R. Yudel Rosenberg, R. Mordechai Elefant, and Sexual Abuse

Marc B. Shapiro

1. Many readers of the Seforim Blog are aware of R. Yudel Rosenberg, the fascinating talmid chacham and posek who for some reason was also drawn to forgeries. Ira Robinson has recently authored a complete biography of Rosenberg, A Kabbalist in Montreal: The Life and Times of Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg. This wonderful book is certainly deserving of a complete review on the Seforim Blog, but here I would just like to comment on a criticism of me.

On p. 219 Robinson discusses the letter of R. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini that Rosenberg included in his Sha’arei Zohar Torah.

The letter of Rabbi Medini as published by Yudel Rosenberg has been challenged as a forgery by Rabbi Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, David Zvi Hillman, and Marc B. Shapiro on the grounds that some linguistic elements of the letter are foreign to Rabbi Medini’s style and may well have come from the pen of Rabbi Rosenberg.

In the note to this passage, Robinson refers to my Seforim Blog post here, where in addition to mentioning the points made by R. Sofer,[1] I write:

Let me also add that the way Medini (=Rosenberg) concludes the forged haskamah is not like any of his other letters, which are included in Iggerot Sedei Hemed (Bnei Brak, 2006). In the authentic letters, before his name Medini always adds הצב”י or הצעיר, which he does not do in the forged haskamah. In his authentic letters, he also never closes them by adding to his name רב ומו”ץ בעיר הקדש חברון. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the letter of approbation sent by Medini to Rosenberg is simply another one of the latter’s forgeries.

Robinson states (p. 219 n. 25):

On one of his points Shapiro is mistaken. He wrote in his blog: “In the authentic letters, before his name Medini always adds ha-tsa’ir, which he does not do in the forged haskamah.” In Yudel Rosenberg’s work, the Medini letter does close with yedido ha-tsair.

Here is the haskamah, and indeed Robinson is correct that הצעיר appears. I can’t explain why I wrote otherwise.[2]

Since we are discussing the forged haskamah, let me add two additional points relating to the final lines. I looked through all the letters in Iggerot Sedei Hemed and in none of them does this expression appear:

כנפשו הטהורה וכנפש ידידו

Furthermore, R. Medini always adds הי“ו or less commonly ס“ט after his name. Both of these are missing here.

While on the topic of forgeries, let me mention something else. In my post here I deal with the notorious forger, Chaim Bloch. One of the forgeries I mention is his creation of an alternate version of שפוך חמתך in the Passover Haggadah. In Bloch’s forgery, instead of “Pour out Your rage upon the nations that do not know You,” followed by more lines beseeching God to destroy the wicked ones, a more universalist formulation is found that begins with שפוך אהבתך. This forgery, which Bloch claims is from a 1561 Worms manuscript, reads as follows:

Pour out Your love on the nations who have known You and on the kingdoms who call upon Your name. For they show loving-kindness to the seed of Jacob, and they defend Your people Israel from those Who would devour them alive. May they live to see the sukkah of peace spread over Your chosen ones, and to participate in the joy of Your nations.

This translation is taken from R. Jonathan Sacks’ Haggadah (The Applebaum Edition), p. 120. Unfortunately, Sacks did not know about the history of Bloch and thought he was dealing with an authentic text. Sacks introduces the phony prayer as follows:

In one manuscript from Worms, 1521, there is a unique addition to the Haggada alongside “Pour out Your rage.” It is a prayer of thanks for the righteous gentiles throughout history who, rather than persecuting Jews, befriended them and protected them at times of danger.

3. Readers of the Seforim Blog might recall that on a few occasions I cited passages from the memoir of the late R. Mordechai Elefant, Rosh Yeshiva of Itri and builder of a vast Torah empire. These were the first times that passages from the memoir that he dictated appeared in print. I was then one of the few people who had a copy of the memoir, and a number of readers can attest that I did not agree to share it with them because I did not have permission from the person who gave it to me. Subsequently, Mishpacha got a copy of it and published some selected (and “touched up”) portions.[3]

In September 2019, R. Pini Dunner[4] published the memoir and you can view it here (Although this site says May 1, 2013, in reality Dunner only uploaded it in 2019.)

Dunner writes:

Rabbi Elefant’s candid memoirs are startling, not just because they reveal much that one would hardly have expected from a top-tier Rosh Yeshiva, but even more because of the very frank revelations he willingly shared regarding the background to his extraordinary life.

I distinctly recall his many sardonic observations about life and people; he was a true iconoclast who had clearly never read the memo about how senior public servants should express themselves, and particularly rabbis. At the same time, he was an extraordinary scholar, who could lecture on any Talmudic topic, without prior warning, to discerning peers and students, dazzling them with both his vast knowledge and his keen intellect.

Those who examine the Elefant memoir will come away shocked that the author was a leading rosh yeshiva. R. Aharon Rakeffet’s response after completing the memoir was that R. Elefant was “fifty percent gadol, fifty percent gangster.”[5] One thing is sure: R. Elefant was one of the most fascinating Torah scholars in recent memory, and there really was no one like him.

Anyone who reads the memoir must wonder why R. Elefant would have wanted himself to be remembered in the way the memoir describes. Certainly, no one whose only exposure to R. Elefant is through his Torah works could imagine the author’s colorful life. In fact, in R. Elefant’s posthumously published Mi-Zahav Mordechai he is described on the title page as שר התורה הגאון האמיתי.

R. Elefant was obviously an unusual person, and as with other writers of memoirs in rabbinic history (e.g., R. Leon Modena, R. Jacob Emden, R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim), he was an independent thinker who did not believe in following the herd. R. Elefant, as with all memoir writers, wanted us to learn about his experiences and views, things we would not know about if we only looked at his yeshiva persona.

I asked R. Nathan Kamenetsky about R. Elefant after I read the memoir, and I gave R. Kamenetsky a copy of it. (R. Kamenetsky worked closely with R. Elefant in Itri). But I did not know R. Elefant, so anything I suggest will be speculation.

When I finished reading the memoir, and was wondering why R. Elefant would want all this unusual information made public, I thought of two possible reasons. The first is pride, to show that one can be a talmudic scholar—and R. Elefant was an authentically great one—and at the same time be “with it”, that is, to be able to travel around the world and have relationships with all sorts of unusual people. Looking at matters this way, the memoir can perhaps be seen as subversive, in that although R. Elefant lived in one world, and had great respect for the rabbis of that world, he also happily lived in another world and wanted to show people how he did it.

The other possibility I thought of is that R. Elefant actually felt guilty about how he lived his life, and the memoir was his way of making matters right, as it were. He was a rosh yeshiva and was therefore given great respect. He was also close to a number of gedolei Yisrael. Perhaps R. Elefant felt uncomfortable in his role, where he was regarded as a שר התורה and a גאון אמיתי, since unlike the other roshei yeshiva and gedolim, his life was not one of “only Torah.” Is it possible that R. Elefant was putting it all out there to set the record straight, that is, to let people know who he really was, because in the end he felt guilty that he was placed in the same category as other roshei yeshiva? Could it be that R. Elefant, who had so many interests and couldn’t be happy spending his life entirely in the beit midrash, felt guilty being compared to the roshei yeshiva and gedolim whose entire lives were focused only on Torah study and spiritual improvement? I can’t help but think that if R. Elefant had children, and was busy raising them, he wouldn’t have had his wanderlust and need for adventure.

R. Elefant himself tells us that in addition to his “lamdan side,” he also has a “shaygetz (irreligious) side” (p. 40). I cannot imagine any other rosh yeshiva saying such a thing about himself. R. Elefant’s “shaygetz side” was not something that most would have known about had he not revealed it, and it is this side of him that people have found shocking. Obviously, R. Elefant knew they would find it shocking, yet he still wished to make it public. My sense is that he was a man of truth, and did not want to pretend. He wanted people to know what he was about, with all of his complexity.

I think it is very telling that after mentioning his “shaygetz side,” R. Elefant adds, “Thank G-d that side of me didn’t manifest itself in my students.” This line shows that, at the end of the day, R. Elefant was not very proud of this side of him, which I think lends credence to my suggestion that the memoir was his way of setting the record straight so that the world not think of him as someone he was not. (A close student of R. Elefant told me he liked this suggestion.) Also noteworthy is that right at the beginning of the memoir, R. Elefant states: “But I don’t kid myself. I know I’m not a spiritual model for my students, nor do I ever make out that I am.” 

Even if I am wrong in discerning R. Elefant’s ultimate motivation, memoirs by their nature provoke thoughts in the reader, and the two suggestions I mention are what the memoir brought to my mind.

There are those who knew R. Elefant who believe that one must distinguish between his younger days, when he was completely engrossed in Torah study, and later in life when he realized that he had a knack for raising money. It was then that he started traveling the world and hanging out with celebrities, politicians, and other colorful characters. Some will regard this as a limud zekhut for the entire bizarre and eye-opening memoir. Others will probably say that while R. Elefant raised a lot of money and built a Torah empire, the toll it took on him, as seen in how he chose to portray himself in his own memoir, shows that it was not worth it.

The copy of the memoir that Dunner placed online has become internationally famous, and you have to love the title he gave it: “An Elephant Never Forgets”. Yet Dunner’s copy is missing the first page, so let me provide it now.

In Dunner’s copy the handwriting on p. 59 can’t be read. Here are pages 58-59 from my copy so you can see the passage in its entirety.

The first thing to note is that R. Elefant’s claim that Saul Lieberman felt that he should have been made chief rabbi, and because he didn’t get this he went to JTS, is completely mistaken (as is much else in the memoir). R. Kook died in 1935 when Lieberman was 37 years old. At that young age he certainly never had any thoughts of becoming chief rabbi. The language “first chief rabbi of Israel” also doesn’t make any sense, as Lieberman left Israel for JTS when it was still Palestine.

Lieberman was actually a big supporter of his friend R. Isaac Herzog’s candidacy for the Chief Rabbinate. (Even when he was in Ireland, R. Herzog was a member of the advisory board of the Harry Fischel Institute which Lieberman headed at the time of R. Kook’s death.[6]) Chaim Herzog writes that his grandfather, R. Samuel Isaac Hillman, and Lieberman “organized a small campaign staff” to support R. Herzog’s election.[7] When R. Herzog was chosen, Lieberman was one of the signatories on the document proclaiming him Chief Rabbi. (I thank the late R. Eitam Henkin for sending me this.)[8]

R. Elefant then refers to R. Avraham Yisrael Moshe Solomon as a noted talmid chacham. Yet he was never a rav in Shanghai and he was not the father of Rabbi Baruch Shimon Solomon of Petah Tikvah. The story dealing with R. Kook, which is a famous one, is also mixed up. What was said to the Brisker Rav—and there are different versions concerning who said it—is that in R. Kook’s eyes all Jews are like family, and that is why he is so friendly with them. The version R. Elefant offers makes no sense, as R. Solomon’s comment to the Brisker Rav does not follow from what the Brisker Rav told him. In the note on the left side of the page, someone added [9]: “By R’ Kook every Yid is מבשרך אל תשעלם.”

The story at the bottom of the second page is unfortunate and does not make R. Elefant look good, as we see that he did not know of the view that one can cook in a keli sheni. This was obviously what Lieberman held, and this was also the view of R. Chaim Soloveitchik and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. R. Hershel Schachter writes as follows in Nefesh ha-Rav, p. 170:

במשנה ברורה (סי‘ שי“ח ס“ק ל“ט) הביא דעת כמה מן האחרונים להחמיר שלא לעשות תה, אפילו בכלי שני. ורבנו אמר בזה הלשון – שהסבא שלו היה מדקדק במצוות, והיה משתמש בשקיות תה בכלי שני, ואף הוא היה נוהג אחריו להקל בזה ג“כ

The story is also unfortunate as all R. Elefant had to do was ask Lieberman why he was using the tea bag in a keli sheni, and he would have been given the answer. Although one can criticize Lieberman’s association with the Jewish Theological Seminary, it is not every day that one is in the presence of someone with indescribable knowledge of Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, and Midrash. I would have assumed that R. Elefant would have taken advantage of the time he was with Lieberman for something more constructive than rebuking him.

4. In his recent Seforim Blog post here, Edward Reichman mentions R. Judah Messer Leon and his book Nofet Tzufim which was published in 1475. He also mentions that Nofet Tzufim was the answer to one of my earlier quizzes, where I asked what was the first Hebrew book published in the lifetime of its author. See here. In his post, Reichman discusses another fascinating book, R. Abraham Portaleone’s Shiltei ha-Giborim (Mantua, 1612 [Reichman mistakenly gives the date as 1607]). This book also has the honor of being “a first,” for it was the first Hebrew book to use European punctuation, including the question mark.[10]

5. The Chaim Walder affair has once again brought the issue of sexual abuse to the limelight. It also looks like the fallout from this event, unlike earlier scandals, will have a real impact in the haredi world, as many rabbis really are taking the issue seriously. What is needed is a scholarly study of how rabbis over the years have responded to the issue of sexual abuse. I am not referring to a work designed to condemn the rabbis for not doing enough, but to an academic study that would show how responses have changed over the years, how some rabbis took the matter seriously and other did not, and how with more understanding of the effects of sexual abuse rabbinic attitudes began to change.

One example of the sort of sources that would be used in such a study is R. Elijah Rabinowitz-Teomim (Aderet), Ma’aneh Eliyahu, no. 32. The Aderet deals with a case where a girl was raped by two young Jewish men. Her family wanted to report this to the police so that the rapists would receive a fitting punishment. However, the Aderet tells us that he convinced the family not to make a public issue of the matter, so as to prevent a hillul ha-shem, and to avoid confrontation with dangerous people.

דברתי אל לבם להשקיט הדבר, לבל יתחלל שם ישראל בעמים מהפקרות ופריצות צעירי הנערים, לאנוס ולנאוף ולחלל שבת ולרצוח, וגם יש סכנה בדבר לריב עם עזי פנים כמותם, ושמעו אלי

The first reason, avoidance of hillul ha-shem, certainly remains a significant factor today in the desire to keep matters of sexual abuse from being publicly aired.

Another relevant ruling, which shows how matters were handled in the past by a truly great figure, is found in R. Menachem Mendel Schneersohn (the third Lubavitcher Rebbe), Tzemah Tzedek, Yoreh Deah, no. 237. R. Schneersohn was asked the following question: A rabbi was playing with a נער on Purim and stuck his hands into the pants of the youth. The rabbi claimed that he did so because he (the rabbi) was unable to perform sexually. He thought that this was due to his small testicles, and he wanted to see if he was unusual in this regard. In other words, the rabbi was conducting a medical examination on the youth, and one can only wonder how many other boys were also subjected to this rabbi’s examinations. R. Schneersohn decided that the rabbi should not be removed from his position, as he provided a good explanation for his behavior.

What we see from these responsa (and others can be mentioned) is how much attitudes have changed in modern times. Our response would be very different than that of the Tzemach Tzedek, and I think we all would find the “justification” the abusive rabbi offered to be ludicrous, but that is only because we have been exposed to many things, including crimes perpetrated by trusted religious figures, that people in the Tzemach Tzedek’s day could never have imagined.[10]

6. As this post has discussed forgeries, I must call attention to a bombshell new book with wide-ranging implications by R. Moshe Hillel. It is titled חזון טברימון and makes a strong case that R. Yaakov Moshe Toledano created many forged documents. Often we think of forgers as shady characters, however R. Toledano was a respected rav who held a number of important positions, including Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv. In the election for Sephardic Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, he lost to R. Isaac Nissim. R. Toledano was also a posek who authored the responsa volume Yam ha-Gadol.

It is beyond depressing to think that such a distinguished person could have been responsible for numerous forgeries. If Hillel’s claim is found to be accurate, a good of deal of scholarship, which relies on documents published by Toledano, has to be thrown out. This is every scholar’s nightmare, that the conclusions he or she reaches are based on fraudulent information.

Hillel also argues that the location of R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s grave in Tiberias, which has become a popular pilgrimage site, is an invention of R. Toledano who created a phony “tradition”. For some initial discussion of Hillel’s book, see here where you can also download the book. Those interesting in purchasing a copy should contact Eliezer Brodt.

7. This summer my Torah in Motion trips resume. You can find information about them here.

8. For those interested in my Iggerot Malkhei Rabbanan, copies are still available at Mizrahi Book Store here.

9. Some years ago, I discovered at the University of Scranton a VHS tape of a 1985 lecture from Prof. Isadore Twersky. (I had already known of this lecture, as when I arrived in Scranton one of my colleagues mentioned to me how unusual it was that Twersky sat for his presentation.) I turned the VHS into a DVD, and a few weeks ago I had the tech people at Scranton turn it into a digital file and upload it to the University of Scranton’s YouTube channel. You can see the video here. This is the only video of a Twersky lecture to be found on the internet, and I am sorry that the sound is not so good. I don’t know whose idea it was to set up an Israeli flag next to Twersky as he spoke. If you look at the beginning of the video you can see that Twersky was actually sitting right in front of a cross, so maybe someone thought that a Jewish star was also needed. I know of only one other video where you can hear Twersky speaking, and that is found here where he introduces Chaim Grade.

Quiz

1. In section 4 I mentioned some bibliographical firsts, so for a quiz question I ask the following: Which Hebrew book was the first one to use footnotes (and the footnotes even used Arabic numerals)?

2. For those who would like a different sort of quiz question: Soon it will be Pesach, so please point to a halakhah on Pesach that the Shulhan Arukh decides in accord with the Rosh, while the Rama records the practice in accord with the Rambam and the Rif.

Answers should be sent to me at shapirom2 at scranton.edu 

***********

[1] I did not refer to R. David Zvi Hillman’s letter which appears in Etz Hayyim 10 (5770), p. 379.
[2] As mentioned, Robinson’s book deserves an extensive review, but here is one bibliographical point. On pp. 134ff., Robinson discusses R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s correspondence with Rosenberg concerning the halakhic status of electricity. Robinson states that R. Auerbach’s Jan. 8, 1935 letter that strongly criticizes Rosenberg’s approach is unpublished. Yet the letter actually appears in R. Auerbach’s Meorei Esh ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 5770), pp. 368ff.
[3] Mishpacha, Dec. 18, 2013.
[4] See here. Even before Dunner published the memoir, his copy was circulating and was placed online in June 2019. See here.
[5] Listen here at minute 72.
[6] See Sefer ha-Yovel for Harry Fischel (Jerusalem, 1935), Hebrew section, pp. 11, 20, English section, p. 8.
[7] Chaim Herzog, Living History (New York, 1996), p. 28 (called to my attention by Rabbi Jacob Yellin). According to Chaim Herzog, Lieberman would become his parents’ closest friend. See Elijah J. Schochet and Solomon Spiro, Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work (New York, 2005), p. 52.
[8] In 1935 R. Herzog was a candidate for the chief rabbinate of Tel Aviv. The other candidates were R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel. It is of interest that the Hazon Ish supported R. Herzog’s candidacy. See Dov Eliach, Be-Sod Siah (Jerusalem, 2018), pp. 258-259. One might have expected R. Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan), the great Mizrachi leader (and Lieberman’s father-in-law), to have supported R. Herzog or R. Amiel as they were both leading figures in Mizrachi, while R. Soloveitchik had no Mizrachi connections at this time. Yet because of his familial connection to R. Soloveitchik, Berlin put his support behind him. In a Nov. 10, 1935, letter from R. Herzog to Lieberman, R. Herzog writes as follows regarding the lack of support from Berlin, whom he calls מנהיגנו הנערץ והאהוב:

 

אין בלבי שום תרעומות עליו כי סוף סוף הרב הנ“ל הוא קרובו ובל תדין את חבירך וכו‘, ועוד כי בודאי עשה מה שעשה בלב שלם וטהור מתוך הכרתו הפנימית

You can see the letter here where a number of letters from the Lieberman archive have been uploaded. The source of these letters is not indicated, which means that they were not uploaded in accordance with the regulations of the Jewish Theological Seminary Library.
[9] תשעלם should be written תתעלם, and the passage comes from Isaiah 58:7. The verse actually has לא instead of אל. Yet a number of early rabbinic sources cite the verse with the word אל, so this was probably found in their texts. Indeed, critical editions of the book of Isaiah (Kittel, C.D. Ginsburg) report that many manuscripts have אל. Yet it is interesting that even though the verse appears with לא in every Tanakh printed today, rabbinic authors continue to cite the verse with אל. In fact, the Tolna Rebbe makes a big deal about how the first letters of מבשרך אל תתעלם spell אמת. See Tanḥumekha Yesha’ash’u Nafshi: Tolna (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 235, 405, 506, 698.
[10] See Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1959), p. 315.
[11] R. Solomon ben Adret, She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rashba, vol. 1, no. 571(b), deals with a case where a woman accused her husband, who was also a rabbi, of: 1. sexually abusing their son, 2. having sexual relations with his slave, 3. being a heretic. However, in this case it is not clear that the woman was to be believed, as she made the accusations as part of her dispute with her husband. Things got so bad that she hired a non-Jew to bring her accusations before the government, knowing that if she was believed her husband would be burned. (She clearly wanted to get rid of him for good.) This case is discussed by Norman Roth, Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain (Leiden, 1994), pp. 195-196.

Daf Yomi: Seforim on Yevamos and R’ Eliyhau Gutmacher

By Eliezer Brodt

Daf Yomi just began Yevomos Masseches. This week I had a conversation with Rabbi Moshe Schwed of All Daf. The purpose of the conversation was to briefly highlight some of the rishonim and acharonim “out there” on this messechtah, adding some anecdotes of interest about them.

It is available for viewing here and here:

A few weeks earlier I gave a presentation, also part of this new series, devoted exclusively to R’ Eliyahu Gutmacher. It is available for viewing here and here.

This is an experiment which we are trying on the Seforim Blog and we hope to have other presentations from others over time. Feedback or comments of any sort are appreciated.

This is the ninth and tenth such conversation I have had with him of this kind this year (earlier we discussed Yerushalmi Shekalim [here], Yoma [here], Rosh Hashanah [here] Taanis [here] Megillah [here] and Moed Koton part one [here], part two is here, and part three is here).

Torah Genius, Infallibility and Augmented Intelligence

by Avinoam Fraenkel

For details of Avinoam Fraenkel’s new book, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, and his previous two-volume Nefesh HaTzimtzum, see here.

To view his series of short Shomer Emunim Kabbalah explainers, that introduce the basic concepts of Arizal’s Kabbalah in the context of contemporary science and technology, see here.

This essay explores the nature of Torah genius, and how it can be dramatically enhanced by embracing technology. It investigates why, notwithstanding the remarkable awe-inspiring stature of true Torah geniuses, they must never be thought of as being beyond genuine human error. It also provides some insights on how the accelerating technological changes we are all witnessing around us, may shape the abilities of the Torah genius of the future.

With its central focus on Torah study, Jewish society has always prized scholastic excellence. Throughout the ages, the pursuit of excellence has been used as the primary tool to motivate Torah students. The Talmud therefore queries which of two types of Torah genius is optimal.[1] Would it be the “Sinai,” the person whose predominant skill is the instant recall and mastery over the breadth of scholarly sources, as fresh as if just heard at Mount Sinai? Or could it be the “Oker Harim/uprooter of mountains,” one who primarily has penetratingly deep analytical skills enabling the logical clarification of issues from first principles, even if unaware of all the sources? The Talmud states that the optimal quality is that of the wide erudition of the “Sinai.”

Some argue that the leaning towards being a “Sinai” was only applicable in Talmudic times due to the scarcity of written resources, and that with the proliferation of books in the age of printing, the primary skill that should now be encouraged is the “Oker Harim.” However, it appears that in the main, rabbinic consensus sides with the Talmud, in that while the intellect of the “Oker Harim” is certainly valued, the sheer scope of knowledge of the “Sinai” is deemed advantageous.[2] Jewish literature frequently records instances of great rabbis who were seen to have developed a balanced hybrid of both these areas of genius, referring to them with the ultimate accolade of “Sinai and Oker Harim.”

Nevertheless, it is also clear that gifted genius can sometimes not only be less than optimal in achieving correct Torah understandings but can even be an impediment. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, the Chazon Ish, beautifully expressed this paradox. Sometimes with great people who are geniuses and are lightning-fast at grasping concepts, it can be that their very genius puts them at risk of simply missing the point, especially with complex, deep topics expressed in difficult language. The Chazon Ish wrote a response challenging the Halachic legal ruling made by R. Yechiel Meir Tukachinsky about the nature of the International Date Line. R. Tukachinsky was known to be a genius not only in Halachic law but also in mathematics, which he used in arriving at this ruling. The Chazon Ish’s Halachic critique of R. Tukachinsky was published in Kuntres Shmoneh Esreh Shaot, where he includes the following statement:

It is human nature to read the contents of a book superficially and quickly, like when reading a letter. One of the attributes of acquiring wisdom is to become accustomed to being precise with the language of the Sages as their words were written with analytical precision. Reading quickly and reading analytically are generally opposites with divergent outcomes. Because of the human tendency to be hasty, which is especially so with those who grasp concepts quickly [with geniuses], it happens that Sages read books and attribute things to them that were not thought of [by their authors] and are indefensible, or that they don’t relate to their subtlety. This is particularly so with matters that are truly deep [expressed] with difficult text that emphasizes their depth.[3]

This same sentiment is also succinctly expressed more than once by the Talmud describing a sage who:

… because of his sharp intellect, he did not [properly] investigate it.[4]

This can be understood to be a possible flaw in the ability of an “Oker Harim,” who is potentially at risk of skimming over material and missing highly relevant information needed to reach a sound conclusion.

It can also be argued that there is a potential risk that can sometimes compromise the ability of a “Sinai” to reach correct conclusions, distorting this kind of sage’s understanding in his Torah study. This potential impediment comes from a combination of two primary factors.

The first factor is the essential nature of what Torah study has become over the millennia of exile. While the Jewish People are living in exile before the final redemption there is a lack of clarity of Torah, which is also in exile. This lack of clarity generates differences in opinion, a position that will remain until the onset of a final process of clarification with the final redemption. Consequently, it has unfortunately become second nature for us to accept differences and even great differences in all areas of potential Torah discussion. These differences deeply impact all the finer points of such discussion, ranging from the Halachic to the philosophical, and include approaches to serving God. This has cultivated a historical Torah study culture of primarily focusing on highlighting differences between views, instead of investing the lion’s share of our study effort on how to reconcile and unify these differences. Acceptance of difference is expressed by our Talmudic Sages with the principle of “both these and these are words of the Living God.”[5] This principle is used when we reach a stalemate in our understanding of a topic and cannot see any possibility of consensus, by allowing us to accept the current status quo and the acceptance of difference. It biases us to primarily focus on highlighting difference and to potentially miss opportunities for seeing unity.[6]

The second factor relates to those gifted with exceptional memories, who seldom forget anything, a key skill of a “Sinai.” The Talmud highlights that there are times when “Shikcha/forgetfulness” can be considered a blessing. In particular, in relation to the passing of beloved ones where the pain of their passing can be so great that if we were not able to forget them, our daily lives would be adversely impacted and, in some cases, we would cease to be properly functional.[7]

The dysfunctional impact of persistent memory was clearly illustrated with the case of Solomon Shereshevsky, a mnemonist, who was studied over a 30 year period starting from the 1920s, by the Russian neuropsychologist, Prof. Alexander Luria.[8] Shereshevsky’s remarkable memory was such that he retained everything he read, saw or heard, including lengthy sequences of random words and numbers, with his memory persisting with instant recall over many years. In later years, this caused Shereshevsky to have great social difficulties. He had total recall of the finest detail of every face he saw and the context in which he saw it. However, over time, a person’s face naturally changes. Most people, with regular memory ability, remember the general appearance of a person’s face without paying much attention to the finer details, and as a result, can recognize them. This is because the general appearance remains static and recognizable over time even if many finer points of detail in a person’s face change. Shereshevsky’s memory however, was so acute and precise that his memory stored the finest details of every face he saw, every time he saw it. His memory bank of faces was so vast that even the subtlest differences over time between faces of the same person were differentiated in his memory. Even differences in mood of a single person would be reflected in a different facial expression, which was enough to distinguish the face seen in one mood state from the face seen in another mood state. The result was Shereshevsky’s inability to recognize that it was the same person. While skilled in the most incredible way with the ability to identify difference, this prevented him from relating to the larger unified picture, to the extent that he became severely disabled in his ability to recognize people.

Although Shereshevsky’s case was extreme, his case helps us to understand the potential risk of error that a “Sinai” can make. Even someone with a lesser memory than Shereshevsky, but still with a significant power of instant recall of textual sources, is at risk of only seeing the difference in detail between them and of missing the bigger picture that may connect them. Such a person is in danger of sometimes not seeing the forest for the trees. This risk is significantly amplified when taking the first factor into account, where our current Torah study culture generally disposes us to focus on differences in the first place.

In sum, every person, no matter how great and how endowed with genius they may be, is therefore potentially at risk of human error.

To put the concept of potential human error on the part of our great leaders into perspective, there is no sage or leader greater than Moshe Our Teacher. Moshe was the primary lawgiver and the direct conduit through which the Jewish People received the details of most of its laws from God. Any possibility of even the slightest error on Moshe’s part would therefore risk provoking people to question the legitimacy of all the information he directly transmitted from God. In stark contrast, every other leader in Jewish History would only base their decisions on details derived from the laws received from Moshe and not directly on the word of God. The gravity of a potential error on their part would therefore be of far less consequence in comparison to an error on Moshe’s part. It would therefore be of paramount importance for Moshe to ensure that there would be no doubt cast over the accuracy of his transmission from God.

Nevertheless, Moshe considered that even with the gravity of this point, it was outweighed by the sheer magnitude of imparting a moral message to the future generations. A message that all Torah sages, no matter how distinguished, brilliant, or Divinely inspired they may be, are at risk of human error. Our Sages candidly explain an error that Moshe made in his statement of the law in an instance where his brother Aharon corrected him. Their comment in the Midrash states the following:

[The verse states] “And Moshe heard and it was good in his eyes,” [upon which the Midrash comments:] he [Moshe] made a public announcement saying, “I erred and my brother Aharon taught me.”[9]

R. Naftali Tzvi Berlin, the Netziv, highlights the significance of Moshe’s message, in his commentary on the Torah:

Moshe made a public announcement that he erred as per [Vayikra] Rabba [above]. The reason for this announcement was to teach the sages of the generation and of the future generations that a great person should neither be embarrassed nor flinch over an error in teaching, as Moshe Our Teacher also erred![10]

Therefore, no matter how great Torah leaders may be, to the extent that our Sages teach us to even accord them with an almost Divine reverence[11] and to carefully study their small talk,[12] no Torah sage is above the potential for human error and there is absolutely no concept of rabbinic infallibility in Judaism.[13]

Moreover, the possibility of potential leadership infallibility is categorically dismissed by the Torah when it explicitly provides instruction for how a Jewish High Court or leader should potentially atone, should it cause or act on an inadvertent error.[14] In Judaism the open acceptance of the possibility of unintentional human error of a leader and the forthright admission of such an error should it happen, does not compromise the preeminence of such a leader. In fact, it is the very mark of true human greatness.

On a deeper level it can be understood that it is the very nature of learning itself that requires errors to be made as part of the process of successful study. The inherent nature of analytical study is the breakdown of a concept into its component parts which are then reconstructed into a refined idea. This process is intrinsically prone to potential error as it is not straightforward to produce a refined idea from a place of conceptual breakdown. It is as the Talmud unequivocally states:

No person establishes [a proper understanding of] words of Torah unless he has first stumbled over [his interpretation of] them.[15]

R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, amplifies this sentiment:

There is no sage that will not err and will not need to learn from his colleagues, and in many instances even from his students.[16]

R. Yosef Ergas highlights that this is even true for the most accomplished Torah scholar who regularly studies the deepest parts of the Torah, the Acts of Merkava and Creation:

It is impossible for even one who regularly studies the Acts of Merkava and Creation, not to be caused to stumble over them with some incorrect analogy and the like, to the extent that he needs the rebuke of admonition to cleanse him.[17]

Notwithstanding the sheer awe required to be accorded to one’s Torah teacher and ultimately to the Torah Sages, it does not mean there is no latitude for independent thought on the part of the student. On the contrary, the essential nature of true Torah study is such that all Torah students are actively encouraged to intellectually engage with the teachings handed down to them, independently debating and analyzing them within the framework of Torah. It was no less than R. Chaim Volozhin, a Torah sage of immense stature who deeply venerated his teachers,[18] who explains that it is the process of studious debate with one’s teacher which refines and expands a person’s understanding of Torah. He refers to it as “the war of Torah”[19] and that in the context of this war, even a father and son and a teacher and student are respectfully pitched as enemies in debate against each other[20] and that “it is forbidden for a student to accept his teacher’s words when he has serious questions about them and that sometimes the truth is with the student.”[21] It is significant that R. Chaim’s position of a student requiring independent thought was encouraged by no less than his own primary teacher, the Vilna Gaon.[22]

While it is rare for a Torah genius to err in his studies, should such an error genuinely be found, it in no way compromises the stature of that Torah sage, and that sage’s general teachings are all very much worthy of deep and close study.[23] Nevertheless, as has already been highlighted, it is the very nature of genius itself that can cause a true Torah sage to be disposed to occasional error. See examples of such occasional error in the note.[24]

As technology progresses in our current age of the “Digital Transformation,” Torah accessibility has and is being transformed in ways previously unimaginable even just a few decades ago. The widespread immediacy of textual and analytic access to huge libraries of Torah sources, has already fundamentally revolutionized the ways in which we can learn Torah. Therefore, it is now highly relevant to ask if the skills required to optimize Torah study excellence have changed in any way. More specifically, what skills should we reasonably expect the “Sinai” or a “Oker Harim” to have to acquire in our Information Age? Furthermore, is there scope to seriously reconsider which of the “Sinai” or the “Oker Harim” may now be thought of as being optimal?

Before presenting an approach to this, it is relevant to appreciate the nature of this revolutionary advancement and exactly why a change in skillset may be needed. This understanding delves deeply into the very essence of how humanity is being transformed by the Digital Transformation. Physical human beings are far from what most people conceive. We are not independent beings, separated from other life forms and materials in our world environment. Rather, we are a symbiotic composite of all those life forms and our lives are entirely dependent on them.

This is captured by an ancient understanding that there are 4 very general levels of created physical existence. These 4 levels are integrated in that they hierarchically build upon each other. First there is the inanimate, the basic minerals and materials from which everything is constructed. Then there is plant life. This is followed by animal life. The fourth and highest level is human life, a level characterized by speech, our ability to communicate in a sophisticated way. The key point here is that each higher level is a composite of all the lower levels. A human being is therefore a symbiosis of the mineral, plant and animal levels, with additional intellectual and communication dimensions that makes a person uniquely human. Surprisingly to many, the majority of the cells within a human body do not have human DNA and cannot be considered human. Nevertheless, without them a human cannot live. One example is the microbiota cells in the gut that form an essential part of digestive process. Another is the need for bacteria to stimulate the postnatal development of the brain. A human is nothing less than a symbiosis of all these levels, a remarkable ecosystem where these levels are integrated through a mind bogglingly complex set of interacting processes that are totally dependent on the wider environment.[25]

With the Digital Transformation, the ecosystem of mankind’s wider environment is fundamentally changing. It is now possible for a person to supplement and augment his intellectual abilities with computer resources. This is such that each component, the human brain (an analog processor) and the computer (a digital processor), combine their unique abilities to optimize problem solving and intellectual processes.

A striking example of this was demonstrated in the world of chess. Over an extended period, computers had been entered into chess tournaments pitted against the chess grandmasters. For many years the grandmasters always won these competitions. However, with the accelerating improvements in computing power, the inevitable happened in 1997. IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer beat the reigning world champion, Gary Kasparov. In the face of the subsequent prospect of computers always defeating humans, a new type of chess tournament was invented. “Freestyle” tournaments were introduced where teams of human chess players and/or computers would play against each other. The shock came in 2005, when two amateur chess players with strong chess programming skills using ordinary computers, won the tournament, beating several teams of grandmasters who were supported by well-known advanced chess computers. The secret of this success is that certain human skills are unmatched by even the most powerful digital computers such that when humans and computers team up with optimum balance, the refined combination of their complementary skills gives such a team an unprecedented advantage. This resulted in an optimized inexpert human and ordinary computing hybrid that surpassed both grandmaster and supercomputer excellence.

With this in mind, we can now consider how the skills of a “Sinai” and “Oker Harim” may need to be enhanced. Traditionally, the primary skill of a “Sinai” would be to accurately amass Torah information. However, with the technological resources available today, everyone has immediate access to extensive databases and search capabilities of Jewish resources, such as the Bar-Ilan Responsa project, D.B.S., Sefaria, Hebrewbooks, Otzar HaChochma and many other internet resources. The sheer amount of information available at everyone’s fingertips far eclipses the amassed knowledge and the accurate immediacy of access to it of almost every historic “Sinai.” The skillset required to command this incredible body of knowledge is no longer the ability to amass it in the first place. Rather it is the ability to learn how to quickly identify what may be relevant out of this huge amount of information when pursuing a specific inquiry.

This is significantly assisted by mastering the use of sophisticated search tools. To do this efficiently, in addition to some computing skills needed to understand data and how to maximize use of search technology, new Torah study skills are required. To optimize searching, a deep understanding is needed of the expected similarities and differences in word usage, expression deployment and conceptual coded nuance, together with word and expression spelling differences, across the vast history of Jewish scholarship. The more effective this combined understanding, the more focused the search query and the smaller the search results. The search results can still often be large and will then require expert perusal to quickly identify which sources found are most likely to be relevant to probe further, to shed light on the inquiry being investigated. So, it seems that the key skill of a modern day “Sinai” is already fundamentally transformed and is now more about harvesting relevant information rather than having to acquire it all in the first place.

On the other hand, the primary skill of the “Oker Harim” has traditionally been one of deep analysis driven by the ability to ask penetrating questions. Perhaps the effectiveness of this skill is captured by the well-known adage “a Torah scholar’s question is already half the answer.”[26] Advanced computer searches now make it possible to ask a whole different genre of insightful questions, that were not previously possible. It is now relatively easy to investigate the development of concepts aided by the original context, usage and development of words, expressions and concepts, and to trace their historical usage over time. The greater the insight in framing the search question, the more refined the search result, enhancing the ability to harvest focused sources from which meaningful answers can be constructed. Therefore, while the adoption of technology augments the “Oker Harim’s” toolkit and dramatically extends his skillset, it has not yet fundamentally replaced it.

However, it could be strongly argued that with the currently available technology the excellence of the transformed “Sinai” is no longer the preserve of the rare genius and now has a lower entry bar accessible to a wider group of people. On the other hand, the qualities of an “Oker Harim” are thus far not yet transformed, but with the augmented ability of using technology to extend the depth of analysis, there is now an enhanced ability for the “Oker Harim” to widen the excellence gap. Moreover, it is now more than ever within the reach of an “Oker Harim” to also garner most of the skill of a current day “Sinai.” There is therefore scope to now consider that the optimum skill for scholastic excellence in Torah may indeed be that of the “Oker Harim.”[27]

Nevertheless, we are only at the beginning of the Digital Transformation. Attempting to predict what a future technology augmented “Sinai” or “Oker Harim” may be capable of, is near impossible. Technology industry experts already openly admit that with the incredible accelerating pace of technological change they can no longer predict what the technological landscape will look like in even as early as 5 years’ time. Technologies in areas such as cloud computing, big data, predictive analysis, artificial intelligence, swarm intelligence, augmented intelligence, brain research and biotechnology are rapidly developing and integrating together in truly unpredictable ways.

Although there is no clear visibility of how all this will be manifest, perhaps the most significant expected transformative change is the physical integration of humans with technology. Currently, this is at an embryonic stage, however it does already exist. Brain integrated technology already enables paraplegics to walk. Monkeys can already interact with computers through wireless brain implanted computer chips.[28] It is therefore only a matter of time before the human mind will become directly connected to an implanted computer and there will ultimately be a true symbiosis of humans with technology, literally taking mankind to a new level of existence. In this context it is impossible to predict what future transformations of the “Sinai” and “Oker Harim” will look like. One can however safely conclude that the future landscape for Torah study excellence will be unimaginably transformed and future Torah students will be motivated by the emergence of a new breed of technologically augmented Torah genius.[29]

Appreciations of Gedolei Yisroel

By Avraham Willner

From conversation with Harav Shmaryahu Shulman zt’l. Rav in Jersey City and Norwich Ct. Member of the Agudas Harabbonim. Author of Be’er Sarim, Ohr Layesharim and more.

In previous posts, I focused on anecdotes, thoughts and quotes I heard Rav Shulman repeat on occasion from the vast array of Gedolei Yisroel with whom he was privileged to share a close relationship. Presented here are a collection of Rav Shulman’s appreciations and admirations of various Gedolei Yisroel that emerged from the countless conversations I have had with Rav Shulman over the course of nearly two decades.

Note: in my previous post. Rav Shulman’s memories of Rav Ahron Kotler, there was a technical error in formatting the Hebrew text for an English platform resulting in some of the footnotes disarranging of several lines. To avoid this from reoccurring, all footnotes were inserted into the text, proceeded and followed by the{ } symbols.

הערכות וזכרונות מו“ר הרב שמרי‘ שולמאן זצ“ל על גדולי ישראל

‘חלק א

א] כשיצא לאור ספרו הראשון באר שרים על סוגיות הש”ס בשנת תשי”א, שלח הספר כתשורה לכמה רבנים וראשי ישיבות וביניהם הרב יצחק הוטנר זצ”ל ששלח לו בחזרה מכתב עם קצת הערות על הספר וצי’ק על סך חמישים דולר! שהיה סכום עצום אז. ואמר לי מו”ר שבכלל לא היה לו קשר עם רב הוטנר מקודם, וברור לו שצי’ק ששלח היה רק מטובת ליבו שברצונו לחזק בן תורה אמריקאי צעיר שכותב חידושים בש”ס דבר נדיר ביותר אז

ב] לפני שהדפיס ספרו באר שרים היה מרצה כמה מחידושיו לפני הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל ואם הסכים לדבריו אז היה מכניס אותם לדפוס. ואמר לי שהספר לא היה על מסכת אחת רק איסוף של חידושיו על הש”ס, וכל פעם שנכנס להרב משה להציע לו חידושיו היה על ענינים אחרים ומסכתות אחרות, ועם כל זה כל פעם שדיבר עם הרב משה היה לו שליטה חזקה על הסוגיא על אתר בלי אפילו להביט בגמ’ לרענן עצמו לא היה צריך, ואמר מו”ר שהיה נראה לו כאילו כעת עוסק הרב משה באותה סוגיא. פעם אחד הציע לו חידוש ארוך ומיד כשסיים דבריו, אמר לו הרב משה שכבר כתוב כן בשער המלך, ואמר לי מו”ר מיד כשחזר הביתה מחק אותו סימן שאין ברצונו לכתוב דבר שכבר נמצא באחרונים, ולכתוב בסוף שוב ראיתי בשער המלך לא ניחא ליה לכן רק מחק אותו סימן

{היה למו”ר קשר חזק עם הרב משה זצ”ל, ומלבד שהיה מרבה לספר אודות גאונתו שהיה להפליא, שמעתי הרבה פעמים ממנו אודות מידות הנעימות שהיה להרב משה. פעם סיפרתי למו”ר סיפור ששמעתי על הרב משה איך שלא הקפיד על אחד שזלזל בכבודו וכו’ והגיב מו”ר שהרב משה לא רק לא הקפיד, הרב משה בכלל לא ידע מה זה המילים מקפיד וקפדות וכו’ והיה מספר לי שהוא ראה כמה פעמים שבאמצע שיעור כללי נכנס אחד לאסוף כסף, והרב משה היה מפסיק אפילו באמצע משפט, לתת צדקה ולומר קצת דברי ברכה ועידוד והיה חוזר מיד להמילה שהפסיק בה והיה ממשיך שיעורו, והוסיף מו”ר שרק אצל הרב משה היה דבר כזה, אף ישיבה אחרת לא יתנה לאסוף כסף באמצע שיעור.}

ג] אמר לי בזה”ל “שהגן עדן שלי כאן בעולם הזה היה כשהייתי רב בדזערסי סיטי מעבר לנהר מישיבת תפארת ירושלים והייתי נוסע שם תמיד ודיברתי עם הרב משה ועם אחיינו הרב מיכל פיינשטיין זצ”ל ביחד”. ואמר לי שהרב משה מאוד אהב את הרב מיכל והיה קשה עליו פרידתו כשעלה ארצה, והיו נמצאים ביחד הרבה ודיברו בכל אורך ורוחב של סוגיות הש”ס, והוסיף מו”ר שהוא זוכר שלא רק בהישיבה ישבו יחד, גם ברחובות העיר זוכר אותם מטיילים ביחד. ואמר לי מו”ר שהרב מיכל היה בקי גדול בטהרות (מלבד שאר גדלותו בתורה) והיה מוסר שיעור לבעלי בתים בבית כנסת אחת שבאייסט סייד במשניות טהרות

ד] אמר לי מו”ר שאף שכל הלומדות של העולם הישיבות נכללות בספרי הדברות משה, מ”מ לא היה הרב משה מדבר או כותב בסגנון הישיבתי היינו הביטויים שמדברים בישיבות, רק היה מדבר בפשטות,ונתן לי דוגמא – שהרב משה היה אומר שעל אדם לעשות כך וכך ולא היה אומר שהוא “דין בגברא” וכדומה. ואמר לי מו”ר כשהוא זכה לדבר עם הרב משה והרב מיכל ביחד, כשהרב משה היה אומר חידוש בלומדות והיה אומר אותו בפשטות היה הרב מיכל מתערב עם חיוך ואומר למו”ר “שהוא (הרב משה) מתכוון לומר שזה דין בגברא או דין בחפצה” ושאר ביטויים ישיבתיות

ה] ועד כמה עמוקים הם ספרי הדברות משה יש ללמוד ממה שראיתי אצל מו”ר שהיה בעל כשרון עצום וראיתי אותו כמה פעמים לומד בספרים שונים דף אחר דף במהירות רבה ובתפיסה מהירה, ועכ”ז אמר לי מו”ר כשיצא לאור ספר דברות משה על מסכת בבא קמא רצה ללמוד ממנו סימן אחד בשלמותו להבין איך מתורץ כל הקושיות שהקשה הרב משה בתחילת הסימן וכו’ אמר לי שלקח לו שבועיים שלמים ללמוד כל הסימן כדבעי!

ו] מו”ר לא היה ניחא ליה מדיבורים אודות השוואת בין גדולי ישראל ולשפוט מי גדול ממי וכדומה [אני אמרתי לו פעם מה ששמעתי ממו”ר הרב שמואל בירנביום זצ”ל ראש ישיבת מיר ברוקלין שאמר “האיש הכי גדול שהכרתי בחיי היה רבי משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל”{ ושוב רואים גדלותו של הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל, שהרי הרב שמואל היה חניך הישיבות באירופא קודם המלחמה} ושאלתי למו”ר מי היה אדם הכי גדול שהוא הכיר בחייו, וענה לי “אני לא עונה מאחר שלא ניחא לי בדברים כאלו”] ואף על פי כן שמעתי ממנו שהתבטא פעם “המתמיד הכי גדול שראיתי בחיי היה הרב חיים פנחס שיינברג זצ”ל” והסביר זאת משום שהוא זוכר שראה אותו כמה פעמים בתחנת אוטובוס מחכה להאוטובוס להגיע והיה שקוע בלימודו, וסיפר לי שפעם ראה אותו נשען על עמוד ליד התחנה שקוע בלימודו “כאילו הוא נמצא בבית מדרש”

{הוא דבר שהפתיע אותי שלא ניחא לו להביע דעתו מי גדול ממי, אני ראיתי אצל כמה מזקני יוצאי ליטא, וחניכי ישיבות הליטאית של פעם שכולם דיברו פתוח מי גדול ממי וכו’. ובאמת נושא הזה צריך מאמר בפני עצמו איך השתנו הדבר, שהיום שמתי לב שבעולם הישיבות לדון ולשפוט בין גדולי ישראל ובפרט על גדולי ישראל מדורות הקודמות, הוא דבר שלא קיים, הם ראוים הנושא כבזיון התורה וכאבק לשון הרע וכדומה. ואני זכיתי בציעורתי ללמוד בישיבת מיר ברוקלין כשקיים אז השרידים ממיר פולין, והמקצת ששמעתי מהם וביתר מה ששמעתי מתלמידיהם שלמדו אצלהם לזמן ארוך ובפרט ממו”ר ר”מ בישיבת מיר שהיה התלמיד מובהק של הגר”ש בירנבוים זצ”ל, ברור שהנושא הזה היה שיחה רגילה אצליהם, והגר”ש בירנבוים היה מלא וגדוש בדעות מי גדול ממי וכן גם שאר יוצאי מיר פולין לא הסתיר דעותיהם על מי גדול ממי. ואני שמעתי גם מהרב נטע גרינבלט שליט”א שלא רק אמר דעתו על מי גדול ממי אלא שהיה מצטט רבותיו שדיברו פתוח בענין זה ואכמ”ל. (וזכיתי להיות אצל מו”ר, כשבא הרב נטע לביקור חולים אצלו ודיברו מעל שעה ותוך דבריהם, סיפר הרב נטע למו”ר, כשהיה בחור בישיבת תפארת ירושלים היה רב אחד שניסה לשכנע אותו לעזוב תפארת ירושלים כדי שילך ללמוד אצל הרב אהרן קוטלר בלייקוואד, ואותו רב אמר לו שכל הבחורים המצוינים לומדים אצל הרב אהרן. יום אחד כשלחץ עליו אותו רב יותר מדי, הרב נטע אמר לו “ומי אמר לך שרב אהרן יותר גדול מהרב משה?!” והרב נטע תיאר איך שאותו רב הסתכל עליו כאילו הוא (הרב נטע) יצא מדעתו, ואותו רב התרחק ממנו ולא דיבר איתו עוד מילה. (שהיה כל כך פשוט לאותו רב שהרב אהרן יותר גדול). והרב נטע ביקש ממו”ר להביע את דעתו בנושא מי היה יותר גדול הרב אהרן או הרב משה, ומו”ר התחמק מלהשיב, והרב נטע אז אמר ” אין דער וועלט איז אנגענומען אז הרב משה איז געווען גרעסער” (מקובל בעולם שהרב משה היה יותר גדול). וגם על זה לא הגיב מו”ר כלום שלא היה רצונו כלל להתערב בנושא.}

ז] ואף שלא ניחא לדבר בעניני רמה בגדולי ישראל וכדומה, כשהרגיש פגיעה בכבוד התורה היה מביע את דעתו ללא התלבטויות, אני פעם אמרתי לו שראיתי בספר שכתב דברי גנאי על הרב אברהם אהרן יודעלאוויץ זצ”ל רב הכולל לאגה”ק בניו יארק ומחבר שו”ת בית אב ה’ כרכים ועוד הרבה ספרים, התרגז מו”ר ואמר “וואו קומט אים צו הרב יודעלאוויץ” (כלומר שהוא בכלל לא מגיע למדרגתו) ואמר שלהרב יודעלאוויץ היה לו תלמידים יותר גדול מהרב ההוא {ותוך כדי דיבור ‘תיקן’ את עצמו, שהרב יודעלעוויץ לא היה לו תלמידים “אילו היו לו תלמידים בוודאי היו הם גדולים ממנו”} ושמעתי ממנו כמה פעמים שהתלונן שלא העריכו את הרב יודעלאוויץ כדבעי עקב פסקו המפורסם בענין שליחות בחליצה, והעולם לא יודעים שהוא לא היה “סתם רב” אלא שהיה גאון עצום ופוסק בד’ חלקי שלחן ערוך וכו’. וסיפר לי כשהגיע הרב שניאור קוטלר זצ”ל לחופי ארצות הברית, הלך מיד לבקר אצלו ולקבל את פניו, ודיבר איתו במשך זמן ארוך ותוך הדברים התגלגלה השיחה אודות הרב יודעלאוויץ, והרב שניאור אמר לו שחבל שפסקו בענין חליצה “השחיר” דמותו של הרב יודעלאוויץ בעיני העם ולא ידעו על גדלותו.

ט] ועל הרב שניאור קוטלר זצ”ל עצמו, אמר לי מו”ר שהעולם לא העריכו אותו כמו שצריך והיה גאון גדול ובקי בש”ס, ואמר לי באותה פגישה כשקיבל את פניו מיד בבאו לארצות הברית דיבר איתו על כמה סוגיות שונות בש”ס והרב שניאור “ידע הכל”, (“ער האט געקענט איבעראל”, כלשונו) ואמר לי שהסיבה שלא העריכו אותו כמו צריך היה משום שהיה בנו של הרב אהרן קוטלר ומאחר שלא היה במדריגת אביו ביטלו אותו שהוא “לא אביו” אבל לא הבינו שהוא גאון גדול בפני עצמו אף שהוא לא אביו. ודימה אותו להרב צבי רבינאוויץ זצ”ל בנו של הרב יצחק אלחנן ספקטור זצ”ל, שגם הוא לא קיבל את הכבוד המגיע לו עקב שהיה בנו של הרב יצחק אלחנן ולא היה במדרגתו של אביו, ופעם אחת הוסיף מו”ר דאם הוא לא היה בנו של רי”א היו מחשיבים אותו כגאון וגדול, ורק משום שהוא לא אביו לא כיבדו אותו כראוי.

י] באותו פגישה עם הרב שניאור, שאל אותו מו”ר שהוא שמע הרבה בארצה”ב אודות שיעורו של הגרי”ז מבריסק בירושלים, ושאל את הרב שניאור “במה כחו גדול” ומה מיוחד בשיעוריו. וענה הרב שניאור לא כדרך רמי”ם אחרים שמקשים קושיות חזקות היה הגרי”ז, הוא לא הקשה שום דבר, רק קרא את דברי הגמ’ רש”י ותוס’ ומסביר אותם בביאורים קצרים, ועם אותם ביאורים קצרים לא נשאר שום קושיות שמקשים אחרים בספריהם וכו’.

יא] ומדי דברי לעיל אודות הרב יודעלאוויץ, פעם אמרתי למו”ר מה שראיתי בספר עולת שמואל מהרב שמואל בסקין זצ”ל (עמוד 247) שמספר כשאחד מן המזומנים לחתונה, שהיה הגאון ר’ אהרן יודעלעוויץ זצ”ל מכובד לסדר קידושין בשם, ביקר את הרב הנ”ל בזה ששמע ממנו את דרשתו שדרש להזוג זה כמה פעמים שהיה עמו בחתונות אחרות, השיב הרב יודעלאוויץ, ומה הפלא? האם רופא חולים כותב פתק רפואה שונה לכל חולה וחולה, אם כל החולים סובלים מאותה מחלה עצמה?!. וסיפרתי הנ”ל למו”ר שידעתי שהוא יהנה מה”הומור הליטאי”, והגיב שזה מזכיר לו מהרב גדליה סילברסטון זצ”ל הרב דוואשינגטאן הבירה ובעל מחבר ספרים רבים בדרוש ועל הש”ס, שביום כיפור לפני נעילה נשא אותה דרשה שנשא השנה שעברה לפני נעילה, וכשנשאל על כך השיב, אז מה? וכי זה לא אותו מחזור כל שנה! (כלומר שמתפללים אותה נוסח התפילה מדי שנה בשנה).

{ מו”ר לא הכיר אותו אישי, בזמן שמו”ר עבר לוואשינגטון הרב גדליה כבר עלה ארצה, אולם מו”ר שמע הרבה אודותיו מתושבי וואשינגטון שהתפללו אצלו.}

יב] אני שמעתי ממקור מוסמך (מהרב אבא ברונשפיגל שליט”א ה’ ישלח לו רפו”ש) שפעם יצא הרב שמואל וואלק זצ”ל ר”מ בישיבת רי”א ובעמ”ס שערי טהר מחדר שיעורו תוך שהוא אומר לתלמידיו שהוא הולך לבחון הרב יוסף דוב הלוי סולובייציק זצ”ל ראש ישיבת רי”א, לדעת אם הוא “יודע טהרות” וכשחזר לחדר שיעורו אמר לתלמידיו “ער קען טהרות טאקע” (הוא באמת יודע טהרות). ואני שאלתי את מו”ר אם הוא שמע סיפור כזה ומה דעתו עליו, וענה לי שהוא גם כן שמע סיפור הנ”ל מתלמיד ישיבת רי”א שהיה גר בשכונתו בקווינס. ודיברנו קצת על הסיפור ואז אמר לי מו”ר שכל זה דברים מיותרים שהרב יאשע בער לא זקוק להסכמת הרב וואלק, ולא היה צריך שהוא יחזיק ממנו! (כלומר שהרב יאשע בער הוא יותר גדול מהרב וואלק).

{וכדי לדעת כמה גדול הרב יוסף דוב היה, כדאי לדעת עד כמה גדול היה הרב שמואל וואלק, מלבד שהיה למדן מובהק ומחדש בכל התורה כולה וכתב חידושים עמוקים על כל הש”ס, ראוי לציין כשנפטר הרב חיים שטיין זצ”ל ראש ישבת טלז בקליוולאנד, כתבו עליו באחד העיתונים החרדיים שבבחרותו כיבדו אותו הישיבה בטלז לשבת ב”מזרח” יחד עם רבני השיבה! וסיפר לי חותן אחי ר’ ראובן גרשון שליט”א (ראש כולל בקליוולאנד ובעל מחבר ספרים רבים ומו”ל כמה מספרי רבו הרב גיפטר זצ”ל) כשקרא הנ”ל אמר שכל ימיו גדל בין כותלי ישיבת טלז וידע היטב הנהגתם וכו’ ודבר זה כל כך אינו בהתאם לרוח ישיבת טלז, ואמר למרות גדלותו של הרב חיים אי אפשר להאמין למה שכתבו עליו, לכן הלך לשאול היחיד שנשאר בחיים מטלז ליטא, הרב בארון זצ”ל שהיה גר אז בקליוולאנד. ושאל אותו האם זה נכון שהרב חיים ישב במזרח בטלז, וענה שלא היה דברים מעולם והישיבה לא היתה נותנת לאף מבחורי הישיבה לשבת במזרח ואפילו תוך ד’ אמות של המזרח לא היתה נותנת! ושוב הוסיף שאם היתה כן נותנות לבחור לשבת במזרח אז שמואל וואלק יהיה הבחור! ע”כ מה ששמעתי מר’ גרשון. צא וראה גדלותו של הרב יוסף דוב שיותר גדול מכל הנ”ל. }

{וכידוע הרב וואלק היה בקי גדול בטהרות, וגם מחדש גדול בטהרות, ורוב מחלקיו הראשונים של ספרו שערי טהר הם בענינים עמוקים בטהרות. הרב ברונשפיגל אמר לי אז שהרב וואלק היה גאון בכל התורה כולה אבל היה לו אהבה מיוחדת לקדשים וטהרות, ובשיעוריו על המסכתות הישיבתיות היה רגיל להביא משלים ודוגמאות מקדשים וטהרות, וסיפר לי כשלמד בבא בתרא אצלו זוכר שהביא כראיה לחידושו בתוס’ בבא בתרא מדברים עמוקים מקדשים והיה מאוד קשה להבין הכל שלא היה להבחורים הרבה רקע בקדשים וטהרות.}

ובאופן כללי, רגיל היה מו”ר להגן על כבודו של הגרי”ד הלוי ומאוד אכפת לו שהיו אלו שזלזלו בכבודו, וכמה פעמים שמעתי ממנו אודות אלו שפגעו בכבודו של הגרי”ד “הם לא יכולים להבין אפילו השיחת חולין שלו, ומדברים נגדו?!.

יג] היה אומר על הרב הענקין זצ”ל, “שהיה איש אחד שעשה עבודת ארבע אנשים” ותיאר לי איך היה נראה משרדו של הרב הענקין שמו”ר היה אצלו הרבה. הרב הענקין היה מדבר בטלפון להתרים כסף לעזרת תורה, ולידו היה עומד נציג מאגודת הרבנים עם גט בידו שבא לשאול אותו אודות כתיבה איזה שם וכדומה, ומיד שסיים הטלפון היה פוסק השאלה ואז נכנסו אנשים ונשים עם שאלות על עופות ומראות נדה וכדומה ומיד כשגומר איתם היה חוזר לטלפון להתרים עוד וכו’. ומו”ר היה נתפעל איך איש אחד היה מסוגל לעשות כל אלו הדברים יחד ולא היה מחלק חלק מתפקידו לאחרים.

Book Announcements: Five recent works

By Eliezer Brodt

This post serves a dual purpose; first, to describe some new, very interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication. Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested.

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of these new works.

The first work I would like to mention is:

מאיר רפלד, המהרש“ל וספרו ים של שלמה, 288 עמודים

Dr. Meir Raffeld z”l authored a PhD on the Marshal and his work Yam Shel Shlomo in the Talmud Department of Bar Ilan University which was approved in 1991. Over the years, the work was quoted very often as it is the most comprehensive work on the Yam Shel Shlomo. The Yam Shel Shlomo is one of the most important Halachic works of the 16^th century. Recently the Raffeld Family decided to print the PhD as a book. With the tremendous help of Dr. Aharon Ahrend, the work was just published. This work has in it the original PhD along with updates and corrections that Raffeld wrote over the years. It also has a thorough index and references to his articles related to the Marshal published in his work Netiv Meir.

Here is a ToC of the work:

The second work I would like to mention is

חסדי אבות, פירוש מסכת אבות לרבי דוד פרווינצאלו, (פעל סביב לשנת ש), מבוא 58 עמודים, תלד עמודים, מכתב יד, כולל מבוא מראה מקומות והערות על ידי פ‘ יעקב שמואל שפיגל

This volume was just published by Professor Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, of Bar-Ilan University’s Talmud department, for the first time from manuscript on Massekhes Avos. This is the fifth work that Speigel has published on Avos from manuscript.

As I have written about him in the past:

Professor Spiegel is one of the most prolific writers on the Jewish academic scene, authoring of over 160 articles and 18 books (16 of those are publications for the first time of works which remained in manuscript). Many suspect that he knows the secrets of Hashba’st Hakulmos (automatic writing) (about which see here).

His articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects related to many areas of Jewish Studies, including history of Rishonim, piyutim authored by Rishonim, bibliography and minhaghim, to name but a few. His uniqueness lies not only in the topics but also that his work has appeared in all types of publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer, Tarbiz, Sidra, Alei Sefer, Assufot, Teudah, Kovetz Al Yad and also in many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such as Mechiltah, Yeshurun, Yerushasenu, Chitzei Giborim, Moriah, Sinai and Or Yisroel. It is hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he appears to be an expert!

Worth noting that recently thanks to the hard work of a dear friend of mine, all of his published articles are available for free download here.

He has edited and printed from manuscript many works of Rishonim and Achronim on Massekhes Avos and the Haggadah Shel Pesach (and IYH some more are on the way)…

Another point of interest about Speigel is although he is an Academic and from the Mizrachi world, he is on very good terms with various Charedei scholars. Thus in some of his recent works he thanks Rabbi Shaul Alter, Rosh Yeshiva of Ger who has started reading and commenting about his material. This volume was also read by R’ Alter.

Reviews of other works of his on the Seforim Blog can be found here here, here, here, here and here.

Email me for a PDF of a sample of this new work.

The third work I would like to mention is:

ר‘ משה הלל, חזון טברימון, תעודות מזויפות מבית היוצר של האחים טולידאנו מטבריה, 696 עמודים

A few weeks ago, the very prolific Rabbi Moshe Hillel [Son of Rabbi Yakov Hillel] released a PDF of his latest volume in his recent series of works dealing with exposing forgers and their forgeries titled חזון טברימון.

This volume is devoted to R’ Yakov Moshe Toldedano (1880-1960) and deals with various historical documents that he “discovered” and demonstrates that they are fake. This work is also a biography of Rabbi Toledano and explores various incidents in his life and possible motivations behind some of these forgeries. Similar to previous works in this series, this volume too is an incredible read, 696 pages! Bibliographers and people interested in the world of manuscripts will be sure to enjoy it.

Besides being released as a PDF, the volume was published in an extremely small limited edition. For a very short time, while supplies last, a few copies are available for purchase exclusively through me.

If you are just interested in a copy of the PDF of the work email me to send you a link.

Here is the ToC of the work:

The fourth work I would like to mention is

גיליונות הירושלמי של רבי שאול ליברמן, ג’ חלקים, 2564 עמודים, בעריכת פר’ משה עסיס

No words are really necessary to describe Rabbi Saul Lieberman to readers of the blog, but just in case, I will include one page from the classic article ‘Hamoreh’ written about him by the great Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal:

This new work publishes for the first time Lieberman’s glosses written on the margins of six different editions of the Yerushalmi found in Lieberman’s library. The glosses were carefully collected and edited for publication by Professor Asis (himself one of the leading experts on the Yerushalmi).

A pdf of some Sample pages is available upon request.

The fifth volume I would like to mention is

  מעגל טוב, יומן מסע של החיד“א, חלק א, מהדיר: ר‘ אסף רביב, כולל הקדמה, 37 עמודים, + 275 עמודים  + נספח בענין החיד“א ומח‘ בין ר‘ יעקב עמדין ור‘ יהונתן אייבשיץ, בעריכת ר‘ אסף רביב

On a personal note (for whatever that is worth) this work that has a special place in my heart as I have to date authored five articles about Maagal Tov and hope to IYH publish more.

A beautiful new edition was just published. The Sha’ar describes it as follows:

כולל המון תמונות, של מפות, אנשים, מקומות, כתבי ידות, יותר מאלף הערות שוליים, חלק אחד בשם ‘פלס מעגל’, הכולל ידיעות חשובות על האישים אשר עמם נפגש הרב, המאורעות השונים אשר פגש בדרכו, כתבי היד אשר ראה ועוד ועוד. וחלק שני בשם ‘המליץ בינותם’, יבאר את סגנונו של המליצי של הרב, ומראה מקומות לכל מטבעות לשונו במרחבי התנ”ך וספרות חז”ל

A brand-new annotated edition of the Chida’s famous Travel Diary, Volume one, 37 pp. intro, 275 pp. text, and an Appendix. It is a tall volume format, glossy paper, full of Illustrations, maps, pictures of people, places, and numerous images of manuscripts throughout the volume. It looks beautiful. The editor has two sections of notes. One section is devoted to deciphering all of the Chida’s Melitzos מליצות. The second section deals with the people whom he met, what he saw and much more.

The author is hard at work on the second part of the Travels.

Some readers of the blog will be familiar with a previous work of R’ Aviv, the fascinating Maaseh Tzadikim of R’ Avraham Kalfon (friend of the Chida) which he published for the first time from manuscript in 2009.

Just to note, an additional edition of the Chida’s Travels came out a few days later from Mechon Hame’or (800 pp.). This is volume fifty of the Mechon’s set of the Chida’s works that they have been publishing in the past few years.

This new edition is very useful; it does not have full Illustrations etc. like the previous one. However, I think that true seforim “addicts” need to own both. The Hamaor edition includes all the travels in one volume. It has useful notes (not as good as the first one). In addition, it has a lot of material related to the Chida, such as his listing of Hanhaghot, numerous stories he collected and seforim he owned. Some of this material was published here for the first time. It also has a section about the Chida and his seforim. 

Sample pages of both are available upon request.

To add to this earlier this year another volume was published called Kuntres Masaos (243 pp.) This material is also from manuscript and is dated and is Torah of his that he saw or discussed while traveling. Some of this was incorporated into his published seforim (some copies are still available for purchase).

Armin Wilkowitch about Shabbes Shekolim in his youth in Russia

by Gabriel Wasserman and Phillip Minden

Shabbes Shekolim (Shabbat Sheqalim) is the first of the four special Sabbaths in or near the month of Adar, when special passages are read from the Torah. In addition to the special readings from the Torah, Ashkenazic Jewry has distinguished these four Sabbaths with the inclusion of special piyyutim in the Sabbath service; these piyyutim – most, and perhaps all – are by Eleazar b. Qallir (or Qillir) of sixth- to seventh-century Eretz Yisrael, and they have been part of the liturgy of Ashkenazic Jewry ever since there has been such a thing as Ashkenazic Jewry, since before the year 1000 CE. Although many Ashkenazic communities today omit the piyyutim for Shekolim, happily there are still many Ashkenazic communities that maintain them through today, unlike many piyyutim for other occasions in the year, which have suffered almost complete extinction in living usage.

(As an aside: In the middle ages, many non-Ashkenazic communities, as well, recited piyyutim, different from the Ashkenazic ones, on the four special Sabbaths of Adar. These have fallen into complete disuse today, other than the piyyut “Mi Khamokha” by R. Judah Hallevi for Shabbat Zakhor. These piyyutim will not be the subject of this post.)

In the past, Shabbes Shekolim and the recitation, or singing, of these piyyutim had an aura of great emotional significance for many Ashkenazic communities. As an example of this, the Seforim Blog will present here a piece by Cantor Armin Wilkowitsch, originally published in the Österreichisch-Ungarische Cantoren-Zeitung (supplement to Die Wahrheit), vol. 24 no. 10 (4 March 1904), p. 10. Wilkowitsch writes here about the composition of a setting for the piyyut “Eshkol Ivvuy” (אשכל אווי), the opening of the piyyutim for Musaf of this Sabbath. Wasserman’s research, in a project to collect musical settings for all Ashkenazic piyyutim for special Sabbaths, has uncovered thirty different musical settings for “Eshkol Ivvuy,” and further research may discover far more; this piyyut was clearly very important to cantors, and communities, in generations preceding ours.

According to the biography on Geni.com, Cantor Wilkowitsch, was born in Kalvarija, in the Russian Empire (see map here), today in Lithuania. He lived most of his adult life in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and served as chief cantor of a community in Eger (Erlau, Cheb), in Hungary, for 32 years. In 1939, under Nazi occupation, Wilkowitsch got a visa to escape to America, to join his wife and children who were already there. He boarded the ship, but, in light of the terrible events going on in Europe at the time, he lost the will to live and committed suicide by jumping off the ship. Very sad, and creepy.

In his youth, Wilkowitsch was a meshorer in his native Russia. Meshorerim were a standard phenomenon in pre-modern Ashkenazic synagogues: a group of men and small boys who would accompany the cantor as a kind of choir, though without the Western rules of four-part counterpoint that define modern choirs.

Perhaps the most picturesque line in the story is: “the Special Sabbaths are coming, which are soon bound to chase the polar bear out of the land” (es kommen die ausgezechneten Sabbathe, die den Eisbären bald aus dem Land verjagen).

Wilkowitsch refers to a species of fish, eaten at shalleshuddes, by the Yiddish word shtinkes. This word may be familiar to some readers of this blog from halakhic literature (see, e.g., the commentary of Rashash on Sukka 18a, and here).

The text of Wilkowitch’s piece will be presented here, first in the original German (the educated language throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and then in English translation. Hopefully it will give the readers a sense of what Shabbes Shekolim was like in those bygone days – as Wilkowitsch writes, in the Italian expression that concludes his story, tempi passati.

Jugenderinnerungen.
Von Kantor Armin Wilkowitsch.

Jüngst suchte ich unter meinen alten, längst ad acta gelegten Notenblättern herum. Wie pochte da plötzlich mein Herz, und als begegnete ich meinen besten Jugendfreunden, die mir Grüße von meiner Heimat brachte und längst vergangene und verschollene Geschichtchen auffrischten, so sprachen mich diese vergilbten, nach Moder riechenden Notenblätter an. Es waren hunderte von ein- und mehrstimmigen Kompositionen, die ich mir von verschiedenen Chasanim auf meinen Meschorer-Wanderungen mit vieler Mühe erworben hatte. Darunter auch russische und jüdisch-deutsche Liedlein, selbst Sabbathsemiroth, wie Zur mischelo ochalnu, oder Joh, ribbon olam, die ich in meinem Elternhause, im Vereine mit meinen Geschwistern, allsabbathlich sang. Später, als ich Einblick in die Harmonielehre gewann, gab ich den Semiroth regelrechte Rhythmen und bearbeitete sie für zwei Soprane und Klavierbegleitung.

Unter diesen losen Blättern fand ich u. a. für Sabbath-Schekolim einen Eschkol, welcher als Introduktion eine längere, polonaiseartige Melodie vorgespannt hatte und in einer „phrygischen“^* Tonart sich bewegte. Herr Oberkantor Singer-Wien nennt, wenn ich nicht irre, diese Skala  „jüdische Tonleiter.“ Den russischen Chasanim ist aber meines Wissens keine jüdische Tonleiter bekannt und, wie gerne ich auch uns Juden eine Eigenart in der Musik einräumen möchte, muß ich trotzdem gestehen, daß ich dieser Skala schon bei mehreren kleinrussischen Volksliedern begegnete; auch das rumänische Volkslied dürfte wohl diese Tonart sich zu eigen gemacht haben.^** Daß Anton Rubinstein die Melodie für die Worte:  „und der Sklave sprach“, in seinem  „Asra“ einem jüdischen Chasan abgelauscht hat, möchte ich stark bezweifeln. Das eine ist jedoch gewiß, daß den Deutschen diese Intervalle fremd sind, aber deswegen sind sie noch nicht speziell „jüdisch“.

Bei diesem Eschkol verweilte ich lange, lange…. Habe ich doch denselben  „mitkomponieren“ geholfen.

Der Kantor in Rußland betet nicht jeden Sabbath vor, höchstens, daß er am Sabbath-meworachim Jehi rozôn und Jechadschehu absingt, das weitere betet ein Balbos oder der Schammes, und hat der Chasan Chanukalichtlein mit den Meschorerim und Klesmorim entzündet, dann hält er seinen Winterschlaf, bis Sabbath-Schekolim, der erste von den ausgezeichneten Sabbathen, ins Land zieht.

Hui, wie tobt draußen der Sturm! Neue Schneeflocken häufen sich auf die längst zu Eis erstarrten und der grausame Winter herrscht noch mit unbeschränkter Macht. Was gilt ihm die Armut? Was die Not? Despot ist Despot! — Aber im Herzen regt sich die Hoffnung: es kommen die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe, die den Eisbären bald aus dem Lande verjagen, und ein Frühlingsahnen überkommt die geplagte Menschheit.

Es war Sabbath vor Schekolim. Wir, Meschorerim, saßen beim Chasan und halfen ihm zum Scholasch-sudos die länglichen, schmalen Stinkes (Fischlein) vertilgen. Da sprach Schimschon, der Tenor:  „Nu, Chasanleben, was wird sein mit eppes a neuen Eschkol? Wieder und aber die alten Trallalaikes?!“ Der Chasan ließ sich Majim-acharonim zum  „Benschen“ geben und machte dann eine Handbewegung, die soviel heißen sollte, wie:  „Bleibt alle hier!” Nach dem Tischgebet sprach er:  „Paßt auf!“ und fing leise eine Melodie zu singen an. Diese Melodie sangen wir, Soprane, einigemal nach, der Chasan sang indessen mit den Altisten die zweite Stimme, während die Tenöre und Bassisten sich nach eigenem Gutdünken ihre Stimmen bildeten. Und so entstand in zirka einer Stunde ein Eschkol fix und fertig, mit dem wir dann „die Welt eingenommen haben.“ Tempi passati!

Childhood memories

By Cantor Armin Wilkowitsch

Recently, I leafed through my old sheet music I had long filed away. How did my heart suddenly pound, and these yellowed sheets with their fusty odour talked to me as if I were meeting my dearest boyhood friends, who brought greetings from my homeland and revived stories long past and lost. There were hundreds of compositions for one and for several voices, which I had acquired with great effort from several chazzanim during my meshorer wanderings. Among them also Russian and Jewish-German songs, even Sabbath zemiroth such as Tzur mishelo ochalnu or Yoh, ribbon olam, which I used to sing every Sabbath in my parental home together with my siblings. Later, having gained some insight into harmonics, I gave regular rhythms to the zemiroth and arranged them for two sopranos with piano accompaniment.

Among other things, I found an “Eshkol” for Sabbath Shekolim in these unbound leaves, which was preceded by a longer polonaise-like tune as an introduction and moved in a “Phrygian”^* mode. If I am not mistaken, Chief Cantor Singer of Vienna calls this scale “Jewish mode”. As far as I know, though, the Russian chazzanim are not aware of any Jewish modes or keys, and much as I should like to grant an original feature in music to us Jews, I have to concede that I’ve met this scale in several Little Russian [=Ukrainian] folk songs already, and it can be stated that the Roumanian folk song has embraced this mode as well.^** I strongly venture to doubt that Anton Rubinstein overheard a Jewish chazzan and copied the tune for the words “und der Sklave sprach” [“and the slave said”] in his “Der Asra”. These intervals are certainly alien to Germans, but that does not make them specifically “Jewish”.

I dwelled long on this “Eshkol”… After all, I helped compose it.

A cantor in Russia doesn’t lead the prayers every Sabbath; at most he will sing “Yehi rotzon” and “Yechadshehu” on Sabbath Mevorachim, and a balbos or the shammes will lead the other prayers. As soon as the chazzan has kindled the Chanukkah lights with the meshorerim and the klezmorim, he goes into hibernation until Sabbath Shekolim, the first of the Special Sabbaths, comes round.

Oh, how does the storm rage out there! Fresh snowflakes pile onto those long frozen to ice, and grim winter still rules with unlimited power. What does it care about hardship? About affliction? A despot is a despot! But hope is rising in the hearts: the Special Sabbaths are coming, which are soon bound to chase the polar bear out of the land, and a hunch of spring spreads in plagued humankind.

It was the Sabbath before Shekolim. We meshorerim were sitting with the chazzan, helping him to devour the oblong, narrow shtinkes (little fish) during sholash-sudos. Shimshon, the tenor, then said: “So, my dear chazzan, is there maybe going to be a new ‘Eshkol’? Again and again the old trallalaikes?” The chazzan had mayim acharonim given to him for “benshen” and then waved his hand in a sense of “Everybody stay here!” When Grace After Meals was finished, he said “Listen!” and started to sing a tune in a low voice. We, the sopranos, repeated this melody a few times, the chazzan added the second voice with the altos, while the tenors and basses formed their voices as they seemed fit. And so, an “Eshkol” came into being, all done and ready in the course of approximately one hour, with which we then “conquered the world”. Tempi passati!