As I had previously noted, many older seforim include what may be deemed objectionable by today’s standards. I had mentioned how one book had attempted to rectify this, the new edition of the Levush. In this edition the title pages from some early editions of the Levush are included in the introdoction, however the title pages has been “touched up.” Now that I have learned how to include images, I present both the original and the touched up version.

Although, the publishers of the Levush decided to alter the original, the new edition of the Tashbatz Koton did include a reprint of the first edition (1556) with the original title page unaltered. However, as is apparent, there are images on this title page that some might find objectionable.

[Unfortunately, I can’t get the pictures to layout nicely, if someone knows how to fix that please let me know]

Although, taken for granted today, there is a rather interesting discussion regarding putting ones name on one’s sefer. The early Jewish books we have- Tanak, Mishna and Talmud, the authors or compliers did use their names. It appears that this practice started in the times of the patanim. R. Yehuda haHasid says

In the early days, the patanyim – the ones that appear in Tanakh – did not use acrostics. Further, early blessings that were fashioned by the Great Assembly do not either have such attributions. However, when wicked people began creating songs of nothing . . .and people could not discern what the righteous people had written and what these wicked people wrote, the righteous people began putting their names in the acrostic . . . and with this the wicked could no longer take credit for poems that were not theirs.

Sefer Hasidim (ed. Wistinetzki), Frankfort 1924, no. 470, p. 133.

Thus, the practice of taking credit for one’s written came in order to allow the reader to know the provenance of the work. Others claim the use of the acrostic was just borrowed from non-Jewish sources. Be it as it may, these claims only date the usage of the writing the authors name to the time after the Talmud.

Some, however, go to some length to show that even in the books of Tanakh and the Mishna the authors or compliers did, at the very least, hint to their name. The Midrash Tanchuma explains why the letter Hey in the verse in Hazenu (Devarim 32:6) H-l’shem tigmilu zot (ה-לה’)is separate from the name of God. The Midrash explains that this unusual separation is to “tell the reader to take the first letters of the verses up until this verse. The Hey (ה) from האזינו, the Yud (י) from יערף, the Kuf (כ) from כי שם, the Hey (ה) from הצור, the Shin (ש) from שחת לו, and finally the Hey (ה) from ה-לה’. Those letters numerical value equal the name of Moshe as this is Moshe signing his name just as a person who finishes his book signs his name to it.” (Tanchum Hazenu 5). Though some note that this quote may have actually been inserted later, it does demonstrate that at a fairly early time people felt it was important to claim authorship to their own work.

At times, however, there were some even long after the Talmud who wrote works in an anonymous fashion. One book provoked a discussion that sheds some light on the above discussion. R. Shmuel Aboab (1610-1694), wrote the ethical work Sefer HaZikronot, first published in 1631 in Prague, recently reprinted in 2001. However, the book was published anonymously. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) in his bibliographical work, Shem HaGedolim, has an extensive discussion on the entry for the Sefer HaZikronot whether one should or should not note that one is acatully the author of a book. Hida quotes another passage in the Sefer Hasdim that offers an explanation why some do not note they are the author. “The early ones did not write their names on their works for example who wrote Torat Kohanim, Mehilta etc. so that they would not derive benefit from this world and lose any reward they will have in the world to come.” Sefer Hasidim, ed. R. R. Margolis no. 367. However, Hida notes that although for the “early ones” such as the those before the time of the Geonim, they did not reveal their authorship, from the times of the Geonim this has become common practice and thus in today there is no longer a reason to hide who the author is. Hida explains that the nature of R. Aboab’s book was the reason he did not reveal his authorship. The Sefer HaZikronot is a book of exhortations, a mussar book, as R. Aboab did not want to appear as more righteous in giving ethical direction he decided to remain anonymous.

Interestingly, the Hida nor anyone else, ever mention any prohibition in revealing the name of an anonymous work.

Sources: Yakov Shmuel Speigel, Amudim b’Toldot HaSefer HaIvri – Kitiva V’Hatakato, Ramat-Gan 2005, pp. 307-317; R. Hayyim Yosef David Azuali, Shem HaGedolim, Jerusalem 1997, vol. 2 Sefarim, 46-49.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: for further on the pronunciation of the word ה-לה’ see David Yishaki, in R. Jacob Emden, Luah Eres, 2000, appendix.

In the previous post, I mentioned a new book which is a collection of articles by Moshe Samet, who is well-known for his studies of the Besamim Rosh. In the comments section it appeared that some wanted more information regarding the Besamim Rosh. I hope this will answer some of the questions raised and give a more comprehensive background.

The Besamim Rosh is a book of reponsa first published in Berlin in 1793. It contained two parts, the teshuvot and a commentary titled kasa d’harsena. The person who published it, R. Saul Berlin was the Berlin Chief Rabbi’s son. R. Saul claimed the teshuvot were from a manuscript which he attributed to the Rosh, R. Asher ben Yehiel. The commentary, kasa d’harsena, was from R. Saul. Right after it appeared there were some that doubted the authenticity of atleast some of the teshuvot. They claimed that those teshuvot were not from the Rosh.

There were many novel teshovot. Among these was one permitting shaving on Hol haMo’ad, permitting kitneyot and claiming kitneyot was actually a Karite custom, and relaxing the restrictions on a suicide.

The first book to come out against the Besamim Rosh was written by R. Ze’ev Wolf, titled Ze’av Y’trof and was published that same year, 1793. In it he takes issue with some of the teshuvot that are in the Besamim Rosh. He also, claims that R. Saul retracted one, the teshuva permitting shaving on hol haMo’ad. However, it is unclear whether R. Saul admitted it was a forgery or he retracted in a less sensational manner.

After this book, there were numerous others who doubted either the entirety or at least portions of the book. However, R. Saul’s father, R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin (Berlin) defended the work of his son and vouched for the authenticity of it. He claimed to have seen the actual manuscript, something that no one else had seen. There were others who also supported the book. It appears that R. Yosef Hayyim David Azulai, Hida, also vouched for it, based upon the testimony of R. Tzvi Hirsch.

R. Saul, actually had a history that may explain why some were suspect of him. He published under a pseudonym a book title Mitzpeh Yekutel which attacked R. Rafeal Hamburg, the chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wansbeck (AH”U). This book was put in herem and burned in some cities. [As an aside after he was unmasked there were at least two teshovot published by different authors dealing with jurisdiction in herems. That is, whether the herem of one city, namely AH”U, can be enforced in another, namely Berlin. Obviously, this has many modern day implications, but it appears that many are not aware of such jurisdictional limitation of herems.]

Thus, it appears that some people already had rather negative opinions of R. Saul and this may have influenced their opinion of the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh.

As mentioned above, the Besamim Rosh was first published in 1793, however, it was not republished until 1881, nearly 100 years later. In this edition, two teshuvot were removed. The teshuva relaxing the rules for a suicide as well as one that permitted one riding on a horse on Shabbat. This second teshuva dealt with a case where one was riding on a horse and the Shabbat was approaching. The rider was faced with a dilemma, should he stop and thus have to scourge and rely on the hospitality of others or continue on to avoid that type of “embarrassment.” The teshuva permits him to continue based upon the rule kovod habreiot dokhe l’o s’ashe. That is, for respect one can violate certain prohibitions.

Finally, the Besamim Rosh was republished from the original edition in 1984. This edition has an extensive introduction that attempts to rehabilitate the Besamim Rosh. However, there are numerous flaws with the introduction. The publisher twists and in some instances perverts statements of those that question the authenticity of Besamim Rosh. He also make absurd arguments in support of his goal.

For example, one of the people that doubted the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh was R. Moshe Sofer, Hatam Sofer. Hatam Sofer calls the Besamim Rosh the Ketzvi haRosh -the lies of the Rosh. (Orakh Ha’ayim no. 154) However, the publisher claims this is an error. He explains that the Vienna edition (1895) of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer don’t read kitzvi haRosh, rather it reads kitvei haRosh- the writings of the Rosh. Thus, according to the publisher, all the editions of the Hatam Sofer that people relied upon were incorrect.

This, of course, is silly. The first edition of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer of this volume, was NOT the Vienna edition, rather it was Presburg, 1855. In that edition, which the publisher conveniently ignores, it says “kitzvei haRosh” the lies of the Rosh. This is but one of the numerous examples that can be found in this 1984 reprint.

In conclusion, there is a long running debate about the authenticity of this work, which has not been fully resolved, although at least one blogger may have a method to do so.

Manuscriptboy has two very nice posts today. One discusses a new book and various talks connected to the book. The book is a collection of articles by Moshe Samet. Moshe Samet has written some of the best pieces most notably on the Besamim Rosh, the teshuvot that were atributed to R. Asher b. Yehiel (Rosh) but are most likely a forgery and the product of the publisher, R. Saul Berlin. Samet has also written on the R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer) and more generally on the clash between the Reform movement and the Orthodox movement.

The second post discusses the conference held in honor of Benjamin Richler, the head of the manuscript department at the Jewish National University Library at Hebrew University. There was, what appears to have been, a facinating talk on the “evils” or more correctly the effect of printing on the preservation of manuscripts.

As previously mentioned at the Seforim blog, Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol has been reprinted in an “improved” edition. In the new edition there are a few significant changes, which appear to have been done to appease those that originally banned the original.

It is fairly easy to find these changes with the help of the index in the “improved” edition.

Here are some of the highlights of these changes:

First Edition (“FE”) – Also like my father, R’ Aaron Kotler dabbled in secular studies at this time. He was more interested in literature than in the sciences which attracted my father’s interest. (305)
Improved Edition (“IE”)- Like our protagonist, young Aaron Pinnes picked up some secular knowledge as an early teenager in Minsk. (305)

FE- . . . during a visit with a young, intellectual protege of the Hazon-Ish who headed a yeshiva in Ramalah, R’ Aaron blurted out, “This was expounded by Aleksander Pushkin” (305)
IE- not there

FE- nothing
IE- A story how he utilized this youthful experience to benefit the Torah community in Israel, came to light in an interview with R’ Dov-Tzvi Rothstein.

FE- nothing
IE- In the Talmudic Yeshiva of Philedelphia mail is censored till this day: the students are “appeased” by being told “Without censorship, R’ Aaron Kotler would have been lost.”

FE- It maybe postulated that R’ Aaron had too much self-confidence, as per what . . .
IE- In my fater’s opinion, R’ Aaron had very definate self-confidence, as per what . . . (386)

FE- “What is the difference? Before you go to his [R’ Aaron Kotler’s(D.R.)] yeshiva, you don’t know how to learn anyway; and after you have been there a bit, you will already be considered [by him] that you do know how to learn. . . ” Then our protagonist mitigated the seemingly sarcastic remark by explaining
IE- What is the difference. . . [same as above D.R.] Then our protagonist went on to explain his words by adding.

FE- the Lithuanian government issued an edict saying that the students of any yeshiva without secular studies would no longer be eligable for draft deferments. At a rabbinical assembly called to discuss the issue, it became evident that the Telz Yeshiva was ready to bow to the order, while the Slabodka Yeshiva, . . was uncompromisingly opposed. (510)
IE- the Lithuanian . . . eligable for draft deferments. Only the Telz Yeshiva , which despite opposition had started a mekhinah (preparatory school) with secular studies recieved recognition.

FE/IE There are a couple minor changes on 510-13 not worth getting into here

While there are numerous other changes, the above represent the “most controversial” passages from the first edition, and how they appear in the current edition.

University of California at Berkeley has purchased a copy of what is known as the Second Rabbinic Bible (seen on PaleoJudaica here). This Bible was published by Daniel Bomberg and edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonyahu. Without denigrating the importance of owning the original, I think the article describing the value added to Berkeley is a bit misplaced or at the very least overblown.

First, this book is now available online via the Hebrew Univesity’s program of digitilizing parts of their collection (the First Rabbinic Bible is also available there as well). Second, a photomechanical reproduction of this book was done in 1972 with an additional introduction by the Bible scholar, Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Additionally, one of the most important portions of this Bible, namely Jacob ben Hayyim’s introduction was published with an English translation and extensive notes by C.D. Ginsburg in 1867 and republished by Ktav in 1968. Basically, if one wants to examine this book, without paying a huge amount of money to purchase it, there is no lack of places to do so.

The article also neglected to mention a feature of this edition that is particularly important, the inclusion of chapter breaks. Although, Jacob b. Hayyim attempted to obtain the Jewish chapter breaks, the ones created by the ba’alei mesorah, Jacob only got these at the end of the printing a instead utilized the non-Jewish chapter breaks (which we use until today). He did, however, include a list of the Jewish breaks after his introduction but the actual divisions used in this edition are the non-Jewish ones. As the article correctly points out, this bible became the template for almost all future bibles and thus, we are consigned to use those divisions eventhough, at times, they run counter to Jewish law and tradition.

[For an excellent exposition on the chapter divisions, see Shmuel haKohen Weingarten, Halukat haTora l’Perakim, in Sinai vol. 42 (1958) pp. 281-293; R. Pesach Finfer, Mesoret ha-Toah veha-Nevi’im, Vilna 1906 (republished in 2005).]