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:

Legacy Judaica Auction March 6th: A Sampling of Forgeries and other Eclectic Lots

Legacy Judaica‘s next auction will occur on March 6, 2018. The 220 lots include very rare books such as the first edition of the Yerushalmi and a letter from R. Tzvi Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi) (the entire catalog can be accessed here), there are many other interesting books and letters.

Conditional marriage has been applied since at least the talmudic period if not early. The exact circumstances and necessary predicates have evolved over time and especially in the modern period when marriage and divorce were slowly wrested from the exclusive control of the clergy and the state began to involve itself permitting some to circumvent the religious process entirely, the issue of annulments became acuter. Annulments were among the only methods that would free a woman whose husband proceed to receive a secular divorce but not a religious one. In France, in the early 20th century a scheme to make conditional marriage the norm and avoid later issues was proposed. But this met with fierce opposition from many rabbis, and to counter that proposal in 1930 in Vilna a book, Ein Tenie be-Nissuin, that contained signatures of 400 rabbis was published in protest. The book also contains an introduction by the leading Posek, R. Chaim Ozer. (Lot 21).

Another contemporary controversy related to something much older, the Talmud Yerushalmi. In the first decade of the 20th century, Shlomo Friedlander published a few volumes from the Kodshim order that hereto had never been published (lot 47). Allegedly these were from a manuscript, but many doubted their authenticity. R. Meir Don Plotski, the author of the biblical commentary, Kli Hemdah, devoted an entire book, Sha’lu Shelom Yerushalim, (lot 43) to disproving that Friedlander’s edition was legitimate. (Dr. Shlomo Sprecher Zt”L reprinted the book in 1991 with a new introduction and a biography of R Poltski). Friedlander also published less controversial books including his commentary on the Tosefta (lot 48).

Although not controversial, another attempt to link the present with the past is a curious book, Sefer ha-Brit ha-Hadash, written by Uziel Haga of Boston (lot 130). He petitioned and received permission from President McKinley to accompany the U.S. military on a tour of China. Haga’s purpose was to see first hand and document the lifestyles and customs of Chinese Jews. Among other items, he asserted that the Jews Kaifeng in the Hunan Province are descendants of the Ten Tribes. If his identification is correct, that may explain Jews’ affinity for Chinese cuisine. Haga never made it back from China, he was imprisoned and killed by the Boxers. Although Haga’s book was printed in Pietrekov, one book, Mishberi Yam, (lot 131) was published in China.

Returning to forgeries, the compendium of R. Zechariah Yeshayahu Yolles, Ha-Torah veha-Hayyim, (lot 24), includes his Dover Mesharim that disproves the attribution of a certain work to R. Mordechai Yaffa (Levush). Yolles’ position was vehemently disputed by R. Moshe Sofer (although Yolles defended him in a different controversy) and Sofer’s letter appears in this volume. The book is also noteworthy because it includes a portrait of Yolles in the frontispiece.

Among the books with distinguished owners include a copy of Mishnei Torah that belonged to R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, (Beis HaLevi) (lot 151) and R. Hayim Volozhiner’s copy of Mesorot Seyag le-Torah. Most of R. Hayim’s library was destroyed in a fire, but this book had been on loan to R. Yaakov of Ivenitz, and thus was spared the fate of the rest of books. (Regarding the two bibliographical topics of fire and lending, see Abraham Ya’ari, Mehkerei Sefer, 47-54 (discussing books printed after the author was saved from fire) and 179-97 (discussing book lending)). As an aside, the Mesorot Seyag le-Torah also likely contains material that is misattributed to its author. See Wolf Heidenheim, Me’or Eynayim, comments to Exodus 27:17.

The Yiddish Press as a Historical Source for the Overlooked and Forgotten in the Jewish Community

by Eddy Portnoy

Eddy Portnoy is Senior Researcher and Director of Exhibitions at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. He is the author of the recently-published (and much acclaimed, and fun) book, Bad Rabbi: And Other Strange but True Stories from the Yiddish Press (Stanford, 2017), available here (https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Rabbi-Strange-Stories-Stanford/dp/150360411X).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.

Sanhedrin 25 has this pretty well-known, somewhat rambling bit about what sorts of people are trustworthy enough to serve as witnesses in court. It’s pretty standard stuff. However, as part of this discussion, we get to learn about some early gambling practices among the Jews. While this topic is invoked mainly to denote the fact that gamblers may not be the most trustworthy folk, some of the details include a bit of haggling over whether people who who send their trained pigeons to steal other people’s pigeons can be considered as shysty as those who simply race pigeons for cash rewards. After a bit of back and forth, it is concluded that everyone involved in pigeon shenanigans are just as sleazy as dice players, who are banned by halakhah from serving as witnesses. The long and the short of it is that the Rabonim simply do not like the gambling.

When I first read Sanhedrin 25, I thought it was terrifically interesting, not because I had some investment in knowing whose testimony is considered worthy, nor because I’d just renovated the pigeon coop on top of my tenement. I was fascinated because it was an instance of the amoraim interfacing with the amkho. I have an abiding interest in the the amkho, those average, everyday Jews that make up the bulk of this freaky nation. These are the people you find on the margins of rabbinic discourse, those upon whom the rabbis meted out their rulings and punishments. Truth be told, I find these people much more interesting than either the rabbis or their fiddling with halakhah. Amazingly, in this discussion, the rabbis throw out some neat details about how pigeon racers would hit trees to make their pigeons go faster and how some people played a dice-like game with something called pispasin, a hardcore Jewish gambling habit that seems to gone the way of the dodo.

Unfortunately, Jewish traditional texts aren’t very amkho-friendly. The average Yosls and Yentas who smuggle their way into works produced by rabbinic elites generally appear because they somehow screwed up, did something the rabbis didn’t approve of and thus wound up being officially approbated, a fact they also often ignored. That fact notwithstanding, the amkho still appears to have retained a high regard for their rabbinic elites, in spite of the fact that they frequently disregarded rulings that interfered with anything they considered even remotely fun.

Take, for example, the body of rabbinic admonitions that trip their way from the gemara through 19th century responsa insisting that Jews refrain from attending theater and circus performances. Did any self-respecting Jew with tickets to whatever the 6th century version of Hamilton was ever say, “um, this isn’t permitted…we’d better not go.” This type of thing goes on for centuries. Sure, there’s a broad core of laws that most Jews stuck to, but, when it comes to matters of amusement or desire, the edges can get pretty fuzzy.

If you jump from the Talmudic period to the early 20th century (yes, I know this is ridiculous), one finds that the dynamic doesn’t change very much. The only real difference is that the rabbinic elite has lost much of its power and influence. Amkho still respects them, but they also still do what they want. One interesting factor is that there is now a forum where news of both the rabbis and the amkho begins to appear on a regular basis. This would be the Yiddish press, the first form of mass media in a Jewish language, a place where international and national news collided with Yiddish literature and criticism, where great essayists railed both in favor and against tradition, where pulp fiction sits alongside great literature, and where, among myriad other things, you can find a near endless supply of data on millions of tog-teglekhe yidn, everyday Jews who populated the urban ghettos of cities like New York and Warsaw. In a nutshell, the Yiddish press is a roiling and angry sea of words filled with astounding stories of all kinds of Jews, religious, secular and many who vacillate perilously between the two, aloft somewhere between modernity and tradition, taking bits of both, throwing it all in a pot and cooking it until it’s well done.

It is not at all uninteresting.

As a kind of wildly disjointed chronicle of Jewish life, Yiddish newspapers are an unparalleled resource on the pitshevkes, the tiny, yet fascinating details of Jewish urban immigrant life. Where else could one find out that Hasidim were a significant component of the Jewish audience at professional wrestling matches in Poland during the 1920s? Or that 50,000 Jewish mothers rioted against the public schools on the Lower East Side in 1906? Where could one discover that petty theft in Warsaw spiked annually just before Passover, when Jews were known to buy new clothes and linens? Is there a place you know of where one could find out that Jewish atheists antagonized religious Jews on Yom Kippur by walking around eating and smoking? Or that gangs of ultra-Orthodox Jews stalked the streets on Shabbos demanding people shut down their businesses? If you want to experience the knot of fury into which Jewish life was bound up, look no further than the Yiddish press.

Yiddish newspaper editors always knew where to find the juiciest stories and, for example, frequently sent journalists to cover goings-on in the Warsaw beyz-din. And it wasn’t because there were important cases being seen there, but because there was always some wild scandal blowing up in front of the rabbis that often ended up with litigants heaving chairs at one another. Whether it was some guy who thought it would be okay to marry two women and shuttle between them, or a woman who knocked out her fiancée’s front teeth after he refused to acknowledge that he had knocked her up. Like a Yiddish language Jerry Springer Show, brawls broke out in the rabbinate on a near daily basis during the 1920s and 1930s. The rabbis, of course, were mortified. But they kept at it. And the journalists of the Yiddish press were there to record.

Captions (top, middle, bottom):

“Gas masks as a security measure in the Rabbinate.”

“A woman poured vitriol on her husband in a divorce case” (from the Rabbinate Chronicle)

“Thus can we now begin the case. Call in the two sides.”

It may be that you don’t want to know that there were Jewish criminals, drunks, prostitutes, imbeciles, and myriad other types that comprise the lowest echelons of society. But these small, often inconsequential matters that litter the pre-WWII Yiddish press comprise the details of a culture that has largely disappeared. Moreover, one can find a wealth of information on the amkho, who they were, how they lived, how they thought and spoke. This of course, begs the question: what do we want out of history? Do we only want to know about the rabonim, the manhigim, the writers, the artists, and the businesspeople? Or do we also want to peek into the lives of the average, the boring, the unsuccessful, the dumb, and the mean? Do we want a full picture of the Jewish world that was, or do we only want the success stories?

For my money, I want to know as much as I can about how Jews lived before World War II. Not everyone’s great grandfathers were kley-koydesh. In fact, most weren’t and it’s sheer fantasy to think that most Jews had extensive yeshiva educations. Most Yiddish-speaking Jews were poor, uneducated, and sometimes illiterate. Many of them did dumb things, made bad decisions, and wound up in big trouble. Clearly a shonde, they may not have the yikhes we want, but, also, we don’t get to choose. They may not be the best role models, but they are nonetheless integral to the Jewish story.