A Letter Concerning Prof. Marc Shapiro’s book Changing the Immutable

By Eli Meyer Cohen

כבוד…

אחדשה”ט, ברצוני להעיר
כמה הערות בנוגע למש”כ מרק שפירא אודות הדברים המובאים בפי’ ר’ יהודה החסיד. שלדעת
גדולי פוסקי הדור ההוא הגר”מ פיינשטיין, הגרש”ז אויערבאך, הגרי”ש אלישיב
והגרי”י ווייס בעל מנחת יצחק ז”ל, נדפסו שם דברי כפירה  והיות שיודע אני שבטח כבודו יערוך ביקורת כללית על
ספרו, חושבני שדברים אלו יהיו לתועלת עבודתו.

ראשית אציג רקע היסטורי
לסיפור. הדבר קרה בשנת תשל”ו, כפי שמפורש בשני התשובות שכ’ הגרמ”פ באג”מ
יו”ד ח”ג סימנים קי”ד – קט”ו. התשובה הראשונה נכתבה לר’ דניאל
לוי בסוף אדר ראשון, והשניה נכתבה להגרש”ז אויערבאך בח”י תמוז. אני למדתי
אז בארץ וידידי ר’ בערל פיינשטיין נכדו של הגרמ”פ הגיע ארצה ואמר לי שהראש ישיבה
נתן לו שליחות להוליך מכתב בענין זה להגרשז”א ולרב אלישיב, ואכן כן עשה. כעת לאחר
ט”ל שנים שאלתי אותו אם עדיין הפרטים בזכרונו, ומסרם לי כאילו הדבר קרה היום.

הוא נכנס אצל הגרשז”א
וקרא את המכתב [שנדפס אח”כ סי’ קט”ו] לאיטו מלה במלה, ואמר שמלשון המדפיס,
ניתן לשמוע שדעתו היא, שלפי “מחשבת זמננו” לא מתאימים הדברים להדפסה, ומשמע
שכאילו לא יאות הדבר לקיצוני זמננו כהנטורי קרתא [כך אמר], אך הוא טועה בזה כי הדברים
הינם כפירה לחלוטין לכל אדם ולכל הדורות. גם הר’ אלישיב ראה את המכתב ולאחר קריאת המכתב
אמר לר’ בערל שיחזור לרשז”א וימסור לו שיצוה לבנו שהיה מיודעו של המדפיס שיעצרו
את ההדפסה.

וממילא מה שמשתמע מדברי
מרק שפירא שהקטעים הבעייתיים הפריעו להגרמ”פ בלבד וכאילו היתה זו מלחמת יחיד
– אין זה הדבר. אלא שאלו את פוסקי הדור של אז וכולם פסקו שזוהי כפירה, ומוכרחים להוציאם
ולעשות halachic censorship.  אלא שהפוסקים
ביניהם החליטו לא לפרסם את הדברים, משום שהם סברו להשקיט את הדבר, עד שהגיע ר’ בערל
ומכתבו בידו שדעת הגרמ”פ לפרסם את הענין כמפורש בדבריו בסוף התשובה לרש”ז,
[כ”ז מבוסס על עדותו של ר’ בערל הנ”ל שכלל גם את בעל המנח”י ביחד עם
רש”ז והרב אלישיב המוזכרים בתחילת התשובה הנ”ל.]

ומעניין מאוד איך לא הביא
שפירא את ה’מחקר’ של הגרמ”פ ד”ה ‘וכן מש”כ בדבר’. והביא ראי’ מהאב”ע
שלא היה יכול לסבול את הפירוש המופיע בר”י החסיד בענין עציון גבר – שכן מצא את
אותו פירוש בשם א’ יצחקי ועל זה אמר האב”ע “‘חלילה חלילה … וספרו ראוי
להישרף’. וא”כ נמצא שכבר הוא דין פסוק מהאב”ע שצריך לשרוף ספר כזה”.

ומש”כ אודות האב”ע
שגם בספריו יש דברים בעייתיים – ע’ בס’ הכתב והקבלה בראשית כז,יט עה”פ אנוכי עשו
בכורך,  וז”ל: ומה שהוזכר בפי’ האב”ע
לחשבו למשקר ולמכזב, איננו מלשון החכם ראב”ע, כי ידענו מכמה מקומות כי יד אחרים
שלטה בפירושיו”. וע’ גם בתו”ש פרשת שמות עמ’ רנ”ד (לא הובא ע”י
שפירא) שהרבה דברים מהקראים הוכנסו בספר אב”ע ובפרט בחומש שמות.

ועי’ גם בפירושים ופסקים
לרבנו אביגדור הצרפתי בענין המבוכה הידועה בביאור דברי רש”י בשמות ט,י”ד
שכתב רש”י “מכות בכורות”, ויש שגרסו “בְּכוּרוֹת”
– שפי’ זה הגיע מהמלמדים והקראים וטעות בידם, פי’ משום דלקו התבואות והפירות,
וטעות הוא בידם כי לא מצאו ידיהם ורגליהם בבית המדרש”. [ואגב ניתן ללמוד משם חידוש
היסטורי – שהקראים עסקו גם בלימוד פירוש רש”י ולא רק במקרא עצמו].

עוד דבר שראוי לפרסם – וכנראה
נעלם ממרק שפירא – שהגרמ”פ תפס אומנות זו גם בכתבי הרמב”ן – הלא ידוע דברי
הרמב”ן בפ’ לך לך פי”ב פסוק י’ ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא
אשתו הצדקת במכשול עון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו, והי”ל לבטוח בשם שיציל אותו….
גם יציאתו מן הארץ שנצטוה עליה בתחילה מפני הרעה עון אשר חטא… ועל המעשה הזה נגזר
על זרעו הגלות… עכ”ל.

והנה אני רשמתי לעצמו מהכת”י
של הגרמ”פ של ספרו דרש משה עה”ת [שנדפס לאח”ז ע”י ארטסקרול בשנת
תש”נ ושם הושמט הענין! וז”ל: טעות גדול טעה לדבר סרה על אברהם ועל דבר שנהג
כן כל ימיו כמפורש בקרא בכ”מ אשר יבוא אמרי אחי הוא, וכן עשה יצחק, ולכן הוא דין
פסוק שכן צריכים כ”מ להתנהג, ומצוה גדולה למחוק דבר זה מספרי הרמב”ן, ע”כ.
[שוב מצאתי בלשון כעי”ז בדרש משה ח”ב עמ’ י.]

והדבר מובא בס’ קול רם לתלמידו
המקורב לו ר’ אברהם פישעליס ז”ל [שהעתיק דברי רבו בדקדוק עצום] ח”ב ע’ כ”ב,
ושם כ’ שמש”כ הרמב”ן על שרה שחטאה אמנו בענוי זה שעינתה הגר-  “א”א לנו לומר איזה חטא על האבות והאמהות
אם זה לא נאמר מחז”ל הקדושים, ומצינו שהרמב”ן נמי כתב על אברהם אבינו שחטא
חטא גדול…. וגם זה א”א לומר על אברהם אבינו, ויותר טוב לומר שזה טעות סופרים”
עכ”ל.

[אגב ראוי להעיר שרש”ר
הירש ז”ל בבראשית יב, ב בונה עלדברי הרמב”ן, (ועוד) הגם שאין דרכו להביא
הרמב”ן בפירושיו, שמטרת התורה היא להודיענו גם “חסרונותיהם” של האבות
וזהו חלק מהתורת אמת שקיבלנו אנו, ע”ש. ולהגרמ”פ הבנין נופל, כי הרמב”ן
הלזה אינו אמת אלא מזוייף].

ומדי דברי בענין ה’אמת’
אציע לשונו של בעל משנה הלכות בתשובתו (חלק יב, סי’ ריד) על ענין ר”י החסיד הנ”ל,
וזה לשונו: “אבל האמת כי לא אאמין אשר דברים אלו יצאו מפי הגרמ”פ
אלא נלפענ”ד שאיזה תלמיד טועה כתבו והכניסם בין מכתביו… וכמובן גיחוך
זה רחוק מהאמת וקרוב לעניות בדעת וחוצפה נוראה לדבר סרה על דבר שיצא מעטו של הגרמ”פ
זצוק”ל, הלא אם היה מבקש האמת היה יכול בקלות להרים את הטלפון ולברר אצל ר’ דניאל
לוי השואל או אצל מקורביו או אצל רשז”א ואצל הר’ אלישיב המוזכרים בתשובה השניה
שם.

אסיים בהערה אישית שהרגשתי
בקראי ענין זה בספרו של מרק שפירא. בעי’ 59 כשכותב אודות “a recent edition of the
Mikraot Gedolot Pentateuch simply removes one of the Rashbam’s comments…”

ואני מתפלא עליו האם חסר
דיו בקולמוסו מלהזכיר שם המו”ל? ולמה מפחד מלגלות האמת כדרכו וכשיטתו בכל ספרו?
וכעת מוטל עלינו עול המחקר וחיפוש המקור, כיאות למבקשי האמת והחכמה.

בכבוד רב

קטון שבחוקרים

אלי’ מאיר

The Rogochover and More

Marc B. Shapiro

In a recent Jewish Review of Books (Summer 2017), I published a translation of an interview R. Joseph Rozin, the Rogochover, gave to the New York Yiddish paper, Der morgen zhurnal. You can see the original interview here. The fact that the Rogochover agreed to the interview is itself significant. As is to be expected, the content of the interview is also of great interest.

In the preface to the interview, I mentioned that the Rogochover famously studied Torah on Tisha be-Av and when he was an avel, both of which are in violation of accepted halakhah. When he was once asked why, while sitting shiva, he learnt Torah, he is reported to have replied:[1]

ודאי, עבירה היא זו, וכשאקבל עונש על שאר עונותי יענישוני אף על עון זה, אבל אני אקבל באהבה וברצון את העונש על חטא זה, וכדאית היא התורה להלקות עליה

R. Yissachar Tamar cites an eye-witness who reported that the Rogochover said basically the same thing in explaining why he learnt on Tisha be-Av, and noted how wonderful it will be to be punished for studying Torah.[2]

ומה נעים לקבל צליפות על עסק התורה

The Hazon Ish was told that the Rogochover learnt Torah when he was in mourning and that he made another antinomian-like comment in justification of his behavior, namely, that he wants to be in the gehinom of those who learn Torah. The Hazon Ish replied that “this gehinom is the same gehinom for the other sins.”[3]

The various comments quoted in the name of the Rogochover show his great need for studying Torah, a need that simply did not allow him to put aside his Torah study, even when halakhah required it. Yet the antinomian implication of the Rogochover’s comments was too much to be ignored. R. Gavriel Zinner’s reaction after quoting the Rogochover is how many felt.[4]

ולא זכיתי להבין, הלא מי לנו גדול מחכמי הגמ’ שנפשם ג”כ חשקה בתורה ואפ”ה גזרו שבת”ב ובזמן אבל אסורים בלימוד התורה, ועוד שאחז”ל הלומד ע”מ שלא לעשות נוח לו שלא נברא.

It is thus to be expected that some authors deny that the Rogochover could have really said any of what I have quoted. And if he did say it, they feel that it must have been merely a joke or a comment not meant to be taken seriously, or that he did not want people to know the real reason he studied Torah while in avelut (namely, the Yerushalmi which will soon be mentioned).[5] R. Abraham Weinfeld goes so far as to say, with reference to one of the comments I have quoted that “It is forbidden to hear these words, and Heaven forbid to suspect that Rabban shel Yisrael [the Rogochover] would say this.”[6] 

Those who refuse to accept that the Rogochover meant what he said are forced to find a halakhic justification for his behavior, and indeed, when it comes to an avel studying Torah (and this would also apply to Tisha be-Av, the halakhot of which are not as stringent as those of personal mourning), there is a passage in the Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 3:5, that permits Torah study for one who has a great need.[7]  (This heter is not recorded in the Shulhan Arukh, but this would not have concerned the Rogochover.[8]) Yet it is important to remember that as far as we know the Rogochover never cited this passage in the Yerushalmi as justification for his studying Torah when he was sitting shiva.[9]

Now for something disappointing and even a bit shocking: Here are the two pages from R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Ishim ve-Shitot (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 75-76, where you can see one of the“controversial” quotations (which as R. Zevin notes is taken from an article in Ha-Hed).

R. Menahem Kasher quoted the entire two pages from Ishim ve-Shitot in his Mefaneah Tzefunot (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 1-2 in the note.

Look at the end of the first paragraph of the note on p. 2. The “problematic” quotation of the Rogochover, saying that he will happily be punished for his sin in studying Torah, as the Torah is worth it, has been deleted. Instead, the Rogochover is portrayed as explaining his behavior as due to the passage in the Yerushalmi. While all the other authors who discuss this matter and want to “defend” the Rogochover claim that his real reason for studying Torah was based on the Yerushalmi, in R. Kasher’s work this defense is not needed as now we have the Rogochover himself giving this explanation!

Yet the Rogochover never said this. R. Zevin’s text has been altered and a spurious comment put in the mouth of the Rogochover, By looking carefully at the text you can see that originally R. Zevin was quoted correctly. Notice how there is a space between the first and second paragraphs and how the false addition is a different size than the rest of the words. What appears to have happened is that the original continuation of the paragraph was whited out and the fraudulent words were substituted in its place. Yet this was done after everything was typeset so the evidence of the altering remains.

Look also at the third paragraph where it says

ההד, שם

However, this makes no sense as R. Zevin’s reference to Ha-Hed has been deleted. I do not see how anyone other than R. Kasher could have been responsible for this particular “editing.” 

As mentioned, many were troubled by the Rogochover’s antinomian-like comment.[10] Yet he is not the only one to speak like this. R. Joseph Hayyim (the Ben Ish Hai) in his Benayahu refers to an unnamed gaon who also learnt Torah when he was in avelut. When asked about this he did not refer to the Yerushalmi but answered in an antinomian fashion just like the Rogochover: “I know that I am violating the words of the Sages, and I know that on the day of judgment I will certainly be punished for this, but he [!] is prepared and willing to suffer and receive this punishment whatever it will be, because he is not able to withstand the pain of avoiding the study of Torah which is as difficult for him as death.”[11] Benayahu appeared in 1905. I do not think it is possible that at such an early date R. Joseph Hayyim could have heard a story about the Rogochover, so he must have had another great rabbi in mind.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe told a similar story.[12] When he was a youth, he had a teacher from Lithuania who lived in his home. He once found this teacher learning on Tisha be-Av. Young Menachem Mendel asked the teacher how is it that he was learning Torah on that day. The teacher replied: “When I come to the World to Come, I will be punished for one reason or another. I will be happy if I know that the reason I am being punished is because I learnt on Tisha be-Av.”[13]

The following subversive story with R. Israel of Ruzhin is also of interest, as it too shows a violation of accepted halakhah regarding Torah study on Tisha be-Av. It appears in R. Mordechai Hayyim of Slonim, Ma’amar Mordechai, vol. 2, p. 206.

הרה”ק מרוזין שהה פעם בימי בין המצרים במעינות המרפא, וביום צום תשעה באב אחר חצות היום, אמר לאחד מבני לוויתו שילמוד מסכתא משניות, ויעשה סיום בליל מוצאי התענית, ויסמכו על זה הקהל אשר שם ויאכלו בשר ואמר בלשו”ק: רבי שמואל קאמינקער אמר, שסיום מסכתא משניות חשוב כמו סיום מסכת גמרא, ועל רבי שמואל קאמינקער יכולין לסמוך כמו על אחד מגדולי הפוסקים. ועל האיסור ללמוד בתשעה באב אחר חצות, דאס נעם איך אויף מיר, און לאזן אידן עסן פלייש . . .

Returning to the interview with the Rogochover, he cites Maimonides who says that the word “Germany” is derived from the Hebrew word gerem, meaning “bone.”

Mishnah Negaim 2:1, in a passage that tells us how things used to be, says that Jews are neither black nor white, but in the middle (meaning, a Middle Eastern look). At the beginning of the Mishnah it speaks of a white spot that appears on a white man and on a black man. The word the Mishnah uses for “white man” is גרמני (German), and for “black man” it uses כושי. Germania was the Roman term for the area we call Germany, so it makes sense that the Mishnah, in describing a white man, would use that term.[14]

Apparently, Maimonides did not know the word גרמני. Thus, in his commentary to Negaim 2:1 he offers the explanation mentioned by the Rogochover, that גרמני is related to the word for bone. (In the interview, the Rogochover says that Maimonides refers to the Hebrew word גרם, but I wonder if this was a mistake on the interviewer’s part, as the word used by Maimonides is the Aramaic גרמא). Here is R. Kafih’s translation:

גרמני שם הלבן ביותר מיוחס אל העצם אשר שמו גרמא

Leaving aside the matter of the correct historical etymology, I wonder if Maimonides saw a problem with his explanation, namely, that for “black man” the Mishnah uses an ethnic identification, so one would expect it to also use such an identification in describing a white man. Furthermore, why would the Mishnah use an Aramaic word instead of the Hebrew עצם?

R. Elijah Benamozegh wonders how Maimonides did not realize what גרמני is referring to:[15]

והפלא על חכמת הרמב”ם שכתב כן ועשה עין של מעלה כאלו אינה רואה שדברי חז”ל מעידים ומגידים שגרמני שם אומה, לא זולת, ומה ענין לגרמא עצם בל’ ארמי?

R. Meir Mazuz asks, “How could Maimonides not have thought of this?” namely, that גרמני means German.[16] He explains that Maimonides was an Arabic speaker, and the way he knew Germany was by the term “Alemannia.” As such, when he saw the word גרמני in the Mishnah, since he did not know the term “Germany” he was forced to come up with a different explanation tying גרמני to “white.”[17]

What R. Mazuz did not know is that this explanation is not original to Maimonides and must reflect an earlier tradition.[18] I say this because R. Hillel ben Elyakim of Greece, who lived in the twelfth century (that is, contemporaneously with Maimonides) independently mentions this explanation. In his commentary to Torat Kohanim, ed. S. Kolodetzky, vol. 1, p. 190, he writes:

ומנלן גרמני הוי לבן כדגרסי’ בכל מקום גרמני מוכר כושי וכאן כושי מוכר גרמני דהיינו לבן דעצם מתרגמינן גרמא ועצם הוי לבן.

R. Hillel cites Bereshit Rabbah 86:3 which states: “Everywhere a white man (גרמני) sells a black man (כושי), while here a black man is selling a white man.” He also says דעצם מתרגמינן גרמא. If you look at Onkelos and Targum Ps. Jonathan to Genesis 2:23 this is exactly what you find.

When I found what R. Hillel wrote, I was quite excited, as I thought I had discovered something that no one else had taken notice of. Yet I later found that Jacob Nahum Epstein had already called attention to this in his notes to the commentary attributed to R. Hai Gaon to Seder Toharot (Berlin, 1921), p. 94 n. 32. He assumes that R. Hillel predates Maimonides:

ר”ה מארץ יון בפי’ ספרא דף קי”ג ב’ ור”מ אחריו הוציאוהו מן “גרמא”, עצם!

Translations of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari

by Daniel J. Lasker

On the occasion
of the publication of:

ספר הכוזרי. הוא ספר הטענה והראָיה לדת
המושפלת לרבי יהודה הלוי

תרגם מערבית-יהודית לעברית בת זמננו

מיכאל שוַרץ

הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון
בנגב, באר-שבע, תשע”ז

R. Judah Halevi,
The Book of Kuzari. The Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion,
translated by Michael Schwarz

Beer Sheva, 2017

The
publication of Prof. Michael Schwarz z”l’s new modern Hebrew translation of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Judaeo-Arabic Book of Kuzari provides a good
opportunity to discuss previous versions of this seminal book of Jewish thought
and to evaluate the advantages that Prof. Schwarz’s translation has over other
renditions. Prof. Schwarz (1929-2011), who completed a draft translation before
he died over five years ago, was a scholar of Jewish and Islamic philosophy
whose best-known publication has been his translation of Maimonides’ Guide
of the Perplexed. After an unfortunate delay, the Kuzari has now been
published by the International Goldstein-Goren Center for Jewish Thought at
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in its series “Library of Jewish Thought,”
under the editorship of Prof. Haim Kreisel.[1]

Less
than thirty years after R. Judah ben Samuel Halevi completed his Book of
Kuzari[2] in approximately
1140, it became one of the first Judaeo-Arabic compositions to be translated
into Hebrew. This pioneering translation marked part of the cultural transfer
of Andalusian Jewish culture, written in Judaeo-Arabic, into Hebrew, and was accomplished
in 1167 by R. Judah ben Saul Ibn Tibbon, “the father of the translators.” As
the centers of Jewish intellectual life moved to Christian areas where Hebrew
was the predominant Jewish literary language, it was only through this
translation that the Kuzari was known to generations upon generations of
Jews. The Kuzari’s readers were moved by its unwavering defense of
Judaism, its description of Jewish singular chosenness, and its love of Zion.
Halevi’s life story, including his departure from Iberia and, according to
legend, his martyrdom at the gates of Jerusalem, only strengthened the
resonance of the book (on this legend, see here). Extensive commentaries were written on the basis of the
Ibn Tibbon translation by authors who neither understand Arabic nor were able
to appreciate the Islamic context in which the Kuzari was written. Judah
Halevi’s defense of Judaism made a great impact on Jewish thought and achieved
canonical status.[3]

With
the birth of Jewish studies in the nineteenth century, scholars began
publishing original texts in academic editions. Thus, Hartwig Hirschfeld
(1854-1934), working with Oxford-Bodleian Ms. Pococke 284, the only complete,
or almost complete, version of the work, produced a first edition of the
original Judaeo-Arabic text of the Kuzari.[4] He published with it a
version of the Ibn Tibbon translation which was partially corrected to
correspond to the Judaeo-Arabic version, but not in a consistent manner. Thus,
Hirschfeld changed some passages in the Hebrew despite their being attested in
all the Ibn Tibbon manuscripts and editions, but left other problematic
passages untouched.[5] The Hirschfeld Ibn Tibbon text achieved wide
distribution when it was used by Avraham Zifroni as the basis of his edition of
the Kuzari, and many contemporary editions of the Hebrew Kuzari
are based on Zifroni’s work.[6] Meanwhile, Hirschfeld’s Judaeo-Arabic publication
has been supplanted by the superior edition of David Zvi Baneth and Haggai
Ben-Shammai.[7]

The
Judah Ibn Tibbon translation of the Kuzari is an adequate translation, despite
some misunderstandings. It follows the Tibbonide practice of maintaining the
syntax and word order of the original Arabic to the extent possible and often
translating the same underlying Arabic term with one Hebrew equivalent. It may also
be a better witness to the original text of the Kuzari than the unique Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript which was copied in Damascus over 300 years after the composition of
the original book. For professional students of medieval Jewish philosophy, or
those with close familiarity with medieval Hebrew, it is readable and achieves
its goal of making the work accessible to non-Arabic readers. Yet, there is
still no acceptable edition based on the best manuscripts of this translation.
In addition, as a means of communicating the extent of Judah Halevi’s thought
to the contemporary reader of modern Hebrew, it is less than ideal. Thus, since
the 1970’s, a number of new Hebrew translations of the Kuzari have
appeared.

The
first of these translations was presented by Dr. Yehudah Even Shmuel (1886-1976)
in 1973.[8] The first edition included a long introduction, a vocalized and
punctuated text, short notes and many extensive indices, and was praised for
the clarity of its Hebrew and its accessibility to contemporary readers.
Subsequently it was published in paperback with just the text and short notes,
an edition which has sold well and is used as a textbook for high schools and
universities. At first, the novelty of a medieval philosophical work in
readable modern Hebrew seems to have compensated for the imprecision of the
translation.[9] Oftentimes, the translator offered more of a creative
paraphrase than an exact translation, and there were sections where Even Shmuel
attempted to tone down considerably Judah Halevi’s view of Jewish essentialism.[10]
Many key terms were translated by different Hebrew words, making it impossible
for the reader to note the importance of these words, most of which have
resonances from the Islamic and Arabic realms. Thus, Halevi’s great debt to his
non-Jewish cultural context was effectively hidden by this translation.
Scholars soon realized that this edition of the Kuzari could not be used
for academic purposes.

Despite
its drawbacks, or perhaps because of its advantages, the Even Shmuel
translation went unchallenged for over 20 years. In the mid-1990’s, I heard
Rabbi Yosef Kafiḥ (1917-2000), the well-known editor and translator of
Judaeo-Arabic texts, reply to a question as to why he did not translate the Kuzari
as he had translated so many other classics. He responded that he had prepared
such a translation many years previously but had decided not to publish it
because he did not want to appear as competing with Even Shmuel. Nonetheless, Kafiḥ
finally did publish his own translation in 1997,[11] following his custom of
presenting the original Judaeo-Arabic and the Hebrew translation in parallel
columns.[12] This translation has neither the clarity nor the extensive
notation of Kafiḥ’s earlier translations; most of his comments are devoted to
attacking Even Shmuel’s translation. In his introduction, Kafiḥ explains that
he had begun translating the Kuzari when he was a student in a class led
by Rabbi David Cohen (the Nazir, 1887-1972) at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in 1947-48,
where he was made responsible for comparing Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew with the
Judaeo-Arabic in the Hirschfeld edition.[13] Repeating what he had said in
public, namely that he had waited so long to publish this translation because
of his desire not to appear as a competitor with Even Shmuel, he then goes on
to attack Even Shmuel’s translation mercilessly. He even states that Rabbi
Judah Halevi composed one of his dirges when he realized that his Kuzari
would be translated by Even Shmuel.

Despite
Rabbi Kafiḥ’s great erudition in Judaeo-Arabic, and the general readability of
his other translations, the Kuzari does not match his previous work.
Whether this was a result of the fact that the translation was, indeed, a
product of his youth before he had perfected his Hebrew style, or was the work
of an aged man who did not review his earlier drafts, it did not succeed in replacing
the Even Shmuel translation as the generally accepted Hebrew version of the Kuzari.
My own experience with Israeli students has been that Kafiḥ’s Hebrew is not
much more understandable than that of Judah Ibn Tibbon, and, despite the
convenience of having the original Judaeo-Arabic text available, it was not a
very good pedagogical tool. Sometimes I preferred using the Ibn Tibbon text
which is available in a number of formats, such as in Yediot Aharonot’s Am
ha-sefer project[14] and on-line.

There
exists one more contemporary translation of the Kuzari into Hebrew and
that is the one produced by Rabbi Itzhak Shailat (b. 1946).[15] Shailat is
known for his editions and translations of medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts, such
as Maimonides’ Epistles. Although Shailat’s introduction and notes to
his editions demonstrate a conservative, harmonistic and pietistic approach to
his authors, his translations are generally accurate. His methodology, however,
is to reproduce Tibbonide Hebrew as much as possible, giving his translations a
classical, rather than modern, feel. Hence, his Kuzari should be seen as
an update of Ibn Tibbon rather than as an independent creation.

Before
discussing the new Hebrew translation, it might be useful to refer to
translations into other languages. In addition to editing the Judaeo-Arabic
text of the Kuzari, and producing an edition of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew
translation, Hartwig Hirschfeld also translated the book into English.[16] This
work was reissued many times, often with minimal attribution to Hirschfeld.[17]
The abridged translation of the Kuzari by Prof. Isaac Heinemann
(1876-1957) which appeared independently in Oxford, 1947, and was later
incorporated in the widely distributed Three Jewish Philosophers,[18] is
greatly dependent upon Hirschfeld. In addition to questions of accuracy, the
language of these translations is difficult for the contemporary English
reader.

In
an attempt to present a clearly written English version of the Kuzari
which could be used by laypeople, Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin (b. 1964) published
a translation on the basis of the Ibn Tibbon version, relying on the
interpretations of the classical commentators Judah Moscatto and Israel of
Zamosc.[19] Although achieving its goal of readability, the author’s ignorance
of Arabic and the scholarly literature on the Kuzari are the cause of
multiple errors of translation and annotation. Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation
of the Kuzari is included in the book, but since it is based on the
Hirschfeld/Zifroni edition (the exact source is not noted in the book), and the
English translation is based on older editions, there are inconsistencies
between the Hebrew and the English. Subsequent to the Korobkin translation, other
English editions of the Kuzari have appeared, but apparently none of them
is based on the Judaeo-Arabic original.[20]

A
scholarly, readable English translation of the Kuzari from the original
has long been a desideratum. In fact, Prof. Lawrence V. Berman (1929-1988)
began the work on such a translation before his untimely death. The project was
inherited by Prof. Barry S. Kogan (b. 1944) and is scheduled to appear as part
of the Yale Judaica Series. This project has been long delayed, but Prof. Kogan
has been very generous with sharing drafts of this translation with colleagues,
a number of whom have used its clear and accurate renditions in their own
publications. One can only hope that there will not be much further delay until
the translation appears in print.[21]

This
leads us to the recently published Hebrew translation of the Kuzari by
Prof. Michael Schwarz. Following the pattern established in his translation of
Maimonides’ Guide, Schwarz presents an eminently readable rendition of
the book. As in the case of his other translations, the work combines accuracy
with readability. His language is elegant, eschewing the many foreign words
which have entered contemporary Hebrew. He highlights words which appear in
Hebrew in the Judaeo-Arabic original by using a bold font so the reader knows
that this is Halevi’s Hebrew, not Schwarz’s.

As
noted above, one of the challenges with a translation of the Kuzari is
how to capture the Islamic/Arabic flavor of the work. Despite its reputation as
the most Jewish of the medieval Jewish philosophical treatises, recent research
has demonstrated the extent to which the Kuzari is steeped in Islamic concepts.[22]
This can be seen by its use of a number of key terms which are repeated
throughout the book, such as ṣafwa (the choicest, translated as segulah,
as found in other translations, despite Prof. Schwarz’s reservations); al-amr
al-ilāhī (divine order, translated ha-davar ha-‘elohi, as per Kafiḥ,
in contrast to Ibn Tibbon’s ha-ʿinyan ha-‘elohi); ijtihād (fervent
striving or innovating new laws, translated as hit’amẓut, hishtadlut, or ḥiddush
halakhah), or qiyās (analogous reasoning or general rationalism,
translated heqesh or higgayon). Since it is not always possible
to use the exact same translation in every context, the translator must find a
way of informing the reader of the underlying key term. Schwarz solves this
problem by drawing up a list of recurring Arabic concepts and noting each time
one of them is used. He then explains these terms in a special glossary devoted
to their explication. Some important Arabic words which are used less often are
explained in the textual notes. In addition, the notes provide references to
Halevi’s sources or further explications.

Scholarly
analyses of the Kuzari are extensive, and as in the case of Schwarz’s
translation of the Guide, the notes are full of references to this
secondary literature. Although he does not say so in his very short preface,
one can assume that as was the case in the Guide, the reference to a
particular article or book does not necessarily imply endorsement of the
material found therein. The annotations are there for comprehensiveness, and
the alert reader is enjoined to examine them carefully. The bibliography
occupies 36 pages. In addition, there are indices of sources and a general
index of topics and places.[23]

When
Part One of Prof. Michael Schwarz’s translation of the Guide was first published
by Tel-Aviv University Press in 1997, I offered the opinion that despite the
fact that it was the best available Hebrew version of Maimonides’ masterpiece,
I was not sure it would replace the other available translations, partially
since traditional Jewish readers might be wary of a university provenance and
the reliance on non-Jewish sources.[24] I believe that my estimation has been
proven wrong, since the translation’s clear superiority to the competition has
made it indispensible.[25] It is to be hoped that the same widespread
acceptance of the Schwarz translation of the Guide will be repeated in
the case of the Schwarz translation of the Kuzari, since it is, without
doubt, the best Hebrew Kuzari available.

Notes:

[1]
Books from this series are produced by the Mosad Bialik Publishing House. The
Schwarz Kuzari can be ordered here.
The translation is preceded by an introduction which Prof. Schwarz asked me to
write and which he approved a few weeks before his death. [Editor’s Note:
Professor Schwarz’ edition of the Kuzari can be purchased via Bialik or by
contacting (Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com) — where the book will be available at the
same  Book Week price. Portions of the proceeds of this sale help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.]

[2] The title, The
Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion, is in accordance with
a Geniza fragment; a slightly different title appears in the one full Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript mentioned below. The title of Ibn Tibbon’s translation, Sefer
ha-kuzari, was that which was known to centuries of Hebrew readers, and it corresponds
to the title, al-kitāb al-khazarī (“The Book of the Khazar”), found in
Halevi’s famous autograph letter from the Geniza.

[3] See Adam
Shear, The Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167–1900,
Cambridge 2008. Another medieval translation, by Judah ben Isaac Cardenal, has
not survived.

[4] Das Buch
al-Chazarî des Abû-l-Hasan Jehuda Hallewi; im arabischen urtext sowie in
der hebräischen übersetzung des Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, herausgegeben von Hartwig
Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887. The manuscript is now classified as Neubauer
Catalogue Oxford ms. 1228, and it is freely available on-line (here).

[5] See Daniel
J. Lasker, “Adam and Eve or Adam and Noah? Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew
Versions of the Same Books,” Pesher Nahum. Texts and Studies in Jewish
History and Literature from Antiquity Through the Middle Ages Presented to
Norman (Naḥum) Golb, ed. Joel L. Kraemer and Michael G. Wechsler et al.,
Chicago, 2012, pp.141-148.

[6] The Zifroni
edition, Warsaw, 1911, published under his original name Zifrinowitsch,
included many valuable notes. Subsequent editions generally omitted these
notes.

[7] Judah
ha-Levi, Kitāb al-radd wa-ʾl-dalīl fi ʾl-dīn al-dhalīl (Al-kitāb al-khazarī),
ed. David H. (Zvi) Baneth and Haggai Ben-Shammai, Jerusalem, 1977.

[8] The
Kosari of R. Yehuda Halevi, Translated Annotated and Introduced by Yehuda
Even Shmuel, Tel Aviv, 1972. On Even Shmuel, né Kaufman, see Ira Robinson, “The
Canadian years of Yehuda Kaufman (Even Shmuel): Educator, Journalist, and
Intellectual,” Canadian Jewish Studies, 15 (2007), pp. 129-142.

[9] See, e.g.,
Michael Schwarz’s effusive review in Kiryat Sefer, 49 (5734), pp.
198-202. Many years later, Prof. Schwarz told me that he no longer held the
views he expressed in that review.

[10] For
instance, the term ṣarīḥ/ ṣuraḥa’, meaning “native-born,” and indicative
of Halevi’s essentialist view of the Jewish chosenness, is glossed over in
1:115; 2:1; and 5:23; see Daniel J. Lasker, “Proselyte Judaism, Christianity
and Islam in the Thought of Judah Halevi,” Jewish
Quarterly Review, 81:1-2 (July-October, 1990): 75-91 (Hebrew version: in Ephraim Hazan and Dov Schwartz, eds., The
Poetry of Philosophy. Studies on the Thought of R. Yehuda Halevi,
Ramat-Gan, 2016, pp. 207-220).

[11] Sefer
ha-kuzari le-rabbeinu Yehuda Halevi zẓ”l, Kiryat Ono, 5757.

[12] Kafiḥ states
that he used the text published by Hirschfeld, correcting it according to the
Baneth-Ben-Shammai edition. A comparison of texts indicates that he did not
always follow Hirschfeld and Ben-Shammai. In fact, in the edition and Hebrew
translation, he accepted certain emendations in the order of the text and the
re-assignment of sections from the King to the Sage, and vice versa, e.g.,
3:25-31. These departures from the original are very similar to ones made by
Even Shmuel (both mention the opinion of Rabbi Ben-Zion Hai Uziel).

[13] Cohen’s
class notes were published many years later as a commentary on the Kuzari
under the title Ha-kuzari ha-mevu’ar, edited by Dov Schwartz, Jerusalem,
1997.

[14] Judah
Halevi, Sefer ha-kuzari, Tel Aviv, 2008 (with my introduction). The text
is vocalized and section headings have been added (not by me), but it is not a
scientific edition.

[15] Jerusalem,
2010. In his introduction (p. 5), Shailat writes that he was aware that Prof.
Schwarz was working on a translation, but he decided to go ahead with his own
project because it was unclear when the Schwarz translation would be ready and
unlike Schwarz’s rendition into modern Hebrew, Shailat was translating it into
medieval Hebrew.

[16] Judah
Hallevi’s Kitab al Khazari, translated from the Arabic with an introd. by
Hartwig Hirschfeld, London, 1905.

[17] E.g., the
edition by Schocken Publishing House, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith
of Israel (various editions), which mentions H. Slonimsky as the author of the
introduction on the cover of the book, but requires one to search well to find
out that it was Hirschfeld’s translation.

[18] Cleveland,
1960, with many reprints.

[19] Yehuda
HaLevi, The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, translated and
annotated by N. Daniel Korobkin, Northvale, N.J., 1998.

[20] Amazon.com
lists many editions of the Kuzari. I have been unable to check them
personally. As far as I know, they are all dependent upon the Hebrew.

[21]
Reference should be made as well to the excellent French translation by Prof. Charles
Touati (1925-2003), executed on the basis of the Judaeo-Arabic original: Juda
Hallevi, Le Kuzari. Apologie de la religion méprisé, traduit sur le
texte original arabe confronté avec la version hébraïque et accompagné d’une
introduction et de notes par Charles Touati, Louvain, 1994.

[22] My student
Ehud Krinis discusses Shi’ite influence; see his God’s Chosen People: Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shīcī Imām Doctrine, Turnhout 2014. For Sufi influence, see Diana Lobel, Between
Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari. Albany, NY 2000.

[23] The indices
were produced by Prof. Schwarz’s son, David Zori, who took upon himself the
responsibility of transforming his father’s draft into publishable form.
Editorial work on the text was done by Ayal Fishler.

[24] Jewish Studies, 37 (1997): 267-271
(Hebrew).

[25] An edition
of Schwarz’s Guide, without the notes and with some corrections, was
issued by Yediot Aharonot in the Am ha-sefer series, Tel-Aviv, 2008. The
translation was also at one time freely available on-line until Tel-Aviv
University Press removed its site. Accessing it on-line is still possible, but
it is not as easy as it once was.

The Hanukkah Miracle

Marc B. Shapiro

In an earlier post I mentioned that I hoped to write about the nineteenth-century dispute about the historicity of the Hanukkah miracle of the oil. This dispute broke out after the publication of Hayyim Zelig Slonimski’s article claiming that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle. Fuel was added to the fire when R. Samuel Alexandrov publicly supported Slonimski and argued that the miracle of the oil was intended to be understood in a non-literal fashion, with the oil representing Torah. (He later retracted this view, presumably due to public pressure.) There is no longer a need for me to write in any detail about this matter after Zerachyah Licht’s recent comprehensive Seforim Blog post here, which also includes Slonimski’s original article.[1]

However, there are a few points I would like to add.

In my post here I wrote:

To give an example . . . of how [R. Samuel Moses] Rubenstein’s later thought broke with tradition, see his Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Aggadah (Kovno, 1937), p. 103, where he claims that the story of the miracle of Hanukkah is almost certainly a late aggadic creation, and like many other miracle stories in aggadic literature was not originally intended to be understood as historical reality:[2]

ספק הוא אם הנס של “פך השמן” הוא אפילו הגדה עממית קדומה, קרוב שהוא יצירה אגדית חדשה מבעל הברייתא עצמו או מאחד מבעלי האגדה, ונסים אגדיים כאלו רבים הם בברייתות וגמרא ומדרשים ע”ד ההפלגה כדרכה של האגדה. ולבסוף הובן נס זה למעשה שהיה. עיין שבת כ”ג א’. [טעם ברייתא זו הובא גם במגילת תענית (פ”ט) אבל כמו שנראה היא הוספה מאוחרת, ועיין (שם) ובפסיקתא רבתי (פיסקא דחנוכה) עוד טעם להדלקת נרות חנוכה[.

During the most recent Hanukkah I was using R. Joseph Hertz’s siddur, the Authorized Daily Prayer Book. Based upon how he describes the holiday and the lighting of the menorah, omitting any mention of the miracle of the lights (pp. 946-947), I assume that he also didn’t accept it literally. Note how he states that the lights were kindled during the eight-day Dedication festival, and this is the reason for the eight days of Hanukkah, rather than offering the traditional reason that the eight days of Hanukkah commemorate the eight days that the menorah miraculously burnt.

Three years to the day on which the Temple was profaned by the blaspheming foe, Kislev the 25th 165, Judah Maccabeus and his brethren triumphantly entered the Holy City. They purified the Temple, and their kindling of the lights during the eight-day festival of Dedication—Chanukah—is a telling reminder, year by year, of the rekindling of the Lamp of True Religion in their time.

Ad kan my words in the prior post. Some time ago I was asked if I know of any other traditional authors who deny the literalness of the Hanukkah miracle. It could be that R. Isidore Epstein should be added to the list, as in his classic work Judaism he describes Hanukkah and the kindling of lights, but mentions nothing about the miracle. However, unlike Hertz whose comments were in a siddur and directed to Jews, Epstein’s book is directed towards a general reader, and can still be used as a college text. Understandably, one would hesitate to include in such a book anything about a miracle. Yet I think it is telling that he does not even say something like, “according to tradition a cruse of oil with enough for one day burnt for eight.”

Another traditional author who must be mentioned in this regard is R. Zev Yavetz. Here is his picture.

And to remind people of what Slonimski looked like, here is his picture.[3]

And here is a picture of R. Alexandrov.

Yavetz was one of the leaders (and founders) of the Mizrachi movement, and Kfar Yavets, a religious moshav, is named after him. After his death, R. Kook wrote about how Yavetz was able to combine Torah and secular wisdom without being negatively affected and distorting religious values.[4] Yavetz is best known for his writings on Jewish history. His magnum opus is his 14 volume Toldot Yisrael. In volume 4, pp. 89-91, he discusses the Hanukkah story.

As you can see, there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. The eight day holiday is portrayed as a commemoration of the original eight day celebration that took place when the Temple was rededicated. I don’t think there is any other conclusion that can be drawn other than that Yavetz did not regard the miracle of the oil as an actual historical event.

In 1900 R. Aryeh Leib Feinstein published his Elef ha-Magen. On p. 35b he writes that whereas R. Judah (bar Ilai) believed in the Hanukkah miracle, R. Yose and R. Judah ha-Nasi did not, and that is the reason why R. Judah ha-Nasi did not include the laws of the Hanukkah lights in the Mishnah.

חיוב נר חנוכה עתה אינו בשביל המלוכה רק מפני הנס שנעשה בפך השמן שהדליקו בו שמונה ימים, ואף שגם טעם זה תלוי במחלוקת שבין ר’ יודא ור’ יוסי בהוריות [יא ע”ב] שלדעת ר’ יודא נסים רבים אירעו בשמן המשחה, ור’ יוסי חולק עליו שלא היה בו שום נס, ומטעם זה ג”כ השמיט רבי דיני נר חנוכה, ולא הזכירו בשום משנה, רק מזכירו לענין ניזקין בשם ר’ יודא שפוטר החנוני, לפי שר’ יודא לשיטתו סובר שנר חנוכה הוא מצוה לזכר הנס שאירע בפך שמן המשחה. אבל רבי פוסק כר’ יוסי לפי שנימוקו עמו. אך התלמוד אוחז בזה כר’ יודא לפי שהנס מהשמן כבר נתפרסם בהאומה.

On p. 36a Feinstein refers to the dispute between Slonimski and the rabbis, and says that many good Jews adopted Slonimski’s position. He tells us that he informed Slonimski that the dispute between him and the rabbis was actually an old dispute.

ואחריו נמשכו עוד רבים וכן שלמים שמהרו ויחליטו כדבריו . . . והראיתיו לדעת שבאמת ענין זה כבר דשו בו רבים, ונחלקו עליו משפחות משפחות, וביחוד ר’ יודא ור’ יוסי בהוריות. אך בכ”ז רבינו הקדוש אף שנטה למלכות בית דוד ולדעת ר’ יוסי, לא ערב לבו לנגוע במנהג ישן שקימו וקבלו עליהם הדורות שלפניו.

Not long ago I was listening to some recordings from R. David Bar-Hayim of Machon Shilo. One of them is entitled “The Story of the Macabees, part 2.” You can find it here. In this lecture, beginning at minute 27, R. Bar-Hayim explains that in his opinion there was no miracle of the oil, and it is simply a legend that developed in Babylonia, “because without that Hanukkah makes no sense for a Jew in galut.” Rather than attempt to summarize his perspective, it is preferable for readers to listen to his entire shiur.

Because of his originality, I would not have been surprised had R. Chaim Hirschensohn adopted the same sort of approach. Yet this is not the case, and R. Hirschensohn writes that the Hanukkah miracle was the final open miracle in Jewish history, by which he means that after this Jewish history is to be explained in a more naturalistic way, just like the history of other peoples. However, he adds that it must also be recognized that the very existence of the Jewish people over so many years in exile is itself a miracle.[5]

נר חנוכה הוא חותם הניסים בדברי ימי עמנו, כמלאכי חותם הנביאים.

אחרי נצחון החשמונאים החלו אצלנו דברי הימים כאשר לכל העמים, אם שאין ספק שגם מקודם היה לנו דברי הימים אבל המסופר לנו המה רק מעשה ניסים ובתוכם עלינו לבקש גרעיני דברי הימים, אבל המסופר לנו אחרי מלחמת החשמונאים כלו דברי הימים אבל הדברי הימים בעצמו הוא כלו מעשה נסים כי בארצות הגולה בנס אנו עומדים.

Since Slonimski claimed that Maimonides did not believe in the Hanukkah miracle, I think it is worth noting that although Maimonides could have stated that Hanukkah commemorates the military victory or the rededication of the Temple, he actually appears to say that the entire holiday is in commemoration of the lighting of the Menorah.[6] There are many sources[7] that state that the real miracle commemorated by Hanukkah is not the oil but the military victory, but this does not seem to be Maimonides’ perspective. Here is what he writes in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2-3[8]:

ב. וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.

ג.  ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתן מלילי חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס וימים אלו הןן הנקראין חנוכה.

In fact, this is the talmudic perspective as well. Shabbat 21b asks what is the reason for the holiday of Hanukkah (מאי חנוכה), and rather than speak about the military victory or rededication of the Temple all it mentions is the miracle of the oil. Many will find this strange, since can this really be the reason for the holiday? It is one thing to say that this is the reason for the eight days of celebration, but can this be the reason for the holiday itself? The Sheiltot of R. Ahai Gaon[9] preserves another version of the talmudic text. Instead of מאי חנוכה it reads מאי נר חנוכה. With this as the question, the answer which explains about the miracle of the oil makes much more sense.[10]

Slonimski did not argue that Maimonides’ philosophy does not leave room for the Hanukkah miracle. He simply pointed out that when Maimonides records the talmudic story of the miracle he leaves out three words: נעשה בו נס. Here is the relevant section of the talmudic text in Shabbat 21b. I have underlined the crucial words:

וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה.

Here is what Maimonides writes in Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, and as you can see the underlined words do not appear.

וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.

According to Slonimski, the omission of the words נעשה בו נס indicates that Maimonides does not believe that there was any miracle. Rather, Maimonides is telling us that since there was not enough oil to last for more than one day, they used a little of the oil on each of the eight days, until they were able to get more oil.

A weakness in Slonimski’s argument, which of course was pointed out, is that in the very next halakhah, 3:3, Maimonides appears to explicitly mention the miracle.

ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס

It is hard to see the underlined words as referring to anything other than the miracle of the oil.

Needless to say, Slonimski would have been very happy to learn that these underlined words, although they appear in the standard printed editions of the Mishneh Torah going back to early printings, do not appear in manuscripts and are not authentic (and have thus been removed from the Frankel edition). Presumably, these words were added by someone to “correct” Maimonides’ omission of the miracle of the oil.[11] (Slonimski, who did not know that להראות ולגלות הנס was a later addition, was forced to claim that these words referred to the military victory.[12])

If this was all we had to go by, I might agree that Maimonides is hinting to us that he did not accept the historicity of the miracle of the oil. However, if we examine Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah, chapter 4, we find that Maimonides mentions “the miracle,” and again, the miracle he refers to appears to be that of the oil.[13]

In 4:12 he writes:

מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאוד וצריך אדם להיזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח הא-ל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה.

In 4:13 he writes

הרי שאין לו אלא פרוטה אחת ולפניו קידוש היום והדלקת נר חנוכה מקדים שמן להדליק נר חנוכה על היין לקידוש היום הואיל ושניהם מדברי סופרים מוטב להקדים נר חנוכה שיש בו זכרון הנס.

Isn’t the most likely understanding that these two halakhot refer to the miracle of the oil? In 4:12 he first mentions “the miracle,” which I believe refers to the miracle of the oil, and then mentions “the miracles” in plural, which would also include the military victory. I don’t believe that Maimonides generally leaves esoteric hints in the Mishneh Torah, so I don’t think leaving out the words נעשה בו נס are intended to hint to us that he rejects the historicity of the miracle. In fact, since Maimonides denies the historicity of some events recorded in the Bible, regarding them as dreams or visions, it would not have been a theological problem for him to do so with the miracle of the oil, the source of which is a talmudic aggadah. However, as we have seen, he seems to explicitly affirm this miracle in the Mishneh Torah. Therefore, one who wants to claim that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle (despite what he says in the Mishneh Torah), will have to base this claim on an interpretation of Maimonides’ approach to miracles as set out in the Guide.

As mentioned, Slonimski’s rejection of the miracle of the oil created a great controversy, but what appears to be unknown is that he was not the first of the Hebrew writers to bring this matter to the fore. The newspaper Ha-Magid published articles by both maskilim and traditional Torah scholars. On December 9, 1868[14] Nahum Bruell[15] published an article which states: “In truth, the story of this miracle is not accepted by all sages of the Talmud and Midrash.” He then cites Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 2, which asks why we light נרות on Hanukkah. Its answer is not the story of the miracle but that after the Jews entered the Temple they took eight spears and put נרות on them.

נכנסו לבית המקדש מצאו שם שמונה שפודין של ברזל וקבעו אותם והדליקו בתוכם נרות.

Bruell also cites the medieval tosafist R. Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi who in his Pa’neah Raza,[16] in explaining why the Hasmoneans decreed lighting of the נרות, mentions nothing about the miracle:

נסמכה פרשת נרות לחנוכת המזבח וע”ז סמכו בית חשמונאי לתקן נרות בחנוכה

Although Bruell cited this text to show that not everyone accepted the Hanukkah miracle, I find it impossible to believe that R. Isaac (or any other medieval Ashkenazic sage) did not accept the traditional story of the miraculous burning of the oil. If I am correct that R. Isaac’s explanation is not in place of the Hanukkah miracle but only to offer an additional explanation, then perhaps even a text like Pesikta Rabbati cites the explanation it does, not because it did not know or accept the story of the miraculous oil, but because it wanted to offer another explanation, perhaps one not as well known.

Bruell further suggests that the talmudic aggadah about the Hanukkah miracle was never meant to be taken literally:

ואפשר גם בתשובתם על השאלה מאי חנוכה רמזו לנו כעיון גדול ועמוק כי אין מעצר לד’ להושיע ברב או במעט ואם גם נמשכו כל כוכבי התקוה ורבים חללו את ברית קדש מ”מ מפך שמן טהור המונח בחותמו של כה”ג דהיינו משארית הצדיקים אשר יחזיקו במעזם ויבטחו בד’ נעשה נס, יבא עזרם מעם ד’ עשה שמים וארץ ועוד יזרח להם אור התשועה.

One more point worth noting is about the number 8. According to the traditional story of the miracle of the oil, what is special about the number 8? Most people have probably heard the reason, also accepted by Maimonides, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, that in the days of the Hasmoneans this is how long it would take for those in Jerusalem to get new olive oil.[17] I never understood this explanation as why should getting new oil be a problem. It is not like olive trees are a rare thing in the Land of Israel. In any event, this explanation does not appear in the Talmud but is first found in a geonic responsum.[18]

למה אנו עושין שמונה ימי חנוכה מפני הנס שאירע שטמאו יונים וכו’. ומה טעם יש לשמנה לילות ולא הספיקו ממנו פחות או יותר.

מפני שהשמנים באים מחלקו של אשר כדכתיב (דברים לג, כד) וטובל בשמן רגלו ומקום היה לו שנקרא תקוע כדאמרינן תקוע אלפא לשמן שממנו השמנים יוצאים ומשם עד ירושלים היה מהלך שמנה ימים בין הליכה וחזרה והכי אמרינן במנחות ולפיכך המתין להם עד שיביאו משם שמן טהור וזה שנעשה להם נס לשמנת ימים.

There are a number of difficulties with this responsum. To begin with, we are told that olive oil came from the area of the tribe of Asher which is in the extreme north of the Land of Israel. This information is based on the fact that in Moses’ blessing for the tribe of Asher in Deuteronomy 33:24, he states, “let him dip his foot in oil.” This means that there would be lots of olive trees in Asher’s territory, but since there were plenty of olive trees closer to the Temple, why did they have to travel all the way to the land of Asher which, we are told, would require an eight day round trip. Even if one supposes (without any evidence) that normally they would go there since that was where the best olive oil was to be found, if they only had enough to light the menorah for one day, it is hard to imagine that they would not set out to find olive oil closer to the Temple.

The next point in the responsum is that there was a specific place in Asher’s territory called Tekoa, and that was where the oil came from. It cites Menahot 85b where the Mishnah states that “Tekoa ranks first for the quality of its oil.” Yet as I’m sure most people reading this know, Tekoa is near Jerusalem in the territory of Judah, not in the land of Asher. II Chronicles 11:5-6 states: “And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defense in Judah. He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa.”

As proof for the statement that it would take eight days to travel to the north and back in order to get the olive oil, we are told והכי אמרינן במנחות. Yet nowhere in Menahot is this information found. In Sefer Abudarham, Seder Hadlakat Ner Hanukkah, this geonic passage is quoted, but instead of referring to Menahot, we are told that the information is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same reference to the Jerusalem Talmud also appears in Hiddushei R. Yehonatan mi-Lunel, Shabbat 21b, and Sefer ha-Eshkol, ed. Auerbach, vol. 2, p. 20. For those who assume that Auerbach’s edition of Sefer ha-Eshkol is a forgery, this reference is just another example of the work incorporating passages from other writings.

I don’t have an answer as to why anyone assumed that the oil had to come from the land of Asher, but as for the city of Tekoa, it could be that there was another city also named Tekoa, in addition to the one we know about in the territory of Judah. The Soncino Talmud, Menahot 85b, informs us that both Graetz and Bacher think that the Tekoa mentioned there is in the Galilee, which could be said to include part of the territory of Asher.[19] Furthermore, Samuel Klein, the leading geographer of the Land of Israel, also argues that there was a city named Tekoa in the Galilee.[20]

What about the Tekoa that Amos came from? If you look at R. David Kimhi’s commentary to Amos 1:1, he tells us that Tekoa was a large city in the land of Asher (see also his commentary to Amos 7:10). In his commentary to II Samuel 14:2, he writes, quoting the Talmud in Menahot 85b (except for the first four words):

העיר בחלקו של אשר דכתיב ביה וטוב בשמן רגלי שמושך שמן כמעין

The biblical story Radak is commenting on is when Joab fetched a wise woman from Tekoa and told her to go to King David and pretend to be a mourner. I am surprised that Radak would assume that Joab was summoning a woman from all the way in the territory of Asher. In his response to Radak, R. Profiat Duran (Efodi[21]) states that it is obvious that the story is dealing with a city near Jerusalem.[22]

והשכל הישר ישפוט כי תקוע היה קרוב לירושלם כי איך ישלח לקרות אשה מארץ אשר היה רחוק מירושלם.

Again we have to ask, just because a city named Tekoa happened to be known for its olive oil, why should anyone assume that it is in the territory of Asher? The fact that the tribe of Asher was blessed with having a lot of olive trees in its territory does not mean that the other tribes did not also have a good supply. In fact, it appears to me that the peshat of Menahot 85b, where the Mishnah speaks of Tekoa as having good olive oil, is that it is speaking about the Tekoa near Jerusalem.[23] It is true that in the talmudic discussion Tekoa and the land of Asher are mentioned regarding olive oil, but their only connection would seem to be this, not that Tekoa has anything to do with Asher’s territory.[24]

Jeremiah 6:1 states: “Gather the sons of Benjamin from the midst of Jerusalem, and blow the horn in Tekoa.” Here Jeremiah is telling the tribe of Benjamin, who lived near Jerusalem, to blow the horn in Tekoa in order to warn the people about the danger from the approaching enemy. Malbim on this verse comments that Tekoa is part of Asher. I don’t understand how Malbim could view this as peshat. Why would the people of Benjamin travel to the territory of Asher to blow the shofar? This territory was occupied by foreign troops, the local inhabitants having been deported a long time before. Here are Malbim’s words:

העיזו אתה בני בנימין התאספו מקרב ירושלים, כי בני בנימין לא היו מבני העיר ורצו לחסות שם בירושלים, אומר כי יתרחקו משם, וגם בתקוע שהוא בחלק אשר, תקעו שופר.

Based on Jeremiah 6:1, Efodi states that Tekoa is actually in the territory of Benjamin and not, as I mentioned before, in Judah’s territory.[25]

Returning to our discussion of the Hanukkah miracle, R. Sharon Shalom recently published a very interesting book entitled Mi-Sinai le-Ethiopia (Tel Aviv, 2012). This book, which is a code of halakhah for Ethiopian Jews, has haskamot from R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Shabtai Rappaport. It is significant in that it takes into account that it is not so easy for the older generation of Ethiopian Jews to entirely reject their traditions in order to become modern rabbinic Jews. As such, R. Shalom permits certain things that would not make sense in the larger Jewish world but are part of what he terms “Ethiopian halakhah.” For example, R. Shalom permits Ethiopian Jews, especially of the older generation, to carry items regarded as muktzeh when this is related to holy matters, for example, bringing money to synagogue on the Sabbath for charity. This was not regarded as prohibited in Ethiopia and R. Shalom allows the practice to continue today (pp. 170-171).

This is a fascinating book as it attempts to slowly ease the Ethiopian community into the wider halakhic community rather than requiring an immediate abandonment of long-standing practices, something that would certainly be demanded by haredi poskim. You can see R. Shalom discuss his book here, and he is introduced by R. Rappaport.

While the book deserves detailed analysis, I only want to call attention to one additional point that is relevant to this post. Here is R. Shalom’s discussion of Hanukkah, from pp. 214-215 in the book. There is no mention of the Hanukkah miracle in explaining why we celebrate an eight day holiday.

 

I would like to call readers’ attention to a short essay by R. Nosson Fried on Megilat Antiochus.[26] Here is the title page.

R. Fried points out that in the version of Megilat Antiochus that he published in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael[27] there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. He is quite surprised by this for as he says, “this is the central miracle in commemoration of which they established the lighting on Hanukkah.” He adds that this miracle is not mentioned in Al ha-Nisim or in Pesikta Rabbati which has a good deal to say about Hanukkah. He then notes that all of the Eretz Yisrael paytanim, which includes Yanai and R. Eleazar ha-Kalir, and some of the European paytanim also do not mention the miracle. (Other European paytanim, such as R. Menahem ben Machir, do mention the miracle.) How can this be explained?

R. Fried’s answer is quite unexpected (p. 8): “The sages of the Land of Israel in the time of the Talmudim and Midrashim knew nothing about the miracle of the cruse of oil.” He explains that the story of the miracle is a Babylonian tradition and thus was not known in the Land of Israel, or even by some of the early European paytanim. He writes (p. 9):

שכל אותן המקורות הקודמים, החל מספרי החשמונאים וכלה בפייטני א”י ומקצת מפייטני אירופה הקדמונים, לא ידעו כלל שאמנם היה נס בשמן . . . [הנקודות במקור] לשיטתם נקבע חג החנוכה לזכר הנצחונות והנסים שאירעו לבני חשמונאי במלחמותיהם נגד היונים.

Coming from a haredi writer this is quite surprising, and let me explain why. All of the scholars who have argued against the historicity of the miracle of the oil have pointed out that none of the oldest texts dealing with Hanukkah mention this miracle. This includes 1 and 2 Maccabees, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, tannaitic texts, and Josephus. Josephus even suggests a different explanation for why the holiday is called “Lights.” Those who defend the historicity of the miracle have to explain why these sources chose not to mention it.Before Fried, no traditional author had ever suggested that the miracle story was unknown to the tannaim and later rabbinic authors, and that is for an obvious reason. If you say that the tannaim did not know the miracle, to say nothing of the authors of the Book of Maccabees 1 and 2, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, and Josephus, how is it possible that someone who lived a few hundred years later in Babylonia would know about the miracle? By saying that the people who lived in the Land of Israel close to the time of the events did not know the miracle, Fried is providing an argument that the miracle never happened and that the much later story recorded in the Babylonian Talmud is an aggadah which is not to be regarded as historical but rather teaches a lesson as many aggadot do. In other words, Fried’s argument leads to the same conclusion as Slonimski and R. Alexandrov, and for some reason he doesn’t see it.

R. Tuvyah Tavyomi has another approach to the matter.[28] He claims that since the miracle of the oil was only seen by a small group, the leaders of the generation were afraid that the masses, many of whom were hellenized, would not believe the story and thus not adopt the holiday. Therefore, they ordained the lighting of נרות without giving a reason, hiding the real reason from the people. The masses would believe that it was because of the military victory, while those who knew that holidays are only proclaimed for “out of the ordinary” miracles, they would find out about the story of the oil and would certainly believe it. According to R. Tavyomi, this explains why in the Al ha-Nissim prayer which is to be said by all people there is no mention of the miracle of the oil.

Finally, I was surprised that an article by Avraham Ohayon could be published in Shenaton Shaanan, the annual of Shaanan, a religious teachers college.[29] Ohayon’s article not only critically examines the story of the Hanukkah miracle, which he calls מיתוס נפ”ה (נס פך השמן)  (p. 59), but concludes that that it is most likely that the miracle never happened and was invented by the Sages for religious reasons. On pp. 58-59 he writes:

שתיקתם של המקורות ההיסטוריים, ובמידה מסוימת גם של חז”ל ומקורות הלכתיים בעניין נפ”ה – מעוררת שאלות בקשר למשמעות העובדתית של נס זה: האם הנס התרחש, וכתוצאה ממנו קבעו חז”ל את סממניו ההלכתיים, או שכדי לקבוע הלכות לדורות היה צריך קודם לסמוך להם נס?

חלק הארי של המקורות דלעיל – מחזק יותר את קיומה של האפשרות השנייה. . . .

חז”ל החילו שני שינויים במהותו של החג, ושניהם קשורים זה בזה:

האחד – שינוי עיקרו של הנס, מסגידה לניצחון הצבאי – לנס על-טבעי שהוא נפ”ה.

השני – הענקת צביון דתי לחג על-ידי קביעת איסורים שונים, תפילות מיוחדות ומצוות הדלקת הנרות שמונה ימים – כזכר לנפ”ה.

In a note on this passage, Ohayon cites Gedaliah Alon who explains what would have led the Sages to invent the Hanukkah miracle:

[אלון] תומך בדעה השנייה מן הטעם, שחז”ל רצו להשכיח את שם החשמונאים וגבורתם מזיכרון האומה, ואולם לא יכלו לעקור את חג החנוכה גופו. לכן קבעו טעם אגדי ובדרך זו “קיפלו” בו את תקופת החשמונאים, שהרי סיפור נפ”ה התחיל ממקורות חז”ל בלבד. הוא מביא גם נימוקים ליחס זה של חז”ל לחשמונאים.

Nothing Ohayon writes would be surprising if it appeared in a general academic journal, but as mentioned, his article appeared in a religious journal and that is what I find significant.

Returning to R. Samuel Alexandrov, who as mentioned at first supported Slonimski, Geulah bat Yehudah has a nice article on him[30] as does Ehud Luz,[31] and there is a master’s dissertation on him by Tsachi Slater.[32] Yet I would like to call attention to a few things that these authors have not mentioned. To begin with, R. Alexandrov reports that after the death of R. Shemariah Noah Schneersohn he was asked to take the latter’s place as rav of Bobruisk (R. Alexandrov’s place of residence), yet he refused this offer.[33]

In Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1932), pp. 86-87, R. Alexandrov offers a provocative suggestion in explaining why Maimonides was so opposed to rabbis taking money from the community. He calls attention to Hullin 132b which states: “R. Simeon says. A priest who does not believe in the [Temple] service has no portion in the priesthood.” Rashi explains this to mean a priest who thinks the Temple service is nonsense and rather than having been commanded by God was invented by Moses. As for having no portion in the priesthood, Rashi explains that he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat.

Maimonides, Hilkhot Bikurim 1:1, codifies the law as follows:

וכל כהן שאינו מודה בהן אין לו חלק בכהנים ואין נותנין לו מתנה מהן.

According to R. Alexandrov, this is the key to understanding why Maimonides opposes rabbis taking money from the community. R. Alexandrov assumes based on what Maimonides writes in the Guide of the Perplexed that he did not really believe in the value of sacrifices. )R. Alexandrov himself did not believe that there would ever be a return to the sacrificial system.[34]) He further states that Maimonides realized that if he were a kohen he would have no portion in the priestly dues. Since the rabbinate, as the religious leadership of the community, replaces the old system of the kehunah, Maimonides reasoned that just as if he were a kohen he could not receive any priestly dues, so too as a rabbi he could take nothing from the community.

בספרו המורה הלא איננו מודה בקרבנות לפי המובן המורגל, ולכן חש בנפשו הנפש היפה שאין לו חלק במתנות כהונה . . . [הנקודות במקור] ובכן על פי טבעו ורוחו אוסר לקבל שכר רבנות, כי אמנם הרבנות הוא דמות זעיר אנפין של הכהונה בימים הקדמונים, כנודע.

R. Alexandrov also says a few things that some haredi readers will appreciate. For example, he explains Avot 2:2:  וכל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון in a very original fashion. He understands מלאכה to mean the work of creating Torah novellae! This passage in the Mishnah is always used against the Israeli haredi approach of shunning work in favor of study, and I have never seen a good justification offered as to why the Mishnah’s words can be so easily set aside. Yet with R. Alexandrov’s explanation, this is no longer a problem.[35]

ומה שאמר “כל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון”, יש לכוין על מלאכת החדוש והפלפול וההגיון בתורתנו, ואומר כי תורה שאין עמה מלאכה ר”ל מלאכת החדוש סופה בטלה כי באמת רק כח החדוש הנותן פנים להתורה הקדושה בכל דור ודור לפי הרוח השורר אז, הוא הוא המקיים את התורה הישנה בעם ישראל.

* * * * *

1. Dov Weinstein called my attention to the following very significant responsum by R. Ovadiah Yosef that appeared in the journal Beit Yosef, Iyar 5776, no. 169. Over a century ago, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron suggested a way of “cleansing” a mamzer by having the husband send his wife a get and then void it before it is delivered. According to the Talmud, in such a case the marriage is to be regarded as annulled despite the fact that the husband voided the get. The problem the Sages had to deal with was if the husband was allowed to void a get after having sent it, the woman who received it would not know that it was invalid and would remarry. Although it would not be her fault, such a situation would result in her future children being mamzerim. The way around this was to decree that in such a case her original marriage was to be regarded as never having been actualized, something which the rabbis have authority to do. R. Schwadron’s originality comes in suggesting that this mechanism could also be used to solve the problem of mamzerut even after the fact, since if the original marriage is annulled in this fashion, by sending a get and then cancelling it before delivery, there is no subsequent adultery. This proposal, which was never put into practice by R. Schwadron, is discussed by R. J. David Bleich in Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1, pp. 162ff.

R. Ovadiah’s responsum is of great importance since his approach would solve the problem of mamzerut in many case. In earlier years, R. Isser Yehudah Unterman suggested that R. Schwadron’s approach be followed in a particular case,[36] and R. Zvi Pesach Frank actually did so in another case.[37]

2. Is it significant that a haredi website recently published an article from a woman in which she argues that women should be able to become halakhic authorities? Was the website just looking to stir up trouble or is this a sign of something afoot even in the haredi world?

3. There has recently been a problem with the commenting whereby many comments that have Hebrew in them are rejected as spam. One of the rejected comments was by R. Moshe Maimon and is very insightful. Responding to R. Hershel Schachter’s point, discussed here, that Daas Torah authorities must be poskim, R. Maimon wrote:

Here is the Rambam’s formulation of the ‘Daas Torah’ concept:

I don’t recall seeing this passage from אגרת תימן (Sheilat ed. p. 149) quoted in the various articles on the subject, but at any rate it seems to serve as a clear repudiation of Rav Schachter’s view that only poskim can issue Daas Torah directives.

Regarding Daas Torah, someone challenged my statement in my post here that R. Kanievsky actually declared in a formal way that R. Steinman is to be regarded as the new leader. Readers can look at the actual words where R. Kanievsky indeed declares that everyone is “obligated” to follow what R. Steinman says. (An English translation is found here.) I don’t know of any other such declaration in Jewish history. The gedolim have always been “created” by the religious community at large, and the gadol ha-dor (when there has been such a figure) emerged from this group of gedolim based on public acknowledgment. Yet here we have a declaration from one gadol establishing who the gadol ha-dor is and obligating everyone to follow his guidance. Will this be the new model in the haredi world for how to determine who the gadol ha-dor is?

Thanks to the person who doubted what I wrote, I was motivated to find R. Kanievsky’s statement and I see that I did say something incorrect. I wrote that R. Kanievsky’s statement was made after R. Elyashiv’s death, but in fact it was made shortly before R. Elyashiv’s passing, when he was no longer in the position to serve as leader of the generation.

Churches, Ronald McDonald, and More

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In a recent post I mentioned R. Leon Modena, so let me note the following. In my article on entering churches,[1] available here, I mention that R. Modena entered churches to hear the sermons. I also quote R. Eliezer Waldenberg’s description of R. Modena as an איש הפכפך. Only after my article appeared did I find that R. Solomon Scheinfeld uses similar language in describing R. Modena[2]:

R. Scheinfeld’s point about some great Torah scholars (he actually says “many geonim”), that often they have, let’s call it “unusual” characteristics (R. Scheinfeld actually uses a different term), is certainly worthy of note. I first heard this almost thirty years ago from the late R. Herschel Cohen of West Orange, N.J., who in his youth had studied under R. Judah Leib Chasman. As a young man I used to visit him, and one day he showed me a certain sefer. He very much enjoyed the book, but also commented that the author was a “meshugena.” I replied: “But he is a gaon,” and R. Cohen shot back: “There is often a very fine line between a gaon and a meshugena.”[3] In this regard, I would add that R. Moshe Feinstein was wary of geniuses, commenting that אין לנו הרבה נחת מהעילוים.[4]

Regarding R. Modena, it is also worth noting that R. Mordechai Spielman, who knew exactly who R. Modena was, refers to him as הגאון ר’ יהודה ארי’ ממודינא ז”ל. This reference comes from R. Spielman’s Tiferet Tzvi, vol. 6, p. 99. I don’t know how many readers are aware of this significant work on the Zohar, and it is unfortunate that it is not found on either hebrewbooks.org or Otzar ha-Hokhmah. In fact, Tiferet Tzvi is one of the most important works of Torah scholarship not to be found on either of these two sites.

Regarding going into churches to hear sermons, it appears that this is mentioned by R. Isaac Arama. At the beginning of his introduction to Akedat Yitzhak, in speaking of Christian preachers speaking to the population, he writes:

In Hazut Kashah, beginning of sha’ar 4, he writes:

In the introduction to his edition of Akedat Yitzhak, note 6, R. Hayyim Joseph Pollak, suggests that R. Arama is referring to sermons that Jews were forced to attend, but in the first source this doesn’t seem to be what he is referring to.

Returning to my article on entering churches, I am honored that Rabbi J. David Bleich used some of the sources I collected and mentioned a couple of my comments in his own article on the topic that appeared in Tradition 44:2 (2011), pp. 73-101 (available here, and it has also just appeared in Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 7).[5] I now have some additional sources to add. With regard to R. Modena, in my article I neglected to refer to his autobiography where he also describes being present for a sermon in the San Geremia church in Venice, which is very close to the Jewish ghetto.[6]

In my listing of those rabbis known to have entered churches,[7] I referred to R. Jacob Meir, who served as Rishon le-Tziyon. Unfortunately, one word (בכנסיה) was mistakenly omitted from the quotation, and readers might therefore have wondered why I assumed that R. Meir entered the church. Here is the full quotation, with the crucial word underlined. It comes from Gad Frumkin, Derekh Shofet bi-Yerushalayim (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 294:

In fact, the mistaken omission of the word בכנסיה created another problem. When I read over the article just before publication, I didn’t realize that the word בכנסיה had been mistakenly deleted. I therefore added a note that maybe the meaning of the passage is that R. Meir only went to the home of Ronald Storrs, who was the Jerusalem Military Governor. (R. Bleich quotes my mistaken assumption.[8]) I also changed my formulation prior to the quotation to say that R. Meir “appears” to have entered a church. However, as we can see from the passage, Frumkin is clear that R. Meir indeed entered the church for the event.

R. Immanuel Jakobovits was asked if he would go into a church. He replied: “Perhaps for a visit, but not during prayers or a religious ceremony.” He also recounted a time when while visiting Russia it seems that he got stuck in a church during a prayer service:

As mentioned in note 7, the British chief rabbis will enter churches for various official events. As R. Jakobovits wrote on another occasion, this policy has the approval of the London Beth Din.

Another relevant text is from R. Shlomo Riskin who wrote as follows[10]:

R. Asher Weiss here provides support, bediavad, for R. Haskel Lookstein’s attendance at a prayer service in a church which was part of the celebrations following President Obama’s inauguration.

In my article on entering churches I refer to R. Joseph Messas’ responsum in which he mentions going into a church. I subsequently found that in his Otzar ha-Mikhtavim, vol. 1, no. 280 (p. 133), he tells of a visit to Malaga, Spain, where he also entered a church. Earlier, while still in Spanish Morocco, he explained to some non-Jews that Jews do not hold a grudge against Spain and do not hate contemporary Spaniards because of what their forefathers did. He then said something very strange (p. 131), namely, that contemporary Jews have to be thankful to the earlier Spaniards for how they persecuted the Jews of their time, since this enables everyone to see how connected Jews are to God, that despite the persecution they did not give up their faith! Is there any other rabbinic text that lets murderers “off the hook” so easily?

R. Messas finds other ways to be “melamed zekhut” on those who persecuted and even killed Jews in Spain, and if I didn’t know that he was a truly great rabbinic authority,[14] I might think that what he writes comes from the pen of a Catholic apologist for the Spanish Inquisition.[15]

Regarding entering churches, also of interest is the report of the sixteenth-century painter and writer, Giorgio Vasari, that Roman Jews would come on the Sabbath to the Church of San Pietro in Rome to stand before Michelangelo’s statue of Moses.[16]

A number of years ago, R. Dov Linzer gave a shiur on this very topic of entering churches. At the time, I called his attention to some responsa that do not deal with this matter, but which permitted Jews to donate money to assist in building a church. These responsa are R. Mordechai Horowitz, Mateh Levi, vol. 2, Yoreh Deah, no. 28, R. Isaac Unna, Shoalin ve-Dorshin, no. 35, R. Shalom Messas, Shemesh u-Magen, vol. 3, Orah Hayyim, nos. 30-31. When there is fear of enmity (and only in this circumstance), R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Benei Vanim, vol. 3, no. 36, also permits donating money for the building of a church, as long as the building can be built without the Jew’s donation or his donation is merely symbolic. R. Henkin also suggests that the person donating the money make it a condition that the money go to building the parking lot or something not connected to worship. (He concludes that these suggestions will also allow one to donate to a Reform or Conservative synagogue if not doing so could arouse enmity.) In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that the first responsum of R. Messas as well as R. Henkin’s responsum were sent to me.

Some time after I showed R. Linzer these responsa, there was an attack on a church in Charleston where nine people were killed. The very next day there was an arson attack by a radical Jew (or perhaps more than one individual) against a church in the Galilee. This followed other acts of vandalism directed against churches in Israel in recent years. R. Linzer sent out the following email.

Rabbosai,

Given the recent horrific attack in Charleston and the terrible burnings of churches that has occurred in the last few days, I encourage all of you to show your support for those who have been attacked, and to act in a way of kiddush shem Shamayim to counteract these terrible hate crimes.

One way you can do this is by donating money to help in the rebuilding of these churches. While there are poskim who rule otherwise (see Melamed li’hoyil 188:2), a number of recent poskim have dealt with this issue on a halakhic basis and ruled that it is totally permissible and at times even obligatory.[17] This is based on the widely accepted ruling that Christianity is not avoda zara for non-Jews. Thus, helping non-Jews in their permissible worship of God can in no way be considered מסייע לדבר עבירה, a form of aiding transgressive behavior. Some of these teshuvot have pointed out that church buildings are often repurposed as synagogues, and this again points to the non-halakhically problematic status of these buildings. Relatedly, Rav Moshe (YD 1:68) ruled that an architect can draw up the plans for the construction of a church, and that mi’ikar ha’din it is permitted to actually participate in the building of a church (and this is even without the argument that it is not avoda zara for them!).

There are some halakhic issues when giving to avoda zara directly implicates the giver in the avoda itself (see YD 149:4 and 143), but that is not relevant to this case.

I am attaching 3 contemporary teshuvot, all thanks to Marc Shapiro, who is the shoel of the teshuva of Rav Meshash [!], and who make the argument as outlined above.

I would like to quote in particular from the teshuva of the Mateh Levi, both the question and a section from the beginning and end of the answer:

R. Linzer was attacked after this email was sent out, and some people made it seem as if he had come up with a crazy idea. Yet the truth is that what he suggested – donating to a church – had already been approved by a couple of recognized gedolei Yisrael. Even his point about making a kiddush ha-shem has a precedent in R. Mordechai Horowitz, the Matteh Levi, who said exactly this in discussing Moses Montefiore’s donation to a church, and this is quoted in R. Linzer’s email.

Regarding kiddush ha-shem, even if we don’t go as far as R. Linzer, I think that one can make a good case that donating to a church can be a sanctification of God’s name if, as happened in Israel, the church was set on fire by a radical Jew (or Jews). We cannot have the spectacle of Jews burning down churches in Israel, and the damage this can do to Jews worldwide is immense. Would it be out of line to argue that if Jews burn down a church, that at least to prevent enmity Jews should also help rebuild it? It is easy to see how such an action can be regarded as a kiddush ha-shem, even if most poskim would see it as technically forbidden. (I wonder, can something be both a kiddush ha-shem and a violation of halakhah?) In fact, after the church was burnt in Israel, a number of rabbis, including the great R. Nachum Rabinovitch, helped raise money to repair it.[18] What this shows is that the matter is not as clear-cut as might appear at first glance.

Speaking of Jewish donations to churches, it is of interest that Mordechai Maisel (1528-1601), the leader of the Prague Jewish community, donated to the St. Salvator Church, which is very close to the Jewish Quarter. Rachel L. Greenblatt writes that this was “an alliance-seeking neighborly act not as unusual as it might sound.”[19] Yet I do not know of any other case like this in the sixteenth century or prior, so it certainly sounds unusual to me. Unfortunately, it is not known if any of the Prague rabbis approved of Maisel’s donation, which Maisel must have assumed would create a lot of good will with the non-Jewish population, good will that might later save the community from an expulsion or even a pogrom. Two hundred years later, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) donated money to build a church in Kassel. The local ruler required this in order for Rothschild to be regarded as a “protected Jew” in Kassel, where he often stayed while conducting business.[20]

I have a lot I would like to say about Christianity and its impact on Judaism, in particular when it comes to seforim. For  now, here is something that I very recently found and I am not sure if it is a conscious distortion. In R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s Tikunim Hadashim (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 10, as part of his messianic vision he states as follows:

R. Mordechai Chriqui has edited numerous works of Ramhal. In 1986 he published Yesod Olam, which a short book on Ramhal’s life and thought. On p. 43 he provides the following Hebrew translation of part of the Aramaic text just cited:

Yet this translation is completely mistaken. I wonder if this is an innocent mistake or was intentional so that the reader not see a text that sounds Christian (although Ramhal was not referring to Jesus). What the Aramaic text really means, and I have underlined the crucial part, is that all will align themselves with your only son, the Messiah. I am curious to hear what readers think about this (and maybe someone will even want to defend Chriqui’s rendering).[21]

Further on the subject of Christianity, R. Chaim Rapoport published an interesting responsum by R. Hayyim Galipapa (fourteenth century) of Spain.[22] In this responsum, R. Galipapa states that the Trinity is not to be regarded as avodah zarah. (R. Rapoport claims that he only means that it is not avodah zarah for non-Jews, who are not obligated to have an absolutely pure conception of God, but is indeed to be regarded as avodah zarah as far as Jews are concerned.) Here are R. Galipapa’s words:

Finally, in my article on entering churches I noted that R. Jacob Meir, the Rishon le-Tziyon, wore a ceremonial medallion in the shape of a cross (I am not sure which government awarded this to him). 

You can see it here.

Here is an Israeli stamp with R. Meir on it, and you can see the medallion.

Yehudah Mirsky called my attention to this picture of R. Kook that is found in Mar’eh Kohen (Jerusalem, 2002), p. 52. The British medallion, awarded by King George V, is not completely showing.[23] I would assume, and Mirsky agrees,[24] that this was intentional.

2. In his post here, Eliezer Brodt mentioned the new book Ha-Gedolim (available here). My article in the volume is on the Steipler. As you can see from the table of contents posted by Brodt, they wanted to give each article a catchy title. One of the editors suggested Ha-Tamim for the title of my article, and I thought that this was a good suggestion. In traditional rabbinic literature תמים has the connotation of pure and unblemished, and this is how one can describe someone who has a simple, unquestioning faith. This, I thought, was a great description of the Steipler who was opposed to philosophical investigation of Judaism and even opposed polemicizing with the non-Orthodox for fear that this might expose readers to non-Orthodox ideas. (Chabad yeshiva students are also referred to as tamim.)

However, the word tamim can also have the connotation of “unsophisticated”. Even though this is clearly not what I had in mind, since at least a few people wondered about the word, I clarified it in a comment to Brodt’s post. I also asked if anywhere in rabbinic literature does the word tamim mean anything other than what I have written. From the responses I received, I have to say that the answer is no. While the word tam is used to mean “unsophisticated,” the word tamim only has a positive connotation. At least that is the opinion of everyone I have discussed the matter with. I also searched Otzar ha-Hokhmah where I found references to rabbis referred to as הגאון התמים. Otzar ha-Hokhmah also reminded me of how R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg described his deceased student, R. Saul Weingort[25]:

The Maharal writes[26]:

One of the Seforim Blog readers was helpful in sending a number of relevant texts, illustrating the original meaning of tamim. Among these texts is one from the 1980s by R. Shlomo Tzadok who actually laments how the word tamim, which is supposed to have a positive connotation, has been turned into a negative term.[27]

2. Seth Rogovoy published an article in the Forward titled “The Secret Jewish History of McDonald’s.” What precipitated the article was the recent appearance of the movie “The Founder” about Ray Croc of McDonald’s fame. Rogovoy focuses on Harry Sonneborn, the first President of McDonald’s, who came up with the idea of turning McDonald’s into a real estate empire, by owning the land under the restaurants and leasing it to the franchisees.

There is another “secret” Jewish history of McDonald’s, one which I think is of much greater interest. Ronald McDonald is the world’s most widely recognized commercial mascot, and he has “a recognition factor among children equaled only by Santa Claus.”[28] How many people know that it was a Jewish man, Oscar Goldstein, who was responsible for Ronald McDonald? The story is told in a number of places, most comprehensively in John F. Love’s McDonald’s: Behind the Arches from which I am taking the following description.

The most successful McDonald’s operation in the company’s history is that of Goldstein and his partner John Gibson. In 1956 they made a deal with Kroc for an exclusive franchise for the Washington, D.C. area. Gibson was behind the scenes focusing on financial and real estate matters, while Goldstein was running the actual restaurants which eventually reached 53. (Love says that there were 43 restaurants, but I was given other information.) As part of Goldstein’s advertising campaign, he sponsored a television show in the Washington market called Bozo’s Circus. The person who played Bozo was none other than Willard Scott, who would later find fame on the Today show.

When Bozo’s Circus went off the air, Goldstein decided that he needed another clown to appeal to the children. His ad agency came up with a clown which it proposed to call Archie McDonald. Willard Scott suggested the name Ronald McDonald, which was chosen, and Scott played the first Ronald McDonald. (Scott has often claimed that he invented Ronald McDonald, while in truth all he did – significant in and of itself – is to come up with the name.)

By the mid-1960s, the McDonald’s franchise in Washington was spending $500,000 a year on advertising – most of it on Ronald McDonald. It was more than any other local or national fast-food chain was spending on advertising, more than even McDonald’s Corporation itself. Goldstein also used Ronald McDonald to open each new store it built, and his personal appearances never failed to create traffic jams.

By 1965, Goldstein was convinced that he had discovered in Ronald McDonald the perfect national spokesman for the chain, and he offered the clown free of charge to Max Cooper, the publicist who by then had been hired as McDonald’s first director of marketing. Surprisingly, Cooper turned him down. “I told him the outfit was too corny and not up to our standards,” Cooper recalls. “Goldstein reminded me that his was the most successful market in the system.” After reflecting on that, Cooper decided not to argue, and he proposed a national Ronald McDonald to Harry Sonneborn.[29]

Here is a picture from Love’s book. Goldstein is second from the right. Harry Sonneborn is on the far right. Ray Kroc is standing in the middle.

I am certain that other than members of my family and old friends, all other readers are wondering why I have such an interest in McDonald’s. The answer is that Oscar Goldstein was my grandfather, my mother’s father. Jews are well known for being responsible for so much in American culture, but for some reason, Ronald McDonald as a Jewish creation has slipped through the cracks. Hopefully that will now change.

One final point: Why do I say that my grandfather owned 53 stores when Love puts the number at 43? Because that is what I heard from my grandmother, Gwendolyn Goldstein Freishtat, who passed away in January 2015 at the age of 99. When I questioned if she was sure it was 53, she insisted that there was no doubt. “I knew every one of those stores,” she said.

3. In my recent interview in the fascinating Der Veker, available here, I mention that I have a forthcoming article dealing with Modern Orthodoxy and modern biblical scholarship. Once the article appears I will have more to say about it on the blog. For now, let me just note that in the article I try to show how in some segments of liberal Modern Orthodoxy there has been a reinterpretation of the core theological principle of Torah mi-Sinai so as to align it with modern scholarship. I see this as a major theological development. There is no need to speak more about this now, as once the article appears readers can evaluate the evidence and see whether they think I am on to something.

One significant publication that appeared too late to be mentioned in the article is a new book by Jerome Yehuda Gellman, This Was From God: A Contemporary Theology of Torah and History. This book is precisely the sort of evidence I cite in the article to illustrate the changes that have taken place in recent years. Rather than summarize the book, let me just quote the first two paragraphs.

Increasingly, well-informed traditional Jews may find themselves distrustful of the reliability of Torah as history because of the conclusions of scholarly research from natural science, history, linguistics, Bible criticism and archaeology. And, they may not be swayed by attempts to restore their trust. If they do not have a fitting theology for their new predicament, they may well give up on Judaism altogether or else give up on their traditional Judaism. Or, they may simply repress their difficulty because they see no way of dealing with it that will allow them to retain their traditional religious loyalty. They will carry on as if they believed in the historical veracity of the Torah, when in fact they do not.

As one who has lived with this problem, I want to now propose that a person with prior emunah, belief and faith/loyalty in God and in the holiness of the Torah remain faithful to keeping God and the holiness of the Torah at the center of his or her life. What is needed is a theology that appreciates the force of the challenge to Torah as history and preserves one’s traditional religious loyalty. That is the task of the present book.

Gellman’s arguments are original and he even makes use of hasidic texts. Particularly interesting is his critique of the so-called Kuzari Argument that is sometimes used in support of the revelation at Sinai.

I mentioned Gellman’s book to someone and expressed the opinion that even if another ten theologians were to write similar books, I don’t see this as having any real impact on the ground – although it will be appealing for certain intellectuals – because at the end of the day traditional Judaism is a religion of halakhah and its leaders are talmudists and halakhic authorities. If a new theological approach does not have the imprimatur of even one outstanding religious authority – gadol for lack of a better term – I don’t see how it can gain traction in the community at large. In previous years I have made the same point about changes in women’s roles and so-called partnership minyanim. These phenomena are also having trouble making headway because they too are lacking the necessary imprimatur. Interestingly, years ago someone responded to me that my point was not valid because I was operating under an outdated “paradigm” in assuming that changes in religious life, and now we can say in theology as well, needed the imprimatur of a gadol. Yet I would like to see one example of a significant change in theology or religious life that reached wide acceptance without such an imprimatur.

4. Among other new books worth mentioning is R. Yonason Rosman’s Petihat ha-Iggerot available here. This book goes through R. Moshe Feinstein’s Iggerot Moshe and records discussions and criticisms of R. Feinstein’s points. It is like the Likutei Hearot on the Hatam Sofer’s responsa with one crucial difference: R. Rosman does not limit himself to citing traditional rabbinic works, but he also refers to English language halakhic writings and even academic works. The Seforim Blog is also mentioned a number of times.

Some New Seforim, Books, R’ Eleazar Fleckeles, R’ Naftali Herz Weisel, Frankism and (of course) Censorship*

By Eliezer Brodt

It’s been awhile since I posted a list of new seforim. I hope to post an updated list of a few hundred titles within the next few weeks. In this post I want to focus on a few new titles that, aside for being new, all have a connection to one topic. This is also an update to some earlier posts relating to this topic.

As a bochur about twenty years ago, I came across a small sefer called Olas Chodesh by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles during one of my daily shopping trips in seforim stores in Meah Shearim. Until then I had only been familiar with his Shu”t Teshuva m’Ahava. Besides the excellent price ($3), I also enjoy derush so I was happy with my purchase. Going through the sefer I was not let down, as it was especially interesting and even included some nice pieces from his rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah. A few years later, while in Monsey, I made a short, enjoyable visit to Tuvia’s Bookstore. There I came across another small sefer by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles, Meleches haKodesh. After going through this sefer, I was once again blown away with how never ending Torah is (this is a daily occurrence!) . A bit later I was in a special library in Lakewood where I came across yet another obscure sefer by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles called Ahavat David, devoted to attacking Frankism. I immediately photocopied the sefer and went through it, marking off some interesting pieces. (Here is a link to a complete version of the work from the Reich collection, and here is a link to it on Google Books.)

In 2007 I wrote a review of the Meleches haKodesh [here] called ‘god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God’. In that post I mentioned a letter found in the beginning of the Ahavat Dovid quoting a letter from R. Naftali Hertz Wesseley which says;

כי שמעתי מפי הגאון המקובל הגדול שהי’ ידוע הזוהר וכל ספרי האר”י ז”ל בעל פה הוא הרב ר’ יהונתן אייבשיטץ זצ”ל שהיה אומר לשומעי דבריו בעיני הקבלה כשראה שהם מפקפקים בהם ואמר אם לא תאמינו אין בכך כלום כי אין אלו מעיקרי אמונתנו, וכן היה אומר לאלו המביאים הקדמות מדברי קבלה לישב איזה גמרא או מדרש לא חפצתי בזאת ומה חדוש על פי קבלה תוכל ליישב מה שתרצה אמור לי הפשט הברור על ידי נגלה ואז אודך וכל זה אמת עי”ש עוד.

A bit after writing that post, I received an e-mail from Marc Shapiro asking me where I saw that letter, as the edition of Ahavat Dovid that he checked did not have it. I told him I had photocopied the whole sefer from an original. Some time after that, in February 2010, On The Main Line wrote about this censorship:

The book included a 1796 letter from Wessely, which Fleckeles offered… I will just note that I examined the pdf of Ahavas David twice, and I was unable to find the letter. I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t find it, so I asked several friends (literary men) if they knew what page it was on. Dr. Marc Shapiro replied that this edition — a Copy Corner reprint — is censored; it doesn’t include the letter! I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the censorship, ie, removal of the letter occurred long before the scanning of the book. That is to say, there’s no way at the moment to tell who removed it and when, but we can probably guess why. In any case, at the same time I asked Shapiro for clarification, Rabbi Brodt told me that his copy of Ahavas David includes the letter, and he sent it to me.

This censorship was later included and discussed by Marc Shapiro in an article[1] and then again in his work Changing the Immutable, (p.220). 

In 2007 I already noted some of the significance of this letter; i.e. it is notable that R’ Fleckeles quotes R’ Wesseley at all[2], as Wesseley was one of the early leaders of the haskalah movement, was close to Mendelssohn and was the author of the Biur on Vayikrah. R’ Fleckeles, like R’ Landau was firmly against the Biur.[3]

The significance of this letter in relationship to all this was already pointed out by Meir Hildesheimer, in a footnote in his excellent article “Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth Century Rabbinical Literature,” (Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (PAAJR) 55 (1988), p. 87 n. 23).

As an aside, all this is yet another example why scanned copies of seforim are not enough, as at times the scanner deletes pages on purpose (or even by accident). Examining originals are therefore important.

Both Meir Hildesheimer and On the Main Line[4] already noted that a copy of this letter was printed again in HaMelitz (#48, p. 750) in 1886.

In 1930, Dovid Zinz, in his extensive biography on R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz, Gadlut Yonasan, lists R’ Wesseley as a talmid of R’ Yonasan (p.280), and also reprints this letter without claiming it’s a forgery (pp.245-246).

In November 2011 I wrote a two part post on the incredible work Parshegen by Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen. In the second post, titled Using the works of Shadal and R. N. H. Wessely, I wrote:

A few years ago in the pages of the excellent journal Ha-maayan, a controversy took place (here) in relationship to how to cite various works of questionable people, in the course of the controversy it turned to quoting Mendelson and Wessely and their stories. Rabbi Posen mentioned that there was nothing wrong with Wessely which others argued. This controversy in regard to Wessely was not a new one[5], a few years back in the Kovetz Beis Aron VeYisroel there was a series of articles based on various manuscripts showing how the Gedolim at the time were very against Wessely. Towards the end of the Series of articles the author did a strange thing, he collected many citations of big name gedolim who did use Wessely’s work even after the controversy (here, here and here). Almost all of these gedolim were well aware of the controversy of Haskalah and came after the early gedolim obviously disagreeing with them. To me this was strange as he undermined his research – he showed that there was a big controversy with many big people on both sides so how in the world did he reach his conclusion that Wessely was bad according to everyone.

The controversy about Wessely did not end there as a few years later two works of Wessely were reprinted, his Sefer Hamidos (2002), and his Yeyn Halevonon (2003). In the introduction of both works there are lists of great people who used Wessely’s works. To be sure the kanoyim did not remain quiet about this, that same year (2003) in the introduction to the Tomer Devorah reprinted by the Mishor publishing house an introduction was printed about the evil works of Wessely that were reprinted. A few months ago the Kovetz Eitz Chaim (15, 2011, pp. 13-30) printed another manuscript on this controversy against Wessely including some letters of various gedolim of today against the evil Wessely.  In the recent work on R. Elyashiv Shlita, Hashakdon (2, pp. 136-137) they also mention how he was against the reprinting of the works of Wessely. The problem to me is how do they explain all the great Gedolim who did use his works? [In that post I included a list of Gedolim who used the works of Wessely, or quoted him in a positive light.[6] I then concluded with the following:]

“I would like to conclude with the following dream just as R. Shlomo Dubno was vindicated in the past few years by R’ Dovid Kamenetsky. It is my hope that Wessely will too be vindicated from all false charges against him and people will realize there is nothing wrong with his writings.”

Fast Forward to 2014

A few years ago I mentioned a sefer called Rabbenu written by R’ Eliyhua Starrit about R’ Ovadiah Yosef. This work is very valuable, as the author printed numerous conversations he had with R’ Ovadiah Yosef while learning with him and we get a rare, authentic glimpse into his study habits and private learning sessions. Among the numerous interesting pieces in this work we “hear” R’ Ovadiah’s opinion on different seforim and their authors. However, at times a juicy tidbit or name is censored out and we are left in the dark with just a tease of a conversation.

Here are two such pieces. The first refers to the reprinting of the Chemdas Yamim (hopefully I will return to that in the future). The second refers to the reprint of R. N. H. Wessely’s work by Yerid Haseforim a few years ago. As you can see, part is edited out.

We see that R’ Ovadiah Yosef was also against the reprinting of R’ Wessely’s works.

And 2016

In April this year, a complete edition of Ahavat Dovid was put up for auction by Legacy Judaica as was mentioned here, with a signature of it having been owned by R’ Binyomin Lowe, author of Sha’arei Torah.

A few months ago a few more volumes of R’ Wessely were printed, some for the first time from manuscript, by R’ Moshe Tzuriel. One volume includes three new seforim. 1) Sefer HaMidos which includes an additional one hundred and twenty five new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. 2) Sefer Migdol HaLevonon, about one hundred and fifty new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. This work focuses on Shemos Nirdafim (synonyms). 3) Chikur Hadin, a thirty page article on Sechar VeOnesh. The second volume is a reprint of Gan Na’ul (934 pp.) with notes and indexes. There is a whole section of this work printed here from manuscript for the first time, numbering about 250 pages!

Here are two samples of pieces from this beautiful work.

It is worth seeing this haskamah of the Noda Bi Yehuda to Gan Na’ul:

In the introduction to this new work, the editor notes (p. 6) that R’ Fleckeles quotes a letter from R’ Naftali Hertz Wesseley in his Ahavat David and mentions that it has been censored out of some versions, referring to his introduction of the Yeyin Levonon that he printed in 2003 (p. 26).

A few months ago R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ Ahavat Dovid was reprinted by Mechon Netzach Yakov together with his Olas Chodesh Hasheni (more on this further on). 

However when reprinting the Ahavat Dovid, they censored R’ Naftali Hertz Wesseley’s letter and removed it. They write (p.251) their reasoning for doing so as follows:

בראות רבינו זצ”ל גדול המכשלה שנגרם ע”י לימוד תורת הנסתר ואיך שנמשכו כמה אנשים פשוטים עם ללימוד זה, ומתוך כך נאחזו בסבך כת הפראנקיסטן וירדו להתום, ביקש רבינו לעשות כל פעולה ותחבולה לעוררם ולמונעם מלימוד זה לשם כך יצא מן הקו, ובבחינת עת לעשות ל’ וגו’ העתיק בתחילת הספר מכתב מהמשכיל הנודע לשמצה נ”ה ויצל, מה שכתב בשנת תקנב לאחד מתובי העיר פראג, הגדת עדות מה ששמע בנעוריו מפי אחד מגדולי ישראל המפורסמים מדור הקודש, ליזהר מלימוד בספרי קבלה, ולעסוק אך ורק בנגלות התורה. במשך השנים נשמט מכתב זה מדפוסי ספר ‘אהבת דוד’ וכן ראינו לנכון שלא להעתיקו, כי לפי הנראה לא היתה אלא בתורת הוראת שעה, לעורר ההמון והמתחדשים בעם לבל יומשכו אחר כת הארורה הזאת. וראה עוד בענין זה בקובץ בית אהרן וישראל…”.

Aside from deleting the letter and claiming that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles did not really agree with its contents, they also complete misquote it.

Emes LeYakov

A few weeks ago a work called Emes LeYakov (696 pp.) from R’ Yakov Emden[7] was released by R’ Goldstein of Monroe.[8] It includes all of R’ Emden’s notes and novella on the Zohar[9] from a manuscript in Oxford (R’ Goldstein has shown a while ago that Bick’s edition (printed by Mossad HaRav Kook) of R’ Emden’s notes on the Zohar is worthless).[10] The volume begins with a 140 page introduction of the significance of these notes on the Zohar and the general history of the Zohar and various works and editions.[11]

 בספר אהבת דוד… הביא מכתב מאחד ממשוררי הזמן (שלימים נודע שהוא מראשוני וראשי המשכילים, ואף רבו של רבי אלעזר ה”ה בעל נודע ביהודה זצ”ל, לחם נגדו ונגד דעותיו, והדברים ידועים ואכמ”ל), שכתב שם חי נפשי, כי שמעתי בנעורי מפי הגאון המקובל… הרב מוהר”ר יונתן… כי אין אלו מעיקירי אמונתנו ע”ש ובלי ספק מי שאינו מאמין לו, כי יצאו הדברים האלו מפי הגאון רבי יונתן בוודאי אין בכך כלום, אמנם ראינו חובה להעיר על אלו הדברים מדברי רבנו כאן כי המכחיש קבלת חכמת האמת הוא מין ואפיקורוס גמור’ ודי בזה”.

Basically he claims it’s false and what follows is that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles was mistaken to print this letter.

Shu”t Zecher Yehosef

Another recent work that has a connection to this post is the new two volumes of Shu”t Zecher Yehosef on Yoreh Deah by R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern. Many years ago Mechon Yerushalayim announced that they would be printing R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern’s works still in manuscript. In 1994, they printed the shut on Even Haezer. In 2014 they reprinted his shu”t on Orach Chaim, which had been impossible to find, while also adding in some new material. This summer they released two completely new volumes on Yoreh Deah from manuscript (380+413 pp.) (of course it’s amazing). R’ Yosef Zechariah is the subject of a future post; for now it’s worth mentioning Siman 173, his teshuvah connected to this topic.[12] It’s a slightly different version that the one that appears in the Sdei Chemed:

The editor writes in a footnote: 

ראה קובץ בית אהרן וישראל… ועי’ במבוא לספר יין לבנון מהדורת תשס”ג שהביאו הרבה גדולי עולם שדעתם כדעת רבינו, ויש לפקפק על הערעורים כנגד. אבל אינו ברור מה ידעו עליו בדור שאחר הפולמוס, ועי’ קובץ עץ חיים גליון טו…

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean? That later on we found out he is evil?

Olos Chodesh Sheini

We now return to the new edition of R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ work. This is the third volume of R’ Eleazar Fleckeles works printed by a Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov. When writing about the last volume they printed, I remarked: “I really hope they continue to print the rest of R’ Fleckeles’ works”. B”H, they are doing good job continuing with reissuing his works. This beautifully produced edition includes an introduction about R’ Fleckeles, sources to his words, at times quoting R’ Fleckeles references from his other works, and a detailed index of topics and seforim quoted by R’ Fleckeles at the end of the volume. 

The first part of the sefer is R’ Eleazar Fleckeles Olos Chodesh Sheini.

I would just like to quote a few passages from this beautiful work.

The first point to note about this sefer is the beautiful Haskamah that the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:

Elsewhere in the sefer he writes about himself: 

כך אני אומר, אני אחד מסוחרי הקטנים אין לי כל בבית כי את אשר ראיתי במראה יחזקא”ל, מראה נאוה קודש, פנים מאירות להלכה ופנים שוחקות לאגדה, מעט הון תמורת העבודה אשר יגעתי מנעורי ושמשתי מילדותי עד היום הזה, את רבינו גדול הדור רבן של ישראל [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קעב]. 

The sefer is full of references to material from the Noda Bi-Yehudah, both oral and written.

What apparently was relevant in our day was in his day too:

כאשר בעונינו עד היום, אם המוכיח הוא בעל מעשה, אזן וחקר ותקן משלים, הכל רצין אחריו והכסילים יצאו מבוהלים, אך שהוא למשל ולשנינה, ודבריו לא היה ולא נבראו אלא למשל, ואין מחשבתו כלל לשם שמים, כי מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך המעשה, שמאריך מאד מאד, וחוד חידה, וממשל משל, במעשה הבל, ומעה תעועים, ואינו חפץ כלל להדריכם  בדרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם, להמשל משל אל בית מרי, כי אם תחלת המחשבה על סוף המעשה, לסרס הלכה למעשה, להיות חביב בעיני הבריות, שממשל משלים הוא, משלי שועלים ושעלים הלכו בו, ואמרים קדוש וברוך ומבורך בפי כל משבחים ומפארים מהמעשים אשר לא יעשו ושמו אותו לאדון על כל המעשים. ואיש האלקים אשר מעיו מוכיחין, תוכחות מוסר הכל, גדולים מעי ה’, צדק משפט ומישרים דברים אינם נמעים, וחכמתו בזויה, אפילו אם יושב ודורש כמשה מפי הגבורה [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ לו].

In another derasha he writes:

ולא כן השורים המשוררים. אין כוונתם לשיר ה’ כי אם לשיר חדש. ואינם מדקדקים אם יושר שיר הזה בארץ יהודים. או אם יהיה לצור מכשול כשירת הזונה…. כי אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה ולא אימת רבן… הנה בכל השנה החזנות חזיונות ושעיפי לילה חזון שוא ותפל. מכל שכן בראש השנה ויום הכיפור השתא הלל לא אמרינן. משום שמלך יושב על כסא הדין וספרי חיים וספרי מתים פתוחים כדאמרו ז”ל… וז”ל הרמב”ם בפירוש המשניות שלא היו קורין הלל לא בראש השנה ולא ביום כיפור. לפי שהם ימי עבודה והכנעה ופחד ומורא… ואיך נשיר את שיר הכסילים. כשמסתכל אדם יום המיתה… ואיך להעלות על הדעת שתפלות הללו יעשה רושם למעלה ויעלו חן ויהיו לרצון על מזבח ה’ [עמ’ קיג].

Of course there are numerous parallels[13] to this in other sources; to cite just one, R’ Shabesai Sofer writes in his Siddur:

ויותר מזה צריכים להזהר החזנים בתפלותיהם, הממונים להוציא רבים ידי חובותיהם  … כי על הרוב אינם מקפידים רק על קול נעים… ולא זו בלבד אלא שהם מנגים נגוני נכרים… [הקדמה פרטית סי’ כז].

In another derasha he writes:

לא בשליחי ציבור בלבד רעה זה חולה ראיתי, אלא אף בהתמניות הרבנים יושבי על מדין, מתוועדים בעלי בתים יחד יושבי קרנות, אשר לא יצאו מבית הספר מעולם, ואין להם ידיעות בית רב, ומעידין באיש פלוני שהוא איש האלקים גבר בגוברין, וכדי הוא לסתכל במראה קשת גבורים ללמד בני יהודה קשת, ולאחוז פני כסא הוראה כבוד חכמים מחוכמים, ומקבלים אותו לרב ומורה גדול בזזרוע נטויה וביד חזקה, בלי ידיעות תופשי התורה אשר להם משפט הבחירה, ולא כאשר נהגו אבותינו הקדושים ז”ל שבחורי ישראל הכריעו [עמ’ קטז].

Another derasha, dated during Aseret Yemi Teshuvah 1784, is devoted in part to attacking Mendelsohn’s Biur.[14] In addition, he quotes a piece from the Noda Bi-Yehudah related to this.

Interestingly enough the great bibliographer Ben Yaakov when writing about this work notes:

דרושים שונים נחלק למאמרים ובו דברי ריבות על העתקת התורה להרמבמ”ן [אוצר הספרים, עמ’ 432].

While an examination of all the statements of the Noda Bi-Yehudah about this need to be properly analyzed, it’s worth pointing out to a censorship on this subject. 

In the beginning of his new book, Maoz Kahana[15] writes as follows:

ראשון הביוגרפים של ר’ יחזקאל לנדא היה בנו יעקב. הקונטרס “דברי ידידות”, ששלח לאחיו שמואל לקראת הדפסת ספר נודע ביהודה תנינא בשנת 1810, שבע עשרה שנים אחר פטירת האב, מהווה עד היום אוסף ידיעות ומסורות ראשון ורב ערך. חלק מסוים של דברי ידידות נערך ונדפס בראש הספר הנזכר, וחלקים אחרים שלו נדחו וצונזרו, אותם אפשר להעלות מכתב היד הארוך המקורי של יעקב, מלווה בהערות העריכה של שמואל שנשמר בספריית קרלין סטולין בירושלים. [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ’ 23].

Further on in his book he writes:

בשנת 1813 הדפיס ייטליס בהערה צדדית בספרו ‘מבוא הלשון ארמית’ דיון אוהד מאוד של הנודע ביהודה בתרגום המנדלנסוני ובהכרעותיו הפרשניות. את הדיון הזה לקח ייטליס ממכתב יעקבקא לנדא שהיה בידי אחיו שמואל בפראג. המכתב המדובר הוא ‘דברי ידידות’…  שכתב ר’ יעקבקא בברודי בשנת 1810, ובו תיעד ביקורו אצל אביו בפראג בשנת תקמ (1780). תארוך העדות האוהדת לשנה זו, סמוך להדפסת ‘עלים לתרופה’ של ה’ביאור’ (1778), אך לפני פרשת וויזל (1782) מאיר יפה את יחסו החיובי של הנוב”י למנדלסון ב’תקופת הביניים’ הקצרה הזו, בין 1778 לבין 1782. כתב היד המדובר נדד לבסוף אל גנזי חסידות קרלין סטולין, ומשם צולם לבית הספרים הלאומי בירושלים בשנות התשעים. אך אותה הסיבה שגרמה למשכיל יהודה ייטליס בשנת 1813 לצטט דווקא את הפסקה הזו מתוך כתב היד הארוך, גרמה למי מהעוסקים במלאכת הצילום כעבור כמאה ושמונים שנים לצנזר בעזרת דף נייר חלק את… אותה הפסקה ממש. ראה י’ ייטליס, מבוא הלשון ארמית, פראג תקע”ג, הקדמה והשווה לכתב יד קרלין-סטולין ירושלים (F49262) מספר 435… הפיסקה לא נכללה גם בדברי ידידות הנדפס… [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ’ 190-191 הערה 80].

It’s worth mentioning this passage from R’ Ber Oppenheimer describing his reaction to reading the דברי ידידות about the Noda Bi-yehuda, whom he knew:

When examining the manuscript in Hebrew University the first page states:

קונטרס בן ל”ב עמודים שכתב הגאון ר’ יעקבקא סגל לנדא לאחיו הגאון ר’ שמואל סגל לנדא לפני הדפסתו ספר נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא והגאון מהר”ש הוציא מכאן את דברי ידידות… יש כאן כמה וכמה דברים שנשמטו בדפוס וכמובן שבכוונה מכוונת השמיטם הגר”ש ביניהם הוא ענין הביאור של רמ”ד.

This following passage is already quoted by Sandler in 1941,[16] and Moshe Samet in 1970.[17] In 1911 this letter was mentioned in the Encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel (p. 62), where the author writes:

 כי כל דברי האגרת הזאת הם מזויפים, כי סגנון הלשון ושבחו של מנדלסון יעידון כי יצא מפי משכיל ולא מפי רב בימים האלה.

It’s silly to say that it was a forgery, as the work has a haskamah from both R’ Shmuel Landau and R’ Eleazar Fleckeles and was printed in their lifetime in their city and there is not a single trace of any protest or opposition on their part.

Now this is even more interesting; R’ Fleckeles, in his work Meleches haKodesh (first printed in 1812), uses Mendelssohn’s Biur for halachic purposes.[18] He also quotes R. Shlomo Dubno in his Tikun Sofrim many times.[19] Most printings of this work are in various editions of Mendelssohn’s Biur. It’s unlikely that he was quoting it from the rare standalone version when it was printed itself without the Biur, if we already know that he used the Biur.[20]

In a work that was printed in 1793, a Hesped on the Noda Bi-Yehudah, we find on the cover it has a picture of Mendelssohn and the Noda Bi-Yehudah embracing. It’s already mentioned here by On the Main Line and more recently by Maoz Kahana (ibid, pp. 192-193).

The truth is, a proper analysis of the primary sources (such as the derasha quoted above) shows that the Noda Bi-Yehudah‘s and R’ Fleckeles’ main issue with Mendelssohn’s Biur was not on the Biur portion[21]; it was on the German translation written by Mendelssohn.

Here are two rare sources[22] which are very important for understanding this subject. The first is an Haskamah signed by both Noda Bi-Yehudah and R’ Fleckeles to a Chumash printed in 1785; as one can see on the Sha’ar there is a direct influence of Mendelssohn on this work. However in the Haskamah they explain why they are giving one – it could compete with Mendelssohn’s edition, as it also translates for the convenience of the reader, but without Mendelssohn’s literary German to which they are opposed.

The second source is a haskamah written by R’ Fleckeles to a Chumash printed Prague in 1824 with a German Translation! Here too, R’ Fleckeles outlines why he is giving it a Haskamah. 

This Haskamah is printed at the end of Silber and Kahana’s above quoted article. They print the Haskamah as it appears in Bereshis, this is the one for the Shemos volume. In the National Library and Mifal Bibliography they only record the volume on Vayikra. But more importantly, they do not note R’ Fleckeles’ Haskamah. This is an uncatalogued haskamah of R’ Fleckeles which helps understand his take on Mendelsohn.[23]

Coffee

Returning to the Olas Chodesh, like other volumes of Derush, this one is rich in giving one a sense of the people and their sins. R’ Y. Greenwald already writes:

פה ושם הזכירו גם בדרשותיהם שדרשו והוכיחו את בני עדתם ולא עצרו מלהגיד את פשעם אשר ראו בהם… הרבה יש ללמוד מהדרשות שדרשו גדולי הדור ממעמד המוסרי של ישראל בימיהם בהדרשות של הגאון רבנו יונתן אייבשיטץ ב’יערות דבש’… וכן תמצא כדברים הללו בספר דורש לציון להג”ר יחזקאל לאנדא… [לפני שתי מאות שנה, עמ’ 26].

Just to list two samples both of which are related to coffee:[24]

בעינינו ראינו ובאזנינו שמענו כמה פעמים שאומרים לגוי להסיק את התנור וכיריים בשבת אפילו אם אין קור כל, כי אם כדי להחם הקאפע [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קסד]. 

יש כמה אנשים בני בלי שם שאינם עוסקים לא באומנות בורסקי… כי אם יושבים אגודות אגודות מאור הבוקר עד צאת הכוכבים בפונדקאות של גויים, בקאפע הייזר וביר הייזר… ודוברים עתק בגאוה ובוז על מנהיגי עיר ולומדיה, על רבנן ותלמידיהון… [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קט].

 In another passage he describes Yom Kippur at night:

הרי אפילו בשעה הראוי לכל משכיל לעמוד באימה וביראה בזיע ורחת מפני פחד ה’ ומהדר גאונו, כל אחד מתנשא לומר אני אמלוך ואני אלך בראש אני תהלה, וגברה הקנאה והשנאה הנקימה והטירה וגסות הרוח יתירה, עד שכבתה אש הראשונה שניה ממהרת לבא, כל אחד רודף אחר הכבוד, לכבדו בשיר הכבוד שיר היחוד,[25] להיות מבעלי השיר היוצאים בשיר, ואם אין הגבאי מכבד לאומר שיר היחוד, מחרחר ריב ומדון בשאט נפש וזדון, ומלקין על היחוד, כל אחד נכבד בעיניו ומעשיו גדולים משל חבירו, זה בתורה הנקראית קנין, וזה בחלום ברוב ענין, זה ברוב בנין, וזה ברוב מנין, וכמה קטטת ומריבות רבות מסתעפות עד שנהפוך השיר היחוד לשיר של פגעים, כשיר כסילים פגיעתן רעים, וכה מחלוקות שלא לשם שמים שמענו בליל כל נדרי [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קמט].

Ahavat David

Turning to the Ahavat David; as mentioned, this work was also just reprinted. In 1799, R’ Eleazar Fleckeles gave a series of three derashos devoted to blasting Sabbateanism and Frankism. In 1800, he printed one of them. He learned much from his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, regarding battling them;[26] in his introduction he writes:

גאון הגאונים בעל שו”ת נודע ביהודה… גם הוא ספר לי מעשים רבים משפטים התועבים מכת ש”צ הרשעה פגיעתן רעה… [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנז]. 

רבנו גדול העולם. נודע ביהודה, איך היה מוסר נפשו על קדושת השם יתברך לבער הרשעים אשר בחייהם מטמאין טומאת רקב… זכרו נא לימים מה עשה… רבינו… בליל הושענא רבה תקי”ט… כאשר החל השרץ הטמא… והחרים בארור חרם נוי שמתא בתקיעת שופר ובכבוי נרות את יעקב רמאה… וברוב הדרשות אשר דרש במקהלות הזכיר מכת הרשעה הארורה הזאת [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שיז].

The Noda Bi-Yehudah writes:

וצריך אני להראות כי שכלם כוזב.. ותשמע הארץ אם כת הכופרים שבתי צבי שכל דבריהם כפירות ומינות מלא דברי שטות, להפוך דברי אלקים חיים, ולהפוך עבירות למצות עפרא לפומייה… נגד אלו השוטים בעלי ש”ץ ימח שמם נגד טענותיהם המזויפות… [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק”ל[27], עמ’ 357].וכת הארורה והגרועה מאוד שבתי צבי [שם, עמ’ 362].

Frankism, in the Derashos Beis Peretz

One more passage related to Frankism, from the Derashot Beis Peretz, a contemporary of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, just printed[28] from manuscript states as follows:

זה רמז גדול אשר קרה לנו באחרית הימים בשנת תקי”ט לפ”ק על ידי המינים האפקורסים ש”ץ ימח זכרם, שהיו עומדין עלינו לכלותינו בפני האומות, שהי’ להם וויכוח גדול בק”ק לבוב עם כל הרבנים של מדינות פולין, יותר מן מאתים של אפקורסים ש”ץ ונעו כולם משומדים עם נשיהם ובניהם, והי’ להם וויכוח בשאלות ותשובות לפני שרים רבים ונכבדים מאומות העולם, ולפני כומרים ובישופים הרבה, והי’ להם ראש אחד ביניהם והי’ ספרדי מכשף גדול בשמות הטומאה… שרצו לבטל תורה שבעל פה, וכבר נשרף על ידם מן האומות הכומרים כל הש”ס ורמב”ם וטורים באמצע בעיר בפני כל עם ועדה, וגזרו שמד בכל הקהלות ישרפו תורה… ומפורסם בכל מידנות פולין שהי’ אז נס גדול ומפורסם, שהכומר השר הגדול שצוה לשרוף הספרים הנ”ל הי’ לו מפלה גדולה תיכף מיד אחר מעשה זאת, ומת מיתה משונה, והי’ מכין אותו ביסורין קשים מן השמים, והי’ צועק קודם מותו שהספרים הנ”ל הם שורפין אותו. ואח”כ כל רשעים הנ”ל נשתמדו, ויצאו מכלל ישראל וכתבתי זאת שיהי’ זכרון בספר כמו מחיית עמלק, למען תספר באזני בנך ובן בנך את הנס שנעשה השי”ת בעתים הללו [בית פרץ, עמ’ תו-תז].

Broadside

R’ Fleckeles writes;

גם פה עיר הגדולה לאלקים, נדפס התפ”ו קול כרוז מגדולי הדור ופרנסי העדה, ונדפס פעם שנית שנה זו ממני ומאחי הרבנים המובהקים המאורות הגדולים בית דין מורה שוה [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רפט].

Here is a facsimile of this actual broadside[29]:

In the beginning of the Drasha, R’ Fleckeles quotes from Frankist literature:

כל השומע ורואה יכול לקרות, את דברי האגרות, יצחק וישחק… בלעגי שפה… כלו מגומגום לא עברי ולא תרגום, לא ספרד ולא צרפת לא אשכנז וריפת ולא מפני יפת לשונם אשר הגו בגרונם, כאחד המונם, במלות מזויפות וטרופות כדבר אחר המבשלות והאופות… ואראה דוגמא ראשית האגרת,… וכן יתר דברי האגרת מהומה ומגערת, מאיימים ומפחידים… [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנח].

What letter he is referring to? Paweł Maciejko writes that he is referring to the Red Letters.[30] This document was written around 1800. It was printed in Hebrew and English from manuscript by Ben Zion Wacholder, ‘Jacob Frank and the Frankists Hebrew Zoharic Letters’, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 53 (1982), pp. 265-293.[31] Examining this document we see that this is the letter that R’ Fleckeles was quoting as the exact passages appear there. The reason they were called Red documents, writes Maciejko, is “because of the color of the ink that they were written and the symbolic association between the biblical kingdom of Edom and the Hebrew word adom, red”.[32] In one place in the Derasha R’ Fleckeles even writes:

 וכל מה שכותבים הוא בצבע אדום [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שה].[33]

What was the result of this Derasha? Paweł Maciejko writes: 

Shortly after the sermons were delivered, riots erupted in the city, and although Fleckeles did not mention any names, the mob apparently knew very well whom to assault. During the Funeral of a known Sabbatian, a crowd attacked the procession and the body was profaned. It seems that woman were especially targeted: there was turbulence in the female section of one of the Prague synagogues and many of the wives and daughters of known Sabbatians were insulted or attacked on the city’s streets.[34]

When discussing this group he writes:

גם אלה אשר הנשים יושבות ועוסקות אף עמהם, כי שב”י כלהו איתנהו בהו הכל ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים הכל סר יחדו נאלחו בדברי שוא [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רפג]. 

יעקב איש רע מעללים… טף ונשים באים לשמוע קבלת יעקב רמאה, ועוסקים יחדיו במעשה מרכבה טמאה למען ספות הרוחה את הצמאה [שם, עמ’ שכ].[35]

Oral Derasha Versus a Printed One

In this Derasha we find several times that R’ Fleckeles was very graphic while describing the Frankists’s depravities (pp. 257,290, 323-324). I would like to suggest the following: In general, there is a known issue when learning derush seforim; are printed Derashos exact translated versions of the oral original, or were they edited for print? For the most part, I would say this was an actual version of what he said in the oral Derasha he gave. However, orally he was not as explicit, thus the reason why he rushed to print this Drasha almost immediately after he gave it was that it’s easier to write certain things and he wanted to immediately expose how awful they were.[36]

In a similar context (in relation to the word graphic), in 1936 R’ Avrohom DovBer Kahana Shapiro, author of the classic work Dvar Avrohom, gave an incredible Derasha[37] in Yiddish to thousands of woman on the subject of Taharas Hamishpacha. It was then printed in Yiddish with some notes in Hebrew and in 1940 was printed in Hebrew with more notes. A few years ago it was reprinted. In the introduction the editor writes:

כאמור החוברת הזאת היא הרשמה סטינוגרפית, המוסרת בעינם את הדברים הנפלאים כפי שיצאו מפי הנואם הגדול, רק מפני שבמקומות אחדים שבשעת הרצאתו קיצר הרב שליט”א כבר יותר מדי מפני טעמי צניעות מובנים בנוכחותן של אלפי נשים, בקשנוהו למלאות כפי האפשר בהמסר החוברת לדפוס… 

מטעמי צניעות מובנים ומחמת נוכחותו של קהל הנשים הגדול קיצר הרב שליט”א בדבריו שהיו מרומזים מדי. אמנם באשר לכתיבה, המתאפשרת להימסר בהרחבה, נענה לבקשתנו לפרט ולהרחיב…

In the beginning of the Drasha he said:

נושא הרצאתי מעלה בזכרוני את המשנה על הדברים שנקראים ולא מתרגמים נקראים במקורם ולא מתרגמים בשפה המדוברת. בעקב זה נאלץ אני באי אלו מקומות להיות מוגבל בלשוני, לקצר בדברי, לחפש ולברור מלים נאותות ביותר ולהמנע מכמה ביטוים השייכים ישר לענין בכדי לא לפגוע ברגשות ידועים… אמנם כמאור אאלץ באי אלו מקומות לקצר בתכלית ולהסתפק ברמיזה [7-8].

Related to this he writes in the introduction:

החוברת הזאת שלדה ועיקרה הוא הנאום שנשאתי לפני בית יעקב בשפה המדוברת אולם בצאתה פעמיים בדפוס נוספו כמה דברים ובעיקר הערות בפ”ע מתחת לקו עד כי נסבה ורחבה ותשלח בדים וענפים מעל לגבולות נאום עד כי מדת ספר קטן. לזאת יש ממכרי שיעצוני לשנות קצת את סדרה ופניה, פני נאום, לעבדה ולהקציעה ולתת לה פני ספר לאוהבי ומוקירי אלא אענית הבדל עיקרי יש בין ספר לנואם הספר מושגו לשימות איכותית בענין שהוא דן עליו היקף ועיבוד, והנואם הוא בחינת קטע או קטעים מענין הנידון בחינת מקופיא. ובהיות שלא עיבדתי את הדברים עיבוד גמור ובהיות שרובם אינם ממקצועי, לא הייתי חושב להרימם למעלת ספר במובן האמור, לחשבו לדבר שלם ומקיף…

Sefer HaBris

One bibliographical point related to the Drasha can be found where R’ Fleckeles writes:

מצות בטלות לעתיד לבוא[38]… ובעל הברית אשר נאמן בבריתו[39] וקים מאמרי רז”ל נעלם ממנו דברי הרשב”א [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שב]

The new edition does not reference to what he is referring to, but it’s to a passage in R’ Pinchas Hurwitz’s Sefer HaBris, a work which he quotes two more times further on[40] (also not noted in the sources). Here is the passage:

What is more interesting is that he quotes R’ Pinchas Hurowitz’s Sefer Habris three times in a drasha which was delivered in 1799, less than two years after the Sefer Habris was first printed (1797); this shows us that he went through parts of the work right away.[41] This is yet an additional source demonstrating the great popularity Sefer Habris enjoyed even right after it was printed. 

Learning Kabbalah

The cause for this evil movement, writes R’ Fleckeles, was because:

ושורש כל הקלקול הוא בעבור שאינם עוסקים בגמרא ושלחן ערוך רק במדרשי האגדות ובמאמרי זוהר, לחזק בנינים של שוא ותהו [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שו].

In this Derasha he writes out very clearly that one should not learn Kabbalah if one did not yet master other areas of Torah first.

וזה העיקר שיעשה האדם וחי לעולם אם הוא שונה הלכות כדתנא דבי אליהו והובא מגילה… כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא, ופירש”י, משנה ברייתא… לא מצינו לא בבבלי, לא בירושלמי, ולא בתנא דבי אליהו, ולא בספרי וספרא ומכילתא, ומדרש רבות, שאליהו בא לבשר כל העוסק בסודי תורה בכל יום הוא בן עולם הבא [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רצב] 

אחי ורעי הנאמנים בבריתי, שמעו ותחי נפשכם, די לנו ולבנינו בתוך הגולה, אם אנו עוסקים לילות כימים, בתלמוד בבלי עם הרי”ף והרמב”ם ותוספות והרא”ש והטור והשלחן ערוך, עם האחרונים הוא תלמוד הקדוש, והעוסקים בו קדושים. וקבלה בידינו מאת גאונים הקדמונים הקדושים אשר בארץ המה, אם משיח ה’ אשר יתגלה כבודו ימינו בקרב, לא יהיה בקי בכל הש”ס עם כל הראשונים והאחרונים, אף שיהיה שלם בכל החכמות הרמות ונשגבות, ברור כשמש שאין זה משיח ה’, אלא מלבד כל המעלות ומדות שמנו חכמים ונביאים, צריך להיות גם כן גדול שבגדולים בגמרא ובפוסקים, וכלל גדול הזה הוא בכל דברי הנביאים והחכמים, והמשכיל יבין [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שח].

This is why the content of the letter from R’ Wesseley quoting R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz was very important for him to quote at the outset; this is one of the main themes of the work.

Elsewhere in the drasha he writes:

ידעתי שיביאו ראיות, מספרים אשר לא נשנו בי רבי חייא ורבי אועיה, ואף הרי”ף והרמב”ם ורש”י ותוס’ ור”ן והרא”ש לא ידעו מהם, ולאו בעיזקתא דשלמה מלכא, ואף לאו מר בריה רבנא חתים עלייהו, ובפרט כאשר שמענו כן ראינו, הקלקול יותר על השבח המגיע לכתבים, הרבה עסקו בספרים האלה ומצאו מקומות לטעות, ואמרו דיין האמת על שמועות רעות, וקצצו בנטיעות, והמירו טוב ברע, ושמו חשך לאור. אבל מלימוד גמרא ופוסקים, לא יצאה מעולם שום תקלה, ולא מקום לטעות, רק דרכיה דרכי נועם… [אהבת דוד עמ’ רצד].

 A parallel to this might be what the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:

אם במה שמקובל בידינו אמרו כלל גדול, כל ברייתא דלא מתניי’ בי’ ר’ חייא ור’ אושעיא לא מתבינן מינה, הרי שחששו שלא נמלטו מן הטעות והשיבוש… וכן בכתבי האר”י לאו האר”י חתים וגם לא תלמידו מהרח”ו רק בחליו של הרח”ו גנבו הכתובים ממנו ונעתקו בלילה א’ כמה מאות ניירות ע”י כמה סופרים הלא קרוב הדבר שנפלו בהם שגיאות רבות ועצומות [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק”ל, עמ’ 355].

This topic was very important to him. In the introduction to his shu”t he writes:



About Kabbalistic Kavanos

Related to all this he writes:

ואחרי אשר דיבר בתקיעה של מצוה, אמר תסתירני מסו”ד מרעים, מאנשים המתנשאים בסוד שיח שרפי קודש, ועושין כוונות שוא בתקיעות, וקוצצים בנטיעות, כאשר הארכתי ובארתי קדש זה עשרים שנה, והוא בחיבור עולת ציבור ונכון להביא הדברים פה שניות, והוא כתפוחי זהב במשכיות, אמנם אמרי אחר שהוצאת הדפוס רבה היא, תמכתי עליך אתה ידידי ורעי הקורא, שתשא עיניך שמה, ומצאת את אהבה נפשך [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רעא].[42]

In the Derasha, he referred to what he wrote some twenty years earlier in Olas Chodesh Hashenei, at great length:

אני הגבר ראה ראיתי רבים מתיהדים בסודי סודות הנטועות בתקיעות, בכונות שונות ולשער הפנימית פונות, ונבעו מצפונות. אמנם עקרת הכוונה הנכונה התיכונה, לעשות המצוה כתיקונה על מכונה, שצריך לכוון עליה התוקע והשומע, זו היא לקיים מצות המלך הקדוש, אשר קדשנו במצותיו הקדושות, וצונו זה היום קדוש, תקעו לפני בשופר כי קדוש היום לאדונינו, ושארי כוונות הידועות בסוד התקיעות כולם כלולות בכונה זו, ומינה לא תזוע [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ פב].

Then he continues:

He repeats this again elsewhere in his writings:

אין רצונו לומר כוונות הספירות אלא הכונה נאמנה שלא כתב לשם קדושת השם, אלא כשאר דברים בעלמא והוא פשט פשוט בדעת כל הפוסקים ועם נעמים לא אבוא, ומעולם לא עלה על דעת קדושים הראשונים חכמים וסופרים, לחשוב מחשבות ספירות, כי בימיהם לא ידעו מאומה, מספירות בלי מה, ולדעתי העניה בלב ים הקבלה, קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבך להטעות, ומה לי ולך אצל דברים הן כבשונו של עולם, ובהדי כבשי רחמנא למה לך מה דמפקדת על פי הגמרא והרי”ף והרמב”ם והרא”ש איבעי לך למיעבד… [מלאכת הקודש, עמ’ קלג].

He concludes this Drasha by bringing the famous Teshuvah of the Maharshal about Kabbalah and some other famous sources and finally two Teshuvos of his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, one of them the famous Teshuvah related to saying Leshem Yichud.  

In my previous post I wrote a bit about Leshem Yichud and I quoted a passage from Sharon Flatto who writes in her ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague’: 

I recently received a copy of those margins from the owner of this rare Haggadah.

From the Ari Bergmann Collection (Lawrence, NY) 

I am not sure what R’ Fleckeles held in his younger years but it appears from his later writings that he “held” strongly of this Responsa of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, as he quotes it often – in this Drasha and in his Meleches haKodesh (p. 132). 

Baruch Linda

 At the end of the work R’ Fleckeles writes: 

יעקב הסרחן ועיין ראשית למודים שער ששי מבע”ח הנושכים כו’ סדר הששי סימן כה [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שכט].

 The editors of the new edition do not elaborate which work and passage, are being quoted.

 Here is the sha’ar of the work and the relevant section being referenced.

One source about the author, Baruch Linda, is R’ Matisyahu Strashun, who writes:

וכתב על החכם ברוך לינדא תואר ירא ה’ אשר אמנם כפי הנודע בברלין עיר מגורתו עד יום מותו, חלף חוק ודת ישראל (אף כי לא המיר), שכח מועד ושבת, ובימי זקנותו לא יכול אף קרוא עברית כמעט [מבחר כתבים, עמ’ רמ].[43]

Calculating when Moshiach is coming[44]

Worth mention is one final issue that R’ Fleckeles writes a lot against, namely attempting to calculate when Moshiach will come. In the beginning of the derasha he writes that this is one of the purposes of why he wrote it: 

לכן כתבתי דרשות האל לחק ולזכרון בקהל עדת ישורון, למען ידעו עד דור אחרון, ואל ישעו אתכם דברי הרמזים, אף שהם מחורזים בדברי הנביאים והחוזים, ואל תאמינו באומר רזי לי רזי לי ואני חכם הרזים, כי סתומים וחתומים הדברים עד עת קץ הפלאות, אז המשכילים יבינו כל היעודים וכל הנביאות, ועיין רבינו סעדיה גאון ור”י ורבינו אברהם ן’ עזרא סוף דניאל ואחרי ששוטים האלו מביאים ראיות מן הזוהר, ומחשבים קץ הפלאות בנוטריקון וגימטריאות, אף אני אביא ראיות מן הזוהר, כי תועים ומתעתעים ומוגעים, בכל חשבונות ודמיונות וחזיונות, חלומות המדומות [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנט-רס].

Later on he writes about it at length here is the fascinating section.

R’ Elazar Fleckeles and R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz

One final point, returning to the letter that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles printed from R’ Wessely quoting R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz which was discussed in the beginning of this post.

I think that one point that is of some significance is not only that he is quoting a letter from R’ Wessely but that it quotes R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz. As is well known, the relationship between R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz and R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ Rebbe the Noda Bi-Yehudah was “interesting”, as fully documented in Sid Leiman’s special essay When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy; R. Ezekiel Landau’s Attitude Toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Emden Eibeschuetz Controversy. He also refers to his various works in this volume (the Olas Chodesh Hashenei and Ahavat Dovid) with great respect.

ותמה הגאון האמיתי בספרו יערות דבש [מילי שמיא עמ’ קכט]. עיין באורים ותומים סי’ צז [שם, עמ’ קמא]; ומביאו הגאון אהבת יהונתן [שם, עמ’ נב]; וקרוב לזה מצאתי באהבת יהונתן [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רעח].

One last source on this topic is from the work Sicha bein Shnat 5560 UVein 5561 printed in Prague in 1800 written by R’ Baruch Jeiteless[45] another talmid of the Noda Bi-Yehudah which is also a work devoted to fighting Frankisim.