More on “New Notes Added in the Koren Talmud”

Shalom Z. Berger

In what seems like another lifetime but was just over a year ago, the Jewish world celebrated the 13^th Daf Yomi Siyum HaShas. The beginning of the 14^th cycle led to a revisiting of the Koren Talmud Bavli that had appeared in print for the first time in concert with the previous cycle. In a Seforim Blog post, Chaim Katz pointed out that the new English edition included some additional notes based on Rav Kook’s Ein Aya, and I responded with a post that offered some background on the efforts put into adding (and, occasionally, subtracting) notes, how it was done and to what purpose.

As I wrote in that earlier post, “Our assumption was that the audience for the new English Talmud would be less familiar with concepts and personalities appearing in the Gemara than Hebrew speakers, so we aimed to make sure that when new concepts or personalities appeared, they would receive a background or personality note.” This was done by creating a database of existing translated notes from the Hebrew Steinsaltz volumes, and inserting them as appropriate.

In a response to my post, Chaim Katz graciously acknowledged the contribution that these additional notes make in the new edition, writing: “But for English speakers that aren’t going to learn the language, or learn Tanach, or Mishna first, the “English” section of your edition is almost perfect. In any case the difficulty for students of the Talmud is not the language; it’s the missing concepts, circumstances, realia and all the other background information that the Koren Edition includes. Ashrekhem and Yasher Kohakhem!”

With that background, I would like to share two examples of additional notes, the first of which appears towards the end of Massekhet Pesahim, which, I hope, makes this a timely contribution. As we are in the midst of the year-long mourning period for Rav Steinsaltz, perhaps this could also serve as a tribute to his memory.

Presenting this on the Seforim Blog will also give me the opportunity to publicly thank individuals who helped me develop the new notes and to acknowledge sources that do not appear in the Koren Talmud Bavli itself. In doing so, I am emulating Rav Steinsaltz in his Gemarot, where, from Massekhet Hagiga until the beginning of Seder Kodashim, there often appears a page at the very end of the volume acknowledging individuals who made contributions to a given volume in various fields. In the first few volumes where this appears, it is a concise paragraph thanking his team of editors, graphics people and those who prepared the indices. Beginning with Massekhet Nedarim, he begins to thank medical doctors who helped him with medical issues in the massekhet (as an example, Prof. Jacob Steinberg of the Einstein Medical School gets a shout-out at the end of Nazir). Baba Kamma has additional thanks to those who helped him with questions of geography, while Sanhedrin mentions by name people who assisted in such areas as climate, botanica, zoology, medicine, geography, Rashi’s use of Old French and more.

Beginning with Massekhet Zevahim these pages ceased to appear, which may be connected with the appointment of senior editors in that volume, as now Rav Steinsaltz is listed as “Editor-in-Chief,” with Yonatan Eliav serving as editor. (I will note that each volume of the Koren Talmud Bavli lists editors, translators, copy editors, language consultants, etc., and the team grew in number as we moved though Shas.) Yonatan Eliav tells me that Rav Steinsaltz was “interested in everything,” that he had a large number of reference works at his disposal that he frequently turned to. It would appear that as time went on and the project became larger and larger – and Rav Steinsaltz became involved in more and more things – that he came to rely on experts in various areas of knowledge for the original Hebrew notes and commentary.

Yonatan Eliav also shared that Rav Steinsaltz was not necessarily interested in making use of the background material in order to explain the Gemara, rather his natural curiosity led him to include edifying information about the topic at hand in the Gemara even if it was not essential to understand the sugya. While I did include some material like that in Massekhet Berakhot, it was no longer a priority for my team as we moved forward. Still, there were a number of occasions when understanding the realia was essential for understanding the Gemara, as exhibited in the two examples below.

Pesahim 75a – Lead from its source

One of the editors, Micky Siev, reached out to me just before Massekhet Pesahim was finalized with the following question: In discussing how the Korban Pesah had to be roasted, the Gemara segues to a discussion about how the punishment of execution by burning was to be conducted. The translated text of the Steinsaltz Gemara originally read:

The Gemara asks: Once there is the reason of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naḥman’s ruling would require the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. They say in answer to this question: If not for the verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul while the body remains is not considered burning. And if it were just due to the statement of Rav Naḥman that one must select a kind death, we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly. It therefore teaches us through the verbal analogy that executing with molten lead is considered burning. But if this is so, that the verse says: She shall be burned, to include all methods of burning, for what do I need the expression: In fire? The Gemara answers: To exclude lead from its source; when lead is extracted from the ground it is burning hot and this burning lead cannot be used for executions because its heat does not come from fire.

The original text of the Talmud reads לאפוקי אבר מעיקרו, which is translated here as “To exclude lead from its source.” The underlined sentence at the end is a direct translation of the Hebrew Steinsaltz, which is based on Rashi.

Siev asked me the following question:

“The underlined section is the Gemara as explained by Rashi. The question is simply that lead is mined from the ground, and as far as we are aware, is not burning hot when it is extracted from the ground.”

My first reaction was to turn to the Steinsaltz Gemara itself. A parallel sugya appears in Hullin 8a, and the Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara has a note there that explains how it may be possible for lead that is newly mined to be molten hot, and I suggested translating that note for this sugya, as well. But Siev would have none of that. He insisted that to the best of his knowledge and research, lead is never molten when it is freshly mined.

I am not sure that this question would gain much traction in a traditional bet midrash setting, but it certainly was appropriate to ask in the context of the Steinsaltz effort that puts significant emphasis on questions of realia (in fact, at a family wedding that I attended at the time, a relative who gives shiur at one of the prominent one-year Israel programs and is a serious talmid hakham asked me “what are you learning these days?” I shared this question with him and his reaction was “this is learning?!” But surely, if it appears in the Gemara, תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך).

None of the usual sources offered me anything, so I tried to be creative. I called a neighbor who is a geologist. What I learned was that although both he and his wife studied geology, they studied in Israel, which has no lead deposits, so they could not be of any help. Recognizing that I needed to broaden my search, I posted the question on H-Judaic, a listserv for Jewish studies academics (full disclosure – today, as a measure of hakarat hatov, I serve as one of the volunteer editors at H-Judaic). Within a day Prof. Gerrit Bos, Chair of the Martin-Buber-Institut at Cologne University wrote to me simply “Dan Levene and Beno Rothenberg deal with this problematic issue extensively in their: A Metallurgical Gemara: Metals in the Jewish Sources, London: 2007, pp. 101-107.”

While I could not locate the volume in a search of academic libraries in Israel, the Yeshiva University library had a copy, and my sister, Shulamith Berger, who heads their special collections, had a scan for me in a few hours. All this networking led to the removal of the underlined explanation of “lead from its source,” and its replacement with the following note:

This is an opportunity for me to thank Prof. Bos for the reference, acknowledge that the suggestion appears in the book by Dan Levene and Beno Rothenberg, and thank my sister, Shulamith, for making their work accessible to me.

~~~

Shevuot 23a – Pressed figs from Ke’ila…honey or milk

I mentioned this case in my last post, but would like to come back to it in order, again, to acknowledge the assistance of others in the research I did when developing the note that ultimately appeared in the Koren Talmud Bavli volume.

In this case, I believe that the editor involved was Jonathan Mishkin, who pointed out that the Gemara takes for granted that someone who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk could not perform the Temple service because they were likely to be intoxicated.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the intoxicating substance referred to in the verse is pressed figs from Ke’ila, as it is taught in a baraita: A priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank honey or milk and then entered the Temple and performed the sacrificial rites is liable for violating the prohibition against conducting the Temple service while intoxicated.

The Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara offers a laconic explanation in a note suggesting that figs from Ke’ila have a high sugar content, which may lead to fermentation, but it says nothing about the other substances that appear to be even more problematic. The page in the Koren Talmud Bavli appears as follows:

The first thing to catch your eye has to be the illustrations – none of which appear in the original Hebrew Steinsaltz Gemara – but there is more. The Background note about the prohibition to enter the Temple when intoxicated is taken from the Steinsaltz Reference Guide to the Talmud, which served as the source for many of the additional notes aimed at giving context to a discussion in the Gemara.

The note on “Pressed figs from Ke’ila…honey or milk” expands on the original Steinsaltz note that figs may ferment. The real challenge is why milk should be considered intoxicating (the story of Yael and Sisera in Judges 4:19 notwithstanding). The two suggestions raised in the note are that milk, too, can ferment and become alcoholic, or that “milk” in this context refers to white date wine, the latter suggestion attributed to Rav Menachem Kasher’s Torah Temimah.

Both of those suggestions, again, came from responses that I received on the H-Judaic list. While the Torah Shelemah is credited with the idea that “milk” may be white date wine (Vol. 28 pp. 273-274 in the milu’im), I would like to acknowledge that I was directed to this source by Prof. Admiel Kosman, who serves as professor of Talmud and Rabbinic Literature at Potsdam University.

After a time, I began to turn to both Bos and Kosman directly with questions like these, as they both proved to be invaluable resources in questions of realia. My public thanks to both.

In closing I would like to reiterate my thanks to Rav Steinsaltz zekher tzaddik li’vrakha and yibadel le’hayyim tovim, Meni Even Yisrael for allowing me to play a role in this project that aims to spread Torah among all Jews. A friend recently sent me a still photo taken from an interview with Amar’e Stoudemire that shows the Koren Talmud Bavi on the shelf behind him. The power of Rav Steinsaltz’ vision to make the library of Sifrei Kodesh available to all Jews who desire to learn is a powerful legacy that is now being fulfilled.

Rabbi Dr. Shalom Berger szberger@gmail.com served as Senior Content Editor for the Koren Talmud Bavli project. He is now involved in developing English language educational programming for Herzog College’s Tanakh department.

Picturing Pandemic Prayer

Edward Reichman

(with invaluable assistance and inspiration from Menachem Butler and Sharon Liberman Mintz)

Among the precious items recently offered by Sotheby’s at its auction of important Judaica (December 17, 2020) was a richly illustrated miniature book of prayers written and illustrated by Nathan ben Samson of Meseritch, 1728 (here). Nestled among the spectacular illustrations and prayers reflecting all aspects of life we find the page below:[1]

This largely forgotten prayer recited upon seeing one recently recovered from illness derives from the Talmud. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that four must offer thanks to God with a special blessing. One of them is a person who was ill and recovered. The passage then continues to record the proper blessing, which we today know as hagomel. The Talmud then recounts the following story which seems to deviate from the required practice:[2]

רַב יְהוּדָה חֲלַשׁ וְאִתְפַח. עָל לְגַבֵיהּ רַב חָנָא בַגְדָתָאָה וְרַבָנַן. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: “בְרִיךְ רַחֲמָנָא דְיַהֲבָךְ נִיהֲלַן וְלָא יַהֲבָךְ לְעַפְרָא“. אֲמַר לְהוּ: פְטַרְתּוּן יָתִי מִלְאוֹדוֹיֵי.

The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda fell sick and recovered, Rav Hana of Baghdad and the Sages entered to visit him. They said to him: Blessed is God Who gave you to us and did not give you to the dust. He said to them: You have exempted me from offering thanks, as your statement fulfilled my obligation to recite a blessing.

While there are seeming difficulties, the Talmud resolves them and considers this alternative expression of thanks, offered not by the patient himself, acceptable under certain halakhic guidelines. Today we routinely utilize the primary formula mentioned in the Talmud for giving thanks after the recovery from illness- birkat hagomel, recited by the patient, though this template could certainly suffice.

I do not think I am being presumptuous in saying that prayer, in some shape or form, in varying degrees, has been on all of our minds, hearts and lips these past few months. Here I do not discuss personalized improvisational prayer, but rather halakhically required or indicated tefillah. From a halakhic perspective, the types of prayers employed throughout this period have been varied and unique.

The Phases[3] of Pandemic prayer

There have been a number of phases of prayer during this pandemic period, each involving a different aspect or focus of prayer.

Phase 1- Techinah (supplication)

The first phase of prayer we encountered during this pandemic was the composition of special prayers to serve as protection and prevention from Covid 19.[4] We previously discussed one aspect of these prayers, the pitum haketoret.[5] There have been countless prayers of this kind written for plagues and pandemics throughout history. A search on the National Library website for the terms magefah and tefillah will sufficiently confirm this. During pre-modern times, when communities endured plague after plague, these prayers were regretfully all too familiar to the European Jew. The liturgy would have been kept under the Aron Kodesh as opposed to the back storage. Current rabbinic authorities thus had ample precedent upon which to draw to compose these prayers. Though we were previously “immune,” both literally and figuratively to this experience, and were unfamiliar with these prayers, we have now all been “exposed” to them.

Phase 2- Hoda’ah (thanksgiving) After Illness

The next prayer discussion to follow, as patients with God’s help began to recuperate from the disease, was an halakhic analysis of the requirements for reciting birkat hagomel. Issues included both when it should be recited, for example if one suffered only a mild case or conversely still had lingering symptoms,[6] to how it should be recited- whether a minyan is absolutely required and, if so, would a zoom minyan suffice.[7] Nathan ben Samson’s illustration might help with at least one of these questions. In order to recite the blessing, the disease should have been severe enough for one to have been bedridden, and one’s recovery advanced enough that he should begin getting out of bed.

Perhaps the rabbis could have considered resurrecting the alternate blessing from our illustration, d’yahavakh lan, during the pandemic. However, it would not have provided any halakhic advantage, as it too requires a minyan. If anything, it would potentially be even more challenging as this brachah is recited by others who observe the patient’s recovery. Perhaps zoom would not be sufficient for this assessment.

Phase 3- Hoda’ah for Preventing Illness

We now b’ezrat Hashem, find ourselves in phase 3 of pandemic prayer. With the development of a successful vaccine we are seeing a new phase of our prayerful preoccupations. Social media is currently abuzz with discussions about whether one should recite a blessing upon receiving the vaccine, and if so, which one.

I have not seen discussions in the halakhic literature on the recitation of a specific tefillah or brachah for previous vaccinations in medical history, neither for smallpox, nor polio, nor measles, nor any others. While admittedly my search has not been exhaustive, assuming there was indeed no previous vaccination prayer discussion, to what would we attribute the sudden change in halakhic perspective? I submit that the answer is rapidity and simultaneity. The rapidity with which Covid 19 spread across the world, leading to the prolonged closure or restriction of religious Jewish practice throughout the entire globe simultaneously is truly unprecedented. While we have experienced pandemics in the past, there has never been a simultaneous, global, real time, communal sense of tragedy on this scale before. Social media contributed exponentially to this experience. The production of multiple effective vaccinations in a mere few months to potentially rescue us from this abyss is likewise unprecedented.

The very aspects that have made this pandemic unprecedented have led to an unprecedented response to the vaccine. The elation at the vaccine’s dissemination is palpable, and the spiritual desire to find tangible verbal expression of gratitude is unrestrained. Rabbinic authorities are responding to this reality.

Furthermore, many rabbinic authorities are strongly supporting if not requiring vaccination.[8] Thus, as opposed to hagomel, or d’yahavakh lan, almost all of us could potentially have an opportunity to recite this brachah. The question then is which blessing.[9]

Talmudic Prayer Prior to Medical Treatment

There is one rabbinic formula mentioned in the Talmud that is to be recited upon undergoing the medical procedure of bloodletting:[10]

.”דְאָמַר רַב אַחָא: הַנִכְנָס לְהַקִיז דָם, אוֹמֵר: “יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְפָנֶיךָ ה‘ אֱלֹהַי שֶיְהֵא עֵסֶק זֶה לִי לִרְפוּאָה, וּתְרַפְאֵנִי. כִי אֵל רוֹפֵא נֶאֱמָן אָתָה וּרְפוּאָתְךָ אֱמֶת, לְפִי שֶאֵין דַרְכָן שֶל בְנֵי אָדָם לְרַפּאוֹת אֶלָא שֶנָהֲגוּ

As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says:
May it be Your will, O Lord my God, that this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. As You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. Because it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed.

This passage has been codified in Shulchan Arukh,[11] and though stated in the context of bloodletting, has been traditionally recited throughout history when undergoing any medical treatment or taking any medications.[12]

This blessing with accompanying illustration appears in another eighteenth century illustrated compendium similar to Nathan ben Samson’s:[13]

The modern reader may be forgiven for believing this scene to possibly depict a vaccination, especially given our current preoccupation with the procedure. You would be sorely mistaken. While it is true that the date of the manuscript, 1724, antedates Jenner by some seventy years, a form of smallpox inoculation was being administered long before. However, the Talmudic source of this blessing is associated with bloodletting, in addition to the fact that the clinician is making his incision in the basilic vein, the common location for bloodletting, not inoculation.[14]

This blessing, not unlike d’yahavakh lan pictured above, has, until now, fallen into disuse and atrophy. It has been resuscitated today by contemporary rabbinic authorities for recitation with vaccination for Covid 19. Rav Asher Weiss, Shlit”a recited this upon receiving his first dose of vaccine.[15]

Shehecheyanu

Another brachah considered for vaccination is shehecheyanu. It certainly seems like a logical choice based on its wording alone: “Blessed are You, our God, Sovereign of all, who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this occasion.” However, it is far more halakhically complex. Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber recited this formula and briefly wrote discussing the different options and the logic behind his decision.[16] Rav Asher Weiss devotes his weekly essay on the parashah of Vayigash, 5781 to this blessing, its parameters, and whether it should be recited upon receiving a vaccination for Covid 19.[17] Rav Weiss concludes that it should not be recited in this case.

Hatov Vihametiv [18]

Rav Yosef Rimon, Shlit”a addresses the propriety of reciting another blessing, related to shehechiyanu, hatov vihametiv, as this blessing requires tangible benefit.[19] Allowing that the vaccine’s benefit is indeed tangible in nature, a remaining question is whether it is entirely beneficial, or perhaps not, as there could be adverse reactions. Should one then preferably, he suggests, recite the blessing upon hearing of the vaccine’s effectiveness rather than upon personally receiving the injection. Rav Rimon concludes that one may recite the blessing depending on one’s subjective perception of the value of the vaccine. Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlit”a recited this brachah upon receiving his vaccine.[20]

Treatment Specific Prayer

A lesser known, event specific, prayer was composed by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Tzfat:

מודִים אֲנַחְנוּ לָךְ ה‘ אֱלהֵינוּ וֵאלהֵי אֲבותֵינוּ אֱלהֵי כָל בָשָר. בּוֹרֵא רְפוּאוֹת. שאַתָה חונֵן לְאָדָם דַעַת וּמְלַמֵד לֶאֱנושׁ בִינָה לִמְצֹא וּלְהַמְצִיא חִסּוּן לַמַגֵפָה. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְפָנֶיךָ שֶהַחִסּוּן הַזֶה יִמְנַע אֶת הִתְפַשְטוּת הַמַגֵפָה וְיַצִיל חַיִים שֶל אַלְפֵי רְבָבוֹת בָעוֹלָם כֻלּוֹ. אָנָא ה‘ שְלַח רְפוּאָה שְלֵמָה לְכָל חולֵי עַמֶךָ. הִצִילָנוּ מִכָל תּוֹפְעוֹת הַלְוַאי, רְפָאֵנוּ ה‘ וְנֵרָפֵא הושִיעֵנוּ וְנִוָשֵעָה כִי תְהִלָתֵנוּ אָתָה. וְהַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה וּמַרְפֵא לְכָל תַחֲלוּאֵינוּ. וּלְכָל מַכְאובֵינוּ וּלְכָל מַכּותֵינוּ. כִי אֵל רופֵא רַחְמָן וְנֶאֱמָן אָתָה. יִהְיוּ לְרָצון אִמְרֵי פִי וְהֶגְיון לִבִי לְפָנֶיךָ. ה‘ צוּרִי וְגאֲלִי

This prayer thanks God specifically for granting man the wisdom to discover and create a vaccine for this pandemic and beseeches that it should be effective in saving countless lives across the entire world. When I received my vaccination,[21] as a so-called frontline worker, I personally recited the formula of the Shulchan Arukh above, in addition to this tefillah, which personally deeply resonated with me.

Whether one uses the classic formulation of Rav Asher Weiss, the hatov vihametiv of Rav Schachter, or the shehechiyanu of Rabbi Dr. Sperber is not so much the issue.[22] What is far more important is that the tefillah conversation has shifted from the tefillah of techinah (supplication) to the tefillah of hoda’ah (thanksgiving). While hagomel is also a form of hoda’ah, one must have contracted disease to recite it. This form of hoda’ah is a “healthier” form of thanksgiving and represents an appreciation of the introduction of a cure (or more accurately prevention) of the disease that will potentially end the pandemic for us all. It is an appreciation of the advances in medicine which through Hashem’s guidance have enabled scientists to create a novel and exceptionally effective treatment in a remarkably short time, as Rabbi Eliyahu so beautifully encapsulates in his prayer.

Phase 4- Communal Retrospective Hoda’ah

The fourth and final phase of prayer, which we have yet to experience, is communal gratitude for surviving the plague. This form of prayer can only be expressed once the pandemic has abated. Throughout the centuries, communities that survived bouts of plague offered services of communal prayer and thanksgiving for their survival. I offer one such example.

In the nineteenth century there were multiple cholera pandemics. Jewish communities were profoundly affected by these events. The famous cases of Rabbi Yisroel Salanter (supposedly) making kiddush from the bimah on Yom Kippur and of Rabbi Akiva Eiger recommending social distancing in synagogue to minimize contagion were both associated with cholera pandemics.[23] In 1835, the city of Ferrara experienced a severe cholera outbreak.[24] In gratitude to Hashem for the community’s salvation from this particular event a special community prayer service was instituted.[25] The order of prayers was to be recited in every synagogue in the city of Ferrara in the month of Adar after the Shacharit (morning) service. It included selections from Tehillim as well as specific prayers written for the occasion:

Let us conclude by taking a closer look at our first illustration:

This picture I believe accurately reflects our present state of affairs in the midst of the Covid 19 pandemic. We are collectively as a people beginning to get out of bed on the road to recovery. To be sure, we are not there just yet, but we have transitioned gradually from the prone position to sitting off the side of the bed, with our feet dangling. We are still socially distancing, and as in the picture, there is no one in the room with us. Yet, it appears the door is open. The vaccine has been released and we as a people will soon be walking together unmasked outside and standing together shoulder to shoulder in shul, iy”H. We will then transition to the next and final phase of pandemic tefillah, when this pandemic is behind us- the collective community hoda’ah. I look forward to this final phase of reciting the prayer for the salvation of the world from the Covid 19 pandemic together with you, in person (sorry, no Zoom allowed).

Notes:

[1] Seder Birkat ha-Mazon u-Birkat ha-Nehenin (Grace After Meals and Occasional Blessings), written and illustrated by Nathan ben Samson of Meseritch, 1728 (private collection)

[2] Berachot 54b. translation from Sefaria.org.

[3] I use the term “phase” intentionally to be reminiscent of the phases of the vaccine trials, for which there are also four phases, though the connection is admittedly loose.

[4] See Rabbi Dr. Avraham Steinberg’s compendium on the laws relating to Coronavirus, available here.

[5] Edward Reichman, “Incensed by Coronavirus: Prayer and Ketoret in Times of Epidemic,” Lehrhaus (March 15, 2020), available here.

[6] Steinberg, op. cit.

[7] Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Piskei Corona, available here.

[8] Rabbi Dr. Aaron Glatt, “What Do Poskim Say About The Covid-19 Vaccine?” JewishPress.com (December 24, 2020) (here); HaGaon HaRav Yitzchak Zilberstein: “The Vaccine Has The Authority Of Beis Din” theyeshivaworld.com (December 24, 2020), available here. For a video of Rav Schachter and Rabbi Willig receiving the vaccine see here.

[9] An in-depth halakhic analysis is beyond the scope of this essay.

[10] Berachot 60a. text from Sefaria.org

[11] O. C. 230:4.

[12] Mishnah Berurah 230:6

[13] Seder Birkat ha-Mazon u-Birkat ha-Nehenin (Grace After Meals and Occasional Blessings), written and illustrated by Aaron Herlingen of Geitsch, 1724. The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, MS8232. I thank Sharon Liberman Mintz for this illustration.

[14] It is curious that there is no bowl to receive the blood, which one would typically find in illustrations of bloodletting. I also looked at the instruments on the table thinking they might be associated with bloodletting specifically, though could not find definitive evidence.

[15] For a more expansive treatment of vaccination in general by Rav Weiss, see here.

[16] For a video of his reciting the blessing while being vaccinated, see here. For his halakhic analysis, see here. I thank Menachem Butler for these references.

[17] Rav Asher Weiss weekly parashah series, year 23, issue 11.

[18] On the history of this blessing, see Adolf Büchler, “The History of the Blessing HaTov veHaMetiv and the Situation in Judaea after the War,” in Avigdor (Victor) Aptowitzer and A.Z. Schwarz, eds., Zvi Peretz Chajes Memorial Volume (Vienna: Alexander Kohut Foundation, 1933), 137-167 (Hebrew)

[19] I thank Rabbi Warren Cinamon for this reference.

[20] A video is available online here.

[21] Of the Pfizer variety.

[22] On the proviso of course that they are following the guidelines of their posek.

[23] Edward Reichman, “From Cholera to Coronavirus: Recurrent Pandemics with Recurrent Rabbinic Responses,” Tradition Online (April 2, 2020), available here.

[24] Myrna Gene Martin, “Outsiders on the Inside: Italian Jewish Ghettos and Cholera in the 1830s,” European History Quarterly 49:1 (2019), 28-49.

[25] Courtesy of the National Library of Israel, item number 990001066250205171

On Purim and the 15 of Av and Shevat these were vacation days for the Rabbis, . . . [on the 15th of Shevat] one says tehina even during the morning prayer. It is a vacation day for the students and the teachers, especially the younger students, it is a day of feasting and joy for or the teachers and their students. The custom is for the teachers to distribute whiskey to the students and make merry with them.”  Minhagei [de-Kehilah Kedosha] Vermisai le-Rebi Joszpa Shamesh (Jerusalem:  Machon Yerushalim, 1988), 249-50, no. 211.

 

Magen Avraham

The Magen Avraham cites the Tikkun Yissachar as the earliest source for the custom to eat fruits on the 15th of Shevat.  This, despite the fact that he had accessed, and indeed quotes on many occasions, the Machzor with the Maageli Tzedek commentary. See, e.g.,

נה:יז, פח:ג, קלא:י, תכז:א, תלא:ה, תלז:יז, תכז:א, תנ:יב, תנג:יא, תקפא:ד, תקפא:ז, תקפא:ח, תקפב:ח, תקפג:ב תקפד:ג, תקפט:ד, תרכד:ז, תרכט:ה, תרנא:יט, תרנא:כא, תרנח:יב, תרסא:, תרע:ב [2X], תרעב:ה, תרעג:ז, תרפא:א, תרפח:יא, תרצ:יט, תרצא:ח

While he had access to the Machzor, he did not have access to the Tikkun Yissachar.  The Magen Avraham quotes the Tikkun Yissachar on a few occasions, but always via a secondary source. See Brodt Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century (PHD Bar Ilan 2015), pp. 68-69. The Mekor Chaim in O.C. 686:1 is the first to point to the Machzor for this minhag.

The halachot in the Machzor were collected by  Yitzhak Hershkowitz ed., Maglei Tzedek (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 156-157.  Regarding R. Benyamin see Y.S. Emmanuel, Matsavos Saloniki, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1973), 36, 68-69; Meir Benayahu, “Rebi Shmuel Yaffa Ashkenazi,” in Tarbiz, 42 (1973), 423-24 and note 37; M.S. Molcho, Matsevot Bet ha-Olamin she Yehudi Saloniki (Tel Aviv, 1975), 59-60; Yitzhak Rivkin, “Dikdukei Soferim,” in Kiryat Sefer 4 (1927), 278 no. 32; Daniel Goldschmidt, Mehkerei Tefillah u-Piyyut, 252-65, Meir Benayahu, Defus ha-Ivri be-Kremonah (Jerusalem, 1971), 141-78. About Knesset Hagedolah and being a Sabbatean see Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 56; Brodt, Yeshurun 35 ( 2016 )p. 775; See also the recent work, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi, Igrot Shmuel (2021)-, 1, pp. 4-5. 

R. Shmuel Ashkenazi

As the Seforim Blog just published Iggrot Shmuel from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi (see here and here) we reprint two letters from his collection, one discussing the origins of the holiday of the 15th of Shevat and the other Hemdat Yamim.

 

Notes:

Additional sources discussing the 15th of Shevat, see  Meir Rafeld, Netivi Meir, (2013), 185-189; R Mandelbaum, Tehilah Ledovid (Jerusalem, 1993);  Guttman, Otzar TuBeshvat.

Tikkun Yissachar was republished in 1988 with an excellent introduction from R. Betzalel Landau.  Most recently, in 2019, it was reprinted and re-typeset, with additional notes. This edition also includes R Landau’s introduction and another introduction of material about the work. See also Elisheva Carlebach, Palaces of Time: Jewish Calendar and Culture in Early Modern Europe (London: Belknap, 2011),  51-58; יוסף הקר, ‘יששכר אבן סוסאן עליית כוהנים לתורה בשמחת חתנים’, בתוך: ‘מנחה למנחם’, קובץ מאמרים לכבוד ר’ מנחם כהן, בעריכת חנה עמית, אביעד כהן וחיים באר, ירושלים תשס”ח, עמ’ 79-97

Regarding Hagiz, see Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).

After the Birkat Eliyahu was published it was attacked by some rabbis.  See Meir Benayahu, “Sefarim she-Hiburum R. Moshe Hagiz she-Hotsyim le-Or,” in Ali Sefer 4 (1977), 143, 150-52; see also Shlomo Yaakovovitch, “Sefer Shehitot u-Bedikot le-R’ Yaakov Weil,” in Tsefunot 4 (1989), 112; Carlebach, Pursuit of Heresy, 247-49. Regarding R. Eliyahu see Y. Halpern, Pinkas Vaad Arba Arotsot (Jerusalem, 1990) 362; Tzvi Horowitz, Le-Tolodot ha-Kehilot be-Polin (Jerusalem, 1989), 1.

The literature on Hemdat Yamim is substantial and we hope to return to the work in an upcoming post.  For the most recent discussion see Y. Goldhaber, “Le-Birur Zehuto shel Mehaber Hemdat Yamim,” in  Sefer Zikhoron le-Professor Meir Benayahu, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Karmel, 2019), 873-908.

Huss’s article appears as Boaz Huss, “Ha-Ets ha-Nehmad ben Yishi Hayi al ha-Adama: al Mekoro ha-Sabbatai shel Seder 15 Shevat,” in Sefer Zikhoron le-Professor Meir Benayahu, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Karmel, 2019), 909-20.

Update about Igrot Shmuel: Possible Second printing sign up

By Eliezer Brodt

Less than two weeks ago I announced the publication of R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi’s monumental collection of letters, Igrot Shmuel (see here). I would like to follow up with a small update about the project.

After a long wait of about 12 years, we were privileged to bring to print approximately one thousand letters of R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi, in 3 volumes, 1800 pages titled, Igrot Shmuel.

A mere four to five days after its release to our great surprise and joy (simultaneously), the complete run sold out. The seforim were not sold in any stores nor were they advertised in many places, but people still heard about them.  

We have still been receiving many requests to purchase the seforim but we do not have copies. Even though this was not our original intention we are considering a second printing of another few hundred copies for the same price as the first printing.

However, to see if there is a serious interest in an additional printing, we started a list of people who are interested. If we see in the next few days enough people sign up then we will reprint the letters. The deadline is this coming Tuesday (January 26).

Whoever signs up will then pay upfront half the cost of the books immediately before we know that the seforim are actually going into a second printing. The rest will be paid after the seforim are released. This will finance the printing.

The actual printing will happen very quickly and it just depends on the amount of people who sign up.

To sign up for the second printing send me an email at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

By Eli Genauer

Shemot Perek 11, Pasuk 9:

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה–לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃

Al HaTorah (based on the manuscript Leipzig 1) records Rashi’s comment on למען רבות מופתי as follows:

רש“י: למען רבות מופתי – מכת בכורות, וקריעת ים סוף, ולנער את מצרים.

Here is Leipzig 1:

Artscroll Sapirstein edition (Brooklyn 1994) adds the words “מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה” in brackets at the beginning.

The words appear without any type of parentheses in Mikraot Gedolot HaBahir 2005. Oz Vehadar HaMevuar also has the words without parentheses. [1][2] 

It seems then that in some newer editions, the words מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה are an integral part of Rashi’s comments. Oz Vehadar explains those words as follows:

But there is a perplexing issue with the presentation of Oz Vehadar. It explains the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” based on Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura, in the sefer attributed him called עמר נקא. I expected to see the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” in the portion quoted in עמר נקא but we don’t find them at all in the quotation from Rashi, rather it appears like this:

It is clear that those words were not in Rav Ovadiah’s text of Rashi.

It is also odd that Oz Vehadar Rashi HaMevuar would have those words as an integral part of Rashi because it acknowledges that those words are missing from the defusim rishonim and from the critical editions of Avraham Berliner: “In Rome (רומא), Dfus Rishon (דפוס ראשון Reggio di Callabria) and Avraham Berliner (רא״ב Zechor L’Avraham Frankfurt a/M 1905) the (four)words are missing.”

Aside from the early editions just mentioned, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” are not found in Soncino 1487, Zamora 1487, Lisbon 1491 or Napoli 1492.[3]

Here is Zamora:

Rashi HaShalem ( Mechon Ariel, 4^th Volume 1992)doesn’t have it or even comment on it.

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi ( Sefer Mizrachi Venice 1527) has a long comment on Rashi but does not include those words in his citing of what Rashi said:

למען רבות מופתי מכת בכורות וקריעת ים סוף ולנער את מצרים.

Avraham Berliner who was cited above (Berlin 1867 and Frankfurt am Main 1905) does not have “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” either:

Most importantly, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” do not appear in any Rashi manuscript from the 40 I examined from 12^th to the 15^th century. As shown above, Leipzig 1 does not contain those words.[4]  Here is another example of an early manuscript without the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה”:

Berlin 1221

Based on not finding those words in any manuscript I examined, and the fact that the words were not recorded in any early printed edition, nor were they included by Berliner, nor do they appear in the Vienna 1859 Mikraot Gedolot of Shlomo Zalman Netter, nor mentioned in any way by Rashi HaShalem, I feel comfortable saying that the words“מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” most likely were not written by Rashi. So where did they come from and how did they get to be included in such prominent editions such as Artscroll (where they appear in brackets) and Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar?

As mentioned, the words are not in any manuscript nor in any early printed edition of Rashi. Going forward in the history of printing, they don’t appear in any edition of Rashi all through the 1500’s and 1600’s including the important Bomberg Venice 1518 and 1526 Mikarot Gedolot, Rashi and Chizkuni Venice 1524, Venice 1538, and Sabionetta 1638.

Here is the important Rashi edition of Sabionetta 1557 where the four words are missing:

The first time that I found the extra words included in print is in Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) Though ordinarily the author Rav Yosef ben Yissachar cites a source for his additions, here he does not.

He just says כן נראה לי –כנ״ל. It is unclear to me whether he had a manuscript which had the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” or it was just his opinion that they be added to explain the words of Rashi which followed.

It does not appear in an edition of Rashi printed soon after Yosef Da’at, that of Amsterdam 1644:

Nor in the first edition of Siftei Chachamim of Amsterdam 1680 ( which often includes the edits of Yosef Da’at) or the Amsterdam Chumash of 1682.

It is not in Dhyenfurth 1693 nor in Berlin 1705 or Frankfurt an der Oder in 1728 and even later there in 1784. It is not in Fuerth 1841 or Vienna 1831 or Vienna 1859 (Netter) nor Warsaw 1861.

The first edition after the Yosef Da’at in which I found it was in Amsterdam 1749:

It is also in Amsterdam 1757:

Amsterdam 1797 has it also with no parentheses,

The words are included in the highly regarded edition of Zhitomir 1870:

It is also in Bait Dovid Lemberg 1909 w/o parentheses.

I find this case to be quite unusual. There are words that most likely were not written by Rashi which have made it into mainstream editions today. They appear because of a comment made by Yosef Da’at where it is not even clear if he meant them to be included in the text of Rashi. Normally when Yosef Da’at introduces some words, they are included in the first edition of Siftai Chachamim in 1680 but here they don’t show up until the mid-1700’s. They appear from then onwards in some editions and some do not have them. The very influential Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna and Warsaw do not have them. Those editions usually set the standard for those that followed but here that is not the case.

WHEN HISTORY IS HIS STORY
A Review of R. Dovid Kamenetsky’s “Rabeinu Chaim Ozer: Raban Shel Kol B’nei Ha’golah” *
(Vol. 1, Hebrew, 671 pages)

Rabbi Jonah Steinmetz is a fellow in the Wexner Kollel Elyon and director of Asicha Seminars, an online learning program for women. This is Jonah’s first contribution to the Seforim Blog.

1. OF HISTORY AND STORY

When asked to describe the difference between recording history and telling stories, the prolific historical fiction novelist, E.L. Doctorow responded, “The historian will tell you what happened. The novelist will tell you what it felt like.” Doctorow’s assessment is unsurprisingly insightful, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of both historiography and storytelling; however, there are rare instances where history also tells a story.

R. Dovid Kamenetsky’s new book, Rabeinu Chaim Ozer: Raban Shel Kol B’nei Ha’goleh (Vol. 1), is one such instance. In culling almost entirely from primary sources such as letters from R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky and his contemporaries, newspapers, and journals, Kamenetsky unwraps the history and the story of not only the protagonist, but his entire generation.

In his introduction, the author notes that “multiple writers have published short biographies – and more are yet to come – which are filled with inaccuracies and incorrect stories, and therefore [these works] should not be relied upon.”[1] He also observes that while many of R. Chaim Ozer’s correspondences have been published, the order and fashion in which they were compiled make it “nearly impossible to discern the true greatness” of the man. In stating his objective, Kamenetsky writes,

This book… is not just a biography or a book of stories. I will leave that to others… In our book, the various events are arranged according to the [chronological] order of their occurrence, contextualized by a description of Rabeinu’s navigation – as the captain of the ship of [the] Jewish [people] – which led to the achievement of desired results.

In fact, this is not a biography. It is not a book of stories. It is a book of history through which the story unfolds. In stark contrast to rigid academic works often perceived as dry and removed, Kamenetsky’s book is refreshingly dynamic. Whereas one often relies on popular tales to discover the politics, drama, and personalities in the rabbinic world, Kamenetsky allows the reader to experience history by reading the firsthand accounts of the parties and witnesses to the events.

2. THE KIBUTZ IN VILNA

In the third chapter, Kamenetsky discusses R. Chaim Ozer’s famous kibutz in Vilna. The kibutz consisted of a small group of young prodigies who came from across Europe to study with one of the leading gedolim of the generation. In his eulogy for R. Chaim Ozer, R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel describes how there were no set shiurim. “He simply had no time.” However,

on Shabbos during bein hashmashos (the twilight hours), was our time, only our time. We felt the presence of the Shabbos queen as [R. Chaim Ozer] sat down to discuss torah with us.[2]

The students were handpicked by R. Chaim Ozer, and Kamenetsky exposes us to R. Chaim Ozer’s charisma, wisdom, and foresight without ever resorting to hearsay by sharing reports written by alumni of the kibutz. These documents reveal R. Chaim Ozer as an extraordinarily perceptive person with a keen insight into the human psyche. In perhaps the most exciting episode, R. Chaim Ozer turned down a young man applying to the kibutz with a letter of recommendation from none other than R. Chaim Soloveitchik![3] Although R. Chaim describes the potential student as an “outstandingly wonderful” prodigy from an exceptional family, he was “rejected at the doorstep.” In what is perhaps a retroactive exhibition of R. Chaim Ozer’s intuition, this young man eventually left the torah world to become an academic.[4]

In the course of this discussion, the reader learns about famous scholars such as R. Shlomo Polachek (the Meitcheter Iluy), R. Amiel, R. Reuven Katz, R. Eliezer Silver, and others who benefited from learning in the presence of R. Chaim Ozer in Vilna. Perhaps more critically, Kamenetsky disproves commonly held mistruths about others having learned in the kibutz. R. Yechezkel Abramsky fled Telz for Vilna in 1906 to avoid conscription into the Russian army. His biographers claim that he then joined the kibutz.[5] Kamenetsky notes, however, that this claim is unfounded. He similarly dispels the rumor that R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (the Chazon Ish) learned in the kibutz.[6]

Supporting and managing this group was no small task. However, relative to the drama which characterized his many public roles, one imagines that the kibutz held a special place in R. Chaim Ozer’s heart as a calm, safe space for growth in talmud torah.

3. TORAH KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES

But life was rarely calm for our protagonist. In 1932, R. Chaim Ozer wrote a letter to his nephew, Shlomo Kosovsky, in which he describes the many stressful responsibilities which burdened him in Vilna.

Thank G-d we and our family are well. However, there is no shortage of burdens and aggravation. [T]here is a decline in the physical and spiritual condition, [causing] many [people] to come to discuss and pour their bitter hearts out, and it is upon me to listen to their sighs all day. The institutions are on the verge of closure (lit. hang on nothingness), the Rameilles Yeshiva which is my load has no foundation or basis, and the future is covered in fog.[7]

Given this description of the local hardships and pressures, one would expect that R. Chaim Ozer focused exclusively on his role in Vilna, with no time to assist elsewhere. But this is not the case. When French rabbis instituted faulty halachic procedures regarding marriage and divorce, R. Chaim Ozer was at the helm of a collaborated effort on the part of the leading Eastern European rabbis to expose the colossal distortion and demand a retraction.[8] In this context, R. Chaim Ozer wrote,

Do not be surprised that foreign rabbis are intervening in halachic decisions in France, for our torah is not restricted by space.[9] Additionally… it is our opinion… that a woman who marries [under these circumstances]… [thus] her children are illegitimate and it is forbidden for others to marry them. As such, doesn’t this matter affect the entire nation?![10]

Still more political friction is uncovered through accounts of R. Chaim Ozer’s fiery disputes with R. Yosef Shaposhnik of London.[11] In 1928, Shaposhnik, self-declared “chief rabbi of the world,” published a pamphlet announcing his plans and methods for freeing agunos worldwide. The methods were halachically unfounded. Called upon by London’s R. Shmuel Yitzchak Hillman, R. Chaim Ozer led a fierce attack against Shaposhnik’s decisions, authority, and even his mental capacity.[12]

Later chapters are replete with further examples of R. Chaim Ozer’s political tact as he deftly steers the global Jewish community through the obstacle course of the 20^th century. The detailed account of R. Chaim Ozer’s intimate and devoted involvement in supporting the settlement of Israel and its rabbinate will be of particular interest to the reader.[13]

4. THE RABBINICAL CONFERENCES OF 1909-1910

With no embellishment and limited elaboration, six of the final seven chapters invite the reader into the world of the pre-Agudas Yisroel rabbinate struggling to unify in guiding the public on critical issues. Kamenetsky’s work is chronological, so this first volume does not discuss the founding of Agudas Yisroel in Kattowitz in 1912. However, these chapters discuss the seeds of the organization.

R. Chaim Ozer emerges as the founder and leader of these endeavors, and in studying his correspondences, one is welcomed into the mind and heart of the protagonist in a surprisingly intimate fashion.[14] Descriptive newspaper reports and detailed rabbinic correspondences unveil shockingly comprehensive accounts of the formation of K’nesses Yisroel – the forerunner of Agudas Yisroel – starting in 1908, as well as the rabbinical conferences in Vilna and Bad Homburg in 1909 and St. Petersburg in 1910. Kamenetsky allows the reader to feel as though he is sitting in on the events, meeting the characters, experiencing the drama, and navigating the politics.

One example of the heated nature of the conference in St. Petersburg is the reaction to the position of R. Shalom Dovber Schneerson of Lubavitch (herein Rasha”b) regarding who is eligible to be registered as a Jew in the communal records.[15] He was of the opinion that children who were uncircumcised due to the parents’ recalcitrance should not be registered as Jews. The Yiddish newspaper, Haynt (21 Adar Beis, 5670) reported this and more of Rasha”b’s inflammatory remarks.

Due to the sharp objection… to the rebbe of Lubavitch’s statements that one who does not wear tefillin is not considered a Jew, and along with this, the decision on the part of the conference to exclude uncircumcised children from the records, I felt it necessary to turn to some of the greatest rabbinic participants to hear their halachic opinion on this burning question…[16]

The pushback to these assertions was fierce and the arguments were impassioned. In further viewing reports of the intense discussions as to which Jews are eligible for higher statuses and positions within the community, the reader is drawn into fundamental, heartfelt dialogue about the core definition of a Jew.[17]

5. R. CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK: LEGENDS CONFIRMED

Throughout the book, we are brought into R. Chaim Ozer’s personal world as he balances his roles as decisor, teacher, and leader. But Kamenetsky exposes us to the protagonist’s social and professional circles, as well. In providing capsule biographies for many of the characters mentioned throughout the book, the author introduces us to significant, albeit lesser known, rabbinic personalities, providing background for the letters and articles from which he draws.[18]

One unforeseen benefit of Kamenetsky’s approach is the unveiling of the persona of R. Chaim Soloveitchik as perceived by his colleagues. Stories – factual, apocryphal, and everything in between – about R. Chaim’s legendary genius, benevolence, and sagacity abound. Many have been published, still more have been orally transmitted. It is fascinating to see the aforementioned stories and still other traits be corroborated and come to life through firsthand accounts recorded in this book.

R. Chaim’s position as one of the most respected rabbinic figures in Europe is revealed time and again. In introducing the concept of what eventually became Agudas Yisroel, R. Chaim Ozer heavily stresses R. Chaim’s involvement, noting that his greatness and dominance will surely draw other colleagues to join the movement.[19] In a letter encouraging Rasha”b to join, R. Yitzchak Isaac Rabinowitz points to R. Chaim as one of the three most important, influential contemporary rabbinic figures.[20] When chief rabbi of Jerusalem, R. Shmuel Salant’s assistant, R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim predeceased him, the former desperately pushed R. Chaim to assume the position immediately.[21] In a letter from R. Yehuda Leib Frank to his son, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, the writer makes the astonishing claim that the Hasidim of Jerusalem will agree to no Lithuanian rabbinic leader except for R. Chaim![22]

In one pointed display of his uniqueness, R. Rabinowitz writes that R. Chaim is unlike all other Russian rabbis in that there is “nothing in his world other than torah.” “Even the greatness of millionaires like Rothschild can not affect him even slightly.”[23] About R. Chaim, Rasha”b writes, “he literally became sick from aggravation, being that he is truly G-d-fearing.”[24] These lines aptly portray R. Chaim’s confidence and immovability and capture his intense, unyielding yiras shamayim.

It is well known that, all his greatness notwithstanding, R. Chaim was exceedingly humble. R. Yaakov Ha-levi Lifschitz corroborates this in a letter to R. Rabinowitz in which he describes R. Chaim’s aversion to hubris in the following terms: “The Gaon R. Chaim is as far from pride and self-praise as we are far from eating treifos (i.e. non-Kosher meat).”[25]

It is no wonder that the newspapers would eventually describe R. Chaim, along with one other rabbi, as the “living spirit” of the rabbinical gatherings.[26] Generally, he would listen quietly as the animated discussions carried on, waiting until the arguments subsided to succinctly summarize the points and offer a brilliant assessment and decision.[27] Often, his opinion was accepted.[28]

These commonly held truths about R. Chaim’s unique genius and character are compellingly corroborated at various junctures. The author provides important insight and perspective by bearing these facts out through presenting firsthand accounts of contemporaries.

6. OF HISTORY, NOT STORY

Kamenetsky is allergic to mythology. To be clear, he displays no disdain for tradition and no proclivity for sniffing out and destroying hagiographical accounts.[29] Balanced by genuine reverence, Kamenetsky’s commitment to intellectual honesty and academic rigor leads him to disprove baseless stories through revealing their inconsistencies with the primary sources.[30] He has a particular penchant for noting calendric contradictions which dispel the accuracy of popular tales.[31]

In the penultimate chapter, Kamenetsky recounts the classic tale of the meeting between R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (the Chafetz Chaim) and R. Meir Simcha Ha-kohen of Dvinsk at the 1910 rabbinical conference in St. Petersburg.[32] At the behest of R. Chaim Soloveitchik, the Chafetz Chaim visited the convention to reinforce the minority’s opposition to a requirement for rabbis to learn the Russian language. R. Meir Simcha – along with R. David Friedman of Karlin, R. Chaim Ozer, R. Yitzchak Yaakov Rabinowitz of Ponovizh, and the majority of those present – asserted, however, that knowledge of the national language would ultimately strengthen the orthodox hold on the rabbinate. Kamenetsky quotes R. M.M. Yoshor’s account of the following exchange.

… [The Chafetz Chaim] traveled to visit the Gaon [R. Meir Simcha] of Dvinsk in his hotel. As the Chafetz Chaim began to explain his reasoning for coming, R. Meir Simcha lightheartedly remarked: “Don’t fret. The torah will remain torah and the rabbis will remain rabbis.” And, in relying upon the letter [of support] from R. David of Karlin, he said, “You should not contend with the opinion of the eldest of the Geonim. Being that you do not serve in the rabbinate and you live in a small town, you are not expert in the ways of the world and its demands.”

Unmoved, the Chafetz Chaim calmly asked [R. Meir Simcha] if he too leads a Yeshiva, noting that only someone who is in close contact with a Yeshiva is capable of presciently sensing the impending danger [in this decision].

So as to avoid a quarrel, R. Meir Simcha bolted out of the room (this was his way) … On the way [home], the Chafetz Chaim remarked: “I am impressed by R. Meir Simcha’s refined character…”

Yoshor also recounts that R. Meir Simcha quipped,

“This small Jew from a small town makes more noise across the world with his simple words than the biggest rabbis from the biggest towns with their depth and sharpness.”[33]

This meeting and its narrative is preserved in many scholarly and other works, with slight but critical tweaks to the words, tones, and cadences of the parties involved.[34] Tradition has it that the Chafetz Chaim – who rarely cites contemporaries by name – relays the opinion of R. Meir Simcha in Beur Halacha (585, s.v. v’tov l’tkoah b’yad yemin) in an attempt to show the world that he bears no grudge against his colleague, their squabble notwithstanding.[35]

While this story has all the desired trappings of conflict and resolution, Kamenetsky declares that “anyone with eyes” will notice that the ending is patently false. The alleged meeting between these two rabbis occurred in 1910. The volume of Mishnah Berurah in which this paragraph appears was published sometime between 1896 and 1899, more than ten years prior to their contentious encounter![36] Of course, this does not call the veracity of the crux of the tale into question. The intellectually honest student of history must sift through the layers of a story until what remains is only the truth.[37]

In one instance, Kamenetsky disproves Ahron Sorosky’s claim that R. Avraham Bornstein of Socatchov (the Avnei Nezer) attended the 1909 conference in Vilna.[38] Although Sorosky describes the rebbe’s journey and his meetings with R. David of Karlin, the Chafetz Chaim, and R. Chaim Soloveitchik, Kamenetsky claims they are all fantasy which never occurred. R. Bornstein was invited to the conference, but he did not end up joining. Kamenetsky explains that Sorosky confused this conference with another one in Warsaw in which a rebbe from Socatchov – either R. Avraham or his son R. Shmuel (the Shem M’shmuel) did participate. He takes this opportunity to remind the reader to “never rely on any information without cross-checking other sources.”

In yet a third example, the author uses creative resources to disprove a rumored event. R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson (Rayat”z), son and successor of Rasha”b, reports yet another rabbinic gathering which occurred in Vilna in 1905.[39] He claims that R. David Tevele Katzenellenbogen presided over this conference which was attended by R. David of Karlin, R. Chaim Soloveitchik, and Rasha”b. Rayat”z relays his father’s call for only ordaining young rabbis who display impeccable yiras shamayim. Allegedly, R. Chaim then penned a letter to R. Chaim Ozer, informing him of this decision to only ordain such rabbinic candidates.

Kamenetsky disputes this, declaring that such an event was simply an imagined imitation of the 1909 conference in which the aforementioned rabbis participated.[40] Aside from the nonexistence of corroborating sources, the author highlights the glaring peculiarity that a rabbinical conference occurred in Vilna in 1905 and yet R. Chaim Ozer had to be informed through a letter. Furthermore, Kamenetsky notes that Rasha”b’s passport is still extant, displaying all his travels, and there is no such trip to Vilna in 1905 signified!

7. MEGALEH TEFACH, MECHASEH T’FACHAYIM

In some cases, Kamenetsky leaves us on the edge of our seat, wishing he would disclose additional sources or offer his insightful commentary. One such case is his passing reference to the well-known tale of R. Chaim Ozer’s alleged broken engagement. Legend has it that a young R. Chaim Ozer became engaged to the daughter of R. Eliyahu Feinstein of Pruzhin. For reasons unknown, the wedding was called off.[41] The most ambitious versions of this story append a sensational postscript. Years later, R. Chaim Ozer’s only daughter, Malka, fell fatally ill with polio. With no hope of medical salvation, the desperate father sent a message to the Chafetz Chaim, requesting that he pray for the girl’s recovery. Purportedly, the Chafetz Chaim refused to offer any hope, attributing his reluctance to the fact that R. Chaim Ozer had broken an engagement in his youth.

Twice, Kamenetsky references this story. Twice, he rejects it as unfounded.[42] Of course, the intellectually honest student of history approaches such a staggering, phenomenal story with cautious skepticism. However, being that the legend is entrenched in the Krakowsky and Soloveitchik family traditions and widely accepted, one hopes that the author will provide his reasons for disbelief. Sensing our excitement, Kamenetsky asserts his claim that this story exists “only in the imagination of the maskilic authors” who invented it, “but there is no space here to elaborate.”

The author teases us in other instances as well. In his description of the Rameilles Yeshiva, Kamenetsky discusses R. Shlomo Heiman’s role as maggid shiur.[43] In 1927, R. Chaim Ozer brought R. Heiman to teach in the yeshiva in Vilna, raising the institution to new heights.[44] In the summer of 1934, however, Mesivta Torah V’Daas recruited R. Heiman to join their staff. Much to the dismay of R. Chaim Ozer, R. Heiman accepted the offer and left for America.[45] While Kamenetsky cites R. Chaim Ozer’s letters expressing his feelings during this period, he adds,

Indeed, in a different letter, dated 8 Adar 1937, Rabeinu [Chaim Ozer] partially reveals (lit. – reveals one tefach while concealing two tefachim) the reason for [R. Shlomo Heiman’s] departure.[46]

Kamenetsky proffers that this mysterious reason is “connected to R. Heiman’s role in the Yeshiva” and announces that he has the letter in his possession, but stops short of sharing the information with us. As frustrating as it may be, the reader senses and respects that the author protects the information out of great reverence for the parties involved.[47]

8. HISTORY AS OUR STORY

In his approbation to R. Yehuda Ha-levi Lifschitz’s Dor Yesharim, R. Chaim Ozer writes the following about the study of Jewish history.

Historically, gedolei torah never devoted their minds to delving into Jewish history or even to write books about Jewish sages of past generations. The words of our ancient and later rabbis are alive and maintained in the mouths of those who learn torah. Every study hall is brimming with rabbis and their students studying a living torah as if the words were taught that day. There is no need to memorialize tzadikim, as their words are their legacy.

However, since the decline of Judaism in Europe during the time of the Reform… there is no torah and there is no fear of G-d. As such, the remaining authors devoted themselves to memorialize the great figures and occurrences of past generations. Some of them intended to endear the wisdom of Israel and its gedolim to this generation. If they won’t receive this through knowledge, recognition, and vision (i.e. through learning torah), [at least] they should receive it through hearing stories – that they had outstanding ancestors through which they claim honor.[48]

In this first volume, R. Kamenetsky fulfills R. Chaim Ozer’s charge.[49] In drawing exclusively from firsthand accounts, he presents a compelling and exciting perspective on the life and leadership of R. Chaim Ozer as well as his rabbinic milieu. He simultaneously wears the hats of both historian and novelist, telling us what happened and showing us how it felt. Most importantly, he reminds us of our great ancestors and rich history to which we strive endlessly to connect.

*Thank you to my good friends, R. Jacob Sasson and R. Dovid Bashevkin for their encouragement and involvement. Special thanks to R. Eliezer Brodt for his willingness and efforts to publish this review.