A Final Note Regarding Rav Simcha Zelig Reguer’s Position on Opening a Refrigerator on Shabbat

A Final Note
Regarding Rav Simcha Zelig Reguer’s Position on Opening a Refrigerator on
Shabbat
 By Yaacov Sasson
The purpose of this note is to
establish conclusively that Rav Simcha Zelig Reguer, the Dayan of Brisk,
never permitted opening a refrigerator on Shabbat when the light inside will go
on. I was deeply disappointed to read Rabbi Michael Broyde’s response[1] to
my “Note Regarding Rav Simcha Zelig Reguer’s Position on Opening a Refrigerator
on Shabbat.”[2] In
short, R. Broyde has incorrectly asserted that Rav Simcha Zelig permitted
opening a refrigerator on Shabbat when the light inside will go on. In truth,
Rav Simcha Zelig permitted opening a refrigerator when the motor will go on; he never addressed the refrigerator light at all. Rather than admit to this
simple mistake, R. Broyde has chosen to reiterate his basic error and compound
it with further errors. Furthermore, R. Broyde has entirely ignored the crux of
my own argument, specifically that the articles to which Rav Simcha Zelig was
responding were about triggering the refrigerator motor by allowing warm
air to enter. Those articles do not mention refrigerator lights at all. It is
therefore untenable to claim that Rav Simcha Zelig permitted opening a
refrigerator on Shabbat when the light inside will go on.
Let us proceed to examine how
each argument advanced by R. Broyde is incorrect. Below are direct quotations
from R. Broyde’s response (in bold), followed by my own comments.
“The relevant paragraph of the
teshuva by Dayan Rieger reads simply:
ובדבר התבת
קרח מלאכותי נראה כיון דכשפותח את דלת התיבה הוא כדי לקבל משם איזו דבר ואינו
מכוין להדליק את העלעקטרי הוי פסיק רישיה דלא איכפת ליה אפילו להדליק אם הוא באופן
שהוא פסיק רישיה.
And in the matter of the artificial [electric]
icebox it appears that since when one opens the door of the box to get
something from there and does not intend to ignite (light) the electricity it
is a psik resha that he does not care about, even to light in way that
is a psik resha.”
R. Broyde’s citation has omitted the first several words of the paragraph,
which read as follows[3]:
הגיעני השלשה
כרכים הפרדס ובדבר התבת קרח מלאכותי…
“I received the three issues of Hapardes and in the
matter of the artificial [electric] icebox…”

This omission is significant, because these words make clear that Rav
Simcha Zelig was addressing the refrigerator question raised in earlier issues
of Hapardes. (See Hapardes 1931 num. 2 page 3, and Hapardes
1931 num. 3 page 7.) The question under discussion in those previous volumes was
the triggering of the refrigerator motor, and not the light, as noted.
Also of note, is that at the end of his teshuva[4],
Rav Simcha Zelig addressed Rav Moshe Levin’s question regarding the
permissibility of making ice on Shabbat. Rav Simcha Zelig cited this question
specifically in the name of Rav Levin. This is significant because the ice question
appeared in the name of Rav Levin in Hapardes 1931 num. 3 page 7, in
an article about triggering the refrigerator motors.[5] See
the final paragraph of the article titled “Frigidaire” in the image below:

So it is clear that Rav Simcha Zelig introduced his teshuva with a reference to the prior issues of Hapardes. And
it is also clear that he closed his teshuva by addressing Rav Moshe
Levin’s ice question from Hapardes (which appeared in the article
entitled “Frigidaire”, shown above, about the refrigerator motors.) R. Broyde
apparently contends that in between, Rav Simcha Zelig veered off to address an
unrelated question which never appeared in Hapardes (that of the
refrigerator light), without ever addressing the question of the
refrigerator motor itself. And he did this while directly addressing the
ice question from the article entitled “Frigidaire”, but never addressed the
main substance of that article, the refrigerator motor. The absurdity of this
position is self-evident.    
Also of note is the introductory paragraph to Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva,
presumably written by the editor, Rav Shmuel Pardes, which reads as follows[6]:
תשובה זו מוסב על
השאלה הנדפסת בהפרדס, אם מותר לפתוח תבת קרח מלאכותי בשבת, או לשום מים בתיבה
לעשות קרח בשבת.
This teshuva addresses the question that
was printed in Hapardes, whether it is permitted to open a refrigerator
on Shabbat, or to put water inside the refrigerator (freezer) to make ice on
Shabbat.
Rav Pardes clearly understood and presented Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva
to be addressing the question of triggering the motor, which had been raised in
earlier issues of Hapardes.
Furthermore, R. Broyde’s translation of Rav Simcha Zelig’s words is inaccurate,
and the effect of this mistranslation permeates his entire response. The
closing words of Rav Simcha Zelig in the paragraph cited by R. Broyde are:
הוי
פסיק רישיה דלא איכפת ליה אפילו להדליק אם הוא באופן שהוא פסיק רישיה.
R. Broyde has translated these words as:
“…it is a psik resha that he does not care
about, even to light in way that is a psik resha.”
The astute reader will notice that the bolded words in the Hebrew citation
are left untranslated by R. Broyde, essentially ignored, as if they do not
exist. The closing words of this sentence are correctly translated as follows: even
to light IF IT IS in a way that is a psik reisha. Most of R. Broyde’s
response revolves around the incorrect assertion that since Rav Simcha Zelig
referenced a psik reisha, he must have been referring to igniting the
light, which is a psik reisha, and not the motor, which is not a psik
reisha. However, correctly translated, Rav Simcha Zelig says that opening
the refrigerator is permitted EVEN IF there is a psik reisha involved.
Such conditional language is entirely out of place when referring to a light,
which is certainly a psik reisha. This conditional language is only applicable
to the refrigerator motor, because there are times when, unbeknownst to the
person, the opening of the refrigerator door will immediately trigger the motor
to go on because of the already heightened initial air temperature inside the
refrigerator. (Such a situation is known in the language of the Poskim
as a “Safek psik resha”, as noted in Hapardes 1931 num. 3 page 6
regarding the refrigerator motor. It is the subject of dispute whether such an
action is permissible, similar to a Davar Sheaino Mitkavein, or
prohibited like a psik reisha.) Rav Simcha Zelig’s qualification that it
is permitted to open the refrigerator door even IF the situation is one of psik
reisha makes clear that he is referring to the refrigerator motor, contrary
to R. Broyde’s misreading.[7]
“A careful reader of the first sentence, and indeed of the entire teshuva,
can sense that there is some ambiguity here about the electrical object
referred to, since Dayan Rieger does not specify the source or consequence of
igniting the electricity.”
There is no ambiguity to anyone who has seen the previous issues of Hapardes
which deal with the question of the refrigerator motor. There can only be
ambiguity if one reads Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva
entirely out of context, without looking at the articles to which he was
responding.
“Particularly in the Yiddish spoken culture of that time, the term
“electric” seems to have meant “lights” and not electricity or motor.”
R. Broyde’s assertion that “electri[c]” did not mean electricity or motor is
incorrect. See for example, the language in Rav Shlomo Heiman’s letter (dated
Erev Sukkot 5697/1936), printed in Chosen Yosef[8], and
reprinted in later editions of Chiddushei Rav Shlomo:
פקפק כת”ר
שליט”א בענין פתיחת הפרידזידעיר על העלעקטרי דע”י פתיחתו הוא
מבעיר העלעקטרי ורוצים להתיר על פי שטת הערוך דהוי פס”ר דלנ”ל
דיותר נוח לו שלא יכנס שם אויר קר, ולא יעלו לו הוצאות העלעקטרי…
In this short excerpt, Rav Shlomo Heiman uses “elektri” to refer to
both the refrigerator motor and to electricity. Rav Heiman was clearly discussing
the permissibility of opening the door and triggering the refrigerator motor,
and refers to triggering the motor as kindling the “elektri”, the same
exact term used by Rav Simcha Zelig. Rav Heiman further notes that this is
considered “lo nicha lei” because the person would prefer to save the
additional expense of “elektri”, i.e. electricity.
See also the words of Rav Chaim Fishel Epstein, in Teshuva Shleima
vol. 2 – Orach Chaim, beginning of Siman
6[9]:
נשאלתי בדבר
המכונה המקררת בכח חשמל שקורין ריפרידזשיאטר, שבעת שפותחים הדלת נכנס אויר חם ואז
נתעורר כח החשמל (עלעקטריק בלע”ז) והמכונה מתחלת להניע ולעבוד כדי להוסיף
קרירות…
Here, Rav Epstein synonymizes koach chashmal, or electricity, with “עלעקטריק”.
See also Hapardes 1931, num. 2 page 3, where zerem hachashmali, or
electric current, is synonymized with
“עלעקטריק”. R. Broyde’s contention that “electri[c]”
did not mean electricity or motor is simply false.
“Elektri, according to
my colleague at Emory, Professor Nick Block, more likely means the light than
anything else in 1930s Yiddish.”
One need not be a Professor of German Studies to
recognize that within a discussion of
refrigerator motors, it is more than likely that “Elektri” means a
refrigerator motor, the subject under discussion, or its associated electricity.
This was true even in 1930s Yiddish spoken culture; see Rav Shlomo Heiman’s
1936 letter cited above.
Additionally, as mentioned above, Rav Pardes (editor of Hapardes)
clearly understood Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva to be addressing the
question of triggering the motor, which had been raised in earlier issues of Hapardes.
Rav Pardes’ knowledge of 1930s Yiddish was certainly robust.
“Second, and much more importantly, the halachic analysis presented by
Dayan Rieger addresses a direct action, while everyone else who discusses the
motor speaks about an indirect action…opening the door usually leads to an
increase of air temperature inside the refrigerator, which eventually directs
the motor to go on…many times when the refrigerator is opened, the motor does
not go on at all…But Dayan Rieger makes no mention of this…he assumes that when
the refrigerator door is opened the electrical object under discussion is always
ignited, and it does so immediately and directly, thus causing a melacha.
This is the formulation of psik resha, which inexorably causes melacha
each and every time…”
This section is entirely wrong, and is predicated on R. Broyde’s
misreading/mistranslation of Rav Simcha Zelig’s words, as noted above. That Rav
Simcha Zelig added the qualification of “IF IT IS” a psik reisha renders R. Broyde’s words here to be entirely
irrelevant and incorrect. Rav Simcha Zelig’s language of “IF IT IS” a psik
reisha makes clear that he is assuming that the motor is not always
ignited by opening the door, but at times it might be ignited in a manner of psik
reisha, due to the heightened initial air temperature inside the
refrigerator. (Again, such a situation is known as “safek psik reisha”
in Rabbinic parlance, as the air temperature inside the refrigerator is not
known to the opener.) Contrary to R. Broyde’s assertions, Rav Simcha Zelig’s
language here is a clear proof that Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva was in reference to the refrigerator motor and not the
light.
“Professor Sara Reguer noted by email to me that “my grandfather conferred
with scientists and specialists in electricity before giving his response,” and
given this fact it is extremely unlikely that he missed such a basic point that
anyone who repeatedly opened and closed a refrigerator would have noticed.”
This argument is also incorrect, and is again predicated on R. Broyde’s
mistranslation of Rav Simcha Zelig’s words. Also significant is R. Broyde’s
citation of Dr. Reguer (in his footnote 8) that “she is certain that this teshuva
is referring to the thermostat or motor and not the light.”
“First, the other substantive halachic logic employed by Dayan Rieger which
analogizes elektri to sparks seems to me to be a closer analogy to a light than
to a motor which is hardly fire at all; sparks like incandescent lights, are
fire according to halacha.”
R. Broyde is wrong again. In fact, several poskim have noted that
ignition of the refrigerator motor also generates sparks.[10] See
the words of Rav Chaim Bick[11],
describing the problem of the refrigerator motor in Hamesila (2:1)[12]:
וע”י הגלגל
נושב רוח ומוליד הקר לחלק השני של התבה, אשר שמה נמצאים כל צרכי אכל ומשקה. הגלגל
בשעה שמתחיל מרוצתו יוצא ממנו נצוץ-אשי…
And by way of the wheel,
the wind (i.e. air) blows and creates the cold in the other section of the box
(refrigerator), where all the food and drink are located. The wheel, when it
begins to run, emits fire-sparks…
See also the words of Rav Chaim Dovid Regensburg,
describing the problem of the refrigerator motor, in Mishmeret Chaim, siman
3[13]:
ומה שלפעמים ניצוצות ניתזים, ברגע של מגע החוטים
החשמליים אחד בשני, אין זו הבערה, כי מלאכת מבעיר ביחס לשבת לא חשובה אלא אם האש
נאחזת באיזה דבר, וכן כתב הפרי מגדים סי תקב… 
And that sometimes sparks
fly off,
at the moment that the electrical wires touch each other, this is not havara,
because melechet havara with respect to Shabbat is only considered when
the fire takes hold to something, and so wrote the Pri Megadim…
See also the words of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, within a discussion of
the ignition of the refrigerator motor in Minchat Shlomo (Kama), Siman
10, Anaf 2 Ot 4[14]:
אולם יש טוענים
דיש לחשוש לזה, שבכל פעם שמתחדש מעגל חשמלי יוצא במקום החבור ניצוץ קטן של אש
ונמצא שבפתיחתו הוא גורם למלאכת מבעיר…
However, some claim that one should be careful
about this, that every time that an electric circuit is completes, a small
spark of fire comes out of the place of connection, and thus through his
opening [of the refrigerator door] he is causing the melacha of mav’ir…
Thus, contrary to R. Broyde’s assertion, Rav Simcha Zelig’s mention of
sparks is in fact directly analogous to the ignition of the refrigerator motor,
which actually involved creation of sparks.[15]
“Secondly, there has been a regular subset of poskim (as shown by Rabbi
Abadi’s most recent teshuva, Ohr Yitzchak 2:166) who adopt the exact analysis
and view of Dayan Rieger and view the light as lo ichpat since one does
not want it and a light is on already.”
To refer to a single teshuva, published in the 21st
century by a lone posek, as “a regular subset of poskim” would seem to
be somewhat of an exaggeration.
“On the other hand, there is a good and natural impulse to read halachic
literature conservatively and to press for interpretations that align gedolim
with one another and not leave outliers with halachic novelty.”
My original note and my comments here in no way reflect any impulse to read
halachic literature conservatively. They reflect my impulse to read halachic
literature correctly.
“Furthermore, I do recognize that many halachic authorities who have cited
Dayan Rieger’s teshuva have quoted it in the context of the motor and not the
light…”
More accurately, all halachic authorities who have cited Rav Simcha
Zelig’s teshuva have quoted it in the
context of the motor and not the light.
“But, I think these citations are less than dispositive for the following
important reason: Those who quote Dayan Rieger’s view as something to consider
about the motor note that his analysis is halachically wrong…Poskim generally
spend less time and ink explicating the views of authorities whom they believe
to have reached inapt or incorrect conclusions of fact or law compared with
those whom they cite in whole or in part to bolster their own analysis.”
It is unclear to me whether R. Broyde means that all of these Poskim
have misunderstood Rav Simcha Zelig’s position, or that they have
misrepresented it. Either way, the assertion is bizarre. I will leave it to the
readers to judge whether such an assertion is tenable.
The following is a partial list of Poskim and scholars who have
cited Rav Simcha Zelig as having permitted opening a refrigerator on Shabbat
when the motor will go on, and not
in the context of the refrigerator light[16]:
1)     
Rav Ovadya
Yosef (Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim Chelek 1, Siman 21, Ot 7)
2)    Rav Yehoshua
Neuwirth (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata, Perek 10 Footnote 33 in
the 1979 edition. This appears in Footnote 37 in the 2010 edition.)
3)     
Rav J. David
Bleich (Tradition, Spring 2017, pages
57-58)[17]
4)     
Rav Chaim
Bick (Hamesila 2:1)[18]
5)     
Rav Gedalia
Felder (Yesodei Yesurun, vol. 3 page 293)[19]
6)     
Rav Shlomo
Tanavizki (Birkat Shlomo, end of siman 2)[20]
7)     
Rav Moshe
Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot vol. 1 Siman 220)[21]
8)     
Rav Chaim
Fishel Epstein (Teshuva Shleima vol. 2, end of Siman 6)[22]
9)     
Rav Chaim
Dovid Regensburg (Mishmeret Chaim, Siman 3, page 27) [23]
10) 
Rav Chaim
Druck (Noam Vol. 1 page 281)[24]
11) 
Rav Shmuel
Aharon Yudelevitz (Hachashmal Leor Hahalacha, page 130)[25]
12) 
Rav Yosef
Schwartzman (Shaashuei Torah, Chelek 3 – Shabbat,  pages 391-392)
13) 
Rav Shlomo
Pick (Who is Halakhic Man?, in Review of Rabbinic Judaism 12:2, page
260)[26]
In conclusion, it is clear that Rav Simcha Zelig’s teshuva about
opening refrigerators on Shabbat addressed the problem of the motor turning on
when the door is opened. Every argument put forth by R. Broyde is wrong. Rav
Simcha Zelig’s position was that it is permitted to open a refrigerator when
the motor will go on, as triggering the motor is classified as a psik
reisha d’lo ichpat lei, which is equivalent to lo nicha lei. Rav
Simcha Zelig never addressed opening a refrigerator when the light will
go on.
Postscript:
Regarding R. Broyde’s admonition of my tone, that “we certainly could use
more light and less heat”, I could not disagree more. I will simply quote the
words of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik in his remarkable speech at the 1956 Chinuch
Atzmai Dinner, in appreciation of Rav Aharon Kotler[27]:
קאלטע תורה, ווי
קאלטע ליכט, איז גארנישט. עס דארף זיין הייס ליכט, א’מיר’זך
אפ’בריען ווען מ’קומט’מן צו אים…
Cold Torah, like cold light, is worthless. It must
be heated light so that one burns himself in its proximity…


[6] http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12073&st=&pgnum=8
[7] See Rav J. David Bleich’s typically thorough
treatment of the topic of refrigerators in Tradition
(Spring 2017, pages 57-59 and 64-65) for a discussion of why triggering the
refrigerator motor would be considered lo
nicha lei.
[10] Rav J. David Bleich in Tradition (Spring 2017, page 72) has noted that while a number of
earlier poskim dealt with the issue
of sparking in refrigerators, sparking has now been eliminated in most
modern-day appliances.
[11] For biographical information on Rav Chaim Bick, see
here.
[15] While Rav Regensburg assumed that the creation of
sparks would happen only sometimes, it appears that Rav Bick and Rav Shlomo
Zalman assumed that the creation of sparks happened every time the motor was
triggered, and thus would be included in the category of safek psik reisha.
[16] My thanks to Dr. Marc Shapiro for bringing to my
attention the references to Rav Felder, Rav Shternbuch, Rav Druck and Rav
Schwartzman.
[17] My thanks to Rabbi Yitzchok Segal for bringing this
reference to my attention.
[27] Watch here at approximately 28:00. See also Making of a
Gadol, Second Edition, page 1019, for specific examples of Rav Aharon Kotler’s
heated remarks in defense of his Torah positions. 


New book announcement: Yeshurun volume 36

New book announcement: Yeshurun volume 36
By Eliezer Brodt
This past Wednesday the thirty sixth volume of the Torah journal Yeshurun was released. As I am on the editorial board of this journal, I normally do not write a review of new volumes for fear of being biased, or the appearance thereof. In keeping with my stance, I will not write a review below, but rather just highlight some of the topics in the volume. Normally, Yeshurun is a bi-annual, with a new volume published before Rosh Hashanah and Pesach. This issue is an additional volume to the two regular ones. In general, each volume has a few sections: a section devoted to manuscripts which usually features material from geonim, rishonim or achronim. Then it follows that with a sort of sefer sikaron of a gadol or two that (usually) recently died, featuring an essay about him and a sampling of his Torah and machshavah from the particular gadol. The next section that usually follows are pieces of Torah from different people, some related to halacha. Following this is a section devoted to machshavah and last is Kulmos which generally features pieces related to history or minhag.
The main focus of this issue was to print a volume almost completely devoted to various modern halachic issues (as a result, shrinking the manuscript and Kulmos sections).  A few issues back there was a volume devoted almost entirely to halacha (vol. 31).  In my opinion and from what I heard from others that volume was not considered as interesting as other volumes.  This is the second attempt to issue such a volume and I think this time it is a success. It’s a nice combination of material.
Our volume has a few sections: The first section deals with bein hamitzarim: the Three Weeks, Nine Nine, etc. and begins with the publication of a nice manuscript by an anonymous author from the generation of the Rambam’s father edited by Professor Tzvi Langermann (this is the third chapter he has issued from this work, see here). It also features a collection of material on this time period culled from the various members of the Brisker Dynasty.
The next section, which in my opinion is fascinating and excellent, relates to the Mishna Berurah. The first part of the section contains an essay from Rabbi Trevitz (this is the third installment in the series) related to the numerous contradictions in the Mishnah Berurah and the role of his son R’ Aryeh Leib in writing the MB. There is also an interesting back and forth between Rabbi Trevitz and Rabbi Bergman (another young expert on the MB who has authored four works on the MB) about issues related to this subject. This section also contains some manuscripts of the MB and some new letters by the Chafetz Chaim.
The next section is devoted to R’ Refael Shmulevitz ztz”l. Having seen and heard him up close many times while learning in the Mir, I was always very impressed by this special gaon. The section is a nice tribute to him. It also features some letters related to his role as chief editor of the Encyclopedia Talmudit.  In one of them he writes:

 ואמרתי בפגישה עם ת”ח בעלי יכולת, שההא”ת מיועדת לכל, הן לבעלי בתים הרוצים לדעת את הענינים מ’למעלה’ והן לת”ח, טעין לי אחד מהם, שהוא אישית אינו מוצא תועלת בא”ת, שכן לפני שהוא לומד את הסוגיא אינו רוצה לעיין בה, ולאחר שהוא גמר את לימודו אינו מוצא בה תועלת. ענינתי לו שאף בענין שהוא לומד אותו בעיון, כדאי מאוד שלאחר שגמר ומיצה אותו ככל יכולתו, שישלים את עיונו בערך המתאים, שכן הא”ת היא עבודת צוות חשוב, וקשה מאוד לאדם יחיד להגיע למה שהצוות מגיע, ואז יתגלו לו עולמות חדשים בסוגיא שהוא למדה כבר… [עמ’ תקח].

The next section is devoted to modern halachic issues featuring pieces from various prominent rabbonim. See below for the Table of Contents.
The last section is dedicated to one of the editors and founders of Yeshurun, my dear friend Dr. Shlomo Sprecher, who was niftar a few months ago. This section includes a hesped for him and a reissued version of his excellent piece written together with his special friend Rabbi Menachem Silber on the topic of הפולמוס על אמרית מכניסי רחמים ותשובות רבי שמשון ב”ר רפאל הירש זצ”ל. This piece contains over twice the volume of footnotes.




A Half Slave, Ber Oppenheimer, the Reliability of R’ Shlomo Sofer, and Other Comments

A Half Slave, Ber Oppenheimer, the Reliability of R’ Shlomo Sofer, and Other Comments
By Brian Schwartz
When I was in my early yeshiva years studying tractate Shabbos, I came across a Rashba which I found to be most intriguing.  During its discussion of the first mishna, the gemara in Shabbos 4a makes the statement, “וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך,” which means, “do we really say to a person, ‘sin in order that your friend should merit?’” A notion which suggests that a person should not sin in order that others can fulfill a mitzvah. Tosafos[1] has a long discussion addressing the multiple places in the Talmud which seem to contradict this concept.  One of the sources discussed, is the mishna in the fourth chapter of Gittin. The mishna states that if one owns a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, (a half slave half free man, a phenomenon which happens when two partners own a slave and one partner frees him of his share), one must free him on the account that as a half slave he cannot fulfill the mitzvah of procreating, as a half slave cannot marry a slave or a free woman.  Tosafos also notes that freeing a slave is a transgression of the positive commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו, as expressly stated previously in Gittin 38b.  Tosafos asks, how can a master be obligated to free his half slave so that the half slave can fulfill his mitzvah of procreating, does that not contradict the above statement in Shabbos of וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך by violating a positive commandment? 
The Rashba[2] answers this question with the novel idea that the commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו doesn’t apply to a half slave. Therefore, in this situation one isn’t transgressing any commandments when enabling someone else fulfill a mitzva. The problem with this approach is that there seems to be a gemara in Gittin 38a which suggests otherwise:

“ההיא אמתא דהות בפומבדיתא דהוו קא מעבדי בה אינשי איסורא אמר אביי אי לאו דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל דכל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה הוה כייפנא ליה למרה וכתיב לה גיטא דחירותא רבינא אמר כי הא מודה רב יהודה משום מילתא דאיסורא ואביי משום איסורא לא האמר רב חנינא בר רב קטינא אמר ר’ יצחק מעשה באשה אחת שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין ואמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מנהג הפקר נהגו בה .”
“There was a slave-woman in Pumpedisa, with whom men did sinful acts.  Abaye said: Were it not that Rav Yehuda has said in the name of Shmuel, that anyone who frees his slave transgresses a positive commandment, I would force her master, and he would write her a contract of freedom.  Ravina said:  In such a case Rav Yehuda would agree because of the sinful acts.  And Abaye, would not agree due to sinful acts?  Did not Rav Chanina Bar Rav Ketina say in the name of R’ Yitzchak:  There was once an incident involving a woman who was a half slave-woman and half free-woman, and they forced her master, and he made her a free woman; And Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said, men acted with her in a promiscuous manner.”

The gemara clearly suggests that if it wasn’t for the promiscuity of the half-slave woman, freeing her would be forbidden under the positive commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו, clearly contradicting the Rashba.  This question bothered me very much, so I began a search through the acharonim[3] to see if anyone dealt with this problem.  While I was perusing through the yeshiva’s library, I happened upon an old torn up copy of the Chiddushei Maharam Barby by R’ Meir Barby, the Av Beis Din of Pressburg before the Chasam Sofer and R’ Meshullam Igra.  R’ Barby asks the question in the name of one of his students and attempts to give an answer[4].  At the time, I gave no specific significance to this source, other than the fact it was the earliest mention of this question that I could find.  I continued to gather sources until I found this question asked in the sefer Mei Be’er.  The Mei Be’er was authored by Ber Oppenheimer, a resident of Pressburg and a talmid chacham.  What is so interesting about this sefer is that Oppenheimer corresponds with many of the gedolim of his time.  Examples include; R’ Shmuel Landau, R’ Baruch Frankel Teomim, R’ Moshe Mintz, R’ Mordechai Banet, R’ Yaakov Orenstein, and many others[5].  All these personalities do not hold back on writing titles and honorifics to Oppenheimer that would suit any other great rabbi of their time. 
After a response to the above question from the author of the Ketzos Hachoshen[6], Oppenheimer writes that he found this question in the name of one of R’ Meir Barby’s students,  in the newly printed Chidushei Maharam Barby, and that student happened to be Oppenheimer himself.[7]  From there he proceeds with his own answer.  Here is the title page of the Mei Be’er:
While I was discussing this question with one of my rebbeim in yeshiva, I brought up the topic of the Mei Be’er and how the sefer impressed me with all the correspondence with the gedolim of the time.  To my surprise, my rebbe told me that R’ Moshe Sofer, known as the Chasam Sofer after the seforim he authored, supposedly quipped about the sefer, “מי באר לא נשתה” (a pun of the verse in Bamidbar 21:22).  This tidbit of information intrigued me to learn more about Ber Oppenheimer, and to find out if there was any truth to the hearsay of what the Chasam Sofer allegedly said. 
Ber Oppenheimer

            Ber Oppenheimer, a descendant of the famous R’ Dovid Oppenheim, was born in 1760 to his father Yitzchak in Pressburg.  Together with his brother Chaim, young Ber went to study in the Yeshiva of Fürth.  Sometime later, Oppenheimer left Fürth for Berlin so that he could fulfill his desire to learn secular knowledge.  When he completed his studies in Berlin, he returned to Pressburg where he would become one of the leaders of the community.
            In 1829, Oppenheimer published his sefer, Mei Be’er.  Besides for the Mei Be’er, Oppenheimer published material in the Bikkurei Haitim and Kerem Chemed journals, and in 1825 he printed a prayer service in Honor of the ascension of Caroline Augusta of Bavaria to the Austrian throne[8].  Oppenheimer certainly was a maskil, though it seems he was traditional enough for all the gedolei hador he corresponded with.  The question is, what exactly did the Chasam Sofer think of him?  Did he know something the other gedolim did not, being that he lived in the same community as him?  In the Mei Be’er, there are a few teshuvos from the Chasam Sofer to Oppenheimer[9]. Devoid of of any titles and praise for Oppenheimer, the Chasam Sofer’s teshuvos to him leave off an impression of a seemingly cold relationship compared to his other correspondents; however, from this alone one can hardly gauge exactly what the Chasam Sofer really thought of Oppenheimer. 
            The start of the trail begins with the line “מי באר לא נשתה” that the Chasam Sofer allegedly said.  I found several sources which report the Chasam Sofer as the originator of the line[10], but without any context.  One source, R’ Shimon Fuerst in the preface to his Shem MiShimon,[11] does make a story out of it.  He tells of a story where once Oppenheimer came to speak to the Chasam Sofer in the latter’s house.  Sofer’s sons, R’ Shimon and R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyomin (the Ksav Sofer), noticed that their father made him wait a very long time.  They objected to their father’s treatment of Oppenheimer; protesting that it was not right to keep a talmid chacham such as Oppenheimer waiting so long.  Their father replied that every time Oppenheimer comes to speak to him in learning, it causes him bittul torah, since afterwards he must learn for a half hour in a musar sefer – since Oppenheimer’s head is full of heretical books.  Fuerst continues with another anecdote: once a talmid in his yeshiva asked a question to the Chasam Sofer, and when Sofer realized it was taken from the Mei Be’er, he then told the talmid, “מי באר לא נשתה”. 
            There are other reports of similar reactions and encounters of the Chasam Sofer with an anonymous talmid chacham from Pressburg who happened to also author a sefer.  I think we can safely assume that the intended person is Oppenheimer. 
            R’ Yitzchak Weiss of Varbó, writes to R’ Yosef Schwartz in the latter’s biographical anthology of the Chasam Sofer, Zichron L’Moshe[12], of a story he heard from his uncle, R’ Yaakov Prager.  In 1828, the Ra’vad of Pressburg, R’ Mordechai Tausk, was making a siyum hashas.  Tausk never liked making long pshetlach, so he prepared his dvar torah on just the last page of tractate Niddah.  However, the Chasam Sofer was present, and he started himself to say a large pilpul, explaining Tausk’s thesis, based on the references Tausk prepared.  Also present at the time, was a great talmid chacham who wrote a sefer, though a heretic.  In middle of his pshetle, the Chasam Sofer turbulently cried out, “ מה מועילים כל החידושים וחילוקים, העיקר הוא ליראה את השם הנככד והנורא ית״ש להיות על כל אדם מורא שמים מפחד הי״ת והדר  גאונו,” ואמר תוכחה נוראה בזה.
            
Though here Weiss chose to keep this talmid chacham anonymous, in his Alef Kasav[13] he identifies him as Oppenheimer.
            R’ Akiva Yosef Schlesinger in his Lev Ha’Ivri[14], tells of a story where the Chasam Sofer gave a eulogy. In attendance was “an important person, who was also a great talmid chacham and a great apikores.” During the eulogy, the Chasam Sofer quoted a gemara.  This talmid chacham proceeded to comment to his friends that there is no such gemara.  When someone by the name of Sender Leib happened to hear what the talmid chacham said, he quickly ran home to get a gemara.  With his gemara in hand, Sender Leib waited outside the shul for the Chasam Sofer to finish the eulogy. “When this important talmid chacham and apikores, author of the sefer…” came out, Sender Leib called out to him in public, “you said it wasn’t a gemara, here is the gemara,” and before he could even look at the gemara, Sender Leib slapped him on the face. He says that he received a public humiliation for publicly humiliating the Chasam Sofer – and he never opened up his mouth like that again.
            R’ Schlesinger was from the extreme factions of Hungarian Jewry, and was not without controversy to say the least.  Before taking this story at face value, we should certainly recall that he has been accused of fabrications in his Lev Ha’Ivri by the kehillah of Pressburg, in the polemical Ktav Yosher V’Divrei Emes[15]; written against him and his father in law R’ Hillel Lichtenstein. 
            Another anecdote can be found in R’ Shlomo Sofer’s biography of his grandfather the Chasam Sofer, Chut Hameshulash[16].  Sofer recalls his father, R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyomen Sofer (the Ksav Sofer), telling him about a wealthy talmid chacham in Pressburg, who also wrote a sefer.  This talmid chacham would frequently visit his father the Chasam Sofer. Once, the Chasam Sofer told his son, “every time that man leaves the house I immediately learn mussar, for what comes out of that man’s mouth is impure.” 
            There is no doubt that Sofer is referring to Oppenheimer.  Besides for dropping the clues about the man that he was a wealthy talmid chacham who wrote a sefer, Sofer also divulges a few more clues in his footnotes[17] with another two stories he writes about this man. 
The first story is about a student of the Chasam Sofer from Moravia.  Before travelling home to visit, the student went to the Chasam Sofer, to ask him permission to leave and for a dvar torah, so he would be able to share with the rabbi of his hometown something he heard from his rebbe.  The student also stopped by the anonymous person’s house to see if he wanted him to get regards from the rabbi, who happened to also be the person’s relative.  When the student came to the man’s house, the man asked him for a dvar torah that he heard from his rebbi the Chasam Sofer.  The student told him what he just heard.  Shlomo Sofer goes on to tell the story of how this man stole the dvar torah from the Chasam Sofer and said it over as if it was his own.[18]
            Sofer revealed in this story that this man had a relative who was a rabbi of a town in Moravia.  Oppenheimer had two relatives that served as the rabbi of Dresnitz in Moravia, Chaim his brother, and his nephew, Chaim’s son whose name was also Ber.
            Sofer recalls a second anecdote about this man that he heard from his uncle R’ Shimon Sofer.  R’ Shimon heard from his father the Chasam Sofer, that while he was still a student of R’ Nosson Adler, this man was still a bachur who was learning close to Frankfurt.  R’ Adler warned his young protégé to stay away from the bachur, as he was from the “Avi Avos Hatumah.”
            As stated before, Oppenheimer was a student of the yeshiva of Fürth in his youth.  Fürth is not too far from Frankfurt, about 70km.  All these clues, certainly point to identifying Sofer’s subject as Oppenheimer.  However, the reliability of the Chut Hameshulash has been called into question many times before, and I will return to this issue later.
            Should we assume that the Chasam Sofer’s supposed contempt for Oppenheimer was a result of the latter’s knowledge and interest in secular subjects and haskalah?  The Chasam Sofer was on cordial terms with many learned maskilim such as, Wolf Heidenheim[19], Tzvi Hirsch Chajes[20], Shlomo Yehuda Rappaport[21], and Zachariah Jolles[22].  So, what was behind this perceived animosity, and is there any truth to it? 
            The most definitive biography of Oppenheimer was written by Isaac Hirsch Weiss in his memoirs, Zichronosai.  The relevant pages were not included in the original edition, and were later printed in the compilation, Genazim (Tel-Aviv,1961).  Weiss was the son-in-law of Ber Oppenheimer, the nephew of our subject who happened to bear the same name as him.  In his memoirs, Weiss gives a detailed monograph of Oppenheimer, which includes very interesting material about his relationship with the Chasam Sofer.
            Weiss confirms the existence of the disparaging remark against Oppenheimer’s sefer, and attributes it not to the Chasam Sofer, but to people who didn’t like him; while describing it in its original form of the verse, “לא נשתה מי באר”.  However, also according to Weiss, the Chasam Sofer wasn’t exactly Oppenheimer’s best friend either. 
Weiss describes a cold relationship between the Chasam Sofer and Oppenheimer. To Oppenheimer’s face he was pleasant and cordial, but behind his back he would badmouth him.  Weiss is baffled by the Chasam Sofer’s conduct towards a talmid chacham like Oppenheimer, especially since Oppenheimer was one of the original supporters of the Chasam Sofer, and his son the Ksav Sofer after him, for the position of rabbi of Pressburg.
What was their point of contention?  Weiss heard from Oppenheimer himself that though the Chasam Sofer did not approve of his affinity towards secular subjects, the main reason the Chasam Sofer held a grudge against him was because he supported educational reforms; mainly by being involved in establishing a school in Pressburg, the Primaerschule, which taught secular subjects.  There were two attempts to establish the Primaerschule during the Chasam Sofer’s tenure in Pressburg.  The first attempt in 1811 was met with failure, however the proponents of the Primaerschule succeeded with their second attempt in 1820[23]. 
One interesting remark about Oppenheimer was made by Leopold Greenwald in correspondence with Meir Herschkowitz in Hadarom[24].  There, Greenwald writes to Herschkowitz that Oppenheimer was known as an informer.  Though Greenwald gives no basis for this accusation, what he is probably referring to is the attempt of the maskilim to shut down the Yeshiva of Pressburg.  In 1826, the Rosh Hakahal Wolf Breizach and his fellow maskilim, protested to the government authorities that the education offered by the Pressburg Yeshiva was insufficient, leaving its students uneducated and boorish.   This accusation prompted the government to ask a series of questions on the nature of the studies which took place in the yeshiva.  The Chasam Sofer gave a written reply, answering each question point by point.  The maskilim then followed up with a rebuttal to the Chasam Sofer’s answers[25].  By just reading the content of the rebuttal, one realizes how radical these maskilim really were and what the Chasam Sofer had to deal with.  The government authorities then proceeded with an ultimatum; the yeshiva was to shut down within two weeks. Ultimately, the decree was rescinded through the efforts of one of the members of the Pressburg community.    
What was Oppenheimer’s role in all of this?  Though he was involved in opening the Primaerschule, to my knowledge there is no evidence that he was also involved in the effort to close the yeshiva.  As stated before, Oppenheimer certainly was a maskil.  Nonetheless, I find it difficult to classify Oppenheimer as a radical maskil who would have had such a rabid disposition against the yeshiva as to try to close its doors, like the maskilim who almost succeeded in doing so.   One need only to point to his Mei Be’er which shows his great love for learning in the traditional sense, and the fond relationships he shared with the premier rabbis and talmudists of his time.  Another episode which reveals his true predilections, was his involvement with the selection of a replacement for R’ Moshe Mintz, the previous rabbi of Obuda, who passed away in 1831.  Two of the candidates for the position were R’ Tzvi Hirsch Chajes and R’ Aharon Moshe Taubes, author of the Karnei Re’aim[26].  
One would think that if Oppenheimer were such an ardent maskil he would support someone like Chajes, who not only was a friend of Oppenheimer[27], but was also a maskil himself.    However, in a letter to Shlomo Rosenthal, Shlomo Yehuda Rappaport writes much to his surprise and chagrin, that Oppenheimer supported Taubes[28].  Taubes was a traditionalist rabbi of the old school, and Oppenheimer’s support for his candidacy shows he was far from the radical maskilim of his day who wanted to totally remove the old guard of rabbis and replace them with new enlightened ones.
Another reason I find it hard to believe that Oppenheimer wanted to shut down the Yeshiva of Pressburg, is the fact that there is a Michtav Bracha from Oppenheimer printed in Ber Frank’s Ohr Ha’Emunah Part II, which was printed in 1845, almost 20 years later.  Ber Frank was a close confidante of the Chasam Sofer and an integral part of the Pressburg community.  Frank was the shamash, sofer, and shochet, of Pressburg, and wrote sefarim on practical halacha and hashkafah in German for the masses[29].  If Oppenheimer was involved in closing the Pressburg Yeshiva, I find it very hard to believe that Frank would oblige himself with a letter from Oppenheimer in one of his sefarim. 
            However, the most convincing piece of evidence to me, is a teshuva from the Ksav Sofer filled with respect and praise for Oppenheimer[30].  It is unthinkable to me that the Ksav Sofer would have anything pleasant to say about someone who would have shut down the great institution which he inherited from his father[31]. 
So, what prompted Greenwald to accuse Oppenheimer of being an informer?  The main source for Greenwald in his account of the Primaerschule controversy and the attempt to close the Pressburg Yeshiva, is R’ Yechezkel Faivel Plaut’s Likutei Chever ben Chaim[32].  As stated earlier, there were two attempts to establish the Primaerschule in Pressburg; in 1811 which failed, and in 1820 which was successful, and thereafter in 1826 was the effort to close the yeshiva.  Plaut correctly dates the first attempt to 1811.  However, he mistakenly writes that the second attempt to open the Primaerschule took place in 1826, the same time as the effort to close the yeshiva. This chronological mistake, which was also repeated in Shlomo Sofer’s Chut Hameshulash[33], probably led to the conflation of the two events by Plaut and subsequently by Greenwald[34], leading Greenwald to think that the same people that were involved in establishing the Primaerschule, were also involved in the effort to close the yeshiva.  Thus, concluding that just as Oppenheimer supported the Primaerschule, he must have also supported closing the yeshiva. 
Another proof that Plaut and Sofer’s version of events is inaccurate, is apparent from their recounting of what happened to all the supporters of the Primaerschule.  Both Plaut[35] and Sofer[36] tell us that in reaction to the events of 1826, which according to them included the opening of the Primaerschule, the Chasam Sofer gave a sermon whereby he preached that sinners who lead others astray do not deserve G-d’s mercy in this world; finishing off the sermon with a prayer that all the evildoers should be destroyed[37].  The Chasam Sofer’s words made a profound impression on his audience and in heaven, as all those who were involved in the Primaerschule did not live out the year. 
We have already mentioned that Oppenheimer was a supporter of the Primaerschule, yet he certainly continued to live on, as is evident from the printing of his Mei Be’er in 1829.  In fact, Oppenheimer died in 1850 at the ripe old age of ninety, outliving the Chasam Sofer by eleven years.  Thus, we must conclude that the sermon the Chasam Sofer gave in 1826 was not a response to the Primaerschule[38], but to the attempt at shutting the doors of his yeshiva.  Indeed, Wolf Breizach died in August of 1827, within a year of the Chasam sofer’s sermon.
The reliability of R’ Shlomo Sofer

Shlomo Sofer continues the story, by telling us that one of the people that opposed the Chasam Sofer realized his mistake; as he saw how all those who antagonized the latter started dying off one by one.  In fear and remorse, this person fled to Vienna from where he sent a letter to the Chasam Sofer, begging him for forgiveness and to pray for him so he shouldn’t meet an untimely demise like the rest of his friends.  The Chasam Sofer replied, “I have you in mind when I say ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה,” and it wasn’t long until this person died like the rest of his friends.
Isaac Hirsch Weiss[39] takes issue with this part of the story, saying that only a fool would believe that someone as righteous as the Chasam Sofer would reject so cruelly someone who was trying to do teshuva.  He goes so far as to say that even if the story were true, it would be an egregious sin to publicize it, giving him cause to lament over the character and temperament of Shlomo Sofer who wrote the biography of his grandfather.  Earlier, Weiss derides the Chut Hameshulash as being filled with silly stories that no rational person would believe. 
Isaac Hirsch Weiss was not the only one to criticize Shlomo Sofer and his works.  No one less than Simcha Lehman, daughter of the Chasam Sofer, was reported to have said that her nephew’s biography of her father is filled with exaggerations[40].  
R’ Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich claims[41 ]that Sofer intentionally left out his grandfather R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, author of the Kol Aryeh, from a list of students of the Chasam Sofer that Sofer made in his Iggerot Soferim[42].  Ehrenreich attributes this omission to a familial dispute between Sofer and descendants of the elder Schwartz.  Shlomo Sofer was rabbi of the town of Beregszász, where some of the Schwartz family also resided.  Apparently, they did not get along.[43]
Leopold Greenwald[44] not only accuses Sofer of deliberate omissions by the latter in his works, but also of intentional distortions, exaggerations, and fallacious story telling[45].  He specifically takes issue with Sofer’s portrayal of a strained relationship between R’ Azriel Hildesheimer and the Ksav Sofer, when not only was Hildesheimer chosen from a plethora of many other rabbis to eulogize the Ksav Sofer upon his death, the kehillah of Pressburg even postponed the Ksav Sofer’s burial for two days, awaiting Hildesheimer’s arrival[46]. Hardly something that would be done for someone supposedly in a strained relationship with the deceased[47].  Sofer makes no mention of any this when he describes his father’s funeral in his Chut Hameshulash. 
I couldn’t verify that the reason that Ksav Sofer’s burial was postponed was to wait for R’ Hildesheimer to arrive; however, it is true that Shlomo Sofer only specifically mentions his brother Yaakov Akiva as giving the first eulogy and leaves the rest of the eulogizers anonymous.  Nonetheless, in my opinion I don’t think the omission of Hildesheimer is so problematic.  R’ Azriel Hildesheimer himself described the levayah[48], and he reports that there were five eulogizers; R’ Feish Fishman, R’ Yaakov Akiva Sofer, R’ Shlomo Zalman Spitzer the brother-in-law of the Ksav Sofer, Hildesheimer himself, and R’ Yosef Guggenheimer.  If we were to accuse Shlomo Sofer of intentionally leaving out Hildesheimer, then we would have to say the same about him leaving out his uncle, Shlomo Spitzer who he held in high esteem.  Though I’m not sure what Shlomo Sofer thought of Feish Fishman, who was a controversial figure among the more radical Hungarian rabbis for his German-language sermons, perhaps one could speculate that Sofer only mentions the first person that gave a eulogy and not the rest, so as not to make any mention of Hildesheimer or Guggenheimer.  But again, this is entirely speculation. 
Still, Sofer specifically says that his brother Yaakov Akiva gave the first eulogy[49].  If we were to read Hildesheimer’s list of the eulogizers as happening in the specific order in which he reported them, it would seem that in actuality the first eulogy was given not by Yaakov Akiva Sofer, but by Feish Fishman.  This would not be hard to believe, as there were many in the community that wanted R’ Feish Fishman to succeed the Ksav Sofer as rabbi of Pressburg over R’ Simcha Bunim Sofer, who eventually did succeed his father.  Hildesheimer was known to be a very meticulous person, but at the end of the day, he doesn’t specifically point out if he meant the list of eulogizers to be in the order that they actually happened.
            An allegation of forgery against Sofer was made by Shimon Zusman[50], grandson of R’ Yaakov Koppel Reich who was chief rabbi of Budapest from 1889-1929.  In the Igros Soferim, there is a letter of rebuke from the Ksav Sofer to his student R’ Reich, warning him not to pander too much to secular elements in his new position as Rabbi of Verbó[51].  Indeed, R’ Reich was known to be an educated and openminded person.  Shimon Zusman reports that when the Igros Sofrim first came out, R’ Reich commented about this letter to his other grandson R’ Dovid Tzvi Zusman, “I never received this letter, and I don’t believe that my master and teacher wrote me this letter.”
            Another charge of forgery against Sofer was made by R’ Chaim Elazar Shapiro of Munkacs, in his Nimmukei Orach Chaim[52].  I won’t get into the details of Shapiro’s accusations, as they have already been debunked by extant manuscripts of the letters he claims must be forged.  It should also be noted, that Shapiro got into a dispute with Sofer over certain charity funds and their appropriation[53].  
            So, are R’ Shlomo Sofer and his works, Chut Hameshulash and Igros Soferim reliable[54]?  Though there certainly is no proof of forgery on Shlomo Sofer’s part, can we still rely on his historical accounts?  Specifically, for our purposes, how are we to take the disparaging remarks about Ber Oppenheimer he claimed to hear from his father the Ksav Sofer in the name of his grandfather the Chasam Sofer, despite there being a responsum from the Ksav Sofer to Oppenheimer conferring upon Oppenheimer praise and respectable titles?
            In my mind, there are three ways to explain the seemingly contradictory remarks of the Ksav Sofer.
            The first possible approach is to consider Shlomo Sofer’s accounts as reliable.  Therefore, we must assume that just as the Chasam Sofer did not like Oppenheimer, though he showed no overt animosity toward him, as confirmed by Isaac Hirsch Weiss, so too the Ksav Sofer also shared his father’s opinion of Oppenheimer, and dealt with him in the same manner; overtly cordial with hidden contempt.
            There are other examples in history of rabbinical correspondence contradicting what the letter writer really thought of his recipient.  And though this seemingly goes against the dictum of chazal, “אל תהי אחד [55]בפה ואחד בלב”, I assume these people felt that this was overridden by another statement of Chazal, “תעלא [56]בעידניה סגיד ליה”, given the specific circumstances in which they had to address the correspondent.
            Two such examples come to my mind.  One is the correspondence between R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzato, the Ramchal, and R’ Moshe Chagiz, where Luzzato writes to Chagiz with utmost respect[57].  Yet when Luzzato writes to his rebbi R’ Yeshaya Bassan, his opinion of Chagiz is revealed to be that of extreme contempt[58].  This is understandable, given that Luzzato was being persecuted by Chagiz, for what Chagiz felt was Neo-Sabbateanism. 
            However, the second example really sticks out to me, as it is of the Chasam Sofer himself.  There is a famous teshuva from the Chasam Sofer to R’ Moshe Teitelbaum, where the Chasam Sofer tries to alleviate some perceived strife between them which he heard of from the town of Potok, due to their differences; as Teitlebaum was a chassid and the Chasam Sofer a misnaged[59].  The Chasam Sofer is filled with praise and admiration for Teitelbaum, even as he acknowledges their differences, as you can see for yourself here:
            This letter is dated the 28th of Sivan 5578, or July 2, 1818.  The explanation to what prompted the Chasam Sofer to write to Teitelbaum, can be found in an earlier letter that he sent to the community of Potock, on the 12th of Elul of that year, or September 13th.  It can be found in the Shu”t Chasam Sofer Hachadashos, #54:
            Sometime after the Chasam Sofer wrote to Teitelbaum, on the 13th of Shevat 5579, or February 9th, 1819, he wrote another letter to two of his students who lived in Ujhely, the same town that Teitelbaum was rabbi.  In the letter, the Chasam Sofer reveals to his students what he really thought of Teitelbaum, and the true intentions behind his laudations.  The letter can be found in the Kovetz Tshuvos Chasam Sofer, #36:
            So perhaps we can suggest that the Ksav Sofer’s opinion of Oppenheimer differed from what he put in writing, just like his father before him.  However, I think that though the Chasam Sofer didn’t show any contempt for Oppenheimer in his letters to him, he was still cold, as pointed out before.  The Ksav Sofer on the other hand is overtly warm and respectful with Oppenheimer.  Consequently, I still find it hard to believe that the Ksav Sofer held Oppenheimer in contempt. 
            A second possible approach to this dilemma, is to again take Shlomo Sofer’s account at face value.  However, although the Ksav Sofer relayed to him the disparaging remarks of the Chasam Sofer against Oppenheimer, we must conclude that his opinion of Oppenheimer was different from that of his father’s contemptuous view.  Especially considering that the Ksav Sofer’s teshuva to Oppenheimer was written a few months after he was elected to succeed his father as rabbi of Pressburg.  As we earlier noted from Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Oppenheimer was a supporter of the succession of the Ksav Sofer.  Perhaps because of his support, the Ksav Sofer felt particularly grateful to him at the time. 
            The third viable approach would be to consider Shlomo Sofer’s remarks regarding Oppenheimer as unreliable, and his report in the name of his father fabricated.  What pushes me more to this approach than any other, is the combination of the teshuva of the Ksav Sofer to Oppenheimer and one other peculiarity which I found in the Chut Hameshulash. 
            In his biography of the Chasam Sofer, Shlomo Sofer copies for us the original Shtar Rabbanus that the Chasam Sofer received at the start of his tenure as rabbi of Pressburg.  Accordingly, at the end of the document, all the names of the signatories are present, or so it seems.  Comparing the version found in the Chut Hameshulash with the one in Likutei Teshuvos Chasam Sofer, reveals a glaring omission. Here is how Shlomo Sofer presents the Shtar:
Here it is in Likutei Teshuvos Chasam Sofer:
As you can see in the bottom of the middle column, Ber Oppenheimer was one of the signatories.  This also verifies Isaac Hirsch Weiss’s report I mentioned earlier, that Oppenheimer was a supporter of the Chasam Sofer taking the position of Rabbi of Pressburg.
            Here is a picture of the actual manuscript where you can still make out Oppenheimer’s signature:
             With a reputation for purposely omitting facts already preceding him, it does not surprise me that Sofer would also omit Oppenheimer’s name from the Shtar Rabbanus of his grandfather, given that it does not follow the narrative he wishes to portray, as evident from negative reports he gives of Oppenheimer.
            Whatever the truth may be, one thing is for sure; Ber Oppenheimer was a talmid chacham who was respected by most of the gedolei hador of his time, who had his differences with the Chasam Sofer.
Miscellaneous Ha’aros

I’d like to end off with a few divrei torah.  While I was busy with this post, Shavuos past, and like every year I read the relevant Mishna Berurah which I could never understand. Regarding the custom of eating dairy on Shavuos, the Mishna Berurah at the end of siman 494 gives a reason in the name of an anonymous gadol.  Since klal yisroel recieved the Torah on Shavuos, by default they also excepted all 613 commandments, for according to R’ Sa’adya Gaon[60] all 613 mitzvos are included in the ten commandments.  Along with that came the commandments of kosher food; shechita, nikur, no blood, salting, and the need to have kosher utensils.  Thus, it was much easier at the time to forgo cooking and just eat dairy, as none of the above laws really apply.
This reason makes absolutely no sense to me.  Without getting too involved in the topic, I think that any person who’s learned through shas and chumash, even in just a cursory manner, knows that the whole torah and everything in it was not given all at once at Sinai; there is a chronology to the giving of taryag mitzvos.  I will just quote the Ramban in his hasagos to the Sefer Hamitzvos[61]:
“והנה, שתי פרשיות בתורה ובהן מצות רבות ולא נאמרו למשה בסיני, אלא לאהרן נאמרו ולא בסיני, פרשת שתויי יין ופרשת משמרות כהונה ולוייה ומתנות כהונה ולא חשש להוציאם מן החשבון הזה. ומצות רבות לא נאמרו בסיני אלא בשעת מעשה, כגון דין מקושש ובנות צלפחד ולא חששו לכך, וכו’.”
The Chazon Ish also has a discussion on the chronology of the mitzvos, in Orach Chaim #125.  So, needless to say, suggesting that bnei yisrael by matan torah were concerned with all the laws of kashrus, is simply anachronistic.  Those laws were only given afterwards. 
Also, when Sa’adya Gaon suggests that all the mitzvos are included in the ten commandments, that’s not in a literal sense, but taxonomical; all the mitzvos can be divided under ten categories under the rubric of the ten commandments.
I found another interesting tidbit in the Alfei Menashe part I, from R’ Menashe Ben Poras of Ilya, where he rails against a pshat which suggests that עם קשה עורף is a good character trait:
What I find most interesting is that after condemning this notion by saying it only comes from the koach hadimyoni[62], he brings himself support by quoting the Vilna Gaon who said that the koach hadimyoni is a part of the evil inclination.  However, the Vilna Gaon himself in his commentary to Mishlei 10:20, explains עם קשה עורף as a good character trait!  See here:


[1] ד”ה וכי אומרים.
[2] ד”ה הא דאמרינן וכי אומרים.
[3] Here are the sources that I found at the time:  שו”ת עטרת חכמים אה”ע סי’ ל”א, שו”ת טוב טעם ודעת מהדו”ק סי’ רכ”ו, חידושי חת”ס פה ובגיטין ל”ח ע”ב, שו”ת באר יצחק אה”ע סי’ א’ ענף ח’, שו”ת עונג יו”ט ס”ס נ”א, שיח יצחק חגיגה ב’ ע”ב, נחלת יעקב להגאון מליסא פה, שו”ת כתב סופר יו”ד סי’ קכ”ה, שו”ת בנין ציון השלם כרך ב’ סי’ קי”ט, שו”ת שואל ומשיב מהדורה תליתאה ח”ג סי’ ל”ד, שו”ת מהר”ש ענגל ח”א סי’ צ”ה, אור גדול סי’ ח’ אות ז’ ד”ה ויתישב בזה, שו”ת משיבת נפש אה”ע סי’ י”א, שו”ת ר”ש איגרת יו”ד סי’ ל”ד,שו”ת הרי בשמים מהדו”ק ח”א סי’ ל”ח, יד שאול יו”ד סי’ רס”ז ס”ק נ’, חידושי מהר”ם בנעט פה, שו”ת תירוש ויצהר סי’ ל”ב.
[4] Gittin 41b, Tosafos ד”ה כופין , here.
[5] Correspondence with Oppenheimer can also be found in Shu”t Noda Beyehuda Yoreh, De’ah Mahadura Tinyana here, #64, Shu”t Meshivas Nefesh, Yoreh De’ah #67 here, Shu”t Yehudah Ya’aleh, Orach Chayim #147 Here, Shu”t Toafos Re’eim, Orach Chayim #9 here,  See also Shu”t Ein Habdolach #4 here where R’ Chaim Tzvi Manheimer gets sharp about Oppenheimer, though he still prefaces his name with Moreinu Harav.
[6] P. 8b here.
[7] P. 9b here.
[8] Hochgefühle bey der glorreichen Feyer der Krönung Ihrer Majestät, (Vienna 1825).
[9] #13, #39, and #103.
[10] See Leopold Greenwald, Otzar Nechmad, p.73 fn. 1, Arim V’Amahos B’Yisrael, part VII, p.74, Shlomo Zonnenfeld, Ha’Ish Al Hachoma, p.109, Shmuel Eliezer Stern, Sneh Bo’er B’Aish, p.66 fn.20.
[11] Vol. 2, P.18.
[12] P.96, here.
[13] P.25 #43.  Weiss also changes the year the story happened in to 1833.
[14] (Jerusalem 1924), part I, p.75b here.
[15] Printed by Efraim Deinard in Shibolim Bodidos, p.49 here.
[16] P.23a in the Munkacz edition here.  There were three editions of the Chut Hameshulash printed by Sofer, with the final edition being called Chut Hameshulash Hachadash due to the additional material not found in the previous editions.
[17] Ibid p.23b, here.
[18] Michael K. Silber, in his dissertation, Roots of the Schism in Hungarian Jewry, chapter2 p.26, writes similarly that there was tension between the Chasam Sofer and Oppenheimer, because of the latter supposedly stole from the former’s chidushim.  Though in his notes Silber references the Chut Hameshulash here, in the actual body of his text he brings proof from the language the Chasam Sofer uses in a short teshuva to Oppenheimer in the Mei Be’er #39, where he seemingly hints to this when he says, “גם אני אמרתי כן בחידושי לב”מ” .  Yet, I see no reason to believe the Chasam Sofer was suggesting anything of the sort by using this language, which is just a way of approving the other’s thoughts. See Shu”t Chasam Sofer Choshen Mishpat at the end of #118, where he uses the same language to R’ Meir Ash, here.  See also ibid. Even Haezer part I, #152 here, where R’ Akiva Eiger also says as such.
[19] See Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Orach Chayim #9, and ibid., Choshen MIshpat #79
[20] See ibid., Orach Chaim #54, 79, 140, and 208, and ibid., Yoreh De’ah, #6
[22] See Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat, #205, Kovetz Teshuvos Chasam Sofer, #44 and 64, Teshuvos Chasam Sofer Hachadashos #33
[23] For a thorough treatment of the events surrounding the Primaerschule, see Michael K. Silber, Roots of the Schism in Hungarian Jewry, (Hebrew University, 1985) ch.2
[24] Hadarom, no.5-6, pp. 122-123
[25] See Leopold Greenwald, Otzar Nechmad, pp.72-77 here.
[26] See Meir Hischkowitz, Rebbi Tzvi Hirsch Chayos (Mossad Harav Kook, 2007), pp.91-92
[27] See Shu”t Moharatz #47, Here
[28] Leopold Greenwald, Toldos Mishpachas Rosenthal, pp. 38-39 here.  Rappaport accuses Taubes of joining the ranks of the chasidim, and for this he can’t fathom Oppenheimer’s support of Taubes, “אכן אשר אתפלא קצת הוא כפי ששמעתי גם החכם ר’ בער אפענהיימער מפר”ב הוא מתומכי ר’ משה טויבערש ומבלי דבר על תכונת הדוב הזה, הלא מדבר זה לבד יודע דרכו, כי מה מצא הוא באיש לחשבהו ראוי לעזרו וסעדו לעלות במעלה כזאת? ” I find Rappaport’s remarks about Oppenheimer particularly interesting, given the fact that a little over a year before in 1830,  there was a rumor that Oppenheimer advocated for Rappaport to take over the recently vacated position of chief rabbi of Moravia after R’ Mordechai Banet passed away.  See the letter from R’ Yaakov Orenstein to the Chasam Sofer in Igros Sofrim, letter #50, where he asks if there was any truth to this, here.
[29] Here is his picture:
In the Toldos V’Chidushei Rebbi Menachem Katz Prostitz (Bnei Brak, 1990), there is also a biography of Ber Frank, who was the father-in-law of Prostitz.  Here is the title page:  
Not surprisingly, this picture was not printed in this sefer, probably because it does not fit the standard Bnei Brak narrative of what a Jew is supposed to look like.  And though the biographer is meticulous enough to list all of Ber Frank’s publications, whether extant or not, and to list and print the text of all the haskamos and michtivei bracha, he conveniently leaves out two; the michtav from the reformer Leib Schwab printed in Frank’s Ohr Haemunah part I, here, and the michtav from the maskil and poet Meir Letteris, in his Ohr Haemunah part II, here.  Frank is also famous for producing the picture of the Chasam Sofer and disseminating it to support the marriage of his daughter to Prostitz. For the story behind the picture, see Igros Sofrim pp. 27-28 here.  
[30] Shu”t Ksav Sofer, Orach chaim #115, Here.
[31] Hirschkowitz makes the same point, ibid. note 157.
[32] Hakdamah of Part II
[33] Pp.128-131 in the Jerusalem edition from Machon Daas Sofer
[34] In Otzar Nechmad ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] See the version of this sermon presented in Drashos Chasam Sofer Part II, pp.648-652, here, and Yosef Naftali Stern’s footnote on p.650.  In his footnote, Stern asks the obvious question; how could the Chasam Sofer pray for the destruction of evildoers when this seemingly contradicts the gemara in Brachos 10a, where the gemara concludes that one should not pray for their death, rather one should pray that they should repent?  I would also add to that this contradicts the gemara in Brachos 7a, where R’ Yehoshua ben Levi concludes that it isn’t proper to curse evil people either, see Tosafos there too.  Though Stern answers this by concluding that the gemara’s dictum does not apply to those that lead others astray and cause others to sin, I’m surprised he doesn’t mention that the Chasam Sofer explicitly comes to this conclusion himself in reference to the gemara in Brachos, in an earlier sermon from 1806, found in the Drashos Chasam Sofer Part I, pp.275-276, here.  I also found that the Alshich in parshas Korach 16:28, also comes to the same conclusion.  Accordingly, this would also explain why birchas haminim which we say in shmona esrei doesn’t also contradict this gemara, as one could say that it was meant only for those minim that were חוטא ומחטיא את הרבים.  See also the Diyukim B’nuschei Hatefilah V’habrachos from the Vilna Gaon, printed in the back of the Shulchan Aruch, where he says that one should say וכל הרשעה and not עושי רשעה, as he references the gemara in Brachos.
[38] Yosef Naphtali Stern makes the same chronological mistake as Plaut in his footnote, ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Olamo Shel Abba, (Jerusalem, 1983) p.67.  Here is her picture:
[41] Zichron L’Moshe P.5, here.
[42] Pp.89-95, here.
[43] See Naphtali Ben Menachem, B’Shaarei Sefer (Mossad Harav Kook) p.115.
[44] L’toldos Hareformatzian Hadatis B’Germania U’bUngaria (1948), p.73 fn.30, here.  Earlier on p.19 fn.38, he also takes issue with Shlomo Sofer writing that the Chasam Sofer allegedly said his son the Ksav Sofer knows how to learn better than himself.  Elsewhere, Sofer writes that the Ksav Sofer said that he learns how to learn from his son R’ Simcha Bunim, author of the Shevet Sofer.  Thus, one may conclude the obvious absurdity, the Shevet Sofer was a greater talmid chacham than the Chasam Sofer!
[45] Though not intentional, I found an example of Sofer telling an untrue story in his final edition (see above, fn.16), Chu”t Hameshulash Hachadash p.8a in the footnotes, or in the modern edition printed in Jerusalem, p.27.  Sofer tells a story he heard about R’ Zelmeleh of Volozhin, one of the prime students of the Vilna Gaon:  When the Vilna Gaon and hs talmidim were gathering signatures for the excommunication against the chasidim, they went to R’ Zelmeleh to ask him to sign on the document.  Much to their surprise, R’ Zelmeleh declined.  R’ Zelmeleh then proceeded to explain his refusal with a dvar torah; we find that Avraham stopped himself from slaughtering his son Isaac, when he heard the angel tell him to do so.  How could Avraham listen to the angel who said not to slaughter Isaac, when he heard directly from G-d himself that he must slaughter him?  R’ Zelmeleh concluded, “for one to not kill someone, a command from an angel suffices, but a command to go ahead and slaughter someone must be heard from G-d himself.”  R’ Zelmeleh continued, “though our master, Rabbeinu Eliyahu, is like an angel of G-d, in order to slaughter someone, we must hear it from G-d himself.”
When I first read this story, I gave a little chuckle.  Here’s why: You can clearly see on the right-hand column the signature of R’ Zelmeleh on the kol koreh of the cherem of 1781.

The main character of this story was originally told as being R’ Refoel Hamburger, not R’ Zelmeleh of Volozhin.  Even so, in the torah journal Sharei Torah, part X, kunteres 1, #5, R’ Meir Dan Plotzky, while explaining that R’ Refoel Hamburger was no lover of chasidim, says he doubts the authenticity of this story.

[46] Interestingly, Greenwald criticizes this practice of postponing the burial to wait for eulogizers, in his Kol Bo Al Aveilus p.12, here.  Greenwald writes that it pained him to read in Der Morgan Journal Dec. 2, 1941, that after the death of a famous rabbi and gaon from Brooklyn early Friday morning, the burial was postponed until Sunday so more eulogizers and people could attend.  I assume Greenwald is talking about the levayah of R’ Moshe Soloveitchik which you can read about here.  Though, I don’t know why he would read about it almost a year later (R’ Moshe died in January).  R’ Simcha Soloveitchick died a few weeks prior to that issue of Morgan Journal, on November 16.  However, R’ Simcha died on a Sunday, not a Friday.
[47] Meir Hildesheimer makes the same point in Sefer Hazikaron L’Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, p.18 fn.72.  He also adds that the Ksav Sofer pressured R’ Azriel Hildesheimer to become rabbi of Pressburg in a joint capacity with him.
[48] Tzefunos no.6, pp.63-66, Here.
[49] Ibid. p.338.
[50] See Shmuel Weingarten, Sinai no.74, p.92 fn.17.
[51] P.51-52, here.  Another interesting example of a rabbi giving rebuke to one of his peers, is the teshuva of R’ Yosef Shaul Nathanson to the son of R’ Shmuel Waldberg of Yaroslav, in Shu”t Shoel U’Mashiv, Mahadura Telisa’ah, part I #264, here.  Nathanson as an exception responds to the generic talmudic query of Yoel Waldberg even though it is not a pressing question of halacha.  Nathanson explains that he made this exception in order to foster a love for learning in Waldberg, so that he would leave his secular ways; simultaneously criticizing his father, R’ Shmuel, for being too involved in secular studies.  Indeed, R’ Shmuel Waldberg succeeded R’ Hirsch Chajes as Rabbi of Zolkiew, a city with very modern leanings, before his tenure at Yaroslav. Unfortunatley, Waldberg’s children became mechalelei shabbos (I don’t know if that includes the above mentioned Yoel), and in his later years Waldberg was filled with regret about his secular studies, railing against them in his sermons.  Waldberg authored many seforim on a plethora of subjects.  Here is his picture:
[52] Siman 243, here.
[53] See Yehuda Spiegel, Toldos Hayehudim B’Rusia Hakarpatis, pp.86-88.
[54] See Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Zichronos Umesoros Al Hachasam Sofer (Bnei Brak, 2013), pp.12-26 for a defence of Shlomo Sofer’s reliability.
[55] See Pesachim 113b.
[56] Literally, “Bow to the fox in its time.” Advice from chazal to act in a subordinate manner towards a person who is in an advantageous position.  See Megillah 16b.
[57] See Igros Ramchal, #10, “לגבר חכם בעוז נודע בשערים, לו שם בגבורים, גבור חיל במלחמתה של תורה עשיר מארי חיטיא קולע ולא יחטיא השערה, בר אורין ובר אבהן יאי ויאי כבוד מורנו ורבנו הרב משה חאגיש נר”ו “.
[58] Ibid. #12, “והשוטה הזה החאגיש, כאשר איש מדנים הוא, הודיע ביום כעסו גם בלא דעת ובלא השכל “
[59] See Drashos Chasam Sofer Part II, p.745, “אך מי שהגיע לכלל תכלית החסידות והפרישות ולא כחסידי הזמן ח”ו  ” , here.
[60] This is apparent from the Azharos of Saadya Gaon, where he explains each mitzva, and under which commandment it falls.  See Rashi to Exodus 24:12 and Perushei Rabbeinu Sa’adya Gaon, Mishpatim fn.2.
[61] Soresh Rishon
[62] lit. imaginary faculty, imagination


Book announcement: New edition of Avudraham and other works, R. Greensweig, etc.

Book
announcement New edition of Avudraham and other works
By Eliezer Brodt
אבודרהם, עם הגהות
וביאורים תהלה לדוד, א, ירושלים תשס”א, שכא עמודים
אבודרהם, א, ירושלים
תשע”ה, נערך מחדש על פי דפוס ראשון מוגה ומפוסק עם מקורת מלאים, מדור הערות
הארות וביאורים מקורות ומקבילות לדברי רבינו, תפילות חול, 429 עמודים
אבודרהם, ב, ירושלים
תשע”ו, כהנ”ל, תפילות שבת ומועדים, 625 עמודים
ר’ אליהו
גרינצייג, קרואי מועד, פסח, שעה עמודים
הנ”ל, קרואי
מועד, ראש השנה, שלג עמודים
הנ”ל, קרואי
מועד, ספירת העומר שבועות, רמט עמודים
הנ”ל, קרואי
מועד, חנוכה, רצה עמודים
מקרא העדה, חידושים
וביאורים על סדר פרשיות התורה, א, בראשית-חיי שרה, תקסד עמודים
Many
years ago, while still a bochur learning in the Mir, a friend of mine took me
along for a Shabbas meal, promising me I’d meet an amazing Talmid Chochum
obsessed with seforim. This was my first encounter with R’ Eliyhau Greensweig. My
friend did not exaggerate in any way. The whole meal I simply sat there drooling
at the wall-to-wall seforim library. Later I learned this was only part of his
library. This was a collection which I had never before seen the likes of.
During the meal we spoke about numerous seforim and random sugyos; I was simply
blown away. From that Shabbas, I began visiting him every few weeks and we
would speak for a few hours about different topics and seforim. His vast knowledge
was, simply put, incredible. One additional attribute which always struck me
while talking with R’ Greensweig was his tremendous humility. Many times, when
specific topics came up, he would say “I wrote a whole kuntres on
this”. Once, he took out a huge stack of papers and said to me “this
is a work on Rambam Sanhedrin”. Over time, it came out that he had ghost
written numerous articles and works. Once I mentioned to him that I had noticed
that a specific volume of a particular set of seforim has a different style
than previous volumes and that whoever wrote the notes is familiar with “not
the ‘standard stuff'”. He smiled at me and said “guess who wrote
those notes…?” Still, much of his work has appeared under his own name. One
of the main projects which he had worked on for many years was  Otzar Mifarshei HaTalmud from Machon
Yerushalayim. Without getting into the pros or cons of this work, anyone
familiar with it knows it has references to thousands of seforim. This was done
long before many of the modern Torah computer programs came on to the playing
field (which is beside the point, as R’ Greensweig does not know how to use a
computer search engine!). One description I had heard of him was “he was
Mechon Yerushalyim’s ‘secret weapon'”.
Over the past
twenty five years various prominent Torah Journals, such as Yeshurun, Yerushaseinu,
Beis Aharon V’Yisroel, Moriah, Kol Torah and others, have
featured numerous articles authored by him. Some of the times he would print a
section of the Avudraham with his erudite notes; other times the article
was related to the Torah reading (Parsha) or an upcoming Yom Tov.
In 2001, an
annotated edition of part of the classic work Avudraham appeared on the seforim
market. Printed by the Or Hasefer Publishing house, it included an anonymous
commentary called Tehilah Ledovid.
The significance
of the Avudraham is well known and hardly needs mentioning here; just to
cite the well-known Haskamah of the Nodeh Beyehudah to the Prague
edition:

כבר נודע בשער בת
רבים גודל מעלת החיבור ספר אבודרהם, ורוב מנהגי התפילות והברכות קדושות והבדלות על
ספרו בנוים, ובטור אורח החיים מביאו הבית יוסף והאחרונים לרוב מאוד, והוא ספר יקר
הערך ויש בו צורך, כי האחרונים העתיקו ממנו דברים בקיצור…

Avrhom E. Harkavy writes:

סי’ אבודרהם יקר
ונכבד הוא לנו כי בו שרד וימלטו דברים רבים מסדור רב עמרם גאון (שלא בא לידנו
בתמונתו וצבינו) ומסדור רב סעדיה גאון ומשאר חבורים קדמונים. [חדשים גם ישנים, עמ’
237]

For anyone looking to learn through an enjoyable
sefer about Tefilah and Yom Tovim – this the work for him.
The notes in the
Or Hasefer edition impressed numerous experts and Talmedei Chachomim. However
almost no one knew who the author was, as he chose to remain anonymous. The
author is, of course, none other than R’ Eliyahu Greensweig. Interestingly, the
introduction of the 2001 volume “claims” to be based upon manuscripts,
sadly however, this is not the case. This claim was something the publisher
added by himself after he checked up a few things in manuscript; R’ Greensweig
himself never checked up manuscripts. The primary aim of his notes was to provide
the sources for the material quoted (utilized) by the Avudraham and to
cite those sources who discuss the sefer. Most accurately, the notes are
encyclopedic and full of thousands of sources, many from rare seforim. The
notes are also full of “Torah” and at times perhaps a bit lengthy (as
is common these days). Additionally, it is clear from the material cited that
the author has an excellent command of academic literature, as well. For the
most part all these sources could be found in R’ Greensweig’s incredible
library! However, despite the great value in this edition, until recently only
one volume was available leaving many to wonder when the rest would (ever?) be
completed.
In 2015, volume
one was reissued in a limited edition with corrections and many additions by
the Keren Re’em publishing house. One useful correction was that some of the
longer notes were removed for the body and placed in the appendix. In the
summer of 2016, volume two was released privately for the first time.
A few months ago
the two volumes were released for sale to the public distributed by Yefeh Nof publishers,
with the final volume, volume three, due to be released in the summer, BE”H. I
highly recommend this work and am sure that many will benefit from these
volumes.
Besides for this new work on Avudraham,
as I mentioned previously, R’ Greensweig has written voluminously over the
years. Thanks to the efforts of his sons and some generous sponsors, some of
his other works have just been printed. To date, four volumes on the Yom Tovim
have appeared in a paperback edition, each one including the related section of the Avudraham
in the back, with R’ Greensweig’s invaluable notes. The most recent of the four
seforim is on Pesach. A few weeks ago, a hard cover volume on the first
half of Chumash Bereishis appeared, with a total of eighty pieces! All
this material is pieces he wrote over the years; each week he would write on
one topic, and then add to it when he found more material, with a small
percentage of the articles having appeared in various journals throughout the
years. One does not have to wait until Chumash Bereishis arrives to
learn this sefer as the pieces are encyclopedic and useful all year around (see
below for the table of contents). One weakness, pointed out in the introduction,
is sometimes there can be a certain amount of redundancy and sometimes the
pieces smack of a lack of proper editing. The reason for these drawbacks is that
proper editing (and condensing the redundant pieces) would hold up and delay
printing.
Here are the table
of contents of some of these works, showing the wide range of topics discussed.
A PDF sample piece of the Avudraham and of one article is available upon request,
also available upon request is a much more in-depth Table of contents of the
works.

Copies of the newly
published two volume set of Avudraham should be available in regular stores.
The paperback works on Yomim Tovim are available for purchase at Begieleisen in
Boro Park and Judaica Plaza in Lakewood.


Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

Parshat
Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew
By Chaim
Sunitsky
Rashi[1] on Parshat
Tetzave writes that the priests were anointed with oil, poured in the shape
of the Greek letter כי.[2] One would assume this is referring to
letter Χ[3] – 22nd
letter of the Greek alphabet which sounds somewhere between English K and H[4]. This
letter spelled χῖ in Greek, is usually spelled “Chi” in English and indeed if one wanted to write it
in Hebrew, he would probably transcribe it as כי
(where Chaf is intended without dagesh). Moreover[5], when
Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek, Chi is used for Hebrew Chaf. In
addition, if the Talmud meant this letter it becomes clear why it didn’t use an
example of any Hebrew letter, as this shape is not found in Ashuri script of
Hebrew.
Despite all this
evidence we find various other shapes offered by the Rishonim[6]. In
fact in our printed editions of the Gemora only in Rashi on Kritot (5b) the printed
illustration looks like an “X.” Some of Rambam’s editions (Kelei Hamikdash 1:9)
also printed this shape, but the Frankel edition of Rambam[7]
claims that neither Rashi nor Rambam had this shape in mind and it was changed
later by some publishers[8]. Still,
one is inclined to think that the correct explanation is that it is the letter
X, and most Rishonim simply didn’t know Greek or have access to find out, and the correct tradition regarding
the shape of “Greek Chi” was forgotten, despite the fact that it pertains to
many halachot[9].
Before we go on, I’d
like to make another interesting point: Greek X has the same shape as the last
letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. Let us first examine the relationship of Greek
letters to Phoenician[10] and Paleo-Hebrew[11]. R.
Shaul Lieberman[12]
brings a very interesting idea with regards to the letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. We
find in Yehezkel (9:4) that Tav was marked on the foreheads of people to
distinguish the righteous from the wicked who were sentenced to death. According
to Hazal (Shabbat 55a) the mark was the actual letter Tav. As we mentioned this
letter in Paleo-Hebrew looked like the Greek Chi (X)[13] and
indeed became symbolic for a number of reasons[14]. R.
Lieberman brings that the X shape was used for crossing out a debt and was
therefore represented an annulment of a bad decree. On the other hand, Tav was pronounced
similarly to Greek Theta, whose shape was also associated with a death sentence[15]. We
thus have a double association of Tav (X) with Theta and with Chi. (Note in
general that while most letters in Greek alphabet clearly come from respective[16]  letters in Phoenician[17],
there are a few Greek letters, where it’s not certain which Phoenician letter
they correspond to and the Greek X is one of them[18].)
R. Lieberman further proposes
that originally the symbol of X written in blood was taken to mean forgiveness (crossing
out the decree) while X in ink was symbolic of death sentence (verdict written
in ink). However, since X has a shape similar to a cross, the early Christians started
to utilize cross in blood as symbolic of atonement, and therefore our sages
reversed that symbolism[19].
Coming back to the
shape of “Greek Chi,” it seems logical that the Hazal’s tradition is based on
an earlier tradition that the shape was that of letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew[20] –
the last letter of the alphabet. It’s also possible that there was some
connection between the “sign” on the forehead in Yehezkel and the anointing of
a High Priest. Though the correct shape of this letter became subject to
multiple disputes over time, we may now be able to restore its ancient
symbolism[21].
[1] On verse 29:7
based on the Talmud (Kritot 5b, Horayot 12a). He also brings the same shape in
verse 29:2 in regards to the way oil was poured on the meal offerings.
[2] In some places
instead of Chi Yevanit there are versions that say Chaf Yevanit, but the
preferred girsa is Chi. While it is possible if the original version had Chi,
some copyists changed it to familiar Chaf, but if the original was Chaf, why would
someone change it to Chi? It is also possible that the Hazal themselves
sometimes used an expression Chaf Yevanit and sometimes Chi Yevanit.
[3] See additions
to Aruch by R. Benjamin Mussafia (Erech כי יונית) and Tiferet Yisrael on Menachot 6:3 and
after the last Mishna in the 10th perek of Zevachim.
[4] The Russian
letter Х (kha) also comes from it, and it is usually transliterated as kh into
English (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev).
[5] We will discuss
this in the 17th footnote below. Similarly for those Greek words that
made it into rabbinical Hebrew, כ is generally used for χ (e.g. אוכלוסא –
populace – όχλος). However there are some exclusions, as קנקנתוס (or קנקנתום) has the first letter χ in Greek but for
some reason is not spelled with כ but with ק.  
[6] See Rabeinu
Gershom on Kritot 5b and Menachot 74b, Rashi (ktav yad) on Menachot 74b and Kritot
5b, Tosafot Menachot 75a, Rashi on Shemot 29:2, Rambam, Perush Hamishna
Menachot 6:3, Rash and Rosh on Mishna Kelim 20:7, Meiri, Horayot 12a.
[7] In the end of
Frankel’s edition they have a section where variant girsaot are brought.
[8] At least one of
the “corrections” is based on “Mesoret Hashas” in Horayot 12a, but Frankel’s
Rambam points out that Rashi’s explanation on the Gemora actually contradicts
this shape. Indeed Rashi writes different explanations in various places and the
shapes in our editions include that of Hebrew Chet (Horayot) and Tet (Menachot)
and Nun (Torah commentary to Shemot, but Tosafot quote him as mentioning the
shape of a Gimel there, see also the super-commentaries on Rashi, Shemot 29:2
and the English Artscroll where all the variant shapes of Rashi are explained).
Tosafot (ibid) also mentions Kaf and that is the shape in some editions of
Rambam. They also seem to understand Aruch to mean a shape like ^ (similar to a
Greek Lambda). These shapes are reasonably similar, they all contain a type of
semicircle (כ,ט,נ) with
possibly a sharp angle (^) or two angles (ח), see Tzeda Laderech super commentary on
Rashi ibid. None of these shapes look even remotely similar to X. (Note also
that Lekach Tov on Shemot 29 apparently has a shape of Kappa, but I didn’t find
anyone who agrees with this).
[9] See for
instance Menachot 74b-75a regarding pouring oil on certain types
meal-offerings; also this crisscross shape seems to be mentioned in Kelim 20:7,
see TIferet Yisrael there. We find another shape based on the Greek Gamma used in
various halachot (e.g. Kelim 28:7, Pesachim 8b, Baba Batra 62a, Zevachim 53b
and many other places) which was preserved quite well (see commentators to
these sugias).
[10] This is ancient
Canaanite script very close to Paleo-Hebrew. Note that Ramban (Bereshit 45:12)
and Ibn Ezra (Yeshayahu 19:18, see also his perush hakatzar to Shemot
21:2) knew that Canaanites spoke the Hebrew language, (though Hazal also thought
that Hebrew was a somehow unique Holy Tongue used only by Avraham and his
descendants, see for instance Sotah 36b).
[11] This ancient
Canaanite Hebrew script is called Ktav Ivri, see Sanhedrin 21b. In times
of Rishonim the shape of Ktav Ivri letters was not too well known
(see Haara Nosefet printed in the end of Ramban’s Torah commentary, how when he was shown an ancient coin with Ktav Ivri he had to ask a Samaritan to read it for
him). Still these letters apparently did retain some influence in certain
communities. Some Yemenite Jews actually make Shin-Dalet-Yod with Tefillin
straps on their hands in Ktav Ivri, not like the prevalent custom to make a
Shin and Dalet in Ashuri script. R. Reuven Margolios proposed that our
“four-headed” Shin on the left side of Tefillin Shel Rosh is actually based on
the Shin in Ktav Ivri (which looks similar to English “W”).
[12] “Greek in
Jewish Palestine”, pages 185-191.
[13] And
interestingly both are the 22nd letters of their respective
alphabets. 
[14] Besides being
the last letter of the alphabet this letter is taken by Hazal to stand for life
or death (Shabbat 55a), but the primary reason for its symbolism according to
R. Lieberman is its shape.
[15] This tradition
was also preserved in R. Bahye to Yitro (20:14) who discusses why there is no
letter Tet in the 10 commandments and associates Tet and Theta with death: כי לשון טיט”א סימן הריגה, see also comments of R. Chavel ad loc. in the name of Emuna
Vibitachon.
[16] On an unrelated
topic I’d like to mention that R. Reuven Margolios (HaMikra Vehamesora, 22)
wanted to prove, based on the shape of Paleo-Hebrew letters, that the so called
Arabic numbers (that are assumed to have come from India) were actually
invented by Jews. I find this theory far-fetched. If one looks at the
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet only Bet, Dalet and Het seem to look like 2, 4 and 8 and
moreover the shape of the “Arabic numerals” changed drastically over time and
in the times “the Jews” could have possibly invented them, they didn’t look
similar to the way we write them today. As for his other proofs that sometimes
we find gematrias of numbers used together with the position of the
digits as for example in Midrash (see Theodor Albeck edition of Bereshit
Rabbah, 96) about the number of animals Yakov had: קבזר : מאה ותרתין רבוון ושבעה אלפין ומאתיין (1027200) that uses קב
(102) then ז (7) and thenר  (200), at most this shows
that for very large numbers they already started using some letters to indicate
thousands and ten-thousands (רבבות) separately. Similarly we write for year 5776: תשעו ’ה, but this is a far
stretch from system developed in India where the value of each digit depends on
its position. Indeed the Rishonim that R. Margolius himself mentions all
attribute this to Indian system. (As a side point, just to illustrate the advantage
of current mathematics symbols, look at the Rif on Pesachim, 23b, where he
calculates the reviit in terms of cubic fingers. In current notation, his
calculations taking half a page, would take one line: 3*243/(40*6*4*4)=10.8=2*2*2.7.)
 
[17] Many of them
look like Phoenician letters, except they are inverted vertically, since in
Greek the writing is from left to right.
[18] Certainly this
letter can’t come from Tav since it is pronounced completely differently. Note
that the issue of correspondence between Greek and Phoenician letters is not
related to the issue of how various Hebrew letters were transliterated in the
Septuagint and other Greek translations of Hebrew writings. By the time these
translations were made, the pronunciation of many letters changed both in
Hebrew and in Greek. For example, Theta is usually used to transliterate Tav,
and Tau to transliterate Tet, while their origins are the opposite: Tau came
from Tav, and Theta from Tet, as their names and shapes indicate. Perhaps by
the time of Septuagint the Tav without dagesh was pronounced in some areas closer
to English “th” and so was Theta, and that’s why the translators chose to use
Theta for Tav. Similarly, Mitchell First in an article “The Meaning of the Name
‘Maccabee,’ ” (available on this blog here), writes that Kuf is usually
transliterated as Kappa and Kaf-Chaf as Chi, even though originally the Greek
letter Kappa came from Kaf-Chaf. The reason for this might be similar, at the
time of these translations, the pronunciation of Chaf and Chi was similar,
while Kuf sounded like Kappa. (Other examples of this include Samech that is transliterated
as Sigma, not as Xi which originally came from it, but sounded at the times of
Septuagint like English X=KS, not S; similarly in Greek words used by Hazal,
Sigma is transliterated not as Sin from which it came but as a Samech, possibly
because at that time Sin and Samech were pronounced the same but since Sin is
written as Shin, Samech was chosen to make it clear the sound is S, not Sh.)
[19] See the
above-mentioned sugia in Shabbat 55a. We find occasionally that the sages had to
change the explanation “keneged haminim,” see for example Sanhedrin 31b, see
also Berachot 59a, 12a.
[20] It’s not
surprising that they used a Greek letter rather than not well known Paleo-Hebrew.
Moreover they sometimes used Greek letters instead of Ashuri, see Shekalim 3:2.
[21] It might be
possible to suggest that in medieval times this shape was purposefully
misrepresented, especially when dealing with the way anointing is performed.
The associations regarding Messiah, “the anointed one,” with anointing an X on
the High Priest’s head would certainly make many Jews living in Christian lands
recoil. Later on, this may have influenced the Jews living in Muslim lands.
Interestingly the Frankel edition of Rambam and R. Kapach (in his edition of Rambam’s
Mishna commentary) bring that in the manuscript attributed to Rambam’s own
writing (Kritot), the picture of Chi was blotted out.


Kaddish – His Will

Kaddish – His Will
Leor Jacobi

Note: I wrote the following essay outline several years ago, but shelved it upon discovering that most of its novelty and much more had already been published by David de Sola Pool over a hundred years ago.[1] On the sad occasion of the recent passing of my beloved mother I offer it now in her memory. Prayer and divinity were close to her heart. May our prayers be deepened by their study.

The Kaddish is one of the most familiar and repeated prayers in the liturgy. In various forms, it concludes both the main body of the prayer and smaller sections. It is also recited by mourners and upon the conclusion of learning a tractate or a sermon.
Despite, or perhaps due to its familiarity, few are aware of an alternate interpretation and syntax at the beginning of the Kaddish, accompanied by altering the pronunciation of one word slightly, but significantly. This study will describe and analyze these two interpretations and propose a third.
1. The “Standard” interpretation. R. Yehudah ben Yakar (Ramban’s teacher), Rokeah, and Avudraham all followed the standard interpretation. See R. Shmuel Eliezer Stern’s concise compilation of their perspectives.
2. The GRA’s interpretation
3. Alternate interpretation

1. The Standard Interpretation

…יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא כִרְעוּתֵהּ, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

May his great name be exalted and sanctified in the world which he created according to his will. And may his kingship reign …

The deity is not referred to directly, but his great name is to be exalted and sanctified in the very world which he himself created, according to his own will and volition. The fact that the world was created according to the will of the deity seems rather obvious, pshita. However, in the liturgy of the evening prayers, we find the divine will associated with the maintenance of the celestial bodies:


ברוך אתה … אשר בדברו מעריב ערבים בחכמה פותח שערים ובתבונה משנה עתים ומחליף את הזמנים ומסדר את הכוכבים במשמרותיהם ברקיע כרצונו

This may be referred to in the Kaddish. Perhaps the divine will is mentioned in the Kaddish to emphasize that the details of the physical world were planned by the creator, not happenstance, hence it is fitting to exalt and praise his great name.
A more serious difficulty with this standard interpretation is found in the prayer על הכל based on the Kaddish which is recited upon removing the Sefer Torah from the Aron Ha-Kodesh. In modern prayerbooks it is found among the Sabbath prayers. In surviving synagogues of Tikocyn (טיקטין) and Krakow and in in other Polish synagogues the text was painted on the wall along with other “extra” prayers and sayings.[2] This prayer clearly parallels the Kaddish, but does not follow the standard interpretation, as will be explained in the next section. R. Yehudah ben Yakar (Ramban’s teacher), Rokeah, and Avudraham all followed the standard interpretation. See R. Shmuel Eliezer Stern’s concise compilation of their perspectives.

2. The GRA’s Interpretation
…יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, כִּרְעוּתֵהּ, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

May his great name be exalted and sanctified, according to his will, in the world which he created. And may his kingship become regnant…

Notice the additional comma and the concomitant hard vocalization of the כּ with a dagesh in the following word: כִּרְעוּתֵהּ. Here the phrase “according to his will” refers back to the first clause of the preceding phrase, the exaltation and sanctification. It does not refer to the immediately preceding clause as per the standard interpretation.
The minor conceptual difficulty of the standard interpretation is now transformed into a deep and compelling concept. The purpose of the creation of the world was so that the creator’s name be exalted and sanctified within it.
This interpretation can be attributed to the Gaon, R. Elijah of Vilna, GRA in Ma’ase Rav 54, where it is noted that he was particular about the pronunciation of the hard כּ. GRA’s Diyyuqim b’nusḥey ha-tefilah v’ha-berakhot were first printed in the first edition of Shulhan Arukh with Biyur ha-GRA, Shklov 1803, and appear at the bottom of the first page of Priy Chodosh in later editions.

There, the concept it is explained more fully, with a proof is presented in the aforementioned על הכל prayer recited upon removing the Torah from the Ark:
עַל הַכּל יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ וְיִשְׁתַּבַּח וְיִתְפָּאַר וְיִתְרומַם וְיִתְנַשּא שְׁמו שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדושׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. בָּעולָמות שֶׁבָּרָא הָעולָם הַזֶּה וְהָעולָם הַבָּא. כִּרְצונו וְכִרְצון יְרֵאָיו וְכִרְצון כָּל בֵּית יִשרָאֵל. צוּר הָעולָמִים אֲדון כָּל הַבְּרִיּות אֱלוהַּ כָּל הַנְּפָשׁות. הַיּושֵׁב בְּמֶרְחֲבֵי מָרום הַשּׁוכֵן בִּשְׁמֵי שְׁמֵי קֶדֶם. קְדֻשָּׁתו עַל הַחַיּות וּקְדֻשָּׁתו עַל כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוד
Note that this Hebrew prayer generally follows the structure of the Kaddish. However, the phrase “According to his will” is accompanied by “the will of those who fear him” and “the will of all of the house of Israel.” This cannot refer to the creation of the world, for mortals were not party to that event. Perhaps it refers to the post-facto consent of men. If so, it would differ conceptually with כרצונו, the will of the creator at the time of the creation. Also, stressing this point runs counter to the thrust of the prayer, exalting and praising the creator.

Wall of Tykocin synagogue, Poland, Leor Jacobi
This source suggests that an ancient tradition does not follow the standard interpretation. Furthermore, we find an association of the words כרצונו and יתגדל in Daniel 11:36, applied to an earthly king:

…וְעָשָׂה כִרְצוֹנוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְיִתְרוֹמֵם וְיִתְגַּדֵּל עַל כָּל אֵל וְעַל אֵל אֵלִים יְדַבֵּר נִפְלָאוֹת

Some medieval prayer books do contain a hard כּ in כרעותיה. In the National Library of Israel there are examples from Provence, Italy, and Ashkenaz on microfilm. I refer to this interpretation as the GRA’s, although it probably preceded him by hundreds of years, because he related to the issue and is understood to have favored this interpretation. It should be noted that many early siddurim were not precise in following grammatical rules so the mere presence or absence of a dagesh should not in and of itself be taken as an indicator of syntax or interpretation.
GRA’s interpretation, while not well known, was endorsed somewhat in Arukh haShulhan 56 (where much of the previous discussion is found). GRA-oriented prayerbooks also reflect this interpretation via the punctuation, such as Siddur Vilna and Ezor Eliahu. However, Siddur Tefilat Yosef features the hard כִּ but without a comma before it, possibly a compromise approach: have it both ways or either way.
I now raise a couple of difficulties. The most striking aspect of this approach is its awkward word order. A much more straightforward formulation of GRA’s interpretation would be:

…יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא. כִרְעוּתֵהּ, בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, וְיַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

Perhaps the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ was a later addition, hence not deemed proper to insert in the middle of the first phrase. In any case, GRA’s interpretation does not fit the text as well as the standard interpretation, where no re-ordering is required.
A minor difficulty with the GRA’s interpretation emerges upon comparison with the “Great Kaddish” recited upon the completion of a Tractate or Seder. The word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ does not appear in that text at all. This is explainable, and perhaps even necessary, according to the first interpretation, because the Great Kaddish does not refer to the creation of the world at all, but rather to the future redemption:
יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי הוּא עָתִיד לְאִתְחַדְתָּא, וּלְאַחֲיָאה מֵתַיָּא, וּלְאַסָּקָא יַתְּהוֹן לְחַיֵּי עָלְמָא, וּלְמִבְנָא קַרְתָּא דִּי יְרוּשְלֵם, וּלְשַׁכְלְלָא הֵיכָלֵהּ בְּגַוָּהּ, וּלְמֶעֱקַר פּוּלְחָנָא נוּכְרָאָה מִן אַרְעָא, וּלְאָתָבָא פּוּלְחָנָא דִּי שְׁמַיָּא לְאַתְרָהּ, וְיַמְלִיך קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בּמַלְכוּתֵה וִיקָרֵהּ בְּחַיֵּיכוֹן וּבְיוֹמֵיכוֹן וּבְחַיֵּי דְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל
However, if כִּרְעוּתֵהּ refers back to יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ, as per GRA’s interpretation, the absence of the word in the Great Kaddish version is puzzling, or at least conspicuous. This suggests that כִּרְעוּתֵהּ refers back to בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא and hence, disappears in the Great Kaddish along with it.
To summarize so far, we have seen two competing interpretations of the same (orthographic) text of the Kaddish. Some evidence contradicts each of the two, with no clear tilt of the scales in favor of either. It seems to me more likely that the GRA’s interpretation would develop into the standard one in order to “correct the syntax” than the reverse direction. Lectio dificilior potior. This situation suggests exploring other alternatives.[3]

3. An Alternate Interpretation

…יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא בְּעָלְמָא דִּי בְרָא, כִּרְעוּתֵהּ יַמְלִיךְ מַלְכוּתֵהּ

May his great name be exalted and sanctified in the world which he created. May his kingship become regnant according to his will …

Rather than throwing the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ back to one clause or another of the previous phrase, in this interpretation the word applies to the text that follows, a prayer for the establishment of the divine kingdom.
This interpretation is aided by the omission of the ו in the word ימלך following the word כרעותיה. The emendation is minor, and we do find an early textual example from a manuscript in the Cairo Geniza, JTS ENA 1983.2:

The absence of the ו assists this interpretation but it does not in and of itself negate the others. However, the interpretation is also suggested by another rabbinic source. The על הכל prayer discussed previously appears to be a later adaptation, an earlier version of which appears in Masekhet Sofrim 14:6:

ועוד צריך לומר, על הכל יתגדל ויתקדש וישתבח ויתפאר ויתרומם ויתנשא ויתהדר ויתעלה ויתהלל ויתקלס שמו של מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא הנכבד והנורא בעולמות שברא בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא. כרצונו וכרצון יראיו וכרצון כל עמו בית ישראל תגלה ותראה מלכותו עלינו במהרה ובזמן קרוב, והוא יבנה ביתו בימינו ויחון פליטתינו ופליטת כל עמו בית ישראל בהמון רחמיו וברוב חסדיו לחן ולחסד ולרחמים לחיים ולשלום והוא ירחם עלינו ועל כל עמו בית ישראל בעבור שמו הגדול ואמרו אמן

I added some punctuation above and would translate part of the prayer literally as follows:

… in the worlds that he has created, this world and the next one. According to his will, the will of those in awe of him, and the will of his entire people, the house of Israel, his kingship shall be revealed and appear to us speedily and soon. He shall rebuild …

One may argue that, here too, the phrase: “According to his will…” refers back to the previous clause. In the adapted form that appears in prayer books, the phrase must be understood as referring back to the previous phrase, since the following phrase simply doesn’t appear. However, in this expanded and seemingly earlier form in Masekhet Sofrim, we would expect a connecting ו to follow the phrase, even more so than in the Kaddish itself, yet we do not find one. When על הכל was adapted from this prayer, the syntax was adjusted or corrupted.
The difficulty noted above in reconciling the GRA’s interpretation with the Great Kaddish is relieved via this approach, if not eliminated. The absent word כרעותיה is explained if the substantial additions in the Great Kaddish are an expansion[4] of כרעותיה.
May his great name be sanctified and exalted by the reign of his kingdom in the world he created, according to his will.
[1] David de Sola Pool, The Kaddish, Leipzig 1909, pp. 28, 33-35, 111-112. Among issues not covered here, see especially parallels in various verses and to the Christian Lord’s Prayer (Paternoster).
[2] In the “Isaac Shul” of Krakow על הכל was written in three different locations which have been restored and are all visible today. It may have moved from location to location at different periods and different layers were restored. Alternatively, it may have been painted in different locations for the convenience of the worshippers, so that they would not have to strain or move to another location during the procession after removing the Torah scroll from the Ark.
[3] My first attempt was to propose that the word כִּרְעוּתֵהּ is itself an erroneous later scribal addition. An ancient tradition maintains that one should bow during the Kaddish at several places. Sefer Kra’ Ravaṣ, by Rabbi Yehuda Lavi Ben-David is an excellent modern halakhic compendium of the various laws of bowing, accompanied with much original analysis.

The book lists no fewer than seventeen different opinions as to where exactly to do the bowing. Some medieval prayer books have a Hebrew instruction to bow written in the margin: כרע. These might have been misinterpreted as Aramaic and incorporated into the text of the Kaddish itself. However, since I have not located any significant textual evidence to support this theory, I mention it here solely for the reader’s edification and entertainment.
[4] If the third alternative is a genuine interpretation of the text of the Kaddish, and an early one, it could hypothetically have developed into the other interpretations.

First, the standard interpretation developed. The word כרעותיה was understood as referring back to the immediately preceding creation of the world and in tandem a ו was introduced verbally in וימלך. Alternatively, the Great Kaddish may have been composed or edited in accordance with the first, standard interpretation. This development may have been the result of a growing influence of the written texts, without vocalization and punctuation, as opposed to earlier oral forms which would have preserved the original interpretation.

Next, this new interpretation collided with the original, possibly in written form, with the ו in וימלך being introduced where the original interpretation was preserved orally along with the hard כּ of כרעותיה. This friction would have been resolved by artificially throwing back כרעותיה to the beginning of the first phrase, giving birth to the GRA’s interpretation.

Or כרעותיה originally went in both directions, following both GRA and the alternate interpretation, as De Sola Pool proposed (see note above).