Do We Cut Off or Bury One’s Head in the Sand?

Review: Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence

In 2017, the erudite and eclectic scholar Elliott Horowitz unexpectedly passed away. His oeuvre is exceptionally diverse, having authored more than seventy-five articles and reviews and five books, with topics ranging from studies on Italian art, Jews and coffee, the significance of the beard among Jews, comparing and contrasting Jewish and non-Jewish biblical exegesis, and Jewish violence (see his Academia page for most of them). Seven additional articles appeared on this site, in a similar vein as his others, covering Bugs Bunny, nude imagery in the Haggadah, Isaiah Berlin, Saul Lieberman, among others. He regularly used the “Molkho Institute for Absurdly Abstruse Research” to identify his affiliation in his email signature. Jewish violence was a long fascination of Horowitz. Beginning in 1994, with an article in the Hebrew journal Zion, he revisited the issue in no less than six articles that culminated in his 2006 book, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey). Horowitz documents how the conclusion of the Purim story, culminating in the Jews massacring 75,800 people over two days, was used as a justification for Jewish violence against non-Jews throughout history. Horowitz revisited this topic on this website, “Modern Amalekites from Adolf to Avigdor.” In a later article, he also identified the Biblical story of Dinah as another source for this type of violence.

While arguably, the violence at the end is only a minor part of the story, for some, that aspect has clouded everything about the Book of Esther and Purim. First, Horowitz looks at how non-Jews viewed the Book. Some had a very negative view due to the Jewish revenge. They considered that motif un-biblical (read non-Christian). Horowitz goes through each character and how first non-Jews interpreted their actions. For instance, Mordechai was treated rather harshly by many of these commentators, as was Esther, due to her passivity. What is especially fascinating is how these non-Jewish understandings sometimes crept into Jewish thought. Thus, Horowitz documents Jews parroting these rather un-Jewish, as it were, interpretations.

Horowitz then tackles the overarching theme of Amalek and how this has been understood throughout history. Some hold there is no obligation to destroy Amalek today, while others are willing to label any perceived enemy of Jews as deserving of the harsh consequences of Amalek. Some of these examples are rather disturbing.

After dealing with the Book of Esther specifically, Horowitz focuses on the Jewish practice of Purim. Specifically, he deals with Jewish violence or violent acts on Purim directed at non-Jews. He provides a discussion of the stereotype of the “mild” (read the wimp) Jew, including its origins and whether it is borne out by history. He then discusses numerous diverse examples spanning from the 5th century until today of Jewish violence. Some are not physical violence. Instead, it is host desecration or general enmity of non-Jewish symbols, while other, most recently Barukh Goldstein, is physical violence in its worst form.

Horowitz is compelling in the scope of this idea and how prevalent this is. It is especially telling when tracing and seeing how systematically Jews have decided to sweep these under the rug these examples; it demonstrates that censorship is not limited to any one group, and even amongst supposedly dispassionate scholars; they too can fall prey to their own biases.

To play down some of these incidents, we have Jewish historians who decided to avoid discussion of such matters or, at times, downplay their significance. However, in light of the many examples here, it is challenging to ignore such examples. Indeed, Shaul Magid noted in his review that Horowitz’s book “seems to elicit a kind of cognitive dissonance among peers, as if to say ‘this simply cannot be true’ even given the detailed evidence and argumentation to the contrary. This is often because of the audacity of the thesis and the way it challenges how we understand the present.” Hillel Halkin’s review of Commentary magazine is one example that fails to adequately address Horowitz’s thesis and his substantial evidence. Halkin claims that the book is a distortion of history and places too much emphasis on too few examples. In the next issue, Horowitz responded to Halkin’s criticism, noting Halkin’s misreading of some texts and inability to present any contrary evidence. In his inimical style, Horowitz invokes the Godfather to prove his point.

Halkin remained obsessed with Horowitz’s book and, a year later, returned to it and attempted to compare it and Michael Stanislawki’s book (A Murder in Lemberg), to Ariel Toaff’s Pasque di Sangue that seemingly argued Jews regularly killed non-Jewish children.”, which is riddled with methodological errors and has been entirely discredited (here). This time, not only Horowitz took issue with Halkin. Three scholars, Allan Nadler (who previously wrote a very positive review of Reckless Rites and presciently noted that Horowitz is a “scrupulously honest voice, dealing in exemplary fashion with an important subject that has been ignored by scholars precisely because of its extreme delicacy. In his execution of narrating the repercussions of Haman’s execution, Horowitz has enriched us with a model of historical scholarship. Anything but reckless, “Reckless Rites” is a rare gem of academic work that will make a real difference”), Elisheva Carlebach, and Naomi Gratz, derided Halkin’s attempt to tar Stanislawki and Horowitz. Perhaps it is best to view Halkin’s criticism through the prism of his long history of minimizing Israeli responsibility for violence, Horowitz being but one example. Indeed, Halkin himself seemingly accepted Yigal Amir’s murder of Yitzhak Rabin. Halkin claims that Amir’s error was not in the assassination itself; instead, “What made Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination exceptionally atrocious was not it’s being a murder, but it’s being a cataclysmic political blunder.” Hillel Halkin, “Israel & the Assassination: A Reckoning,” Commentary Magazine, January 1996. Halkin, however, was willing to criticize one person affected by Rabin’s murder, his son. Halkin, under the pseudonym Philologos, pokes fun at Rabin’s son’s pronunciation of the Kaddish he said on behalf of his father. See “On Language,” “Yuval Rabin’s Kaddish,” Forward, November 17, 1995. Perhaps if Amir had butchered a blessing rather than Rabin, Halkin would have found occasion to criticize.

Commentary, however, wasn’t done with Horowitz. In 2010, Commentary published Abby Wisse Schachter’s essay, “The Problem with Purim,” which is generally about feminist views of Purim characters. As an aside, she claims that Horowitz’s book contains “the questionable claim” and the “bizarre thesis” that “Purim has long been the occasion for outbreaks of Jewish animosity and even violence toward Christians.” She asserts that Horowitz’s thesis is based solely on the example of Baruch Goldstein. This is incorrect. As Horowitz demonstrates in his letter to the editor, it is evident that she could not have spent more than ten minutes with the book to arrive at her conclusion. Horowitz shows that Schechter’s article contains other mistakes beyond her discussion of his book.

In the end, there is little doubt that he wrote a well-researched and thorough book that inevitably engenders discussion, whether or not readers agree with Horowitz, is less the point. (See, for example, Eliezer Brodt’s post, “The Origins of Hamenstashen in Jewish Literature (Revisited),” on this site. Brodt references Horowitz’s discussion regarding a Saudi scholar who alleges Jews use blood to make hamenstashen.) Instead, as with all groundbreaking scholarship, a Talmudic approach, one that values discussion over conclusion is the best one can hope for.

The Paper Brigade’s Recording of Epitaphs in Vilna’s Old Jewish Cemetery: A Literary Analysis

Shnayer Leiman

I. Introduction.

Shortly after the Nazis captured Vilna on June 24, 1941, representatives from the “Special Detail of Reich-Administrator Alfred Rosenberg” (Einsatzstab des Reichleiter Alfred Rosenberg) arrived in Vilna. Their task was to loot the literary (and other) treasures of Vilna’s Jewish community, and to ship them to Frankfurt.[1] Under the aegis of Nazi “experts” in Jewish matters, a slave-labor unit consisting at times of some 40 Jews was established.[2] Like the other slave-labor units, the group gathered early in the morning each day at the gate of the Jewish Ghetto. It was then marched outside the Ghetto to the nearby YIVO building at 18 Wiwulskiego Street, which had become the headquarters of Einsatzstab Rosenberg in Vilna. A variety of tasks were performed by the members of slave-labor unit, including the sorting of thousands of books and documents, cataloguing materials, and the preparation of essays on topics selected by, and of special interest to, Einsatzstab Rosenberg. The primary Nazi goal was to loot the best of the materials and to destroy the remaining materials. The primary goal of the members of the slave-labor unit was to stay alive by biding their time, and – at the same time – to rescue from destruction as many literary and artistic treasures as possible. They are the heroes of what is known as “the Paper Brigade.”[3]

II. Issues to be examined. One of the more important compilations of the Paper Brigade, completed in 1942, was a list of 51 epitaphs from Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok (in use until 1830)[4] and 140 epitaphs from Vilna’s New Jewish cemetery in Zaretcha (in use until 1941).[5] Given the fact that the vast majority of tombstones of both these cemeteries were destroyed, in part during the Holocaust, and primarily during its aftermath under Communist rule, it is imperative that the compilations of the Paper Brigade, prepared in 1942, be examined for their accuracy, and ultimately for their contribution to historical truth. Fortunately, these compilations have been preserved and can easily be accessed.[6] This study will focus only on the 51 epitaphs from Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery. It will attempt to address, at least in a preliminary fashion, such questions as:

1. Did members of the Paper Brigade actually visit the Old Jewish cemetery and copy the epitaphs that are recorded in the compilations?

2. What other sources may have been used by the members of the Paper Brigade in preparing their compilation?

3. Why were these 51 epitaphs selected for the compilation, given the approximately 300 tombstones[7] with legible epitaphs that were still standing in the Old Jewish cemetery in 1942?

III. Methodology. We will examine samples of the transcriptions of the 51 epitaphs, as they appear in the compilation, and compare them to the transcriptions of the same epitaphs as published in books prior to the Holocaust and as preserved in photographs. We will look for patterns that repeat themselves in the 51 transcriptions of the epitaphs, patterns that may shed light on how, and from where, they were copied.

Epitaph 1: The Vilna Gaon (d.1797).

Discussion: This copy of the Vilna Gaon’s epitaph, for the most part, preserves the text as it first appeared in Yehoshua Heschel Levin, עליות אליהו (Vilna, 1856), p. 90, and in Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, קריה נאמנה (Vilna, 1860), p. 146 (and second edition: Vilna, 1915, pp. 155-156). Henceforth, we will refer to Levin as L. and Fuenn as F. The opening letters of lines 3-13 spell the acrostic רב אליהו גאון. The closing words of lines 3-13 are poetic, all of them ending with the rhyming letters עים or אים. The narrative portion (lines 14 on) follows the texts of L. and F., but not their line divisions.

What needs to be noted here is that this was not what the Vilna Gaon’s epitaph looked like in 1942. Probably due to both natural deterioration and human negligence, some of the letters on the extreme right of the tombstone were rubbed out or smudged. Attempts were made to re-ink some of the missing letters, often creating imaginary words. See below, for photographs A and B.

Photograph A[8] is a pre-Holocaust photo of the epitaph. Photo B[9] is a post- Holocaust photo, taken circa 1995. Notice line 10 in the epitaph, which must begin with an enlarged letter ג , for it begins the word גאון in the acrostic. But in the photographs, one clearly sees what looks like םכר (which probably was originally ג]ם פר[ישות ). In any event, we are served notice by the very first epitaph that the Paper Brigade did not always record what they saw; they surely did not see the words גם פרישות on the Gaon’s tombstone in 1942. They recorded what they knew from other literary sources.

Epitaph 3: R. Shlomo Zalman, father of the Vilna Gaon (d. 1758).

Discussion: The epitaph is replete with letters in parentheses. Parentheses, of course, do not ordinarily appear on Jewish tombstones. Clearly, then, the Paper Brigade either saw a mostly illegible epitaph, and filled in the missing letters, marking them in parentheses, or they copied the entire text from a published book. There is no need here for guesswork. The epitaph was published previously by three different authors: L. (in 1856); F. (in 1860 and 1915); and Israel Klausner, קורות בית-העלמין הישן בוילנה (Vilna, 1935), henceforth K. Here are the three editions of the epitaph:

L. (p. 27, n. 3):

F. (p. 123; second edition, p. 128):

K. (p. 45):

It should be noted that the Paper Brigade erred in the title of the entry, wrongly listing ר’ אליהו חסיד as the father of ר’ שלמה זלמן. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that the Paper Brigade copied the text of the epitaph almost exactly as it appeared in K., recording כסלו (and not א’ דחנוכה), and even inserting the hyphen that connects the names ישכר and בער. There was no need to visit the Old Jewish cemetery in order to copy the epitaph.

Epitaph 9: R. Avigdor b. Shmuel, father of R. Shmuel – the last Av Bet Din of Vilna (d. 1771).

Discussion: It is certainly worth noting that the format follows exactly that of epitaphs 1 and 8, and many others in the Old Jewish cemetery, namely an acrostic at the right of the epitaph, included in a rhymed poem praising the deceased and mourning his loss, followed by a narrative text listing the titles and name of the deceased and the date of death. More importantly for our purposes, this epitaph was copied almost exactly as it appears in F., p. 165; second edition, p. 171:

But note that F. included two sets of parentheses that would not have appeared on the original tombstone. In line 1, the opening word אבי is marked by parentheses, since all three letters were necessary for the acrostic. In the last line, the word תקל”א [5]531 = 1771 was added (in parentheses) for clarification of the year of death. No such markings or words would have appeared on the original tombstone. Again, it is obvious that the Paper Brigade copied the epitaph from a published text. No visit to the Old Jewish cemetery was necessary.

Epitaph 10: R. Eliyahu b. R. Moshe Kramer (d. 1710).

Discussion: The Vilna Gaon was a great-grandson of R. Eliyahu b. Moshe Kramer and, indeed, was named after him. The epitaph preserved in the compilation is taken directly from F., p. 99; second edition, p. 105:

A photograph of the original epitaph has been preserved, taken shortly before or during World War I. It features a three-line marker that identifies the grave, painted just above the epitaph. These lines may well have been added to the gravesite after F.’s visit in 1860. But an examination of the original epitaph indicates that its line division differed considerably from F.

It is clear that the Paper Brigade did not visit the gravesite itself. Below is a photo of the gravesite and a transcription of its epitaph into modern Hebrew font.[10]

Photo Transcription:

Epitaph 14: R. Yehoshua Heschel: Av Bet Din of Vilna (d. 1749).

Discussion: This was a wooden tombstone, well preserved, and photographed circa 1935 (see K., p. 52). The compilation slavishly follows the line division of F., p. 110; second edition, p. 116:

F

The circa 1935 photograph of the tombstone, however, presents a different line division for lines 8 and 10.

K Photo

In F., lines 8 and 10 end with the words זהב and לעולמו, respectively. In K., in the photo taken at the cemetery, the same lines end with the words פרוים and בך”ו , respectively. This suggests once again that the Paper Brigade did not actually copy epitaphs in the Old Jewish cemetery.

Epitaph 30: R. Noah Mindes Lipschuetz (d. 1797).

Discussion: R. Noah Mindes Lipshuetz, distinguished Kabbalist, was buried next to the Vilna Gaon. They died within three months of each other, and were מחותנים as well. (The Vilna Gaon’s son, R. Avraham, was married to Sarah, the daughter of Rabbi Noah and Mrs. Mindes Lipshuetz.) It was decided that they would share one tombstone, with only a narrow painted ivy decoration separating their epitaphs. The original tombstone, with its epitaphs, can be seen to this very day in the Sudervas Jewish cemetery in Vilnius.

Whatever reservations one may still entertain about the compilation having borrowed information directly from F., will surely be dispelled by a careful reading of F.’s recording of R. Noah Lipshuetz’s epitaph:

F 171

The last line of the epitaph in F. (p. 171; second edition, p. 177) reads:

וי”נ (= ויצאה נשמתו) שנת ג’ טבת לפ”ק תאמי צביה “And his soul departed in the year 3 Teveth, equivalent (not counting the thousands) to the numerical value of “Ta’amei Zeviah.” See Song of Songs 7:4. Now the numerical value of “Ta’amei Zeviyah” (not counting the thousands) is [5]558 = 1797, which works perfectly. But the words “and his soul departed in the year 3 Teveth” are senseless. This, of course, is an error (or: typo, if you like) in F. One need merely look at the original epitaph[11] and read the correct Hebrew text: נפטר ביו’ ג טבת שנת תאמי צביה. “He died on the 3^rd day of Teveth in the year “Ta’amei Zeviyah.” But the senseless phrase “and his soul departed in the year 3 Teveth” reappears in the compilation prepared by the Paper Brigade! Had the Paper Brigade visited the Old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok in 1942, it surely would have seen and recorded the correct text of the epitaph.

————————-

There are two epitaphs included in the 51 listed, that merit special attention.

Epitaph 51: R. Shneur Zalman Kaczerginski (d.1815).

The German title at the top of the entry identifies Kaczerginski as a talmudic scholar and philanthropist who died in 1815. As such, he certainly qualifies for inclusion in a compilation of persons buried in Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery, which was closed in 1830. Alas, no such person was buried in the Old Jewish cemetery! It turns out that Shneur Zalman Kaczerginski was born in 1817 and died in 1887, and – of course – was buried in the Zaretcha cemetery, Vilna’s second Jewish cemetery. The Paper Brigade borrowed the full text of the Kaczerginski epitaph, word for word, from Hillel Noah Steinschneider, עיר ווילנא (Vilna, 1900), vol. 1, p. 290; once again, a sign that the members of the Paper Brigade read books sooner than copying tombstone inscriptions while standing outdoors in the cold.[12] In other words, the Paper Brigade recorded only 50 genuine entries of epitaphs for the Old Jewish cemetery (Alter Friedhof). “Epitaph 51” properly belongs to the Zaretche Jewish cemetery (Neuer Friedhof). Interestingly, Willy Schaefer, one of the Nazi “Jewish” experts who lorded it over the Paper Brigade, writes specifically in his report on Vilna’s Jewish cemeteries that the Paper Brigade had prepared a 108 page research paper with a total of 190 entries of epitaphs.[13] The 108 page research paper has been preserved (and its epitaphs are cited throughout this essay), but Schaefer’s 190 entries of epitaphs was based on the assumption that 50 epitaphs were copied from the Old Jewish cemetery and 140 from the New Jewish cemetery, i.e. Zaretcha, for a total of 190 epitaphs. In fact, we have 51 numbered entries for the Old Jewish cemetery, plus 140 numbered entries for the Zaretcha cemetery, for a total of 191 numbered epitaphs. One can only speculate as to why epitaph 51 was added to the research paper, and in the wrong place at that. And speculate we will! But before doing so, it should be noted that one key spelling difference separates Steinchneider’s recording of the Kaczerginski epitaph from what appears in the Paper Brigade’s report as Epitaph 51. Steinschneider spells the deceased’s last name as: קאצערגיסקי [Kaczergiski]. He even adds in a footnote that the deceased hailed from a town outside of Vilna called Kaczergisak, and that is why the family name is Kaczergiski. But the Paper Brigade lists the deceased’s last name as Katscherginski (in German) and קאצערגינסקי (in Hebrew).

One suspects this may have to do with the key role played by Shmerke Kaczerginski,[14] a Vilna born partisan, and a prominent member of the Paper Brigade.[15] He may have wished to memorialize a possible ancestor who was overlooked by the editors of the Paper Brigade report on epitaphs in the Jewish cemeteries. Perhaps turned down by the editor of the report on Zaretcha, Kaczerginski was able to persuade the editor of the report on the Old Jewish cemetery to add one more entry, epitaph 51 – but that required a falsification of R. Shneur Zalman Kaczergiski’s date of death, and a slight change in the spelling of his name. Whether Steinschneider’s קאצערגיסקי is interchangeable with the name קאצערגינסקי (and its Yiddish equivalent קאטשערגינסקי ) seems questionable to me; and it remains to be proven whether R. Shneur Zalman Kaczergiski was, in fact, an ancestor of Shmerke Kaczerginski.

Epitaph 31: R. Dov Baer Natansohn (d. 1804).

R. Dov Baer Natansohn is described as being active in Vilna’s Great Synagogue, and serving as an official of Vilna’s Jewish Community Council. We know too that in a later period, members of the Natansohn family would play a leading role among Vilna’s moderate Maskilim in the middle of the 19^th century.[16] What’s unique about this epitaph is that it is the only one (of the 50 genuine epitaphs of Jews buried in the Old Jewish cemetery) that is not recorded in F. or K. or in any early source known to me. This is almost certainly an indication that R. Dov Ber Natansohn – at least in the eyes of Fuenn and Klausner – did not quite measure up to the names of those included in their monographs. In any event, one could argue, that this epitaph could only have been recorded by a member of the Paper Brigade who actually visited the gravesite at the Old Jewish cemetery. This may well be the case. But is also possible that a descendant of R. Dov Baer Natansohn in the Vilna Ghetto, kept a copy (or even a photograph) of the tombstone, and handed it to a member of the Paper Brigade, so that the epitaph would be preserved for posterity. It should also be mentioned that Khaykl Lunski,[17] the famed librarian of Vilna’s Strashun Library, was an early advisor to the Paper Brigade. In the Vilna Ghetto, he was busy working on a study of the epitaphs in Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery.[18] He may well have provided a copy of R. Dov Baer Natansohn’s epitaph to a member of the Paper Brigade.

————————————-

In terms of which groups of Jews (buried in the Old Jewish cemetery) were selected for memory by the Paper Brigade, it is clear that a prior selection had already been made by F. and K. As indicated above, 49 out of the 50 genuine epitaphs were borrowed from the earlier accounts in F. and K. These were elitist accounts that focused primarily on professional rabbis and rabbinic scholars, and Jewish communal leaders. F. precluded women from the entries in his book; K. included women, but (for the most part) only to the extent that they were family members of famous rabbis, such as the Vilna Gaon. Looking specifically at the 50 epitaphs included in the Paper Brigade report, some 25 are distinguished professional rabbis and rabbinic scholars; approximately 8 others relate to the Vilna Gaon and members of his family (including women); approximately 8 relate to Jewish communal leaders; approximately 6 relate to professionals (e.g., doctors, printers, and cantors); with approximately 2 or 3 miscellaneous cases (e.g., the Ger Zedek; and R. Yehudah Asher Guenzberg, father of the Maskil Mordechai Aaron Guenzberg). Clearly, the report was prepared by someone who was sympathetic to the prominent role played by rabbinic culture in Vilna’s early modern period, and who knew where to look for the sources he needed in order to prepare the report.

Some will quibble over the tendency of the Paper Brigade to overlook the common man and woman when listing their selected epitaphs. After all, every Jewish man and woman who died in Vilna between 1592 and 1830 was buried in the Old Jewish cemetery. They seem to forget that it was 1942, under Nazi rule, and in the Vilna Ghetto, that the report was written, hardly the time and place to engage in original sociological research of any kind. At best, they could examine the printed books in the Ghetto library, or perhaps those gathered in the former YIVO building, now the headquarters of Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This they did with great skill, and often, at great risk to their lives.

In sum, it appears unlikely that the Paper Brigade spent much time, if any at all, in Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery. The primary source for the epitaphs gathered by the Paper Brigade was a series of volumes published by a variety of scholars, including Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, Yisrael Klausner, and Hillel Noah Steinschneider. The content of those earlier volumes influenced the scope of the epitaphs that the Paper Brigade could choose for inclusion in their final report. Finally, we wish to stress that whatever is said here applies only to the Paper Brigade report regarding the Old Jewish cemetery. Even a cursory glance at the Paper Brigade report on the Zaretche cemetery indicates that its author recorded countless epitaphs that had – and have – never appeared in print. As such, it is imperative that the report be examined for the many epitaphs it, and it alone, preserves.

————————

NOTES

[1] For an early account of Alfred Rosenberg and his anti-Jewish “academic” activity, see Max Weinreich, Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People (New York: YIVO, 1946), pp. 77-78, note 171, and pp. 97-106. A vast literature exists on Rosenberg; for the more recent studies, see the bibliography appended to his entry on Wikipedia.
[2] On up to 40 Jews serving in the slave-labor unit, see Shmerka Kaczerginski, פארטיזאנער גייען: זכרונות פון ווילנער געטא (Buenos Aires: Union Central Israelita Polaca en la Argentina, 1947), p. 63.
[3] For the definitive study on the Paper Brigade, see David E. Fishman, The Book Smugglers: Partisans, Poets, and the Race to Save Jewish Treasures from the Nazis; The True Story of the Paper Brigade of Vilna (Lebanon, New Hampshire: ForeEdge, 2017). Cf. his Embers Plucked From the Fire: The Rescue of Jewish Cultural Treasures in Vilna (New York (YIVO, 1996; second expanded edition, YIVO, 2009); and his “Split Identity: Jewish Scholarship in the Vilna Ghetto,” אין געוועב : A Journal of Yiddish Studies, June 30, 2020, pp. 1-9.
[4]  For a history of Vilna’s Old Jewish cemetery, see I. Klausner, קורות בית-העלמין הישן בוילנה (Vilna: S. An-ski Jewish Historical and Ethnographic Society, 1935); Elmantas Meilus, “The History of Vilnius Old Jewish Cemetery at Šnipiškes in the Period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 12 (2007), pp. 63-92; and Vytautas Jogela, “The Old Jewish Cemetery in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Lituanus 61:4 (2015), pp. 76-93.
[5] A history of Vilna’s New Jewish cemetery in Zaretcha remains a scholarly desideratum. Tentatively, see I. Klausner, “צו דער געשיכטע פון יידן אין ווילנע: דאס נייע פעלד”, in צייט, October 4, 1933, p. 4; Zalman Szyk, יאר ווילנא 1000 (Vilne: געזעלשאפט פאר לאנדקענטניש אין פוילן, 1939), pp. 418-437; Vida Girininkiene, “The Jewish Cemetery on Olandų Street: History and Reflections,” in Rimantas Dichavičius, Paminklas Paminklui (Vilnius: UAB Balto Print, 2020), pp.19-25; and Irina Guzenberg, Vilnius: Traces of the Jerusalem of Lithuania (Vilnius: Pavilniai, 2021), pp. 691-700.
[6] The compilations of the Paper Brigade are available in Vilnius at the Judaica collection of the Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. Based upon evidence from the Vilnius archives, Jogela (above, note 4), p. 84, claims that “a certain Goldbergas” compiled the list of 51 epitaphs. Jogela does not identify Goldbergas, but almost certainly it was Eliezer Goldberg, Jewish educator and historian. Prior to the Holocaust, he administered and taught at Vilna’s Esther Rubinstein School for Girls. In the Vilna Ghetto, he lectured widely on Jewish history in the various synagogues and schools. In 1943, he was deported by the Nazis to Estonia, where he perished in 1944. On Goldberg, see Shmerka Kaczerginski, חורבן ווילנא (New York: United Vilner Relief Committee, 1947), p.236; H.S. Kazdan, ed., לערער יזכור בוך: די אומגעקומענע לערער פון צישא שולן אין פוילן (New York: Martin Press, 1954), p. 72 (where Goldberg is described as א ייד א למדן און מיט וועלטלעכער בילדונג ); J. Biber, R. Kostanian, and J. Rozina, eds., Vilna Ghetto Posters: Album-Catalogue (Vilnius: Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum, 2006), p. 265 (which includes a photograph of Goldberg); and A. Einat, חיי יום-יום בגטו וילנה (Haifa: Moreshet, 2013), pp. 240 and 417. It is too early to speculate how many other hands were involved in selecting the 191 epitaphs included in the Paper Brigade’s final report.
[7] See Klausner, pp. 77-82, who lists 220 named graves that were still standing in 1935. Actually, many of the “named graves” were grave sites with more than one named grave at the site, all of them listed by Klausner. Thus, a total of approximately 240 names are listed. On pp. 83-84, Klausner lists an additional 51 named graves , some of them grave sites, strewn throughout the cemetery. They actually total 55 names. The 240 names plus the additional 55 names yield an approximate total of 300 names.
[8] Photograph A is taken from the late Yeshayahu Epstein’s collection of pre-Holocaust photographs of Vilna. See Yitzchak Alfasi, ed., וילנא ירושלים דליטא חרבה! היתה ואיננה עוד (Tel-Aviv, 1993), p. 10.
[9] Photograph B is taken from the pamphlet Vilniaus Gaonas Elijahu אליהו הגאון מוילנה (Vilnius, 1996), no pagination, issued by the Lithuanian Jewish Community in anticipation of the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the death of the Vilna Gaon (1797-1997).
[10] The photo and the transcription are taken from S. Leiman, “A Picture and its One Thousand Words: The Old Jewish Cemetery in Vilna Revisited,” The Seforim Blog, January 14, 2016, section A, item 7 and notes.
[11] See above, at Epitaph 1, Photo B, for a full frontal color photograph of the joint tombstone inscriptions of R. Noah Mindes Lipschuetz and the Vilna Gaon; cf. Photo A. In the light of the evidence presented here, R. Noah Mindes Lipschuetz did not die in November of 1797, as claimed by the German heading to Epitaph 30. He died on, or about, December 22, 1797 (= 3 Teveth, 5558), some two and a half months after the death of the Vilna Gaon on October 9, 1797 (= 19 Tishre, 5558). For an alternate reading of the somewhat unclear last lines of the epitaph (that correctly preserves the יום ג’ טבת date of death), see R. Yitzchok Arnstein’s edition of R. Noah Mindes Lipschuetz’ פרפראות לחכמה (Brooklyn: Edison Lithographic Corporation, 1995), Introduction, p. 17.
[12] Steinschneider’s text reads as follows:


[13] See Schaefer’s essay entitled “Friedhöfe und Grabsteine der Juden in Wilna,” dated 1/9/1943 (in the Judaica collection at the Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania). On the title page he refers (in German) to his gathering together of “190 tombstone inscriptions in 108 typewritten pages.”
[14] A vast literature was produced by, and exists on, Shmerke Kaczerginski (1908-1954), Yiddish poet and Vilna partisan. In general, see the entry on him in לעקסיקאן פון דער נייער יידישער ליטעראטור (New York: Congress for Jewish Culture, 1981), vol. 8, columns 48-50; and the more recent bibliography appended to his entry in Wikipedia.
[15] For some of Kaczerginski’s own reflections on the Paper Brigade, see his פארטיזאנער גייען! זכרונות פון ווילנער געטא (Buenos Aires: צאנטראל-פארבאנד פון פוילישע יידן אין ארגענטינא, 1947), pp. 61-69; חורבן ווילנע (New York: United Vilner Relief Committee, 1947), p. 337; and איך בין געווען א פארטיזאן (Buenos Aires: Cultura, 1952), pp. 40-44.
[16] See Mordechai Zalkin, בעלות השחר (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000), p. 34, n. 45, and passim.
[17]  On Haykl Lunski, see Hirsz Abramowicz, Profiles of a Lost World: Memoirs of East European Jewish Life before World War II (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), pp. 260-264. Cf. Frida Shor, מ”לקוטי שושנים” ועד “בריגדת הנייר”: סיפורו של בית עקד הספרים ע”ש שטראשון בווילנה (Tel Aviv: Probook, 2012); and Dan Rabinowitz, The Lost Library: The Legacy of Vilna’s Strashun Library in the Aftermath of the Holocaust (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2019).
[18] S. Kaczerginski, חורבן ווילנע (New York: United Vilner Relief Committee, 1947), p. 198.

An Unexpected Epistolary Discovery and the Shared Medical Journeys of Tuviya HaRofe and Gabriel Felix (late 17^th– early 18^th centuries)

Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD

On January 26, 2024, I received an e-mail from an independent Italian Hebraica scholar[1] with references[2] and a bibliographical correction regarding a Seforim Blog article I had written about Rabbi Dr. Shimshon Morpurgo (1681-1740), a prominent medical graduate of Padua.[3] In the correspondence, he refers to a manuscript housed in the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) Library that not only contains a record of the original semikha granted by Rabbi Yehuda Briel (c.1643-1722) to Shimshon Morpurgo, it also contains a second issuance of semikha from Briel to Morpurgo some years later, after the latter had lost the original document. I clicked on the provided link to peruse the manuscript. The semikha text is not an autograph, but is part of a 380-page miscellany, dating from the late eighteenth century, of the writings of select Italian rabbis of the period from places including Venice, Ferrara, Florence, Mantua and Ancona. It includes responsa, legal contracts, and correspondence. The entire manuscript is in one anonymous hand. 

 While the JTS catalogue does not describe the details of the manuscript, the National library of Israel (NLI) catalogue entry includes an expansive itemization of the contents.[4] Here we find, for example, reference to the two Morpurgo ordinations, though nothing else seemingly of Jewish medical historical interest. Turning to the ordinations in the body of the manuscript, I see the section contains other correspondence of Rabbi Yehuda Briel. Skimming just a few folios ahead, my eye catches an addressee with a familiar name, Tuviya HaRofe. Could this possibly be the famous Tuviya HaRofe, graduate of Padua and author of Ma’aseh Tuviya? I had never read or heard of any direct correspondence between Briel and Tuviya. A careful analysis revealed the answer to be in the affirmative. As I continued browsing, I wondered if there would there be any other surprises. Behold, a few folios later, I find a letter from Rabbi Briel to one Gavriel ben heHaver R’ Moshe. This is most certainly Gabriel Felix, the longtime friend and fellow classmate of Tuviya. These letters are not mentioned in the expansive catalogue description and would thus escape any word search on the NLI site. They can only be found upon inspection of the manuscript itself. Furthermore, to my knowledge, historians, while certainly aware of this manuscript, have not previously noted either of these specific letters. Discovering letters by Rabbi Briel to these two famous figures in Jewish medical history, appearing mere pages apart from each other, who were in their lifetimes “ki’ahim ne’emanim” (like faithful brothers),⁵ inspired this brief contribution chronicling their shared trailblazing journey of medical training in the late seventeenth century.

Tuviya HaRofe (Tobias Cohen/Cohn/Katz) (1652-1729), author of the Renaissance work Ma’ase Tuviya, is one of the most famous personalities in Jewish medical history.[6] Tuviya and his close friend Gabriel Felix [7] were inseparable from their early years of medical training and beyond. Here is how Tuviya, at around the age of 55, describes his dear friend:[8]

These two Polish students began their medical journey together in 1678 in Frankfurt as the first Jewish students ever accepted to a German medical school. However, for reasons suggested below, they soon transferred to Padua, where they both completed their studies in 1683. Here we present some remarkable rarely seen archival records of their travails, after which we introduce historically overlooked correspondence they maintained with Rabbi Yehudah Briel.

Tuviya and Gabriel- The Frankfurt Years

While the University of Padua had allowed Jews into the medical faculty since the fifteenth century, Germany continued to restrict their acceptance for centuries. Tuviya and Gabriel were the very first Jewish students allowed to attend a medical school in Germany, the University of Frankfurt on Odor. This was only possible through the intercession of Friedrich Wilhelm, the Grand Elector of Brandenburg, Duke of Prussia, who ruled from 1640-1688. Part of the arrangement in exchange for Tuviya and Gabriel’s matriculation, as explicitly stated by the Duke, was for them to provide instruction in Hebrew language and grammar to the German university students. Tuviya and Gabriel happened to be particularly proficient in this area. Another transparent intent was for these young impressionable Jews to become “enlightened” and ultimately convert to Christianity.[9]

Tuviya’s medical application took the form of a poem he wrote for the Grand Duke.[10] Though referenced and transcribed in previous historical literature, the rarely seen image of the poem is presented here.[11] The choice of Hebrew as the language of the sonnet betrays the Duke’s linguistic interests in Tuviya’s matriculation. Note the acrostic, which includes not only reference to the Duke, but to his wife Dorothea as well.

Indeed, Tuviya explicitly states that he will be happy to instruct the university students in the Hebrew language:

There is a Latin version of the poem/petition as well, though the acrostics are literally lost in translation.

The university was not interested in altering its age-old policy in order to admit Jews, concerned that the Jews would pose a religious danger to the Christian students. The Grand Duke nonetheless approved their admission on April 29, 1678, over the university’s objections.[12]

English Translation[13]

Friedrich Wilhelm, Elector, etc.
Highly learned and well-learned scholars, dear faithful subjects, Gabriel Moschowitz and Tobias Moschowitz, both Jews from Poland, having approached us and tendered individual submissions in which they declare that they wish to set forth the study of medicine at our university and to learn German as well and, in return, are willing to teach Hebrew to those who desire to learn it and, at the same time, requested that they may enjoy privileges here like the other students, we have most graciously acceded to their request. We therefore hereby command you to admit both of them and to let them enjoy all the privileges of the other students freely and without hindrance.
We remain . . .

April 29, 1678

To the University of Frankfurt, His Electoral Grace of Brandenburg, Our Gracious Lord, hereby
graciously commands his Councilor and Treasurer Haydekampfen to dispense twenty Thalers to the two Jews Gabriel Moschowitz and Tobias Moschowitz, who desire to move to Frankfurt to study medicine.

April 29, 1678

On June 10, 1678, the Grand Duke reiterated his order, perhaps in response to the university’s continued opposition:

He added that the university should carefully observe whether Jewish students, in conversation with their fellow students, “might have the effrontery to persuade some to join their Jewish faith. In this case, you must report to us expediently so that we may issue further orders.” The Grand Duke hoped for the Jews’ conversion, for “when they interact for extended periods with Christians, they will acquire that much better an opinion of Christianity and perhaps, by the grace of God, they may be converted.”[14]

Tuviya and Gabriel matriculated at the University of Frankfurt on Odor on June 17, 1678.

In gratitude for their historical acceptance as Jews to a German university, Tuviya and Gabriel composed a special grammar tree[15] containing the totality of Hebrew grammar rules in a concise chart form. Though it might seem odd to gift a German ruler a work on Hebrew grammar as a token of appreciation, the historical context deems it perfectly appropriate. This document, as Tuviya’s poem, has been rarely seen[16] and is pictured below. It is likewise housed in Berlin, though at a different institution.[17]

In the circumferential text bordering the document, the authors[18] explain the impetus for its creation. Since the people of Israel have been spread geographically across the world, there evolved inconsistencies in the understanding of Hebrew grammar. The authors lament this fact with literary allusion to the Book of Esther, “How can I (stand by and) observe this tragic loss of knowledge in this field that has befallen my people!” This document therefore sets out to rectify the dire state of knowledge of Hebrew grammar.

In addition to the grammatical aspect, which is beyond the scope of this study, this document is perhaps even more remarkable for the inscription that it bears. The document, created in 1678, contains an inscription at both the header and footer. The texts are similar, though not identical, with the top in Latin and the bottom in Hebrew.

Latin Inscription

serenissimo ac potentionissimo Domino Fridricio Wilhelmo Electori Brandenburgico
Domino nobis Clementissimo, hoc schema arboris quod representat Epitomen
Gramatices Hebraicae sacraficamus, atque electorales ipsius sedes humillime
dependimus servi subjectissimi
Gabriel Felix Moschides
Tobias Moschides

Hebrew Inscription

טבלה זאת מחזקת בתוכה קצור דקדוק לשון הקודש ודוגמת אילן עשייה. אותה הקרבנו לאדונינו הדוכס הגדול המהולל
פרידריך וילהעלם יר“ה להיות לזכרון עולם תוך ביבליאהטעקא שלו המהוללה מעבדיו הנמוכים וצעירים לימים כה דברי
גבריאל רופא מבראדא וטוביה רופא כץ מזלקווי אשר היו שוקדים על שערי חכמי רופאים ופלוסופים בעיר פרנקפורט

English Translation (of the Hebrew)

This chart contains an abridged Hebrew (Lashon HaKodesh) grammar in the schematic form of a tree. This we present before our Master the Grand Duke
Friedrich Wilhelm as a constant reminder (memorial) to be placed in his magnificent library (bibliotek). From his humble and young servants
Gavriel the physician of Brody And Tuviya the physician Katz of Zolkiew. Who prostrate on the doorsteps (gates) of sage physicians and philosophers in the city of Frankfurt

In the Latin version their names appear as Gabriel Felix Moschides and Tobias Moschides, as both of their fathers were named Moshe (Moses). This grammar tree was gifted to Duke Friedrich Wilhelm. The Hebrew inscription mentions specifically that the grammar tree should be placed in Wilhelm’s magnificent library. Wilhelm built a massive personal book collection, which in the course of time ultimately became the German Imperial Library in Berlin,[19] wherein this item sits to this very day. Tuviya’s poem is also found in Berlin, though in a different library, where it has resided since gifted by him to the Grand Duke in the 1670s.

Tuviya and Gabriel achieved the near-impossible and, as Jews, attended the Frankfurt Medical School. Unfortunately, the social experiment was a resounding failure. Not only did the young Jewish students soon transfer to the University of Padua; it would also be some years till another Jewish medical student set foot on campus.[20] Perhaps the not so subtle directive of the Grand Duke to engage the Jewish students in dialogue and proselytize may have led to an uncomfortable or untenable environment for Tuviya and Gabriel. In the introduction to his Ma’aseh Tuviah, Tuviya recalls the extensive and incessant debates with students and faculty in Frankfurt, though he does not explicitly attribute his departure to this experience.

Tuviya and Gabriel- The Padua Years

Upon their transfer from Frankfurt, Tuviya and Gabriel’s matriculation at Padua was uneventful, with no need for political (or Papal) intervention, nor poetic applications or grammar trees. Suffice it say, the University of Padua was more receptive to Jews than Frankfurt. The experience of the Jewish medical student in Padua, a thriving center of Jewish life, Torah, medicine, and intellectual activity, was life altering not only from an educational perspective, but also in terms of the relationships formed with some of the greatest intellectuals[21] and rabbinic personalities of the day.

In a previous post, we documented the Torah learning of numerous medical graduates of the University of Padua in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as reflected in their acquisition of a Ḥaver degree.[22] In addition to students who opted for programmatic learning, others maintained relationships with rabbinic leaders, who served as both informal educators and mentors.

Italy, and in particular Padua, was home to rabbis of great renown in the Early Modern period, as documented by the likes of Hananel Neppi and Mordechai Ghirondi,[23] Marco Mortara,[24] and more recently by Asher Salah.[25] A number of these rabbis, especially from Padua and nearby Venice, maintained relationships with the local medical students, establishing bonds that often endured throughout the students’ lives.

Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen (1482-1565), known as Maharam miPadua, served as leader of the Padua community for many decades. We have testimony of at least one young scholar, Avtalyon miModena, shuttling between Maharam’s yeshiva and the medical school, and presumably he was not alone.[26]

Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh de Modena (1571-1648) was a well-known personality of the Italian Renaissance, involved in halakhic discourse, dialogue with non-Jews, choral music performance in his synagogue, and discussions about the propriety of gambling, amongst other endeavors.[27] Though he lived in Venice, the close proximity to Padua facilitated much cross-pollination between these two cities. He maintained a close connection with a number of the medical students at the University of Padua. He not only wrote poems for some of the medical graduates, but in one case he collected and published an entire volume of letters and poems dedicated to his prized student Joseph Hamitz, who graduated in 1623.[28] Perhaps his most famous student from Padua’s medical school was Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo.[29]

One of the more colorful and controversial Jewish figures in Paduan history was Rabbi Moshe Haim Luzzatto (1707-1746), author of the well-known ethical work Mesillat Yesharim. While his works are part of the contemporary cannon of Jewish literature, he was controversial during his brief lifetime for his radical mystical and kabbalistic beliefs. Not only did a number of his family members graduate the medical school of Padua,[30] Ramḥal himself matriculated at the medical school for at least three terms, though we have no record of his graduation.[33] He maintained relationships with numerous Padua medical students[32] and wrote congratulatory poems in honor of their graduations as well.[33] Medical students attended his regular study group, an informal way of continuing their Jewish education, and two in particular, Moshe David Valle and Yekutiel Gordon, went on to become Luzzatto’s staunch advocates and supporters.

Here we draw particular attention to Rabbi Yehudah Briel (1643-1722),[34] another prominent Italian rabbinic figure who was involved in many of the day’s political issues (Shabtai Tzvi/Neḥemia Hayon controversy, Jewish-Christian debates) and whose responsa appeared, among other places, in Lampronti’s Paḥad Yitzḥak and Morpurgo’s Shemesh Tzedakah. Like his rabbinic colleagues, he likewise befriended, mentored and taught the medical students of Padua, and it is in this area that the JTS manuscript sheds new light. While living in Padua, Briel developed connections with medical students which he continued well beyond their years of training, when he served as Chief Rabbi of Mantua.

Rabbi Dr. Yitzḥak Lampronti corresponded with Briel regarding the interpretation of a Talmudic passage referring to spontaneous generation. This now famous exchange is recorded in Lampronti’s magnum opus, Paḥad Yitsḥak and is a focal point of discussions on the relationship of Torah and science.[35] As mentioned above, Briel also granted rabbinic ordination (twice) to Shimshon Morpurgo years after he graduated from Padua. Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Cantarini, one of the more prominent medical graduates of Padua, penned a magnificent eulogy upon the death of his mentor, Rabbi Briel.[36]

Rabbi Brill and Gabriel Felix

Briel was also known to have had a relationship with Gabriel Felix, though the archival evidence is scant. In 1896, the scholar David Kaufmann published an article in French reproducing a single letter Felix wrote to Rabbi Briel on September 9, 1682.[37]

The depth of their relationship is evident from both the style and content of the letter. Gabriel bemoans the lack of Rabbi Briel’s response to his multiple attempts at communication. Though he anticipates the completion of his medical studies, he shares concerns about graduation due to his financial constraints. He reports a recent serious illness, though it appears that he recovered to the extent that he was able to recite the Hagomel blessing in synagogue. There is no mention by Kaufmann of additional extant correspondence between them.

In the JTS manuscript we find a letter from Briel to Gabriel.[38]

זה האיש מהר“ר גבריאל בן מע‘ החבר ר‘ משה יושב בסתר סדרי התלמוד ויודע מהלכם ושבילם, גדול העצה בפסקי דינים לעקר שרשי דברי ריבות ולכרות זלזלם, רב העליליה לו עשר ידות במעלות המדות בשקל הקדש משקלם, דורש טוב לעמו במאמרים טובים וערבים להועילם, אשר עיניו פקוחות על כל נדחי נתחי בני אדם מקטנם ועד גדולם, מימינם ומשמאלם, מכיר את מקומם וטיבם מכשירם ופוסלם ולו בינה לו גבורה להעמידם על תלם, ולהחזירם לאיתנם בעת נפלם מורשי לבבו בחכמות הטבע נתנו חילם, נראה אלי (?) היום והנה בידו מגִלה מגַלה סתרי עולם, קטון וגדול שם הוא במצודת שכלו העלם, מנבכי ים המזימות העמוקות והוציאם לאור מתוך ערפלם, הליכות עולם לו לנוכח עיני הציבם להשכילם, האירו קצת פרקיו ברקיו ולפידיו אופל אדמתי בהלם, וכדברי דבר הלמד מעניינו יתנו עדיהם ויצדקו על כל חלקי החבור כלם, כי לא יטה לארץ מנלם(?) אין על עפר משלם, ולכן כאשר ענותו הרבתני להסכים עמו להרחיב גבולם, בהתחקקם בעט עופרת לדורות עולם, אמרתי מה טוב ומה נעים להראות על פני חוץ יפי מכלולם, כחם ואילם להגלות גלת(?) זהבם ואדרת מהללם הנשלם ובלתי נשלם, אשו(ר) הייא אשור הייא^39[ להרים ניסם ולהקים דגלם אל כל צמאי בינה להנחילם, הבא במשפט על כל נעלם ולהסתופף בצלם יומם ולילם כה דברי הצעיר יהודה בכמ‘ אליעזר בריאל ז“ל בעיר מנטובה בס‘ ישמעו ולמדו ליראה את ה‘ שנת תמ“ד לפ“ק

It is signed only with the year, 5444 (1683/1684), which postdates the above correspondence by some one to two years. By this time, Gabriel had graduated from medical school.[40]

A section of the archival graduation record of Gabriel Felix (1683)[41]

While Briel does not explicitly refer to Gabriel as a “rofe” (physician), the following description of Gabriel’s capabilities certainly refers to his medical expertise:

אשר עניו פקוחות על כל נדחי נתחי בני אדם מקטנם ועד גדולם, מימינם ומשמאלם, מכיר את מקומם וטיבם מכשירם ופוסלם ולו בינה לו גבורה להעמידם על תלם, ולהחזירם לאיתנם בעת נפלם מורשי לבבו בחכמות הטבע נתנו חילם

In addition to the other references to Gabriel’s thorough scientific knowledge and powers of health restoration, the play on words “nitchei bnei adam” is likely a reference to anatomical dissection and his understanding of human anatomy.

This missive appears to be a request to provide an approbation for a work Gabriel had completed. Gabriel presented him with a scroll (i.e., manuscript) that “reveals the secrets of the world” (מגִלה מגַלה סתרי עולם). Briel responds with very positive review.

Rabbi Brill and Tuviya HaRofe

The JTS manuscript also contains a missive written by Rabbi Briel in response to Tuviya HaRofe.[42]

 

טובינא דחכימי, דלית ליה טימי, כרב אסי וכרב אמי, הר“ר טוביה הרופא שלום
וישע רב
רבתי צררוני צרות צרורות ומרורות דמר מורי נר“ו, אשר השמיעני
בספירי ספורי שפירי ספרו, עד כי בביתי לקשה יום עגמה נפשי –
במשנה קצף על משנה שברו, ונוסף עצבוני באשר לא ידעתי היום נתיבות
פתחי נדיבים ואנה אפנה לעזרו, למצוא מעט צרי לצירו, כי ספו תמו מן בלהות
המתנדבים בעם והמשכילים אל דל לאשרו, ורבים מתעשרים ואין כל כי אם קול
ועמו שוברו, האמנם הגאון זכות המצדיק רבים בפועל כפיו ובמאמרו, ואתו עמש
אנכי הצעיר כל א‘(?) אצל יודעו ומכירו, שפכנו שיח וזה הכמוספה(?) פריו ניבו וקצירו
הלא מזער הוא cross out לתמוך ידי קצין עם שרו וטפסרו, הודו והדרו, וידענו אדו‘ ידענו
כי לא הגיע לפרק השואל והמקבל יחיד ומיוחד בדורו ואף אנו אמרנו מה נוביל
שיכלא (?) חשיב למחוסר צידה מעיקרו, והכתוב צווח די מחסורו, הלא כלמה תכסה פנינו
ונמצא קולו חומרו ואיסורו, אך מה נעשה אם המסים העודפים, תמידים ומוספים,
אכלו כל יגיענו ולא יניחו לב טוב להוציא חפצו לאורו, האלקים ירחם וינחם וירצה
המרבה והממעיט כפי יכלתו ויתרו ויקים סכת אדו‘ הנופלת ויבנה גדרו ויחבוש
מזורו (?) יחזירהו לאיתנו, ויעטרהו רצונו, ויחכהו הון ועושר וגדולה כשברו, ויהי חמשה
ואלף שירו כעתירתי הקשור בעבותות אהבתו קשר של קיימא עבדו המוכן
לשמוע בקול דברו, יהודה בכמ‘ אליעזר באריאל ז“ל הכותב(?) במנטובה בשנת ת“גיל
בה‘ לפ“ק כ“ז כסלו

This letter is dated December 27, 1682, prior to Tuviya’s graduation from Padua. Tuviya is nonetheless identified as “HaRofe.” In fact, Tuviya similarly self-identified as “HaRofe” even before he attended the University of Frankfurt. It is assumed that he received some medical education through apprenticeship in Poland and thus identified as a physician even before his medical school application. University graduates were often called “rofe mumḥeh.”

The substance of this correspondence appears to be a response to a request for financial support, the nature and extent of which is assumedly found in Tuviya’s initial letter, not part of the manuscript. Was Tuviya, like his friend Gabriel unable to meet the tuition burden and was requesting assistance from Rabbi Briel? This would not be unprecedented. Carpi records the request of Hayyim Polacco for financial assistance from the Padua Jewish community in 1658 to complete the payments of his Padua medical school tuition, though Carpi believes this to be the only such case.[43] I procured the original request from the archives:[44]

As you can see from the bottom line, the committee voted to approve Polacco’s request by a vote of 16 in favor with 6 opposed. Tuviya was unfortunately not as lucky, and his appeal was met with rejection. What is clear however is the admiration and love Rabbi Briel expresses for Tuviya, reflecting a meaningful relationship between them.

Tuviya would go on to graduate just a few months later, on June 25, 1683.

A section of the archival graduation record of Tuviya HaRofe (1683)[45]

The previously published extant archival record reveals a rich and adventurous shared life of Tuviya and Gabriel, in particular with respect to their medical training. With the light shed by our epistolary discovery, it appears that they shared a common rabbinic mentor during their training as well.

New Seforim Lists & Seforim Sale

By Eliezer Brodt

The post hopes to serve three purposes. One, the first section lists some new, interesting seforim, and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication. While those that sell books are seeing that book purchases keep dropping, books are still being published at full force. Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested. Third, the last part of the list has some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this series.)

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.

Part One

חז“ל– גאונים– ראשונים

1. תורת כהנים, חלקים ה-ו, מכון אופק (אברהם שושנה)
2. פירוש רש”י למסכת ביצה, מהדורה ביקורתית, ההדיר והוסיף מבוא והערות: ד”ר אהרן ארנד
3. פירוש רש”י ובית מדרשו, על פיוטי סדר עבודת יום הכיפורים
4. חיבור ההכרעות לרבנו יעקב בן מאיר תם
5. שערי מוסר לר’ אביגדור כהן צדק / עסק התורה לרבינו יחיאל אבי הרא”ש
6. מדרש הגדול אסתר, עם ביאור שי”ח מאת מרן הגר”ח קניבסקי
7. אוסף מדרשים, חלק ג, זכרון אהרן

8.רבינו אליקים על מסכת יומא, מכון ירושלים

9.מורה נבוכים, חלק א, פרקים א-ל, בעריכת ר’ יהודה זייבלד ואחרים, על פי כ”י, כולל פירושים מכ”י ועוד [ראה דפי דוגמא] [מצוין]

10. ליקוטי מדרשים חלק ד

11.ליקוטי מדרשים חלק ה

12. חומש עם תרגום יהונתן המפורש, שמות
13. משנה עם פירוש הרמב”ם – המקור הערבי ותרגום – 7 כרכים

14.פסקי תוספות השלם, מכון ירושלים, ב’ חלקים

15. מלחמת ה’ המבואר, בבא מציעא

16.חידושי ר’ יהונתן מלוניל, ברכות

17.פירוש רבינו דוד הנגיד על סדר התפילה שיסד הרמב”ם במשנה תורה, ריא עמודים [מהדורה מצומצמת]

18. מחברת מנחם בן סרוק, מהדורה ביקורתית מבוארת, בעריכת אהרן ממן וחננאל מירסקי,

מחקר

1.פרופ’ יצחק ש’ פנקובר, תולדות פירוש רש”י לתנ”ך [מצוין]

2. ר’ אהרן אדלר, על כנפי נשרים: מחקרים בספרות ההלכתית של הרמב”ם [מעניין]
3. “על דעת רבו”, תורתו משנתו והליכותיו של הגאון המופלא רבי מנחם מנדל כשר בעל ה’תורה שלמה’ [כעין ספר יובל, מלא חומר מעניין]

4.ברכיהו ליפשיץ, סוגיות חסורי מחסרא בתלמוד בבלי, יד הרב ניסים

5.יעקב גולן, תנאים בקידושין ובגירושין, יד הרב ניסים

6. יעקב שפירא, ילדים והוריהם מחקר הלכתי תרבותי

7.אברהם דוד, למען ירושלים לא אשקוט, אסופת איגרות ירושלמיות מראשית תקופת השלטון העות’מאני

8.אליעזר שריאל, מסורת בזמן משבר, הזיקה שבין תהליך המודרניזציה לבין התגבשות ההלכה, 248 עמודים [חומר חשוב, על רע”א, פוזן בזמנו, בעל הנתיבות, דיני בין השמשות, דיני תליה במכה, מאבד עצמו לדעת ועוד]

9.אהרן ממן, מילונאות עברית: מילונים ומילים [חומר חשוב]

10. הרמב”ם וגניזת קהיר, פרופ’ מרדכי עקיבא פרידמן ופרופ’ שמא פרידמן [מצוין]

11.ספר היובל לכבוד מנחם בן ששון, שמעו כי נגידים אדבר’, עיונים בתופעת המנהיגות בקהילות ישראל בימי הביניים

12. אסף תמרי, האל כמטופל והקליניקה של המקובל, קבלת האר”י כשיח רפואי [מעניין]

13.אסף ידידיה, דורש יש לה, חייו ומשנתו של הרב צבי הירש קלישר

14. זהר עמר, כלכלת המקדש, והיערכותה של עיר הקודש לייעודה

15.ספר ירושלים, 1948-1973

16.יוסף שיטרית, חורבן ותקומה: הרס החיים ביהודיים במרוקו בשמד המווחדון ושיקומם [1154-1269], ג’ חלקים

17.היצירה בספרד ומסורותיה, משה חלמיש אורה שורצולד, הוצאת אידרא

18. יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ, ובימי הקדמונים: התפתחות ההלכה האשכנזית

19.דרך הלב – בין אבו חאמד אלע׳זאלי ור׳ אברהם בן הרמב״ם

20.זאב וייס, ציפורי, פסיפס של תרבויות, 250 עמודים

21. “עת לעשות לה’ הפרו תורתך” מסורת ומשבר בהגותו של ר’ משה בן מימון מאת: עומר מיכאליס
22. שאלי שרופה באש – השואה וזיכרונה במבט דתי-לאומי, עורך איתמר לוין

23.גבריאל שטרנגר, רוחנית ודבקות מיסטית

24.רוברטו ארביב, הסוד בגבולות התבונה, במשנתו של רבי אברהם בן הרמב”ם

25.טיטוס טובלר, דפי מזכרת ירושלים, תרגום של דר’ שמעון שטרן, בעריכה של זהר עמר

26.אבישלום וסטרייך, ארבעה אבות נזיקין: מסורת משפט ופרשנות, כרמל

27.עמנואל אטקס, משיחיות, פוליטיקה והלכה – הציונות הדתית ו”השטחים” 1967 –1986, כרמל [מעניין]

28.מחקרי תלמוד, ד, שני חלקים [מצויין]

29. ברכיהו ליפשיץ, פרק אלו נערות – עיונים בסוגיות התלמוד

30. מנחם קיסטר, אחור וקדם: המשכיות וצמיחה של מסורות בין ספרות בית שני לספרות חז”ל, [מצוין]

31.יונתן מאיר, תיקון הפרדוקס

32. זלמן שזר, על תלי בית פרנק
33. גרשם שלום, אלכימיה וקבלה, בלימה
34. ג’ שלום, בעקבות משיח, מהדורה שנייה, כריכה רכה

אחרונים

1. דרשות ר’ בצלאל אשכנזי, מכתב יד, מכון אהבת שלום

2.סמ”ג עשין, חלק ב, להמהרש”ל

3.ר’ יעקב עמדין, מטפחת ספרים, מהדורה שנייה [אין הוספות]

4.ר’ שמואל מקלווריעא, דרכי נועם, ביאור מאמרים רבה בר בר חנה, תל עמודים

5.סדר מועדות, מאת הגאון האדר”ת, על סדר מועדי השנה, שבת תשובה, סוכות, חנוכה, פורים, פסח ושבועות, מכון שובי נפשי, מכתב יד, תשע”ה עמודים [מצוין]

6.ר’ יוסף ענגיל, ציונים לתורה

7.חתם סופר, גנוזות, ב”מ, אגדה, ועוד

8.ר’ צבי הירש גליקזאהן, חתן מרן הגר”ח, שיעורי תורת חיים

9.ר’ יצחק בלאזער, כוכבי אור, עם כמה הוספות, שח עמודים

10. חידושי רבינו יוסף זוסמנוביץ’ [כולל הרבה חומר מכ”י] [מצוין]
11. ר’ עובדיה יוסף, מאור ישראל, ג’ חלקים בכרך אחד, מהדורה חדשה

12.ר’ בנימין הכהן ויטאלי, אבות עולם, על מסכת אבות

13.ר’ צבי פרבר, שיח צבי, על תפילה חלק א

14.ר’ אריה ליב עטלינגר, גיטין, אחיו של הערוך לנר

15.ערוך לנר כריתות

16.ר’ עזרא הבבלי, נתיבות עולם, מהדיר: פרופ שאול רגב

17.ר’ יונה קרפילוב, ק’ יונת אלם, מהדורה חדשה, עם הוספות

שו“ת– הלכה– מנהג

1.ר’ שובאל בן שלמה, מבאר המים, הדרת פנים, ברכת חתנים, בר מצוה, מילואים

2.שו”ת מזבח אדמה, כולל הרבה הוספות

3.שו”ת חוט השני, מכון זכרון אהרן

4.ר’ דוב מנחם רעגענשבערג, שו”ת מנחת מנחם, מהדורה חדשה

5.ר’ יחיאל מיכל טוקצינסקי, שו”ת הגרימ”ט, ב’ חלקים, מכתב יד [מלא חומר חשוב]

6.פסקי תשובות חלק ד (עירובין)

7. הלכה ברורה כרך כ

8.ר’ יקותיאל יהודה גרינולד, כל בו על הלכות אבילות [מהדורה חדשה]

9.ר’ יוסף עבאדי, מנהגי אר”ץ, ארם צובה

10.יד שאול לבעל שואל ומשיב, סי’ רמ-רצג

11.שו”ת באר עשק, מכון משנת ר’ אהרן

12.ר’ שלמה קלוגר, שו”ת טוב טעם ודעת, מהדורה שנייה

13.שו”ת שלמת יוסף המבואר, לבעל צפנת פענח

14.ר’ אריה ליב ליפקין, אור היום [בירור הלכה בענין בין השמשות וצאת הכוכבים…] [נדפס לראשונה ב-1901] עם הערות ולוחות כוכבים, מהדיר: ר’ משה ברוך קופמאן, 27 +רנז עמודים [ניתן להשיג אצלי עותקים בארץ ישראל]

15.ר’ ישראל אריאל, שופר ולולב בשבת, תנב עמודים [מעניין]

16.ר’ יעקב ישראל יהל, נפש ישראל, אוצר ענייני פיקוח נפש, תתרסט +47 עמודים [מלא חומר חשוב]

17.ר’ מרדכי הלוי פטרפרוינד, נתיבות הוראה, בדרכי קביעת והוראת ההלכה\הכרעת המחלוקות\ והנהגת היחיד במחלוקת, תתקנ עמודים [מצוין]

18.הליכות מנחם – מנהגים והנהגות הרבי

19.ר’ רפאל קרויזר, הגירושין בהלכה

20. ר’ יוסף סאפרין, אוצר הקדיש, פסקי הלכה ומנהג, משנת הראשונים, תקפו עמודים

21.ר’ יצחק מאיר אירום, מכשירי חשמל בשבת,

22.ר’ דוד גאלדשטיין, דודאי ראובן על הלכות כיבוד אב ואם

23. ר’ יוסף ויינר, עם לבדד ישכון, בענין ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו
24. ציוני הלכה, חנוכה, פסקים מפי מרן הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל
25. שלחן ערוך, אבן העזר, שתילי זיתים, ג’ חלקים, מכתב יד, מכון שובי נפשי

26.תשובות רב קאפח, חלק ז

27. ר’ דוד אריה מורגנשטרן, פתחי דעת אבן העזר, חלק א,  פרו ורבו, פצוע דכה סריס ואנדרוגינוס ועוד, 544 עמודים [מצוין]

28.ר’ אליקום דבורקס, נתיבי המנהגים, בעניין חודש אלול, ראש השנה, עשי”ת יוה”כ והושע”ר, תקמד עמודים

29. ר’ דוד בהר”ן ארח דוד, מהדורה שנייה עם הרבה הוספות [מצוין]

30.מדריך למורי הוראה לצום יום הכיפורים לחולים, זקנים מעוברות ויולדות, עם פסקים והוראות מאת ר’ אשר וייס

31.דרכי תשובה, כרך חדש, נדרים שבועות

32.ר’ מרדכי קוט, מים רבים, הלכות וענייני ברכות הראיה, תרטז עמודים

33.שמירת הגוף והנפש ע”פ שו”ע אדמו”ר הזקן, 340 עמודים

34.בן איש חי, עם הערות מאיר עינים, לר’ אריאל כהן

35.ר’ אלימלך פישל, ק’ שמעתתא דהוראה

36.ר’ וולדמן, כוונת שם ה’ כהלכה, דיני כוונות השמות, שכרה וענשה, עצות לכוונה, והנהגות צדיקים, 40 עמודים

37.ר’ שלום מזרחי, ק’ יעקב שלם, בענין ספק דאורייתא לחומרא עם הוא מהתורה בתוספות כמה עיונים בענייני ספק דאורייתא, קנג עמודים

39.ר’ ישראל יהושע מקוטנא, ישועות ישראל, חושן משפט

40.ר’ נתן ב”ר יעקב, זמן חצות, בירור זמן חצות לילה לפי כל השיטות עם גילויים חדשים מספרים נדירים וכתבי יד שטרם ראו אור

41.ר’ מרדכי טרענק, קונטרס מזלא טבא בעניני מזלות וכוכבים ובסופו חידושי רבינו ברוך רוזנפעלד על ספר החינוך, מכתב יד, תלמיד רע”א

42.הר הבית כהלכה, חלק ב

43.ר’ דניאל אשנברג, משנת בני נח, עניני בני נח ערוכים על סדר הרמב”ם

44. ר’ פינחס גרסטל, אלפיים שנות הדר, מסורת אתרוגי מרוקו, שח עמודים

45.ר’ אליהו מטוסוב, אתרוגים בהלכה, מסורת אתרוגי קלבריה, רצו עמודים

46.שו”ת חוט השני, זכרון אהרן

47.ר’ מרדכי בנעט, שו”ת פרשת מרדכי [יפה]

48. ר’ יוסף פלדמן, ושבית שביו, דיני אשת יפת תואר

49.ר’ אורי טיגר, לדופקי תשובה, מהדורה חדשה

50.ר’ יוסף כהן, כניסת הכהנים לעבודה, רלח עמודים

51.ר’ ישעיהו פייערשטיין, קונטרס כיצד מרקדין, רקידה בשבת ולצורך מצוה

52.ר’ ישעיהו פייערשטיין, קונטרס ברך אברכך, בענין מנהג ברכת הבנים

53.ר’ אלעזר מלמד, מסורת הגיור, 896 עמודים [אוסף חשוב]

54. ר’ יעקב חיים סופר, דברי יעקב חיים, א-ב, מהדורה שניה [מצוין]

55.ר’ אפרים בוקוולד, קו התאריך במקורות, עיון במקורות בגמרא ובראשונים, ק’ עיון ביסודות הלוח

56.חקרי הלכה ומנהג – כרכים ה-ו – תורת העינים

57.שבות יצחק, מלאכת לישה

58.ספר מכבדי אכבד, בענייני הדלקת הנר, תוספת שבת, כבוד ועונג שבת

59.ר’ יהודה יונגרייז, מילי דקטן

קבלה

1.צנצנת המן, ב’ חלקים, על כתבי האריז”ל

2.כתבי ר’ ישראל סרוק ז”ל המבואר, כולל כ”י, א’מט עמודים

3.גורל כחול הים – קבלה מעשית / רבי יוסף אביגדור

קבצים

1. גנזי קדם חלק יט

2.אכסניא  גליון  ב

3. עץ חיים גליון מ

4.המעין, גליון 247

5.מן הגנזים גליון יח

6.סידרא לה

7.עלי ספר כרך לב-לג

8.היכל הבעש”ט כרך מד

9. המשביר כרך י

תפילה–פיוט

1.סידור נר יששכר, נוסח אשכנז, עדת ישורון ציריך

2.אוצר התפילות, ב’ כרכים [מהדורה חדשה ועבודה חשובה]

3.ראובן גפני, לכרוך את התפילה

4.ר’ אליהו גרינצייג, תפארת התפילה,  תקעט עמודים

5.סידור לימות החול ושבת, עם ביאור ערוגת הבושם, מאת ר’ חנוך זונדלמביאליסטוק, מכתב יד, ב’ חלקים

6.ר’ ישראל נאג’ארה, שארית ישראל, ב’ חלקים, מכת”י, מבואות וביאורים: בארי טובה, סרוסי אדוין]

7. סיור סליחות, מסע חווייתי על פיוטי הסליחות ותפילת הימים הנוראים, 279 עמודים

תנ“ך

1.ר’ מרדכי רוזנבלט, הדר מרדכי, שמות, מכתב יד [מצוין], מכון משנת ר’ אהרן

2.ר’ מאיר עראמה, אורים ותומים, ירמיהו

3.מתורתו של הצפנת פענח על  התורה והמועדים, חלק ג

4.ר’ משה דוד ואלי, תהלים מהדורא תליתאה, תקלד, מכתב יד

5.ר’ בנימין הכהן, אלון בכות על מגלת איכה, תקנג עמודים + מפתחות

6.ר’ שלמה קלוגר, חכמת שלמה, ד‘ חלקים, על התורה, סיום הסדרה, ניצבים, וילך, האזינו, וזאת הברכה

7.ר’ משה דוד וואלי, איוב

8.חמש מגילות, אוצר הראשונים

9.ר’ יוסף בן נאיים, שירי דוד – מעשה הרשים, תהלים

10.ר’ אפרים פישל הערשקאוויטש, שמע אפרים, שמות

11.ר’ אלחנן סמט, ימי ירבעם

12.ר’ אלחנן סמט, מלחמות אחאב

13.ר’ אלחנן סמט, מרד יהוא

תולדות – היסטוריה

1.שבט יהודה, מהדורה שניה

2.שולמית אזרחי, אשירה, 464 עמודים

3.מנהיג בסער התקופה, פרקים בחייו של ר’ יצחק מאיר לוין, ב’ חלקים

4. מהדורה חדשה של האיש על החומה, ב’ חלקים
5. ר’ דב אליאך, החפץ חיים, 800 עמודים
6. בשבילי ראדין, כולל שני חלקים חדשים, 150 עמודים על החזון איש ור’ חיים עוזר, וחיבור של ר’ יעקב עדס, דברי יעקב, 263 עמודים, בין השאר, ביקורת על החיבור ה’חזון איש’ של בנימין בראון, ועוד

7.ר’ מנחם מנדל פלאטו, מרן החזון איש, ב-ג, 366+360 עמודים

8.ר’ יאיר בורוכוב, הגאון הרוגצ’ובי, 618 עמודים

9. ר’ יעקב שחור, אוצרות רבינו חיים עוזר, מהדורה שנייה, קנט עמודים
10. מאורי ישראל, אלכנסדר

11.ר’ מרדכי שלמה אייזנטל, עובדות והנהגות, דברי תורה ויסודות ממשנתו של רבי שמעון שלום מאמשינוב

12.ק’ אמת ואמונה על ר’ מענדיל אטיק, קד עמודים

13.הכתבים שלי, החיד”א דברים שקיבל מרבו ר’ יצחק רפפורט [מכת”י]

שונות

1.ר’ יעקב ישראל סטל, סובו ציון והקיפוה: חומות ירושלים לעתיד לבוא.. על פי מדרשים פיוטים…

2. ר’ אביעד נייגר, ק’ מלחמת מצוה

3.ר’ אביעד נייגר, ק’ והיה בכזיב בלדתה: על דמותו של בר כוזיבא, בראי חז”ל ראשונים ואחרונים

4. ר’ שלמה גריינימן, לקט השבלים, כללי המשנה ולשונותיה, ב’ חלקים, [מצוין] תתרו+תתקסו עמודים [חומר חשוב ומעניין]

5.ר’ אליהו מרגליות, מבריסק עד קוסובה, יסודות ועקרונות פרשנות התלמוד, מהדורה שלישית [מאוד מעניין]

6.אחד היה אברהם, ספר זכרון למרן חזון איש, חלק א, 632 עמודים, כולל הרבה מאמרים של ר’ יהושע ענבל, עם מאות תיקונים והוספות [מלא חומר חשוב]

7.ר’ מנשה רוזן, נשמת הלוי, בענין מצוות שנאמר בהן ‘הוי זהיר מאד’

8. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, אני לדודי, עניני ימים נוראים, תשיז עמודים, אהבת שלום
9. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, כרך לא* ערכי כלים, [כרך חדש], כולל נספח ‘ריאליה של הכלים’, מאת ד”ר קרן קירשנבוים
10. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, כרך נא
11. ר’ ירוחם ווייכבויט ואחיו, בימים ההם, אופן החיים בזמן חז”ל התנאים ואמוראים, תקיב עמודים

12.תיאור המסע של אברהם לוי 1723-1719 מתורגם מיידיש מערבית עם הערות ונספחים, מהדיר: אלחנן טל

13.מדור לדוד, ספר דברי הימים לבני ישראל

14.ר’ ראובן מרגליות, פנינים ומרגליות, חלק ב

15. אסתר פרבשטיין, בנות עמי מטלז

16.ר’ יואל בן-נון, מחביון תורתך, ב’ חלקים

17. שדי חמד, חנוכה, צוואת המחבר
18. הלכה כבית שמאי לעתיד לבוא

19.דידן נצח [חב”ד]

20.אוצרות אחרית הימים, מהדורה חדשה [בלי הוספות]

21.ר’ בנימין לובאן, שמע בני: הנהגות והדרכות בארחות חיים, חלק א, [מאוד מעניין]

22.ר’ רצון ערוסי, אמרי רצון, ג’ חלקים

23. המעורר, הרפתקת דפוס עם הדפסת מחודשת של חוברת המעורר הראשונה 1906

24.מלאכת הדפוס של אריאל ורדי

25.דבר טוב, מכתבים עם ר’ דוב לנדא

26.ר’ אריה סמט, בטוב ירושלים, אוצרות אבולעפיה, קצח עמודים

27.ר’ אריה סמט, בטוב ירושלים, עניני קבלה בכתבי המהר”ל מפראג ליקוט מקורות, (תשס”ד), קלח עמודים

28.בניהו טבילה, הישיבה התיכונית החרדית

29. ר’ אריה אידנסון, שערי אריה חלק ב
30. שמע ישראל על קמעות סגולות ומאגיה

31.ר’ אהרן ליכטנשטיין, בדרשם פניך: פרקי תשובה

32.קהלת: סדר של אור, יונתן גרוסמן ועשהאל אבלמן

33. יעקב שביט, כתוב בספרים, רשימות

34.ר’ קושניר, מחשבת האמת, 288 עמודים

35.ר’ קושניר, מלכודת האמת

36.ר’ שמעון ואנונו, היכלא דיוסף צדיקא

37.אוסף כתבי הרש”ר הירש – כרך ו, חיי קהילה יהודיים, בתרגום חדש ללשון הקודש

38.ר’ חיים בעלסקי, חלב הארץ, סדר המקומות, כולל כל המקומות המובאים בדברים חז”ל… ואצל כל אחד… עניניה ומקוריה, הלכות שנוגעים אליה… תקעג עמודים

39.אהוד נצר, טביעות אצבע בנוף הארץ בין ארכיאולוגיה לאדריכלות

PART TWO

1. זית רענן על ילקוט שמעוני, להמגן אברהם, $30
2. שלחן תמיד, ב’ חלקים, מכון ירושלים, $18
3. אין תנאי בנישואין, לדור האחרון, $17
4. משיבת נפש, קירוב רחוקים באספקלריית חז”ל, $15
5. אליאב שוחטמן, מעשה הבא בעבירה, $18
6. דוד שטרן המשל במדרש, $19
7. פנקסי הראי”ה, חלק שני, $11
8. ר’ יוסף כ’צנשטיין, קונטרס למען אחי, בענין תורה לשמה, בענין ‘הגאון’ של דב אליאך, $16
9. יומן ליוורנו ד’, יומנו הפרטי האחרון של מרן החיד”א, מכתב יד $22
10. העלם דבר חלק ב, מכתב יד החיד”א $21
11. עיר גבורים – העיר הורדנא וגדוליה, $14
12. מרדכי ברויאר, פרקי בראשית, ב’ חלקים $33
13. אברהם גרוסמן, אמונות ודעות בעולמו של רש”י, $24

14.היא שיחתי על דרך לימוד התנ”ך, $18

15. שלום רוזנברג, לא בשמים היא, תורה שבעל פה מסורת וחידוש $16
16. שיטת הבחינות של הרב מרדכי ברויאר, קובץ מאמרים ותגובות, $21
17. ירון זילברשטיין, בין אדם למדינתו מדינת ישראל במשנתו ההלכתית של רב שלמה גורן, $27
18. ר’ יואל שילה, ותשקט הארץ: סוגיית פאה נכרית, $15
19. ר’ יצחק ישעי’ ווייס, קונטרס ברכת אלישע, חלק ה, $16
20. יוחנן סילמן, בין ללכת בדברכיו ולשמע בקלו – הוראות הלכתיות כהנחיות או כציוויים, $21
21. יעקב בלידשטיין, עצב נבו, מיתת משה במדרשי חז”ל, $19
22. זוהר רמח”ל, יוסף אביב”י, $25
23. מרדכי ברויאר, פרקי ישעיהו, $21
24. קובץ עגנון חלק א, $15

25.הרב שג”ר כלים שבורים, תורה וציונות דתית בסביבה פוסטמודרנית, $14

26..עלי עשור, דברי הוועידה העשירית של החברה לחקר התרבות הערבית היהודית של ימי הביניים בעריכת ד’ לסקר וחג בן שמאי, $15

27.מבעד למסוה, החסידיזמוס של אהרן מרקוס, דברי ביקורת על הספר, $12

28. מחזור גולדמשידט פסח, $28
29. מחזור גולשמידט שבועות,$28
30. יחיאל וטמן, בחינת המצות, בחינת קיום המצוות, ב’ חלקים $32
31. דב רפל, הנבואה, $19
32. ר’ קלמן כהנא, טהרת בת ישראל, $9
33. קסת הסופר, $10
34. ר’ שמואל אריאל, נטע בתוכנו, פרקים ביסודות תורה שבעל פה, חלק א, מסורה ויצירה, חלק ב דרישת התורה לדורותיה, $36
35. גלעד שפירא, מדרש הגדול – פואטיקה כסמן זהות $24

36.אורזולה שוברט, אמנות הספר היהודית, $20

37. סדר קידושין ונישואין מאחרי חתימת התלמוד ועד ימינו, מחקר היסטורי דוגמתי בדיני ישראל, אהרן פריימן [מצוין], $30
38. אברהם ברלינר, כתבים נבחרים, ב’ חלקים $40 [מצוין]
39. מסכת אבות בבלי ירושלמי, $13
40. יהודה קיל, פרקי הדרכה בהוראת נביאים ראשונים $15
41. דקדוקי סופרים, מסכת גיטין, מאיר שמחה פלדבלום $17
42. חיים קוליץ, החזוה מליטה, $16

43.חנה שמרוק, האיורים לספרי יידיש במאות הט”ז-י”ז, $14

44. ר’ חיים בניש, מדות ושיעורי תורה, $19
45. תורת המנחה לר’ יעקב סקילי, $28
46. רבי יוסף קארו, אוסף מאמרים, מוסד רב קוק, $32

47.מנחם בן ששון, צמיחת הקהילה היהודית בארצות האסלאם, $32

48. אילון וואיה, המבי”ט לדורו, $22
49. עוטה אור על התרגום, $24
50. במאבק על ערכה של תורה, הנומולוגיה לר’ שמנואל אבוהב, $33
51. כסא רחמים, להחיד”א, $10 פורמט גדול
52. שמעו כי נגידים אדבר, עיונים בתופעת המנהיגות בקהילות ישראל בימי הביניים, ספר היובל לכבוד פר’ מנחם בן ששון, $34

53.מבחר כתבים לר’ מתתיהו שטראשון, $26 [מצוין]

54. שו”ת הרמ”א, מהד’ אשר זיו, $35

55.חנוך אלבק, מבוא לתלמודים, $32

56. מבואות לספרות התנאים, יעקב נחום אפשטיין, $34
57. ר’ יצחק כהנא, מבוא לספרות התשובות, $36 [מצוין]

58.תקופת הסבוראים וספרותה, אפרתי, $26

59. מסילת ישירים, אופק, אביב”י, מהדורה ראשונה, $26
60. משנת יעקב ר’ יעקב שור [על מסכת ברכות רבנו בחיי, ערוך] $23 [מצוין]
61. צבי קארל, תרגום שבעים לתורה $27
62. תשובות הגאונים הרכבי, $30

63.לקורות הגזרות על ישראל / ח”י גורלאנד, $28

64. מאיר בניהו, מבוא לספר בנימין זאב, $24
65. נח עמינח, עריכת מסכתות שבת ועירובין בתלמוד הבבלי, 1084 עמודים, $29
66. אמרי שפר, דרשות לר’ שמואל פרימו, $26
67. ר’ יצחק שילת, בתורתו של ר’ גדליה, $31
68. חידושי רבני חיים הלוי, עם מורשת הגר”ח, $15

69.נטועים כרך, כג

70.אברהם הברמן, כתב לשון וספר, $25

71. אברהם הברמן, אנשי ספר ואנשי מעשה, $27

72.מנגד תראה, אסופה ממאמרי א.ר. מלאכי בענייני ארץ ישראל, מצוין $30

73.חליפות שמלות על תרגום אונקלוס, $30

74.יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, $30 [מצוין]

75.ידידיה אלטר דינר, חכמי אשכנז בשלהי ימי הביניים דרכיהם וכתביהם בהלכה, [מצוין], $32

76.יפה זלכה, פרקי מועד באגדת הירושלמי, $20

77.אברהם דוד, עלייה והתיישבות בארץ ישראל במאה הט”ז, [חומר חשוב], $24

78.חיים סולוביצ’יק, הלכה, כלכלה ודימו עצמי, המשכונאות בימי הביניים, $40

79.ר’ מיכאל ואברהם ברור, זכרונות אב ובנו, [מצוין], $30

80. בדרך עץ חיים על ר’ איסור זלמן מלצר, ב’ חלקים, [מצוין] $50
81. נחלת אבות, אסופת גנזים מבית משפחת ששון, $50
82. י’ רימון וי’ וסרמן, שמואל בדורו [על ר’ שמואל סלנט], $21

83.מאיר בניהו, הסכמה ורשות בדפוס ויניציאה, $45

84. אברהם הברמן, הספר העברי בהתפתחותו, $42

85.אברהם הברמן, שערי ספרים עברים, $55

86.נפתלי בן מנחם, בשערי ספר, $25

87.משה הורוביץ, הרב שך שהמפתח בידו, $23

88.יעקב נחום אפשטיין, דקדוק ארמית בבלית, $20

89.תוספתא עירובין פסחים ביצה עם הגהות הגר”א מכתב יד בנו הגאון ר’ אברהם, $16

90.שד”ל, מבוא למחזור בני רומא $42

91.שי”ר, תולדות גאוני ישראל, ב’ חלקים $60

92. שמואל פאזנאנסקי, מבוא על חכמי צרפת מפרשי המקרא, $24

93.ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד, לתולדות הריפורמציאן הדתית בגרמיא ובאונגריא \ המהר”ם שיק וזמנו, $23

94.ר’ יצחק שילת, במסילה העולה, סוטה $15

95.שד”ל, ויכוח, על חכמת הקבלה, $24

96. ר’ ראובן מרגליות, נפש חיה [מצוין], $28

97.משה כרמלי, ספר וסייף, $40

98. מאיר בר אילן, מוולאוזין לירושלים, ב’ חלקים $46 [מצוין]
99. בין שקיעה לזריחה, שמואל מירסקי  $16
100. שיבת ציון א”י סלוצקי, $27
101. תמונת עבר – שי לירחמיאל כהן, עזרא מנדלסון
102. מסה על התחיה הפיסית, המוסרית והמדינית של היהודים, גרגואר
103. ביקורת החברה והנהגת הציבור בספרות המוסר והדרוש בפולין במאה הי”ח, ישעיהו שחר

104.ספר הקונדס [מאוד מעניין], $17

105. משה (מוריץ) גידמן, היהדות הלאומית

106.בן ציון דינור, כתבים חדשים גם ישנים, $20

107.ספר חסידים כ”י פארמה H 3280 פקסמיליה, $26

108. גרשום שלום ויוסף וויס, $28

109.ישיבות ליטא – פרקי זכרונות [מצוין], כריכה קשה, $28

110. ימימה חובב, עלמות אהבוך, $26
111. רש”י פין, מהשכלה לוחמת להשכלה משמרת [מאוד מעניין], $24

112.תרבות המחלוקת בישראל, דוד דישון, $12

113. לצרוס בן דוד, משהו לאופיים של היהודים
114. ספר דברי יוסף, יוסף סמברי [צילום של כתב יד] $22

115.תשובות הרמב”ם אגרות הרמב”ם, דפוס צילום, כריכה קשה, $16

116. נחום רקובר, מטרה המקדשת את האמצעים [מצוין] $28
117. מתולדות הרבנות בגרמניה במאה הט”ז יצחק זימר, $18 כרכיה רכה
118. מתולדות הרבנות בגרמניה במאה הט”ז יצחק’ זימר כריכה קשה, $20
119. יצחק בער לעווינזאהן, תעודה בישראל, $23 [מעניין,
120. ר’ יצחק ברויאר, הכוזרי החדש $27
121. משה סמט, החדש אסור מן התורה 65$ [מצוין]
122. שו”ת מתנות באדם, $40
123. ר’ רפאל קרויזר, הגירושין בהלכה, $26
124. תמר אלכסנדר פריזר, מילים משביעות מלחם, $20
125. יעקב פינק, יהדות צרפת, $19
126. אברהם הרצברג, תנועת ההשכלה והיהודים בצרפת, $118
127. יחיאל הלפלרן, המהפכה היהודית, מאבקים רוחניים בעת החדשה, ב’ חלקים, $34
128. ר’ אהרן מרקוס, קדמוניות, $28

129.דוד תמר, מחקרים בתולדות היהודים בארץ ישראל ובאיטליה, $22

130.ר’ צבי אברהם סלושץ, מחקרי ארץ, אסופת מאמרים על נושאים בפרשנות התנ”ך ומחקרים בענינים שונים, 361 עמודים, $16

131. ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורת התורה שבעל פה חלקים ב-ג [מצוין] $40
132. פירוש רבינו דוד הנגיד על סדר התפילה שיסד הרמב”ם במשנה תורה, ריא עמודים [מהדורה מצומצמת], $16
133. שרגא אברמסון, בעלי תוספות על התורה, $22

134.יד אליהו קוק, חלק ב- נשים, $14

135.ש’ ווזנר, חשיבה משפטית בישיבות ליטא, עיונים במשנתו של הרב שמעון שקופ,$25

136. שר שלום, שערים ללוח העברי $22

137.חסדי אבות, פירוש מסכת אבות לרבי דוד פרווינצאלו, מכתב יד, בעריכת פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, $2

138. ישראל תא שמע, הנגלה שבנסתר – 21$
139. ביכלר, עם הארץ הגלילי , $19

140.א.א. אורבך, חז”ל אמונות ודעות [כריכה קשה], $35

141.ר’ חיים ביברפלד, מנוחה נכונה קצור הלכות שבת

142.יצחק לוין, מבוקר לערב, $17

143.משה אידל, החסידות בין אקסטזה למאגיה

144. רמב”ן דפוס ראשון, דפוס צילום מקור $65 חדש

145.דקדוקי סופרים כולל מסכת גיטין, סט חדש $175

146.אוצר הגאונים סט $120

147. זכור לאברהם, (תשפ”ב), ג’ חלקים [ניתן לקבל תוכן] כולל המון כ”י ועוד, $48
148. אוצר הגאונים , עבודה זרה, 24 $
149. אוצר הגאונים, בבא בתרא $28
150. מירה בלברג, פתח לספרות חז”ל, $22
151. מנחת שי על חמישה חומשי תורה  מהדורה שנייה, איגוד, $40

152.הנוספות למנחת שי  מהדורה שנייה, איגוד, $36

153.ר’ מנשה גראסבערג, דגל מנשה, כולל מכתבים מכתב יד [בעריכת ר’ משה היבנר], $10

154.מכילתא ג, $15

155. מכילתא ב, $15
156. מכילתא א, 15$ [כולל חיבור שלם של ר’ יוסף אביב”י על קול התור ] [מצוין]
157. מכילתא ד, $15
158. ר’ יעקב ישראל סטל, סְגֻלָּה: גליון לתורה ולתעודה המופיע מעת לעת – אסופת גליונות 25-01, 414 עמודים, כריכה רכה, [מהדורה מודפסת של גליונות ‘סגולה’], $12
159.  ר’ יעקב ישראל סטל, גנזי תפילין: אסופת גנזים מתורתם של ראשונים בענייני מצוַת תפילין, 74 עמודים, כריכה רכה, $8
160.  ר’ עקב ישראל סטל, (מהדיר), ארבע דרשות נישואין: לאחד מחכמי ביזנטיון הקדמונים, 98 עמודים, כריכה רכה, $8
161. קובץ זכור לאברהם, כרך חדש, עניני ספר תורה $21 [ניתן לקבל תוכן

162.יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, כתיבה והעתקה, [נדיר] [מצוין], $75

163. נעימות הכהנים, ויכוח באיטליה בענין ניגון ברכת כהנים ותקפו של מנהג, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, [עותקים אחרונים], $26 [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

164.רש”י עיונים ביצירתו, בר אילן, $34

165. ר אורי טיגר, קונטרס משפט עשה, פירוש צח וקצר על שו”ח חו”מ, סי’ כו, בדיני איסור הליכה לערכאות, עם הגהות רבי חיים קניבסקי, $10
166. מועד לכל חי, מנוקד, $6

Tikkun Olam Revisited
Shmuel Lesher 

Shmuel Lesher is the assistant rabbi of the BAYT in Toronto, Canada. You may reach him at shmuel.lesh@gmail.com.

Tikkun Olam, translated as either “healing the world” or “repairing the world” is a phrase that evokes a variety of reactions today. This two-word Hebrew phrase has become known to many even outside of the Jewish world as the Jewish term for social action. In fact, while President of the United States, Barak Obama invoked tikkun olam in a speech he delivered in Israel in 2013.[1]

Notwithstanding the terms’ acclaim, there have been those who have severely criticized its popularity. In 2018, Jonathan Neumann, in his book To Heal The World? How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel writes that the “tikkun olam movement” (a term he coined) is one that is born out of a rejection of traditional Jewish law and practice is synonymous with a politically leftist agenda. In his words:

Tikkun olam has no basis in Judaism. It was conceived by Jews who rejected the faith of their fathers and midwifed by radicals who saw it as a pretext to appropriate Jewish texts and corrupt Jewish rituals — such as the Pesach Seder — to further political ends. Tikkun olam represents…for all the talk of liberation, the enslavement of Judaism to liberal politics.[2]

Neumann argues that the current popularity of tikkun olam actually undermines Jewish peoplehood and “gives sanction to Anti-Zionism and assimilation.”[3]

Neumann is right and he is wrong. He is right that many have used tikkun olam to further their own political agenda without much of a basis in traditional Torah sources. He is also correct to challenge those who have jumped onto the tikkun olam bandwagon. As none other than Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a vocal advocate for tikkun olam and social action himself, has noted, for some, “social justice has become a substitute for religious observance or G-d.”[4]

This trend is further evidenced by Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and its former provost:

The large majority of non-Orthodox Jews have internalized a very contemporary set of values and ways of thinking about ethical decision making indistinguishable from those of their non-Jewish peers. They have been encouraged in this direction by religious leaders who invented a new commandment in the 1980’s — the injunction to engage in tikkun olam…Whatever act a Jew undertakes in a well-meaning way has come to be seen as an act of tikkun olam.”[5]

However, Neumann is wrong to assert that tikkun olam, a concern for the welfare of general society, has no basis in Judaism. 

Granted, as R. Jonathan Sacks has argued in the context of “progress” and Judaism’s view of social justice, “It is anachronistic to read back into ancient sources ideas that made their appearance centuries later.”[6] Some of the literature on tikkun olam suffers from this mistake. It is intellectually dishonest for an author to use the term “tikkun” used in Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism, or in the Aleinu prayer, “li-taken olam bi-malkhut shakay,” a hope for a world devoid of idol worship that recognizes one single G-d, and repurpose it to support the cause of feeding the hungry, universal health care, caring for those who suffered from AIDS, and other social justice causes.[7] Neumann is certainly on point by noting that the usage of the term “mipnei tikkun ha-olam” in the Talmud and in most of rabbinic literature refers to rabbinic enactments specifically for the Jewish community and not for the betterment of society at large – a far cry from the way in which the concept is used in Jewish social justice activism.[8] However, if one looks beyond the technical usage and context of this one term, there are certainly traditional sources for the importance of Jewish involvement in the betterment of general society.

A Light Unto the Nations

When one takes a look at the sources, from the Talmud until the contemporary halakhic literature, it is clear that the recognition that the Jewish people is charged with the improvement of mankind as a whole has widely been accepted among rabbinic scholars.[9]

There is a Breita (a Tannaic teaching) cited in Gittin (61a) that states that Jews are to support the gentile poor, visit their sick, and bury their dead along with the dead of Israel, and maintain their poor “mipnei darkei shalom, for the ways of peace.” Whereas some authorities interpret this phrase to mean that we adopt a non-discriminatory policy for these social issues in order to avoid non-Jewish animosity,[10] Rambam appears to see a far-reaching principle in the Mishnah. When codifying this law, his formulation is instructive:

Even with respect to Gentiles, our Sages admonish us (tzivu hakhamim) to visit their sick, bury their dead along with the dead of Israel, and maintain their poor as well as the Jewish poor in the interests of peace (mipnei darkei shalom). Behold it is written, “The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). It is also written, “Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace (vikhol netivoseha shalom)” (Proverbs 3:17).

Rambam is advocating for a positive obligation given to the Jewish community by Hazal to engender peace with non-Jews. Complementing this, Rabbeinu Bahya writes that “tzedek tzedek tirdof”, “one should chase after justice” (Deuteronomy 16:20) includes our obligation to act justly with non-Jews as well.[11]

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan state in Pesahim (87b) based on a verse in Hoshea (2:25), that the purpose for the exile of the Jewish people among the nations was so that converts would join them. The Maharsha interprets this to mean not to proselytize, but rather “to spread faith among idol worshipers.”[12] These sources clearly demonstrate a legal and moral concern for the nations of the world.

Going even further, Rabbi J. David Bleich notes, “There are sources indicating that the divine intent is that…the nations of the world adopt the standards that are normative for Jews.”[13] R. Bleich cites the positions of Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, the author of the Arukh Laner, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, or the Netziv, in support of his thesis.

The Netziv, in a number of places, emphasizes the Jew’s obligation towards general society. In the introduction to Shemot in his Ha-amek Davar, he writes, “It is Hashem’s desire that [gentiles] study Scripture and for that reason [He] commanded it be translated into seventy languages.”[14] Netziv comments on the character of our Patriarchs who “conducted themselves with nations of the world, even…idolaters…with love and with concern for their benefit since that is what sustains creation.”[15] He also writes of the concept of being a “light unto the nations.”[16] In his words, “Israel was created to be an illumination to the nations [of the world] and to cause them to achieve knowledge of Hashem.”[17]

R. Ettlinger interprets the same concept of the Jewish people being a light unto the nations, as serving as a moral example to which they should aspire.[18] R. Ettlinger’s student, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch writes at length of the Jewish people’s obligation to serve as a moral example for all of mankind.[19]

In his landmark 1964 essay on interfaith dialogue, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik writes of the double confrontation we face with those outside of our faith community:

We Jews have been burdened with a twofold task: we have to cope with the problem of a ‘double confrontation.’ We think of ourselves as human beings, sharing the destiny of Adam in his general encounter with nature, and as members of a covenantal community…In this difficult role, we are summoned by G-d, who revealed himself at both the level of universal creation and that of the private covenant, to undertake a double mission — the universal human and the exclusive covenantal confrontation.[20]

R. Soloveitchik refers to the Jewish commitment towards society, the “universal human covenant” as the “story [the non-Jewish faith community] already knows.” In his words:

We are human beings committed to the general welfare and progress of humanity, that we are interested in combating disease, in alleviating human suffering, in protecting man’s rights, in helping the needy, etc. – but also what is still unknown to it, namely our otherness as a metaphysical covenantal community.[21]

Notwithstanding the many Torah sources cited above supporting a commitment to the general welfare of society, as well as R. Soloveitchik’s words themselves, I have a feeling that this story is regrettably not known to many, neither in the non-Jewish faith community or in our community. [22]

The Seven Noahide Laws

The Talmud in Sanhedrin (56a) states that non-Jews are obligated in the seven Noahide laws. The Rambam emphasizes a Jew’s obligation to encourage non-Jews to adhere to the seven Noahide laws in the land of Israel.[23] In fact, the Rambam writes that the Jewish courts are obligated to establish judges for non-Jewish residents in order to enforce adherence to the Noahide Laws.[24]

Some contemporary poskim have strongly cautioned against publicizing and encouraging non-Jews to observe the Noahide Laws. Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch was staunchly opposed to Jews in any way encouraging non-Jews to observe the Noahide laws.[25] Although less adamant than R. Sternbuch, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein writes that, although it is permitted to teach the Noahide Laws to gentiles, it best not to publicize this.[26]

Rav Yosef states in Bava Kama (38a) that Hashem saw that the nations of the world were not observing the Noahide laws and therefore, He revoked the prohibitions and permitted them. Based on a number of verses, the Gemara connects Rav Yosef’s statement to the moment in history when Hashem chose to give the Torah to the Jewish people. There are a variety of explanations offered for this passage in the Talmud. The Hatam Sofer cites a ruling of the Pnei Yehoshua who explains this passage to mean that after the giving of the Torah, there is no obligation whatsoever for Jews to influence non-Jews to observe the Noahide Laws as they are no longer commanded to keep them.[27]

However, the Hatam Sofer himself disagrees and posits that the when Rav Yosef stated Hashem permitted the Noahide laws, he only meant to say that non-Jews no longer receive reward for their obligated observance of the Noahide laws, rather they receive reward like an “eino metzuveh,” someone who is not commanded, however they are still punished for violating what they are obligated in.[28] According to this reading of the Gemara, one could still argue that Jews should still encourage the observance of the Noahide Laws. 

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, although not an advocate of interfaith dialogue within a religious context, somewhat surprisingly, does support teaching the Noahide laws:

The Torah was not given to non-Jews directly, but the Almighty has offered it to all of mankind indirectly, as a promise, a vision, an eschatological expectation, the ultimate end of history. The Torah was given to us so many millennia ago. Our task was and still is to teach Torah to mankind, to influence the non-Jewish world, to redeem it from an orgiastic way of living, from cruelty and insensitivity, to arouse in mankind a sense of justice and fairness. In a word, we are to teach the seven mitzvot that are binding on every human being.[29]

The strongest case for a Jew’s obligation to encourage non-Jewish observance of the Noahide laws can be found in the writings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, whose approach to social action will be analyzed in depth below. In a letter to Chaplain Brigadier General Israel Drazin, the Rebbe emphasized the importance of the Noahide laws and the Jewish community’s obligation to encourage the observance of these commandments.[30]

The Lubavitcher Rebbe: A 20th Century Hasidic Socio-Mystical Thinker and Social Activist 

One contemporary Jewish thinker who took an active role in general society stands in a league of his own — the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. One would be hard-pressed to find a better example in the 20th century of someone who was both staunchly committed to authentic Torah values and at the same time dedicated to the betterment of general society than the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The Rebbe developed a comprehensive, holistic, and deeply spiritual mandate for what sociologist Philip Wexler refers to as the “resacralization” of society. 

The Re-enchantment and Resacralization of Society

Borrowing from a term coined by Abraham Maslow, Wexler argues that today’s culture is in dire need of “resacralization,” a process of reintroducing values, creativity, emotion, and ritual into society. Instead of the social sciences and education in general assuming a totally secularized approach to the world, according to Wexler, we have now reached, what he deems to be, a post-secular era that demands a paradigm shift and a resacralization.[32]

Menorahs in the Public Square

The Rebbe’s campaign for the public lighting of Hanukkah menorahs is likely the most visible example of the Rebbe’s mission to bring spirituality, light, and a moral awareness to society at large. The public lighting of a giant menorah began in 1974 at the foot of Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell. By the late 1970’s, the practice began to gain visibility and traction. In fact, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter left a one-hundred-day self-imposed seclusion during the Iran hostage crisis in order to light the Chabad menorah in front of the White House.[33] But the Rebbe’s activities did not go without objections. In 1978, Rabbi Joseph Glaser, the head of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), the organization of Reform Rabbis, penned a letter to the Rebbe criticizing the public display of religion:

It has come to my attention that the Lubavitcher Chassidim are erecting Hanukkiot and holding religious services in connection therewith on public property in various locations throughout the United States. This is as much a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state as is the erection of Christmas trees…It weakens our hands when we protest this institution of Christian doctrine into the public life of American citizens and thus, it is really not worth the value received.[34]  

In an additional letter, Glaser indicates the future legal efforts that were to come to the fore to stop the Menorah Campaign.[35] He ends his letter with an appeal to the Rebbe to end the menorah lightings immediately.[36] In the Rebbe’s response, he notes that there has already been positive acclaim observed over a number of years as a result of the menorah lightings:

The fact is that countless Jews in all parts of the country have been impressed and inspired by the spirit of Chanukah which has been brought to them, to many for the first time.[37] 

Regarding the constitutional issue, an issue that emerged a number of times throughout his career, the Rebbe was more forceful and unequivocal:

I can most assuredly allay your apprehension on this score. I am fully certain that none of those who participated in or witnessed the kindling of a Chanukah Lamp in a public place (and in all cases permission was readily granted by authorities) felt that his or her loyalty to the Constitution of the U.S.A. had been weakened or compromised thereby…seeing that the U.S. Congress opens [its daily sessions] with a religious invocation…and surely the U.S. Congress, comprising each and every state of the Union, is the place where the Constitution…should be most rigidly upheld.[38]

In his final letter to the Rebbe, Glaser makes a new argument, one that may be quite surprising to today’s reader. Glaser notes that the Rebbe sees some intrinsic value in having Jews attend a public menorah lighting. Glaser counters, “Ultimately the survival of Judaism depends on the home.” It is there that the menorah should be lit. Having people observing the ceremony in public constitutes a “flamboyant religious exercise instead of sacred home ritual.”[39] It is more than ironic that a major figure in the very movement that champions contributing to general society as their raison d’etre, hence the centrality of tikkun olam, claimed that Judaism’s rituals should be relegated to the Jewish home. 

Although it is not explicitly stated in the Glaser correspondence, the Rebbe’s advocacy of menorah lighting was rooted in his deeper conviction in the crucial role religion must play for society as a whole. In a 1990 worldwide menorah-lighting satellite event the Rebbe made this clear:

G-d gave each of us a soul, which is a candle that He gives us to illuminate our surroundings with His light…We must not only illuminate the inside of homes, but also the outside, and the world at large.[40]

The Educational Model of The Lubavitcher Rebbe

Building on the social theories of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, Wexler argues in his groundbreaking work Social Vision: The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Transformative Paradigm for the World, that religion, and specifically the socio-mystical community model of Habad Hasidim, has the potential to usher in a new social paradigm for society today.[41]  Wexler documents that the Rebbe’s educational program provided the foundation for an all-encompassing revision of social policy and social life in the United States.[42]

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s educational agenda made its way into the public square when in 1978 President Jimmy Carter acted upon a congressional resolution to declare R. Schneerson’s 76th birthday “Education Day, U.S.A.,” recognizing the Rebbe’s commitment to general education in the United States for over three decades. 

This was a reflection of the active role the Rebbe took throughout his life in the advancement of education in American society. In 1960, R. Schneerson sent a four-person delegation to the White House Conference on Children and Youth where they argued that “children and youth be granted greater opportunities for specific religious education.”[43] A decade later, a fuller memorandum of Lubavitch policy proposal was entered into the Congressional Record. Here, the Rebbe’s vision for education in the United States is sharply articulated:

An educational system must have a soul. Children are not computers to be fed a mass of informational data, without regard for their human needs for higher goals and ideals in life.[44]

Yet, the Rebbe did not stop at what was taught in the classroom. His approach to educational policy is that it is equally important for an educational model to impact the homes, streets, and the entire social context of the students. According to Wexler, in the new social ethos of Hasidism, as conceived by R. Schneerson, lies an alternative to our current educational system. In such a model, using Wexler’s terminology, pedagogy can be seen as “initiatory, awakening, interactive…imaginative divinization.”[45]

The Non-Denominational Prayer 

The Rebbe’s view of the paramount importance of an education with a soul was given concrete expression in his advocacy for non-denominational prayer in public school classrooms in the United States. In 1962, in the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale, this proposition was deemed unconstitutional.[46] The case sparked a great level of controversy about the nature of education in America and how schools should best negotiate the separation of Church and State. Many Jewish groups applauded the decision of the courts.[47] However, the Rebbe, in two powerful letters, one written in 1962 and one in 1964, made his position clear. I cite excerpts of the 1964 letter below at length because I feel it clearly shows the Rebbe’s passion about this issue:

Let me assure you at once that my view… [has] not changed…On the contrary, if there could have been any change at all, it was to reinforce my conviction of the vital need that the children in the public schools should be allowed to begin their day at school with the recitation of a non-denominational prayer, acknowledging the existence of a Creator and Master of the Universe, and our dependence upon Him. In my opinion, this acknowledgment is absolutely necessary in order to impress upon the minds of our growing-up generation that the world in which they live is not a jungle, where brute force, cunning and unbridled passion rule supreme, but that it has a Master Who is not an abstraction, but a personal G‑d; that this Supreme Being takes a “personal interest” in the affairs of each and every individual, and to Him everyone is accountable for one’s daily conduct.

Juvenile delinquency, the tragic symptom of the disillusionment, insecurity and confusion of the young generation, has not abated; rather the reverse is the case…The remedy lies in removing the cause, not in merely treating the symptoms. It will not suffice to tell the juvenile delinquent that crime does not pay, and that he will eventually land in jail (if he is not smart enough?). Nor will he be particularly impressed if he is admonished that law-breaking is an offense against society. It is necessary to engrave upon the child’s mind the idea that any wrongdoing is an offense against the Divine authority and order.

According to the Rebbe’s shrewd analysis, for most people, well-reasoned argumentation or rational decision making, is simply not enough of a foundation to compel the observance of universal moral standards. A deep and lasting moral sensibility is best cultivated through a more basic socio-spiritual sense of a personal relationship with the all-knowing G-d.[48] 

The Rebbe was also a realist. He understood that if society was to change, it would not be enough to relegate his prayer to places of worship or synagogues. Prayer had to be brought to the masses, and especially to the children:

At first glance this seems to be the essential function of a house of prayer and of the spiritual leaders. However, anyone who does not wish to delude himself about the facts of house of prayer attendance, both in regard to the number of worshippers and the frequency of their visits, etc., etc., must admit that shifting the responsibility to the house of prayer will not correct the situation. Nor can we afford to wait until the house of prayer will attain its fitting place in our society, and in the life of our youth in particular, for the young generation will not wait with its growing-up process.

Children have to be “trained” from their earliest youth to be constantly aware of “the Eye that seeth and the Ear that heareth.” We cannot leave it to the law-enforcing agencies to be the keepers of the ethics and morals of our young generation. The boy or girl who has embarked upon a course of truancy will not be intimidated by the policeman, teacher or parent, whom he or she thinks fair game to “outsmart.” Furthermore, the crux of the problem lies in the success or failure of bringing up the children to an awareness of a Supreme Authority, Who is not only to be feared, but also loved. Under existing conditions in this country, a daily prayer in the public schools is for a vast number of boys and girls the only opportunity of cultivating such an awareness.

The Rebbe wholeheartedly believed in the civic utility of prayer. In his view, a more prayerful and soulful education for America’s youth would lead to a more moral America. Accordingly, the Constitution should not be a barrier to the best interests of the country:

To oppose non-denominational prayer “on constitutional grounds” is, in my opinion, altogether a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the problem. The issue is: Whether a non-denominational prayer wherewith to inaugurate the school day is, or is not, in the best interests of the children. If the answer is “yes,” then obviously it should be made constitutional, for there can be no difference of opinion as to the fact that the Constitution has been created to serve the people, not vice versa.[49]

Following the establishment of “Education Day, U.S.A.” in 1978, the Rebbe delivered a talk at a farbrengen in his Brooklyn synagogue to mark the occasion. In this address, the Rebbe stated that the Torah requires Jews to pay attention to the nation’s educational concerns and not merely to ensure that their own community’s educational needs are met.[50]

In an even broader vision, the Rebbe advocated strongly for a new and independent department of education. Well ahead of his time, the Rebbe encouraged the raising of teacher’s salaries and more federal spending to improve the public schools. He believed this would in turn cause diminishing expenses in the penal system, crime prevention, health and welfare. In the Rebbe’s words, “A morally healthy, strong and united nation is in itself a strong deterrent against any enemy.”[51] Remarkably progressive, as part of his broad vision for a healthy and morally strong society, the Rebbe also advocated for criminal justice reforms, creating alternative energy sources, especially solar energy.[52]

The Moment of Silence Initiative 

Later, in 1981, after the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency, the debate over the non-denominational prayer took off once again. In May 1982, Reagan proposed an amendment to the constitution that would support non-denominational prayer. While the Rebbe supported this, he understood that it would be the subject of much debate and may never be enacted. Therefore, at this time he vied for the establishment of a daily moment of silence in the public schools which he thought had the potential to gain more support. 

In a 1983 talk the Rebbe delivered, he voiced his support for a moment of silence and also stressed the need for parents to contribute to their children’s education:

The actual situation in this country is that parents have no time — and even those who do have the time do not have the patience — to invest themselves in the education of their children.[53]

The Rebbe’s solution to this was a moment of silence each and every morning in school before classes or instructions began. According to Wexler and other scholars, the moment of silence initiative created an opening for a post-secular turn in education. According to the Rebbe, the teacher’s role during the moment of silence is not to fill it with educational content but rather to “empower the students to go beyond all the normative axioms of education and find their own ways to make good use of an educational opportunity of an entirely different sort.”[54] More broadly speaking, the Rebbe’s support of the moment of silence represents his universalization of contemplative prayer within broader society. Here again we see a shift within the Rebbe’s worldview, of how a successful educational model is to be imagined.

The Contemporary Scene

The Lubavitcher Rebbe notwithstanding, R. J. David Bleich has noted that most community activities done on behalf of tikkun olam have been done in the non-Orthodox camp. He attributed the apparent neglect of broader social causes in the Orthodox community to their manifold commitments to intra-communal values such as Jewish Education, Kashrus, and other important religious activities that take up much time, energy, and attention.[55]

While it may be true that the Orthodox community has a variety of additional community causes that vie for their attention not held by their non-Orthodox brethren, I believe there is a deeper reason for the Orthodox community’s hesitation about involvement in social action. For thousands of years, the Jewish people have been the victims of discrimination, oppression, and antisemitism from the non-Jewish world. This tragic history has caused us to collectively develop a form of communal isolationism as a defense mechanism. Perhaps this is why, on the whole, and understandably so, more traditional communities have generally steered away from taking any active role in promoting religion or values in the public square. 

A few notable exceptions should be made. R. Jonathan Sacks is a towering exception to this rule. A central theme within the career and thought of R. Sacks is the belief in Judaism’s ability and obligation to influence general society. R. Sacks argued that, if understood properly, religion, and particularly Judaism, can be a source of developing a shared and collective vision for society at large.[56] Often in his writings, he emphasized the importance of religion on the world stage arguing that “a Judaism divorced from society will be a Judaism unable to influence society or inspire.”[57] 

There have been others as well. The chief rabbi of South Africa, Rabbi Warren Goldstein has worked to bring the voice of religion and values into the public school system in South Africa. In 2008, as part of the National Religious Leaders Forum, he played a major role in drafting a “Bill of Responsibilities for South African Youth.”[58] However, these exceptions prove the rule. For the most part, the frum community has not taken an active role in the betterment of society at large. 

Although this is understandable, considering our troubled history with society at large, there can be some collateral damage. Over twenty years ago, Rabbi Berel Wein told interviewer and author Faranak Margolese of the book Off the Derech, that he sees a lack of interest in general society and its issues as a contributing factor for today’s youth leaving a life of Torah and mitzvot. In his words:

To a great extent, I think one of the greatest problems that Orthodoxy faces is that it doesn’t promise anything. It should. On an individual basis perhaps it does; but [not] on a national basis. I mean let’s say everybody would vote for the Orthodox parties tomorrow. What would be its platform? What are we going to do? We have no idea. The Torah [has ideas], but someone has to articulate them. What’s our attitude toward labor unions? What’s our attitude toward the poorer section of society? Toward the Arabs? Toward anything? So now the attitude is: do Torah and mitzvot. But doing Torah and mitzvot is not a foreign policy and it’s not a domestic policy either. We don’t promise anything to anyone…We don’t say that we are going to fix the world; we don’t say those things even though it is part of our heritage, even though that’s part of Torah. We don’t express it. It could be the reason we don’t is that we have been under attack for so long; we have been the minority of a minority so we can’t afford grandiose dreams. But I think that if we don’t express grandiose dreams, we doom ourselves to remain the minority within the minority.”[59]

If as a community, we do not want to remain “the minority within the minority,” devoid of any public policy at the national or global level, it would do us well to consider an alternative model. Tikkun Olam, perhaps more accurately understood as care and concern for the society in which we live, is not our only priority. However, following the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s example, more attention must be placed on it. In the last century, Orthodox leaders and public figures, including the Rebbe, R. Sacks, and R. Goldstein have made significant contributions to betterment of general society but there is still more work to be done.

[1] “Remarks of President Barack Obama To the People of Israel at the Jerusalem International Convention Center in Jerusalem” Obamawhitehouse.archives.gov (March 21, 2013).
[2] Jonathan Neumann, To Heal The World? How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel (All Points Books, 2018), xvi-xvii.
[3] Ibid. xvii.
[4] R. Jonathan Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World (Schocken, 2005), 9.
[5] Jack Wertheimer, The New American Judaism (Princeton University Press, 2018), 41. Also see Paul David Kerbel, “The Tikkun Olam Generation,” Conservative Judaism 61(3) (January 2010), 88-91. For more on the misuse of the term, see Rabbi Yitzhak Aharon Korff, “The Fallacy, Delusion and Myth of Tikkun Olam,” Jewish News Syndicate (June 3, 2013) (https://www.jns.org/the-fallacy-delusion-and-myth-of-tikkun-olam/).
[6] R. Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World 78-79.
[7] Jane Kanarek, “What Does Tikkun Olam Actually Mean?” In Or N. Rose, ‎Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, ‎Margie Klein (ed.), Righteous Indignation: A Jewish Call For Justice (Jewish Lights Publishing, 2008), 19-22.

With regards to Aleinu, Mitchell First argues that a very strong case can be made that the word “letaken” in the original version of Aleinu was actually written with a khaf (meaning to establish the world under G-d’s sovereignty), and not with a kuf (meaning to perfect/improve the world under God’s sovereignty). See Mitchell First, “Aleinu: Obligation to Fix the World or the Text?” Hakirah, Vol. 11 (Spring 2011), 187-197.
[8] Neumann 133-135. The content of the Talmudic enactments referred to as “mipnei tikkun ha-olam,” are generally additional rabbinic rulings made to account for and circumvent potentially negative outcomes of previous legislature for the Jewish community. For examples of Talmudic applications of the term see Gittin 33a-35a and Gittin 45a. Neuman cites many scholars who have noted the incorrect usage of the term tikkun olam to refer to Jewish social action. See Eugene Borowitz, Renewing the Covenant: A Theology for the Postmodern Jew (Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 51; Gilbert S. Rosenthal, “Tikkun ha-Olam: The Metamorphosis of a Concept,” Journal of Religion, Vol. 85, no. 2 (2005); Levi Cooper, “The Assimilation of Tikkun Olam,” Jewish Political Studies Review 25 no. 3-4 (Fall 2014).
[9] See Rabbi J. David Bleich, The Philosophical Quest (Maggid, 2013), 209-252.
[10] See for example Ramban, Bava Metzia 78b.
[11]  Rabbeinu Bahya, Kad Ha-kemah, Gezel 1:3.
[12] Maharsha, Pesahim 87b s.v. lo higlah.
[13] R. Bleich, Philosophical Quest 236-237.
[14] Netziv, Kidmat Ha-emek. Translation adapted from R. Bleich 238.
[15] Netziv, Ha-amek Davar, Introduction to Bereishit. Translation adapted from R. Bleich 243.
[16] Isaiah 49:6.
[17] Netziv, Ha-amek Davar, Shemot 12:51. Also see Netziv, Harhev Davar, Bereishit 17:4 and Ha-amek Davar, Bereishit 9:27.
[18] R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Minhat Ani, Bamidbar. See R. Bleich, Philosophical Quest 236-237.
[19] See R. Bleich 239-246. For more on R. Hirsch’s belief in Judaism’s concern for mankind as a whole see my “For the Love of Humanity: The Religious Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch,” Hakirah, Vol. 33 (Fall 2022), 65-98.
[20] R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Confrontation,” Tradition 6:2 (RCA, 1964) republished in R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Confrontation and Other Essays (Maggid, 2015), 100.
[21] Ibid., 104.
[22] For more see David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman, Nathan J. Diament (ed.) Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (Aronson, 1997); Yosef ben Shlomo Hakohen, The Universal Jew (Feldheim, 1995); Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank, “Our Responsibility To Humanity,” Yadrim 4, (Sivan 5782), 5-29; R. Jonathan Sacks, “Tikkun Olam: Orthodoxy’s Responsibility to Perfect G-d’s World” (Speech delivered at the Orthodox Union West Coast Convention, December 1997 – Kislev 5758); Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, “Tikkun Olam: Defining the Jewish Obligation,” in Rafael Medoff, ed., Rav Chesed: Essays in Honor of Rabbi Dr. Haskel Lookstein, vol. 2 (Jersey City: Ktav, 2009), 183-204.
[23] Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Melakhim 8:9-10.
[24] Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Melakhim 10:11.
[25] R. Moshe Sternbuch, Teshuvot Vi-hanhagot Vol. 3 no. 317.
[26] R. Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah Vol. 3 no. 89.
[27] Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Hoshen Mishpat, Vol. 5, no. 185.
[28] Ibid. Whether non-Jews are obligated in the Noahide laws after the giving of the Torah is the subject of an earlier debate. Tosafot in Hagigah (13a) rule that although it is forbidden to teach Torah to non-Jews, there is no prohibition to teach them the Noahide laws. However, Tosafot cited in the Hagahot Ha-bah (Ibid. no. 40) disagree and state that after the giving of the Torah, gentiles are not obligated in the Noahide laws and there would be a prohibition of teaching them to non-Jews. For more on this see Dovid Lichtenstein, Headlines 2: Halachic Debates of Current Events (Orthodox Union Press, 2017), 125-128.
[29] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Abraham’s Journey (Ktav, 2008), 182. Thanks to my father-in-law, Rabbi Hanan Balk for pointing this source out to me.
[30] Letter to Israel Drazin from R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (October 31, 1986). See “What Could Have Prevented the Holocaust, Chabad.org. For more statements of the Rebbe on the importance of encouraging non-Jews to observe the Noahide laws see R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, “The Seven Noachide Laws,” Sichos In English Vol. 16 (Kislev-Nissan 5743). This talk was delivered on Shabbat Parshat Beshalach, 15th Day of Shevat, 5743 (1983). Also see “Reach Out to the Non-Jews”, Disc 31, Program 123 (Event Date: 4 Tishrei 5747 – October 07, 1986) Chabad.org.
[31] Feist and Feist: Theories of Personality, 7th edition, (The McGraw−Hill Companies, 2009), 303.
[32] Philip Wexler, Mystical Sociology: An Emerging Social Vision (Westview Press, 2000), 42-46.
[33] Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe (Harper Collins, 2014), 262.
[34] Jonathan Sarna and David G. Dalin, Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience (Notre Dame University, 1997), 288-300 cited in Telushkin 263-268.
[35] The most significant legal case made against public menorah lighting was brought before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1989. See Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). Today, Chabad’s public menorah lightings have become normative in North American society. Several thousand public lightings take place every year under Chabad auspices with an increasing amount of non-Chabad and even non-Orthodox involvement. See Telushkin 269-270.
[36] Telushkin 264.
[37] Ibid. 265.
[38] Ibid. 266.
[39] Ibid. 268.
[40] Ibid. 269.
[41] Philip Wexler, Eli Rubin, and Michael Wexler, Social Vision: The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Transformative Paradigm for the World (Herder & Herder, 2019).
[42] Wexler 148.
[43] Ibid. 149.
[44] Cong. Rec. – Volume 116, Part 33 (December 28, 1970, 43738) cited in Wexler 173n12.
[45] Wexler 152.
[46] Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 – Supreme Court (1962).
[47] Most, although not all, of the opposition to the public prayer came from the organized Jewish community. See Telushkin 255.
[48] The Rebbe’s point that morality cannot be properly developed merely by reason and rational thinking, is not dissimilar to sociologist Jonathan Haidt’s theory that moral development happens primarily through intuitive and emotional processes rather than cognitive and reason-based judgments. See Jonathan Haidt, “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,” Psychological Review, 108 (2001), 814-834.
[49] R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, “Prayer in Public Schools and Separation of Church and State,” 26th of Nissan, 5724 (April 8, 1964) https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/2051611/jewish/Prayer-in-Public-Schools-and-Separation-of-Church-and-State.htm. 

For the first letter see “Excerpt from the Lubavitcher Rabbi’s שליט”א Letter on the Question of the Regents Prayer, (24th of MarCheshvan, 5723, November 21, 1962)” Chabad.org

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1274011/jewish/Non-Denominational-Prayer-in-Public-Schools.htm.
[50] R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Sihot Kodesh 5738, Vol. 2 (Vaad Hanachot Hatemimim, 1986), 119-20.
[51]  “Excerpt from a Letter by the Rebbe שליט”א on the Proposal Creation of a Special Department of Education,” in Report on “Education Day–U.S.A.” Legislation, 18-19 cited in Wexler 176n49.
[52] Wexler 194-217.
[53] R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, “A Moment to Save the World – Part 2”: 10 Shevat 5743 (January 24, 1983) Chabad.org cited in Wexler 168.
[54] Wexler 171.
[55] R. J. David, Bleich, “Tikun Olam: A Jew’s Responsibility to Society,” YUTorah.org (Oct 26, 1988).
[56] See R. Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence of Faith (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1991. This book is an expansion on R. Sacks’s BBC Reith Lectures (1990).
[57] R. Jonathan Sacks, “A Judaism Engaged With The World” (2013). Also see his The Politics of Hope (Vintage, 1997); The Home We Build Together (Continuum, 2009); “Reconciling Religion’s Role in the West: An Interview with Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks,” Harvard International Review 38:1 (Fall 2016), 52-54 and Rabbi Yitzchok Alderstein, “How the Torah Helped Shape the Modern World,” Jewish Action (Fall 2010).
[58] Jonathan Rosenblum, “Hail to the Chief (rabbi),” Jerusalem Post (July 1, 2011). Also see the South African government’s website for the text of the “Bill of Responsibilities.” I thank Rabbi Daniel Korobkin for pointing this out to me.
[59] Faranak Margolese, Off The Derech (Devora, 2005), 202-203. The interviews with R. Wein were held on August 28, 2000 and January 8, 2001

“Praiseworthy are You Talmidei Chachamim”
Self-Definition, Torah Study, and Jewish Martyrdom

Yaakov Jaffe

There is a unique genre of video on youtube, facebook, or twitter, featuring Yeshivah students of a wide variety of ages, locations, and types of dress singing the song “Ashreichem Talmidei Chachamim” while standing or dancing around the Beit Midrash of their school or Yeshivah.  The song, often also heard at wedding, praises the portion of students of Torah scholars with the following words:

Praiseworthy are you, O students of the wise,
As words of Torah are exceedingly beloved[1] to you.
How much do I love Your [=G-d’s] Torah,
All day long she is my speech.

The words of the song are a quote from the Talmud (Menachot 18a, with the last two lines, themselves, being a quote from Psalms 119:97), and the implication of the song is that those that sing it (or those that dance at the wedding when it is sung) have achieved the status of Torah scholars and are aptly described as those for whom the words of Torah are “exceedingly beloved.”  The song exists as a quasi-performative, self-definitional, transformational act, as the singing of the words, themselves, confer a status and title upon those whom it is sung about.

Like many other Hebrew songs, this quote from the Talmud is taken out of context, and consequently it disguises what exactly are the conditions to consider Torah to be “exceedingly beloved” to someone.  The context is fascinating, and it provides necessary insight for the understanding of this song.

  

Thought-Based Invalidations of Temple Sacrifices

Tractate Menachot is a challenging Tractate, one of the dozen longest, studied through the Daf Yomi and in elite sub-groups of elite schools of Torah study; it is not for the faint of heart.  While some of the very lengthy Talmudic tractates are frequently studied on account of their contribution to the practice of Jewish ritual and family law (Shabbat, Chullin, Psachim, Yevamot and Ketubot), and others as they are vital for building the principles of community and social law (the three Bavot), Menachot is lengthy and on the whole not particularly relevant for contemporary Jewish life and practice.

The first 18 pages are the hardest part of the Tractate, focused less on the Korban Mincha, itself, but more on thought-based invalidations of a Korban Mincha, a Mincha that becomes invalid because of the intentions the Kohein had when performing the sacrifice.  Large parts of Menachot are concrete as they involve the process of the offering and real-world errors made while performing the sacrifice; the first dozen-and-a-half pages are formal, where the sacrifice looks no different from how it always looks but may be invalidated on account of improper thoughts. In these cases, even if the sacrifice was physically offered exactly as required, it might still be invalid because of the ruinous intent.

Much of the discussion focuses on invalidations that are at least alluded to in the Bible: “Pigul,” intent to eat or burn the sacrifice at the wrong time, or “Lo Leshmah,” intent for the action to find favor as a different sacrifice type than required by the owner or a different sacrifice substance.  The long, challenging discussion concludes with another type of thought-based invalidation, so rare that is only discussed in two pages in the entire Talmud, and never in the Bible commentaries or Midrash Halacha, intent to leave over the sacrificial substances of the sacrifice unused indefinitely.  Leaving over the eaten part of a sacrifice, “Notar,” is discussed in the Torah and frequently in the Talmud; leaving over the sacrificial substances is not discussed beyond Menachot 18a and Zevachim 36a.  Intent to sacrifice sacrificial substances on the wrong day, “Pigul,” is discussed in the Torah and frequently in the Talmud; intent to leave over sacrificial substances indefinitely, never to be used, is not discussed beyond Menachot 18a and Zevachim 36a.

In the final outcome, intent to leave over blood un-sprinkled until the next day does not invalidate a sacrifice according to the majority opinion, and so Rambam rules (Psulei Ha-Mukdashim 13:8).  The focus of Menachot 18a is how Yosef Ha-Bavli was interested in exploring the question, nevertheless.  Few realize that this often-sung tune is grounded in an esoteric, arcane sub-sub-topic of sacrificial law, irrelevant to daily practice, rejected in the final halachic conclusion, disconnected from the Biblical text, and regarding largely settled law, which still bothered the praiseworthy student of the wise, Yosef Ha-Bavli.

Who was Yosef Ha-Bavli?

Yosef Ha-Bavli is known for one teaching regarding a Kohen in mourning or who had not yet offered his post-impurity sacrifices who burned a red heifer (Tosefta Para 4:3, cited in Zevachim 117b and Yevamot 74a).  The Talmud (Psachim 113b, Yoma 52b) says that he was also known by a number of pseudonyms which would increase the number of teachings associated with his name from one to a handful; whether the Talmudic teaching should be taken literally is outside the scope of this essay (but see Tosafot and Aruch La-Ner, Nidda 36b and Hyman, Toldot Tanaim Ve-Amoraim, 152).  Yosef Ha-Bavli is not unique among the sages for having composed many Mishnayot, having taught many students, having mastered much Torah, or possessing deep insight; what makes him unique is precisely his care and concern for this rather esoteric topic. Yosef Ha-Bavli was a grand-student of Rebbi Akiva, and so appears to have lived in the late 2nd century, just around the time of the publication of the Mishnah.  Any law related to thought-based invalidations had not been relevant for a century when he lived, and was a detailed, theoretical question about a Temple that was fading from memory.

In his youth, Yosef Ha-Bavli had learned from his teacher, Rebbi Yehudah, that a Kohein’s intent to leave blood un-sprinkled indefinitely invalidates a sacrifice.  Yet, as he grew older, Yosef Ha-Bavli only heard discussions of the opinion of the other rabbis that it was valid.  One Shabbat, he sat before Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who taught him evening, morning, and midday that it was valid, in accordance with the majority opinion.  “Afternoon he said to him ‘It is Kosher, but Rebbi Yehudah says it is invalid.’  Yosef Ha-Bavli’s face brightened from joy… ‘Rebbi Yehudah taught me that it was invalid,[2] and I went after all his students and searched for a colleague [who had the same recollection as me] and did not find one.  Now that you taught me ‘invalid’ you have returned to me my lost object.’ ”

Seeing this scene, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua burst into tears of joy and commented how beloved Torah was for Yosef Ha-Bavli.  Note, however, that it was not Yosef Ha-Bavli’s application of Torah, mastery of Torah, or even mere study of Torah that earned him praise, it was the passionate, deep connection to Torah that led him for years to travel, ask, and search for a sage that confirmed Yosef Ha-Bavli’s studies of his own youth.  Torah is exceedingly beloved when one passes by day from land to land, asking, inquiring, confirming the exact details of every possible law.  Learning the daily practical Halacha or the parsha is not evidence of a passionate, intimate relationship a scholar has with Torah; being madly driven to confirm every last piece of minutia that one has ever learned does.  That is what means for the Torah to be exceedingly beloved, in the view of the author of the text of the song, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

Who was Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua?

We have demonstrated how the identity of the object of the quote, the Talmid Chacham Yosef Ha-Bavli, and the context of the conversation, thought based invalidations, is crucial in understanding the meaning of the quote in question.  Knowing the background of the speaker, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, is also vital.  

Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua was a student of Rebbi Akiva (Yeavmot 62b), and so he lived through a number of challenging times, including the various Roman persecutions which followed the Bar Kochva revolt and the death of Rebbi Akiva’s earlier generation of students.  A teacher of Rebbi (Yoma 79b, Eiruvin 53a), he was an important bridge figure between two different illustrious ages of sages of the Mishnah who lived an unusually long life (Megillah 27b).  Sanhedrin 14a relates that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua was ordained by Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava just before the latter was martyred by the Romans for having perpetuated the chain or ordination.  He is a critical figure in the perpetuation of the tradition, and his eyes witnessed how close the tradition was to being lost.[3]

Moreover, the Midrash[4] and liturgy (Tisha B-Av’s Kinah “Arzei Ha-Levanon,” and Yom Kippur’s Slicha “Eileh Ezkera” [Reish]) count Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua among the 10 Martyrs, in which case he was the last of the 10 great sages who lost their lives Al Kiddush Hashem, for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish.  According to these sources, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua died at the start of Shabbat, while in the middle of reciting Kiddush; his soul departed while performing a Mitzvah.  

The costs of living a life of a Talmid Chacham are much lower today than they were in the past.  Jews across the globe live without fear of persecution for their Torah study and the financial stability of our community means that Jews who study Torah are mostly free of the fear of financial distress that may have been felt in the past.  Yet, speaking just before the year 200 and knowing the dramatic cost of being a Torah scholar, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua proclaimed how praiseworthy Yosef Ha-Bavli was for his dedication to Torah, a statement that he would not make cavalierly or apply to just anyone who studied Torah in a situation of basic security.    

By Choice or by Necessity?

Today’s Torah scholars become Torah scholars by choice; they enjoy Torah study, feel nourished by, see its value, and are prodded and supported by a community to embrace that avocation.  Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua was a Torah scholar by necessity – perpetuating a chain nearly lost, which would not have survived were it not for his dedication, and for which he eventually was murdered.  Yosef Ha-Bavli, too, felt similarly, the heart within himself burning for decades as he passed from land to land desperate with agony to substantiate the teachings of the earlier sages.  He didn’t choose to study the esoteric, complicated details of thought-based-temple-invalidations because he found it enjoyable, meaningful, applicable, or valuable, but because of an obsession and a dedication to both the truths of the Torah and to the concept of the tradition.

Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua doesn’t cry because of happiness that a student of his made a good choice to dedicate himself to Torah.  Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua cries because he sees the perseverance of the Torah and the legacy of the tradition even through challenging times, even decades after the Temple’s destruction, through the selfless dedication of students of the wise.[5] Indeed, had Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua not lived so long, and had Yosef Ha-Bavli not persevered to ask him the same question four times that one Shabbat, the teaching of Rebbi Eliezer might have been lost to Judaism for all of time and never have made its way into the Talmud.  100 years and one long summer Shabbat were needed to preserve one detail of Torah and ready it for inclusion in the Talmud.  And so, this is less a song for a wedding feast, as the words of Rebbi Elazar the martyr leave one of sense forlorn.  It’s a song of dedication and commitment to Torah, not a song of joy and happiness.

In the words of the Chazon Ish (Emunah U-Bitachon 3:20): 

The words of are sages are like fine oil which descends upon the bones to excite the hearts towards the love of Torah, and to enjoy the luster of its delight, until the soul of Yosef Ha-Bavli wasted away having lost one law, such that his face brightened upon the intense happiness in having his lost object returned.  And the enthusiasm of Rebbi Elazar upon his affection to his student, that he cried tears of happiness and pleasure of the luster of being exact in one’s learning.[6]

Those are the Talmidei Chachamim, and praiseworthy are they.