I recently received a sample of the new Artscroll work “A Daily Dose of Torah.” This work, which is more or less a modern-day Hok l’Yisrael, parcels out 18 minute learning sections covering Gemara, Siddur, Mussur, etc. But setting aside the content, in the introduction there is a very curious quote.

In the introduction the editors thank Reb Sheah Brander for his “graphics genius.” They explain “As someone once said in a different context, ‘I can’t put it into words, but I know it when I see it.'” They then apply the quote as “It is hard to define good taste and graphics beauty in words, but when one sees Reb Sheah’s work, one knows it.”

Now, the quote they have “I can’t put it into words, but I know it when I see it” doesn’t actually appear anywhere exactly as that. It is obvious, however, this quote is most likely taken from a well known Supreme Court concurrence authored by Justice Potter Stewart. The case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is about whether a movie was pornographic, or more correctly obscene. Justice Stewart said that although it was difficult to define or articulate what exactly fit the definition of pornography “I know it when I see it.” (Id. at 197.)

So, they are absolutely correct that “someone once said in a different context” but I am unsure if they knew exactly what context that was.

I heard the following from Dr. Leiman. In the Hatam Sofer’s yeshiva in Pressburg, it was the custom for all to wear hats while learning. This included fairly young boys. One day a ba’al ha’bus (a community member not part of the Yeshiva) came in and saw a young boy learning. As he was a youngster, his hat was a bit oversized. The ba’al ha’bus went over to him and said “Shalom aleichem Hat, where is the bucher [boy].” The boy turned around and was rather disturbed by this insult, noticed the man’s rather prominent nose. The boy replied, “Shalom aleichem Nose where is the ba’al ha’bus.” This reply incensed the ba’al ha’bus and he immediately went to the Hatam Sofer to complain.

The Hatam Sofer called the boy over to hear his side of the story. The boy explained he was minding his own business when this person made a comment about his hats size to which he just replied in kind. Upon hearing this, the Hatam Sofer responded, using a verse from this week’s Torah portion (Det. 29:23), if this is so, “מה חרי האף הגדול הזה.” (A play on words to mean “what anger [spite] this great nose displays.”)

For the full recovery of HaRav R. J. Wasserstein

I heard a very interesting speech this weekend [which S. had previously discussed here as well], and I have decided to expand some on it.

In this weeks Torah reading we were treated to a rather strange occurrence. Although, throughout the Torah, there are words read different than they are written, at least in the Torah (Nakh provides plentiful examples of significantly altered words), these are minor corrections. Most of these corrections are merely the maleh or hasar (plene and defective) spellings. Yet, in last week’s reading two words appeared which instead of reading the actual words we substitute two totally different words (chapter 28, 27 & 30). The substituted words are not different in the sense of their meaning – their meanings are very similar just they express the same in a different manner – just in their pronunciation. These alterations are based upon the TB, Meggilah 25b. The Talmud explains these words were altered as the way they written was considered too crass and thus required substitution.[1]

Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, states that these words are the product of the Tikkun Soferim, corrections of the Scribes.[2] What are the Tikkun Soferim? There are two basic ways to understand what these soferim did. If one looks at Rashi’s first mention of the Tikkun Soferim, both of these are represented. That is, in the first mention, there are three different versions of Rashi. Depending upon which version one has, will in turn inform the debate about what the Tikkun Soferim did.

Rashi’s first mention of the this concept is found in Genesis, when God visited Abraham. God came to visit after Abraham circumcised himself. However, this visit was interrupted by the appearance of the three angels (who appeared like men to Abraham). After they left God came back as it was, however, it was viewed inappropriate to say that God came and stood or waited before Abraham. Therefore, the verse was altered to say that Abraham still stood before God. Rashi explains this change is one of the Tikkun Soferim. The simple way to understand this concept is just the Rabbis came and explained that although there should have been a different reading, this one was chosen so not appear offensive to God. But, importantly, the Rabbis did not actually make the change, rather they came to explain it.

In some editions[3] of Rashi, there are a few additional words which offer a very different insight into the Tikkun Soferim process. These are “שהפכוהו רבותינו לכתוב זה” or “The Rabbis altered it to state thus.”[4] This means that after the Torah was written, some later Rabbis came and altered to the text.

This understanding presents a problem in light of the creed offered by Maimonides, among others, that the Torah never changed.[5] But, before we get to that we need to first locate Rashi’s source for this understanding.

It seems, the source for the additional words is based upon a Midrash Tanhuma (Beshalach 16). In this Midrash it states that the men of the Great Assembly (אנשי כנסת הגדולה) were the ones who did the Tikkun Soferim. Thus, this Midrash is stating that these changes were actually done – done by the men of the Great Assembly. This Midrash is in conflict with other statements, most notably by the Bereishit Rabbah (36,7). There, there is no mention of the men of the Great Assembly and thus no human alterations.

Now, some have claimed based in part upon this conflict and the problem mentioned above that the Tanchuma has been corrupted. This position was espoused by R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Einayim. He says that the words regarding the men of the Great Assembly were later emendation based upon an error. Specifically, de Rossi states “that some impetuous person, as I think, wanting to honor the Men of the Great Synagogue, wrote those words in the margin of his copy of the Yelammedenu [Tanhuma]. His colleage, the printer, than instead his words into the body of the text for the sake of clarity.”[6] De Rossi, then argues that not only was that Tanhuma altered in this fashion, but the previously cited Rashi was as well. He says that the additional words are “unquestionably an error.” (For other examples of this phenomenon see R. Zilber, Ohr Yisrael 41, p. 201-223.) De Rossi’s position was quoted favorably by some traditional commentaries[7] attempting to deal with the problematic Rashi as well as the Tanhuma. This is of course ironic in that de Rossi’s work was banned for taking liberties with various statements of the Rabbis.

Yet, for all these justifications, as Lieberman has shown, even if one discounts the Tanhuma, there are still other examples of similar statements regarding Tikkun Soferim. Thus, we are forced to conclude that there are in fact two traditions regarding how to understand Tikkun Soferim. One holds the Rabbis did not alter the text while the other is inapposite. In truth, the latter position is not nearly as problematic as it is at first glance. Already R. Hai Goan[8] deals with a similar issue regarding the accuracy of Torah’s text. Specifically, the TB, Kiddushin is in conflict with the way we have our Torahs. R. Hai explains, that we for our purposes, we only have our Torahs and that we need not worry about perceived conflicts. According to R. Hai, so long as we follow the halakhic process we need not worry about historic inaccuracies. One could argue, the Tanhuma and perhaps Rashi took a similar position, so long as the Tikkun Soferim was based upon established Talmudic principles, there was room to even amend the Torah.

Sources and further reading: see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 64-67 (and the sources cited therein); Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 28-37; Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374; C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 347-363; Marc B. Shapiro, Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 98-100.

[1] The written words are coarser versions of the ones which are actually read.

[2] Rashi’s assertion that this change is from the Tikkun Soferim is problematic. None of the various Massorah lists include this example in their lists. See, e.g., Okhlah we-Okhlah, list 168 (p. 113 of the Frensdorff ed.); C.D. Ginsburg, The Massorah, vol. 2 (vol. 4 at seforimonline.org) p. 710 list 206. Instead, as Liberman has noted, generally the Tikkun Soferim were inappropriate references to God and not generally problematic words, as is the case here.

[3] This includes the first edition, Reggio, [1475]. Other early editions, however, do not include these words, for a discussion of these see Rashi HaShalem, vol. 1 202-203 n. 75, 357.

[4] The third version contains these words in parenthesis.

[5] On this topic see generally B. Barry Levy, Fixing God’s Torah, and Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 91-121.

[6] Translation from Weinberg ed. of Me’or Einayim, p. 327.

[7] See Etz Yosef commentary to the Tanhuma; R. Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 19, 374.

[8] Harkavey, Teshuvot HaGeonim, no. 3.

It seems that among many, it is assumed the temple vessels (klei haMikdash) are housed in the Vatican.

In 2004, Rabbis Amar and Metzger asked the Pope to return the temple vessels. Earlier, Shimon Shetreet, the minster of religion, also asked the Pope to return these, and, according to Shetreet’s account, told the Pope he was unwelcome in Israel until he did so. But, it seems that although these people were willing to issue demands about these vessels, they did not do any research prior to establish whether in all likelyhood the vessels are actually in the vatican.

Josephus records that various vessels, clothing and materials were taken by Titus and brought back to Rome. These were eventually housed in the Temple of Peace. In all likeyhood, this is were various Tanaim saw some of the vessels. Most notably, the headplate (tzit) as well as the curtain (perochet) was seen in Rome in about the second century CE. Additionally, famously, the Menorah and the Table from the Temple is recorded (a point to which we will return in a bit) on the Arch of Titus.

So, up to around the second century we have some evidence of the location of the vessels, but what happened after that? To simplfy Roman history, Roman was sacked and its treasures were taken. It seems that the Vandals or Gizrac took the various treasures, including the “treasures that Titus took.” According to one account these were sent back to Jerusalem to a Church (not longer extant and its location unclear) or they were plundered by someone else. Yet, it would appear this has ignored and instead been assumed that if the vessels were in Rome at some point they would remain there for close to 2,000 years. Additionally, if one assumes that these vessels remained in Rome, why is that they were never displayed? One cannot claim out of fear that Jews would claim them as there own. Jews, for much of the period under discussion were in no position to make such a claim.

Now to return to the Arch of Titus. In truth, it is far from clear that the Menorah depicted on the Arch is actually that which was in the Temple. The most basic problem is the base. The base as depicted is hexagonal, while according to Rambam and Rashi, the base rested upon three legs. Additionally, the base contains depictions of a sea dragon which would more or less run afoul of the commandment not to have idols. Although for this last issue, the Tosefta in Avodah Zara does allow for smooth (no scales?) sea dragons, it still seems a bit strange to have this in the Temple, in the Holy section.

To answer the first problem R. Herzog, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, offered that the legs broke during transport and the Romans replaced it with this base. (This is somewhat questionable as this type of base does not seem to be common even among Roman vessels of the time). Or, some claim this was a Hellenstic change done to the Menorah or the legs are really there and the “base” merely surrounds the legs. Be it as it may, what results is that this is less than conclusive and perhaps not even a Jewish invention.

This leads us to another issue, the State of Israel. The State of Israel adopted as its emblem the Menorah as it appears on the Arch of Titus. This very Menorah with the sea dragons and the “wrong” base. Rabbi Herzog aside from his comments above, questioned the use by the State for this very reason. He said, that they should use a three legged Menorah instead. What is curious is that the State actually slightly altered the original version. Originally, it was as it more or less appeared on the Arch. Subsequently, the dragons or animals on the base were changed from facing each other to their current position which makes them look more like jumping gazelles than sea dragons. Perhaps, this was to accommodate the religous sensiblities of those like R. Herzog.

Sources: Hans Lewy, Olmot Nifgashim, 255-58; A. Berliner, Divrei Yemi HaYehudim B’Rome, vol. 1 107-110; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 6,8,3 (357); id. 7,5 (148-152); id. (158-161); the best work on the Arch is Yarden, “Spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus.” Yarden attempts to reconstruct the Arch to its original state and discusses all the various issues with it, including the change in the State of Israel emblem. What is surprising is that Prof. Daniel Sperber’s article on this topic fails to use Yarden, leading to a few errors in Sperber’s article. Sperber’s article can be found in Minhagei Yisrael vol. 5 171-212. See also, the fairly recent work on the history of the entire temple destruction Elef Dor by Y. Horowitz vol. 1 380-397 where he discusses some more stories of others who assumed the vatican still houses the temple vessels. See Sefer haYovel l’Kovod Shmuel Mirsky 220-21 for R. Herzog’s position.

The Babylonian Talmud (“BT”) clearly held the Earth was flat. R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Enayim devotes more or less a chapter to understanding the view of the BT on this issue.

De Rossi explains that there a various passages in the BT which assume a flat earth. For instance, De Rossi quotes the BT Baba Basra “the world is like an exadera [three sides are closed] and the north side is open. When the sun reaches the nothwestern side, it bends back and goes above the sky.” De Rossi explains that “anybody who understands this passage correctly realizes that . . . the sun’s circuit is not from above to below . . . and they agree that the nightly darkness is not caused by the sun being at that time below the horizon . . . this is all calcluated on the basis that the earth is flat and that the heavens only cover it like a roof of the exadera.”

De Rossi after noting that this opinion is pervasive in the BT, it is based upon the understanding of some at the time the BT was complied. He explains, however, that if “the sages of blessed memory who believed that the world was flat . . . been informed of what has become known in our times, namely, how the Spaniards . . . discovered the New World in the Northern Hemisphere where the inhabitants have their rest opposite the place where we put our feet. And the same is true of the place under the equator and also beyond it to the south above and below. With one voice [the sages] would have acknowledged that the earth was spherical.”

This last line, of course, was in part why De’ Rossi was controversial. By claiming Hazal based some of their statements upon the science of the day and that had they been exposed to what we now know would have changed their minds was, and continues to be a touchy subject.

But to return to our topic at hand – the flat earth – De Rossi points out that although the BT held the earth was flat not everyone at the time agreed. Specifically, he notes that the Jerusalem Talmud as well as Berashis Rabba seem to imply the earth is round. Additionally, the Zohar states the earth is round. It is this last source, however, which is somewhat problematic. Assuming the BT held the earth was flat and that appears to have been the prevailing attitude, why then would the Zohar disagree. R. Jacob Emden used this passage in the Zohar as one of the many which points to a later dating of when the Zohar was written. R. Emden states succinctly “this opinion is not one shared by Hazal and instead comes from later science.” Thus, according to R. Emden, the fact the Zohar assumes the earth is round lends itself to the notion it could not have been written (at least this part) by R. Shimon bar Yochi.

R. Emden’s challenge of the Zohar was not left unrebutted. R. Moshe Kunits in his Ben Yochi which is devoted to rebutting R. Emden, attacks this statement of R. Emden. Although he attempts to refute R. Emden, one who is aware of the above discussion, realizes how hollow R. Kunits’ argument is. R. Kunits agrees that the BT assumes a flat earth, but then he cites the two sources which do go with the round earth -Jerusalem Talmud and Berashis Rabba. In essence, Kunits is merely regurgitating De Rossi’s sources. In fact, he cites De Rossi as being one who demonstrates that Hazal held the earth was in fact round. Of course, De Rossi’s only sources were the Zohar and the others cited by Kunits. Thus, in the end, Kunits’ arguments are circular. This fallacy is noted by R. Shlomo Yehudah Rappoport in his book to rebut Kunits – Nahlat Yehuda.

Finally, it appears that the idea of a flat earth persisted until at least the 18th century (and if the recently published book, Afeki Mayim, is an indication even until the 21st century). The person in the 18th century to follow this view is a rather surprising one in light of how knowledgable he supposedly was in secular wisdom (at least according to some). The Vilna Gaon is recorded as stating the earth must be flat in order to properly understand the verse in Job (38:13) “that it might take hold of the ends of the earth.”

Sources: De’ Rossi, Meor Einayim (ed. Weinberg) Imrei Binah, Section 1 chap. 11. Zohar, Vaikra, 10a; R. Jacob Emden, Mitpahat Sefarim; R. Shlomo Yehudah Rappoport, Nahlat Yehuda (Lemberg, 1873); R. Kunits, Ben Yochi. On the Vilna Gaon, see R. Y. Engel, Gilyoni HaShas, Shabbat, 74a and R. Reuven Margulies, Nitzozi Ohr on the Zohar cited above.

What follows is a list of new seforim I have recently purchased; for prior lists see the “New Books Lists” on the sidebar.

1. Indices To The Emden-Eybeschuetz Controversy Literature by Gershom G. Scholem. As the title implies, this is an index, divided by person, book, and geographic place. Additional, many of the abbreviations used (R. Emden constantly uses abbreviations, many obscure) are explained. This index was culled from Scholem’s index cards where he kept these records. The editors have done nothing to update them nor have they attempted to ensure consistency. So, in essence they had these cards typeset and published.

But, as part of this publication Hebrew University has scanned all of the books and manuscripts covered by this index and put them on a CD. This is especially important, as many of these are very rare and hard to come by. This CD is supposed to be available directly from Magnes Press, however, I could find no other information on this on their website.

2. On the topic of Scholem there is a fairly recent book, Pithe ‘Olam which is a critical edition of R. Solomon ben Samuel’s work by that name. This is a work of kabbalah. However, perhaps the most interesting piece of this book in not the manuscript but what the editor, Rafeal Kohen, has appended to it. R. Kohen has included his own polemic against modern kabbalah scholars. He accuses them, among other things, to have stymied the publication of numerous manuscripts to benefit their own careers, racism against those not in academia, as well as plain sloppy scholarship. He backs some of these claims up with concrete examples. In particular he savages Paul Fenton’s edition of R. Yosef b. Avrohom’s Sheroshi HaKabbalah with numerous examples of errors and mistakes. R. Kohen, also goes University by University and points out who he has issues with. R. Kohen is particular of appending each of the names of the people he discusses with the ignominious abbreviation meaning שם רשעים ירקב ימח שמו וזכרון תימקן ותשחקן עצמות אוסר לעסוק בקבורתו or שר”י יש”ו תו”ע אל”ב at every single mention of their names. He covers Hebrew University, Bar Ilan, Sorbonne, and the Schechter Institute. It makes for some entertaining, if over the top, reading.

3. Journal Mayni HaYeshua from Biala Hassidim contains a 23 page article against Eliach’s Sefer HaGaon.

4. Ziv haSemot or What’s in a Name. This book on everything having to do with names and naming is perhaps the 4th book on this extremely important, life or death topic which has come out in the past few years. This one is in both Hebrew and English. Curiously, although there is a chapter on using a name that a wicked person had such as Yismael. The author does not cite to or quote the Shu’t Besamim Rosh on the topic. Whose pronouncement has broad implications for naming. He says even if a evil person happen to have the name, if it is a nice name then you can use it.

I purchased these at Biegeleisen in Boropark.