Book Review: Yosie Levine, Hakham Tsevi Ashkenazi and the Battlegrounds of the Early Modern Rabbinate

BOOK REVIEW

Yosie Levine. Hakham Tsevi Ashkenazi and the Battlegrounds of the Early Modern Rabbinate. London: Littman Library, 2024. xiv, 266.

Reviewed by Bezalel Naor

Yosie Levine has tackled the enigmatic figure of Hakham Tsevi Ashkenazi (1658-1718), a man whose title alone beggars the imagination. At first blush, the terms “Hakham” and “Ashkenazi” present an oxymoron. The term “Hakham” is generally reserved for Sephardic sages. (An outlier would be Hakham Isaac Bernays of Hamburg [1792-1849], but that is a discussion for another paper.) Hakham Tsevi went so far as to add to his signature the letters samekh teth, in typical Sephardic fashion. (Levine grapples with the significance of the suffix on pages 206-207.)[1]

Reared in Budin (today Budapest),[2] then under Ottoman rule, our protagonist lived at various times in the Balkans (Adrianople, Belgrade, Constantinople, Salonika and Sarajevo), Central Europe (Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbek) and Western Europe (Amsterdam and London). This straddling of Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities produced a hybrid: Hakham Tsevi Ashkenazi.

In the final chapter of the book, entitled “Afterlife: The Response of Modern-Day Posekim to Hakham Tsevi’s Early Modern Responsa,” the author demonstrates how certain positions of Hakham Tsevi which seemed outlandish and even revolutionary at the time, have come home to roost in the twenty-first century.

First, there is the Hakham’s responsum discussing whether an artificial man, a golem, can be counted in a minyan or prayer quorum of ten.[3] The Talmud (Sanhedrin 65b) recounted how Rava created a man by employing Sefer Yetsirah. The Hakham’s own ancestor, Elijah Ba‘al Shem of Chelm, created such a humanoid. (The Hakham’s son, Rabbi Jacob Emden, would later address this very issue in his responsa.)[4] In our own age of robotics and Artificial Intelligence, one anticipates a robust halakhic literature on the subject of the golem. (The golem of the Gemara was bereft of the power of speech, so in that respect, present-day robots are certainly superior.) An area of Halakhah that immediately comes to mind is Nezikin, torts or damages.

An outspoken responsum of the Hakham directed Diaspora Jews visiting the Land of Israel to observe but a single day of Yom Tov in conformity with local custom.[5] A the time it was written, Hakham Tsevi’s decision flew in the face of the accepted practice, whereby Diaspora Jews observed two days of the festival during their sojourn in the Land, in conformity to their place of origin. Writing from Safed in the sixteenth century, Rabbi Joseph Karo attested that pilgrims to the Land would assemble their own minyan, in which they recited the prayers for the second day of Yom Tov in exile, a practice sanctioned by the gedolim of old.[6]

Hakham Tsevi’s own son, Rabbi Jacob Emden, respectfully disagreed with his father’s opinion. In a lengthy responsum, he militated for the two-day observance.[7]

According to Levine, the 1903 decision of Rabbi Elijah David Rabinowitz-Te’omim (Aderet) in Jerusalem, invoking and inveighing with Hakham Tsevi’s responsum, was a first.[8] In Levine’s words: “This ruling represented a radical break with established norms and constituted a watershed in the reception history of Hakham Tsevi’s responsum” (page 197).[9]

Earlier, Levine writes that Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745-1812) was “sympathetic to Hakham Tsevi’s ruling in principle” (p. 195). The footnote refers us to Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s Shulhan ‘Arukh 496:11. This reference requires some unpacking. While Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s ruling just happened to coincide with that of Hakham Tsevi, it was certainly not the basis of his ruling. Rather, he based his decision on a rishon, the medieval authority Rabbi Eliezer ben Nathan (Ra’avan) of Mayence. Ra’avan, in turn, followed in the footsteps of Rabbenu Hananel ben Hushiel of Kairouan.[10]

(An aside: Rabbi Abraham David Lavut of Nikolayev [1814-1890], a disciple of Rabbi Menahem Mendel Schneersohn of Lubavitch [Tsemah Tsedek], brought to the discussion a mystical element, whereby the “illumination” [he’arah] of the Festival takes a day longer to reach the Diaspora.[11] The late Rabbi Baruch Na’eh, of blessed memory, impressed upon this writer in no uncertain terms that the Alter Rebbe’s pesak was derived from Rabbenu Hananel—which is to say Ra’avan—and not from these mystical considerations.)[12]

Aderet’s contemporary, Rabbi Hayyim Soloveichik of Brisk, also maintained that visitors to Erets Yisrael should observe but a single day of Yom Tov, but unlike Aderet, he did not see the need to invoke the authority of Hakham Tsevi. Neither did he seek support in the work of the rishon, Rabbi Eliezer ben Nathan (as did Rabbi Shneur Zalman). As it is often quipped, “Reb Hayyim was a rishon!”[13]

In more recent times, Rabbi Tsevi Pesah Frank was open to the thinking of the Hakham Tsevi (though he countered that the law might devolve upon the individual, “a-karkafta de-gavra”).[14] On the other hand, Rabbi Shelomo Zalman Auerbach rejected the ruling of the Hakham Tsevi.[15]

This issue remains a heated debate to this day. Some Diaspora Jews keep two days in Erets Yisrael, while others observe but one day.

*

Perhaps the most infamous, and certainly the most traumatic of Hakham Tsevi’s controversies, was his confrontation with crypto-Sabbatian Nehemiah Hiyya Hayyon in Amsterdam in 1713. Hayyon, a man of dubious character, arrived in town from the East (he claimed to be from Safed), intent on publishing his literary oeuvre. Hakham Tsevi served at that time as Rabbi of the Ashkenazic community of Amsterdam. Upon perusal of Hayyon’s book ‘Oz le-Elohim, printed in Berlin earlier that year, Hakham Tsevi discovered that the work contained arch-heresy. (For a long time, it was thought that this was the theology of Shabbetai Tsevi. Today, the scholarly consensus is that ‘Oz le-Elohim is in fact an offshoot of the theology of Abraham Miguel Cardozo [1627-1706].)[16]

Hakham Tsevi proceeded to issue a broadside banning the book. (Levine provides a facsimile on page 168.) One would imagine that the preeminent sage would have easily prevailed over the rascal. Actually, the outcome was the exact opposite. Hayyon remained in Amsterdam and Hakham Tsevi was routed, beating a retreat to London. (Elisheva Carlebach treated this sorry chapter in Jewish history in her biography of Hakham Tsevi’s ally in the affair, Rabbi Moses Hagiz, The Pursuit of Heresy.) It turned out that the Sephardic Hakham of Amsterdam, Solomon Ayllon, was himself a crypto-Sabbatian. Presented with the political clout of the powerful Spanish-Portuguese Mahamad (or Ma‘amad), and ultimately, the Dutch authorities, Hakham Tsevi was forced to flee.

One finds it of interest that Hakham Tsevi’s broadside skirts the issue of the mistaken belief in the pseudo-Messiah Shabbetai Tsevi. (You might call that “the elephant in the room.”) Instead, it focuses on how scandalous is this strange notion that Levine felicitously refers to as Hayyon’s “belief in a First Cause that was decoupled from the revealed God of Israel” (page 167).

Since Levine has discussed the afterlife of Hakham Tsevi’s literary legacy, I should like to take this opportunity to explore the afterlife of Hayyon’s—or more precisely, Cardozo’s theology.

Today one puzzles over vestiges of the opposition of the Sibah Rishonah (First Cause) and Elohei Yisrael (God of Israel) that survive in the reputable works of Rabbi Baruch of Kosov (Yesod ha-Emunah)[17] and Rabbi Israel Hapstein, the Maggid of Kozienice (‘Avodat Yisrael).[18] Should we suspect these authors of being closet Sabbatians?

We need to disentangle theology from sociology. Espousal of this kind of theology does not necessarily connect one to the Sabbatian movement.

It is plausible (though unlikely) that even the way Cardozo himself came to his theology was coincidental to his attraction to the Sabbatian movement. Prima facie, what one observes in Cardozan theology is the convergence of two worlds: that of the philosopher and that of the kabbalist. The Marrano physician, educated at Salamanca in general philosophy, encountered, upon reentry to the Jewish fold, an opposed worldview of a particularistic Judaic nature. The valorization of Elohei Yisrael over the Sibah Rishonah is a celebration of Cardozo’s conversion (or re-conversion) to Judaism. The “decoupling,” or to use the Hebrew term, the pirud that so scandalized Hakham Tsevi, is an outgrowth of the maelstrom, and perhaps unresolved tension, within Cardozo’s soul.

Hakham Tsevi was outraged by the proposition of a First Cause without will (ratson) and intention (kavanah). Similarly irksome was the notion that on the ultimate level of divinity, chosenness disappears. The first proposition is articulated by Rav Kook.[19] The second, by Rabbi Dov Baer Shneuri of Lubavitch (Mitteler Rebbe).[20] Would Hakham Tsevi consider these writings beyond the pale? Perhaps not.

As long as unity (yihud)—for lack of a better term, monotheism—is maintained, one remains within the mainstream of Jewish belief. It was precisely the “decoupling” of these two elements—the universalist and the particularist—that provoked the defender of the faith. The Hakham recognized shtei reshuyot (dualism)[21] when he saw it. No amount of sophistry could camouflage an incipient idolatry.

Again, we need to distinguish between Cardozo’s Messianism and his theology. And even then, there is required a refinement before that theology can mainstream. (Just as Rav Kook entertained the thought that by a process of purification or tseruf, Spinoza’s pantheism might one day be rehabilitated. No longer would Spinoza be referred to as Maledictus but Benedictus.)[22]

Notes

  1. Hakham Tsevi’s son, Jacob Emden, continued the practice, signing responsa “Ya‘abets Samekh Teth.” Ya‘abets is the initials of Ya‘akov ben Tsevi. ↑
  2. Also referred to in German as Ofen. ↑
  3. She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Tsevi, no. 93. ↑
  4. She’elat Ya‘abets II, no. 82. ↑
  5. She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Tsevi, no. 167. He reasoned that should one observe an additional day in Erets Yisrael, one would thereby be in violation of Bal Tosif (Thou shalt not add). See Rosh Hashanah 28b, regarding one who sleeps in the sukkah on Shemini ‘Atseret. ↑
  6. See Rabbi Joseph Karo, She’elot u-Teshuvot Avkat Rokhel, no. 26 ↑
  7. She’elat Ya‘abets, Part One, no. 168. ↑
  8. See Rabbi Elijah David Rabinowitz-Te’omim, Kuntress Shevah ha-Arets, in Be-Shemen Ra‘anan, vol. 2, ed. Ben Zion Shapira (Jerusalem, 1991), p. 209, par. 35. The reference to Hakham Tsevi’s responsum should read no. 167 (not no. 147). ↑
  9. Rabbi Elijah David Rabinowitz-Te’omim (known by the acronym Aderet) served as the assistant to Rabbi Samuel Salant, Rabbi of Jerusalem. Aderet was the father-in-law of Rav Kook, who would go on to become Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Erets Israel. Evidently, Rav Kook—unlike Aderet—did not accept the ruling of Hakham Tsevi. See Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hakohen Kook, Orah Mishpat, no. 125. ↑
  10. See the commentaries of Ra’avan and Rabbenu Hananel to Pesahim 51b-52a. Rabbenu Hananel’s reading differs from our own. In our version, Rav Safra travels from Erets Yisrael to Bavel. In Rabbenu Hananel’s version, Rav Safra travels from Bavel to Erets Yisrael. The conclusion is that in places of habitation (yishuv), one must conform to local custom (and observe a single day of Yom Tov); in the desert (midbar), one maintains one’s original custom of two-day observance. See the letter of Rabbi Meir Don Plotzki published in Rabbi Shelomo Zalman Ehrenreich’s edition of Ra’avan. Unfortunately, Rabbi Ehrenreich terribly misunderstood the reference to Ra’avan in Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s Shulhan ‘Arukh. This misreading persisted in Rabbi Yitzhak Flakser’s Sha‘arei Yitzhak.
    See Rabbi Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence, Even ha-‘Ezer/Sefer Ra’avan, ed. Shelomo Zalman Ehrenreich (Simleul, 1926), Pesahim, 162b (text of Ra’avan), 161d-162c (supercommentary of Even Shelemah); Rabbi Yitzhak Flakser, Sha‘arei Yitzhak, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1999), Hilkhot Yom Tov Sheni, chap. 3.
    In a stroke of originality, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch suggested that this variant of Rabbenu Hananel might have been the source of Maimonides’ startling ruling (Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Hodesh 5:12) that in the desert of Erets Yisrael one observes two days of Yom Tov. See Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, Part III (Pesahim) (Jerusalem, n.d.), chap. 121 (62a).
    First published in Prague in 1610, Ra’avan was available to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady. Rabbenu Hananel’s commentary to Pesahim, on the other hand, did not become available until 1868, when it was published in Paris (from a Munich manuscript) by Rabbi Yosef Halevi Stern. ↑
  11. Rabbi A.D. Lavut, Sha‘ar ha-Kollel (Brooklyn, 2005), 1:2 (1b-2a). ↑
  12. Rabbi Baruch Na’eh in private conversation with the writer (BN) before Pesah of 1987. He was the son of the famed Habad halakhist Rabbi Abraham Hayyim Na’eh, author of Ketsot ha-Shulhan (on Shulhan ‘Arukh Harav). Rabbi Barukh Na’eh authored two volumes of Gemara Shelemah Pesahim.
    Inter alia, see the reaction of Rabbi Meir Mazuz when presented with the Sha‘ar ha-Kollel. Recorded in She’elot u-Teshuvot Ish Matsli’ah, vol. 1, 2nd edition (B’nei Berak, 1989), Orah Hayyim, no. 40 (116b). Rabbi Matsli’ah Mazuz’s posture as a posek–similar to that of the Hakham Tsevi (Part One, no. 36)—was that the Kabbalistic perspective must never result in a bouleversement of the Halakhah. See Levine, pp. 84-86. Also, Rabbi Jacob Emden’s lengthy responsum in She’elat Ya‘abets, Part One, no. 47. ↑
  13. See Rabbi Tsevi Yosef Reichman, Reshimot Shi‘urim, Sukkah (New York, 1990), p. 227; Rabbi Tsevi Schachter, Nefesh Harav (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 84; Levine, Hakham Tsevi, p. 198.
    Another Lithuanian posek who inclined to the one-day observance was Rabbi David Friedman of Karlin. See She’elat David (Piotrkow, 1913), Kuntress ha-Minhagim, 11b, footnote. One should not be surprised that he did not mention Hakham Tsevi. Reb Dovid Karliner was famous for his eschewal of Aharonim (later-day authorities)! ↑
  14. Har Tsevi, Orah Hayyim, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1973), no. 78 (126b). ↑
  15. See the letter of Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach to Rabbi Yitzhak Flakser in Sha‘arei Yitzhak, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1999), Hilkhot Yom Tov Sheni, chapter 17. ↑
  16. See Yehudah Liebes, On Sabbateanism and Its Kabbalah (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 35-36.
    For a cornucopia of Cardozo’s literary output, see David J. Halperin, Abraham Miguel Cardozo: Selected Writings (Mahwah, New Jersey, 2001).
    Rabbi Yahya Kafah of San‘a, Yemen, mistook ‘Oz le-Elohim for a work of mainstream Kabbalah. Rav Kook set him straight that this is in fact a heretical work. See Rabbi Yahya Kafah, Milhamot Hashem (Jerusalem, 1931); RAYH Kook, Ma’amrei ha-Rayah, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 520; idem, Haskamot ha-Rayah (Jerusalem, 1988), no. 41, p. 46; idem, letter and pesak din in front matter of anonymous Emunat Hashem (Jerusalem, 1937). ↑
  17. See Rabbi Baruch of Kosov, ‘Ammud ha-‘Avodah (Chernowitz, 1863), Kuntresim le-Hokhmat ha-Emet, 128d. In the newer edition, Yesod ha-Emunah, ed. Ya‘akov Aharon Ilowich (Monsey, NY, 2007), Kuntresim le-Hokhmat ha-Emet, par. 206 (p. 488). And see Esther Liebes, Ahavah vi-yetsirah be-haguto shel R. Baruch mi-Kosov (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1997), pp. 279-280. ↑
  18. In the Pe’er mi-Kedoshim edition of ‘Avodat Yisrael (B’nei Berak, 2013), 290b. The context is a kavanah for Rosh Hashanah.
    See the lengthy discussion in Bezalel Naor, Navigating Worlds: Collected Essays (New York, 2021), pp. 529-530. ↑
  19. Siddur ‘Olat Re’iyah, vol. 1, p. 23, s.v. Le-shem yihud; p. 111, s.v. Atah hu ‘ad she-lo nivra ha-‘olam. ↑
  20. Rabbi Dov Baer of Lubavitch, Imrei Binah (Brooklyn, 2018), Sha‘ar Keri’at Shema‘, par. 94 (120c); quoted in Bezalel Naor, The Project of Hasidism (New York, 2025), p. 108. ↑
  21. Mutatis mutandis, we find in the Mishnaic era the heretic Elisha ben Abuyah (Aher) constructing a duality of the Unmoved One (“no sitting or standing”) and Metatron, the advocate of Israel (“sitting and writing the merits of Israel”). See Hagigah 15a; and the reading of Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, Introduction to Perek Helek (Sanhedrin chap. 10), the third fundamental (Kafah edition, p. 141). ↑
  22. Rav Avraham Yitzhak Hakohen Kook, Pinkas Rishon le-Yaffo, par. 117, in Kevatsim mi-Ketav Yad Kodsho, ed. Boaz Ofen (Jerusalem, 2006), p. 146.
    It seems such a purification of Cardozan theology was uppermost in the mind of Rabbi Pinhas Elijah Hurwitz of Vilna. See his Sefer ha-Berit (Brünn, 1797), Part One, ma’amar 20, chap. 15 (109a-111a). After presenting the opposition of the First Cause and the God of Israel (the hallmark of Cardozo’s theology), Hurwitz quotes the Italian kabbalist Rabbi Joseph Ergas (author of Shomer Emunim) in his polemic work, Tokhahat Megullah & Ha-Tsad Nahash (London, 1715) against Hayyon and Abraham Cardozo. The upshot is the integration of the two aspects of the divinity within an acceptable orthodox framework. Concerning Ergas’ anti-Sabbatian polemic, see Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, NY, 1999), pp. 145-149.Hurwitz has misquoted Tokhahat Megullah f.12. For “Hu mitparesh bi-fe‘ulotav ve-ne‘elam be-‘atsmuto,” read: Hu mitparsem bi-fe‘ulotav ve-ne‘elam be-‘atsmuto. ↑

 



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

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 17th 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.



Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

Response to the Recent Discussion Relating to the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

By Shnayer Leiman

Whatever else the world may require, it certainly doesn’t need more bans emanating from the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. No one is insulted and no apologies are necessary.

All sober comments and criticisms are most welcome – איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. I try to learn from everyone. I’m also a card-carrying member of the class of כל אדם, and I am a teacher, and pray that – at least on occasion – the passage in Pirkei Avos licenses others to learn from me.

Time constraints, and lack of knowledge on my part, make it impossible for me to respond to all the comments, which for the most part addressed everything except the specific focus of my essay: the פני יהושע and his alleged blindness during the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.

In general, scholars and amateurs have written extensively on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz and R. Jacob Emden, often without having read all, or even most, of their works. It is commonplace to write on R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, with great confidence, without having read a single word of his אורים ותומים or כרתי ופלתי. Indeed, some of the scholars who have written much about him, were – and are – not capable of reading a word of his חידושי תורה. Similarly, everyone feels free to comment on R. Jacob Emden, never having read a word of his ויקם עדות ביעקב, or בית יהונתן הסופר, or ספר התאבקות, or מגלת ספר. Such selective reading of the primary sources can only lead to a one-dimensional and skewed view of history.

I shall respond directly to only one of the comments. After citing a line from the opening of the essay (which reads: “Emden…surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them [i.e., his father and grandfather (szl)] in the rabbinate…”), the commentator raises the following question: “Are we talking about the same R. Yaakov Emden who writes in several places of his gratitude to Hashem שלא עשני אב“ד?”

Citing a famous passage from the writings of R. Yaakov Emden, the commentator feels comfortable that he has captured Emden’s true feelings about the subject and nothing more needs to be, or can be, said. Unfortunately, the commentator chose not to mention the following:

1. R. Yaakov Emden served as Chief Rabbi (אב בית דין) of Emden from 1728 to 1733. One wonders if he recited the blessing on the day he was informed of, and accepted, his appointment as Chief Rabbi?

2. R. Yaakov Emden was one of the 7 finalists among the many candidates who applied to succeed R. Yechezkel Katznellenbogen (d. 1749) as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, Wandsbeck. The finalists who lost were: R. Aryeh Leib b. R. Saul, Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam; R. David Frankel, Chief Rabbi of Berlin; R. David Strauss, Chief Rabbi of Fürth; R. Samuel Helman Heilprin, Chief Rabbi of Mannheim; R. Moshe Segal Polak, Chief Rabbi of Mainz; and R. Yaakov Emden of Altona. The finalist who won was R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. See Zinz, גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 28.

3. Addressing the propriety of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz’ acceptance of the offer to become Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck, R. Yaakov Emden had this to say in בית יהונתן הסופר (Altona, 1763), p. 7a [authored entirely by R. Yaakov Emden, who, as in several volumes authored by him, created an imaginary narrator who speaks in the third person about him]:

ואולם חי אני כי גם מזה אות ומופת על מיעוט יראתו של המי“ן הלז, כי אם היה לו רק איזה רושם של יראת שמים, וכבוד
ת“ח, היה לו למנוע מזה, ואפילו אם היו מבקשים אותו ומחלים פניו להיות לרב בג“ק, היה מחויב לסרב מפני כבוד מ“ו
.שהוא שוכן שם, ושמו הטוב ומעשיו נודעים בשערים, ויש לו חזקת אבות שלשה דורות, ומובטח שלא תופסק תורה מזרעו

4. Addressing why he was removed from the list of candidates (who would succeed R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck) in 1765, R. Yaakov Emden writes in מגלת ספר (Warsaw,1897), p. 209:

 שנת תקכ”ה] בשבט התועדו ג”ק על אודות מינוי רב חדש, והיו רבים חפצים להשיבני לנחלת אבותי, וכשעמדו למנין לעשות
רשימה מהראוים לאצטלא זו, נעשית מריבה ביניהם על אודותי, וכמעט היה הרוב על צדי, וכך
היה בודאי אם היו עושים דבר זה בגלוי, לא היה אדם אחר עולה להתמנות רב בג”ק בפעם הזאת. אכן
.התחכמו שלשה מאויבי [פושעי ישראל]…ועשו כן והצליח בידם מה שרצו לסלקני מן מנין הראוים

5. Among the many historians who state specifically that R. Yaakov Emden felt strongly that he should have been appointed to succeed his ancestors as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck are Yechezkel Duckesz (אבל מתחילה חרה לו מאד וקנאה ושנאה בוערת בו על שלא בחרו אותו הג“ק לאב“ד) and David Leib Zinz (גם מספריו נראה שחרה לו על רבינו [ר‘ יהונתן] שישב על כסא הרבנות דג“ק המגיע לו מנחלת אבות). Both were distinguished תלמידי חכמים. Duckesz was a מוסמך of the Pressburg Yeshiva and spent 50 years as rabbi of the “Kloiz” (founded by the חכם צבי) in Altona. Zinz was a Galitzianer whose biographies of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, R. Jacob Joshua Falk, and R. Nesanel Weil are frequently reprinted. For the Duckesz passage, see חכמי אה“ו (Hamburg, 1908), p. 56; for the Zinz passage, see גדולת יהונתן (Piotrkow-Warsaw, 1930), vol. 1, p. 29.

In sum, the commentator is free to explain away all this evidence (and there is more), dismiss it as irrelevant, and claim that the blessing recited every day by R. Yaakov Emden – שלא עשני אב“ד – captures the essence of his belief and practice throughout his life. What he cannot do is claim that anyone who reads this material differently than he does is creating a second R. Yaakov Emden. There was only one R. Yaakov Emden, and he was far more complex and sophisticated than the commentator makes him out to be.



The Alleged Blindness of R. Jacob Joshua Falk During the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

The Alleged Blindness of R. Jacob Joshua Falk During the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

by Shnayer Leiman

R. Jacob Emden’s animosity toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz throughout the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy could easily be explained away on grounds that are not necessarily bound up with an accusation of heresy. Emden, who proudly depicted himself as “a zealot the son of a zealot,” would hardly pass for Mister Nice Guy. In his autobiography, and certainly in his polemical works, Emden often emerges as a misanthropic, tempestuous, cantankerous, chronically-ill, and incessantly whining social misfit and rabbinic genius who did not suffer either fools or rabbinic scholars gladly. Indeed, he hardly had a kind word to say about most of the rabbis who succeeded his father, R. Zvi Ashkenazi, as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck, and served during his (Emden’s) lifetime. Emden, whose father and grandfather had served as Chief Rabbis of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them in the rabbinate. That he (Emden) had to live in Altona for some 15 years (1750-1764) as a lay Jew in the shadow of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz was simply more than he could bear. And the two rabbis lived virtually around the corner from each other in Altona, then a bedroom community for some 200 Jewish families living outside of Hamburg. Not surprisingly, a long list of historians and apologists would suggest that it was jealousy more than heresy that motivated and drove Emden’s animosity toward Eibeschuetz.[1]

It is far more difficult to explain away R. Jacob Joshua Falk’s animosity toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz on grounds other than the accusation of heresy. It is called “the Emden-Eibeschuetz” controversy, and rightly so, for those two rabbis initiated the controversy in 1751, would continue the struggle against each other through 1764 (when Eibeschuetz died), and Emden would continue to denigrate Eibeschuetz’ memory for as long as he lived, i.e., until 1776. But during the key early years of the controversy, from 1751 until 1756, the campaign against Eibeschuetz was directed primarily by R. Jacob Joshua Falk, then serving as Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt am Main, and who had formerly served with distinction as Chief Rabbi of Lvov, Berlin, and Metz. He was arguably the גדול הדור, certainly the זקן הדור, and virtually everyone agreed that no other rabbi in the mid-18th century was in a better position to resolve the controversy. He was even-handed, had no axe to grind, and was unrelated to either Emden or Eibeschuetz. Author of the classic work פני יהושע (the first volume appeared in print in Amsterdam, 1739), no one could question either his learning or integrity. In a battle of titans – now Rabbis Falk and Eibeschuetz – that escalated over a five year period, Falk ultimately called for Eibeschuetz to be defrocked. He placed Eibeschuetz under the ban, specifically ruling that he could no longer function as a rabbi, teacher, or preacher either in Altona or anywhere else, until such time that he would appear before a Jewish court of law and his case would be adjudicated . That, of course, never happened. As indicated, defenders of Eibeschuetz could not easily account for Falk’s seemingly acrimonious stance in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.[2]

A possible early mention of Falk’s suffering from blindness appears in an undated letter by R. Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz (circa 1732-1789), son of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. The letter was addressed to a rabbinic colleague, an ardent supporter of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, and was published surreptitiously by Emden in 1755, during Falk’s lifetime.[3] In it, Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz notes in a postscript that reports have just reached him from a variety of informants that Falk’s [second] wife had died suddenly in Mannheim. Her sudden death had an immediate traumatic effect on Falk, who was overcome with mental confusion and physical pain. Specifically, Eibeschuetz states that Falk “now walks lonely and desolate, depleted of strength, and is no longer able to see.”[4] Although the letter is undated, we know precisely that Falk’s [second] wife died on Monday, October 18, 1751(= 29 Tishre 5512).[5] The letter could only have been written shortly after the event it describes.

It is difficult to assess how much credibility is to be given to such a report. The author of the letter was not an eyewitness to the event he describes. Moreover, he personally viewed Falk as the “enemy,” and could only take delight in describing his mental and physical breakdown.[6] In any event, we know that some four months later Falk obviously recovered, for he remarried on Shushan Purim in 1752,[7] and clearly regained his eyesight (as we will prove below), even if he had lost it temporarily. Doubtless, this report, published in 1755, played a significant role in influencing the later accounts that had much to say about Falk’s blindness during the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.

In the 19th century, reports appeared in print that Falk suffered from blindness toward the end of his life. Even if we assume that these reports are accurate accounts of Falk’s state of health in 1756, they speak only of blindness during the last months, weeks, or days of his life.[8] By the 20th century, apologists broadened the period of Falk’s blindness to the entire span of his involvement in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy, from 1751 to 1756.[9] Thus, it was claimed that Falk never saw any of the amulets ascribed to Eibeschuetz and never read any of the polemical works published by the Emden forces between 1751 and 1756. He heard only oral reports, and based his rulings upon the misinformation that he was fed. It follows, then, that Falk’s stance in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy cannot be used as evidence against the integrity of Eibeschuetz. In the 21st century, more radical apologists would claim that all the letters and broadsides allegedly signed and published by Falk were in fact forged by the anti-Eibeschuetz forces.[10]

Here, we shall attempt to set the record straight. It would seem from a variety of sources that Falk could see perfectly well during the key years of the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. He had no problem reading texts as late as August of 1755, when – some 5 months before he died – he published the very last text he would contribute to the literature of the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. What follows is a summary list of some key sources, and their dates.

1. Wednesday, August 7, 1754 (=19 Av, 5514). The חיד”א (R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) met with Falk in Worms. An impostor was bankrupting the חיד”א’s fundraising efforts on behalf of the Jewish community of Hebron. The impostor came with forged papers, claiming he was the true emissary of Hebron. He would reach each town and city in Europe before the חיד”א arrived, collect the funds, and abscond. Falk came to the חיד”א’s rescue by comparing חיד”א’s written credentials against his own collection of rabbinic signatures, and as recorded in חיד”א diary, “וירא כי החתימות דידי ודידיה היו לאחדים.” Falk saw that the signatures on both sets of documents were exactly the same, and declared חיד”א to be the only authorized emissary from Hebron.[11] See here:

2. Monday, April 14, 1755 (=3 Iyar 5515). Falk wrote a letter on behalf of Simon von Geldern (1720-1788), then an itinerant yeshiva student. Falk writes:

“The signature of the Chief Rabbi of Pressburg [on the letter you showed me] is well known to me, and I recognize it at sight. Since he praises you in his letter… I too agree to write a letter on your behalf.”[12]  See here:

 

3. Monday, August 18,1755 (11 Elul, 5515). Falk wrote his final letter of approbation for authors of rabbinic works. He wrote 42 altogether. See his הסכמה to R. Aryeh Leib Horowitz’ ספר המצות עם פירוש מרגניתא טבא (Frankfurt, 1756). Falk writes that a copy of R. Aryeh Leib’s מרגניתא טבא was placed before his eyes (italics mine, s.z.l.). He examined it two or three times and saw that the comments were wise and true, and agreed to write a letter of approval.[13] See here.

4. Friday, August 29, 1755 (= 22 Elul 5515). In a broadside entitled חרבות צורים , Falk published his final salvo in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.[14] Some 8 weeks earlier, Eibeschuetz had published לוחת עדות (Altona, 1755), his first published book, and the only one which was devoted to a vigorous denial of the charges made against him that he was a closet Sabbatean. In the book, he addressed the amulets that had been ascribed to him, and called to the stand an impressive list of witnesses for the defense, including many of the leading rabbis in Lithuania, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, Italy, Turkey and elsewhere, all of whom attested to his innocence of the charges levelled against him. Falk’s חרבות צורים was the first published book review of לוחת עדות, and a devastating one at that.

For our purposes, what is significant is that Falk indicates that he read the book upon publication, and indeed cites chapter and verse with precision. He even notes that he compared the printed version (in לוחת עדות) of a personal letter that Eibeschuetz had addressed to him in 1754, to the original copy still in his possession, and noticed subtle, if only minor, differences. Apparently, Falk could see quite well, as late as August 29, 1755, when the broadside was penned by him.[15] He died some 5 months later on January 16, 1756 (= 14 Shevat 5516). See here.

In sum, R. Jacob Joshua Falk was not blind during the key years that he participated in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. He may well have suffered from blindness toward the end of his life. If so, this is likely to have occurred sometime after he wrote his final salvo in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy on August 29, 1755.[16]

Notes

[1] For a scathing rabbinic critique of Emden’s character, and for samples of the negative impact of his character on his writings, see R. Meir Dan Plotzki, “לכותבי הסתוריא” in דגלנו 2 1922, n. 5-6, pp. 108-110, and n. 10-11, pp. 191-194; and 3(1923), n. 12, pp. 230-233. For a typical historian and apologist who explains away Emden’s animosity as being grounded largely in jealousy, see E. Duckesz, חכמי אה”ו (Hamburg, 1908), pp. 55-63. A wide variety of other motivations for Emden’s animosity have been suggested, including economic factors (see, e.g., M.J. Cohen, Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy ,Philadelphia, 1937); halakhic issues (see, e.g., Rabbi R. Margulies, סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ , Tel-Aviv, 1941); and kabbalistic speculation (see, e.g., Rabbi Y.Y. Safrin, נציב מצותיך [first published in Lemberg, 1858] Jerusalem, 1983, p. 117, and Rabbi A.Y. Schlesinger, קונטרוס שמרו משפט תנינא, Jerusalem, 1914, p. 72a).
[2] On Falk’s role in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy, see S.Z. Leiman, “When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of Rabbi Jacob Joshua Falk in the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy,” in D. Frank and M. Goldish, eds., Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics (Detroit, 2008), pp. 435-456.
[3] Emden, ויקם עדות ביעקב (Altona, 1755), pp. 79a-80a (the pagination mistakenly reads: pp. 59a-60a).
[4] Ibid., p. 80. The Hebrew reads: אף גם הוא כעת הולך ערירי וכוחו סר ואור עינו אין אתו.

The plain sense of the phrase אור עינו אין אתו is less than certain. Although some are inclined to render it figuratively, e.g, “his eyes lost their sparkle,” in rabbinic literature it is often rendered literally and refers to loss of sight.

For the figurative sense, see 1 Sam 14:29 ארו עיני (my eyes lit up), Psalm 38:17 ואור עיני גם הם אין אתי (my eyes have lost their luster), and cf. M. Yoma 8:6. The figurative sense, then, refers clearly to the restoration or loss of physical and mental well-being. For the sense “loss of sight,” see, e.g., R. Yosef b. Eliyahu Hazzan, עין יוסף (Smyrna, 1675), introduction; R. Jacob Emden, חלי כתם (Altona, 1775), p. 22b; R. Yissachar Lichtenstein, אהל יששכר (Altona, 1826), letter of approbation by R. Michael May of Breslau; R. Abraham Ha-Levi, אברהם זכרון (Lvov, 1837), letter of approbation by R. Yaakov Orenstein; and R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, פארי חכמי מדינתינו (Sighet, 1910), p. 38, entry 13. In these (and in other) rabbinic passages, the phrase אור עינו אין אתו is often used interchangeably with the terms עיוור, סומא, and סגי נהור.
[5] See D.A.L. Zinz, עטרת יהושע (Bilgoraj, 1936), p. 19. Her tombstone – moved from the old to the new Jewish cemetery – is preserved to this very day in Mannheim’s New Jewish Cemetery.
[6] Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz adds in the postscript that “starting at her funeral, Falk proclaimed that his punishment was due to his opposition to my [i.e., Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz’] Master, Teacher, and Rabbi, my father the Gaon [Jonathan Eibeschuetz].
[7] Zinz, loc. cit.
[8] See G. Klemperer, “Rabbi Jonathan Eibenschütz,” in Pascheles’ Sippurim 4(1856), pp. 284-5 [also published as a monograph entitled Rabbi Jonathan Eibenschütz (Prague, 1858), pp. 76-77]. Cf. Y. Gastfreund, “תולדות רבי יהונתן אייבענשיטץ” in his אנשי שם (Lyck, 1879), p.17, note. None of these sources provide any detail about a progression from partial to total blindness; they simply assume that at some point toward the end of his life Falk suffered from total blindness.
[9] See, e.g., H.Y.N. Silberberg, קונטרס דרך חיים (Piotrkow, 1931), p. 81.
[10] See, e.g., Y.Y. Vidovsky, “הקדמת המו”ל” in יערות דבש השלם המנוקד (Jerusalem, 2000), vol.1, p. 45, n. 95, whose claims are based upon an egregious misreading of the evidence he presents. Falk’s apologists are not discussed in Y. Barnai’s “יחסה של ההיסטוריוגרפיה האורטודוקסית לשבתאות” in his שבתאות: היבטים חברתיים (Jerusalem, 2000), pp.120-141.
[11] H.Y.D. Azulai, מעגל טוב השלם (Jerusalem, 1934), p. 23.
[12] Simon von Geldern, כתבי קודש ומליצות (Amsterdam, 1760), p. 4b.
[13] A.L. Horowitz, ספר המצות עם פירוש מרגניתא טבא (Frankfurt, 1756), הסכמה printed immediately following the title page (courtesy: HebrewBooks.org). See, however, the הסכמה of Falk’s son on the same page, which raises the possibility that Falk’s הסכמה was dictated by him and recorded by his son. Even so, I don’t think this changes the basic facts recorded in Falk’s הסכמה.
[14] Only one copy of חרבות צורים seems to have survived the vicissitudes of time. It is preserved in a private collection, and the owner, who prefers to remain anonymous, has graciously allowed me to publish the full text anew. I plan to do so in the near future. Here I post a scan only of the opening lines and paragraph, which are relevant to the discussion at hand.
[15] It is possible to claim that Falk was already blind when לוחת עדות was published on June 27, 1755. When a copy reached Falk in Frankfurt, it was read to him by an amanuensis, who also recorded Falk’s response as it was dictated to him. The response was then published in the broadside entitled חרבות צורים. Such a claim, however, is meaningless in terms of apologetics, whose ultimate goal is to dismiss Falk’s testimony as uninformed and meaningless. By June 1755, Falk’s role in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy was basically over. It’s everything he said, wrote, and did before June 1755 –when he certainly could see and read – that established his unique and unequivocal stance in the controversy. Moreover, specifically with regard to חרבות צורים, every criticism of Eibeschuetz by Falk is referenced with precision to the appropriate page in לוחת עדות. Every criticism is clever, incisive, and right on target – as one would expect from a tried and tested Sabbatean-buster like Falk. None of the criticisms could be dismissed as the uninformed and meaningless testimony of a blind man who could not read and understand the text of לוחת עדות.
[16] Anecdotal evidence (that can neither be authenticated nor dated with precision) preserves a tradition that Falk wore reading glasses in Lvov. If true, it surely suggests that he was able to see at that early stage in his life (and needed glasses only for reading). Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed otherwise. See Zinz, op. cit., pp. 95-6. Elsewhere in the same volume (on p. 25), Zinz writes specifically – without adducing any evidence – that Falk “was blind for several months prior to his death.” This is perfectly consistent with our conclusion



The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah

The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah
By Brian Schwartz
If someone were to ask you of an instance where a rabbi was declared the messiah by his followers, the first example that would probably come to mind is the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, who to this very day many of his chasidim regard as the Messiah, despite his death.  Many people would struggle to point to any other similar times in history, besides for the Shabbethai Tzvi affair and his various successors[1], where someone was thought of as the Jewish Messiah. However, throughout the past few hundred years, there have been a handful of rabbis who have been explicitly or implicitly declared the messiah, suggested it, or have been accused of suggesting it. 
Messiahship was a chasidic and mystical phenomenon, with chasidic rebbes; R’ Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov[2], R’ David of Tulna[3], R’ Yisrael of Ruzhin[4], R’ Nachman of Breslov[5], R’ Yitzchak Isaac Safrin of Komarna[6], R’ David Moshe of Chortkov[7], and mystics; R’ Chaim Vital[8], R’ Chaim ibn Attar[9], R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzato[10], Shukar Kuchayil I[11], and Shukar Kuchayil II[12], and more recently Yisrael Dov Odesser[13], all being labeled one way or another as the Messiah[14].  Despite the characterization of these individuals as the Messiah, most lived on without any scandal associated with the eschatological attribution.  There is one instance however, which unfortunately did cause a great uproar.  I refer to you the case of R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar, the scion of the Vizhnitz chasidic dynasty, and the Transylvanian town of Borşa.
Borşa was a mountain village located in Northern Transylvania, in the Maramureș region of Romania.  In 1830 it had a Jewish population of 250, rising to 1,432 in 1890.  Most of the people in Borşa were chasidim of the Kosov-Vizhnitz dynasty.  In 1855, R’ Yaakov Tzvi Waldman, a chasid himself, though an adherent of R’ Chaim Halberstam of Sanz, was chosen as rabbi of Borşa.  Considered a great talmid chacham by his peers[15], Rabbi Waldman was defrocked by his own kehillah because of his harsh words towards the Vizhnitz Chasidim of his town.  The story behind this is relayed by R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, author of the Sh”ut Kol Aryeh, in two letters he sent; one to the townspeople of Borşa, and one to R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar, the Rebbe of Vizhnitz.  In the letters, he mourns over the great bizuy talmid chacham that transpired because of the people of the town removing Waldman from his position as rabbi, replacing him with a boor, and threatening anyone who still considered him rabbi with excommunication.  

What caused all this to transpire?  In the year 1870, the Chasidim of Borşa decided that since the gematria of “Menachem” (the Vizhnitzer rebbe’s name) is equivalent to that of “Tzemach” (a term used by the prophets to refer to the messiah, see Zachariah 6:12, and Midrash Eicha Rabbah 1:57), Menachem Mendel Hagar, the Rebbe of Vizhnitz must be the messiah.  Reacting to this, Waldman said, “כי אמונה כזאת ועבודת האנשים המאמינים בה זרה.”

Here are the two letters printed in the Toldos Kol Aryeh, and if you look at the footnote to the letter to Borşa on p.147, you’ll notice that it says that it was first printed in the beginning of Shu”t Vayitzbor Yosef:
The Vayitzbor Yosef was written by R’ Yosef Schwartz[16], the grandson of R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz.  The copy I initially had, was the second edition printed by R’ Yosef’s nephew in Brooklyn in 1987[17].  Here is the title page:
  
However, a thorough search for the letter through the entire work came up with nothing.  It seems to have vanished.  After an exhaustive hunt, I was finally able to procure a first edition of the Vayitzbor Yosef, and upon examination, I was able to realize the full extent of how doctored the second edition is.  In the second edition, there are approbations added from R’ Yosef Schwartz’s other work Ginzei Yosef, and the index is in the back of the sefer, unlike the first edition where they were printed in the front, right after the hakdamah and before the pesicha.  These changes are quite innocuous.  However, in the second edition, a picture of the original title page is presented with a glaring omission.
Here is how it is presented:
And here is it in actuality:
Notice anything different?  That’s right, on the original title page, there is mention of a separate part of the sefer, “Naftali Savah Ratzon” which is supposed to be a collection of things that the author heard from his father R’ Naftali Schwartz.  If you guessed that the second edition is devoid of this section in its entirety, you would also be correct.  Here is a picture of the beginning of that missing section, which also happens to be printed in the back of the New York edition of Toldos Kol Aryeh:
Having gone through the Naftali Savah Ratzon, I couldn’t find any objectionable material that would have motivated the publishers from removing it.  So what was their motivation?  Remember the missing letter from R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz, the Kol Aryeh?  Well, in the first edition, there is another small section right after the pesicha, called “Hashmatah V’hosafa L’kunteres Naftali Savah Ratzon.”

Here is how the second edition appears:
And here is how it’s supposed to look like:
This section is four pages long, and in it can be found the censored letter from R’ Schwartz to the people of Borşa.  It would seem that this sensitive letter was behind the publisher’s motivation to totally remove any mention of the Naftali Savah Ratzon, since it was officially part of it as a hashmatah.  So not only was an important document lifted from the sefer, a whole section became a casualty along with it.  Why the publishers couldn’t just take the letter out and keep the rest of the Naftali Savah Ratzon, I’m not sure.  I guess they wanted as “clean” of a job as possible.
I must point out how Leopold Greenwald, Yaakov Tzvi Abraham, Dr. Yehuda Speigel, and Gedaliah Stein explain the rationale of the people of Borşa’s belief that Menachem Mendel Hagar was the Messiah, and how their explanation is mistaken.  Greenwald[18], Abraham[19], Speigal[20], and Stein both suggest how the belief was formulated as a reaction to Hagar’s sefer, Tzemach Tzadik.  In his work Zichron Borsa[21], Stein explains that since Hagar gave no explanation to the title of his sefer, which was perplexing since it did not have Hagar’s name within its title as do other sefarim, such as “Kedushas Levi” by R’ Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, or “Ahavas Yonasan” by R’ Yonasan Eibeshutz, his chasidim saw in it an esoteric meaning.  As the gematria of “Tzemach,” which is used to refer the Messiah in Zachariah 6:12, is equivalent to “Menachem,” and likewise the gematria of “Tzaddik,” which is also used in Zachariah 9:9 to refer to the Messiah, is equivalent to “Mendel,” this must mean that their rebbe, R’ Menachem Mendel Hagar is indeed the Messiah! 
This explanation is simply untrue.  In no way, could the work Tzemach Tzadik have had any influence on what happened in Borşa in 1870, when it was only published for the first time in 1885.  As for the reason why it was called Tzemach Tzadik, Hagar’s son Baruch, explains in the preface to the work that he simply named it because the gematria is equivalent to Menachem Mendel.  It is also untenable to argue that a manuscript, or knowledge of one with the title Tzemach Tzadik, was floating around at the time of the dispute, because  R’ Baruch Hagar writes in the preface that the material for the work was only written a few years before his father’s passing in 1885.  Consequentially, we must take the letters of the Kol Aryeh for their simple meaning, that the people themselves came up with the gematria of tzemach and its link to the Messiah and the Vizhnitz Rebbe.
Many leading rabbis of the time came to R’ Waldman’s defense, including; R’ Moshe Schick[22], R’ Chaim Sofer of Munkatch[23], R’ Chaim Halberstam of Sanz[24], R’ Yosef Shaul Nathansohn[25], and the previously mentioned R’ Avraham Yehuda Schwartz. It seems that the only rabbi that came to the defense of the Vizhnitz Chasidim, was R’ Yehuda Modern[26].  What happened next isn’t very clear, but it seems that a tribunal was held by Schwartz to settle things[27], and Waldman was reinstituted as rabbi of Borşa.  Waldman died in Vienna in 1883.
As a side note, take a look at the last page of the letter of R’ Schwartz, printed in the first edition of the Vayitzbor Yosef, on the very bottom:
That is a stamp referring to the responsum of R’ Moshe Schick to Borşa!  I don’t know if this appears in every first edition copy, or if some private owner went to the trouble to specially stamp this, but it would be interesting to find out!


[1] Mordechai Mochiach of Eisenstaedt, Baruchia Russo, Jacob Querido, Abraham Cordozo, Yehuda Leib Prossnitz, and Jacob Frank
[2] See Ba’al Shem Tov Al Hatorah (Jerusalem 1998) in the Hakdamah #23 in the name of Nachum from Chernobyl, though this is seemingly a contradiction to the Iggeres Hakodesh of the Ba’al Shem Tov where he writes that he spoke with the Messiah.
[3] See Aharon Wertheim, Halachos V’halichos B’Chasidus (Mossad Harav Kook, 2002), pp. 20-21 fn. 52
[4] See David Assaf, The Regal Way (Stanford University Press, 2002), pp. 257-261
[5] See Yehuda Leibes, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (State University of New York Press, 1993) p. 115
[6] See the hakdamah to Chumash Heichal Bracha (Lemberg 1864), “וגם דודי מורי החסיד השלם הצדיק אא”ק מוהר”ר משה הוא קרא אותי בפעם הראשון בשם מורה מורנו בפ’ בהר וקרא לפני או דודו יגאלנו ואמר עשיתי אותך גואל ואמר זה באנפין נהרין.”.  See Heichal Bracha on Leviticus 25:49 where he says that the verse is referring to Mashiach ben Yosef.  See also Megilas Starim (Jerusalem 1944) where he says he was born in the year משיח בן יוסף,  here.
[7] See Nochum Brandwein, Imrei Tov (1891) p.29a where he writes, “כמו ששמעתי מפי מרן הק’ והטהור איש צדיק תמים שמו נאה לו מוהר”ר דוד משה שליט”א. וזאת ידוע כי “משה” עולה :”אלקים אחרים”, כי בכוחו נמתק אלקים אחרים , “משה דוד” עולה: “שטן”,כי בכוחו להמתיק את השטן מישראל, ואז נמשך גאולה לישראל, כי: “משיח” עם הכולל עולה: “משה דוד”, ואז יקויים “ועינינו תראינה מלכותך” ע”י דוד משיח צדקך .  here.
[8] See Chaim Vital, Sefer Hachizyonos (Jerusalem, 2001) pp. 8, 17-18
[9] See Ohr Hachaim, Deuteronomy 15:7 at the end, here.
[10] See Isaiah Tishby, Messianic Mysticism (Littman Library, 2014) pp. 196-199
[11] See Yaakov Sapir, Iggeres Teiman Hasheni (Mainz, 1873)  here and Amram ibn Yachya Kerach, Sa’aras Teiman  (Jerusalem. 1954) pp.36-39 here.
[12] See ibid.
[14]  Though R’ Shalom Shachna of Lublin allegedly wrote on his gemara about the debate in Sanhedrin 98b over the name of the Messiah, “אני אומר שכנא שמו שנאמר לשכנו תדרשו”, referring to Deuteronomy 12:5, See Reuven Margolyos, Margolyos Hayam, Sanhedrin 98b #14, it was probably from a disciple in jest.  See Asher Ziv, Rabbeinu Shalom Shachna Milublin, Hadarom No.57, p.119.
[15] His two volume halachic work, Shu”t Tzvi V’Chamid, was printed from a manuscript in 2008.
[16] Here is a picture of R’ Schwartz with his wife:

[17] Unfortunately, hebrewbooks.org doesn’t yet have the sefer online. You can still look at the first forty pages for free on Otzar Ha-Hochma online with this link, here, even if you don’t have a subscription.
[18] Matzevat Kodesh (New York 1951) p.24 fn.57 here,  L’toldos Hareformatzian Hadatis B’Germania U’bungaria p.20 fn.40 here.
[19] L’koros Hayahadus B’trasylvania (New York) p.84
[20] Toldos Yisrael V’hispatchus Hachasidus B’Rusia H’Karpatis p.32
[21] (Kiryas Motzken, 1984) part 2 pp.68-71
[22] Shu”t Maharam Schick, Yoreh Deah #219,  here.  The published teshuva is written to an anonymous kehillah, though it is attributed to the town of Borşa.
[23] Toldos Sofrim (London, 1962) pp.37-38, here.  From Sofer’s letter we see how this was also part of the greater dispute between the Sanz and Sadigura chasidim, on this see David Assaf, Heitzitz V’Nifga Ch.19.
[24] Measef Ha’be-er year 7 p.42,  here.  I was very pleased when I first saw this letter. In it, Halberstamm argues that even an evil person that learns torah, his torah isn’t נמאסת, how more so then to a righteous person.  He brings a proof from the famous gemara in Chagiga 15b where a fire came down from heaven in front of Yehuda Hanasi to defend Elisha ben Avuya from disparagement.  I always made the same argument to fanatics who would say disparaging remarks about R’ Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
[25] Shu”t Shoel U’Meishiv Sheviah #16, also in Kerem Shlomo Tamuz 5743
[26] Tzfunos no.10 Teves 5751 p.118, here.
[27] See Toldos Kol Aryeh p.79 #122, here.


Some New Seforim, Books, R’ Eleazar Fleckeles, R’ Naftali Herz Weisel, Frankism and (of course) Censorship, Pt. I

Some New Seforim, Books, R’ Eleazar Fleckeles, R’ Naftali Herz Weisel, Frankism and (of course) Censorship*
By Eliezer Brodt
It’s been awhile since I posted a list of new seforim. I hope to post an updated list of a few hundred titles within the next few weeks. In this post I want to focus on a few new titles that, aside for being new, all have a connection to one topic. This is also an update to some earlier posts relating to this topic.
As a bochur about twenty years ago, I came across a small sefer called Olas Chodesh by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles during one of my daily shopping trips in seforim stores in Meah Shearim. Until then I had only been familiar with his Shu”t Teshuva m’Ahava. Besides the excellent price ($3), I also enjoy derush so I was happy with my purchase. Going through the sefer I was not let down, as it was especially interesting and even included some nice pieces from his rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah. A few years later, while in Monsey, I made a short, enjoyable visit to Tuvia’s Bookstore. There I came across another small sefer by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles, Meleches haKodesh. After going through this sefer, I was once again blown away with how never ending Torah is (this is a daily occurrence!) . A bit later I was in a special library in Lakewood where I came across yet another obscure sefer by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles called Ahavat David, devoted to attacking Frankism. I immediately photocopied the sefer and went through it, marking off some interesting pieces. (Here is a link to a complete version of the work from the Reich collection, and here is a link to it on Google Books.)
In 2007 I wrote a review of the Meleches haKodesh [here] called ‘god or God: A Review of Two Works on the Names of God’. In that post I mentioned a letter found in the beginning of the Ahavat Dovid quoting a letter from R. Naftali Hertz Wesseley which says;
כי שמעתי מפי הגאון המקובל הגדול שהי’ ידוע הזוהר וכל ספרי האר”י ז”ל בעל פה הוא הרב ר’ יהונתן אייבשיטץ זצ”ל שהיה אומר לשומעי דבריו בעיני הקבלה כשראה שהם מפקפקים בהם ואמר אם לא תאמינו אין בכך כלום כי אין אלו מעיקרי אמונתנו, וכן היה אומר לאלו המביאים הקדמות מדברי קבלה לישב איזה גמרא או מדרש לא חפצתי בזאת ומה חדוש על פי קבלה תוכל ליישב מה שתרצה אמור לי הפשט הברור על ידי נגלה ואז אודך וכל זה אמת עי”ש עוד.
A bit after writing that post, I received an e-mail from Marc Shapiro asking me where I saw that letter, as the edition of Ahavat Dovid that he checked did not have it. I told him I had photocopied the whole sefer from an original. Some time after that, in February 2010, On The Main Line wrote about this censorship:
The book included a 1796 letter from Wessely, which Fleckeles offered… I will just note that I examined the pdf of Ahavas David twice, and I was unable to find the letter. I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t find it, so I asked several friends (literary men) if they knew what page it was on. Dr. Marc Shapiro replied that this edition — a Copy Corner reprint — is censored; it doesn’t include the letter! I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the censorship, ie, removal of the letter occurred long before the scanning of the book. That is to say, there’s no way at the moment to tell who removed it and when, but we can probably guess why. In any case, at the same time I asked Shapiro for clarification, Rabbi Brodt told me that his copy of Ahavas David includes the letter, and he sent it to me.
This censorship was later included and discussed by Marc Shapiro in an article[1] and then again in his work Changing the Immutable, (p.220). 
In 2007 I already noted some of the significance of this letter; i.e. it is notable that R’ Fleckeles quotes R’ Wesseley at all[2], as Wesseley was one of the early leaders of the haskalah movement, was close to Mendelssohn and was the author of the Biur on Vayikrah. R’ Fleckeles, like R’ Landau was firmly against the Biur.[3]
The significance of this letter in relationship to all this was already pointed out by Meir Hildesheimer, in a footnote in his excellent article “Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth Century Rabbinical Literature,” (Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (PAAJR) 55 (1988), p. 87 n. 23).
As an aside, all this is yet another example why scanned copies of seforim are not enough, as at times the scanner deletes pages on purpose (or even by accident). Examining originals are therefore important.
Both Meir Hildesheimer and On the Main Line[4] already noted that a copy of this letter was printed again in HaMelitz (#48, p. 750) in 1886.

In 1930, Dovid Zinz, in his extensive biography on R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz, Gadlut Yonasan, lists R’ Wesseley as a talmid of R’ Yonasan (p.280), and also reprints this letter without claiming it’s a forgery (pp.245-246).
In November 2011 I wrote a two part post on the incredible work Parshegen by Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen. In the second post, titled Using the works of Shadal and R. N. H. Wessely, I wrote:
A few years ago in the pages of the excellent journal Ha-maayan, a controversy took place (here) in relationship to how to cite various works of questionable people, in the course of the controversy it turned to quoting Mendelson and Wessely and their stories. Rabbi Posen mentioned that there was nothing wrong with Wessely which others argued. This controversy in regard to Wessely was not a new one[5], a few years back in the Kovetz Beis Aron VeYisroel there was a series of articles based on various manuscripts showing how the Gedolim at the time were very against Wessely. Towards the end of the Series of articles the author did a strange thing, he collected many citations of big name gedolim who did use Wessely’s work even after the controversy (here, here and here). Almost all of these gedolim were well aware of the controversy of Haskalah and came after the early gedolim obviously disagreeing with them. To me this was strange as he undermined his research – he showed that there was a big controversy with many big people on both sides so how in the world did he reach his conclusion that Wessely was bad according to everyone.
The controversy about Wessely did not end there as a few years later two works of Wessely were reprinted, his Sefer Hamidos (2002), and his Yeyn Halevonon (2003). In the introduction of both works there are lists of great people who used Wessely’s works. To be sure the kanoyim did not remain quiet about this, that same year (2003) in the introduction to the Tomer Devorah reprinted by the Mishor publishing house an introduction was printed about the evil works of Wessely that were reprinted. A few months ago the Kovetz Eitz Chaim (15, 2011, pp. 13-30) printed another manuscript on this controversy against Wessely including some letters of various gedolim of today against the evil Wessely.  In the recent work on R. Elyashiv Shlita, Hashakdon (2, pp. 136-137) they also mention how he was against the reprinting of the works of Wessely. The problem to me is how do they explain all the great Gedolim who did use his works? [In that post I included a list of Gedolim who used the works of Wessely, or quoted him in a positive light.[6] I then concluded with the following:]
“I would like to conclude with the following dream just as R. Shlomo Dubno was vindicated in the past few years by R’ Dovid Kamenetsky. It is my hope that Wessely will too be vindicated from all false charges against him and people will realize there is nothing wrong with his writings.”
Fast Forward to 2014

A few years ago I mentioned a sefer called Rabbenu written by R’ Eliyhua Starrit about R’ Ovadiah Yosef. This work is very valuable, as the author printed numerous conversations he had with R’ Ovadiah Yosef while learning with him and we get a rare, authentic glimpse into his study habits and private learning sessions. Among the numerous interesting pieces in this work we “hear” R’ Ovadiah’s opinion on different seforim and their authors. However, at times a juicy tidbit or name is censored out and we are left in the dark with just a tease of a conversation.

Here are two such pieces. The first refers to the reprinting of the Chemdas Yamim (hopefully I will return to that in the future). The second refers to the reprint of R. N. H. Wessely’s work by Yerid Haseforim a few years ago. As you can see, part is edited out.

We see that R’ Ovadiah Yosef was also against the reprinting of R’ Wessely’s works.

And 2016

In April this year, a complete edition of Ahavat Dovid was put up for auction by Legacy Judaica as was mentioned here, with a signature of it having been owned by R’ Binyomin Lowe, author of Sha’arei Torah.
A few months ago a few more volumes of R’ Wessely were printed, some for the first time from manuscript, by R’ Moshe Tzuriel. One volume includes three new seforim. 1) Sefer HaMidos which includes an additional one hundred and twenty five new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. 2) Sefer Migdol HaLevonon, about one hundred and fifty new pages from manuscript, printed for the first time. This work focuses on Shemos Nirdafim (synonyms). 3) Chikur Hadin, a thirty page article on Sechar VeOnesh. The second volume is a reprint of Gan Na’ul (934 pp.) with notes and indexes. There is a whole section of this work printed here from manuscript for the first time, numbering about 250 pages!

Here are two samples of pieces from this beautiful work.


It is worth seeing this haskamah of the Noda Bi Yehuda to Gan Na’ul:

In the introduction to this new work, the editor notes (p. 6) that R’ Fleckeles quotes a letter from R’ Naftali Hertz Wesseley in his Ahavat David and mentions that it has been censored out of some versions, referring to his introduction of the Yeyin Levonon that he printed in 2003 (p. 26).

A few months ago R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ Ahavat Dovid was reprinted by Mechon Netzach Yakov together with his Olas Chodesh Hasheni (more on this further on). 
However when reprinting the Ahavat Dovid, they censored R’ Naftali Hertz Wesseley’s letter and removed it. They write (p.251) their reasoning for doing so as follows:

בראות רבינו זצ”ל גדול המכשלה שנגרם ע”י לימוד תורת הנסתר ואיך שנמשכו כמה אנשים פשוטים עם ללימוד זה, ומתוך כך נאחזו בסבך כת הפראנקיסטן וירדו להתום, ביקש רבינו לעשות כל פעולה ותחבולה לעוררם ולמונעם מלימוד זה לשם כך יצא מן הקו, ובבחינת עת לעשות ל’ וגו’ העתיק בתחילת הספר מכתב מהמשכיל הנודע לשמצה נ”ה ויצל, מה שכתב בשנת תקנב לאחד מתובי העיר פראג, הגדת עדות מה ששמע בנעוריו מפי אחד מגדולי ישראל המפורסמים מדור הקודש, ליזהר מלימוד בספרי קבלה, ולעסוק אך ורק בנגלות התורה. במשך השנים נשמט מכתב זה מדפוסי ספר ‘אהבת דוד’ וכן ראינו לנכון שלא להעתיקו, כי לפי הנראה לא היתה אלא בתורת הוראת שעה, לעורר ההמון והמתחדשים בעם לבל יומשכו אחר כת הארורה הזאת. וראה עוד בענין זה בקובץ בית אהרן וישראל…”.

Aside from deleting the letter and claiming that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles did not really agree with its contents, they also complete misquote it.

Emes LeYakov

A few weeks ago a work called Emes LeYakov (696 pp.) from R’ Yakov Emden[7] was released by R’ Goldstein of Monroe.[8] It includes all of R’ Emden’s notes and novella on the Zohar[9] from a manuscript in Oxford (R’ Goldstein has shown a while ago that Bick’s edition (printed by Mossad HaRav Kook) of R’ Emden’s notes on the Zohar is worthless).[10] The volume begins with a 140 page introduction of the significance of these notes on the Zohar and the general history of the Zohar and various works and editions.[11]

In passing, R’ Goldstein (p. 20) writes regarding of R’ Naftali Hertz Wesseley’s letter printed by R’ Eleazar Fleckeles.

 בספר אהבת דוד… הביא מכתב מאחד ממשוררי הזמן (שלימים נודע שהוא מראשוני וראשי המשכילים, ואף רבו של רבי אלעזר ה”ה בעל נודע ביהודה זצ”ל, לחם נגדו ונגד דעותיו, והדברים ידועים ואכמ”ל), שכתב שם חי נפשי, כי שמעתי בנעורי מפי הגאון המקובל… הרב מוהר”ר יונתן… כי אין אלו מעיקירי אמונתנו ע”ש ובלי ספק מי שאינו מאמין לו, כי יצאו הדברים האלו מפי הגאון רבי יונתן בוודאי אין בכך כלום, אמנם ראינו חובה להעיר על אלו הדברים מדברי רבנו כאן כי המכחיש קבלת חכמת האמת הוא מין ואפיקורוס גמור’ ודי בזה”.

Basically he claims it’s false and what follows is that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles was mistaken to print this letter.
Shu”t Zecher Yehosef

Another recent work that has a connection to this post is the new two volumes of Shu”t Zecher Yehosef on Yoreh Deah by R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern. Many years ago Mechon Yerushalayim announced that they would be printing R’ Yosef Zechariah Stern’s works still in manuscript. In 1994, they printed the shut on Even Haezer. In 2014 they reprinted his shu”t on Orach Chaim, which had been impossible to find, while also adding in some new material. This summer they released two completely new volumes on Yoreh Deah from manuscript (380+413 pp.) (of course it’s amazing). R’ Yosef Zechariah is the subject of a future post; for now it’s worth mentioning Siman 173, his teshuvah connected to this topic.[12] It’s a slightly different version that the one that appears in the Sdei Chemed:



The editor writes in a footnote: 

ראה קובץ בית אהרן וישראל… ועי’ במבוא לספר יין לבנון מהדורת תשס”ג שהביאו הרבה גדולי עולם שדעתם כדעת רבינו, ויש לפקפק על הערעורים כנגד. אבל אינו ברור מה ידעו עליו בדור שאחר הפולמוס, ועי’ קובץ עץ חיים גליון טו…

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean? That later on we found out he is evil?

Olos Chodesh Sheini

We now return to the new edition of R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ work. This is the third volume of R’ Eleazar Fleckeles works printed by a Boro Park-based Machon called Netzach Yaakov. When writing about the last volume they printed, I remarked: “I really hope they continue to print the rest of R’ Fleckeles’ works”. B”H, they are doing good job continuing with reissuing his works. This beautifully produced edition includes an introduction about R’ Fleckeles, sources to his words, at times quoting R’ Fleckeles references from his other works, and a detailed index of topics and seforim quoted by R’ Fleckeles at the end of the volume. 

The first part of the sefer is R’ Eleazar Fleckeles Olos Chodesh Sheini.

I would just like to quote a few passages from this beautiful work.

The first point to note about this sefer is the beautiful Haskamah that the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:



Elsewhere in the sefer he writes about himself: 

כך אני אומר, אני אחד מסוחרי הקטנים אין לי כל בבית כי את אשר ראיתי במראה יחזקא”ל, מראה נאוה קודש, פנים מאירות להלכה ופנים שוחקות לאגדה, מעט הון תמורת העבודה אשר יגעתי מנעורי ושמשתי מילדותי עד היום הזה, את רבינו גדול הדור רבן של ישראל [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קעב]. 

The sefer is full of references to material from the Noda Bi-Yehudah, both oral and written.

What apparently was relevant in our day was in his day too:

כאשר בעונינו עד היום, אם המוכיח הוא בעל מעשה, אזן וחקר ותקן משלים, הכל רצין אחריו והכסילים יצאו מבוהלים, אך שהוא למשל ולשנינה, ודבריו לא היה ולא נבראו אלא למשל, ואין מחשבתו כלל לשם שמים, כי מחשבתו ניכרת מתוך המעשה, שמאריך מאד מאד, וחוד חידה, וממשל משל, במעשה הבל, ומעה תעועים, ואינו חפץ כלל להדריכם  בדרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם, להמשל משל אל בית מרי, כי אם תחלת המחשבה על סוף המעשה, לסרס הלכה למעשה, להיות חביב בעיני הבריות, שממשל משלים הוא, משלי שועלים ושעלים הלכו בו, ואמרים קדוש וברוך ומבורך בפי כל משבחים ומפארים מהמעשים אשר לא יעשו ושמו אותו לאדון על כל המעשים. ואיש האלקים אשר מעיו מוכיחין, תוכחות מוסר הכל, גדולים מעי ה’, צדק משפט ומישרים דברים אינם נמעים, וחכמתו בזויה, אפילו אם יושב ודורש כמשה מפי הגבורה [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ לו].

In another derasha he writes:

ולא כן השורים המשוררים. אין כוונתם לשיר ה’ כי אם לשיר חדש. ואינם מדקדקים אם יושר שיר הזה בארץ יהודים. או אם יהיה לצור מכשול כשירת הזונה…. כי אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה ולא אימת רבן… הנה בכל השנה החזנות חזיונות ושעיפי לילה חזון שוא ותפל. מכל שכן בראש השנה ויום הכיפור השתא הלל לא אמרינן. משום שמלך יושב על כסא הדין וספרי חיים וספרי מתים פתוחים כדאמרו ז”ל… וז”ל הרמב”ם בפירוש המשניות שלא היו קורין הלל לא בראש השנה ולא ביום כיפור. לפי שהם ימי עבודה והכנעה ופחד ומורא… ואיך נשיר את שיר הכסילים. כשמסתכל אדם יום המיתה… ואיך להעלות על הדעת שתפלות הללו יעשה רושם למעלה ויעלו חן ויהיו לרצון על מזבח ה’ [עמ’ קיג].

Of course there are numerous parallels[13] to this in other sources; to cite just one, R’ Shabesai Sofer writes in his Siddur:
ויותר מזה צריכים להזהר החזנים בתפלותיהם, הממונים להוציא רבים ידי חובותיהם  … כי על הרוב אינם מקפידים רק על קול נעים… ולא זו בלבד אלא שהם מנגים נגוני נכרים… [הקדמה פרטית סי’ כז].

In another derasha he writes:

לא בשליחי ציבור בלבד רעה זה חולה ראיתי, אלא אף בהתמניות הרבנים יושבי על מדין, מתוועדים בעלי בתים יחד יושבי קרנות, אשר לא יצאו מבית הספר מעולם, ואין להם ידיעות בית רב, ומעידין באיש פלוני שהוא איש האלקים גבר בגוברין, וכדי הוא לסתכל במראה קשת גבורים ללמד בני יהודה קשת, ולאחוז פני כסא הוראה כבוד חכמים מחוכמים, ומקבלים אותו לרב ומורה גדול בזזרוע נטויה וביד חזקה, בלי ידיעות תופשי התורה אשר להם משפט הבחירה, ולא כאשר נהגו אבותינו הקדושים ז”ל שבחורי ישראל הכריעו [עמ’ קטז].

Another derasha, dated during Aseret Yemi Teshuvah 1784, is devoted in part to attacking Mendelsohn’s Biur.[14] In addition, he quotes a piece from the Noda Bi-Yehudah related to this.
Interestingly enough the great bibliographer Ben Yaakov when writing about this work notes:

דרושים שונים נחלק למאמרים ובו דברי ריבות על העתקת התורה להרמבמ”ן [אוצר הספרים, עמ’ 432].


While an examination of all the statements of the Noda Bi-Yehudah about this need to be properly analyzed, it’s worth pointing out to a censorship on this subject. 

In the beginning of his new book, Maoz Kahana[15] writes as follows:

ראשון הביוגרפים של ר’ יחזקאל לנדא היה בנו יעקב. הקונטרס “דברי ידידות”, ששלח לאחיו שמואל לקראת הדפסת ספר נודע ביהודה תנינא בשנת 1810, שבע עשרה שנים אחר פטירת האב, מהווה עד היום אוסף ידיעות ומסורות ראשון ורב ערך. חלק מסוים של דברי ידידות נערך ונדפס בראש הספר הנזכר, וחלקים אחרים שלו נדחו וצונזרו, אותם אפשר להעלות מכתב היד הארוך המקורי של יעקב, מלווה בהערות העריכה של שמואל שנשמר בספריית קרלין סטולין בירושלים. [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ’ 23].

Further on in his book he writes:

בשנת 1813 הדפיס ייטליס בהערה צדדית בספרו ‘מבוא הלשון ארמית’ דיון אוהד מאוד של הנודע ביהודה בתרגום המנדלנסוני ובהכרעותיו הפרשניות. את הדיון הזה לקח ייטליס ממכתב יעקבקא לנדא שהיה בידי אחיו שמואל בפראג. המכתב המדובר הוא ‘דברי ידידות’…  שכתב ר’ יעקבקא בברודי בשנת 1810, ובו תיעד ביקורו אצל אביו בפראג בשנת תקמ (1780). תארוך העדות האוהדת לשנה זו, סמוך להדפסת ‘עלים לתרופה’ של ה’ביאור’ (1778), אך לפני פרשת וויזל (1782) מאיר יפה את יחסו החיובי של הנוב”י למנדלסון ב’תקופת הביניים’ הקצרה הזו, בין 1778 לבין 1782. כתב היד המדובר נדד לבסוף אל גנזי חסידות קרלין סטולין, ומשם צולם לבית הספרים הלאומי בירושלים בשנות התשעים. אך אותה הסיבה שגרמה למשכיל יהודה ייטליס בשנת 1813 לצטט דווקא את הפסקה הזו מתוך כתב היד הארוך, גרמה למי מהעוסקים במלאכת הצילום כעבור כמאה ושמונים שנים לצנזר בעזרת דף נייר חלק את… אותה הפסקה ממש. ראה י’ ייטליס, מבוא הלשון ארמית, פראג תקע”ג, הקדמה והשווה לכתב יד קרלין-סטולין ירושלים (F49262) מספר 435… הפיסקה לא נכללה גם בדברי ידידות הנדפס… [מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, עמ’ 190-191 הערה 80].

It’s worth mentioning this passage from R’ Ber Oppenheimer describing his reaction to reading the דברי ידידות about the Noda Bi-yehuda, whom he knew:




When examining the manuscript in Hebrew University the first page states:

קונטרס בן ל”ב עמודים שכתב הגאון ר’ יעקבקא סגל לנדא לאחיו הגאון ר’ שמואל סגל לנדא לפני הדפסתו ספר נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא והגאון מהר”ש הוציא מכאן את דברי ידידות… יש כאן כמה וכמה דברים שנשמטו בדפוס וכמובן שבכוונה מכוונת השמיטם הגר”ש ביניהם הוא ענין הביאור של רמ”ד.

This following passage is already quoted by Sandler in 1941,[16] and Moshe Samet in 1970.[17] In 1911 this letter was mentioned in the Encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel (p. 62), where the author writes:

 כי כל דברי האגרת הזאת הם מזויפים, כי סגנון הלשון ושבחו של מנדלסון יעידון כי יצא מפי משכיל ולא מפי רב בימים האלה.


It’s silly to say that it was a forgery, as the work has a haskamah from both R’ Shmuel Landau and R’ Eleazar Fleckeles and was printed in their lifetime in their city and there is not a single trace of any protest or opposition on their part.

Now this is even more interesting; R’ Fleckeles, in his work Meleches haKodesh (first printed in 1812), uses Mendelssohn’s Biur for halachic purposes.[18] He also quotes R. Shlomo Dubno in his Tikun Sofrim many times.[19] Most printings of this work are in various editions of Mendelssohn’s Biur. It’s unlikely that he was quoting it from the rare standalone version when it was printed itself without the Biur, if we already know that he used the Biur.[20]
In a work that was printed in 1793, a Hesped on the Noda Bi-Yehudah, we find on the cover it has a picture of Mendelssohn and the Noda Bi-Yehudah embracing. It’s already mentioned here by On the Main Line and more recently by Maoz Kahana (ibid, pp. 192-193).



The truth is, a proper analysis of the primary sources (such as the derasha quoted above) shows that the Noda Bi-Yehudah‘s and R’ Fleckeles’ main issue with Mendelssohn’s Biur was not on the Biur portion[21]; it was on the German translation written by Mendelssohn.
Here are two rare sources[22] which are very important for understanding this subject. The first is an Haskamah signed by both Noda Bi-Yehudah and R’ Fleckeles to a Chumash printed in 1785; as one can see on the Sha’ar there is a direct influence of Mendelssohn on this work. However in the Haskamah they explain why they are giving one – it could compete with Mendelssohn’s edition, as it also translates for the convenience of the reader, but without Mendelssohn’s literary German to which they are opposed.



The second source is a haskamah written by R’ Fleckeles to a Chumash printed Prague in 1824 with a German Translation! Here too, R’ Fleckeles outlines why he is giving it a Haskamah. 

This Haskamah is printed at the end of Silber and Kahana’s above quoted article. They print the Haskamah as it appears in Bereshis, this is the one for the Shemos volume. In the National Library and Mifal Bibliography they only record the volume on Vayikra. But more importantly, they do not note R’ Fleckeles’ Haskamah. This is an uncatalogued haskamah of R’ Fleckeles which helps understand his take on Mendelsohn.[23]

Coffee

Returning to the Olas Chodesh, like other volumes of Derush, this one is rich in giving one a sense of the people and their sins. R’ Y. Greenwald already writes:

פה ושם הזכירו גם בדרשותיהם שדרשו והוכיחו את בני עדתם ולא עצרו מלהגיד את פשעם אשר ראו בהם… הרבה יש ללמוד מהדרשות שדרשו גדולי הדור ממעמד המוסרי של ישראל בימיהם בהדרשות של הגאון רבנו יונתן אייבשיטץ ב’יערות דבש’… וכן תמצא כדברים הללו בספר דורש לציון להג”ר יחזקאל לאנדא… [לפני שתי מאות שנה, עמ’ 26].

Just to list two samples both of which are related to coffee:[24]

בעינינו ראינו ובאזנינו שמענו כמה פעמים שאומרים לגוי להסיק את התנור וכיריים בשבת אפילו אם אין קור כל, כי אם כדי להחם הקאפע [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קסד]. 

יש כמה אנשים בני בלי שם שאינם עוסקים לא באומנות בורסקי… כי אם יושבים אגודות אגודות מאור הבוקר עד צאת הכוכבים בפונדקאות של גויים, בקאפע הייזר וביר הייזר… ודוברים עתק בגאוה ובוז על מנהיגי עיר ולומדיה, על רבנן ותלמידיהון… [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קט].

 In another passage he describes Yom Kippur at night:

הרי אפילו בשעה הראוי לכל משכיל לעמוד באימה וביראה בזיע ורחת מפני פחד ה’ ומהדר גאונו, כל אחד מתנשא לומר אני אמלוך ואני אלך בראש אני תהלה, וגברה הקנאה והשנאה הנקימה והטירה וגסות הרוח יתירה, עד שכבתה אש הראשונה שניה ממהרת לבא, כל אחד רודף אחר הכבוד, לכבדו בשיר הכבוד שיר היחוד,[25] להיות מבעלי השיר היוצאים בשיר, ואם אין הגבאי מכבד לאומר שיר היחוד, מחרחר ריב ומדון בשאט נפש וזדון, ומלקין על היחוד, כל אחד נכבד בעיניו ומעשיו גדולים משל חבירו, זה בתורה הנקראית קנין, וזה בחלום ברוב ענין, זה ברוב בנין, וזה ברוב מנין, וכמה קטטת ומריבות רבות מסתעפות עד שנהפוך השיר היחוד לשיר של פגעים, כשיר כסילים פגיעתן רעים, וכה מחלוקות שלא לשם שמים שמענו בליל כל נדרי [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ קמט].

Ahavat David

Turning to the Ahavat David; as mentioned, this work was also just reprinted. In 1799, R’ Eleazar Fleckeles gave a series of three derashos devoted to blasting Sabbateanism and Frankism. In 1800, he printed one of them. He learned much from his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, regarding battling them;[26] in his introduction he writes:

גאון הגאונים בעל שו”ת נודע ביהודה… גם הוא ספר לי מעשים רבים משפטים התועבים מכת ש”צ הרשעה פגיעתן רעה… [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנז]. 

רבנו גדול העולם. נודע ביהודה, איך היה מוסר נפשו על קדושת השם יתברך לבער הרשעים אשר בחייהם מטמאין טומאת רקב… זכרו נא לימים מה עשה… רבינו… בליל הושענא רבה תקי”ט… כאשר החל השרץ הטמא… והחרים בארור חרם נוי שמתא בתקיעת שופר ובכבוי נרות את יעקב רמאה… וברוב הדרשות אשר דרש במקהלות הזכיר מכת הרשעה הארורה הזאת [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שיז].

The Noda Bi-Yehudah writes:

וצריך אני להראות כי שכלם כוזב.. ותשמע הארץ אם כת הכופרים שבתי צבי שכל דבריהם כפירות ומינות מלא דברי שטות, להפוך דברי אלקים חיים, ולהפוך עבירות למצות עפרא לפומייה… נגד אלו השוטים בעלי ש”ץ ימח שמם נגד טענותיהם המזויפות… [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק”ל[27], עמ’ 357].וכת הארורה והגרועה מאוד שבתי צבי [שם, עמ’ 362].

Frankism, in the Derashos Beis Peretz

One more passage related to Frankism, from the Derashot Beis Peretz, a contemporary of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, just printed[28] from manuscript states as follows:

זה רמז גדול אשר קרה לנו באחרית הימים בשנת תקי”ט לפ”ק על ידי המינים האפקורסים ש”ץ ימח זכרם, שהיו עומדין עלינו לכלותינו בפני האומות, שהי’ להם וויכוח גדול בק”ק לבוב עם כל הרבנים של מדינות פולין, יותר מן מאתים של אפקורסים ש”ץ ונעו כולם משומדים עם נשיהם ובניהם, והי’ להם וויכוח בשאלות ותשובות לפני שרים רבים ונכבדים מאומות העולם, ולפני כומרים ובישופים הרבה, והי’ להם ראש אחד ביניהם והי’ ספרדי מכשף גדול בשמות הטומאה… שרצו לבטל תורה שבעל פה, וכבר נשרף על ידם מן האומות הכומרים כל הש”ס ורמב”ם וטורים באמצע בעיר בפני כל עם ועדה, וגזרו שמד בכל הקהלות ישרפו תורה… ומפורסם בכל מידנות פולין שהי’ אז נס גדול ומפורסם, שהכומר השר הגדול שצוה לשרוף הספרים הנ”ל הי’ לו מפלה גדולה תיכף מיד אחר מעשה זאת, ומת מיתה משונה, והי’ מכין אותו ביסורין קשים מן השמים, והי’ צועק קודם מותו שהספרים הנ”ל הם שורפין אותו. ואח”כ כל רשעים הנ”ל נשתמדו, ויצאו מכלל ישראל וכתבתי זאת שיהי’ זכרון בספר כמו מחיית עמלק, למען תספר באזני בנך ובן בנך את הנס שנעשה השי”ת בעתים הללו [בית פרץ, עמ’ תו-תז].

Broadside

R’ Fleckeles writes;

גם פה עיר הגדולה לאלקים, נדפס התפ”ו קול כרוז מגדולי הדור ופרנסי העדה, ונדפס פעם שנית שנה זו ממני ומאחי הרבנים המובהקים המאורות הגדולים בית דין מורה שוה [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רפט].

Here is a facsimile of this actual broadside[29]:

In the beginning of the Drasha, R’ Fleckeles quotes from Frankist literature:

כל השומע ורואה יכול לקרות, את דברי האגרות, יצחק וישחק… בלעגי שפה… כלו מגומגום לא עברי ולא תרגום, לא ספרד ולא צרפת לא אשכנז וריפת ולא מפני יפת לשונם אשר הגו בגרונם, כאחד המונם, במלות מזויפות וטרופות כדבר אחר המבשלות והאופות… ואראה דוגמא ראשית האגרת,… וכן יתר דברי האגרת מהומה ומגערת, מאיימים ומפחידים… [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנח].

What letter he is referring to? Paweł Maciejko writes that he is referring to the Red Letters.[30] This document was written around 1800. It was printed in Hebrew and English from manuscript by Ben Zion Wacholder, ‘Jacob Frank and the Frankists Hebrew Zoharic Letters’, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 53 (1982), pp. 265-293.[31] Examining this document we see that this is the letter that R’ Fleckeles was quoting as the exact passages appear there. The reason they were called Red documents, writes Maciejko, is “because of the color of the ink that they were written and the symbolic association between the biblical kingdom of Edom and the Hebrew word adom, red”.[32] In one place in the Derasha R’ Fleckeles even writes:

 וכל מה שכותבים הוא בצבע אדום [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שה].[33]

What was the result of this Derasha? Paweł Maciejko writes: 
Shortly after the sermons were delivered, riots erupted in the city, and although Fleckeles did not mention any names, the mob apparently knew very well whom to assault. During the Funeral of a known Sabbatian, a crowd attacked the procession and the body was profaned. It seems that woman were especially targeted: there was turbulence in the female section of one of the Prague synagogues and many of the wives and daughters of known Sabbatians were insulted or attacked on the city’s streets.[34]
When discussing this group he writes:

גם אלה אשר הנשים יושבות ועוסקות אף עמהם, כי שב”י כלהו איתנהו בהו הכל ממירין אחד אנשים ואחד נשים הכל סר יחדו נאלחו בדברי שוא [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רפג]. 

יעקב איש רע מעללים… טף ונשים באים לשמוע קבלת יעקב רמאה, ועוסקים יחדיו במעשה מרכבה טמאה למען ספות הרוחה את הצמאה [שם, עמ’ שכ].[35]

Oral Derasha Versus a Printed One

In this Derasha we find several times that R’ Fleckeles was very graphic while describing the Frankists’s depravities (pp. 257,290, 323-324). I would like to suggest the following: In general, there is a known issue when learning derush seforim; are printed Derashos exact translated versions of the oral original, or were they edited for print? For the most part, I would say this was an actual version of what he said in the oral Derasha he gave. However, orally he was not as explicit, thus the reason why he rushed to print this Drasha almost immediately after he gave it was that it’s easier to write certain things and he wanted to immediately expose how awful they were.[36]
In a similar context (in relation to the word graphic), in 1936 R’ Avrohom DovBer Kahana Shapiro, author of the classic work Dvar Avrohom, gave an incredible Derasha[37] in Yiddish to thousands of woman on the subject of Taharas Hamishpacha. It was then printed in Yiddish with some notes in Hebrew and in 1940 was printed in Hebrew with more notes. A few years ago it was reprinted. In the introduction the editor writes:

כאמור החוברת הזאת היא הרשמה סטינוגרפית, המוסרת בעינם את הדברים הנפלאים כפי שיצאו מפי הנואם הגדול, רק מפני שבמקומות אחדים שבשעת הרצאתו קיצר הרב שליט”א כבר יותר מדי מפני טעמי צניעות מובנים בנוכחותן של אלפי נשים, בקשנוהו למלאות כפי האפשר בהמסר החוברת לדפוס… 

מטעמי צניעות מובנים ומחמת נוכחותו של קהל הנשים הגדול קיצר הרב שליט”א בדבריו שהיו מרומזים מדי. אמנם באשר לכתיבה, המתאפשרת להימסר בהרחבה, נענה לבקשתנו לפרט ולהרחיב…

In the beginning of the Drasha he said:

נושא הרצאתי מעלה בזכרוני את המשנה על הדברים שנקראים ולא מתרגמים נקראים במקורם ולא מתרגמים בשפה המדוברת. בעקב זה נאלץ אני באי אלו מקומות להיות מוגבל בלשוני, לקצר בדברי, לחפש ולברור מלים נאותות ביותר ולהמנע מכמה ביטוים השייכים ישר לענין בכדי לא לפגוע ברגשות ידועים… אמנם כמאור אאלץ באי אלו מקומות לקצר בתכלית ולהסתפק ברמיזה [7-8].

Related to this he writes in the introduction:

החוברת הזאת שלדה ועיקרה הוא הנאום שנשאתי לפני בית יעקב בשפה המדוברת אולם בצאתה פעמיים בדפוס נוספו כמה דברים ובעיקר הערות בפ”ע מתחת לקו עד כי נסבה ורחבה ותשלח בדים וענפים מעל לגבולות נאום עד כי מדת ספר קטן. לזאת יש ממכרי שיעצוני לשנות קצת את סדרה ופניה, פני נאום, לעבדה ולהקציעה ולתת לה פני ספר לאוהבי ומוקירי אלא אענית הבדל עיקרי יש בין ספר לנואם הספר מושגו לשימות איכותית בענין שהוא דן עליו היקף ועיבוד, והנואם הוא בחינת קטע או קטעים מענין הנידון בחינת מקופיא. ובהיות שלא עיבדתי את הדברים עיבוד גמור ובהיות שרובם אינם ממקצועי, לא הייתי חושב להרימם למעלת ספר במובן האמור, לחשבו לדבר שלם ומקיף…



Sefer HaBris

One bibliographical point related to the Drasha can be found where R’ Fleckeles writes:

מצות בטלות לעתיד לבוא[38]… ובעל הברית אשר נאמן בבריתו[39] וקים מאמרי רז”ל נעלם ממנו דברי הרשב”א [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שב]

The new edition does not reference to what he is referring to, but it’s to a passage in R’ Pinchas Hurwitz’s Sefer HaBris, a work which he quotes two more times further on[40] (also not noted in the sources). Here is the passage:



What is more interesting is that he quotes R’ Pinchas Hurowitz’s Sefer Habris three times in a drasha which was delivered in 1799, less than two years after the Sefer Habris was first printed (1797); this shows us that he went through parts of the work right away.[41] This is yet an additional source demonstrating the great popularity Sefer Habris enjoyed even right after it was printed. 

Learning Kabbalah

The cause for this evil movement, writes R’ Fleckeles, was because:

ושורש כל הקלקול הוא בעבור שאינם עוסקים בגמרא ושלחן ערוך רק במדרשי האגדות ובמאמרי זוהר, לחזק בנינים של שוא ותהו [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שו].

In this Derasha he writes out very clearly that one should not learn Kabbalah if one did not yet master other areas of Torah first.

וזה העיקר שיעשה האדם וחי לעולם אם הוא שונה הלכות כדתנא דבי אליהו והובא מגילה… כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא, ופירש”י, משנה ברייתא… לא מצינו לא בבבלי, לא בירושלמי, ולא בתנא דבי אליהו, ולא בספרי וספרא ומכילתא, ומדרש רבות, שאליהו בא לבשר כל העוסק בסודי תורה בכל יום הוא בן עולם הבא [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רצב] 

אחי ורעי הנאמנים בבריתי, שמעו ותחי נפשכם, די לנו ולבנינו בתוך הגולה, אם אנו עוסקים לילות כימים, בתלמוד בבלי עם הרי”ף והרמב”ם ותוספות והרא”ש והטור והשלחן ערוך, עם האחרונים הוא תלמוד הקדוש, והעוסקים בו קדושים. וקבלה בידינו מאת גאונים הקדמונים הקדושים אשר בארץ המה, אם משיח ה’ אשר יתגלה כבודו ימינו בקרב, לא יהיה בקי בכל הש”ס עם כל הראשונים והאחרונים, אף שיהיה שלם בכל החכמות הרמות ונשגבות, ברור כשמש שאין זה משיח ה’, אלא מלבד כל המעלות ומדות שמנו חכמים ונביאים, צריך להיות גם כן גדול שבגדולים בגמרא ובפוסקים, וכלל גדול הזה הוא בכל דברי הנביאים והחכמים, והמשכיל יבין [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שח].

This is why the content of the letter from R’ Wesseley quoting R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz was very important for him to quote at the outset; this is one of the main themes of the work.

Elsewhere in the drasha he writes:

ידעתי שיביאו ראיות, מספרים אשר לא נשנו בי רבי חייא ורבי אועיה, ואף הרי”ף והרמב”ם ורש”י ותוס’ ור”ן והרא”ש לא ידעו מהם, ולאו בעיזקתא דשלמה מלכא, ואף לאו מר בריה רבנא חתים עלייהו, ובפרט כאשר שמענו כן ראינו, הקלקול יותר על השבח המגיע לכתבים, הרבה עסקו בספרים האלה ומצאו מקומות לטעות, ואמרו דיין האמת על שמועות רעות, וקצצו בנטיעות, והמירו טוב ברע, ושמו חשך לאור. אבל מלימוד גמרא ופוסקים, לא יצאה מעולם שום תקלה, ולא מקום לטעות, רק דרכיה דרכי נועם… [אהבת דוד עמ’ רצד].

 A parallel to this might be what the Noda Bi-Yehudah wrote:

אם במה שמקובל בידינו אמרו כלל גדול, כל ברייתא דלא מתניי’ בי’ ר’ חייא ור’ אושעיא לא מתבינן מינה, הרי שחששו שלא נמלטו מן הטעות והשיבוש… וכן בכתבי האר”י לאו האר”י חתים וגם לא תלמידו מהרח”ו רק בחליו של הרח”ו גנבו הכתובים ממנו ונעתקו בלילה א’ כמה מאות ניירות ע”י כמה סופרים הלא קרוב הדבר שנפלו בהם שגיאות רבות ועצומות [דאיסטים שבתאים ומקובלים בקהלת פראג דרשה מצונזרת של הרב יחזקאל לנדא, תק”ל, עמ’ 355].

This topic was very important to him. In the introduction to his shu”t he writes:



About Kabbalistic Kavanos

Related to all this he writes:

ואחרי אשר דיבר בתקיעה של מצוה, אמר תסתירני מסו”ד מרעים, מאנשים המתנשאים בסוד שיח שרפי קודש, ועושין כוונות שוא בתקיעות, וקוצצים בנטיעות, כאשר הארכתי ובארתי קדש זה עשרים שנה, והוא בחיבור עולת ציבור ונכון להביא הדברים פה שניות, והוא כתפוחי זהב במשכיות, אמנם אמרי אחר שהוצאת הדפוס רבה היא, תמכתי עליך אתה ידידי ורעי הקורא, שתשא עיניך שמה, ומצאת את אהבה נפשך [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רעא].[42]

In the Derasha, he referred to what he wrote some twenty years earlier in Olas Chodesh Hashenei, at great length:

אני הגבר ראה ראיתי רבים מתיהדים בסודי סודות הנטועות בתקיעות, בכונות שונות ולשער הפנימית פונות, ונבעו מצפונות. אמנם עקרת הכוונה הנכונה התיכונה, לעשות המצוה כתיקונה על מכונה, שצריך לכוון עליה התוקע והשומע, זו היא לקיים מצות המלך הקדוש, אשר קדשנו במצותיו הקדושות, וצונו זה היום קדוש, תקעו לפני בשופר כי קדוש היום לאדונינו, ושארי כוונות הידועות בסוד התקיעות כולם כלולות בכונה זו, ומינה לא תזוע [מילי דשמיא, עמ’ פב].

Then he continues:

He repeats this again elsewhere in his writings:

אין רצונו לומר כוונות הספירות אלא הכונה נאמנה שלא כתב לשם קדושת השם, אלא כשאר דברים בעלמא והוא פשט פשוט בדעת כל הפוסקים ועם נעמים לא אבוא, ומעולם לא עלה על דעת קדושים הראשונים חכמים וסופרים, לחשוב מחשבות ספירות, כי בימיהם לא ידעו מאומה, מספירות בלי מה, ולדעתי העניה בלב ים הקבלה, קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבך להטעות, ומה לי ולך אצל דברים הן כבשונו של עולם, ובהדי כבשי רחמנא למה לך מה דמפקדת על פי הגמרא והרי”ף והרמב”ם והרא”ש איבעי לך למיעבד… [מלאכת הקודש, עמ’ קלג].

He concludes this Drasha by bringing the famous Teshuvah of the Maharshal about Kabbalah and some other famous sources and finally two Teshuvos of his Rebbe, the Noda Bi-Yehudah, one of them the famous Teshuvah related to saying Leshem Yichud.  

In my previous post I wrote a bit about Leshem Yichud and I quoted a passage from Sharon Flatto who writes in her ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague’: 

Notably a Haggadah was recently discovered that was owned during the late 1780s by Fleckeles…. The margins of this Haggadah contain leshem yihud formulas to be recited before the blessing on the four cups of wine penned in Fleckeles’ hand. 
In the footnote she writes they seem to have been written between 1784-1790. (pp. 225-226). While I wish I had more clearer sources about this discovery. She does not note that the Haggadah that R’ Fleckeles himself printed in Prague in 1818 nor in the manuscript updates of R’ Fleckeles to his own Haggadah does he write to say Leshem Yichud or any such Tefilah in the Haggadah.

I recently received a copy of those margins from the owner of this rare Haggadah.



From the Ari Bergmann Collection (Lawrence, NY) 

I am not sure what R’ Fleckeles held in his younger years but it appears from his later writings that he “held” strongly of this Responsa of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, as he quotes it often – in this Drasha and in his Meleches haKodesh (p. 132). 

Baruch Linda

 At the end of the work R’ Fleckeles writes: 

יעקב הסרחן ועיין ראשית למודים שער ששי מבע”ח הנושכים כו’ סדר הששי סימן כה [אהבת דוד, עמ’ שכט].

 The editors of the new edition do not elaborate which work and passage, are being quoted.

 Here is the sha’ar of the work and the relevant section being referenced.



One source about the author, Baruch Linda, is R’ Matisyahu Strashun, who writes:

וכתב על החכם ברוך לינדא תואר ירא ה’ אשר אמנם כפי הנודע בברלין עיר מגורתו עד יום מותו, חלף חוק ודת ישראל (אף כי לא המיר), שכח מועד ושבת, ובימי זקנותו לא יכול אף קרוא עברית כמעט [מבחר כתבים, עמ’ רמ].[43]

This is yet another source showing how popular this work was at the time. As an aside, this quote shows that R’ Fleckeles was into “interesting seforim,” and I will deal with this in a future post. Another such sefer which he gave a haskamah to and his name is in the Prenumeranten in the 1793 issue of the Igrot Orchos Olam.

Calculating when Moshiach is coming[44]

Worth mention is one final issue that R’ Fleckeles writes a lot against, namely attempting to calculate when Moshiach will come. In the beginning of the derasha he writes that this is one of the purposes of why he wrote it: 

לכן כתבתי דרשות האל לחק ולזכרון בקהל עדת ישורון, למען ידעו עד דור אחרון, ואל ישעו אתכם דברי הרמזים, אף שהם מחורזים בדברי הנביאים והחוזים, ואל תאמינו באומר רזי לי רזי לי ואני חכם הרזים, כי סתומים וחתומים הדברים עד עת קץ הפלאות, אז המשכילים יבינו כל היעודים וכל הנביאות, ועיין רבינו סעדיה גאון ור”י ורבינו אברהם ן’ עזרא סוף דניאל ואחרי ששוטים האלו מביאים ראיות מן הזוהר, ומחשבים קץ הפלאות בנוטריקון וגימטריאות, אף אני אביא ראיות מן הזוהר, כי תועים ומתעתעים ומוגעים, בכל חשבונות ודמיונות וחזיונות, חלומות המדומות [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רנט-רס].

Later on he writes about it at length here is the fascinating section.

R’ Elazar Fleckeles and R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz

One final point, returning to the letter that R’ Eleazar Fleckeles printed from R’ Wessely quoting R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz which was discussed in the beginning of this post.
I think that one point that is of some significance is not only that he is quoting a letter from R’ Wessely but that it quotes R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz. As is well known, the relationship between R’ Yonasan Eibeschuetz and R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ Rebbe the Noda Bi-Yehudah was “interesting”, as fully documented in Sid Leiman’s special essay When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy; R. Ezekiel Landau’s Attitude Toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Emden Eibeschuetz Controversy. He also refers to his various works in this volume (the Olas Chodesh Hashenei and Ahavat Dovid) with great respect.
ותמה הגאון האמיתי בספרו יערות דבש [מילי שמיא עמ’ קכט]. עיין באורים ותומים סי’ צז [שם, עמ’ קמא]; ומביאו הגאון אהבת יהונתן [שם, עמ’ נב]; וקרוב לזה מצאתי באהבת יהונתן [אהבת דוד, עמ’ רעח].
One last source on this topic is from the work Sicha bein Shnat 5560 UVein 5561 printed in Prague in 1800 written by R’ Baruch Jeiteless[45] another talmid of the Noda Bi-Yehudah which is also a work devoted to fighting Frankisim. 

 

*Many thanks to Shimon Steinmetz for his help with tracking down some of the Rare sources.
[1] In Milin Havivin volume 5 (available here), p.6.
[2] In Teshuva m’Ahava 1:10 he writes וביאור החכם ר”ה וויזל
[3] On R’ Wesseley see overview from Professor Chaim Shapiro (son of the Dvar Avraham), Safrut Haskalah BeMerkaz Germany (1784-1829), pp.194-246.
[4] There is a typo about the exact source in On the Main line’s post. 
[5] Much has been written on this controversy see M. Samet, Chodosh Assur Min Hatorah, pp. 67-92. But a full scale dissertation on the topic is still lacking.
[6] One other point of interest related to all this: the great Galicianer posek, R. Meshulam Roth, at the request of R. Meir Shapiro towards a new school system, penned a list of works for students to learn. Among the many interesting things he wanted talmidim to read was the Shirei Tiferes! [Printed in back of his R’ M. Roth, Mevaser Ezra on Ibn Ezra p. 176 [=Mevaser VeOmer, p. 120]. This is referring to a poetic work by Wesseley.
[7] All this is part of the recent welcomed flood (by book lovers) of his material, including his Shu”t Sheilos Yaavetz (3 volumes) including a volume of new material, (with some mysterious din torah around it), Meturgeman by R’ Eliyahu Bachur with R’ Emden’s extensive glosses (printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon) and Emunas Chachamim with his notes taken from Mitpachas Sofrim (also printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon). This is aside from various marginalia of his printed in some of the recent volumes of Yeshurun. 
[8] It also includes a new edition of ציצים ופרחים, based upon manuscript (the third edition to come out within the past year). In addition it has the R’ Emden’s marginalia to a few seforim, including: the Meor Eynayim which was printed earlier by him in a journal from Tosh (based on the copy in JTS); Rabbenu Bachaya; Paneach Raza; Marshah Al HaTorah. Worth pointing to is the lengthy discussion about R’ Moshe Kunitz (pp.126-140). To this, see what I wrote in Yeshurun 24, p. 466 and here I hope to return to this in the future.
[9] For an understanding of this work see Moaz Kahana’s forthcoming study. 
[10] Related to this it’s worth pointing to the newest sefer of R’ Meir Mazuz called, MeGedolei Yisrael (534 pp.). This work is a collection of his articles about different Rishonim and Achronim written over the years. There is supposed to be 2 more volumes to this set coming out. In his chapter devoted to R’ Yaakov Emden, he concludes (pp. 149-150) with some comments on the notes of R’ Emden printed by Mossad HaRav Kook and shows that Bick could not read the manuscript, as he already noticed many mistakes while comparing Bick’s transcription to the page of the manuscript Bick included in the beginning of his edition. 
[11] Although this introduction is very useful and brings new material etc. it is very weak on naming the sources that helped him, citing academic sources very infrequently and only by title of book not by name (a common occurrence in such works). 
[12] For recent discussion on this see Yaakov Spiegel, Amudim BeToldos HaSefer HaIvri: BiSharei Hadefus, pp. 164-199.
[13] See Leo Landman, The Cantor: An Historic Perspective.
[14] Parts of this dersaha are quoted in the excellent series of R’ Dovid Kamentsky on R’ Shlomo Dubno in Yeshurun 8 (2001) pp. 740-741; however it appears that a small typo crept in, he writes the drasha is in Olas Chodesh volume one when it’s in volume two.
[15] I hope to return, more in depth, to this special work in the near future. But for now a few words on this work, (full disclosure: the author is a good friend). There are two Gedolim in particular who are considered giants in the world of Halacha and their words carry great weight until today in all circles, the Noda Bi-Yehudah and the Chasam Sofer. This book analyzes many aspects of their rich lives (tying many controversies together and showing how both of them wrote and dealt with them). It’s well written and researched; it includes a fresh look and in-depth analysis of many famous topics and plenty of discussion about new subjects. The author shows a tremendous command of the primary Torah sources, relevant manuscripts and puts down his thoughts clearly and very chronologically. Some fascinating and unknown people are discussed throughout the book. The author did not attempt to deal with everything both of these Gedolim wrote about as that would require a few volumes. He has already completed a few more articles related to these giants. The first edition already sold out, a second edition is due out shortly.

[16] HaBiur LeTorah, p. 204.
[17] HaChadash Asur Min Hatorah,p. 75.
[18] See pp. 4, 52, 88, 91.
[19] See pp. 3,23,25,26,49,56,61,62,66,92,104,111,115,116. These sources are not noted by R’ Dovid Kamenetsky when he writes about the Tikun Sofrim of R’ Dubno in Yeshurun 10, pp. 758-761.
[20] In the actual drasha against the Biur (p. 46) he quotes a discussion about a shem Hashem in HaAzeinu. In his Meleches haKodesh (p. 111) when he talks about this pasuk, he quotes Dubno. See also what R’ Fleckless writes in תשובה מאהבה, א, סי’ א: 

“עיין בהערה לשירת הים מן השלם המפורסים מוה’ שלמה מד”ו רבתי בבאורו לבאר המתורגמן החכם השלם מוהר”ם דאסע”
 The “מתורגמן החכם השלם מוהר”ם דאסע,” is of course Mendelssohn. 

[21] As an aside in a forthcoming auction by Jerusalem of Gold, Auction 11 they are auctioning off numerous editions of the Biur.
[22] Many thanks to Shimon Steinmetz for tracking down copies of these works.
[23] This is not the only item related to R’ Fleckeles that I could not find mention of it in the National Library and Mifal Bibliography. Ben Yaakov records :
יקר החיים, ה”ר אלעזר פלעקיל דרוש הספד על מות שר וגדול ר’ חיים עדלער פאן פאפר פראג תקנ”ה 80 [אוצר הספרים, עמ’ 229].
 However, on Google books (here) one can find this small work.


[24] It’s worth reading the excellent article by Maoz Kahana who puts this in context with a much bigger picture called שבת בבית הקפה של קהילת קודש פראג, ציון, עח:א (תשע”ג) עמ’ 5-50. See also Robert Liberles’ recent book, HaCoffee VeHayihudim.
[25] For recent work on Shir HaYichud, see Chitzei Giborim 9 (2016), pp. 258-277.
[26] For more on this see Maoz Kahana, MeHaNodeh Beyehudah Le Chasam Sofer , pp. 37-60 and his article “The Allure of Forbidden knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatean Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Moment, 1756-1761”, Jewish Quartely Review 102:4 (2012), pp. 589-616 [available here].
[27] Printed in Kabbalah 21 (2011), available here. See ibid, p. 365.
[28] This work was first printed in 1759 with the author receiving many haskamos, including one from the Noda Bi-Yehudah (although one has to be careful how much to read into it, see Sharon Flatto ‘The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth Century Prague‘, pp. 105-106, 110, 144). In 2014 this work was reprinted with some drashos added from manuscript, one of which contains the passage quoted above. They also added extensive useful notes just focusing on tracking down his sources and included a very through index. They did not mention (or they were not aware) that Avraham Yaari printed this passage I quoted about the Frankist from the manuscript in 1958 in his Mechkarei Sefer (pp. 455-457). This work is disused in the important work of M. Piekarz, BiYemei Zemicha Hachasidus, pp. 86-88.
[29] Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Čechoslovakischen Republik 9, 1938, after p. 374.
[30] The most recent, updated, academic work on Frankism was written in English by Paweł Maciejko called The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816, Pennsylvania 2011, based on his Ph.D dissertation, The Development of the Frankist Movement in Poland, the Czech Lands and Germany (1755-1816) (Ph.D.), Oxford University, 2003. The work is excellent, well-researched and written, based upon a rereading of all the previously known documents in their original languages and upon many new discoveries. This book has a few pages devoted to of R’ Eleazar Fleckeles’ Ahavat David (pp. 249-251). The book was just translated into Hebrew called Eruv Rav and published by Zalman Shazar. I am not sure why, but some of the material found in his Ph.D about Prague and Frankism (pp. 241-242) does not appear in his book.
[31] See also The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816, pp. 239-241.
[32] Ibid, p. 184.
[33] Moshe Viener notes this passage in Koheles Moshe (p.31) but does not write what it’s referring to. However Eliezer Rosenthal in his Bibliographishes verzeichniss eines grossen theiles, Yodeh Sefer, (p. 293), when writing about this work, does point to a journal where the letter was printed in German. 
[34] Ibid, pp. 250-251.
[35] For discussion of these passages see:  Boaz Huss, KeZohar Harakiah, pp. 275-276; Ada Rapoport-Albert, Chasidim, Shabtos Anoshyim Vnashim, pp. 356-357,359-360.
[36] See Marc Saperstein, Jewish Preaching, pp.  Zev Gries, Hasefer HaIvri Perakyim Letoldosov, pp. 122-165.
[37] I first heard about it when I was 15, when I heard a tape of a derasha by R’ Mordechai Gifter who praised it highly. At the time, I tried tracking it down but had no luck. Later, as a Bochur learning in Eretz Yisroel, I located it in the (then-named) Hebrew University and National Library. It was extremely rare and I had to get special permission to look at it. I was always able to see from reading parts then that it was indeed special and that R’ Gifter was certainly not exaggerating. A few years later I found an original copy of the rare Yiddish version (available here) for next to nothing in a used bookstore. I always dreamed of finding the Hebrew one and reprinting it. However a few years ago someone beat me to it. (See here for a fascinating post related to this). Instead I hope to return to discuss this special work in a future article. 
[38] On this passage of Mitzvos LeAsid see Saul Lieberman, Shekiyin, pp. 80-81.
[39] This is not the only pun on the Sefer HaBris’s title. R’ Moshe Koerner writes:

בעסקי… ברלין… הצדיק התמים הרב המחבר סי’ הברית לפני נגלה כי הוא חברו היו אז מימינים ומשמאלים, והגאון מהרצ”ה זצ”ל אמר בשחוק הוא המכניס והמוציא הברית (בל”א קוואטר כמ”ש בא”ח סי’ תקנא במג”א ס”ק ג ובי”ד ברמ”א סי’ רסה סעי’ יא) [אגרת רשפי קשת, עמ’ 8].

Eliezer Rosenthal in his Bibliographishes verzeichniss eines grossen theiles, Yodeh Sefer, (p.284) quotes this story but does not site his source.
[40] p. 288, 320.
[41] See also David Ruderman, A Best-Selling Hebrew Book of the Modern era: The Book of the Covenant of Pinhas Hurwitz and its Remarkable Legacy, Washington 2104, p. 153.
[42] This new edition is kind enough to bring this piece of the derasha in the footnote. One nitpick; although in the rest of the volume, when he references his other writings or the like this is very useful, here however it is silly to copy five pages that are found earlier in this volume (pp.82-86) – just refer the reader to there. There is a limit to how lazy one would have to be not to turn back and this is a waste of space.
[43] For more about this author and his work see Tal Kogman, HaMaskilim HaMadayim (2013) Magnes Press.
[44] One source on this topic can be found in the Work of R’ Ephrayim Yaboroer, BaKoshrot, printed in Cracow 1607. This fascinating work was extremely rare until a few weeks ago when Mechon Zichron Aharon reprinted it in their massive two volume set called אוצר ממעונות אריות. The passage I am referring to is in volume one, pp. 58-59. These two volumes collect much of the Zemiros, Piutyim and historical works written about Tach Vetat by early Polish and Ashkenazi Rabbonim. It’s full of many rare works and they deserve special thanks for printing these volumes. One correction; in volume one (pp.539-546) they reprinted the rare work Shirei Yehudah, (not presently found on Hebrew Books or Otzar Ha-hochmah] first printed in Amsterdam 1696. However either they used an incomplete edition or something else went wrong as its missing most of this small rare sefer. On this work, see Elisheva Carlebach, ‘Two Amens That Delayed the Redemption: Jewish Messianism and Popular Spirituality in the Post-Sabbatian Century’, Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 82:3/4 (1992), pp.241-261.  
[45] For the updated discussion regarding the authorship of this book, see Paweł Maciejko, The Development of the Frankist Movement in Poland, the Czech Lands and Germany (1755-1816) (Ph.D.), Oxford University, 2003, pp. 241-242. Gershom Scholem wrote on the front page of his copy that the author was R’ Yehudah Jeiteless.