Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner’s View of Torah Im Derekh Eretz and a Hidden Haskamah Rediscovered
Shmuel Lesher
Shmuel Lesher is the assistant rabbi of the BAYT (Toronto). He can be reached at shmuel.lesh@gmail.com

*Thanks to my father-in-law, Rabbi Hanan Balk, for sharing many of the works used to research this topic with me from his vast and eclectic personal library. Thank you to Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Moshe Lieber, Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, Ezer Dienna, and Rabbi Ken Stollon for greatly improving this article. Thank you to Simmy Zieleniec for connecting me with the Levi family.

Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner: A Brief Biographical Sketch

R. Yitzhak Hutner (1906-1980), the longtime dean of Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin of Brooklyn, New York had a unique and eclectic approach to Torah, spirituality, and Orthodox society life in the 20th century. A student of the famed Lithuanian Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel, the Alter (Elder) of Slabodka, and influenced by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, R. Hutner brought a blend of Hasidic and Lithuanian creative spirituality when he made his way to America. He shared his poetic and philosophical ideas with his students through his maamarim (discourses) which were later recorded, edited, and presented in his magnum opus Pahad Yitzhak (1964-1982).

Published biographical material about R. Hutner is sparse and scattered.[1] Even more difficult to come by are definitive statements of policies or positions made by R. Hutner. Therefore when determining his position on the question of the admissibility of a Torah Im Derekh Eretz curriculum, an educational program designed for the combined study of Torah and secular studies, one has to piece together bits and pieces of evidence in order to arrive at even an approximation of his view.

In one of the few biographical works on R. Hutner, R. Dr. Hillel Goldberg begins by citing an anonymous student’s recollection of R. Hutner saying, “Regardless of what you hear quoted in my name, do not believe it unless I have told it to you personally.”[2]

Ironic as this quotation may be, I understand why R. Goldberg chose it to begin his biographical sketch. The citation — however accurate or “believable” — captures the challenge the persona of R. Hutner poses to the genre of biography. It seems as though R. Hutner intentionally obscured his public position on a number of issues, preferring to share his outlook with his students and others personally.

The Yeshiva Community’s Approach to Secular Studies

To appreciate the nuances of R. Hutner’s position on Torah Im Derekh Eretz, it is important to understand the American Yeshiva community of which he was part. In his study of the early and mid-20th century American Yeshiva world, William Helmreich describes three basic approaches that American yeshivas took to secular studies.

On one hand, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan (RIETS), from its inception took a more open approach to secular studies. On the other extreme, yeshivas like Beth Midrash Gavoha of Lakewood, New Jersey and Telshe of Cleveland, Ohio completely forbade college attendance, notwithstanding that it is likely that many of their alumni did attend some level of advanced educational institution. A third group of yeshivas, including Ner Israel of Baltimore and Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim of New York landed somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Although they discouraged college attendance, these yeshivas recognized that a college degree can be a necessary step for a yeshiva student to make a living. Because of this reality, many yeshivas took a more moderate stance on college attendance.[3]

It appears that Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin would most likely fit into the third category of yeshivas which discouraged college attendance but did not forbid it. R. Hutner, who had a powerfully personable and dominating personality, encouraged his students to devote themselves completely to Torah study. As one student put it:

I went to college and, while permitted, college was looked down upon. With some exceptions, the top fellows didn’t go. The strength of Rav Hutner’s personality-my feet trembled whenever I spoke to him-drew us all in. It enabled you to resist your more modern parents who often wanted you to go to college. He built up your ego and made you feel you were great.[4]

R. Hutner had a broader vision for the American Jewish community than just his own yeshiva’s success “It is only a matter of time,” R. Hutner commented to Shmuel Avigdor when asked in an interview in the 1960’s what he thought about the future of the American Jewish community he inhabited and helped create and foster. R. Hutner told Avigdor:

It is obvious that it will not be exactly the same as the European Judaism that existed before the Shoah. It will have its own unique character. It will have its own ‘kineitch’ (personality or character). But it will be a Judaism that is complete and authentic — A Judaism not embarrassed of our former generations. Even today we already have American-born avreikhim (married kollel fellows) who are gedolei torah (great Torah scholars) in the original and authentic sense of the word. It is true that their greatness in the Torah is currently measured by the greatness in the style of Poland and Lithuania and there is no ‘greatness’ in the American style yet. But this will come with time, it’s all a matter of time.[5]

The American Yeshiva community, in R. Hutner’s eyes, although it would be “American” with its own flavor and identity, must be modeled after the same idealism and single-minded focus on gadlus (greatness) in Torah that characterized the European community of the previous generations. In fact, Helmreich reports that R. Hutner was critical of Yeshiva University’s synthesis of Torah and secular studies, stating that “When they put the word ‘University’ in, they spoiled everything.”[6]

Notwithstanding the above evidence which suggests a less sympathetic view towards the combination of Torah and secular studies, R. Goldberg, one of R. Hutner’s biographers posits:

Rabbi Hutner rejected synthesis but not secular study, at least for a select few. The unexceptional Talmud student would be unable to cope with intellectual challenges to tradition that Western philosophy, historiography, and other branches of learning pose. For Rabbi Hutner himself, secular study was less central than for Rabbi Soloveitchik…To Rabbi Hutner’s unitive mind, secular study identified a domain of the sacred within itself, a procedure that amounted to Torah’s reclaiming what rightfully belonged to it; for Torah, said Rabbi Hutner, was the sovereign source of all that is sacred. Hence he saw neither a moral nor a technical justification for the citation of secular sources in his writings.[7] 

R. Goldberg’s depiction implies that R. Hutner did, in fact, have a good deal of sympathy for secular studies, albeit only for the select few. Clearly, the evidence for R. Hutner’s position is somewhat mixed. R. Hutner’s view on Torah Im Derekh Eretz and secular studies is characteristically nuanced and even appears at times to be contradictory.

The Primary Sources

Understanding this, in order to best determine R. Hutner’s true perspective, I thought it wise to focus not on secondary sources and analysis, but on R. Hutner himself, the choices he made for himself and for his community, and his own writings. In addition to many years of intensive and single-minded yeshiva study, R. Hutner chose to study at the University of Berlin. However, it is hard to evaluate this choice as indicative of a worldview as it was only a short 4-month stint.[8] Although it does indicate some level of interest in secular and/or academic knowledge and the granting of some legitimacy to its study, albeit not necessarily for the masses.

When it comes to communal policy it appears that R. Hutner did, at least initially, support the study of secular subjects at the high school level. In the biography of Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, the authors write:

Both R. Moshe Feinstein- rosh yeshiva of Mesifta Tiferes Yerushalayim on the East Side – and R. Yitzchok Hutner – rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Chaim Berlin in Brooklyn – had been a part of the planning process [in assisting Rav Breuer to open some form of a Torah Im Derekh Eretz Yeshiva High School for the Jewish community of New York].[9]

Because of opposition from other gedolim to the prospect of such a yeshiva high school, the school never actually got off the ground.[10] However, R. Hutner’s early support of a yeshiva high school that would have included a dual curriculum modeled after the Hirschian approach suggests a more sympathetic view of Torah Im Derekh Eretz.

R. Hutner not only supported the founding of a yeshiva high school with a dual curriculum, there is evidence that he even supported the founding of a form of yeshiva college. William Helmreich documents a fascinating development almost totally unknown today:

In 1946 a petition was submitted to the Regents of the University of the State of New York requesting a charter for a new institution to be known as the American Hebrew Theological University. The proposed college was to be formed by the merger of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin.[11]

The Board of Trustees of this institution included Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz (1886-1948), the menahel (principal) of Yeshivas Torah Vodaath, and, none other than, Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner. As with the yeshiva high school, although Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin were granted a provisional charter on July 18, 1946, about a year later the application was withdrawn and the college was never formed. 

It appears that the person responsible for this major reversal was Rabbi Aharon Kotler. According to Helmreich’s interview with Rabbi Harold Leiman,[12] then the principal of Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin high school and the person chosen as dean of this new college, after a long conversation between R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz and R. Aharon Kotler in which the latter expressed his strong opposition to the idea, the decision was made to abandon the project.[13]

Even though these schools never came to be, it appears from these accounts that R. Hutner did support the idea of founding a high school as well as a college founded upon the values of Torah Im Derekh Eretz. It is even clearer in the case of the proposed American Hebrew Theological University that R. Hutner was serious about the implementation of a dual-curriculum. The fact that a dean was selected and a formal request for a charter was submitted and granted indicates how far along in the process they were in bringing the school into existence even if they ultimately withdrew the application.

Evidence From R. Hutner’s Writings 

The other area to look for evidence regarding our question is R. Hutner’s writings, primarily his letters. In a well-known letter (no. 94) to a student struggling with his transition from yeshiva into the workforce, R. Hutner emphasizes the ideal of bringing Torah values into the outside world. In his words:

Someone who rents a room in one house to live a residential life and another room in a hotel to live a transient life is certainly someone who lives a double life. But someone who has a home with more than one room has a broad life, not a double life.[14]

Although this letter does not directly support the study of secular subjects, it is clear from the content of his message that R. Hutner sees his student’s involvement in the world outside of the yeshiva as a broadening of horizons and not merely a necessary evil. 

In another letter (no. 102) included in Igros Ukesavim, R. Hutner writes negatively about a certain kind of approach to a dual yeshiva curriculum (see below). First, R. Hutner praises a work he received, presumably written by his interlocutor. Afterwards, he refers to a particular passage in this work in which the author describes an ideal in which yeshiva students, in addition to many years of Torah study, engage in “yishuv” — agricultural work or the development of land. R. Hutner notes that this outlook of “Torah Umelakhah” — Torah study and work — appears to the [American] public as a “fifty-fifty” form of a dual curriculum and is completely the opposite of the vision of the author.[15] The thrust of the letter is that, in R. Hutner’s view, despite its popularity in the American Jewish Community, a dual curriculum is not an ideal for which to strive.[16]

Notwithstanding the skepticism found in the above letter, there is another significant piece of evidence that R. Hutner did in fact approve of the Torah Im Derekh Eretz approach. R. Hutner gave his own written endorsement of the ideal of Torah Im Derekh Eretz in the form of a haskamah — a formal rabbinic letter of approbation.

Yehuda (Leo) Levi’s Work and the Case of a Missing Haskamah

In the very first footnote of the very first article of The Torah Umadda Journal, effectively launching the entire publication, the editor, Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, cites a letter written by R. Avraham Bloch. This letter, along with three other letters of European Gedolim regarding Torah Im Derekh Eretz was first published by Rabbi Prof. Yehuda (Leo) Levi. These letters were written in response to R. Shimon Schwab’s queries regarding the admissibility of a curriculum that included secular subjects in a yeshiva outside of Germany. R. Schacter writes that R. Bloch’s response was first published by R. Levi in 1966.[17][18]

In 1959, R. Levi wrote an earlier work, Vistas From Mount Moria, published by the Gur Ayeh Institute, the same institution that published Rav Hutner’s Pahad Yitzhak. It was his first published work on the topic of Torah and General Culture.[19] In the introduction to this book, the author makes reference to two endorsements, one of which, to my knowledge, has not yet been published.

In the introduction, R. Levi thanks “Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer” and “Rabbi Isaak Hutner” for their endorsements and constructive criticism. However, neither of these endorsements are printed in the volume but are said to be “available upon request.”

Almost 20 years later, R. Levi did include rabbinic endorsements for his work Shaarei Talmud Torah (1981). Endorsements are given by R. Yaakov Kaminetsky (Nissan 5740), R. Pinchas Menachem Alter of Gur (5740), R. Avraham Farbstein (5741), R. Aaron Soloveitchik (not dated), and R. Ovadiah Yosef (5747).[20]

Although both R. Breuer’s and R. Hutner’s endorsements of his other work are not included, R. Levi does write in his foreword to his 1990 work Torah Study (a translation of Shaarei Talmud Torah) that the Hebrew edition was published in 1981, when his “unforgettable mentor, HaRav Joseph Breuer, had explicitly expressed the wish that the author’s notes and essays be presented in a comprehensive and coordinated Sefer.” No mention of R. Hutner is made.[21][22]  

I thought the story ended there. But to my great surprise and joy, in the course of researching this topic, I was connected to Yosef Levi, a son of Yehuda Levi who graciously shared the missing haskamah with me which I include along with a translation below.

The following pages, 155-157 (below), include the haskamah given by R. Dr. Breuer and R. Hutner:

Translation of Rav Hutner’s Endorsement 

LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT

From the rabbi who is great in wisdom and fear [of heaven], the man to whom hidden things are revealed, my rabbi and teacher, Moreinu Harav Yitzhak Hutner, may his light shine, Rosh Mesivta Yeshivas Rabbi Chaim Berlin and Kollel Gur Aryeh  

20 Elul 5719

My dear, honorable, and beloved Mr. Yehuda the son of R. Yosef Aharon Halevi, may his light shine,

Peace and blessings,

I remember when I was younger, I once had the opportunity to be within the orbit of one of the elder gedolim of the previous generation. Our conversation led to a discussion about Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch zt”l. This gadol then told [me] what he had heard in the year 5630 (1869-1870) from one of the unique [people] of the generation before him. In that year of 5630, news of R. Hirsch and his activities had reached Russia. There were those who had concerns about his approach, because it appeared that the study of Torah had not gained a proper footing within his activities and his educational approach. However, these concerns were not accepted by the gedolei hador of those days. And despite these doubters (naysayers), an attitude of loyalty towards R. Hirsch was established and his approach was deemed akin to [spiritual] rescue from the fire. In relation to this, this gadol then expressed the following: “The clearest proof that the intentions of Rav Hirsch were for the sake of Heaven will be found in the near future, that the desire for Torah study in the soul of the next generation of Rav Hirsch’s community will increase, and many of them will attempt to acquire additional Torah beyond what was taught by of the community’s educational system.” So were the words of that gadol.

This gadol’s words were right on the mark because we can see with our [own] eyes that during the period between the two World Wars, many benches in the yeshivas in Eretz Yisrael, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Galicia were filled with the descendants of R. Hirsch’s followers. 

These recollections come up out of my memory when I encounter you, my dear. In terms of ancestry, you descend from a well-pedigreed family of German Jewry (from the descendants of the Maharal).[23] Accordingly you received your education in the ways of the great teacher of this [form of] Judaism. Your gifts have made you famous in the field of physics to the point that you have caught the eye of the government, which, because of the times, is now in need of first-rate scientific resources. At the same time, the hopes of that righteous man (referred to above) have been fulfilled in you; your heart is deeply inspired to commit yourself to Torah study in order to quench the great fire that burns within your soul. To this end, you have limited “derekh eretz” pursuits to only that which is absolutely necessary, and have established a place for yourself in our Beis Medrash Gur Aryeh. Because you have accomplished the dictum, “Make your occupation incidental and your Torah study primary” (Avos 1:15) we have witnessed your ascent in Torah study with great success. 

However, even as you were planted in the Bais Medrash, you did not forget about those whose portions [in Torah] did not fall to them pleasantly, and who did not merit to be enhanced through entering into the tent of Torah. Because of your upbringing and background, you can sense the difference between the one whose perspective is from within the Temple courtyard and the one who is from a distance. When one drinks from the nearby springs and is able to place his lips to the flowing waters, the life essence of the water enters his very being and irrigates the “marrows of his bones.” His soul is renewed and his breath invigorated. 

Not so for the person who is sustained by the water of the spring from a distance. He has to use pipes and various vessels that draw from different kinds of vessels (Esther 1:7) in order to access the water. The nature of running water is that it loses its freshness  when it passes through the pipes. What’s more, by passing through pipes, the water picks up sediment and dirt on the way. 

We know well that large group of people who, despite being prepared to accept the yoke of Torah and mitzvos, nevertheless, fail to have the water penetrate them with their normal purity and freshness, due to the fact that their lives have positioned them at a distance from the wellspring. They can only draw water that is blocked, occluded, and which has other ingredients mixed in.

Therefore, when you felt the spiritual distress of this group, your spirit pushed you into being their helper and assistant. It is for this purpose that you wrote a survey of topics in the realm of hashkafos and deos (Torah outlooks and doctrines), in order to preserve, in some way, the purity of the water for those who find themselves far away from the springs.

When you gathered together these different essays into one pamphlet with the title, Vistas from Mount Moria, you gave it to me with the request for an endorsement — I deem it correct to grant your request because I think it serves a great purpose for people of the group mentioned above as well as many who occupy the Beis Hamedrash. 

Just as you have been successful in the study of Torah, so shall you be successful in the pillar of kindness to bring close those who are far and to reveal the beauty of the Torah which you have found in the Beis Hamedrash to those who are found to be still outside of it. 

With the hopes of raising the esteem of those who toil in Torah, 

Yitzhak Hutner[24]

See Appendix for a different version of Vistas From Mount Moria. Both were published in 1959 (see facsimiles of both editions below) Although, if you compare the same pages (154-157) beginning from the back of this book, you will find that there are exactly the same amount of pages between page 154 and the Hebrew title page, however, they are all blank. Note the publication and year appear to be the same as the original version but the endorsements of both Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer and Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner are removed. This supports Yosef Levi’s explanation as to why the haskamah was hidden as I will address below.

Analysis of the Endorsement

R. Hutner’s letter of endorsement can be divided into two sections. In the first part of the letter, R. Hutner grants legitimacy to R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s educational approach. In the second part of the letter he focuses on his student R. Levi and the importance of his work.

In the first part of the letter, in typically cryptic form, R. Hutner does not quote the gedolim who he is citing as approving of the Hirschian method. However, he clearly sees this positive view of R. Hirsch and his Frankfurt Kehillah as the definitive view. In his opinion, the descendants of the Frankfurt community joining the yeshivas outside of Germany in between the two world wars as a sign of the authenticity of R. Hirsch’s approach of combining Torah and worldly knowledge. One might argue though, that this reveals R. Hutner not to be a staunch proponent of the Hirschian philosophy as he only sees its legitimacy based on the Yeshiva Community’s criterion or a “Torah Only” standpoint and not a viable independent approach. R. Hutner praises the Frankfurt educational model not on its own merits but because it produced yeshiva students who eventually made their way to “Torah Only” institutions outside of Frankfurt. 

Moreover, although R. Hutner grants legitimacy to R. Hirsch’s program and although he himself endeavored to create dual-curriculum institutions, it would be difficult to argue that he viewed Torah Im Derekh Eretz the same as did R. Hirsch. 

Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman, in his “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture,” cites a number of passages from R. Hirsch’s writings proving that R. Hirsch believed in the intrinsic value of Torah Im Derekh Eretz as an ideal for which to strive.[25] One citation from R. Hirsch’s work will suffice:

Culture starts the work of educating the generations of mankind and the Torah completes it; for the Torah is the most finished education of Man…culture in the service of morality is the first stage of Man’s return to God. For us Jews, Derekh Eretz and Torah are one. The most perfect gentleman and the most perfect Jew, to the Jewish teaching, are identical. But in the general development of mankind culture comes earlier.[26]

R. Hutner, who rejected the synthesis of Yeshiva University, presumably would not subscribe to R. Hirsch’s formulation of “Derekh Eretz and Torah being one.” That being said, and notwithstanding R. Hutner’s use of an external assessment of the Hirschian approach, I still believe R. Hutner personal admiration for R. Hirsch as well as for R. Levi does come through in this letter. The nameless gadol from the previous generation he cites approvingly, clearly saw R. Hirsch’s opponents as incorrect and not how the “leaders” of the previous generations viewed the issue.

The second part of the letter expresses clearly his deep appreciation, pride, and personal interest in R. Levi whom he saw as a future “thought leader” on how to approach the issues of Torah engaging with science and general culture. R. Hutner shares his concern about a particular subset within the Jewish community who have erred in their understanding of Torah. R. Hutner believed that R. Levi, a true Torah scholar of the first degree, someone who had an intimate knowledge of Torah as well as a deep understanding of culture, was uniquely equipped for guiding this group in approaching the proper balanced synthesis of Torah and worldly values.

It is of great significance that although all identifying information was removed, much of the contents of the haskamah was in fact published in Igros Ukesavim as Letter no. 127. This shows that, in the view of the publishers of Igros Ukesavim, this letter belongs in the Pahad Yitzhak corpus, R. Hutner’s written legacy. To my mind, this indicates that the letter reflects R. Hutner’s authentic position regarding the value of secular studies and R. Hirsch’s approach.

The Story Behind The Haskamah and its Removal 

The question remains, why was R. Hutner’s haskamah pulled from some editions of Vistas From Mount Moria? Yosef Levi shared with me an excerpt of the text of his yet to be published biography of his father in which he records the story which I have paraphrased below:[27]

Before the book was published some copies were distributed. Apparently, R. Aharon Kotler received a copy because he approached R. Levi and told him that he should not publish the book because he found some of the passages in the book problematic. R. Levi responded that he would consult with his rabbis. Apparently, R. Kotler shared some written comments with R. Levi because Yosef Levi records that his father reviewed Rabbi Kotler’s comments and found that they concerned only two pages related to studying science. He then decided to go ahead with publishing the book after removing the two pages from the book that R. Kotler saw as problematic.

He then asked his two rabbis, R. Breuer and R. Hutner, whether he should proceed with this plan to publish the book without these pages. R. Breuer told him to continue to publish the book along with the two pages because in his view there was nothing wrong with them. However, R. Hutner, although he agreed with R. Breuer, asked R. Levi to remove his haskamah from the book. He felt the honor of R. Kotler, whom he saw as his Rebbi, demanded that he not publish his endorsement. R. Levi agreed and R. Hutner paid to have his haskamah removed from the book. The way that this book was printed, there were one thousand copies that were bound (which R. Hutner’s haskamah was removed from) and there were another thousand unbound copies that still had R. Hutner’s endorsement. R. Levi asked R. Hutner what he should do with those copies. R. Hutner told him not to remove his haskamah from them. “Ask me again when they are ready to be bound,” he told Levi. Once the first thousand copies were sold and they were ready to bind the second thousand, R. Kotler had already passed away. At this point, R. Hutner instructed Levi to bind the second batch of books with his endorsement. Later, R. Levi was told,[28] many people had called R. Hutner asking him to withdraw his endorsement from the book. With his characteristic wit, R. Hutner told the person who answered the phone (probably his daughter, Rebbetzin Bruriah Hutner-David) to tell these callers that he was unable to take their call as he was taking a course at New York State University.

Conclusion 

I believe the context of R. Hutner’s letter and its subsequent removal is of historical significance because it provides the student of history with a hitherto unknown understanding of R. Hutner’s nuanced view of Torah Im Derekh Eretz. It appears that although he supported and advocated for R. Levi bringing a Torah Im Derekh Eretz perspective to those “outside of the Bais Hamedrash,” he chose ultimately not to advocate for this approach formally for the larger American Jewish community. He decided not to publish his endorsement for R. Levi’s book and not to establish a yeshiva high school or college based on the principles of Torah Im Derekh Eretz. Why was R. Hutner’s public position so drastically different from his personal one?

First, and perhaps most significant of all, was R. Aharon Kotler’s role in both the abandonment of the dual-curriculum college as well as the removal of the haskamah should not be underestimated. It is likely that the power and force of R. Kotler’s personality and his Torah-stature prevented R. Hutner from even entertaining the possibility of deviating from his position. Once R. Kotler made his position known, R. Hutner, despite his own view being more amenable to secular studies, was compelled to comply out of his deep respect for R. Kotler, or simply because it would be impossible to succeed at the communal level without his support.

Second, I believe in order to appreciate R. Hutner, one has to understand that in addition to being a talmid hakham, innovative thinker and Rosh Yeshiva, he was a pragmatic leader with an eye towards communal policy. I believe the reason for his choices not to move forward with an American Yeshiva College and not to publish his haskamah has much to do with R. Hutner’s vision for the development of the post-war American Jewish community. 

R. Hutner fully believed in the success of a new American Yeshiva community even when it was not at all obvious it would succeed. In America, the Conservative and Reform movements were seen by many as the way of the future. However, R. Hutner remained determined to create a strong and vibrant American Yeshiva community fully dedicated to greatness in Torah and mitzvos.[29] Although it would be an “American” Judaism, different from the European world from which he emerged, it would not be founded upon compromises. I believe this lay at the heart of R. Hutner’s ultimate opposition to a formal synthesis of Torah and secular studies. In R. Hutner’s mind, for the fledgling American Yeshiva community, a dual curriculum would be seen more as a compromise than an ideal.

As historian Zev Eleff has noted, much of the ideological battles in the American Orthodox community during the post-war years can be seen as a debate over what was “authentic Orthodoxy.” R. Hutner was determined to ensure that the newly forged post-war American Jewish community would be an authentic Judaism devoid of compromises. It is likely that in R. Hutner’s view, R. Hirsch’s program of Torah Im Derekh Eretz, although an admirable one, was perceived as more of a balancing act. Just as it was a legitimate and valiant attempt in Frankfurt to bridge the world of the Yeshiva and the outside world, so too in America, it was valuable for those “outside the walls of the Beis Hamidrash.” However, R. Hutner, not just a Rosh Yeshiva but a communal visionary, believed that in order to shape the future of the American Yeshiva community and achieve the creation of an “authentic Orthodoxy,”[30] the face of the community had to be authentically and exclusively Torah-based. If this is correct, unlike R. Ahron Kotler, R. Hutner’s endorsement of a “Torah-only” approach was less of his own personal view and more of a pragmatic vision of what he assessed would effectively capture the hearts and minds of the American Jewish community. 

It appears that history has come out in favor of this vision. Against all odds and all critics, the American Yeshiva community has continued to grow by leaps and bounds beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Although the Jewish community is currently in a new era, with its own set of challenges and opportunities, the early growth of the Yeshiva community was vital for American Orthodoxy’s success. Although not a direct heir to the Hirschian Frankfurt educational model, the American Orthodox community has certainly benefited from yeshivas that embraced a dual curriculum model as well. As the American Orthodox Jewish community grew in the 20th century against all odds and predictions, it became clear that in the new world of America, more than one approach can prosper. 

Appendix

[1] For biographical information on R. Hutner see R. Dr. Hillel Goldberg, Between Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish Transition Figures From Eastern Europe (Ktav, 1989), pp. 63-87; “Zikhronos,” in R. Yosef Buxbaum (ed.) Sefer Hazikaron Limaran Baal Pahad Yitzhak (Gur Aryeh Institute for Advanced Jewish Scholarship, 1984), pp. 3-66 translated with additions by Rebbitzen Bruriah David and R. Shmuel Kirzner (ed.) An Inner Life: Perspectives on the Legacy of HaRav Yitzchok Hutner zt”l (Gur Aryeh Institute for Advanced Jewish Scholarship, 2024); Yaakov Elman, “Rav Yitzchok Hutner and the Meaning of Hanukkah,” Tablet (December 4, 2015). In Hebrew see Alon Shalev, “Orthodox Theology in the Age of Meaning: The Life and Works of Rabbi Isaac Hutner (Hebrew University Doctoral Dissertation, 2021); Uriel Benar, “Hatifaso shel harav Yitzhak Hutner Vishahruro,” Hamayan Gilyon 61:2, Tevet 5781(Machon Shelomo/Yeshivat Shalavim), pp. 31-47; Shlomo Kiserer, “Hateshuva Bihaguto Shel Harav Yitzhak Hutner,” (Bar Ilan University Doctoral Dissertation, 2008); Yisrael Besser, “Hamahapkhan,” Mishpacha (17 Kislev 5781).

Notwithstanding these works, generally, there has been little biographical material published on R. Hutner. Some may suggest the reason for this is R. Hutner’s general disapproval of biographies. R. Dovid Bashevkin notes in his “Letters of Love and Rebuke From Rav Yitzchok Hutner,” Tablet (October 9, 2016), that R. Hutner laments the often hagiographic nature of rabbinic biographies in an often quoted letter in Pahad Yitzhak, Igros Ukesavim, Letter no. 128 (Gur Aryeh Institute for Advanced Jewish Scholarship, 1981). However, there is evidence that R. Hutner did in fact greatly appreciate the genre of “gedolim biographies.” Zikhronos, p. 88 states, “[R. Hutner] chose [to study] not only complete periodical history, he also [studied] biographical works of the gedolim of the generations.” (translation is my own).

For more on R. Hutner’s groundbreaking work see Steven S. Schwarzschild, “An Introduction to the Thought of R. Isaac Hutner,” Modern Judaism 5:3 (1985), pp. 235-277; R. Dr. Hillel Goldberg, “Rabbi Isaac Hutner: A Synoptic Interpretive Biography,” Tradition 22 (Winter 1987), pp. 18-46; R. Dr. Yaakov Elman, “Autonomy And Its Discontents: A Meditation On Pahad Yitshak,” Tradition 47.2 (Summer 2014), pp. 7-40.
[2] Between Berlin, p. 63.
[3] William Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Jewry (Free Press, 1982), pp. 220-224.
[4] Ibid., p. 35.
[5] Shmuel Avigdor, Mipihem Shel Raboseinu (Bnei Brak, 2007), pp. 458-459. [Hebrew]. The interviews were conducted on 15 Kislev 5725 and 23 Shevat 5727. Translation is my own.
[6] Helmreich, p. 234. Interview conducted on July 9, 1978. It can be noted that although the students at Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin did have secular coursework as part of their high school curriculum, when R. Hutner had the opportunity to found his own yeshiva in Jerusalem, Israel, Yeshivas Pahad Yitzhak, to my knowledge, he never implemented any form of secular studies into the students’ curriculum. However, this may not be completely indicative of R. Hutner’s worldview as much as a practical consideration. The implementation of a dual curriculum in Eretz Yisrael was historically more contentious than in the United States. For example see Yaacov Lupu, “Haredi Opposition to Haredi High-School Yeshivas,” The Floersheimer Institute For Policy Studies (2007) [Hebrew] and Christhard Hoffmann and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Early but Opposed — Supported but Late: Two Berlin Seminaries which Attempted to Move Abroad,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 36 (1991), pp. 267-283.

It should be noted that of late, things are beginning to change on that front. See for example the work of Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer of the Iyun Institute (Herut Israel Liberty Center) and Rabbi Karmi Gross, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Derech Chaim to foster greater Haredi involvement in Israeli society which includes more openness to secular studies in Haredi yeshivas.
[7] Between Berlin, p. 78.
[8] Ibid., p. 65.
[9] Dr. David Kranzler and R. Dovid Landseman, Rav Breuer: His Life and His Legacy (Feldheim, 1998), p. 135.
[10] The authors (Ibid.) note that R. Mendel Zaks and R. Aharon Kotler were opposed to the founding of the school.
[11] Helmreich, pp. 46-47. According to the charter application (Petition for American Theological University, pp. 1-10, prepared for The Regents of the University of the State of New York on March 30, 1946) the school would offer a basic liberal arts program “equal to that of other junior colleges chartered by the Regents. The petition also proposed to establish a number of graduate schools, for which a B.A. would be required.
[12] Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman’s father.
[13] Helmreich, p. 50.
[14] Pahad Yitzhak, Igros Ukesavim, Letter no. 94. Translation adapted from R. Dovid Bashevkin, “Letters of Love and Rebuke.”
[15] It should be noted that here R. Hutner uses the term “Torah Umelakhah” to describe a combination of Torah study and other occupations. This term connotes engagement with the secular from a more pragmatic and practical perspective.
[16] Although the recipient of this letter is not named (as is the case with all of R. Hutner’s responsa in Igros Ukesavim), according to R. Moshe Lieber, it is R. Michoel Ber Weissmandl and the work, which was removed from the letter, was his Min Hameitzar.

Clear proof of this can be seen in Sefer Zikaron (p. 44) which makes explicit reference to a letter R. Hutner wrote to R. Weissmandl. Personal correspondence with Rabbi Moshe Lieber (May-June 2021). For more on R. Weissmandl and his historical role in rescuing Jews from the Holocaust see Avraham Fuchs, Karasi V’Ein Oneh (Jerusalem, 1983) translated in The Unheeded Cry (Artscroll/Mesorah, 1984).
[17] See Yehuda (Leo) Levi, “An Unpublished Responsum on Secular Studies,” Proceedings of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists 1, pp. 106-112. These four responsa were reprinted by Levi in his “Shetei Teshuvos Al Limud chokhmos chizoniyos,” Ha-Ma’ayan 16:3 (1976), pp. 11-16, and in his Sha’arei Talmud Torah (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 296-301 and in Ha-Pardes 64:8 (May 1990): pp. 9-12. For more see Jacob J. Schacter, “Torah u-Madda Revisited: The Editor’s Introduction,” The Torah Umadda Journal 1 (1989): pp. 1-2, and nn 1-3.
[18] There are some discrepancies between the different publications of these letters. See Marc B. Shapiro, Between The Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg (Littman Library, 1999), p. 152n77; Yehuda (Leo) Levi, “Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch-Myth and Fact,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 31, no. 3 (Spring 1997), 11; Marc B. Shapiro, “Torah im Derekh Erez in the Shadow of Hitler,” Torah Umadda Journal, Vol. 14, (2006-2007), pp. 85-86,95; my “Hirschian Humanism after the Holocaust,” Seforim Blog (April 2021), footnote 15.
[19] In this work, he refers to some of these gedolim’s statements although without noting the context in which these statements were made. It is unclear if the author was aware of the backstory of these letters at the time he published this work in 1959. See Leo Levi, Vistas From Mount Moria: A Scientist Views Judaism and the World (Gur Aryeh Institute for Advanced Jewish Scholarship, 1959), p. 94.
[20] Haskamos are available here:

על הספר שערי תלמוד תורה לר”י לוי <פתיחות לדעות שונות> – פורום אוצר החכמה (otzar.org). There appears to be some changes made to R. Pinchas Menachem Alter’s haskamah. See below for the original which shows clearly that some text was removed from the printed version.
על הספר שערי תלמוד תורה לר”י לוי <פתיחות לדעות שונות> – פורום אוצר החכמה (otzar.org).

To explain these discrepancies, Yossi Levi (Personal correspondence, May 6, 2024) shared with me that in Yehuda Levi’s (father) archive there exists a correspondence between his father and R. Alter in which R. Alter accepts R. Levi’s comment that his position is more clearly reflected in haskamah that was printed and not the initial written version.
[21] Yehuda Levi, Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues (Feldheim, 1990), p. xxix. This is not the first time R. Hutner was associated with a missing haskamah. See R. Eitam Henkin, “Eiduto shel Harav Hutner Odot Harayah Kook Vihauniversitah Haivrit,” Hamayan 53:3 (Nisan 5773), pp. 61-69 translated in R. Eitam Henkin, Studies in Halakhah and Rabbinic History, (Maggid, 2021) p. 316n16 who notes that Toras Hanazir, R. Hutner’s first work printed in 1936, was subsequently published a number of times missing the haskamah of R. Avraham Yitzhak Kook.
[22] Although he did not write a haskamah which appears in the book, R. Shimon Schwab wrote a very positive review of Shaarei Talmud Torah in which he states it is “a most remarkable work, to say the least. It combines erudition, scholarship, and great reverence for Torah and Gedoley Torah… It would be a great service to the English-speaking public to have this Sefer translated as soon as possible. See R. Shimon Schwab, Mitteilungen (Tishri/Kislev 5743), adapted from the back cover of Torah Study.
[23] The Levi family has an oral tradition of descendancy from the Maharal (Personal Correspondence, Yosef Levi, July 15, 2024).
[24] Yosef Levi believes that the name was penciled in by his father although a signature was clearly meant to be there. This claim is supported by the correction made in pencil (again, presumably made by the author) to R. Breuer’s haskamah.
[25] Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture,” in Jacob J. Schacter, ed., Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures – Rejection or Integration? (Maggid, 2017), pp. 234-248.
[26] R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, Genesis 3:24.
[27] Yosef Levi (Email correspondence, May 6, 2024).
[28] Yosef Levi shared that he was told this by his father.
[29] See his “Our Attitude Toward Public Opinion,” Jewish Observer 6 (March 1970): 11-13 where he advocates for a confident “Torah-conscious Jew” who rises above the sway of public opinion.[30] Zev Eleff, Authentically Orthodox (Wayne State University Press, 2020).

Two Books by R. Bezalel Naor, R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk, Michael Lerner, and More

by Marc B. Shapiro

1. R. Bezalel Naor is well known for his enormous contributions to what we can call “Rav Kook Studies”. His outstanding translations and analysis have cemented his reputation as one of the leading interpreters of Rav Kook, as well as the most prolific writer on Rav Kook in English. I personally owe a great debt to Naor, as can seen in my forthcoming book on Rav Kook (though I suspect he will reject some of my readings).

Yet many are unaware of Naor’s numerous writings that are not focused on Rav Kook and that go back decades. (Unfortunately, they are not all available on Otzar Hachochma.) In fact, my first exposure to Naor was as a graduate student when I came across his 1984 edition and commentary on Rabad’s hasagot to Mishneh Torah, Sefer Ha-Madda and Sefer Ahavah. As with all of Naor’s writings, he discusses a variety of matters that arise from the text he is commenting on. (In Naor’s Ma’amar al Yishmael, he published the letter sent to him by Prof. Isadore Twersky upon receiving Naor’s edition of Rabad’s hasagot.)

In this post, I would like to focus on two books from Naor that deal with Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. The first is Shod Melakhim,[1] published in 2018, and the second is Ya’akov mi-le-Var Moshe mi-le-Gav,[2] published in 2024. These and other books written by Naor can be purchased here.

Shod Melakhim contains studies of Naor on aspects of the Mishneh Torah, such as the mitzvah of knowing God, Maimonides and Sefer Yetzirah (including Naor’s suggestion that a halakhah in the Mishneh Torah was influenced by Sefer Yetzirah[3]), and analysis of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s commentary on various halakhot of the Mishneh Torah. He also brings into his discussions works by R. Abraham Abulafia, R. Isaac Arama, R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, Solomon Maimon (including a work still in manuscript), Rav Kook, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and so many others. The book also contains a piece by the late R. Joshua Hoffman, reworked by Naor, together with a short memorial to this scholar who unfortunately was taken too soon from us.

Shod Melakhim is so rich, and its learning so profound, that it would require a very lengthy review, if not an actual book, to satisfactorily treat all the important issues Naor raises. In the interests of space, let me offer a few points that came to mind as I went through the book.

Pp. 50ff. Naor cites examples where earlier authorities mention that Maimonides derives halakhot from the Torah,[4] and he notes the dispute about whether medieval Ashkenazic sages independently came up with derashot to derive halakhot. In a recent issue of Ha-Ma’yan, R. Yisrael Reisher published an interesting article in which he discusses when and why post-talmudic sages stopped using independent derashot to derive halakhot.[5] Let me give an example of what I originally thought was a derashah by R. David Abudarham. He lived in the fourteenth century, so it would be significant if someone this late was still independently coming up with derashot. Last summer I brought a group to Spain on my Torah in Motion tour, and one of the places we visited was Seville.[6] That gave me the opportunity to speak about Abudarham as he too was from Seville.

Abudarham, Seder Tefilot ha-Ta’aniyot, says that if the fast of the Tenth of Tevet falls out on Shabbat, that we fast. Now it is true that according to our calendar this can never happen, but if we were proclaiming the new moon with witnesses it could fall out on Shabbat, and Abudarham says that we would fast, something we do not do even with Tisha be-Av. In fact, there are times, like this year, when the Tenth of Tevet falls out on Friday. (With our calendar, Tisha be-Av cannot fall out on Friday.[7]) When we fast on Friday-Tenth of Tevet, the fast is only over at darkness on Friday night. In other words, the fast continues into Shabbat.

R. Meir Mazuz explains Abudarham’s position that we fast when the Tenth of Tevet falls out on Shabbat by saying that he derived it from a derashah.[8] Here is the passage from Abudarham:

ואפילו[9] היה חל בשבת לא היו יכולים לדחותו ליום אחר, מפני שנאמר בו (יחזקאל כד, ב) בעצם היום הזה, כמו ביום הכפורים

Regarding the Tenth of Tevet, Ezekiel 24:1-2 states: “And the word of the Lord came unto me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, saying: ‘Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this selfsame day; this selfsame (בעצם) day the king of Babylon hath invested Jerusalem.” When the Torah speaks of Yom Kippur in Lev. 23:28 it also uses the expression בעצם היום הזה. R. Mazuz thinks that Abudarham made his own derashah, that just as these words are used regarding Yom Kippur and we fast on Shabbat Yom Kippur, so too the same applies to the Tenth of Tevet. However, if you look at the new, heavily annotated, 2015 Kerem Re’em edition of Abudarham, vol. 2, p. 357, you find that there were others before Abudarham who had the same position. Thus, I think it is obvious that rather than coming up with his own derashah, from which the halakhah was derived, Abudarham is simply trying to offer an ex-post facto explanation for the practice of fasting on the Tenth of Tevet that falls on Shabbat. He presumably saw this as a long-standing tradition and was offering a possible explanation for why earlier generations, including perhaps the talmudic sages, adopted this viewpoint.

P. 73 n. 95. Naor points to two views of Nahmanides in his commentary on the Torah that Naor identifies as having their origin in Ibn Ezra. In the second example, dealing with how Jacob married two sisters and Amram married his aunt, Nahmanides does not mention Ibn Ezra, and in the first example, although he cites Ibn Ezra, one could equally well argue that the citation does not mean that this is his source, but rather an opinion he cites that agrees with him. In general, I would like Naor to elaborate on how one is to know in cases like this that we are dealing with real influence from one thinker on another. (See also pp. 97ff. where he identifies clearer evidence of geonic influence on Maimonides.)

P. 125 note, p. 129 note, Naor refers to R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk’s Torah commentary asמש”ך חכמה. Yet this is a mistake. The first word does not have a double apostrophe and is simply written asמשך, as seen on the title page of the first edition of the work. The title is derived from Job 28:18: “the price of wisdom”, and the letters of the word משך obviously allude to the name Meir Simhah. Incidentally, R. Meir Simhah is known both as the “Meshekh Hokhmah” and the “Or Sameah”. Other than R. Israel Meir ha-Kohen, who is known as the “Mishnah Berurah” and the “Hafetz Hayyim”, are there any others who are also known by two separate book titles?

Pp. 129ff. Naor probes how the king has the power to kill people even if there is no halakhic testimony or they have not been warned. He refers to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeah u-Shmirat ha-Nefesh 2:4:

When a Jewish king desires to slay any of these murderers and the like – who are not liable for execution by the court – by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society, he has the license. Similarly, if the court desires to execute them as a hora’at sha’ah, because this was required at the time, they have the license to do as they see fit.

We see from this that in order to improve society the king is not bound by normal halakhic restrictions when it comes to punishing evildoers. Naor also refers to Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:10, which has the same message:

A murderer against whom the evidence is not totally conclusive, or who was not warned before he slew his victim, or even one who was observed by only one witness, and similarly, an enemy who inadvertently killed one of his foes – the king is granted license to execute them and to improve society according to the needs of the time. He may execute many on one day, hang them, and leave them hanging for many days in order to cast fear into the hearts and destroy the power of the wicked of the earth.

Finally, Naor refers to Guide of the Perplexed 3:40, where Maimonides writes: “Even if a court does not execute him [the murderer], the ruler can, since he can execute on circumstantial evidence.”[10]

Following this, Naor cites R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk who compares the Law of the King with Noahide laws, as both of them have the same goal, namely, establishing a functioning society. As such, when it comes to judicial matters, the Law of the King is equal to that of the power given to non-Jewish courts. Since non-Jewish courts can kill a criminal based on a single witness, so too the king can do so.

Naor then expands on this and makes a fascinating suggestion, that the law of ben sorer u-moreh is an example of an emergency measure where the beit din functions by using the Noahide laws. As with Noahide law, the ben sorer u-moreh does not need to be warned about his action. Naor connects this to Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 that with non-Jews: מחשבה רעה הקב”ה מצרפה למעשה. This would explain why a ben sorer u-moreh is punished for something that will happen in the future, as punishment in the Noahide code can be decreed even for just having an intention.

Pp. 157ff. Naor deals with this passage of Maimonides in the Guide 3:45:

He [Abraham] specified due west as the direction to face in prayer, the Holy of Holies lying to the west. That is what the Sages mean by saying, “God’s Shekhinah is to the west” [Bava Batra 25a]. They explain in tractate Yoma that in prayer, we face the Holy of Holies, the direction that Father Abraham[11] set.

The problem is where in Yoma do we find that Abraham set the direction of prayer? This is an old problem and Naor offers a new solution which strikes me as far-fetched, and he himself refers to it as a חידוש נורא. He suggests that Maimonides is referring to Yoma 28b which in our text states: קיים אברהם אבינו אפילו עירובי תבשילין. Naor suggests that Maimonides’ text had עירוב תפילה (or maybe the abbreviation ע”ת) instead of עירובי תבשלין, and elaborates on how that could be understood to mean “west”. Even with all of Naor’s great learning, his solution is still not satisfying to me.

Let me now turn to Ya’akov mi-le-Var. The first part of it contains newly published comments on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah by the 17^th-18^th century Jerusalem sage, R. Jacob Molho. Naor adds his own explanations and elaborations to these comments. The second part of the book is Naor’s Torah insights on a range of matters with his typical originality and breadth.

Pp. 69ff., Naor discusses R. Nissim of Gerona’s famous idea of Torah law and Law of the King. R. Nissim acknowledges that other systems of law work more efficiently in society than certain aspects of Torah law (e.g., how difficult it is to convict criminals according to Torah law). R. Nissim does not see this as a problem as the king will legislate in these areas. For R. Nissim, this is not an ad hoc approach to make the system run smoothly, but this is part of the Torah system given at Sinai, that there is both Torah law and also the Law of the King that work in tandem. Naor suggests that R. Nissim might have been influenced by Nahmanides’ famous notion of a scoundrel with the permission of the Torah, which is how he interprets the verse Kedoshim Tihyu (Lev. 19:1). Just like there is an individual who can be a scoundrel and the general laws of the Torah do not protect against him, thus we need a special law of Kedoshim Tihyu, so too when the written laws of the Torah do not suffice, according to R. Nissim we need the Law of the King.

Naor goes even further and connects R. Nissim’s idea with R. Mordechai Joseph Leiner of Izhbitz[12] and other Polish hasidic figures who have a conception not of Torah law and Law of the King, but of the law of God and the will of God, which are not always in tandem. In this section, Naor shows his great learning in hasidic literature.

P. 141. Naor cites R. Jacob Emden in his note toNiddah22b that not everyone assumes that one needs to receive a gezerah shavah by tradition, meaning that one can create his own gezerah shavah. Naor notes that this is a שיטה יחידאה. Does the notion that one need to receive a gezerah shavah by tradition mean that it must go back to the beit din ha-gadol, as Naor quotes one source as saying? I think not, and to give one example, R. Gedaliah Nadel writes that it is enough for a gezerah shavah to have come to us by tradition, and if previous generations of great scholars, who understood the nuances of Hebrew, accepted a gezerah shavah, we can rely on them.[13] In terms of scholarly studies on the gezerah shavah, to the sources cited by Naor I would also add Michael Chernick, Midat “Gezerah Shaṿah”: Tzuroteha ba-Midrashim u-va-Talmudim (Lod, 1994) and Yitzhak Gilat, Perakim be-Hishtalshelut ha-Halakhah (Ramat Gan, 1992), pp. 365ff.

2. As I mentioned R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk earlier in this post, let me add a few more points relevant to him.

I find it of interest that in 1925 R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg stated that R. Meir Simhah was “truly the gadol ha-dor”.[14]

As to why the kiruv yeshiva was named Or Somayach,[15] Yonoson Rosenbloom writes:

The immediate impetus for the change in name was a powerful shmuess given in the beis midrash by Rabbi Shlomo Freifeld. Rabbi Freifeld quoted the hesped given for Rabbi Meir Simcha by the Rogachover Gaon, his contemporary Torah giant in Dvinsk. The Rogatchover said of Rav Meir Simcha that he learned with the intensity of one who felt flames raging all around and that only his learning could extinguish them.[16]

In 1919 there was a false report that R. Meir Simhah had been murdered in a pogrom. This event was covered by newspapers around the world.[17] Here is a poster that was hung up after the false information arrived in Eretz Yisrael. (The information that appears at the bottom indicating that this poster is from 1926 is incorrect. 1926 was the year of his actual death.)[18]

In response to the false report, there were a number of eulogies given. R. Yisrael Abba Citron, rav of Petah Tikvah, delivered a hesped which was later published.[19]

Are there any other examples of giving a hesped for a great rabbi who was not actually dead?

Speaking of the death of R. Meir Simhah, we are fortunate that he was not killed on another occasion. Yoel Hirsch called my attention to something that is not mentioned in all the discussions of R. Meir Simhah. As is well known, R. Meir Simhah only had one daughter, and she was mentally ill. According to R. Israel Dusowitz in Ha-Mesilah 1:5-6 (Sivan-Tamuz 5696), p. 6, R. Meir Simhah’s daughter tried to kill her father, stabbing him in the neck. Miraculously, he survived.

3. Earlier in this post I mentioned how Naor cites R. Meir Simhah’s notion that a king can execute certain people even though this would not be permitted under Torah law, since his power functions in accord with Noahide law which has a much wider range of possibility to punish than Torah law. R. Meir Simhah was referring to executing people based on lesser standards of evidence, not killing innocent people. Yet I would like to make a few comments about the latter point, as it is precisely with regard to the power of a king to kill innocent people that we see a change in how the generations have regarded certain moral issues.

Contemporary moral judgments are sometimes far removed from those of previous generations, even when dealing with great sages. For instance, R. Levi Ben Gershom recommends that if you are holding a prisoner who has been a constant enemy of the Jewish people, he should be executed.[20] R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes claims that a king has the right to kill the innocent children of someone who rebels, because of tikun olam,[21] and the Hatam Sofer, in a letter to Chajes, find this a reasonable position.[22] The purpose of this killing would be to put fear into others, who while they may be willing to risk their own lives in rebellion, would be deterred if their children were to be wiped out. This is certainly not what pretty much anyone today would regard as “Jewish values.” But I find it fascinating that in previous years, among some great Torah scholars, this was regarded as acceptable, even if only in a theoretical discussion. Naor, p. 136, provides additional sources for this matter, and I would add that R. Kook was also inclined to think that in extreme circumstances it would be permissible to execute innocent people such as children of an evil doer.[23] Let me stress again that all the discussions mentioned in this paragraph were theoretical, no different than so many other theoretical discussions found in rabbinic literature, and I wonder if they could have ever decided this way in a real-life case.

Regarding the power of the king, R. Jacob Kamenetsky has an unusual passage in his Emet le-Yaakov, 1 Kings 3:28. He says that in the story of Solomon and the two harlots, where Solomon said to cut the baby in half, if the real mother had not spoken up, they would have actually cut the baby in half, as the king has the authority to order this.[24]

ונראה לומר, דהנה מה היה קורה אם האמא האמיתית היתה מסכימה שיחתכו את הולד לשנים, בבחינת “תמות נפשי עם פלשתים”. הרי בפשטות מבינים ששלמה המלך היה חוזר בו מיד ואומר, “לא התכוונתי ברצינות שיהרגו את הילד”. אבל זה אינו, כי ביד המלך סמכות מסויימת על חיי נתיניו, כמו שיכול לשלוח אותם למלחמה אף על פי שנהרגים שם, אף כאן מאחר שציוה לחתוך, כאילו שיש כאן דין של ממון המוטל בספק חולקים, היו חותכים משום כבוד המלכות, שהרי אצל מלך אין חרטה

I don’t know why R. Kamenetsky finds the common understanding, that Solomon never really intended his words to be implemented in practice, to be mistaken. Certainly, killing an innocent child does not bring any honor to the king. Even if R. Kamenetsky is correct with regard to Solomon, speaking from our 21st-century perspective, the Jewish people, with their current moral sense, would never accept something like this, and I feel confident that a future Sanhedrin would never countenance it.

It must also be noted that Sforno, Netziv, and Meshekh Hokhmah, in their commentaries to Deut. 24:16 (“Children shall not be put to death for the fathers”), specifically reject the possibility that the king could kill the children of one who rebels, with Sforno noting how this was a typical Gentile practice that the Torah is legislating against.[25] In areas of controversy such as this, I think we should follow the guidance of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg who believed that if there is a dispute among halakhic authorities, the poskim must reject the view that will bring the Torah into disrepute in people’s eyes:[26]

ואגלה להדר”ג [הגרא”י אונטרמן] מה שבלבי: שמקום שיש מחלוקת הראשונים צריכים הרבנים להכריע נגד אותה הדעה, שהיא רחוקה מדעת הבריות וגורמת לזלזול וללעג נגד תוה”ק

R. Shlomo Aviner has the same approach. He notes that conceptions of morality change over time and not every decision of a posek is an eternal decision. Today, when we have different standards of morality than in previous years, if there is a dispute among the authorities, we should adopt the position that we regard as more moral.[27]

וברור שבהלכה פנים לכאן ולכאן. לכן כיוון שנתיבים אלה הם נתיבים מוסריים יותר, עלינו להכריע על פיהם. לפעמים ההלכה מוכרעת, בגלל שעת הדחק, ולפעמים ההלכה מוכרעת כי כך המנהג. אם כן, בימינו ‘המנהג’ הוא להיות מוסרי . . . יש גם מושגים מוסריים המשתנים על פי המציאות. אב הסוטר לבנו הקטן, אינו דומה לאב הסוטר לבנו בן השמונה עשרה. האם סטירת לחי לבנו היא מעשה מוסרי או לא מוסרי? תלוי בנסיבות. לא כל הכרעות הפוסקים הן הכרעות נצחיות . . . במצבנו כיום ישנם שיקולים מוסריים שמצטרפים להכרעותינו ההלכתיות

R. Yuval Sherlo acknowledges moral advancement and concludes: “Despite all the hypocrisy and cynicism there is moral progress in the area of human rights. True religious people believe that this is the will of God.”[28]

3. Michael Lerner recently passed away. I mention this because I recently found a letter from Lerner’s mother, Bea Lerner, who served as chairwoman of the New Jersey Democratic Party.[29] The letter is undated, but was obviously written in 1970 at the time that Lerner was on trial as part of the “Seattle Seven”, charged with having incited a riot. I found the letter in the Heschel archives[30] which I assume means that Mrs. Lerner had sent it to Heschel—who knew Michael Lerner from the Jewish Theological Seminary—and others as part of a request that they submit letters to the court testifying to Lerner’s non-violent nature. I had intended to send the letter to Lerner, but alas, this was not to be. I think the letter, which will be valuable to Lerner’s future biographer, is a wonderful example of parents’ unconditional love for their son, even if he chooses a path that they do not understand or agree with.

Since I just mentioned Heschel, and in honor of Rabbi Dr. Yechiel Leiter, Scranton native and new ambassador from Israel to the United States, let me also include this letter from Leiter’s grandfather, R. Moshe Leiter, to Heschel.[31]

R. Moshe Leiter authored a number of seforim, and in the letter above he is offering condolences about the passing of Heschel’s brother in London, R. Jacob Heshel. Interestingly enough, he is not entirely sure if people had informed Heschel of his brother’s passing, and we know that in the past people did withhold such news. R. Jacob Heshel was the rabbi of the Edgeware Adath Yisroel Congregation, and this is a picture of him with his family that I found here.

4. In my post here I presented some liberal views of euthanasia, views that for some reason are not part of the discourse in Orthodox circles. I forgot to include the following letter from R. Joseph Elijah Henkin which is found in the memorial volume Ner Shaul, p. 502.

See nos. 2, 3, 5, 8. While R. Henkin does not offer any firm rulings, you can see that he does not reject the liberal perspective and might even be inclined to it. No. 4 is also fascinating, for if we accept his suggestion it would mean that even if we assume that brain death is not halakhic death, it would still be permitted to remove a heart from a brain-dead person to save another’s life (as it appears reasonable to assume that a brain-dead person is a goses).

5. In my last post here I raised the question of whether Neturei Karta allies of Hamas can be counted in a minyan, whether their businesses should be boycotted, etc. Someone commented to me that however evil their actions, the Neturei Karta are still Jewish and Torah observant and thus they need to be treated as part of kelal Yisrael. This is a specious argument. Even a cursory familiarity with Jewish history shows that by means of the herem religiously observant people were removed from the community for all sorts of reasons. Because the herem was so successful, these removals only needed to be temporary as the excommunicated people inevitably felt compelled to ask the community leaders for forgiveness.

Yet I want to focus on the point that the Neturei Karta are still Jewish with the implication that since this is their birthright, it cannot be removed from them. (Despite what some people have claimed, from everything I have seen they are indeed halakhically observant and have not violated Shabbat by speaking on microphones, carrying signs where there is no eruv, etc.)

R. Moses Sofer, in his comment to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim no. 39, has a fascinating idea that has been discussed by many.

ועיין בתוספות יום טוב משנה ד’ פרק ז’ דנדה דתמה על כותים אי גירי אמת הן איך עשאום כנכרים לטהר נדות ואהלות שלהם. ונראה לפענ”ד שיש כח בכלל ישראל להוציא המורדים מכלל האומה ויחזרו לגוים גמורים אף להקל . . . והם נמנו וגמרו להוציאם מברית ישראל לגמרי

According to the Hatam Sofer, “Kelal Yisrael”, which I assume is represented by the rabbinic leaders, has the ability to remove someone from the Jewish people and turn him into a complete non-Jew. This would mean that you can lend money to him on interest, if he marries a woman it does not take effect, and even if he is already married the woman would not need a get. So we can leave it to the gedolim if they wish to go this route with the Neturei Karta.

As mentioned, the Hatam Sofer’s novel position—R. Asher Weiss[32] terms it a חידוש עצום—is discussed by many. However, while everyone tries to understand the basis of the Hatam Sofer’s view and its implications, there is one exception, namely, R. Moshe Feinstein.[33] R. Feinstein comes at the matter from a completely different perspective. Finding the Hatam Sofer’s words incomprehensible, he writes:

וברור ופשוט שא”א דבר כזה בעולם . . . וברור שאין זה מדברי החת”ס

R. Feinstein denies that the Hatam Sofer could have written what is found in his commentary. In a number of previous posts I have discussed this tendency of R. Feinstein to reject the authenticity of texts that he sees as completely mistaken. At certain times I think R. Feinstein really means what he says, that the text is not authentic. Yet on other occasions, and the example of the Hatam Sofer’s commentary would be such a case, I agree with R. Betzalel Deblitsky[34] that when R. Feinstein said that the text is not authentic, he did not mean it literally. Rather, this was his way of respectfully registering his strong disagreement. R. Deblitsky compares this to the rabbinic expressionכי ניים ושכיב אמרה, “When he was sleepy and lying down [to rest] he said this halakhah.” Everyone knows that this is just a figure of speech, and it would make no sense for one to reply that on the contrary, when the rabbi issued the ruling he had just finished his coffee and was completely sharp. In fact, R. Samuel Ibn Tibbon even uses this expression about the man he idolized most, Maimonides.[35]

6. My forthcoming book on Rav Kook is now available for purchase on Amazon (although it won’t appear for another couple of months). Once the book reaches America, I will be doing an event at Mizrahi Book Store so stay tuned for that.

* * * * * * * * *

[1] The title is taken from Isaiah 60:16.
[2] For the meaning of this kabbalistic expression, see Yosef Kalner, Milon ha-Re’iyah, vol. 2, p. 199.
[3] See also p. 21 n. 22 where Naor mentions his discussion in this regard with Prof. Abraham Joshua Heschel.
[4] In Kol Torah, Av-Elul 5728, p. 20, R. Nahum Drazin mentions what he heard from R. Moshe Soloveitchik, how R. Hayyim explained a position of Maimonides as arising directly from the verses in the Torah. As this appears to be completely unknown, here is the page.

[5] “Al Perek ‘Ein Dorshin’”, Ha-Ma’yan, Nisan 5784, pp. 93-104. Regarding derashot to establish, or at least support, minhagim, see e.g., Tur, Orah Hayyim 493, regarding women not working after sunset during the period of the Omer:

ונהגו הנשים שלא לעשות מלאכה משתשקע החמה . . . וכתיב שבע שבתות תמימות תהיינה, מלשון שבות ולשון שמיטה שבע שבתות . . . מה שנת השמיטה אסור במלאכה אף זמן ספירת העומר דהיינו לאחר שקיעת החמה אסור במלאכה

R. Eliyahu Zini, Etz Erez, vol. 2, p. 224,  is troubled by this derashah:

ויש לשאול: ממתי רבותינו הראשונים דורשים פסוקי תורה להוציא מהן הלכות, יהיו אלה אפילו מנהגים בלבד

[6] For my 2025 summer Torah in Motion tours, see here.
[7] Mishnah, Ta’anit 4:7 deals with a case where Tisha be-Av falls out on Friday.
[8] Bayit Ne’eman, 16 Tevet 5777, p. 1.
[9] The word אפילו is supposed to be recited with the accent on the final syllable. But does anyone, even Sephardim, pronounce it this way?
[10] The English is taken from the brand-new translation of the Guide by Lenn E. Goodman and Phillip I. Lieberman. This work is a wonderful achievement. It should give Goodman and Lieberman great pride to know that, from this point on, anyone who studies Maimonides will have to turn to their translation, which by the way also contains valuable notes. As a companion volume to the translation of the Guide, Goodman has also just published A Guide to the Guide to the Perplexed.
[11] The translation is from the Goodman and Lieberman edition. Pines has “Abraham our Father” which I think people will be more comfortable with, as “Father Abraham” sounds Catholic.
[12] Again, I do not know why Naor records the name of R. Leiner’s book as מ”י השילוח. The title is מי השלוח without any apostrophes.
[13] Mi-Torato shel R. Gedalyah, p. 25. Regarding gezerah shavah, see the brand new book by Moshe Sokolow, Pursuing Peshat: Takakh, Parshanut, and Talmud Torah, pp. 85-86, where he calls attention to R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk, Meshekh Hokhmah, Num. 30:10, where he creates his own gezerah shavah. In justification of this step, R. Meir Simhah cites the Jerusalem Talmud, Pesahim 6:1: “A man may initiate his own gezerah shavah in order to sustain his study.” R. Yehudah Copperman, in his edition of the Meshekh Hokhmah, notes the originality of R. Meir Simhah in this example:

הפירוש המקובל לאמרה זו (וכך אמנם משתמע מסוגית הירושלמי) היא לפי בעל קרבן העדה: לקיים תלמודו שקיבל מרבו, דאין הפסד בדבר, שהרי בלאו הכי הדין כן, ואין גזירה שוה זו אלא לסמוך בעלמא (עכ”ל). לעומת זאת מושך רבינו את הכלל אף להלכה שלא קיבל מרבו אלא שחידש הוא בבית מדרשו! ועיין בהרחבה בפרקי מבוא פרק יד, כי זה חידוש גדול בבית מדרשו

[14] Kitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, vol. 2, p. 235.
[15] Regarding the word שמח, I transliterated Sameah, but the official name of the yeshiva is Ohr Somayach. So which pronunciation is correct? It turns out that both are correct, as some grammarians claim that before the furtive patah in שמח there is an aleph sound, and others think that there is a yod sound. The same thing would be with the word ריח, which can be pronounced either as רֵיאַח or רֵייַח, or the word פענח which can be pronounced פענֵאַח or פענֵיַח. See R. Benzion Cohen, Sefat Emet, pp. 59-60; R. Adir Amrutzi, Dikdukei Abiah, p. 19.
[16] Rosenbloom, Rav Noach Weinberg: Torah Revolutionary (Jerusalem, 2020), p. 72 n. 1.
[17] See details here.
[18] The poster is taken from here.
[19] See Zev Aryeh Rabiner, Maran Rabbenu Meir Simhah Kohen (Tel Aviv, 1967), pp. 232-233. For another published eulogy, by R. Ben Zion Cuenca, see Mekabtze’el 39 (2013), pp. 739ff.
[20] Commentary to 1 Kings, ch. 22, Toelet 34.
[21] Torat ha-Nevi’im, ch. 7.
[22] She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim no. 108 (end).
[23] See Da’at Kohen, no. 193.
[24] Regarding the Solomon story, a real-life version of this is reported to have occurred in the early twentieth century. A woman who was nursing the baby boy of the rabbi mistakenly slept on the boy, killing him. Fearful of what would happen, she gave her own son to the rabbi’s wife, and this boy was then raised as the child of the rabbi. The matter was only discovered years later. When the woman’s husband died, the dead husband appeared a number of times in the rabbi’s son’s dreams asking why he was not saying kaddish for him. Here is R. Eliezer Deutsch’s description of the case in Va-Yelaket Yosef, vol. 10:20 (1908), no. 194.

The story is also told in R. Zvi Hirsch Friedling, Hayyim ha-Nitzhiyim, p. 54, as an illustration of the importance of kaddish.
[25] See Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. 33, s.v. לא יומתו אבות על בנים, col. 947; R. Shimon Krasner, “Ishiyuto u-Feulotav shel Shaul ha-Melekh,” Yeshurun 11 (2002), pp. 779-780.
[26] Kitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, vol. 1, p. 60.
[27] Am ve-Artzo, vol. 2, pp. 436-437.
[28] Reshut ha-Rabim, p. 102.
[29] See David Horowitz, Radical Son (New York, 1997), p. 175.
[30] Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 8, Folder 1.
[31] Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 17, Correspondence 1970-1971.
[32] See R. Asher Weiss’ weekly shiur, Toldot 5785, p. 11, called to my attention by Baruch from Monsey.
[33] Iggerot Moshe, vol. 9, p. 162 (Yoreh Deah 5:41)
[34] Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 122 (Kislev-Tevet 5766), p. 170.
[35] See Carlos Frankel, Min ha-Rambam li-Shmuel Ibn Tibbon (Jerusalem, 2008), p. 300:

כי ניים ושכיב רבינו ז”ל אמר זה הדבר

Disputatious Divorces: Public Controversies over Gitten and Couple Relations
by Marvin J. Heller[1]

God said “It is not good that man be alone: I will make him a helper, a counterpart to him.
Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 24)
As a rose among the thorns, so is my beloved among the young women.
As an apple tree among the forest trees, so is my beloved among the young men (Song of Songs 2:2,3).
A man takes a woman [into his household as his wife] and becomes her husband. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement (Sefer Keritut, get), hands it to her, and sends her away from his house (Deuteronomy 24:1).

The Bible makes clear that the normal relationship is for men and women to marry and have a warm conjugal relationship, stating this near the opening of Genesis, the first human relationship being formed on the sixth day of creation, the day the both man and women were created. This relationship is emphasized by King Solomon in the Song of Songs (Shir ha-Shirim) who, as noted above, describes the affection each member of a couple has, should have, for each other. Alas, unfortunately, this is not always the case. When that unfortunate occurrence occurs, the Torah mandates a procedure for terminating the relationship, hopefully with a minimum of animosity and acrimony.

In contrast to the above, several contentious divorces in the Jewish community, in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, had a very public countenance, this in contrast to the concept that divorce is a private affair. In all of these instances the disputations and the opinions of the prominent rabbis involved were recorded in numerous books of responsa. This article looks at several of those divorces and related publications, one in which none of the participants were Jewish. In that instance, however, halacha was a matter of interest. Background of the disputes are discussed in this article and several of the leading related publications are described. Five contentious divorces are addressed in this article in chronological order, excepting the English royal divorce addressed at the conclusion of the article.

I

1566 – Tamari-Venturozzo affair – We begin with the controversial divorce known as the Tamari-Venturozzo Affair, after its participants, Samuel (Shmuel ha-katan) ben Moses Ventura of Perugia, known as Venturozzo and Tamar, the daughter of Joseph ben Moses ha-Kohen Tamari, “the leading physician in Venice.” Shlomo Simonsohn, begins his description of the “divorce scandal” writing that in contrast to other communal disputes the Tamari-Venturozzo affair, an issue of Jewish law, “roused the Jewish public throughout Italy” and social conflict in the communities.[2]

In 1560, Samuel Venturozzo, was promised, (engaged to) Tamar (Tamari). Three months after the betrothal a dispute between Venturozzo and Tamari, the latter close to the Venetian government, occurred, the former reputedly for violating his marriage vows, customarily made at in Italy at the time of betrothal. As a result, Venturozzo left Venice, claiming that he fled the city because Tamari had reported him to the authorities. Venturozzo moved about in Italy, pursued by Tamari, who demanded a get (bill of divorce) for his daughter, as erusin (betrothal) involving the exchange of marital vows, that is, apart from and prior to nissu’in (marriage), had taken place, necessitating a get.

After four years, Tamari brought the case to the Maharam of Padua (R. Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen, 1482-1565), among the leading rabbis in Italy. He ruled, on February 27, 1564 (4 Adar, 5324), that within a month Venturozzo must either consummate the marriage or divorce Tamar. After considerable difficult negotiations, Venturozzo returned to Venice and formally divorced Tamar, giving her a get. This did not, however, conclude the matter. Venturozzo subsequently reputed the divorce, claiming that he had been compelled to grant the get; Tamari charged that Venturozzo was mercenary. Furthermore, Tamari claimed that Venturozzo’s charges, after the fact, did not negate the get. Rabbinic and secular authorities were marshaled by both sides, in Venice on behalf of Tamari, the rabbinate in Mantua, and Cosimo I, Duke of Florence, on behalf of Venturozzo, who would later be librarian for the Duke’s Hebrew books. Even the Church, represented by Cardinals and the Inquisition, became involved. The dispute occupied the attention of Italian Jewry for seven years.[3]

According to Robert Bonfil the Tamari-Venturozzo controversy was one of several within the Italian-Jewish community. Each dispute involved numerous rabbis, none with sufficient authority to render a final decision. He writes that “the personal authority of the individuals involved was severely weakened by some harsh facts which came to light in the wake of these conflicts.” Furthermore, social tension between ethnic groups was aggravated. “Even in the case of the Tamari-Venturozzo divorce, the Mantua community was divided into two camps: the scholars of the Ashkenazic yeshivot on the one hand, and R. Moses Provenzali and the Italian community on the other.[4]

This dispute over the get divided the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities of Italy, and, prior to its resolution, involved a wide spectrum of rabbinic authorities, in such locations as Venice, Florence, Ferrara, and Mantua, as well as Italian officialdom and even beyond Italy, in such diverse locations as Salonika, Constantinople and Eretz Israel. Polemic tracts and collections of responsa were issued for and by both sides.

Several works of responsa address this dispute, of those noted here, one was printed in Venice, R. Baruch Uziel ben Baruch Hazketto’s Hatzaah al Odot ha-Get, and two were published in Mantua, R. Samuel ben Moses Venturozzo’s Elleh ha-Devorim and R. Moses ben Abraham Provencal’s Be’ur Zeh Yaza Rishonah.[5]

1566, Hatzaah al Odot ha-Get
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Hatzaah al Odot ha-Get (Proposal on the matter of the get given by Samuel known as Venturozzo) is a collection of responsa from a number of rabbis in support of Tamari. It was published at the press of Giorgio di Cavalli (Venice, 1565) in a small format (21 cm. 77 ff.). Cavalli, a scion of an ancient Veronese family made Venetian patricians, was an active printer of Hebrew books from 1565 to 1567, issuing more than twenty Hebrew titles. His pressmark was an elephant bearing a turret.

Hatzaah al Odot ha-Get was published by the Tamari family and the rabbis of Venice who supported the family. The book was published at intervals and subsequently assembled as a complete work. R. Baruch Uziel ben Baruch Hazketto (d. 1571, Hazketto is a Hebraized form of his name: ḥazak, forte, פורטי, “strong”).[6] The title-page of Hatzaah al Odot ha-Get states that it’s subject matter is the get given by the young Samuel known as Venturozzo. It is dated 8 Tishrei השכ”ו ([5]326 = Monday, September 3, 1565) and “contains all the details, in general and in particular, from beginning to the end. . . . and in it can be found all the facts of the divorce.” The text begins with an account of the affair from the Tamari perspective. It is followed by correspondence and rulings supporting the Tamari family from rabbis who express their opposition to R. Moshe Provencal (Provencali), who led the rabbis of Mantua, and his supporters, the leading adherents of the Venturozzo position.[7]

Elleh ha- Devorim represents the Venturozzo family’s position. It was published in quarto format (4⁰: pp. 46 ff.) with the assistance of R. Moses ben Abraham Provencal. Although the title-page states it was printed in Mantua the publisher is not known. In addition, a second, this the primary work representing the Tamari family position, was Provencal’s Be’ur Zeh Yaza Rishonah.

R. Moses ben Abraham Provencal (1503–1575), born in and rabbi of Mantua was a prominent Talmudist and among the preeminent contemporary Italian rabbis. Among the many works for which he is known, in addition to his responsa, are an approbation for the printing of the Zohar (Mantua, 1558–60), and other varied works.[8] A leading supporter of Venturozzo, Provencal (1503-1575), invalidated the get, contending it was given under duress. His position was opposed by many rabbis in Italy, as well as rabbis throughout Italy and Turkey. Provencal wrote to the Venetian rabbinate informing them that Tamar could not remarry until the matter was resolved. The Venetian rabbinate sought and gained the support of the rabbis (six) in the Ashkenaz yeshiva in Mantua, who “banned” Provencal, an activity supported by several prominent rabbis in Italy and abroad. Provencal was actually put under house arrest by the authorities in Mantua for his position.[9] Much of the Italian rabbinate supported Provencal.

1566, Elleh ha- Devorim
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

1566, Be’ur Zeh Yaza Rishonah
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Provencal’s Be’ur Zeh Yaza Rishonah is a small work. It was printed in Mantua in octavo format (8⁰: [22] pp.), the press, as noted above, unknown. The title-page describes Be’ur Zeh Yaza Rishonah as including all the laws concerning women on divorce and betrothal when discord occurs between a man and his wife and the monetary issues when they bring their case to judgment. In addition to the works described here Simonsohn notes several other related responsa, some still in manuscript.

When the matter became so heated there were riots, suppressed by the civil authorities, in Milan. Soon after, however, the public lost interest in the affair and it was quickly forgotten. At the end of the century Provencal’s grandchildren were unable to sell copies of his pamphlet still in their possession.

(TSB Editor note: For more about this controversy see Eliezer Brodt’s recent presentation available here.)

II

Divorce of Vienna, 1611 – Our second contentious divorce, a cause celebre known as the Divorce of Vienna (Get Mi-Vi’en) concerns a young man from Poland, sixteen years of age, who married a young woman from Vienna. He became severely ill. The couple did not have any children. Persuaded by his wife’s family, the husband agreed to divorce his wife, to give her a get, so that she would not have to undergo halitzah after his passing.[10] At the time of the divorce, the husband’s position was based on his being informed that if he recovered the marital relation would be resumed. He was provided with written and oral assurances that if he recovered, he could remarry his wife. The young man did recover, but his wife declined to resume the prior relationship and return to her [ex]husband. The issue came before R. Meir ben Gedaliah of Lublin (Maharam of Lublin, 1558–1616) who determined that because of the husband’s understanding of the situation and recovery the original divorce was invalidated.

Another rabbi of repute to whom the question of this divorce was also addressed was R. Mordecai Jaffe (Levush, 1530-1612). It was his position that the verse in Deuteronomy (24:1–2) that only if his wife does not please him, as in the header verse “he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house . . . And she shall go out of his house and became a wife to another man …” It was the Levush’s contention that a woman can remarry only if she did not find favor in her husband’s eyes. If, however, the divorce was due to other reasons, a “divorce of love” is Jaffe’s term, it “is not effective as an instrument empowering marriage to another.”

In contrast to the above, in a synod of the Polish and Russian rabbinate, R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels (Maharsha, 1555-1631) determined that, given the prior understanding, the divorce was valid. Similarly, R. Joshua Falk (1555-1614), author of Beit Yisrael commentary on the Arba’ah Turim as well as Sefer Meiros Enayim on the Shulkhan Arukh argued that the get was valid, as no explicit condition had been written in the get. Finally, the wife’s family did not permit the remarriage.[11]

(TSB Editor note: For more about this controversy see Eliezer Brodt’s recent presentation available here.)

III

Urbino 1727 – Our next contentious divorce, this quite different from our other separations, took place in Urbino, at one time capital of the province of Pesaro e Urbino, duchy of Urbino, but subsequently later a portion of the States of the Church. Jews may have been resident in Urbino as early as the thirteenth century, albeit in small numbers. The details of the divorce and the participants in the ensuing divorce are detailed in R. Isaac ben Samuel Lampronti’s (1679-1756) multi-volume encyclopedia entitled Pahad Yitzhak, most parts printed posthumously.

Lampronti, a physician, rabbinic scholar, and head of the yeshiva in Mantua, a Sephardic sage in Italy, began to assemble the contents of Pahad Yitzhak when a student in Mantua. It is an encyclopedic and comprehensive work on Jewish subjects, arranged alphabetically. Lampronti worked on Pahad Yitzhak his entire life, but only beginning to publish it when elderly. A thirteen-volume work, the first volume (Venice, 1750) of Pahad Yitzhak was printed at the Bragadin press. It is the only part of Pahad Yitzhak to be published in Lampronti’s lifetime; it is on the letters א and ב. The remainder of the work was published posthumously.[12] Publication of Pahad Yitzhak was completed in Berlin (1885-87), the final volumes published by the Meḳiẓe Nirdamim Society.[13]

1750, Pahad Yitzhak 
Courtesy of Jewish National Library

1866, Pahad Yitzhak
Courtesy of HebrewBooks.org

The case of the Urbino divorce is addressed in Pahad Yitzhak, volume 7 (Lyck, 1866), under the heading safek (doubt). Ninety pages reproduce the various works, responsa, and related correspondence concerning this dispute. The detailed Pahad Yitzhak entry on the disputed Urbino divorce is summarized by Cecil Roth in an article on the dispute. The remainder of this article entry is a concise recapitulation of that summary.[14]

In this occurrence Consolo Moscato, a very attractive orphan girl, was resident in Urbino. She was sought after by many of the local young men, but she chose to wed her cousin Solomon Vita Castello. The match was arranged, but did not take place immediately, Consolo’s father having passed away and her mother, signora Diana, remarried. The couple lived under the same roof, in the home of an aunt. Due to difficult economic conditions the year stipulated for the wedding passed and it was three years before anything was done. At the end of June, 1727 Castello purchased attractive attire for the bride from a merchant for no less than twelve zecchins.

Soon after, however, the groom became ill and his mind was affected. Castello threw himself down a well; quickly saved he was bound hand and foot to prevent another attempt. His madness was followed by periods of lucidity “or what was convenient to consider lucidity.” Castello had relapses, at which time he called upon the Saints for assistance. When his kinsfolk stopped this speech, he responded with blasphemies. When this became known priests were sent by the church authorities to save his soul. There was concern that the church would seize Consolo to accompany Castello. She therefore fled, in terror, to her mother’s home and took steps to annul her engagement.

Subsequently, Consolo became betrothed to Moses Samuel Guglielmi on Friday, October 17, 1727, freeing her from Castello, with whom she had not undergone a formal ceremony. Soon after, however, Castello regained his health and found, to his dismay, that his bride had been estranged. Consolo was now prepared to cancel her new relationship and return to Castello. However, a local rabbi, R. Judah Vita Guglielmi, a relative of Moses Guglielmi, ruled that Consolo’s renewed relationship to Castello was illegal. Consolo and Castello secretly married. It was alleged that Guglielmi had even employed a non-Jewish sorceress to break the couples’ bond. R. Judah Vita Guglielmi, seeing his authority flouted appealed to other rabbis, as did the other side. Leading rabbinic authorities in Italy became involved. After serious contentiousness on both sides, it was agreed unanimously, in the decision of R. Solomon David del Vecchio, that Consolo must be divorced by both of her suitors, neither of whom could be considered her husband. Castello subsequently demanded repayment for his expenses refusing to grant her freedom, with the result that he was excommunicated. He finally consented, the excommunication was withdrawn, bringing the Urbino dispute to a conclusion.

IV

Cleves, 1766-67 – In 1766-67, a dispute arose over a get in Cleves (Kleve), a city in the historic duchy of Westphalia in western Germany, less than 5 miles (8 km) south of the Dutch border. Jews are mentioned in Cleves as early as 1142 and were granted a charter of privilege in 1361. They received patents allowing them freedom of movement (Geleitbriefe) in 1647–51 and 1713–20. Nevertheless, Jewish residence there was small, numbering only four families in 1661, 19 in 1739, and 22 families in 1787.[15] The small number of Jews notwithstanding, there too a dispute over a divorce, the get of Cleves, was contentious and became a wide spread dispute involving leading rabbinic authorities.

Here too the dispute concerns a husband who had intermittent mental illness. In this case the subject was the marriage Isaac (Itzik) ben Eliezer Neiberg of Mannheim to Leah bas Jacob Guenzhausen of Bonn, on Elul 8, 5526 (August 14, 1766). On the Sabbath after the wedding, Isaac (Itzik), took the dowry of 94 gold crowns and disappeared. He was subsequently found, after a widespread search, two days later, in a gentile home in Farenheim and returned home. Not long afterwards, Isaac told his wife’s family that he could no longer remain in Germany because he was in serious danger and that he had to immigrate to England. Isaac stated that he was prepared give Leah a get so that she would not be an agunah (technically still married and unable to rewed). Leah agreed and Cleves was chosen as the place where the get would be given. Afterwards, Leah returned to Manheim and Isaac preceded to England. Although he gave his wife a get the validity of the divorce was questionable; it is necessary that one giving a get be of sound mind. As a result, the validity of the get became an issue of contention between rabbinic authorities in Western Europe.[16]

The divorce was given, on 22 Elul, 5526 (August 27, 1766), under the direction of R. Israel ben Eliezer Lipschuetz, the av bet din (head of the rabbinic court) of Cleves. When Isaac’s father learned of the divorce, he suspected that the whole affair had been arranged by Leah’s relatives in order to extract the money for the dowry from Isaac. Isaac’s father then turned to R. Tevele Hess of Mannheim, who determined that the get was not valid, Isaac not having been of sound mind when he gave it to Leah. Hess sought support for his position, turning to the bet din (rabbinical court) of Frankfurt, headed by R. Abraham ben Zevi Hirsch of Lissau. Abraham ben Zevi Hirsch supported Hess’s ruling but that was not the case with other prominent rabbis such as R. Naphtali Hirsch Katzenellenbogen of Pfalz, R. Eliezer Katzenellenbogen of Hagenau, and R. Joseph Steinhardt of Fuerth. While Abraham ben Zevi Hirsch agreed and even demanded that Lipschuetz invalidate the get, agreeing that Leah was still a married woman, the others did not support him, saying the divorce was valid and Leah might remarry. Furthermore, many other prominent rabbis also validated the get.[17] The Frankfurt rabbinate, here influenced by the Frankfurt am Main dayyan (judge) R. Nathan ben Solomon Maas opposed the validity of the get, publicly burning the supportive responsa of the other rabbis, condemning their support of Lipschuetz and his position. Finally, the couple remarried, and in respect of R. Abraham of Frankfurt, did so without any of the traditional blessings at the ceremony. Instead, Isaac said “with this ring you are still married to me.”

The above events are recorded in two works, both validating the get. R. Aaron Simon ben Jacob Abraham of Copenhagen’s Or ha-Yashar are favorable responsa published in the year “as a sign for rebellious ones לאות לבני מרי (529 = 1769)” (Numbers 17:25) in Amsterdam by Gerard Johan Yanson at the press of Israel Mondavo. Aaron Simon was the secretary of the Jewish community of Cologne. He was also the author of Bekhi Neharot, on the flood in Bonn in 1784 (Amsterdam, 1784). He expresses his agreement with and support of Lipschuetz in Or ha-Yashar.[18] The title-page of that work informs that it was completed in the month that the Torah was given to Israel (Sivan) and is dated “as a sign for rebellious ones לאות לבני מרי (529 = 1769)” (Numbers 17:25). Or ha-Yashar is a 19 cm. ([7], 111, [1], ff.) work. Aaron Simon ben Jacob had followed the events and had himself played a part in the granting of the get. Or ha-Yashar records the complete episode of the Cleves divorce.[19]

1769 Or ha-Yashar
Courtesy of Hebrewbooks.org

1770, Or Yisrael
Courtesy of Hebrewbooks.org

The following year Lipschuetz published Or Yisrael in defense of his position. It is dated with the popular phrase “[Rock of Israel], arise to the aid of Israel קומה בעזרת ישראל (530 = 1770)” in defense of his position. Or Yisrael was published in Cleve at the press of the widow Sitzman as a 20 cm. (120 ff.) work. It is the only Hebrew book to have been printed in Cleve. Or Yisrael is comprised of thirty-seven responsa, primarily concerned with the Cleve divorce. Responsa 34-36, which are very critical of the Frankfurt rabbis, were omitted in their entirety, the numeric order of the printed responsa being 33, 37, while responsum 33 was printed with modifications.[20]

A negative result of this controversy was similar to that of the Tamari-Venturozzo controversy, as noted above. Here too, Mordecai Breuer suggests that in the polemic over the Cleves get “rabbis and rabbinical courts from various communities likewise fought against each other with fierce antagonism. . . . and the Cleves divorce, undoubtably had a detrimental effect on the standing of the rabbinate.”[21]

Or ha-Yashar was reprinted once, in Lvov (1902). This is the only edition of Or Yisrael.[22]

(TSB Editor note: For more about this controversy see Eliezer Brodt’s recent presentation available here.)

V

Henry VIII – We conclude with what is the most unusual of our contentious public divorces, that of Henry VIII (June 28, 1491 – January 28, 1547) king of England. Henry reigned from April 22, 1509 until his death in 1547. He is an important and influential figure in English history. Henry took England out of the Roman Catholic Church, had Parliament declare him, in 1534, supreme head of the newly founded Church of England, beginning the English Reformation. He did this because the pope would not annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, who had not provided him with a male heir.[23]

Henry’s first marriage – he married six times, this apart from mistresses – was to the Infanta Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536) in 1509.[24] Catherine was the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain and the widow of Arthur, his elder brother. Arthur and Catherine did not have children; the related question of levirate marriage, the question of its application to them, will be addressed below. Henry was eighteen at the time and Catherine five years older when they wed. The marriage was a political union, as were many royal marriages at the time. Henry and Catherine did have a child, Mary, born in February 1516. Of the many pregnancies and several births that Henry would have from his many wives, Mary was the only child to survive.[25]

Henry VIII
Hans Holbein the Younger

Catherine was reportedly devoted to her “young, athletic, charming husband.” She was a committed wife and very much wanted to give her husband a male heir. Their first child was a daughter, stillborn in 1510. She was followed by a son, named Henry, born in January 1511, but he lived only 52 days. In October, 1513, Catherine miscarried; in February 1515, she had a stillborn son. “In February 1516, there was happiness as Princess Mary was born. There was joy in the sign that Catherine could bear a vital child which kept alive the hope of a son.” There was, however, sadness with this birth, Catherine having been informed two weeks earlier that her father had passed. One more child was born to the royal couple, in 1518, a stillborn daughter, the last of their children.

After eighteen years of marriage and seven pregnancies, Henry despaired of having a male son with Catherine of Aragon. Winston Churchill writes that by 1525 she was forty years old. Five years earlier, Catherine had been privately mocked by Francis I, king of France, “saying she was already ‘old and deformed.’ A typical Spanish princess, she had matured and aged rapidly; it was clear that she would bear Henry no male heir.”[26]

Henry did have an illegitimate son, daughter of a maid in the court, named Henry, who was made duke of Richmond, but was not an option as successor. Henry VIII became enamored with Anne Boleyn (ca. 1504-1536), a lady in waiting to Catherine, whom he secretly wed in Whitehall Palace. He then attempted to discredit his marriage to Catherine.[27] Henry’s marriage to Anne was also not successful. Anne Boleyn was not a submissive woman. In April 1566, three years later, Anne was accused of high treason, adultery, incest with her brother George, and plotting to kill the king, and tried before a jury. On 15 May, four days later, she was convicted and beheaded. These charges, investigated by historians, are rejected as false.[28]

Henry submitted a request to Pope Clement VII that his marriage to Catherine be dissolved. The pope, however, did not agree to Henry’s request. Cecil Roth writes that the pope would have been prepared to “grant the favor” and annul the marriage but for fear of Catherine’s nephew, Emperor Charles V, who was opposed due to the slight he felt this put upon his house.[29] Henry’s marriage to Catherine was, from a religious, Biblical perspective, questionable, marrying a sibling’s wife, even if he was deceased, being prohibited. The exception to this is where the deceased brother did not have offspring, in which case the commandment of levirate marriage becomes operative.

A complex issue, biblical interpretation and Hebrew tradition assumed importance. Jewish interpretation of scriptures was not readily accessible, as the Jews had been expelled from England by Edward I on 18 July 1290. It was to Italy, therefore, with its notable Jewish community, particularly to the Venice community, that the protagonists turned.[30] Henry sent Richard Croke, an eminent classical scholar and royal tutor, to Venice to seek adjudications on the subject.

Responses both in favor and opposed to Henry’s request are found among the rabbinic authorities in Venice. Among the people that Henry consulted was Mark Raphael, a convert to Christianity who reputedly had previously held a high rabbinic position in Venice.³¹ The subject of Henry’s query was of the legality, according to Jewish law, of his levirate marriage to Catharine.[32]Raphael, who arrived in London on Jan. 28, 1531, held that while Henry’s marriage to Catherine was legal, the king might nevertheless take a second wife conjointly with the first wife. This decision was not acceptable, so Raphael suggested that, as Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had born no children, and Henry had married Catherine without the intention of continuing his brother’s line, that marriage was not legitimate but rather invalid. This position was presented to Parliament, Raphael subsequently being rewarded, being given special import rights in 1532.[33]

Response of Jacob Rafael Peglione of Modena, relating to Jewish marriage law that might apply in the divorce of King Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon. Italy, 1530.
Courtesy of British Library Board
https://www.timesofisrael.com/dont-divorce-her-rabbis-letter-to-henry-viii-at-heart-of-british-library-show/

Members of the Venetian rabbinate in general were not positive, not supportive of Henry’s position. Among those approached by Henry’s representatives was R. Jacob Raphael Jehiel Hayyim Peglione of Modena. He, however, determined in a responsum that the marriage could not be dissolved. In addition to rabbinic opposition several prominent Venetian physicians opposed Henry’s position, among them Elijah Menahem Halfon, a Talmudist, physician, and kabbalist and Jacob ben Samuel Mantino, physician and translator of philosophical works.[34]

Henry VIII’s offspring did include one son, born to Jane Seymour, a sickly boy, who ruled as Edward VI (1547 – 1553). Edward was succeeded on the throne by Henry’s daughter, Mary, from Catherine of Aragon ( 1553 – 1558), a devout Catholic, remembered today as Bloody Mary, for her attempt to restore Catholicism as the state religion with utmost severity. Henry’s last offspring to rule was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, who ruled as Elizabeth I (1558-1603, reigned from 1558). Elizabeth, was, in contrast to what one might expect from Henry’s relationships with his wives and with Anne Boleyn in particular, that being a short marriage concluding with Anne’s beheading, a popular, successful, and among England’s most preeminent and perchance most significant monarch.

Conclusion – We have addressed five public and contentious divorces. What they have in common is that they were all public and controversial, the opposite of what all parties generally attempt to avoid when marriages fail. As noted at the beginning of this article, what should be a positive and affirmative relationship, should, when it fails, be a private and hopefully not overly contentious dissolution of an unsuccessful bond. The cases described here, over three centuries, were public and unpleasant affairs. They attracted attention not because of the distinction of the subject individuals in the divorces but rather because of the rabbinic participants who were called upon to resolve the issues. The exception to all of this is the divorce of Henry VIII, not Jewish, but whose advisers called upon rabbinic authorities for support.

Again, the above notwithstanding, marriage is meant to be a joyful and positive relationship, as we find in the verses from King Solomon:

As a rose among the thorns, so is my beloved among the young women.
As an apple tree among the forest trees, so is my beloved among the young men.

The Origin and Evolution of a “Rashi Yashan”- In Praise of Artscroll
Rashi Breishit 12:2 – “ואעשך לגוי גדול”

Eli Genauer

The term “רש״י ישן” in printed editions often appears after a comment recorded in parentheses. An example of this is Rashi in Breishit 12:2. Here is how it looks in the first edition of the Artscroll Stone Chumash printed in November 1993:

Rashi’s comments are recorded as follows

Comment #1

ואעשך לגוי גדול. לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ גּוֹרֶמֶת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַמָּמוֹן וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם, לְכָךְ הֻזְקַק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּרָכוֹת הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ עַל הַבָּנִים וְעַל הַמָּמוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁם:

Comment #2 (attributed to ספרים אחרים and found in a “רש״י ישן”)

ס״א (ספרים אחרים) ואגדלה שמך הריני מוסיף אות על שמך שעד עכשׁיו שמך אברם מכאן ואילך אברהם ואברהם עולה רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם. ברש״י ישן

One wonders a bit at the use of the terminology that something is found “ברש״י ישן” because it would seem that nowadays, all comments of Rashi are “old”. One also gets the impression that this comment might be more authentic than those comments normally attributed to Rashi because it was found in a רש״י ישן. [I]

To understand why this comment is recorded as being from a “רש״י ישן’ one must go back to the first time it appeared as such. In this case it is an edition of Chumash and Rashi printed in Hanau 1611-1614.[2]

The most probable source for the text as recorded in the Hanau 1611-14 edition is an edition of Chumash and Rashi printed in Lisbon in 1492. As you can see, it is recorded almost word for word the same as the Hanau edition.[3]

It also appeared in an edition printed in Constantinople in 1522.

Why did the editors of the Hanau edition include this comment in parentheses and attribute it to a “רש״י ישן’?” Simply put because it had rarely appeared in print from 1491 until 1611 despite the fact that many other editions of Rashi had been printed. The editors most likely felt it was important to attribute the comment to something “new” they had found, a “רש״י ישן’.”

Here are some examples of texts printed between 1491 and 1611 where the comment does not appear. (Some of these editions are of Rashi alone, and others have the text of the Chumash along with Rashi)

1.Napoli 1492, 2. Bomberg Venice 1518, 3. Bomberg Venice 1522, 4. Rashi Bomberg Venice 1522, 5. Augsburg 1534, 6. Bomberg Venice 1538, 7. Giustiani Venice 1548, 8. Bomberg Venice 1548, 9. Sabionetta 1557, 10. Juan Di Gara Venice 1567,11. Cristoforo Zanetti Venice 1567, 12. Cracow 1587, and 13. Juan di Gara Venice 1590.[4]

After the comment was included in the Hanau edition of 1611-14, it was identified as a “רש״י ישן” from then on. Examples are:

Amsterdam 1635, Manasseh ben Israel, Amsterdam 1680, first edition of Siftai Chachamim, Berlin 1703,and Vienna (Netter) 1859[5] where it appears like this

As mentioned, it appeared this way all the way up to 1993 in the Artscroll Chumash. Though important to the Hanau editors, it did not make much sense 400 years later. It might have been more helpful to tell us the source in Chazal for the comment and that is precisely what Artscroll did.

In the Enhanced Edition of 2015 – (7th Impression 2020) it looked like this

The same was true of Rashi Sapirstein Student Edition 20^th Impression -2019

Gone was the information that the comment in parentheses came from a “רש״י ישן’”, to be replaced with the information that the Midrashic source for this comment was Breishit Rabbah 39:11. The first part of this Rashi “לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ גּוֹרֶמֶת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים” clearly appears there.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ מַגְרֶמֶת לִשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַיְצִיאָה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם. מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָדוֹל. מְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַיְצִיאָה, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ. מְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וַאֲגַדְלָה שְׁמֶךָ.

But there was a problem, and that is that only part of the comment in parentheses appeared in Breishit Rabbah 39:11, that of Hashem adding a letter “הריני מוסיף אות על שמך” to the name of Avram. [6]

The rest of the Ma’amar “ואברהם עולה רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם” is not found there but rather in Medrash Tanchuma 16[7] and in Nedarim 32b.[8] This is reflected in the Artscroll Rashi Elucidated Edition of 2023.

The section called שפתי ישינים in the back of this edition informs us that the first time these comments (הריני מוסיף אות על שמך) appeared in print was the Alkabetz Guadalajara, Spain edition of 1476, (דפוס 3) though in a slightly elongated form where the words “שיצא לך טבע מוניטין בעולם ד״א” preceded it. It appeared in a shortened form in Lisbon 1491, it was added to the text of Rashi in parentheses by the Hanau edition, and that it is recorded that way even today by many Chumashim.

Were these comments included by Rashi in his original commentary?

The respected website Al HaTorah notes on this additional comment that it is found in one manuscript[9] and in the Alkabetz edition, but that it does not appear in any other manuscript that it checked.[10]

בכ״י פריס 157 ובדפוס אלקבץ נוסף כאן: ״וזהו ואגדלה שמך שיצא לך טבע מוניטון בעולם. דבר אחר: ואגדלה שמך – הריני מוסיף אות על שמך, שעד עכשיו שמך אברם ומכאן ואילך אברהם, ועולה אברהם בנוטריקון רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם שהן רמ״ח.״ הביאורים חסרים בכל כ״י האחרים שבדקנו

It is absent from most printed editions of the late 1400’s and the 1500’s. Avraham Berliner did not include it in either of his editions of Zechor L’Avraham (1867 and 1905).[11] It is not included in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, and in Torat Chaim of Mosad Harav Kook. (1993), and it is not included in the text of Rashi in Al HaTorah. It therefore seems to be a comment that did not originate with Rashi.

Finally, I feel that Artscroll should be acknowledged for continuing to “upgrade” its presentation of the Rashi text as it has clearly done in this case.

The Anatomy of a Mystery: Kohanim, Dissection, and Medical Training Throughout History

Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD

In September of 2024, I accidentally opened the portal to a priestly mystery. While searching for references to the first Jewish students to attend the University of Gottingen Medical School, I came across an antisemitic work published in 1753 about the general dishonesty of Jews and Jewish oaths.[1] Therein were a few disparaging references to Jewish physicians,[2] one of whom was named Lehmann Isaac Kohen. A parenthetical footnote,³ likely precipitated by the student’s last name, caught my attention. The author references an entry in a German newspaper from 1750 regarding Jewish members of the tribes of Aaron and Levi, ritual defilement upon exposure to the dead, anatomical dissection, and the training and practice of medicine.

Further research revealed that the antecedent to this 1750 reference was a brief entry in an earlier issue of the same German newspaper, Braunschweigische Anzeigen, from 1748,[4] posing a query for the readership:

Can one prove from the Old Testament, as well as from the Talmud, or other Jewish scribes, that a Jew from the tribe of Levi or Aaron cannot or may not become a doctor? And whether God has expressly forbidden this in the Old Testament?

It would be eighteen months until a response to this query was published:[5]

In chapter 21, verses 1-11 of the second book of Moses, it is written: The LORD spoke to Moses saying: Tell the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them: A priest shall not defile himself by contact with the dead among his people. If, therefore, the Levites are not permitted to approach any dead person and defile themselves thereby, it follows that they are not allowed to observe dissections of corpses or participate in such procedures. And since they are thus prevented from studying anatomy, which is the very foundation of medicine, it also follows that they cannot properly learn medicine and become true medical practitioners.

Brückmann. D.

As to the precipitant for this query, I can only conjecture. Was it perhaps an encounter of the editor with a Kohen who informed him of this idiosyncratic Jewish law as he contemplated attending medical school? I suspect not, and there is no evidence of such. While the city of Braunschweig (AKA Brunswick) did not have a medical school, there were numerous medical schools in Germany where, by this period in history, hundreds of Jews were attending.[6] More likely, it was a hypothetical academic theological question, albeit with some confusion and conflation of the tribes of Kohen and Levi, untethered to any specific reality.

Introduction to a Priestly Mystery

You may wonder why I draw your attention to this passage, which hardly seems novel. Anyone remotely familiar with medical halakha, or Jewish law in general, is certainly aware of the basic laws of purity as they relate to a Kohen. Yet, what is most extraordinary about these few lines, buried in an obscure German eighteenth century local newspaper, is that as far as I was aware at the time, this was the only reference to the issue of Kohanim, anatomy, and medical training in the pre-Modern era. Prior to the discovery of this passage, I had not encountered a single discussion specifically addressing Kohanim training in medicine in either Jewish or non-Jewish sources prior to the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries.

The issue of anatomical dissection in medical training is a staple of contemporary medical halakhic discourse.[7] The first halakhic references to general anatomical dissection are in the late eighteenth century, with the famous responsa of the Nodah biYehuda and Rabbi Yaakov Emden, yet they contain no discussion about Kohanim.[8] I have recently uncovered clear evidence that the Jewish community of Padua was dealing with the halakhic issue of cadaveric dissection already since the very time of Andreas Vesalius (16^th century), long before the days of the Noda biYehuda, but also no specific reference here to Kohanim.

The question of Kohanim, dissection and the practice of medicine has been amply discussed in modern rabbinic literature.[9] Male members of the priestly tribe (Kohen-singular, Kohanim- plural) are proscribed from exposure to ritual impurity, the human corpse being the archetypal example. The prohibited exposure entails not just direct contact, but even being under the same enclosure as a corpse (tumat ohel). As hands-on human anatomical dissection, involving direct and prolonged exposure to a corpse, is a sine qua non of current medical training, the anatomy lab serves as a potential impediment for a Kohen interested in becoming a physician.[10]

Due to these halakhic concerns, numerous rabbinic authorities prohibit outright a Kohen from entering the medical profession, though others offer halakhically acceptable options. Indeed, when the Albert Einstein College of Medicine was established by Yeshiva University, the issue of offering admission to Kohanim was raised.[11] In an article written on the occasion of the first graduating class of Einstein, Myron Kolatch addressed the complex interplay of religion and medicine at the institution:

Frequently cited as an example of how the medical school violates the Torah is its willingness to accept students of priestly descent, kohanim. Leviticus, 21: 1-4 states: “And the Lord said unto Moses: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron and say unto them: There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people…

Clearly, the issue has never been settled beyond dispute, and Yeshiva’s policy that each kohen who wants to take up medicine must determine his own course, certainly does not indicate a blatant disregard for the Torah.

Some sixty years hence the halakhic landscape regarding Kohanim and medical school remains largely unchanged. There have been and continue to be Kohanim who attend medical school under halakhic guidance, with varied unique modifications.

Here I do not revisit the detailed halakhic analyses but address the historical contours of the discussions. According to Rabbi Bleich, one of the first halakhic authorities to raise the issue of Kohanim physicians and the prohibition of tumah was Rabbi Isaac Shmuel Reggio in 1854.[12] The context of the case was a Kohen physician who was tasked with confirming the death of a patient who was previously pronounced dead by another physician.13] This particular query was made in the historical context of a Western society that collectively questioned the ability of physicians to accurately diagnose death. As such, it was legislated in many European countries that after the initial preliminary diagnosis of death, a physician was legally required to confirm the diagnosis with serial exams over the next few days prior to burial. [14] In the aforementioned case, the physician chosen for this job happened to be a Kohen.[15]

In addition to this unique case, halakhic discussions regarding Kohanim and medicine have largely addressed two issues: 1) The propriety of a Kohen physician attending to a critically ill patient (gosses)[16] given the high probability of the patient’s demise and subsequent conveyance of impurity. 2) The permissibility of a Kohen physician, who in the course of his practice violates the prohibitions of tumah exposure, to participate in Kohen-specific religious ceremonies, such as bestowing the priestly blessing (nesiat kapayim). Even these discussions only begin in the halakhic literature of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, with nary a trace prior, and are limited to Kohanim who were practicing physicians. Contemporary halakhic discussions on the Kohen in medical training proceed with an analysis of primary sources and do not cite any responsa or any other references from the premodern era about a Kohen medical student.

If Jews have been training as physicians for millennia, with presumably many Dr. Cohens among them, how could it be that this halakhic topic seems to have escaped serious rabbinic or any historical treatment until so recently? How do we explain the conspicuous silence in the historical record?

As this source from the Braunschweigische Anzeigen seemed purely academic, is found in a non-Jewish secular periodical, and provided no additional references, it contributed little to our mystery. The portal to the priestly mystery had opened a crack, but no wider.

While this source was discovered serendipitously (i.e., hashgachah), surely a fresh dissection of the halakhic and historical literature today, given the expansive and easy access, would reveal many previously unknown sources addressing Kohanim, dissection, and medical training in the premodern era. Or perhaps not. After an extensive search, to date, I have identified exactly one single additional relevant source before the nineteenth century, albeit of significance.

This passage also derives from a non-Jewish source, the work of Carl Wilhelm Friedrich Grattenauer (1770-1838), a German lawyer and anti-Semitic publicist, though it records a Jewish exchange.

In 1817 Grattenauer published a work devoted entirely to the tribe of Aaron,[17] where in the context of ridiculing the archaic Jewish laws related to Kohanim, and lamenting the “obscurantism” of the Rabbis, we find the following passage:

The previous Chief Regional Rabbi Joseph Jonas Frånkel in Breslau, a generally recognized learned and scientifically educated man, had heard that the medical student HI, who also came from the tribe of Aaron, was preparing anatomy here[18] and was thereby contaminating himself according to the ritual law. He therefore summoned him and asked him whether he wanted to give up this anatomical activity, which was contrary to ritual law, or renounce his privilege as a Kohen to give the blessing. The student replied: I renounce this privilege. I would rather acquire a thorough knowledge of medicine and become a sufficient member of civil society. The Rabbi dismissed him… For 20 years, Mr HI has been one of the most skilled local doctors and he is still a Jew [despite the pronouncements of a fanatical Rabbanite].

Rabbi Joseph Jonas Frankel (1721-1793) served as the Silesian district rabbi. Assuming the veracity of the story, this remarkable exchange raises a number of questions: Was this a rare encounter, or did other rabbis engage in the same practice? Does this reflect Rabbi Frankel’s unique opinion, or the halakhic consensus of the time? Was there any room for leniency with respect to Kohanim training in medicine? HI was approached by Rabbi Frankel to address his halakhically concerning practice. Were there other Kohanim who proactively sought rabbinic consultation before applying to, or attending medical school? Was the response of HI typical of other Kohanim who encountered potential halakhic obstacles to medical training, or perhaps a reflection of the cultural milieu of his time.

All told, we have a grand total of two sources before the nineteenth century referring to Kohanim, dissection and medical training, both found in non-Jewish sources, and one of which is essentially irrelevant. I have yet to find any Jewish historical or halakhic sources. The priestly mystery thus still remains- How do we explain this historical “anatomical” anomaly? In this “priestly offering,” I suggest historical and halakhic reasons for this lacuna. I hope my offering will be accepted.

A Suggested Historical Solution

An understanding of the history of medical training, and in particular, of the training in human anatomy throughout the centuries, might assist us in providing an explanation for this glaring omission.

Apprenticeship versus University Training

Universities developed as educational institutions in Europe in the Middle Ages. With respect to medical training in general, in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Jews were generally barred, with few exceptions, from admission to European universities, which were under Catholic auspices. Jewish physicians were therefore trained almost exclusively through apprenticeship. Postmortem dissection was not a part of apprenticeship training. As such, there would have been no specific halakhic problem for the Kohen medical trainee, and we would not expect to find any such reference in the literature.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, in his discussion of medical training for the Kohen, posits a similar, though variant, explanation of the training of the Kohen physician in the past.[19] Rav Moshe prohibited the medical training of Kohanim today, unexceptionably, is it involved required exposure to tumat met. One parenthetical line in his responsum sheds light on our discussion.

ולא יקילו ממה שמצינו מרבותינו הראשונים שהיו כהנים והיו רופאים שהם בכוחותיהם הגדולים למדו כל חכמת הרפואה במסירת כל דבר בעל פה אף בלא שום ראיה והסתכלות במתים ולא נגעו במת מעולם ולא היו באהל אחד עם מתים, אבל בזמננו שא”א זה לכן ודאי אסור

And do not think to be lenient based on the fact that we find among our rabbis of earlier generations those who were both Kohanim and physicians; their exceptional powers enabled them to learn the entirety of medical knowledge orally without the necessity of even gazing upon a human corpse (i.e., practical anatomy lab). They never touched a corpse nor were they ever under the same enclosure as one. Today, however, when it is impossible to train in medicine [without the direct exposure to a human cadaver] it is prohibited.

Rav Moshe preemptively addresses a possible refutation of his position. If it is prohibited for a Kohen to train in medicine, how is it possible that we have a record of Kohen physicians in the past? Rav Moshe suggests that these Kohanim possessed exceptional abilities which allowed them to study medicine without resorting to the dissection or observation of human cadavers (and its resultant tumah exposure). Medical history supports this general idea. Indeed, all Jewish physicians through the Middle Ages, whether Kohanim or not, studied medicine through apprenticeship, without the need to dissect or even be under the same enclosure as a human cadaver.[20]

Priestly Physicians Throughout the Centuries- The Many Dr. Cohens

Who were these Kohanim physicians that Rav Moshe references? Zimmels[21] and Jakobovits[22] identify numerous Kohanim physicians throughout history, starting from Talmudic[23] times. Some of these priestly physicians provided medical care for kings, doges and popes. In fact, we have ample historical evidence of numerous Kohanim who practiced medicine over the centuries. Nathan Koren in his expansive registry of Jewish physicians has over fifty entries with the names Cohen, Coen, Cohn, Katz, Kohen, Kohn, Kahn, or Sacerdote (priest) ranging from the 15^th to early 19^th centuries.[24]

How did these Kohanim navigate their medical training? A simple explanation is that the majority of Kohanim, along with other Jews who were barred from the universities, trained through apprenticeship, effectively bypassing any halakhic concerns for anatomical dissection. Though there are no available statistics, despite the increasing acceptance and attendance of Jewish students at universities beginning in the sixteenth century, apprenticeship likely remained the predominant mode of medical training for Jewish physicians until the mid-seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries. As apprenticeship training involved no dissection, this would account for the absence of halakhic queries in the literature for this group.

Some Jews however elected to pursue a university education. Jews occasionally attended universities from the Middle Ages onwards, usually requiring special Papal or governmental permission.[25] While anatomy was clearly always part of medical education to varying degrees, and anatomical dissection was performed sporadically across the centuries, the introduction of systematic dissection of the human body as a required part of medical training fully developed only in the sixteenth century. Until this time, even if a Kohen wished to attend medical school, there would have been little halakhic concern.

The status quo would change in the sixteenth century under the guidance of Andreas Vesalius, a young Professor of Human Anatomy at the University of Padua. As divine providence would have it, the very university at which Vesalius established the field of anatomy was the first institution to officially allow, beginning even before the times of Vesalius, Jewish students to train in medicine. By the sixteenth century hundreds of Jews flocked there for this historically unprecedented opportunity.

Given the introduction of systematic anatomical dissection into the medical school curriculum in the 16^th century, how could a Kohen now navigate a university medical education? From this point in history, we would expect to see halakhic discussions about Kohanim attending medical school.

One might suggest that Kohanim, being knowledgeable in the potential halakhic pitfalls, simply refrained from becoming physicians once dissection became an unavoidable aspect of medical training. Indeed, Rabbi Jakobovits maintains that less Kohanim entered the field of medicine in the eighteenth century, a statement he buttresses with reference to articles about the matriculation records of some German universities (Frankfurt and Duisburg), and the low number of those with a priestly name as compared to the percentage of Kohanim in the general population: “Even today, the usual proportion of Jews bearing the name “Cohen” alone (others, too, may be of priestly descent) is at least 2-3%.” He adds that this lower percentage of Kohanim in medical school “can only be explained as reflecting the growing misgivings with which the choice of medical career by students of priestly descent was generally viewed.”[26]

While this may have been true in Germany in later centuries, the archives of the University of Padua reveal a different statistical reality. The archival record of Jewish graduates of the University of Padua from the early 16^th to the early 19^th centuries includes nineteen graduates with the last name of Coen or Sacerdote.[27]

Even if we concede that not all those named Coen, or derivatives thereof, were necessarily Kohanim, many certainly were. Below is the family crest of Samuele Coen as it appears in his Padua medical diploma from 1702.[28] Notice the image of the hand configuration used by the Kohen during the Priestly blessing.

In addition, there are eleven members of the Cantarini family, a family of Kohanim, who graduated as physicians from the University of Padua during this period. Below is the front page of the medical diploma of Grassin Cantarini (1703),[29] here again we find the Kohen’s symbol.

The percentage of Kohanim who attended Padua’s medical school, roughly thirty out of a total of some 350 for this period, is significantly higher than the average percentage of Kohanim in the general Jewish population.[30] How then do we explain the absence of discussion in the literature? It is certainly possible that these relatively few Kohanim, despite their high percentage of the total, simply did not inquire of rabbinic authorities. Alternatively, the few inquiries that did occur where not committed to writing, or did not survive the ravages of time.

More problematic is that some of the Kohen Padua graduates were outstanding Torah scholars and prolific authors, such as Isaac Hayyim Cantarini,[31] Tuviya HaRofe (AKA Tuviya haKohen),[32] and Abraham Sacerdote (AKA Avraham HaKohen).[33] Oe mnight have expected at least one of these scholars to address this issue somewhere in their writings. Yet, there is no mention in any of their extensive writings of any concern with their participation in the anatomy course. Indeed, while Tuviya fondly recalls his medical training in Padua in the introduction to his Ma’aseh Tuviya, there is no mention of any challenge with performing dissection as a Kohen. Cantarini, in his Pahad Yitzhak, devotes a section to a tragic case where a Jewish body was kidnapped by non-Jewish students for the dissection table. Again, no mention of any concern about Kohanim and dissection. In addition, we have an account of Cantarini bringing Abraham Levi, a visiting scholar to Padua, to see the anatomy theater to showcase the highlights of Padua.[34]

While we may not find the names of these three Kohen student scholars etched into the wooden planks of the structure, they all likely took their seats,[35] along with their other non-Kohen Jewish classmates, in the famous anatomical theater at the University of Padua, which was inaugurated in 1595 as the first permanent structure devoted to anatomical dissection, and is still standing to this day.

I suspect that the answer to the conspicuous omission lies elsewhere, based on the history of anatomical training in general, and at the University of Padua in particular.

The Nature of Anatomical Teaching in the Pre-Modern Era

A mention of anatomy lab today evokes an image of a small group of students huddled over a body with dissecting instruments in hand. We also often find reference to the anatomy students designating a name for their cadaver, as they dissect one body for the entire course. Unlike the anatomy labs of today, in pre-Modern times body preservation technologies were not available, and a corpse was only usable for a few days to weeks. The dissections or yesteryear were held in an “anatomical theater.”[36] The format of anatomy teaching involved the professor alone performing the dissection and teaching over the body while others merely observed. Students did not perform any hands-on dissection, partially because there was little time until the decomposition of the body, and thus had no direct contact with the corpse. This can be seen in the frontispiece of Vesalius’ classic work:

This is also reflected in the design of the anatomical theater in Padua, which was built shortly after the tenure of Vesalius, and can be visited today.

There is a central oval table surrounded by coliseum-like concentric rows of progressively elevated platforms. This basic architectural design was copied for other anatomical theaters across the world, such as those below:

University of Bologna: Anatomical Theater (est. 1636)

University of Leiden: Anatomical Theater (est. 1594)

This illustration is from 1610. Parenthetically, the Keeper of the Anatomical Theater of Leiden from 1617-1650 was Professor Otto Heurnius.[37] Heurnius was the promoter for the medical graduation of David de Haro,[38] the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden.

By the mid 1600’s Jews started attending the University of Leiden in higher numbers. We have numerous matriculation records of Jews with the name Cohen.[39]For example:

Samuel Cohen from Hamburg matriculated to the medical faculty (M) in September 1646.

A Pure Solution

As a medical student in the anatomical theater served only as an observer, and performed no actual dissection, there would have been no concern for impurity conveyed through direct contact with a corpse. The only potential concern for a Kohen in the anatomical theater would have been tumat ohel, whereby impurity is conveyed by being under the same enclosure as a cadaver. While there is general halakhic consensus that impurity conveyed by direct contact applies to the bodies of both Jews and non-Jews, there is a halakhic debate regarding whether a non-Jewish corpse conveys tumat ohel.[40] It is certainly possible that the Kohanim who attended the lectures in the anatomical theater of Padua (and in anatomical theaters at other universities at this time) relied on the permissive position that a non-Jewish corpse does not convey tumat ohel. This would have allowed them to attend dissections without violating any halakhic precepts.

However, there still remained at least a theoretical possibility that the cadaver would be Jewish, in which case the permissive option would no longer apply. For a unique historical reason, this concern was non-existent for the anatomical dissection course at the University of Padua. In fact, the university struggled to provide cadavers for the course and turned to each community represented on campus, including the Jewish community, to provide bodies for the dissection table. However, the Jewish community adamantly refused, citing religious concerns with postmortem dissection. While there was continuous tension about this issue, the Jewish community arranged an agreement to provide large sums of money annually to the university for the privilege of releasing the Jewish community of this obligation. This general agreement, with periodic reassessments and renegotiations, essentially remained in force for some two hundred years.[41] Thus, all the Coens and Cantarinis who attended the University of Padua did not have to worry about the possibility that the cadaver under the scalpel of Vesalius or Fallopius was Jewish.

The Architectural Design of the Padua Anatomical Theater

Moreover, a unique structural feature of the Padua anatomical theater may have further mitigated any potential halakhic concern for a Kohen wishing to study medicine at Padua. The original anatomical theater had a retractable roof[42]  which was opened during dissections to release or eliminate the foul odors of a progressively decaying cadaver. Thus, even tumat ohel may have been a non-issue as in the absence of a roof there would have been no halakhic enclosure to convey impurity. This would have virtually eliminated the halakhic obstacle for a Kohen medical student.

An Alternate Solution for Kohanim

What of a Kohen desirous of a university medical education who would not rely on a permissive ruling regarding tumat ohel and the non-Jewish cadaver? By the 17th century, medical schools struggled to acquire enough cadavers to meet the growing demand of anatomy students. The need to provide a nonperishable substitute led to the production of highly accurate anatomical wax models that were sculpted through direct observation of dissected cadavers. Such models had distinct advantages, as they neither decomposed nor emitted foul odors and were continuously available. They proved essential to the education of generations of medical students who would otherwise, due to the short supply of cadavers, not have access to the anatomical education gleaned from human dissection.[43]

Spectacular wax models were produced throughout Europe, especially in Italy and England, from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, some of which can be seen to this day in Museums in Florence (La Specola), Bologna and London.[44]

This seems to me to be an ideal solution for a Kohen who wished to train in medicine in the Early Modern period. The use of wax models, with no human cadavers involved at all, would pose no halakhic problem whatsoever. While I am unaware of any Kohen medical student who ever took advantage of this option, the modern iteration of this concept, as we discuss below, may entirely replace cadaver dissection.

Kohanim in Medical School from the Eighteenth Century Onwards

From the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century, apprenticeship became less accepted and university training was often required for licensure. As a result, Jewish admission to medical schools increased exponentially throughout Europe and the United States. In addition, the anatomy labs began to transition to hands-on dissection for all students. This was simultaneously accompanied by a major cultural movement in Germany, the main location of Jewish medical training at this time, known as the Haskala. This movement was associated with the decreasing religiosity of at least a percentage of the Jewish university students, not to mention the conversion of some to Christianity. A family name of Cohen on a matriculation record in this period, even if identified, is certainly no guarantee of a student knowledgeable or concerned with the issues of tumah.

How would a Kohen navigate medical training in this milieu? The student encountered by Rabbi Frankel in Breslau was training precisely in this context, at the end of eighteenth century. Was the student known by his initials “HI” training in a medical school where he was required to perform hands-on dissection, and this is perhaps why Rabbi Frankel ruled as he did; or perhaps the medical school still had an anatomical theater, as many still did, and Rabbi Frankel did not accept the permissive ruling that tumat ohel does not apply to a non-Jewish cadaver. Was “HI” influenced by the newly forming Haskala movement in Germany at that time, which led him to be less deferential to rabbinic authority?

Two additional examples of Kohanim and medical training from the nineteenth century are illustrative. We have at least one record of a “Cohen” in the early nineteenth century refusing to go to medical school because of the required anatomical dissection. A young Albert Cohen, originally from Paris, describes his initial encounter with anatomical dissection in Vienna in the early nineteenth century:[45]

I went to Vienna, where I pursued my studies at the grammar school and university from 1826-1834. Being now nineteen years old, it became necessary to decide what profession I would adopt. Hitherto all young people of my native place who devoted themselves to literature studied medicine; this was then the only profession open to me. To please my parents, I would have followed the same career, had I ever been able to prevail upon myself to dissect a corpse. Several times I entered the anatomical theatre, but each time I was seized with unconquerable disgust. I therefore requested my parents to allow me to follow my own taste. Henceforth I devoted myself to the study of Oriental languages.

I suspect the parental conversation about his career change may have been a bit more dramatic than reflected in this passage. Nonetheless, we learn that it was anatomy that turned this young Jewish Kohen student away from a career in medicine, though it does not appear to have been halakhically motivated.

Around the same time, Sigismund Cohen, a native of Lower Silesia, the area of modern-day Poland and the rabbinic domain of Rabbi Joseph Jonas Frankel a few decades earlier, attended the University of Viadrina (Frankfurt), graduating in 1846. The topic of his dissertation- Talmudic Medicine:

For a Jewish medical student to write a medical dissertation on a Jewish topic was quite uncommon, to say the least.[46] It is somewhat ironic that a thorough analysis of Biblical and Talmudic law might have led Cohen to the realization that there was a potential halakhic issue with his training and may have preempted the necessity for Cohen to write this dissertation in the first place. Nevertheless, as this dissertation is remarkable on many levels, I offer a few comments.

From a medical and medical historical perspective, Cohen acknowledges his professors by name, one of whom was Jan Evangelista Purkinje, who taught him human physiology. Purkinje, a Czech anatomist and physiologist, was one of the most famous scientists in Europe and his discoveries included the so-called Purkinje Cell in the cerebellum and the so-called Purkinje fibres in the electrical system of the heart, structures familiar to any medical student today.

This dissertation also has great significance in the field of Jewish medical history. While we do not know with certainty the nature of Cohen’s Jewish knowledge and religious observance, the dissertation includes a brief biography as an appendix. An excerpt about his early education is below:

While we find reference to the study of “Pentateuchi origine” and “grammatice Hebraica,” Talmudic study is not specifically mentioned, and there is clearly a strong educational focus on secular studies. The 28-page dissertation itself however contains a wealth of Talmudic references.

I also draw attention to three specific sources cited by Cohen, one from a century earlier, the others contemporary.

1) Benjamin Wolff Gintzburger, Medicina ex Talmudicis, inaugural Dissertation 1743

Benjamin Wolff Gintzburger was one of the first Jewish graduates of the University of Gottingen. It was my search for references to Gintzburger that precipitated this contribution.[47] His medical dissertation, referenced by Cohen, is one of the first works written on Biblical and Talmudic medicine.[48]

Apropos our discussion about dissection, Gintzburger is better known in the halakhic world as the questioner of a (now famous) teshuva to Rabbi Yaakov Emden about performing anatomical dissection on Shabbos.[49]

2) Abraham Hartog Israels, Tentamen hist.-med. Exhibens Collectanea Gynaecologica ex Talmude Babylonica (Grongen, 1845)

Israels graduated from the University of Groningen in 1845, just a year before Cohen, and the topic of his dissertation was obstetrics and gynecology in the Babylonian Talmud.

This dissertation gained notoriety for its fourth chapter, on Cesarean section, which suggests that the rabbis of the Mishnah were able to perform cesarean section with maternal survival, something not recorded in secular medical history until around 1500. This was based on an interpretation of a Mishna in Bechorot.[50]  Cohen discusses this chapter in his dissertation.

3) Eliakim Carmoly, Histoire des Médecins Juifs, Anciens et Modernes (1844)

Carmoly served as the major work of reference in Jewish medical history for this period. Selections were translated into English just one year after publication.[51] While the reliability of Carmoly’s work was called into question by critics,[52] it nonetheless contains a wealth of valuable information.

Returning to our student, regarding Cohen’s presumptive status as a Kohen training in medicine, he devotes a chapter of his treatise to anatomy and cites a passage in the Talmud where dissection was performed.[53] More relevant, in his bio, he includes mention and thanks to those who assisted him during his studies in the anatomical theater:

Anatomical dissection did not appear to be an impediment for this Cohen. However, there is one observation, admittedly a possible over-read or mistranslation, which may indicate specific accommodations for Sigismund in his dissection course.[54] In his lengthy list of professors, Cohen simply mentions the subject and the professor. In his mention of the anatomical theater, he adds, “in the anatomical theater there were guides for me….” Could this possibly be an allusion to specific accommodation provided to Sigismund? Perhaps his professors performed the dissection while he observed but did not touch the corpse directly.

Conclusion: The Opening and Reclosing of the Priestly Portal

Halakhic references to a Kohen attending medical school are noticeably absent from rabbinic literature before the nineteenth century. We have suggested plausible explanations for this anomaly. For much of history, Jewish physicians trained through apprenticeship where formal anatomical instruction was not required. As such, there would have been no halakhic issues for a Kohen, as noted by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. When Vesalius introduced the comprehensive anatomy course into the medical school curriculum, dissections were performed in anatomical theaters, where students never touched the cadavers. At least some Kohanim may have relied on the permissive ruling that non-Jewish cadavers do not convey tumat ohel. When hands-on dissection became the norm, as Rabbi Lord Jakobovits suggested, it is certainly possible that many religiously observant Kohanim elected to bypass medicine as a career choice, or were perhaps discouraged to do so by local rabbis like Rabbi Frankel. Of the Kohanim who opted for a medical career, some may have sought rabbinic approval, though no records exist. Others, whose priestly-sounding names appear in university matriculation records of the period, may have been less Jewishly educated or less religiously observant. Hence no halakhic questions would have been generated from this latter group.

The portal to rabbinic discussion on this topic only fully opened in the twentieth century. In the modern era we have a diverse halakhic landscape regarding the training of Kohanim in medicine, including discussion about the permissive ruling of tumat ohel, as well as creative solutions to potentially allow direct dissection. I leave these discussions to each Kohen student and his posek but leave you with a final thought.

Given current advances and changing perspectives in anatomical training, we may again soon see the portal close to the corpus of responsa related to the Kohen medical student. Some five hundred years after Vesalius introduced anatomical dissection into medical training, which was accompanied by the exhumation of bodies from their graves, we are now on the cusp of the (re)burial of human anatomy lab and its associated cadavers. With advances in imaging technology and simulation, coupled with the ethical re-evaluation of body procurement methods and preservation, the expansive year-long anatomy course with full body dissection is rapidly becoming a relic of medical history.[55] The classic dissection table is gradually being replaced with the likes of the digital Anatomage table:

If this is not sufficient, it is now possible to produce life-like anatomical models with the use of 3D printing.[56] Even dissection of the model may be possible.

These conceptual descendants and updated versions of the Florentine wax models may soon replace cadaveric dissection altogether.[57] The list of medical schools eliminating or significantly curtailing human anatomy lab courses is continually expanding.

While the impact of the diminution of human dissection on medical education remains to be determined, if phased out, it will certainly have a significant halakhic impact and it may return us to the days of the earlier generations mentioned by Rav Moshe Feinstein when students “learn the entirety of medical knowledge without the necessity of gazing upon a human corpse.” This would potentially open the door for Kohanim to attend medical school (at least for the pre-clinical years) with halakhic impunity.[58] We may notice a commensurate rise in the number of Dr. Cohens in hospital registries. The medical halakhic textbooks may no longer include a chapter on “The Kohen in Medical School,” and the halakhic discussions on this topic may again fall silent. If future scholars at some later stage of history ponder the priestly mystery of the intermittent silence of the historical record on Kohanim, dissection and medical training, I suspect their search engines will direct them to this article.

Appendix:

The Importance of the Study of Broadsides in Jewish (Medical) History – The Kohen Physician Today and the Diagnosis of Death

In June of 2024, I participated as a speaker in a conference entitled, “The Role of Broadsides in Jewish Ritualistic and Cultural Space,” organized by Professor Avriel Bar-Levav of the open University of Israel and held at the new National Library of Israel. It was the first conference of its kind, dedicated solely to the integration of Broadsides into the study of Jewish history. Taking a single printed page (the definition of a Broadside) out of Avriel’s playbook, I briefly share an example of the value of Broadsides for the study of Jewish medical history, as it relates to our topic.

As mentioned in the article above, one of the earliest halakhic sources relating to a Kohen and the practice of medicine addresses the case of a Kohen physician who was asked to confirm the death of a patient in order to facilitate burial. The question was asked in the nineteenth century, in the medical historical context of a generation concerned about the misdiagnosis of death and the resultant institution of a three-day delay in burial to medically confirm a patient’s demise.

While the prolonged delay in burial may be a relic of the past, the necessity to confirm death remains a part of modern medical practice. As such, similar halakhic cases of a Kohen physician involved in the confirmation of death occur to this very day. I share one example here which reflects yet another fascinating and complex chapter in Jewish medical history, evidenced by a broadside found in a miscellaneous collection of broadsides in the Library of Congress.

In 1976 Rabbi Moshe Lemberger was asked about the case of an observant Kohen physician who witnessed a cardiac arrest of a man on the street.[59] The person did not survive. While it is generally prohibited for a Kohen to come in contact with a corpse, if this physician were to officially declare death of the person on the scene, and attest to the absence of foul play, the deceased would be transferred directly to the funeral home for immediate burial.

As per the questioner, if the Kohen physician refused to intervene, the patient would be transferred to the hospital. Burial would certainly be delayed, and in addition, there would be a high likelihood of autopsy, with organs often removed from the deceased without consent. Rabbi Lemberger concluded that this would constitute a case of met mitzvah (a deceased person with no one to attend to their burial), and due to these extenuating circumstances, the Kohen could expose himself to impurity to prevent the delay of burial and likely desecration of the body.

This comment “and often organs are removed from the deceased without consent” reflects a reality in Israel at this time.[60] When Israel established its own hospitals and medical system in the early twentieth century, it struggled to navigate a halakhically acceptable path for the allowance of autopsies, an integral part of standard medical practice. While detailed guidelines for the performance of autopsies were established with rabbinic guidance, many members of the medical community rejected any restrictions on their practice. Despite the legislation, the medical establishment flagrantly disregarded the laws and were known in many cases to perform autopsies, including organ removal, without patient or family consent. This evolved into a notorious autopsy scandal in the young State of Israel, which shattered faith in the medical establishment, with reverberations felt to this day. This ultimately resulted in the reformation and greater enforcement of the law.

I recently discovered a lone broadside buried in a miscellaneous collection housed in the Library of Congress,[61] which though undated, was likely printed around the time of the above responsum.

This Broadside was clearly intended to be posted in a cemetery and is divided into two sections.

On the left side is an accusation that the deceased more likely than not underwent an autopsy upon their death, and that the remaining relative, the likely reader of the broadside, did nothing to prevent it.

Dear Brother,
You are now standing beside the grave of your relative who was dear to your heart and whose flame of life was suddenly extinguished.
We wish to ask you if you have considered the possibility that your loved one has undergone extensive dissection [autopsy] and while the body is here, who knows the location of the internal organs of the body. Perhaps they never merited to a proper burial (more than 50% of bodies are dissected in Jerusalem).
What did you do to prevent this from happening?
As you stand beside the grave, the deceased beseeches you to repent for this. How will you answer?
The answer:
Accept upon yourself to protect your loved ones in the future. With all your power and capability seek to prevent the forced dissection by pathologists done merely for personal advancement.
Do this for the honor of both the living and the dead.
Committee for the protection of the honor of man

On the right side of the broadside is a text to be recited by the remaining relative asking forgiveness from their deceased loved one for allowing them to undergo an autopsy.

This unique broadside contributes to the study of the history of autopsies in Israel, provides valuable information possibly not attainable elsewhere, and adds to the relatively few items of material culture in Jewish medical history.

Yaakov Mark and Two Episodes from Vilna’s Great Synagogue Related to Yom Kippur

David Livni was born in Vilna in 1870. He was educated in traditional Orthodox schools and joined the proto-Zionist Hovevi Tzion movement. In 1906, he and his wife and five children moved to Israel. The children were among the first students of Herzliya Gymnasium, and David was one of the founders of Tel Aviv and its Great Synagogue. He served on its board until he fell out with its leadership regarding financial matters. Construction of the synagogue began in 1920. Delays, design challenges, and a lack of funding caused the construction to proceed at a snail’s pace, well behind schedule. According to Livni, a significant issue was the board’s leadership. In a pamphlet he self-published in early 1927, Binyan bet-ha-keneset ha-gadol be-Tel-Aviv: ṿe-taʻalule ha-gabaʼim, he accused the chairman and his son-in-law (who was also on the board), of gross mismanagement and even misappropriation of construction funds. Additionally, Livni alleges that the chairman filled the board with “yes men” and could rule unchecked. Construction was finally completed in 1930, although with all the changes, the resulting building is a hodgepodge of architectural styles.

Courtesy of the Hebraica Section of the Library of Congress’ African and Middle Eastern Division

In 1928, he began publishing a series in Ha’aretz newspaper describing the Vilna that he remembered. These were eventually collected and published in book format, Yerushalayim de-Lita, in 1930, in two volumes (available here and here). On September 23, 1928, the day before Yom Kippur, his article, “Yom ha-Kippur in Vilna Over Forty Years Ago,” appeared in Ha’aretz. He describes a unique custom of the Great Synagogue of Vilna. The Magid Mesharim would give a sermon the night before Erev Yom Kippur. Livni relates one of those occasions when “R. Yankel Charif (the Gaon R. Yaakov Yosef),” delivered the sermon. R. Yaakov Yosef is best known for his later sojourn to the United States to take up the position of the “Chief Rabbi of New York,” he initially served as rabbi in three Lithuanian towns and, in 1883, was selected as Vilna’s official Maggid, preacher. The moniker “charif” referred to his quick mind and was bestowed upon him during his time in Volozhin Yeshiva.

Title Page of Yerushalim de-Lita from the copy Livni gifted to Dr. Moshe Glickson, the founder and editor of Haaretz, where the articles originally appeared.

Jacob Mark, in his collection of biographies from 1927, originally in Yiddish, Gedoylim fun unzer tsayt: monografyes, karakter-shtrikhen un zikhroynes, and partially translated into Hebrew in 1957, Bi-meḥitsatam shel gedole ha-dor : biografiyot, sipurim, imrot ve-sihot holin shel gedole Yisraʼel ba-dor ha-kodem, devotes a chapter to R. Yosef. According to Mark, by the time R. Yosef arrived in the United States, he was well into his decline, and when he arrived, he had “lost his harifus, the power of his sermons, and his power of Torah.” Mark, therefore, limits his discussion to R. Yosef’s European years.

Mark knew R. Yosef personally. They met when R. Yosef moved to Zhagory and assumed the position of the town’s rabbi where Mark lived. R. Yosef was a student of R. Yisrael Salanter and “among the first young rabbis to spread R. Yisrael’s approach – that a rabbi’s purpose is not to decided legal issues and engage in intellectual debates with scholars – rather to relate to the people and improve their character and bring them closer to Judaism; in fact, this might be [the rabbi’s] fundamental purpose.” Consequently, R. Yosef devoted considerable time honing his sermonic skills and deliberately sought out the commoner. Mark suggests that R. Yosef was particularly suited for this role because he did not come from a rabbinic lineage. Instead, his family was poor and seeing his father struggle to make a living and yet spend freely on R. Yosef’s education impressed upon him that simple Jews have a special love of the Torah and sacrifice even more than middle-class Jews. R. Yosef incorporated these themes in his sermons.

R. Yosef published some of his sermons in 1888 in Vilna. But they are of the more traditional rabbinic type and do not necessarily display the unique nature of his speaking style. However, the Erev Yom Kippur sermon Livni recounts preserves an example of R. Yosef’s oratory emphasis on the people and expresses his love and appreciation of them.

Rabbi Yaakov Yosef’s Sermon on the Eve of Yom Kippur

Livni begins by describing R. Yosef’s humility and that he conveys that despite his lofty position, he is uncertain of his worth,

and is not sure of his life, like our brothers. The Israelites in Romania and Morocco (he means Russia) are not sure of their lives; they make a living like a dog picking up bones under the table of strangers, rolling in the garbage, being deported, and being beaten like dogs.

At that moment, it was as if the spirit of God was hovering in the space above the synagogue, over the crowd of three thousand heads, all turned and lifted their eyes toward the speaker. They were crowded and glued side by side, standing on their feet and swallowing every word from Rabbi Yankili’s mouth. And Rabbi Yankili is standing next to the Aron Ha-Kodesh, his palms outstretched towards the people, his eyes closed, his mouth producing pearls, … his sharpness dripping from his mouth like pure gold, worshiping the heart, going down the stomach chambers, coming out of the heart and entering the heart sometimes like hot coals, sometimes like life-giving dew. At that time, he appears like Ish Elokhim – his face is holy. Rabbi Yankili does not provoke the people to revenge, and he does not sow hatred toward the nations of the world, who shed the blood of Israel like water. He neither absolves them from sin for money nor pecuniary reward….

Yom Kippur itself is the most reliable bill of forgiveness and atonement for transgressions between a person and a guarantor – Erev Yom Kippur is the surest deed for transgressions between a person and his friend. All the fasts, ha-chagim, ha-mo’adim, whether of Shabbat or Shabbat Shabbaton – Yom Ha-Kippurim – [pale in comparison to Erev Yom Kippur]. No nation or language can imitate one day a year – the eve of Yom Kippur.

Morai ve-Rabbosai! The world’s nations reconcile with each other and ask for forgiveness through fire and blood, through the war between themselves. And us? – Through asking for forgiveness between a man and his friend on the eve of Yom Kippur. The world’s nations accepted the statement: “By your sword, you will live!” And we: “ve-chai bahem,” “and live by them,” and you shall not die by them. Morai ve-Rabbosai! It is written: ‘ve-amcha kulum tzadikim‘ ‘and among you all are righteous,’ and who is called righteous? The one who annuls the decrees of the Almighty! The Almighty decrees on the human beings: that they will starve for bread, that they will get sick, that they will die of hunger [], that their children will roll in the streets without the Torah, that their babies and their sucklings will wallow in the open air, that their sons and daughters will be subject to another people, to an immoral culture. The Almighty decrees, and the righteous person comes and cancels: he distributes his bread for hunger, builds a hospital, a nursing home, Talmud Torah, yeshivot, children’s homes, and evening classes for craftsmen. The man who sits within the four cubits of the Halacha, wrapped in a Talis crowned with tefillin, is not called a righteous person but a hasid. Tzadki HaShem be-kol derakhav ve-hasid. He starts as a tzaddik and eventually a Hasid. Every Jew is considered a Tzadik. Who is the Jew who has not given and will not give charity to people experiencing poverty tomorrow? Who is the nation, and what is it, that distributes charity in one day, in a quarter of a day, like the Jewish nation on Erev Yom Kippur, with a generous hand and pure heart?

Rabbi Yankili stands and pleads and calls the people to repent of regret for the past and to accept the future; he does not demand asceticism, does not impose fines, does not decree haramos, does not step on the head of the people with arrogance or ego. He stands and beseeches for the good of the people of Israel before our Father in Heaven, like the Kohen Gadol in his time, in the holiest of holies. He asks for mercy on behalf of the people of Israel – a life in which there is no shame and a dignified livelihood, neither by smuggling the border customs nor by despicable and dangerous businesses, which blacken the face of the Israeli nation like the rim of a cauldron, a year of salvation and comfort without the pain of raising children.

Morai ve-Rabbosai! Hear our voice, God and God… the voice of the drowning son in a sea of ​​troubles, troubles from the outside: persecutions, evil decrees, riots in Romania and Morocco (that is, Russia), and internal troubles: the pains of raising children, hatred for nothing, seeking honor, whistleblowers.”

Morai ve-Rabbosai! Rather than asking our holy Torah to advocate on our behalf, we will ask for forgiveness from her for hurting her honor. Morai ve-Rabbosai! We will bow our heads before our Torah, our Mother, the Mother of all religions and teachings. We will appease our Mother with our Torah, have mercy on the only son, on the people of Israel, and grant that we may fulfill all the Torah’s commandments, including those that depend on the land. And we will be able to return to our country and renew our days as before, as before, as before”!!!

Lately, I must ask for forgiveness from you, teachers, and gentlemen: I woke up and woke you up from your deep slumber like the sun with its hammer that makes the summer sleepy and awakens the sleepers. How bitter, how many vain words I poured over your heads, like vomit. As Kohelet repeats: “This too is vanity, and this too is striving after nothing,” saying and repeating and saying: “vanity vanity vanity vanity.” Why does he have to repeat several times vanity, vanity, all vanity? Wasn’t it enough for him at the end of the book: “Vanity, vanity said Ecclesiastes everything is vain!” Because the sum of zeros, whether one or many, is still zero. But there is a big difference between one zero and many if you add one number before them – all of the meaningless things, the zero, can be elevated and become significant when you add “the One” before them. Ultimately, everything is heard (all of the zeros) – fear God!

Livni finishes by saying, “When Rabbi Yankili Harif opened the Ark of the Covenant, a loud howl erupted in the audience, and the entire building was filled with courage and trembling.”

Cholera and Yom Kippur: 1848

Some forty years earlier, another dramatic event occurred in Vilna’s Great Synagogue, this one on Yom Kippur itself. Like the one above, we are indebted to Yaakov Mark and his book. In this instance, it provides the only eyewitness account of an episode that, in its various retellings, underwent unverifiable and imprecise metamorphoses.

There were at least four major cholera outbreaks during the nineteenth century in the Russian Empire. One of the most severe began in 1847, and by the time it subsided in 1851, it killed over one million in the Empire. By 1848, it had reached Vilna, and the question arose of whether one should fast on Yom Kippur. The structure of the first two major surveys of Vilna Jewish history are biographies of significant personalities interlaced with historical research and expositions. The first, Shmuel Yosef Fuenn’s Kiryat Ne’amanah, published in 1860, with an introduction and extensive endnotes by R. Mattityahu Strashun, and the second, Hillel Noach Steinschneider’s Ir Vilna, published in 1900. Steinschneider’s begins where Fuenn’s ends. Fuenn’s second wife was among those who perished of cholera in 1848.

Imaging of the podium at the Great Synagogue of Vilnius, İmage: UAB Inlusion Netforms.

An archeological team recently uncovered the floor of the Bimah.  See here for a description of their find as well as earlier findings. Loïc Salfati produced a full-length documentary on the history of the Great Synagogue and the excavations.

The 1848 episode first appears in Steinschneider, and he provides that before Yom Kippur, broadsides were posted throughout Vilna proclaiming that one can eat on Yom Kippur, the piyyutim should be shortened and that people should spend time outdoors to get fresh air. According to Steinschneider, on Yom Kippur, after Shachris, in the Great Synagogue, where there were some three thousand congregants, R. Yisrael Salanter ascended the Bimah with a piece of cake and made the boreh mineh mezonos blessing and ate it. In a footnote, he records that one of the congregation’s leaders objected to R. Yisrael’s unilateral decision to publicly violate Yom Kippur without the consent of the leading Rabbis. Despite Steinschneider’s general reliability, this is one instance where the details are apparently incorrect. Steinschneider does not cite anyone or any source for his retelling of this episode. Indeed, the description is internally inconsistent. If the widely distributed broadsides before the holiday explicitly declared that “one should not fast on Yom Kippur,” what was the objection to R. Yisrael’s behavior and the rationale that the Rabbis did not otherwise agree? Moreover, even one permitted to eat on Yom Kippur generally can only less than a shiur, pachos pachos, and Reb Yisrael allegedly ate “a cake” without regard to size.

Mark, unlike Steinschneider, presents the episode differently, which is more consistent with the legal details and, most critically, from an eyewitness. Mark acknowledges other versions — including Steinschneider’s — and argues that these “are not factually accurate,.” They are only “legends.” Mark’s source was R. Shimon Strashun, a prominent member of Vilna’s Jewish community (and a distant relative of R. Shmuel Strashun), “who was an eyewitness in the shul.” Strashun told Mark that “prior to Yom Kippur, Reb Yisrael, with the agreement of the Moreh Tzedek, placed broadsides in all the shuls, that because of the cholera epidemic, they would not say the additional piyutim and, instead sit outside in the fresh air. In the foyers of the shuls, they should put out small amounts of cake, less than a shiur, to use when necessary. On Yom Kippur, after Shachris, R. Yisrael ascended the Bimah of the Great Synagogue and announced to the congregation that anyone who feels weak does not need to ask a doctor and may go to the foyers to eat, but to only eat with breaks [i.e. pachos pachos] and avoid violating the Biblical prohibition. Immediately after R. Yisrael descended from the Bimah, the chief Moreh Horaah, Reb Betzalel, went up to the Bimah and protested, in the name of the Moreh Horaah, [Reb Yisrael’s position] that one is not required to first consult a Rabbi before eating. But the truth is that Reb Yisrael never ate anything.”

Mark’s retelling is consistent with the general legal principles governing a person who is ill, albeit with a controversy regarding consulting a rabbi before breaking someone’s fast during a communal plague. There is no explicit contradiction between the broadsides and Reb Yisrael’s or Reb Betzalel HaKohen’s positions. Instead, it appears that the broadsides, whether due to oversight or that it was unnecessary, did not specifically address whether one must consult a rabbi.

Notes: I am grateful for Sharon Horowitz of the Hebraica section at the Library of Congress for providing the scans of Livni’s pamphlet.

The Hebrew translation of Mark’s work is a substantially abridged version that omits the second portion devoted to “masklim,” with the exception of R. Mattityahu Strashun. Additionally, even the translated portion is shortened, and, in some instances sections and words are omitted that censor potentially controversial materials. But there are no significant changes in the Hebrew version for both episodes discussed here.

The various versions of the Reb Yisrael Salanter episode are collected by Nathan Kamenetsky, in Making of a Godol, vol. I, (2002), 1104-1121. Nonetheless, his attempts to reconcile the discrepancies and harmonize the various versions is unconvincing. Dr. Leiman discusses this at length in his speech that is available here.

For a general discussion regarding plagues and the Jewish responses see Jermey Brown, The Eleventh Plague: Jews and Pandemics from the Bible to COVID-19 (Oxford University Press, New York: 2023) (see pp. 151-53, for his discussion of the Reb Yisrael Salanter episode); see also Eliezer Brodt, “Towards a Bibliography of Coronavirus Related Articles & Seforim Written in the Past Month (Updated): Black Wedding and Other Segulot,” Seforim Blog, May 4, 2020.