1

New seforim, books and some random comments

|
 New seforim, books and some random comments
[Updated]
By: Eliezer
Brodt
Here is a list of some new seforim and books printed in the past few months.
1.
מערכת האלקות כולל פירוש מנחת יהודה להר’ יהודה חייט ופ’ פ”ז השלם [על פי כת”י], 301 עמודים, + מפתחות ועוד 25 עמודים
2.
רבנו שמעיה השושני, [מגדולי דורו של רש”י], סוד מעשה המשכן עם מ”מ והערות ע”י ר’ גור אריה הרציג, 20 עמודים
3.
ספר הכוונת [ישן] להר’ חיים ויטל עם הגהות הרמ”ז, תרסו עמודים
4.
אגרת הגר”א השלם, עלים לתרופה, עם מקורות ליקוטי הגר”א ביאורים והערות, כתבי יד, כולל שיעורים של רבי מיכל ליפקוביץ ורבי אהרן ליב שטינמן על הספר.
I am enjoying this edition so far and think it is full of very useful information. It has a few parts including an in-depth running commentary of the entire work and a collection of material from other places where the Gaon writes similar ideas. It also includes a photocopy of one of the earlier manuscripts of the work. Just to point out some minor issues with the sefer. It does not say who put it out, I am not sure the point in this modesty it’s well known what the Chida writes about such a practice. In the beginning of the work where he talks about the various editions of the sefer a reference should have been made to Yeshayahu Vinograd’s Otzar Sifrei Hagra where he lists over hundred editions of the letter of the Gra.
Of interest to bibliographers on the subject is what R’ Moshe Sternbuch writes:
ובמשפחתו יש דעה גם שכתבו באידיש ותורגם
He has a few pages about the Gra’s trip to Eretz Yisroel and why he did not end up going. I do not expect him to quote the discussion of Aryeh Morgenstern in his various works such as in The Goan of Vilna and his Messianic Vision. However I would have thought he would quote some of the sources found in Eliach’s Hagaon.
The ‘author’ writes (p. 205):
והנה מפורסם דהגר”א לא לקח יותר מכדי פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו, ואדרבה אפילו לבני ביתו  לא היה כל צרכם… כידוע חי הגר”א בדחקות עצומה… (שם, עמ’ קכז)
I am not sure where he gets this from but Shaul Stampfer in his work Families, Rabbis and Education (pp. 327-328) and more recently Eliyah Stern in his work The Genius (pp. 30-31) based on manuscripts printed by Yisroel Klausner and other sources prove that this is not true at all.
Stamfer writes: “The Gaon certainly did not live in poverty… the Gaon did not have the highest income of the individuals on the Vilna community payroll. However his income was near the top and it was several times the salary of minor communal functionaries…”
Another interesting discussion of his is about how the Gra writes about dealing with children:
ועל הקללה ושבועה וכזב תכי אותם במכות אכזריות… (עמ’ קח) שתכי את בנינו מכות אכזריות (עמ’ רכב)
 The last two words are only found in some versions of the manuscripts. The Author collects some sources on this subject of hitting children and even points to the Gra elsewhere which appears to contradict this. In an appendix he quotes at length the opinion of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky pro such methods. I think he should have included many more sources on such an important topic [I hope to return to this in the future] especially what R’ Wolbe writes in his letters (Igrot Ukesavim, p. 121) against such methods. Another important source he should have quoted is from the Menucha Ukedusha (from a talmid of R’ Chaim Volzhiner, which he quotes elsewhere) who writes that one should certainly not hit children after the age of thirteen (p.136). See here.
One last point related to this edition where the Gra writes about learning tanach
ושילמדו מקדם כל החומש שיהיו רגילים כמעט בעל פה…
The author brings a Teshuvah from R’ Wosner which I do not think is like the Gra at all. The author has an appendix about this, much can be added to this but here to he should have quoted the previously quoted work Menucha Ukedusha.
 
5.
ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, כף החיים, תשמח עמודים, מכון שובי נפשי כולל הערות
6.
ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, תנא דבי אליהו עם פירוש לוח ארז, מכון שובי נפש, תתכו עמודים
7.
מכילתא עם פירוש ברכת הנצי”ב [פורמט קטן], שמא עמודים + פירוש ברכת הנצי”ב על תורת כהנים, מ’ עמודים
8.
דרשות וחידושי רבי אליהו גוטמאכר מגריידיץ על התורה, שמות, שסד עמודים
9.
ר’ חיים סופר, קול סופר, על משניות ג’ חלקים
10.
ר’ יוסף צבי הכהן, קב ונקי על הלכות תפילין, נדפס לראשונה בברדיטשוב תרנ”ח, 20 עמודים
11.
ר’ חיים הירשנזון, מלכי בקודש, חלק שני, בעריכת דוד זוהר, מכון שכטר,
12.
ר’ אריה לוין, משנת אריה, על משניות נזיקין, ב’ חלקים  [כולל מסכת אבות]
13.
גנזים ושו”ת חזון איש, חלק שלישי, שפז עמודים
14.
ר’ חיים פרידלנדר, שפתי חיים, רינת חיים, ביאורי תפילה: ברכות השחר, פסוקי דזמרא, קראית שמע ועוד, שצו עמודים
15.
ר’ אהרן פעלדער, רשומי אהרן, כולל פסקי הלכה מו”ר הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל, מה עמודים+ שאילת אהרן ח”ג, לב עמודים ועוד
16.
תשובות הרב קאפח, נערך ע”י ר’ שלום נגר, חלק א תשל”ד-תשלו, תסז עמודים
17.
תאות דוד בענין כתיבת סת”ם, על הספר הזכרונות לר’ שמואל אבוהב אם ק’ אמירה נעימה, רמ עמודים
18.
ר’ אליהו זייני, בין השמשות דר”ת, וזמן הדלת נרות חנוכה, 110 עמודים
19.
ר’ דוד דבליצקי, ברכות לראש צדיק, כל עניני כוס של ברכה, נט עמודים
20.
ר’ יהושע ברוננער, קונטרס איש על העדה, הליכות והנהגות של רבינו הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, נח עמודים
21.
ר’ יהודה שושנה, קונטרס נהג בחכמה, הלכות ומנהגי בית הכנסת הנוהגים בישיבת בית מדרש גבוה לייקוואוד במעגל השנה, כולל הלכות נחוצות לסדר התפלה וקריאת התורה, מנהגי הישבות, מקורות המנהגים, ק’ עמודים
22.
ר’ שמואל אוסטערליץ, ילקוט חלוקא דרבנן עניני לבוש במשנת רבוה”ק מסקווירא, עם ליקוטים יקרים מפי ספרים וספרים, קכב עמודים
23.
אגן הסהר, על רבי אברהם גנחובסקי זצ”ל, 247 עמודים
24.
יום אידם ניטל, ילקוט מקורות אמרות ועובדות, ריב עמודים
25.
בדחנא דמלכא, מתולדותיהם ונועם שיחתם של משמחי הצדיקים, רנא עמודים
26.
ר’ דוד קאהן, האמונה הנאמנה, על יג עקרים של הרמב”ם, 308 עמודים, ארטסקרל
27.
ר’ דוד קאהן, השקפה הנכונה, הערות והארות על הקדמת הרמב”ם לפירוש המשניות, 168 עמודים, ארטסקרל
28.
ר’ דוד קאהן, ממשה עד משה, הערות על יד שרשים של הרמב”ם לספר המצוות והשגות הרמב”ן, 372 עמודים, ארטסקרל
29.
ר’ קלמן קרון, הרחק מעליה דרכך, על האיסור החמור של קריאת ספרי מינות ואפיקורסות וחובת ההתרחקות מהם, [ארבעה שערים], רסא עמודים
30.
ר’ אברהם מנדלבוים, דרשות לבר מצוה, מאות דרשות שנשאו גדלי ישראל לכבוד יום הבר מצוה, ב’ חלקים
31.
קובץ מוריה שבט, ראה שם, מאמר מיוחד מידידי ר’ יעקב ישראל סטל, ‘הוראות והנהגות לרבינו יהודה החסיד’ ונספח: מנהג השלכת עפר ותלישת עשבים בבית הקברות’.
A PDF of this article is available upon request.
32.
קובץ אור ישראל, גליון סו, שפד עמודים
33.
קונטרס כי רחק ממני מנחם, על ר’ בנימין מנחם פלס, קלג עמודים
34.
ר’ ישראל מורגנשטרן, מכירים אלקטרוניים בשבת, קכח עמודים
35.
ר’ מרדכי טנדלר, מסורת משה, הוראות והנהגות שנשמעו מאת רבן של כל בני הגולה ופוסק הדור הגאון האדיר רבי משה פיינשטיין זצוק”ל, תרכא עמודים.
Of course there is much to say about such a sefer as it’s full of hundreds upon hundreds of pesakim. It appears to be the first of a few volumes. The haskamah of R’ Dovid Cohen is nice where he writes
ספר זה נדיר הוא ככמעט מיוחד במינו, אע”פ שמצינו יומן מהגאון האדר”ת זצ”ל, וגם אוטו-ביגרפיה (שיש מערערים אם הו מזויף מתוכו) של הגאון רב יעקב עמדין זצ”ל במסורת משה נמצאים חידושים נפלאים להלכה וגם מצר מתוכו כו”כ השקפות של מרן זצ”ל… ומודה להם על התענוג הרוחני שהרגשתי שקשה לתאר הטעם להזולת ורק יכולים לומר לו טעם וראה…
Just to point out a few things of interest: he has a lengthy piece where Rav Moshe said a certain piece in the Ramban’s work on chumash has additions not from him, that are kefirah [Korach, 17:6] (pp. 522-523), another piece of Rav Moshe about the manuscript of R’ Yehudah Hachassid Al Hatorah (p. 552), that R’ Reuven Margolis came to hear Rav Moshe Say a shiur in Yerushlayim (p. 501). Anyone reading this work is sure to find many more things of great interest.
ספרים על פורים
36.
ר’ יוסף ניזר, פורים סראגוסא, בהלכה ואגדה, 77 עמודים
This work is well done and collects a nice amount of material on Purim of Saragossa. Just to add two important sources on this subject not quoted in this work, most likely because they do not know English, Elliot Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 279-286 and Yosef Yerushalmi, Zakhor, pp. 46-48.
37.
ר’ רחמים טוויג, המאיר לארץ, חקירות ומערכות בעניני מחיית עמלק, תסג עמודים
38.
ר’ יהודה זולדן, מגילה במוקפות חומה, מקרא מגילה בערים מוקופות חמה מימות יהושע בן נון, 470 עמודים [יסוד של הספר הוא עבודה לשם קבלת תואר שלישי מהמחלקה לתלמוד באוניברסיטת בר אילן]
39.
ר’ עמרם טיגרמן, מחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא, ליקוט ובירור דעת הפוסקים בדין זה, ובענין חמר מדינה בזמנינו ומיץ ענבים לארבע כוסות,שיא עמודים
40.
ר’ יוסף יונה, ספר מיני מעדנים, בירורי הלכה במצות משלוח מנות, קעה עמודים מחקר ועוד
1.
שלום יהלום, בין גירודנה לנרבונה, אבני בנייין ליצירת הרמב”ן, יצחק בן צבי, 414 עמודים [מצוין]
2.
משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל וזאב ספראי, מסכת כתובות, ב’ חלקים, 677 עמודים
3.
חיים גרטנר, הרב והעיר הגדולה, הרבנות בגליציה ומפגשה עם המודרנה 1815-1867, מרכז זלמן שזר, 448 עמודים [ספר מצוין]
4.
בד”ד 27 הוצאת בר אילן
5.
רון קליינמן, דרכי קנין ומנהגי מסחר במשפט העברי, הוצאת בר אילן
6.
יהושע פישל שניאורסון, חיים גראביצר סיפרו של נופל, ידעות ספרים 583 עמודים
After being out of print for years this classic is back in print.
7.
קתרסיס, גילון 18 כולל מאמר ביקורות של ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין על בנימין בראון ‘החזון איש’ [61 עמודים!]
A PDF of this article is available upon request.
English
 
The Challenge of Received Tradition: Dilemmas of Interpretation in Radak’s Biblical Commentaries, by Naomi Grunhaus, Oxford University Press, 2012. Dialogue, volume 3
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, The Afterlife of Scholarship, A critical review of The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman


The Kabbalah of Relation by Rabbi Bezalel Naor book review

|

Book Review[1]
by Dovid Sears
Bezalel Naor, The Kabbalah of Relation (Spring Valley, NY: Orot, 2012)

Before discussing Rabbi Naor’s new book, I must say that anything with his name on the cover should be of interest to any explorer of Jewish mystical tradition. Despite some twenty first-rate scholarly works in English and Hebrew, Bezalel Naor remains a “hidden light,” perhaps too brilliant for many to gaze upon directly. He is one of the leading intellectuals in the traditional world of Jewish scholarship—as he would be in the academic world if, by the grace of God, we would be spared the ravages of intellectual climate change and the wind would shift. Bezalel Naor once described himself as a “frequent flyer of the corpus callosum connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain.”

This work, jam-packed with creative thinking and the vast erudition we have come to expect from the author, deals with the male-female relationship from the standpoint of the Aggadah and Kabbalah, at the level of plain-meaning and at various levels of mystical allusion.

The departure point for the book is an oft-cited yet curious passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 100b) which says that had the Torah not been given on Mount Sinai, then we would have learned various positive character traits from the animal kingdom. The most famous example given is that we would have learned modesty from the example of the cat. Surprisingly, most of the Talmud’s attention is lavished on the rooster, from whom a husband would learn that he must appease his wife before entering into marital relations with her. From the Talmud’s telling of the story, it turns out that the rooster lies to the hen, promising to buy her a coat (or in another reading, earrings) that he is no position financially to purchase! According to Naor, this “white lie” is the very secret of our finite, paradoxical existence in this world, and he then takes us, the readers, on a tour de force, as only he is capable, of our entire Judaic literature: Bible, Talmud, Medieval Philosophy, Kabbalah, Hasidism—and of course, the specialty of the house: Rav Kook.

Q. The book begins with an autobiographical description of Chagall’s youthful meeting (yehidut) with the Rebbe of Lubavitch, Rabbi Shalom Baer (Rashab). This raises the question of the artist’s connection to the teachings of Habad and the Hasidic world of his youth. Beyond this, one wonders about other encounters the Habad Rebbeim may have had with Jewish artists, for better or worse. Any thoughts?

DS: Marc Chagall is widely-embraced as the outstanding Jewish artist of the 20th century, who embraced his shtetl roots in his colorful, expressionistic and often surrealistic paintings. Many Jewish artists, both secular and religious, have used Chagall as a point of departure for their own brand of Jewish art. But actually the autobiographical vignette presented at the beginning of the book, which is patently insulting to the towering Hasidic thinker and tsaddik, Rabbi Shalom Dov Ber of Lubavitch (RaSHaB). is an eloquent testimony to Chagall’s chutzpah and am ha’aratzus (ignorance). Although he grew up in a traditional Hasidic environment in the village of Lyozno, famed for having once been the home of the “Alter Rebbe” (Rabbi Shneur Zalman, founder of Habad), he didn’t seem to know a line of Tanya or Likkutei Torah—despite his fond memory of his mother’s Habad niggun (melody). Religiously, he was a pathetic figure.
As for the Rebbes and artists, I remember reading that one of the Kotzker Rebbe’s descendants was a painter. Nothing to do with Habad, though. I don’t know about earlier Rebbes in the Habad lineage, but this last Lubavitcher Rebbe zt”l had a positive relationship with a few artists: Jacques Lipschutz, Yakov Agam, Baruch Nachshon, and born-and-raised Lubavitchers Hendel Lieberman (who was the brother of the legendary mashpi’a Rabbi Mendel Futerfass) and my wonderful and unforgettable friend, the late Zalman Kleinman. But maybe that was part of Rabbi Schneerson’s kiruv (outreach) mission with its nuanced embrace of selective parts of modernism in order turn them around to kedushah (holiness)—which the kabbalists call “it’hapkha,” meaning transformation or reversal. Jewish fine art (as opposed to decorative art) is a relatively new thing if we begin with Camille Pissarro (1830-1903)—whose father was Jewish, although some claim that his mother was Creole (at any rate he was Jewish enough to be hated for it by Degas and Renoir)—or Amedeo Modigliani (1884-1920), who was only a couple of years older than Chagall. So I’d be surprised if the early Hasidic Rebbes or their Mitnagdic counterparts had much exposure to it. But, of course, with Rebbes you can never tell…
Q. In The Kabbalah of Relation, Marc Chagall’s paintings have been juxtaposed to this Talmudic-Kabbalistic text. Is the juxtaposition warranted, not to the point, or even unlawful?

DS: On the one hand, Rabbi Naor’s recognition of this correspondence was a brilliant observation. As such, it would have been hard to resist. On the other, I question whether it’s okay halakhically, particularly in a sefer, a volume of Torah. One or two of these paintings should definitely keep this volume off the shelf in Biegeleisen’s Seforim Store. But sometimes when we look at art, we enter another mental space and unconsciously set aside such considerations. We’re looking at imaginal reality, not the physical world in the conventional sense. Maybe there’s a faint glimmer of a heter (leniency) there—but maybe not.
Another question that this “tzushtell” (tie-in) raises is the legitimacy of Chagall as a Jewish mystic, which the book seems to propose (as with Chagall’s “Hasidim vs. Misnagdim” comment).
Although he was a towering creative artist, I don’t think Chagall was a Jewish mystic, as Rabbi Naor suggests, but a Jewish pagan. Erich Neumann might have fitted Chagall’s fertility symbolism very nicely into his huge Jungian opus, The Origins and History of Consciousness (which I actually read from cover to cover about 40 years ago). Chagall didn’t need Kabbalah or Hasidism for his images. These are archetypal ideas, as shaped by the artistic vision of a White Russian village Jew who somehow made it past the maitre d’ and into the high culture of Paris.
There was an early 20th century British critic and writer named T.E. Hulme who once famously remarked that “Romanticism is spilt religion.” There’s plenty of that in Chagall. But on the other hand, we see that for many religious Jewish artists, Chagall created a dreamy, surrealistic style that allowed them to weave together powerful mystical images. Examples are Elyah Sukkot, Baruch Nachshon, Shoshanna Brombacher and others. So in a way, the “spilt religion” can be channeled back to where it comes from.
Q. Is Naor’s transition or extrapolation from a Talmudic text to Kabbalistic teachings traditional or non-traditional?

DS: I’d say that it’s brilliant, creative, and poetic in its way of linking ideas. The tone and texture of the hiddush (innovation) is not traditional, but the hook-up between nigleh (exoteric) and nistar (esoteric) is quite traditional and legitimate. One may object to this or that point, but that’s Torah, isn’t it? Not only halakhic issues are debated in the Gemara but also matters of Aggadah (theological and other non-legalistic teachings), as Abraham J. Heschel shows in Torah min ha-Shamayim. And besides, whatever a perspicacious thinker such as Bezalel Naor says deserves our attention, whatever its proximity to the edge of the cliff may be. 
Q. What is the essential difference between the Mitnagdic (Vilna Gaon) and Hasidic (Ba’al Shem Tov) approaches to interpreting Kabbalah, and how do we see this difference illustrated in the two solutions or “endings” offered in this book?

DS: In art, we often speak of classicism and romanticism. The classicists are (or more accurately “were”) the “straight-arrows.” They stressed academic training and were concerned with realistic depictions and fine technique; certain subjects were acceptable, while other were not, or were certainly overlooked. Emotional restraint, rational intellect and high culture were implicitly valued. Romanticism represented a radical break with this approach to life and art. Our old friend T.E. Hulme described it as being “informed by a belief in the infinite in man and nature” – although most of these artists were and are secularists. (Look at the way the Abstract Expressionists talked about their art! Especially Mark Rothko, who really missed his calling as a kabbalist—or at least a professor of Kabbalah. The art critic Katharine Kuh once published a book of interviews with a number of artists whose words often reflect this “belief in the infinite in man and nature.”[2])
Somewhat similarly, in their own way the Mitnagdim were religious classicists and the Hasidim were closer to the romantics. Maybe that’s what Chagall meant with his remark that the new artists of his day were like the Hasidim.
The clash between the Mitnagdim and the Hasidim was also a clash between two broad mindsets: a dominant (albeit faith-based) rationalism vs. a greater emphasis on intuition and passionate feeling; scholarly elitism vs. greater democracy of spirit, and even an inclusivism within the social strata of the close-knit fraternities we associate with the Hasidic movement.
In terms of Rabbi Naor’s book, the “Mitnagdic ending” (admittedly this is a gross oversimplification) is that the rooster, who represents the Creator, extends a garment of divine protection over the hen, who represents either the Shekhinah or the individual soul. By virtue of the holiness of the Torah and mitsvot (commandments), the extrication of the fallen souls on the lowest levels of creation is accomplished. All souls will be incarnated and refined of their spiritual dross; then the rooster’s promise to the hen that “the robe will reach down to your legs” will be fulfilled, and Mashi’ah will come. (This is based on a teaching of Rabbi Isaac Haver, representing the school of the Vilna Gaon, if I didn’t take a wrong turn along the way.)
In the Hasidic counterpart to this scenario (à la Reb Eizikl Komarner, fusing teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid of Mezeritch), the Shekhinah is “adorned with adornments that do not exist”[3]—that is, there is not only a cosmic restoration accomplished by our ‘avodat ha-birurim (spiritual work) throughout the course of time, but an advantage of some sort to creation. Something “extra” is delivered to the Creator, beyond the holiness of the Torah and mitsvot (commandments). And this is accomplished by the tsaddik who descends into the nether regions in order to procure those “adornments.”[4]
The author concludes his book on the following note:
What is certain is that in the process, the tsaddik will be beaten to a pulp. (In the words of the Rabbi of Komarno, “[God] chastises and beats the righteous.”) The crown of the just man and his wings—his entire spiritual profile—will be lowered. And yet, even in defeat the tsaddik is valiant and beloved to the Shekhinah.[5]
Q. Rabbi Naor contrasts Maimonides’ view of human sensuality with that of the Kabbalists. How Judaic or Hellenic is Maimonides’ view?

DS: The Zohar, Rabbi Moses Cordovero (RaMaK), the Reshit Hokhmah, the main schools of Hasidism that I’m familiar with, and certainly Rabbi Nahman of Breslov, all have a marked ascetic element. Sexuality is often sublimated to the spiritual plane, and kedushah (sanctity) in all such matters is stressed. Rabbi Nahman uses the term “yihuda tata’ah” (lower unification) to describe the ideal conduct of the married couple; sanctification of the marital relationship elicits the “yihuda ila’ah” (upper unification) on the sublime level (which brings about cosmic harmony).
Ditto the approach to the ko’ah ha-medameh, or imagination. The Breslov literature often contrasts the imagination of a spiritually-evolved human being with that of a coarse person who has the “imagination of a beast.”[6] Rabbi Nathan [Sternhartz] discusses these concepts in Likkutei Halakhot (beginning Hil. Sheluhin 5). There he states that the imagination can be a shali’ah (emissary) of the sekhel (reason)[7]; or it can be co-opted by the physical, which is to say, the animalistic side of human nature.
Rabbi Nahman’s lessons are extremely imagistic and poetic in their construction. “This is a behinah (aspect) of this; that is a behinah (aspect) of that.” In this way Rabbi Nahman builds connections between things and shows their underlying unity. And of course, there are Rabbi Nahman’s famous thirteen mystical stories, which anticipated surrealism by more than a century. All this is a demonstration of “birur ko’ah ha-medameh,” clarification of the imagination, so that it may express the essence of mind.
Although the kabbalists do not share the puritanical view of Maimonides toward the body and the conjugal act, as Rabbi Naor points out,[8] they are not so far apart in their attitudes toward hedonism—but not for the same reasons. The philosophers prized the intellect’s ascendancy over emotion and sensuality, and Maimonides may have been influenced by this attitude. The mystics, however, are more concerned with transcendence and sublimation (in the religious sense, not in the Freudian sense). Their bias is not due to a prejudice in favor of reason, but bespeaks the love and awe of God. 
Q. The morning blessing reads: “…Who has given understanding to the rooster to discern between day and night.” Isn’t the blessing reversed? Night precedes day. Certainly the blessing should read “to discern between night and day”!

DS: Based on teachings from the Zohar and Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ari),[9] the robe given by rooster to the hen may be said to correspond to the process of birur—the extrication of all souls from Adam Beli’al, or “Anti-Adam” —throughout the course of history. That is, the human body from the head to feet represents the yeridat ha-dorot, the spiritual decline of the generations. The “head,” beginning with Adam, is like day, while the “feet,” or later generations, are like night. In these final generations, the Shekhinah, which represents God’s immanence in creation, is positioned at the feet of Adam Beli’al. The rooster understands the spiritual decline at each stage of the game. We who live in the spiritual “twilight zone” can’t function like our noble ancestors (compared to whom the Talmud says we are as donkeys). Hence, the phraseology of the blessing, “between day and night.”

Postscript:

I’d like to add one more thought about the issue discussed at the end of the text. As mentioned above, Rabbi Naor quotes Reb Eizikl Komarner’s remarks about the fallen “letters” of creation, which the tsaddikim must elevate from what the Zohar calls “raglin de-raglin,” or “feet of feet”—the lowest levels. The Komarno Rebbe cites the Maggid of Mezeritch, who contrasts “adornments that did exist” with “adornments that did not exist.” The former are related to the Torah and mitsvot (commandments)—the holy—while the latter are related to the mundane and that which is most distant from holiness.
It strikes me as worth comparing this to Rabbi Nahman’s cryptic parable about a king who commissioned two fellows to decorate separate but facing halves of his new palace.[10] The first appointee mastered all the necessary skills and then painted the most beautiful murals depicting all sorts of animals and birds on the walls of his chamber. The second guy goofed off until the deadline was only a few days away—and became panic-stricken. Then he had a brainstorm. He smeared the walls with a substance (“pakst”) so black that it shined. Thus the walls were able to reflect everything in the other room. Then Decorator Number Two hung a curtain to divide between the rooms.
When the big day arrived, the king inspected his new palace, and was overjoyed with the murals of the first man, executed with such consummate skill. The other chamber was shrouded in darkness, due to the curtain. But when our “chevreman” drew back the curtain, there now shone into the room the reflection of everything that was in the first room directly across. (Here the Rebbe mentions birds specifically for the third time.) Even the elegant furnishings and precious objects that the king brought into the first chamber were reflected in the second. Moreover, whatever additional wondrous vessels the king wanted to bring into his palace were visible in the second chamber.
What were these “additional wondrous vessels” that had not yet been brought to the palace, but which the king desired? Moreover, it is not clear that the king meant to bring them to the first chamber, with its lovely murals and furnishings, thus to be reflected in the second chamber. What the text seems to state is that these desired “wondrous vessels” were already visible in the second chamber—“and the matter was good in the king’s eyes.”[11]
Maybe we can venture the interpretation that it is the tsaddik (righteous man) who diligently heeds the king’s command and decorates his half of the palace so beautifully, while it is the ba’al teshuvah (penitent) who creates the shiny black room. The ba’al teshuvah must receive an illumination from the tsaddik on the other side of the hall, who did everything “by the book.” Yet Rabbi Nahman indicates that the ba’al teshuvah has an advantage over the tsaddik.[12]
Perhaps this parable of Rabbi Nahman is cut from the same cloth as the Hasidic idea discussed at the end of Rabbi Naor’s book, that the tsaddik, through his willing and somewhat self-sacrificial descent to the lowest levels, brings to the realm of kedushah additional elements that could not otherwise have been obtained. It is this paradoxical descent of the tsaddik that ultimately brings the greatest delight to the Master of the Universe.
[1] “Based on remarks at The Carlebach Shul, Tuesday evening, November 20, 2012.”
[2] In addition, see Robert Rosenblum’s Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition, if you can still find a copy. It’s a real “eye-opener,” both artistically and intellectually.
[3] See Naor’s endnote on p. 62, especially citing Rabbenu Hananel’s reading in the Gemara (‘Eruvin 100b) which is the departure point of the entire book.
[4] Cf. Likkutei Moharan II, 8.
[5] The Kabbalah of Relation, p. 39.
[6] For example, see Likkutei Moharan, Part I, lessons 25, 49; and especially Part II, lesson 8 (“Tik’u/Tohakhah”).
[7] I am loath to equate this with the rational faculty in the Maimonidean sense.
[8] See the discussion in The Kabbalah of Relation, pp. 42-45.
[9] Sources cited in The Kabbalah of Relation, p. 55.
[10] Hayyei Moharan, sec. 98; English translation in Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum, Tzaddik (Breslov Research Institute), “New Stories,” sec. 224.
[11] In Hebrew: “Ve-khen kol mah she-yirtzeh ha-melekh lehakhnis ‘od kelim nifla’im le-tokh ha-palatin, yiheyu kulam nir’im be-helko shel ha-sheni, ve-hutav ha-davar lifnei ha-melekh.” 
[12] Cf. TB, Berakhot 34b: “In the place where the penitents stand, the wholly righteous cannot stand.”


A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”

|
A Review of “Alo Na’aleh”
הרב מרדכי ציון, ‘עלה נעלה: מענה לספר ויואל משה, תשובות מפי הרה”ג שלמה אבינר שליט”א’, בית אל תשע”ב, 278 עמודים
By Ezra Brand
The opinion of R’ Yoel Teitelbaum, better known as the Satmar Rebbe, opposing the State of Israel has recently received a resurgence of interest. With the shifting to the right of the Orthodox Jewish world in general, as well as attempts by some Israeli politicians to end Chareidi draft exemptions in particular, many Chareidim are now feeling sympathetic to the Satmar opinion. In any discussion online about Israel drafting Chareidim or cutting funding to yeshivas, there will always be one person commenting on the prescience of the Satmar Rebbe. I have heard that some people are using the Kahanist slogan in regard to this: “הרבי מסאטמאר צדק” (“The Satmar Rebbe was right”)! Therefore, the appearance of a book intended as a response to the Satmar opinion is timely[1].
Alo Na’aleh is a response to the Satmar Rebbe’s book, Vayo’el Moshe. To be more precise, it is a response to the first of the three parts of Vayo’el Moshe, which is titled “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevu’ot”. Alo Na’aleh is written by R’ Mordechai Tzion, in consultation with his Rebbe, R’ Shlomo Aviner[2]. It is published by Sifriyat Chava (ספריית חוה), the publishing house based in Beit El that publishes R’ Shlomo Aviner’s books. Vayo’el Moshe was published in 1961[3]. Although it might seem strange to write a response to a book so long after the book was originally published, the times seem to call for it.
There have been other attempted rebuttals to Vayo’el Moshe (including by R’ Aviner himself, see further), but Alo Na’aleh is probably the most comprehensive (though it is only on the “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” part of Vayo’el Moshe). It is the most comprehensive both in the sheer amount of sources quoted, and in terms of the fact that every point made by Vayo’el Moshe is discussed and disputed (including the reason given by R’ Yoel for the title of his book!). Much of the earlier literature that responds to Vayo’el Moshe is quoted by Alo Na’aleh, but no bibliography is provided. I will therefore provide one here (including works not mentioned in Alo Na’aleh).
 
הרב חיים שרגא פייביל פראנק, בירור הלכה במעלת ומצות ישובה של ארץ ישראל : תולדות זאב, ירושלים      תשכ”ד (ומילואים ב’המעין’, טבת תשכ”ה) הרב מרדכי עטייה, סוד השבועה, ירושלים תשכ”ה הרב מנחם מנדל כשר, התקופה הגדולה, ירושלים תשכ”ט הרב רפאל קצנלנבויגן, ‘לא מרד אלא השבת גזילה לבעליו’, שערים, כ’ בסיון תשכ”ט הרב משה מונק, ‘שלושת השבועות’, שערים, ד’ בתמוז תשכ”ט הרב שמואל הכהן וינגרטן, השבעתי אתכם, ירושלים תשל”ו הרב חיים צימרמן, ‘בענין שלש שבועות’, תורה לישראל, ירושלים תשל”ח (available here) מחבר אונונימי, פוקח עוורים, ירושלים תשמ”ד[4] (available here) הרב שלמה אבינר, ‘שלא יעלו בחומה’, הלכות משיח לרמב”ם, ירושלים תשס”ג הרב יעקב זיסברג, ‘נפש עדה’, נחלת יעקב, ב, הרב ברכה תשס”ה הנותן ליעף כח: כ”ח קושיות על ויואל משה, הוצאת בני הישיבות (בעילום שם המחבר) הרב אברהם ווייס, מחנה החרדי, גליון 341 חוברת “בעית זמננו” (א:ד)
The beginning of the introduction is fascinating. It attempts to find an ultimately uncomfortable middle ground between attacking the Satmar Rebbe for his harsh anti-Zionism, and respecting him for his greatness in Torah. The introduction begins by bringing a Radvaz (Shu”t 4:187), which says that it is prohibited to degrade a talmid chacham, even if that talmid chacham is “making a mistake in the foundations of the religion” (במקור: תלמיד חכם הטועה בעיונו בדבר מעיקרי הדת)[5]. While the author states clearly that despite their differences of opinion he will still repect the Satmar Rebbe, there is a silent polemic against the Satmar Rebbe’s famously harsh attacks against his opponents.
The rest of the introduction of the book is gossipy. A string of juicy stories are told, portraying the negative attitude of various people toward Vayo’el Moshe. The book then gets down to business, responding to Vayo’el Moshe point by point.
Alo Na’aleh indeed lives up to its aspiration of pointing out the many (apparent) mistakes in “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevuos” of Vayo’el Moshe. The author even demonstrates that the Satmar Rebbe made some historical mistakes. For example, in the introduction of Vayo’el Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe explains why all the poskim didn’t bring the Three Oaths in their halacha seforim: “This issue of the awakening of a movement to transgress these oaths, we have not found from the days of Ben Koziba until the time of the Rambam, which is about a thousand years, and so too from the time of the Rambam until the days of Shabsai Tzvi, and so too, from after the time of Shabsai Tzvi until now in these generations. Therefore the poskim in all these generations did not see any need to explain this issue in their times.” Alo Na’aleh correctly points out (pg. 15) that there were many other attempts by Jews to rebel against non-Jew in the time period discussed by the Satmar Rebbe.
However, true to form, Alo Na’aleh attempts to defend the Satmar Rebbe. Before discussing a particularly egregious misreading of a source in Vayo’el Moshe, Alo Na’aleh (pg. 172-3) claims that the misreadings of the sources exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe don’t stem from actual mistakes by the Satmar Rebbe. Rather, the Satmar Rebbe was convinced that Zionism was a terrible calamity, and was willing to twist sources in order to convince people that it is wrong. In other words, the ends justify the means. Alo Na’aleh finds a source permitting such tactics in the well-known Gemara in Pesachim 112a, where it says that הרוצה ליחנק היתלה באילן גדול, explained by Rashi there to mean that one is permitted to falsely quote his Rebbe if he knows the halacha to be true, and he won’t be listened to otherwise. However, Alo Na’aleh limits this heter to polemical works such as Vayo’el Moshe.
 
While Alo Na’aleh does identify mistakes exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe, it has many flaws itself. It is often long-winded, bringing paragraphs from pro-Zionist authors having nothing to do with the issue at hand. In addition, there is a lack of consistency in the writing style, as entire articles, or pieces of articles, are brought down verbatim in the main body of the text, without any kind of indentation or other helpful citation. Besides for ruining the literary consistency, it can take an effort to know when the quotation ends. It is for these two reasons that Alo Na’aleh runs to a long 278 pages.
Another issue is the lack of clear organization in Alo Na’aleh.  Often, the text will give one response to Vayo’el Moshe, move on to a different response, then return to the first response without any warning. This can make it difficult to follow.
A good amount of research has gone into Alo Na’aleh, and the responses to the Satmar Rebbe are the most comprehensive to date. But it is a work marked by flaws: technical errors, a propensity to go off on tangents, and a lack of clarity in its argumentation. A respectable effort that falls short of its promise[6].
* I would like to thank Eliezer Brodt for reviewing this post, and my father for editing it.
[1] Although the Satmar Rebbe (meaning R’ Yoel, as opposed to his father)  wasn’t the first to attack Zionism based on (pseudo-) halachic sources, he was the one to have the biggest impact. For a short scholarly discussion of the Samar Rebbe’s opposition to Zionism (focusing on his interpretation of the Three Oaths), see יצחק קראוס, שלש השבועות כיסוד למשנתו האנטי-צונית של ר’ יואל טייטלבאום, עבודת גמר לתואר מוסמך בפילוסופיה יהודית, האוניברסיטה העיברית בבלטימור, תש”נ. A general history of discussion of the Three Oaths is given by Mordechai Breur: מרדכי ברויאר, ‘הדיון בשלוש השבועות
בדורות האחרונים’, גאולה ומדינה, ירושלים תשל”ט, עמ’ 49- 57. For a history of Eastern European Chareidi opposition to Zionism, see יוסף שלמון, ‘תגובת החרדים במזרח אירופה לציונות מדינית’, הציונות ומתנגדיה בעם היהודי, ירושלים
תש”נ, עמ’ 51- 73.
[2] R’ Tzion seems to claim at the end of his introduction (pg. 14) that the book basically consists of his writing down the responses of R’ Aviner; however, from R’ Aviner’s haskamah it is clear that the R’ Tzion had a much substantial part in the writing of the book.
[3] Shalmon (ibid., footnote 1), says that that was a second edition. I am not sure when the first edition was published, and what the difference was between the first and second editions.
[4] This book claims that a large part of Vayo’el Moshe was forged!
[5] The Radvaz proves this from the famous Gemara in Sanhedrin 99a, where R’ Hillel says that Mashiach will never come, since there was only a one-time chance in the time of Chizkiyahu Hamelech. R’ Yosef there responds to this statement of R’ Hillel by saying, “Hashem should forgive him” (שרי ליה מריה), and does not degrade him. As to whether R’ Hillel’s statement makes him a heretic, see Marc Shapiro’s Limits of Orthodox Theology. R’ Tzion on page 10 quotes a responsum from R’ Yehuda Hertzel Henkin, a grandson of R’ Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, that Chazal even refrained from degrading the famous heretic Elisha ben Avuyah (Shu”t B’nei Banim 2:34). With respect to R’ Henkin, I find this attitude of respect to one’s enemies he attributes to Chazal does not  fit in with hundreds of examples throughout the generations of Torah
leaders’ harshness to enemies and heretics. Even Elisha ben Avuyah was branded “Acher” (“The Other”) by Chazal, which is not the most respectful title.
[6] The most comprehensive discussion if the Three Oaths that is also well organized is נפש עדה in נחלת יעקב, mentioned earlier in the bibliography.


Quiz Runoff

|
Quiz Runoff
by Marc B. Shapiro

Written on 4 Shevat, 5773, the yahrzeit of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

1. In the last post, as the quiz question, I asked for the name of the first Hebrew book published by a living author. The answer is Nofet Tzufim by R. Judah Messer Leon. As the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon states, this work “was printed by Abraham Conat of Mantua in 1475-6, the only work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century.”
A number of people got the right answer, and as a few of them told me, and I confirmed for myself, it was not that difficult to find the answer using Google. There is nothing wrong with using Google or any other search tool, and it is my fault for not realizing that the answer could be found so easily.
Some of the material in the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but not the sentence I quoted above. The second part of the sentence is in fact incorrect, as there is at least one other work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century. I refer to the Agur, by R. Jacob ben Judah Landau (died 1493). This work appeared sometime between 1487 and 1492, so Wikipedia tells us, and in this instance Wikipedia’s information comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. These sources also tell us that “The ‘Agur’ was the first Jewish work to contain a rabbinical approbation, besides being the second Hebrew book printed during the author’s lifetime.”
Why then did a number of those who contacted me think that the Agur was the first book to appear in the author’s lifetime, rather than the second? Perhaps because in the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry “Haskamah”, which is reprinted here, we find the following incorrect statement: “The first haskamah appeared in the 15th century, in the Agur by Jacob Landau (Naples, c. 1490), the first Hebrew book printed during its author’s lifetime.”
Starting now, I will try to make my quiz questions a bit harder (i.e., not so easy to find the answers via Google). Here are the names of those who answered correctly on the last quiz: Shalom Leaf, Alex Heppenheimer, Leor Jacobi, Eric Lawee, Moshe Lapin, Shimon S., Ari Kinsberg, Yonason Rosman, Peretz Mochkin, Yehudah Hausman, Dovid Solomon
Since I can’t reward all of them, there will be a runoff. The following questions are to be answered only by them and only by emailing me the answer. If you can only answer one of the questions please do so.
A. What is the first volume of responsa published in the lifetime of its author?
B. There is a verse in the book of Exodus (hint: we haven’t yet reached it this year) which has a very strange vocalization of a word, found nowhere else in Tanach. (The word itself is also spelled in an unusual fashion, found only one other time in Tanach). The purpose of this vocalization is apparently in order to make a rhyme.[1] What am I referring to?
I had thought to ask: What is the first Hebrew work to use modern punctuation including question marks, but via Google I found the answer in a few seconds. So hopefully the answers to what I have asked are not so easily found.
2. I have a good deal more to say on themes discussed in the last post, which I will get to in future posts. But I have one piece of information that I think is quite significant (a real “chiddush”) and I don’t want to delay passing it on. It turns out that R. Schachter was too quick to add the correction in Nefesh ha-Rav. Here is an email I received by someone who prefers to remain anonymous.
I am not into writing reactions (Israelis call them “talkbacks”) on blogs, since I have not become accustomed to the 21st Century. But I want to give you a bit of information that is relevant to your discussion of Metzitza. I attended Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s shiurim at Gruss for a number of years, and I clearly remember what he said on the subject during what the guys called “a press conference.” He said very clearly that the Rav was against any Metzitza at all, and he expressed this view explicitly at the brit of one of Rav Aharon’s sons. To me such a view makes lots of sense, if one understands that it is required in the gemara only because it was then thought that the lack of Metzitza was dangerous.(כי לא עביד סכנה הוא (שבת קלג,
3. Many people have mentioned to me the problems with the commenting feature (at least for those using Chrome). When you click on it, you often don’t see the most recent comments. One way to fix this is after you click to see the comments, where it says “Discussion” check “Newest” or “Oldest”, and everything will come up. We will try to come up with a fix for this.

[1] I am referring to the level of peshat, as I realize that all sorts of explanations based on derush, remez, and kabbalah can be offered. 


New seforim and books

|

New seforim and books
By Eliezer Brodt
Here is a list of seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. This is not an attempt to list everything or even close to it; rather it’s just a list of seforim and books on many random topics, which I have seen while shopping for seforim. I enumerated a few titles for which I have Table of Contents for. Please feel free to e-mail me for them.

ספרים:
א. פסקי הרי”ד מסכת נדה מכון תלמוד הישראלי
ב. האמונה ודעות לר’ סעדיה גאון עם פירוש של ר’ דוד הכהן [פרק א-ב] תפ עמודים
ג. דרשות ר’ זרחיה הלוי סלדין [תלמיד ר’ חסדאי קרשקש], אוניברסיטת בן גורין [מהדיר: ארי אקרמן], מבוא עז עמודים+ 186 עמודים
ד. קובץ על יד כרך כא [ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים]
ה. שלושת חיבורי הדקדוק של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ במקורם הערבי ובתרגומם לעברית – מהדורה ביקורתית, עלי ותד, דניאל סיון
ו. מקראות גדולות כולל פי’ ר’ יצחק ב”ר יוסף דפירא, תלמיד הרשב”א, שמות, תעג עמודים + מפתחות, [משפחת הולצר] ניתן לקבל דוגמא
ז. חקי משפט על חושן משפט [חתן של המגן אברהם]
ח. ר’ יצחק בנימין וואלף, נחלת בנימין, ב’ חלקים, על תרי”ג מצות, כולל מפתחות [נדפס פעם ראשונה בשנת תמ”ב]
ט. בתי כהונה [חנוכה] עם הערות ר’ מנחם אדלר, רא עמודים
י. ר’ אברהם אנג’יל, פתוחי חותם, ביאור תיבת גם בפסוקי תנ”ך [נדפס לראשונה בשנת תקע”ט] [כולל בשולי הגליון פירושים ממאות ראשונים ואחרונים על מילת גם, נאסף על ידי ידידי ר’ משה היבנר], רכד עמודים, ניתן לקבל דוגמא של הספר.
יא. ר’ אברהם בן הגר”א, רב פעלים ונוספות, הוצאת מישר I will hopefully review this work shortly.
יב. דרשות וחידושי רבי אליהו גוטמכר מגריידיץ על התורה, בראשית [מכתב יד] שפב עמודים.
יג. ר’ אהרן אסאד, [בן של ר’ יהודה אסאד], אש דת, פרקי מחשבה ומאמרי השקפה מיוסדים על דברי קדמונינו הראשונים ואחרונים, תפד עמודים
יד. דברי מלכיאל חלק ח, חידושים על ש”ס, מוסד רב קוק
טו. ר’ שמואל שיטאווא, מנחת שבת על קיצור שלחן ערוך, שפח עמודים, +מפתחות.
טז. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, מקראי קודש, שבת א, רצו עמודים
יז. ר’ יעקב פינק, תפארת יעקב, מאמרים הלכה ופרקי מחשבה רעינות לפרשיות השבוע ופרקי אבות, שצד עמודים
יח. ר’ ברוך רבינוביץ, בינת נבונים, השואה באספקלריה תורנית, 135 עמ’ מבוא, + רד עמודים
יט. ר’ אלישיב זצ”ל, הערות במסכת שבת חלק א, עמ’ תקמו עמודים.
כ. ר’ שלמה שוחט,  מילה שלמה על מצות מילה,  תשכה עמודים
כא. ר’ יאיר עובדיה, אור לגויים, הלכות עבודה זרה, 262 עמודים
כב. ר’ אהרן ליכטנשטיין, באור פניך יהלכון, מידועת וערכים בעבודת ה’ 295 עמודים, ידיעות ספרים
כג. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, תשובת השנה, התעוררות והנהגות ליום הלידה, וקו’ המעלות לכל השנה, עב עמודים.
כד.  ר’ אברהם רוזנטל, [בעל הסידרה ‘כמוצא שלל רב’] ורפואה קרובה לבוא,פניני הלכה ואגדה בעייני רפואה כולל שערי סגולות ותפילות לרפואה, תמח עמודים
כה. ר’ יהודה ארצי, יקח מצות אוצר על עניני הידור מצוה, 1079 עמודים.
כו. אגרות וכתבים דרך אמונה, ממרן הגר”ח קניבסקי, הוראות והנהגות ממרן החזון איש, ואגרות מן הגרי”ש אלישיב,
כז. מנשים באהל, לזכר נשמת הרבנית לאה אויערבאך, כולל קובץ הלכות ממרן הגרי”ש אלישיב, וחידושי ר’ שלמה זלמן אויערבאך על פרק במה מדליקין, אוסף חידושי תורה בעניני נשים במצות התורה, תקעא עמודים. ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.
כח. ר’ זאב זיכערמאן, אוצר פלאות התורה, בראשית, תרמ”א עמודים.    One day I will hopefully review this work.  
ורפואה קרובה לבוא 5מחקר
מחקר
א. ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורות התורה שבעל פה, יסודותיה, עקרונותיה והגדרותיה, 632 עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.  

This sefer simply put is incredible. It does not come with an index instead you get a disk of the sefer fully searchable.

ב. משנת ארץ ישראל ספראי- מסכת תרומות
ג. יצחק כהן אור שמח הלכה ומשפט, משנתו של הרב הרב מאיר שמחה הכהן על משנה תורה להרמב”ם, אוניברסיטת בן גורין, 408 עמודים  I will be reviewing this work shortly Bn.
ד. להכות שורש, הראי”ה קוק והקרן הקיימת לישראל, ר’ אברהם וסרמן ואיתם הנקין, 197 עמודים [כולל יותר מעשרים מכתבים של רב קוק חדשות שלא נדפסו וגם הרבה תמונות נדירים].
ה. עלה נעלה מענה לספר ויואל משה תשובות מפי ר’ שלמה אבינר, 278 עמודים
ו. אדר היקר, ר’ אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק על חתונ האדר”ת עם פירוש מר’ שלמה אבינר, 452 עמודים
ז. יוחנן סילמן, בין ללכת בדרכיו, ולשמע בקלו, הוראות הלכתיות כהנחיות או כציוויים, 480 עמודים, מכללת הרצוג
ח. מיכה גודמן, חלומו של הכוזרי, 380 עמודים
ט. אליעזר טרייטל, פרקי דרבי אליעזר, נוסח, עריכה ודוגמת סינופסיס של כתבי היד, יד בן צבי, 445 עמודים [ראה כאן]
י. רבי ראובן כץ, רבה של אם המושבות, מסכת חייו השזורה בתולדות הימים, 398 עמודים.
יא. חיים שלם, אי של אפשר, סיפור חייו של בנימין מינץ, הוצאת הכרמל, 559 עמודים.
יב. פנקס קהל קאסאלי מונפיראטו שמ”ט-תי”ח, בעריכת ראובן בונפיל ויצחק יודלוב, 556 עמודים, מגנס, [תוכן העניינים]
יג. הרפואה במקרא ובתלמוד, ד”ר יצחק (יוליוס) פרויס, 1022 עמודים, מגנס [תוכן העניינים]
יד. דוד הלבני, מקורות ומסורות, סנהדרין עד מסכת הוריות, מגנס, 416 עמודים.
טו. דורש טוב לעמו, הדרשן הדרשה וספרות הדרוש בתרבות היהודית, עורכים נחם אילן כרמי הורוביץ/ קימי קפלן, מרכז זלמן שזר, 242 עמודים
טז. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד, ימי הביניים, חלק ח, מרכז זלמן שזר, 488 עמודים.
יז. גנזי יוסף פרל, שמואל ורסס, מרכז זלמן שזר, 359 עמודים.
יח. אלתר ולנר, אומה במאבקיה, 439 עמודים, מוסד רב קוק
יט. יורם ארדר, דרכים  בהלכה הקראית הקדומה, 372 עמודים, ספריית הילל בן חיים, [כולל חומר חשוב על האבן עזרא]
כ. יונתן מאיר, שבחי רודקינסון, מיכאל לוי פרומקין גוקדינסון והחידות, ספריית הילל בן חיים
כא. חיי אשה ד”ר חנה קטן
כב. המעין גליון 204 ראה כאן
כג. חקירה 14 ראה כאן

English
Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013), 600 pages
Yaacov Deutsch, Judaism in Christian Eyes, Oxford Press  304 pages

Michael T. Walton, Anthonius Margaritha and the Jewish Faith, Jewish life and Conversion in Sixteenth Century Germany, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013) 242 pages
Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism, Yale University Press, 336 pages



Blazing Critics

|
Recently, the question of how critical a reviewer should be was raised by Pete Wells’ review of Guy Fieri’s Times Square restaurant.  In that review, Wells eviscerates everything about the restaurant.  For example, he asks Mr. Fieri: 
“Hey, did you try that blue drink, the one that glows like nuclear waste? The watermelon margarita? Any idea why it tastes like some combination of radiator fluid and formaldehyde?” 
Needless to say, Mr. Fieri was not pleased and he fired back, alleging that Wells had ulterior motives.  The internets were sent a twitter about the “feud” and this ultimately led to a piece by the Times Public Editor defending the snarky review – or the “all guns blazing” review.  In her defense, rather than just offer that Mr. Wells, as a critic, had a duty to candidly review Mr. Fieri’s resturant, the editor helpfully collected other such examples of “classic” all-guns blazing reviews.  
We discuss one one, well known, Jewish example here. 
But, perhaps the most well known example of a candid review is that of Professor H. Soloveitchik’s review of Peter J. Haas in AJS, 24:2 (1999) 343-57 ($).  Indeed, Soloveitchik’s review was referenced in the movie Footnote, where a doctoral student is the stand in for Haas and is berated with a version of  “[o]ur author is apparently unaware of the writings of Yitzhak Baer, Salo Baron, Eliezer Bashan, H.H. Ben-Sasson, Menahem Ben-Sasson, Reuven Bonfil, and Mordechai Bruer, to mention only historians whose names begin with B.”  344.  
Soloveitchik has another recent “all guns blazing” review worth mentioning.  This one, published in the Jewish Review of Books, where he reviews ($) Tayla Fishman’s award winning, People of the Book.  To be fair, it appears that Soloveitchik long ago apprised Fishman of his views and warned her that he would review her book and air his views to the world.  Soloveitchik explains that he is “thanked for reading a draft of one chapter.”  But, he continues that based upon that reading he “strongly urged Dr. Fishman” that she should “not publish and further informed her that as her writing would mislead English-speaking readers, most of whom know nothing about rabbinics” and thus he “would feel obligated to review the book.”  The substance of the review argues that Fishman displays not even a basic familiarity with the Tosefot, the focus of her book.  Obviously, the whole review is worth reading, but Soloveitchik’s opinion is readily gleaned by his explanation as to the futility in even attempting to reconstruct where Fishman’s  misunderstandings lead her astray.  After spending much time on this endeavor he had the epiphany that she was not just misunderstanding the texts because “misunderstanding requires partial understanding.” Consequently, he offers, “if this fractional comprehension is lacking, there are no parameters limiting the interpretation; the meaning of the source will then be whatever the writer wishes it to mean, or, absent this bias, whatever comes to mind.”