Mrs. Ethel Abrams – Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, Mississippi

Mrs. Ethel Abrams – Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, Mississippi

By Rabbi Akiva Males

________________________

Introduction[1]

Stepping out of my car on Monday morning, July 3rd 2023, I received a warm welcome from the heat and humidity of Clarksdale, Mississippi. I opened the gate of the black iron fence surrounding the Beth Israel Cemetery and stepped inside. It didn’t take me long to survey the surprisingly well-maintained grounds where the members of that small Jewish community now rest in peace. Within a few minutes I found what I had come to see: the tombstone of Mrs. Ethel Abrams, of blessed memory.

Beth Israel Cemetery in Clarksdale, MS
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males


The gravestone of Mrs. Ethel Abrams, a”h
Source: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/86841744/ethel-b-abrams#view-photo=108781020

In the paragraphs that follow, I hope to answer the following questions:

  • Who was Mrs. Ethel Abrams?

  • Why did I drive nearly 75 miles from my home in Memphis, TN to visit her grave?

  • What is the history of the small Jewish community which once flourished in Clarksdale, MS?

Part I – The Story of Mrs. Abrams

In January of 2017, I was researching the topic of using a flowing river as a Mikvah (see Rema to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:2, and Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:41-42). After Maariv one night, I approached Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, while he was leaving Shul. I told him what I was looking into, some of the sources I had found, and inquired if anyone had ever asked him about this on a practical level. After all, the city of Memphis sits on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River. I figured this question must have arisen over the nearly seven decades Rav Nota had been fielding – and resolving – all sorts of Halachic questions in Memphis (and far beyond).

Rav Nota stopped, looked me in the eyes, and with a grin on his lips he asked me if I was familiar with Clarksdale, MS. I shrugged, shook my head, and responded that I had never heard of the place. Rav Nota went on to tell me that a prosperous group of Jewish small business owners and their families had once thrived there. He explained that in his younger years, when he was an active Mohel, he had made the roundtrip from Memphis to Clarksdale on many occasions upon the birth of baby boys.

Rav Nota became serious as he continued his story:

Sadly, other than a cemetery, there’s nothing left of Clarksdale’s Jewish community.” He explained that while economic forces were mostly responsible, other factors had also played a role. His eyes moistened as he described how religious observances – particularly those of Shabbos – became less and less prevalent among the immigrant Jews who had sought to earn their livelihoods in the Mississippi Delta.

In retrospect, the handwriting of religious decline was on the wall. Like so many other small communities across the US, Clarksdale had a very limited infrastructure to support traditional Jewish observance, a lack of readily available Kosher food, and no strong Jewish educational structure for their children. It was not long before the Orthodox practices with which most of that community’s Jews were once familiar were no longer part of their routines.

However,” continued Rav Nota, “there was one woman in Clarksdale who wouldn’t let go. Her name was Mrs. Abrams, and she remained absolutely committed to Yiddishkeit. In fact, she tried her best to convince others around her to remain Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos.”

Rav Nota shared that there was one Mitzvah that Mrs. Abrams – whom he called as a Tzadeikes – succeeded in convincing others to observe. Mrs. Abrams was passionate about Taharas HaMishpacha and would speak to the young married women of Clarksdale about how important that Mitzvah was for their marriages, and their families’ futures. However, Clarksdale had no Mikvah. If women were not willing to travel nearly 75 miles to Memphis and back (before modern highways would make that journey more manageable) how could they possibly observe this Mitzvah? Amazingly, on many nights a month, Mrs. Abrams would accompany women from Clarksdale to the nearby Mississippi River where she would help them discreetly immerse in its murky moving waters!

Rav Nota became emotional as he shook his head and exclaimed, “Can you believe it? Mrs. Abrams would take women – just about all of whom were far from keeping Mitzvos – to be Tovel themselves in the Mississippi River! If I wouldn’t have known her, I never would have believed it. But I knew her well, and it’s true!”

I listened in astonishment as Rav Nota described how over the course of many years, Mrs. Abrams had personally reached out to the Jewish women of her community, and respectfully spoke to all who would listen. In an era when everyone around her was dropping Mitzvah observance, somehow, Mrs. Abrams succeeded in encouraging many women to keep Taharas HaMishpacha. She did not persuade those women to visit a pristine new Mikvah. On the contrary, on an untold number of nights, this heroine of the Delta accompanied numerous young marrying and married women to the nearby silt-filled Mississippi River. There, in a spot she had cordoned off along the muddy riverbank, Mrs. Abrams would serve as both a Mikvah lady and a lifeguard!

I was in awe as Rav Nota spoke about Mrs. Abrams. She wasn’t just some sort of a “last of the Mohicans” when it came to Halachic observance in Clarksdale. From the way Rav Nota described this incredible woman, she had been the catalyst for many Jewish women of her locale observing the Mitzvah which was most uniquely theirs. The fact that she succeeded to the degree which she did – and under the most challenging of circumstances – boggled my mind.

As I left Shul and walked Rav Nota to his car, he added another detail about Mrs. Abrams. In speaking with her on his numerous Bris Milah runs to Clarksdale, she had demonstrated extensive knowledge of the other small communities of Jewish merchants living in towns across Mississippi. As such, Rav Nota reached out to her on many occasions to verify the Jewish credentials of people originating from her environs when matters arose pertaining to marriages, Gittin, and funerals. He told me that he had trusted Mrs. Abrams absolutely, and that she had been a vital resource for him in a number of cases that had come his way over the years.

I remember making a mental note to find out more about Mrs. Abrams and Clarksdale, MS, but other pressing issues always seemed to demand my attention. I filed this conversation with Rav Nota in my notes, and I nearly forgot about Mrs. Abrams until the summer of 2023.

Part II – Clarksdale’s Jews in the News

On Monday afternoon, September 6, 1926 – almost 100 years before my visit to Clarksdale – two short items concerning that town’s Jewish community appeared on the local newspaper’s front page. The Clarksdale Daily Register’s two articles related to Rosh Hashanah – which would occur later that same week on Thursday, September 9th and Friday, September 10th.

The first piece was entitled “Jews Observe Holy Season”, and was subtitled “Services To Be Held For The New Year In Local Synagogue All Week”. The first and last paragraphs of that article read:

Services commemorative of Rosh Hashanah or the Jewish New Year will be observed here at the Beth Israel Synagogue. Beginning Wednesday evening at 7:30 when the opening service will be held. Thursday morning services will begin at 8. Since the congregation is an Orthodox one, members will observe two days and services will also be held Thursday evening at 7:30 and Friday morning at 8 o’clock. Regular services for the Sabbath will be held Friday evening and Saturday morning …”

“ . . . The New Year’s day is one of solemn joy and greeting of the day “L’shanah tovah,” A Happy New Year, is heard on all sides in the homes and in the synagogue. The festival is observed two days, the 9th and 10th of September, by the orthodox Jew.”

Just two columns to the right, Clarksdale’s paper ran a second article pertaining to the local Jewish community’s observance of that year’s Rosh Hashanah. It was entitled: “Pupils Enroll For Semester”, and was subtitled: “Jewish Children May Enroll Saturday Since Thursday and Friday Are Religious Holidays”. The first paragraph of that article reads:

Due to the fact that Thursday and Friday of this week are Jewish holidays, Supt. Heidelberg of the city schools announced this morning that all Jewish children would be expected to enroll at their respective schools Saturday morning at 8:30, and that it would not be necessary for them to be present on either of the holidays. However, it is very necessary that they be present Saturday morning, at which time they will be classified . . .”

From the front page of the Clarksdale Daily Register, Monday Afternoon, September 6, 1926

The sad irony of that second article was not lost on the Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience.[2] Their newsletter of September 2022 opened with the following paragraphs:

In 1926, the city of Clarksdale, Mississippi, unknowingly scheduled school registration for the two days of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. This didn’t sit well with the Jews of Clarksdale, so they asked for and got an accommodation: Jewish children could register for school on Saturday, instead of the Thursday and Friday of Rosh Hashanah.

This accommodation, in a way, encapsulates well the Southern Jewish experience: Clarksdale’s Jews stood up for their religious identity and the town acceded. But at the same time, there was an accommodation on the Jewish side, as well. Saturday is Shabbat, the Jewish sabbath. By the 1920s, most (but not all) of Clarksdale’s Jews were Reform, keeping their stores open on Saturdays, the busiest shopping day of the week. This was a necessity in a region where Sunday Closing Laws were the norm.

The Southern Jewish experience has always been about adapting, accommodating, and conforming to new surroundings, while at the same time embracing, sustaining, and celebrating our history, culture, and religious practices . . .”[3]

This commentary on the Clarksdale’s Jewish community’s 1926 Rosh Hashanah dilemma offers an eye-opening window into their struggles with religious observance. It also helps resolve the apparent contradiction between the two stories appearing on their newspaper’s front page. Although the first article twice stressed that the congregation was an Orthodox one, the second article described a synagogue whose membership overwhelmingly did not observe Shabbos in an Orthodox fashion. It seems that the condition of Clarksdale’s Beth Israel was much like that of many other early 20th century American synagogues. Though the congregation’s services may have been conducted in an Orthodox manner, by 1926, the lifestyles of many of that congregation’s families were not necessarily congruent with Halacha.

Discovering this eye-opening tidbit of Mississippi Jewish history made me curious to learn more about the Jewish community that once existed in Clarksdale.

Part III – Clarksdale: The Lifecycle of a Jewish Community in the Mississippi Delta

Thankfully, a good deal of research has already gone into the history of Clarksdale’s Jewish community. What follows are excerpts from two excellent articles published by The Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life (ISJL)[4] and the Jewish Historical Society of Memphis and the Mid-South.[5] For the purpose of this article, I took the liberty of combining excerpts from both of those articles. I also rearranged the order in which some of those excerpts originally appeared.

Clarksdale, Mississippi, sits on the Little Sunflower River a few miles east of the Mississippi River. The seat of Coahoma County, Clarksdale emerged as a trading hub in the late 19th century and has long served as an important cultural center for the Mississippi Delta region . . .

. . . The town’s population more than doubled during the 1890s, reaching 1,773 residents by 1900. Migrating African Americans—many of them formerly enslaved—contributed to this population increase, as they sought to make a living in the area’s booming cotton economy . . . .

. . . Prior to the depression of 1921, The Wall Street Journal reported Clarksdale as “the richest agricultural city of the United States in proportion to its population” . . .

. . . Jewish history in Clarksdale and surrounding towns dates to the arrival of German speaking Jews around 1870. Jewish organizational life began in the 1890s and continued to grow in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, the area’s Jewish population reached 400 individuals, and for a time Clarksdale boasted the largest Jewish community in the state. Although Jewish communal life remained vibrant into the 1970s, the Jewish population declined for the next few decades. In 2003 Clarksdale’s only Jewish congregation, Congregation Beth Israel, closed its synagogue . . .

. . . Jewish occupational patterns in Clarksdale mirrored trends not only in other developing towns in the Mississippi Delta but also in new sites of Jewish migration throughout the world. Jewish settlers often began as peddlers before founding dry goods or other retail stores, and they served customers from town as well as the surrounding countryside . . .

. . . By 1896, enough Jews lived in Clarksdale and the surrounding area to hold religious services. That year, five Clarksdale Jewish families founded a congregation known as Kehilath Jacob . . . Early worship services followed Orthodox practice . . .

. . . Kehilath Jacob continued to hold services in borrowed or rented spaces until 1910, when the congregation dedicated its first synagogue, a white stucco building at 69 Delta Avenue. With the erection of their first synagogue came a name change, and the congregation was known as Congregation Beth Israel from that point on . . .

Historic marker in front of Beth Israel Congregation’s first building in Clarksdale, MS
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males

. . . As of 1920, the local community consisted of approximately 40 Jewish families in Clarksdale, with additional congregants in outlying areas . . . Temple Beth Israel accommodated a variety of Jewish observances during its early decades, but younger members began to push for Reform services with more English prayers. The rift between Orthodox and Reform congregants threatened to split the congregation during the 1920s, until the construction of a new synagogue in 1929 allowed Temple Beth Israel to hold two concurrent services on separate floors . . .

. . . The Orthodox members used the lower auditorium and the Conservative and Reform used the upper floor. It was the only synagogue in Mississippi that provided for Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform worship in the same sanctuary . . .

. . . As the 20th century progressed, Jewish shops remained a visible presence in downtown Clarksdale. Of fifteen dry goods stores listed in Clarksdale’s 1916 city directory, at least two-thirds belonged to Jewish merchants. Other Jewish retail businesses included “general goods” and grocery stores, as well as later department stores . . .

. . . The arrival of Rabbi Jerome Gerson Tolochko in 1932 marked a turning point for Beth Israel. Not only was Rabbi Tolochko the congregation’s first formally ordained resident rabbi, but his training at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati reflected the Jewish community’s movement toward Reform Judaism . . .

. . . Clarksdale was home to nearly 300 Jewish residents at the end of World War II . . . In 1970 Congregation Beth Israel still claimed 100 families, but a series of economic changes had begun to have a visible effect on the Jewish community. The agricultural labor force in the Mississippi Delta had declined in preceding decades, as a consequence of New Deal programs that paid landowners to reduce crop production and the introduction of mechanical cotton pickers in 1947. As the number of sharecroppers and other agricultural workers decreased, so too did the customer base for many Jewish retail stores . . .

. . . During the late 20th century, the rise of chain discount stores accelerated the decline of Jewish retail businesses, and Clarksdale’s Jewish population continued to shrink . . . Many members relocated to Memphis but continued to support the Clarksdale congregation and maintained ties to the Clarksdale community.

In the early 21st century, Beth Israel’s remaining 20 members decided they could no longer sustain a congregation. They made plans to close the synagogue and organized a deconsecration service on May 3, 2003 . . . The building was ultimately sold, leaving the Jewish cemetery as the landmark that most explicitly testifies to the existence of a once vibrant Jewish community . . .”

Elsewhere,[6] I learned that Beth Israel’s cemetery was established in 1919. In recent decades, a fund was established to ensure the perpetual care of the final resting place of Clarksdale’s Jewish community. Indeed, I can attest to that cemetery’s dignified upkeep.

Part IV – Finding Mrs. Abrams

Rav Nota Greenblatt’s amazing story about Mrs. Abrams had piqued my curiosity about Clarksdale’s Jewish history. The articles I discovered helped me better understand that community’s rise and decline. However, as I reflected on Mrs. Abrams’ excursions to the Mississippi River with the Jewish women of her locale, there were more details I wanted to learn about that incredible woman:

  • What was her first name?

  • What was her background?

  • How did she remain so committed to Torah and Mitzvos in a place without a supportive populace or infrastructure?

  • What compelled her to remain in Clarksdale when she obviously desired to live a fully observant Jewish life?

  • How did she deal with Clarksdale’s 1926 Rosh Hashanah / Shabbos dilemma?

  • How did she successfully convince numerous women who were not seriously committed to Jewish observance to use the Mississippi River as a Mikvah?

  • How did she ensure the safety of the women she led into that mighty river?

Unfortunately, on Friday, April 29, 2022 (28 Nissan 5782) Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, passed away. Although I asked some of Rav Nota’s children and Talmidim if they had more information on Mrs. Abrams, no one seemed to know more about her than what he had shared with me.

Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, in his home study on Erev Pesach 2017
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males

Through some internet sleuthing, I discovered a grandson of Mrs. Abrams, and he was excited about my interest in his grandmother.

When we spoke, I learned that her first name was Ethel, she was born on December 10, 1876, and that she hailed from a renowned Rabbinic family named Bronitsky from the vicinity of Minsk and Pinsk in Russia (modern-day Belarus). Ethel married her husband David (1877 – 1947) back in the Old Country, and that’s where their daughter and son were born. In search of a livelihood, David Abrams came to America in either 1904 or 1905, and a job opportunity brought him to Clarksdale, MS. The family was reunited in 1908 when Ethel and her two children were able to join David in Clarksdale.

According to family tradition, Mrs. Abrams was deeply unhappy about the decreasing levels of Jewish religious observance she witnessed all around her. Her determination to adhere to the Torah and Mitzvos must have caused her to feel quite isolated – yet she held firm. I learned that Mrs. Abrams raised chickens in her backyard, and that her husband would travel to Memphis by train with some of them on Friday mornings. Once there, they would be properly slaughtered, and he would take the train back to Clarksdale so those chickens could be prepared for Shabbos. Memphis was also where the Abrams family procured the Matzah and other staples they required for Pesach. On December 8, 1968 Mrs. Ethel Abrams passed away – just two days shy of her 92nd birthday.

I told Mrs. Abram’s grandson the beautiful story Rav Nota had told me about her, the Mississippi River, and the numerous Jewish women of Clarksdale who observed Taharas HaMishpacha because of her. He was not aware of these details about his grandmother, and he greatly appreciated my sharing those gems with him.[7]

As our friendly conversation drew to a close, I felt glad to have gained many biographical details of Mrs. Abrams’ life. Unfortunately, I also realized that I would never learn all that I wanted to understand about her. After all, no one could truly answer my questions about her thoughts and experiences other than Mrs. Abrams herself – and she did not seem to have left a written record before passing away in 1968. I thanked Mrs. Abrams’ grandson, and told him that I looked forward to visiting Clarksdale in the coming weeks.

Part V – Visiting Mrs. Abrams

As I stood before Mrs. Abrams’ tombstone on that July morning, I thought about her iron-clad resolve to remain true to Torah and Mitzvos in the midst of the most trying times and circumstances. I glanced at the many graves to her right and left and wondered how many of those neighbors had immersed themselves in the Mississippi River because of her. I recited a Perek of Tehillim followed by a Kel Maleh, and I pledged to give some Tzedakah in memory of that Tzadeikes upon returning to Memphis. As I exited Beth Israel’s cemetery, I looked back, and mentally bid farewell to Clarksdale’s Jewish community. After shutting the gate behind me, I returned to my car.

While driving back to Memphis, I thought of the famous Midrash[8] about why the Torah refers to Avraham Avinu as Avraham Ha’Ivri.[9] According to ChazalAvraham did not simply come to Canaan from the other side of the river (which the word Ha’Ivri connotes in its plain meaning). Rather, Avraham Avinu earned the honorific title of Ha’Ivri because he found the strength to swim against the tide – living a life that was distinct from all who surrounded him. Even when the rest of the world metaphorically positioned themselves on one side of a river, Avraham was at peace remaining in solitude on the other side. Furthermore, not content in just behaving differently than his neighbors, Avraham Avinu also tried his best to persuade a great number of them to join him in his worldview and way of life – on his side of the river.

Like her forefather Avraham Ha’Ivri, Mrs. Ethel Abrams found the strength to go her own way, and not live her life by following the crowd. Regardless of her surroundings, Mrs. Abrams followed her own convictions, and also did her best to persuade others to observe Mitzvos – especially Taharas HaMishpacha. The river associated with Avraham Ha’Ivri was the Euphrates. In Mrs. Abrams’ case it was the Mississippi. After visiting her grave, I will always associate this Midrash with her. As far as I’m concerned, Mrs. Ethel Abrams was Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, MS.

Yehi Zichrah Baruch.

_____________________

Rabbi Akiva Males serves as the Rabbi of Young Israel of Memphis. He also teaches at the Margolin Hebrew Academy-Feinstone Yeshiva of the South. He can be reached at rabbi@yiom.org

[1] I thank my father Mr. U. H. Males for his valuable editorial assistance.
[2] The Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience is located in New Orleans, LA. See here.
[3] See here.
[4] Available online in the ISJL’s Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities – Clarksdale, Mississippi. See here.
[5] Kerstine, Margie, “Clarksdale: A Mississippi Delta Jewish Legacy,” Southern Jewish Heritage 18, no. 2 (2005). Available online here.
[6] Bennett, David, “Temple Beth Israel Active Despite Recent Decline,” The Clarksdale Press Register, January 22, 1994, page 5B.
[7] He also wondered if Mrs. Abrams may have taken women to immerse in the Sunflower River – a smaller tributary of the Mississippi River which runs through Clarksdale. After all, that would have been simpler than going to the Mississippi River itself. Of course, this would have only been possible when the Sunflower River’s water levels allowed for immersion.
[8] Bereishis Rabbah 42:8.
[9] Bereishis 14:13



More new seforim and some other things

More new seforim and some other things

By Eliezer Brodt

One

Here is another list of new of seforim I recently came across in various seforim stores. 1. רבינו חננאל, מסכת ב”ק, שט”ז עמודים+ מבוא, מהדיר ר’ יוסף דובאוויק, ע”י מכון וגשל. 2. נתיבות משפט על רבינו ירוחם – דפוס חדש. [ראה כאן]. 3. שו”ת לבוש מרדכי, ד’ חלקים, כולל תולדות והרבה הוספות. 4. חשק שלמה, ר’ שלמה ב”ר מרדכי, מכון הכתב, חו”מ סי’ א-סח. 5. מקורי התפילה- טעמיה נוסחותיה ומנהגיה, ר’ אפרים זלוטניק, 334 עמודים. 6. דרשות איגרות ותולדות, רבי אריה ליבושי הלוי הורוויץ, בעל שו”ת הרי בשמים, תקנ”ח עמודים. 7. שו”ת וישמע משה- אוצר פסקים ותשובת, שהשיב מרן הגרי”ש אלישב שליט”א, ע”י ר’ משה פריד, תנב עמודים. 8. שיעורי מרן הגרי”ש אלישב –ברכות,- כולל שיעורים ופסקי הלכה בתוספות ביאורים והערות, תשס”ב עמודים. 9. הלכות מועדים, [תש”ע], ר’ שלמה גרוסמן, דיני יום טוב, תצ עמודים. 10. יבקשו מפיהו, הל’ שידוכים, תקמ”א עמודים, פסקי הגרי”ש אלשיב שליט”א, נכתב ע”י ר’ זעליג קוסובסקי. 11. קובץ בית המדרש, פסקי הלכה מבית מדרשו של הגרי”ש אלישב שליט”א, חוברת על שבט, סיון, תמוז, 12. באר ישראל- [תש”ע], הלכות ימים נוראים, וסוכות, ר’ אברהם ישראלזון, כולל פסקי מרן הגרי”ש אלישב שליט”א, רמ”ב עמודים. 13. דבר הלכה, [דפוס חדש] ר’ אברהם הלוי הורביץ, בעל ה’ארחות רבנו’, ב’ חלקים, א’ הלכות יחוד, ב’ הלכות איטור וגידים לענין תפילין. 14. קובץ, אור ישראל, גליון סג. 15. קובץ, היכל הבעל שם טוב, גליון לב. 16. ישורון חלק כה, תשע”ה עמודים [אפשר לקבל תוכן העניינים]. 17. בצל האמונה, דרשות ומאמרים לחג הסוכות, הרב שג”ר, 245 עמודים. 18. נימוקי הרמח”ל, על עניני ראש השנה ויום כיפור, מכון הרמח”ל, 79 עמודים. 19. מטעמי יצחק, הרב יצחק הלוי הורוויץ [ר’ איציקל האמבורגער], ב’ חלקים, ע”י ר’ דוד מנדלבוים. 20. שברו את הכלים, הקבלה והמודרניות היהודית, רוני ויינשטיין, 647 עמודים. 21. Yaacob Dweck, The Scandal of Kabbalah, Princeton Press

Two

I would like to mention copies of both my seforim Ben Kesseh Lassur and Likutei Eliezer are still available for sale. They both contain lots of information related to Elul, Rosh Hashanah and Aswret Yemei Teshuvah amongst other things. Email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for a table of contents or to purchase. For sample chapters of these works, see here and here.

Three

For previous posts on Elul and Rosh Hashanah see the following posts: For saying L’dovid during the months of Elul and Tishrei see here and here. If one can give a knife as a present, see here. About eating Siymonim on Rosh Hashanah see here, about saying tehilim on Rosh Hashanah see here. This post (in Hebrew) discusses the custom of refraining from meat on Rosh ha-Shana. The bulk of the commonly recited piyutim on Rosh ha-Shana are attributed to R. Eliezer ha-Kallir who is discussed here. And, finally, in this post, Dr. Shapiro discusses Adon Olam, the poem that many have the custom to say on Rosh ha-Shana (even if they refrain the rest of the year).

Four

See here at this new blog related to the Mesilat Yesharim for an update to an old post of mine related to the Mesilat Yesharim.

Five

There are many titles left from the seforim sale list posted here.




Saying “Lishana Tova T’Kasev…” and Eating the “Simanim” on the Second Night of Rosh Hashanah

Saying “Lishana Tova T’Kasev…” and Eating the “Simanim” on the Second Night of Rosh Hashanah
By Eliezer Brodt
This article originally appeared in Yeshurun 25 (2011)
אמירת ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, ואכילת ה’סימנים’ בליל שני של ראש השנה מאת אליעזר יהודה בראדט
א. ר’ יוסף יוזפא הלוי כותב בספרו נהג כצאן יוסף: “מותר לישון ביום שני דראש השנה, דהא כבר נגמר דינו”[1]. וככל הנראה, כך גם סובר הגר”א מווילנא הכותב, שהמעשה באותו חסיד שהלך ללון בבית הקברות ושמע מה נגזר על אותה שנה[2], היה בליל שני דראש השנה[3]. היינו, בליל שני כבר נסתיים הדין ונפסק מה שנפסק[4].
לשיטה זו הסכים גם ר’ מרדכי יפה, בעל ה’לבושים’. שעל דברי, הרמ”א, שבליל ראש השנה “נוהגין, שכל אחד אומר לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב'”[5], הוסיף בעל ה’לבושים’, שהוא רק בליל ראש השנה, כי ביומו, אחר תפילת היום אין לאחל לחברו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, וטעמו עמו:
לאחר שגמר כל התפילה… נפטרים לבתיהם לשלום, ואין צריך שוב לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, שהרי הוא אחר הכתיבה, שהכתיבה הוא בעת התפילה, בשלש שעות ראשונות [של היום]. ואם הוא בינוני, תלוי ועומד עד יום כיפור, ואינו נכתב היום… [ו]אין זה מדרך המוסר שיאמר לחבירו ‘תכתב לשנה טובה’, כי מגנהו בפניו בזה, שמראה לו שאינו מחזיקו לצדיק גמור אלא לבינוני שעדיין לא נגמר דינו לחיים, לפיכך שתיקתו יפה מדיבורו[6].
כלומר, אין לאחל לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה…’ אחר תפילת היום, כי על כל אחד להחזיק את חברו לצדיק הנכתב לחיים בשלש שעות הראשונות של היום (הראשון) ראש השנה, ונמצא שאחר תפילת היום הוא כבר נכתב לחיים ואין כל טעם לאחל לו אז ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’.
לשיטת בעל ה’לבושים’ – שהסכימו לה, בעל ‘מגן אברהם'[7], ור’ פנחס אויערבך, בעל ‘הלכה ברורה'[8] – נמצא, שבליל שני של ראש השנה כבר נגמר הדין, כי הוא כבר הוכרע בשלושת השעות הראשונות של היום שלפניו[9].
ב. אמנם, הט”ז, סובר, שאף בליל שני דראש השנה יש לכל אחד לאחל לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, וטעמו: “דהא ביום שני אומר ‘זמן’ גם כן מטעם שהעיקר מיום שני לפעמים, הכי נמי לזה שיתפלל על חבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’. על כן יש לאומרו גם בליל שני דראש השנה”[10].
היינו, לשיטתו, מחמת שבכל שנה ושנה אנו מוטלים בספק איזה יום משני ימי ראש השנה עיקר, שיתכן שהיום השני עיקר ובו אנו נידונים והוא הוא ראש השנה האמיתי, יש לנו לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ גם בלילשני דראש השנה. כך נאמר בדברי הט”ז שנתבארו יותר בידי, בעל ‘פרי מגדים’, המכריח ממנו שגם ביום ראשון דראש השנה לאחר חצות היום יש לברך את הזולת ב’לשנה טובה תכתב’: “משמע דעת הט”ז, לומר ביום ראשון אחר חצות גם כן, דשמא יום שני עיקר ומתפלל על חבירו שיכתב למחר לחיים טובים. ובליל שני דראש השנה, פשיטא יאמר כן”[11]. אך גם הוא מסכים ש”ביום שני, שיוצאין על פי רוב לאחר חצות[12], לא יאמר ‘תכתב’ וכו'”[13], כי לכולי עלמא ברור, שבזמן זה הדין כבר הסתיים ונגמר.
אחר שיטת הט”ז נמשך ר’ שלמה מחעלמא, בעל ‘מרכבת המשנה’, הכותב: “והאומרים אף בליל שני דראש השנה, אין למחות בידם”[14]. והמחבר האנונימי של חמדת ימים נמשך אחרי הט”ז גם בטעמו (ומסגנונו אתה למד שידע מטעמו של בעל ה’לבושים’): “אחר תפילה יברכו איש את רעהו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב ותחתם’, ואין לחוש ולומר כי ראוי להחזיק חבירו לצדיק וכבר נכתב, דעיקר הוי יום שני, שביום שני גם כן אומר ‘זמן’, ולכן יש לומר בליל שני [‘לשנה טובה…’], כליל ראשון”[15]. ואילו ר’ שמשון בלוך, בעל ‘נזירות שמשון’, מסכים לשיטת הט”ז ולא מטעמו: “ולי נראה, שיכולין לומר כל השני ימים, כי גם הצדיקים שנכתבים לאלתר, היינו לחיי עולם הבא… אבל המאורעות של שנה זו – העיקר בראש השנה כל היום, ונמשכת עד יום הכיפור, שאז נחתם”[16]. ולשיטת האחרון, נשמט היסוד עליו השתית בעל ה’לבושים’ דבריו.
טעם אחר לשיטה זו כותב, בעל ‘קצור שלחן ערוך’: “נוהגים לומר, כל אחד לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’…
ובליל שני יש נוהגים לאומרו, כי לפעמים נידונים ביום שני”[17].
ר’ יהודה עייאש, בספרו מטה יהודה, מביא בתחילה את דברי ה’לבוש’ ומציין שאנשי מקומו אין נוהגים כשיטתו: “כתב ה’לבוש’, דלאחר תפילה שחרית אין לומר [‘לשנה טובה’]…[18] אבל מנהגינו לאומרו גם לאחר שחרית”[19]. בהמשך הוא נותן לכך כמה טעמים, ושניים מהם הם: “דכיון דהכל שוים בזה, שכל אחד אומר לחבירו וחבירו חוזר ואומר לו כמו שנאמר לו, אין בזה גנאי. ועוד, דאינו אומר ‘תכתב לחיים’ בלבד, אלא ‘לשנה טובה’, והוה ליה כאילו ברור לו שבוודאי נכתב לחיים, אלא שמוסיף לבקש רחמים שתהיה שנה מתוקה ומוצלחת”[20].
ולפי שיטת האחרון נמצא, שמותר לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב…’ אפילו לאחר חצות היום השני של ראש השנה, או משום ש’אין בזה גנאי’, או מפני שכוונת המברך היא ‘שבוודאי נכתב לחיים’ ורק מוסיף לבקש רחמים, דבר שניתן לעשות גם לאחר חצות היום השני של ראש השנה! ואכן כך גם משמע מרהיטת דברי ר’ שבתי שפטל הוורוויץ, בנו של מחבר ‘שני לוחות הברית’, הדומים לטעמו הראשון של ר’ יהודה עייאש: “…ישראל מחזיקים עצמם כבינונים, כמו שכתבו הפוסקים האחרונים, שאנחנו עושים עצמינו לבינונים, ובעבור זה אומר אחד לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ גם למחרת בראש השנה, כאילו אנחנו בינונים ותלויין בדין”[21].
ג. את סברת הט”ז שמחמת שבכל שנה אנו מסופקים איזהו יום משני ימי ראש השנה עיקר, שאולי היום השני עיקר והוא ראש השנה האמיתי ובו אנו נידונים, ולפיכך יש לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ גם בליל שני דראש השנה, דוחה ה’אליה זוטא’, מחמת הטענה, שכל המקומות בהם אנו רואים שחוששים שמא יומו השני של ראש השנה הוא העיקר, הוא רק “ממנהגא דבית דין הוא” בזמן הקדום שלא היה לוח קבוע, אך כיום ש”באמת [אנו] בקיאין בקביעא דירחא – עיקר הוא יום ראשון”, ולפיכך אין לומר לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ בליל שני, כי אז מחשיבו כבינוני ולא כצדיק[22].
כאמור, הפוסק האחרון, בעל ‘אליה זוטא’, מסכים לשיטת ה’לבוש’ שאין לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ בליל שני דראש השנה, וכמותו סבורים פוסקים נוספים, כמו: ר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות, בעל ‘מטה אפרים'[23] ר’ אביגדור מרדכי כ”ץ, בעל ‘תורת אביגדור'[24]; ר’ יוסף גינצבורג, בעל ‘עתים לבינה'[25]; ר’ שלמה זלמן גייגר, בעל ‘דברי קהלת'[26] וה’ערוך השלחן'[27]. וככל הנראה, כך נהגו ברוב תפוצות ישראל, כפי העולה מבדיקתי בספרי המנהגים שאינם רושמים מנהג זה[28].
אולם בעוד כל האחרונים ובראשם ה’ט”ז’ הבינו, שר’ מרדכי יפה, בעל ה’לבושים’, שולל את אמירת ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ גם בליל שני דראש השנה, ר’ יהודה עייאש הולך בדרך אחרת ועושה שלום ב’פמליא של מטה'[29]. לשיטתו, ה’לבוש’ מתנגד רק לאמירתו ביום ראשון לאחר חצות היום, ותו לא! ואלו דבריו: “דגם ה’לבוש’ מודה דליל שני אומרים, כיון דעושין אותו במקום יום ראשון דינו כליל ראשון[30]… דגם ה’לבוש’ מודה בלילה, ולא חילק אלא ביום דווקא, אחר שחרית, מטעמו הנזכר”[31].
ד.
אמנם, גם לפי השיטה המאחרת ביותר את גמר הדין ליום שני דראש השנה, היא שיטת ה’ט”ז’ ו’נהג כצאן יוסף'[32], עדיין יש להבין מדוע אנו מבקשים “וכתבנו בספר החיים” וכיוצא בכך בכל עשרת ימי תשובה? הרי הדין הסתיים כבר לפני מספר ימים!
גם על מדוכה זו ישב ר’ מרדכי יפה, בעל ה’לבושים’, המיישב באמצעות חילוק נפלא:
לאחר שגמר כל התפילה… נפטרים לבתיהם לשלום, ואין צריך שוב לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, שהרי הוא אחר הכתיבה, שהכתיבה הוא בעת התפילה, בשלש שעות ראשונות [של היום]. ואם הוא בינוני, תלוי ועומד עד יום כיפור, ואינו נכתב היום.
ואין להקשות, אם כן למה אומרים שוב ‘וכתבנו בספר החיים’ וכן ‘וכתוב לחיים טובים’ כל עשרת ימי תשובה, דלא דמי, דודאי כל אדם בעצמו הוא מחזיק עצמו לבינוני ולא לצדיק גמור, לפיכך מתפלל בכל עשרת ימי תשובה, כל אחד על עצמו, שיכתבהו השם יתברך לחיים טובים ביום הכפורים; וכן ביום כיפור עצמו מתפלל כן, אבל לומר כן לחבירו לאחר שלש שעות מהיום, שכבר גמרו הכתיבה למעלה, אין זה דרך המוסר שיאמר לחבירו ‘תכתב לשנה טובה’, כי מגנהו בפניו בזה, שמראה לו שאינו מחזיקו לצדיק גמור אלא לבינוני שעדיין לא נגמר דינו לחיים, לפיכך שתיקתו יפה מדבורו[33].
את רעיונו של בעל ה’לבושים’ פיתח ר’ יעקב פופרש, מחבר שו”ת ‘שב יעקב’, ובדרך של דימוי מילתא למילתא פוסק שאין אדם רשאי לומר ‘קדיש’ על אביו יותר משנים-עשר חודש: “וכמו כן ממש מצינו בראש השנה, שנוהגין בכל תפוצות ישראל לומר איש לחבירו, בליל ראש השנה, ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, וביום – אין אומרים כן, מטעם… דצדיקים נכתבים מיד לחיים. שאף דכל אדם מתפלל עד תפילת נעילה של יום כיפור ‘וכתוב לחיים טובים’… הנה מנעו התפילה הזו[34], כדי שלא יחזיק חבירו אפילו לבינוני. מכל שכן שלא יחזיק הבן את אביו לרשע”[35].
אכילת ה’סימנים’ בליל שני דראש השנה[36]
א. לנושא שנידון קודם, אם בליל שני נסתיים כבר הדין והמשפט שבראש השנה ולפיכך אין לומר בו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, שייך פרט נוסף: אם יש לנהוג את מנהג ה’סימנים’ אף בליל שני של
ראש השנה. שהרי כל מנהג ה’סימנים’ הוא משום “סימנא מילתא היא”[37] שיזכה לצאת זכאי בדין, ואם בליל שני דראש השנה כבר נסתיים הדין – אין, כמובן, כל טעם וצורך באכילת או ראיית ה’סימנים’.
אם הדברים כנים נמצא, שלשיטת הט”ז, שגם בליל שני דראש השנה יש לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ דשמא היום השני הוא העיקר והוא ראש השנה האמיתי, בהכרח שיש לקיים בליל שני גם את מנהג ה’סימנים’, ואילו לסברת בעל ה’לבושים’ שהדין נסתיים בתחילת יומו הראשון של ראש השנה ולפיכך אין לומר בלילו השני ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, ברור שאין כל סיבה לאכול את ה’סימנים’ בליל שני דראש השנה.
ואכן ר’ אביגדור מרדכי כ”ץ, בעל ‘תורת אביגדור’, מקשר שני נושאים אלו זה בזה, וסובר שאם הם נחלקו בענין אמירת ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ בליל שני דראש השנה כך גם נחלקו אם לקיים ה’סימנים’ בלילה זה: “והנה לעשות אלו הסימנים ביום [הראשון של ראש השנה], לדעת ה’לבוש’ דלא לומר אחר שלש שעות ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’… שכבר נגמר הכתיבה, אם כן אין לעשות אלו הסימנים באכילה דיום, שהוא אחר חצות. אכן לה’ט”ז’, צריך לעשות גם ביום, דמבקש על דין המחר; ומכל שכן בליל שני”[38].
הוא כה וודאי ובטוח בקישור שני נושאים אלו זה בזה, עד שכורך את מנהג מקומו שלא לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ בלילו השני באי-קיום מנהג ה’סימנים’ בלילה זה: “אכן האידנא נהוג עלמא, מבלי לומר לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב ותחתם’ כי אם בלילה ראשונה, וגם אינם אוכלים ה’סימנים’ אלו כי אם בליל הראשון, ולא ביום ואף לא בליל שני”[39].
אולם, ר’ אברהם דוד ווארמאן, אב”ד בוטשאטש ובעל ‘אשל אברהם’, אינו סבור כך. לדבריו, גם לשיטת הט”ז וסייעתו אין צורך במנהג ה’סימנים’ בליל שני: “גם להט”ז שכתב, לומר גם בליל שני דראש השנה ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, מכל מקום לא שייך לאכול אז פירות כבליל ראשון, וכמו שהמנהג שלא להדר בליל שני על פירות… ואין אומרים הבקשה. כי מכל מקום, עיקר התחלת השנה הוא ביום ראשון”[40]. אך נראה שלבו לא היה שלם כל-כך עם סברתו הראשונה, שהוא מסיים: “ומכל מקום, טוב להרהר הבקשה של שנה מתוקה באכילת הדבש גם בליל שני, וגם בכל זמן שנוהגים להטביל הפרוסה ב’המוציא’ בדבש, לעורר אז רחמים תמיד”[41].
למרות פיקפוקו האחרון, הוא נחרץ בפסקו ש’לא שייך לאכול אז פירות כבליל ראשון’, וכך גם היה מנהג מקומו גאליציה, וכמפורש בדבריו, וכפי שעולה ממחברים נוספים שפעלו באיזור גאליציה. שכך כותב בן דורו, ר’ צבי אלימלך שפירא, בעל ‘בני יששכר’: “שאין עושין סימנים בליל שני”[42]. וכך הנהיג על עצמו ר’ חיים אלעזר שפירא ממונקטאש, יליד גאליציה שעבר בבגרותו להונגריה[43]. ואחד מרבני ווארשא, בירת פולין, מאשר שכך מנהג אנשי מדינתו: “במדינתינו לא נהגו כן, רק בליל ראשון בלבד”[44]. ר’ דוד פעלבערבוים העיד על רבו ר’ ישראל צבי ראטטענבערג הי”ד: “גם לא אמר שום יהי רצון, וכמנהג העולם שאלו הדברים נוהגים רק בליל הראשון”[45]. אמנם, ככל הנראה, נהגו כך באשכנז כבר בתקופה קדומה יותר, כמו שמשמע מעקימת לשונו של ר’ יחיאל מיכל אפשטיין, בספרו קיצור שני לוחות הברית: “ונוהגין לאכול באשכנז בתחילת הסעודה בלילה ראשונה של ראש השנה תפוח”[46]. לא רק באשכנז וגאליציה נהגו לקיים מנהג זה רק ביום ראשון אלא אף בתימן וכמו שהעיד ר’ יוסף קאפח: “אולם בליל ראשון של ראש השנה נהגו להגיש לפני הסעודה את המאכלים המפורטים להלן…”[47].
ב. אך יש סוברים, שגם בליל שני של ראש השנה יש לקיים את מנהג ה’סימנים’, ולמרות שבנידון זה לא מצאנו לרבותינו הראשונים שאמרו בו דבר, היו מהאחרונים שדייקו זאת מדבריהם. ר’ רחמים נסים יצחק פאלאג’י, מביא לשון ‘תניא רבתי’ לר’ יחיאל ב”ר יקותיאל ממשפחת הענווים, הכותב: “ואוכלין בלילי ראש השנה דבש התאנים וענבים וכל מיני מתיקה”[48], ומדייק מכך שגם ביום שני יש לאכול ה’סימנים’, שהרי נאמר בו ‘לילי’, בלשון רבים[49]. וכן דייק ר’ אברהם חמוי ב’מחזור בית דין'[50] ולפי דרכם, ניתן להוכיח כך גם מדברי ר’ אברהם ב”ר נתן הירחי, הכותב בספר ה’מנהיג’: “ולתת על השלחן בלילי ראש השנה לסימנא טבא”[51].
אמנם ר’ שמעון ב”ר צדוק ב’תשב”ץ קטן’ מעיד על רבו המהר”ם מרוטנברג: “מהר”ם ז”ל היה רגיל לאכול בליל ראשון של ר”ה ראש של איל זכר לאילו של יצחק. ואינו נזהר מלאכול שומים ובצלים ולא אגוזים ולא שום דבר”[52]. ר’ משה בצלאל סייני בפירושו ‘שבעת הנרות’ כתב: “בא”ר… כתב דגם בליל ב’ יעשה כן… וכשלא נחלק זה מהא דאיכלת ראש איל יהא דבר הא”ר נגד דברי המהר”מ דדייק לנקוט בליל ראשון דמשמע לא בשני”[53].
כמה וכמה מרבותינו האחרונים סוברים שגם בליל שני יש לאחוז במנהג ה’סימנים’. כך כתב, ר’ מאיר פאפרוש כתב: “ויזהר שיאכל ראש כבש או איל בב’ ימים של ראש השנה”[54]. וכך פסק למעשה להלכה ה’אליה רבה'[55], והעתיק דבריו ר’ מרדכי חיים מרגליות ב’שערי תשובה’ שלו[56], וכן הסכימו ר’ ישעיהו ווינר, בעל ‘בגדי ישע'[57]; החיד”א[58]; ר’ אברהם אלקלעי, בעל ‘זכור לאברהם'[59]; ר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות, בעל ‘מטה אפרים'[60]. ר’ בנימן בינש הכהן בעל ה’שם טוב קטן’ גם כן מביא זה: “ויזהר שיאכל ראש  של כבש או איל בכל השני ימים של ראש השנה”[61]. גם החכם הלא-ידוע בעל חמדת ימים מסכים ש”נכון לאכול כל הדברים האלו, לזכרון טוב לפני השם, בשני לילות ראש השנה”[62]. ואילו ר’ ברוך יהודה בראנדייס, נותן לכך טעם יפה לפי דברי, השל”ה, הסובר שמנהג ה’סימנים’ הוא גם כדי שהאדם יתעורר בתשובה, ואלו דבריו: “וכתב ‘שני לוחות הברית'[63], [אכילת הסימנים] הוא סימן שיזכור האדם, ויתעורר בתשובה, ויתפלל על דבר זה. ומשמע, דגם בליל שני יעשה כן”[64]. שברור, שהתעוררות בתשובה שייכת גם בליל שני דראש השנה, השייך ל’עשרת ימי תשובה’!
ויש שהעידו על מנהג מקומם: את מנהג איטליה, מוסר ר’ דוד זכות מודינה, בעל ‘זכר דוד’, שאחר שהביא את הנאמר ב’אליה רבה’ הוסיף: “וכן המנהג אצלנו”[65]. ועל הנהוג במצרים אנו שומעים מר’ רפאל אהרן בן-שמעון, הכותב בחיבורו נהר מצרים: “המנהג בארצותינו לעשות הסדר של ראש השנה באכילת תפוח ורובייא וסלקא בשתי הלילות של ראש השנה”[66]. בג’רבה מצינו שנהגו לעשות הסדר של ראש השנה בב’ לילות של ראש השנה[67]. ר’ אברהם חמוי במחזור בית דין כתב: “כל הסדר הנזכר, וגם בירושלים עושים ב’ ימים טובים של ר”ה”[68]. ועל המנהג בליטא מספר ר’ אביגדור מרדכי כ”ץ, בעל ‘תורת אביגדור’ שאין עושין הסדר בשתי הלילות[69].
מאידך גיסא, גם במקומות בהן המנהג הפשוט היה שלא לאכול ‘סימנים’ בליל שני דראש השנה, היו אישים שאימצו מנהג זה באופן פרטי ועצמאי. כך נהג ר’ מנחם אייזנשטטר, מהר”ם א”ש[70], וכך הנהיג בעצמו אחד מגדולי דורינו, ר’ שלמה זלמן אוירבאך[71].
ויש שהחמירו על עצמם לקיים את מנהג ה’סימנים’ גם בסעודות היום של שני הימים[72], היינו, לאכול את ה’סימנים’ ארבעה פעמים! כך נוהג אחד מגדולי הדור, הגאון רבי יוסף
שלום אלישיב שליט”א, כפי שכותב אחד מרושמי הליכותיו[73]. ואכן ה’בן איש חי’, מוכיח שיש לנהוג כך מדיוק לשון התלמוד המהווה את יסודו של המנהג: “לעולם יהא רגיל למיחזי בריש שתא קרא ורוביא, כרתי וסילקא ותמרי” (הוריות יב ע”א), ואלו דבריו: “נקיט לשון ‘רגיל’, לרמוז, שיעשה זה הסימן בשני ימים של ראש השנה בלילות ובימים, דאז נמצא עושה זאת ארבעה פעמים, וידוע, דלשון ‘רגיל’ לא שייך בעושה בפחות משלושה פעמים”[74].
כך הוא כותב בספרו האגדי שנדפס לראשונה בשנת תרסד, כי בספרו ההלכתי ‘בן איש חי’ – שכנראה, יותר מחייב – שנדפס כמה שנים קודם לכן, בשנת תרנח, איננו מחייב את הצבור לקיים את המנהג גם בסעודות היום, אלא רק בשתי הלילות: “יהיה רגיל לאכול בראש השנה בשתי הלילות על שלחנו בסדר זה”[75], וממשיך למנות את המאכלים וה’בקשות’ שעליהם בפירוט רב. וככל הנראה, אפילו הוא עצמו לא נהג באותם הימים כחידושו העתידי, כי בסיום הענין שב’בן איש חי’ נאמר: “ויש עושים סדר הנזכר למעלה במאכלים הנזכרים למעלה גם ביום ראש השנה בשחרית… וכן אנחנו נוהגים בבתינו, להביא כל הנזכר למעלה על השלחן גם ביום”[76]. ואינו מזכיר שקיים את המנהג בשתי סעודות היום.
ג. כאמור למעלה, ר’ אביגדור מרדכי כ”ץ, בעל ‘תורת אביגדור’, הבין, שלפי שנחלקו הט”ז וה’לבוש’ אם בליל שני דראש השנה יש לומר ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’, בהכרח שגם נחלקו אם יש לקיים את מנהג ה’סימנים’ אף בליל שני. שלדברי בעל ה’לבוש’, מחמת שכל אדם צריך להחזיק את חבירו כצדיק (הנכתב לחיים בראש השנה) ולא כבינוני, אסור לו לאחל לחבירו ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’ אחרי שלש שעות מיומו הראשון של ראש השנה. אולם ה’לבוש’ עצמו סובר, שרק אם מחזיק לבינוני את הזולת הוא גנאי ש’שתיקתו יפה מדיבורו’, אך אין כל חשש שהאדם יקבע את עצמו כבינוני ולפיכך להתפלל על עצמו ‘וכתבנו בספר החיים’ וכן ‘וכתוב לחיים טובים’ כל עשרת ימי תשובה. ואם כן – כך מעיר בעל ‘תורת אביגדור’ – מדוע לשיטת ה’לבוש’ אין לקיים את מנהג ה’סימנים’ ביומו הראשון של ראש השנה (שבדרך כלל, סועדים בו אחרי חצות) וודאי שלא ביומו השני? הרי בכך הוא מחזיק רק את עצמו לבינוני!
הוא מיישב זאת מכח לשון התלמוד המחייב את מנהג הסימנים ‘בריש שתא’ בלבד. ואלו דבריו, קושייתו ותרוצו: “ואין לומר דאף לה’לבוש’ צריך לעשות גם ביום, דדווקא כשאומר לחבירו הוא צריך להחזיקו לצדיק, לא כן בעצמו יחזיק לבינוני[77], דאם כן, יעשה זה הסימנים גם בעשרת ימי תשובה עד יום כיפור, והגמרא לא אמר כי אם ‘בריש שתא’, היינו, בזמן כתיבה וחתימה דצדיקים”[78].
ר’ אביגדור מרדכי כ”ץ, הבין, וכפשוטו של תלמוד, ש’ריש שתא’ הוא ראש השנה ממש, או יותר מדוייק: ‘בזמן כתיבה וחתימה דצדיקים’, הוא יומו הראשון של ראש השנה עד שלש שעות. אולם ר’ ישראל איסרלין, בעל ‘תרומת הדשן’, נטל את אותן מילים והבינן באופן שונה ומכך בא תלמידו והרחיב את מנהג ה’סימנים’ לכל עשרת ימי תשובה. כך כותב תלמידו ר’ יוסף יוזפא אוסטרייכר, בספרו ‘לקט יושר’: “וזכורני שאמר [בעל ‘תרומת הדשן’], כל עשרת ימי התשובה נקראים ‘ריש שתא’…”. ומוסיף על כך התלמיד: “מעתה, כל המאכלים [שיש] לאכול בראש השנה, הוא הדין כל עשרת ימי תשובה, ואביי[79] קאי על כל עשרת ימים”[80].

 

 

[1] נהג כצאן יוסף, תל אביב תשכ”ט, סי’ כג, עמ’ רעג.
[2] ראה: ברכות יח ע”ב. בספרי ‘עורי ישינים משינתכם’ העומד להופיע בקרוב אי”ה, הארכתי על דברי הגמרא בברכות.
[3] חידושי הגר”א על מסכת ברכות, דף יח ע”ב.
[4] על עצם הענין של איסור השינה בראש השנה ובפרט ביום שני הארכתי בספרי ‘עורי ישינים משינתכם’.
[5] שלחן ערוך, או”ח, סי’ תקפב, סעיף ט, בהגה.
[6] לבוש החור, סי’ תקצו, סעיף א. וראה מה שכתב ר’ שלמה קלוגר, קהלת יעקב, ראש השנה, ירושלים תשס”ב, עמ’ פג.
[7] מגן אברהם, סי’ תקפב, סעיף ח.
[8] הלכה ברורה, סי’ תקפב, סעיף ב: “והעיקר כה’לבוש'”.
[9] על עצם הענין של זמן הדין בראש השנה ובפרט ביום שני הארכתי בספרי ‘עורי ישינים משינתכם’ העומד להופיע בקרוב אי”ה.
[10] ט”ז, סי’ תקפב, סעיף ט, ס”ק ד.
[11] פרי מגדים, משבצות זהב, סי’ תקפב, ס”ק ד.
[12] כלומר, שבדרך כלל, מסיימים את תפילות שחרית ומוסף ויוצאים מבית הכנסת אחרי חצות.
[13] פרי מגדים, שם.
[14] ר’ שלמה מחלמא, שלחן תמיד, הלכות ראש השנה, סי’ ב, סעיף ה, ירושלים תשסד, עמ’ קסג.
[15] חמדת ימים, חלק ימים נוראים, פרק ז, דף מד ע”ג.
[16] נזירות שמשון (על ‘שלחן ערוך’; נדפס בסוף השו”ע), סי’ תקפב.
[17] קצור שלחן ערוך, סי’ קכט, סעיף ח
[18] עד כאן הציטוט מה’לבוש’, שהבאתיו לעיל באופן חלקי מאד.
[19] ר’ יהודה עייאש, מטה יהודה, או”ח, סי’ תקפב, סעיף ט. וראה ר’ אליהו גיג, זה השלחן, מנהגי אלגיר, אלגיר תרמ”ח, עמ’ מ, שכתב: “נהגו אחר התפילה מנשק אחד לחבירו ואומר לו תכתב ותחתם וכן בשחרית.
[20] ר’ יהודה עייאש, מטה יהודה, שם.
[21] ווי העמודים, עמוד הדין, פרק כ, ירושלים תשל”ה, דף כב ע”א. והעתיק דבריו ר’ דובער קאראסיק, פתחי עולם ומטעמי השלחן (על שלחן ערוך), סי’ תקפב, ס”ק יט.
[22] אליה רבה, סי’ תקצו, ס”ק ב.
[23] מטה אפרים, סי’ תקצב, סעיף יא: וסי’ תקצט, סעיף ג.
[24] תורת אביגדור, סי’ תקפג, ווילנא תרלא, עמ’ 172.
[25] עתים לבינה, ווארשא תרמט, עמ’ 211 וראה שם, עמ’
212: “ונוהגין לטבול תפוח בדבש בסעודה של ליל א וב’ דראש השנה… ואין אוכלין דבר חמוץ… וכל זה בלילה הראשון משום סימנא טבא וצ”ע מה החילוק בין תפוח ודברים חמוצים.
[26] דברי קהלת, פפד”מ תרכב, עמ’ 172: “ואין אומרים בליל שני ‘לשנה טובה תכתב’.
[27] ערוך השלחן, סי’ תקפ”ב ס”ק יד.
[28] ראה ר’ יהודה אריה מודינה, בספרו שלחן ערוך, וויען תרכז, חלק ג פרק ה אות ה, עמ’ 70 שהוא מנהגי איטליה שכתב: “בליל הראשון של ראש השנה בבואם מבית הכנסת אומרים איש לרעהו לשנה טובה תכתב”. וראהר’ ירמיהו סג”ל שכתב במנהגי ישראל, ברלין תריב, עמ’ 37, אות קעג. שמנהג ברלין הוא: “ונוהגין לברך איש את רעהו בליל ראשון של ראש השנה לשנה טוב תכתב ותחתם וכמה מנהגים יש לישראל בליל ראשון ובכלם יהא כוונה לשם שמים”. על מקום אחד, אלג’יר, החריג במנהג זה, מודיענו ר’ יהודה עייאש, ראה לעיל.
[29] ראה: ברכות יז רע”א.
[30] ממש כטעמו של הט”ז!
[31] ר’ יהודה עייאש, מטה יהודה, שם.
[32] וככל הנראה, גם ר’ שניאור זלמן מלאדי, בעל ‘שו”ע הרב’, מסכים לכך, שפוסק: “ואין לומר דבר זה ביום שני של ראש השנה אחר חצות היום, לפי שכבר נגמרה הכתיבה של ראש השנה” (שלחן ערוך הרב, סי’ תקפב, סעיף יז).
[33] לבוש החור, סי’ תקצו, סעיף א.
[34] מחבירו. היינו, שלא יאמרנה לחבירו.
[35] שו”ת שב יעקב, ח”ב, אבן העזר, סו”ס טו. וראה ר’ חיים עהרענרייך, ב’קצה המטה סי’ תקפ”ב, ס”ק מ”ג שציין לזה.
[36] עוד בענין אכילת סימנים ליל ב’ ראה; ר’ עקיבא אריה יצחק, שדי יער, ירושלים תשנ”ח, עמ’ ו ואילך; י’ מונדשיין, אוצר מנהגי חב”ד, חלק אלול-תשרי,ירושלים תשנ”ה, עמ’ פג ו; ר’ ראובן עמאר, מנהגי החדי”א, בפירוש רועה ישראל, עמ’ קלב הערה יט; ר’ יצחק טסלר, ‘אכילת הסימנים בר”ה, מתי?’, אור ישראל יג  (תשנ”ט),עמ’ קכג- קלב.
[37] הוריות יב ע”א.
[38] תורת אביגדור, סי’ תקפג, ווילנא תרלא, עמ’ 172.
[39] תורת אביגדור, סי’ תקפג, ווילנא תרלא, עמ’ 172.
[40] אשל אברהם (בוטשאטש), סי’ תקפג, סעיף א.
[41] אשל אברהם (בוטשאטש), שם.
[42] בני יששכר, מאמרי חודש תשרי, מאמר ב, אות יא. והעתיק דבריו ר’ דובער קאראסיק, פתחי עולם ומטעמי השלחן (על שלחן ערוך), סי’ תקפג, ס”ק א, עי”ש. וכ”כ ר’ משולם פינקלשטיין, אלף המגן (על ספר ‘מטה אפרים’), סי’ ת”ר ס”ק ט. וראה ר’ חיים אלעזר שפירא ממונקטאש, בספרו שער יששכר, מאמרי חודש תשרי, מאמר מאזנים למשפט, אות מה, בהג”ה ברוקלין תשנב, עמ’ רו. וראה מה שכתב ע”ז, ר’ חיים עהרענרייך, ב’קצה המטה, סי’ ת”ר, ס”ק יא.
[43] ראה: רי”מ גולד, דרכי חיים ושלום, סי’ תשז, ירושלים תשל, עמ’ רמב.
[44] ר’ משולם פינקלשטיין, אלף המגן (על ספר ‘מטה אפרים’), סי’ תקפ”ג, ס”ק יח.
[45] ר’ דוד פעלבערביום, הליכות קודש, ברוקלין תשסז, עמ’ קצח, אות יד.
[46] קיצור שני לוחות הברית, חמוש”ד, עמ’ 158
[47] הליכות תימן, ירושלים תשכ”ח, עמ’ 12.
[48] תניא רבתי, סי’ עב, ירושלים תשל”ח, עמ’ 154, ד”ה ומנהגנו.
[49] יפה ללב, סי’ תקפג, סוף סעיף ח.
[50] מחזור בית דין, ירושלים תשמ”ו, דף לא ע”ב, אות ה.  יש לציין שר’ שמעון הורוייץ בפירושו לתניא רבתי ‘באורי מהרש”ה’ לא העיר מזה. לאחרונה י”ל תניא רבתי על פי כ”י ממוסד רב קוק, ירושלים תשע”א ושם גם מופיע הלשון של לילי, והמהדיר לא ציין למקורות אלו.
[51] ספר המנהיג, הלכות ראש השנה, מהדורת י’ רפאל, עמ’ שד. וכבר רבני דורינו דייקו כך מלשונו, ראה: הרב עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, ימים נוראים, ירושלים תשסה, עמ’ צו; הרב עקיבא אריה יצחק, שדי יער, ירושלים תשנח, עמ’ ז.
[52] תשב”ץ קטן, סי’ קי”ח.
[53] שבעת הנרות, ירושלים תשל”ד, אות קיח.  י. כהנא, ב’תשובות פסקים ומנהגים’, א, ירושלים תשי”ז, עמ’ רצו, אות תקכב עמד על לשון של התשב”ץ, ולא נכון מה שהוא כתב -שאין אף אחד שעמד על זה דר’ סייני כבר עמד על זה. בשנת תשס”ה, ר’ שמואל שניאורסון הדפיס מהדורה של התשב”ץ קטן ושם (סי’ קכב אות א), הגירסא הוא: “לאכול בליל ראש השנה ראש איל”. אמנם בסוף הספר הדפיסו צילום של דפוס הראשון מקרימונה משנת שטז ושם נמצא הגירסא של ‘בליל ראשון של ר”ה’. לאחרונה, בירושלים תשע”א י”ל תשב”ץ קטן, ע”י מכון ירושלים, על פי כמה כ”י של החיבור, וגם שם מופיע לשון של היה רגיל לאכול בליל ראשון של ר”ה. אגב יש לציין שהמהדיר שם, לא העיר כלום מכל זה שהבאתי כאן.
[54] אור צדיקים, סאיני תש”ב, סי’ לה ס”ק טז, יש לציין שבאור הישר שי”ל  ע”י ר’ יוסף וולדמן, ירושלים תשמ”א, לא מופיע קטע זה.
[55] אליה רבה, סי’ תקפג, ס”ק א.
[56] שערי תשובה, סי’ תקפג, ס”ק א.
[57] בגדי ישע, סי’ תקפג, ס”ק א.
[58] חיד”א, מחזיק ברכה, או”ח, סי’ תקפג, ס”ק ח; הנ”ל, עבודת הקודש, סי’ רסו. והובאו דבריו בידי ר’ אברהם כלפון, לקט הקציר, ירושלים חש”ד, עמ’ תמב, סעיף יג; ר’ אברהם פינסו, משפט כתוב, שולונקי תקנ”ח, סי’ תקפ”ג. וראה ש”ט גאגין, כתר שם טוב, ה, ירושלים תשנ”ח, עמ’ 102.
[59] זכור לאברהם, ח”א, מערכת ר, סי’ תקפב, סעיף א, ירושלים תשכח, עמ’ קיב.
[60] מטה אפרים, סי’ תקפג, סעיף ב: “יהיה אדם רגיל לאכול בראש השנה רוביא… וכן יש אוכלים רימונים… וכל זה יש לעשות גם ביום שני”. וכפל דבריו שם, סי’ תר, סעיף יד: “גם בליל שני טובלים פרוסת ‘המוציא’ בדבש… וכן כל שאר עניינים של הסעודה…  בליל ראשון – נוהגים בשני”. וראה ר’ חיים עהרענרייך, ב’קצה המטה סי’ תקפ”ג, ס”ק יג, סי’ תקצ”ט ס”ק ג.
[61] שם טוב קטן, ירושלים תשכ”ו, עמ’ מ. על ספר זה ראה מה שהארכתי אודותיו בספרי ליקוטי אליעזר, ירושלים תש”ע, עמ’ כב-כה.
[62] חמדת ימים, חלק ימים נוראים, דף לד ע”ב. והובאו דבריו בידי ר’ אברהם כלפון, לקט הקציר, ירושלים חש”ד, עמ’ תמב, סעיף יג.
[63] שני לוחות הברית, מסכת ראש השנה, עמוד הדין, ירושלים תשלה, דף נד ע”ב.
[64] ר’ ברוך יהודה בראנדייס, לשון חכמים, א (או”ח), סי’ כא, פראג תקעה, דף סא ע”א.
[65] זכר דוד, ד, מאמר שלישי, פרק סד, ירושלים תשסא, עמ’ תנד.
[66] נהר מצרים, הלכות ראש השנה, אות ו. ר’ אליהו בכור חזן, נוה שלום, מהדורה שניה, נא-אמון, דף כד ע”ב: “ויש אוכלים [בלילה הראשון] רימונים, ואומרים ‘שירבו זכיותינו’. ויש נוהגים, לאכול הרימונים בליל שני, ומכוונים עליהם בברכת ‘שהחיינו'”. והספר ‘נוה שלום’ מתאר בעיקרו את מנהג מצרים.
[67] ר’ משה כ’לפון, ברכת משה,  חדאר תשנ”ו, סי’ תקפ”ג: “ג’רבה אוכלין בלילי ראש השנה כמה דברים”.
[68] מחזור בית דין, ירושלים תשמ”ו, דף לא ע”ב, אות ה.
[69] ראה במצוטט לעיל.
[70] ר’ מנחם מאיר אייזנשטאש, זכרון יהודה, סי’ קפח, ירושלים תשנז, עמ’ צו. על מנהג החת”ס יש להאריך וראה ר’ חיים עהרענרייך, ב’קצה המטה סי’ תקפ”ג ס”ק יג שהיה עושה גם בליל ב דראש השנה. וראה ר’ יודא שטראססער, ‘ירח האיתנים במחיצתו של מרן החת”ס זי”ע’, אור ישראל, מט (תשסח), עמ’ קמ”א.
[71] הרב נ’ סטפנסקי, ועלהו לא יבול, א, ירושלים תשסה, עמ’ רח; הרב ט’ פריינד, שלמי מועד, פרק ח (ליל ראש השנה), ירושלים תשסד, עמ’ ל.
[72] ראה גם ספר מהרי”ל – מנהגים, הלכות ראש השנה, אות יב, ירושלים תשמט, עמ’ רעט: “בשחרית דראש השנה היה רגיל מהר”י סג”ל לאכול כרתי שקורין ‘לאוך’, [ולומר, ‘יכרתו שונאינו’]. ולא בירך עליו, דמחמת הסעודה בא…”. היינו, מהרי”ל קיים (חלק) ממנהג ה’סימנים’ גם ביומו של ראש השנה. אמנם מעדות זו לא ברור עדיין אם מהרי”ל נהג כך בשני הימים
או רק ביום הראשון; מה עוד, שעל עדות זו יצאו עוררים, שבאחד מכתבי-היד נוספה הערה בגליון: “בן מהר”י סג”ל זצ”ל תפיש על זה, ואמר ז”ל: כיזוב גדול הוא!” (שם, שינויי נוסחאות, אות יב, הערה א). וכדאי הוא בנו של מהרי”ל לסמוך עליו גבי מנהג אביו! וראה בענין זה במאמר החשוב של ר’ ישראל פלס, ‘דברי בקורת על ספר מהרי”ל ותשובות לבקורת’, ישורון כ (תשס”ח),  עמ’ תתצ-תתקט. וראה עוד לר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות גאליציה, תקכא-תקפח), מטה אפרים, סי’ תקצז, סעיף ד: “ושאר דברים הנזכרים שם לאכול בראש השנה לסימן טוב, יש להם מקום לאכול גם בסעודה זו [=סעודת היום] אם יש לו רצון”.
[73] הליכות והלכות, על חודש תשרי, ירושלים תשסה, עמ’ 6.
[74] בן יהוידע, הוריות יב ע”א, ירושלים תרסד, דף עח סע”ג-רע”ד. על לשון רגיל ראה מה שהבאתי בספרי ליקוטי אליעזר, ירושלים תש”ע, עמ’ נ.
[75] בן איש חי, שנה ראשונה, פרשת נצבים, ריש אות ד, ירושלים תשיב, עמ’ קמו סוט”א.
[76] בן איש חי, שם, עמ’ קמז רטו”א.
[77] עד כאן תורף דברי ה’לבוש’ כפי שתמצתתי קודם.
[78] תורת אביגדור, סי’ תקפג, ווילנא תרלא, עמ’ 172.
[79] בשם אביי נאמר מנהג ה’סימנים’. ראה: הוריות יב ע”א.
[80] לקט יושר, א, ברלין תרכט, עמ’ 129.



A Comprehensive (or close to it) List of New Seforim

A Comprehensive (or close to it) List of New Seforim

by Eliezer Brodt

In a recent Mishpacha article [November 28, 2007, ‘Seforim Supplement’, p. 48] they quote Shlomo Biegeleisen, of Biegeleisen Books, as saying that “they receive sixty new seforim every single week!” The seforim market has exploded in the past few years and continues to grow daily. While it is impossible to keep up with everything that comes out we hope to keep the readers updated from time to time with some of the interesting things that are printed. This current list includes some of the many titles printed in the past few months.

Rishonim:

Mechon Haktav reprinted the Magan Avos from R. Shlomo Duran, the Tashbatz (663 pp.). This work was first printed in 1785 and than again in a photo-mechanical edition by Mekor in the 1960’s. The plus of this recent edition is mainly the clarity of the print as the earlier edition is almost impossible to read. The editors of this edition did not, however, include notes of any sort on the sefer.

Sefer Al Esek Hatorah, Shtei Dershos Lrabenu Harosh (Kiryat Sefer, 2007); 76 pp. [08-974-0626].
This volume is a small sefer written by the father of the Rosh on Limud Hatorah. It also includes two dershos of the Rosh. Parts of all this had been printed before in A. Freimann’s book on the Rosh. In this edition the editor rechecked the manuscripts and reprinting the whole thing all together. [For another work by this Mechon see this prior post].

One of the dershos of the Rosh included in this work had been printed partially before by Professor Israel M. Ta-Shma in a few places [Kiryat Sefer, then in the journal MiGinzei L’taslume Kisvei Yad Ha’Ivriyim pp. 51- 52, and most recently in his Knesset Mehakarim vol. two pp. 184 -186]. The second dersha included herein had been printed in its entirety by Y. Galinsky in his doctorate on the Tur, Arbeh Turim V’safrus Halacha Shel Sefard b’Meha ha’arbah Aser (pp. 36-37, 74-75). In one of the dershos the Rosh gives strong mussar to the crowd for shying away to do certain Mitzvos such as lighting the Menorah in shul. There is a small historical argument between Professor Ta-Shma and Galinsky regarding the death of the Rashba (ibid.) based on the correct reading of a few words in the manuscript.

Mechon Yerushalim released their Ramban on Chumash Shemos see here for their earlier volume.

Avkas Rochel (Ashdod, 2007); 103 pp. [08-853-1651]
The author of this work was Rabbenu Macir, a talmid of R. Yehudah, the son of the Rosh. This edition is a nice reprint of the original. It deals with topics such as Gan Eden, Gehenim, Olam Habah, Moshicah amongst many others.

Chumash:

Maggid Meisharim (Jerusalem, 2007); 550 pgs, Ed. R. Y. Cohen [02 586-0457].
This edition is very helpful as it provides a parallel translation of the entire sefer from Aramaic into Hebrew. The editor also included paragraph highlights and many helpful notes on the sefer but hardly adequate for what this work actual deserves. [A while back there was a series of three articles by R. Yehuda Leib Kelers, in the Tzefunous journal (1990-91), where he mentions that someone was actually starting such a project but as far as I am aware, nothing has come from it.]

Nachalei Afersomin (Jerusalem, 2007); 360 pp., [04- 864-0135].
This is a reprinted edition of the sefer from R. Rephael Balzam, a talmid of R. Meir Arik (and others). This work is on the Parsha, Mitzvos and Yomim Tovim. It includes an index and a nice short biography on the author. There are all kinds of styles of Torah in this work dealing with Kabbalah, Halacha and Machshaveh.

She’elot u-Teshuvot:

Shu”t Yeshuos Yakov was reprinted after not having been available for many years. This edition includes some nice new additions of Torah printed in various places. Hopefully there will be a full post on this Goan and his works shortly.

Shu”t Mateh Menashe from R. Menashe Statoh [By Hillel Statohn 368 pp. 718-382-0085].
The author was the Av beis Din of Tzafas over 150 years ago and was the father of R. Chaim author of the famous work Eretz Hachaim. This work was in manuscript for all these years. In the second half of this sefer they include a fascinating work of the author called Knessiah Leshem Shamaim, which had been printed before. The topic of this work is about an interesting custom that existed in many communities when someone was sick or childless. The custom was to do a whole elaborate process to appease the shedim (evil spirits), a sort of offering to them (a korbon of sorts). He discusses the entire topic explaining why it one is prohibited form doing such things. He deals with many topics such as the power of shedim in general. This work includes the Teshuvous of many gedolim of the time amongst them R. Chaim Palagai.

Shu”t Sharei Tzion from R. Ben Zion Sternfeld was reprinted after not having been printed for a while. Besides for including R. Ben Zion’s excellent teshuvos it includes many of his deroshos. This Goan is famous for giving the Chofetz Chaim haskamos on his Mishana Berurah, Shimiras Halaoshon and Likitei Halachos. This edition includes the Kuntres Darcha Shel Torah and Kuntras Sharei Tzion on the topic of the importance of a proper education for one’s children. This edition includes a small biography of the author. These two works were written in response to Maskilim whom complained about not learning dikduk etc. One point of great interest from these Kuntreisim is the great importance and emphasis these Gedolim held of teaching Chumash properly to the children. They held that through the proper study of Chumash eventually the children will pick up Hebrew. Today, many school systems would do well to learn from these Gedolim to have proper methods to teach Chumash properly.

Shu”t Mishanat Sachir was reprinted. The author, R. Teichtel, was one of the biggest Rabbonim pre World War II in Hungary. As is very well known, originally R. Teichtel was a rabid anti-Zionist, however, later he completely changed his mind and eventually authored the incredible work called Em Habonim Semaicha. He authored many teshuvos over the years and eventually printing one volume of the teshuvos. After his death, his son printed a massive volume of Shu”t thru Mechon Yerushalim. This work has been out of print for many years. It is fantastic in respects of both depth and Bikeius. The son printed another volume a few years later. This current edition includes the whole volume that was printed by Mechon Yerushalim and parts of the volume that was printed afterwards. The original volume that the author himself printed was not reprinted here. This edition also includes some pages of additions based on notes of R. Teichtel not printed before. Just to give one an interesting tidbit on this sefer:

About six years years ago a journal from Chabad in Budapest called Tel Talpiyot (volume two) printed a few pages (pp. 42-55) of very interesting exchange of letters between R. Teichtel and his son R. Shlomo. This son went from Hungary to learn in Slabodkah Yeshivah. In the letters to his father he writes a few times how everyone in Slabodkah Yeshivah heard of his sefer and they enjoy it. He writes how many people asked him for a copy of the sefer but he only gave it to a few people amongst them the Divrei Yecheskel (see pp. 47, 48, 50).

Shas and Halacha:

Mezareph Le’Chachmah (Jerusalem, 2007); 174 pp.
This particular work of R. Yosef Delmedigo (Yashar) has been the subject of much discussion for many centuries. Already R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena wrote that the views in this sefer are not the authors real opinions rather he was playing “games.” After that, Graetz and others and as recent as Barzilay have attempted to prove that Modena was correct. However, I feel after a careful reading of the sefer that it was by no means a joke and this was the author’s real opinions. Recently, Professor David B. Ruderman has shown that Delmedigo did not intend this work to be a joke or game of some sort. Ruderman does so in his classic work Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (pp. 128-152) dealing with all the problems Geretz and others raised. Mezareph Le’Chanchmah is full of interesting topics and information just to list a few: authorship of Zohar (52), Rashi (49) and Rambam’s knowledge of Kabalah (37, 51), against R. Avraham Abulafiah (31), and when Nekudos are from (21-22). He has a whole section showing that there are no contradictions between Halacha and Kabblah. The Shach in Yoreh Deah quotes him in regard to eating meat after cheese (89:16).

This current edition is printed beautifully, however, they edited out all the notes of Delmedigo’s student, R. Shmuel as well as some of the other stuff that were originally printed in this sefer. It is also lacking an index which would be very helpful with such a sefer enabling one to find all the treasures easily.

One original claim that I saw in the introduction of this edition and is recorded by many people and is in turn based on the Chida who states in R. Moshe Zechut’s name that the Delmedigo’s knowledge in kabbalah was not impressive based on specific things he writes in Mezareph Le’Chachmah. The page from Mezareph Le’Chachamah that lends credence to that opinion turns out that it was not from Delmedigo but instead from his talmid.

Kisvei Hagri (Jerusalem, 2007); 396 pp. [02 566-5240].
This a collection of the writings of R. Yaakov, Av Beis Din of Letichev. The author was born in 1730 and was rav there for many years. This was printed from manuscript for the first time by his descendants. The sefer has been waiting to be printed for nine generations. The editors put in lots of effort into this sefer giving you historical background. The sefer includes all kinds of genres, Chumash torah based on on old style pilpul, she’elot u-teshuvot, derush for all occasions (yom tovim etc.), hespedim, R. Yaakov’s tzavah and others. One of the many interesting things of interest in this sefer is a Megilas Yuchsin that R. Yaakov wrote. The editors put in much effort to track down lots of material about it. Also included is a list of his seforim collection (useful for certain fields of interest see for example Zev Gris, Hasefer K’Sochen Tarbus, pp. 65-72). Its unclear if the author was chassidish but he does quote from the Bal Shem Tov a few times.

Minhaghim and similar genre:

Chikrei Minhaghim (Cholon, 2007); 188 pp., [03- 556-3874]
This is a collection that focuses on Minhaghei Berlin gathered from many seforim including notes.

Orchos Hasofer (London, 2007); 173 pp.
This work is a beautiful collection of material about the Chasam Sofer gathered from a wide range of sources organized very nicely.

Bazel Hakodesh (Jerusalem, 2007); 334 pp.
This work is very interesting collection of material from R. B. Rakow collected together by his great-nephew. Topic ranges from chumash and halacha to stories he used to say over about various gedolim. Among the interesting discussions in this work are his opinions on learning and how to pasken, his connection with the Seridei Eish and his connection with R. Elyashiv resulting in getting R. Jonathan Sacks to take back what he wrote in one of his books [although the author does not mention R. Sacks by name] [See Marc B. Shaprio, Of Books and Bans, Edah Journal 3:2]. Another piece worthy of mention is his take on the Yeridos Hadoros question as it relates to learning.

Maseh Ish (Bnei Brak, 2007); 206 pp. Ed. R. Yabrov.
This is volume number seven of the on going series on the Chazon Ish. As with all such works there is lots of good stuff and some nonsense mixed in. This volume also includes a section on shemitah.

Halichos Kodesh (Brooklyn, 2007); 316 pp.[718 336-8971, 718 972-4078]
This is a collection of the hanhagohs of the whole year of R. Yisroel Rotenberg, Av beis Din of Kossin. He was killed by the Nazis. The sefer is from the notes of a close talmid of his. Its an extremely in depth description, providing a day by day going thru the whole year how he acted in each situation its full of interesting things.

History:

Rishimos Teshuvos Rav Sherira Goan (New York, 2007); 119 pp., ed. R. Nosson Dovid Rabinowitz [917- 753-5178].
This sefer includes an excellent history of Rav Sherira Goan from the most updated sources in the academic world. It also includes listings of all the Teshuvos of Rav Sherira Goan including many that were mistakenly attributed to others.

Tohar Haloshon, ed. Rothschild (Jerusalem, 2007); 80 pp.
The theme of this sefer is to show that the historical acceptance of the Hebrew language – Ivrit, was, according to the author, a very tragic story. The author shows through the statements of Ben Yehudah and Y. Klausner how anti-Jewish they were. He also shows which terrible methods they used to make this the language spoken amongst Jews in Eretz Yisroel. The book, however, is not to objective, rather it is presented in a very kannois way but all in all is still an interesting read to see a glimpse into that time period.

Olkieniki Radin Vilna (Jerusalem, 2007); 454 pgs, by R. Kalman Farber [02 571-1727, 03-731- 2149].
This is a diary of R. Farber of these places before World War Two and especially during the War. Among the interesting sections of this book are his accounts of his Rabaeim R. Naftoli Trop (known as Granat) and the Chofetz Chaim.

Yosor Yasroni (Bnei Brak, 2007); 469 pp., by R. Yitzchak Gibralter [03-618-8360]
This is a book about Kovno, R. Gibralter home town. This is a very interesting book which gives one a very nice picture of Kovno before World War Two not a typical Artscroll like history.

Journals:

Heichel Ba’al Shem Tov, issue 21,189 pp.
There are two articles of interest in this latest issue one, an article from R. Chaim Rapoport on the minhag of Chasidim of seeing ones rebbe in general and other areas relating to this topic.

One of the sources on the topic which he brings is from a teshuvah of R Yakov Kahna in his Shu”t Toldos Yakov (available here) (no. 33, pp. 72-74, in particular). What is specifically interesting about this teshuvah is his discussion of the Gra and his stance against Chassidim. He basically writes that the Gra made a mistake – he was fooled by false witnesses! What is interesting about this is this R. Yakov Kahan grandfather was the Gra brother author of the Maleos Hatorah! [I hope to return to this R. Yakov Kahana in a future post soon as his teshuvos are extremely interesting.]

Another point of interest, found in a different article, is a discussion of a grandson R. Chaim Volzhiner, Reb Eliyahu Zvi Soloveitchik, who became close with chassidus. The author references the extremely rare sefer by the Manhattan doctor, Arthur (Dov) Hyman, on this highly interesting personality.

Additions to earlier lists:

In an earlier post on new seforim I mentioned a sefer from R Chaim Vital.

Here is some updated information on it as I have had more time to go thru it a bit. This sefer was printed by R. N. Levi. This sefer is based on the handwritten copy of R. Chaim Vital himself. This volume was part of the famous Musaef collection. The rumors on the street are that this sefer legally ended up in the hands of dealers who cut it up page by page and sold each page for $15,000. After all the pages of the sefer were sold it was printed in this beautiful edition. This actual work was actually six parts a few of the parts were printed many years ago including haskomos of R. Kook [vol. 2, printed in Jerusalem, 1906] and more recently by Mechon Ahavat Sholom. It appears that there is still a part not printed which was to be found in the Ger Rebbi’s pre-World War II collection, which is currently still missing. As to the specific style of this sefer it is not heavy Kabbalah as there is much niglah in here. There are pieces of torah on everything – from chumash, aggdah gemaras and Mesectos Avos. Also included are many dershos which he said at chausunas, brisim and for hespedim. The dating of the sefer has been debated between R. Yakov Hillel and R. Manzur as to if this was before or after he learnt by the Arizal. Basically it seems that the bulk of the work was written before his learning with the Arizal and additions were added in by him throughout his lifetime.

The editor of this edition besides for presenting the work with nice layout and some sources include a basic history of R. Chaim Vital and his works. They consulted R. Y. Avivi who is a renowned Talmid Chacham and expert on Kabblah. Just to point out some minor comments on it. For some strange reason they quote a lot of material from M. Benayhu, but they can not properly write his name and instead refer to him as “the author of the Toldos HaAri” (for example see pp. 18, 19, 24, 31 and many more. They also can not properly write that he wrote the Sefer Yosef Bechrei which they also quote (pg 8, 14) or his Dor Eched baAretz (p. 72). Nor could they quote Avraham Yaari by name (pp. 45, 54) or Professor D. Tamar (pp. 48, 60) or Professor Tishbi (p. 67). What the problem in quoting these scholars name is beyond me. One more point in the end they deal with the sefer Kabalah Maseios of R. Chaim Vital making no mention that parts have been printed already. I have elaborated earlier on this particular sefer in this post (link). As an aside in the latest issue of Mekabtzeul from Ahavat Sholom they printed some more pieces from this work.




Thoughts on Confrontation & Sundry Matters Part I

Thoughts on “Confrontation” and Sundry Matters, Part I By: Marc B. Shapiro Rabbi Meir Soloveichik’s year-old essay, “No Friend in Jesus,”[1] caused me to once again think about the Rav’s essay “Confrontation,” (available here) and how it should be understood. Before getting to that, let me note, for those who don’t know, that Soloveichik is emerging as one of the most interesting, if controversial writers, on interfaith matters. I don’t know if he picks the titles of his articles, but they are certainly catchy. In addition to “No Friend in Jesus,” I also have in mind “The Virtue of Hate,”[2] and “Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors.”[3] The last article focuses on the Maria Johnson’s wonderful book, Strangers and Neighbors. Johnson is my colleague at the University of Scranton and the book deals with what she has learnt from living in a haredi community. The friendships she has developed (which would be impossible in a large city where the haredim have no substantive contact with non-Jews and certainly do not allow their children to play together) bring great enlightenment to her own Christian faith. With all of the bad press focusing on the haredi community (some of which is deserved and self-inflicted), it is nice to read such a positive portrayal.

Soloveichik is currently working on his PhD at Princeton, and due to his many essays he has already made a mark. While it is true that political concerns play a central role in his writing, and he seems most comfortable in the role of public intellectual rather than academic scholar, there is a great deal of learning in everything that he produces. He has also emerged as Orthodoxy’s most prominent “theocon,” which has led him to take positions that in my opinion are at odds with the proper halakhic response.[4] I also suspect that many will not look kindly upon his theoretical defense of torture, although no one can argue the case better than he can.[5]

There are those who will criticize Soloveichik because he engages in theological dialogue with Christians, and they think that this is in violation of the Rav’s strictures. If that were the case, then the Rav himself would be in violation, because he first delivered his famous “Lonely Man of Faith” as a lecture at a Catholic seminary.[6] The fact is that the Rav never said that theological issues couldn’t be discussed with non-Jews in a non-official setting. It all depends on the context of the discussions and the venue. In any event, it is very important to have a rabbi who actually understands Christian dogma. Otherwise, you can get poskim, like R. Joseph Messas, mentioned below, who come to decisions based on entirely incorrect information.

We should all be happy that there is a rabbi who knows that before Newman was an actor and then a tomato sauce, there was a more important Newman, that Immaculate Conception is not Virgin Birth, that Limbo is not only a game played at Bar Mitzvahs, and that St. Thomas is more than an island in the Caribbean. There are, however, many rabbis who know very little about Christianity. That is fine, but it is not fine when they try to speak about a matter they know nothing about. Some time ago I heard a talk in which the speaker gave his take on what was wrong with certain Christian ideas. The only problem was that that he had but a smattering of knowledge of the religion he was discussing. (Can you believe that there are people who speak about Catholicism without even knowing what happened at Vatican II?) After the talk someone asked me what I thought about the speaker. My reply was to quote the immortal words of Ha-Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz: “A man has got to know his limitations.”[7]

Let me begin with a short article I wrote on “Confrontation” that originally appeared on the website of Boston College’s Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding. I don’t think that many people have seen it, and posting it here will give it some more exposure. I would encourage people to also read the other papers.[8] One can even watch the original presentations.[9]Confrontation”: A Mixed Legacy If any evidence were needed of the centrality of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in contemporary American Orthodoxy, one need only look at the vigorous exchange of ideas between Drs. Korn, Berger and Rabbi Klapper. These thinkers have focused on a close reading of the seminal essay “Confrontation,” and have argued about its message and implications in a changed world. I would like to call attention to some points that have not been raised, which I regard as unfortunate results of the widespread acceptance in American Orthodoxy of the perspective offered in “Confrontation.”

My goal in these comments is not to criticize the essay, but rather to clarify its impact. In fact, both in my personal and professional life (with perhaps one exception) I have avoided all venues of interfaith dialogue, and this despite being in my tenth year of teaching at a Jesuit university. I have participated in numerous events where Christians were exposed to Judaism, as well as some where I learnt more about Christianity, but it is unlikely that Rabbi Soloveitchik’s position has any relevance to these situations.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s warning was directed against Jews dialoguing with Christians in some sort of organized, presumably official,[10] meeting, and the fears he expressed relate to this type of setting. On the other hand, individual Jews and Christians discussing each other’s religion has occurred in every generation, and neither this, nor a Jew giving a lecture to Christians about some aspect of Judaism, qualifies as dialogue of the sort that the Rav was warning against. It is therefore not surprising that even the most strident opponents of dialogue do not mention the subject of Orthodox professors teaching at universities whose student body is primarily Christian.

I have abstained from involvement in interfaith dialogue not because I regard the Rav’s essay as a binding halakhic decision, but because I would have felt uncomfortable being regarded by the other side as a representative of Judaism. (Despite being part of a department of Theology and Religious studies, I am hardly a theologian.) In addition, I have always been sensitive to an aspect of dialogue that the Rav was concerned with, namely, that Jews will feel pressure to adjust their religious views in response to moves from the Christian side. In calling attention to this point, I feel that the Rav was uncannily prescient.

Yet despite the fact that I have lived my life in accordance with the Rav’s guidelines, I believe that his position has had certain negative consequences. It might be that these are the sorts of consequences that Orthodox Jews who follow the Rav’s prescriptions must live with, but I hope not.

One of these consequences is religious separatism, and when it comes to interfaith relations the Modern Orthodox have adopted the same position as that of the right-wing Orthodox. Thus, in the United States one finds virtually no relationships between Modern Orthodox rabbis and Christian clergymen, or between Modern Orthodox groups and their Christian counterparts, even of the sort that the Rav would encourage.[11] This type of separatism is to be expected when dealing with the haredim, but one would have thought that the rabbinic leadership of Modern Orthodoxy would be more open-minded in this area. Yet for many Modern Orthodox rabbinic figures this is not the case, and when a group of Cardinals recently toured Yeshiva University a number of faculty members and students of the Rav expressed strong criticism of the administration in allowing this visit.[12] In fact, the Rav was often cited as a source for this opposition, as if anything he wrote in “Confrontation” spoke against friendly relations and interchange of ideas in non-theological settings.[13]

In today’s Orthodox world, when it comes to Christianity the stress is on the negative, beyond anything the Rav wrote about in “Confrontation.” This has brought about a broad refusal on the part of Modern Orthodox rabbis to have even the barest of relationships with their Christian counterparts. I am not blaming this on “Confrontation,” since before the essay appeared such relationships were also rare, but the essay reinforced the atmosphere of distance between Orthodox Jews and Christians in all spheres, even though this was not its intent. To put it another way, I would say that, despite its intent, “Confrontation” reaffirmed Orthodox Jews’ inclination that, in all but the most negligible circumstances, they should ignore the dominant religion and its adherents. A different essay by the Rav could have put an even greater stress on the positive results of interfaith cooperation in “secular” spheres.[14] Instead, almost nothing was done to remove the fear of Christianity from Orthodoxy, and while in the very shadow of Vatican II this might have been the correct approach, by now I think we have moved beyond this. Yet even in our day it would still be unheard of for a Christian clergyman to address the members of an Orthodox synagogue or group about matters of joint concern. A lay Christian might be welcome, but any relationship with clergy is seen as dangerous, in that it could lead to a compromising of traditional Jewish beliefs.

Another result of the lack of any dialogue between Orthodox Jews and Christians is that in addition to the fear of Christianity, there remains an enormous amount of ignorance. On numerous occasions I have heard Orthodox Jews assert that according to Christianity one must accept Jesus in order to be “saved”. When I have pointed out that this notion has been repudiated by the Catholic Church as well as by most Protestants, the response is usually incredulity.

It is also significant that Orthodox Jews treat Christianity as an abstraction, and detailed discussions about its halakhic status continue to be published. I find it strange, however, that in our post-modern era people can write articles offering judgments about Christianity based solely on book knowledge,[15] without ever having spoken to Christian scholars and clergymen, that is, without having ever confronted Christianity as a living religion.[16] There is something deeply troubling about Orthodox figures discussing whether Christianity is avodah zarah without attempting to learn from Christians how their faith has impacted their lives. I would think that this narrative, attesting as it does to the redemptive power of faith, must also be part of any Jewish evaluation of Christianity.[17] Yet barring theological dialogue, how is this possible?
I realize that the halakhic system prefers raw data to experiential narratives, but certainly modern halakhists and theologians are able to find precedents for inclusion of precisely this sort of information. After all, wasn’t it personal contact with Gentiles, and the recognition that their lives were not like those of the wicked pagans of old, that led to a reevaluation of the halakhic status of the Christian beginning with Meiri and continuing through R. Israel Moses Hazan,[18] R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg?

The concern with dialogue leading to attempted revisions of traditional Jewish beliefs is certainly well-founded, but the flip-side is that without any direct contact distortions can arise in the other direction as well, namely, in how non-Jews are viewed. Could Saadia Grama ever have written his infamous book[19] if his Gentile neighbor, the Christian, was a real person instead of a caricature? Of course, one does not need interfaith theological dialogue in order to see adherents of other religions in a more positive light than Grama, but as noted above, a current trend opposes even non-theological dialogue. When all substantive contact with the Other is off-limits, it becomes much easier for extremists to reawaken old prejudices that should have no place in a modern democratic society.

I don’t have any illusions that the leaders of American Orthodoxy will change their stance on this matter even after considering what I and others have written. Yet this does not mean that all is lost when it comes to Jewish-Christian relations. Even without theological dialogue there is still a great deal that we can discuss, and thus ensure that neither Orthodox Jews nor Christians are strangers in each other’s eyes. There is a host of social and political issues that affect both of our communities and a vast reservoir of goodwill and respect among Christians for Jews, and Orthodox Jews in particular. Isn’t it time the Orthodox responded in kind?* * *With regard to the Rav and Christianity, it is interesting to note what R. Samuel Volk wrote. R. Volk was one of the other roshei yeshiva at RIETS, an outstanding talmudist who had studied in Telz. Yet he was no fan of the Rav and went so far as to accuse the latter of adopting Christian imagery. In his eulogy for Dr. Samuel Belkin, the Rav described the latter as a wandering and restless yeshiva student. This was too much for Volk (who clearly had a bone to pick with the Rav). In the introduction to volume 7 of his Sha’arei Tohar, he wrote: ראשית כל הנני להעיר שהביטוי הזה של “נודד” שאל “גאון” זה מהגוים ימ”ש, שאומרים שבעבור שעם ישראל לא קבלו תורת “אותו האיש” נתקללו להיות “עם נודד לעולם” ימ”ש וזכרם. ועליהם אין להתפלא דמה לנו ולהם? אבל על “גאון” הנ”ל שיש לו אפי’ “פאספארט” של זכות אבות יש להתפלא! He repeats this criticism of the Rav in his Sha’arei Tohar, vol. 8, p. 332.[20] Yet this is nothing compared to how he savages Dr. Belkin, his former boss. Out of respect for Belkin, I will refrain from reproducing what he writes (which can be found in the just mentioned sources). His words are a good reflection of the conflict and tension that existed between Belkin and the roshei yeshiva, many of whom saw Belkin’s goals as at odds with Torah Judaism[21] On occasion Belkin had to give in to them, as in their threat to resign en masse if he went through with his plan to move Stern College uptown near Yeshiva University. Yet they usually had to sit by and feel growing anger at what they viewed as Belkin’s wrong-headed moves. It was only after they were no longer employed at YU that they could express themselves openly. When they did, it is not surprising that they could be sharper than the most harsh haredi critics. Another strong attack on Belkin was penned by R. Chaim Dov Ber Gulevsky, who also taught at YU. (I will have a great deal more to say about his fascinating writings in one of my upcoming posts.) As with Volk, Gulevsky too, unfortunately, falls into the trap of attacking Belkin personally.[22] In the case of Gulevsky, I can say that he believed that in doing so he was defending the honor of the Rav, for whom he has the greatest respect. Yet, as with Volk, his attack is way overboard, so much so that I am again embarrassed to cite it. It is unfortunate that rather than focusing on all the Torah he taught while at YU, Gulevsky concludes on the following note: ואני תפילה שנזכר לחיים טובים ממלך חפץ בחיים אמן ואמן. ושלא יענישו ושלא ירחיקו אותי ממקורי, וממחיצת צדיקים ישרים ותמימים גאוני ישראל קדושי עליונין בגלל שפעם הייתי במחיצתו של “אותו הנשיא”, “אשר מכף רגל והראש לא היה בו מתום” . . . ר”ל. In Gulevsky’s attack, we also see reflected the long battle between the roshei yeshiva and the adherents of academic Jewish scholarship. This dispute was found at the institution from its early years, and is described in Rakefet’s biography of Revel, Solomon Zeitlin was probably the first focus of the roshei Yeshiva’s anger. A number of others, most notably Irving Agus and Meir Simhah Feldblum, would later run into trouble from the halls of RIETS on account of their outlooks. In Gulevsky’s mind, Belkin was not an adherent of Torah study of the traditional sort – he even denies the well-known story that Belkin received semikhah from the Hafetz Hayyim at age seventeen. He sees Belkin as having sold his soul to the idolatry of academic Jewish studies, with all the heresy that went along with it. In fact, it is not merely academic Jewish studies that Gulevsky sees as Belkin’s downfall, but no less than the hated ‘hokhmah yevanit” that the Sages had warned about. Philo of Alexandria is, in Gulevsky’s understanding, just another example of “hokhmah yevanit.”[23] This involvement with Greek wisdom also led Belkin to his friendships with Christian scholars and “the professor who thought that ‘the Jews made a terrible mistake’ in pushing away oto ha-ish r”l”. Gulevsky told me that (as I suspected) the unnamed professor is Harry A. Wolfson, who was the preeminent Philo scholar of his time. Yet I don’t think Wolfson ever said this, and I believe Gulevsky has confused Wolfson with Joseph Klausner. Gulevsky also recalls with pain how, in his annual shiur in memory of R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor, for whom RIETS was named, Belkin would include material dealing with Philo rather than give a traditional shiur. According to Gulevsky, this even led Belkin to make heretical statements with regard to the Oral Law. He also blasts Belkin’s lengthy article on Philo and Midrash Tadshe[24] and what he regards as Belkin’s foolish attempt to posit a Philonic influence on the Zohar through an ancient midrashic tradition.[25] Rather than seeing this last article as a worthy attempt to uphold an ancient dating for the Zohar, Gulevsky instead points out how Scholem rejected Belkin’s position as completely nonsensical, even doing so on a visit to Yeshiva University.[26] * * * Returning to the issue of Judaism and Christianity, let me begin by calling attention to some curiosities that are perhaps not so well known. The first relates to R. Israel Moshe Hazan, mentioned above. His positive view of Christian scholars seemed so over the top to R Eliezer Waldenberg, that the latter delivered a stinging rebuke in Tzitz Eliezer 13:12: שומו שמים למקרא מה יפית כזה לאמונת הנוצרים וחכמיהם מפורש יוצא וללא כל בושה, מפי בעל התשובה . . . ובכלל המותר לקרוא קילוס לחכמיהם? ואיה האיסור של לא תחנם שישנו בדבר? As far as I know, Hazan is the only rabbinic author to publish a Christian haskamah in his work (he actually publishes two). These appear in his Nahalah le-Yisrael, which is devoted to a halakhic problem dealing with inheritance. Translations of these haskamot are found in the appendix to Isadore Grunfeld’s The Jewish Law of Inheritance.[27] (The section dealing with Hazan and his Nahalah le-Yisrael is called: “A Cause Célèbre, A Remarkable Man and a Remarkable Book.”) The Christian scholars’ haskamot appear together with the haskamot of such renowned figures as R. Hayyim David Hazan of Izmir (later Rishon le-Zion in Jerusalem), R. Eleazar Horovitz of Vienna, R. Shimon Sofer of Mattersdorf, R. Avraham Samuel Sofer of Pressburg, and R. Meir Ash of Ungvar. Hazan’s testimony about Jews who would go to the Church to listen the music, even if they stood outside the sanctuary has also been very troubling for many. The whole question of the propriety of entering a church deserves its own post. In years past no Jew would enter a Church unless he was forced to, or in order to avoid enmity. R. Moses Sitrug, Yashiv Moshe, vol. 1, no. 235, discusses the latter case and he advises removing one’s head covering before entering the church. If not, one will be forced to do so in the church, and this would appear as if one was worshipping with the Christians.[28] (When the Chief Rabbi of England is present in a church for an important state function, he does not remove his kippah, and is not expected to.) I began this post with Meir Soloveichik. There was actually another Soloveitchik who also had a great interest in things Christian. I refer to R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik. Here is a picture of him.
He was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and the uncle of R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik, the Beit Halevi. He is also the subject of a comprehensive monograph by Dov Hyman, who was a medical doctor trained in London and who lived in Manhattan. For some reason this book was kept fairly secret, with only fifty copies published and never sold in stores. Here is the title page of the book.Among Soloveitchik’s works is a volume entitled Kol Kore (Paris, 1875). Friedberg, Beit Eked Seforim, describes this book as “in opposition to the New Testament.” Yet Friedberg never looked carefully at the volume, for if he did he would have seen that rather than being in opposition to the New Testament, it is in favor of it. Yet it is not a missionary tract. Rather, Soloveitchik followed the approach of R. Jacob Emden (whom he cites in his introduction) that the New Testament is only directed towards Gentiles, and supports the Noahide Laws. However, it has nothing to say to Jews, whom it acknowledges are obligated to keep the Torah. In line with this conception, Soloveitchik felt comfortable in authoring a commentary on the book of Matthew, and that is what the Kol Kore is. Here are the title pages of the first edition as well as the 1985 reprint. This is not the only rabbinic commentary on the book of Matthew. In 1900 R. Samuel Weintraub’s commentary on this Gospel was published (Milhemet Shmuel). Yet unlike Soloveitchik’s work, Weintraub’s commentary is devoted to exposing the Gospel’s faults.[29] Here are the two title pages of the book. The book is an interesting polemic, which unlike most polemics is written in the form of a commentary. Yet there are times when the author goes too far. For example, he deals with Matthew 1:18, which states that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, he strongly attacks this notion. But he also has to make sense of Gen. 6:2, which states that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them as wives.” The problematic words are בני אלהים, as this might be taken to show that the Torah also shares the mythological conception of gods impregnating women. Weintraub writes: הוא כתרגום אונקלס בני רברביא, ואמרו בב”ר ר”ש בן יוחאי הי’ מקלל למי שמתרגם בני אלהיא, כי לא יתכן כלל שהמלאך יבוא אל האשה ויחמוד אותה, ורק העובדי אלילים היו מאמינים בשטותים הללו כמבואר בספרי מיטהאלאגיע ובס’ יוסיפון, תדע שהרי הכתוב מסיים עלה: וירא ד’ כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ, ולא כתיב כי רבה רעת בני אלהים בארץ, כי בני אלהים האמורים היו ג”כ בני אדם כתרגום אונקלס. ואם רצה השי”ת לברא את המשיח ברוח קדשו היה לו לבראו עפר מן האדמה מבלי אב ואם כמו שברא את אדם הראשון ואז היו כולם מודים בו ואין הקב”ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו. The only problem with Weintraub’s point is that in his zeal to attack the Christian belief, and by asserting that only pagans could believe in a nonsensical notion such that an angel could desire a woman, he has unknowingly also placed certain rabbinic texts into the category of not simply fools, but עובדי אלילים. Devarim Rabbah 11:10 describes how “two angels, Uzah and Azael, came down from near Thy divine Presence and coveted the daughters of the earth and they corrupted their way upon the earth until Thou didst suspend them between earth and heaven.” Similar passages are found in other rabbinic texts, in particular Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22, which elaborates on how the angels desired and impregnated human women. This is part of the whole genre of “fallen angels” stories found in the ancient world. I personally have no doubt that passages such as these are foreign imports, mythological tales that somehow found their way into Jewish literature. Yet precisely because the “fallen angel” genre became part of Jewish tradition, even if one chooses to reject it I think it is going much too far to regard something that appears in traditional rabbinic sources as being idolatrous. The Sages could adopt non-Jewish notions when these related to science, history, and folklore – and even halakhah if Yaakov Elman is correct – but they would not adopt anything that smacked of idolatry. (I understand that this last statement can be challenged from a Maimonidean perspective. However, I don’t think Maimonides is correct, either historically or theologically, in the way he ties astrology to idolatry.)

With regard to ‘fallen angels”, and the cross-cultural influence on Judaism, Rabbi Leo Jung’s volume on the topic was long the classic treatment.[30] He deals with all sorts of folklore in the aggadic literature, much which has its origin in non-Jewish sources.[31] While today, this sort of book would be excommunicated in certain circles, even years ago Jung was sensitive to the implications of what he was writing. He therefore included at the beginning of the book some pages about the authority of the aggadah. This is quite interesting, since one does not expect to find such a discussion in an academic work.[32] He notes that the purpose of Aggadah is not history, but to amuse, to cheer up, to let the people forget their present suffering by either leading them back to the glorious past or by painting in bright colors the fullness of times when there will be no enemy, no slander, no prejudice. There is no trace of a definite method, of any endeavor to weave these stories into a dogmatic texture, the Haggadah containing all that had occupied the popular mind, what they had heard in the beth hammidrash, or at a social gathering. Stories contradicting each other, theories incompatible with one another, are very frequent. They are recorded as the fruits of Israel’s genius. They have no authority, they form no part of Jewish religious belief. Nor may they be taken literally: it is always the idea, the lesson, and not the story, which is important. It is wrong to say that the Haggadah contains the doctrines of the Rabbis, or that only orthodox views have been admitted to the exclusion of all the rest (pp. 3-4).Jung continues by citing the classic sources in this regard, namely, R. Sherira Gaon, R. Samuel ha-Nagid, and of course, R. Abraham ben Maimonides. He also cites R. David Zvi Hoffmann, “recognized as the greatest rabbinical authority of our age” (p. 4), who in his introduction to his commentary to Leviticus states that there is no obligation to accept Aggadah. Jung concludes:It is very important to remember that there is no such thing as a systematic Jewish Theology. Even a system of fundamental points of creed did not grow up before the times of the Karaites and then was evolved through the necessity of defending Judaism. Maimonides endeavored to condense Judaism into thirteen principles of faith, but, as Crescas rightly contends, they are both too many and too few. The Haggadah, while preaching the beauty of holy life, does not give us law of belief and practice; the religious conduct of the Jew is regulated entirely by the Halakha (pp. 6-7).The status of Aggadah has been raised so much in recent centuries that people today are often unaware of the attitude towards Aggadah of some geonim and rishonim, in how they were prepared to reject aggadot that didn’t appeal to them. Thus, they will be surprised to read what Jung writes. For similar sentiments from another Orthodox leader, let me quote from Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz, in his Foreword to the Soncino Talmud (in words that today would land him in herem): We have dogmatical Haggadah, treating of God’s attributes and providence, creation, revelation, Messianic times, and the Hereafter. The historical Haggadah brings traditions and legends concerning the heroes and events in national or universal history, from Adam to Alexander of Macedon, Titus and Hadrian. It is legend pure and simple. Its aim is not so much to give the facts concerning the righteous and unrighteous makers of history, as the moral that may be pointed from the tales that adorn their honour or dishonour. That some of the folklore elements in the Haggadah, some of the customs depicted or obiter dicta reported, are repugnant to Western taste need not be denied. “The great fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages,” says Schechter, “is that they did not observe the wise rule of Dr. Johnson who said to Boswell on a certain occasion, ‘Let us get serious, for there comes a fool.’ And the fools unfortunately did come, in the shape of certain Jewish commentators [!] and Christian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse, or represented the opinion of some isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience.” In spite of the fact that the Haggadah contains parables of infinite beauty and enshrines sayings of eternal worth, it must be remembered that the Haggadah consists of mere individual utterances that possess no general and binding authority. to be continued . . .

[1] See here[2] See here [3] See here [4] For example, his lecture “The Man with Levi’s Genes: Cloning, Biotechnology and Judaism” available here [5] See here. This is a lecture that Soloveichik gave at the University of Scranton. The respondent from the Jewish side is Rabbi Aryeh Klapper, one of the most enlightened and thoughtful spokesmen for Modern Orthodoxy.[6] See Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish-Christian Relations,” Edah Journal (Kislev 5765), p. 8.[7] See here[8] See here[9] See here[10] This point is stressed by David Hartman, Love and Terror in the God Encounter (Woodstock, VT., 2001), pp. 157-158. [11] In “Confrontation” the Rav writes: “We cooperate with the members of other faith communities in all fields of constructive human endeavor.” See also the more emphatic Feb. 1966 statement of the Rabbinical Council of America, formulated by the Rav, in Norman Lamm and Walter S. Wurzburger, eds., A Treasury of “Tradition” (New York, 1967), pp. 78-79: “In the areas of universal concern, we welcome an exchange of ideas and impressions. Communication among the various communities will greatly contribute towards mutual understanding and will enhance and deepen our knowledge of those universal aspects of man which are relevant to all of us. . . . When, however, we move from the private world of faith to the public world of humanitarian and cultural endeavors, communication among the various faith communities is desirable and even essential. We are ready to enter into dialogue on such topics as War and Peace, Poverty, Freedom, Man’s Moral Values, The Threat of Secularism, Technology and Human Values, Civil Rights, etc., which revolve about religious spiritual aspects of our civilization. Discussion within these areas will, of course, be within the framework of our religious outlooks and terminology.” It appears that this is precisely the sort of dialogue currently carried on by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, under the able guidance of Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen. (The website of the Boston College Center for Christian-Jewish Learning contains joint statements issued by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate.) Yet this type of dialogue would never be sanctioned by Orthodox leaders in the United States. [12] See e. g., R. Abba Bronspiegel, Letter to the Editor, The Commentator (Yeshiva U. student newspaper), Feb. 3, 2004; R. Hershel Reichman, “The Cardinals’ Visit: Thoughts of a Rosh Yeshiva,” The Commentator, Feb. 17, 2004; R. Herschel Schachter, “The Temple and the Mikdash Me’at,” idem, “Am Hanivchar” (audiotape of a shiur), R. Mayer Twersky, “The Humility to Defer,” idem, “Living as a Jew in Gentile Society (audiotape of a shiur), all available at www.torahweb.org. [13] Even in the Middle Ages R. Bahya Ben Asher, commentary to Lev. 11:7, was able to look towards Messianic days as a time when Edom (i.e., Christendom) would not merely support the people of Israel (as is the case with many Christians today), but would even build the Third Temple! Presumably, this must be understood as meaning that they will help the Jews in the rebuilding, yet it still speaks to a remarkable level of interfaith cooperation. See Abraham Lipshitz, Iyyunim ba-Beur al ha-Torah le-Rabbenu Bahya ben Asher (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 238-239 [14] In the final footnote to “Confrontation”, the Rav writes: “The term ‘secular orders’ is used here in accordance with its popular semantics. For the man of faith, this term is a misnomer. God claims the whole, not a part of man, and whatever He established as an order within the scheme of creation is sacred.”[15] This book knowledge is often very limited as well, and it is worth noting that while Catholic universities routinely offer courses on Judaism, a course devoted to Christianity – or probably any religion for that matter – cannot be offered at Yeshiva University. While there are legitimate, perhaps insurmountable, halakhic concerns about such courses, this itself illustrates why many otherwise learned and sophisticated Orthodox Jews are so ill informed when it comes to world religions.[16] It must be noted, however, that information acquired in this fashion might not reflect authentic Christian doctrine. An example of this is found in a responsum of R. Joseph Messas (1892-1974), Mayim Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1985), II, p. 198. In a striking example of interfaith discussion, he describes his visit to a church while serving as rabbi of Tlemcen, Algeria. There he discussed Catholic doctrine with a priest so as to be able to decide a halakhic query. Yet Messas’ report of how the priest explained the Trinity is hardly the Catholic position. Assuming Messas understood what he was told, what most likely happened was that the priest, living in an Islamic country, did not feel it necessary to offer a completely frank explanation of what the Triune God is all about.[17] Included as an appendix to “Confrontation” is a Feb. 1964 statement adopted by the Rabbinical Council of America and probably authored by the Rav. It states: “Each religious community is endowed with intrinsic dignity and metaphysical worth.” This evaluation is far removed from the notion that Christianity is nothing more than avodah zarah. [18] Hazan goes so far as to state that it is obligatory (!) for Jews to make use of church tunes in the synagogue service, since these are so effective in bringing one to love of God. He also testifies that in Smyrna the cantors would go to a church in order to learn the hymns, which would then be adapted to Hebrew prayers and used in the High Holidays service! See Kerakh shel Romi (Livorno, 1876), pp. 4a-b. [19] Romemut Yisrael u-Farashat ha-Galut (Lakewood, 2002).[20] The first source was called to my attention by Zalman Alpert.[21] It is presumably because of the attacks on Belkin and the Rav that Volk is omitted from Yevul ha-Yovelot, a volume published on the hundredth anniversary of RIETS, which contains Torah articles from what appears to be every Rosh Yeshiva ever to teach there. In addition, there is no entry for him in Ve-Hayu Einekha Ro’ot et Morekha, a RIETS publication which also appears to contain every other deceased Rosh Yeshiva. (Both of these facts were called to my attention by Zalman Alpert.) [22] Nishmat Hayyim, introduction (found in his Arba’ah Sefarim Niftahim (Emanuel, n.d.). [23] For an attempt to rehabilitate Philo’s reputation among traditional Jews, see Naomi G. Cohen, “Philo Judeaus and the Torah True Library,” Tradition 41 (Fall 2008): 31-48. On pp. 38-39, Cohen makes the point, following David Winston, that there is no doctrine of creation ex nihilo in the rabbinic period, and she agrees with David Winston that “the recurring aggadic expression ‘I will return the world to tohu wa-bohu’ . . . also implies an original chaos preceding creation.” If true, this should not be surprising as there are other dogmas as well (e.g., divine incorporeality) which have their origin in the post-rabbinic period. (The doctrine existed in rabbinic days, but it was not yet a dogma.) Yet unfortunately, Cohen is unaware that later in life Maimonides added the dogma of creation ex nihilo to his Thirteen Principles.

I also found it interesting that on p. 40 she writes that “even biblical characters who obviously did not belong to the world of Torah learning have been so pictured by rabbinic midrash.” In her note she writes that in the Midrash “the Patriarch Jacob is imagined as having studied in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. The midrash makes a play on the word zekunim, reading it without the “vav” as zekenim=elders, scholars.” While I think most people reading this will not see anything remarkable in what she has written, I like to take note of such formulations which are in direct opposition to the Artscroll approach to biblical history and the role of Midrash. [24] “Midrash Tadshe o Midrash de-R. Pinhas Ben Yair: Midrash Hellenisti Kadum,” Horev 11 (1951), pp. 1-52.[25] “Ha-Midrash ha-Neelam u-Mekorotav be-Midrashim ha-Alexandri’im,” Sura 3 (1957-1958), pp. 25-92.[26] See Origins of the Kabbalah, p. 6 n. 1. Gulevsky adds: ברור שהיה מעולמו של הכופר גרשום שלום, הרבה הרבה יותר, מלהבדיל אלף אלפי הבדלות מעולמו של בעל החפץ חיים, למרות שהוא הכניס כמה ראשי ישיבה “מסטרא דימינא” כביכול.[27] (Southfield, 1987)[28] R. Joseph Messas states that we should not ask Gentiles to cover their heads when they come to our synagogues, because for them this is not a sign of respect. See Mayim Hayyim, vol. 1 pp. 32-33. [29] Quite apart from the focus of the book, in the introduction Weintraub publishes what purports to be an unknown poem from R. Jonathan Eybschuetz, in which the author’s name appears as an acrostic.[30] Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan Literature (Philadelphia, 1926). A few years ago Annette Yoshiko Reed also published a significant book on this theme, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge, 2005). [31] For those interested in further examples of folklore in Aggadah, see Daniel Sperber, Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat Gan, 1994). Nosson Slifkin’s book Sacred Monsters is also quite valuable, as is Meir Bar-Ilan’s article on the same topic, “Yetzurim Dimyoniyim be-Aggadah ha-Yehudit ha-Atikah,” Mahanayim 7 (1994), pp. 104-113, available here[32] The entire volume had earlier appeared in installments in the Jewish Quarterly Review.




Was Professor Saul Lieberman “Orthodox” or “Conservative”? [1]

Was Professor Saul Lieberman “Orthodox” or “Conservative”? [1]
by David Golinkin
Saul Lieberman (1898–1983) is universally regarded by Talmud scholars as the foremost talmudist of his generation, and some regard him as one of the foremost talmudists of all times.
Immanuel Low wrote to him in Hebrew in 1938: “In the depth of your articles there are many sparks of the spirit of the Gaon of Vilna.” E. S. Rosenthal wrote in Hebrew in 1963: “… until we can almost say about him: there was no king like him before him, according to his custom and his method.” Jacob Neusner, who later attacked Lieberman after Lieberman had panned Neusner’s Yerushalmi translation, wrote to Lieberman on December 10, 1981: “I am enjoying Hayerushalmi Kifshuto so much, that I wanted to tell you so…. It reminds me of why I have long ago concluded you are the greatest exegete of rabbinic texts of the twentieth century and among the true greats among the ones I have studied and used—of all times.” Yitzhak Rafael wrote in Hebrew in 1983: “I am not authorized nor do I dare assert that Professor Rabbi Saul Lieberman z”l was the greatest Talmud scholar in recent generations, but it seems that no one would attempt to dispute this assertion.” David Weiss Halivni wrote in 1986: “Professor Lieberman was not only a yahid b’doro, unique in his generation, but a yahid b’dorotav, unique in all generations.” Elijah Schochet wrote in 1988: “Rabbeinu Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna, was born on the first day of Pesah, 1720. Rabbeinu Shaul, our own Gaon, was laid to rest on the eve of Pesah, 1983. Between them, there was no other like Saul Lieberman.”[2]
Finally, in 2002, Israel Ta-Shema recounted an amazing story that took place in 1981, in which he asked Professor Lieberman a riddle about the Yerushalmi. Ta-Shema had heard the riddle from Rabbi Shlomo Goren in 1961 and since then had been unable to find the answer. Professor Lieberman spent about three minutes in silence, during which he opened one volume of the Yerushalmi and closed it. Finally he returned to the bookshelf, pulled out Yerushalmi Sotah 2:1, and showed Ta-Shema the correct answer. Lieberman later explained to Ta-Shema that “in my youth, I would have answered immediately that the answer is not in the Yerushalmi at all. But now that I am old, I do not rely on my memory, which is already weakened; and therefore I decided to flip through all the pages of the Yerushalmi in my mind, in order to make certain that it is not found in any place. And when I arrived at chapter 2 of Sotah, I found the place and showed you.” Ta-Shema concluded the story: “I had the merit over the course of the years to be a frequent visitor to the houses of quite a few of the greatest talmidei hakhamim [scholars] of the generation and among the beki’im [those who possess encyclopedic knowledge] in their generation … but [bekiut] of such magnitude I have never seen, not before and not after, and the memory of that Shabbat has not departed from me until today.”[3]
In addition to his amazing memory and breadth of knowledge, Lieberman was one of the most prolific Talmud scholars of all times. He published 225 books and articles, for a total of approximately 11,500 pages—devoted, for the most part, to the explication of rabbinic texts.[4] Finally, he published books and articles related to almost every area of Jewish studies, including Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, Bavli, ancient piyyut, Hellenism, Greek, Latin, and medieval rabbinic literature.[5] Therefore, it is not surprising that over eighty books and articles have been devoted to Lieberman and his œuvre between 1948 and 2008.[6] Indeed, three entire books have been published about Lieberman since 2002.[7]
This essay will respond to the most recent monograph, Marc Shapiro’s Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox.[8] Professor Shapiro has shown in his writings that he is adept at archival research.[9] This monograph is no exception; it quotes and/or publishes at least twenty-five letters related to Lieberman. Indeed, it should be entitled “What the Orthodox Thought of Saul Lieberman,” since it quotes the opinions of Rabbis Yaakov Halevi Herzog, Yitzhak Nissim, Shlomo Goren, Isser Yehuda Unterman, Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook, Meir Ben-Zion Hai Uziel, Ḥayim Ozer Grodzinsky, Isaiah Karelitz, Pinchas Hirshprung, Meshulam Rathe, Mordechai Gifter, Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, Yehudah Leib Maimon, Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, David Zvi Hillman, Yaakov Kamenetski, Aaron Kotler, Menahem Mendel Kasher, Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Menahem Mendel Shneerson, Ze’ev Wolf Leiter, Samuel Belkin, Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, and She’ar Yashuv Cohen. We are in debt to Marc Shapiro for this very useful anthology based on archival sources.
However, it would appear that Shapiro has missed the mark regarding three critical points: (1) the character of the Jewish Theological Seminary from 1940 and following, (2) Lieberman’s motives for accepting a position at JTS and remaining there, and (3) whether Lieberman consider himself “Orthodox” or “Conservative.” This essay will address these three critical issues in Lieberman’s biography.
The Character of the Jewish Theological Seminary from 1940 and Following

Shapiro’s basic assumption is that Lieberman was “Orthodox” and JTS was “Conservative.” Thus, he writes: “It can be imagined what a shock it was for the Orthodox when in 1940 the internationally renowned Jerusalem illui Saul Lieberman accepted an invitation to join the Seminary faculty.”[10] This assumption about JTS, which repeats itself throughout the monograph, is basically incorrect, for the following nine reasons:
1.   During most of the years that Lieberman taught at JTS (1940–1983), almost all of the Talmud faculty at JTS were “Orthodox” or strictly observant Jews, including Rabbis Alexander Marx, Louis Ginzberg, Louis Finkelstein, Moses Hyamson, Abraham Sofer, Moshe Zucker, H. Z. Dimitrovsky, A. S. Rosenthal, Yehezkel Kutscher, Mordechai Margaliot, Jose Faur, David Weiss Halivni, Dov Zlotnick, Israel Francus, and Shamma Friedman.
2.   During the 1940s and 1950s, most of the students at JTS were observant Jews; a large percentage of them came from Orthodox homes and/or were graduates of Yeshiva College. This point is stressed by Schochet and Spiro in their recent biography of Lieberman, and more importantly, it is stressed by Shapiro himself: Between 1946 and 1957, 60% of JTS rabbinical students came from Orthodox homes and 30% were graduates of Yeshiva College.[11] Similarly, both Rabbi Isaac Klein and my father, Rabbi Noah Golinkin z”l, began their studies at Yeshiva University in the 1930s and then transferred to JTS. Rabbi Klein said that he did so in order to learn the critical methodologies of Professor Louis Ginzberg. Indeed, he received s’mikhah yoreh yoreh yadin yadin from Ginzberg. He certainly was not looking for a more lax halakhic approach.[12]
3.   From 1940 to the late 1950s, the division between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism was not at all clear. Indeed, this was pointed out by Shapiro himself as well as by other scholars, such as Jonathan Sarna.[13]
4.   Beginning in the 1950s, the mehitzah become the main dividing line between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism,[14] but the Seminary synagogue maintained separate seating for men and women from the days of Solomon Schechter until Professor Lieberman passed away in 1983.[15]
5.   During all of the years that Lieberman taught at JTS, the Seminary synagogue did not use any of the siddurim produced by the Rabbinical Assembly and edited by Rabbis Silverman, Hadas, or Harlow. It used, instead, a rather obscure Orthodox prayer book edited by Rabbi A. Th. Philips. Indeed, I was informed by someone who prayed in the Seminary synagogue with Professor Lieberman for nine years that at one point, two of the students told Professor Lieberman that the Philips siddurim were falling apart. They, of course, wanted to replace Philips with a more modern siddur. Professor Lieberman said that he would take care of the problem. He then proceeded to purchase two boxes of brand new Philips siddurim! [16]
6.   From 1940 until 1959, Higher Criticism of the Bible was not taught at JTS.[17] This opposition began way back in the days of Sabato Morais, who headed JTS from 1887 until 1897.[18] Solomon Schechter, who served as president of JTS from 1902 until 1915, called Higher Criticism “Higher Anti-Semitism.”[19] Cyrus Adler, who was president of JTS from 1915 until 1940, was also opposed to Biblical Criticism; in his day, Bible was taught at JTS with medieval Bible commentators.[20] Finally, Louis Finkelstein, who headed JTS from 1940 until 1972, was also opposed to Higher Criticism.[21] In 1944, he asked Lieberman to “gently” tell H. L. Ginsberg to write his article on biblical history in a proposed volume entitled Judaism and the Jews “from an extremely conservative point of view,” so as to “avoid various pitfalls of higher criticism.”[22]
7.   Furthermore, in the 1940s when Lieberman started teaching at JTS, the rabbinical students dressed just like rabbinical students at Yeshiva University.[23]
8.   More importantly, Louis Finkelstein, who together with Louis Ginzberg invited Lieberman to teach at JTS in 1940, saw JTS—as had Solomon Schechter and Cyrus Adler before him[24] —as an institution for k’lal yisrael, the collective Jewish people, and not just of the Conservative Movement. Finkelstein stated in 1941: “If someone calls us traditional, orthodox or conservative, it is he who makes a division in Judaism, not us … I think that the members of the faculty generally prefer the term ‘traditional Judaism’….”[25] After quoting this passage, Schochet and Spiro add: “Finkelstein preferred viewing JTS as an umbrella institution for all traditional Jews, which he hoped would attract to it Orthodox Jews, rather than one reflecting a specific denominational ideology. Finkelstein made no secret of the fact that he hoped that Orthodoxy would eventually find a home at the Seminary. He would therefore counsel his associates, ‘Let’s not be too Conservative; let’s not prevent [Orthodox Jews] from coming.’”[26]
Indeed, Shapiro himself stresses[27] that when Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky came to study with Lieberman at JTS in 1951, he did not even know that JTS had a connection with the Conservative Movement!
9.   Finally, Shapiro himself[28] quotes a letter written by Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg in 1948, when he was informed by someone supposedly “in the know” that Finkelstein was interested in him joining the faculty, alongside Ginzberg and Lieberman. Weinberg wrote to his friend Samuel Atlas (in Hebrew): “How could it be possible that they are asking me, when they have two great teachers like L. Ginzberg and Sh. Lieberman?” Weinberg did not say that he could not teach at JTS because it was Conservative or heretical; he simply said that they did not need him, because they already had Ginzberg and Lieberman.
Thus, from 1940 when Lieberman began to teach at JTS, until 1959—and, to a large extent, until 1972, when Louis Finkelstein retired—it was difficult to call JTS a Conservative institution. The faculty and students were mostly Orthodox or traditional; the lines between the movements were not clearly drawn; the Seminary synagogue maintained separate seating and used an Orthodox prayerbook; Higher Criticism was not taught; and the students at JTS even dressed like the students at YU. Louis Finkelstein viewed JTS as an institution for k’lal yisrael and even Rabbi Weinberg had no ideological objections to teaching at JTS.
Thus, there is no basis for Shapiro’s surprise that an “Orthodox” Jew like Lieberman accepted a position teaching at a “Conservative” institution.
Lieberman’s Motives for Leaving Israel, Accepting a Position at JTS, and Remaining There Until the End of His Life

Shapiro says[29] that Lieberman’s main motives were economic security, which he did not have in Jerusalem, and a desire to draw the students at JTS nearer to Torah and Judaism. These points are undoubtedly true, but I believe that there are at least six reasons why Lieberman left Israel, came to JTS, and stayed there for forty-three years:
1.   Saul Lieberman could not earn a living in Jerusalem. This is what Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, Lieberman’s father-in-law, told Rabbi Aaron Pechenik and others,[30] and this was the reason that Lieberman later gave Pechenik for remaining there.[31] Indeed, while in Israel (1927–1940), Lieberman worked as a clerk at the Tel-Aviv Chamber of Commerce, as a teacher in Herzlia, as a part-time lecturer at the Mizrahi Teachers Institute.[32] as a secretary at Yeshivat Shaar Hashamayim, as a Talmud teacher at Hebrew University (from 1932–1937, a position from which he was fired and only received severance pay a year later),[33] and as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute for Talmudic Research.[34]
2.   Shapiro also says that Lieberman wanted to draw the students at JTS closer to Torah and Judaism,[35] as indicated by his brother Meir, by Pnina Herzog, and in a letter to Gershom Scholem from 1941. Furthermore, Lieberman himself said this in a Hebrew letter to Hapardes in 1945, which Shapiro published in 2003. There he says: “Young Jewish men are innocent (t’mimim) and there is nothing that will influence them more than the light of Torah planted by a teacher who believes in the holiness of the Torah.”36] 
3.   At Hebrew University, Lieberman’s Talmud course in the 1930s shrank from six to two students, he was fired, and Hebrew University refused to award him a Ph.D. for Talmuda Shel Kisrin or Tosefet Rishonim.[37] The Harry Fischel Institute, which Lieberman headed for five years, was not an academic institution. Indeed, Lieberman himself spelled out in 1937 the requirements for Talmud scholarship; the students at Harry Fischel did not possess many of those qualifications.[38] In other words, at Hebrew University he had scholars to talk to but no job, while at Harry Fischel he had a job but no one to talk to. Thus, in 1940, JTS was the only serious academic center of Jewish studies in the world, as Lieberman himself wrote to Louis Ginzberg in Hebrew on April 30, 1940: “And I also hope that I could bring benefit to your Bet Midrash, which is now the only scientific institution [i.e., of Jewish studies] in our world.”[39]
4.   In 1940, and for most of the years that Lieberman taught there, JTS had the best Jewish library in the world, with a large collection of manuscripts and Genizah fragments.[40] Schochet and Spiro relate that Seminary librarian, Nahum Sarna, advised Menahem Schmelzer, his successor, to open the Rare Book Room at any time so that Lieberman could consult the thirteenth-century manuscript of the Mishneh Torah, which was placed on a table there especially for his use.[41] 
5.   Lieberman had a very warm relationship with Louis Ginzberg of JTS.[42] They met in 1929 when Ginzberg served as visiting lecturer at Hebrew University and Ginzberg asked Lieberman to prepare for publication Ginzberg’s lecture, “The Significance of Halakhah for Jewish History.” They then corresponded from 1930 to 1940. Louis Finkelstein explicitly praised Ginzberg for his indefatigable efforts to persuade Lieberman to come to JTS. This special relationship is evident from a Hebrew letter from Lieberman to Ginzberg from 1940.[43]
6.   Finally, Lieberman had an incredibly close relationship with Louis Finkelstein, who gave Lieberman whatever he needed and treated him like a king. Their relationship has been dealt with at length by Schochet and Spiro.[44] A few examples will suffice: Rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum, long-time Vice President of JTS, said: “Finkelstein gave Lieberman whatever he needed.”[45] Lieberman said as much in his Hebrew introduction to Hilkhot Hayerushalmi in 1947: “And last but not least is my friend, Rabbi E. A. Finkelstein, the President of our Bet Midrash, who provides me with special conditions for Talmud Torah and work with all possible convenience.”[46]
But their relationship went way beyond one of providing scholarly needs. Finkelstein viewed Lieberman as the most important Talmud scholar in the world and he told him so, both privately and publicly, on a regular basis. He referred to Lieberman’s arrival in the United States as “a historic one in the development of American Judaism … Even if the Seminary across the years had done nothing else than lay the foundation for such a work [=Tosefta Kifshutah on Zera’im], the institution would have justified itself.”[47] Finkelstein further stated that “Professor Lieberman does not exist for the Seminary; the Seminary exists for Professor Lieberman.” Faculty member Professor Judah Goldin once said, “Finkelstein believed in God and worshipped Lieberman.”[48] 
On December 1, 1959, Finkelstein informed Lieberman that he would become Rector of JTS, with all the powers and no administrative responsibilities: “It seems obvious to me that with your increasing preoccupation with the Tosefta Kifshutah (which …will turn out to be probably the most significant single accomplishment of the Seminary) …”[49] In a letter to Edward B. Lawson, American Ambassador to Israel, in 1955, Finkelstein introduced Lieberman as “Professor of Talmud in the Seminary and one of the most learned men in the world.”[50] Finally, when Finkelstein got Lieberman involved in the agunah dilemma in 1953, he introduced the Lieberman ketubah at the Rabbinical Assembly Convention in hyperbolic terms and compared it to the accomplishments of the tannaim.[51]
Thus, it appears that Lieberman came to JTS and stayed there for six reasons: because he could not earn a living in Jerusalem; in order to draw the students closer to Torah and Judaism; because JTS was the only scientific institution of Jewish studies in the world; because JTS had the best Jewish studies library in the world, to which he had open access at all times; because of his warm relationship with Louis Ginzberg between 1929 and 1953; and because of his unique relationship with Louis Finkelstein from the 1930s until 1983.
Did Lieberman Consider Himself “Orthodox” or “Conservative”?

Shapiro claims that Lieberman “regarded himself as an Orthodox Jew”[52] and he faults me[53] for categorizing Lieberman as a Conservative rabbi,[54] but he himself writes: 
In 1959, Lieberman became rector of the Seminary, and one of his responsibilities was “guarding the general religious policy of the institution.” Thus, there is certainly justice in the assertion that whatever his personal religious commitments, Lieberman had become part and parcel of the Conservative Movement and was assisting it at the time that the Orthodox were attempting to expose what they regarded as the Conservatives’ distortion of halakhah.[55]
Shapiro’s confusion is well-justified; I myself have debated whether Lieberman considered himself Orthodox or Conservative.[56]
On the one hand, he taught at the only Conservative rabbinical seminary from 1940 until 1983, and he served as its rector from 1959 until 1983. When he proposed his takkanah regarding the ketubah to the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly in 1953, he attacked “the Orthodox rabbis”:
I saw that some of you were accused of being frightened by the Orthodox rabbis. I want to tell you that I am not frightened by them at all. I want, therefore, to give you a point of information. In truth, they were frightened, and I want you to know why they were frightened. They weren’t afraid that the Bet Din would issue some takkanot. No, not at all. They were afraid that the Bet Din will issue takkanot in accordance with the law.
As a matter of fact, one of the very important members of the Orthodox rabbis said so in many words: If this Bet Din of the Rabbinical Assembly will issue atakkanah, that will be takkanato kalkalato. It will be a great misfortune because they will get authority and that is the reason why they oppose this. Many of them think that [if] that Bet Din will begin to move in this line, the movement can become strong and it will affect them.[57] 
When, during the negotiations about a Joint Bet Din, the Orthodox insisted that the RA sanction rabbis who perform a wedding even without aget, “Lieberman’s spontaneous response was that the Conservative Jews do not like inquisitions …”[58] He also wrote a letter that enabled Rabbi Theodore Friedman, a leading Conservative rabbi, to receive permission to perform weddings in Jerusalem, and another letter to Chief Rabbi Unterman in 1964, which defended the gittin performed by Rabbi Israel Silverman and other Conservative rabbis.[59]
On the other hand, Schochet and Spiro cite an undated interview in the Jerusalem Post in which “Lieberman explicitly stated that he himself was not a Conservative Jew; however, he praised Conservative Jews for their sincerity and their success in appealing to young people.”[60] Furthermore, in 1974, the Israeli daily Maariv published an article claiming that Golda Meir had asked Lieberman to influence the Conservative Movement to accept a compromise on the “Who Is a Jew” issue. Lieberman was described there as “one of the leaders of the Conservative Movement and as the Vice-President of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.” Lieberman wrote an indignant letter to the editor in Hebrew in which he denied the whole story and in which he said:
I am not one of the heads of the Conservative Movement and I am not, nor have I ever been, the Vice President of the [Jewish] Theological Seminary. I teach Torah to the Jewish people and I don’t understand much about politics.[61]
Finally, when a group of Seminary professors, graduates, and students held a “Conference on Halakhic Process” in 1979 in order to urge JTS not to ordain women, Lieberman wrote a letter to the Conference praising them for deciding to discuss “how to guard the last spark of the halakhah, that it should not be extinguished.”[62]
There are three possible ways to interpret this contradictory data. The first approach is followed by Hillel Goldberg, who, in a nasty review of Schochet and Spiro’s biography, would have us believe that Lieberman was Orthodox and taught and stayed at JTS simply because it was a cushy job which allowed him to do his research.[63] This approach contradicts everything we know about Lieberman’s piety and integrity, and barely merits a response. The second approach is put forth by Marc Shapiro, who maintains throughout his monograph that Lieberman was “Orthodox.” When he defended Conservative rabbis during the attempts to set up a joint Bet Din, “Lieberman was only reflecting on the mindset of the Conservative rabbinate, not describing his own feelings.”[64]
There is, however, a third way to interpret the data. I agree with Shapiro that Lieberman did not consider himself “Conservative.” However, neither did he consider himself “Orthodox.” An “Orthodox” Jew would not have spoken about Orthodox rabbis in the third person and in such a critical tone as Lieberman used in the 1950s. Furthermore, neither Shapiro nor Schochet and Spiro adduce even one text in which Lieberman himself calls himself “Orthodox.” Shapiro[65] simply refers to Schochet and Spiro.[66] but the latter offer no such proof. They quote Rabbi Berel Wein, who said that Lieberman “was personally an observant Jew.” They quote Rabbi Emanuel Rackman who said that Lieberman was “a Jew whose Orthodoxy was beyond question.” They themselves say: “These citations from prominent Orthodox rabbis reflect the common perception that Saul Lieberman was indeed ‘Orthodox’ in his religious practices” (emphasis added). They then cite numerous instances of “his firm adherence to halakhic practice and accepted custom.” They later quote someone who said that Lieberman “stressed that he wanted to be known as ‘Orthodox’ (note 266), but Lieberman himself never wrote such a thing.”
Furthermore, Shapiro mistranslates a key passage in Lieberman’s important Hebrew letter to Hapardes from 1945, which Shapiro himself published in 2003. Shapiro writes:
In his letter, Lieberman states that at the Seminary he is permitted to teach what he wishes. He also mentions that if another two or three Orthodox teachers joined the faculty (italics added), they could turn it into a wonderful place.[67]
However, that is not what Lieberman wrote. He wrote:
זהו מוסד חשוב שלו היו נכנסים לשם עוד שנים שלשה מורים משלומי אמוני ישראל היו מהפכים אותו לבית ספר למופת
This is an important institution. If two or three teachers “who seek the welfare of the faithful in Israel” [cf. II Samuel 20:19] would enter it, they would turn it into an exemplary school.[68]
Similarly, in his 1964 letter to Rabbi Unterman defending the gittin of Rabbi Israel Silverman.[69] he states that “Rabbi Silverman, when he was my student, observed Torah and mitzvot as is fitting.”
היה שומר תורה ומצוות כראוי וכיאות
He goes on to say
that it is essential to arrange matters related to gittin in America, and if there is good will on all sides, it is possible to arrive at a mutual agreement. Otherwise, I am afraid that chaos will take over this profession too and we will come to a similar situation to giving a hekhsher to a treif kitchen in an Israeli boat. And behold this hekhsher was not given by the Conservatives (who rejected the offer with disgust), but by an irresponsible group which calls itself Orthodox, and this group also performs gittin!
The picture that emerges from Lieberman’s letter to Hapardes in 1945, from his attempt to set up a joint Bet Din in 1953, and from his letter about gittin in 1964, is that Lieberman meant exactly what he said in his letter to Maariv in 1974: “I teach Torah to the Jewish people and I don’t care much about politics—that is: I am neither ‘Orthodox’ nor ‘Conservative.’ There are “Conservative” rabbis who are halakhic and there are ‘Orthodox’ rabbis who are not. I care that the teachers at JTS should be sh’lomei emunei yisrael and that the students and graduates should beshomrei torah u-mitzvot ka-rauy v’khayaut.” Lieberman did not care about labels but rather about substance, and in this he was a true disciple of Rabbi Judah the Prince who said: Al tistakkeil ba-kankan, ella b’mah she-yeish bo—do not look at the vessel, but rather at its substance.[70] 
Notes

[1] This article is based on a lecture given in Hebrew in Jerusalem on Professor Lieberman’s 30th Yahrzeit, 9 Nisan 5773 (2013). It originally appeared in Conservative Judaism 65 (Summer 2014), pp. 13-29, published here with the permission of The Rabbinical Assembly.
[2] The first quotation is from Elijah J. Schochet and Solomon Spiro, Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2005), p. 303 (and cf. pp. 53, 139). The other quotations are from David Golinkin, “The Influence of Seminary Professors on Halakhah in the Conservative Movement, 1902–1968,” in Jack Wertheimer, ed., Tradition Renewed: A History of the Jewish Theological Seminary, vol. 2 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1997), p. 473, n. 36. For Lieberman’s attack on Neusner’s translation of the Yerushalmi, see Journal of the American Oriental Society 104:2 (April–June 1984), pp. 315–319. For Neusner’s counterattacks against Lieberman, see History and Theory 27:3 (1988), pp. 241–260 = Jacob Neusner, Wrong Ways and Right Ways in the Study of Formative Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 3–27; and idem, Why There Never Was a Talmud of Caesarea: Saul Lieberman’s Mistakes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994).
[3] Ta-Shema in Meir Lubetski, ed., Saul Lieberman (1898–1983): Talmudic Scholar and Classicist (Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), pp. 88-90 = Israel Ta-Shema, Knesset Mehkarim, vol. 4 (Jerusalem: 2010), pp. 337–339 (Hebrew). See Shamma Friedman in Lubetski, pp. 91–95, for an explanation of the riddle.
[4] A. S. Rosenthal wrote in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 31 (1963), Hebrew section, p. 1, that Lieberman wrote 10,000 pages. A careful count of Tuvia Preschel’s 1993 bibliography of Lieberman in Shamma Friedman, ed., Sefer Hazikaron L’rabbi Shaul Lieberman (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993), pp. 1–28, adds up to approximately 11,500 pages.
[5] See Preschel’s bibliography (above, n. 4) as well as the essays in the Lubetski volume.
[6] See Golinkin, pp. 472–473, n. 35, for a listing of thirty items and Elinor Grinet, “A Bibliography About Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work,” in Lubetski, pp. 91–96, for seventy-seven items (some of them overlap). More recent works include: Aviad Hacohen, Madda’ei Ha-yahadut 42 (5763–64), pp. 289–301; a letter from Lieberman to the editor of Hapardes from 1945, published by Marc Shapiro in Kitvei Ha-Gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, vol. 2 (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2003), pp. 449–450; review of new edition of Hayerushalmi Kif-shuto edited by Menahem Katz (New York and Jerusalem, 2008), by Yehoshua Schwartz in Makor Rishon Hatzofeh,April 11, 2008, pp. 10, 13; Naomi G. Cohen, “In Memoriam: Chana Safrai (1946–2008), Friend and Colleague,” in Nashim 15 (Spring 5768/2008), pp. 198, 201. For reactions to Schochet and Spiro’s book, see: Hillel Goldberg, Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007), pp. 69–75; Aaron Rakefet, Tradition 40:4 (Winter 2007), pp. 68–74; and Bernard Septimus and David Horwitz, Tradition 41:1 (Spring 2008), pp. 114–115.
[7] The books are Lubetski (n. 3 above), Schochet and Spiro (n. 1 above), and Shapiro (n. 8 below).
[8] Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2006).
[9] See, for example, his book Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884–1966 (London and Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999); Kitvei Ha-gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, 2 vols (Scranton: University of Scranton Press 1998 and 2003); and “Scholars and Friends: Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas,” in The Torah Umadda Journal 7 (1997), pp. 105–121.
[10] Shapiro, p. 16.
[11] Schochet and Spiro, p. 22, and Shapiro, p. 16. Both base themselves on Jeffrey S. Gurock, “Yeshiva Students at the Jewish Theological Seminary,” in Wertheimer (n. 2 above), vol. 1, p. 473.
[12] Regarding Rabbi Isaac Klein, see what I wrote in my introduction to his Responsa and Halakhic Studies, second revised and expanded edition (Jerusalem: Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2005), p. xii.
[13] Shapiro, pp. 14–15; Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism: A History (New Haven and London:Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 237ff. Shapiro, pp.14–15.
[14] See my book The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa (Jerusalem: Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2012), pp. 14–15, and n. 27; p. 31, n.3; pp. 308–340.
[15] See JTS Semi-Centennial Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1939), p. 59; Jonathan Sarna, “The Debate Over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue,” in Jack Wertheimer, ed. The American Synagogue: A Sanctuary Transformed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 379–380; David Golinkin, ed., The Responsa of Prof. Louis Ginzberg (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1996), pp. 85–100; Wertheimer, vol. 1, p. 395, Harvey E. Goldberg, “Becoming History: Perspectives on the Seminary Faculty at Mid-Century”, Schochet and Spiro, p. 22.
[16] Personal communication from Dr. Baruch Schwartz, April 13, 2008. The siddur was entitled Daily Prayers with a Revised English Translation (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1914), and reprints.
[17] David Ellenson and Lee Bycel, “A Seminary of Sacred Learning: The JTS Rabbinical Curriculum in Historical Perspective,” Wertheimer, vol. 2, p. 559.
[18] Ibid., pp. 536, 656.
[19] Solomon Schechter, Seminary Addresses and Other Papers (New York: The Burning Bush Press, 1959), pp. 35–39 and cf. pp. 1–7.
[20] David Ellenson and Lee Bycel, “A Seminary of Sacred Learning: The JTS Rabbinical Curriculum in Historical Perspective,” Wertheimer, vol. 2, p. 546.
[21] JTS Semi-Centennial Volume, p. 25.
[22] Schochet and Spiro, p. 29.
[23] Compare the pictures in Jeffrey Gurock, The Men and Women of Yeshiva (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), after p. 120; to the pictures in Baila R. Shargel, “The Texture of Seminary Life During the Finkelstein Era,” Wertheimer, vol. 1, pp. 527, 535.
[24] Regarding Schechter, see Mel Scult, “Schechter’s Seminary,” in Wertheimer, vol. 1, pp. 58–59; Michael Panitz in Robert Fierstien and Jonathan Waxman, eds., Solomon Schechter in America: A Centennial Tribute (New York: The Joint Convention Committee, 2002), p. 14; and Solomon Schechter, Seminary Addresses and Other Papers, pp. 48–49. Regarding Adler, see Schochet and Spiro, p. 17, which is based on Mel Scult (in Wertheimer, vol. 1), pp. 85–88.
[25] Schochet and Spiro, pp. 21–22.
[26] Ibid., p. 22. Regarding Finkelstein’s desire for JTS to serve all denominations, see Michael B. Greenbaum, “The Finkelstein Era,” in Wertheimer, vol. 1, pp. 163ff.; Jack Wertheimer, “JTS and the Conservative Movement,” in Wertheimer, vol. 2, pp. 419–420; and Michael B. Greenbaum, Louis Finkelstein and the Conservative Movement: Conflict and Growth (Binghamton: Global Publications, 2001), pp. 48, 60–67. Ibid., p.22.
[27] Shapiro, p. 48.
[28] Ibid., p. 9, n. 30.
[29] Shapiro, pp. 17–18.
[30] Ibid., p. 17.
[31] Ibid.
[32] See Saul Lieberman, Mehkarim B’torat Eretz Yisrael, ed. David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), pp. 601–602, for a beautiful vignette from that period of time.
[33] Schochet and Spiro, pp. 8–10.
[34] Ibid., pp. 10–11.
[35] Shapiro, p. 18.
[36] Shapiro, Kitvei Ha-gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, vol. 2 (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2003), p. 449.
[37] Schochet and Spiro, pp. 9–10.
[38] Ibid., pp. 10–11; and cf. Lieberman’s English introduction to Harry Fischel Institute Publications, Section III, Rishonim, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Harry Fischel Institute Press, 1937), pp. vi-viii, where he spells out the qualities necessary to do scientific talmudic research. My thanks to Professor Shamma Friedman, who called my attention to this passage a number of years ago. Cf. Preschel (n. 4 above), who lists this article in item 36 even though the Hebrew and English introductions to that volume are totally different. Ibid., pp.10–11.
[39] Shapiro, Hebrew side, p. 17, also quoted in the English side, n. 64.
[40] Regarding the Seminary library, see Alexander Marx in The JTS Semi-Centennial Volume, pp. 87–120; Menahem Schmelzer, ed., Alexander Marx, Bibliographical Studies and Notes, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary and Ktav, 1977); Herman Dicker, Of Learning and Libraries: The Seminary Library at One Hundred (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1988); and Menahem Schmelzer, “Building a Great Judaica Library—At What Price?” in Wertheimer, vol. 1, pp. 678–715.
[41] Schochet and Spiro, p. 16.
[42] Ibid., pp. 9, 18–20.
[43] Shapiro, Hebrew section, pp. 17–18.
[44] Schochet and Spiro, pp. 23–39.
[45] Ibid., p. 16.
[46] Saul Lieberman, Hilkhot Hayerushalmi L’harambam (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1947), p. 3
[47] Schochet and Spiro, p. 24.
[48] Both quotations are from Schochet and Spiro, p. 26.
[49] Ibid., p. 37.
[50] Ibid., p. 40.
[51] David Golinkin, ed., Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement 1927–1970 (New York and Jerusalem: The Rabbinical Assembly and the Institute of Applied Halakhah [of the Schechter Institute], 1997), vol. 2, pp. 825–829.
[52] Shapiro, p. 26.
[53] Ibid., p.20, n. 72
[54] Golinkin, Proceedings, vol. 1, p. v.
[55] Ibid., p. 24.
[56] Golinkin, “Influence,” pp. 451–452. Golinkin, “Influence,”pp.451–452.
[57] Shapiro, pp. 26–27 = Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 17 (1953), pp. 75–76 = Golinkin, Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 810–811.
[58] Rabbi Wolfe Kelman, unpublished letter to Sheldon Engelmayer, May 14, 1987. I received a copy from Professor Jack Wertheimer and I gave a copy to Marc Shapiro, who quotes from the letter in his monograph, p. 20.
[59] Golinkin, “Influence,” p. 452, n. 55. Shapiro published the second letter on the Hebrew side of his book, pp. 33–34.
[60] Schochet and Spiro, p. 99, end of n. 163.
[61] I quoted this letter in Golinkin, “Influence,” p. 452. Shapiro published the entire letter in Shapiro, Hebrew side, pp. 35–36 and discusses it on the English side, p. 20, n. 72.
[62] Shapiro, Hebrew side, p. 40.
[63] See above, n. 5.
[64] Shapiro, p. 20, n. 72.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Schochet and Spiro, pp. 66 ff., 99 n. 163.
[67] Shapiro, p. 22.
[68] Shapiro, Kitvei Ha-gaon Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, vol. 2 (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2003), pp. 449.
[69] Shapiro, Hebrew section, pp. 33-34
[70] Pirkei Avot 4:20.