A new sefer came out titled Ohron shel Chachomim. This work purports to collect the various laws and philosophy one should have for the Rabbis. The first section is just the basic law applicable to a talmid chacham, standing, not addressing by first name etc. In this section there is also a brief discussion about the “laws” of emunat chachmim. We are treated however to such laws as “not only is one obligated to follow the chachamim but also their children and their secretaries (mishamsheham) one should not question.” Or this one: “When a person goes to a tzadik and discusses his problems but doesn’t understand what the tzadik responds [I assume it was unintelligible] or it appears the just ignores his request – don’t let this blessing be small in your eyes. Rather believe God will send your salvation.” For many of these laws, the citations are to either aggadic passages in the Talmud or to Midrashim.

The second section discussion yeridat haDorot the lowering of the generations. This begins by telling the reader the concept of yeridat haDorot is not in relation to the tzadik rather it is to the generation. That is, the tzadik is of course as great as in previous generation rather it us that are unable to appreciate this. But then you may ask, it continues, why then do we hear of the great miracles these tzadikim did in previous generations, why not now? Of course, it is due to us – we have created a situation where the tzadikim can’t work their miracles today.

The author then treats us to a discourse on whether the achronim can argue on the rishonim. He explains that this is prohibited. In a footnote he deals with the many achronim that seem to disagree with this. However, he writes these off by noting they are like rishonim. Of course, this then poses another problem (or not) for him as if they are truly like the rishonim then it follows that their peers couldn’t argue on them as they are obviously greater. He just says that this doesn’t appear to be the case and this is allowed. He extends this prohibition against arguing against earlier ones and says this is applicable to the pronouncements of the Shulhan Arukh and the Rama. He appears to be unaware that R. Hayim Volhzin says the Gra said this is not the case and that ever Rav should just do what they see fit irrelevant of the opinion of the Shulkah Orakh and the Rama. Additionally, he doesn’t seem to be aware that R. Moshe Feinstein said the same thing. Or perhaps it is just a case of selective memory.

The next couple of chapters are devoted to the law of a Talmid Chacham today as well as the role of a Rebbi for Chassidim. The chapters include information on “Just Looking at the Rebbi Allows One To Gain In Torah and Avodah,” “The Belief in The Tzadik” as well as lesser topics such as “The Trip to the Rebbi,” “The miracles of the Rebbi” etc.

All in all, this book presents a rather interesting view into what some consider the laws and customs governing the interaction with the Rabbinic class.

I got the book at Biegeleisen in Brooklyn.

What is perhaps one of the more intreging sefarim ever published. Behinat HaKabbalah is two books in one. The first, Kol Shakal (the voice of a fool), is a scathing attack on Rabbinic Judaism. Basically, anything not found explictly in the Torah is claimed as false. For example, the requirment of mikva is deemed wrong as the verse only requires one to “wash one’s body.” This first portion takes up the majority of the book. The second half, Sa’agas Areyeh, (roar of the lion) is a defense of Rabbinic Judaism. However, the defense in some sense proves the first half as it is so sparse leaving the reader to posit that the author of Sha’agas Areyeh actually agreed with the author of Kol Shakal. Some even go so far to claim the author really wrote both works in an extremly sly attempt to gain wider readership. That is, they created a work which externally would be viewed as a defense of Rabbinic Judaism i.e. Sha’agas Areyeh, only to be able to slip in the most more persausive Kol Shakal.

Typically, the second portion is attributed to R. Yehuda Areyeh of Modena. (Mar Gavriel has an excellent post on him here). If that is so, some then argue he was a closet heritic or perhaps in today’s vernacular- Orthoprax. That is, although R. Modena sat on the Venice Bet Din, wrote numerous traditional sefarim, and even authored on the selichot that is said on Yom Kippur Katan, in his heart he really did not believe in any of it. This, of course, is rather shocking.

In truth, the authorship of both of these works is somewhat up in the air. As mentioned, some attribute it to R. Modena, however, this is not certian. The reason being, this work was not published until 1852 and Modena died in 1648. The work was first published by Isaac Shmuel Reggio (YaSHar) a rather interesting character in his own right. [As an aside, Reggio was far from what many would consider “traditionally orthodox” he permitted shaving on Hol HaMoad which got him into trouble. (His father wrote a pamphelet against him on that issue). However, this year someone from Monsey reprinted his commentary on the Torah, apparently Reggio’s biography was unknown to the sponser of the printing.] Reggio claimed to have published this from a manuscript in Modena’s own hand. He has an extensive introduction as well as notes thourhout.

Others have questioned Reggio’s assertion that it emenates from Modena. One has even pointed to Saul Berlin the author of the noted forgery Besamim Rosh as the author of this. However, that has been discredited.

In the end, whom ever the author maybe this work still stands as one the most interesting and entertaining attacks on Rabbinic Judaism.

There is much in this area and the interested reader can consult Reggio’s introduction; T. Fishman, Or Hadash al Zemano shel Sefer Kol Shakal v’al Mekom Hibburo, in Tarbiz 59 (1990) 171-190; Fishman’s book length treatment in “Shaking the Pillars of Exile‘Voice of a Fool,’ an Early Modern Jewish Critique of Rabbinic Culture;” E. Rivkin, Leon da Modena and the Kol sakhal; B. Kahlar, Shagas Areyeh al Kol Shakal in Mehkarim v’Inyuim (Tel Aviv, 1954) 357-378.

In the previous post, I mentioned a new book which is a collection of articles by Moshe Samet, who is well-known for his studies of the Besamim Rosh. In the comments section it appeared that some wanted more information regarding the Besamim Rosh. I hope this will answer some of the questions raised and give a more comprehensive background.

The Besamim Rosh is a book of reponsa first published in Berlin in 1793. It contained two parts, the teshuvot and a commentary titled kasa d’harsena. The person who published it, R. Saul Berlin was the Berlin Chief Rabbi’s son. R. Saul claimed the teshuvot were from a manuscript which he attributed to the Rosh, R. Asher ben Yehiel. The commentary, kasa d’harsena, was from R. Saul. Right after it appeared there were some that doubted the authenticity of atleast some of the teshuvot. They claimed that those teshuvot were not from the Rosh.

There were many novel teshovot. Among these was one permitting shaving on Hol haMo’ad, permitting kitneyot and claiming kitneyot was actually a Karite custom, and relaxing the restrictions on a suicide.

The first book to come out against the Besamim Rosh was written by R. Ze’ev Wolf, titled Ze’av Y’trof and was published that same year, 1793. In it he takes issue with some of the teshuvot that are in the Besamim Rosh. He also, claims that R. Saul retracted one, the teshuva permitting shaving on hol haMo’ad. However, it is unclear whether R. Saul admitted it was a forgery or he retracted in a less sensational manner.

After this book, there were numerous others who doubted either the entirety or at least portions of the book. However, R. Saul’s father, R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin (Berlin) defended the work of his son and vouched for the authenticity of it. He claimed to have seen the actual manuscript, something that no one else had seen. There were others who also supported the book. It appears that R. Yosef Hayyim David Azulai, Hida, also vouched for it, based upon the testimony of R. Tzvi Hirsch.

R. Saul, actually had a history that may explain why some were suspect of him. He published under a pseudonym a book title Mitzpeh Yekutel which attacked R. Rafeal Hamburg, the chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wansbeck (AH”U). This book was put in herem and burned in some cities. [As an aside after he was unmasked there were at least two teshovot published by different authors dealing with jurisdiction in herems. That is, whether the herem of one city, namely AH”U, can be enforced in another, namely Berlin. Obviously, this has many modern day implications, but it appears that many are not aware of such jurisdictional limitation of herems.]

Thus, it appears that some people already had rather negative opinions of R. Saul and this may have influenced their opinion of the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh.

As mentioned above, the Besamim Rosh was first published in 1793, however, it was not republished until 1881, nearly 100 years later. In this edition, two teshuvot were removed. The teshuva relaxing the rules for a suicide as well as one that permitted one riding on a horse on Shabbat. This second teshuva dealt with a case where one was riding on a horse and the Shabbat was approaching. The rider was faced with a dilemma, should he stop and thus have to scourge and rely on the hospitality of others or continue on to avoid that type of “embarrassment.” The teshuva permits him to continue based upon the rule kovod habreiot dokhe l’o s’ashe. That is, for respect one can violate certain prohibitions.

Finally, the Besamim Rosh was republished from the original edition in 1984. This edition has an extensive introduction that attempts to rehabilitate the Besamim Rosh. However, there are numerous flaws with the introduction. The publisher twists and in some instances perverts statements of those that question the authenticity of Besamim Rosh. He also make absurd arguments in support of his goal.

For example, one of the people that doubted the authenticity of the Besamim Rosh was R. Moshe Sofer, Hatam Sofer. Hatam Sofer calls the Besamim Rosh the Ketzvi haRosh -the lies of the Rosh. (Orakh Ha’ayim no. 154) However, the publisher claims this is an error. He explains that the Vienna edition (1895) of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer don’t read kitzvi haRosh, rather it reads kitvei haRosh- the writings of the Rosh. Thus, according to the publisher, all the editions of the Hatam Sofer that people relied upon were incorrect.

This, of course, is silly. The first edition of the Teshvot Hatam Sofer of this volume, was NOT the Vienna edition, rather it was Presburg, 1855. In that edition, which the publisher conveniently ignores, it says “kitzvei haRosh” the lies of the Rosh. This is but one of the numerous examples that can be found in this 1984 reprint.

In conclusion, there is a long running debate about the authenticity of this work, which has not been fully resolved, although at least one blogger may have a method to do so.

A significant portion, and perhaps the highlight, of the repetition of the Yom Kippur mussaf is the description of the Yom Kippur service as preformed in the temple. Many, however, are unfamilar with this service. There is an excellent book on the korbonot generally which devotes a portion to describing the Yom Kippur service, including the disagreeements amongst some Medievil commentors. The portion on the Yom Kippur service is highly readable and full of facintating details.

R. Raphael Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz, famous for his Dikdukei Soferim, (also recently reprinted) published the work of his Rebbi and father-in-law, R. Yosef Fadua, Ikrei haAvoda, in 1863.

The first printing was titled Ikrei haAvoda and the second printing in 1910, the book’s title became Ikrei haKorbonot.

R. Yisrael Meyer Kagan, (Hafetz Hayyim) promoted the republication in 1910 and according to the publisher, the Hafetz Hayyim himself wanted to republish this book due to its importance. The Hafetz Hayyim thus allowed for the inclusion of his introduction to his own work on the korbonot, “Asefat Zekanim.” This introduction includes why studying the korbonot is so important event today when one can’t offer them. The publisher also states that at that time (1910) the first edition was exteremly rare and thus there was a need to republish the book.

Although, the printer does not offer why he changed the title, perhaps due to the inclusion of this additional materials that he felt he was kone b’shinu ma’ashe.

This book was recently republished by Mochon Mishnat Rebi Ahron. In this new edition they have reset the type and added footnotes and some minor corrections. (Although, they have also added some typograpical errors as well. (See, e.g. pp. 82 and 83)). They have kept the second title, Ikrei haKorbonot. I purchased this book at Beigeleisen books in Boro Park.

Menachem Butler notes that the custom of having portraits done of Rabbinic figures dates back to the 16th century and has now been applied to YU. He also raises the issue of the permissibility of such portraits in like of the injunction against making graven images.

There is a fairly substantial literature on the topic of Rabbinic pictures. In my previous post, I note that Mark included a picture of himself in his book. This was fairly common to include on the frontispiece of ones book a portrait. Menashe ben Israel, Yosef Delemdigo, Yehudah Modena as well as numerous others did so. In Cohen’s book, mentioned by Menachem, he discusses this. R. Reuven Margulies in his Toldot Adam, Lemberg, 1921, 8-9 and Aviad Cohen, De’uknot Hakhamim bein halakha u’masse in Machanayim 2 (1995).

However, the most complete discussion as to the halakhic implications of this custom as well as a fairly extensive list of seforim containing rabbinic frontispices, can be found at the end of book having very little to do with this topic. R. Areyeh Yehuda Leib Lifshitz’s first published in Warsaw in 1927 and reprinted in Israel, 1965. The book is devoted to the somewhat mythical R. Saul Wahl. In the first edition, however, R. Lifshitz included a picture of himself. This picture was placed loose in the book. At the end, R. Lifshitz includes a lengthy teshuva devoted to demonstrating that portraits pose no halakhic problem. [There is also a well know from R. Jacob Emden discussing both a portrait of his father, the Hakam Tzvi as well as a medal struck in honor of the chief rabbi.]

Another, more contemporary article discussing this issue can be found in the book Mo’adim l’Simhah b y R. Tuvia Fraind vol. 1 where he has an article on this.

Perhaps one of the strangest pictures is that of R. Yehuda Aszod. R. Aszod held that it did violate Jewish law to take pictures. His students, however, really wanted a picture of their teacher. They decided on a plan to obtain his picture, that after he was dead to prop him up and take his picture. Sure enough, that is exactly what they did. They also decided that proceeds from the sale of his picture would go to his widow and his children. At his funeral, there was a rather big to do about this especially in light of the fact that it is generally not allowed to profit from the dead. However, some permitted this and his picture was sold. [You can see this picture in the book Gedoli Dorot the three vol. picture/biography book.]

This story is recounted in biography done by his grandson that appears at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah Divrei Maharia. This was first published in 1931 and republished in 1970, in both these editions this story appears, however, in the most recent reprint in 1986 this story has been removed.