[1] ב’בית עקד ספרים’ (ח”ב עמ’ 386) נרשמו הוצאות שונות של
‘חסרונות הש”ס’, ראשון ביניהם אמ”ד תס”ט. ולא ראיתי זכרם במקום
אחר.

[2]
ב’ספרים-בלוג‘ שם (הערה
28) ציין שכדברים האלו נמצא כבר ב”כתב התנצלות ותשובה מחכמי פראג על הדפסת
התלמוד עם השמטות בשנת תפ”ז לפ”ק” (נתפרסם ב’המגיד’ י”ח סיון
תרל”ז עמ’ 199), וכך כתבו: “…דעת מהרש”ל להחמיר אף במקום סכנה.
אמנם מעשים בכל יום שמהפכין הדין ומשנין מדרכי השלום בהפקעת הלואה וכדומה, ולא
שמענו פוצה פה לעולם. וכן נראה היפוכו בדברי מהר”ם רבק”ש [ב’באר הגולה’]
בש”ע ח”מ סי תכ”ה [ס”ק ש] ודברים המה מועתקים בספרים רבים”.

[3] ר”י מונדשיין מציין (‘תורת חב”ד’ ח”ב עמ’ לו):
“סעיפים שלימים וביאורים ארוכים שב’קונטרס אחרון’ נשמטו בעטיית
הצנזורה”. והוא ערך שם (עמ’ לז-מז) רשימה של רוב ההשמטות והשינויים של
הצנזורה.

[4]
זה כמובן טעות, ואדרבה, וכפי שכתב הרנ”נ רבינוביץ ב’מאמר על
הדפסת התלמוד’ (עמ’ עז במהדורת הברמן): “ותחת המלה תלמוד נדפס שם גמרא או
ש”ס או למוד”.

[5] דומה לזה נמצא ב’שוטנשטיין’ באנגלית (יומא נו, ב הערה 26) הסבר
מפורט למהות הצדוקים, מיוסד על שיבוש הצנזורה “אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי”,
במקום הגירסא הנכונה: “אמר ליה ההוא מינא”. הערה זו נשמטה מ’שוטנשטיין’
בלה”ק שם.

[6]
‘שוטנשטיין’ בלה”ק שם נמשכו אחרי ‘עוז והדר’ וכתבו בפירושם:
“אנשים המסלפים את התורה להפוך דברי אלהים חיים לרעה, כגון הצדוקים וכתות
אחרות כמותם”, וציינו מקורם (הערה 8): “עיין ליקוטי רש”י”.

[1] The word
“Targum” means “translation”, “interpretation”, or “version.” See Targum
Onkelos to Genesis 42:23; Exodus 4:16, 7:1; Targum to II
Chronicles 32:31; and Targum Sheni to Esther 3:8, 7:5. The words
“Targum Onkelos,” as we shall see, denote “the Translation of Aquilas.”

In the Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49a, Rabbi Judah said: “If
one translates a verse literally, he is a liar; if he adds thereto, he is a
blasphemer and a libeler. Then what is a proper translation? Our
translation.”

The first mention of Targum Onkelos after the Babylonian Talmud does not
occur until the seventh century. Sar Shalom in Sefer Shaarei Teshuvah,
ed. F. Hirsch (Leipzig. 1858), 29c, and Seder Rab Amram (1865), 29.

[2] The translation
is from The Babylonian Talmud, ed. I. Epstein, Soncino Press (London,
1938). This passage, it is important to note, is the only source for this
legend. The verse itself is discussed again in the Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 37b. If Onkelos received
guidance from R. Eleazer and R. Joshua, who lived around 130 C.E, this opinion
would date the translation to the early part of the second century.

[3] In the
Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 11a
and Gittin 56a, b, and 57a. Cf. Tosefta Shabbat 7(8):18; Haggigah 3:2 and 3; and the midrashim Genesis Rabbah 70:5 and Tanchuma 41a, Mishpatim 3.

[4] The Jerusalem
Talmud, Megillah 1, 71c; Kiddushin 1, 59a; Haggigah 2:5, 77a. Although the contemporary English spelling is
Aquila, the name is Aquilas in Greek and Hebrew. Those familiar with rabbinic
studies will recall that errors in names frequently occur in the Talmud. While
writing this note, the author was studying the Babylonian Talmud Bava Kamma and found the following
errors in a few pages; R. Abba v. R. Abin in 112a; R. Ashi v. R. Assi in 112b,
113a, 114a; Rava v. Rabba in 114a, R. Huna v. R. Kahana in 114a, Rav v. Abbahu
in 114b; and the Talmud itself was unsure of a name in 114b.

[5] See M. M.
Kasher, Torah Shelemah 24 (Jerusalem, 1974), pages 155-161; and J.
Reifman, Sedeh Aram (Berlin, 1875), pages 8-10.

[6] See Kasher, op.
cit., pages 195-238, and Reifman, op. cit., pages 12-14. Numbers Rabbah is hardly older than the
twelfth century. See The Jewish Encyclopedia, volume II, page 671, and Encyclopedia
Judaica, volume 12, column 1261.

[7] Babylonian
Talmud, Bava Bathra 99a: “Onkelos the
proselyte said, the cherubim were of tza’atzu’im (image work) and their
faces were turned sideways, as a student who is leaving his teacher.” The
statement is somewhat obscure. It probably comments upon II Chronicles 3:10 (where the word is spelt with ayins) by
referring to a similar word in Isaiah
22:24 (spelt with alephs). Targum Jonathan translates the latter word
“son,” which suggests “student.” The reference to Onkelos is certainly
incorrect. There is no Targum Onkelos to either the Writings or the Prophets,
and Onkelos in the Pentateuch never translates “cherubim.” It always repeats
the biblical Hebrew word. It is possible that the Talmud is referring to
Jonathan ben Uzziel or Aquilas and not Onkelos.

[8] R. Jeremiah
lived about 350 CE and his teacher R. Hiyya b. Abba, a generation earlier. It
is likely that he did not make the statement that tradition attributes to him.
First of all, the talmudic tradition is itself uncertain as to who made the
statement. Secondly, since both R. Jeremiah and R. Hiyya b. Abba were scholars
of Eretz Israel and not Babylon; the tradition, if correct, probably referred
to the Eretz Israel Greek translation of Aquilas, and not the Babylonian
Aramaic translation of “our translation.” Thirdly, in the Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 9b, R. Hiyya b. Abba is clearly
speaking about the Greek Bible translation and seems to know nothing of the Aramaic
version.

[9] H. Graetz, History
of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1893), volume 2, pages 387, 581, 582, argues
that the Aramaic translation “was made partly from that of Akylas (sic)
on account of its simplicity, and was called Targum Onkelos.” See the author’s Targum
Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Ktav, 1982), pages 2, 14, 15, and A. E.
Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester University Press, 1970), and
other volumes cited therein.

[10] Note, for
example, that תגי and מדע in Palestinian Aramaic are תנגי and מנדע in Babylonian
Aramaic.  Another difference is that
Onkelos is spelt with an aleph and Aquilas with an ayin. Many
Palestinian words with an ayin were transposed in Babylonia to an aleph
because Babylonians had difficulty pronouncing laryngeals; for example, עד=אד.

[11] See notes 4 and
5, and related text.

[12] See for example
Mishnah Aboth 6: 6; Babylonian
Talmud, Yevamot 97a; Jerusalem
Talmud, Berachot 2:1 (4b). Also, many
talmudic discussions are based on the idea that Amoraim never dispute a subject
that was previously disputed in a Mishnah without citing the earlier dispute.
See for example Babylonian Talmud, Gittin
4a and 16b, middle of pages.

[13] M. H.
Goshen-Gottstein, “The Language of Targum Onkelos and the model of Literary
Diaglossia in Aramaic,” JNES 37 (1978), pages 169-179; B. Grossfield,
“Onqelos, Halakhah and the Halakhic Midrashim,” in D. R. G. Beattie and M.
McNamara (editors), The Aramaic bible (1994), pages 228-46.

[14] See edition by
A. Berliner (Leipzig, 1877).

[15] See for example
P. Kahle, The Cairo Geneiza (Oxford, 1959), pages191-228; H. Albeck, Jubilee
Volume to B. M. Lewin (1940), pages 93-104; A. Diez Macho, Neophyti,
I: Genesis (1968), page 98;
Leopold Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin, 1832). These views and others
are discussed in I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Ktav, 1982),
pages 2-6, and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Michael Glazier,
1988), pages 30-35. No critical evaluation was ever made of Berliner’s Masorah and every modern author refers
to it without comment. The book and the conclusions drawn from it require
extensive study. It should be noted that there was or were early Aramaic
translations of parts of the Hebrew Bible, as confirmed by the fragments found
in Qumran. See J. T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Volume 6: Qumran
Grotte 4, II: Tefillin, Mezuzot, et Targums (4Q128-4Q157) Oxford,
1977. The comparison between these finds and Onkelos are discussed in I.
Drazin’s Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (Ktav, 1994), pages 36, 146, 149,
151.

[16] With the
participation of the Center for Judaic Studies of the University of Denver, the
author published, through the Ktav Publishing House, Targum Onkelos to
Deuteronomy in 1982, Targum Onkelos to Exodus in 1990, Targum
Onkelos to Leviticus in 1993, and Targum Onkelos to Numbers in 1998.
Targum Onkelos to Genesis was written by Moses Aberbach and Bernard
Grossfeld, and was published in 1982. The latter authors ascribe a dating of
Onkelos “towards the end of the third century CE” (page 9).

[17] A tannaitic document
is one that transmits the views of the Jewish sages from the period of Hillel
to the compilation of the Mishnah. This period began about 20 BCE and ended
about 200 CE, although the documents may not have been committed to writing
until a later time. The tannaitic midrashim were not redacted until the end of
the fourth century.

    The tannaitic midrashim are Mekhilta deR. Ishmael and Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yochai to Exodus; Sifra to Leviticus; Sifrei and Sifrei Zutta to Numbers; and Sifrei and
Midrash Tannaim to Deuteronomy. Each is individualistic in halakhic view,
style, and character.

    Although the tannaitic midrashim appear, by
their name, to have been composed during the tannaitic period, ending in the
early third century, later scholars are mentioned therein. The tannaitic
midrashim, in their present form, were unknown to the scholars in the two
Talmuds and must have been composed in Eretz Israel no earlier than the end of
the fourth century, after the completion of the Jerusalem Talmud. They were
unknown in the Jerusalem Talmud because they were not yet composed. They were
unknown in the Babylonian Talmud because of their composition in Eretz Israel.
See Encyclopedia Judaica for sources regarding the dating of each
midrash.

    J. Neusner, Midrash in Context (Fortress
Press, 1983), dates the tannaitic midrashim in the fifth and sixth centuries.
We will see in this study that (1) our targumist drew material from the
midrashim, which must have pre-existed the Targum, and (2) the scholars of the Babylonian
Talmud, composed and edited in the fifth and sixth century, mention our Targum
but did not know the name of its author. Therefore, the Targum must have been
composed before the Babylonian Talmud. Thus, a sixth-century date for the
composition of the midrashim is incorrect.

[18] This was done
first in the Deuteronomy volume in
pp. 8-10. This book showed the reliance of Onkelos upon the midrash Sifrei. The subsequent studies did the
same with the other midrashim.

[19] The midrash Sifrei to Numbers comments on parts of
nineteen of the thirty-six biblical chapters of Numbers (5-12; 15; 18-19; 25:1-13; 26:52-31:24; and 35:9-39), less
than a third of the biblical text. It contains a considerable amount of aggadah
and halakhah, items that Onkelos avoids, and has little narrative, areas
where Targum Onkelos deviations abound.

[20] Onkelos has
many Hebraisms because its audience’s language included many Hebrew words. They
were used in the translation whenever the Hebrew was more familiar or
understandable to the reader than the Aramaic equivalent. Similarly, although
the midrash was composed in Hebrew, there are many Aramaic words in it.

[21] שקר twice, 5:6; כיור, 5:17; יפרש used in
6:2 to help define גזר; equals Sifrei’s pisqahs
7, 10, and 23, respectively.

    The exception of דבר in 12:1 (=pisqah 99) is
understandable. Sifrei interprets דבר as “harsh
speech.” This is derash, a homiletical exposition, and not a true
definition; and Onkelos only translates according to the peshat, the
simple meaning of the text. Yet, even in this instance, although the Targum
does not quote the adjective “harsh,” it differentiates the two words,
rendering מלל
for “speak” and retaining אמר for the second.

[22] A chart of
these instances is in I. Drazin, “Dating Targum Onkelos by means of the
Tannaitic Midrashim,” Journal of Jewish
Studies, Autumn 1999.

[23] The 106
instances are listed in the Journal of
Jewish Studies article.

[24] Like Sifrei, Sifrei Zutta was composed at the
end of the fourth century CE. But, unlike the former, the latter disappeared
and only fragments were rediscovered in the Genizah, in Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash ha-Gadol, and other works. H. S. Horovitz
compiled these findings and published them in Sifrei al Sefer be-Midbar
VeSifrei Zutta (1917). Later, J. N. Epstein published an additional large
fragment in Tarbiz 1/1 (1930). Sifrei
Zutta contains many halakhot that are not mentioned elsewhere and many that
differ with those in the Mishnah. Its style and terminology are unique.

[25] These deviations
are identified and explained in the author’s Targum series. See Note 16. Targum
Onkelos’s understanding and use of peshat will be addressed in the next
chapter.

[26] See the
author’s Targum Onkelos to Exodus (Ktav), pages 8-11, 32-33, for
details.

[27] See the
author’s Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (Ktav), pages 9-11, 26-28, for
details.

[28] See the
author’s Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Ktav), pages 9-10, 43-44, for
details.

[29] “Mekoroth
Ha-Bereshit Rabbah,” Einleitung und Register zu Berechit Rabba volume 3
(Jerusalem 1965), pages 44-54. Albeck did not reach the author’s discovery that
the Onkelos targumist took material from the tannaitic midrashim.

[30] See the
author’s Targumic Studies, “Analysis of Targum Onkelos Deviations to
Genesis” (University Microfilms International, 1981), pages 1-76.

[31] No study was
made of Bereshit Rabbah, Mekhilta deR.
Simeon b. Yochai and Midrash Tannaim.
The author believes that more parallels will be found between Targum Onkelos
and the other tannaitic midrashim when these books are studied.

[2] Only in the last year or so have I started to examine the ArtScroll Talmud on a regular basis and I am continuously impressed. This has to be one of the most significant Torah publications of the twentieth century. Since that is the case, I don’t see why such effort is being put into producing the new Koren Talmud. While it sometimes has points that do not appear in ArtScroll, I don’t know why anyone would prefer it over ArtScroll. I have had a chance to use both ArtScroll and Koren in reviewing some sugyot in Berakhot with my son, and in my mind ArtScroll always comes out on top. I even found one place where Soncino is to be preferred to Koren (although generally this is not the case). In Berakhot 29a it states: “Corresponding to what were these twenty-four blessings of the Amida prayer of the fast days instituted?” Unlike Soncino, Koren provides no note to this sentence and most people who read it will have no clue what it is talking about since when they look in the siddur they will not find twenty-four blessings in the Amidah on fast days (as they will assume that the fast days referred to are Yom Kippur, Tisha be-Av, etc.). ArtScroll helpfully explains as follows: “On certain public fast days decreed in times of drought, an additional six blessings, enumerated in the Mishnah in Taanis 15a, are added to the eighteen regular blessings of the Shemoneh Esrei, for a total of twenty-four blessings.” I would only add that the proper transliteration of עשרה is esreh, not esrei.

[3] See here where Chwat also posts a page of R. Hananel from the censored Sanhedrin 43a.

[8] David Brodsky also discusses בית הרחם as a synonym for “va–na”. See A Bride Without a Blessing (Tübingen, 2006), pp. 55, 65, 84. In Alcalay’s English-Hebrew dictionary, s.v. va–na, it gives three Hebrew definitions, one of which is .בית הרחם

[9] Iggerot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer 1, no. 102. This appears in the second to last paragraph of the responsum. The last paragraph is where R. Moshe presents his famous view that living in the Land of Israel is not an obligatory mitzvah, a mitzvah hiyuvit, but rather a mitzvah kiyumit.Here is a good time to cite an email I received from a Lakewood scholar which I think is quite insightful, and relates to the “immodest” title pages I discuss in my recent book. This scholar writes:

There is one comment that I want to make right now regarding the pictures of the topless women that appeared and then disappeared in seforim. In addition to a point that I already once made that perhaps in earlier times the breasts were associated more with breastfeeding than with romance (it certainly was associated with that as well as can be seen from the Song of Songs, but not exclusively as today; perhaps it was more like a woman’s hair which can be seen in pictures), I would like to add a stronger point regarding these pictures.

It would seem to me that before photography when it wasn’t possible to produce real live looking pictures, people would be inclined to consider drawing an ערוה. But after the advent of real photographs, one gets the feeling that he is looking at a real image of a woman. It is for this reason, perhaps, that pictures of topless women became taboo. Once photographs began to be associated with ערוה, paintings and drawings followed since they are so similar to photographs. In other words, they became guilty by association.

If there is any merit to this argument (or speculation) then one can go a step further and say that the advent of color motion pictures which is more alive caused further stringency in this area. A picture of a woman is not that “problematic”, but to watch her video is already more like “mingling without a mechitza”. Once the women are struck from the videos, it is natural that they should be expunged from the magazines as well. It is worth noting that both the laws outlawing pornography and the invention of photography coincided with one another. It would seem that it wasn’t outlawed as long as it was only in the form of a drawing, painting, or sculpture.

While it is true that earlier sources do speak of the sexual nature of breasts (see my post here note 19), I think that my correspondent has put his finger on a very important point. It would appear that breasts were more commonly associated with breastfeeding which meant that it was not problematic to show them in pictures. We even find such a portrayal on two tombstones in the old Sephardic cemetery in Altona. Here are the pictures as they appear in Michael Studemund-Halevy and Gaby Zuern, Zerstoert die Erinnerung Nicht. Der Juedische Friedhof Koenigstrasse in Hamburg (Munich, 2002), p. 109.

There are also a whole series of paintings and sculptures showing the Virgin Mary breastfeeding, obviously showing that this was not regarded as immodest in Christian circles.

The non-sexual nature of breasts also explains Shabbat 13a:

[10] Meiri to Avodah Zarah p. 4.

[11] Meiri to Avodah Zarah p. 4, Ta’anit 27b (p. 97). Regarding Meiri’s claim, see Lawrence Zalcman, “Christians, Noserim, and Nebuchadnezzar’s Daughter,” JQR 81 (1991), pp. 411-426. Zalcman argues that Meiri did not just make up his interpretation for apologetic reasons, but was aware of Mandaeans who were known as natzurai and were linked to Nebuchadnezzar.

[13] The Talmud pages used by ArtScroll in its most recent printings are taken from Oz ve-Hadar’s edition (minus certain notes that appear only in the Oz ve-Hadar Talmuds). This means that ArtScroll omits the Shitah Mekubetzet, citing Meiri’s and R. Jonathan of Lunel’s tolerant comments, which appears in the standard Vilna edition, Bava Kamma 38a and 113a.

[15] See R. Raphael Rabbinovics, Ma’amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud, ed. Haberman (Jerusalem, 1952), pp.112ff.; David Leib Zuenz, Gedulat Yehonatan (Petrokov, 1930), vol. 1, pp. 12ff.

[16] “The Rabbi and the Jesuit” On Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz and Father Franciscus Haselbauer Editing the Talmud,” Jewish Social Studies 10 (Winter 2014), pp. 147-148.

[17] The defense was published in installments in Ha-Magid, May 9, 16, 23, 30, 1877. Sections of the document appear in  Zweifel, Saneigor, pp. 264-265, and in Saul Pinchas Rabinowitz’s edition of H. Graetz, Divrei Yemei Yisrael, vol. 8, p. 464 in the note. The complete document was published in Zuenz, Gedulat Yehonatan, pp. 135ff., but he does not identify its source, leading the reader to assume that he is quoting from a manuscript.

[27] Ibid. In my post here I discussed how R. Jehiel Michel Epstein engaged in self-censorship in the Arukh ha-Shulhan in order not to have problems with the non-Jewish authorities. Rabbi Shalom Baum called my attention to Arukh ha Shulhan, Orah Hayyim 480:1, for another example of this. I have underlined the words which any educated reader would understand were not to be taken seriously (since how could contemporary Jews ask God to pour out his wrath on the Babylonians who departed the historical stage over two thousand years ago?):

[28] Ha-Magid, May 30, 1877, p. 199. Regarding the views of R. Luria and R. Feinstein, see my Changing the Immutable, p. 42.

[35] Or ha-Mizrah 29 (1981), pp. 418-428. Leiman’s publication remains valuable because of his introduction and notes.

[1] AAF would like to thank Dov I. Frimer, Shael I. Frimer, David A. Kessler and Joel B. Wolowelsky for their insightful comments and suggestions on previous drafts.

[2] R. Jacob J. Schacter, “Facing the Truths of History,” Torah u-Madda Journal, 8 [1998-1999]: pp. 200-273.

[3] Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, “Women’s Prayer Services: Theory and Practice. Part 1 – Theory,” Tradition, 32:2 (Winter 1998), pp. 5-118. PDF available online

here. See in particular Addendum, part 6.

[4] See our discussion in Frimer and Frimer, supra note 3, Section E therein.

[5] R. Moses Schick in Likutei Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, R. Israel Stern, ed. (London, 1965), sec. 82, pp. 73-75; Meir Hildesheimer, “She’eilot u-Teshuvot Maharam Schick,” Tsefunot, 2:2(6) (Tevet 5750), pp. 87-95, at p. 93; Yona Emanuel, “Me’a Shana lePetirat haRav Azriel Hildesheimer Zatsal,” haMa’ayn, XXXIX, 4 (Tammuz 5759), pp. 1-7, “Al Kinus haRabbanim be-Mikhalovitch” pp. 2-4; Michael K. Silber, “The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition,” In The Uses of Tradition, Jack Wertheimer, ed. (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), p. 23-84; Mordechai Eliav, “Mekomo shel Rav Azriel Hildesheimer be-Ma’avak al Demutah shel Yahadutr Hungariah,” Zion 27 (1962), 59-86; Nethanel Katzburg, “Pesak Din shel Michalovitch 5726,” in Perakim be-Toldot ha-Hevrah ha-Yehudit be-Yemei ha-Beinayim u-be-Et ha-Hadashah, Emanuel Etkes and Yosef Salmon, eds. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 273-286; Jacob Katz, The Unhealed Breach: The Secession of Orthodox Jewry from the General Community in Hungary and Germany (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1994 – see especially Chapter 8.

[6] See Frimer and Frimer, supra note 3, Addendum, part 5.

[7]  R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, Darkei Hora’a, siman 6, first footnote,

[8]  R. Chayim Hirschensohn Resp. Malki baKodesh, II, sec. 4, p. 13.

[9] Cited in R. Zvi [Hershel] Schachter, Nefesh haRav (Jerusalem: Reishit Yerushalayyim, 1994), p.178.

[10] R. Jacob Israel Kanievsky, Keraina deIggarta, letter 203, pp. 219-220.

[11] Responsum to Aryeh A. Frimer, dated 7 Shevat 5756 and published in Resp. Mayyim Hayyim, III, sec. 55.

[12] R. Chaim Kanievsky, Masekhet Kutim, 1:14, Me-taher, note 30, and conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer (February 20, 1995),

[13] R. Zelig Epstein, in a conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer and Noach Dear (March 8, 1996). R. Jerucham Fishel Perlau, Commentary to Rav Sa’adia Gaon’s Sefer HaMitzvot, I, p. 156b.

[14] R. Joshua Menahem Mendel Ehrenberg, Resp. Devar Yehoshua, I, addendum to sec. 19, no. 6 (see also V, Y.D. sec 12). See also R. Nahum Yavruv, Niv Sefatayyim (Jerusalem, 1989) Niv Sefatayyim, kelal 1; R. Eliezer Judah Waldenberg, Resp. Tsits Eliezer 15:12:2.

[15] R. Elijah Rogeler, Resp. Yad Eliyahu, sec. 61 and 62

[16] R. Ovadiah Yosef, Resp. Yabia Omer, II, H.M., sec. 3

[17] R. Solomon Sobel, Salma Hadasha, Mahadura Tinyana, Haftarat Toledot; cited in R. Jacob Yehizkiyah Fisch, Titen Emet leYa’akov (Jerusalem, 1982), sec. 5, no. 36.

[18] R. Jacob Ettlinger, Arukh leNer, Yevamot 65b, s.v. “she-Ne’emar avikha tsiva” and “Ko tomeru leYosef,” and R. Reuben Margaliot, Kunteres Hasdei Olam, sec. 1061, at the end of his edition of Sefer Hasidim (Mossad haRav Kook: Jerusalem, 5724). See also R. Moses David Maccabbi Leventhal, “Shinui beDevar haShalom,” Zohar, 3 (Spring 5760), pp. 49-64.

[21] See our discussion in Section E of Frimer and Frimer, supra note 3.

[22] It could be that the Hazon Ish would not be opposed if this information was revealed in a responsible way. I say this since his language is

והבא להכריז בין המון העם כי חכמים גזרו עלינו דברים שהתורה לא אסרתן כונתו ידועה . . . והתוצאות ידועות

(Emphasis added) This might mean that it is only objectionable if someone makes a big deal out of the fact that a certain prohibition is only rabbinic

[23] Mishneh Kesef (Cracow, 1906), vol. 2, to Gen 42:12 (pp. 93-94).

[24] His quote of Aristotle is: נכון לגדול הנפש שיכזכ בהיות זה הכרחי

[25] See Jane S. Zembaty, “Aristotle on Lying,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 31 (1993), pp. 7-29.

[26] Ahoti Kalah (Jerusalem, 2007), p. 149.

[27] Eliyahu Sheetrit, Rabbenu (Jerusalem, 2014), p. 266.

[29] (Jerusalem, 2007), vol. 2, pp. 783-784.