Neturei Karta; ArtScroll, Arius, and Orangutans; Suicide and the Law of Rodef

Marc B. Shapiro

1. We have recently seen behavior by so-called religious Jews that is vile. I refer to the actions of Neturei Karta. Of course, we have all seen their antics in the past, but I think most of us looked at them as clowns and sick people that maybe we should feel sorry for. This is no longer the case. Now they are marching in support of the murderers of Jews, aligning themselves with the enemy, and attempting to destroy the State of Israel. They are doing this at the very time that Jews are being killed at war. It is true that in the past as well they openly aligned themselves with the PLO,[1] and R. Moshe Feinstein already in the late 1970s referred to Neturei Karta as reshaim.[2] But to be allied during wartime with Iran and Hamas is I think beyond what we have seen before.

Here you can see a video of a Neturei Karta delegation that went to Iran to pay respects after the death of President Raisi. Here a different delegation visits the Iranian ambassador to the U.N. to pay respects. Here they are in Qatar at the funeral of Ismail Haniyeh whose death they mourned in a public statement here. It is hard to imagine anything more obscene than this. What we have seen from Neturei Karta since October 7 goes way beyond making a hillul ha-shem.[3]

Until his death, the spiritual leader of this group was Rabbi Moshe Beck (1934-2021). Here you can see him showing his affection for the Iranian leader Ahmadenijad. In the ultimate obscenity, in his book Derekh ha-Hatzalah (Monsey, 2002), pp. 40ff., Beck actually explains why it is halakhically appropriate to congratulate terrorists on a “successful” operation, namely, when they murder Jews. Thus, it is entirely in line with Neturei Karta ideology for them to praise the October 7 “resistance.” Here is his outrageous conclusion (p. 44):

מותר לומר להפאלעסטינים יפה עשיתם שהרגתם, כיון שע“י דיבורים אלו יצמח הצלה להרבה מישראל המתנגדים לציונות

And what about the fact that even pious Jews will be hurt if Neturei Karta’s propaganda is successful and U.S. government aid to Israel is cut? Beck explains that this is not a problem, as the Zionists cannot be helped, even if the pious also would benefit (p. 41):

ועל אחת כמה וכמה לענין מורדים בה‘ וכופרים ומחטיאים כמו הציונים וכל כתותיהם, שבודאי נאסר הסיוע להם בכל אופן, אפילו שלא בענין העבירה, ואפילו יוצא תועלת מסיוע זה לצדיקים ועובדי ה‘

Over thirty years ago I was naive and thought that I might be able to have a productive correspondence with Beck. Here are three letters I received from him.

Regarding the third letter, I am not sure why he wrote that I “disguised” myself in my first two letters. I simply wrote to him with questions and never said or implied that I agreed with him in any way. In my second letter I actually strongly protested how he referred to Rav Kook. In his response to this letter he also answers my question how he could cite from R. Reuven Margaliyot’s commentary on Sefer Hasidim when R. Margaliyot was a religious Zionist whose book was published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. (I never said that he was a maskil). In my third letter I attacked him for degrading great Torah scholars and I mentioned that R. Aharon Kotler supported the State of Israel. I never said he was a Zionist. My point was that once the State of Israel was declared, with the lives of millions of Jews depending on it, anti-Zionism in the sense of opposing the creation of a Jewish state was now no longer relevant. Once the State of Israel was created, anti-Zionism came to mean working to destroy the Jewish state, and thus putting millions of Jewish lives at risk. Satmar anti-Zionism is religiously based but remains entirely theoretical, even eschatological, and Satmar has always been absolutely opposed to allying with anti-Semites and terrorists and their supporters.)

See also here where a number of years ago I wrote the next few paragraphs (now updated slightly).

Readers should examine the following document, which is found in the Central Zionist Archives S25/4752

It is a copy of a letter sent to the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem from Aryeh Leib Weissfish. Weissfish was later to become famous as one of the leaders of the Neturei Karta, and strangely enough he was also a great fan of Nietzsche. You can read about his colorful career here, where it mentions how he illegally entered Jordan in 1951 to bring a message from the Neturei Karta that Jordan should invade Jerusalem and the Neturei Karta would be its ally in this. When he was deported to Israel he was put on trial and sentenced to six months in prison.

In view of the fact that during World War II there was a fear that Germany would invade the Land of Israel and that this would also lead to the Arabs persecuting Jews, Weissfish wrote to the local Muslim leaders to let them know that the Old Yishuv type of Jews that he is speaking about are not involved in politics and that they oppose the Zionists. They have always treated the Arabs with respect and he therefore requests that these Jews be protected. He also offers to provide the names of the families who should be given this special treatment. As you can see from Yitzhak Ben-Zvi’s handwritten note at the bottom of the letter, Ben-Zvi copied it from the original letter which he found in the Supreme Muslim Council’s archives.

R. Shlomo Brody has recently published a fabulous book, with a great title, which is unfortunately very timely: Ethics of Our Fighters: A Jewish View on War and Morality. While I am sure I will have more to say about this book at a future time, I would for now just wish to add that when it comes to Neturei Karta and those of a similar mindset, I was wondering about some halakhic and ethical issues that Brody does not discuss. (In general, he does not discuss the home front.) For example, can such people be counted to a minyan? Are you allowed to give charity to them, and if not, how about the children who will suffer through no fault of their own? Can the children of such a family be kicked out of a yeshiva? If these people have businesses, should we boycott them, again, causing the children to suffer for the sins of their fathers? Or should we just ignore these people entirely? These questions are not only relevant when it comes to Neturei Karta, for as we have seen since October 7 there are many other enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. Some of them who support Hamas are themselves Jewish. As far as I know, there has not yet appeared an analysis of how such traitors are to be regarded in Jewish law.

2. A couple of people sent me something that was going around the internet asking what I thought, so I figured I would elaborate on the blog. Rashi, Deut. 1:12, quotes the Sifrei, Devarim, no. 13, that אריוס asked Rabbi Yose a question. In the ArtScroll translation of Rashi by R. Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg there is the following note on this passage: “Nothing other than what is mentioned here is known about this person. His name appears nowhere else in Torah literature.”

This is not exactly correct. As Louis Finkelstein points out in his edition of the Sifrei (p. 22), Tosefta Bava Metzia 3:11, records a question Arius asked the Sages. This is what appears in the important Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta used by Zuckermandel in his edition, but Arius’ name does not appear in the Tosefta published in the back of the Talmud.[4]

In the updated version of the ArtScroll Rashi translation, they explain who Arius was (R. Herczeg had nothing to do with this update): “A 4^th century C.E. Christian theologian whose views on religion clashed with standard church teachings; his followers are called Arians. (An analysis of his question to R’ Yose appears in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 34, p. 15.)

I do not know why someone working at ArtScroll decided it was important to add this information. I also do not know why the person who added the information did not see the immediate problem. Arius, who at most was only in the Land of Israel for a short time, was a fourth-century theologian in the period of the amoraim. How then could he be asking questions of the tanna R. Yose or any of the other tannaitic sages? This alone should have been enough to show that the Arius mentioned by the Sifrei is not the Christian theologian Arius. When the ArtScroll Rashi is next reprinted, the updated note should be deleted as it is clearly in error, and the original note should be reinserted. I have to say that I find it of interest that the updated note has a reference to the Likutei Sihot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, a figure who does not appear often in ArtScroll publications. This reference should definitely remain.

Where did ArtScroll get the information in the new note? Perhaps from the entry on Arius in the Otzar Yisrael encyclopedia (vol. 2, pp. 192-193). The Otzar Yisrael entry states, without any evidence, that the R. Yose mentioned in the Sifrei is one of the amoraim named R. Yose, not the tanna. But there is no reason to assume this to be the case, and lots of reasons to assume it is not so. We are fortunate that the Otzar Yisrael entry has a bibliography and we are thus able to see where they got their information from: R. Elijah Benamozegh’s Em la-Mikra to Deut. 1:13, which goes on for many pages.

I have great respect for R. Benamozegh and have given a number of classes on him.[5] Yet as mentioned already, there is no reason to think that the R. Yose mentioned in the Sifrei is an amora as R. Benamozegh claims. We should assume that he is the second-century R. Yose ben Halafta for this is how the tanna R. Yose is mentioned in rabinic literature, namely, without his father’s name. I would also note that the Talmud records a number of R. Yose ben Halafta’s conversations with non-Jews. Therefore, his interaction with Arius makes perfect sense

As for Arius, Moshe David Herr believes that he must have been a convert to Judaism. Referring to his mention in Tosefta, Bava Metzia 3:11, Herr writes “This question, which manifests expert knowledge of the halakhah on the part of the inquirer, proves that he was a Jew.”[6]

Returning to R. Benamozegh, it needs to be mentioned that his commentary on the Torah suffers from the same problem as many others, in that as one who was up to date in modern historical scholarship and science, he tries to explain the Torah in the light of this knowledge. Yet mid-19^th century understandings in these areas has usually been rejected and thus cannot speak to 21^st century readers. On occasion, what he says will be found offensive by modern readers, such as his discussion of the curse of Canaan in his Em la-Mikra to Genesis 9:25. Here it is from R. Eliyahu Zini’s wonderful new edition.

Although it could be that R. Benamozegh himself held the liberal view of Tiedemann, the even-handed way he discusses the matter does not make for comfortable reading today.

R. Israel Lifshitz, the author of Tiferet Yisrael on the Mishnah, also liked to connect modern scientific discoveries with Torah and rabbinic texts. Unfortunately, not all of his information  was correct. Since R. Benamozegh mentions orangutans, let me tell you what R. Lifshitz has to say about them, which he must have read in some book or newspaper. In his commentary to Kil’ayim[7] 8:5, he states that in Africa orangutans are taught to chop trees and draw water, to wear human clothes and to sit at a table and eat with silverward. (In truth, orangatuns are not found in Africa but are native to parts of Asia.) And in case people were wondering, he also adds that despite the orangutan’s near-human characteristics, when it dies it is regarded like every other animal and does not create ritual impurity as do dead humans.[8]

Although, as mentioned, R. Lifshitz must have acquired his incorrect information about orangutans from some book or newspaper, I should note that the Talmud discusses how monkeys are capable of performing various tasks for humans and this might have influenced R. Lifshitz in assuming the same to be true of orangutans. The expression מעשה קוף is well known, and this page gives a number of talmudic references to actions of monkeys. However, the list is not complete and it omits Bava Kamma 101a which mentions a monkey dying wool with a particular dye. It also omits Yadayim 1:8 which refers to a monkey pouring water over a person’s hands. For those interested in the topic, R. Baruch Plotchek wrote an article on monkeys in the Bible and Talmud.[9] One of the interesting things he points out is that Kohelet Rabbah comments on Eccl. 6:11: כִּי יֵשׁ–דְּבָרִים הַרְבֵּה, מַרְבִּים הָבֶל, that included in the “vanity” is the raising of monkeys. This shows that when this Midrash was written, people, presumably including Jews, kept monkeys as pets. Also of interest is that Plotchek identifies what we can term proto-Darwinian ideas in some rabbinic statements. As far as I know, he was the first to make this point, which was later picked up by others trying to reconcile Torah and evolution.

3. In the last post I pointed to an interesting explanation of R. Chaim Heller that solved a textual problem. Here is another one he offered: Piskei Tosafot (at the back of the Vilna Shas), Shabbat, no. 130, states that in a city that has pigs, the buildings in it are exempt from the law of mezuzah: עיר שיש בה חזירים פטורה מן המזוזה

There is no talmudic source for this passage and on its face it is astounding, as why should the presence of pigs mean that Jews don’t need a mezuzah? If followed in practice, this text would mean that no city in the Christian world needs mezuzot. (In fact, from statements of Ashkenazic rishonim we know that in medieval Ashkenaz many people did not affix mezuzot, and perhaps this laxity arose from the view recorded in Piskei Tosafot.[10])

R. Heller suggested that there was a scribal error and that instead of עיר שיש בה חזירים the text should read דיר שיש בה חזירים, that is, a pigsty does not need a mezuzah.[11] I don’t think this emendation is found in any of R. Heller’s writings, but it is mentioned in his name by Dr. Tibor Juda, the late son-in-law of R. Pinchas Hirschprung,[12] in this video about R. Abraham Price, beginning at 36:38. R. Price was a student of R. Heller in Berlin before he came to Toronto. Not surprising, Abraham Rosenberg, whom I discussed in previous posts here and here, also mentions this emendation which he must have heard from R. Heller.[13]

This emendation is actually mentioned previously by R. Meir Soloveitchik in his Ha-Meir la-Aretz, p. 64a.[14] Here is the title page of the book.

R. Soloveitchik, after mentioning the emendation, offers his own alternative emendation:

ועוד נ“ל יותר טוב להגיה, עיר שאין בה חזירים כו‘, דטנופת הרבה מצוי בה והו“ל כמקום שהתינוקות מצוין בה

Before people start trying to figure out how this R. Soloveitchik is related to R. Chaim, let me note that there was at least one other Soloveitchik family in Europe, and this family was not levi’im like the more famous Soloveitchik family. R. Meir Soloveitchik came from the less distinguished Soloveitchiks.[15]

4. In my last post I dealt with euthanasia and suicide, and in response to that Ariel Fuss sent me something that I found truly astounding. If you had described it to me without me seeing it “inside”, I would have thought it was Purim Torah, or perhaps a halakhic paradox of the sort I have written about.[16] But no, we are talking about a real piece of rabbinic learning. Here is R. Mordechai Shlomo Carlebach, Havatzelet ha-Sharon, Vayikra (2), pp. 476-477.

R. Carlebach assumes that suicide falls under the prohibition of murder. While there are those who disagree (see Encyclopedia Talmudit, s. v. me’abed atzmo le-da’at), the majority opinion is that suicide is a form of murder, and this seems to be Maimonides’ opinion as well. R. Carlebach raises the issue of what to do if you see someone about to commit suicide. When someone is about to murder another, there is an obligation to kill the rodef. If suicide is a form of murder, R. Carlebach reasons that one who is going to kill himself is to be regarded as a rodef (of himself) and according to the halakhah you would be obligated to kill the man before he killed himself.

At first glance this seems crazy, since what sense does it make to kill a man because he is going to kill himself? But as R. Carlebach points out, by killing the man before he kills himself, you prevent him from violating the prohibition against murder, which will be a great benefit to him in the World to Come. R. Carlebach notes that when he presented this idea to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, R. Auerbach liked what he said. Of course, it is impossible for us to know whether R. Auerbach really took the argument seriously or just smiled because it is such an interesting and counterintuitive approach.

When I shared this text with R. Moshe Maimon, and wondered whether R. Carlebach meant what he wrote seriously, he replied:

I think he means it seriously, though in a Talmudic sense, not in a practical sense. RSZA similarly approved it from a pilpulistic standpoint, knowing that R. Carlebach was in no way insinuating that this should dictate practical Halachah. To the halachic mind it is a form of mercy killing, since you are saving him from the sin of murder. Of course, practically, it could never be implemented since the modern sensibilities (at least from the Besamim Rosh and on!) dictate that one committing suicide be viewed as a victim rather than a perpetrator.

Speaking of the laws of rodef, there is another astounding passage in R. Shimon Sofer, Hitorerut Teshuvah, vol. 2, no. 157:2. R. Sofer states that if you see a cat chasing after a chicken to kill it, if the only way you can save the chicken is by killing the cat, then there is a mitzvah to kill the cat. He actually compares this to the law of rodef with a human. (At the end of the responsum he also mentions hashavat avedah and tza’ar baalei hayyim.)

See, however, R. Netanel Meoded of Hong Kong, Mizrah Shemesh, vol. 2, p. 287 n. 195, that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rejected the notion that there is a concept of rodef with regard to animals.

Regarding R. Sofer’s Hitorerut Teshuvah, the volumes are unusual as right at the top of each page it tell the reader not to rely on the halakhic conclusions in practice. I don’t know of any other responsa volume that does such a thing. In a future post I will cite sources that say that one does not need to pay attention when an author tells us not to rely on his rulings in practice.

5. Continuing with the new pictures of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, here is one of him and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog.[17] It is from R. Herzog’s visit to Montreux in the summer of 1950.

Here is R. Weinberg in conversation with R. Bezalel Rakow, at the time a rebbe in the Montreux yeshiva and later the rav of Gateshead.

Here is R. Weinberg with Robert and Francisca Goldschmidt at the wedding of their daughter Reine to Schmuel Höchster. The Goldschmidts owned a kosher pension in Montreux and their grandson is the famous R. Pinchas Goldschmidt.

Here is R. Weinberg with Mr. Yechezkel Rand and his wife. Rand was a leader of the Montreux Jewish community.

Here is R. Weinberg with his student R. Yaakov Fink. R. Fink was able to leave Germany and make his way to Argentina in 1939. He would later serve as chief rabbi of Brazil and later of Argentina before becoming av beit din in Haifa.

The story of his aliyah is of interest. Already in 1950 he discussed moving to Israel with the Hazon Ish. He was concerned about whether this was proper since he felt a responsibility to his community in Argentina. The Hazon Ish told him without hesitation that he should come to Israel. He thought that the education of R. Fink’s children, which was problematic in the Diaspora, came before all other concerns, and therefore he – and anyone else – who could come on aliyah should do so.

Interestingly, on returning home he first traveled to the United States where he also discussed the matter of his aliyah with R. Aharon Kotler. R. Kotler had the opposite approach, telling him that he must not abandon his community. Perhaps to let him know that he should not give up all hope of aliyah, R. Kotler added that when he himself goes to Israel, then R. Fink can also come.

Years later R. Fink decided to move to Israel, after being chosen as av beit din of Haifa. He had obviously decided not to follow R. Kotler’s opinion in this matter. Yet an amazing thing was to happen. R. Fink flew to Europe with his family and spent a few weeks in Montreux with R. Weinberg, whom he had not seen since before World War II. The pictures above and below are from that visit. He then went to Paris from where he was to fly to Israel. When he boarded the plane, and saw more religious travelers than usual, he inquired what the occasion was. It was then that he learned of the passing of R. Aharon Kotler and that his coffin was being brought to Israel on that very plane. So in the end it happened just as R. Kotler told him years before, that when he would go to Israel then R. Fink could also go![18]

Here is a picture of R. Weinberg with R. Fink on the left. On the right is R. Joseph Blumenfeld who held the position of av beit din in Tel Aviv. He also lived in the United States during the 1950s and while there he printed his edition and commentary of the medieval work Kaftor va-Ferah by R. Ishtori ha-Parhi.

Here is the title page as it appears on Otzar ha-Chochmah.

Notice how the original place and date is missing and ניו יורק תשי“ח has been added to the title page. That should raise everyone’s suspicions. If you look at the version on hebrewbooks.org you can see why the original place and date were removed.

On the title page R. Blumenfeld wrote שנה עשירית למדינת ישראל. This can still be read on the copy found on hebrewbooks.org, although someone crossed this out, not liking R. Blumenfeld’s Zionist sentiments. 

Here is another example of the title page that I copied many years ago in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

While in the United States, R. Blumenfeld obviously got to know Louis Finkelstein. When his work appeared he sent him a copy with a nice inscription and Finkelstein donated it to the library. The inscription might imply that Finkelstein assisted him financially in publishing the work.

Regarding R. Fink, although R. Weinberg thought very highly of him,[19] there was one time when R. Fink disappointed him. In 1952 when he was appointed chief rabbi in Brazil there was an article on this in Ha-Pardes.[20] Although the article is signed by someone else, R. Weinberg believed that the biographical information in it was provided by R. Fink. In describing R. Fink’s background it states:

תלמיד מובהק של הרב הגאון ה‘ אברהם שטיינברג מברודי, שאצלו למד בשעה שישב בעיר הבירה וינה, בשנות המלחמה הראשונה ואז שמש גם את הגאון העצום ר‘ יוסף אנגל וגדולי ישראל אחרים. משומעי שעוריו של הרב יחיאל וינברג, העילוי מסלובודקה בסמינר הרבנים בברלין

R. Weinberg wrote to R. Joseph Apfel, R. Fink’s classmate at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary, with his annoyance at the above formulation. He assumed that R. Fink, having moved into more haredi circles, was embarrassed to acknowledge that he had been an actual registered student at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary, and therefore wrote that he just attended R. Weinberg’s shiurim at the Seminary.[21] In an earlier post on the Seforim Blog here, Menachem Butler notes that when R. Yosef Zvi Dunner passed away, the obituary in Ha-Modia wrote:

At 19 he wanted to study in the yeshivos of Lithuania, but his father felt that due to the shortage of Rabbanim in Germany, it would be better for him to remain in the country and study in the beis medrash of Harav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, zt”l, author of Seridei Eish. For four years, the young Rav Yosef Tzvi studied in this beis medrash, where he was awarded semichah at a young age after astounding those testing him with his penetrating understanding of all four sections of the Shulchan Aruch. He was granted the title yoreh, yadin.

Instead of writing that R. Dunner studied at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary, Ha-Modia invented a new institution, the beis medrash of R. Weinberg.

This is a phenomenon we have sometimes seen with people who studied at Yeshiva University and/or RIETS but in later years did not want to acknowledge this. At most they would say that they heard shiurim from the Rav, without noting that they were actually registered students in YU or RIETS.

Returning to the pictures, here is a one of R. Weinberg’s father.

Here is his mother.

Here is R. Weinberg’s mother and other members of his family at his father’s grave in Ciechanowiec, Poland.

6. In the latest Hakirah (vol. 35, Summer 2024), R. Shmuel Lesher mentions Chaim Bloch’s Passover Haggadah forgery. Bloch claimed to have had a 1521 manuscript where instead of “Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not know you”, the mansucript had, “Pour out your love on the nations that know you”. This is such an obvious forgery, from a person whose forgeries have become legendary (see my post here, R. Jonathan Sacks included this forged text in his own Haggadah.

On p. 286 n. 12 Lesher states that assuming Bloch’s Haggadah passage is a forgery, the motivation for the forgery remains unclear. Let me first state that there is no reason for “assuming” it is a forgery, as there is no doubt whatsoever. As for the motivation, this too is clear. Bloch was very interested in apologetics and softening anti-Gentile passages that appear in the Talmud and later rabbinic literature. He even devoted an entire (very dishonest) book to this topic, Ve-Da Mah She-Tashiv (New York, 1962). In my post here I include a page from Bloch’s Heikhal le-Divrei Hazal u-Fitgameihem (New York, 1948), p. 9. Here Bloch invents an entire story about how before the war there was a collection of letters in Vienna dealing with the sections of the Talmud that were removed by non-Jewish censors. He tells us that R. Elazar Horowitz wrote a letter to R. Judah Aszod stating that R. Moses Sofer did not wish to print a Talmud with the censored sections. The reason R. Sofer supposedly gave was that it was divine providence that these passages were removed, and once they have been removed they should not be put back. Based on additional imaginary letters, Bloch tells us more fairy tales about other nineteenth-century rabbinic leaders who agreed that the censored passages should remain out, because of the antisemitism that could be generated by them.

Bloch’s forgery of the Gentile-friendly “Pour out your love” passage is no different than his other forgeries dealing with rabbinic texts that present a negative view of non-Jews and that were often cited in non-Jewish attacks on the Talmud and rabbinic literature.

* * * * * *

[1] See Menachem Keren-Kratz, “Satmar and Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism,” Modern Judaism 43 (Feb., 2023), pp. 66ff.
[2] Mesorat Moshe, vol. 2, p. 432.
[3] It could be that my language, implying that their current behavior is worse than a hillul ha-shem, is inappropriate, as in some respects hillul ha-shem is the worst imaginable sin. See Yoma 86a that unlike other sins, only death can atone for hillul ha-shem. The Hazon Ish pointed out that the three great sins for which one must martyr oneself rather than violate could indeed be pushed aside (i.e., violated) in order to prevent a hillul ha-shem. (Obviously, this type of decision is only something that the greatest rabbinic leaders could rule on.) See Shlomo Cohen, Pe’er ha-Dor, vol. 3, p. 185.

R. Samuel Mohilever writes:

חלול ה‘ היותר גדול המאריך גלותנו והמעכב גאולתנו ופדות נפשנו הוא אשר על ידי רוע מעשינו יחולל כבוד אומתנו בגוים לאמר: ראו מעשה העם הזה, אשר לפי דעתו הוא הנבחר מכל גויי הארצות להיות לעם סגולה עליון על כל, ומעשיו גרועים ואבדה חכמת חכמיו ודעתו שפלה וגם באמונתו ערב אמונות שוא וטפל ועוד הגדיל כי עשה את הטפל לעיקר

Mohilever, Berit ha-Ahavah ve-ha-Shalom, ed. Munitz (Jerusalem, 2023), p. 210.

Here is one way hillul ha-shem was dealt with in years past: R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Ma’agal Tov ha-Shalem, ed. Freimann (Jerusalem, 1934) p. 88, mentions how the leaders of the Jewish community in Modena, Italy cut off the beard of a rabbi who created a hillul ha-shem. See the explanation of the passage in R. Meir Mazuz, Mi-Gedolei Yisrael, vol 1, p. 218. As R. Mazuz notes, punishing someone by cutting off his hair is mentioned in Beit Yosef, Even ha-Ezer 16, s.v. כתוב and Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 16:4. I do not know if this only means hair of the head or if it also includes the beard. Aaron Chorin, who would later become a leading advocate of religious reform, was also threatened with having his beard cut off. See R. Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, Safra ve-Sayfa (Jerusalem, 2013), pp. 139 n. 37, 171.

Hillul ha-shem is sometimes written as hillul ha-Shem or hillul Hashem. Yet this is a mistake. It is not Hashem (with a capital “H”, implying “God, or ha-Shem), but hashem, (or ha-shem). That is, it is not a desecration of God but of His name. Thus, one should not write ‘חילול ה but rather חילול השם. See Lev. 22:32: ולא תחללו את שם קדשי. Nissim Dana titled his 1989 translation of one of R. Abraham Maimonides’ works ספר המספיק לעובדי השם. Yet the last two words should be ‘לעובדי ה.

Regarding the use of “Hashem”, I found something very confusing in the ArtScroll Stone Chumash. In place of the Tetragrammaton, ArtScroll does not use the word “Lord” but “HASHEM”, as this is how people pronounce the Tetragrammaton. While ArtScroll is the first translation to adopt this approach, it does have a certain logic. However, this logic breaks down a few times on p. 319 when the ArtScroll commentary attempts to explain what occurs at the beginning of parashat Va-Era. For example, “Or Ha-Chaim comments that God’s essence is represented by the name HASHEM.” This makes no sense, as there is no name HASHEM. The commentary should have written that “God’s essence is represented by the four letter name of God.”

Here is what Maimonides says about one who separates himself from the community, and it certainly applies to Neturei Karta (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:11):

A person who separates himself from the community even though he has not transgressed any sins, but has separated himself from the congregation of Israel and does not fulfill mitzvot together with them, does not take part in their hardships or join in their [communal] fasts, but rather goes on his own individual path as if he is from another nation and not one of them [the Jewish people], does not have a portion in the world to come

[4] The version that appears in Midrash Tannaim, Devarim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 7, has the name as ארווס. However, as R. David Zvi Hoffmann points out, this is an error for אריוס. See ibid., pp. 250, 253. The version that appears in the medieval Bereshit Rabbati of R. Moses ha-Darshan, ed. Albeck, p. 201, has the name אריסטו. I think it is obvious that not recognizing the name Arius, someone changed it to Aristotle, without realizing that Aristotle (fourth century BCE) lived hundreds of years before R. Yose (second century CE). See also here.

Regarding Aristotle, while some traditional Jewish sources speak highly of his learning, others refer to him in all sorts of negative ways. R. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, in his praise of R. Elijah Mizrahi, actually compares his intellect to that of Aristotle. I do not know of any other such passage in rabbinic literature in which a rabbi is praised by comparing him to Aristotle. See Delmedigo, Novelot ha-Hokhmah, p. 32b:

ששכל הרא“ם רם ונשא . . . כשכל ארסטו‘ט בדקות ועומק ויושר

See also R. Meir Mazuz’s comment on this passage, Mi-Gedolei Yisrael, vol. 1, p. 359 n. 27.

[5]  See here and here (the first of three parts).
[6] “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971), p. 149.
[7] The word is pronounced kil’ayim and not kilayim, as there is a sheva under the ל. People sometimes mispronounce it as kilaim, as if there is a patah under the ל and a hirik under the א of כלאים. This reminds me of another common mistake. If you google you will find that many refer to the concept of “shomer pesaim (petaim).” Yet this is a mistake. The verse in Psalms 116:6 reads: שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם. The second word is pronounced pesayim (petayim), as the א is silent. Another example where the א is silent and many people make a mistake is with the name דניאל. Even people who have this name often pronounce it in Hebrew as Doniel (or Doniellah for women). Yet the name is properly pronounced Doniyel: דָּנִיֵּאל. This is unlike the name אֲרִיאֵל where the tzere is under the א and the word is pronounced Ariel. Another common mistake is that people often refer to sidelocks at peyot, but it should be pe’ot, as there is no yud in the word.
[8] In 1876 R. Abraham Bick published Yesod Ohel Moed. I cannot tell you where the book appeared, as there are two title pages, one for Pressburg and one for Lemberg.

The language on the title page is very unusual in its detail of what the book contains. On p. 53b he rejects R. Lifshitz’s identification of the orangutan with a creature mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, stating that he has seen an orangutan at the Hamburg zoo and it does not match the talmudic description. He then makes the following statement, affirming the truth of the Sages’ scientific statements even if modern man has trouble accepting them:

וקבלת חז“ל נאמנה מאוד ולא ראינו אינה ראי‘ ונודע שחוקרי הארץ לא יכלו לתור תיכונית אפריקא וגם במציאות בני אדם באמעריקא נוכח כפות רגלינו הכחישו כולם עד שנודע שידיעתם הבל וגם פה חז“ל ידעו הכל בסוד ה‘ ליראיו

[9] Ha-Mitzpeh, Oct. 25, 1912, pp. 4-5, Nov. 1, 1912, pp. 4-5, Nov. 15, 1912, p. 5, Nov. 22, 1912, p. 5.
[10] See R. Mordechai Menahem Honig’s learned note in Yerushatenu 1 (2007), p. 213 n. 43, which provides all the relevant information about the Piskei Tosafot passage and how this idea is also cited from the ירושלמי. See also Saul Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi ki-Feshuto, Introduction, pp. 26-27; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 8, pp. 97-98, n. 6.

Regarding laxity with mezuzot and the notion that a city with pigs is exempt, see R. Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel, Orhot Hayyim, ed. Schlesinger (Berlin, 1902), vol. 2, p. 195:

השתא שאין העולם נזהרין משום האי טעמא דסמכינן אהא דאמרינן עיר שיש בה חזירים פטורה מן המזוזה. וכתב הר“י מקורבל שאין זה נמצא בשום מקום לא בתלמוד ולא בירושלמי

[11] R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 5, no. 18, suggests another emendation: שער instead of עיר. See also R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol. 3, Yoreh Deah, no. 16.
[12]  I treasure the conversations I had with Dr. Juda when I visited Toronto and he honored me by attending various talks I delivered. In one conversation he told me of the high esteem R. Hirschprung had for Rav Kook, and how R. Hirschprung noted that while R. Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld was certainly a great talmid chacham, in no way is he to be regarded as on the same level as R. Kook. Regarding R. Hirschprung, let me also record what I heard from R. Shlomo Goren in 1985, when he spoke at Beit Midrash le-Torah (BMT) in Jerusalem, that R. Hirschprung was the only one alive who knew the entire Talmud by heart.
[13] Tikunei Nushaot bi-Yerushalmi, last page of the book (unnumbered; called to my attention by Moshe Dembitzer).
[14] Moshe Dembitzer informed me that R. Moses Shimon Sivitz, Ha-Mashbiah, vol. 3, p. 53b, also suggests this emendation. R. Baruch Epstein, Barukh She-Amar, p. 75, likewise suggests this.
[15] See here. There was another famous Soloveitchik, Max Soloveitchik from Kovno, who wrote perhaps the earliest Hebrew book on biblical criticism and was a government minister in Lithuania. See here. I don’t know which Soloveitchik family he was from.
[16] See here.
[17] The pictures in this post are found in Ganzach Kiddush ha-Shem in Bnei Brak. I thank R. Abraham Abba Weingort for his help with identifying some of the people in the pictures from Montreux.
[18] Fink, Tiferet Yaakov, pp. 49, 56 (first pagination).
[19] See for instance R. Weinberg’s letter in Fink, Tiferet Yaakov, p. 348.
[20] November 1952, pp. 28-29.
[21] See R. Weinberg’s letter in Ha-Ma’yan 32 (Tamuz 5752), pp. 16-17. For a picture of R. Fink’s Berlin Rabbinical Seminary semikhah, see Fink, Tiferet Yaakov, p. 339. The semikhah is signed by R. Weinberg, R. Samuel Gruenberg, and R. Alexander (Shimon Zvi) Altmann.

Rav Gorelick, the Rav, and Revision by Omission

By: Yaacov Sasson

Many readers of the Seforim Blog no doubt remember Dr. Shapiro’s post from 2009, in which he documented a back-and-forth from the pages of the journal Or Yisrael, regarding whether Rav Yerucham Gorelick zt”l taught Gemara at Yeshiva University.[1] As a refresher, Or Yisrael (Num. 50, Tevet 5768, p. 39) published a summary of a shiur given by Rav Mordechai Leib Gorelick (son of Rav Yerucham), regarding the publication of the Talmud with translation and elucidation (presumably referring to Artscroll). Rav Gorelick argued that such translations are inappropriate, as they make learning Gemara too easy, and learning Gemara requires hard work and toil (ameilus). Furthermore, Talmud study had always been reserved for the elite, not the masses, who studied other topics like Mishnayos and Ein Yaakov; daf yomi study for the masses was only approved reluctantly by the Chafetz Chaim. But it is inappropriate to print these crutches to enable the masses to study the Talmud, which they are incapable of studying on their own.[2]

In a follow up in that same issue of Or Yisrael (p. 42), Rav Yehuda Heller of London raised some doubt about whether Rav Leib Gorelick really said what was attributed to him in Or Yisrael. In the course of attempting to show that Rav Leib never made these claims against English translations and daf yomi, Rav Heller mentioned that Rav Leib’s father, Rav Yerucham, taught Gemara in YU for many years, even though the students there did not meet the very rigorous conditions that Rav Leib required to qualify for learning Gemara. From this, Rav Heller attempted to demonstrate that Rav Leib did not actually say what was attributed to him.[3]

Rav Heller wrote a further follow-up in a later volume of Or Yisrael (Num. 57, Tishrei 5770, p. 255), in which he said that Rav Leib Gorelick told him that his father did not teach Gemara in YU, and he only taught hashkafa there.[4] This statement understandably prompted quite a response, as Dr. Shapiro criticized Rav Leib and these revisionist comments rather harshly. A number of other websites also made note of this episode and added their own criticisms.[5] A follow-up letter written by a former student of Rav Yerucham was also published in Or Yisrael (Num. 58, Tevet 5770, p. 248), titled איך החי יכול להכחיש את החי , in which the writer states that he studied Gemara, Rishonim and Acharonim with Rav Yerucham, as did thousands of other students.

The claim that Rav Yerucham never taught Gemara at YU/RIETS is clearly false. Yet, it would appear that no one followed up with Rav Leib to clarify his statement, or to confirm that he actually made the seemingly impossible statement that had been attributed to him. In a conversation I had with Rav Leib Gorelick this past summer, I took the opportunity to ask him about this claim that his father never taught Gemara there, and only taught hashkafa. Rav Leib immediately informed me that he was misquoted, and his father certainly taught Gemara at YU/RIETS. What he said was that his father’s goal in teaching Gemara at YU was not to teach Gemara per se, but was to impart hashkafa, mussar, and emuna to the talmidim; in Rav Leib’s own words, “He wasn’t teaching them daf yomi.” Recall that the original context of these statements was regarding the propriety of Artscroll English translations enabling the masses to study daf yomi. It was in this context that Rabbi Heller brought Rav Yerucham’s position in YU as a proof, and Rav Leib was responding to this argument, all in the context of English translations and daf yomi. Regarding this point, he was arguing that his father’s position at YU is not relevant to teaching daf yomi to the masses, because his father was using the Gemara as a vehicle to impart mussar and hashkafa.

Interestingly, Rav Hershel Schachter has expressed similar sentiments, but from the perspective of a student (academic year 1957-1958) of Rav Yerucham Gorelick[6]:

“Rabbi Gorelick used to give a shiur in the yeshiva, a regular shiur in Gemara, and he used to pepper his shiur with a lot of hashkafa, and a lot of mussar, emunah, he would say over a lot from the Nefesh Hachaim…The year that I was in Rabbi Gorelick’s shiur we learned Sanhedrin, I don’t remember anything that Rabbi Gorelick said about Sanhedrin, but I do remember all the Nefesh Hachaim’s that he said in the course of the year…I remember vertlach that he said from Rav Velvele on chumash…That’s what I remember from the year of learning by him. What he said on Gemara Sanhedrin I don’t remember. I remember what Rav Soloveitchik said, I don’t remember what Rabbi Gorelick said. But I remember all the Nefesh Hachaim’s that he said, and all the vertlach from Rav Velvele on the hagada, and all the vertlach on chumash that he said, and the stories that he told about Rav Velvele, that I remember, he used to tell over stories…”

If we could generalize from Rav Schachter’s experience, it would appear that Rav Yerucham Gorelick’s lasting impact on talmidim was mostly in line with how Rav Leib presented Rav Yerucham’s goals in teaching Gemara in YU.

There have been instances, however, in which Rav Gorelick’s association with YU has been omitted or glossed over. As an example, see the journal U’lYishrei Lev, volume 11, published in honor of the marriage of a son of Rav Shmuel Yeshaya Keller (son of the late Rav Chaim Dov Keller), to a granddaughter of Rav Chaim Ozer Gorelick, a great-granddaughter of Rav Yerucham.[7] This journal contains two letters from Rav Gorelick, which originally appeared in YU/RIETS Torah journals. One of them, shown below, בענין ח“ש בתרומה וריחא מילתא , was originally printed in Beis Yitzchak volume 25 p. 241, and was discovered and arranged for publication by the late Rabbi Joshua (posthumously known as The Hoffer) Hoffman.[8]

There is no mention in U’lYishrei Lev that this letter was found and published in Beis Yitzchak. Similarly, the other letter in U’lYishrei Lev, במצות הפרשת תרומות ומעשרות, was originally published in Kol Zvi volume 2 page 107. It is noteworthy that, in addition to the more recent family connection by marriage, Rav Yerucham Gorelick was Rav Chaim Dov Keller’s rebbe in YU. It was Rav Gorelick who encouraged Rav Keller to go to Telz, and arranged for Rav Keller to learn b’chavrusa with Rav Mordechai Gifter.[9]

The aforementioned letter בענין ח“ש בתרומה וריחא מילתא also appears in Mishor’s 5768 printing of חידושי הגר“ח על הש“ס on page 32, surprisingly with the disclosure that the piece is taken from Beis Yitzchak.[10] I say surprisingly, because this volume does engage in revision by omission in other cases, specifically those having to do with the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. Here is a piece from that volume (page 302) on the topic of אין שליח לדבר עבירה, which is attributed to the very nebulous “Reshimos Talmidim”, but is copied word-for-word from Igros Ha-Grid Halevi, page 9, ד“ה אכן, shown below.

Similarly, the piece in the Mishor volume (page 97) on מצות תקיעת שופר is once again attributed to the nebulous “Kisvei Talmidim”, yet is taken from Igros Ha-Grid Halevi, this time an amalgam of the pieces on page 33-34 and page 91, shown below. Most of the verbiage is taken from pages 33-34, while the phrases “אינו חל לגביה“ and “בכלל מתעסק“ are taken from page 91.

Another recent example of revision by omission as relates to Rav Soloveitchik appears in Yishurun, volume 41 (Elul 5779), in a biographical article on Rav Elya Baruch Finkel, on p. 388. There we are told of Rav Elya Baruch’s safek regarding Erev Shabbos Chanuka. The halacha (Rambam Chanuka 4:12) is that someone who does not have candles must even sell his garment in order to purchase Ner Chanuka. Rav Elya Baruch understood that there is no such requirement for Ner Shabbos according to the Rambam (see Yishurun volume 18 p. 675.[11] The article in Yishurun volume 18 also appears in Mishulchan Rabi Eliyahu Baruch- Moadim, volume 2, p. 283, where a note mentions that it was prepared for print by Rav Elya Baruch’s son.) The halacha (Rambam Chanuka 4:14) also states that someone with one candle on Erev Shabbos Chanuka should use it for Ner Shabbos, as Ner Shabbos takes precedence to Ner Chanuka. In the event that someone has no candles or money on Erev Shabbos Chanuka, he is obligated to sell his garment to buy a Ner Chanuka, but once he has the candle, he is supposed to give precedence to Ner Shabbos over Ner Chanuka, even though he is not obligated to sell his garment for Ner Shabbos. Rav Elya Baruch raised the question – should he use the candle for Ner Chanuka or for Ner Shabbos?

We are told in Yishurun that Rav Elya Baruch presented this question to גאון אחד who was נודע בכשרונותיו העילויים. This Gaon stated that there are three logical possibilities, and these possibilities are laid out in Yishurun volume 18 p. 677.[12] 1) He need not sell his garment, because even if he does he will be unable to fulfill Ner Chanuka, and it is as if he knows that if he buys the Ner Chanuka a lion will eat it, in which case he certainly need not sell his garment. 2) He should sell his garment and use the candle for Ner Chanuka 3) He should sell his garment and buy a candle for Ner Chanuka, but then use it for Ner Shabbos. This Gaon rejected the third possibility out of hand, and he was unsure how to decide between the first two possibilities.

This anonymous Gaon is none other than Rav Soloveitchik. I know this because the same story appears in the name of Rav Elya Baruch Finkel in the book “Read and Remember” by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Cohen, and there it names Rav Soloveitchik as the Gaon who laid out the three possibilities and rejected the third possibility.[13]

Ironically, “Read and Remember” has itself been the object of revision by omission. On p. 161, Rabbi Cohen relates that Rav Nochum Partzovitz was asked if a resident of chutz laaretz who is in Israel for the second night of Pesach could fulfill his mitzva by telling the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim to a resident of Israel, for whom it is not the seder night.

It seems to me that this piece from “Read and Remember” is obliquely referenced in Kuntres B’lev Yam Siman 41 number 2, page 629[14], by the current-day Rav Yaacov Moshe Shurkin, which is appended to the Shiurei Rabi Yaacov Moshe Shurkin of his grandfather (the magid shiur from Chaim Berlin); although this question is attributed to אחד מספרי מחברי זמנינו, with no more precise reference.

In this case, I imagine the omission of a specific reference is not due to hashkafic concerns, nor to the author cited being too modern, as R. Cohen is quite a kanai who is affiliated with Satmar and Natruna, and has written several books espousing anti-Zionism. I think it’s more likely in this case that the reference is obscured because it doesn’t “pas” to quote halachic material in a sefer from an English book.

Another example of revision by omission as relates to Rav Soloveitchik appears in R. Shimon Yosef Meller’s Harav MiBrisk volume 4, p. 17. The story about the Brisker Rav refusing to speak to a Rav who had helped Solomon Freehof is clearly taken without attribution from Rav Schachter’s Mipninei Harav, and Echad Mibnei Mishpachas Maran is obviously the Rav.

Rav Schachter’s omission of this particular Rav’s name is a different kind of omission, as that omission is because the story is rather critical of him. Rav Schachter often omits the names of Rabbanim towards whom Rav Soloveitchik expressed criticism. (This is in contrast to the prior examples of omission, where the omission is meant to prevent someone else from looking bad due to their association with the person or institution whose name is omitted, or because it doesn’t “pas” to cite that person or give him publicity.) I will follow suit and not mention the name of the Rav who helped Freehof, although his identity was first pointed out to me by my good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin, and should be known to those who have thoroughly read through Dr. Shapiro’s “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox.”

In R. Meller’s new biography of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, Raban Shel Kol B’nei HaGolah (volumes 1 and 2), he appears to have reversed course somewhat, and does cite many times from Rav Schachter’s Nefesh Harav series, as well as from Ish Hahalacha, and other sources from Rav Soloveitchik. However, some sources still appear be out of bounds for citation. For example, the material from the government archive cited in Raban Shel Kol B’nei HaGolah volume 1 p. 396-399 appears to be taken without attribution from the updated version of Dr. Shaul Stampfer’s Hayeshiva Ha-Litait Be-Hithavuta. The Yesh HaSvurim mentioned on p. 400 who attribute the closing of Volozhin to the government’s concern about the chaos and machlokes in the yeshiva, rather than the government’s desire for secular education, would appear to be referring to Dr. Stampfer.

Another recent example of omission was brought to my attention by my father-in-law, R. Dovid Grosser, and is found in a recent appreciation of Rav Moshe Bick that appeared in Hamodia on September 9, 2020. “Immediately upon his arrival in New York, the young Rav Moshe spent his days in the “Poilishe shtiebel,” learning diligently. Eventually, he joined a suitable yeshivah, led by outstanding Gedolei haTorah… At that time, the renowned Gaon, Harav Shimon Shkop, zt”l, Rosh Yeshivah of Grodno, was in America for a fundraising visit and briefly served as a Rosh Yeshivah there… Subsequently, Harav Moshe Halevi Soloveitchik, zt”l, son of Harav Chaim of Brisk, zt”l, served as Rosh Yeshivah.”

I admit that I am perplexed by the purpose of this omission, as the references to Rav Shimon Shkop and Rav Moshe Soloveitchik make clear that this is referring to Yeshivas Rabeinu Yitzchak Elchanan. I don’t know what is gained by not mentioning the name, when it is clear which yeshiva Rav Bick attended. More misleading, however, is an Editor’s note about Rav Bick that appeared in the Jewish Observer (January 1991).

While it may be true that Rav Bick initially enrolled in Yeshivas Rabeinu Yitzchak Elchanan on the Lower East side before there was a college program, he certainly continued to learn there in Washington Heights, after the college was already operating. The move uptown occurred in January 1929, and Yeshiva College was founded in March of 1928, and graduated its first class in June of 1932.[15] Rav Moshe Soloveitchik only departed from Europe for America on September 18, 1929.[16] For Rav Bick to have learned under Rav Moshe, as the Jewish Observer mentions, he had to have been learning in RIETS in the uptown campus, and after the establishment of the college program. (I am not claiming that Rav Bick himself attended the college program, only that he learned in RIETS after the establishment of the college program, contra to the implication of the Jewish Observer.)

Returning to Rav Soloveitchik, one of the more well-known examples of revision by omission as relates to Rav Soloveitchik is Rav Chaim Dov Altusky’s Chiddushei Basra Al Chiddushei HaMasbir. As is well known, the “Masbir” refers to Rav Soloveitchik. (This has been documented previously on the Seforim Blog by Rav Nosson Kamenetsky.[17] See also Rav Shlomo Pick’s “The Rav: Biography and Bibliography” fn. 6, in BDD volume 6, where Rav Pick sharply criticizes Rav Altusky’s behavior.) As mentioned earlier in this post, Rav Schachter says he does not remember anything that Rav Gorelick said about Sanhedrin from his time in Rav Gorelick’s shiur. However, he did preserve many interesting haaros from Rav Gorelick at the time in his notes, and these have been published in the footnotes of my Shiurei Harav on Sanhedrin. Rav Schachter told me that Rav Gorelick would often ask him what the Rav said about a certain topic, and would then comment on what the Rav said, and these are the comments that Rav Schachter recorded at that time. Some of these comments are also reproduced in Rav Altusky’s Chiddushei Basra Al Chiddushei HaMasbir on Sanhedrin, which is based on Rav Schachter’s notes from the Rav’s shiur, without attribution to either. Rav Altusky, however, misunderstood some of Rav Schachter’s citations of Rav Gorelick. For example, on Sanhedrin 3a (p. 11), he cites an explanation in the name of “Rabeinu Yerucham”, but this is actually Rav Yerucham Gorelick’s explanation.

Rav Schachter attributed the explanation to ר‘ ירוחם in his notes, and Rav Altusky misunderstood the reference.[18] By Sanhedrin 5b (p. 18), Rav Altusky apparently realized that these references were to Rav Gorelick, and he cites דודי הרה“ג ר‘ ירוחם ז“ל. (Rav Altusky’s mother was Rav Gorelick’s sister.)

For more on Rav Gorelick and his family, Rav Simcha Elberg wrote a beautiful appreciation of Rav Gorelick in his Einei Ha-eida. On p. 119, Rav Elberg writes that Rav Gorelick’s home was not an apartment with rooms; his home was a beis medrash. And the crowning achievement of Rav Gorelick’s life’s work was his home, in which he raised all of his sons to be Gedolei Torah Ve-yirah, as well as great marbitzei torah.

I would add that the aforementioned Rav Leib Gorelick is a great talmid chacham and lamdan. In my interactions with him, I have been astonished at his wide-ranging knowledge of even obscure rishonim and other seforim, as well as his analytic abilities. Listen here at approximately 1:35:15 to 1:38:13 where Rav Schachter cites a lomdish explanation from Rav Leib to explain the Rama in 472:4 who says that only women rely on the opinion of the Ravyah that heseiba is no longer required.[19] (Rav Leib has been suffering from some health problems lately and readers are asked to daven for Mordechai Leib ben Chana.[20])

Besides for Rav Leib, another son, Rav Tzvi Abba Gorelick was a Rosh Yeshiva at the Yeshiva Gedolah Zichron Moshe in South Fallsburg. Another son, Rav Chaim Ozer Gorelick, is author of sefer Otzar Chaim, and is currently Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Gedolah of Spring Valley. I think the blog readers will find interesting this excerpt about Rav Chaim Ozer Gorelick, and the continuation about Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, from Alt un Nay in Yisrael, by Nissan Gordon, in 1964.

I will translate the excerpt for those readers who don’t read Yiddish:

“The young bochurim and yungeleit who learn by Rav Berel, as Rav Velvel’s bechor is called in the Yerushalmi yeshiva world, sit and learn b’kvius in the Achva neighborhood shul, and to shiur they come to the Rosh Yeshiva’s house. And indeed here, in the illuy’ish chabura, who learn by Rav Soloveitchik, a cousin of our American Rav Soloveitchik from Boston and New York, I found a bochur’l from the Bronx, on whom the Yerushalmi lomdim testified, that he is among the best, if not the very best, student in the Brisker chabura. The bochur’l is called Chaim Ozer Gorelick, a name after the great Rav of Vilna, and a son of Rav Yerucham Gorelick from the Bronx, a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivas Rabeinu Yitzchak Elchanan and himself one of the b’nei aliyah in the world of lomdus and actions for Torah in America.”

It seems the original “best bochur in Brisk” was Rav Chaim Ozer Gorelick, who indeed became a great talmid chacham. The following is a translation of the ensuing conversation with Rav Berel about Rav Aharon Lichtenstein:

“Do you correspond with your famous cousin in America?”, I asked a quick question to Rav Soloveitchik of Yerushalayim.

“In Brisk we don’t write letters[21]”, came a fast answer with an addition, that he did meet with his cousin’s son-in-law, Rav Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, when the young Rosh Yeshiva and scholar was on a visit in Israel. “We spoke in learning and he is a great lamdan”, did the Yerushalmi Soloveitchik notice about his cousin’s son-in-law, who is an assistant Rosh Yeshiva to his father-in-law in Yeshivas Rabeinu Yitzchak Elchanan, and a professor in Stern College.

“Meaning that there is room for both, for Torah and worldly knowledge”, I tried asking Rav Berel, knowing the strong speaking out of the house of Brisk in Yerushalayim against learning anything other than Torah.

“Sometimes succeeds…an exception…and from an exception we don’t bring a raya”, he didn’t leave me to wait long for his answer.

One final recent example of revision by omission that I want to call attention to, is from the journal Hamaor (Nissan-Iyar 5779, p.5). A piece from Rav Chaim Soloveitchik’s chiddushim is published there, which was written down in 1932 by his nephew Rav Yisrael Soloveitchik. The piece is an alternate version of the piece that was eventually published in Rav Chaim’s sefer, on Hilchos Chametz U’Matza Perek 6 about greira. We are told that Rav Yisrael attached the divrei torah to a letter from Erev Pesach 1932, and that he wrote to the recipient that it would be an Oneg Yom Tov for him to read.

What we are not told, however, is that this letter and accompanying divrei torah were sent to Rav Herzog, and are found in Rav Herzog’s archive.[22] (I had not yet come across this letter when I wrote my Seforim Blog posts on Rav Herzog’s archive.) Here is the first page of the letter, addressed to Rav Herzog, with the mention of the divrei torah from Rav Chaim, and then the first page of the divrei torah.

Additionally, the transcription in Hamaor contains numerous errors. I plan to publish an accurate transcription in my forthcoming sefer שש אנכי.

These are some examples of revision by omission that I have come across recently. I am certain that there are many more waiting to be discovered.

Regarding Rav Herzog, here are a few photos that the blog readers will enjoy, of Rav Herzog being mesader kiddushin at the wedding of a young Shlomo Gorenczik. The entire photo album is available in Rav Goren’s archive.[23] It is also noteworthy that the wedding seudah was separate seating.

Appendix: The Rav and Professor Saul Lieberman on the Langer Case

Related to Rav Goren’s archive, I know that the blog readers are especially interested in the Rav and Professor Saul Lieberman, so I thought I would make note of their positions on the Langer case, which to the best of my knowledge have not been noted yet.

The Rav addressed the Langer case in his well-known speech in 1975 on the topic of the Rabbi Rackman’s aguna plan.[24]

However, if you think that the solution lies in the reformist philosophy, or in an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha, you are badly mistaken. It is self-evident; many problems are unsolvable, you can’t help it. For instance, the problem of these two mamzerim in Eretz Yisrael – you can’t help it. All we have is the institution of mamzer. No one can abandon it – neither the Rav HaRoshi, nor the Rosh HaGola. It cannot be abandoned. It is a pasuk in Chumash: “לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה‘”. It is very tragic; the midrash already spoke about it, “והנה דמעת העשוקים“, but it’s a reality, it’s a religious reality. If we say to our opponents or to the dissident Jews, “That is our stand” – they will dislike us, they will say that we are inflexible, we are ruthless, we are cruel, but they will respect us. But however, if you try to cooperate with them or even if certain halachic schemes are introduced from within, I don’t know, you would not command love, you would not get their love, and you will certainly lose their respect. That is exactly what happened in Eretz Yisrael! What can we do? This is Toras Moshe and this is surrender. This is קבלת עול מלכות שמים. We surrender.[25]

The Rav is clearly referring to the Langer case, and he considered Rav Goren’s heter to be illegitimate. He refers to the Langers as two mamzerim, and he uses the Langer case as an example of something “unsolvable” and that “you can’t help it.” He seems to be using Rav Goren’s heter as an example of “an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha.” And according to the Rav, the more appropriate response would have been to surrender to halacha; that the attempted heter was a futile attempt to coax love out of dissident Jews. I have not seen this speech of the Rav mentioned in the context of the Langer case and I thought it appropriate to mention here.

It appears that Professor Lieberman felt differently. This is a heretofore unknown, and very fascinating letter that he wrote to Rav Goren supporting the heter, found in Rav Goren’s archive, with my transcription below.[26] (Rav Goren’s response to this letter is printed in “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, Hebrew section p. 9.) Lieberman’s cynicism in this letter is biting, and he seems to be rather hurt and bitter. The advice and observations that he shares with Rav Goren are obviously informed by his own experiences. I would ask if any readers (or Dr. Shapiro) have any idea which Gedolei Torah asked Lieberman to review Rav Goren’s psak. I am also not entirely clear on Lieberman’s explanation at the beginning of the letter as to why he is not offering a bracha. I think it is related to what he writes in his postscript from his wife, and that he viewed Rav Goren’s appointment with ambivalence because of the difficulty in the position, but any further suggestions from readers would be appreciated.

בעה“י אור ליום ג‘ פר‘ וישלח תשל“ג

לידי“נ הגאון הגדול וכו‘ וכו‘ מוהר“ר שלמה נר“ו

לא כתבתי לך ברכה מפני שלא היה לבי שלם אתי, אבל התפללתי בלב שלם שה‘ יצליח את דרכך. היום קראו לי מרדיו ירושלים ובקשו ממני לחוות את דעתי על הפסק שלך ולמרות הלחץ עמדתי בשלי ואמרתי שלא חקרתי את הדבר ואין לי מה לומר. אבל לך אכתוב את האמת: יברך אותך ה‘ ויישר כוחך. אני מכיר גם את תורתך ואת יראת שמים שלך, ובטוח אני שצדקת. לא אמרתי להם כן, מפני שחששתי שאגרום לך רעה. יאמרו הקנאים נמצא עוד רב קונסרבטיבי שמסכים להרב הראש—[27], מצא מין את מינו.

בהיותי בקיץ בירושלים לחצו עלי גדולי תורה מן הרבנים שאקרא את תשובתך בענין, וסרבתי בהחלט. אמרתי: אין לי פנאי. הבינותי את כוונתם. דע לך שבמקום שיש קנאה ושנאה שום דבר אינו מועיל. אף פעם לא תפייס את הקנאים, ובעיקר את המקנאים. אם תכנע להם תאבד את עולמך. אני מכיר יפה מה שעשית בצבא, ולוא נוצרת רק לשם זה כבר קנית את עולמך. אדם ירא שמים אמיתי יחשוב עשר פעמים לצאת נגדך אפילו אם יהי‘ בטוח שלא כיוונת לאמת. עליך להחזיק בידידים שלך יפה, יפה, מפני שקל מאד לאבד ידיד (בפרט אם הוא איננו גדול בתורה ואינו בר דעת), ושונא מקנא לעולם לא תהפוך לידיד, וכל מה שתעשה בשבילו אינו אלא לשעה קלה. יבטל את תורתך ויכפור ביראתך. לך והצלח וישמור שומר ישראל עליך.

בכבוד ובאהבה,

שאול ליברמן

הגב‘ שלי מבקשת למסור דר“ש להרבנית שתחי‘. רצתה גם היא לכתוב אלא שעדיין אינה מרגישה את עצמה בטוב. היא באמת שמחה על בחירתך, שהרי היא אינה יודעת מהו להיות רב בירושלים.

Review of a new edition of the Sefer Chasidimby R. Eliezer Brodt
As recently mentioned on this blog this generation is privileged to have many seforim especially rishonim being reprinted in critical editions based on manuscripts etc. One of the publishing houses which has been involved in publishing such works is Mechon Otzar haPoskim. A few years ago they released a few volumes of a critical edition of the Mahzhor Vitri which to date its still not complete. And now, a few weeks ago they published two volumes (of eventually four volumes) of the Sefer Hassidim. In this post I would like give some background on Mechon Otzar haPoskim, the Sefer Chassidim in general and this recent version in particular. Mechon Otzar haPoskim was founded in the 1950’s by two great gedolim R. Isser Zalman Meltzer and R. Yitzchak Isaac Herzog. R. Herzog explained (introduction to Otzar haPoskim compendium on Even haEzer) the reason for founding of the organization was due to the almost limitless nature of Halacha and thus at times poskim find themselves having to deal with very difficult topics and do not have access to most of the seforim of the many great Gedolim of the past that would help them deal with these difficult topics. Attempts to deal with the vast amount of halacha literature had been previously attempted by the Peschei Teshuva and Darkei Teshuvah. But, today, both of these works are limited as the body of literature has expanded significantly since these earlier works came out. R. Herzog thus had the idea to create a modern compendium using what he had available. He then heard that R. Isser Zalman had the same thoughts so they decided to work together and gather a group of Gedolim to systematically go thru the teshuvot literature, abridge it, and place it in the parallel place in the order of the Shulchan Orach. R. Isser Zalman had an additional reason why he wanted to start this organization. He felt that many talmdei chachamim needed parnasah so this was a great way to help them by employing them to go thru all the seforim (Derech Etz Chaim vol. 2 p. 327).
With the help of Dr. L. Magnes, R. Herzog was able to raise funds to start this organization. Card catalogs were made and the seforim were cataloged according to topics forming the now-famous Otzar haPoskim catalogs. These catalogs are the notes culled from thousands of seforim. A look in the index of earlier volumes of the Otzar haPoskim will show that they in the fifties were going thru more volumes of seforim than the Frankel edition of the Rambam did in their recent, final volume! Interestingly, R. Isser Zalman inherited an excellent library from R. Chaim Berlin which contained thousands of rare seforim which were unknown to most people. R. Isser Zalman made sure these seforim were used and quoted in the Otzar haPoskim (Derech Etz Chaim vol. 2 p. 328). R. Isser Zalman also the one who made the decision which works would make it into Otzar haPoskim and which would not. To date this catalog has helped many seforim such as the many volumes of Mo’adim l’Simcha. Otzar haPoskim’s main work has been the Otzar haPoskim on Even haEzer. Anyone needing sources on topics relating to Even haEzer; this has a tremendous amount of sources. One interesting point about this work is that one finds all kinds of Rabbonim getting along – quoted side by side. A few years ago they mentioned that the volumes of Otzar haPoskim on Orach Chaim are in preparation one only hopes that they will come thru to create such an important necessary work on Orach chaim [This is actually available on the Morgenstern, Otzrot haTorah, hard drive as well as on the Otzar haPoskim on Hoshen Mishpat.] Recently they have expanded their repertoire to include the publication of Rishonim such as the Machzor Vitri and, now, the Sefer Chasidim. The Sefer Chasidim has been reprinted many times ever since it was first printed in Bologna in 1538. R. Saadia Helvona in his introduction to his commentary on the Sefer Chasidim, Mishnat Chasidim, notes that the Sefer Chasidim is encyclopedic in nature as it includes both halacha and aggadah. The Sefer Chasidim is extremely popular and it is quoted by many rishonim and achronim for all kinds of things. Aside from quotations, there seems to be a certain awe about it which is hard to explain especially when it comes to the tzavah (the ethical will) which was printed in many of the editions (first printed in Yesod haTeshuva, Cracow, 1585).
The tzavah itself is the subject of many teshuvot and even some entire seforim. Without going into the whole history of this topic (which R Gutman promises us will be one of the forthcoming volumes) its worth mentioning aside from the well-known teshuva in the Nodah beYehudah (Even haEzer Tinyanah no. 79), where he writes that there are many things in the tzavah which conflict with Chazal and those statements do not need to be followed. There is an additional, lesser known statement from the Noda BeYehudah about the tzavah. R Eleazer Fleckels (most well know for his Teshuvah m’Ahahva), in his Olat haChodesh (vol. 1 p.15) records that the Nodah beYehudah would respond when asked if there is a problem marrying someone if that will cause the future father-in- law and future son-in-law will share the same name (which the tzavah states is a problem) “before you ask me about following the tzavah of R. Yehudah haChasid ask me about the tzavah (or statement) of Chazal which decries marrying the daughter of a am ha’aretz! [This sentiment, however, is disputed in the Teshuvos Matzav haYashar (volume 2 pg 44) where he writes “in his old age that whenever he saw people going against various statements in the tzavah nothing good ever came from it!] The true authorship of the Sefer Chasidim is unclear. Some attribute it to R. Yehudah haChasid (Chida and others) but R Avrohm ben haGra records that his father, the Gra, held R. Eleazer Rokeach wrote it (Yeshurun, vol. 4 p. 250). R Frumkin also records this statement from the Gra– R. Frumkin’s source is a manuscript of R. Yisrael of Shklov’s Pas haShulchan (Toldos Chachmei Yerushalim, vol. 2 p. 102 the end of note 1; see also Chaim Michal, Or haChaim p. 456). Abraham Epstein writes that the Sefer Chasidim doesn’t have a single author but instead it is from three different people – R Shmuel haChassid, his son R Yehudah haChasid, and R. Eleazer Rokeach (Kitvei R. Avrohom Epstein, vol. 1 pp. 258-261). R. Gutman in the introduction to his new edition of the Sefer Chasidim brings many other different sources in regard to the authorship of this sefer. Recently Professor Haym Soloveitchik shows in a beautiful article based on Yakov Reifman that not only are is the work of different authors but there are completely different styles and what one writes completely contradicts what the other does. (JQR XCII no. 3-4 pp. 455-493). Many manuscripts exist of the Sefer Chasidim , however, from the 1538 until 1891 there was basically one version printed based on only one of the manuscripts. In 1891, Yehudah Wistinetzki printed a new edited from another manuscript – the Parma manuscript – published by Chevra Mekitsei Nerdamim.
This Parma manuscript contains a almost double the material of the original edition. Aside from just adding material, the Parma edition is also important for the different versions of the previously published pieces. This edition was recently reprinted by Moznaim publishing house but without the important introduction of Y. Frieman. However, the Kest Leibowitz publishers also recently reprinted this edition and they reprinted the whole sefer including the introduction. Interestingly although the footnotes which appear in this edition are not that extensive as some of the prior editions, there are important notes on this edition albeit they don’t appear in the actual work. Instead, Wistinetzki, prior to printing this edition sent about fifty questions to R. Yosef Zechariah Stern in an attempt to locate sources for different statements of the Sefer Chasidim and the answers are included in R. Stern’s Zecher Yehosef (vol. 1 no. 78).
In 1955, Rabbi Avrahom Price from Toronto with the permission of Mekitsei Nerdamim reprinted the Parma edition in three massive volumes with extensive footnotes. But, one thing which R. Price stays clear from – which he admits in his introduction – is the kabalah aspects of the Sefer Chasidim as he was not familiar with this part of torah. These three volumes are available for free download at seforim online at Hebrewbooks.org.. In 1924, R. Reuven Margolis first published in Lemberg, what would become the most popular version of the Sefer Chasidim, in a critical edition . Subsequently, this was corrected and updated and eventually published by Mossad HaRav Kook. This edition to date is the best job done on the Sefer Chasidim. He has excellent notes, as many are familiar with from his many seforim – he writes straight to the point referencing all kinds of sources from everywhere – showing the sources which form the basis of the Sefer Chasidim. He also shows, with his unbelievable bikyus, whether the various authorities – rishonim and achronim – agree with the statements of the Sefer Chasidim. Besides for all this he has many excellent and original comments on the Sefer Chasidim which he is famous for in all of his works. He also includes notes from nine different people on the Sefer Chasidim. Until now, there was one other worthwhile addition to the Sefer Chasidim. In 1984, R. Moshe Herschler printed in his Kovetz Genuzot (vol. one) some thirty more pieces of the Sefer Chasidim which he found in a different manuscript. We now come to this most recent version published by Otzar HaPoskim and edited by R. Gutman. As mentioned above, thus far, two volumes have been issued of what is supposed to be four volumes of the Sefer Chasidim. The first impression one has when one picks it up is this is a beautiful job as the print is very clear and the layout it very organized. This is keeping with the famous statement of R Akiva Eiger where he writes to his sons in the introduction of his teshuvot that “one should print his sefer on nice paper and ink because one learns much better from such a sefer”. Although this statement is attributed to R. Eiger, in fact, this idea is found much earlier in the famous introduction to the Maeseh Efod (p. 13) of where he writes this concept at great length it’s quoted by R Yakov Emden in his work Migdal Oz (p.50 ) in short. Prior editions of the Sefer Chasidim included the perush of the Chida, Bris Olam, but it seems that many pieces were missing. R Gutman corrects these omissions. In addition to those corrections to that commentary, another common commentary Pirish Kadmon by R. Dovid Greinheit also suffered from lack of completeness and R. Gutman has correct that as well. Besides for all this R. Gutman includes a collection of comments of R Eliezer Papua from his Yalkut Chasidim that relate to the Sefer Chasidim and the Perush Mishnat Chasidim from R Sadiah Chalonah (it is only on the first seven simanim in the sefer).
Rabbi Guttman includes many notes (totaling twenty-nine) from different gedolim on the Sefer Chasidim many of them which he obtained from unpublished manuscripts amongst them from the Adres and R. Y. Palagai. In the back of volume two he includes a sixty page kuntres of notes from R. Chaim Sofer who is famous for his incredible bikyus. In addition to all this he has many lengthy comments on the whole sefer from a wide rang of sources to explain the Sefer Chasidim. He also has a section on each page where he brings down various readings from the different manuscripts on the particular pieces. All the above are the positive things about this reprint, unfortunately, there are notable points of criticism. It is true its is always easier to criticize than to the actual work oneself but here are some points I feel worthy of mentioning. To begin with the entire history and literature of the Chasidei Ashkenaz in general have been the subject of many articles and books. However, even today after all that has been published there is much left unclear. Just to list a few of the people who were and are involved in the study of the Chasidei Ashkenaz, Moritz Gudemann (haTorah v’Hahayim, vol. 1, pp. 119-156), A. Epstein (vol. 1 pp. 245-269), Y Y Frieman (introduction to Sefer Chasidim Meketzei Nerdamim ed.), Gershom Scholem, Y Baer, Ivan Marcus (all in Da’as v’Chevrah b’Mishnat Chasidei Ashkenaz), E. E. Aurbach (Balei haTosfos, vol. 1, pp. 345- 447 and volume four of his edition of Arugot haBosem), Yisroel Ta Shema (Keneses Mechkarim, vol. 1 pp. 181-317), E. Kanarfogel (Peering thru the Lattices), Yosef Dan (in his recent book on R. Yehudah haChasid published by Zalman Shazar), Eric Zimmer, Simcha Emanuel (in his introduction to the recently published Drasha of Rokeach) and Haym Soloveitchik (AJS Review vol. 1 (1976) pp. 311- 357).
Some of what has been found in these manuscripts has been the subject of great controversy causing great people to claim these manuscripts must be forgeries (see Kovetz Minchas haKayitz vol. 6 pp. 251-252). But besides for this there has been a great many manuscripts found in the past twenty-five years and printed such as the Rokeach al haTorah and Megilos or the Rokeach’s work on siddur and many other of his works, R. Efraim al haTorah. Other works by the Chasidei Ashkenaz have been put out in critical editions such as the Sefer Gematriyos of R. Yehudah haChasid and the Amaoros Tehoros (which I hope to return to in later posts) all containing many important explanations about all sorts of topics from the Chasidei Ashkenaz.
To date there is no way to many unknowns (for me at least) to even paint a brief picture of this group of rishonim but one hopes with the help of the recent seforim printed and what will be printed in the future we will be able to get a clearer understanding of these great rishonim. Being aware of the explosion in this genre of literature, any version of the Sefer Chasidim should keep this companion literature in mind and should take it in account as much of the printed torah of the Chasidei Ashkenaz as it relates to this most famous work, Sefer Chasidim, of this school.
Now R. Gutman seemed to be aware of this and he does use some of these new seforim. For example, he quotes the Sefer Gematriyos many times however the rest of this no mention to the many other recent seforim of Chasidei Ashkenaz. [For a comparison see the recent edition of the Sefer Gematriyos where the footnotes are full of such cross-references (although he might of done to much).] The purpose of referencing the other literature of the Chasidei Ashkenaz is many times they can help understand certain comments if one can see all the ways similar ideas are brought down by the different talmdim. In learning Gemara with rishonim this is very important to help one understand the particular shitos and so to here.
For example, the Sefer Chasidim (siman 548) writes if one wants to see if he will live the year light a candle during assert yemih teshuvah if it remains lit you will live the year if not, not. On this R. Gutman references nothing. Where as without going much into this topic I will just give a reference to the Sefer Hashem of the Rokeach (recently printed from manuscript for the first time) where he talks about this (p.140) which complements the statement found in the Sefer Chasidim.
I feel this is a very important part to anyone writing on the Sefer Chasidim and R. Gutman should have put in more work in regard to this part. If he could not do it himself because he is not trained in this sort of work he should of gotten people who are familiar with such this field. R. Reuven Margolis who did know how to do this in general unfortunately could not do this as most of these seforim of Chasidei Ashkenaz were not available in his lifetime. Another point that I would like to highlight is the many times R. Gutman cites to the Sefer Gematriyos he almost never references the exact page (see, e.g, pp. 23, 35, 39) in the Sefer Gematriyos making it very hard to find the piece he is quoting as it’s a massive two volume work. The same failing is apparent when R. Gutman quotes from the Sefer Amoros Tehoros (p. 23) or when R. Gutman cites the Sefer Hashem of the Rokeach (p. 429).
A more glaring omission is when Sefer Chasidim (p. 424) discusses the weird creature called שטריאה R. Gutman references the Sefer Gematriyos again not quoting the page and then R. Gutman writes ובסוף המאמר נשים הליליות ברושאם הנ”ל כתב which is an unintelligible citation. What R. Gutman means to say is that R. Stal in the back of his edition to the Sefer Gematriyos has a whole chapter devoted to this topic, however, this is totally unclear to the reader. Aside from the cryptic citation R. Gutman should have mentioned this is a comprehensive article on the topic. Another point I would like to criticize is the use or lack thereof of R. Reuven Margolis edition. As I have mentioned earlier the Margolis edition is the best work to date on the Sefer Chasidim. It’s quite interesting that there is not a single mention of R. Margolis’s name in the introduction mentioning that R. Gutman used this work. However, it is obvious from hundreds of places throughout this Gutman’s edition that in fact he did use this edition.
What is perhaps even stranger is the many times that R. Gutman says nothing on a very important point and R. Margolis has already discussed it in depth. Some examples are on page 180 -181 where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 158) writes against tefilah בקול רם and the Margolis edition references the famous collection on this topic called Yanenu B’kol there is no reason why R. Gutman could not mention this. Another example is on page 172 where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 155) has a long discussion about stealing torah from someone so R Gutman has a lengthy note of sources about this but once he is on the topic one should quote the Sefer Shem Olem of R. Margolis where he discusses this topic at great length. This omission is even more bizarre as later on R. Gutman does cite this work (p. 744).
One more example is on page 274 the Sefer Chasidim (siman 258) ויום כיפור קרוי כמו כן ראשית דכתיב ביחזקאל בעשרים וחמש שנה לגלותינו בראש השנה בעשור לחדש אלמא בעשור קרוי ראש השנה on this R Margolis references a comment of his from other places (see his Toldos haMahrsha p. 51 and the notes therein and his Nitzozei Or p. 158) proving that sometimes it says Rosh Hashanah and it refers to Yom Kippur affirming the statement in the Sefer Chasidim –again no mention at all on this by R. Gutman. Another such example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 822) talks about wiping ones feet off before entering a shul in the R. Margolis edition there are many sources on this topic. But, again R. Gutman mentions nothing about this custom.
Another example is where the Sefer Chasidim (Siman 858) talks about saving seforim from a fire on Shabbos again R. Gutman does not quote the excellent reference of R. Margolis citing in turn the Adres who says that if one has manuscripts of his own that he worked hard on he may save them from the fire first because it’s like pikuach nefesh! Throughout R. Gutman’s edition there are many such examples. Perhaps R. Gutman assumed what whomever purchases his edition already has R. Reuven Margolis edition and R. Gutman was merely adding to that. Even so, he should mention it in the introduction. Another deficiency in this edition is R. Gutman, in the section he includes comments collecting sources etc., his style is difficult as much of what he has could have been done shorter and more to the point. Unfortunately, this is a common weakness that many authors have today as I have previously mentioned on this blog. Besides for that I feel there are many more sources that he could have added to this part making it a true encyclopedic work that it should be.
Just to list a few examples of sources that he missed and on this there for sure is an element of lo alechu hamlacha ligmor. One where R. Gutman talks about the cherem to live in Spain (p. 394) he misses much on the topic amongst the omissions is the famous discussion of the Teruos Melech in Rosh Hashanah (siman 13 sec. 2) (for more on this see the great article of Marc B. Shapiro in Sefarad 49:2(1989) pp. 381-394).
Another such example is both times where the Sefer Chasidim talks about stealing torah from someone (pp. 172 and 774) he could have added the piece of R. Efraim Zalman Margolis in his introduction to the edition of the Maseh Rokeach which he printed. Another such example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 822) talks about wiping ones feet off before entering a shul so besides for not mentioning R. Margolis’s comments at all he could of referenced to the excellent discussion in the Minhaghei haKehelos of R. Golhaber (vol 1 pp. 3-8).
Another example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 158) writes against tefilah בקול רם he missed the very original discussion of the Matzevh Hayashar (volume 2 pg 28 and onwards). One last example is where the Sefer Chasidim (siman 461) discusses the topic of if something bad happens three times it is a bad sign he could of added the teshuvah of the Avnei Chefetz from R. A. Levine (siman 64). Many more examples could be given but this is not the place. Some minor bibliography points one on page R. Gutman records a statement from the Shach al haTorah which he attributes the Shach (p. 173). But, it is obvious he did not check into this source because the Shach did not write this sefer rather a talmid of talmid of the Ari”zal did which R. Gutman himself quotes correctly later on page 774. Another point is in the introduction R. Gutman speculates that based on the pieces he has included it seems that the Adres wrote an entire work on the Sefer Chasidim called Mishnat Chasidim. There is no need for speculation – this is correct – as the Adres in his autobiography (pg 33) writes “I bought a Sefer Chasidim with wide columns and I learnt it twice and I wrote a biur on it with sources … and I called it the Mishnat Chasidim.” Unfortunately, later in his autobiography the Adres writes (pg 56) that it was burned in a fire that destroyed most of his writings!
Another minor point on page 181-182 where he talks about a story brought down from various sources including the Kav haYashar he should of included the comments of R. Shmuel Askenazi appended to the Kav haYashar (end of volume 2 pg 8). Another example is where the Sefer Chasidim speaks (Siman 768) against singing tunes of non-Jewish origin, R. Gutman (pg 645) includes a number of nice sources on this topic at the end he mentions R. Yisroel Najara that he was a nizutz of Dovid haMelech. He should have at least referenced the Sefer Chizyonos of R. Chaim Vital against R. Najara (and this was actually the person the Shtei Yodos was writing against who R. Gutman quoted earlier in that same piece!) – which was discussed at greater length in an earlier post. In conclusion I feel that although there are some areas which this edition is weak in but there are a great many pluses to owning it the including the many sources that R. Gutman does add and especially the notes of 29 different gedolim. However there is definitely a need for an expert on the Chasidei Ashkenaz to put out a critical edition quoting all the relevant sources from Chasidei Ashkenaz.