1

Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 1 of 2): Giyus, Professor Lieberman and More

|
Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 1 of 2):
Giyus, Professor Lieberman and More
By Yaacov Sasson
A tremendous resource that will be of great interest to Seforim Blog’s readers has been made available to the public. The entire archive of the great Rav Yitzchak Eizik Halevi Herzog, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, has been scanned and is now available online.[1] The archive contains hundreds of files on a wide range of topics, including Rav Herzog’s Piskei Halacha and Torah novellae, extensive correspondence on Israeli politics, Rav Herzog’s efforts to save Jews of Europe, and much more. Each file is dedicated to a specific topic, and many of these files contain upwards of a hundred pages of material. In short, the archive is a veritable treasure trove, and will be of great interest to those who are students of Torah, Halacha and Jewish history. Much of Rav Herzog’s Torah has been published in his numerous seforim; however, there is a significant amount of unpublished material in the archive. The purpose of this article is to make readers aware of some of the gems found in the archive, in particular the significant unpublished material. I have only begun to look through the vast amount of material that is available, and I am certain that there is much more to be found. The following are a select number of documents and files that I think will be of interest to the Seforim blog’s readers.
I Giyus Bnai Yeshivot
The archive contains an entire file dedicated to the always controversial issue of giyus bnai yeshivot, whether yeshiva students ought to be drafted to the army or exempted from the draft.[2] Within this file, there is an approximately 50-page kuntres written by Rav Herzog in 1948, dedicated to a halachic analysis of the topic. To the best of my knowledge, this very significant kuntres was never published, and it does not appear in any of Rav Herzog’s seforim.[3]
Rav Herzog addresses the issue in an extremely thorough manner, and deals with a wide variety of relevant sources and issues, such as the definition of milchemet mitzvah, and the words of the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel, among other issues. For example, on page 27, he discusses the possibility of milchemet mitzvah in the absence of a king, and concludes that milchemet mitzvah is still possible if the community of Jews living in Eretz Yisrael approves of the war. On page 12, Rav Herzog suggests, based on a diyuk, that the Rambam’s words at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel exempting talmidei chachamim from waging war do not apply to a war of ezrat yisrael miyad tzar. (A similar reading of the Rambam was suggested by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in “The Ideology of Hesder” (Tradition Fall 1981), and was reprinted in Leaves of Faith Volume 1.) Rav Herzog also makes a fascinating contention (on page 2), that the British were the current-day manifestation of Esav, putting forward their split hoof and hypocritically claiming to seek justice, while quietly attempting to undermine the Jewish cause by supporting their enemies. It is obviously not feasible to summarize a 50 page kuntres in a single blog post; I will simply present Rav Herzog’s main conclusion. Rav Herzog suggests (pages 12 and 34) that yeshiva students should not be subject to giyus malei, full conscription, even during wartime. Rather, they should be subject to giyus chelki, partial conscription of a few hours a week, doing what Rav Herzog terms “hishtatfut” in the war effort, such as local shemira and the like.
While this was Rav Herzog’s halachic conclusion in the kuntres, when the issue of forced conscription became a potential reality ten years later, Rav Herzog sent a heartfelt letter to Ben-Gurion, pleading for the exemption of bnai yeshivot, since they are already conscripted to the security of Torah and the heritage of Am Yisrael, and their Torah learning is a shield for Am Yisrael. This letter, which is found in the file of Rav Herzog’s correspondence with Ben-Gurion[4], appears below:

Another noteworthy document in the file on giyus bnai yeshivot is a 1948 telegram from the Roshei Yeshiva of the American yeshivot, expressing their shock at the possibility of giyus bnai yeshivot, and urging Rav Herzog and Rav Uziel to make sure that bnai yeshivot remain exempt from army service. The telegram appears below, as well as my transcription of the telegram into Hebrew:
נבהלנו מאד לשמוע שאומרים לבטל השחרור של בני ישיבות ולקחתם לצבא. הדבר נוגע לנפש ורוח חיי אומתנו ויגרום חילול השם בין הגויים המשחררים בני ישיבות מעבודת הצבא אפילו בשעת מלחמה. השתדלו בכל תוקף להעביר רוע הגזירה, ואין מעצר להש[ם] להושיע. בשם כל הישיבות,

Kotler Gordon Grosowski Zaks Joffen Levenstein Kalmanowitz Kamenetzki Bloch Belkin Shatz[k]es Soloveitchik Feinstein Ehrenfeld Hutner Lifshitz Leibowitz Korb Ruderman Rothenberg[5]
The telegram is especially noteworthy because of the appearance of the names of the Charedi Roshei Yeshiva, such as Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Moshe Feinstein etc. together with the names of the more modern Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS: the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik, and Dr. Samuel Belkin. Such collaboration would seem to be almost impossible in later years.
II Professor Saul Lieberman on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel
Rav Herzog maintained a close relationship with Professor Saul Lieberman, as Dr. Marc Shapiro has mentioned previously on the Seforim blog[6], and noted in his “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, page 22.[7] It should therefore come as no surprise that Rav Herzog’s archive contains correspondence between him and Lieberman. The letter that appears below was sent by Lieberman to Rav Herzog, and contains Lieberman’s haarot on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel, his sefer on the Rambam’s Hilchot Sanhedrin.[8] In this letter, Lieberman first discusses the proper girsaot in the relevant Rambam and the gemara in Makot regarding minuy dayanim. He then addresses Rav Herzog’s question of how it could be possible that bnai noach have a more extensive obligation of dinim than do Yisrael,[9] and Lieberman offers an elegant yeshiva-style distinction between dinei yisrael and dinei bnai noach to answer the problem. (A similar distinction was offered by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in Beit Yitzchak 8, page 89, and reprinted in his Minchat Aviv.) He offhandedly mentions that Rav Menachem Kasher had recently “acquired” some of his material, and then bemoans the fact that RY”D is too involved in the ol ha-tzibur and is not dedicating himself sufficiently to his Torah study, although he has the potential to become the Gaon Ha-Dor.
Lieberman’s letter appears below, and a transcription appears in Appendix A.
It is most likely that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred was Rav Yaakov David Herzog, Rav Herzog’s son, as the context within the letter is dealing with Rav Herzog’s family. Rav Yaakov David had already published a scientific/critical edition of Mishnayot Brachot/Peah/Demai in 1945, at the young age of 24, and Lieberman wrote a Foreword to the volume.[10] Rav Yaakov David Herzog was eventually selected as Chief Rabbi of Great Britain in the 1960s, but declined the post due to his ill health.[11]
I also entertained the possibility that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred is the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik. While this seems unlikely, it would fit nicely with the comments made by Rabbi Jacob Radin, as quoted by Rav Aaron Rakeffet[12], contrasting the Rav and Lieberman:
You know that I have attended classes in both the Seminary and the Yeshiva. I have studied with Professor Lieberman and the Rav. The Professor lectures a few times a week. He hurriedly finishes and rushes back to his research. Outside of his formal lectures, he is barely available to the students. On the other hand, the Rav is never alone. He has never finished a lecture on time. He always goes overtime. He remains in the classroom afterwards to carry on the Talmudic give and take with the students who cannot part from him. Even when he rises to leave, his disciples surround him and the discussion continues…This is the basic manifest difference between these two prodigious scholars.[13]
On Lieberman’s mention of Rav Kasher, this is the page that Lieberman referenced from Tosefet Rishonim:
And the page from Rav Kasher’s article in Sinai, Volume 18:
A number of the rather obscure sources in Rav Kasher’s lengthy footnote 2 appear to be taken from Lieberman’s Tosefet Rishonim.
III The Lieberman Ketuba
As is well-known, Lieberman introduced a new clause into the ketuba in the early 1950s in order to alleviate the aguna problem. The clause stipulated that the couple recognizes the authority of the beit din of the Rabbinical Assembly, and that upon dissolution of the marriage, the beit din would be empowered to administer penalties as it sees fit. The aim of these penalties would be to pressure the husband to give a get. In a number of letters from the 1950s (in a file regarding Even HaEzer issues[14]), Rav Herzog mentions that he himself came up with such an idea many years earlier when he was still Chief Rabbi of Ireland. He envisioned a separate document which would empower the beit din of London to administer financial penalties on a husband withholding a get. He mentions that he is unsure of Professor Lieberman came up with this idea himself, or if Lieberman actually got the idea from Rav Herzog.

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman wrote that it was widely believed that the Lieberman clause was examined by Rav Herzog, and that he had no objections.[15] This belief is certainly false, as Rav Herzog penned a strong protest to the proposed addition to the ketuba.[16] Rav Herzog’s main protest was due to the authority granted to the Conservative beit din. It is possible that the root of this misconception (that Rav Herzog approved of the Lieberman clause) is the fact that Rav Herzog independently envisioned a similar document or agreement, and that he entertained the possibility that Lieberman actually got the idea from him.
IV The Epstein Proposal
Another fascinating exchange between Rav Herzog and Lieberman is found in Rav Herzog’s file dedicated to Reform[[17] and Conservative Jewry[18], and relates to the Rabbinical Assembly’s 1957 attempt to resuscitate the Epstein proposal. Rabbi Louis Epstein had proposed, in his 1930 book Hatzaa Lemaan Takanat Agunot, that every husband, at the time of marriage, ought to designate his wife as a shliach to deliver her own get, in order to eliminate the aguna problem in the case of a missing husband or a get-refuser. The proposal was never implemented, in large part due to Orthodox opposition. In May of 1957, the Rabbinical Assembly attempted to resuscitate the Epstein Proposal at their Annual Convention at the Concord Hotel in Kiamesha Lake, New York. However, this attempt to revive the Epstein proposal must be viewed in light of the politics within the Conservative movement at that time. The following is an excerpt from the Presidential Report of Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal at the Rabbinical Assembly Convention[19]:

Note in particular Rabbi Blumenthal’s comments that the Seminary is an Orthodox institution, that its synagogue has separate seating and does not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that practically every faculty member added to the Talmud faculty in the last 15 to 20 years thinks of himself as an Orthodox Jew and has little regard for the Conservative movement. Given that Lieberman was the de-facto Rabbi of this synagogue, and that Lieberman ensured that the synagogue did not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that the synagogue maintained separate seating until Lieberman’s death[20], it would seem that Rabbi Blumenthal’s words were directed primarily at Lieberman, who arrived at the Seminary some 17 years prior.
It is against this backdrop that the Rabbinical Assembly passed a Resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards review the Epstein proposal and submit a plan for its implementation.
The report below from the National Jewish Post and Opinion makes clear that the left wing of Conservative Judaism felt that the Lieberman ketuba did not go far enough in addressing the aguna problem and therefore sought to institute the Epstein proposal. On the other hand, the more traditional wing of Conservative Judaism, led by Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Chancellor of JTS, wanted the proposal referred to a joint committee made up of JTS faculty and RA members. Rabbi Blumenthal’s complaint about the Orthodox character of the Seminary faculty was not just an observation, but also a charge to the RA regarding the Epstein proposal, that they not allow the Seminary faculty to torpedo the proposal. Rabbi Finkelstein’s group lost the vote 92-88, in what was, in a sense, a repudiation of Lieberman’s Orthodox influence, and a rejection of his ketuba as too Orthodox and not impactful enough.[21] The majority of the RA membership was prepared to head in a more liberal direction.
After the passage of the Rabbinical Assembly resolution, the Agudat HaRabbanim turned to Rav Herzog in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent this breach of kedushat hamishpacha beyisrael.[22] (It is not clear to me why they termed the Epstein proposal nisuin al tnay, or conditional marriage, which is a different attempted mechanism to prevent aguna situations.)
In response to the request of Agudat HaRabbanim, Rav Herzog turned to Lieberman in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent the implementation of the proposed nisuin al tnay.[23] (Rav Herzog apparently understood the proposal to be literally one of conditional marriage, and thus referred Lieberman to the book Ain Tnay Benisuin, rather than the book LeDor Acharon, mentioned in the Agudat HaRabbanim letter, which deals with the Epstein proposal.)
In response to Rav Herzog’s letter, Lieberman sent Rav Herzog the very fascinating letter below. (A transcription of this letter appears in Appendix B.) Lieberman tells Rav Herzog that the Orthodox Rabbis are simply looking for excuses to make machloket, that Rabbi Finkelstein strongly protested the re-introduction of the Epstein proposal (as we noted was reported in the National Jewish Post), and that the President of the Assembly (Rabbi Blumenthal) also denied the claim of the Agudat HaRabbanim. He then says that the entire purpose of his revised ketuba was to bury the possibility of the Epstein proposal! He also mentions that some Orthodox Rabbis have claimed that any wedding which uses the new ketuba is invalid, and the kiddushin are not tofsin. (I have been unable to find any documented source of a Rabbi who made such a claim. I would be indebted to any of the readers who could provide such a source.) Lieberman concludes by assuring Rav Herzog that he would be the first to protest the implementation of the Epstein proposal, and that such a nevala could never happen while he is at the Seminary.
Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial was in fact reported by the JTA.[24] He said that the Assembly only authorized a committee to re-study the problem.
Some points remain unclear to me, as Rabbi Finkelstein’s group did indeed lose the vote, and the RA did pass a resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards submit a plan for the implementation of the Epstein proposal. I find it hard to understand Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial, or how Lieberman could claim that the Orthodox Rabbis were simply seeking machloket, when the RA passed a resolution for implementation (even documented in the RA Proceedings), with the left-wing defeating the traditional wing.
(to be continued)
Appendix A
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about Torat Ha-Ohel
בע”ה אור ליום ד’ פרש’ לך תש”ט
לידידי הגאון הגדול האמתי מרן רי”א הלוי הירצוג, לב”ב ולכל הנלוים עליו שלום רב.
היום קבלתי את יקרת כ”ג ואעשה כמובן כבקשתו. והנה נזכרתי שאני חייב התנצלות לכ”ג על שתיקתי הממושכה. היו כמה סיבות וטעמים לדבר. את ספרו היקר קבלתי בזמנו ונהניתי מאד מחידושיו הנפלאים ובקיאותו המפליאה. לא רציתי להטריד אותו בהערותי שמא יראה נחיצות נמוסית להשיב, והרי מכיר אני את טרדותיו המרובות, ולמה להעמיס עליו עוד משא? כדי שלא יהי’ מכתבי כשטר הדיוטות ארשום לו כמה דברים קלים שאינם צריכים עיון ומו”מ. דברי הר”מ בפ”א מהל’ סנהדרין ה”ב קשה להגיה, וכנראה שלדעת הר”מ אין כלל מצוה למנות דיינים בחו”ל, כפי שהבין בו הרמב”ן בפרש’ שופטים, וכן משמע מלשונו של הר”מ בסה”מ עשין קע”ו ומקורו הוא הבבלי במכות ספ”א[25] לפי גירסת המאירי שם: “אבל בחו”ל אי אתה מושיב בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר.” והוא מביא שם את גירסת התלמוד שלנו בשם “ויש גורסים” ומסיים: ולא נראה כן. ואשר לפסק הר”מ בספ”ט מה’ מלכים נראה שהוא חלק בין ב”נ ובין ישראל. שהרי ישראל מצווים למנות שופטים כמ”ע של שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך, ואפילו יצוייר שנהיה בטוחים שישראל לא יעברו על שום עברה ג”כ מצוה למנות שופטים. ברם ב”נ מחוייב למנות שופטים רק מפני שהוא מצווה על הדינין, כלומר שישגיח שלא יעברו על מצות ב”נ. ואם לא מנה שופטים בפלך ועבר אחד מהם עברה ולא דנו אותו כלם חייבים מיתה (שהרי כל אחד ראוי לדון יחידי), אבל כ”ז שלא עברו עברה אינם חייבים מיתה על מינוי דיינים אפילו לשיטת הר”מ.[26] ועיין ביד רמה נו ע”ב וברש”י ד”ה כך נצטוו, ומלשונו של הרמ”ה משמע שכן היה לפניו מפורש בגמרא שבני נח הוזהרו מחמת “ושפטו.”
בענין גר העמלקי (דף נ”ו) עיין מ”ש החיד”א ביעיר אוזן, עין זוכר מערכת ג’ אות א’ דברים מחוכמים מאד.
[בעני]ן מכת מרדות (צ”ט) עיין בשו”ת [הר]שב”ש סי’ תר”י וציינתי לו בתוספת ראשונים ח”ב צד 170 (עכשיו ראיתי שידידנו הרב כשר קנה במשיכה מספרי שם את כל החומר ופרסמם בסיני.)
כפי שאמרתי לא ארבה בדברים שצריכים לינה בעומקה של הלכה, ואני מקוה שנוכל לדבר ע”ז אי”ה פה אל פה.
על כמה דברים שנתחדשו אצל כ”ג באופן פרטי שמענו מאורחים וידידים היורדים מהתם להכא ושמחנו מאד לשמוע שכלתו הכבודה ב”ה נתרפאה לגמרי. מצטער אני מאד שרי”ד[27] שלנו נושא בעול הצבור ואינו מתפנה לגמרי לעולה של תורה. הרי עדיין הוא צעיר ויכול להיות לגאון הדור. ומדי דברי בו נזכרתי ששאל אותי מקום הירושלמי: התלמיד תוך ד’ אמות ברם הרב אפילו חוץ לד’ אמות והשבתי לו שירושלמי כזה אין לפנינו. ואעפ”י שכן הוא האמת בכ”ז שכחתי באותה שעה שכן מביא הריטב”א בסוכה כ”ח בשם הירושלמי.
אצלנו אין כל חדש. אנו יושבים ומצפים לגאולה שלמה, ייתי ונחמיניה.
בפ”ש מבית לבית
הנני מעריצו ומוקירו וידידו הנאמן
שאול ליברמן
הייתי מכיר טובה מאד לרבנית שתחי’ אם תודיע לנו בפרוטרוט על חיימקה שיחי’ ומשפחתו ועל רי”ד אהובנו.[28]
Appendix B
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about the Epstein Proposal
בעה”י יום ה’ פרש’ מטות תשי”ז
לכבוד ידידינו הגאון הגדול האמיתי מרן הרי”א הלוי הירצוג הרב הראשי לא”י ברכה ושלום רב.
יקרת כ”ג מי’ תמוז הועברה אלי לכרם מרתה[29], ומאד מאד התפלאתי שכ”ג האמין לדיבת הרבנים כאן. אמנם בכנסיית הרבנים השמרנים דברו על עיון מחדש בשאלת תנאי בקידושין, אבל ד”ר פינקלשטיין יצא בכל תוקף נגד חידוש העיון. ונשיא הכנסיה הנ”ל הכחיש בעצמו את דיבת הרבנים. אבל הללו מחפשים רק אמתלאות למחלוקת. כל עניין הכתובה היה כדי לקבור לגמרי את שאלת התנאי. הסברתי להם שאם ליחיד אפשר פעם לחשוב ע”ז הרי לרבים אין הדבר בא כלל בחשבון שהתנאי יעשה ע”פ דין, וישתקע הדבר ולא יעלה שוב על הפרק. וכולם הסכימו ל[י]. עכשיו יש מהם שבאים בטענות ואומרים: הרי הרבנים הארתודוכסים טוענין שאף הכתובה נעשתה שלא כדין, ויש מהם (כלומר מהרבנים הארתודוקסים) שאמרו שהמתחתן בכתובה החדשה אין הקידושין תופסין, והאשה מותרת בלי גט (ממש לא יאומן כי יסופר! אבל לצערי נאמרו הדברים), א”כ הרי מוטב לעשות תנאי בקידושין, ולהפטר מכל שאלת העגונה בבת אחת. והנני מבטיח את כב”ג שאין לשמועה שום יסוד, אחרת הייתי אני בין הראשונים למחות, וכל זמן שאני בסמינר לא יתכן שיעשו נבלה כזו.
בפ”ש ובברכה לכל המשפ[חה]
בהערצה ובידידות
שאול [ליברמן]
[1] See here.
[2] See here.
[3] A short one-page summary of the kuntres appears in R’ Zorach Warhaftig’s Chuka Leyisrael, page 236. However, R’ Warhaftig neglects to mention that Rav Herzog advocated only giyus chelki.
[4] See here.
[5] Every name on the telegram is relatively well known, except for Rothenberg. I assume this is Rav Moshe Rothenberg, founder of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin of Detroit. See Toldot Anshei Shem page 126, here.
[6] See here.
[7] For the following sections related to Lieberman, I made extensive use of Dr. Shapiro’s “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox.”
[8] See here.
[9] Here in Yeriot Ha-Ohel 1.
[10] See here. Interestingly, Lieberman signed the Foreword as “Saul Lieberman, Dean, Harry Fischel Institute, Jerusalem”, even though Lieberman had been teaching in JTS for five years already. (In the Foreword, he notes that the publication of the volume coincided with Harry Fischel’s 80th birthday, in 1945.) In fact, Lieberman’s name appeared atop the Harry Fischel Institute’s stationery as late as 1949 (can be seen in Rav Herzog’s file on Machon Harry Fischel.) It would appear that Lieberman continued to serve in some capacity as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute even after he left Israel to come to America. Incredibly, he held one foot in each world simultaneously, as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute and Professor in JTS, a fact that has heretofore eluded his biographers. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin reports in the name of Mr. Carmi Schwartz, Executive Vice President of the Council of Jewish Federations, that Lieberman willed most of his considerable life savings to the Harry Fischel Institute after his death, and not to JTS.
[11] See here.
[12] Mentor of Generations, page 119.
[13] For more on the Rav and Lieberman, see Rav Rakeffet’s “A Note on R. Saul Lieberman and the Rav”, in Tradition, Winter 2007. Also noteworthy is the following story that appears in Rav Hershel Schachter’s Mipninei Ha-rav:
The head of the Seminary who gave the shiur with which the Rav disagreed so vehemently is none other than Lieberman. Warren’s visit to the Seminary was covered on the front page of the New York Times (September 14, 1957.) (For a humorous account of how Lieberman sipped tea through a sugar cube that weekend in the presence of former president Harry Truman, see “The Rabbi as Symbolic Exemplar” by Jack Bloom, page 37.) Here is the New York Times’ account of Lieberman’s shiur:
A similar account of the shiur appears in the Sentinel (September 26, 1957)
Regarding Lieberman’s suggestion that the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha is predicated on the presumption of teshuva, there appears to be another difficulty, in addition to that raised by the Rav. The gemara in Makot 13b states:
חייבי מיתות ב”ד אינו בכלל מלקות ארבעים שאם עשו תשובה אין ב”ד של מטה מוחלין להן
The gemara states explicitly that teshuva is not efficacious in absolving a sinner of capital punishment, which would seem to contradict Professor Lieberman’s thesis. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has offered the following original suggestion to resolve the problem. Professor Lieberman might have believed that the gemara in Makot which states that teshuva does not absolve capital punishment is referring to after gmar din, when the sinner has already been tried and sentenced. At that point, teshuva is no longer effectual. However, the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha applies before trial and sentencing, and teshuva would absolve a sinner before sentencing. This reading of the gemara in Makot is certainly plausible, although it does run contrary to the reading of the Noda B’Yehuda (Orach Chaim 34, s.v. ela), who assumes that the gemara is referring to before gmar din as well. Additionally, it would seem difficult to assume that a confession is indicative of teshuva if a sinner is aware that he can absolve himself of punishment by simply admitting his guilt in beit din. However, this approach would explain why the Rav raised a difficulty based on the words of the Raavad, and not the gemara in Makot, as the gemara in Makot is not a conclusive proof.
[14] See here.
[15] “Conflict and Consensus in Jewish Political Life”, page 120, also cited in “Saul Lieberman: the Man and his Work”, page 45. My thanks to my good friend Dr. Josh Lovinger for bringing this to my attention.
[16] Techuka leYisrael al pi Torah, volume 3 page 210.
[17] The correspondence in that file also shows the effort that Rav Herzog expended in an attempt to prevent the Reform movement from gaining any foothold whatsoever in Israel.
[18] See here.
[19] Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America 21, 57th Annual Convention (1957), pages 41-42.
[20] See here.
[21] National Jewish Post and Opinion, June 14, 1957.
[22] See also Hapardes, Tamuz, 1957 for details of the protest arranged by Agudat HaRabbanim.
[23] This letter also appears in “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, Hebrew section, page 6.
[24] See here.
[25] Makot 7a
[26] This would also answer the (similar) question of the Gvurot Ari in Makot 7a, s.v. UveChu”l.
[27] As mentioned, I believe that this refers to Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[28] Future president of Israel, Chaim Herzog, and Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[29] Martha’s Vineyard.


Augsburg and its Printers

|
Augsburg and its Printers: Printer of the Tur in Ashkenaz: Fragments Censored at the Beinecke’s Augsburg Mahzor
By Chaim Meiselman

Chaim Meiselman catalogs rare books for the Joseph Meyerhoff Collection, originally at Baltimore Hebrew Institute, now at Towson University. He is a bibliophile and intermittently a book dealer. This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.

Last summer, I was at Yale University for a conference. Those who have spent time at Yale University will know that their libraries are separated by major subject, and therefore are situated in different buildings. While I was spending a good amount of the time at the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library for material covering manuscripts, I was able to use downtime for perusing their Rare Book Collection.
This library is a breathtaking edifice erected for books. For those who haven’t had the opportunity to visit it, I highly recommend going, even for a non-research purpose. The reason why I recommend it is because one can see a modern-day example of something which used to be more common during the previous centuries – a temple dedicated to literary craft. As is with many commercial buildings built during the last century, libraries have evolved into storage containers of some kind; this building is built exhibiting manuscripts and books in rich light. Six of the seven stories of volumes are visible from the balcony, where they exhibit items and one can tour the inside.
Here is a picture of the vantage from the inside.
Among their collection of hebrew books is a copy of the very rare imprint of the Machzor ke-seder ha-Ashkenazim, the volume of Machzor printed in Augsburg in 1536 by Haim “ha-mehokek” b. David Shahor (see here). This is a rare and revolutionary title for a number of reasons, some of which I’ll write here.
While I own a facsimile of the Shahor volume, I’ve never before held it in hand. It is about the size of a large size Mechon Yerushalayim Tur, thinner though. The pages were darkened by light exposure but the type was still fresh. More below on his imprint of Tefillos.
The first question (which is relevent to what discovery i will share here) is – who is Haim Shahor. Hayyim b. David Shahor was among the earliest printers of Hebrew books north of the Alps; born in the late 15th century, likely in Ashkenaz, he was involved earlier in Hebrew print than Bomberg and Giustiani, and earlier than Bak, Prosstitz, and Jaffe in ‘Ashkenaz’. He is documented as having printed in tiny hamlets earlier than 1535 – Heddernheim, Oels (Schliesen), yet more famously Augsburg.
Augsburg was where Shahor printed his Siddur, his Machzor, and his Turim. Comparably few copies were created; for every Augsburg volume, Moritz Steinschneider (CLHB) writes “fol. Rara” or “ed. Rara”. Libraries which contain volumes of Hebrew Incunabula often don’t contain a print of Shahor, certainly not an Augsburg volume – they are extremely scarce.
There have been claims that Shahor may have been a Christian printer disguising himself as a Jew. These are very unlikely, and probably aren’t true; in one of the Augsburg printings, a long Tefillah and colophon puts this claim in doubt.
I am pasting copies of the one scanned on Hebrewbooks.org. However, this scan is extremely low resolution, even for HB. If there is a high resolution scan done of the volume, one will be able to see the precise and sharp magnificence of this font, almost like that of Ketav Ashurit. This is an adaptation of the Ashkenazic script from manuscripts centuries older, and it carries that appearance somewhat.

As I see it, it is highly unlikely that this was a Christian family printing – Yosef b. Yakar writes to his brother in law, Ya’akov b. Baruch that he has emended the printing format of the Luach ha-Simanim (in which the Mare’h ha-Mekomot are brief and added are a longer Luach preceding each of the Seder ha-Turim). Many of the examples of the “Luach Gadol” in this Tur no longer exist, making full examples of these even more rare – but they were written in heavy “Rashi script” – and if they aren’t the first tables of contents in printed Hebrew Books, they are almost certainly are the most lengthy and encompassing.
Briefly referenced is a disagreement (regarding this format) with Avraham of Prague, who is a noted editor on the other Augsburg volumes (and selected other Shahor printings).
I will quote a passage from this here: אמנם ראה ידידי … כי לא שמעתי לקולך להדפיס בספר הזה כל אותם ההגהות הארוכים אשר חידש בהם הרב הנ”ל … וכמעט אומר שרוב ההוגותיו “מכלכלים” (מקלקלים) על התלמידים בו … וכן הסכימו עמי. Below, he details exactly what the differences were, and he immediately offers words of thanks for being able to put out this edition, the first Tur to be printed in Ashkenaz, but one which is “without defects”: על כל שבח תהלה והוראה. שהחיינו וקיימנו לזאת השעה. להשלים הטורים ארבעה. אשר אין בו מאומה רעה. It is clear that the novelty of the printed Turim is paramount in the thought of the printers, however what is mentioned and repeated is לחדד התלמידים, כדי שלא יקלקלו התלמידים, and such scripts on the idea of studying the Tur and teaching it to students. This theme isn’t one of Christian influence, especially being that there already was a debate on the proper methods of studying Halacha raging at the time – this language feeds to this writing. Although it was at this time of a smaller scale (because of the not-yet published Bet Yosef and Shulchan Arukh and the later writings on the subject of Rama, Maharal, Maharshal, and R. Yoel Sirkis), the statement completing the enormous printing process was like the one above is directly showing a Rabbinic influence, not a Christian one.
After the letter of Yosef b. Yakar, Shahor writes a “Shevach Tehilla” for finishing the volume. He repeats this theme: בחור תראה | הן תשתאה | ספר נאה | בהדורים |רבה הון מה | לך תתהמה | פן יהיו מה | הד נמכרים … ישמח יסגא | כל בם הוגה | כי ממשגה | הם נשמרים | קונים מהם | יהגו בהם | הם ובניהם | עד דוד דודים | As before, I see it that this is related to the theme of the debate of the proper methods to learn Halacha, and not to neglect the study of Gemara (as it had been in Ashkenaz at the time, according to some accounts.)
Another reason it is highly doubtful that Shahor was a crypto-christian was that his granddaughter married the printer Kalonymus Jaffe, famously as printer (including the printing of the Shas and the Turim) in Lublin. He was the first cousin to R. Mordechai Yaffe, known as the Ba’al ha-Levush; his father Mordechai printed the first copies of the Levushim. This is another hint that Shahor was from a learned Jewish background, not that of a Christian printer. As is documented, from Shahor’s family descended generations of printers in Prague, Krakow, and other centers of printing in Central Europe. See Marvin J. Heller, Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book, pg. 149-151.
In the entry for the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Brill, 2013) title “Hebrew Printing” by Brad Sabin-Hill, it is recorded that Shahor was working among presses owned by Christian humanists; this is likely, in the light of what I will record below.
Leaf 7, the opening leaf of the text of the Tur, is supposedly illustrated by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543), an important late-Renaissance artist originally from Augsburg. I’m not certain where this information is from. Here is the catalog entry from the Selected Catalog of the Valmadonna Trust Selections, which sold at Kestenbaum’s on November 9th.
Back to the Mahzor. Among the differences this Mahzor has with the other editions, one that should be noticeable (as relating to the editor and printer) is the self-censorship of a Piyyut. For the Yom Kippur Piyyutim recited during Shacharit, a Piyyut is supplicated in after אדיר אדירנו. Even though in the Mahzor it is recorded after ובכן יתקדש … ועל מכונך והיכלך, it follows the heading האדיר, and opens another acrostic lines into the Piyyut מי אדיר אפסיך – perhaps this is because of the re-use of the text block for the repeating paragraphs of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur davening.
This is how it appears:
For the Piyyut headed by האדיר, an acrostic begins using Jer. 10:7, מי לא ייראך מלך הגויים, כי לך יאתה: כי בכל-חכמי הגויים ובכל-מלכותם, מאין כמוך. In that Piyyut, there is a portion which was censored in virtually every text. However, the Augsburg Mahzor self-censors three blocks, which would’ve likely been offensive in the eyes of the Church. Although it is possible that he did it out of consideration not to offend the Humanists who had granted him the rights to print (if it is true that this was the case for this printing), it is entirely plausible that he wanted the text to be supplemented by a scribe and didn’t want the internal work of a censor to be involved (both at the time of print and the future viewers).
This is how they look:

Back to the copy at Yale. In the copy I was holding, I saw that it was inscribed with the missing pieces.
There was a scribe who wrote in the margins, crossed through printing mistakes, and marked pieces which would be relevant to a Shaliach Tsibbur. Examples of פזמון, קהל, בניגון, and a type of cantillation abound in the volume by his hand. At the end, he signs his name as ‘Shelomoh b. Ya’akov halevi’ .
The script appears to me to be from the time the volume was printed. It utilizes flourishes and specific criteria of script that I recognize from the hands of (and from the time of) R. Yoel Sirkis, R. David Halevi (Ta”z), and other handwriting of the era.
The themes of the Piyyutim with the inscription additions are now complete, as you can see with my writing below. The paragraphs, especially the second one, are very harsh in their ‘attack’.
First, I will paste photos of the pages:

The writing has faded, and is difficult to make out in some areas. However, I transcribed what was there.

Edited to add: Marc Shapiro pointed out that variants of these paragraphs are in the Goldschmidt Mahzor. I will paste here the my transcription of the written paragraphs in text and Goldschmidt (where he differs strongly) in bold type.

Paragraph one:
הגוים

אפס ותהו נגדך חשובים: בחוניך בדודים לעם לא נחשבים: הגוים גדילים מעשיהו תעתוע והבלים

דבקיך בדולים מסגרי מסגודי לעץ בולים: הגוים הכין פסל מבקשים חרשים: ותיקיך בשהכים והערב [ייחודיך
פורשים: הגוים זהבם לאפדת מסכה מכינים: חרדי דבריך לעבדיך ליראה מוכנים: הגוים]
[שועגים טוענים בכתף יתר כליתם: ידועיך כורעים לך בפיקוק חליותם: הגוים כסף מצפים עץ  מסגריהם]– פסלם
לקחיך בחביון עזך ישימו כסלם: בגוים מכנים קדשתך לעול הזימה: נשואיך משקצים ייחוס ע[רוה]-
וזמה אשת הזמה : הגוים סמל תמונת נאלח מאליהים: עמך מעידים אדנותך אלהי האלהים: הגוים
פגר מובס בחנות פחזות תכליתם צבאך קדוש אתה יושב תהלותם: הגוים קוראים ללא מושיע ומוע—יל
רעך נשענים בך מלמד להועיל : הגוים שקר נכסם לא אמון תמימיך אומן אמונתיך בועד(ם)
ינעמון

ובכן מי לא ייראך מלך הגוים וכו

Paragraph two:

יאתה כי בכל חכמי הגוים הגוים-אמים (זמזומים)
קדר לאדומים. ואדומים
בלעם קלעים גמומים דמומים. הגוים גומר ומגוג אשכנז ורומים. דכאם הכאם זעומים
למוחרמים הגוים הגרים כעורים טורים קטורים לודים ואראמיים. ייכחם וכחם שכחם מתחת רמים. הגוים
זרם נחת מקיצים מזים ושמים. חמסם כרסמם שימם שוממים. הגוים טבח ליתר ראומים. ייסרם
סדם הסירם מהיות אומים. הגוים כפתורים כסלוחים כפלתחים לטושים לאומים . לפתם כפתם
צערם סעורים רעועים. הגוים מבשם ואדבאל משמעים ודומים. נפצם הפילם הפיצם שיתם
הדווחים הדמים. הגוים סבא וחבילה סבתכא ורעמים. ישרם עקרם קרקרם דומים דוויים נמומים. הגוים
פלשת אמון אשור בין אשור לעילמים
צמתם המיתם תנם ייתם למהלומים
—– (לירדם)
קיר ומואב לודים וענמים רטשם נטשם דקים צנומים
שישך ומדי כמים ולב-קמים תעבם העיבם לאין תקומים
זקשם —- לדמים. חכים ששך למדי כיתים ולב רשעים. תבעם תעיבם לאין

מן המים: ובכן מי לא ייראך מלך הגוים…. וכוליה

Paragraph three:
ובכן מי לא יראך מלך הגוים כי לך יאתה
כי ככל חכמי הגוים ובכל מלכותם
מלכותם באבדך עבדי ניטנים פסילי נסכים: תוכן מלכותם תיכון מלכותך מלך מלכי המלכים
מלכותם [בבלעך] בוטחי הבל תעתועים: שמים לארך שבחך יהוי אביעים
מלכותם בצרעך בגדעך מקימי אשירים לחמנים: רומותיך יקראו בגרון המונים המונים
מלכותם בדכאך דורשי קטב תהו ובעלים: קדושה ועוז תיסד כמפי עוללים?
מלכותם בהרסך המתהללים באללילים : צדקתך באיים יגידו באיים אל אלים
מלכותם בווכיך המטהרים והמקדישים: פאר מלוכה ינחלו ככוכבי נטעי כנת קדושים
מלכותם בזעמך שטי כזב פוני אל רהבים: גלו עלוי כבוד שמך יתנו כל באהבים
מלכותם כחסדך בחשפך סוגרי מעשה חדשים: סיפור מעשיך ברינה יפצחו מארישים
מלכותם בטחטאח שועגי טועני עצבים עשוים ברקים ברקים פרקים : וינעם דינו דע יראתך יתממון יתמאלון זורקים
מלכותם בידך כורעי נסבל אשא לעייפה: משתחוים כל בשר לפניך עושה שחר עיפה
מלכותם בכעותך בכלותיך  לנער רשעים מארץ: לכן יכוממו במלכו רשמי —-
ישמחו השמים ותגל הארץ
ובכן מי לא יראך וגומר
I wrote down the notes in my facsimile copy of the Mahzor with a fountain pen using these transcriptions. This part of the Piyyut will survive.

I saw that the Artscroll Mahzor published a heavily censored element of the first paragraph in the back of the book, with the remaining Piyyutim (which avoids translating it into English, although it had been censored far too much to have posed a problem for them.) It appears truncated, because the other paragraphs of the Piyyut are consistently as long as the above quoted. For example, they write for stanza Daled : דבקיך דבוקים באלהים חיים, which poses grammatical and stylistic problems (eg. no other stanza is four words, it should’ve written דבוקיך, etc.) The stanza above reads: הגוים גדילים מעשיהו תעתוע דבקיך בדולים מסגרי לעץ בולים, which follows the ebb-and-flow, הגוים, and מי לא ייראך.
I also saw in the recently printed Mahzor h-Gra the same few stanzas as Artscroll are published, but also with confusions and clearly censored items.
Finally, this Mahzor contains an interesting addition to another Piyyut, that of היום תאמצינו. In this Mahzor, another stanza is added: היום תדרש דם עבדיך השפוך.
I conclude that among the treasures that have been found, that we find (or are waiting to be discovered) the history awaits in the elements that were in the full view of the public (Jewish and Christian alike) and the censored items, which wait to be discovered and to live new life.


New Book Announcement: Some New Works by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel

|
New Book Announcement: Some New Works by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel
By Eliezer Brodt
עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, הדר המחבר, 521 עמודים וישמע קולי, 385 עמודים
I am very happy to announce the recent publication of an important work, which will be of great interest to readers of the Seforim blog. The forth volume of, Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, of Bar-Ilan University’s Talmud department.
As I have written in the past, Professor Spiegel is one of the most prolific writers in the Jewish academic scene, authoring of over 160 articles and 18 books (16 of those are publications for the first time of works which remained in manuscript).  Many suspect that he possesses Hashbot Hakulmos (automatic writing) (about which see here).
His articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects related to many areas of Jewish Studies, including history of Rishonim, piyutim authored by Rishonim, bibliography and minhaghim, to name but a few. His uniqueness lies not only in the topics but also that his work has appeared in all types of publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer, Tarbiz, Sidra, Alei Sefer, Assufot, Teudah, Kovetz Al Yad and also in many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such a Yeshurun, Yerushasenu, Moriah, Sinai and Or Yisroel. It is hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he appears to be an expert!
He has edited and printed from manuscript many works of Rishonim and Achronim on Massekhes Avos and the Haggadah Shel Pesach. He is of the opinion, contrary to that of some other academics, that there is nothing non-academic about printing critical editions of important manuscript texts. Although there is a known “belief” in the academic world, “publish or perish,” which some claim is the cause of weak articles and books, at times, Spiegel’s prolific output does nothing to damper the quality of his works. Another point unique to Speigel’s writings, besides his familiarity with all the academic sources, he shows great familiarity with all the classic sources from Chazal, Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim, to even the most recent discussions in Charedi literature – this bekius (breadth) was apparent well before the advent of search engines of Hebrew books and Otzar Ha-hochmah. Alongside all this is his penetrating analysis and ability to raise interesting points.
Some of these articles were collected into a volume called Pischei Tefilah u-Mo’ad, which was reviewed a few years back here on the seforim blog. This volume is currently out of print.
One of Professor Spiegel’s main areas of interest has been the History of the Jewish Book. He has written numerous articles on the subject and even published two books on this topic in a series called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri.  Volume one was first printed in 1996 and is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri: Haghot u-Maghim. It was reprinted with numerous additions in 2005 (copies are still available). It was reviewed by Dan Rabinowitz and me, a few years back here on the Seforim Blog.
The second volume is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; Kesivah Vehatakah. This volume is currently out of print and will hopeful be the subject of a book review by Dan Rabinowitz and myself in the near future.
The third volume is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri;Bisharei Hadefus
I think that anyone who has an interest in the Jewish Book will enjoy this work immensely.
In the near future I hope to review this work in depth.
I am selling copies of this work. Copies are also available at Biegeleisen. For more information about purchasing this work, or for some sample pages, feel free to contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
To get a sense of what exactly this new book is about, I am posting the Table of Contents here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, worth mentioning is about ten months ago Professor Spiegel printed a book from manuscript called וישמע קולי.
Here is the description and Table of contents of the book.

 

 

For more information about purchasing this work, or for sample pages of the introduction to this work contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com


China and the Answer to the Last Quiz

|
China and the Answer to the Last Quiz
Marc B. Shapiro
I recently returned from China and one of my friends asked me if during my time there I found anything of relevance to the Seforim Blog. He did not mean the comment seriously, but in fact I did find something. Whenever I am in synagogues I make a point of examining their collection of books, as you never know what you might come across. In Beijing I was at the fabulous Chabad House and I found something that will be of interest to Seforim Blog readers. Before getting to that I need to mention that my time in Beijing was made doubly special as I was able to spend Shabbat with Rabbi Dr. Dror Fixler. In addition to being an outstanding award-winning scientist, he is also a fine Judaic scholar. Among his important publications are new translations from the Arabic of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah to tractates Berakhot, Peah, and Avodah Zarah. Each volume is accompanied by Fixler’s learned notes. Fixler has also published numerous articles on various Torah themes, including on practical halakhic matters. See here.
Fixler is a student of R. Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, and I used some of the time we were together to clarify the details of R. Rabinovitch’s position that there is no halakhic prohibition in using an electronic key card on Shabbat,[1] or in walking through a door that opens electronically, or even using an electronic faucet where the water comes out when you put your hand under it. Without getting into the halakhic details, I think one thing is sure, namely, that the future will bring more such lenient decisions in this area. The changing circumstances of modern life will create enormous pressure for lenient decisions, as modern technology which helps us in so many ways also creates many problems regarding Shabbat. For example, how long until it will be impossible to access an apartment building in New York and other big cities without using a key card? The day is probably coming when private apartment doors will also use key cards, not to mention numerous other such Shabbat-problematic technological advances that will be unavoidable aspects of life in the future. Therefore, I believe that some future poskim will return to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position that if there is no creation of heat or light, then technically there is no violation of Shabbat.
Getting back to the matter of seforim, while looking through the books at the Chabad House I saw Birkat Yadi by R. Joseph Judah Dana.
I had never before seen this book and it is not found on Otzar ha-Chochmah. Pasted on the inside cover is the following. (Unfortunately, the pictures I took came out blue on my phone.)
The book the editor, Prof. Joseph Dana, is referring to is Tzofeh Penei Damesek. Here is the title page.
Without getting into the accusation of plagiarism, there is something that is noteworthy about Tzofeh Penei Damesek, namely, that included among the approbations from great rabbis is a lengthy letter from Professor José Faur.
Let me share one other interesting thing about my recent trip to Beijing. It isn’t related to seforim but was of great interest to my colleagues at the University of Scranton, which is a Jesuit university.  The Friday night before arriving in Beijing I was in Hong Kong and learned that one of the people I was talking to at dinner shared my interest in Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), the famous Jesuit missionary to China. This man told me that years before he had visited Ricci’s grave and that it was worthwhile for me go see it. There is actually a Jewish connection here, for Ricci was asked if he would take over the position of rabbi of the Kaifeng Jewish community, but on the condition that he give up eating pork.[2] (Obviously the Jews of Kaifeng were not the most learned.)
I checked online and saw that Ricci’s grave, which is found in the first Christian cemetery in China, was indeed a site that some tourists had written about. However, in recent years it had become much harder to visit without being part of an organized group and arranging the visit ahead of time. The fact that the small cemetery is found on the grounds of a Communist party school is no doubt the reason for this. I was thus unsure whether they would allow me in, but my guide was able to convince them that I was harmless. If it were only so easy to get into some of the old Jewish cemeteries I have attempted to visit.
Here is the grave and the plaque put up nearby.
Concerning China there is a lot more I have to say, and I hope to publish a manuscript from a few hundred years ago regarding the Jews of China. For now, let me just note the following which will be of particular interest to Seforim Blog readers: There are two works of responsa that were published by rabbis who served in China. (I am not including Hong Kong which I will return to in a future post.) The first is R. Elijah Hazan’s Yedei Eliyahu. Here is the title page of volume 1.
R. Hazan published three volumes in total. What makes his responsa very unusual, if not unique, is that the text is published complete with vowels. I don’t think I have ever seen another responsa collection published with vowels. Here is a sample page.
As R. Hazan explains in the introduction, he was the hazan in the Ohel Leah Synagogue in Hong Kong for fourteen years. Following this, for ten years he served as hazan at the Ohel Rachel Synagogue in Shanghai. Both of these synagogues still exist, but Ohel Rachel is now part of the Shanghai Educational Ministry and tourists are not permitted entry.
The second work of responsa by a rabbi in China is R. Aaron Moses Kiseleff’s Mishberei Yam. Here is the title page.
This book is significant not only because the author lived in China, but also because the book itself was printed in China in 1926, in the city of Harbin. Because of its proximity to Russia, Harbin attracted many Russian Jews and they were the ones who brought R. Kiseleff there. In the 1920s the Jewish population of Harbin was over 20,000.[3] As late as the 1940s there still was a Jewish day school in Harbin.[4]
Not long ago I saw that R. Gedaliah Felder, Yesodei Yeshurun: Shabbat, vol. 2, p. 216, refers to R. Kiseleff’s Mishberei Yam, and in a footnote writes:[5]
הספר הזה חשוב מאד כי זה הספר היחידי של הלכה שנדפס ברוסיא אחרי המהפכה, נדפס בשנת תרפ”ו.
No doubt because he saw the Russian writing on the title page of Mishberei Yam, R. Felder mistakenly assumed that Harbin is in Russia. He thus concluded falsely that Mishberei Yam is the only book on halakhah published in the Soviet Union. While this is incorrect, had he known the truth he could have kept the footnote but changed it to say that Mishberei Yam is important since it is the only original book on halakhah published in China.
R. Kiseleff served as rabbi in Harbin from 1913 until his death in 1949. After his death, his widow moved to Israel and published R. Kiseleff’s derashot, Imrei Shefer. Here is the title page which refers to R. Kiseleff as the chief rabbi of the Far East.
As explained in the introduction, R. Kiseleff was actually given this title in 1937 at a gathering of Far East Jewish communities.[6]
Herman Dicker writes as follows:[7]
Rabbi Kiseleff was a great Talmudic scholar who first came to Harbin when he was in his forties. He was born in Sores, Russia, in 1866 and as a child excelled in Jewish studies. He soon became known as the Vietker Ilui (wonder child), taking his name from the Yeshiva he attended as a youth. At sixteen, he transferred to the Yeshiva of Minsk, and, two years later, moved over to the Talmudic Center of Volozhin, where he studied with the famed Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik. . . . Rabbi Kiseleff was ordained by Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski and then served as the rabbi of Borisoff from 1900-1913. In his final year at Borisoff, in 1913, Rabbi Kiseleff was called to Harbin and he accepted the post as spiritual head there at the gentle urging of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Within a short period of time, Rabbi Kiseleff won the love and admiration of the entire community and achieved a great deal in raising the spiritual level of this remote Jewish congregation. It was, therefore, fitting that in 1937 he was elected, unanimously, as Chief Rabbi by the General Conference of the Far Eastern Jewish Communities. . . .
In 1931, he published Nationalism and Judaism, a Russian-language volume of sermons and lectures on the significance of Judaism. . . . Rabbi Kiseleff enjoyed the friendship of all the religious and intellectual leaders of Manchuria, without regard to their nationality or faith, for they all admired him as a person and respected his vast knowledge in various areas of academic learning. At one time, he debated the “Merchant of Venice” and the image of Shylock with three university professors and to this day scores of men and women remember his brilliance and eloquence on that occasion.
There is a good deal of interesting material in R. Kiseleff’s Mishberei Yam, and let me call attention to just a few things. In no. 15, R. Kiseleff rules that if there is a non-Jew who wants to convert but the doctors tell him that it is dangerous for him to be circumcised, he still cannot be converted without a circumcision. In this responsum, R. Kiseleff also writes about how rabbis should avoid converting people who are not serious about being good Jews (although he assumes, as most rabbis did until recent years, that a conversion with such people would still be valid ex post facto).
ובכלל עלינו להתרחק בכל האפשר לקבל גרים כאלו שידוע שרוב הגרים הבאים להתגייר בימינו לא משום אהבתם לדת ישראל באמת רק על הרוב סבות אחרות בדבר משום אשה או דומה לזה ואף שמלמדים אותם לומר בפני ב”ד שאוהבים את דת ישראל ומטעמים ידועים אין אנו דוחים אותם שהרי בדיעבד גם בכה”ג הוי גר, אבל גרים כאלו יותר נוח לנו שאם נמצא אמתלא שלא לקבלם מהראוי להתרחק מזה, דאם בגרים אמתים אמרו חז”ל שקשים לישראל כספחת מה נענה לגרים גרורים כאלו שאין לבם לשמים כלל.
In no. 19 he discusses if a married woman becomes insane and has a child with someone other than her husband, if the child is a mamzer.
In no. 28 he responds to a rabbi in a Far East Russian community in which there were no Sabbath observant people other than the rabbi’s family. This created problems when it came to writing a get as one needs kosher witnesses and also the sofer cannot be a Sabbath violator. R. Kiseleff argues that since everyone in the town violates Shabbat, these people are not included under the halakhic definition of a “public Sabbath violator,” which means that one violates Shabbat in front of ten observant Jews. Therefore, none of the many gittin arranged by the questioning rabbi’s predecessor are to be regarded as pasul. At the end of his responsum, R. Kiseleff notes that in Siberia there is a big problem when it comes to gittin, as many places have no rabbi and the local shochet arranges the get. Needless to say, these shochetim were often not learned at all in this matter, and this could create major halakhic complications. R. Kiseleff therefore suggested that no one should be authorized to slaughter in Siberia until he learns the laws of gittin and is given an authorization to arrange gittin.
In nos. 29-30 he deals with a case of a man who gave a get and afterwards claimed that he was forced to do so, as he was beaten and the people beating him said that if he doesn’t give the get they will kill him. R. Kiseleff writes that the get is valid as the man would not have taken the threat seriously. In support of his assumption, he cites R. Moses Isserles who states with reference to a different case that Jews who threaten to kill another Jew are only trying to scare him, “as Jews are not murderers.”[8] R. Kiseleff sent his responsum to R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk, and the latter disagreed with R. Kiseleff. R. Meir Simhah argued that contemporary “wild” young Jews are indeed capable of killing someone, and thus when threatened by them the man being pressured to authorize the get certainly would have taken this seriously.
דבחורי ישראל הפרוצים בזמנינו חשידי גם אשפ”ד
Here is another story about Harbin told by R. David Abraham Mandelbaum. In 1943 his father and his friend, both yeshiva students in Shanghai, came to Harbin where they visited the university. While there, and presumably in the library, they found on one of the tables a Sefat Emet on Kodashim. The two students were very surprised, since how did this book end up in such a far-away place? They grabbed the book and quickly exited.[9]
פתאום צדו עינים ספר קודש, המונח על אחד השולחנות. הבחורים המופתעים ניגשו ופתחו וגילו להפתעתם, שזהו הספר הק’ “שפת אמת” על סדר קדשים. התדהמה היתה עצומה, איך הגיע ספר קדוש זה למקום נידח, בעיר חארבין שבסין הרחוקה?! אפס, הם לא חשבו הרבה, שמו את הספר באמתחתם, והסתלקו חיש מהר מן המקום כמוצאי שלל רב.
The story as told is quite shocking to me and I am surprised that it was reported, for how was this not thievery? Presumably, the university acquired the book from one of the local Jews who donated it. Or perhaps at the time the yeshiva students were visiting the man who was studying the book had gone out to the restroom or he had left the book there from a previous visit. If such was the case, when the man returned he would have been very upset to find that his book was taken. It appears that the two yeshiva students simply felt that they had a right to take the book, as it did not belong in a Chinese institution.
This reminds me of how many years ago I walked into the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary and saw that they had installed an anti-theft system to prevent anyone from removing a book without it being checked out. Upon inquiring I was told that this was necessary as some people thought it was OK to take books from the library, as they felt that they were “liberating” the books from the clutches of those who had no right to them, that is, the Conservatives. I never took that claim seriously and always assumed that a thief is a thief, and the people stealing the books – no matter how big their kippot or how long their beards – did not have any religious justification worked out. Subsequent experiences have shown me that these sorts of thieves will steal from anyone if given the chance, even if it means pretending to be kollel students. (I won’t elaborate further, but some European readers will know what I am referring to). But in the case from Harbin, it seems obvious that the reason for taking the book was precisely because the yeshiva students felt that there was no reason for the Sefat Emet to be in a Chinese institution. As mentioned already, I do not see how this can be justified halakhically, as we are not talking about a Jewish book that was, for example, confiscated by the government for anti-Semitic reasons.[10]
After the yeshiva students returned to Shanghai with the Sefat Emet, it was then reprinted there. Here is the title page.
They also sent a copy of the book to R. Kiseleff, and here is the letter that accompanied the book.[11]
Interestingly, the copy of Sefat Emet that they used to reprint the book was missing some words. They therefore added by hand what they thought were the missing words. The following appears in R. David Abraham Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil, vol. 2, p. 107.
As is well known, when the Mir yeshiva reached Japan there was a lot of confusion about when to observe Shabbat and especially the upcoming Yom Kippur. Although there was already a local community there that observed Shabbat on Saturday, the Hazon Ish had informed the yeshiva that they must observe Shabbat on Sunday. R. Yehezkel Levenstein, the mashgiach of the Mir yeshiva, wrote to R. Kiseleff asking him specifically what to do about Yom Kippur, and he included a copy of the Hazon Ish’s letter explaining his reasoning. It is interesting that even after receiving the Hazon Ish’s letter R. Levenstein felt the need to consult with R Kiseleff, who was, as we have seen, regarded as the mara de-atra of the Far East.[12]
R. Kiseleff did not accept the Hazon Ish’s position. He told R. Levenstein that the question of Yom Kippur is no different than Shabbat, and they should keep the day that is currently being kept. R. Kiseleff was particularly worried that moving the Shabbat to Sunday, when it had previously been observed on Saturday, could lead to a lessening of Shabbat observance among the general Jewish population:
ורע עלי המעשה ששמעתי שמקצת מן הפליטים בקאבע קראו בתורה ביום א’ והתפללו תפלת שבת, ביחוד היא דרושה זהירות מרובה בענין זה בתבל כו’. ועתה כאשר נמצאו חרדים לדבר ד’ דוחים את השבת ליום א’ חג הנוצרים, יקל ענין שבת בעיניהם לגמרי, ויאמרו התירו פרושים את הדבר, ויצא מזה מכשול גדול אשר קשה יהי’ לתקן. לכן נלך מדרך זה חדש כזה אסור מן התורה בכל מקום . . . וכל המשנה ידו על התחתונה.
R. Aryeh Leib Malin also wrote to R. Kiseleff, and R. Kiseleff replied to him saying the same thing and sharply rejecting the Hazon Ish’s opinion.
בערב ש”ק העבר הרציתי מכתב להרב ר’ יחזקאל לעווינשטיין שליט”א בתשובה על מכתב הרב חזון איש, בו הודעתי טעמי ונימוקי שלא אסכים לפסק דינו על דבר דחיית יום השבת ביאפאן ליום א’ . . . כי דבריו בנוים על יסוד רעוע ובלתי ברור ומוסכם . . . ובלי ספק יגרום חלול שבת ותשתכח תורת שבת לגמרי . . . והריני מורה שיהודי יאפאן ישמרו שבת ומועדים ככל היהודים [במזרח הרחוק].
One wonders how R. Kiseleff would have reacted had he known that according to R. Simhah Zelig Rieger even in Harbin Jews should avoid Torah prohibitions on Sunday.[13] 

והרי הישראלים בחארבין שהיא מארץ חינא אינם מתנהגים כבעל המאור, נראה שלענין התפילה שהוא ענין דרבנן לא נשנה ממנהג הישראלים היושבים שם. ולענין איסור דאורייתא יש לחוש לדעת בעל המאור שהשבת מאוחרה לשל ירושלים

I earlier mentioned R. Kiseleff’s book of derashot, Imrei Shefer. In addition to the typical derashot one would expect in such a volume, it also includes eulogies for the Hafetz Hayyim and R. Kook. Regarding R. Kook, R. Kiseleff tells us that they were at the Volozhin yeshiva together and R. Kook was regarded then as one of the yeshiva’s outstanding students. He also records a talmudic question that R. Kook asked that R. Kiseleff tells us became the talk of all the students. Also included in the book are speeches R. Kiseleff gave on the twentieth and twenty-fifth anniversaries of Herzl’s death. He describes how thanks to Herzl many Jews who were entirely removed from Jewish life and ready to assimilate began to feel pride in their heritage and reconnect to their people.

Also included in the book are speeches he gave in honor of the Balfour Declaration and in memory of Nahum Sokolow and the victims of the 1929 massacres in the Land of Israel. Especially noteworthy is the speech found on p. 97, which celebrates the opening of the Hebrew University.
Many readers know about R. Kook’s speech on this occasion, and how he was attacked for supposedly applying to the university the verse, “For Torah shall forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2).[14] While R. Kook never used this verse with reference to the Hebrew University, R. Kiseleff did, as you can see from the above text.
* * * * *
In my post here I wrote:
It has been a while since I had a quiz, so here goes. In the current post I mentioned the prohibition of Torah study on Tisha be-Av. This is an example where the halakhah of Tisha be-Av is stricter than that of Yom Kippur. Many authorities rule that there is also something else that is forbidden on Tisha be-Av but permitted on Yom Kippur. Answers should be sent to me.
Many wrote to me that it is forbidden to greet someone on Tisha be-Av but not on Yom Kippur. Greeting is forbidden on Tisha be-Av due to the halakhot of mourning. However, this is forbidden according to everyone, and in the question I asked for an example of something that according to “many authorities” is forbidden on Tisha be-Av but permitted on Yom Kippur. If you pointed to something that is forbidden by “all” authorities (i.e., standard undisputed halakhah), this is not the correct answer.
A number of people also wrote to me that on Tisha be-Av one does not sit in a regular chair, unlike on Yom Kippur. Yet contrary to popular belief – and based on the emails I have received, it is indeed a quite popular belief – there is no halakhah that one must sit on the ground on Tisha be-Av. Rather, this is a minhag, not a law, and because it is a minhag we do not sit on the ground the entire day.[15]
The correct answer, which was sent to me by Brian Schwartz and Abe Lederer, is that many authorities hold that it forbidden to smell spices on Tisha be-Av, but this is not the case on Yom Kippur. In fact, smelling spices is recommended on Yom Kippur as a way to increase the number of blessings recited on this day, so that one can reach one hundred.[16]
While this is the answer I had in mind, Peretz Mochkin sent me another answer. If one has a seminal discharge on Yom Kippur, most poskim, including the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 613:11, hold that he cannot go to the mikveh on this day. However, there are a number of significant authorities who hold that he may do so. When it comes to Tisha be-Av, there is agreement among halakhic authorities that it is forbidden to go to the mikveh after a seminal discharge.[17] However, this does not really answer the quiz question, since the question spoke of something that is permitted on Yom Kippur but forbidden on Tisha be-Av, and as noted, most poskim, at least in recent generations, forbid going to the mikveh on Yom Kippur in the case of a seminal discharge.[18]
________________________________
[1] I am aware of another posek who permits using an electronic key card on Shabbat, but requires covering up the green LED light. He explained to me that people feel good when they see the green light go on, and thus it cannot be regarded as a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. I wonder though, would other poskim agree that the feeling of satisfaction that the key works really be regarded as the sort of benefit that is considered as ניחא ליה? I think we usually assume that ניחא ליה is some sort of tangible benefit, like a light that goes on and allows you to see. In any event, the LED light is not a concern for R. Rabinovitch, and he does not require covering it up. R. Yitzhak Abadi only permits using an electronic key card on Yom Tov, and he too does not require covering up the LED light.
[2] See Donald Daniel Leslie, The Survival of the Chinese Jews: The Jewish Community of Kaifeng (Leiden, 1972), pp. 33-34; Jonathan D. Spence, The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci (New York, 1983), p. 121.
[3] See Patrick Fuliang Shan, “‘A Proud and Creative Jewish Community’: The Harbin Diaspora, Jewish Memory and Sino-Israel Relations,” American Review of China Studies 9 (Fall 2008), p. 7. See also Joshua Fogel, “The Japanese and the Jews: A Comparative Analysis of Their Communities in Harbin, 1898-1930,” in Robert Bickers and Christian Henriot, eds., New Frontiers: Imperialism’s New Communities in East Asia, 1842-1935(Manchester, 2000), pp. 88-109
[4] See Zorah Warhaftig, Refugee and Survivor (Jerusalem, 19880, p. 208.
[5] Yesodei Yeshurun: Shabbat, vol. 2, p. 216.
[6] For the political background of these gatherings, see Herman Dicker, Wanderers and Settlers in the Far East (New York, 1962), pp. 45ff.; David Kranzler, Japanese, Nazis and Jews: The Jewish Refugee Comunity of Shanghai, 1938-1945 (Hoboken, 1988), pp. 220ff.
[7] Ibid., pp. 25-26. Much of what Dicker writes is taken word for word from the introduction to Imrei Shefer.
[8] Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 236:1.
[9] David Avraham Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil (Bnei Brak, 2010), vol. 2, p. 105.
[10] The Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican was an issue in the late 1980s, when the late Manfred Lehmann led a group, the Committee for the Recovery of Jewish Manuscripts, which insisted that the manuscripts be returned to the Jewish people by being donated to the National Library of Israel. See Lehmann, “The Story of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library,” available here. Nothing came of this venture and it does not seem like anyone at present has any interest in making an issue of the matter.
[11] From Mandelbaum, Giborei ha-Hayil, vol. 2, p. 109.
[12] See R. Yohanan ha-Kohen Schwadron, “Be-Inyan Kav ha-Ta’arikh,” Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael, Shevat-Adar 5770, p. 118. The complete letters of R. Kiseleff to R. Levenstein and R. Aryeh Leib Malin (mentioned later in the post) are found in R. Menahem Kasher, Kav ha-Taarikh ha-Yisraeli (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 241-242.
[13] See his letter published in Talpiot 2 (1945), pp. 177-178.
[14] See my Changing the Immutable, pp. 143, 151.
[15] See e.g., here.
[16] See R. Yitzhak Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, Orah Hayyim 612:3. R. Yosef does cite a few sources that forbid smelling spices on Yom Kippur, but this viewpoint has never been accepted. I don’t think readers will be surprised to learn that there is an entire sefer devoted to the laws of smelling. The anonymously published 224-page Birkat ha-Reiahappeared in 2004. Here is the title page.
On pp. 196ff. he discusses the case of someone who has no sense of smell. The question is, can he make the blessing on besamim? The Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 297:5, rules that such a person can make the blessing on behalf of one who does not know how to make the blessing himself. This ruling was disputed by others, yet R. Jacob Reischer, Shevut Ya’akov, vol. 3, no. 20, defends the Shulhan Arukh, but as he says, not for R. Joseph Karo’s reason. R. Reischer argues that even though one without the sense of smell does not get any physical benefit from smelling something, his soul benefits. R. Reischer mentions that although the doctors reject the notion that the soul gets any benefit from this, their viewpoint can be disregarded because their scientific knowledge comes from “Aristotle and his companions.” R. Reischer died in 1733 and it is amazing that this is how he regarded the state of the study of medicine. Even more amazing, however, is that as he continues to attack modern science, R. Reischer adds that the non-Jewish scientists’ knowledge is based on the assumption that the earth is round, which contradicts the talmudic understanding and is thus to be rejected. How is it possible that in the eighteenth century R. Reischer believed that the earth was flat? 

The Vilna Gaon is also recorded as having held this opinion. See R. Joshua Heschel Levin, Aliyot Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1989), p. 98 n. 82. This also appears to be what the Vilna Gaon is saying in his commentary to Tikunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), p. 158a:

והוא יסוד הארץ שהיא רבועא כמ”ש מארבע כנפות הארץ ואמר בספרי הכנף לאפוקי עגול’ [עגולה]
See also R. Reuven Margaliyot’s note to Zohar, Vayikra, p. 10a, n. 10 (he mistakenly cites the Vilna Gaon’s comment as appearing in his commentary to Tikunei Zohar, p. 5b).
Did R. Zvi Elimelekh of Dinov, the Bnei Yisaskhar, think the earth was flat? Here is what he writes in his Devarim Nehmadim to Avot 5:1:
אין לחקור על היוצר כל למה ברא את העולם [בי’ מאמרות וגם] אין לחקור למה ברא את השמי’ כדוריי והארץ שטחיית וכיוצ’.
See here for a contemporary rabbi and author of seforim who believes the earth is flat.
[17] The only exceptions to this I have found are two unknown sources mentioned by R. Simhah Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 554 note 58. These two sources are (תורת חיים (פעסט and קונטרס קודש ישראל 
[18] R. Joseph Hayyim, Rav Pealim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 61, states that among the medieval authorities, most held that it is permissible to to go to the mikveh on Yom Kippur after a seminal discharge: 

דהמתירים לטבול הם רוב מנין ורוב בנין


Rare Letters, Controversial & Valuable Hasidic Books – Genazym Auction

|
Genazym Auction is holding an auction on March 21st that includes many important letters and manuscripts and a small number of books (download a pdf of the catalog here).  Many of the books are Hasidic or owned by well-known Hasidic figures.  For example, the rare first edition of the No’am Elimelekh, 1788, by R. Elimelekh of Lyzhensk (lot 13).  That book, like other early Hasidic books are both fundamental to the Hasidic philosophy and theology and were controversial among those opposed to the new movement.  Indeed, according to Rabbi David of Makov, the book should be “eradicated from our homes.” (R. David of Makov, Shever Poshim, in Morecai Wilensky, Hasidim U-Mitnaggedim, vol. II (Jerusalem:  Mossad Bialik, 1970).  Similarly, the  Tolodot Ya’akov Yosef, was published in Lvov, 1788, is among the most prized Hasidic books.  The book was controversial when it was printed (likely without official approval of the censor) and some copies were destroyed in Brody. According to the legend recorded in Shivhei Ha-Besht the matter of the books was so important it was discussed in the heavenly court at the highest levels. Joseph Perl, in his satire, Megaleh Temirin, locates that bibliocide at “the home of R. Mikhel of Zlotchuv, in compliance with the order of the [Brody] court and the community there.” (See Jonathan’ Meir’s recent critical edition of the Megalah Temirim that provides additional evidence of the book burning.  Sefer Megale Temirin, ed. Jonathan Meir (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013) 29n10). Ownership of the No’am Elimelekh is also valued as a segulah.  There are other books that are prized not only for their content but also for such secondary reasons, for example, the Homat Eish, (R. Eliezer from Kalktshuv, Bresslau 1799), as the title implies is designed to protect from fire. (See also Avraham Ya’ari, Mehkerei Sefer (Jerusalem:  Yehuda, 1958) 47-54)
Another important Hasidic work is R. Hayyim of Chernowitz’s, Siduro shel Shabbat (lot 14), which is well-known as the source for the Leshem Yihud.  That prayer is among the more controversial prayers, which we have discussed previously here and towards the end of this post. (See also Moshe Halamish, Kabalah: Be-Tefilah be-Halakha ube-Minhag (Ramat Gan:  Bar Ilan University Press, 2000) 45-70 and Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael (Jerusalem:  Mossad HaRav Kook, 2007) index “leshem yihud”).

Similarly, the Sh”ut Mayyim Hayyim (lot 18) by R. Hayyim Rapoport we have discussed at length here.  The work establishes the existence Ba’al Shem Tov and is an indication of his scholarship. Our post discusses other bibliographical and historic items related to the work. 

   
There are numerous historical and intellectually valuable letters among them the telegram sent from Kobe, Japan, just before Yom Kippur 1941 to the rabbis in Israel requesting clarification, because of the ambiguity of the location of the dateline, as to which day to fast on Yom Kippur. (Lot 48).  A number of opinions are collected in Shitat Kav ha-Tarikh be-Kador ha-Arets, ed. Yehudah Areyeh Blum, (Jerusalem:  [], 1990).  Another book is (admittedly tangentially) related to the geography of the earth, and specifically Jewish astronomical calculations.  An illustration at the top of the title page of Sefer Ebronot (Offenbach, 1772) provides a heliocentric view of the earth.  The same illustrations appear in R. Yehuda Leib Oppenheim’s, Matteh Yehuda (Offenbach, 1722) and with the date displayed Ha-Moshiah ben David.  
R. Eliayhu Guttmacher was a reknown “Ba’al Mofes.”  But he was eventually overwhelmed with petitions for his assistance that he was forced to publish an advertisement in the Ha-Maggid newspaper begging people to stop sending him letters. R. Eliyahu Guttmacher, Mehtav me-Eliayhu (Jerusalem:  Yisrael Bak, 1974) 89-91;  see also Bromberg, Me-Gedolei ha-Torah veha-Hasidut, vol. 24 (Jerusalem:  HaMakhon LeHssidut) 143-52, which prints some of R. Guttmacher’s letters regarding the same; and Glenn Dyner, “Brief Kvetches: Notes to a 19th century Miracle Worker, Jewish Review of Books (Summer, 2014), 33-35. 
An important letter to R. Guttmacher is included in the auction(lot 43):
ויש הכרח ממני לכתוב כאן בקיצור, שבל יאמר מי: הלא נשמע כמה מעשיות אשר נעשים על ידך בעזה”י להציל מצרות רבות, אין זאת רק על ידי קבלת מעשית. וכאשר הגעתי אגרת ממרחק מחכם גדול… בהיותי שאני בקי בקבלה מעשיות ארחם לעשות בבזה שנתייאש מכל הרופאים. בקראי זאת נפלה עלי להיות חשוד בכך… קודם כל אודיע כי בכל התאמצות דחיתי מעלי כל הבא, אבל ראיתי סיבות נפלאות שכן היה רצון ה’. באשר שגדולי ישראל הסיעו הנדכאים עלי. ומה היה לי לעשות אם באו אב ואם ואחד מקרוביהם והביאו לי בנם, בוכים וצועקים לרחם. ישבתי ללמוד עם בחורים בבית המדרש והובא נער מן י”א שנה בכתף אביו וצעק לרחם עליו… והנער לא היה יכול לדבר מאומה… וקולו פעמים בנביחה ככלב ופמעים כעגל…וגם כל העוברים דרך העיר בשמעם עניניו לביתו לראות הנפלאות. ואני ידעתי שאין לי מאומה במה לרפאותו. בכל זאת חשבתי הלא ד’ ברוך הוא שולחו… ולקחתי ספר תהילים ובמקום שנפל אמרתי, והבאתי לכל תיבה כוונה לענין שלפני. וכוונתי היטב בשורש האותיות, ובמיוחד בהזכרת השם הקודש… פתאום הוציא הנער קול אשר נבהלו כולם, והראה באצבע למקום אחד. ואמרתי מהר לפתוח החלון, וכן היה ודיבר הנער ואמר יצאה אחת מן המכשפות ממנו ופתחתי לראות בבטנו כי אמר עוד שלש מכשפות בו… ואמרתי כיון שיש עת רצון אתפלל עוד. וכאשר אמרתי שוב בערך ד’ מינוטין שוב צעק בקול אשר בכל השכונה ברחוב ההוא נבהלו והחלון היה פתוח ושוב אמר הנה כולם יצאו… והיה כזה עוד בכמה אשר יש לכתוב כמעט ספר מכל הענינים, והכל היה בעל כרחי שהפיל עלי בכח. ורק על ידי תפלות ובקשות ולפעמים גם סגולות השכיחות… (עי”ש עוד דברים חשובים בזה, צפנת פענח, מאמר ט).

There are many other interesting items as well, such as R. Shlomo Kluger’s passport (lot 39):

A letter from the Malbim (lot 40) and much more:



New Sefer Announcement: The Collected Writings of R’ Moshe Reines

|
New Sefer Announcement
by Eliezer Brodt

It is with great pleasure that I announce a sefer that I just printed, The Collected Writings of R’ Moshe Reines.

ר’ משה ריינס מבחר כתבים, אוסף חיבוריו מאמרים ואגרותיו, לג+ 640 +4 עמודים

The sefer will be available for purchase in the US shortly. (We will post that info soon).
A PDF of some sample pages are available upon request, for more information contact me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.
What follows is the English introduction to the book. This is an abridged version of the much longer Hebrew introduction included in the book.
A few years ago, while researching the history of the Lithuanian Yeshiva of Volozhin, I came across an article written by Reb Moshe Reines. His article included a few letters between his father, Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Reines, rabbi of Lida and leader of the religious Zionist movement, and Rabbi Naftoli Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (the Netziv), head of the Volozhin Yeshiva. These letters were not included in the recent collections of the Netziv’s writings. A short while later I read a small, rare book by Reb Moshe Reines called Dor VeChachomov; a collection of essays about various scholars of his generation. The quality of these writings piqued my interest in Reb Moshe Reines (RMR). I began researching the author and proceeded to search for his other writings. I soon discovered that this brilliant scholar died in 1891 at the very young age of twenty-one, and that precious little else is known about him.
I was introduced to the world of RMR’s father, Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Reines, by one of his descendants, my friend Rabbi Yisroel Gordon. As I began collecting RMR’s writings, I suggested to Rabbi Gordon that they are of significant historic interest and that they be reprinted in one modest volume. Rabbi Gordon’s mother, Mrs. Naomi Gordon, great granddaughter of Rabbi Y.Y. Reines, underwrote most of the costs of the project. Mr. Yosef Aronson, great grandson of Rabbi Y.Y. Reines, participated in the financing as well.
After further research, I discovered that RMR was such a prolific writer that the modest volume I had envisioned grew to a much larger size. 
My inquiries led me to uncover a significant correspondence between RMR and the renowned scholar Rabbi Shlomo Buber. Over twenty letters from RMR to Shlomo Buber are currently preserved in the Buber collection in the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem. I requested and received permission to copy, transcribe, and print these rare, personal documents. Also included in this collection are several letters by RMR to the writer Judah Leib Gordon.
In addition to this treasure located at the National Library, I discovered an additional thirty-seven letters from RMR to his friend, Micha Yosef Berdeshevsky. Professor Avner Holtzman graciously granted permission to copy, transcribe, and print these letters in this collection. This volume also includes some letters by Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Reines to Berdeshevsky, Shlomo Buber, and Shmuel Finn. All of these letters have never been printed before.
Over the course of my research, I discovered that some additional letters by RMR, written to Avrohom Dubsewitz, had been preserved at the New York Public Library. However, copies of those were located too late to be included in this volume.
From his letters it is clear that RMR was a remarkably prodigious scholar. He had expert knowledge of the Talmud. He published articles on Jewish history, and was also educated in other areas of secular knowledge. Further, his command of Hebrew was formidable. This combination of knowledge is quite remarkable, considering his youth.
In a letter to Shlomo Buber (included in this work), Rabbi Y. Y. Reines writes of his devastation after his son’s untimely death, and expresses his desire to write a book about him. Unfortunately, as far as we know, he never got around to doing so. 
Significance of this Volume
RMR’s articles were prominently featured in the important newspapers and journals of the day. Some of his essays sparked debates in the periodicals. These debates are included in this collection. His writings shed a light on Jewish life in Russia in the 1880s, dealing with many then-current issues such as Jewish education, yeshivos, and the rabbinate. Some of RMR’s ideas and thoughts on these topics are still relevant today. 
RMR writes clearly that he was his own person, presenting ideas that sometimes diverged from those of his father. Yet, his writings reflect his father’s influence, and they serve to illuminate the complex ideas and worldview of his father, the unique and often-misunderstood Rabbi Y.Y. Reines. 
This volume also includes numerous letters from RMR’s correspondence with various personages of the time. These letters, printed here for the first time, are autobiographical in nature. As with much autobiographic material, these letters are historical documents, offering an authentic glimpse into an era. 
Highlights
The first section of RMR’s collected writings is a small book entitled Dor VeChachomov. His original plan was to write essays on the lives of fifty Jewish scholars of the day. Twelve essays from this collection were printed in his lifetime; four more were printed after he died. His choice of subjects is explained in his letters to Shlomo Buber. Apparently, RMR was commissioned to write about living personalities about whom no biographies had yet been written, thus limiting his choice of subjects. He requested of his subjects that they send him a biography and a bibliography of their writings. Some of them did not respond. For those who did, he wrote up their information and added his own introductory paragraphs (some with highly interesting, tangential discussions). Among the more famous scholars he included in the book were: Binyomin Ze’ev Bacher, Avraham Berliner, Shlomo Buber, and Avraham Harkavi. These essays are the first biographies written about them.
Another essay is titled Achsanyah Shel Torah. This essay was supposed to develop into a small book, but sadly he never completed it. It deals with the yeshiva in Volozhin and the Kovno Kollel, and contains many fascinating details. Included in this section are six letters from the Netziv to Rabbi Y.Y. Reines.
Another noteworthy essay is Hasafrut Hatalmudut VeHamedrashit. This essay addresses different aspects of publishing seforim. One section deals with the challenges authors face getting their work printed and gaining proper recognition. One senses that this section reflects his and his father’s personal experiences. Another part of this essay is devoted to the importance of book reviews and the role of proper haskamos (approbations). A third part suggests creating a fund for poor writers. Many of the issues raised in this essay remain relevant for authors today. 
One of the longer essays in this volume is Netzach Yisroel, an in-depth treatment of a proposal to establish a genealogical museum in Jerusalem, housing family trees in an organized fashion, including pictures of family members. RMR encouraged sending the proposed museum any material of historical significance, including works published or unpublished. One section of RMR’s essay focuses on the importance of pictures, another on the importance of family trees. The last section is devoted to the importance of living in Eretz Yisroel. In it, RMR included a beautiful letter from his father on the subject. 
Some of the essays deal with the need to establish a curriculum for the education of a rabbi, detailing what subjects, besides the requisite Torah knowledge, a rabbi needs to know. The issue of educating rabbis in areas other than Torah, without compromising their Torah studies, is discussed. This subject was very important to Rabbi Y. Y. Reines, who opened more than one yeshiva with that challenging agenda. 
Related to this is an essay about the pilpul method of learning. Much has been written and continues to be written on this subject. In this essay, RMR analyzes the pilpul method, listing the issues that have been raised about it, and demonstrating its weaknesses. He advocates a method based on rules of logic, a method advanced and written about by his father. 
RMR wrote many times and at great length about haskalah, the Jewish enlightenment movement. His approach to haskalah was that one should “accept the truth from whoever says it,” as did the tanna Rabbi Meir (Chagigah 15b), whose approach to the impious teacher Acher was to take the good and leave behind the bad. 
Thus, in a letter to Judah Leib Gordon, he writes: 

“Although from a religious perspective you and I are as far apart as are Lida and Pressburg, for you are utterly irreligious (as your demands for “reformations in religion” prove!), and I am completely conservative in religious matters and in all my days have never transgressed even the slightest custom which has become sanctified in the course of time (save foolish and deviant customs, such as spitting during the recitation of alienu l’shabeiach, which from my youth has aroused in me repulsion and is intolerable to me); however with regard to haskalah, my views are exactly like yours and my heart identical to yours.”

RMR’s letters are vastly informative regarding his special relationships with Shlomo Buber, Shmuel Finn, and Micha Yosef Berdishevsky. They also include tidbits about his parents, his brother, pen names he used, and other articles he planned on writing. 
One last interesting, bibliographical piece we learn from the letters regards the anonymous work Hakolos Yechdalun (Bardichov, 1887), an attack on Rabbi Y.Y. Reines’ work and new method of learning. In various letters we read about RMR’s strong reaction to the work. We also learn that he showed it to his father. Until now, bibliographers were not certain who the author was, suggesting it was one Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Yanovski. From RMR’s letters, it appears clear that indeed Rabbi Yanovski is the author.
Aside from presenting the writings of a brilliant young scholar, this volume opens a window into the intellectual ferment of the Jewish world in the late nineteenth century. 

Here are the table of contents: