1

R. Elazar Fleckeles’s Haggadah Maaseh BR’ Elazar

|
R.  Elazar Fleckeles’s Haggadah Maaseh BR’ Elazar
By Eliezer Brodt
In the past I wrote:
Perhaps the topic which has engendered the most commentary in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are all kinds, in all languages, and with all types of commentary, pictures, etc. Whatever style one can think of, not one, but many Haggadahs have been written. So, whether it’s derush, kabbalah, halakha, mussar or chassidus there are plenty of Haggadahs out there. Then, there are people who specialize in collecting haggadahs although they do not regularly collect seforim. In almost every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggadahs. Every year people print new ones; even people who had never written on the Haggadah have had a Haggadah published under their name, based on culling their other writings and collecting material on the Haggadah. When one goes to the seforim store before Pesach it has become the custom to buy at least one new Haggadah; of course one finds themselves overwhelmed not knowing which to pick! Every year, besides for the new Haggadahs being printed, old ones are reprinted, some in photo off-set editions, others with completely retype set.
Some years there are many choices of what to buy; in recent years, while the quantity of Haggadahs being printed has not ebbed, the quality most arguably has. This year, one important and high quality Haggadah that has been retype-set and republished is Maaseh BR’ Elazar by R’ Elazar Fleckeles.
R’ Elazar Fleckeles was born in 1754 in Prague and died there in 1826. He was a direct descendant of R’ Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Keli Yakar, whom R’ Fleckeles quotes many times throughout his writings. When R’ Fleckeles was 14, he went to study with R’ Ezekiel Landau and spent ten years studying there. R’ Landau, as is evident from his haskamot to R’ Fleckeles works, held R’ Fleckeles in high regard. Additionally, many teshuvot in R’ Landau’s Noda b’Yehuda are addressed to R’ Fleckeles. In R’ Fleckeles’s writings, he quotes many interesting statements from R’ Landau. When R’ Fleckeles was twenty-four, he became the Rabbi of Kojetin, a town in Moravia. However, just four years later R’ Fleckeles returned to Prague to sit on R’ Landau’s Bet Din and serve as a head of a yeshiva. [See also here and here].R’ Fleckeles authored many works on halakha and derush, as well as a commentary on the Haggadah called Maaseh BR’ Elazar. R’ Fleckeles was a skilled halakhist, as is evident from his volumes of responsa, Teshuva m’Ahavah, but his fame also rests on his skills as a darshan. His derashot were published in a four volumes, Olat Chodesh. The fourth volume contains, R’ Fleckeles series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank (this section has a separate title, Ahavat David) [recently auctioned off as noted here].

Almost all of his works besides his Teshuva m’Ahavah, are very hard to find.
A few years ago a new Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov started reprinting his seforim. In 2014 they printed a volume of his Drashot related to Elul and Tishrei along with two works, Chazon LaMoed and Olat Chodesh (437+20 pp.). This beautifully produced work, including an introduction about R’ Fleckeles and a detailed index, matches the content of the actual Drashot.
 A few weeks ago this company released a new edition of his commentary on the Haggadah: Maaseh BR’ Elazar (224 +23 pp).
The Maharil noted in a drasha that he gave before Rosh Hashonah:
כל אדם יחזור וילמוד התפלה והקרובץ מקודם להיות שגורים בפיו בר”ה בשעת התפלה. וכן ילמוד בניו ובני ביתו סדר התפלה, ויריצם סדר הברכות ומלכיות זכרונות ושופרות, כדי שלא יצטרך בר”ה להפסיק בין גאולה לתפלה להראות להם אז הסדר, כי צריכנא לסמוך גם ביום טוב גאולה לתפלה. [וכשחל ר”ה בשבת כל שכן – דצריך אדם לסדר להרגיל התפילה להראות לבני ביתו בתחילה – דאז משנין בכמה מקומות התפילה – והקרובץ [מהרי”ל, עמ’ רעב]
 But specifically more instructive is the Sefer Hamaskil‘s comment:
מה טוב ומה נעים לעיין תמיד דבר בעתו בכל שבוע ושבוע בפירוש חומש ומחזיר וסליחות… ואגדת פסח [ספר המשכיל עמ’ 70].
His basic point being that one should try to prepare before each occasion the tefilos we specific to that occasion – and for Pesach that is the Haggadah.
Many people look all over each year to have nice new pieces of Torah to say over at the seder. This work is full of nice (many) shorter pieces focusing on Peshat and Derush (not Kabbalah) which can be enjoyed by different audiences.
Some General comments on this work;
This Haggadah was first printed by the author in Prague in 1818.
Abraham Yaari, in his work A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, writes about this work:
הפרט העברי ככתבו עולה תקע”ב אולם יש לקרוא את שני היודין של השם כשם הויה, ואז יעלה תקע”ח, בהתאם לשנה הלועזית 1818, ולהסכמת הצנזור שניתנה באוקטובר 1817 [מספר 418]
For recent Discussion of other works with similar wording see Yakov Speigel Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; BeSharei HaDefus, pp. 273-296.
In 1944 in Oradea, Romania this work was printed again. It appears that this was the last Haggadah printed in Europe during World War Two. To me it is fascinating that in this turmoil time they bothered to print this work.
Yaari records this edition [number 2308] as does Yitzchak Yudolov in The Haggadah Thesaurus [number 3918]
This 1944 edition has an interesting addition, as noted by the publisher. Into the text of the Haggadah the prelude Li Shem Yichud was added:
 ולא הוספתי עליו רק מה שנוהגים לומר לפני כל מצוה לשיחקב”ה וכו’ [=לשם יחוד קודשא…] הצגתי כהסכמת הגאון משאמלויא שליט”א…
In R’ Ehreneich’s second letter to the publisher he writes:

 אבל בזמנינו נתפשט המנהג
של צדיקי הדורות זי”ע לאמרו והגאון המחבר זצ”ל שהוא בעולם האמת
בודאי לא יקפיד ע”ז ויאחז כאו”א ויעשה כמנהגו…

 

Although it’s very nice that they decided to add this into R’ Fleckeles work and not hide this addition but I do not think they had any right to do such a thing. R’ Fleckeles was very outspoken about saying Li Shem Yichud, to say the least.
דרך כלל יאות לבטל כל התחנו’ ובקשות אלו וכיוצא בהן שנתחדשו מלקוטי האחרונים ומעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ שראיתי אחד הי’ רצה לברך על אתרוג המהודר של רבינו הגאון האמתי נ”ע (כי הי’ תמיד מהדר מן המהדרין אחר אתרוג המהודר בכל מיני הידור וכסף וזהב לא הי’ נחשב בעיניו מאומ’ אף שהאתרוג הי’ בתכלית היוקר) וכאשר ראה שאותו פלוני אמר יה”ר קודם נטילת לולב (הנדפס במחזורים ובלקוטי צבי) כעס ורגז ואמר בקצף גדול האומר יה”ר אינו מניחו לברך על אתרוג שלו ולא הניחו לברך ועיין מ”ש רבינו בספרו נ”ב חלק א”ח סי’ ל”ה דף כ’ ע”ג ובחלק י”ד סי’ צ”ג והרבה יש לי לדבר בענינים האלה וכאלה ומרוב טרדותי לא אוכל להאריך [שו”ת תשובה מאהבה, א, סוף סי’ א][1]
He was following in the path of his Rebbe, the Nodeh BeYehudah, who as is well known was adamantly against the saying of Li Shem Yichud:
ועל הרביעית אשר שאל בנוסח לשם יחוד אשר חדשים מקרוב נתפשט ונדפס בסידור הנה בזה אני משיב עד שאתה שואלני נוסח אמירתו יותר ראוי לשאול אם נאמר כי טוב באמירתו. ולדעתי זה רעה חולה בדורנו ועל הדורות שלפני זמננו שלא ידעו מנוסח זה ולא אמרוהו והיו עמלים כל ימיהם בתורה ובמצות הכל ע”פ התורה וע”פ הפוסקים אשר דבריהם נובעים ממקור מים חיים ים התלמוד עליהם נאמר תומת ישרים תנחם והם הם אשר עשו פרי למעלה וגדול מעל שמים חסדם. אבל בדורנו הזה כי עזבו את תורת ה’ ומקור מים חיים שני התלמודים בבלי וירושלמי לחצוב להם בורות נשברים ומתנשאים ברום לבבם כל אחד אומר אנכי הרואה ולי נפתחו שערי שמים ובעבורי העולם מתקיים אלו הם מחריבי הדור. ועל הדור היתום הזה אני אומר ישרים דרכי ה’ וצדיקים ילכו בהם וחסידים יכשלו בם. והרבה היה לי לדבר מזה אבל כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע וה’ ירחם עלינו. עי”ש באריכות. [נודע ביהודה (קמא) יו”ד, סי’ צג].
A few months ago I mentioned the censorship of this Teshuvah.
This topic of saying Li Shem Yichud will hopefully be discussed at a different time.[2] But just to add some sources.
In 1805, R’ Menachem Mendel of Shklov, one of the main talmidim of the Vilna Gaon, printed the Gra’s work on the Haggadah for the first time.

Before Maggid it says:
הנני מוכן ומזומן לקיים המצוה לספר ביציאת מצרים לשם יחוד הקב”ה…
In a recent edition of the Gaon’s Haggadah the editor writes:
והנה אין גילוי מפורש בדעת רבינו הגר”א ז”ל באמירת לשם יחוד אך אילו ידע רמ”מ ז”ל שרבינו ז”ל מתנגד לאמירתה בוודאי לא היה מדפיסה… [ר’ חנן נובל, הגדה של פסח עם פירוש הגר”א, ירושלים תשע”ג, עמ’ כט, עי”ש].[3]
This same passage appears in later prints of the Gra Haggadah including one printed in Prague in 1813 at the time R’ Fleckeles was very active there. [Worth noting is the censor was R’ Fleckeles friend, Karl Fisher].

Even though it is unclear what the Gra held about saying Li Shem Yichud, another talmid of his appears to write against it. Here is what R’ Menashe M’IIlyah writes about it in Alfei Menashe:

In the beginning of the Haggadah, R’ Fleckeles deals with the famous question as to why there is no Beracha on Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, quoting a Shut Besamim Rosh on the topic [see here]. A few lines later he quotes the real Shut HaRosh, with this preface:
ובתשובות הרא”ש המקובלת לנו ראיתי…
Returning to this newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar.
One nice piece in this Haggadah is his discussion against his Rebbe, the Nodeh Beyhudah, about the Issur of Chametz in Mitzrayim.
He writes:
הנה חדשים מקרוב נדפס ספר מערבי וראיתי…
The current editors do not write to which sefer he is referring. This is the work he is referring to, first printed in 1793:

In 1959, Yitzchak Refael printed numerous additions to this Haggadah in the journal Sinai (45: 22-36). The source of these addenda is R’ Fleckeles personal copy, which he had specially bound with added on margins and blank pages inserted between each page, affording the author ample room for marginalia. After passing through several hands, finally arriving in R’ Maimon’s library. This new version of the work includes all of these addenda, in their proper places. Interestingly enough, neither Yaari nor Yudolov mention these additions in their entries on this Haggadah.Returning to Li Shem Yichud Sharon Flatto writes in her ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague’:

Notably a Haggadah was recently discovered that was owned during the late 1780s by Fleckeles…. The margins of this Haggadah contain leshem Yihud formulas to be recited before the blessing on the the four cups of wine penned in Fleckeles’ hand.

In the footnote she writes they seem to have been written between 1784-1790.'(pp. 225-226). While I wish I had more clearer sources about this discovery. She does not note that the Haggadah that R’ Fleckeles himself printed in Prague in 1818 nor in the manuscript updates of R’ Fleckeles to his own Haggadah does he write to say Li Shem Yichud or any such Tefilah in the Haggadah. This newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar prints the Haggadah like R’ Fleckeles did in 1818 without Li Shem Yichud.

Besides for all these new pieces added into this new edition, the volume also includes a well-written introduction about R’ Fleckeles, including an interesting eye witness account from manuscript of the day he died in Prague. Another plus to the new edition are the numerous sources they added, at times quoting R’ Fleckeles references from his other works.  Finally, there is a very useful index of topics and seforim quoted by R’ Fleckeles at the end of the volume. I really hope they continue to print the rest of R’ Fleckeles works.
To purchase this Haggadah try Girsa in Jerusalem, Biegeleisen in NY or your local seforim store.
Appendix:

One of the seforim noticeably omitted, for the most part, from R’ Fleckeles works, including this Haggadah, is the Zohar.
Much of the sources in R’ Fleckeles writings regarding the Zohar and Kabalah in general has been gathered in Boaz Huss’ recent work, KeZohar Harokeyah (pp. 322-323). Most notable is this piece which I quote here in its entirety:
ועתה אין מן הצורך להשיב את האיש אשר רצה להמצי’ דבר חדש להשביע את האיש הישראלי בספר הזוהר… את זה כתבתי לדעת האיש ההוא שהספר הזוהר כלו קדוש אבל אני אומר הריני נשבע בתורת ה’ שבספר הזוהר נמצאו כמה זיופים וקלקולים אשר הוסיפו ועלה אחת מתלמוד בבלי הויות דאביי ורבא קדוש יותר מכל ספר הזוהר הנה אם אמרו חכמי התלמוד על ברייתא דלא מתנייא בי ר’ חייא ור’ אושיעא מאן ימר דמתרצתא היא דלמא משבשתא היא וספר הזה ודאי לאו בר”ח ורב אושיעא אתמר כי כל הדורות מראש לא זכרו מספר הזוהר מאומה לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום כי הנה אם אמת הדבר שהחבור הזה הוא מהתנא ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי אשר ר’ יהודה הנשיא קבל גם ממנו כמבואר בהקדמ’ הרמב”ם לספרו יד החזק’ איך לא זכר את הספר הזה בחבורו ש”ס משניות או בשום מקום ואף ר’ יוחנן שחיבר תלמוד ירושלמית אינו מזכירו בשום מקום ורבינא ורב אשי שחברו תלמוד בבלי מאה שנים אחר חבור תלמוד ירושלמי והיו סוף אמוראים ולא שמו רמז בכל התלמוד מספר הזוהר ורבה בר נחמני שחובר רבות ושוחר טוב וכיוצא בהם הרבה לא זכרו מחבור רשב”י גם רבנן סבוראי והגאונים והרי”ף והרמב”ם ורש”י ותוס’ והרמב”ן והרשב”א והרא”ש והטור והילקוט שמעוני אשר אסף ולקט כל המדרשות והמכילתות והברייתות כלם לא ידעו ולא ראו ממנו דבר עד שזה קרו’ לשלש מאות שנים ענו ואמרו שמצאוהו ואיזהי כנסיה אשר קבלוהו בכנופיה, כמו תלמוד בבלי וירושל’ וז”ל הרמב”ם בהקדמתו לספר יד החזקה אבל כל הדברים שבגמרא הבבלי חייבין כל ישראל ללכת בהם וכופין כל עיר ועיר וכל מדינה ומדינה לנהוג בכל המנהגות שנהגו חכמי הגמרא ולגזור גזירותם וללכת בתקנותם הואיל וכל אותם דברים שבגמרא הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל עכ”ל ויעיין עוד שם ואין אני חלילה מטיל דופי ופגם בכבוד התנא אלדי ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כי הוא היה מחסידי עליון אלא אני אומר לאו גושפנקא דרשב”י ועזקתיה חתום עליה ומי שיש לו חצי דעת יגיד כן שהרי נזכרו בספר הזוהר כמה תנאים ואמוראי’ שהיו אחר רשב”י שנים רבות במספר והארכתי בזה במקום אחר מפי סופרים ומפי ספרים כמבואר בס’ מטפחת להגאון מו”ה יעב”ץ זצלל”ה שגזר אומר שחלו בו ידים מזייפים וחשד את החכם ר’ משה דיליון יעיי”ש.
והינה מיום שנתחדש ספר הזוהר הרבה נכשלו ע”י כי כמה דברים סתומים וחתומים אשר המציאו האחרוני’ להתעות בני אדם יושבי חשך השכל, צאו וראו כמה קלקולים רבים קלקלו מאמיני הכלב רע שבתי צבי שבור ואחוזת מרעהו ברכי מסאלנוקא ויעקב פראנק שם רשעים ירקב, ותלו דבריהם בספר הזוהר אשר בודאי לא יאונה לצדיק ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כל און.
מה טוב ומה נעים, אשר כתבתי בחבורי קטן אשר קראתיו בשם קונטרס אהבת דוד שנדפס בק”ק פראג תק”ס וזה לשוני שם באו ונחזיק טובה וחינות לשני מלכים גדולי אדירי’ אדוננו המשובח המנוח הקיסר יאזעף השני ואדוננו המהולל הקיסר פראנץ השני אשר צפו והביטו בחכמתם הנפלאה, רבות רעות ושבושי דעות תסתעפנה מחלומות והבלים המקובלים, והמה לנזקי בני האדם נזקי הגופות ונזקי הנפשות, ופקדו באזהרה גדולה שלא להביא ספרי קבלה בכל מדינות מלכותם הפקודה הראשונה העכסט האף דעקרעט פאם ב’ נאוועמבר למספרם והשני פאם ז’ יוני למספרם והארכתי שמה בדברים נכונים… (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ כו).
According to Shmuel Werses, Haskalah and Sabbatianism, (Heb.), pp. 68 and Boaz Huss, KeZohar Harokeyah (p.323) this teshuvah has been censored out of the 1912 edition of TM. I have been unable to independently confirm this, as the 1912 editions I have seen (both in NLI and in BIU) have it in full – as do most reprints available today, including the edition found on the HebrewBooks.org website
In another teshuvah on this topic R’ Fleckeles writes:
ובלא”ה כבר כתבתי פעמי’ רבות שאין ראי’ מזוהר שלא נודע ברור מי הוא המאסף והמלקט ספר הזוהר והרבה הוסיפו  (תשובה מאהבה א:סב).
It is worth pointing out that R’ Fleckeles does not dismiss the Zohar completely taking it into account elsewhere in TM; for example in this teshuvah he writes:
מה ששאלני מדוע רובא דעלמא מקילים והולכים בבקר ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית הא כבר כתב המ”א בשם הב”ח בשם תולעת יעקב כל ההולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית חייב מית’ עיי”ש וכמה בני תורה אשר אינם שוגגים מקילים ואין להם על מה שיסמכו. ידע ידידי שדבר זה כתב בעל תועלת יעקב בשם הזוהר וכן העתיקו הב”ח, והמג”א השמיט בשם הזהר או מן השמים השמיטוהו כי חפשתי בספר הזוהר יגעתי ולא מצאתי ובעל א”ר האמין לשמועותיו בשם הזוהר והאר”י וצדר להקל עיין סי”א סק”ד ולבסוף מסיק בשם ספר דמשק אליעזר שדבר זה  דוקא בזמנם כמו גילוי וזוגות עיין שם ולענ”ד ליתא בזוהר כלל והרב בית יוסף אשר העתיק בכל פעם דברי הזוהר לא שם רמז מזה ושארי לי’ מארי’ שעשה רוב ישראל לחייבי מיתות שוגגן ישרים יחזו במסכת ברכות דף  סמ”ך ע”ב ישר יחזו פנימו ולענ”ד היא משנת חסידים והזריז הרי זה משובח ואפשר דזוהר מיירי אם מים מצוים לפניו והולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים ואח”ז ה’ אנה לידי ספר ברכי יוסף וראיתי שמביא דברי הזוהר כת”י וסיים וזה לשונו אלא דשמיע לי מרבני קדישו דזמנין דמיא הרחק מאד מאדם ובלכתם ילכו פחות מד’ אמות כאותה שאמרו גבי שבת עיין שם סימן א’ אות א’ ולשון הזוהר אינו לפני לעיין והנרא’ לענ”ד כתבתי. (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ יד וראה חלק ב סי’ א אות ד)
As an aside, the shitos of R. Fleckeles on the Zohar are bland compared to those of his Rebbe, the Noda Beyehudah, as found in the recently printed drasha of his from manuscript by Dr. Maoz Kahana and M. Silber. I note in passing that this drasha has sparked a debate between them and Dr. Flatto, to which she responded in a later version of the journal Kabbalah.

 

[1]  See also his Melechas Hakodesh, p. 132
[reviewed here].
[2]  See Moshe Hallamish, Kabbalah (Heb.),
pp. 45-70; Maoz Kahane, MiHaNoda BiYehuda LaHatam Sofer, pp. 89-91 and
pp. 235-236; most recently Shimon Szimonowitz, Haggadah
Aleh Zeis (2016), pp. 35-78.
[3]  Thanks to R’ Dovid Vieder for this source.


Parshegen, A New work on Targum Onkelos: Chumash Vayikrah

|
 Parshegen, A New work on Targum Onkelos: Chumash Vayikrah
By Eliezer Brodt
רפאל בנימין פוזן, פרשגן, ביאורים ומקורות לתרגום אונקלוס, ויקרא, 672 עמודים.
A few years ago I wrote about and strongly recommended an excellent work on Targum Onkeles written Dr. Posen. I wrote an additional post related to this work discussing some of the sources he uses in his works.
At the time, the first volume on Chumash Bereishis was printed; the second volume on Chumash Shemos was printed in 2014 (780 pp.).
Just a few weeks ago, in time for the reading of Chumash Vayikrah, the third volume of the series was released (672 pp.).
As I wrote previously, the presentation of the material in these volumes is beautiful, well organized, concise and to the point. The focus of Rabbi Posen is to give the reader a clear explanation of why the Targum says what he says. The Targum had a very good reason to specifically translate the words as he did. In this work, Rabbi Posen demonstrates how exactly the Targum did this. As he does in his other work, he utilizes manuscripts, early prints of Targum and academic literature available on the Targum side by side with all the literature of the seforim written on the Targum Onkeles. He does not just gather information but he dissects and analyzes it all very carefully, checking if they are consistent with other places in Targum. He uses the manuscripts of the Targum which many times helps one understand different issues with. This is a path which many of the more recent Chareidi works written on Targum did not take. He also shows how having a good background in the Aramaic language helps to understand the Targum. Another area he focuses on is the various statements of Targum that play a role in Halacha and how at times it is even quoted in the Responsa Literature. He also focuses on the Targums usage of Midrash (both Halacha and Aggadah) which others have dealt with before. At times to understand Onkelos he compares the Targum Onkelos to the other Targumim.
To purchase these seforim try Girsa in Jerusalem, Biegeleisen in NY or your local seforim store.
Here are some sample pages, haskamot for the work and some pages at the end devoted to Nechama Lebowitz.

 

 



שמועות נדירות בעניני ספרים וסופרים

|

שמועות נדירות בעניני ספרים וסופרים

מפי מו“ר הג“ר שמרי‘ שולמאן שליט“א

מח“ס באר שרים, אור לישרים, מריש בבירה, שומר הפתח, שומר מצוה ועוד

זה לי עשר שנים שזכיתי ליצוק מים על ידי אחד המיוחד מזקני הגאונים בדורינו משיירי כנה”ג דור אחרון של גאוני רבני ליטא הגאון מוהר”ר שמריהו שולמאן שליט”א. מלבד גדלותו בתורה המשתקפת מכל דף ודף מעשרות ספריו, ונוסף על זה שכבר מנעוריו נודע הגאון כבעל זכרון מופלא שאינו מאבד טיפה, עוד הוא ממלא תפקיד חשוב כממשיך שרשרת לגדולי הדורות מדורות עברו, שהוא עצמו זכה להתקרב אתם ולשמש לפניהם. הגאון המיוחד הזה זכה ללמוד וללמד תורה ברבים יותר מששים שנה באיזור קווינס, ובמיוחד בקיו גארדענס היללס, ובכל בתי המדרש ובתי הכנסת בקווינס מתבדרין שמעתיה. וכמו שזכה ללמוד וללמד בצעירותו, כן יזכה ללמוד וללמד בזקנותו, לקיים מה שנאמר בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך.

ראיתי לנכון לרשום מקצת שמועות נדירות ששמעתי ממנו משך השנים, ולתת ברכה לפניכם היום, ומובטחני שיהיו לתועלת לשוחרי והוגי תושיה. יצויין שהדברים הבאים היו למראה עיני מו”ר הגאון, והוא אף אישר את תוכנם. התודה והברכה לידידי ר’ משה מיימון על סיועו בהכנת המאמר.

אברהם י’ וילנר

א] בתחילה אציין כמה דברים ששמעתי ממו”ר בשם רבו הגדול רבי יעקב יצחק רודערמאן זצ”ל ר”י נר ישראל בנוגע לספרים שונים.

  • הרוצה לחלק על המחנה אפרים צריך להביא ראיה לדבריו, וא”א לחלק עליו רק מסברא שסברתו היה כ”כ חזקה.
  • הראש ישיבה (=הרב רודערמאן) היה רגיל לומר שיש להסתכל בכל ספרי האחרונים, אבל בספר אור שמח צריכים ללמוד. (ר”ל שכדי להבין דבריו של האור שמח לעומקם א”א בריאה בלבד אלא שצריך לעמל וללמוד אותם כראוי, ושמעתי כמה וכמה פעמים ממו”ר עד כמה העריץ הראש ישיבה את האור שמח ועד כמה היה מפליג בשבחו).
  • אמר שכל קושיות הטובות של האחרונים אפשר למצוא אותם בשער המלך.
  • כשאמרתי למו”ר שראיתי הרבה חולקים על פסקו של רבי חיים עוזר בענין הג’אלאטין, וגם אלו שבדרך כלל לא היו פוסקים נגדו כמו, הרב אליעזר סילבר, בזה פסקו אחרת ממנו. אמר לי שהראש ישיבה הרב רודערמאן זצ”ל אמר לו, שהחזון איש אמר שעל כל פסקי רבי חיים עוזר אפשר לסמוך בלי שום פקפוק, חוץ ממה שהתיר לשמש במוך היכא שהסיבה לשימוש במוך הוא מצד האיש, שבזה א”א לסמוך1.

ב] אמר לי מו”ר שהגאון הרב חיים העליר זצ”ל אמר לו שעל שני אחרונים יש חזקה עליהם שראו כל הספרים שהיו מצוים בזמנם, הש”ך ורבי עקיבא איגר, ולכן אי אפשר לומר עליהם “אילו היה רואה דברי פלוני היה חוזר”, דליתא דכל מה שיש לראות ראו.

ג]ומו”ר כה התפעל מבקיאותו של רעק”א עד שמפאת זה החליט שכפי הנראה רעק”א כתב גליונתיו במשניות ובש”ס רק לעצמו דרך לימודו, ולא ע”מ להדפיסם. שהרי יש קושיות וחידושים בגליון הש”ס שנמצאים בספרים שקדמו, ובע”כ שלא נתכוון רעק”א בגליונותיו אלא לרשום לעצמו הערות בין משלו בין משל אחרים. לדוגמא: בגליון הש”ס ב”ק דף נ”ו העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת (כגון ששקל כנגדן משקלות) פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים, ופרש”י ד”ה פטור דהיזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק, והקשה ברעק”א בגליון הש”ס שם שבמקרה זה ששקל כנגדן פטור מדיני אדם אף אם היזק שאינו ניכר שמו היזק, שמכיון שלא נעשתה מלאכה בגופם לא נפסלו בכך ע”ש בגיטין דף נ”ג. וכבר הקשה כן השער המלך בפ”ז חובל ומזיק ה”ד וכן הקשה הפרי חדש בספרו מים חיים בחידושיו לגיטין דף נ”ב ע”ב (דף ט ע”ב מדפי הספר).

ובמגילה פרק א משנה ה, אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אכל נפש בלבד. והקשה שם בתוס’ רעק”א קשה לי למ”ש הב”י סימן רמ”ו ובהגהת שו”ע שם ס”ג בשם שבולי הלקט דאין אדם מצוה על שביתת בהמתו ביו”ט. וכן הרמב”ן בספר תולדות אדם כתב די”ל דליכא ביו”ט איסור שביתת עבדו הובא בב”י ס’ תקכ”ו א”כ אמאי לא חשיב במתני’ דבין יו”ט לשבת שביתת בהמתו ועבדו עכ”ל. והעיר מו”ר בספרו אור לישרים עמ”ס ראש השנה עמוד רו בהערות קצרות אות א’ וז”ל: “אמנם נפלא הדבר שכל הנ”ל מפורש בבית יוסף סימן תצה ד”ה כתב הכל הבו שכתב וז”ל ‘ואיני יודע טעמו של המתיר (שביתת בהמתו ביו”ט) דהא כיון דמקשינן יו”ט לשבת חוץ ממקצת דברים שנתפרשו בתלמוד ושביתת בהמה אינה מכללם האיך אפשר לומר שהיא מותרת ביו”ט’ ע”ש כל דבריו”. (א”ה ואף שיש לדחוק ולומר שיש מקום לקושיות רעק”א שהרי הוא שואל אליבא דהסוברים דאכן שביתת בהמתו מותרת ביו”ט וא”כ קשה למה לא מוזכר במתני’, והב”י סבר שא”א להתיר מכח קושיא הנ”ל אבל לאלו שסוברים תקשה כהנ”ל ומ”מ גם זה מן התימה שלא העיר רעק”א כלל שעצם הנידון כבר דנו הבית יוסף, וכן הב”ח שמלא אחרי דברי הב”י ע”ש).

ד] מלבד בקיאותו הנוראה של רעק”א, עמקותו היה להפליא, ואמר לי מו”ר שהגר”ח צימערמאן2 אמר לו שדברי רבי עקיבא איגר עמוקים מאוד מאוד, וקשה לרדת לסוף דעתו. ואמר הנ”ל שהיחיד שבאמת הבין דברי רבי עקיבא איגר עד תומם היה העילוי ממיטצי’ט, רבי שלמה פולאציק זצ”ל.

ה] ואמר לי מו”ר שאפשר להוסיף אחרון שלישי להרשימה שידעו כל ספר שהיו בנמצא בזמנם, והוא הרב חיים העליר עצמו. ומו”ר הפליג מאד את בקיאותו של הרב העליר, ואמר לי שפעם היה דין תורה קשה שהביאו לפני הרב העליר, ועקב חולשתו הפנה הד”ת לתלמידו הרב מתתיהו קאגאן זצ”ל אב”ד דקאראנא נ”י בעמ”ס מתת ידי3, ואחר שמיעת כל צדדי הד”ת כתב ר’ מתתיהו תשובה ארוכה בנידון והראה אותו לרבו, הרב העליר. אחר שעיין הרב העליר בתשובתו, שאל אותו אם הוא בעצמו חידש הדברים כאן או שהם לקוחים מאיזה ספר, וענה לו תלמידו שאלו הם דברי עצמו. אז הראה לו הרב העליר איזה ספר ישן נושן נדיר שבו היה כתוב בדיוק אותו חידוש.

ו] קצת ממה שמעתי ממו”ר אודות רבי אליעזר סילבר זצ”ל.

  • מרגליה במופיה דרבי אליעזר סילבר שאצלינו אין שום “פאריטץ’עם”4, ואפילו על רבי מאיר שמחה אפשר לחלוק.
  • סיפר לי מו”ר שכשלמד בבלטימור בימי המלחמה, הגיע לישיבה הרב אליעזר סילבר זצ”ל ושאל את הבחורים מה הם לומדים, וענו בבא בתרא והרב הנ”ל הגיב בהתפעלות “מה? רק מסכת אחת? צריכים ללמוד ש”ס!”5, ואמר כשהוא היה צעיר למד סדר א נשים, וסדר ב נזיקין.
  • כשהגיע הגרי”ד הלוי סולובייצ’יק לארצה”ב כיבדו אותו האגודת הרבנים למסור שיעור, והיה אז בעשרת ימי תשובה, ומסר שיעור על עניני עבודת יום הכיפורים בפני כל הרבנים. לפני השיעור לחש לו אביו, הרב משה, שאין עליו לדאוג ולפחד מאף אחד, חוץ מהרב אליעזר סילבר זצ”ל, שהרי כל תוספות ישנים שביומא ידועים לו.

ז] סיפר לי שאחד ממקורבי החפץ חיים, הרב פופקא, אמר לו שאחר שיצא לאור ספר משנה ברורה קיבל החפץ חיים מכתב מהרב יצחק שוסטער שהיה רב באיזהו עייריה בליטא ונודע כבקי גדול בירושלמי, ובו הרבה הערות על המשנה ברורה מהירושלמי. הח”ח קרא לבנו רב לייב6 להביא לו הכת”י מהספר, ואמר לו “תראה שכל ההערות של הרב הנ”ל כבר כתבתי אודותיהם, ויישבתי הקושיות, אלא שלא רציתי להכניס את כל הפילפול והלומדות לתוך הספר”. הרי שמטרת ספרו לא היה להראות גדלותו בתורה רק שיהיה משנה ברורה – כשמו כך הוא.

וכן אמר לי מו”ר כמה פעמים לעיין היטב בדברי המשנה ברורה וביאור הלכה שהספר באמת מלא לומדות, רק שאינו ניכר כל כך משום שקיצר החפץ חיים בלשונו, והרבה מהלמדות שלו “מובלעים הם” תוך דבריו במילים ספורות. וחזר על הנ”ל שלא היה ברצונו להראות גדלותו בתורה וכו’.

ח]סיפר לי שהוא שמע זה מאיש שהיה נוכח אז, לפני למעלה משמונים שנה כשהמקרר היה דבר חדש בעולם, התקיים אסיפת רבנים בבית רבי משה סולובייצ’יק לדון אי מותר לפתוח דלת המקרר בשבת. וכידוע ששלחו שאלה זו להרב שמחה זעליג ריגר הדיין מבריסק, והלה העלה להתיר (ותשובתו נדפסה ב’הפרדס’). בשעת האסיפה אמר הגר”מ שרב שמחה זעליג התיר, ורב אחר שהיה נוכח שם אמר “נו, ומה אומרים הפוסקים האחרים?”. מיד התחילו הנוכחים לצטט פוסקים אחרים בנושא, ואמנם הרבנית, אשת הגר”מ, שהיתה בחדר הסמוך שמעה כל המו”מ וקראה בקול “אני לא מבינה, אם רב שמחה זעליג התיר האם צריכים עוד לדון מה סברו אחרים?” והגר”מ אמר שהיא צודקת ואין על מה לדון עוד, ובכך נסתיים הדיון.

ט] הנה מפורסם מה שאומרים (יש מייחסים השמוע להרב ברוך בער, ובספר תולדות חייו של רבי ברוך בער מובא שרב ברוך בער אמר זה בשם רבו הגר”ח) שמה שהספר שאגת אריה הוא מקובל בעולם יותר משאר ספריו הטורי אבן והגבורת ארי, הוא משום שספרו הראשון שאגת אריה נכתב בימי עניותו ואילו שאר ספריו נכתבו שכבר היה לו במה לפרנס את עצמו. ואמר לי מו”ר שהגר”ח צימערמאן זצ”ל אמר שהשמועה אינה נכונה וא”א לומר דבר כזה, והשאגת אריה היה אותו שאגת אריה בכל המצבים – עם כסף ובלא כסף.

י] אמר לי פעם שהעיקר בפסק הוא הסייעתא דשמיא שיש לרבנים. וסיפר לי ששמע מהרב אנשיל וויינהיוז (אחד מלומדי ישיבת מיר בפולין) שהיה פעם שאלה קשה על איזה ריאה של בהמה בבית המטבחיים בבריסק, וירד הגאון רבי חיים זצ”ל, רבה של בריסק, ביחד עם הדיין, רבי שמחה זעליג זצ”ל, לבדוק אותה, ופסק הגר”ח להקל והכשיר הבהמה. ואז שאל רש”ז את הגר”ח “תינח בבריסק שיש לנו רבי חיים שיכול לפסוק שאלה קשה כזאת, אבל מה יהיה אם שאלה כזאת תהיה בעיירה אחרת שאין לה את הגר”ח?”, ענה לו הגר”ח שאין למה לדאוג שיש סייעתא דשמיא מיוחדת לרב לפסוק ההלכה הנכונה. הנה באותו עת הגיע איזה רב מעיר אחרת שבא לבקר אצל הגר”ח, ושאל אותו מה הוא סובר על אותה שאלה שהם דנו, וענה אותו רב שמותר כמו שכתוב בספר פלוני בדף פלוני, והלכו אח”כ הגר”ח ורש”ז לראות הספר בפנים וראו שבאותו ספר שהרב ציטט, פוסק לאיסור בנד”ד – בדיוק ההיפך ממה שסבר הרב. אז אמר הגר”ח להרש”ז אתה רואה איזה סייעתא דשמיא יש לרבנים, שהוא כיון להפסק הנכון (לדעתו של הגר”ח) תוך טעות בזכרון.

י“א] מו”ר שמע מישיש אחד יליד לבוב, כשנפטר בעל הישועות יעקב הציעו לנכדו שהיה בעל מסחר, שימלא את מקומו של זקנו כרבה של לבוב אבל הלה סירב. ואח”כ כשהתחיל עסקו לרדת והפסיד הרבה כסף עד שכמעט פשט רגל, אשתו הציעה לו שילך להתפלל על קבר של זקנו בעל הישועות יעקב להתפלל להטבת מצבם , ענה לה בתמיה “לזקנו? הלא הוא זה שגרם לי כל הירידה הזאת, שרצונו הוא שאני יקבל עול הרבנות במקומו ולא לעסוק בעסוקים”.

עוד אמר מו”ר שהסיבה שהשני גיסים הגדולים בעלי המגן גיבורים הפסיקו ללמוד אחד עם השני (ולכן הספר שלהם הולך רק עד סוף הלכות ערבית) היה עקב המחלוקת הגדולה ביניהם בענין מצת מכונה. ואמר מו”ר שרואים גדלותו של הספר ממה שהמשנה ברורה בשני חלקים הראשונים אינו זז מדבריהם.

י“ב] מו”ר שמע מישיש אחד מתושבי סלוצק, שבימי הגאון מוה”ר יוסף ז”ל אבד”ק סלוצק ביום ב’ או ה’ בתפלת הבקר היה שם בעל ברית וגם יארצייט, ושניהם בקשו להכבד בעלייה לתורה, והורה שיקראו לבעל הברית לעלות לתורה. וכששאלוהו ע”ז הרי במג”א (סימן רפ”ב) מפורש דמי שיש לו יארצייט קודם לבע”ב, ענה דה”מ כשיש רק מנין א’ בעיר, אבל בק”ק סלוצק יש תה”ל הרבה בימ”ד והרבה מנינים, ורק הברית מיוחדת בביהכ”נ זו מפני שהיה שם כסא של אליהו מיוחד, ומשו”ה כל הבר”מ היו שם בבית הכנסת, ובעל היארצייט יוכל למצוא הרבה מנינים ובתי כנסיות אחרים7.

י“ג] פעם הזכרתי למו”ר חקירה מחודשת מספר יד שאול לבעל השאול ומשיב שחקר אם חייבים לעמוד בפני גר שנתגייר כשהיה מעל גיל שבעים מאחר שגר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי, ומו”ר מאוד התפעל שאפשר לחקור חקירה כזאת שנשמע מאוד מוזר, ואמר שזה מזכירו האיך הגר”ח ציממרמן היה תמיד מתלוצץ על החקירה אם ב’ אחים שנתגיירו ומתו מחמת מילה אם יבוא אח שלישי שרוצה להתגייר אי אמרינן עליו שאין יכול למולו משום מתו אחיו או לא, משום גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי ואינם נקראים אחיו, והגר”ח ציממרמן היה מתלוצץ על זה שבדברים שתלוים במציאות א”א לחקור חקירות עליהם.

1 הנה ממש לאחרונה יצא לאור ספר מסורת משה חלק ב’ (ירושלים תשע”ו) ושם בעמ’ שיג-ד נמסר מפי הגר”מ פיינשטיין כדברים האלה: “אבל כדי להתיר מוך, שהוא באמת אסור, שלא נראה שהוצדק הרב חיים עוזר במה שמחשיבו כדרך תשמיש, צריך מצב של סכנה”.

2הגר”ח צימערמאן ויבל”ח מו”ר שליט”א היו ידידים טובים ונאמנים במשך שנים רבות, ומו”ר מרבה בשבחו ומצטט תמיד דבריו חידושיו ומאמריו, ואמר מלבד גדלותו בתורה היה הגר”ח סמל של “ערליכער איד” שפירושו של ערליכער איד אמיתי אינו כשאחד מתנהג ע”פ רוח התורה כשנוח לו, רק המתנהג כן בשעת נסיון, ולהגר”ח הוצע לו כמה פעמים מטעם בית מדרש לרבנים ע”ש שכטר לבוא וללמוד אצליהם בלי שום משרה רשמית ולקבל תקציב הגון רק עבור לימוד בבית מדרשם (והסמינר אז לא היה כזה גרוע כמו היום) והגר”ח היה דוחה אותם כל פעם בלי לחשוב לרגע קט, למרות כמה היה זקוק לכסף אז. ואמר אף שהגר”ח לא פחד לדבר ולהתווכח בלימוד ולכנס לריתחא דאורייתא עם אף אחד עכ”ז עם שנים היה הגר”ח מכניע כתלמיד לפני רבו ודיבר איתם בסיגנון אחר לגמרי דודו רבי ברוך בער ורבי משה סולובייציק. ומו”ר אמר לי שהגר”ח העריץ רבי יעקב ספסל העילוי מווישקי כרבו.

3 מו”ר היה מאריך בשבחיו כמה פעמים, ומאחר שהוא אינו ידוע כ”כ היום, אגיד קצת שבחיו ממה שמעתי ממו”ר במשך השנים. הרב קאגאן למד אצל רבי חיים העליר בברלין ואמר לי פעם שהוא היה לא פחות מהמפורסמים שלמדו אצל הגר”ח בברלין, ובהזדמנות אחרת אמר לי שיש בספרו כמה מו”מ בינו ובין מרן הגר”מ פיינשטיין זצ”ל שהיה מקשה על דברי הגר”מ וכו’ ואמר “שהיה ראוי לכך לשאת וליתן עם הגר”מ”. ואגב אציין שאלה הלכתית מעניינת שהיתה בין מו”ר והרב קאגאן, שלתקופה מסויימת היה מו”ר הבעל קורא בבית כנסת של רב קאגאן, ובשבת אחד באמצע החורף כשירד שלג גדול לא הגיע מנין אנשים באותו שבת להתפלל, לשבוע הבא הורה הרב קאגאן לקרוא שני פרשיות, פרשת השבוע ולהשלים משבוע שלעבר שלא קרינו בתורה, ומו”ר התווכח איתו ואמר שאין דין תשלומין אלא בכגון שהיה מנין ולאיזה שום סיבה לא קראו בתורה אבל אם בכלל לא היה מנין אז לא חל עליהם חיוב קריאות התורה שבעי להשלים, ולכן אם יהיו עשרה אנשים שלא הגיעו לבית הכנסת אם הם כולם יגיעו השבוע הבא אין שום חיוב עליהם להשלים, רק על מנין שלא קראו, והרב קאגאן לא הסכים איתו. וע’ בספרו מתת ידי סימן י”ד מש”כ בזה.

4 ברוסיא פעם היו האיכרים משועבדים לשר בעל הקרקע כאילו נמכרו לו ממכרת עבד. ושר זה נקרא בלשונם פאריטץ, וכמובן היו מפחדים ממנו.

5 ואמר את זה בהברה הליטאית המובהקת שלו שנשמע כאילו אמר ‘ס”ש’.

6 באחד הפעמים שסיפר לי הנ”ל אמר שאגב שמעניין שהחפץ חיים היה קורא לבנו בתואר רב, רב ליב.

7 מו”ר משתמש בסיפור זה בספרו שומר הפתח על יו”ד בראשית דבר עמוד ג’ כדוגמא שאפילו הלכות פסוקות ומפורשות צריכות גם כן רבא. ע”ש שמביא דוגמאות נוספות להנ”ל.



The Valmadonna Broadside Collection: a Review Essay

|
The Valmadonna Broadside Collection: Review essay
By Eliezer Brodt and Dan Rabinowitz

The Writing on the Wall: A catalogue of Judaica Broadsides from the Valmadonna Trust Library, edited by Sharon Liberman Mintz, Shaul Seidler-Feller and David Wachtel, London-New York: 2015, 320 pp.

Jews have been collecting books or manuscripts for centuries. A related category that is collected by fewer is ephemera, including broadsides, documents and letters of historical significance. Of late, a few annual auctions have included some of these documents among the other objects to be auctioned. Sadly, after their appearance in the auctions’ catalogs, most of the rare items disappear in to private collections and are invariably almost impossible to track down post-auction. The result is that a valuable amount of historical information is lost to the public. Moreover, to date, there is no database that tracks or records these items.[1]
First, a definition of the type of material – broadsides; they “are all around us whether we recognize them as such or not. Walking down the street… entering the lobby of a public building… we daily even hourly see flyers for event, advertising posters, public announcements and more.” Using “the most expansive conception we can say that the broadside has been with us since antiquity… The public display of information… has been ubiquitous for a very long time.” (p. 6).
In an important and excellent essay on Jewish bibliography written in 1976,[2] Professor Israel Ta-Shema remarks that because broadsides were intended and read by “thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands” they are among the “important sources for both Jewish history and the history of Hebrew printing.”

ענין לעצמו שלא זכה למיטב ידיעתי לשום טיפול עד עצם היום הזה, הוא רישומם הביבליוגרפי של ‘הדפים הבודדים’. לפי הערכות שקולות מגיע מספרם של אלה לאלפים רבים, ואולי עד כדי רבבה, וחשיבותן הן לידיעת תולדות ישראל והן לידיעת קורות הדפוס העברי גדולה ביותר. בדרך כלל קשורים דפים אלה במריבות בין חשובי הקהל ורבניהם, סכסוכי משפחות, בנים נודדים, פולמסים דתיים וכו’. דפים אלה שנתלו או הודבקו על קירות בתי הגיטו או בבתי הכנסת וכד’ אבדו ברובם המכריע, וכל מה שנשתמר מהם הוא בגדר יוצא מן הכלל. ערך ביוחד יש לסוג ספרותי זה ביחס לפולמוסים הפנים-חסידיים והמתגנגדיים. לסוג זה יש לצרף את המודעות והכרזות עד לתקופתנו אנו, כולל כרוזי המחתרות האנטי היטלריסיות בחו”ל והאנטי מנדטריות בארץ ישראל, כרוזי נטורי קרתא וכד’, שהם רבים מאוד. מלבדם נדפסו על דפים בודדים, קמיעות וסגולות, לוחות קיר, דברי פרסומת, הסכמות נפרדות ועוד, ויש ביניהם גם מעשיות עממיות קצרות על דף אחד. [מצוי ורצוי בביבליוגרפיה העברית, יד לקורא טו (תשל”ו), עמ’ 79-7 ].        

History is not the only subject to benefit from broadsides.  The prolific author, R. Eliyahu David Teomim (Aderet), published and annotated a broadside recording the customs of the Great Synagogue of the Austria, whose Rabbis had included R. Shmuel Edels (Maharsha).[3]  
Recently some of collectors of broadsides have begun printing and reproducing these priceless treasures.[4] The Valmadonna Trust Library (see here), still one of the most significant private Hebraica libraries (for an appreciation of the Valmadonna Library, penned by its librarian and published at the Seforim blog in 2009, see here), published a catalog of the broadsides in its collection, The Writing on the Wall: A catalogue of Judaica Broadsides from the Valmadonna Trust Library, edited by Sharon Liberman Mintz, Shaul Seidler-Feller and David Wachtel (see here). In conjunction with the publication of the catalog, the Trust also made available online (here) all of the documents in its collection for further study. The collection is comprised of broadsides from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries and incorporates items from Italy (the library generally focused on Italy and Italian items and broadsides are no exception, with Italian broadsides being the largest of the collection), and elsewhere in Europe, Israel, Yemen, Iraq, Constantinople, India, and even one from America.
The book consists of a few parts. It begins with five scholarly essays on specific subjects by various experts. Following are excellent full-page reproductions of thirty-six highlights from the collection, including a description explaining the significance of the specific document. A full catalog of the collection is included and is divided into six main categories; each category is chronologically ordered. The six categories are: Poems, Prayers, Documents from Within the Jewish Community, Documents from Outside the Jewish Community, Calendars and Education. Each entry includes a description of the item, the title, author place and date of printing, printer, size and language. Some entries include additional bibliographical sources; others provide a small image of the item. Additionally, the non-English broadsides included in the highlight section are translated. The volume concludes with various other useful indexes.
The first introductory essay is an excellent overview of Jewish broadsides by Adam Shear. Shear asks and answers the basic questions that come to mind, such as: “What was the purpose?”, “Who was the audience?”, “Where were they displayed?” and the like, none of which can be answered singularly.  
The second essay is by Elisheva Carlebach and focuses on the Jewish wall calendars in the collection.[5] She explores what can be learned from tracing the cultural history of one of the printers of these calendars through various calendars he printed. Some of these calendars were very sophisticated and it’s unclear who the targeted audience was. Emphasizing calendar broadsides’ unique value, she concludes that “the most ephemeral of forms, broadside calendars preserve a glimpse of the printshop as workspace, the spirit of entrepreneurship and the enduring values of the creators of these humble yet precious objects” (p. 30).
The third essay is written by Ruth Langer and focuses on the Liturgical Broadsides of the collection.  Some are prayers for current events, one of interest (printed on p.33) is for a memorial service for a building that collapsed in Mantua in 1776 where three weddings were taking place simultaneously.[6] Also discussed are the prayers for various civic events (p. 35) and for the various governing powers, a subject which still needs to be explored in depth. Some of these broadsides were clearly displayed in shuls; one includes the language of the prayers, defusing the power of bad dreams and request for substance, that are recited along with Birchat Cohanim (p.15), others include prayer that are recited during Selichot (p.14). One broadside, printed in Izmir in 1890, contains the Vidduy of Yom Kippur, printed with each entry of the Aleph Beis featuring other sins under that letter, very similar to the sheets given out in various shuls today (p.44). Not all were intended for the public display, the following broadside from Venice 1607 (Item # 153) appears to have been hanging in the house, for the owners’ personal use.
The next essay, by Dvora Bregman, focuses on the Hebrew poems in the collection (mostly from Italy). This section also highlights various pieces of historical interest. Reading through it, one is amazed how poems were written for literally every occasion – completion of Mishna, Venice, 1630 (p.55), receiving a medical degree (p.51, there are sixteen examples in the collection), in honor of R. Israel Chazan’s[7] visit to the old Greek synagogue in Corfu in 1853 (item # 134) (see below). Some of the poems were written after the deaths of prominent people such as an Italian elegy for R’ Moshe Zacuto which is reproduced in full and translated from Italian to English. Other elegies include one for R’ Yehudah Aryeh Modena (see below) and for R’ Mordechai Gerondi, the latter written by his friend Shadal (see below). There are also many “wedding riddles” in the collection – providing evidence of another rich and diverse aspect of Jewish life in Italy. 

The next section, originally written in Hebrew by Nachum Rakover and translated into English for this volume by Shaul Seidler-Feller, focuses on the Takanot broadsides found in this collection. Sumptuary edicts, limiting the size of a celebratory affair and the amount of people invited, the amount of food to be served, or the amount of money to be spent on various sorts of occasions were commonplace from the medieval until the modern period.  For example, we note that the Nodeh Beyhehudah and his beis din in Prague issued a list of such Takonot.[8] Rakover is in middle of preparing for publication a thorough study on the subject. In the volume under review, his article deals with the seventeen Italian broadsides related to sumptuary laws in the Valmadonna Collection from 1598-1794. The article is impressive in its sweeping review of the topic and the placement of these items within the larger narrative. What is apparent from the examples in the collection is that sumptuary laws have been persistent. Indeed, recently the cudgel has been taken up anew and a new round of such edicts by numerous rabbis and Hasidic leaders to limit spending has been promulgated. 
                                                  
Exploring the Collection
The introductory essays are only the beginning in what can be uncovered in a collection as rich as this one.  By providing online access, the Trust has insured that can occur.  To begin that exploration, we discuss a few choice examples.
As was recently the case with American Pharaoh, Jewish have been involved in sport, and specifically horse racing.  The collection includes two Italian broadsides discussing the horses and the Jewish sponsorship of a horse race. (Nos. 311 & 328).
One surprising and lengthy – some ninety lines – ode was composed in Hebrew (ca. 1740) and is a “poem of praise and supplication addressed to Angelo Maria Quirini (1680-1755), an Italian Cardinal.”  This item is “a single bi[-]folio excised from a larger work, most likely a pamphlet,” and is “not a true broadside.” (No. 130). No additional information is provided on this intriguing item.[9]

Friday Night Candle Lighting Prayers

The following broadside from Venice 1835, (reproduced on p. 17), contains the text of the prayers that were customarily recited by women on Friday evening during the candle lighting ceremony.

The illustration depicts a woman lighting eight candles. The Rishonim, including Italian sources, Shibolei Haleket (Siman 59) and Sefer Hatadir (p.196), only require and discuss two candles for Shabbos.[10] The question is when exactly did people start lighting more? The exact time when this began is unknown. However, in the “Shulchan Aruch” from R’ Yehudah Aryeh Modenah (1571-1648) he describes the Italian custom of lighting multiple candles:
והנשים חייבות להדליק בבית נר של שמן ובתוכו לכל הפחות ארבע או שש פתילית להאיר בערב עד עבור חלק גדול מהלילה [עמ’ 54].
Some continued to advance the numbers and in the 19th century, one author records the custom of lighting 31, 45, and 52 candles weekly.
מה מאוד היה מכבד שבת ויום טוב והיה מנהגו להדליק בכל שבת ל”א נרות כמנין אל כי בו שבת אל מכל מלאכתו, ובסוף ימיו מ”ה נרות, ולפני מותו היה מצווה להדליק בשנה ראשונה בחדר שהיה לומד בו נ”ב נרות כל שבת [מה שהעידו על ר’ הירץ אברהם נפתלי שייאר בהקדמת נכד המחבר לפירושו תורי זהב, (על שיר השירים), ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ טז].
Corporal Punishment
The following broadside poster for the instruction of children is from Italy 1846 (125):[11]


One striking part of the image is of the teacher hitting children in school. This sort of practice is recorded in a number of Jewish texts.[12]  For example:

A 17th century autobiography recounts that “the new teacher was of an irritable temper… he hit me and put me to shame…”. [Alexander Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, New York 1944, p. 193].

R’ Yaakov Emden writes in his autobiography:
בשנות הילדות… אזכיר איזה גרגרים, שלשה דברים נוראים שקרו לי בימי ילדותי הרכות. … ומלבד המכות אשר הוכיתי בית מאהבי המלמדים אשר נמסרתי בידיהם ללימוד, היו על פי רוב אכזרים, היכוני בלי חמלה… [מגלת ספר, עמ’ 84].
Saul Berlin writes in his satirical work:
ומתועלת ההכאה עוד, כי הוא צד היתר למלמדים לקבל שכר, כי על הלמוד לבד אסור לקבל שכר, משום קרדום לחתו בו, ואם כן כל מלמד המרבה להכות הרי זה משובח… ועוד רבה התועלת ע”י ההכאה אשר הילדים מכים ולוקים בבית הספר, כי ליראתם את המכות קרבת מוריהם יחפצו וירבו עליהם מוהר ומתן למען חנות אותם, ובהגיע חודש ומועד יפצירו הילדים באבותם לתת להם משאת רב, להביא אל רבם לתתם לו כופר נפשם…”. [כתב יושר, [בתוך: יהודה פרידלנדר, פרקים בסאטירה העברית בשלהי מאה הי”ח בגרמניה, תל אביב תש”ם], עמ’  98].
R’ Yosef Kara writes:
שבהיותי בצוותא חדא אם כבוד ידידי הגאון הצדיק מו”ה שמעון סופר אב”ד דק”ק קראקא… והוא אמר ז”ל כי זה רע חולי שאין חפץ לגדולי לומדי תורה להיות מקרי דרדקי, כי הוא חרפה להם ע”כ מוכרחים אבות הבנים ליתן בניהם הקטנים אל איש אשר לא ידע ספר קרוא מקרא ודקדוק אך ידע להכות הבנים ולזעוק בקול גדול… [קול אמר קרא, פ’ פנחס, עמ’ 20].
This broadside from Amsterdam 1666 is a little more famous, as it’s a supposed depiction of Shabbetai Tzvi. A complete translation for the Dutch is provided in at the appendix (pp.264-65).

Gershom Scholem writes that this portrait of Tzvi is fictitious – one of a number of imaginary portraits. (Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 190-191, 158). The only picture of Shabbetai Tzvi believed to be authentic (that is, drawn by a witness) is the one found in the beginning of Thomas Coenen’s book Ydele Verwachtinge der Joden, Amsterdam 1669.[13] There might be others as well, but King Jan Casimir ordered all pictures of him to be destroyed (id., p. 597). This one, fortunately, was published.

(This is from Scholem’s personal copy.)

Kabbalistic Tefilos for Rosh Hashanah


This broadside from Mantua 1790, reproduced in the book (p.43), is of interest for several reasons. First, the top part of the broadside has the twenty fourth chapter of Tehilim, said by many Kehilot on Rosh Hashanah as a segulah for Parnasa.[14] In a work written around 1700, recently printed from manuscript, we find the author writes:

אחר ערבית, יש לי תוכחת מגולה ומסותרת אם קצת משכילים, שהנהיגו לקרות בבית הכנסת בציבור אחר עלינו לשבח בלילי ר”ה, מזמור לה’ הארץ ומלואה, ולכוין הנקוד של השם, ככתוב בספר שערי ציון, שהוא מסוגל לפרנסה, שלא יפה הם עושים, כי לא כן צוה הרב המגיד לנו סוד זה, והצנועים נהגו לאמרו בשני הלילות שתי פעמים בכל לילה תכופים זה לזה… והקריאה על שולחנו קודם ברכת מזון… דבר הלמד מענינו, בהצנע לכת עם אלקיך. על כן אמרתי ימים ידברו, להויע ידידי הקורא שדבר בדוק ומנוסה שכל סגולה הנעשית על ידי תפלה בשום כוונה או שם, שאין לך לפרסמו ברבים. ולא לגלותו כי אם לתלמיד הגון ירא חטא ובלחישה, לבל היה מוליך רכיל מגלה סוד, שאז תהיה הפעולה חלושה… [ר’ כליפא בן מלכה, כף נקי, [לוד תשע”ד] עמ’ 167].

The second part of this broadside is also of interest, as it has the tefilos said before, during and after the shofar blowing, including some of the Kabblastic tefilos with names of angels. Of note is what is omitted here, those parts said between the various sets of Shofar blowing, which has been the subject of lots of literature[15], as it includes a very strange phrase, that seemingly evokes Jesus: ישוע שר הפנים””.
Here is an article written on this topic by R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi written in 1944 (!) under one of his pen names:

One more point related to this topic is a case of censorship. R’ Chaim Kraus writes:
 הנה בזכר יהוסף… מתיחס לזה שבדפוסים האחרונים בשו”ת תשובה מאהבה הושמט הענין הנ”ל שכתב בחריפות נגד אמירת היהי רצון שמות המלאכים… [מכלכל חיים בחסד, עמ’ סד].
However, upon checking the sources to see when in the printing of the sefer Teshuvah M’Ahavah this censorship took place, one is hard pressed to find it, as it’s simply not there. The actual issue is a bit different; Kraus misunderstood R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern’s teshuvah.
In an extraordinary teshuvah dealing with these prayers (Zecher Yehosef, Siman 210), R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern mentions a certain case of censorship:
ובתשובה מאהבה ח”א סי’ א שהועתקה תשובתו בדבר הפיוטים ברוב המחזורים.. והמדפיסים להפיס דעת ההמון שהורגלו באמירת היהי רצון שבתקיעות השמיטו מה שהזכיר בסוף התשובה אות ס’ שמרעם בהזכרת שמות המלאכים… וכן השמיטו המדפיסים בהעתקתם מהתשובה מאהבה מה שהעיד מהנודע ביהודה שאחד היה רוצה לברך על אתרוג המהודר שלו וכשראה שאומר היהיה רצון… אמר איני מניחו לברך על אתרוג שלי…
This Teshuvah was printed in various Machzorim at the time and that is where these parts of the teshuva were indeed bowdlerized. See the following images for the pages as they appear in the Korbon Aharon Machazor printed in Vilna in 1839 and compare with the first print of the teshuvah (Prague, 1809).

Amulet Broadsides


This image from Jerusalem 1870 (pp. 130-131) highlights another notable part of this collection – the Amulet section. It contains numerous broadsides against the “evil eye”, aimed at protecting the newborn mother from Lilith and the like (pp. 132-135, 141-143, 194-197). This is yet an additional set of documents which demonstrate how widespread it was for people to use amulets and the fear of the “evil eye” and the like.
There are numerous sources on regarding amulets, some mentioned here.[16] One source, that was only recently published in English, is from a fascinating memoir by Pauline Wengeroff, who writes: “for the same purpose of protecting the newborn, Jews used to affix kabbalistic prayers called shemaus over the head of the new mother, a second page on the door and a third between the cushion of the child.”[17]
Controversy against R’ Shlomo Ganzfried – Author of Kitzur Shulhan Aruch

This document relates to a controversy between R’ Shlomo Ganzfried and the R’ Chaim Halberstamm, the Divrei Chaim. In his work Ohali Shem on Gittin, R’ Ganzfried took issue with some legal rulings of the Divrei Chaim. This erupted into a series of small works from R’ Weber, starting in 1882, defending the honor of the Divrei Chaim. R’ Ganzfried responded to one of them in the back of the 1884 edition of his Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.
This broadside (above) from R’ Weber against R’ Ganzfried, found in the Valmadonna Collection, is very rare (p. 217 #360).[18] 
The Valmadonna Collection has another rare broadside from R’ Weber (below), related to the famous controversy of the Corfu Esrogim (p. 219 # 369).[19] This is not included in Naftali Ben Menachem’s otherwise comprehensive article regarding R’ Weber.

Regarding this broadside, it’s worth quoting the great historian[20] and native of the Old Yishuv, Eliezer Malachi:
ור’ מרדכי אליעזר וובר, הרב דאדא, זה האחרון היה אש לוהטת, ובקנאותו לא ידע גבול, עד שבשנת תרנ”א אסרו את אתרוגי קורפו לטובת אתרוגי ארץ ישראל, נלחם הוא להתיר אתרוגי קורפו ולאסור את אתרוגי ארץ ישראל שגדלים בפרדסי המושבות של חובבי ציון [מנגד תראה, עמ’ 225].
The volume is beautifully produced, the reproductions are excellent, and is available in a larger format “coffee table” size. This is a great volume, for collectors of books and history. It is available for purchase here and at the YU Seforim sale here.

[1] The Otzar Ha-Hochma database should be commended for including some auction catalogs in its archive, and even some broadsides, which will provide at least fragmentary information regarding the existence of these invaluable documents.
[2] This essay does not appear in Ta-Shema’s four volume collected writing, it is unclear why it was excluded. 
[3]  For more on this see: Eliezer Brodt, Likutei Eliezer, pp. 11-12.
[4] We discuss two broadsides related to the election of the Vilna chief rabbi between R. Hayyim Ozer and R. Y. Rubenstein (here).The Israel Musuem mounted an exhibit of broadside regarding Haredim.  See Pashkevilim, Wall Announcements and Polemic Posters in the Ultra-Orthodox Street, Israel Museum-Yad Ben Tzvi, Jerusalem: 2005 (Hebrew). This volume contains a number of introductory essays, and germane here, Menachem Friedman’s essay “The Pashqevil (Pasquinade) and Public Wall Poster/Bulletin Board Announcements in  Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Society” is especially important, although it is not cited in the Valmadonna volume.
[5] See the lengthier treatment of the topic in her book, Elisheva Carlebach, Jewish Calendar and Culture in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.
[6]  See also p. 210 # 332.
[7]  On this great person, it is well worth quoting Professor Yaakov Sussman’s assessment in a footnote, in a book-length (175 pp) essay – one of the most important ones written in the past decade on the writing of Torah She-Bal Peh – where writes:

מסה מרשימה ביותר בבקיאותו, בחריפותו, בפלפולו בתקיפותו של המחבר לאורך כמאה עמודים גדושים, שבה סיכם כמעט כל מה שנאמר לפניו בנושא… בתשובה זו מתגלה המחבר כחכם בקי, תמים ובעל חושב ביקורתי כאחת, שכל רז לא אניס ליה, לא בספרות הרבני ולא במחקרי זמנו, והוא מצליח לגייס את ידיעתיו להגצת עמדתו… ואין פלא כלל שתשובה מרשימה זו כבשה במהרה את הלבבות והייתה למילה אחרונה בנושא ודעתו נתקבלה כמעט על כל החוקרים [מחקרי תלמוד, ג, עמ’ 235].
[8]  See Mofas Hador, pp. 37-40. See also Yerushaseinu 5 (2011), pp. 265-299; R’ Betzael Landau (here).
[9] We doubt that the composer was Jewish or the text was intended for a Jewish audience. Instead, similar odes – in Hebrew and the subject is Christian – appear in a number of Latin translations of Hebrew texts. See, for example, Coccejus’ Latin translation and abridgement of tractates Sanhedrin and Makkot, includes Hebrew poems in his own honor and that of his teacher. Duo Tituli Thalmudici Sanhedrin et Maccoth, ed. Joanne [Coccejus], Amsterdam, 1629, unpaginated introduction.
Another notable example of clerical citation is Cardinal Egidius de Viterbo who appears in Elijah Levita’s works.  See Solomon Buber, Tolodot Eliyahu ha-Tishby, Leipzig, 1856, nn. 15-18.
[10]  For more sources on this, see: Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadneu, (Shonot), pp. 11-19; R’ Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhaghei Hakehilot, 1, pp. 174-175; Eliezer Brodt, Yerushaseinu 2 (2008), pp. 203-204; Rabbi Y.M. Dubovick, Minucha Sheleimah (2014), pp.26-27.
[11] The full document is translated in the appendix of the book (pp. 288-290).
[12] For additional sources on this subject, see S. Assaf, Mekorot le-Tolodot ha-Chinuch be-Yisrael, s.v. makot.
[13] Coenen’s book is a very important contemporaneous account of the messianic fervor surrounding Tzvi.  The book was translated from Dutch into Hebrew, Tzepiot Shav shel ha-Yehudim Kefi she-Hetgalu be-Demuto shel Shabbati Tzvi, Merkaz Dinur, Jerusalem, 1998. 
[14]  On this see: R’ Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhaghei Hakehilot, 2, pp. 31-33; Eliezer Brodt, Yerushaseinu 2 (2008), p. 211.
[15]  See R’ Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhaghei Hakehilot, 2, pp.61-65, where he traces how far back the custom of saying these Tefilos can be dated. See also Eliezer Brodt, Yerushaseinu 2 (2008), p. 214. The main work on this subject, collecting vast material, is R’ Chaim Kraus, MiChalkel Chaim Bechesed 2, (1982). See also R’ Zev Rabinowitz, Sharei Toras Bavel, p.12; R’ Chaim Lieberman, Ohel Rochel, 1, pp. 511-515; Y. Leibes, Mechkari Yerushalayim Bimachshevet Yisrael 6 (1986), pp. 171-195.
[16]  See also Eliezer Brodt, Likutei Eliezer, pp. 13-22, 69-72; Jewish Magic through the ages: Angels and Demons, edited by Filip Vukosvoviv, Bible land Museum, Jerusalem 2010.
[17]  Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, 2, 2014, p. 89.
[18] On R’ Ganzfried, see R’ Y. Rubinstein, HaMayan 11:3 (1971), pp. 1-13; ibid. 11:4. pp. 61-78. See also Naftoli Ben Menachem, HaMayan 12 :1 (1972) pp. 39-42.  On this controversy, see R’ Rubenstein, ibid. pp. 10-11. On R’ Weber, see Naftoli Ben Menachem, in: Studies in Jewish bibliography, history, and literature in honor of I. Edward Kiev, Charles Berlin (editor), New York 1971, pp. 13-20. On this broadside, see Shoshanna Halevy, Sifrei Yerushlayim Ha-Rishonim, p. 188. On the other works by R’ Weber related to this issue, see ibid, pp. 156-157, 186-187, 219-220. See also Moshe Carmilly, Sefer VeSayif, pp. 264-265.
For an additional controversy between the Divrei Chaim and R’ Ganzfried see David Assaf, HeTzitz Unifgah, (2012) pp. 362-367.
About R’ Ganzfried and Chasidim, see Heichal HaBesht 3 (2003), pp. 105-117. For more on the Divrei Chaim’s methods of Pesak, see Iris Brown, Rabbi Hayyim Halberstam of Sanz: His Halakhic Ruling in view of his Intellectual world and the challenges of his time, (PHD Bar Ilan University) 2004 (heb.).
[19]  This is the subject of a future article. For now, see R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern, Zecher Yehosef, siman 232.
[20]  About Malachi, see Jacob Kabakoff, “Some Notable Bibliographers I have Known”, Judaica Librarianship, Vol.11 :1-2, (2003), p. 67-75.


Keser vs. Kesher: What’s In A Name?

|
Keser vs. Kesher: What’s In A Name?[1]

 
I – The Puzzle
Kesher Israel (KI) Congregation has enhanced Jewish life in Pennsylvania’s capital of Harrisburg for almost 115 years. During that time, KI has been blessed with outstanding rabbinic leadership: The famed Rabbi Eliezer Silver[2] first headed the congregation from 1911-1925. He was followed by Rabbi Chaim Ben Zion Notelovitz who served KI from 1925-1932. Rabbi David L. Silver (a son of Rabbi Eliezer Silver) led the congregation from 1932-1983. Rabbi Dr. Chaim E. Schertz served KI as its rabbi from 1983-2008.
Soon after arriving in Harrisburg in 2007, I found myself intrigued by the synagogue’s name. Since the congregation is called Kesher Israel, I just assumed its Hebrew name was קשר ישראל (pronounced ‘Kesher Israel’, meaning Bond of Israel). However, I soon learned that upon being founded in 1902, the synagogue was in fact named כתר ישראל (pronounced ‘Keser Israel’ in classic Ashkenazis – which KI’s founders surely spoke – meaning Crown of Israel). I soon noticed that below the words ‘Kesher Israel Synagogue’ on the cornerstone of KI’s current building (pictured above), appears the Hebrew name כתר ישראל.
This seemingly minor detail puzzled me greatly. Why did a congregation whose proper Hebrew name was כתר ישראל choose to call itself Kesher Israel? Had anyone ever taken note of – or attempted to correct – this inconsistency? During the summer of 2015, I found time to research the matter, and I now have a theory to propose.
II – An Enigmatic Account
In 1997, KI honored its beloved Rabbi Emeritus – Rabbi David L. Silver (1907 – 2001)[3] – with a community-wide weekend celebration on the occasion of his 90th birthday. As part of that celebration, the congregation published “Silver Linings” – a 90 page book of Rabbi D. Silver’s memoirs. Those memoirs were excerpted from some 35 hours of taped interviews conducted from April, 1996 – April, 1997. On pages 43 – 44 of that book we find the following account:
When the shul was founded, it was called Keser . . . which means a crown. Some fellow who was a Hebrew teacher . . . spelled it as C-a-s-s-e-u-r. He should have put it down as K-e-s-e-r. Some people – Lithuanian Jews, I want you to know, because I am of that breed – pronounced and spelled it “sh”. Kesher means “the bond” . . .
My father came here in 1907. He was a good Hebraist and he didn’t like the name. He said, in the Bible when there is the term “kesher” it’s “kesher bodim”[4]. A bond of bodim means rebels, period[5]. My father said that’s no name for a shul and changed it from Kesher Israel to Keser Israel, a crown of Israel. I don’t know whether it happened on the first day he came here but that’s what it became.
Rabbi D. Silver’s eye-opening account of the history of KI’s name is quite enigmatic. In attempting to understand this explanation, the following questions must be answered:
1)      If the congregation’s original name was in fact ‘Keser Israel’ (כתר ישראל), why would Lithuanian Jews have pronounced it ‘Kesher Israel’?
2)      If the congregation’s original name actually was ‘Keser Israel’, what exactly did Rabbi Eliezer Silver change?
3)      As the synagogue is called ‘Kesher Israel’ to this very day, what did Rabbi D. Silver mean when he reported that his father had successfully changed its name from ‘Kesher Israel’ to ‘Keser Israel’?
III – Sabesdiker Losn
In the Book of Judges, we learn of a terrible civil war that flared up between the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. As the beaten forces of Ephraim attempted to retreat across the Jordan River we read (Judges 12:5-6):
5 – And the Gileadites seized the crossings of the Jordan that belonged to Ephraim; and it was that when any of the survivors of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” and the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” and he said, “No.”
6 – And they said to him, “Say now ‘Shibboleth,’ ” and he said “Sibboleth,” and he was not able to pronounce it properly, and they grabbed him and slew him at the crossings of the Jordan; and there fell at that time of Ephriam, forty-two thousand.
At that point in Jewish history, the tribe of Ephraim was unable to correctly pronounce the hushing sound of the Hebrew letter “Shin” in the word “Shibboleth”. They instead pronounced the word with the hissing sound of the Hebrew letter “Sin”, and the word came out as “Sibboleth”.[6] With their identities compromised, many Ephraimites lost their lives.
In the course of my research, I learned that the inability of many Lithuanian Jews to properly distinguish between the hushing and hissing sounds of the Hebrew letters “Shin” and “Sin” was once common knowledge. Like the Ephraimites before them, many Lithuanian[7] Jews also pronounced the word ‘Shibboleth’ as ‘Sibboleth’.[8] As a result of their enunciation, other Yiddish speakers jokingly referred to the Lithuanian dialect of Yiddish as ‘Sabesdiker Losn’. In an often quoted article on Sabesdiker Losn, Prof. Uriel Weinreich writes:
One of the most intriguing instances of non-congruence involves a peculiar sound feature of the northeastern dialect of Yiddish: the confusion of the hushing series of phonemes (š, ž, č) with the hissing phonemes (s, z, c), which are distinguished in all other dialects . . . This dialect has come to be known as sábesdiker losn ‘solemn speech’ (literally ‘Sabbath language’), a phrase which in general Yiddish is šábesdiker lošn, with two š’s and an s. This mispronunciation of it immediately identifies those who are afflicted with the trait; to them the term litvak is commonly applied.[9]
Later in that same article Weinreich writes:[10]
The Ephraimites . . . paid with their lives for their inability to distinguish hissing and hushing phonemes in a crucial password. No litvak has ever been slain for his sábesdiker losn, but he has been the butt of innumerable jokes. The derision with which the feature was regarded by other Yiddish speakers sent it reeling back under the impact of “general Yiddish” dialects from  the south . . . In addition to dialectical pressure from the south, there were other influences tending to introduce the opposition, as it were, from within. There was for example, the growing need to learn foreign languages in which hissing and hushing phonemes are distinguished, and the promotion of Standard Yiddish by the schools, the theater, and political and educational organizations.[11]
As we have seen, many Lithuanian Jews were unable to distinguish between hushing and hissing sounds. While this led many to pronounce ‘Shibboleth’ as ‘Sibboleth’ (hence the term Sabesdiker Losn), this was not always the case. There is much evidence that in some locales, the inability of Lithuanian Jews to distinguish between the hushing and hissing sounds resulted in the exact opposite: they pronounced the word ‘Sibboleth’ as ‘Shibboleth’.[12]
In his article dealing with Sabesdiker Losn, Prof. Rakhmiel Peltz[13] quotes sources showing that many Lithuanian Jews mispronounced their words in the following manner:

. . . šuke ‘Sukkoth tabernacle’, šimkhe ‘joy, festivity’, šeykhl ‘reason, sense’, šider ‘prayer book’ . . .  [14]

A fascinating episode involving none other than Rabbi Eliezer Silver himself relates to this point, and can be found in the book “A Fire In His Soul”. A good part of that volume documents the activities of the Vaad Hatzala – the emergency rescue committee which worked so hard to save Jewish lives during the dark years of the Holocaust.[15] Soon after the fighting ended, the committee sent Rabbi E. Silver to the war-ravaged European continent to aid Jewish refugees and survivors. The following colorful incident is recorded:[16]
Rabbi Eliezer Silver, acting as a Vaad representative and president of the Agudas Harabonim, spent three months visiting Holland, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Poland. Wearing a surplus American Army uniform purchased for this mission, he moved about freely, distributing funds to build mikvaos, yeshivas and kosher kitchens. He also located children who had been in hiding throughout the war.
This bearded rabbi in uniform did experience some awkward moments. When an allied soldier saluted him, Rabbi Silver did not respond in kind, causing the soldier to doubt his credentials. When Occupation officials asked to see his military identification – after all, he was a man in uniform – Rabbi Silver stared defiantly and proclaimed, “I don’t need papers. I am the Chief Rabbi of the United States and Canada!” (It came out “United Shtates” in Rabbi Silver’s characteristic accent.) Understandably, the American authorities did not believe him and were not inclined to let him go.
Chagrined, Rabbi Silver pointed to the telephone and barked, “Call Shenator Taft. Tell him Shilver’s here!” The officials looked at each other. They didn’t know that the small man, seething with almost comical anger, enjoyed a personal and political friendship with the powerful Ohio Senator Robert Taft.[17]
Rabbi Silver’s “characteristic accent” described above is a rare glimpse into how his Lithuanian upbringing and pronunciations affected his ability to articulate his words. Rabbi Eliezer Silver was born in the hamlet of Abel – in the Kovno province of Lithuania in 1881.[18] His pronunciation of “Shtates”, “Shenator”, and “Shilver” was most likely the result of his growing up in an environment where no distinction was made between hissing and hushing sounds in the Yiddish spoken all around him. In his case (and probably in the case of many others in his locale), words that should have been pronounced with a ‘hiss’, were instead pronounced with a ‘hush’.[19]
With this better understanding of how many Lithuanian Jews pronounced their words, I believe we can now solve the mystery of KI’s name.
IV – Solving the Puzzle: A Theory
Making use of KI’s historical records, I propose the following theory:
KI was founded in 1902. The congregation was officially named כתר ישראל in Hebrew, and was given the English name of ‘Casseur Israel’ – instead of the more straight-forward ‘Keser Israel’. This can be clearly seen from a document – dated January 1, 1903 – presented to Mr. Max Cohen (a founding member) which stated that he had purchased a pew in his new Harrisburg synagogue. This certificate was signed on behalf of “The Trustees of the Congregation – Casseur Israel, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania”. The document was also embossed with the new congregation’s official seal. In English, the stamp reads “Congregation Casseur Israel – Harrisburg, Pa.” In Hebrew it reads, “חברה כתר ישראל – האריסבורג פא”  [20]

Although KI was chartered as ‘Casseur Israel’ in October of 1902, the Lithuanian founders and members of this new synagogue pronounced its name as ‘Kesher Israel’. This was a result of the manner in which their version of Sabesdiker Losn Yiddish affected their enunciation of the hissing and hushing sounds.[21] As a result of the way in which the congregation’s members pronounced their own synagogue’s name, local newspaper articles began referring to the synagogue as ‘Kesher Israel’ – as early as 1903 (just months after the congregation was founded).[22]
Though Rabbi Eliezer Silver arrived in Harrisburg in 1907, he was not officially hired by KI to serve as their spiritual leader until February 11, 1911.[23] In 1908, shortly after Rabbi E. Silver arrived in Harrisburg – but still three years before he would become KI’s first rabbi – the six-year-old congregation hired a local Yiddish printer to write up its constitution.[24] The following detail on the constitution’s cover page[25] is striking: Although the synagogue’s official seal used in 1903 listed the new congregation’s Hebrew name as חברה כתר ישראל (Keser Israel Congregation), KI’s 1908 constitution records the Hebrew name of the synagogue as חברה קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel Congregation).[26] This was a result of either:
A)   The printer – unfamiliar with the congregation’s official Hebrew name of  כתר ישראל – published a document in which he spelled the congregation’s Hebrew name true to the way its own members all pronounced it – קשר ישראל – Kesher Israel.
B)   The version of Lithuanian Yiddish spoken by so many of the congregation’s founders and members caused them to refer to the synagogue as ‘Kesher Israel’ from the day it was founded. Perhaps by 1908 a movement arose within KI to have its Hebrew name officially changed from כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) to קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel). This proposed switch would enable the young congregation to have complete consistency between; 1) the synagogue’s Hebrew and English names, 2) what all of KI’s founders and members already called it, and 3) the name used by all the newspapers when referring to the congregation.

When KI hired Rabbi Eliezer Silver as its rabbi in 1911, he accepted the pulpit of a synagogue whose Hebrew name had begun as כתר ישראל (Keser Israel), but for one reason or another, was now given the Hebrew name of קשר ישראל (Kesher Israel) in its official constitution. Rabbi E. Silver could live with the fact that everyone pronounced the congregation’s name as ‘Kesher Israel’ (and from what we have seen above, he most probably pronounced it that way as well) – and did not even mind if they spelled it that way in English. However, seeing the synagogue’s name spelled in Hebrew as קשר ישראל was too much for Rabbi E. Silver to bear. Having mastered Biblical and rabbinic literature, he clearly knew the negative connotations of the word קשר . He associated that word with conspiracies and rebellions – concepts which he strongly believed had no place in a Jewish house of prayer that was to be loyal to G-d and Jewish tradition. As such, Rabbi E. Silver insisted that KI’s official Hebrew name should revert back to כתר ישראל (Keser Israel). He insisted on this Hebrew name for the synagogue despite the fact that (he and) his fellow Lithuanian Jews pronounced the congregation’s name as ‘Kesher Israel’ – and would continue spelling it that way in English as well.[27]
Rabbi E. Silver’s efforts to ensure that KI would retain its original Hebrew name of כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) can be seen in two early projects of his.
A)      Upon his arrival in Harrisburg, Rabbi E. Silver instituted a Hevra Shas – wherein he studied the Talmud together with members of Harrisburg’s Jewish community each morning and evening.[28] Rabbi Silver’s Hevra Shas moved into KI’s facility after he became its rabbi in February of 1911.[29] A large hand painted sign proudly displaying the names of the dedicated members (and supporters) of that Talmud study group was created – and still hangs in one of KI’s offices. At the top of that sign, the following Hebrew words appear: בית הכנסת כתר ישראל חברה ש”ס – האריסבורג, פא.  (Keser Israel Synagogue Hevra Shas – Harrisburg, PA.).[30] The wording of KI’s name on that sign reflects Rabbi E. Silver’s goal of reclaiming כתר ישראל as the congregation’s official Hebrew name.

B)      In 1917, KI commissioned an artisan to create a special ‘Pinkus HaZahav’ or Golden Book. This incredibly large and heavy leather-bound volume (hand-written in beautiful Hebrew calligraphy) contains a brief history of the congregation.[31] The bulk of the volume consists of a ledger listing the names of those who had made significant pledges towards the new building KI would soon move into. [32] On the book’s front cover, the congregation’s name is written in Hebrew as חברה כתר ישראל. Like the Hevra Shas sign, the wording of KI’s name on its special Golden Book reflects Rabbi E. Silver’s goal of reclaiming כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) as the congregation’s official Hebrew name.[33]

In addition to explaining Rabbi David L. Silver’s above-cited enigmatic account, I believe the puzzle of how a synagogue, with the Hebrew name of כתר ישראל (Keser Israel), ended up with the English name of ‘Kesher Israel’ has now been solved.
VI – Conclusion
Upon reflection I realize that the only time the membership of KI hears the congregation referred to as כתר ישראל (Keser Israel) is after the solemn Yizkor memorial prayers, which are recited during the holidays. At the conclusion of Yizkor, special collective Kel Maleh memorial prayers are recited on behalf of the deceased members and relatives of the congregation.[34]  Since my arrival in 2007, I listened closely as KI’s Cantor Seymour Rockoff would clearly enunciate the words קהילת כתר ישראל (Keser Israel Congregation) during that prayer – pronouncing the synagogue’s Hebrew name exactly as Rabbi Eliezer Silver would have wanted.
Following Cantor Rockoff’s sudden passing in the summer of 2015,[35] I recited those collective Kel Maleh prayers at KI this past Shemini Atzeret (5776). As I clearly pronounced the words קהילת כתר ישראל, I thought about all the history behind KI’s name. I also envisioned Rabbi Eliezer Silver grinning as he tipped his signature black silk top hat in my direction.
___________
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה כְתָרִים הֵם, כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה וְכֶתֶר כְּהֻנָּה וְכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת, וְכֶתֶר שֵׁם טוֹב עוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן.
Rabbi Shimon would say: There are three crowns – the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty – but the crown of a good name is the most valuable of them all.
(Pirkei Avot 4:13)

                 
Rabbi Eliezer Silver in his younger and older years.

[1] This article is dedicated to the memory of Cantor Seymour Rockoff – Harav Eliyahu Shalom ben Harav Chaim Shmuel, z”l. With his melodious voice and meticulous attention to the details of prayer, Cantor Rockoff greatly enhanced Kesher Israel Congregation’s services from 1986 – 2015.
[2] (1882-1968). For an excellent biography of Rabbi E. Silver, see Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Aaron. The Silver Era: Rabbi Eliezer Silver and His Generation. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1981. This out-of-print book was republished by the Orthodox Union and Yeshiva University Presses in 2014.
[3] Yeshiva University placed an obituary for Rabbi D. Silver – one of its oldest rabbinic alumni – in The New York Times on July 11, 2001. It can be viewed online here.
[4] I am confident that the word Rabbi D. Silver used in the interview from which this account was excerpted was “Bogdim” and not “Bodim”. The term “Kesher Bogdim” means a band of traitors, and can be found in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Sanhedrin 2:14, Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 3:4, and according to the Vilna Gaon (note 22 there) the expression is based on the term “Kesher Reshaim” – a band of evil-doers – used by the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 26a.
[5] For examples where the word ‘Kesher’ is used in describing conspiracies in the Bible see: I Samuel 15:12, I Kings 16:20, II Kings 11:14, II Kings 12:21, II Kings 14:19, II Kings 15:15, II Kings 15:30, and II Kings 17:4.
[6] In his commentary to Judges 12:6, Rabbi Dovid Kimhi (1160 – 1235) notes that in his day, many in France were also unable to properly pronounce the hushing sound of the letter “Shin”.
[7] The region which Jews historically referred to as “Lithuania” or “Lita” included the territory of present-day Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania – and even parts of Estonia, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
[8] See Turei Zahav note 30 to Shulhan Arukh Orah Haim 128:33
[9] Weinreich, Uriel. (1952). Sábesdiker Losn in Yiddish: A Problem of Linguistic Affinity. Word, 8, page 58. I thank Vilnius-based Professor Dovid Katz for making me aware of this important article.
[10] Ibid, page 70.
[11] While researching this topic, I took note of the fact that while Sabesdiker Losn was such a new concept to me, many Yeshiva graduates in their sixties whom I interacted with instantly recognized this phenomenon. Several shared with me fond memories of their older Lithuanian-born and educated teachers who would refer to ‘Rasi’ instead of ‘Rashi’. (For one such light-hearted published account see page 40 in Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Aaron. From Washington Avenue to Washington Street. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House / OU Press, 2011.) Why then was the concept of Sabesdiker Losn so new to me? I soon realized that in addition to Prof. Weinreich’s explanations (above) regarding the disappearance of Sabesdiker Losn, there was another factor which he never could have foreseen: the utter decimation of Lithuanian Jewry during the Holocaust. As a child who only began his Jewish day school education in the late 1970’s, I simply never had the chance to interact with authentic Lithuanian-born and educated teachers like many Yeshiva graduates a generation or two older than me had.  
[12] As such, this version of Lithuanian Yiddish might be described as “Shabeshdiker Loshn”. I thank Dr. Edward Portnoy of Rutgers University’s Department of Jewish Studies and YIVO’s Academic Advisor, as well as Isaac Bleaman – a doctoral student in the Department of Linguistics at New York University – for clarifying this important point for me.
[13] Peltz, Rakhmiel. (2008). The Sibilants of Northeastern Yiddish: A Study in Linguistic Variation. In Kiefer, Ulrike and Neumann, Robert and Herzog, Marvin and Sunshine, Andrew and Putschke, Wolfgang (eds.), EYDES (Evidence of Yiddish Documented in European Societies), 241-274. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter – Max Niemeyer Verlag. Page 255.
[14] Peltz also notes (page 255) that some Lithuanian Jews even confused the hissing and hushing sounds within the same term / phrase. For example, some might refer to a house of study / prayer as the bešmedres instead of besmedraš. One rabbi I communicated with told me he remembered hearing a highly-regarded Lithuanian-born and educated rabbi refer to his NY study hall as the bešmedres.
[15] For more information on Rabbi E. Silver’s work with the Vaad Hatzala, see Rakeffet-Rothkoff (ibid.) pages 186-250.
[16] Bunim, Amos. A Fire in His Soul: Irving M. Bunim, 1901-1980, the Man and His Impact on American Orthodox Jewry. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1989. Pages 166-7.
[17] The story concludes with Senator Taft eventually being reached in Washington, DC. After vouching for Rabbi Silver, the rabbi was released and allowed to continue his mission on behalf of the Vaad Hatzala.
[18] Rakeffet-Rothkoff (ibid.) page 43.
[19] In addition, Rabbi Hershel Schachter of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary related to me that he remembers hearing Rabbi Eliezer Silver pronounce Cincinnati – the city where he served as rabbi for close to 40 years – as “Shinshinati”.
[20] Pictures of this document and its accompanying stamp can be seen in KI’s 75th Anniversary Yearbook (1977) pages 5 – 6.
[21] i.e. they pronounced the word ‘Sibboleth’ as ‘Shibboleth’. In suggesting an explanation for KI’s name, someone already alluded to this point on the Shul’s Wikepedia page (here) with the following sentence: “One explanation is that the “s” and “sh” sounds were conflated in the Lithuanian Yiddish pronunciation of the time.” This was attributed to the following sentence on YIVO’s website (here):” . . . much traditional Lithuanian Yiddish collapses the hushing and hissing consonants (“confusion of sh and s sounds”), a feature most Litvaks have tried to overcome in recent generations.” See footnote 12.
[22] See for example, (1903, April 2). Jewish Synagogue Gets a Cemetery. Harrisburg Daily Independent, page 1, and (1903, April 9). Passover Services. HarrisburgTelegraph, page 3.
[23] See KI’s 75th Anniversary Yearbook (1977), page 4, and Rakeffet-Rothkoff (ibid.) page 53 which record that from 1907 – 1911, Rabbi E. Silver served the entire Orthodox Jewish community of Harrisburg – and was not employed by any one congregation exclusively.
[24] Interestingly, like Rabbi E. Silver, it seems that KI’s Lithuanian founders were also from the Kovno region. One finds the directive to follow the customs of Kovno at least twice in KI’s constitution (see KI constitution pages 8 and 22).
[25] A picture of this constitution’s cover page appears on page 5 of KI’s 75th Anniversary Yearbook. I thank Rabbi Ahron Silver (Rabbi David L. Silver’s son) of Jerusalem, Israel for e-mailing me photos he took of this important historical document. I also thank KI’s Dr. Sandy Silverstein and Dr. Mark Cohen for helping me obtain an original copy of this constitution.
[26] The congregation is referred to as קשר ישראל several times within the constitution as well – but never as  כתר ישראל.
[27] It seems that while Rabbi Eliezer Silver was quite concerned with the congregation’s Hebrew name, he did not concern himself in ensuring the congregation’s English name would be firmly registered as ‘Keser Israel’. I would suggest that the spelling of the synagogue’s English name was of little or no concern to Rabbi E. Silver. After all, it was the Hebrew word קשר which conjured up all sorts of negative connotations in his mind – not the English transliteration of that word.
[28] Rakeffet-Rothkoff (ibid.) page 54, and KI’s 75th Anniversary Yearbook (1977), page 4.
[29] Kesher Israel’s 1949 Dedication Book page 11. Interestingly, this book was published the same year it dedicated its new building. Just like the congregation’s new cornerstone, the Dedication Book records the Hebrew name of KI as  כתר ישראל, and its English name as ‘Kesher Israel Synagogue’.
[30] Just beneath the words:בית הכנסת כתר ישראל חברה ש”ס – האריסבורג, פא.  (Keser Israel Synagogue Hevra Shas – Harrisburg, PA.) on that sign, appear the words:  נתיסדה ע”י הרב מהר”א זילבער שליט”א, זאת חנוכה  התרס”ח (Established by the rabbi our teacher Rabbi Eliezer Silver, may he live for many good and long days, the 8th day of Hanukah, 5668). That date corresponds to December 8, 1907. While the Hevra Shas may have begun studying the Talmud together in Harrisburg on that date, KI would not have created this sign – which claimed the Hevra Shas as its own – until some time after February of 1911 when Rabbi E. Silver officially became KI’s rabbi.
[31] For a nice write-up on this special book, see here.
[32] Though the book contains several hundred pages, only the first 16 were ever used.
[33] On the book’s back cover, KI’s name is written in English as ‘Keser Israel Congregation’. That is the only example I could find where KI’s English name was ever officially recorded that way.
[34] While only those who have lost a parent remain in the sanctuary during the actual recitation of Yizkor, the entire congregation gathers again in KI’s sanctuary for the collective Kel Maleh prayers once Yizkor has been completed.
[35] For more on Cantor Rockoff, see here.


A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Vilna Revisited*

|
A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Vilna Revisited*
by Shnayer Leiman
A. The Photograph.
            Recently, I had occasion to publish the above photograph – a treasure that offers a glimpse of what the old Jewish cemetery of Vilna looked like in the inter-war period.[1] Indeed, it captures the oldest portion of the rabbinic section of the old Jewish cemetery. The purpose of this essay is to identify the persons buried here and – where possible – to reconstruct and print the epitaphs on their tombstones. Seven partially legible inscriptions can be seen by the naked eye, as one moves from left to right across the photograph. An empty frame that once held a tombstone can be seen in the center of the photograph, as well. With the aid of a magnifying glass, as well as literary evidence, we shall attempt to identify all those buried here and to restore the full texts of their epitaphs. In effect, we shall engage in a virtual tour of a Jewish cemetery that – sadly — exists today almost entirely underground.
            Briefly, the old Jewish cemetery was the first Jewish cemetery established in Vilna. According to Vilna Jewish tradition, it was founded in 1487. Modern scholars, based on extant documentary evidence, date the founding of the cemetery to 1593, but admit than an earlier date for its founding cannot be ruled out.[2] The cemetery, still standing today (but denuded of its tombstones), lies just north of the center of the city of Vilna, across the Neris (formerly: the Vilia) River, in the section of Vilna called Shnipishkes (Yiddish: Shnipishok). It is across the river from, and just opposite , one of Vilna’s most significant landmarks, Castle Hill with its Gediminas Tower. The cemetery was known as the Piramont[3] cemetery, also (in Yiddish) as der alter feld or der alter beys eylam [so in Lithuanian Yiddish; in Ashkenazic Yiddish: beys oylom]. It was in use from the year it was founded until 1831, when it was officially closed by the municipal authorities. Although burials no longer were possible in the old Jewish cemetery, it became a pilgrimage site, and thousands of Jews visited annually the graves of the many righteous heroes and rabbis buried there, especially the graves of the Ger Tzedek (Avraham b. Avraham, also known as Graf Potocki, d. 1749), the Gaon of Vilna (R. Eliyahu b. Shlomo, d. 1797), and the Hayye Adam (R. Avraham Danzig, d. 1820). Such visits still took place even after World War II.[4]
            The cemetery, more or less rectangular in shape, was spread over a narrow portion of a sloped hill, the bottom of the hill almost bordering on the Neris River.[5] The photograph captures some of the oldest mausoleums and graves at exactly that spot, i.e. at the bottom of the hill almost bordering on the Neris River. The tombstone inscriptions face north, toward the top of the hill. As one moves from  left to right across the photograph, one is in effect moving uphill toward the entrance of the cemetery, a gate built into the northern portion of the cemetery fence.[6] We shall move from left to right, and begin with the first tombstone inscription.
1. R. Menahem Manes Chajes (1560-1636).
R. Menahem Manes was among the earliest Chief Rabbis of Vilna. Indeed, his grave was the oldest extant grave in the Jewish cemetery, when Jewish historians first began to record its epitaphs in the nineteenth century.[7] R. Menahem Manes’ father, R. Yitzchok Chajes (d. 1615), was a prolific author who served as Chief Rabbi of Prague. Like his father, R. Menahem Manes published several works in his lifetime, including a dirge entitled סליחה על שני קדושים  (Lublin, 1596)[8]; a treatise in rhyme encompassing all the laws of ערב שבת, entitled קבלת שבת (Lublin, 1621)[9]; and left still other works in manuscript form (e.g., a commentary on פרשת בלק, entitled דרך תמימים, now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University).[10] His epitaph reads:[11]
2. R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (ca. 1770-1825).

 

Son of the Chief Rabbi of Brisk, R. Yosef Katzenellenbogen,[12] R. Shaul frequented Vilna as a youth in order to converse with the Gaon of Vilna. After meeting with the young Shaul, the Gaon purportedly said: “ראה זה רך בשנים וטעם זקנים מלא”.[13] Ultimately, R. Shaul settled in Vilna where he served with distinction as a מורה צדק. Influenced by the Gaon’s methodology and piety, it is no coincidence that he was asked to write letters of approbation for the first printed editions of works by the Gaon[14] and by (and about) his favorite disciples, R. Shlomo Zalman[15] (d. 1788) and his brother R. Hayyim of Volozhin[16] (d. 1821). R. Shaul’s glosses on the Talmud are included in the definitive edition of the BabylonianTalmud (ed. Romm Publishing Co.: Vilna, 1880-1886). He left an indelible impression on all who knew him; and especially on his students, among them R. David Luria[17] (d. 1855) and R. Samuel Strashun[18] (d. 1872) – two of the leading rabbinic scholars of 19th century Lithuania. He was honored at his death by being buried next to some of Vilna’s greatest rabbis, despite the fact that he was one of the last rabbis buried in the old Jewish cemetery. In 1826, a kloyz was established in Vilna in his memory. Called “Reb Shaulke’s [probably pronounced: Shoelke’s or Sheyelke’s] kloyz,” it remained in continuous use until, and even during, the Holocaust.[19]
The inscription that can be seen on the photograph reads:

 

This is simply an informational sign (almost certainly of early 20th century origin) that indicates to the visitor that R. Shaul was buried in this mausoleum. In fact, he was buried between R. Menahem Manes Chajes (d. 1636) and R. Moshe Rivkes (d. 1672), author of באר הגולה, and ancestor of the Vilna Gaon. His tombstone inscription, not visible in the photograph, reads:[20]
3.     R. Moshe, Dayyan of Vilna (ca. 1670-1740).
Little is known about R. Moshe, other than – as indicated on his epitaph – he served with distinction as a dayyan in Vilna.[21] Some of his Torah teachings are preserved in his son R. David’s, מצודת דוד (Altona, 1736).[22] R. Moshe was popularly known as “R. Moshe Charaz,” חר”ז being an abbreviation for חתן ר’ זאלקינד “son-in-law of R. Zalkind.” R. Zalkind should probably be identified with R. Shlomo Zalkind b. Barukh, who lived in the second half of the 17th century, and was a respected lay leader of Vilna’s Jewish community.[23] R. Moshe’s epitaph stands outside a second mausoleum, with its own entrance, separate from the first mausoleum (where R. Menahem Manes Chajes, R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, and R. Moshe Rivkes were buried). The epitaph reads:[24]

 

4. R. Hillel b. Yonah (d. 1706).
The empty frame in the third mausoleum from the left held a wooden tombstone that existed into the 20th century.[25] Before it was removed for repair, it was photographed in situ, and the photograph was preserved at the Ansky Museum in Vilna. The photograph was published just prior to the onset of World War II.[26] The epitaph on the tombstone commemorates the life and death of R. Hillel b. Yonah, Chief Rabbi of Vilna, and his wife Rachel (d. 1710). They were the only occupants of the third mausoleum. R. Hillel served as Chief Rabbi of Chelm prior to his appointment as Chief Rabbi of Vilna in 1688. Some of his Torah teachings are preserved in R. David b. R. Moshe’s מצודת דוד (Altona, 1736).[27] The joint epitaph reads:[28]
5. R. Moshe Darshan (d. 1726).
R. Moshe Darshan was born in Vilna in 1641. His father, R. Hillel b. Naftali Hertz, was the celebrated author of בית הלל (on Shulhan Arukh Yoeh De’ah and Even ha-Ezer), who served on the rabbinic court of R. Moshe b. Yitzchok Yehuda Lima of Vilna (author of  חלקת מחוקק on Shulhan Arukh Even ha-Ezer) from 1651-1666, and later served as Chief Rabbi of Altona-Hamburg, and then Zolkiev.[29] R. Moshe was appointed ראש בית דין and דרשן of Vilna and served in that capacity until his death. His epitaph reads:[30]
6. R. Yaakov Kahana (d. 1826).[31]
R. Yaakov b. R. Avraham Kahana, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon, was the son-in-law of R. Yissakhar Ber (d. 1807), a brother of the Vilna Gaon.  Supported regally by his father-in-law, R. Yaakov suddenly found himself without support upon the death of his father-in-law. The Vilna kehilla immediately appointed him trustee of its various charities, in order to provide him with a dignified income, while enabling him to continue his pursuit of Torah study. R. Yaakov authored a classic commentary on B. Eruvin, גאון יעקב (Lemberg, 1863 and later editions).[32] His epitaph reads:[33]
7. R. Eliyahu Hasid (d. 1710).
R. Eliyahu was the son of R. Moshe b. David Kramer, who served as Chief Rabbi of Vilna from 1673 to 1687.[34] R. Eliyahu served as an administrator of Vilna’s צדקה גדולה and also as a dayyan. He was a great-grandfather of the Vilna Gaon, and the Gaon was named after him.[35] The epitaph reads:[36]
8. R. Yosef b. Elyah (d. 1718).
A communal leader (ראש, אלוף, מנהיג) in Vilna about whom little else is known.[37] That he was buried in proximity to R. Eliyahu Hasid (d. 1710), and that at a later date R. Moshe Darshan (d. 1726) was buried in proximity to him, is sufficient proof of his prominence, perhaps in wisdom and certainly in wealth. His epitaph reads:[38]
————————-
B. A Visit to the Old Jewish Cemetery in 1940.
            Known affectionately as “Reb Dovid,” Rabbi Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik is currently Rosh Yeshiva of the Brisk Yeshiva in the Givat Moshe (also called: Gush Shemonim) section of Jerusalem. A descendant of R. Hayyim of Volozhin (d. 1821), and a scion of the Soloveitchik dynasty – his grandfather was R. Hayyim Soloveitchik (d. 1918), Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin and Chief Rabbi of Brisk; and his father was R. Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik (d. 1959), last Chief Rabbi of Brisk, and founder of the Brisk dynasty in Jerusalem) – he is a leader of the Haredi community in Israel.
A still active nonagenarian, he was born circa 1923. Upon the outbreak of World War II, he fled from Brisk and made his way to Vilna, which – largely due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 23, 1939, and Stalin’s subsequent decision to hand Vilna over to  Lithuania – became the newly recognized capital of Independent Lithuania. Reb Dovid, a teenager at the time, resided in Vilna from October 22, 1939 through January 19, 1941, when together with his father (and other members of the family), he embarked on the arduous and dangerous journey that would bring him to the land of Israel, where the family ultimately settled.[39]
            Some 15 volumes of Reb Dovid’s teachings have appeared in print, many under the title: שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי. These are transcriptions of his lectures as recorded by his students, with focus primarily on Torah and Talmud commentary. One of the volumes, however, includes a riveting account – in R. Dovid’s own words – of how he managed to survive the Holocaust. The memoir includes a brief description of a visit he made to the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna in 1940.[40] The passage reads:[41]

“When in Vilna, I went several times to visit the cemetery where the Vilna Gaon was buried, but it was closed. The gate was kept locked because burials no longer took place in the old Jewish cemetery, which was inside the city limits. Burials now took place in another cemetery [Zaretcha] which was outside the city limits.[42] Moreover, the caretaker who had the keys [to the old Jewish cemetery] lived far from the cemetery. Once, however, I came to the cemetery and found the gate open and went in to visit the Vilna Gaon’s grave. On my way to the grave, I passed an ancient tombstone with the words משיח ה’ inscribed on its epitaph.[43] I could not understand what this signified and who was buried there.[44] From there I reached the Vilna Gaon’s grave, and nearby, the grave of R. Avraham the Ger Tzedek. (At some later date, I chanced upon a pamphlet which contained a eulogy by R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen,[45] of blessed memory, over the author of Ha-Pardes.[46] In this pamphlet about the author of Ha- Pardes, it is stated that when he died a search was made in the old Jewish cemetery for a place where he could be buried. One empty plot was found, to the right of which was buried [R. Moshe Rivkes] the author of Be’er Ha-Golah, and to the left of which was buried R. Manes משיח ה’. Since no one had been buried in the empty plot next to these rabbis for some 85 years,[47] a rabbinic court was convened to decide whether the plot could be used now for the author of Ha-Pardes. The decision was that he should be buried between the two rabbis. They explained that it was a special privilege for the author of Ha-Pardes to be buried next to these righteous persons, and went on to describe the righteousness and piety of R. Manes משיח ה’. It seems likely that this was the tombstone I saw with the words משיח ה’ on its epitaph.”

This delightful account offers important testimony regarding what a living witness observed during a visit to the old Jewish cemetery in Vilna in 1940. On his way to the Vilna Gaon’s grave, R. Dovid saw a tombstone with the words משיח ה’ inscribed on its epitaph. The reference, of course, is to the grave of R. Menahem Manes Chajes (see above, epitaph 1). It is indeed nearby to the Gaon’s mausoleum, and one could easily stop to see it on the way to the Gaon’s grave. The alert reader will surely wonder why in the photograph taken in the inter-war period, which includes the epitaph of R. Menahem Manes Chajes, one cannot make out the words משיח ה’, whereas R. Dovid testifies that in 1940 it was precisely those words that caught his attention. The answer, I believe, is provided by another photograph of R. Menachem Manes Chajes’ epitaph taken in the summer of 1936.[48]
It too, at first glance, seems to have the words משיח ה’ erased. But if one examines the photograph closely, one can make out the words משיח ה’. The white paint that once covered these etched letters has been chipped off. The inter-war photograph, a “group” photograph taken from a distance, could not capture the etched letters that now appeared as black on black. The naked eye of a human being, however, could pick up the etched stone letters that read משיח ה’. So too, a close up photograph of the Chajes epitaph alone, taken in 1936.
R. Dovid adds that, subsequently, he chanced upon a pamphlet that helped him identify the epitaph he had seen. The pamphlet contained a eulogy by R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen over the author of Ha-Pardes, who apparently died in Vilna. Initially, an appropriate burial place could not be found for him in the old Jewish cemetery. But after much search, an empty plot was found between R. Manes משיח ה’ and [R. Moshe Rivkes,] the author of Be’er Ha-Golah. Since no one had been buried in proximity to these rabbis for some 85 years, a rabbinical court had to convene in order to decide the issue. The ruling was in favor of the burial, and special mention was made of the piety of R. Manes משיח ה’, which clearly identified the epitaph that R. Dovid had seen.
            Sadly, I have not succeeded in locating such a pamphlet. If indeed R. Dovid saw such a pamphlet, he cannot be faulted for summarizing its content. It certainly enabled him to identify the epitaph as belonging to the tombstone of R. Menahem Manes Chajes. But problems abound. R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (see above, epitaph 2) died in 1825. He wrote no pamphlets and published no eulogies. The author of Ha-Pardes was R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, chief Rabbi of Koenigsberg (today: Kaliningrad).[49] He died in 1775 and was buried in Koenigsberg.[50] Thus, R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, five years old at the time, could not have published a eulogy over him. In fact, it was R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (as described above in epitaph 2) – and not the author of Ha-Pardes – who was buried between R. Menahem Manes Chajes and R. Moshe Rivkes.
            One suspects that the pamphlet R. Dovid chanced upon was R. Zvi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen’s גבעת שאול (Vilna and Grodno, 1825).
The author, a devoted disciple of R. Shaul,[51] published a eulogy upon the death of his teacher. He writes:[52]

“On the day of his [R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen’s] burial, an oracle was heard – a voice without pause[53]  – that an empty plot had been found between R. Moshe Rivkes, author of Be’er Ha-Golah and the Gaon R. Manes Chajes (who was depicted on his tombstone as משיח ה’, already so in the early generations, in the year [5]386 [= 1626],[54] even aside from the seven virtues listed by the Sages that characterize all great individuals[55]). In that section of the cemetery, the gravediggers did not dare to dig a grave during the last 85 years, for they feared for their lives. For that section of the cemetery was filled with holy and pious Jews.[56] But due to an agreement of the Moreh Zedek’s of our community, they began digging and found an empty plot waiting for this righteous Rabbi’s remains since the week of Creation.

            Here – and apparently in no other pamphlet – we have all the basic elements in R. Dovid’s account, with one glaring exception. Nothing is mentioned about the author of Ha-Pardes, R. Aryeh Leib Epstein. As indicated above, the author of Ha-Pardes in any event had nothing to do with a burial in Vilna. He lived at the wrong time (when empty plots were still available throughout the old Jewish cemetery) and died and was buried in the wrong place (in Koenigsberg). It is possible that we have in R. Dovid’s account a conflation of two unrelated pamphlets, each named גבעת שאול. Aside from R. Zvi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen’s גבעת שאול (cited above), a pamphlet with the exact same title, and also offering a eulogy, was authored by R. Shemariah Yosef Karelitz (d. 1917).[57]
The pamphlet, גבעת שאול (Warsaw, 1892), was a eulogy over Karelitz’ father-in-law, whose name also happened to be R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen (1828-1892), and who had served with distinction as rabbi of Kossovo and then Kobrin (both today in Belarus). This second R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen was a descendant of R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, author of Ha-Pardes. Indeed, on the first title page of Karelitz’ גבעת שאול, R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen is described in bold letters as a member of the Epstein family. On the second title page, he is described in bold letters as a descendant of “R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, author of Ha-Pardes.”
[
            In sum, R. Dovid’s account provides impeccable testimony that the epitaph on the tombstone of R. Menahem Manes Chajes – the oldest tombstone preserved in the old Jewish cemetery – could still be visited and read in 1940.[58] What he claims to have read in a pamphlet at some later date remains problematic and requires further investigation or, as the later commentators would have put it, צריך עיון.
* In memory of Khaykl Lunski (ca. 1881-1943), fabled librarian of the Strashun Library, who was the embodiment of the very soul of Jewish Vilna. His last essay – a study of the faded tombstone inscriptions in Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery – was written in the Vilna Jewish ghetto created by the Nazis. It perished together with him during the Holocaust. See Shmerke Kaczerginski, חורבן ווילנע (New York, 1947), p. 198 (henceforth: Kaczerginski). Cf. Hirsz Abramowicz, Profiles of a Lost World (Detroit, 1999), p. 264. Kaczerginski’s description of Lunski’s last years in the Vilna ghetto are worth citing here:
Khaykl Lunski (ca. 1881-1943)
NOTES:

[1] Sid Z. Leiman, “Lithuanian Government Announces Construction of a $25,000,000 Convention Center in the Center of Vilna’s Oldest Jewish Cemetery,” The Seforim Blog, September 13, 2015, available online here, reprinted here. A similar photograph (from a slightly different angle) appears in Leyzer Ran, Jerusalem of Lithuania (New York, 1974), vol. 1, p. 100 (henceforth: Ran). Alas, its lack of clarity renders it mostly useless.
[2] See Israel Klausner, קורות בית-העלמין הישן בוילנה (Vilna, 1935; reissued: Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 3-5 (henceforth: Klausner). Cf. Elmantas Meilus, “The History of the Old Jewish Cemetery at Šnipiškes in the Period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 12 (2007), pp. 64-67 (henceforth: Meilus).
[3] It was originally called “Pioromont,” because the old Jewish cemetery was adjacent to a street and neighborhood named after Stanislav Pior, an 18th century starosta who owned land in the area (Meilus, p. 88).
[4] See, e.g., the testimony of Chaim Basok, who together with Rabbi Kalman Farber visited the Vilna Gaon’s grave in the old Jewish cemetery at Piramont after Vilna was liberated by the Russian army in 1944. See Kalman Farber, אולקניקי ראדין וילנא (Jerusalem, 2007), p. 413. I have personally interviewed several former residents of Vilna who visited the Gaon’s grave in the old Jewish cemetery at Piramont between 1945 and 1948.
[5] A detailed map of the cemetery, as it appeared in 1935, is appended to Klausner.
[6] For an artist’s depiction of the gate at the northern entrance to the cemetery, see Sholom Zelmanovitch, דער גר-צדק ווילנער גראף פאטאצקי (Kovno, 1934), opposite p. 44. Notice Castle Hill at the upper right hand corner of the sketch; the inscription above the gate, והקיצו לקץ הימין; and the inscriptions on the sides of the gate, בית עולם ווילנא and zydu kapines. Here is the sketch:
[7] See, e.g., Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, קריה נאמנה (Vilna, 1860), p. 63 (henceforth: Fuenn 1860). Cf. the second and revised edition of קריה נאמנה (Vilna, 1915), p. 67 (henceforth: Fuenn 1915).
[8] Yeshayahu Vinograd, אוצר ספר העברי (Jerusalem, 1994), vol. 2, p. 359, entry 65.
[9] See Moshe Dovid Chechik, “ מהר”ר מנחם מאניש חיות וספר קבלת שבת,” ישורון 17(2006), pp. 668-691.
[10] Adolf Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford (Oxford, 1886), column 59, entry 293.
[11] We have attempted to transcribe the Hebrew texts exactly as they appear in the photograph. We add in brackets the reconstruction of letters and words that in all likelihood once appeared in the original texts, but were no longer visible when the photograph was taken. For other photographs of the epitaph, see Klausner, p. 36; Zalman Szyk,   יאר ווילנע 1000 (Vilna, 1939), pp. 408 and 416 (henceforth: Szyk); Ran,  vol. 1, p. 101 ; and Reuben Selevan, A Trip to Remember: New York to Europe 1936 (New York, 2009), p. 113. The reconstructions are based mostly on the earlier transcriptions of the epitaphs in Fuenn and Klausner.
Over the years, some of the epitaphs were redone, and the reconstructed texts are often faulty. Enlarged and/or dotted letters (signaling acrostics, names, or dates) were sometimes made small and the dots were omitted. Small letters were sometimes enlarged. Letters and words were added or dropped when a partially erased word could no longer be read. Thus, for example, the first three words of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ epitaph (in the photograph) read: פה נטמן בו, an impossible construction in Hebrew. It is obvious that one or more words are missing from the opening line of the epitaph. It is also evident the first lines form an acrostic spelling out his name: מנחם מאנש. When the epitaphs were redone, the original line divisions were not always retained. For the letters in bold relating to the year of his death (קדרו ושמים), see below, note 54.  Based upon the earlier transcriptions in Fuenn (Fuenn 1860, p. 63; Fuenn 1915, p. 67) and Klausner (pp. 36-39), and a measure of common sense, the original epitaph probably read:
[12] R. Shaul was also the brother of his father’s successor in the rabbinate of Brisk, R. Aryeh Leib (d. 1837). See Aryeh Leib Feinstein,
עיר תהלה (Warsaw, 1886), p. 30.
[13] Abraham Dov Baer ha-Kohen Lebensohn, אבל כבד (Vilna, 1825), section “תולדות הנאון,” p. 2.
[14] See ספרא דצניעותא (Vilna and Grodno,1820), page following title page.  
[15] See R. Yehezkel Feivel, תולדות אדם (Dyhernfurth, 1809), vol. 2, page following title page.
[16] See R. Hayyim of Volozhin, נפש החיים (Vilna and Grodno, 1824), page following title page.
[17] Samuel Luria, “תולדות הרד”ל,” in R. David Luria, קדמות ספר הזהר (New York, 1951), pp. 12-14.
[18] See Hillel Noah Maggid Steinschneider, עיר ווילנא (Vilna, 1900), vol. 1, p. 163.
[19] See Aliza Cohen-Mushlin, Sergey Kravtsov, Vladimir Levin, Giedrė Mickūnaitė, and Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, Synagogues in Lithuania (Vilnius, 2012), vol. 2, p. 316, item 55. Cf. Ran, vol. 1, p. 112. (The alleged photograph of R. Shaulke’s kloyz in Ran is misidentified; cf. Synagogues in Lithuania, vol. 2, p. 348, n. 248.) The address of the kloyz was Szawelska (later: Žmudskij) [Yiddish: Shavli] 5 (today: Šiauliu 2). The original building no longer stands. During the Holocaust, the kloyz continued to serve as a prayer house and it housed a Yeshiva named in memory of R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzenski (d. 1940). See Kaczerginski, p. 209; cf. Zelig Kalmanovitch, יומן בגיטו וילנה (Tel-Aviv, 1977), pp. 83 and 100 (English edition: Zelig Kalmanovitch “A Diary of the Nazi Ghetto in Vilna,” Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science 8[1953], pp. 30 and 47).
[20] Fuenn 1860, pp. 236-238; Fuenn 1915, pp. 237-239; Klausner, p. 75.
[21] See Fuenn 1860, p. 100; Fuenn 1915, p. 107; and cf. Klausner, pp. 43-44.
[22] See, e.g. מצודת דוד, pp. 3a, 7a, and 31a.
[23] Fuenn 1860, p. 107, paragraph 50, number 11; Fuenn 1915, p. 113, paragraph 51, number 11.
[24] The text of the epitaph was not recorded either by Fuenn or Klausner. However, it is easily restored by combining the general information they provide with the legible portions of the text in the photograph.
[25] There is good reason to believe that wooden tombstones once proliferated in the old Jewish cemetery, but they did not survive the ravages of time and circumstance. See, e.g., Klausner, p. 38 (who indicates that as late as 1810 the fee exacted by the חברא קדישא for stone tombstones was twice the amount exacted for wooden tombstones) and Szyk, p. 406 (who states that the majority of tombstones in the old Jewish cemetery were made of wood but did not survive). Only two wooden tombstones (in the old Jewish cemetery) survived into the twentieth century; those of R. Hillel b. Yonah and R. Yehoshua Heschel b. Saul, who served as Chief Rabbi of Vilna from circa 1725 until his death in 1749. For photographs of R. Yehoshua Heschel’s wooden tombstone, see Klausner, p. 52; Szyk, p. 416; and Ran, vol. 1, p. 101.
[26] Klausner, p. 42. Cf. Szyk, p. 416 and Ran, vol. 1, p. 100 (mostly illegible).
[27] See, e.g., מצודת דוד, p. 27a.
[28] Fuenn 1860, pp. 97-98; Fuenn 1915, pp. 104-105.
[29] See Eduard Duckesz, אוה למושב (Krakau, 1903), pp. 4-7.
[30] Fuenn 1860, pp. 99-100; Fuenn 1915, pp. 106-107; Klausner, p. 43.
[31]  Moving from left to right on the photograph, R. Yaakov Kahana’s tombstone (tombstone 6) appears to the right of R. Moshe Darshan’s tombstone (tombstone 5). But as one walks uphill from the bottom to the top of the cemetery, one passes the three mausoleums, then the twin gravestones of R. Yaakov Kahana and R. Eliyahu Hasid (tombstone 7), and only then the grave of R. Moshe Darshan.
[32] For biographical information about R. Yaakov Kahana, see Fuenn 1860, p. 239; Fuenn 1915, pp. 239-240; and the third edition of Kahana’s גאון יעקב, entitled גאון יעקב השלם (Jerusalem, 1997), introductory pages. See also Yaakov Polskin, “ספר צוף דבש,” ישורון 4(1998), p. 270, notes 7-9.
[33] Here too, the photograph presents an empty frame. Only the opening lines (i.e. the marker identifying the grave) can still be read. The original epitaph is recorded in Fuenn 1860, p 240; Fuenn 1915, pp. 240-241. Klausner (p. 53) mentions Kahana’s grave but does not record the epitaph.
[34] For biographical information about R. Moshe Kramer, see Fuenn 1860, pp. 95-96; Fuenn 1915, pp. 102-103, and the references cited in the next note.
[35] See R. Avraham b. R. Eliyahu (the Gaon’s son), סערת אליהו (Vilna, 1889), p. 18. Cf. R. Yehoshua Heschel Levin, עליות אליהו (Vilna, 1885), p. 39, note 5.
[36] The opening lines (i.e. the marker identifying the grave) are painted on the upper portion of the tombstone. The epitaph is encased below the tombstone’s upper portion. For the epitaph, see Fuenn 1860, p. 99; Fuenn  1915, pp. 105-106; and Szyk, p. 408.
[37] See Fuenn 1860, p. 107; Fuenn 1915, p. 113.
[38] Here too the opening lines represent the marker identifying the grave, almost certainly added at a later date. For the epitaph, see Klausner, p. 43.      
[39] See  שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי: דרוש ואגדה (Jerusalem, 2014), pp. 390-396. For the date when R. Dovid left Vilna (January 19, 1941), we have followed Shimon Yosef Meller, הרב מבריסק (Jerusalem, 2003), vol. 1, p. 513.
[40] No precise date is provided by R. Dovid for his visit to the old Jewish cemetery. But since he arrived in Vilna on October 22, 1939, and his first attempts to visit the cemetery were thwarted, we assume the visit took place in 1940, the only full year he spent in Vilna. It is possible, however, that the visit took place late in 1939 or early in 1941.
[41] שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי: דרוש ואגדה (Jerusalem, 2014), pp. 393-394. The translation provided here is paraphrastic. The original Hebrew text reads:
[42] In 1940, Jewish burials were still taking place in Zaretcha, the successor cemetery to the old Jewish cemetery, which was closed in 1831. Zaretcha (today: Užupis), just outside the Old Town, and across the Vilenka River, was part of the Vilna municipality in 1940.
[43] In the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the northern gate was no longer used. One entered the old Jewish cemetery from a side entrance on Derewnicka Street. The path from the entrance would lead one to the section where R. Menahem Manes Chajes was buried (on the right) and to the mausoleum where the Vilna Gaon was buried (on the left).
[44] The biblical title משיח ה’ (see, e.g., I Sam. 24:7 and Lam. 4:20), rendered “the Lord’s anointed one,” was usually reserved for kings and would-be messiahs (by their followers), not rabbis. R. Dovid could not identify the occupant of the grave, perhaps because the line with the name מהור”ר מנחם מאנש simply didn’t resonate to a 17 year old yeshiva student. One could claim that the line with R. Menahem Manes’ name was no longer legible in 1940 (as it was not legible in the inter-war photograph that forms the basis of this essay), but this seems highly unlikely in the light of the Selevan photograph taken in 1936. See below, note 48. The Selevan photograph is a close-up photo, and R. Dovid was standing directly in front of the same tombstone. He had no trouble reading poorly painted words.
[45] See discussion below.
[46] See discussion below.
[47] R. Menahem Manes Chajes died in 1636; R. Moshe Rivkes died in 1672. Eighty five years after these dates would be between 1721 and 1757. Since, as we shall see, the author of Ha-Pardes died in 1775, “85 years” cannot be referring to the time that elapsed between their deaths and his. “100 years” and more would have been a more accurate estimate. See below, note 56, for a likely explanation of the “85 years.”
[48] Reuben Selevan, A Trip to Remember: New York to Europe 1936 (New York, 2009), p. 113. I am deeply grateful to the author for granting me permission to scan and post the photograph (taken by his father in 1936) of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ epitaph.
[49] For a biography of R. Aryeh Leib Epstein, see R. Ephraim Mordechai Epstein, גבורות ארי (Vilna, 1870). Ha-Pardes, only partially published, was an encyclopedic work encompassing many different genres of rabbinic literature. It includes talmudic commentary, listing and exposition of the 613 commandments, responsa literature, halakhic codes, kabbalistic teaching, sermons, eulogies, and more. The first fascicle with the title ספר הפרדס was published in Koenigsberg, 1759. It is a available today in several editions, including: ספרי בעל הפרדס (Bnei Brak, 1978), 2 vols.; and ספרי הפרדס (Jerusalem, 1983), 4 vols. See also מעשה רב חדש (Bnei Brak, 1980), pp. 29-80.
[50] His grave is no longer standing. A sketch of his grave, as it looked in 1904, appears in Festschrift zum 200jahrigen Bestehen des israelitischen Vereins für Krankenpflege und Beerdigung Chewra Kaddischa (Koenigsberg, 1904), sketch IV. The full Hebrew epitaph is printed opposite p. XX.

[51] See the entry on him in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1973), vol. 10, column 830.
[52] גבעת שאול, p. 23a. The translation here is paraphrastic. The Hebrew text reads:
[53] See Deut. 5:19 and Rashi’s comment ad loc.
[54] The year of R. Menahem Manes Chajes’ death was recorded on his epitaph with the words: קדרו ושמים. Several of these letters had  protruding dots above them; the numerical value of the dotted letters yields the year of his death. At a very early period, some of the dots could no longer be read. Fuenn (1860, p. 63; 1915, p. 67) writes that he was able to make out dots above the letters ר, ו , and מ. But those letters alone could not possibly refer to his date of death. This passage indicates that in 1825, at least, the dotted letters also includedק   and final ם, totaling [5]386 = 1626. On other grounds, we know that Chajes died in [5]396 = 1636, so it appears likely that the dotted letters also once included the י of ושמים. If not for Fuenn’s testimony, we would claim that the second word by itself, ושמים ( = [5]396) yields the year of Chajes’s death. Cf. Moshe Dovid Chechik (above, note 9), p. 675.
[55] See M. Avot 5:7.
[56] Given that this passage was written in 1825, “85 years” here refers to the period between 1740 and 1825. As the passage itself makes clear, the reference is to the many rabbinic greats who were buried in this section of the cemetery by 1740 – and not later. See above, epitaphs 1,3,4,5,7, and 8, all of which are samples that support the claim that after 1740 no rabbinic greats were buried in this section of the cemetery. Epitaphs 2 and 6 are in harmony with this claim. Epitaph 2 is the epitaph of R. Shaul Katzenellenbogen, the case at hand. Epitaph 6 (R. Yaakov Kahana) is dated 1826, a year after the case at hand and the publication of the passage in R. Zvi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen’s גבעת שאול.
[57] The father of R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (d. 1953), author of חזון איש.
[58] I am deeply grateful to Professor Dovid Katz of Vilnius, mentor and colleague, whose astute comments have enhanced the final version of this essay.