The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem

The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem: A Modern Forgery

By: Shnayer Leiman

For a related post by Dr. Leiman see “Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem.”

I. Introduction

In 1923, Chaim Bloch (1881-1973), noted author and polemicist,1published a letter of the Maharal (d. 1609) that was previously unknown to all of Jewish literature.2 The letter, dated 1582 (or more precisely: Tuesday of parshat va-yera, [5]343), was addressed to R. Jacob Günzberg (d. 1615), Chief Rabbi of Friedberg in Hesse.3 Rich in content, the letter provides a lengthy and detailed account of why it was necessary for the Maharal to create a Golem, how he went about doing it, and the precise spiritual, psychological, and halakhic status of the created Golem. Bloch assured his readers that the letter was published from an original copy in his possession. In order to quell any doubts, he reproduced a facsimile of the Maharal’s autograph, as it appeared on the original letter.4

Bloch did not provide much detail about the letter’s whereabouts for the more than 300 years it apparently had been withdrawn from circulation and unknown. He thanks Rabbi Samuel Neuwirth of Vienna for his efforts in acquiring the letter and handing it over to Bloch for publication. Given that it was published together with a series of hasidic documents (including letters of the Baal Shem Tov), allegedly recovered from East European archives that had been plundered during World War I and its aftermath, the impression one has is that the Maharal letter belonged to these archives as well – though this is never explicitly stated by Bloch.5

In 1931, R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss (d. 1944), the Spinka Rebbe,6 published the very same letter of the Maharal (without any mention of the prior Bloch publication) based upon — what he believed to be — an original manuscript in his possession. He appended it to the posthumous publication of his father’s אמרי יוסף על המועדים7 . Although he gave no indication as to when or how the letter came into his hands, two witnesses provide us with some interesting detail.

The first witness, R. Yitzchok Weiss (d. 1942), Chief Rabbi of Kadelburg,8 in his אלף כתב, a book written primarily between 1927 and 1939 but published posthumously in 1997, includes the following entry:

The Gaon and Zaddik of Spinka informed me on Monday of [parshat] Hukkat-Balak, 7 Tammuz, 5682 [= 1922], that a manuscript written by the hand of the Maharal of Prague came into his possession. In it, he responded to R. Jacob Günzberg about the making of the Golem, how and why it was done, and whether the Golem will be included in the resurrection of the dead.9

Thus, we know that the letter reached the Spinka Rebbe no later than the beginning of July in 1922.

The second witness, R. Samuel Weingarten (d. 1987), noted scholar of Hungarian Jewry and religious Zionist,10 reported that he was present at the home of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937), the Munkatcher Rebbe, circa 1922-23, when two of the sons of the Spinka Rebbe [R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss], R. Naftoli and R. Yisrael Hayyim, approached the Munkatcher Rebbe with a query. They carefully removed a manuscript from a large envelope and asked the Rebbe to examine it. It was a handwritten letter signed by the Maharal of Prague and it dealt with the creation of the Golem. They explained that a soldier who had been taken captive at the Russian front during the World War, and who had participated in the looting of government archives during the Russian revolution, had brought the letter to their father and was prepared to sell it to him for a stiff price. Since the Spinka Rebbe was not expert in Hebrew manuscripts, he sought the advice of the Munkatcher Rebbe. The latter examined the manuscript carefully for some fifteen minutes. He then asked that a magnifying glass be brought and he re-examined the manuscript. He concluded that it was worthless; it was a forgery. The sons thanked the rabbi and went on their way with the manuscript.11

In 1969, the very same letter of the Maharal was published once again by R. Zvi Elimelech Kalush of Bnei Brak.12 The title page of the volume assures the reader that the text of the letter was copied from the “original handwritten holy manuscript” penned by the Maharal of Prague himself. Kalush admits that he is simply reprinting the text published by the Spinka Rebbe in his father’s אמרי יוסף. Indeed, Kalush’s text incorporates all the misreadings and printers’ errors of the text as it appeared in the אמרי יוסף and, as often happens when type is reset, adds several new printers’ errors as well.13

Since the letter is often reprinted and quoted as an authentic letter of the Maharal, it is probably useful to list some of the reasons that led the Munkatcher Rebbe and others14 to declare that it is a forgery. In order to facilitate discussion of the evidence, the full text of the letter is printed below, with each line identified by number.

II. Letter of the Maharal15

III. Evidence of Forgery16

p. 86, l. 2: ושלום The 1931 edition reads correctly: והשלום. As an epistolary formula, the phrase חיים שלום וברכה (and its variations) does not appear in Jewish literature prior to the eighteenth century.

אל כבוד יד”נ As an epistolary formula, the phrase אל כבוד יד”נ does not occur in Jewish literature prior to the eighteenth century.

כקש”ת This abbreviation for כבוד קדושת שם תפארתו first appears in Jewish literature in the eighteenth century.

p. 87, l. 6: בשנת השלום (בו?) לפ”ק The 1931 edition reads correctly: בשנת ה’ של”ב לפ”ג. Thus, according to the Letter, Maharal was appointed Rabbi of Prague in 1572. According to the historical sources, the Maharal was appointed Rosh Yeshiva of Prague in 1573. His appointment as Rabbi of Prague came many years later.

p. 87, l. 8: The Maharal is depicted throughout the letter as devoting all his energies to countering the blood libel in Prague. There is no historical evidence – Jewish or Christian – of a charge of blood libel in Prague during the lifetime of the Maharal.

p. 87, l. 12: Cardinal Johann Sylvester is described here as the leading Christian authority in Prague. No cardinal by that name served in Prague or, for that matter, anywhere else in Christian Europe. For a list of the cardinals who functioned in Prague, see Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi 3(1920), pp. 297-354; 4(1935), p. 288; and 5(1952), p. 323; and cf. A. Frind, Die Geschichte der Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe von Prag, Prague, 1873, pp. 178-249.

p. 87, l. 27: An anti-Semitic priest and rogue in sixteenth century Prague by the name of Thaddeus is unknown to all of Jewish and Christian literature prior to the twentieth century.

p. 87, l. 28: יהודים חשוכים בדעתם, used here in the sense of “unenlightened Jews,” is a usage found only in modern Hebrew literature.

p. 88, l. 4: Rudolph II is described here as serving as King of Bohemia in 1572-3. In fact, Maximilian II served as King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor in 1572-3. It is surprising that the Maharal confused these two kings with each other.

p. 88, l. 6: The Maharal reports that he was summoned for an audience with King Rudolph in 1573. Aside from the fact that Rudolph was not in office at the time, the Maharal met with Rudolph only once – in 1592. See the testimony of the Maharal’s disciple, R. David Gans, צמח דוד, ed. M. Breuer, Jerusalem, 1983, p. 145. Since this letter was allegedly written and sent to R. Jacob Günzberg in 1583, the confusion here is astonishing.

p. 89, l. 7: מולדווקא refers to the Moldau River, today the Vltava River. It is surprising that the Maharal was unaware of the correct spelling for this river in Hebrew – an essential ingredient for the writing of legally valid divorce documents. In the commentaries to the standard editions of the שלחן ערוך it is always spelled מולטא17. It is even more surprising that the Maharal was unaware of the fact that the Moldau flows through the center of the city of Prague, and not on the “outskirts of the city” (see line 6).

p. 90, I. 21-22: Maharal here refers to the permutations and combinations of the Hebrew letters that enable one to create a Golem, as they appear in the printed editions of Sefer Yetzirah. Alas, no such permutations and combinations appeared in any of the printed editions of Sefer Yetzirah until 1883 (פירוש הר”א גרמיזא על ספר יצירה, Przemysl, 1883).18

p. 91, l. 20: כלי המ”ש = כלי המורה שעות, a watch or clock. This term first entered Hebrew in the nineteenth century.

p. 91, l. 25: מכונה in the sense of “machine” entered Hebrew in the modern period.

p. 94, l. 9: The signature reads: Judah, dubbed Leib, son of R. Bezalel. In fact, the Maharal never signed his name in this manner. See A. Gottesdiener, המהר”ל מפראג: חייו תקופתו ותורתו, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 19 and 29.

IV. Comments

We have hardly exhausted the evidence – historical and linguistic – that can be adduced in order to prove that Bloch’s Letter of the Maharal is a forgery. The cumulative evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that there is really no point in adducing more of the same. Suffice to say that anyone familiar with the syntax and vocabulary of the authentic, published writings of the Maharal will recognize instantly that the Letter of the Maharal is a crude forgery. What remains to be investigated is the identity of the forger. Who forged the letter of the Maharal? When was it forged? Why was it forged? While we cannot provide answers to these questions (due to our ignorance), the following comments may prove useful for others who wish to do so.

1. Much of the material in the Letter of the Maharal was borrowed directly from R. Yudel Rosenberg’s נפלאות מהר”ל, Piotrkow, 1909.19 Clearly, the Letter of the Maharal is dependent upon נפלאות מהר”ל. It is unclear whether both documents came from the same hand, or whether the Letter of Maharal was an independent work. Either way, the Letter of the Maharal may have been a forgery done in order to “prove” the authenticity of נפלאות מהר”ל by providing the original manuscript of the Letter, together with the signature of the Maharal. It would have been much too cumbersome to provide a forged manuscript of the entire text of Rosenberg’s נפלאות מהר”ל 20.

2. It is noteworthy that the Letter of the Maharal was not included in, or even mentioned by, Chaim Bloch in his reworking and expansion of R. Yudel Rosenberg’s נפלאות מהר”ל18 This suggests that the Letter first reached Bloch sometime after 1919, i.e. after he had published his final version of the Golem stories.

3. I am not aware of any evidence that either suggests or proves that Bloch – despite his predilection for forgery21 – forged the Letter of the Maharal. It is perhaps more likely that the forger of the Kherson Geniza (see note 5) was responsible for the forged Letter of the Maharal.

One matter, however, deserves further attention. Bloch, after all, published a facsimile of the Maharal’s signature. Precisely for that reason the publishers of the later editions, misled by the signature, stress the fact that the Letter of the Maharal was written בכתב יד קדשו. In 2009, the four hundredth yahrzeit of the Maharal was commemorated throughout the world. Those commemorations have yielded a remarkable volume, recently published in Prague. Entitled Path of Life: Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the opening pages include a genuine facsimile of the Maharal’s signature.22

Here is the Maharal’s signature as published by Bloch:

Here is the Maharal’s signature in the recently published Path of Life:23

Quod erat demonstrandum!

In sum, the Letter of the Maharal is a modern forgery. It should not and cannot be cited as evidence relating to the Maharal, the Golem, or any of the events that occurred in the sixteenth century. It is a twentieth century document that was probably forged sometime between 1909 and 1922. At best, it sheds light (or: darkness) on what Jewish forgers were thinking and doing during the first quarter of the twentieth century.

NOTES

1 See the entries on Bloch in G. Bader, מדינה וחכמיה, Vienna-New York, 1934, p. 40; I. Landman, ed., Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, 1940, vol. 2, p. 396; and M. Wunder, מאורי גליציה, Jerusalem, 1978, vol. 1, cols. 502-506 (and vol. 6, col. 213). It is unconscionable that no entry on Bloch appears in either edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica. Bloch was a prolific author and an astute polemicist who contributed significantly to a variety of Jewish topics, including folklore, apologetics, and anti-Zionist sentiment. A biography and intellectual history of Bloch remains a scholarly desideratum.

2 קובץ מכתבים מקוריים מהבעש”ט ותלמידיו זי”ע, Vienna, 1923, pp. 86-94.

3 On R. Jacob Günzberg, see D. Maggid, תולדות משפחות גינצבורג, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 12-13. It is unclear when Günzberg was appointed Rabbi of Friedberg. R. Man Todros Spira served as Rabbi of Friedberg until circa 1582. He was succeeded by R. Samuel b. Eliezer, who was succeeded by Günzberg. See A. Kober, “Documents Selected From the Pinkas of Friedberg, a Former City in Western Germany,” PAAJR 17(1947), pp. 28-29.

4 See below for the facsimile of the signature. In fairness to Bloch, it should be noted that he equivocated somewhat as to whether the document was an original or a copy. On the title page of the volume, and under the facsimile of the signature itself, he clearly implied that the letter and the signature were originals, not copies. Toward the end of the Introduction to the volume, however, Bloch describes the manuscript as ancient, difficult to read, and “ascribed to the Maharal.” Indeed, he invites his scholarly audience to determine whether or not the autograph is authentic.

5 The hasidic documents allegedly recovered from East European archives are known in scholarly circles as the Kherson Geniza. The Kherson Geniza has generated a rich literature, too cumbersome to be listed here. Some of the more important discussions are: D.Z. Hilman, אגרות בעל התניא ובני דורו, Jerusalem, 1953, pp. 240-272; Y. Raphael, “גניזת חרסון,” Sinai 81(1977), pp. 129-150; B. Schwartz, “די כערסאנער גניזה,” Der Yid , November 2 – December 28, 1984; A. Rapoport-Albert, “Hagiography with Footnotes,” History and Theory 27(1988), pp. 119-159; H. Liberman, “הוי גוי חוטא,” in ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ, New York, 1996, pp. 139-140; and M. Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, Berkeley, 1996, pp. 123-125.

6 See Tzvi M. Rabinowicz, Encyclopedia of Hasidism, Northvale, 1996, pp. 534-535.

7 אמרי יוסף על המועדים, חלק ב׳, Vranov, 1931 (reissued: New York, 1969 and 1990).

8 Kadelburg, also known as Karlburg, Oroszvar, and Rusovce, was some 11 kilometers southeast of Pressburg (= Bratislava). On Weiss, see Y.Y. Cohen, חכמי הונגריה, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 460-461.

9 אלף כתב, Bnei Brak, 1997, vol. 2, p. 47.

10 See the entry on him in אנציקלופדיה של הציונות הדתית, Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 6, columns 391-393.

11 Samuel Weingarten, “האדמו”ר ממונקטש רבי חיים אלעזר שפירא: בעל תחושה בקרתית” Shanah be-Shanah, 1980, pp. 447-449.

12 שלוש קדושות, Bnei Brak, 1969, pp. 127-135.

13 See, e.g., the last line of the letter, where Kalush (p. 135) mistakenly reads מתפורר, whereas Bloch and the Spinka Rebbe read correctly מתגורר.

14 See below, note 16.

15 The text is taken from קובץ מכתבים מקוריים, pp. 86-94.

16 The evidence of forgery is culled from G. Scholem’s review of Bloch’s קובץ מכתבים מקוריים in Kiyrat Sefer 1 (1924-5), pp. 104-106; the Munkatcher Rebbe’s comments as recorded by Weingarten (see above, note 11); and my own reading of the text.

17 See also R. Ephraim Zalman Margolioth, טיב גיטין, Lemberg, 1859, p. 52a, section on the spellings of towns and rivers.

18 For the correct year of publication of R. Eleazar of Worms commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, see S. Ashkenazi’s note in Tzefunot 1(1989), n. 4, p. 122.

19 נפלאות מהר”ל, ascribed to Maharal’s son-in-law, is itself a literary hoax. See S.Z. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London,” Judaic Studies 3(2004), pp. 1-43.

20 Chaim Bloch, Der Prager Golem: von seiner Geburt bis zu seinem Tod, Vienna, 1919. An English version, The Golem: Legends of the Ghetto of Prague, Vienna, 1925, became a best seller, and is often reprinted. Bloch’s version of the Golem stories first appeared in serial form in 1917 in the Viennese periodical Oesterreichen Wochenschrift. For a comparative study of the Bloch and Rosenberg versions of the Golem stories, see A. L. Goldsmith, The Golem Remembered, 1909-1080, Detroit, 1981, pp. 51-72. Unfortunately, much of Goldsmith’s analysis is flawed due to the fact that he read Bloch and Rosenberg in translation, rather than consulting the original texts.

21 See S. Weingarten, מכתבים מזוייפים נגד הציונות, Jerusalem, 1981. Cf. G. Elkoshi, “ספיחי פולמוס,” Moznayim 42(1976), pp. 212-215.

22 A. Putik, ed., Path of Life: Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, Prague, 2009. The signature, recorded in 1597, appears on the frontispiece and at p. 37. Cf. pp. 73-74.

23 The ז”ל ה”ה at the end of the signature stands for: זכרונו לחיי העולם הבא . Cf. the Maharal’s signatures with the very same endings in his הסכמה to R. Samuel b. Joseph’s לחם רב, Prague, 1609 (reissued: Jerusalem, 2003), p. 5, and in the document cited by Gottesdiener, op. cit., p. 29.

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 2

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 2

by Marc B. Shapiro

1. In a recent Jewish Action (Summer 2009), p. 21, Elli Fischer writes:

Brandeis University has been enclosed by an eruv for thirty years, longer than any other campus not adjacent to an established Jewish community. Since Brandeis is a Jewish institution, the eruv is funded by the university (as opposed to the students). . . . Rabbi David Fine, who graduated from Brandeis in the mid-1980’s, recalls checking the eruv as a student. . . . The first two JLIC rabbis to serve at Brandeis, Todd Berman and Aharon Frazer, each implemented minor upgrades to the eruv.

This gives me the opportunity to correct some errors and tell part of the story of the Brandeis Orthodox community. The eruv was first established in the 1982-1983 school year, when R. Meir Sendor was the Orthodox advisor. (Sendor is currently the rabbi of Young Israel of Sharon and is unusual in that he is both an academic scholar of Kabbalah, with a PhD from Harvard,[1] and also involved in Kabbalah from the spiritual side.) Rabbi Sendor informs me that Rabbi Yehudah Kelemer was the initial halakhic advisor, and Rabbi Shimon Eider was later brought in to be the official rav ha-machshir. (R. Eider later helped in putting up the eruv in Sharon, which was the first eruv in New England.)

When I arrived in Brandeis in the fall of 1985 we did not carry on Shabbat. (Contrary to the Jewish Action article, David Fine didn’t arrive at Brandeis until two years later.) I assume that due to some structural changes on campus, the eruv was no longer functional. During that academic year, Rabbi Eider returned, did what needed to be done, and the eruv was once again kosher. At this time, R. Yaakov Lazaros, a Chabad rabbi in Framingham (with semichah from R. Moshe Feinstein), was the Orthodox advisor.

The university paid (and I assume still pays) for the eruv’s upkeep, but this has nothing to do with Brandeis supposedly being a Jewish institution. In fact, it is not a Jewish institution. Brandeis paid because it saw this as an important service to the Orthodox community. The university has expanded since the 1980’s so that is probably why changes to the eruv had to be made. I don’t like the word “upgrade” that Fischer used, because “upgrade” means to improve the quality of something, and I don’t think that Rabbi Eider’s eruv needed to be improved.

When one speaks of Orthodox life at Brandeis, a lot of credit must go to Rabbi Albert Axelrad, who was the Reform Hillel rabbi at Brandeis. He is someone who over time I came to admire greatly, even though our religious outlooks were so very different. What Weinberg jokingly said about another Reform rabbi applies equally to Axelrad: He is a “hillul ha-shem,” (hillul ha-shem in quotation marks!) because he shows that “one can be an upstanding and noble man, full of the spirit of love for Israel, its Torah, and its language,” even if one is not a halakhic Jew.[2]

In ways that people don’t realize, Axelrad greatly assisted Orthodox growth on campus, and today Brandeis has a very large Orthodox contingent.[3] It was Axelrad who made sure that there would be an Orthodox advisor on campus, paid for from the Hillel budget. Yet despite his leaning over backwards to help the Orthodox, there were always those in the Orthodox community who had negative feelings towards him, not only ideologically, but also personally. These were people who came from yeshivot and had never had any contact with a Reform rabbi, and here was one who performed intermarriages. Axelrad had also been involved in some leftist causes and has the dubious distinction of having been officially put into herem, ceremony and all, by Rabbi Marvin Antelman. He shared this honor with the entire membership of the New Jewish Agenda, whom Antelman also placed under herem. (I mentioned Antelman in a previous installment and hope to return to him as his books are deserving of their own post.)

Rabbi Lazaros was only at Brandeis for one year and he was followed by Rabbi Marc Gopin. Those who saw the video on the Rav will probably remember Gopin as he has a few appearances in it. At the time he was working on his dissertation, which focuses on Samuel David Luzzatto.[4] He has also published a nice article on Elijah Benamozegh.[5] Since then he has made an international reputation for himself in the area of conflict resolution, travelling widely and publishing a number of books.[6]

Gopin was followed by another rabbi, a RIETS graduate, who would have been very good for the community in another ten years. But at this time he was too much to the right for them. The community had always been a somewhat liberal place. I recall the outrage among many when R. Moshe Dovid Tendler came to campus and expressed his feelings about homosexuality. There was the same outrage when the new campus rabbi said similar things. (Shmuley Boteach or R. Chaim Rapoport would have been more in line with the students’ feelings.) The following should give a further sense of the liberal nature of the community: The practice on Shabbat morning when taking the Torah out of the ark was for the hazan to carry it through the women’s section. This struck everyone as a very nice thing to do, and although it is not done at the typical synagogue, college is a very different place. Another example of how college differs from the “real world” is that during Shabbat morning services women routinely give divrei Torah, yet this is not something that most “regular” shuls are willing to allow.

When Rabbi Lazaros was the Orthodox advisor he ruled that the practice of carrying the Torah on the women’s side was forbidden. From the way he explained his decision I understood that the major issue wasn’t carrying the Torah on the woman’s side per se, but rather women kissing the Torah. As he was the rav, we had to listen to him, even on the Shabbatot that he was not there. However, in an act of rebellion the community made a decision that when the Torah was taken out of the ark the hazan, who now could not walk around the women’s side, would also not walk around the men’s side. He would bring the Torah right to the bimah. When the Torah was returned to the ark the hazan walked to the front of the synagogue and sang Mizmor le-David, once again without walking around the men’s side. The following year, with the arrival of a new Orthodox advisor, the community revived the old practice of carrying the Torah on the women’s side.

When I was the Orthodox advisor in the early 1990’s the Orthodox culture on campus had changed, and the situation with carrying the Torah was exactly reversed from what it had been in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s it was the students, or rather some students, who wanted to stop carrying the Torah on the women’s side. They didn’t think that an Orthodox shul could have such a practice. My position was that the minhag had to remain the way it was. At that time there was a very dynamic Ramah-type minyan and if the Orthodox were seen as too close-minded we would lose people to the Conservative minyan. In fact, it was precisely because of the liberal nature of our minyan that many non-Orthodox were attracted to it, and a number of students adopted an observant lifestyle while at Brandeis. While some students, coming to Brandeis after a year in Israel, wanted the minyan to be just like their shul in Teaneck and the Five Towns, the truth was that the minyan, to be successful, had to be run like an out of town shul.

This was not the only time I felt that for the sake of the wider appeal of the Orthodox community I had to make decisions that got some people upset. On Friday night there was a communal meal for all the different denominations. Often a woman would say kiddush. After that everyone could, of course, make their own kiddush. But there were some people who wanted to make a big deal about the women saying kiddush, and were also saying that men are not yotze with this, no matter which woman is reciting the kiddush. At the same time that this was happening, there were also those in the non-Orthodox groups who wanted to start having women lead the communal birkat ha-mazon. Until then, out of deference to the Orthodox, only a man led it.

We have a talmudic principle that if you try to grab too much you will end up with nothing, so I had to make a choice. The real halakhic issue here was birkat ha-mazon, as a woman cannot be motzi a man.[7] Therefore, I told the students that it was OK for the women to make kiddush but not birkat ha-mazon, and anyone who wanted to should make his own kiddush. This compromise was accepted. A year prior to this, before I was working at Brandeis, I had been wondering about this issue and asked R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin if it was permitted for a woman to say kiddush for a man. He replied in the affirmative. Shortly after receiving his answer, the same issue became pressing at Harvard Hillel. I told the Orthodox rabbi at Harvard, Harry Sinoff, what the practice at Brandeis was and that he might want to consult with R. Henkin. This is the responsum R. Henkin wrote, published here for the first time. (See also Bnei Vanim, vol. 2, pp. 40-41.)

I myself wrote a short Hebrew “mini-responsum” dealing with women, kiddush, and birkat ha-mazon. It was taped to the wall of the campus beit midrash, but with the move to the right, I am sure that not too long after my departure the responsum came down.

I just mentioned the Brandeis beit midrash, which it itself significant. Other than Brandeis, I don’t know if there is another secular university in the world that has a beit midrash in a university building. When the beit midrash was established in the early 1990’s it was a great achievement. It was an entirely student led project, but again, Rabbi Axelrad’s involvement, behind the scenes, was crucial. He spoke at the beit midrash dedication, as did the Boston Rosh Kollel.

There were also some minor conflicts related to the beit midrash. Although it was the Orthodox students who arranged for it, it was obviously something that all students could be part of. The question came up of what type of books should be stocked there. My feeling was that since the library had all the scholarly and academic books, there was no reason for these sorts of texts to be in the beit midrash.

Another issue arose with the Boston kollel. They had recently become involved with Brandeis students as part of their outreach. One of the kollel guys, who was having a great influence on the students, wanted to start a gemara shiur on campus. This was fabulous. He wanted to give the shiur in the beit midrash, which was the natural place. However, he said that he could only do it if no women were allowed into the beit midrash during this time (even if they were not participating in the shiur). One of the women students complained to me, and I agreed that this was improper. The beit midrash was established for all students and must be open 24 hours a day for everyone. We could not have a situation where, like a pool, the beit midrash is closed to women for certain hours. It also went against the ethos of the community to declare that women are barred from attending certain classes. I told the male students who were organizing the shiur that it would have to take place somewhere else, and that is what happened.

Right when we were having the discussions one of the students drove to Brookline to attend Prof. Isadore (R. Yitzhak) Twersky’s gemara shiur, and he came back reporting that there was a woman in attendance. If the Talner Rebbe welcomed women to his shiur, were the Brandeis students supposed to be more “frum”? For those who have never seen a picture of my late teacher, who was also the son-in-law of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, here he is:

There was another time when the Boston Rosh Kollel gave a decision to some of the students that I felt could drive away the less religious if it was adopted by the community as a whole. Since there were students who thought that the Rosh Kollel should be regarded as the halakhic authority for the community, I was in a difficult situation. This was especially so as I myself had asked him questions in the past, so it would not be an easy thing to reject his ruling in this case. I consulted a well-known haredi posek with whom I had discussed other matters, including an issue of possible mamzerut that came up on campus. He agreed with my position but said that he could not put his decision in writing.

I know that some people will find this objectionable, but it never bothered me. Why should I care if he put it in writing? He knew that if he did he might be attacked. Given the choice between no pesak (if it has to be in writing) or an oral pesak, obviously the latter is preferable. Although at the time I told people who gave the pesak (and anyone who wanted to could call him up to confirm it), revealing it on this blog would, I think, fall into the category of “putting it in writing.” This posek is still functioning, and if he was afraid of being attacked fifteen years ago, all the more so today. (There are reasons why I am being vague about the particulars of the pesak.)

Returning to the Brandeis beit midrash, Prof. Marvin Fox also spoke at its dedication. This was significant as it was the first time, in my memory, that the students took advantage of this great scholar and talmid hakham.[8] There was such a disconnect at Brandeis between the academic life and the religious life that regarding the latter we all overlooked the people in our midst, those who were teaching us in the classroom. I too regret not speaking to Fox in greater detail. For example, having lived in Columbus, Ohio he knew R. Leopold Greenwald very well, and yet other than hearing one or two stories about him from Fox, I never took the time to find out more. Fox also knew Chaim Bloch, the great rabbinic forger. (Greenwald and Bloch were themselves good friends.) He told me once that there was a lot he could say about Bloch, and yet I was foolish and never took advantage of this.

After Fox’s death I discovered a letter from him to Bloch in which he explains how it happened that Greenwald’s great library ended up at the Hebrew Union College. He also tells us the tragic fate of Greenwald’s huge collection of letters, letters that he received from gedolim and scholars over the course of many decades. This must have been one of the largest and most interesting collections in the world, full of priceless material which should have been given to a library so a Greenwald archive could be established. Among these papers were also to be found manuscripts from Greenwald’s own pen that had not yet been published. It was perhaps with this in mind that Fox told me very firmly, at the Brandeis beit midrash dedication, not to let the letters of Weinberg out of my hands. He was convinced that some people would want to destroy them, or at the very least make sure they were not made public.

Here is Fox’s letter to Bloch, courtesy of the Leo Baeck Institute, New York [9]:

Returning to the RIETS graduate who was the Orthodox advisor following Gopin, there were a few issues that created problems. Yet the straw that broke the camel’s back was that, in accordance with R. Moshe Feinstein’s pesak, he would not give an aliyah to Rabbi Axelrad. Axelrad’s practice was to come to the Orthodox minyan once a year. Not giving him an aliyah was something that simply wouldn’t fly at Brandeis. It was not a question of Axelrad being concerned about his kavod. I am certain that he did not take personal offense. But he was very concerned about what appeared to be a growing split in the community, a community that had always gotten along so well. To publicly refuse to give the Hillel rabbi an aliyah would give the Orthodox community a sectarian flavor very much removed from both the Hillel ethos, as well from the majority of Orthodox students as well. It was not surprising, therefore, that this rabbi was let go in the middle of the year. After he was let go he tried to create a separate Orthodox community independent of Hillel. It was to be a real Austrittsgemeinde, and he told us that money would be forthcoming from New York to help us form the new community. Yet none of the students were interested.

R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin’s responsum, Bnei Vanim, vol. 2, no. 9, on whether one can give a Reform rabbi an aliyah, is dealing with the Brandeis situation (and was sent to me). Rabbi Henkin’s responsa have an unfortunate characteristic in that they don’t mention to whom he is writing, or give other identifying details. Without this blog post, future historians would have had no way of knowing which of the many American campuses he was referring to. Think of how much we learn about the history of Orthodoxy in America from R. Moshe Feinstein’s responsa. We see him answering questions to Canton, Berkeley and all sorts of other places. Knowing to where he is writing is vital for getting a sense not only of Orthodoxy of the time, but of the responsum itself, since his ruling for an out-of-the way place cannot always be applied when dealing with a center of Jewish life. More leniencies are obviously found in the former. With regard to Bnei Vanim, since R. Henkin doesn’t tell us to whom he is writing, when he is offering comments on another’s work we have no way of identifying this text if we want to get a better sense of the opposing position. (Other poskim have also published responsa that deal with Brandeis, and I will discuss them in a future post.)

I think readers might also find the following story interesting, from my tenure as Orthodox advisor at Brandeis. Every Friday night all the different groups on campus would get together for an oneg, at which there would be a speaker. Out of respect for the Orthodox a microphone was never used, which wasn’t really an issue since the onegs were not that big. However, it so happened that Hillel had an opportunity to bring in Dr. Ruth Westheimer [10] to speak on Friday night. She wasn’t going to speak about any sexual matters, but about her early years in Germany and her family that was killed.

This was at the height of Dr. Ruth’s fame, and there was going to be a huge crowd to come hear her. Hillel had decided to break with tradition and use a microphone at the event, which was to be held in a hall much larger than was usually used. I was told that Dr. Ruth actually insisted on the microphone, and the Hillel leadership didn’t feel like they could refuse. Before continuing with the story, let me go back a few years and tell how I, and my classmates, first heard of Dr. Ruth, because I think it says something about how yeshiva administrators are sometimes very foolish. I still remember how one day on the bus all the talk was about how the administration of Bruriah High School – the girl’s school of the Jewish Educational Center in Elizabeth, where I was a student – had sent out a letter to all parents telling them about a very dangerous radio show called “Sexually Speaking” that was on very late on Sunday night. The parents were told to make sure that their daughters didn’t listen to it—as if a parent can control what a teenager does with her radio in the privacy of her room. It was an era before computers, when we all listened to radio. (I am sure many readers remember the days when 770 WABC played music.)

Now anyone should realize that the perfect way to bring teenagers to do something is to tell them that they can’t do it. Although perhaps none of the Bruriah students had ever even heard of the show, upon receipt of this letter they all were determined to find out what the administration wanted to keep them away from. Not only that, but on the bus, the day after the letter was received, they told all the boys about this strange letter. None of us had ever heard of Dr. Ruth, and our school never sent out a warning letter to parents. Yet you can be sure that after hearing the news we too were curious. It happens that some students found Dr. Ruth so funny and interesting that they listened to her while they were on the phone together. The whole novelty was about an older Jewish woman, with a strong accent, speaking so openly about the things people don’t usually speak about.

Returning to the story, I was now put in a difficult situation, since the Orthodox community could not support an event that involved Sabbath violation. I told this to the Hillel administration and I told the students that I would not be going and it was not something that the Orthodox community could be part of. I remained in the dining room with those students who chose to stay, and those who wanted to hear Dr. Ruth went upstairs, where the event was taking place. Imagine my surprise when someone sits down next to me, and lo and behold, it is Dr. Ruth. She had obviously been told that there was some controversy about her speaking on the microphone, and she wanted to come speak to me. She was extremely apologetic, and said that unfortunately she needs the microphone, otherwise no one would be able to hear her. She also told me that she was sorry that this created problems for the Orthodox community. Dr. Ruth stayed with us for about ten minutes or so, and even bentched together with us (though though she hadn’t eaten anything!). She told me that she remembered singing the standard tune to the first paragraph of birkat hamazon when she was a child in Germany. I don’t know if she had sung it since.

One other event is worth recalling, and this took place when I was an undergraduate. It involved a dispute between me and my friend David Bernstein, and I would be curious to hear what readers have to say.[11] We decided to create an organization so we could invite in speakers. In order to get money from the university, we had to be officially chartered, so in our senior year we created the Brandeis chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. It had exactly two members (we had no interest in having any others join), and lasted for only one year (i.e., until we graduated). I was a little surprised when the Brandeis student senate agreed to charter us and give us money, but hey, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. (Had Matthew Brooks not already graduated, we probably would have let him join our little club. Brooks is now the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. See here)

One of our events was sponsoring a debate between my father, Edward S. Shapiro, and Stephen S. Whitfield on what political ideology was more in line with Jewish interests. This had a very large turn-out and the problem was that Whitfield, although a Democrat, is more of a Truman or Kennedy Democrat. Every time my father cited some nonsensical statement by a Democratic figure, Whitlfield agreed that it was nonsense, so they ended up agreeing about as much as they disagreed. A debate isn’t much fun unless one of the speakers is prepared to defend what others regard as indefensible (e.g., anyone looking to defend ACORN?).

For those who don’t know, Whitfield is one of the leading experts on American Jewish culture, having written an enormous amount on the topic. My father started off as a general historian, but has also written a great deal on American Jewish history. I can’t help thinking that the reason the New York Times never reviewed his book on the Crown Heights Riots [12] – which was a National Jewish Book Award Finalist – was that they didn’t want to revisit the issue. It was, after all, the great embarrassment of the Dinkins administration, and the symbol of Democratic failure in New York City, ushering in the Giuliani era. Yet it was, precisely for these reasons, one of the most important events in recent New York City history, and one would think that the New York Times would have thought it worthwhile to review such a book. But no, they let it pass without comment.

We also brought in Dinesh D’Souza to speak. This was before he had published any of his books. In fact, I had never even heard of him when Bernstein suggested we bring him. His talk, though sparsely attended, was quite good. My dispute with Bernstein happened regarding our next speaker. I wanted to bring Lew Lehrman to speak. He was a prominent conservative who almost became governor of New York. He also had some honorary role in Young Americans for Freedom. Bernstein strongly disagreed. He argued that since Lehrman had converted to Catholicism a few years prior, he was not the sort of person we should be asking to speak. Although Bernstein was not Orthodox, that was a big issue for him and I agreed to drop the idea. But from my perspective, the fact that Lehrman had left the fold had no relevance for me in terms of having him speak. I wasn’t giving him an honor or asking him to speak on his theology. I wanted to hear him talk about economic matters and the situation in Nicaragua, and didn’t think that his personal life was of any relevance.

Although the cases are obviously not identical, there was a time when many people would have reacted the same way to inviting an intermarried speaker, and my response would have been the same. Since there is such a high intermarriage rate, one day most of us will have someone running for Congress in our district who is intermarried (some already have such representatives), just like most of us already know people, or have family members, who are intermarried. I don’t think this should have any relevance on my vote. In fact, I don’t think it should have any relevance on anything. Two generations ago, anyone who intermarried realized that he was doing something very much at odds with Jewish life and upbringing. Today, hardly anyone who grows up in the non-Orthodox world thinks that it is an issue at all, and it is only a matter of time before the Conservative movement accepts intermarriage. They have no choice, as their congregations are full of people whose children intermarry, and they can’t go on forever taking a hard line on this issue. Not only do they lose the intermarried children, they often lose the parents when the rabbi tells his long-time congregants that he is sorry but he can’t perform the wedding of their children or even announce it in the synagogue newsletter. I predict that within ten years we will see Conservative rabbis doing intermarriages.

The massive intermarriage rate has also impacted the Orthodox world. A number of years ago R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg stated that he thought that it might be a good idea for a father whose son was going to intermarry to attend the wedding, thus not completely cutting off all ties.[13] Weinberg had known the problems of intermarriage very well, as the son of his good friend R. Shlomo Aronson, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, had married a non-Jewish Russian woman. He also knew Jacob Klatzkin, the brilliant philosopher and Zionist thinker, who was the son of the even more brilliant R. Elijah Klatzkin. How many people know that Jacob Klatzkin intermarried?

According to Gotthard Deutsch, R. Esriel Hildesheimer’s son Levi intermarried.[14] It is hard to imagine that Deutsch, who was Levi’s contemporary, was mistaken with the facts, especially since he was never corrected in succeeding issues of the newspaper in which he published this information. Yet Dr. Meir Hildesheimer has told me that Levi Hildesheimer married the daughter of Abraham Brodsky of Odessa, the well known philanthropist. Levi’s son, Arnold Hildesheimer, was an active Zionist who made his living as a chemist and eventually moved to the Land of Israel. Arnold’s mother was definitely Jewish. Therefore, I don’t know if Deutsch erred or if Levi married twice.. Arnold Hildesheimer’s son was Wolfgang Hildesheimer, an important figure in pre-World War II German literature.

Unfortunately, we have a number of examples of not merely intermarriage of children of great rabbis, but even conversion. The story of the son of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady is well known, and I don’t need to repeat it here. Let me just mention, however, that the man was clearly mentally unbalanced. Michael Bernays, a son of Hakham Isaac Bernays, is probably the most famous apostate from a rabbinic family in modern times, converting seven years after his father’s death. Another son of Hakham Bernays, Jacob, actually sat shiva when this occurred.[15] If we want to look at descendants of great rabbis who converted, then the family tree of R. Akiva Eger has plenty of non-Jews. In fact, a predecessor to R. Akiva Eger as rav of Posen, the Beit Shmuel Aharon, R. Samuel ben Moses Falkenfeld,[16] had a most significant great-grandson, yet he was not Jewish. I refer to none other than Leon von Bilinski.[17] He was Austrian minister of finance and also military governor of Bosnia when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

I assume the famous Posen family got its name from the city of Posen. R. Gershon Posen, the dayan of Frankfurt’s separatist community, had a grandson who was on the verge of converting to Christianity. Nahum Glatzer describes this young man’s disillusionment with Orthodoxy, and how he tried to talk him out of conversion.[18] (The conversion never took place, and another grandson, R. Raphael Posen, tells me that the more than seventy grandchildren of R. Gershon all remained Orthodox.)

How are Orthodox Jews supposed to relate to those who intermarry, and who typically don’t know any better? Many of us have even been invited to intermarriages. R Yuval Sherlow has stated that while it is not permitted to attend an intermarriage wedding ceremony, there are times (especially when family is involved) that it would be permitted to attend the party.[19] R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that it is permitted to give an intermarried man an aliyah,[20] and this opinion is also shared by R. Baruch Avraham Toledano and R. Pinchas Toledano (former Sephardic Av Beit Din of London).[21] I am also told that this is the practice at the Lakewood kiruv minyanim all over the country. This is so despite the fact that the most that R. Moshe Feinstein would permit in such a case is to allow the intermarried man to open and close the Ark.[22] It is actually Aish Hatorah that has done more to “normalize” intermarriage than any other organization in the Orthodox world. Not only does Aish Hatorah do outreach to the intermarried (something we can all appreciate), but they use various intermarried Jewish celebrities in their publicity, and have even honored these people at their events. I am not saying that they are wrong in what they do. After all, the old approach to intermarriage doesn’t work today, and although I find something distasteful about using an intermarried celebrity as the poster-boy to invite people to a Torah class, I see how people can disagree. But about one thing there can be no doubt, and that is that R. Aaron Kotler would be turning over in his grave if he saw what this supposedly haredi organization has done when it comes to tacit acceptance of intermarriage.

Yet we shouldn’t assume that it is only in modern times that intermarried people have been honored by Orthodox Jews. While it would have been unimaginable in previous years to put them on a pedestal the way Aish Hatorah does, there were times that the intermarried man did such great service for the Jewish community that it was only proper to express feelings of gratitude. Adolphe Cremieux is one such example. Although being intermarried, he helped the Jewish community in many ways. One can even say that he is a model for our time, in showing that one can love the Jewish people and sacrifice for them, even after having intermarried. Here is a song written in honor of Cremieux by the noted R. Aaron Fuld of Frankfurt, author of Beit Aharon. It is taken from Judaica Jerusalem auction cataloge of Summer 1997, p. 6.

Worse than intermarriage is apostasy, but the same issue came up there also. The apostate Daniel Chwolson staunchly defended his former religion and people. How were the Jews to relate to him? Let me quote Louis Jacobs, The Jewish Religion (Oxford, 1995) pp. 99-100:

When Chwolson celebrated his seventieth birthday, a number of Russian rabbis, in gratitude for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish community, sent him a telegram to wish him many happy returns. Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik was more typical of the standard Jewish abhorrence of apostasy when he refused to participate, saying: ‘I do not send congratulatory telegrams to a meshumad.” The wry remark attributed to Chwolson himself in the following story is probably apocryphal. Chwolson is reported to have said that he became a Christian out of conviction. “Who are you kidding?” said a Jewish friend. “How can you of all people, a learned Jew, be convinced that Christianity is true and Judaism false?” To which Chwolson is supposed to have replied: “I was convinced that it is better to be a professor at the university than to be a Hebrew teacher [melamed] in a small town.”

2. I have seen ads for the soon to be published new RCA Artscroll siddur. It will be interesting to see how the battle shapes up between the Sacks siddur and the new RCA Artscroll. I can’t see how the Sacks siddur is going to make any real headway, as I don’t think many shuls are going to get rid of the Artscroll siddur they have been using for so long, and which does just about everything you need a siddur to do. While the new RCA siddur was in the production stages, R. Asher Lopatin of Chicago sent the following letter to the Siddur Committee. I think it is interesting in that it shows some of the concerns of those on the Orthodox left. Although I haven’t seen the new siddur yet, I don’t think I am going out on too much of a limb to predict that the RCA will not be adopting Lopatin’s proposal. (I thank R. Lopatin for allowing me to publish his letter.[23])

The Practice of Saying She’asani Yisrael for the Birchot HaShachar instead of the three “Shelo Asani”s

In Masechet Menachot, 43b (Bavli), Rabbi Meir says that a person, “Adam”, has to (chayav) say three blessings every day: She’asani Yisrael, Shelo Asani Isha and Shelo Asani Bur. There is a note there that it should be Rabbi Yehuda saying this instead of Rabbi Meir, and also on the next line Rav Acha Bar Ya’akov replaces “Shelo Asani Bur” with “Shelo Asani Aved”.

The G’mara questions why we need to say both Shelo Asani Aved and Shelo Asani Isha, but it gives an answer to this question. Rashi, in his second explanation of that answer, on Menachot 44a, says that we need to say both in order to come up with 100 b’rachot. The Bach (O.C 46) argues that the main reason for saying all three is to increase the number of b’rachot we say to 100. He argues that that is the main reason for saying three b’rachot in the negative (shelo asani) instead of one b’racha in the positive (she’asani Yisrael) – basically, if you would say “She’asani Yisrael” then you couldn’t say “Shelo asani aved, isha”. The Aruch HaShulchan (46, yud) paskins as well that if you say She’asani Yisrael, you cannot say the other two negative b’rachot. The Mishna B’rura (46,16) leaves it as a dispute.

Most Rishonim, notably the Rif and the Rambam (according to the G’ra), disagree with our existing girsa of the words of Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Yehuda, and they have the first b’racha in the negative as “Shelo Asani Goy”. This is the standard version in siddurim, nusach Ashkenaz and Sepharad and Edot Hamizrach, with the occasional nusach of “Shelo Asani Nochri” instead of “goy”. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 46, tet) mentions, that there were siddurim – perhaps many of them – that had the b’racha of she’asani Yehudi , but that that is a mistake of the printers, and the Mishna B’rura (46, 15) says that there are several siddurim with “She’asani Yisrael” but that one should not say that as it is also a mistake that of the printers (shibush had’fus).

The Magen Avraham (O.C. 46, yud) and the Haghot Ha’Gra (O.C. 46) interpret the Rama (46, 4) as suggesting that converts should say “She’asani Ger” and the Bach (46) interprets the Rama as suggesting that converts say “She’asani Yehudi” – instead of the negative.

Moreover, the Rosh is in the back of Masechet B’rachot, paragraph #24 (daf 39 in our versions, referring to B’rachot 60a) – upholds the Girsa that we have in Menachot. It’s in rounded brackets in the Rosh, and the Divrei Chamudot on the Rosh doesn’t like it, but it is there. Importantly, the G’ra affirms it is the girsa of the Rosh (and the Tur, which doesn’t appear in our versions) in his Biur HaGra on OH 46:4.

Therefore:

Since many of the Nosei Keilim and the Aruch HaShulchan feel compelled to ask: Why are these b’rachot in the negative (see Taz 46:4 “Rabim makshim…”)?

And since the girsa that we have in our G’marras is She’asani Yisrael, supported by the Rosh and the G’ra

And since even though the Shulchan Aruch rejects our positive girsa of the b’racha, the Rama does support it (in some version) as a legitimate b’racha in certain circumstances – for a convert

And since even those who reject “She’asani Yisrael/Yehudi/Ger” for a convert, (Sh’lah and Bach, see Taz 46, 10), do not reject it because it is not a legitimate nusach, but, rather, because it does not apply to a convert who has made himself a Jew, rather than being created by God as a Jew.

And since the negativity of the three b’rachot causes lots of misunderstandings in shul where many people come from Reform, Conservative or unaffiliated backgrounds – or even from Orthodox backgrounds without perhaps truly understanding the love that Chazal had for all human beings, male, female, Jewish or Gentile

I have asked my shul, Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel Congregation, a shul that does a lot of kiruv, to follow the girsa of the b’racha according to the G’ra and the Rosh, and say, “She’asani Yisrael” and that a woman say “She’asani Yisraelit” instead of “Shelo Asani Goy.”

Once the first b’racha is said in this way, the way it appears in the G’marra Menachot, then we have no choice, based on the rule of ‘safek b’rachot lekula’ and based on the p’sak of the Aruch HaShulchan (from the Bach) , to avoid saying the final two, negative b’rachot of “Shelo Asani Aved” and “Shelo Asani Isha”.

Clearly this helps avoid many of the questions that people ask about the negativity toward “goyim” or “women” that someone who does not understand Chazal do ask. The answers given help, but for a shul dedicated to kiruv, these b’rachot are a big turn off.

On the other hand, the b’racha of “she’asani Yisrael/Yisraelit” is a beautiful b’racha, thanking God for making me Jewish – proud to be Jewish, excited to begin the day as a Yisrael.

In addition, from a philosophical point of view, rather than beginning the day with negative b’rachot, which accentuate the G’mara of “noach lo la’adam shelo nivra” (see Bach 46, then Taz 46, 4), let us begin the day with a positive b’racha “k’mo sha’ar b’rachot shemevarchim al hatova” (Magen Avraham, 46, 9). Not negating the p’sak of “noach lo…”, but just respecting the positive aspects which G’mara Menachot the way we have it preferred.

Homiletically, “She’asani Yisrael” matches very well with B’reishit 32:27: “Vayomer, Shalcheni ki alah hashacher” – see Rashi ad loc where that is referring to Birchot HaShachar of the angels! And then two p’sukim later, what b’racha (“ki im beirachtani”) does Ya’akov get? “Lo Ya’akov ye’ameir shimcha, ki im Yisrael”! There is no better way to bringing these p’sukim to life than by saying birchot hashachar every day the way our G’marra has it: “She’asani Yisrael” – proud as Ya’akov was to receive the name, “Yisrael.”

Finally, Rav Benny Lau, an important Talmid Chacham and leader of Beit Morasha, has told me that he, too, follows this practice of saying “She’asani Yisrael” – and he tells his daughters to say “Yisraelit” – in the morning and having it replace the three negative b’rachot.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize the need to reach 100 b’rachot a day, and to push people to be careful about saying Asher Yatzar when leaving the bathroom, and b’rachot before and after eating, and being in shul as frequently as possible in order to hear chazarat haShatz to more easily reach 100 b’rachot.

I would humbly ask the Committee responsible for the new RCA Artscroll siddur to consider either putting this practice in the siddur itself, as a possible “hanhaga”, or allowing this way of saying birchot Hashachar to appear on the RCA Artscroll siddur web site, to that I can download it and print it up for my shul, and any other shuls interested in this hanhaga can do the same.

Sincerely yours and with wishes of hatzlacha rabba,

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

3. Virtually every one of our sages, together with all their brilliance, offer at least one an unusual, sometimes even incomprehensible, idea. Since I am writing this right before Sukkot, here is something to think about when you take the Arba’ah Minim. R. Jacob Ettlinger, the greatest of nineteenth-century German gedolim, writes as follows in his Bikurei Yaakov 651:13. (If you raised this safek in shiur today, the rebbe would think you were joking, but as with even the strangest suggestions, one can often find a true gadol who discusses the issue.)

נסתפקתי אם אנו יושבי אירופא יוצאין בד’ מינין שגדלו באיי אמעריקא ואויסטראליען שיושבין לצדינו ותחתינו, וכן איפכא. שידוע מה שכתבו הטבעים שרגליהם נגד רגלינו, ומה שאין נופלין נגד השמים הוא מפני ששם הבורא כח מושך בארץ. וא”כ המינים שגדלו שם אם נוטלין אצלנו הוא הפוך מדרך גדולתן, שאצלנו גדלו ראשי הלולב וההדס ההם יותר למטה מזנבם. או אי נימא, כיון שנוטל הגדל סמוך לארץ למטה זה מקרי דרך גדילתו, והכי מסתברא.

4. In the latest Hakirah (Summer 2009), p. 134 n. 189, Chaim Landerer quotes my translation of a comment by R. Solomon Judah Rapoport. I didn’t know that Landerer was going to publish my translation, and I answered his e-mail quickly and carelessly. The correct translation is not that Rapoport is “as Catholic as the Pope,” but something even stronger. Frankel says that Shir is “more Catholic than the Pope.” (Thanks to R. Ysoscher Katz who caught the error and alerted me. Also thanks to Rabbi Jonah Sievers who is always helpful in matters concerning German translation. Not being a native speaker, and obviously not familiar with all idioms of the language, every translation I have published has been carefully reviewed by expert translators.)

Speaking of errors, let me also correct something that appears in Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy. This correction has already been taken care of in the more recent editions of the book, but those who have the first or second printing can insert the correction into the volume. How this error came about, I have no idea. I must have been in a daze, and it was only when the book was published that I saw it. On p. 180, beginning line 3 from the top, it states “Might one then be able to say that our great divine Torah cannot endure the conjunction of Torah with so-called secular studies . . .” It should be corrected to say, “Might one then be able to say that our great divine Torah cannot compete with so called secular studies . . .”

There is a popular expression

כשם שאין תבן בלא בר כך אין ספר ללא טעויות.

The internet is so amazing as it allows all of us to correct errors that have appeared in our works, and publicize them, something that was not possible in earlier years. R. Judah Ibn Tibbon wrote to his son, R. Samuel (Iggeret ha-Musar, ed. Korah [Kiryat Sefer, 2007], p. 45):

והטעות שתצא מיד האדם הוא הנתפש עליה ונזכר בה כל ימיו.

In other words, unlike a verbal error which is forgotten, something in print is there forever. Yet today, we can minimize this problem by means of the internet. Rather than be embarrassed by errors we have made, and try to ensure that no one learns of them, we should all welcome the opportunity to point out our errors, so that our works are as perfect as we can make them. This is quite apart from the unseemliness of pointing out the errors of others, but not being prepared to call attention to our own mistakes.

Incidentally, Ibn Tibbon’s work is full of important lessons, but he says one thing that is very problematic. On p. 42 he writes:
.

.ואל תתעקש אתה להחזיק בדעתך אפילו אם תדע שהאמת אתך

What sense does this make? Doesn’t the Torah tell us לא תגורו? Didn’t the Rambam speak his mind no matter who disagreed? In our own day, isn’t R. Ovadiah Yosef fearless in expressing his opinion, no matter how much he is attacked? I posed this question to R. Meir Mazuz and he replied:

זו הערה נכונה. כנראה ר’ שמואל היה עוד רך בשנים וחשש האב שיגרום לו קנאה ושנאה כמו שקרה לר”ש בן גבירול, וגם להגר”ע יוסף שליט”א בבחרותו כשחלק על הבא”ח כידוע. אבל כשאדם כותב ספר חייב לגלות את דעתו (בעדינות ובזהירות) ולא יכוף על האמת פסכתר. ובמשך הזמן תתגלה האמת, כי היא לעולם עומדת.

5. I want to call everyone’s attention to a fascinating new book. Dirshuni, edited by Tamar Biala and Nechamah Weingarten-Mintz, is a book of modern midrashim, written by women. It has been selling very well in Israel and is an exciting genre that deserves its own discussion. Those who want to see some small excerpts can go here.

To order the book you can go here

6. In my last post I mentioned R. Meir Amsel and the memorial volume that recently appeared. I should have also mentioned that his son, R. Eli Amsel, runs the site Virtual Judaica.

7. Finally, I thank everyone who commented and e-mailed me about R. Yerucham Gorelik. There is no question that he was a fascinating man, and an entire post could be devoted to the great stories told about him. It is also true that his relationship with YU was complicated. Let me quote what Dr. Norman Lamm wrote about Gorelik, shortly after his death.

Rabbi Yerucham Gorelick appeared at times to be engaged in some kind of titanic inner struggle. He was a cauldron of activity and movement, of perpetual motion. He was a man of striking, sometimes startling contradictions. He appeared to be moving in different directions simultaneously. He was a man of changing moods, of profound dialectical tensions, although he was at all times an ish ha-emet, a man of unshakeable integrity.

For Dr. Lamm’s article, see here

Notes
[1] “The Emergence of the Provencal Kabbalah : Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commentary on Sefer Yezirah” (1994).

[2] Letter to Samuel Atlas, dated Oct. 16, 1959, published in “Scholars and Friends: Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas,” Torah u-Madda Journal 7 (1997), p. 113.

[3] See R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg’s letter to R. Kook, Iggerot la-Reiyah (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 128

כבר הונח לי בהשתדלותו של רב אחד מרבני העדה הליברלית (דווקא ע”י רב ליברלי של העדה הליברלית, כאלו רוצה הקב”ה לזכות את כל ישראל במעלות שונות שיש בזה מה שאין וכו’).

[4] “The Religious Ethics of Samuel David Luzzatto” (Brandeis University, 1993).

[5] “An Orthodox Embrace of Gentiles? Interfaith Tolerance in the Thought of S. D. Luzzatto and E. Benamozegh,” Modern Judaism 18 (May 1998), pp. 173-195.

[6] See here A few days before his death, Rabbi Meir Kahane spoke at Brandeis. I think it was actually his last public talk before the night he was killed. For a video of Gopin confronting Kahane see here at 24:20, 31:50, and 43:05, and 56. Gopin starts to speak extensively at 1:02:45. The man standing next to Gopin is Dr. Aryeh Cohen, who also briefly served as Orthodox advisor at Brandeis. He now teaches at the American Jewish University. See here.

[7] See Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 199:6-7.

[8] He also had a nice sense of humor. On the first day of class he would come in and write his name on the board as “F-x.”

[9] The letter is found in the Chaim Bloch Collection, AR 7155.

[10] See here.

[11] Bernstein is now a nationally known professor of law. See here.

[12] Crown Heights: Blacks, Jews, and the 1991 Brooklyn Riot (Waltham, 2006).

[13] I have given the information on this to Rabbi Mark Dratch for his paper at the Orthodox Forum on the topic.

[14] See his article in the Jewish Chronicle, June 26, 1914.

[15] See Moshe Gresser, Dual Allegiance: Freud as a Modern Jew (Albany, 1994), p. 73. Hakham Bernays’ grandaughter, Martha (daughter of Berman Bernays) married Sigmund Freud. After they were married, Freud refused to allow her to light Shabbat candles. See ibid., p. 67.

[16] For details on the controversy surrounding Falkenfeld’s selection as rabbi, and how his opponents regarded as an “uncouth Polack” see Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1898), pp. 2-3. When he was rav in Tarnopol, he also had to contend with troublemakers. See R. Solomon Judah Rapoport’s letter in Leopold Greenwald, Toldot Mishpahat Rosenthal (Budapest, 1920), p. 76. For a picture of his tombstone, see here.

I can’t explain why on the tombstone he is referred to as “Moses Samuel,” when it should be Samuel ben Moses. For his biography, see Beit Shmuel Aharon al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 1994), introduction.

[17] See here. My information on Bilinski’s family background comes from Gotthard Deutsch’s article in the Jewish Chronicle, June 26, 1914.

[18] The Memoirs of Nahum N. Glatzer (New York, 1997), pp. 126-128. Although Glatzer left Orthodoxy, in his younger years he studied in R. Salomon Breuer’s yeshiva in Frankfurt, and also with R. Nehemiah Nobel. As such, he understood Orthodoxy very well. Glatzer, who died in 1990, was retired when I came to Brandeis in 1985. To my great regret, I never took the trouble to interview him as I did with Prof. Alexander Altmann, who retired from Brandeis in 1976. On pp. 129-130 of Glatzer’s memoir we find the following, which I am sure will interest many readers of the Seforim blog.

In 1944 Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (called “the Rov” by his followers and admirers) published in Talpiot a major article, “Ish ha-Halakhah” (the Halakhic Personality). The essay, written in a most beautiful Hebrew style, not only claimed for the observance of Jewish law the central place in Jewish life, but denied the—however circumscribed—validity of any other approach. The Halakhah demands a complete control of the Jew, to the exclusion of an emotional state of mind to accompany the halakhc function. There is no rightful place for, or justification of, a state of excitement or religious agitation, say, in the ceremony of blowing the shofar on New Year’s Day; what matters, and matters exclusively, is the proper execution of the ritual.

This exclusion of the emotional side of religion bothered me when I read the essay. I planned a polemic reply but was dissuaded by my colleagues. I happened to visit New York and voiced my feelings to Professor Louis Ginzberg, the great Talmudist. I expected him to agree with me and object to the rigid stand of the Rov. The cautious Ginzberg did not wish to commit himself, or to say something that could be quoted as a criticism of his Talmudic colleague. He, therefore, did not go beyond saying: “I like my whiskey straight,” which was a mild complaint against the Rov’s combination of Halakhah and philosophy. The only reference that could be interepreted as an admission of esthetics into the realm of religion was Ginzberg’s telling of the Gaon of Vilna (brother of Rabbi Abraham, Ginzberg’s forebear in the seventh generation), who near death admired the beauty of the etrog that was brought to him, since the day was one of the Sukkot festival days.

(The Rov, apparently, would have felt: Never mind the etrog’s beauty. What matters is that the citron is without blemish and the benediction is properly pronounced.).

I was disappointed that Ginzberg did not wish to take seriously the younger man’s question. In the meantime, the Rov changed his position and realized the wider dimension of faith. If you wait long enough . . . [ellipsis in original]. Yet, even with the changed position on the part of the Rov, Ginzberg, were he alive, would insist on having his whiskey straight.

Glatzer sees “The Lonely Man of Faith” as expressing a change in the Rav’s earlier “halakho-centrism.” I wonder if Prof. Lawrence Kaplan will agree.

[19] Reshut ha-Yahid (Petah Tivah, 2003), p. 186.

[20] Ma’ayan Omer (Jerusalem, 2007), vol. 1, pp. 186, 194, 205. R. Hillel Posek, Divrei Hillel, Orah Hayyim, no. 8, strongly supports giving an intermarried man an aliyah, but not as one of the first seven. To deny such an aliyah woould be to embarrass the man, and Posek explains why even sinners cannot be treated with disrespect. See also his comments in Ha-Posek, Sivan 5747, p. 1336. In Amsterdam the practice was also not to give an intermarried man one of the first seven aliyot. See R. Jacob Zvi Katz, Leket ha-Kemah he-Hadash (London, n.d.), vol. 3, p. 63.

[21] Sha’alu le-Varukh, vol. 1, no. 40.

[22] Of course, there are many other poskim who forbid giving an intermarried man an aliyah. Even as liberal a posek as R. Ben Zion Uziel was adamant that you cannot call an intermarried man up to the Torah. See Mishpetei Uziel, vol 8, no. 53.

[23] For those who don’t know, Lopatin was the first Rhodes Scholar to become an Orthodox rabbi. In fact, he might be the first Rhodes Scholar to become a rabbi in any denomination. R. Chaim Strauchler of Toronto is the second Rhodes Scholar-Orthodox rabbi.

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir. part 1

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 1

By Marc B. Shapiro

1. Fifty years ago R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg spoke about the fraudulence that was found in the Orthodox world. Unfortunately, matters have gotten much worse since his time. I am not referring to the phony pesakim in the names of great rabbis that appear plastered all over Jerusalem, and from there to the internet. Often the damage has been done before the news comes out that the supposed pesak was not actually approved by the rav, but was instead put up by an “askan” or by a member of the rabbi’s “court”. I am also not referring to the fraudulent stories that routinely appear in the hagiographies published by Artscroll and the like, and were also a feature in the late Jewish Observer. These are pretty harmless, and it is hard to imagine anyone with sophistication being taken in. Finally, I am also not referring to the falsehoods that constantly appear in the Yated Neeman. I think everyone knows that this newspaper is full of lies and in its despicable fashion thinks nothing of attempting to destroy people’s reputations, all because their outlooks are not in accord with whatever Daas Torah Yated is pushing that week.[1]

I am referring to something much more pernicious, because the falsehoods are directed towards the intellectuals of the community, and are intended to mislead them. There was a time when in the haredi world a distinction was made between the masses, whom it was permitted to mislead with falsehoods, and the intellectuals who knew the truth and who were part of the “club” that didn’t have to bother with the censorship that is ubiquitous in haredi world.

Yet I have recently seen many examples that show that even in the world of the intellectuals, fraudulence has begun to surface. Let me note an example that was recently called to my attention by Rabbi Yitzchak Oratz, and it is most distressing precisely because it is a son who is responsible for the lie. In an issue of the popular journal Or Yisrael, R. Yehudah Heller from London mentioned that the late R. Yerucham Gorelik, a well-known student of R. Velvel of Brisk, had taught Talmud at Yeshiva University.[2] Heller used this example to show that one can teach Torah in an institution even if the students’ devotion to Torah study leaves something to be desired.

In the latest issue of Or Yisrael (Tishrei, 5770), p. 255, Heller publishes a letter in which he corrects what he had earlier written. He was contacted by Gorelik’s son, R. Mordechai Leib Gorelik. The only thing I know about the younger Gorelik is that he appears to be quite extreme. He published an essay in Or Yisrael attacking the Artscroll Talmud and his reason was simply incredible. He claimed that anything that tries to make the study of Talmud easier is to be condemned. He also argued that Talmud study is not for the masses, but only for the elite. Obviously, the latter don’t need translations. According to Gorelik, if the masses want to study Torah, they can study halakhah or Aggadah and Mussar. If they want to study Talmud, then they must do it the way it used to be studied, with sweat, but they have no place in the beit midrash with their Artscroll crutches.[3]

Apparently it bothers Gorelik that his colleagues might think that his father actually taught Talmud at YU. So he told Heller the following, and this is what appears in Or Yisrael: R. Yerucham Gorelik never taught Talmud at YU, and on the contrary, he thought that there was a severe prohibition (issur hamur) in both studying and teaching Talmud at this institution, even on a temporary basis, and even in order “to save” the young people in attendance there. The only subject he ever taught at YU was “hashkafah”.

The Sages tell us that “people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out” (Bekhorot 36b). I don’t think that they would have made this statement if they knew the era we currently live in.[4] Here you have a case where literally thousands of people can testify as to how R. Gorelik served as a Rosh Yeshiva at YU for forty years, where you can go back to the old issues of the YU newspapers, the yearbooks, Torah journals etc. and see the truth. Yet because of how this will look in certain extremist circles, especially with regard to people who are far removed from New York and are thus gullible in this matter, R. Gorelik’s son decides to create a fiction.

I understand that in his circle the younger Gorelik is embarrassed that his father taught Talmud at YU. I also assume that he found a good heter to lie in this case. After all, it is kavod ha-Torah and the honor of his father’s memory, because God forbid that it be known that R. Gorelik was a Rosh Yeshiva at YU. However, I would only ask, what happened to hakarat ha-tov? YU gave R. Gorelik the opportunity to teach Torah at a high level. It also offered him a parnasah. Without this he, like so many of his colleagues, would have been forced into the hashgachah business, and when this wasn’t enough, to schnorr for money, all in order to put food on the table.

This denial of any connection to YU is part of a larger pattern. In my last post I mentioned how R. Poleyeff’s association with the school was erased. Another example is how R. Soloveitchik appears on the title page of one sefer as “Av Beit Din of Boston.” And now R. Gorelik’s biography is outrageously distorted.[5] Yet in the end, it is distressing to realize that the rewriting of history might actually work. In fifty years, when there are no more eyewitnesses alive to testify to R. Gorelik’s shiurim, how many people will deny that he ever taught at YU? Any written record will be rejected as a YU-Haskalah forgery, or something that God miraculously created to test our faith, all in order to avoid the conclusion that an authentic Torah scholar taught at YU.[6] I have no doubt that the editor of Or Yisrael, coming from a world far removed from YU, is unaware of the facts and that is why he permitted this letter to appear. I am certain that he would not knowingly permit a blatant falsehood like this to sully his fine journal.

2. Since I spoke so much about R. Hayyim Soloveitchik in the last two posts, let me add the following: The anonymous Halikhot ha-Grah (Jerusalem, [1996]), p. 4, mentions the famous story recorded by R. Zevin, that in a difficult case of Agunah R. Hayyim asked R. Yitzhak Elhanan’s opinion, but all he wanted was a yes or no answer. As R. Zevin explained, quoting those who were close to R. Hayyim, if R. Yitzhak Elhanan gave his reasoning then R. Hayyim would certainly have found things with which he disagreed, but he knew that in terms of practical halakhah he could rely on R. Yitzhak Elhanan.[7] Halikhot ha-Grah rejects R. Zevin’s explanation. Yet the same story, and explanation, were repeated by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.[8] In addition, a similar story, this time involving R. Hayyim and R. Simcha Zelig, is found in Uvdot ve-Hangagot le-Veit Brisk, vol. 4, pp. 35-36. Thus, there is no reason to doubt what R. Zevin reports.[9] Mention of Halikhot ha-Grah would not be complete without noting that it takes a good deal of material, without acknowledgment and sometimes word for word, from R. Schachter’s Nefesh ha-Raf. Of course, this too is done in the name of kavod ha-Torah.

3. Many posts on this blog have discussed how we now have entire books on topics concerning which until recent years a few lines sufficed. Haym Soloveitchik also made this point in “Rupture and Reconstruction.” Here is another example, the book Birkat Eitan by R. Eitan Shoshan.

This is a 648 page (!) book devoted to the blessing Asher Yatzar, recited after going to the bathroom. Shoshan has an even larger book devoted to the Shema recited before going to sleep.

4. In a previous post [10] I mentioned that R. Moshe Bick’s brother was the Judaic scholar and communist Abraham Bick (Shauli). Before writing this I confirmed the information, but as we all know, oftentimes such “confirmations” are themselves incorrect. I thank R. Ezra Bick for providing me with the correct information, and the original post has been corrected.

R. Moshe and Abraham were actually somewhat distant cousins.[11] Abraham was the son of R. Shaul Bick (and hence the hebraicized last name, Shauli), who was the son of R. Yitzchak Bick, who was the chief rabbi of Providence, RI, in the early 1930’s. R. Yitzchak was the son of R. Simcha Bick, who was rav in Mohiliv, Podolia. R. Simcha Bick had a brother, R. Zvi Aryeh Bick, who was rav in Medzhibush. His son was R. Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick, was also rav in Medzhibush (d. 1889). His son was also named Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick (born a few months after his father’s premature death), and he was rav in Medzhibush from 1910 until 1925, when he came to America. His son was R. Moshe Bick.

R. Ezra Bick also reports that after the Second World War, when Abraham Bick was in the U.S. working as an organizer for communist front organizations, he was more or less cut off by his Orthodox cousins in Brooklyn.

R. Moshe Bick’s brother, Yeshayah (R. Ezra’s father), was a well-known Mizrachi figure. In his obituary for R. Hayyim Yechiel Mikhel Bick, R. Meir Amsel, the editor of Ha-Maor, mentioned how Yeshayah caused his father much heartache with his Zionist activities.[12] This article greatly hurt R. Moshe Bick and he insisted that Amsel never again mention him or his family in Ha-Maor. In fact, as R. Ezra Bick has pointed out to me, rather than causing his father heartache, R. Hayyim Yechiel actually encouraged Yeshayah in his Zionist activities.

R. Bick’s letter is actually quite fascinating and I give the Amsel family a lot of credit for including it in a recent volume dedicated to R. Meir Amsel. I have never seen this sort of letter included in a memorial volume, as all the material in such works is supposed to honor the subject of the volume. Yet here is a letter that blasts Amsel, and they still included it.[13] They also included a letter from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg in which he too criticizes Amsel for allowing personal attacks to be published in his journal. It takes a lot of strength for children to publish such letters and they have earned my admiration for doing so.

When I first mentioned R. Moshe Bick, I also noted that he was opposed to young people getting married too quickly. He therefore urged that boys and girls go out on a number of dates before deciding to get engaged. Needless to say, the haredi world was furious at this advice. R. Dovid Solomon reported to me the following anecdote: When the Klausenberger Rebbe told R. Bick how opposed he was to the latter’s advice, R. Bick responded: “That’s because you are mesader kidushin at all the marriages. But I am the one who is mesader all the gittin!”

5. In previous postings I gave three examples of errors in R. Charles B. Chavel’s notes to his edition of Nahmanides’ writings. For each of these examples my points were challenged and Chavel was defended. Here is one more example that I don’t think anyone will dispute. In Kitvei ha-Ramban, vol. 1, p. 148, Nahmanides writes:

ובזה אין אנו מודים לספר המדע שאמר שהבורא מנבא בני אדם.

In his note Chavel explains ספר המדע to mean:

לדבר הידוע, יעללינעק מגיה פה שצ”ל: לרב הידוע.

Yet the meaning is obvious that Nahmanides is referring to Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mada, where he explains the nature of prophecy.[14]

5. In 2008 a Torah commentary from R. Joshua Leib Diskin was published. Here is the title page.

The book even comes with a super-commentary of sorts. This is completely unnecessary but shows how greatly the editor/publisher values the work. Diskin is a legendary figure and was identified with the more extreme elements of the Jerusalem Ashkenazic community. For this reason he often did not see eye to eye with R. Samuel Salant.

Here is a page from this new commentary.

In his comment to Num. 23:22-23, Diskin quotes a book called Ha-Korem. This is a commentary on the Torah and some other books of the Bible by Naphtali Herz Homberg, a leading Maskil who worked for the Austrian government as superintendent of Jewish schools and censor of Jewish books. This is what the Encyclopedia Judaica says about him:

Homberg threatened the rabbis that if they did not adapt themselves to his principles the government would force them to do so. . . . Homberg was ruthless in denouncing to the authorities religious Jews who refused to comply with his requirements, and in applying pressure against them. In his official memoranda he blamed both the rabbis and the Talmud for preventing Jews from fulfilling their civic duties toward the Christian state. . . . Homberg recommended to the authorities that they disband most traditional educational institutions, prohibit use of the Hebrew language, and force the communal bodies to employ only modern teachers. . . In his book Homberg denied the belief in Israel as the chosen people, the Messiah, and the return to Zion, and tried to show the existence of an essential identity between Judaism and Christianity. . . . Homberg incurred the nearly universal hatred of his Jewish contemporaries.

Incredibly, it is from his commentary that Diskin quoted. The editor didn’t know what Ha-Korem was, but almost immediately after publication someone let him in on the secret. All copies in Israeli seforim stores were then recalled in order that the offending page be “corrected”. I am told that the first printing is now impossible to find in Israel. When I was informed of this story by R. Moshe Tsuriel, I contacted Biegeleisen who fortunately had just received a shipment from Israel, sent out before the books were embargoed. Presumably, my copy will one day be a collector’s item.

The one positive thing to be said about Homberg is that he wrote a very good Haskalah Hebrew. I was therefore surprised when I saw the following in David Nimmer’s otherwise fantastic article in Hakirah 8 (2009): “We begin with Herz Homberg, a minor functionary who wrote in German since his Hebrew skills were poor” (p. 73). Since German was the last language Homberg learnt, I was curious as to how Nimmer was misled. He references Wilma Abeles Iggers, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia (Detroit, 1992), p. 14. Yet Nimmer misunderstood this source. Iggers writes as follows, in speaking of the mid-eighteenth century: “Use of Hebrew steadily decreased, even in learned discussions. Naftali Herz Homberg, for example, asked his friend Moses Mendelssohn to correspond with him in German rather than in Hebrew.” All that this means is that Homberg wanted to practice his German, and become a “cultured” member of Mendelssohn’s circle, and that is why he wanted to correspond in this language. In this he is little different than so many others like him who arrived in Berlin knowing only Hebrew and Yiddish. Each one of them had a different story as to how they learnt German. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, in 1767, when he was nineteen years old, Homberg “began to learn German secretly.”

6. In a previous post I noted the yeshiva joke that R. Menasheh Klein’s books should be called Meshaneh Halakhot, instead of Mishneh Halakhot. Strangely enough, if you google “meshaneh halakhot” you will find that the books are actually referred to this way by a few different people, including, in what are apparently Freudian slips, B. Barry Levy and Daniel Sperber. In fact, Klein’s books are not the first to be referred to in this sort of way. In his polemic against Maimonides, R. Meir Abulafia writes (Kitab al Rasail [Paris, 1871), p. 13):

הוא הספר הנקרא משנה תורה, ואיני יודע אם יש אם למסורת ואם יש אם למקרא.

Abulafia is mocking Maimonides’ greatest work, and wondering if perhaps it should be called Meshaneh Torah! As for Klein, there is a good deal that can be said about his prolific writings, and they await a comprehensive analysis. When thinking about Meshaneh Halakhot, I often recall following responsum, which appears in Mishneh Halakhot, vol. 5, no. 141, and which I am too embarrassed to translate.

A well-known talmid hakham pointed out to me something very interesting. Normally we understand hillul ha-shem to mean that a non-Jew will see how Jews behave and draw the wrong conclusions of what Torah teachings are all about. However, in this responsum we see the exact opposite. The hillul ha-shem is that the non-Jew will draw the right conclusion! Yet the truth is that this understanding of hillul ha-shem is also very popular and is used by R. Moses Isserles, as we will soon see..

Here is another responsum that will blow you off your seats, from Mishneh Halakhot, New Series, vol. 12, Hoshen Mishpat no. 445.

If you want to understand why three hasidic kids are sitting in a Japanese jail, this responsum provides all you need to know. Can anyone deny that it is this mentality that explains so much of the illegal activity we have seen in recent year? Will Agudat Israel, which has publicly called for adherence to high ethical standards in such matters, condemn Klein? Will they declare a ban on R Yaakov Yeshayah Blau’s popular Pithei Hoshen, which explains all the halakhically permissible ways one can cheat non-Jews? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t declare that members of your community strive for the ethical high ground while at the same time regard Mishneh Halakhot, Pithei Hoshen, and similar books as valid texts, since these works offer justifications for all sorts of unethical monetary behavior. The average Orthodox Jew has no idea what is found in these works and how dangerous they are. Do I need to start quoting chapter and verse of contemporary halakhic texts that state explicitly that there is no prohibition to cheat on one’s taxes?[15] Pray tell, Agudah, are we supposed to regard these authors as legitimate halakhic authorities?

I have no doubt that there was a time that the approach found here was acceptable. In an era when Jews were being terribly persecuted and their money was being taken, the non-Jewish world was regarded as the enemy, and rightfully so. Yet the fact that pesakim reflecting this mindset are published today is simply incredible. Also incredible is that R. David Zvi Hoffmann’s Der Schulchan-Aruch und die Rabbinen über das Verhältniss der Juden zu Andersgläubigen, a classic text designed to show that Jewish law does not discriminate monetarily against contemporary Gentiles, has not yet been translated. Hoffmann’s approach was shared by all other poskim in Germany, who believed that any discriminatory laws were simply no longer applicable.[16] R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg stated that we must formally declare that this is what we believe. Can Agudah in good conscience make such a declaration, and mean it?

The truth is that there is an interesting sociological divide on these matters between the Modern Orthodox and the haredi world. Here is an example that will illustrate this. If a Modern Orthodox rabbi would advocate the following halakhah, quoted by R. Moses Isserles, Hoshen Mishpat 348:2,[17] he would be fired.[18]

טעות עכו”ם כגון להטעותו בחשבון או להפקיע הלואתו מותר ובלבד שלא יודע לו דליכא חילול השם.

If I am wrong about this, please let me know, but I don’t believe that any Modern Orthodox synagogue in the country would keep a rabbi who publicly advocated this position.[19] Indeed, R. Moses Rivkes in his Be’er ha-Golah on this halakhah wants people to know that they shouldn’t follow this ruling.[20] See also Rivkes, Be’er ha-Golah, Hoshen Mishpat 266:1, 383:1, and his strong words in Hoshen Mishpat 388:12 where he states that the communal leaders would let the non-Jews know if any Jews were intent on cheating them. Today, people would call Rivkes a moser.

I believe that if people in the Modern Orthodox world were convinced that Rama’s ruling is what Jewish ethics is about, very few of them would remain in Orthodoxy. In line with what Rivkes states, this halakhah has been rejected by Modern Orthodoxy and its sages, as have similar halakhot. As mentioned, Hoffmann’s Der Schulchan-Aruch is the most important work in this area. Yet today, most people will simply cite the Meiri who takes care of all of these issues, by distinguishing between the wicked Gentiles of old and the good Gentiles among whom we live. Thus, whoever feels that he is living in a tolerant environment can adopt the Meiri’s position and confidently assert that Rama is not referring to the contemporary world.

Yet what is the position of the American haredi world? If they accept Rama’s ruling, and don’t temper it with Meiri, then in what sense can the Agudah claim that they are educating their people to behave ethically in money matters? Would they claim that Rama’s halakhah satisfies what we mean by “ethical” in the year 2009? Will they say, as they do in so many other cases, that halakhah cannot be compared to the man-made laws of society and cannot be judged by humans? If that is their position, I can understand it, but then let Aish Hatorah and Ohr Sameach try explaining this to the potential baalei teshuvah and see how many people join the fold. If this is their position, then all the gatherings and talks about how one needs to follow dina de-malchuta are meaningless, for reasons I need not elaborate on. Furthermore, isn’t all the stress on following dina de-malchuta revealing? Why can’t people simply be told to do the right thing because it is the right thing? Why does it have to be anchored in halakhah, and especially in dina de-malchuta? Once this sort of thing becomes a requirement because of halakhah, instead of arising from basic ethics, then there are 101 loopholes that people can find, and all sorts of heterim as we saw in Klein’s responsum. I would even argue that the fact that one needs to point to a halakhic text to show that it is wrong to steal is itself a sign of our society’s moral bankruptcy.[21]

7. In Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters I stated that Maimonides nowhere explicitly denies the existence of demons, yet this denial is clearly implied throughout his writings. It was because Maimonides never explicitly denied them that so many great sages refused to accept this, and assumed that Maimonides really did believe in demons. (In my book I cited many who held this position.) I first asserted that Maimonides never explicitly denied demons in my 2000 article on Maimonides and superstition, of which the second chapter in my new book is an expanded treatment. While working on the original article I was convinced that Maimonides indeed denied demons in his Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7. However, I had a problem in that so many who knew this text did not see it as an explicit rejection. In fact, I was unaware of anyone actually citing this text to prove that Maimonides denied the existence of demons. (Only a couple of months ago did R. Chaim Rapoport call my attention to R. Eliezer Simhah Rabinowitz, She’elot u-Teshuvot ve-Hiddushei Rabbi Eliezer Simhah [Jerusalem, 1998], no. 11, who does cite this text as an explicit rejection of the existence of demons. I also recently found that R. Avraham Noah Klein, et. el., Daf al ha-Daf [Jerusalem, 2006), Pesahim 110a, quotes the work Nofet Tzufim as saying the same thing. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Klein doesn’t have a list of sources, so I don’t know who the author of this work is.)

Seeing that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook was quite adamant that Maimonides believed in demons,[22] I turned to R. Shlomo Aviner, who published R. Zvi Yehudah’s work, and asked him about Maimonides’ words in his Commentary to Avodah Zarah. Aviner convinced me that Maimonides should be understood as only denying that occult communication with demons is impossible, not the existence of demons per se. He wrote to me as follows:

הרמב”ם לא כתב שם בפירוש שאין שדים, אלא ששאלה בשדים היא הבל, וכך אנו רואים מן ההקשר שהוא מגנה שיטת שונות להשיג דברים או ידיעות, כגון “כשוף וההשבעות והמזלות הרוחניות, ודבר הכובכים והשדים והגדת עתידות ומעונן ומנחש על רוב מיניהם ושאלת המתים.”

I was still not 100 percent sure, but the fact that so many great scholars who knew the Commentary to Avodah Zarah assumed that Maimonides indeed believed in demons gave me confidence that Aviner was correct.[23] Even R. Kafih, in speaking of Maimonides denial of demons, does not cite the Commentary,[24] and this sealed the matter for me. I therefore assumed that all Maimonides was denying in his Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7 was the possibility of conversation with demons, and not demons per se. (R. Aviner doesn’t speak of simple conversation, but this was my assumption.)

Following publication of the article in 2000 no one contacted me to tell me that I was incorrect in my view of Maimonides and demons. So once again I was strengthened in my assumption, and repeated my assertion in Studies in Maimonides. Not too long ago I received an e-mail from Dr. Dror Fixler. Fixler is one of the people from Yeshivat Birkat Moshe in Maaleh Adumim who is working on new editions of Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah. I will return to his work in a future post when I deal with the newly published translation of the Commentary. For now, suffice it to say that he knows Arabic very well, and he asserts that there is no doubt whatsoever that in the Commentary to Avodah Zarah 4:7 Maimonides is denying the existence of demons. So this brings me back to my original assumption many years ago, that Maimonides indeed is explicit in his denial. If there are any Arabists who choose to disagree, I would love to hear it.

8. I recently sent a copy of the reprint of Kitvei R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg (2 vols.) to a famous and outstanding Rosh Yeshiva. In my letter to him I mentioned that the books were a donation to the yeshiva library. He wrote back to me as follows:

מאשר בתודה קבלת כתבי הגאון רבי יחיאל יעקב וויינברג זצ”ל בשני כרכים. מלאים חכמה ודעת בקיאות וחריפות ישרה, ולפעמים “הליכה בין הטיפות” מתוך חכמת חיים רבה. אולם בכרך השני יש דברים שקשה לעכל אותם, כגון לימוד זכות על מתבוללים ממש (הרצל ואחה”ע [אחד העם] בגרון ועוד) למצוא בהם “ניצוצות קדושה”. ומי שיראה יחשוב כי מותר לומר לרשע צדיק אתה. לכן כרך ב’ נשאר אצלי וכרך א’ לעיון התלמידים הי”ו.

I don’t think that any Rosh Yeshiva in a Hesder yeshiva would say that we should shield the students from the words of a great Torah scholar, but maybe I am wrong. I would be curious to hear reactions. In response to his letter, I sent this Rosh Yeshiva R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan’s essay on Herzl, to show him that Weinberg’s views in this regard were not unique.

Interestingly, in his letter to me the Rosh Yeshiva also wrote:

מה מאד נפלא מ”ש בסוף עמוד ריט על שיטת הגר”ח מבריסק לעומת שיטת הגר”א. מבחינה זו אנו לומדים בישיבה בשיטת הגר”א.

He was referring to this amazing letter from Weinberg:

קראתי את מאמרו של הגרי”ד סולובייציק על דודו הגרי”ז זצ”ל. השפה היא נהדרה ונאדרה והסגנון הוא מקסים. אבל התוכן הוא מוגזם ומופרז מאד. כך כותבים אנשים בעלי כת, כמו אנשי חב”ד ובעלי המוסר. מתוך מאמרו מתקבל הרושם כאלו התורה לא נתנה ע”י מרע”ה חלילה כי אם ע”י ר’ חיים מבריסק זצ”ל. אמת הדברים כי ר’ חיים הזרים זרם חדש של פלפול ע”ד ההגיון לישיבות. בהגיון יש לכל אדם חלק, ולפיכך יכולים כל בני הישיבה לחדש חידושים בסגנון זה, משא”כ בדרך הש”ך ורעק”א צריך להיות בקי גדול בשביל להיות קצת חריף ולכן משכל אנשי הישיבות מתאוים להיות “מחדשים” הם מעדיפים את ר’ חיים על כל הגאונים שקדמו לו. שאלתי פעם אחת את הגרי”ד בהיותו בברלין: מי גדול ממי: הגר”א מווילנא או ר’ חיים מבריסק? והוא ענני: כי בנוגע להבנה ר’ חיים גדול אף מהגר”א. אבל לא כן הדבר. הגר”א מבקש את האמת הפשוטה לאמתתה, ולא כן ר’ חיים. הגיונו וסברותי’ אינם משתלבים לא בלשון הגמ’ ולא בלשון הרמב”ם. ר’ חיים הי’ לכשלעצמו רמב”ם חדש אבל לא מפרש הרמב”ם. כך אמרתי להגאון ר’ משה ז”ל אבי’ של הגר”יד שליט”א.

9. My last two posts focused on R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky. With that in mind, I want to call everyone’s attention to a lecture by R. Aharon Rakefet in which he tells a great story that he himself witnessed, of how students in the Lakewood yeshiva were so angry at Gulevsky that they actually planned to cut his beard off. It is found here [25] beginning at 65 minutes. The clip has an added treat as we get to hear the Indefatigable One, who mentions travelling to Brooklyn together with a certain “Maylech” in order to visit Gulevsky.

10. And finally, apropos of nothing, here is a picture that I think everyone will get a kick out of. The bride is Gladys Reiss. It shows the Rav in his hasidic side. (Thanks to David Eisen and R. Aharon Rakefet for providing the picture.)

[1] Some of the lies of this paper have been dealt with by R. Moshe Alharar, Li-Khvodah shel Torah (Jerusalem, 1988). Here are two condemnations of Yated printed in Alharar’s book.

For examples of the paper’s most recent outrages, take a look at two articles from the issue that appeared during the Ten Days of Penitence (!). The articles are available here and here.

The first is a vicious attack on the Shas MK R. Hayyim Amsellem for his authorship of a halakhic study arguing that those non-Jews who serve in the Israeli army should be converted using a less strict approach than is currently in practice. Amsellem, who is a student of R. Meir Mazuz and an outstanding talmid hakham, wrote this piece and sent it to some leading poskim to get their opinions. Amselem also discussed his approach in an interview.

What did Yated do? It attacked the “nonsensical, heretical remarks” of Amsellem, knowing full well that his article was not a practical halakhic ruling, but a work of Torah scholarship sent out for comment. And why is what he wrote “nonsensical” and “heretical”? Because it contradicts the viewpoint of “Maranan ve-Rabbanan Gedolei Yisrael,” the papacy that Yated has created. As with every papacy, no one is permitted to have a different viewpoint. We see that clearly in the next article I linked to. Here the paper deals with the great sages who have permitted brain death. Obviously, Yated has started to believe its own papal rhetoric, since rather than offer any substantive comments, all it can do is refer to R. Elyashiv and unnamed former and current gedolei Yisrael. From Yated’s papal perspective, this is supposed to silence all debate, as if Judaism is a religious dictatorship. Yet it is not, and although Yated will never admit it, there are also former and current gedolei Yisrael who do accept brain death.

[2] “Be-Inyan ha-Gemarot ha-Mevuarot ha-Hadashim,” Or Yisrael 50 (Tevet, 5768), p. 42.

[3] “Be-Inyan Hadpasat ha-Gemara im Targumim u-Ferushim Hadashim,” Or Yisrael 50 (Tevet, 5768), pp. 39-40. Gorelik even claims that the only reason the Hafetz Hayyim agreed to support the Daf Yomi program was as a defense against the Haskalah and Reform. R. Chaim Rapoport responded to Gorelik, ibid., pp. 57ff.

[4] For the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s take on this, see here beginning at 8 minutes (called to my attention by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous). The Rebbe’s words are very strong: Since we know that “people” do not tell a lie that is likely to be found out, it must be that the liars are not in the category of “people” i.e., human beings!

[5] The phenomenon of children distorting their father’s legacy is also something that deserves a post of its own. One thinks of the efforts of the children and grandchildren of R. Gedaliah Nadel and R. Eliezer Waldenberg in opposition to the publication of Be-Torato shel R. Gedaliah and the reprinting of Hilkhot ha-Medinah. R. Nadel’s children were even successful in having Be-Torato removed from Hebrewbooks.org. There are many other such examples, some of which relate to the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, which like Yeshiva University was sometimes a place to be forgotten after one left the world of German Orthodoxy. For example, see R. Shmuel Munk’s biographical introduction to the work of his father, R. Shaul Munk, Bigdei Shesh (Jerusalem, 1973). There is no mention that R. Shaul studied at the Rabbinical Seminary. If that wasn’t enough, R. Shmuel, in the introduction, p 19, even attacks the German Orthodox practice of reading German poetry, going so far as to say that no one [!] has permitted this. As with the Yated, “no one” means “no one we regard as significant.” For an earlier post that deals with a posthumous removal of the Rabbinical Seminary from one graduate’s biography, see here.

None of the obituaries of R. Shlomo Wolbe mentioned that he studied at the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin for a short while, but in this case I assume that the writers were unaware of this. The entry on Wolbe in Wikipedia does mention it, and I was the source for this information. My source is Weinberg’s letter to Samuel Atlas, dated June 10, 1965:

כך סיפר בן אחיו של וולפסון, מר אביעזר וולפסון, תלמיד מונטרה לפנים, ואח”כ תלמיד ישיבת באר יעקב, שבה משמש המנהל רוחני מר וולבה, יליד ברלין, בנו של סופר חילוני וכופר גמור. למד בכתות הנמוכות של בית מדרשנו, ואח”כ הלך לישיבת מיר ונעשה לחניכו של ר’ ירוחם ז”ל, המשפיע המוסרי הגדול.

The point mentioned by Weinberg, that Wolbe was raised in a non-Orthodox home, was never a secret. Some additional details of his turn to Orthodoxy were related by Anne Ruth Cohn, Dayan Grunfeld’s daughter. See here

Yet, as we have come to expect, the Yated cannot be honest with its readers. Thus, in its obituary here. It writes: “Shlomo Wolbe was born in Berlin to R’ Moshe in Tammuz 5674,” making it seem that he was from an Orthodox home. The obituary continues with more falsehoods: “As a child he studied in his home city and at a young age was sent to Yeshivas Frankfurt.” Needless to say, there is also no mention of Wolbe’s university studies.

Another example worth mentioning is the following: Those who read Making of a Godol will recall the description of R. Aaron Kotler’s irreligious sister who tried to convince him to leave the world of the yeshiva. Yet in Yitzchok Dershowitz’ hagiography of R. Aaron, The Legacy of Maran Rav Aharon Kotler (Lakewood, 2005), p. 63, this communist sister is described as “religious, but ‘secular education’ oriented.” See Zev Lev, “Al ‘Gidulo shel Gadol,’” Ha-Ma’ayan 50 (Tishrei, 5770), p. 104.

The absolute best example of this phenomenon relates to the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s brother, Yisrael Aryeh Leib. He was completely irreligious. There are people alive today who can testify to his public Sabbath violation. He even kept his store open on Shabbat. See Shaul Shimon Deutsch, Larger than Life (New York, 1997), vol. 2, ch. 7. Deutsch was even able to speak to his widow. Yisrael Aryeh Leib also has a daughter who presumably would be willing to describe what her father’s attitude towards religion was, if anyone is really interested in knowing the truth. I think it is very nice that Chabad in England commemorates his yahrzeit, see here, and this is very much in line with Chabad’s ideology that every Jew is precious. Yet what is one to make of this “institute”?

Here Yisrael Aryeh Leib, “the youngest brother of the Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, who lives forever,” is turned into a rabbi and devoted chasid. I actually contacted the person who runs the “institute” and asked him how he can so blatantly distort the historical record. Communicating with him was one of the most depressing experiences I have had in a long time. It is one thing for a person to believe foolish things, but here was a guy who had drunk an extra dose of the Kool Aid, and with whom normal modes of conversation were impossible. This is actually a good limud zekhut for him: unlike many other cases where the people distorting the historical record are intentionally creating falsehoods, in this case the distorter really believes what he is saying.

[6] R. Mark Urkowitz, who was a student of R. Gorelik, told me that at the end of his life Gorelik commented to him that he was very happy he taught at YU, since this was the only yeshiva whose graduates were bringing Torah to all corners of the United States. When Urkowitz later told this story to another of Gorelik’s son, he denied that his father could ever have said this. Urkowitz and one other person recalled to me how at Gorelik’s funeral YU was never mentioned in any of the eulogies. It was as if the major part of Gorelik’s life for forty years had never existed.

[7] Ishim ve-Shitot (Tel Aviv, 1952), pp. 58-59.

[8] Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav, vol. 1, p. 227.

[9] This is Zevin’s preface to the story (translation in Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life [London, 2000], pp. 54-55, n. 49):

Why did R. Hayyim refuse to write responsa? Some think that his remoteness from the area of practical decisions stemmed from the fact that he belonged to the ranks of “those who fear to render decision,” being afraid of the responsibility that it entails. But this is not so. The real reason was a different one. R. Hayyim was aware that he was incapable of simply following convention and that he would be obliged, consequently, to render decisions contrary to the norm and the traditionally accepted whenever his clear intellect and fine mind would show him that the law was really otherwise than as formulated by the great codifiers. The pure conscience of a truthful man would not allow him to ignore his own opinions and submit, but he would have felt himself bound to override their decisions and this he could not bring himself to do.

[10] See here.

[11] For more on Abraham Bick the communist, and his relationship with R. Moshe Bick, see here for the following report:

אברהם ביק הכרתי בפעם הראשונה כהרה”ר של רוסי’ בא לבקר לארה”ב בשנת תשכ”ח ביזמת הרב טייץ מאליזאבעט נוא דזשערזי. וכבוד גדול עשו לו וכל גדולי ארצינו באו לבקר אותו ולחלוק לו כבוד — הוא למד בסלאבאדקא והי’ ממלא מקומו של הרב שלייפער, וניהל בחכמה ובתבונה את רבנתו ועמד על משמרתו הוא בא ביחד עם החזושל לענינגראד -השומר- בבארא-פארק עשו פאראד גדול וכל הישיבות והבית-יעקב יצאו לרחובה של עיר לחוק כבוד להעומד על משמרת היהדות ברוסי’ משם נסעו לישיבת תורה-ודעת שכל הגדולים דברו וחיזקו את הרב לעווין .משם נסעו לאליזאבעט מקום הרב טייץ — שחלקו רב בענייני יהדות רוסי’ — וגם שם הי’ פאראד גדול. והרב לעווין הי’ מאוד מרוגש .ודמעות נזלו מעיניו. נחזור לביק-הוא הי’ קאמאניסט. והי’ מכונה הרב של הקאמאניסטים. הוא כתב מאמרים בשבועון שלהם ותמיד המליץ טוב על הקאמאניסטים שהם לא רודפים את הדת. וכשהרב לעווין הי’ כאן הוא הי’ מראשי המחותנים שם. ואז דברתי איתו בפעם הראשונה. אח”כ הוא עלה לארה”ק ועבד במוסד הרב קוק ומצאתיו שם אך לא רציתי להכאיבו ולא דברנו על העבר. אז נתן לי שני ספרים א] זהרי-חמה הגהות על הזוה”ק מהיעב”ץ. ועוד ספר למוסרו לש”ב הרה”ג רמצ”א זצ”ל ביק — הוא פשוט רצה להתפייס איתו כי הם לא היו שוה בשוה-וכשהבאתי את הספרים להרב ביק דברתי איתו על אברהם ביק ואביו הרה”ג שהי’ חתן המשמרת שלום מקאדינאוו, והי’ בעל הוראה מובהק. בקיצור לאחר זמן חזר לארה”ב בגין אישתו וביתו שלא היו בקו הבריאות — הוא הי’ דמות טראגית — אביו שלחו מארה”ב ללמוד לארה”ק. אך הי’ תמיד שומר תורה ומצוות הי’ אידאליסט ולא הי’ בן יחיד במחשבתו שהקאמאניזום יציל את האנושות והיהדות .הוא לא עשה זאת מטעם כסף .הוא לא הי’ מאטראליסט. והשם הטוב יכפר בעדו.

[12] Ha-Maor, Tamuz 5726, p. 18.

[13] Ha-Gaon ha-Rav Meir Amsel (Monsey, 2008), p. 262.

[14] See R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer in Moriah, Nisan 5769, p. 150.

[15] R. Chaim Rapoport provides some of these sources in his article in Or Yisrael, Tishrei 5770.

[16] For R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan’s view, see his Mivhar Ketavim (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 287-288.

[17] After quoting this halakhah, Rama cites an opposing view, but this is cited as יש אומרים, meaning that the first ruling is the one Rama accepts. Even this view is not something that would go over well in the Modern Orthodox world: וי”א דאסור להטעותו אלא אם טעה מעצמו שרי

[18] Although he might not be fired, any Modern Orthodox rabbi who stated as follows would also be in hot water, as the congregation would be outraged: “One is not allowed to admire gentiles or praise them.” The writer of these words goes on to say that collecting baseball cards is also forbidden. “While it may be that some people trade them only for financial gain, the reason for collecting the cards is more likely because of an appreciation and admiration for the personalities depicted on them. This is forbidden.” Quite apart from the terrible lack of judgment in putting the first sentence (“One is not allowed to admire gentiles or praise them”) into an English language book (for obvious reasons), should we be surprised that a halakhist who thinks baseball cards are forbidden is one of the poskim of the formerly Modern Orthodox OU? See R. Yisrael Belsky, Shulchan Halevi (Kiryat Sefer, 2008), pp. 132, 133. (For another ruling against baseball cards, see R. Yitzhak Abadi, Or Yitzhak, Yoreh Deah no. 26.) In discussing the issue of praising Gentiles and the prohibition of le tehanem, Meiri writes as follows, in words that have become basic to the Modern Orthodox ethos (Beit ha-Behirah: Avodah Zarah 20a):

כל שהוא מן האומות הגדורות בדרכי הדתות ושמודות בא-להות אין ספק שאף בשאין מכירו מותר וראוי.

[19] Samuel Cohon discusses Rama’s ruling in Faithfully Yours (Jersey City, 2008), pp. 87-88.

[20] See similarly R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, Shulhan Arukh, Hilkhot Ona’ah, no. 11.

[21] Along these lines, see here for a recent article by R Binyamin Lau dealing with a husband who wanted to know if he was halakhically permitted to hit his wife.

[22] Sihot ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah: Bereishit, ed. Aviner (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 295-297, 310-312.

[23] In Studies in Maimonides I cite numerous examples. Here is one more to add to the list. R. Tzefanyah Arusi, “’Lo ba-Shamayim Hi’ be-Mishnat ha-Rambam,” Mesorah le-Yosef 6 (2009), p. 396:

מה שהשיג הגר”א בעניין השדים והכשפים, יש להשיב על כל דבריו: וכי מניין לו שלדברי רבנו אין מציאות לשדים ולמכשפים וכיו”ב.

[24] See his Ketavim (Jerusalem, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 600-601.

[25] “The Bracha for Kidush Ha-Shem,” Sep. 21, 2008.

Shemot Hakhamim & Its Ommissions

על ספר שמות חכמים, קיצור תולדות רבותינו הראשונים,
אברהם מאיר וייס, בני ברק, תשס”ט
מאת
עקביא שמש

Abstract: A new book, a history of Rabbis and their books from the Geonic and Rishonim periods, Shemot Hakhamim, Kitzur Toldot Rabotenu ha-Rishonim, while attempting to be comprehensive falls short on that account. In particular, the failure of the author to use “academic” works diminishes the value of this book. While A. Shamesh is willing to cede that attempting to read the entire corpus of academic literature on this period including all the disprete articles is daunting, that does not excuse ignoring whole works on this topic. For example, Shemot doesn’t use the classic bibliographic work, Sa’arei ha-Elef by R. M.M. Kasher (which recently has been updated here), any of Ta-Shma’s works, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri by Y.S. Speigel, A. Grossman’s works on the Rishonim, or Shivrei Luchot by Y. Emmanuel. These omissions allows for gaps and misinformation in Shemot, examples of which are provided below. Finally, A. Shamesh notes that even without resorting to “academic” works, the author could have still mitigated his omissions by consulting the works of R. Ya’akov Hayyim Sofer.
אחד מהענפים שנעשו מאוד פופלריים בספרים היוצאים לאור בשנים האחרונות הוא: תולדותיהם של גדולי ישראל. יש ספרים המוקדשים לגדול אחד בלבד, או לכמה גדולים בני אותה משפחה. יש המוקדשים לגדולים בני אותה עיר, או בני אותה מלכות, ועוד כהנה וכהנה. אם באנו למנות כאן את הספרים הרבים שיצאו לאור בתקופתנו בנושא זה אין אנו מספיקים ואין אנו מפסיקים. יש מקום לשאול מה ראה דורנו צורך כה גדול בספרים אלו, אלא שאין זה כרגע הנושא שאני רוצה לעסוק בו. בתוך כל המכלול הגדול של ספרים אלו, יש מספר ספרים, לא גדול, שכל עיקרם לא בא אלא לעזור ללומד בידיעת סדר הדורות.
לכשתמצא לומר הרי חשיבות הנושא הזה נלמדת מהספרים שהגיעו לידינו כבר מתקופת הגאונים, כמו סדר תנאים ואמוראים שמחברו אינו ידוע, או איגרת רב שרירא גאון. חלק מהאמור בספרים אלו עוסק בידיעת הדורות אם במעט ואם ברב. אין צורך להאריך ולהוכיח עד כמה ידיעה זו חשובה ללומד, ודי לעיין בהקדמתו של ר’ יחיאל היילפרין לספרו סדר הדורות, שבה הרחיב בנושא זה.[1]
בדורנו, דור שבו יוצאים לאור ספרים רבים מכתבי יד של גדולי ישראל בכל הדורות, ידיעת הדורות נעשית קשה יותר ויותר. כדי לפתור קושי זה, נתחברו בדורנו מספר ספרים המוקדשים, כאמור, לנושא של ידיעת סדר הדורות. עתה יצא לאור ספר נוסף בתחום זה הנקרא: שמות חכמים. הסמתייחס לחכמים שפעלו בתקופת הגאונים והראשונים, ועליו נייחד את דברינו.
המחבר כתב ב”פתח השער”, כי החיבור לא נעשה מלכתחילה להפצה בציבור אלא לתועלתו האישית. במשך הזמן כשגדלה כמות החומר הנלקט, הוא החליט להוציא מהדורה נסיונית לתועלת הציבור. הואיל והיא עוררה עניין רב בין הלומדים, הוא החליט להוציאה לאור לאחר שערך מחדש את החיבור, “תוך כדי מעקב צמוד למקורות נאמנים עד כמה שבידינו הדבר. עלי לציין כי המקורות נשאבו על הרוב מחיבורי רבותינו בעצמם. למעט מקורות מכתבי יד של חיבורים או איגרות, שנמסרו ע”י חוקרים מדורות שלפנינו”.
יש לשבח אפוא את המחבר על זהירותו הרבה. צא וראה שאין הוא מסתפק בכך, אלא מוסיף זהירות על זהירות והוא כותב בהמשך דבריו: “גם במה שהכנסתי לחיבור אינני נוטל אחריות מלאה על אמינות המקורות”. אמנם הוא ניסה לברר את עד כמה שאפשר את אמינות המקורות, ואם הדברים לא היו ברורים דים הוא לא הביאם בספרו, אבל “לא תמיד יכולתי לעמוד על דיוק הדברים”.
עוד הוא מוסיף ומודיע למעיין, ואף זו במסגרת זהירותו, כי “מן הראוי היה לנדוד על פני ספריות, וללקט משם חומר על חכמי הראשונים, מתוך ספרות רחבה של חוקרים ואנשי מקצוע שעסקו בתחום זה. אולם את עבודתי ערכתי כאמור במסגרת למודי, ולא ניתן לי הפנאי הדרוש להיקף הנ”ל”. ממילא מובן, כפי שהוא עצמו כותב בהמשך, כי אין הספר מכיל “את שמות כל החכמים השייכים לתקופת הגאונים והראשונים”.
למרות כל ההסתיגויות הללו, הרי שלפנינו ספר שיש בו למעלה מ-500 עמודים, ובו חומר רב על רבותינו.
הספר ערוך בצורה שיש בה מן החידוש. כידוע, שאלת עריכת ספר מעין זה, היא שאלה קשה, שהרי ניתן לערוך אותו באופנים שונים. אי לזאת כתב המחבר בעמ’ יז, את “סדר עריכת הספר” ושם מסביר כי בחר לערוך את הספר בסדר “כרונולוגי, שהוא שנת לידת החכמים, לפי מידת הידיעות שבידינו”. הסיבה לכך נמצאת המשך דבריו, ששם הוא כותב כי “הספר מחולק לערכים כלליים, בפנים הערך ישנם אותיות קטנות הכוללות את פרטי החכמים הקשורים אליו בקשר רב ותלמיד, קשרי משפחה, או השייכים לתקופתו”.
גם העריכה הפרטית של כל ערך היא מחודשת, והיא כוללת: “זמנו של החכם, משפחתו, רבותיו, חביריו ותלמידיו… שבחיו שנאמרו מפי חכמים אחרים, וכן ציון שמות החכמים שחכם זה מביא בכתביו, ולחילופין מי מהחכמים מביא בשם החכם הזה”. הוא מוסיף כי במדור “מן החכמים שמביא” ציין רק לחכמים שלדעתו יש בהם עניין מיוחד. אבל דברים מפורסמים כמו “שהרמב”ן מביא את הראב”ד” אין צורך לומר. גם המדור “הובא ב: נועד לעדכן מי מהחכמים מביא את החכם המדובר בשמו. ושוב אין השאיפה להביא הכל. מדור זה נועד לעדכן את הזמן שממנו והלאה החל החכם להתפשט ושהובא בשמו או בשם חיבוריו בספרים וחיבורים אחרים”.
הספר פותח ב”מבוא כללי קצר”, שבו כותב המחבר “על מקומות התורה, בהם גדלו וצמחו מאורינו וגדולינו, לאורך תקופת החיבור”. הספר מסתיים בחמשה מפתחות שונים לעזר המעיין.
המחבר הגיש לנו ספר על גדולי ישראל, הערוך בצורה נאותה ומחודשת. ניכר שהמחבר השקיע עמל רב בעבודה זו, והוא גם מעיד כך על עצמו בהקדמתו. עמל זה אינו לשוא, וברי כי הספר יהיה לעזר רב ללומדים.
כשעיינתי מעט בספר זה, והתפעלתי מגודל המעמסה שלקח על שכמו המחבר, אמרתי הואיל והמחבר הוא מן הזהירים, הבה ונבחן אם אכן כך הדבר. אי אפשר כמובן לעבור על כל הספר בזמן מועט, והואיל וגם לי אין פנאי, פניתי בראשונה לעמוד כג שכותרתו: “פענוח המקורות וראשי תיבות, וכן פירוט מהדורות הספרים שצויינו מהם המקורות”. ראיתי שיש קצת אי דיוקים ברשימה זו. המחבר הקפיד לרשום את המחברים והמהדורות, אבל עדיין מצאנו ספרים שנדפסו יותר מפעם אחת, והמחבר לא ציין באיזה מהדורה השתמש. כגון: סדר הדורות, ספר הקבלה, ספר חסידים, צמח דוד, ועוד. אבל לעומת זאת ביחס לתשובות הרמב”ם, תחת הקיצור: ה”פ, הוא מציין במפורש שכוונתו למהד’ פריימן.[2] יש בה גם כפילויות שהרי “ספר קושיות”, הוא הוא “קושיות” הרשום קצת אחריו. וכן “שה”ק”, הוא הוא “שלה”ק”, הרשום שתי שורות לאחר הקיצור הקודם. יש כפילות מסוג אחר שהרי הקיצור: “מה”ר”, מתפרש אצלו: “מבוא לר’ משה הרשלר לספר עליות רבינו יונה לב”ב או לתר”פ [אגב, פיענוח ראשי תיבות אלו אינן מופיעים אצלו, והכוונה כמובן: תוספות ר’ פרץ] ב”מ”. מדוע ציין באותו ציון לשני מבואות שונים, לא נתברר לי. גם לא נתבררו לי דבריו: “ח”פ – תשובות חכמי פרובינציה (מהד’ מהר”ק)”. לא ידוע לי כי ספר זה יצא ע”י מוסד הרב קוק.[3] בספר עצמו בעמ’ סח הערה 6 מופיע שלוש פעמים הקיצור: מ”ר. אין במפתח פירוש לראשי תיבות אלו, ואין לדעת כוונתו.[4]
אולם יותר ממה שיש ברשימה זו, מתגלה מה שאין בה. הרי המחבר כתב כי ברשימה זו יש “פירוט מהדורות הספרים שצויינו מהם המקורות”. לאמור, אלו הם הספרים ששימשו למחבר כאבני בנין לספרו. יש לשבח את המחבר שהזכיר ברשימה זו את ספר בעלי התוספות לא”א אורבך, ספר שרבים מכותבי התולדות והמבואות למיניהם השתמשו בו, אבל לא הזכירוהו.
אבל עם זאת מתברר שהמחבר אינו משתמש בספרות עזר נוספת. איני מתכוון למאמרים, שאכן יש צדק בדברי המחבר שיש טירחה בהשגתם, אלא אני מתכוון לספרים. כגון, אין ברשימה זו איזכור של הספר שרי האלף לרמ”מ כשר, מהד’ שנייה, ירושלים, תשל”ט. אין מן הצורך להסביר עד כמה חשיבותו של ספר זה רבה לעבודה מסוג זה, אבל המחבר אינו משתמש בו. על כך יש להוסיף כי המחבר אינו מודע כנראה לסדרת הספרים “קבץ על יד” היוצאת לאור ע”י חברת מקיצי נרדמים. חסרון זה הוא מהותי ביותר, שהרי כל ייעודם של ספרים אלו הוא פירסומם של חיבורים מכתבי יד. אין הדבר דומה כלל למאמרים שמתפרסמים בכתבי עת. בכל ספר של “קבץ על יד” מתפרסמים לראשונה חיבורים רבים מכתבי יד, וכיצד אפשר להתעלם מהם. ברור שספרים אלו מצויינים בשרי האלף, אבל מאז שפורסם שרי האלף עברו 30 שנים, ומאז נתפרסמו ב”קבץ על יד” חיבורים רבים.
אין איזכור לשני ספריו של א’ גרוסמן: חכמי אשכנז הראשונים, חכמי צרפת הראשונים. אין איזכור לספריו של י’ תא שמע: הספרות הפרשנית לתלמוד באירופה ובצפון אפריקה. אין איזכור לספריו של י”ש שפיגל: עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי. אין איזכור לספרו של ש’ עמנואל: שברי לוחות. אלו הן דוגמות בלבד, והייתי יכול להוסיף לרשימה זו ספרים נוספים שהיה מן הראוי להשתמש בהם. נכון שהמחבר נזהר והודיע למעיין כי לא היה לו זמן לעבור על ספרים של חוקרים,[5] כפי שהעתקתי את דבריו לעיל, אבל דומה שעל מספר ספרים יסודיים בתחום זה (לא מאמרים מפוזרים) היה מן הראוי לעבור.
החסרון של ספרות מחקר מלמדנו שעלינו לשבח את המחבר שהגיע לחומר רב ומגוון בכוחות עצמו. אבל מסתבר כי היה יכול להיעזר בעבודות קודמיו. יתר על כן, אילו היה נעזר בהן, הוא היה יכול להעשיר את ספרו, או למנוע שגיאות בספרו.
אין כאן מקום להאריך, ועל כן אסתפק בדוגמות בודדות. אפתח בהראותי מה חסר בספרו הואיל ולא השתמש בשרי האלף. אתייחס רק לאמור בשרי האלף, מחלקה ששית, ספרי הפוסקים,[6] ואף כאן אני מסתפק במספר דוגמות כפי המזדמן. ואני מצמצם את עצמי עוד יותר, ומתייחס רק לחיבורים שיצאו כספר, ולא לחיבורים שנתפרסמו בסדרה “קבץ על יד”, ולא באלו שנתפרסמו בכתבי עת.
א. על פי מפתח שמות החיבורים שבסוף הספר, אין נזכרים בספרו הספרים: הלכות קצובות, הלכות הנגיד מהד’ מרגליות,[7] אוצר חלוף מנהגים בין בני בבל לבני א”י, גנזי מצרים,[8] הלכות א”י מן הגניזה.
יכול אדם לומר הרי ספרים אלו אין ידוע מי חיברם, ולכן לא הזכירם. אבל אנו מוצאים בספרו בעמ’ לח אות [א] שהוא כותב: “עוד גאונים וחיבוריהם, חיבורים מהגאונים: אוצרות הגאונים, בשר על גבי גחלים, גרש ירחים, הלכות ארץ ישראל, חמדה גנוזה, מתיבות, ניהוגים שבין בני ארץ לבין בני בבל, שימושא רבא, שערי תשובה, שערי צדק, ו’תשובות הגאונים'”.
למדנו מכאן כי המחבר מנה גם חיבורים שנתחברו בתקופת הגאונים שמחברם אינו ידוע. וא”כ היה יכול להוסיף את הרשימה דלעיל.
והואיל ורשימה זו שכתב המחבר באה לידינו, הבה נעיין בה. ספר אוצרות הגאונים, איני יודע טיבו, ולא מצאתיו בספריות. כנראה צ”ל: אוצר הגאונים, שהיא הסדרה שבה רוכזו תשובות הגאונים וגם פירושיהם, וגם פירוש ר’ חננאל, על פי סדר הש”ס, ע”י ב”מ לוין. בספר גרש ירחים, נראה שכוונתו לתשובות הגאונים מהד’ ג’ הרפנס, ירושלים, תשנ”ב-תשס”ד (5 כרכים). אבל אין כאן חיבור חדש. ג’ הרפנס סידר על פי סדר שקבע לעצמו, שבחלקו דומה קצת לשולחן ערוך, את תשובות הגאונים מתוך ספרי הגאונים והראשונים שנדפסו. ביחס לספר מתיבות כתב המחבר בהערה מספר מקורות שבהם הוזכר ספר זה, אבל לא ציין כי כל המקורות שבהם נזכר הספר בדברי הראשונים נאספו ויצאו לאור כספר ע”י ב”מ לוין, ירושלים, תרצ”ד. כן נהג גם ביחס לניהוגים שבין בני א”י לבין בני בבל. והנה מלבד שהשתמש בשם שאינו מקובל כל כך, ואני מסופק אם מישהו מכיר את החיבור בשם זה, הרי שלא ציין כי הספר נדפס, ויותר מפעם אחת.
לא ברור מה רצה לומר ב’תשובות הגאונים’. בהערה שכתב שם נראה שיש טעות, הואיל ואין היא שייכת כלל לעניין. אולי רצה לפרט כאן את תשובות הגאונים שיצאו לאור בנוסף על אלו שהזכיר כאן, שהרי הוא הזכיר רק חלק קטן מהקבצים של תשובות הגאונים שיצאו לאור במשך הדורות, ואיני מפרטם כאן. אוסיף כאן כי בדורנו ראה אור הספר ‘תשובות הגאונים החדשות’ שההדיר ש’ עמנואל, מכון אופק, ירושלים, תשנ”ה. ודאי שיש להזכיר ספר זה, ואולי אף ספר זה היה אצלו תחת הכותרת ‘תשובות הגאונים’.
ב. יש ספרים שהמחבר מציין את קיומם על פי מובאות בראשונים, אבל אינו מציין כי נדפסו. על פי שרי האלף (או קטלוגים של ספריות) היה יכול לומר למעיין כי ספר מסוים נדפס. לדוגמה: ברכות מהר”ם,[9] הלכות שחיטה למרדכי,[10] ועוד.
ג. בעמ’ שיט הזכיר את החיבור הגהות מיימוניות על הרמב”ם. נראה שהיה מן הראוי לציין כי יש שתי מהדורות לחיבור זה. האחת, אלו הגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, והשניה ההגהות שנדפסו בדפוס ויניציאה, וממנו בדפוסים הרגילים. עובדה זו צויינה בשרי האלף כמובן, עמ’ שעא, וגם ברמב”ם מהד’ פרנקל, ובמקורות נוספים. יש בידיעה זו חשיבות למעיינים, הואיל ומרן בבית יוסף השתמש בהגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, ודברים מסויימים שהביא משם, אינם מצויים בהגהות שבדפוסים הרגילים.
ד. בדומה לכך מצינו אצלו בעמ’ רפד ביחס לשבלי הלקט. המחבר לא כתב מאומה על הדפוסים של הספר. אבל על המעיין לדעת שהחיבור שבלי הלקט שנדפס לראשונה בויניציאה ש”ו, הוא למעשה קיצור, או מהדורה אחרת, של שבלי הלקט,[11] והוא שהיה לפני הפוסקים האחרונים. שבלי הלקט השלם נדפס ע”י בובר רק בשנת תרמ”ז. אבל מרן הבית יוסף ראה את שבלי הלקט השלם והביא ממנו. עובדה זו מיישבת שאלות ששאלו האחרונים על דברי הבית יוסף המביא משבלי הלקט והדבר לא נמצא לפניהם. עתה התשובה מובנת, לפניהם היה שבלי הלקט הקצר.
אילו היה המחבר מעיין בשרי האלף עמ’ תב, היה רואה כי הספר נדפס לראשונה בקיצור, ומאוחר יותר נדפס בשלימות.
אכן בשרי האלף לא נאמר כי מרן הב”י השתמש בבהגהות מיימוניות דפוס קושטא, וכן לא נאמר כי היה לפניו שבלי הלקט במהדורתו השלימה.
אבל גם אם המחבר אינו מעיין בספרות המחקר כפי שכתב, הוא היה יכול לדעת את שני הפרטים האחרונים בשלימותם, ופרטים נוספים חשובים על ספרים ומחבריהם, אילו היה מעיין בספריו של רי”ח סופר, ראש ישיבת כף החיים. כמעט אין לך ספר שלו שאין בו דיון אגב אורחא, או במיוחד, בספרים ומחברים. יש בספריו מפתחות טובים ובנקל ניתן למצוא פרטים אלו. ואם לא די בכך, הרי שרי”ח סופר כינס חלק מדבריו על ספרים ומחברים, ועוד הוסיף עליהם, בשני ספרים מיוחדים, שהם: מנוחת שלום, חלק ו, וחלק ז, ירושלים, תשס”ב, שכותרת המשנה שלהם היא: על ספרים וסופרים.[12]
נחזור אפוא לספרות המחקר. חשבתי שמן הראוי להראות מה היה המחבר יכול להפיק משאר הספרים שהזכרתי לעיל. אבל כיון שהדברים ארוכים, אקצר בדוגמאות, והמעיין ימצא עוד.
ה. ערך רבינו מנחם המאירי, עמ’ שכ-שכב. לדברי המחבר נפטר בשנת ע”ה, ובהערה 6 כתב: “ועכ”פ לא לפני שנת ס”ו”. נמצא שהוא מסופק בשנת פטירתו, אבל תא שמע בספרו הנ”ל, ח”ב, עמ’ 159 מראה בבירור שהוא נפטר לאחר שנת ע”ד.
בין ספריו של המאירי מנה המחבר את אהל מועד.[13] תא שמע לא מנה ספר זה. ואכן המאירי אינו מזכיר ספר זה בשום מקום. האיזכור היחיד הוא בשם הגדולים ערך ר’ מנחם ב”ר שלמה לבית מאיר, המפנה לשו”ת אבקת רוכל למרן סי’ רי. התשובה שם היא של ר”ש הלוי הזקן שכתב: “גם הרב המאירי כתב כן בפירוש בספר מגן אבות ובספר אהל מועד אשר לי”. בימינו שזכינו שכל ספרי המאירי הידועים לנו נדפסו, מן הדין היה שהמחבר יעיר לפחות שספר זה לא נודע עד היום. אולם דא עקא שהמחבר אינו מציין, לא כאן ולא במקומות אחרים,[14] אם ספר זה או אחר נדפס, והמעיין אינו יודע זאת. לכן, ניתן להסביר שר”ש הלוי התכוון לספר אהל מועד המובא בבית יוסף ומחברו ר”ש גירונדי.[15]
ספר נוסף שכתב המחבר הוא בית יד. אכן המאירי חיבר קונטרס [16] הנקרא בית יד שהוא נספח לפירושו על ברכות, אבל אין זה ספר, ולכן הוא לא נמנה אצל תא שמע.
אחרי ספר זה מנה המחבר את כתב הדת, ובהערה ציין שהוא ספר בענייני אמונה “רבינו מזכירו כמה פעמים בפי’ לאבות”. בעניי לא מצאתי זכרו במסכת אבות,[17] אלא רק בבית הבחירה על סנהדרין צ ע”א כתב המאירי: “ואמנם טרם שאתחיל בזה הסכמתי לכתוב תחלה הדברים התלמודיים שבפרק ואחרי כן אשוב עליו ואכתוב מה שנכלל בו מן האמונות ולגלגל עליו שלמות מה שצריך להאמין על פי הדרכים הדתיים כאשר ייעדתי בקונדרס מיוחד בפני עצמו קראתי שמו כתב הדת”.[18]
אחרי זה כתב המחבר כי המאירי חיבר את קרית ספר. בהערה מוסיף: “על הל’ ס”ת. רבינו כותב (סנהדרין מח:) ‘הארכנו בה בחבור ספר תורה שחברנו בחסד עליון’, כנראה כוונתו לספר זה”. לא ברור מה מקום יש להסתפק בזה אחר שספר זה נדפס, וברור שכוונתו אליו.[19]
אחר ספר זה מנה המחבר את חיבור התשובה ומשיבת נפש כשני ספרים, ובהערה כתב שאולי חד הם. גם כאן יש להתפלא על המחבר, שהרי ר”א סופר הדפיס את חבור התשובה, ומשם אנו למדים כי החיבור נחלק לשני חלקים. האחד: משיב (לא: משיבת) נפש. השני: שבר גאון (המחבר לא הזכירו).
על חיבורים נוספים של המאירי ראה תא שמע הנ”ל בעמ’ 160, והמצויין כאן בהערה 18. אגב, חלק מהפרטים על המאירי היה יכול המחבר ללמוד גם מספר שרי האלף, אבל כפי שאמרנו אין הוא משתמש בספר זה.
ו. עמ’ צז ערך ר’ יעקב ב”ר שמשון. א’ גרוסמן בספרו הנ”ל, חכמי צרפת הראשונים, עמ’ 226-211, דן בפירוט רב בחכם זה. ממנו למדנו כי הוא חיבר ספר הנקרא ספר האלקושי, שאין הוא נזכר על ידי המחבר. המחבר הזכיר את הפירוש של ר’ יעקב למסכת אבות, וכותב על כך בהערה: “כתב תמים”. מה יכול להבין הקורא מהערה זו? האם כוונתו כי זה שם החיבור? האם כוונתו כי הוא נדפס בתוך ספר שנקרא כתב תמים? ובכן, כוונתו כי הוא מוזכר בספר כתב תמים שכתב ר’ משה תקו. היכן מוזכר? מה כתוב שם? הקורא אינו יכול לדעת, כיון שהמחבר קיצר. אבל גרוסמן בעמ’ 413 מביא את הציטוט בשלימותו וגם מוסר לקורא האם הפירוש נדפס, ובאיזה אופן נדפס.
המחבר כתב כי ר’ יעקב כתב פירוש על ספר יצירה. אבל גרוסמן בעמ’ 421 נוטה לדחות זאת, ולדעתו הדברים לקוחים מספר האלקושי. בעמ’ 425-424 מראה גרוסמן כי ר’ יעקב חיבר פיוטים וגם פירש פיוטים מסויימים. ברם המחבר מציין רק שר’ יעקב כתב הגהות לפיוט של ר’ שמשון ב”ר יונה לשבת הגדול.
ז. בעמ’ רעג הזכיר המחבר את תוספות אלפסי כחיבורו של ר’ משה מלונדריש על יסוד איזכור בתרומת הדשן ובשו”ת מהרי”ק. על פי מפתח שמות החיבורים שבסוף הספר, זה המקום היחיד שבו מצאנו את החיבור תוספות אלפסי.[20] אבל המונח תוספות אלפסי מציין הגהות שכתבו חכמי אשכנז לדורותיהם על הרי”ף, ואינו מיוחד לחכם אחד בלבד. כתבו על כך מספר חכמים, וציינם ודן בהם י”ש שפיגל בספרו עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי – הגהות ומגיהים, מה’ שנייה, עמ’ 177-176.
ח. ספרו של ש’ עמנואל שברי לוחות, שהוזכר לעיל, מיוחד כולו לרישום ודיון בחיבורים אבודים מתקופת בעלי התוספות. המחבר לא עיין בספר זה, ולפיכך נעלמו ממנו חיבורים אלו, ולא הזכירם. הרי מספר דוגמאות:[21] ארבעה פנים (עמנואל עמ’ 290), חנוכי (עמ’ 31), חתום (שם), ועוד.[22]
כאמור, אני מסתפק בדוגמות אלו, ודומה שבזה הבהרתי די הצורך את החסרון שיש בכך שהמחבר אינו מודע לספרים אלו שציינתי ואחרים. לכן, איני עומד על נקודות אחרות שהיה אפשר לדון בהן בקשר לספר שלפנינו.
עם זאת ברצוני להבהיר כי אין ההערות הללו גורעות מחשיבותו של הספר שלפנינו. אני סבור שיש לשבח מאוד את המחבר על העבודה העצומה שהשקיע. לא זו בלבד, אלא שהמעיין בספר רואה כי המחבר בדק פרטים רבים מבחינת סדר הזמנים והאישים, ולא אחת הוא מצביע על קשיים מסויימים ונשאר בצ”ע, או שהוא מנסה ליישבם. ברי כי גם במתכונתו הנוכחית, ספר זה הוא עזרה גדולה למעיינים.
נאחל למחבר כי בס”ד יזכה להאיר את עיני ציבור הלומדים במהדורה נוספת של ספר זה, ואולי גם בספרים נוספים שיוקדשו לחכמים שפעלו בשאר התקופות. יחד עם זאת נבקש ממנו שבבואו לעשות זאת, יואיל נא לעיין גם בספרות נוספת, תורנית ומחקרית כאחד, כדי להוציא מתחת ידו דבר מתוקן, לתועלת המעיינים.

[1]               איני מציין לחכמים נוספים שכתבו בזה, והדברים ברורים וידועים.
[2]               לכאורה היה עליו לציין למהד’ בלאו המאוחרת והמעודכנת יותר.
[3]               יש גם שגיאת דפוס בשמו של ר”א שושנה. בקיצור: ה”מ, נדפס: ר”י שושנה. אבל בקיצור: יד רמ”ה נדפס שמו כהלכה.
[4]               אולי: מדברי רבינו, וכוונתו להערות ר”ד לנדו, שבעמ’ טז כתב כי כתב הערות על הספר במהדורתו הראשונה.
[5]               אגב, איני יודע אם שרי האלף ייחשב אצל המחבר כספר מחקרי או תורני.
[6]               יש לשים לב כי המדובר כאן בספר שיצא לאור לפני 30 שנה, ומאז נוספו ספרים רבים. עידכון מסויים לכך פירסם ש’ עמנואל באינטרנט, ואיני מתייחס לכך.
[7]               אמנם אין זה ספר מקורי אלא אוסף המובאות של הנגיד, אבל מן הראוילהזכירו בעמ’ סה הערה 7 ביחס להלכתא גברוותא.
[8]               יצא בראשונה בתוך כתב עת, ואח”כ בצילום נפרד. אולי משום כך לא נמנה בספרו.
[9]               בעמ’ רעח הערה 14 הזכיר את סדר ברכות [אינו נזכר במפתח] ואת הלכות שמחות. את השני ציין שישנו בידינו כלומר שנדפס, וא”כ משמע שהראשון אינו נדפס, ונעלם ממנו האמור בשרי האלף עמ’ שסט מס’ 29.
[10]               ראה בספרו עמ’ שיז והערה 7, אבל לא ציין שנדפס. וראה עוד על חיבור זה, ש’ עמנואל, שברי לוחות, עמ’ 245-244.
[11]               על היחס בין שני החיבורים ראה בספרו של י”ש שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, כתיבה והעתקה, תשס”ה, עמ’ 226-219, ובהערה 139 שם ציין לעוד חכמים שכתבו בנושא זה.
[12]               כבר ציין מ’ שפירו כאן כי אנשי אקדמיה כמעט ואינם מכירים את ספריו של רי”ח סופר, והנה אנו רואים שככל הנראה גם בציבור התורני אין ספריו מוכרים.
[13]               אגב, המחבר אינו מציין אם ספר זה או אחר נדפס, והמעיין אינו יכול לדעת זאת מעצמו.
[14]               לעתים מצא לנכון לציין. כך בעמ’ שטז הערה 43, על ספרי ר”י אבן נחמיאש הוא כותב: “ישנם בידינו”.
[15]               וכן כתב רי”ח סופר בקובץ מקבציאל, לד, תשס”ח, עמ’ תקכט.
[16]               כך הוא קורא לו בעצמו, וא”כ אין זה ספר.
[17]               ראה אבות מהד’ ש”ז הבלין, ירושלים, תשנ”ה, עמ’ יב, שמנה את חיבורי המאירי בענייני אמונה, ולא הזכיר חיבור זה.
[18]               חשבתי שהמחבר נמשך אחר מבואו של ר”מ הרשלר לקרית ספר, ח”א, ירושלים, תשט”ז, מבוא, סוף אות ג (דומה שהרשלר נמשך אחר אור המאיר לרש”ב סופר, ירושלים, תש”ב). הרשלר הוסיף כי הוא נזכר גם בפירושו לתנ”ך. ואכן נזכר בפירוש לתהלים סוף מזמור קב, וגם שם נאמר שהוא קונטרס. אבל אם כך היה לו להזכיר גם קונטרס על פסוקים וסליחות, ועוד חיבורים שהזכיר שם הרשלר.
[19]               ראה מבואו של הרשלר שם עמ’ אות ו (אין מספור של עמודים במבוא).
[20]               יש להוסיף כי גם הרשב”ם כתב תוספות על הרי”ף, והזכירם המחבר בעמ’ קח ובהערה 17, אבל לא הזכיר זאת במפתח החיבורים. אציין כאן כי דברי הרשב”ם על הרי”ף נמצאים בחלקם גם בדפוסי הרי”ף שלפנינו, והמחבר לא ציין זאת. ראה על כך בספרו הנ”ל של שפיגל, עמ’ 175-174. שפיגל סבור שהרשב”ם כתב את הגהותיו בגליון, ולא כספר עצמאי. אפשר שגם המחבר סבור כך, ולכן לא מנה חיבור זה במפתח שמות החיבורים.
[21]               אציין כאן כי עמנואל בעמ’ 240 הזכיר את איסור והיתר לרא”ש הנזכר פעם אחת בלבד בשו”ת רדב”ז ח”ג, סי’ תתקח (תסט). גם המחבר הזכיר, בעמ’ שיד, בתוך חיבורי הרא”ש את הל’ איסור והיתר. אבל בעוד שלשאר החיבורים הוא ציין מראה מקום, לחיבור זה הוא לא ציין מקור. אכן אוסיף כאן כי ידיעה זו והפנייה לשו”ת רדב”ז, כבר כתב החיד”א בשם הגדולים ערך רא”ש.
[22]               עמנואל בעמ’ 240 מזכיר את הספר הנקרא שערי הפנים. אכן, גם המחבר הזכיר ספר זה במפתח שמות החיבורים. אלא שיש במפתח שני שיבושים. האחד, הוא נקרא: שער [צ”ל: שערי] הפנים. השני, נאמר כי הוא נזכר בעמ’ סח בהערה, ונשמט בדפוס מספר ההערה שהיא 32.

Eliezer Brodt: Corrections and Clarifications

Corrections and Clarifications on Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin’s Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship

by: Eliezer Brodt

From time to time I get feed back about some of my previous posts some good some bad – aside from the standard criticism of poor grammar, editing or transliterating, all of which are my fault entirely. The blog does not have a full time editor (its all on a volunteer basis), and the goal of the editors, in general, is to get out posts at high speed with good content (many of which could have been printed in journals) but this avoids the whole long process of printing etc. Sometimes the feedback shows that some things need more clarifications or statements I made are simply wrong and need to be corrected. Thus, I definitely encourage all feedback. When I write posts (although I spend much time researching and writing them) I am still collecting information on these topics which I hope to incorporate at future times (at times I have done so already). Another point, which almost goes without saying, is that I am definitely not trying to Pasken any halachic leniency with what I quote. I just like to bring interesting, nice points to public knowledge. With this introduction I would like to clarify some issues as a few very important remarks and corrections are in order about a previous post of mine Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin’s Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship

In this post I accused the editors of the new edition for censorship in a few places most notably a leniency about shaking woman hands and a pro-Chassidus statement. I then concluded that there are probably more examples of censorship in this work but I do not have time to go through all four volumes. In general before I write a review on a sefer I read the sefer cover to cover a few times carefully. Since this work has four massive volumes I did not do so. Instead I used the many indexes of the sefer based on topics, Shas and names of the people mentioned etc. I could not find the various pieces so I concluded that there was censorship. I recently received a letter from an old friend who read through this post very carefully and had a few very important comments. I would like to deal with some of his comments.

On Shaking hands with woman:

First of all I accuse the editors of the new edition of censoring this Teshuvah by removing it, but that is simply a false accusation. This Teshvah is included in the new edition in volume two p.257.

Second of all my friend writes: “I will admit that when I first saw the teshuvah I too understood it to mean that, but after a careful reading that R. Chaim Berlin actually never permits shaking hands at all. Rather, R. Berlin brings the Gemarah in Brochos about someone who hands money to a woman in order to look at her, R. Berlin therefore deduces that if the intent is not in order to look at her (as is the case in the one who asked the shaila) then this would not apply and it would be permissible to pass money from his hand to hers. He then adds that it would be better to be careful about this too, but if this proves impossible one should not be machmir etc. that’s all. It would seem quite clear that he is discussing a situation of someone who has a business or runs a store (as the one who asked the shaila, R. Alshvang, did) and needs to hand money (or merchandise) to his customers. This is the case of the above mentioned Gemarah (i.e. passing money, not shaking hands). After finding this teshuvah in the new edition I saw that the publishers of the new edition were kind enough to explain this (and were careful to put this explanation in brackets; the accepted form of an editors addition).”

I will admit this argument sounds convincing but I am not sure it is correct. The exact quote of the Teshuvah is as follows:

אשר שאל על דבר נתינת ידו לרשעים או לנכרית, הנה ליתן יד לפושעים אין שום איסור בזה אם אין בזה הודאה וחיזוק להנהגותיהם בשרירות לבם. ולתת יד לאשה לשון הש”ס הוא ברכות ס”א א’ המרצה מעות לאשה מידו לידה כדי להסתכל בה, מבואר דאם אינו מכוין לשום דבר וכש”כ שאינו עושה כדי להסתכל בה כמו מעלתו שכל מעשיו לשם שמים אין איסור בזה לרצות מעות מידו לידה. ודאי אם יוכל להזהר בזה מה טוב, אבל אם אי אפשר לו להנצל מזה כגון אם הנכרית הקדימה והושיט לו את ידה ואין דעתו לשום הרהור ח”ו אין להחמיר בזה, ודרכיה דרכי נועם, ואהבת את ה’ אלקיך אמרו חכמים יומא פ”ו א’ שיהא שם שמים מתאהב על ידך, ולא יאמרו על יראי ה’ שהם משוגעים ואינם בעלי דרך ארץ.

A simple reading of the first part was about shaking the hand of a Rasha or non-Jewish woman as his answer implies where he says “as long as it does not show any agreement to their behavior”. I would assume that is not referring to just taking money from them. He then goes on to dealing with the story by a Jewish woman as he says “to give a hand to a woman”. To which he answers based on the Gemarah of giving money to a woman… which I think also answers the question of shaking a woman’s hand. It would definitely be helpful to have the original question of R. Alshvang but I do not. The new edition after the words אשר שאל על דבר נתינת ידו לרשעים או לנכרית, stuck in the words

[בהושטת הפרקמטיא או המו”מ בהרצאת המעות, האם צריך להקפיד שלא למסור מיד ליד]

Now they do not write that they did (nor do they mention in the introduction that they ever do this) this making you think R. Chaim Berlin writes that. But aside for that I am not sure that this is true as his reply does not make sense when he answers אין שום איסור בזה אם אין בזה הודאה וחיזוק להנהגותיהם בשרירות לבם. if he was talking about shaking hands then this statement makes sense but if its just about handing over money I am not sure what it means.

One last point I am not concluding via this possible pesak of R. Chaim Berlin that it is permitted to shake woman’s hands that is for one to ask their local Rav as where I come from we go with the strict pesak of R Moshe Feinstein that it is prohibited as he writes:
ולהושיט יד לאשה כדרך הנותנים שלום בהפגשם, פשוט שאסור אף לפנויה שהרי הן נדות וכ”ש לאשת איש (אגרת משה, או”ח, א, סי’ קיג).

Other cases of supposed Censorship:
The piece I brought of additions to the Mishana where R. Chaim Berlin writes:

שביארתי מאמרם ז”ל התמוה מאד בשלהי מס’ סוטה מ”ט ב’ על משנתינו משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא א”ל ר”י לתנא לא תיתני ענוה דאיכא אנא א”ל ר”נ לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא דאיכא אנא. והתמיה מפורסמת איך אמוראים קדושים כאלה ישבחו עצמם בענוה ויראת חטא, והמלך החכם אמר יהללך זר ולא פיך. וביארתי בס”ד על פי מש”כ הרע”ב ז”ל על האי בבא משמת רבי בטלה ענוה שתלמידיו של רבי הוסיפו וכתבו זה במשנה, וכ”כ בתוס’ רע”ק בשם הרמב”ן בחי’ ע”ז ל”ז א’ שהוא תוספת שהוסיף בר קפרא או לוי במשנה, והמה היו תנאים אחרונים תלמידי רבי. ואמרתי שהוא הוא התנא שדברו עמו רב יוסף ורב נחמן, שרב יוסף א”ל לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה א”ל לא תיתני ענוה שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ענוותן כרבי ועדיין לא בטלה ענוה משמת רבי, וכן א”ל רב נחמן לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא א”ל לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ירא חטא כרבי, ועדיין לא בטלה יראת חטא משמת רבי, כן ביארתי זה המאמר לפי חומר הנושא.

I could not figure out why this piece was edited out but my friend has a much more logical explanation. In the introduction of the sefer the editors write they hope to collect all the pieces of R. Chaim Berlin on Agadah and print them shortly.

The pieces where he writes:

ועל דבר כסוי ראש האשה במטפחת אחת, אם אין שערה נראין אין בזה שום איסור, ועדיף טובא מפיאה נכרית, ואין צריך כלל שני כסויין, ואם אך אין השער נראה בחוץ די בכסוי אחד אף ברשות הרבים, ורשאי גם לקרות ק”ש כנגדה,ואין להחמיר עוד בזמן הזה.

I also accused the editors of the new edition of censoring this Teshuvah out but that is simply a false accusation. This Teshvah is included in the new edition in volume two p.260.

The pieces where he writes:
לדבר עם אשה בשוק לא נאסר אלא לתלמיד חכם ולא למי שאינו מוחזק בתלמיד חכם, וכשם שתלמיד חכם המדבר עם אשה בשוק גורם בזה חלול השם כן מי שאינו מוחזק לתלמיד חכם הנזהר בזה שלא לדבר עם אשתו לעיני הבריות הוא מיחזי כיוהרא, ויש בזה גם כן חלול השם …
I also accused the editors of the new edition of Censoring this Teshuvah out but that is simply a false accusation. This Teshvah is included in the new edition in volume two p.261. Furthermore in both of these last two pieces, in the new edition we have an addition – the exact question posed to R. Chaim Berlin see p.258-259.

The Piece Pro Chassidus:

R. Chaim Berlin writes:

ולהתפלל בבית הכנסת של החסידים אין שום חשש בזה, וגזירת רבינו הגר”א ז”ל לא הי’ אלא בזמנו שהקילו אז בכבוד תלמידי חכמים לומדי תורה, ולא כן בימינו שהחסידים חולקים כבוד לכל לומדי תורה והם יראי ה’ ושומרים תורהומצוה. אך על דבר שינוי נוסחת התפלה, אסור לשנות בפרהסיא ממנהגיהם ומנוסחאותיהם ובנוסח הקדושה יאמר קדושת כתר בשביל שנאמרת בקול רם ויש בזה איסור לא תתגודדו, וגם שלא לעורר מחלוקת ח”ו, אבל בתפלה בלחש לא ישנה כבודו ממנהג אבותיו וממנהגו מעולם, ויתפלל שמונה עשרה בלחש כנוסח אשכנז.

I claimed that this piece is censored out from the new edition, this too is a a false accusation. This Teshvah is included in the new edition in volume two p. 261. Furthermore in the new edition we have an addition – the exact question posed to R. Chaim Berlin (p.259):

והנה נא הואלתי לשאול עוד דבר אחד לבד. אם ראוי או נכון להתחבר עם החסידים היינו להתפלל בנוסח שלהם, וגם יש בהם חלוקי דעות ואיזה מהם קודם. ואם הגר”א אשר אסר שני פעמים להתחבר עמהם כלל והרחיקם במאוד למה אנו וכל גדולי ישראל נוהגין לקרבן ולהתקרב להם ודבר טוב ראיתי בהם שבחייהם חיי אחדות יותר ממנו.

Reading Newspapers on Shabbos and reliability of Torah Temimah:

Another piece my friend takes issue with is what I write about newspapers on Shabbos. My friend writes: Whether or not the Netziv read newspapers on shabbos I don’t know. I would be inclined to believe what R’ Chaim Berlin says about this; after all even those who opposed him on Volozhin never accused him of being a liar. But either way to bring ‘testimony’ from Mekor Boruch is ludicrous; everyone knows that! As for R’ Meir Bar Ilan’s ‘testimony’ it might be worth something (if his childhood memories can be trusted) it also might be just an ‘echo’ of Mekor Boruch (i.e. he might have sent it there himself), but the truth is that this is not at all important to the issue at hand, because he doesn’t talk about shabbos at all.

First I would like to clarify there have been many many articles written about the Mekor Baruch showing plagiarism and mistakes he made. Others have shown that he is not reliable in his quotes from his father about Chabad. I am not here to add to that all I have to say is anything he wrote about his uncle that was public fact I doubt he played around with or lied about. He received a beautiful haskamah from R. Kook I doubt he would have received one had he said such lies about Netziv his rebbe. Also many people at that time were alive at that time who learnt by the Netziv yet no opposition was expressed as far as we know to date. I am not Chas vesholom calling R’ Chaim Berlin a liar. Perhaps he was expressing his opinion based on a conversation he had with his father early on in life whereas maybe the Netziv changed his mind over time and that was what Mekor Baruch was reporting. As for R’ Meir Bar Ilan he does not write that the Netzv read newspapers on Shabbas. All he says is he did in general and on Shabbas he held it was ok as he wrote in Itur Sofrim. I guess he was not aware of what R. Chaim Berlin said on the topic.

Woman covering their Hair:

Much has been written about how the responsa literature can aid in reconstructing the history of the period, this sefer also shows us this. Just to cite one example in volume one (p. 88) of the newer version (which shockingly was not edited out) someone wrote to R. Chaim:
גלוי וידוע לכבודו עד כמה פשתה הנגע בארצינו וביתר שאת בארצות אוירפפה ושדה תיכלה כמעט בכל בנות ישראל שוע ודל אשר גם בעליהן ואבותיהן המה משלומי אמוני היהודים המחזקים בדתינו הקדוש והמה גם הנה אינן ח”ו מפורקי עול בדרך כלל, ובכל זאת עברו ושנו ונעשה להן כהתיר לילך בגליות שער ראשיהן אחת המרבה ואחת המטמעטת, עיר ועיר ומדינה ומדינה כמנהגה וכפי חוקות המאדע שלה. ולא ישמרו את נפשותיהן מזה לילך כן גם בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמסיבות אנשים שרים סביב לשלחן בעת סעודות נשואין שבת ויום טוב…

We see from this that the well known phenomena of woman not covering their hair in previous generations. The question which was posed to R. Chaim was what one should do about saying
berokhot or Shema in front of such a woman. To which R. C. Berlin replied:
לענין קריאת שמע גופא יש מקילין בזמן הזה שכבר נהגו לגלות ראשן ודומה לשער שמחוץ לצמתן… ומעתה למעשה בזמן הזה, מי שאינו מחפש למצוא לו יתד על מה לסמוך, ומקלו יגיד לו, יוכל לסמוך על המקילין. ומי שהוא ירא חטא ורוצה לצאת ידי שמים גם בסתר כבגלוי, ודאין אין לו לסמוך על המקילין.
Some points which my friend pointed out is one this Teshuvah is on p.78, and the writer was referring to Germany in 1909. Another point which is a typo on my part is it should say:

מי שאינו מחפש אלא למצוא לו יתד על מה לסמוך, ומקלו יגיד לו, יוכל לסמוך על המקילין.

Meaning if your looking for a heter you have one but that is not what you should be doing.

One last point my friend made is what R. Chaim Berlin concludes:

והעצה היעוצה לו, לעוצם עיניו, שדבר הזה הוא נקל מאוד… דאם אי אפשר לו באופן אחר, יוכל לסמוך על המתירין עצימת עינים, ומי שעוצם עיניו מראות שוא, יזכה לראות פני שכינה.

In conclusion it is proper to quote the famous words of the Rambam which one should ultimately do:

וממה שראוי שתדעהו שהאדם אין לו לדבר ולדרוש באזני העם עד שיחזור מה שרצונו לדבר בו פעם ושתים ושלש וארבע וישנה אותו היטב ואחר כן ידברו… ועל מה שירשם האדם בידו ויכתבהו ראוי שיחזירהו אלף פעמים אלו יתכן זה… (אגרת השמד, שילת, עמ’ לג-לד).

The Writings of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky – Part I

The Writings of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky – Part I

Marc B. Shapiro

In honor of Dan Rabinowitz, in appreciation of his commitment to the free and open exchange of ideas.

In a previous post I mentioned the new writings of R. Kook and also the works of R. Hayyim Dov Ber Gulevsky. I would like to speak about both of them before returning to my discussions of Judaism and Christianity.

Let me begin with R. Gulevsky, who obviously is not as well known as R. Kook, although he does have his own important yichus. He was born in Brisk where his grandfather was the famous R. Simcha Zelig Rieger, who served as dayan in the city. (Professor Sara Regeuer of Brooklyn College is also a descendant.) R. Simcha Zelig was descended from R. Hayyim of Volozhin’s brother, R. Simcha, for whom Gulevsky’s grandfather was named. Gulevsky is also descended from R. Hayyim of Volozhin.[1] A picture of the young Gulevsky and R. Simcha Zelig is found in the recently published Iggerot Maran ha-Griz, p. 174.

Stories of R. Simcha Zelig’s relationship with R. Hayyim Soloveitchik and R. Velvel are legendary. While R. Hayyim and R. Velvel focused on theoretical Torah study, R. Simcha Zelig was an expert in practical halakhah. It was because of this that R. Hayyim brought him from Volozhin to Brisk. Unfortunately, his many responsa were lost during the Holocaust, in which he was also killed. One interesting point about R. Hayyim and R. Simcha Zelig is that neither of them wore rabbinic garb. Here is a painting of both of them (made from famous pictures) found in Gulevsky’s home.

Gulevsky’s parents were also killed in the Holocaust, as was the rest of the city of Brisk. Fortunately, he was not there when the Nazis arrived, and was able to make it to Japan with R. Aaron Kotler and around fourteen other Kletzk students, where he spent the war years. (Before studying in Kletzk, Gulevsky was in Kaminetz.) On the slow journey by train across the Soviet Union, four people slept in a compartment, and Gulevsky shared one with R. Aaron and his wife and daughter. He is also mentioned in one of the letters R. Aaron sent from America to the Kletzk students in Shanghai.[2] Following the War Gulevsky came to the United States where he studied in Lakewood. One can hear his recollections (in Yiddish) of R. Aaron Kotler here. For his eulogy of R. Aaron, see Ha-Darom (Nisan 5723), pp. 40-42.

Gulevsky taught at Yeshiva University’s Teacher’s Institute for a number of years, as well as at the religious Zionist Bachad (Berit Halutzim Datiyim) school in Jamesburg, N. J. This school existed in the early 1950’s and combined Torah study with preparation for agricultural settlement in the Land of Israel (hachsharah). Incredible as it sounds, Gulevsky might be the only living native of Brisk in the United States who was part of the city’s Torah community. (I am not referring to those who left Brisk as children and have no real memories of it. In Israel some of the children of R. Velvel are still alive, and R. Aharon Leib Steinman was born in Brisk.)

Here he is, in a picture that could be used if anyone wants to make a gadol card.

Here he is with the indefatigable Menachem Butler.

Gulevsky’s writings are quite interesting and reveal information not found elsewhere. Before looking at them, however, I should note that some readers might recognize his name, without knowing who he is. He is the rav ha-machshir on two Indian vegetarian restaurants in Manhattan, Madras Mahal and Chennai. I first ate at Madras Mahal not too long ago, at a surprise birthday party for Sharon Flatto. Sharon is a professor at Brooklyn College whose doctoral dissertation on R. Yehezkel Landau, the Noda bi-Yehuda, will soon be published by my favorite press, Littman Library.[3]

She is married to my good friend, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, who teaches at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. I believe R. Ysoscher has the distinction of being the youngest maggid shiur ever to complete the daf yomi cycle. This happened a number of years ago when he “said the daf” at the Agudas Yisrael shul in Boro Park. This was also the largest daf yomi in the country, with some seventy-five people in attendance. He took over the shiur of R. Simcha Elberg, who taught it for many years. Although R. Ysoscher no longer teaches there, the shiur continues and I am told that it is the longest running daf yomi in the country.

Returning to Gulevsky, over the years he has published a good deal, and much of his writings have been collected into two volumes. Here are the title pages of these books.

Although not noted on the title page, included in the Arba’ah Sefarim Niftanim is his Lahat Herev ha-Mithapekhet, first published in 1976. Here is the title page.

This volume is significant as it the first detailed defense of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik against the criticisms of the Chazon Ish. As should be expected from one who grew up in Brisk and whose family is so connected to the Soloveitchiks, Gulevsky views the defense of R. Hayyim as a holy task. However, I wonder if there any truth to the following statement he makes:

והנה בשלהי קיץ שנת תשל”ה, שמוע שמעתי שיצאו אנשים בלתי הגונים, ולא שמעו לקול הורים ומורים, ולמשפחת הגאון החסיד צדיק יסוד עולם בעל החזון איש, והוציאו במרמה נגד רצונם את ההשגות שהחסיד הנ”ל רשם על ספר חדושי רבינו חיים הלוי והדפיסו את זה יחד עם הספר חדושי רבינו חיים הלוי.

Even if it is true that the Chazon Ish never intended to publish his notes, is that any reason for them not to be printed? Didn’t the Netziv tell the Wuerzberger Rav’s son not to pay attention to his father’s wish that his writings not be published, since the Torah thoughts that he developed were not to be regarded as his personal possession to the extent that he could prevent others from studying what he wrote?[4] Furthermore, is there any evidence that the Chazon Ish was opposed to his criticism of R. Hayyim appearing in print? (The selections of the Chazon Ish’s Emunah u-Bitahon that were embargoed for so long are now widely available, and are even included [but not translated] in the new translation of the book that just appeared.)

The problem confronting anyone who studies the Chazon Ish’s life is that there are so many contradictory stories about him and what he said that one must be skeptical of much of what is reported. For example, how many different versions are there of the famous meeting between him and Ben Gurion, with some even describing how he never looked directly at Ben Gurion so as not to state at the face of a wicked one? Yet in all the descriptions of the meeting it never mentioned that the only people in attendance were Ben Gurion, Chazon Ish, and Yitzhak Navon. In other words, many of the descriptions of what was said are based on wishful thinking and fantasies, and no doubt there are some intentional falsifications as well. For Navon’s recollection of the meeting, see Binyamin Brown’s doctoral dissertation,[5] appendix, pp. 1-5.

In my last post, I mentioned Gulevsky’s negative comments about Samuel Belkin. I have to say that, unfortunately, one also finds passages in his writings that are disrespectful of gedolim. For example, although Gulevsky sometimes refers to R. Kook as a gaon, elsewhere, in his discussion of shemitah, he writes as follows (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 100):

והנה החכם קוק כאשר יצא להוריד קדושת דברי קבלה (כדי שזה יעזור לו להוריד החשיבות של המצוות שקבלו בשטר האמנה, שנאמרו בנחמיה).

R. Goren gets even harsher treatment (Mi-Meged Givot Olam, p. 285):

ההגהה הזאת קץ וסוף לקונטרס מהדורא קמא סתירת ההיתר של הגאון החסיד גדול הקבלה מרן נפתלי הירץ מיפו. תחילה וראש לקונטרס על קדושת הר הבית והמקדש בזמן הזה. ולהבדיל רבבות ומליונים הבדלות בין איש קדוש וטהור מיפו, ובין משוקץ ומתועב נשמה טמאה במ”ט פעם מ”ט שערי טומאה וזוהמא הצנחן והצחנן ר”ל.

R. Moshe Feinstein also does not escape unscathed (Mi-Mekor Yisrael, p. 58):

ומפני שרב ישיש אחד פה במדינה הזאת שגה ברואה ופרץ גדרו של עולם להבדיל בין ישראל לעמים מפני שאינו יודע להבדיל וכו’. ורצה להתיר להזריע זרע נכרים ברחם רחמתים בנותיו של אברהם אבינו ר”ל.

Gulevsky’s writings are full of points of historical interest, especially about the teachings of his grandfather. Just to give some examples, he reports that his grandfather refused to void the herem of R. Gershom even when dealing with a moredet, as long as all that was required to get her to agree to a divorce was a significant monetary payment (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 294).

In Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 307, he tells us that the great rabbis of Brisk, from early days, were supporters of Torah im Derekh Eretz, not of the Hirschian variety, but that people should work for a living. They didn’t like the kollel system in Eretz Yisrael where everyone was supported by charity, as it led to corruption and thievery.

In an article on Hasidic shehitah [6] he tells us that that last two shohetim in Brisk (appointed by his grandfather) were hasidim. One was a follower of the Kotzker and the other was a Lubavitcher. Yet they were obligated to follow R. Simcha Zelig’s instructions. He also writes as follows, with reference to an earlier era:

בבריסק דליטא שחטו רק בשני צדדים. וזה היה אחת מהסיבות שחסידי קוצק יצאו במחלוקת נגד בעל בית הלוי. הלכו ועשו סעודה בעיר טערעספוליע מעבר לנהר בוג, ובגאוה וגאון לקחו שוחט מביאלא ששחט עם חלף מצד אחד ועשו סעודה גדולה. וכבר נדפס בהרבה מקומות, ואני בעצמי שמעתי את זה מהגרי”ז רבה האחרון בריסק דליטא, שכאשר התחילו לברך שיר המעלות לפני ברכת המזון, בא רץ מיוחד על סוס שנתחלפו הבשר וזה היתה טריפה.

With regard to hasidim, it is quite unusual that a Litvak like Gulevsky has such knowledge of the hasidic world and its personalities. A number of his articles dealing with the Ruzhin dynasty have appeared in the journal Mesilot. As with most such studies, there is a great deal of oral history (including from R. Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Kapitchenetzer Rebbe,[7] and R. Yohanan Perlow, the Karlin-Stolin Rebbe.[8]).

Gulevsky states that R Simcha Zelig ruled that if a child has a fever of 39 degrees Celsius (which equals 102.2 degrees Fahrenheit) one should immediately violate Shabbat to do whatever needs to be done (Nishmat Hayyim, p. 60). This is very much in line with how R. Hayyim ruled in similar cases. The Rav himself told the following story: As a child he was visiting R. Hayyim and on Friday night there was a problem with his throat. A doctor was summoned and little Joseph Baer opened his mouth. R. Hayyim asked the doctor if he needed more light to see better. The doctor replied “that is not a bad idea.” Immediately R. Hayyim ordered the Rav’s father, R. Moshe, to raise the flame on the light. R. Moshe hesitated. After all, it was Shabbat and the doctor didn’t actually say that he needed more light. R. Hayyim turned to R. Simcha Zelig and said, about R. Moshe, “He is an am ha-aretz.” R. Hayyim asked R. Simcha Zelig to turn up the flame, and he did so without hesitation.[9]

Gulevsky also tells the following story of his grandfather and R. Velvel (Nishmat Hayyim, p. 144):

זכורני שאאזמו”ר הגאון החסיד קדוש ישראל אביר הרועים בכל גלילותינו ועמוד ההראה מרן שמחה זליג זצוק”ל הי”ד היה מספר, שהרופא ומנתח המפורסם דר. אהרן סאלובייציג שאל את רבינו הגדול מרן אור החיים מבריסק דליטא, כיצד מותר לאכול כל הדברים החמוצים כחלב חמוץ וחומץ, הלוא ידוע שתהליך של החמצה, זהו על ידי תולעים שקצים ורמשים שרואים אותם במיקרוסקופ. והשיב לו רבינו הגדול שהתורה אסרה רק שקצים ורמשים שנראים בעינים. ואאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד הוסיף באותו מעמד, שאסור להתחשב במראות דמים עם המיקרוסקופ, והסכים לזה רבינו הגדול. שוב זכורני שמרן הגרי”ז הלוי הביא מיקרוסקופ עם מודד, שמדדו את הרבוע של תפילין. הגרי”ז שאל את אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד מה דעתו על זה. והשיב לו אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד שרבוע של תפילין צריך להיות נראה לעינים, ומה שפחות מזה אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד.

Let me quote at length the following, which is also mentioned by the Rav. Interestingly, the Rav is more sympathetic to the gedolim who opposed R. Hayyim. He states that “from a political and practical perspective, and as an emergency measure, no doubt the majority was correct.”[10] Gulevsky completely disagrees with this evaluation. Also, notice how the Habad rabbi responded to R. Hayyim – how times have changed! (Mi-Mekor Yisrael, p. 33):

ושמעתי מאאזמו”ר הגאון החסיד זצוק”ל הי”ד, שבשנת תר”ע באסיפה הגדולה שהיתה בעיר הבירה פטרבורג, שר הפנים הרוסי רצה שהיהודים יתקנו תקנות לעצמם. ועמדה שאלה על הפרק שרצו לתקן מי שלא נמול בין שאביו לא מל אותו ובין שהוא לא מל את עצמו, שאינו שייך לעם ישראל ואסור לקבור אותו בקבר ישראל. והרבה מגדולי ישראל (ואני חושב שהיום פשוט חרפה ובושה להזכיר את שמם, כי זו היתה מזימה מהממשלה הרוסית, ששכבה הקטנה של המתבוללים ביותר, והרבה מהם היו אינטלקטואלים, שפשוט ימירו את דתם כי אין להם בית הקברות בין היהודים. אולם רבינו הגדול שהיה חכם החכמים ונבון הנבונים עמד על זה גם מצד ההלכה וגם מצד פקחות) תמכו בזה. ורבינו הגדול לחם נגדם כארי, ולא נתן בשום אופן לבצע את זה. ואחד מרבני חב”ד טען לרבינו הגדול הלא הערלים רובם דרובם מחללי שבתות בפרהסיא ודינם כנכרים בין כה ובין כה. והשיב לו רבינו הגדול במקרה שמחללי שבתות בפרהסיא רוצים להמיר את דתם או שמסיתים למחללי שבתות להמיר את דתם, אנחנו חייבים למסור את נפשנו כדי למנוע את זה. ודבריו פשוטים שמחלל שבתות בפרהסיא עוד אינו מומר לכל דיני תורה, וכן מין גמור וכופר בעיקר ר”ל.

והנה לפני מלחמת העולם השניה ראש הבונדיסטים בפולין מר וו. א. שם רשעים ירקב, התחתן עם יהודיה נתינת צרפת ולא רצה למול את בנו והקהילה קדושה בווארשא לחמו בכל כוחותיהם שלא להכיר בבן הערל כחלק מהקהל היהודית, והטעם שפחדו שמאות בונדיסטים חס ושלום יפסיקו למול את בניהו. . . והשיב לו אאזמו”ר זצוק”ל הי”ד, שאנחנו חייבים למסור את נפשנו גם בזה שמינים וכופרים בעיקר לא יפסיקו חס ושלום למול את בניהם.

Here is his description of Shanghai, which I don’t think will appear in any of the popular histories designed to appeal to the haredi world (Perah Shoshanah Adumah, p. 186):

ובשנות ראינו רעה בזמן המלחמה, בני הישיבות נצלו ממות ר”ל, על ידי שהוגלו בדיוטא התחתונה של הטומאה בגלות שאנגחיי ר”ל. עיר הזאת היתה שיא וראש הפסגה של ניאוף וטומאה ר”ל. ובכלל לא היה שם חוקי משפחה, בבחינת איש כל הישר בעיניו יעשה. וזה כפי הנראה היה הגלות מכפרת עלינו ר”ל.

He then describes an unusual case that came up:

פעם אחת מאוחר בליל מוצאי שבת, לפתע פתאום, האמריקאים חדרו יותר מאלף וחמש מאות קילאמטר באויר, וזרקו פצצה חזקה מאד, והפציצו באי מעבר השני של הנהר, ונהרגו הרבה אנשים. אחד מהאברכים, שהיה תלמיד חכם, וזה היה אחרי חצות, היה עם אשתו לקיים מצוה עונה. הפצצה הזאת נפלה לפתע פתאום, והפציצה מחסן נשק עצום באי מעבר הנהר ממולנו. וכבין רגע נשמע התפוצצות איומה. מרוב פחד אשתו נעשית נדה מיד, והבעל התבלבל לגמרי, וכפי הנראה עבר באונס על עשה שבנדה, שפרש באבר מקושה ר”ל. אשתו מרוב פחד ומהרגשת האיסור התעלפה כמה פעמים. מחוגי הליטאים והרב מ”ר [11] שהיה מלפנים אב”ד דסיניי, פסק בפשיטות, שלא עברו על שום נדנוד איסור, כי אונס כזה ברור שרחמנא פטריה. אבל מחוגי הקבלה והחסידים, ראו בזה שירדנו לעומק הקליפה ר”ל בכל המשורים ח”ו.

There are lots of other interesting comments strewn throughout his book. For example, in Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 110, he characterizes R. Ben Zion Sternfeld of Bielsk as הפוסק הזקן בכל מדינת ליטא. I believe that this is an exaggeration, but I call attention to it since I daresay that most people, including those who have learnt for many years in yeshiva, have never even heard of R. Ben Zion. This is a good example of how great figures in one era can become unknowns in a future generation. Rare indeed is the scholar whose books are still studied one hundred years after his death. As to R. Ben Zion, in a German article by R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg he records a conversation he had with him. This article has not yet appeared in English (or Hebrew) and translating it is one of my future projects. (For another example of how a great scholar can be forgotten, I vividly recall how I once mentioned R. Joseph Zechariah Stern to my havruta, a man who had learnt for many years in Lakewood. He had never heard of Stern, and because he never heard of him, he simply did not believe me when I told him that Stern wasn’t some average rabbi, and not even a “regular” gadol. Rather, he should be regarded as a gadol she-bi-gedolim.)

When reading Gulevsky I often wonder whom he thinks he is writing for when he goes off on his historical tangents. For example, how many people today really care that R. Abraham Bornstein of Sochachev (the Avnei Nezer) שנא בתכלית the rabbi of Radom (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 136). In Shabbat Shabbaton, pp. 81-82, Gulevsky goes into detail about R. Jonathan Abelman. Abelman was another great scholar yet today who has even heard of him? He was a dayan in Bialystok and author of the responsa work Zikhron Yehonatan (Vilna 1905). Tragically, he died at the age of 49 in 1903. He was also among those who defended the halakhic permissibility of the heter mekhirah. (See his Torat Yehonatan [Vilna, 1889]). Zikhron Yehonatan has a nice introduction where Abelman’s sons describe their father, and from this one would assume that he was a great talmid hakham, like so many similar talmidei hakhamim in Lithuania. (Incidentally, Abelman’s wife was R. Israel Salanter’s niece.) Zikhron Yehonatan was recently reprinted and the publisher informs us that the Chazon Ish “held of it,” as did R. Hayyim Shmulevitz who was an expert in the book.[12] So what could possibly be wrong about this great Torah scholar of a previous generation? Gulevsky tells us.

According to Gulevsky, Abelman served the maskilim and the rich people. Gulevsky even refers to him as השופר הגדול של הסטרא אחרא, and tells us that his house was a center for Haskalah and that daughters studied in Russian schools and even went to Berlin! (As far as I know, Gulevsky is the only source for all this, as well as for many of the other stories he tells, which obviously creates a problem of reliability. [More about this in part 2 of the post.] Yet in terms of Abelman having a “modern” house, this was not unique, even among the great rabbis. To give one example, R. Avraham Shapiro of Kovno also had a “modern” house, and because of this some of the yeshiva world looked upon him as a quasi-Maskil.)

Gulevsky then tells us about a Chabad chasid named Shabsai Berman from Bendery, Bessarabia, who was very rich and whose house was “a university in the full sense of the word.” Berman’s daughter married Abelman’s son (this is also mentioned in the introduction to Zikhron Yehonatan.) Another of Berman’s daughters married R. Menahem Mendel Chen, soon to become rav of Nezhin. The future rebbe, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, was the shadchan. Chen is described as being the right-hand man of his rebbe, R. Shalom Dov Baer Schneersohn, and he was also close with R. Chaim Soloveitchik. See Moriah, Sivan-Tamuz 5732, p. 9. Unfortunately, he was killed in 1919 by members of the anti-Soviet White Army. See Bitaon Habad, Tamuz-Elul 5724, pp. 16ff. His grandson is R. David Zvi Hillman, whom we have discussed in the past (and will return to in the future).

Although Berman was Chabad, he was also a Zionist, and R. Yehudah Leib Fishman and Eliezer Steinman spent time with him in Bendery. Gulevsky writes:

למרות שרבי שבתי בערמאן היה “חבדנק” ובי”ט כסלו היו משתכרים הרבה, אבל “השלטון של ספרי כפירה היה גובר על התניא וליקוטי תורה”. בנו של רבי שבתי, משה ברמאן, עלה לארץ ישראל. אנשי מזרחי שמו אותו בין הקבלנים לבניני בתים . . . “זכה רבי שבתי ברמאן” שבנו היה ראש וראשון לבניני אוניברסיטה בר אילן. הי’ תומך ביד רחבה כל אנשי התיאטרו, והסופרים והכופרים של הסאראדים, למרות שרבי משה ברמאן היה נוסע לליובאוויץ הרבה פעמים, וגם פה אצל הריי”צ, גם משפחת אשתו מרבנים ואדמורי”ם גדולים. אבל רבי משה ברמאן רצה להיות קבור אצל החכם פ.ח. ושם קברו.

Who is פ.ח.? None other than Pinchas Churgin, first president of Bar-Ilan University. I love this sort of story, which reveals a past that would have remained lost forever, as I don’t think there is anyone else in the world who can tell us the things that Gulevsky’s books are full of. Gulevsky has obviously collected these stories since his youth, and unless I have reason to doubt them, I assume that what he tells us is fairly accurate. But I wonder, isn’t it a lot of “weariness of flesh” (Eccl. 12:12) on Gulevsky’s part to record all this? Other than me and a few others, does anyone really care? Since not many have even heard of Abelman, do even a handful want to hear about his mechutan, or his mechutan’s son and where he was buried. Gulevsky is no doubt reflecting controversies that were still in the air when he was growing up. Yet today when people see Abelman’s seforim they assume that he was just another one of the gedolim (which I am sure he was), without knowing anything about the controversies he was involved in, much like future generations will forget about most of the controversies we know well.

If you read on in Gulevsky you can see what I think is really driving him. When Abelman wrote about the status of shemitah in contemporary times, he disputed with the Beit ha-Levi. The two of them actually had a back-and-forth on the topic, all of which is reprinted in the new edition of Torat Yehonatan, published in 2007. This, I believe, is Abelman’s great sin, since for Gulevsky Brisk and its rabbis are basically “untouchable.”

Despite Gulevsky’s strong criticism, it be must be noted that Abelman’s support for the heter mekhirah was really only theoretical. He made it clear that land in Eretz Yisrael can only be sold to a ger toshav, and Muslims don’t have this status (Torat Yehonatan, ch. 8). It was only after R. Yitzhak Elhanan ruled that the land could be sold to Muslims that Abelman backed off his contrary opinion. (ibid., end of ch. 10).

What about the Chazon Ish, who while opposed to the heter mekhirah nevertheless quoted from Abelman’s sefer and held it in high regard? To this, Gulevsky writes (p. 82):

מה עשה בעל חזון איש? הוא בתמימותו ובכנותו שלא ידע מה זה האיש הזה, ואיזה סם המות בסיר שלו ר”ל, שתה בעל חזון איש ממים המרים המאררים מים הרעים האלו. ובענותינו הרבים כמו שנותנים סוכריה או גלידה לתינוק והוא מלקק את זה ונהנה בתכלית ההנאה, כך בעונותינו הרבים נהנה בעל חזון איש “מסברותיו, מידיותיו ומלומדות” שלו, וברך ברכת הנהנין ר”ל. אולם תכלית הספר הזה להתרחק מן האמת . . ושמעתי שהגאון המובהק רבי חיים הערץ אמר להתרחק ממנו [מאבעלמאן], וכן החסידים שבעירו התרחקו ממנו. ואם בארז הגדול נפלה שלהבת, עד כמה אנחנו צריכים להזהר ולההתרחק מדברי שקר ומאנשי שקר ר”ל.

Gulevsky’s allegiance to Brisk is seen in how he relates to the Rav. While Gulevsky can be harsh in his descriptions of Torah scholars with whom he disagrees, he describes the Rav in grandiose terms. See e.g., Du Yovlin, p. 36:

שמעתי מידיד נפשי וידיד אבותי קדישי עליון מרנא ורבנא יוסף דובער הלוי מבאסטאן שליט”א . . . עוד הסביר לי רב הונא ורב יהודה שבדורינו, מרן הגאון האדיר גאון הגאונים מבאסטאן שליט”א . . . רוב רובם של הדברים האלו שמעתי מרב רבנן הגאון המובהק והמופלג בחכמה ותבונה ודעת הגאון שליט”א מבאסטאן.

Let me give another example of the arcane stuff Gulevsky writes about. While reading it, ask yourself who, today, knows enough about the Lithuanian Torah world that he can make sense of the following story that Gulevsky tells in the name of his grandfather? Supposedly, the Netziv said as follows to R. Simcha Zelig (Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 79):

אחד מהתלמידים הקרובים אלי שלחמו במסירת נפש וכו’, היה הרב מהעיר ט. ראיתי עכשיו את הקונטרס שלו בספר עדות ביהוסף בענין תרומות ומעשרות בזמן הזה שהדפיס לפני עשרים שנה, ונעשה לי ממש שחור בעינים, באיזה קלות ראש הוא מביא ראיות שכל הראשונים סוברים כהרמב”ם שתרומות ומעשרות אפילו בזמן עזרא היו מדרבנן. איך שהוא מפרש דברי רבי יוסי וכו’. עיינתי בקונטרסים אחרים, ונעשה לי שחור ר”ל. אחר כן אמר לכן זה לחתן וכו’. השיב לו אאמו”ז החתן שלו בטח יביא כל מיני ראיות על השמיטה בעוד שנה ושליש, שזה היתר גמור.

In this case Gulevsky makes it easier to break his code because he gives us the name of a book. The author is R. Joseph Raisin who was rav of ט, namely, Telz, and the kuntres referred to appears as responsum no. 14. His son-in-law was none other than R. Isaac Jacob Reines. There is something quite strange about speaking in this sort of code about events that happened at least one hundred twenty years ago, and yet throughout Gulevsky’s writings one find similar things, a number of which I haven’t been able to figure out. The only way I could decipher this story was because he gives the name of the book, but he often isn’t so generous in dropping clues.

Here is another example from Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 74. In speaking about the first heter mekhirah (and speaking very negatively about it!) Gulevsky describes how the rav of Bialystok (R. Samuel Mohilever) organized it:

ועכשיו נבוא לרב השני שכתבנו לעיל, שנפל בפח בידי הרב מביאליסטאק. הרב ש.ז.ק. היה עילוי עצום, והיה תלמיד מובהק של בעל זית רענן. אחרי זה מטעם הנגידים העשירים נעשה מו”צ בווארשא. ובגלל זה הוא נעשה המנהיג ולא הרבה אחרים שהיו גדולים וטובים ממנו בכל המסורים. . . . הבית של המו”צ ש.ז.ק. היה מודערני מאד, עם העינים אל תרבות פוילן וגם גרמנית, לרבות תרבות הרוסית.

How many people today will know that this refers to R. Samuel Zanvil Klepfish. How many people have even heard of Klepfish? Would it have been so terrible to spell out the name? As for Gulevsky’s criticism of Klepfish for being too “modern,” let me simply remind him to open up the beginning of the Mishneh Berurah, because there one will find a haskamah from Klepfish. If he was good enough for the Chafetz Chaim, I think he should be good enough for all of us.

On the same page Gulevsky tells a story he heard from R. Chaim Heller that elaborates on how the heter mekhirah,, later signed by R. Yitzhak Elhanan, came about. One point added by Gulevsky, which I don’t know if it is true, is that R. Yitzchak Elhanan insisted that the heter not be made public until the sages of the Land of Israel were consulted. Yet this condition was not kept, and as soon as the heter was signed by four gedolim, with R. Yitzhak Elhanan the most significant, the heter was publicized. Gulevsky notes that after the heter was made public, R. Yitzhak Elhanan refused to discuss his reasoning with other gedolim or debate his decision. In Gulevsky’s words:

הוא פשוט לא השיב כלום, ולא רצה לדון בזה כלל עם שום אדם בעולם. כמעט אותו הדבר עשה הגאון רשכבה”ג מקוטנא, וזה צועק עד לשמים דורשני.

Gulevsky assumes, and I think he is correct, that two particular points in the reports R. Yitzhak Elhanan got from those who supported the heter moved him. 1) The rabbis in Jerusalem who opposed the heter had little concern with the farmers and the difficulties they faced. 2). These rabbis, who were supported by donations from the Diaspora, felt threatened by the creation of the settlements, and as such were nogea be-davar and could not deal with the halakhic issues of the heter mekhirah in a fair manner.

One question that a number of people have asked is why R. Yitzhak Elhanan never published his responsum in support of the heter. (This responsum, referred to as a kuntres by R. Yitzhak Elhanan, is mentioned in his letter to Abelman, Torat Yehonatan, end of ch. 10) The answer is found in a letter from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg to R. Yitzhak Unna. This letter deals with R. Hayyim Ozer’s pressure on Weinberg not to publish his lenient opinion regarding stunning animals before shehitah.[13] (The letter appears in my doctoral dissertation, p. 307):

במשך הדברים אמר לי שאין לי להדפיס את קונטרסי הנ”ל כדי שלא ילמדו מתוכו להתיר, וסיפר לי שהגאון ר’ יצחק אלחנן ז”ל כשכתב בשעתו תשובה ארוכה ע”ד ההיתר לחרוש ולזרוע בשביעית בא”י ע”י מכירה לעכו”ם לא הכניס תשובתו זו בספרו שו”ת שפירסם אח”כ בדפוס.

In other words, R. Yitzhak Elhanan’s heter was an emergency measure, designed for that time alone. If he put it in his volume of responsa it would have assumed a more permanent significance, and he wished to avoid this. Along these lines Gulevsky states (p. 75):

חז”ל הקדושים אמרו איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד. ההיתר הזה, שבפירוש חכמי ירושלים פה אחד התנגדו לזה במסירת נפש, ומהיתר “חד פעמי” משתמשים בהיתר אחרי שממדינת ישראל מוכרים חקלאות תבואות ופירות מאות מיליונים דולרים לשנה. מי יגלה עפר מעיניכם רבינו יצחק אלחנן ורבינו י’ מקוטנא וכו’, מי ראה את הנולד, חכמי ירושלים ובריסק וואלאזשין וכו’ ראו את הנולד.

In discussing the heter mekhirah, Gulevsky apparently believes that he has a form of clairvoyance. Thus, he writes as follows in Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 115:

ואין שום ספק בדבר [!], שבגלל שמיפו פתחה הרעה להתיר חניה לנכרים ר”ל, משם פתחה הרעה עם פוגרומים עצומים ר”ל, “מגרי תושב” של החכם קוק, ומפני שהוציאו קול על בעל שמן המור שהתיר בחברון וכו’, “זכינו בשנת תרפ”ט לשחיטת ‘גרי תושב’ ששחטו יהודים בחברון” ר”ל.

With regard to shemitah and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, there has been a lot written recently, including on this blog, because there is now an attempt to entirely rewrite the history of R. Shlomo Zalman’s relationship to the heter mekhirah. Gulevsky, however, sees matters clearly when he writes, Shabbat Shabbaton, p. 124, that according to R. Shlomo Zalman:

דברי הגאון קוק והגאון פראנק “כמו ששאלו באורים ותומים”.

[1] For more on his genealogy see his “Al Toldot ha-Gaon Ba’al Semikhat Hakhamim,” Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael (Tamuz 5765), p. 168.

[2] A. Bernstein, et al., eds., Yeshivat Mir: ha-Zerihah be-Faʾatei Kedem (Bnei Brak, 1999), vol. 2, p. 609. All information about Gulevsky’s life for which no source is given comes from Gulevsky himself. When he was in Japan, before travelling to Shanghai, Gulevsky followed his grandfather’s pesak and observed Shabbat on Sunday while on Saturday he avoided melakhot de-oraita.

[3] See here.

[4] Meshiv Davar, vol. 1, no. 24.

[5] “Ha-Hazon Ish: Halakhah Emunah ve-Hevrah bi-Pesakav ha-Boltim be-Eretz Yisrael (5693-5714),” (Hebrew University, 2003). The title does not reflect all that is in this work, which will be a real blockbuster when it finally appears in print.

[6] Yagdil Torah (5741), pp. 114-117.

[7] See “Ke-Tzet ha-Shemesh bi-Gevurato,” Mesilot, Nisan 5758, pp. 13ff.

[8] See “Hityahasuto shel ha-Saba Kadisha Me-Ruzhin la-Memshalto shel ha-Czar Nikolai ha-Rishon (2),” Mesilot, Nisan-Iyar 5758), pp. 30ff.

[9] R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 27.

[10] Halakhic Man, tr. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia, 1983), p. 90.

[11] This is R. Mordechai Rogov, who would later teach in Skokie.

[12] See here.

[13] Regarding this issue, R. Herschel Schachter writes as follows (Mi-Peninei ha-Rav [Brooklyn, 2001], p. 151):

בנידון הימים הבהמות קודם השחיטה, אשר האריך בזה טובא בחלק א’ משו”ת שרידי אש, ויש שמה תשובות מכמה מגדולי ישראל, שאלו פעם את רבנו האם דיבר אתו הגרי”י וויינברג, ז”ל, בזה, כי הלא באותה בתקופה היה רבנו בברלין, והשיב רבנו שבודאי דיברו יחד בנושה הזה, ושזאת היתה העצה שלו להגרי”י וויינברג, שהוא צריך לקבל הסכמת גדולי ישראל מכל המקומות בכל מאי דאפשר, כי דבר שכזה אי אפשר להניחו לכל רב עיר ומורה הוראה לפסוק לעצמו לקהילתו, כי השאלה כל כך גדולה היא, היא נוגעת לכלל ישראל כולו בבת אחת (שמעתי)

This type of report (שמעתי) that R. Schachter sometimes depends upon is often very unreliable. In this case, it is absolutely false. The Rav left Berlin before the Nazis came to power and before Weinberg or anyone else could even imagine that shehitah would be banned.