Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner: Kabbalist, Talmudist, and Grammarian

by Marvin J. Heller[1]

Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner (c. 1610–84), a multi-faceted individual, was the author of varied works reflecting diverse contemporary intellectual interests. His books are both independent works and commentaries on earlier titles. A Kabbalist, Talmudist, and grammarian, Bochner wrote on these subjects as well as annotating numerous other works.

Born in Cracow, Bochner’s family was one of that city’s wealthiest Jewish families, owners of a stone mansion and two adjoining stores on Casimir place, a street otherwise without Jews. A student of R. Israel Seligman Ganz (1541-1613) in nigleh (revealed Torah) and of R. Jacob Temerls (Jacob Ashkenazi, d. 1666) in nistar (concealed Torah – Kabbalah), Bochner married the former’s daughter. Upon his father’s death in 1647, Bochner inherited a share in the family business and property. He elected, however, in order to further pursue his studies, to forgo his portion of the business and the properties in lieu of a life-long weekly allowance, selling his share to his three brothers a a sister. Initially, Bochner opened a free rabbinical school and associated with several renowned scholars, among them R. Lipmann Heller. Bochner, however, was subsequently called to serve as rabbi and head of the bet din in Ebenfurth and afterwards in Lackenbach in Austria, maintaining a yeshiva in both locations. He later relocated to Vienna, remaining there until the expulsion of the Jews from that city in 1670. His final residence was in in Fürth, Bavaria, where he passed away on Feb. 2, 1684.[2][3]

Bochner was a Talmudic scholar, reflected in his works. His primary lifetime occupation was writing, editing, and publishing books.[4] In this article we first address books which Bochner authored or seriously annotated, followed by other titles which he edited or annotated to a lesser extent. We begin with Orhot Hayyim published in 1654.

I

Orhot Hayyim – Bochner based his first composition of consequence, Orhot Hayyim, on the Minhagim of R. Isaac Tyrnau (1c. 1380/85-1439/52); it is an abridgment and annotation of that popular work. Orhot Hayyim was published in Cracow in 1654 at the press of Menahem Nahum ben Moses Meisels. It is a small book, a quarto in format (4⁰: [10] ff.). The Meisels’ press was established in 1630, acquiring the typographical equipment that had previously belonged to the Prostitz press. In addition to that acquisition, Meisels had new letters cast in Venice. Meisels’ publications reflect the Prague style, likely due to the influence of his manager, Judah ha-Kohen of Prague. Meisels received a privilege from King Sigismund III Vasa, later reconfirmed by King Ladislaus IV Vasa and the town authorities.[5]

Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim was very popular at its time and remains so today. In the Bet Eked Sepharim, Ch. B. 2Friedberg records thirty-two editions of that work, beginning with a 1566 Venice printing though an 1880-88 Munkatch edition, including commentaries and Yiddish translations.[6] Minhagim, a compilation of customs written in the mid-fifteenth century, records the religious conventions and practices of central European Jewry for the entire year.[7]

Tyrnau was born in the Hungarian city of Tyrnau (now in Slovakia) or in Vienna, but later resided in Tyrnau, Austria. He was a student of R. Abraham Klausner, R. Shalom ben Isaac of Neustadt (Sar Shalom), and R. Aaron of Neustadt (Blumlein). Tyrnau later served as rabbi in Pressburg. An interesting digression. It is reported that Tyrnau’s beautiful daughter was kidnaped by the crown prince of Hungary who fell in love with her and subsequently renounced the crown and converted to Judaism. The prince went to study Judaism with Sephardic rabbis, returned to Hungary and had a clandestine marriage with Tyrnau’s daughter. He continued to study, with Tyrnau. Catholic priests, however, accidentally became aware of the prince’s situation, and demanded that he return to Catholicism. Upon his refusal, he was burned at the stake and the Jews were expelled from Tyrnau.[8]

The title page of Orhot Hayyim notes the inclusion of material from the Zohar and is dated, in the year, quiet השקט in the month Menahem (Av) (414 = July/August, 1654). Bochner’s abridgment of Tyrnau’s Minhagim is described on the title page as:

Abridged Minhagim of the gaon R. Eizek Tyrnau with the annotations and many laws collected from the work of the great gaon R. Moses Isserles (Rema, Shulhan Arukh) of which the eyes of all Israel behold and from whose waters they drink and according to whom the halakhah is determined everywhere in these lands and by whom we live and from other poskim who have gathered in their hands the spirit of God. . . . All the customs and laws of the entire year done and mentioned, all the order of prayers and [birkat ha-mazon], piyyutim and yozerot (liturgical poetry), reading of the parashiot and haftarot, all explained. This book includes only that which every man does not know well. . . .

On the verso of the title page is Bochner’s introduction, where he writes that he has written this work because he has seen that the hearts of people are much troubled due to the many hardships and bitterness that have befallen us in our exile, harsh and bitter, in which we have forgotten many customs which are not so frequent. Bochner continues that the gaon [R. Isaac Tyrnau] ז”ל arranged them correctly albeit in a new order, found in most siddurim (prayer books). Nevertheless, it appears to him that they are not understood by all due to their length and errors occur in many matters. Bochner remarks that many entries are not arranged in order but rather are scattered here and there so that it is not easy to locate them. Also, in some instances, they are located in a new entry, others in the applicable laws. With the result that many people, of varying stature, lesser and greater “are astray in the land” (cf. Exodus 14:3) and in doubt about many customs and laws, as Tyrnau brings different opinions that are inconsistent with each other. Furthermore, the gaon, the Rema (R. Moses Isserles, 1530-72) who came after Tyrnau, made great effort as to “search Jerusalem with lamps” (cf. Zephania 1:12) for all the customs related to Ashkenazim. Many customs are found in the Shulhan Arukh that are not among the customs of Tyrnau. Bochner notes that the world is accustomed to follow the decisions of Tyrnau when in truth they should follow the Rema whose rulings they have “ordained and taken upon” (Esther 9:27) themselves to follow. So that there should not be two Torahs he has therefore arranged it with that in mind. He has entitled the book Orhot Hayyim so that one should know the way of life (Orhot Hayyim).

1654, Orhot Hayyim, Cracow

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

There are approbations from R. Gershon Saul Yom Tov, called Lippman ben Nathan ha-Levi Heller, and R. Isaac ben Abraham Moses Israel Eilenberg, a listing of the contents, and the text in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting 7a-b which are primarily in one column. Pages have the heading dinei from the book Orhot Hayyim. Isaac Yudlov observes that the text, as suggested above, is an abridgement of Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim with annotations and additions from the Rema’s Shulhan Aruk.[9]

There is only one incomplete edition that survives. It was part of Mehlman and now in NLI. Thus, all of the reprints are also incomplete. It was also republished in 2003, (Zikhron Aaron, Jerusalem), with Or Hadash. It is preceeded by a of part of Yudolov’s article that appeared in Moriah discussing the unicum and Bochner. Apparently Orhot Hayyim was not reprinted for several hundred years. the Jewish National and University Library catalogue records two later editions, that is Jerusalem 1994 and Brooklyn 2006. The former is incomplete, that is, selected portions of Orhot Hayyim, the second not seen.

Luah ha-Hayyim – Our next Bochner title is Luah ha-Ha-Hayyim, a popular medical work on dietetics. Published in 1669 in Prague by Judah ben Jacob Bak. It too is a small work, quarto in format (4⁰: 4 ff.). The Bak press was a printing house of note, founded by Jacob ben Gershom Bak (d. 1618) in 1605; eight generations of the Bak family printed Hebrew books in Prague until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Jacob Bak was succeeded by his sons Joseph and Judah who, from 1623, printed under the name Benei (sons of) Jacob Bak. After Joseph left the firm in 1660, Judah printed alone until August, 1669, when a libel suit caused a temporary cessation in printing. Two years after Judah’s death (1671), in October, 1673, his sons Jacob and Joseph were permitted to restart the press, afterwards publishing books with Hebrew letters until 1696 under the name Benei Judah Bak.

1669, Luah ha-Hayyim, Prague

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

The first text page has a heading and introductory paragraph in place of a title page, stating that:

“It shall be health to your navel” (proverbs 3:8), etc. For to the Lord, “For they are life to those who find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22).

Concise rules of behavior for a person for medical purposes, to maintain bodily health. This is a great principle in the service of the Rock, may His name be blessed. For the public good it is being published anew by R. Hayyim Bochner of Cracow. And it is ישקיט (429 = 1669). “For this was the custom in former times in Israel” (Ruth 4:7) and it has received approbations from the leading physicians. All these things are correct, “and right to those who find knowledge” (Proverbs 8:9) and thereby merit.

Below this brief header are approbations of two doctors, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Mattathias, both of Lublin, followed by the text, in two columns in rabbinic type with enlarged initial words in square letters. Luah ha-Hayyim, brought to press by Bochner, is frequently attributed to a R. Raphael by distinguished bibliographers such as Isaac Benjacob and Moritz 4Steinschneider, who note that Raphael’s name is formed by an acrostic of the initial letters of the first line, רבות פעמים אשר לקטתי .[10]

Luah ha-Hayyim provides dietary advice, such as not eating or drinking until one is hungry or thirsty; nor immediately after exertion; recommends wheat bread and pure sweet white wine, but in limited measure; strong drink made from wheat is also good but should be aged, pure, and clear, that being a sign that it has been properly and sufficiently cooked. One should eat more in the winter and in those long nights additional sleep is beneficial. It warns against harmful foods, among them fruit from trees, limiting those that are dried and especially those that are more juicy, which if eaten when not ripe are like a two-edged sword; and lists foods that are diarrheic. An example of the text is:

It is beneficial to let blood in the first three hours of the day, for the blood prevails over a person during the first three hours of the day. In the winter bloodletting should be done from the left arm, in the summer from the right arm, indicated by, “Length of days is in her right hand” (Proverbs 3:16). Bloodletting should not be done on a day when one returns from traveling nor on a day when one is intending to leave, nor should one go to the bathhouse that day. Also, on the day before and after one should refrain from marital relations.

At the end of the volume is the following tail-piece.

Luah ha-Hayyim was a popular work. It was also printed in Cracow in 1669 and reprinted by Johann Wagenseil in Altdorf, 1687, is one of four Hebrew translations in Exercitationes sex varii agumenti. [It appears on pp. 78-98.], accompanied by a Latin translation entitled Tabulae vitae…brevis introductio hominis, in viam sanitatis. In that edition the Hebrew text and Latin translation are set in parallel columns. In Prague in1688, Altdorf in 1697, and Berlin in 1699, as well as several later editions.[11] is Menorat Zahav Tohor (4 ff.), a kabbalistic commentary on Psalm 67 attributed to R. Solomon ben Jehiel Luria (Maharshal, c. 1510-64). The Berlin edition is printed together with R. Ze’ev Wolf ben Judah Leib of Rosienie’s Gefen Yehidit, an ethical work based on the memorial prayer El Malei Rahamim, and that commemorates what befell the Jews of Podhajce (Podgaitsy), Ukraine in 1677 during a Tartar incursion and massacre of the Jews.

Parenthetically, Bochner is also credited with a Luah Hayyim, extant as a 12ff. unicum in manuscript only. Written in 1684, shortly before his death, it is in the National Library of Israel, as a 12 ff. The subject matter of Luah Hayyim, in contrast to Luah ha-Hayyim described above, is the calendar.[12]

Or Hadash – Our next Bochner title, Or Hadash, was published in Amsterdam at the press of Uri Phoebus ben Aaron ha-Levi in c. 1671-75 in quarto format (4⁰: [6], 53, [3] ff.). Uri Phoebus ben Aaron Witmund ha-Levi, who had previously worked for Immanuel Benveniste, established his own print-shop in 1658. He would print about one hundred titles, from 1658 to 1689, the period he was active in Amsterdam, generally traditional works for the Jewish community, encompassing Bibles, prayer-books, halakhic works, haggadot, aggadot, and historical treatises (Yosippon). In 1689, Uri Phoebus ceased printing in Amsterdam, in order to relocate to Poland. He established a Hebrew press in Zolkiew in 1691. His descendants continued to operate Hebrew printing-presses in Poland into the twentieth century.

The title page of Or Hadash has an architectural frame. The text notes that it is a very small volume:

“full with the blessing of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 33:23) specifically birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin, as “men of renown” (Genesis 6:4) testify. Therefore, we said it should be printed, perhaps it will be a refuge in time of trouble for us, “to be enlightened with the light of the living Or ha-Hayyim” (Job 33:30), “and he shall plant the tents of his palace” (Daniel 11:45) . . .

The title-page is dated בו יגדל שלום (in which peace will grow, 431 =1661). The colophon is dated, Monday, Rosh Hodesh Shevat תל”ה (435 = January 28, 1675). It has been suggested that the colophon is a typesetter’s error and should read תל”א (431 = January 12, 1671), both days are Mondays, which would be consistent not only with the title page but also with the dates of the approbations, which were given in 1671 or earlier. The title-page is followed by Bochner’s preface with a border of verses, the first line is from the prayer book “Shine a new light (Or Hadash) upon Zion, and may we all soon be privileged to [enjoy] its brightness.” In the center is an acrostic of Bochner’s name, חיים באכנור Hayyim Bochner (above).[13] This is followed by twenty-six approbations from prominent Ashkenaz and Sephardic rabbis, among them among them R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579-1654) and R. Jacob Temerls (d. c. 1667).[14] The approbations are followed by a note of appreciation from Bochner (5b), his introduction (1a-6b), and then the text (7a-52b).

c. 1671-75, Or Hadash, Amsterdam

Courtesy of Hebrewbooks.org

The text of Or Hadash encompasses all the blessings of birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin, excepting those pertaining to prayer. Or Hadash incorporates Or Yisrael, by Bochner’s teacher R. Israel Ganz, as well as his Birkat ha-Nehenin, which is from Bochner’s Orhot Hayyim (Cracow, 1654) on R. Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim, as well as other small works.[15]Among its contents, in addition to the blessings over food, are benedictions for a talit katan, tefillin, talit gadol, fixing a mezuzah, lulav, Hanukkah lights, dam betulah, sanctification of God’s name, visiting the ill, comforting mourners, and accompanying a body to its burial. As alluded to on the title-page there is an appendix entitled Or ha-Hayyim, also on dietary issues.

There are copies of Or Hadash in which the title page has a variant arrangement of the text. The text of Or Hadash is set in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting headers and initial words. There are several attractive woodcut tail-pieces, among them one, appearing several times, with a hand pouring water from a lave and two fish on each side, all symbols of a Levi, which here would be the printer, Uri Phoebus.[16] Reprinted and re-typeset in the 2003 Zikhron Aaron edition discussed above.

Or Hadash is recorded in Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass’s (1641-1718) Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680), the first bibliography of Hebrew books by a Jewish author, the only one of the above works so noted.[17]

Tozot Ḥayyim – This is the only edition of Tozot Ḥayyim (the Issues of Life), an abridged grammatical work on the popular Perek Shira by the renowned grammarian R. Elijah Levita (Bahur, 1468-1549). Published together with Perek Shira is Bochner’s Ma’amar al Shimoneh Beninim im ha-cenu’im ha-peshutim ve-ha-Mercovim (Essay on the construction of simple and complex pronouns). Tozot Ḥayyim was published in Hamburg at the press of Isaac Hezekiah di Cordova, one of the first publications of that press, established in 1710-11. Tozot Ḥayyim was issued in duodecimo format (12⁰: 20 ff.).

1710, Tozot Ḥayyim

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

The title-page dates beginning of the work to Tuesday, 23 Adar in the year “In an hour of favor I answer you בעת רצון עניתיך (470 = 23 February, 1710)” (Isaiah 49:8).[18] The text begins that Tozot Ḥayyim is an abbreviated essence of Perek Shira, divided into thirteen stanzas and with the addition of Ma’amar al Shimoneh Beninim im ha-cenu’im ha-peshutim ve-ha-Mercovim.

Perek Shira, the first of four parts of a larger work by Levitas entitled Pirke Eliyahu, was first published in Pesaro in 1520. It discusses in thirteen stanzas the laws of letters, vowel-points, and accents.[19] Ma’amar al Shemoneh Beninim, Bochner’s contribution to Tozot Ḥayyim is a small work, beginning on 12b. The text is bi-lingual, comprised of both Hebrew and Yiddish (Judeo-German) entries, the former in a square vocalized font, the later in rabbinic (Rashi) letters, explaining the rules of Hebrew grammar.

II

Midrash Konen – Our first Bochner title which he edited or annotated to a lesser extent than in the above works is Midrash Konen, printed in 1648 in Cracow at the press of Menahem Nahum Meisels, noted above. It as a small 20 cent. work (8, 5, 4 ff.) published together with Ma’in Hochmah, at the end of the volume.

1648, Midrash Konen

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

Midrash Konen deals with creation, heavens, paradise, and hell. It reflects apocalyptic sources of the Second Temple period and mystic literature of the beginning of the Middle Ages. It was composed in about the 11^th century and first published in Venice in 1601.[20] The title-page begins that Midrash Konen is based on the verse “He established the heavens by understanding” Proverbs 3:19). The title-page notes that it was edited by Bochner,

Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal – Also printed in 1648 is Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal, also in Cracow, also by the Meisels press, in octavo format (8⁰: 13ff.). These are kabbalistic works. Sefer ha-Nikud is a mystical explanation of the vocalization and deeper meaning of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet; Sod ha-Hashmal is on the vision of Ezekiel. Both titles, written by R. Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla (1248–c. 1325), were first published in Venice at the press of Giovanni di Gara in Arzei Levanon, a compendium of seven small independent works.²¹

1648, Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

Additional works that Bochner contributed to are Tikkunei Shabbat (Cracow, 1660) based on R. Isaiah Horowitz’s (Shelah ha-Kodesh, 1555-1630) Shenei Luḥot ha-Berit. It was published in octavo format (8⁰: [25] ff.), the press is uncertain. At the conclusion of Tikkunei Shabbat are prayers to be recited at the conclusion of Shabbat. Another small title that Bochner added to is R. Ḥayyim Rashpitz’s (Raschwitz) Iyyun Tefillah (Amsterdam, 1671) on meditation in prayer based on the persecutions and the martyrdoms of Prague. Yet other titles to which Bochner is credited [he lists these, and others at the beginning of Or Hadash as written but yet unpublished] with having contributed to but not seen by this writer include Mayim Ḥayyim, containing homilies on Bible and Talmud according to the peshat, remez, derush, and sod; Beit Tefillah (Arba’ah Roshim), a grammatical and mystical commentary on the prayer-book, the laws concerning prayers; and Patora di Dahaba, a compendium of the Shulḥan Aruk unpublished [a portion (or whole?) was published on circumcision in 2003 as part of Sefer HaBrit].[22]

III

R. Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner was, as noted above, a multi-faceted individual. He was the author of varied works reflecting diverse contemporary intellectual interests. His books are both independent works and commentaries on earlier titles. A Kabbalist, Talmudist, and grammarian, reflected in the titles he wrote and annotated. In summary, the works addressed in this article, all relatively small, are Orhot Hayyim on minhagim; Luah ha- Hayyim, a medical work; Or Hadash on the blessings birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin; Tozot Ḥayyim, an abridged grammatical work; Midrash Konen dealing with Creation, heavens, paradise, and hell; and Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal, kabbalistic works a mystical explanation of the vocalization and deeper meaning of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet and on the vision of Ezekiel as well as additional works.

These works were written while Bochner was occupied with communal issues and Torah, for which he gave up his share in a successful family business. Not well remembered today, Bochner led a meaningful and fruitful life, and should be recalled for his lifestyle and personal achievements.

Half Faith, Half Heresy: Between S.Y. Agnon and Gershom Scholem

Jeffrey Saks

The bonds of friendship between S.Y. Agnon and Gershom Scholom are well documented in their writings and in the copious scholarship on the celebrated Nobel laureate and the revered professor of Jewish mysticism. In this context, the interview that Dan Miron conducted with Scholem about Agnon (broadcast on Israeli television in February 1981, a year before Scholem’s death) is noteworthy. The recording (part 1 not preserved; part 2 and 3 available) and the transcript of the interview (in Hebrew or translation) are available online.

Agnon and Scholem met during the First World War, in the reading room of the Jewish Community Library in Berlin. Last summer, we marked the centennial of the burning of Agnon’s house in Bad Homburg, an event that brought the writer’s fruitful stay in Germany to an end. On the night of June 4-5, 1924, Agnon’s fellow tenant set fire to his apartment in the shared building in an act of arson and insurance fraud, thus proving the Sages’ adage, “Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor” (M. Negaim, 12:6). The Agnon family lost almost all of their possessions in this fire. In addition to the manuscripts of two almost-finished books, “four thousand Hebrew books, most of which I inherited from my ancestors and some of which I bought with money I scrimped from my daily bread,” went up in flames, as Agnon later recounted in his speech at the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1966. Among these 4,000 books was at least one that Agnon had received as a gift from Scholem: the young scholar’s first publication, Das Buch Bahir, a product of Scholem’s doctoral dissertation. It was an annotated German translation of a Hebrew manuscript from 1298 of that ancient Kabbalistic text. The book was published by Druglin in Leipzig in 1923, and subtitled Ein Schriftdenkmal aus der Frühzeit der Kabbala auf Grund der kritischen Neuausgabe, which means: “A written monument from the early days of Kabbalah based on a new critical edition.” It appeared in a series called Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Jüdischen Mystik (Sources and Researches on the History of Jewish Mysticism). On the cover, decorated with a woodcut image of a Kabbalist next to a diagram of the Ten Sefirot, is the title “Qabbala.” The backstory of the publication of this dissertation—published at the height of the German inflationary period on a rather esoteric subject—is told by Scholem in From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memories of My Youth (Schocken Books, 1980), 142-143.

In the same year that he published his edition of the Bahir, Scholem left Germany for the Land of Israel, arriving on Yom Kippur 1923. A little over a year later, Agnon also left Germany and returned to Jerusalem on Friday, erev Shabbat Parashat Noah 1925. Upon renewing their relationship, Scholem gave Agnon another copy of his book in place of the original, which had been consumed by the flames in Bad Homburg. As an inscription Scholem wrote:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on Das Buch Bahir (Agnon House Library, #2473).

A gift to my friend S.Y. Agnon
May this enter the treasury of his books
Instead of Replacing the first one that was burned
From me, his faithful loving [friend]
Gershom Scholem

Like many new arrivals he was self-conscious of his Hebrew, making occasional errors in his speech (less so in writing). The inscription shows that Scholem had written and crossed out the word bimkom, replacing it with the more poetic tahat. Is there a hint in this edit (on a note to one he considered master of the Hebrew language) to this self-consciousness on the part of the new immigrant to the Hebrew Republic? Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Scholem deliberated between two job offers: teaching mathematics in a high school or working in the National Library. It was clear that librarianship was a better fit for his personality and interests, but he himself admitted that he was afraid that in school “who could say whether my pupils would not laugh at my Berlin-accented Hebrew?” (From Berlin to Jerusalem, 163).

The Agnon House library in Jerusalem preserves dozens of books, booklets, and offprints by Scholem, many of which bear dedications from the author to Agnon. Agnon, for his part, paid tribute to Scholem and he too inscribed books in exchange (see, for example, an enigmatic dedication from 1952 to his book Ad Henah, published by David Assaf on the Oneg Shabbat website).

One of the most interesting dedications is written on an offprint of Schalom’s well-known article “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah,” which was first printed in Knesset: Divrei Sofrim in Memory of H.N. Bialik, vol. 2, edited by Fischel Lachower (Bialik Institute, 1937), 347-392.

The article appears in English as “Redemption Through Sin,” translated by Hillel Halkin, in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (Schocken Books, 1971), 78-141 (the acknowledgment on p. 365 misstates the publication date as 1937 rather than the correct December 1936).

This is one of Scholem’s most important studies that broke new ground in understanding Sabbateanism, and it shaped all subsequent research on the subject. Later, the article was republished at the beginning of his collection Mehkarim u-Mekorot le-Toldot ha-Shabtaut (Bialik Institute, 1974), and just last year in a new edition edited by Yonatan Meir, supplemented with an introduction, a comparison of the article’s manuscripts and published versions, notes, and appendices (Blima Books, 2024).

In this broad-ranging article, Scholem sets Sabbateanism as a touchstone through which the continuity of Israel’s history should be reassessed. In his opinion, that false messianic movement led to a disconnect between Halakha and Rabbinic Judaism, on one side, and Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism on the other. The vacuum created in the space in between allowed the rise of modern movements such as the Jewish Enlightenment, secularism, and Zionism. One of Scholem’s well-known assertions in this article is that Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz was a believer in Shabbtai Zvi, as his contemporary Rabbi Yaakov Emden had claimed (see the Y. Meir edition, p. 52 and especially in n. 15). This claim provoked the ire of scholars from the rabbinical world, which may explain the Hebrew rhyme that Scholem wrote on the offprint he gifted to Agnon:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveira” (Agnon House Library).

Half-faith and half-heresy
Almost completely undisguised
To S.Y. Agnon, with friendships’ blessing
From me, Gershom Scholem

In the 1981 interview with Dan Miron, Scholem mentioned the fact that Agnon stood by him when he was attacked by religious and Haredi scholars who were upset by what he wrote in “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah” and in subsequent articles. Miron asked about this and the extent of Agnon’s interest in academic research in Jewish studies in general. Scholem replied:

He was interested, he wanted to hear details, understand my grounds for saying what I did. The details were what interested him, the research. He stood up for me when rabbis came and said to him: He’s such an aberration, that Scholem—a perfect ignoramus where the Torah is concerned, Talmud he knows nothing of—and he says the most outrageous things about Sabbetaians, and so on and so forth. Because so long as I wrote about the Zohar, nobody cared a bit, you see, but when I happened to mention in one line—after being convinced of the truth of it—that Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz had been a Sabbetaian—Heaven help me! Agnon’s friends from Poalei Agudat Yisrael—that was a large part of Agnon’s theatrics, his friendship with the Poalei Agudat Yisrael people—well, their rabbis called on him and they said whatever it was, and Agnon told them: “You don’t understand what it’s all about, you don’t understand what Scholem is doing.” So when I came to see him, he told me: “Rabbi So-and-So just left here ten minutes ago, and he called you a…” And he told me what his answer to the rabbi had been too. In a word, Agnon could have regard for a scholar when he considered there was some point to his work. And in all, it was a matter of individuals—respecting some, and some not—because research as such didn’t frighten him, because what did he care whether the Zohar was written at the time of the Tannaim so and so many centuries later. Agnon would have been the first to understand a thing like that. But the world of research in general—that, I think, did not exist for Agnon.

“Gershom Scholem on Agnon: Interview by Dan Miron—Part Two,” Ariel 53 (1983), 62-63.

It is unclear who Agnon’s Haredi “friends from Poelei Agudat Yisrael” were. It is possible that at the time of the interview, 45 years after the publication of “Mitzvah Ha-ba’ah be-Aveirah,” Scholem confused them with members of Mizrachi and the Religious Zionist Community, since among his staunch critics were Yitzhak Werfel (later Yitzhak Raphael, who also went under the penname A. Hashiloni) and Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1889-1971), both of whom were identified with Religious Zionism.

After Scholem deepened and substantiated his assertion regarding R. Eybeschutz’s Sabbatean beliefs (in a critical review of a psychoanalytic biography of R. Emden written in English by Mortimer Cohen), Margolies published a harsh response against Scholem. Margolies, who authored dozens of Torah books, was then the chief librarian of the Maimonides Library in Tel Aviv (now part of Beit Ariella) and was a distinguished Torah scholar. The current librarian, R. Avishai Elbom, published a column “Rabbi Reuven Margolies vs. Professor Gershom Scholem” (Am HaSefer Blog, 2021) reviewing the controversy that spilled over into adjacent topics in Zohar research.

Rabbi Reuven Margolies (1967)

Scholem, for his part, authored a twenty-page pamphlet published by Schocken in 1941 and titled Leket Margaliot (whose English subtitle would be: Assessing the New Defense of Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz). It is reprinted in his Mehkarei Shabtaut, edited by Yehuda Liebes (Am Oved, 1991), 686-706, with a bibliographical appendix reviewing the substance and stages of the debate. The pamphlet was a sharply worded response to Margolies’ criticisms.

A copy of the pamphlet with an inscription from Scholem to Agnon survives in the Agnon House collection:

Scholem inscription to Agnon on Leket Margaliot (Agnon House Library, #2839).

To S.Y. Agnon, my friend and comrade in the war against the ignoramuses (amei ha’aretz).
With blessings, Gershom Scholem

Agnon appreciated Scholem’s dual personality: an open faith and an almost undisguised heresy. As far as we know, he had little or no relationship with R. Reuven Margolies, who was also a native of Galicia, despite their common affinities. The years of Agnon’s and Margolies’ lives overlapped almost entirely. Margolies, a Lviv native studied in Agnon’s hometown of Buchach, receiving semikha from Rabbi Meir Arik (1855-1925), the town’s dayyan and posek, who appears a number of times in Agnon’s ‘Ir u-Meloah (A City in Its Fullness), a collection of his tales of Buchach. The Agnon House library has thirteen of Margolies’ books in its collection, but unlike the inscriptions that memorialize the warm friendship between Agnon and Scholem, there is not a single dedication to Agnon in Margolies’ books.

Rabbi Jeffrey Saks, Director of ATID and its WebYeshiva.org program, is Director of Research at Agnon House in Jerusalem and editor of the journal Tradition. Thanks to Profs. David Assaf and Yonatan Meir for their assistance.

Mavericks, Mystics, & False Messiahs: Episodes from the Margins of Jewish History by Rabbi Pini Dunner (Toby Press, 2018)

Reviewed by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

The first chapter of this book sets the tone by introducing the reader to the oft-retold story of the famous 17^th century false Messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi (1626–1676), and how he and his handler Nathan of Gaza bamboozled much of world Jewry. As the story unfolds, more and more people began to believe that Shabbetai Tzvi was indeed the scion of David sent to redeem the Jewish people, but the story climaxes with Shabbetai Tzvi’s conversion to Islam from which point more and more became suspicious of the dubious character. Although he died in near anonymity and was buried in an unmarked grave, the repercussions of his rise and fall still reverberate throughout Jewish history.

Secret followers of Shabbetai Tzvi, known as Sabbateans continued to exist for centuries after Shabbetai Tzvi’s death. They were known for their antinomian behavior and non-standard Kabbalistic teachings. The witch-hunt against Sabbateans led to one of the most explosive controversies in Jewish History, in which Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697–1776) accused Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz (1690–1764) of being a closet follower of Shabbetai Tzvi. Rabbi Dunner dramatizes this story in Chapter 3 of his book, peppering the narrative with details little-known to those who have already heard about the controversy.

In Chapter 4, Rabbi Dunner tells the sordid tale of a seemingly paranoid man named Isaac Neiberg from Mannheim who divorced his young bride of one week in the town of Cleves and fled Germany. The sordidness focuses not on the young groom, but on the rabbinic controversy that erupted over the validity of this man’s gett (“bill of divorce”). The question centered on what sort of insanity passes the Halakhic threshold to legally disqualify a person from effectuating a divorce.

In his concluding remarks, Rabbi Dunner implies that the ruling that this gett was not disqualified later influenced Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986), who ruled that a person who is seemingly mentally unstable in some aspects, but is not totally insane, is not rendered a shotah in Halacha. This reviewer had the privilege to sit on a bus next to Rabbi Meir Simcha Auerbach, a son of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910–1995), who affirmed that his father whole-heartedly agreed with Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling on this matter.

In his work Mateh Levi (§19), Rabbi Mordechai Horovitz (1844–1910) published a responsum that he ascribed to Rabbi Nosson Maaz (1720–1793), a judge on the Frankfurt court, that laid out the reasons for disqualifying the gett. Nonetheless, some have questioned the authenticity of this responsum by claiming that it was not really written by Rabbi Maaz. Despite Rabbi Dunner’s seemingly neutral position on this question, Rabbi Mordechai Emanuel of Beitar Illit, a renowned scholar who edited and published Rabbi Nosson Maaz’s writings wrote to this reviewer that a comparison of the linguistic expressions used in the responsum published by Rabbi Horovitz and those used in Rabbi Maaz’s recently published-for-the-first-time works reveals that the responsum is most likely authentic.

The common denominator among all the misfits and charlatans that Rabbi Dunner discusses in this interesting book is that each chapter has some connection to the City of London (save for the chapter about Shabbetai Tzvi): In his chapter about the Emden-Eybeschutz controversy, Rabbi Dunner mentions that Rabbi Emden’s father, the esteemed author of responsa Chacham Tzvi, was offered the post of the Chief Rabbi of London, but declined. In the chapter about the Cleves Gett, London appears again as the runaway groom’s destination. (By the way, that story concluded with a happy ending, as the young couple later reconciled and remarried.)

Another chapter focuses on the legacy of the folk-doctor Shmuel Falk (1708–1782), popularly known as the Baal Shem of London. He was reputed to have been a master Kabbalist and healer, and much lore has sprung up about him. Rabbi Emden accused him of being a follower of Shabbetai Tzvi, but that remains to be conclusively proven. Interestingly, for many years a portrait of Shmuel Falk was misidentified as that of the more famous Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem Tov (1698–1760).

Rabbi Dunner also presents the reader with a biographical chapter about the forger Rabbi Yehudah Yudel Rosenberg (1860–1935), who is most known for making the legends about the Maharal of Prague (1512–1526) and the Golem become mainstream, and for publishing a counterfeit commentary to the Haggadah Shel Pesach ascribed to the Maharal. Rabbi Rosenberg also published other forgeries, including a work entitled Choshen Mishpat, which claims that the twelve jewels of the High Priest’s breastplate have made their way to the Belmore Street Museum in London.

Other chapters in this book that pay homage to London by mentioning the Old Smoke include the one devoted to the peculiar story of Lord George Gordon (1751–1793)—a British aristocrat who led a failed revolt against the English crown (look up: The Gordon Riots) and eventually converted to Judaism—and the one dedicated to the fantastic tale of the escapades of an infamous Hungarian Jew named Ignatius Timotheus Trebitsch-Lincoln (1879–1943), whose various occupations include thief, member of the UK Parliament, international spy, and Buddhist monk. I am fairly confident that all these mentions of London are not unrelated to Rabbi Dunner’s hometown.

Although Rabbi Dunner presents this book to a popular audience and therefore did not provide the reader with well-sourced footnotes for every detail that he discusses (as befits a scholar of his caliber), he did offer a conclusion that sheds light on many of the different sources from which he culled information in preparing this captivating book.

Rabbi Dunner is a scion of a great rabbinic family and an alumnus of the most prestigious Yeshivas of contemporary times. He currently serves as a popular rabbi in Beverly Hills, but is also celebrated as a well-known lecturer, scholar, and social critic. His lectures and essays are thoroughly educational (and sometimes even humorous in his own way) and have special appeal to Jews of all stripes—including Hareidim, Religious Zionists, and even Secular Jews. Rabbi Dunner also boasts a magnificent and impressive collection of Judaica, including rare books, documents, leaflets, and pictures related to the history of the Jewish people. These resources no doubt aid Rabbi Dunner in his scholarly and rabbinic expertise.

How Dare You Translate Kabbalah!

by Avinoam Fraenkel

Avinoam Fraenkel’s new book, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah (Urim Publications, 2021), is a full facing page translation and expansive commentary on Shomer Emunim by R. Yosef Ergas, together with an extensive Kabbalah Overview systematically explaining key concepts of Lurianic Kabbalah in the context of a revolutionary framework of scientific understanding (see here).

His previous two-volume Nefesh HaTzimtzum (Urim Publications, 2015), is a full facing page translation and expansive commentary on Nefesh HaChaim together with all related writings by R. Chaim Volozhin, and a broad study on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum (see here).[1]

Before publishing Nefesh HaTzimtzum and Shomer Emunim, I sought the feedback and approbation of several scholarly Kabbalists of note. Most were warmly encouraging and actively supportive. However, I encountered some who vigorously opposed any form of translation of Kabbalistic texts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic and who fundamentally challenged my objectives in the strongest terms.

When subsequently approaching potential publishers, I discovered that this vocal group exerts substantial influence over various Jewish publishers serving the ultra-orthodox community. In 1996, Artscroll/Mesorah Publications was halfway into a Nefesh HaChaim translation project, when the project was suddenly shelved following the intervention of a respected Kabbalist.[2] I understand from an authoritative senior source at Artscroll, that the project was stopped as they were fearful that continuing would jeopardize their multimillion-dollar Talmud business. As a result, to this day, they do not publish serious Kabbalah works in English. For example, their publication of an English translation of Nachmanides/Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, while keeping the original Hebrew intact, omits the translation of all the many Kabbalistic comments. Feldheim Publishers, who act as a distribution channel for several Jewish book publishers, also refused to distribute English Kabbalah works.[3]

Then we have Judaica Press who published what they claim is a translation of Nefesh HaChaim, where in the translator’s introduction it states “Please note: The sections of Nefesh HaChaim dealing with Kabbalistic subjects have been omitted, as the subject matter is not suitable for translation.”[4] Given that Nefesh HaChaim is a Kabbalistic work with its primary messages expressed in Kabbalistic language, it is beyond comprehension how Judaica Press can consider their publication to be anything other than a radical distortion of the original work. Not only is the English translation severely expurgated and summarized, without any hint given to its reader either in its Hebrew or English sections, the original Hebrew text published at the back of the book has also undergone a drastic act of editing. It entirely omits R. Chaim Volozhin’s fifty-two notes, many of which are lengthy and Kabbalistic, amounting to a major part of the original Hebrew text, that were written and published as an integral part of Nefesh HaChaim.[5]

The Kabbalists of this genre that I encountered very firmly expressed their objection. Primarily, there were those who argued that the subtle and diverse array of multiple meanings and nuances of both names and expression of the Kabbalistic concepts, embedded within the original Hebrew/Aramaic, are entirely lost in translation. This, they explained, would result in a translated text that diverges from the original, misleading its reader into thinking that it may accurately capture at least some of the depth encrypted in the original. Surprisingly to me, they suggested this to be the case even when translating basic introductory texts that were specifically designed to combat widespread misinformation and distortion of Kabbalistic concepts. One such example is Shomer Emunim, which communicates the basic concepts simply, clearly and unambiguously, so that they cannot be taken out of context.[6] 

Remarkably, another view expressed by one individual, went even further. This view additionally holds that just as it is forbidden to eat non-Kosher meat, so too, it is forbidden to use either a foreign language or even scientific analogies to express Kabbalistic concepts!

These Kabbalists hardly pointed to any sources to support their position of forbidding the translation of Kabbalistic texts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic. We will soon look at the key points from the sources and arguments they did provide to appreciate the basis of their position.

However, before doing so, it is important to briefly examine why the communication of Kabbalistic ideas was historically considered so sensitive in general, even in its original language, thus generating a Kabbalistic culture that fostered an aversion to public discourse. In contrast, over the centuries there have been several highly esteemed Kabbalists who very openly broke rank and chose to record these concepts in a format for wider consumption. There were several primary factors and various historical triggers that motivated them to do so and for the purpose of this essay it will be helpful to focus on one of these triggers. It will then be relevant to reflect on the nature of contemporary access to Kabbalah by the many who are currently intrigued with it.

Kabbalah is the inner understanding of the depth of Torah. Given that Torah is the blueprint for all creation and for everything we see in the natural world around us, Kabbalah is therefore the body of knowledge that captures the underlying essence of God’s Creation.[7] As an essential part of the Torah, there is an obligation to study it just like every other part of the Torah. For example, the Baal HaTanya sets out a syllabus for an adult beginner in Torah study that includes a portion on Kabbalah, and advocates that the proportion of Kabbalah study is to increase as the beginner advances. In particular, there is a substantial obligation for every Torah scholar to study it.[8]

However, while Kabbalah study should certainly be an aspiration for all who study the Torah, R. Ergas also highlights that it is not necessarily for everybody and quotes the Lurianic caution for those beginning its study. In introducing this caution he states, “The foundations of the Kabbalah and the paths of Divine Wisdom are such that not every person is suited to search out and be involved with them as not everyone who wants to take God’s Name, [i.e., to study Kabbalistic knowledge,] should do so.”[9] Primary requirements for such engagement include a genuine aspiration for increased personal improvement, a rechanneling of life focus from physical pursuits to intellectually guided spiritual goals, and a maturity of understanding.[10] A Kabbalah teacher should therefore be discerning in choosing a student, as R. Ergas states based on a source from the Zohar, “It is incumbent on the teacher to only teach one who properly serves God.”[11]

Historically, after Moshe received the Torah on Mount Sinai and handed it over to the Jewish People, it was fervently transmitted from generation to generation. In contrast to the rest of the Torah, however, the transmission of Kabbalah from generation to generation has been heavily restricted. Instead of being passed down the generations via the entirety of the Jewish People like the rest of the Torah, the Kabbalistic tradition has been passed down via select individuals in each generation. These select individuals were all rabbinic sages of the highest caliber, however, while many were well-known, this chain also often included sages who were completely unknown.

This mode of transmission was very necessary due to the subtle nature of Kabbalistic concepts, especially in the earlier generations. Due to the limitations of human language to express these subtle non-physical ideas, it was all too easy for the highly cryptic expression of these concepts using human physically related language to be completely misinterpreted and used to build a physicalized perspective of God, either in a partial or complete way. Since a belief in any form of a physicalized perspective of God fundamentally contravenes the Jewish Faith, there was no choice but to restrict the Kabbalistic transmission to individuals of sterling character and maturity of understanding, with whom there would be zero risk of misinterpretation.[12]

During and beyond the Middle Ages, with the circulation of ancient cryptic Kabbalistic manuscripts, and particularly in the subsequent age of printing when these texts were frequently published, Kabbalistic ideas became increasingly widespread. The great fear the rabbinic sages had of the risk of distortion of the Kabbalah in physical terms, materialized in the most dramatic and public way with the appearance of the false messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi, in the mid-17^th century. Shabbetai Tzvi distorted Kabbalistic concepts to justify gross Halachic malpractice, licensing flagrant and unspeakable transgressions of Jewish Law. With his extraordinary charisma, he spawned a wide following and sparked a movement that from approximately 1650 until 1800, attracted and led astray many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Jewish followers from authentic Judaism.

With the episode of the Shabbetai Tzvi, several great Kabbalist sages felt compelled to break rank from their avoidance of publicly explaining and widely sharing Kabbalistic concepts. The Kabbalistic concepts were already in the public domain, however the misinformation surrounding them now had to be urgently corrected to stem the flow away from authentic Judaism.

One example was R. Ergas, who was engaged in a vitriolic polemic with a follower of the school of Shabbetai Tzvi, Nechemia Chiya Chayun,[13] who distorted Kabbalistic principles, including the framing of God in a physical context. R. Ergas vigorously attacked Chayun’s position in his polemic work Tochachat Megula, expressing his intention to set the record straight by providing an explanation of these principles, commenting as follows:

If God grants [me] life, I will be the talebearer who reveals secrets that are hidden and hinted at about these [Kabbalistic] matters. [To explain] what is Tzimtzum? What is Makom Panui/Empty Space? What are the pipe[/Kav], dissemination, removal, marital relations, pregnancy and other similar expressions? To save students from error so that they should not stumble and be trapped in the net of error and distortion as happened to this excommunicated one, [to Nechemia Chiya Chayun].[14] 

R. Ergas expressed the inappropriateness of such a future act of revelation by stating that he would be a “talebearer who reveals secrets.”[15] Nevertheless, the circumstances of those times dictated that he must save future students from error. He did indeed subsequently materialize this intention in his writing of Shomer Emunim, whose succinct clarity of explanation of basic Kabbalistic concepts is striking.

Another stark example was from R. Ergas’ contemporary, R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, who also attacked the Sabbatians in his work Kinat Hashem Tzvaot. This work addresses what the Ramchal perceived to be fundamental Sabbatian errors in the way they misinterpreted Kabbalistic concepts to license committing terribly sinful acts of lust. The Ramchal felt the urgent need to explain some very deep Kabbalistic secrets that had not previously been publicly explained. His motivation was that they would no longer be taken out of context and pose what he saw as nothing less than a life-threatening risk to the continuity of Judaism. In doing so he repeatedly justified the need to explain these matters and to override the strict policy of silence over them. In one of several such justifications he commented as follows:

Dear reader, know that I need to tell you the most awesome and significant secrets here in Part Two. Matters that stand at the highest point of the Universe, about which it states … “it is God’s honor to conceal a matter.”[16] However, you should know that “everything has its season and there is a time for everything,”[17]for it is “a time to act for God, they have voided Your teaching.”[18] Just as we were commanded to be silent about the smallest or greatest details of these exalted matters, so too, there is a great commandment and imposed obligation to save many great lives from the current destruction. There are substances that kill a healthy person but heal the sick, for “there is a time for silence and a time to speak.”[19] Since the area of failure of these foolish boors [the Sabbatians,] is with the roots of the Holy Wisdom [of the Kabbalah], I must therefore reveal these roots in their proper context, to properly establish them and to extract them from their untrue [Sabbatian] falsehood.[20]

While, during the Sabbatian crisis, individual Kabbalists responded to it by clarifying the distorted Kabbalistic concepts, the overarching rabbinic response was to publicly impose restrictions on Kabbalah study to dampen its allure. For example, the Brody ban of 1756 forbade the study of almost all Kabbalistic works for people under the age of 40. This was in response to a resurgence of a cult branch of Sabbatianism under the auspices of Jacob Frank and his followers, the “Frankists.” Although this policy of restriction may have eventually been successful, with Sabbatianism and its offshoots eventually dying out around 1800, nevertheless it added to the mystique surrounding the Kabbalah.

Moving forward to today and the age of the internet, not only does the mystique surrounding Kabbalah study still exist, it is also greatly accentuated due to the ease of access to information over the internet. There are many genuine knowledge seekers who are intrigued by the now very widely discussed Kabbalistic concepts and are thirsting to deepen their understanding. However, almost invariably and unknown to many of these seekers, the Kabbalistic information currently available via internet articles and presentations, and in the plethora of available books, is generally highly misleading and distorted. The presentation of Kabbalah information tends to present watered-down ideas based on secondary indirect sources, with the ideas for the most part being transformed into oversimplified motivational, behavioral and ethical messages, taken far from their original context. These watered-down ideas are also often used as a medium to support various disciplines of study, many of which are New Age related, but also appear in some more traditional disciplines such as psychology. In addition, it is unfortunately often the case that many of these distorted Kabbalistic ideas are disseminated by charlatan organizations and individuals, motivated primarily by financial gain. In sum, there are currently many thirsting for a real understanding of the depth of Jewish thought and for true Kabbalistic knowledge, who are unwittingly forced to quench their thirst with distorted information.

Against this background there is a Kabbalistic tradition brought in the Zohar that “as we draw closer to the future redemption, even children will be able to relate to hidden wisdom … and at that time it will be revealed to all.”[21] This piece from the Zohar elaborates with a depiction of a simultaneous opening of the gates of Kabbalistic and scientific knowledge from the year 1840 onwards together with the subsequent continued acceleration of the revelation of both these areas of knowledge over time. Before the “opening of the gates” the sheer depth of abstract subtlety of the Kabbalistic concepts made them impossible to transmit except on a one-to-one basis to a select few individuals alone. These individuals were able to relate to the concepts, even though they were framed with highly limited human language, without misinterpreting the vagueness of the analogies that were available at the time. The Zohar’s reference to the opening of the gates of both Kabbalistic and scientific knowledge is not accidental. It is the opening of the gates of scientific knowledge that acts as the primary key to provide a language of expression with more accurate and relatable analogies, enabling ordinary people to relate to the deepest Kabbalistic ideas in the run-up to Messianic times.[22]

Looking at the world around us it is impossible to miss the exponential pace of accelerating increase in scientific and technological knowledge. The Zohar predicts that there will be a corresponding increase in Kabbalistic understanding. Some Kabbalistic concepts can already be related to using analogies from relatively recent scientific discoveries, and as the Zohar notes, even by children.[23] As demonstrated in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, several fundamental Kabbalistic concepts can now be properly related to using very recently understood scientific concepts and language. These Kabbalistic concepts are therefore now truly accessible to the wider public in a way they have never previously been, and most importantly, without any danger of misinterpretation.

However, the sheer volume of distorted Kabbalistic information that is currently available is seriously preventing many from properly learning Kabbalah, and by extension from learning Torah. There are many who as a result of this distortion, disconnect Kabbalah from Torah and think they can be studied independently of one another. They engage with what they believe to be Kabbalah, often unwittingly disconnected from Torah, and with no appreciation of the depth of Kabbalah’s intrinsic and vital connection to Torah.

It is therefore incumbent upon those who are familiar with real Torah true Kabbalistic knowledge, to make this information widely and publicly available. In particular, it is imperative for them to use various languages, together with analogies of contemporary science, as mediums through which the many can now genuinely relate to the underlying concepts. As was the case in R. Ergas’ and the Ramchal’s day, now is also a “a time to act for God,” as those who earnestly search for true knowledge can have their thirst quenched with real Kabbalistic understanding framed in a language they understand and genuinely relatable contemporary analogies.

With all the above in mind, let us now return to the arguments of those few scholarly Kabbalists who vigorously oppose any form of translation of Kabbalistic concepts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic. A primary source they quote is a responsum of the Kabbalist, R. Yosef Chayim of Baghdad, the Ben Ish Chai,[24] answering a question posed to him if it is permissible to translate and publish one of the most esoteric sections of the Zohar, the Idra Rabba, into Arabic or other languages. A detailed English outline together with a link to the full original Hebrew text of this responsum is brought in the note.[25]

The opening comments of this responsum suggest that it may indeed have been the first responsum forbidding the translation of esoteric Kabbalistic texts. This could account for why this was the only authoritative Kabbalistic focused source quoted to me by the few Kabbalists I encountered who insisted that Kabbalah must not be translated into English.

The key points expressed by the Ben Ish Chai in this responsum are as follows:

• The Kabbalistic texts – in particular the Zohar and the Lurianic texts (and also the texts of Shir HaShirim, and of the Aggadah/story narrative of the Talmud) – refer to God, His Attributes and Actions, in highly physical terms. Nevertheless, they are written in a highly esoteric and cryptic way, such that there is absolutely no literal meaning of their words. The keys to unlock the cryptic information were handed down, by word of mouth only, to individuals of great stature, and even then, almost always partially. Therefore, a literal translation of these texts cannot even begin to capture any truth of their meaning and can only mislead its reader into thinking that any understanding of the underlying text has been conveyed. Much worse, it can convince its reader that God can be related to blasphemously in physical terms.
• Furthermore, the Ben Ish Chai understands that the Zohar was specifically written with Divine inspiration like the text of Jewish prayer, such that in addition to its words being written in the form of a deeply encrypted analogy, there is another dimension of encoded esoteric concepts. These encoded concepts are contained within the specific letter sequences and numerical values of the words and phrases of the Zohar. This clearly cannot even be vaguely hinted to in any form of translated text. The Ben Ish Chai therefore concludes that it is forbidden to translate the Zohar.
• A final point is made by quoting a section from Shomer Emunim highlighting the sheer importance of not framing the Sefirot in a physical context, such that one should only focus on the concept of each Sefira and on the image of the Hebrew letters from which its name is constructed. The Ben Ish Chai understands from this that when the Sefirot names are translated, the letters of the translated names do not represent the same underlying encoded concepts as the original Hebrew names. A translation of these Sefirot names therefore bears no relationship with their original intended meaning.

The Ben Ish Chai’s position is crystal clear. He strongly forbids the literal translation of any Kabbalistic text that is written in a deeply cryptic style for fear of physicalizing God. However, he does not forbid a non-literal, highly explanatory translation of an encrypted Kabbalistic text that provides conceptual background underpinning Kabbalistic terminology referred to with transliterated Hebrew, (i.e., not translated). Much more significantly, he most certainly does not forbid the translation of an unencrypted Kabbalistic text designed to properly explain Kabbalistic concepts such that there is zero risk of any physical misinterpretation of Divine concepts.

The quotation brought by the Ben Ish Chai from Shomer Emunim to bolster his view is significant, in that it emphasized the clarity of that work in distancing its reader from the physicalization of God. As mentioned earlier Shomer Emunim communicates basic Kabbalistic concepts in a simple, clear and unambiguous manner. It was specifically written as an entirely unencrypted and accessible text. It is therefore extremely difficult to understand how any of the Kabbalists I encountered who forbid the translation of all Kabbalistic texts, including Shomer Emunim, can use the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum as a basis to support their opinion. Moreover, there is clear evidence that the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum has unfortunately been misrepresented by these Kabbalists, as per the example in the note.[26]

In addition to the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum, only one other source was mentioned. A responsum of the contemporary Halachist and prolific author, R. Menashe Klein.[27] While R. Klein had no claim of Kabbalistic expertise, he wrote an interesting rich responsum going much further than just forbidding the translation of encrypted hidden concepts. He forbade the translation of any texts of Jewish learning and primarily the Halachic texts.[28] He absolutely refused to endorse any translated text as he put it “especially in the current times when translations already exist of the Shulchan Aruch, the Talmud and the entire Torah such that it is as if [the Torah] was not given in the Holy Tongue.” He closed his responsum by objecting to outreach programs translating the Torah in order to reach those on the periphery of Judaism and stated that “they should be drawn near, by teaching them the Holy Tongue and only then teaching them Torah from holy works, rather than distancing them even further from Torah by translating the Torah for them.”

It is beyond any question that R. Klein’s extreme views on this are not accepted by the mainstream rabbinic authorities and publishing houses, including the ultra-orthodox publishers, and we are indeed blessed with a vast library of meaningful translated Torah texts that are of significant assistance to all requiring them in their Torah study. It is also clear that his outreach strategy is not taken seriously or considered acceptable by any of the successful outreach programs like Chabad and Aish HaTorah. R. Klein’s position therefore has no meaningful bearing on the Kabbalah translation discussion.

Another view encountered, as mentioned earlier, was the statement that just as it is forbidden to eat non-Kosher meat, so too, it is forbidden to use either a foreign language or even scientific analogies to express Kabbalistic concepts. This appears to be an incorrect assertion and the technicalities of this issue are discussed in the note.<[29]

From all the above, it is beyond question that great care needs to be invested to ensure that Kabbalistic concepts are correctly built up and presented in their proper context, especially when translated into other languages. However, it seems that the objection to the translation and proper explanation of these concepts is entirely unwarranted, especially in relation to the translation of unencrypted Kabbalah works such as Shomer Emunim. This is particularly true in our current times when, as stated above, it is “a time to act for God” for those who earnestly seek true knowledge.

No-one understood this better than the brilliant Kabbalist and prolific author, R. Aryeh Kaplan,[30] who blazed the trail in not only presenting Kabbalistic concepts in English, but also even going so far as to translating and unlocking encrypted Kabbalistic works, such as Sefer Yetzirah, with proper contextual explanation on a level that arguably had never been done before him.

When it came to the provision of ethical teachings for the future generations, our Sages never held back from heaping praise or providing stinging critique for various types of actions. There are a pair of Mishnayot in Yoma that starkly illustrate this.[31] The first Mishna praises four individuals for their different types of gifts and sponsored initiatives related to the Temple. In contrast, the second Mishna describes four groups of people, all of whom had perfected a specific area of knowledge that facilitated serving God in different ways. The commonality between these four groups is that they each refused to teach their acquired knowledge and for this our Sages severely castigated them. While there is discussion in the Talmud and various commentators as to whether some of these groups may or may not have been justifiably motivated in withholding this information, the overriding message of the second Mishna is that by default there is an obligation incumbent on all to share all knowledge facilitating our service of God.

This sentiment is echoed by the Kabbalist, R. Yehuda HaChassid, who says, “Anyone who God revealed information to and doesn’t write it and is capable of writing it, such a person is stealing from the One who revealed it, for [God] only revealed it to him so that he should write it, as written ‘God’s secret is to those who fear Him, and His covenant is to make it known [through] them.’”[32]

Therefore, in our day and age, in the run-up to Messianic times, there is an incumbent obligation upon all those who have knowledge of true Torah based Kabbalah, to translate, explain and share Kabbalah texts and concepts for the consumption of the many who deeply thirst and yearn for them.[33] Through this and the wider study of true Torah based Kabbalah, may it be God’s Will that the prophecy of the Zohar will be fulfilled that “In the future, Israel will taste of the Tree of Life, which is this book of the Zohar [the knowledge of Kabbalistic wisdom], and with it will exit the exile with mercy [with minimal hardship].”[34]

Book Announcement: New Work on the Kabbalah of the Ramban

By Eliezer Brodt

פירושי וחיבורי תלמידי הרשב“א על קבלת הרמב“ן, תש“ט עמודים, מוסד הרב קוק

One of the most important classical commentaries on the Torah is that of R. Moses Nachmanides, Ramban (See here). In addition to his more straightforward comments, the commentary contains significant kabbalisitic ones as well.  Usually, these will be introduced by ועל דרך האמת. Many skip these parts when learning the work. Almost immediately after the composition of the commentary, students of kabbalah, most notably those of the school of the Rashba, devoted entire works to explain those sections of the Ramban. A new volume collects all of these works.  This volume, edited by Joshua Sternbuch, Rabbi Dovid Kamenetsky and others, are republished from manuscripts with notes, in one beautifully printed volume, by Mossad Ha-Rav Kook. (Previously most of these works were printed in various places, but not easy to find or use).

The volume includes a very useful introduction about the works in the volume (A PDF of it is available upon request) and includes numerous indexes.

Here is the Table of Contents:

The Segulah of Kiddush Levanah

By: Eliezer Brodt

The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming article of mine on when to say Kiddush Levanah. This is particularly timely, as this it deals with the segulah attributed to this tefiilah, and its possible connection to plagues.

סגולת ברכת הלבנה¹

בתחילת המאמר הבאתי דברי המגן אברהם בשם מגיד מישרים: “כ‘ המגיד, כשמקדשין הלבנה במוציא שבת תהיה הצלחה. וכשתתכסה ולא תוכלו לברך אותו החדש לא יהיה מוצלח. דוק ותשכח“. והבאתי מה שכתב ר‘ חיים אלעזר שפירא:

ועיין במגן אברהם… ולמאן דלא קפיד, ובפרט אם על ידי אונס שנתכסה הלבנה בעננים ולא נראתה כלל במוצאי שבת, וכדי שלא יהיה ח“ו איתרע מזליה כשיירא ויפחד ויחרד לבו מדברי המגיד… וסיים “דוק ותשכח“. נראה לי פשוט, להרואה שם בספר הקדוש ‘מגיד מישרים‘, דכל אלו הדברים רק לה‘בית יוסף‘ לבדו נאמרים, ולא לכל העולם, והיינו לפי שרש נשמתו, וה‘מגיד‘ נתהוה מלימוד משנתו. ועל כן אל תתפלאו מכמה דברים הנראים תמוהים ופליאים לעיני הקורא בצדק, כיון שנאמרו לו למרן ה‘בית יוסף‘ אליו לבדו… ועיין מה שכתב בכתבי האריז“ל, באיזהו מקומן, בזה הלשון: ‘דלא כמו שאמר המגיד להבית יוסף‘. היינו, כי להאריז“ל נאמרו הקבלה האמיתית לתיקון העולם, וזה שאמר ה‘מגיד‘ ל‘בית יוסף‘ רק ליחיד ולשעתו…²

אמנם ברשימות מסעו של ר‘ חיים אלעזר שפירא לירושלים מסופר:

ביום א‘ ו‘ אייר… הלכנו על המעקה במדור העליון לקידוש הלבנה… והגיד רבינו הקדוש אחר כך… ולא הרגיש שום אחד מאתנו להזכיר ולעורר על זה בשעת קידוש הלבנה שלא הגיע זמנה… אלא הכל בידי שמים בכדי שיגן עלינו המצוה לתוספת זכות לטובה להנצל מצוקה במצולות ים.. ושתגן עלינו זכות מצותה גם כן בשעת הסכנה ביום הזה…³

בספר חמדת ימים כתב:

“ומסורה בידנו מהקדמוני‘ כי מי שקידש הלבנה ביום שקידשה שוב לא ידאג מן הפורענות כירח יכון עולם באותו חדש וכן מובטח שאל יגזרו עליו מיתה באותו חדש וסימניך וירתך לא יאסף“.⁴

כוונתו לסיפור הידוע שהובא בכמה מקומות ומקורו מר‘ חיים בוכנר בספרו ‘אור חדש‘ שנדפס בשנת תל“א:

וקבלתי ממ“ו ש“ב האלוף החסיד מהור“ר משה מייזלש זצ“ל ה“ה מק“ק קראקא ובר סמכא הוה, שאם ירצה להנצל יבקש מהעכו“ם הרוצה להורגו שיניחנו לעשות מצוה אחת קודם ובעז“ה יוכל להנצל. וסיפר לי מעשה רב שאירע לאחד שפגע בעכו“ם בלילה ורצה העכו“ם להרגו, וראה שהלבנה זרחה, ובקש מהעכו“ם שיניחנו לעשות מצוה אחת שצונו הבורא יתברך קודם ואח“כ יעשה אתו עמו מה שלבו חפץ, והלבנה היתה בחידושה וקידשה בפניו בכוונה גדולה, ואח“כ רוצה למסור נפשו בשמחה על קדושת השם, ונעשה לו נס כשדלג וקפץ ג‘ פעמים כמנהג, נשאו רוח מאת העכו“ם ושוב לא ראו זה את זה וניצל ממנו. וגם שמעתי ממנו שמי שיקדש הלבנה מיום שיקדשה שוב לא ידאג שימות באותו חודש מאותו יום ואילך, כי שכרה כ“כ גדול כמ“ש חז“ל תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אלמלא לא זכו ישראל אלא להקביל פני אביהם שבשמים בכל חדש וחדש די. ⁵

סגולה וסיפור זה הובא בקיצור אצל הרבה מחברים כמו ר‘ אליה שפירא בחיבורו ‘אליה זוטא‘ שנדפס תמ“ט⁶ ובחיבורו המפורסם שנדפס מאוחר יותר ‘אליה רבא‘.⁷ וכן כתבו ספרים שונים כמו קיצור של“ה,⁸ קסת יהונתן,⁹ באר היטב,¹⁰ דרך חיים,¹¹ ומשם במדרש תלפיות¹² וצידה לדרך.¹³

דברים דומים מצינו בחיבור ‘יוסף אומץ‘ שכתיבתו הסתיימה הרבה זמן לפני אור חדש:

ולגודל מעלת מצוה זו אמרתי אספרה כמו ששמעתי מפי מורי ורבי הגאון מהר“ר הירץ ז“ל אב“ד פה בשם הגאון מהר“ר אהרן אב“ד דק“ק פוזנא והמדינה ז“ל, כי ליסטים שבו ויבוזו איש אחד וקשרו אותו על הסוס להוליכו למקום חפצם, ויהי בהיותם בשדה בלילה ההוא ראה השבוי כי הלבנה זורחת, וביקש מהשבאי שיעמיד הסוס על עומדו למען יוכל לקדש הלבנה כמצות ה‘ אלוקינו, והשבאי שמע לקולו. ואז בעת אמירת הברכה נתקו מוסרותימו ממנו, עד כי ברח לו ואין רואה, ושב לביתו לשלום.¹⁴

כנראה שזה הרקע לשאלה שמצינו אצל ר‘ יעקב ריישר בשבות יעקב:

בחדש כסליו תע“ה כשבאתי לקבלת רבנות ק“ק וורמיישא היה חדש ימי מעונן וערפל שהיה א“א לראות הלבנה בחידושה ולקדשה ונשאלתי מאיזה ב“ב ששמעו מאיזה רב שגזר תענית על הציבור בשביל זה שלא היו יכולין לקיים מצות קדוש לבנה באותו חדש אם דבריו יש על מי שיסמכו מש“ס ופוסקים ראשונים.¹⁵

ומצאתי שר‘ משה חגיז כתב בספרו ‘צרור החיים‘: “הזהר בברכת הלבנה לברך אותה בזמנה בכל חודש, בפעם הראשונה שאתה רואה אותה בחידושה ואל תתעכב מלברך עליה בפרט במדינות הללו דעננים מצוים. ואפשר שאם תמתין עד הזמן שקבעו לה יעבור החדש ולא תוכל לברך. וכבר שמעתי שחודש אחד בק“ק פ“פ דמיין יע“א מחמת העננין עברו ולא קדשו בברכה וגזרו גדולי העיר תענית…¹⁶

יש לציין שרעיון זה הובא בספרי דרוש בסגנון אחרת לגמרי, כמו אצל ר‘ יהונתן אייבשיץ ב‘יערות דבש‘:

“וקידוש לבנה יוכיח, שזהירים במצוה זו יותר מכל מצות, הואיל ונדפס שיש בטחון שלא ימות באותו חדש…”.¹⁷

ויותר חריף מזה אצל ר‘ צבי הירש הורויץ, בנו של ההפלאה, בספרו ‘לחמי תודה‘:

“והנה פליאה נשגבה בעיני על כמה אנשים בדור הלז שאין נזהרין בכמה מצות שבתורה ומכ“ש בדברי סופרי‘ ובענין קידוש הלבנה מחזיקי‘ אותו מיד חדש בחדשו מטעם שנא‘ בו שהמקדש אותו בכוונה מובטח כל אותו החודש שלא ימות בו. והרי בקיום התורה כתב בי‘ כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך ולהיפך בהעדר קיומה כתיב כמה עונשי‘ חמורים כמו כרת ומיתה בידי שמים וגם בדברי סופרי‘ אמרו כל העובר עליהם חייב מיתה. ולדעתי י“ל דרך הלצה לפרש מ“ש חז“ל פני משה כפני חמה פני יהושע כפני לבנה אוי לאותו בושה. דר“ל שהרי גוף תורת משה שבכתב ושבעל פה אורה גדול כפני חמה. ואעפ“כ נמצאי‘ כמה בני אדם בדור הלז שאין נזהרין בקיום תורת משה שאורו גדול כפני חמה ובקידוש פני לבנה דהיינו רק פני יהושע המה מחזיקי‘ אותו לקיים מידי חודש בחדשו. וז“ש אוי לאותו בושה, דר“ל שהרי בגוף קיום התורה כתיב בי‘ כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך ולהיפך בביטולה נאמר כל עונשין בעולם וכמ“ש כל העובר על דברי סופרי‘ חייב מיתה… עי“ש.¹⁸

בספר הברית כתב:

כי מה שכתוב בכל סדורי תפלות ישראל אצל ברכת הלבנה בשם הקדמונים בזה הלשון: מי שקידש הלבנה מיום שקדשה לא ידאג שימות באותו חודש מאותו יום ואילך, והכל יתפלאו על מאמר קדמונינו הזה באמרם כי הנסיון היומי מעיד על ההפוך ועינינו הרואות כי כמה בני אדם קדשו את הלבנה ומתו באותו החודש, אמנה אשר אני אחזה לי בזה הוא כי יש כאן השמטת שתי תיבות וכן צריך להיות לא ידאג שימות באותו חודש בידי אדם מאותו יום ואילך, ור“ל לסטים מזויינים או שונאים ואויבים הקמים עליו ורוצים להרגו או אם במלחמה ירד וכדומה, כי סגולת מצוה זו להגין ולהציל מידי אדם בעל בחירה, אך לא ממיתה טבעית אם יומו יבא. והעד הנאמן לדברי אלה הוא הנוסח אשר קבעו הקדמונים בעצמם כשם שאני רוקד כנגדך ואיני יכול לנגוע בך כך לא יוכלו כל אויבי לנגוע בי לרעה, תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד בגדול זרועך ידמו כאבן. ומודעת זאת כי פסוק זה נאמר על אלופי אדום אילי מואב וכל יושבי כנען, ומובן כי הכונה הוא על אויב ואורב בן אדם לא על מלאך המות כי לא תפול עליו אימה ופחד במשלחתו ובמלאכתו והלואי שהוא לא יפיל, וכבר זכרו חז“ל מעשה ביהודי אחד שניצל מרוצח שרצה להרגו ונמלט מידו על ידי שקידש הלבנה. והנה הפלא מזאת המצוה שתגין ותציל מבעל בחירה אשר דבר זה קשה יותר מלהגין ולהציל משאר סיבות רעות, וחביבים המצות שכל אחת יש לה סגולה טובה בפני עצמה, צדקה תציל ממות הטבעיי, וקדוש הלבנה תציל מאדם בעל בחירה, סוכה תציל מטלטול נע ונד וכן כלם...¹⁹

המהרש“ם העיר על זה: “ואין ראייתו מוכרחת דהסגולה מועיל על פי רוב, רק לפעמים החטא גורם וכדומה“.²⁰

יתכן שמקור בעל ‘אור חדש‘ והבאים אחריו היה על פי דברי המגיד מישרים ואם כן נראה איך ‘סגולה פשוטה‘ הפכה במהרה לדיון אצל ר‘ יעקב ריישר אם יש לגזור תענית על הציבור. וכך באמת מבואר מלשונו של ‘דרך החיים‘, שבעיניו הוא דבר אחד. כך הוא כותב: “טוב לקדש לבנה קודם צאתו לדרך והיא סגולה להנצל מכל סכנה והאחרונים הביאו מעשה מאחד שניצל מיד ליסטים… וקבלה בידינו שכל המקדש לבנה מובטח שלא ימות באותו חודש והמגיד משירים כתב סימן טוב כשהלבנה נראית במוצאי שבת… דוק ותשכח“.²¹

ככל כנראה זה הרקע על לשאלה שנשאל החתם סופר כפי שכותב (או“ח, א, סי‘ קב):

שלום וכ“ט לידידי הרב הגאון המופלג ומפורסם כמהו‘ שאול לאנדא נ“י אבדק“ק קראקא יע“א. יקרתו הגיעני יום עש“ק העבר, נידון מה שאירע בקהלתו בחדש כסליו נכסה הירח, ויען כי בעו“ה חולי הקאלרא שלט שם בעת ההיא וכבר אירע כן בחדש כסליו שנת תקצ“א ג“כ בשליטת החולי ההיא ולא טוב הי‘ אחריתו אז, ע“כ זחלו ורעדו ונצטערו הרבה בכיסוי הלבנה, ובליל ט“ו אחר חצי כ“ט י“ב תשצ“ג נראית קצת והרבה אנשים התחילו לברך ברכת החדש ולא עלתה בידם כי חזרה ונתכסה בעבים, ויען כי נצטערו ההמון מאוד על סימנא מילתא, וידוע כי הרופאים מזהירים מאד בזמן המגפה בכלל ובפרט בחולי הנ“ל שלא יצטערו ולא יתנו על לב שום דאגה, ע“כ התחכם פר“מ להשקיט לב הדואגים להורות להם כי עוד יש תקוה גם בליל ט“ז, וכן היה בליל ט“ז בהיר הי‘ בשחקים וברכו כמה מאות ברכת החדש ושמחו שמחה גדולה…, ונפשו היפה בשאלתו להודיעו דעתי הצעירה מה אומר בדבר זה.

והחתם סופר ענה:

ויעיין ברכות נ“ט [ע“ב] הרואה חמה בתקופתה וכו‘…, דבימות הגשמים כשמתכסה החמה ג‘ ימים מעננים כשמאירה אח“כ מברכים, וא“כ פשיטא שהי‘ ראוי לברך על הירח החדשה שלא נראה אורה החדש כלל שהי‘ מכוסה ושוב האירה הארץ מכבודה אמאי לא נברך אפילו בסוף החודש, ועכצ“ל מפני שאינו שמחה מפני מיעוט הלבנה, וא“כ יש לדון קצת בנידון שלפנינו שהיו העם שמחים לקראת בואה כי חושבים זה לסימן טוב ואולי יש באמת רפואה למחלה בקבלת פניה דהוה כקבלת פני השכינה וכתיב באור פני מלך חיים כמ“ש רמב“ן ר“פ וירא, ועכ“פ לא מסמנא מלתא טבא כשמתכסה שלא יכולים לברך עליה כעבד שבא למזוג כוס ושופך קיתון על פניו וככל אותות השמים דעכ“פ אית בהו סימנא אלא ישראל אל יחתו מהם כי הקדוש ברוך הוא מראה להם שישובו בתשובה ויבטלו גזירת המזל… וה“נ כן בכסוי הלבנה, א“כ לא יועיל מה שמקדשים אח“כ אם הוא חוץ לזמנו ומיגרע גרע שעי“ז לא ישובו, אך יען בזמן המגפה שהצער מסוכן להם ומשו“ה אין גוזרין בו תענית כמ“ש מג“א סי‘ תקע“ו סק“ב וגדולה מזה ברמ“א י“ד ססי‘ שע“ד, ומצינו שהיו חז“ל מסתירים בפני ע“ה אפילו שהי‘ להם למכשול עון משום סכנה עיין שבועות ט“ז ע“א בתוס‘ ד“ה אלא וכו‘, מכ“ש הכא השתא דאיכא למימר כהלכתא הורה כנ“ל, ולא יאונה לצדיק כל און לא תאונה אליו רעה ונגע לא יקרב באהלו ובאוהל בני קהלתו. ה‘ ירחם על כל עמו וירפאם ויחלימם כחפץ אוהבי ה‘ וה‘ עמנו“.²²