exodus, but his friend insists that the book only begins after they entered Eretz Yisroel. He asks Ari to take a look at the book and let him know who is right. It would seem that since Ari was in Berlin he was in the position to easily look up the answer.

For the benefit of the curious reader, it is worth noting that there was merit to both sides of the argument. Graetz begins with the crossing of the Jordan, but then goes back to describe the Exodus. See here.
[10] The letter was written in beautiful Hebrew. It is quite amazing that a Yeshiva student in 1925 mastered Modern Hebrew. See אעברה נא p. 34 for a discussion regarding how Mayani mastered the relatively new language.
[11] There are many interesting parts to the letter, but it is worth mentioning in particular Mayani’s description of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer’s (1870 – 1953) visit to the yeshivah. Rav Isser Zalman was a brother-in-law of the Slobodka Rav and Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein. Mayani writes that Rav Isser Zalman came to spend the weekend in the city of Chevron to which his brother-in-law had just relocated from Slobodka. He describes an exciting shiur which Rav Isser Zalman delivered on Sunday. He adds that Rav Isser Zalman is a more outstanding Magid Shiur [ר”מ יותר מצויין] than his brother-in-law Rav Moshe Mordechai. He also praises Rav Isser Zalman’s personality by noting that he is a very gentle sweet person with a young spirit which draws his students. Mayani also shares that Rav Isser Zalman had a Yahrtzeit and davened all the Tefillos for the Amud. One cannot help but smile while reading that the musical Mayani admits that he “begrudgingly” (בדיעבד שבעתי מזה רב רצון) immensely enjoyed Rav Isser Zalman’s davening.
[12]Earlier in the letter Mayani tells Wohlgemuth about how he spent the “יום הזכרון” dedicated in memory of their joint Rebbe, the legendary Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. In spite of the fact that the Alter of Slobodka had an unspoken agreement with Rav Avraham Eliyahu that the latter was not to attract Slobodka students to the Berlin Seminary, Mayani was attracted to R. Kaplan when he visited Slobodka and subsequently joined R. Kaplan in Berlin. This went against the Alter’s view that the Seminary was only for German-born students who grew up with a “Torah im Derech Eretz” upbringing. See אעברה נא p. 45.
[13] “בכיליון עיניים”
[14] “מעטה”
[15] “לנגוע בזקנו”
[16]

Utilizing a clever play on the words of the prophet Yechezkel (16:7), Mayani writes:

“ויגדלו וירבו ויבואו בעדי עדים, השער צמח ואין נגדו עזרה”

[17] “ואף צביון לגמרי אחר היה לו”
[18] “ומא דפגרא”
[19] כת was a derogatory term used by Misnagdim when referring to Chasidim.
[20] “ל אשר ידם מגעת”
[21] “ופתקאות בקשה”
[22] “סגולות”
[23] This custom has many sources and is beyond the scope of this article.
[24] “מחול”
[25] “פאר והדר”
[26] “אני הקטן”
[27] In many sources, Lag B’Omer is described as a day focused on children. Among others see Minhagim of Worms (מנהגי וורמיישא ח”א אות צה וח”ב עמוד קע”ה) were it is described as a relaxed day in which the teachers provide their students with goodies.
[28] In the source, it says אבוקות קטנות – “Feuerwerke”. In HaHar Hatov it is mistakenly transcribed as “Feueraserke”.
[29] וכן המנהג שלנו.
[30] See Sefer HaManhig הלכות אירוסין ונישואין סימן קו.
[31] בית הבחירה יבמות סב, ב וע”ע תשב”ץ חלק א סימן קעח.
[32] R. Zerachya, Me’iri, Sefer Hamanhig were all from the Province. See also Kaftor V’Ferach (פרק ז עוד בענין טבריה) where another Provincial sage mentions Lag B’omer as the end of the mourning period.
[33] מרבים קצת שמחה ואין אומרים תחנון.
[34] רמ”א סימן תצג סעיף ב.
[35] ביאור הגר”א שם ד”ה ומרבים.
[36] שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד.
[37] מגן אברהם שם סעיף ב.
[38] יד אהרן שם.
[39] עטרת זקנים שם.
[40] R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט) questions why one would celebrate the anniversary of a Tanna’s death. He points out that on the anniversary of Moshe Rabbeinu’s death on the seventh of Adar it is customary to fast, so why would we celebrate on the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon’s death:

תמהתי דהרי אדרבא במות צדיק וחכם יש להתענות ואנו מתענין על מיתת צדיקים ואיך נעשה יום טוב במות רבינו הגדול רשב”י ז”ל ובמות מבחר היצורים משה רבינו ע”ה אנו עושין ז’ אדר בכל שנה ואם הזוהר קרא הלולא דרשב”י היינו לו שבודאי שמחה לו שהלך למנוחה אבל אותנו עזב לאנחה.

R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar (שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד) penned a responsum in which he criticized the “newfangled” custom of turning a Yahrtzeit into a day of celebration. He insinuates that the Chasidim are responsible for what he sees as a deviation, and he chastised them for doing so:

בימים ההם ובזמן הזה החלו בני עמנו במקצת מחוזות, כמו וואלין פאדליא אוקריינא ועוד, לשלוח ידם במנהגים שנהגו בהם אבותינו ואבות אבותינו מעולם.. ועתה באתי לדבר על מה שכתב הרמ”א ביורה דעה ס”ס ת”ב בשם הרבה פוסקים קדמונים שמצוה להתענות יום שמת בו אביו או אמו… ומשנים קדמוניות נהגו כן כל מדינתנו והוא מנהג וותיקין שנתיסד מקדמונים ואין אדם רשאי לבטלו אם לא ע”פ אונס.

R. Balchubar writes that the Chasidim bring proof from the celebrations on Lag B’Omer that a Yartzeit is a cause for celebration. As can be expected he rejects their claim, by saying that it is not the reason why we celebrate Lag B’Omer:

ואומרים כי חלילה להתענות ביום מיתת הצדיק רק מצוה להרבות בשמחה וראייתם ממה שמרבים בשמחה בל”ג בעומר על קרב הצדיק בוצינא קדישא רשב”י כידוע שמתאספים שמה מכל הארצות ומדליקים שם הדלקות ומאורות רבות וששים ושמחים במקום מנוחתו בכפר מירון הסמוך לצפת. ואומרים בתר רשב”י אנן גררינן וממנו אנו לומדים לעשות כן להצדיקים האלה הקדושים אשר בארץ. ומה שנהגו עד כה להתענות ולהתאבל ביום זה, הוא נתקן רק לפני אנשי ההמון ואנשים פשוטים אשר צריכים להתאבל במיתתם, לא הצדיקים והחסידים המפורסמים אז הוא יום שמחתם כידוע מהמעשה בכתבים ובמגן אברהם וכו’ ומזה נתפשט המנהג הרע הזה כמעט בכל האנשים כי כל אחד יאמר אבי היה צדיק וחסיד וכו’ וכדי לבטל פטפוט דבריהם ושיחה בטלה שלהם נגד תורה שלמה שלנו…

After rejecting the possibility that a Yahrtzeit is a reason for celebrating, R. Balchubar continues with a lengthy discussion regarding the cause for celebration on Lag B’omer.
[41] שו”ת חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רגל
[42] שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד
[43] אגרות ותשובות רבינו חיים בן עטר אגרת ז’
[44] בל תשחית
[45] דרכי אמורי
[46] שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט
[47] חקרי לב מהדורה בתרא יורה דעה סימן יא
[48] בל תוסיף
[49] שו”ת חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רגל
[50] היראים
[51] ההר הטוב עמ’ 43-44.
[52] אעברה נא עמ’ 58
[53] שם עמ’ 63
[54] היה בעל נשמה חסידית
[55] אעברה נא עמ’ 262-263

The 1908 Student Strike at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary: A Newly Discovered Document

The 1908 Student Strike at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological
Seminary: A Newly Discovered Document

By Eli Genauer

I would like to thank Dr Zev Eleff for his invaluable assistance in helping me frame this article. I would also like to thank Sharon Horowitz of the Library of Congress for providing research assistance.

The Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), present day Yeshiva University, was officially founded on March 20, 1897. RIETS was the first unequivocally Orthodox Jewish seminary on American soil. Initially, its mission was entirely religious, limited “to promote the study of the Talmud and to assist in educating and preparing students of the Hebrew faith for the Hebrew Orthodox Ministry.”[1] RIETS’ first years were difficult ones. It did not move into a building of its own until 1904.[2] Additionally, RIETS faced difficulty meeting its financial obligations. including a student stipend. As a result, in 1906, RIET’s was beset by a major student strike. Among the student’s demands was that RIETS expand its mission beyond religious education and they demanded that they be instructed in secular subjects, including learning English.[3] While that strike was settled, another student strike and a lockout occurred over similar issues in May 1908. The strike was ended when changes were promised by the board of directors. Yet, that settlement proved fleeting.

By August 1908, the students were striking again. The students’ strike received notice from the national press, when on August 19th,
the New York Times reported:[4]

the Talmuds are lying idle on the shelves of the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Theological Seminary at 156 Henry Street, and the drone of the voices
of the students as they walked back and forth reading aloud from the Hebrew
text is heard no more. For the last few weeks the students have not received
the $3.50 a week which they are paid while they are learning to become Rabbis.
Consequently, they have gone out on strike. Boruch Shapiro, Louis Mahler and
Samuel Broida, the leaders of the demonstration, stationed themselves at the
door of the school yesterday and effectively blockaded the entrance of all the
smaller boys. Nathan Lamport of the Lamport Manufacturing Supply Company, at
278 Canal Street, president of the school, and David Abramowitz of 47 Forsyth
Street, the Secretary, do not know what to do.[5]

On August 20th, citing financial reasons, the board locked out the students and
closed the school.[6] As a result of the closure of the school by the board of directors, some of the students and some Rabbinic leaders tried to form a new school called Yeshiva le-’Rabbanim which was designed to address some of the deficiencies of RIETS.[7]

Although the closure of the RIETS has been documented, the August 1908 student strike that led to the closure is not reflected in any published histories discussing the unilateral closing of the school and lockout of the students by the board ofdirectors on August 20th.[8]

One of the difficulties in piecing together exactly what happened during that August 1908 strike, lockout and its immediate aftermath is the dearth of contemporary records. This lacuna is in part attributable to a general lack of documntation of REITS’ early years. And, “there are no records extant of the Seminary from its inception in 1897 to its merger with Yeshivat Etz Chaim in 1915. Only the Certificate of Incorporation, scattered newspaper accounts, one or two contemporary citations, and passing references in the memoir literature of the time remain as silent witnesses to the great vision and determination of a few men who…created the first Orthodox rabbinical seminary in America.”[9] As an example, in reporting on the August 1908 closure of the school by the board of directors and its aftermath, one scholar quotes mainly from newspaper accounts of the day.[10] There was an important memoir of that period written by Hayim Reuben Rabinowitz, who was an 18 year old student at the time, but Rabinowitz published his account 60 years later.[11]

Recently, however, a contemporaneous account of the events of 1908 has come to light. This account was discovered as a result of construction at Congregation Bikur Cholim Machzikay Hadath in Seattle, Washington, when workers came upon a box of papers labeled, “Rabbi B. Shapiro Papers, 1920s-1960’s.” Rabbi Boruch Shapiro (1883-1970) was born in Szmorgon, Lithuania and was recognized as a Talmudic genius (Iluy) at an early age.[12] He was a student of, and received ordination from, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, (Or Sameakh), one of the outstanding rabbinic leaders of his time.[13] While in Dvinsk, R. Shapiro also received ordination from Rabbi Joseph Rozin, known as the “Rogatchover Gaon”.[14] R. Shapiro immigrated to America in the early 1900’s and visited Seattle in 1913 on a fundraising trip. His visit became permanent when he ended up marrying a local woman, Hinda Gershonowitz and remained in Seattle until his passing in 1970. Rabbi Shapiro is perhaps best remembered as the Rav of Congregation Machzikay Hadath in Seattle, a position he held for forty years.

Before arriving in Seattle and shortly after arriving in America, Rabbi Shapiro studied at RIETS. Because he already possessed rabbinic ordination, he was considered in a special class of students, receiving a higher weekly stipend than most others who studied there. [15] He was sent by the school to give lectures at a synagogue in Brooklyn during the Sukkot holiday of 1905 as an example of the quality of students that were studying in the yeshiva.[16]

The box of papers discovered contains Rabbi Shapiro’s account of the events surrounding the student strike in August 1908, and the subsequent founding of the Yeshiva Le’Rabbanim. The account was written on October 7th, 1908 and covers the period from August 20 until that time. Because Rabbi Shapiro was one of the three student leaders of the strike, his account is particularly relevant to filling in the picture of the details of the August 1908 RIETS student strike.[17] Rabbi Shapiro’s writings, it should be noted, reflect that he and his fellow students had been involved in a struggle with, in his view, a dysfunctional and stubborn board of directors for over two years.[18]

Rabbi Shapiro records that:

On Thursday night, 24 Av 5668(20 August 1908), the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Yeshiva was closed in a very unseemly fashion. Mr. [Jonathan] Shepp,
the treasurer of the Yeshiva called the police several times to evict the
yeshiva students from the building in which they learned.[19]
But despite all his efforts, the police declined to do harm to the students.
They remained there despite his displeasure until midnight and at that time
they left for their residences.”[20]

After the students of the Yeshiva had concluded that there was no
hope to improve both the physical and spiritual conditions of the Yeshiva due
to the obduracy of the leaders whose concern was only for themselves, the
students decided to separate from the above named Yeshiva and move to “Adas Bnei
Yisroel” at 213 East Broadway, which welcomed them with open arms.[21] On
28Av (25 August-1908), the students of the Yeshiva moved their place of Torah
study to the above mentioned address in the company of well-known rabbis, such
as Rabbi [Shalom Elchanan] Jaffee[22],
Rabbi [Chaim Sholom] Shoher[23],Rabbi
[Aaron] Gordon [24],
and others, who had gathered there to guide them. After much discussion, it was
decided that the yeshiva students would study temporarily in Adas Bnei Yisroel,
and that they would acquire a charter. So that the leaders of Yeshiva Rabbeinu
Yitzchak Elchanan would not collect money in their name, they decided that this
yeshiva would be called “Yeshiva L’Rabanim”. Similarly, they decided to send
out boxes to collect members and to try to establish this yeshiva on a proper
foundation.

From 28 Av 5668 until 12 Tishrei 5669, three meetings of well-known
rabbis and prominent lay leaders were held. At the second meeting, an interim
leadership team for Yeshiva L’Rabanim was chosen: Rabbi Jaffe, chairman; Rabbi
Shoher vice chairman and treasurer; Rabbi [Joseph Judah Leib] Sossnitz,
administrator;[25]
Rabbi Dr. Rabinowitz from Brooklyn, administrator; Rabbi [Judah Leib] Lazeroff,
administrator,[26]
and others. The job of developing a “program” both in religious and secular
studies for this yeshiva was also assigned to the above leaders.

Even before the closure of the Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan, the
physical situation of the students was very bad because for seven weeks prior
to the closure, all they received was a half a kilogram of bread per week.
However, the situation since they left the Yeshiva until now was much worse,
and the poverty and embarrassment they suffered is difficult to describe. Many
of them could have found other means of support, but because of their love of
Torah, they accepted their lot and did not abandon Torah study with which they
had been engaged their entire lives.

Many Rabbis, in writing, speech and action, promised to help. From
all the promises very little materialized, aside from Rabbi Lazaroff, who had
spoken up a few times in his synagogue on behalf of the Yeshiva. He assembled a
worthy number of members from whom he collected funds. The prominent Mr.
[Abraham J.] Goldstein and his brother-in-law, Mr. [P.] Feinberg from Jersey
City came to the assistance of the Yeshiva in the beginning. [27]With
the help of other prominent members of their congregation who worked alongside
their honored Rabbi [Shlomo David] Posner, that synagogue supported the yeshiva
a bit.[28]

To describe in detail all the problems faced by this new endeavor
and the stumbling blocks that were placed in front of this new Yeshiva from the
beginning until now would amount to an entire book. The task was difficult and
the conflict with the administration of the Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
weighed heavily on us. Many did not want to support the students of the Yeshiva
since they saw that the “Morgen Journal” had “sold out” to those above
mentioned administrators to do their bidding. They also felt that the “Tageblatt”
was leaning in the direction of those administrators, and not on the side of
the Yeshiva L’Rabanim. Many rabbis knew and admitted that the yeshiva students
were right, but kept silent due to fear. So much so, even those who had joined
the new Yeshiva were not really able to help it.

The primary laborers on behalf of the new Yeshiva were the students
themselves and especially a student council that was chosen from among them to
lead the struggle. The five members of this council were Mr. A.[vraham]
Shapira, Mr.[Ben Zion] Perl, Mr. [Chaim Yechezkel] Mosesohn, Mr. [H.S.] Linfeld
and Mr. B.[aruch] Shapira who was the leader.[29]
The politics were so intense that oftentimes those in the Yeshiva did not
confide in their fellow students for fear that they were supporting the other
side. The council worked diligently with the three main activists, Rabbi B.
Shapira, Rabbi A. Shapira, and Rabbi Perl who were most instrumental. They abandoned all their other pursuits such
as attending “Preparatory School,” working day and night to battle with the
administration of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Isaac Elchanan. Nothing was too difficult for them or beneath
their dignity. Their physical situation was worse than the conditions of other
students, as they had no other means of sustenance and they also received a
more meager stipend compared to what they had been entitled to. They suffered
immensely during this time. They knew that they were making great sacrifices
and losing precious time. Nevertheless, they did not consider their own
personal situations so that they could help establish this new Yeshiva on a
proper foundation. There were times that matters grew so bad that many of the
yeshiva students echoed the complaints of the Jews in the desert: they wanted
to return to their previous Yeshiva, but thanks to many of the yeshiva students
and the student council, especially Rabbi B. Shapira, these complaints were set
aside and it allowed the Yeshiva to attain the status it claims today. The
result of what has been done so far is small compared to what needs to be
completed. Nevertheless, laying the foundation, which was the most difficult to
accomplish, has been done. More effort is required to establish this Yeshiva on
a firm foundation and to transform it into an excellent school that will train
great rabbis in Torah, wisdom, fear of Heaven; who will work within the spirit
of ancient Israel and the spirit of this new generation; and who will unite
both old and young, thereby bring blessing to our people, our Torah and our
holy faith.”

In the end, Yeshiva Le-Rabbanim did not exist for very long because it never had substantial financial backing and support from the general community.[30] The attempt to form an alternative yeshiva apparently did not deter some of the student dissidents to return to RIETS. In 1917, in a RIETS publication, Rabbi Baruch Shapiro and his brother Rabbi Abraham Shapiro along with Rabbi Ben Zion Perl are listed among those ordained by RIETS now serving as rabbis in America.[31] Even more curious, the strike leader Rabbi Baruch Shapiro went on a fundraising tour in 1917 to raise money for the Rabbinical College of America, one of whose components was RIETS.[32]

The strike’s impact, however, on one of the most important future leaders of RIETS and Yeshiva University was profound. Chaim Rabinowitz wrote “The strikes stimulated the mind of a young Rabbi who had recently arrived in America. This young Rav was Rabbi Dov Revel.” Rabinowitz cites a letter that Dr. Revel wrote to Rabbi Zvi Masliansky in the spring of 1908, where he grieves about the turmoil in RIETS that Rabbi Masliansky had told him about and hopes for better days for the Yeshiva. Rabinowitz concludes “the dream of Rabbi Revel came to fruition in 1915 when he became the Rosh Hayeshiva…and instituted great changes in the order of studies.”[33]

Here is a sample page of the document:

[1]
“Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association Certificate of
Incorporation,” March 20, 1897, (quoted in Gilbert Klaperman, “Yeshiva
University: Seventy-Five Years in
Retrospect,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 54,1 (September,
1964), 6). William Helmreich, however, states that teaching “the language of
the land” and Talmud was articulated in the RIETS charter, and, as such, “the
first such mention of combining secular and religious studies in one
institution.” William B. Helmreich, “Old
Wine in New Bottles: Advanced Yeshivot
in the United States,” American Jewish History, 69, 2 (December 1979),
235. But, the 1897 certificate does not
mention “language of the land,” and Helmreich’s assertion is without
citation.

[2]
Gilbert Klaperman, The Story of Yeshiva University: The First Jewish
University in America (New York: Macmillan, 1969) 71-72.

[3]Alexander
Dushkin, Jewish Education in New York City (New York: Bureau of Jewish
Education, 1918), 77-78.

[4]
“Boys Go On Strike,” New York Times, August 19, 1908.

[5] The Times
report may have been the result of the RIETS’ students, who, to gain
sympathy to their cause alerted it to the unrest. See Klaperman, Story,
95

[6] The
most complete report on the student unrest from 1906-1908 can be found in Klaperman,
Story, 94-112.

According
to Rabbi Klaperman, the closure and lockout on August 20th was
reported by the Jewish Morning Journal on Friday August 21st,
1908 and the Judisches Tageblatt on Sunday August 23, 1908. Idem.
217n8.

[7] Gurock,
Men and Women, 40; Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553; and Klaperman, Story,
118.

[8] There
are three discussions regarding the closure of RIETS on Thursday, August 20th,
1908

See Klaperman, Story, 111-12. There is no mention of a
strike immediately preceding the board’s action. Rabbi Klaperman does not cite
the Times article in any of his footnotes. Additionally, in footnote 21,
p.218, he writes that there was no clear picture of presidential succession of
RIETS between February 1906 and fall of 1908, despite an indication in the NY
Times article that Nathan Lamport was the president of the school in August of
1908.

The
second is Hayim R Rabinowitz’s recollections that appeared in Hadoar in
1968. Hayim R. Rabinowitz, “60 Shana le-Shvitot be-Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchok Elchanan,”
Hadoar, June 14, 1968, 552-554. In 1908, Rabinowitz was an
eighteen-year-old student at RIETS, and writes at length regarding the
situation leading up to the closing of the school on August 20th,
with the resultant lockout of the students from the building at 156 Henry
Street, but does not mention that the students had been on strike immediately
preceding this event. Although Rabinowitz was a contemporaneous observer, his
reminiscences were only published sixty years after the events in question.

The third discussion is by Jeffrey Gurock. Jeffrey Gurock, The Men and Women of
Yeshiva: Higher Education, Orthodoxy, and America Judaism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) 39-40. Citing
Rabinowitz, p.553, he writes “Frustrated, feeling that a double cross was in
the making, RIETS students were once again talking strike in the late spring
and early summer of 1908.” Gurock, however, does not mention that a strike and
blockade of the building took place in August as indicated by the headline of
the New York Times and in the subsequent article.

[9] Klaperman,
Story, 48.

[10] Idem, 217-19.

[11]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 552-554, quoted extensively in Gurock, Men and Women,39-41.

[12] The
Jewish American Family Magazine and Gazette (Amerikaner Familian Magazin un
Gazetten), vol. XXXIX, no. 47, September 19, 1941, 2.

[13]
Rabbi Meir Simcha was the author of “Ohr Sameach”, an important commentary on
Maimonides’ “Mishna Torah”, and of “Meshech Chochmah”, a commentary on the
Torah. Rabbi Meier Simcha wrote of Rabbi Boruch Shapiro “he has the ability to
formulate outstanding novella acceptable to all”. The Jewish American Family,
2.

[14]
Prior to coming to America, Rabbi Shapiro obtained letters of support from two
other leading rabbinic figures in eastern Europe, Rabbi David Hirsch Eisenstein
and Rabbi Shlomo Vilner. The Jewish American,2. Rabbi Vilner wrote that
he never gives ordination to one so young, but in the case of Rabbi Shapiro, he
was willing to make an exception.

[15]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553. Rabinowitz
also refers to Rabbi Shapiro as a “Gadol B’Torah”

[16] Klaperman,
Story, 62.

[17] The
New York Times article identifies him as one of the three student strike
leaders. See also, Rabinowitz, p.553 As early as 1906, R. Shapiro held a
leadership role. He was among the four
students chosen to represent the students’ views before RIETS’ board of directors. Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553; The Jewish American,
2, which states that Rabbi Shapiro was chosen as a representative by the
students in dealing with the board.

[18] Regarding
the student’s relationship with the board of directors, Klaperman describes an interaction
between the students and the directors as follows: “The student’s
dissatisfaction and the obduracy of the directors brought about continuous
agitation in the school and highlighted the confusion of aims in the
curriculum” Klaperman, Story, 86.

[19] Klaperman,
Story,99 writes that in 1906, Jonathan Shepp was elected as the new
treasurer, and that Jonathan Shepp was part of the finance committee appointed
on August 31, 1908 to assist in reopening the school after it was closed on
August 20. Klaperman, Story, 99, 113.

[20] Gurock
indicates that the treasurer threatened to call the police, but that in fact
the police were never called. Gurock, Men
and Women, 40 (citing Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553).

[21]
Regarding the address of the building to which the students moved, Rabbi
Shapiro was physically at this new address so it is reasonable to assume that
he recorded it correctly. Additionally, on June 3, 2015, there was an auction
of documents associated with the newly founded Yeshiva La-Rabbanim (Kedem
Auction No.8, Lot 301). One of the documents evidences a stamp which says 213
East Broadway. Rabbi Klaperman lists the address
as 123 East Broadway. Klaperman, Story,
116, 219n38.

[22] Rabbi
Shalom Elchanan Jaffe (1858-1923) was an important early American Orthodox
Rabbi. He received Semicha from both Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and Rabbi
Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor. He arrived in America in 1890 and served as a Rav in
St Louis and in Brooklyn before becoming the Rabbi in 1901 of the prestigious
Beth Midrash Hagadol synagogue on the Lower East Side of New York. He was one
of the most influential of Rabbis at the time, especially when it came to the
supervision of kosher meat. Jaffe’s motivations for his involvement with this breakaway
school, may have less to do with issues than his personality. According to Klaperman, Jaffe was not one
wedded to the idea of secular education, one of the central demands of the
students. “On the other hand, Rabbi Jaffe was the stormy petrel on the rabbinic
scene, known as an impetuous non conformist who rushed in without fear when his
mind was made up.” Klaperman, Story, 117.

[23] Rabbi
Chaim Sholom Shochar (Rabbi H.S. Shoher) came to Boston in 1882 to be the Rabbi
of Bais Avraham synagogue and subsequently served as the Rabbi of Hadrath
Israel and Mishkan Tefillah among other synagogues in Boston. In 1905, he moved
to New York City to become the Rabbi of the prestigious Shaare Zedek synagogue
located at 38-40 Henry Street. In 1910, he is listed as living at 215 East
Broadway, next door to the location of Yeshiva Le-Rabbanim. He authored a
pro-Zionist book Shalom Yerushalyim in 1909 and passed away in 1918.

[24] Rabbi
Aaron Gordon (1845- 1922) known as the Miadziol (Myadel) Iluy, emigrated to
America in 1890 and was the chief Rabbi of Rochester, New York until 1900 when
he moved to New York City. He was one of the founders of the Agudath Harabanim
and served as head of a Bet Din on the lower east side. He served as the Rabbi
of Congregation Talmud Torah Tiphereth Jerusalem at 147 East Broadway. He was a
prolific writer, authoring many books on Halacha, among them Even Meir
(Pietrokov 1909), Teshuvat Meleat Even (Pietrokov 1912), Minchat Aharon
(Jerusalem, 1920) and Sha’arei Da’at (Jerusalem, 1921).

[25]
Rabbi Joseph Judah Leib Sossnitz (1837-1910) was born in Birzhi, district of
Kovno. He has been described as a Talmudic scholar, mathematician and
scientific author. He settled in New York in 1891 and in 1893, founded a Talmud
Torah on 104th street in Manhattan. In 1899, he was appointed a
lecturer in Jewish ethics at the Educational Alliance at 197 East Broadway.

[26]
Rabbi Judah Leib Lazarov (1875-1939), studied inTelz, Mir, Volozhin and Radin
before immigrating to America in 1898.He was hired as a preacher at Beth
Midrash Hayei Adam at 89 Henry Street in 1903 and succeeded Rabbi S.E. Jaffee
as Rabbi of Beth Midrash Hagadol in 1910. He authored a multi volume work Divrei
Yehudah (New York, 1906-1910).

Except for Rabbi Dr Rabinowitz who was from Brooklyn, all the above
named rabbinic leaders were from the Lower East Side near both Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Yeshiva on Henry Street and Yeshiva La’Rabanim on east Broadway. They
most likely would have been aware of the struggles of the students with the
board of the Yeshiva and had possibly allowed them to speak in their synagogues
during the May strike. See Klaperman, Story, 104. It is also possible
they were consulted by the students on an ongoing basis even before they tried
to start a new school.

[27] Abraham
J. Goldstein emigrated to America in 1884 and immediately settled in Jersey
City. One book, Distinguished Jews of America, (New York, 1917), describes
him as “a strict Orthodox Jew in every sense”, “one of the richest and most
prominent citizens of Jersey City”, and “a member of almost every Jewish
organization in Jersey City”. He owned a grocery wholesale business, was
president of the Erie Building and Loan Association, and was one of the largest
real estate owners in Jersey City.

[28] Rabbi
Shlomo David Posner (Rabbi S.D Posner) was a Rabbi in Jersey City, New Jersey,
for many decades. He signed his letters “Rav V’Av Beit Din” of Jersey
City. He authored a book of homilies Eshed
Hanahar (New York, 1932). In the introduction, he writes candidly about
being a Rabbi in America over many years. He was involved on a national level
in many Rabbinic organizations and he helped raise money for the Jewish
community in Palestine

[29] It
is interesting to note that Rabbi Shapiro refers to this group as Mr. but later,
refers to three of the group as Rabbi. The two Shapiro brothers and Ben Zion
Perl are referred to by Rabinowitz as having Rabbinic ordination already at
that time. Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553.

The four referred to by Rabbi Shapiro aside from himself are:

(1) Rabbi Abraham Shapiro was the brother of Rabbi Boruch Shapiro.
Like his brother, Abraham already possessed Semicha from Eastern Europe at this
time. He later served as a Rabbi in Canton, Ohio and in Utica, New York. He was
considered to be a prominent Musmach of RIETS in later years.

(2) Rabbi Ben Zion Pearl served as a Rabbi in Harlem. He was the
director of the Uptown Talmud Torah Association which had 2,400 students in
1919. In 1925, he was involved in raising money for the building fund of Rabbi
Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva. He passed away in 1929.

(3) Rabbi Chaim Yechezkel Moseson came
from Lodz Poland, learned in the Yeshiva in Lomza Poland and received Smicha
from Rabbi Yechial Michal Epstein, author of the Oruch Hashulchon. He was the
principal of Yeshiva Torah Vadath, Mesivta Tiferes Yerushlayim, and other
Yeshivot. He wrote many articles for Dos Yiddishe Licht, a newspaper
financed by Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt.

(4) Harry Sebee Linfield
(1889-1978), was a rabbi and statistician. His Jewish Statistical Bureau
conducted research on Jews in America and published numerous reports and other
publications on their findings, specifically the Statistics of Jews. He was born in
Lithuania and came to the United States in 1905. He was awarded a PhD by the
University of Chicago in Semitic language in 1916, and the following year was
ordained a rabbi by the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati

[30] Klaperman,
Story, 118.

[31] Idem.
262

[32] The
Reform Advocate, December 29, 1917, p.501

[33]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553-554.

Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז”ל: In Memoriam

Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז”ל: In Memoriam

אין חכמת האדם מגעת אלא עד מקום שספריו מגיעין,

ולכן ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו ויקנה ספרים, כי דרך

משל מי שאין לו ספרי התלמוד אי איפשר לו להיות

בקי בו, וכמו כן מי שאין לו ספרי הרפואה א”א להיות

בקי בה.

דרכי התלמוד לר’ יצחק קנפאנטון

A person’s wisdom reaches only as far as his library. Therefore, a person should sell everything he owns and

acquire books. For example, one who doesn’t own a set of the Talmud cannot possibly master its content. Similarly, one who doesn’t own the basic medical books cannot possibly be expert in the field of medicine.

It is with deep sadness that the Seforim Blog joins the thousands who mourn the death of our dear contributor and supporter, Dr. Shlomo Sprecher ז”ל. A distinguished תלמיד חכם and radiologist, R. Shlomo was a world renowned collector of books, who mastered their content, and spent a lifetime sharing his books and his knowledge freely with others. Doubtless, רבי יצחק קנפאנטון had the likes of R. Shlomo in mind, in the passage cited above.

R. Shlomo was a מרביץ תורה and a מרביץ חכמה to a degree rarely seen in modern times. Despite a professional medical career that in and of itself would have exhausted others, he somehow found time ללמוד וללמד. He learned Torah incessantly, gave public שיעורים on a regular basis, and managed to arrange for others, often younger scholars, to give שיעורים and lectures in his neighborhood. He served with distinction on the editorial boards of ישורון and Hakirah, where he contributed his own studies and, and no less significantly, recruited, indeed cajoled others to publish the results of their research.

R. Shlomo’s literary legacy includes such gems as:

1. Introduction and table of contents for the reissue of R. Meir Dan Plotzki’s שאלו שלום ירושלים (New York, 1991).

2. מבחר כתבי מו”ה מרדכי גומפל שנאבר הלוי לעווינזאהן ז”ל (Brooklyn, 1995). The English section includes a lengthy introductory essay (by R. Shlomo and Mati Sprecher) on the life and times of Mordechai Gumpel Schnaber – not surprisingly, an eighteenth century rabbinic scholar and physician.

3. “בסתר בצל: קווים לדמותו הסמויה של הג”ר בצלאל בנו יחידו של המהר”ל מפראג זצ”ל” in

ישורון 2(1997), pp. 623-634.

4. “הפולמוס על אמירת מכניסי רחמים” in ישורון 3(1997), pp. 706-729.

5. “Mezizah be-Peh – Therapeutic Touch or Hippocratic Vestige?”

in Hakirah 3(2006), pp. 15-66.

6. “A Gemeinde Gemeinheit,” (by R. Shlomo and Mati Sprecher), posted on the Seforim Blog, June 9, 2009. An earlier version appeared in a pamphlet distributed at the wedding of Uri and Rivi Sprecher on November 13, 2008.

In common, all of R. Shlomo’s contributions are characterized by dazzling erudition, lucid presentation, and originality. They advanced discussion significantly. It will certainly be a measure of consolation – and an important contribution to Jewish scholarship – if the family will gather his published studies and publish them in a bound volume.

Above and beyond R. Shlomo’s intellectual excellence was his excellence of character. Others, more talented than us, will have to write about it. For those of us who experienced it, no further descriptions are necessary. For those of us who never experienced it, we doubt that the breadth and depth of his excellence of character can be adequately described in mere words. R. Shlomo leaves a void that will not easily be filled.

חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין.

Eliezer Katzman

Shnayer Leiman

New book announcement; He-Gedolim

New book announcement; He-Gedolim

By Eliezer Brodt

הגדולים: אישים שעיצבו את פני היהדות החרדית בישראל, בעריכת בנימין בראון, נסים ליאון, קובץ מאמרים לכבוד פרופ’ מנחם פרידמן ובהשראתו, מגנס מכון ון ליר, 968 עמודים

The Gdoilim: Leaders Who Shaped the Israeli Haredi Jewry, Edited by Benjamin Brown, Nissim Leon, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Van Leer Institute, 968 pages

For the most part, academic books are not found or read in regular “layman” or Chareidi circles, nor are those types of books available at most “seforim stores.” From time to time a volume emerges from the world of academia, that breaks through the status-quo and captivates and makes waves among various crowds of regular people and Chareidim. Examples include, the works of Professor Dovid Assaf (here) which many Chassdim were fascinated to read, and the work of Professor Benny Brown on the Chazon Ish, which the Yeshiva world was very curious to read. When Brown’s book (see here) came out a few years back, over 1,000 copies were sold in a period of two weeks. That may well be the record for an academic book (in Hebrew) selling in such a short amount of time. There were advertisements in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak stating that this work is a must-have for a Jewish home. Until today it’s unknown who put up the signs. Of course, within a few months, the book was attacked, as mentioned here.

This new volume, Ha-Geldolim, hot off the press from Magnes and Van Leer, promises to be another such work. It contains thirty chapters discussing Charedi Gedolim, from all different constituencies, the Yeshivah, Chassidic and Sefardi world, many of which have never really been properly discussed in academia. A similar lacuna was identified by Israel Ta Shema, in that instance, the lack of study of the Achronim. Keneset Mekhekarim, vol. 4, 283

חקר הספרות הרבנית של מאות השנים האחרונות, הלוא היא תקופת ‘האחרונים’, הוזנח כליל במחקר המודרני, וממילא נשמט הנושא כולו מסדר היום של מחקר ההשכלה בישראל..

Just to give a plug to the Seforim Blog – it is quoted at least three times, (I even made it into a footnote; this is my second “Footnote” – of prominence in academic literature similar to the movie The Footnote 🙂 ) Professor Marc Shapiro, a regular contributor to the Seforim blog, has an essay in the volume. I am sure some of these essays will be the starting point of much further research and discussion of these Gedolim.

Of course, the immediate reaction of many when they look through the table of contents is: “why isn’t so and so there?” and “what exact criteria is applied to determine who ‘gets in’ to the volume?”. The editors anticipated these issues and others, and deal with it in the introduction (PDF available upon request, see my email address below).

The volume is dedicated to Professor Menachem Friedman, who is one of the “founders” of the academic research of the Charedi world.

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work.

The book can be purchased via Magnes Press or through me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Part of the proceeds will be going to help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

Copies of this work will be arriving at Biegeleisen shortly.

Dean of Historians of Jewish Philosophy: Necrology for Professor Arthur Hyman (1921-2017)

Dean of
Historians of Jewish Philosophy:

Necrology for
Professor Arthur Hyman (1921-2017).

By
Warren Zev Harvey

Warren Zev Harvey is Professor
Emeritus in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem where he has taught since 1977. He studied philosophy at Columbia
University, writing his PhD dissertation under Arthur Hyman. He has written prolifically
on medieval and modern Jewish philosophers, e.g. Maimonides, Crescas, and
Spinoza. Among his publications is Physics
and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas (1998). He is an EMET Prize laureate in
the Humanities (2009).

This is his first contribution to
the Seforim Blog.

Arthur
Hyman, 1921-2017

Photo
courtesy of Yeshiva University

Arthur
(Aharon) Hyman was born on April 10, 1921 (2 Nisan 5681), in Schwäbisch
Hall, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, the son of Isaac and Rosa (Weil) Hyman.
In 1935, at the age of 14, three years before Kristallnacht, he immigrated with
his family to the United States. He pursued undergraduate studies at St. John’s
College, Annapolis, which had recently adopted its Great Books curriculum
(B.A., 1944). He did graduate studies at Harvard University, studying there
under the renowned historian of Jewish philosophy, Harry Austryn Wolfson (M.A.,
1947; Ph.D., 1953). He concurrently studied rabbinics at the Jewish Theological
Seminary under the preeminent Talmudist, Saul Lieberman (ordination and M.H.L.,
1955). He taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary (1950-1955), Dropsie
College (1955-1961), and Columbia University (1956-1991). His main academic affiliation,
however, was with Yeshiva University, where he taught from 1961 until last
year, was Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy, and Dean of the
Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies (1992-2008). He also held
visiting positions at Yale University, the University of California at San
Diego, the Catholic University of America, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
and Bar-Ilan University. I had the privilege of studying with him at Columbia
University in the 1960s and early 1970s, and wrote my dissertation under his wise
supervision. Among Hyman’s other doctoral students are David Geffen and Charles
Manekin (at Columbia University), and Basil Herring and Shira Weiss (at Yeshiva
University). Hyman received wide recognition for his scholarly accomplishments.
He was granted honorary doctorates by the Jewish Theological Seminary (1987)
and Hebrew Union College (1994). He served as president of both the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médiévale
(1978-1980) and the American Academy for Jewish Research (1992-1996).
He was married to Ruth Link-Salinger from 1951 until her death in 1998, and
they had three sons: Jeremy Saul, Michael Samuel, and Joseph Isaiah. From 2000
until his death he was married to Batya Kahane. He died in New York City on
February 8, 2017 (12 Shevat 5777).

Hyman
was a scholar’s scholar. He was an outstanding historian of philosophy, thoroughly
at home reading recondite philosophical texts in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic,
German, French, or English. He masterfully taught classical, medieval, and
modern philosophy. However, his great love and the main focus of his research
was medieval Jewish philosophy. He is the author of more than fifty scholarly
studies on diverse philosophical subjects. He was the editor, together with
James J. Walsh, of the popular anthology of medieval philosophy, Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The
Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions (1967), a volume that did much to
shape the study of medieval philosophy over the past four decades (a revised
third edition appeared in 2010 with the collaboration of Thomas Williams). He
edited and annotated the medieval Hebrew translation of Averroes’ Arabic
treatise On the Substance of the Orbs
(1986). He founded and edited the scholarly journal Maimonidean Studies (1989-), which became an important venue for interdisciplinary
research on the Great Eagle. His book Eschatological
Themes in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (2002) was his Aquinas Lecture,
delivered at Marquette University. In addition, he wrote pioneering studies on
Averroes, Maimonides, Spinoza, and other philosophers.

Hyman
was staunchly committed to the teaching of Jewish philosophy as philosophy.
He was not interested in appropriating it as a means to foster Jewish identity
or religiosity. Similarly, he was not enamored of academic approaches that put
too much emphasis on “esotericism” or “the art of writing,” which, in his view,
served to distract one from the hard nitty-gritty work of analyzing the
philosophic arguments. Medieval philosophy, he argued, is an integral part of
the history of philosophy, and Jewish philosophy is an integral part of
medieval philosophy. Thus, medieval Jewish philosophy should be taught in departments
of philosophy. Hyman, in practice, did teach medieval Jewish philosophy in philosophy
departments at Yeshiva University, Columbia University, and elsewhere. He also
believed that modern Jewish philosophy should be taught in philosophy
departments, but was less unequivocal about it. He thought that it is difficult
to discern a “continuous tradition” of modern Jewish philosophy, and elusive to
define the philosophic problems and methods common to it. He often noted that
in most universities modern Jewish philosophy is not taught in philosophy
departments, but in departments of Jewish studies or religion.

Hyman
and Walsh’s Philosophy in the Middle Ages
presents medieval philosophy as a tradition common to Jews, Christians, and
Muslims. Of 769 pages (in the 2nd edition), 114 are devoted to Jewish
philosophers (Saadiah, Ibn Gabirol, Maimonides, Gersonides, and Hasdai
Crescas), 134 pages to Muslims, and the remainder to Christians. As a general
textbook in medieval philosophy that included philosophers from all three
Abrahamic religions, Philosophy in the
Middle Ages was downright revolutionary.

In
his essay “Medieval Jewish Philosophy as Philosophy, as Exegesis, and as
Polemic,” published in 1998 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 26, pp. 245-256),
Hyman observed that medieval Jewish philosophy was originally of interest to
historians of philosophy only as “a kind of footnote to medieval Christian
philosophy.” This situation, he continued, began to change in the 1930s with
the work of scholars like Julius Guttmann, Leo Strauss, and Harry Austryn
Wolfson, and later Alexander Altmann, Shlomo Pines, and Georges Vajda. Owing to
their pioneering work, he concluded, “Jewish philosophy…has taken its rightful
place as an integral part of the history of Western philosophy” and “[i]n
universities in the United States it is now [in 1998] taught regularly in
courses on medieval philosophy.” Hyman, always modest, did not add that the
anthology he edited with Walsh, Philosophy
in the Middle Ages, was in no small measure responsible for enabling Jewish
and Islamic philosophy to enter the curricula of courses in medieval philosophy
in universities throughout North America. Hyman was mild-mannered and courteous
in his personal relations, but as a scholar he was a revolutionary who helped
redefine the academic field of medieval philosophy.

Writing
on “The Task of Jewish Philosophy” in 1962 (Judaism 11, pp. 199-205),
Hyman bemoaned the alienation in the modern world: “though the means for
communication have increased immensely, communication itself has all but become
impossible.” He argued that the cause of this alienation was the loss of
Reason. Jewish philosophy, he urged, has a role to play in “the rediscovery of
Reason.” He defined its task as “the application of Reason to the
interpretation of our Biblical and Rabbinic traditions.”

More
than three decades later, in a 1994 essay, “What is Jewish Philosophy?” (Jewish
Studies 34, pp. 9-12), Hyman sought to clarify who is a Jewish philosopher.
“One minimal condition for being considered a Jewish philosopher,” he suggested,
“is that a given thinker (a) must have some account of Judaism, be it religious
or secular; and (b) must have some existential commitment to this account.” Given
his requirement of “existential commitment,” he unhesitatingly excluded Spinoza,
Marx, and Freud. A second condition for being considered a Jewish philosopher,
according to him, is simply that a given thinker must be a philosopher; that
is, his or her account of Judaism must be interpreted “by means of philosophic
concepts and arguments rather than in aggadic, mystic, literary, or some other
fashion.”

The
notion of “existential commitment” provides a key that enables Hyman to distinguish
the historian of Jewish philosophy from the Jewish philosopher, that is, the scholar
from the thinker or practitioner. The Jewish philosopher has an existential
commitment to a particular account of Judaism, while the historian of Jewish
philosophy must analyze the various accounts of different Jewish philosophers,
without preferring one account over another. The historian qua historian
remains uncommitted existentially, that is, he or she remains impartial and objective.
“It should be clear,” Hyman concludes, “that for the historian of Jewish
philosophy there is not one, but a variety of Jewish philosophies.”

Although
Hyman excluded Spinoza from the category of Jewish philosophers, he wrote two of
the most important studies on his debt to medieval Jewish philosophy, namely,
his “Spinoza’s Dogmas of Universal Faith in the Light of their Medieval Jewish
Backgrounds” (1963) and his “Spinoza on Possibility and Contingency” (1998). In
these essays, he showed how critical arguments in Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise and Ethics reflected arguments found in the
Jewish and Muslim medieval philosophers, particularly Maimonides. In uncovering
Spinoza’s covert debt to medieval philosophy, Hyman continued the line of research
of his mentor, Wolfson. Hyman’s Spinoza was formatively influenced by
Maimonides and other Jewish philosophers in his ethics, politics, and
metaphysics, but he nonetheless was not a “Jewish philosopher” because he
lacked an existential commitment to some account Judaism, whether religious or
secular. Hyman’s insistence on an existential commitment is crucial. For a
philosopher, according to him, to be considered a Jewish philosopher, it was not sufficient for him or her to be ethnically
or culturally Jewish, or even to be well-educated in Jewish law and lore. An
existential commitment was required.

In
the introduction to the Jewish Philosophy section of Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Hyman gave a simple definition of
medieval Jewish philosophy. “Medieval Jewish philosophy,” he wrote, “may be
described as the explication of Jewish beliefs and practices by means of
philosophical concepts and norms.” It is an explication,
not a defense or apology. One might say that, according to Hyman, Jewish
philosophy is a philosophic explication of a Jew’s existential commitment.

The
medieval Jewish philosopher who stands in the center of Hyman’s research is Maimonides.
He wrote important technical studies on Maimonides’ psychology, epistemology, ethics,
and metaphysics. He always emphasized the difficulties involved in understanding
Maimonides. As he put it felicitously in his 1976 essay, “Interpreting
Maimonides”: “[The] Guide of the Perplexed is a difficult and
enigmatic work which many times perplexed the very reader it was supposed to
guide” (Gesher 5, pp. 46-59). The only way to understand Maimonides, he
insisted, is by carefully analyzing his philosophic arguments, and comparing
them with those of the philosophers who influenced him, e.g., Aristotle, Alfarabi,
Avicenna, and Algazali. In Philosophy in
the Middle Ages, he describes the purpose of the Guide of the Perplexed: “The proper subject of the Guide may…be said to be the
philosophical exegesis of the Law.” Hyman quotes Maimonides’ statement that the
goal of the book is to expound “the science of the Law in its true sense.” In
other words, the purpose of the Guide
is to give a philosophic account of Judaism. “Maimonides,” writes Hyman,
“investigated how the Aristotelian teachings can be related to the beliefs and
practices of Jewish tradition.” He sought, if you will, to explicate
philosophically his existential commitments as a Jew.

Perhaps
Hyman’s most well-known essay on Maimonides is his 1967 exposition of
“Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles” (in A. Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, pp. 119-144). Presuming
the unity of Maimonides’ thought, Hyman shows that the famous passage on the
“Thirteen Principles” in his early Commentary
on the Mishnah coheres well with his later discussions in his Book of the Commandments, Mishneh Torah, Guide of the Perplexed, and Letter on Resurrection. He rejects the view
that the Thirteen Principles were intended as a polemic against Christianity
and Islam, and also rejects the view that they were intended only for the
non-philosophic masses. He argues for a “metaphysical” interpretation according
to which the Thirteen Principles are intended to foster true knowledge among all
Israelites, thus making immortality of the soul possible for them all, as it is
written in the Mishnah, “All Israel has a place in the world-to-come” (Sanhedrin 10:1).

A
word should be said here about Hyman’s excellent edition of the Hebrew translation
of On the Substance of the Orbs,
written by Averroes, the great 12th-century Muslim philosopher who
was Maimonides’ fellow Cordovan and elder contemporary. Averroes’ book contains
profound speculative investigations into the nature and matter of the heavens. It
is lost in the original Arabic, but was extremely popular in the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance in its Hebrew and Latin translations, and several important
commentaries were written on it by Jewish and Christian philosophers. Hyman
offers a critical annotated edition of the anonymous medieval Hebrew
translation accompanied by his own new English translation. His lucid English translation
is based on the Hebrew translation but also uses the Latin translation. His erudite
and instructive notes clarify the meaning of the text, and discuss the
development of technical philosophic terms from Greek and Arabic to Hebrew and
Latin.

In
his eulogy for his revered teacher, Harry Austryn Wolfson, printed in the Jewish Book Annual 5736 (1975-1976),
Hyman wrote as follows: “[He] showed himself the master of analysis who could
bring to bear the whole range of the history of philosophy on his
investigations. This scholarly erudition was combined with clarity of thought felicity of style, and conciseness of expression.” I think it would not be
amiss if I now conclude my remarks by applying these very same words to Professor
Arthur Hyman, my own revered teacher.

Yehi
zikhro barukh.

חז”ס ופולמוס חנוכה

‘מאי חנוכה’

מאת זרחיה ליכט

תמונה מהחכם חיים זליג סלונימסקי

חיים זליג סלונימסקי (1810-1904), המכונה חז”ס, היה אחד מגדולי המשכילים במאה ה-19. חכם גדול בתורה ובמדע שפעל הרבה להפיץ השכלה עולמית בקרב עמו. כמעט עד סוף ימיו נשאר חז”ס נכבד בין בעיני הרבנים מצד חכמתו בתורה ונאמנותו לשמירת המצוות, ובין בעיני המשכילים מצד חכמתו במדע. אך בעת זקנותו אבד עמדתו החיובי בקרב הרבנים ע”י כתבה אחת שפרסם בעיתונו ‘הצפירה'[1] (דצמבר 1891). בחנוכה של שנת 1891 פרסם חז”ס מאמר בדפי העיתון, בו הוא פקפק בעובדת הנס של הפך שמן. לא זו בלבד שהכניס ספק בלב המאמינים שהחשמונאים מצאו רק פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד, ונעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים, אלא טען שגם הרמב”ם לא הבין הדברים כפשוטם:

לא נכנס כאן בפרטי הוויכוח אודות אמיתת הסיפור שסיפרו לנו חכמנו ז”ל באופן כללי, ואודות דעת הרמב”ם בפרט, שכן כבר דשו בו רבים, מכל מקום לתועלת הקוראים אציג כאן תיאור הפולמוס בלשונו של ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ, מזכירו הנאמן של הגאון רבי יצחק אלחנן זצ”ל:

בשנת תרנ”א[2] (1890) יצא עורך מכ”ע [מכתב עת] “הצפירה” הרה”ח [הרב החשוב?] מר חז”ס, לפי דרכו הישרה בעיניו, במאמר ארוך (!) להוכיח אשר רבן של ישראל הרמב”ם ז”ל לא האמין כלל בהנס של נר חנוכה, שבגלל זה השמיט הרמב”ם את הנס של הנרות כל עיקר [למרות המפורש בהרמב”ם הלכות חנוכה הלכה ג’: “ומדליקין הנרות על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה שמונה הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס” – המחבר[3]], ומתוך הכחשתו בהנס של נר חנוכה נמשך אח”כ במאמרו להכחשת עוד נסים המפורשים בכתבי הק’.[4]

כנזכר, עוררה כתבה זו של חז”ס סערת רוח גדולה בקרב העולם היהודי, וסופרים רבים המשיכו להתפלמס בענין זה במכ”ע שונים של אותה תקופה. הרעש התגבר כל כך אשר גם במכ”ע של הגויים דיברו על זה. הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב העיד ש”כמעט בכל מכ”ע הפולנים והרוסים ובחו”ל במכה”ע האשכנזים בוויען, ברלין, פעסט, בכולם נתפשטה השמועה כי ‘הצפירה’ נאסרה לבוא בקהל היהודים בשביל מאמר אחד הכופר באמונה מפורשת בתלמוד! ושונאינו עשו מזה מטעמים לקוראיהם… ואוי לאותה כלימה”[5].

ובעיתון המליץ תחת הכותרת ‘חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם’ התלוננו עד היכן הדברים הגיעו שבמה”ע “Slowo” הפולני פרסמו ש”בעולם היהודים נעשתה נבלה. העורך מכתב עת שבועי “הצפירה” ה’ סלאנימסקי היה לקללה נמרצה לעברים התלמודיים בגלל מאמרים אשר בהם הוכיח כי בהתלמוד יש ויש כמה וכמה סעיפים… ובעבור זה ירדפוהו עד חרמה. במקומות רבים הנושבים מיהודים נדבקו אזהרות בשפת עבר אשר בהן יכונה ה’ סלאנימסקי בוגד באמונה, המדיח את צעירי העברים מנתיב התלמוד. וע”כ נגזרה עליו מארה ויוצא לפני היהודים שומרי מצוה לבלי הביא את מ”ע שלו לביתם. ה’ סלאנימסקי מסר לדין איזה מרודפיו[6] היותר נלהבים[7]:

גם נכתבו כמה ספרים שלמים מצד הרבנים, אשר מטרתם הובהרה מראש, להפריך ולהכחיש את דברי חז”ס שאיימו על המסורה. הספר הכי נכבד בתחום זה, נכתב ע”י אחיו של ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ הנ”ל, הגאון רבי יהודה הלוי ליפשיץ אב”ד מערטש. בשנת תרנ”ה[8] הוציא ספרו ‘דרך אמונה’ לאור, ומאה עמודים הראשונים שלו מוקדשים לנושא של נס חנוכה. הספר מתחיל עם תיאור מאד דומה לזה של אחיו ר’ יעקב הנ”ל:

החכם החז”ס, לפי דרכו הישרה בעיניו[9], להעמיד כל הנסים הכתובים המקובלים בתנ”ך ובדברי חז”ל על הטבע, יצא בהצפירה שנת הי”ח נומר 278 להכחיש הנסים שנעשו לאבותינו במקדש, ותלה את עצמו באילן גדול מאורנו ומורנו הרמב”ם ז”ל, ויצא להוכיח כי גם רבינו הגדול מאור עינינו הרמב”ם ז”ל, בטל כלאחר יד את הנס הנעשה לאבותינו בפך השמן כפי המסופר במגילת תענית ובגמרא (שבת כ”א), וכפי המקובל באומה זה יותר מאלפים שנה, ואשר לזכר לנס הנפלא הזה תקנו מצות הדלקת נר חנוכה.

בנוסף לספר הנ”ל, חוברו עוד הרבה ספרים ומאמרים להצדיק את הצדיק הרמב”ם מאשמת חז”ס, ולהוכיח אמיתת דברי חז”ל בנוגע לנס של הפך שמן.

‘אגדת פך שמן’

למרות שרוב הרבנים התנגדו לדברי חז”ס, היה אברך מופלג גדול בתורה ומשכיל הרב שמואל אלכסנדראוו[10] (1865-1941), חתן לאחד מנכבדי עירו באברויסק, והיה מכובד על הבריות וגם הגיד שיעור גמרא לפני בחורים, שיצא במאמר ב”הצפירה” לחזק את דעת והכחשת חז”ס. נוסף על מאמריו הדפיס גם כן מחברת קטנה בענין פך השמן.[11] הקונטרס שחיבר הרב שמואל אלכסנדראוו נקרא ‘אגדת פך השמן’ (וורשה תרנ”ב – 1892) ועל השער כתב שהוא “מוקטר ומוגש לכבוד הרב החכם הכולל והחוקר הנפלא פאר ישראל כש”ת מהור”ר חיים זעליג סלאנימסקי הי”ו, ביום מלאת לו שתים ושמונים שנה, ביום כ”ד אדר הבא”. והוא חותם ההקדשה “מאת אחד היודע להוקירו ולכבדו כרום ערכו”. בקונטרס זה מנסה אלכסנדרוב לבאר שמעולם לא כיוונו חז”ל לדברים כפשוטם, שאכן דלק פך אחד במשך שמונה ימים, רק פירש הכול בדרך אלגורי, שהשמן רומז לחכמת התורה וכו’ וכו’. הוא סמך את רעיונותיו על דברי בעלי הדרוש לדורותיהם[12].

הרבנים שכתבו נגד דעת חז”ס שהזהירו לייחס אליו קצת בדרך כבוד, הרבו לעג וקלס בכיוונו של אלכסנדרוב שהודות לצעירותו לא זכה למידת הכבוד שאליה זכה חז”ס. אולי הסיבה לכך היא גם מפני שדברי אלכסנדרוב, שטען שהרבה מגדולי הדורות ובתוכם אדמור”י חסידות הסכימו בדרושיהם לדברי חז”ס, הביאו לידי גיחוך והיה קל ביותר לבטל כלאחר יד, מדיוקו של חז”ס בדברי הרמב”ם שהיה מבוסס הרבה יותר.

הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב

חרטות והכחשות

מעניין מאד שגם אלו מחוג הרבנים שהסכימו עם דעת חז”ס, לא ארכו ימים עד שהתחרטו על מעמדם הבלתי שמרני. קשה לדעת אם הייתה חרטה אמתית או שרבו עליהם חבריהם וכפו אותם עד שאמרו ‘רוצה אני’ להכחיש ולהתחרט. ונביא כאן שלש דוגמאות לתופעה זו.

1. הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב

הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב שתמך בכל עוז בעמדת חז”ס, לא ארכו לו ימים ושנים, והלחץ שהפעילו עליו פעל את שלו, עד שבשנת תרנ”ה (1894) פרסם רש”א חרטה למחצה שליש ורבעי. בקובץ תלפיות ערך הרב שמואל מכתב למו”ל ובו כתב:

והנני אומר גם מפורש כי כל מה שכתבתי בקונטרסי “אגדת פך השמן”… הוא רק בתור בירור וביאור האגדות האלה ע”ד הביקורת, אולם בנוגע לגוף הקבלות והמסורות העתיקות המסתעפות מהאגדות האלו, הנני אומר מפורש אם (!) קבלה היא נקבל, ואם אולי (!) נמצאו ביטויים בספרי אפ”ה [=אגדת פך השמן] שפלטה קולמוסי, הנוגעים בגוף הקבלה, הנני מתחרט ע”ז חרטה גמורה; מטרתו בכל מאמרינו השונים היא רק לבנות ולנטוע ולא לסתור ולעקור חלילה.[13]

למרות שב-1894 הודה רש”א רק במקצת הטענה, ונהג עם דבריו הראשונים במידת ‘פלגינן נאמנות’, רצה לומר, שהם צודקים ע”ד הביקורת אבל לא ע”ד הקבלה, מכל מקום בשנת תרנ”ז (1896), בספרו ‘טל תחיה’ על פרקי אבות, על המשנה “עשרה נסים נעשו לאבותינו בבית המקדש” (אבות ה, ה), הודה רש”א בכול, וכך כותב שם:

אם כי יש לי להאריך הרבה ע”ד העשרה נסים, וכבר נגעתי בקצה עטי בזה במחברותיי השונות [ספר ‘אגדת פך השמן’, ‘דברי שמואל’, ‘אגדת אש מן השמים’] אולם ירא אנכי להאריך בזה, פן ואולי אכשל בלשוני כאשר נלכדתי בספרי אפ”ה [=אגדת פך השמן], ות”ל [=תודה לא-ל] אשר שקלתי למטרפסי[14] בהאי עלמא, וכבר הודיתי בפומבי [בספרי אאמ”ה (=אגדת אש מן השמים) בסופו במכתבי שם[15]] על עווני זה, והנני אומר עוד הפעם כי הנני מתחרט חרטה גמורה על הביטויים הקשים הנוגעים בגוף קבלת פך השמן הנמצאים בספרי אפ”ה [=אגדת פך השמן], ודעתי ככל שלומי אמוני ישראל בזה…[16]

כאן כבר התחרט בחרטה גמורה על הביטויים הקשים – למרות שלפני כמה שנים היה מסופק אם היו שם מאלה ביטויים הקשים, וכתב רק ‘אולי נמצאו ביטויים’ כאלה – אבל סביר להניח שעשה כן רק מחמת הלחץ שלחצו עליו, ולא שהתחרט באמת.

2. הרב יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל

בצעירותו למד אלכסנדרוב בחברותא עם הגאון הגדול ר’ יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל (1838-1899). כפי הנראה, כתב רב זה הסכמה לקונטרס ‘אגדת פך שמן’ של אלכסנדרוב, אבל גם לו לא ארכו הימים עד שהוכרח מחמת כן לפרסם הודעה בעיתון המליץ בו הוא מכחיש ההסכמה:

באריסאוו (פ. מינסק). – הנני לפרסם ברבים בדבר מכתבי הקצר שנדפס בקונטרס “דברי-שמואל” [מהרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב הנ”ל], אשר המחבר תולה עלי בשביל זה כי הנני מסכים עמו. חס וחלילה לדעותיו, אשר לפי דברי רבים שראו ספרו, מכחיש הוא בנס פך השמן, ואשר לא עלה על לבי ולא יעלה על לב איש יהודי הנאמן עם תורת חז”ל, ובאמת אני לא ראיתי בעתו את מאמר חז”ס בענין נס חנוכה, והמחבר קונטרס “פך השמן” שהוא בן עירי בשלחו לי קונטרסו היה בעיני כפתרון בלא חלום, ורק בדרך העברה עברתי עליו, ומאשר כי ראיתי בו בקיאות בספרים מבלי דעת תכן ענינו, ובין כה נדרשתי לאחר לפנות עבורו למחבר הקונטרס הנ”ל, שישתדל לטובתו, כתבתי למחבר מכתב בקשה. ומפני הכבוד כתבתי אליו טורים אחדים שאין בהם שום שייכות “לנס חנוכה”, כי אם כעין שבח על בקיאותו, ואז ציינתי לפניו התוספתא, יען שמצאתי בה נוסחאות שונות בענין שמן; וכדי בזיון להמכחישים התולים את עצמם בתוכחות צנומות כאלה לתמוך בהם את הכחשותיהם בהדפיסם מכתבים כאלה לעוור עיני רבים, ובלי שאלת פי כותבי המכתבים, ואין ראיה גדולה לביטול דברי הכחשתם מזה, כי כל דבריהם מהבל יחד. הכותב למען כבוד חז”ל וקבלת אבות.

יהודא מעשיל הכהן החופ”ק[17]

הצהרה הנ”ל מופיע בחלק ה’מודעות’ שבעיתון המליץ ולא בחלק המאמרים של העיתון. הסיבה למיקומו המוזר לפרסום כזה, מובאת בספר זכרון יעקב הנ”ל. לפי ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ נלכד ר’ יהודה מעשיל הכהן בפח ע”י הסופר בן-ציון אייזענשטאדט ור’ יעקב ליפשיץ הוא זה שהציל את הצדיק ממוקשו ויעצו לפרסם מודעה הנ”ל ולהשים אותה דווקא בחלק המודעות. וכך כותב ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ:

אחד מסוכנים שלו [= של אלכסנדרוב] היה הסופר הידוע בשמו מר בנציון א…[18] הוא לכד בערמה את כבוד רב גאון אחד צדיק תמים הרחוק מכל תחבולות הספרות, ומכיון שהשיג מענה ממנו, השתמש במכתבו כחפצו בחסר ויתר, ויעש ממנו מטעמים כאשר אהב החז”ס ועוזרו אלכסנדראוו, והדפיס את מכתב הרה”ג התמים הזה ז”ל [מפני כבודו של תלמיד חכם לא איבה לפרש את שמו[19]] בהצפירה לאות כי גם גאון וצדיק מסכים עמהם.

ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ ממשיך לספר שהרב הנ”ל פנה אליו במכתב שיעזור לו ממצוקתו. ואז יעצו ר’ יעקב שישלח הכחשה, אבל שלא ישלחנו בתור ‘מאמר’ אלא בתור מודעה. וכך כותב:

הרה”ג הזה שהיה גם ממכירי וממכבדי, פנה אז אלי במכתב בקשה והפצרה, ויספר לי סיבת המשגה שנלכד בערמת הספור ב. א.[20] ויפצר בי שאסדר אני מאמר ולפרסמו באחד ממכ”ע… הסכמתי אמנם לערוך מאמר כחפצו ולברר הטעות והערמה של חז”ס שהוסיף וגרע בהתשובה, אבל לחתום על מאמר הלא מוכרח בעל המאמר בעצמו כמובן. ויעצתי לו שישלח ההכחשה בתור “מודעה” כי ברעדאקציעס ישנם ממונים שונים על כל מחלקה ומחלקה. יש מחלקה לקרוספדנציוס ולמאמרים וכהנה, ועל מחלקות כאלו עין העורך צופיה, ומדפיס רק אלה מאמרים שהם לפי רוחו; אבל יש מחלקה מיוחדת ל”מודעות”, ששם אין יד העורך שולטת, רק מי שמשלם בעד כל שורה ושורה מדפיסים המודעה כמו שהיא מבלי לבקר את תוכנה, ע”כ יאבה כת”ר לשלוח מאמרו בתור “מודעה” ולשלם בעד כל שורה ובעין יפה, ואז ידפיסו דבריו. וכעצתי עשה הרב הנכבד הזה ונדפס הכחשתו ב”המליץ” וצדיק מצרה נחלץ…

לא נסתיים פרשה זו בכך, אלא בא אחריו ר’ בן-ציון אייזענשטאדט בעיתון הצפירה והכחיש את הכחשתו של הרב יהודה מעשיל הנ”ל. הוא כותב שכבודו של ידידו “רב וגאון מפורסם ואב”ד בעיר ואם בישראל” גדול מאד בעיניו, אבל מזכיר את ‘מאמר החכם’ “אהוב אריסטו ואהוב אפלטון, והאמת יותר משניהם”. ומספר איך שביקר אצל ידידו האחר “והוא גם כן רב וחכם מצוין הרה”ג החכם הנודע מוהר”ש אלכסנדראוו” והלה הראה לו כתב ידו של “הגאון הגדול מוהר”י מעשיל הכהן הי”ו צירקעל הגאב”ד דבאריסאוו” והכיר שבאמת הסכים הרב יהודה מעשיל לדברי אלכסנדרוב. אולם מסיים אייזנשטט במילים הללו:

וכאשר נוראות נפלאתי על הגאון הזה הנודע לי ולכל מכיריו לאיש אמונים אשר כל עולה לא נמצא בשפתיו איך שנה את דבריו ויתן לחרפה את אחד החכמים המצוינים בישראל אשר כל שמץ עולה לא עשה, ומה גם כי ידעתי זה מכבר כי הוא ממכבדיו וממעריציו שמו?! ויוסף הר”ר אלכסנדראוו ויושט לי את המכתב השני אשר כתב אליו הגאב”ד דבאריסאוו ובו הודיעהו הסיבה אשר תמריצהו לבוא במחאה במכ”ע ע”ד מכתבו, אז נחה שקטה דעתי כי מצאתי פתרון לחלום אשר חלמתי, ומנהמת לבי קראתי: עד מתי בינת נבונים תסתתר!

יקר בעיני כבוד הגאון דבאריסאוו, אך עוד יקרה בעיני האמת אשר היא נר לרגלי תמיד וגם הפעם, ואשר למענה אך למענה כתבתי דברי אלה ואפרסמם.

א”ד המכתב את התורה וחכמיה הדורש אמת וצדק

בן-ציון אייזענשטאטד מקעלץ

באברויסק י”א שבט, התרנ”ג[21]

נראים הדברים שהשמרנים הפעילו לחץ גדול על הרב יהודה מעשיל “אשר המריצוהו” לבוא בכתב מחאה הנ”ל. מאידך גיסא מספר ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ שהסופר בנציון א… כתב מכתב בקשת סליחה ומחילה להרב יהודה מעשיל, “ויאמר אנוס הייתי לעשות כדבר הזה, כי נקראתי לענין פקו”נ בב… ולמר אלכסנדר’… שמה היה לו מכירים רבים ובא לעזרתי לחלצני מן המיצר בתנאי שאדפיס מאמרו ומשום שהיה בזה חשש של פקוח נפש, אנוס הייתי למלא חפצו נגד רצוני, ומבקש סליחה ממורו ורבו”.

קשה לדעת האמת ‘האהוב יותר משניהם’…

3. הרב אייזיק ליב ספיר

הרב יהודה מעשיל הכהן לא היה הרב היחיד שהוצרך להבהיר עמדתו בנידון. בעיתון הצפירה מופיע הבהרה כעין זו גם מאת הרה”ג ר’ אייזיק ליב ספיר אב”ד קוזניצא ובעמח”ס שרגי טובא. סביר להניח שמחמת שיצא עליו שם רע כאילו תמך בעמדת חז”ס, מצא הרב אייזיק ליב חובה לנפשו לפרסם קונטרס בו הוכיח שנס פך שמן אירע כפשוטו ממש.

ביבליוגרפי

לתועלת קורא הבלוג, אציג כאן שמות הספרים והקונטרסים, וגם הרבה מאמרים שמצאתי מדברים אודות הפולמוס הנ”ל. אינני מתיימר לתת לקורא ביבליוגרפי מושלם, אבל אפרט כאן ממה שמצאתי שמדברים ישיר לנושא של מאמרו של חז”ס:

ספרים וקונטרסים מאת הרבנים

1. אמונת חכמים: נדפס ב-1892 – הרב דובער יהודה ליב גינזבורג[22]

הספר כולל ג’ מאמרים. מאמר הראשון נקרא ‘נס חנוכה’ ומטרתו “לבטל דברי מערכת הצפירה במאמר ‘מאי חנוכה’ [הוא מאמרו של חז”ס] דלא היה נס בפך דחנוכה” (נוסח השער). מאמר השני מוקדש להפריך דברי הרב אלכסדראוו שיצא להגן בעד חז”ס. ספר זה הוא כפי הנראה הראשון שנכתב מצד עמדת החרדים, ונעשה ביוזמתו של האדמו”ר מקאפוסט. המחבר חותם שמו בראש ספרו “המקנא קנאת חז”ל דובער יהודה ליב”.

2. דרך אמונה: נדפס ב-1895 – הרב יהודה הלוי ליפשיץ

בשער הספר כתוב “להוכיח צדקת חז”ל בענין נס חנוכה וכל הנסים בכלל, ולהוכיח צדקת הרמב”ם ז”ל ודעותיו בענין כל הנסים וקדה”ח ותשובות נגד יתר המבקרים נגד חז”ל. 100 עמודים הראשונים של הספר מוקדשים לפולמוס חז”ל ומשם ממשיך הספר לדבר בשאר הענינים המפורטים בנוסח זה.

3. נס פך שמן או אגדת פך השמן: נדפס ב-1895 – הרב ברוך ברייזמאן

יש בו 31 עמודים מוקדשים לנושא הזה ומתפלמס עם דברי חז”ס (עמוד 7).

4. נס פך השמן: נדפס ב-1895 – הרב אייזיק ליב [יצחק יהודה] ספיר

הספר כולל י”ב פרקים ותעודתו “לבאר בראיות ברורות ונאמנות ש”נס פך השמן” שמצאו החשמונאים במקדש ה’ היה כפשוטו, ושכל הנסים והנפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו היו מחודשים כל אחד בשעתו מעילת כל העילות וסיבת כל הסיבות מבלי שום סיבה טבעית מראשית הבריאה” (נוסח השער).

מכתבים ומאמרים מאת רבנים

5. ‘נס להתנוסס’: תורת הגאון רבי אלכסנדר משה; סימן כד, עמוד 465 – הרב אלכסנדר משה לפידות (1819-1906)

בראש המאמר כתוב שהוא בדבר הרעש הגדול המתחולל במחנה העברים שהחכם חז”ס בא לפקפק בנס פך השמן דחנוכה ותלה את עצמו בהרמב”ם שלא נזכר תיבות “ונעשה בו נס”.

6. מכתב מאת האדר”ת: קובץ ‘מקבציאל’ שע”י מוסדות ‘אהבת שלום’ גליון ל”ז כסלו תשע”א עמ’ פא – הרב אליהו דוד רבינוביץ תאומים

בשולי המכתב לר’ יעקב רייפמן[23] מתייחס האדרת לפולמוס הנ”ל ומצדיק עמדת רייפמן נגד חז”ס.

7. ‘מערכת חנוכה’: שדי חמד אסיפת דינים מערכת חנוכה אות ב ד”ה ודע – הרב חיים חזקיהו בן רפאל אשר אליהו (1833-1905)

בעל ‘שדי חמד’ מדגיש ש”עיקר הנס הנעשה בפך שמן, כאשר מקובל אצל כל ישראל, הוא אמת ויציב בלתי שום ספק” ומציין לדברי המחברים שערכו מאמרים נגד המתחדשים שרצו לעקור אמונה זו מהעם.

8. ‘דרוש לחנוכה’ [נגד המשכילים]: ספר עץ חיים מרבני משפחת אבלסון; כנסת אברהם יואל סימן ב, עמוד שכה – הרב אברהם יואל אבעלסאן[24] (1841-1903).

הרב אבלסון מזכיר לשבח ספרו של הרב יהודה ליפשיץ ומגנה דברי המפקפקים.

9. ‘ערוך לנר’: קובץ תורני ‘הפסגה’ קובץ ראשון עמ’ 18 (נדפס ב-1895) – הרב משה ראזין[25] (1871-1957)

תוכן המאמר הוא יותר פלפולי בנושא למדני מאשר פולמוסי בנושא משכילי, אבל גם הוא נכתב בעקבות מאמרו של חז”ס. עורך ה’פסגה’ מקדיש שני עמודים (18-19) להציע לפני הקורא הרקע לנושא המאמר, ובו הוא מזכיר את חז”ס. גם בקובץ השני ‘הפסגה’ (עמ’ 16 ועמ’ 52) יש המשך מו”מ בענין הנ”ל.

מכתבים ומאמרים מאת סופרים

10. ‘מאי חנוכה’ – מכתב מאת ר’ יעקב רייפמאן: קובץ אור המזרח כרך י”ח, חוברת ב’ (ס”ג) שנת תשכ”ט (1969) – הרב דר. מאיר הרשקוביץ

המאמר מוקדש לעמדתו של ר’ יעקב רייפמן בפולמוס הנ”ל. הרשקוביץ מתאר קצת הפולמוס ומעתיק מכתבו של ר’ יעקב רייפמאן שמבאר בו “השגותיו הקטלניות על מאמרו של הח’ חיים זעליג סלונימסקי”.

11. ‘נס חנוכה’: זכרון יעקב חלק ג פרק מו, מעמ’ 204 – ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ (1838-1921)

במאמר זה מאריך ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ בתיאור פרטי המעשה של פולמוס זה בפרט, וכמה ענינים אודות חז”ס בכלל, וכפי הנדרש הוא מזכיר לתהילה פעולתו של אחיו הגדול הרב יהודה בתחום הזה.

12. שערי צדק: ספר מאזני צדק מעמ’ 94 (נדפס ב-1895) – הרב דובערוש טורש.

המחבר מאריך לפרט כל ה’עבירות’ של חז”ס ובתוך הדברים מדבר אודות הפולמוס הנ”ל. הוא מוכיח מסיפור שהוזכר בספר ‘זרובבל'[26] (ח”ב צד קכ”ח) ש”המחוקק הנוצרי האמין כי מי שאמר לשמן ידלוק יאמר לפעמים לחומץ ידלוק, ונס חנוכה היה אהוב וחביב נחמד ונעים בעיניו עד שהלך בדחילא ורחימא לירושלים לחוג בחרדת קודש חג החנוכה”.

13. יומן של חיים מיכל מיכלין: ספר ‘ראי הדורות’ אות מח עמ’ 81 – חיים מיכל מיכלין (1867-1937)

ביום ח’ סיון תרנ”ב (1892) כתב מיכלין ביומנו ש”מכתבים רבים באו ממקומות שונים להגאון הג’ ר’ שמואל סלאנט הדורשים לדעת פרטי הדברים אשר הודיע החכם הישיש חז”ס, כי ראש הרבנים בירושלים נתן צדק לכל פרטי דבריו בדבר נס חנוכה….”.

14. ‘שמאול אלכסנדרוב’: ספר זכרון לקהילת בוברויסק ובנותיה כרך ראשון עמ’ 319 – בעריכת יהודה סלוצקי (1967)

מאמר אודות הרב שמואל אלכסנדרוב ובאות ב’ מתואר איך ש”בשנת תרנ”ב (1891) הסתבך אלכסנדרוב במחלוקת קשה ועקרונית עם החוגים השמרנים ביהדות החרדית ברויסה. הוא פירסם אז קונטרס “אגדת פך השמן”, שבו יצא להגנתו של ח. ז. סלונימסקי, שעורר רוגזם של הרבנים במאמרו “מאי חנוכה” (הצפירה 1891, גל’ 278).

15. ‘רבי שמואל אלכסנדרוב’: קובץ ‘סיני’ כרך ק’ סיון תשמ”ז (1987) עמ’ רב אות ד – גאולה בת יהודה

נושא המאמר הוא רבי שמואל אלכסנדרוב. באות ג’ יש אריכות הדברים אודות פולמוס חנוכה הנ”ל שרש”א היה מעורב בו הרבה ע”י שכתב מאמר הגנה לכבוד חז”ס ורבים מהסופרים הנ”ל יצאו גם נגדו.

16. הכפירה ו”הצפירה”: מוסף שבת קודש יתד נאמן פרשת מקץ תשע”ב – ד’ צפתמן

הכותרת של המאמר הוא “בחנוכה תרמ”ח (!) סער העולם היהודי בעיקר באירופה בשל מאמר שפרסם עורך “הצפירה” ובו ניסה כביכול להטיל ערעור במסורת נס פך השמן שארע בימי החנוכה. עפ”ל [עפרא לפומיה]”.

[1] ‘הצפירה’ החל לצאת לאור בשנת 1862 ע”י חז”ס שהיה העורך שלו במשך שנים רבות.] ב’הפלס’ (ד עמ’ 574) מודיעים על מיתת “החכם הנודע למשגב מר חיים זעליג סלאנימסקי” וכותבים: “שנות מספר הוציא לאור את העיתון ‘הצפירה’ וכל הימים אשר ערך הוא את ‘הצפירה’ היה עיתונו זה באמת אורגן נכבד בערכו. לעת זקנתו אמנם נכשל החכם חז”ס בנס חנוכה ותלה בוקי סריקי בהרמב”ם. אך מבלי השגיח על המקרה לא טהור הזה שמו ישאר לתהילה בקורות הימים כאחד החכמים הגדולים אשר מבית המדרש הישן יצאו למלוך ולא הקדיחו תבשילם ברבים כעורכינו החדשים”..

[2] זו טעות שכן נכתבה בחנוכה תרנ”ב – 1891.

[3] מהמקור.

[4] זכרון יעקב ג פרק מו, עמ’ 204.

[5] אגדת פך השמן, ווארשא 1892, הערה 1.

[6] ראוי לציין שחז”ס נפגע קשות מהעומדים נגדו. בספרו “מאסליאנסקי’ס זכרונות” (עמודים 76-77) מספר המחבר צבי הירש מאסליאנסקי איך שפגש חז”ס בוורשה בתקופת הפולמוס אודות נס חנוכה, ומיד התחיל חז”ס לספר לו אודות הפולמוס, והתמרמר אודות מתנגדיו. הוא מצטט שם דבריו של חז”ס באידיש “מיין גאנץ לעבען האב איך זיך בעשעפטיגט מיט תורה און חכמה; איך האב זיך בעטיהט צו לערנען מיין פאלק וויסענשאפט און יעצט, אוף מיינע אלטע יאהרען, – האט ער זיך בעקלאגט פאר מיר – זיינען זיי אנגעפאלען אויף מיר מיט חירופים וגידופים” [תרגום: “כל החיים שלי עסקתי בתורה וחכמה; טרחתי ללמד את עמי מדע ועכשיו, לעת זקנותי – התמרמר לפני חז”ס – נפלו אלי בחירופים וגידופים”.

[7] המליץ 1892 גיליון 18.

[8] ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ (שם עמ’ 209) מסביר שהספר יצא במהירות כדי שיראה אור לפני מות חז”ס. וכך הוא כותב: המחבר [הרב יהודה ליפשיץ] זצ”ל רצה עוד להעיר הרבה דברים ולהגיה, לשפר ולשכלל את ספרו “דרך אמונה” טרם שהוציאו לאור הדפוס, אבל החרדים האיצו בו להוציאו בהקדם האפשרי, כי חז”ס ורבו מר [אייזיק] ווייס [ב”דרך אמונה” ישנם גם הערות רבות המכחישות דעותיו של ווייס] שניהם היו זקנים לימים, ויראו החרדים שמא יאמרו החפשים “אין משיבים לאחר מיתה”, לכן הקדים המחבר להוציא ספרו זה מבלי להוסיף בו עוד הערות.

[9] הדגשנו מילים אלו כדי להשוות אותן לדברי אחיו שנעתיק להלן.

[10] ראה אודותיו בספר ‘דור רבניו וסופריו’ מאת בן-ציון אייזנשטט, חלק א ערך ‘ר’ שמואל אלכסנדרוב’. מעניין ששם הוא מזכיר “כי בהיותו כבן חמש עשרה שנה למד מפי הגאון האמתי הבקי הנפלא ר’ יהודא מעשיל הכהן האב”ד בעירו [באברויסק], וירבה לשקוד בתרוה ויצא שמו לתהלה ויקרא בשם “עילוי”. וראה להלן עוד בענין היחסים שבין הרב יהודא מעשיל הנ”ל, אלכסנדרוב, ובן-ציון אייזנשטט.

[11] מ’היה אברך’ עד כאן לקוחים מדברי ר’ יעקב ליפשיץ בזכרון יעקב שם עמ’ 206.

[12] בין היתר הוא מסתמך על דברי הש”ך (אדדת פך השמן פרק א), העוללות אפרים (שם פרק ב), ספר ‘בת עין’ (שם), מהר”ץ חיות (שם פרק ה), חמדת הימים (שם פרק ז, וראה הערה 6 שם אודות מעמדו של ‘חמדת הימים), ומציין לדברי ר’ יעקב יוסף מפולנאה, בעל ‘תולדות יעקב יוסף’ בספרו ‘בן פורת יוסף’, ולספר ‘מאור עינים’ להאדמו”ר מטשערנאביל, ולספר ‘תורה אור’ לבעל התניא, ובספר ‘קדושת לו’ “ועוד כמה ספרים קדושים שכולם הלכו בזה בדרך בעל ‘חמדת הימים”.

[13] מכתב מיום ח’ ט’ מרחשון, תרנ”ה, טימקאוויטש. נדפס בקובץ תלפיות במדור “פליטת סופרים’ עמ’ 1.

[14] קיבלתי גמולי. ע”פ יבמות קה, ב.

[15] הוא המכתב הנ”ל.

[16] טל תחיה על מסכת אבות, ווילנא 1896.

[17] המליץ שנה ז גליון 9.

[18] הכוונה לבן-ציון אייזנשטט.

[19] אין ספק שהכוונה להרב יהודה מעשיל.

[20] בן-ציון אייזנשטט.

[21] הצפירה, פברואר 3, 1893 עמ’ 3. וליתר פרטים אודות הרב יהודא מעשיל, ראה ‘דור רבניו וסופריו’ מהרב בן-ציון אייזנשטט הנ”ל, ערך ‘הרב יהודא מעשיל הכהן צירקעל’.

[22] אביו הגאון ר’ נחמיה מדוברובנא היה בעל מחבר ספר שו”ת ‘דברי נחמיה’ והיה מגדולי תלמידיו של האדמו”ר “בעל התניא”, וחתן בנו. לבד מספרו ‘אמונת חכמים’ הכין גם קונטרס ‘מטה לוי’ לנגד ספר המכחיש מצות תפילין שנדפס בימיו. קנאותו לשמירת חומת הדת וכבוד הרבנות, היתה לשם דבר. נפטר בי”ט אדר א’ תרנ”ד והוא בן שבעים שנה. עליו ועל אביו, בס’ “בית רבי” (דף סט, א-ב). על הבאתו לקבורה בי”ט אד”ר, ב”הצפירה”, כ”ד אד”ר תרנ”ד. (מדברי יהושע מונדשיין כאן)

[23]ר’ יעקב רייפמן נולד א’ ניסן תקע”ח (7 באפריל 1818) ונפטר בי”ד חשוון תרנ”ה (13 בנובמבר 1894). היה חוקר אוטודידקט ומחבר פורה, היסטוריון של היהדות ומלומד עברי. דמות אניגמטית שנעה על קו התפר שבין חדש לישן, חבר החברה הגבוהה של תנועת ההשכלה היהודית ושומר תורה ומצוות. (ויקיפידיה ערך יעקב רייפמן)

[24] רבי אברהם יואל אבלסון היה רב ליטאי, מחובבי ציון.

[25] הרב משה רוזין היה רב ליטאי שהיגר לארצות הברית ושימש כנשיא של ‘אגודת הרבנים’. חיבר סדרת ‘נזר הקודש’ על הרבה מסכתות הש”ס.

[26] ספר שחיבר יצחק בר לווינזון (1788-1860) להגן על היהדות מן הנצרות ובפרט מן המיסיון.