Some Observations Regarding Approbations for Hebrew Books

Haskamot (rabbinical approbations) to Hebrew books have an very interesting history. There are a few different forms of haskamot, perhaps the most important form is that which granted the author and/or publisher a copyright. Typically, the haskamah would prohibit republishing the particular book for a period of ten or fifteen years, etc. In some instances, it was not only the particular book but any book in the field. For example, the haskamah to R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller's edition of the Mishna with his commentary, Tosefot Yom Tov (Prague 1617) provides that "it is prohibited from printing any Mishnayot with any commentary for four years."[1] The history of this particular form haskamah begins with the approbation that appears on the first Rabbinic bible (Venice 1517). As Jordan Penkower has previously provided, the approbation which appears at the end of Chronicles states that it is forbidden [for] any one under the penalty of excommunication and also the loss of the books in the territories of the Holy Roman Church, to print or cause to be printed these books with the Targum or without the Targum and the Hebrew Commentaries of the Bible for the space of ten years from 1515.[2]This approbation is somewhat unique for Hebrew books as it was not given by a Rabbi but instead by Pope Leo X. Indeed, the version of this bible which contains this approbation was also dedicated to the Pope. Felix Pratensis, the editor and former Jew (he became a Augustin monk), explains in the dedication that the very idea of including the Targumim is favorable to the Church. He explains that the text we have added the ancient Hebrew and Chaldee Shcola, to wit the common Targum and that of Jerusalem. These contain many obscure and recondite mysteries, not only useful, but necessary to the devout Christian. We have wished with good reason to publish the whole under the sanction of your name [Leo X], for whereas on this book the foundation and the entire superstructure of Christianity rests, you are revered by us as the chief head of the Christian Church on earth and no one can deny the appropriateness of the dedication to you of our work. Another odd approbation appears in the book printed much later in Lemberg, 1878. This book, Peni Abraham, authored by R. Abraham Abba Seelenfreund includes approbations dated years before the book was ever published. For example, R. Meir Perles' approbation is dated 1852. But, that approbation is not unique in the history of approbations. In fact, the first Ashkenazik approbations, appearing in R. Shlomo Luria's Hakmat Shlomo (Krakow 1581) contains the approbation of R. Kalman of Worms dated 1542. Instead, the odd approbation is that of R. Yitzhak Meir Alter, the Gerrer Rebbi otherwise known as the Hiddushei ha-Rim. The reason this approbation is odd does have to do with the date. Specifically, it is dated, Rosh Hodesh Tamuz, 1870. The problem is that R. Alter died some four years earlier on the 23 of Adar 1866! Now it is possible that instead of 5630 (1870) it should read 5620 (1860) and the letter Chuf was inadvertently changed to a Lamed, but in all events, it is a rather interesting slip of the pen.[3] Now, it is not only the approbation that is of interest, in fact, R. Seelenfreund himself was somewhat of a character. According to the brief biography by R. Yekutiel Yehuda Greenwald,[4] R. Seelenfreund ended up divorcing his first wife during sheva Berakhot. Additionally, although R. Seelenfreund was the Rabbi in Zaloshick (Poland) for a period of time, in 1875 he took a position in Kosice, Hungary for a short period of time. While R. Seelenfreund was considered Ultra-Orthodox, as the term was used by the Hungarians, Kosice, as were many cities in Hungry was split between three Jewish factions, Reform, Ultra-Orthodox and Status Quo. R. Seelenfreund was appointed Rabbi of the Status Quo synagogue and thought that his relationships with Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis would allow him to remain to be viewed as such. Indeed, on his first sefer, Pras Avot (Lemberg 1865), he obtained the approbation of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson. It was R. Nathanson's suggestion for the title of the book to be Pras Avot. It appears that R. Seelenfreund, however, was very wrong in his calculation regarding Kosice. He eventually left Kosice and returned to Zaloshick but not before relationships between himself and the community broke down. He even published a small book, Kol Shover Shekarim (Kosice 1878) to defend himself. It is unclear why much of this history of R. Seelenfreund does not appear in Cohen's biography of R. Seelenfreund from Hakmei Hungaria.[5] It appears that Cohen was unaware that R. Seelenfreund left Kosice or that he published Kol Shover Shekarim.

[1] For this and other similar approbations see Nahum Rakover, Copyright in Jewish Sources (Israel 1991), 150-53 (Hebrew). Both Rakover's work as well as Benayahu's, see infra n3, break new ground on the issue of approbations. The new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, however, does not use any of these sources. In fact, the new version merely reprints the earlier article on haskma which appeared in the 1971 edition and is seriously lacking. This is but another example of how the new version has significant gaps. See Shnayer Z. Leiman's review of the new edition here and Shlomo Zalman Havlin's additional note on the topic here. [2] The translation of this and the next quote is taken from Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Ktav Press 1966), 935-36, 946.[3] In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions "hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them" and that "no one has attempted [such an edition] before." Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that "Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients." But, it is possible that Pratensis' claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations. Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate. This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which "are new or which have never been printed before." Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew). Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a "new" book. [4] Y.Y. Greenwald, "The Descendants of the Rema and their Influence in Hungary," Sinai 28 (1951): 85-87 (Hebrew). [5] Y.Y. Kohen, Hakmei Hungaria (Israel 1997), 342.

mikhtav berakha from Rav Avraham Shapira to Rav Yitzchak Dadon’s Atchalta Hee

As mentioned at the Michtavim blog, forty-year-old Rav Yitzchak Dadon, shlita, was the first to shoot at the terrorist following the massacre last week at Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav in Jerusalem. Rav Dadon studied for many years at Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav and is the author of over a half-dozen seforim, including the very-celebrated and landmark two-volume set, Atchalta Hee (2005 and 2007), on the relationship between Zionism of religious leaders from the Ashkenaz and Sefaradic communities to Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as an excellently detailed-survey (in both volumes) of poskim of earlier generations who have dealt with the related issue of Geulah be-Derekh ha-Teva in their own writings.

See below for the very-admiring mikhtav berakha from former chief rabbi of the State of Israel and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz Ha-Rav, the late Rav Avraham Shapira zt”l, to Rav Dadon’s Atchalta Hee, available below. (Copies of Atchalta Hee are available from Biegeleisen in Boro Park 718-436-1165.)

As I wrote at the Michtavim blog:

What a Kiddush Hashem it is, and praiseworthy is Rav Yitzchak Dadon and all other talmidei hakhamim in the yeshivot Hesder who are not only tremendous Torah scholars like David HaMelech, but are also similarly able to protect Am Yisrael and destroy our enemies when necessary.

Shnayer Leiman – Some Notes on the Pinner Affair

Some Notes on the Pinner Affair by Shnayer Leiman
Kudos to Dan Rabinowitz for his informative account of the Pinner affair and, more importantly, for reproducing the original texts of Pinner’s 1834 Hebrew prospectus and the Hatam Sofer’s 1835 retraction. The comments that follow are intended to add to Dan’s discussion.

1. “In his retraction the Hatam Sofer says the text [of his approbation to the Pinner translation] was published in a Hamburg newspaper.”

It appears more likely that the Hatam Sofer’s words should be rendered: “I have already made public my grievous sin and error – that I wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Dr. Pinner’s German translation of the Talmud – and it [Hebrew: iggerati] was published in Hamburg. In it, I confessed, and was not embarrassed to admit, that due to my sins, my eyes were besmeared and blinded…” What was published in Hamburg, then, was the Hatam Sofer’s first public retraction of the letter of approbation, not the letter of approbation itself. Moreover, no mention is made of a Hamburg newspaper. (In 1835, no German-Jewish or Hebrew newspapers were published in Hamburg.) It was published as a broadside, the text of which the Hatam Sofer sent from Pressburg to Hamburg for publication. In was intercepted by the Chief Rabbi, R. Akiva Wertheimer (d. 1838), who refused to publish the text precisely as the Hatam Sofer had written it. (This was in 1834, when the Hatam Sofer was posek ha-dor and gadol ha-dor, and about 72 years old – and we think we have problems!) The Hatam Sofer had to revise the text of the retraction, after which it was published in Hamburg some time between December 23, 1834 (when Rabbi Wertheimer addressed his objections to the Hatam Sofer) and January 22, 1835 (when the second retraction was published by the Hatam Sofer himself in Pressburg). See R. Shlomo Sofer, איגרות סופרים (Vienna, 1929), part 2, letter 66, pp. 70-71. Indeed, one suspects that the need for a second retraction by the Hatam Sofer was occasioned by this act of censorship on the part of the Hamburg authorities. No copies of the Hamburg broadside seem to have been preserved in any of the public collections of Judaica.

2. “The full text of the retraction appears in three places.”

It also appears in a fourth place: Y. Stern, ed., לקוטי תשובות חתם סופר (London, 1965), letter section, p. 90-91. This edition of the text is particularly important because it was obviously copied from the original broadside. Unlike the other editions of the text, the London edition contains two different fonts, Rashi script and enlarged square Hebrew characters – exactly like the original broadside. In a blatant misstatement of fact, the editor of the London edition, in a footnote, indicates that he copied the text from Greenwald’s אוצר נחמד. If so, he could not have known about the two different fonts and where to use them! In any event, Greenwald’s text lacks words that appear in the London edition! Most important, Greenwald’s text gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 22 Tammuz , 5595 (= 1835). (In 1835, however, 22 Tammuz fell on Sunday, July 19.) The London edition gives as the date the broadside was written: Thursday, 21 Tevet, 5595 (= January 22, 1835). This is precisely the date that appears on the original broadside, as posted by Dan! One suspects that the discrepancy between the editor’s claim and the printed page originated in a parting of the ways between the editor and the great bibliophile and scholar, Abraham Ha-Levi Schischa (see the introductory page to the volume). Schischa’s deft hand is evident throughout the volume, and no doubt he had access to the original broadside. Perhaps when the editor and Schischa parted ways, the editor – who no longer had access to the original broadside – claimed that he copied the text from Greenwald, when in fact Schisha had prepared the text based on the original broadside. There remain some very slight discrepancies between the London edition and the original broadside, probably due to the editor of the London edition. The editor’s misstatement of fact misled, among others, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, שו”ת ציץ אליעזר 15:3, p. 8.

3. “As one can see, the retraction is dated 21 Tevet, 1834.”
As indicated above, 21 Tevet in the year 5595 fell in 1835. In the light of the documents posted by Dan, we can reconstruct the chronological sequence of events. Sometime in mid- 1834, the Hatam Sofer wrote a letter of approbation on behalf of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud into German. (One should mention for the record that it was much more than a mere translation. Pinner vocalized the Mishnah and punctuated [commas and question marks] the entire text of the Talmud, Rashi, Tosafos, and Rosh to Bavli Berakhoth! He also included occasional חידושים from his רבי מובהק, Rabbi Jacob of Lissa [d. 1832], at whose feet he sat for seven consecutive years.) On August 15, 1834, Pinner published his prospectus in Hebrew, announcing to the world at large that he had received letters of approbation from “all the גדולי ישראל in France, Italy, and German” and from none other than the Hatam Sofer himself! (The English version lists the same date, but makes no mention of the Hatam Sofer.) It was precisely the publication of the prospectus that forced the Hatam Sofer to go public. Now all of the Hatam Sofer’s colleagues knew what he had done, and the criticism that followed was merciless. See the letter of the Dutch communal leader and philanthropist, R. Zvi Hirsch Lehren (d. 1853), to the Hatam Sofer, dated January 11, 1835 (in איגרת סופרים, part 2, letter 69, pp. 73-78). It would no longer suffice to simply send a note to Pinner and ask that he return the letter of approbation. Since it was public knowledge that the Hatam Sofer had lent his name to Pinner’s translation, nothing less than a public retraction would set the record straight. By December 1834, the Hatam Sofer had already prepared an official retraction for publication (by disciples of his in Hamburg who had easy access to the local Jewish publishing houses) in Hamburg. After some delay due to censorship, the retraction was published either in late December 1834 or early January 1835. A second, fuller retraction was published in Pressburg on January 22, 1835. For Pressburg as the place of publication of the second retraction, see N. Ben Menachem, “הדפוס העברי בפרעסבורג,” Kiryat Sefer 33(1958), p. 529.

4. The letter of retraction refers to Rabbi Nathan Adler. This, of course refers to Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler (1803-1890) of Hanover, and later Chief Rabbi of Britain, a much younger contemporary of the Hatam Sofer. He is not to be confused with the Hatam Sofer’s teacher, Rabbi Nathan Adler of Frankfurt (1741-1800), who could not have been consulted by Pinner. Cf. Torah U-Madda Journal 5(1994), p. 131; (see now the corrected version “The Talmud in Translation” in Printing The Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum, 2006, p. 133).

5. Although Pinner insisted on going ahead with the project, despite the Hatam Sofer’s protests, credit should be given where credit is due. Pinner omitted mention of the Hatam Sofer’s letter of approbation in the one volume that he published in 1842.

6. Regarding why no further volumes of Pinner’s translation were published, the simplest answer is: lack of funds and lack of determination to see a project through from beginning to end. Pinner, a moderate Maskil, spent a lifetime dreaming about all sorts of literary projects, none of which came to fruition. These included attempts at listing all Hebrew books and manuscripts, and all tombstone inscriptions of famous rabbis and scholars (including Moses Mendelssohn, Isaac Satanov, Hartwig Wessely, and Israel Jacobson). See his כתבי יד (Berlin, 1861), a partial publication of a book with no real beginning and no real end that captures the very essence of Pinner’s personality. In that volume, pp. 62-64, Pinner published a lengthy fund-raising letter he wrote in 1847 in order to raise funds to publish his diary, a kind of travelogue that would introduce readers to the wonders of the world. It was yet another of his failed projects. In the case of Pinner’s translation of the Talmud, Czar Nicholas withdrew his support and there was no one to pick up the slack. Note too the powerful language at the end of the Hatam’s Sofer’s retraction. Should Pinner insist on publishing the volumes, no Jewish publishing house may agree to publish the volumes, and no Jew may buy or read them. This surely didn’t help either publication or sales. For the powerful impact of the Hatam Sofer’s letters of approbation on the Jewish community at large, see my “Masorah and Halakhah: A Study in Conflict,” in M. Cogan, B. Eichler, and J. Tigay, eds., Tehillah Le-Moshe (Moshe Greenberg Festschrift), Winona Lake, 1997, pp. 305-306.

The Hatam Sofer’s Retraction of his Approbation to the Pinner Talmud

Of late, translations of the talmud have become a popular topic. [1] In the history of translations, the translation done by Dr. Efraim Pinner, is an important one for multiple reasons. Among other firsts, the Pinner translation was the first German translation of the talmud. Pinner envisioned a complete translation of the entire talmud but only one volume was produced, a translation meskhta Berachot. This edition contains multiple approbations, there is, however, one approbation does not appear in the book. (A good summary of the history can be found here at OnTheMainline, where S. has also posted a prospectus for the Pinner talmud, available here.)

The Hatam Sofer gave an approbation to Pinner’s translation (no one to date has located the text of the approbation, in his retraction the Hatam Sofer says the text was published in a Hamburg newspaper but all attempts to locate it have proven futile). According to the Hatam Sofer after learning further details of Pinner’s translation, he decided he would revoke his approbation and did so in a separate broadsheet. While this is all well known, what seems to have escaped those who have discussed this event is that there are actually two versions of the retraction and even two dates provided for when the Hatam Sofer wrote his retraction. The full text of the retraction appears in three places, N.N. Rabinovich’s Ma’amar al Hadfasas haTalmud, in the additions from Habermann, in R. S. M. Adler’s Emek haBacha, vol. 2, and in R. Greenwald’s Otzar Nechamad (pp. 82-3, this appears at Hebrewbooks.org, but like many of the books available at Hebrewbooks.org, this is not a perfect copy and part is missing). None of these, however, published the actual retraction and instead, Adler’s and Greenwald’s are copies of a copy. Adler had an anonymous “ya’rei v’charad” provided copied it for him from the British Library, and Greenwalds came Amsterdam by Zidmand Zelegmann from a copy that Dov Ritter had. Habermann doesn’t say where he got it; however, as the JNUL has an original perhaps he actually saw it and was not relying on a copy of a copy. But, as he doesn’t say one can’t be certain. As I mentioned there are small differences between the versions. Thus, to fill this void, below is a scan of the actual single sheet retraction. [Additionally, at the end of the post, is the prospectus for the Pinner edition.]

As one can see, the retraction is dated 21 Tevet, 1834. According to Greenwald’s version the retraction is dated Tammuz, 1835. Moreover, the text confirms all of Adler’s readings and not that of Greenwald. It appears that Greenwald’s copyist did a poor job and thus produced a corrupted text.

Now, aside from the retraction there is another document, although discussed has never been republished – that of Pinner’s notice that he was going to publish his translation. This document is also connected to the Hatam Sofer, in that Pinner mentions he received the Hatam Sofer’s approbation. Subsequently, as we have seen, the Hatam Sofer retracted that approbation, however, at the time Pinner published his notice he still had the Hatam Sofer’s approbation.

At this juncture it is worth noting that the Hatam Sofer held Pinner in high regard. According to R. Ya’akov Hirsch HaLevi, a student of the Hatam Sofer, Pinner spent time studying with the Hatam Sofer. Specifically, when Pinner came to obtain the approbation of the Hatam Sofer “Pinner spent a few weeks in Pressburg, and went daily to the Hatam Sofer.” [See Zikrohnot u-Mesorot al Ha-Hatam Sofer (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshet Ashkenaz, 1996), 306.] This picture of Pinner is counter to that of some who take a dim view of Pinner. [See Iggeret Soferim (Jerusalem, 2000), 74 n.2.] Some, have gone the other way. That is, they cannot fathom that the Hatam Sofer ever gave an approbation nor that he then retracted it. The Munkatcher Rebbi, makes this claim to note that the entire book Iggeret Soferim is a forgery as it mentions, inter alia, that the Hatam Sofer retracted. But, as is discussed in detail in the Zikhronot u-Mesorot, this claim is incorrect; specifically as it relates to Pinner story. The Maharam Schick, notes that the Hatam Sofer retracted, and in fact, according to the Mahram, this demonstrates the greatness of the Hatam Sofer that he is able to admit when he erred. (See Zikhronot, pp. 15-6).

Returning to the Pinner talmud. Why was it that no further volumes were published? According to some it was due to the retraction of the Hatam Sofer. That is, since the Hatam Sofer disapproved of the translation thus Pinner was unable to publish any further volumes.[2] This, however, makes little sense in light of the fact the Hatam Sofer had made known his negative views towards Pinner’s translation some 7 years prior to Pinner publishing even his first volume. Additionally, it is hard to see how the Hatam Sofer’s opinion would effect the target readership of Pinner’s translation those who spoke German. While there is no doubt the Hatam Sofer held sway over many Eastern European Jews, those Jews didn’t read German and probably were not interested in Pinner’s translation to begin with.

Perhaps a more likely scenario is that Pinner shot himself in the foot. Pinner’s edition contains a full page dedication to Czar Nicholas. Czar Nicholas instituted some of the harshest anti-Semitic programs, including mandatory 25 conscription into the Russian army. The point of conscription was to forcibly baptize the Jews. Pinner’s translation was aimed at cultured and educated Jews, Jews who would be aware of Nicholas’s programs. It is no surprise that there may have been significant reticence to purchase books glorifying such a person.

In fact, this would not be the first time a dedication didn’t work out that well. The first Rabbinic bible published in 1522, was not a success. Instead, it would be the second Rabbinic bible that became the template for the Mikrot Gedolot Chumash. While both were done by the same publisher and soon after one another. The main difference was the first contained a dedication to the Pope, while the second did not. Perhaps, the same happened here, and Pinner was a victim of poor judgment in securing his approbations, both in the one’s that appeared and the ones that did not.

Notes:
[1] Rabbi Adam Mintz’s research on the history of Talmud translations is the most comprehensive work on the subject; see his “Words, Meaning and Spirit: The Talmud in Translation,” Torah u-Madda Journal 5 (1994): 115-155, [see here]; later revised and reprinted in the volume, Printing The Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, published in connection with exhibit on the Talmud at the YU Museum. Additionally, in a recent issue of Ohr Yisrael, no. 50 (Tevet, 5768): 36-78, there was also a discussion regarding translations. It is worth noting that none of the articles mention Mintz’s articles. PDFs of these articles — by Adam Mintz and those from the Ohr Yisrael, no. 50 — are available in a recent post at the Michtavim blog.

[2] Greenwald goes so far as to incorrectly assert that Pinner acquised to the Hatam Sofer and never published the translation at all.

The Original Prospectus for the Pinner ed. of the Talmud

A Behind the Scenes Look at the Banning of HaGaon

It appears that at least one controversial book can not escape being criticized even after a significant passage of time. In this case, R. Dov Eliach’s book the R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna, published five years ago and, at the time, subject to some harsh criticism, is the subject of a new magazine – אמת מול שקר (Truth Against Lies) published by “the Institute for Truth and Faith.” That is, the entire purpose of this magazine is to disproving and exposing alleged misstatements in R. Eliach’s book.

The first issue — see below for two excerpted pages — contains, inter alia, the text of the various bans on the book. The editors also claim – according to the ban they reproduce – that R. Chaim Kanievsky issued a ban on the book. On the other side of this particular claim is an article which appeared in Dei’ah veDibur which states that the book was done with R. Kanievsky’s approval. For an earlier discussion (circa August 2006) at the Seforim blog of the BaDaTz herem against R. Dov Eliach’s HaGaon, see here; and for pictures of burning copies of HaGaon, see here. Aside from the various bans and the like, the magazine also contains examples where they attempt to show R. Eliach distorted sources or took out of context.

Additionally, I am unsure if the book is even available anymore, from my admittedly unscientific survey of Seforim stores, the book appears to be out-of-print.

Controversial Book on the Development of the Siddur

In the Jewish liturgy there is a fundamental question dealing with the composition of the Hebrew found therein. There are two major types of Hebrew – Rabbinic and Biblical. The question becomes which should one be using when praying. This at first blush may appear to be of minor significance, however, most controversies regarding various words throughout the prayer book can be traced to this one point. This issue of which Hebrew to follow was brought to head in the 18th century. During this period there were a few books published dealing with the proper nusach (composition of the prayers). Some of these works advocated for various changes in the prayer book based upon the authors understanding of which Hebrew to follow when praying. This in turned provoked a fairly large controversy which can be felt today by anyone sensitive to the nusach of the prayers.

Today, although most may be unaware, many changes effected during the above referenced time period are still to be found in almost all the standard prayer books. This is so, as Wolf Heidenheim in his prayer book, which became the standard for most which followed him, relied and incorporated numerous changes based upon these 18th century works. Heidenheim’s book became, in part, the standard after he was able to secure an approbation from one of the most traditional Orthodox rabbis of the day – R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer). R. Sofer, whose well known statement “anything new is prohibited” was either unaware of the “newness” of Heidenheim’s work or perhaps agreed with his alterations, ensured Heidenheim’s work would become the exemplar for all subsequent prayer books.

One of the more interesting books to come out of this period has recently been reprinted. This book, Yashresh Ya’akov, was originally published around 1768 and, according to the title page, was authored by R. Ya’akov Babini. The work is supposedly based upon a question which R. Babini was asked. Specifically, someone wrote that he entertained an Italian guest. This guest when it came time to say birkat hamazon (grace after meals) said the prayer with numerous changes from the standard format. The host wrote to R. Babini to ask whether these changes were in fact correct. All of these changes are more or less based upon the notion that one should follow the Biblical Hebrew as opposed to the Rabbinic Hebrew. R. Babini defends the guest’s alteration and demonstrates that in each instance the changes were correct.

That is the basic background on the book. Yet, there are numerous other important facts that are not necessarily apparent from just a casual read of the book. First, as I mentioned, taking a position that Biblical Hebrew is the correct Hebrew and thus one should alter the standard was highly controversial. In an effort to avoid controversy the true author of the book – not R. Babini – hid his name. The true author is really R. Ya’akov Bassan.[1] R. Bassan gave an approbation to this work although he did not use his own name as the author. Instead, R. Bassan picked someone who had less than a stellar reputation – R. Babini. R. Babini in 1759 published a book under his own name titled Zikhron Yerushalayim which listed various holy places in Israel as well as where certain Rabbis are buried in Israel. R. Babini, neglected to mention in this publication that this work had already been published in 1643 under the very similar title Zikhron B’Yerushalayim, which contains, with minor changes, the very same text R. Babini offered as his own. Thus, looking for a patsy, R. Bassan picked someone who already did not have such a great reputation. R. Bassan although unwilling to offer his name to his own publication decided to instead offer his approbation to his own work.

Aside from hiding the authorship, the place of publication was also altered. The title page reads Nürnberg as the place of publication. This is incorrect, in actually this was published in Altona. The date on the title page reads 1768, however, the date on the approbation reads 1769 thus making the date offered an impossibility. All of these “hints” should lead an observant reader to realize something funny is going on here – namely nothing is what it appears. These types of hints to the ultimate author were actually somewhat commonplace during this period. Most famously, R. Y. Satnow would publish books not under his own name, instead either in the approbation or the title page he would offer hints that only an astute reader would notice demonstrating that R. Satnow was in fact the true author.[2]

As R. Bassan correctly surmised, his work was in fact controversial. R. Binyamin Espinoza wrote a work directed at disproving the underlying premise of R. Bassan’s that one should stick with the standard liturgy and not change it to conform with Biblical Hebrew. R. Espinoza, originally from Tunisia was unsuccessful in publishing his rebuttal and it remained in manuscript, although its existence was known to many. R. Espinoza pulls no punches and takes R. Bassan to task in very sharp terms for his advocating these changes. As mentioned above this was to no avail as either surreptitiously or knowingly many of the changes and other similar ones have in fact become standard today.

Recently both the Yashresh Ya’akov and R. Espinoza’s work Yesod HaKium have been republished together. This edition which includes an extensive introduction which contains all the history above and more is excellent. Obviously, for understanding the development of the liturgy of the prayer book this is extremely important. Also those interested in bibliographical quirks will also enjoy these books. The book is available from Beigeleisen books (718-436-1165) who has informed me he has recently received a new shipment of these as the prior one had been sold out. This new edition was edited by Rabbis Moshe Didi and David Satbon from Kiryat Sefer, Israel (ת.ד 525 and 154 respectively).

For more on these books see here.

Sources:
[1] This understanding that R. Ya’akov Basson is the actual author runs counter to many earlier assertions that the author was R. Avrohom Basson. In the new edition of this work, however, they demonstrate the problems with associating R. Avrohom and instead argue that in fact it is R. Ya’akov.

[2] Satnow was not the only one; according to some, R. Saul Berlin, in the Besamim Rosh, offered similar hints to his authorship of this controversial work.