There has been much talk lately about the so called Shidduch crisis. Various initiatives have been proposed to address this problem, all of which are well meaning and well thought out. Many might be surprised to learn that an interesting approach was suggested by a 12 year old girl in the town of Frankfurt on Oder way back in 1699. This approach was based on a Pasuk in Yirmiyahu which deals with Messianic times.

We are all familiar with the 31st chapter of Yirmayahu. The first 19 pesukim of this Perek comprise the Haftorah of the second day of Rosh Hashana. The Navi begins, “Koh Amar Hashem, Matzah Chain BaMidbar”. The Haftorah proceeds to lay out a vision of Hashem’s love for the Jewish people and its eventual return to Tziyon, a fitting theme for a day in which we ask Hashem to grant us a good year. The stirring Pasuk of “HaVain Yakir Li Ephraim” concludes the Haftorah, but the Perek continues with Yirmiyahu’s vision of Yemos HaMoshiach.Yirmiyahu speaks of the Jewish people in Galus and after having been there for so long, they return to Hashem. Pasuk 21 states the following:

כא עַד-מָתַי תִּתְחַמָּקִין, הַבַּת הַשּׁוֹבֵבָה: כִּי-בָרָא יְהוָה חֲדָשָׁה בָּאָרֶץ, נְקֵבָה תְּסוֹבֵב גָּבֶר

How long will you hide, O backsliding daughter? For the Lord has created something new on the earth, a woman shall go after a man.

According to the Radak, the Navi is imploring the people to travel on a straight path and to return to Hashem. This will be a time when, as it were, the Bas HaShoveiva, the backsliding daughter, will be the one who seeks out a husband, in this case Hashem. The Navi says that this is something that is radical, but certainly required at that time.

We fast forward a bit to 1696 and we meet an amazing nine year old girl, born in Amsterdam, but now living in Dessau, Germany. Her name is Elle and she is the daughter of a man named Moshe ben Avraham Avinu. Moshe worked for years setting type and printing important Jewish books in various places in northern Europe, the last of which he did under very trying circumstances in Halle.(1) Moshe employed his children to help him in the arduous task of typesetting. We know a bit about his daughter Elle from some crumbs that she left us as she signed her name to the books she helped bring to print. She and her brother worked on setting type of the Siddur Drash Moshe printed in Dessau in 1696. After recording that the book was set to type by Yisroel ben Moshe, someone wrote a poem which tells us that a nine year old girl named Elle (עלה) helped Yisroel in this project:(This scan and those following are all courtesy of the JTS Library)

The Yiddish letters I set with my own hand
I am Elle, the daughter of Moses from Holland
a mere nine years old
the sole girl among six children
So when an error you should find
Remember, this was set by one who is but a child (2)

Did she compose the poem herself, or was it composed by her father or brother? Remarkably, we find another case not soon thereafter, of a nine year old setting type, and there we do know whether he could read or not. Nicholas Basbanes, in his book “A Gentle Madness”, records the following:

“Born in poverty, Isaiah Thomas came to know the touch and smell of ink on paper when he was only a child. Only nine years old in 1758….young Thomas was already completing his apprenticeship in the dingy Boston shop of Zechariah Fowle…When he later became the most successful printer and publisher in the United States-Benjamin Franklin dubbed him the Baskerville of America- Isaiah Thomas enjoyed telling friends that he knew how to set type before he was able to read.”(3)

Whether or not she could read at age nine, we do know that this little girl was able to recognize the Judeo Yiddish letters of a manuscript and set to type similar letters from which to print a book. Perhaps she had the potential to become as successful as Isaiah Thomas but for her gender and religion.

We meet Elle again in 1699, this time as a typesetter working on the famous Berman Shas of Frankfurt on Oder. This printed edition of the Talmud ( 1697-1699) was financed by the wealthy court Jew, Yissachar Berman Segal of Halberstadt who gave away half the 5,000 copies printed to needy scholars throughout Europe.(4)The Berman Shas is one of the most respected early printed editions of the Talmud because it contained many additional commentaries which became standard in following editions. It was the first edition since that of Gershom Soncino in the early 16th century to contain most of the diagrams we are familiar in Seder Zeraim, and Masechtos Eiruvin and Sukah. (5) It was also the first to contain Charamos from various Rabbanim prohibiting others in that general area from printing the Talmud for an extended period of time.(6) The following Cherem, recorded in Maseches Brachos, was written by Rav Dovid Oppenheim who lived at that time in Nikolsburg and later became chief Rabbi of Prague:At the end of Maseches Nidah printed in 1699, Elle signs her work a bit more boldly, and leaves us wondering what was going through her mind when she set the letters for the colophon.

“ By the hand of the faithful typesetter in this holy work, Yisroel the son of Reb Moshe. And by the hand of his maiden sister Elle, daughter of Rav Moshe, in the year “N’Kaivah T’Soivev Gaver” ( “a woman shall go after a man”.)

When you add up the letters which are set in large type, you come up with the year 459 according to the Peret Koton ( the abbreviated era ). This is the year 5459 (1699). What intrigues even the casual observer is why she, or her older brother Yisroel chose to record the year 5459 using that unusual Pasuk? One could argue that the Pasuk is tangentially related to some of the topics covered in Maseches Niddah, but there are many other Pesukim which deal more directly with the subject matter that could have been formatted to equal 459.(7) I think it is more logical to relate the Pasuk to the girl typesetter, who we are informed, is still unmarried. In Messianic times, it will be the Kallah, Am Yisroel, who seeks out its Chasan, Hashem. Perhaps Elle thought her circumstances and position necessitated a similar approach to finding a suitable Chasan. We hear the last from her in the next year having worked on a Machzor with her brother Yisroel.(8) We hope that after that, this extraordinary girl found an appropriate Shidduch. We wish the same for all those seeking the wonderful rewards that marriage has to offer.

(1) Marvin J Heller, “Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book”, Boston 2008 pps. 218-228. The entire chapter on Moses ben Avraham Avinu makes for some fascinating reading. I am indebted, as are we all, to Marvin Heller for his research into this field of study.
(2) Ibid: p.222
(3) Nicholas Basbanes, ‘A Gentle Madness” New York, 1995 pps144-145
(4) R.N.N. Rabinowitz “Ma’amar Al Hadfasas HaTalmud”, A.M. Haberman edition, Mosad HaRav Kook 2006, page 96 footnote 1.
(5) Ibid. p. 98
(6) Ibid p.100
(7) Two examples of a more fitting Pasuk to denote the year of publication for Tractate Niddah are:

“B’Mai Nidah Yischatah” which was used in Frankfurt A/M edition of 1720, and

“V’Safrah Lah Shiva Yomim, V’Achar Ti’Taher” which was used in the Dyhernfurth edition of 1816-21 ( although the highlighted letters actually add up to (5)773)

(8) Heller, page 223

The title of this post – “Stolen Title Pages” – is not mine, instead, I have borrowed it from Chaim Lieberman.[1] I have used this title because there are many forms of plagiarism – some, totally innocent – others involving lack of citation, borrowing a sentence here or there, but the plagiarism under discussion in this post is much worse than all of the above.[2] The plagiarism discussed in this post is limited to just changing the title page – that is, the entire book is the same with the only alteration being the name of the author and, at times, the title of the book. For example, if I republished Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet but instead of putting Shakespeare’s name I substituted mine.

The kabbalistic work on the holidays of the year, by R. Yitzhak Isaac ben Yoel HaKohen, Brit Kehunat Olam, was recently republished. This work was first published in 1796 in Lvov, and has been reprinted many times since then. In the introduction of this new edition, the publishers list the various printings of this work. But, they neglected to mention one reprint of this work. One can’t really fault them as this reprint was not published under the name Brit Kehunat Olam, nor did R. Yitzhak Isaac’s name appear anywhere in this reprint. Instead, although the book is word for word the same as Brit Kehunat Olam, a totally different title and a totally different author is given. As we shall see this is not the only time this person has taken someone else book for his own. This reprint which was done sometime around 2000 is instead titled Pardes haMo’adim ‘al Moadi Yisrael. The author is הצב”ר which, according to the many approbations he has received, is an abbreviation of R. Tzyion ben Ratson Lahat.

The Pardes haMo’adim contains approbations from R. Shimon Sherabi, the Rabbis of Kiryat Melachi – R. Hayyim Pinto and R. Yisrael Areyeh Gerstenkorn, R. Meshumar Tzubri, and R. Yisrael Sherabi. Some of these praise Lahat for his erudition in writing this work, others note his “great fear of sin,” but none of these haskamot note that every word in this book is plagiarized.

For purposes of accuracy, I must note, that Lahat did alter one thing aside from the title page. Perhaps in an effort to avoid detection he shifted the sections around. So, one can’t take page one and match it up, instead, you just need to find the section. This is not as hard as it would seem as Lahat used the same chapter headings as the original. So, for instance, the scan below you have the chapter titled מאמר מצות משוחים בשמן from both works. The newer type (on the right), without the commentary of the Sha’ar Shimon, is Lahat’s edition while the other (on the left) is the original.

Lest one think it is just that section or just the Brit Kehunat Olam that Lahat copied, I have provided another section – מאמר סכת שלם. Again you can see it is copied word for word. But, I also want to point out it is not just the Brit Kehunat Olam he copied but the commentary, Shem miShimon by R. Shimon Englander as well. As one can see, the notes on the bottom provide citations as well as further elucidations of the Brit Kehunat Olam. Although Lahat did not use footnotes – he used endnotes – they are the same as well.

I have provided below the pages from both Brit Kehunat Olam (on the left) which includes the Shem miShimon at the bottom. The other pages (to the right and bottom) are Lahat’s page from this section and the final page is Lahat’s notes which match up perfectly with the Shem miShimon.

As I mentioned above this is not the first time Lahat has stolen a prior work and substituted his name for that of the author. Instead, I have found at least two other times, where he did the same thing. In fact, one of the approbations for Pardes haMo’adim actually makes mention of this prior plagiarized work. This other work is Lahat’s book Minhagei haAriza”l. This work was published sometime after 1996. It contains four parts. Again, הצב”ר appears on the title page and all the approbations are written to R. Tzyion ben Ratson Lahat (as an aside his last name may actually be רווה [Ravah] as he dedicates this book to his brother Naftali bar Ratson Ravah). This work, with one slight change which I will discuss in a moment, is word for word from the book Minhagei haArizal haNikrah Petura d’Abba by R. Uri ben Asher Strizinitzer [3] first published in Jerusalem 1905.

This work takes fifth and the sixth sha’ar from R. Chaim Vital’s Shemonah She’arim which contain the bulk of the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria(Ari”ZaL). R. Strizinitzer, then includes his commentary, titled Beni Abba, which explains and offers sources for the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria. This work contains the approbation of R. Shalom Mordechi haKohen (the Braziner Rebbi). When he originally published this work, R. Strizinitzer did so anonymously. When he published a similar work Me’ori Tzion he revealed himself based upon an acrostic on the title page. The Meori Tzion was the fourth and final part of R. Strizinitzer’s work on the customs of R. Yitzhak Luria – as we shall see this was also copied. So R. Strizinitzer has three titles – Petura d’Abba, Beni Abba, and Meori Tzyion. The Petura d’Abba contains the portion from Shemonah She’arim and Beni Abba is Strizinitzer’s notes.

Now, we go to sometime after 1996, and a new book, again re-typeset, comes out with the title Minhagei HaAri”Zal with the three works Darkei Tzyion, Sha’ari Tzyion, and Me’ori Tzyion with הצב”ר’s name as the author.

The only thing Lahat did, however, was alter the titles of the first two sections, he didn’t even bother moving things around to avoid detection. In Lahat’s edition the Darkei Tzyion contains the portion from Shemonah She’arim and Sha’ari Tzyion contains the notes. Below, I have provided two pages, one from each book, to demonstrate the plagiarism.

In fact, in Strizinitzer’s book at the end he has “השמטות” – things he left out. Lahat, also has at the end things he left out – and coincidentally, they are the same as well. There is one other small change aside from the title page, and that is in the introduction. In Strizinitzer’s introduction at the end he explains why he decided to title his books as he did. Now, Lahat’s titles are different, so Lahat (left) removed that one line from the original introduction (right). The relevant passages are below.

Now, we return to the third title – Me’ori Tzyion, which Strizinitzer published separately in 1911,[4] and Lahat has included in this book. For this one, Lahat couldn’t be bothered with coming up with a new title so he uses the same title – perhaps to finally be able to say he really did copy everything perfectly. Both pages are below (Lahat, left; original, right).

Finally, we get to the at least the third example of Lahat’s stolen title pages. In this case it was fairly easy to locate the original. Lahat titled this work Pirush ‘al Birkat Kohanim, which as the title implies is a commentary and discussion about Birkat Kohanim. But, Lahat was kind and at the top of each page he has כה תברכו. This title כה תברכו is the same as a book published in 1881 in Solenika by R. Chaim Hemzi. And, it turns out not only is the title the same but the content is as well.

Lahat is by no means the first to merely switch the title pages – as I noted at the beginning of this post, Lieberman has examples of this phenomenon and there are other articles which discuss other instances of plagiarism as well.[5] What is perhaps unique about Lahat is that he seems to have done it more than once, in fact, I can not say for sure the rest of Lahat’s 13 (!) other books [6] are not merely copies as well. Additionally, many have assumed that in the digital age, when from the comfort of one’s home they can call up the card catalogs of almost every major library in the world and thousands books are available online or on one of hard drives – some of which are even searchable, this would have been detected. In fact not a single catalog entry in any library notes that these are copied – even when Lahat did not change the title of the book.

Further, aside from the approbation to Lahat’s Pardes haMo’adim, in his Minhagei haAriZal, Lahat includes approbations from his other works. Some of these are leading Rabbis who also have failed to detect their approbations are on stolen works. These Rabbis include (aside from those already mentioned above): R. Ovadia Yosef, R. Mayer Getz, R. Shalom Messas, R. Yosef Tzubeyri, and R. Tzion Tzubeyri.

Perhaps, now, this can be corrected and Lahat will cease stealing the works of others.

* Prior to posting I have attempted to locate Lahat without success. His books generally provide none of the standard information such as publisher/printer or any contact information.

Notes:
[1] Chaim Lieberman, Ohel Roch”el, vol. 1 (New York, 1980), 477-480, 529-531.

[2] There are no lack of examples, both real and imagined in this category. For one example of lack of proper citation, see R. Natan Neta Leiter, Tzyion l’Nefesh Hayyai (Jerusalem, 1964), no. 109.

[3] His surname comes from a town outside of Lvov.

[4] In some reprints of Strizinitzer’s Minhagi AriZal, Me’ori Tzyion is included.

[5] See Lieberman supra n. 1. Lieberman notes [p. 477] the case of Hemdat Tzvi, where the original was printed in 1876 and the stolen version with the same title was printed in 1879. However, he leaves out one worthwhile point. Although in the stolen version he knew enough to remove the original authors name, apparently he didn’t even read through the whole book as on p. 72b, the original author quotes his grandfather by name, and this same passage appears in the stolen version. Further, on p. 87, the original author includes a teshuva which he signs by name. In the stolen version it appears without change signed by the original author!). See also Kitvei Pinchas Turburg, ed. A. R. Malachi, 24-36; C. Leshem, Shabbat u’Mo’adi Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1969), 379-409; Y. Sternhill, Kochavi Yitzhak (Brooklyn, 1969), Introductions to volumes I & II; Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (Scranton, 2006), 5 n. 9, discussing the example of Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich which was also discussed in a previous post at the Seforim blog; Shraga Abramson, “Chasad b’Ameirat Daver shelo b’Shem ‘Omro,” Sinai 112 (Nissan-Iyyar 1993): 1-24; Alei Sefer 16 (1990): 177-79; Moriah 83-84 (Adar I,1978) 79-80; A. Perls, “Das Plagium,” in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums / MGWJ 28 (1879): 305-322; R. Margolis, Shem Olam, Jerusalem, 1989, introduction.

Regarding the halakhic permissibility of plagiarism, see Nahum Visfish, Mishnat Zechuot haYotser (Jerusalem, 2002), esp. 95-115; Nahum Rakover, Zechut haYotsrim beMekorot haYehudim (Jerusalem, 1991), 17-72, a portion of which appeared as “Plagiarism of Torah Teachings,” Areshet 6 (1980): 222-226; and idem., “Plagiarism and the Obligation to Cite Sources: Aspects of Copyright Law in the Halakhah,” Dinei Yisrael 6 (1975): 93-120;

[6] There is one book which is particularly suspect, as Lahat’s book is titled מאיר לארץ and it is kabbalistic interpretations on ברכת המזון and there is another book with the same name on the same topic. Thus far, however, I have been unable to secure a copy to compare the two.