1

A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”

A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”
הרב מרדכי ציון, ‘עלה נעלה: מענה לספר ויואל משה, תשובות מפי הרה”ג שלמה אבינר שליט”א’, בית אל תשע”ב, 278 עמודים
By Ezra Brand
The opinion of R’ Yoel Teitelbaum, better known as the Satmar Rebbe, opposing the State of Israel has recently received a resurgence of interest. With the shifting to the right of the Orthodox Jewish world in general, as well as attempts by some Israeli politicians to end Chareidi draft exemptions in particular, many Chareidim are now feeling sympathetic to the Satmar opinion. In any discussion online about Israel drafting Chareidim or cutting funding to yeshivas, there will always be one person commenting on the prescience of the Satmar Rebbe. I have heard that some people are using the Kahanist slogan in regard to this: “הרבי מסאטמאר צדק” (“The Satmar Rebbe was right”)! Therefore, the appearance of a book intended as a response to the Satmar opinion is timely[1].
Alo Na’aleh is a response to the Satmar Rebbe’s book, Vayo’el Moshe. To be more precise, it is a response to the first of the three parts of Vayo’el Moshe, which is titled “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevu’ot”. Alo Na’aleh is written by R’ Mordechai Tzion, in consultation with his Rebbe, R’ Shlomo Aviner[2]. It is published by Sifriyat Chava (ספריית חוה), the publishing house based in Beit El that publishes R’ Shlomo Aviner’s books. Vayo’el Moshe was published in 1961[3]. Although it might seem strange to write a response to a book so long after the book was originally published, the times seem to call for it.
There have been other attempted rebuttals to Vayo’el Moshe (including by R’ Aviner himself, see further), but Alo Na’aleh is probably the most comprehensive (though it is only on the “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” part of Vayo’el Moshe). It is the most comprehensive both in the sheer amount of sources quoted, and in terms of the fact that every point made by Vayo’el Moshe is discussed and disputed (including the reason given by R’ Yoel for the title of his book!). Much of the earlier literature that responds to Vayo’el Moshe is quoted by Alo Na’aleh, but no bibliography is provided. I will therefore provide one here (including works not mentioned in Alo Na’aleh).
 
הרב חיים שרגא פייביל פראנק, בירור הלכה במעלת ומצות ישובה של ארץ ישראל : תולדות זאב, ירושלים      תשכ”ד (ומילואים ב’המעין’, טבת תשכ”ה) הרב מרדכי עטייה, סוד השבועה, ירושלים תשכ”ה הרב מנחם מנדל כשר, התקופה הגדולה, ירושלים תשכ”ט הרב רפאל קצנלנבויגן, ‘לא מרד אלא השבת גזילה לבעליו’, שערים, כ’ בסיון תשכ”ט הרב משה מונק, ‘שלושת השבועות’, שערים, ד’ בתמוז תשכ”ט הרב שמואל הכהן וינגרטן, השבעתי אתכם, ירושלים תשל”ו הרב חיים צימרמן, ‘בענין שלש שבועות’, תורה לישראל, ירושלים תשל”ח (available here) מחבר אונונימי, פוקח עוורים, ירושלים תשמ”ד[4] (available here) הרב שלמה אבינר, ‘שלא יעלו בחומה’, הלכות משיח לרמב”ם, ירושלים תשס”ג הרב יעקב זיסברג, ‘נפש עדה’, נחלת יעקב, ב, הרב ברכה תשס”ה הנותן ליעף כח: כ”ח קושיות על ויואל משה, הוצאת בני הישיבות (בעילום שם המחבר) הרב אברהם ווייס, מחנה החרדי, גליון 341 חוברת “בעית זמננו” (א:ד)
The beginning of the introduction is fascinating. It attempts to find an ultimately uncomfortable middle ground between attacking the Satmar Rebbe for his harsh anti-Zionism, and respecting him for his greatness in Torah. The introduction begins by bringing a Radvaz (Shu”t 4:187), which says that it is prohibited to degrade a talmid chacham, even if that talmid chacham is “making a mistake in the foundations of the religion” (במקור: תלמיד חכם הטועה בעיונו בדבר מעיקרי הדת)[5]. While the author states clearly that despite their differences of opinion he will still repect the Satmar Rebbe, there is a silent polemic against the Satmar Rebbe’s famously harsh attacks against his opponents.
The rest of the introduction of the book is gossipy. A string of juicy stories are told, portraying the negative attitude of various people toward Vayo’el Moshe. The book then gets down to business, responding to Vayo’el Moshe point by point.
Alo Na’aleh indeed lives up to its aspiration of pointing out the many (apparent) mistakes in “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” of Vayo’el Moshe. The author even demonstrates that the Satmar Rebbe made some historical mistakes. For example, in the introduction of Vayo’el Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe explains why all the poskim didn’t bring the Three Oaths in their halacha seforim: “This issue of the awakening of a movement to transgress these oaths, we have not found from the days of Ben Koziba until the time of the Rambam, which is about a thousand years, and so too from the time of the Rambam until the days of Shabsai Tzvi, and so too, from after the time of Shabsai Tzvi until now in these generations. Therefore the poskim in all these generations did not see any need to explain this issue in their times.” Alo Na’aleh correctly points out (pg. 15) that there were many other attempts by Jews to rebel against non-Jew in the time period discussed by the Satmar Rebbe.
However, true to form, Alo Na’aleh attempts to defend the Satmar Rebbe. Before discussing a particularly egregious misreading of a source in Vayo’el Moshe, Alo Na’aleh (pg. 172-3) claims that the misreadings of the sources exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe don’t stem from actual mistakes by the Satmar Rebbe. Rather, the Satmar Rebbe was convinced that Zionism was a terrible calamity, and was willing to twist sources in order to convince people that it is wrong. In other words, the ends justify the means. Alo Na’aleh finds a source permitting such tactics in the well-known Gemara in Pesachim 112a, where it says that הרוצה ליחנק היתלה באילן גדול, explained by Rashi there to mean that one is permitted to falsely quote his Rebbe if he knows the halacha to be true, and he won’t be listened to otherwise. However, Alo Na’aleh limits this heter to polemical works such as Vayo’el Moshe.
 
While Alo Na’aleh does identify mistakes exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe, it has many flaws itself. It is often long-winded, bringing paragraphs from pro-Zionist authors having nothing to do with the issue at hand. In addition, there is a lack of consistency in the writing style, as entire articles, or pieces of articles, are brought down verbatim in the main body of the text, without any kind of indentation or other helpful citation. Besides for ruining the literary consistency, it can take an effort to know when the quotation ends. It is for these two reasons that Alo Na’aleh runs to a long 278 pages.
Another issue is the lack of clear organization in Alo Na’aleh.  Often, the text will give one response to Vayo’el Moshe, move on to a different response, then return to the first response without any warning. This can make it difficult to follow.
A good amount of research has gone into Alo Na’aleh, and the responses to the Satmar Rebbe are the most comprehensive to date. But it is a work marked by flaws: technical errors, a propensity to go off on tangents, and a lack of clarity in its argumentation. A respectable effort that falls short of its promise[6].
* I would like to thank Eliezer Brodt for reviewing this post, and my father for editing it.
[1] Although the Satmar Rebbe (meaning R’ Yoel, as opposed to his father)  wasn’t the first to attack Zionism based on (pseudo-) halachic sources, he was the one to have the biggest impact. For a short scholarly discussion of the Samar Rebbe’s opposition to Zionism (focusing on his interpretation of the Three Oaths), see יצחק קראוס, שלש השבועות כיסוד למשנתו האנטי-צונית של ר’ יואל טייטלבאום, עבודת גמר לתואר מוסמך בפילוסופיה יהודית, האוניברסיטה העיברית בבלטימור, תש”נ. A general history of discussion of the Three Oaths is given by Mordechai Breur: מרדכי ברויאר, ‘הדיון בשלוש השבועות
בדורות האחרונים’, גאולה ומדינה, ירושלים תשל”ט, עמ’ 49- 57. For a history of Eastern European Chareidi opposition to Zionism, see יוסף שלמון, ‘תגובת החרדים במזרח אירופה לציונות מדינית’, הציונות ומתנגדיה בעם היהודי, ירושלים
תש”נ, עמ’ 51- 73.
[2] R’ Tzion seems to claim at the end of his introduction (pg. 14) that the book basically consists of his writing down the responses of R’ Aviner; however, from R’ Aviner’s haskamah it is clear that the R’ Tzion had a much substantial part in the writing of the book.
[3] Shalmon (ibid., footnote 1), says that that was a second edition. I am not sure when the first edition was published, and what the difference was between the first and second editions.
[4] This book claims that a large part of Vayo’el Moshe was forged!
[5] The Radvaz proves this from the famous Gemara in Sanhedrin 99a, where R’ Hillel says that Mashiach will never come, since there was only a one-time chance in the time of Chizkiyahu Hamelech. R’ Yosef there responds to this statement of R’ Hillel by saying, “Hashem should forgive him” (שרי ליה מריה), and does not degrade him. As to whether R’ Hillel’s statement makes him a heretic, see Marc Shapiro’s Limits of Orthodox Theology. R’ Tzion on page 10 quotes a responsum from R’ Yehuda Hertzel Henkin, a grandson of R’ Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, that Chazal even refrained from degrading the famous heretic Elisha ben Avuyah (Shu”t B’nei Banim 2:34). With respect to R’ Henkin, I find this attitude of respect to one’s enemies he attributes to Chazal does not  fit in with hundreds of examples throughout the generations of Torah
leaders’ harshness to enemies and heretics. Even Elisha ben Avuyah was branded “Acher” (“The Other”) by Chazal, which is not the most respectful title.
[6] The most comprehensive discussion if the Three Oaths that is also well organized is נפש עדה in נחלת יעקב, mentioned earlier in the bibliography.



Quiz Runoff

Quiz Runoff
by Marc B. Shapiro

Written on 4 Shevat, 5773, the yahrzeit of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

1. In the last post, as the quiz question, I asked for the name of the first Hebrew book published by a living author. The answer is Nofet Tzufim by R. Judah Messer Leon. As the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon states, this work “was printed by Abraham Conat of Mantua in 1475-6, the only work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century.”
A number of people got the right answer, and as a few of them told me, and I confirmed for myself, it was not that difficult to find the answer using Google. There is nothing wrong with using Google or any other search tool, and it is my fault for not realizing that the answer could be found so easily.
Some of the material in the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but not the sentence I quoted above. The second part of the sentence is in fact incorrect, as there is at least one other work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century. I refer to the Agur, by R. Jacob ben Judah Landau (died 1493). This work appeared sometime between 1487 and 1492, so Wikipedia tells us, and in this instance Wikipedia’s information comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. These sources also tell us that “The ‘Agur’ was the first Jewish work to contain a rabbinical approbation, besides being the second Hebrew book printed during the author’s lifetime.”
Why then did a number of those who contacted me think that the Agur was the first book to appear in the author’s lifetime, rather than the second? Perhaps because in the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry “Haskamah”, which is reprinted here, we find the following incorrect statement: “The first haskamah appeared in the 15th century, in the Agur by Jacob Landau (Naples, c. 1490), the first Hebrew book printed during its author’s lifetime.”
Starting now, I will try to make my quiz questions a bit harder (i.e., not so easy to find the answers via Google). Here are the names of those who answered correctly on the last quiz: Shalom Leaf, Alex Heppenheimer, Leor Jacobi, Eric Lawee, Moshe Lapin, Shimon S., Ari Kinsberg, Yonason Rosman, Peretz Mochkin, Yehudah Hausman, Dovid Solomon
Since I can’t reward all of them, there will be a runoff. The following questions are to be answered only by them and only by emailing me the answer. If you can only answer one of the questions please do so.
A. What is the first volume of responsa published in the lifetime of its author?
B. There is a verse in the book of Exodus (hint: we haven’t yet reached it this year) which has a very strange vocalization of a word, found nowhere else in Tanach. (The word itself is also spelled in an unusual fashion, found only one other time in Tanach). The purpose of this vocalization is apparently in order to make a rhyme.[1] What am I referring to?
I had thought to ask: What is the first Hebrew work to use modern punctuation including question marks, but via Google I found the answer in a few seconds. So hopefully the answers to what I have asked are not so easily found.
2. I have a good deal more to say on themes discussed in the last post, which I will get to in future posts. But I have one piece of information that I think is quite significant (a real “chiddush”) and I don’t want to delay passing it on. It turns out that R. Schachter was too quick to add the correction in Nefesh ha-Rav. Here is an email I received by someone who prefers to remain anonymous.
I am not into writing reactions (Israelis call them “talkbacks”) on blogs, since I have not become accustomed to the 21st Century. But I want to give you a bit of information that is relevant to your discussion of Metzitza. I attended Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s shiurim at Gruss for a number of years, and I clearly remember what he said on the subject during what the guys called “a press conference.” He said very clearly that the Rav was against any Metzitza at all, and he expressed this view explicitly at the brit of one of Rav Aharon’s sons. To me such a view makes lots of sense, if one understands that it is required in the gemara only because it was then thought that the lack of Metzitza was dangerous.(כי לא עביד סכנה הוא (שבת קלג,
3. Many people have mentioned to me the problems with the commenting feature (at least for those using Chrome). When you click on it, you often don’t see the most recent comments. One way to fix this is after you click to see the comments, where it says “Discussion” check “Newest” or “Oldest”, and everything will come up. We will try to come up with a fix for this.

[1] I am referring to the level of peshat, as I realize that all sorts of explanations based on derush, remez, and kabbalah can be offered. 



Hakirah, Metzitzah, and More


Hakirah, Metzitzah
, and More
Marc B. Shapiro

Hakirah has performed a valuable service in dealing forthrightly with the matter of homosexuality. Issue no. 13 (2012) contains R. Chaim Rapoport’s “Judaism and Homosexuality: An Alternative Rabbinic View,” which I think is an outstanding presentation of the alternative to what has seemingly become the “official” haredi position in this matter. This “official” position is, in my opinion, so misguided that I would like to say a few words on the topic, since R. Rapoport did not go far enough in his criticism.
To remind readers, Hakirah no. 12 had a discussion on homosexuality with R. Shmuel Kamenetsky. This was followed by the publication of a document signed by many rabbis which follows R. Kamenetsky’s approach. It is available here. (The document is also signed by an assortment of mental health professionals,  rebbitzens and “community organizers”.)
There are so many problems with the approach found in this document (called a “Torah Declaration”), some already noted by R. Rapoport in his response to R. Kamenetsky, that it would take a lengthy piece to go through them all. Let me just call attention to a few points that I don’t think have been made yet. To begin with, while many rabbis have signed this document, including a number that I know personally, I have yet to speak to someone who actually believes what the document says, and this includes the people who have signed it! Many will regard what I have just said as pretty shocking, in that I have declared that people who signed the document do not believe what it says. Yet I know this to be true, at least with regard to some of the signatories (those that I know personally), and I suspect that other than R. Kamenetsky, it might be that no one who signed the document really believes what it says (and it wouldn’t be the first time that people sign declarations that they really don’t believe in).
Let me explain what I mean. According to the document,
Same-Sex Attractions Can Be Modified And Healed. From a Torah perspective, the question whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. . . . We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. . . . The only viable course of action that is consistent with the Torah is therapy and teshuvah. The therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development.
The ideas just quoted are the very foundation of the Torah Declaration, and as we see in his Hakirah interview, R. Kamenetsky has been convinced by the dubious proposition that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. He goes so far as to say that “no one is born gay with an inability to change” (p. 34 [emphasis added]. Not long after the appearance of the interview and the Torah Declaration, the man most prominently identified with the notion that gays can change publicly rejected his earlier viewpoint.)
Whether people can change their sexual orientation is a scientific or psychological issue, no more and no less. The first objectionable point of R. Kamenetsky’s approach is turning this into a matter of theology. Indeed, R. Kamenetsky has created a new dogma in Orthodoxy. According to him, believing that a homosexual can change his orientation is a basic Torah value. The reason for this is stated in the document: “The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. Such an attitude also violates the biblical prohibition in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 “and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”[1]
There you have it. Human beings are deciding what God can and cannot do and declaring that it is impossible for someone to be created with an inalterable homosexual nature. That this is completely incorrect is acknowledged by none other than the most extreme advocates of reparative therapy. They themselves acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of people who cannot change their orientation. They have never claimed that everyone can change. What the document gives us, therefore, is a theological statement that is rejected by all scientists and psychologists, including the ones who provide the very basis for reparative therapy. That itself should be reason enough to reject it. (On Nov. 29, 2012 the RCA acknowledged “the lack of scientifically rigorous studies that support the effectiveness of therapies to change sexual orientation.” See here.)
This relates to my point above that no one really believes what they signed. To those who doubt what I say, do the following experiment and report back if your results differ. Ask someone who signed the document if he really believes that every homosexual can change his sexual orientation. The answer you will get will be “Of course not everyone. You can never speak about everyone. But many (or most) can change.” In other words, the signatories will acknowledge that they diverge from the document on a basic point. You will have to ask them why they signed a document if they don’t accept everything it says, and the response will probably be that there is much about the document that they do accept, and that is why they signed it. But I repeat my point that this is an unusual document in that I don’t think that there is any signatory, with the possible exception of R. Kamenetsky, who accepts the Torah Declaration on Homosexuality in its entirety.

Furthermore, it is not a “liberal” idea to say that people can’t change their sexual inclinations. By looking at another example we can see that it is indeed nonsense to say that everyone can change their sexual orientation and recreate themselves as typical heterosexuals. There are some men who have strong urges for pedophilia. No matter what they do, and how much therapy they get, they can’t get rid of these urges. (I am obviously not comparing homosexuals with pedophiles, or implying that there is any connection between the two. I am only using the example of pedophiles to make a point.[2]
) If we adopt the theology of the Torah Declaration, it means that even hardened pedophiles, who have abused lots of children, can change, because God wouldn’t create someone without a possibility for a healthy sex life. Yet we know that this isn’t the case, and some people simply can’t change. They might be able to control their urges, but as they have told us again and again, the urges don’t go away. It is hardwired into them. (Is it perhaps the false theological notion expressed in the Torah Declaration that explains why yeshivot continued to allow known pedophiles to work? That is, did the rabbis assume that just because someone sexually abused children last week, there is no reason to think he can’t repent and cease to be a danger this week?)
And what about the people who are created with uncontrollable urges to kill? We know about these people, as they usually become murderers. And what about the people who are created with diseases that kill them before they are able to marry and have children, or the ones created without arms so they can’t wear arm tefillin[3]? In other words, sometimes people are created a certain way and they are not what we regard as normal. That is the world, and we simply can’t understand why things are the way they are. But one thing I would hope that we can agree on is if people can keep their faith in a good God even while knowing that some children are born with terrible illnesses that will cause their death, it certainly should not shake their faith to believe that some people are born with inalterable homosexual urges. A homosexual who can’t be changed hardly presents a challenge to theodicy the way a child with cancer does, so I can only wonder why the Torah Declaration feels that only the former is theologically untenable.
All traditional sources cited in support of the Torah Declaration’s assumption that people can change their orientation only refer to behavior. That is, it is an accepted belief that all people have the ability to control their behavior. Without this belief, the notion of a mitzvah doesn’t make sense. This distinction between orientation and behavior is so obvious that I don’t know how so many learned rabbis overlooked the document’s collapsing the two categories.
The more problematic element of the document, which I have already mentioned and which verges on the blasphemous, is that the Torah Declaration presumes to tell God what he can and cannot do. Based on the human intellects of the authors of the document, they establish as dogma that God would never create someone whose only sexual attraction is to his own gender. This is all very nice, but since when can humans dictate to God what he can and cannot do? If God “wants” to create a person who only has same-sex attraction, He can, and the proper response is silence, since we can’t understand why God would do that. Humans don’t have all the answers, and the Torah Declaration should stop pretending that we do. Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture is something the scientists and psychologists can discuss, but contrary to the document, all of the evidence is that there are plenty of people who cannot be “fixed.”
2. In my last post I mentioned that Agudat Israel has transformed itself into a lobbying organization. One of the areas they have been involved with is metzitzah ba-peh, so let me say a few things about this. It is really incredible how for many the debate around metzitzah ba-peh has become one in which the Modern Orthodox are one side, and the traditionalists on the other. I say this because the truth is that the virtually all of the rabbinic greats of Lithuania approved of metzitzah without oral contact. Alexander Tertis’ Dam Berit is a valuable resource that all interested in this matter must consult. Here is the title page.
On p. 33, R. Shlomo Cohen, the famed dayan of Vilna, says the following about metzitzah, which is very relevant to what we ourselves have seen (namely, the rejection of the firm opinions of countless doctors and scientists on the matter, all in the name of tradition).
דבר הזה אינו שייך לרבנים רק לרופאים המומחים ולכן אין לי מה להשיב על שאלתו
According to R. Shlomo, the question of how to perform metzitzah is entirely a medical issue, and the rabbis therefore have nothing to say on this matter, much like in all other halakhot dealing with medical issues the opinions of the doctors are determinative. (It hardly needs to be said that in matters of pikuah nefesh the opinions of thousands of experts, including the world’s most outstanding authorities, cannot be overruled by one idiosyncratic figure who appears to be motivated by non-scientific concerns.) 
Also of interest is that in 1906 R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski reported that in Vilna virtually all of the mohalim did metzitzah with a sponge. He wasn’t happy with this, but this was the reality.[4]
An interesting tidbit regarding metzitzah ba-peh is found in the Taz, Orah Hayyim 584:2. Here he mentions that he heard that R. Feivish of Cracow, when he circumcised on Rosh ha-Shanah, would not clean the blood out of his mouth. Rather, he would blow the shofar with the blood in his mouth so that the mitzvot of milah and shofar were joined.
Finally, for those who want to understand why it was only in the nineteenth century that metzitzah came to be regarded as central to the mitzvah of milah, Jacob Katz’s article “Polmos ha-Metzitzah” in his Ha-Halakhah ba-Metzar is crucial. In short, the centrality of metzitzah, and its description as a basic part of milah, is a product of the Orthodox defense of metzitzah in the face of Reform attacks. I think we are seeing something similar today. The digging in of haredi heels in defense of metzitzah ba-peh, complete with over-the-top rhetoric, is understandable (to a certain extent) and due precisely to the fact that it is an outside force that is threatening the practice. Had their own poskim suggested what the government is now insisting on, we would not have seen the same reaction. Yet it is still difficult for outsiders to grasp why some rabbinic leaders of these communities seem entirely oblivious to any medical dangers associated with the practice,  וסלחת לעונם כי רבנים המה
Let me say a few more things about metzitzah ba-peh. 

1. I saw on one of the blogs (I can’t locate it at present) that someone stated as self-evident that metzitzah ba-peh is only done with babies, not adults. The truth is that while the accepted opinion is indeed that metzitzah ba-peh is only done on babies (and maybe also on older child converts – I haven’t been able to find an answer to that), there are indeed opinions that even adult converts have to have metzitzah ba-peh performed on them. R. Moshe Klein (the son of R. Menasheh), Mishnat ha-Ger, p. 71, states without qualification that a convert has to have metzitzah, and if the mohel is afraid of catching a disease he should inquire of a posek if it can be done without the mouth. However, R. Yitzhak Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, Hilkhot Milah 6:1, rejects this viewpoint and states that there is no metzitzah, ba-peh or otherwise, with an adult convert.

2. According to R. Marcus Horovitz, Mateh Levi, vol. 2, Yoreh Deah no. 60, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch was prepared to accept the government’s abolishment of metzitzah without objection. It is difficult to square this assertion with Hirsch’s writings on the topic that show him as a strong defender of the practice.[5] Is it possible that Horovitz’s comment, meant as a criticism of Hirsch, reflects the difficult relationship these two men had?
3. In Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah I, no. 223, R. Moshe Feinstein, in writing to a hasidic rebbe, expresses the standard viewpoint that metzitzah is only a medical procedure and has nothing to do with the mitzvah of milah. There is nothing surprising here. However, his correspondent had written otherwise, that metzitzah was an essential part of the mitzvah. In response to this, R. Moshe writes: חושב אני שהוא רק פליטת הקולמוס. The language R. Moshe uses implies that he did not know that among the hasidim metzitzah isindeed viewed as part of the mitzvah. Is it possible that R. Moshe was unaware of this? I don’t think so. It would appear, therefore, that the words I just quoted are a polite way of R. Moshe telling his correspondent that “what you wrote is without any substance.”
4. In 1994 R. Schachter’s Nefesh ha-Rav appeared. On p. 243 he states that R. Soloveitchik thought that today there is no need for metzitzah at all, not just metzitzah ba-peh. I remember how shocked I was when I read this, and was certain that it had to be wrong. As far as I know, no Orthodox authority has ever agreed to abandon metzitzah entirely, and I therefore couldn’t believe this report. My doubts were strengthened by the fact that R. Schachter quotes the Tiferet Yisrael as agreeing that metzitzah could be abandoned, when the truth is that the Tiferet YisraelShabbat 19:2, says the exact opposite, that metzitzah must be continued no matter what the doctors say.
As part of this post I wanted to include this page of Nefesh ha-Rav, so I went to Otzar ha-Hokhmah to download a PDF. Here it is.

Lo and behold, the copy on Otzar ha-Hokhmah is the third edition published in 1999, and there is a note on this page in which R. Schachter states that he has been told that what he wrote was incorrect, and that R. Soloveitchik only opposed metzitzah ba-peh. This makes much more sense and is what I assumed all along, so I was happy to see that my suspicions were confirmed.

R. Schachter recently spoke publicly about metzitzah ba-peh, and he is entirely opposed to it.[6] You can listen to his talk here.
Some might be surprised to hear R. Schachter say, after explaining that the Sages followed the most advanced medicine of their times, “When we look back at Chazal, look at medical statements in the Gemara, we laugh. . . . So you look back in the Gemara, it’s ridiculous, but the Gemara, in the days of the Tannaim, they were following the latest information of the doctors of their generation, of the scientists of their generation.”
I have to say, however, that R. Schachter is mistaken in his description of how the Hasidim understand metzitzah ba-peh. He incorrectly assumes that no one really regards it as a basic part of the mitzvah, i.e., halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. “You know and I know and we all know that it is not halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai.” He claims that all those who do say it is halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai are exaggerating for rhetorical purposes, much like the expression yehareg ve-al yaavor is used for all sorts of things but is not meant to be taken literally. (R. Schachter himself created a good deal of controversy a couple years ago when he said that the refusal to ordain women was a matter of yehareg ve-al yaavor.)
Finally, I would like to make a general statement about how many in the Modern Orthodox world have been relating to metzitzah ba-peh. There is no question that for those in this segment of Orthodoxy, metzitzah ba-peh should not be done, both for medical reasons and also, I have learnt, for aesthetic reasons. With regard to the latter point, there is a sense among many in the Modern Orthodox world, and I myself have heard this and seen it in writing, that metzitzah ba-peh is “disgusting”. I understand that this is how people feel, but it is an improper feeling. Until the nineteenth century, metzitzah ba-peh was universal at every circumcision. How can observant Jews regard a practice that was basic in every Jewish community of the world as “disgusting”? I understand that it doesn’t fit in with today’s aesthetic sense, and that itself is perhaps reason enough for people not to do metzitzah ba-peh. However, everyone should be careful to avoid any denigration of metzitzah ba-peh that does not originate in medical concerns.
Don’t get me wrong, as I don’t mean that every practice that we find in Jewish communities throughout history should get such a “pass”, but here we are talking about a universal practice over thousands of years. It can’t be denied that there were “repulsive” and “gruesome” practices in Jewish communities.[7] Here are two cited by Shlomo Sprecher in his article mentioned in note 6: 1. Barren women would swallow the foreskin of newly circumcised boys as a segulah so that they could become pregnant. 2. Epileptics drank a potion that contained a girl’s first menstrual blood as a segulah to cure them of their epilepsy.[8]
I recently found another bizarre segulah that also falls under the rubric of “repulsive”, and I think that it would probably also be regarded by law enforcement as a form of sexual abuse. It comes from R. Zvi Hirsch Kaidonover (1646-1712), Kav ha-Yashar, ch. 51. For obvious reasons I am not going to translate this into English.
ועוד סגולה נפלאה לתינוק הנולד שלא יקרה עליו חולי נכפה בר מינן, מיד כשנולד ישימו בפיו ברית קודש של תינוק ויהיה ניצול כל ימיו מחולי נכפה
3. Following one of my previous posts I had correspondence with a reader and the discussion turned to the issue of how much of rabbinic literature is inner directed, that is, from intellectuals to other intellectuals.[9] I assume that this was the mindset of the Sages, and this explains some texts that I don’t think would have been recorded had there been an expectation that the masses would ever see them. In particular, I have in mind the talmudic stories that do not reflect well on certain rabbis. If we understand these texts as scholars talking to other scholars, then it makes sense that they would criticize each other, and even make fun of one another.[10] People in a closed community (in this case, the rabbinic elite) converse with one another in a different way than when outsiders are allowed in.[11] The problem is when the masses are studying Talmud, as today, that they have a difficult time with these texts, and Artscroll needs to explain them in an appealing fashion.
Here is one example of the sort of story I am referring to, that I assume was designed for internal consumption only, as it doesn’t reflect well on one of the Sages who is portrayed as being quite rude and insensitive. Taanit 20a-20b:
Our Rabbis have taught: A man should always be gentle as the reed and never unyielding as the cedar. Once R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon was coming from Migdal Gedor, from the house of his teacher, and he was riding leisurely on his ass by the riverside and was feeling happy and elated because he had studied much Torah There chanced to meet him an exceedingly ugly man who greeted him, “Peace be upon you, Sir”. He, however, did not return his salutation but instead said to him, “Raca,1 how ugly you are. Are all your fellow citizens as ugly as you are?” The man replied: “I do not know, but go and tell the craftsman who made me, ‘How ugly is the vessel which you have made’.” When R. Eleazar realized that he had done wrong he dismounted from the ass and prostrated himself before the man and said to him, “I submit myself to you, forgive me”. The man replied: “I will not forgive you until you go to the craftsman who made me and say to him, ‘How ugly is the vessel which you have made’.” He [R. Eleazar] walked behind him until he reached his native city. When his fellow citizens came out to meet him greeting him with the words, “Peace be upon you O Teacher, O Master,” the man asked them, “Whom are you addressing thus”? They replied, “The man who is walking behind you.” Thereupon he exclaimed: “If this man is a teacher, may there not be any more like him in Israel”! The people then asked him: “Why”? He replied: “Such and such a thing has he done to me.” They said to him: “Nevertheless, forgive him, for he is a man greatly learned in the Torah.” The man replied: “For your sakes I will forgive him, but only on the condition that he does not act in the same manner in the future.” Soon after this R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon entered [the Beth Hamidrash] and expounded thus, A man should always be gentle as the reed and let him never be unyielding as the cedar. And for this reason the reed merited that of it should be made a pen for the writing of the Law, Phylacteries and Mezuzoth.[12]
It appears that we see a continuation of this internal conversation in post-talmudic times. For example, I don’t think the rishonim who so harshly criticize their colleagues — I am referring to the colleagues they respected — would speak this way in a derashah before the common man. However, in internal dialogue they exercised more freedom. I think this can also explain the strange way that R. Isaac of Corbeil, the author of Sefer Mitzvot Katan, is referred to. He is called בעל החוטם. According to tradition, he was called this לפי שהיו לו שערות על החוטם.[13] Here too, I think that this was a humorous nickname that his colleagues knew him as, but not something that the average person would be expected to use. (Those who went to BMT will probably recall how various rabbis would speak of “Whitey Horowitz”. I don’t recall students ever referring to R. Moshe Horowitz this way.)  
I came across another example of what appears to be “internal conversation” from modern times that I think readers will find interesting. Both are found in R. Pinchas Miller’s Olamo shel Abba. Miller’s father, R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller, was a posek and author of seforim. I can’t imagine that the following comment, cited in the name of R. Shmelke of Nikolsburg, was something Miller, or R. Shmelke, wanted the masses to hear. Rather, I assume that it was an insider’s joke, designed to be shared among colleagues.
Shabbat 118b states that if Israel observes two Sabbaths properly they will immediately be redeemed. R. Shmelke explained that this refers to Shabbat ha-Gadol and Shabbat Shuvah. It is traditional that on these Sabbaths the rabbis give derashot before the community. R. Shmelke added that the rabbis act as if what they are saying is original to themselves, even though they have taken it from others. The Sages say that if you repeat something in the name of one who said it, you bring redemption to the world (Avot 6:6). Based on this text in Avot, R. Shmelke explained the above talmudic passage as follows: “If Israel observes two Sabbaths properly”, that is, if the rabbis who give the derashot on Shabbat ha-Gadol and Shabbat Shuvah (“two Sabbaths”) actually acknowledge where they get their ideas from (“repeat something in the name of one who said it”), “immediately Israel will be redeemed” (p. 501). This is such a provocative text because not only does it accuse the rabbis of plagiarism, but it states that the redemption itself is being delayed because of their behavior. If it was repeated by the masses it would be regarded as terribly degrading of the rabbis, but seen as a somewhat playful “derashah” to be shared among rabbinic colleagues, it loses much of its sharpness.[14]
There is another interesting passage on p. 326, which despite being humorous, I would have also assumed could only be said among colleagues. Yet Miller’s son tells us that his father used to repeat the following in his derashah at weddings: We know that it is a mitzvah to help the bride and groom to rejoice, but the rabbis come to weddings and instead of doing this, they deliver a long derashah and speak words of mussar to the young couple and thus disturb their joy.[15] That is why at the sheva berakhot we state שמח תשמח רעים האהובים כשמחך יצירך בגן עדן מקדם. In other words, we wish the bride and groom that their joy should be complete like the joy Adam felt when Eve was created for him, because in their time, in the Garden of Eden, there were no rabbis around who were able to disturb their joy!
* * * *
4. I want to call attention to a book that has just appeared. Its English title is Jewish Thought and Jewish Belief and it is edited by Daniel J. Lasker. You can read more about it here. It is available for purchase at Bigeleisen.
This is just the latest in a series of valuable books published by Ben Gurion University Press as part of the Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought. The articles that I think readers of this blog will find particularly interesting are David Stern, “Rabbinics and Jewish Identity: An American Perspective;” David Shatz, “Nothing but the Tuth? Modern Orthodoxy and the Polemical Uses of History,” Baruch J. Schwartz, “Biblical Scholarship’s Contribution to the Concept of Mattan Torah Past and Present;” Menachem Kellner, “Between the Torah of Moses and the Torah of R. Elhanan;” Tovah Ganzel, “‘He who Restrains his Lips is Wise’ (Proverbs 10:19) – Is that Really True?” and the symposium on Jewish thought in Israeli education, with contributions from R Moshe Lichtenstein and Adina Bar Shalom (R. Ovadia Yosef’s daughter).
Here are a few selections from Shatz’s article:
To be clear, academics, I find, generally shun blogs that are aimed at a popular audience because the comments are often, if not generally, uninformed (and nasty). A few academics do read such blogs, but do not look at the comments. One result of academics largely staying out of blog discussions is that non-experts become viewed as experts. Even when academics join the discussion, the democratic atmosphere of the blog world allows non-experts to think of themselves as experts and therefore as equals of the academicians. Some laypersons, though, as I said earlier, are indeeed experts in certain areas of history.
(In this quotation, one could also substitute “rabbis” or perhaps better, “poskim”, for “academics”, and “areas of halakhah” for “areas of history.”) Shatz is specifically speaking about historians, and contrasting experts vs. non-experts in this area. Yet when it comes to the sort of things I often write about here, I can attest that it is usually non-academics who are the real experts. Time and again I am amazed at the vast knowledge of so many of the people who read this blog. As for the general phenomenon of blogs, there are many people who for whatever reason (usually lack of interest, ability, or patience) are not going to write lengthy articles. Yet they often have a great deal to contribute, much of which is very important to the world of scholarship (almost always in terms of uncovering unknown sources and correcting earlier errors, as opposed to offering new interpretations or original theories). Academics ignore this to their own loss.[16]
In my future book I refer to numerous blog posts, and posts from the Seforim Blog have already been mentioned in a number of scholarly publications. My own reason for writing posts is because most of the material I discuss is, I think, interesting and sometimes even important. While this material is often not of the sort that can be included in a typical article, the genre of the blog post suits them just perfectly. Speaking of the Seforim Blog in particular, its readership encompasses a very large percentage of English speaking traditionally learned Jews of all backgrounds, beliefs, and professions (from Reform rabbis to Roshei Yeshiva and poskim, and everything in between). Thanks again are due to Dan Rabinowitz for providing this unique and wonderful platform.
Here are two more quotes from Shatz:
Be the causes what they may, there is an intramural struggle among the Orthodox, a competition for the soul of Orthodox Judaism, and the primary weapon with which it is being waged is history. For Modern Orthodox Jews today, instead of history being a threat to belief, as in earlier periods, it has become a way of arguing for one version of Othodoxy over another. And it is used for polemical purposes far more than philosophy. There are today few Orthodox philosophers, but comparatively many Orthodox academically trained historians.
Can the Modern Orthodox explain why it is admissible for Hummash and the Sages (in aggadot) to write non-accurately and provide inspiration and memory, but inadmissible for those on the right to write in that genre?
My article in Jewish Thought and Jewish Belief is entitled “Is there a ‘Pesak’ for Jewish Thought.” Those who publish know that it is often the case that only after it is too late does one realize that one’s article or book omits something important. Here too that was the case. In the article I discuss Maimonides’ view in Guide 3:17 that there is no punishment without transgression. That is, he rejects the notion of yissurin shel ahavah. I note that Maimonides claims that this is the opinion “of the multitude of our scholars,” and he cites R. Ammi’s opinion in this regard from Shabbat 55a. What is significant is that later in the sugya the Talmud states that R. Ammi’s opinion was refuted. Maimonides ignores this rejection, and even states that R. Ammi’s opinion is the majority view. This illustrates how Maimonides felt free to reject a talmudic viewpoint in a non-halakhic matter, even when it seems that the opinion is deemed authoritative by the Talmud.
What I unfortunately neglected to mention is that in Guide 3:24 Maimonides also deals with yissurin shel ahavah. Here he acknowledges that there are talmudic sages who accept this notion, but he adds that his own opinion, i.e., the rejection of yissurin shel ahavah, “ought to be believed by every adherent of the Law who is endowed with intellect.” In our own language, we might say that this viewpoint should be obvious to anyone with “half a brain.” Yet this is quite a shocking statement when one considers that there were talmudic sages who had a different perspective. Did Maimonides regard them as lacking intellect?
Here is another point I would like to add: In my Limits of Orthodox Theology I argue that it is most unlikely that Maimonides would choose to establish something as a dogma if it was a matter of debate among the Sages. (If establishing dogma was simply part of the halakhic process, this would not be problematic.) I see that R. Shlomo Fisher apparently has the same perspective, as he writes in his Hiddushei Beit Yishai, no. 107 (p. 413):
וגוף הדברים שכתב הרמב”ם בפה”מ ועשאן עיקר גדול תמוהין מאד. חדא, אם הם עיקר גדול היכי פליג עלה ר’ יהודה.
The issue of deciding matters of hashkafah in a halakhic fashion has also recently been discussed by R. Yaakov Ariel in his new book Halakhah be-Yameinu, pp. 18ff. I have to say that the more I read by Ariel the more impressed I am, as everything he writes is carefully formulated and full of insight. He strikes me as very open-minded with a good grasp of Jewish philosophy. He is, of course, also an outstanding posek. I now understand why it was so important for the haredim, under R. Elyashiv’s lead, to prevent him from being elected Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel. What the haredim wanted, and were successful in this, was to destroy the Chief Rabbinate as a force to be reckoned with. The way to do this was to make sure that its occupant would be nothing but a “crown rabbi”. That is, they wanted to appoint a chief rabbi who is a figurehead, who interacts with the government on behalf of the haredi leadership, who goes around the world speaking about Jewish topics to the masses, and who can deal with non-Jews. What they absolutely did not want in a chief rabbi was a figure who had any rabbinic standing and who could thus challenge haredi Daas Torah.
At a time when much of the right wing religious Zionist world appears to have gone off the deep end, R. Ariel stands as a voice of sanity. Be it his attack on Torat ha-Melekh (a book which I still plan on discussing) or his strong rejection (together with R. Aharon Lichtenstein and R. Nachum Rabinovitch) of the outrageous letter written by Rabbis Tau, Aviner and others in support of Moshe Katzav, or his defense of women voting (arguing that today R. Kook would not be opposed; Halakhah be-Yameinu, p. 189) he shows that right wing religious Zionism need not be identified with the craziness we have been accustomed to see in recent years. 
Let us return to his recent essay where he argues, in opposition to what I wrote in my article, that Maimonides often does “decide” in matters of hashkafah no different than in halakhah. To illustrate his point, Ariel notes that there is a dispute among the Sages about whether there are reasons for commandments. He claims that Maimonides מכריע ופוסק  in accord with the position that there are reasons. He concludes:
אף על פי שלדעתו כללי ההלכה אינם חלים בענייני אמונה, בכל זאת ניתן להכריע את האמונה על פי דרך הלימוד הנקוטה גם בהלכה.
The notion of a pesak emunah, if it is to be parallel to a pesak halakhah, would mean that after Maimonides gives his pesak, in his mind it is now forbidden to adopt the other viewpoint (just as when Maimonides rules that something is forbidden on Shabbat) .Yet where does Maimonides ever say that there is an obligation to accept his viewpoint about reasons for the commandments? What Maimonides does is show why his viewpoint is correct, and Ariel cites these sources. But just because Maimonides wants his readers to adopt his own viewpoint, in what way is this a “pesak emunah”? Maimonides is simply expressing his strongly held belief. He is not ruling alternative positions out of bounds, as he does in deciding halakhah. This appplies as well to the other examples Ariel brings to prove his point. All he has established is that Maimonides argues for a position in matters such as the nature of prophecy and providence, but that is far removed from the notion that Maimonides saw his opinions as halakhically binding. On the contrary, just because Maimonides tells us what he thinks the Torah’s position is in a matter such as providence, he had no expectation that the masses would (or in some cases even should) follow him in this, and he was fully tolerant of the masses holding to their errant opinions as long as the matter was not an authentic dogma.
5. I have now finished my book on censorship. I can’t say when it will appear as it still has to be properly edited, typset etc., but hopefully this won’t take too long. I have loads of interesting material that for various reasons I was unable to include in the book, so the Seforim Blog will give me a good opportunity to bring it to the public’s attention. Let me begin with something sent to me by Rodney Falk.
Professor Louis Henkin, the son of R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, died in 2010. Here is his obituary as it appeared in Ha-Modia.

 

Notice what is missing! The obituary won’t even mention who his father was. Had Louis Henkin been a businessman or a doctor this information would not have been excluded, of this there is no doubt. But it is considered a disgrace to R. Henkin’s memory that his son was an intellectual, one who lived the life of the mind, and yet he didn’t become a rav or a rosh yeshiva . People in the haredi world can understand how not everyone is cut out to be a rosh yeshiva or sit in kollel, and these “unfortunates” are therefore forced choose a profession. But apparently, the notion that one who has the brains and intellectual stamina to become a great scholar might choose to devote himself to non-Torah subjects borders on the blasphemous for Ha-Modia. As such, while Louis Henkin can be acknowledged for his achievements, he has to be severed from his father’s house (the same father who sent him and his two brothers to Yeshiva College).
I think Yoel Finkelman has put the matter quite well in discussing the larger issue of which this example is  part and parcel of:
Haredi writers of history claim to know better than the great rabbis of the past how the latter should have behaved. Those great rabbis do not serve as models for the present. Instead, the present and its ideology serve as models for the great rabbis. Haredi historiography becomes a tale of what observant Jews, and especially great rabbis, did, but only provided that these actions accord with, or can be made to accord with, current Haredi doctrine. The historians do not try to understand the gedolim; they stand over the gedolim. Haredi ideology of fealty to the great rabbis works at cross purposes with the sanitized history of those rabbis.[17]
6. Rabbi Jason Weiner, a fine musmach from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, has recently published a Guide to Traditional Jewish Observance in a Hospital. Formerly assistant rabbi at the Young Israel of Century City, he now serves as Senior Rabbi and Manager of the Spiritual Care Department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The book comes with approbations from R. Asher Weiss and R. Yitzchok Weinberg, the Talner Rebbe, and the halakhot in the book have been reviewed by Rabbis Gershon Bess, Nachum Sauer, and Yosef Shuterman. The book can be downloaded here.
7. Some readers have asked me about upcoming shul lectures. Here is what is on my schedule through Passover.
Feb. 15-16: Sephardic Institute of Brooklyn
March 1-2: Beth Israel, Miami Beach
March 8-9: Shearith Israel, New York
March 15-16: Beth Israel, Omaha
If any readers are interested in having me speak at their shuls, please be in touch.
8. No one got the answer to the last quiz, so let me do it again. The winner gets a copy of one of the volumes of R. Hayyim Hirschensohn’s commentary on Rashi. If you know the answer to the question, send it to me at shapirom2 at scranton.edu.

What was the first Hebrew book published by a living author?

[1] What does this last sentence mean? How can an attitude violate a biblical prohibition?

[2] As a good illustration of changes in attitude in the last forty years, here is what R. Norman Lamm wrote in his classic article on homosexuality in the 1975 yearbook of the Encyclopaedia Judaica. Such a sentence would, today, be quite politically incorrect, and regarded by gays as incredibly offensive: “Were society to give its open or even tacit approval to homosexuality, it would invite more aggresiveness on the part of adult pederasts toward young people.” 
[3] R. Meir Schiff (Maharam Schiff) is unique in believing that one without arms should put the tefillin shel yad on the head, together with the tefillin shel rosh. This is the upshot of his comment to Gittin 58a.
[4] See R. Sinai Schiffer, “Mitzvat ha-Metzitzah,” p. 106 (printed together with R. Sinai Adler, Devar Sinai [Jerusalem, 1966])
[5] See Eliyahu Meir Klugman, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, pp. 292-293.
[6] “Following in the Footsteps of Our Fathers,” Nov. 13, 2012.
[7] The words are those of Shlomo Sprecher from his article on metzitzah in Hakirah 3 (2006), p. 51.
[8] Speaking of drinking, take a look at this strange passage. It appears in R. Hayyim Rabbi’s letter at the beginning of R. Haggai Ben Hananyah’s Nimukei Levi (Ashdod, 2008), p. 2. Add this to the long list of texts that I refuse to translate.
בדין חלב אשה. נשאלתי פעם, אם בזמן תשמיש עם אשתו, החלב שלה אסור עליו, או שבעל ואשתו כגופו, ואין בו דין של יונק שרץ. ובפרט לטעם שמא יינק מבהמה טמאה, ובאשתו כגופו שהתירו לו בשעת פיוס וכו’, לא גזרו בזה. ויתכן שמותר כדין פסיק רישיה בדרבנן. ובנידון כזה, שזה חשש גזירה, גם בניחא ליה יש מקום להתיר. כן נראה לכאורה.
[9] The previous post is found here.
In the comments, Yehudah Mirsky wrote:

Fwiw, as I recall, Steve Wald in his book on Eilu Ovrin shows that the genuinely awful am-haaretz passages in Pesachim are a later stammatic addition, and that Jeff Rubinstein argues has a chapter on this in his “The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud” where he argues both that that sugya in Pesachim is sui generis in Hazal and – interestingly – reflects the Stammaim’s needing to justify their very scholastic lifestyle vis-a-vis people who were working for a living. Rubinstein cautions that the whole sugya may have been intended as a series of private jokes and need not necessarily reflect actual social relations between the stammaim and their surrounding society.

[10] Yeshayahu Leibowitz quipped that the Sages must have had a good sense of humor, since they included the following passage in the Talmud: תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם. See Sihot al Pirkei Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem, 2003), p. 289. In all seriousness, however, there are indeed humorous passages in the Talmud, as pointed out by R. Moses Salmon, Netiv Moshe (Vienna, 1897), pp. 45-46. Here is one example he gives (Bava Batra 14a).:
The Rabbis said to R. Hamnuna: R. Ammi wrote four hundred scrolls of the Law. He said to them: Perhaps he copied out the verse  תורה צוה לנו משה
Salmon claims that anyone with a bit of sense can see that R. Hamnuna’s reply is a wisecrack made in response to the obvious exaggeration about R. Ammi.
Nehemiah Samuel Leibowitz states that even in the Zohar we have passages that show a humorous side. One of the many examples he points to is Zohar, Bereshit, p. 27a:
וימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בקושיא. בחומר קל וחומר. ובלבנים בלבון הלכתא. ובכל עבודה בשדה דא ברייתא. את כל עבודתם וגו’ דא משנה.
See Leibowitz, “Halatzot ve-Divrei Bikoret be-Sefer ha-Zohar,”Ha-Tzofeh le-Hokhmat Yisrael 11 (1927), pp. 33-45. For more on humor in the Talmud, see Yehoshua Ovsay, Ma’amarim u-Reshimot (New York, 1946), ch. 1; R. Mordechai Hacohen, “Humor, Satirah, u-Vedihah be-Fi Hazal,” Mahanayim 67 (5722), pp. 8-19.
[11] Such a community also establishes special rules for itself, of which I can cite many examples. Here is one, from R. Solomon Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma 8:49:
ואם חוזר בפעם השלישי א”כ הוא משולש בחטא, אזי אין מניחין כלל לפדותו מן המלקות אלא ילקה בב”ד ודיו, אם לא שהוא בר אורין שאין ראוי להלקותו
After all we have seen in the last few years, I am quite certain that today the average person would not accept that when it comes to criminal matters that the rabbis should be given special privileges and exemptions.
[12] See also Va-Yikra Rabbah 9:3 where it describes how R. Jannai called his host “a dog”, and then learnt how wrong he was.
[13] See the introduction to the Constantinople 1510 edition of the work, reprinted in the Jerusalem, 1960 edition.
[14] On p. 187 Miller offers a different perspective. Here he quotes another rabbi who said that if necessary it is OK for one to repeat another’s hiddushim in the Shabbat ha-Gadol derashah, because the Sages tell us (Pesahim 6a): שואלין ודורשין בהלכות פסח.  This means:
מותר “לשאול” מאחרים בשעת הדחק ולדרוש בהלכות פסח
[15] I am told that it is still the practice in certain communities for the rabbi to deliver a derashah at a wedding..
[16] I think in particular of S.’s wonderful blog On the Main Line, which routinely provides important, and until now unknown, primary sources that are vital to a wide range of areas of scholarship.
[17] Strictly Kosher Reading, p. 122.



Winter book sale 2013

Winter book sale 2013
By Eliezer Brodt
This list consists of two parts. Part one is composed of seforim and books [two parts] which I came across while hunting for seforim. Most of these titles are very hard to find. Some of the prices are better than others. Almost all the books are in good shape. There is only one copy of most of these titles so they are being sold on a first come, first serve basis. Part two is a few lists of seforim which are all brand new. [Many titles are from Bialik]. I have a few copies of each of the titles on this list. I personally recommend all of the titles on this second list [if they fit into your area of interest].
Email your order to eliezerbrodt@gmail.com. I will then send you a bill based on what is available. Payment will be done via PayPal. Shipping is not included in the price, and it depends on the order and size, ranging between 5-9 dollars (with a few exceptions) a book. All books will be airmailed out after I receive the money.
Part of the proceeds of this sale will be going to help support the efforts of the Seforim blog. Feel free to ask for details about any specific book on the list. All questions should be sent to me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com. Thank you and enjoy.

 

חלק א
א.
מטפחות ספרים ר’ יעקב עמדין [תשנ”ה]  34$
ב.
ר’ זאב רבינוביץ, שערי תורת בבל 50$
ג.
ר’ זאב רבינוביץ, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל 50$
ד.
אלפי מנשה חלק א, 19$
ה.
מושב זקנים על התורה, 33$
ו.
ר’ אליהו פייוולזאהן נצח ישראל [ספר מלא חומר חשוב ומעניין] 21$
ז.
אוהב הגר על תרגום אונקלוס שד”ל 36$
ח.
רש”י על התורה מכתב יד, הוצאת ליהמן 28$
ט.
סידור עבודת הלבבות, זאב יעבץ 25$
י.
מגילת תענית, מהדורת עוז והדר 12$
יא.     צאינה וראינה – מהדורה עברית מבוארת, ע”י מ’ קוזק
כולל הערות ומבוא על הספר, ירושלים תשל”ה, ש”ד עמודים + 54 עמודים
(מבוא) 17$.
יב.
מדרשי הגאולה, מהדיר יהודה אבן שמואל 45$
יג.
ידיו באמונה 17$
יד.
רמב”ם, משנה תורה על פי דפוס קושטא, מדע, עם הערות, מוסד רב קוק
30$
טו.
אוצר ויכוחים 23$
טז.
רבי חסדאי קרשקש, אור השם, מהדורות ר’ שלמה פישר, 24$
יז.
מחזור בית דין, לראש השנה, ר’ אברהם חמוי 19$
יח.
חיבור יפה מישועה מוסד רב קוק 22$
יט.
כתבי פולמוס לפרופיט דוראון כלימת הגויים ואיגת אל תהי כאבותיך, עורך
אפרים תלמג’ מרכז דינור 18$
כ.
ר’ שריה דבליצקי, דיני תשעה באב ביום א ודיני שבת שלפניו תשע”ב,
9$
כא.    ר’
שריה דבליצקי, וזרח השמש, מנהגי מנין ותיקין בבית הכנסת תפארת ציון בבני ברק 14$
כב.    ר’
דוד צבי הופמן -ספר ויקרא ב’ חלקים $50
כג.
הלכות הנגיד 32$
כד.    ר’
יוסף אבן כספי שולחן כסף [מכת”י נדפס לראשונה תשנ”ו] [עותקים אחרונים] 21$
כה.    שו”ת
ציון לנפש חיה לייטר 16$
כו.
סדר הסליחות כמנהג ליטא, ד’ גולדשמידט, מוסד רב קוק 32$
כז.
סדר הסליחות כמנהג פולין, ד’ גולדשמידט, מוסד רב קוק 32$
כח.    ר’
אברהם גבישון, עומר השכחה, פירוש על משלי, זמן דור גירוש ספרד, 25$
כט.    חידושי
דינים מהלכות פסח, עם הערות הגאון רי”פ פערלא, 16$
ל.
סדר אליהו אדר”ת מוסד רב קוק 70$
לא.    דרשות
נפוצות יהודה, ר’ יהודה מוסקאטו [פורמוט גדול] 18$
לב.    מחזור
גולדשמידט ראש השנה יום כיפור ב’ חלקים 110$
לג.
מחזור גולדשמידט יום כיפור 55$
לד.    מחזור
גולדשמידט סוכות 55$
לה.    ר’
אברהם אליהו קפלן, דברי תלמוד ב’ חלקים 44$
לו.
ר’ אברהם אליהו קפלן, דברי תלמוד, חלק א 22$
לז.
בתורתו של ר’ גדליה (נדל) [מהדורה שניה] 24$
לח.    הנוספות
למנחת שי, (נדיר), 36$
לט.    אוצר
כל מנהגי ישורון 25$
מ.
מגן אבות- חיבור על מנהגים להמאירי, עם מבוא והערות על פי כת”י,
י”ל ע”י ר”י כהן, 19$
מא.   ר’
מנחם מנדל מקמניץ, קורות העתים, מוסד רב קוק 23$
מב.   בעלי התוסופת על התורה (פרשת שופטים וכי תצא) ש’
אברמסון, ירושלים תשל”ה, 94 עמודים 26$
מג.    ראיות מכריעות נגד ולהויזן- ר’ דוד הופמן, ירושלים
תרפ”ח, קנא עמודים (נדיר), 40$
מד.    גליוני
יואל, אביו של ר’ הרצוג, 20$
מה.   נועם
אלמילך, ב’ חלקים, מוסד רב קוק, גדליה נגאל, 45$
מו.
קרבן שבת צלותא דמעלי שבתא תיקוני שבת 12$
מז.
קובץ ספרי הגאונים: כולל ה’ חיבורים של ר’ בנימין משה לוין: אוצר
חילוף מנהגים בין בני ארץ ישראל ובני בבל ספר מתיבות ספר חפץ לתלמוד רב שרירא
גאון, תולדות
חיים אגרות רב שרירא גאון [שני הנוסחות וכו’]: 19$
מח.   שו”ת
ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר או”ח 30$
מט.   קובץ
מפרשי המהרש”א: חמשה ספרים בכרך אחד: הוראה שעה בית אברהם אמרי בינה מחנה
אפרים ישוב הדעת. 16$
נ.
החילוקים שבין אנשי מזרח ובני ארץ ישראל, מרדכי מרגליות, 33$
נא.    טעמי
וסודות התפילות להושענות ופיוטי שמחת תורה להרוקח סז עמודים, מהודורת ראזענפעלד,
סז עמודים 7$
נב.    דקדוקי
סופרים, בבא קמא, בבא בתרא, 12$
נג.
תהלוכות היבשה [הלכות הולכי דרכים] [נדפס ב1869] 14$
נד.
ספר העתים, עם הערות ר’ יעקב שור, 19$
נה.    אגרות
ר’ יהודה בן קוריש תל אביב תשי”ב 17$
נו.
מספר הפרדס לר’ אשר בן רבי חיים על הלכות ברכות 13$
נז.
כתבי הרמב”ם ובנו ר’ אברהם, [כולל: תשובות הרמב”ם השלם,
ספר חידושי הרמב”ם, אגרות ואמרי הרמב”ם השלם, חידושי הרמב”ם למסכת
ר”ה, ספר ברכת אברהם לר’ אברהם בן הרמב”ם] 18$
נח.    א’
קופפר, מהדיר, פירושי מסכת פסחים וסוכה מבית מדרשו של רש”י, מקיצי נרדמים,
ירושלים תשמ”ד, 11$
נט.     בארות נתן,
ר’ נתן רבינוביץ ביאורים על הש”ס, 12$.
ס.
הגדה של פסח פרי עץ
חיים, ר’ יצחק רצהבי, 19$
סא.   הגדה שלמה, סדר הגדה של פסח, ר’ מנחם כשר, 18$
סב.   ר’ יצחק טייב, חקת הפסח, וערך השלחן 18$
סג.    להודות ולהלל, פיוטים מפורשים ומבוארים ומקורתיהם
בהלכה ובאגדה לארבע פרשיות להפסקות ולשבת הגדול, ע”י ר’ משה רוזנווסר,
תשי”א עמודים, 22$
סד.    מנוחה
וקדושה
22$
סה.   ילקוט מכירי, ישיעה משלי 16$
סו.     מסכת אבות על פי כתבי יד, ב’ חלקים כארולוס טילור 32$
סז.     אור פני יצחק,
על ר’ יצחק פייגענבוים 13$
סח.    עזר הדת, ר’
יצחק פולקר, 16$
סט.   ילקוט חדש
8$
ע.
הלכות ארץ ישראל מן
הגניזה, מוסד רב קוק, מרדכי מרגליות 21$
עא.   רס”ג אמונה ודעת, קאפח 16$
עב.   ר’ ברוך עפשטיין בעל תורה תמימה, ברוך שאמר פירוש על
תפילות השנה, 17$
עג.    דרש משה, דרוש ר’ משה ראב”ד קראקא, 15$
עד.    תלמוד בבלי, שבת, דפוס ונציה ר”פ –דפוס צילום
10$
עה.   אוצר הגאונים למסכת סנהדרין 16$
עו.     תשובות חכמי פרובינציא, מהדיר, ר’ אברהם סופר, 28$
עז.
ר’ יהודה חלאוה, אמרי
שפר על התורה 13$
עח.   מנחת יהודה על ש”ס תלמיד נחלת דוד 14$
עט.   תורי זהב על שיר השירים שקל הקודש על מגילת אסתר
ברית קודש על עניני מילה לר’ שמואל באנדי 22$
פ.
גבעת פנחס, ר’ פנחס
מפאלאצק, תלמיד הגר”א 12$.
פא.   ר’ יצחק וויס, שיח יצחק על התורה מכון ירושלים 9$
פב.   תורת מוסר ר’ חיים ריינס, מוסד רב קוק, 10$
פג.    מאורות נתןברך משה ר’ נתן אלעווסקיא, מכון ירושלים
9$
פד.    מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל מהדורת מ’ איש שלום, 15$
פה.   ספרי מהדרת מ’ איש שלום, 15$
פו.      משברי ים ר’
משה לייטר, ביאורים וחידושים לתלמוד בבלי, רעט עמודים, מוסד רב קוק תשל”ט,
15$
פז.     משיבת נפש ר’ יעקב פעלדמאן על ספר תורה תמימה 550
עמודים 35$
פח.   ירחון תבונה לר’ ישראל סלנטר 10$
פט.   מסכת מגילה ומועד קטן על פי כתב יד ע”י י’
פרייס, 14$
צ.
חקר ועיון חלק ג ר’
קלמן כהנא 8$
צא.   אמת קנה ספר חסידים [אחיין של הרא”ש] דרך
טוביםדרך סלולה דרך חיים מגילת סדרים [ר’ יהודה הורובייץ ויכוח ומחקר בין
מקובלים ותלמידים] צל המעלות 9$
מחקר
א.
מאור עיניים ג’ חלקים [מקור] 130$
ב.
מבוא לתלמודים ח’ אלבק 37$
ג.
רבי זרחיה הלוי בעל המאור ובני חוגו, ישראל מ. תא-שמע, מוסד רב קוק
32$
ד.
ר’ צבי הורווביץ לתולדות הקהילות בפולין, מוסד הרב קוק 42$
ה.
מפרשי המקרא ע’ מלמד ב’ חלקים 50$
ו.
יונה פרנקל, רש”י 25$
ז.
אשה חכמת לב, מנחת זיכרון לד”ר שרה פרנקל תשע”א, כרכיה
רכה, 144 עמודים 21$
ח.
ערך מילין שי”ר ב’ חלקים 80$
ט.
גנזי שכטר, חלק ב, פירקוי בן באבוי ועוד, 20$
י.
אברהם השל, תורה מן השמים באספקלריה של הדורות, ב’ חלקים 75$
יא.
הלכה מקורותיה והתפתחותה, אפרים א. אורבך, 27$
יב.
הרמב”ם והגאונים חבצלת 21$
יג.
מחברות עמנואל הרומי, מהדורת דב ירדן, 50$
יד.
אברהם השל, תורה מן השמים באספקלריה של הדורות, חלק א, 35$
טו.
יספור לדור, יונה עמנואל 17$  על השואה [יש לציין שר’ שלמה זלמן
אורבעך היה קורא בחיבור זה בתשעה באב]
טז.
ר’ אליעזר ליפמן פרינץ, פרנס לדורות, 24$
יז.
אליעזר בשן, שבייה ופדות, בחברה היהודית בארצות הים התיכון, 18$
יח.
דוד קופמין, מחקרים, מוסד רב קוק 22$
יט.
ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורת התורה שבעל פה תשע”ב, ניתן לקבל
דוגמא 25$ [ספר מצוין, 632 עמודים]
כ.
יונה פרנקל, עיונים בעולמו הרוחני של סיפור האגדה 16$
כא.    מורה
דרך בארץ ישראל,  א’ לונץ 22$
כב.    שאלו
שלום ירושלים, ר’ מאיר דן פלצקי, על הירושלמי המזויף, 20$
כג.
דרכי משנה, זכריה פרנקל 29$
כד.    בן
ציון כץ רבנות חסידות השכלה, 18$
כה.    פ’
חורגין, תרגום כתובים, $21
כו.
כתבי רמח”ל, מאיר בניהו 100$
כז.
אוצר זכרונותי, י”ד איזנשטיין, 16$
כח.    במרכזים
ובתפוצות, שרגא אברמסון 35$
כט.    קובץ
אהל שרה לאה, ירושלים תשנ”ט, 1000+ עמודים, כולל חיבור חשוב של ר’ דוד צבי רוטשטיין
בשם ‘ספר תורה מנוקד’, יותר מ200 עמודים, על עניני נקודות ועוד, 24$.
ל.
רבי יעקב אליישר – מאיר בניהו 28$
לא.    רבי
משה אלשיך שמעון שלם, מכון בן צבי, [בעריכת מאיר בניהו] 25$
לב.    נפתלי
בן מנחם, בשערי ספר, מוסד רב קוק 20$
לג.
יוסף פאור, הרב ישראל משה חזן, האיש ומשנתו, 20$
לד.    המשנה
בבבלי ובירושלמי, שכטר מוסד רב קוק 29$
לה.    מכתבים
ואגרות קודש מאוסף יחיאל פישהאוף, תשס”ב, 419 עמודים, 24$
לו.
אחד בדורו חלק א, ר’ שמואל קול, על ר’ יסף שלמה כהנמן 24$
לז.
פרקי עיון במשנת האבן עזרא, ליפשיץ, מוסד רב קוק 20$
לח.    לפלגת
ישראל באונריה, ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד 60$ דפוס נדיר
לט.    לתולדות
הסנהדרין בישראל, ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד, 20$
מ.
השוחט והשחיטה בספרות הרבנות ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד 25$
מא.   ארץ
ישראל בבל וארצות הגולה ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד50 $
מב.   תולדות
הכהנים הגדולים, ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד 50$
מג.    הסנהדרין
גדולה ביכליר 22$
מד.    פירוש
על המשנה למסכת עירובין ר’ אברהם גולדברג 28$
מה.   ש’
באילובלוצקי, אם למסדורת, בר אילן תשל”א, 280 עמודים, [כולל מאמרים על רבו ר’
איזה’לה מפוניבז’ רב סעדיה גאון ועוד דברים חשובים], 23$
מו.
שלשלת הקבלה 24$
מז.
מסות ומסעות, רפאל ליהמן, מוסד רב קוק 18$
מח.   צבי
מנחם פיניליש, דרכה של תורה 30$
מט.   אלה
מסעי, רשימת מסע הרבנים בראשותם של הרב קוק ור’ יוסף חיים זוננפלד, תשע”א 22$
נ.
אגרות ר’ אייזק הלוי, (בעל דורות הראשונים), מוסד רב קוק, 22$
נא.    בין
סמכות לאוטונומיה במסורת ישראל, עורכים זאב ספראי, ואבי שגי  23$
נב.    הראשונים
לציון :תולדותיהם ופעולתם, א’ אלמאליח 24$
נג.
דוד אסף, הציץ ונפגע, תשע”ב 32$
נד.
כנישתא, מחקרים על בית הכנסת ועולמו, חלק  א 25$
נה.    קרית
נאמנה, פין 70$
נו.
משה סמט, משה מונטיפיורי האיש והאגדה 19$
נז.
מ’ בלבן, לתולדות התנועה הפראנקית, 45$
נח.    עזרא
מלמד, מחקרים במקרא בתרגומיו ובמפרשיו, 24$
נט.    הרב
הירש ומשנתו 21$
ס.
הלל זידמן ר’ שרגא פיבול מנדלוביץ 22$
סא.   דקדוק
ארמית, יעקב נחום אפשטין 18$
סב.   שמואל
ספראי, העליה לרגל בימי בית שני, 33$
סג.    יעקב
נחום אפשטיין, מבואות לספרות התנאים 42$
סד.    התפילה בתקופת התנאים והאמוראים, יוסף הינמן
כרכיה קשה 28$
סה.   התפילה בתקופת התנאים והאמוראים, כריכה רכה
23$
סו.
ג’ אלון מחקרים תולודת ישראל ב’ חלקים 30$
סז.
קובץ ר’ יהודה הלוי, מוסד רב קוק, תש”י,  22$
סח.   שבט
יהודה- מוסד ביאליק  26$
סט.   ש’
קוק עיונים ומחקרים שני חלקים, מוסד רב קוק, 45$
ע.
ש’ קוק, עיונים ומחקרים, מוסד רב קוק  חלק א 23$
עא.   על
היצירה הספרותית של האמוראים, אברהם ווייס $28
עב.   לחקר
התלמוד אברהם ווייס 28$
עג.    הסנהדרין
הגדולה, מוסד רב קוק, הוניג $22
עד.    תולדות
ר’ שלמה קלוגראביר הרועים אהל שלמה 19$
עה.   תולדות
אדם תולדות מנחם תולדות יצחק 19$
עו.
אגרות רמח”ל , מהדורת גינזבורג, שני חלקים 75$
עז.
ספר רש”י, מוסד רב קוק 33$
עח.   ר’ מאיר הילפרין, הנוטריקון, הסימנים, והכנוים 24$
עט.   ש”ד
גויטיין, מסעות חבשוש $26
פ.
משל הקדמוני ישראל זמורה 24$
פא.   ספר
היובל לכבוד הרב סולובייצ’יק, מוסד רב קוק, שני חלקים 120$
פב.   קובץ
על הרמב”ם מוסד רב קוק,  30$
פג.    ביכורים,
שני חלקים 66$
פד.    משה
צינוביץ, עץ חיים על ישיבות וולוז’ין 40$
פה.   ראובן
מהלר חסידות והשכלה 27$
פו.
מחקרים בתקופת בית שני פ’ חורגין 30$
פז.
מ”א טננבלאט, התלמוד הבבלי בהתהוותו ההיסטורית, 28$
פח.   ספר
היובל לכבוד ש’ מרסקי 23$
פט.   ד’
תמר מחקרים בתולודת היהודים בארץ ישראל בארצות המזרח מוסד רב קוק 21$
צ.
ד’ תמר, מחקרים בתולודת היהודים בארץ ישראל ובאיטליה 21$
צא.   ספר
מרגליות (ספר זכרון לר’ ראובן מרגליות) 28$
צב.   ספר
הבעל שם טוב (מוסד רב קוק) 36$
צג.    מבוא
למשנה תורה לרמב”ם טברסקי 34$
צד.    מחקרי
ספר אברהם יערי 47$
צה.   יהודה
ליב גירשט, תחנות בספרות ישראל, חלק שני, מזמן ראשית הצמיחה של ספרות ישראל בספרד
המוסלימית עד דורו של ר’ יהודה הלוי, 22$
צו.
בפרדס החסידות ה’ צייטלין (כריכה קשה) 20$
צז.
על גבול שני עולמות ה’ צייטלין (כריכה קשה) 20$
צח.   התורה
והחיים, גידמן סט ג’ חלקים 75$
צט.   נפתלי
בן מנחם מגנזי ישראל בוואטיקאן, מוסד רב קוק 33$
קא.   קום
ריב את ההרים, חיים בלוך עם חתימת המחבר 26$
קב.   מגיד
דבריו ליעקב רבקה 33$
קג.    יונים
ויונית, שאול ליברמן 30$
קד.    ש”ד
גוטין הישוב בארץ ישראל 22$
קה.   אגרות
ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר 28$
קו.
אברהם קורמאן, יציאת מצרים קורמן 22$
קז.
אברהם קורמאן, אבולציה יהודות 22$
קח.   אברהם
קורמאן, אבות ושבטים קורמן 22$
קט.   אברהם
קורמאן,  יהודי מיהו יהודי קורמן 22$
קי.
אברהם קורמאן, זמרים וכתות 22$
קיא. י”ז
כהנא, מחקרים בספרות השו”ת, מוסד רב קוק 35$
קיב. כנסת
עזרא ספר היובל לכבוד עזרא פליישר, 28$
קיג.  ר’
חיים קרויס, מכלכל חיים בחסד שני חלקים פולמוס בענין גשם ובענין תפילות יהי רצון
שבין התקיעות -26$
קיד.  יוסף
כהן, מקורות וקורות [כולל הרבה מחקרים חשובים כמו: מסכת אבות פירושיה ותרגומיה,
סדר קבלת שבת ופזמון לכד דודי מגילת אסתר בצפת במאה הט”ז ועוד ועוד] 28$
קטו. לכה
דודי, ראובן קימילמן, 33$
קטז. נתיבי
אמונה ומינות, י’ תשבי (כריכה קשה)24$
קיז.   קורות
התהוות הבבלי, אברהם ווייס [נדיר] 30$
קיח. בית
ישראל בפולין, מימים ראשונים ועד לימות החורבן, חלק א 20$
קיט. אברהם
וויס, על מסכת ב”ק 28$
קכ.    משיחות  בדור גירושי ספרד ופורטוגאל, י’ תשבי 23$
קכא.
ר’ שבתי דונלו, ז’ מנטנר, מוסד רב קוק 28$
קכב.
תולדות יהודים באפרקיה שני חלקים, הירשברג 36$
קכג. מחקרים
ומקורות לתולדות ישראל, וונריב 23$
קכד. מכיאל
הכהן ברור ובנו ר’ אברהם, זכרונות אב ובנו, מוסד רב קוק $26
קכה.
שמחה אסף, תקופת הגאונים וספרותה 21$
קכו.  ר’
נתן דוד רבינוביץ, בינו שנות דור ודור$28
קכח.
שמואל ורסס, מגמות
וצורות בספרות ההשכלה 20$
קכט.
תולדות שלשת הרועים –
ג’ ספרים בכרך אחד: א]-עטרת הלוים על השל”ה פ’ מדובנא 80 עמודים ב] כתר כהונה
על הש”ך- ח’ פרידבערג 37 עמודים ג] שלשלת זהב על ר’ נפתלי כץ 92 עמודים – 23$
קל.     הסכמה ורשות
בדפוסי ויניציאה מאיר בניהו 50$
קלא.
הדפוס העברי בקרימונה
מאיר בניהו 50$
קלב.
המקרא ברמב”ם יוסף קאפח 22$
קלג. ספר המצרף, ביאורים והגהות לאגדות חז”ל, אברהם דובזויץ,
(דפוס צילום, אודעסא תרל”ו) 15
קלד. תקופת הסבוראים וספרותה יעקב אפרתי 23$
קלה.
אוצר ההגדות– יצחק
יודלב, ביבליוגראפיה של הגדות של פסח מראשית הדפוס העברי עד שנת תש”ך, 70$ עותקים
אחרונים
קלו.    אגרות ארץ ישראל, אברהם יערי, 29$
קלז.  תלמידי
הגר”א בארץ ישראל, היסוטריה הגות רייאליה, קובץ מחקרים תשע”א, 20$
כריכה רכה
קלח.
גאון הוראה אחרי 50 שנה, היסוטריה הגות רייאליה, קובץ מחקרים
תשע”ב, על ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, כרכיה רכה 18$
קלט.
חברה ודעת, מנחם פרידמן 24$
[עותקים
אחרונים[ – האורטודוקסיה
הלא ציונית בארץ ישראל 1918-1936
קמ.    מחקרים בתלמוד, בנימין דה פריס, מוסד רב קוק
$18
קמא.
יצחק אלפסי, החכם המופלא ר’ שלמה הכהן אהרנסון 11$
קמב.
שערי זמרה הארוך 14$
קמג. מקורות ומסורות ד’ הלבני, סדר נשים 30$
קמד.
יוסף דרנבורג, משא ארץ
ישראל 18$
קמה.
מעלות היוחסין מאת ר’
אפרים זלמן מרגליות עם הערות 10$
קמו. אברהם ביכלר, עם הארץ הגלילי, מוסד רב קוק 12$
קמז. תולדות הישוב היהודי בארץ ישראל ש’ קליין 22$
קמח.
פנקס התקנות והרישומים של החברה קדישה
דג”ח וורמיישא, תע”ו-תקצ”ז, א’ אונא, מוסד רב קוק תש”ם, 204
עמודים 12$.
קמט.
 בן
ציון אלפס, מעשה אלפס, ישראל תשל”ח, רכ עמודים, 8$
קנ.    ספר המלבי”ם (נצח) [כולל כמה ספרים תולדות
ע”י א’ סורסקי, שנת היובל נכתב ע”י המלבי”ם, עלה לתרופה –על הל’
דעות להרמב”ם, משל ומליצה –נכתב ע”י המלבי”ם], רסג עמודים, 15$
קנא. דניאל שפרבר, תרבות חומרית בארץ ישראל בימי התלמוד חלק ב
16$
קנב. בעקבות תולעת השני הארץ ישראלית, זהר עמר 16$
קנג.  אברהם אמיר, מוסדות ותארים בספרות התלמוד, מוסד רב קוק,
$17
קנה. ר’ דוד צבי הופמן המשנה הראשונה ופלוגתא דתנאי 9$
קנו.  ש”י
עולומת
, דן סדן 9$
קנז.  Yonah
Emanuel, Dignity to survive- $18
קנח. –Magicians Theologians and doctors, H. J.
Zimmel 25$
קנט. Julius
Kaplan – $40, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud
Part two
אלפא ביתא קדמיתא
דשמואל זעירא, ר’ שמואל אשכנזי,
842 עמודים
, $52
This is the
first volume of Rabbi Shmuel Askenazi’s work printed 12
years ago. This volume is out of print for some time and very hard to find.
Recently I came across a few copies, available on a first come first serve
basis. If you enjoyed the recently printed two volumes [which are still
available] you will certainly enjoy this volume.
All books,
#1-16, in this section are $10 each. Table of contents of the Kovetz Al
Yad volumes are available.
1.  אלף המגן: פירוש על אגדות מסכת מגילה לר’
שמריה בן אליהו האקריטי, מהדורת אהרן ארנד, ירושלים תשס”ג
2.  לדויד מזמור: פיוטי דויד הנשיא בן יחזקיהו ראש
הגולה, מהדורת טובה בארי, ירושלים תשס”ט
3.  מעשה נסים: פירוש לתורה לר’ נסים בן ר’ משה
ממרסיי, מהדורת חיים קרייסל, ירושלים תש”ס
4.  פיוטי ר’ יחיאל בר אברהם מרומא, אבי ר’ נתן
בעל הערוך, מהדורת אברהם פרנקל, ירושלים תשס”ז
5.  פירוש רש”י למסכת מגילה: מהדורה
ביקורתית, מהדורת אהרן ארנד, ירושלים תשס”ח
6.  פנקס קהילת שנייטאך, מהדורת מאיר הילדסהיימר,
ירושלים תשנ”ב
7.  קיצור ספר מצוות גדול לר’ אברהם ב”ר
אפרים,, מהדורת יהושע הורוביץ, ירושלים תשס”ה
8.  שירי ר’ אהרן אלעמאני, מהדורת שרה כהן,
ירושלים תשס”ח
9.  קבץ על יד, כרך יג (תשנ”ו)
10.  קבץ על
יד, כרך יד (תשנ”ח)
11.  קבץ על
יד, כרך טו (תשס”א)
12.  קבץ על
יד, כרך טז (תשס”ב)
13.  קבץ על
יד, כרך יז (תשס”ג)
14.  קבץ על
יד, כרך יח (תשס”ה)
15.  קבץ על
יד, כרך יט (תשס”ו)
16.  קבץ על
יד, כרך כ (תשע”א)
ספרים
של הוצאת ביאליק

א.       הגדה של פסח, דניאל גולדשמידט- עורך, 14$

ב.       ספר בן סירא השלם, משה צבי סגל, 17$

ג.
ספר
יהודית גרינץ 13$

ד.       מחזור פיוטי רבי יניי, לתורה
ולמועדים – שני חלקים, צבי מאיר רבינוביץ (עורך), 35$

ה.       פיוטי יוסי בן יוסי, אהרון מירסקי (עורך) 16$

ו.
ספר
זכירה סליחות וקינות אפרים ב”ר יעקב מבונא 10$

ז.
שלושת
חיבורי הדקדוק של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ במקורם הערבי ובתרגומם
לעברית – מהדורה ביקורתית עלי
ותד, דניאל סיון 20$

ח.       ספר ההשגה לר’ יונה אבן ג’נאח
דוד טנא 23$

ט.       ר’ אברהם בר חייא, הגיון
הנפש העצובה 10$

י.
לוית
חן, לר’ לוי בן אברהם, איכות
הנבואה וסודות התורה חיים
קרייסל 26$

יא.     כתבי ר’ משה אבן תבון בעריכת: חיים קרייסל, קולט סיראט, אברהם ישראל 24$

יב.     ספר הברית וויכוחי רד”ק
עם הנצרות אפרים תלמג’ (עורך) 10$

יג.
שער הרזים ר’
טודרוס בן יוסף הלוי אבולעפיא 14$

יד.     דרשות ר’ זרחיה הלוי סלדין ארי אקרמן 19$

טו.     קבץ על יד כרך כא 20$

טז.     דרך אמונה, ר’ אברהם ביבאג’
10$

יז.
מעיין עין יעקב לר’ משה קורדובירו
המעיין הרביעי מספר אלימה
ברכה זק 23$

יח.     מאמר על יהודי ונציה שמחה
לוצאטו 11$

יט.     לקט כתבים יהודה אריה
ממודינא 10$

כ.       ספר הישר עם מבוא מיוסף דן
10$

כא.    כתבי עזריה מן האדומים מבחר פרקים מתוך ספר ‘מאור עיניים’ וספר ‘מצרף לכסף’, עזריה מן האדומים, 14$

כב.    מעלות העברים יצחק פרנאנדו קארדוזו 10$

כג.     פנקס ועד ארבע ארצות ליקוטי תקנות, כתבים ורשומות ההילפרין ישראל (עורך) 16$

כד.    כתבים
שמואל דוד לוצאטו –שני חלקים 20$

כה.    מגדל עוז או תומת ישרים,
מחזה מר’ משה חיים לוצאטו, 10$

כו.     לישרים תהילה, מחזה מר’ משה חיים לוצאטו, 10$

כז.     מעשה שמשון, מחזה מר’ משה חיים לוצאטו, 10$

מחקר

א.       ביקורת נוסח המקרא פרקי מבוא
עמנואל טוב 14$

ב.       מבוא למשנה חנוך אלבק 18$

ג.
המקרא
ותרגומיו בזיקתם להתפתחות הפנימית של
היהדות אברהם
גייגר
12$

ד.       הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית
יום-טוב ליפמאן צונץ 20$

ה.       הכישוף היהודי הקדום מחקר, שיטה, מקורות
יובל הררי 23$

ו.
אסטרולוגיה
ומדעים אחרים בין יהודי ארץ-ישראל בתקופות
ההלניסטית-רומית והביזאנטית מאיר
בר-אילן
20$

ז.
לתולדות
נוסח השאילתות ירחמיאל
ברודי
13$

ח.       מסודו של משה הדרשן חננאל מאק 20$

ט.       כנסת מחקרים כרך א: אשכנז עיונים בספרות הרבנית בימי הביניים ישראל תא-שמע 23$

י.
כנסת
מחקרים כרך ב: ספרד עיונים
בספרות הרבנית בימי הביניים תא-שמע
י”מ, 23$

יא.     כנסת מחקרים כרך ג: איטליה
וביזנטיון עיונים בספרות הרבנית בימי
הביניים ישראל
מ’ תא-שמע,
23$

יב.     כנסת מחקרים כרך ד: ארצות
המזרח, פרובנס ומאסף עיונים
בספרות הרבנית בימי הביניים
ישראל מ’ תא-שמע,23$

יג.      בעלי התוספות (2 חלקים) תולדותיהם, חיבוריהם, שיטתם
אפרים א. אורבך 25$

יד.     הרמב”ם כפילוסוף וכפוסק יעקב לוינגר 14$

טו.     ריבוי נשים בישראל מקורות חדשים מגניזת קהיר, מרדכי עקיבא
פרידמן 19$

טז.     גנזי חז”ל בספרות
הקראית בימי הביניים – כרך א: עיונים פילולוגיים ובלשניים
עפרה תירוש-בקר 20$

יז.      גנזי חז”ל בספרות
הקראית בימי הביניים – כרך ב: מהדורה מדעית מוערת של
הטקסטים
עפרה תירוש-בקר 23$

יח.     דור דור ופרשניו אסופת מחקרים בפרשנות המקרא שרה יפת 17$

יט.     ש”י לשרה יפת 23$

כ.       סיפור העם העברי תולדותיו, סוגיו, ומשמעותו, עלי יסיף 19$

כא.    לא יסור שבט מיהודה הנהגה, רבנות וקהילה בתולדות ישראל, מחקרים מוגשים
לפרופ’ שמעון שוורצפוקס עורכים:
יוסף הקר, ירון הראל 20$

כב.    טוב עלם: זיכרון, קהילה
ומגדר בחברות יהודיות בימי הביניים ובראשית
מאמרים לכבודו של ראובן בונפיל
עורכים: אלישבע באומגרטן, רוני ויינשטיין, אמנון רז-קרקוצקין 23$

כג.     הרבנות באיטליה בתקופת
הריניסאנס ראובן בונפיל 20$

כד.
חברה במשבר לגיטמציה
היישוב הישן האשכנזי 1971-1900
מנחם פרידמן 17$

כה.    אור שמח- הלכה ומשפט משנתו
של הרב מאיר שמחה הכהן על משנה תורה לרמב”ם, יצחק כהן 20$

מחשבה

א.       להבין דברי חכמים, מבחר דברי מבוא לאגדה ולמדרש משל חכמי ימי-הביניים יעקב אלבוים 15$

ב.       על פי הבאר מחקרים בהגות יהודית ובמחשבת ההלכה מוגשים ליעקב
בלידשטיין בעריכת
אורי ארליך, חיים קרייסל, דניאל י’ לסקר 23$

ג.
ישן
בקנקן חדש משנתו העיונית של החוג
הנאופלטוני בפילוסופיה היהודי במאה ה-14
דב שוורץ 17$

ד.       מחשבת ישראל ואמונת ישראל בעריכת דניאל י’ לסקר 20$

ה.       לימוד ודעת במחשבה יהודית –
כרך ב בעברית) בעריכת חיים קרייסל 17$

ו.
סמכות
רוחנית מאבקים על כוח תרבותי בהגות
היהודית בעריכת:
חיים קרייסל, בועז הוס, אורי ארליך 20$

ז.
עיוני
תשובה הלכה, הגות ומחשבה חינוכית
בהלכות תשובה לרמב”ם עדיאל
קדרי
16$

ח.       עיונים במחשבת ההלכה והאגדה יעקב בלידשטיין 20$

ט.        שבת – רעיון, היסטוריה,
מציאות בעריכת: יעקב בלידשטיין 20$

קבלה

א.
משנת הזוהר – ב’ חלקים
ישעיה תשבי 40$

ב.       כזוהר הרקיע, פרקים בתולדות התקבלות הזוהר ובהבניית ערכו הסמלי, בועז הוס 23$

ג.
אברהם
כהן הירירה בעל ‘שער שמיים’, חייו,
יצירתו והשפעתה, גרשם
שלום
10$

ד.       בשערי הקבלה של רבי משה
קורדוברו ברכה זק 17$

ה.       מ’בעל שד’ ל’בעל שם’ – שמואל
פאלק, ה’בעל שם מלונדון’ מיכל
אורון
19$

ו.
שומר
הפרדס המקובל רבי שבתי שעפטל
הורוויץ מפראג זק ב’ 17$

ז.
תורת
האלוהות של ר’ משה קורדוברו יוסף
בן-שלמה, 12$

ח.       וזאת ליהודה – קובץ מאמרים
המוקדש לחברנו, פרופ’ יהודה ליבס לרגל
יום הולדתו השישים וחמישה עורכים:
מארן ר’ ניהוף, רונית מרוז, יהונתן גארב 23$

ט.       מחקרים ומקורות לתולדות
השבתאות וגלגוליה, גרשום
שלום
15$

י.
סוד
האמונה השבתאית קובץ
מאמרים, יהודה
ליבס 23$

תפילה

א.       חקרי קבלה ותפילה משה חלמיש 21$

ב.       התפילה במשנתו ההלכתית של
הרמב”ם יעקב בלידשטיין 19$

חסידות

א.       בין אידיאולוגיה למציאות ענווה, אין, ביטול ממציאות ודביקות במחשבתם של ראשי
החסידות
מנדל פייקאז’ 16$

ב.       בימי צמיחת החסידות מגמות רעיוניות בספרי דרוש ומוסר, מנדל פייקאז’ 16$

ג.
במעגלי
חסידים, קובץ מחקרים מוקדש לזכרו של
מרדכי וילנסקי, אטקס
ואחרים, 18$

ד.       חסידות ברסלב פרקים בחיי מחוללה ובכתביה מנדל פייקאז’ 16$

ה.       חסידות פולין מגמות רעיוניות בין שתי מלחמות העולם ובגזרות
ת”ש-תש”ה (ה’שואה) מנדל
פייקאז’ 16$

ו.
מחקרים בחסידות ברסלב
יוסף וייס, 14$

ז.
חסידים
ומתנגדים (2 כרכים) לתולדות הפולמוס שביניהם בשנים תקל”ב-תקע”ה,
מרדכי וילנסקי

ח.       ספרות ההנהגות תולדותיה ומקומה בחיי חסידיו של הבעש”ט, זאב גריס, 16$

ט.       שלום על ישראל – אליעזר צבי הכהן צוויפל  ב’ חלקים 20$

י.
ההנהגה
החסידית סמכות ואמונת צדיקים
באספקלריית ספרותה של החסידות מנדל
פייקאז’ 23$

יא.
מסורת אהובה ושנואה
הות יהודית מודרנית וכתיבה ניאו-חסידית בפתח המאה העשרים,
ניחם רוס, 20$

יב.
ספרות העדות על השואה כמקור היסטורי
ושלש תגובות חסידיות בארצות השואה
מנדל פייקאז’ 20$

יג.      אברהם בר גוטלובר זכרונות
ומסעות ב’ חלקים $20

יד.     יצחק קובנר ספר המצרף 10$

טו.     וידוי של משכיל אביעזר $10

טז.     משה לייב ליליינבלום  כתבים אוטוביוגראפיים ג’ חלקים 30$

יז.      יהודה יודל רוזנברג הגולם
מפראג ומעשים נפלאים אחרים – מבוא עלי יסיף 10$

ספרים שונים

א.       ספרי במדבר, ספרי זוטא,
מהודרת הורביץ, 18$

ב.       תנא דבי אליהו מהדורת איש
שלום, 18$

ג.
מכילתא
דר’ ישמעאל, מהדורת הורביץ 18$

ד.       מדרש דברים רבה, שואל
ליברמן, 13$

ה.        שקיעין- מדרשי תימן, שואל ליברמן 13$

ו.
טעמי מסורת המקרא, לר’ יהודה החסיד 7$

ז.
פרושי התורה לר’ חיים פלטיאל, 22$

ח.        שירת הרוקח 20$

ט.       אזהרות ר’ אליהו הזקן 17$

י.
שירת
רבנו תם $20

יא.     דרכי התלמוד לר’ יצחק קפנאטון
8$

יב.     שו”ת מענה אליהו
להאדר”ת 18$

יג.      תפילת דוד, נפש דוד- חיבור
על תפילה וצוואה של האדר”ת, 15$.

יד.     הלכות מדינה לבעל ציץ
אליעזר, 26$

טו.     קול התוהר 15$

טז.     שד”ל על התורה, 24$

יז.      עין איה, רב קוק על ברכות ב’
חלקים, שבת ב’ חלקים 21$ כל חלק

יח.     מאמרי הראי”ה [אוסף
מאמרים של רב קוק] 15$

יט.     מועדי הראי”ה, ר’ משה
צבי נריה, 19$

כ.       מלאכים כבני אדם [על רב
קוק], 20$

כא.    תורה משמחת [ח”א, על
הרב שלמה זלמן אויערבך] 20$

כב.     אורו של עולם [ח”ב, על הרב שלמה זלמן אויערבך] 21$

כג.     בתורתו יהגה הרב שגר [אפשר
לקבל תוכן הענינים], 18$

כד.    אגרות רמח”ל, 22$

כה.    יעקב גרטנר, גלגולי מנהג
בעולם הלכה [אפשר לקבל תוכן הענינים], 15$

כו.      התשובה בספרות הלכה, 15$

כז.     מציאות רפואה בסדר נשים
[ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים] $25

כח.    רפואה מציאות והלכה ולשון
חכמים מרפא, ר’ מרדכי הלפרין, ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים $22




New seforim and books

New seforim and books
By Eliezer Brodt
Here is a list of seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. This is not an attempt to list everything or even close to it; rather it’s just a list of seforim and books on many random topics, which I have seen while shopping for seforim. I enumerated a few titles for which I have Table of Contents for. Please feel free to e-mail me for them.

ספרים:
א. פסקי הרי”ד מסכת נדה מכון תלמוד הישראלי
ב. האמונה ודעות לר’ סעדיה גאון עם פירוש של ר’ דוד הכהן [פרק א-ב] תפ עמודים
ג. דרשות ר’ זרחיה הלוי סלדין [תלמיד ר’ חסדאי קרשקש], אוניברסיטת בן גורין [מהדיר: ארי אקרמן], מבוא עז עמודים+ 186 עמודים
ד. קובץ על יד כרך כא [ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים]
ה. שלושת חיבורי הדקדוק של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ במקורם הערבי ובתרגומם לעברית – מהדורה ביקורתית, עלי ותד, דניאל סיון
ו. מקראות גדולות כולל פי’ ר’ יצחק ב”ר יוסף דפירא, תלמיד הרשב”א, שמות, תעג עמודים + מפתחות, [משפחת הולצר] ניתן לקבל דוגמא
ז. חקי משפט על חושן משפט [חתן של המגן אברהם]
ח. ר’ יצחק בנימין וואלף, נחלת בנימין, ב’ חלקים, על תרי”ג מצות, כולל מפתחות [נדפס פעם ראשונה בשנת תמ”ב]
ט. בתי כהונה [חנוכה] עם הערות ר’ מנחם אדלר, רא עמודים
י. ר’ אברהם אנג’יל, פתוחי חותם, ביאור תיבת גם בפסוקי תנ”ך [נדפס לראשונה בשנת תקע”ט] [כולל בשולי הגליון פירושים ממאות ראשונים ואחרונים על מילת גם, נאסף על ידי ידידי ר’ משה היבנר], רכד עמודים, ניתן לקבל דוגמא של הספר.
יא. ר’ אברהם בן הגר”א, רב פעלים ונוספות, הוצאת מישר I will hopefully review this work shortly.
יב. דרשות וחידושי רבי אליהו גוטמכר מגריידיץ על התורה, בראשית [מכתב יד] שפב עמודים.
יג. ר’ אהרן אסאד, [בן של ר’ יהודה אסאד], אש דת, פרקי מחשבה ומאמרי השקפה מיוסדים על דברי קדמונינו הראשונים ואחרונים, תפד עמודים
יד. דברי מלכיאל חלק ח, חידושים על ש”ס, מוסד רב קוק
טו. ר’ שמואל שיטאווא, מנחת שבת על קיצור שלחן ערוך, שפח עמודים, +מפתחות.
טז. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, מקראי קודש, שבת א, רצו עמודים
יז. ר’ יעקב פינק, תפארת יעקב, מאמרים הלכה ופרקי מחשבה רעינות לפרשיות השבוע ופרקי אבות, שצד עמודים
יח. ר’ ברוך רבינוביץ, בינת נבונים, השואה באספקלריה תורנית, 135 עמ’ מבוא, + רד עמודים
יט. ר’ אלישיב זצ”ל, הערות במסכת שבת חלק א, עמ’ תקמו עמודים.
כ. ר’ שלמה שוחט,  מילה שלמה על מצות מילה,  תשכה עמודים
כא. ר’ יאיר עובדיה, אור לגויים, הלכות עבודה זרה, 262 עמודים
כב. ר’ אהרן ליכטנשטיין, באור פניך יהלכון, מידועת וערכים בעבודת ה’ 295 עמודים, ידיעות ספרים
כג. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, תשובת השנה, התעוררות והנהגות ליום הלידה, וקו’ המעלות לכל השנה, עב עמודים.
כד.  ר’ אברהם רוזנטל, [בעל הסידרה ‘כמוצא שלל רב’] ורפואה קרובה לבוא,פניני הלכה ואגדה בעייני רפואה כולל שערי סגולות ותפילות לרפואה, תמח עמודים
כה. ר’ יהודה ארצי, יקח מצות אוצר על עניני הידור מצוה, 1079 עמודים.
כו. אגרות וכתבים דרך אמונה, ממרן הגר”ח קניבסקי, הוראות והנהגות ממרן החזון איש, ואגרות מן הגרי”ש אלישיב,
כז. מנשים באהל, לזכר נשמת הרבנית לאה אויערבאך, כולל קובץ הלכות ממרן הגרי”ש אלישיב, וחידושי ר’ שלמה זלמן אויערבאך על פרק במה מדליקין, אוסף חידושי תורה בעניני נשים במצות התורה, תקעא עמודים. ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.
כח. ר’ זאב זיכערמאן, אוצר פלאות התורה, בראשית, תרמ”א עמודים.    One day I will hopefully review this work.  
ורפואה קרובה לבוא 5מחקר
מחקר
א. ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורות התורה שבעל פה, יסודותיה, עקרונותיה והגדרותיה, 632 עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.  

This sefer simply put is incredible. It does not come with an index instead you get a disk of the sefer fully searchable.

ב. משנת ארץ ישראל ספראי- מסכת תרומות
ג. יצחק כהן אור שמח הלכה ומשפט, משנתו של הרב הרב מאיר שמחה הכהן על משנה תורה להרמב”ם, אוניברסיטת בן גורין, 408 עמודים  I will be reviewing this work shortly Bn.
ד. להכות שורש, הראי”ה קוק והקרן הקיימת לישראל, ר’ אברהם וסרמן ואיתם הנקין, 197 עמודים [כולל יותר מעשרים מכתבים של רב קוק חדשות שלא נדפסו וגם הרבה תמונות נדירים].
ה. עלה נעלה מענה לספר ויואל משה תשובות מפי ר’ שלמה אבינר, 278 עמודים
ו. אדר היקר, ר’ אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק על חתונ האדר”ת עם פירוש מר’ שלמה אבינר, 452 עמודים
ז. יוחנן סילמן, בין ללכת בדרכיו, ולשמע בקלו, הוראות הלכתיות כהנחיות או כציוויים, 480 עמודים, מכללת הרצוג
ח. מיכה גודמן, חלומו של הכוזרי, 380 עמודים
ט. אליעזר טרייטל, פרקי דרבי אליעזר, נוסח, עריכה ודוגמת סינופסיס של כתבי היד, יד בן צבי, 445 עמודים [ראה כאן]
י. רבי ראובן כץ, רבה של אם המושבות, מסכת חייו השזורה בתולדות הימים, 398 עמודים.
יא. חיים שלם, אי של אפשר, סיפור חייו של בנימין מינץ, הוצאת הכרמל, 559 עמודים.
יב. פנקס קהל קאסאלי מונפיראטו שמ”ט-תי”ח, בעריכת ראובן בונפיל ויצחק יודלוב, 556 עמודים, מגנס, [תוכן העניינים]
יג. הרפואה במקרא ובתלמוד, ד”ר יצחק (יוליוס) פרויס, 1022 עמודים, מגנס [תוכן העניינים]
יד. דוד הלבני, מקורות ומסורות, סנהדרין עד מסכת הוריות, מגנס, 416 עמודים.
טו. דורש טוב לעמו, הדרשן הדרשה וספרות הדרוש בתרבות היהודית, עורכים נחם אילן כרמי הורוביץ/ קימי קפלן, מרכז זלמן שזר, 242 עמודים
טז. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד, ימי הביניים, חלק ח, מרכז זלמן שזר, 488 עמודים.
יז. גנזי יוסף פרל, שמואל ורסס, מרכז זלמן שזר, 359 עמודים.
יח. אלתר ולנר, אומה במאבקיה, 439 עמודים, מוסד רב קוק
יט. יורם ארדר, דרכים  בהלכה הקראית הקדומה, 372 עמודים, ספריית הילל בן חיים, [כולל חומר חשוב על האבן עזרא]
כ. יונתן מאיר, שבחי רודקינסון, מיכאל לוי פרומקין גוקדינסון והחידות, ספריית הילל בן חיים
כא. חיי אשה ד”ר חנה קטן
כב. המעין גליון 204 ראה כאן
כג. חקירה 14 ראה כאן

English
Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013), 600 pages
Yaacov Deutsch, Judaism in Christian Eyes, Oxford Press  304 pages

Michael T. Walton, Anthonius Margaritha and the Jewish Faith, Jewish life and Conversion in Sixteenth Century Germany, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013) 242 pages
Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism, Yale University Press, 336 pages




A Letter from R. Nathan Kamenetsky

A Letter from R. Nathan Kamenetsky
In response to my last post on the Seforim Blog, R. Nathan Kamenetsky sent me a long e-mail. Because of its value to those with an interest in the Lithuanian Torah world, I asked Rabbi Kamenetsky for permission to post it here, and he graciously agreed – Marc Shapiro
The central figure, albeit a mostly passive one, in the story I shall tell below is R’ Maisheh Finkel, one of the twin sons who were the youngest children of the Alter of Slabodka, born around 1887. The other twin was R’ Shmuel Finkel, whose son became a caterer in Chicago and is the father of the recently deceased son-in-law of R’ Bainish Finkel (son of the the Alter’s oldest son R’ Laizer-Yudel), R’ Noson-Zvi Finkel, a namesake of his great-grandfather the Alter of Slabodka who served as the Rosh of the mighty Yeshivat Mir of Jerusalem for about thirty years.
R’ Maisheh was far superior in Torah talent to his twin R’ Shmuel. Someone described to me R’ Maisheh’s learning pose; he would pace back and forth the length of the beit midrash, and if someone asked a good question, R’ Maisheh would give him one reply as he passed the questioner on the first time he transversed the beit midrash, then give him a second answer when he passed by him a second time, and a third answer when he passed him by for the third time. Raised by his mother – the Alteh lived in Kelem, not Slabodka, till the latter part of the first decade of the 20th century: see MOAG pp. 594-596 — the Alter had at first sent him to learn under R’ Baruch-Ber Leibowitz in Hlusk, and then brought him to Slabodka. R’ Maisheh married Zlateh, the daughter of the Slabodka Rosh Yeshiva, R’ Moshe-Mordkhai Epstein, in 1913, and was appointed as a maggid shiur in the Slabodka Yeshiva.
When the Slabodka Yeshiva opened a branch in the city of Chevron in the winter of 1925, R’ Maisheh was sent along with the first talmidim to be a maggid shiur there. The Alter himself came to Palestine in the summer of 1925 – not as the mashgiach, but as a retiree – and three months later, R’ Maisheh died. Chiddushei Torah of R’ Maisheh Finkel were published beginning in 1986 by R’ Chaim-Dov Altusky, Rabbi Pinchas Scheinberg’s late son-in-law, under the name “Chiddushei Hagram Mislabodka” (together with “Chiddushei Hamasbir”, with the last word created from the acronym of Harav Morainu Soloveitchik Ber Yosheh, Reb) on various massekhtot. Rabbi Altusky had gotten R’ Maisheh’s manuscripts from a (posthumous) daughter-in-law of R’ Maishe’s.
Before we go on with the story, I will quote Rabbi Altusky from one of the introductions of “Chiddushei Hagram Mislabodka” where he quotes R’ Yeruham Levovitz, celebrated Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, as having written about R’ Maisheh: “I always said that in a generation which has a great timber as he (ilan gadol kamohu), Israel is not yet widowed (od lo alman Yisrael), and in his light shall we see radiance (b’oro nir’eh or).” Rabbi Altusky points out that R’ Yerucham wrote this when such greats as R’ Chaim-Ozer, R’ Shimon Shkop, R’ Baruch Ber Leibowitz and the Kovner Rav fully functioned; but Rabbi Altusky does not explain why it was R’ Maishe Finkel’s presence that assured R’ Yeruham that lo alman Yisrael. The Alter and his talmid R’ Yeruham saw the ideal gadol baTorah, the ilan hagadol, as one who is equally great in Torah and in Musar – and this combination was very rare to find. They both saw that R’ Maishe filled that prescription – also cf. MOAG pp. 805-806 on what the Alter thought of his son.
Verily, according to one of Altusky’s introductions, R’ Maisheh was “designated (m’yu’ad)” to succeed both his father as Mashgiach and his father-in-law as Rosh Yeshiva; this is surely something that his daughter-in-law had heard within the family and passed on, together with the manuscripts, to Rav Altusky. Also see MOAG pp. 756 and 765 that R’ Maisheh would be his father’s agent to carry through sensitive matters. [Do you, R’ Mailech, have my Improved Edition or only the original MOAG? The Improved Edition has a asterisked footnote on page 1278 regarding the Alter’s high estimation of his son and also pertains to the subject of your landmark book, viz., to R’ Yehiel-Yankev Weinberg.]
Now to the body of the story. I shall tell it in the way it came to me. My father had said several times, “The (Slabodka) Yeshiva was so dear to the Alter, that he would be willing to sacrifice a child for it.” I never understood what he meant by this Aqaidah metaphor (nor did I question my father about it) until I arrived in Israel and repeated it to R’ Laizer Goldschmidt, a dayyan on the Beit Din Hagadol and husband of Miriam nee Plachinsky, a granddaughter of the Alter of Slabodka, asking him what my father had meant. He explained that Slabodka talmidim attributed R’ Maisheh death at so early an age to his having broken his engagement to another girl in order to marry R’ Moshe-Mordkhai’s daughter. He had been engaged to Chava-Leah Hutner of Warsaw (who later became the wife of R’ Tzvi-Yehudah Kook). (You may look up MOAG pp. 791-798 where I conjecture that this breakup brought about [in a convoluted way] R’ Hatzqel Libshitz’s decision to turn down the rabbanut of Kovno – thus opening the door for R’ Avraham-Dober Kahana-Shapiro’s appointment.) Incidentally, when R’ Yitzchak Hutner, later of Yeshivat Rabbenu Chaim Berlin, came to study in Slabodka after WWI, the Alter was ill at ease with him because he was closely related to the jilted young lady, and had his major talmid R’ Avrohm Grodzinsky, by then part of the Musar-hanhalah – see MOAG p. 806 – deal with the neophyte.
And why did R’ Maisheh break up? Because the wife of the Rosh Yeshiva, R’ Moshe-Mordkhai, insisted on it: she insisted that R’ Maisheh marry her daughter Zlateh. The Alter of Slabodka felt that if he would enter into bad relations with (Menuhah Epstein, and hence with) R’ Moshe-Mordkhai, the yeshiva would suffer. And he was willing to sacrifice his son on the altar of Yeshivas Slabodka. It is said that when the Alter was told of his son’s demise, he repeated Job’s words (3:25) “What I greatly feared is come upon me; what I had apprehended has come on me.” In MOAG, I have an excursus on pp. 1061-1064 about the power certain wives of rashei yeshiva wielded in some old yeshivot – especially the Netziv’s (niece, who became his) second wife, sister of R’ Baruch Epstein. When R’ Maisheh broke his engagement, R’ Hayyim Soloveichik was angry with the Alter, saying, “For politics one does not embarrass a Jewish daughter” – see MOAG pp. 419-420.
But I had a problem: if Menuha Epstein was intent enough on having the ‘iluy Maisheh Finkel marry her daughter that she would have him break his earlier engagement, why did she allow him to get engaged to someone else to begin with? Why didn’t she interfere with Maisheh Finkel’s proposed shiddukhim immediately?. This was bothering me for a long time – until I heard another story about R’ Avrohm Kalmanowitz, of Va’ad Hatzalah fame, from a son of his sister, R’ Osher Katzman, an author of many popular articles in the Aguda monthly “Dos Yiddisheh Vort” (and whose son Eli’ezer is on the editorial board of “Yeshurun”).
R’ Avrohm Kalmanowitz had learned in Slabodka, having come there from the town of Aishishok (the town perpetuated by Yaffa Eliach) where he learned with its rav, Reb Zundel Hutner. In his famous speeches in the United States after WWII, Rav Kalmanowitz would often refer to his study sessions with Reb Zundel and would recall that they studied through the long commentaries of the Shakh in Section 25 of Hoshen Mishpat (about the laws of a judge who erred in his ruling) – and that Reb Zundel lamented that there is no one “nowadays” who learns thoroughly through the subject at which the Shakh had toiled so hard. R’ Avrohm then studied under Reb Laizer Gordon in Telz (see fn. t on p. 964 of MOAG), and, by the time he came under the wing of the Alter of Slabodka, he was already close to 20 years of age. By that time he had already completed the 4 Sections of the Shulkhan ‘Arukh. In fact, when he arrived in Slabodka, he would look down upon a bachur his age who had not completed covered as much Torah as he had. He was considered a ‘iluy in the yeshiva, and there was an ongoing debate among the talmidim of the Yeshiva on who was the greater ‘iluy, Avrohm Kalmonowitz or Aaron Sislovicher (later Kotler). In fact, when R’ Avrohm died, in 1964, two years after R’ Aaron Kotler, my father za”l remarked, “The last member of our chabhurah in Slabodka is gone.”
According to “Kulmos Hallev”, a volume about Rav Kalmanowitz and “his Da’ath Torah and spiritual fervor (sa’arot ruach)” (published by his family in Jerusalem, 1996), p. 4, R’ Zundel had spread his pupil’s fame as a “wondrous ‘iluy” and the Alter sent a wagon to fetch him and bring him to Slabodka; the Alter then arranged that he should learn together with his talented son R’ Maisheh. R’ Avrohm’s father,
who served as rav in Volhyn, in the town of Barashi, near Rogachov, once came to Slabodka to see how his son was faring. When the Alter told him, “He can already lead half the world,” he became upset, and said, “I sent him here to learn, not to lead.”
The story Katzman told was as follows: R’ Avrohm had gone home for Pesach, at a time when two shiddukhim were being proposed to him; one was a daughter of his rosh yeshiva R’ Moshe-Mordkhai Epstein, and the other was an orphaned daughter of the Rav of Rakov, a town between Volozhin and Minsk, and he had already met both young ladies. From home, he wrote out two envelopes addressed to the two female candidates, and then sat down to write out the letters he was planning to send them. First he wrote the letter to the Rakov girl and he put her letter into an envelope and took it to the post office. He then wrote a letter to the Epstein girl, and as he was putting the letter into the remaining envelope — woe is him! – he saw that the remaining envelope was the one addressed to Rakov. This meant that the letter to the Rakov girl would arrive at the home of the Epstein girl. He rushed to the post office and asked the postman to return the letter he had given him, but the postman refused. R’ Avrohm went on to offer the postman up to 10 Rubles to get his letter back, but the postman explained that the law is that once a letter is in his hand he must deliver it only to the addressee. In short, when the Rakov girl’s letter arrived in Slabodka, and the daughter of R’ Moshe-Mordkhai saw that Avrohm had even considered another shiddukh but herself, the proud granddaughter of the famous Kovno philanthropist R’ Shraga-Feivel Frank (cf. MOAG Index), was beside herself, and decided she would hear no more of Avrohm Kalmanowitz.
When I heard this story I pieced two and two together, to wit: in the winter of 1913, Rebbitzen Epstein was not interested in Maisheh Finkel because she had as good a catch, if not a better one, for her Zlateh in Avrohm Kalmanowitz, the latter being not only a great ‘iluy, but a tall, handsome and charismatic leader as well. So why should she care if R’ Baruch-Ber Leibowitz, by-this-time the Rosh Yeshiva of Knesset Beit Yitzchak, the “other”, non-Musar, yeshiva in Slabodka, had cast his eye on Maisheh for his daughter (see MOAG p. 525), and why should she care if Maisheh gets engaged to Chava-Leah Hutner of Warsaw? At the beginning of that winter, R’ Moshe-Mordkhai presented R’ Avrohm with an effusive Certificate of Ordination (Smikhah) testifying that he is “a wondrous baqi in all of Shas with Tospoth, and in the posqim, rishonim v’acharonim, as one of the greats of the generation.” The Certificate manuscript is pictured on the page facing page 1 of “Kulmos Hallev”, and is laid out in print on p. 5, together with ordinations by R’ Elya-Barukh Kamai, Rav of Mir, and R’ Rephael Shapiro of Volozhin, both awarded to R’ Avrohm about a month later than R’ Moshe-Mordkhai’s, the manuscripts of which are pictured on the page following p. 220 of “Kulmos”, the last page of the volume.
It is worth noting that in transcribing the manuscript of R’ Moshe-Mordechai, the family misread one word, for, after praising the ordainee as “yet from his youth he stood out as a wondrous ‘iluy,” the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth written lines read: “Va’yiph va’yigdal va’yehi l’erez may’arzei Hatorah (he became beautiful and grew to become a cedar among the cedars of Torah),” while the printed transciption misreads the beginning of the quotation, that is, its first word, to: “Aph va’yigdal va’yehi (he also grew and became).” The family obviously did not realize that R’ Moshe-Mordkhai used the language of Ezekiel 31:7 which describes “a cedar of Lebanon, that is Assyria (Verse 3)” which “Va’yiph b’godlo (became beautiful in its greatness)” to describe R’ Avrohm who, after being a wondrous ‘iluy in his youth, grew to become a cedar-like tall and handsome young man and one of the Torah cedars of his generations. (I had seen the manuscript Smikhah before “Kulmos Hallev” was published, and I immediately connected R’ Moshe-Mordechai’s expression to Ezekiel. I’ll just add that R’ Moshe-Mordechai used the expression from his by-heart knowledge of the verse, and did not look up the verse in a Tanakh before penning it, else he would have spelled the word “va’yiph” with two Yoddim – and the family would not have been mislead to read his Vav and single Yod as an Aleph, “aph” instead of “va’yiph.)
I believe that R’ Moshe-Mordkhai wrote the extremely flattering Smikha when R’ Avrohm was a candidate to become his son-in-law, but R’ Avrohm obtained the other two smikhot soon thereafter because he was also interested in the Rakov girl whose hand was offered together with her late father’s rabbanut of the town of Rakov – as you know from the case of R’ Yehiel-Yankev Weinberg of Pilvishok, a town would keep its rabbinical post vacant until their deceased rav’s daughter would find a match suitable to take over the rabbinate. Therefore, R’ Avrohm sought out ordinations from well-known rabbanim who served in towns close to Rakov, not in faraway Slabodka. During the same winter that the Epsteins were sure that R’ Avrohm would close a shidduch with their Zlateh, R’ Maishe became engaged to the well-to-do and pedigreed Chava-Leah, daughter of R’ Yehudah-Laib Hutner, a Motz in Warsaw who also owned a printing company. After Avrohm’s Pesach blunder, Zlateh was left with a second-choice mate, one who was already engaged, Maisheh Finkel: her mother took care of the rest. Under the hand of the daughter-in-law who supplied Rav Altusky with R’ Maishe’s Torah manuscripts, I saw the ketubah of Zlateh and Maisheh: they were married two months after the Pesach debacle, in Sivan 5673 (June 1913), and one of the two witnesses thereon is my grandfather, R’ Bereh-Hirsh Heller, the “younger” mashgiach of the Slabodka Yeshiva. Rav Kalmanowitz went on to wed the Rakov girl and its rabbinate, and became known throughout his lifetime as “the Rakover Rav”. It is said that R’ Laizer Rabinowitz, who succeeded his father-in-law the Minsker Godol, R’ Yeruham-Yehudah-Laib Perlman, as Rav of Minsk, took no major action in that metropolis without first discussing it with Rav Kalmanowitz. The latter verily became a great Torah leader as the Alter had predicted.
I’ll end by doing justice to the historically underrated Rav Kalmanowitz. During the First World War, Rav Kalmanowitz organized aid for the refugees who streamed from Poland into Russia, as recorded at length in “Kulmos Hallev”. He also went on to become close to the Chafetz-Chaim and followed the latter’s guidance in klal Yisrael activism. When the Mirrer Yeshiva underwent a financial crisis, he became the major fundraising representative of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Europe, and then traveled to America on behalf of that yeshiva. Because he was not a simple executive director but a great talmid chakham, he was given the title of “Nasi” of that yeshiva, and was promised that he would eventually deliver shiurim therein. (Nowadays, many religious institutions raise their stature by claiming to be uner the “n’si’ut” of one gadol or another. But the first to hold that title was Rav Kalmanowitz, who not only contributed his good name to the Mirrer Yeshiva, but earned the title by literally saving it from collapse.)
But delivering shiurim in the Mirrer Yeshiva never worked out for R’ Avrohm. I conjecture that it was due to the opposition of Reb Yeruham Levovitz, the Mashgiach who shared at least equally with the Rosh Yeshiva, R’ Laizer-Yudel Finkel, the adulation of the talmidim. As a ba’al Musar who sought to raise the stature of bnai Torah who devoted themselves exclusively to Torah study, R’ Yeruham felt that super-activist Rav Kalmanowitz was an improper role model. (See MOAG pp. 573-576 that R’ Yeruham disagreed strongly with the Chafetz-Chaim’s approach to the training of yeshiva students.) Instead, the Mirrer Yeshiva fulfilled its obligation by providing a group of its outstanding talmidim to set up a kolel in Otwotzk (near Warsaw) for its Nasi to head. The Kalmanowitz family told me that R’ Avrohm always looked back at that time in his life when he sat and learned in the Mir-sponsored kolel as the happiest period of his lifetime.
In spite of this, Rav Kalmanowitz could not bring himself to shun the public arena for long. He returned to his activism and became Rav of Tiktin, an ancient and highly prestigious rabbanut. His many activities on behalf of Jewry and his prolific writings about them are recorded in “Kulmos Hallev”, a book which should be read by all bnai Torah. When the Second World War broke out, he happened to be fundraising in the United States, and there became the linchpin of the Vaad Hatzalah organization. Among other accomplishments, he raised the monetary means to sustain the Mirrer Yeshiva throughout its Shanghai exile. In connection with this supreme achievement, there is a famous vort which R’ Avrohm expounded. He asked: why did the lion claw and injure Noah when he was once late feeding it in the Ark, when, after all, he had fed it in time all the other meals? And he answered: there can be no excuse for treating the very last lion in the world in any manner less than royally. Rav Kalmanowitz used this bon mot when asking people to contribute to saving the last yeshiva remaining when the Jewish world was destroyed with the onset of the war.
I’ll end with an exchange between gedolim that R’ Yankel Leshinsky witnessed and relayed to me. The three Slabodka talmidim, R’ Reuven Grozovsky, R’ Avrohm Kalmanowitz, and R’ Aaron Kotler were meeting in the Vaad Hatzalah office, and a heated argument broke out between Rav Kalmanowitz and Rav Aaron Kotler as to which course of action to take. Rav Kalmanowitz lost his composure and said, “Listen R’ Aaron, if I had sat and learned all the years as you did, I would have been greater than you.” To which R’ Reuven retorted, “Yes, R’ Avrohm, but R’ Aaron did learn!” The point is that Rav Kalmanowitz sacrificed the pinnacle of personal rank in favor of the public needs: and he was never properly appreciated for it.