By Josh Rosenfeld

Commentary, Notes, & Excurses Ne’imot Netzah by R. Aharon Moseson

2 Vols. 532 + 564 pp.

Arad: Makhon Ne’imot ha-Tzedek, 2015

“The Books of the ‘Kohen’, written by the very own hand of our Master, the Holy man of God, the Kohen Gadol, without peer, Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, may his merit protect us… have taken an important place amongst the works of Jewish thought and Hasidut amongst the legions of those who seek God in every place. They serve as a magnet for all those who desire [to know] God, who find in it a veritable treasury of general instruction and guidance in the service of God – especially in the area of refining one’s character traits, and [his words] contain entire frameworks for understanding verses in Tanakh and sections of Rabbinic stories in the Talmud and Midrashic literature.”

With these words, R. Aharon Moseson introduces his impressive new edition of what is arguably the central work of the “Kohen,” Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (1823-1900), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik.[1][1] There is much already written on Reb Zadok and various different aspects of his thought, such that it would be redundant for me to recapitulate here,[2][2] although before we discuss this particular work and it’s advantages over previous editions, it behooves us to spend a moment on the book Tzidkat ha-Tzadik itself.

If the rest of Reb Zadok’s writings can be described as a sort of “Beit Yosef for Hasidut” (language of R. Moseson in the preface, on page 11), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik can be said to be a Shulhan Arukh, a type of concentrated version of Reb Zadok’s general ideas. R. Moseson categorizes Reb Zadok’s chief concerns into the following eight general categories, into which almost every single section of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik fall: (1) Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will (2) Repentance (3) Prayer (4) ‘Guarding the Covenant’ and Rectifying the Failure to do so (5) Human Inability to Fully Overcome Desire (=Yetzer) (6) The Interplay Between Physical Desire and Anger (7) The Trials of Desire (8) Positive Hutzpah. The reader is directed to the end of the second volume, where a number of short essays deal with some of these topics more fully.

Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was first published by the son-in-law of Reb Zadok, R. Barukh Dovid ha-Kohen in Lublin, 1902. Since then, a number of different editions of the Sefer have appeared, some of them notably censored in a number of piska’ot, or sections.[3][3] Beginning with the Lublin, 1913 edition,[4][4] a Hasid by the name of R. Yisrael b. R. Yosef Yozel of Lublin added in source references that Reb Zadok omitted from the manuscript. Later, R. Abba Zvi Naiman of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore published an index of the works of Reb Zadok, Mafte’ah Kitve Rebbe Zadok ha-Kohen mi-Lublin (2nd ed. Jerusalem, 2006), which aided locating particular topics and sources cited in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik along with many of Reb Zadok’s numerous other works. The most widely-used and available edition I know of today is the red-covered, anonymously printed Jerusalem, 1998 edition. This printing has a square (as opposed to “Rashi” script) typesetting and also contains a well done topical and source index in the back put together by one R. Chaim Hirsch.

About thirty years ago, Yeshivat Beit El began to publish editions of the Reb Zadok’s major works, with major additions of full quotations of the sources cited in the works, and limited indices and additional works cited for comparison and further study under the imprint of Yeshivat Har Bracha. According to the title page, their edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was based off of the 1968 Jerusalem printing of R. Oded Kitov, which itself was based off of manuscript. The reason the printings are important to us, as we shall see, is because of the following statement in the Har Bracha Edition: “printed… with the addition of deleted sections copied from the very handwriting [of Reb Zadok] that have previously not been published” (Emphasis mine). All previous printings have omitted several passages from the text of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik save for the Har Bracha, 1987 Yad Eliyahu KiTov, and now, the Ne’imot Netzah editions. In the chart below, I have outlined the various censored passages, and their omissions across four printings.[5][5]

One of the central reasons R. Moseson cites in the preface for the decision to include the various passages that were censored in many previous editions is borne of necessity due to the misinterpretation and danger inherent in an untrained and loopy presentation of these potentially explosive passages by neophytes or worse, deliberate misrepresentation of the Kohen’s words.[7][7] It is for this reason that R. Moseson prints these passages in an edition that enjoys the approbations of venerable Haredi authorities, although only the first two previously censored sections (nos. 54, 69) enjoy the introductions and cautionary words discussed in the preface in this new volume.

All told, this new edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik truly pulls back the parokhet from what for many was previously a “closed book.” The explanations section, entitled Ne’imos Tzedek presents each section in a lucid, ArtScroll-esque manner, with the words of Reb Zadok bolded, and regular text filling in the various lacunae that typify this work, especially in the earlier sections. Footnotes and cross-references lead the reader to the parallel discussions in Reb Zadok’s other works. The often obscure references to Rabbinic, Zoharic, Halakhic, and Hasidic literature that underlie Reb Zadok’s writing are often presented in full, allowing the learner to fully grasp the paroxysm of religious revelation, the concentrated bursts of wisdom, founded upon a lifetime of deep Torah engagement that I believe is represented in each of Reb Zadok’s short passages in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, as opposed to the protracted thematic presentations that are to be seen in some of Reb Zadok’s other works. Particularly helpful, especially for the latter sections of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik in which the passages become much longer, are paragraph headers containing short precis of the topic under discussion, and side notes that helpfully summarize key turns and points in the text of the elucidation. For whatever a neophyte dabbler in Reb Zadok’s works’ recommendation is worth, I enthusiastically encourage all those who desire to embrace and engage with the wisdom of the Kohen to explore this new, valuable edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, and remain in tremendous appreciation of R. Moseson and Makhon Ne’imot Netzah’s scholarly efforts.

Notes:

I am deeply indebted and grateful to yedid nafshi Reb Menachem Butler and the editors of the Seforim Blog for the fantastic platform the blog serves as a virtual beis va’ad l’hakhamim and for their willingness to consider this and my previous short pieces for publication on it.

[1]

[1] While Reb Zadok’s written corpus is quite large, consisting of several original works written in his own hand, some point to the Torah she-Ba’al Peh (oral Tradition) of Peri Tzadik, a monumental 5 volume collection of Reb Zadok’s discourses on the Torah and Jewish calendar written by his students as the most comprehensive presentation of Reb Zadok’s thought. The Peri Tzadik is known as a “closed” book, due to the length and obscurity of the presentation of Reb Zadok’s discourses. Last February, a Talmid Hakham from Ashdod by the name of Y. Yakob began to release high-quality PDFs on the Otzar ha-Hokhmah forums with experimental, but extremely detailed and meticulously footnoted sections of Peri Tzadik, online here. To date, only a few sections of the discourses have received this treatment, and there is no indication from the representative of the author that there is a larger work in progress.

[2]

[2]  I am in full agreement with what yedidi Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here, writes that “[t]he academic study of Reb Zadok is surely in debt to Prof. Yaakov Elman, who brought the thought of Reb Zadok to the English speaking academic world in a series of articles published over the past twenty-five years. His analysis of many of the central themes simultaneously charted new grounds in Hasidic scholarship and remain the standard from which subsequent scholarship on Reb Zadok is measured.” See Yaakov Elman, “R. Zadok Hakohen on the History of Halakah,” Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985): 1-26; Yaakov Elman, “Reb Zadok Hakohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process,” Jewish Law Association Studies 1 (1985): 1-16; Yaakov Elman, “The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 3:1 (1993): 153-187; Yaakov Elman, “Progressive Derash and Retrospective Peshat: Nonhalakhic Considerations in Talmud Torah,” in Shalom Carmy, ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 227-87; and Yaakov Elman, “The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 2 (2003): 199-249; and also Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2002). More recently, see Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18
August 2010), available here; and Dovid Bashevkin, “A Radical Theology and a Traditional Community: On the Contemporary Application of Izbica-Lublin Hasidut in the Jewish Community,” Torah Musings (20 August 2015), available online here here. See, as well, the important work in Amira Liwer, “Oral Torah in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, 2006; Hebrew), and see, as well, her earlier work in Amira Liwer, “Paradoxical Themes in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (MA thesis, Touro College, 1992; Hebrew), as well as in Me’At Latzadik: Anthology of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen, ed. Gershon Kitzis (Bayit Publishing, 2005), which contains essays from various Torah and Academic personalities in Israel on aspects of Reb Zadok Torah, including from R. R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (ShaGaR) and R. Yeshayahu Hadari.

Finally, for an attempt at a systematic presentation of Reb Zadok’s thinking on particular topics across his written corpus, see R. Hanokh Ben-Arza, Tevel be-Tzedek (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1999). This attractive work culls from all of Reb Zadok’s works and weaves disparate statements into short, heavily footnoted essays in a clear presentation. There is also a beautiful approbation from R. Mordechai Eliyahu in the first volume.

[3]

[3] Contrary to the longer, essay-like format of some of Reb Zadok’s other works (exceptions include shorter expositions like Divre Halomot, which are usually printed along with one of the more expansive works), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik is written in an almost aphoristic form, consisting of paragraph-length Torah ideas, usually prefaced with an opening line that encapsulates the Teaching. There are 264 such sections in the Sefer.

[4]

[4] Photomechanical offset reproduction, B’nei Brak, 1973.

[5]

[5] In an expanded version of this short review I propose to compare and theorize the various reasons for the specific omissions. Most, but not all of the censored piska’ot and passages deal with the doctrine of determinism and sin, or matters related to p’gam ve-tikkun ha-berit. On the latter, see for example Brill, Thinking God, 181-184.

[6]

[6] R. Moseson cites, as he does in other instances “וכמה מדפיסים החזירוה ע״פ משהעתיק אחד ממקורבי רבינו מכב יד קדשו של רבינו זי״ע” and then refers the reader to Tzidkat ha-Tzadik ha-Malei (Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1987) published by R. Avraham Eliyahu Mokotovsky (R. Eliyahu Kitov, 1912-1976, whose father was a close Hasid of Reb Zadok and), which I have been unable to locate a copy of, although it is cited by R. Moshe Wolfson in his Emunat Itekha vol. 1, p. 24 (Parshat Vayishlah) as his source for Tzidkat ha-Tzadik no. 54.
[7]

[7] Ne’imot Netzah ed., pp. 11-12. It seems that in note ב, R. Moseson perhaps casts shade on the Har Bracha edition in writing: אכן חדשים מקרוב באו והחזירו את השמטות אלו במהדורות שלהם ואכן בלי לבאר את יש מקום לסילוף גדול כאמור.

R.  Elazar Fleckeles’s Haggadah Maaseh BR’ Elazar

By Eliezer Brodt

In the past I wrote:

Perhaps the topic which has engendered the most commentary in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are all kinds, in all languages, and with all types of commentary, pictures, etc. Whatever style one can think of, not one, but many Haggadahs have been written. So, whether it’s derush, kabbalah, halakha, mussar or chassidus there are plenty of Haggadahs out there. Then, there are people who specialize in collecting haggadahs although they do not regularly collect seforim. In almost every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggadahs. Every year people print new ones; even people who had never written on the Haggadah have had a Haggadah published under their name, based on culling their other writings and collecting material on the Haggadah. When one goes to the seforim store before Pesach it has become the custom to buy at least one new Haggadah; of course one finds themselves overwhelmed not knowing which to pick! Every year, besides for the new Haggadahs being printed, old ones are reprinted, some in photo off-set editions, others with completely retype set.

Some years there are many choices of what to buy; in recent years, while the quantity of Haggadahs being printed has not ebbed, the quality most arguably has. This year, one important and high quality Haggadah that has been retype-set and republished is Maaseh BR’ Elazar by R’ Elazar Fleckeles.

R’ Elazar Fleckeles was born in 1754 in Prague and died there in 1826. He was a direct descendant of R’ Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Keli Yakar, whom R’ Fleckeles quotes many times throughout his writings. When R’ Fleckeles was 14, he went to study with R’ Ezekiel Landau and spent ten years studying there. R’ Landau, as is evident from his haskamot to R’ Fleckeles works, held R’ Fleckeles in high regard. Additionally, many teshuvot in R’ Landau’s Noda b’Yehuda are addressed to R’ Fleckeles. In R’ Fleckeles’s writings, he quotes many interesting statements from R’ Landau. When R’ Fleckeles was twenty-four, he became the Rabbi of Kojetin, a town in Moravia. However, just four years later R’ Fleckeles returned to Prague to sit on R’ Landau’s Bet Din and serve as a head of a yeshiva. [See also here and here].R’ Fleckeles authored many works on halakha and derush, as well as a commentary on the Haggadah called Maaseh BR’ Elazar. R’ Fleckeles was a skilled halakhist, as is evident from his volumes of responsa, Teshuva m’Ahavah, but his fame also rests on his skills as a darshan. His derashot were published in a four volumes, Olat Chodesh. The fourth volume contains, R’ Fleckeles series of derashot he gave against Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank (this section has a separate title, Ahavat David) [recently auctioned off as noted here].

Almost all of his works besides his Teshuva m’Ahavah, are very hard to find.

A few years ago a new Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov started reprinting his seforim. In 2014 they printed a volume of his Drashot related to Elul and Tishrei along with two works, Chazon LaMoed and Olat Chodesh (437+20 pp.). This beautifully produced work, including an introduction about R’ Fleckeles and a detailed index, matches the content of the actual Drashot.

 A few weeks ago this company released a new edition of his commentary on the Haggadah: Maaseh BR’ Elazar (224 +23 pp).

The Maharil noted in a drasha that he gave before Rosh Hashonah:

כל אדם יחזור וילמוד התפלה והקרובץ מקודם להיות שגורים בפיו בר”ה בשעת התפלה. וכן ילמוד בניו ובני ביתו סדר התפלה, ויריצם סדר הברכות ומלכיות זכרונות ושופרות, כדי שלא יצטרך בר”ה להפסיק בין גאולה לתפלה להראות להם אז הסדר, כי צריכנא לסמוך גם ביום טוב גאולה לתפלה. [וכשחל ר”ה בשבת כל שכן – דצריך אדם לסדר להרגיל התפילה להראות לבני ביתו בתחילה – דאז משנין בכמה מקומות התפילה – והקרובץ [מהרי”ל, עמ’ רעב]

 But specifically more instructive is the Sefer Hamaskil‘s comment:

מה טוב ומה נעים לעיין תמיד דבר בעתו בכל שבוע ושבוע בפירוש חומש ומחזיר וסליחות… ואגדת פסח [ספר המשכיל עמ’ 70].

His basic point being that one should try to prepare before each occasion the tefilos we specific to that occasion – and for Pesach that is the Haggadah.

Many people look all over each year to have nice new pieces of Torah to say over at the seder. This work is full of nice (many) shorter pieces focusing on Peshat and Derush (not Kabbalah) which can be enjoyed by different audiences.

This Haggadah was first printed by the author in Prague in 1818.

Abraham Yaari, in his work A Bibliography of the Passover Haggadah, writes about this work:

הפרט העברי ככתבו עולה תקע”ב אולם יש לקרוא את שני היודין של השם כשם הויה, ואז יעלה תקע”ח, בהתאם לשנה הלועזית 1818, ולהסכמת הצנזור שניתנה באוקטובר 1817 [מספר 418]

For recent Discussion of other works with similar wording see Yakov Speigel Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; BeSharei HaDefus, pp. 273-296.

In 1944 in Oradea, Romania this work was printed again. It appears that this was the last Haggadah printed in Europe during World War Two. To me it is fascinating that in this turmoil time they bothered to print this work.

Yaari records this edition [number 2308] as does Yitzchak Yudolov in The Haggadah Thesaurus [number 3918]

This 1944 edition has an interesting addition, as noted by the publisher. Into the text of the Haggadah the prelude Li Shem Yichud was added:

 ולא הוספתי עליו רק מה שנוהגים לומר לפני כל מצוה לשיחקב”ה וכו’ [=לשם יחוד קודשא…] הצגתי כהסכמת הגאון משאמלויא שליט”א…

In R’ Ehreneich’s second letter to the publisher he writes:

 

Although it’s very nice that they decided to add this into R’ Fleckeles work and not hide this addition but I do not think they had any right to do such a thing. R’ Fleckeles was very outspoken about saying Li Shem Yichud, to say the least.

דרך כלל יאות לבטל כל התחנו’ ובקשות אלו וכיוצא בהן שנתחדשו מלקוטי האחרונים ומעיד אני עלי שמים וארץ שראיתי אחד הי’ רצה לברך על אתרוג המהודר של רבינו הגאון האמתי נ”ע (כי הי’ תמיד מהדר מן המהדרין אחר אתרוג המהודר בכל מיני הידור וכסף וזהב לא הי’ נחשב בעיניו מאומ’ אף שהאתרוג הי’ בתכלית היוקר) וכאשר ראה שאותו פלוני אמר יה”ר קודם נטילת לולב (הנדפס במחזורים ובלקוטי צבי) כעס ורגז ואמר בקצף גדול האומר יה”ר אינו מניחו לברך על אתרוג שלו ולא הניחו לברך ועיין מ”ש רבינו בספרו נ”ב חלק א”ח סי’ ל”ה דף כ’ ע”ג ובחלק י”ד סי’ צ”ג והרבה יש לי לדבר בענינים האלה וכאלה ומרוב טרדותי לא אוכל להאריך [שו”ת תשובה מאהבה, א, סוף סי’ א][1]

He was following in the path of his Rebbe, the Nodeh BeYehudah, who as is well known was adamantly against the saying of Li Shem Yichud:

ועל הרביעית אשר שאל בנוסח לשם יחוד אשר חדשים מקרוב נתפשט ונדפס בסידור הנה בזה אני משיב עד שאתה שואלני נוסח אמירתו יותר ראוי לשאול אם נאמר כי טוב באמירתו. ולדעתי זה רעה חולה בדורנו ועל הדורות שלפני זמננו שלא ידעו מנוסח זה ולא אמרוהו והיו עמלים כל ימיהם בתורה ובמצות הכל ע”פ התורה וע”פ הפוסקים אשר דבריהם נובעים ממקור מים חיים ים התלמוד עליהם נאמר תומת ישרים תנחם והם הם אשר עשו פרי למעלה וגדול מעל שמים חסדם. אבל בדורנו הזה כי עזבו את תורת ה’ ומקור מים חיים שני התלמודים בבלי וירושלמי לחצוב להם בורות נשברים ומתנשאים ברום לבבם כל אחד אומר אנכי הרואה ולי נפתחו שערי שמים ובעבורי העולם מתקיים אלו הם מחריבי הדור. ועל הדור היתום הזה אני אומר ישרים דרכי ה’ וצדיקים ילכו בהם וחסידים יכשלו בם. והרבה היה לי לדבר מזה אבל כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע וה’ ירחם עלינו. עי”ש באריכות. [נודע ביהודה (קמא) יו”ד, סי’ צג].

A few months ago I mentioned the censorship of this Teshuvah.

This topic of saying Li Shem Yichud will hopefully be discussed at a different time.[2] But just to add some sources.

In 1805, R’ Menachem Mendel of Shklov, one of the main talmidim of the Vilna Gaon, printed the Gra’s work on the Haggadah for the first time.

Before Maggid it says:

הנני מוכן ומזומן לקיים המצוה לספר ביציאת מצרים לשם יחוד הקב”ה…

In a recent edition of the Gaon’s Haggadah the editor writes:

והנה אין גילוי מפורש בדעת רבינו הגר”א ז”ל באמירת לשם יחוד אך אילו ידע רמ”מ ז”ל שרבינו ז”ל מתנגד לאמירתה בוודאי לא היה מדפיסה… [ר’ חנן נובל, הגדה של פסח עם פירוש הגר”א, ירושלים תשע”ג, עמ’ כט, עי”ש].[3]

This same passage appears in later prints of the Gra Haggadah including one printed in Prague in 1813 at the time R’ Fleckeles was very active there. [Worth noting is the censor was R’ Fleckeles friend, Karl Fisher].

Even though it is unclear what the Gra held about saying Li Shem Yichud, another talmid of his appears to write against it. Here is what R’ Menashe M’IIlyah writes about it in Alfei Menashe:

In the beginning of the Haggadah, R’ Fleckeles deals with the famous question as to why there is no Beracha on Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, quoting a Shut Besamim Rosh on the topic [see here]. A few lines later he quotes the real Shut HaRosh, with this preface:

ובתשובות הרא”ש המקובלת לנו ראיתי…

Returning to this newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar.

One nice piece in this Haggadah is his discussion against his Rebbe, the Nodeh Beyhudah, about the Issur of Chametz in Mitzrayim.
He writes:

הנה חדשים מקרוב נדפס ספר מערבי וראיתי…

The current editors do not write to which sefer he is referring. This is the work he is referring to, first printed in 1793:

In 1959, Yitzchak Refael printed numerous additions to this Haggadah in the journal Sinai (45: 22-36). The source of these addenda is R’ Fleckeles personal copy, which he had specially bound with added on margins and blank pages inserted between each page, affording the author ample room for marginalia. After passing through several hands, finally arriving in R’ Maimon’s library. This new version of the work includes all of these addenda, in their proper places. Interestingly enough, neither Yaari nor Yudolov mention these additions in their entries on this Haggadah.Returning to Li Shem Yichud Sharon Flatto writes in her ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague’:

Notably a Haggadah was recently discovered that was owned during the late 1780s by Fleckeles…. The margins of this Haggadah contain leshem Yihud formulas to be recited before the blessing on the the four cups of wine penned in Fleckeles’ hand.

In the footnote she writes they seem to have been written between 1784-1790.'(pp. 225-226). While I wish I had more clearer sources about this discovery. She does not note that the Haggadah that R’ Fleckeles himself printed in Prague in 1818 nor in the manuscript updates of R’ Fleckeles to his own Haggadah does he write to say Li Shem Yichud or any such Tefilah in the Haggadah. This newest edition of the Maaseh BR’ Elazar prints the Haggadah like R’ Fleckeles did in 1818 without Li Shem Yichud.

Besides for all these new pieces added into this new edition, the volume also includes a well-written introduction about R’ Fleckeles, including an interesting eye witness account from manuscript of the day he died in Prague. Another plus to the new edition are the numerous sources they added, at times quoting R’ Fleckeles references from his other works.  Finally, there is a very useful index of topics and seforim quoted by R’ Fleckeles at the end of the volume. I really hope they continue to print the rest of R’ Fleckeles works.

To purchase this Haggadah try Girsa in Jerusalem, Biegeleisen in NY or your local seforim store.

Appendix:

One of the seforim noticeably omitted, for the most part, from R’ Fleckeles works, including this Haggadah, is the Zohar.

Much of the sources in R’ Fleckeles writings regarding the Zohar and Kabalah in general has been gathered in Boaz Huss’ recent work, KeZohar Harokeyah (pp. 322-323). Most notable is this piece which I quote here in its entirety:

ועתה אין מן הצורך להשיב את האיש אשר רצה להמצי’ דבר חדש להשביע את האיש הישראלי בספר הזוהר… את זה כתבתי לדעת האיש ההוא שהספר הזוהר כלו קדוש אבל אני אומר הריני נשבע בתורת ה’ שבספר הזוהר נמצאו כמה זיופים וקלקולים אשר הוסיפו ועלה אחת מתלמוד בבלי הויות דאביי ורבא קדוש יותר מכל ספר הזוהר הנה אם אמרו חכמי התלמוד על ברייתא דלא מתנייא בי ר’ חייא ור’ אושיעא מאן ימר דמתרצתא היא דלמא משבשתא היא וספר הזה ודאי לאו בר”ח ורב אושיעא אתמר כי כל הדורות מראש לא זכרו מספר הזוהר מאומה לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום כי הנה אם אמת הדבר שהחבור הזה הוא מהתנא ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי אשר ר’ יהודה הנשיא קבל גם ממנו כמבואר בהקדמ’ הרמב”ם לספרו יד החזק’ איך לא זכר את הספר הזה בחבורו ש”ס משניות או בשום מקום ואף ר’ יוחנן שחיבר תלמוד ירושלמית אינו מזכירו בשום מקום ורבינא ורב אשי שחברו תלמוד בבלי מאה שנים אחר חבור תלמוד ירושלמי והיו סוף אמוראים ולא שמו רמז בכל התלמוד מספר הזוהר ורבה בר נחמני שחובר רבות ושוחר טוב וכיוצא בהם הרבה לא זכרו מחבור רשב”י גם רבנן סבוראי והגאונים והרי”ף והרמב”ם ורש”י ותוס’ והרמב”ן והרשב”א והרא”ש והטור והילקוט שמעוני אשר אסף ולקט כל המדרשות והמכילתות והברייתות כלם לא ידעו ולא ראו ממנו דבר עד שזה קרו’ לשלש מאות שנים ענו ואמרו שמצאוהו ואיזהי כנסיה אשר קבלוהו בכנופיה, כמו תלמוד בבלי וירושל’ וז”ל הרמב”ם בהקדמתו לספר יד החזקה אבל כל הדברים שבגמרא הבבלי חייבין כל ישראל ללכת בהם וכופין כל עיר ועיר וכל מדינה ומדינה לנהוג בכל המנהגות שנהגו חכמי הגמרא ולגזור גזירותם וללכת בתקנותם הואיל וכל אותם דברים שבגמרא הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל עכ”ל ויעיין עוד שם ואין אני חלילה מטיל דופי ופגם בכבוד התנא אלדי ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כי הוא היה מחסידי עליון אלא אני אומר לאו גושפנקא דרשב”י ועזקתיה חתום עליה ומי שיש לו חצי דעת יגיד כן שהרי נזכרו בספר הזוהר כמה תנאים ואמוראי’ שהיו אחר רשב”י שנים רבות במספר והארכתי בזה במקום אחר מפי סופרים ומפי ספרים כמבואר בס’ מטפחת להגאון מו”ה יעב”ץ זצלל”ה שגזר אומר שחלו בו ידים מזייפים וחשד את החכם ר’ משה דיליון יעיי”ש.

והינה מיום שנתחדש ספר הזוהר הרבה נכשלו ע”י כי כמה דברים סתומים וחתומים אשר המציאו האחרוני’ להתעות בני אדם יושבי חשך השכל, צאו וראו כמה קלקולים רבים קלקלו מאמיני הכלב רע שבתי צבי שבור ואחוזת מרעהו ברכי מסאלנוקא ויעקב פראנק שם רשעים ירקב, ותלו דבריהם בספר הזוהר אשר בודאי לא יאונה לצדיק ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי כל און.

מה טוב ומה נעים, אשר כתבתי בחבורי קטן אשר קראתיו בשם קונטרס אהבת דוד שנדפס בק”ק פראג תק”ס וזה לשוני שם באו ונחזיק טובה וחינות לשני מלכים גדולי אדירי’ אדוננו המשובח המנוח הקיסר יאזעף השני ואדוננו המהולל הקיסר פראנץ השני אשר צפו והביטו בחכמתם הנפלאה, רבות רעות ושבושי דעות תסתעפנה מחלומות והבלים המקובלים, והמה לנזקי בני האדם נזקי הגופות ונזקי הנפשות, ופקדו באזהרה גדולה שלא להביא ספרי קבלה בכל מדינות מלכותם הפקודה הראשונה העכסט האף דעקרעט פאם ב’ נאוועמבר למספרם והשני פאם ז’ יוני למספרם והארכתי שמה בדברים נכונים… (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ כו).

According to Shmuel Werses, Haskalah and Sabbatianism, (Heb.), pp. 68 and Boaz Huss, KeZohar Harokeyah (p.323) this teshuvah has been censored out of the 1912 edition of TM. I have been unable to independently confirm this, as the 1912 editions I have seen (both in NLI and in BIU) have it in full – as do most reprints available today, including the edition found on the HebrewBooks.org website

In another teshuvah on this topic R’ Fleckeles writes:

ובלא”ה כבר כתבתי פעמי’ רבות שאין ראי’ מזוהר שלא נודע ברור מי הוא המאסף והמלקט ספר הזוהר והרבה הוסיפו  (תשובה מאהבה א:סב).

It is worth pointing out that R’ Fleckeles does not dismiss the Zohar completely taking it into account elsewhere in TM; for example in this teshuvah he writes:

מה ששאלני מדוע רובא דעלמא מקילים והולכים בבקר ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית הא כבר כתב המ”א בשם הב”ח בשם תולעת יעקב כל ההולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים שחרית חייב מית’ עיי”ש וכמה בני תורה אשר אינם שוגגים מקילים ואין להם על מה שיסמכו. ידע ידידי שדבר זה כתב בעל תועלת יעקב בשם הזוהר וכן העתיקו הב”ח, והמג”א השמיט בשם הזהר או מן השמים השמיטוהו כי חפשתי בספר הזוהר יגעתי ולא מצאתי ובעל א”ר האמין לשמועותיו בשם הזוהר והאר”י וצדר להקל עיין סי”א סק”ד ולבסוף מסיק בשם ספר דמשק אליעזר שדבר זה  דוקא בזמנם כמו גילוי וזוגות עיין שם ולענ”ד ליתא בזוהר כלל והרב בית יוסף אשר העתיק בכל פעם דברי הזוהר לא שם רמז מזה ושארי לי’ מארי’ שעשה רוב ישראל לחייבי מיתות שוגגן ישרים יחזו במסכת ברכות דף  סמ”ך ע”ב ישר יחזו פנימו ולענ”ד היא משנת חסידים והזריז הרי זה משובח ואפשר דזוהר מיירי אם מים מצוים לפניו והולך ד’ אמות בלי נטילת ידים ואח”ז ה’ אנה לידי ספר ברכי יוסף וראיתי שמביא דברי הזוהר כת”י וסיים וזה לשונו אלא דשמיע לי מרבני קדישו דזמנין דמיא הרחק מאד מאדם ובלכתם ילכו פחות מד’ אמות כאותה שאמרו גבי שבת עיין שם סימן א’ אות א’ ולשון הזוהר אינו לפני לעיין והנרא’ לענ”ד כתבתי. (תשובה מאהבה חלק א סי’ יד וראה חלק ב סי’ א אות ד)

As an aside, the shitos of R. Fleckeles on the Zohar are bland compared to those of his Rebbe, the Noda Beyehudah, as found in the recently printed drasha of his from manuscript by Dr. Maoz Kahana and M. Silber. I note in passing that this drasha has sparked a debate between them and Dr. Flatto, to which she responded in a later version of the journal Kabbalah.

By Eliezer Brodt

מגנזי אירופה,
כרך ראשון, ההדיר והוסיף מבואות: שמחה עמנואל, הוצאת מקיצי נרדמים, 512 עמודים.

I am very happy to announce the publication of an important work which I have been eagerly waiting for, Professor Simcha Emanuel of the Hebrew University’s Talmud department’s volume of texts from the “European Genizah” (volume one). This volume was just printed by Mekitzei Nirdamim and is being sold by Magnes Press.

New texts from Rishonim are high up on my list of favorite publications, all the more so when they are edited by Professor Simcha Emanuel. Professor Emanuel is considered one of the today’s greatest experts in Rishonic literature. He has produced numerous special works [such as this recent work, this, this and my favorite] and articles of both texts and material about them for quite some time. [Many of which are available here] All of which are of very high quality, showing an incredible breadth and depth in the material at hand. One area of specialty of his is finding long lost works; this new volume continues this trend. Starting with an important introduction to the background and importance of the Genizah, it includes numerous newly discovered texts of Rishonim, with introductions and background of their importance and proof of identification.

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work:

For a sample e mail me at
Eliezerbrodtatgmail.com.

The book can be purchased via Magnes
Press or through me at: Eliezerbrodtatgmail.com.

Also take note of a special sale of numerous
titles at Magnes Press.

Copies of this work will be arriving
at Biegeleisen shortly.

This commentary on Psalms is a forgery. While the volume is attributed to Rashbam it was actually written by Satanow. Regarding this forgery, David Rosin writes as follows:[12]

הכי קרא שמו יצחק ויהי כצחוק בעיניו להתחפש במעטה רבנו שמואל ולעשות מעשהו ולעבוד עבודתו. זר מעשהו ונכריה עבודתו, כל השומע יצחק לו

3. In my post here I quoted R. Moses Isaac Ashkenazi in his Ho’il Moshe that King David is not to be regarded as a prophet as he only had ruah ha-kodesh. One of the commenters wrote:

Rashi Megilla 14a quotes a Halachot Gedolot which names David as [a] prophet. Rashi speaks specifically about prophets as opposed to Ruach Hakodesh, and excludes Daniel based on Megilla 3a.

 Another commenter was more strident:

Wonderful example how modern scholars have no place in the Torah world! As first commenter pointed out, Dovid Hamelech is prominent in the list of 48 neviim, and there are scores of sugyos based on the nevuah of DH. The makom mizbeach, etc. Pure AmHaaRatzus!

I am not sure if I am the am ha-aretz he is referring to, which in any case would be uncalled for since I never said that David only had ruah ha-kodesh and was therefore not a prophet. All I did was point out that R. Moses Isaac Ashkenazi said this. When I called the commenter’s attention to the fact that his strong words were directed against R. Ashkenazi, he wrote:

I wouldn’t start up with Hoil Moshe, but was pointing out the danger of someone reading this post, and then taking it at face value. For anyone fluent in Shas they will find numerous references to DH’s nevua. Ruach HaKodesh wouldn’t work for all the halachos we learn out from DH. . . . I do thoroughly enjoy your posts, but find them quite dangerous. I would prefer my children at least stick to Artscroll and have their basics –DH’s nevua – straight!

Now let me say something that I did not put in the comments because I want the entire audience to see it, not just the tiny group that reads the comments. The commenter just quoted is a perfect example of one who is certain of something, and certain that the opposing position is incorrect, and this leads to very harsh language. Let’s leave aside R. Moses Isaac Ashkenazi who is not an important scholar. All would agree that R. Moses Sofer, the Hatam Sofer, is important and certainly not an am ha’aretz (which is the term the commenter used). Yet the Hatam Sofer is explicit that David was not a prophet and only had ruah ha-kodesh, which is exactly what R. Ashkenazi states and what the commenter so harshly attacks. Here are the Hatam Sofer’s words in Torat Moshe ha-Shalem, Ba-Midbar, p. 74.

הנה לא מצינו לישראל מלך שיהי’ גם נביא משולח לעם כי אם משה רבינו ע”ה, דכתיב גבי’ (דברים ל”ג ה’) ויהי בישורון מלך, אבל שארי נביאים לא היו מלכים והמלכים לא התנבאו, ודוד המלך ע”ה רה”ק הו”ל ולא נבואה, ולכן אחז”ל (גיטין נ”ט ע”א) מימות משה עד רבי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד, דאלו כל הנביאים היו עליהם בגדולה השופט והמלך שבימיו, וכל המלכים אפי’ דוד ושלמה היו הנביאים שבדורם גדולים מהם בתורה . . . שהרי אין מלך נביא.

This notion, that the kings were not prophets (other than Moses), is also stated in Zohar, Terumah, p. 154a, and this is presumably the Hatam Sofer’s source. I don’t deny that there are other authoritative sources that contradict this, including passages in the Talmud. Some of them are cited by R. Reuven Margaliyot in his note to the Zohar, ad loc., and we can speculate as to why the Hatam Sofer preferred the Zohar over these other sources. I cite this only to show that commenters should be very careful before labeling something as am ha’aratzus, as you never know whom you might be insulting with this comment.

4. The latest book in my series with Academic Studies Press has recently appeared. It is Sara Reguer, My Father’s Journey: A Memoir of Lost Worlds of Jewish Lithuania. (Reguer is the granddaughter of R. Simcha Zelig Reguer, the dayan of Brisk.) Here is the book’s description.

Born into a leading Lithuanian-Jewish rabbinic family, Moshe Aron Reguer initially followed the path of traditional yeshiva education. His adolescence coincided with World War I and its upheavals, pandemics, and pogroms, as well as with new ideas of Haskalah, Zionism, and socialism. His memoir, recently discovered and here translated and published for the first time, discusses his internal struggles and describes the world around him and the people who influenced him. Moshe Aron Reguer wrote his memoir at the age of 23, on the eve of his departure for Eretz Israel in 1926. However, his story did not end there, but continued in British Mandated Palestine and the United States. He kept in touch with the family in Brest-Litovsk until the Nazis destroyed Jewish Lithuania, and some of their correspondence is included within this volume.

Anyone who is interested in Jewish Lithuania and the great yeshivot will find this book of value.

I also want to call attention to the recent publication of Menachem Kellner, Jewish Universalism, edited by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson and Aaron W. Hughes. Kellner’s work has made a great impact, not only in Jewish scholarship but among thinking Jews in general. This small volume is a wonderful read and contains an intellectual portrait of Kellner written by James A. Diamond as well as a lengthy interview with Kellner.

This book is number 12 in Brill’s Library of Contemporary Jewish Philosophers. Here is what has appeared so far and what if forthcoming (taken from the Brill website).

Published Volumes

Vol. 1: Eliezer Schweid: The Responsibility of Jewish Philosophy

Vol. 2: Jonathan Sacks: Universalizing Particularity

Vol. 3: David Novak: Natural Law and Revealed Torah

Vol. 4: Eugene B. Borowitz: Rethinking God and Ethics

Vol. 5: Elliot N. Dorff: In Search of the Good Life

Vol. 6: Judith Plaskow: Feminism, Theology, and Justice

Vol. 7: David R. Blumenthal: Living with God and Humanity

Vol. 8: Moshe Idel: Representing God

Vol. 9: Lenn E. Goodman: Judaism, Humanity, and Nature

Vol. 10: Avi Sagi: Existentialism, Pluralism, and Identity

Vol. 11: Elliot R. Wolfson: Poetic Thinking

Vol. 12: Menachem Kellner: Jewish Universalism

Forthcoming Volumes

Vol. 13: J. David Bleich: Where Halakhah and Philosophy Meet (est. October 2015)

Vol. 14: Michael Fishbane: Jewish Hermeneutical Theology (est. October 2015)

Vol. 15: Norbert M. Samuelson: Reasoned Faith (est. November 2015)

Vol. 16: Arthur Green: Hasidism for Tomorrow (est. January 2016)

5. The issue of truth-telling in halakhic matters, discussed in the last chapter of my new book, has been of interest to many people. I did not want to be too lengthy in my response to Aryeh Frimer here, because it was not my own independent post. So let me now add some more details. DG reminded me of the following source. According to R. Jacob Moellin, when the Talmud states that a law is rabbinic but a verse is brought as an asmachta, this was done so as to mislead the people into thinking that it is a Torah law so that they would observe it more carefully.[13] In other words, the Sages were engaging in falsehood for a higher purpose.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Frimer claimed is not part of mainstream halakhic thought, a point which I disputed. It also is very relevant to my discussion of the dispute between the Hatam Sofer and R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes regarding “raising the prohibition”. Here are the Maharil’s words, as quoted by his student.

כל היכא דאיתמר מדרבנן הוא וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא, הכי פירושו ודאי תקנתא דרבנן הוא והם יצאו ובדקו ומצאו להם סמך מקרא, וסמכו דבריהם עליו כדי להחזיקם שיהיו סבורים דהוא מדאורייתא ויחמירו בו, ולא אתו לזלזל ולהקל בדברי חכמים

In the notes to this text, the editor informs us that one of the manuscripts has a different version. Instead of כדי להחזיקם שיהיו סבורים it reads להטעות הבריות שהם סבורים. This text is even more explicit that the Sages were not being honest with the masses. This manuscript has a handwritten note explaining that instead of reading להטעות הבריות it should say להטעים לבריות because the word להטעות is a דבר מגונה . In other words, the person who made this “correction” was troubled by the explicit statement that the Sages would deceive people, even if it was for a higher cause.

If there is one thing people have learnt from my posts over the years, it is that whenever you find a passage that diverges radically from what others think is appropriate, you will find those who deny the passage’s authenticity. In this case, the most prominent of the deniers is R. Joseph Engel[14]:

לענ”ד לא מיסתברי כלל ולא אאמין כלל שיצאו מפה קדוש המהרי”ל ז”ל

R. Simhah Klein writes[15]:

וכי ישקרו חז”ל לחזק דבריהם שיהיו סבורין דהוא דאורייתא

However, R. Eliyahu Bohbut is not at all bothered by the claim of the Maharil that the Sages engaged in a form of deception vis-à-vis the masses. After quoting the passage he explains matter-of-factly[16]:

כלומר דאסמכתא באה כביכול “להטעות” את העם שיסברו דאיכא איסור דאורייתא “ויחמירו בו”

Regarding one of the other matters I discussed in the book, namely, so-called “Orthodox history”, the folllowing appears in Divrei David (p. 30a), a collection of teachings of R. David Moses Friedman, the first Chortkover Rebbe.

פ”א סיפרו לפניו על איזה מעשה שאדמ”ור מרוזין זי”ע סיפר אותו פעם בסינגון זה ופעם בסיגנון אחר אמר על זה מרן אדמ”ור זי”ע שהסיפורי מעשיות שמספרים הצדיקים הוא לפי מה שצריך באותו שעה

This is an acknowledgment that the stories told by the rebbes are not really history, as they are designed to serve the needs of the present. As I think most people today realize, haredi “historical” writing in general is as much about the present as the past, and it is precisely because of this that authors feel it is legitimate to cover up or even alter the historical record in order to best serve the religious needs of the present.

Finally, a few people have asked about what I wrote on p. 244, that the strand of Jewish tradition that countenances falsehood “deserves to be understood in a sympathetic manner as well”. This does not mean that people need to agree with those who countenance falsehood, and I certainly do not. However, in writing an academic study as opposed to a polemic, it is important to recognize that approaches that today we might regard as unacceptable, were viewed very differently in other times and cultures (and for some, these “other times and cultures” continue into our own day). I am interested in understanding what leads people to diverge so dramatically from a value that I regard as important. In my book I did not set out to judge them, but in a sympathetic manner, i.e, with a sensitivity to their worldview, attempt to understand them. (When I used the word “sympathetic”, I did not mean that I approved of what I was describing, only that I was sensitive to the motivations behind the approach.) By the same token, when I see that great figures from earlier years have written troubling things about non-Jews or women, I also approach this in a sympathetic manner, understanding that for these people, living in a vastly different time and often suffering under terrible anti-Semitism, it made sense that they would express certain thoughts that today pretty much everyone regards as unacceptable. One need not be a complete historicist to acknowledge that all people are influenced by their era, for good and for bad. This is what I mean by understanding in a sympathetic manner.

Coming Soon: R. Ysoscher Katz and Modern Orthodox Halakhah; The Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Dispute Regarding the Historicity of the Hanukkah Miracle; R. Steinman and the Messianic Belief; R. Mazuz’s Short-Lived Entry into Politics; and a response to R. Aharon Lopiansky’s article in Dialogue.

What this means is that the item in question had a picture of a woman’s private parts. The Israelite women would have their husbands look at it in order to sexually excite them before they had marital relations. Since this pornographic viewing was for a good purpose, it was permitted for these items to be donated for use in building the Tabernacle. Here is the original text.

Those who want to see the book in its entirety can view it here.

 New Seforim and Books 2015

by Eliezer Brodt

What follows is a list of new seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. Some of the titles are brand new others are a bit older. I am well aware that there are new works worth mentioning that are not included.  Due to lack of time I cannot keep track of every book of importance nor comment properly on each and every work. I just try to keep the list interesting. For some of the works listed I am able to provide a Table of Contents or a sample feel free to email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com. I hope you enjoy!

א. חומש ויקרא עם ביאור מעט צרי על תרגום אונקלוס, רמו עמודים

ב.  מדרש אסתר רבה, מהדיר
יוסף תבורי וארנון עצמון, קלג + 284 עמודים ,מכון שכטר, [ראה כאן
וכאן]

ג. מדרש חדש על התורה [מהדיר: גילה וכמן], עא +297 עמודים,
מכון שכטר

ד. משלי עם רש”י [על פי כ”י] עם ד’ פירושים קדמונים,
מראה רחל, מאת ר’ ישראל הרצג, ור’ יוסף קמנצקי, ריד עמודים

 ה. ספר חסידים, כתבי
יד פארמא ורומא, מכון אוצר הפוסקים,  תקנא
עמודים +234 עמודים מפתחות

ו. ספר המכתם, ברכות פסחים, ראש השנה [כולל מבוא חשוב מידידי
דר’ פנחס רוט], הוצאת אהבת שלום

ז. צרור החיים לר’ אברהם סבע [בעל ה’צרור המור’] על מסכת אבות
[מכ”י, על פרקים ד-ו], מכון בן צבי, 211 עמודים

ח. ספר הגור, פירוש קדמון על פירוש רש”י לתורה, שמות, רכד
עמודים

ט. ר’ משה ן’ מכיר, סדר היום, עם גלי’ עץ ארז, מאת ר’ אברהם
דויטש, תתה עמודים

י. ר’ חיים ויטל, דרך חיים, אהבת שלום, כולל ק’ שנות חיים על
ר’ חיים ויטל, נד+פד עמודים

יא. שפתי דעת, דרשות על התורה, לבעל הכלי יקר, מכון עצי
אלמוגים, ב’ חלקים [כולל מבוא חשוב עליו]

יב. ר’ יחיאל מיכל, נזר הקודש, על מדרש בראשית רבה, ג’ חלקים,
מכון זכרון אהרן

יג. רבי כליפא בן מלכה, כף נקי השלם, 444 עמודים [כולל חומר
חשוב]

יד. שמחת בית השואבה להגר”א, ר’ נחמיה פעפער,  מכון הגר”א, רסג עמ’ +  ספר ההספדים על הגר”א, קסג עמודים

טו. תהלים עם פי’ מדרש חכמים לרבנו פנחס מפאלאצק, [על פי
כ”י ודפוס ראשון],  תפח עמודים

טז. ר’ חיים רפאפורט, זכר החיים, וזכר שמחה, לר’ שמחה רפאפורט,
שם עולם,  73+ 387+ 114 עמודים

יז. ר’ יוסף עהרענבערג, דברי אמת דרושים, ילקוט דברי אמת, תקפג
עמודים

יח. ר’ מרדכי סופר, סופר המלך, [בית אפרים, פליטת
סופריהם:מאמרים, פאר הסופר: תולדותיו], רצא עמודים

יט. ר’ צדוק הכהן, צדקת הצדיק עם מקורות וציונים, תלב עמודים

כ. ר’ שמעון הארקי, שבעים תמרים, על צוואת רבינו יהודה החסיד
ז”ל, כולל הערות ע”י ר’ פינחס וואלהענדלער, רמז עמודים

כא. ר’ יוסף זונדל הוטנר, בכורי יוסף, כולל פרקי חיים,
שו”ת וחידושים, תשובות חדשות מכ”י וחידושי יו”ד, רלז עמודים

כב. אור שמח, מדע אהבה זמנים, עם ביאורים והערות ‘אורה ושמחה’,
תתקלז עמודים

כג. טוטפות, אוסף כתבי ידות, י”ל לקראת שמחת הבר מצוה של
יאיר מנצור, עה עמודים

כד. ר’ מאיר אריק, טל תורה, הגהות הערות וביאורים על ש”ס
בבלי וירושלמי, כולל הערות מראה מקומות השוואות, מפתחות והוספות מכ”י,  תרפו עמודים

כה. גנזים ושו”ת חזון איש חלק ד, תסג עמודים

כו. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, מקראי קודש שבת, ב, שי עמודים

כז. ר’ אברהם פעסין, תמורת איל, מסכת מגילה, תשיז עמודים

כח. לצדדין קתני, ר’ שאול אלתר, קובץ הערות והארות שנכתבו על
צדדי הספרים תפ עמודים

כט. ר’ שלום לוין, שיעורי הלכה למעשה, בשלחן ערוך הרב,
או”ח, תקלז עמודים

ל. ר’ אריה וסרמן, אוצר הכיפה, ב’ חלקים, הלכה, מנהג חקר
ועיון, תרכו+תשפב עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים]

לא. שיעורי רבנו משולם דוד הלוי, דרוש ואגדה, ביאורי תפילה
עובדות, עניני השעה, תשיד עמודים

לב. אעלה בתמר, מתורת בריסק, משולחנו של מרן רבינו בעל אילת
השחר, רפא עמודים

לג.קונטרס ט”ו בשבט, בהלכה ואגדה, קטז עמודים

 לד. ר’ יעקב בלוי, ברכת
יעקב, הלכות ברכות ותפילה, שיט עמודים

לה. איש על העדה, ב הליכות והנהגות של רבינו הגרי”ש
אלישיב זצוק”ל, רצז עמודים

לו. ר’ חיים פאללאק, מבאר השבת, סעודת ליל שבת קודש, תשלט
עמודים

לז. אנציקלופיה תלמודית, כרך לד, לא ילבש- לא תעשה [ניתן לקבל
תוכן הענינים]

לח. ר’ מרדכי גרוס, אדמת קודש, הלכות והליכות התפלה וההשתטחות
על ציוני קדמונינו גדולי ישראל, תתסח עמודים

לט. ר’ משה גלביין, פני החמה, ביאורים וחידושים לסימני מנין
הפסוקים, רלא עמודים

מ. ר’ יעקב סקוצילס, קונטרס אהל יעקב על הלכות שנים מקרא ואחד
תרגום, קט עמודים

מא. המעין גליון 212

מב. היכל הבעש”ט, גליון לו

מג. מן הגנזים, ספר שלישי, אהבת שלום, תכב עמודים

מד. אסיף ב, [ב’ חלקים]

מה. המשביר א , [מוקדש לתורת ר’ עובדיה יוסף] [ניתן לקבל תוכן
הענינים]

א. ר’ משה שבת, השתלשלות התורה [ספרד-מזרח], כולל חומר חשוב על
זמן הגאונים בדגש על ישיבות ספרד, תנ עמודים

ב. ר’ חנוך טוביאס, סופה וסערה, הפרשיות הגדולות שהסיערו את
עולם ההלכה, ראשון בסדרה [מהדורה שניה], 126 עמודים [ר’ סעדיה גאון ור’ אהרן בן
מאיר הירושלמי המזויף ‘הלעיטהו לרשע וימות’]

ג. ר’ חנוך טוביאס, סופה וסערה, הפרשיות הגדולות שהסיערו את
עולם ההלכה, רביעי בסדרה, 160 עמודים [מל ולא טבל גוי של שבבת או יהודי של שבת
מצה מריבה- מצות מכונה חמץ גמור או הידור מצוה מאבק ופולמוס סביב היתר המכירה]

ד. יעקב דינקל, מערכות השמיטה, השתלשלות שמירת השביעית בארץ
הקודש וסקירת שנות השמיטה משנת תק”ב, 388 עמודים

ה. אהרן סורקסקי, החוט המשולש, שלושת הגאונים אדירי התורה, ר’
דוד פרידמן, ר’ יצחק אלחנן ספקטר, רבי יצחק יעקב רבינוביץ מפניבז’, רנא עמודים

ו. חרבא דמשה, מהדיר יובל הררי, 213 עמודים [הדפסה שנייה]

ז. המקרא בפרשנות חז”ל, יואל ועמוס, יצחק פנקובר ומנחם בן
ישר, בר אילן, 928 עמודים

ח. קובץ על יד, כרך כג, [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים]

ט. שמא פרידמן, מחקרי לשון ומינוח בספרות התלמודית, האקדמיה
ללשון העברית, 565 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים]

י. מנחם קרן-קרץ, מרמורש סיגט, אורתודוקסיה קיצונית ותרות
יהודית חילונית למרגלות הרי הקרפטים, מפעל דב סדן, 316 עמודים

יא. יונתן גרוסמן, אברהם סיפורו של מסע, ידיעות ספרים, 566
עמודים

יב. יעקב ברנאי, המראה של אירופה, פרקים בתולדות הקהילה
היהודית באזמיר במאות השבע עשרה והשמונה עשרה, [כולל בין השאר הרבה חומר על ה’כנסת
הגדולה’], כרמל 433 עמודים

יג. הספרייה של תנועת ההשכלה, יצירתה של רפובליקת הספרים בחברה
היהודית במרחב הדובר גרמנית, עם עובד, עורכים: שמואל פיינר, זהר שביט ועוד, 503
עמודים

יד. עזגר גולד, על הנסים ועל הטבע, עיון פילוסופי בספרות
ההלכה, בר אילן 334 עמודים

טו. בנימין בראון, תנועת המוסר הליטאית, אישים ורעיונות,
אוניברסיטה משודרת 178 עמודים

טז. יצחק מייטליס, פרשת דרכים, מבט ארכאולוגי וגאוגרפי בפרשיות
השבוע, מגיד, 430 עמודים

יז. אריה מורגנשטרן, דוחקי הקץ משיחיות לאחר המשבר השבתאי,
מחקרים ומקורות, 559 עמודים

יח. אבינועם רוזנק, הגיונות במחשבת ישראל, בעקבות שיעוריו של
אביעזר רביצקי, מרכז זלמן שזר, 386 עמודים

יט. אקס ליבריס, גיש עמית, קיבוץ המאוחד, 220
עמודים

כ. היסטוריה מתנגשת וקיום משותף, פרספקטיבות חדשות על המפגש
היהודי  פולני, עורך דניאל בלטמן, מגנס,
396 עמודים

כא. יואל בן נון, המקור הכפול, השראה וסמכות במשנת הרב קוק
לאחד את הבלתי מתאחד, ספריית  הילל בן
חיים, 438 עמודים

כב. רות קרא-איוונוב קניאל, קדשות וקדושות, אמהות המשיח במיתוס
היהודי, ספריית  הילל בן חיים 356 עמודים

כג. מ.מ. סילבר, בשליחות המערב, מבט אחר על ההיסטוריה היהודית
המודרנית, ספריית  הילל בן חיים, 334
עמודים

כד. מהר”ל אקדמות, פרקי חיים, משנה, השפעה, עורך אלחנן
ריינר, מרכז זלמן שזר, 602 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים] [מצוין]

כה. עדה רפפורט-אלברט, חסידים ושבתאים אנשים ונשים, מרכז זלמן
שזר, 522 עמודים

כו. אלי מוסקוביץ היהודים של הטיטאניק, כרמל, 222 עמודים

כז. חנה ארנדט גרשום שלום, חליפת מכתבים הוצאת בבל, 512 עמודים

כח. מיכל שאול, פאר תחת אפר, החברה החרדית בישראל בצל השואה
1945-1961, בן צבי, 492 עמודים

כט. סידרא כט, 194 עמודים

ל. דעת 78, 182 עמודים

לא. בד”ד 29

לב. נטועים 19 ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים

לג. עת לחננה, הרב צבי הירש קלישר וההתעררות לציון, עורך אסף
ידידיה, בן צבי, 275 עמודים

לד. נועם זדוף, מברלין לירושלים ובחזרה, גרשם שלום בין ישראל
וגרמניה, כרמל, 484 עמודים

1. Jordan S. Penkower, Masorah and text Criticism in the early Modern Mediterranean, Moses Ibn Zabara and Menahem De Lonzano, Magnes Press, 343 pp. [Beautiful!]

2. Haym Soloveitchik, Collected Essays 2, Littman Library, 425 pp. [A Masterpiece]

3. R. Jonathan Eibeschütz, And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, ואבוא היום אל העין, Critically Edited and Introduced by Paweł Maciejko, With Additional Studies by Noam Lefler, Jonatan Benarroch and Shai Alleson Gerberg, 2014, 360 pp.

4. Sabbatean Millenarianism in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of Moshe Abudiente’s Fin de los Dias, Avraham Elqayam המסע לקץ הימין: בשורת הגאולה השבתאית למשורר משה
בן גדעון אבּודיֶנטֵי, 504 pp.

5. Rabbi Klein, Lashon Hakodesh History, Holiness and Hebrew, Mosaica Press, 289 pp.

6. Rabbi Hool, The Challenge of Jewish History, the Bible, The Greeks and the Missing 168 Years, Mosaica Press, 256 pp.

7. Dovid Lichtenstein, Headlines: Halachic Debates of Current Events, OU Press, 462 pp.

8. Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz, Penn Press, 334 pp.

9. Marc Saperstein, Leadership and conflict: Tensions in Medieval and Early Modern Jewish History and Culture, Littman Library, 379 pp.

10. David B. Ruderman, A Best Selling Hebrew Book of the Modern era: The Book of the Covenant of Pinhas Hurwitz and its remarkable Legacy, University of Washington, 172 pp.

11. Michael J. Broyde and Ira Bedzow, The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Mishna Berura, Academic Studies Press, 387 pp.

12. Dialogue 5

13. Hakirah 18

My recent post here was more popular than my typical post. I base this statement on the fact that I received more emails from readers than usual and the post was picked up by a variety of different websites. The part dealing with the censorship of Rashbam was translated into Hebrew here (with one of the commenters calling for a herem to be placed on ArtScroll)[ and see also here.

ArtScroll has now issued its response. The following has been sent out to those who wrote to ArtScroll about the censorship.

Let us make clear at the outset, ArtScroll has total and uncompromising respect for Chazal and the classic commentators. We do not censor them. Every one of their words is holy, and we have never deigned to tamper with their sacred texts.

For an understanding of the matter under discussion, it is important to present the background of the published versions of Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah.

·      Rashbam’s commentary was first printed in 1705, based on the only existing manuscript of his virtually complete commentary on the Chumash. That manuscript began with Parashas Vayeira.

·      Subsequent editions were based on that 1705 printing.

·      In 1882, David Rosin published a new annotated edition of Rashbam’s commentary.

·   The new edition also included a commentary on the Parshiyos Bereishis, Noach, and Lech-Lecha based on comments culled by Rosin from Rashbam’s other writings as well as selections from other works that cite Rashbam. Additionally, this 1882 edition included material taken from a newly-discovered manuscript containing one page of commentary ascribed to Rashbam, on only the first chapter of Bereishis ending in the middle of verse 1:31.

·      This manuscript fragment includes an exegesis that appears several times – an exegesis that Ibn Ezra, in his famous Iggeres HaShabbos, vehemently condemns, stating, that it had been put forth by “minim” (heretics). Furthermore, a later exegesis in the same manuscript page (on verse 14) directly contradicts that earlier exegesis.

In our Czuker edition of Mikraos Gedolos, we wished to provide the Torah public with the fullest version of the Rashbam’s commentary, so rather than beginning with Parashas Vayeira, we incorporated additional material from the 1882 Rosin edition, from the beginning of Bereishis. However, given Ibn Ezra’s attribution of this exegesis to “minim,” coupled with a completely contradictory exegesis in verse 14, it is questionable whether Rashbam actually proposed the exegesis attributed to him.  Because of these factors we added only those writings attributed to Rashbam whose authenticity have not been questioned. Far from “censorship,” we have added to the older, standard Mikraos Gedolos editions.

In my response I will only deal with the matter at hand, that is, the censorship of Rashbam’s commentary, not with the larger matter of whether ArtScroll really has “total and uncompromising respect for . . . the classic commentators.” I have dealt with this latter point in previous posts and offered evidence that contradicts ArtScroll’s assertion.

Let me begin by saying that the one word that best describes ArtScroll’s statement is “chutzpah”. Here we have an explanation from Rashbam that has been discussed and dealt with by some of the greatest Torah scholars for well over a century, yet ArtScroll feels that it knows better than all of them and thus has the authority to simply delete passages from the commentary. If that isn’t chutzpah, I don’t know what is.

Rashbam’s brother, Rabbenu Tam, famously attacked those who deleted or emended passages in the Talmud based on their own understanding.[1] Rabbenu Tam realized that if everyone had the freedom to do with the text as he wished, it wouldn’t be long before the Talmud was irrevocably damaged. As such, anyone who has a suggestion about a mistake in the text is free to add it in the form of a note or in a commentary, but he is not permitted to alter the text itself. The only honest thing would have been for ArtScroll to have included the “objectionable” passages and then explain why they feel that these texts are not authentic.

The fact that ArtScroll sees the passages that it deleted as heretical is irrelevant. Great people have regarded texts of the Rambam, of R. Kook, and of many others as heretical. Does that mean that we can start deleting these texts? There are aharonim and at least one rishon who believe that there are passages in the Talmud that were inserted by people intent on mocking the Sages (details will be in a future post). Does that mean that if ArtScroll shares this opinion it is entitled to delete these passages as well?

As I mentioned, the chutzpah is seen in the fact that ArtScroll feels that it knows better than such great figures as R. David Zvi Hoffmann[2] and R. Yaakov Kamenetsky.[3] Both of these men were not simply great talmudists but were also great biblical scholars, and they expound Rashbam’s view. It never occurred to them to delete the passages or to claim that they aren’t authentic. Cassuto was another great biblical scholar and he believed that Rashbam’s understanding of the verse is correct.[4]

Every student of Torah is taught the virtue of humility. What this means is that if you don’t understand something you seek out people greater than yourself to hear their perspective. How come ArtScroll didn’t follow this route before taking the drastic step of deleting the comments of Rashbam?

Unfortunately, if ArtScroll’s mikraot gedolot becomes the standard, anyone who uses the commentaries of R. Hoffmann, R. Kamenetsky, Cassuto and so many others will be very confused. These commentaries will cite Rashbam and explain his words, but the reader who opens up his ArtScroll mikraot gedolot to see what Rashbam says “inside” won’t be able to find it. If he doesn’t read the Seforim Blog, he won’t know what is going on.

For over a hundred years people studied Rashbam’s commentary without any problem. Different interpretations were offered, all in order to make sense of Rashbam’s words. Around fifteen years ago a few people, none of whom have any scholarly or religious standing, started making noise that there is heresy in Rashbam’s commentary on Genesis chapter 1.[5] This led a couple of haredi publishers to delete some or all of the “problematic” comments (different editions have different deletions).[6]

ArtScroll has chosen to follow this regrettable path. When this nonsense first began with the haredim in Israel, the great R. Yehoshua Mondshine, whose recent passing is an enormous loss for all, published the following letter in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael.[7]

The disdain he shows in this letter would be magnified if he were writing about ArtScroll, as one would expect ArtScroll to know better. It is unfortunate that ArtScroll did not heed his final words directed towards publishers inclined to censorship.

יש להתרות במו”לים שלא יהיו נחפזים “לצנזר” את פירוש הרשב”ם מכח סברות תמוהות וקלושות, ויחרדו לנפשם מאזהרות הקדמונים דלייטי ליד המגיה בספרים.

Following R. Mondshine’s letter, there appears a very lengthy letter by R. Menahem ben Shimon[8] explaining that Rashbam’s comments at the beginning of Genesis should not be controversial at all. He concludes by comparing censorship of Rashbam to the burning of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, and adds

יש בזה עזות מצח, וביזוי דברי הקדמונים, והתייחסות לדבריהם כאילו חלילה מדובר בתקליטור עם משחקים חינוכיים “בהכשר הרבנים”, וכיו”ב, וכבר הזהירונו חז”ל להיזהר בכבוד תלמידי חכמים שכל דבריהם כגחלי אש.

I have to acknowledge that some people are having a good chuckle right now at my expense. Call it naiveté, but I was convinced that the response of ArtScroll would be to admit the mistake, blame it on an error in “editing” or something like that, and correct matters in the next printing. That would have been a great outcome. I, more than many others, was shocked by ArtScroll’s response. 

In its response ArtScroll states: “[G]iven Ibn Ezra’s attribution of this exegesis to “minim,” coupled with a completely contradictory exegesis in verse 14, it is questionable whether Rashbam actually proposed the exegesis attributed to him.”

The first thing to note is that in the preface to the Iggeret ha-Shabbat, where Ibn Ezra explains what led him to write the work, he does not attribute this exegesis to “minim”. ArtScroll would have you believe that Ibn Ezra stated that the passages they have deleted are heretical interpolations. Even if this was the case, it would only be Ibn Ezra’s opinion. This would not entitle ArtScroll to delete the passages, just like they don’t have the right to delete other passages that some commentator thought were not authentic. But in this case ArtScroll is simply wrong, and I hope that they are not intentionally misleading people. (I also hope that they informed the sponsor of the new mikraot gedolot that they intended to delete passages from Rashbam.[9])

Here is the text from Ibn Ezra.[10]

As you can see, Ibn Ezra responds very sharply to the interpretation mentioned by Rashbam. Although Rashbam is not mentioned by name, the standard view in traditional and scholarly circles is that Ibn Ezra was indeed directing his words at Rashbam and not at others who shared this perspective. This would explain his use of the words ולא תשא פני איש which would only be used with reference to an outstanding scholar.[11] David Kahana suggests that, as a sign of respect, Ibn Ezra does not mention Rashbam by name and he also does not curse the author of the explanation he is attacking.[12] He only curses the one who reads it aloud and the scribe who writes it. If Ibn Ezra was directing his comment against some heretic, we would expect him to curse this person, so the fact that he does not do so is quite significant and indeed points to Rashbam as the “addressee” of Ibn Ezra’s Iggeret ha-Shabbat.

Ibn Ezra never denies the authenticity of the interpretation he is responding to; he just attacks it. His attack on Rashbam’s view is just like Nahmanides’ attack on Maimonides’ view that the angels who came to Abraham were really just part of a prophetic vision. Nahmanides does not deny that Maimonides said this, but he does say that it is forbidden to accept what Maimonides says. It is the exact same thing here. Ibn Ezra is not denying that Rashbam offered the interpretation. He is simply saying that it is forbidden to accept this approach. (I should also add, since we are discussing a dispute between Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, that by any traditional measure Rashbam must be regarded as a more significant and authoritative figure than Ibn Ezra.)

ArtScroll also states that since Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis 1:14 contradicts what he says in the passages deleted by ArtScroll, this gives weight to their assumption that the other passages were not written by Rashbam but were instead inserted by some heretic. To begin with, since there are five[13] “problematic” comments and one “non-problematic” comment, perhaps it is the “non-problematic” comment to Genesis 1:14 that is to be regarded as inauthentic and should be removed. I say this only tongue and cheek, since ArtScroll should have realized two pretty basic things.

1. Rashbam often offers explanations, even in matters of halakhah, that are in line with the peshat of the text but diverge from the talmudic understanding. I understand that in some contemporary circles this would be regarded as heretical, since they assume that the meaning of the verse, especially in halakhic matters, can only be what the sages of the Talmud declare. Yet Rashbam had a different perspective, and he allowed for a peshat that diverges from what the Talmud states.

2. If you have contradictory explanations in the same chapter, the proper thing to do is to see if they can be reconciled before deciding that some of the comments are not authentic and can therefore be deleted. This was the approach of the great scholars of the last century who discussed Rashbam’s commentary. If ArtScroll had “uncompromising respect” for these figures, who devoted great time to understanding what Rashbam was saying, they would not have dared delete Rashbam’s comments, since by doing so they are in effect claiming that they know better than R. Hoffmann, R. Kamenetsky, and so many others.

Let me cite some other writers, including outstanding Torah scholars, who discussed Rashbam’s comments on when the day begins. In ArtScroll’s eyes this was all a big waste of time, since Rashbam never could have said what appears in his commentary. I guess we should all feel sorry for these Torah scholars that when they wrote they didn’t have ArtScroll around to set them straight. The more important question is why didn’t ArtScroll think that any of the explanations offered by these scholars were enough to save Rashbam’s comments from being deleted? (My own sense is that the individual who made the choice to censor Rashbam did not begin to understand the issue and was unaware of the sources referred to in this post.)

1. R. Menahem M. Kasher discusses Ibn Ezra’s attack on Rashbam and offers an explanation for Rashbam’s position, distinguishing between how the days were structured in the first six days of creation and what occurred afterwards.[14] R. Kasher also cites R. Pinhas Horowitz, Ha-Makneh to Kiddushin 37b, that before the giving of the Torah night came after day, and this can also be an explanation for Rashbam’s approach. In support of his assumption, R. Horowitz cites a verse not mentioned by Rashbam, Genesis 8:22:  ויום ולילה לא ישבתו. As you can see, in this verse night comes after day. (R. Horowitz repeats this explanation in his Panim Yafot to Genesis 8:22.) R. Moses Sofer cites this point from R. Horowitz and notes that even today it is only with regard to Jews that night precedes day, but for non-Jews the halakhah remains that day precedes night.[15]

R. Ezekiel Landau agrees with R. Horowitz that before the giving of the Torah the day did not start at night.[16] In support of this approach, R. Samuel Mirsky refers to Ugaritic literature which he regards as real evidence for Rashbam’s position.[17]

R. Moshe Malka also takes note of R. Horowitz’s position.[18]  Based on it he claims that

נחה שקטה תמיהתו של הראב”ע על הרשב”ם, כי הוא דבר על מעשה בראשית לפני מת”ת

R. Catriel David Kaplin also refers to R. Horowitz’ perspective and explains that Rashbam agrees with it.[19]

R. Kasher further cites R. Isaac Israeli (14th century) as agreeing with R. Horowitz. In his Yesod Olam[20] R. Israeli writes

וכן נהגו כל ישראל ממתן תורה ועד עתה להתחיל קדושת השבת ושאר ימי מקראי קודש מתחילת הלילה . . . ועל העיקר הנכון הזה יסדו לנו קדמונינו וקבעו בחשבון מולדות הלבנה ותקופת החמה.

R. Kasher calls attention to the words ממתן תורה ועד עתה and concludes that R Israeli is telling us that before the giving of the Torah the day began in the morning.

Finally, R. Kasher points to two separate rabbinic texts, one talmudic and one midrashic, that he feels can support Rashbam’s approach.

2. Da’at Mikra to Genesis 1:5 (p. 10 n. 168) explains that Rashbam’s understanding of when the day begins only refers to the six days of creation.

3. A different approach in explaining Rashbam is taken by R. Moshe Schwerd in a recent article in Or Yisrael.[21]

4. The Lubavitcher Rebbe refers to Rashbam’s explanation of when the day begins in order to illustrate how explanations in accord with peshat can contradict the accepted halakhah.[22]

5. R. Chaim Leib Zaks calls attention to the fact that two medieval authorities explain Genesis 1:5: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, just as Rashbam did, that is, that day comes before night.[23] The first is the commentary attributed to Rashi, Ta’anit 11b, s.v. למחר.[24] The second is the commentary attributed to Rashi, Nazir 7a s.v. התם.[25]

6. R. Eliyahu Katz, who served as rav of Bratislava under the Communists and later as chief rabbi of Be’er Sheva, published a number of interesting books which appear to be completely unknown. In his Emor ve-Amarta[26] he states that R. Judah ha-Nasi might also have held that according to the peshat night comes after day, and that Rashbam might have based his explanation on R. Judah’s opinion. He also points out that Rashi, Genesis 1:14 writes

שמוש החמה חצי יום ושמוש הלבנה חציו הרי יום שלם

This is a strange formulation since Rashi appears to be agreeing with Rashbam that the day – שמוש החמה – comes before the night – שמוש הלבנה.

After all we have seen, let us return to the issue of Ibn Ezra’s attack on Rashbam and ask why it was so harsh. After all, what is so terrible about explaining the peshat of the Torah even if it diverges from the accepted halakhah, an approach that is found in numerous commentators?

The significance of the example we have been discussing is that there were indeed sectarians who observed Shabbat from Saturday morning until Sunday morning. Rashbam’s interpretation was thus dangerous as it could have had real world implications by giving support to the anti-halakhic behavior just mentioned.

In his commentary to Exodus 16:25 Ibn Ezra refers to “many people, lacking in faith” who erred in this matter and did not start Shabbat on Friday night. He tells us that they based their mistaken approach on Genesis 1:5: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. In other words, they interpreted the verse in the same way that Rashbam did. Towards the end of Iggeret Shabbat, p. 171, he also mentions these “minim” who do not observe Shabbat beginning Friday night. It is thus easy to see why Ibn Ezra reacted so strongly and set out to uproot Rashbam’s interpretation.

Who were these sectarians Ibn Ezra refers to? Presumably the Mishawites, a group that we know started Shabbat on Saturday morning.[32] Benjamin of Tudela records meeting sectarians in Cyprus, again presumably Mishawites, who indeed observed the Shabbat in this fashion.[33]

In the last paragraph of the ArtScroll letter it states that from now on they will note that their text of Rashbam is the standard Vilna edition of 1898 with “emendations from the Rosin edition of 1882”. This is clearly obfuscation as we are not dealing here with any “emendations” suggested by Rosin. To repeat what the issue is: Rosin printed from manuscript Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1. This section of the commentary does not appear in the standard Vilna edition. ArtScroll chose to include Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1 in its recently published mikraot gedolot. However, ArtScroll also chose to delete those sections of the commentary it didn’t like, assuming (without any evidence) that these sections were written by heretics. This is censorship of  Rashbam. That is all people need to know.[34]

ArtScroll has done some great things. They have also done some pretty disappointing things. But as I said in the prior post, nothing comes close to this. Deleting comments of one of the greatest rishonim is simply outrageous. Some have said that what ArtScroll did is unforgivable. I think this is going too far. If ArtScroll acknowledges its error and reinserts that which has been removed, I think that we all would be very happy to put this behind us. One of the most important aspects of a Torah personality is the ability to recognize when one has made a mistake and rectify it. If ArtScroll is able to do this, it would lead to great admiration.

On the other hand, if ArtScroll refuses to acknowledge that it has made a terrible error, even after seeing the evidence presented in this post, then one must conclude that ArtScroll is knowingly suppressing the words of a great rishon. One can only hope that ArtScroll does not wish to have this blemish permanently attached to its name.

New Seforim
and Books 2014 (part two)

By: Eliezer
Brodt

Although
the world has been shifting more and more to e-books, seforim and Jewish books are
still being printed in full force in the Jewish world. What follows is a list
of new seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. Some of the
titles are brand new others are a bit older. I am well aware that there are new
works worth mentioning that are not included. 
Due to lack of time I cannot keep track of every book of importance nor
comment properly on each and every work. I just try to keep the list
interesting. For some of the works listed I am able to provide a Table of
Contents or a sample feel free to email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com. I hope
you enjoy!

קבצים

מחקר ועוד

English

New Book
Announcement: Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri (Volume Three)

By Eliezer
Brodt

I am very
happy to announce the recent publication of an important work, which will be of
great interest to readers of the Seforim blog. The third volume of, Amudim
be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, of Bar-Ilan
University’s Talmud department.

As I have
written in the past, Professor Spiegel is one of the most prolific writers in
the Jewish academic scene, authoring of over 160 articles and 18 books (16 of
those are publications for the first time of works which remained in
manuscript).  Many suspect he possesses Hashbot
Hakulmos (automatic writing).

His
articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects related to many areas of
Jewish Studies, including history of Rishonim, piyutim authored by
Rishonim, bibliography and minhaghim, to name but a few. His uniqueness
lies not only in the topics but also that his work has appeared in all types of
publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer,
Tarbiz, Sidra, Alei Sefer, Assufot, Teudah, Kovetz
Al Yad and also in many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such a Yeshurun,
Yerushasenu, Moriah, Sinai and Or Yisroel. It is
hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he
appears to be an expert!

He has
edited and printed from manuscript many works of Rishonim and Achronim on Massekhes
Avos and the Haggadah Shel Pesach. He is of the opinion, contrary
to that of some other academics, that there is nothing non-academic about
printing critical editions of important manuscript texts. Although there is a
known “belief” in the academic world, “publish or perish,” which some claim is
the cause of weak articles and books, at times, Spiegel’s prolific output does
nothing to damper the quality of his works. Another point unique to Speigel’s
writings, besides his familiarity with all the academic sources, he shows great
familiarity with all the classic sources from Chazal, Geonim, Rishonim and
Achronim, to even the most recent discussions in Charedi literature – this bekius
(breadth) was apparent well before the advent of search engines of Hebrew books
and Otzar Ha-hochmah. Alongside all this is his penetrating analysis and
ability to raise interesting points.

Some of
these articles were collected into a volume called Pischei Tefilah u-Mo’ad,
which was reviewed a few years back here
on the seforim blog. This volume is currently out of print.

One of
Professor Spiegel’s main areas of interest has been the History of the Jewish
Book. He has written numerous articles on the subject and even published
two books on this topic in a series called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri.  Volume one was first printed in 1996 and is
called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri: Haghot u-Maghim. It was
reprinted with numerous additions in 2005 (copies are still available). It was
reviewed by Dan Rabinowitz and me, a few years back here
on the Seforim Blog.

The second
volume is called Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri; Kesivah Vehatakah.
This volume is currently out of print and will hopeful be the subject of a book
review by Dan Rabinowitz and myself in the next few months.

I think
that anyone who has an interest in the Jewish Book will enjoy this work
immensely.

In the near
future I hope to review this work in depth. Next week the blog will feature
some sample pages of this new work.

For a short
time I will be selling copies of this work for $32. The price includes airmail
shipping (to the US UK or Canada). Copies are also available at Biegeleisen.
For more information about purchasing this work, feel free to contact me at
Eliezerbrodtatgmail.com

To get a
sense of what exactly this new book is about, I am posting the Table of Contents
here:

A Response
to Yaakov Rosenes

by  Menachem Lazar

Menachem Lazar is a postdoctoral researcher at the
University of Pennsylvania, studying applied mathematics and materials science.
 He has previously served as editor of Beit Yitzchak, an annual Talmud
publication of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary.

In a recent essay at the Seforim blog,
Yaakov Rosenes provides a fascinating window into some unfortunate trends in
the world of Jewish publishing.  In particular, Rosenes highlights how
technology has impacted not only how seforim are printed today, but also what seforim
are printed — today, every Tom, Dick, and Harry can print a sefer, and
increasingly many of them choose to do so.  While much of what he writes
comes as no surprise to those who have even casually followed the printed
literature in recent years, the concrete numbers and anecdotes he provides are
certainly illuminating.  

On one of his points I
would like to suggest a “correction”.  In comparing the secular
and Torani worlds, Yaakov Rosenes focuses more on popular printing than on a
more relevant one: academic.  Like talmidei chachamim, scholars of various
fields attempt to promote their work, and to convince others of its importance;
to appropriate his words, “to open up a dialogue with a readership”.
 Likewise, “we have to concentrate more to understand what we
read” appears similarly true of much academic scholarship as it is of
Torah, much moreso than, say, of the Wall Street Journal or Time magazine.
 It might pay then to contrast that world of publication with that in the
Torah world.

I believe that two major
factors — both largely lacking in the world of Torah publishing — enable the
academic world to succeed in promoting quality of publication far beyond what
we can say for Torah printing.  First, there is a wide-spread appreciation
for the distinction between “old” and “new” material.
 Responsible journals typically aim to print new results and ideas.
 Old material is by no means unimportant, but no research journal will
print a routine review of Lagrange multipliers or differential curves, in the
way that many Torah journals might print your chavrusa’s summary of hilchose
chol hamo’ed or of the sugya of kinyan meshicha.  Of course there is a
wide range in quality in what is printed in both worlds, but the goal, at
least, of high-quality journals in the academic world is to mostly print new
ideas.  This can hardly be said for Torah journals, and by extension Torah
books.  Open a typical Torah journal and merely peruse the table of
contents: b’inyan ptur tamun b’esh, b’din get meuseh, etc.  Very general titles,
which often indicate articles that can be summarized: “Moshe learned this
sugya and here are some of his ha’arose”.  There is a reason why we
can find 90% of the same material in 90% of the printed literature.  Of
course, most readers do not have time or interest to read through hundreds of
pages to find the genuinely original pieces, and so the diamonds get lost in
the rough.  And there’s lots of rough.

This, of course, is
related to a second difference between the academic and Torah world — quality
control through peer review.  Aside from weak journals, that oftentimes
solicit and even guarantee publication (sometimes for a fee!), academic
journals typically enlist the aid of a network of people in the field to
referee submissions before they are accepted for publication.  Other
researchers, from graduate students and postdocs to Fields medalists and Nobel
laureates, will read a submission and advise the editors of the journals
regarding its suitability for publication: Is it well written?  Does it
appear to be well-researched?  Does it make a valuable contribution to the
field?  Is it readable to a non-specialist?  At the same time, the
referees also provide important feedback to the authors: “The paper’s
central point might be stated more clearly”, “The paper does not
explain the meaning of term x”, “The paper would benefit from
additional discussion of an additional related point”.  The effect of
this review process is thus two-fold.  First, low-quality articles —
those that are poorly written or otherwise bring little to the table — are
filtered out before the printing stage.  Indeed, the acceptance rate at
PRL, a representative first-tier journal from the physics community, is under
35% [1]; in contrast, during my years of editing and printing the Beit
Yitzchok, the rate was closer to 98%.  Second, the articles that are
printed are often made substantially stronger.  The net result is that
readers are not burdened with the significant challenge of extensive searches
through piles of low-quality work, and instead are treated to work befitting of
their time.  It is unfortunate that at this point, no similar
infrastructure exists in the world of Torah publishing.  True, there are
good Torah journals with talented editors, but as far as I can tell, the
editors of a given journal are typically a tiny group of people doing the job
of what can only effectively be done by one much larger.  

Some people will respond
that indeed our most serious talmidei chachamim are too busy with other
responsibilities to contribute to such a task.  To those people I will ask
the following.  Consider a typical academic employed by a typical research
institution.  Aside from their own research, teaching, administrative and
myriads of other responsibilities, he or she also makes time to referee several
articles a year.  Why do they do that?  I don’t believe that the
answer is prestige or academic promotion, as refereeing occurs by and large
anonymously, and is generally of little value to academic advancement.  Instead,
I believe that academics feel a responsibility to their field to ensure that it
is being done “right”, and that random idiots aren’t getting up there
and passing off their bunk as quality scholarship.  In a word, they feel a
responsibility to preserve the “integrity of the mesorah”.  It
seems to me that talmidei chachamim do not, generally speaking, practice this
same level of shmira when it comes to Torah.  Instead, there is a polite
gentility that goes around, under the guise of which any person’s Torah is ok
— anyone can give a shiur, any person can write a Torah article, any person
can write a sefer.  It is the same politeness that leads to haskamose that
read: “I haven’t read this sefer, but I see that this person is a very
qualified talmid chacham, and chazaka ein chaver motzi mtachas yado davar
sh’eino metukan, and yehi ratzon that he should continue to be marbitz
Torah.”  This passive approval is a polite way of avoiding serious
engagement with the Torah of others.  It is certainly not an effective
shmira even if it temporarily avoids some hurt feelings.  

Publishing a quality
journal — the kind that people are genuinely excited to receive and read — is
an admirable and feasible task, and one that would be a very worthwhile
contribution to the world of lomdei and ohavei Torah.  But I believe that
this cannot happen in the current intellectual climate, one that does not seem
to appreciate the distinction between old and new, and in which tacit wholesale
approval of scholarship is interpreted as genuine respect.  When the
climate changes, the publication of high-quality journals — and books — can
become a warmly welcomed reality.

[1]  https://journals.aps.org/prl/authors/editorial-policies-practices.

By: Yaakov Rosenes

Since the advent of the Internet, the nature of reading and publishing has changed radically in the secular world. Also today Jewish publishing is something entirely new. Now that it is acceptable to bring a lap-top computer into Kollelim we find literally thousands of Avrechim working on original (and frequently worthwhile) Seforim. Today over 75% of the 4000 new Torani titles appearing annually are privately printed by the author. At least half of these books are sold from homes. Many authors are experimenting with print-on-demand technologies and printing smaller editions to lower their costs. Other authors are posting their Seforim online as PDF files or as e-books. In short Jewish publishing which used to be dominated by 10 major publishers and distributors has become a market with thousands of players. Store owners have no shelf-space for new titles. Readers are jaded from too much material. Authors are frustrated because they can’t sell or even give-away their Sefer. Fortunately and unfortunately every Rabbi, Scholar, Admor, Mashpia, Maran and Baba has created his own literature and is trying to attract own readership. In short today’s Torani publishing has become a free-for-all.

In Israel alone 50 every week are recorded by the book depository department at JNUL. I terms of cost at an average of $2000 per book means that Klal Yisrael invests over $5,000,000 per year in printing new Seforim! This number has doubled every 5 years for the last 30 years but the readership is growing at a much slower rate than the “printer ship”.

From 1K to 10K. It depends on the size of the book, the size of the edition and how it is bound. A Soft cover edition of 500 copies can cost as little as $1000. A hardcover edition of 500 pages of 1000 copies can cost over $10,000 to print in Israel.

Self-explanatory, when your brother-in-law gets a copy of your new Sefer and puts it straight on the top back shelf of his bookcase it means even your closest audience has no time for your creation. The point of printing a Sefer is to open up a dialogue with a readership. Unfortunately today most new Seforim are what is called “vanity publishing” which sadly turns into a monologue between the author and himself.

Everybody who is sitting in a Bet Midrash with a lap-top or tablet computer is probably working on a Sefer. On any typical morning in my Kolel there are at least 10 Avrechim with computers on the desk. Some of them even wear their Tefillen while they edit their Sefer. Any first time author should think many times before he starts to work on a Sefer. Is it original? Who will read it? Don’t I need an editor? Why is my Rav encouraging me ?  Maybe he thinks it will be therapeutic? What does my wife or my father-in-law or my brother-in-law really think? If the answer is not clear to any of the above questions please do not print more than 50 copies, soft cover.

When I came to Israel in the 1970’s we still used a monotype press attached to a mechanical keyboard which set letters in molten lead. Today offset printing presses are prevalent where pages are prepared in a phototypesetting machine copied by a huge negative camera and then taped into paper frames to expose on to printing plates. This method works for a press-run of thousands. Since the invention of the laser printer in the 1980’s virtually anyone can print his own primitive book. So today when a new author can expect to sell or give away only 200
copies at the most it pays to skip the typesetting and the plates and to print the pages via a quality commercial digital printer or online printing service.

At least one major chain of brick and mortar bookstores has gone bankrupt and several others are faltering. Amazon.com is selling more e-books than printed books ! Many magazine, newspaper and paperback publishers are putting their major resources into digital editions. However only a few have actually shut down their print editions. In the Torani world we have Shabbos and we have to concentrate more to understand what we read. Therefore the market for the new editions of: Humashim, Mishnayot, Shasim, Turim and Shulkan Aruch etc. is healthy and growing. However the self publishing authors (many of whom are not only very sincere but also very talented) is the where the market is crashing. One bookstore owner told me when he sees an author coming in his front door with a pile of Seforim he runs out the backdoor in order not to embarrass him since he doesn’t have any shelf space for yet another Avrech with yet another new Sefer.

The web is not a place to read anything serious. Most people read the opening line of the opening page and then surf ahead. The media is simply too full of distractions to make a pleasant reading experience. Most people if they want to concentrate on a text will print it and take it with them to really absorb what it says. Only a small percentage of today’s readers really read books – most of us skim the first few pages and head for the newspaper.

Light reading perhaps. Giving away a chapter is a good way to promote a Sefer. For serious reading or learning – It’s suicide. Many people will download the file but very few will print it and even fewer will actually read it. As Yannai HaMelech noted after he wiped out Hachmei Yisrael.”The Sefer Torah is there in the corner – If anybody wants to learn it he can come and use it. RH”L

Yes and No, if the publishers will make some adjustments they have a good chance to survive. First of all the role of the publishers is to select the best talents and to prints the best Seforim. Most of our Jewish publishers became vanity publishers in the 70’s and 80’s. A particular publisher I once worked for used to dig up unpublished manuscripts of questionable value and then look for rich and naive descendants who would pay a pretty penny to see their grandfather’s Sefer in print and then try to convince the Velt that this was a major work from a Gadol
of the last generation. Other publishers specialized in finding new and wealthy authors who would subvent (plus some healthy profit) an entire edition of their new work and then market it as a major masterpiece and 2 years later quietly dump the entire stock for a song on a naive distributor. The publishers who we see today are still in business and going strong are the ones who didn’t use these tricks but simply read carefully what they publish.

In my opinion the future of Jewish publishing eerily echoes the past. Before the printing press every reader hired a Sofer to copy his Rav’s Sefer, specifically for his own personal study. Copying books wasn’t a business, only the Sofer was paid for his time. Recently I have met several Talmidei Hachamim who are making use of scanned books to print out exactly what they want to learn and then they bind their print-outs into folders. Others bring them to a professional book-binder.

Are we returning to the époque where books are copied one at a time for personal study only? I believe so. Maybe this is a good thing? Shouldn’t Jewish study be freed from the false paradigm of “the best seller” which is a very non-Jewish commercial concept? Shouldn’t we free ourselves from our own enslavement of having to see every book on the market and consciously tune ourselves into what we really can focus on. Living in an age of so much noise shouldn’t one train himself to concentrate on the music?

Additional related links about this topic: See here, here, here & here.

Megale Temirin, was first published in Vienna in 1819, and is considered one of the sharpest and wittiest pieces of Jewish literature written in the first half of the nineteenth century. It is perhaps the most important piece of Hebrew prose composed before the stories of Mendele Mocher Seforim. A sly and complex story deriding Hasidism and Hasidim, it is told through the correspondence between the beadles of Hasidic courts and contemporary rabbis. It presents a dark picture of avaricious frauds and swindlers whose main concern was control over territory and the souls of believers, a goal achieved by beguiling the authorities and attacking all opponents. Perl lends his book a ‘Hasidic’ feel both in its physical design and in its language, presenting a Maskilic version of the classic work Shivchei Habesht– that lays Hasidism bare so that no reader will ever be able to look at that, or any other Hasidic book, in the same way again.

In addition to the book’s satiric sting, which would have been enough to bring its readers a dual pleasure, Perl’s hints at contemporary people and places, hidden within anagrams and numerological tricks. With the unraveling of these clues, which also include the use of actual Hasidic sources, the book is a valuable, contemporary view of historical reality. A meticulous reading of the book may therefore open a window on the hidden worlds of Hasidism and the Haskalah at the start of the nineteenth century.

The first volume (Imagined Hasidism) of this collection serves as an introduction to the complex satirical writings of Josef Perl of Tarnopol (1773-1839). At the center of the book stands an analysis of the satires, Megale Temirin (1819) and Bochen Tzadik (1838), including a systematic treatment of the ‘characters’ in the central works and a discussion of the dozens of manuscripts to be found in the Perl Archive in Jerusalem. Perl’s writings are analyzed here in the fuller context of Hebrew and Yiddish literature in general and Maskilic and Hasidic literature in particular, as well as other polemical writings and governmental records critical of Hasidism. The study thus presents a complex and nuanced picture of the relationship between literature and history, between the anti-Hasidic reports and the more complicated historical reality, and lays the groundwork for further research into the genre of nineteenth-century Maskilic satire.

The second and third volumes (Megale Temirin) present for the first time an annotated edition of Megale Temirin. It is based on the first
edition and the scattered manuscripts and it includes a comparison to its Yiddish translation. The book is accompanied by appendices on its origins and contents, including fundamental treatments of several passages: an explication of the encoded names, the Hasidic sources used by the author, and the variants found in the manuscripts and in the only edition of the book in Yiddish.

The editor of the book, Professor Jonatan Meir, teaches in the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought at Ben-Gurion University. He has published numerous articles and books on the Haskalah of Eastern Europe, Hasidism, and a number of varied topics in twentieth-century Kabbalah.

For a Table of Contents or more information about purchasing this work, feel free to contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

 The set of three books is on sale for $62 before shipping. Shipping is available worldwide.