Ghosts, Demons, Golems and their Halachik Status

One explicit mention of a ghost appears in the Talmud Ketubot 103a. The Talmud records that every week Rebbi used to return to his house after he died. The Talmud, however, does not record what Rebbi used to do when he came back. The Sefer Hassidim states that Rebbi was different than other dead people in that he was considered almost fully alive. Rebbi, according to the Sefer Hassidim, would make Kiddush for his family.[1]

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).

R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan, Life on Other Planets and Jewish Reactions to Copernicus

R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan, Life on Other Planets and Jewish Reactions to Copernicus

by Eliezer Brodt

R. David Neito and the Mateh Dan

R. David Nieto was born in 1654 in Venice and died in England in 1728. Aside for being a tremendous talmid hakham, Nieto also had degrees in science, philosophy, and was a medical doctor. He was a Rav, Dayan and Darshan in Leghorn for a while. He then was hired to be Rav of the Sefardi Kehila in England in 1701. Besides for being a multi-talented Rav, he was a prolific writer authoring numerous works. Including on dealing with the calendar Pascologia, another work, De la divina Providencia was authored in his own defense after he gave a sermon claiming that G-d and nature are one, some people in the community called him a heretic for this. A copy of this sermon was sent to the Chacham Zvi who defended R. Nieto. This defense was printed in his Shu”t Chacham Zvi (#18). This incident is also mentioned in R. Jacob Emden’s autobiography Megilat Sefer (Bick Ed.),(p.55). See also Chida in Shem Hagedolim (Erech Mateh Dan) who quotes this; C. Dembeister, Klelas Yofee 1:95b; Cecil Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo Jewish History (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1962), 118; Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), pp. 272 & 331; David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 317-318]. See also here and here.

Another of R. Nieto’s works is Esh Dat which was written against Nechemiah Chiyyon. As far as halakhic literature we do not have any printed works but R. Nieto did produce works in this field yet they remain in manuscript until today (see Cecil Roth ibid.), one was recently auctioned off at a Asufa auction. Most of his works have never been translated into Hebrew.

Much has been written on R. Nieto in general, just to cite a few sources: see Moritz Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, (1967) p. 263; Israel Zinberg, Toledot Safrut Yisrael, vol. 3, pp. 243-44; especially Cecil Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo Jewish History, 113-29, later translated into Hebrew in the Mossad Rav Kook 1968 edition Mateh Dan; Raphael Loewe, “The Spanish Supplement to Nieto’s Esh Dath,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981): 267-296; and David B. Ruderman, “Jewish Thought in Newtonian England: The Career and Writings of David Nieto (In Memory of Jacob J. Petuchowski),” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 193-219, later expanded in his work, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, 310-31; and the recently published article by Matt Goldish, “The Spirit of the Eighteenth Century in the Anti-Sabbatean Polemics of Hakham David Nieto,” in Jeremy D. Popkin, ed., The Legacies of Richard Popkin (=International Archives of the History of Ideas – Archives internationales d’ histoire des idées, no. 198 [2008]), 229-243. See, as well, Menachem Butler, “Hakham David Nieto and Hakham Zebi,” the Michtavim blog (14 November 2008), available here, which includes, as well, a picture of R. Nieto. Additionally, R. Nieto is mentioned in the excellent work of historical fiction by David Liss, A Conspiracy of Paper, pp. 109-10. David B. Ruderman shows in his Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key (Princeton Press, 2000), pp.185-86, that R. Nieto was the first Jewish thinker to grapple with Newton in his works although not by name.

R. Nieto is most well known for his Matteh Dan or the Kuzari Hashenei. First printed in 1714, this edition was issued in three versions at the same time, one in Hebrew one in Spanish and one in both Hebrew and Spanish. The Spanish only edition is exceedingly rare. According to one source there are but three complete copies of this edition extant. See Israel Solomons, “David Nieto and Some of his Contemporaries,” in Jewish Historical Society of England Transactions, vol. XII (1931) pp. 26-27. All of the various versions of the first edition include a drawing of Rabenu Hakodesh on the title page which some speculate was done by Nieto as he was an artist (see Roth, ibid, p. 128, but he is mistaken in claiming the drawing was of Moshe when the legend underneath the portrait states that is Rabbenu Hakodesh and the figure is pointing at a book that has the word “Mishna” in large letters). In 1779 the Matteh Dan was reprinted with a beautiful Haskama from the Shages Aryeh (also mentioned by the Chida in his Shem Hagedolim entry on R. Nieto). The title page of the 1884 edition of the Mateh Dan mentions these two Gedolim (Shages Aryeh and Chida) and the Chacham Zvi all endorsing this work. The Steipler (Chayhe Olam) includes the Mateh Dan in a small list of recommended reading material on emunah and refers to the Mateh Dan as “הספר הנפלא”. This work is quoted in many seforim just to cite a few: R. Y. Heller. Maoz Hadas, p. 35a, Meshiv Nefesh (p.18a), R. Kemlar in Talmud u-Maddah numerous times (pp. 16, 31, 58, 69) Shut Beis Mordecahei (#63) and even in some of the recent works on Bircas ha-Chammah, see, e.g., R. J. D. Bleich, Bircas Hachammah, p. 58; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah,p.148; R. A. Brisk, Otzar Hazemanim, pp. 209, 225, 238. R. Meshulam Roth created a curriculum for his yeshiva, he included the Kuzari Hashnei as an essential sefer for his talmidim to read (among other interesting things in the program; see Mivasar Ezra, p.177, and Mivasar Vomer, p. 119); R. Meir Shapira even asked R. Roth if he could use the latter’s curriculum for Yeshivat Chachemei Lublin (see Mivasar Ezra, p. 172).

In 1968, Mossad ha-Rav Kook published an edition of the Mateh Dan based on the first printing. This edition is visually very nice, they did a nice job of laying out the sefer including a table of contents before each section of the sefer. But the notes although are helpful are very minimal [all quotes in this post are from this edition].

A few months ago a new English critical-edition of R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan was translated from the Hebrew by Louis Loewe and completed by Raphael Loewe, published by the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation of London, and Mechon Haktav of Jerusalem. This work was edited and prepared for publication by Yehuda Hershkowitz. This new edition is two volumes including a beautiful facsimile edition of the first printing on high quality paper leather bound. The facsimile volume reproduces the original edition of Hebrew with a Spanish translation on the side. The English translation had been done in 1845 by Louis Loewe. [I am aware that there is another English translation of this work published by Yashar Books, although it is only a partial translation and I never had a chance to see it.] This translation of L. Loewe was reprinted in this new set with some of the translation adjusted to our current English but as a whole remains the same. Many small useful notes were added in by the editors Raphael Loewe and Yehuda Hershkowitz. Besides for the nice interesting introduction by R. Loewe this new edition has an excellent overview by Yehuda Hershkowitz entitled “A Brief Survey of Calendar Making” (pp. 318-48). The purpose of Hershkowitz’s overview is to aid the reader in understanding the fifth section of Mateh Dan which deals with the calendar. Some other additions found in this edition were the many comments of R. Moshe Rimoni written in 1794 which were already included in the Mossad Rav Kook edition. In addition to this Yehuda Hershkowitz printed for the first time a manuscript from 1819 written by R. A. Lampronti about life on other planets.This manuscript comes from the now well known Valamadonna collection of Jack Lunzer.

I would like to highlight some of the very many points of interest in the Matteh Dan. The work pretty much starts where the Kuzari ends (hence the alternative title – Kuzari ha-Sheni), and the main focus of the Mateh Dan is to defend the legitimacy of Torah Shel bal Peh. It is written in debate format similar to the Kuzari. In the introduction of his work he writes:

ולפי שיש מחלוקות על מלך כוזר הראשון ועל מלכותו… יש אומרים שהרב המחבר המציא בדעתו מלך ומלכותו אשר לא היה ולא נברא. ויש אומרים שמעשה שהיה כך היה ככתוב בספר כדי שלא לאפושי במחלוקות על הכוזרי שלי אני מודיע נאמנה לכל קורא בספרי שלא נהיה כדברים האלה כי מלבני אני בודאם

The sefer is divided into five sections. In the first section he sets out to prove that the Jews always had Torah Shel Bal Peh from the times of Moshe and onwards. He shows how various Mitzvas its impossible to understand if we do not have Torah Shel Ba’al Peh. One of the many nice pieces in this section that he writes when dealing with the prohibition of carrying on Shabbas (p.12):

איסור משא קל כמעט שמפורש בתורה שהרי דוד המלך ע”ה אמר בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו ובכן היתה הבריאה ביום הראשון אמר השם יתברך יהי אור ויהי אור… ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם וכתבי וישבות ביום השביעי. נמצא שכששבת לא שבת אלא ממאמר בעלמא שהוא דבר שאינו יכול לגרום לו ליאות ויגעה משני טעמים חדא מפני שבו יתברך שהוא בלתי תכלית וכחו בלתי בעל תכלית לא יתכן ליאות ויגעה ב’ שאפילו תימה ח”ו שהיה ראוי לכך אי אפשר שייעף ויגע על הוצאת שתי מלות בכל יום בלבד נמצינו למדים שהקב”ה שבת ממה שלא היה יכול לייגעו בב’ טעמים, ולכן האיש הישראלי אשר ישבות ממשא כבד בלבד לא ישבות כמו ששבת הקב”ה אבל כשישבות אף ממשא קל אזי באמת שומר שבת מחללו ומחזיק בבריתו יתברך.

In section two he continues proving the truth of Torah Shel Bal Peh. A nice piece in this section is while proving that the esrog is the fruit the Torah requires one to take on Succos he writes (p.25):

בחג הסוכות אמר הכתוב ולקחתם… פרי עץ הדר… ואפשר שהכוונה היא על רמון נאה… אבל הם ז”ל פירשו שהוא אתרוג דווקא ופסלו כל מה שאינו אתרוג ממש כפי הסימנים אשר מסרונו אף על פי שיהיה מאותו המין, וזה גורם הוצאה רבה ועגמת נפש גדולה ליושבי ארצות ואקלים הקרים לפי שצריך שיביאו להם אתרוג מארץ הרחוקים לחוג בו את חג הסכות בהוצאה רבה. ולא עלתה תלונותי כי אין ציבור עני, אלא שלפעמים יש להם ההוצאה אבל לא השבח של המצוה כגון כשלא הגיע לידם אלא בתוך ימי החג או אחריו התאימין אדוני המלך שאנשים חכמים ונובנים בדו כל זה מלבם טעם ויסוד אחר אלא להתשרר על הצבור.

When dealing with the writing of the Mishnayos he writes (p.43):

אלא אפילו לאותן שנזכרו בהם תנאים באין חולק עליהם שכולם קבלה, לפי שרבינו הקודש לא היה אלא מלקט ומסדר ופוסק מה ששמע ואסף מימי התנאים אשר היו לפניו עד האחרונים אשר הוא אחד מהם.

When talking about asmactos he says (p.52):

אסמכתא… כח משפט חז”ל לסמוך העיקר המקובל על איזה פסוק אף על פי שהוא רחוק במטחוי קשתת מפשוטו, כי זה אינו אלא לעורר הזכירה. ובכן ברמז בעלמא סגי, כמו שעושין בני אדם, שקושרין קשר בסודר לזכור איזה דבר.

This understanding of asmactos follows the Rambam and other Rishonim yet there are other Rishonim disagree, at times rather sharply. For example, the Ritva who writes:

ומשום הכי קתני ר”ע שאמר הקב”ה אמרו לפני מלכיות זכרונות וכו’ שכל מה שיש לו אסמכתא מן הפסוק העיר הקב”ה שראוי לעשות כן אלא שלא קבעו חובה ומסרו לחכמים, וזה דבר ברור ואמת, ולא כדברי המפרשים האסמכתות שהוא כדרך סימן שנתנו חכמים ולא שכונת התורה לכך, ח“ו ישתקע הדבר ולא יאמר שזו דעת מינות הוא, אבל התורה (העידה) [העירה] בכך ומסרה חיוב הדבר לקבעו [ל]חכמים אם ירצו כמו שנאמר ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך, ולפיכך תמצא החכמים נותנין בכל מקום ראיה או זכר או אסמכתא לדבריהם מן התורה כלומר שאינם מחדשים דבר מלבם וכל תורה שבע”פ רמוזה בתורה שבכתב שהיא תמימה וח”ו שהיא חסירה כלום (ריטב“א, ראש השנה דף טז ע”א).

This topic is dealt by many just to list some sources see: R. Yosef Engel, Beit Haotzar,1:190; R. Meshullam Roth, Shu”t Kol Mivasar, 2:21-22; Mivasar Ezra, 20-22; R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Yeshurun 20:678; R. Yonah Martsbach, Aleh Yonah, 101-105; R. Gedaliah Nadel, Betorato Shel Rav Gedaliah, pp. 28-30; R. Gedaliah Nadel, Mila Dehespeda, pp. 130-31. In section three he discusses many specific points in regard to Torah Shel Bal Peh just to list some of the many interesting ones: When dealing with how exactly did arguments begin in Klal Yisrael in the times of the talmedei of Hillel and Shamaei he goes has a lengthy historical discussion of that period to explain what happened listing all the terrible decrees and persecutions that the Jews went through at that time. At the end the Kuzari asks him (p.65):

אבל מה תשיב על שכחת דברים הנוהגים בכל יום כגון קידוש והבדלה שמצינו בית שמאי ובית הלל חולקים בקידוש אם מברכין על היום תחילה או על היין וכן בהבדלה… וכי לא ראו ולא שמעו איך היו מקדשים אבותם ורבותם בשבתות וימים טובים, היאמן כי יספור ששכחו דברים כאלו שהם תמידים? אמר החבר: אין מקום לקושייתך משום דקי”ל סדר ברכות אין מעכבות… ולכן בראשונה כל אחד ואחד היה מקדים או מאחר שהיה רוצה, עד שבאו בית שמאי ובית הלל ועמדו למנין על סדר הברכות ונפסקו ההלכה. ואף על פי כן אם הקדים המאוחרת או איחר המוקדמת יצא. וכן יש לומר בכל המחלוקות שתמצא מזה המין…

[This answer applies to all such questions which others have dealt with at length like how did a argument between Rashi and Rabenu Tam evolve over the order of the Parshiyos in Tefilin why didn’t they check what previous generations did. The answer in short which is given is both were done by some.]

When dealing with the famous question dealt with by many of why can’t Amoraoim disagree with Tannoim he writes (p.68):

שלא חילקו האמוראים על התנאים מפני שהכירו שהיו גדולים מהם בכל הבחינות ודלא כמו שכתב הכסף משנה שקבלו על עצמם שלא לחלוק…

Then he writes that there is a constant yeridot ha-dorot when it comes to people’s knowledge (a point which not all agree with) so he wonders why do we say הלכה כבתראי. So he answers:

על דרך המשל הידוע שננס רוכב על גבי ענק רואה יותר ממה שרואה הענק אף על פי שהננס הוא כנמלה לגבי הענק.

Much has been written on this משל see the Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeriah from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pp. 322-27; see also S. Leiman, “Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants,” Tradition 27:3, pp. 90-94 in both of these articles, the Kuzari Hashenei is not included. Just to add three more sources on the topic, not on either of the previously mentioned extensive lists see Simchat Hanefesh, p. 112; R. Y. Heller, Maoz Hadas, p.34b; A. Lipshitz, Avos Atorah Levonim. p. 175 n.6. On this topic in general see; I. Ta-Shmah, Halacha, Minhag Umitzyius Baskenaz, pp. 58-79; Daniel Sperber, Netivot Pesikah, p. 31 n.51, Joseph Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, pp. 46-47, and A. Melamad, Al Kesefei Anakim. When listing the מצות דרבנן he writes that (p.72) they are:

מגלה, חנוכה, נר שבת ויום טוב, הלל , עירובין, נטילת ידים, יום טוב שני של גליות, שבעת ימי המשתה, שבעת ימי אבלות וארבע תעניות.

Not all agree with this listing as this topic has been discussed at great length in his usual incredible style by R. Shmuel Ashkanazi in Kovetz Beis Aron ve-Yisrael (issue # 35, pp. 97-114 and issue #38, pp.139-154). While discussing the reason why we do not blow Shofar when Rosh Hashonah falls out on shabas he writes about the masses of the Jews at the time (p.80):

שרוב עם בני ישראל היו עמי הארץ ומיעוטא דמיעוטא היו חכמים, וכיון שרובא היו עמי הארץ ממילא לא היו בקיאין בדוקדוקי מצות ולכן כשחל ראש השנה וסוכת בשבת ילך אצל בקי עם השופר או עם הלולב כדי שיתקע או יברך לו או כדי ללמוד נטילתו או ברכותו ויוליכנו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים ויבוא לידי איסור סקילה ואף את יתרו בו לא ישמע לקול מוריו כי יאמר שאינו רוצה לבטל המצוה.

When discussing the topic of why we have two days of Yom Tov even thought we understand the calendar today he writes (p.83):

שאם מלך המושל בארץ ישראל קודם ביאת משיחנו ועודנו בגלות יתן רשות לישראל לשבת על אדמתם ולמנות עליהם סנהדרין יחזור העיבור ליושנו והיו מקדשין על פי הראיה כימי קדם קדמתה ואז לא היינו חוגגין לעולם יחד ביום אחד אלא לפעמים ג’ משום שכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו, וכיון שכל ישראל הרחוקים מארץ ישראל קבלו עליהם לעשות שני ימים להסתלק מן הספק, צריך שיסכימו כולם גם כן לבטל תקנה זו וזה איפשר דרך טבע מפני שאנו מפוזרים ומפורדים בין כל האומות העולם אחת הנה ואחת הנה ויש כמה וכמה מבני ישראל במדינות רחוקות, אשר אין אנו יודעים זה מזה ולא יש דרך הכרה ביניהם ובינינו בשום פנים, כגון במלכיות פרס והודו וכוש, ובמלכות גינה וטארטאריאה, כפי מה שמצאתי ראיתי בספרי המלחים והההלכים.

R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, vol. 13, p. 129) already points out that the Meshech Chochma (Bo, 12:1) and others say the same thing. In section four he deals with many topics related to Chazal and their knowledge in science. He begins this section dealing with what exactly are the seforim chizonim that chazal prohibit one from learning and why are they prohibited (pp. 97-100). He is of the opinion as are many others that there is a connection between kabalah and philosophy (p. 98). He shows that chazal had great knowledge in philosophy (pp. 129-57), geometry, and mathematics including a whole lengthy discussion of the mathematical Gemaras in Succah (pp. 113-25). He also deals at great length showing there tremendous knowledge in understanding the calendar etc. (pp. 182-90). Many others have also shown Chazal knowledge in all areas of science just to mention one interesting work on the topic is R. Y. Kemhlar’s Hatalmud Vmadei Hatevel. In addition R. Nieto also has a lengthy discussion showing there expertise in the and anatomy of humans and animals (pp. 104-06). Others have also shown this for example see Meshiv Nefesh (p. 14b, 22a) R. Aron Marcus, Keses Hasofer (p. 78) and Hatalmud Vmadei Hatevel (p. 24). One additional source related to this is found in Chut Hamishulash (p.29a) where he writes about the Chasam Sofer:

לתכלית גדול הזה לברר הלכה לאמיתו ולהעמיד כל ענין על בוריו הי’ לו לכל שיעורי תורה כלים מיוחדים מדודים מאתו בדקדוק הדק היטב להראות לתלמידיו וכן הי’ לו בארגז מיוחד שני צורות תבנית זכר ונקבה מעשה אומן מופלא והיו נעשים פרקים פרקים וכל חלקי הפנימים מעשה חדש נפלא ללמוד וללמד חכמת הניתוח ולא הראה זה רק לתלמידים מובהקים אשר יראת ה’ אוצרם בעת למדו אתם הלכות נדה וכדומה.

After this R. Nieto brings that “the Kuzari asked him “(pp. 106-07) “I have no doubt that they knew science etc. but how did they have time to learn and time for the sciences”. To which R Nieto replied that they although some were real experts in science like Shmuel but most just knew what was necessary for them to understand those areas of Torah that required such knowledge.

R. David Nieto and life on other planets

He writes about life on other planets a very interesting thing (p. 128):

ר’ מאיר אגוז מצא תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק. וכן ראוי לנו לעשות בסברות חכמי האומות, שכל מה שהוא מנגד לתורתנו הקדושה והתמימה בין שבכתב בין שבעל פה שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו כי חרם הוא, אבל מה שאינו נגד דבריה ולא נגד פירושה הרשות ביד כל איש ישראל להאמין או למאן בו לפי שכלו. ובכן כיון שאין שטן ואין פגע רע להאמין שכל הכוכבים בין המהלכים בין הקובעים בגלגל השמיני הם עולמות אשר בהם מכל בעלי חיים, בצדקתה החזקת ולא ארפה. ואפשר שלזה כיוונו רז”ל כשכתבו בסוף מסכת עוקצין עתיד הקב“ה הוא להנחיל לכל צדיק וצדיק שלש מאות ועשרה עולמו.

R. Pinchas Hurwitz in his Sefer Habris (pp.33-34) also says there could be life on other planets bringing proof from various Chazal and Zohar including the some of the same Chazal that R. Nieto uses.

However not everyone understands this Chazal literally just to list one other explanation R. A. Shor writes:

טעם מספר ש”י עולמות נראה לפי שעשרת הדברות יש בהן תר”ך אותיות נגד תרי”ג מצות ושבע מצות בני נח במספר כת”ר עליון ונראה שכנגדן יש לו לאדם תר”ך עולמות אלא לפי שהאדם נברא דו פרצופין זכר ונקבה ויקרא את שמם אדם וכן כל הנשמות זכר ונקבה נבראו ובין שניהם נשלם ונעשה האדם במלואו וטובו לשמור ולעשות את כל מצות ה’ לכך גם אותן תר”ך עולמות יחדיו יחלוקו מחציתן לזכר ומחציתן לנקבה והיינו ש”י עולמות לכל צדיק וצדיק (תורת חיים, סנהדרין, דף ק ע”א).

[On this Toras Chaim see R. S. Askanazi in Kovetz Beis Aron Vyisroel (issue #38, p.142)]. R. Yosef Zechariah Stern (Ma’amar Betalocas Aggaddos, p. 45) suggests even more that there is a printing mistake and it should say two (שני) not three hundred and ten (ש”י) worlds. [As an interesting bibliographical note R. Yakov Shor [Mishnat R. Yakov, p. 41] this chazal is not really the end of Ukztin rather it was stuck in from elsewhere because we like to end with something good]. This topic has been dealt with by many see for example the Ri Barcellona in his work on Sefer Yetzirah (pp.171-173) where he writes:

יח אלף עלמות שברא… שאפשר שזה העולם חביב לפניו יותר מכל שאר העלמות כי אולי באותן השאר עולמות לא נתן להם תורה… ואולי אפשר נמי לומר כי באותן היח עולמות אין בהם בריות בחטא ועון כמו באלה ואולי אותן הבריות מלאכים רוחות הן שברא המקום לכבודו או אולי קרובים להן והן בלא חטא שאין יצר הרע שולט בהן…

As mentioned earlier, Y. Hershkowitz printed for the first time a manuscript from R. Lampronti about life on other planets where the author deals with this topic at length. See also R. Chasdaei Crescas in Or Hashem (4:2), his rebbe, R. Albo in Ikryim (4:2); Ma’aseh Tuviyyah, 3:1; Sefer Elim, (p. 141a), Kol Yehudah (commentary on Kuzari 2:20 p. 68); Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Reader, pp. 170-75; A. Korman, Hemunah Hayisreleis, pp. 275-77; Evulutzyah ve-Yehadus pp.139-40; Y. Shabtei, Sha’ar Yosef vol. 1, p. 152; R. Kemeil, Shar Reveun, p. 269; N. Lamm in Challenge, pp. 354-98. When R. Nieto deals with the hard to understand famous Gemaras of Raba Bar Bar Chanah he writes (p.171):

שמא שנראה דבר תמוה ובלתי ראוי להאמין, כגון מה שסיפר רבה בר בר חנא מההוא טייעא, הוא דבר מורגל במקומות רחוקים מגלילותינו ואם נראה זר בעינינו הוא מפני חסרון ידיעתנו, לא מפני שהדבר בעצמו בלתי אפשר.

In section five he deals with explanation of how our calendar works very extensively and in depth. This section is not easy to understand if one does not have proper background.Just to mention one point from this section as its Inyana Deyomah and many are bothered with this issue – if the calendar according to Shmuel is off so why do we Pasken like him:

.(שמואל היה יודע שיעור שנת רב אדא ומכיר בו שהוא אמיתי ונכון, אך ביקש דרך קצרה וקלה להמון העם ואותה נתן להם למען ידעו בחשבון הגס שיעור השנה בקירוב בלי דקים וחלקים (ויכוח חמישי, אות קמו

[On this topic see: R. Alexander Moshe Lapides, Toras Hagoan R. Alexander Moshe pp.6-8; R. J. D. Bleich, Bircas Hachammah, pp.58-64; R. A. Brisk, Otzar Hazemanim, pp.223-226; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp. 145-59; R. Yehuda Hershkowitz, The Sun Cycle, pp. 137-38] Some other topics he deals with: are stars alive (pp. 125-26), how many Jews were there in the time of the second Beis ha-Mikdsash (pp. 79-80), the invention of the barometer and thermometer (p. 148) and a whole section on explaining the Thirteen Midos that we use to darshan (pp. 89-95). R. Nieto writes that R. Srug was a Talmid of Arizal (p. 99). This point has been dealt with by many, see the fabulous discussion by Y. Avivi in his recent classic work Kabballas ha-Ari (1:224-44); see also R. S. Deblitski, Benu Shenosu Dor Vedor, pp. 50-52; E. Katzman, Toldos Hamegalah Amukos, pp. 36-39; R. A. Marcus, Keses Hasofer, p.6. R. Nieto seems to hold that the Asra Harugei Malchus died during the same time frame (p. 64). This difficult historical riddle has been dealt with by many just to list some sources see Erchei Tanaim Vamorim, (Blau Ed.) vol. 2, pp. 708-15; S. Kraus in his series of articles in Hasholach 1925 (recently reprinted in Mered Bar Kochchba, pp. 239-76) and the recent book on the topic by E. Vilnar, Asreh Harugei Malchus printed by Mossad Rav Kook. R. Zev Rabanowitz writes when talking about this:

ובכלל רואים אנו, שמחברי אגדות כאלה לא היו בקיאים בדברי הימים ובסדרי הדורו, ורבותינו ז”ל הקדמונים בתמימותם האמינו לאגדות הכתובות וייסדו את פיוטיהם על פיהם למען עורר מספד והרבות בכי, ובזמננו מצוה להסירם מן המחזורים והקינות, כי דובר שקרים לא יכון נגד ה’ ותמה אני על הקדמונים שכבר ידעו ולא מחו מלומר פיוטים כאלה. ואולי מחו ולא נשמעו (שערי תורת בבל, עמ’ 410).

R. Nieto and Copernicus

One of the more famous things which R. Nieto is famous for is not accepting Nicolaus Copernicus‘s theories that the earth revolves around the sun and is not stationary.

He writes:

מיום ברוא אלהים אדם ועד קרוב לזמנו כל יושבי תבל ושוכני ארץ האמינו שהששה כוכבי לכת הם גופים חשוכים שמקבלים האור מהשמש, שהוא אחד מהם והגדול שבהם. ועתה האחרונים המציאו שהם ארצות ושהארץ אשר אנו יושבים היא אחת מהן, מפני שסוברים שהשמש באמצע בלי תנועה כמלך במסבו והששה מקיפים… ואם אדם ימאן בסברא הקודמת ויאמין בזאת תחזיקהו למין או אפיקורוס?… ודאי שמתקבלות על הסברא, אבל אין אנו יכולים להחזיק במונח הזה במה שהוא מבטל תנועת השמשף דביהושע כתיב שמש בגבעון דום … הרי שסובב והולך כשאר כוכבי לכת. ואף על פי שבעלי הסברא הזאת נתחבטו לתרץ הקושיא לריק יגיעו, כי אין תשובתם מספקת ולכן נטשתיה וגרשתיה מהסתפח בנחלת ה’… אמרו שהנביא אמר שמש בגבעון דום מפני המון העם דסבירא להו שהשמש מהלך ואינו יודע תנועת הארץ (כוזרי השני, ויכוח רביעי אות קי-קלב. וראה שם אות רנח, וויכוח חמישי אות ד).

The first reference to Copernicus, but not by name in Jewish literature, is by the Maharal who writes:

וכמו שבא אחד שהיה נקרא בעל תכונה חדשה, אשר נתן ציור אחר וכל אשר הבינו הראשונים אשר לפניהם ונתנו הראשונים ציור ומהלך לכוכבים ומזלות ולגרמים השמים סתר את כלם ונתן ציור חכמה חדשה רק שהוא עצמו כתב כי עדיין לא יוכל ליישב את הכל (נתיבות עולם, נתיב התורה, פרק יד).

[See Andre Neher in Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (Littman Library, 1986), pp. 208-10]. The first reference to Copernicus by name in Jewish literature is by David Ganz in his small work Magen Dovid (of which only one known copy survives in Bodleian Library) first printed in Prague in 1612 (a year before he died). Quoted by Neher, idem p.1; see also, Y. Elbaum, Pseichot ve-Hestagrot, p. 250. What is even more interesting is this small work received Haskomos from R. Yom Tov Heller (author of the Tosfos Yom Tov), R. Ephraim Lenshitz (Klei Yakar) and R. Y. Cohen (son in law of Maharal) all these people were talmidim of the Maharal.[For a copy of this interesting and rare Haskamah of the Tosfos Yom Tov see; M. Hershkowitz, Shnei Kruvim, pp. 105-111; see also J. Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, pp. 90-91. In Ganz’s other work, Nechmad Ve-Naim (which is really part of Magan Dovid), there is also reference to Copernicus but this work was first printed in 1743. Quoted by Neher, idem, p. 197. In both these works Ganz refers to Copernicus in a very positive light. Although, M.Steinschneider in Jewish Literature writes (p.262) that although Ganz was acquainted with the system of Copernicus Ganz follows the Ptolemaic system. But see the in depth discussion of Neher, idem, pp. 200-04, 224-28; see also A. Ziv, Ha-Ramah, p. 83. Another early reference to Copernicus is by R. Y. Delmedigo in Sefer Elim printed in 1629. In this work as well Copernicus is mentioned in a very positive light. What is even more significant about Ganz and Delmedigo endorsing of Copernicus is because besides for both of them being great Talmedei Chachamim they were both expert astronomers having trained by the worlds greatest experts of their times (Ganz by Tycho Brahe and Delmedigo by Galileo). [For more on Ganz in general see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim pp. 234-42; A. Ziv, HaRamah, pp. 82-85;Y. Elbaum, Pseichos Vehestagros, pp. 250-52 and index]. However Nieto was not the only one to oppose Copernicus R. Tuviyyah Cohen did so earlier and much sharper as he writes in Masseh Tuviyyah first printed in 1707:

ראוי לכל פילסוף אלקי שיבטל דעת קופירניקוש ונלוים עליו כי כל אותן ראוי’ שהביא הוא וחבריו הם נגד כתבי הקדוש ודברי נבאי אמת הנאמנים בדבריהם מפני שכתוב בקהלת והארץ לעולם עומדת אבל כפי דעת קופירניקוש איננה עומדת כלל והשמש לא יזרח ולא ישקע… ואם כדבריו כן הוא למה כתוב וזרח השמש ובא השמש… הנך רואה שבכמה מקומות הפסוקים יתנו עידיהן ויצדקו שתשמש והלבנה יותר הכוכבים מסבבים סביב הארץ ולא שהארץ מסבבת סביב השמש ואם יבוא קופירניקוש בטענותיו וראיותיו ומופתיו כזביות אף אתה הקהה את שניו… ודע מה שתשיב לו כי בכור שטן הוא (מעשה טוביה, חלק ב, סוף פרק ג-ד).

[On R. Tuviyyah Cohen and Copernicus see David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp. 231 & 239-40.] Besides for these two Gedolim opposing Copernicus, R. Yonsan Eybshutz who was also knowledgeable in Astronomy was also opposed as he writes in 1779:

ועבור זה נתטפשו הרבה מתוכנ’ קופרניקוס וסעייתו באמרם שהארץ מסבב אבל שקר נחלו והאמת עד לעצמו כי הארץ לעולם עומדת… (יערות דבש, חלק א, דרוש ד, דף לו ע”א).

(Neher, idem, p. 253, is incorrect when he writes that Eybshutz was positive towards Copernicus’ theory). Here, again, we have Eybshutz’s antagonist, R. Yakov Emden, arguing and defending Copernicus as Emden writes:

ויקרא אלקים ליבשה ארץ… יש מפרשים מלשון רץ וכן פירשו רבותינו ז”ל שרצתה לעשות רצון קונה. ויהיה מזה גם כן סעד לדעת בעלי תכונה החדשה (קאפירניקוס) שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת [קהלת א’, ד’] כאשר מבואר במקום אחר בס”ד (סידור יעב“ץ, אשכול, ח”ב, מעמדות ליום שלישי, עמ’ תקפח).

As a bibliographical point the way R. Emeden concludes this piece is by saying כאשר מבואר במ“א בס”ד (and that is how it is in the first edition). For some reason some, (R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, p. 31, Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, p.40 and some earlier prints of the siddur) understood this to be an abbreviation that R. Yakov Emden was referring to a work of his called מכתב אלקים which was never printed. While it true that he authored such a work it and it appears to have been lost but it does not talk about such topics based on the extant quotes [See Y. Rafel, Arshet, 3:276 & J. J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), p.143-144] we have from it from although one can never be sure for certain and the abbreviation could just mean simple כאשר מבואר במקום אחר בס”ד.

[On R. Emden comment see The Sun Cycle by R. Yehuda Hershkowitz p. 18 n.78; J. Elias edition of The Nineteen Letters, p.43]

Although R. Emden writes positively about Copernicus here elsewhere R. Emden writes very negatively about the science of astronomy on the whole including Copernicus:

חכמת התכונה של אומת העולם, רחוקה מכליותי לייחס דעת זו המגונה לרז”ל חלילה וחס להו לרבנן קדישי שיתפארו בחכמת הגויים. רעיוני אנשי העולם הבודים מלבם חכמה שאין לה עיקר ויסוד רק כפי העולה על רוחם נשענים על יסודות הנולדות במוחם לקרב כל דבר אל השכל להוליכו במנהגי הטבע המוחש. ועם כל זה הם עצמן נבוכים מאד. ומודים שאין מציאות אמתי לגלגל יוצא מרכז וגלגל נושא והדומה להם… והרבה כאלה קשות נמצאו באותה חכמה ונתחלקו לכתות כתות בהנחותיה ולא נחו ושקטו גלגלי רעיוניהם. עד שהמציאו תכונה חדשה לגמרי מקרוב באה לא שערוה ראשוניהם (וי”א שנמצא גם בקדמונים מאד מי שחשב עליה כזאת של קופירניקוס) יהי מה אינה ראויה להקרא חכמה כלל. אחר שאינה אל דמיונות ורעיונות ודתיה שונות כפי מחלוקת לבב בני אדם אשר חכמה מה להם… (עץ אבות, אבות פרק ג משנה יח).

[About R. Emden, Copernicus and astronomy in gerneral see: J. J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), p.620-621,685 nt.55].

André Neher, “Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century,” in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1977), pp. 211-26 and in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (pp. 251-60) concludes (p. 253): “With the exception of the two earliest works, which we shall speak about in a moment, [Nieto and Cohen, E.B.] all the works on this list remained in the tradition of the pioneers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: that is to say they were theologically positive towards Copernicus, even if they had practical reservations.” To demonstrate his point he lists many sources of mainstream Gedolim in favor of Copernicus.

Natan Slifkin writes in The Challenge of Creation (p.127): “It was not only the Church that strongly opposed the insights of Copernicus. With few exceptions, the rabbis of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries condemned Copernican astronomy as being opposed to Scripture and as being scientifically flawed. It contradicted the simple meaning of the Scriptural statement that “the world stands forever”, as well as the account in Joshua of time halting by the sun miraculously standing still (as opposed to the earth standing still). “In a footnote listing sources for this statement, Slifkin also refers the reader to Neher; However, in reality, Neher concludes just the opposite. Another positive quote about Copernicus is found in the Yad HaKetnah first printed in 1800 anonymously:

לכת פילוסופים הקדמונים לפני שנים אלפים דעתם שכדור הארץ סובב תמיד. והשמים וכל צבאם עומדים. והפילוסופים שאחריהם קיימו וקבלו, שכל הגללים סובבים והארץ לעולם עומדת. ואחר כך בימים האחרונים זה קרוב לשלשה מאות שנים קם פילוסוף חכם מופלג והחזיק בדעת הקדמונים שהארץ סובבת והשמים עומדים. וחיבר על זה חיבר נפלא עמוק עמוק עד שמתקן כל דרכי התכונה לדעתו וכמובא בהקדמת הספר נחמד ונעים שחיבר בעל המחבר צמח דוד (יד הקטנה, שער י, שער דרכי הניסים, פרק ד).

There are those who show Copernicus theory is found in the Zohar:

ובספרא דרב המנונא סבא, פריש יתיר דהא כל ישובא מתגלגלא בעיגולא ככדור אלין לתתא ואלין לעילא וכל אינון בריין משניין בחזווייהו משינויא דאוירא כפום כל אתר ואתר וקיימין בקיומייהו כשאר בני נשא, ועל דא אית אתר בישובא כד נהיר לאלין חשיך לאלין לאלין יממא ולאלין ליליא, ואית אתר דכוליה יממא ולא אשתכח ביה ליליא בר בשעתא חדא זעירא )זוהר, ויקרא, דף י ע”א).

R. Herzog writes about this (translated from English):

תיאוריה הקשורה לשמו של קופרניקוס… הענין מוזכר באופן לא מפורש במקורות התנאיים. ניסוח מלא ישנו בזוהר בפסקה המצוטטת משמו של רב במנונא סבא. שאלת ייחוסו של ספר הזוהר אינה נוגעת לעניין כי רבי משה די לאון שאליו מייחסים המבקרים את החיבור הנפלא נפטר זמן רב לפני קופרניקוס… (יהדות חוק ומוסר, עמ’ 102)

R. Aron Marcus, writes about this:

יש לציין כי הזוהר מבטל את השיטה הפטולמאית, כבלתי מדעית ונוטה לצד השיטה הקופרניקאית, שהקדים אותה במאות שנים. נוסף על כך לפי דעתו של ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי, הרי השקפות של בני דורו בשטח התכונה, אינן אלא סברות של הדיוטות… (החסידות, תל אביב תשיד, עמ’ 78.).

Interestingly enough A. Neher claims in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (pp. 104-05) that one could imagine that this was written by a pupil of Copernicus! The truth is that R. Yakov Emden on this Zohar writes

:כל ענין זה הולך על דרך חכמי מחקר לא על דרך רז”ל בתלמוד (מטפחת ספרים, עמ’ לז).

However R. Moshe Kuntz (Ben Yochai, p. 81) does not have a problem with Chazal saying this including the Zohar as he has other indications from Chazal like this. But others show that there might be a contradiction in the Zohar about this [see: R. Shpitzer, Nevrashet, Vol.2, p.18a; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp.29-30 and Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, pp.21-22]. C. Solonski in his introduction to his Kochva Deshvet, (p.14) also brings this Zohar to show that Chazal held like Copenicus. R. P. Hurwitz in his Sefer Habris (p.99) brings the Zohar when dealing with Copernicus but after a lengthy discussion he concludes by disagreeing with Copernicus (pp.98-102). [About this Zohar, See also R. Schick, Seder Haminhaghim, 2:24b; Y. Levi, The Science in Torah, pp.115]. The Chasam Sofer who was known for his knowledge in astronomy [see: Chut Hamishlush p. 29a & Zichronis Vmesoros Al Hachasam Sofer, pp. 58, 102, 305] writes about Copernicus in a work he started writing on astronomy (see ibid p.305) after quoting the Yavetz:

מעניני גלגלים וככבי לכת… . דמזה סיוע לכת קאפירניקוס שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת כאשר מבואר במקום אחר, עכ”ד. הנה במ”ש שאין קושיא מוהארץ לעולם עומדת, הדין עמו לפע”ד, לא דבר שם מסיבובי ארץ בגלגל, כי גם לדעת הזאת אין הכוונה שהארץ תסוב על צירה, אלא כל הכדור היסודות כמות שהוא, הוא מתגלגל, אשר הארץ באמצעי לו… מכל מקום אין בידי לדחות קופארניקוס ולא צד שכנגדו כי ראיותיהם עצומות משני הצדדים. ולדעת אותה הכת יש לנו תנועה חדשה, מלבד ג’ תנועות שהזכרתי בפרק דלעיל שסימנם אמ”י, ועתה יתחדש התנועה הסבובי’, אמנם אין לנו עסק בדעת זאת הכת, ונייח (ונייחס) תנועה הסבובי’ לגלגלים שאין להם תנועה אחרת זולתי הסבובים הלז (שו“ת חת“ס, קובץ תשובות, סי’ כו, לאחרונה נדפס גם במאורות הסופר, עניני קידוש החמה, עמ’ צח).

[As an aside the Chasam Sofer was a very big fan of the Yavetz besides for what he writes about Mitpachat Seforim:

הנה נמצא בשכונתך ס’ מטפחת ספרים למהריעב”ץ תמצא שם כי דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז”ל בענין זה הלא ישתוממו רואיו וד”ל (שו“ת חת“ס, חו”מ ליקוטים, סי’ נט)

See also B. Hamberger, Moriah, 17:1 pp.237-238 who cites many sources about the Chasam Sofer and Yavetz]. Elsewhere the Chasam Sofer writes about Copernicus:

אשר חלק ה’ אותם לכל העמים יש לפרש על פי דאיתא דקופערניקוס אחד מחכמי העמים אמר דהארץ סובבת לקבל אור השמש דאיך עצם השמים הטהורה יסבב וישמש את הארץ והאחרים הביאו ראייה כנכדו דאם הארץ מסבב איך אפשר שיזרוק חץ בעוף וישיגהו ויפול שם כיון שהארץ כבר השתנה מקומה ועל זה השיב די”ל דהארץ וכל אשר עליה וגם האויר מסבב האמנם ראייותיו מכח השכל שאינו רואי שישמש העליון לתחתון הוא רק לפי דיעות האומת העולם אבל לנו בני ישראל אדרבא הארץ אשר בה בני אדם וישראל עם קדושו הם תכלית הבריאה ובעבורם נברא העולם תבל וכל אשר בה וגלגלי השמים ושמי השמים לצורך האדם ואם כן ראוי שישמשו שאר חלקי העולם לעולם התחתון שבו ישראל וגם עי”ז כל העולמות הם אחד ולתכלית אחד נברא דלא כדעת האוה”ע שכל אחד הוא עולם בפני עצמו ולתכליתו נברא וזה שאמר אשר חלק ה’ אותם לכל העמים דאצלם הוא חלק משא”כ אצלנו הכל חד (תורת משה, פ’ ואתחנן, דף טו ע”א).

R. Y. Margolis a Talmid of the Chasam Sofer who also was an expert on astronomy (Zichronis Vmesoros Al Hachasam Sofer, p.305) writes:

אמנם מי שיאמן בה’ ובתורתו ויאמן כי הקב”ה בא במתן תורה ונגלה על סיני הר קטן לא יוקשה אם השמש שהיא א’ ממשרתיו תשמש את הארץ אשר עליה האדם הלומד התורה הזאת, וראי’ מבוררת ממה שאמר הכתוב ויתן אותם אלקים ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ הרי’ מבואר כי המאורות הגדולים נבראו להשתמש את הארץ (חזון למועד, סי’ א אות א, וראה גם סוף סי’ח וסי’ ט אות ד).

In 1889 R. Y Ginsburg, printed a sefer on astronomy called Ittim Levinah he endorses Copernicus theories in a few places in the sefer (pp. 7,9 & 409-10). The significance of this sefer is that it received many nice Haskomos from great Gedolim in Europe of the time (over twenty are printed and he received even more) amongst them the Adres, R. Eliezer Moshe Horowitz, R. Eliezer Gordon and R. Eliyhua Chaim Miesles.[See also Archos Rabenu, 1:282-283]. However a few years later a work was printed in Jerusalem called Nevrashet through out the work the author R. Shpitzer attempts to “prove” that Copernicus is wrong scientificaly and is against the Torah (see for example vol. 1, pp. 30b-36b, Vol.2, pp. 5a-12a,14b-17a). He goes so far as to write (1:31a) that none of the Rabonim who gave haskomos to the sefer Ittim Levinah noticed that he goes with Copernicus theories. He brings someone (2:17b) who says that R. Y. Leib Diskin was asked how does Copernicus work out with the Torah:

וזרח השמש ובא השמש וגו’ וענה לו שהכתוב אמר לפי ראות עיני האדם.

But he denies that R. Y. Leib Diskin ever said such a thing [see also Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso p.40]. Even recently there are those who still say that Copernicus is Kefirah see here. Other recent source that do not appear to acknowledge Copernicus is Bircas Hachammah called Otzar Hazemanim by R. A. Brisk where he writes (p.3):

מעגל היומי של השמש: השמש סובבת את הארץ בכל יום… ובהערה 5: יש לציין כי לאסטרונמיה המודרנית ישנה הבנה אחרת בכל מהלכי גרמי השמים היא טעונת שהארץ סובבת סביב השמש ולא השמש סביב הארץ…

Even more recently Y. Bloch put out a booklet called Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, 56 pages long demonstrating that Copernicus besides for being against the Torah is false scientifically. In Bircat Hachamah Betekufoseah, R. Genot brings (p.131) from R. Chaim Kanievseky who says:

כי הנוקט כך הריהו כמכחיש מסורת וכופר באמונתנו.

On Copernicus see: Arshet, 2:190 it appears that there was an argument about this between R. A. Worms author of Meorei Or and E. Carmoly [thanks to Dan Rabinowitz for this source]; M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 190; C. Solonski, Kochva Deshvet, pp.7-9; R. Zvi Cohen, Bircat Hachamah, pp. 65-68; A. Korman, Evulutzyah Vyehadus pp. 52; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp.26-34; see also N. Gutel in Hishtanyois Nateviyum Be-halacha pp. 172, 183 where he deals with R. Lampronti’s opinion in Pachad Yitzchack on this and p. 190 where he deals with R. Kook’s approach to this. See, David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp. 266-67 regarding R. Lampronti’s opinion; see also idem, p. 351; David B. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic and Science, pp. 99-100; J. Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, p.167; see also the very recent excellent doctorate of Shua Englman, Harav Samuel Strashun (HaRaShaSh) VHaggahot Al Talmud Bavli, Bar Ilan 2009, p.223. [See also some comments in this thread.]

After completing this post R. Chaim Rapoport sent me an article of his on Jewish attitudes on Copernicus which will be published shortly, in the next Or Yisroel (I did not incorporate any of his sources into this post). See also his Bircat Hachamah Al Pei Minhag Chabad, pp.48-50. [My understanding of this topic in general was enhanced greatly from the work of André Neher, ‘Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century’ in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1977), pp. 211-226 and in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century especially pp. 169-228 & 251-60, but see Y. Tzvi Langerman’s reservations about Nehr’s work in Langerman’s review of Nehr’s work in Isis, vol. 81, no. 1, (Mar. 1990), pp. 105-07, (thanks to Dr. J. Brown for this source)]. In conclusion this sefer is full of important information it’s a shame that none of the editions I have seen have a proper index to the sefer. However as one can see from just from the few samples I brought this sefer has a wealth of material and should be studied. One only hopes that someone will collect all of R. Nieto’s writings translate them (both in other languages and from manuscript) into Hebrew and print a critical edition of these works including a real critical edition of this sefer Mateh Don. Until than one will have to do with this useful new edition. This edition is available for purchase by Biegeleisen, and for more information contact Yehuda Herskowitz at seforimlover-at-yahoo.com.

Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso

I mentioned the recent booklet printed by R. Y. Bloch called Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, 56 pages long demonstrating that Copernicus besides for being against the Torah is false scientifically. I am not in any way qualified to deal with the scientific aspects of this booklet but I would like to point out some inaccuracies in the booklet not dealing with science. In the beginning he writes how the Rambam already writes not like Copernicus (pp. 9-11), that the earth is stationary and its Kefirah to go against this (I am just writing the gist as he builds it up much better but my point is still true) even though some say that the Rambam in the first four chapters of Hiclos Maadah is not Torah so one can argue on but he claims that this is a false Shita about the Rambam and it is against our Emunah to say such a thing he writes:

והגיד לי מרן הגאון רבי יהודה זאב סגל זצוקל המ”מ ממאנטשעסטר דאפילו הי’ אומר כן בעל החת”ם סופר או הנודע ביהודה לא היינו מקבלים דברים כאלה ממנו…

Now the first problem with this is that we have a very well known Godol who does say exactly what R. Bloch says is kefirah to say and that is R. Yakov Kamentsky who writes:

ודברי הרמב”ן אלה הם שעמדו לי בשעה שראינו איך שבני אדם יורדים מעל המטוס על ידי סולם על גלגל הלבנה וחשבתי בלבי מה יענה כעת הרמב”ם ז”ל שכתב שהלבנה היא בעלה צורה רוחנית… אבל כפי שאנחנו מתייחסים לדברי הראשונים שסוברים אנו בגדר של אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים אם כן אע”פ שבמקום זה אין הלכה כמותו אבל שיהיו דבריו דברי טעות לא יכלתי להשלים, ואם טעה הרמב”ם בהלכות יסודי התורה מדוע לא יטעה בהלכות שבת וכדומה? והנראה בזה דהנה לכאורה יש לתמוה על כל העינינם שכתב הרמב”ם בארבע הפרקים הראשונים של הלכות יסודי התורה…ובעל כרחנו אנו צריכין לומר שמה שמסר לנו הרמב”ם בפרקים אלו אין זה לא מעשה מרכבה ולא מעשה בראשית אלא כתב כל הד’ פרקים אלה מדעתו הרחבה מתוך ידיעות בחכמת חציונות כלומר שלא מחכמת התורה… ואין לדמות טעויות בהלכות אלו לטעויות בהלכות שבת וכדומה (אמת ליעקב על התורה, עמ’ טו-טז).

[He is not the only one to say such a thing see: Sefer Habris, pp.27-28 & my Bein Kesah L’Asur, p.182].

However, even if one does not want to side with R. Yakov Kamentsky, one can turn to the Rambam himself and what he writes about Chazal’s knowledge of astronomy:

לא תבקש ממני שיסכים כל מה שזכרוהו מענין התכונה למה שהענין נמצא, כי החכמות הלמודיות היו בזמנים ההם חסרות, ולא דברו בהם על דרך קבלה מן הנביאים, אבל מאשר הם חכמי הדורות בענינים ההם, או מאשר שמעום מחכמי הדורות ההם, ולא מפני זה אומר בדברים שאמצא להם שהם מסכימים לאמת שהם בלתי אמתיות או נפלו במקרה, אבל כל מה שאפשר לפרש דברי האדם עד שיסכים למציאות אשר התבאר מציאותו במופת, הוא יותר ראוי באדם המעולה המודה על האמת לעשותו (מורה נבוכים, חלק ג סוף פרק יד).

So if the Rambam could write such a thing on chazal so why can’t somone say the same about the Rambam’s knowledge of astronomy [See also R. Gedaliah Nadel, Betoroso Shel R’ Gedaliah, pp. 79-80].Another mistake in this work is on p. 42 R. Y. Bloch writes that Tycho Brahe was a friend of R. Yonsan Eybshutz. That is simply impossible as Tycho Brahe was born in 1546 and died in 1601 and R. Yonsan Eybshutz was born in 1690! Another inaccuracy in this work is that he claims that the Chasam Sofer was against Copernicus (pp. 32-34) but he fails to quote the statement of the Chasam Sofer in its entirety which is quoted above where the Chasam Sofer specifically writes about Copernicus:

דמזה סיוע לכת קאפירניקוס שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת כאשר מבואר במקום אחר, עכ”ד. הנה במ”ש שאין קושיא מוהארץ לעולם עומדת, הדין עמו לפע”ד, לא דבר שם מסיבובי ארץ בגלגל, כי גם לדעת הזאת אין הכוונה שהארץ תסוב על צירה, אלא כל הכדור היסודות כמות שהוא, הוא מתגלגל, אשר הארץ באמצעי לו… מכל מקום אין בידי לדחות קופארניקוס ולא צד שכנגדו כי ראיותיהם עצומות משני הצדדים. ..

He only quotes the last line which I put in bold but not the whole piece which shows the Chasam Sofer did not hold its in issue when it contradicts the possuk. Furthermore he gives much more weight to what I brought earlier from Chasam Sofer in Toras Moshe than this piece which is a work on the topic of astronomy. One last point about this work is that he says it is also very problematic to claim דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם to answer all the Pesokim against Copernicus (pp. 23-25). On this a great godol R. Yonah Martzbach who besides for being a Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Torah with R. Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, Martzbach was also a mathametician [On R. Yonah Martzbach see the excellent work from R. B. Hamberger, R. Yonah Martzbach Pirkei Chayov Darco Upolov], writes at length specifically when dealing with Copernicus and says it is not Kefirah and he specifically says that

דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם: לבעלי רוח הקדוש ולהם בלבד מתגלים דברי הטבע וחוקיו מתוך פסוקי המקרא בדברי חז”ל. אנשים אחרים עלולים לטעות בהם. לא נכתבה תורה להיות ספר מדעי הטבע ולא לשם כך אמרו חז”ל מה שאמרו. מי שרצה והיו אי פעם כאלה להוכיח שיש קצת לשמים ממזרח וממעריב, ושהאדמה שטח היא ולא כדורית, הסתמכו על מאמרי חז”ל וטעו, כי לא הבינו ש’דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם’… וכן דיברו חז”ל, וכן מצוי במליצות תפלותינו ותשבחותינו, ואין המלים אלא לבוש חציוני לדברים עמוקים מאוד מאוד, וחידות להביע בהם סודות… ויש שדיברו בלשון ידיעות תקופתם אל בני דורם. וככל שאדם ירחיב ידיעותיו ישנה דיבורו, אלא שדבר ה’ יעמוד לנצח ודברו ניצב בהלכותיו וברעיונתיהם הנשגבים ומחשבותיהם הטמונות בלבוש דבריהם (עלה יונה, עמ’ עג-עד).

This Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso is available for purchase at Biegeleisen and Girsa.

Kitzur Shelah, Sabbatianism, and the Importance of Owning Old Books

R. Jacob Emden, in his Torat haKenot claims a well known and fairly popular book is written by a Sabbatian (a follower of the false-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi). This book, Kitzur Shelah, authored by R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, which although its title implies is merely an abridged version of the Shelah (Sheni Luchot HaBrit) by R. Isaiah Horowitz, is much more than that. While the Kitzur Shelah does include some content from the larger Shelah it also includes much else which appears no where in the Shelah. Perhaps the most well-known custom to come out of the Kitzur Shelah is the custom to recite a verse which beginning and end letters of the verse correspond to the first and last letters of ones name. (Although this does have another source as well, the Kitzur Shelah is the first to include actual verses and it is those verses which appear in the siddurim.)

R. Emden claims that R. Epstein makes a reference to Sabbatai Zevi in the Introduction to the Kitzur Shelah. R. Emden’s exact language is “גם רמז על הצוא”ה בהקדמת קשל”ה” [R. Emden uses צואה (excrement) to refer to Sabbatai Zevi in that the numerical value of צואה is the same as צבי]. The Introduction is in fact but a single paragraph and at first glance it would seem to imply that the author was not a follower of Sabbatai Zevi. This is so, as the author expresses his hope that the publication of this book will be a merit for the coming of the Messiah. Such a line implies that the Messiah has not in fact come, which is counter to the idea of Sabbatai Zevi already coming and being the true Messiah.

But, with this, we need to start on our journey through multiple editions of the Kitzur Shelah. Although you will find it nowhere on the title pages of any of the editions, in fact there are at least four different editions of this work. (There was what is known as a מהדורה בתרא of the Kitzur Shelah, however, for our purposes that is irrelevant.) That is, there are at least four distinct versions.

First we need to understand where it is explicit in the Introduction that the author is a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and for that we must turn to the early editions. In the early editions the very line which discusses the hope for the Messiah appears as follows, ” ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות משי”ח האמ”תי וגם יזכו אל ימו”ת משי”ח.” If you note, you can see that four words contain quotation marks. These marks are the key to understanding R. Emden’s claim. These marks, generally, have two purposes one to signify the use of an abbreviation and the second to indicate that aside from the plain meaning of the word, one should also use the gematria – numerical value of the word. This device is extremely common on title pages of books where verses are used to indicate the date of publication. The words which the printers wish to use have the marks.

In this instance, it is the same. That is, the value of the four words or more specifically, the two sets of two words, are equal to 814 (משי”ח האמ”תי = 814 and ימו”ת משי”ח = 814). Sabbatai Zevi is also equivalent to 814 (שבתי צבי = 814). Thus, the “true Messiah” the author is referencing is in fact Sabbatai Zevi.

Now, in the later editions, these quotation marks were removed. Thus, there is no longer a signal to the reader to use the value of the words. But, it seems the removal was insufficient for some. In at least one edition (Frankfurt am Main, 1745) the entire Introduction was removed.

So we now have three different versions, the early ones with the quotation marks, the later with those removed and the final without the Introduction. In 1998 the Kitzur Shelah was reprinted with some additional notes and nikkud. In this edition it seems it was no longer good enough to just leave out the quotation marks, instead, the text itself was altered. In place of the line we have been discussing in this edition the line reads “ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות ביאת משיח צדקנו.” I have been unable to locate this language in any edition I have checked, thus leading one to believe this change was deliberate to “address” the claim of R. Jacob Emden.

Thus, this is an example of why it pays to own (or at least have access) to multiple editions and that although subtle a minor change can have a major effect. All three versions appear on the side for the reader to see for themselves. The top is a copy of the Amsterdam 1724 edition (which is the same as it appears in the first edition). The second is a photo-mechanical reproduction of the Lember 1862 edition. And the final one is from the 1998 edition. You can click on the picture for a larger version.

Sources: Shnayer Z. Leiman “ספרים החשודים בשתאות: רשימתו של הגאון יעב”ץ זצ”ל” in ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ זצ”ל pp.885-894 esp. n. 12. On the topic of Sabbatianism in books see Naor, Post Sabbatian Sabbatianism

Zafenat Pane’ah—A Further Example in the Titling of Hebrew Books

Zafenat Pane’ah—A Further Example in the Titling of Hebrew Books
by Marvin J. Heller[1]

Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zafenat Pane’ah and he gave him Asenath daughter of Poti-phera, chief of On, for a wife. Thus Joseph emerged over the land of Egypt (Genesis 41:45). Zafenat: Zafenat Pane’ah. This name means decipherer of the cryptic (revealer of secrets). There is nothing similar to pane’ah in Scripture (Rashi).

The titling of Hebrew books is a beguiling subject. It has been addressed in several works and I too have addressed the subject in a number of articles. My articles differ, however, from the other studies which are concerned with the titling of books in an overview or general manner, that is, in the manner in which books are titled.[2]

Hebrew book titles often do not reflect the contents of a book, for as Dr. Joshua Bloch observes, that among the most curious characteristics of Hebrew books is that titles “frequently conceal the contents of important works which might otherwise be consulted in the course of research.” As an example, he quotes “Isaac Samuel Reggio (1784-1855), an eminent Italo-Jewish scholar, in his edition of the Behinot HaDaat (Examination of Religion) by Elijah Del Medigo (1460-1497), significantly observed that the book in addition to its other good qualities carries a title corresponding to its contents – a distinction rare among Hebrew books.”

In contrast, my articles explore the various and multiple uses of single titles, themed book titles, as well as titles from Shir ha-Shirim (Song of Songs).[3] In these cases, as Bloch observed, the subject of the book is not immediately obvious from the book title, indeed it might be considered concealed. This article focuses on a title from a unique biblical verse, employing a name that implies cryptic meaning, making its employ by varied books all the more intriguing.

The books with the cryptic title we are concerned with are entitled Zafenat Pane’ah, from the verse noted above “Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zafenat Pane’ah.” Sixteen varied books, as well as two books with the expanded title Ẓafenat Pane’aḥ Hadash, are recorded in the Bet Eked Sefarim, a bibliography of titles set in Hebrew letters printed from 1474 through 1950.[4] In addition to the works recorded in the Bet Eked Sefarim there have been several additional printings of books with that title as well as books printed under other titles that are composites of several works, some including parts entitled Ẓafenat Pane’aḥ or with subsections or commentaries so entitled.

The examples of books entitled Ẓafenat Pane’aḥ follows, in chronological order, in two parts. The first part is comprised of expansive descriptions of books with our title, the second is concise descriptions of examples of other works with our subject title. In neither case are the titles to be considered comprehensive but rather an example of the varied and expansive uses made by authors in entitling their books Ẓafenat Pane’aḥ.

Abraham Menahem Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) Ashkenazi, Sabbioneta , 1555: Our first title, appropriately enough, is a work on cryptography by R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) Ashkenazi, 1520-c.1594). Abraham Menahem served as rabbi in Verona, as well as heading a famed yeshiva in that location. Prior to accepting his rabbinic position, Abraham Menahem studied secular as well as rabbinic subjects, particularly medicine, and worked as an editor in Hebrew print-shops. His wide scholarship is evident from his other works, particularly his Torah commentary based on Midrashim, Minhah Belulah (Verona, 1594).

1555, Zafenat Pane’ah Abraham Menahem ha-Kohen Rapaport
Courtesy of the Jewish Theological Seminary

1555, Zafenat Pane’ah
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Abraham Menahem spent two years preparing Zafenat Pane’ah. It is a small work, actually a small booklet, described as either a duodecimo (12⁰) or an octavo (8⁰) consisting of [6ff]. In the absence of the place of publication, locations such as Venice (Steinschneider), Ferrara (BenJacob), and Sabbioneta (Sonne) have been suggested. Avraham Yaari, following Sonne, records Zafenat Pane’ah as a Sabbioneta imprint, including it among the books published by the Foa press in that location.[5] The National Library of Israel records Zafenat Pane’ah, giving the location as Sabbioneta but also notes Riva di Trento as a possible place of publication.[6]

The title-page, perchance intentionally cryptic, does not identify the publisher, place of printing, or author, although the latter is evident from the text. Zafenat Pane’ah was, as noted above, published as a small booklet. The text of the title-page, again, lacking the date and place of publication, as well as having no ornamentation, states,

“See, this is new!” (Ecclesiastes 1:10); “In a levelled way” (cf. Jeremiah 18:15); “that they should do according to every man’s pleasure” (Esther 1:8); to write letters to one’s companion as a sealed book that will not be intelligible to those who see it. Even if alien eyes peruse the writing, in this manner it will be a great marvel, that tens of thousands of men all together should write in this way, that one should not understand the thinking of his companion. Even if “all go to one place” (Ecclesiastes 3:20) and hew from one quarry, something impossible to be heard and from intelligence withheld. If not after searching this page, confirming its great benefit as “your eyes uphold righteousness” (cf. Psalms 17:2).

The title-page is followed by Abraham Menahem’s lengthy effusive dedication to his uncle, R. Jacob Mugil, in which he also discusses the need for and value of cryptography, concluding with the date Tuesday, 15 October, 1555, Venice, signed Menahem of Porto. Next is a brief introduction in which the rules of encryption are discussed. He writes that there should be a sign between the writer and the recipient, whether in Hebrew, Ashkenaz, or whichever language the writer chooses, and it does not matter if the signs are numerous or few in number. “‘One who does much sacrifice and one who does less, as long as’ (Berakhot 5a, 17b) he places one letter with another as I will explain.” After some brief instructions on spacing Abraham Menahem signs his name as Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen from Porto.

Abraham Menahem’s name follows given in a bold, brief statement referring to the coding of his name, and, also in bold letters, the verse “If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle,” (Judges 14:18 ) This is followed by an example, in which Porto’s name appears as Menahem bar Jacob ha-Kohen mi-Porto, followed by the verse. His name is then spelled out over the verse as an encryption example. The text follows, discussing the subject of cryptography.[7]

Abraham Menahem was an eyewitness to the burning of the Talmud in Venice in 1553, which tragic event is reported in the Minhah Belulah, on the phrase “. . . a fiery law unto them,” (Deuteronomy 33:2), where he writes “I fixed these days for myself, for each and every year, for fasting, weeping, and mourning, for this day was as bitter for me as the burning of the House of our God (the Temple).

Anonymous, Prague, [1617]: Our second Zafenat Pane’ah, also a small work, is a very different type of book from Abraham Menahem’s Zafenat Pane’ah. This Zafenat Pane’ah is an alphabetical listing of the chapter heads of Mishnayot in the Babylonian Talmud. It was published at the press of Moses ben Joseph Bezalel Katz in Prague ([1617]) as a quarto (4⁰: 4 ff.). Neither the compiler’s name nor the date are given, the latter being an estimate only. The anonymous author provides a detailed title page in lieu of an introduction, writing:

1617, Zafenat Pane’ah, Prague
Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

“O taste and see” (Psalms 34:9) this book, small in size but of great value. “The bed is too short” (cf. Isaiah 28:20) the presentation is long. Many run to and fro, seeking but do not find, “for it was not seen to this day” (I Kings 10:12). How do I think to reset that “which the early ones marked out” (cf. Deuteronomy 19:14), to establish markers and to wrap myself in a tallit stolen from its owner. Who is the man who would think so, to think of me an unfit thought, that I draw waters that are not mine, and I had already “hidden myself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:22) to avoid the complaints of the mockers. However, the majority urgings of my associates and their desire convinced me to fulfill their requests, because “He who withholds grain [the people will curse him]” (Proverbs 11:26). As not everyone is able to acquire every book which is included and mentioned in this work, all is included here, and whatever time would be lost in trying to locate whichever chapter in all of the books, for it is a spread table (shulhan arukh) with all the savory food from which all the house of Jacob will be fed and nurtured. And I say concerning it, “fortunate is he who comes here and has the learning of all his books is in his hand” (cf. Pesahim 50a, Mo’ed Katan 28a, Ketubbot 77b, Bava Batra 10b). . . .

He concludes that that it is Zafenat Pane’ah (revealer of secrets, Genesis 41:45) for it reveals that which is hidden in the hearts of man. One should acquire this book, honor the Lord, and merit to see the coming of the Messiah speedily in our day.

The text follows in three columns in square letters. Each entry is comprised of the initial words of the first Mishnah in a chapter, the chapter umber, and the tractate name, arranged alphabetically by the first word in a Mishnah. At the end of the volume is a brief colophon summarizing the contents.

Joseph di Trani’s (Maharit), Venice, 1648: In 1648, the Venentian Vedramin press published a folio (2⁰: [2], 236, 13 ff.) edition of R. Joseph ben Moses di Trani’s (Maharit, 1568–1639) discourses on the weekly Torah portion and festivals, entitled Zafenat Pane’ah. Trani was born in Safed under auspicious signs. On the night that he was born R. Moses Alshekh reputedly saw a great light over his house; his name was selected prior to his birth by R. Moses Cordevoro; his father noted that the year of his birth equaled איש חי (329 = late 1568; a valiant man, II Samuel 23:20), and he received a blessing from R. Joseph Caro prior to the latter’s death. Plague forced him to leave Safed for Egypt, returning, spending some time in Damascus and Jerusalem, but, by 1594 in Safed for an extended period of time where he headed a yeshivah. In 1599, he was sent as an emissary from Safed to Constantinople, and after a second visit, in 1604, heading a yeshivah, and eventually becoming chief rabbi. Among his students were R. Hayyim Benveniste, R. Joshua Benveniste, R. Hayyim Algazi, and R. Solomon ha-Levi.

The title page says that it is Zafenat Pane’ah, “satisfied with favor, and full of” (Deuteronomy 33:23) discourses on the Torah, updated, that were written and corrected by the great man . . . Printed “In the year of this הזאת (5408 = 1648) jubilee you shall return” (Leviticus 25:13).

The title page is followed by two quatrains of verse from the author’s son, R. Moses di Trani, with the heading, “I am the poorest of the poor” (cf. Judges 6:15) “my mouth shall praise you with joyful lips” (Psalms 63:6). Next is Moses’ introduction, the introduction of R. Yom Tov ben Yaish, and verse in praise of the author from his young pupil R. Isaac Alankowa, each paragraph beginning with the word kol (voice), all in a single column in rabbinic letters. At the end of the volume is the introduction of the second editor, R. Jacob ben Moses ha-Levi. The last introduction is printed twice, once with and once without Moses’ name and with variant headings. Zafenat Pane’ah concludes with indexes of verses, Midrashim, and rabbinic sayings. In his introduction Moses begins paragraphs two through nine with the phrase “before the light of the Torah became submerged” due to the destruction of the first Temple; decrees of the wicked Greek kings; destruction of the second Temple; etc. The following ten paragraphs begin “This” is in praise of his father and his work.

1648, Zafenat Pane’ah, Joseph ben Moses di Trani (Maharit), Venice
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

Zafenat Pane’ah is comprised of two to three sermons on each parashah and on festivals. Each homily begins with a quote from a Midrash or equivalent source in square letters, which is then explicated. Sources are given in the margins. The only decorative material is the frame about the heading of the first discourse and a design after the introduction of Jacob ben Moses with his name.

This is the only edition of Zafenat Pane’ah. Other works, excepting di Trani’s responsa and novellae, are no longer extant.

Samuel ha-Kohen di Pisa Lusitano, Venice, 1656: Controversial commentary on the difficult passages in the books of Ecclesiastes and Job by R. Samuel ha-Kohen di Pisa Lusitano (16th-17th cent.). Printed as a quarto (4⁰: [4], 3-33 (should say 31) ff.) in 1656 by the Vendramin press in Venice, this is the only edition of this Zafenat Pa‘ane’ah, the only work of Lusitano, a scholar of Portuguese origin. The title, appropriately, reflects Lusitano’s purpose, to be, appropriately enough for our title, a revealer of secrets (Rashi on Genesis 41:45). Zafenat Pane’ah’s title page states that it is “on the unusual terms in Ecclesiastes and an explanation of Job, ‘a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil’ (Job 1:1, 8, 2:3). Also included are correct allusions on the precept of Parah Adumah (red heifer, Numbers 19:2).”

1656, Zafenat Pa‘ane’ah, Samuel ha-Kohen di Pisa Lusitano, Venice
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

The title page is dated in the month Sivan in the year 416 (1656). Nevertheless, some bibliographic works, such as the Hebrew Bibliographic Project, based on references in the text, record it as a [1640] imprint. There are several pages of verse (2a-4a) in praise of the book by R. Leone (Judah Aryeh) Modena, R. Jacob ben Moses Levi, יא”ק (R. Joshua Abraham Kalimoni), אמ”ט (I, Moses Treibush of the seed of Jacob), and R. Jacob ben Abraham Shalom, nephew of Lusitano. Next is a warm letter ([4b]-4a) to Lusitano from R. Simhah Luzzatto, who raises the question of whether Job, at the time of his afflictions, denied reincarnation. Lusitano’s brief introduction (4b) follows, in which he notes that it is incumbent upon every Jew to learn Torah and to delve into the books of the Bible. He has turned to the works of “the sage Solomon” in the deep work Ecclesiastes and portions of Job and also to the precept of Parah Adumah. It is not Lusitano’s intent to bring novel interpretations but to elucidate the explanations of the sages.

Zafenat Pane’ah, in a single column in rabbinic letters, is divided into fourteen chapters, one through seven on Ecclesiastes, eight through thirteen on Job, and fourteen on Parah Adumah. Several chapters deal with the Messiah, or other controversial subjects: for example, 2) the time of the Messiah, 3) whether a person born after his coming will die, 4) if after reincarnation the Lord will renew the world in such a manner that they will be angels, 8) whether Job is Job ben Issachar ben Jacob, and 11) allusions to Leviathan on the war of Gog and Megog and whether the Lord revealed to Job his ways, wisdom, and knowledge.

Lusitano’s positions, particularly on reincarnation, incurred opposition from several rabbis. Most notable is R. Samuel Aboab (1610-94), who in his responsa, Devar Shemu’el (Venice, 1702), writes that when he saw the manuscript of Zafenat Pane’ah he was greatly pained and wrote to Lusitano attempting to prevent its publication. Attempting to explain the coming of the Messiah and reincarnation from the verses in Ecclesiastes is like attempting to “make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle” (Berakhot 55b) and attempting to determine these times is in opposition to the Rambam. Worst of all, he endangers the people by confirming that for this generation is written the end of days and Moses’ promise of redemption.

Joseph (Ashkenazi), Frankfurt on the Oder, 1693-94: Zafenat Pane’ah Hadash, homilies on diverse subjects by R. Joseph ben Moses (Ashkenazi), darshan of Przemyslany and rabbi and dayyan in that location (17th cent.) was printed in Frankfurt on the Oder in 1693-94 at the press of Michael Gottschalk as a quarto (4⁰: 60 ff.). Joseph ben Moses was also the author of Keter Torah (Berlin, 1699), and a commentary on the Haggadah included in Haluka de-Rabbanan (Amsterdam, 1695). The title page describes it as:

Discourses, pleasing and delightful, a “work well set” (cf. Isaiah 3:24), a work of great sharpness, “more precious than fine gold” (cf. Isaiah 13:12) and pearls. His Torah was expounded with forty-nine faces, and within each and every entry you will find many views. Written by the great rav, the darshan of Przemyslany, R. Joseph ben Moses, grandson of the gaon R. Abraham Ashkenazi, descended from Rashi, son-in-law of R. Naphtali of Przemyslany, and author of Ketonet Passim.

Beginning of work is dated to Tuesday, the day that it states two times “it was good טוב (15)” (Genesis 1:10, 12) Kislev “And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zafenat-Pane’ah (he who explains what is hidden) שם יוסף צפנת פענח (454 = December 5, 1693)” (Genesis 41:45). The colophon (59b) dates completion of the work to Thursday, 2 Shevat, “One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you תורה אחת יהיה לאזרח ולגר הגר בתוככם (454 = January 28, 1694)” (Exodus 12:49). There is an approbation signed by nine rabbis from the Va’ad Arba Aratzot (1b); Joseph’s introduction (1b-2b), beginning that the Torah is expounded in 49 ways and concluding that the book is named Zafenat Pane’ah for it reveals that which is concealed; the text (3a-59b) in two columns in rabbinic letters; concluding with errata (60a-b) and a list of abbreviations (60b).

Zafenat Pane’ah Hadash is comprised of 60 discourses on diverse subjects, most discourses addressed in several homilies, varying in number from one homily (17 discourses) to sixteen (1) entries and in length from several pages to brief paragraphs The subjects are Adam and Hava, explained in sixteen entries; Patriarchs and Matriarchs; Eretz Israel; first-born; creation; blessing; exile and redemption; robbery; redemption and David (15 Shir ha-Ma’alot); judgment, mercy, and David; hekdesh; confession and repentance; merit and obligation; sin and punishment; tohorah and tuma; Jacob and tribulation; Judah, yibum and halizah; priesthood; honor of Torah and Torah scholars; honor, praise, and rising; learning the written and oral Torahs; Mizraim; Tabernacle and Temple; Moses and Aaron; flood and dispersion; angels; damages, marital property (melog and zon barzel); marriage and divorce; Sodom and Gomorrah; Sanhedrin; witnesses; slaves; Pesah, removal of hamez; Pharaoh and Mizraim; zaddikim; curse and blessing; Korah and his assembly; Cain and Abel and the splitting of the Reed Sea; Kri’at Shema; betrothal; considerable possessions; the wicked; Shabbat; representatives; tribes; oaths; reward and punishment; reward of mitzvah and Torah; resurrection; repentance; and terumot and ma’aserot.

1693-94, Tzofnat Pa’aneah Hadash, Joseph ben Moses of Przemyslany, Frankfurt am Oder
Courtesy of the Society for the Preservation of Hebrew Books

The title-page has an elaborate pillared form comprised of two cherubim at the top blowing horns and at the bottom an eagle with spread wings. Within the wings is a carriage and figures, and in the middle of this scenario is a depiction of the Patriarch Jacob meeting Joseph in Egypt, recalling “And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen, and presented himself to him; and he fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while” (Genesis 46:29).[8]

Jacob Joseph ha-Kohen Katz, Koretz, 1782: A commentary on Exodus by R. Jacob Joseph ben Zevi ha-Kohen Katz of Polonnoye (d. c. 1782). Among the foremost disciples of the Baal Shem Tov, Jacob Joseph was a scion of the kabbalists R. Samson ben Pesah of Ostropol (Ostropoler, d. 1648) and R, Joseph Katz (17^th century), and of R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller (1579–1654). Jacob Joseph’s most famous work is Toledot Ya’akov Yosef (Korets, 1780), discourses on the weekly Torah readings and the first Hassidic book to be published.[9]

1782, Zafenat Pa‘ane’ah, Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, Koretz
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Jacob Joseph’s Zafenat Pane’ah was printed in Koretz ([1] 35 ff.) at the press of Tsevi Hirsh ben Aryeh Leib Margolis (Margoliot), the first of two of Jacob Joseph’s works printed there at this time. Zafenat Pane’ah was preceded by Ben Porat Yosef (1781), on Genesis. The title-page, dated “How abundant is the good that You have in store [for those who fear You] מה רב טובך אשר צפנת (542 = 1782)” (Psalms 31:20) references Jacob Joseph, noting his Toledot Ya’akov Yosef and refers to the man of God, ISRAEL [Ba’al Shem Tov], informing that it was brought to press by his, Jacob Joseph’s, son-in-law R. Abraham Dov Ber, av bet din Hamaltzik.

The title-page is followed by the introduction which has an interesting and unusual heading, stating that the introduction to this work “has been printed before, twice in two of the author’s books, and is included here so as not to have a blank page. Printed here is an omission from Parasha Ki Sisa (Exodus 30:11-34:35).” It is not only the introductions that are alike, for Ya’aḳov Shemuʼel Shpigel informs that the title-page of Zafenat Pane’ah and Ben Porat Yosef, are also alike. He suggests that Jacob Joseph was not present and it is difficult to know who was responsible for the title-pages. Shpigel does note, however, that the reference to Jacob Joseph’s son-in-law is modified and either he or the printer might be responsible. The reference to the Ba’al Shem Tov is unchanged.[10]

Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (Ha-Penini); Isaac Eisig ben Isaiah Auerbach (Reis) 1797: Classical ethical work, Beḥinat Olam (Examination of the World), by R. Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (Ha-Penini, c. 1280 – c. 1340) with the commentary Zafenat Pane’ah by R. Isaac Eisig ben Isaiah Auerbach (Reis, early 18^th century). A popular work, the Bet Eked Sefarim records as many as many as seventy-three printings of Beḥinat Olam, including editions with varied commentaries, three with Zafenat Pane’ah.[11] This printing of Beḥinat Olam, with the commentary Zafenat Pane’ah, was published in Brunn at the press of Joseph Karl Neiman as an octavo (8⁰: 45 ff.). It was preceded by a Sulzbach edition (1744). Parenthetically, Beḥinat Olam was first printed in Mantua in 1478. This is the twenty-fifth edition of that work.

Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (Ha-Penini), was a poet, physician, and philosopher. Among the other works credited to him is Baḳḳashat ha-Memim (The Mem Prayer) composed when he was fifteen. A versified prayer of 1,000 words each of which begins with the letter mem. He also wrote a commentary on the Haggadah, Ohev Nashim (In Defense of Women), Sefer ha-Pardes on such various subjects as isolation, worship, science, and grammar. Beḥinat Olam, Bedersi’s best known work, written after the expulsion of the Jews from France in 1306, is a versified examination, in thirty-seven chapters, of the vicissitudes and vanities of life, with religious and philosophical insights.

This Zafenat Pane’ah is a commentary on Beḥinat Olam by Isaac Eisig ben Isaiah Auerbach. Auerbach was a German grammarian and commentator. He was the author of several books on Hebrew grammar, reputedly motivated by his inability to understand Rashi, causing him to study philology. He eventually wrote Be’er Reḥovot (Sulzbach, 1730), a commentary on the Rashi on the Torah. He was the author of this Zafenat Pane’ah, a Yiddish translation and adaptation of Beḥinat Olam.[12]

1789, Beḥinat Olam with Zafenat Pane’ah, Brunn
Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

The title-page is followed by Auerbach’s introduction in which, at both the beginning and the end he describes Zafenat Pane’ah as being an explanation and interpretation (Zafenat Pane’ah). It is followed by the text which is in two columns, the inner columns the text of Beḥinat Olam in square vocalized letters, the outer column Zafenat Pane’ah set in Yiddish in Vaybertaytsh, a type generally but not exclusively reserved for Yiddish books, so named because these works were most often read by the less educated and women.[13]

Zafenat Pane’ah, as noted above, is an intriguing title for a book. Based on the rare appearance of the verse “Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zafenat Pane’ah . . . (decipherer of the cryptic (revealer of secrets), a name that appears once only in the Bible. Zafenat Pane’ah is a name of Egyptian origin, it being the name given by Pharoah to Joseph, albeit one recognizing his rare ability to decipher Pharoah’s dreams. As a title, Zafenat Pane’ah has had an allure for authors. Of the books described above one only deals with cryptography, while several of the first group of books’ authors are named Joseph. Perhaps the allure of the name, Zafenat Pane’ah, decipherer of the cryptic (revealer of secrets) is seen by the authors as being applicable to their works, finding meaning in their interpretations of obscure passages in scriptures and other challenging works.

Our Zafenat Pane’ahs, the subject matter of this article, are early printings. It is important to note that later publications with our title, beyond the scope of this article, while not addressed in any detail, are also of interest. Indeed, note should be taken that several of these later works are, valuable and noteworthy. Below are concise examples of several later works entitled Zafenat Pane’ah

R. Elijah Guttmacher (1795–1874), a student of both Kabbalah and general studies, served as rabbi in Pleschen and Grodzisk Wielkopolski, attracting followers who came to him for amulets, cures, and guidance. He was unusual, in contrast to both Orthodox and assimilationist rabbis, in being a supporter of the Ḥibbat Zion movement. Author of works on Mishnayot and the Talmud, Guttmacher’s titles also include a Zafenat Pane’ah (Brody, 1875, below) “devoted to the tales of Rabbah b. Ḥana as told in Bava Batra.”[14] R. Saul Nathan Nathansohn, in his approbation to this work, writes that Zafenat Pane’ah is so entitled because it is an explanation of the aggadah of Rabbah bar Ḥana which is “obscure and sealed,” all the earlier geonim put their hearts to elucidating it and even the Vilna Gaon wrote a commentary on it.

A sad, tragic Zafenat Pane’ah is the eulogy by R. Asher Nissan ben Judah Leib Levinsohn for his only son, R. Menahem Nahum Nathan. Printed in Vilna (1875), the title-page describes Menahem Nahum Nathan as a gaon, gadol, and sage, and informs that Asher Nissan was the author of such works as Gan Ne’ul, Afikei Yehudah, and Likkutei Shoshanim. In a preface to the reader, Asher Nissan informs that he has entitled the eulogy Zafenat Pane’ah “Because his name is becoming נאה to him and he is becoming to his name, for my son, the gaon.”

Among the later editions of Zafenat Pane’ah are several books entitled Zafenat Pane’ah by the illustrious R. Joseph Rozin (Rosen, Rogachover, 1858–1936). A prolific author, all of his numerous and varied works on the Torah, Talmud, Rambam, and responsa have the title Zafenat Pane’ah.[15]

Our final Zafenat Pane’ah is a commentary on the Torah and festivals by R. Pinchas Shapira ben Shalom, published in Jerusalem (1964). A resident of Kozakonyha, Marmaros from from 1905, he was deported by the Hungarians during World War I to Galicia, settling, in 1918, in Felsovisso. He perished in the Holocaust.[16] His Zafenat Pane’ah was published by his son-in-law, R. Menahem Mendel Taub, the Kaliver rebbe. In the introduction Pinchas Shapira writes that he has entitled this work Zafenat Pane’ah because it alludes to his name and to the names of his father and of his mother. The initial numerical values of Zafenat Pane’ah צפנת פענח are, together with the number of its letters and general number (828 + 8 + 1 = 837), equal to Pinchas פינחס (208) ben במוה”ר (253) Shalom שלום (376 = 837). A second example is Pinchas פינחס ben Hanna Sarah בן חנה שרה (208 + 620 = 828).

III

Our Zafenat Pane’ahs and a [Hadash], noted both in some detail and concisely, encompass such varied subjects as cryptography, an alphabetical listing of Mishnayot chapter heads, biblical interpretations, a eulogy, an ethical work, and other diverse subjects. All reflecting the authors’ concerns with clarifying, making clear, that which is not clear, not immediately obvious without insightful interpretation. What then, could be more appropriate than the title Zafenat Pane’ah, “decipherer of the cryptic (revealer of secrets)”?

1875, Zafenat Pa‘ane’ah, Elijah Guttmacher, Berlin
Courtesy of Ozar ha-Hachms

[1] I would, once again, like to express my appreciation to and thank Eli Genauer for reading the manuscript and his comments.
[2] Among the authors addressing the subject of book titles are Abraham Berliner, “Shemot Seforim Ivrim,” in Ketavim Nivharim II (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 147-48 [Hebrew]; Joshua Bloch, “Some Odd Titles of Hebrew Books,” Bulletin of the New York Public Library 41:10 (New York, October, 1937, reprinted in Hebrew Printing and Bibliography, New York, 1976), pp. 151-57; Solomon Schechter, “Titles of Jewish Books,” in Studies in Judaism, First Series (1896, reprint Philadelphia, 1938), pp. 270-281; and Menahem Mendel Slatkine, Shemot ha-Sefarim ha-Ivrim: Lefi Sugehem ha-Shonim, Tikhunatam u-Te’udatam (Neuchâtel-Tel Aviv, 1950-54) [Hebrew].
[3] My previous articles on the subject are “Adderet Eliyahu; A Study in the Titling of Hebrew Books,” in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book. Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2008, pp. 72-91; “What’s in a name? An example of the Titling of Hebrew Books,” in Further Studies, pp. 371-94; “Keter Shem Tov: A Study in the Entitling of Books, Here Limited to One Title Only” in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (forthcoming); “Entitling Hebrew Books from Shir ha-Shirim: (Song of Songs)” in Essays; and “For a Remembrance: Books so entitled as a remembrance for the author.” (Hakirah, forthcoming).
[4] Ch. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, (Israel n.d.), tav379-396 [Hebrew].
[5] Avraham Yaari, “The Printers B’nei Foa,” in Studies in Hebrew Booklore, (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 362 n. 17 [Hebrew].
[6] National Library of Israel system number 990017477400205171.
[7] Marvin J. Heller, “Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) Ashkenazi: A Renaissance Rabbi of interest” Seforim.blogspot.com (March 17, 2021).
[8] Concerning the eagle motif on the title-page of Hebrew book see Marvin J. Heller, “The Eagle Motif on 16^th and 17^th Century Hebrew Books,” Printing History, NS 17 (Syracuse, 2015), pp. 16-40 and in Essays (forthcoming).
[9] Mordechai Margalioth, ed. Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel 3 (Tel Aviv, 1986), cols., 867-69; [Hebrew]; Tzvi M. Rabinowicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism (Northvale, London, 1996, pp. 239-40.
[10] Ya’aḳov Shemuʼel Shpigel, ʿAmudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri: be_Sha’are ha-Defus (Jerusalem, 2014), pp. 115-16 [Hebrew].
[11] Ch. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, bet 341.
[12] Yehoshua Horowitz, “Auerbach, Isaac Eisig ben Isaiah,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 2, pp. 654-655.
[13] Concerning the early use of Vaybertaytsh see Herbert C. Zafren, “Variety in the Typography of Yiddish: 1535-1635,” Hebrew Union College Annual LIII (Cincinnati, 1982), pp. 137-63; idem, “Early Yiddish Typography,” Jewish Book Annual 44 (New York, 1986-87), pp. 106-119. Zafren suggests, in the latter article, that the origin of Vaybertaytsh, which he refers to as Yiddish type, was the Ashkenaz rabbinic fonts, supplanted by the more widespread Sephardic rabbinic type which prevailed in Italy (p. 112)..
G[14] Getzel Kressel, “Guttmacher, Elijah.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 8, pp. 155-156.
[15] An example of the Rogachover’s acumen can be seen from his exposing the widely accepted bogus edition of Seder Kodashim of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Rogachover, one of the few who questioned the authenticity of the forgery, observed that each Talmudic tractate mentions at least one amora (Talmudic sage) not mentioned elsewhere, whereas in this work there are no amoraic hapax legomena. Concerning the forgery see Marvin J. Heller, “Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, and Deceptions, in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise” Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 12 (2011), pp. 269-91, reprinted in Further Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book, (Leiden/Boston, 2013), pp. 417-20.
[16] Tzvi M. Rabinovicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism, (Northvale,1996), p. 450.

Plagiarism, Halakhic Paradox, and the Malbim on Kohelet

Marc B. Shapiro

1. A story recently appeared alleging plagiarism in the writings of R. Yonah Metzger.[1] Such accusations are nothing new and the topic of plagiarism in rabbinic history is of great interest to me. Many of the scholars of Jewish bibliography have also written about the phenomenon,[2] and a good deal on the topic has appeared on the Seforim Blog.[3] Suffice it to say that every generation has had problems in this regard, and we see even see apparent instances of it in the Talmud.[4] The examples range from taking another’s ideas (including one’s teacher[5]), to copying sections of another work, to reprinting an entire book and changing the title page.[6] It is interesting that R. Moses Sofer, unlike others, is reported not to have been troubled by people plagiarizing from him. As he put it, he doesn’t mind if they attach his hiddushim to their names, as long as they don’t attribute their own hiddushim to him.[7]

R. Isaac Sternhell, in the introduction to his Kokhvei Yitzhak, vol. 1, gives a good illustration of how widespread the problem of plagiarism has been in explaining why R. Joseph Karo and R. Moses Isserles don’t mention anything in the Shulhan Arukh about the obligation to repeat a Torah teaching in the name of one who said it (itself of great importance, not to mention the geneivat da’at involved if one doesn’t give proper credit [8]). R. Sternhell states that that since so many people plagiarize, including תלמידי חכמים שיראתם קודמת לחכמתם, therefore, just like it is a mitzvah to say that which people will listen to, so too it is best to be quiet about something they won’t pay attention to [9]. R. Sternhell reports that this reason was actually given by R. Yissachar Dov Rokeah of Belz in explanation of why there is nothing in the Shulhan Arukh about the prohibition of leshon hara.[10]

והם מתוך שחששו מלהביא קטרוג על כלל ישראל התעלמו מדינים אלה בפסקי הלכה והשמיטום. ובכך קיימו דברי הנביא עמוס (ה’ ג’) והמשכיל בעת ההיא ידום

R. Sternhell then lists a few books that plagiarized, and the books from which they stole. The problem is that he only identifies the plagiarizing books by their initials, which makes identifying them quite hard.

Today we have Otzar ha-Hokhmah which makes spotting plagiarism easier. Let me share with you one example. I am a long time reader of the journal Or Torah, which is where so many of R. Meir Mazuz’s writings have been published. In Tamuz 5758 an article appeared by a certain R. Daniel Weitzman. Here are the first two pages. On the second page there is something suspicious, which I don’t know if anyone other than me would take notice of. He cites R. Weinberg’s famous responsum on abortion but instead of citing it from Seridei Esh, he refers to an earlier appearance in Ha-Pardes. This sort of thing immediately sets off bells for me, since how would a rabbi in Israel in the pre-hebrewbooks.org and pre-Otzar ha-Hokhmah era have access to a thirty-year-old issue of Ha-Pardes? How would he ever come to that? In fact, if you look at the article, it seems that he doesn’t even know what Ha-Pardes is, referring to it as Pardes. The title he gives to R. Weinberg’s article is also not correct and is taken from the source he plagiarized from.

Now compare what Weitzman wrote with what appears in R. Shmuel Hayyim Katz’s Devar Shmuel (Los Angeles, 1986).

Weitzman has not just plagiarized, but he has copied word for word from Katz. Needless to say, I was quite distressed when I saw this. Since it is rare that someone plagiarizes only once, I decided to check Weitzman’s other articles that appeared in Or Torah.

Here is an article from Tamuz 5757 (first page, but here is a link to the complete article).

This article is also plagiarized from R. Katz’s Devar Shmuel.

And here Weitzman’s article from Or Torah, Av 5758, and it too is plagiarized from R. Katz’s Devar Shmuel.

Here are the pages from Devar Shmuel:

With the aid of Otzar ha-Hokhmah I was able to find the following. Here is the first page of Weitzman’s article that appears in Or Torah, Heshvan 5761.

It is taken almost word for word from R. Mordechai Friedman’s Pores Mapah (Brooklyn, 1997).

Pores Mapah is not a well-known book (although it has much to recommend it), and having been published in the U.S. was probably hard to come by in Israel. This is the perfect sort of book for an Israeli to plagiarize from, and years ago it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to realize what had happened. Yet with Otzar ha-Hokhmah I was able to locate the plagiarism in a matter of seconds.

I think the explanation for plagiarisms like this is simply because people are greedy. They not only want that which they can achieve, but want to take from others as well. To once again cite the Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz, “a man’s got to know his limitations.”

Yet I must also note are cases of men who plagiarized in their early years but later became great Torah scholars, showing that a youthful error need not determine the course of one’s subsequent development.[11]

Sometimes, what appears to be a plagiarism has a much simpler explanation.[12] Here is a page from R. Moses Teitlebaum’s Heshiv Moshe, no. 87.

Compare this responsum with what appears in R. Abraham Bornstein, Avnei Nezer, Hoshen Mishpat, Likutei Teshuvot no. 101. The responsa are basically identical except for the dates and addressee.

What is going on here? I think it is obvious that R. Bornstein had a handwritten copy of the responsum, which he presumably copied out of Heshiv Moshe, a work published in 1866. After his death the one who put together his responsa did not realize that this was a responsum of R. Moses Teitelbaum, so he published it adding Bornstein’s signature and a new date. He also assumed that when the original responsum referred to the questioner as ש”נ it meant שינאווי when in fact it means שיאיר נרו or שיחיה נצח. Furthermore, in the original responsum it states דבר זה מתורת משה ילמדני which is an allusion to the one being asked the question, R. Moses Teitelbaum. Yet this was overlooked when the responsum was included in the Avnei Nezer.

Here is another example of what has been alleged to be plagiarism.[13] It is a passage from the Beur Halakhah, 494, s.v. מבחודש השלישי.

Now look at the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav, 494:8-11, and you can see that it has been copied word for word, even though at the end of the Beur Halakhah it states: זהו תמצית דברי האחרונים

What to make of this? One of the commenters on the site that calls attention to this text sees here an indication that the Hafetz Hayyim’s son was also involved in the writing of the Mishnah Berurah (as he claimed), since the Hafetz Hayyim himself would not do such a thing. Yet matters are more complicated than this, as there are also other places where the Mishnah Berurah copies word for word from the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav (and presumably from others sources as well).[14] Are we to assume that these were all inserted by his son?

It appears that the Hafetz Hayyim’s conception of what was proper in using earlier sources differed from what is accepted today, much like standards were also different in medieval times. Furthermore, since the Hafetz Hayyim writes זהו תמצית דברי האחרונים, even from a contemporary perspective we are not dealing with plagiarism. But the question is – and I don’t have the answer – why in some places the Hafetz Hayyim did not indicate when he was taking material from the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav. He does mention in the introduction that the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav is one of the sources from which his own commentary derives its material, and he constantly refers to it, so why in this case is there no indication of his source? Maybe one of the readers can answer if the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav is unusual in this regard, or if this is done with other sources as well. As far as I know, we don’t yet have an edition of the Mishnah Berurah that provides all the sources used in the text.

2. In Ha-Ma’ayan, Tishrei 5771 and Tevet 5771 there are articles on the idea of “Halakhic Paradox” by R. Michael Avraham and R. Meir Bareli. You can see Ha-Ma’ayan online here.

Here is another halakhic paradox that I found in the journal Ohel Yitzhak, Sivan 5668, p. 4b. Take a look at R. Menahem Ratner’s second question. I tried to actually put what he is asking into English but was unsuccessful as my mind kept going in circles. As with all such cases, and one immediately thinks of Zeno’s paradoxes, the problem is to determine if we are indeed dealing with a real paradox or if the paradox is only apparent. So I ask those readers who want to try to get their head around what Ratner is saying, is this a real paradox or is he missing something?

3. In the past few years there were many topics I wanted to get to, but simply didn’t have the time. These matters are not much in the news now so I won’t discuss them in detail as I had originally hoped to. However, I will make a few comments as I think readers will still find the topics of interest.

Let’s start with the commentary of the Malbim on Kohelet that was published in 2008. Here is the title page.

Understandably, there was much excitement when this book appeared since it is quite an event when an unknown commentary of such a major figure is discovered. However, the excitement was short-lived, as it soon became known that the commentary was not by the Malbim but by a nineteenth-century maskil, Jonah Bardah. Even more embarrassing for the publisher, Machon Oz ve-Hadar, is that Bardah’s commentary even appeared in print in 1850. Here are the title pages.

This would be bad no matter who the publisher was, but the fact that Machon Oz ve-Hadar is from New Square, which is as far removed from Haskalah imaginable, makes the mistake drip with irony.

How did such a blunder happen? Today, it seems that everyone is looking for unknown material to publish. There are a number of journals that devote a good deal of space to this, and I often wonder what will happen when we run out of unpublished documents. With this mindset you can imagine how excited the publisher was when he was informed that someone had located a previously unknown commentary by the Malbim. The assumption that this was the Malbim’s text was due to the similarity between the method of commentary in the newly discovered work and other commentaries of the Malbim. Without careful examination, the Kohelet commentary was published and this would in turn lead to great embarrassment, not to mention a lot of wasted time and money.

The story of this mistake is found in a document entitled Sheker Soferim. Here is the title page.

(A softened version of this article appeared in Yeshurun 25 [2011], pp. 724ff., and there the author’s name is revealed: R. Avraham Yeshaya Zecharish.[15]) This is really a damning document as it shows that the publisher had already been told that the handwriting of the commentary was not that of Malbim. I am not going to say that the publisher knowingly printed a fraud in order to profit by the Malbim’s name. But I think it is obvious that that the publisher’s great desire to publish the work caused him ignore what he had been told and to instead rely on his own “experts.” Whoever edited the work also showed his (their?) ignorance, since when the commentary referred to רמבמ”ן , not knowing that this referred to Mendelssohn the text was “corrected” to read רמב”ן!

Despite my sense that there was no intentional fraudulence in this publication, I don’t entirely discount the possibility that the publisher knew the commentary was not by Malbim but printed it anyway. I say this because as shown in Sheker Soferim there is one passage in the commentary where the “Malbim” claims that there is a mistake in the biblical text. The editors censored this passage, and this to be expected as from a haredi perspective such a comment is heretical. But if so, could the publisher actually believe that the Malbim wrote that which was censored?

Lest people think that things like this don’t have real effects in the world, let me just note that, as pointed out by Eliezer Brodt, an entire chapter of a doctoral dissertation is devoted to the false Malbim commentary on Kohelet.[16] Just think of how many hours were devoted to this dissertation chapter, all of which were wasted.

While Zecharish points to various “problematic” elements of the commentary that the publisher should have been aware of, he misses one right on the first page.

The notes at the bottom of the page are found in the original manuscript and publication. Here is the page.

In the commentary to the first verse the “Malbim” explains how the beginning of biblical books, where the author is introduced, is written by a later person.

.ואדמה כי לא יטעה כל משכיל לחשוב אשר המחבר בעצמו דיבר אלה הדברים

In the note the “Malbim” adds:

.עיין בהראב”ע בהתחלת ספר דברים

The beginning of Deuteronomy states: “These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan.” Upon these words Ibn Ezra introduces his “secret of the twelve” which focuses on post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. It is incredible that while the “Malbim’s” intention is crystal clear, namely, that the beginning of Deuteronomy was written after Moses, the editors didn’t catch this and see anything problematic in the comment, a comment that would never have been made by the Malbim.[17]

——

[1] See here. For former French Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim’s plagiarism, see the statement in First Things available here.

I think this sentence, from the article, is particularly apt:

One of the perversions of our era is to make a god of intellectual property. Most commentators described Bernheim as “stealing” words and sentences. This is wrongheaded. Plagiarism is a sin against truth, not property. It’s first and foremost a kind of lying, not a kind of stealing. He violated our trust by speaking in a voice that was not his own, which is why in this and other cases of plagiarism the writer loses intellectual and moral authority broadly.

The importance of our spiritual leaders speaking the truth cannot be stressed enough. R. Kook writes about how forces of heresy were strengthened when people saw unethical behavior among בעלי תורה ואמונה. See Eder ha-Yekar, p. 43.

R. Joseph Ibn Caspi explains at length how a prophet, who models himself on God who is called א-ל האמת, always speaks the truth, even when speaking to his wife and children (!). See Shulhan ha-Kesef, ed. Kasher (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 146, 163. This is so important to Ibn Caspi that he deals with a number of biblical examples where it appears that a prophet did not speak truthfully, and he argues that the meaning is not what appears at first glance. The one case where he acknowledges that we are dealing with a lie is Jacob telling Isaac, “I am Esau your firstborn” (Gen 27:19). Yet this does not affect Ibn Caspi’s thesis because he claims, p. 150, that when Jacob told this lie he was not yet a prophet.

.הנה כחש אבל עדין לא הגיע למדרגת הנבואה עד היותו בדרך חרן וראה הסולם

After his discussion about prophets and how they were always truthful, Ibn Caspi concludes, p. 163, that this is also how a חכם should behave. Our rabbis now stand in place of the prophets of old, thus they too much be paragons of truth.

With regard to Ibn Caspi’s Shulhan ha-Kesef, I would like to make one further point. In a previous post, see here, I discussed how, according to Ibn Caspi, the Torah contains statements that are not actually true, but were believed as such by the ancients. We see another example of this in Shulhan Kesef, p. 147, where he writes, in seeking to explain an example where it appears a prophet lied:

.כי הנביא שם משותף וכבר הרחיב הכתוב ואמר “חנניה הנביא” בסתם

What Ibn Caspi is saying is that even though the Bible refers to someone as a prophet, this doesn’t mean he was really a prophet. It could be that he is referred to as such because this is what the people believed, even though the people were incorrect. In other words, the Bible incorporates the incorrect view of the people in its narrative. The proof he brings is from Jeremiah 28 where Hananiah is referred to as a prophet but in reality he was a fraud.

[2] See most recently Shmuel Ashkenazi, “Ha-Gonev min ha-Sefer,” Yeshurun 25 (2011), pp. 675-690.

[3] See here.

[4] See e.g., Bekhorot 31b, Menahot 93b; R. Moses Zweig, Ohel Moshe, vol. 1, no. 41. The fact that the Sages had this problem in their own day is probably also why they stressed the importance of proper attribution. This is pointed out by R. Nathan Neta Olevski, Hayei Olam Nata (Jerusalem,1995), p. 241:

מזה נראה כי גם בימיהם כבר פשתה המספחת להתגדר בגנבי גנובי את תורת אחרים ולכן ראו חז”ל להגדיל ערך המשתמר מזה ולחשוב דבר זה בין המ”ח דברים שהתורה נקנית בהן

[5] See e.g., R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, Mekorot le-Korot Yisrael (n.p., 1934), p. 48.

[6] See e.g., Nahum Rakover, Zekhut ha-Yotzrim bi-Mekorot ha-Yehudi’im (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 38ff.

[7] Otzrot ha-Sofer 14 (5764), p. 91:

.זה אני מוחל לכם אם אתם אומרים חידושיי בשמכם, אבל אם אתם אומרים חידושים שלכם בשמי זה אינני מוחל לכם

For a communal rabbi, who was expected to prepare his own derashot, it was unacceptable to inform his listeners that he was using material from others. However, R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller, Olamo shel Abba (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 187, reported one tongue-in-cheek justification of this practice if due to circumstances beyond his control the rabbi was unable to properly prepare for his Shabbat ha-Gadol derashah. Since the Talmud, Pesahim 6a, states שואלין ודורשין בהלכות פסח, one can derive from this that מותר “לשאול” מאחרים בשעת הדחק ולדרוש בהלכות פסח

[8] I mention geneivat da’at, yet according to some one who plagiarizes actually violates the prohibition against actual geneivah. See R. Yaakov Avraham Cohen, Emek ha-Mishpat, vol. 4, nos. 2, 24; R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Hadar Yaakov, vol. 5, no. 38. R. Isaiah Horowitz, Shenei Luhot ha-Berit: Masekhet Shevuot, no. 71, writes about plagiarism: יותר גזילה מגזילת ממון

R. Eleazar Kalir states that the plagiarizer violates a positive commandment. See Havot Yair (Vilna, 1912; printed as the second part of the Malbim’s Eretz Hemdah), p. 26a:

ואומרים חידושי תורה מה שלא עמלו בו רק מפי השמועה שמעו ואומרים משמיה דנפשם ועוברים על עשה . . . שכך אמרו כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם

See also the very harsh comments of R. Joseph Hayyim David Azulai in his Berit Olam to Sefer Hasidim, no. 224, which should be enough to scare away at least some of the plagiarizers:

אם כותב ספר וגנב תורת אחרים . . . בחצי ימיו יעזבנו ואחריתו יבא בגלגול אחר ויהיה נבל ויהיה מזולזל כי נבל הוא ונבלה עמו. רחמנא ליצלן

[9] Robert Klein called my attention to the final part of R. Solomon Ephraim Luntshitz’s introduction to his Keli Yekar, where he suspects that some of the commentators who preceded him were guilty of plagiarism. See also his Olelot Ephraim, at the end of the introduction, where he claims that all the plagiarisms are delaying the arrival of the Messiah. He plays on the verse עשות ספרים הרבה אין קץ and explains that since so many new books are full of plagiarisms, עשיית ספרים הרבה גורם איחור קץ הימים.

R. Solomon Alkabetz, Manot ha-Levi (Lvov, 1911), p. 91b, also refers to the plagiarizers of his day. I called attention to R. Eliyahu Schlesinger’s plagiarism in my review of Avi Sagi’s and Zvi Zohar’s book on conversion, available here. See p. 9 n. 29. See also my post from June 25, 2010, available here, where I cite another case of plagiarism from Schlesinger. I found these examples by chance, and I am sure that if I were to carefully examine the latter’s writings I would come up with more. Yet there doesn’t seem to be much point in doing so, since in the haredi world there simply is no accountability in matters like this.

A number of scholars have discussed plagiarism with regard to Abarbanel, and I hope to return to this. For now, let me just note the following. In his introduction to Trei Asar, p. 13, Abarbanel explicitly denies that he plagiarized, while at the same time accusing R. David Kimhi of doing so.

שהמובחרים והטובים מהפירושים שזכר רבי דוד קמחי מדבר [!] הראב”ע לקחה [!], עם היות שלא זכרם בשמו ואני איחס כל דבר לאומרו פן אהיה ממגנבי דברים

At the end of his commentary to Amos, he repeats the accusation:

ומה שפירש עוד בהלא כבני כושיים בשם אביו הנה הוא לקוח מדברי הרב רבי אברהם בן עזרא ומה לו לגנוב דברים

See R. Dovberish Tursch, Moznei Tzedek (Warsaw, 1905), p. 195; Abraham Lipshitz, Pirkei Iyun be-Mishnat Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (Jerusalem, 1982), p. 131.

[10] It is hard to take this explanation seriously. Talking during the repetition of the Amidah has always been common, yet rather than omit mention of this matter, the Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 124:6, writes:

לא ישיח שיחת חולין בשעה שש”צ חוזר התפלה ואם שח הוא חוטא וגדול עונו מנשוא וגוערים בו

R. Zvi Yehudah Kook reported that his grandfather, R. Shlomo Zalman Kook, once strongly rebuked someone for talking during the repetition of the Amidah. When it was pointed out to him that דברי חכמים בנחת נשמעים, he replied that the Shulhan Arukh uses the word גוערים and that does not mean a gentle suggestion but a sharp rebuke. See R. Yair Uriel, Be-Shipulei ha-Gelimah (n.p., 2012), p. 32. (The story immediately following this one is also of interest. It records that R. Zvi Yehudah opposed the common practice [at least in America] of singing אשמנו בגדנו:

יש לומר את הדברים ברצינות, בצער ובכאב, ולא מתאימה לזה שירה

It seems that R. Abraham Isaac Kook followed in the path of his father. See ibid., pp. 58-59, for the famous story of how R. Kook, while rav in Bausk, once slapped a “macher” in the face when he insulted R. Zelig Reuven Bengis. (The story is told in great detail in R. Moshe Zvi Neriyah, Sihot ha-Re’iyah [Tel Aviv, 1979], ch. 22.) R. Kook later explained that he did not slap the man in a fit of anger, but was of completely sound mind and did it in order to follow the Sages’ prescription of how to respond to one who degrades a Torah scholar:

“וכך אמר: “דינא הכי, מי ששומע זילותא של צורבא מרבנן צריך למחות

All I would say is that one must be careful with who one slaps. R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, Li-Felagot Yisrael be-Ungaryah (Deva, 1929), p. 25, records a story from mid-eighteenth-century Hungary where in the synagogue and in front of the congregation the head of the community slapped the rabbi in the face. This was the last straw for the rabbi (who was really a phony), and he, his wife, and children converted to Christianity.

R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin would occasionally slap a student in the face. On one occasion it even led to a noisy protest by the students. Because the students refused to back down, the Netziv unable able to deliver his shiur. This led to him making a public apology to the students, which they happily accepted. See M. Eisenstadt, “Revolutzyah bi-‘Yeshivah,’” Ha-Tzefirah, June 2, 1916, pp. 1-2 (referred to by Shaul Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Ninteenth Century [Oxford, 2012], p. 113).

Since we are on the subject of slapping in the face, and since I mentioned R. Yitzhak Zilberstein in my last post, here is something else from his Hashukei Hemed on Bava Kamma, pp. 492-493.

I think it is quite interesting that he takes it as a given that policemen in Israel will beat thieves until they confess. Is there any truth to this at all? He himself thinks it is good that thieves be given a good slap in the face.

There are many more examples I could cite of people being slapped in the face, including by rabbis. One thing that is clear is that face-slapping has gone out of style.. It is like fainting, which was common in old movies. But when was the last time you saw a woman faint? It just doesn’t happen anymore.

Returning to R. Bengis, it is noteworthy that he and R. Kook were great friends from their days in Volozhin. See the booklet Or Reuven (Jerusalem, 2011), which is devoted to their relationship R. Bengis’ letters to R. Kook in Iggerot la-Rei’yah show that he regarded R. Kook as rav of Jerusalem and chief rabbi of the Land of Israel. Only after R. Kook’s death did R. Bengis become Rosh Av Beit Din of the Edah Haredit in Jerusalem. His life-long admiration for R. Kook, even in his new position with the Edah Haredit, is, of course, not usually mentioned in haredi discussions of him. Since in the past I have criticized Yeshurun for its conscious distortions (all in the service of the haredi cause), let me now praise it for including the following in vol. 12 (2003), p. 156 n. 35.

Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky, Making of a Godol, pp. 305-306, reports in the name of R. Yosef Buxbaum that R. Bengis knew the poetry of Pushkin. (He also quotes a report that R. Bengis did not know Russian and when tested by a government official to ensure that secular studies were being taught in Volozhin, he just repeated the page of Pushkin from memory which he had prepared ahead of time by having another student read it for him. This strikes me as an apologetic attempt to “kasher” R. Bengis, as followers of the Edah Haredit will not take kindly to the knowledge that R. Bengis knew Russian poetry.)

For a recent discussion of R. Bengis and his brother, who went by the name of “Ben Da’at”, see here.

According to an unpublished collection of Brisker stories in my possession, R. Velvel Soloveitchik said about R. Bengis that just because one is a great talmid hakham does not mean that he is also a leader. Perhaps R. Velvel had this view of R. Bengis because the latter’s extremist credentials left something to be desired.

[11] Marvin J. Heller, Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Leiden and Boston, 2008), p. 204, writes as follows about R. David Lida: “I would suggest, and this is highly speculative and certainly not a justification, that Lida’s acts of literary piracy were youthful improprieties, albeit of a most serious nature. A young man, inexperienced, perhaps immature, from whom much was expected, hoping to impress others and to further a burgeoning career, erred and claimed authorship of works he had not written, but rather discovered in manuscript.”

[12] The following example, with some of the explanations I give, is found here.

[13] This too was noted here.

[14] In a comment to my last post, someone wrote:

“The part about Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah requiring the Amidah to be recited twice a day and that women are also obligated in this is not from Nahmanides. This is the Mishnah Berurah speaking.”

Actually, these are the words of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (או”ח קו,ב), quoted here verbatim.

This practice of the MB citing whole paragraphs from the SAH – without attributing the author – is common throughout the his work, in leads many times to run-on sentences and disambiguation such as the one at hand.

[15] See also the online discussion here.

[16] “Ha-Sinonomyah bi-Leshon ha-Mikra al Pi Shitat Malbim,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 2009).

[17] See here where I mention how R. Yosef Reinman also didn’t know anything about Ibn Ezra’s “critical” views. In the post I also discuss the controversy regarding Reinman co-authoring a book with a Reform rabbi. In the introduction to his Avir Yosef (Lakewood, 2008), Reinman defends himself.

On Libraries, Bibliophiles & Images: Taj Auction 13

On Libraries, Bibliophiles & Images: Taj Art Auctions 13

by Eliezer Brodt and Dan Rabinowitz

Taj Art Auctions will hold its 13th auction this Sunday, April 7th (the catalog is available here). The auction contains many items worth highlighting, especially those related to historic Jewish libraries, as well as other unique books and ephemera.

Recently, arguably, the most significant Jewish library reopened its doors. The National Library of Israel, housed at Hebrew University for decades, moved into its own building, designed by the starchitects Herzog & de Meuron, who count the Tate Modern among other outstanding projects. Books are integral to the Jewish experience, and the library’s location, next to some of the most important institutions of the Jewish state, the Knesset, the Israel Museum, and the Supreme Court, echoes that sentiment. The library’s ground floor houses the Jewish Studies reading room, which contains over 200,000 volumes. The library itself holds over four million books (and counting). These are now accessed by a quartet of robots that fetch requested books. There is even a window to watch them in action. The Scholem room has been transformed from its small, cramped quarters into a spacious room that houses the collections of several kabbalah scholars. Scholem’s desk is still present. There is a permanent exhibit of some of the library’s treasures, but that is only accessible on an official tour.

Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly worth seeking out. An exhibition of manuscripts of one the greatest privately held collections of Judaica, the Braginsky Collection, opens this month. While the National Library’s new building and collection are exceptional, many precursor Jewish libraries existed throughout the Jewish diaspora.

The oldest functioning Jewish library in the world is the Ets Haim Library in Amsterdam, dating from 1616. (An exhibition of its books was held at the National Library of Israel, then known as the Jewish National and University Library, in 1980). Its antiquity is tied to the date the school opened with the same name. This school became well-known for its unique curriculum and success in imparting that curriculum. Unlike the Central and Eastern European schools that almost immediately started studying Mishna and Talmud, the Talmud Torah applied a more systematic approach to Jewish literature. R. Shabbetai Seftil, the son of R. Yeshaya ha-Levi Horowitz (Shelah or Shelah ha-Kodesh), traveled from Frankfurt to Pozen via ship. That journey took him through Amsterdam, where he saw that the students’ studies operated in sequence. First, they studied the entire corpus of Tanakh and then completed the Mishha, and when they matured, they only began studying Talmud, and this approach contributed to their unique success. Seeing the benefits, he broke down crying, “Why don’t we follow the same approach in our countries [of Central and Eastern Europe]? Suppose only we could institute this throughout the Jewish communities. What would the harm be in first completing the Torah and Mishna until the student reaches thirteen and then begins Talmud? With that background, it will take only a year to become proficient in the intricacies of Talmud study, unlike our current approach that requires years to reach that level of fluency.”

In an example of the intertwining nature of the library and the school, the bibliographer R. Shabbetai Bass (1641-1718), who wrote the first Hebrew bibliography, Sifte Yeshenim (today, most well-known for this commentary on Rashi, Sifte Hakhim). Bass was born and lived in what is today the Czech Republic (Czechia). Around 1680, he went to Amsterdam to print Sifte Yeshenim. During that time, he visited the library and school and described the students as “students of giants: young children dancing like locusts and like so many lambs. To my eyes, they were giants, so well-versed in their knowledge of Torah and grammar. They could write Hebrew verse and poetry in meter and converse in clear Hebrew.” He also describes the unique aspect of the library. “Within the midrash, they have a special school, and there they have many books, and all the time they are in the yeshivah, this room is also open, and whoever wishes to study, anything he desires is lent to him. But not outside the beit midrash, even if he provides a large sum of money.”

Among the Ets Hayim Library treasures is an Amsterdam print, the first Haggadah with copperplate illustrations. While illustrations in printed Haggados began with the Prague Haggadah of 1526, these were woodcuts. Copperplates, however, produce much finer illustrations. In 1695, the convert, Abraham ben Yaakov, designed and executed these copperplates, and the Haggadah was printed by the famed Amsterdam publisher, Proops. (Copperplates were already used in printing decades before the Haggadah. Perhaps one of the most significant recent examples is a 1635 copper etching by Rembrandt that the Jewish art scholar Simon Schama donated to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam last year.) The illustrations are based on the Christian biblical illustrations of Mathis Marin. While most are innocuous, the temple image at the end of the Haggadah is topped with a cross. In addition to the fine illustrations, the Haggadah also contains a large foldout map of the Jews’s journeys from Egypt to Israel; it is among the first Jewish maps of the Holy Land.

The Ets Hayim Library holds a unique edition of this Haggadah, considered one of its most treasured books. First, it contains an extra title page. But, more importantly, it is hand colored. While the copperplates are a significant improvement, the coloring makes this an especially striking Haggadah. It is listed among 18 Highlights from the Es Haim: The Oldest Jewish Library in the World, published by the library in 2016. The book includes three full-page reproductions of various details of the Haggadah and smaller reproductions of other pages. There are only two other copies of this version. One is at the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and the other is being auctioned at Taj Art Auctions (lot 89). The copy at the auction was a gift from the printer Solomon Proops.

Similar images from the Haggadah’s title page were reused in Menoras ha-Me’or, Amsterdam, 1722, (lot 84), and the Amsterdam Haggadah final illustration of the Beis ha-Mikdash, that if one looks closely, the Christian cross was left intact from the original Mathis Marin illustration, also appears in the beautiful and unique title page adorning Birkas Shmuel, Frankfurt, 1782 (lot 152).

Birkas Shmuel, Frankfurt, 1782 Note the Cross on the Top of the Temple

Amsterdam was home to another significant library, the Rosenthaliana. It was collected in Hanover but eventually landed in Amsterdam. The catalog related to this library attests to the rarity of another book in this auction. This library was amassed by Eliezer (Leeser) Rosenthal (1794-1868). Born in Warsaw, he eventually traveled to Hanover, where he served as a Rabbi. His wife came from a wealthy family that allowed Rosenthal to indulge in his passion, book collecting. At their death, his library comprised more than 5,200 volumes, including twelve incunabula and numerous rare and unique books. After his death, his son, George, commissioned the bibliographer Meyer (Marcus) Roest to complete a bibliography of the library. It was published in two volumes in 1875 and reproduced in 1966. Roest’s work incorporated Rosenthal’s catalog of his library, Yodeah Sefer. Despite the many rare books in the collections, there was at least one book he could not procure, at least a complete copy. In his entry, 1524, for the Ibbur Shanim, Venice, 1679, he says that “it is a terrible loss, that my copy is incomplete, it is missing the last pages, my copy ends at page 95 … and is missing the calendric charts for 150 years, beginning from 1675, my copy is missing from 95 of these charts, from 1731 onward… This is a scarce (yekar mitzius) book and is not listed in R. Hayim Michael’s [Or Meir] or the Shem ha-Gedolim, or Di Rossi’s bibliography.” The National Library of Israel received a complete copy from the Valmaddona Trust, which was digitized and available online. (One can bid on four of the Valmadonna books, Talmud Bavli, Seder Zeriam, Lublin, 1618, lot 70 , as well as lots 12, 54, and 68). A complete copy of the book appears in the auction at lot 2. (For more on calendar books, see Elisheva Carlebach, Palaces of Time: Jewish Calendar and Culture in Early Modern Europe, and pp. 51-55 regarding Ibbur Shanim. His work is also a source for the Tu be-Shevat seder, see our post, “Is there a Rotten Apple in the Tu be-Shevat Basket“). The book has its own intersting history that is briefly described in the timely post, “Kitniyot and Mechirat Chametz: Paradoxical Approaches to the Chametz Prohibition.”

Yet another seminal Jewish library was that of R. Dovid Oppenheim (1664-1736), considered “the greatest Jewish bibliophile that ever lived.” (See Alexander Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore, 213). Oppenheim started his rabbinic career in Moravia, moved to Prague, and was eventually elevated to Bohemia’s Chief Rabbi. At age 24, his library consisted of 480 books, and by 1711, his library stood at over 2,100 books, missing only 140 books from those listed in Shabbetai Bass’s bibliography of all Hebrew books. After his death (with some additions from his son, Yosef), the library rose to 4,500 printed books and 780 manuscripts. Although Oppenheim lived in Prague, the library was in Hanover. This was due to the heavy book censorship, which included the potential for confiscation by the authorities. Oppenheim visited his library, but perhaps because his time was limited, his works do not indicate that he was acquainted with the book’s contents. Instead, he should be considered a consummate bibliophile, and his collection consisted of rarities and special beautiful and unique copies, with a considerable number on blue paper. For example, there were 51 books printed on vellum, 40 of which he commissioned himself, out of about 200 known books printed on that medium until 1905.

After his death and multiple attempts to sell the library, it eventually went to the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. A complete history of the library was most recently accounted for by Joshua Teplitsky in his Prince of the Press: How One Collector Built History’s Most Enduring and Remarkable Jewish Library. But before its final resting place, there were a handful of catalogs of the library or various aspects of it. The first complete printed catalog of the library was issued in 1782 and was intended to elicit interest from potential Jewish and non-Jewish buyers. Thus, it contains two title pages, one in Hebrew and the other in Latin. This rare bibliophilic item is lot 156.

Finally, the auction also includes books from the library of R. Nachum Dov Ber Friedman, the Sadigur Rebbe. His library was recently described in Amudei Olam by R. Zusya Dinklos, pp. 419-39. Aside from traditional works, the library also held Haskalah works, as the one in lot 71.

Illustrated Books

We discussed Ibur Shanim, and in addition to its rarity, it is also among the small number of Hebrew books that contain illustrations. Because the book’s purpose was to elucidate and explain Hebrew calendrical calculations, including the determination of the tekufos (which he vehemently criticizes some Rishonim and others for dismissing them as old wives tales), there are a handful of tutorial images.

Likewise, Sefer ha-Ivronot, Offenbach, 1722 (lot 73) includes celestial images, in this instance, a movable wheel of the heavenly apparatuses. While there was some speculation that the title page image depicting a heliocentric universe was deliberately to align with the book’s contents, that is unlikely as the image was reused in at least three other books printed in Offenbach that are unrelated to astronomy.

Moshe Hefetz, perhaps more well-known for the 19th-century modification of his portrait attached to the first edition of his Melechet Machshevet, which depicts him bare-headed, authored a book on the Bet ha-Mikdash, Haknukas ha-Bayis, 1696, (lot 20), within which several Temple elements are illustrated.

Two books contain eclectic images of the Jewish star. Igeret Ayelet Ahavim, Amsterdam, 1665 (lot 140) and the first edition, 170 Amsterdam, Raziel HaMalach, (lot 120) include unusual adaptations of the star. (For another kabbalistic rarity, lot 116, is the kabbalist, Rabbi Yosef Erges’ personal copy of the Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur machzorim with his kabbalistic additions.)

*Iggeres Ayyeles Ahahuvim*
From the Gross Family Collection

*Razeil ha-Malakh*
From the Gross Family Collection

There are a handful of artistic title pages, with at least two Greek gods, Hercules and Venus (see lots 10 and 48), and some potentially objectionable ones that Marc Shapiro discussed in his book Changing the Immutable (lots 64 & 78).

One of the most unusual title pages is a special one that its owner inserted into the book. The title page, taken from a non-Jewish architectural image by the 18th-century engraver Franz Carl Heissig, was filled in by hand with the book’s publication information (lot 5).

Finally, while censorship in Jewish books is somewhat common, undoing censorship is less common. Lot 62 is a unique copy of the Shu’T Maharshal that includes the otherwise expunged name of an informer. Other copies only refer to the person obliquely; this copy, although crossed out, the name is still visible. For more on this see Elchanan Reiner, “Lineage (Yihus) and Libel: Mahral, the Bezalel Family, and the Nadler Affair,” in Elchanan Reiner, ed., Maharal: Biography, Doctrine, Influence, 101-26 (Hebrew).