Some Memories of Reb Dovid Feinstein zt”l: Instead of a Hesped

By Jonathan Boyarin

Jonathan Boyarin is the Diann G. and Thomas A. Mann Professor of Modern Jewish Studies at Cornell University. His latest book is *Yeshiva Days: Learning on the Lower East Side*, available here.

 

My Rosh Yeshiva, Reb Dovid Feinstein zt”l, was no longer with us on Friday just before Shabbes. This morning, Sunday, we watched online as an East Side Hatzoloh ambulance bearing his coffin waited for a crowd to clear so it could head up East Broadway following his outdoor eulogies. The ambulance lights flashed, almost surreal in the bright November sunshine, seeming at once reluctant to leave the neighborhood, warning of an emergency, and telling us it was already too late.

None of us will see him again, yet in the days and years to come the memories will circulate. I am so grateful that he permitted me to publish my impressions of him and of the Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem that he led for decades as successor to his father, Reb Moshe Feinstein. The book is new, and I am no longer a Lower East Side resident. Along with those who did eulogize him and asked mechila, forgiveness, from him on East Broadway this morning, I ask his forgiveness that I did not manage to bring it to him personally.

Those close to him, those who studied with him, referred to him as “Rebbi” or “the Rosh Yeshiva.” To help those who knew him to remember, and to offer some slight glimpse of his special personality to those who did not know him, I share here a few strokes of my sketch of him in that book, Yeshiva Days: Learning on the Lower East Side (Princeton University Press). And I speak of him in the present, as I do in the book, written and published in the sincere hope that I might continue to study with him for years to come. It was not to be.

Unlike the paradigmatic Hasidic leader, similarly addressed and referred to as “the Rebbe,” our Rebbi’s authority is if anything anti-charismatic and reserved. He has not striven to build a community of devoted followers, but rather serves the community as it happens to manifest itself and as it turns to him. One day I overheard my study partner Asher reply to someone: “That’s so not like Rebbi. Rebbi, if he sees someone doing something he disagrees with, he won’t say anything. But if you come to him and try to justify it, he’ll throw the book at you.”

During the week that the Lower East Side was without power after Hurricane Sandy, Elissa and I took refuge with cousins in Washington Heights, and were kindly invited to Shabbes meals at the homes of local residents there. Another guest at dinner that Friday night was a young man who clearly had a “yeshivish” background, and was working on a master’s degree in art history at Bard while working at the Cloisters. He told us had spent some time at MTJ during his high school years. In response to my comment about how remarkable it is to be in a small room with just about ten other guys listening to a shiur by one of the top halachic authorities of our generation, he told me he believed the Rosh Yeshiva had stayed on the Lower East Side precisely because he doesn’t want to be the object of mass veneration.

At least once I heard the Rebbi wonder aloud about the source of his own authority. One day we worked through a very long Tosafos (at Sotah 24) that took up the full hour of his Talmud shiur. The Rebbi introduced this text by saying, “Today we have a Tosafos that has nothing to do” with the ostensible topic of the passage in the Gemara to which it is attached as commentary. Rather, this discussion turned on the fundamental principle of Rabbinic Biblical interpretation that nothing is superfluous in the Torah—and that therefore, every seeming superfluity is available to teach us something not explicitly stated in the text. On the other hand, the Gemara will also sometimes claim that at certain points, rather than redundancies being available for interpretation, the Torah is merely “speaking in human language,” as people would in conversation.

As we studied the Tosafos, the Rosh Yeshiva several times worried the question of the seeming arbitrariness of the principle’s being applied sometimes and not others: “How do we know this one is dibra toyre, and that one is something we interpret? Because his Rebbi told him! But who told his Rebbi? So is it all ultimately halachos lemoshe misinai [laws orally dictated to Moses and not actually derivable from Scripture]? And if so, then are all of these cited verses just asmachtos [prooftexts for citation, but not the actual sources of the law]?”

He did not answer his own question, on this occasion—but he did on another. The Rebbi commented on a series of very general prooftexts presented (at Sotah 23b) for why certain rules pertain to male Kohanim and not to daughters of Kohanim, and certain rules pertain to men generally and not to women: “Don’t try to interpret the verses too closely—they’re very general. It’s all really halacha lemoshe misinai and the rabbis were just trying to convince the masses. You could spend five days trying to read it precisely, and you’d really be wasting your time. You should keep studying the text further instead.” Yet Asher had earlier that same morning quoted the Rebbi to almost the opposite effect: the Rebbi had once quoted the scholar known as Malbim, to the effect that if we really knew Hebrew grammar properly, we would understand why all of the prooftexts the Rabbis cite are compelling.

The Rosh Yeshiva is able to raise these issues, it appears to me, at least in part due to his conviction that we do know in fact what the halacha, the proper Jewish procedure, is, whether or not we are absolutely certain of its particular source in the text. Related to this conviction is his penchant for attempting to make sense of the Talmudic text, in the standard “Vilna edition,” as it is printed, before considering the various emendations that have been suggested over recent centuries and that are duly marked in that same edition. Thus, in a Tosafos as printed at Sotah 25b, the word “ve’ayno,” “and he does not” is left out in a quote from the Gemara elsewhere, so that the entire meaning of the quoted Gemara is obscured. While we were sitting in the library waiting for the Rebbi, several of us noted this. Someone said, “Should we tell the Rosh Yeshiva about it?”

Asher: “No, because maybe he’ll come up with a pshat (a way to make sense of the text as printed), and we would have missed it if we told him.”

In fact, the Rosh Yeshiva puzzled over it for a few seconds, then said, “maybe it’s a mistake.”

Perhaps the Rosh Yeshiva is willing to accept a certain degree of necessary misapprehension of the Rabbinic texts because of his conviction that the halacha for us is what we do. A different time, while ultimately acceding to an emendation, he insisted it was not necessary although it produced an assertion directly contrary to the text as it stands: “Okay, you can do like the Bach and take out the word ‘lo’ [not] here, and that makes it easier to interpret. But we could also interpret it the other way. It wouldn’t change the halacha, because we know what the halacha is, because the halacha is what we do.”

Such an assertion seems to reflect a striking confidence in the integrity of a tradition of halachic practice as handed down to us. The term here is minhag, as the authorized version of practice for a given community. Asher told me of someone who had studied at the famous Yeshiva Torah VoDaas in Brooklyn, who tried to dispute the Rebbi on a particular point of halacha. The disputant “brought a sefer [a printed authority] to show how the halacha should be, and the Rebbi shouted, ‘You’re going to start paskening [deciding the law] from seforim now? That’s not our minhag!’”

The Rebbi has time for moral dilemmas presented by the Talmud as well. The Gemara at Bava Kama 38a discusses whether Gentiles, who are not obligated to observe the vast majority of the commandments in the Torah, are nevertheless rewarded if they do observe those commandments. It concludes that they are indeed rewarded, but less than Jews—because “one who is commanded and does is superior to one who is not commanded and does.” The Rebbi explained that this is because of the anxiety attendant upon the obligation in anticipation: “Why does the one who is commanded get a greater reward? Because the thought, ‘I must do it,’ is weighing on my mind long before the obligation actually comes into force.” He reinforced this argument with the maxim lepum tsaarah scharah, “according to the suffering is the reward.”

Yisroel Ruven protested that this is unfair: if the suffering involved is the measure of the reward, then a Gentile who suffers for the sake of observing a commandment should be rewarded, even if he is not obligated.

The Rebbi responded by pointing to the analogous case of a Jewish woman who is not obligated to do a certain mitsvah, but does it anyway. He stated that “according to the suffering is the reward” applies to her, and concluded that perhaps indeed it should apply to a Gentile as well. This led to a brief mention of women who insist on putting on tefillin, against the usual Orthodox practice and sometimes in the face of mockery and protest. The Rebbi remarked: “Those people [women] who [put on tefillin] must be getting lots of reward, because look at all the grief they’re getting!”

Yet he was still troubled by Yisroel Ruven’s question: It’s hard to understand why a Gentile is not rewarded according to his suffering. He suggested that perhaps God makes sure that righteous gentiles who want to observe commandments don’t suffer for it, and thus they miss out on the corresponding rewards. And he conceded that perhaps those truly “compulsive” Gentiles who not only observe the commandments, but worry about them beforehand, are in fact rewarded commensurately.

“Yeah,” Yisroel Ruven commented when I reviewed this discussion with him after the shiur, “but he also said God wants it that way [with greater rewards for those who are commanded than for those who are not], so we’ll have to work it out ourselves.”

Several of the eulogies this morning addressed both the Rosh Yeshiva’s extraordinary focus on study and his commitment to the welfare of the community, a perennial tension in rabbinic culture. The end of the first chapter of Bava Kama (17a) deals with the question of the relative priorities of Torah study versus the active performance of commandments. The Rosh Yeshiva explained the meaning of the dictum that study is great because it leads to the performance of mitzvos. It’s not because when I study, I know how to do mitzvos; on the contrary, “The more I learn, the more I’m fartift [engrossed], the more I know I don’t know.” This, he suggested, will make me stand in greater awe of Heaven, and thus encourage me to follow the commandments more diligently.

But how much indeed can be conveyed in a brief sketch like this, or even in a whole book of memories? One day Asher, Hillel, and I understood the Gemara (at Bava Kama 21b on the bottom) the same way the Rebbi understood it in shiur, and our agreement that Tosafos’ explanation of the scenario the Gemara was discussing seemed to make the most sense was evidently in accord with the Rosh Yeshiva’s reading as well. I pointed this out to Asher, who replied, “Yeah, wasn’t that satisfying? Every now and then I see that I’m reading the Gemara the way the Rosh Yeshiva learns it. Somebody asked me once years ago why I go to the shiur, and I said it’s because I hope that if I stay long enough, sometimes I’ll learn the way he does. I’ll never really get there, but every year I get a little closer to how the Rebbi learns.”

May his memory bring us blessing.

Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 1

Marc B. Shapiro

Since in a recent post I discussed Maimonides and the Principle of the Messiah, let me add one more thing. Yet before doing so, I need to make a few preliminary comments. Many readers know about the Peleg, which has caused all sorts of problems in Jerusalem. After the passing of R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the simmering dispute in the Lithuanian world broke out into the open, and a minority of the Lithuanian community refused to accept the leadership of R. Aharon Yehudah Leib Steinman, who was backed by R. Hayyim Kanievsky. The opponents, known as the Peleg, were led by the late R. Shmuel Auerbach.

While people are aware of the wild behavior of the Peleg youth as they are the ones who block streets in Jerusalem, there is very little awareness of what was another element of the battle in the Lithuanian community, and that was the attempt to delegitimize R. Steinman. An entire literature was created that focused on two things. The first was citing all sorts of things that R. Steinman said which were believed to be in opposition to haredi ideology. The point was to show that because of his supposedly liberal views he was not suited to lead the haredi world, and that he had departed from the approach of R. Shakh.[1]

The other focus, also found in Peleg publications, was to show that R. Steinman did not have the requisite Torah scholarship to lead the community. For obvious reasons, they never made this claim about R. Hayyim Kanievsky, and never explained why they felt able to disagree with R. Kanievsky who was the most outstanding backer of R. Steinman.

While this dispute was playing out, R. Steinman said something that was like manna from heaven for the Peleg, for now they had a chance to use some heavy “ammunition” on him, as they could claim that he rejected the Rambam’s Twelfth Principle which affirms the coming of the Messiah. In response to the attacks on R. Steinman, his defenders claimed that his words were taken out of context. During the dispute, a couple of people in correspondence with me wondered if R. Steinman should be added to the list of people who disagree with one of the Principles.

Here is a poster put up against R. Steinman by some unnamed extremist (found here).

So what did R. Steinman say that created such a mini-explosion in the haredi world. You can find the transcript of R. Steinman’s words here. You can hear the actual conversation here.

R. Meir Zvi Bergman, in discussion with R. Steinman, said that according to the Rambam one must wait for the Messiah’s arrival and not merely believe in his coming.[2] In other words, there are two separate things that are required: 1. Belief that he will come, and 2. Actively awaiting his arrival. R. Bergman referred to the Rambam’s words in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1, which seem to say exactly this:

וכל מי שאינו מאמין בו או מי שאינו מחכה לביאתו לא בשאר נביאים בלבד הוא כופר אלא בתורה ובמשה רבנו

R. Bergman later notes that this is also included as part of the Twelfth Principle. What he must mean is the following: In the Principle the Rambam says that we must believe that the Messiah will come, and he cites the verse from Habakkuk 2:3: “Though he tarry, wait for him.” By citing this verse, the Rambam is adding a second aspect to the principle, just like he later does in Hilkhot Melakhim.

I would add to this that presumably the Rambam also had in mind Shabbat 31a, which says that in the next world everyone will be asked if צפית לישועה. How this sentence should be translated is itself a problem. Soncino translates it as “Did you hope for salvation?”, while Koren translates as “Did you await salvation?” Hoping for salvation and waiting for it are two separate things.[3] Artscroll’s translation combines the approaches of both Soncino and Koren: “Did you wait in hope for the [Messianic] salvation?”

In response to R. Bergman’s point, about the need to actively wait for the Messiah, R. Steinman replies that no one fulfills this, namely, no one is really waiting for the Messiah. My understanding of what he said is that no one is consciously focusing on, and anxiously awaiting, the Messiah’s arrival. They believe that the Messiah will come, but in the meantime they are learning Torah and doing mitzvot and when he comes, he comes, but until then Jews have plenty to do to keep themselves busy.

R. Bergman is surprised by R. Steinman’s comment and states that the Rambam says that if one does not wait for the Messiah he is a heretic, to which R. Steinman repeats his earlier point that no one does this. Upon being questioned again, R. Steinman replies that this is a “decree that the community cannot follow.” He adds that people say that the Chafetz Chaim “waited” for the Messiah. “Maybe yes, I don’t know. This is what they say, maybe yes.” R. Steinman then adds that the Chafetz Chaim was unique, but the Torah was not given just for such special people.[4]

R. Steinman’s statements are quite provocative, first, because he expresses uncertainty if the Chafetz Chaim can really be said to have actively waited for the Messiah, and second, because he makes it clear that the other great rabbis did not really wait for the Messiah. It would have been controversial enough if all he said was that he himself, or the people of this generation, do not really wait for the Messiah, but he applied this statement also to great ones of previous generations.

As the conversation continues, R. Bergman insists that waiting for the Messiah is one of the Thirteen Principles, and that in earlier times people indeed did wait for the Messiah. R. Steinman replies that in earlier days the Jews suffered greatly and that is why they had a focus on the Messiah.

R. Moshe Schneider, who was R. Steinman’s havruta and present at the conversation, adds: “The Rambam in the Thirteen Principles says, ‘Even though he may delay, nevertheless, I wait daily for him to come.’ Doesn’t he mean that there is an obligation in the Thirteen Principles to wait [for the Messiah]?” R. Steinman could have pointed out that the version of the Principle found in the siddur which R. Schneider quoted was not written by the Rambam, and its words do not appear in the actual text of the Principle found in the Rambam’s commentary to Mishnah, Sanhedrin. However, I don’t know how much this would help, for as we have seen, in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:1, the Rambam is explicit about the need to wait for the Messiah.

וכל מי שאינו מאמין בו או מי שאינו מחכה לביאתו לא בשאר נביאים בלבד הוא כופר אלא בתורה ובמשה רבנו

R. Bergman adds that if people do not fulfill this aspect of the Principle, then all the Thirteen Principles are weakened.

So far we see that R. Steinman held that the Principle is to believe in the coming of the Messiah, but this does not mean that one has to “wait” for him, which I think means to have a focus on the Messiah and actively wait in hope for his return.[5] We also see that R. Steinman himself was not “actively waiting” for the Messiah. Although Chabad claims that a focus on the Messiah is basic to Judaism,[6] it appears that R. Steinman thought otherwise. The Hatam Sofer already mentioned—in opposition to Maimonides—that the Messianic idea, while of course true (and denial of it is heresy), is not an essential element of Judaism, namely, basic to the very structure of the religion.[7]

א“א לי בשום אופן להאמין שיהי‘ גאולתנו אחד מעיקרי הדת, ושאם יפול היסוד תפול החומה חלילה . . . ועכ“פ הגאולה וביאת המשיח איננה עיקר

Many have wondered about these words of the Hatam Sofer. Yet they are simply a repetition of what appears in Nahmanides, and as is well known, the Hatam Sofer greatly valued the writings of Ramban. Here is what Nahmanides states (and as with the Hatam Sofer, despite these words he continues by noting that denial of the messianic idea is indeed heresy):[8]

ודע, יעזרך הא–להים, כי אם נסכים בלבנו שפשעינו וחטאת אבותינו אבדו ממנו כל הנחמות, ושיארך ויתמיד עלינו הגלות מאין קץ וסוף, וכן אם נאמר שרצה הא–להים לענותנו בעולם הזה בשעבוד המלכיות לרצון או לתועלת, כל זה לא יזיק בעיקר התורה, כי אנחנו אין תכלית גמולנו ימות המשיח, ואכול פירות הארץ ההיא, והתרחץ בחמי טבריה וכיוצא בהן מן התענוגים, גם לא הקרבנות ועבודת בית המקדש תכלית רצוננו רק גמולנו ומבטנו העולם הבא, והתענג הנפש בתענוג הנקרא גן עדן והנצל מעונש גיהנם

Returning to R. Steinman’s conversation, in response to R. Bergman he cites R. Hillel’s view (Sanhedrin 99a) that there will be no Messiah for Israel, “because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.” It is not clear why he cited this. Was R. Steinman stating that one does not need to believe in an individual Messiah at all, in accord with the commentary to attributed to Rashi’s understanding that R. Hillel’s point is that in the future there will only be a messianic era, not a Messiah? R. Bergman asks R. Steinman point blank if he holds like R. Hillel in opposition to the Rambam, and R. Steinman does not answer the question, instead replying, “It is enough for us to observe the mitzvot that we can.”[9] 

R. Steinman’s point in mentioning R. Hillel could also be that R. Hillel certainly did not “wait” for the Messiah, as he thought that the Messiah had already arrived. Nevertheless, he is not regarded as a heretic, thus showing that this point is not essential. In any event, it is obvious that R. Steinman was not happy with R. Bergman’s focus on the details of the Twelfth Principle, and instead wanted the focus to be on the performance of mitzvot.

Not surprisingly, when the tape of R. Steinman speaking to R. Bergman was released it created a great controversy, which was called סערת המשיח. For attacks on R. Steinman by Satmar rabbis, which degrade him in the most harsh way, including one that says that R. Steinman is “worse than Kook,” see here.

A Chabad rabbi, R. Yechezkel Sofer, also responded to R. Steinman’s words (see here), and he makes a very interesting point which could explain what R. Steinman was getting at. R. Sofer states that one is not a heretic if he is lacking an emotional connection to the coming of the Messiah. The problem is only if one develops an intellectual position that there is no reason to wait for the Messiah. R. Sofer adds, however, that from a hasidic perspective a higher level of “waiting” is required, which he acknowledges not everyone is capable of. Here is how he concludes, and the second part of the sentence must be seen as a put-down of all those who do not put a stress on constantly waiting for the Messiah.

רק במישור החסידות ופנימיות–התורה נדרש רף גבוה של ‘ציפייה‘ שלאו כל מוחא סביל דא: ובהעדר–הציפייה מורה, שבתוככי–נפשו, חלשה אמונתו במשיח, אחרת ודאי היה כולו משתוקק “אמתי קא אתי מר“

I think R. Steinman can be explained very simply, that despite what the Rambam says, it is difficult for virtually anyone to be emotionally invested in the coming of the Messiah, and thus have a sense of waiting for him, especially waiting constantly (every day) which is how the Principle is formulated in the siddur. R. Steinman was saying, what is the point of speaking about something which hardly anyone can fulfill? At the end of the day, it is enough to believe in the coming of the Messiah without adding anything else to this basic belief.

R. Avraham Yehoshua Soloveitchik defended R. Steinman, and this is some of what he said before he moved into a general attack on the Peleg:[10]

גאון אחד נכנס לביקור בביתו של ר‘ יחזקאל אברמסקי זצ“ל וראה על השולחן בסמוך אליו ספר שעוסק ב“ציפייה למשיח” שחיבר אדם בן זמנינו. מיד הוא פנה אל ר‘ חצקל‘ ושאל: “מה הספר הזה עושה אצלך על השולחן“? השיב לו ר‘ חצקל‘: לפניך נכנס כאן יהודי שאיני מכיר והביא לי את הספר הזה שהוא חיבר. והוסיף ר‘ חצקל‘: פעם נכנס לרוגוטשובער יהודי שהיה מאוד מוטרד ושאל מה עושים ואיך מחזקים בציבור את העניין של אמונה בביאת המשיח? השיב לו הרוגוטשובער: פרנסה כבר יש לך? אוכל לאשתך ולילדים אתה נותן? קודם כל תדאג לעניינים הללו אחר כך תדאג למשיח.

סיים ר‘ חצקל‘: גם אני רציתי לשאול את היהודי שחיבר את הספר הזה האם פרנסה כבר יש לך? אוכל לאשתך ולילדים אתה נותן? אלא שנמנעתי רק מפני שחסתי על כבודו

The upshot of R. Soloveitchik’s point is that thinking about the Messiah is not something that needs to be at the top of our concerns. Using Scholem’s terminology, we can say that R. Soloveitchik’s approach is that of neutralization of the messianic impulse. Should we be surprised that after R. Soloveitchik’s words were made public he too was attacked.[11] Here is a poster against him that was plastered on walls in Jerusalem.

Whatever you may think of R. Soloveitchik’s words, I don’t know how to square them with what his grandfather, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik (the Brisker Rav), is quoted as saying, that not only must we await the Messiah every day, but we must do so the entire day and every instant.[12] R. Moshe Mordechai Shulzinger notes, based on the Brisker Rav’s understanding, that all those who give dates when the Messiah will arrive are undermining Maimonides’ Principle (which he explains in line with Maimonides’ words in Hilkhot Melakhim), because the result of their predictions is that they (and those who follow them) will not believe that the Messiah can come at any minute, as they will only be expecting him at a future time.[13]

R. Shulzinger also explains the meaning of the Brisker Rav in a different way than his words are usually understood. He says that what the Brisker Rav meant is that one must believe that the Messiah can come at any instant, and that is the meaning of “waiting” for the Messiah. Understood this way, the Brisker Rav’s point is exactly in line with what R. Steinman said, for R. Steinman never denied that the Messiah could come at any time. He simply said that the idea of consciously waiting for the Messiah is not something that a typical person can do. Here are R. Shulzinger’s words:[14]

זה חיוב של אמונה, שמאמין שיכול לבוא בכל רגע, וה“אינו מחכה” – הוא מי שהחליט בלבו ח“ו על זמן מסוים שעדיין לא יבוא, ומפני זה – הזמן ההוא מופקע אצלו מלחכות ולצפות, וזה הוא חסרון אמונה, וזה מיקרי “שאינו מחכה לביאתו“, רח“ל . . . כשמאמין שיכול לבוא בכל רגע – הרי זה “מחכה לביאתו“.

R. Shulzinger also prints a letter he sent to an unnamed rabbi who had argued that when the Rambam speaks of “waiting” for the Messiah, it does not mean that you must really believe that he can come at any minute. This rabbi compares it to someone who has a son in prison. He waits for the son to return home, even though he knows that this will not happen in the near future. According to the unnamed rabbi, this too falls under the Rambam’s understanding of “waiting,” a point that R. Shulzinger strongly rejects.[15]

In line with his understanding of the meaning of “waiting”, R. Shulzinger also makes the following very interesting point, which I don’t know if everyone would agree with: A person says that he would prefer that the Messiah not come in the near future, but only in a few years as he will by then have completed study of the entire Talmud, and will be more prepared to greet the Messiah. Nevertheless, this person knows that God does not take into account his wishes, and he believes that the Messiah can come at any instant. R. Shulzinger says that this person has not violated Maimonides’ Principle. In other words, the Principle requires the belief that the Messiah will come, and can come at any instant. Yet it does not require you to actually desire the Messiah’s arrival. Thus, to give a different example than that offered by R. Shulzinger, if someone has a very good business in the Diaspora, it could be that while he believes in the coming of the Messiah, he does not actually want this to happen, because he thinks that after the Messiah’s arrival all Jews will have move to Israel, and he does not want to give up his thriving business. According to R. Shulzinger, these sentiments would not be in contradiction to Maimonides’ principle:[16]

שהצפי‘ המחכה הוא שיעור בהצהרת גודל האמונה שלי בזה [לא הצהרה של רצון או לא רצון], כמדו‘ שזה נקרא מאמין ומחכה ומצפה לביאתו בכל רגע

To be continued

Excursus

Is there anywhere in tannaitic or amoraic writings where it says that all Jews will live in Israel is messianic days? I ask because this certainly does appear to be a widely held view throughout Jewish history. Maimonides states that “all Israel” will be gathered around the Messiah (Hilkhot Melakhim 12:3), but I don’t think this can be taken literally. I say this since according to Maimonides the messianic era will not be an era of open miracles, and people will still have free will, including free will to sin, so one can assume that some Jews will choose to remain in places outside of Israel. For those who see the messianic era as a time of miracles, when life will not continue as it does now, then it makes sense to imagine a time when all Jews will come to Israel. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel states that in messianic days not even one Jew will remain outside of Israel. See his commentary to Ezekiel 39:28 (p. 583), Mashmia Yeshuah, ed. Golan (Bnei Brak, 2014), pp. 72, 208. This is also stated on many occasions by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. See e.g., Likutei Sihot, vol. 11, pp. 1ff.

On the other hand, R. Shmuel Tuvyah Stern understands the issue in a purely naturalistic way. He states that the Jewish people are themselves obligated to go to Israel, as God will not be bringing them there. Those who refuse to go, or delay in going, are preventing the Jewish people in the Land of Israel from the performance of certain mitzvot that come into effect when the majority of the Jewish population lives there. (Regarding these mitzvot, see R. Yehudah Amihai here.) In other words, R. Stern acknowledges that even in messianic times not everyone will follow the Torah path. See She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Shavit, vol. 9, p. 62:

ובאמת כשם שהקב“ה הבטיח לגאול אותנו כך חייב אותנו להגאל ולקרב את הגאולה, ואלו בני עמנו שהם מאחרים לצאת מן הגולה ומעכבים את הגאולה מבטלים אחת מהמצות הכי עיקריות של התורה, כי הגאולה היא כמפתח להרבה מצות התלויות בארץ ובגולה . . . ואלו שמעברין זאת מבטלין מצות הרבים מישראל, והנה זכות הגאולה היא מצד הקב“ה שהוא מזכה אותנו בגאולה, וחוב הגאולה היא מטעם ישראל

This topic has relevance to the issue of Yom Tov Sheni. Will it still be celebrated in messianic days for those Jews living outside of Israel? Since we will return to the old way of declaring Rosh Hodesh, rather than by a calendar, the assumption in pre-modern times would presumably have been yes, as far flung places would still not know what day was declared the New Moon. However, with modern communications, it would seem that there will be no Yom Tov Sheni in messianic days, even for people who live in the Diaspora.

Writing before the invention of modern communications, R. Moses Sofer states that there will indeed be Yom Tov Sheni in messianic days. See Derashot Hatam Sofer, vol. 2, p. 274b, s.v. למען. He sees this as in remembrance of our time in exile. See, however, ibid., p. 208a, s.v. כל, where he says that Yom Tov Sheni will be abolished in messianic days, and that this is the meaning of the rabbinic teaching in Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei no. 944: “All the festivals [i.e., Yom Tov Sheni] are to be abolished in the future [messianic era], but Purim will never be abolished.”

Elsewhere, in speaking of Yom Tov Sheni in the messianic era, R. Sofer refers to it as ב‘ ימים טובים של גאולתינו. He makes this comment while discussing R. Judah’s position in Gittin 8a: “R. Judah holds that all islands fronting the coast of Eretz Israel are reckoned as Eretz Israel” (see his commentary to Beitzah 4b. See also his commentary to Beitzah 24b and She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim no. 145 [end]). R. Sofer notes that this means that all islands in the Mediterranean on the same latitude as the biblical Land of Israel (which extends into Lebanon), are regarded as belonging to Israel. If you look on a map (and you can actually see a good one in the Koren Talmud, Gittin 8a) you will see that this means that Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily are part of the territory of Israel. R. Sofer states that Jews who live in these places in messianic days will have to observe a second day of Yom Tov.

It is not clear to me why R. Sofer assumes that R. Judah’s position is accepted. See Tosafot, Gittin 8a, s.v. Rabbi Yehudah, where Rabbenu Tam states that we do not accept his position. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Terumot 1:7, also rejects R. Judah’s opinion.

In describing how far the territory of Israel extends, the R. Sofer writes (Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim, no. 145 [end]):

דכל הנסין שבים הגדול עד אוקיינוס שייכים לארץ ישראל והוא עד מצר רמון ספרד

The word נסין, which he uses, is found in Gittin 8a and it means “islands”. See Jastrow, s.v. נס and ניסא.

(Regarding R. Judah’s position about the islands being included as part of Israel, R. Hayyim Kanievsky points to Psalms 97:1: “The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad – ישמחו איים רבים.” R. Kanievsky asks why does it say איים in plural. He answers that this makes sense according to R. Judah’s view that the islands opposite Israel are included in the territory of Eretz Yisrael. See R. Kanievsky, Ta’ama de-Kra to Ps. 97:1.)

In the quotation above, R. Sofer refers to רמון ספרד. In medieval Hebrew, this is how the kingdom of Granada is called. The word “Granada” means pomegranate, which are abundant in that part of Spain, and a pomegranate was on the kingdom’s coat of arms (and is also found on the contemporary Spanish coat of arms). The reason the kingdom was generally called Rimon Sefarad and not just Rimon, which would be the literal translation of “Granada”, is because the expression רמון ספרד is a play on the biblical place רמון פרץ that is mentioned in Num. 33:20. See R. Meir Mazuz, Bayit Ne’eman, vol. 1, p. 32. In Yehudah Halevi’s poem בעברי על פני רמון the first line reads בעברי על פני רמון מפחד. Some scholars believe that instead of מפחד it should read ספרד. See Halevi, Diwan, ed. Brody (n.p., 1971), vol. 1, p. 78 (note to poem no. 34). Yet Halevi elsewhere does refer simply to רמון. See Diwan, vol. 1, p. 153, line 59, and vol. 2, p. 280, line 46

Since the Hatam Sofer is absolutely clear in what he writes, that the boundary of Israel extends until the end of Granada, which means the Atlantic Ocean, I don’t understand how R. Mordechai Winkler can cite without objection a report that R. Sofer said that England also falls within the borders of Israel. See Levushei Mordechai, Yoreh Deah vol. 3, no. 49.

R. Hayyim Hirschensohn interprets R. Judah’s position differently than the Hatam Sofer. He assumes that R. Judah is speaking not of the Mediterranean but of the Atlantic Ocean, and thus the territory of Israel extends all the way to the United States. He also interprets R. Judah to be including not merely the islands but also the land territory that is on the same latitude as Israel. What this means is that a good deal of the southern United States is included in the territory of Eretz Yisrael! Furthermore, R. Hirschensohn claims that according to R. Judah you can pray in the direction of these southern states, and those in the U.S. who want to fulfill all opinions should do this!. (Interestingly, he also does not see any significance for people in the U.S., who are so far from Israel, to face the Holy Land in their prayers.) See his article in Avraham Moshe Luntz, ed., Yerushalayim 8 (1909), p. 196:

והרוצה לצאת ידי כל הדעות יתפלל באמירקא [!] נגד הדרום כי לדעת ר‘ יהודה (בגיטין ד“ח ע“א) שכל שכנגד ארץ ישראל הרי הוא כארץ ישראל . . . זה כולל חלק גדול מצפון אלגריא, ובאמירקא: דרום סויט קארליינא, צפון דזארזי, צפון אלאבאמא, צפון מסיסיפי, צפון לוזיאני, דרום אריקאנסיס, צפון טעקסיס, דרום ניו מעקסיקו, דרום אריזאנא, דרום קאליפארנע, כל אלה המקומות לדעת ר‘ יהודה הם ארץ ישראל, והעומד בתפלה נגדם כעומד נגד ארץ ישראל

See also R. Yeshayahu Steinberg in Ha-Ma’yan, Tishrei 5775, pp. 43-44, who has a different approach according to which even Northern France is perhaps regarded as having the holiness of Eretz Yisrael. He even says that if someone is forced to live in the Diaspora, it is better to live in northern France since it is in some sense part of Eretz Yisrael!

ויש נפ“מ מסוימת בדיון זה לעניין בדיעבד: אם אדם נאלץ לדור בחו“ל ויש לו אפשרות בחירה – יעדיף לגור בצפון צרפת במקום שאותו הזכירו בעלי התוס‘ הנ“ל, כי יש במקום זה צד של קדושת א“י ומניעה של עזיבת א“י לגמרי

If one has to live in the United States (or west of it), then R. Steinberger says that it is best to live in places on the latitude of Israel (that is, the places mentioned by R. Hirschensohn).

I don’t mean the following to be disrespectful, but I can’t help commenting that what R. Steinberger says might make sense on paper, but I am certain that no one in history has ever  made living plans based on the assumption that there is some spiritual advantage due to the holiness of Eretz Yisrael to living in northern France or South Carolina over anywhere else in the Diaspora.

**********

It has been a while since I have done a quiz, so let me offer one now. Email me with answers at shapirom2 at scranton.edu

1. If you look at older machzorim, in the Tekiat ha-Shofar between the first two sets of blasts you find the letters שב. What is this about?

What Became of Tychsen?: The Non-Jewish ‘Rabbi’ and his “Congregation” of Jewish Medical Students

By Dr. Edward Reichman, MD

This essay was inspired by two recent Seforim blog posts, one on Professor Shnayer Leiman’s contributions,[1] and the other on a topic related to R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz.[2]

                                           

In November 16, 2006 an article by Dr. Shnayer Leiman appeared in the newly formed Seforim Blog entitled, “Two Cases of Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination: One Real and One Imaginary.” The “real” ordination was bestowed upon Olaf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815). In 1759, Tychsen received the title of Haver, a lower form of rabbinic ordination, by Moses the son of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Lifshuetz. Tychsen is perhaps the only known case in Jewish history of a non-Jew receiving such an honor or degree.[3]

Leiman provides a biography of Tychsen. He pursued studies in Hindustani, Ethiopic and Arabic, as well as Hebrew and Yiddish and became an Orientalist of international renown making significant contributions to cuneiform studies and numismatics as well.[4] During his early years he also pursued various missionary activities in the Jewish community, largely unsuccessful by his own account. 

As Leiman notes, in 1752, while a student at the Christian Academy in Altona, Tychsen attended the lectures of R. Yonasan Eybeschutz. Leiman essentially leaves us at the point of Tychsen’s ordination, with brief mention of his subsequent academic career. What became of Tychsen’s “rabbinic” career after he received this singular distinction? Did he apply for a rabbinic position? Did he maintain any connection with the Jewish community? 

In fact, Tychsen did continue to maintain a strong connection to both rabbinic literature and the Jewish community in varying degrees throughout his life. He is perhaps best known for his involvement in the premature burial controversy, which would earn him a place of infamy in Jewish history. Tychsen taught at the university in Butzow, the residence of the Duke of Mecklenberg. During this period there was concern that physicians were misdiagnosing death, and as a result, people were being buried prematurely.[5] On February 19, 1772 Tychsen sent a letter to the Duke of Mecklenberg regarding the Jews’ burial practice, interring after waiting only three hours, where it is known that there can sometimes be misdiagnosis of death. Tychsen detailed the Jewish origins of hastening burial in general, reflecting familiarity with rabbinic literature. He claimed that the need to bury quickly was established in countries with hot climates, where the body would decompose quickly, not applicable to a country like Germany. He also reported cases of people who were supposedly buried alive.[6] On April 30, 1772, Duke Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, in response to Tychsen’s letter, issued an order prohibiting the Jews in his realm from immediately burying their dead and requiring that they rather wait for three days after death before interment. This began what would become a worldwide halakhic debate about the halakhic definition of death and the time of burial.[7]

Tychsen was also peripherally involved with one of Jewish history’s greatest seforim collections. Rabbi David Oppenheim amassed an extraordinary collection of books and manuscripts which languished in storage for years after his death.[8] Tychsen visited the collection for three weeks, reporting on its manuscripts to the Italian Christian Hebraist Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi. He attempted to arouse the interest of potential buyers, including Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, Duke Karl Eugen of Wurtemberg, and Archduke Frederick Francis I of Mecklenberg. His efforts were to no avail and the collection ultimately found its home in Oxford, where it remains to this day.[9]

Here we highlight a little-known, though more substantive, connection of Tychsen with the Jewish community. One year after his ordination, toward the end of 1760, Tychsen was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages at the newly established University of Bützow in Mecklenburg. It is in this capacity that Tychsen exercised a rabbinic role, becoming a university campus rabbi of sorts for a select group of Jews at the university. Though he may not actually have had a “minyan” of students, nonetheless, his impact on this select group was profound and long lasting, akin to that of a rebbe.[10]

The interactions of Tychsen with the Jewish community must be viewed through a particular lens. Tychsen was a devout Lutheran Protestant and trained and engaged in proselytizing activities in his early life. This fact remains at least in the background of all his interactions with the Jewish students at Butzow and has been evaluated elsewhere. Whether his relationships with the Jewish medical students were primarily or partially motivated by his proselytizing tendencies, or whether his proselytizing endeavors had ceased by then, is a matter of historical speculation.[11] This is not the focus of the present essay.[12]

In his capacity as a faculty member of the University of Butzow Tychsen encountered a number of Jewish students attending the university’s medical school. Though an Orientalist and not a physician or scientist, he nonetheless served as a mentor for these students to whom he was drawn by shared interests and possibly proselytizing intentions. Tychen served this role for all the Jewish medical students who attended the University of Butzow during its twenty-nine years of existence. 

The first Jewish student of the Butzow Medical School, and the first with whom Tychsen developed a relationship was Markus Moses. This relationship has been the subject of a number of dedicated essays.[13] Markus Moses was the son of Moshe ben Meir Harif Lemberger (Lvov), Chief Rabbi of Pressburg and head of its yeshiva. Lemberger, as well as his son Markus, were apparently involved in the Emden- Eybeshutz controversy.[14] Markus (Mordechai) was born in Pressburg in 1729, received a traditional Jewish education, and married. Shortly thereafter, his wife and two young children died. In 1758, after the death of his father, Markus began the study of secular subjects. Over the next few years he traveled to Germany and continued study in various cities, including the field of medicine, ultimately ending up in Butzow in 1763. Aron Isak, the leader of the Jewish community, took him under his wing and orchestrated his admission to the recently founded Butzow Medical School,[15] thus waiving the high taxes imposed upon the Jewish community for new town visitors. The faculty were impressed with Moses’ great intelligence and facility with multiple languages and accepted him, with the approval of the Duke and Professor George Detharding, the head of the faculty, with free tuition. Below is a letter in Hebrew from Paul Theodore Carpov, an Orientalist and Christian Hebraist at Butzow, supporting Moses’ acceptance to the medical school at Butzow and advocating for his financial support as well.[16]

As per the letter, Moses brought with him impressive letters of recommendation not only from the great scholars of “his nation,” but also from those of “our nation.” Carpov also notes the Duke’s approval, as well as the financial issues relating to his application. Carpov was clearly taken by the young Jewish student. 

Below is the record of matriculation of Markus Moses in 1764.

Moses clearly had a predisposition for the field of medicine and was soon relied upon by Detharding to see the latter’s private patients.[17]

Tychsen had a working academic relationship with Moses as evidenced by the multiple research papers Moses wrote under his mentorship. It is remarkable that all of the papers were on Jewish topics. I have found a number of cases, though relatively few in number, of Jewish medical students throughout the centuries who wrote their medical school dissertations on a Jewish related topic,[18] but I have never encountered any student who authored so many Jewish related papers as part of their medical training. The topics included the Samaritan Bible, a discussion of the kosher and non-kosher animals based on the work of Rambam, and an essay on the diseases of the old as reflected in Kohelet (chapter 12).[19] Moses’ graduation dissertation, discussed below, was also on a Jewish topic and was supervised by Tychsen.

Disputatio de Pentateucho Ebraeo-Samaritano, 1765[20]

Essay on kosher and non-kosher animals based on Rambam.[21]

The nature of the relationship Tychsen had with Moses, as well as with other Jewish medical students in Butzow, went far beyond the usual Professor-student model. There wrote each other dozens of letters and continued correspondence for years after graduation.[22] In one letter dated March 16, 1765[23] Moses apologizes for not responding promptly to Tychsen’s previous letter. Moses continues that soon he will either write again, or will see Tychsen in person. Moses signs the letter, hamitavek biafar raglekha.

גבר(א) דכולי() בי החכ(ם) הכולל המפורס(ם) שמו נודע בכל השערי(ם) הפרעפעסאר טיקסן

מרוב טרדות היום אין אוכל לתואר בתואר כראוי לגבר(א) כמותו ובאתי בלישנא קלילא אל תשים עלי חטאת שעדיין לא השיבני על כתב ידו הטהור מה שקבלתי ע”י ערל הבוח(ן) לבות יודע שהזמן גרמ(ה) לי רק זאת יהי(ה) לבו בטוח שהשבוע הבע” (?הא עלינו לטובה) או אכתוב לו או בנשיקת פא”פ (פה אל פה) אדבר בו[24] גם יקבל במתנה צורה של ר’ יהונת(ן) זצ”ל יותר אין לחדש כה המתאבק בעפר רגליו מרדכי מפב (?מפרשברג)ג

 

In the last line, Moses writes that Tychsen will also receive from him a gift of a portrait of Rav Yehonatan zt”l. Moses was obviously aware of the connection between Tychsen and Eybeshutz and believed this would be a meaningful gift. Eybeshutz died in 1764,[25] and his portrait was disseminated shortly thereafter. This is likely the portrait Moses purchased for Tychsen.[26]

As part of the requirements for the completion of a doctorate in medicine at most German universities, the student was required to engage in a public disputation on the topic of their dissertation. [27] The topic of Markus’ disputation was the analysis of a verse in Yehezkel which, according to Moses, reflects an ancient Jewish practice of placing salt of the skin of an infant as a prophylactic against disease. 

Moses engages in an expansive philological and grammatical analysis of the verse then posits that the Jews practiced this procedure and that it protected them from diseases like smallpox. The reason smallpox was prevalent during his time, Moses argues, is because people no longer routinely applied salt to the skin of infants. Moses is the only one of the Jewish medical students at Butzow who wrote his dissertation on a Jewish topic. 

Moses’ disputation was held on January 22, 1766 (11 Shevat, 5526). The event was held in a church, though Tychsen apparently noted that it was primarily a venue for non-ecclesiastic events. This may have been in deference to the halakhic concern about entering a church.[28] A number of Jewish families attended the event. Copies of the dissertation were sent to those invited to the public discourse, and additional copies were provided for the audience on the day of the event. The ceremony began with a Latin oration by the presiding professor, in Moses’ case, Professor Detharding, and was followed by the student’s reading of his dissertation. Upon completion of the reading, designated opponents presented their arguments and criticisms against the substance of the dissertation, with audience members occasionally allowed to participate. This was then followed by the candidate’s rebuttal. Tychsen served as one of the designated opponents for Moses’ disputation. 

On oath was also part of the graduation ceremony, and it typically involved avowing one’s belief in Christianity. Tychsen intervened with the Duke of Mecklenberg on Moses’ behalf to allow him to take his graduation oath invoking the name of the God of Israel as opposed to the Christian deity. He even publicly conversed with Moses in Yiddish at the graduation.[29] 

Below is the approbation of Tychsen appended to the published dissertation of Moses.

Tychsen’s freely inserts throughout allusions to rabbinic literature. He also uses a chronogram for the Hebrew year, typically done in Hebrew publications, and something Tychsen used frequently, as seen in his letters below. 

At the end of the approbation, Tychsen mentions the upcoming (second) wedding of Moses. Below is the handwritten wedding invitation of Moses to Tychsen.[30]

Both the title and signature of the invitation reflect the type of relationship they had. Moses also adds the clever pun of “hazmanah lav milsa,” assuming that Tychsen will appreciate it. 

The other letters appended to Moses’ published dissertation are also of great interest. In addition to Tychsen, another opponent at the disputation contributed a letter. Karl Leopold Carpov,[31] son of the Orientalist and professor at Butzow, Paul Theodore Carpov, who had written Moses’ letter of recommendation for admission (above). The older Carpov had died the previous year. The younger Carpov describes how beloved Markus was to his father, who considered him as another son, and, impressed by his brilliance, spent days and nights studying with him. Karl himself calls Markus his brother. While many focus on Markus’s close relationship with Tychsen, no mention has been made of his relationship with the other Orientalist, Carpov. 

The remaining letters were written by Judah Levi Strelitz,[32] the brother in law of Moses, and Meier (no other name is written), a fellow medical student. 

Moses was not the only Jewish student Tychsen took under his wings. Over the span of decades, throughout the short existence of the Butzow medical school, he endeared himself to a number of Jewish medical students.[33] He taught them, mentored them, and even financially supported them. They in turn sought his personal advice and recommendations, aided him in his intellectual quests, and invited him to their weddings.

Two Jewish medical students who matriculated in 1783 were also close with Tychsen, Isaac Salomonsen and Wulf Levinson. 

Matriculation record from University of Butzow November 24, 1783
Wulf Levinson and Isaacus Salomonsen[34]

Below is Tychsen’s letter to Levinsohn upon his graduation.[35]

Tychsen includes that the Butzow anatomist August Schaarschmidt and Professor Detharding, who had accepted Markus Moses some twenty years earlier, attest to the student’s qualifications.[36]

Below is the letter of Isaac Salomonsen presenting his dissertation to Tychsen.[37]

Below is Tychsen’s letter of approbation for Salomonsen’s dissertation in 1784. He mentions Isaac’s work in botany, which is in some form a continuation of the work of another Butzow medical student Tzadik de Meza, who died at the age of twenty-three.[38]

In another letter,[39] Salomonsen complained bitterly to Tychsen about his classmate Levinson, who had apparently been slandering him. He adds that the great personalities in the history of medicine, Aesculapius, Hygea and Hippocrates would be mourning and turning over in their graves if they knew how Levinson was misrepresenting and dishonoring them and the University of Butzow.

In the letter below dated 1784 from Salomonsen to Tychsen[40] we find a number of the elements common in Tychsen’s relationship with all the Jewish medical students. 

Salomonsen mentions the money he owes Tychsen and explains and apologizes for the delay in repayment. Tychsen routinely loaned money to the Jewish students. Salomonsen then reports that he was unable to obtain the sefer (shu”t Rabbi Moshe Alshikh) and Arabic coins Tychsen had requested. Tychsen was an avid bibliophile and his magnificent and important library was ultimately bequeathed to the University of Rostock, which absorbed the University of Butzow after its demise. It remains there to this day. Tychsen also collected Arabic coins and is considered the founding father of Islamic numismatics.[41] Salomonsen also mentions his acquaintance with a man named Mussafia[42] and his children, and how he enjoys spending time with them. Mussafia praised Tychsen and recalled something he had written on Tychsen’s behalf. He also possessed a work of Tychsen. Tychsen delighted in his name and reputation being spread throughout the Jewish community.

In sum, “Rabbi” Tychsen appears to have put his rabbinic degree to good use, at least from his perspective, cultivating an extremely devoted, loyal, and admiring, not to mention highly educated congregation. On the surface, he would be the envy of any modern rabbi, though much complexity lies beneath. While we did not focus on his proselytizing endeavors in this essay, perhaps this is one reason why Tychsen still remains to this day the only non-Jew to have received a form of rabbinic ordination. While Tychsen’s contributions to academia are vast, his tenure at the University of Butzow and his relationship with the Jewish students there represents one of the most unique, if lesser known, chapters in Jewish medical history. With the opening of the Rostock digital archives treasure trove we will certainly see further exploration of this topic. 

Edward Reichman

שנת וַתֵּעָצַ֖ר הַמַּגֵּפָֽה לפ”ק  

[1] Yitzhak Berger and Chaim Milikowsky, “Shnayer Leiman: In Appreciation,” (September 11, 2020).

[2] Moshe Haberman, “The Twice-Told Tale of R. Yonasan Eybeshutz and the Porger,” (September 15, 2020).

[3] For additional information on the semicha of Tychsen, see On the Main Line Blog, “On Non-Jews with Rabbinic Ordination, Real and Imagined: Some Notes on Dr. Leiman’s Post on Tychsen,” (September 20, 2011), http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-non-jews-with-rabbinic-ordination.html.

[4] David Wilk, “Markus Moses’ Doctoral Dissertation or Who Remembers Butzow,” Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 408-426, esp. 413.

[5] For an overview of this chapter in medical history, see Jan Bondeson, Buried Alive (Norton Publishers, 2001).

[6] For the text of the letter, see Siegfried Silberstein, “Mendelssohn und Mecklenburg,” Zeitschrift fur die geschichte der Juden Heft 4 (1930), 275-290, esp. 278-279. For reference to Tychsen as a key player in the issue of delayed burial, see for example, Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter’s doctoral dissertation, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (Harvard University, 1988), 669, 723-724.

[7] For a comprehensive review of this historical chapter, see Moshe Samet, “Delaying Burial: The History of the Polemic on the Determination of the Time of Death,” (Hebrew) Asufot 3 (1989/1990), 613-665.

[8] For what follows see the comprehensive review of Oppenheim and his library by Joshua Teplitsky, Prince of the Press (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2019), 198.

[9] See Rebecca Abrams and Cesar Merchan-Hamann, eds., Jewish Treasures from Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2020), and review of Paul Shaviv, Seforim Blog (July 14, 2020).

[10] The University of Butzow was an offshoot of the University of Rostock and later recombined with Rostock upon its demise. In addition, in 1817, Rostock University acquired the private library, including the manuscript legacy, of Tychsen, which included his significant Judaica and Hebraica collection. Over the last few years, the University of Rostock has devoted research efforts to explore the history of the Jewish students at the university with particular focus on their relationship with Tychsen. See Gisela Boeck und Hans-Uwe Lammel, eds., Jüdische kulturelle und religiöse Einflüsse auf die Stadt Rostock und ihre Universität (Jewish cultural and religious influences on the city of Rostock and its university) (Rostocker Studien zur Universitätsgeschichte, Band 28: Rostock 2014); Rafael Arnold, et. al., eds., Der Rostocker Gelehrte Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815) und seine Internationalen Netzwerke (Wehrhahn Verlag, 2019). In the latter volume, see especially, Malgorzata Anna Maksymiak and Hans-Uwe Lammel, “Die Bützower Jüdischen Doctores Medicinae und der Orientalist O. G. Tychsen,” 115-133. I thank Malgorzata Maksymiak for her assistance and for providing me access to the Tychsen archives.

[11] See Wilk, op. cit. and Maksymiak, op. cit.

[12] Nimrod Zinger notes that the universities under Protestant auspices, in particular those affiliated with the Pietistic Movement, were more inclined to admit Jews, as they were interested in the possibility of converting them. He mentions as examples Yitzhak Isaac Wallich and his close relationship with Professor Hoffman at Halle, and that the student Avraham Hyman was admitted to Geissen with the intervention of the head of faculty, who was a Pietist. See his Ba’al Shem vihaRofeh (Haifa University, 2017), 263. Tychsen would certainly align with this theory.

[13] Bernhard Mandl, “Egy Magyar Zsido Orvos Nemet- Orszagban (1763-1782): Dr. Markus Moses, a Pozsonyi forabbi fia,” Evkőnyv Kiadja Az Izr. Magyar Irodalmi Tarsulat (1913), 145-165; Idem, Med. Dr. Markus Moses, Sohn der Pressburger Oberrabbiners R. Mosche Charif, praktischer Arzt in Deutschland von 1776 bis 1786: eine Lebensskizze (J. Pollak: Vienna, 1928); Wilk, op. cit.

[14] Die Juden und Judengemeinde Bratislava in Vergangen heit und Gegenwart (Brunn, 1932), 17-18, 85, cited in N. M. Gelber, “History of Jewish Physicians in Poland in the Eighteenth Century,” (Hebrew) in Y. Tirosh, ed., Shai LeYeshayahu: Sefer Yovel LeRav Yehoshua Wolfsberg (HaMercaz LeTarbut shel HaPoel HaMizrachi; Tel Aviv, 5716), 347-371, esp. 360.

[15] By this time, Jews were able to attend medical schools in Germany. Other German universities with Jewish graduates included Frankfurt on Oder, Duisberg, Halle, Geisen and Heidelberg. On the Jews in German medical schools, see Louis Lewin, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 14 (1921), 217-238; Idem, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 15 (1923), 59-96; Idem, “Die Judischen Studenten an der Universitat Frankfurt an der Oder,” Jahrbuch der Judisch Literarischen Gesellschaft 16 (1924), 43-87; Adolf Kober, “Rheinische Judendoktoren, Vornehmlich des 17 und 18 Jahrhunderts,” Festschrift zum 75 Jährigen Bestehen des Jüdisch-Theologischen Seminars Fraenckelscher Stiftung, Volume II, (Breslau: Verlag M. & H. Marcus, 1929), 173-236; Idem, “Judische Studenten und Doktoranden der Universitat Duisberg im 18 Jahrhundert,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Jahrg. 75 (N. F. 39), H. 3/4 (March/April 1931), 118-127; Monika Richarz, Der Eintritt der Juden in die akademischen Berufe: Judische Studenten Und Akademiker in Deutschland 1678-1848 (Schriftenreihe Wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen Des Leo Baeck: Tubingen, 1974); Wolfram Kaiser and Arina Volker, Judaica Medica des 18 und des Fruhen 19 Jahrhunderts in den Bestanden des Halleschen Universitatsarchivs (Wissenschaftliche Beitrage der Martin Luther Universitat Halle-Wittenberg: Halle, 1979); M. Komorowski, Bio-bibliographisches Verzeichnis jüdischer Doktoren im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (K. G. Saur Verlag: Munchen, 1991); Eberhard Wolff, “Between Jewish and Professional identity: Jewish Physicians in Early 19th Century Germany- The Case of Phoebus Philippson,” Jewish Studies 39 (5759), 23-34. John Efron, Medicine and the German Jews (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2001); Wolfram Kaiser, “L’Enseignement Medical et les Juifs a L’Universite de Halle au XVIII Siecle” in Gad Freudenthal and Samuel Kottek, Melanges d’Histoire de la Medicine Hebraique (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 347-370; ) Petra Schaffrodt, Heidelberg- Juden an der Universitat Heidelberg: Dokumente aus Sieben Jahrhunderten (Ruprecht Karls Universitat Heidelberg Universitatsbibliothek, August, 2012).

Below is a chart from Richarz of Jewish medical students in Germany at this time. The University of Butzow is not on this list.

[16] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn859752100/iview2/phys_0007.iview2.

[17] For the history of Moses prior to attending Butzow, see Mandl, op. cit., and Wilk, op. cit.

[18] E. Reichman, “The History of the Jewish Medical Student Dissertation: An Evolving Jewish Tradition,” in J. Karp and M. Schaikewitz, eds., Sacred Training: A Halakhic Guidebook for Medical Students and Residents (Ammud Press: New York, 2018), xvii- xxxvii.

[19] While the first two essays are housed in the Rostock Library, I have not found a copy of this essay.

[20] http://opac.lbs-rostock.gbv.de/DB=1/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=720262623.

[21] http://opac.lbs-rostock.gbv.de/DB=1/XMLPRS=N/PPN?PPN=304865346.

[22] For the letters in the archive just between Markus Moses and Tychsen, see here.

[23] http://purl.uni-rostock.de/rosdok/ppn860182010/phys_0027.

[24] This is an expression of endearment. See another example of a letter to Tychsen, from a Yehoshua Lifshutz of Apta, where the same expressions, peh el peh acronym and nishikat pihu, are used. http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn859752100/iview2/phys_0019.iview2.

[25] While we have no record of R. Eybeshutz himself communicating with Tychsen at the University of Butzow Medical School, he did send a letter to the faculty of medicine at another German medical school, the University of Halle. This letter related to the famous “heartless” chicken question initially posed to Hakham Tzvi. For more on this letter, its record in the Halle University archives, and its impact on the Emden Eybeschutz controversy, see E. Reichman, “A Letter from a Torah Sage of the 18th Century to the Medical Faculty of the University of Halle (January, 1763): The Selective Deference of Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz to Medical Expertise,”Verapo Yerapei: Journal of Torah and Medicine of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Synagogue 6 (2015), 89-112.

[26] National Library of Israel, NLI 997003186660405171. See also Richard I. Cohen, “’And Your Eyes Shall See Your Teachers’: The Rabbi as Icon,” (Hebrew) Zion (1993), 407-452, esp. 418. The artist is Elimelech Polta ben Shimshon. I have as yet been unable to identify this physician. His name is not found among the Jewish medical students in German universities mentioned above.

[27] T. Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 1750-1820 (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 32ff.

[28] See Maksymiak, op. cit.

[29] See Wilk, op.cit., 417.

[30] http://purl.uni-rostock.de/rosdok/ppn859752100/phys_0081.

[31] Carpov trained at the University of Rostock before the formation of the University of Butzow. See his matriculation record, here.

[32] Strelitz, also known as Levin Hirsch Levi, lived in Altstrelitz and authored a treatise on resurrection (http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000014475) which was translated into German by Tychsen under the title,”Die Auferstehung der Todten aus dem Gesetze Mosis Bewiesen,” (1766) (http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000014215). Strelitz later became rabbi of Birnbaum, and then the first rabbi of Stockholm and Chief Rabbi of Sweden. The Jewish community of Stockholm had been founded only a few years before his arrival by Aron Isak, the sponsor of Markus Moses, Levi’s brother-in-law, and the shadchan for Moses and Levi’s sister. See Wilk, 419-420.

[33] Markus Moses (1764), Israel Joseph Meyer (1765), Justus Zadig de Meza, Isaac Heinrich Salomonsen (1783),Wolff Levinsohn (1783), Abraham Levin Spira (? Benjamin Levin, 1773), Simon Marcus (1771) and Moses Marcus(1785, son of Markus Moses). All of them-with one exception-received their doctorate in medicine in the twenty-nine years of existence of the University of Bützow.See Maksymiak,op.cit., which also addresses the emotional aspect of the ties of Tychsen with his students.

[34] http://dfg-viewer.de/show?set%5bmets%5d=http%3A%2F%2Frosdok.uni-rostock.de%2Ffile%2Frosdok_document_0000000177%2Frosdok_derivate_0000004407%2Fmatrikel1760ws-1788ws-Buetzow.mets.xml&set%5bimage%5d=54. Note that word “Judeus” appears after both of their names. It was common to identify students as Jews in university archives. For example, starting in the 1500s, Jewish students at the University of Padua were identified as“Hebrei.” There does not appear to have been any anti-Semitic associations with this identifier.

[35] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0168.iview2. For Levinsohn’s dissertation, see http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/resolve/id/rosdok_document_0000016729?_search=23e52c72-2882-421d-bfd5-16b218d11ae3&_hit=0. The letter was not published with the dissertation.

[36] Tychsen appears to make disparaging remarks against the work Shevilei Emunah, by Meir Aldabi. This work,written in the fourteenth century, was a primary reference on medicine in rabbinic literature for many centuries.

[37] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0166.iview2.

[38] The Rostock archives contains a number of letters between Tychsen and de Meza.

[39] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0176.iview2.

[40] http://rosdok.uni-rostock.de/mcrviewer/recordIdentifier/rosdok_ppn835297578/iview2/phys_0180.iview2.

[41] Rafael Arnold, et. al., eds., Der Rostocker Gelehrte  Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815) und seine Internationalen Netzwerke (Wehrhahn Verlag, 2019); Ursula Kampmann, Maike Mebmann, trans., “Oluf Gerhard Tychsen (1734-1815), https://coinsweekly.com/oluf-gerhard-tychsen-1734-1815/(July 18, 2019).

[42] This was perhaps a relative of Binyamin Mussafia, a famous graduate of the University of Padua in 1625, and author of Musaf HaArukh, a commentary of the Sefer HaArukh.

Parshanut in English: Rabbinic Bible Commentary in Translation

Revised updated edition

Yisrael Dubitsky

The following revises, expands upon and updates my previous effort on this forum. Originally it was meant as a ten year retrospective, to see not only which works were completed in that time span but also which commentators were first touched upon. Of course, in the course of my research, I found several errors of mine from the earlier edition, and many items I had neglected to include, or was not even aware of before. Technical difficulties have delayed its appearance until now but what better time to present it than at the beginning of a new Torah reading cycle?

In contrast to the first edition, I struggled with the criteria for inclusion. Ideally, and initially, I had wished to include only items which were

1)  Commentary on Tanakh or an individual book within it (but not a supercommentary upon a commentary);

2)  Rabbinic in substance (so, for example, not Samaritan, or Karaite, or based on modern scientific scholarship);

3)  Generally, from the High Middle Ages and later (thus not classical rabbinic midrash or targum; but medieval midrash compilations/anthologies such as: Midrash ha-Gadol; Midrash Lekah Tov; Midrash Sekhel Tov; Yalkut Makhiri; or Yalkut Shimoni would be eligible; and so would slightly earlier work such as Geonic literature if any existed);

4)  Where the work was an intentional and systematic commentary on the biblical book (meaning, not that every verse in a chapter is commented upon, but most are; not simply essays on “themes” or “issues” in the chapters or parshiyot);

5)  Where the translation was complete, not adapted, digested, excerpted, paraphrased, or selected from the original;

6)  Of significant length, meaning (subjective as the choice was) more than a chapter or two long (unless the entire biblical book was only a chapter, such as Obadiah);

7)  Where no matter in what language the original work first appeared, the translation was into English (meaning, original commentary – even in English — was not eligible);

8)  Appears in a separate monograph publication, either entirely devoted to the work, or even just a chapter within the book, but not simply an article in a periodical, which is more difficult for the average reader to access.

Unfortunately as I progressed in my compilation, I realized I could not stand by many of these requirements. There were simply too many less-than-ideal-as-above works, which a learned public would expect and/or require in such a listing. For example, Abarbanel or Hasidic commentary are not precisely verse by verse but are important, and perhaps expected, additions to a listing of rabbinic commentary. I think I retained fully requirements 2, 3 and 7 above, but the other requirements are less than perfectly observed. Thus, among other breaches, there are supercommentaries as well as some journal articles represented.

There were several items (especially theses from HUC or books at British Library) which I couldn’t examine personally. Nevertheless, I added them to the list. If it should turn out that the items were not actually relevant to this list (i.e. they don’t translate a text systematically, etc.), I will delete them in a later edition. In case they were relevant, however, it is important that readers are aware of them.

Clearly, as a delimited compilation, there will be some works that many will believe should not be included, and some that many may think should be included. Every reader may have a different perspective on what should or should not be included. However, a bibliographer must be granted privilege in determining which items to include. I welcome arguments, complaints, suggestions or recommendations and apologize in advance for inadequacies, deficiencies and/or errors in my compilation.  The nature of the beast is such that this is a work in progress (hopefully to be updated in less than 13 years’ time between editions).

Commentaries are arranged chronologically by author, and then by biblical book (standard Hebrew Bible order). For space and simplicity sake, works are identified only by their author’s and translator’s (or publishers’) names but, for fuller bibliographical data, also linked to a bibliographical record in a library catalog database (usually the National Library of Israel [NLI]; where a record didn’t exist there, or I was unsatisfied with it in some way, I linked to OCLC’s public international union catalog database WorldCat. When needed, I linked to other catalogs instead. Sometimes i recorded a newly published volume not yet represented on any of the WorldCat contributor records). This method of linking to a stable URL of a catalog’s bibliographical record could not be done in the previous edition, as JTS at that time had not provided permanent URLs for their records. Thus, clunky as it may have been, the only alternative to reach the bib records at JTSAL was to request readers copy and paste the Call Number I provided. Thankfully, this method is no longer required. I will expand a bit on my linking to library bib records, rather than standard bibliographical citation, below.

Where a title of an author’s work, rather than his name, serves more popularly as his principal identification, the title is used, with the author’s name appearing parenthetically. Otherwise, the author name is the primary identifier. Translations of entire works are listed before only parts of the same, and then by date of publication. As mentioned, links to online library catalog records (generally, NLI or WorldCat) for the item serve as the full bibliographic data. Publication years in parentheses following the link indicate only the first year of the edition. Generally, where possible, the first edition of the work is listed.

As mentioned, generally only significantly lengthy works (covering more than one or two chapters of Bible text) are included. There are several cases of introductions to works that are included here too. Unless delimited otherwise, items cover the entire book, number of volumes notwithstanding (e.g. 4 vols. on the five books of Torah). Items marked “currently…” imply a work in progress.

Again, as mentioned, adaptations, anthologies, digests, excerpts or paraphrases of translations, such as are found in the Hertz, Soncino Press, Judaica Press (except for Rashi), ArtScroll, Living Torah and Living Nach or Etz Hayim bible commentaries, are generally not included. However, this ideal could not always be observed. Perhaps contradicting the above, but condensed versions, as are sometimes found in Munk translations, are in fact included. The JPS Commentators Bible, in addition to its systematic translation of four major commentators, also occasionally includes selections from Bekhor Shor, Radak, Hazekuni, Gersonides, Abarbanel and Sforno. These latter have not been included in the list.

Further, as per requirement 2 above, academic or modern critical commentaries, even those written by rabbis, are excluded.

It is important to emphasize, no implication regarding quality of the translation (or the commentary itself!) should be drawn from inclusion in this list.

I have endeavored, where feasible, to include in addition a link to a digital copy of the work – whether as a simple PDF (from sites such as Hebrewbooks, Internet Archive, Google Books or the like) or via more sophisticated presentations such as on Sefaria or Alhatorah or the like. I only include links to sites that are free for all, not subscription or paid sites which would limit access. In addition, Sefaria or Alhatorah or other websites sometimes host a work before it has reached print status; as such, it is “online-only” or even “born-digital.” These I included by adding the word “online” in parentheses following the author name; if it wasn’t clear to me when the work was added to the site, it appears with a question mark in place of the year of publication. Moreover, Sefaria and Alhatorah are such wonderful sites that they often add new material so that my listing may be incomplete or obsolete very soon after it appears. Yet another reason for this compilation to be considered a work in progress!

Furthermore, I have colored items in red that are new or newly discovered by me since the first edition some 13 years ago. When the commentator’s name is in red, it means all works/translations beneath it are new. When a new work or an added volume of an already published work has appeared in that time period, that detail (e.g. biblical book name, volume number, publication year) is in red. Thus, readers will be able to spot new materials immediately. 

Romanization of Hebrew titles follows Mahler’s Library of Congress authorized system (e.g. no doubling for dagesh, etc.; except for inferior dots). Thus, for example, Hazekuni, and not Chizkuni. Authors’ names are based on the spelling in VIAF, but not always its form (thus, Rashbam, not simply “Samuel ben Meir”; or Joseph Kara, not “Kara, Joseph”). Further, where an added word (or different date) will make the identification more accessible (e.g. Rabenu Hananel and not just Hananel ben…), it is preferred. Bold-face is used to reflect more popular identifications. 

Finally, a brief word as to reasons for a bibliography linking to library catalog records rather than the standard format of a bibliographical index of works: While standard bibliography format represents the known literature of the subject in a very brief form, there is often little way for an average reader to access all the material, or even know where to turn to reach it. In these times, however, where much of the world is a click away, it is important for the average reader – one not necessarily associated with a university library or geographically near a large library – to have easy access to the material and the choice of whether to see further bibliographical data than the absolute minimum. A library catalog record provides the bibliographical data, and holding information for where the item is held; a particular library’s holdings information is an important gauge in evaluating its worth. Furthermore, a database like WorldCat is important for providing many different library possibilities in varying geographical areas. This helps the average reader access the item. A catalog may be a bit unwieldy, inasmuch as different titles on the different volumes of the same work may result in the work spread out over a few records (see the Sifte Hakhamim records as an example) – or even duplicate records for the same item (as happens often in WorldCat). Those varying details, however, are often covered over in a standard bibliography which may “normalize” all variations so as to be contained in one line entry. A more severe disadvantage of such a system is if/when the library catalog changes (permanent) URL details. However, this is a risk that seems to be outweighed by the advantages of such a system. Referring to a book via its library catalog record will prove beneficial to more readers than a standard bibliography.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF RABBINIC BIBLE COMMENTARIES

Medieval

1. Sa`adia ben Joseph Gaon [882-942]
2.   Torah

Linetsky [Gen 1-28] (2002)

1.     Job

Goodman (1988)

1.     Esther

Wechsler (2015)

         alhatorah.org

1.   Daniel

Alobaidi (2006)

2. Rabenu Hananel ben Hushi’el [d. 1055/6]

Torah

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

3. Rashi [Solomon ben Isaac, 1041-1105]

A.  Bible

Judaica Press (Hoenig/Rosenberg):

1. [All] CD (1998) / Chabad
2. [Gen] (1993) 3 vols.
3. [Ex] (1995) 2 vols.
4. [Nakh] (1969) 20 vols. in 24

    B. Torah

1. Rosenbaum/Silbermann (1929) 5 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. Alhatorah.org

2. Ben-Isaiah/Sharfman (1949) 5 vols.
3. Metsudah (Kleinkaufman) (1991) 5 vols.

Mnemotrix

4. Artscroll (Herczeg) (1994) 5 vols.
5. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols
6. Lowe [Gen] (1928)
7. Doron [Gen 1-6] (1982)
8. Milstein [currently partial ?] (1993) 9 vols.
9. “Ariel Chumash” (Feldman et al.) [currently Gen] (1997) 2 vols.
10. Moore [currently Gen] (2002)

C. Joshua

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Davis) (1997)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

D. Judges

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Rabinowitz/Davis) (1998)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

E. Samuel

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (1999) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

F. Kings

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

G. Isaiah

1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

         pdf

2. See above: Judaica Press

H. Ezekiel

1. VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)
2. See above: Judaica Press

I. Psalms

1. See above: Judaica Press

2.     Gruber (2004)
3. Feldheim (Herczeg) (2009) 2 vols.

J. Five Scrolls

1. See above: Judaica Press

2.     Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

1. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
2. Schwartz [Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth] (1983)
3. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)
4. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

pdf

7. Herczeg [Esther] (2016)

K. Daniel

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

4. Joseph Kara [ca. 1065-1135]

  A. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

  B. Lamentations

Anderson (2004)

1. Pdf
2. alhatorah.org

 

5. Rashbam [Samuel ben Meir, ca. 11-12th cens.]

A.  Torah  

5. Lockshin

           a.   [Gen] (1989)

b.   [Ex] (1997)

c .   [Lev & Num] (2001)

d.  [Deut] (2004)

alhatorah.org

2. Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

3. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.

    B. Five Scrolls

1. Thompson [Song of Songs] (1988)

alhatorah.org

2. Japhet/Salters [Ecclesiastes] (1985)

6. Eliezer, of Beaugency [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

7. Menachem ben Simon, of Posquières [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

 

8. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra [1092-1167]

   A. Torah

1.     Strickman/Silver (1988) 5 vols.
2.     Benyowitz (2006) 3 vols.
3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
4.     Oles [Gen] (1958)
5.     Shachter [Lev, Deut] (1986) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org / alhatorah.org

6.     Linetsky [Gen 1-6] (1998)
7.     Lancaster [introduction] (2003)

   B.  Isaiah

1. Friedlander (1873)

Sefaria.org

2. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

C. Hosea

Lipshitz (1988)

D.  Haggai, Zecharia, Malakhi

Frazer (2017)

E. Psalms

Strickman (2009) 3 vols.

         alhatorah.org

     F. Five Scrolls

1. Mathews [Song of Songs] (1874)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

2. Block [Song of Songs] (1982)
3. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
4. Strickman (online) [Ecclesiastes] (2017)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

5. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)

Pdf

6. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

a. Pdf

b. alhatorah.org

 

9. Moses ben Sheshet [fl. ca. 1190-1200?]

Jeremiah/Ezekiel

Driver (1871)

pdf

10. Shmuel ibn Tibbon [1150-1230]

Ecclesiastes

Robinson (2007)

11. Radak [David ben Joseph Kimhi, ca. 1160-ca. 1235]

  A. Genesis

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

     B. Isaiah

1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

1. Cohen [Isa 40-66] (1954)

     C. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

D.  Hosea

Turner [Hos 1] (1847)

         pdf

    E.  Zechariah

M’Caul (1837)

pdf

   F.  Psalms

1.     Greenup [Pss 1-8] (1918)
2.     Finch [Pss 1-10, 15-17, 19, 22, 24] (1919)

Sefaria.org

3.     Baker/Nicholson [Pss 120-150] (1973)

G.  Ruth

Beattie [Ruth] (1977)

H.  Chronicles

Berger (2007)

12. Ezra ben Solomon, of Gerona [d. ca. 1238]

Song of Songs

Brody (1999)

13. Joseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor, of Orleans [12th cen.]

Genesis

1.     Thompson (online) [Gen 1-2 :3] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

2.     Lockshin (online) [Gen 2 :4-9 :13] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

 

14. Unknown [Anonymous, late 12th cen]

Song of Songs

Japhet/Walfish (2017)

 

15. Ramban [Moses ben Nahman = Nachmanides, ca. 1195-ca. 1270]

  A.  Torah

1.     Chavel (1971) 5 vols.
2.     Artscroll (Blinder et al) (2004) 7 vols.
3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
4. Newman [Gen 1-6] (1960)
5. Bick [introduction] (online) (?)
6. Kanter [introduction] (In: Academic Journal of Hebrew Theological College, 1 (2001): 13–35)
7. Strickman (online) [currently Ex] (?)

alhatorah.org

    B. Ecclesiastes

Chavel (1978): vol. 1

 

16. Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi [ca. 1220-1291]

Five Scrolls

1. Alobaidi [Song of Songs] (2014) 
2. Wechsler [Ruth/Esther] (2010)

17. Shem Tov ben Joseph Falaquera [ca. 1225–1295]

(Torah)

Jospe (1988)

18. Zohar [ca. 1280]

Torah

1. Soncino (Sperling/Simon) (1931) 5 vols.
2. Matt (“Pritzker edition”) (2004) 12 vols.

19. Midrash ha-Ne`elam (Zohar) [ca. 1280]

Ruth

Englander/Basser (1993)

20. Hazekuni [=Hezekiah ben Manoah, 13th cen.]

Torah

Munk (2013) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

21. Da`at Zekenim mi-Ba`alei ha-Tosafot [probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Torah

Munk (online) (2015)

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

22. Yalkut Shimoni [=Shim`on ha-Darshan, of Frankfurt?; compilatory, 13th cen]

  A. Jonah

Greenup (1922)

  B.   Nachum

Greenup (1923)

C.    Zecharia

King (1882)

         pdf

D.  Psalms

1. Narot (1940)
2. Fischer [Bk 1] (1962)
3. Waldenberg [Bk 2-3] (1962)

 

23. Unknown [Anonymous, probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Job

Hirsch (1905)

         pdf

 

24. Ba`al ha-Turim [= Jacob ben Asher, ca. 1269-ca. 1340]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Touger) (1999) 5 vols.
2.     Munk (2005) 4 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

25. Ralbag [Levi ben Gershom = Gersonides, 1288-1344]

A.  Job

1. Lassen (1946)
2. Stitskin [introduction] (1963) In: Tradition, 6:1 (Fall 1963): 81-85

B.    Song of Songs

1. Weis (1983)
2. Kellner (1998)

 

26. Rabenu Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava [d. 1340]

Torah

Munk (1998) 7 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

27. Yalkut ha-Makhiri [=Makir ben Aba Mari, ca. 1335-1410]

Jonah

Greenup  (1911)

         pdf / pdf

 

28. Abraham ben Isaac ha-Levi Tamakh [d. 1393]

Song of Songs

Feldman (1970)

 

29. Midrash ha-Gadol [=Adani, David ben Amram, 14th cen]

Numbers

         Fisch (1940)

                     pdf

 

30. Avat Nefesh [Unknown, end of 14th cen]

Genesis

Gartig (1994)

 

31. Akedat Yitshak [= Isaac ben Moses Arama, ca. 1420-1494]

Torah

Munk (1986) 2 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

32. Isaac Abravanel [1437-1508]

A.  Torah

1. Tomaschoff [Gen] (2007)
2. Bar Eitan [currently Gen-Lev] (2012) 5 vols.
3. Lazar (2015) 5 vols.
4. Kasnett (2017)

  B.   Jonah

Werner (1979)

33. Tseror ha-Mor [= Abraham ben Jacob Saba, 1440-1508]

Torah

Munk (2008) 5 vols.

 

34. Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno [ca. 1470-ca. 1550]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Pelcovitz) (1987) 2 vols.
2.     Munk (2006) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

3.     Stahl [Deut] (1975)

 

(Pre-)Modern

35. Moses Alshekh [ca. 1520-1593]

A.  Torah

1. Munk (1988) 2 vols.
2. Rose [Gen] (2019) 2 vols.

B.    Jonah

1. Werner (1979)
2. Shahar (1992)  

C.    Psalms 

Munk (1990) 2 vols.

D.  Proverbs

1. Munk (1991)
2. Hirshfeld/Braude (2006) 2 vols.

E.    Job

Shahar (1996) 2 vols.  

F.    Five Scrolls

1. Shahar [Song of Songs] (1993) 
2. Shahar/Oschry [Ruth] (1991)
3. Hirshfeld [Lamentations] (1993)
4. Shahar [Ecclesiastes] (1992)
5. Honig [Esther] (1993) 2 vols.   

g.  Daniel

Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

36. Eliezer ben Elijah Ashkenazi [1512-1585]

Esther

Brown (2006)

 

37. Keli Yakar [= Ephraim Solomon ben Aaron, of Luntshits (Lenczycza), 1550-1619]

Torah

1.     Levine [currently Gen-Ex] (2002)

1. Genesis
2. Exodus 2 vols.

2.     Kanter [Deut] (2003)

 

38. Tse’enah u-Re’enah [= Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazi, of Janow, 1550-1628]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Zakon) (1983) 3 vols.
2.     Faierstein (2017) 2 vols.
3.     Hershon [Gen] (1885)

pdf

 

39. Shelah [Shene Luhot Ha-berit = Isaiah Horowitz, ca. 1565-1630]

Torah

Munk (1992) 3 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

40. Sifte Hakhamim [=Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass, 1641-1718]

Torah

Davis et al.

1. Genesis (2009) 2 vols.
2. Exodus (2009) 2 vols.
3. Leviticus (2012)
4. Numbers (2013)
5. Deuteronomy (?)

 

41. Me`am Lo`ez [= Jacob Culi, d. 1732, et al.; Shmuel Yerushalmi, d. 1997]

Moznaim (Kaplan et al.) (1977) 43 vols.:

1.                 Torah (1977) 20 vols.
2.                 Joshua (1990)
3.                 Judges (1991)
4.                 Samuel I (1991) Samuel II (1993)
5.                 Kings I (1994) Kings II (1997)
6.                 Isaiah (1999)
7.                 Jeremiah (1994) 2 vols.
8.                 Trei Asar (1997) 2 vols.
9.                   Psalms (1989) 5 vols.
10.                   Proverbs (1993) 2 vols.
11.                 Ruth (1985)
12.                   Song of Songs (1988)
13.               Ecclesiastes (1986)
14.                 Lamentations (1986)
15.                 Esther (1978)

 

42. Or ha-Hayim [= Hayyim ben Moses Attar, 1696-1743]

Torah

1.     Munk (1995) 5 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

2.     Artscroll (Herzka) (2016) 10 vols.

 

43. Moses Mendelssohn [1729-1786]

Ecclesiastes

Preston (1845)

pdf

 

44. Hatam Sofer [= Moses Sofer, 1762-1839]

Torah

Stern [currently Gen-Lev] (1996) 3 vols.

 

45. Ha-Ketav veha-Kabalah [= Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, 1785-1865] 

Torah

Munk (2001) 7 vols.

 

46. Shadal [Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865]

Torah

1. Munk (2012) 4 vols.
2. Klein [currently Gen–Ex] 2 vols.

1. Genesis (1998)

alhatorah.org [only Gen 1-11]

1. Exodus (2015)

alhatorah.org [only Ex 1-5]

1. [Leviticus (March 2021)]

3.     Morais [introduction] (1926)

pdf

 

47. Samson Raphael Hirsch [1808-1888]

1.   Torah

1.     Levy (1956) 6 vols.
2.     Haberman (2000) 6 vols.
3.     Breuer [Gen] (1948) 2 vols.

 

1. pdf (v.1)
2. pdf (v.2)

     B. Psalms

Hirschler (1960) 2 vols.

C.    Proverbs

Paritzky (1976)

 

48. Malbim [Malbim, Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weiser, 1809-1879]

A.  Torah

Faier [Gen–Ex 12] (1978) 5 vols.

         alhatorah.org [currently Ex]

B.    Jonah

Werner (1979)

C.    Proverbs

Wengrov/Zornberg (1982)

D.  Job

Pfeffer (2003)

  E.   Five Scrolls

1. Kurtz [Ruth] (1999)
2. Weinbach [Esther] (1990)
3. Taub [Esther] (1998)

 

49. Netsiv [Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, 1817-1893]

Song of Songs

Landesman (1993)

 

50. Bet ha-Levi [= Joseph Baer Soloveichik, 1820-1892]

Torah

Herczeg [currently Gen-Ex] (1990) 2 vols.

 

51. Julius Hirsch [1842-1909]

Isaiah

Breuer (2015)

 

52. Joseph Breuer [1882-1980]

  A.  [Torah

See above: Hirsch (Genesis)]

B.    Jeremiah

Hirschler (1988)

C.    Ezekiel

Hirschler (1993)

 

53. Da`at Sofrim [= Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, 1911-2001]

Bible

Starrett [currently Jos-Jud; Sam; Kgs; Isa; Jer; Ezk; 12; Ps; Prov; Job; Dan-Neh; Chr]  (2001) 12 vols.

 

54. Da`at Mikra [=Mordekhai Zer-Kavod et al., 20th cen.]

  A. Psalms

Berman (2003) 3 vols.

B.    Job

Green (2009)

C.    Proverbs

Kanter & Cohen (2014)

Hasidic:

55. Levi Isaac ben Meir, of Berdichev [1740-1809]

Torah

Munk [currently Gen-Lev] (2009) 3 vols.

 

56. Menahem Mendel, of Rymanov [1745-1815]

Torah  

Levine (1996)

 

57. Me ha-Shiloah [= Mordecai Joseph Leiner, 1802-1854]

Torah

Edwards (2001)

 

58. Sefat Emet [= Judah Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905]

Torah

Green (1998)

Of Twice-Told Tales and Ockham’s Razor: A Response to R. Moshe Haberman

By Elli Fischer

Elli Fischer is an independent writer, translator, and rabbi.  He is editor of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s Peninei Halakha series in English and cofounder of HaMapah, a project that applies quantitative analysis to rabbinic literature. He is a founding editor of The Lehrhaus, a web magazine of contemporary Jewish thought, and his writing has appeared in numerous Jewish publications. He holds degrees from Yeshiva University, rabbinical ordination from Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, and is working toward a doctorate in Jewish History at Tel Aviv University.

R. Moshe Haberman’s fascinating recent post on the Seforim Blog, “The Twice-Told Tale of R. Yonason Eybeshutz and the Porger,” traces the provenance of a single copy of the first edition of R. Eybeschutz’s כרתי ופלתי in order to resolve an old and puzzling question about a reference to an apparently nonexistent view of the Semag. The answer – that the reference to Semag (סמ“ג) in the printed edition is a typo and should actually be סה“נ, or Sefer Ha-Nikur – was first suggested in 1930 by Rabbi Solomon M. Neches and further clarified by Prof. Shnayer Leiman. Rabbi Neches claimed that this typo was corrected by R. Eybeschutz himself, as the author’s copy of the work was extant, owned by R. Neches, and contained the handwritten emendation. The case seemed to be closed.

However, upon inspection, it seemed that the book was not owned by the author, but by a different R. Yonason Eybeschutz. The conclusion of R. Haberman’s article is that this copy of the 1763 edition of כרתי ופלתי was owned by two different (and unrelated) people named Rabbi Yonasan Eybeschutz.

The post also states that Rabbi Neches, a leading rabbi in Los Angeles (and, as Fred MacDowell discovered, mesader kiddushin at the wedding of Elaine Ackerman to Jerome L. Horowitz, a.k.a “Curly” of the Three Stooges) from the 1920s until his death in 1954, who claimed to have the book in his possession in 1930, did not really have it in Los Angeles in 1930. Rather, he had seen it in his youth in Ottoman Palestine. The copy remained in Eretz Yisrael until 1963, when it was purchased by UCLA through sponsorship of the Cummings family and sent with tens of thousands of other items to Los Angeles. In other words, rather than take R. Neches at his word, that he possessed the book in Los Angeles in 1930, and presumably kept it until his death in 1954, whereupon his personal library was dispersed, R. Haberman posits that the book never reached American shores, let alone R. Neches’s shelves, during his lifetime, yet arrived in the city where he served within a decade of his passing.

The story thus contains two owners who coincidentally shared the name Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz (RYE), and there is no connection between the fact that it was a Los Angeles rabbi who first mentioned this very item in 1930 and the fact that the item itself was in Los Angeles in 1963. Rather, the book made its way from Europe to Ottoman Palestine some time before 1910 (while its prior owner, the second RYE, was still alive in Poland). There it was viewed by a teenage R. Neches, who remembered, 20 years later, a marginal gloss he found therein. Meanwhile, the book itself falls off the grid for half a century before resurfacing in 1963, in an auction.

After reading the post, I decided that such a great story, filled with the most unlikely coincidences, deserved a Footprint. As I started documenting the copy’s provenance, however, the narrative began to unravel. As I will show, there is a much simpler narrative of the book’s provenance.

R. Haberman determines that two different RYEs owned the book because one signature specifies ownership by “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz” and another signature bears resemblance to the signature of the original, 18^th century RYE, author of כרתי ופלתי. Thus, it must have been owned by both RYE of Leshitz and RYE the author. Since R. Neches owned at least one book by RYE of Leshitz, namely, שער יהונתן, he, too, must have discovered that two distinct RYEs owned the book.

The problem with this theory is that there is no “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz”. Rather, in the early 20^th century, there were two RYEs. One was the rabbi of Kock (Kotzk) and later of Łosice (Leshitz), Poland and author of תפארת יהונתן. He was not a Levi, and he passed away in c. 1915. The second (or third) RYE, who was indeed a Levi, lived in the Praga district of Warsaw and perished in 1943. He was the author of שער יהונתן among other works, and on the title page that appears in Appendix B of R. Haberman’s post, you can see that the author is listed as living in Warsaw, and there is no mention of Leshitz/Łosice.

The pictures that accompany R. Haberman’s post show clearly that the RYE who owned this copy of כרתי ופלתי was from Łosice, but he does not sign that he was a Levi – because he wasn’t. With this in mind, we can now revisit the question: Is there any indication that the original RYE owned the book as well, or can we attribute everything to the non-Levi RYE of Leshitz?

After a bit of searching, I found an item related to RYE of Łosice on an auction site. This item, a copy of R. Eliyahu Mizrahi’s ספר מים עמוקים (Berlin, 5538/1778), contains both the stamp and signature of RYE of Kotzk (before his arrival in Leshitz). Here his signature is immediately to the left of the word ספר.

And here is his stamp (the smaller one):

The auctioneers also included a picture of a marginal note that the owner inscribed in the book, in the name of one Rabbi Isaac of Leszno (Lissa), son of the rabbi of Mezrich (presumably Międzyrzecz, Poland, in Prussia, close to both Leszno and Lozice, and not Mezhyrichi, Ukraine, home of the famed Maggid, or Międzyrzec Podlaski, in eastern Poland):

(Here is another item that contains RYE of Leshitz’s handwriting.)

Moreover, I am no graphologist, but the two RYE signatures that R. Haberman compares in his post seem far from identical. In the signature of the 18^th-century RYE, the leg of the ה is more curved, the bottom of the נ does not extend very far below the line, the ת has a shorter leg, and the top of the ן begins at the same level as the tops of all the other letters. Sure, there is some superficial similarity, but it seems very far from dispositive.

Rather, Ockham’s Razor would encourage us to adopt the simpler explanation, namely, that copy of כרתי ופלתי was owned by only one Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz: the rabbi of Kotzk and then Leshitz, who died in the early 20^th century. It was he who wrote the gloss referring to ספר הניקור – an answer that has the ring of truth and which there seems to be no reason to reject, even if the answer was not provided by the author himself. If anything, RYE of Leshitz deserves his due as the one who resolved this question.

Let us now turn to the question of where the book was at various points. Here, the suggestion that R. Neches viewed the book in Eretz Yisrael prior to 1910, when he emigrated to the US, seemed impossible, as the previous owner – whether RYE of Leshitz or RYE Halevi of Warsaw – lived in Europe. When, why, and how would the book have made its way to Ottoman Palestine without its owner? Moreover, R. Neches’s language seemed to indicate quite clearly that the book was in his possession, in Los Angeles, in 1930. This received further confirmation from commenter Ben Sommerfield, who notes that in another article, from 1951, R. Neches again mentioned that the copy of כרתי ופלתי is in his possession and even includes a facsimile of the page with the marginal note. We can thus conclude that the book was in possession of R. Neches in Los Angeles from 1930 to 1951.

In order to have been included in the Cummings Collection, then, the book would have had to get from Los Angeles to Israel and back to Los Angeles in a span of 12 years – 9 years if we presume that R. Neches kept it until his death in 1954. While not impossible, here again, another explanation seems far more likely.

In an article in HaMa’ayan (56:1 [215], Tishrei 5776, pp. 101-2), R. Yaakov Yitzchak Miller, who located the copy of כרתי ופלתי together with R. Haberman (they thank one another in their respective articles), correctly identifies the previous owner of the copy as RYE of Leshitz (even comparing the signature in the copy to the signature in other auctioned items – in which there are likewise marginalia) and thus dismisses R. Neches’s claim that this was the author’s copy. R. Miller also notes (n. 2 ad loc.) that much of R. Neches’s library was donated to UCLA. It would seem far more likely that this copy of כרתי ופלתי was donated to UCLA from R. Neches’s estate than that it was sent to Israel, appended to a much larger collection, and then purchased by UCLA several years later.

So what are we to make of Prof. Arnold Band’s confirmation that כרתי ופלתי was part of the collection whose purchase he orchestrated in 1963, and of the fact that the book is listed in the UCLA catalog as part of the Cummings collection? In my view, the likely answer is that the 1963 purchase indeed included a copy of כרתי ופלתי – perhaps UCLA’s copy of the Vienna 1819 edition. It takes nothing away from Prof. Band and his efforts to secure this collection to suggest that it seems highly unlikely that he remembers, after 57 years, a detail that he never mentioned before about a signature in one specific book out of 30,000. Perhaps he remembered that the purchase included a copy of כרתי ופלתי, even an old one. Or perhaps he mixed up the 1819 copy with the 1763 copy after the former’s arrival in Los Angeles, resulting in the library miscataloging R. Neches’s 1763 copy. Either way, a cataloging error seems more likely than the scenario suggested by R. Haberman.

The final timeline would then look something like this: The copy was owned by RYE of Leshitz until his death in 1915. At some point between 1915 and 1930, R. Neches purchased it – perhaps from a dealer who obtained items from the estate of RYE of Leshitz and convinced buyers that they had been owned by the far more famous 18^th century RYE. It remained in R. Neches’s possession until his death in 1954, whereupon it was donated to UCLA and miscataloged.

Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg Eulogizes Rabbi Shlomo Goren

Marc B. Shapiro

The recent passing of R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg was a great loss. It was not just a loss for one segment of the Torah world, as R. Zalman Nehemiah was unusual in that he was part of both the haredi world and the religious Zionist world. He was respected in both of these camps and spent his life teaching Torah among haredim and religious Zionists. One of the places he taught at was Yeshivat Ha-Idra, which was established by R. Shlomo Goren (and which closed not long after R. Goren’s death). I was fortunate to discover a eulogy that R. Zalman Nehemiah delivered for R. Goren.[1] From the eulogy you can see that R. Zalman Nehemiah broke with basically the entire haredi world which had written R. Goren off, and wanted nothing to do with him, either in life or after his death. Significantly, R. Zalman Nehemiah also contributed to the memorial volume published for R. Goren.

You can see the original handwritten eulogy in one document here, and my transcription of the eulogy in one document here.

There are a couple of noteworthy points in the eulogy which I would like to call attention to. R. Zalman Nehemiah mentions that R. Goren would complete seven pages of Talmud a day, and in this way would finish the Talmud in a year. In his autobiography, R. Goren mentions that it was R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Chevron Yeshiva, who recommended to the young Shlomo Gorontchik that he learn seven blatt a day. R. Epstein said that this was what he himself did, and he recommended that R. Goren do this in the morning, while in the afternoon he study the Talmud in depth. This was not long after R. Goren entered the yeshiva, when he was not yet twelve years old.[2] Incredibly, he began learning seven blatt a day, and he tells us that during the winter he finished Yevamot twelve times. He also tells us that as he got older he would do 24 blatt a day with Rashi and Tosafot.[3]

The other point worthy of note is that R. Zalman Nehemiah mentions that there was a rumor that R. Goren was going to be engaged with the granddaughter of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and when this turned out to be incorrect R. Isser Zalman was very upset and was comforted by R. Aryeh Levin. In his autobiography, R. Goren discusses this matter but without mentioning any names.[4]

בעת ההיא, החלו גם רבנים ושדכנים שונים לנסות ולשדך לי אישה. אחת ההצעות הגיעה מאחד מגדולי ישראל, מן הגאונים, שהיה מעוניין מאוד לשדך לי את בתו

R. Goren mentions that since his father was a Gur Hasid he had to get the approval of the Rebbe, who for one reason or another was not enthusiastic about the match, meaning that there could be no shiddukh. R. Goren mentions that the woman who was suggested for him ended up marrying a great rabbi, but the marriage ended in divorce.[5]

The woman proposed for R. Goren was none other than R. Aharon Kotler’s daughter, who went on to marry R. Dov Schwartzman. It makes sense that R. Kotler would be interested in R. Goren, as he would have heard from his father-in-law, R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, about the great illui, R. Shlomo Gorontchik. There even exists a letter in which R. Kotler asks his father-in-law about R. Goren in terms of a possible shiddukh. Here is a selection from the letter which first appeared here.

Incidentally, here is a picture of R. Goren and R. Kotler from 1954 at the Agudah Kenessiah Gedolah in Jerusalem. It first appeared here. The man on the right is R. Shabbetai Yogel, who was on the Moetzet Gedolei ha-Torah.

Also noteworthy is that on one occasion R. Kotler accepted an invitation from R. Goren to speak to a group of Israeli soldiers.[6]

As long as we are talking about R. Goren, here are some unknown pictures of him and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

In this picture the man to the left is Rabbi Israel Miller. I don’t know who is standing behind the Rav.

In this picture Rabbi Zevulun Charlop is standing on the left, and on the right are Rabbis Israel Miller and Samuel Belkin.

Here is a picture of R. Goren giving his shiur at YU. Maybe some readers were in attendance.

These pictures are found in the Israel State Archives here, and it is indicated in the file that credit should be given to Yeshiva University. No date is given for R. Goren’s visit, but in the Israel State Archives it indicates that the visit took place when R. Goren was Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv. While he was elected to this position in 1968, he only started serving in 1971. At the end of 1972 he was elected Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel. From this we would conclude that the visit took place in either 1971 or 1972. We can further pinpoint the date of the visit as the file in the Israel State Archives includes the envelope in which the pictures were sent to R. Goren, and it is postmarked May 24, 1972. We thus see that the visit was in the spring of 1972. I then did a Google search, and lo and behold, I found an article on R. Goren’s visit in the May 19, 1972 issue of the Indiana Jewish Post and Opinion.

With this information I went to the online archives of the YU Commentator, and in the May 17, 1972 issue (p. 8), I found a report of R. Goren’s visit. We see from it that R. Goren spoke at YU on May 3, 1972.