A Preliminary Bibliography of the Recent Works on Birkat ha-Chamah by Eliezer Brodt & Ish Sefer There are many works and articles on this topic and, as such, this is merely a preliminary attempt to deal with this burgeoning area of Jewish literature. [See also here]. For a great bibliographic note on the development of Seder Birkat ha-Chamah, including publications relating to birkat ha-chamah, see R. J. D. Bleich, Birkat ha-Chamah, pp.128-133. JNUL has put up a many of the editions of relating to subject here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's right, the JNUL has 19 editions (!) of the Birkat ha-Chamah starting with the first in 1785 through 1981 Edah Haredit edition.  These editions come from such disparate places as Egypt, Tunis, India, and Iraq.   But, now, turning to the editions currently in print.Boker Yizrach from R. Meldola was reprinted again and it includes a later edition with a Pirush Sharei Mizrach from R. Yekusiel Kamelhar (about him in general see this book).Tekufos ha-Chamah u-Berckoseh of R. Yechiel Michel Tukuchensky was reprinted again. A new work on this topic is called Otzar ha-Zemanim by R. A. Brisk. This work is 336 pages is beautifully type-set, well organized, very strong in halacha and it has a bit on the astronomical aspects of birkat ha-chamah.Another work on this topic is by R. M.M. Gerlitz called Birkat ha-Chamah ke-Hilkhoto. On the prior edition, R. J. D. Bleich writes that Gerlitz's book is the most comprehensive work on the topic. This work is an expanded version of its earlier edition, and is now 558 pages. This work is strong in both astronomy, devoting 190 pages to the topic, and strong in the halacaha aspects. It also has many responsum relating to this topic and includes dershot that were said at prior birkat ha-chama by various Gedolim. In addition, this new edition has many letters to R. Chaim Kanievsky on the topic (a recent "minhag" of all works on halacha). To just mention one interesting discussion which R. M.M. Gerlitz deals with is the Ozstrosver's now famous statement that it is extra special if Birkat ha-Chamah falls out on Erev Pesach (pp.115-18). Another nice addition to R. Gerlitz's revised edition is R. Yakov Emden's comments (pp.479-94) all about birkat ha-chamah. These comments were originally printed in the back of the 1757 edition of Megilat Tannit and were omitted from later editions of Megilat Tannit. As such, R. Emden's comments escaped the notice of many of the people learning this topic. Aside from R. Emden's discussion about birkat ha-chamah, he also deals with the Frankist movement and states that one can inform on them to the government (he also deals with Christianity). However,  R. Gerlitz cuts out a page of this – where R. Emden listed some of the Frankists sins – Gerlitz argues that there is no need  to print this today. Today with the amazing web data base of free seforim at Hebrew books one can see this rare edition here and the pages on birkat ha-chamah here and the edited pages here. One thing lacking from this otherwise excellent edition is a proper index of topics discussed.Another work is called Birkat ha-Chamah be-Tekufoseah by R. Genot. This work is 748 pages and is very strong in the astronomy aspects but weaker in the halacha aspects. On the bibliographical front, it reproduces many different editions of Birkat ha-Chamah. He also includes the comments of R. Emden but in a much more abbreviated form than R. Gerlitz. One interesting thing (p.276) a quote from a manuscript from 745 years ago of how the beracha was recited by the Chazan after Ma'ariv! One big mistake in this work when dealing with the famous question of if the calendar according to Shmuel is off so why do we follow Shmuel's opinion,  R. Genot prints a photocopy of the original Halevonon article of R. Alexander Moshe Lapides he then writes: בעוד שהקושיא בת מאות השנים על אמיתות תקופת שמואל נידונה בספרי האחרונים נתפרסמו מאמרים אחדים גם בכתבי עת, שלא עלו על שולחנם של שלומי אמוני ישראל. הבאונם אך כקוריוז משלים לנושא רחב זה , ואם יש בהם משפטים הנוגדים את מסורתנו, הרי הם דברים שאין בה ממש (עמ' 424). He obviously does not know who R. Alexander Moshe Lapides was – a talmid  chaver of R. Yisroel Salanter and one of leading Litvish Gedolim of his time. As an aside this piece was recently reprinted in the excellent edition of Torat ha-Goan R. Alexander Moshe pp.6-8. Another work is from R. Zvi Cohen called Birkat ha-Chamah, 383 pages. This sefer is like all his others, full of excellent information from a very wide range of sources. This work is expanded from earlier edition and is strong in halacha aspects but not as strong in astronomy. Another work on the topic is called Seder Bircas Kiddish Hachamah by R. Strohli, 203 pages.Of great interest to me in the works of R. Brisk, R. Gerlitz, R. Genot, R. Cohen and R. Strohli [a version of this appeared in the recent Journal Etz Chaim volume 8] is how they list sources of Gedolim throughout the ages how they each did this beracha.  In doing so, these works quote many rare sources although, at times, they overlap each other (next time around someone just has to take all the works on the topic and put it together into one volume). One source which escaped them (except for The Sun Cycle p. 23) is found in a autobiography from the early 1600's where the author describes as follows:  כט אדר שעז בהיותי בק' ורנקבורט נתחדש החמה כי כן נעשה כל כח שנה מחזור החמה ולא נעשה כזאת עוד עד ער"ח ניסין ארבע מאות וחמשה אשרי המחכה ויגיע לימים אלו והלכו כל הקהל בשעה ג' על היום על בית הקברות ויום מעונן היה ועמדתי בתוכם ואמרנו פה אחד ברוך עושה מעשה בראשית (ר' אשר ב"ר אליעזר הלוי, ספר זכרונות, עמ' 7).  Another interesting thing we see from this account is the strange minhag to say birkat ha-chamah in the cemetery or near it. This strange minhag is only mentioned briefly by R. Genot in Birkat ha-Chamah be-Tekufoseah (p. 290) and discussed at greater length by R. Gerlitz in Birkat ha-Chamah ke-Hilkhoto (pp. 231-233) (otherwise I have seen no mention of this strange custom). It seems this was the minhag in Frankfurt according to the Yosef Ometz but R. Chaim Rapoport in Birkat ha-Chamah Al Pei Minhag Chabad (p. 80-81) cites the Alei Tamar who argues that this is an incorrect reading of Yosef Ometz and they did not say the beracha at the cemetery. However from this account we see that they indeed did say it at the cemetery. [See also E. Prins comments on this Yosef Ometz in Parnos le-Dorot, p. 292.]Another work is called Birkat ha-Chamah Al Pei Minhag Chabad, from R. Chaim Rapoport 167 pages. This edition includes a section of the halachot in English. Of special interest in this work of R. Rapoport and that of R. Strohli is their sections dealing with women and this beracha. In English, there is  R. J. D. Bleich, Birkat ha-Chamah, 243 pages. This work is extremely well written, as R. Bleich excels at making extremely complicated things sound easy.  It deals with astronomy and halacha aspects very comprehensively for scholar and layman alike. Just to mention one interesting source, not only related  to birkat ha-chamah, is that when discussing aleinu and the censorship of the statement  שהם משתחוים להבל וריק ומתפללים אל אל לא יושיע that the Mahril Diskin held one has to be careful to say it because of משנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות. R. Bleich writes that he saw in the siddur of R. Reven Grozovsky that this phrase was written in the siddur. Just one complaint with this particular edition is it is very annoying the way the pages are set up as a Hebrew book even though it is written in English making the pages confusing going from one page to the next. Additionally, one thing lacking from this otherwise excellent edition is a proper index of topics discussed. Another work also in English is from R. Yehuda Hershkowitz, The Sun Cycle, 213 pages printed by Tuvia's. The strength of this work lies in its uniqueness not to merely retread the same ground the above works deal with.  R. Hershkowitz, notes in the introduction that he does not see any point in replicating the seforim already out there on the topic. Instead, he chose to deal with the deeper meaning of the prayers and the beracha in general. He has extensive comments on the tefilos (according to kabbalah and machasvah). He also includes an excellent in depth chapter about the astronomical aspects of this topic. Most of the book is in English but he includes all the tefilos in Hebrew with a translation, notes and an in-depth scholarly chapter on the sugyah in Berkhot, regarding birkat ha-chamah, discussing the Bavli, Yershalmi and Tosefta. One thing lacking from this otherwise excellent edition is a proper index of topics discussed.
One interesting aspect in this work is as mentioned most of these works provide (just some better than others) accounts showing different birkat ha-chamah accounts through out history. Hershkowitz shows that the earliest possible source is from about 1300 years ago in various early paytanim (see The Sun Cycle p.15). Another interesting discussion which he deals with is the definition of the word סלה that it might mean refrain meaning repeat, which means it was intended for the choir to repeat it (see The Sun Cycle pp.68-70).

One interesting point regarding birkat ha-chamah is that although we hold that one makes the beracha with shem u-malchut, the Maharal did not. An explanation for the Mahral's practice appears in R. Moshe Kunitz's Ben Yochai:ומהאי טעמא נראה שהגאון האדיר אבי זקני מהר"ל מפראג ז"ל היה מברך ברכת קידוש החמה בלא שם ומלכות, לפי שבערוך (ערך חמה) כ' ב' פירושים אהא דתני ברכות נט רע"ב הרואה חמה בתקופתה מברכין וכו' ולפי הב' אשתמיט מאמר אביי שם בש"ס ישינם לכן נראה דברכה קבועה כל כח שנין איתקין אחר חתימת התלמוד ומש"ה לא בירך בשם ומלכות (בן יוחאי, שער שבעי סי' רפא, דף קמא ע"א).  
What is even more interesting is this account is referenced by R. Akiva Eiger who quotes it in his notes to Shulcahn Orach O.C. 229:2. The reason why this is interesting is because of who R. Kunitz was.  In particular, he had very strong Haskala leanings and was even linked with R. Aaron Chorin a leading figure of the early Reform movement. R. Moshe Sofer referred to Chorin as Acher as a play on Chorin's name and, in R. Sofer's view, Chorin's opinions.  In part, Kunitz's connection to the Reform movement is based on a letter that appears in Nogah Tzedek.  Nogah Tzedek, printed Dessau, 1818, is written to justify various changes such as the using the Sefadic pronunciation, doing away with the silent Shemoneh Esreh, and the inclusion of musical instruments, such as the organ, even on Shabbat.  At the end of this volume, pp. 27-28, Kunitz's letter addressing these issues appears.  On the first issue, the Sefardic pronunciation, Kunitz says this is fine, and notes that R. Nathan Adler (R. Sofer's Rebbi) used the Sefardic pronunciation. Regarding abolishing the silent amidah, he is against this. Regarding the final issue, the use of music, Kunitz again takes a permissive view and allows for musical accompaniment, although he doesn't discuss Shabbat. 
The "Traditional" response to Nogeh Tzedek (and its related works) was not short in coming. The traditionalists banded together sending out letters and collected the responses in a single volume, Eleh Divrei ha-Brit, Altona, 1819. On this aspect see M. Samet, Ha-Chadash Assur min ha-Torah pp.241-42 (and index) and this thread, this thread, and this thread.Returning to Kunitz's work, Ben Yochai, one of the aspects of this work is explaining why some time Rashbi is referred to as ר' שמעון and others as ר' שמעון בר יוחאי. His basic theory is that before he went into cave he is referred to as ר' שמעון and only after the cave is he called בר יוחאי. Indeed, on the title page of the book there is an illustration of the "cave."  In truth, however, this theory is a mistake as Yechosei Tannim Vamorim the Rebbe of the Rochach writes just the opposite:  וכן דברי ר' שמעון בן יוחי ורוב פעמים דברי ר' שמעון אלא כולן בבחרותן קודם שהובהקו לרבים ולכשנעשו ראשי ישיבות הוזכרו סתם (יחוסי תנאים אומוראים, מהדורת מימון, עמ' שצא). Another large part of Ben Yochai deals with R. Yakov Emden's comments on the Zohar in Mitpachas Seforim.  R. Kunitz answers each one of R. Emden's 280 comments. A more recent attempt to deal with R. Emden's criticisms of the Zohar was mounted by  R. Reuven Margolis in his notes to his edition of the Zohar, Nitzotei Zohar. See R. Zevin excellent review on Margolis's Zohar in his Soferim Ve-Sefarim, (Midrash ve-zohar …, pp.31-32).  Yet at the same time, R. Margolis writes in Arshet 2, pp. 336-337 that one has to check carefully into each thing which Kunitz says. It is not only R. Margolis that question Kunitz's work.  Rosenthal in his excellent bibliography, Yodeah Sefer, comments on the Ben Yochai: ואתה הקורא בראותך את ספר הגדול למראה הזה עם כל אורך לשונו ובקיאותו לעור עין כל קורא, אל תבטחבו ואל תשע אל דבריו. לך נא וקרא בדברי המחברים אשר באו אחריו כמו בספרי כרם חמד, תעודה בישראל, בית יהודה, ושרשי לבנון והוא מחברת הראשונה מבית האוצר, ופרחי צפון, וכלם יענו ויאמרו כי כל דבריו הבל ואין בהם מועיל, וכל דבריו הטובים אשר נמצאו בספרו, אשר בהם התראה לעין הקורא כבקי בכל ספרי העברים, גנב מספר סדר הדורות.
On this work of Kunitz in general see Boaz Huss, Ke-Zohar ha-Rokiyah, pp. 321, 333, 343-44.

In the fascinating sefer (subject of its own post hopefully shortly) on Zohar called Matzav Hayashar by R. S. Z. Dober, Dober accuses Kunitz many times of plagiarism (1:2a, 7a). The only compliment R. Dober gives Kunitz is that he had a nice library (2:60) and that R. Dober is a good judge of that as he had a great library too.  Kunitz's work Ben Yochai is quoted by many just to list a few Shut Sich Yitzchak (67,116, 414, 464), Shut Afrekasta Danyah, (1:1&27) and R. Ovadiah Yosef in all his seforim. In the incredible sefer Ha-Meir Laretz he has a few comments on his Teshuvos Hamesaref (see pg 85a). Another work of Kuntz is Ma'ashe Hakhamim, Beis Rebbi, Vienna, 1805.  This work is a biography of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi, Rabbenu ha-Kodosh.  An abridged version, titled Toldot Rebbi Yehuda ha-Nasi, appears at the beginning of the Tifferet Yisrael Mishnaot.  Although, in the latest version of the Tifferet Yisrael, Zekher Hanoch edition, the Toldot have been removed.  According to the publisher, Moznayim, it was Kunitz's reputation that was cause for removal.  Ironically, in this latest edition, the publishers seem to have overlooked a much more controversial statement in their edition. There is an article titled, Ma'amar 'al Dikduk Lashon ha-Mishna that includes a footnote that argues that many parts of Kohelet were written later than the traditional dating. See p. 13b, note *. (Thanks to Dr. Marc Shapiro for calling this to my attention.)  This passage remains in the Zekher Hanoch edition. While Ma'ashe Hakamim, until recently, received widespread dissemination through the inclusion in the Mishnaot, not everyone felt it was a worthwhile sefer.  Indeed, Rosenthal, again in Yodea Sefer is very critical of this work, as well as Kunitz's other work, Sefer ha-Iyun.  See Yodeah Sefer, letter Bet, no. 224, and letter Mem, no. 1208.  The only sefer of Kunitz that escaped Rosenthal's wrath is Kunitz's Ha-Matzref, although Rosenthal doesn't have any entry for that work at all. 

Milah Books & Manuals
by Eliezer Brodt & Ish Sefer
Much has been written on milah. Hebrew Books has over forty seforim on this topic. There are those books that discuss the various controversies, including abolishing milah in toto[1]or specific parts of milah such as metzizah be-peh.[2] Others focus on the philosophic and theological implications of milah.[3] This post, however, will focus on two types of milah books, one what we will refer to as milah manuals and the second, books about milah. The former is comprised of books that explain, in detail, the process of milah – these can include the physical process, i.e. how the surgery is to take place, as well as the more esoteric processes such as thoughts or prayers that are to accompany the milah. The second type of book doesn’t focus on the technical aspects of milah but instead focuses on the customs, the laws, etc. that are connected with the surgery. One final point, this is not intended to be a complete bibliography of either type of work, instead, we have picked out a few titles that hopefully will be of interest to the readers.
Milah ManualsThe first manual up for discussion is R. Tzvi Benyamin Auerbach’s, Brit Avraham, Frankfort, 1860. This book includes a nice introduction dealing with a history of the Ravan as well as other Rishonim. Additionally, all the liturgy associated with brit and explanations of the liturgy is included. There is a section on the laws relating to milah. At the beginning of this section, Auerbach notes that although he takes a different view of some of rules governing milah, he provides explainations for his divergent opinions in another section. Indeed, Auerbach does provide a detailed discussion of the law of milah including a discussion of most, if not all, relevant opinions. Interestingly, although the laws and liturgy are in Hebrew, this section, the section discussing the bases for Auerbach’s opinions, is in German. Not only is it in German, but in Latin characters indicating that Auerbach was trying to demonstrate the correctness of his opinion to only those who could read German. Let us explain. Auerbach’s work includes one other section in the vernacular. That section discusses various cures associated with milah. This section is written in Yiddish in Hebrew characters. Auerbach explains that he did so “so that even those who do not understand Hebrew will understand this section.” Thus, there are three potential audiences for this book. Those who only understand Yiddish, those who understand Hebrew, and finally, those who understand German as well. R. Auerbach is most well-known for another work, Sefer ha-Eshkol he edited and published from a manuscript and added his own commentary, Nahal Eshkol. As Dr. Shapiro has discussed, this work was accused of being a forgery, that although it was attributed to Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, a Rishon, it was in fact a later invention. Ironically, in the introduction to Brit Avraham (pp. 24-25), Auerbach discusses the importance of authenticating manuscripts and ensuring proper attribution. Specifically, Auerbach provides Brother, the following story illustrates how must care and time one must take in authenticating old manuscripts that are found in various libraries. In fact, Gedolei Yisrael have erred because they failed to take proper care [in authenticating manuscripts] when it came to the prohibition of terafot. Auerbach offers the story that when he was studying under R. Leib Karlburg, R. Karlburg ruled that an animal was not a terifah which appeared to be in contravention with the understood law. Auerbach questioned him on this ruling and R. Karlburg explained that all the Rabbis in Cologne and Bonn permit this because of a responsum authored in 1626 and signed by numerous rabbis that remained in manuscript but was included in the communal pinkas from R. Yehuda Miller’s library. Auerbach went and looked this up, and indeed there was such a responsum attributed to various Rabbis. Auerbach, however, wrote to his father-in-law, an expert in yoreh deah, regarding this leniency, and his father-in-law told him to ignore it and follow the accepted stricter position. Auerbach continues, that after he got to Frankfort, he told R. Aaron Fuld this story and R. Fuld immediately showed Auerbach a responsum from R. Mordechai Halberstatt, Ma’amar Mordechai. R. Halberstatt published the responsum (as well as other manuscripts from R. Miller’s library) and after doing so states “all of the preceding manuscripts are forgeries and the product of the the doer of a terrible deed, may his name be blotted out, Lieb the non Jew who is the well-known informer Kreski (this wicked one is referred to in the book Ametz Yosef as the informer Krauss . . .) . . . he is the the one who forged and spoke falsehoods in the names of various luminaries.” Auerbach then finishes “that I have spoken at length [regarding the need for caution authenticating manuscripts] because there is still a community who follows the [erroneous] practice regarding the above issue of terifah.” Ironically, one of the justifications for Auerbach publishing a forgery was that Auerbach was duped regarding the manuscript and failed to do correctly authenticate the manuscript he attributed to the Sefer ha-Eshkol.[4] The next two manuals are interesting in both their content as well as their titles. These two manuals are more focused on the kabbalstic intent that one is to have during the ceremony. Sod ha-Shem has already been discussed here and here due to the fact the author, R. David Lida, has been accused of being a Sabbatian. But, it should also be noted that both Sod ha-Shem and Hotem ha-Shem use God’s name in the titles. Indeed, in the later case, God’s full name is spelled out – Yud, Hey, Vav, Hey (additionally, must of what is in Hotem ha-Shem comes from Sod ha-Shem). Such use of God’s name is not unique to these books. The first to discuss the issue of using God’s name in the title actually arose not because the book in question had God’s name but rather because the title could be (incorrectly) read to be referring to God. Of couse, we speak of Hezkiyah Medini’s Sedi Hemed. The Sedi Hemed was not published in a single set as it is available today. Instead, R. Medini sent kuntresim in paperback as the parts became available to various rabbis to get their opinions on the work. Although much of the feedback R. Medini got was positive, R. Medini recieved two letters from a rabbi R. Medini does not identify that questioned R. Medini’s work and more particularly, the title of his work. These letters complained that since the Sedi Hemed had a paper cover with the title on it, when one went to bind all the kuntresim together, the binder would inevitably remove one cover. According to the anonymous rabbi this was problematic because Sedi also spells out a name of god and thus opens the potential for discarding of a page with god’s name on it.

R. Medini responded by noting that since the word in question “sedi” is not intended to be holy, although the same word may also have a holy connotation, whether it is in fact holy is dependent upon the intent of the author (i.e. elohim referring to idols). Here, the intent was not god’s name so there is no problem. R. Medini also noted that of the many, many rabbis who wrote to him regarding his book, none had refrained from mentioning the title and none brought this “issue” to his attention. R. Medini then cataloged a few books that, like the Sod ha-Shem and Hotem ha-Shem, have god’s actual name in the title and none of these authors were at all bothered by that. Indeed, it seems rather odd to worry about a book title, when the entire book is to be respected. R. Medini then wrote to numerous rabbis to check and make certain that his logic was sound (they all responded that R. Medini was correct). The first he wrote to was the extremely erudite scholar, R. Yosef Zekhariah Stern. R. Stern agreed with R. Medini and offered additional titles that contain god’s name. Additionally, R. Stern also highlighted names that include god’s name in them such as eliyahu, eliezer, daniel and the like. R. Stern proclaims that although these names contain god’s name in them no one has ever had a problem with them nor did he ever see anyone hyphenate or otherwise alter the name to ensure that god’s name doesn’t appear. Today, however, the very practice that R. Stern notes was never done, has become commonplace in some quarters. In the end, R. Medini’s work retained the title Sedi Hemed; however, the title now carries nekkudot to ensure that no one makes a mistake regarding the pronunciation.
In 1892, Zichron Brit li-Rishonim was printed. Although published in the end of the nineteenth century, this manual is based on the pesakim of the rishonim R. Yakov ha-Gozer and his sons. Israel Ta-Shma points out that this is the first specialist sefer written in times of Rishonim where we do not know anything about them in others areas of torah (as there were other specialist seforim written before but by well-known gedolim). Additionally, Ta-Shma demonstrates that this work was meant for the Moheleim of the time to improve the field. See I. Ta-Shma, Keneset Mechkarim, Iyunei be-Safrut ha-Rabbanim be-yemi ha-Benyaim, (Bialik Institute, Jerusalem: 2004), vol. I, pp. 320-22; idem, Halakha, Minhag, u-Metziut be-Ashkenaz 1100-1350, (Magnes Press, Jerusalem: 1996), pp. 96-99 The question is why the name “ha-Gozer.” R. Yissacar Tamar in Alei Tamar [Moed 1:149];has a lengthy piece on the topic where he points out there are almost no sources in chazal that “gozer” refers to a mohel. He suggests that maybe the editor stuck it in. R. Tamar then suggests that perhaps the name “gozer” has nothing to do with Milah. Instead, it was a nickname of respect that he was a Tzadik and what he was gozer hashem did. [See also R. Elijah Levita, Tishbi, s.v. gezeriah.] However it appears that Alei Tamar missed a known Midrash which provides: שבעה הרי שמונה, אמר משה בזכות המילה שניתנה לשמונה נקרע הים, ונקלס באז. אמר ר’ לוי לגוזר ים סוף לגזרים (תהלים קלו יג), שכן בלשון ארמי קורין למהולין גזורים, בזכות המילה נקרע הים (מדרש תנחומא (בובר) פרשת בשלח סימן יב) .
Other Works on Milah An excellent sefer on milah, Koret ha-Brit, was written by R. E. Posek and first printed in Lvov in 1893 and recently reprinted (300 pgs). This sefer covers all topics relating to milah and provides incredible sources and many of his own fascinating insights on the topics. It also includes an abridged selection of all the kabbalah aspects mentioned in R. Lidas Sod ha-Shem. He received many nice haskomos to the sefer among them the Marsham, Adres and Sdei Chemed. Besides for receiving these haskomot he also received many notes on his work from the Adres and Marsham indicating that both read the book closely. The Adres, in his haskamah, discusses limiting oneself to a single topic. ומצאנו לרבותינו ז”ל שהיו מצוינם במקצוע אחת יותר מחבריהם [עי’ ברכות כ’ א’ , מו”ק כח ב, ע”ז ד’ א’ , ב”ק לט נג א, ב”מ ס”ו פו א’, חולין נב ב, גיטין ה’ ב] ומה”ט קבעו הלכה כמותם בזה [עי’ רש”י כתובת מג ב, רא”ש ב”ק פרק ד] כן נוכל לומר על ידידינו המחבר… Another important work was the Zecher Dovid written by R. Dovid Zechus Modena first printed in 1816 . This work is extremely special. This was very rare ever since it was printed and therefore it was rarely quoted even Sefer ha-Brit, discussed below, which quotes many seforim on the topic does not quote this work. The sefer Otzar ha-Brit from the famous yerushalmi mohel does quote this work often as he received special permission from Hebrew University to borrow it when he was working on his seforim. In 2001, Ahavat Sholom reprinted this work in a beautiful set of six volumes including a volume of indexes and a volume of dershos of his on chumahs that was never printed before. This work is an encyclopedia on Milah and many other topics. It is divided into three sections the first two relate to milah in all aspects of kabalah and halacha. The importance of this work is besides for quoting an excellent selection of sources on his topics he adds in many of his own nice points brings many sources from unprinted manuscripts and organizes it all very well making it a pleasure to read. The third section of this sefer is all about the cycle of the year from Shabbat and all the Yamim Tovim here too he deals a little bit about milah but mostly focuses on the Yamim Tovim and includes excellent discussions and sources on the topics. This is one of the best seforim which Ahavat Sholom has printed.

Another work on the topic is Machsehrei Milah written by R. Eliyhu Halevi, Livorno, 1793 and recently reprinted by Ahavat Sholom. This new edition includes a selection of the Kuntres on metzizah from R. Hezkiah Medini the author of the Sedi Hemed as well as a selection of halachos from R. Yakov Hillel. Another work is Sefer ha-Bris written by famous mohel R. Pirutinsky comprised of 415 pages and is an extremely thorough work on the topic. One section of great interest is on metzizah (pp. 216-26) where he brings many sources on the topic including R. Chaim Solovetick’s and R. Aron Kotler’s opinions (p. 224). Another sefer of interest is called Meshiv Nefesh first printed in 1906 and recently reprinted by Tuvias. The author was Dr. Sherhai a doctor who also appeared to be a big talmid chacham. This work consists of three parts. The first part titled Meshiv Nefesh is about Halacha Limoshe Misinai all over chazal He also deals with the Rambam Shitas on this topic at great length. The second part of the sefer deals with many aspects of Milah showing, at great length, that the metzizah is an very important part of the Mitzvah and is not just based upon danger to the baby. He has a interesting discussion about the famous concept nishtanh ha-teveh (pp. 21b- 22b, 34a-34b). He also claims, like many others, that the Chasam Sofer teshuvah on the topic of metzizah is not a forgery but, instead, was a horas sh’eah (p.64). The third part of the sefer is titled Bris Shalom in which the author argues, using medical sources, that metzizah is not dangerous at all. As an aside besides for all his discussions in regard to Milah he also has a few other interesting discussions where he deals with going to doctors (p12b), the knowledge of Noach, Moshe Rabenu (p.12b) Tanim vamorim in medical areas (p.18a) including a list of those that actually practiced medicine (pp.14b,17a). He also includes a list of Geonim Rishonim and achronim (pp.19a- 22b) who practiced medicine including Rashi (p.19b). He concludes this section with a very interesting piece (p.23a): מדוע נשתנה הדור הזה מדורות הראשונים שהיו גם כן חכמים גדולים בחכמת הרפואה וגאונים גדולים בחכמת התורה, אף שברוך ה’ לא אלמן ישראל כי נמצאים גם בזמננו בפרט בארץ אשכנז… ורופאים הושמרים תורתנו הקדושה כדיו וכדת בכל פרטיה ודקדוקיה מהם וגם כן גדולי תורה על כל זה אינם במדה מרובה כמו בדורות הראשונים… התשובה לשאלה הזאת נמצא גם כן בתורתינו הקדושה על פי מליצת חז”ל באמרם לעולם יכנוס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב, פירוש כל מה שיתחל האדם ליכנס באיזה דבר או באיזה חכמה ללמוד יכנס בכי טוב ואין טוב אלא תורה פירוש אל יכונס אלא כשישים תורת ה’ לעיקר, וכן בדורות הראשונים שבתחלה מלאו כריסם בש”ס פוסקים כמו כל הגאונים שהבאתי ורצו ללמוד החכמה הזאת באשר היא שייכה לחכמת התורה, והרבה ענינים בחז”ל מה שלא יכלו לבארם בביאור נכון רק על ידי חכמת רפואה כמו כל הגאונים שהבאתי ורצו ללמוד החכמה הזאת באשר היא שיכה לחכמת התורה, והרבה ענינים בחז”ל מה שלא יכלו לבארם בביאור נכון רק על ידי חכמת הרפואה… וכוונתם היתה רצויה להיות להם מזה מטרה בח בחיים ושיהא להם לחם חוקם מזה בכדי שיוכלו ללמוד וללמד את שתי חכמות שתהינה מתאימות ועולות בד בבד ותהיינה לאחדים בידם וגם לקיים מצות מעשה היא פיקוח נפשות חיי דברייתא, ומאחר שנכנסו בכי טוב שלמים בחכמת הרפואה ומלאים במדות טובות וביראת שמים וכל שיראתו חטאו קודמת לחכמתו חכמתו מתקיימת, אבל לא כן עתה בדור הזה רובא דרובא נכנסו ללמוד הכמות ולשונות בעודנו כשהוא נער הוא כתינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים דלא עסקו בלימוד התורה כפי הנצרך… Over the years many sefarim and articles have been written about metzizah pro and against doing it with a klei. One such work was called Sefer Dam Brit, printed in 1901 in London by Alexander Tertis. This work contained a method of doing metzizah be-klei called the Tertis-apparatus (see below) and including many important haskomot of gedolim. One haskamah was from the Orach Hashulchan (p.34) but R. Pirutinsky already points out that in his work Orach Hashulchan (Y.D. 264:19) that R. Epstein takes a different view than the one he expresses in his haskamah. דע שיש בזמנינו שאומרים שיותר טוב לעשות המציצה לא בפה אלא באיזה ספוג שמספג את הדם ולא נאבה לאם ולא נשמע להם ורבותינו חכמי הש”ס היו בקיאים ומחוכמים יותר מהם אך זהו בוודאי שהמוצץ יהיה לו פה נקי בלא שום מחלה ושניים נקיים… ואין לנו לחדש חדשות כאלה ונהיה כאבותינו ובמדינתינו לא שמענו זה: Many of the haskomot are worth studying and quoting but one of the important ones was from R. Yakov Yosef where he writes (p. 6): וכבר למדנו חז”ל ללמוד בדברים הנוגעים לחכמת הרפואה והטבע מחכמי הרופאים… ולמה לא נסמוך על הרופאים שאומרים כי מציצה של שמירת הבריאות תוכל להיות על ידי כלי מתוקן על זה וגם לא מצינו במסכת שבת באיזה אופן לעשות… This haskamah in particular incurred the wrath of the Adres in a rather harsh letter recently printed in his Shut Mayneh Eliyhu (p. 352). Shockingly this letter was not edited out .The letter is really worth quoting in its entirety as it is very important for the whole topic but here is part: לבי ידאב על מעשה הקובץ של לעטריס שהדפיס בעתונו היהודי המקבץ שו”ת ממי שהוא מונה וספור שלשים וא גם יותר רבנים המתירים, ובראשם ימנה הגאון חת”ס והגאון חריף שקוראים אותו בארץ ליטא חריף. צחוק מכאביב לב עשה לנו בהזוג הזה, ומאן מעייל בר נפח בארעא דעיילי זקוקין דנורא, מה ענין ר’ יעקב מנויארק אשר היה רב בזאגר ומ”מ בווילנא, ועל ידי מכונות ותחבולות כדרכו יצא לנויארק, וידענו היטב היטב את האיש ואת שיחו תהלוכותיו ותחבולותיו מתחילה עד סוף, מה ענינו לרבינו החתם סופר, אשר עוד כשמונים שנה בדור דעה שהיו אז כל הגאונים האידרים בחיים הי’ הוא הראש וראשון להוראה וממנו יצאה תורה לכל ישראל, ואותו הרב ר’ יעקב שלא שמש תלמידי חכמים ומלך מעצמו, על פי תבונותו, כי פקח גדול הוא, אינו מגיע לקרסולי תלמידי תלמידו של הגאון חתם סופר, לא בתורה ולא במעשים טובים, והרי לפנינו שעזב עיר וולינא תפארת ליטא, והלך לנוע על ארצות אמעריקא להיות שם רב ראשון בנויארק כחלומו אשר חלום… והרואה דברי הר”מ פ”ו ה”א מדיעות, יעי’ שם היטב בלשונו, יראה עד כמה מלאה לבו יראת שמים לעשות כן. ואיש כזה אשר בהיותו מולדותו לא הי’ מגדולי הרבנים רק מגדולי הדרשנים כיד הדיבור הטובה עליו, אשר בעבור זה נתקבל למ”מ בווילנא (אחרי תחבולות רבות מצידו), הוא נעשה חריף בעברו על הים ובא לארץ החדשה, כשושנה בין החוחים, ונעשה שר לסרוחים. והנה הוא גם בעל הוראה ויתיר כמו שלבו טוב עליו, ובדור החושך הזה מקלו יגיד לו, כל המיקל הרי זה משובח, וכל המחמיר הוא ללעג ולמטרה לפני בני עולה, כמעשה אתרוגי קורפו, שביעית, ועוד ועוד אשר הדבר נמסר לעורכי העתונים לעפר בעפר על כל מי שלא יאמר כדבריהם. Interestingly enough elsewhere the Adres writes much less harsh about the topic in his notes to R. Posek Kores Habris the Adres writes (pp.143a-143b) בזמנינו המציאו חכמי הרופאים פני המציצה כמין שפופרת חלקה למצוץ על ידה בפה ולא להכניס האבר בפה ולמוץ וכל זה מחשש חולי המתדבק להמוצץ או מהמוצץ להתינוק והתירו פרושים את הדבר ובכיוצא בזה י”ל שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת As an aside we see from this letter the tremendous respect and kovod he had for the Chasam Sofer. Other places in his writings show this for example is in Shivis Zion (p.233) after quoting the famous Chasam Sofer in succcah … (36b) that some edited out that says: … לע”ד רבי ישמעאל נמי לא אמר מקרא ואספת דגנך אלא בא”י ורוב ישראל שרויין שהעבודה בקרקע גופה מצוה משום יישוב א”י ולהוציא פירותי’ הקדושי’ ועל זה ציותה התורה ואספת דגנך ובועז זורה גורן השעורי’ הלילה משום מצוה וכאלו תאמר לא אניח תפילין מפני שאני עוסק בתורה ה”נ לא יאמר לא אאסוף דגני מפני עסק התורה ואפשר אפילו שארי אומניו’ שיש בהם ישוב העולם הכל בכלל מצוה אבל כשאנו מפוזרי’ בעו”ה בין או”ה וכל שמרבה העולם יישוב מוסיף עבודת ה’ חורבן מודה ר”י לרשב”י וע”ז אנו סומכי’ על ר’ נהוראי במתני’ סוף קידושין מניח אני כל אומניות שבעולם ואיני מלמד בני אלא תורה היינו בח”ל … The Adres adds: … הרי לנו דבר נפלא מגאון עולם אביר הרועים רבינו שבגולה אשר הוא עומד ההוראה שכל בית ישראל נשען עליו ומי יבא אחריו … . [See also the list in Seder Eliyhu pp.122-123] For more on this see here . As an aside it seems that R. Yakov Yosef never knew about the Adres opinion of him as in a Haskamah to the sefer Neveh Sholom written five years later in 1900 he writes : ומחמת כי חולה אנכי ל”ע ע”כ לא יכילתי לעיין בו כראוי אבל המיעוט אשר ראיתי יעיד על ספרו כולו כי ראוי להוציא לאור עולם ובפרט כי כבר הוסכם ספר של מחבר הנ”ל מידידי הרב הגאון כו’ מו”ח אליהו דוד ראבניבוץ אב”ד פאנויעז ואין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה[Thanks to Eli Markin for this source.] Another excellent collection on Milah is called sefer Otzar Habris (four volumes) written by the famous Yerusalmi Mohel R. Yosele Weissberg. As an note of interest in his section on the metzizah controversy in volume four on page seven in the beginning of this section he gives credit to Jacob Katz for Katz’s essay on the topic

Y. Meiselman, Ha-Noten Sheleg, Be-Inyanei ha-Sheleg veha-Kerach be-Halacha, Holon, 2001, 266 pp.With winter approaching, a review of a work devoted to the topic of snow is particularly appropriate.  While everyone is familiar with R. Zevin's discussion of the halachik use of snow in his Le-Or ha-Halacha, R. Zevin only took his discussion so far. Today, we now have a work that is entirely devoted to snow and halacha.  This book, which is on Orach Hayyim and volumes on the other sections of Shulchan Orach are planned.  Indeed, the author in his introduction is aware how silly books devoted to a single topic can be and offers some justification for composing this work. This somewhat unique in so far as the author is at least willing to admit and deal with the problems with single subject works.  That is, there is no issue with writing a book on all of hilchos shabbos which incorporate something about snow.  What becomes problematic is when one takes a single subject and merely culls from other books what they have to say about it.  For example, is there any need for a book I once came across that is hundreds of pages on the "halachos" of walking in front of someone praying?  In this case, however, the author appears to have succeeded in producing a valuable work.   As one would expect with a book devoted to a singular halacha, it covers every possible aspect of snow. The first section collects every mention of snow in Tanakh and the Talmud.  Additionally, he collects stories that are centered around snow. A common theme is that many great people felt shoveling snow was not beneath their dignity.  For example, he has two stories one with R. Chaim Volozhin and the other with the Chofetz Hayyim which are similar.  In both, whenever it would snow all the paths in the morning would be cleared by these great Rabbis.  The author then ensures that his readers are actually aware of the phenomena that will be discussed so he provides the scientific definitions of snow, ice, and hail.    The book then turns to the halachik questions.  It covers the obvious ones like shoveling snow on shabbos, using snow for ritual hand washing etc. as well as some more esoteric topics like skiing on shabbos.  Additionally, as appears to be de rigueur today, the final section are questions and responses from R. Chaim Kenifsky. The author explains that many of the questions he asked R. Chaim were not novel and instead asked questions that had been discussed previously – one assumes to see if R. Chaim agreed or disagreed with the prior opinions.   Although the author claims his book is merely a collection of sources, in fact it is much more.  The author after collecting the various sources on a particular topic analysis the sources and actually is unafraid to come to his own conclusions.  This is especially surprising as so many authors are afraid of ever actually giving a conclusion for fear that someone will think it makes sense and follow it.  Rather, we typically get inane disclaimers on seforim that are devoted to halacha that in fact it is not a halachik work.  Indeed, in the case of this book, in some cases the author appears to disagree with the conclusion of R. Kenifsky.  Because of the author's willingness to actually offer opinions the book is a much more satisfying read, one not only gets a list of sources (many of which should be well-known) but also the reader can begin to see where the potential flaws are and come to their own conclusions.   Turning to the particulars, the author allows for shoveling snow on Shabbat, salting icy walkways, and even skiing (when he asked R. Chaim about skiing, R. Chaim admitted that he didn't know what it was, the author then showed him pictures of people skiing).  Many of these laws start with a discussion of the well-known pronouncement of the Mahram of Rottenberg that one can urinate on snow on Shabbat.  One area that he takes a restrictive view is not really related to winter but ice.  That is, he questions squeezing or mashing freeze pops or other frozen snacks on Shabbat due to the prohibition of mesarek.  Additionally, the author expends considerable energy on the burning question for most kids – can one make and throw snowballs on Shabbat. See 7:3 and Miluim no. 3. On this issue there is a split amongst the authorities.  The author in the additions in the back attempts to find additional support for those who allow for making and throwing snowballs on Shabbat.  He also discusses whether one can make snowmen (which he prohibits).   In all, the book is an enjoyable read that provides the starting point for an serious discussion regarding the halachot implicated by snow.  

Review: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torahby Eliezer Brodt Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, ed., New York, 2008, 297 pp.   As mentioned in the past, there is an austounding amount of seforim being published.  One genre, that is bursting at the seams, is sefarim on Chumash. There are seforim printed from famous people; some are still with us, while others have been gone for many years. These seforim focus on all kinds of topics: mussar, machashavah, pshat, kabbalah, d'rush, and halachah. In truth, it is virtually impossible to keep up with what is printed. I would, however, like to mention just one such sefer printed this year: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. This sefer is composed of three generations of Torah from the Hubner family. Most notably, Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, z"l, who was a big Rav for many years; ybl"ch, his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner; and his grandson, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, a young author who is frequently featured in the Hamodia Magazine Torah section. This sefer contains many interesting pieces on Chumash, some short and many long, representing unique and interesting topics and styles in learning. Aside from the many interesting chiddushim presented, it is worthwhile to note the mention of many rare and exotic sefarim quoted as sources throughout the work. As in almost any sefer, a variety of interesting content can be found apart from the actual body of the work. I would like to mention just a few of the interesting discussions I found in this sefer.  The sefer begins with a very nice but straight to the point biography of Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, written by his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner. This biography was based on stories heard from Rabbi Shmuel Hubner throughout his lifetime (1891-1983). Rabbi S. Hubner  made his rounds in Europe, meeting many different gedolim (almost like a Forrest Gump). (One gets the impression that there are many more nice stories that should have been printed here.) Just to mention some of the facts mentioned: Rabbi S. Hubner attended the levayah of Harav Yosef Engel, zt"l, and heard the famous hesped of Harav Meir Arik, zt"l, who said on Rav Engel that he was a baki in all areas of Torah, Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc., to which Rav Steinberg, the Brode Rav, asked him if he wasn't perhaps exaggerating a bit. Rav Arik replied that it was one hundred percent true, and there was no exaggeration involved.  Rav Hubner studied at the Berlin Seminary and heard shiurim from Harav Chaim Heller, zt"l. He was in Vienna when the Rogatchver Gaon, zt"l, passed away and he visited with him a bit before he died. He heard the Rogatchver expound on some topics in the parashah based on his well-known and unique methods of thought and assessment. Rabbi Hubner was the rebbi of the well-known scholar and writer, ybl"ch, Rabbi Tuviah Preschel.   After the war, Rabbi S. Hubner was a Rav in Brooklyn. Over the years he printed many pieces on all kinds of topics in the various Torah journals. Eventually, he collected many of them that related to practical halachah and printed them in a sefer entitled Sh"ut Nimukei Shmuel. This sefer received very warm haskamos from Harav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, and Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l. Some of the pieces have been reprinted in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, along with many new pieces found in Rabbi Hubner's many personal journals, which have never before been printed. This leads to a now-famous discussion regarding divrei Torah left behind after a person's petirah. In particular, if the mechaber did not leave instructions as to whether his writings should be printed, is his family permitted to do so? Another issue is, do these pieces carry weight in halachah, since the writer might have changed his mind before he passed away. An additional questioned is, if the mechaber specified not to print his writings, must his family adhere to his wishes? Much has been written on these topics, but Rabbi M. Hubner found information in his grandfather's notes addressing this very issue, which he included in Me'achsanya Shel HaTorah. Being that Rabbi S. Hubner's answer was very original, I am quoting it here in its entirety (intro pg. 9-10):   קראתי את תשובתו שבה כת"ה שקיל וטרי באריכות בנידון השאלה אם יש לשמוע להמחבר שציוה שלא לפרסם את כתביו הכוללים חידושים ותשובות. ואחרי שכת"ה מביא צדדי היתר וצדדי איסור הוא מגיע למסקנת שאין לשמוע לצוואת המחבר ויש להדפיס את כתביו. לע"ד נראה שיש לחקור ולמצוא טעמו ונימוקו של המחבר מפני מה הוא ציוה שלא להדפיס את כתביו ופסק הדין בשאלה זו תלוי בנימוקו של המחבר. דעתי זו מיוסדת על דברי הח"ס באו"ח סי' ר"ח שכתב וז"ל : כל המחבר ספר ומתערב במחשבתו לגדל שמו רבצה בו האלה האמורה במילי דאבות : נגיד שמא אבד שמא (פרקי אבות פ"א מי"ג) ולא תעשינה ידיו תושיה להוציא מחשבתו לפועל, כי יבוא מבקרי מומין ויחפשו וימצאו, מלבד שהוא עובר איסור דאורייתא דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן, ולא הותר אלא משום עת לעשות לה', (גיטין ס א) ואם איננו עושה לה' הרי איסורו במקומו עומד. לעומת זה מי שיודע בעצמו כי כל מגמתו לשם הית"ב, להגדיל תורה ולהדירה ורק מונע בר מפני חשש מבקרי מומין ומלעיגים ומלעיבים במלאכי ה' עבירה היא בידו, וכשם שיקבל עונש על הדרישה הנ"ל [אם אינה לשם שמים], כן ייענש זה על הפרישה, עכ"ל. בדברי החתם סופר הללו נמצאת התשובה על השאלה דמר. אם הציווי של המחבר שלא לפרסם את כתביו נבע מן החשש הראשון הנזכר בדברי הח"ס אז לדעתי מצוה לקיים דברי המת ולא להדפיסם, כי לב יודע מרת נפשו, ואין היורשים רשאים לעבור על צוואתו, כי ע"י הדפסת הספר יעשו רעה להמחבר, ואילו היה חי היה מורה בכל תוכף נגד ההדפסה, ועכשיו שאינו יכול למחות פסק הדין צריך למנוע מעשות לו עול. ואם ישאלני איך אפשר עכשיו לידע מה היה הנימוק שבגללו אסר את הפירסום ? אשיבנו שזה אפשר להכיר מתוך תשובותיו. אם דברי הח"ס מובאים בתשובותיו ובחידושיו, אז קרוב לודאי שגם תשובה זו היתה ידועה לו והיא היא שהניעה והביאה אותו לידי כך שיאסור לפרסם את כתביו. ברם אף אם דברי הח"ס אינם מובאים בתשובותיו אפשר ואפשר שתשובות הח"ס ובתוכן גם התשובה הנ"ל היו ידועות לו, שכן לא יצוייר שמחבר תשובות לא ישתמש בתשובות הח"ס. בהתחשבות עם זה לבי מהסס להתיר הפרסום. הדבר שונה אם הנימוק העיקרי לצוואתו לא היה החשש הנ"ל אלא מטעם אחר כגון מפני חשש המבקרים או מפני שהיה מיראי הוראה, אז רשאי או יותר נכון מצוה להדפיס את כתביו כמפורש בדברי הח"ס שהבאתי לעיל. והנני להביא עוד ראיות לכך : בספר חסידים סי' תתקל כתב מי שגילה לו ה' דבר ואינו כותבו הוא גוזל את הרבים כדכתב סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם. ובשבט סופר (פ' כב) דעתיד אדם ליתן דין וחשבון על זה שאינו כותב חידושיו. ובספר מור וקציעה סי' רכג כתב דמי שגומר ספר בכתיבה וכל שכן בהדפסה יש לו לברך ברכת שהחיינו שכן עושין שמחה לגמרה של תורה, שאין שום קנין ובניו שיש בו שמחה יותר מזה. וכן מצינו ביבמות (צו ב) שדוד המלך התפלל אגורה באהלך עולמים (תהל' סא) וכי אפשר לאדם בשני עולמים ? אלא דוד אמר לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולםל יהי רצון שיאמרו דבר שמועה מפי בעוה"ז. וכמו שאמר רשב"י כל ת"ח שאומרים דבר שמועה מפיו בעולם הזה שפתותיו דובבות בקבר. העיקר בנידון זה, לידע מאיזה טעם המחבר ציווה שלא לפרסם את כתביו.     Another very interesting discussion found in this sefer (pp. 264-66) is a piece about the authorship of Lecha Dodi. Being that I have never seen or heard a discussion of anyone denying that Harav Shlomo Alkebetz, zt"l, authored the tefilah, I feel it is worthwhile to quote this piece in part. Rabbi S. Hubner knew an interesting person named Reb Meir Sokel, who suggested to him as follows:    רק שני החרוזים הראשונים נכתבו ע"י שלמה אלקבץ, שבהם הוא שר על קדושת שבת. אבל שאר החרוזים, שבהם שוב אין זכר לשבת, ואין להם כל קשר לחרוזים הראשונים, הם מעשה ידי מזייף והם מכוונים לאיזה "איש הנערץ והנקדש", אישיות מהוללה ומפוארה, שאליה מדבר המזייף בלשון נקבה – כלומר המזייף מטיף בהם לנצרות באורח מוסווה… מאיר סוקל מסיק שהשיר "לכה דודי" לא יוכל להיכלל בשירי ישראל, ורק מתוך אי-ידיעה ואי-הבחנה הוכנס השיר לסדר התפילה ויש להימנע, לדעתו, מלאמרו. To which Rabbi S. Hubner replied to him at length:  א- השיר "לכה דודי", כמו שהוא לפנינו נדפס בפעם הראשונה בפראג בספר "ארחות חיים" בשנת שע"ב כשלושים שנה אחר פטירת המשורר. ולא יתכן כי בזמן שבני דורו של המשורר היו עוד בחיים יהיה איש לזייף באופן גס כזה, ישאיר רק שני חרוזים מקוריים ואת החרוזים האחרים ימיר בחרוזיו "החשודים", והזיוף לא הוכר ואיש לא מחה כנגדו. ב- דבר ידוע הוא שהאר"י [האשכנזי – ר' יצחק לוריא] שהמשורר הסתופף בצלו, בחר בשירי אלקבץ מפני שנכתבו על דרך האמת. והלא בזמן שנדפס השיר שהוא לפנינו היה ר' חיים ויטאל, איש סודו ותלמידו הגדול של האר"י עוד בחיים. אם כן איך אפשר הדבר, שר' חיים ויטאל לא הדגיש בזיוף ובשינוי שאיש בליעל ביצע בשירו של אלקבץ, שהאר"י בחר בו, וציין אותו כשיר שנכתב על דרך האמת, והשינוי נתקבל ? ג- מאיר סוקל קובע שהחרוזים האחרונים של השיר לא יצאו מתחת ידו של אלקבץ, שהרי אין להם שום קשר לחרוזים הראשונים. מסקנתו של מ. ס. בנויה על הנחות בלתי נכונות. לאמיתו של דבר אין כאן סטיה מן הענין, החרוזים האחרונים מחוברים וקשורים אל הראשונים. עובדה היסטורית היא שאלקבץ, אחר בואו מאדריאנופול לצפת, הצטרף לחבורה הקדושה שהתקבצה מסביב להאר"י. בין אלה היו גיסו של אלקבץ, המקובל ר' משה קורדובירו, ר' יוסף קארו [בעל השולחן ערוך], ר' משה אלשיך, ר' אליהו די וידאש [בעל ראשית חכמה] ועוד. ערגה עזה להופעתו של הגואל היתה ממלאה את לב כל אלה וכל מאוויי נפשם היו להחיש את הגאולה. חד לכוסף הגאולה, אנו מוצאים בחרוזים האחרונים של "לכה דודי". אחרי שהמשורר שר בשני החרוזים הראשונים על קדושת השבת, הוא נותן ביטוי בחרוזים האחרונים לתקוות הגאולה, שנפשו של המשורר ערגה לה כל כך. הוא פונה אל ירושלים הנקראת "מקדש מלך" (עמוס ז יג) ומנחם אותה שגאולת ה' קרובה לבוא, אחרי שבני ישראל קבלו את השבת – וזה על יסוד מאמרו של ר' שמעון בן יוחאי "אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים".  כל הנימוקים האלה שהזכרתי מספיקים כבר להפריד את השערתו של מ. ס., אבל הוספתי עוד נימוק מענין והוא : הלא הרדר, מסופרי המופת בספרות הגרמנית, תרגם את השיר "לכה דודי" לגרמנית מפני חשיבותו של השיר ולא מצא בו שום דופי. גם המשורר בחסד עליון, היינריך היינה, נזדקק לשיר זה לתרגמו ולא פסל אותו בשל חוסר אחידות. והנה מ. ס. פסל תוך גישתו השכלתנית שיר שנתקדש אצל בני ישראל במשך דורות. את כל זה כתבתי לו, אבל איני יודע אם נימוקי שיכנעו אותו או עמד על דעתו.    Another discussion of interest, in a more bibliographical sense, is a chapter (pp. 271-75) written by Rabbi Tuviah Preschel. It concerns a translation of the Talmud that Rabbi Shmuel Hubner wrote while hidden away in Belgium during World War II. What is unique about this translation is that it was done in Yiddish. By 1944 (when Belgium was liberated), Masechtos Brachos, Baba Metziah and part of Bava Kama had been completed. By 1948, a few more masechtos were completed. As late as 1965, some of these volumes were already being reprinted. Due to technical reasons, the printing of these masechtos was never completed. What is interesting is that Rabbi Hubner's translation seems to have escaped the otherwise rather excellent article of  Rabbi Adam Mintz, "The Talmud in Translation" in Printing the Talmud, an updated version of his article in Torah Umadah.

Aside from these valuable pieces, there are many more to be found in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. Just to note some, there is a very interesting discussion on the halachic aspects of adopting children (pp. 213-26); why the children "steal" the Afikomon on Pesach night (pp. 140-43); what reward can/does one get for learning via listening to a taped recording (p. 173)? (This question is found in the middle of a long discussion on the meaning of "שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה"); whether Hashem's shvuah to Noach not to destroy the world was only as pertains to a flood or any other means as well (pp. 31- 34); Zimri's understanding of the avodah zarah of baal pe'or (pp. 156-59); and an incredible lengthy discussion showing the historical background and logic behind the many the takonos of Ezra Hanavi (pp. 206-13).
For information regarding the sefer, Rabbi Moshe Hubner may be contacted at hubners@gmail.com. 

Pini Dunner B.A (Hons), formerly rabbi of London's Saatchi Synagogue, is an avid collector of polemical and controversial Hebraica, with a very large, diverse private collection of such material. Many items in his collection are unknown and unrecorded, and relate to long forgotten, obscure controversies.
This is Pini Dunner's third post at the Seforim blog. His first post, "Mercaz Agudat Ha-Rabbanim Be-Lita, Kovno, 1931," is available here; his second post, "Unknown Picture of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, c.1930s," is available here.
For background on the controversy over Corfu etrogim, see Yosef Salomon, "The Controversies Regarding the Corfu and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim 1875-1891," Zion 65.1 (2000): 75-106; Yosef Salomon, "The Controversy Regarding the Corfu Etrogim and its Historical Significance," AJS Review 25 (2000-2001): 1-25; Yitzhak Refael, "Corfu Etrogim and Eretz Yisrael Etrogim," Sheragi 2 (1985), 84-90; Dan Porat, "The Controversy over Israeli Etrogim from 1875-1889," (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993); H. Hamel, "R. Yosef Zehariah Stern's Position in the Corfu Etrogim Controversy," in Sefer Refael (Jerusalem, 2000), 242-251. For a brief discussion about the broadsides authored by R. Gershon Henoch Leiner and his son R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin that were posted throughout Poland, see Pearl Preschel, "The Jews of Corfu," (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1984), 111-112, 113-114, 159.
Regarding the Russian text at the bottom of the broadside, the following is a translation that was obligatory to appear on all non-Russian books:
Condemnation by M.I.Leiner of those rabbis, which, as the revenge for the dwellers of the Greek islands for the disturbances on the island of Corfu, prohibited the paradise apples originating from those islands for using them in the religious ceremony of the holiday of Sukkot.
Included is a protest letter by the rabbi of Corfu about the matter.
—————————
Permitted by the censorship, Warsaw, 15 July 1891 — printing of M.I. Galter Nalevki [St.] 23.
Handbill Defending the Use of the Corfu Etrogim authored by R. Mordechai Joseph Eliezer Leiner of Izbica-Radzin  published in Izbica, July 1891
This broadside contains a vigourous and impassioned defence of the practice of using etrogim from Corfu in preference to those from Eretz Yisrael. For centuries the most prized etrogim used by Jews of all communities were those grown in Corfu, and the etrog industry on the island was a mainstay of the local economy. It was said that the etrogim grown in Corfu traced their origins to those used during the second temple period, and were therefore of the most reliable pedigree. The untainted pedigree of an etrog is of primary importance, and as a result Corfu etrogim were highly sought after, making them expensive. Furthermore, the owners of the orchards – many of them non-Jews – fiercely guarded their monopolies, and were extremely careful that their etrogim were of unimpeachable pedigree.
This broadside was issued as a result of the drift away from using etrogim grown on the island of Corfu in the late nineteenth century. Initially this began with a ban on their use that was issued c.1875 and that had its roots in the growing suspicion that Corfu etrogim were no longer reliable in their pedigree and that growers had secretly begun grafting them with other citrus fruits to boost the numbers of fruit that were fit for use, and in addition would be outstanding in their appearance, boosting their value.
Then in 1891, the year of this broadside, the ban against Corfu etrogim was strengthened as a result of the terrible anti-semitism on the island that had led to a vicious blood libel. Jewish communities formerly loyal to Corfu etrogim switched their allegiances to the ever expanding etrogim market of Eretz Yisrael and it was this that R. Leiner was trying to prevent. R. Leiner (1877-1929) was the scion of the Izbica/Radzyn dynasty and in this broadside he quotes his recently departed father, R. Gershon Henoch (1839-1891), the famous 'Baal ha-Techeilet', as saying that there were no better and more kosher etrogim than those that grew in Corfu. He added that those grown in Eretz Yisrael were probably unfit for use and, furthermore, the excuse that they provided income for poor farmers there was utterly inappropriate in light of their unfitness. He added that the chief rabbi of Corfu, R. Elisha mi-Pano, had written to him to say that the ban effected against Corfu etrogim (the annual market for etrogim was of major economic significance to the small island) as a result of the blood libel was making matters worse for the Jews of Corfu.
Despite attemps by R. Leiner and other advocates of Corfu etrogim, the Corfu etrog business went into terminal decline. By the early twentieth century the rival industry in Eretz Yisrael had grabbed the overwhelming majority of the etrogim market, and with the upheaval of the two world wars, and following the creation of the State of Israel, Corfu etrogim disappeared completely from the scene.
Recently, I understand, there has been some effort to revive the fortunes of the Corfu etrog. It would seem that an emissary of R. David Twersky of New Square annually acquires etrogim from Corfu for R. Twersky to use on sukkot. No doubt this action is motivated by R. Twersky's well-known desire to strictly follow the customs of his illustrious forebears who, in the years when the etrogim controversy raged, were devotees of Corfu etrogim over their Eretz Yisrael counterparts. Nevertheless, as any etrog grower will tell you, once an etrog orchard has been abandoned, any fruit that emerge from it in the years that follow, especially if many years pass, no longer have a chezkat kashrut, and more than likely they are murkavim. It would be interesting to know if R. Twersky makes a bracha on these questionable etrogim, or if he first uses an etrog of reliable pedigree and then switches to the murkav simply for sentimental purposes.  

Repackaged Rulings: The Responsa of R. Elyashiv by: Yitzhak of בין דין לדין
 Wolf2191 recently wrote: N.B. I believe I noticed that some of the pesakim that R' Elyashiv issued when he was part of the Beis Din Ha-Gadol together with Chacham Ovadiah and Harav Kappach were republished in a kovetz under R' Elyashiv's name only, but I would need to check again.]

The קובץ תשובות

Three volumes of Rav Elyashiv's responsa have been published in Yerushalayim under the title קובץ תשובות, the first in 5760, and the latter two in 5763. None contain any preface, introduction or critical apparatus, except for the following brief prefatory paragraph, which appears verbatim in all three volumes: קובץ זה נאסף ונלקט מספרים קובצים וכו'. וזאת למודעי כי ברוב התשובות לא היה גוף כתה"י לנגד עינינו, וסמכנו על הנדפס ויש מהם שבאו בחסר ושינויי לשון, כך שאין מקום כלל לקבוע דבר מהם. התשובות נלקטו ונסדרו ע"ד בלבד ואם שגינו אתנו תלין משוגתנו, ואנו תפלה להשי"ת שלא יצא דבר תקלה ח"ו מתח"י. The title pages state merely that these responsa have been נאספו נלקטו וקובצו מספרים וקובצים תורניים No editors are named, and copyright is claimed anonymously, although a mailing address is given.A striking difference between the three volumes is in the sourcing of the individual responsa. The table of contents of the first volume contains sources for all the responsa, that of the second leaves many unsourced, particularly in the Even Ha'Ezer and Hoshen Mishpat sections, and that of the third dispenses entirely with sources.Why does the second volume omit some sources? Rav Dovid Soloveitchik used to say (and probably still does) "We may only ask 'what does it say', not 'why'", so let us rephrase the question; which sources does the second volume omit? The crucial clue is in the fact that the table of contents of the first volume mysteriously gives the sources for many of the responsa as 'פ"ד', whereas that of the second volume contains no such references. 'פ"ד' clearly stands for פסק דין, or perhaps more precisely, פסקי דין, and indeed, most of the unsourced responsa in the second volume seem to be excerpts of rulings originally published in the פסקי-דין של בתי הדין הרבניים האיזוריים בישראל, which explains their concentration in the aforementioned sections.I have hunted down the sources for a half dozen responsa from the beginning of the Hoshen Mishpat section of the second volume of the קובץ תשובות:

קובץ תשובות	פסקי דין
p. 310	Vol. 5, p. 322
p. 314	Vol. 4, p. 225
p. 321	Vol. 3, p. 289
p. 327	Vol. 5, p. 3
p. 342	Vol. 1, p. 108
p. 351	Vol. 3, p. 170

The remainder are left as an exercise for the reader.Of the six cases listed above, five were apparently decided unanimously, and the published opinions are recorded simply as the courts' rulings. The third case in the above list yielded a split decision; one opinion appears over the names of R. Elyashiv and a colleague, and another opinion over the name of the third member of the panel. The קובץ תשובות' inclusion of these opinions implies that they have been authored by Rav Elyashiv himself, although the careful reader will notice that the editors do not explicitly attribute them to him; his signature is not appended, as it is to many of the responsa in the work.

The פסקי דין

We have mentioned the פסקי דין; a few words about this invaluable work are in order. At more than eight thousand pages in more than twenty volumes, it is the largest, and unquestionably the most important, published collection of casefiles in the areas of Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer. The decisions are lengthy and intricately argued, and they include copious citations of earlier literature as well as much important original analysis. Many of the בתי הדין הרבניים are represented, as are many of the most eminent Talmidei Hachamim and experts on Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer of the latter half of the twentieth century. Here is a list of some of the best known of these scholars:

• אליהו בקשי דורון
• E. Bazri
• מרדכי אליהו
• יוסף שלום אלישיב
• זלמן נחמיה גולדברג
• עובדיה הדאיה
• S. S. Karelitz
• יצחק נסים
• יוסף קאפח
• אליעזר יהודה ולדנברג
• שאול ישראלי
• עובדיה יוסף
• בצלאל זולטי

Current Status and Availability

According to the Hebrew University catalog entries (See the Main Catalog entries (not JNUL) here and here) twenty two volumes of rulings have been published to date, plus three index volumes. I believe that the cost of the print version is exorbitant, but the wonderful people at HebrewBooks.org have made most of the volumes available for free download, in PDF format; search for פסקי דין. They apparently have the same material that my local library has, nineteen volumes of rulings plus index volumes. [My library has one index volume, covering volumes one through fifteen, they have two, covering volumes one through five and six through ten, and the Hebrew University collections have all three.] They seem to have duplicate copies of volumes eleven through eighteen, and the publication dates of their first series, titled אוסף פסקי דין, are all given as תש"י, which is obviously incorrect (this is the date of the appearance of the first volume, as we shall presently see), but this is mere carping; their making (most of) the work available for free online is a great boon for anyone interested in Hoshen Mishpat and Even Ha'Ezer.

Present At the Creation

Wolf2191 has shown me Dr. Zerah Warhaftig's personal account of the founding and subsequent evolution of the project: An important innovation in the history of the responsa literature was inaugurated in Israel with the decision to publish the rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal and those of the district rabbinical courts. The rulings are published together with the arguments on which they are based, as presented in court. Indeed, I myself proposed the publication project, and was charged with its implementation, a responsibility I viewed as a great privelege and sacred trust. Previously, the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal followed the traditional system of issuing brief rulings while at the same time compiling a full account of the halakhic deliberation on the case in pamphlet form for circulation among judges. Deliberation and discussion are an essential part of the legal process, allowing the individual judges an opportunity to convince their colleagues of the validity of their arguments, so that a decision can be reached. The pamphlets were intended to facilitate this process, rather than explain the rulings to the litigants involved, so that they could understand why they had won, or lost, their cases. There was no appeal against a ruling of the Rabbinical High Court, nor were there establishe procedures for appealing the rulings of district rabbinical courts. (Interestingly, these pamphlets often served as the basis for volumes of responsa published by their authors years later.) The idea of publishing, in an organized fashion, both the courts' rulings and their grounds, and that of appending abstracts of the laws cited in the rulings, as is customary in law reports, to allow for ease of reference and study, was thus entirely new. Accordingly, the Chief Rabbinate, which had to approve the proposal, had to be convinced of its merits. This entailed some negotiation, in which, as head of the Ministry of Justice's Research Institute for Jewish Law, I was much involved. In due course an agreement in principle was reached between myself and the Chief Rabbinate. After some administrative changes were carried out, the first collection of rulings of the Chief Rabbinate's Rabbinical High Court of Appeal was finally published in 1950. Assisted by S. B. Feldman, S. Z. Cahana and P. Galevsky, I served as editor. In the foreword to the volume, I wrote: The selection of the rulings herein published was guided by the desire to accurately portray the workings of the court. Most of the rulings relate to family law and public endowments; the others are devoted to monetary matters. The opinions of the judges, with a few exceptions, are not published as written, but have been abstracted by the editors from the contents of the pamphlets appended to the case files. This volume thus does not constitute a formal record and the editors assume full responsibility for the adaptation and wording of the judicial opinions. … It was found that publication encouraged rabbinical courts judges to communicate their opinions in a clear and orderly manner comprehensible to those unschooled in Jewish law, whether jurists or members of the public. Over time, rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal and the district rabbinical courts began to be handed down in a form that allowed them to be published as written, with no editing. Accordingly, it was decided to publish the rulings of the district rabbinical courts, and later, those of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal, on a monthly basis. … In addition to the inaugural volume of rulings of the Rabbinical High Court of Appeal, eleven volumes of rulings of Israel's rabbinical courts had been published by 1960. These well indexed volumes alone contain a wealth of decisions on questions of family and monetary law and on matters of vital public interest. [Warhaftig, Zerah "Precedent In Jewish Law." in Authority, Process and Method: Studies in Jewish Law Ed. Hanina Ben-Menahem and Neil S. Hecht. Harvard Academic Publishers. 12-16]So in addition to Wolf2191's point about the republication of the panels' rulings as specifically Rav Elyashiv's, Warhaftig tells us that the rulings in the first volume of the פסקי דין (at least one of which is included in the קובץ תשובות, as above) are actually abstracts written by the editors, and not the original opinions penned by the Dayyanim in the first place!