by Eli Meir Cohen

In the following post we have attempted to trace some of the available manuscript and mesoratic evidence on this issue as well as the early printed editions. We have also presented opinions of some of the authorities on dikduk that have dealt with this issue directly.

הנידון הוא כאשר כתוב בתורה מילת דם לפני מילת נקי. כגון בפרשת שופטים יט,י “ולא ישפך דם נקי בקרב ארצך אשר ד’ אלקיך נתן לך נחלה והיה עליך דמים”, האם קוראים דַּם בפתח ופירושו לשפוך דַּם של איש נקי או קוראים דָּם בקמץ ופירושו לשפוך דָּם שהוא נקי, ונקי הוא תיאור להדם. מילת דם הסמוך למילת נקי מופיעה עוד ארבע פעמים בספר דברים.

השאלה נידונת באופן מפורש בחומש מאור עינים מהמדקדק הידוע הרב וולף היידנהיים בדברים יט,י ושם הוא מביא מקור לדבר מהרד”ק, וזה לשונו שם, “כן הוא (בקמץ) בספרים מדויקים וכתבי יד וכן כתב רד”ק במכלול בשקל פל, בדרך כלל כל דָּם נקי קמוץ וכל דַּם הנקי פתח, וכן עיקר כי כל דם נקי פירושו דם שהוא נקי ואיננו סמוך, אבל דַּם הנקי פירושו דם של האיש הנקי לכן סמוך ופתוח אבל הדָּם הנקי קמוץ שאיננו סמוך בעדות הה”א שבראשו”.

הכתבי יד המנוקדים הישנים והמדויקים של התורה מלפני תקופת הדפוס שנמצאים כיום תואמים בנידון זה להרוו”ה. וכן בבדיקת הערות ‘המסורה הקטנה’ ‘והמסורה הגדולה’ שבידינו מצאנו רק הערת ‘מסורה גדולה’ יחידית על “דם הנקי” שהוא בפתח והוא גם תואם למה שמובא ברד”ק והרוו”ה.

ברם חומש מקראות גדולות דפוס ויניציה הנודע (שנת רפ”ד-רפ”ו), שעליו התבססו הרבה חומשים ותיקונים במשך הדורות, מנוקד בשלוש מקומות דַּם בפתח ובשתי מקומות מנוקד דָּם בקמץ. הגם שרק מופיעה הערת ‘המסורה’, (המוזכרת למעלה) במקום אחד בלבד, והוא על “דם הנקי” שהוא בפתח.

מאידך, בתנ”ך כתר ירושלים, ע”פ הנוסח והמסורה של כתר ארם צובה וכתבי יד הקרובים לו בשיטת הרב מרדכי ברויאר (נוסח השער) ניקדו בדיוק כהרוו”ה וכן ניקדו בתנ”ך הוצאת קורן. וכנראה מכח זה שינו הרבה חומשים ותיקונים הנדפסים היום מהניקוד הישן שנסמך על דפוס ויניציה וניקדו באותו צורה כהרוו”ה וכהמופיע בכת”י.

הצעה אחת יש, והיא לחזור פעמיים על המקומות המסופקים וכעין מה שנהגו כמה בפרשת זכור במילת זכר עמלק – זֵכר או זֶכר (הגם ששם ודאי חומרא בעלמא הוא יען שאין פירושה מתחלפת). ואכן כן מצינו מובא בקובץ זכור לאברהם תש”נ במאמר “עין רואה ואזן שומעת בעניני קריאת התורה” דף ש”ה בשם הרה”ג ר’ אביגדור נבנצאל שליט”א שמכח ספק זה החמיר לקרוא “דם נקי” המופיע בפרשת כי תבוא בשתי האופנים. ולכן שאלתנו פרוסה לדעת האם אפשר להכריע בדבר ולקבוע תורה אחת לעם ישראל ושלא תהא קריאתנו אגודות אגודות, זה בכה וזה בכה, בבהכנ”ס אחת תתפרש הקריאה דם של נקי ובבהכנ”ס אחר דם שהוא נקי.

הספק והמקורות

ישנם שתי דרכים לנקד את מילת “דם” בקמץ או בפתח, והניקוד גורם לנפקא מינה גדולה במשמעות המילים משום הסמיכות למילת “נקי”.

הרד”ק בספר המכלול, (שער דקדוק השמות דף קפ”ג), דן מפורשות בשאלת הניקוד, וז”ל שם, דָּם קמץ ובהסמכו פתח, דַּם הפר (ויקרא ד’). דָּם נקי (שופטי’ י”ט) קמץ, דַּם הנקי (שם) פתח, דַּם נקיים (ירמיה י”ט) פתח.

בדיקת כמה כת”י המוקדמים, והמנוקדים של התורה, מעלה את החלוקה הבאה.

בשנת 1920 לספה”נ הדפיס המשומד קריסטיאן גינזבורג, שנחשב לאחד מגדולי חוקרי המסורה בעולם המחקר, חומש שמבוסס על 71 כתבי יד ו24 דפוסים ראשונים של התורה. בהערותיו על הניקוד בדברים יט,י הוא כותב שרובם של כת”י הניקוד הוא דָּם בקמץ ומיעוטם הם דַּם בפתח. החלוקה היא כדלקמן.

• כ”ד כת”י הניקוד הוא בקמץ.

• ז” כת”י הניקוד הוא בפתח.

אמנם מכיון שאינו מציין כלום בפסוקים האחרים כלל (אפילו לא בפסוק הבא דברים יט,יג דם הנקי!) א”א לדעת איך מתחלקים הכת”י בפסוקים השונים ואין רשימתו מועילה כלל מבלי בדיקת הכת”י עצמם.

• דברים יט,י דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דָּם נקי בקמץ.

אותו חלוקה ממש מופיעה בתנ”ך דפוס סונצינו שנת רמ”ח (1488), תנ”ך דפוס ליסבון שנת רנ”א (1491), תנ”ך דפוס נפולי שנת רנ”א (1491)7, תנ”ך דפוס ברישא [שונצינו] רנ”ד (1492), תנ”ך דפוס פזרו רע”א (1511),

בתנ”ך דפוס שלוניקי שנת רפ”א (1521) החלוקה היא

• דברים יט,י דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דַּם נקי בפתח.

בתנ”ך דפוס קושטא שנת ש”ו (1546) החלוקה היא

• דברים יט,י דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כז, כה דָּם נקי בקמץ.

בחומש דפוס וינציה שנת רע”ח (1518), מופיע החלוקה הבאה.

• דברים יט,י דַּם נקי בפתח.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דָּם נקי בקמץ.

בחומש דפוס וינציה שנת רפ”ד (1524) מופיע החלוקה הבאה.

• דברים יט,י דַּם נקי בפתח.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דַּם נקי בפתח.

בחומש דפוס וינציה שנת רע”ח (1525) מופיע אותו חלוקה.

• דברים יט,י דַּם נקי בפתח.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

(כאן ישנו הערת המסורה הגדולה, “דם הנקי ג’ וסי’ לא תחוס עינך עליו, וגם דם הנקי שפך, ועל דם הנקי אשר שפך”.)

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דַּם נקי בפתח.

האור תורה וגם המנחת שי לא העירו דבר באף אחד מהמקומות.

הרב ברויאר בספרו “כתר ארם צובה והנוסח המקובל של המקרא” , דף 39, מציין רשימה ארוכה של מקומות שבהם חומש דפוס ויניציה שינה הניקוד מקמץ לפתח (בניקוד של אות “ד”) בניגוד למופיע בכתבי יד ואעפ”כ לא העיר בהם המנחת שי דבר. שתיים ממקומות אלו הם דברים יט,י ודברים כז,כה.

• דברים יט,י דַּם נקי בפתח.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דַּם נקי בפתח.

וכמו כן התיקונים שנסמכו על דפוס ויניציה ניקדו ג”כ כך.

חומש היכל ברכה קמרנא (שאינו נחשב חומש מדויק ביותר) הניקוד הוא כמו דפוס ויניציה והמקראות גדולות. בהערותיו בהיכל ברכה על פסוק יט, י הוא מציין שדם בפתח, וכן ביט, יג. בדברים כא, ח אינו מעיר כלל אבל הניקוד בקמץ. וכן אינו מעיר על כא, ט שגם בקמץ ובכז, כה שנמקד בפתח.

ב’המסורה’ בחומש נטר (שבאופן כללי הולך אחר הרוו”ה) הניקוד הוא ג”כ כמו בויניציה וכמו כן רק מעיר על השתי מקומות הראשונים, יט, י שהוא בפתח וכן ביט, יג.

המקור להערות אלו המופיעים בחומש היכל ברכה וחומש נטר נראה שהיא ציון להנוסח הנדפס בדפוס ויניציה, משום שלא מצינו אף הערת מסורה בספרי המסורה, המעירים במקומות אלו, ואף בדפוס ויניציה עצמה ישנו רק הערת מסורה אחת על “דם הנקי” בלבד.

“דם נקי, או”ה כן הוא בספרים מדויקים וכתבי יד וכן כתב רד”ק במכלול בשקל פל, בדרך כלל כל דָּם נקי קמוץ וכל דַּם הנקי פתח, וכן עיקר כי כל דם נקי פירושו דם שהוא נקי ואיננו סמוך, אבל דַּם הנקי פירושו דם של האיש הנקי לכן סמוך ופתוח אבל הדָּם הנקי קמוץ שאיננו סמוך בעדות הה”א שבראשו”.

וכן ניקד בחומש עצמו.

• דברים יט,י דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דָּם נקי בקמץ.

תנ”ך הוצאת קורן ג”כ הניקוד כן.

ובחומש שהדפיס הרב ברויאר לפי המסורה שהוא המדוקדק ביותר שישנו כיום, הניקוד הוא גם כך. וכן בתנ”ך כתר ירושלים.

כך הניקוד בחומש המאור

• דברים יט,י דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים יט, יג, דַּם הנקי בפתח.

• דברים כא,ח דָּם נקי בקמץ.

• דברים כא, ט הדָּם הנקי בקמץ.

• דברים כז, כה דָּם נקי בקמץ.

וכמו כן חמשה חומשי תורה לבית המדרש הוצאת וגשל. וכן החומש הנפוץ חמשה חומשי תורה הוצאת ב”ב. וחומש שנדפס לאחרונה על ידי מכון ירושלים (חומש ע”פ רבינו יונתן) גם כהרוו”ה.

תיקון קוראים המפואר הוצאת יושר גם כן הניקוד כך. וכן תיקון סימנים החדש, שהוא תיקון מדוקדק (שסומך בעיקר גם על הרוו”ה ודפוס קורן) גם כהרוו”ה8.

(מלכים ב’ כא, טז) וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה הרבה מאד עד אשר מלא את ירושלם

(מלכים ב’ כד, ד) וגם דם הנקי אשר שפך וימלא את ירושלים דם נקי ולא אבה ד’, לסלוח.

(ישעיה נט, ז) רגליהם, לרע ירוצו וימהרו, לשפוך דם נקי מחשבותיהם מחשבות אוון שוד ושבר במסילותם

(ירמיהו ז,ו) גר יתום ואלמנה, לא תעשקו ודם נקי, אל תשפכו במקום הזה ואחרי אלהים אחרים לא תלכו לרע לכם.

(ירמיהו כב, ג) כה אמר ד’ עשו משפט וצדקה והצילו גזול מיד עשוק וגר יתום ואלמנה אל תונו אל תחמוסו ודם נקי אל תשפכו במקום הזה.

(ירמיה כו, טו) אך ידע תדעו כי אם ממתים אתם אתי כי דם נקי אתם נתנים עליכם

(משלי ו, יז) עיניים רמות, לשון שקר וידיים שופכות דם נקי.

(תהילים צד, כא) יגודו על נפש צדיק ודם נקי ירשיעו.

(תהלים קו, לח) וישפכו דם נקי דם בניהם ובנותיהם
[2] (מלכים ב’ כד,ד) וגם דם הנקי אשר שפך וימלא את ירושלים דם נקי ולא אבה ד’, לסלוח. (ירמיהו כב, יז) כי אין עיניך וליבך כי אם על בצעך ועל דם הנקי לשפוך ועל העושק ועל המרוצה לעשות.
[3] (יונה א, יד) ויקראו אל ד’ ויאמרו אנה ד’ אל נא נאבדה בנפש האיש הזה ואל תתן עלינו דם נקיא כי אתה ד’ כאשר חפצת עשית.

(יואל ד, יט) מצרים לשממה תהיה ואדום למדבר שממה תהיה מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקיא בארצם.

[4] רב תודות לר’ יהודה חיים זאבאלאוו עמו”ש על עזרתו האדיבה בפתיחת ספרייתו הגדולה לרשותנו בעין יפה.
[5] אחרי כתר ארם צובא, נחשב כת”י לנינגרד לכת”י המדויק ביותר ע”פ המסורה.
[6] MS. Heb 5702. הוא כת”י מדויק ע”פ המסורה
[7] קצת קשה לקרוא הניקוד של דם הראשון אך נראה די ברור שהוא נקוד בקמץ

[8] על אף שבסופו יש ליקוט שכותב לנקד כויניציה, אבל כפי שכתוב בהקדמה, הליקוט אינו מהמוציא לאור של התיקון.

What follows is an original contribution by noted scholar Benjamin Richler to the Seforim blog. Any typographical errors are my fault alone. — Dan

Biographical blurb: Benjamin Richler was born in Montreal, graduated from Yeshiva University in 1960 and from the Hebrew University Graduate Library School in 1963. From 1965 to 1995, he served as the Librarian at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library, on the Givat Ram Campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1995-2005, he was the Director (now retired) of the Institute. His books include Hebrew manuscripts, a treasured legacy (Cleveland-Jerusalem 1990); Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections (Jerusalem, Israel Academy of Sciences, 1994); The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library (London 1998); Hebrew manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma (Jerusalem 2001); Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, edited by Benjamin Richler (in preparation, to be published in 2007). His three dozen articles (in Hebrew and English) include: “Isaac Abravanel’s ‘lost’ commentary on Deuteronomy,” in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century I (1999), 199-204; “Resources for the study of Tosafist literature at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Rashi et la culture juive (1997), 383-392; “Rabbeinu Tam’s ‘lost’ commentary on Job,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume I (1993), 191-202; “The scribe Moses ben Jacob Ibn Zabara of Spain; a Moroccan saint?” in Jewish Art, 18 (1992), 141-147; “Manuscripts of Moses ben Maimon’s ‘Pirke Moshe’ in Hebrew translation,” in Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 345-356; “Resources for the history of medicine at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Koroth 8:9-10 (1984), 407-413; “A Hebrew paraphrase of the Hippocratic Oath (from a fifth-century manuscript),” in Medical History 22:4 (1978), 438-445 (with S. Kottek).

The manuscripts in the collection of the great bibliophile Heiman (Hayyim) Joseph Michael (1792-1846) were purchased in 1848 by the Bodleian Library in Oxford University. One of the manuscripts [1] was described by Adolf Neubauer in his Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford 1886), no. 1265 as:

מורה דרך commentary on the 1st part of the Moreh han’N’bokhim by Gershom. …He quotes R. Abraham Broda and מהר’ לובלין (f. 8). For the enumeration of the author’s books in his preface, see Steinschneider’s מפתח האוצר, p. 324.[2]

Steinschneider listed the following works by the author, Gershon[3]: דבר הלכה; בדי שולחן on Shulchan Arukh; חיקור דין responsa; דבר תורה on the Torah ; מאמר אסתר on Megillat Esther; דבר הגדה on the Haggadah; מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles of Faith and extracts and sermons.

Most of these works are not recorded in any bibliography, and the full name and identity of the author remained a mystery to Steinschneider.

Another manuscript in the Jewish National and University Library, MS Heb. oct. 711[4], contains commentaries on the Torah, Ruth and Eikhah (Lamentations), based on philosophical and scientific perspectives. The anonymous author quotes Moses Mendelssohn and Copernicus, among others. He mentions several other books he composed, including some of those listed in his preface to מורה דרך , namely מאמר אסתר and דברי הגדה as well as משאת הגרשוני on the 13 Principles of Faith – perhaps another title for מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles listed above – as well as commentaries or novellae on the Prophets, Moreh Nevukhim and others. One of the works he mentions is a sermon titled אבל יחיד. The author mentions an explanation he heard from Rabbi Avraham Tiktin, the dayyan of his community ושמעתי פי’ … מהגאון מה’ אברהם טיקטין אב”ד קהילתינו. Needless to say, none of these other sources are recorded in bibliographies.

We can now establish that our author, Gershon, was a pupil, of R. Avraham Tiktin, or at least a resident of the same city in which R. Tiktin officiated. R. Avraham b. Gedaliah Tiktin (1764-1820), was a Rabbi in his birthplace Schwersenz (Polish: Swarzedz) near Posen (Poznan), then in Lenshits (Leczyca) and from 1803 in Glogau and from 1816 until his death in Breslau. We can assume, then, that Gershon resided in one of these communities. Which one? The answer is supplied by a manuscript in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, MS 646, a copy of אבל יחיד, the sermon mentioned in the JNUL manuscript. It contains a 24 page eulogy (“hesped”) on R. Avraham Tiktin written or composed in Schwersenz on the eve of Rosh Hodesh Shevat 5581=January 3, 1821 by גרשון היילפרין or היילפרון (Gershon Heilprin or Heilpron).

A search for other works by the author listed in the Oxford and Jerusalem manuscripts revealed a manuscript in the Jewish Theological Seminary – University of Jewish Studies (Országos Rabbiképzo Intézet – Zsidó Egyetem) in Budapest titled משאת הגרשוני. It is a curious work based on the Thirteen Principles of Moses b. Maimon and its 169 folios include a Fourteenth Principle that incorporates all the other principles and contains a critique of Kant’s theories on the soul. It also includes some explanations of passages in Moreh Nevukhim, on difficult verses in the Bible and a commentary on the piyyut “Ehad Mi Yodea” in the Passover Haggadah. One section התילדות המשפחה deals with the the practice of assigning family surnames and delves into gynecology quoting physicians from Heraclitus until contemporary experts. He describes the wonders of the microscope and relates how a physician in Danzig showed him the sperm of a rooster under a microscope (f. 14r). There are a few poems by the author with the acrostic Gershon b. Meir, that establish the name of the author. The title page reads:

חלק ראשון מספר משאת הגרשני הוא מאיר עינים לאמונת והדיעות האמיתית מוסד על שלשה עשר העיקרים מהרמב”ם ז”ל, יוסף עליו עיקר הארבע עשר הכולל כל העיקרים ונקרא … עיקר הכולל בו אמצא ויכוח עם החכם קאנט בענין השארות הנפש … והראיתי מקורה ממקום נורא נקרא מקור הפילסופיאה … והוספתי התילדות המשפחה ותפארת אדם ופירש על כמה מאמרי ספר המורה להרמב”ם ז”ל וספר המידות לאריסטו … ומאמרי חז”ל הנאמרים בדרך חידה ומשלים … גם מהדברים המוקשים ביותר בתורה ובנביאים ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס .

Additional information about the author is found in an inscription by his son, Pinchas Heilbronn, on the title page in which he adds the date of his father’s death, 9 Heshvan 5629=October 25, 1868 אמר פינחס בן מ”ר גרשון הילבראנן ניפטר ט חשון תרכ”ט.

We have now identified the author of these four manuscripts, Gershon b. Meir Heilprin or Heilbronn. We can assume that since he studied under R. Avraham Tiktin or audited his lessons in Schwersenz where Tiktin officiated until ca. 1800 when Gershon was in his late teens or older, that Gershon was born around 1780-1785 and lived well into his eighties, residing for most or all of his life in Schwersenz. On the basis of the cross references to his works in the various manuscripts we can date them approximately. מורה דרך is perhaps the earliest of his works to survive, though by the time he wrote it he had already composed four or five other books or essays. אבל יחיד was composed in 1821. משאת הגרשני is mentioned in the compilation in the Jerusalem manuscript which is the latest composition of Gershon’s extant. If משאת הגרשני on the 13 Principles is the same work on the Principles entitled מליצת עיקרים in the Oxford manuscript then it should be considered the earliest work by Gershon to survive.

The figure that emerges from his extant writings is one of a talmid chacham, or at least of one fairly well-versed in Bible, Talmud and the writings of the Rambam with leanings towards the haskalah. He is familiar with some of the works of Aristotle and the teachings of Kant, though we cannot know if he read Kant in German or if his knowledge is from second-hand sources. He is interested in the sciences and has at least an elementary understanding of biology, astronomy and geography. Yet he remains an enigma. Apart from these four manuscripts no other details about Gershon Heilprin have surfaced. If he was so little known, why should Heiman Michael acquire a manuscript of his? Michael obviously acquired the manuscript before his own death in 1846. Was he offered the manuscript for sale? Did he purchase it because he considered it a worthwhile addition to his collection or did Gershon send it to him hoping to receive a generous donation? Likewise, we do not know how the other manuscripts reached the libraries in Budapest, Cincinnati and Jerusalem that now preserve them. It is ironic that so many unpublished works by better known rabbis and scholars did not survive the ravages of time and the Holocaust while four manuscripts by an otherwise unknown personality remained intact and are kept in libraries on three continents.

This detective work could not have been accomplished without a union catalogue of all the Hebrew manuscripts in the world. While no such tool encompasses 100% of all existing Hebrew manuscripts, there is available on the internet a catalogue that describes over 90% of this corpus, namely the catalogue of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

For over fifty years the Institute has been collecting microfilms of Hebrew manuscripts and its present holdings of 75,000 manuscripts together with the 8,000 original manuscripts deposited in the Jewish National Library represent an estimated 90-95% of all known Hebrew codices.

In the near future, I hope to write another entry at the Seforim blog about the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

Sources:
[1] MS Mich 126, listed as no. 658 in the posthumous catalog of his library אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[2] The reference is to Moritz Steinschneider’s appendix on manuscripts אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[3] Neubauer called him Gershom, but Steinschneider called him Gershon.
[4] There is no record in the Jewish National Library concerning prior provenance or from whom the manuscript was acquired. We can assume that it was acquired in the early 1930’s. The catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Library by B.I. Joel, רשימת כתבי-היד העבריים … (Jerusalem 1934), describes octavo manuscripts numbered 1-719, but, strangely, omits no. 711, even though the manuscript was in the Library by 1934.

The Alleged Blindness of R. Jacob Joshua Falk During the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy

by Shnayer Leiman

R. Jacob Emden’s animosity toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz throughout the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy could easily be explained away on grounds that are not necessarily bound up with an accusation of heresy. Emden, who proudly depicted himself as “a zealot the son of a zealot,” would hardly pass for Mister Nice Guy. In his autobiography, and certainly in his polemical works, Emden often emerges as a misanthropic, tempestuous, cantankerous, chronically-ill, and incessantly whining social misfit and rabbinic genius who did not suffer either fools or rabbinic scholars gladly. Indeed, he hardly had a kind word to say about most of the rabbis who succeeded his father, R. Zvi Ashkenazi, as Chief Rabbi of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck, and served during his (Emden’s) lifetime. Emden, whose father and grandfather had served as Chief Rabbis of Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them in the rabbinate. That he (Emden) had to live in Altona for some 15 years (1750-1764) as a lay Jew in the shadow of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz was simply more than he could bear. And the two rabbis lived virtually around the corner from each other in Altona, then a bedroom community for some 200 Jewish families living outside of Hamburg. Not surprisingly, a long list of historians and apologists would suggest that it was jealousy more than heresy that motivated and drove Emden’s animosity toward Eibeschuetz.[1]

It is far more difficult to explain away R. Jacob Joshua Falk’s animosity toward R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz on grounds other than the accusation of heresy. It is called “the Emden-Eibeschuetz” controversy, and rightly so, for those two rabbis initiated the controversy in 1751, would continue the struggle against each other through 1764 (when Eibeschuetz died), and Emden would continue to denigrate Eibeschuetz’ memory for as long as he lived, i.e., until 1776. But during the key early years of the controversy, from 1751 until 1756, the campaign against Eibeschuetz was directed primarily by R. Jacob Joshua Falk, then serving as Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt am Main, and who had formerly served with distinction as Chief Rabbi of Lvov, Berlin, and Metz. He was arguably the גדול הדור, certainly the זקן הדור, and virtually everyone agreed that no other rabbi in the mid-18^th century was in a better position to resolve the controversy. He was even-handed, had no axe to grind, and was unrelated to either Emden or Eibeschuetz. Author of the classic work פני יהושע (the first volume appeared in print in Amsterdam, 1739), no one could question either his learning or integrity. In a battle of titans – now Rabbis Falk and Eibeschuetz – that escalated over a five year period, Falk ultimately called for Eibeschuetz to be defrocked. He placed Eibeschuetz under the ban, specifically ruling that he could no longer function as a rabbi, teacher, or preacher either in Altona or anywhere else, until such time that he would appear before a Jewish court of law and his case would be adjudicated . That, of course, never happened. As indicated, defenders of Eibeschuetz could not easily account for Falk’s seemingly acrimonious stance in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.[2]

A possible early mention of Falk’s suffering from blindness appears in an undated letter by R. Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz (circa 1732-1789), son of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz. The letter was addressed to a rabbinic colleague, an ardent supporter of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, and was published surreptitiously by Emden in 1755, during Falk’s lifetime.[3] In it, Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz notes in a postscript that reports have just reached him from a variety of informants that Falk’s [second] wife had died suddenly in Mannheim. Her sudden death had an immediate traumatic effect on Falk, who was overcome with mental confusion and physical pain. Specifically, Eibeschuetz states that Falk “now walks lonely and desolate, depleted of strength, and is no longer able to see.”[4] Although the letter is undated, we know precisely that Falk’s [second] wife died on Monday, October 18, 1751(= 29 Tishre 5512).[5] The letter could only have been written shortly after the event it describes.

It is difficult to assess how much credibility is to be given to such a report. The author of the letter was not an eyewitness to the event he describes. Moreover, he personally viewed Falk as the “enemy,” and could only take delight in describing his mental and physical breakdown.[6] In any event, we know that some four months later Falk obviously recovered, for he remarried on Shushan Purim in 1752,[7] and clearly regained his eyesight (as we will prove below), even if he had lost it temporarily. Doubtless, this report, published in 1755, played a significant role in influencing the later accounts that had much to say about Falk’s blindness during the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.

In the 19^th century, reports appeared in print that Falk suffered from blindness toward the end of his life. Even if we assume that these reports are accurate accounts of Falk’s state of health in 1756, they speak only of blindness during the last months, weeks, or days of his life.[8] By the 20^th century, apologists broadened the period of Falk’s blindness to the entire span of his involvement in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy, from 1751 to 1756.[9] Thus, it was claimed that Falk never saw any of the amulets ascribed to Eibeschuetz and never read any of the polemical works published by the Emden forces between 1751 and 1756. He heard only oral reports, and based his rulings upon the misinformation that he was fed. It follows, then, that Falk’s stance in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy cannot be used as evidence against the integrity of Eibeschuetz. In the 21^st century, more radical apologists would claim that all the letters and broadsides allegedly signed and published by Falk were in fact forged by the anti-Eibeschuetz forces.[10]

Here, we shall attempt to set the record straight. It would seem from a variety of sources that Falk could see perfectly well during the key years of the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. He had no problem reading texts as late as August of 1755, when – some 5 months before he died – he published the very last text he would contribute to the literature of the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. What follows is a summary list of some key sources, and their dates.

1. Wednesday, August 7, 1754 (=19 Av, 5514). The חיד”א (R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) met with Falk in Worms. An impostor was bankrupting the חיד”א’s fundraising efforts on behalf of the Jewish community of Hebron. The impostor came with forged papers, claiming he was the true emissary of Hebron. He would reach each town and city in Europe before the חיד”א arrived, collect the funds, and abscond. Falk came to the חיד”א’s rescue by comparing חיד”א’s written credentials against his own collection of rabbinic signatures, and as recorded in חיד”א diary, “וירא כי החתימות דידי ודידיה היו לאחדים.” Falk saw that the signatures on both sets of documents were exactly the same, and declared חיד”א to be the only authorized emissary from Hebron.[11] See here:

2. Monday, April 14, 1755 (=3 Iyar 5515). Falk wrote a letter on behalf of Simon von Geldern (1720-1788), then an itinerant yeshiva student. Falk writes:

3. Monday, August 18,1755 (11 Elul, 5515). Falk wrote his final letter of approbation for authors of rabbinic works. He wrote 42 altogether. See his הסכמה to R. Aryeh Leib Horowitz’ ספר המצות עם פירוש מרגניתא טבא (Frankfurt, 1756). Falk writes that a copy of R. Aryeh Leib’s מרגניתא טבא was placed before his eyes (italics mine, s.z.l.). He examined it two or three times and saw that the comments were wise and true, and agreed to write a letter of approval.[13] See here.

4. Friday, August 29, 1755 (= 22 Elul 5515). In a broadside entitled חרבות צורים , Falk published his final salvo in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.[14] Some 8 weeks earlier, Eibeschuetz had published לוחת עדות (Altona, 1755), his first published book, and the only one which was devoted to a vigorous denial of the charges made against him that he was a closet Sabbatean. In the book, he addressed the amulets that had been ascribed to him, and called to the stand an impressive list of witnesses for the defense, including many of the leading rabbis in Lithuania, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, Italy, Turkey and elsewhere, all of whom attested to his innocence of the charges levelled against him. Falk’s חרבות צורים was the first published book review of לוחת עדות, and a devastating one at that.

For our purposes, what is significant is that Falk indicates that he read the book upon publication, and indeed cites chapter and verse with precision. He even notes that he compared the printed version (in לוחת עדות) of a personal letter that Eibeschuetz had addressed to him in 1754, to the original copy still in his possession, and noticed subtle, if only minor, differences. Apparently, Falk could see quite well, as late as August 29, 1755, when the broadside was penned by him.[15] He died some 5 months later on January 16, 1756 (= 14 Shevat 5516). See here.

In sum, R. Jacob Joshua Falk was not blind during the key years that he participated in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy. He may well have suffered from blindness toward the end of his life. If so, this is likely to have occurred sometime after he wrote his final salvo in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy on August 29, 1755.[16]

Notes

[1] For a scathing rabbinic critique of Emden’s character, and for samples of the negative impact of his character on his writings, see R. Meir Dan Plotzki, “לכותבי הסתוריא” in דגלנו 2 1922, n. 5-6, pp. 108-110, and n. 10-11, pp. 191-194; and 3(1923), n. 12, pp. 230-233. For a typical historian and apologist who explains away Emden’s animosity as being grounded largely in jealousy, see E. Duckesz, חכמי אה”ו (Hamburg, 1908), pp. 55-63. A wide variety of other motivations for Emden’s animosity have been suggested, including economic factors (see, e.g., M.J. Cohen, Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy ,Philadelphia, 1937); halakhic issues (see, e.g., Rabbi R. Margulies, סיבת התנגדותו של רבינו יעקב מעמדין לרבינו יהונתן אייבשיץ , Tel-Aviv, 1941); and kabbalistic speculation (see, e.g., Rabbi Y.Y. Safrin, נציב מצותיך [first published in Lemberg, 1858] Jerusalem, 1983, p. 117, and Rabbi A.Y. Schlesinger, קונטרוס שמרו משפט תנינא, Jerusalem, 1914, p. 72a).
[2] On Falk’s role in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy, see S.Z. Leiman, “When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of Rabbi Jacob Joshua Falk in the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy,” in D. Frank and M. Goldish, eds., Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics (Detroit, 2008), pp. 435-456.
[3] Emden, ויקם עדות ביעקב (Altona, 1755), pp. 79a-80a (the pagination mistakenly reads: pp. 59a-60a).
[4] Ibid., p. 80. The Hebrew reads: אף גם הוא כעת הולך ערירי וכוחו סר ואור עינו אין אתו.

The plain sense of the phrase אור עינו אין אתו is less than certain. Although some are inclined to render it figuratively, e.g, “his eyes lost their sparkle,” in rabbinic literature it is often rendered literally and refers to loss of sight.

For the figurative sense, see 1 Sam 14:29 ארו עיני (my eyes lit up), Psalm 38:17 ואור עיני גם הם אין אתי (my eyes have lost their luster), and cf. M. Yoma 8:6. The figurative sense, then, refers clearly to the restoration or loss of physical and mental well-being. For the sense “loss of sight,” see, e.g., R. Yosef b. Eliyahu Hazzan, עין יוסף (Smyrna, 1675), introduction; R. Jacob Emden, חלי כתם (Altona, 1775), p. 22b; R. Yissachar Lichtenstein, אהל יששכר (Altona, 1826), letter of approbation by R. Michael May of Breslau; R. Abraham Ha-Levi, אברהם זכרון (Lvov, 1837), letter of approbation by R. Yaakov Orenstein; and R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, פארי חכמי מדינתינו (Sighet, 1910), p. 38, entry 13. In these (and in other) rabbinic passages, the phrase אור עינו אין אתו is often used interchangeably with the terms עיוור, סומא, and סגי נהור.
[5] See D.A.L. Zinz, עטרת יהושע (Bilgoraj, 1936), p. 19. Her tombstone – moved from the old to the new Jewish cemetery – is preserved to this very day in Mannheim’s New Jewish Cemetery.
[6] Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz adds in the postscript that “starting at her funeral, Falk proclaimed that his punishment was due to his opposition to my [i.e., Nathan Nota Eibeschuetz’] Master, Teacher, and Rabbi, my father the Gaon [Jonathan Eibeschuetz].
[7] Zinz, loc. cit.
[8] See G. Klemperer, “Rabbi Jonathan Eibenschütz,” in Pascheles’ Sippurim 4(1856), pp. 284-5 [also published as a monograph entitled Rabbi Jonathan Eibenschütz (Prague, 1858), pp. 76-77]. Cf. Y. Gastfreund, “תולדות רבי יהונתן אייבענשיטץ” in his אנשי שם (Lyck, 1879), p.17, note. None of these sources provide any detail about a progression from partial to total blindness; they simply assume that at some point toward the end of his life Falk suffered from total blindness.
[9] See, e.g., H.Y.N. Silberberg, קונטרס דרך חיים (Piotrkow, 1931), p. 81.
[10] See, e.g., Y.Y. Vidovsky, “הקדמת המו”ל” in יערות דבש השלם המנוקד (Jerusalem, 2000), vol.1, p. 45, n. 95, whose claims are based upon an egregious misreading of the evidence he presents. Falk’s apologists are not discussed in Y. Barnai’s “יחסה של ההיסטוריוגרפיה האורטודוקסית לשבתאות” in his שבתאות: היבטים חברתיים (Jerusalem, 2000), pp.120-141.
[11] H.Y.D. Azulai, מעגל טוב השלם (Jerusalem, 1934), p. 23.
[12] Simon von Geldern, כתבי קודש ומליצות (Amsterdam, 1760), p. 4b.
[13] A.L. Horowitz, ספר המצות עם פירוש מרגניתא טבא (Frankfurt, 1756), הסכמה printed immediately following the title page (courtesy: HebrewBooks.org). See, however, the הסכמה of Falk’s son on the same page, which raises the possibility that Falk’s הסכמה was dictated by him and recorded by his son. Even so, I don’t think this changes the basic facts recorded in Falk’s הסכמה.
[14] Only one copy of חרבות צורים seems to have survived the vicissitudes of time. It is preserved in a private collection, and the owner, who prefers to remain anonymous, has graciously allowed me to publish the full text anew. I plan to do so in the near future. Here I post a scan only of the opening lines and paragraph, which are relevant to the discussion at hand.
[15] It is possible to claim that Falk was already blind when לוחת עדות was published on June 27, 1755. When a copy reached Falk in Frankfurt, it was read to him by an amanuensis, who also recorded Falk’s response as it was dictated to him. The response was then published in the broadside entitled חרבות צורים. Such a claim, however, is meaningless in terms of apologetics, whose ultimate goal is to dismiss Falk’s testimony as uninformed and meaningless. By June 1755, Falk’s role in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy was basically over. It’s everything he said, wrote, and did before June 1755 –when he certainly could see and read – that established his unique and unequivocal stance in the controversy. Moreover, specifically with regard to חרבות צורים, every criticism of Eibeschuetz by Falk is referenced with precision to the appropriate page in לוחת עדות. Every criticism is clever, incisive, and right on target – as one would expect from a tried and tested Sabbatean-buster like Falk. None of the criticisms could be dismissed as the uninformed and meaningless testimony of a blind man who could not read and understand the text of לוחת עדות.
[16] Anecdotal evidence (that can neither be authenticated nor dated with precision) preserves a tradition that Falk wore reading glasses in Lvov. If true, it surely suggests that he was able to see at that early stage in his life (and needed glasses only for reading). Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed otherwise. See Zinz, op. cit., pp. 95-6. Elsewhere in the same volume (on p. 25), Zinz writes specifically – without adducing any evidence – that Falk “was blind for several months prior to his death.” This is perfectly consistent with our conclusion

A much later instance of an interaction with a ghost is found in R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen’s (1691-1765/1767) Yesh M’Nechalin. R. Katzenellenbogen happened across a man who had the last two of his fingers bent back and connected to his palm. R. Katzenellenbogen inquired whether the man was born that way. The man explained that he was not and instead this happened when he had attended a fair. There were hundreds of people in a large room preparing for the next day’s events. Suddenly, the door of the room opened on its own. Standing at the doorway was a women dressed in tachrichim (death clothes). One person, screamed that it was his dead mother. Someone got up and slammed the door shut only to have the door open by itself again with the woman standing there. This man then went and pushed the “ghost” and from that day on his fingers were permanently connected to his palm.

Continuing on the theme of dead or other beings which interact with those still alive, we come to a rather strange question which has occupied the minds of many people for the last 800 years. The question is what is the status of someone who has intercourse with a demon? The first to mention this question is R. Isaac of Vienna (1200-1270) in his work Or Zarua. He states that intercourse with a demon is halackically meaningless. He cites a midrash which has a hassid (pious one) who was seduced by a demoness on Yom Kippur. Afterwards he felt very bad about this, but Elijah the Prophet visited him and asked him why he was sad. After the hassid explained what happened Elijah said don’t worry it was only a demon. The Or Zarua therefore says as Elijah appeared to him and he told him it was ok, intercourse with a demon is not a problem.

Now, the Or Zarua was not addressed at an actual question, however, R. Meir of Lublin (1558-1616) was asked about an “actual” case where a woman had intercourse with a demon and thus could she remain married to her husband. Although R. Meir was unaware of the Or Zarua he independentally came to the same conclusion – she was still permitted to remain married as intercourse with a demon has no effect. Least one say this is all in the realm of theory or not followed, the Beit Shmuel the classic commentary on Shulhan Orach Even haEzer quotes this law of R. Meir of Lublin (Even haEzer 6:17).

The question of intercourse with a demon seems to have come up without respect to the local or time period. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) discusses “groups of women who go out to the forest” and conduct rituals with music and it seems they were visited or engaged in intercourse with demons. The Hida follows the ruling of R. Meir of Lublin and permits these women.

In Hungary in the 19th century there was a celebrated case where a woman became pregnant while her husband was away and she claimed the “father” was a demon. It appears the child was not deemed a mamzer (bastard) and the woman was allowed to remain married.

Now, there were some who questioned this whole line of reasoning and said that if one engages in intercourse with what appears to be human even if they are a demon it is of no moment. Thus, a married woman would be prohibited to remain married. The first to come to this conclusion was R. Yitzhak Binyamin Lipman (17th century) in his Nahlat Binyamim. Additionally, R. Yosef Zechariah Stern says if one follows the above rulings, what is stopping anyone who commits adultery to just claim it was a demon.

Moving on from demons, we now go to beings created via the Sefer Yetzirah. The Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) is a work which allows via manipulation of various names of God to create things. Many have dealt with the halakhic status of such creations. For instance, R. Meir Leibush (1809-1879) in his work the Malbim says the reason Abraham was able to give the angels milk and meat together was Abraham did not give them meat from a born cow. Rather, the Malbim points to the verse which says “the calf which he [Abraham] made.” Malbim explains the words “he made” are literal, i.e. Abraham created the calf via the Sefer Yetzirah and thus was able to feed them both this meat and milk at the same time.

R. Isaiah Horowitz in his work Sheni Luchot HaBrit (Shelah) similarly understands the controversy between the brothers and Joseph. Specifically, Joseph, according to some Midrashic sources three negative things about the brothers – they at ever min ha-hai, they engaged in intercourse with Canaanite females and they embarrassed the children of the servants. The Shelah explains all three were based upon the Sefer Yetzirah. He explains that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham and passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob. The brothers, however, felt the sons of the servants were not worthy of such an important work (thus speaking ill or embarrassing them). Additionally, the brothers acted on the book and created animals which they ate from before killing them as there was no need being they were created via the Sefer Yetzirah. Further “it is possible that the tribes [the brothers] had created a woman” and it was these things Joseph saw and misunderstood to be regular beings. Again, according to the Shelah, intercourse or otherwise with beings from other worlds pose no halakhic issues. It is not surprising the Shelah took this position as the Shelah’s teacher was R. Meir of Lublin the one who permitted the woman who had intercourse with a demon to remain married.[2]

Perhaps the brothers were not the only ones to make women for this purpose, it is recorded (albeit much later) that R. Solomon Ibn Gabriol (1021-1058) created a woman to “serve” him. But, when the authorities found out he was forced to show it was merely wood and not a person.[3]

At the end of the forgery Niflot HaMaharal (the most comprehensive source for the false legend the Maharal of Prague created a golem) there is a discussion of various aspects of a golem. For instance, whether a golem would create impurity after it was “killed” (it would not) and the like. In regards to intercourse they state that “a golem can not reproduce nor does it have desires for the opposite sex.” It would seem that in the Paul Wegner 1920 silent movie classic “Der Golem” he disagreed with that premise. Part of the plot line is the Golem falling in love with the Maharal’s daughter; the nobleman’s son also does and she in fact runs off with him only to have the Golem rescue her. (It seems the Simpsons also follows with a similar plot line.)

As a final note, it is worthwhile mentioning that going the route of trying to connect with the other world does have it perils. R. Yaakov Ettlinger, in his Binyan Tzion describes a case where a woman met a man who told her he was Elijah the prophet and through their union the Messiah would be produced. The woman believed him, only to find out after the fact the person was con man. R. Ettlinger deals with whether in such a case she can remain married to her husband. So, ultimately one should make certain they verify the credentials of any demon, golem or ghost prior to engaging in any questionable acts.

Sources: Yesh M’Nechalin, 267-68; Hannah Sprecher, “Diabolus Ex-Machina: An Unusual Case of Yuhasin” in Jewish Law Association Studies VIII: The Jerusalem Conference Volume, 183-204; J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (who although discusses the topic of intercourse with a demon appears to have been unaware of Sprecher’s article which contains many more sources than Chajes cites or discusses); Moshe Idel, Golem, esp. pp. 213-241 (which was reprinted almost in its entirety in a Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000) article by Dr. John Loike available here (PDF); R. Yudel Rosenberg, Niflot HaMahral (Pitrokav, 1909), pp. 71-74; R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Binyan Tzion, no. 164; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London; R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague,” Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58; see also the account in Kav Ha-Yashar from R. Moshe Koidonover, translated by Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 161-63.

[1] See the discussion in the R. Reuven Margulies edition how he could have been motzei them if he was dead. Sefer Hassidim, no. 1129.

[2] Interestingly, Idel in his book Golem, appears to have been unaware of the connection between the Shelah and R. Meir of Lublin.

[3] In the halakhic realm, most are already familiar with the well-known question first posed by R. Tzvi Ashkenazi and elaborated on by his son R. Ya’akov Emden, whether a golem could be counted for a minyan (quorum).