Hidden Treasures in Jewish Medical History at the British Library: A Post Cyber-Attack Homage

Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD

On October 28, 2023, the British Library (BL) fell victim to one of the worst cyber-attacks in British History.[1] Though its precious holdings thankfully remained physically unperturbed, access by scholars across the globe to the online catalog of its massive and formidable collection, some 170 million items, was disrupted. This incident shook the world’s bibliophiles to the core, and its impact on the academic community is both inestimable and ongoing. From a Jewish perspective, the BL houses one of the world’s greatest Judaica/Hebraica collections, and these unprecedented events remind us not to take for granted the value of this hallowed institution for Jewish scholarship. As of this writing, attempts to access the British Library’s Hebrew Collection online yielded the following results:[2]

In the light of this event, I feel compelled to share the lesser known, though not insignificant, contribution of the BL to the study of Jewish medical history. I explore some exceedingly rare and important items which reflect on the education of Jewish medical students in Early Modern Europe. Most are unica, found only in the BL, and all have previously escaped notice of Jewish medical historians.

I. Congratulatory Poems for Jewish Medical Graduates of the University of Padua

From the Middle Ages through much of the Early Modern period Jews were barred by Papal decree from medical training at European universities. The University of Padua in northern Italy was the first university to officially admit Jewish students for formal medical training, and its role in Jewish medical history has been well-studied. In the early seventeenth century there evolved a practice of writing congratulatory poetry for the Jewish medical graduates of the university. This poetry, which I have discussed previously in this blog,[3] appears in broadside, printed and manuscript form. The BL has unique examples in both broadside and manuscript.

A. Broadsides

The majority of the extant broadsides of this genre are found in the National Library of Israel and the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, but the BL’s collection is substantial and contains the very earliest known examples. The BL broadsides, which took me some years to locate, are found in three miscellaneous folders and are not itemized or described in the BL catalog. A scholar of Italian Jewish history[4] directed me to an old shadow NLI catalog, still accessible online until recently, that had skeletal information about a few of these poems in the BL, but no shelfmarks were noted.[5] The librarians of the BL were unaware of these broadsides. After some years, I incidentally came across a reference to a folder of miscellaneous Hebrew broadsides in the BL and hoped that the medical poems would be among them. With the assistance of a young scholar in London,[6] who manually investigated the files on my behalf, I was ultimately able to identify all the poems.

I have identified a total of 57 different printed congratulatory broadsides for Jewish Padua medical graduates, copies of some of which can be found in multiple libraries. The BL holds a total of fourteen different broadside medical poems, nine of which are not found elsewhere.[7] Some of the personalities who are either authors or recipients of these poems include Salomon Conegliano,[8] Isaac Hayyim Cantarini,[9] and Shmuel David Ottolenghi.[10]

While the earliest poem in the JTS Library is from 1643, and in the NLI from 1664, the BL holds two broadsides from the year 1625, the earliest known examples of this genre. Below is an example of one of the 1625 poems:

Year: 1625
Graduate: COLLI, Marchio di Salomon (Machir ben Shlomo)[11]
Author: KOHEN (Katz), Shabtai ben Meir

The following, also only found in the BL, is a rare example of a congratulatory medical broadside for which the author provides a cipher for his name.

Year: 1643
Graduate: BINGEN, Salomon di Abram (Shlomo ben Avraham)[12]
Author: Only the first name is provided, and even this is done through a cipher. No last name is provided.
Location: British Library[13]

Below is the cipher for author’s first name, which I invite the reader to decipher.[14]

(While I am aware of the answer for this cipher, there is another author’s cipher whose solution remains unknown:[15]

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.)

These early examples are important not only for assessing the beginnings and duration of the congratulatory medical broadsides but for evaluating their artistic elements as well. For example, there are stylistic aspects of the two earliest broadsides in the BL that are not found in any subsequent broadsides.[16]

B) Congratulatory Poems in Manuscript

I have identified dozens of congratulatory poems for Padua graduates that are found only in manuscript. Some are written as if templated for publication as a broadside. There is one manuscript congratulatory poem in the BL that solves a mystery which plagued the great Jewish scholar Meir Benayahu. In an article about a group of physician-poets in Early Modern Italy,[17] Benayahu published a transcription of a lengthy poem[18]written in honor of the graduation of Salomon Lustro from Padua in 1697.[19] Below are a few stanzas at the end of the poem as published by Benayahu.

Since the authorship is not explicit, Benayahu, through creative analysis of assumed allusions in the final lines, suggests Isaac Hayyim Cantarini as the likely author.

Unbeknownst to Benayahu, another manuscript copy of the same poem is found in the BL.[20] The same final verses appear below, though with a different layout:

There is also another key difference, an additional line.

The last line provides the name of the author, one Yitzḥak the son of Yedidia Zecharia meUrbino. As described in the introduction to the manuscript, after Urbino died, his son, Yedidia Binyamin, collected his father’s poetic writings into an untitled manuscript volume, now housed in the BL. This volume contains two poems for Lustro.

II. Training of Jewish Medical Students in the Netherlands and the Sloane Dissertation Collection

In the early to mid-seventeenth century, medical schools in the Netherlands began allowing Jewish medical students to matriculate. Scholars have explored this chapter of Jewish medical history.

Isaac Van Esso[21] and Hindle Hes[22] have produced lists of the Jewish physicians who trained and practiced in the Netherlands; Yosef Kaplan has written extensively about many of these physicians;[23] Manfred Komorowski has amassed an invaluable biobibliographical index of Jewish physicians in the 17^th-18^th centuries,[24] which includes those from the Netherlands; and Kenneth Collins has addressed the transition of the training of Jewish medical students from Padua to the Netherlands.[25]

The most famous of these Dutch medical schools was the University of Leiden. As opposed to Padua, Leiden routinely required the writing and presentation of dissertations as part of its curriculum. These dissertations are an invaluable source for the history of Jewish medical education, and while the aforementioned scholars have included them in their works to varying degrees, there is more to be learned from them.

Here I distinguish between two categories of dissertations, something not typically noted by Jewish medical historians. While some dissertations were written as part of curricular course work, much like today’s term paper, there was a separate requirement for every student to complete a comprehensive dissertation as a prerequisite for graduation. These graduation dissertations are invariably headlined with the specific phrase “Dissertatio (or Disputatio) Medica Inauguralis.” I shall refer to the non-graduation dissertations as curricular dissertations. The curricular dissertations where generally not preserved by the universities and were thought to be of less significance. Historians often are unaware of the distinction between the two.

This example is the graduation dissertation of Josephus Abarbanel, nephew of Menaseh ben Israel and cousin of Samuel ben Israel, who also trained at (but did not graduate from) Leiden.[26] Note the Jewish or Hebrew date for the year, 5415, something unique to the dissertations of Leiden Jewish graduates.

While the University of Leiden holds many of these dissertations, its collection is not complete. According to librarians and historians, with respect to student dissertations, there is a major gap, or “black hole” in the holdings of the Library of the University of Leiden for the years 1610-1654.[27] It is precisely this period that comprises the cradle of Dutch Jewish medical student training.

Fortunately, there is another major repository of Leiden dissertations, found ironically outside of the Netherlands, that partially fills this lacuna. The physician/scientist Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753) amassed an impressive collection of plants, minerals, anatomical specimens, printed works, and manuscripts, mostly relating to the fields of medicine and natural history. This collection now resides in the BL. Sloane’s printed book collection includes a large number of medical dissertations submitted at Dutch universities (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Harlingen, but primarily Leiden), in particular a magnificent set of Leiden medical dissertations covering the period of 1593-1746. There are 53 volumes all bound in white vellum, with each volume holding some 20 to 75 dissertations,[28] including exceedingly rare curricular dissertations. In 1997, Jaap Harskamp produced a comprehensive catalog of the dissertations in the British Library based on the Sloane collection.[29]

Many of these works found are not found in any of the major libraries or universities in the Netherlands. Among these handsome volumes we find the dissertations of the earliest Jewish students to study at Leiden, allowing us to gain a window into the nature of their training. Abarbanel’s dissertation pictured above is part of this collection.

Here I highlight the value of this collection for the study of Jewish medical history. In particular, two of the curricular dissertations, authored by Jewish medical students, have been previously overlooked. They both represent “firsts” in the field. We also explore the importance of this collection as an untapped resource for a Padua-esque practice in the Netherlands.

A) Benedict De Castro- the First Jewish Student to Matriculate at the University of Leiden and his Newly Discovered Dissertation

The de Castro Family is an illustrious Sephardic Jewish family of Spanish and Portuguese origin that produced many prominent physicians over the centuries.[30] After the onset of the Inquisition, members of the family emigrated to Bordeaux, Hamburg, and to cities in the Netherlands.

Rodrigo de Castro was a Portuguese physician who escaped the inquisition to Hamburg. He authored a landmark work on gynecology, De Universa Mulierum Medicina, and was held in great esteem by both the medical and Jewish communities. His youngest son was Benedict (also known as Benedictus a Castro, Baruch Nahmias or Benito).[31]

Benedict was a physician to nobles and royalty, including Christina, Queen of Sweden, to whom he dedicated a medical work in 1647.[32] Due to his success, he was the victim of attacks by Christian doctors and Lutheran clergy. One particularly virulent diatribe precipitated his publication of a pseudonymous polemical defense entitled Flagellum Calumniantium.[33] In this work, famous among the apologetic works of Jewish physicians, he counters the lies and slanders and enumerates the great achievements of Jewish physicians.

There is no consensus among scholars as to the medical education of de Castro, something we clarify here for the first time. Friedenwald simply assumes, not unreasonably, that he was a graduate of Padua, though he adds a question mark in the text.[34] Koren writes, “graduated in Leyden,”[35] while Komorowski[36] lists him as a graduate of the University of Franeker (Netherlands). Ruderman acknowledges that “it is not clear from what university he graduated.”[37]

There is no record of Benedict de Castro ever attending Padua, though his brother Daniel graduated in 1633.[38] The university records from this period are generally complete[39] and have also been specifically examined for Jewish graduates.[40]

On November 16, 1620, at the age of 23, we have record of Benedict matriculating to the University of Leiden Medical School,[41] making him the first Jewish student to attend this prestigious institution.

 

Our next record of Benedict’s medical training is a dissertation he composed in Leiden in 1621, which is part of the Sloane Collection at the BL.

This document has previously escaped notice of Jewish historians. Does this mean that Benedict graduated from Leiden? This dissertation is headlined as a “Disputatio Medica,” sans the word “inauguralis.” It is thus a rare curricular dissertation, confirming Benedict’s continued education at Leiden, though not his graduation. Its historical significance lies in the fact that it is both a dissertation of the first Jewish medical student to attend the University of Leiden (and possibly any Dutch university), as well as the earliest extant dissertation written by any Jewish medical student.

According to the Archivist at the University of Leiden, students had to re-enroll before the secretary every year. However, there are large gaps in these re-enrollment records for this period.[42] From this specific period, only the records of 1622 survived (the previous re-enrollment record is from 1607, and the next is from 1650). De Castro was indeed registered in February, 1622,[43] but there is no record of his ever graduating from Leiden.

There is however a record of Benedict’s matriculating and graduated from another Dutch institution, the University of Franeker.[44] He matriculated on August 3, 1624:

We have a record of his graduation just one month later, on September 3, 1624.[45] A copy of the original archival record of his graduation is below.

As opposed to today, when a student must attend a certain number of years in a university as a prerequisite to obtaining a degree, universities of this period, and in particular in the Netherlands, often gave exams and imprimatur to those who studied elsewhere, either formally or not, but passed the required examination demonstrating the required knowledge and competence.[46] It is thus not inconceivable that Benedict’s previous study at Leiden essentially prepared him for his graduation exams at Franeker. He would not be the only one to take this path. Some decades later, Isaac Rocamora, on the recommendation of Menaseh ben Israel, matriculated at the University of Franeker on March 29, 1647, and received his degree just two days later, on April 1, 1647.[47] Rocamora had also studied previously in Leiden. While we can conjecture as to the reason de Castro elected to complete his studies at Franeker, the basis for Rocamora’s decision is revealed in a letter by Gerhard Johann Voss to Anthony van der Linden, Rector at the University of Franeker, written at the behest of Menaseh ben Israel.[48] Below is a translation of the relevant section followed by a copy of the original letter:

Yesterday, Rabbi Menaseh ben Israel came to see me, accompanied by Isaac Rocamora, a Portuguese Jew. The latter has been studying medicine for the last two years and has made such progress that he is confident that his standard is such as to qualify him for the highest degree in the subject. Owing to his slender means, he prefers that Academy (i.e., University of Franeker) where the fees of graduation are least. This Rocamora has been warmly recommended to me by your friend, Menaseh…

I suspect de Castro’s motivation for transfer may have also been financially motivated.

De Castro was well respected in the Jewish community and at least one subsequent Leiden graduate, David Pina, dedicated his dissertation to him in 1678:

Pina highlights that de Castro served as physician to Queen Christina of Sweden.

B) David de Haro- The First Jewish Medical Graduate of the University of Leiden and his Newly Discovered Dissertation

While Benedict de Castro may have been the first Jewish medical student to attend Leiden, he did not have the distinction of being its first Jewish medical graduate. That would fall to David de Haro. I have elsewhere explored de Haro’s medical education and his challenges as a Jewish student at Leiden, unearthing some remarkable archival documents.[49] One of these documents is de Haro’s 1631 medical dissertation from Leiden.

As with de Castro, this is not de Haro’s graduation dissertation, or “Dissertatio Medico Inauguralis,” and was written for Professor Franco Burgersdijck’s course at the university. This dissertation is also housed in the BL,[50] though inexplicably not part of the Sloane collection. [51] De Haro graduated in 1633 as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden.

In March of 1637, shortly after de Haro’s untimely death, we find that his personal library was put up for auction, and a catalog of the holdings was published.[52] According to one scholar, this may be the first printed sales catalog of a book collection of a Jewish owner.[53] Among the offerings, which include medical and Hebrew religious works, we find a copy of Benedict de Castro’s apologetic work (see #23 in the list below)

De Haro’s library also contained a copy of Benedict’s father’s classic work, De Morbis Mulier.[54]

Below is a list of the Hebrew books of de Haro’s collection that were offered for auction, many of which would be found in a Jewish library today.

One of the offerings is of a somewhat medical nature, Shevilei Emunah (#12). This work, written by Meir ben Isaac Aldabi (1310–1360), the grandson of R. Asher ben Yeĥiel, is a compilation of theories in philosophy, theology, psychology, and medicine. The material was culled from the existing literature of that time,[55] as stated by Aldabi in his introduction, but unfortunately there are no references, for which R. Aldabi apologizes. Many rabbinic authorities throughout the centuries turned to this work as a reference for medical knowledge.

C) Congratulatory Poetry for Jewish Medical Graduates in the Netherlands

The congratulatory poetry for the Jewish medical graduates of Padua was most often published as broadsides. Though underappreciated for their medical historical value, these attractive ephemera of Hebrew poems, as well as broadsides of other kinds, have long been prized by collectors for their general Jewish historical and artistic value. As such, they are primarily found in Jewish libraries. Little-known to even those in the field of Early Modern Jewish poetry, the custom of writing congratulatory poetry for Jewish medical graduates continued in the Netherlands (17th-18th centuries) and Germany (18th-19th centuries). However, instead of being published as free-standing broadsides, the poems were appended to medical dissertations with less visibility and circulation. (Padua students were not required to complete graduation dissertations, necessitating the publication of the poems independently.) Furthermore, medical dissertations are not typically found in Jewish collections. While comprehensive treatment of this second chapter of congratulatory poetry remains a desideratum, the BL’s Sloane Dissertation Collection has some rare examples of these “hidden” poems. One example is below:

Graduate: Jehosua Worms (Leiden-1687)
Author: Shlomo (AKA Zalman) ben Yehuda Levi Pikart

There were later physicians named Worms, a father and son, Asher Anshel Worms and Simon Wolf Worms. Perhaps Joshua was the father of Asher Anshel, though I have as yet found no evidence of such. Asher Anshel wrote Seyag Le Torah, a masoretic commentary on the Torah. The work was published posthumously by his son Simon. It was circulated in manuscript prior to publication and was apparently plagiarized by Joseph Heilbronn,[56] a fact alluded to in the book’s introduction. Asher Anshel also wrote also wrote a commentary on the song from the Hagaddah, Chad Gadya,[57] as well as books on algebra and chess. Simon Wolf graduated Geissen in 1768 with a dissertation on the topic of the impurity of the male reproductive seed (tumat zera). This is one of the more unique dissertation topics of a Jewish student I have come across.[58]

III. A Correction to the BL Catalog

While acknowledging the BL’s immense contributions to Jewish scholarship, including Jewish medical history, I humbly submit one very minor correction which might possibly lead scholars to an erroneous conclusion. Above we briefly discuss David de Haro and identify him as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden, in 1633. However, perusal of the Sloan Leiden dissertation collection reveals an entry for a dissertation for Jahacobus de Paz from 1631.[59] This dissertation is not found in the University of Leiden Library.

Below is the catalog entry:

A careful analysis of the actual dissertation[60] below reveals that de Paz was Jewish, as he is identified as “Hebraeus,” and that this is a copy of his graduation dissertation, titled “Disputatio Medica Inauguralis.” Perhaps we were in error, and in fact de Paz is the first Jewish medical graduate of Leiden, completing his studies in 1631?[61]

Examination of both the cover and content of the dissertation provides an answer to this question. The bottom of the dissertation’s front cover, which typically lists the date, seems have been torn off the bottom of this copy. The BL catalog lists the publication date as 1631. This date is most certainly derived from the faint penciled numbers on the front cover to the right of the emblem:

How and when these numbers came to be written, and whether they were even meant to refer to the year of publication, I suspect we will never know. But a closer inspection of the dissertation contents reveals that the date of 1631 is decidedly in error. While not found ubiquitously in all of Leiden’s student dissertations, it was common for the students to include a dedication page. Dedicatees included mentors, family members, religious leaders and medical colleagues. Below is a copy of de Paz’s dedication page.

At the bottom of the list, we find the Jewish physicians Isaac Naar[62]  and Josephus Abrabanel (with the variant spelling, adding to the age-old debate, though Josephus himself spelled it Abarbanel).[63] Both Abrabanel, whose dissertation is pictured above, and Naar, graduated Leiden in 1655. Below is Naar’s dissertation:

Indeed, university records clearly list the graduation date of Jahacobus de Paz as July 4, 1658.[64] Here is a dissertation from the same year of another Jewish student, side by side with de Paz.

(Parenthetically, the students Abarbanel, Naar, Moreno, and likely de Paz used the Jewish version of the calendar year on the cover of their dissertations.) Thus, David de Haro still retains his distinction as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden.

Conclusion

We have shared just a few of the British Library’s treasures that relate to Jewish medical history. Our picture of the training of Jewish medical students in Early Modern Europe, from the earliest Italian congratulatory poems to the earliest Jewish medical dissertations in the Netherlands, would be wholly incomplete without the library’s contributions. Yet, this is but one epithelial cell to an entire human body with respect to the library’s broader impact.

While I will of course completely overlook the British Library’s trivial and largely inconsequential misdating of de Paz’s dissertation, it behooves us all not to overlook nor take for granted their outsized contribution to the Jewish community’s and the world’s knowledge and scholarship.

Surrounding Independence Day
by Aaron Ahrend

Dr. Aaron Ahrend, a senior lecturer in the Department of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University, has published many studies on Talmudic commentary and Jewish liturgy.

The ancients established a sign by which one could determine on which days certain holidays occur. The sign is based on the pairing of the letters Aleph and Tav (א”ת) and the days of the Passover holiday.[1] Thus is the sign: Aleph-Tav (א”ת) = the day of the week on which the first day of Passover falls is the same day that Tisha B’Av falls in that year. Bet-Shin (ב”ש) = on the day of the week on which the second day of Passover falls, Shavuot falls. Gimel-Resh (ג”ר) = on the day of the week on which the third day of Passover falls, Rosh Hashanah falls. Dalet-Kuf (ד”ק) = on the day of the week on which the fourth day of Passover falls, the reading of the Torah occurs, i.e., Simchat Torah outside of Israel on the second day of Shemini Atzeret. Hei-Tzadi (ה”צ) = on the day of the week on which the fifth day of Passover falls, the fast, Yom Kippur, falls. Vav-Peh (ו”פ) = on the day of the week on which the sixth day of Passover falls, Purim falls before it. The final sign, Zayin-Ayin (ז”ע), remains unresolved: there was no holiday whose name begins with the letter Ayin that fell on the day that the seventh day of Passover falls.

And behold, when the State of Israel was established, the sign was completed: Zayin-Ayin (ז”ע) = the day of the week on which the seventh day of Passover falls is the day on which Independence Day falls, namely the 5th of Iyar (when it is not postponed or deferred). The inclusion of Independence Day within the framework of the אתב”ש signs of the holidays serves as a kind of proof or hint of its status as one of Israel’s holidays. At the entrance of the Tunisian synagogue Or Torah in Acre, a beautiful artistic creation dedicated to Independence Day was established. It was painted blue, the prominent color in the flag of the State of Israel, and it features symbols of the country, the IDF emblem, the flag of Israel, the walls of Jerusalem, the Hatikvah anthem, the blessing Shehecheyanu, excerpts of prayers, and above all these – the seven signs of אתב”ש representing the integration of Independence Day within the framework of Israel’s holidays.

There exists a great similarity between the essence of the seventh day of Passover, when the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea while pursuing the Israelites upon their exodus from Egypt, and the essence of Independence Day: in both, there was a confrontation between the people of Israel and Egypt, and in it Israel prevailed despite having no chance of victory on its own against Egypt, with its organized army and sophisticated weapons.[2] Therefore, it was determined that the Haftarah of “Od Hayom” read abroad on the second day of the seventh day of Passover would be the Haftarah for Independence Day in the Land of Israel, as it is appropriate in content for this day.

Regarding the aforementioned sign, Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun added:[3]

Isn’t Zayin-Ayin (ז”ע) a heavenly hint? Didn’t the British Mandate truly end on Saturday, the 6th of Iyar, at midnight, and only because David Ben-Gurion and his colleagues decided to honor the Sabbath, they advanced the declaration of independence of the State of Israel to Friday, the 5th of Iyar, which corresponds to the seventh day of Passover. This alone provides a sufficient reason for all God-fearing individuals to truly celebrate Independence Day.

In other words, the declaration of independence of the state on Friday, the 5th of Iyar, which allows for the sign Zayin-Ayin (ז”ע), occurred solely due to the consent of the heads of state, who were not religious, to consider the Sabbath. This surprising and joyful consideration alone is sufficient reason to celebrate Independence Day.

* * *

Many devout Jews do not celebrate Independence Day at all and do not acknowledge to the Holy One, blessed be He, for the establishment of the State of Israel. In contrast, Zionist rabbis believe that thanks should be given to the Holy One, blessed be He, for the wonder and great miracle of the State’s existence, even though it is not particularly a religious state.[4]

For those who do not celebrate the establishment of the state and Independence Day, we bring here the words of Rabbi Shimon Deutsch (1814? – 1878), one of the important disciples of the Hatam Sofer. This sage had a strong connection and love for the land of Israel, and even ascended and resided in Jerusalem. In his book Imrei Shefer on Tractate Berakhot, he discusses the Mishnah (54a): “One who sees a place where miracles were performed for Israel says: Blessed is He who performed miracles for our ancestors in this place.” Rabbi Deutsch asks why the Mishnah uses the plural form: “where miracles were performed,” when even a person who sees a place where only one miracle was performed for our ancestors should bless with this blessing? He answers: Sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miracle for a person, but the one experiencing the miracle does not recognize his miracle. Therefore, it is said: “You give to those who fear You a banner to rally to” (Psalms 60:6), meaning, giving a person a miracle that he recognizes as a miracle. In other words: He will have the miracle that he recognizes and acknowledges to the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, when a person blesses for any miracle, there are here two miracles, since recognizing the miracle is considered an additional miracle. In light of this, it is understood why even for one miracle, the Mishnah uses the word ‘miracles’ in the plural form.

On Independence Day every year, we are obligated to thank the Holy One, blessed be He, for many miracles: the establishment of the State of Israel, the victory in the War of Independence of the few against the many, the ingathering of exiles, the development of the Torah world, and the country’s progress in many areas. Many have described the numerous achievements of the State of Israel over the years. Here is an excerpt from the words of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his unique formulation:

Israel has done extraordinary things. It has absorbed immigrants from 103 countries, speaking 82 languages. It has turned a desolate landscape into a place of forests and fields. It has developed cutting-edge agricultural and medical techniques and created one of the world’s most advanced high-tech economies. It has produced great poets and novelists, artists and sculptors, symphony orchestras, universities and research institutes. It has presided over the rebirth of the great Talmudic academies destroyed in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust. Wherever there is a humanitarian disaster in the world, Israel is often the first to offer aid and the most efficient in doing so — if only allowed to. It has shared its technologies with other developing countries.[5]

* * *

Following the war that broke out during Simchat Torah this year, synagogues began to increase prayers for the well-being of IDF soldiers, the wounded, and the captives, more than usual.[6] Even artists expressed their opinions on these prayers and designed them in unique forms, two examples of which are presented here.

The company A La Mode from Modi’in designed the Mi Sheberach prayer for IDF soldiers and the prayer for the peace of the State of Israel written on glass perspex within a frame creating the shape of the map of Israel.[7]

The artist Kalman Gavriel from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem focused on the soldier. He painted a soldier seen from his back, praying and wrapped in a blue tallit, resembling the flag of the country. The figure of the soldier is composed of words: in the center of the tallit is the Mi Sheberach prayer for the soldiers, at the hem are fitting verses from Psalms: “The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in, from now and to eternity” (Psalms 121:8), “I will lie down and sleep in peace, for You alone, Lord, make me dwell securely” (Psalms 4:9), and the phrase “He who believes does not fear”; the soldier’s pants and boots are formed from the verse speaking of walking: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me” (Psalms 23:4); on the sides of the soldier there is a sort of “border” composed of symbols of the combat units of the IDF; at the bottom, planes are drawn, a soldier hangs a flag symbolizing the victory in the War of Independence, and three soldiers gaze upward symbolizing the victory in the Six-Day War.

Notes:

[This article is a translation of Aaron Ahrend, “Surrounding Independence Day,” Daf Shvui (Bar-Ilan University), no. 1568: Parashat Kedoshim (11 May 2024): 3-4 (Hebrew).]

[1] Rashi to Arakhin 9b s.v. Sheneihem; Rabbi Simcha Vitry, Machzor Vitry II, 581 (Hebrew).
[2] Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, “Allusions and Derashot on Yom Haatzmaut,” in Aaron Ahrend, Israel’s Independence Day: Research Studies (Jerusalem: Office of the Campus Rabbi of Bar-Ilan University, 1998), 244-252 (Hebrew).
[3] Yoel Bin-Nun, Nes Kibbutz Galuyot (Jerusalem, 2011), 86 (Hebrew).
[4] Aaron Ahrend, Israel’s Independence Day: Research Studies (Jerusalem: Office of the Campus Rabbi of Bar-Ilan University, 1998), 13-19, 38-41 (Hebrew).
[5] Jonathan Sacks, Future Tense (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2021), 141 (Hebrew). In another context, he raises an interesting point: “I seriously suspect that if Herzl were to rise today for the resurrection, he would recite the Shehecheyanu blessing and also say Al HaNissim. For even he did not envision anything as impressive as the State of Israel today.” See Jonathan Sacks, “Interview with Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch,” in Nahum Rabinovitch, Mesilot Bilvavam (Maaleh Adumim, Israel: Hotsaʼat Maʻaliyot, 2015), 505 (Hebrew).
[6] Even in the Hasidic world, which does not typically pray for the well-being of soldiers, additional prayers were added as a result of the war. See Levi Cooper, “Hasidim Praying for Soldiers,” in Aviad Hacohen and Menachem Butler, eds., Praying for the Defenders of Our Destiny: The Mi Sheberach for IDF Soldiers (Cambridge, MA: The Institute for Jewish Research and Publications, 2023), 173-197.
[7] In Kehillat Ahavat Tzion in Ramat Beit Shemesh Aleph, members acquired the artwork of the Mi Sheberach prayer for soldiers and placed it on a wall in the synagogue, thereby expressing solidarity with praying families whose children were drafted into the war.

Abraham Rosenberg, R. Chaim Heller, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on Conversion, Abortion, Mercy Killings, and new pictures and videos of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

Marc B. Shapiro

1. In my post here I discussed the enigmatic plagiarizer Abraham Rosenberg. As we saw, in 1923 and 1924 Rosenberg published articles on the Jerusalem Talmud in the Orthodox journal Jeschurun, and he later published Al Devar Tikunei Nushaot bi-Yerushalmi. In this last work, Rosenberg refers to R. Chaim Heller as his friend. I and so many others assumed that “Rosenberg” was a pseudonym, but Moshe Dembitzer, the expert on everything related to R. Heller, has pointed out to me that this appears not to be the case. Here is a letter Dembitzer found in the JDC archives from R. Heller to Cyrus Adler. As you can see, R. Heller mentions A. Rosenberg—the letter that is unclear must be an “A”—and one of his essays on the Jerusalem Talmud. He also mentions that Rosenberg “is considered only one of the ordinary students.”

Dembitzer also found another connection between R. Heller and Rosenberg. Here is a note from R. Charles B. Chavel’s edition of Hizkuni’s commentary on the Torah, p. 525.

Here is Rosenberg’s Al Devar Tikunei Nushaot bi-Yerushalmi, p. 102, where he cites the same explanation that Chavel cited in the name of R. Heller (but Rosenberg takes credit for it himself).

Regarding the plagiarisms of Rosenberg, I must also thank Gershon Klapper who alerted me to other examples. He wrote to me:

Rosenberg’s first article (לחקר תלמוד הירושלמי) opens אין מן הצורך לשנות את הידוע כי תלמוד הבבלי שנחתם לא זזה ידם של חכמי ישראל ממנו, very similar to how R. Heller’s ע”ד מסורת הש”ס בירושלמי begins, אין מן הצורך לשנות את הידוע כי תלמוד הירושלמי הוא עדין כשדה שאין עובד בו. But the next part of his introduction to that article is taken, slightly rearranged, from Steinschneider’s ספרות ישראל vol. 2, p. 103 (it reappears at the beginning of ע”ד תקוני נוסחאות בירושלמי, which includes most of this article’s content), as is the line beginning פעולתם של הגאונים. He does paraphrase some other language from R. Heller in the introduction, but again it isn’t word-for-word.

His second article (פסוקי המקרא שבתלמוד) opens

כי חכמי התלמוד היו בקיאים בכל ספרי התנ”ך עד להפליא, – דבר זה ידוע לכל מי שלמד גמרא, ואפילו למי שהצליף בה סקירה שטחית. כמעט מכל דף ודף שבתלמוד נראה, כי פסוקי התנ”ך, ואפילו המקראות “האובדים והנדחים” שברשימות השמות בעזרא ובדברי הימים היו שגורים על פי התנאים והאמוראים בתכלית הדיוק. בעלי התוספות (ב”ב ד’ קי”ג בד”ה תרוייהו) לא חששו להחליט, שהאמוראים פעמים שלא היו בקיאים בפסוקים. אבל כבר הודו שם בעלי התוס’ עצמם שאין החלטה זו מוכרחת וכמו שכתב הרשב”ם שם. וגם הראיה שהביאו מדברי ר’ חייא בר אבא, שאינו יודע אם נאמר בי’ הדברות טוב או לא (ב”ק נה.) אינה מוכרחת שהרי ברור הדבר, כי דברי רחב”א, אינם אלא דברי בדיחותא, כדי לדחות את השואל.

Almost every word of this comes from an article of the same title by Yisrael Chaim Tawiow which appeared in HaShiloach 29 (July-Dec. 1913). The rest of the second article is taken from Baer Ratner, סדר עולם רבא pp. 103ff. and Samuel Rosenfeld, משפחת סופרים pp. 98, 100, 105, etc.

Klapper also called my attention to Rosenberg’s plagiarism of part of a paragraph in R. Heller’s article that appears in Le-David Zvi (David Zvi Hoffmann Jubilee Volume, Hebrew section). Compare p. 56 there with Rosenberg, Al Devar Tikunei Nushaot bi-Yerushalmi, p. 11. As Klapper notes, it is quite ironic that Rosenberg leaves out the following sentence from R. Heller that occurs in the middle of the passage he plagiarizes:

ויש שיועיל לנו הציון לברוח מן העבירה ולעשות מצוה לאמר דבר בשם אומרו

While on the topic of R. Chaim Heller, first let me share this wonderful picture from R. Ahron Soloveichik’s wedding in which one can see the Rav, R. Heller and R. Yaakov Kamenetsky. As far as I know, this picture has never appeared online. I thank Yoel Hirsch for providing me with the picture.

From R. Kamenetsky’s recently published Emet le-Yaakov al Nakh, vol. 1, p. 185 n. 2, we learn that in 1937 R. Kamenetsky visited Boston to discuss with R. Soloveitchik opening a yeshiva together.

In 1924 R. Heller published his study of the Samaritan version of the Torah, Ha-Nusah ha-Shomroni shel ha-Torah (Berlin, 1924). In 1972 Makor, which published so many valuable reprints of old seforim, decided to also reprint R. Heller’s Ha-Nusah ha-Shomroni. The problem was that R. Heller had an heir, and she was the only one with the legal right to reprint his books. This led to the following letters sent by Miriam Heller’s attorney (the letters are found in the Israel State Archives, 14924/3, available here [before the recent cyber attack on the archives], pp. 35ff.). From these letters, we learn that there were other unauthorized reprints of R. Heller’s works.

One final point about R. Heller is the following: In 1912 he was appointed rav of the city of Lomza. Here is a report on his appointment from the newspaper Ha-Mitzpeh, March 29, 1912.

The writer is simply amazed that a Polish city, full of Hasidim, would hire as its rav a “Rabbi Dr.” Of course, R. Heller was a very unique “Rabbi Dr.”

2. Because I discussed conversion in the last post, I would like to call attention to R. Yoel Amital’s discovery of how R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s view on the matter has been presented.[1] The issue R. Amital focuses on is whether a conversion for someone who does not observe mitzvot takes effect. I am referring to one who tells the beit din at the time of conversion that he accepts the mitzvot, but we see later that this was not the case.

In his letter in R. Zvi Cohen’s Tevilat Kelim (1975), R. Auerbach is clear that ex post facto such a conversion is still valid.

The crucial words are:

בכגון דא נלענ”ד שכל המסייעים לגירות כזו, אף שבדיעבד הם גרים גמורים, אפי”ה המגיירים אותם עוברים בלאו של לפני עור וגו’

According to R. Auerbach, because be-diavad such converts are Jewish, to convert them is a violation of lifnei iver. As R. Auerbach explains, before conversion, these people could work on Shabbat and eat non-kosher, but now that they are Jewish they are forbidden to do so. By converting people who will be committing these and other sins, the beit din has violated the prohibition of lifnei iver.

As R. Amital shows, in subsequent printings of R. Cohen’s book, R. Auerbach’s letter is printed with a significant addition (here underlined):

בכגון דא נלענ”ד שכל המסייעים לגירות כזו, אף שהם טועים לחשוב שבדיעבד הם גרים גמורים, אפי”ה המגיירים אותם עוברים בלאו של לפני עור וגו’

And

בכגון דא נלענ”ד שכל המסייעים לגירות כזו, אף אם הם טועים לחשוב שבדיעבד הם גרים גמורים, אפי”ה המגיירים אותם עוברים בלאו של לפני עור וגו’

When this letter was printed in R. Auerbach’s Minhat Shlomo, vol. 1, no. 35:3, the wording was altered further:

בכגון דא נלענ”ד שכל המסייעים לגירות כזו, אף דהם טועים לחשוב שהם גרים גמורים, אפי”ה גם לשטתם המגיירים אותם עוברים בלאו של לפני עור וגו’

In Ha-Ma’yan 56 (Nisan 5776), p. 89, in response to R. Amital’s article, R. Aharon Goldberg, a grandson of R. Shlomo Zalman, published a picture of R. Auerbach’s original letter. The wording is identical to what appears in the first edition of R. Cohen’s book. So how to explain the later additions? R. Goldberg states that it is possible that the later changes were made with the consent of R. Auerbach. Although there is no evidence of this, I find it unlikely that R. Cohen would have altered R. Auerbach’s letter while R. Auerbach was still alive. A general rule of censorship and alteration of texts is that it is done after the author is no longer alive.

Leaving aside the updated version of the letter, there is still a problem that R. Amital confronts. According to R. Auerbach’s original letter, those who convert but do not become religious, their conversion is still valid. However, R. Auerbach also signed a public letter together with the Steipler, R. Shakh, and R. Elyashiv, which states that such a conversion has no validity. So which is it?

R. Mordechai Halpern has shown that R. Auerbach sometimes presented a “public” halakhah that was stricter than his true opinion, but which for some reason he did not wish to publicize.[2] R. Amital suggests that in this case we have a similar example where R. Auerbach publicly advocated a “strict” position regarding conversion that was not in line with his true opinion. (I put “strict” in quotes because while this position is strict in not regarding a conversion as valid, it is also “lenient” in that it tells someone who converted and did not intend to become religious that she can leave her husband without a get, does not need to fast on Yom Kippur, etc.)

R. Amital also claims, implausibly in my opinion, that the public letter R. Auerbach signed does not really stand in contradiction to the letter he sent to R. Cohen. How so? The public letter speaks of people who convert without accepting to observe mitzvot, while R. Auerbach in his letter to R. Cohen is referring to people who in front of the beit din do accept to observe mitzvot, but in their inner heart do not really have such an intention.

Contrary to R. Amital, this is clearly not what the public letter means. It is referring to people who converted in a beit din, but never intended to follow halakhah. It is simply impossible to read this public letter as referring to, in the words of R. Amital: גרים שלא קיבלו עליהם כלל בבית דין לקיים תורה ומצוות. There is no beit din in the world that does not require converts to accept Torah observance. The issue the letter was addressing is converts who, despite their verbal acceptance of mitzvot, do not follow through in practice. According to the letter, such a conversion is not valid. This is so obvious that one wonders how R. Amital could have ever offered his suggestion to explain the contradiction.

R. Halpern himself notes that he knows that R. Auerbach never backed away from his earlier position, as seen in his letter to R. Cohen, that someone who was converted by a proper beit din, but did not intend to observe mitzvot, ex post facto the conversion is still valid. Yet he states that R. Auerbach later concluded that this liberal approach should not be publicized.[3]

Even with the initial two “corrected” versions of R. Auerbach’s letter, R. Auerbach mentions that rabbis who convert people who have no intention of observing Torah violate the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. R. Auerbach states that until now the person converting violated Shabbat and ate non-kosher food and these were not sins. But now, after the conversion, he is violating the Torah. R. Auerbach concludes his letter as follows:

נמצא שכל המגיירים והמסייעים לכך הו”ל כגדול המחטיאו, ועוברים בלאו של ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול

The implication of this is that ex post facto the conversion is indeed valid, as otherwise there would be no sin committed by the convert and there would be no issue of putting a stumbling block before the blind. In the words of R. Yisrael Rozen:[4]

למדנו מדבריו שהגירות חלה, דאי לאו הכי אין כאן מכשול, שהרי נשאר בגיותו

In fact, we find many poskim who say that we should not convert people who do not intend on observing mitzvot, because then they will be punished for their sins. This shows that these poskim regard a conversion without intent to observe mitzvot as valid ex post facto. In a previous post here I cited a number of examples of this, and here is one more.

R. Raphael Shapiro, Torat Refael, vol. 3, no. 42, has a short responsum about whether to convert a woman who will not be observant. It was sent to R. Mordechai Klatchko of Volozhin, who would later come to the U.S. and serve as a rav in Boston.[5] R. Klatchko was clearly a fine talmid hakham, as can be seen from the two volumes of his Tekhelet Mordekhai. R. Klatchko wrote to R. Shapiro arguing that the woman should be converted even if she was not going to be observant so that her intended husband (or perhaps current husband) could fulfill the mitzvah of procreation (which he could not do if his children would not be halakhically Jewish). R. Shapiro disagrees and states that it is forbidden to convert her, as she will certainly not observe the niddah laws, and this will cause them both to violate a Torah prohibition.

What is important for our purposes is that both R. Klatchko and R. Shapiro assume that one who converts without intending to observe Jewish law is regarded as a valid convert. As long as the person goes through a halakhically proper conversion ceremony, that is what activates the conversion. It is hard for people today to understand how R. Shapiro never even raises the possibility that a conversion is invalid if the person converting intends to routinely violate fundamental Jewish laws by living an irreligious lifestyle. But as can be seen in so many different examples, a widespread view in prior generations—I don’t know if it was the majority view or not—was that as long as the conversion is carried out properly, what happens later, and what is in the convert’s heart at the time of the conversion ceremony, have no legal significance.[6]

Here is one further example of this approach, Be-Mar’eh ha-Bazak, vol. 4, no. 96.[7]

As you can see, the approach of Kollel Eretz Hemdah is that there is no possibility of voiding a conversion carried out by a proper beit din, even if the people converting had no intention of observing mitzvot. At the beginning of the volume, it states that the responsa were reviewed by R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, R. Nachum Rabinovitch, and R. Yisrael Rozen, all significant figures in their own right.

Finally, it is also worth noting that no less a figure than R. Isaac Jacob Weiss refused to void a conversion even though the woman who converted never observed mitzvot. See Minhat Yitzhak, vol. 1, nos. 121-123.

I have a good deal more to say about conversion, but in the interest of space, let me just call attention to a couple of interesting things I recently saw. The first is that R. Moses Sofer states that non-Jews are rewarded in this world if they convert to Judaism.[8] I do not know of anyone else who says that there is a divinely ordained reward for one who converts.

The second interesting discussion about conversion I recently saw is R. Aviad Sar Shalom Basilea, Emunat Hakhamim, ch. 24 (pp. 264-265 in the Jerusalem, 2016 edition). Adopting the type of anachronistic explanation that some commentators have been fond of, R. Basilea assumes that Mahlon converted Ruth and married her with huppah and kiddushin. But this creates a problem, because if Ruth was Jewish, why did Naomi push her away? R. Basilea offers a possible answer: Naomi held like the Rif and the Rambam that since Ruth’s immersion in the mikveh was not before three men, it was invalid even be-diavad. However, Mahlon held like the other poskim that be-diavad, tevilah by oneself if valid.

והנה נעמי היתה סוברת כרי”ף והרמב”ם שאפילו בדיעבד אינה גיורת ולכן השתדלה להרחיקה, ומחלון היה סבור כאותם הפוסקים הסוברים כי גיורת גמורה היתה ולכן נשאה

Does anyone, even from the most traditional communities, still offer explanations along these lines? Here is what R. Shimon Shkop wrote in a different context, and you can see that he was not a fan of this type of explanation.[9]

ודבר זה מביא לידי גיחוך, כעין הפלפולים אם פרעה היה סובר שעבודא דאורייתא

Some time ago I was looking at Abba Appelbaum’s book Rabbi Azariah Figo (Drohobycz, 1907), and he offers the following examples of anachronistic explanations (p. 54):[10]

R. Gershon Ashkenazi (1618-1693), one of the greatest halakhists of his day, also wrote a work of homiletics, Tiferet ha-Gershuni. In his derashah for parashat Mas’ei (p. 236 in the 2009 edition) he portrays the daughters of Zelophehad as arguing from halakhic logic.

In his derashah for parashat Va-Yera (p. 48), in discussing the descendants of Ishmael, R. Ashkenazi suggests that they held that the law of ketubah is rabbinic.

אם כן בני ישמעאל היו סבורים כתובה מדרבנן

Appelbaum also calls attention to R. Meir Schiff’s elaboration at the end of his commentary to Bava Kamma (found in the Vilna Shas). He portrays the incident of Esau selling his firstborn status from a halakhic angle. As such, Jacob’s thoughts were no different than those of a later halakhic scholar:

ונסתפק יעקב באומרו כיום מחמת שני דברים, שגריעותא דבכורה מחמת דבר שלא בא לעולם ומחמת אונאה . . . ויעקב נתיירא או למד הפשט כרש”י ולזה אמר ויאמר השבע לי כמ”ש בח”מ סי ר”ט ס”ד בהגה”ה

Another example, not mentioned by Applebaum, is R. Samuel Edels (Maharsha) in his aggadic commentary to Sanhedrin 57b. R. Edels wonders why Pharoah commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill the newborn Hebrew children, as it would have made much more sense to have Egyptian midwives do this. He explains that the children were to be killed before birth and for non-Jews this would be regarded as murder, which Pharoah wanted to avoid.[11] He thus turned to Hebrew midwives as for them it is not murder to kill an unborn child.

Quite apart from the far-fetched nature of the explanation, as well as its assumption that even before the giving of the Torah the Israelites were bound by Jewish law, not Noahide law, I don’t think any reader of the biblical story would find it reasonable that Pharoah was concerned about anyone violating the commandment against murder. However, the passage is also of interest in seeing how Maharsha regarded the prohibition against abortion.[12] He even portrays Pharoah as thinking that there is no prohibition for Jews to abort a fetus, including right before birth.

דודאי פרעה לא שאל מהם להרוג הזכרים בידים דבן נח מוזהר על שפיכות דמים ולכך לא אמר כן למילדות המצריות שהוזהרו על שפיכות דמים אפילו בעוברים אבל למילדות העבריות אמר שהותר לכם להרוג עובר במעי אמו וראיתם על האבנים קודם שיצא לאויר העולם אם בן הוא וגו’ וכיון שאי אפשר בהם לפטור משפיכות דמים רק בתחילת יציאת הולד קודם שיצא ראשו או רובו הוצרך לתת להם סימנין כמו שכתוב בפרק קמא דסוטה [יא ע”ב]

There has been a good deal of discussion as to how to understand the Maharsha’s words שהותר לכם. Some assume that he meant that Pharoah was in error in thinking that there is no prohibition for Jews to abort a fetus.[13] It is also possible to explain that the prohibition against abortion for Jews is only rabbinic,[14] so at that period of time there was no prohibition. R. Yaakov Farbstein states flatly:[15]

ומבואר במהרש”א דאין איסור לישראל בהריגת העוברים

This notion, that the Maharsha is saying that there is no prohibition for Jews to abort a fetus, is not in line with the overwhelming majority view beginning with the rishonim. However, in one Tosafot, Niddah 44a-b, s.v. ihu, it does state that abortion is permitted for Jews, and it does not mention that there needs to be a good reason for this or provide a timeline after which abortion is not allowed.

וא”ת אם תמצי לומר דמותר להורגו בבטן . . . וי”ל דמכל מקום משום פקוח נפש מחללין עליו את השבת אף ע”ג דמותר להרגו

Pretty much every halakhist who deals with abortion struggles with this Tosafot, as they have found it very hard to accept that any rishon could permit abortion without restrictions. One approach offered is that Tosafot is saying that there is no Torah prohibition, but there would still be a rabbinic prohibition.[16]

R. Moshe Feinstein, in his classic responsum on abortion, claims that there is a mistake in Tosafot, and instead of the two appearances of דמותר it should instead say דפטור ההורגו in both places.[17] This is in line with the phenomenon I have discussed on a few occasions, where R. Moshe is prepared to deny the authenticity of problematic texts. R. Eliezer Waldenberg offered a strong rejoinder to R. Moshe.[18]

והנה עם כל הכבוד, לא אדוני, לא זו הדרך, וחיים אנו עפ”ד גאוני הדורות, והמה טרחו כל אחד ואחד לפי דרכו לבאר ולהעמיד כוונת דברי התוס’ בנדה וליישבם, ואף אחד מהם לא עלה על דעתו הדרך הקלה והפשוטה ביותר לומר שיש ט”ס בדברי התוס’ ובמקום מותר צריך להיות אסור [צ”ל פטור]

While no other authorities agree with R. Moshe that the Tosafot contains a mistaken text, many regard the language of Tosafot as not exact.[19]

Returning to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, I know of another example where he did not want a view of his to be widely shared. R. Amit Kula discusses R. Avigdor Nebenzahl’s argument that according to a variety of sources one who is suffering greatly is allowed to commit suicide. He further adds that it would be permitted to kill another in this circumstance (active euthanasia), for if you are allowed to kill yourself for a good purpose, you can do it to another as well. R. Nebenzahl adds that some of what he says comes from R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. He also quotes R. Auerbach that one can take medicine to reduce pain even if it will shorten one’s life.[20]

This information, which appeared in the first edition of R. Nebenzahl’s Be-Yitzhak Yikare, is not found in subsequent editions. R. Kula tells us that in these editions R. Nebenzahl inserted a note that the section was removed at the instruction of an unnamed scholar, and R. Mordechai Halpern quotes R. Nebenzahl that this scholar was none other than R. Auerbach.[21]

I find this of interest because if there is one thing that everyone knows, it is that Judaism does not allow active euthanasia (mercy killing). As is usually the case, matters are more complicated as has recently been shown by R. Yitzchak Roness in an article in Ha-Ma’yan.[22] He notes that R. Moshe Sternbuch does not believe that there is any prohibition for non-Jews to engage in mercy killing, since it is carried out for a good purpose. R. Yitzhak Zilberstein also inclines towards this position, and R. Moshe Feinstein suggests this as well, writing:[23]

אפשר שבן נח אינו אסור ברציחה שהוא לטובת הנרצח ושאני בזה האיסור לישראל מהאיסור לבן נח

R. Moshe and others specifically have in mind a non-Jew engaging in mercy killing of a Jew. The proof brought is the famous story of the death of R. Hanina ben Teradyon (Avodah Zarah 18a) where R. Hanina permits the executioner to raise the flame and remove the wool from his heart, thus actively hastening his death. R. Shaul Yisraeli goes the furthest, and for someone suffering greatly, and near death, he thinks that active euthanasia is permitted even if performed by a Jew.

R. Roness then notes that there is a dispute if one suffering great pain is allowed to commit suicide. For the side that permits this, R. Zilberstein adds that if it is permitted for the suffering individual, it will also be permitted for another to assist (active euthanasia). R. Roness also cites R. Hershel Schachter who states that active euthanasia, with the agreement of the patient, is not to be regarded as murder. He even suggests that for one suffering greatly, active euthanasia should be permitted:[24]

ההורג את חברו ברשותו יש לומר דאין בו לאו דרציחה אלא רק לאו דאך את דמכם, דלא גרע הורג חברו ברשותו מההורג את עצמו . . . ולמנוע א”ע מלסבול ייסורים דינו כפקו”נ, וכמשמעות התוס’ הנ”ל. ואם באמת כ”ה גדר היתר זה, א”כ אף בחולה הסובל יסורים קשים ומתחנן לאחרים ליטול את נפשו, אם נאמר כנ”ל, דבכה”ג אין לומר דבטלה דעתו וכו’, ג”כ הי’ צ”ל מותר מטעם פקו”נ ועיין בזה

And finally, here is what R. Chaim Kanievsky responded when asked if a Jewish patient near death could allow a non-Jew to end his life. R. Chaim does not say this is murder. On the contrary, he is inclined to permit it.[25]

אם שוהה אדם בבית חולים דעכו”ם ויש לו יסורים רבים במחלתו האנושה, ורוצה הרופא לחסוך לו היסורים ולקרב מותו ושואל ממנו רשות, האם מותר לו להסכים לזאת. והשיב רבנו שליט”א “יתכן שיש ללמוד זה ממעשה דרחב”ת” . . . והיאך הסכים רחב”ת שהעכו”ם יקרב מותו, והשיב רבנו: “איפה שהחולה מרגיש שזה טובתו יתכן שמותר כמו שמותר להתפלל עליו שימות.”

My question is, how come the “liberal” views I have mentioned are not better known?

7. In my last post here I included the first-ever color pictures of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg. These went around the world very quickly, and as is the nature of the internet, where the pictures came from was soon forgotten. In fact, within 24 hours someone who does not read the Seforim Blog sent them to me as a great new discovery. When I told him that I am the one who published the pictures he was at first incredulous, stating that he just got them from his cousin.

Here are two more pictures of R. Weinberg that he sent to his family. They are from before World War II when he was still in Germany. In the picture where he is lying the ground, I do not know who the couple next to R. Weinberg is.[26]

 

And for an extra treat, here are the only known videos of R. Weinberg, and one of them is in color. I thank Noam Cohn for putting this together, at my request, from his family’s collection. The first part has R. Weinberg with R. Arthur Ephraim Weil, the rav of Basel, and R. Leo Adler who succeeded Weil as rav of Basel in 1956. The second video, in which you can see R. Weinberg in color together with R. Samuel Brom, the rav of Lucerne, is from winter 1958-1959 at the Silberhorn kosher hotel in Grindelwald. The hotel had just inaugurated its new mikveh, and it was important to the family who owned the hotel that R. Weinberg give his approval to the mikveh.[27] At 1:12 and 3:20 you can also see the famed educator and student of R. Weinberg, Dr. Gabriel H. Cohn. Here is a picture from the event and you can see R. Brom and Dr. Cohn standing next to R. Weinberg.

Regarding R. Adler, before coming to Basel he studied ten years at the Mir Yeshiva, including in Shanghai. After the war he was in New York where he taught Torah at Yeshiva University.[28]

8. In my last post here I had the following quiz questions.

Please identify the following and email me your answers:

1. There are two se’ifim in the Shulhan Arukh that only contain two words.

2. There is one siman in the Shulhan Arukh whose number is the gematria of the subject of the siman.

The answer to no. 1 is Yoreh Deah 65:6: נוהג בכוי, and Even ha-Ezer 126:42: מותרת בויו

The answer to no. 2 is Orah Hayyim no. 586. This is the laws of shofar, and the gematria of shofar is 586. This was noted by R. Jacob Emden and I mentioned this in my article “‘Truth’ and Authorial Intent in the Study of Torah,” available here.

A number of people provided the correct answers for no. 1 and no. 2, but no one got both of my intended answers. However, Moshe Schwartz got no. 2 right with a different answer than I was thinking of (meaning he answered both questions correctly). He noted that Yoreh Deah 107 speaks about cooking eggs, and the gematria of ביצה is 107.[29] Also, shortly before this post was completed, Sol Reich provided another example: Yoreh Deah 334 is about הלכות נידוי וחרם and the gematria of נידוי וחרם is 334.

9. Information about my summer tours with Torah in Motion to Central Europe and Spain is available here.

* * * * * * *

[1] “Ha-Im Giyuram shel Gerim she-Einam Shomrim Mizvot Hal Be-Diavad? Berur Da’at ha-Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZTL,” Ha-Ma’yan 56 (Tishrei 5776), pp. 43-46.
[2] Halpern, Refuah, Metziut ve-Halakhah (Jerusalem, 2011), pp. 35ff.
[3] Amital, “Ha-Im Giyuram,” p. 45.
[4] Ve-Ohev Ger (Alon Shvut, 2010), p. 161 n. 1.
[5] See R. Hayyim Fischel Epstein, Teshuvah Shelemah, vol. 2, Even ha-Ezer, nos. 29-30, and R. Elijah Klatzkin, Hibbat ha-Kodesh, no. 11, where they respond to R. Klatchko’s question about a get written in Roxbury (a neighborhood in Boston), but the get only mentioned “Boston”. This is mentioned by Hayyim Karlinsky, Rabbi Hayyim Fischel Epstein (New York, 1963), pp. 26-27.

This R. Klatchko should not be confused with an earlier R. Mordechai Klatchko of Lida who also wrote a book titled Tekhelet Mordekhai. It is noteworthy that R. Klatchko of Lida wrote a lengthy haskamah for the Mishnah Berurah. Regarding R. Klatchko of Lida, see here.[6] For another example, see R. Dov Cohen, Va-Yelkhu Sheneihem Yahdav (Jerusalem, 2009), pp. 333-334. Here R. Cohen describes how, at the direction of R. Isser Yehudah Unterman, he converted a woman intent on marrying a completely irreligious Jew. This is the sort of conversion that today would not be allowed in Israel or in any of the batei din recognized by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. See also R. Avraham Shapiro, Kuntres Aharon in his edition of R. Isaac Jacob Rabinowitz, Zekher Yitzhak (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 396, who suggests that according to Maimonides, when it comes to conversion and acceptance of mitzvot,  כיון שקבל בפה אין דבריו שבלב דברים.

For a convert who is not observant, there is one halakhic consequence, at least according to many authorities: When they divorce the get should not say ben (or bat) Avraham avinu, but ploni ha-ger. See R. Shimon Yakobi, Bitul Giyur Ekev Hoser Kenut be-Kabbalat ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem, 2009), pp. 103ff. (This is an official publication of the Israel rabbinical courts.) See also ibid., p. 105, for the shocking statistic that from 1996-2008, 97% of converts who divorced in the State of Israel were irreligious. There is no reason to doubt that the number of non-divorced converts who are irreligious is similar. If only 3% of converts in Israel are religious, then, as Yakobi rightly notes, it raises serious concerns about the conversion process.
[7] A similar responsum dealing with the same case appears in Be-Mar’eh ha-Bazak, vol 3, no. 89.
[8] Derashot Hatam Sofer, vol. 2, p. 301c. s.v. yeshalem.
[9] Hiddushei Rabbi Shimon ha-Kohen (Jerusalem, 2011), vol. 4, p. 324 (Kuntres Likutim, no. 5).
[10] I can’t say whether there is any plagiarism in this book, but another publication of Appelbaum was plagiarized from Abraham Berliner. See Nehemiah Leibowitz, “Al Devar ha-Takanah be-Venetzia,” Ha-Tzofeh le-Hokhmat Yisrael 13 (1929), p. 90.

Regarding anachronistic explanations, I think most would also include in this category R. Moses Sofer’s statement that Joseph wished to pray with a minyan rather than pray vatikin by himself. See Hatam Sofer al ha-Torah, vol. 1, p. 227.
[11] The same approach is independently suggested by R. Judah Rosanes, Parashat Derakhim, Derush 17, and R. Pinhas Horowitz, Panim Yafot, Ex. 1:15.

R. Ishmael holds that abortion is treated as murder for non-Jews (Sanhedrin57b) and Maimonides rules this way (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim9:4). This halakhah has often been cited as proof that the crime of abortion is stricter for non-Jews than Jews, and that public policy should be in line with this. Yet in Sanhedrin 57b the Tanna Kamma disagrees with R. Ishmael and does not regard abortion as murder. In fact, according to the Tanna Kamma, abortion would seem to be permissible for non-Jews. R. Jeremy Wieder has raised the question, which I would like someone to offer a serious reply to, that while Maimonides and other authorities accept R. Ishmael as the binding decision, who says that non-Jews have to accept this? Why can’t non-Jews “poskin” like the Tanna Kamma? See here at minute 35:30.

R. Shneur Zalman Fradkin,Torat Hesed, Even ha-Ezer, no. 42:5 (in the note), suggests that Tosafot,Niddah 44a, that I discuss in the text, adopts the Tanna Kamma’s position, not the view of R. Ishmael. See Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 14, p. 184. The implications of this with regard to non-Jews are obviously significant.

See also R. Jacob Emden, Em la-Binah (Jerusalem, 2020), p. 197:

בילדכן את העבריות: לא גזר על שפיכות דמים אלא על העוברים

R. Emden seems to be saying that abortion is not regarded as murder for non-Jews. Perhaps relevant to this, it is worth noting that R. Meir Mazuz states that one should encourage a non-Jewish woman pregnant by a Jewish man to have an abortion. SeeMakor Ne’eman, vol. 3, no. 1509. See also R. Hanan Aflalo,Asher Hanan, vol. 8, no. 74. R. Joseph Babad, Minhat Hinnukh, 296:7, states that abortion is not murder for non-Jews, and therefore there is no law of rodef when it comes to a non-Jew seeking to kill a fetus. (Since later in this post I mention suicide, it is worth noting that R. Babad also states that non-Jews are not prohibited from committing suicide. See Minhat Hinnukh 34:8.)

Regarding abortion for Jews, R. Hershel Schachter has an interesting shiur here. His approach is, I think, the most lenient among contemporary poskim, as he states that for the health of the mother abortion is permitted up until the end of pregnancy, which is long after the time that the fetus is viable.

R. Schachter’s approach might be identical with the very lenient perspective of R. Abraham Isaac Bloch. See R. Mordechai Gifter,Milei de-Iggerot, vol. 7, p. 341:

בגדר האיסור דהריגת עוברין בישראל, שמעתי מאדמו”ר הגאב”ד ור”מ דטלז ז”ל הי”ד, שהוא מגדר בל תשחית, אשר לפי”ז כל שהוא לצורך רפואה או פגם משפחה, אין בזה גדר האיסור דהשחתה

[12] I would have thought that the Maharsha’s words could have halakhic significance, but R. Nahman Yehiel Michel Steinmetz states otherwise, noting אין לומדים הלכה מדברי הגדה. See Meshiv Nevonim, vol. 6, p. 250. See also R. Weinberg’s comments regarding the Maharsha in Seridei Esh, vol. 3, no. 126.
[13] See e.g., Siftei Maharsha: Shemot, pp. 16-17.
[14] For opinions that the prohibition against abortion is only rabbinic, see R. Yishai Yitzhak Shraga, Torat ha-Ubar (Jerusalem, 2017), pp. 72ff.
[15] Ohalei Yaakov: Shemot, p. 1.
[16] See R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 9, p. 231, vol. 14, p. 184.
[17] Iggerot Moshe, Hoshen Mishpat 2, p. 295. There are a couple of strange things in this responsum, which first appeared in the R. Yehezkel Abramsky Memorial Volume. For example, see p. 298 how R. Moshe describes R. Joseph Hayyim’s responsum in Rav Pealim. (The word שהחכם in the bottom line right column should be שהתחכם, as it appears in the R. Abramsky Memorial Volume.) Yet as R. Waldenberg points out, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 14, p. 186, R. Moshe’s summary of Rav Pealim is inaccurate and he also does not show much regard for R. Joseph Hayyim, leading R. Waldenberg to write: והוא פלאי, ושרי ליה מריה בזה. See Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 14, p. 186. (R. Moshe actually ends his own responsum by saying ושרי ליה מריה בזה about R. Waldenberg.)

R. David M. Feldman wrote to R. Waldenberg that R. Moshe did not write the responsum on abortion, and that could explain what he saw as various problems in this responsum. SeeTzitz Eliezer, vol. 20, p. 140.

I find this approach completely untenable, although in conversation with me R. Feldman insisted on it. Some might suggest that others were involved in writing the responsum, and that explains the passage dealing with Rav Pealim. I find this impossible to accept, and would prefer to assume that at least with regard to the inaccurate Rav Pealim description, that R. Moshe did not have the text in front of him and was citing from memory from what had earlier been shown to him. As such, it is easy to imagine how he could have forgotten the details, as we have all had similar experiences. For more on this responsum, see my post here.
[18] Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 14, p. 183.
[19] See R. Zvi Ryzman, Ratz ke-Tzvi, vol. 2, p. 295.
[20] Tehumin 37 (2017), p. 124.
[21] Refuah, Metziut, ve-Halakhah, p. 28.
[22] “Ha-Im Muteret ‘Hamatat Hesed’ al Yedei Amirah le-Goy,” Ha-Ma’yan 62 (Tamuz 5782), pp. 54-64.
[23] Iggerot Moshe, Hoshen Mishpat 2, p. 313.
[24] Ginat Egoz, p. 74.
[25] R. Yosef Aryeh Lorintz, Mishnat Pikuah Nefesh, p. 26.
[26] The pictures in this post are now kept at Ganzach Kiddush Hashem in Bnei Brak.
[27] All the big rabbis stayed and ate at the Silberhorn hotel, and yet until 1975 it had no hashgachah. People knew the family that owned it to be absolutely reliable in matters of kashrut, and like the other kosher hotels in Switzerland, the kashrut was trusted without any hashgachah. In 1974 the Swiss rabbinate informed the various kosher hotels that they would need to acquire a hashgachah, thus ending the era of religious owners’ kashrut being trusted without any outside supervision. (Thanks to Dr. Joshua Sternbuch who passed on this information from the family who owned the Silberhorn hotel.)

Regarding the pious practice of eating eggs at seudah shelishit, see Kaf ha-Hayyim 289:12.

An Obscure Chumash Changes the Sefer HaChinuch Forever[1]
By Eli Genauer

I have a sefer in my collection with a very busy Shaar Blatt:

It is a Chumash printed by Yosef, Yaakov, and Avraham Proops in Amsterdam, 1767.[2] The Chumash contains some of the normal additions, such as Targum Onkelos and Rashi, along with two additions which are indicated as being “ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים”. I would like to focus on one of these additions, the Sefer HaChinuch. Placing the words of the Sefer HaChinuch underneath the text of the Chumash certainly made sense in theory, as one could review its words as one studied the Parsha. But it caused two major problems, one of which could be solved by use of a magnifying glass, and the other which brought about a change in the Sefer HaChinuch “עד היום הזה”.

The Sefer HaChinuch describes the details of, and reasons behind, the 613 Mitzvot.[3] Some of the explanations are very short, such as מצות אכילת מצה, (Mitzvah 10 -Shemot 12:18) so they fit nicely underneath a Pasuk. But when one Pasuk contains 3 Mitzvot and the lengthy explanations need to be placed underneath it (along with Onkelos, Rashi and Peirush Devek Tov), it creates a big problem with space. The only solution would be to have just one Pasuk on a page and to use smaller typeface for the Sefer HaChinuch than for Rashi. Here is how one page looks (Shemot 23:2). It includes Mitzvot 76,77 and 78.

This idea of including the Sefer HaChinuch in a “regular” Chumash was tried once again in 1783 in Frankfurt an der Oder, but perhaps because of this issue of space, never again after that.

This edition of the Chumash, which revised the order of the listing of the mitzvot, also altered the sequence in subsequent editions of the Sefer HaChinuch. This is despite the fact that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch specifically lists the Mitzvot of each parsha in one format. The Proops brothers’ edition of the Chumash overrode the author’s approach.[4] The original order for each Parsha is to list the מצוות עשה first and the מצוות לא תעשה afterwards. Here is how the Mitzvot of Parshat Tetzaveh are ordered in the oldest manuscript copy of the Sefer HaChinuch:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.163[4]

This order was preserved in subsequent manuscripts, and in the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch.[6]

In placing the מצוות עשה first and then the מצוות לא עשה, the author of the Sefer HaChinuch is following the model of the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam.[7] As he writes in Mitzvah 138:

עִם כָּל זֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָרַמְבַּ“ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה אֲשֶׁר [נִתְפַּשֵּׁט] בַּמִּצְוֹת לֹא נִטֶּה…. כִּי הוּא בֶּאֱמֶת סִבָּתֵנוּ בְּעֵסֶק זֶה, וּמִיָּדוֹ זָכִינוּ לוֹ….

This division is also preserved in the headings of the halakhot in Mishneh Torah, and Sefer HaChinuch then follows it.

But this order would not work for a Chumash designed to have the Mitzvot aligned with the Pesukim in the order they appeared in the Parsha, because the מצוות עשה and מצוות לא תעשה are interspersed within the Parsha. For example, Mitzvot 98 and 99 are מצוות עשה and come first in the Parsha. But Mitzvah 102 (a מצות לא תעשה) follows Mitzva 99(a מצות תעשה) in the Parsha so it becomes Mitzvah 100. Here is how it looks in a modern volume:

This change in the numeration of the Mitzvot was not lost on the Proops brothers, and they note that they hoped Torah scholars would look favorably on this change.

 

“And now, this treasured Sefer ( HaChinuch) has been modernized according to the order ( of the Pesukim of the Chumash) so that the reader can easily follow it as he reviews the Parshat HaShavua. It is now presented page by page and therefore we have not followed the order of the author who presented all the מצות תעשה and מצות לא תעשה separately….and we have confidence that this will be pleasing to scholars who love Torah and who do the Mitzvot of Hashem…”

Artscroll has published a 10-volume series on the Sefer HaChinuch[8] and notes that the order of the Mitzvot is the way they are recorded in the Parsha. The introduction states that whereas “other Rishonim arranged the Mitzvot topically, Chinuch arranges them according to the Parshiyos (weekly readings) of the Torah, and within each Parsha, in the order in which the Torah records them”. There is a footnote to that statement which clarifies the matter by saying that originally “the author arranged the Obligations and Prohibition separately within each Parsha, first presenting all the Obligations and then all the Prohibitions. This arrangement was preserved in the earliest printed editions of Chinuch. In the 18^th century, however, this format was changed, and since then the Chinuch has been printed with the Obligations and Prohibitions intermingled, in the order of the verses of the Torah”. There is no explanation as to why in the 18^th century the order was changed. We are left to wonder why
something formulated by a Rishon was changed.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Chavel does not react quite as calmly to this change.[9] In his scholarly edition of Sefer HaChinuch first published in 1952 by Mosad HaRav Kook, he is quite critical of the Chumash which made these changes.[10] He writes:

“במהדורה זו נעשו שינוים גדולים ורבים בטופס הספר שנכנסו בכל הדפוסים שבאו אחריה”

“In this edition, many major changes were made in the form of the book which were introduced into all the editions which followed”

He compares this edition to one which he feels is more authoritative, the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch, Venice 1523.[11]

Among the changes he lists is the one of re-ordering the positive and negative Mitzvot

“מצות עשה ולא תעשה נסדרו כאן בפעם הראשונה בערבוב, כלומר ביחד, כמו שהן סדורות בתורה

He concludes his criticism of the Chumash with the Sefer HaChinuch by writing that it was if the printers had given the Sefer HaChinuch a “פנים חדשות “

“את נוסח לשון רבינו בסדר המצוות ומנינן שינו המדפיסים לגמרי, וכמעט ששיזו לחלק זה פנים חדשות”

Because he feels it was wrong to change the order of the Mitzvot, he reverts back to the original order and numbering used in the Kitvei Yad and in the earliest printed editions.[12]

Rabbi Chavel is correct in that the order and the numbering of the Mitzvot was changed forever by the new order introduced in a Chumash which tried to incorporate in it the Sefer HaChinuch.[13] The initiative for changing the Order of Mitzvot was to for no other reason than to attempt to align the Sefer HaChinuch with a printed Chumash. No group of Torah scholars in the 18^th century got together to decide to make this change. I imagine that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch might even have considered re-ordering the Mitzvot to conform to the flow of each Parsha but decided to keep the order of positive Mitzvot all together first and negative Mitzvos all together second.[14] It leaves unanswered the question of whether changing the order of the Mitzvot (even though done for what was seen to be a positive purpose) was the correct thing to do?

[1] I call this Chumash “obscure” because as you will see later on, a great scholar was unaware of it.
[2] Encyclopedia.com notes in part on the Proops printers:

PROOPS, family of Hebrew printers, publishers, and booksellers in Amsterdam. SOLOMON BEN JOSEPH (d. 1734), whose father may have been a Hebrew printer as well, was established as a bookseller in Amsterdam and associated with other printers from 1697 to 1703….At his death, appointed guardians continued to operate the press, and even when his sons JOSEPH (d. 1786), JACOB (d. 1779), and ABRAHAM (d. 1792) took over, they traded under the old name until 1751.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proops

On my sefer, there is an ownership stamp of הרב י.ל. הכהן פישמן, also known as Rabbi Yehuda Leib Fishman Maimon who was one of the signers of Israel’s Declaration of Independence and was the first minister of Religious Affairs. He was also an avid book collector who owned 40,000 books. There is another ownership stamp belonging to him on the page preceding the Shaar Blatt which looks like this

It quotes part of the Pasuk in Breishit 49:10 לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר שֵׁ֙בֶט֙ מִֽיהוּדָ֔ה– עַ֚ד כִּֽי־יָבֹ֣א שִׁילֹ֔ה and then says ספריה הרב יהודה ליב הכהן פישמן–ירושלים.
[3] The idea that there are 613 Mitzvot in the Torah, 365 negative Mitzvot and 248 positive Mitzvot, is first recorded in Talmud Bavli Masechet Makot 23b

דרש רבי שמלאי שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם

[4]There is much discussion as to who was the author who chose to remain anonymous.

Sefaria summarizes the issue as follows:

המחבר מזהה עצמו רק כ“איש יהודי מבית לוי ברצלוני“, ויש חילוקי דעות לגבי זהותו המדויקת. יש המייחסים את הספר לר’ אהרן הלוי (רא“ה), אבל כבר הוכח בבירור שהוא לא חיברו. אחרים מיחסים אותו לרּ פנחס הלוי, אחיו של הרא“ה.

[5] The bibliographic record at the National Library of Israel notes that it was written in 5093 (1333) based on the colophon which states:

 

נשלם על ידי אברהם בכמ”ר אברהם ז”ל ב”ר משה נ”ע ליל ו’ עשרים יום לחודש טבת שנת צ”ג

https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-
manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001132770205171&scope=PNX_MANU
SCRIPTS&SearchTxt=%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%20%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9A
[6] I accessed the following manuscripts on KTIV, all of which had the same order. Parma 3016 – Laurentian Library, Florence, Italy Ms. Or. 473 -Casanatense Library, Rome, Italy Ms. 2857 – Paris BN 400vi.
[7] He was also following the pattern of the בעל הלכות גדולות, the first of the מוני המצוות.
[8] The Schottenstein Edition Sefer Hachinuch #1 / Book of Mitzvos, Brooklyn, NY, 2012 – General Introduction page xl.
[9] A comprehensive review of Rabbi Chavel’s works appeared in his “Peirush Rashi Al HaTorah” first printed in 1982 https://tablet.otzar.org/#/book/155543/p/1/t/1/fs/0/start/0/end/0/c
[10] Rabbi Chavel was not familiar with the Proops Amsterdam 1764 edition of the Chumash cited above and thought the first Chumash printed with the Sefer HaChinuch was the one of Frankfurt an der Oder of 1783. I assume he would have leveled the same criticism at the Amsterdam edition. The Bibliography of the Hebrew book notes this fact about the 1764 edition:

.ספר החינוך נדפס כאן לראשונה “אחר סדר הפסוקים” ולא לפי הסדר שקבע המחבר (עשין לבד ולאוין לבד). וכן נדפס ברוב ההוצאות הבאות. עיין במבוא של הרב חיים דוב שאוועל לספר החינוך, ירושלים תשי”ב, עמ’ כ-כא, שציין את השינויים שנעשו במהדורת תקמ”ג, שינויים אלו נעשו

[11] Here is the Shaar Blatt from Rabbi Chavel’s edition:

[12] An example would be Mitzvot 99-104. Both the order and the numbers are changed:

[13] Here are some examples of some modern editions which have it the “new” way:

[14] At the end of his introduction, he writes,  עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי טוֹב אֲנִי הַדַּל בְּאַלְפִּי, תַּלְמִיד הַתַּלְמִידִים שֶׁבִּזְמַנִּי, אִישׁ יְהוּדִי מִבֵּית לֵוִי בַּרְצְלוֹנִי, לִכְתֹּב הַמִּצְוֹת עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַסְּדָרִים וְכַסֵּדֶר שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ ….and yet he still grouped them the way he did.

New Sefer Announcement

By Eliezer Brodt

.מודעא לבית ישראל, ביטול מודעה, מודעה רבה, תשובות גדולי ישראל בנדון מצות מכונה בפסח, קיא + שיא עמודים, ע“י, ר‘ מרדכי קנאפפלער וישראל טרעס

I am very happy to announce the republication of the original seforim published at the beginning of the Machine Matzah Controversy in Galicia in 1859.  

One sefer, Modah Le’beis Yisroel is a collection of Teshuvot of those who were against Machine Matzah and the other one, Bitul Modah contains the Teshuvot defending Machine Matzah.

This volume was edited and produced by Rabbi Mordechai Knopfler and Sruly Tress.

This edition also includes many of the Teshuvos written over the years by various Gedolim on this subject, including from manuscripts.

Included in this volume is a fascinating article (65 pp.) by R’ Yechiel Goldhaber on the continuation of this Controversy that took place in Yerushalayim (including never before published documents).

In addition, this volume includes a useful introduction by Eliezer Brodt (43 pp.) about the Background regarding the original Controversy in 1859 and the History of the main Gedolim involved. This introduction is an expanded version of a presentation about the Machine Matzah Controversy given a few years ago, for All Daf available here and here.

For some sample pages and the introduction Email me at EliezerBrodt@gmail.com

Copies are available for purchase at the following locations:

In the US:

In Flatbush/ Marine Park at Mizrahi Bookstore (bluebirds15@yahoo.com)

In Boro Park at Biegeleisen.

In Lakewood at Numerous Locations.

For more Information

Contact me at EliezerBrodt@gmail.com

In Eretz Yisroel 

Contact EliezerBrodt@gmail.com

There is No Bracha on an Eclipse
By Rabbi Michael J. Broyde

Rabbi Michael Broyde is a law professor at Emory University School of Law and the Projects Director in its Center for the Study of Law and Religion.  His most recent Torah sefer is entitled “A Concise Code of Jewish Law For Converts”.  This letter was written to someone after a shiur in 2017 on why there is no bracha on seeing a solar eclipse.

1.     You are correct that I said that I thought there was no bracha on an eclipse.  I had not seen Rabbi Linzer’s teshuva at the time that told that to you this, as it was not circulating on the internet at the time that I prepared for my shiur and I did not see it until Sunday, the day after the shiur.  I try to cite as much as relevant in these classes and his thoughts are clearly relevant.  He is a stellar writer on interesting topics of halacha and I read his material consistently.  I had seen that Rabbi Eliezer Melamed in Peninei Halacha Laws of Brachot 15:6 and note 5 which does permit a bracha on an eclipse.
2. Having said that, I would not change my mind at all in light of Rabbi Linzer’s teshuva and remain opposed to reciting a bracha over an eclipse for many reasons explained below.
3.  First, as many have noted, the giants of halacha are quite divided over the question of whether the listing in the Shulchan Aruch is paradigmatic or particular.  Some make no blessings other that for matters listed in the codes and other treat them as examples.  That dispute alone inspires me to be cautious, although I could be persuaded that the paradigmatic approach is correct and one could then make a bracha on a waterfall.  I have yet to see a clear proof that such a view is correct, but it does seem more intuitive.[1]  Yet, safek brachot lehakel is present.
4.  Second, and more importantly, if you look closely in the classical achronim, you see not a single achron who actually endorses saying a bracha on an eclipse.  Not a single one.  It is true that there is a dispute about whether the list in the Mishna is all inclusive or not (as many note, see Shar HaAyin 7:6), but even those who are of the view that the Mishnah’s list is merely examples, not a single achron actually endorses making a bracha on an eclipse as opposed to a volcano or some other natural wonder, which some clearly do permit a bracha on.  The group that favors expansive brachot on natural wonders endorse stalagmite caves, waterfalls, water geysers, volcanoes and many more: but not eclipses.  If you look, for example in Shar HaAyin 7:6 (the classical work on this topic) one sees this most clearly: even those who endorse making brachot on waterfalls, or other amazing facets of creation are uncertain נסתפק)) if one make a bracha on an eclipse, and we all know that when a posek is נסתפק, that posek does not make a bracha.[2]
a.      This contrast is made clear in the context of Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Wosner — who is the most clear and direct articulator of the view that list of wondrous sightings in the Shulchan Aruch are just examples, and one makes the bracha of oseh maaseh bereshit even on other wonders.  In Shar HaAyin page 431 he states directly that one makes a blessing on many wondrous things unlisted in the codes and he explains that “Volcanos are not present in our lands and thus are unmentioned in the Shulchan Aruch” and that it is “obvious” that one makes a blessing on them.  However, on eclipses he states “solar eclipses are mentioned a few times in the Gemera, and thus on the question of whether one needs to make a bracha when one sees them, needs more thought.[3]”  He does NOT endorse making a bracha on an eclipse. In fact, I am unaware of anyone other than Rabbis Melamed and Linzer who actually endorse the view in favor of making a bracha on an eclipse, (rather than merely ponders the possibility of such a bracha).  Rabbi Wozner’s point is important: this is not a modern issue – eclipses were well known for a few millennium, and silence in the Jewish Law codes is telling.  To the best of my knowledge the dispute about the eclipses is between two views: (1) Absolutely Not and (2) Maybe.  There is no (3) Yes view in the classical rabbinic literature for eclipses.  (That is why the listing of reasons why an eclipse might be different from other wonders below is important.)

5.     Why is an eclipse different from a stalagmite cave or a volcano?  I could think of a few reasons from a halachic perspective, even to those who believe that the Mishna’s list is not inclusive.
a.   Many perceive them to be a siman raah – a bad sign, either because of superstitious reasons or because darkness in the middle of the day is practically bad – and there is no blessing on bad omens (as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein is quoted in Mesorat Moshe 2:51).
b.     Because one sees nothing in an eclipse (as it is an absence of light, rather than a presence) and we do not make brachot on absences.
c.      Because the bracha of oseh maaseh breseshit does not apply to things whose existence can be mathematically predicted, but are merely rare: eclipses are not anomalies, but a product of the universes’ cycle of life, and more under the berkat hachama rule.
d.     Because full eclipses are exceedingly rare and partial eclipses are almost impossible to “see” without modern eclipse glasses (a 75% eclipse hardly is noticed on a functional level) and are naturally invisible.
e.      For other reasons that are less obvious related to the fact that these have to be wonders from “creation” and these are not from creation.
f.     Because some thought that eclipses were punishments and thus no blessing was ordained.[4]
6.     Based on all this, one can say that eclipses could be different from all other created natural anomalies as a matter of Jewish law and are not covered by the general idea of a wonder such that a blessing should be made. To my surprise, even as the primary source of the view that one can make a bracha on wonders beyond the Mishna’s list is Rabbi Wozner and he explicitly notes that eclipses are different from volcanoes, waterfalls, geysers and many other rare natural phenomena, the secondary codifiers of the last generation have completely missed this distinction.  Instead both Shar HaAyin 7:6 and Penenia Halacha Laws of Bracha 15:5 link the dispute about volcanoes and waterfalls with eclipses and state that one who permits a bracha for volcanoes and waterfalls would do so for eclipses as well, when in fact that is incorrect.  Eclipses were known in Talmudic times and yet no bracha was noted: that bothers Rabbi Shmuel Wozner, who permit a bracha on an erupting volcano, not to permit a bracha to be recited on an eclipse, by noting that he is uncertain if a bracha is proper.[5]
7.     Additionally, let me add a thought of my own about modern times and bracha’s over wonders.  The Shulchan Aruch OC 228:3 limits even the mountains that one can make a bracha on to such mountains in which the hand of our Creator is clear and apparent. (ולא על כל הרים וגבעות מברך, אלא דווקא על הרים וגבעות המשונים וניכרת גבורת הבורא בהם.)  I think in our modern times, with modern science explaining all of these events, no mountains or valleys ever meet the criterial of make it clear (to normal people) that God is in charge of the universe.  Based on this, I would not make any extensions of this halacha beyond its minimums recorded in the Shuchan Aruch because I think that the test for determining whether we can add to this list is and make a bracha is וניכרת גבורת הבורא בהם.  Given the secular environment we live in, I think no natural astrological events meets that bill in modern times so I only – at most — make such brachot on the things that the halachic tradition directly directs me to do, like lighting or thunder or great mountains and certain rivers. I would not make such a bracha on an erupting volcano or a solar eclipse, as seeing such does not cause normal people in my society to experience God.  (There are two formulations of my claim, each slightly different.  The first is experiential, in that I think that most people in my society do not sense any awe of God at an eclipse.  Second, even if any particular person does (and I do not doubt that some do), they cannot make the bracha since most people in America do not so sense God through these events and that is the halachic test found in the Shulchan Aruch.  The sense of wonder has to be obvious to normal people and that is lacking in the world we live in.
8.     Finally, all attempts to actually endorse making a bracha on an eclipse run directly against the combined force of both (1) the minhag, which is not to make a bracha and (2) the rule of ספק ברכות להקל. These two together make it difficult for any moreh horah to argue convincingly that there is clear proof that bracha should be made.
9.     I have consciously not engaged with Rabbi Linzer’s very worthwhile point (which I more or less agree with) that “we strive to bring our religious lives and our halakhic lives in sync” exactly because (as he himself notes) this calculus is limited to cases where there is a dispute between poskim about what to do.  Here, to the best of my knowledge, there is no dispute and since there is no classical halachic authority who actually says “yes make a bracha on an eclipse” there is no grounds to examining very important meta issues used to resolve disputes (since there is no dispute).
10. Based on all of this, I would not make a bracha on an eclipse.
11. Having said that, I am happy to endorse other forms of religions veneration for one who feels such wonder.
a.     One can certainly say this bracha without שם ומלכות.
b.   I am also somewhat comfortable with someone making this blessing in Aramaic (see Shulchan Aruch OC 167:10, 187:1 and 219:4) although I am aware of the view of Iggrot Moshe OC 4:20:27, but find the view of the Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3 more analytically compelling.
c.      Both the suggestions of Rabbi Chaim David Ha-Levi (Responsa Aseh Lecha Rav, 150) that one recited va-yevarech david (Chronicles. 1:29:10) and adding “who performs acts of creation” at the end and of Rabbi David Lau, current Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, to recite Tehillim 19 and 104 are completely reasonable as well.
d.     Other innovative non-bracha based solutions are also reasonable.
12. On the other hand, those who attended an eclipse – I myself traveled to Rabun, Georgia, an epicenter for the total eclipse and sat in total darkness at for three minutes in the middle of the day and did not feel any closer to the Almighty as Creator of the World during the eclipse than I did after or before — can feel free to engage in no innovative religious observance at all without feelings that they are deficient in any way.
13.  I welcome readers to direct me to a source written by an achron which directly discusses eclipses and permits a bracha.  (Please feel free to email me.) So far, I have only seen that the group that permits a bracha for an eclipse does so based on a putative ruling of Rabbi Wozner and others to permit such a bracha, which upon closer examination is not present.  I am willing to ponder the possibility that there is an achron who permits such a bracha even as others do not – that posek argues that all wonders deserve a bracha and the listing in paragraph 5 above about why eclipses are different from other wonders is incorrect – To the best of my knowledge, that is a theoretical position that is not actually adopted.

[1] I am inclined to the more expansive view because the formulation in the Beit Yosef in Tur OC 228.
[2] This is an important point.  Rabbi Wozner has the right as a morah horah to assert that he rules that the mishna’s list is not inclusive and that volcanoes get a bracha (which is exactly what he says, as does Rabbi Nissan Karletz in the same work on page 466).  When one asks him “how can he rule that a bracha needs to be recited, others disagree, and then the matter is in doubt”, Rabbi Wozner responds by stating that he sees no doubt and thus he feels a bracha should be recited.  When Rabbi Wozner states that he has doubt about this matter, he is being clear that this is exactly a case of doubt and no blessing should be recited.
[3] Let me add that eclipses are discussed in the rishonim and codifiers as well, with no mention of a bracha.  See Darchai Moshe on Tur OC 426 and the works cited by Rabbi Linzer in footnote 2 of his teshuva (see here).
[4] It is clear from the recounting of the Chafetz Chaim that he did not say a bracha on an eclipse.  See here.
[5] This is found both Shar HaAyin and Penine Halacha as well as Rabbi Linzer’ teshuva.  Shaar Haayin 7:6 is strict on the whole matter and does not permit a bracha practically on even volcanoes an water falls, so the mistake in that work – linking volcanoes and eclipses — is merely one of conceptual classification, but Peninia Halacha rules that המברך לא הפסיד (“one who makes the blessing is doing nothing wrong” for “volcanic eruptions, geyser, waterfalls and both lunar and solar eclipses” when it is clear to this writer that the source he is sighting – he cites Rabbi Wozner! – does not adopt that view.  (On page 466 of Shar HaAyin, Rabbi Nissan Karlitz is asked “Is the blessing oseh maaseh bereshit similar in that things that are wonders and not found in the Shulchan Aruch like an erupting volcano or a spouting geyser or other similar phenomena, also requiring a bracha” and Rabbi Karlitz answer “Logic indicates that such is the case also,” but no explicit discussion of eclipses, which could be different.