A common D’var Torah delivered at a wedding goes something like this: “Dear Chatan and Kallah. You are standing beneath a Chupah which is representative of the home you will build within the Jewish people. When you walk into your home, you will notice that that Mezuzah is placed in a diagonal position on the doorpost. There is a disagreement between Rashi and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam as to whether the Mezuzah should be affixed in a vertical or horizontal position. Later decisors ruled that a compromise between those two opinions was in order and therefore prescribed that the Mezuzah be affixed diagonally. This lesson of compromise is an important one as you embark upon you marriage and the Mezuzah on your door is an important reminder of this principle. Mazal Tov!”
This wedding Dvar Torah is based on a Gemara in Menachot 33a
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, עשאה כמין נגר פסולה.
איני? והא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר כולהו מזוזתא דבי רבי כמין נגר הוו עביד……. ?
לא קשיא, הא דעבידא כסיכתא, הא דעבידא כאיסתוירא.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one affixes a Mezuzah like a bolt, it is invalid. Is this so? But when Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef came ( from Eretz Yisroel ) he said that all Mezuzot in the house of Rebbe ( Yehuda HaNasi) were affixed like a bolt……? This is not difficult. This ruling (where it is ruled as being unfit) is where it was prepared like a peg; that ruling (in the house of Rebbe where it is ruled as being fit) is where it is prepared like an ankle. [1]
Rashi explains that a “נגר” is something that is embedded in a wall “שתוחבין הנגרין בכותל”[2] 2. He then writes the word “כזה” and illustrates this with a drawing showing a horizontally placed Mezuzah. This is one of many times here that Rashi tells us something and then uses the word “כזה” which is then followed by a diagram. In this case, the illustration shows a horizontally affixed Mezuzah and it is a mezuzah affixed in this direction that is improper.
Rabbeinu Tam (תוס’ ד״ה “הא דעבידא כסיכתא) is bothered by the explanation of Rashi because he feels that it is more honorable to have the Mezuzah affixed in a horizontal position just as it is more honorable to have a Sefer Torah lying horizontally than standing vertically. He therefore translates the word “נגר” as a “peg” and says that the disqualification of a Mezuzah affixed כמין נגר is that it is affixed vertically, like a peg. He also translates the word כסיכתא as a peg and therefore disqualified because it is vertical, and the word איסתוירא, which is considered to be proper, as the part of the foot below the ankle which is horizontal.
The idea that affixing the Mezuzah diagonally is a compromise between the positions of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam is based on the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 289:6
In truth, it is not really a compromise but rather an effort to affix the Mezuzah in a way in which both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam would approve. Rashi says that vertical is the proper way, horizontal is Pasul, but bent ( or diagonal) is also Kosher. Rabbeinu Tam says that horizontal is the proper way, vertical is Pasul, but bent is also Kosher. Some Meforshim take this idea even further by saying that since in the house of Rebbe the Mezuzot were affixed כאיסתוירא, this was some sort of Hidur and therefore something to be emulated.
The classic edition of the Vilna Shas (Vilna 1885) renders this Sugya and the accompanying diagrams as such
Here are the words of Rashi which correspond to these two diagrams which show the positioning of four Mezuzot
He affixed and inserted it in the doorpost like a bolt, for workmen who work with bolts insert it in the walls like this[3]
פסולה – דמצותה לתתה באורך בסף כזה ….
It is improper- Because the Mitzvah is to affix it vertically in the doorpost like this….
The doorframe in the lower illustration also shows two Mezuzot.
The one on top is horizontal and therefore improper and the one on the bottom is bent (it looks like the Hebrew letter Nun), and therefore Kosher. Here are the words of Rashi which correspond to these two Mezuzot.
עבידא כסיכתא – נגר כשל אומנים כזה פסולה
A bolt as fashioned by workmen like this is disqualified
ל”א איסתוירא. כי היכי דמקום חיבור השוק והרגל הוי השוק זקוף מלמעלה והרגל שוכב כזה כך הניחה למזוזה כשירה הואיל וראשה אחד זקוף
Another explanation of איסתוירא – like the point at which the “Shok” joins the ”Regel”, where the “Shok” is upright and the “Regel” rests, like this, so too if he affixes the Mezuzah like this it is Kosher because the top part is upright.
There is no diagram associated directly with this comment of Rashi
איסתוירא – היינו מקום חיבור השוק והרגל ומעומד הוא כזה, כשירה:
Whether a נגר is normally inserted horizontally or vertically is also “illustrated” in Jastrow’s explanation of the word
In Bava Batra 101a he describes it “like an upright bolt” and in our Gemara he describes it as “like a bolt shoved into a case, i.e. horizontally”
There are two issues with the standard depiction of the two diagrams in the Vilna Shas. Rashi uses the word כזה five times and there are only four “illustrations” (2 in each diagram) Also, we would expect that there would be a diagram after each time it says כזה.
This problem is solved when we look at the only handwritten manuscript we have of Rashi on this part of Menachot.
The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia Ms. EVR IV 25:
It contains five depictions of the placement of the Mezuzot and each כזה is followed by a depiction.
The problem is also solved when we look at the first printed edition of Menachot ( Bomberg 1522) whose source had to be a manuscript. [4]
This printed edition leaves space after every כזה. It even includes a rudimentary depiction of the last כזה looking like a “Nun” which is supposed to depict where the ankle meets the leg.
It looks very much like the Nun in the National Library of Russia manuscript and may have emanated from the same source.
It was very exciting for me personally to discover this “diagram” which clearly was added to illustrate the כזה. In his Maamar ‘al hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, (ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem: 2006, p.41) Rav Natan Nata Rabbinowicz, writing about the first Bomberg edition, states as follows:
״ובכל התלמוד (וכן בכל הדפוסים הישנים עד דפוס בערמן) נשמטו הציורים בגמרא, רש״י ותוספות,ונשאר מקומם חלק, מלבד בסוטה מג. שישנו הציור ברש״י “In all of the Talmud (and in all other older printed editions of the Talmud until the Berman edition ( Frankfurt an Der Oder 1697-99) the diagrams were not included in the Talmud, Rashi and Tosfot, and their space remained empty, except for Sotah 43A, where we find a diagram in Rashi.”
It turns out there was a diagram included in the second Bomberg edition of Zevachim( 1528) on 53b, which Rabbinowicz probably never saw. See my article here.
He may have also missed this one because it does not look much like a diagram, but just a letter, or perhaps he felt it was of no significance.
This depiction of the last כזה looking like a “Nun” was maintained by subsequent editions of the Talmud printed in Basel 1580, Cracow 1605, Amsterdam 1644, and Frankfurt an der Oder in 1699.
It was only dropped and replaced with the two larger diagrams we have today in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1720.
Since many people follow the advice of the Rema and affix the Mezuzah diagonally, it is important to understand the source. This is the word in the Gemara which state that in the house of Rebbe, the Mezuzot were affixed כאיסתוירא. This word is etymologically related to the Latin word astragalus which is described as “the bone in the ankle that articulates with the leg bones to form the ankle joint”. It is more commonly known today as the Talus and looks like this:[5]
As used in the Gemara, it probably meant the entire area where the bottom of the foot ( which is horizontal) met the bottom of the leg ( which is vertical) at the ankle, thereby looking like something that was bent.
Finally, there is a fascinating story about the Talus bone related by Rav Yisroel Shachor in the Sefer “Dovair Yesharim”.[6] In discussing the איסתוירא, he writes that he was in a terrible automobile accident and בחסדי ה׳ escaped death by climbing out of the rear of the car only seconds before it burst into flames. The only injury he sustained was a broken bone in his foot, which he identified as the Talus. He had many opportunities to view x-rays of his broken foot and concludes “I see this as a source of amazement that the only bone of all 248 bones in my body which was broken, allowed me to understand the words of Torah, and to understand that this was the איסתוירא which is mentioned in Gemarot.”[7]
[1] Translation courtesy of Sefaria.org and follows the interpretation of Rashi.
[2] There is discussion on whether what is shown as Rashi in our editions of Menachot was actually written by Rashi. Rav Natan Nata Rabbinowicz ( author of Dikdukei Sofrim) writes that our “Rashi” was written by a student of Rabbeinu Gershom. ( Dikdukei Sofrim on Menachot 86a note 6 where he writes …מפני שהפרוש הזה המיוחס לרש״י הוא כנראה מתלמיד הרבינו גרשום מאור הגולה והעתיק ברובו לשון הרבינו גרשום מאור הגולה) Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi (the author of the Shita Mekubetzet) writes that for chapters 7-10, the “Rashi” in the standard editions was not written by Rashi and he substitutes his own version which is indicated by the words “Rashi Ktiv Yad” in the Vilna Shas. The editors of the Vilna Shas record this opinion at the beginning of the 7th chapter ( Menachot 72a) as follows: וזה לשונו “זה הפּרוש אשר הוא בדפוס מפרק אלו המנחות עד שתי הלחם אינו מפי׳ רש״י ז״ל והוא של פרשן אחר, וזה לשון רש״י כּ״י”.But Rav Ashkenazi seems to indicate that the Rashi of other chapters was in fact written by Rashi. ( see his note to the beginning of Menachot chapter 11 where he writes מכאן ואליך הוא פירוש רש״י ז״ל).
[3] We only know that it is affixed in a horizontal direction from the picture, not from Rashi’s words.
[4] The Soncino family printed many tractates of the Talmud from 1483-1519 before Bomberg printed the complete Talmud in 1520-1522, and those Soncino editions often formed the basis for the text of the Bomberg edition. But the Soncino family did not print tractate Menachot meaning the Bomberg edition was based solely on manuscripts.
[5] My source for this information is Dr. Carol Teitz who is a member of my Shul. Dr. Teitz is an orthopedic surgeon and most recently, the dean of admissions at the University of Washington Medical School
[6] Doveir Yesharim, Sefer Shemot, Jerusalem. 2014, page 128
[7] This source was brought to my attention by a Torah scholar named Aharon who has helped me immensely in my research on diagrams.
Book Announcement
|
Book Announcement
By Eliezer Brodt
ספרות חז“ל הארץ–ישראלית, מבואות ומחקרים, המערכת מנחם כהנא, ורד נעם, מנחם קיסטר, דוד רוזנטל, ב’ חלקים, 732 עמודים.
I am very happy to announce the publication of an important work which numerous people will find very useful. This is a collection essays from various experts in the field of Chazal’s Eretz Yisrael Literature. If one wants a proper introduction to various works of Chazal from the Mishna and on, this is the place to look Up until now there were numerous articles and books on all these topics, including the two volumes set Literature of the Sages Many of the topics covered in these two new volumes can be found in; Literature of the Sages, some times even by the same authors e.g. Vered Noam on Megilat Tannit or Chaim Milikowsky on Seder Olam. However, many of the chapters are new or are written by different people. One hopes that they will continue this series with a volume dealing with the Talmud Bavli.
For a short time copies can be purchased through me for a special price. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
מצות ישיבת ארץ ישראל
|
מצות ישיבת ארץ ישראל
בצלאל נאור
א]
רבי אבא הוה קא משתמיט מיניה דרב יהודה, דהוה קא בעי למיסק לארעא דישראל, דאמר רב יהודה, כל העולה מבבל לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה, שנאמר “בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו עד יום פקדי אותם נאום ה’ [והעליתים והשיבותים אל המקום הזה]” [ירמיה כז, כב].
אמר, איזיל ואשמע מיניה מילתא מבית וועדא והדר אפיק. אזל1 אשכחיה לתנא דקתני קמיה דרב יהודה, היה עומד בתפלה ונתעטש, ממתין עד שיכלה הרוח וחוזר ומתפלל. איכא דאמרי, היה עומד בתפלה ובקש להתעטש, מרחיק לאחריו ארבע אמות ומתעטש, וממתין עד שיכלה הרוח, וחוזר ומתפלל ואומר, “רבונו של עולם, יצרתנו נקבים נקבים, חלולים חלולים. גלוי וידוע לפניך חרפתנו וכלימתנו בחיינו, ובאחריתנו רימה ותולעה”. ומתחיל ממקום שפסק.
אמר ליה, אילו לא באתי אלא לשמוע דבר זה, דיי!
(ברכות כד, ב)
יש לבאר שרבי אבא עמד בפני דילמה גדולה. מצד אחד, בערה בו חיבת הארץ. רבי אבא נעשה לשם דבר עבור חיבת ארץ ישראל שלו. “רבי אבא מנשק כיפי דעכו”.2 אמנם לעומתו עמדה שיטת רבו, רב יהודה, שהתנגד בכל תוקף לעלייה מבבל לארץ ישראל.
במצב כזה שהיה “על הגדר” ומתנדנד בשרעפי לבו, קרהו מקרה—”השגחה פרטית”—שהכריע לצד העלייה לארץ ישראל. הוא שמע הלכה שמי שנתעטש מלמטה, מתרחק ארבע אמות ממקום התפילה שלו, וכשיכלה הרוח, חוזר למקומו הראשון ומתפלל. רבי אבא בחכמתו ובתבונתו שמע לקח לגבי גורל ישראל. הגם שחטאו ישראל על דרך שכתוב “נרדי נתן ריחו”,3 “ומפני חטאינו גלינו מארצנו”,4 אין חייבים להישאר בגלות בבל עד ביאת גואל, אלא משיכלה הרוח, חוזרים לארצם ומתחילים את העבודה ממקום שפסקו.5
ב]
רבי זירא הוה קא משתמיט מדרב יהודה, דבעי למיסק לארעא דישראל, דאמר רב יהודה, כל העולה מבבל לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה, שנאמר “בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו” [ירמיה כז, כב].
אמר, איזיל ואשמע מיניה מילתא ואיתי ואיסק. אזל אשכחיה דקאי בי באני, וקאמר ליה לשמעיה, הביאו לי נתר, הביאו לי מסרק…
אמר, אילמלא באתי אלא לשמוע דבר זה, דיי!
קא משמע לן דברים של חול מותר לאומרם בלשון קודש.
(שבת מא, א)
גם רבי זירא התלבט אם לעלות לארץ ישראל או להישאר בבבל. הוא השתוקק לעלות לארץ ישראל אבל עמד מנגד פסק דינו של רבו, רב יהודה, שאסר העלייה מבבל לארץ ישראל.6 וגם לו קרה מקרה—”השגחה פרטית”—שהכריע את כף המאזנים לצד העלייה לארץ ישראל אם עוד קינן ספק בלבו. אף הוא שמע הלכה חדשה—מתוך “מעשה רב”—שהפיק ממנה לקח לגבי העלייה לארץ ישראל. כנראה שהיו כאלה שסברו שאסור לומר דברים של חול בלשון הקודש; שסברו שרק דברים של קודש מותר לומר בלשון הקודש. ומפי רבו, רב יהודה—”מרא דשמעתתא” גופיה—שמע יקרות לשון הקודש והבין שכמה שיותר יש לדבר בלשון הקודש.
“תני בשם רבי מאיר: כל מי שהוא קבוע בארץ ישראל, ואוכל חוליו בטהרה, ומדבר בלשון הקודש, וקורא את שמע בבוקר ובערב—מובטח לו שהוא מחיי העולם הבא”.7
ג] תוספות כתובות קי”א א’ ד”ה בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו: “אף על-גב דהאי קרא בגלות ראשון כתיב, יש לומר דבגלות שני נמי קפיד קרא”.
דברי התוספות אינם מובנים כל הצורך. וכבר כתבתי במקום אחר,8 שישנו חבל ראשונים שכתבו שבאמת בית שני לא היווה גאולה אלא “פקידה” בעלמא, שמלכי בית חשמונאי לא השיגו מלוא העצמאות ועדיין משועבדים היו למלכי פרס ויוון ורומי. ראה פירוש רבינו עזרא מגירונה לשיר השירים ח, יג: “הלא לא היתה לישראל מלוכה וממשלה כל ימי בית שני כי תחת מלכי פרס ויוון ורומי היו”.9 וכן כתוב בדרשות הר“ן, סוף הדרוש השביעי,10 וביתר הרחבה באור השם לתלמידו ר’ חסדאי קרשקש.11
ואם כן, איננו צריכים לתירוץ התוספות אלא מובן מאליו שגלות ראשון וגלות שני היינו הך, המשך אחד עם פסק זמן באמצע הקרוי “בית שני”. מפורש אומר רבי חסדאי: “האמת הגמור לפי מה שיראה, שהגלות הזה שאנחנו בו, הוא הגלות שנמשך מחורבן הבית הראשון”.12
אולם הרמב”ם לא יסבור כן שהרי כתב בהלכות חנוכה פ”ג הל”א: “וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה עד החורבן השני”. והוא יצטרך לתירוץ התוספות. וצריך עיון.13
ד] הרמב”ן החשיב ישיבת ארץ ישראל למצות-עשה מן התורה (עיין פירושו במדבר לג, נג) וכן מנאה במניין המצוות שלו (מצות-עשה רביעית לדעת הרמב”ן, נדפס בספר המצוות לרמב”ם). וזה לשונו שם: “הכל הוא ממצות עשה שנצטווינו לרשת הארץ ולשבת בה. אם כן, מצות עשה לדורות, מתחייב כל יחיד ממנו ואפילו בזמן גלות”.
והנה יש לנו ספר חשוב בשם מגילת אסתר (ויניציאה, שנ”ב) שנכתב להצדיק את שיטת הרמב”ם בספר המצוות מהשגות הרמב”ן. מחברו ר’ יצחק ליאון בן אליעזר אבן צור ספרדי.14
זה לשון מגילת אסתר (דפוס ויניציאה שנ”ב), דף צז ע”ב:
ונראה לי כי מה שלא מנאה הרב [=הרמב”ם] הוא לפי שמצות ירושת הארץ וישיבתה לא נהגה רק בימי משה ויהושע ודוד וכל זמן שלא גלו מארצם, אבל אחר שגלו מעל אדמתם אין מצוה זו נוהגת לדורות עד עת בא המשיח, כי אדרבא נצטוינו לפי מה שאמרו בסוף כתובות [קי”א א’] שלא נמרוד באומות ללכת לכבוש את הארץ בחזקה, והוכיחוהו מפסוק “השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וגומר, ודרשו בו שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה15…ועוד ראיה שאין בו מצוה ממה שאמרו גם כן התם [=כתובות ק”י ב’] כל העולה מבבל לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה שנאמר “בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו”. ואם היה מצוה בדירת ארץ ישראל בכל הזמנים, איך יבוא נביא אחרי משה לסתור את דבריו והא אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה וכל-שכן לסתור.
מהר“ץ חיות בהגהותיו ברכות כ”ד ב’ דחה דבריו האחרונים: “ואני אומר, ולטעמיך גם לשיטתו [=לשיטת הרמב”ם] לא יתכן, דאפילו אם מצות עשה דירושת הארץ אינה לדורות, מכל מקום אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר, אלא ודאי דאמירת ירמיה איננה רק תקנה כשאר תקנות נביאים שאינן בכלל מצוות…”
אמנם יש להפריך את דברי המגילת אסתר באופן יסודי יותר. אלה דברי הרמב”ם בספר המצוות, מצוה קעב:
היא שצונו לשמוע כל נביא מהנביאים לעשות כל מה שיצוה אפילו בהיפך מצוה או כלל מצות מהמצוות האלו ובתנאי שיהיה זה לפי שעה, לא שיצוה להתמיד תוספת או חסרון, כמו שבארנו בפתיחת חבורנו בפירוש המשנה, והכתוב שבא בו הציווי הזה הוא אמרו “אליו תשמעון” [דברים יח, טו] …
וכן כתב הרמב”ם בחיבורו הגדול משנה תורה, הלכות יסודי התורה פ”ט הל”ג: “וכן אם יאמר לנו הנביא שנודע לנו שהוא נביא, לעבור על אחת מכל מצוות האמורות בתורה, או על מצוות הרבה, בין קלות בין חמורות, לפי שעה—מצוה לשמוע לו”.
ולכן מילתא דפשיטא הוא שמה שציווה ירמיהו הנביא “בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו”, הוראת שעה היא, כדברי הנביא עצמו “עד יום פקדי אותם, נאום ד'”.
אלא שנצטרך להבהיר שישנה “שעה” שמתארכת מאות שנים. וכבר הוכחנו זאת במקום אחר מדברי הרמב”ם בהלכות בית הבחירה פ”ד הל”א שמנה בין הכלים הנטפלים לארון את מטה אהרן וצנצנת המן והשמיט את הארגז ששיגרו פלשתים דורון לאלוקי ישראל, משום שאינו אלא על דרך הוראת שעה ולא הוראה לדורות.16
לכן, מה שחשב בעל מגילת אסתר להוכיח שמצות ישיבת ארץ ישראל אינה מצוה לדורות מזה שהנביא ירמיהו יכל לאסור העלייה לארץ ישראל (לדברי רב יהודה), נפל בבירא. כי יתכן מאד שהמצוה נוהגת לדורות והנביא לא אמר לבטלה אלא “לפי שעה”.17
ה] יש בידינו ספר יקר מאד, מסולא בפז, מאחד ה”חסידים הראשונים”, שהיה שייך לחוג הנרחב של הבעש”ט, ר’ בנימין מגיד מישרים דק”ק זלאזיץ. שם הספר הוא אהבת דודים (למברג, תקנ”ג), פירוש על שיר השירים.18 בפירוש לפסוק “השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים בצבאות או באילות השדה אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ” (שיר השירים ב, ז), כותב ר’ בנימין דברים נוראים המרקיעים שחקים.
הגמרא סוטה (י”ג ב’) אומרת: “כל העושה דבר ולא גמרו—קובר אשתו ובניו”. בבראשית רבה (פה, ג) הלשון: “כל מי שהוא מתחיל במצוה ואינו גומרה—קובר את אשתו ואת בניו”.
מקשה המגיד מזלאזיץ:
וצריך להבין, הא כל מדותיו של הקב”ה מדה כנגד מדה, וקשה, וכי כך היא המדה שיבוא עונש כזה על שאינו גומר המצוה?
שנית, למה יהיה זה האדם יותר גרוע ממי שאינו מתחיל בה כלל?
המגיד מסביר על-פי משל:
ונראה לתת טעם לשבח, ומבשרי נחזה, באלפי אלפים הבדלות, כשאדם בא לקרב את עצמו אל היחוד הגשמי ונתעורר[ה] תאות שניהם אל היחוד, ובא איזה דבר המונע לגמור יחודם, כמה “אנפיהם עציבין”,19 ולא עוד אלא במה שהיה אפשר להם להוליד איזו נשמה קדושה ביחודם, לא די שלא הולידו בקדושה, אף זו שלפעמים יצא חס-ושלום ממנו לבטלה הואיל שנתעורר לזווג, ויתן כח חס-ושלום לחיצונים בהתעוררות זיווג זה.
ותיכף למשל, נמשל:
כן הדבר הזה, כשהתחיל לעשות היחוד באיזו מצוה, ובאתערותא דלתתא אתער לעילא, העלאות מ”ן [=מיין נוקבין] והורדות מ”ד [=מיין דוכרין], וכשלא נגמר היחוד כדקא יאות, גורם ד”אתכסיא סיהרא”,20 שהיא מדת מלכות…
והוא הדבר אשר גורם מי שהתחיל במצוה ואינו גומרה. ונמצא לפי זה עונשו הוא לפי המדה: כשם שהוא גורם ש”אתכסיא סיהרא”, לכך הוא קובר אשתו ונכסית ממנו; וכשם שגרם ש”נהורא לא אשתכח”,21 שלא קיבלה המיין דוכרין, שהיא [=שהן] נשמות קדושות, שהיה יכול להוליד מזה היחוד, לכך קובר בניו, חס-ושלום.22
כך מפרש אחד מגדולי החסידות את השבועה בשיר-השירים, “אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ”. הדברים נאמרו במישור הפרטי שהמתחיל במצוה מושבע ועומד לגומרה, אולם ניתן להעתיק את הדברים אל המישור הכללי. כנסת ישראל התחילה במצות ישוב ארץ ישראל. “באתערותא דלתתא, אתער לעילא”. אחינו בני ישראל, אל נא נרפה ממצוה זו! מושבעים אנו בכל חומר השבועה לגמור את אשר החלנו.
1
.רש”א גורס: וועד ואתי ואזיל
2
.כתובות קיב, א
3
.שיר השירים א, יא ורש”י שם
4
.תפילת מוסף של שלוש רגלים
5
.(כבר נדפס ממני דרוש זה בראשית אוני על מסכת ברכות, חלק א (ניו-יורק תשל”ה
6
בעלייתו לארץ ישראל הצטיין רבי זירא במסירות הנפש שלו, כמסופר בשלהי מסכת כתובות (קי”ב א’): “רבי זירא כי הוה סליק לארץ ישראל, לא אשכח מברא למיעבר, נקט במצרא וקעבר”. (רש”י: נקט במצרא—יש מקום שאין גשר, ומשליכים עץ על רוחב הנהר משפה לשפה, ואינו רחב לילך עליו, כי-אם אוחז בידיו בחבל המתוח למעלה הימנו, קשור שני ראשיו בשתי יתידות, אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן, בשני עברי הנהר.)
מלבד מסירות הנפש הגופנית, היתה כאן מסירות נפש רוחנית. אלה דברי מו”ר הרב צבי יהודה הכהן קוק זצ”ל:
לא רק במסירות גופו בהסתכנות חייו בהיותו “נקט במצרא” כדי להזדרז ולהגיע אליה [=אל ארץ ישראל] בהקדם, כאשר “לא אשכח מברא למיעבר” (כתובות קי”ב א’), אלא גם במסירות נפשו והקרבת עמדתו הרוחנית בשביל זה. כי ירא שמים כמוהו, הלא בודאי היה לו “מורא רבו כמורא שמים” (אבות פ”ד מ”יב) בכל תוקפו. אכן בהחלטתו לעלות לארץ ישראל השתמט מלפני רבו רב יהודה, שאמר “כל העולה מבבל לארץ ישראל עובר בעשה”, ומקיים בפועל את העלייה לארץ, במסירות נפש והקרבה רוחנית, למרות הוראתו זו של רבו.
(רצי”ה קוק, לנתיבות ישראל, ב [ירושלים, תשל”ט], “תורה לשמה והארץ לשמה”, עמ’לא)
7
ירושלמי, שבת פ”א הל”ג. ובירושלמי שקלים פ”ג הל”ג הסדר הפוך: “ומדבר בלשון הקודש ואוכל פירותיו בטהרה”. (ועיין בתקלין חדתין שם מר’ ישראל משקלוב, תלמיד הגר”א, שפירש על דרך הסוד שישיבת ארץ הקודש, אכילת פירות בטהרה, הדיבור בלשון הקודש, וקריאת שמע כנגד גוף ונר”ן, מתתא לעילא, ואם כן הסדר במסכת שבת מדוייק טפי.) יש עוד שינוי, במסכת שקלים הנוסח: “יהא מבושר שבן עולם הבא הוא”. אמנם בכפתור ופרח לרבינו אשתורי הפרחי, פרק י, מביא את הגמרא הירושלמית שקלים בזה הלשון: “יהא מובטח שהוא מבני העולם הבא”.
8
.בספרי אוירין (ירושלים, תש”מ), עמ’ פה-פז
9 .כתבי רמב“ן, ערך רח”ד שוול, כרך ב (ירושלים, תשכ”ד), עמ’ תקיז
10
.רבינו נסים בן ראובן גירונדי, דרשות הר“ן, ערך ר’ אריה ל’ פלדמן (ירושלים, תשל”ז), עמ’קכג
11
ר’ חסדאי קרשקש, אור השם, מאמר ג ח”א, כלל ח, פרק ב. במהדורת מו”ר רבי שלמה פישר שליט”א (ירושלים, תש”ן), עמ’ שסח-שסט
12
.שם, עמ’ שסט
13
וראה מה שכתב בשיטת הרמב”ם (הלכות מלכים פרק ה, הלכה יב) ר’ חיים הלוי, זה מקרוב נדפס:
ונראה לומר, דהנה התוספות (כתובות קי”א א’ ד”ה בבלה) הקשו דהאי קרא דבבלה בגלות ראשון הוא דכתיב. ותירצו דילפינן גלות שני מגלות ראשון. והנה צריך עיון דאיך ילפינן גלות שני מגלות ראשון כיון דקדושה ראשונה לא קידשה אלא לשעתה, ונמצא דלא היה על כל יחיד ויחיד הך מצוה דישיבת ארץ ישראל, מה שאין כן בקדושה שניה דקידשה לעתיד לבוא, ונמצא דאיכא על כל יחיד הך מצוה דאורייתא של ישיבת ארץ ישראל, אפשר דבכי האי גוונא ליכא להך דינא דשמה יהיו.
ואשר על כן סובר הרמב”ם דהך דינא דאסור לעלות מבבל לארץ ישראל לא קיימא אלא אם נימא דקדושה שניה גם כן בטלה, או דנימא דקדושה ראשונה גם כן לא בטלה, אבל אם אך נימא דראשונה בטלה ושניה לא בטלה, באמת ליכא למילף גלות שני מגלות ראשון, כיון דבגלות שני איכא מצות עשה דישיבת ארץ ישראל, מה שאין כן בגלות ראשון.
אכן כל זה הוא רק לעניין ארץ ישראל, מה שאין כן לעניין שאר ארצות, הרי גלות ראשון וגלות שני שווין, ושפיר ילפינן שני מראשון. ועל כן הרמב”ם דפסק (פ”ו מהלכות בית הבחירה הלט”ז) דקדושה ראשונה בטלה ושניה קידשה לעתיד לבוא, על כן שפיר חילק, וכתב דלעניין שאר ארצות איכא הך עשה דושמה יהיו, מה שאין כן לעניין ארץ ישראל ליכא הך עשה, כיון דאיכא עשה דישיבת ארץ ישראל, וכמו שנתבאר, ודוק.
(כתבי רבנו חיים הלוי מכי”ק [טאג בוך], ערך הרב יצחק אבא ליכטנשטיין [ירושלים,תשע”ח], עמ’ קלט)
לפי הסבר ר’ חיים הלוי, מצות ישיבת ארץ ישראל תלויה בקדושת הארץ לגבי תרומות ומעשרות וכו’ (וכן העלה באבני נזר, חלק יורה דעה, סימן תנד, אותיות לג, לה, לט, דלמ”ד קידשה ג”כ לע”ל היא מצוה דאורייתא, ולמ”ד לא קידשה לע”ל אין מ”ע דישיבת ארץ ישראל בזמן הזה רק מדרבנן).
אמנם יעויין בספר כפתור ופרח לרבנו אשתורי הפרחי, פרק יו”ד, שמבוארת דעתו שאין מצות ישוב הארץ תלויה במצוות התלויות בארץ (ודעתו מיוסדת על הלכות ארץ ישראל לרבינו ברוך בעל ספר התרומה). הובאו דברי הכפתור ופרח במבוא לספר שבת הארץ לראי”ה קוק, פרק טו. וכן במשפט כהן להנ”ל, סימן סג (עמ’ קכט), בתשובה לרידב”ז: “הנה כבר האריך בכפתור ופרח (פ”י) שקדושת ארץ ישראל וקדושת המצוות תרי מילי נינהו, ואפילו כשנפקעה קדושת המצוה…מכל מקום מצוה רבה יש בישוב ארץ הקודש מפני קדושתה העצמית”.
וקדמו בזה הרמב”ן בחידושיו ריש מסכת גיטין: “ואי נמי סבירא להו לא קידשה לעתיד לבוא לעניין תרומות ומעשרות, חביבא עלייהו, דהא איכא דאמרי קדושה שלישית יש להם, ואף על-פי כן ארץ ישראל בחיבתה היא עומדת ובקדושתה לעניין ישיבתה ודירתה”.
לאחרונה, ראיתי חכם אחד שביקש להעמיס חילוק זה של הרמב”ן והכפתור ופרח—בין קדושת ארץ ישראל העצמית ומצות ישובה לבין קדושת המצוות כגון תרומות ומעשרות—ברמב”ם! וחיליה מרמב”ם הלכות שבת פרק ו, הלכה יא: “הלוקח בית בארץ ישראל מן הגוי,מותר לומר לגוי לכתוב לו שטר בשבת, שאמירה לגוי בשבת אסורה מדבריהם ומשום ישוב ארץ ישראל לא גזרו בדבר זה, וכן הלוקח בית מהם בסוריא, שסוריא כארץ ישראל לדבר זה“.והקשה המגן אברהם (אורח חיים, סימן שו, סקי”א): “צריך עיון דהא ברייתא [גיטין ח’] סבירא לה כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש, ואם כן אסור ליתן להם חנייה בקרקע מלאו ד’לא תחנם’, לכן מותר לעבור איסור דרבנן, אבל כיון דהרמב”ם פסק דכיבוש יחיד לא שמיה כיבוש, למה נדחה דרבנן מפני דרבנן?” וחידש החכם הנ”ל שלרמב”ם בסוריא אין קדושת מצוות תרומות ומעשרות אבל קדושת הארץ העצמית—וממילא מצות ישובה—ישנה. ואם כן, השבות דרבנן של אמירה לגוי נדחית מפני המצוה דאורייתא של ישוב ארץ ישראל. עד כאן תורף דבריו.
אמנם אין צריך לזה, שהרי “לשבת יצרה” מצוה דרבנן, ומכל מקום כתבו התוספות בכמה דוכתי (גיטין מא, ב ד”ה לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה, ובבא בתרא יג, א ד”ה שנאמר לא תוהו בראה) שהיא “מצוה רבה”. ואף לגבי סוריא, יש לומר שהרמב”ם סובר באמת שישובה מצוה דרבנן, ברם מכיון ש”מצוה רבה” היא, נדחית השבות דאמירה לגוי מפניה. ועיין תוספות, שבת ד, א ד”ה וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חבירך.
14
ראה עליו בשם הגדולים לגרחיד”א, ערך “יצחק דיליאון” (יו”ד—שלג), שבשנת ש”ו כתב איזה פסק, וכתוב שם שהיה תושב אנקונה (של איטליא).
15
“אין למידין מן ההגדות” (ירושלמי, פאה פ”ב הל”ד). דבר השבועה הוא בגדר אגדה ולא הלכה. ראה שו”ת אבנינזר לר’ אברהם בורנשטיין מסוכצ’וב, חלק יורה דעה, הלכות ישיבת ארץ ישראל, סימן תנד, אותיות מ-נ. וזה לשונו שם אות נ: “ובהכי ניחא שהרמב”ם וכל הפוסקים לא הביאו דין החמש שבועות שנשבעו ישראל דזה אין עסק בהלכה, דבאמת האדם עצמו כמו שהוא בגוף לא נצטוה רק שורש הנשמה למעלה”. ובאות נא: “קרא דהשבעתי…אין בזה לא ציווי ולא אזהרה שהיא רק שבועת הנשמה בשורשה”. ובתור שכזו—אגדה ולא הלכה—הביא הרמב”ם את דבר השבועה באגרת תימן (ראה אגרות הרמב“ם, מהדורת הרב קאפח, ירושלים תשנ”ד, עמ’ נה), והשמיטו מחיבורו ההלכתי, משנה תורה.
חכם אחד העיר לי דיוק נפלא ברמב”ם הלכות מלכים (פי”ב הל”ד) שאינו סובל את איום השבועה שלא יעלו בחומה.
כותב הרמב”ם:
ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצוות כדוד אביו כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל-פה, ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה, וילחם מלחמות ה’—הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח.
אם עשה והצליח ונצח כל האומות שסביביו, ובנה מקדש במקומו וקיבץ נדחי ישראל—הרי זה משיח ודאי.
ואם לא הצליח עד כה, או נהרג—בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה, והרי הוא ככל מלכי בית דוד השלמים הכשרים שמתו.
למה נחשב מלך זה שלא הצליח למלך שלם וכשר? הרי “נלחם מלחמות ה'”, וממילא העביר את ישראל על השבועה שלא יעלו בחומה, ובסוף לא רק שהורעה חזקתו אלא איגלאי מילתא למפרע שהרשיע. ואם כן, היה לו לרמב”ם לפסוק דינו ככל המלכים הרשעים. אלא, “בהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לך?!” (ברכות י’ א’).
אגב, המגילת אסתר כתב דבר תמוה מאד במצות-עשה החמישית (דפוס ויניציאה שנ”ב, דף פו ע”א): “שמה שתקנו אלו הזמנים [=זמני התפילה] אינם לעיכובא, רק למצוה, דהא תפילה רחמי נינהו, ובכל עת הוא זמן רחמים”. וכבר שקיל למטרפסיה בשאגת אריה, סימן טו (בהמשך לסימן יד).
18
יש אומרים שר’ בנימין היה תלמיד ר’ יחיאל מיכל מזלוטשוב. הוא חיבר ספרים נוספים: חלקת בנימין על הגדה של פסח (לבוב, תקנ”ד); אמתחת בנימין על מגילת קוהלת (מינקאוויץ,תקנ”ו); תורי זהב על התורה (מאהלוב, תקע”ו). כבר בשער ספרו אהבת דודים (למברג,תקנ”ג) נזכר שמו בברכת המתים.
19
:ר’ בנימין הביא את דברי ספר הזוהר, חלק ב, קפא, ב
אמר רבי שמעון: כלא איהו קריבא למאן דידע ליחדא יחודא ולמפלח למאריה, דהא בזמנא דאשתכח קרבנא כדקא יאות, כדין אתקריב כלא כחדא ונהירו דאנפין אשתכח בעלמא בבי מקדשא…וכד קרבנא לא אשתכח כדקא יאות, או יחודא לא הוי כדקא יאות, כדין אנפין עציבין,ונהירו לא אשתכח, ואתכסיא סיהרא, ושלטא סטרא אחרא בעלמא, ואחריב בי מקדשא, בגין דלא אית מאן דידע ליחדא שמא דקב”ה כדקא יאות.
20
.ספר הזוהר, שם
21 .ספר הזוהר, שם.
22
.ר’ בנימין מזלאזיץ, אהבת דודים (למברג, תקנ”ג), כז, א-ב
The Satmar Rebbe and a Censored Mishnah Berurah, and R. Baruch Rabinovich of Munkács
|
The Satmar Rebbe and a Censored Mishnah Berurah, and R. Baruch Rabinovich of Munkács
Marc B. Shapiro
1. In my recent interview in Der Veker, available here, I said that I hope to discuss how the Satmar Rebbe was mistaken in identifying a Zionist censorship in the Mishnah Berurah.
In Ha-Maor, Elul 5716, p. 30, M. Abramson tells the following story that appears under the heading על זיוף המשנה ברורה. The Satmar Rebbe was away from home and asked his assistant, R. Joseph Ashkenazi (who is the source of the story), to bring him a book. Ashkenazi brought the first book that came to his hand. It was a Mishnah Berurah printed in Israel. After investigating the history of the printing of the Mishnah Berurah at the National Library of Israel, I concluded that the copy the Satmar Rebbe was given was published by Pardes in 1955 (one year before the event described). Here is the title page.
Later the Rebbe returned the book to Ashkenazi and said that as far as he remembers, the language in section 156 of this copy of the Mishnah Berurah differs from what appears in other editions. Ashkenazi checked an older edition of the Mishnah Berurah and discovered that the Israeli edition had altered the original text.
The original Mishnah Berurah 156:4 reads:
מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כ”א מישראל כגופו שנא’ ואהבת לרעך כמוך וכו’ ודוקא רעך בתורה ומצוות אבל אדם רשע שראה אותו שעבר עבירה המפורסמת בישראל ולא קיבל תוכחה מצוה לשנאתו.
I have underlined the words that Abramson calls attention to. While the original text reads: לאהוב את כ”א מישראל, the Pardes edition has לאהוב את עמיתו. Abramson notes, “In this they wanted to show their support for democracy, that one needs to love not just the Jews but also the Arabs.” The Pardes edition also omits the second series of words that I have underlined, which express sentiments that are not very tolerant of the irreligious,[1] as well as some other words.
Here is the uncensored page in the Mishnah Berurah.
Here is the censored page in the Pardes edition.
Upon looking again at the Abramson article, I see that I misremembered, as it does not actually say that the Satmar Rebbe attributed this censorship to the Zionist publisher. He simply noticed the problem in the Israeli edition and said that this Mishnah Berurah is not like the others he has seen. It is Abramson who explicitly blames the Zionists (although perhaps the Rebbe agreed with Abramson). Abramson sarcastically writes that apparently they also provide copies of the Mishnah Berurah “to the children of Mapai and Mapam,” and this explains why they altered and censored the text.
Yet the truth is that what we have just seen has nothing to do with the Israeli publisher, Pardes. I found the same censorship in a Mishnah Berurah that appeared in Warsaw in 1895, and interestingly, it is this very edition that is found on hebrewbooks.org here. In other words, the changes we have seen were inserted under Czarist rule, and the Israeli publisher simply reprinted a copy of the Mishnah Berurah without realizing that it was a censored version.[2]
I know of another example where the altering of a text was blamed on the Zionists, and this time the one doing the blaming was a Mizrachi rabbi, R. Avigdor Cyperstein. In the Mossad ha-Rav Kook Archive of Religious Zionism there is a letter from R. Cyperstein to Dr. Yitzhak Rafael dated May 14, 1967. The relevant section reads as follows:
ידידי היקר – אני רוצה לזכות אותך בזכות הרבים, ובטח לא תחמיץ את המצווה הזו: כעת בכל העולם נפוצים הסידורים תוצרת הארץ הוצאת “בית רפאל”, ת”א – “סדור התפלה השלם” – והנה מצאתי בסידור זה דבר נורא: במעמדות של יום הששי מובא הגמ’ מנחות מד. המעשה באדם אחד שהי’ זהיר במצוות ציצית וכו’ ושם כתוב “באה לבית מדרשו של ר’ חייא, אמרה לו רבי צוה עלי ויעשוני גיורת וכו’, – והמולי”ם הללו העיזו לשלוח יד בגירסת הגמ’, ובמקום ויעשוני גיורת – השליכו את הגיורת החוצה, והכניסו במקומה “עברית” . . . והמרחק-התהום בין גיורת לעברית – אין צורך לבאר, וגם כוונתם הטרופה, בוקעה מזה, ומעלה סרחון, בכי’ לדורות. דומני שאין מי שהוא שהעיז לכבוש את המלכה בבית וכל ישראל – מתפללים מסידור זה, וע”כ מצווה לפרסם זה ברבים, ולתקן בהוצאות החדשות.
It is hard to know whether what R. Cyperstein refers to was indeed a Zionist inspired alteration. I say this because the version ויעשוני עברית is also attested to in a few sources that pre-date Zionism. I think it is more likely that the publisher just assumed that this is a more authentic reading.
Since I have been discussing the Satmar Rebbe, here is as good a place as any to note that contrary to popular belief, the name Satmar does not come from St. Mary. The original meaning seems to be a personal name, and in popular etymology the word came to mean “great village.”[3] Yet even in the Satmar community some believe that the word comes from St. Mary, and because of this they pronounce it as “Sakmar”. In pre-war Hungary this pronunciation was common among many Orthodox Jews, not only Satmar hasidim.[4] For one example of this, here is Samuel Noah Gottlieb’s entry on Satmar in his rabbinic encyclopedia, Ohalei Shem (Pinsk, 1912), p. 425. As you can see, while “Szatmar” appears in the vernacular, in the Hebrew the city is spelled “Sakmar”. There are many more such examples.
This avoidance of saying the word “Satmar” is similar to the way Jews referred in Hebrew and Yiddish to the Austrian town Deutschkreutz. Unlike the case with Satmar, when it came to Deutschkreutz the universal Jewish name was Tzeilem (Kreutz=cross=tzelem). On the other hand, there was a significant Jewish community in the Lithuanian city of Mariampole, whose name comes from Mary. Yet I am not aware of anyone who avoided saying the name of this city. Shimon Steinmetz emailed me as follows:
We might also note other cities with Christian-y names, like Kristianpol. Kristianpoler was a name used even by rabbis, cf. Rabbi Yechiel Kristianpoler, and his son Rabbi Meir. In addition, the Lithuanian town Kalvarija, which has a very Christian association, Jews used it without any issue. On the other hand, the Jews called St Petersburg, “Petersburg,” without the “St.”
One other point about Satmar: In a lecture I mentioned that one of the old-time American rabbis met with the Satmar Rebbe and concluded that when it came to the State of Israel, you simply could not speak to him about it. He was like a shoteh le-davar ehad when it came to this in that no matter how much you tried to convince him otherwise, he refused to listen to reason. Someone asked me which rabbi said this. It was R. Ephraim Jolles of Philadelphia (as I heard from a family member). I don’t think his formulation is too harsh, as anyone who has read the Satmar Rebbe’s writings can attest. It does not bother me if he or anyone else wants to be an anti-Zionist. However, the anti-Zionist rhetoric found in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and those of his successors, is often more extreme than what we find among the pro-Palestinian groups. Take a look at this passage from Va-Yoel Moshe, p. 11.
אם נקח כל פירצות הדור והעבירות המרובות הנעשות בכל העולם וישימו אותם בכף מאזנים אחת, ומדינה הציונית בכף מאזנים השני’, [המדינה הציונית] תכריע את הכל, שהוא השורש פורה ראש ולענה של אבי אבות הטומאה שבכל אבות הנזיקין שבכל העולם כולו, והן המה המטמאים את כל העולם כולו.
By what logic can one claim that such an outrageous passage would be anti-Semitic if said by Mahmoud Abbas, Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, or Max Blumenthal, but not so if the very same thing is said in Satmar?
If anyone wants to see the results of this rhetoric, here are two videos with kids from Satmar. In this one the children are being taught that the Zionists started World War II and to hope for the destruction of the State of Israel.
In this video children were told that Netanyahu was in the car and they were to throw eggs at it.
It is very painful to see how children are being indoctrinated with such hatred. Again I ask, if such a video surfaced from a leftist camp, there would be no hesitation in labeling it anti-Semitic. So why are people hesitant to conclude that Satmar is also involved in spreading anti-Semitism?
The general assumption is that the Satmar Rebbe hated Zionism and the State of Israel so much, that he was inclined to believe even the most far-out anti-Semitic canards against the State. I have always found this difficult to believe. Say what you will about the Rebbe, there is no denying that he was very intelligent. Thus, I have a hard time accepting that he could have really believed in Zionist control of the media and other anti-Semitic tropes found in his polemical writings. In other words, I think it is more likely that he did not believe in any of these things but said them anyway in order to convince his followers not to give up the fight against Zionism, a fight that had been abandoned by so many former anti-Zionists after the Holocaust and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. In such a battle it was necessary to turn Israel not only into something bad, but actually the worst sin imaginable.
R. Nahum Abraham, a Satmar hasid and prolific author, has recently written that the Satmar Rebbe would deny things that he knew were true. He regarded his denials as “necessary lies,” in order to prevent people from being led in the wrong direction.[5] If the Rebbe thought that it was permissible to deny the truth of certain hasidic stories in order to prevent his followers from being influenced by them, isn’t it possible that he would exaggerate the evils of the State of Israel in order to best indoctrinate his followers with an anti-Zionist perspective?
This approach also would explain a big problem that no one has been able to adequately account for. How was the Satmar Rebbe able to have friendly and respectful relationships with people who, based on what he writes, he should have regarded as completely out of the fold due to their involvement with the State of Israel? This includes even men like R. Aharon Kotler who supported voting in the Israeli elections, which the Satmar Rebbe claimed is “the most severe prohibition in the entire Torah.”[6] Yet we know that the Satmar Rebbe respected R. Aharon and others who had a very different perspective.[7] Can’t this be seen as evidence that there is a good deal of ideologically-driven exaggeration in the Satmar Rebbe’s writings, and that not everything he says really reflects his actual views? After all, if he really thought that voting in the elections was the most severe prohibition in the Torah and the State of Israel was completely destroying Judaism, would he still be able to be on good terms with rabbis who instructed their followers to vote and be part of the State?
2. Since I mentioned Munkács in this post, let me return to another recent post here where I discussed R. Baruch Rabinovich, the son-in-law of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira and his successor as Munkácser Rebbe. When I wrote the post I was unaware of the fact that R. Baruch’s grandson, R. Yosef Rabinovich, recently published Ner Baruch, which is a collection of Torah writings and letters from R. Baruch. He includes in the volume the haskamot written by R. Baruch. I examined new printings of the volumes with haskamot that I was unaware of and found that R. Baruch’s haskamah to the first edition of R. Yitzhak Adler, Seder Shanah ha-Aharonah (Munkács, 1937) was deleted in subsequent printings. The same thing happened with R. Baruch’s haskamah to R. Judah Zvi Lustig’s Yedei Sofer (Debrecen, 1938). Here is how the page with the haskamot looks in the original printing.
Here is how the page with the haskamot looks in the reprint, where R. Baruch’s haskamah has been deleted.
Another point about R. Baruch: In 1946 he tried to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv but lost out to R. Isser Yehudah Unterman. This is discussed in Samuel Heilman’s Who Will Lead Us? From a letter that appears in the archive of R. Isaac Herzog, and was sent to an unknown rabbi, we see that in 1950 R. Baruch was also interested in becoming av beit din in Tel Aviv.
This information is, to the best of my knowledge, not recorded anywhere else. In this letter, which I found here (a site that contains more interesting information and pictures about R. Baruch) we that R. Herzog, R. Unterman, and R. Yaakov Moshe Toledano were strongly opposed to R. Baruch receiving this appointment. Although the reason for this opposition is not mentioned, it is perhaps because they felt it was an abomination that someone from the anti-Zionist Munkács dynasty should have such a position in the State of Israel. However, as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is doubtful that R. Baruch ever really shared his father-in-law’s strong anti-Zionism. It is possible that the anti-Zionist statements he made in the pre-war years might not have reflected his actual beliefs but were due to his position as rebbe. That is, as the successor of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira he felt that he had to make such statements. It is also the case that had he not continued his father-in-law’s anti-Zionist stance he would not have retained much of a following in Munkács.
When R. Baruch wanted to become chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, a letter in opposition to this was published by Chaim Kugel, head of the Holon Municipal Council:
Is it conceivable that this man . . . who hounded Zionism and Zionists . . . who loyally continued the line of the Munkács court, which cursed and banned any Jew who pronounced the word Zion on his lips . . . is it conceivable that this man will appear as a representative and moral leader in the first Hebrew city, and be a guide to its residents and Zionists?[8]
In those days it was obvious that positions of chief rabbis of important cities would go to Zionist rabbis. Here, for example, is a letter to R. Unterman from David Zvi Pinkas, an important Mizrachi figure and signatory of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.[9] Note how Pinkas tells R. Unterman that the Mizrachi expects him to follow the Mizrachi approach in everything he does. If R. Unterman could not commit to this, then Pinkas would have found another rabbi who could.
In my earlier post I neglected to mention R. Baruch’s Hashav Nevonim that appeared in 2016. This book is full of interesting material, and the more I read from R. Baruch, the more impressed I am. He really was a fascinating figure in so many ways.
There is a good deal I can say about Hashav Nevonim, but let me just call attention to the first essay that appears in the book, focused on conversion. Conversion is a matter often in the news. I have said on numerous occasions that what currently passes as the standard approach to conversion was not the case at all in previous years. To begin with, among the rabbis there were different understandings of what kabbalat ha-mitzvot entailed, and the currently accepted view that a prospective convert must commit to become fully halakhically observant, as practiced today in Orthodox communities, was not the view of many, and perhaps not even the view of most. The notion that a conversion could be annulled after the fact was hardly ever put into practice, although even this is found on occasion and R. Baruch cites some authorities who speak about this very point. Thus, it is not, as has often been alleged, a modern haredi idea with no historical basis although, as mentioned, it was very rare.
After going through the various views on conversion, R. Baruch concludes as follows (p. 47).
מנהג העולם נראה כמקבל דיעה זו, וכל מי שנתגייר, בין ששומר מצוות, ובין שחוזר ועובר עבירות, דינו כישראל, כל שקיבל עצמו עול מצות עם גירותו.
I have underlined the words which are not currently accepted by many (most?) conversion courts and which are at the heart of the controversy regarding voiding conversions. Today, the assumption of many conversion courts is that if someone who converts is later seen violating halakhah in a serious way, we can assume that this person never really accepted the mitzvot at the conversion, and the conversion is therefore not valid. It is this argument which was hardly ever put into practice in previous years and now appears to be quite common, so much so that converts claim to feel that their conversions are always “on condition,” namely, that even many years after converting there is the possibility that the conversion will be declared invalid because of a lack of proper kabbalat ha-mitzvot.
On pp. 27-28, R. Baruch calls attention to the novel view of R. Isaac Benjamin Wolf, author of Nahalat Binyamin (Amsterdam, 1682), a book reprinted a number of times and which carries the haskamah by R. Jacob Sasportas. Here is the title page.
R. Isaac is described as rabbi of מדינת מרק. This refers to the German county of Mark, about which see here.
Here is page 89a in Nahalat Binyanim
According to R. Isaac, in places such as Spain and Portugal, where one could not practice Judaism openly, if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman, and the woman chooses to practice Judaism, both she and her children are regarded as Jewish. How can she be Jewish when she never immersed in the mikveh and there was no beit din to preside over the conversion? R. Isaac says that there is no obligation to immerse in the mikveh when there is danger (as there would be in a place with the Inquisition looking to find Crypto-Jews). Although he does not elaborate, it is obvious that according to R. Isaac kabbalat ha-mitzvot in front of a beit din is not an absolute requirement. In other words, he holds that in a she’at ha-dehak one can convert on one’s own, without a beit din.
This is a fascinating position that is at odds with accepted halakhah, so much so that most people won’t even believe that such a position is possible. R. Baruch is not able to cite anyone who agrees with it. The position of Nahalat Binyamim is discussed by R. Eliezer Waldenberg, who not surprisingly completely rejects it.[10] However, he does cite a medieval view that has some similarity to Nahalat Binyamim:
היה מקום להביא סמוכין לזה משיטת האביאסף שהובא במרדכי ביבמות סו”פ החולץ שמפרש דברי הגמ’ שם שאומרת מי לא טבלה לנדותה שמשמע דבדיעבד הוי גר גמור גם בטבילה בלי ג’.
Unlike R. Waldenberg, R. Hayyim Amsalem, Zera Yisrael, p. 290, does not reject Nahalat Binyamin out of hand. Instead he writes:
חזו דברי גאון קדמון זה לאיצטרופי, ולדון להקל בבני האנוסים ובבני יהודים לענין גיורם וחזרתם לדת, שכל שימולו ויטבלו לשם יהדות בהודעת מקצת מצוות כהלכה, סגי להו אף לכתחילה, אע”פ שאנחנו לא יודעים מה שהיה אח”כ לענין קיום המצוות, וזה אתי אפי’ למ”ד קבלת מצוות מעכבת.
See also Jacob Sofer, Sipurei Yaakov (Lvov, 1913), vol. 2, pp. 7ff. (no. 42), for a lengthy story starring the Maharal. The tale is obviously fictional, but of importance for our purposes is that the story, reported in a hasidic text, tells of a woman who ran away from her non-Jewish husband and married a Jewish man, had children, and was a righteous woman. However, this woman never converted with a beit din, and yet on p. 8a it specifically states that she and her children are to be regarded as Jewish. R. Nahum Abraham points to this as an example of an anti-halakhic hasidic story that cannot be true.[11]
Finally, Nahmanides in his commentary to Yevamot 45b has an interesting view and I do not know if it is accepted.
ואיפשר לומר דגבי קבלת מצוות צריך שלשה אפילו בדיעבד דמשפט כתיב ביה מה התם שנים שדנו אין דיניהן דין אף כאן אינו גר אפילו בדיעבד, אבל מי שהודיעוהו מקצת ענשן של מצות ומתן שכרן של מצות וקיבל עליו בב”ד לטבול ולמול, אם הלך ומל וטבל שלא בפני ב”ד הרי זה כשר ולא פסלינן לזרעיה
3. There are many new books to speak about. One of them is Chaim I. Waxman, Social Change and Halakhic Evolution in American Orthodoxy. The content of the book can be seen from the title. I will be reviewing this book in an academic journal, so I do not need to speak about it here. I would, however, like to call attention to one point that will not be mentioned in my review. Chapter 5 is titled “Tensions Within Modern Orthodoxy.” Not surprisingly, it deals with women rabbis. On pp. 109-110, Waxman refers to R. Jeremy Wieder’s view on the matter (the name is misspelled “Weider”). He quotes from an article in the Yeshiva University Commentator, which summarizes R. Wieder’s position as follows: “[I]n light of the success of the yoetzet halacha program in increasing overall observance in the communities that he has observed, it may be very beneficial to have women rabbis.”
I was quite surprised to see such a liberal position expressed by a YU Rosh Yeshiva, and I checked the source which appears here. R. Wieder is indeed quoted saying, among other things, that there is no binding tradition on the matter of women rabbis since the issue of women in leadership positions is a new question, thus preventing the development of a “stream of Jewish tradition.” However, when I read the article I did not find anything about how it may be “beneficial to have women rabbis.” I then noticed the following at the beginning of the article. “Editor’s Note: This article has been edited to more precisely convey the opinions represented.” In this case, I think the meaning of “more precisely convey” is that what originally appeared was altered (presumably at R. Wieder’s request) in order to prevent controversy. Yet even with the removal of R. Wieder’s view that it may be “beneficial to have women rabbis,” the current text of the article does not alter the substance of R. Wieder’s opinion. Thus, we find the following:
Lastly, Rabbi Wieder talked about the issue from a philosophical standpoint. He argued that expanding the pool of rabbinic students could lead to an increase in qualified rabbinic candidates. Rabbi Wieder added that he has observed the yoetzet halacha program increase overall halachic observance in the communities it serves and he expressed his optimism that women rabbis could generate similar improvement.
These words are certainly in opposition to the OU’s recent statement on women and religious leadership which is available here.
The question I have been asked a few times is if in the current political climate it is possible for a rabbi at a mainstream Modern Orthodox synagogue, or a teacher at a mainstream Modern Orthodox school, to feel free to express support for the ordination of women. Would such a rabbi or teacher risk censure from his colleagues or even the possibility of losing his job? The answer to these questions will determine if we are dealing with a real wedge issue (as I think we are).
Another new book is R. Bezalel Naor’s Shod Melakhim. R. Naor is well known as an outstanding interpreter of R. Kook. His great knowledge of the entire scope of Jewish thought (not just R. Kook) is apparent to anyone who examines his writings. Yet I do not know how many are aware of R. Naor’s achievements when it comes to rabbinic literature. This latest book is a collection of R. Naor’s studies on various halakhot in the Mishneh Torah. As part of R. Naor’s explication of these halakhot, he offers the reader wide-ranging enlightening discussions using numerous sources, both traditional and academic. For those who can appreciate the synthesis of the traditional and the academic approaches to the study of Maimonides, R. Naor’s new book is a real treat.
In the past I have spoken about the late R. Mordechai Spielman’s great work on the Zohar, Tiferet Zvi. The seventh volume of Tiferet Zvi has recently appeared, and can even be purchased on Amazon. Anyone who is interested in how the Zohar has been interpreted, and the impact of the Zohar on later rabbinic literature, will benefit greatly from of R. Spielman’s writings.
A new book (over 600 pages) by Benjamin Brown has appeared. It focuses on the Karlin hasidic dynasty. When I received the book in the mail, the first thought that came to my head is that Brown is a phenomenon. There is no other way to put it. It is not just the quantity of his literary output that is astounding, but also the quality, as everything he writes is worth reading.
____________
[1] Regarding the Hafetz Hayyim’s view of the non-religious, which is very much at odds with current approaches in the Lithuanian yeshiva world (at least in America), see Benjamin Brown, “Ha-‘Ba’al Bayit’: R. Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen, he-‘Hafetz Hayyim,’” in Brown and Nissim Leon, eds., Ha-Gedolim (Jerusalem, 2017), pp. 127ff. Brown also shows that in a few letters the Hafetz Hayyim adopts a more moderate perspective.
[2] In future posts I hope to say a good deal more about the Satmar Rebbe’s writings. For now, let me just respond to someone who emailed me and compared R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira, the Munkácser Rebbe, to the Satmar Rebbe. It is true that they are similar in terms of their strong opposition to Zionism, and the Satmar Rebbe can be seen as the Munkácser Rebbe’s successor in this matter. However, in terms of their scholarly approach, they are quite different, as the Satmar Rebbe did not have the Munkácser’s critical sense. In fact, I was quite surprised to learn that the Satmar Rebbe accepted as authentic the forged anti-Zionist letters published by Chaim Bloch in his three volume Dovev Siftei Yeshenim. See R. Dov Schwartz, Meshiv Devarim (New York, 2011), pp. 140-141.
[4] Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to סאקמאר appearing as the name of the city as early as 1859 in R. Hayyim Meir Ze’ev ha-Kohen, Sha’arei Hayyim (Pressburg 1859), in the list of subscribers at the beginning of the book. (You can find this on Google books, but the version of the book on hebrewbooks.org is missing these pages, as well as other pages.) This shows that referring to the city as “Sakmar” was already common. Steinmetz also called my attention to the same thing in the list of subscribers found at the end of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Kise Rahamim (Ungvar, 1870). In this case, you can see the subscribers in the copy on hebrewbooks.org, but it has been removed from the copy on Otzar ha-Chochmah. If this was removed intentionally, on the assumption that it is not really part of the sefer, it is a big problem, as the subscriber information can be of great historical importance. It is vital that both hebrewbooks.org and Otzar ha-Chochmah scan books in their entirety, without making any changes whatsoever.
R. Yoel Teitelbaum used the term Satmar all the time, and it was on his stationery, but I did find a number of places where he wrote Sakmar, spelled סאקמער and סאקמיר. See e.g., his approbations to R. Abraham Hayyim Reinman, Va-Yetze Perah (Satmar, 1940), R. Asher Steinmetz, Mikveh Yisrael ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1961), and his letter in Divrei Yoel: Mikhtavim (Brooklyn, 1981), vol. 2, p. 81. See also Esther Farbstein, Be-Seter ha-Madregah (Jerusalem, 2013), p. 862, for a 1949 letter from Budapest to R. Yoel in which the word Sakmar is used. Shimon Steinmetz wrote to me as follows:
I think you can see by his [R. Yoel’s] correct spelling in Latin letters that he didn’t take it seriously, and perhaps not too many Jews did. After all, R. Joel Teitelbaum himself, who I think most people would consider fairly zealous, did not insist or use it very much. . . . This tells me that when people did call it Sakmar, most of them were probably just calling it that because it was already what Jews called it. Perhaps it was even a sly joke to begin with.
[5] Peti Ya’amin le-Khol Davar (n.p., 2017), p. 31
[6] Divrei Yoel, Mikhtavim, no. 90.
[7] In a future post I will publish a letter I received from Moshe Beck dealing with this point. Beck is the chief rabbi of the U.S. Neturei Karta.
[8] Translation in Heilman, Who Will Lead Us?, p. 45.
[9] The letter is found in the Israel State Archives, David Zvi Pinkas collection, 3070/15-פ.
[10] Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 42:11.
[11] Heikhal ha-Besht 18 (Nisan 5767), p. 18. For an Arabic version of this story, see Bayit Neeman 96 (26 Tevet 5776), pp. 4-5.
Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 2): Sanhedrin, Dateline, the Rav on Kahane, and More
|
Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 2):
Sanhedrin, Dateline, the Rav on Kahane, and More
By Yaacov Sasson
EDIT Please see this post for a crucial correction – it is the conclusion of the Rav’s family that the letter in the Herzog Archive about Kahane is a forgery.
Another important file in Rav Herzog’s archive is his file on the renewal of Semicha and the Sanhedrin.[1] Among other letters, the file contains an unpublished letter from Rav Herzog to R’ Yehuda Leib Maimon regarding the issue. R’ Maimon was a well-known Mizrachi leader, the first Minister of Religion of the State of Israel, and the most vocal advocate of renewing the Sanhedrin. To that end, he wrote a series of articles on the topic in Ha-Tzofeh and Sinai, which he collected into a book in 1950, entitled Chidush Ha-Sanhedrin BeMedinateinu Hamechudeshet. Renewal of Semicha and Sanhedrin was of course not without opponents. Rav Herzog instructs R’ Maimon to proceed slowly and with caution, as there are a number of unresolved issues regarding renewal of Semicha which require great care and deliberation.
There were two main halachic objections to the renewal of Semicha. The first (not mentioned here by Rav Herzog) is based on the language of the Rambam in Sanhedrin 4:11, the very same halacha in which he suggests the possibility of the renewal of Semicha. The Rambam writes there:
נראין לי הדברים שאם הסכימו כל החכמים שבארץ ישראל למנות דיינין ולסמוך אותן הרי אלו סמוכין ויש להן לדון דיני קנסות ויש להן לסמוך לאחרים אם כן למה היו החכמים מצטערין על הסמיכה כדי שלא ייבטלו דיני קנסות מישראל לפי שישראל מפוזרין ואי אפשר שיסכימו כולן ואם היה שם סמוך מפי סמוך אינו צריך דעת כולן אלא דן דיני קנסות לכל שהרי נסמך מפי בית דין והדבר צריך הכרע.
The intention of the Rambam in his concluding words, Ve-hadavar tzarich hechrea, has been the subject of dispute for hundreds of years, going back to the dispute of the Mahari Beirav and the Ralbach, with some authorities believing that the Rambam was mesupak whether Semicha could in fact be renewed. A novel approach to the issue was suggested by Dr. Bernard Revel in an article in Chorev, Volume 5 (1939). Dr. Revel suggested the possibility that the final three words, Ve-hadavar tzarich hechrea, are not be the words of the Rambam himself, but were added later by another person who disagreed with the Rambam’s innovation.[2] Dr. Revel cited statements of other rishonim which he believed supported his theory. R’ Maimon addressed this issue in the introduction to his book, in the footnote, writing that the three words, Ve-hadavar tzarich hechrea, do not appear in “kama kitvei yad” (several manuscripts), thus supporting Dr. Revel’s hypothesis.
However, there is no evidence that any such manuscripts actually exist. The Frankel edition of the Rambam does not cite any alternate nusach that excludes these three words. Additionally, Professor Eliav Schochetman[3] wrote nearly 30 years ago that he found no evidence of any such manuscript in the numerous manuscripts that he consulted from across the world.
There are two potential explanations to what happened here.One potential explanation is that R’ Maimon simply lied about the existence of these kitvei yad in order to advance his agenda of renewing the Sanhedrin. Alternatively, Rabbi Eliyahu Krakowski has suggested a limud zchut – perhaps R’ Maimon forgot what Dr. Revel had written and mistakenly believed that Dr. Revel had uncovered manuscripts supporting his thesis[4], or he never saw it himself and was misinformed as to what Dr. Revel wrote, in which case R’ Maimon would be guilty of carelessness rather than dishonesty.
The second major halachic objection to the renewal of Semicha is the issue of the Samuch’s qualifications. The Rambam in Sanhedrin 4:8 writes that a Samuch must be rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula, capable of ruling on the entire Torah. Rav Herzog mentions in this letter to R’ Maimon that the Ralbach objected to renewal of Semicha on the grounds that no one is rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula. (This was also the position of the Radvaz, in his commentary on Sanhedrin 4:11.) Rav Herzog adds that if he said so in his generation, anan aniyey de-aniyey mah na’ane abatrei? Rav Herzog then makes a somewhat novel suggestion, one with halachic ramifications for the issue of renewal of Semicha. Rav Herzog suggests that rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula does not mean that the Samuch must literally know by heart all the relevant halachic sources. A similar approach was also suggested by the Rav[5] and the Steipler.[6] In the language of the Rav, the Samuch need not possess “universal knowledge”, rather a “universal orientation.” While this approach would certainly remove this barrier to renewal of Semicha, Rav Herzog concludes, however, that the matter requires extensive clarification and discussion, and as long as this point has not been clarified, there can be no possibility of renewing the Sanhedrin.
There are a number of talmidei chachamim in the last century who have deemed others to be rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula, in contrast to the position of the Ralbach and the Radvaz. For example, in his 1935 recommendation letter for the Rav regarding the Chief Rabbinate in Tel Aviv, publicized by Dr. Manfred Lehmann[7], Rav Moshe Soloveichik wrote that the Rav is rauy lehorot veladun be-chol dinei hatorah like the mufla on the Sanhedrin. In Rav Moshe Mordechai, the biography of Rav Moshe Mordechai Shulsinger (page 275), it is related that the Chazon Ish listed to his student Rav Shlomo Cohen (Rav Shulsinger’s father-in-law) the names of 32 Rabbis whom he believed to be rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula and worthy of sitting in the Sanhedrin, among them the Chafetz Chaim and Rav Meir Simcha. It would appear that Rav Moshe Soloveichik and the Chazon Ish also assumed the more lenient definition of rauy lehorot be-chol hatorah kula, in line with the position of Rav Herzog, the Rav and the Steipler.
VI Halachic Dateline
The archive contains an entire file dedicated to the question of the Halachic Dateline.[8] Rav Herzog was of course involved in the Dateline controversy in 1941. At that time, some members of the Mir Yeshiva, among other Jews, were located in Japan for Yom Kippur and they sent a telegram to Rabbis Mishkovsky, Alter, Herzog, Soloveichik, Finkel and Meltzer asking for guidance. Rav Herzog convened a meeting of a number of Rabbis to decide how to proceed, and sent a telegram back to Japan with their instructions. The file contains copies of the telegrams, much of Rav Herzog’s correspondence on the issue, as well as a kuntres on the topic prepared by Rav Tukachinsky that was distributed in advance of the meeting. Most of the significant material in this file has already been published in Kovetz Chitzei Giborim – Pleitat Sofrim Volume 8, in an extensive article by Rav Avraham Yissachar Konig, which was previously reviewed on the Seforim Blog by Dr. Marc Shapiro.[9]
Rav Konig’s most significant contribution is showing that Rav Herzog’s letter as published in Rav Menachem Kasher’s Kav Ha-taarich Ha-yisraeli has been altered from Rav Herzog’s actual letter. Here is Rav Herzog’s letter to Rav Kasher as it appears in the archive:
And this is the letter as printed at the beginning of Rav Kasher’s Kav Ha-taarich Ha-yisraeli:
There are three sentences that have been omitted from Rav Herzog’s letter as presented at the beginning of Rav Kasher’s volume. (I would add the following point that Rav Konig failed to mention – Rav Kasher wrote explicitly on page 248 that he presented the letters at the beginning of the volume in full.) The following sentences have been omitted from Rav Herzog’s letter:
הנני להודיע עכשיו שבדיעה זו אני ממשיך ומחזיק היום. אני תפלה שיזכני הקב”ה לעיין בעצם שאלת קו התאריך ולבדוק את כל הדיעות ולהגיע לידי דיעה עצמית. אולם לעת עתה אינני נוקט שום עמדה בהן.
This omission creates the impression that Rav Herzog had a definitive position on the question of the Dateline. However, this is obviously not the case; Rav Herzog never came to any conclusion on the issue of the Dateline, as is clear from the omitted sentences, as well as from a number of other letters in the file. In fact, Rav Konig has shown that in Rav Kasher’s response to this letter, he actually complained to Rav Herzog about these specific sentences for this reason. From Rav Herzog’s original letters, it appears that his position on the question of Japan was one of hanhaga bemakom safek (i.e. instruction on how to act in absence of a clear conclusion on the location of the Dateline) not a definitive hachraa. (Rav Konig elaborates on Rav Herzog’s position at length.) The first sentence above, that Rav Herzog stands by the position of the Rabbinic meeting, in conjunction with Rav Herzog’s statement that he has no definitive opinion on the matter of the Dateline, also implies that the position of the Rabbinic meeting convened by Rav Herzog was also one of hanhaga bemakom safek. (This point is also clear from Rav Herzog’s letter to Dr. Yishurun, also in the file, that the Dateline matter remained unresolved, and the meeting of Rabbis came to no definitive conclusion on the location of the Dateline. They issued their instructions to Japan based on the majority of opinions regarding location of the Dateline, with no consensus on the issue itself.) The altered version of Rav Herzog’s letter creates the false impression that Rav Herzog had a definitive opinion on the Dateline question.
However, I must take issue with one point made by Rav Konig. In his footnote 54, he criticizes Rav Herzog for his language in the telegram sent to Japan. Rav Konig writes that the language of the telegram is misleading, and creates the false impression that the telegram represents the position of the six rabbis (Rabbis Mishkovsky, Alter, Herzog, Soloveichik, Finkel and Meltzer) to whom the telegram from Japan was addressed. This is Rav Konig’s critique, in footnote 54:
Unfortunately, Rav Konig has been misled by an inaccurate translation of Rav Herzog’s telegram. Rav Herzog’s original telegram was written in English, and Rav Konig tells us (footnote 55) that he has relied on the translation to Hebrew as it appears in the Encyclopeida Talmudit, in the addendum to the entry on “Yom”, (coincidentally also in footnote 55.) That translation is taken from Rav Kasher’s Kav Ha-taarich Ha-yisraeli on page 246. This is the telegram sent by Rav Herzog, as it appears in the archive:
An accurate translation to Hebrew would be as follows:
בתשובה למברק שלכם מיום 12.9, אספת רבנים בנשיאותי החליטה שתצומו ליום כיפורביום רביעי לפי חשבון הנהוג ביפן וכו’
This is the mistranslation in Rav Kasher’s Kav Ha-taarich Ha-yisraeli:
Translated accurately, Rav Herzog’s telegram does not imply that the six Rabbis to whom the question was addressed are providing the answer. The main difference is a subtle, but significant one. Rav Herzog wrote “meeting rabbis my presidency”, which Rav Kasher mistranslated to Asifat Ha-rabbanim, “meeting of the rabbis”, and he neglected to translate “my presidency” at all. As noted by Rav Konig, Asifat Ha-rabbanim (with the hey ha-yedia) implies the known Rabbis, i.e. the Rabbis to whom the question was addressed. Correctly translated, however, Asifat Rabbanim be-nesiuti, “a meeting of Rabbis under my presidency” (without the hey ha-yedia) does not imply that Rabbis Mishkovsky, Alter, Soloveichik, Finkel and Meltzer were involved in the decision. Rav Konig was unfortunately misled by Rav Kasher’s mistranslation, which was also repeated by Encyclopeida Talmudit. The attack on Rav Herzog’s integrity is entirely unwarranted.
There appears to be a second very subtle error in Rav Kasher’s translation. Rav Kasher’s translation states flatly that the Taanit of Yom Kippur is on Wednesday, implying a definitive hachraa. Rav Herzog’s telegram actually says that the decision was that they should fast on Wednesday for Yom Kippur, language which is consistent with a hanhaga bemakom safek. This would also fit with Rav Herzog’s personal addendum, that the Jews in Japan ought to keep Thursday as a fast day as well while eating leshiurim. Given Rav Kasher’s apparently less-than-honest presentation of Rav Herzog’s letter, as noted above, one might surmise that this “error” was also a willfull misrepresentation of the contents of the telegram, intended to advance Rav Kasher’s preferred narrative of a definitive hachraa, in accordance with his own position.
VII Yibum B’zman Hazeh
In addition to the documents related to Rav Herzog’s tenure as Chief Rabbi of Israel, there are also a number of files from his tenure as Chief Rabbi of Ireland. Among his correspondence from his time is Ireland is a fascinating teshuva, written by Rav Kasher in 1936, regarding the issue of Yibum B’zman Hazeh.[10] The background to the question: an Ashkenazi Yavam and Yevama living in Israel want to marry via Yibum, rather than doing Chalitza. Must the beit din protest, or can the beit din allow the Yibum? This teshuva was printed by Rav Kasher in the inaugural volume of Talpiot[11] (1944), and also appears in his Divrei Menachem Volume 1, Teshuva 31. Interestingly, Rav Kasher’s conclusion in the original teshuva differs significantly from the conclusion in the teshuva that he eventually published in Talpiot and Divrei Menachem.
Here is the conclusion of the teshuva as it appears in Rav Herzog’s archive, at the end of page 11 continuing to page 12:
Here is the conclusion of the teshuva as it appears in Divrei Menachem:
Originally, Rav Kasher concluded that the beit din should try to convince the couple to do chalitza, but if beit din is unsuccessful, and if the couple is religious, then beit din should teach them to have kavana l’shem mitzvah and need not protest the yibum. The concluding sentences were removed from Rav Kasher’s published teshuva, and the ending simply states that beit din try to convince them to do chalitza. (The teshuva as published is actually quite awkward, as it is clearly building towards the conclusion that they may do yibum, yet ends abruptly without stating this conclusion.) Apparently, Rav Kasher censored his own conclusion. He does stipulate at the end of the original teshuva that he is writing le-halacha ve-lo le-maase until the Gedolei Ha-Rabbanim in Israel agree to permit the yibum. It is possible that Rav Kasher did not receive such approval, and subsequently decided to censor his own conclusion when he published the teshuva.
VIII The Rav on Rabbi Meir Kahane
In addition to the archives of Chief Rabbi Herzog, the archives of his son, President Chaim Herzog, have also been scanned and are available. A very intriguing file in his archive is the file dedicated to Rabbi Meir Kahane.[12] A fascinating document in that file is a letter about Kahane written to Herzog by the Rav in the summer of 1984. The background to the letter: in 1984, Kahane became a member of the Knesset, representing the Kach party. Traditionally, during the process of building a coalition, the president would invite every party to take part in coalition negotiations. Herzog, however, snubbed Kahane and refused to invite him.[13] It was in response to this snub that the Rav wrote the letter below to Herzog, which is surprisingly supportive of Kahane:
The Rav starts by mentioning his close relationship with Rav Herzog, and that Chaim Herzog was actually named for his grandfather, the great Rav Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk.[14] The Rav says that he cannot understand how Herzog could invite the representatives of Arafat, but did not invite Kahane. The Rav adds that Kahane is “ktzat talmid chacham” despite his shigonot, and that he is a yarei shamayim who fights for the Torah and kvod shamayim. The Rav says that someone as energetic as Kahane should be moderated and he could contribute.
(Other sources have portrayed the Rav’s view of Kahane far more negatively, claiming that the Rav regarded Kahane’s “selective citation of Jewish sources as a distortion and desecration of Torah.”[15] Additionally, it is related that, at some point in the 1980s[16], the Rav told others that Kahane should not be given a platform to speak at YU.[17] I am not sure how to reconcile this portrayal of the Rav’s view of Kahane with the Rav’s own letter to Herzog that was rather supportive and praising of Kahane.)
The Rav then gives Herzog some gentle mussar for being irreligious and encourages him to keep mitzvot while in public as a Kiddush Hashem. Herzog’s response to the Rav also appears in the same file.
Kahane and Herzog had quite a contentious (non-)relationship, extending far beyond the coalition snub, as is evidenced by the rest of Herzog’s file on Kahane. This is a scathing column that Kahane wrote for the Jewish Press, also found in Herzog’s archive, in which Kahane dubs Herzog “vinegar son of wine”, among other insults:
Additionally, Kahane’s Kach party presented Herzog with the inaugural Pras Idud Ha-hitbolelut – “Award for the Encouragement of Assimilation” 5745, as appears below:
The above is a sampling of the important and interesting documents contained in the archives. As mentioned, there is certainly much more fascinating material to be found. In the meanwhile, אנו יושבים ומצפים לגאולה שלמה, ייתי ונחמיניה.
[2] http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=23218&st=&pgnum=16. See also Rav Chaim David Regensburg’s criticism of this thesis in Kerem Volume 1, pages 93-94 (also reprinted in his Mishmeret Chaim), and the comments of Rav Hershel Schachter brought in Shiurei Ha-rav (Sanhedrin), page 37, footnote 35.
[4] Dr. Revel did cite statements of other rishonim that he believed supported his view. Perhaps R’ Maimon mistakenly thought that Dr. Revel had supported his view with manuscripts of the Rambam, rather than other rishonim.
[5] Nefesh Ha-rav page 18 footnote 22 , Shiurei Ha-rav (Sanhedrin) page 27. See also Leaves of Faith (volume 1) pages 121 and 134, where Rav Lichtenstein attributes this approach to Rav Moshe Soloveichik. From the other sources, it would seem that this approach was the Rav’s own. However, the recommendation letter that Rav Moshe wrote might imply that Rav Moshe also followed this approach.
[7] Sefer Yovel for Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, jointly published by Mosad HaRav Kook and Yeshiva University, at the end of Volume 1 (unpaginated). The transcription, along with an image, is also available here.
Lehmann’s transcription of Rav Moshe’s letter appears to be mostly accurate, with one exception. Towards the end of the letter, Lehmann’s transcription reads as follows:
וגם הם בדור עשירי לעזרא איכא בי’ מכל צד וצד…
This meaningless sentence is obviously an error in transcription. The transcription should read:
וגם הך דדור עשירי לעזרא איכא בי’ מכל צד וצד…
meaning that the Rav has illustrious lineage and zchut avot on both his father’s and mother’s side. (See Brachot 27b for the source of this expression.) It is also clear from Lehmann’s translation that he misunderstood this line entirely and did not realize that it was referring to the Rav and his lineage. See the translation here.
[13] “Rabbi Kahane was the only party leader in the Parliament whom President Herzog refused to see in the consultations that led to the President’s asking Shimon Peres, the Labor Party leader, to form a government.” (New York Times, August 14, 1984)
[14] Herzog himself mentions this in his memoir, Derech Chaim, although it does not appear in the English translation, Living History. Rav Chaim passed away on July 30, 1918, and Herzog was born on September 17, 1918.
[16] The Rav’s last shiur at YU/RIETS was in 1985 (The Rav, Volume 1, page 43), at which point he withdrew from public life due to his illness. Presumably, this incident must have occurred at some point before then.
Recently a kashrut controversy surrounding traditional Italian fried artichokes has received major media coverage in the New York Times and the Seforim Blog (twice, in chronological order, not order of importance). In order to prove the antiquity of Jewish artichoke consumption, depictions of artichokes in medieval illuminated haggadot have been adduced. These were the topic of a lesser-known artichoke controversy in 2012 here in the comments section of the Seforim Blog, which can be as nasty and difficult to find as artichoke bugs.
The Controversy: Do Catalonian medieval Haggadot portray maror as an artichoke? Were artichokes actually consumed in fulfillment of the rabbinic requirement to consume bitter herbs found in the Mishnah and Tosefta?
“Brother Haggadah”, BL Oriental 1404, f. 18
Here’s the story behind the scenes as it occurred in real time, during the Pessah season of 2012. I was scheduled to deliver a talk on chrayn at a rabbinic conference on the Hebrew language organized by Yitzhak Frank on April 10, Chol ha-Moed Pessah. In the course of some late preparatory research (= Googling) on April 5 (13 Nissan, the day of bedikat chametz) I came across a fascinating responsum on maror by David Golinkin that had just been published on April 2, 2012. Struck by the reliance on visual evidence from illustrated manuscripts in establishing a medieval custom to consume artichokes as maror, I sent the post to Marc Michael Epstein of Vassar College for comment. Within an hour he replied:
I don’t believe the Sephardic mss show an artichoke, rather they depict an entire head of romaine lettuce. The way to prove or disprove this would be to compare contemporary or roughly contemporary botanical mss.
I immediately began “intensive research” (= more Googling) and discovered that the artichoke question was (probably first) posed by Yoel Finkelman and his parents in 2005. Significantly, they already collected the three examples cited by Golinkin: the Rylands, Brother, and Sarajevo Haggadot. Finkelman states that his father circulated the query widely.
Rylands Haggadah, 1988 facsimile edition, f. 31v
The next day, April 6, Erev Pessah, I emailed Golinkin directly, requesting sources for his identifications. He replied on the same day that artichokes are definitely depicted in the three illuminated haggadot and that artichokes were probably identified as one of the five plant species mentioned in the Mishnah (Pesahim 2:6). Indeed, in Golinkin’s own post of April 2:
Rabbi Natan ben Yehiel of Rome (1035-ca. 1110) says in his Talmudic dictionary (ed. Kohut, Vol. 8, p. 245) that tamkha is cardo, which is cardoon. Prof. Feliks says that this is carduus argentatus or silver thistle, while Dr. Schaffer says that it is cynara cardunculus or artichoke thistle.
So, textual and visual evidence interlock to support the conclusion that artichokes were used as Maror. However, the textual evidence is weak. SeferHa’arukh is a dictionary, not a responsum, a legal code or a gloss to one, like Hagahot Maimoniyot which identifies tamkhaas horseradish – chrayn, associated with an actual custom. The definition of Ha’arukh is not a singular, definitive identification (yesh ‘omrim: marrobio, another species, also Rashi’s identification), and according to Prof. Jehudah Feliks cardo does not describe artichokes at all.
Opposite this scanty textual evidence stands a mountain of Rabbinic silence. As far as I am aware, nowhere in any codes, Haggadas, commentaries, or anywhere else do we find even a hint that artichokes were ever used as maror. There are limits to what can be learned ex silentio but we are discussing thousands of sources. If artichokes were used, we would expect a mention somewhere.
As for the visual information, we have “two witnesses and three witnesses”: The Rylands and Brother Haggadahs should be considered one witness because one is copied from the other. Bezalel Narkiss designated the name “The Brother Haggadah” (along with a lot of other names of Haggadah, most of which have stuck, for better or worse) because it is the “brother” copied from the Rylands Haggadah. According to Katrin Kogman-Appel, the Brother was more likely the original from which the Rylands was copied. For our purposes, the direction of the copying makes no difference. Just as the Rosh and Tur can’t really be counted as two legal authorities, these two sources are reflections of one another. What about the other witness, the Sarajevo Haggadah?
I do not think that there is even a remote possibility that the Sarajevo Haggadah depicts an artichoke:
The leaves are ridged but all species of artichoke leaves are smooth save for the thorn in the middle. An artist whose intention was to depict artichokes would not draw them in this manner. Moreover, Epstein, (in personal correspondence) adds that the “artichoke” leaves are “veined” like lettuce leaves, and bound together with a cord at the base.
Israeli Artichoke, Photo: Leor Jacobi, April 20, 2012
The same day, April 6, Erev Pessah, I communicated my skepticism back to Golinkin, especially regarding the depiction in the Sarajevo Haggadah. Golinkin’s April 2 post had already inspired creative contemporary midrash by April 9 (the truth of which in revealing hidden aspects of the divine plan should be judged independently of the historical claims.) Clearly these progressive folk placed artichokes on their seder plate on seder night, April 6 or 7, 2012, and were already expounding homiletically on the custom they had only learned about on April 2 at the earliest. Epstein notes that this an excellent example in “real time” of a minhag in development thanks to what he calls “the heter of the Internet.”
I gave the Chrayn talk on April 10 and the very next day, April 11, a long and fascinating Seforim blog post by Dan Rabinowitz was published, wherein, inter alia, he stated:
In the Brother to the Rylands Haggadah, marror is depicted as an artichoke, as is in the case with the Sarajevo Haggadah.
Golinkin wasn’t cited but it’s doubtful that his April 2 post is the source — perhaps serendipity. After some discussion in the comments, Marc Epstein wrote:
Rabbosai (and Marasai): A manuscript is NOT a mirror. Jews depict themselves in their art (or commission art that depicts them) not as they were, but as they desired to be seen. Please please please do not engage in the typical Wissenschaft strategy of looking at illuminated manuscripts for “clues to Jewish life in the Middle Ages” or even to Jewish history. What we can learn from them is histoire des Mentalites, but even that takes a lot of work to get to.
Re: the “artichoke”: I don’t believe the Sephardic mss show an artichoke, rather they depict an entire head of romaine lettuce. The way to prove or disprove this would be to compare contemporary or roughly contemporary botanical mss. It may have been “misunderstood” by some illuminators as an artichoke, but not corrected by the recipients of the manuscript because if you are not looking for an artichoke it seems totally absurd that an artichoke would be used as maror, You don’t SEE an artichoke, but a head of Romaine lettuce, no matter how “artichoke-like” it seems to us in 5772.
Also, because a head of Romaine is SHOWN in the haggadah it doesn’t mean that there a head of (possible unchecked-for-bugs) Romaine on the table. Every image is not a snapshot, but a representation — a combination of the real, the general, the ideal and the symbolic. Showing the head is a way of REPRESENTING Romaine — it says, “We use a type of lettuce that grows with leaves together in a head like this.” It does NOT necessarily mean “We use complete heads of Romaine at the Seder, like this.” Do you see the difference? A representation must shorthand its descriptions for clarity: If you showed individual artichoke leaves, for instance, it would be difficult to ascertain that the plant was an artichoke. Artichoke leaves are shaped like baby spinach leaves, though baby spinach is more pliable. If a leaf of that shape was shown, what would distinguish the artichoke leaves? Showing an artichoke in its entire, thistly configuration makes it indisputable that it is an artichoke.
Epstein’s points are compelling. How does one portray lettuce in an illustration? For example, this modern lettuce clip-art isn’t much more lettuce-like than the illustration in the Brother Haggadah:
After Pessah, on April 22, I received an additional reply from Golinkin with more sources. The entry for maror in the first edition of Encyclopedia Judaica was written by Jehudah Feliks (pp. 1014-5). The entry includes an image of the maror depiction from the Sarajevo Haggadah with a caption:
According to this astounding caption, lettuce is depicted in the Sarajevo Haggadah but the claim is that it can still be supposed that the artichoke-like shape of the lettuce reflects an old custom of eating artichokes as maror. This custom had already been lost in the 14th century, but was preserved in the form of illustrations of maror in haggadot! (We find something similar in the illustrations of maror in the Prague Haggadah. According to Rav Peles, the custom of pointing at the wife when stating “this bitter[ness/Bitter Herb]” had already disappeared, but was preserved in the caption to themaror illustration in the Haggadah; see also here). However, note that above, in Golinkin’s post, Feliks did not identify the Arukh’s cardo as artichokes. It is not entirely clear that Feliks composed this caption. Bezalel Narkiss served as IIlustrations Consultant on the first edition (sadly most illustrations were cut from the second edition, including this one and the caption).
As Narkiss was then the acknowledged expert in medieval illuminated manuscripts, it stands to reason that he may have either selected the illustration or wrote the caption, either alone or in consultaion with Feliks. In any case, the author(s) of the caption maintain that lettuce is depicted even if the rest of their proposal is extremely speculative.
For the Rylands Haggadah, Golinkin cited the Raphael Loewe facsimile, Steimatzky, 1988: “The bitter herb is intended to be lettuce, despite its artichoke-like compactness.” This pithy source contradicts Golinkin’s identification, and suggests a practical explanation for this lettuce design.
As for the Brother Haggadah, Golinkin wrote that he learned about this from an expert on Jewish art. However, as far as I can tell this expert does not deal primarily with interpretation of medieval art. Theories are tested by evidence. Thus, it remains that if someone wishes to argue that these images depict artichokes the best way to advance the thesis would be by means of comparisons with contemporary illustrations of artichokes, as Marc Epstein advises.
Finally, an image of maror from the Barcelona Haggadah, folio 62, illustrates how creative illustrations of lettuce (?) could get and how dangerous it would be to try to learn history from them as if they were snapshots.
Adapted from Evelyn Cohen’s description in the facsimile volume:
Verso, The scribe left almost the whole of the page for a depiction of the bitter herbs, but the crude illustration we now see was not executed in the Middle Ages, although it may have been based on models from the fourteenth century. The vegetable, commonly portrayed in a highly stylized manner, was no longer understandable to the later artist, and the red holder with which it is sometimes shown seems to have been misunderstood by the artist, who interpreted it as a red crescent.
The post-medieval illustrator here may have utilized haggadah depictions of artichoky lettuce as a model and was probably as bewildered by them as we are. In note 39 Cohen lists the Hispano-Moresque, Graziano, Golden, and Sister Haggadas as displaying maror holders. The matzot in these haggadot look nothing like real matzot, with elaborate color and geometric designs. The entire maror holder could be a design element in this vein, so that the maror is grounded and not floating in space.
Graziano Haggadah
Sister Haggadah
‘Hispano-Moresque’ Haggadah
Golden Haggadah
Epstein adds (personal correspondence) that we should be wary of concluding on the basis of these images that Jews of Medieval Spain had actual red maror holders. They may have developed from an earlier model like the Golden Haggadah, which only meant to portray a reddish-yellow color which develops towards the base:
I certainly hope enterprising Judaica forgers, the creators of “Marrano cups” and such don’t get wind of this, or appraisers, experts and curators will have a whole new wave of fake “authentic” pre-Expulsion Sephardi ritual items to deal with. Indeed Romaine lettuce is most suitable for maror because it generates increasing bitterness the longer one chews the leaves, and the closer one gets to that all-important base. Romaine is appropriate for maror in metaphoric terms: like the servitude in Egypt, which started out as a “public works” project with the full participation even of Pharaoh, and ended up as the most abject of slavery, a torture inflicted exclusively upon the Israelites. When one first begins to chew the leaves Romaine lettuce, one could think one was eating a lovely salad. More chewing, and getting eventually to the lower “spine,” however, makes the experience increasingly bitter. The rabbis understood that unlike the consistent blast of heat one experiences with horseradish and other truly bitter plants, it is in the initially non-bitter, even pleasant, but then the increasing nature of the bitterness of Romaine that the precise metaphor for the Egyptian servitude is experienced.
It is notable that per Kogman Appel’s dating, the Golden Haggadah is earlier (c. 1320) than some of the examples brought above (c. 1350-), and may have served as their model in some sense, including the fact that whatever we are seeing, (whether the “veins” in a single lettuce leaf, or the ruffled leaves in the head when cut open and depicted laterally, like the Chinese cabbage shown below,) gives the leaf/leaves a “spiky” appearance. (If there is a lateral view here, the question, of course, is why such a view was taken. Most authorities prefer whole Romaine leaves for maror, so a view “cutting through” the head might be confusing, although some advocate the consumption of only, or primarily the spines.)
The more I think about it, although links and distinctions have been made between the opening sequence of biblical narrative illuminations in the Golden, Sister and Sarajevo Haggadot and the Rylands/Brother Haggadot, the TEXT illustrations (matzah, maror etc.) may have more mutual influence and cross-influence, and relate also to those in the Barcelona Haggadah and others. Since the GH was earlier than the Sarajevo, Rylands/Brother Haggadot, the image of the maror there, clearly— though stylized—Romaine may have influenced, been misunderstood by the artists of the later ms. In other words, the veiny (or the lateral, or side-viewed, rippling) leaves of Romaine could have been mistaken for the “spiky” leaves of an artichoke and thus been illustrated. (The Sarajevo artist, for instance, depicted the “artichoke” leaves not only as serrated but with “veins” more typical of lettuce.)
The Sarajevo, Rylands/Brother ARTISTS misunderstanding the [veined single lettuce leaf or laterally viewed or cut head of] lettuce in the Golden Haggadah or a similar model, might have thought they were illustrating an artichoke. The PATRONS did not “correct” this because OBVIOUSLY the vegetable could not have been an artichoke as there was no massoret of the use of that vegetable for maror. There for they accepted the “artichoke” of the artists as the “lettuce” of halakhah.
While we can never recover the actual conversation that precipitated the visual result, both consideration of the near-instantaneous creation via “the heter of the Internet” of the minhag of placing artichokes on the seder plate, and the spinning of homiletics around that minhag; and the invention of the “maror holder”are reflections—within our present conversation!—of the kinds of transmission problems ever present in such conversations in any time or place. This whole adventure has, for me, been very important in thinking about artist-patron relationships.
Cohen adds an interesting point (personal correspondence):
I found other manuscripts where there was a blank space where the image of the maror should have been placed, while all the other areas left blank by the scribe contained illustrations. This lead me to believe that the appearance of the maror was sometimes customized based on the minhag of the patron, who for whatever reason never had it added.
These are fascinating questions. The goal of the artists was to produce art which resonated with their patrons symbolically and aesthetically. By misinterpreting these images as snapshots of historical reality, we can invent artichokes and maror holders. One could just as well conclude that it was customary to only sit on one side of the Seder table!
Fast forward to May, 2018, we find ourselves embroiled in a new artichoke controversy and the Seforim Blog is back with artichokes in the Haggadah. This is a fascinating little post on kashrut and custom, but nothing about ancient or medieval practices can be proven from these sources. A follow-up post based on textual sources by Susan Weingarten, an expert on foods in antiquity (and incidentally, the sister of Elihu Shanun, who also spoke at the rabbinic conference on April 10, 2012 which started us off) provides a much more reliable textual path towards establishing the antiquity of artichoke consumption.
In summary, there is no evidence that Jews ever ate artichokes to fulfill the obligation of consuming maror on the Passover Eve. Maybe b’shas hadahak, but who knows? The textual evidence and visual evidence don’t support each other to advance a radical historical claim. However, artichokes are delicious and, if clean, Kosher for Pessah. Jews very likely did consume them historically wherever they were found.
Thanks to: Marc Epstein, David Golinkin, Evelyn Cohen, Sara Offenberg, Moshe Glass, and Jean Guetta. I also wish to acknowledge the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture for their support.
