1

Kadesheinu beMitsvotekha – The Function of the Mitsva

 Kadesheinu beMitsvotekha – The Function of the Mitsva[1]By Rabbi Aryeh A. Frimer* *Rabbi Aryeh A. Frimer is the Ethel and David Resnick Professor of Active Oxygen Chemistry at Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel; email: frimea@mail.biu.ac.il. He has lectured and published widely on various aspects of “Women and Halakha;” see: http://bermanshul.org/frimer/ Abstract: The mitsva reflects one of the most pivotal concepts of Judaism. It sanctifies those who answer its calling, and the Jew and Judaism is unique and “chosen” because of it. In this article we highlight the various ways the mitsvot and Halakha transform us and mold the Jewish personality: (a) by converting the “ought” into a “must”; (b) by transforming daily prosaic acts of man into sacred deeds; (c) by converting simple chronological, linear time into special moments of kedusha. The mitsva involves the total personality – “head, heart and hand” and makes the body equally important with the soul in the service of Hashem. Sanctification is accomplished both through deed and thought. The Torah wants the Jew to build an environment which strengthens his religious values and has designated Erets Yisrael as the most fitting place for kedusha. Sanctification through MitsvotOne of the central themes of the Days of Awe is “haMelekh haKadosh” – that the Almighty is not only ruler of the universe, but also its source of holiness. Man for his part is bidden to imitate G-d and, hence, to be holy as well – “You shall be holy, for I your G-d is Holy” (Lev. 19:2).  But how exactly is Man expected to become holy? What is the recipe for sanctification? The answer to this question is found in the Sabbath and Holiday prayers: “Kadsheinu be-mitsvotekha – Sanctify us through your Commandments.” Similarly, before performing mitsva actions, we say: “…who has sanctified us through his commandments.” If G-d is THE Kadosh – THE source of sanctity, we become sanctified by linking up with Him – specifically, by doing His will, by fulfilling His commandments. Centrality of MitsvotR. Norman Lamm[2] notes that the term mitsva reflects one of the most pivotal concepts of Judaism: Firstly, the word mitsva implies a Metsaveh, One who commands. The divine Metsaveh must obviously be a personal G-d – for only a personal G-d is sufficiently concerned with men to care about them and command them into action. Secondly, mitsva implies that man lives under obligation to the Metsaveh, and that his life must be regulated in accordance with G-d’s will. Furthermore, the very existence of mitsva suggests that this personal G-d has made his will known to man through some form of revelation – such as ma’amad Har Sinai.  Uniqueness of the Jewish PeopleBut more importantly, the mitsva is at the heart of our uniqueness as a people. When we talk about Israel as being the “chosen people” – what is it that makes us unique? In Jewish tradition there are essentially two basic approaches:[3] The Mystical Approach suggests that, indeed, there is something about the Jewish neshama that makes it fundamentally different from that of the gentile. This is referred to as the Pintele Yid – the Jewish spark within us. As far as converts are concerned, this approach cites the Talmudic tradition that in addition to the Israelites who departed Egypt, all future souls who would be born or join Klal Yisrael were at Sinai (Shevuot 39a). Therefore, a convert was somehow born with a Yiddishe neshama, a Jewish soul.  According to this approach, the Talmudic statement “A Jew, even should he sin, remains a Jew” (Sanhedrin 44a) is more than just a legal statement about personal status and obligation; it suggests that there is some inherent quality about being a Jew – and one can never opt out. The Rational Approach, on the other hand, argues that a Jew is not intrinsically better. Rather, the People of Israel are a unique entity because of their special calling to do mitsvot. As we say in the birkhot haTorah: “You have chosen us, and given us Your Torah.” And again in the holiday liturgy: “You have chosen us from all nations … and sanctified us through your commandments.” According to this latter approach, we are indeed the “Chosen People,” but we were chosen for responsibility and obligation – not privilege. We become elevated and sanctified by answering this special calling – by doing mitsvot. One has the freedom of choice not to heed this calling. Furthermore, one not born a Jew may take this calling upon oneself by conversion. But those of us who opt to answer this calling affirmatively are sanctified through the fulfillment of the mitsvot. It is through the performance of mitsvot that we Jews become unique. Uniqueness of JudaismBut the mitsva is also what makes Judaism as a religion unique. Most of the religions of the world are primarily spiritual or neshama religions. They are chiefly concerned with “other-worldliness.” The emphasis is on feeling, will or thought. Salvation in Christianity is through faith; the mitsvot are, therefore, superfluous and even in the way. Judaism, on the other hand, is a religion of this world – it is a religion of action. One does not become holy by withdrawing from life, but rather by living it fully under the Torah’s direction.[4] All of life is guided by Torah which is a Jew’s manual for living. Rabbis are generally famous for their Talmudic analysis and halakhic decisions, rather than their works of thought and theology. It is not at all surprising that Jewish action is codified in a Shulkhan Arukh entailing reams and reams of fine print on large pages. Yet the basic elements of faith are simply summarized in 13 principles – and many Rishonim dispute even these.[5]Judaism is also a human religion and by that I mean that, while G-d is the source, it was given to humans for humans. This expresses itself in two ways. Firstly, from the verse “It is not in heaven” (Deut. 30:12), we learn that the Torah was given to Man to interpret, apply and resolve difficulties within given rules – without Divine intervention. Secondly, it teaches us that the purpose of the Torah was not to convert us into angels. The Creator intended the Torah for Man as he is, recognizing all his frailties and all his potential. And yet its goal is to sanctify us by guiding us in how to interact with world around us. This attitude resonates in the oft quoted statement: “The Torah was not given to angels” (Lo nitna Torah le-malakhei ha-sharet; Berakhot 25b). In this regard R. Adin Steinzalts writes: “If G-d had wanted Man to become an angel and do everything as such, He simply would have created more angels. But His wish was to create Man.”[6]In summary, then, the mitsva sanctifies those who answer its calling and the Jew and Judaism is unique because of the mitsvaMechanisms of SanctificationA little over a decade and a half ago, Anthony Eitan Fiorino wrote insightfully about his conversion and spiritual growth through Judaism.[7] He cites testimony from over the ages indicating that simply behaving as a Traditional Jew leads to spiritual growth. But what, however, is the mechanism of this change? We highlight below the various ways the mitsvot and Halakha transform us and mold the Jewish personality. 1) Firstly, the mitsvot convert the “ought” into a “must” – relative morality into absolute morality. “Thou shalt not steal” is applicable even if the thief is an impoverished ambulance driver stealing $100 from a deceased billionaire. Relative morality, the greater good, might well say the theft is acceptable – after all no one is really hurt. The Torah says “Lo tignov” with absolute authority. An ought is converted into a must – a relative value into an absolute one.[8] 2) Secondly, the mitsva transforms daily prosaic acts of man into sacred deeds. It takes simple actions and converts them into meaningful events. Let’s look first at several examples. (a) Eating is a neutral: it is neither good nor bad, just necessary. Yet in halakaha it is sanctified by a variety of required actions. First there is the simple act of reciting a berakha, which is an acknowledgement of the G-d of Creation. Ultimately, He is the source of all reality and making a berakha is an act of submission to His will. The sundry laws of kashrut, ritual slaughtering, blood removal, separation of milk and meat etc. – all make eating important, special and sacred. This is because now the neutral act of eating is part of avodat Hashem – Divine service. (b) There is nothing more neutral, perhaps, than going to the washroom. Yet here, too, halakha requires us to stop and think. In the Asher Yatsar benediction recited following use of the lavatory, we acknowledge a Creator “who has formed man in wisdom and created in him a complex system of openings and cavities. It is well known before your glorious throne that if one of these (openings and cavities) be opened or closed improperly, it would be impossible to exist in Thy presence. Blessed art Thou Lord who heals all creatures and does wonders.” Halakha utilizes this commonplace experience to meditate on the wonders of creation, and ponder the miraculous nature of the body. Even this basic occurrence is elevated to the spiritual. In this regard, R. Danny Levine recounts that prior to a shul board meeting, he went to use the amenities. The President of the shul caught him exiting the lavatory mumbling something. Upon being questioned, R. Levine explained all about Birkhat Asher Yatsar and its import. When they returned to the Board meeting, the President lightheartedly commented how holy their rabbi was! “After all, he even makes a berakha when he goes to the washroom.” As fate would have it, six months later the Shul President was hospitalized and the Rabbi went to visit him in the hospital. As he entered, the Rabbi’s eye caught sight of the catheter at the President’s bedside. To this the President insightfully commented: “Forget about the annual Kol Nidrei, Rabbi – it’s the daily Asher Yatsars that count!”[9] (3) But the mitsva also transforms simple chronological, linear time into special moments of kedusha – what the ancient Greeks called the conversion of chronos into chiros. Thus, halakha takes 25 hour periods and converts them into what R. Abraham Joshua Heschel referred to as “Sanctuaries in Time”[10] – into a Shabbos, a Yom Tov or a Yom Kippur. On Shabbat and Yom Tov we attempt to bring down the spiritual and meld it with the physical. On a fast day, we attempt to raise the physical up to the spiritual. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l, “The Rov,” commented that, on the Regalim in Temple times, Jews were invited to visit G-d’s home; on Shabbat, Hashem visits ours – if we will only invite him in.[11]Ultimately, the goal of Yiddishkeit is to capture chunks of life and bring them tahat kanfei haShekhina – into the spiritual, sanctified realm. This what Hazal mean when they comment “Sanctify yourself in the neutral areas” (Yevamot 20a). Sanctify yourself by taking even those areas which are halakhically neutral and permissible, and dedicate them toward Divine service.[12] Ideally every action should be linked somehow and in some way with the divine will and divine service: eat so you have the strength to better serve Hashem;  sleep so as to be awake and alert to better carry out the Divine will;  go to museums and zoos, so as to better appreciate the wonderfully multifaceted world Hashem has created. In all these actions, there is nothing wrong with enjoying yourself. But it is the element of kavana – my intention and motivation – which sanctifies the act and makes it part of Divine service.[13]One of the most important lessons in this regard I learned when I was in my early teens at Camp Munk in the Catskills. At that time, R. David Cohen Shlita, now one of the leading Poskim in New York, was head learning group teacher. One morning, while we were playing baseball, “Reb Dovid” came down to the field and asked if he could “hit a few out.” We were, of course, thrilled  to see this then budding gadol playing baseball. But after a short while, the third baseman called out: “Hey Rebbi, isn’t this bittul Torah [Isn’t this a waste of time, when you could be learning Torah]?”Reb Dovid smiled and asked us all to gather at the pitchers mound. He explained to us that Divine service doesn’t just mean to learn, learn, learn or do, do, do. The Torah was given to a complete human being who has strengths and weakness, desires and needs. The Torah was not given to angels (Berakhot 25b). Even budding scholars need to play a little baseball or basketball! And then he taught us the important lesson of kavanah – intention and motivation. If you indulge in baseball to simply while away the time, because you think you have nothing better to do – yes this is most definitely bittul Torah. However, if you engage in sports and exercise so that your body will be healthier to serve your creator; to clean out the cobwebs of your mind; or so that you will be more relaxed and have more stamina to learn Torah – this too is part of the complete picture of serving G-d.[14] Of course, everything must be done within good taste and reason.Another important lesson in this regard I learned when I was 17.  I spent the summer in Israel at Camp Daroma in Rehovot, Israel. One Shabbat afternoon, we were invited to the home of R. Elimelekh Bar-Shaul, then Chief Rabbi of the city. He asked us what we thought about the Halakha which instructed one to put on the right shoe first, but then tie the left shoe first (Shulkhan Arukh, O.H., 2:4). The younger campers giggled, but the older ones realized the import of the question: was this what the halakha had to occupy itself with? Are these the issues that need to preoccupy a Jew?And then R. Bar-Shaul explained: “You see,” he said softly, “Yiddishkeit is in a constant struggle to sanctify more and more of life. Putting on your shoes is a neutral action – how do I sanctify it? The answer is by linking it to the service of THE Kadosh. I put on my right shoe first, because right symbolizes strength and I begin my service of the Creator with strength. But I tie my left shoe first, because a male Jew ties his Tefillen on his left hand. Hence, with regard to tying, left is more sanctified. You see this is not at all silly or trivial,” said the Chief Rabbi, “it’s about Kedoshim tihiyu (Lev. 19:2). – our attempt to capture more and more neutral chunks of life and bring them under the wings of the Shekhina.” To summarize, then, the mitsva converts the “ought” to a “must”; it reshapes simple acts into sacred events; and similarly, it transforms simple time into sanctified moments. 4) We are continuing our discussion of how mitsvot sanctify. And in this regard it is important to note that the religions of the past were reserved either for intellectuals and philosophers, or for people capable of mystical depth, or for individuals with profound spiritual gifts.  But full performance of the mitsva involves the total person – not just the head (thought and kavana), and not just the heart (sentiment or emotion), but also and primarily the hand – the body. Hence, even the simple Jew can serve Hashem – you don’t have to be a philosopher or mystic. In a sense, then, the mitsva, democratizes living because all people, rich or poor, weak or powerful, learned or illiterate, low or high born, gifted or not – all serve G-d through the calling of the mitsva.  Nevertheless, since the mitsva involves the total personality – “head, heart and hand” – and since each individual is unique, so is their avodat Hashem (Divine service). 5) This brings us to a crucial fifth point. Judaism makes the body equally important with the soul in the service of Hashem – by making the body the only real agent for the fulfillment of mitsvot. As the verse (Psalms 35:10) says: “All my limbs call out: Hashem who is like you.”[15] In that visit I described above at the home of R. Bar-Shaul in 1964, the Rehovot Chief Rabbi noted that this verse is cited as the source for “shokeling” – swaying back in forth in prayer.[16] “You see,” said R. Bar Shaul, “prayer is primarily service of the heart. The body too wants to be involved – so it shokels.The critical point is that, in contradistinction to Christianity and the ascetics, mainstream Judaism does not consider the neshama as good and the body as bad. How could the body be bad? It was made by Hashem! What’s more, it is only through the body that we can reach out and serve the Almighty. In his Iggeret haKodesh, Nahmanides argues that the body is neutral, neither inherently good or bad. It all depends on how it is used. A hand that writes a sefer Torah is sanctified; while one that murders is defiled. The same is true for sexual relations. Not only is intimacy sanctified and sanctifying by the marriage ceremony, Sheva Berakhot, laws of family purity, procreation and mitsvat onah (conjugal relations) – but it also creates an emotional and physical bond between husband and wife. It is within this firm and warm relationship of sharing and love that children should be born and educated to serve as the next link in the chain of tradition.  By contrast, Catholicism views celibacy as the true ideal. For Judaism, the body is the chief agent of avodat Hashem, and hence is to be protected and respected, and it will share in the heavenly rewards of the Messianic period and “the days to come.”Summarizing once more: the mitsva works on the total personality – head, heart and hand. In addition, the body is a full partner with the soul in the fulfillment of mitsvot and the attainment of spirituality. Sanctification through Deed and ThoughtThere are two types of mitsvot. The specific commandments guide us through specific actions or prohibitions. But there are also the mitsvot kelaliyyot, the general mitsvot that provide a general blueprint of the Torah’s vision and direction. These include actions required by the verses: “Thou shalt be holy” (Lev. 19:2); “Do what is just and good” (Deut 6:18); “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. 19:18); and “The Torah’s ways are the ways of pleasantness” (Prov. 3:17). The general commandments guide attitudes and motivation. They aid in the development of a Jewish Weltanschaung so that, firstly, one can cope with the gray areas – the ambiguities of life. But, secondly, general mitsvot open up the possibility of lifnim me-shurat ha-din – of supererogatory acts. They allow us to reach out towards an ideal vision of that which can, could, or ought to be. In short , the specific mitsvot sanctify the personality through the body, through the deed, through the experience. The general mitsvot sanctify the individual through the intellect, thought and attitudinal changes.  The Role of the Land of IsraelThere is, however, one last issue regarding the role of mitsvot in the life of a Jew that we have yet to discuss. Is there a preferred site or location for the fulfillment of mitsvot?  The answer is, of course, a resounding yes – and that place is the Land of Israel. I am reminded of it every time I return to the States for a sabbatical and am forced to eat in the Sukkah in the freezing cold, or try to burn my hamets in the snow! It’s not how the Torah meant it to be! From a Jewish perspective “It simply ain’t natural!” Indeed, Nahmanides, citing the Sifri, goes so far as to suggest that the only reason why the Torah commanded us to do mitsvot in the exile was so that we wouldn’t forget them before we returned to Israel.[17]              But Erets Yisrael represents much more. It is ideally the location where Jews are meant to be in control of their cultural environment – where the surroundings strengthen the values that a Torah-true Jew attempts to inculcate in his children and family members at home. As noted by Hazal time and again, in the galut, Jews suffer from dominion of the nations of the world (shi’abud malkhuyot). What troubled Hazal was not primarily the political dimension of this foreign control, rather its cultural aspects. In the diaspora, a traditional Jew cannot function completely naturally; he is always a minority and constantly apologizing.  He is often at odds with many of the values of the world around him. Talmud Berakhot (17a) recounts that R. Alexandri concluded his Shemoneh Esrei as follows: “Ruler of the world: You are well aware that our honest desire is to do Thy will. But what prevents us? The evil inclination and the dominion of the nations.” The Yetser haRa erodes man’s Torah values from within, while shi’abud malkhuyot does so from without. With such adversaries, it is little wonder that the battle to remain a committed Jew is not always easy. The Torah wants the Jew to build an environment which strengthens his religious values and has designated Erets Yisrael as the most fitting place for kedusha. It is for this reason it is referred to as Erets haKodesh. I’m not so naïve as to think that there isn’t cultural – if not an element of political – shi’abud malkhuyot in modern day Israel. On the contrary, this is perhaps THE major challenge for religious Zionism in the next decade: to rebuild Israel spiritually. Reciprocity between G-d and IsraelWe began our presentation with a discussion of the meaning of “the Chosen People.” Interestingly, in this regard, we find two famous yet seemingly contradictory Rabbinic traditions regarding the giving of the Torah (Avodah Zara 2a,b). One indicates that indeed
G-d chose Israel. Actually what it says is that G-d held up Mt. Sinai over their heads threateningly and said “you either accept the Torah, or I will return the world to tohu va-vohu (chaos).”  The second tradition maintains, however, that the People of Israel chose G-d. Actually, what the Talmud says is that G-d went around to the nations of the world trying to give them the Torah. But, when they heard its various restrictions, prohibitions and moral imperatives, they rejected it. Only klal Yisrael said “Na’aseh ve-nishma.”.               R. Norman Lamm[18] indicates that these two traditions are not irreconcilable. Indeed, at Sinai, G-d chose us to receive the Torah and mitsvot. Each of us in klal Yisrael, for better or for worse, is born into a people who have a Divine calling. But revelation is of no value unless we willingly accept that calling, unless we willingly choose G-d by answering Na’aseh veNishma, unless we respond with hineni.  I may be a Jew by virtue of G-d’s choice, but only I can determine what kind of Jew I choose to be!This reciprocal relationship between G-d and Israel[19] is an idea made famous in the form of two jingles – the first, is that of British Journalist William Norman Ewer (18851976), who wrote: How odd of G-d, to choose the Jews.To which Hebrew University philosopher Leon Roth (1896-1963) responded:It’s not so odd – The Jews chose G-d.Indeed, there exists a mutual bond of love between G-d and the Jewish people. God chose Israel out of love, as we say prior to the morning recitation of Shema: haBoher be-amo Yisrael be-ahava.” We, in turn, reciprocate by declaring “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” The Call of the ShofarDuring the course of the year we are dragged along by the ebb and flow of life.  We have little time for kavana, less for renewal and rededication.  But the Shofar of Elul and Rosh HaShana and the fasting of Yom Kippur are the clarion call to re-evaluate the purpose and message of our life. It is a call to consciously sanctify our thoughts, our deeds and our actions – to bring more and more of our individual and communal lives “tahat kanfei haShekhina.”               May we be worthy this year to see the fulfillment of our prayers: “Sanctify us through Your commandments, and grant us a share in Your Torah, sustain us with Your kindness and rejoice us with Your salvation, and purify our hearts to serve You sincerely.”10 


[1] I would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by Avi Mori R. Norman E. Frimer zt”l, to the substance and content of this piece – and would like, therefore, to dedicate it to his memory. I would also like to thank R. Shlomo Pick and Arnold Lustiger for their many sources, comments and suggestions.[2] R. Norman Lamm, “Issues of Faith,” Dimension, Winter 1967, pp. 5-9.[3]   R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik held a hybrid position, namely, that a Jew had two types of sanctity, one inherited from the Avot, and the other by fulfilling mitsvot. See: R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Al haTeshuva, ed. Pinchas Peli (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1975), pp. 132-133 (citing Rashi to Deut. 14:2); R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Shiurim leZekher Aba Mori z”l, Vol. II, “beInyan Birkot haTorah,” pp. 13-14. See also Arnold Lustiger, Derashot haRav (New Jersey: Ohr Publishing, 2003), pp. 208-209.[4]   See the related comments of R. Yehuda Amital, “Human Holiness,” available online at: http://tinyurl.com/qmpv4k.[5] See: (a) R. Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). (b) Menachem Kellner, Dogma In Medieval Jewish Thought: From Maimonides To Abravanel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).[6] R. Adin Steinzalts, “Human Holiness,” in The Strife of the Spirit (Northvale, New Jersey: Aronson, 1988), p. 38. For further discussion of “The Torah was not given to angels” principle and it’s halakhic ramifications, see: R. Shlomo A. Glicksburg, “Lo Nitna Torah leMalakhei haSharet: Al Gevulot haDiyyuk haMada’i biPesikat Halakha,” BD”D – Journal of Torah and Scholarship (In Press).[7]  Anthony Fiorino, “One Soul’s Adventure: Spiritual Growth Through Halacha,” Jewish Action, Winter 5753/1992-3, pp. 32, 84-93.[8]  See the comments of R, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited by Arnold Lustiger, supra note 3, Appendix B, esp. pp. 235-236.[9]   See the moving article of Kenneth M. Prager, “For Everything a Blessing,” A Piece of My Mind column, JAMA 277, no. 20 (May 28, 1997), p. 1589; reprinted in ASSIA – Jewish Medical Ethics, III:2 (September 1998), pp. 34-35. [10] R. Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951). The Kabbalistic work Sefer Yetsira (6:1) speaks of three dimensions in which holiness may be created: time, space and being (soul).[11]  R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Shiurim leZekher Aba Mori z”l, Vol. I, “Kibbud veOneg Shabbat,” pp. 50-68, at 67; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Exalted Evening, R. Menachem Genack, ed. (New York: OU Press, 2009), pp. 88-89; R. Hershel Schechter, Nefesh haRav, p. 157.[12] See: R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia PA: Jewish Publication Society,1983).[13] See Shulhan Arukh, O.H. sec. 231, no. 1. [14] Regarding exercise, see the comments of R. Abraham Isaac haKohen Kook, Orot, Orot haTehiyya (Jerusalem, 5753), Chap. 33, p. 80.[15] See: R. Norman E. Frimer, A Jewish Quest for Religious Meaning (New Jersey: Ktav, 1993), p. 78.[16] R. Hezekiah Da Silva, Peri Hadash, O.H., sec. 95; R. Israel Meir haKohen, Mishna Berura, ad. loc. subsec. 7. See the extensive discussion of R. Eric Zimmer, Olam keMinhago Noheg (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1996), pp. 97-111.[17] R. Moses ben Nahman, Commentary to Lev. 18:25; see also Rashi and Ramban to Deut. 11:18.[18] Supra, note 2. See also R. Norman Lamm, in “Symposium: You have Chosen Us from Amongst the Nations,” Jewish Action, Fall 5765/2004 (65:1).[19] See: R. Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation, Ki Tavo, Sept. 9, 2006.




The Writings of R. Hayyim Gulevsky, Part 2

The Writings of R. Hayyim Gulevsky, part 2
By Marc B. Shapiro

Many of the stories Gulevsky tells cannot be verified, and we have to take his word that he is faithfully recording that which he heard. Thus, he tells us about R. Abraham Eliezer Alperstein, who was an early rosh yeshiva at Yeshivat R Yitzhak Elhanan and the author of the first commentary on the Talmud published in the United States. It appeared in Chicago in 1887. Gulevsky tells the story of Alperstein’s move to Chicago, where, after arriving, he supposedly gave a speech in which he said the following (Du Yovlin, p. 30):
יהודי נוי יארק הם בעלי זדון ומשוגה ואינם שומעים לקול מורים, רק לקול מורדים. אבל את יהודים יקרים בשיקאגא כי לכל העם בשגגה, ואשר את המלה בשגגה חיריק תחת השין גימל הראשון פתח וגימל השני קמוצה, וזה נקרא שיגאגא.
(Alperstein’s pun, שגגה=Chicago, is also found in the introduction to the second edition of his commentary.)
Gulevsky claims that Alperstein left New York for Chicago because the people in charge of bringing a chief rabbi to N.Y. were not interested in a great scholar but in a fine speaker and that is why they chose R. Jacob Joseph, who was the leading preacher in Vilna. Although he was also served as a dayan, he was not esteemed as a halakhic authority. Gulevsky adds that when Yeshivat R. Yitzhak Elhanan was established, they didn’t consider R. Jacob Joseph worthy of being the head rosh yeshiva. According to Gulevsky, even though he was a great talmid hakham, he was not of the level that an important community in Europe would have picked him as its rav.
With regard to R. Jacob Joseph, let me point out an error I made in an earlier post.[1] I referred to the Aderet’s responsum attacking R. Jacob Joseph and I assumed that the publishers didn’t know who R. Jacob Joseph was or they wouldn’t have allowed this to appear. It was pointed out, however, that I was wrong as in the index at the back of the volume the editors indeed identify who R. Jacob Joseph was. This makes it even more unusual that the text wasn’t censored.
While Alperstein at first was very happy in Chicago, this did not last long, As Yosef Goldman points out, “Alperstein had only praise for his congregation in Chicago in the first edition [of his talmudic commentary]; in the second edition he referred to its members as ‘wild boars.’”[2]
Only a few years later R. Jacob David Wilovsky (Ridbaz) also came to Chicago and he too found a great deal of difficulty there. In particular, he was opposed by R. Zvi Simeon Album who saw Ridbaz as a threat to his own kashrut supervision. While today everyone knows the Ridbaz and no one has heard of Album, we shouldn’t let this prejudice us in this particular matter. After all, Album was also a fine talmid hakham, although obviously not at the Ridbaz’ level. He published two volumes detailing his terrible dispute with Ridbaz, in which aside from dealing with kashrut matters, he also accuses Ridbaz of plagiarism and of creating controversy where ever he goes. Here are the title pages.


While the history of kashrut supervision is a great interest of mine, I will leave that for another time. For now, let me just call attention to two interesting points he makes in his polemic against Ridbaz.
The Ridbaz’ attack on the Brisker method is well known. In the introduction to his responsa, Beit Ridbaz (Jerusalem, 1908), Ridbaz writes as follows:

A certain rabbi invented the “chemical” method of study. Those in the know now refer to it as “chemistry,” but many speak of it as “logic.” This proved to be of great harm to us for it is a foreign spirit from without that they have brought in to the Oral Torah. This is not the Torah delivered to us by Moses from the mouth of the Omnipresent. This method of study has spread among the yeshivah students who still hold a gemara in their hands. In no way does this type of Torah study bring men to purity. From the day this method spread abroad this kind of Torah has had no power to protect its students. . . . It is better to have no rosh yeshivah than to have one who studies with the “chemical” method.

In his ethical will, printed at the end of his responsa, Ridbaz returns to this criticism and directs his sons: “Be careful, and keep far away from the new method of study that has in recent years spread through Lithuania and Zamut. Those knowledgeable in Torah refer to it as ‘chemistry.'” [Just before this post appeared, R. Eliezer Katzman sent word that in his opinion, Ridbaz is not referring to R. Hayyim and the Brisker approach, but rather to Telz and its method of talmudic analysis. I don’t believe this is correct, and hope to return to this subject in a future post.]
In the first edition of Shaul Stampfer’s Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita’it be-Hithavutah, p. 113 n. 29, he quotes Saul Lieberman’s opinion that Ridbaz’ words were directed against R. Isaac Jacob Reines. This is clearly incorrect. Reines’ method had no influence whatsoever, and Ridbaz is speaking about a method of study that was widespread in the yeshivot. It is obvious that he can only be referring to the method of R. Hayyim. Lieberman’s incorrect speculation was removed in the second edition of Stampfer’s book.
This new edition is of great importance for it contains the documents that reveal the true reason why Volozhin was closed. In fact, On the Main Line has recently printed a report from the Jewish Chronicle that shows that even in England they had heard that the reason for closing down the yeshiva had to do with the “nihilists.”[3] Incidentally, the report in the Jewish Chronicle’s second story (also cited by On the Main Line) that the Netziv went to Western Europe is incorrect. In fact, I found it quite strange, as it is well known that the Netziv never left Eastern Europe. I asked R. Nathan Kamenetsky about this, and he responded as follows:

They confused him with his son R’ Hayyim Berlin, who did travel to Western Europe to raise funds. In MOAG (p. 449) I quote part of a letter R’ Hayyim wrote FROM PARIS, four months after the closure of the yeshiva to the Rav of Tripoli, Libya . . . From the text of [R.] Berlin’s signature on that letter, I prove (among other proofs) that the Berlins expected the closure of the yeshiva to be temporary.[4]

He also wrote me that he finds the article on the closure significant as “this proves that even among Jews it was known that the yeshiva was closed for the actual reason that is set down in the government records that Stampfer discovered and publicized in his later edition of ‘Yeshivot Lita be’Hit’havutah’. . . . It is invaluable.”

Returning to the Ridbaz, it is not surprising that Album, Divrei Emet, vol. 2, p. 45, points to Ridbaz’ comments as proof that the latter had contempt for the Torah scholars of Eastern Europe. Ridbaz never responded to this volume, but in the introduction to Nimukei Ridbaz (Chicago, 1904), he had already given his view of Album (without mentioning him by name).[5] There was another attack on Album in the book Akhen Noda ha-Davar (n.p., n.d). This latter work is very rare and I have never seen a copy of it. Although its author is given as P. Gwirtzman, Album claims that it was really written by Ridbaz (Divrei Emet, vol. 2, pp. 3, 9, 31).
Needless to say, because of his attacks on R. Hayyim, Ridbaz did not endear himself to the Soloveitchik family. Once when a student referred to Ridbaz, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik became very angry and told the student never to mention his name again. He also said that some gedolim are always right, some are sometimes right, and some are never right, and the Ridbaz falls into the latter category![6]
Album also points to something else in order to attack Ridbaz. Here is the title page of Ridbaz’ Nimukei Ridbaz.

Look at how Ridbaz is described with such grandiose titles. Album picks up on this and writes (Divrei Emet, vol. 1, p. 34b):

עשה עטרה לעצמו בראשו וכתב על עצמו על פתח השער, ספר נימוקי הרידב”ז, מאת רבינו מאור הגולה שר התורה צדיק נשגב המפורסם בכל קצות תבל כק”ש מה’ יעקב דוד נ”י המפורסם בחיבורו הגדול על הירושלמי. כן כתב הרידב”ז על עצמו – ועשה נגד הירושלמי מפורש בפ’ ז’ דפסחים וז”ל הירושלמי ושנא את הרבנות מלמד שלא יניח אדם עטרה לעצמו בראשו שנאמר יהללוך זרים ולא פיך
He continues by mocking Ridbaz’ learning. Here is one example, where he picks up on something Ridbaz writes in Nimukei Ridbaz (ibid., p. 35a):
וכמה דברים אשר נמצאים בתוכו הוא אפס ואין – ואין זה כי אם ראות עין. כמו למשל כתב בפ’ וירא דלכך לא הכניס אברהם המלאכים לתוך האוהל משום דהצדיקים אין הקב”ה מביא תקלה על ידם, ואם הכניסם לתוך האוהל היה שרה רואה אותם, וקיי”ל דאשה נדה אסורה להביט על הס”ת ע”כ באם היו באוהל היתה בע”כ שרה רואה אותם ע”כ. והנה כל דבריו בזה דברים בטלים המה, ראשית שאין שום איסור על האשה להביט על הס”ת רק מצד מנהג וכבוד, עיין במג”א וגם אין צדיקים הקב”ה מביא תקלה על ידן לא שייך אלא במידי דאכילת איסור.
He continues the assault on this point in vol. 2, p. 39:
ומלבד שדבריו דברי ליצנות המה, ומה ענין מלאכים לס”ת, והיכן מצינו שיהי’ מלאכים בגדר ס”ת.
It is very sad to read how Ridbaz and Album speak about each other, and as more than a few have quipped, “There is no hatred like the hatred between rabbis.” Another version of the comment is that “There is no hatred like the hatred between rabbis, especially when money is involved.” Yet in this case, at least, I don’t know how significant the financial angle was. Album claimed that he never received remuneration for giving his hashgachah, and this isn’t something he could have put in print if it was not true. However, Harold Gastwirt assumes that Album was upset that Ridbaz had been chosen as chief rabbi of Chicago, instead of him, and this position certainly did come with a salary.[7])
In seeking to explain the phenomenon or rabbinic hatred, R. Jacob Eskolsky gives the following insightful answer (Taryag Mitzvot [New York, 1926], vol. 1, p. 32a.
פעם אחת השבתי לבעל הבית אחד בעיר סקרענטאן, אשר הייתי שם רב איזה שנים, אשר שאלני השאלה הנושנה של העם, מדוע נשתנו הרבנים מכל בני מלאכה אחרת, אשר הם יושבים זה בצד זה ברחוב אחד או בבית חרושת אחד ואינם שונאים זה לזה, והרבנים מכיון שנמצאים שנים בעיר אינם נוחין זה לזה, אדרבה שונאים הם זה את זה ומחרפים אחד את חבירו, היש איזו סיבה לפליאה זו? והשבתי לו בפשיטות, הלא אם יבואו איש לביתו ויבשר בשורה נעימה לאשתו, כי עזרהו ה’ בפרנסתו ויוכל להוסיף לה שפחה על שפחתה שתהיה עזר כנגדה ותוכל לישב בקתדרא, תגיע להגברת שמחה מזה, וגם השפחה היושבת בבית הבישול בשמעה זאת אחורי הדלת נתמלאה רצון משמועה הזאת, כי תהיה לה חברה לעבודתה ולא יפול משא כל הבית עליה. לא כן אם יבוא איש הביתה בבשורה נעימה ומספר לאשתו כי עזרהו ה’ בריווח גדול יוכל לקחת עוד אשה אחת על אשתו, כי יוכל לפרנס שתי נשים, אז תמלא קנאת עזה כמוה ותשפוך כל חמתה עליו ובקול רעש גדול תחיל הזעק עליו, כי איננה שפחה בביתו להיות שמח בחברתה, כי בעלת הבית היא ואינה חפצה בשום אופן להניח שניה לצוות ולהנהיג עניני הבית ורק קולה ישמע בכל ענין הנהגת הבית, ואם לא ישמע לה ויקח אשה אחרת עליה תהיה צרה לה. כמו כן אם הרבנים מקיימים מה שנאמר בהוריות (דף י’) לא שררות אני נותן לכם, עבדות אני נותן לכם, כי אז היו שמחים אם הקהל מקבל עליו עוד רב, ובקבלת עוד עבד לצרכי הקהל הוקל מעליו עבודת העיר, אך אם הרב מחשיב את עצמו לשר ושופט ונוהג נשיאותו ברמה וכל מילי דמתא יהיו נמתחים אך על פיו ובלעדו לא ירים איש את ידו, אז מביט בעין קנאה על רב השני ואינו מניחו להרים ראש. ועל זה אמרו חכמנו (יומא עא) אלו תלמידי חכמים שדומים לנשים ועושים גבורה כאנשים, כי דרך נשים להם להיות מתקנאות בירך חברתה ולהיות צרה להשניה.
Before coming to New York, Eskolsky had served as a rav in Scranton[8] and was no stranger to rabbinic disputes himself.[9]
Exalted egos from both sides also helps to explain rabbinic feuds. As the Maharal commented, this is a particular problem of Torah scholars, because they are aware of their own great scholarship (Netivot Olam: Netivot ha-Anavah, ch. 6):
כי הגאוה הוא על בעל תורה בטבע וכל זה מצד הגדולה והמעלה שיש לתורה . . . ומפני כך בעל התורה יש בו קצת גאוה שרואה עצמו ג”כ גבוה ונבדל משאר הבריות.
Sometimes these rabbinic disputes even reach the level of what R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg referred to as “murder.” Here is what he wrote in a letter to R. Joseph Apfel (Kitvei ha-Rav Weinberg, vol. 1 no. 3):
לפני שנתיים באו לכאן הרב גרוסנאס ביחד עם הפרופ’ דומב להתיעץ עם הגרי”א הרצוג ז”ל ששהה כאן והם הי’ גם אצלי ואני יעצתי להגריא”ה לבלי להורות הוראה בזה כי אם בהסכמת כל גדולי ירושלים כי . . . יש קנאים גדולים שאינם מודים על האמת אלא מחמירים עפ”י שיקול דעתם ורגשי לבם. ועמם אין להתוכח והם חשודים גם על שפיכת דם של המקילים וד”ל.
I published this volume as a sefer, to be used in the beit midrash, so I took out something which I didn’t think was proper to appear in such a work (as opposed to a scholarly book or blog where these considerations do not apply). In accordance with scholarly convention, I indicated this with an ellipses. Incidentally, when the late R. Joseph Apfel gave me the letters he received from R. Weinberg, there was only one place where he told me to omit a name. Other than that, he gave me permission to publish the letters in their entirety.
The complete sentence reads (and I have emphasized the deleted word):
כי אם בהסכמת כל גדולי ירושלים כי ביניהם יש קנאים גדולים שאינם מודים על האמת
In other words, R. Weinberg includes in his criticism even some people regarded as gedolim. This should not surprise us, and it doesn’t mean that these individuals are not, in fact, gedolim. Even well-meaning people can at times be led to extreme statements and “shefihut damim”. We have seen this in the last few years when rabbis, without any real knowledge of the facts, have declared that certain hashgachot are not reliable. We have seen gedolim declare that certain authors are dangerous without having even read their books (in the original or in translation) or spoken to them. I know from speaking to some of the mashgichim and the authors that they regard this as real “shefihut damim,” for they have been publicly condemned as either not reliable in matters of kashrut[10] or as destroyers of Torah society. If the accusations are true, then the rabbis have no choice but to speak out. But if the allegations are false, or even uncertain, is there any greater “shefihut damim” than this?
With regard to Weinberg’s comment, the late Yonah Emanuel wrote to me:
[תרשה] לי להתייחס לקטע הנ”ל, בו הרב ויינברג כתב שהקנאים חשודים על שפיכות דמים של המקילים. יש להביא אסמכתא מעדות אישה (!). רות בלוי בספרה “שומרי העיר” (י”ם תשל”ט) , פרק יז-יח, מתארת איך הקנאים רצו למנוע נישואי רבי עמרם בלוי איתה, בהיותה גיורת. אבל למה להביא ממרחק לחמנו? פעם הלכתי לשיעור אצל מו”ר הרב ש”ז אויערבך זצ”ל, ופתאום ראיתי במדרגות בית מו”ר זצ”ל קנאים רבים, חלק מהם דחפו עצמם לתוך הדירה, וחלק עמדו בחוץ. הם רצו ללחוץ בענין מסויים על מו”ר זצ”ל, והשיטה הבדוקה לבוא בהמונים, ללחוץ ולהפחיד. על זה התריע הרב ויינברג זצ”ל ממרחקים. על כגון זה נאמר “את בנציבין ומצודתך פרוסה בירושלים” (פסחים ג ע”ב).
Regarding rabbinic disputes, it is also worth recalling these memorable words, quoted by R. David Sperber (grandfather of Prof. Daniel Sperber)[11]:
מוטב להעמיד צלם בהיכל מלהחזיק במחלוקת
Returning to Ridbaz, all of the controversy in Chicago was too much for him and he left Chicago. Legend has it that he was locked in the freezer, in an attempt by his enemies to kill him, and upon being freed he immediately took his family and grabbed a train to New York. It was Friday night but he felt this was a case of was pikuach nefesh. I doubt that the story is true, although in a previous post I did mention a case where the mashgiach was locked in the freezer. We also have another recorded case where this happened. I refer to Rabbi Luntz of Paterson, N. J. who was locked in the icebox by one of the butchers he certified. This would have been bad enough, but Luntz also had to contend with R. Judah Leib Seltzer, who was later one of the leaders of Agudat ha-Rabbonim. He too was in Paterson and had a terrible feud with Luntz, which “climaxed by a public fight between the two rabbis in the synagogue.”[12]
Speaking of rabbis who were chased out of their communities, let me repeat what I heard from the late Rabbi Louis Jacobs.[13] This story is not documented anywhere, but is something that Jacobs no doubt heard growing up in Manchester. R. Abraham Aaron Yudelevitz was a rav in Manchester at the turn of the twentieth century. He would later come to the United States where he served as a rav in Boston and later in New York, and he was also a rosh yeshiva at Yeshivat R. Yitzhak Elhanan. As with a few others, while in N.Y. he even had the title “Rav ha-Kollel.”
Yudelevitz might have been the most brilliant Torah scholar in the United States. He was also prepared to stand up to anyone (including the Rogochover),[14] and is known for one incredible pesak that created enormous controversy: He permitted a woman to appoint another woman as her shaliah to carry out the halitzah ceremony. A short discussion of Yudelevitz’ life and the controversy is found in the second volume of Yeshurun,[15] the series which continues to publish massive volumes full of important and fascinating material. The typical haredi nonsense is, of course, to be found there, but since it is not so common it is no more than an unpleasant distraction.[16]
Here is a picture of Yudelevitz. He is on the right and the other rabbi is Gavriel Zev Margulies, whom I mentioned in my last post (see also note 12).[17]

Jacobs told me that when the machers had tired of Yudelevitz, they let him know it was time to leave in the following way. When his carriage pulled up one day, inside it were a couple of prostitutes waiting for him. This was the message to Yudelevitz to get out of town! Rather than stay and fight, he set his sights on the United States.

Returning to Gulevsky, in his book Du Yovlin (New York, 1988) he focuses on American Orthodoxy and its various rabbinic leaders. Since R. Emanuel Rackman recently passed away, let me quote a little of what he says (p. 45) about R. David Rackman, who was R. Emanuel’s father. He is the author of Kiryat Hanah David (New York, 1967), published by his son, and was a Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS for a couple of years beginning in 1907.

אחד מראשוני התלמידים שבאו ללמוד בישיבה ואחרי כן הרביצו תורה בישיבה, זה היה הרה”ג רבי דוד רקמאן. כפי ששמעתי מזקנים, הרה”ג מוהר”ר דוד רקמאן בא לארצות הברית עם סמיכת חכמים בידו. הרה”ג רבי נחום דן מסלוצק היה משגיח הראשון בישיבה, והוא לא היה קשור עם תנועת המוסר לגמרי. אבל היה אביהם של כל בני הישיבה, ויותר מזה אביהם ואמם. הוא יעץ להרה”ג דוד רקמאן שימשיך ללמוד ולא לרוץ אחרי הבלי עולם הזה . . . בשנת תרס”ז כבר נתן שיעורים בישיבה קרוב לשלש שנים. היה חכם מופלג ותמך בישיבה כל ימיו. כאשר באו לישיבה מאורי ישראל רבותינו העילוי ממיטשט ואחרי כן רבי משה הלוי סאלאווייציג עזב הרה”ג רבי דוד רקמאן כל עסקיו, וממש התאבק בעפר רגליהם. פעם ראיתי אותו בסביבת החכם השלם איש האשכולות מרן חיים העליר, ויבדל לחיים טובים “הרב” שליט”א. מעולם לא ראיתי פה במדינה הזאת רב שיעמוד ביראת הכבוד כלפי גדולי ישראל אמיתיים כרבי דוד רקמאן.
Gulevsky gives descriptions of other early students at RIETS. One of those he mentions is Moses Romm, who was later a rabbi in Minneapolis. I believe he is the grandfather of Rabbi Romm who taught at BMT for many years. He also mentions Henry Guterman, who was the rav of Scranton for half a century, and has recollections of Samuel K. Mirsky, Dov Baer Abramowitz, and many others. There is so much material here, for those interested in American Orthodoxy, that I can’t even begin to summarize it.
Regarding R. Benjamin Fleischer, many of whose books are now on HebrewBooks.org, Gulevsky says the following (p. 46):
טיפוס מיוחד במינו היה הרה”ג העצום רבי בנימין שלייפער [צ”ל פליישער] שהיה רב בבית מדרש הגדול במורד העיר. היה עילוי נפלא ובקיאותו בש”ס ופוסקים היה משהו מיוחד. ובגלל שהיה עילוי בכל המובנים לכן לא נעשה הפוסק במורד העיר. היה מחמיר גדול בשאלת נשים, אפילו בדרבנן. השיטה שלו היתה שבמדינה הזאת אין חשש מאכולת, הנשים נקיות ביותר וצריכים לבטל לגמרי כל הקולות של כתמים. התרעם הרבה על כמה פסקים של הרה”ג א. ה. בניו יראק, והרה”ג ח. מ. בשיקגא, לא רק בשאלת נשים.
The New York rabbi he alludes to is undoubtedly R. Joseph Elijah Henkin but I don’t know who the Chicago rabbi is. Maybe one of the readers can help out here. As mentioned before, Gulevsky uses this type of code throughout his works. With regard to his categorization of Fleischer as an “illui,” it is worth recalling R. Moshe Feinstein’s comment that: אין לנו הרבה נחת מהעילויים.[18
In the previous post I quoted the very harsh things Gulevsky had to say about YU. Yet Du Yovlin was written while he was still employed there, and from this book we get an entirely different picture. YU is referred to as “yeshivatenu ha-kedoshah”, and on p. 1 Dr. Norman Lamm is described as follows:
ידידי ורב חביבי וכו’, החכם השלם איש האשכולות כליל המדעים וכו’ וכו’ וכו’ הרה”ג נחום לאם שליט”א
At the beginning of this post I mentioned that Gulevsky is descended from both R. Hayyim of Volozhin and his brother R. Simcha. While everyone knows that R. Hayyim became the student of the Vilna Gaon, Gulevsky tells us the following about his forefather, R. Simcha, which is amazing in that it testifies to Lithuanian opposition to the Vilna Gaon (Du Yovlin, p. 2):
אאמו”ז רבינו שמחה התנגד לנסוע אל אדונינו הגר”א כפי שרמז מר זקני הגאון החסיד קדוש ישראל זצוק”ל הי”ד. זקנינו רבינו שמחה בתמימותו הכנה חשב שהגר”א הולך לשנות מנהגן של ישראל, והתנגד לזה הרבה. אדונינו בעל השאגת אריה לא שינה שום דבר מלבד שהכשיר מכה בדופן וכו’, אולם אדונינו הגר”א, שמעו עליו שאינו מניח תפילין בחול המועד וכדומה.
With regard to the Vilna Gaon, and why he never made it to the Land of Israel, Gulevsky writes as follows (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 134):
ושמעתי מאאמו”ז הגאון החסיד קדוש ישראל עמוד ההוראה ואביר הרועים מרנא שמחה זעליג זצוק”ל הי”ד, ששמע ממרא דמתיבתא עלאה הגה”ח המובהק מרן רפאל מוואלאזשין ששמע מאביו רבינו אריה ליב שאפירא מקאוונא, היו הרבה טעמים שהגר”א חזר מדרכו לארץ ישראל. אבל רבינו אריה ליב סבר שאחד מהטעמים בנגלה היה שהגר”א סבר העיקר כהמבי”ט נגד הבית יוסף וכל חכמי הדור ההוא.
According to the Mabit all produce grown in the Land of Israel in the Sabbatical year, even on non-Jewish land, has sanctity and must be given special treatment. I assume that Gulevsky’s report means that the Gaon did not want to come to the land of Israel and create controversy by adopting a practice in opposition to R. Joseph Karo’s view, which was minhag Eretz Yisrael.[19] (In the twentieth century the Chazon Ish had no compunctions in advocating the Mabit’s opinion, especially as there are reports – hotly disputed, to be sure – that before his death R. Joseph Karo abandoned his position.[20])
An interesting comment which is not of a historical nature is found in Shabbat Shabbaton. p. 96. R. Moshe Feinstein states that anytime Rabad doesn’t express his disagreement with the Rambam, this shows that he agrees with him. R. Moshe is hardly the first to argue in this fashion,[21] yet Gulevsky points out that this is a methodological error and that there are numerous times that Rabad disagrees in his other works and doesn’t record this disagreement in his hassagot. R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, who has a bekiut unlike that of anyone alive today, has a very long list of such disagreements, and if all we had were the hassagot we would know nothing of this.[22] We can conclude, therefore, that Rabad’s hassagot were never intended to be a comprehensive list of all of his criticisms, but were written in an ad hoc fashion.
Quite apart from what appears in his books, there are some other interesting tidbits he told me which as far as I know do not appear in print.
1. The grandfather of the famous bibliographer, E. R. Malachi, was named Engleman, and he emigrated from Brisk to the Land of Israel in 1837.
2. R. Simcha Zelig Rieger was head of a kollel le-hora’ah in Volozhin. This kollel focused on practical halakhah.
3. R. Hayyim Soloveitchik and R. Velvel never preached to the community, not even on Shabbat ha-Gadol and Shabbat Shuvah.[23]
4. Although R. Velvel was officially rav of Brisk for twenty years, he only resided in the city for six and a half of these years. He was often ill and had to spend much of his time in places more congenial to his health. He was not living there during the 1937 pogrom, but after this event he returned to the city for two weeks.
5. In Kelm “they held of” Wessely’s Yein ha-Levanon.(I include this because I think Gulevsky meant the yeshiva as a whole, not simply R. Simcha Zissel. R. David Zvi Hillman has seen the manuscript essays of R. Simcha Zissel, and they contain references to Wessely. When these were published in Hokhmah u-Mussar [New York, 1957], Wessely’s name was deleted.[24])
6. Rabbi Rakefet has asserted on numerous occasions that as a young man R. Shneur Kotler attended R. Soloveitchik’s shiurim at YU. Gulevsky denies this. According to him, R. Shneur only went to hear the Rav at Moriah.[25]
7. R. Joseph Zekhariah Stern, Zekher Yehosef, Orah Hayyim no. 177, has a responsum addressed to ר’ מנחם שרגא רעוויל. This is Bernard Revel’s father (The first name was actually Nahum, not Menahem.)

I would be remiss in not mentioning that one has to question many of the stories Gulevsky tells, simply because they don’t agree with what we know from other sources. While he tries to be careful in his facts, some of his reports are no different than the typical “frum history” in which all sorts of stories get repeated as if they were facts. There are a number of examples of this but let me note one that doesn’t appear in his books, but which he told me. According to Gulevsky, the reason Yeshiva College did not offer a job to Saul Lieberman is because his father-in-law, Meir Bar-Ilan, almost bankrupted the institution when he served as temporary president during Bernard Revel’s leave of absence. Yet this is completely false. There are also times when Gulevsky writes things that are not merely incorrect, but downright foolish. See e.g., here.

The link just given refers to Gulevsky’s stringent view of eruvin. In this he is following not only the Brisker tradition but also that of his grandfather, who did not believe that an eruv could be established in the typical town. Yet Gulevsky has also noted that despite this opposition, there was an eruv in Brisk and his grandfather checked it every week.[26] (When the young Joseph Baer visited Brisk he checked it together with R. Simcha Zelig.[27] He also used to check the eruv in Chaslovitz, where his father was the rav.) Originally I thought that the presence of an eruv in Brisk was an example of R. Hayyim not wishing to force the community to adopt his stringent position. Yet from R. Moshe Sternbuch’s recently published Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 5, no. 101, we see that this was not the case. He heard from R. Velvel that R. Hayyim wanted to forbid the eruv, and even publicized this, but the people refused to listen to him. (You see, it is not only Modern Orthodox Jews who ignore what the rabbis tell them!) The people must have thought that if other cities with great rabbis can have an eruv, then why should they suffer because of R. Hayyim’s humra. Faced with this rejection, R. Hayyim told R. Simcha Zelig that the kashrut of the eruv was to be his responsibility. R. Hayyim wanted nothing to do with it. R. Velvel himself would only check the eruv once a year, before Rosh Hashanah, and it bothered him greatly that his own city was relying on what he regarded to be unacceptable leniencies.[28]
In Boston, as long as R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik was active, there was no eruv. The Rav publicly declared:
I am opposed to the establishment of eruvin. An eruv in American means the abolishment of the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. Aside from certain [meta-halakhic] reasons, I also have halakhic reasons why I can’t give my approval to the establishment of eruvin. [29]
As soon as the Rav was no longer able to protest, an eruv was established in Brookline. I was in the Bostoner Rebbe’s shul when he spoke about how important the eruv was and that everyone should rely on it. He insisted that there must be no distinction between the “frum,” who don’t carry, and everyone else. It is interesting that the Modern Orthodox world, which places the Rav on such a pedestal, has not accepted one of his few public halakhic pronouncements.

[1] See here
[2] Hebrew Printing in America, p. 501.
[3] See here.
[4] In his e-mail to me Kamenetsky mistakenly wrote R. Meir Berlin. I have corrected it.
[5] The introduction to this book and also his Beit Ridbaz (Jerusalem, 1908), are fascinating, because he describes in detail many of the communal problems he saw. One wonders if he was writing his book today, which problems he would identify. I don’t think English sermons would still be an issue for him, although I think it is fair to say that advertising a “Pretty Woman” sheitl would definitely outrage hiim. After all, the sheitl is supposed to represent modesty, and Julia Roberts’ profession in that particular movie was not exactly tzniusdik. See here (Unfortunately, some of the comments to this post are inappropriate.)
[6] I heard this from an eyewitness. The event took place in the 1950s.
[7] See Fraud, Corruption, and Holiness (Port Washington, 1974), p. 91.
[8] Quiz question: Which contemporary gadol be-Yisrael was born in Scranton?
[9] See Gastwirt, Fraud, p. 145, that Eskolsky was expelled from Agudat ha-Rabbanim for giving a hekhsher on a plant that produced both kosher and non-kosher meat. This was in violation of the Agudat ha-Rabbanim takkanah. Those rabbis who opposed Agudat ha-Rabbanim’s policy formed the competing Kenesset ha-Rabbonim, which was led by R. Gavriel Zev Margulies.
[10] Experience has shown that a rabbi who is financially corrupt can easily win back his reputation (and in some circles financial corruption doesn’t affect his reputation to begin with). Yet if a rabbi is accused of not being reliable in matters of kashrut, even if the accusation is false, it is almost impossible for him to turn this around. Unfortunately, when it comes to kashrut supervision, American Orthodoxy has distorted our tradition. People are constantly told that if they see a hashgachah on a product or restaurant, that they cannot rely on it without investigating who the rav ha-machshir is. This is completely mistaken. According to halakhah every rav is regarded as trustworthy unless you have been reliably informed otherwise. Without receiving negative information, one should always assume that a rav is reliable. This is no different than if you arrive in a new city and go to shul on Shabbat and you are invited to someone’s house for lunch. One should assume, unless he has reason to think otherwise, that the person inviting him keeps kosher, as religious Jews have a hezkat kashrut. Certainly, if the rabbi invites you to his house you must assume this. The notion that is currently rampant, that we don’t trust a rav until we investigate him, is the exact opposite of what the tradition has always held. Rather, we are supposed to trust the rav unless we are given reason to think otherwise. Every rav, even a rav ha-machshir, has a hezkat kashrut and is assumed to be doing his job reliably.
To show how far this idiocy has gone, let me share something that happened a couple of years ago when I was visiting a city that shall remain nameless. Someone was eating with us and mentioned that he was going to be travelling to Elizabeth, New Jersey. He asked me if I knew about kosher food in the area. I told him that Elizabeth has a very nice Jewish community, with plenty of kosher food. He then asked who gave the hashgachah, and I replied that it is Rabbi Teitz. The man wasn’t happy with my answer, which troubled me since I had never heard of anyone question R. Teitz. In fact, in speaking to him it was apparent that he had never even heard of R. Teitz. Yet he announced for everyone that his family would have to avoid visiting any of the kosher eateries when he was in Elizabeth. I was really shocked and I asked him, “Why? What is wrong with R. Teitz?” I further asked him where he thinks the people he will be visiting in Elizabeth get their food. Yet he would only reply: “We only eat at places under the supervision of a Vaad.” I told him that I didn’t think that there was a Vaad in Elizabeth, and why in any case does he need a Vaad? A Vaad might be a good idea from a practical standpoint, in order to create one communal standard, yet there is nothing in the Shulhan Arukh about a Vaad, and R. Teitz is as reliable as anyone. Yet all I got from him was the same nonsense about how without a Vaad a hashgachah cannot be trusted. (I never asked him what he would do in a one-rabbi town.)
[11] Afarkasta de-Anya, vol. 1, no. 165:3. While Sperber later became a mainstream haredi posek, in his youth he was also exposed to Haskalah. See Joseph Ibn Kaspi, Asarah Kelei Kesef ed. Last (Pressburg, 1903), vol. 2, pp. 190ff. (Hebrewbooks.org for some reason splits up Asarah Kelei Kesef into separate volumes. If you search hebrewbooks.org under נקדות כסף you will find the Sperber letters.) Sperber, p. 193, asks Last, when he publishes his letters, to describe him as a hasid. His reason is incredible:
נא לתארינו [צ”ל לתאריני] בשם “חסיד” והיה אם לא ייטבו דברי בעיניהם ידינני לכ”ז, ויאמרו כי חסיד הוא וחכמה מה לו, ואם אולי ימצאו דברי נכונים, אז ירומם שם חסיד תחת לשונם ויאמרו הגם חסיד יודע ומבין דבר.
[12] See Gastwirt, Fraud, p. 93. Cf. Jenna Weissman Joselit, New York’s Jewish Jews (Bloomington, 1990), p. 62, regarding R. Moses Z. Margolies and his kashrut battles: “Determined to teach the Ramaz a lesson, a band of disgruntled butchers alledgedly banded together to poison the meat at his daughter’s wedding supper, sickening some 2000 guests, including the bride.” During his great dispute with R. Shalom Elhanan Jaffe, R. Gavriel Zev Margulies was physically attacked by shohatim who supported Jaffe. See Gastwirt, Fraud, p. 121.
[13] Since I mention Jacobs, I must also note the following. In a recent AJS Review (vol. 32, 2008), pp. 450-452, I reviewed Miri Freud-Kandel’s history of Orthodox Judaism in Britain. I mentioned the “Jacob’s Affair” and there is a note explaining what this was.
“The term ‘Jacobs Affair’ refers to the controversy surrounding the potential appointment of Rabbi Louis Jacobs as chief rabbi of England. In 1961, Rabbi Louis Jacobs, z”l, was nominated as the principal of Jews’ College, a position considered a potential way station for the chief rabbinate of the British Commonwealth. That appointment, however, was blocked by the then-chief rabbi Israel Brodie because of his published views. Brodie then prohibited Louis from returning to his post at the New West End synagogue in London, upon which a new congregation was established for him.”
This was added by the editor. I never would have referred to Jacobs as “Louis.” I have, incidentally, many letters from Jacobs that I hope to publish. Although we only met three times, we corresponded for almost twenty years. Only now do I realize how lucky I was, that this world-renowned scholar took the time from his busy life to correspond with a young student, especially a student who had no compunctions telling Jacobs when he disagreed with him. Occasionally, I would send Jacob’s material that I thought would interest him. One time I sent him R. Joseph Messas’ Mayim Hayim, and was surprised to later see that he cited this work in Beyond Reasonable Doubt (London, 1999), pp. 216-217. He showed great insight in describing Messas as follows: “As is evident from his responsa, Mashash, for a rabbi of the old school, was something of a modernist. But his historical sense was sufficiently acute not to allow him to read modern ideas into the sayings of the ancient rabbis.” I also sent him Haym Soloveitchik’s famous article, “Religious Law and Change,” AJS Review 12 (1987), pp. 203-221, which surprisingly he had never seen. When A Tree of Life was reprinted in 2000, he added a new introduction and cited this article as further support for the thesis of his book.
Regarding editors adding material to an author’s work without asking, see the recent comment by Haym Soloveitchik in “Mishneh Torah: Polemic and Art,” in Jay M. Harris, ed., Maimonides After 800 Years (Cambridge, 2007), p. 333 n. 25. (This is a truly wonderful article.) In referring to an entry he wrote for the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Soloveitchik notes: “The editors, wishing to improve upon my scant bibliography, added Shemuel Argaman, The Captivity of the Maharam: A Narrative of the Events Surrounding the Arrest and Captivity of the Maharam of Rothenburg (New York, 1990)—a children’s storybook published by the Lakewood Heder.”
[14] See here. This source does not give the book and page no. that is excerpted: It is Av be-Hokhmah (New York, 1927), pp. 85-86.
[15] R. Moshe Zvi Berger, “Av le-Hakhamim: Ha-Gaon R. Avraham Aharon Yudelevitz,” Yeshurun 2 (1997)), pp. 686-691.
[16] For an example from the most recent volume, see Yeshurun 21 (Nisan 5769) p. 417, where in discussing “Ha-Gaon R. Moses Aaron Poleyeff” we are told that he שימש אז כראש ישיבה באחד מהישיבות שבאמריקה. If this was someone who taught at RIETS for a short period of time, I might understand it, but Poleyeff spent his entire adult life teaching there. (He began teaching at RIETS in 1920.) He was also widely regarded as Yeshiva’s most beloved teacher. Poleyeff, more than anyone else, would be offended at this attempt to “kasher” him by hiding the fact that he taught at RIETS. (An outstanding talmid hakham recently commented to me that in his opinion Poleyeff was a greater lamdan than R. Moshe Feinstein!)
[17] I found the picture here.
[18] R. Michel Shurkin, Meged Giv’ot Olam ( Jerusalem, 2005), vol. 2, p. 23. He also quotes R. Leib Malin as saying that it is not good to be an illui.
[19] Eliezer Brodt called my attention to the fact that R. David Luria offered this reason as well. See Dov Eliach, Ha-Gaon (Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 3, p. 1286.
[20] See Dayan I. Grunfeld, The Dietary Laws (London, 1972), vol. 2, pp. 180-181
[21] R. Yitzhak Yosef, in his new work, Einei Yitzhak (Jerusalem, 2009), vol. 3, p. 439, also accepts this methodological rule.
[22] Keneset Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 9-12. See also Isadore Twersky, Rabad of Posquieres (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 175-176.
[23] In the recently published Kol Brisk (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 20, it refers to R. Hayyim delivering words of Mussar on Shabat Shuvah. Gulevsky strongly denies this. The most that he would acknowledge is that perhaps in his first year or two he gave derashot, but never after that. (R. Chaim’s and the Brisker Rav’s way of “rabbinating” did not find favor in the eyes of all of Brisk’s citizens, ואכמ”ל.) In general, there are historical points in this book that are doubtful, leading me to question its reliability in such matters. Even if the historical information came from R. Aaron Soloveichik, it was not uncommon for R. Aaron to err in such matters, and again אכמ”ל. (Kol Brisk is authored by one of R. Aaron Soloveichik’s son. He doesn’t give his name on the title page so I will respect this.)
Let me give one example of the questionable material in this book. On p. 33 there is a whole story, seemingly legendary, to explain how R. David Feinsten, R. Moshe’s father, received the name Feinstein, since the family’s original name was not this. Yet in the introduction to vol. 8 of Iggerot Moshe, p. 6, the children of R. Moshe state that Feinstein was indeed the family name.
Perhaps in another post I will return to this book, as it has a number of what are certain to be controversial statements. For example, on p. 656 it blasts the OU for naming its Israel center after someone who, we are told, caused R. Aaron Soloveichik so much trouble:
בפעולה זו הם מבזים גדול בתורה שכל ימיו הרביץ תורה לאלפים.
[24] See Naftali Hertz Wessely, Yein ha-Levanon (Rishon le-Tzion, 2003), p. 28.
[25] Regarding R. Shneur, a recent article in Ha-Ma’ayan reveals that in the mid-1940’s he was involved in founding the first yeshiva in Palestine that taught secular studies. See R. Yoel Amital, “Sabi ha-Rav Zvi Yehudah Meltzer,” Ha-Ma’ayan 49 (Tamuz, 5769), p. 66.
[26] See R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 8, no. 128, vol. 15, no. 127 (responsum to Gulevsky; this last source quotes R. Moshe Feinstein as stating that there was also an eruv in Karlin, despite the fact that R. Yaakov of Karlin was the leading opponent of city eruvin). In his responsum to Gulevsky, Klein says some of the strangest things imaginable, which raise questions as to how he can be taken seriously as a posek in matters of eruvin. According to his calculations, and this is directly related to his halakhic understanding, in Second Temple days there were billions (!) of Jews in the Land of Israel, and roughly thirty million of them would descend on Jerusalem for the holidays. He concludes (vol. 15 p. 201):
והבוליווארדיס והמעטראפאליטין של קווינס וגרענד סענטאראל אף לא הגיעו לקרסולי ירושלים עיה”ק וזה לפענ”ד פשוט
In another responsum to Gulevsky dealing with eruvin (Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 8, no. 168), he says something equally strange:
גם מרן הח”ס נחשב מתלמידי בעש”ט שהי’ תלמיד מובהק של מרן בעל הפלאה
[27] Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav, p. 170.
[28] R. Sternbuch adds:
ומאמר היה בפיו בשם אביו הגר”ח זצ”ל, “קשה למצוא עירוב כשר וקשה למצוא מקוה פסול”, וכוונתו שבעירוב נכנסים לדחוקים ומכשירים, ובמקוה אף שמדינא יש להקל מחמירים.
[29] Ha-Pardes (January, 1979), p. 26.



The Writings of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky – Part I

The Writings of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky – Part I
By
Marc B. Shapiro
             
In honor of Dan Rabinowitz, in appreciation of his commitment to the free and open exchange of ideas.
In a previous post I mentioned the new writings of R. Kook and also the works of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky. I would like to speak about both of them before returning to my discussions of Judaism and Christianity.
 
Let me begin with R. Gulevsky, who obviously is not as well known as R. Kook, although he does have his own important yichus. He was born in Brisk where his grandfather was the famous R. Simcha Zelig Rieger, who served as dayan in the city. (Professor Sara Regeuer of Brooklyn College is also a descendant.) R. Simcha Zelig was descended from R. Hayyim of Volozhin’s brother, R. Simcha, for whom Gulevsky’s grandfather was named. Gulevsky is also descended from R. Hayyim of Volozhin.[1] A picture of the young Gulevsky and R. Simcha Zelig is found in the recently published Iggerot Maran ha-Griz, p. 174.
 
Stories of R. Simcha Zelig’s relationship with R. Hayyim Soloveitchik and R. Velvel are legendary. While R. Hayyim and R. Velvel focused on theoretical Torah study, R. Simcha Zelig was an expert in practical halakhah. It was because of this that R. Hayyim brought him from Volozhin to Brisk. Unfortunately, his many responsa were lost during the Holocaust, in which he was also killed. One interesting point about R. Hayyim and R. Simcha Zelig is that neither of them wore rabbinic garb. Here is a painting of both of them (made from famous pictures) found in Gulevsky’s home.

Gulevsky’s parents were also killed in the Holocaust, as was the rest of the city of Brisk. Fortunately, he was not there when the Nazis arrived, and was able to make it to Japan with R. Aaron Kotler and around fourteen other Kletzk students, where he spent the war years. (Before studying in Kletzk, Gulevsky was in Kaminetz.) On the slow journey by train across the Soviet Union, four people slept in a compartment, and Gulevsky shared one with R. Aaron and his wife and daughter. He is also mentioned in one of the letters R. Aaron sent from America to the Kletzk students in Shanghai.[2] Following the War Gulevsky came to the United States where he studied in Lakewood. One can hear his recollections (in Yiddish) of R. Aaron Kotler here. For his eulogy of R. Aaron, see Ha-Darom (Nisan 5723), pp. 40-42.
Gulevsky taught at Yeshiva University’s Teacher’s Institute for a number of years, as well as at the religious Zionist Bachad (Berit Halutzim Datiyim) school in Jamesburg, N. J. This school existed in the early 1950’s and combined Torah study with preparation for agricultural settlement in the Land of Israel (hachsharah). Incredible as it sounds, Gulevsky might be the only living native of Brisk in the United States who was part of the city’s Torah community. (I am not referring to those who left Brisk as children and have no real memories of it. In Israel some of the children of R. Velvel are still alive, and R. Aharon Leib Steinman was born in Brisk.)
 
Here he is, in a picture that could be used if anyone wants to make a gadol card.

Here he is with the indefatigable Menachem Butler.

Gulevsky’s writings are quite interesting and reveal information not found elsewhere. Before looking at them, however, I should note that some readers might recognize his name, without knowing who he is. He is the rav ha-machshir on two Indian vegetarian restaurants in Manhattan, Madras Mahal and Chennai. I first ate at Madras Mahal not too long ago, at a surprise birthday party for Sharon Flatto. Sharon is a professor at Brooklyn College whose doctoral dissertation on R. Yehezkel Landau, the Noda bi-Yehuda, will soon be published by my favorite press, Littman Library.[3]
 
She is married to my good friend, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, who teaches at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. I believe R. Ysoscher has the distinction of being the youngest maggid shiur ever to complete the daf yomi cycle. This happened a number of years ago when he “said the daf” at the Agudas Yisrael shul in Boro Park. This was also the largest daf yomi in the country, with some seventy-five people in attendance. He took over the shiur of R. Simcha Elberg, who taught it for many years. Although R. Ysoscher no longer teaches there, the shiur continues and I am told that it is the longest running daf yomi in the country.
 
Returning to Gulevsky, over the years he has published a good deal, and much of his writings have been collected into two volumes. Here are the title pages of these books.

Although not noted on the title page, included in the Arba’ah Sefarim Niftanim is his Lahat Herev ha-Mithapekhet, first published in 1976. Here is the title page.

This volume is significant as it the first detailed defense of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik against the criticisms of the Chazon Ish. As should be expected from one who grew up in Brisk and whose family is so connected to the Soloveitchiks, Gulevsky views the defense of R. Hayyim as a holy task. However, I wonder if there any truth to the following statement he makes:
והנה בשלהי קיץ שנת תשל”ה, שמוע שמעתי שיצאו אנשים בלתי הגונים, ולא שמעו לקול הורים ומורים, ולמשפחת הגאון החסיד צדיק יסוד עולם בעל החזון איש, והוציאו במרמה נגד רצונם את ההשגות שהחסיד הנ”ל רשם על ספר חדושי רבינו חיים הלוי והדפיסו את זה יחד עם הספר חדושי רבינו חיים הלוי.
Even if it is true that the Chazon Ish never intended to publish his notes, is that any reason for them not to be printed? Didn’t the Netziv tell the Wuerzberger Rav’s son not to pay attention to his father’s wish that his writings not be published, since the Torah thoughts that he developed were not to be regarded as his personal possession to the extent that he could prevent others from studying what he wrote?[4] Furthermore, is there any evidence that the Chazon Ish was opposed to his criticism of R. Hayyim appearing in print? (The selections of the Chazon Ish’s Emunah u-Bitahon that were embargoed for so long are now widely available, and are even included [but not translated] in the new translation of the book that just appeared.)
 
The problem confronting anyone who studies the Chazon Ish’s life is that there are so many contradictory stories about him and what he said that one must be skeptical of much of what is reported. For example, how many different versions are there of the famous meeting between him and Ben Gurion, with some even describing how he never looked directly at Ben Gurion so as not to state at the face of a wicked one? Yet in all the descriptions of the meeting it never mentioned that the only people in attendance were Ben Gurion, Chazon Ish, and Yitzhak Navon. In other words, many of the descriptions of what was said are based on wishful thinking and fantasies, and no doubt there are some intentional falsifications as well. For Navon’s recollection of the meeting, see Binyamin Brown’s doctoral dissertation,[5] appendix, pp. 1-5.
 
In my last post, I mentioned Gulevsky’s negative comments about Samuel Belkin. I have to say that, unfortunately, one also finds passages in his writings that are disrespectful of gedolim. For example, although Gulevsky sometimes refers to R. Kook as a gaon, elsewhere, in his discussion of shemitah, he writes as follows (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 100):
 
והנה החכם קוק כאשר יצא להוריד קדושת דברי קבלה (כדי שזה יעזור לו להוריד החשיבות של המצוות שקבלו בשטר האמנה, שנאמרו בנחמיה).
R. Goren gets even harsher treatment (Mi-Meged Givot Olam, p. 285):
ההגהה הזאת קץ וסוף לקונטרס מהדורא קמא סתירת ההיתר של הגאון החסיד גדול הקבלה מרן נפתלי הירץ מיפו. תחילה וראש לקונטרס על קדושת הר הבית והמקדש בזמן הזה. ולהבדיל רבבות ומליונים הבדלות בין איש קדוש וטהור מיפו, ובין משוקץ ומתועב נשמה טמאה במ”ט פעם מ”ט שערי טומאה וזוהמא הצנחן והצחנן ר”ל.
R. Moshe Feinstein also does not escape unscathed (Mi-Mekor Yisrael, p. 58):
ומפני שרב ישיש אחד פה במדינה הזאת שגה ברואה ופרץ גדרו של עולם להבדיל בין ישראל לעמים מפני שאינו יודע להבדיל וכו’. ורצה להתיר להזריע זרע נכרים ברחם רחמתים בנותיו של אברהם אבינו ר”ל.
Gulevsky’s writings are full of points of historical interest, especially about the teachings of his grandfather. Just to give some examples, he reports that his grandfather refused to void the herem of R. Gershom even when dealing with a moredet, as long as all that was required to get her to agree to a divorce was a significant monetary payment (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 294).
 
In Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 307, he tells us that the great rabbis of Brisk, from early days, were supporters of Torah im Derekh Eretz, not of the Hirschian variety, but that people should work for a living. They didn’t like the kollel system in Eretz Yisrael where everyone was supported by charity, as it led to corruption and thievery.
 
In an article on Hasidic shehitah[6] he tells us that that last two shohetim in Brisk (appointed by his grandfather) were hasidim. One was a follower of the Kotzker and the other was a Lubavitcher. Yet they were obligated to follow R. Simcha Zelig’s instructions. He also writes as follows, with reference to an earlier era:
בבריסק דליטא שחטו רק בשני צדדים. וזה היה אחת מהסיבות שחסידי קוצק יצאו במחלוקת נגד בעל בית הלוי. הלכו ועשו סעודה בעיר טערעספוליע מעבר לנהר בוג, ובגאוה וגאון לקחו שוחט מביאלא ששחט עם חלף מצד אחד ועשו סעודה גדולה. וכבר נדפס בהרבה מקומות, ואני בעצמי שמעתי את זה מהגרי”ז רבה האחרון בריסק דליטא, שכאשר התחילו לברך שיר המעלות לפני ברכת המזון, בא רץ מיוחד על סוס שנתחלפו הבשר וזה היתה טריפה.
With regard to hasidim, it is quite unusual that a Litvak like Gulevsky has such knowledge of the hasidic world and its personalities. A number of his articles dealing with the Ruzhin dynasty have appeared in the journal Mesilot. As with most such studies, there is a great deal of oral history (including from R. Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Kapitchenetzer Rebbe,[7] and R. Yohanan Perlow, the Karlin-Stolin Rebbe.[8]).
Gulevsky states that R Simcha Zelig ruled that if a child has a fever of 39 degrees Celsius (which equals 102.2 degrees Fahrenheit) one should immediately violate Shabbat to do whatever needs to be done (Nishmat Hayyim, p. 60). This is very much in line with how R. Hayyim ruled in similar cases. The Rav himself told the following story: As a child he was visiting R. Hayyim and on Friday night there was a problem with his throat. A doctor was summoned and little Joseph Baer opened his mouth. R. Hayyim asked the doctor if he needed more light to see better. The doctor replied “that is not a bad idea.” Immediately R. Hayyim ordered the Rav’s father, R. Moshe, to raise the flame on the light. R. Moshe hesitated. After all, it was Shabbat and the doctor didn’t actually say that he needed more light. R. Hayyim turned to R. Simcha Zelig and said, about R. Moshe, “He is an am ha-aretz.” R. Hayyim asked R. Simcha Zelig to turn up the flame, and he did so without hesitation.[9]
Gulevsky also tells the following story of his grandfather and R. Velvel (Nishmat Hayyim, p. 144):
זכורני שאאזמו”ר הגאון החסיד קדוש ישראל אביר הרועים בכל גלילותינו ועמוד ההראה מרן שמחה זליג זצוק”ל הי”ד היה מספר, שהרופא ומנתח המפורסם דר. אהרן סאלובייציג שאל את רבינו הגדול מרן אור החיים מבריסק דליטא, כיצד מותר לאכול כל הדברים החמוצים כחלב חמוץ וחומץ, הלוא ידוע שתהליך של החמצה, זהו על ידי תולעים שקצים ורמשים שרואים אותם במיקרוסקופ. והשיב לו רבינו הגדול שהתורה אסרה רק שקצים ורמשים שנראים בעינים. ואאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד הוסיף באותו מעמד, שאסור להתחשב במראות דמים עם המיקרוסקופ, והסכים לזה רבינו הגדול. שוב זכורני שמרן הגרי”ז הלוי הביא מיקרוסקופ עם מודד, שמדדו את הרבוע של תפילין. הגרי”ז שאל את אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד מה דעתו על זה. והשיב לו אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד שרבוע של תפילין צריך להיות נראה לעינים, ומה שפחות מזה אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד.
Let me quote at length the following, which is also mentioned by the Rav. Interestingly, the Rav is more sympathetic to the gedolim who opposed R. Hayyim. He states that “from a political and practical perspective, and as an emergency measure, no doubt the majority was correct.”[10] Gulevsky completely disagrees with this evaluation. Also, notice how the Habad rabbi responded to R. Hayyim – how times have changed! (Mi-Mekor Yisrael, p. 33):
ושמעתי מאאזמו”ר הגאון החסיד זצוק”ל הי”ד, שבשנת תר”ע באסיפה הגדולה שהיתה בעיר הבירה פטרבורג, שר הפנים הרוסי רצה שהיהודים יתקנו תקנות לעצמם. ועמדה שאלה על הפרק שרצו לתקן מי שלא נמול בין שאביו לא מל אותו ובין שהוא לא מל את עצמו, שאינו שייך לעם ישראל ואסור לקבור אותו בקבר ישראל. והרבה מגדולי ישראל (ואני חושב שהיום פשוט חרפה ובושה להזכיר את שמם, כי זו היתה מזימה מהממשלה הרוסית, ששכבה הקטנה של המתבוללים ביותר, והרבה מהם היו אינטלקטואלים, שפשוט ימירו את דתם כי אין להם בית הקברות בין היהודים. אולם רבינו הגדול שהיה חכם החכמים ונבון הנבונים עמד על זה גם מצד ההלכה וגם מצד פקחות) תמכו בזה. ורבינו הגדול לחם נגדם כארי, ולא נתן בשום אופן לבצע את זה. ואחד מרבני חב”ד טען לרבינו הגדול הלא הערלים רובם דרובם מחללי שבתות בפרהסיא ודינם כנכרים בין כה ובין כה. והשיב לו רבינו הגדול במקרה שמחללי שבתות בפרהסיא רוצים להמיר את דתם או שמסיתים למחללי שבתות להמיר את דתם, אנחנו חייבים למסור את נפשנו כדי למנוע את זה. ודבריו פשוטים שמחלל שבתות בפרהסיא עוד אינו מומר לכל דיני תורה, וכן מין גמור וכופר בעיקר ר”ל.

              והנה לפני מלחמת העולם השניה ראש הבונדיסטים בפולין מר וו. א. שם רשעים ירקב, התחתן עם יהודיה נתינת צרפת ולא רצה למול את בנו והקהילה קדושה בווארשא לחמו בכל כוחותיהם שלא להכיר בבן הערל כחלק מהקהל היהודית, והטעם שפחדו שמאות בונדיסטים חס ושלום יפסיקו למול את בניהו. . . והשיב לו אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד, שאנחנו חייבים למסור את נפשנו גם בזה שמינים וכופרים בעיקר לא יפסיקו חס ושלום למול את בניהם.
Here is his description of Shanghai, which I don’t think will appear in any of the popular histories designed to appeal to the haredi world (Perah Shoshanah Adumah, p. 186):
ובשנות ראינו רעה בזמן המלחמה, בני הישיבות נצלו ממות ר”ל, על ידי שהוגלו בדיוטא התחתונה של הטומאה בגלות שאנגחיי ר”ל. עיר הזאת היתה שיא וראש הפסגה של ניאוף וטומאה ר”ל. ובכלל לא היה שם חוקי משפחה, בבחינת איש כל הישר בעיניו יעשה. וזה כפי הנראה היה הגלות מכפרת עלינו ר”ל.
He then describes an unusual case that came up:
פעם אחת מאוחר בליל מוצאי שבת, לפתע פתאום, האמריקאים חדרו יותר מאלף וחמש מאות קילאמטר באויר, וזרקו פצצה חזקה מאד, והפציצו באי מעבר השני של הנהר, ונהרגו הרבה אנשים. אחד מהאברכים, שהיה תלמיד חכם, וזה היה אחרי חצות, היה עם אשתו לקיים מצוה עונה. הפצצה הזאת נפלה לפתע פתאום, והפציצה מחסן נשק עצום באי מעבר הנהר ממולנו. וכבין רגע נשמע התפוצצות איומה. מרוב פחד אשתו נעשית נדה מיד, והבעל התבלבל לגמרי, וכפי הנראה עבר באונס על עשה שבנדה, שפרש באבר מקושה ר”ל. אשתו מרוב פחד ומהרגשת האיסור התעלפה כמה פעמים. מחוגי הליטאים והרב מ”ר[11] שהיה מלפנים אב”ד דסיניי, פסק בפשיטות, שלא עברו על שום נדנוד איסור, כי אונס כזה ברור שרחמנא פטריה. אבל מחוגי הקבלה והחסידים, ראו בזה שירדנו לעומק הקליפה ר”ל בכל המשורים ח”ו.
There are lots of other interesting comments strewn throughout his book. For example, in Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 110, he characterizes R. Ben Zion Sternfeld of Bielsk as הפוסק הזקן בכל מדינת ליטא. I believe that this is an exaggeration, but I call attention to it since I daresay that most people, including those who have learnt for many years in yeshiva, have never even heard of R. Ben Zion. This is a good example of how great figures in one era can become unknowns in a future generation. Rare indeed is the scholar whose books are still studied one hundred years after his death. As to R. Ben Zion, in a German article by R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg he records a conversation he had with him. This article has not yet appeared in English (or Hebrew) and translating it is one of my future projects. (For another example of how a great scholar can be forgotten, I vividly recall how I once mentioned R. Joseph Zechariah Stern to my havruta, a man who had learnt for many years in Lakewood. He had never heard of Stern, and because he never heard of him, he simply did not believe me when I told him that Stern wasn’t some average rabbi, and not even a “regular” gadol. Rather, he should be regarded as a gadol she-bi-gedolim.)

When reading Gulevsky I often wonder whom he thinks he is writing for when he goes off on his historical tangents. For example, how many people today really care that R. Abraham Bornstein of Sochachev (the Avnei Nezer) שנא בתכלית the rabbi of Radom (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 136). In Shabbat Shabbaton, pp. 81-82, Gulevsky goes into detail about R. Jonathan Abelman. Abelman was another great scholar yet today who has even heard of him? He was a dayan in Bialystok and author of the responsa work Zikhron Yehonatan (Vilna 1905). Tragically, he died at the age of 49 in 1903. He was also among those who defended the halakhic permissibility of the heter mekhirah. (See his Torat Yehonatan [Vilna, 1889]). Zikhron Yehonatan has a nice introduction where Abelman’s sons describe their father, and from this one would assume that he was a great talmid hakham, like so many similar talmidei hakhamim in Lithuania. (Incidentally, Abelman’s wife was R. Israel Salanter’s niece.) Zikhron Yehonatan was recently reprinted and the publisher informs us that the Chazon Ish “held of it,” as did R. Hayyim Shmulevitz who was an expert in the book.[12] So what could possibly be wrong about this great Torah scholar of a previous generation? Gulevsky tells us.
According to Gulevsky, Abelman served the maskilim and the rich people. Gulevsky even refers to him as השופר הגדול של הסטרא אחרא, and tells us that his house was a center for Haskalah and that daughters studied in Russian schools and even went to Berlin! (As far as I know, Gulevsky is the only source for all this, as well as for many of the other stories he tells, which obviously creates a problem of reliability. [More about this in part 2 of the post.] Yet in terms of Abelman having a “modern” house, this was not unique, even among the great rabbis. To give one example, R. Avraham Shapiro of Kovno also had a “modern” house, and because of this some of the yeshiva world looked upon him as a quasi-Maskil.)
 
Gulevsky then tells us about a Chabad chasid named Shabsai Berman from Bendery, Bessarabia, who was very rich and whose house was “a university in the full sense of the word.” Berman’s daughter married Abelman’s son (this is also mentioned in the introduction to Zikhron Yehonatan.) Another of Berman’s daughters married R. Menahem Mendel Chen, soon to become rav of Nezhin. The future rebbe, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, was the shadchan. Chen is described as being the right-hand man of his rebbe, R. Shalom Dov Baer Schneersohn, and he was also close with R. Chaim Soloveitchik. See Moriah, Sivan-Tamuz 5732, p. 9. Unfortunately, he was killed in 1919 by members of the anti-Soviet White Army. See Bitaon Habad, Tamuz-Elul 5724, pp. 16ff. His grandson is R. David Zvi Hillman, whom we have discussed in the past (and will return to in the future).
 
Although Berman was Chabad, he was also a Zionist, and R. Yehudah Leib Fishman and Eliezer Steinman spent time with him in Bendery. Gulevsky writes:
למרות שרבי שבתי בערמאן היה “חבדנק” ובי”ט כסלו היו משתכרים הרבה, אבל “השלטון של ספרי כפירה היה גובר על התניא וליקוטי תורה”. בנו של רבי שבתי, משה ברמאן, עלה לארץ ישראל. אנשי מזרחי שמו אותו בין הקבלנים לבניני בתים . . . “זכה רבי שבתי ברמאן” שבנו היה ראש וראשון לבניני אוניברסיטה בר אילן. הי’ תומך ביד רחבה כל אנשי התיאטרו, והסופרים והכופרים של הסאראדים, למרות שרבי משה ברמאן היה נוסע לליובאוויץ הרבה פעמים, וגם פה אצל הריי”צ, גם משפחת אשתו מרבנים ואדמורי”ם גדולים. אבל רבי משה ברמאן רצה להיות קבור אצל החכם פ.ח. ושם קברו.
Who is פ.ח.? None other than Pinchas Churgin, first president of Bar-Ilan University. I love this sort of story, which reveals a past that would have remained lost forever, as I don’t think there is anyone else in the world who can tell us the things that Gulevsky’s books are full of. Gulevsky has obviously collected these stories since his youth, and unless I have reason to doubt them, I assume that what he tells us is fairly accurate. But I wonder, isn’t it a lot of “weariness of flesh” (Eccl. 12:12) on Gulevsky’s part to record all this? Other than me and a few others, does anyone really care? Since not many have even heard of Abelman, do even a handful want to hear about his mechutan, or his mechutan’s son and where he was buried. Gulevsky is no doubt reflecting controversies that were still in the air when he was growing up. Yet today when people see Abelman’s seforim they assume that he was just another one of the gedolim (which I am sure he was), without knowing anything about the controversies he was involved in, much like future generations will forget about most of the controversies we know well.
If you read on in Gulevsky you can see what I think is really driving him. When Abelman wrote about the status of shemitah in contemporary times, he disputed with the Beit ha-Levi.  The two of them actually had a back-and-forth on the topic, all of which is reprinted in the new edition of Torat Yehonatan, published in 2007. This, I believe, is Abelman’s great sin, since for Gulevsky Brisk and its rabbis are basically “untouchable.”
 
Despite Gulevsky’s strong criticism, it be must be noted that Abelman’s support for the heter mekhirah was really only theoretical. He made it clear that land in Eretz Yisrael can only be sold to a ger toshav, and Muslims don’t have this status (Torat Yehonatan, ch. 8). It was only after R. Yitzhak Elhanan ruled that the land could be sold to Muslims that Abelman backed off his contrary opinion. (ibid., end of ch. 10).
 
What about the Chazon Ish, who while opposed to the heter mekhirah nevertheless quoted from Abelman’s sefer and held it in high regard? To this, Gulevsky writes (p. 82):
מה עשה בעל חזון איש? הוא בתמימותו ובכנותו שלא ידע מה זה האיש הזה, ואיזה סם המות בסיר שלו ר”ל, שתה בעל חזון איש ממים המרים המאררים מים הרעים האלו. ובענותינו הרבים כמו שנותנים סוכריה או גלידה לתינוק והוא מלקק את זה ונהנה בתכלית ההנאה, כך בעונותינו הרבים נהנה בעל חזון איש “מסברותיו, מידיותיו ומלומדות” שלו, וברך ברכת הנהנין ר”ל. אולם תכלית הספר הזה להתרחק מן האמת . .  ושמעתי שהגאון המובהק רבי חיים הערץ אמר להתרחק ממנו [מאבעלמאן], וכן החסידים שבעירו התרחקו ממנו. ואם בארז הגדול נפלה שלהבת, עד כמה אנחנו צריכים להזהר ולההתרחק מדברי שקר ומאנשי שקר ר”ל.
             
Gulevsky’s allegiance to Brisk is seen in how he relates to the Rav. While Gulevsky can be harsh in his descriptions of Torah scholars with whom he disagrees, he describes the Rav in grandiose terms. See e.g., Du Yovlin, p. 36:
שמעתי מידיד נפשי וידיד אבותי קדישי עליון מרנא ורבנא יוסף דובער הלוי מבאסטאן שליט”א . . . עוד הסביר לי רב הונא ורב יהודה שבדורינו, מרן הגאון האדיר גאון הגאונים מבאסטאן שליט”א . . . רוב רובם של הדברים האלו שמעתי מרב רבנן הגאון המובהק והמופלג בחכמה ותבונה ודעת הגאון שליט”א מבאסטאן.
Let me give another example of the arcane stuff Gulevsky writes about. While reading it, ask yourself who, today, knows enough about the Lithuanian Torah world that he can make sense of the following story that Gulevsky tells in the name of his grandfather? Supposedly, the Netziv said as follows to R. Simcha Zelig (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 79):
אחד מהתלמידים הקרובים אלי שלחמו במסירת נפש וכו’, היה הרב מהעיר ט. ראיתי עכשיו את הקונטרס שלו בספר עדות ביהוסף בענין תרומות ומעשרות בזמן הזה שהדפיס לפני עשרים שנה, ונעשה לי ממש שחור בעינים, באיזה קלות ראש הוא מביא ראיות שכל הראשונים סוברים כהרמב”ם שתרומות ומעשרות אפילו בזמן עזרא היו מדרבנן. איך שהוא מפרש דברי רבי יוסי וכו’. עיינתי בקונטרסים אחרים, ונעשה לי שחור ר”ל. אחר כן אמר לכן זה לחתן וכו’. השיב לו אאמו”ז החתן שלו בטח יביא כל מיני ראיות על השמיטה בעוד שנה ושליש, שזה היתר גמור.
In this case Gulevsky makes it easier to break his code because he gives us the name of a book. The author is R. Joseph Raisin who was rav of ט, namely, Telz, and the kuntres referred to appears as responsum no. 14. His son-in-law was none other than R. Isaac Jacob Reines. There is something quite strange about speaking in this sort of code about events that happened at least one hundred twenty years ago, and yet throughout Gulevsky’s writings one find similar things, a number of which I haven’t been able to figure out. The only way I could decipher this story was because he gives the name of the book, but he often isn’t so generous in dropping clues.
 
Here is another example from Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 74. In speaking about the first heter mekhirah (and speaking very negatively about it!) Gulevsky describes how the rav of Bialystok (R. Samuel Mohilever) organized it:
ועכשיו נבוא לרב השני שכתבנו לעיל, שנפל בפח בידי הרב מביאליסטאק. הרב ש.ז.ק. היה עילוי עצום, והיה תלמיד מובהק של בעל זית רענן. אחרי זה מטעם הנגידים העשירים נעשה מו”צ בווארשא. ובגלל זה הוא נעשה המנהיג ולא הרבה אחרים שהיו גדולים וטובים ממנו בכל המסורים. . . . הבית של המו”צ ש.ז.ק. היה מודערני מאד, עם העינים אל תרבות פוילן וגם גרמנית, לרבות תרבות הרוסית.
How many people today will know that this refers to R. Samuel Zanvil Klepfish. How many people have even heard of Klepfish? Would it have been so terrible to spell out the name? As for Gulevsky’s criticism of Klepfish for being too “modern,” let me simply remind him to open up the beginning of the Mishneh Berurah, because there one will find a haskamah from Klepfish. If he was good enough for the Chafetz Chaim, I think he should be good enough for all of us.
 
On the same page Gulevsky tells a story he heard from R. Chaim Heller that elaborates on how the heter mekhirah,, later signed by R. Yitzhak Elhanan, came about. One point added by Gulevsky, which I don’t know if it is true, is that R. Yitzchak Elhanan insisted that the heter not be made public until the sages of the Land of Israel were consulted. Yet this condition was not kept, and as soon as the heter was signed by four gedolim, with R. Yitzhak Elhanan the most significant, the heter was publicized. Gulevsky notes that after the heter was made public, R. Yitzhak Elhanan refused to discuss his reasoning with other gedolim or debate his decision. In Gulevsky’s words:
הוא פשוט לא השיב כלום, ולא רצה לדון בזה כלל עם שום אדם בעולם. כמעט אותו הדבר עשה הגאון רשכבה”ג מקוטנא, וזה צועק עד לשמים דורשני.
Gulevsky assumes, and I think he is correct, that two particular points in the reports R. Yitzhak Elhanan got from those who supported the heter moved him. 1) The rabbis in Jerusalem who opposed the heter had little concern with the farmers and the difficulties they faced. 2). These rabbis, who were supported by donations from the Diaspora, felt threatened by the creation of the settlements, and as such were nogea be-davar and could not deal with the halakhic issues of the heter mekhirah in a fair manner.
 
One question that a number of people have asked is why R. Yitzhak Elhanan never published his responsum in support of the heter. (This responsum, referred to as a kuntres by R. Yitzhak Elhanan, is mentioned in his letter to Abelman, Torat Yehonatan, end of ch. 10) The answer is found in a letter from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg to R. Yitzhak Unna. This letter deals with R. Hayyim Ozer’s pressure on Weinberg not to publish his lenient opinion regarding stunning animals before shehitah.[13] (The letter appears in my doctoral dissertation, p. 307):
במשך הדברים אמר לי שאין לי להדפיס את קונטרסי הנ”ל כדי שלא ילמדו מתוכו להתיר, וסיפר לי שהגאון ר’ יצחק אלחנן ז”ל כשכתב בשעתו תשובה ארוכה ע”ד ההיתר לחרוש ולזרוע בשביעית בא”י ע”י מכירה לעכו”ם לא הכניס תשובתו זו בספרו שו”ת שפירסם אח”כ בדפוס.
In other words, R. Yitzhak Elhanan’s heter was an emergency measure, designed for that time alone. If he put it in his volume of responsa it would have assumed a more permanent significance, and he wished to avoid this. Along these lines Gulevsky states (p. 75):
חז”ל הקדושים אמרו איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד. ההיתר הזה, שבפירוש חכמי ירושלים פה אחד התנגדו לזה במסירת נפש, ומהיתר “חד פעמי” משתמשים בהיתר אחרי שממדינת ישראל מוכרים חקלאות תבואות ופירות מאות מיליונים דולרים לשנה. מי יגלה עפר מעיניכם רבינו יצחק אלחנן ורבינו י’ מקוטנא וכו’, מי ראה את הנולד, חכמי ירושלים ובריסק וואלאזשין וכו’ ראו את הנולד.
In discussing the heter mekhirah, Gulevsky apparently believes that he has a form of clairvoyance. Thus, he writes as follows in Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 115:
ואין שום ספק בדבר [!], שבגלל שמיפו פתחה הרעה להתיר חניה לנכרים ר”ל, משם פתחה הרעה עם פוגרומים עצומים ר”ל, “מגרי תושב” של החכם קוק, ומפני שהוציאו קול על בעל שמן המור שהתיר בחברון וכו’, “זכינו בשנת תרפ”ט לשחיטת ‘גרי תושב’ ששחטו יהודים בחברון” ר”ל.
With regard to shemitah and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, there has been a lot written recently, including on this blog, because there is now an attempt to entirely rewrite the history of R. Shlomo Zalman’s relationship to the heter mekhirah. Gulevsky, however, sees matters clearly when he writes, Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 124, that according to R. Shlomo Zalman:
דברי הגאון קוק והגאון פראנק “כמו ששאלו באורים ותומים”.

[1] For more on his genealogy see his “Al Toldot ha-Gaon Ba’al Semikhat Hakhamim,” Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael (Tamuz 5765), p. 168.
[2] A. Bernstein, et al., eds., Yeshivat Mir: ha-Zerihah be-Faʾatei Kedem (Bnei Brak, 1999), vol. 2, p. 609. All information about Gulevsky’s life for which no source is given comes from Gulevsky himself. When he was in Japan, before travelling to Shanghai, Gulevsky followed his grandfather’s pesak and observed Shabbat on Sunday while on Saturday he avoided melakhot de-oraita.
[3] See here.
[4] Meshiv Davar, vol. 1, no. 24.
[5] “Ha-Hazon Ish: Halakhah Emunah ve-Hevrah bi-Pesakav ha-Boltim be-Eretz Yisrael (5693-5714),” (Hebrew University, 2003). The title does not reflect all that is in this work, which will be a real blockbuster when it finally appears in print.
[6] Yagdil Torah (5741), pp. 114-117.
[7] See “Ke-Tzet ha-Shemesh bi-Gevurato,” Mesilot, Nisan 5758, pp. 13ff.
[8] See “Hityahasuto shel ha-Saba Kadisha Me-Ruzhin la-Memshalto shel ha-Czar Nikolai ha-Rishon (2),” Mesilot, Nisan-Iyar 5758), pp. 30ff.
[9] R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 27.
[10] Halakhic Man, tr. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia, 1983), p. 90.
[11] This is R. Mordechai Rogov, who would later teach in Skokie.
[12] See here
[13] Regarding this issue, R. Herschel Schachter writes as follows (Mi-Peninei ha-Rav [Brooklyn, 2001], p. 151):
בנידון הימים הבהמות קודם השחיטה, אשר האריך בזה טובא בחלק א’ משו”ת שרידי אש, ויש שמה תשובות מכמה מגדולי ישראל, שאלו פעם את רבנו האם דיבר אתו הגרי”י וויינברג, ז”ל, בזה, כי הלא באותה בתקופה היה רבנו בברלין, והשיב רבנו שבודאי דיברו יחד בנושה הזה, ושזאת היתה העצה שלו להגרי”י וויינברג, שהוא צריך לקבל הסכמת גדולי ישראל מכל המקומות בכל מאי דאפשר, כי דבר שכזה אי אפשר להניחו לכל רב עיר ומורה הוראה לפסוק לעצמו לקהילתו, כי השאלה כל כך גדולה היא, היא נוגעת לכלל ישראל כולו בבת אחת (שמעתי)
This type of report (שמעתי) that R. Schachter sometimes depends upon is often very unreliable. In this case, it is absolutely false. The Rav left Berlin before the Nazis came to power and before Weinberg or anyone else could even imagine that shehitah would be banned.




Rabbinic Insults and Bibliographical Errors

One of the more interesting pioneers of the haskalah movement was R. Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz).  Hanau’s works mainly concern grammar and, in that vein, corrections to the siddur.  Hanau’s first book, Binyan Shelomo, Frankfort A.M., 1708 was published when he was 21.  This book focuses on grammar, but, as we have already discussed, was important in the development of the Siddur. (Additionally, see S.’s recent post on Hanau here.)  This book is now up for auction, however, I must note that there seems to be an exaggeration regarding the scarcity of a particular page. 

The catalog describes the book as follows:

The author was born in 1687 and was noted for his many books regarding the foundation of the Hebrew language . . . The author corresponded with many Torah luminaries regarding his subject of expertise.  His first book, Binyan Shlomo  . . . [a]s a young scholar he spoke sharply against many sages who preceded him by hundreds of years.  As the years passed, the author regretted his sharp language and printed a unique apology in which he notes the names of the sages whom he did not properly honor.  This list features at least five leading Torah scholars from previous generations.  To the best of our knowledge, this leaf is not extant today and is not listed in the C.D. of the Bibliographic Project.  The book itself was never reprinted and is very rare today.  To the best of our knowledge, this is the only known copy with the apology leaf.

Judaica Jerusalem, Elul 2009, lot # 144, (emphasis in original).  There are a number of corrections in order.  First, the description states that there was only one edition of Binyan Shelomo “and it was never reprinted.”  That is incorrect.  Aside from two photo-reproductions done by Copy Corner and Guttman, Binyan Shelomo was reprinted in  1723.  Vinograd, in his bibliography, Otzar Sefer ha-Ivri, lists this book as extant the Annenberg Library, which, according to their online catalog, the book can still be found.[1]  Turning now to the “apology leaf.” It is correct that the leaf is rare, however, it is an overstatement to say this is the only known copy with the leaf.  Indeed, the existence of the leaf is not mentioned in Vingrad’s Otzar ha-Sefer ha-Ivri, Jersusalem: 1994, vol. II, Frankfort A.M. # 218. But, the leaf was mentioned already in 1865 and the fact that Hanau issued an apology was mentioned as early as 1715.  The first mention that Hanau issued an apology (although there is no mention of a special leaf) was in Johann Christoph Wolf’s Bibliotheca Hebraea, Hamburg: 1715.  (S. has kindly translated the relevant passage here.) Shadal in Prolegomenon, Grimmae: 1838, 61-2 n.1, also records Wolf’s comments. (See S.’s comments regarding the use of Prolegomenon here.)  The first to republish the apology leaf was Meir Wiener in Ha-Maggid, May 17, 1865, Ha-Tozfeh le-Maggid.  Wiener decided to republish the text of the entire leaf “due to its rarity.”  Wiener obtained a copy from the Rosenthal library and in the catalog for the library by Roest, Yodeah Sefer, he says “that in my copy I have an extra page at the end.”  Yodeah Sefer, letter Bet, # 304.  This notation was then recorded in Wiener’s bibliography of St. Petersberg library, Kohelet Moshe.  Wiener says “that the extra page at the end, which Roest records and where the author asks for forgiveness for insulting various authors, is not in this copy.” While it wasn’t in these copies, nor is it in the copy on Hebrewbooks.org, it is in the JNUL’s copy which is online here.  Additionally, we have a copy which has this leaf, making it at least two others in existence. 

We now turn to what precipitated the inclusion of this leaf.  According to the auction description, R. Hanau did this on his when “the years passed” and he “regretted his sharp language.”  According to Roest, however, “it is without a doubt that Hanau was forced by the Rabbis to print this apology, just like R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato.”  Roest, op cit.  Thus, according to Roest, the apology was not brought about from Hanau’s own introspection but because of the Rabbis.  Indeed, Friedberg in Bet Eked, says “that the author [Hanau] was forced by the Rabbi of Frankfort A.M. and his bet din to print a special page, in a smaller format, which was appended to the work, in which the author asks for forgiveness from the authors which [Hanau] insulted in his book.”  Bet Eked, letter Bet, # 1238. Similarly, Wolf states “Rabbis of Frankfurt were going to destroy it by flames” had Hanau not agreed to print the apology.  So according to these sources, Hanau was forced to print this apology.  According to a contemporary source, we can place the retraction before 1713.  This is so, because in Siddur of R. Azriel and R. Eliah of Vilna, published in 1713, they note that Hanau printed a page “asking for forgiveness.”  Additionally, according to this source, the request for forgiveness was at the behest of the Frankfort bet din.  R. Azriel and R. Eliah say that the page was printed “due to the decree of the head and leaders of the holy city Frankfort A.M.”  R. Azriel and R. Eliahu then continue, and mention the possibility that R. Hanau deserved to be placed under the ban due to his disrespectful words.  David Yitzhaki appears to have misunderstood R. Azriel and R. Eliah’s words as Yitzhaki says “that Hanau was almost placed under a ban.” D. Yitzhaki, “The Editors of the Ashkenzi Siddur & R. Shelomo Zalman Hanau and his Forgeries,” in Luach Eres, Toronto, 2001, 32.  If, as it appears, Yitzhaki’s source is the quote from R. Azriel and R. Eliah, that quote merely says that it was R. Azriel and R. Eliah’s opinions that Hanau “should” have been placed under the ban, they never say that there was a serious consideration of actually placing Hanau under a ban.[2] Of course, according to Wolf’s version, Binyan Shelomo was to be consigned to the flames, also implying a ban.  Wolf, however, provides no source for this assertion, and it seems unlikely that R. Azriel and R. Eliah would fail to mention the fact that Binyan Shelomo was almost destroyed.      

There is one more version of the story behind the retraction that is worth noting because it contains a major error.  This is a real honker.*  Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger, in Sefer ve-Seif, apparently confused R. Hanau’s Binyan Shelomo with another book that has the same title. Carmilly-Weinberger writes (172-73):

R. Yehezkel Landau the Noda be-Yehuda, stood with R. Yisrael Lifschitz [regarding the controversy surrounding the infamous Get of Cleves], who was in conflict with the head of the Frankfort bet din, R. Nathan Maz and R. Shelomoh Hena [sic] the author of the Binyan Shelomo.  Since R. Landau agreed with R. Yisrael Lifschitz, the enemy of R. Shelomoh Hena, [Hena] banned the work of the Noda be-Yehuda.

Carmilly then quotes a passage from the Hida’s work Shem ha-Gedolim in support of the above statement:

And because of this [fight about the Get of Cleves], when the book Noda be-Yehuda was published the Goan, author of Binyan Shelomo and his bet din prohibited anyone from reading [the Noda be-Yehuda].  The Noda be-Yehuda, however, took the opposite view and he said I tell anyone who is reasonable to go ahead the Binyan Shelomo, to look and see ערות האר”ש השמנה הוא אם רזה (a word play implying that there isn’t much in the Binyan Shelomo). 

Carmilly then continues, and he links the extra leaf in the Binyan Shelomo, to these statements explaining that Hana asked forgiveness for all those people he insulted.  Carmilly implies that the forgiveness related to the controversy about the Get of Cleves!  This is wrong. First, and foremost, the controversy regarding the Get of Cleves occurred in 1766, Hanau died in 1746.  Moreover, Hanau could not have counseled people not to read the Noda be-Yehuda as that was published in 1776 some thirty years after Hanau died.  Additionally, it is clear that Carmilly never saw this leaf as we will soon see, this leaf requests forgiveness from rishonim and doesn’t mention anyone involved in the Get of Cleves controversy.

Carmilly confused two books with the same title, Binyan Shelomo.  The first, by Hanau on grammar which is the subject of our discussion, and the second one, is written by R. Nathan Maz, and was published in 1784.  R. Nathan Maz [3] who was involved in the Get of Cleve controversy and who was on the Frankfort bet din (something that Hanau was not), was the subject of the above discussion. What makes this error even more ironic is that Nepi-Ghirondi, in his Tolodot Gedolei Yisrael, correctly notes that R. Maz authored a work titled Binyan Shelomo.  Carmilly, however, faults Nepi-Ghirondi “incorrectly associating Binyan Shelomo with R. Maz and, instead, the correct author is R. Hanau!”   Id. 172 n.297.  Of course, if one looks at the Hida in the original, it is also apparent that he is not referring to Hanau but to a different book with the same title.

Turning to the text of the “request for forgiveness.”  This text reminds me of a story I heard regarding a relative.  According to the story, A. calls C. “stupid.”  A’s mother then tells A. to apologies, to which A. turns to C. and says, “I am sorry you are stupid.”  Hanau’s request for forgiveness is similar as after offering a general request for forgiveness, Hanau then goes ahead and records every objectionable thing he said. For example, Hanau says

I erred in my ways when I disagreed with the authors.  I was too verbose and, at times, I insulted the authors . . . therefore I come to ask forgiveness: from the prince Don Isaac Abarbanel  when I wrote that “he speaks without logic and his words make no sense,” and in another place I wrote about him that “this statement [of the Abarbanel] is because of his lack of knowledge and that he didn’t understand what was being said” . . . Regarding the Ibn Ezra I wrote “he didn’t subject this statement to logic”

While this apology my be tongue in cheek, it seems to have appeased many or, at the very least, many thought Hanau’s next book didn’t suffer from the same lack of respect.  In R. Yehezkel Katzenellenbogen’s approbation to Sha’arei Torah, Hamburg 1717, he notes that while Hanau had in his prior work been too harsh with his language in “Sha’arei Torah, [Hanau] speaks with the appropriate measure of respect as I [R. Katzenellenbogen] have carefully checked.”[4] 

Notes:
[1] Wiener, in his article in Ha-Maggid (17 May 1865), questions the existence of this edition.  He claims that there is no such edition and that the abbreviation used for the date was misinterpreted. 
[2] It should be noted that R. Azriel and R. Eliah were not dispassionate observers.  Part of the reason that Hanau wrote Binyan Shelomo was to disagree with R. Azriel and R. Eliah’s opinions regarding proper punctuation of the Siddur. See Jacob J. Schacter, “Introduction,” in Luach Eres, op cit., 11-12.  R. Azriel and R. Eliah derogatorily refer to Binyan Shelomo as “Hurban Shelomo.”  
[3] For more information on R. Maz see M. Horovitz, Rabbanei Frankfort, Jerusalem:1972, 134-43.
[4] This did not appease everyone.  R. J. Emden really disliked R. Hanau’s positions. See Jacob J. Schacter, Luach Eres, op cit., 14-25.  
* I would like to thank A. Rottenberg for calling this error, as well as numerous other errors in Carmilly-Weinberg’s book, to my attention. 



Twenty-Five Years at the Valmadonna Trust Library

Twenty-Five Years at the Valmadonna Trust Library

by Pauline Malkiel

Librarian – Valmadonna Trust Library (London, England)

When I first walked into the library in May 1982 I was struck initially by the smell of leather, then by the rows upon rows of fine bindings in burgundies, browns, beiges and creams packed neatly and tastefully on elegant open wooden shelves.  Looking more closely I began to identify groupings: 16th century Italian locations with exciting names like Riva di Trento, Sabbionetta and Ferrara; whole areas of early Venetian printers – Bomberg, di Gara, Zanetti, each in its own space; a whole wall devoted to early Mediterranean printing in Salonika, Constantinople, and Prague, Lublin and Cracow.  Then there were vast ranges of small liturgies of many different rites – Italian, Spanish, Roman, Ashkenazic, Aleppo, Karaite – sitting chronologically on shelves in beautiful bindings.  Another area was devoted to Bibles printed in Venice starting in the year 1517.  Placed in their own taller alcoves were stately volumes of Rabbinic Bibles and Maimonides Commentaries, Mishneh Torahs, Alfassi Commentaries in different editions, and, on closer inspection of the spines, many recurring titles such as ‘Semag,’ ‘Mizrachi,’’Rabenu Bechai,’’Perush HaTorah’ and endless Responsa.  It was a thrill to see the word ‘unicum’ or ‘unique copy’ on a spine, and there were numerous slipcases containing ‘Variant 1’ and ‘Variant 2’ copies, promising intriguing revelations.  Examining the spines one could decipher an exotic array of practically unheard-of place names: Kuru Tschesme, Prostitz, Isny, Constanz, Trino, Dordrecht, Pforzheim, Alcala de Henares and then, tucked away in a corner, all the very early 16th century Latin works printed by the Soncinos in Fano, Ortona, Pesaro, Cesena and so on.  In various parts of the Library was the vast, ever-growing collection of Amsterdam printing, with a core collection of Menasseh ben Israel and Spanish printing.  In a centre cupboard was the luxurious six-volume set of the Complutensian Polyglot, and in a place of honour of its own, stood the precious 9-volume set of the Westminster Abbey Talmud, acquired 2 years before I came.  Behind the study door was a collection of books on blue paper.  In another area was the Indian collection, consisting mainly of dozens of small and even smaller delicate, fragile books.

My duties in the first few years consisted in the main of checking auction catalogues, dealing with binders and restorers and keeping very careful track of the books going in and out of the library for binding, titling and refurbishing, as well as cataloguing, ordering photocopies of missing pages and correspondence – much of it in Hebrew.  When a delivery came from our binders Bernard Middleton or Aquarius it was an occasion to rejoice.  A book might have disappeared for months or even years – the record being the Yosippon, Mantova which celebrated its 12th anniversary at the binder’s – and been meanwhile forgotten, then it would reappear spruced up and in a magnificent new binding, hailed as a long-lost friend and be given pride of place on the shelves.

There was always great excitement when a special or rare book purchased at auction or from a dealer arrived on the table. It had to be assessed physically to decide who would restore it and which binder would rebind or refurbish it before it would take its place with its companions.  Or the new arrival might complete a set, or help complete our holdings of specific printers (Bomberg, di Gara, dei Farri), places (such as Bombay or Calcutta, or Riva di Trento where we have all the books printed except one), or fall within certain dates (such as our collection of Jerusalem printing between the years 1840 and 1890, as recorded by the bibliographer Shoshana Halevi).

Hebrew books were beloved objects which were passed down from generation to generation, and heavily used by their owners.  In addition, due to the vicissitudes of Jewish life over the centuries, they were frequently subjected to censorship and destruction, and the surviving copies are therefore damaged or incomplete.  Our aim was always to complete these books and make them whole again.  If a book lacked pages, it would be a challenge to see if it could be located in other libraries. Sometimes there would be no other copy so the book must remain incomplete, giving it an unfinished air, a question mark for the future, an aura of speciality like the Venice Siddur with the large type and without a title page which has been around as long as I can remember and remains an unsolved mystery.  Such books may even turn out to be unique copies (of which we have several).  In the case of odd fragments, such as pages of rare tractates and liturgies, I have always been amazed by the ability of certain dealers (Mr. Weiser and Mr. Fekete, for example) to take one look at a page and recognise exactly where it comes from.  In this way Mr. Weiser managed to identify and piece together 2 fragmentary pages of an Incunable with Rashi’s commentary printed in Rome, which had been used to patch up torn pages of the Constantinople Pentateuch of 1522. 

A rare but ravaged book may come back from restoration almost unrecognisably restored, and this is a delight.  An incomplete book may be reunited years later with its second half, or we may be able to add another 100 pages from a different source.  Examples that come to mind are the Mahzor Aleppo Rite, Bomberg, Venice 1527, the Karaite Mahzor, Bomberg, Venice 1529, the Constantinople Pentateuch of 1522 with the 2 variant rites of the Haftarot (Spanish rite and Karaite rite), the Cracow Talmud of 1602-5 and the Salonika 1520 Pentateuch.  I remember the restorer Stephanie being brought down from Scotland to discuss restoration of the Constantinople Pentateuch and then taking it back by train in a suitcase.

It is most exciting to identify a book that has mystified us for years by locating another copy.  For many years I tried to find the first 10 pages of a Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, di Gara, Venice 1574 for our set but the nearest I could get were the imperfect facsimiles taken from the JNUL copy, which also lacked the title page.  Then suddenly one day there appeared on the table a perfect, complete copy of the Shulchan Aruch which had come from somewhere in the Crimea and had been brought to us by a dealer.  The Avudraham, Fez 1521, which we bought at the Schocken sale (December 1993), was beautiful but lacking the first leaf and a few pages at the end.  Again I went on the hunt and wrote to the Rosenthaliana where, to their great dismay, they found that their copy, which was supposed to be complete, was lacking at the beginning.  Eventually I tracked down the only surviving first page at JTS.  Another little book, Yichus Kol  ha-Zaddikim, printed by Soncino in Salonika in 1527, is almost unique.  Our copy was perfect except it lacked the first page – the HUC copy, described as the ‘only known copy’ was missing the last page!  Our Incunable Perush al Neviim Acharonim, Guadalajara 1482 lacked one page in the middle but had 2 duplicated pages. The Merton College, Oxford copy had the page we needed but lacked 3 others.  How hard we tried to do an exchange, but we didn’t succeed! 

For years we tried to acquire a copy of the Cremona Pentateuch in Yiddish – then, suddenly, two copies turned up in the same year.  Dealers would occasionally surprise us with great discoveries.  In the eighties Chaim Schneebalg would make a grand entrance on a Sunday morning in full Vizhnitzer regalia holding a scrappy plastic supermarket bag containing some new treasure.  He was also known to have pursued the custodian in similar fashion to a health farm in Sussex, and a holiday resort in St Moritz, with an important item that just couldn’t wait.  An Italian dealer once turned up with a bundle of wall calendars which were starting to decay, but these turned out to be a unique collection of Venice and Mantova wall calendars of almost consecutive years from the mid-16th century, practically unknown.  They were sent instantly to the paper restorer in Scotland and treated with the utmost respect and care, each one encapsulated on its return and recorded for posterity.

Another major acquisition was the Prague Mahzor on vellum, 1605-6, which belonged to the Taz Synagogue, Lemberg, destroyed in W.W.2.  Although there was a problem with the dealer on account of precious manuscript notes it was acquired without hesitation, as was the Prague Haggadah of 1590 with its beautiful print and layout.  The Indian collection was and is a source of great pride.  We bought some Bombay and Calcutta rarities from a private collector in Belgium in 1991.  Then our already outstanding collection was greatly enriched by the acquisition in 1999 of the Sassoon Indian and Baghdad collections, whereby we improved on existing copies, adding many variants as well as the unique collection of Indian journals and single leaves.

The most important sales in which Valmadonna was involved took place before my appointment, but it is necessary to highlight that some of the greatest treasures of the library emanated from the Sassoon and other sales that took place at Sotheby’s, London in 1970-71, in Zurich in 1975 and 1978 and in 1981 in New York.  Subsequently the Custodian and I attended various auctions, in London, Israel and New York.  I remember well the unusual atmosphere at the Judaica Collectors auction in late autumn of 1989.  It was like a club, exclusive to book enthusiasts some of whom had travelled from London, Manchester, New York and Holland, many of them ‘characters.’  They all knew each other, coffee and refreshments were on the hob, and various family members and curious onlookers were wandering in and out.  Occasionally a shouting match broke out during the bidding when somebody was overlooked, or somebody else failed to keep his promise to stand down on a coveted item.  A noisy controversy arose over a place of printing which was said to be on the Russian border, disputed by a professor at another table.  Another argument took place over the pronunciation of the Jerusalem printer ‘Bak’ or ‘Be’k.’  Throughout the auction there was pervading noise, cigarette smoke, eating, drinking, discussions, interruptions, a black mass of eager Chassidim in the corner, the auctioneer joking, Jack Lunzer wise-cracking and merrymaking.  When Jack Lunzerfailed to get an item he really wanted, after putting up a good fight and our next bid was soon to come up, he got up, walked up to Toperovich who, it was said, was bidding for Friedberg in Canada (who had given him a free hand to bid up to $30,000 for an Incunable estimated at $9-12,000) and told him to go for a walk – he needs some fresh air!  All these comments were going on in faltering Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English, or French (to Sara Frankel).  At one point Jack Lunzer sang a Sephardi melody across the room to Meir Benayahu and later pretended to indulge in a fist-fight with him.  The informality was overwhelming.

Sometimes we couldn’t make it to an auction and had to bid over the phone from London.  I remember one occasion when the phone lines were open for three hours and Mr. Dzialowski senior and 2 other dealers came along to join in the excitement, cheering us on or commiserating as the case may be.  There were one or two major auctions which were anticipated for months in advance and much work went into their preparation.  Perhaps the most memorable of these was the Schocken sale at Sotheby’s, London in 1993, where we acquired some very important items.  Others were the Mehlmann Auction in Tel Aviv (which included a delightful side-trip to Bill Gross to see some of his treasures), the Shane sale at Christie’s, New York in June ’98 and the Christie’s Bet Din Sale, again in the sweltering heat of New York in June ‘99.  On these occasions intense concentration was maintained, and our catalogues are full of exclamation marks and heavily underlined notes like ‘Want,’ ‘Need,’ and ‘Must Have!’  On rare occasions Jack Lunzer has been known to greatly exceed his mandate.  This happened at an auction in Geneva in the late eighties where we bought a unique little Bomberg liturgy at twice the estimate and three times the price the Trustees had authorised.  But he didn’t regret it and fortunately managed to persuade the Trustees to back his decision.

A Sotheby auction in New York in the summer of 1984 produced 8 exciting Incunables for the library.  I remember taking them all one day to the British Library for checking.  On another occasion I had to make a special trip to Oxford to have a newly-acquired Franco-German manuscript carbon dated.  The verdict was 10th-11th century.  In the eighties I had the responsibility of bidding at London Auctions, such as Mr. Schwarz’s Anglo-Judaica Book Exchange at Hatton Garden and at Bloomsbury Book Auctions, occasionally for the odd item at Christie’s, and at Judaica and Asufa Auctions in Jerusalem, the latter continuing right through the nineties.   

I would make regular journeys to the British Library first in Store Street, then at the India Office near Blackfriars from 1991 until they moved to St. Pancras in 1997, and occasionally to the Bodleian for checking.  During these years we also made a number of trips to other libraries.  We looked at rare items at Merton College, Oxford in 1994 and had a delightful visit to Eton College Library.  We went to Westminster Abbey Library in October 1996 to see their copy of ‘Akedat Yizhak’ whose wrongly titled spine ‘Talmud Babylonicum Bomberg’ had set Jack Lunzer on the original trail to the discovery of the Talmud.  After Brad Sabin Hill discovered another Talmud set at Sion College in the early nineties I went there to make a detailed analysis of their edition.  I did the same in Vienna in the winter of 1996 when the temperature inside and out was close to zero.  I was shown some treasures in Prague by the head of restoration when I brought the precious Constantinople 1522 Pentateuch and 2 other items to be expertly restored there.  Finally we had two very special trips – first to Parma in January 2000, where under the guidance of Chimen Abramsky and with special permission of Nice Ugolotti we examined the treasures of the Biblioteca Palatina, and then in February 2001 to the Royal Library, Copenhagen in the company of Christopher de Hamel – a rare privilege indeed.

During the mid-nineties we went on a rather exotic mission to the south-eastern corner of Europe to rescue a few thousand Hebrew books.  Our task was to select the most important of the remnants that had survived and to create a new library in Sofia,  arranged and stored for future generations.   They had survived untouched in a village outside Sofia for 30 years and were in danger of being destroyed by the damp conditions of winter.  In the course of several visits to Bulgaria, with the help of the State Archives and with the constant assistance of Becca Lazarova, Jack Lunzer organized truckloads of these books to be brought from the village to the Municipal Archives in Sofia where we sat and spent hours and hours sorting them by condition, by type and by place of printing.  They were mostly printed in Salonika, Constantinople and Izmir, with a fair number from Venice, Amsterdam and Vienna and parts of Bulgaria.  Most were incomplete, some were in tatters, but the excitement consisted in seeing what each new dusty black box would reveal.  Amongst the battered Mishnayot, endless Zohars and Chok l’Yisraels and fragments of Tractates and Responsa missing at both ends we might discover a rare liturgy with the first page torn out and replaced with something else.  Or the dried-out splitting old bindings could be stuffed with pages of an incunable or early fragments of Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch.  It became a fascinating task to try to recognize a book that had lost its title page by its type, or by emblems and small illustrations.  We had to determine whether the printing was late or early, whether a tall section belonged to an Alfassi printed in Sabbionetta or by Bragadin in Venice, whether it was part of a tractate or the Mishneh Torah.  Our work was very intensive and if we got tired of sorting and needed a break, Jack Lunzer would stop and pick up a liturgy and try to decide if it was Sephardic or Ashkenazic.  Or he would start reading a familiar opening passage from a tractate.  Sighs of approval would accompany the discovery of something interesting or special, such as a uniformly bound set of a periodical in Ladino dating from about 70 years back, which was then put in one of the special purpose-built cupboards of Ladino and Bulgarian imprints.  Sometimes there were owner’s signatures and inscriptions, well-known family names, even photos pasted inside the covers, testifying to centuries of history of the Jewish communities of the Balkans, particularly that of Salonika which, so tragically, was almost entirely annihilated in the Holocaust.  As we sorted through hundreds of books a day thoughts would go through my mind that we were paying tribute to those who had prayed and studied from them so that their memory should live on through the books they had possessed, inscribed and used.      

Another part of my work has been the careful preparation of books for exhibitions.  The first of these consisted of the highlights of Valmadonna exhibited at the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York in February 1989, with its special catalogue prepared by Brad Sabin Hill.  This involved much work and thought and it was quite painful having to eliminate some of the most beautiful imprints from the final choice of 50 exhibits.  We were flown out, together with Margaret and Myra (two of Jack Lunzer’s daughters), Bernard Middleton, Brad, George from IDC and myself, and met by a limousine that sped through the night to the Pierre Hotel, Manhattan, for a short but glittering trip to the opening.  This was followed, in the early nineties (June ’92) by a smaller exhibition at University College London organized by Myra.  Every so often we loaned out books for other exhibitions – a Soncino printing exhibition in Soncino in 1995, an exhibition of Yiddish printing in Italy in Milan in 1996, a Baghdad exhibition at the Jewish Museum, London, and exhibitions at the Israel Museum.  Finally there were two major exhibitions in London for which 100 books and manuscripts were specially selected by Christopher de Hamel, first for the International Society of Bibliophiles at the Guildhall in September 2003, and then again at Sotheby’s for Jack Lunzer’s 80th birthday in September 2004.

There were a number of changes in the library during the eighties and nineties.  First, having obtained permission to build a brick surround for the three oil tanks in the garden during an oil crisis, permission was subsequently granted to convert this out-building into a book store known as Chatterley.  All the books stored in vaults in the City, including the many duplicates, were gradually brought to Fairport, the Incunables, manuscripts and books printed on vellum put in a vault, and the Livorno, Jerusalem, latter Constantinople and Salonika and Indian and Baghdad collections housed in Chatterley.  With the reinforcement of our Byzantine holdings and the acquisition of the Sassoon India and Baghdad collections, the latter became greatly augmented and the Indian journals had to be kept on new bookshelves, as were latter Salonika and Constantinople.  There was now a large collection of books printed in Marathi only – for the use of the Bene Israel community in India – and these had to be identified with the help of staff at the Oriental section of the British Library.  There were large numbers of newly acquired books to be indexed, and a hundred and twenty new slipcases were made for the variant copies by a retired old gentleman who lived nearby.  New cupboards were built on a separate floor for the coloured paper collection and for the less valuable manuscripts.  We also decided to give special attention to the broadsheets, comprising 650 or more, and each was carefully restored, encapsulated, put in folders and subsequently indexed at the JNUL.

Around this time we decided on cut-off dates for Jerusalem (1920) and to dispose of London, Paris, Metz, latter German and eastern European and Yiddish printing.  A great deal of time was therefore spent with dealers and sending boxes of books to various auction houses.  Concurrently parts of the collection were growing through the acquisition of significant items either privately (the Mehlmann and Sassoon collections in Jerusalem, the Perlberger collection in London, a Gibralterian lady in Maida Vale, Toperovich in Bnei Berak, Chaim Dzialowski and Mr Schwarz in Jerusalem) – all of which entailed visits to their homes (where in Mr Schwarz’s case, I would leaf through books with delicious Hungarian cooking smells wafting in the background), or through dealers who came to Fairport, or by auction.  During the eighties we made acquisitions at Bloomsbury Book Auctions, Swann Galleries, Christie’s (Amsterdam), Sotheby’s (London, New York & Tel Aviv) and Judaica, Jerusalem.  Gradually others came on the scene – Kestenbaum (New York), Baronovich (New York) and Asufa, Jerusalem.  The Jerusalem catalogues would appear three times a year sometimes comprised over 600 Lots, but each item had to be carefully checked.  I would be kept busy by an array of binders, some of them short-lived, others like Bernard Middleton and Kerry Bate who have been with us for over 30 years, and meticulous records had to be kept of all items which left Fairport. 

Occasionally there was a great panic when we couldn’t find a book.  There might be a breathless telephone call in very serious tones late at night about a rare book that had disappeared, which would cause us both very disturbed nights until it turned up – usually having slipped behind or been mis-shelved during the annual Passover dusting.  Many years ago Jack Lunzer was in a frantic state for days about a tortoiseshell binding that had gone missing.  He phoned every binder and paper restorer we knew, including those we had stopped using, to search their workshops, turned the library upside down and made everybody feel worried and guilty.  He finally gave up the search and claimed insurance.  About 3 years later, while checking something in his late wife’s safe, he found the precious tortoiseshell binding!  Of course, the insurance money was returned.  Another time we were searching high and low for a rare miniature Venice Psalter and eventually discovered it sitting in the middle of a quarto-size box specially made to protect it from getting lost.

Another ongoing part of my work has been to deal with specialist enquiries, often as part of scholarly research leading to publications, such as those of Prof. Benayahu at Yad Harav Nissim or Marvin Heller, who is presently working on a volume dealing with 17th century Hebrew printing.  Scholars would come to Fairport to see our copies of Meshal ha-Kadmoni, Me’or Einayim, Nishmat Chayim, or to study the typography and ornamentation in early Mediterranean printing, or the writings of Solomon Twena, Samuel de Medina, the Bene-Israel, and the Samaritan sect, to see our special bindings, and so on.  Way back in the eighties, Jack Lunzer had a very special request from Princess Margaret to see a ‘Hebrew Incunable’.   A meeting was set up at Kenwood House where an Incunable was inspected, and both parties returned from the meeting duly charmed. 

Other meetings were arranged, to comply with specialist requests.  A calligraphy group had a very enjoyable meeting at Fairport where they viewed a selection of manuscripts, their favourite being the early 15th century illuminated Yemenite Pentateuch. In June 2006 a group of 20 scholars who were in London for a Judeo-Spanish Conference spent a morning at Fairport with twenty books they had specially selected.  There were 2 Conferences of UCL in which we participated by hosting receptions at Fairport.  The first was in June 1995, entitled ‘Jews of Italy – Memory and Identity,’ and the second in June 1997, on ‘Jews of the Low Countries,’ during which Prof. Chimen Abramsky gave a lecture one evening at Fairport about Menasseh b. Israel and his printing, illustrated by examples from our collection, to a room packed with people.  More recently we have been involved in an annual one-day seminar co-sponsored with the Institute of Jewish Studies, UCL.  The first of these was in September 2004, coinciding with Jack Lunzer’s 80th birthday and an exhibition arranged by Camilla Previté at Sotheby’s, entitled ‘The Valmadonna Trust Library and early Hebrew printing.’  In December 2005 the theme was the 350th anniversary of the re-admission of the Jews into England (entitled ‘Jews at the end of the Earth’), and in December 2006 ‘Hebrew bibliography – Steinschneider and after.’ 

Two students from the London College of Printing came one summer to clean and polish all the bindings.  In the winter of 1993 an Israel producer came to Fairport to interview Jack Lunzer for a programme to be televised in Israel on the theme of an unusual library, and in the autumn of 2006 a French film-maker came over for the day to make a programme for French TV about the Talmud for which a considerable amount of preparation was required.  In the summer of 2004 Esra Kahn spent 3 months making a card index of the ‘bibliography room’ on the second floor, which had never before been catalogued.   This collection of bibliographical works, ranging from the standard to the very rare, is in itself an important part of the Valmadonna Library and one for which Jack Lunzer holds great affection.  On many a sleepless night he has burnt the midnight oil in the company of Moses Marx or Moritz Steinschneider, or more recently, Marvin Heller.  As for the computerization of the Library itself, the bulk of the work was done by the Librarian’s son Solomon, who between the years 1989 and 1998 entered 9,200 records into the system.  I took over in the early 2000’s, in the meantime constantly correcting and updating the computer records and printouts with a view to eventually producing a Valmadonna catalogue which would be a vital Hebrew and English bibliographical tool for worldwide reference.

In 2004, IDC Publishers in Holland microfilmed our Baghdad collection at Fairport and made available on microfiche almost 350 titles, including the earliest lithographs, unrecorded Judeo-Arabic books and rare treasures from the Sassoon collection, with an introduction by Brad Sabin Hill.  In the summer of 2006 they filmed our unique Indian collection, so that a cultural legacy of over 730 items from Bombay, Calcutta, Poona and Cochin, including texts in Judeo-Arabic, Marathi and Malayalam, a Hindustani drama in Judeo-Urdu, works by Yemenite authors, unique Indian lithographs, rare liturgies, and many unrecorded items has now also become available to worldwide bibliography.

We hope that in future this work will continue, starting with the microfilming of our entire collection of Byzantine printing including Constantinople, Salonika and Izmir.  Meanwhile, we are working on a publication based on our extensive holdings of 16th-19th century wall calendars and similar ephemera such as edicts, decrees, odes and poems.  These have been described with the help of Isaac Yudelov and Ariel Viterbo at the JNUL, and will be published in book form and profusely illustrated.  The next project will be the publication of our holdings of incunabula, numbering approximately 70, edited by Dr A. Offenberg of the Amsterdam University Library, together with an important collection of books printed on vellum.

It has sometimes been hard to catch Jack Lunzer with library work amidst his dizzying travels around the globe, mostly on business and diplomatic matters during the eighties and nineties, as well as a range of other activities and family engagements.  We would sometimes work in the evenings, but always on Sunday mornings when he was in town, and I was often frustrated by the incessant telephone calls.  I was, however, frequently amused by the strange assortment of people at Fairport, especially on Sundays.  There might be two Chassidic book dealers in one room, an African lady visitor in another, a third book dealer in a different room, a Rabbi on a charitable mission in another, the gardener waiting for instructions outside, two waitresses coming to discuss breakfast arrangements for the overnight Shavuot study, the pedicurist and the electrician, while family members would be dropping in to see their father, grandfather or uncle.  All the while Dillon, the handsome golden labrador known as ‘the boy’ and a very prominent member of the household during the eighties, would be having a field day dancing around each visitor with his brown towel flapping in his paw.  Jack Lunzer was unperturbed by the transitions between all these people, with his astonishing ability to switch from business to family to book matters, while constantly being interrupted by telephone calls.  Sometimes he would carry on two conversations on two phones, and once I actually heard him speak in 7 languages in the course of one evening.  However there would always be time and enthusiasm for the books, which were treated with love and respect and often referred to as ‘old friends’ or ‘children.’  The library is a quiet, beautiful refuge from the fatigue of aeroplanes, travel and business, and each item holds its own story which is waiting to be read and put in its perspective of our history, liturgy, bibliography and typography.

I myself feel immensely privileged to have been part of the preservation for posterity of this extraordinarily rich and tangible part of the history of our people, extending as it does to towns all over the globe – from Cochin to Curacao, from Irkutsk to Guadalajara – and in time from manuscripts 1,000 years old, to printed books over 500 years old and unique journals of the 20th century.  After 25 years I continue to find my work exciting, in its scope and variety, and highly rewarding, and it is my wish, together with that of the Custodian, Jack Lunzer, to be able to see the transition of the Valmadonna Library as an intact and permanent collection to its next home, so that it should always remain a testimony to the history and culture of the Jewish people.



The Ancillary Benefits of Non-Jews on the Hebrew Book

The Ancillary Benefits of Non-Jews on the Hebrew Book


In the history of the Hebrew book, the books, like the Jews themselves, have been subject to external persecution.  Thus, some books and manuscripts have been totally lost.  On the other hand there are a few examples of books or, as we shall soon demonstrate, technices that are are a product of external influences. 

Abraham Ibn Ezra had a very hard life.  In his well-known formulation that appears at the beginning of his commentary to the Humash, he complains that his luck is so bad that if he were a candle maker the sun would always shine.  As Naftali ben Menachem has shown, (Inyanei Ibn Ezra, Jerusalem, 1978, 1-9 and see 132-37 for his discussion regarding the Ibn Ezra’s bad luck) the Ibn Ezra’s books “suffered” as well.  In particular, many of his books were unavailable for hundreds of years (as an aside, Ibn Ezra’s Yesod Moreh ve-Sod Torah has recently been reprinted in an expanded format by Bar Ilan Press).  Relevant to our theme, however, are Ibn Ezra’s books on astronomy.  Anyone familiar with Ibn Ezra’s commentary knows that Ibn Ezra uses astronomy in his commentary with some frequency and, to properly understand his various statements regarding astronomy it is helpful to have Ibn Ezra’s own statements regarding various astronomical ideas.  But, for hundreds of years, the only available editions were not in the original Hebrew but were instead “saved” in other languages (see one example here).

Another example, although this case is not one of saving but instead appropriating from non-Jewish sources, is the portrait traditionally associated with R. Saul Morteira (1596-1660). 



As Dr. S. Z. Leiman has noted (see Ali Sefer 10 [June 1982]: 153-55; reprinted in Givat Shaul, ed. Hayyim Eliezer Reich [Brooklyn, NY: [n.p.], 1991]) there is some doubt as to the veracity of this portrait. In a later article, (published in Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 6, [Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1998], 17-19), Leiman shows that this portrait is not of R. Morteria.  Indeed, its first appearance was in Wagneseil’s Latin translation of tractate Sota, published in 1674.  The engraver, whose initals appear in the corner is Cornelius Nicholas Schurtz (whose initials are found in the bottom right corner) and who lived and worked in Nuremberg between 1670-90 and probably never saw R. Morteira who died in 1660 in Amsterdam. Indeed, this engraving is merely used to illustrate what tallis and teffilin look like and there is no mention of R. Morteria. [There are other illustrations by Shurtz in this volume that are also of interest including the halitzha shoe as well as others, in Sperber’s article on halitzha (Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 6, op. cit., pp. 62-73, 326-33 he doesn’t mention this illustration.] As Leiman notes, Schurtz’s engraving was very popular and subsequently appeared in various books.


J. Wagenseil, Sota, Altdorf, 1674
Courtesy of the B. Jackson Library


Reich, in his reprint of Givat Shaul provides a different portrait of R. Morteira, also from a non-Jewish source, Rembrandt.  Although Reich doesn’t provide how he knows this information, Leiman cites a Dutch book, Herman Prins Salomon, Saul Levi Mortera en zijn “Traktaat betreffende de waarheid van de wet van Mozes”, eigenhandig geschreven in de portugese taal te Amsterdam 1659-1660 (Braga, 1988), which offers the suggestion that a Rembrandt portrait is that of R. Morteira.  Although, some scholars now doubt that the Rembrandt portrait is that of Morteira and instead claim it is of the Czech Protostant Jan Amos Comenius who lived next door to Rembrandt for a period of time. See here (a review of Stevan Nadler’s book, Rembrandt’s Jews) and here.

Two other examples, both relating to the Talmud and both concern the Vatican library.  In R. N. N. Rabinowich’s Dikdukei Soferim, the introduction to Baba Batra, Rabinowich thanks God for answering his prayers and allowing Rabinowich entry to the Vatican library in preparation for this book.  Specifically, Rabinowich explains that he was allowed access to the Vatican libraries when no other outsider was allowed to use the library.  The second example concerns the Romm edition of the Talmud.  One of the most important early commentaries to the Talmud is that of the Rabbenu Hananel.  This commentary was included for the first time with the Romm edition.  The editors explain in their Afterword that the manuscript they used was the from the Vatican.

The next example, is again one in a similar vein to that of the Morteira portrait.  As S. has noted, the Brooklyn-based Jewish publishing house ArtScroll has (or purchased) a patent regarding the use of arrows to allow for an interlinear translation.  While the focus of the patent is on the arrows, the patent claims the need for the arrows is the difficulty in providing an interlinear translation from that of a right to left language (Hebrew) to one that reads from left to right (English).  It seems that this wasn’t that much of an issue for at least 400 years ago (and there may be earlier examples) an interlinear bible, printed in 1609, which translated the Hebrew into Latin (a left to right language like English) was published. It seems that it worked just fine.



Biblia Hebraica, Eorundem Latina Interpretatio, 1609
Courtesy of the B. Jackson Library