As I have previously discussed, there is a well known work on the sources and rationale for various customs titled Mekore Minhagim. Indeed, there are two works with that very same title – by two different authors – that cover the same material. The question is which author stole from the other? I hope that I can clear this up as there still appears to be a misconception about who is the plagiarizer.

First, a brief history about prior attempts to decipher who is the real author of Mekore Minhagim is in order. As I noted in my original post, the first edition of the sefer to come out was published in Berlin in 1846 with the author listed as R. Avrohom Lewysohn (1805-1861). That edition contained 100 questions and explanation about various customs. Then, in 1851, R. Yosef Finkelstein published under the same title a work with the very same information, but that contained only 41 of the 100 questions and explanations from the work published in 1846. Almost immediately, it was claimed that Finkelstein had plagiarized his work from Lewysohn. And if one had to guess – absent any additional information –it would appear that this is the case simply because Lewysohn’s work came out first; that is, unless Lewysohn could have read Finkelstein’s mind, the latter must be the plagiarizer.

But, this is not a simple case. Instead, the appearance of the plagiarism claims in a German periodical did not settle the issue. Thus, R. Lewysohn’s brother, Yehudah Leib Lewysohn, a Rabbi in Stockholm, after seeing Finkelstein’s name mentioned in a different capacity in the journal ha-Maggid, again pointed out that Finkelstein had plagiarized Mekore Minhagim from Lewysohn. R. Y.L. Lewysohn gave a run down of the controversy and included the fact that, eventually, the dispute was taken to court, which ultimately concluded that Finkelstein had plagiarized from Lewysohn. But, it seems that Finkelstein had someone swear on his behalf that he was indeed the author.

After R. Y.L. Lewysohn published that account, including the court case coverage, Finkelstein himself answered the charge in a later issue of ha-Maggid. Finkelstein claimed that he was indeed the author and Lewysohn had stolen from him. But, how to account for the fact his sefer came out later? Finkelstein claimed that as he was traveling through Germany, he stayed with Lewysohn and eventually showed him his (Finkelstein’s) manuscript of Mekore Minhagim. Lewysohn was extremely taken by this book. According to Finkelstein, Lewysohn must have copied his version and published it before Finkelstein was able to.

R. Y.L. Lewysohn responded – with a point by point rebuttal – that Finkelstein’s account was all untrue and challenged Finkelstein to go in front of a court again – but this never happened.

That is more or less a summary of the written record with respect to the controversy. So it seems there remains the possibility that Lewysohn did copy Finkelstein’s manuscript when they met in Berlin. And, in fact, many have come to Finkelstein’s defense. For instance, R. Tzvi Efraim Babad in Der Yid has an article where he uses the ha-Maggid article to show that Finkelstein was indeed the author. In particular, it seems that R. Babad didn’t like Lewysohn, as he was a German Rabbi and university educated, while Finkelstein was from a distinguished rabbinic Hungarian family. There is also an article in the latest Or Yisrael about this incident of plagiarism.

I think, however, that I can prove who the real author is. I can do so by using Finkelstein’s own defense from ha-Maggid to demonstrate that he, in fact, is the plagiarizer. As is many times the case, he created the noose by which to hang himself.

Finkelstein, in his defense, states as follows:

When I was in Prague I wrote the work “Rivid ha-Zahav” which discusses the laws of ritual slaughter and checking for imperfection of the lungs. Many great Rabbis praised this work amongst them the famous Gaon R. [Shlomo] Yehuda Leib Rapoport and, because so many people liked it, the book sold out and I had to publish it again. After this I published another book “Tzafnas Panach” on blemishes in the lungs [of an animal].

He then continues and discusses the “Mekore Minhagim” and how Lewysohn got it:

When I traveled to Germany to sell my book I stayed with [R. Lewysohn] . . . when he saw my work the ‘Mekore Minhagim,’ which I wrote in 1839, he asked to look at it.

From there Finkelstein posits that Lewysohn eventually copied it and printed it as his own.

So, now, in order to see who is actually right, we need to see if R. Finkelstein’s story works. The way to do this is to check the books that Finkelstein actually was selling. First, it is important to know that Finkelstein published three books aside from Mekore Minhagim. As mentioned above, he wrote Rivid ha-Zahav and Tzofnas Panach. In addition he published a book his father- in–law, R. Meir Avraham Csaba, wrote – Pri Tzadik. Pri Tzadik was published in 1839, Finkelstein’s first published work. Now, according to Finkelstein, in his response in ha-Maggid, he published Tzofnas Panach after he published Rivid ha-Zahav for the second time. So, that would make Tzofnas Panach the last book published. Also, according to Finkelstein there were two editions of Rivid ha-Zahav (these are the only editions of Rivid ha-Zahav) but when was Rivid ha-Zahav published? According to the title pages, one was published in Prague (1846) and the other in Ofen (1845). But, according to Finkelstein’s own testimony, these dates must be wrong — or at least one. The reason being, if you recall, is that Finkelstein said Rivid ha-Zahav was written in Prague and was praised by R. Rapoport -which you can see as there is an approbation from R. Rapoport. In particular, the first edition of Rivid ha-Zahav has this approbation according to Finkelstein’s own words. But, the only edition which has this approbation is the one with 1846 on the title page and the approbation itself is even dated the 6th of Av 5606 (1846). That means that, although the other edition of Rivid ha-Zahav states was published in 1845, in fact, it was published after the 6th of Av 5606. Which also means that Tzofnas Panach was also published sometime after the second edition of Rivid ha-Zahav was published.[1]

Now, for Finkelstein’s story to be true, he states that he was selling “his books” -“ספרי” that means his personal books. That means we can rule out Pri Tzadik as that was his father-in-law’s book and Finkelstein wouldn’t have called it “his.” So when did he travel to Germany to sell his books and to which books did he refer? Well, let’s take the earliest of his books – which according to what we have figured out – is the first edition of his Rivid ha-Zahav. That edition of the Rivid ha-Zahav had to have been published sometime after the 6th of Av, the time of the approbation. That doesn’t leave that much time in the year 5606, being that Av is the second to last month in the Jewish calendar. But, let’s say he had Rivid ha-Zahav published really fast and during the month of Av he was able to publish it and was already in Germany meeting up with Lewysohn. Well, and here comes the funny part, Lewysohn’s introduction to Mekore Minhagim (which is copied in Finkelstein’s as well) is dated 16th of Kislev 5606, which would be around December 1845. This, of course, means that if our calculations are correct and we take all of Finkelstein’s story as true, Lewysohn wrote the introduction at least ten months before Finkelstein ever came to town to sell his then, unpublished, Rivid ha-Zahav. Which means Finkelstein is a liar.

Thus, it would appear that we can now conclude who is the plagiarizer – Finkelstein. And, the fact is that Lewysohn is the real author of Mekore Minhagim.

Sources: ha-Maggid No. 24 June 17, 1863 p. 192; No. 27, July 8, 1863, pp. 211-12; No. 36, September 9, 1863 pp. 283-84; No. 40, October 14, 1863, p. 316 (which are all available online here); R. Tzvi Ephraim Babad, “Printers, Copiers, Shasin, and Censor,” Der Yid 25 (Friday, September 22, 2000), section 2.

While we have previously discussed how the Besamim Rosh to this day remains an enigma, there are two important texts which may have bearing on this issue. Benjamin Richler has been kind enough to provide additional information about these two sources. We therefore pick up from Benjamin Richler at the Jewish National and University Library:

There are two sources concerning the Besamim Rosh that researchers would like to consult but cannot find.

One is a manuscript copy that belonged to Abraham Geiger and was briefly described in the list of Geiger’s manuscripts presented to the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin in Hebraeische Bibliographie, 17 (1877), p. 11, no. 3.[1] According to the description the manuscript that may have been an autograph was dated 1757 and includes the introduction by R. Zvi Hirsch Berlin. Until 1984, nothing was known about the fate of the manuscripts in the Hochschule; it was assumed that the Nazis confiscated the library but it was not found after the War. In 1984 Sotheby’s offered a collection of Hebrew manuscripts for sale and before the sale it was identified as belonging to the Hochschule. These books had been smuggled out of Germany before the War. [2] Two of the manuscripts in Geiger’s list were not included in the sale. One of them is the Besamim Rosh. For years after 1984 it was considered lost, but recently it came to light in a collection of archives and manuscripts looted by the Nazis and later captured by the Red Army. These documents and books were kept in what was called the “Special Archives” recently renamed “The Center for Safekeeping of Historical Collections of Documentation” in the Russian State Military Archives in Moscow. The manuscript was microfilmed for the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem where I examined it. The manuscript seems to be a neat copy, rather than an autograph draft, and when compared with the printed edition, I could find no significant differences in the text. I must admit, however, that I only checked a few passages at random, especially the beginning and end. My impression is that the manuscript is written in an Ashkenazic script of the 18th century. It may have been the copy that was sent to print or a copy that was made for R. Tzvi Hirsch before it was printed.

The second source that has not been examined for decades, perhaps for over a century, is a copy of the first edition with notes and additions by R. Saul Berlin himself. This copy was described by Shemuel Wiener who edited קהלת משה, the catalogue of the library of Moshe Aryeh Leib Friedland donated to the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of Russia located in St. Petersburg. [3] While the Friedland Library survive the War unscathed, and the manuscripts are accessible at the Oriental Institute, the 14,000 printed books were sent to storage and according to a senior fellow of the Oriental Institute who tried to extract this volume, it is impossible to locate any titles as the books are piled up to the ceiling in no particular order. Until premises are found to shelve the collection, the annotated copy of Besamim Rosh will remain inaccessible.

Sources:
[1] Geiger’s name is not mentioned in the description, but Moritz Steinschneider, the editor of HB who probably wrote the descriptions, identified Geiger as the owner in his Vorlesungen über die Kunde hebräischer Handschriften (Berlin 1897), p. 64, n. 29.

[2] The manuscripts were in the possession of Prof. Alexander Guttmann, formerly a professor in the Hochschule, who claimed that the manuscripts were given to him in 1936 for safekeeping. After it became known that the MSS were originally the property of the Hochschule, the State of New York disputed the sale. A settlement reached by the parties resulted in the formation of the Judaica Conservancy Foundation, a joint undertaking of Jewish institutions of higher learning in the United States, England and Israel. Twenty-two lots, including nineteen MSS sold at the auction, were recalled and given to the Foundation, which deposited them in the libraries of some of its members. It also authorized the proceeds of the sale of two of the MSS, to be awarded to Guttmann in consideration of his role in saving the MSS.

[3] Volume 1, Petersburg 1893, no. 1793, Wiener noted that the manuscript was purchased from the bookseller and scholar R. Raphael Nathan Rabinovicz, author of Dikdukei Soferim.

What follows is an original contribution by noted scholar Benjamin Richler to the Seforim blog. Any typographical errors are my fault alone. — Dan

Biographical blurb: Benjamin Richler was born in Montreal, graduated from Yeshiva University in 1960 and from the Hebrew University Graduate Library School in 1963. From 1965 to 1995, he served as the Librarian at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library, on the Givat Ram Campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1995-2005, he was the Director (now retired) of the Institute. His books include Hebrew manuscripts, a treasured legacy (Cleveland-Jerusalem 1990); Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections (Jerusalem, Israel Academy of Sciences, 1994); The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library (London 1998); Hebrew manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma (Jerusalem 2001); Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, edited by Benjamin Richler (in preparation, to be published in 2007). His three dozen articles (in Hebrew and English) include: “Isaac Abravanel’s ‘lost’ commentary on Deuteronomy,” in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century I (1999), 199-204; “Resources for the study of Tosafist literature at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Rashi et la culture juive (1997), 383-392; “Rabbeinu Tam’s ‘lost’ commentary on Job,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume I (1993), 191-202; “The scribe Moses ben Jacob Ibn Zabara of Spain; a Moroccan saint?” in Jewish Art, 18 (1992), 141-147; “Manuscripts of Moses ben Maimon’s ‘Pirke Moshe’ in Hebrew translation,” in Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 345-356; “Resources for the history of medicine at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Koroth 8:9-10 (1984), 407-413; “A Hebrew paraphrase of the Hippocratic Oath (from a fifth-century manuscript),” in Medical History 22:4 (1978), 438-445 (with S. Kottek).

The manuscripts in the collection of the great bibliophile Heiman (Hayyim) Joseph Michael (1792-1846) were purchased in 1848 by the Bodleian Library in Oxford University. One of the manuscripts [1] was described by Adolf Neubauer in his Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford 1886), no. 1265 as:

מורה דרך commentary on the 1st part of the Moreh han’N’bokhim by Gershom. …He quotes R. Abraham Broda and מהר’ לובלין (f. 8). For the enumeration of the author’s books in his preface, see Steinschneider’s מפתח האוצר, p. 324.[2]

Steinschneider listed the following works by the author, Gershon[3]: דבר הלכה; בדי שולחן on Shulchan Arukh; חיקור דין responsa; דבר תורה on the Torah ; מאמר אסתר on Megillat Esther; דבר הגדה on the Haggadah; מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles of Faith and extracts and sermons.

Most of these works are not recorded in any bibliography, and the full name and identity of the author remained a mystery to Steinschneider.

Another manuscript in the Jewish National and University Library, MS Heb. oct. 711[4], contains commentaries on the Torah, Ruth and Eikhah (Lamentations), based on philosophical and scientific perspectives. The anonymous author quotes Moses Mendelssohn and Copernicus, among others. He mentions several other books he composed, including some of those listed in his preface to מורה דרך , namely מאמר אסתר and דברי הגדה as well as משאת הגרשוני on the 13 Principles of Faith – perhaps another title for מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles listed above – as well as commentaries or novellae on the Prophets, Moreh Nevukhim and others. One of the works he mentions is a sermon titled אבל יחיד. The author mentions an explanation he heard from Rabbi Avraham Tiktin, the dayyan of his community ושמעתי פי’ … מהגאון מה’ אברהם טיקטין אב”ד קהילתינו. Needless to say, none of these other sources are recorded in bibliographies.

We can now establish that our author, Gershon, was a pupil, of R. Avraham Tiktin, or at least a resident of the same city in which R. Tiktin officiated. R. Avraham b. Gedaliah Tiktin (1764-1820), was a Rabbi in his birthplace Schwersenz (Polish: Swarzedz) near Posen (Poznan), then in Lenshits (Leczyca) and from 1803 in Glogau and from 1816 until his death in Breslau. We can assume, then, that Gershon resided in one of these communities. Which one? The answer is supplied by a manuscript in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, MS 646, a copy of אבל יחיד, the sermon mentioned in the JNUL manuscript. It contains a 24 page eulogy (“hesped”) on R. Avraham Tiktin written or composed in Schwersenz on the eve of Rosh Hodesh Shevat 5581=January 3, 1821 by גרשון היילפרין or היילפרון (Gershon Heilprin or Heilpron).

A search for other works by the author listed in the Oxford and Jerusalem manuscripts revealed a manuscript in the Jewish Theological Seminary – University of Jewish Studies (Országos Rabbiképzo Intézet – Zsidó Egyetem) in Budapest titled משאת הגרשוני. It is a curious work based on the Thirteen Principles of Moses b. Maimon and its 169 folios include a Fourteenth Principle that incorporates all the other principles and contains a critique of Kant’s theories on the soul. It also includes some explanations of passages in Moreh Nevukhim, on difficult verses in the Bible and a commentary on the piyyut “Ehad Mi Yodea” in the Passover Haggadah. One section התילדות המשפחה deals with the the practice of assigning family surnames and delves into gynecology quoting physicians from Heraclitus until contemporary experts. He describes the wonders of the microscope and relates how a physician in Danzig showed him the sperm of a rooster under a microscope (f. 14r). There are a few poems by the author with the acrostic Gershon b. Meir, that establish the name of the author. The title page reads:

חלק ראשון מספר משאת הגרשני הוא מאיר עינים לאמונת והדיעות האמיתית מוסד על שלשה עשר העיקרים מהרמב”ם ז”ל, יוסף עליו עיקר הארבע עשר הכולל כל העיקרים ונקרא … עיקר הכולל בו אמצא ויכוח עם החכם קאנט בענין השארות הנפש … והראיתי מקורה ממקום נורא נקרא מקור הפילסופיאה … והוספתי התילדות המשפחה ותפארת אדם ופירש על כמה מאמרי ספר המורה להרמב”ם ז”ל וספר המידות לאריסטו … ומאמרי חז”ל הנאמרים בדרך חידה ומשלים … גם מהדברים המוקשים ביותר בתורה ובנביאים ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס .

Additional information about the author is found in an inscription by his son, Pinchas Heilbronn, on the title page in which he adds the date of his father’s death, 9 Heshvan 5629=October 25, 1868 אמר פינחס בן מ”ר גרשון הילבראנן ניפטר ט חשון תרכ”ט.

We have now identified the author of these four manuscripts, Gershon b. Meir Heilprin or Heilbronn. We can assume that since he studied under R. Avraham Tiktin or audited his lessons in Schwersenz where Tiktin officiated until ca. 1800 when Gershon was in his late teens or older, that Gershon was born around 1780-1785 and lived well into his eighties, residing for most or all of his life in Schwersenz. On the basis of the cross references to his works in the various manuscripts we can date them approximately. מורה דרך is perhaps the earliest of his works to survive, though by the time he wrote it he had already composed four or five other books or essays. אבל יחיד was composed in 1821. משאת הגרשני is mentioned in the compilation in the Jerusalem manuscript which is the latest composition of Gershon’s extant. If משאת הגרשני on the 13 Principles is the same work on the Principles entitled מליצת עיקרים in the Oxford manuscript then it should be considered the earliest work by Gershon to survive.

The figure that emerges from his extant writings is one of a talmid chacham, or at least of one fairly well-versed in Bible, Talmud and the writings of the Rambam with leanings towards the haskalah. He is familiar with some of the works of Aristotle and the teachings of Kant, though we cannot know if he read Kant in German or if his knowledge is from second-hand sources. He is interested in the sciences and has at least an elementary understanding of biology, astronomy and geography. Yet he remains an enigma. Apart from these four manuscripts no other details about Gershon Heilprin have surfaced. If he was so little known, why should Heiman Michael acquire a manuscript of his? Michael obviously acquired the manuscript before his own death in 1846. Was he offered the manuscript for sale? Did he purchase it because he considered it a worthwhile addition to his collection or did Gershon send it to him hoping to receive a generous donation? Likewise, we do not know how the other manuscripts reached the libraries in Budapest, Cincinnati and Jerusalem that now preserve them. It is ironic that so many unpublished works by better known rabbis and scholars did not survive the ravages of time and the Holocaust while four manuscripts by an otherwise unknown personality remained intact and are kept in libraries on three continents.

This detective work could not have been accomplished without a union catalogue of all the Hebrew manuscripts in the world. While no such tool encompasses 100% of all existing Hebrew manuscripts, there is available on the internet a catalogue that describes over 90% of this corpus, namely the catalogue of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

For over fifty years the Institute has been collecting microfilms of Hebrew manuscripts and its present holdings of 75,000 manuscripts together with the 8,000 original manuscripts deposited in the Jewish National Library represent an estimated 90-95% of all known Hebrew codices.

In the near future, I hope to write another entry at the Seforim blog about the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

Sources:
[1] MS Mich 126, listed as no. 658 in the posthumous catalog of his library אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[2] The reference is to Moritz Steinschneider’s appendix on manuscripts אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[3] Neubauer called him Gershom, but Steinschneider called him Gershon.
[4] There is no record in the Jewish National Library concerning prior provenance or from whom the manuscript was acquired. We can assume that it was acquired in the early 1930’s. The catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Library by B.I. Joel, רשימת כתבי-היד העבריים … (Jerusalem 1934), describes octavo manuscripts numbered 1-719, but, strangely, omits no. 711, even though the manuscript was in the Library by 1934.

A Puzzling Passage in a Book Intended for Jewish Children, with a Tentative Bibliography of ספרי קודש that Treat the Mitzvah of Answering “Amen”
Shnayer Leiman

In 2004, an anonymous book entitled Serenade the King appeared in print.[1] Addressed primarily to a young audience, it is an anthology of inspirational stories that focus on one teaching only: the importance of answering “Amen.” The stories are accompanied by photographs of the great Jewish sages mentioned in them, and by short inserts, mostly quotations from famous rabbis emphasizing the significance of answering “Amen.” Letters of approbation (in Hebrew) from distinguished rabbis appear at the beginning of the book, encouraging prospective buyers to acquire the book.

On p. 240, the following short insert appears:

Failure to Answer Amen Desecrates Hashem’s Name

Failure to respond Amen to a beracha that one hears is equivalent to actually cursing Hashem, and the punishment for one who is guilty of this sin is equal to the punishment that one who curses Hashem receives.

There is no greater desecration of Hashem’s Name than the desecration caused by not answering Amen to a beracha, particularly if the beracha was recited in public. In fact, if it was recited before ten men, the hearer is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than not answer Amen!

Whereas Serenade the King prints mostly inspiring stories, here we have a halakhic ruling — and an astounding one at that. Ordinarily, there are only three instances where a Jew is obligated to lay down his life (i.e., allow himself to be killed) rather than commit a violation of Jewish law. These are: idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. Thus, if a Jew is ordered to kill an innocent person, or be killed, he must refuse the order and allow himself to be killed, if no other options present themselves. The above rule applies primarily when the violation of Jewish law is in the private domain. But if the violation takes place in the public domain, i.e., in the presence of ten or more Jews, then one needs to examine the motivation of the person issuing the illegal order. If the purpose is to force the Jew to abandon his faith, then the Jew must be prepared to lay down his life rather than violate any mitzvah of the Torah. If the purpose is for the personal pleasure of the person issuing the illegal order, then the Jew is obligated to violate the law and stay alive, except in the cases of idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. In a period of general persecution of the Jews, one is obligated to lay down his life even if ordered to violate a mere customary practice of the Jews. Even in those instances where a Jew is obligated halakhically to violate the law and stay alive, there are some halakhic authorities who rule otherwise. They allow a Jew the option to lay down his life (rather than violate a Jewish law and remain alive) in instances other than the three exceptions listed above. All halakhic authorities agree, however, that the Jew — in those instances — is not obligated to lay down his life. Thus, a Jew who is ordered at gun-point to eat non-kosher food or be killed, must violate Jewish law and remain alive (according to some halakhic authorities), or may refuse to do so and die (according to other halakhic authorities), but he is not obligated to refuse to eat the non-kosher food. In instances where the Jew is ordered by the enemy to take no action (e.g., not to recite the obligatory prayers or not to wear tefillin), the obligation to lay down one’s life is virtually non-existent.

Thus, R. Moshe Isserles rules:[2]

The rules apply only if they order him to violate a negative commandment. But if they issue a decree against observing a positive commandment, he need not observe it and be killed. But if the circumstances require it, and he wishes to observe it — knowing that he will be killed — it is permissible for him to do so.

Similarly, R. Mordechai Jaffe rules:[3]

All the above applies only when they order him to violate a negative commandment, so that when he violates it he must engage in an act that violates the Torah. But if they decreed in a persecution that one may not fulfill a positive commandment, one is not obligated to fulfill it and be killed. This is because complying with the decree does not require an act of violation of the Torah; one can simply cease and desist and comply with the decree. Moreover, the enemy can force him to violate the law against his will, by either imprisoning him so that he will be unable to perform any of the commandments, or by depriving him of his tzitzit or tefillin so that the specific mitzvah cannot be performed. Therefore, let it go unperformed and let him not be killed. Nonetheless, even in this case, if he chooses to be stringent and to observe the commandment — even though he knows that he will be killed — he may do so. He is not considered as one who brings injury upon himself, for this too is an act of piety and fear of G-d, and a sanctification of G-d’s Name.

In the light of the above, it is astonishing indeed that Serenade the King rules that it is obligatory to lay down one’s life when ordered not to answer “Amen” to a blessing recited before ten men. At best, it may be permissible to lay down one’s life in such a case; it is certainly not obligatory according to the Shulhan Arukh.[4]

To the best of our knowledge, no such ruling appears in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, or in any of the halakhic codes, whether Rif, Rambam, Tur, or Shulhan Arukh. Indeed, the ruling appears to contradict the Shulhan Arukh, i.e. the R. Moshe Isserles passage cited above. So we were curious as to the source of this ruling in Serenade the King. One did not have to look very far. At the bottom of the insert, the source is clearly given as: Keser Melucha, page 284. It turns out that Serenade the King is simply an English version of an earlier work in Hebrew entitled שירו למלך, Jerusalem, 2002, also addressed primarily to a young audience.[5] The anonymous author of both books, apparently a reputable rabbinic scholar in Jerusalem, drew most of his material from an earlier work of his entitled כתר מלוכה, Jerusalem, 2000.[6] It is a comprehensive anthology in Hebrew of talmudic, midrashic, medieval, and modern sources relating to the mitzvah of answering “Amen” — and it is addressed to adults. [There is a rich literature, especially in Hebrew, on this topic. Since we have not seen a bibliographical listing of such books, we have appended to this essay a tentative bibliography of books in Hebrew that treat the mitzvah of answering “Amen.”]

Turning to page 284 of כתר מלוכה, one discovers that the source of the insert is: מנח”א י”א ב. Since neither Serenade the King nor כתר מלוכה contain bibliographies or lists of abbreviations, some readers will experience difficulty deciphering the abbreviation.

Amateurs attempting to decipher the abbreviation will doubtless suggest that it stands for מנחת אלעזר, the classic collection of responsa by the late Munkatcher Rebbe, Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937). But the responsa in that collection are always referred to by volume and by the number of the responsum (e,g., IV:19), never by page number (e.g., 11b). More importantly, our passage does not occur on p. 11b (or anywhere else) in any of the printed volumes of מנחת אלעזר.

While leafing through the pages of כתר מלוכה, it became apparent to me that מנח”א (cited throughout the volume) was itself an anthology of sources on the significance of answering “Amen.” It was a simple matter to peruse the titles of all previous anthologies on the significance of answering “Amen,” and to see which one had a title that matched the abbreviation in כתר מלוכה. The only volume to do so was R. Yehudah Leib Rogalin’s מנחיל אמונה, Poltava, 1913.[7] And sure enough on p. 11b, there appears the full text of the passage summarized in כתר מלוכה.

The passage reads:

וכמו ששכרו של העונה אמן כמה דאצטריך אין ערך ושיעור וכמובא במדרשי חז”ל, כמו כן להיפוך חלילה עונש של האינו עונה אמן, וכמובא גם כן שבאמת הוא ניאוץ וחירוף וגידוף כלפי מעלה, אלא שזה בשב ואל תעשה, אבל עונשו שוה למגדף בפועל שזה בזיון למלך הכבוד דמי שלא חש לכבד את המלך בעת שנותנין לו כבוד הוא בזיון גדול אין דגמתו, ואינו דומה מי שאינו נותן כבוד למלך למבזה ברכת המלך, וברבים הוא חילול שם שמים בפרהסיא, ובעשרה מישראל מחוייב למסור נפשו על זה מקל וחומר, שאם הוא מחוייב למסור נפשו לקדש שם שמים בפרהסיא, כל שכן שמחוייב למסור נפשו שלא לחללו, ואין לך חילול שם שמים גדול מזה שלא חש לאמן ברכותיו של המברכו וגורם שברכת המברך יהיה חלילה כברכת שוא, עיין מכילתא (משפטים ס’ כ”ג) משום ר’ אלעזר וכו’. ומכאן אזהרה למי שרואה את חבירו שאינו עונה אמן אחר השליח ציבור שמחוייב לגעור בו בנזיפה יהיה מי שיהיה, דבמקום שיש חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד.

The claim, while certainly interesting, will hardly persuade most halakhists.[8] In any event, this is surely a matter for Gedolei Ha-Poskim to decide, and not the authors of treatises on the importance of answering “Amen.” One wonders whether such a halakhic decision — of life and death import — should appear in a children’s book. Heaven forbid that a child be put to the test, and instead of consulting a posek, he will rely on the ruling of Serenade the King that “the hearer is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than not answer Amen.” One wonders whether the rabbis who wrote letters of approbation for Serenade the King also gave their approval to this ruling. If not, perhaps we need to rethink what a letter of approbation really means.

Notes:

1] Serenade the King, Jerusalem: Vehagisa, 2004. The book’s spine bears the imprint of Feldheim’s Books.

2] Shulhan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah 157:1.

3] Levush Ateret Zahav 157:1.

4] For possible support for the halakhic ruling in Serenade the King, see the sources cited in R. Hayyyim Yosef David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 157, paragraph 2, ד”ה הגהה

5] See שירו למלך, Jerusalem: Vehagisa, 2002.

6] כתר מלוכה, Jerusalem: Makhon Mayim Hayyim, 2000. An earlier and much abridged preliminary version of כתר מלוכה appeared in print with no place and no date on the title pages. It appears to have been published in Jerusalem, circa 1998.

7] The volume was published without הסכמות. On Rogalin, an accomplished rabbinic scholar who served as rabbi of Alexandrovsk in the Yekaterinoslav province from circa 1888 until 1913, see S.N. Gottlieb, אהלי שם, Pinsk, 1912, p. 9.

8] It will not persuade most halakhists for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the קל וחומר suffers from a serious פירכא. Indeed, a person may be obligated to lay down his life rather than actively commit a violation of Jewish law (under the right set of circumstances, as outlined above). But this cannot obligate a person to lay down his life rather than passively violate a Jewish law – by not answering “Amen.” Moreover, the halakhic source (Mekhilta to Exodus 23:1; ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 322) cited by Rabbi Rogalin does not treat the issue of laying down one’s life at all.

A claim similar to that of Rabbi Rogalin appears in a much earlier work: R. Moshe Kahana, דרך משה, Amsterdam, 1699. I am indebted to R. Eliezer Brodt for calling this claim to my attention (via Dan Rabinowitz). On p. 41 (of the Jerusalem, 1983 edition of דרך משה), the text reads:

על כן כל איש מישראל ששומע הברכה מישראל מחוייב לענות אמן אפילו שומע מאשה או מקטן, ואם שומע ואינו עונה חייב מיתה. וסימן אמ”ן נוטריקון א’ני מ’וסר נ’פשי, שכל אחד מישראל מחוייב למסור נפשו על עניית אמן

No halakhic source is cited for this פסק הלכה, (that not answering “Amen” is a capital offense; and that a person must lay down his life for the sake of answering “Amen”), either from the Talmud, Rishonim, or Aharonim. And while a famous story about R. Mordechai Jaffe, author of the לבושים, suggests that not answering “Amen” under normal circumstances is a capital offense (בדיני שמים), it does not suggest that a person must lay down his life if forced not to answer “Amen” (see דרך משה, loc. cit.; cf. R. Mordechai Jaffe, לבוש החור, Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 579-580).

Bibliography:

The tentative bibliography that follows lists ספרי קדש that treat the mitzvah of answering “Amen.” The list does not include books that treat a variety of mitzvot, including the mitzvah of answering “Amen.” Thus, for example, the list does not include R. Aharon Avraham b. R. Barukh Ha-Levi, אגרת הטעמים (Mantua, 1582), even though pp. 12b-15a of that treatise treat the mitzvah of answering “Amen.” For similar reasons, we have not listed R. Aharon Roth, שומר אמונים (Jerusalem, 1942), though see item 8 on the list. Books in foreign languages are not listed, though many exist. R. Menahem Nahum Bochner’s ספר עניית אמן (Tchernovitz, 1913) is also omitted from the list; it does not treat the mitzvah of answering “Amen.” The list certainly needs to be expanded. I’ve included only the titles of books I have held in my hand.

רשימת ספרים העוסקים במצוות עניית אמן

1] ואמרו אמן, לר’ יהושע אלטר ווילדמאן, ב’ כרכים, ירושלים, תרפ”ז-תרפ”ט

2] ונאמר אמן: יצחק לשוח, לר’ שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תשמ”א

3] חוברת לימוד בנושא מעלת עניית אמן יהא שמיה רבא, בלי שם מחבר, ב’ כרכים, ירושלים, תש”ס-תשס”ב

4] חובת עניית אמן, לר’ הלל דוד ליטוואק, ברוקלין, תשנ”ט

5] כתר מלוכה, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, בלי שנת דפוס (לפני שנת תש”ס), והיא הוצאה ראשונה וצנומה של ספר כתר מלוכה דלהלן

6] כתר מלוכה, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תש”ס

7] לקוטי תורת אמן, לר’ נחום זק”ש, ווילנא, תרס”ז

8] מאמר פתחו שערים מספר שומר אמונים, לר’ אהרן ראטה, בית שמש, תשנ”ה

9] מדריך לעניית אמן, לר’ שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תשמ”א

10] מנחיל אמונה, לר’ יהודה ליב ראגאלין, פאלטאווא, תרע”ג

11] נוטרי אמן, לר’ אברהם קסלר, ב’ כרכים, בני ברק, תש”ס-תשס”ד

12] עניית אמן כהלכתה, לר’ ישכר דוב רומפלער, מאנסי, תש”ס

13] קובץ ונאמר אמן, בלי שם מחבר, בת-ים, תשס”ד

14] קונטרס הבו לה’ כבוד: התעוררות וסיפורים…בעניני…עניית אמן, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תשנ”ג

15] קונטרס מהלכות עניית אמן, לר’ אברהם דוד בלאך, ווילנא, תרס”ט. נלוה לספרו ציצית הכנף, ווילנא, תרס”ט

16] קונטרס עניית אמן כהלכתה, לר’ שלום יודא גראס, ברוקלין, תש”ם

17] קונטרס שומר אמונים, בלי שם מחבר, ברוקלין, תשי”ג

18] שומר אמונים, לר’ אליהו וויגאדזקי, פיעטרקוב, תרס”ו

19] שירו למלך, בלי שם מחבר, ירושלים, תשס”ב

20] תשובת נפש תיקון אמן תשובת תענית, בלי שם מחבר, לובלין, תל”ז

R. Jacob Emden, in his Torat haKenot claims a well known and fairly popular book is written by a Sabbatian (a follower of the false-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi). This book, Kitzur Shelah, authored by R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, which although its title implies is merely an abridged version of the Shelah (Sheni Luchot HaBrit) by R. Isaiah Horowitz, is much more than that. While the Kitzur Shelah does include some content from the larger Shelah it also includes much else which appears no where in the Shelah. Perhaps the most well-known custom to come out of the Kitzur Shelah is the custom to recite a verse which beginning and end letters of the verse correspond to the first and last letters of ones name. (Although this does have another source as well, the Kitzur Shelah is the first to include actual verses and it is those verses which appear in the siddurim.)

R. Emden claims that R. Epstein makes a reference to Sabbatai Zevi in the Introduction to the Kitzur Shelah. R. Emden’s exact language is “גם רמז על הצוא”ה בהקדמת קשל”ה” [R. Emden uses צואה (excrement) to refer to Sabbatai Zevi in that the numerical value of צואה is the same as צבי]. The Introduction is in fact but a single paragraph and at first glance it would seem to imply that the author was not a follower of Sabbatai Zevi. This is so, as the author expresses his hope that the publication of this book will be a merit for the coming of the Messiah. Such a line implies that the Messiah has not in fact come, which is counter to the idea of Sabbatai Zevi already coming and being the true Messiah.

But, with this, we need to start on our journey through multiple editions of the Kitzur Shelah. Although you will find it nowhere on the title pages of any of the editions, in fact there are at least four different editions of this work. (There was what is known as a מהדורה בתרא of the Kitzur Shelah, however, for our purposes that is irrelevant.) That is, there are at least four distinct versions.

First we need to understand where it is explicit in the Introduction that the author is a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and for that we must turn to the early editions. In the early editions the very line which discusses the hope for the Messiah appears as follows, ” ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות משי”ח האמ”תי וגם יזכו אל ימו”ת משי”ח.” If you note, you can see that four words contain quotation marks. These marks are the key to understanding R. Emden’s claim. These marks, generally, have two purposes one to signify the use of an abbreviation and the second to indicate that aside from the plain meaning of the word, one should also use the gematria – numerical value of the word. This device is extremely common on title pages of books where verses are used to indicate the date of publication. The words which the printers wish to use have the marks.

In this instance, it is the same. That is, the value of the four words or more specifically, the two sets of two words, are equal to 814 (משי”ח האמ”תי = 814 and ימו”ת משי”ח = 814). Sabbatai Zevi is also equivalent to 814 (שבתי צבי = 814). Thus, the “true Messiah” the author is referencing is in fact Sabbatai Zevi.

Now, in the later editions, these quotation marks were removed. Thus, there is no longer a signal to the reader to use the value of the words. But, it seems the removal was insufficient for some. In at least one edition (Frankfurt am Main, 1745) the entire Introduction was removed.

So we now have three different versions, the early ones with the quotation marks, the later with those removed and the final without the Introduction. In 1998 the Kitzur Shelah was reprinted with some additional notes and nikkud. In this edition it seems it was no longer good enough to just leave out the quotation marks, instead, the text itself was altered. In place of the line we have been discussing in this edition the line reads “ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות ביאת משיח צדקנו.” I have been unable to locate this language in any edition I have checked, thus leading one to believe this change was deliberate to “address” the claim of R. Jacob Emden.

Thus, this is an example of why it pays to own (or at least have access) to multiple editions and that although subtle a minor change can have a major effect. All three versions appear on the side for the reader to see for themselves. The top is a copy of the Amsterdam 1724 edition (which is the same as it appears in the first edition). The second is a photo-mechanical reproduction of the Lember 1862 edition. And the final one is from the 1998 edition. You can click on the picture for a larger version.

Sources: Shnayer Z. Leiman “ספרים החשודים בשתאות: רשימתו של הגאון יעב”ץ זצ”ל” in ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ זצ”ל pp.885-894 esp. n. 12. On the topic of Sabbatianism in books see Naor, Post Sabbatian Sabbatianism

For the full recovery of HaRav R. J. Wasserstein

I heard a very interesting speech this weekend [which S. had previously discussed here as well], and I have decided to expand some on it.

In this weeks Torah reading we were treated to a rather strange occurrence. Although, throughout the Torah, there are words read different than they are written, at least in the Torah (Nakh provides plentiful examples of significantly altered words), these are minor corrections. Most of these corrections are merely the maleh or hasar (plene and defective) spellings. Yet, in last week’s reading two words appeared which instead of reading the actual words we substitute two totally different words (chapter 28, 27 & 30). The substituted words are not different in the sense of their meaning – their meanings are very similar just they express the same in a different manner – just in their pronunciation. These alterations are based upon the TB, Meggilah 25b. The Talmud explains these words were altered as the way they written was considered too crass and thus required substitution.[1]

Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, states that these words are the product of the Tikkun Soferim, corrections of the Scribes.[2] What are the Tikkun Soferim? There are two basic ways to understand what these soferim did. If one looks at Rashi’s first mention of the Tikkun Soferim, both of these are represented. That is, in the first mention, there are three different versions of Rashi. Depending upon which version one has, will in turn inform the debate about what the Tikkun Soferim did.

Rashi’s first mention of the this concept is found in Genesis, when God visited Abraham. God came to visit after Abraham circumcised himself. However, this visit was interrupted by the appearance of the three angels (who appeared like men to Abraham). After they left God came back as it was, however, it was viewed inappropriate to say that God came and stood or waited before Abraham. Therefore, the verse was altered to say that Abraham still stood before God. Rashi explains this change is one of the Tikkun Soferim. The simple way to understand this concept is just the Rabbis came and explained that although there should have been a different reading, this one was chosen so not appear offensive to God. But, importantly, the Rabbis did not actually make the change, rather they came to explain it.

In some editions[3] of Rashi, there are a few additional words which offer a very different insight into the Tikkun Soferim process. These are “שהפכוהו רבותינו לכתוב זה” or “The Rabbis altered it to state thus.”[4] This means that after the Torah was written, some later Rabbis came and altered to the text.

This understanding presents a problem in light of the creed offered by Maimonides, among others, that the Torah never changed.[5] But, before we get to that we need to first locate Rashi’s source for this understanding.

It seems, the source for the additional words is based upon a Midrash Tanhuma (Beshalach 16). In this Midrash it states that the men of the Great Assembly (אנשי כנסת הגדולה) were the ones who did the Tikkun Soferim. Thus, this Midrash is stating that these changes were actually done – done by the men of the Great Assembly. This Midrash is in conflict with other statements, most notably by the Bereishit Rabbah (36,7). There, there is no mention of the men of the Great Assembly and thus no human alterations.

Now, some have claimed based in part upon this conflict and the problem mentioned above that the Tanchuma has been corrupted. This position was espoused by R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Einayim. He says that the words regarding the men of the Great Assembly were later emendation based upon an error. Specifically, de Rossi states “that some impetuous person, as I think, wanting to honor the Men of the Great Synagogue, wrote those words in the margin of his copy of the Yelammedenu [Tanhuma]. His colleage, the printer, than instead his words into the body of the text for the sake of clarity.”[6] De Rossi, then argues that not only was that Tanhuma altered in this fashion, but the previously cited Rashi was as well. He says that the additional words are “unquestionably an error.” (For other examples of this phenomenon see R. Zilber, Ohr Yisrael 41, p. 201-223.) De Rossi’s position was quoted favorably by some traditional commentaries[7] attempting to deal with the problematic Rashi as well as the Tanhuma. This is of course ironic in that de Rossi’s work was banned for taking liberties with various statements of the Rabbis.

Yet, for all these justifications, as Lieberman has shown, even if one discounts the Tanhuma, there are still other examples of similar statements regarding Tikkun Soferim. Thus, we are forced to conclude that there are in fact two traditions regarding how to understand Tikkun Soferim. One holds the Rabbis did not alter the text while the other is inapposite. In truth, the latter position is not nearly as problematic as it is at first glance. Already R. Hai Goan[8] deals with a similar issue regarding the accuracy of Torah’s text. Specifically, the TB, Kiddushin is in conflict with the way we have our Torahs. R. Hai explains, that we for our purposes, we only have our Torahs and that we need not worry about perceived conflicts. According to R. Hai, so long as we follow the halakhic process we need not worry about historic inaccuracies. One could argue, the Tanhuma and perhaps Rashi took a similar position, so long as the Tikkun Soferim was based upon established Talmudic principles, there was room to even amend the Torah.

Sources and further reading: see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 64-67 (and the sources cited therein); Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 28-37; Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374; C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 347-363; Marc B. Shapiro, Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 98-100.

[1] The written words are coarser versions of the ones which are actually read.

[2] Rashi’s assertion that this change is from the Tikkun Soferim is problematic. None of the various Massorah lists include this example in their lists. See, e.g., Okhlah we-Okhlah, list 168 (p. 113 of the Frensdorff ed.); C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, vol. 2 (vol. 4 at seforimonline.org) p. 710 list 206. Instead, as Liberman has noted, generally the Tikkun Soferim were inappropriate references to God and not generally problematic words, as is the case here.

[3] This includes the first edition, Reggio, [1475]. Other early editions, however, do not include these words, for a discussion of these see Rashi HaShalem, vol. 1 202-203 n. 75, 357.

[4] The third version contains these words in parenthesis.

[5] On this topic see generally B. Barry Levy, Fixing God’s Torah, and Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 91-121.

[6] Translation from Weinberg ed. of Me’or Einayim, p. 327.

[7] See Etz Yosef commentary to the Tanhuma; R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374.

[8] Harkavey, Teshuvot HaGeonim, no. 3.