Rabbi Steinman and the Messiah, part 1

Marc B. Shapiro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued

Excursus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**********

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

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

R. Ahron Soloveichik: “In Defense of My Brother”

Marc B. Shapiro

In his recent post here Professor Shnayer Leiman showed how almost magically, things from the past, thought to be lost, can be brought back to life as it were. I recently had the same experience. In my Torah in Motion class a couple of weeks ago (see here) I was discussing the Jewish Observer “eulogy” for R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. I mentioned R. Moshe Tendler’s strong response in the Algemeiner Journal (see here), and I further noted that R. Ahron Soloveichik also wrote a very long article in the Algemeiner in which he defends the Rav against the attack of a certain rabbi. (R. Ahron also deals with the Jewish Observer article).

For many years I have been trying to get a copy of R. Ahron’s article as unfortunately I never saved it years ago. I couldn’t find the particular issue at any of the libraries I checked. Even the family of R. Ahron was not able to provide a copy. Yet as Leiman mentions in his last post, “Miracles sometimes do occur.” In my class, I mentioned how I was not able to find the article, and I hoped that it could still be discovered somewhere. One of the listeners contacted me to let me know that in his grandfather’s papers he found it! ברוך שמסר עולמו לשומרים (The listener’s grandfather was the great R. Shlomo Schneider, author of the four-volume collection of responsa Divrei Shlomo.)

The Seforim Blog is happy to be able to post R. Ahron’s article, thus preserving it for posterity. See here.

Exciting Update: All of the relevant articles from the Algemeiner Journal (and other publications) relating to the passing of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik will appear in a forthcoming essay at the Seforim blog that I will co-author with Mr. Menachem Butler of Cambridge, MA, who has done extensive research into this episode over many years and has graciously made available his research for the Seforim blog readers.

In Memoriam: Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm z”l

by David Berger

In the early modern period, we find reference in the works of Jews in the Islamic orbit to the ideal of a hakham shalem—expert in both Torah and the various forms of wisdom. If we wish to be yet more ambitious, we can imagine an individual who supplements these already daunting characteristics with a constellation of exceptional personal qualities.

Rabbi Norman Lamm came remarkably close to meeting this extraordinary standard. He was a major thinker who articulated and embodied an ideal of interaction between Torah in its purest sense and world civilization and culture. He contributed to the academic study of Jewish thought. He composed works that inspired Jews to renewed and enhanced observance of mitzvot. He delivered shiurim to classroom audiences and to packed auditoriums, and he published a book of hiddushei Torah. He was an orator of almost transcendent talent; no one in the Jewish world—certainly in the Orthodox world–after Rav Soloveitchik came close. He radiated atzilut (which I would translate inadequately as an aristocratic demeanor) while maintaining genuine concern for virtually everyone he knew; he is said to have responded personally to every letter he received, and he sent congratulatory notes to friends and acquaintances upon reading a review or even a letter to the editor of which he approved. He stood at the helm of a religious movement, leading its central, indispensable institution, founding the Orthodox Forum, the Orthodox Caucus, and the Torah u-Madda Project, serving as the first editor of Tradition, and initiating GPATS, the primary expression of Modern Orthodoxy’s commitment to genuinely advanced Talmud study for women.

Several years after Gerson D. Cohen left Columbia to become Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary—and well before his tragic, debilitating illness– he told me, “I am out of commission as a scholar.” Cohen was a brilliant, driven figure of stunning intellectual breadth and vibrant energy. I often thought of this comment when contemplating the remarkable productivity of Norman Lamm as he led a much larger, far more complex institution, and I shook my head in wonderment.

My one opportunity to characterize an aspect of Rabbi Lamm’s multifaceted accomplishments came when I was invited to write the Foreword to the Deuteronomy volume of his Derashot Ledorot, a series made possible by my wife Pearl, who was then Dean of Yeshiva University’s libraries. She spearheaded an initiative—in consultation with Rabbi Lamm– to place the treasure trove of his typewritten sermons in a digitally accessible data base, which continues to register triple-digit hits on a weekly basis, available here.

In that Foreword, I wrote about my reaction to his sermons, noting among other things his linguistic brilliance. My favorite example was his striking reformulation in a sermon about the drug culture of the late 1960’s of a classic line by Marx. “Opium,” said Rabbi Lamm, “is the religion of the masses.”

I conclude with the following passage from that Foreword recording two memorable incidents unrelated to the published sermons:

One [of these incidents] left me with an enduring impression of Rabbi Lamm’s extraordinary sermonic instinct, and the other revealed a sharp, quick, and agile mind that supplemented the deep and serious intellect expressed in his scholarly and philosophical works.

In March of 1987, Yeshiva University held “A Centennial Event Honoring the Establishment of the Yeshiva University Archives.” Because the archives contain major collections relating to the Holocaust, particularly the records of Orthodox organizations like Vaad Hatzalah and Rescue Children, the program was entitled, “Zachor: Written and Oral History,” and Prof. Geoffrey Hartman of Yale, who directed a video archive of Holocaust-related testimonies, was invited to address the gathering. Rabbi Lamm’s role was to provide a brief introduction to the event. He was by no means the principal speaker, and he could have fulfilled his obligation with a routine comment or two requiring barely a moment of thought or preparation. His introduction was indeed brief, but it was more memorable than anything said by the distinguished visitor.

I wondered, said Rabbi Lamm, why the director of an oral archive would be invited to speak at the launching of an archive of written materials. But then, he continued, I realized that when the Torah speaks of the requirement to remember Amalek, the quintessential precursor of the Nazi murderers, it introduces the divine commandment as follows: “Write this as a remembrance in a book, and place it in the ears of Joshua” (Exodus 17:14). Remembering Amalek requires both a written and an oral archive.

The second episode emerged in the wake of a position that Rabbi Lamm took on a controversial issue that need not detain us here. A prominent rabbi in the Traditionalist Orthodox community responded in a public address with the assertion that Rabbi Lamm was a sone’ Hashem, a hater of God. The editor of the Yiddish newspaper The Algemeiner Journal asked the purported God-hater for his reaction. Rabbi Lamm replied with a single, brief quotation from the Talmud: “Those who are shamed and do not shame in return, who hear their disgrace and do not respond…—of them Scripture declares, “All who love Him shall be like the sun rising in strength” (Judges 5:31).

We have suffered the loss of a unique leader whose legacy will remain with us in virtually every nook and cranny of our Jewish lives.

Further On A Forged Letter of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

By Mosheh Lichtenstein

Rabbi Mosheh Lichtenstein is a co-Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion.

He is a grandson of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

It was recently brought to my attention that various readers of the Seforim Blog have expressed skepticism regarding the determination that the letter found in President Chaim Herzog’s archives and supposedly written by my grandfather, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l (hereafter, “the Rav”), is a forgery.

Moreover, some of the commentators have engaged in various conspiracy theories regarding the motivation and the accuracy of the claim that this is a fake letter. See here. Although I do not usually attempt to argue with such claims or engage conspiracy theorists and strongly suspect that penning this response will not necessarily convince those who refused to accept the original clarification, I will, nevertheless, attempt to present the evidence that the letter is indeed a forgery since I fear that future researchers may also question the denial and view the letter’s status as an unresolved issue.

Moreover, since there may be sincere individuals who are indeed skeptical of a forgery claim regarding a letter whose subject is a controversial figure and may suspect that there is an agenda behind the denial of the letter’s legitimacy, I am presenting the evidence for their review and evaluation. Thus, if those who expressed skepticism are indeed sincere and open to evaluating the evidence, it is my hope that they will review the evidence presented below and recognize that the letter is fraudulent.

At the outset, I must re-emphasize what was clearly stated by the editors of the Seforim Blog (here); i.e. that the determination of our family members who saw this letter and judged it to be a “crude forgery” was entirely based upon an examination of the signature, stationery and other such considerations and totally independent of any opinion, positive or negative, regarding the subject of the letter. Having stated for the record what should be obvious, I will now present the considerations themselves.

1. First, and this alone should suffice, is the error in the spelling of the name. The Rav spelled his name דוב with a vav in the middle and not דב without a vav. I have never seen a signature of the Rav without the vav and I challenge all of those who doubted our claim to produce a signature of the Rav, in his handwriting, without a vav. As there are a multitude of “semikhah klafim” signed by the Rav, as well as numerous letters that he wrote, I assume that this can be readily verified. I would add that, unlike dates or plain text, it is rare indeed that people make typos in their signature.

2. The Rav’s signature in the letter contains an additional conclusive indication that the Rav didn’t write it which is the mention of his father and his title. The Rav would use the title אבא מרי when referring to his father in his halakhic writings and famously utilized it in the title of a major work, Shiurim le-Zekher Abba Mari (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1984). However, he never used it when referring to his father, Reb Moshe Soloveichik, in his signature. Usually, the Rav signed his name without mentioning his father but if he did mention him, he always used the Brisker title of הגאון החסיד or variations of it and never אבא מרי. Thus, he might sign בן הגאון החסיד or בהגאון מהר”מ – see Iggerot ha-Grid pp. 139-140 for two such examples – but not אבא מרי as in the letter under discussion.

The vast majority of the letters that I have had occasion to see, as well as those published in *Community, Covenant And Commitment: Selected Letters And Communications*, ed. Nathaniel Helfgot (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2005), and originally written in Hebrew, contain the Rav’s name alone without any reference to his father whatsoever. Moreover, my impression is that the younger the Rav was and the more “rabbinic” and traditional or ceremonial the context (such as HaPardes), he might refer to his father, while in more political or non-rabbinic settings and the older he gets, he rarely signs as his father’s son. This is doubly true of the years when he had physical trouble writing (for examples of 2 late letters in very rabbinic settings in which his father is not referenced in his signature, see the letter published in the beginning of the first volume of the first edition of the Shiurim le-Zekher Abba Mari and/or the letter written to Rabbi Shemariah Gourary in October 1978 and published in a Chabad journal upon his petirah in 1993).

The bottom line is that the vast majority of all his letters don’t mention his father and this is esp. true in the later years. Thus, the very reference to his father in a very late letter to a secular political figure like Chaim Herzog might already raise suspicions about this letter, but the crucial point is that even when mentioning Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik, he is never referred to as אבא מרי. Presumably, the person who wrote this letter was aware of the Abba Mari title because of the book (which had just been published a year earlier), but unfamiliar with the Rav’s normal signature mode and thus blundered into applying the wrong title to Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik.

In an aside, I’ll also mention that the person who wrote this letter was not only woefully unequipped with knowledge of the Rav’s signature, he also didn’t know how to spell אבא מרי properly. Unlike the Rav, who was aware of the phrase’s origin in the Shas (Kiddushin 31b and Sanhedrin 5a) and its usage by the Rambam in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Talmud Torah 4:3 and Hilkhot Shehitah 11:10) to refer to his father and, of course, spells it properly, the writer of this letter can’t even spell the title that he chose properly (although I can’t rule out the possibility of a typo, I cannot but have the impression that this is yet another instance of the work of someone who simply doesn’t know what he’s doing).

3. The letter includes the title איש בוסטון together with the signature. I’d love to see another letter of the Rav in which he signed himself as איש בוסטון. Until such a letter is produced, I regard this as an additional example of the fraudulent nature of this letter since the Rav didn’t use such a title to identify himself. He was not Paul Revere and apparently did not consider איש בוסטון to be a defining characteristic.

4. A crucial element in assessing a signature’s authenticity a graphological examination. In our case, the signature of the Rav in the Herzog letter simply fails the most basic graphological test. Since a graphological analysis is by definition subjective, I preferred to present the verifiable objective evidence regarding the Rav’s signature prior to raising this point. I also feel obligated to preface my claim with two preliminary comments about the legitimacy of handwriting comparisons:

a. Halakhah and the American banking system that has utilized handwritten checks for decades as a prime form of payment rely upon comparison and recognition of an individual’s signature. The concept of kiyum shtarot, a major legal mechanism in Halakhah which is crucial to all legal documents, is predicated upon comparing signatures.

b. The Rav’s signature is quite distinctive and remained consistent throughout the years. A clear line runs between all his signatures, from youth to old age. In his later years, the signature is more frail and less forceful than his earlier signatures, but the basic form is constant and readily recognizable. The signature that appears in the Herzog letter is so starkly different from his recognized signature that this is a plain case of black and white and not a grey area. Had it been a grey area which required a judgement call, I would never make such a subjective claim, but the contrast here is so great that it does not require a judgement call. To utilize a Talmudic concept from a somewhat different case of graphological assessment, an average ינוקא דלא חכים ולא טפש could easily make this call.

To back up this claim, I suggest that the interested reader see for himself examples of the Rav’s signature in these years. An example from June 1983 is the letter printed in the first volume of Shiurim le-Zekher Abba Mari (first edition).

A later example, and even more relevant example, from Winter 1984 (probably January-February 1984) is this (from a dedication he inscribed to me in the Shiurim le-Zekher Abba Mari that he sent me):

One can notice 2 things in this signature: 1. Its basic consistency with his younger signatures 2. the frailty of his writing. The signature in the letter to President Herzog, in contrast, is inconsistent with all of the Rav’s signatures and does not express the frailty of his aging motoric skills, despite supposedly being written months later.

For a somewhat earlier, albeit still late, example, one can see the signature in the haskamah published by Rabbi Menachem Genack in his sefer ברכת יצחק, written in Jan. 1979.

In summary, the signature itself in the document under question is so full of errors that if it were a get, you could say that it contains almost all possible פסולים as it includes א. שינה שמו ב. ושם אביו ג. ושם עירו ד. ואינו מקויים .

From the signature, let us turn our attention to the stationery. Anyone who has seen letters of the Rav knows that the letterhead is always the Rav’s name and usually, but not always, his address as well. He does not use Yeshiva University stationery nor RIETS stationery. I have never seen a letter written by the Rav on a YU letterhead. He was not the Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS or president of YU – he was Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the Rav, and his stationery reflects this.

It must also be emphasized that this particular letter is purported to have been written in Boston where the chance that the Rav used YU stationaey is nil. I was with the Rav in Boston during the summer of 1984 and I can attest to the fact that he did not have YU stationery in his study that summer (nor at any other time that I was in Boston).

Thus, it seems fairly obvious to assume, although I cannot verify this, that ‘the writer of this letter’ had access to YU stationery which is dispensed to hundreds of locations but not to the Rav’s private stationery and, therefore, chose to present the Rav as writing on YU stationery, unaware that by doing so ‘he’ is undermining rather than bolstering the credibility of his forgery.

Actually, what ‘the writer of this letter’ is doing is even more bumbling since ‘he’ is not using proper YU letterhead stationery either; if one looks carefully at the letter that was reproduced at the Seforim Blog, it can be noticed that it is written on paper designed for internal correspondence as a memo and is not formal institutional stationery of the sort that is appropriate to use in correspondence with a head of state.

Another suspicious element is the copies of the letter that supposedly were sent to Rabbi Norman Lamm, Dr. Burg and Rabbi Michael Strick. Aside from the fact that to the best of my knowledge, it was not the Rav’s custom to copy others on his letters and this alone is room for additional suspicion, it is unfathomable to think that he would have Rabbi Strick’s name as one of those copied to his letter. Was the Rav even aware that Rabbi Strick worked in YU’s Israel office? Even if so, why would he copy him on a letter to Herzog which does not deal with YU affairs? For that matter, why would he copy Rabbi Lamm?

Since the Rav did not ‘CC’ people and was unaware of Rabbi Strick’s position, this, too, is an additional reason that at least parts of this letter must be considered inauthentic and the work of others. [If one were to argue that this anomaly is reason to support the letter’s authenticity as a lectio difficilior, I would counter that such an argument would be reasonable, if it could be established that the Rav was aware of Rabbi Strick’s role in YU Israel, but since this is definitely not the case, he couldn’t have copied on a letter someone who he was unaware of his position. Thus it is not a more difficult reading, but rather an impossible one and, therefore, proves its inauthenticity rather than its authenticity.]

Next, let us turn our gaze to the top of the page and the salutation of בעזרת צור ישראל וגואלו. Once more, I challenge anybody to produce a letter or document in which the Rav used such a phrase to refer to the KBH in a similar context (or any context, for that matter).

Although one could conceivably argue that he did not normally do so but changed his custom when writing to the president of Medinat Yisrael, I would not accept such a line of reasoning because of the reasons outlined below, but I would also emphasize that the Rav’s letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion does not contain such a phrase nor do any of his other letters to various Israeli Religious Zionist leaders. All of these letters were published in *Community, Covenant And Commitment: Selected Letters And Communications* and are readily available for examination. If one were to argue more ingeniously that he used the phrase only in a letter to Chaim Herzog because of his father, Rav Yitzhak Isaac ha-Levi Herzog’s involvement in the formulation of Tefillah Leshalom Hamedinah, he would have not only to claim that the Rav was attempting to compliment Herzog but also to establish that the Rav was aware of Rav Herzog’s role in the formulation of that text. Personally, I am quite skeptical of this for a variety of reasons, but I will not insist upon it in this discussion.

The crucial point regarding the use of צור ישראל וגואלו is that the Rav would never use such a phrase. Without entering into a protracted discussion of the Rav’s attitude to Zionism in general, a topic that much has been written upon, I will allow myself to state that while undoubtedly supportive of Religious Zionism, he was deeply opposed to three elements of Israeli Religious Zionism that he encountered in his contacts with the Israeli Religious Zionist sector. The first was the ideological position that Jewish Nationalism and its political expression are of the highest religious value. The second, not entirely unrelated to the first, was the perspective that viewed the establishment of the State of Israel and its subsequent achievements as highly significant stages in the Redemption. Regarding those who held to a position that he described as the attachment of “excessive value to the point of its glorification and deification” [of the State of Israel] (*Community, Covenant And Commitment: Selected Letters And Communications*, page 164), he defined them as delusional (the original Hebrew uses the phrase “הוזים” which is translated in the published text as “dreamers,” but which actually has a much stronger connation of delusion within it) and in total error. He was also very distant from a historical appraisal that saw the Geulah as imminent. As anyone who has read *Kol Dodi Dofek* or *Hamesh Derashot* is well aware, the Rav emphasizes the Man-God relationship in the context of Zionist history rather than the imminent realization of the promised Redemption.

An additional element that the Rav strenuously objected to was various expressions and formulas in liturgical or halakhic settings that were disconnected from traditional forms of expression and exuded a strong sense of a break with the past and the creation of a new religious language. I would not overstate the case if I stated that such expressions actually caused him to cringe. He certainly was emotionally distant from such phrases and did not use them. A famous example of this was his insistence upon the term “Eretz Yisroel” rather than “Israel,” but there were many such examples, some better known (e.g. translating the text of the ketuba into Hebrew), some not so well known. Even wearing a white shirt on Shabbos (“Israeli style”), rather than a suit, would sometimes annoy him if he sensed that it was an expression of non-traditionalism and “anti-Galut” sentiment. I can attest to this first hand כי מבשרי אחזה זאת. I spent time with my grandfather, the Rav, as a wide-eyed 17 year old youth who often expressed his Zionist sentiments in front of him and occasionally raised his ire by doing so. Once, discussing a related topic, he admitted to me that reciting a certain text was rationally the proper thing to do, but, nevertheless, expressed a personal emotional reluctance to do so because of its novelty and lack of traditional moorings.

Therefore, although this is admittedly a subjective criterion that I am attempting to avoid, I cannot believe that any letter that the Rav wrote or authorized – even to a head of state whose father was Rav Herzog – would contain the phrase בעזרת צור ישראל וגואלו.

Finally, I must point out an issue of content regarding the letter. As I stated at the outset, I am not judging the letter based upon any presumed attitude of the Rav regarding Rabbi Meir Kahane. However, the content of the letter is extremely problematic for totally other reasons. As can be seen, the letter concludes with a clear admonition and rebuke to President Herzog in no uncertain terms regarding his level of observance. Not only does the writer allow himself to criticize Herzog’s standards of public observance, an obviously sensitive topic for someone raised as an observant Jew, he also doesn’t shy away from introducing the extremely sensitive and intensely personal issue of Herzog’s relationships with his parents and children in light of his problematic observance of Mizvoth.

I will allow myself to state that the Rav that I knew, and I assume many of the Seforim Blog’s readers as well, would never enter into such personal matters and grant unsolicited advice and judgement upon his correspondent’s personal life and relationships. For that matter, I cannot imagine that any rational individual who is requesting a favor from a person of stature would conclude his message by rebuking the person and making it clear that he is a disappointment to his parents. Why the writer of this letter thought that this is a reasonable text is beyond me, but if he chose to concoct such a text, I do claim that the Rav would not, and could not, have written such a text. While this is admittedly subjective and, therefore, I do not rest my case upon it but rely upon the above-mentioned considerations, I do believe that the Seforim Blog’s readers should be alerted to this perspective as well.

I will not continue to discuss this letter, although much more could be said about it. In conclusion, I will add that I believe that many of the points that I raised above suffice to individually prove that this letter is utterly false; however, it is also important to emphasize that there is a significance to their cumulative effect. Thus, even if one can argue or suggest alternatives to a particular claim, the accumulation of so many suspicious characteristics is an additional consideration to recognize that the text is much too problematic to be trusted or relied upon.

Ironically, whoever thought to send this letter to President Herzog and to appeal to his zekhut avot as part of a letter requesting support for Rabbi Kahane was probably barking up the wrong tree by doing so. Rav Yitzchak Isaac ha-Levi Herzog, whose authority is celebrated in the letter, had the following to say about the issue of retribution and Jewish-Arab relationships in times of terror attacks, published on the front page of the newspaper Davar, Friday, July 8, 1938, and translated into English several months later in Contemporary Jewish Record 1:1 (September 1938):

Why did someone want to counterfeit a letter in the Rav’s name is a question that may be unanswerable, even if we were to identify the person who wrote the letter. It is certainly unanswerable without identifying the writer. It should be recognized, though, that the primary motivation may not have been a political agenda to validate Rabbi Kahane, although it is obvious that the writer’s opinion of him is somewhat favorable and that he is attempting to advance the Kach party’s agenda, but may be rooted in other realms. For instance, the writer may have had a psychological need to empower himself to speak as the Rav, for a variety of reasons, and realized this by counterfeiting a letter in the Rav’s name and sending it to a prominent and famous person.

Whatever the motivation may be – political or psychological – we must recognize that this is a letter that that was not signed or authorized by the Rav and that is what matters.

Correction and Apology For an Earlier Post

A few months back we featured a fascinating two-part post about newly discovered documents from Rav Herzog’s Archive.

One of the discoveries of the post was a document about Meir Kahane written to President Chaim Herzog by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in the summer of 1984 which was surprisingly supportive of Kahane.

A careful examination of the document by the family of Rabbi Soloveitchik reached the opposite conclusion. This letter is a crude forgery. Their conclusion was not derived because they disagree with the opinions expressed in it nor because they know that the Rav would never have expressed such opinions, but because of many characteristics of the signature such as misspelled name, the firm handwriting from the hand of a man suffering from Parkinson’s (comparing it to other autographs of the Rav from even earlier dates and the difference is immense), title and reference of his own father etc. It is simply an egregious forgery.

We apologize to our readers for posting and thereby disseminating this false piece of information.

Seforim Blog Editors.