Lecture on the Legend of R’ Yehuda Halevi’s Death and more

Lecture on the Legend of R’ Yehuda Halevi’s Death and more

Eliezer Brodt

Earlier today I had a conversation with Rabbi Moshe Schwed of All Daf. The conversation was a discussion of the famous Legend of R’ Yehuda Halevi’s death. I also devoted some time to talking about the Cairo Genizah and how some of its discoveries relates to R’ Yehuda Halevi’s final years.

Some of this material appeared earlier on the Seforim Blog back in 2011 (here) and in Hebrew in Yeshurun 25 (2011). A PDF is available (here).

We recorded it and it’s available for viewing here and here, and an audio recording is available here.

This is an experiment which we are trying on the Seforim Blog and we hope to have other presentations from others over time. Feedback or comments of any sort are appreciated.

In addition, one can hear my recent presentation on All Daf, aboutlearning Shas Kotton– Kesuvos Throughout the Ages here and here.

Season One of my series devoted to the seforim of Hagaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky Ztz’l was completed a few weeks ago B”h, and ten episodes are available for viewing here.

IYH Season Two should begin shortly.

Sponsorships are available.

Review: Contemporary Uses and Forms of Hasidut, edited by Shlomo Zuckier

Contemporary Uses and Forms of Hasidut. Edited by Shlomo Zuckier. Yeshiva University Press, 2022. 516 pages. ISBN 978-1-60280-398-5.

REVIEWED BY BEZALEL NAOR

When the ‘Ilui of Denenburg was in Lublin, he visited the Rabbi of the city, the Gaon Rabbi Shneur Zalman [Fradkin]. Upon parting, he asked him if there is to be found in Lublin another gaon. Rabbi Shneur Zalman replied: “There resides here Rabbi Zadok HaKohen, a great gaon.” The ‘Ilui of Denenburg went to the “Kohen,” who received him with great honor.

(Shmuel Ungar, Sefer Toledot Hakohen mi-Lublin, ed. Zevi Moskowitch [Jerusalem, 1966], chap. 9, p. 36)

When the famous Gaon, Rabbi Yosef Rosen, may he live, the Rabbi of Denenburg, visited him and wished to engage him in pilpul (Talmudic dialectic), [Rabbi Zadok Hakohen] said to him: “When the Men of the Great Assembly instituted the blessing, ‘You bestow knowledge upon men,’ their intention was not that one should demonstrate ones prowess in pilpul. But since ‘from the LORD a man’s steps are set’ [Psalms 37:23], perhaps it is for this reason that His Honor has come to me. Though His Honor is an ‘ilui, he should know that I was an ‘ilui. While I was yet young, I won over all the gedolim (greats) who engaged me in pilpul. Yet, I saw afterward, that it is impossible to merit to the ‘crown of Torah’ unless we latch onto the door of the disciples of the Ba‘al Shem Tov, may his merit protect us.”

(Shlomo Gavriel Margaliyot, “Toledot Rabbeinu ha-Kohen ha-Mehaber,” Introduction to Rabbi Zadok ha-Kohen, Sihat Mal’akhei ha-Sharet [Lublin, 1927], 2a)

For the better part of the twentieth century, Yeshiva University—under its rashei yeshivah, Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik, his elder son Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (referred to simply as “the Rav”), and younger son Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik—was the vanguard of the much vaunted “Brisker derekh,” the novel method of Talmudic analysis developed by Rabbi Hayyim Soloveichik of Brisk de-Lita (Brest-Litovsk), Moshe’s father. This methodology was later transported to Yeshivat Har Etzion (in Gush Etzion), when Rabbi Yosef Dov’s son-in-law Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein became rosh yeshivah there in 1971. The Soloveichik Family, descendants of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, the premier disciple of the Vilna Gaon, carried on the Mitnagdic tradition of Torah li-shemah (study of Torah for Torah’s sake) as outlined in Rabbi Hayyim’s work Nefesh ha-Hayyim, and as put into practice for the better part of the nineteenth century in the Volozhin Yeshivah, ‘the mother of yeshivot.”

And then there was Shagar. ShaGaR (acronym of Shimon Gershon Rosenberg) (1949-2007), himself a product of the Dati-Le’umi (Religious Zionist) world (identified by their knitted yarmulkas, or kippot serugot) posed a challenge to the monolithic world of Brisk. With an impressive armamentarium of spiritual works—Habad, Likkutei Moharan (by Rabbi Nahman of Breslov), Mei ha-Shilo’ah (of the Izhbitser Rebbe)—his teachings found a chink in the armor of the time-hallowed derekh ha-limmud (method of study). One could say, Shagar was a Litvak’s worst nightmare. Students of the Gush, the so-called “Harvard of yeshivot hesder,” who evidently were dissatisfied with the traditional diet of the yeshivah, were taken by the siren song of Shagar, who dispensed a post-modernist presentation of Hasidic thought.

And then the unthinkable occurred. The refracted light of Hasidism bounced back to the “mother ship,” Yeshiva University, and in 2013, Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, an American Hasidic rebbe (a graduate of Yeshiva University), was appointed “Mashpi‘a” of Yeshiva University. (Previously, the title “mashpi‘a,” or “spiritual influencer,” was synonymous with Lubavitcher yeshivot.)

The meeting between the Vilna Gaon’s heirs and the Ba‘al Shem Tov’s heirs was happening.

The present volume, edited by Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Zuckier, a polymath of some distinction, and published under the auspices of Yeshiva University, is testimony to this paradigm shift within the world of Yeshiva University and Yeshivat Har Etzion.

The thought occurs to this writer that the confrontation of Shagar and Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein in the Gush, might have taken place a generation earlier had Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel become faculty at Yeshiva University. (There exists documentation to substantiate the negotiations between Heschel and Yeshiva University.) Within the halls of Yeshiva University there would have held forth the Rav and the Rebbe; the scion of the Beit Harav mi-Volozhin, and the descendant of the Apter Rov (his namesake, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel), author of Ohev Yisrael; Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev, author of Kedushat Levi; the royal house of Ruzhin; and the Rebbe of Novominsk. A generation earlier, the encounter of the Man of Halakhah and the Man of Aggadah might have produced a marvelous cross-pollination.

A single example will illustrate the fecundity of their mutually complementary thought: Prophecy.

Where the Rav, the Ish ha-Halakhah (based on Maimonides, of course) “worked overtime” to glean the halakhic takeaway of the entire prophetic enterprise, and arrived finally at the notion of imitatio Dei (“ve-halakhta bi-derakhav”), the Rebbe, the Ish ha-Aggadah, dismissed imitatio Dei. While the Man of Halakhah sought the dimension of “prophecy needed for generations” (“nevu’ah she-hutzrekhah le-dorot,” b. Megillah 14a), the Man of Aggadah searched for precisely the “teaching of the hour” (hora’at sha‘ah).

After quoting Maimonides’ Hilkhot De‘ot 1:6 (“And in this way, the prophets called God by all those epithets [kinuyim]—“Long Suffering,” “Master of Lovingkindness,” “Righteous,” “Straight,” etc.—to make known that they are good and straight ways, and a man is obligated to conduct himself by them and to emulate Him to his ability”), Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik confides:

I always had difficulty in regard to the role of the prophets of Israel. On one hand, we rule that a prophet may not innovate to add or subtract even a jot; on the other hand, the word of the LORD required prophets, and their prophecy was written down for generations. What is the purpose of their prophecy inasmuch as they were unable to innovate any matter of Halakhah? Certainly, they rebuked Israel, and rebuke was one of the purposes for which our prophets were sent. However, I still have difficulty saying that in their prophecy they told Israel nothing in the Halakhic sense.

But now all is crystal clear. There is an entire Torah in the books of the Prophets—the Torah of the ways of the LORD, the Torah of the epithets that obligates man in imitating his Creator. … Tout court, prophecy came to teach man how to participate in the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, and to attain His epithets.

(Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Shi‘urim le-Zekher Abba Mori [Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2002], vol. 2, pp. 188-189)

In revolt against Maimonides, and nurtured on the iconoclasm of Pshysucha and Kotzk, Heschel, proponent of divine pathos, searches for exactly the “teaching of the moment,” the prophet’s experience of the moment. (As one of the authors in the collection, the late Ya‘akov Elman, wrote, “Individualism in Przysucha-Kotzk-Izbica-Lublin involves not just individual humans, but also individual moments in time and circumstance” [p. 87].)

Heschel writes:

Prophetic sympathy is by no means identical with the imitation of God, which in the broadest sense is also a biblical motif (cf. Lev. 19:2). The difference is the more significant because the resemblance, too, is obvious. Imitatio, the pattern of which is a concrete life-history, is realized as a practical way of life. Sympathy, whose object is an inner spiritual reality, is a disposition of the soul. The prototype of imitatio is an unchanging model; a constant traditional knowledge of it indicates a ready path to be followed. Pathos, on the other hand, is ever changing, according to the circumstances of the given situation. The content of sympathy is not fixed by any predetermination. What is abiding in it, is simply the orientation toward the living reality of God.

Imitatio is concerned with a past, sympathy with a present, occurrence. Imitatio is remote from history; what is at stake in sympathy is an actual historical situation.

(Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2010], Part Two, p. 102)

And again, in even more strident terms:

The goal of sympathy is not to become like unto God, but to become effective as a prophet through approximation to the pathos of God. In sympathy, divine pathos is actually experienced in the moment of crisis; in imitatio, the fixed pattern is transmitted. In the former case, an assimilation or creative understanding is necessary; in the latter, mere knowledge is sometimes sufficient.

In imitatio, the whole being of the deity is often taken as the pattern; in sympathy, only its aspect as pathos is taken as the pattern.

(Ibid. pp. 102-103)

We read that when a meeting was arranged between Rabbis Heschel and Soloveitchik in the 1960s to map out a strategy for confronting the Vatican, at their initial encounter, these two Jewish leaders (whose parallel paths traversed Warsaw, Berlin and New York) discussed (at Rabbi Soloveitchik’s insistence)—Yiddish literature. Perhaps the time has come for the denizens of the worlds of Halakhah and Aggadah to discuss—Prophecy.

On the Ger Tzedek of Vilnius

By Yosef Vilner

This year the holiday of Shavuot occurred right after Shabbat. There were many meals and lively conversations around the table. During one these talks my daughter mentioned a story she read in a weekly supplement to the Hebrew edition of the Orthodox Jewish newspaper Hamodia. The story was about Polish nobleman Graf Potocki, a convert to Judaism who was convicted of apostacy by the Catholic Church and burned alive at the stake in Vilna on the second day of Shavuot on May 24, 1749. As a native of Vilna, I was very pleased to hear that this old, deeply rooted Litvak tradition is still celebrated on the pages of the contemporary Israeli magazines. However, the following day I discovered that Lithuanian Jewish Community in an apparent attempt to commemorate this event as a non-event published an article with a headline: “Ger Tzedek Count Potocki Story is Likely a Myth.” The article is derived from Wikipedia, where it appears under the title “Abraham ben Abraham.”

What prompted the editors of the website to compose such a headline? Most likely the following introductory passage in the Wikipedia article: “Although the Orthodox Jewish community accepts the teachings about Abraham ben Abraham, secular scholars have largely concluded that it is a legend.” But if the editors would take the trouble to continue reading the article they would probably arrive at a different conclusion. Setting aside the question of the reliability of Wikipedia as a source, let me present some of the conclusions of these “scholars” and examine them together with you.

As we read the article, we are informed that: “Historians who have studied the story of Potocki, believe it to be invented although it is unknown when or by whom. Jacek Moskwa points to a possibility that the author was Kraszewski himself, who is known to have invented some tales he claimed were true.” The reference here is to Joszef Ignacy Kraszewski, a well-known Polish writer and historian who published the story about Ger Tzedek from a Hebrew manuscript in his history of Vilna in 1841.

But to our great surprise in the next paragraph we discover that: “Polish historian Janusz Tazbir asserted that the story originated at the turn of the 19th century and was published in a Jewish periodical issued in London as “The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel” (vol. 8, 1822).” It does not take a mathematical genius to figure out that if the story appeared in print already in 1822 it could not be an invention of Kraszewski, who published it in 1841.

But what is this mysterious “Jewish periodical issued in London” called The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel? And what was exactly published there? A quick Google search produced the following results. “The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel” was a monthly periodical published by London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, by no means a “Jewish periodical”. The abovementioned volume contains “Extracts from the Journal of Mr. Wolff”, who was a Jewish convert to Christianity and traveled as a missionary in Egypt and Eretz Israel between 1821 and 1826. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1906 he “was the first modern missionary to preach to the Jews near Jerusalem.” In the spring of 1822, he met with Rabbi Menachem Mendl of Shklov one of the leading rabbis in Jerusalem at the time. A neophyte Christian and a fervent missionary, Joseph Wolff initiated theological discussions with Rabbi Menachem Mendl in a disguised attempt to convert him to Christianity. Rabbi Rabbi Menachem Mendl, on the other hand, intended to bring Joseph Wolff back to the faith of his forefathers, the Judaism. It is the experts from these discussions that Joseph Wolff reported to “The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel”. April 14, 1822, Joseph Wolff wrote: “Rabbi Mendel mentioned to me the history of the conversion of a Polish Count, Podozky by name, he turned Jew, and was committed to the flames by the inquisition in Wilna.”

Rabbi Menachem Mendl was one of the outstanding disciples of the Vina Gaon, who immigrated to Eretz Israel in 1808 and settled in Jerusalem in 1816. Born in Shklov in 1750 he came to Vilna in 1795 to study with the Gaon. According to his own testimony: “I did not withdraw from his [the Gaon’s] presence; I held onto him and did not leave him; I remained in his tent day and night.” There is little doubt that he heard the story about the Ger Tzedek from the Rabbis of Vilna who were contemporaries to the trial and the execution of Avraham ben Avraham in 1749. This oral tradition Menachem Mendl related to Joseph Wolff in Jerusalem on the 14 April 1822.

As a result, the assertion of Janusz Tazbir that the story about the Ger Tzedek “originated at the turn of the 19th century“ is not at all compelling. Moreover, if we scroll back to the beginning of the Wikipedia article, we will read the following passage:

There is also one contemporary written account from 1755, by Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Vayakam Edus b’Yaakov, 1755, p. 25b. A rough translation: A few years ago, it happened in Vilna the capital of Lithuania that a great prince from the family of Pototska converted. They captured him and imprisoned him for many days thinking they could return him to their religion. He knew that he would not escape harsh tortures and a cruel death if he would not return. They wanted to save him from the death and punishment that would await him if he held out. He paid no attention to them or to the begging of his mother the countess. He was not afraid or worried about dying in all the bitter anguish they had done to him. After waiting for him for a long time, they tried to take it easy on him for the honor of his family. He ridiculed all the temptations of the priests who would speak to him every day because he was an important minister. He scorned them and laughed at them, and chose death of long and cruel agony, to the temporary life of this world. He accepted and suffered all from love and died sanctifying God’s name. May he rest in peace.

Rabbi Yakov Emden, one of the prominent European Rabbis of the 18^th century, resided most of his life in Altona, now part of Hamburg, but maintained very close ties with the Jewish community of Vilna, were both of his parental grandparents were born. Known for his critical attitudes, he most certainly verified the credibility of the account before he published it in a book.

If incredulous Janusz Tazbir would be aware of this source, he would never have suggested “that the story originated at the turn of the 19th century.” But would he be convinced that it really happened in the first half of the previous century? Probably not, and this is because: “the tragic fate of Potocki, passed through Jewish oral tradition, remains unconfirmed by 18th-century Polish primary sources .” We must admit, in all fairness, that the lack of the evidence in the Polish sources poses a serious problem. But does it necessarily follow that the alleged event never happened? Or is it possible that the Polish archives of that period possess black holes that conceal certain events? One could speculate that due to the prominence of the Potocki magnate family, the conversion of one its members from Catholicism to Judaism and his subsequent execution was concealed from the public and later obliterated from the Church records.

As we progress with Tazbir’s arguments presented in the article we discover that: “the Polish nobility was guaranteed the freedom of faith and capital punishment was extremely rare.” But the author of the article is quick to note: “though see also Iwan Tyszkiewicz” and links to an entry in Wikipedia were we are told the following. Iwan Tyszkiewicz was well-to-do subject of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, who became a follower of Socinian doctrines and abandoned Roman Catholicism for a Unitarian sect and was burned alive for blasphemous heresy at the great marketplace of Warsaw in 1611. So much for religious freedom of faith. The second point attributed to Tazbir in above citation “and capital punishment was extremely rare” is even more incredible. How does it exactly invalidate the Jewish tradition that one Ger Tzedek was executed in 1749? Furthermore, according to Magda Teter (The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reassurance, AJS Review 29:2, 2005) in the span of five-year period from 1748 to 1753, another two such executions occurred in Poland. Abram Michelevich, a Jew from Mohilev, and his Christian partner, Paraska Danilowna, were executed in Mohilev in 1748, Abraham for proselytizing and Paraska for apostasy. And on June 2, 1753, Rafal Sentimani was burned alive for having converted from Catholicism to Judaism on the outskirts of Vilna. By no means it could be called an extreme rarity by the standards of the mid-eighteenth century.

Professor Shaul Stampfer of Hebrew University once commented that it is much easier for a historian to prove what something did happen then to prove that something did not happen. Indeed, to paraphrase the famous motto of Leopold von Ronke, to show wie es eigentlich nicht gewesen ist is extremely difficult. Some of the arguments against the historicity of the Jewish tradition about Count Valentin Potocki presented in the Wikipedia article are false, some are dubious, and others are not compelling. The deafening silence of the Polish sources from the 18^th century could possibly be explained; the Jewish record from 1755 cannot possibly be ignored. Is it legitimate because of this piece of scholarship to conclude that: “Ger Tzedek Count Potocki Story is Likely a Myth”?

If gerbiami journalists from Lithuanian Jewish Community could go back in time for some eighty-five years and then continue for another ten minutes from their fortified headquarters on Pylimo street to attend the morning service at the Great Synagogue of Vilna on the second day of Shavuot, they would hear a special prayer recited in honor of Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Tzedek. A prayer that is already mentioned by Samuel Joseph Fuenn in his Kiryah ne’emanah ,1860, p.125. And its recital on the second day of Shavuot in the Great Synagogue is attested to by Chaykl Lunski in Mehagito Havilnai, 1921, p.56.

If they would visit the old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok, they would see a place where the ashes Ger Tzedek were interred. The grave “had an iron shed built over it, with a Hebrew inscription, enclosed with large blocks of stone joined by heavy iron rails” (Israel Cohen, Vilna 1943, p. 74).

If they would visit the old cemetery on the 9^th of Av or on the eve of the High Holidays, they would most likely encounter numerous visitors praying by the grave of the Ger Tzedek. Would they still have courage to say that “Ger Tzedek Count Potocki Story is Likely a Myth”, and the Jews of Vina are paying respect to the product of their own imagination?

The Great Synagogue of Vina was demolished, and the old Jewish cemetery was razed to the ground by the Lithuanian Soviet regime. Most of the worshipers who offered a special prayer in honor of Ger Tzedek on the day of his martyrdom or prayed by his grave themselves became martyrs during the Holocaust. But the story about noble life and tragic death of Count Potocki is still retold by the traditional Jewish periodicals around the time of Shavuot with great admiration and respect. Would it not be more appropriate for the official website of the Lithuanian Jewish Community to honor its glorious past and to do the same instead of calling it “likely a myth”?

Acknowledgment

My understanding of this topic was informed by a lecture of Professor Shnayer Leiman “The Ger Tzedek of Vilna: Fact or Fiction”, available on yutorah.org.

Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”

Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”

By Eli Genauer

Summary: Here we find polar opposite approaches to a Stirah in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah. One approach maintains that Rashi used two different Midrashic sources for his contradictory comments, and the other solves the Stirah by saying that one of the comments attributed to Rashi is actually a Taut Sofrim.

There is a very perplexing verse towards the beginning of Parshat Balak:

ט:וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹקים אֶל-בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ:

Balak sent messengers to Bilaam asking him to curse the Jewish people. Bilaam retired for the night and Hashem approached him at that time. “Who are these men with you?”, Hashem asked. Certainly, the Omniscient One knew the answer to that question. We look to Rashi to explain the motivation for G-d’s question and surprisingly we find it all the way back in Parshat Breishit (Breishit 3:9). Adam and Chava had just disobeyed Hashem by eating the forbidden food and they heard Hashem walking in the Garden. Hashem asked Adam “where are you?”( איכה), the answer to which Hashem already knew. Rashi comments as follows:

“איכה“. יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה הֵיכָן הוּא אֶלָּא לִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב אִם יַעֲנִישֵׁהוּ פִּתְאוֹם (בראשית רבה),[1] וְכֵן בְּקַיִן אָמַר לוֹ אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ (בראשית ד), וְכֵן בְּבִלְעָם מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ (במדבר כ“ב), לִכָּנֵס עִמָּהֶם בִּדְבָרִים, וְכֵן בְּחִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁלוּחֵי מְרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן:

Hashem knew where Adam was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden……..Similarly with Bilaam, “who are these men with you?” — to open up a conversation with them.

Rashi in Breishis emphasizes that the reason Hashem asked Bilaam “who are these men with you” was to draw him into a conversation, thereby making him more comfortable in speaking to Him.

However in Parshas Balak (BaMidbar 22:9) Rashi seems to have a different take[2] on why Hashem asked “Who are these men with you?”

מי האנשים האלה עמך. לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא, אָמַר פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּל גָּלוּי לְפָנָיו, אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ שָׁוָה עָלָיו, אַף אֲנִי אֶרְאֶה עֵת שֶׁאוּכַל לְקַלֵּל וְלֹא יָבִין (תנחומא):

“Who are these men with you?” G-d’s question led Bilaam to conclude “Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.” The words “ לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” with which Rashi begins, seem to indicate that Hashem was trying to mislead Bilaam into thinking that He was not all knowing, and not to draw him into a conversation . Here are a few attempts to translate לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא.

“To cause him to err did He come” – Linear Translation of Rashi – S.S. and R Publishing Company Brooklyn, NY 1949
“It came to delude him“ – Chabad website for Parshat HaShavua based on translation of Rabbi A.J Rosenberg for Judaica Press
He intended to delude him (1) – Chumash with Rashi of A.M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, Jerusalem 1934

The Silbermann Chumash directs you to a footnote which reflects the approach of many of the Meforshai Rashi on the contradiction between the two comments of Rashi. “Rashi on Genesis 3:9 has already pointed out that sometimes G-d puts a seemingly superfluous question to a person to open a conversation. One of the instances he cites there is Bilaam. The heathen soothsayer did not understand the purpose of this question, and it suggested to him that G-d was not omniscient at all times”

The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi does a much better job in encapsulating this approach by replacing “cause him to err” with “gave him room to err”.[3] Artscroll adds a footnote summarizing the approach of Gur Aryeh by saying that Hashem intended to gently open the conversation with Bilaam, but worded the question in an ambiguous way. Bilaam could have understood the question as Hashem’s way of entering into a conversation with him, but he instead chose to interpret it to indicate that Hashem was not always aware of all the details of a situation.

Professor Yeshayahu Maori Z”L in his book “Sugyot B’Nusach HaMikrah U’B’Parshnato”[4] advances the idea that the Stirah stems from the fact that Rashi accessed two different Midrashic sources, one for his comment in Breishit and one for his comment in BaMidbar.[5] This is based on the idea which was advanced by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi that sometimes Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot”.[6] The author of “Tzaidah L’Derech” (Prague 1623) sees this case as one where Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot” and that is why Rashi’s comment on “מי האנשים האלה עמך “is different in Breishit and BaMidbar.[7] Here are the words of Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg (1570-1623) author of “Tzaideh L’Derech”

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאגדות חלוקות הן ורש״י רגיל לפרש פעמים אחר אגדה אחת ופּעמים אחר אגדה אחרת כמו שכתב הרא״ם ז״ל בהרבה מקומות אין מספר

“But what can you say but that Rashi used different Aggadot here. Rashi is accustomed to explaining matters by using one Aggadah here and another Aggadah there as Rav Eliyah Mizrachi has stated in many places”[8]

Rav Yosef Ben Yissachar Miklish (1580-1654) is one who is very bothered by the fact that this comment in Rashi seemingly contradicts what he wrote in his commentary on Hashem’s question of “where are you?” to Adam ( Breishit 3:9).[9] He addresses this Stirah in a completely different manner. He maintains that he had a manuscript which was 315 years old in which the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” did not exist, nor did it contain the words that followed. Rather, it had a completely different Girsa in this Rashi. The website Alhatorah.org attributes a very similar Girsa to a manuscript called Berlin 1221[10] along with material from other manuscripts.[11] It also notes that Wolf Heidenheim attributed the comment to Rav Yosef Kara.

היידנהיים ייחס את התוספת לר׳ יוסף בר׳ שמעון ז״ל,[12] ואפשר שכך היה כתוב בכ״י שלפניו, אך בכל עדי הנוסח שבידינו, אין ייחוס מפורש לר״י קרא. והשווה רש״י בראשית ג׳:ט׳.[13]

The comment attributed to Rashi in this manuscript in general matches the words quoted by Yosef Daat for “his” version of Rashi. The main thrust is that Hashem addressed Bilaam in a way to engage him in the way one addresses someone to make them feel comfortable כשיבוא לתפוס את האדם מתוך דבריו, and not to delude him (ְלהַטְעוֹתוֹ)

Berlin 1221

https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN666097542&PHYSID=PHYS_0160&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001

Yosef Daat

The author of Yosef Daat even speculates that the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” are a Taut Sofrim inserted by printers “to cause people to err” as Rashi himself would never have written such a comment.

כי גירסת “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” היא גירסא בא בדפוס להטות את הבריות

However, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts contain the wording of Rashi as we have it today, something which the author of Yosef Daat would not have known.[14] Here is the important manuscript known as Leipzig 1.[15]

The three Defusim Rishonim (Rome, Alkabetz and Reggio di Callabrio) do not contain the Girsa cited by Yosef Daat. There is no indication in any early printed edition from the 1400’s and 1500’s that any other Girsa existed.

Avraham Berliner (Berlin 1867) normally notes the Girsaot of Yosef Daat but here completely ignores it.[16]

There was another approach taken a bit over 400 years ago in trying to explain what Rashi meant when he wrote לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא and that is to insert an explanatory remark in parentheses embedded into the text of Rashi. The first time I could find it in a printed edition was in one printed in Hanau 1611-1614. This is how it looks:

)ר“ל ישרים דרכי ה‘ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם כוונת הש“י שאמר מי האנשים היתה לטובה ליכנס עמו בדברים כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה אך בא לבלעם לטעות כי הוא טעה)

This portion in the parentheses is clearly not part of Rashi and it makes no attempt to hide it as it states clearly כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה. It tries to explain what Rashi means by first quoting a Pasuk, (ישרים דרכי ה׳… ) something Rashi could have done himself if he so desired.

The Hanau edition contained many other comments like this. The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book notes that this was an edition which featured additions to Rashi from some of the Meforshai Rashi.

ככל אשר נדפס בויניציאה [ש”ן-שנ”א] -מעבר לשער הקדמה קצרה (“אל עין הקורא”) ובה רשימת “כמה מעלות” שבהוצאה הנוכחית. בין השאר נאמר שהחומש והתרגום ובפרט פירוש רש”י הוגהו “מתוך חומש של … רּ ישעיה הלוי” (הורוויץ, בעל השל”ה).

After the Hanau edition, the embedded comment in parentheses had a very strong run. I consulted my personal collection of Chumashim from the 1700’s and 1800’s and, beginning with a Chumash printed in Amsterdam in 1729 to one printed in Pressburg in 1868, 13 have the comment and 6 do not. The comment also appears in practically all the Chumashim from the 1900’s that I looked at. This might be because many of them are photo offset of what is known as the Netter Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna of 1859 which served as the model for many editions that followed.[17]

Vilna Netter 1859

It is included on the Chabad website for the portion of the week, but only on the English side!

However, many new editions such as Oz Vehadar, Mosad HaRav Kook and HaMaor (2005) do not include this parenthetical comment, a practice which returns this Rashi to its original form.[18]

[1] בראשית רבה י״ט: י״א

וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם וגוּ (בראשית ג, יב), אַרְבָּעָה הֵן שֶׁהֵקִישׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל קַנְקַנָּן וּמְצָאָן קַנְקַנִּין שֶׁל מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, אָדָם, וְקַיִן, וּבִלְעָם, וְחִזְקִיָּהוּ. אָדָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה. קַיִן(בראשית ד, ט): וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל קַיִן אֵי הֶבֶל וגוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי. בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כב, ט י): מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וגוּ. חִזְקִיָּהוּ (מלכים ב ך, יד) (ישעיה לט, ג): מָה אָמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה וגוּ.

[2] Medrash Tanchuma Parshat Balak Siman 5 (also BaMidbar Rabah 20:9)

The text of Medrash Tanchuma is as follows

כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה. אָמַר הָרָשָׁע, אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶם. כִּמְדֻמֶּה אֲנִי, יֵשׁ עִתִּים שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, וְאַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּבָנָיו כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. לְכָךְ אָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ.

[3]Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi, Brooklyn, NY, 2018, p.275.

[4] Yeshayahu Maori, Shaanan, Kiryat Shmuel-Haifa, 2020

[5] Ibid pages 137-139.

[6] Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi did not use the approach here rather he tried to address the Stirah in the following manner

מזרחי במדבר כ״ב: ט

מי האנשים האלה עמך? להטעותו בא שיאמר פעמים שאין הכל גלוי לפניו אין דעתו שוה עליו אף אני אראה עת שאוכל לקלל ולא יבין. אבל בפסוק איכה פירש יודע היה היכן הוא אלא ליכנס עמו בדברים שלא יהא נבהל להשיב אם יענישהו פתאום וכן בקין אמר לו אי הבל אחיך וכן בבלעם מי האנשים האלה עמך ליכנס עמהם בדברים ושמא י”ל דה”נ כדי להכנס עמו בדברים הוא כדפירש התם אלא ששם לא פירש הטעם למה נכנס עמו בדבור ופה פירש הטעם ואמר כדי להטעותו וכוּ וכן פירש שם גבי איכה ואי הבל אחיך שנכנס עמהם בדברים כדי שלא יהיו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי כדי שימחול להם שאם היה מתחיל להענישם פתאום מבלתי שאלת איכה ושאלת אי הבל אחיך היו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי והשם ברחמיו רוצה בתשובת הרשעים ואינו חפץ במיתתן:

[7] As mentioned before, the basis of the comment in BaMidbar is Medrash Tanchuma. The basis for the comment in Breishit 3:9 according to Mizrachi is Breishit Rabah.

בב”ר פי’ שאם היה מענישו פתאום בלתי שאלת איכה היה נבהל מלהשיב לו חטאתו

[8] This approach is noted in Rashi HaShalem – Mechon Ariel- Jerusalem 1986.

[9] Yosef Daat was printed in Prague in 1609- The author יוסף בן יששכר ‬מיקליש writes that he wrote this book….

“לתקן המעוות והטעת[!] שנפלו מהמדפיסים … בפירוש … רש”י ז”ל על חמשה חומשי התורה”….”מאסף לכל הגירסות והנוסחאות שבכל החומשיּ חדשים גם ישנים בכלל, ובפרט רש”י קלף ישן נושן”

The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book writes as follows:

.המחבר כותב בהקדמה שמצא בלובלין “רש”י קלף נושן לערך שלש מאות שנה ויותר” וכן השתמש “בחומשים הישנים דפוס לובלין ודפוס פראג” להיגה בהם את פירש רש”י. המקורות להגהות מצויינים בגליון, בשולי העמודים

[10] State Library of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Ms. Or. fol. 1221 – 13th century – Ashkenazic script.

[11] Al Hatorah notes as follows:

.עם השלמות ותיקונים ע״פ כ״י וינה 24 וכ״י המובא בהבנת המקרא (היידנהיים), ועיין גם כ״י פיזרו 16. נוסח מקוצר בכ״י ברסלאו 11 (סרוול 5) ובגיליון בכ״י ברסלאו 102 (סרוול 12)

[12] Rav Yosef bar Shimon was ר׳ יוסף קרא . This is from the website Daat which speaks about the possible intermingling of his comments with those of Rashi.

[13] This is the beginning of the way it appears in הבנת המקרא by Wolf Heidenheim, Roedelheim 1860 – במדבר עם תרגום אונקלוס מדויק ע”פ כ”י לוונשטין, ליפמן הירש- היידנהיים, בנימין וולף בן שמשון.

[14] The comment of לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא is found in the following 13 th century manuscripts:
Oxford UCC 165,
Munich 5,
Hamburg 13,
Oxford-Bodley Opp.34(Neubauer186),
London 26917 (Neubauer 168),
Casanatense 2848,
Paris 154,
Vatican Urbanati 1,
Parma 2708

The Nusach of Berlin 1221 is found in Hamburg 32:

But on top of the page is found the standard text:

[15] The website Alhatorah.org notes this about the importance of the Leipzig 1 manuscript: “the importance of the Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1) manuscript of Rashi can hardly be overstated. This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. MS Leipzig 1 is, thus, an extremely valuable textual witness which comes tantalizingly close to the original source.”

[16] The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book includes this information from the book.

[17] בשנת תרי”ט (1859) החלו להדפיס בוינה מהדורה חדשה של חמשה חומשי תורה עם תרגום אונקלוס, תרגום ירושלמי ותרגום יונתן, פירוש רש”י, אבן עזרא, רשב”ם, רמב”ן ועוד. מהדורה זו שנתפרסמה בהידורה וביופייה, הובאה לדפוס על יד שלמה (זלמן) נעטטער מירושלים

[18] Chumash Rashi HaMevuar 2015 (Oz Vehadar) cites Yosef Daat but without his comment that perhaps the normal Girsa is a Taut. In that same Chumash at the back of the Chumash they have a section called Nuschaot Shonot and they cite the Girsa of Yosef Daat but add that the Defusim Rishonim have it the way we do. Yosef Hallel (Brooklyn, 1987) records the words of Yosef Daat and adds that he found a similar Lashon in a manuscript.

Guide and Review of Online Resources – 2022 – Part III

Guide and Review of Online Resources – 2022 – Part III

By Ezra Brand

Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, where he focused his research on 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah. He is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Academia.edu profile. He can be reached at ezrabrand-at-gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. This post is a continuation. The first part of this post is here, the second here, and this is the third and final part.

21.Articles for popular audience

Websites with open-access articles, written for a popular audience, with relatively high scholarly standards.

General

Academy of Hebrew Language .
1. See above. Besides for a selection of scholarly articles from journals, has many articles specifically written for the website.
2. Recommended. Focuses on Hebrew linguistics. Great resource, at a high level of scholarship, with lots of interesting articles on all topics related to Hebrew language, throughout history.
3. Wikipedia: “The Academy of the Hebrew Language was established by the Israeli government in 1953 as the “supreme institution for scholarship on the Hebrew language in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem of Givat Ram campus.” Its stated aims are to assemble and research the Hebrew language in all its layers throughout the ages; to investigate the origin and development of the Hebrew tongue; and to direct the course of development of Hebrew, in all areas, including vocabulary, grammar, writing, spelling, and transliteration.”
TheGemara.com.
1. In English.
2. Focuses on Talmud Bavli. Recommended. From the About Us: “We solicit original essays that are reviewed and edited by our in-house scholars, to ensure the highest academic standards as well as maximum readability for the general audience.”
My Jewish Learning.
1. Lots of good articles. However, it mostly focuses on Bible and Modern Jewish history, which are out of the scope of this guide.
929- Tanach B’yachad (929 – תנך ביחד).
1. In Modern Hebrew. Lots of articles on Hebrew linguistics (for example: on the phrase “עומד על הפרק“). However, mostly focuses on Bible, which is out of the scope of this guide. And not so simple to filter for articles on Hebrew linguistics.

Newspapers and magazines

Newspapers and magazines can be a great source of scholarship, and they’re often available online. They are especially good for reviews of scholarly books, and interviews with scholars.[1] Israeli publications often have high-quality articles on Hebrew linguistics. Mostly behind paywall, with some articles not behind paywall.

Some of the best:

Makor Rishon (מקור ראשון).
1. In Modern Hebrew. Their Mussaf Shabbat (מוסף שבת) is especially good on scholarly topics.
2. Wikipedia:
  1. “Makor Rishon is a semi-major Israeli newspaper […] Shabbat (Sabbath) – a supplement for Jewish philosophy, Judaism and literature, with an intellectual bent.”
Haaretz (הארץ).
1. In Modern Hebrew and English.[2]
2. Available online: 4 April 1918 – 31 December 1997 (22,721 issues; 394,984 pages), at Israel National Library’s Jpress archive. However, not all pages in this date range are in fact available there.
3. Wikipedia:
  1. “Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper. It was founded in 1918, making it the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel, and is now published in both Hebrew and English […]”
Segula (סגולה).
1. In Modern Hebrew and English.
2. Wikipedia – Hebrew:
  1. “Segula is an Israeli monthly dedicated to history, published since April 2010. The magazine deals with the history of the people of Israel and general history, from the perspective that the people of Israel play an important part in world history and the historical processes leading humanity. The magazine is published monthly. An equivalent edition in English is published once every two months.”
Tablet
1. Wikipedia:
  1. “Tablet is an online religious magazine of news, ideas, and Jewish culture. Founded in 2009 […]”.
Jewish Review of Books
1. Wikipedia:
  1. “The Jewish Review of Books is a quarterly magazine with articles on literature, culture and current affairs from a Jewish perspective. […] The magazine was launched in 2010 […]”

Blogs

Blogs are generally not formally peer-reviewed and are generally written more informally and conversationally, but are often a great resource. With the shift from blogs to social media, many blogs have shifted to Facebook, and to a lesser extent Twitter and Reddit. (E.g., Mississippi Fred McDowel no longer posts on “On the Main Line”, but does on Facebook..) Blogs are far less active than they were. There are a lot of Facebook groups, which I’m less familiar with, and technically have to be added to and aren’t indexed by Google unfortunately (“walled gardens“, vs. “open platforms”).

The Seforim Blog
The Talmud Blog. Focuses on Talmud.
Rationalist Judaism. Focuses on relationship of science and Judaism, besides for contemporary politics and hashkafa.
Kavvanah.blog- The Book of Doctrines and Opinions
Jewish Studies @ CUL . A blog affiliated with Columbia University, focused on Hebrew Bibliography.
Footprints Blog – Tracing Jewish Books Through Time and Place . A blog affiliated with Columbia University, focused on Hebrew Bibliography.
Safranim .
Am Hasefer (עם הספר). The blog of Rambam Library of Tel Aviv, focused on Hebrew Bibliography.
Hagahot. Active 2005 – 2013.
Giluy Milta B’alma (גילוי מילתא בעלמא). Masthead: “We present here new and interesting findings in Hebrew Manuscripts, and Genizah- We welcome posts in Hebrew or English.”
On the Main Line. Blog of “Shimon Steinmetz/ Mississippi Fred MacDowell”.
English Hebraica . Another blog of “Mississippi Fred MacDowell”. Masthead: “Chronicling Jewish and Jewish themed writing in the English language prior to the 19th century. interesting biographies, diagrams, translations, transliterations and descriptions of Jewish learning and theology from primary sources.” Active 2006 – 2007. Since then posts on Facebook and Twitter.
What’s Bothering Artscroll? . Another blog of “Mississippi Fred MacDowell”. Active 2006 – 2008.
Hollander Books Blog. Masthead: “A bookseller and his books, his very many books. And a few ideas.”
Kol Safran. Masthead: “A librarian’s comments on books, copyright, management, librarianship, and libraries that don’t get the full article treatment.” Many posts on topics in Jewish bibliography, as well as visits to Jewish libraries.
Musings of a Jewish Bookseller. Masthead: “On Jewish Books, Jewish Bookselling and Jewish Booksellers”
Notrikon (נוטריקון). In Modern Hebrew. Masthead: ”A journey through the space of the written word, between books, periods and people … stops at different stations, who knows where we will end up.”
Oneg Shabbat (עונג שבת). Blog of Prof. David Assaf. Many interesting posts on modern Jewish history, and on history of Hasidut.
HaSafranim – Blog of Israel National Library (הספרנים – בלוג הספרייה הלאומית). In Modern Hebrew. Focuses on Hebrew bibliography, and topics related to Modern Israel.
7minim (מינים). Masthead: “This blog is intended to allow me, Tomer Persico, to comment briefly on this and that”. Has a number of posts on recent scholarly books on history of Kabbalah (though the blog mostly focuses on contemporary issues).
HaZirah HaLeshonit – Ruvik Rozental (הזירה הלשונית – רוביק רוזנטל). Many posts on history of individual Hebew words, by a well-known and popular Hebrew linguist.
Leshoniada (לשוניאדה). In Modern Hebrew. Focuses on Hebrew linguistics.
Safa Ivrit (השפה העברית). In Modern Hebrew. Focuses on Hebrew linguistics. Not quite a blog, rather a wide range of short articles on sources of sayings and words.

22.Videos and Podcasts

YouTube has a lot of academic lectures. With the covid restrictions over the past two years, it has become especially common to live stream scholarly lectures (whether there’s a live component or not), and often the videos are then permanently publicly available on YouTube.[3]

Some channels:

Academic lectures. Hundreds of lectures available. The YouTube channels seem to often be used now for live streaming of scholarly lectures:

National Library of Israel.

The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.[4]

Israeli university channels. For example, Hebrew University ; Bar-Ilan University.

Scholarly organizations, such as Yad Ben-Zvi.
Torah in Motion. A large number of lecture series. However, it mostly focuses on more modern history, contemporary theology, and on the Bible, so outside the scope of this guide. For lecture series within the scope of this guide, see for example the series with Dr. William Gewirtz, The Changing Nature of Time in Halakha, which is a four-part series that, according to the description, includes a lot of discussion of the history of the Jewish calendar.
Seforim Chatter. Podcast hosted by Nachi Weinsten of Lakewood, NJ.[5] Has interviews with top scholars discussing their most interesting research. For example, some previous guests include: Seforim Blog’s Prof. Marc Shapiro; Jacob J. Schacter, and many more. Recommended. Also has an associated Twitter feed.
Misfit Torah. Podcast hosted by Akiva Weisinger.
Channeling Jewish History. Podcast hosted by my friend Joel Davidi.[6] Interviews many scholars, such as Seforim Blog contributor Prof. Marc Shapiro.
AllDaf. A number of discussions featuring Seforim Blog’s own Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Brodt “to briefly highlight some of the Rishonim and Acharonim ‘out there’ on this masechta”, see the latest Seforim Blog post here, with links to previous.
Tradition Podcast. Hosted by the editor of Tradition. Available on their YouTube channel. For example, one episode is an interview with Prof. Eric Lawee on a new book of his on Rashi’s Commentary.
Am HaSefer – Rambam Library – Beit Ariela (עם הספר – ספריית הרמב”ם בית אריאלה).
Endless videos and podcasts, each of which must be judged on its own. One genre is well-edited videos with graphics by unknown hosts. Another type is podcast-type interviews with well-known personalities. A majority of all of these are focused on Bible, which as mentioned in the introduction, are outside the scope of this guide. Also, many of them are focused more on drawing lessons, in the “self-help” genre, and less on pure scholarship.[7]

23.Twitter

Now requires registration (free) to view most content.

Essentially every organization focused on Jewish scholarship has a Twitter feed and a Facebook page. Most Twitter feeds and Facebook pages affiliated with organizations are focused on academic events, book launches, awards, etc., and so are less interesting for our purposes here. Here are the ones that especially caught my eye as having content relevant to this guide, especially bibliographical content.

Michelle Margolis (@hchesner) / Twitter .
1. “Judaica @Columbia @Footprints_Heb #dhjewish, VP @jewishlibraries, Jewish book history, Hebrew incunabula”
Footprints Project (@Footprints_Heb) / Twitter .
1. “Tracing Jewish books through time and place.”
National Library of Israel (@NLIsrael) / Twitter .
1. “Collecting & preserving the cultural treasures of #Israel & the #Jewish People. Opening access to millions of books, photos, recordings, maps, archives + more.”
נתן הירש Nathan Hirsch (@NLITorani ) / Twitter.
1. “Contemporary Rabbinic literature”.
2. Also on Telegram: https://t.me/s/NLITorani
3. And on Facebook: Nathan Hirsch | Facebook
DayenuPal
#dhjewish – Twitter Search / Twitter

24.Facebook

Norman E. Alexander Library for Jewish Studies – Home | Facebook .
1. “The Norman E. Alexander Library for Jewish Studies at Columbia University collects Judaica and Hebraica in all formats and supports research.”

25.Forums

There are some great forums dedicated to academic Jewish Studies.

Otzar HaChochma’s forum (פורום אוצר החכמה). In Modern Hebrew. Lots of really interesting discussions.
Behadrei Haredim – Forum: Seforim and Sofrim (בחדרי חרדים – פורום: ספרים וסופרים). In Modern Hebrew.
Judaism.stackexchange.com (Mi Yodea). In English.

26.Summary

It’s truly an exciting time to be a reader and producer of scholarship. Let me know what I’ve missed!

27.Appendix – Halacha Brura’s Indexes

28.Intro

Halach Brura’s index is broken down by topic, such as works of Hazal, commentaries on Mishnah, commentaries on Talmud, etc. With links to other websites (mentioned above in section “Primary Texts”) where PDFs can be found.

Halacha Brura has an intro on their index’s main page, worth quoting in full, as it makes a lot of points very relevant to this guide.

As throughout, the translation is mine, and I have translated loosely. The breakdown into numbered paragraphs and bolding is mine as well:

“As a service to visitors to the site, the Halacha Brura Institute centralizes here links to seforim that are on the Internet at various sites, in full text, some as text and some as scans, to save the viewer the need to visit libraries.
Naturally, the status and location of websites change from time to time, so some of the links may not work, and we apologize for that. Anyone who finds a link that does not work – please contact us, and we may be able to tell him what the correct link is.
Warning: We have not checked the “kosherness” of the sites to which we have created links, and the user must check this himself.[8]

Heads up: Many of the books here are from older editions; in the meantime better editions have appeared, which are not available as open-access online because of copyright law.

We would like to thank users who know of other seforim that are online in full text to please let us know, so that we can add them to this list.

The seforim appear in different formats, and we have dedicated symbols to each format, as follows […]

Scans of additional books can be obtained from the Rambam Library (ספריית הרמב”ם – בית אריאלה) in Tel-Aviv – email rambaml1@gmail.com.”

29.Statistics of Halacha Brura’s index

Halacha Brura indexes seforim on the following websites, in order of number of seforim linked:[9]

HebrewBooks
Israel National Library
Seforim Online
Grimoar
Sefaria
Google Drive
Torat Emet
Wikitext
Goethe University Frankfurt Library
Daat
JTS Library.

Based on my analysis, at least 45% of Halacha Brura’s links are to HebrewBooks. In fact, one can view Halacha Brura’s index as essentially a kind of index of HebrewBooks.

As for the links to open-access books in Israel National Library, I mentioned earlier that all these links are now broken. I described earlier best way to now find these open-access books on the website.

As of 15-Feb-22, Halacha Brura has 36 webpages of indexes,[10] and based on my rough estimate over 40,000 open-access seforim have been categorized.

30.Halacha Brura’s symbols

Halacha Brura’s system of symbols is not especially user-friendly. I have therefore rearranged their symbols in a more logical arrangement, see below.

I organized the order of the symbols based on the frequency of times the symbol appears in Halacha Brura’s index. I have also supplemented the symbols, based on other intros in the website:

Major symbols:

§ HebrewBooks , PDF format.
ჶ Israel National Library , DJVU format.
⋧ Israel National Library, METS format.
ὥ Daat or Israel613, PDF format.
♔ text format (=transcribed). Can be Daat, Wikitext, Sefaria, or Chabad Library, among others.

Resources especially relevant for manuscripts and early printed editions of Hazal, see Halacha Brura’s index here::
1. ≡ University library :Goethe University Frankfurt Library; Russian National Library ; Jewish Theological Seminary Library ; New York Public Library.
2. ★ Google Books.
3. ☼ The Center for Jewish History.
Other miscellaneous symbols, rare, only a handful of each:
1. ⋇ – PDF format; Ξ – Seforim Online, PDF format; ਊ – Seforim Online, TIFF format; ↂ – Daat, PDF format.

31.Meta-index of Halacha Brura’s indexes

Page names are mostly taken from the webpage “headers”, with some changes.

The number after the page name refers to the number in the URL, that differentiates pages. So, for example, the number for תנ”ך וחז”ל is 0: http://www.halachabrura.org/library/library 0 .htm. , and for ראשונים על התורה it’s 3a: http://www.halachabrura.org/library/library 3a .htm.

The names of the categories and sub-categories are generally taken directly from the webpages, with small changes where deemed to be helpful. The ordering of the webpages is mine.[11]

תנ“ך וחז“ל – 0
1. תנ”ך
2. משנה
3. תוספתא ומסכתות קטנות
4. תלמוד
5. מדרשים כסדר התנ”ך
6. מדרשים שונים
7. זוהר
8. ספרים חיצוניים
מפרשים על התורה – ראשונים – 3a
1. ראשונים על התורה
2. ביאורים על רש”י
מפרשים על התורה – אחרונים – כללי – 3g
מפרשים על התורה – אחרונים – לפי חומש ועל התרגומים – 3n
מפרשים על נ“ך – 3h
1. נ”ך כללי
2. לפי ספר
3. הפטרות
מפרשי המשנה ; מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – ראשונים – 8
1. מפרשי המשנה
2. מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – ראשונים
מפרשי אגדות התלמוד, ירושלמי, תוספתא, מדרשים ופרקי אבות – 8l
1. מפרשי אגדות התלמוד
2. מפרשי הירושלמי
3. מפרשי תוספתא
4. מפרשי מדרשים
5. מפרשי מסכתות קטנות
6. מפרשים על פרקי אבות
מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – אחרונים – ספרים שמפרשים כמה מסכתות – 8f
מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – אחרונים – לפי מסכתא – 8h
מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – אחרונים – שונים – 8m
1. חידושי סוגיות
2. כללי התלמוד
3. הדרנים
4. ריאליה
5. הלכה למשה מסיני
הלכה – ראשונים – 8b
1. גאונים
2. ספרי רש”י
3. ספרי הלכה של שאר ראשונים
4. ארבעה טורים
5. שולחן ערוך
6. מוני המצוות
הלכה – אחרונים – כללי – 8k
הלכה – אחרונים – על שלחן ערוך – אורח חיים – 8c
הלכה – אחרונים – על שלחן ערוך – יורה דעה – 8j
הלכה – אחרונים – על שלחן ערוך – אבן העזר, חושן משפט, ונושאים שונים – 8d
1. על אבן העזר
2. על חושן משפט
3. על קדשים וטהרות
4. סת”ם
5. הלכה ורפואה
6. מנהגים ותקנות
7. כהנים ולויים
8. כללי פסיקה
9. שיעורים וזמנים
10. הולכי דרכים
11. צבא
12. ספק
13. חזקה
14. נשים
15. גוים
16. תוכחה
17. שמירת הלשון
מניין המצוות – אחרונים – 8g
רמב“ם ומפרשיו ; ושאלות ותשובות – 8a
1. רמב”ם ומפרשיו
  1. משנה תורה
  2. ספר המצוות
  3. מורה נבוכים
  4. פירוש המשנה
  5. תשובות ואגרות
  6. חיבורים אחרים
  7. מפרשים על משנה תורה
  8. מפרשים על מורה נבוכים
  9. מפרשים על חיבורים אחרים
    1. ספר המצוות
    2. פירוש המשנה
    3. מלות הגיון
  10. דרכו של הרמב”ם
2. שאלות ותשובות
  1. גאונים
  2. ראשונים
  3. שו”ת אחרונים ששמם כשם המחבר – לפי סדר שמו הפרטי של המחבר
מחשבה – ראשונים – 3
מחשבה – אחרונים – כללי – 3j
דרשות – כללי – 3f
דרשות – לפי נושא – 3e
1. הספדים
2. מועדים – אגדה
3. מועדים בהלכה ובאגדה
4. שבת
5. גאולה ומשיח
6. לימוד תורה
7. שמירת הברית והעיניים
8. טעמי המצוות
9. צוואות
10. סגולות
11. י”ג עיקרים
12. לבר מצוה
13. חינוך
14. חלומות
15. צדקה וחסד
16. נישואין
17. ברית מילה
18. שמחה
19. תפילה
20. שמירת הלשון
21. נגד לא-אורתודוקסים (רפורמים, משכילים, ציונים, מתבוללים, כופרים, משיחי שקר)
22. נגד שבתאי צבי ונגד נצרות
קבלה – 6
1. כללי
2. פירושים על הזוהר
3. ספר יצירה ופירושים עליו
שירה, סידורים, ומחזורים – 3b
1. שירה
2. סידורים ותפילות ופירושיהם
3. סידורים עם שמות
4. סידורים בלי שמות – לפי סדר שנות הדפסה
5. מחזורים לר”ה וליו”כ ושלשה רגלים
6. מחזורים בלי שמות לפי סדר שנות ההדפסה
7. תפילות מיוחדות
8. סליחות
9. ברכת החמה – לפי סדר השנים
10. פירושים על התפלה
11. סידורי מקובלים
חסידות – כללי וברסלב – 1
1. כללי
2. ברסלב
3. ר’ אשר שיק
4. ר’ שלום ארוש
חב“ד – ספרים – 1a
1. בעל התניא
2. ר’ דובער
3. הצמח צדק
4. מהר”ש
5. ר’ שלום דובער
6. ריי”צ
7. ר’ מנחם מנדל
8. חיבורים שונים
חב“ד – כתבי עת – 1b
מונקאטש וויז‘ניץ – 2
1. מונקאטש
2. ויז’ניץ
הגדות – 3c
1. עם פירושים
2. בלי פירושים
3. לקט מקורות בעניין פסח ועוד
ביוגרפיות , היסטוריה – 3d
1. ביוגרפיות
2. היסטוריה
3. ביבליוגרפיה
4. ארץ ישראל בהלכה ובאגדה
נושאים שונים – 3m
1. דקדוק ולשון
2. טעמי נגינה
3. המסורה בתנ”ך
4. אסטרונומיה וחכמת העיבור
5. לוחות שנים
6. ספרי יובל וזכרון
7. אנציקלופדיות וספרים המסודרים בסדר א””ב
8. רפואה ומדע
9. גיאוגרפיה
10. שיעורים וזמנים
11. גמטריא וראשי תיבות
12. גורלות
13. חידות
כתבי עת – לפי א“ב – א–ד – 5
כתבי עת – לפי א“ב – ה – 5a
כתבי עת – לפי א“ב – ו–מ– 5b
כתבי עת – לפי א“ב – נ–ת – 5c
שונים – 4 (“מדור זה כולל ספרים שלא היה אפשר להכניס לאחד המדורים האחרים, מפני שנושא הספר הוא ייחודי“)
שפות זרות (לא–עברית) ; לא–אורתודוקס ; סיפורים ; כתבי יד ; הומור – 4w
1. שפות זרות
  1. אידיש
  2. אנגלית
  3. גרמנית
  4. ספרדית
  5. צרפתית
  6. לאדינו
  7. ערבית-יהודית
  8. פרסית
  9. רוסית
  10. לטינית
  11. הונגרית
2. לא-אורתודוקס
  1. משכילים
  2. רפורמים
  3. שבתאים
  4. קראים
  5. שומרונים
3. סיפורים
4. כתבי יד
5. הומור

[1] For an interesting example of newspaper interviews and lectures on YouTube being used as evidence in scholarly discussion, see Prof. Bezalel Bar-Kochva’s critique of Prof. Rachel Elior: https://www.tau.ac.il/sites/tau.ac.il.en/files/media_server/imported/508/files/2014/10/elior-25.11.2013.pdf. However, it must be admitted that that’s an unusual case.

[2] Example of article on Hebrew linguistics, on the word “שחצן”: המילה שַׁחְצָן: מה הקשר בין אריות לנחשים וביניהם לבין יוהרה?: https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/mehasafa/.premium-1.2853618

[3] As for podcasts, many podcasts are also available on YouTube. For example, see below for the podcast “Channeling Jewish History”.

[4] See here: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities – YouTube > “Past live streams”. Recent example that showed in my email inbox of youtube being used for live streaming of a scholarly lecture:

(PDF) ‘Three Lectures on Habad Hasidism’, Schocken Institute, Jerusalem, November 8, 15, 22, 2021 (Poser + Video) | Jonatan Meir – Academia.edu

When I was sent this link, Gmail even knew to attach the YouTube preview in the email.

[5] Introduction Show, Seforimchatter, https://seforimchatter.buzzsprout.com/1218638/4587641-introduction-show, July 15, 2020, Season 1 Episode 18. (Accessed 13-Feb-22).

[6] Admin of the Facebook group “Channeling Jewish History Group”.

[7] A few examples: R’ Dr. Ari Lamm’s podcast called “Good Faith Effort”; Michael Eisenberg’s YouTube channel.

[8] The Halacha Brura indexes indeed link to a nice amount of non-Orthodox works. A dedicated sub-category for non-Orthodox writings appears at the webpage indexing eclectic works (“ספרי קודש שונים”), together with “Foreign-language”, “Stories”, “Manuscripts”, and “Humor”. It should be pointed out that many of these non-Orthodox books have been removed from HebrewBooks, and are no longer available there.

[9] My analysis. I “scraped” a few webpages of Halacha Brura via relatively simple copy-paste and text manipulation in Google Sheets, to use as a sample.

[10] The number of webpages is always going up. When I started my research, there were 33 pages. They then split the page on “Journals” into 4 pages, due to indexing hundreds of additional links.

[11] As I’ve mentioned before, this index by Halacha Brura is a work-in-progress. They are still actively spinning off new pages. Therefore, this meta-index is likely to have some out-of-date info as time goes on.