A Half Slave, Ber Oppenheimer, the Reliability of R’ Shlomo Sofer, and Other Comments

By Brian Schwartz

When I was in my early yeshiva years studying tractate Shabbos, I came across a Rashba which I found to be most intriguing.  During its discussion of the first mishna, the gemara in Shabbos 4a makes the statement, “וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך,” which means, “do we really say to a person, ‘sin in order that your friend should merit?’” A notion which suggests that a person should not sin in order that others can fulfill a mitzvah. Tosafos[1] has a long discussion addressing the multiple places in the Talmud which seem to contradict this concept.  One of the sources discussed, is the mishna in the fourth chapter of Gittin. The mishna states that if one owns a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, (a half slave half free man, a phenomenon which happens when two partners own a slave and one partner frees him of his share), one must free him on the account that as a half slave he cannot fulfill the mitzvah of procreating, as a half slave cannot marry a slave or a free woman.  Tosafos also notes that freeing a slave is a transgression of the positive commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו, as expressly stated previously in Gittin 38b.  Tosafos asks, how can a master be obligated to free his half slave so that the half slave can fulfill his mitzvah of procreating, does that not contradict the above statement in Shabbos of וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך by violating a positive commandment? 

The Rashba[2] answers this question with the novel idea that the commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו doesn’t apply to a half slave. Therefore, in this situation one isn’t transgressing any commandments when enabling someone else fulfill a mitzva. The problem with this approach is that there seems to be a gemara in Gittin 38a which suggests otherwise:

The gemara clearly suggests that if it wasn’t for the promiscuity of the half-slave woman, freeing her would be forbidden under the positive commandment of לעולם בהם תעבודו, clearly contradicting the Rashba.  This question bothered me very much, so I began a search through the acharonim[3] to see if anyone dealt with this problem.  While I was perusing through the yeshiva’s library, I happened upon an old torn up copy of the Chiddushei Maharam Barby by R’ Meir Barby, the Av Beis Din of Pressburg before the Chasam Sofer and R’ Meshullam Igra.  R’ Barby asks the question in the name of one of his students and attempts to give an answer[4].  At the time, I gave no specific significance to this source, other than the fact it was the earliest mention of this question that I could find.  I continued to gather sources until I found this question asked in the sefer Mei Be’er.  The Mei Be’er was authored by Ber Oppenheimer, a resident of Pressburg and a talmid chacham.  What is so interesting about this sefer is that Oppenheimer corresponds with many of the gedolim of his time.  Examples include; R’ Shmuel Landau, R’ Baruch Frankel Teomim, R’ Moshe Mintz, R’ Mordechai Banet, R’ Yaakov Orenstein, and many others[5].  All these personalities do not hold back on writing titles and honorifics to Oppenheimer that would suit any other great rabbi of their time. 

After a response to the above question from the author of the Ketzos Hachoshen[6], Oppenheimer writes that he found this question in the name of one of R’ Meir Barby’s students,  in the newly printed Chidushei Maharam Barby, and that student happened to be Oppenheimer himself.[7]  From there he proceeds with his own answer.  Here is the title page of the Mei Be’er:

While I was discussing this question with one of my rebbeim in yeshiva, I brought up the topic of the Mei Be’er and how the sefer impressed me with all the correspondence with the gedolim of the time.  To my surprise, my rebbe told me that R’ Moshe Sofer, known as the Chasam Sofer after the seforim he authored, supposedly quipped about the sefer, “מי באר לא נשתה” (a pun of the verse in Bamidbar 21:22).  This tidbit of information intrigued me to learn more about Ber Oppenheimer, and to find out if there was any truth to the hearsay of what the Chasam Sofer allegedly said. 

Ber Oppenheimer

            Ber Oppenheimer, a descendant of the famous R’ Dovid Oppenheim, was born in 1760 to his father Yitzchak in Pressburg.  Together with his brother Chaim, young Ber went to study in the Yeshiva of Fürth.  Sometime later, Oppenheimer left Fürth for Berlin so that he could fulfill his desire to learn secular knowledge.  When he completed his studies in Berlin, he returned to Pressburg where he would become one of the leaders of the community.

            In 1829, Oppenheimer published his sefer, Mei Be’er.  Besides for the Mei Be’er, Oppenheimer published material in the Bikkurei Haitim and Kerem Chemed journals, and in 1825 he printed a prayer service in Honor of the ascension of Caroline Augusta of Bavaria to the Austrian throne[8].  Oppenheimer certainly was a maskil, though it seems he was traditional enough for all the gedolei hador he corresponded with.  The question is, what exactly did the Chasam Sofer think of him?  Did he know something the other gedolim did not, being that he lived in the same community as him?  In the Mei Be’er, there are a few teshuvos from the Chasam Sofer to Oppenheimer[9]. Devoid of of any titles and praise for Oppenheimer, the Chasam Sofer’s teshuvos to him leave off an impression of a seemingly cold relationship compared to his other correspondents; however, from this alone one can hardly gauge exactly what the Chasam Sofer really thought of Oppenheimer. 

            The start of the trail begins with the line “מי באר לא נשתה” that the Chasam Sofer allegedly said.  I found several sources which report the Chasam Sofer as the originator of the line[10], but without any context.  One source, R’ Shimon Fuerst in the preface to his Shem MiShimon,[11] does make a story out of it.  He tells of a story where once Oppenheimer came to speak to the Chasam Sofer in the latter’s house.  Sofer’s sons, R’ Shimon and R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyomin (the Ksav Sofer), noticed that their father made him wait a very long time.  They objected to their father’s treatment of Oppenheimer; protesting that it was not right to keep a talmid chacham such as Oppenheimer waiting so long.  Their father replied that every time Oppenheimer comes to speak to him in learning, it causes him bittul torah, since afterwards he must learn for a half hour in a musar sefer – since Oppenheimer’s head is full of heretical books.  Fuerst continues with another anecdote: once a talmid in his yeshiva asked a question to the Chasam Sofer, and when Sofer realized it was taken from the Mei Be’er, he then told the talmid, “מי באר לא נשתה”. 

            There are other reports of similar reactions and encounters of the Chasam Sofer with an anonymous talmid chacham from Pressburg who happened to also author a sefer.  I think we can safely assume that the intended person is Oppenheimer. 

            R’ Yitzchak Weiss of Varbó, writes to R’ Yosef Schwartz in the latter’s biographical anthology of the Chasam Sofer, Zichron L’Moshe[12], of a story he heard from his uncle, R’ Yaakov Prager.  In 1828, the Ra’vad of Pressburg, R’ Mordechai Tausk, was making a siyum hashas.  Tausk never liked making long pshetlach, so he prepared his dvar torah on just the last page of tractate Niddah.  However, the Chasam Sofer was present, and he started himself to say a large pilpul, explaining Tausk’s thesis, based on the references Tausk prepared.  Also present at the time, was a great talmid chacham who wrote a sefer, though a heretic.  In middle of his pshetle, the Chasam Sofer turbulently cried out, “ מה מועילים כל החידושים וחילוקים, העיקר הוא ליראה את השם הנככד והנורא ית״ש להיות על כל אדם מורא שמים מפחד הי״ת והדר  גאונו,” ואמר תוכחה נוראה בזה.

            

Though here Weiss chose to keep this talmid chacham anonymous, in his Alef Kasav[13] he identifies him as Oppenheimer.

            R’ Akiva Yosef Schlesinger in his Lev Ha’Ivri[14], tells of a story where the Chasam Sofer gave a eulogy. In attendance was “an important person, who was also a great talmid chacham and a great apikores.” During the eulogy, the Chasam Sofer quoted a gemara.  This talmid chacham proceeded to comment to his friends that there is no such gemara.  When someone by the name of Sender Leib happened to hear what the talmid chacham said, he quickly ran home to get a gemara.  With his gemara in hand, Sender Leib waited outside the shul for the Chasam Sofer to finish the eulogy. “When this important talmid chacham and apikores, author of the sefer…” came out, Sender Leib called out to him in public, “you said it wasn’t a gemara, here is the gemara,” and before he could even look at the gemara, Sender Leib slapped him on the face. He says that he received a public humiliation for publicly humiliating the Chasam Sofer – and he never opened up his mouth like that again.

            R’ Schlesinger was from the extreme factions of Hungarian Jewry, and was not without controversy to say the least.  Before taking this story at face value, we should certainly recall that he has been accused of fabrications in his Lev Ha’Ivri by the kehillah of Pressburg, in the polemical Ktav Yosher V’Divrei Emes[15]; written against him and his father in law R’ Hillel Lichtenstein. 

            Another anecdote can be found in R’ Shlomo Sofer’s biography of his grandfather the Chasam Sofer, Chut Hameshulash[16].  Sofer recalls his father, R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyomen Sofer (the Ksav Sofer), telling him about a wealthy talmid chacham in Pressburg, who also wrote a sefer.  This talmid chacham would frequently visit his father the Chasam Sofer. Once, the Chasam Sofer told his son, “every time that man leaves the house I immediately learn mussar, for what comes out of that man’s mouth is impure.” 

            There is no doubt that Sofer is referring to Oppenheimer.  Besides for dropping the clues about the man that he was a wealthy talmid chacham who wrote a sefer, Sofer also divulges a few more clues in his footnotes[17] with another two stories he writes about this man. 

The first story is about a student of the Chasam Sofer from Moravia.  Before travelling home to visit, the student went to the Chasam Sofer, to ask him permission to leave and for a dvar torah, so he would be able to share with the rabbi of his hometown something he heard from his rebbe.  The student also stopped by the anonymous person’s house to see if he wanted him to get regards from the rabbi, who happened to also be the person’s relative.  When the student came to the man’s house, the man asked him for a dvar torah that he heard from his rebbi the Chasam Sofer.  The student told him what he just heard.  Shlomo Sofer goes on to tell the story of how this man stole the dvar torah from the Chasam Sofer and said it over as if it was his own.[18]

            Sofer revealed in this story that this man had a relative who was a rabbi of a town in Moravia.  Oppenheimer had two relatives that served as the rabbi of Dresnitz in Moravia, Chaim his brother, and his nephew, Chaim’s son whose name was also Ber.

            Sofer recalls a second anecdote about this man that he heard from his uncle R’ Shimon Sofer.  R’ Shimon heard from his father the Chasam Sofer, that while he was still a student of R’ Nosson Adler, this man was still a bachur who was learning close to Frankfurt.  R’ Adler warned his young protégé to stay away from the bachur, as he was from the “Avi Avos Hatumah.”

            As stated before, Oppenheimer was a student of the yeshiva of Fürth in his youth.  Fürth is not too far from Frankfurt, about 70km.  All these clues, certainly point to identifying Sofer’s subject as Oppenheimer.  However, the reliability of the Chut Hameshulash has been called into question many times before, and I will return to this issue later.

            Should we assume that the Chasam Sofer’s supposed contempt for Oppenheimer was a result of the latter’s knowledge and interest in secular subjects and haskalah?  The Chasam Sofer was on cordial terms with many learned maskilim such as, Wolf Heidenheim[19], Tzvi Hirsch Chajes[20], Shlomo Yehuda Rappaport[21], and Zachariah Jolles[22].  So, what was behind this perceived animosity, and is there any truth to it? 

            The most definitive biography of Oppenheimer was written by Isaac Hirsch Weiss in his memoirs, Zichronosai.  The relevant pages were not included in the original edition, and were later printed in the compilation, Genazim (Tel-Aviv,1961).  Weiss was the son-in-law of Ber Oppenheimer, the nephew of our subject who happened to bear the same name as him.  In his memoirs, Weiss gives a detailed monograph of Oppenheimer, which includes very interesting material about his relationship with the Chasam Sofer.

            Weiss confirms the existence of the disparaging remark against Oppenheimer’s sefer, and attributes it not to the Chasam Sofer, but to people who didn’t like him; while describing it in its original form of the verse, “לא נשתה מי באר”.  However, also according to Weiss, the Chasam Sofer wasn’t exactly Oppenheimer’s best friend either. 

Weiss describes a cold relationship between the Chasam Sofer and Oppenheimer. To Oppenheimer’s face he was pleasant and cordial, but behind his back he would badmouth him.  Weiss is baffled by the Chasam Sofer’s conduct towards a talmid chacham like Oppenheimer, especially since Oppenheimer was one of the original supporters of the Chasam Sofer, and his son the Ksav Sofer after him, for the position of rabbi of Pressburg.

What was their point of contention?  Weiss heard from Oppenheimer himself that though the Chasam Sofer did not approve of his affinity towards secular subjects, the main reason the Chasam Sofer held a grudge against him was because he supported educational reforms; mainly by being involved in establishing a school in Pressburg, the Primaerschule, which taught secular subjects.  There were two attempts to establish the Primaerschule during the Chasam Sofer’s tenure in Pressburg.  The first attempt in 1811 was met with failure, however the proponents of the Primaerschule succeeded with their second attempt in 1820[23]. 

One interesting remark about Oppenheimer was made by Leopold Greenwald in correspondence with Meir Herschkowitz in Hadarom[24].  There, Greenwald writes to Herschkowitz that Oppenheimer was known as an informer.  Though Greenwald gives no basis for this accusation, what he is probably referring to is the attempt of the maskilim to shut down the Yeshiva of Pressburg.  In 1826, the Rosh Hakahal Wolf Breizach and his fellow maskilim, protested to the government authorities that the education offered by the Pressburg Yeshiva was insufficient, leaving its students uneducated and boorish.   This accusation prompted the government to ask a series of questions on the nature of the studies which took place in the yeshiva.  The Chasam Sofer gave a written reply, answering each question point by point.  The maskilim then followed up with a rebuttal to the Chasam Sofer’s answers[25].  By just reading the content of the rebuttal, one realizes how radical these maskilim really were and what the Chasam Sofer had to deal with.  The government authorities then proceeded with an ultimatum; the yeshiva was to shut down within two weeks. Ultimately, the decree was rescinded through the efforts of one of the members of the Pressburg community.    

What was Oppenheimer’s role in all of this?  Though he was involved in opening the Primaerschule, to my knowledge there is no evidence that he was also involved in the effort to close the yeshiva.  As stated before, Oppenheimer certainly was a maskil.  Nonetheless, I find it difficult to classify Oppenheimer as a radical maskil who would have had such a rabid disposition against the yeshiva as to try to close its doors, like the maskilim who almost succeeded in doing so.   One need only to point to his Mei Be’er which shows his great love for learning in the traditional sense, and the fond relationships he shared with the premier rabbis and talmudists of his time.  Another episode which reveals his true predilections, was his involvement with the selection of a replacement for R’ Moshe Mintz, the previous rabbi of Obuda, who passed away in 1831.  Two of the candidates for the position were R’ Tzvi Hirsch Chajes and R’ Aharon Moshe Taubes, author of the Karnei Re’aim[26].  

One would think that if Oppenheimer were such an ardent maskil he would support someone like Chajes, who not only was a friend of Oppenheimer[27], but was also a maskil himself.    However, in a letter to Shlomo Rosenthal, Shlomo Yehuda Rappaport writes much to his surprise and chagrin, that Oppenheimer supported Taubes[28].  Taubes was a traditionalist rabbi of the old school, and Oppenheimer’s support for his candidacy shows he was far from the radical maskilim of his day who wanted to totally remove the old guard of rabbis and replace them with new enlightened ones.

Another reason I find it hard to believe that Oppenheimer wanted to shut down the Yeshiva of Pressburg, is the fact that there is a Michtav Bracha from Oppenheimer printed in Ber Frank’s Ohr Ha’Emunah Part II, which was printed in 1845, almost 20 years later.  Ber Frank was a close confidante of the Chasam Sofer and an integral part of the Pressburg community.  Frank was the shamash, sofer, and shochet, of Pressburg, and wrote sefarim on practical halacha and hashkafah in German for the masses[29].  If Oppenheimer was involved in closing the Pressburg Yeshiva, I find it very hard to believe that Frank would oblige himself with a letter from Oppenheimer in one of his sefarim. 

            However, the most convincing piece of evidence to me, is a teshuva from the Ksav Sofer filled with respect and praise for Oppenheimer[30].  It is unthinkable to me that the Ksav Sofer would have anything pleasant to say about someone who would have shut down the great institution which he inherited from his father[31]. 

So, what prompted Greenwald to accuse Oppenheimer of being an informer?  The main source for Greenwald in his account of the Primaerschule controversy and the attempt to close the Pressburg Yeshiva, is R’ Yechezkel Faivel Plaut’s Likutei Chever ben Chaim[32].  As stated earlier, there were two attempts to establish the Primaerschule in Pressburg; in 1811 which failed, and in 1820 which was successful, and thereafter in 1826 was the effort to close the yeshiva.  Plaut correctly dates the first attempt to 1811.  However, he mistakenly writes that the second attempt to open the Primaerschule took place in 1826, the same time as the effort to close the yeshiva. This chronological mistake, which was also repeated in Shlomo Sofer’s Chut Hameshulash[33], probably led to the conflation of the two events by Plaut and subsequently by Greenwald[34], leading Greenwald to think that the same people that were involved in establishing the Primaerschule, were also involved in the effort to close the yeshiva.  Thus, concluding that just as Oppenheimer supported the Primaerschule, he must have also supported closing the yeshiva. 

Another proof that Plaut and Sofer’s version of events is inaccurate, is apparent from their recounting of what happened to all the supporters of the Primaerschule.  Both Plaut[35] and Sofer[36] tell us that in reaction to the events of 1826, which according to them included the opening of the Primaerschule, the Chasam Sofer gave a sermon whereby he preached that sinners who lead others astray do not deserve G-d’s mercy in this world; finishing off the sermon with a prayer that all the evildoers should be destroyed[37].  The Chasam Sofer’s words made a profound impression on his audience and in heaven, as all those who were involved in the Primaerschule did not live out the year. 

We have already mentioned that Oppenheimer was a supporter of the Primaerschule, yet he certainly continued to live on, as is evident from the printing of his Mei Be’er in 1829.  In fact, Oppenheimer died in 1850 at the ripe old age of ninety, outliving the Chasam Sofer by eleven years.  Thus, we must conclude that the sermon the Chasam Sofer gave in 1826 was not a response to the Primaerschule[38], but to the attempt at shutting the doors of his yeshiva.  Indeed, Wolf Breizach died in August of 1827, within a year of the Chasam sofer’s sermon.

The reliability of R’ Shlomo Sofer

Shlomo Sofer continues the story, by telling us that one of the people that opposed the Chasam Sofer realized his mistake; as he saw how all those who antagonized the latter started dying off one by one.  In fear and remorse, this person fled to Vienna from where he sent a letter to the Chasam Sofer, begging him for forgiveness and to pray for him so he shouldn’t meet an untimely demise like the rest of his friends.  The Chasam Sofer replied, “I have you in mind when I say ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה,” and it wasn’t long until this person died like the rest of his friends.

Isaac Hirsch Weiss[39] takes issue with this part of the story, saying that only a fool would believe that someone as righteous as the Chasam Sofer would reject so cruelly someone who was trying to do teshuva.  He goes so far as to say that even if the story were true, it would be an egregious sin to publicize it, giving him cause to lament over the character and temperament of Shlomo Sofer who wrote the biography of his grandfather.  Earlier, Weiss derides the Chut Hameshulash as being filled with silly stories that no rational person would believe. 

Isaac Hirsch Weiss was not the only one to criticize Shlomo Sofer and his works.  No one less than Simcha Lehman, daughter of the Chasam Sofer, was reported to have said that her nephew’s biography of her father is filled with exaggerations[40].  

R’ Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich claims[41 ]that Sofer intentionally left out his grandfather R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, author of the Kol Aryeh, from a list of students of the Chasam Sofer that Sofer made in his Iggerot Soferim[42].  Ehrenreich attributes this omission to a familial dispute between Sofer and descendants of the elder Schwartz.  Shlomo Sofer was rabbi of the town of Beregszász, where some of the Schwartz family also resided.  Apparently, they did not get along.[43]

Leopold Greenwald[44] not only accuses Sofer of deliberate omissions by the latter in his works, but also of intentional distortions, exaggerations, and fallacious story telling[45].  He specifically takes issue with Sofer’s portrayal of a strained relationship between R’ Azriel Hildesheimer and the Ksav Sofer, when not only was Hildesheimer chosen from a plethora of many other rabbis to eulogize the Ksav Sofer upon his death, the kehillah of Pressburg even postponed the Ksav Sofer’s burial for two days, awaiting Hildesheimer’s arrival[46]. Hardly something that would be done for someone supposedly in a strained relationship with the deceased[47].  Sofer makes no mention of any this when he describes his father’s funeral in his Chut Hameshulash. 

I couldn’t verify that the reason that Ksav Sofer’s burial was postponed was to wait for R’ Hildesheimer to arrive; however, it is true that Shlomo Sofer only specifically mentions his brother Yaakov Akiva as giving the first eulogy and leaves the rest of the eulogizers anonymous.  Nonetheless, in my opinion I don’t think the omission of Hildesheimer is so problematic.  R’ Azriel Hildesheimer himself described the levayah[48], and he reports that there were five eulogizers; R’ Feish Fishman, R’ Yaakov Akiva Sofer, R’ Shlomo Zalman Spitzer the brother-in-law of the Ksav Sofer, Hildesheimer himself, and R’ Yosef Guggenheimer.  If we were to accuse Shlomo Sofer of intentionally leaving out Hildesheimer, then we would have to say the same about him leaving out his uncle, Shlomo Spitzer who he held in high esteem.  Though I’m not sure what Shlomo Sofer thought of Feish Fishman, who was a controversial figure among the more radical Hungarian rabbis for his German-language sermons, perhaps one could speculate that Sofer only mentions the first person that gave a eulogy and not the rest, so as not to make any mention of Hildesheimer or Guggenheimer.  But again, this is entirely speculation. 

Still, Sofer specifically says that his brother Yaakov Akiva gave the first eulogy[49].  If we were to read Hildesheimer’s list of the eulogizers as happening in the specific order in which he reported them, it would seem that in actuality the first eulogy was given not by Yaakov Akiva Sofer, but by Feish Fishman.  This would not be hard to believe, as there were many in the community that wanted R’ Feish Fishman to succeed the Ksav Sofer as rabbi of Pressburg over R’ Simcha Bunim Sofer, who eventually did succeed his father.  Hildesheimer was known to be a very meticulous person, but at the end of the day, he doesn’t specifically point out if he meant the list of eulogizers to be in the order that they actually happened.

            An allegation of forgery against Sofer was made by Shimon Zusman[50], grandson of R’ Yaakov Koppel Reich who was chief rabbi of Budapest from 1889-1929.  In the Igros Soferim, there is a letter of rebuke from the Ksav Sofer to his student R’ Reich, warning him not to pander too much to secular elements in his new position as Rabbi of Verbó[51].  Indeed, R’ Reich was known to be an educated and openminded person.  Shimon Zusman reports that when the Igros Sofrim first came out, R’ Reich commented about this letter to his other grandson R’ Dovid Tzvi Zusman, “I never received this letter, and I don’t believe that my master and teacher wrote me this letter.”

            Another charge of forgery against Sofer was made by R’ Chaim Elazar Shapiro of Munkacs, in his Nimmukei Orach Chaim[52].  I won’t get into the details of Shapiro’s accusations, as they have already been debunked by extant manuscripts of the letters he claims must be forged.  It should also be noted, that Shapiro got into a dispute with Sofer over certain charity funds and their appropriation[53].  

            So, are R’ Shlomo Sofer and his works, Chut Hameshulash and Igros Soferim reliable[54]?  Though there certainly is no proof of forgery on Shlomo Sofer’s part, can we still rely on his historical accounts?  Specifically, for our purposes, how are we to take the disparaging remarks about Ber Oppenheimer he claimed to hear from his father the Ksav Sofer in the name of his grandfather the Chasam Sofer, despite there being a responsum from the Ksav Sofer to Oppenheimer conferring upon Oppenheimer praise and respectable titles?

            In my mind, there are three ways to explain the seemingly contradictory remarks of the Ksav Sofer.

            The first possible approach is to consider Shlomo Sofer’s accounts as reliable.  Therefore, we must assume that just as the Chasam Sofer did not like Oppenheimer, though he showed no overt animosity toward him, as confirmed by Isaac Hirsch Weiss, so too the Ksav Sofer also shared his father’s opinion of Oppenheimer, and dealt with him in the same manner; overtly cordial with hidden contempt.

            There are other examples in history of rabbinical correspondence contradicting what the letter writer really thought of his recipient.  And though this seemingly goes against the dictum of chazal, “אל תהי אחד [55]בפה ואחד בלב”, I assume these people felt that this was overridden by another statement of Chazal, “תעלא [56]בעידניה סגיד ליה”, given the specific circumstances in which they had to address the correspondent.

            Two such examples come to my mind.  One is the correspondence between R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzato, the Ramchal, and R’ Moshe Chagiz, where Luzzato writes to Chagiz with utmost respect[57].  Yet when Luzzato writes to his rebbi R’ Yeshaya Bassan, his opinion of Chagiz is revealed to be that of extreme contempt[58].  This is understandable, given that Luzzato was being persecuted by Chagiz, for what Chagiz felt was Neo-Sabbateanism. 

            However, the second example really sticks out to me, as it is of the Chasam Sofer himself.  There is a famous teshuva from the Chasam Sofer to R’ Moshe Teitelbaum, where the Chasam Sofer tries to alleviate some perceived strife between them which he heard of from the town of Potok, due to their differences; as Teitlebaum was a chassid and the Chasam Sofer a misnaged[59].  The Chasam Sofer is filled with praise and admiration for Teitelbaum, even as he acknowledges their differences, as you can see for yourself here:

            This letter is dated the 28th of Sivan 5578, or July 2, 1818.  The explanation to what prompted the Chasam Sofer to write to Teitelbaum, can be found in an earlier letter that he sent to the community of Potock, on the 12th of Elul of that year, or September 13th.  It can be found in the Shu”t Chasam Sofer Hachadashos, #54:

            Sometime after the Chasam Sofer wrote to Teitelbaum, on the 13th of Shevat 5579, or February 9th, 1819, he wrote another letter to two of his students who lived in Ujhely, the same town that Teitelbaum was rabbi.  In the letter, the Chasam Sofer reveals to his students what he really thought of Teitelbaum, and the true intentions behind his laudations.  The letter can be found in the Kovetz Tshuvos Chasam Sofer, #36:

            So perhaps we can suggest that the Ksav Sofer’s opinion of Oppenheimer differed from what he put in writing, just like his father before him.  However, I think that though the Chasam Sofer didn’t show any contempt for Oppenheimer in his letters to him, he was still cold, as pointed out before.  The Ksav Sofer on the other hand is overtly warm and respectful with Oppenheimer.  Consequently, I still find it hard to believe that the Ksav Sofer held Oppenheimer in contempt. 

            A second possible approach to this dilemma, is to again take Shlomo Sofer’s account at face value.  However, although the Ksav Sofer relayed to him the disparaging remarks of the Chasam Sofer against Oppenheimer, we must conclude that his opinion of Oppenheimer was different from that of his father’s contemptuous view.  Especially considering that the Ksav Sofer’s teshuva to Oppenheimer was written a few months after he was elected to succeed his father as rabbi of Pressburg.  As we earlier noted from Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Oppenheimer was a supporter of the succession of the Ksav Sofer.  Perhaps because of his support, the Ksav Sofer felt particularly grateful to him at the time. 

            The third viable approach would be to consider Shlomo Sofer’s remarks regarding Oppenheimer as unreliable, and his report in the name of his father fabricated.  What pushes me more to this approach than any other, is the combination of the teshuva of the Ksav Sofer to Oppenheimer and one other peculiarity which I found in the Chut Hameshulash. 

            In his biography of the Chasam Sofer, Shlomo Sofer copies for us the original Shtar Rabbanus that the Chasam Sofer received at the start of his tenure as rabbi of Pressburg.  Accordingly, at the end of the document, all the names of the signatories are present, or so it seems.  Comparing the version found in the Chut Hameshulash with the one in Likutei Teshuvos Chasam Sofer, reveals a glaring omission. Here is how Shlomo Sofer presents the Shtar:

Here it is in Likutei Teshuvos Chasam Sofer:

As you can see in the bottom of the middle column, Ber Oppenheimer was one of the signatories.  This also verifies Isaac Hirsch Weiss’s report I mentioned earlier, that Oppenheimer was a supporter of the Chasam Sofer taking the position of Rabbi of Pressburg.

            Here is a picture of the actual manuscript where you can still make out Oppenheimer’s signature:

             With a reputation for purposely omitting facts already preceding him, it does not surprise me that Sofer would also omit Oppenheimer’s name from the Shtar Rabbanus of his grandfather, given that it does not follow the narrative he wishes to portray, as evident from negative reports he gives of Oppenheimer.

            Whatever the truth may be, one thing is for sure; Ber Oppenheimer was a talmid chacham who was respected by most of the gedolei hador of his time, who had his differences with the Chasam Sofer.

Miscellaneous Ha’aros

I’d like to end off with a few divrei torah.  While I was busy with this post, Shavuos past, and like every year I read the relevant Mishna Berurah which I could never understand. Regarding the custom of eating dairy on Shavuos, the Mishna Berurah at the end of siman 494 gives a reason in the name of an anonymous gadol.  Since klal yisroel recieved the Torah on Shavuos, by default they also excepted all 613 commandments, for according to R’ Sa’adya Gaon[60] all 613 mitzvos are included in the ten commandments.  Along with that came the commandments of kosher food; shechita, nikur, no blood, salting, and the need to have kosher utensils.  Thus, it was much easier at the time to forgo cooking and just eat dairy, as none of the above laws really apply.

This reason makes absolutely no sense to me.  Without getting too involved in the topic, I think that any person who’s learned through shas and chumash, even in just a cursory manner, knows that the whole torah and everything in it was not given all at once at Sinai; there is a chronology to the giving of taryag mitzvos.  I will just quote the Ramban in his hasagos to the Sefer Hamitzvos[61]:

“והנה, שתי פרשיות בתורה ובהן מצות רבות ולא נאמרו למשה בסיני, אלא לאהרן נאמרו ולא בסיני, פרשת שתויי יין ופרשת משמרות כהונה ולוייה ומתנות כהונה ולא חשש להוציאם מן החשבון הזה. ומצות רבות לא נאמרו בסיני אלא בשעת מעשה, כגון דין מקושש ובנות צלפחד ולא חששו לכך, וכו’.”

The Chazon Ish also has a discussion on the chronology of the mitzvos, in Orach Chaim #125.  So, needless to say, suggesting that bnei yisrael by matan torah were concerned with all the laws of kashrus, is simply anachronistic.  Those laws were only given afterwards. 

Also, when Sa’adya Gaon suggests that all the mitzvos are included in the ten commandments, that’s not in a literal sense, but taxonomical; all the mitzvos can be divided under ten categories under the rubric of the ten commandments.

I found another interesting tidbit in the Alfei Menashe part I, from R’ Menashe Ben Poras of Ilya, where he rails against a pshat which suggests that עם קשה עורף is a good character trait:

What I find most interesting is that after condemning this notion by saying it only comes from the koach hadimyoni[62], he brings himself support by quoting the Vilna Gaon who said that the koach hadimyoni is a part of the evil inclination.  However, the Vilna Gaon himself in his commentary to Mishlei 10:20, explains עם קשה עורף as a good character trait!  See here:

Book week & The International Book Fair 2017 Updated

By  Eliezer Brodt

Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. As I have written the
past ten years, every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of
about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer – Book Week (for previous years
lists see  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here and here). Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month. Shavuah
HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls
and special places rented out just for the sales. There are places where
strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular
publishing houses.

Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at
this time, some books are released during the week (thus the Update). Not all
of the books listed below can be found at the various fairs as some companies
do not come to the fairs and only offer sales via the Web.

Some of the sales end this week others other expire only at
the end of the month.

Some of the frum companies began their sale last week [such
as Ahavat Sholom] others like Mechon Yerushlayim and Zichron Aron begin their
sales this coming Sunday [PDF of Catalogs available upon request.]

This year International Book week is taking place right next
to the Book fair in Jerusalem. For the Most part, the booths worth visiting are
from Urim, Gefen, Pomerantz (Kodesh books), and Maggid (they have booths at
both fairs). [See below for some recommendations].

In my lists, I sometimes include an older title, from
a previous year, if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I
do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles
will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad
interest. As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped
greatly worldwide, (and continues to drop) Academic books on Jewish related
topics are still coming out in full force.

As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small
fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For
more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of
the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.

בן צבי

מאנגס

ביאליק

כרמל

מגיד-אופק

כנרת-דביר

מכון שכטר – JTS

ספריית הילל בן
חיים

מרכז זלמן שזר

מכללת הרצוג

ראובן מס

בר אילן

A Dictionary of
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period [מהדורה שלישית]

ידיעות ספרים

רסלינג

אוניברסיטת תל אביב:

האקדמיה ללשון העברית

בית אל

כתר

הוצאת אדרא

The following titles
were at the International Book Fair:

Gefen Books

Urim

Pomerantz
-Kodesh Books

Legacy Judaica
is holding an auction on June 13, 2017, and we wanted to highlight a few items
of interest (for our previous post regarding the auction house and previous
auctions see here.  There are, of course, some old and rare books
from the 16th and early 17th centuries (lots 1-7), and over
forty manuscripts and a number of letters from rabbinical luminaries, R. Yosef
Dov Solovetchik (Beis ha’Levi) (lot 198), R. Yitzhak Ze’ev Solovetchik (Brisker
Rav) (lot 199), R. Hayim Ozer (lot 172), R. Kook (lot 183), R. Henkin, R.
Yechiel Michel Epstein (Arukh ha-Shulkhan) (lot 168), and the Netziv (lots
161-62), (there is also an amulet (lot 163) from his son, R. Chaim Berlin, that
apparently was written at the Netziv’s direction).

Two
particularly important manuscripts relate to the late 18th century
controversy regarding the nascent Chassidic movement.  One, lot 84, is a copy of the 1796 letter
condemning Chassidim that is signed by the Gaon, among others (this is a transcript
of the letter and does not contain the Gaon’s actual signature).  The second, lot 85, is contains two virulent
letters against Chassidim, both of which have been shown to be forgeries.  The first is written in the name of R. Akiva
Eiger, and the second is attributed to R. Yoel of Amtzislav.  Wilensky analyzed both and concluded that
they are forged.  The document also
includes the (real) transcript of the proclamations of the Bet Din of Shklov
against the Chassidim. Unrelated to the forgery, the various condemnations against
the early Chassidim were the subject of a recent controversy when many of them were
reprinted in a three volume history of the Vilna Gaon, Ha’Gaon.  The book was burnt (with hametz) and subject
to bans, one by the Bedatz Bet Din (see our earlier posts here, here, and  here).

Other items
include, R. Aaron Shmuel Koidonover, Birkat ha’Zev’ah, Amsterdam, 1669
(lot 12).  That book contains a number of
bibliographical items of note. The title page indicates that the book was
printed by two different publishers, the first abandoned because of poor
workmanship. But the identity of the sloppy printer is not provided.  This led to complaints by one of the (then) two
Amsterdam publishers, Uri Phoebus.  He
alleged that many were wrongly assuming him to be the offending publisher.  To address Phoebus, in some number of copies
a page was added that identified the culprit as Joseph Athias, the other
Amsterdam publisher.  There was little
love lost between Athias and Phoebus, and ten years later they famously clashed
over competing luxury editions of Yiddish translations of the Bible.

The title page
of the book itself is elaborately illustrated, and depicts at the top, King
David surrounded by two cherubs, and on the sides of the page, four biblical
scenes with corresponding verses relating to various events in David’s
life.  A similar title page, although
significantly more controversial appears in the Amsterdam 1706, book, Hemdat
Tzvi.  In that instance, however, the
illustrations were used to broadcast the author, Tzvi Hirsch Chotsh’s affinity
for Shabbatai Tzvi (see Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism,
80-82).

A book related
to Shabbatai Tzvi appears in lot 16, R. Shmuel Aboab’s D’var Sh’mu’el,
Venice 1702.  This copy contains the
section, Zikharon L’veni Yisra’el, that provides two documents regarding
the Shabbatai Tzvi episode.  Many copies
of this edition lack this section. 

The book, Zeh
Sefer Shevach v’Zimra, (lot 124) relates to the Napoleonic wars. This book,
printed in 1796, relates that when Fasano, Italy (it is located in the heel of
the boot), was under siege by Napoleon, the Jews were charged as spies on his
behalf.  The Jews holed up in the
synagogue and a mob formed outside.  When
all seemed lost, a French cannon went off and the mob was scared off, saving the
Jews.  This book contains the story and a
poem written in commemoration of the event that was to be said yearly.  Napoleon was a mixed bag for the Jews.  Many welcomed him and saw him as an opportunity
to improve the lives of the Jews (some even considered him a messianic
figure).  R. Shneur-Zalmen of Lyadi, the
founder of the Habad movement, was famously against Napoleon, and explained
that “if Bonaparte wins, the wealth of the Jews will be increased and their
status raised, but they will be distanced in their hearts from their father in
heaven.”  On the other hand – and R.
Shneur-Zalman was writing in the Russian Empire – “if Tsar Alexander wins,
poverty will increase among the Jews, their status will be lower, but they will
be bound and tied in their hearts to their father in heaven.”  

For further
information and for online bidding see http://legacyjudaica.bidspirit.com

Book week 2017

By Eliezer Brodt

Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. As I have written the past ten years, every year in Israel, around Shavous time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer – Book Week (for previous years lists see  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here and here). Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out just for the sales. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time.

In my lists, I sometimes include an older title, from a previous year, if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad interest. As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped greatly worldwide, Academic books on Jewish related topics are still coming out in full force.

As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.

A Dictionary of
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period [מהדורה שלישית]

Translations of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari

by Daniel J. Lasker

On the occasion
of the publication of:

ספר הכוזרי. הוא ספר הטענה והראָיה לדת
המושפלת לרבי יהודה הלוי

תרגם מערבית-יהודית לעברית בת זמננו

מיכאל שוַרץ

הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון
בנגב, באר-שבע, תשע”ז

R. Judah Halevi,
The Book of Kuzari. The Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion,
translated by Michael Schwarz

Beer Sheva, 2017

The
publication of Prof. Michael Schwarz z”l’s new modern Hebrew translation of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Judaeo-Arabic Book of Kuzari provides a good
opportunity to discuss previous versions of this seminal book of Jewish thought
and to evaluate the advantages that Prof. Schwarz’s translation has over other
renditions. Prof. Schwarz (1929-2011), who completed a draft translation before
he died over five years ago, was a scholar of Jewish and Islamic philosophy
whose best-known publication has been his translation of Maimonides’ Guide
of the Perplexed. After an unfortunate delay, the Kuzari has now been
published by the International Goldstein-Goren Center for Jewish Thought at
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in its series “Library of Jewish Thought,”
under the editorship of Prof. Haim Kreisel.[1]

Less
than thirty years after R. Judah ben Samuel Halevi completed his Book of
Kuzari[2] in approximately
1140, it became one of the first Judaeo-Arabic compositions to be translated
into Hebrew. This pioneering translation marked part of the cultural transfer
of Andalusian Jewish culture, written in Judaeo-Arabic, into Hebrew, and was accomplished
in 1167 by R. Judah ben Saul Ibn Tibbon, “the father of the translators.” As
the centers of Jewish intellectual life moved to Christian areas where Hebrew
was the predominant Jewish literary language, it was only through this
translation that the Kuzari was known to generations upon generations of
Jews. The Kuzari’s readers were moved by its unwavering defense of
Judaism, its description of Jewish singular chosenness, and its love of Zion.
Halevi’s life story, including his departure from Iberia and, according to
legend, his martyrdom at the gates of Jerusalem, only strengthened the
resonance of the book (on this legend, see here). Extensive commentaries were written on the basis of the
Ibn Tibbon translation by authors who neither understand Arabic nor were able
to appreciate the Islamic context in which the Kuzari was written. Judah
Halevi’s defense of Judaism made a great impact on Jewish thought and achieved
canonical status.[3]

With
the birth of Jewish studies in the nineteenth century, scholars began
publishing original texts in academic editions. Thus, Hartwig Hirschfeld
(1854-1934), working with Oxford-Bodleian Ms. Pococke 284, the only complete,
or almost complete, version of the work, produced a first edition of the
original Judaeo-Arabic text of the Kuzari.[4] He published with it a
version of the Ibn Tibbon translation which was partially corrected to
correspond to the Judaeo-Arabic version, but not in a consistent manner. Thus,
Hirschfeld changed some passages in the Hebrew despite their being attested in
all the Ibn Tibbon manuscripts and editions, but left other problematic
passages untouched.[5] The Hirschfeld Ibn Tibbon text achieved wide
distribution when it was used by Avraham Zifroni as the basis of his edition of
the Kuzari, and many contemporary editions of the Hebrew Kuzari
are based on Zifroni’s work.[6] Meanwhile, Hirschfeld’s Judaeo-Arabic publication
has been supplanted by the superior edition of David Zvi Baneth and Haggai
Ben-Shammai.[7]

The
Judah Ibn Tibbon translation of the Kuzari is an adequate translation, despite
some misunderstandings. It follows the Tibbonide practice of maintaining the
syntax and word order of the original Arabic to the extent possible and often
translating the same underlying Arabic term with one Hebrew equivalent. It may also
be a better witness to the original text of the Kuzari than the unique Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript which was copied in Damascus over 300 years after the composition of
the original book. For professional students of medieval Jewish philosophy, or
those with close familiarity with medieval Hebrew, it is readable and achieves
its goal of making the work accessible to non-Arabic readers. Yet, there is
still no acceptable edition based on the best manuscripts of this translation.
In addition, as a means of communicating the extent of Judah Halevi’s thought
to the contemporary reader of modern Hebrew, it is less than ideal. Thus, since
the 1970’s, a number of new Hebrew translations of the Kuzari have
appeared.

The
first of these translations was presented by Dr. Yehudah Even Shmuel (1886-1976)
in 1973.[8] The first edition included a long introduction, a vocalized and
punctuated text, short notes and many extensive indices, and was praised for
the clarity of its Hebrew and its accessibility to contemporary readers.
Subsequently it was published in paperback with just the text and short notes,
an edition which has sold well and is used as a textbook for high schools and
universities. At first, the novelty of a medieval philosophical work in
readable modern Hebrew seems to have compensated for the imprecision of the
translation.[9] Oftentimes, the translator offered more of a creative
paraphrase than an exact translation, and there were sections where Even Shmuel
attempted to tone down considerably Judah Halevi’s view of Jewish essentialism.[10]
Many key terms were translated by different Hebrew words, making it impossible
for the reader to note the importance of these words, most of which have
resonances from the Islamic and Arabic realms. Thus, Halevi’s great debt to his
non-Jewish cultural context was effectively hidden by this translation.
Scholars soon realized that this edition of the Kuzari could not be used
for academic purposes.

Despite
its drawbacks, or perhaps because of its advantages, the Even Shmuel
translation went unchallenged for over 20 years. In the mid-1990’s, I heard
Rabbi Yosef Kafiḥ (1917-2000), the well-known editor and translator of
Judaeo-Arabic texts, reply to a question as to why he did not translate the Kuzari
as he had translated so many other classics. He responded that he had prepared
such a translation many years previously but had decided not to publish it
because he did not want to appear as competing with Even Shmuel. Nonetheless, Kafiḥ
finally did publish his own translation in 1997,[11] following his custom of
presenting the original Judaeo-Arabic and the Hebrew translation in parallel
columns.[12] This translation has neither the clarity nor the extensive
notation of Kafiḥ’s earlier translations; most of his comments are devoted to
attacking Even Shmuel’s translation. In his introduction, Kafiḥ explains that
he had begun translating the Kuzari when he was a student in a class led
by Rabbi David Cohen (the Nazir, 1887-1972) at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in 1947-48,
where he was made responsible for comparing Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew with the
Judaeo-Arabic in the Hirschfeld edition.[13] Repeating what he had said in
public, namely that he had waited so long to publish this translation because
of his desire not to appear as a competitor with Even Shmuel, he then goes on
to attack Even Shmuel’s translation mercilessly. He even states that Rabbi
Judah Halevi composed one of his dirges when he realized that his Kuzari
would be translated by Even Shmuel.

Despite
Rabbi Kafiḥ’s great erudition in Judaeo-Arabic, and the general readability of
his other translations, the Kuzari does not match his previous work.
Whether this was a result of the fact that the translation was, indeed, a
product of his youth before he had perfected his Hebrew style, or was the work
of an aged man who did not review his earlier drafts, it did not succeed in replacing
the Even Shmuel translation as the generally accepted Hebrew version of the Kuzari.
My own experience with Israeli students has been that Kafiḥ’s Hebrew is not
much more understandable than that of Judah Ibn Tibbon, and, despite the
convenience of having the original Judaeo-Arabic text available, it was not a
very good pedagogical tool. Sometimes I preferred using the Ibn Tibbon text
which is available in a number of formats, such as in Yediot Aharonot’s Am
ha-sefer project[14] and on-line.

There
exists one more contemporary translation of the Kuzari into Hebrew and
that is the one produced by Rabbi Itzhak Shailat (b. 1946).[15] Shailat is
known for his editions and translations of medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts, such
as Maimonides’ Epistles. Although Shailat’s introduction and notes to
his editions demonstrate a conservative, harmonistic and pietistic approach to
his authors, his translations are generally accurate. His methodology, however,
is to reproduce Tibbonide Hebrew as much as possible, giving his translations a
classical, rather than modern, feel. Hence, his Kuzari should be seen as
an update of Ibn Tibbon rather than as an independent creation.

Before
discussing the new Hebrew translation, it might be useful to refer to
translations into other languages. In addition to editing the Judaeo-Arabic
text of the Kuzari, and producing an edition of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew
translation, Hartwig Hirschfeld also translated the book into English.[16] This
work was reissued many times, often with minimal attribution to Hirschfeld.[17]
The abridged translation of the Kuzari by Prof. Isaac Heinemann
(1876-1957) which appeared independently in Oxford, 1947, and was later
incorporated in the widely distributed Three Jewish Philosophers,[18] is
greatly dependent upon Hirschfeld. In addition to questions of accuracy, the
language of these translations is difficult for the contemporary English
reader.

In
an attempt to present a clearly written English version of the Kuzari
which could be used by laypeople, Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin (b. 1964) published
a translation on the basis of the Ibn Tibbon version, relying on the
interpretations of the classical commentators Judah Moscatto and Israel of
Zamosc.[19] Although achieving its goal of readability, the author’s ignorance
of Arabic and the scholarly literature on the Kuzari are the cause of
multiple errors of translation and annotation. Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation
of the Kuzari is included in the book, but since it is based on the
Hirschfeld/Zifroni edition (the exact source is not noted in the book), and the
English translation is based on older editions, there are inconsistencies
between the Hebrew and the English. Subsequent to the Korobkin translation, other
English editions of the Kuzari have appeared, but apparently none of them
is based on the Judaeo-Arabic original.[20]

A
scholarly, readable English translation of the Kuzari from the original
has long been a desideratum. In fact, Prof. Lawrence V. Berman (1929-1988)
began the work on such a translation before his untimely death. The project was
inherited by Prof. Barry S. Kogan (b. 1944) and is scheduled to appear as part
of the Yale Judaica Series. This project has been long delayed, but Prof. Kogan
has been very generous with sharing drafts of this translation with colleagues,
a number of whom have used its clear and accurate renditions in their own
publications. One can only hope that there will not be much further delay until
the translation appears in print.[21]

This
leads us to the recently published Hebrew translation of the Kuzari by
Prof. Michael Schwarz. Following the pattern established in his translation of
Maimonides’ Guide, Schwarz presents an eminently readable rendition of
the book. As in the case of his other translations, the work combines accuracy
with readability. His language is elegant, eschewing the many foreign words
which have entered contemporary Hebrew. He highlights words which appear in
Hebrew in the Judaeo-Arabic original by using a bold font so the reader knows
that this is Halevi’s Hebrew, not Schwarz’s.

As
noted above, one of the challenges with a translation of the Kuzari is
how to capture the Islamic/Arabic flavor of the work. Despite its reputation as
the most Jewish of the medieval Jewish philosophical treatises, recent research
has demonstrated the extent to which the Kuzari is steeped in Islamic concepts.[22]
This can be seen by its use of a number of key terms which are repeated
throughout the book, such as ṣafwa (the choicest, translated as segulah,
as found in other translations, despite Prof. Schwarz’s reservations); al-amr
al-ilāhī (divine order, translated ha-davar ha-‘elohi, as per Kafiḥ,
in contrast to Ibn Tibbon’s ha-ʿinyan ha-‘elohi); ijtihād (fervent
striving or innovating new laws, translated as hit’amẓut, hishtadlut, or ḥiddush
halakhah), or qiyās (analogous reasoning or general rationalism,
translated heqesh or higgayon). Since it is not always possible
to use the exact same translation in every context, the translator must find a
way of informing the reader of the underlying key term. Schwarz solves this
problem by drawing up a list of recurring Arabic concepts and noting each time
one of them is used. He then explains these terms in a special glossary devoted
to their explication. Some important Arabic words which are used less often are
explained in the textual notes. In addition, the notes provide references to
Halevi’s sources or further explications.

Scholarly
analyses of the Kuzari are extensive, and as in the case of Schwarz’s
translation of the Guide, the notes are full of references to this
secondary literature. Although he does not say so in his very short preface,
one can assume that as was the case in the Guide, the reference to a
particular article or book does not necessarily imply endorsement of the
material found therein. The annotations are there for comprehensiveness, and
the alert reader is enjoined to examine them carefully. The bibliography
occupies 36 pages. In addition, there are indices of sources and a general
index of topics and places.[23]

When
Part One of Prof. Michael Schwarz’s translation of the Guide was first published
by Tel-Aviv University Press in 1997, I offered the opinion that despite the
fact that it was the best available Hebrew version of Maimonides’ masterpiece,
I was not sure it would replace the other available translations, partially
since traditional Jewish readers might be wary of a university provenance and
the reliance on non-Jewish sources.[24] I believe that my estimation has been
proven wrong, since the translation’s clear superiority to the competition has
made it indispensible.[25] It is to be hoped that the same widespread
acceptance of the Schwarz translation of the Guide will be repeated in
the case of the Schwarz translation of the Kuzari, since it is, without
doubt, the best Hebrew Kuzari available.

Notes:

[1]
Books from this series are produced by the Mosad Bialik Publishing House. The
Schwarz Kuzari can be ordered here.
The translation is preceded by an introduction which Prof. Schwarz asked me to
write and which he approved a few weeks before his death. [Editor’s Note:
Professor Schwarz’ edition of the Kuzari can be purchased via Bialik or by
contacting (Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com) — where the book will be available at the
same  Book Week price. Portions of the proceeds of this sale help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.]

[2] The title, The
Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion, is in accordance with
a Geniza fragment; a slightly different title appears in the one full Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript mentioned below. The title of Ibn Tibbon’s translation, Sefer
ha-kuzari, was that which was known to centuries of Hebrew readers, and it corresponds
to the title, al-kitāb al-khazarī (“The Book of the Khazar”), found in
Halevi’s famous autograph letter from the Geniza.

[3] See Adam
Shear, The Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167–1900,
Cambridge 2008. Another medieval translation, by Judah ben Isaac Cardenal, has
not survived.

[4] Das Buch
al-Chazarî des Abû-l-Hasan Jehuda Hallewi; im arabischen urtext sowie in
der hebräischen übersetzung des Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, herausgegeben von Hartwig
Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887. The manuscript is now classified as Neubauer
Catalogue Oxford ms. 1228, and it is freely available on-line (here).

[5] See Daniel
J. Lasker, “Adam and Eve or Adam and Noah? Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew
Versions of the Same Books,” Pesher Nahum. Texts and Studies in Jewish
History and Literature from Antiquity Through the Middle Ages Presented to
Norman (Naḥum) Golb, ed. Joel L. Kraemer and Michael G. Wechsler et al.,
Chicago, 2012, pp.141-148.

[6] The Zifroni
edition, Warsaw, 1911, published under his original name Zifrinowitsch,
included many valuable notes. Subsequent editions generally omitted these
notes.

[7] Judah
ha-Levi, Kitāb al-radd wa-ʾl-dalīl fi ʾl-dīn al-dhalīl (Al-kitāb al-khazarī),
ed. David H. (Zvi) Baneth and Haggai Ben-Shammai, Jerusalem, 1977.

[8] The
Kosari of R. Yehuda Halevi, Translated Annotated and Introduced by Yehuda
Even Shmuel, Tel Aviv, 1972. On Even Shmuel, né Kaufman, see Ira Robinson, “The
Canadian years of Yehuda Kaufman (Even Shmuel): Educator, Journalist, and
Intellectual,” Canadian Jewish Studies, 15 (2007), pp. 129-142.

[9] See, e.g.,
Michael Schwarz’s effusive review in Kiryat Sefer, 49 (5734), pp.
198-202. Many years later, Prof. Schwarz told me that he no longer held the
views he expressed in that review.

[10] For
instance, the term ṣarīḥ/ ṣuraḥa’, meaning “native-born,” and indicative
of Halevi’s essentialist view of the Jewish chosenness, is glossed over in
1:115; 2:1; and 5:23; see Daniel J. Lasker, “Proselyte Judaism, Christianity
and Islam in the Thought of Judah Halevi,” Jewish
Quarterly Review, 81:1-2 (July-October, 1990): 75-91 (Hebrew version: in Ephraim Hazan and Dov Schwartz, eds., The
Poetry of Philosophy. Studies on the Thought of R. Yehuda Halevi,
Ramat-Gan, 2016, pp. 207-220).

[11] Sefer
ha-kuzari le-rabbeinu Yehuda Halevi zẓ”l, Kiryat Ono, 5757.

[12] Kafiḥ states
that he used the text published by Hirschfeld, correcting it according to the
Baneth-Ben-Shammai edition. A comparison of texts indicates that he did not
always follow Hirschfeld and Ben-Shammai. In fact, in the edition and Hebrew
translation, he accepted certain emendations in the order of the text and the
re-assignment of sections from the King to the Sage, and vice versa, e.g.,
3:25-31. These departures from the original are very similar to ones made by
Even Shmuel (both mention the opinion of Rabbi Ben-Zion Hai Uziel).

[13] Cohen’s
class notes were published many years later as a commentary on the Kuzari
under the title Ha-kuzari ha-mevu’ar, edited by Dov Schwartz, Jerusalem,
1997.

[14] Judah
Halevi, Sefer ha-kuzari, Tel Aviv, 2008 (with my introduction). The text
is vocalized and section headings have been added (not by me), but it is not a
scientific edition.

[15] Jerusalem,
2010. In his introduction (p. 5), Shailat writes that he was aware that Prof.
Schwarz was working on a translation, but he decided to go ahead with his own
project because it was unclear when the Schwarz translation would be ready and
unlike Schwarz’s rendition into modern Hebrew, Shailat was translating it into
medieval Hebrew.

[16] Judah
Hallevi’s Kitab al Khazari, translated from the Arabic with an introd. by
Hartwig Hirschfeld, London, 1905.

[17] E.g., the
edition by Schocken Publishing House, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith
of Israel (various editions), which mentions H. Slonimsky as the author of the
introduction on the cover of the book, but requires one to search well to find
out that it was Hirschfeld’s translation.

[18] Cleveland,
1960, with many reprints.

[19] Yehuda
HaLevi, The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, translated and
annotated by N. Daniel Korobkin, Northvale, N.J., 1998.

[20] Amazon.com
lists many editions of the Kuzari. I have been unable to check them
personally. As far as I know, they are all dependent upon the Hebrew.

[21]
Reference should be made as well to the excellent French translation by Prof. Charles
Touati (1925-2003), executed on the basis of the Judaeo-Arabic original: Juda
Hallevi, Le Kuzari. Apologie de la religion méprisé, traduit sur le
texte original arabe confronté avec la version hébraïque et accompagné d’une
introduction et de notes par Charles Touati, Louvain, 1994.

[22] My student
Ehud Krinis discusses Shi’ite influence; see his God’s Chosen People: Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shīcī Imām Doctrine, Turnhout 2014. For Sufi influence, see Diana Lobel, Between
Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari. Albany, NY 2000.

[23] The indices
were produced by Prof. Schwarz’s son, David Zori, who took upon himself the
responsibility of transforming his father’s draft into publishable form.
Editorial work on the text was done by Ayal Fishler.

[24] Jewish Studies, 37 (1997): 267-271
(Hebrew).

[25] An edition
of Schwarz’s Guide, without the notes and with some corrections, was
issued by Yediot Aharonot in the Am ha-sefer series, Tel-Aviv, 2008. The
translation was also at one time freely available on-line until Tel-Aviv
University Press removed its site. Accessing it on-line is still possible, but
it is not as easy as it once was.

ביאור שי’ הגר”א ביחס למנהג העמדת אילנות כו’
בחג השבועות*

איתא בשו”ע אורח חיים (תצד, ג) ברמ”א:

ונוהגין לשטוח עשבים בשבועות בבית הכנסת
והבתים זכר לשמחת מתן תורה.

לשון הרמ”א צ”ב, דאיך מזכירים שמחת מ”ת ע”י שטיחת
עשבים בביהכ”נ או בתים?

מקור הדברים הוא במהרי”ל (מנהגים) הלכות שבועות:

נוהגין להשטיח רצפת בית הכנסת בבשמים של
עשבים ובשושנים לשמחת הרגל.

ובמעגלי צדק[א]:

נהגו לשטוח שושנים ועשבים טובים
בביהכ”נ לכבוד התורה.

ובמנהגים דק”ק וורמישא (לר’ יוזפא שמש[ב]) ח”א אות קב:

ומשימין למעלה ובצידי ארון הקודש וכן
במגדל [הבימה] שושנים ופרחים ועשבים המריחים ריח טוב[ג].

במקורות אלו (וכיוצא בהם) מבואר דהמנהג הי’ להשים “שושנים
ופרחים” ו”עשבים המריחים ריח טוב”.

מנהג זה מובן היטב. ריח טוב היוצא מעשבי בשמים מענג הנפש וראיית שושנים
ופרחים יפים מעוררים רגשי שמחה[ד]. וזהו שכ’ המהרי”ל
“לשמחת הרגל”.

מנהג זה שמוזכר לראשונה במנהגי קהילות אשכנז[ה] ואוסטרייך נתפשט
כמעט בכל תפוצות ישראל (כולל ארצות המזרח) אבל לא בצורה שווה.

בלקט יושר מובא מנהג בעל “תרומת הדשן” (נולד באשכנז אבל
כיהן ברבנות באוסטרייך) “לפזר עשבים ובשמים של עשב”, היינו שנוסף על
עשבי בושם פיזרו גם סתם עשבים.

וכנראה שבזמנו ומקומו של הרמ”א נתצמצם המנהג רק לשטיחת סתם
“עשבים” שאינם מריחים ואינם נהדרים[ו].

ונשאלת השאלה: איזה שמחה ועונג מתעוררת ע”י סתם “עשבים”
השטוחים על פני הרצפה[ז]?

וי”ל שלכן בא הלבוש (שם סעיף א) והוסיף בטעמא דמילתא[ח]:

ונוהגין לשטוח עשבים ביום טוב דשבועות
בבית הכנסת ובבתים זכר לשמחת מתן תורה שהיו עשבים סביב הר סיני שנאמר גם הצאן
והבקר אל ירעו וגו’ (שמות לד, ג), שמע מינה שהיה שם מרעה.

היעב”ץ בסידורו מעתיק אותו הטעם בקצת שינויים:

נוהגים לשטוח עשבים זכר למתן תורה שהי’ בהר
ירוק כמו שנאמר אל ירעו אל מול ההר.

וצ”ב, דהרי אין לנו שום מקור דההר היתה ירוקה[י] בעשבים.

בשולחן ערוך הרב (שם סעיף יד) העתיק דברי הרמ”א כצורתם
והשמיט דברי הלבוש:

ונוהגין לשטוח עשבים בבית הכנסת ובבתים
בשבועות זכר לשמחת מתן תורה.

וזהו. שמע מינה דלא קבל דברי הלבוש. כי דרכו של הרב להוסיף טעמי ההלכה ולא
להעלימם.

וי”ל דהיינו משום שאין זה טעם התחלת המנהג כמובא במקורות הנ”ל. ועוד, מציאות
עשבים סביב (או על גבי) איזה הר אינו נדיר, ואינו דבר המיוחד הראוי’ לזכרון.

לפיכך החליט אדה”ז להעתיק לשון הרמ”א כצורתו בלא הוספת ביאור.
ואיך שנבחר לפרש הרמ”א נפרש גם דבריו[יא].

בזמן המגן אברהם התפתח המנהג משטיחת עשבים להעמדת אילנות (שם
ס”ק ה):

נוהגין להעמיד אילנות בבה”כ
ובבתים. ונ”ל הטעם שיזכירו שבעצרת נידונין על פירות האילן ויתפללו עליהם.

גם מנהג זה וטעמו הובא ע”י אדה”ז (בסעיף טו).

אבל צ”ע למה לא ניחא לי’ להמג”א להבין המנהג כהשתלשלות מהמנהג
הקדום של שטיחת עשבים, אלא שמפני סיבות (כגון: שלא רצו ללכלך הרצפה בעשבים, שלאחרי
ב’ ימים שנדרסים ברגלי הקהל, אין המצב יפה כלל) לכן החליפוהו בענפי אילן?

ואולי י”ל שהן הלבוש והן המג”א לא נתכוונו להציע שהטעמים שהמציאו
הן סיבת התחלת המנהג, דפשוט שהעשבים הפשוטים נשתלשלו מעשבים המריחים, והאילנות
נשתלשלו מהעשבים. ולא כוונו כ”א לתת טעמים לקיים המנהג בצורתו החדשה.

והנה על דברי הרמ”א הנ”ל כ’ במשנה ברורה (ס”ק י):

מלשון המ”ב משמע שהגר”א לא אסר כ”א העמדת אילנות, אבל לא
אסר עשבים ופרחים. וכנראה שהושפע מהחיי אדם שהוא מקורו של המ”ב בד’
הגר”א (כמש”כ  בשעה”צ) שגם
הוא הזכיר שי’ הגר”א רק ביחס לאילנות.

בחיי אדם כלל קלא סעיף יג:

הגר”א ביטל מנהג מלהעמיד אילנות
בעצרת, משום שעכשיו הוא חוק העמים להעמיד אילנות בחג שלהם שקורין “זאלאניע
שווענטע” או “פינגשטן”. (ועיין ע”ז דף י”א בתוספות שם).
וכתבתי בזה בדין חוקות העמים, בחלק יו”ד.

ובחכמת אדם כלל פט סעיף א:

וכל דבר שהוא חוק לעבודה זרה אף על גב
דכתיב בתורה שהיו נוהגין בו ישראל, אסור משום בחוקותיהם. ולכן המצבה אף על פי
שהיתה אהובה לפני המקום בימי האבות לאחר שנעשה חוק לעבודה זרה כתיב ולא תקים לך
מצבה (דברים טז, כב). וכן שריפה על המלכים אילו היה חוק לעבודה זרה אף על גב דכתיב
בקרא ויש לומר דהם למדו ממנו אפילו הכי אסור.

אבל מה שאינו חוק לעבודה זרה אלא להבל
ושטות אם כתיב בתורה מותר, ואם לא כתיב אף זה אסור. ומטעם זה אסר הגר”א להעמיד
אילנות בחג השבועות כמו שכתבו האחרונים כיון שכן נהגו בחג שלהם (עבודה זרה יא,
א בתוספות שם ד”ה ואי חוקה).

שי’ הגר”א מובא גם במעשה רב אות קצ”ה[יב]:

בשבועות אין להעמיד אילנות כי
מאחר שאינו אלא מנהג ולא מדינא, ועכשיו חק העמים הוא, נכון לבטל.

וגם הכא נאמרו הדברים רק על אילנות.

עד”ז בס’ “שבעים תמרים” על צוואת רבי יהודה החסיד[יג]
(סוף ס”ד) מצינו:

כמה דברים מצינו שהי’ נוהג גבן, ואחרי שהגוים
הנהיגו לעשות ככה וקבעו להם לחוק, מאז בטלו אצלינו לנהוג כן. כמו העמדת האילנות
בחג השבועות שהי’ מנהג מאז ומקדם, ועם כל זה הגר”א ביטל המנהג מטעם הנזכר.

וכ”כ בעל “מנחת אלעזר” ממונקאטש[יד]:

מנהג העולם מאז להעמיד אילנות
בשבועות אבל כעת המנהג ברוב קהילות חסידים[טו] ואנשי מעשה בשב
ואל תעשה כמש”כ בס’ מעשה רב דמנהג הגר”א למנוע מזה מאחר שאינו מדינא
ועכשיו חוק העמים הוא.

עפ”ז הורו כמה גדולי דורינו (הקהלות יעקב, הגרש”ז אוירבאך
והגרי”ש אלישיב[טז])
שלשי’ הגר”א לא נאסר עשבים ופרחים.

ומי אנכי אזו”ב
הק’ כו’ אבל תורה היא כו’ ולולא דמסתפינא הייתי מעיר שכנראה דקולא זו מיוסדת על טעות
בכוונת הגר”א ש”עכשיו חק העמים הוא”.

כי הגאונים הנ”ל שנקטו שלא אסר
הגר”א כ”א עצים תפסו שהתכוון למנהג הנוצרים להעמיד עצי “יָרוֹק עַד”
EVERGREEN TREES
ב”קראצמעך”.

אולם בחיי”א מפורש דלא קאי ע”ז כלל[יז], שכ’
“שעכשיו הוא חוק העמים להעמיד אילנות בחג שלהם שקורין “זאלאניע
שווענטע” או “פינגשטן[יח]”.

והכוונה בזה לחג נוצרי הנקרא “פענטעקאסט[יט]”.
חג זה נוסד לחקות חג השבועות, והוא חמישים יום לאחרי חג “איסטער” שלהם
שהוא חיקוי לפסח. בחג זה מנהגם לקשט בתי תיפלתם (קלויסטערס) בענפי עצים ופרחים וכדומה.
מנהג זה, כנראה, לקחו מאיתנו. דכשהחליטו הנוצרים לחדש חג זכר ל”שבועות” מסוימת
שחגגו התלמידים (כמובא
בהערה יח), הלכו לראות מה עושים היהודים בביהכ”נ שלהם כדי שיוכלו לחקותם[כ].

לפ”ז פשוט דאין שום חילוק לשי’ הגר”א בין
אילנות לפרחים כיון שמנהגם לעשות שניהם.

וכן מפורש בערוך השולחן (שם סעיף ו) שאין חילק בזה:

וכתבו שנוהגין לשטוח עשבים בשבועות
בבהכ”נ ובהבתים זכר לשמחת מתן תורה .. ויש נהגו להעמיד אילנות [שם].
אמנם בדורות שלפנינו ביטלו האילנות והעשבים מטעמים שידעו הגדולים שבדור.

(כנראה מחמת הצנזור לא כ’ הטעם, אבל פשוט שהתכוון לשי’ הגר”א.)

והכי מצינו בהבאה אחרת של שי’ הגר”א, והוא בספר הלקוטים שהוא לקט של הנהגות
הגר”א שנערך ע”י ר’ מרדכי ב”ר ארי’ לייב אפשטיין[כא]. ובה מוזכר עשבים
(ולא אילנות):

בפרש”י עה”פ לא תקים לך מצבה
(דברים טז, כב) “ואע”פ שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות, עכשיו שנאה מאחר
שעשוה אלו חק לע”ז”. מכאן ראי’ למנהגו של החסיד שביטל העשבים
בשבועות, אף שהרמ”א הביאו, כי י”ל בימי הרמ”א לא הי’ להם לחוק מנהג
זה[כב]”.

הרי להדיא שהסתייגות הגר”א אינו במיוחד לאילנות[כג].

ובאמת אין שום ראי’ מלשון החיי”א הנ”ל (שהזכיר רק אילנות)
דס”ל שהגר”א לא אסר עשבים ופרחים, כי לא הביא בכלל אותו המנהג. ומסתבר
שבמקומו וזמנו בין כך נתבטל העשבים והוחלפה המנהג באילנות, ולכן לא הזכיר אותם.
וכמובן, שכן י”ל ביחס ללשון המע”ר וליתר המקורות שהבאנו לעיל (שער יששכר
ושבעים תמרים) שלא הזכירו שהגר”א אסר גם עשבים ופרחים.

ובל”ה פשוט דלא ל”עצי קראצמעך” כיוון הגר”א. חדא, דהרי
הגוים מקפידים להשתמש אך ורק בזן וצורה מסוימת של EVERGREEN, ולמה יאסר אילנות אחרים.
ועוד, הרי הם מעמידים אילן שלם, ואילו מנהג ישראל הוא בענפי אילנות[כד].

ועוד, והוא העיקר. בחיי הגר”א ובמקומו לא הי’ נפוץ מנהג “עצי
קראצמיך” כלל וכלל! המנהג נולד עשרות שנים לאחרי הסתלקות הגר”א בעיירות
בודדות במדינת אשכנז, ולא נתפשט עד זמן רב אחרי תקופת הגר”א.

והנה הרבה אחרונים הכריעו דלא כהגר”א, וביניהם: בעל
שואל ומשיב[כה],
המהרש”ם[כו],
הרה”ק מקומרנא[כז],
לקוטי מהרי”ח[כח],
והגר”ע יוסף[כט].

ועיקר טענתם היא עפ”י המבואר בראשונים ובפוסקים דבאיסור
לא תלכו בחוקות הגוים בענין ב’ תנאים, חדא, שיהי’ חפצא של “גויעשער” חק,
דהיינו שאין זה מנהג נורמלי וניטרלי המיוסד על שכל ותועלת שגם יהודים היו יכולים
לחדש מנהג זה, אלא כדי להאסר צ”ל מנהג שבעיקר מהותו שייך לגוים, דהיינו שיש
בו שמץ ע”ז, או פריצות, שחץ וגאוה, או סתם שטות והבל המיוסדת על אמונה טפלה (SUPERSTITION) ניחוש וכישוף
וכיו”ב.

ושנית, שלא נאסר לישראל כ”א באופן שהעשי’ נחשבת מעשה
של חיקוי לגוים אבל אם יש להיהודי סיבה נכונה לעשותו, שוב אינו נאסר.

ולפנינו מקצת ההוכחות לשני תנאים האלו.

בעבודה זרה יא, א:

“תניא שורפין על
המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי.. היכי שרפינן, והכתיב ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו? אלא.. לאו
חוקה היא, אלא חשיבותא היא”.

וביאר הר”ן (על הרי”ף):

לפי שלא אסרה תורה אלא
חוקות של עבודת כוכבים אלו דברים של הבל ובטלה, וכולן יש בהם סרך עבודת כוכבים.
אבל דברים של טעם שרו. ובשריפה על המלכים טעמא איכא לשרוף לכבודן כלי תשמישן לומר
שאין אדם אחר עשוי להשתמש במה שנשתמש בו הוא[ל].

והאריך בזה הריב”ש בסי’ קנח והמהרי”ק בסי’ פח.

ועפ”י דבריהם הכי נפסק בשו”ע הל’ חוקות הגוים
(יו”ד סקע”ח ס”א):

אין הולכין בחוקות העובדי כוכבים ולא
מדמין להם. ולא ילבש מלבוש המיוחד להם.. הגה: אלא יהא מובדל מהם במלבושיו ובשאר
מעשיו.

וכל זה אינו אסור אלא בדבר שנהגו בו
העובדי כוכבים לשום פריצות, כגון שנהגו ללבוש מלבושים אדומים, והוא מלבוש שרים
וכדומה לזה ממלבושי הפריצות, או בדבר שנהגו למנהג ולחוק ואין טעם בדבר, דאיכא
למיחש ביה משום דרכי האמורי, ושיש בו שמץ עבודת כוכבים מאבותיהם. אבל דבר שנהגו
לתועלת, כגון שדרכן שכל מי שהוא רופא מומחה יש לו מלבוש מיוחד שניכר בו שהוא רופא
אומן, מותר ללובשו. וכן שעושין משום כבוד או טעם אחר. לכן אמרו: שורפין על המלכים
ואין בו משום דרכי האמורי.

כל זה לענין התנאי הראשון שצ”ל אצל הגוים בגדר
“חוק עכו”ם”.

והגר”א אמנם חולק ע”ז כדהאריך בביאוריו על אתר,
וס”ל דאפי’ אם אין מנהג הגוים קשורה לע”ז או פריצות מ”מ אסור
לחקותם[לא]. ורק באופן
“שהיינו עושין זולתם מותר. וכן במלבושים. אבל כל שלובשין מלבוש המיוחד להם
אסור”.

ועכשיו בנוגע התנאי השני שצ”ל אצל היהודי בתורת
“חיקוי”:

בתוספתא שבת פ”ז ופ”ח מונה הרבה דברים האסורים
משום דרכי האמורי (כו”כ מובאים בשבת סז, א-ב), וקאמר שם בהרבה מהם דאם עושה
משום סיבה הגיונית מותר. כמו “הנותן מקל של אוד וברזל תחת ראשו הרי זה מדרכי
האמורי. אם בשביל לשמרן הרי זה מותר” (ו, יג).

ובשבת (שם, א) “כל דבר שיש בו משום רפואה אין בו
משום דרכי האמורי”.

ובסנהדרין (נב, ב) אסר רבי יהודה לבית דין להשתמש בסייף
להריגה משום דזהו מנהג הגוים ו”הרי אמרה תורה ובחקתיהם לא תלכו! ורבנן: כיון
דכתיב סייף באורייתא – לא מינייהו קא גמרינן”. והיינו דכיון דאנו עושין זאת
משום דכתיב באורייתא אין זה בגדר חיקוי הגוים.

ועד”ז בב”ק פג, א “המספר קומי הרי זה
מדרכי האמורי, אבטולמוס בר ראובן התירו לו לספר קומי, מפני שהוא קרוב
למלכות”. ובנוסח הרמב”ם (ע”ז יא, ג) “ישראל שהי’ קרוב למלכות
וצריך לישב לפני מלכיהם והי’ לו גנאי לפי שלא ידמה להן ה”ז מותר ללבוש
במלבושיהם ולגלח כנגד פניו כדרך שהם עושים”.

והק’ בכס”מ ובב”י (יו”ד שם) דכיון
ד”מדאורייתא אסירי היאך היו חכמים מתירין איסור של תורה לקרובי המלכות”.

ופי’ הב”ח “דלשון ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו לא משמע
אלא שרוצה להתדמות ולנהוג כמותם שנראה שמודה לדתם, וכלשון הספרי (ראה, פיסקא פא)
“הואיל והן יוצאים בארגמן אף אני אצא בארגמן וכו'”. אבל מי שאין דעתו
להתדמות להן אלא שצריך ללבוש כמלבושיהם כדי שלא יהיה לו גנאי, דבר זה לא אסרה
התורה, ולא עליו קאי הלאו”.

וראה גם בס’ “המספיק לעובדי ה'” לרבי אברהם בן
הרמב”ם (בחלק שתורגם ויצא לאור ע”י נסים דנה בתשמ”ט ע’ קנה ואילך)
שהאריך לבסס החידוש שרצה להנהיג, דהיינו להשתחוות אפים ארצה במקומות שונים בתפילה.
וחד מהטענות כנגדו שיצא להפריך הוא מזה שהוא גם מנהג הגוים. ומבאר שם בארוכה יסוד
הנ”ל, שכל שאין בעשיתינו שום כוונה של חיקוי הגוים, ואדרבה כל מגמתינו הוא
לקיים דיני התורה ומנהגי היהדות, פשיטא דאין לזה שום שייכות לאיסורא דלא תלכו
וגו’.  

נחזור לענין המנהג לשטוח עשבים ופרחים או להעמיד אילנות.

הרי לפי המבואר לכאורה מותר הוא מכל הצדדים, הן מצד עשיית
הגוים והן מצד עשיתינו.

לענין עשיית הגוים – בס’ יוסף דעת על יו”ד (מבעל שו”ת
שואל ומשיב) שם כ’ “צוויתי לשאול מהגוים על מה הם עושין זאת? והישיש שבהם
הגיד שאינו רק משום כבוד והדור הבית בעצים נאים”.

וכיון שיש בזה טעם שכלי הרי אינו בגדר “חוקת הגוים”.

ואפי’ לשיטת הגר”א דגם דבר שהם עושין עפ”י טעם
נאסרה, אם הוא דבר המיוחד להם ואנו מחקין אותם, הרי בענין העמדת פרחים ואילנות
בבביהכ”נ בחגה”ש, לא לבד שאין אנו מחקים אותם, אלא אדרבה, כל עיקר שורש
מנהגם היא כדי לחקות אותנו!

וא”כ על מה ולמה בא הגר”א לאסור דבר זה?

זהו תמצית דברי האחרונים הנ”ל שהכריעו דלא
כהגר”א ותמכו בהמשכת מנהג הפרחים והאילנות.

אבל באמת לא עמדו על כוונת הגר”א. כי דבריו מיוסדים
על שי’ התוס’ בע”ז שם (כמש”כ החיי”א). ואלו הדברים:

“תרי גווני חוקה
הוו, אחד שעושין לשם חוק לעבודת כוכבים, ואחד שעושין לשם דעת הבל ושטות שלהם[לב].
[ובאותו שהוא חק לעכו”ם] אף על גב דכתיבא באורייתא יש לאסור כיון שלהם הוא חק
לעבודת כוכבים דומיא דמצבה כשהיו מקריבין עליה אבות היתה אהובה לפניו, משעשאוה
האמוריים חק לעבודת כוכבים שנאה והזהיר עליה דכתיב (שופטים טז, כב) לא תקים לך
מצבה[לג]”.
ועד”ז הוא בתוס’ סנהדרין נב, ב.

אשר לכן כל מה שהבאנו לעיל בנוגע לאיסורא ד”לא תלכו
גו'”, דהיינו שלא נאמר כ”א באופן שהעשי’ חשובה מעשה של חיקוי לגוים אבל
אם יש להיהודי סיבה נכונה לעשותה, שוב אינו נאסר, אינו אלא בחוק שהוא הבל ושטות
וכיו”ב[לד],
אבל חוק השייכת לע”ז נאסרה בעצם אפילו אם יש ליהודי טעם הגון לעשותה שאינו
שייך כלל וכלל לכוונת הגוים בעשייתם.

ולכן בנידון דידן, לא איכפת לן מה שהגוים שמים פרחים
וענפי אילן וכו’ בבית תיפלתם רק משום כבוד והידור הבית בחג ה”פענטיקאסט”
שלהם, וגם אינו נוגע זה שהם עושין זאת רק כדי לחקות היהודים, דסו”ס כיון שזה
לכבוד בית ע”ז שלהם או לכבוד חג השייך לע”ז שלהם, שוב נאסר בעצם, ואסורים
אנו לעשותה, אע”פ שאין עשייתינו מתפרש בשום פנים כחיקוי למעשיהם, וגם מנהגינו
קודם לשלהם[לה].

ויש להציע מקור מפורש לשי’ הגר”א, והוא בספרי דברים
פרשת שופטים:

ולא תקים לך מצבה.
אין לי אלא מצבה,  [אשירה[לו] ו]עבודה
זרה מנין? ודין הוא, ומה מצבה שאהובה לאבות שנואה לבנים, עבודה זרה ששנואה לאבות
דין הוא שתהא שנואה לבנים.

וב”ספרי דבי רב” על הספרי[לז] פי’:

ר”ל מנין שאין
לעשות לנוי ולכבוד בשום מקום של קדושה אפי’ בגבולין ובחו”ל כגון בביהכ”נ
ליטע שם לפני’ דמות אשירה, א”נ שאר דברים שעושים להדור לע”ז כגון חמנים[לח] וכיוצא,
אפי’ שדעתו לשמים לפאר את בית אלקינו, מ”מ כיון שהגוים עושים דברים הללו נמי
לע”ז, אסור לפאר בהם בית אלקינו דמאיסי לגבוה. ועביד ק”ו ממצבה שהיתה
אהובה לאבות כדאשכחן “ויצב יעקב מצבה (וישלח לה, יד)”, וא”כ מדינא
הוה לן למימר לאו מנייהו גמרינן, ואפ”ה אסר הכתוב להקים מצבה בשום מקום להסך
עלי’ לשמים, כ”ש שאר דברים שעושים הגוים חק לע”ז להדור כגון אשרים
וחמנים, דודאי אסור לכבד בהם ולפאר לשם גבוה, דודאי מאיסי[לט].

עד”ז פי’ ב”תולדות אדם” להספרי לר’ דוד
משה אברהם אשכנזי בעל פי’ מרכבת המשנה על המכילתא (ירושלים, תשס”ד):

אשירה וע”ז מנין –
היינו שיהי’ אסור לנטוע אשירה אפי’ לנוי בעלמא או דבר שהי’ חק לע”ז והוא אינו
עושה דבר זה לע”ז אלא לשמה, אפ”ה אסור.

ולדבריהם מפורש בספרי דאסור ליפות ביהכ”נ בדברים
שהגוים מיפים בתי ע”ז שלהם ודבר זה נלמד מאיסור מצבה, וכדברי הגר”א[מ].

והנה לכאורה פשוט דכל גדר איסורא דחוקות הגוים אינו שייך כ”א
בדבר הידוע שהוא חק הגוים, דודאי ליכא חיובא לדרוש ולחקור אצל כל גויי הארץ מהו
מנהגם וחוקם ודרכי פולחנם לא לבד ברשות רבים כ”א גם בבתי תיפלתם.

ואם כן נשאלת השאלה, הרי רוב רובם מבנ”י מאז עד היום
הזה לא שמעו בכלל אודות כל המציאות של “פענטיקאסט” וכ”ש אודות
מנהגם ליפות בתי תיפלתם בפרחים ואילנות ביום זה. (וזהו אמנם הסיבה שהרבה אחרונים
תפסו שהגר”א התכוון ל”עצי קראצמעך” כי זהו דבר הנעשה (גם) בחוץ,
וידוע לכל), ואם אמנם נתוודע הדבר להגר”א, מ”מ כיון שהדבר אינו ידוע
לרבים מה שייך לדבר אודות איסורא ד”לא תלכו וגו'”?

אלא שלפי הנ”ל הרי זה גופא החידוש היוצא משי’ התוס’,
דחוקים המשתייכים לע”ז אסורים אף באופן דליכא בעשיית היהודי שום ענין של
חיקוי. והיינו טעמא, דשאר מנהגי העמים נפקעים מתורת “גוי’עשער” חק ע”י
כוונת ישראל בעשיתו, משא”כ חוקים האלה המשתייכים לע”ז, נעשו בעצם שנואים
למקום, ולעולם אינם נפקעים מתורת חוק האסורה, ולכן לענין איסור זה אין נפק”מ אם
החק לא הי’ ידוע לרבים (וממילא דאין בעשיית יהודי גדר של חיקוי), דסו”ס אחרי
שנתוודע הדבר אפילו לאחד[מא]
נעשתה לדבר השנאוי למקום כלפי היודע.

לפי המבואר, הנוסח המופיע בחכמת אדם שהוזכר בראשית דברינו
צ”ע:

“מה שאינו חוק
לעבודה זרה אלא להבל ושטות אם כתיב בתורה מותר, ואם לא כתיב אף זה אסור. ומטעם
זה אסר הגר”א להעמיד אילנות בחג השבועות כמו שכתבו האחרונים כיון שכן
נהגו בחג שלהם (עבודה זרה יא, א בתוספות שם ד”ה ואי חוקה)”.

וע”פ הנ”ל, אע”פ שהציון לתוס’ בע”ז
נכונה, הפני’ להחלק שמתיחס לחוק שאינו לעבודה זרה אלא להבל ושטות, לכאו’ אינו מדויק. דמנהג זה אינו הבל
ושטות, כנ”ל, ולאו מטעם זה ביטל הגר”א מנהג האילנות, כ”א מטעם שהוא
חק שכן שייך לע”ז[מב].

וביחוה דעת הנ”ל כ’ דהגר”א לשיטתו דחולק על
הרמ”א בהל’ חוקות הגוים שם (ששיטתו מיוסד על הר”ן, הריב”ש
והמהרי”ק, כנ”ל), וס”ל דאפי’ אם הוא דבר של טעם ותועלת אסור לחקות
הגוים, כמובא לעיל. ולשיטתו הוא דאסר הגר”א העמדת ענפי אילנות ופרחים. אבל
לדידן שנקטינן כהרמ”א ודעימי’ אין אנו צריכים לחוש לזה.

ועד”ז כ’ הג”ר אשר ווייס שליט”א במנחת אשר
עה”ת פ’ אחרי סל”ג.

אבל לפי משנ”ת אין הדברים נכונים, ומתרי טעמי.

חדא, דאפי’ להגר”א (שאוסר לחקות הגויים אפי’ בדבר
שיש בו טעם, מ”מ) לא נאסר כ”א דבר שאנו למדו מהם, אבל “כל דבר
שהיינו עושין זולתם מותר”. וענין העמדת ענפי אילנות ופרחים ליפות בתי תפילה,
הרי הם לקחוהו מאיתנו!

ועוד, הרי נתבאר שטעמו של הגר”א מיוסד על שי’ התוס’
ודעימי’, דבדבר השייך לע”ז אין שום חילוק אם יש להגוים, וגם, להבדיל, להיהודים,
טעם שכלי בדבר, דאעפ”כ הוא נאסר מחמת היותו שנואה למקום. והרמ”א הרי לא
קאי בחוקים שבסוג הזה[מג].

ויש להביא ראי’ מפורשת דגם הרמ”א ס”ל
כהגר”א דחוק השייך לע”ז אסור אפי’ אם יש לנו טעם הגון לעשותו – מדבריו
בהלכות ראש השנה סי’ תקפא:

נוהגים להתענות ערב
ר”ה. הגה: … ורבים נוהגין לאכול בערב ראש השנה קודם עלות השחר משום חקות
הגוים הנוהגים להתענות בערב חגיהם[מד]. (מקורו
בהגהות מיימונית הל’ שופר א, א).

וכמובן דתענית בערב ראש השנה אית בי’ טעמא, ולשי’
המהרי”ק שהובא להלכה ברמ”א ביו”ד, הרי לא נאמרה בזה איסורא דחוקות
הגויים. ובע”כ דשאני חוק המשתייך לחגי ע”ז[מה].

והנה הנוסח במעשה רב הוא רק ד”נכון לבטל”
המנהג, היינו דלא אסרו הגר”א בהחליט. ואם הנוסח מדויק צ”ב למה לפי
הנ”ל לא נאסר ממש.

ואולי יש לחלק בן הענין דשורפין על המלכים, דמבואר בגמ’ לשי’
התוס’ דאם הי’ משתייך לע”ז הי’ נאסר אע”פ דכתיבא באורייתא ואין אנו
עושין זאת לחקות הגוים, וגם הרי אנו עושין זאת מילתא בטעמא, דהיינו לכבודו של מלך.
ועד”ז לענין מצבה דנאסר אע”פ שהיתה אהובה בימי האבות ואין בעשייתינו שום
ענין של חיקוי. והיינו טעמא, משום דענינים אלו אינם מנהג של יהדות במיוחד,
כ”א דהם ענינים אוניברסליים שהיו שייכים לכל מין האנושי, ולכן כשאימצם הגוים
לענין השייך לע”ז שוב הם נאסרים משום “ובחוקותיהם”.

אבל מנהג שנקבע לראשונה ע”י יהודים כמנהג יהדות אינו
נפקע מ”יהדותו” ע”י שהגוים אימצוהו לעצמן, ובפרט דכל כוונתם בזה היא
לחקות אותנו. ולכן סובר הגר”א דיש מקום לחלק ולהתיר הדבר. ואעפ”כ, כיון
דאינו אלא מנהג, נכון להחמיר ולבטלו. דבענינים של ע”ז אין לסמוך על היתרים[מו].

עכ”פ אחרי שנתבאר שאלו שתמכו בהמשכת המנהג יסדו
דבריהם על הבנה מוטעת בדברי הגר”א, אין לנו על מי להישען להקל נגד הגר”א.

ויש להוסיף שכמה גדולי הפוסקים בדורות האחרונים נקטו כשי’
הגר”א לענין מנהג דומה להנ”ל. והוא לענין נטיעת אילנות בחצרות בתי
כנסיות לנוי. הדיון נפתח בעקבות שי’ רבי דוד ערמאה (על הרמב”ם ע”ז ו,
ט), המובא בהגהות הגרע”א (סימן קנ), שנטיעת אילנות סביב בית כנסת אסורה
מדרבנן מדין אשירה. אבל כמה פוסקים הוסיפו דאף אי נקטי’ דשיטה זו יחידאה היא ולא
קי”ל כן, מ”מ במקום שהעכו”ם נוהגים בזה בבתי תיפלתם יש לחשוש לאיסורא
ד”ובחקותיהם”.

הלא הם המהר”ם שיק[מז],
המהרש”ם[מח]
וה”חבצלת השרון[מט]”.

אמנם, אין שום סיבה לבטל מנהג ישראל כליל, כי כמובא לעיל,
המנהג המקורי הי’ ליפות גם הבתים בפרחים. ומנהג זה אינו שייך כלל למנהג הגוים, כי הם עושים זאת רק בבית
התיפלה. ונראה פשוט שהגר”א לא הי’ מסתייג מזה.

ולכן נכון
הדבר מה שנוהגים בהרבה משפחות להחזיר מנהג העתיק הזה ליושנה (כמובן לא
בביהכ”נ, כ”א) בביתם, דהיינו ליפותו בפרחים ושושנים לכבוד החג ולכבוד
התורה[נ].