Eliezer and Joseph ben Naphtali Hertz Treves:
Hebrew Publishers, briefly, in the Mid-Sixteenth Century^[1]

Marvin J. Heller

A Hebrew press was briefly active in Thiengen (Tiengen) in 1560. The publishers, from the distinguished rabbinic Treves family, were Eliezer and Joseph ben Naphtali Hertz Treves. The brothers only published six (possibly seven) books before being forced to close by a meeting of the leaders, both Protestant and Catholic, of the Swiss Confederation in June 1560, who feared that they were about to print the Talmud.^[2]

The Treves family was noted for the many rabbinic scholars and communal leaders it produced over several centuries. Yehoshua Horowitz, in his description of the family history, informs that the family origin may have been in Troyes, France and subsequently in Italy and Germany. A second possibility is Treviso near Venice, Italy, in the 14^th century, and yet another is that the family came from Trier, Germany (Trèves in French).^[3] Isidore Singer, et. al., record forty-one distinguished members of the family, writing that “No other family can boast such a continuous line of scholars as this one, branches of which have been known under the names Treves, Tribas, Dreifuss, Trefouse, and Drifzan. There exists, however, no means of tracing the connection of these various branches, which even as early as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were already scattered over Germany, Italy, southern France, Greece, Poland, and Russia.”^[4]

The earliest known Treves is Johanan ben Mattithiah Treves, chief rabbi of France (c. 1385 – 1394), who, after the expulsion of the Jews from France in 1394, resettled in Italy, where he passed away on July 21, 1439. A responsum on the prayers of orphans for their deceased parents, and a letter addressed to the community of Padua, are still extant in manuscript in the Florence Library (Bibliothecæ Hebraicæ Florentinæ Catalogus, p. 426). Several members of the family were employed in printing presses in Italy, among them Johanon Treves at the Bomberg, Sabbioneta and Bologna presses (and later partnered with Ovadiah Seforno. As well as a scholar in his own right. Like his relative, Yochanan authored a commentary to the Siddur that was published in Bologna in 1540 and Raphael ben Johanon, rabbi of Ferrara, as editor and proofreader in Sabbioneta.^[5]

Our Treves of primary interest are Joseph and Eliezer ben Naphtali Hertz Treves (1495–1566),^[6] who operated the press in Thiengen. The latter served in the rabbinate in Frankfurt am Main for approximately twenty-two years. He was considered among the leading rabbis of his generation. In 1558, Kaiser Friedrich I assigned Eliezer to a committee of three rabbis to resolve the controversy surrounding the election of the chief rabbi position in Prague. committee to register the votes of Prague Jewry for the chief rabbi position. A renowned Talmudist and a Kabbalist, Eliezer became an adherent of several pseudo-Messiahs, namely Asher Lemlein (Lemmlein), who appeared in the sixteenth century; Eliezer attributed the non-fulfilment of Lemmlein’s prophecy concerning the Messiah to “circumstances other than fraud.”^[7] In 1561, Eliezer, a collector of manuscripts, went to Cracow, where he transcribed Solomon Molko’s commentaries.^[8][9]

Eliezer had printed previously, briefly, in Zurich. His imprints were an all-Yiddish Josippon and Sefer Hayira (both 1546), as well as a Yiddish Psalms. Dr Moshe Nathan Rosenfeld informs that the same vignette was used in Zürich with the Yiddish Psalms (1558), as well as in Tiengen. He writes that “at a meeting of the Eidgenossenschaft in Baden the Catholic representatives of Luzern, accused their Zürich colleagues of allowing the sale of anti-Christian pamphlets in the streets of Zürich.” This resulted in Treves relocating to Thiengen, with the permission of the Count of Sulz, leaving his Yiddish types behind.^[10]

Joseph Treves, born in 1490, added an introduction and glosses to their father’s prayer-book, which they published, as well as the publication of the Midrash Ha-Ne’elam on Ruth, under the title Yesod Shirim.

Their father, Naphtali Hirz or Hirtz Shatz (1473-c.1540)^[11] was a kabbalist and rabbinic scholar, who served as hazzan and rabbinic judge in Frankfurt am Main. He authored a kabbalistic commentary on the prayer-book, entitled Dikduk Tefillah, printed with the prayer-book, Malah ha’Aretz Deah and Naftulei Elokim (Heddernheim, 1546) and a super commentary and index on R. Bahya ben Asher (1255-1340) on the Pentateuch.^[12] The former work, Dikduk Tefillah, a kabbalistic interpretation of the prayer book, reflects the rise in messianic and Kabbalah currents in Ashkenazic Jewry. As Michael A. Meyer writes, “Dikduk Tefillah (The Precise Interpretation of Prayer, 1560), reflects a rise in such tendencies.”^[13] These tendencies are evident in Eliezer’s interests, as shown above.

Naftulei Elokim

Turning to Thiengen, now Waldshut-Tiengen, home to our press of interest. It is located in Baden Germany, that is southwestern Baden-Württemberg at the border of Switzerland, north of Zurzach. Jews were likely resident there in the 14th century. In 1650, eight Jewish families received a letter of protection allowing them to conduct trade but not open stores. There was continuous friction with the local population through the 18^th century. Jews were only welcome in public from 1870.^[14]

Eliezer, together with his brother, Joseph,^[15] established their Hebrew press in the small town of Thiengen in 1559 to print kabbalistic treatises, but primarily their father’s commentary, Malah ha’Aretz Deah. As noted above, the press was active for one year only, issuing six books in 1560 and, perchance, one title in 1566, a reprint of the previous edition of the piyyut (liturgical hymn) Shir ha-Yihud (Hymnerchandce, Divine Unity).^[16] Printing in Thiengen had been permitted by the Count of Sulz. However, complaints were brought by the burghers, afraid of damages because of the press, to the Bishop of Constance. He initially, in a vague response, permitted the press to continue to operate. However, when, the matter was brought before a meeting of the leaders of the Swiss Confederation in June, 1560, to which Thiengen was subject, they demanded its closure, fearing that the Talmud was to be printed there.

Another brother was Samuel, who relocated to Russia and took the family name of Zevi. He was the author of Yesod Shirim (below) on the Book of Ruth. Samuel’s sons were Eliezer, author of distinguished works, among them Dammesek Eliezer (Lublin, 1646) on tractate Hullin and Si’ah ha-Sadeh (ibid., 1645), a collection of prayers.

Kimḥa de-Avishuna

Another Treves of interest, although his relationship to our Treves family is not clear, is R. Johanan ben Joseph Treves (c. 1490–1557). A peripatetic rabbi, he wandered for twenty years in northern and central Italy, where he served as a religious instructor and rabbi in various communities in northern and central Italy. An author and publisher, Johanan Treves wrote responsa, is credited with the commentary, Kimha de-Avishuna (Bologna, 1540) on the Roman rite festival prayer book, published anonymously, as well as several halakhic works, among them glosses to the Alfasi and commentary on the laws of shehitah au-vedikah. Johanan Treves reputedly was employed in the Hebrew press in Bologna from 1537 to 1541 and, perchance, from 1545–46, as a proofreader in Daniel Bomberg’s press in Venice (noted above).^[17]

The books published in Thiengen are few in number. Yeshayahu Vinograd, in the Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book, records seven titles only, all but one printed in 1560, and a single title published in 1566, which, as noted above and we shall see below, is questionable. The varied books printed in Thiengen, in alphabetical (Hebrew) order, are:

אדם שכלי Adam Sedkheli – Kabbalistic and philosophic treatise by R. Simeon ben Samuel. Of French or German birth, Simeon ben Samuel lived in the fourteenth – fifteenth centuries. Adam Sedkheli was published in quarto format (4⁰: 24 ff.).

Adam Sedkheli
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

The text of the title page is set within a woodcut architectural frame. The two upper corners have shields, the right shield with a key, the left a double-headed eagle, the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire, likely indicating that Thiegen was not a free city but under the direct auspices of the Empire. Simeon added the subtitle, Hadrath Kodesh, because his name, given as שמעון בן שמואל ז”ל יסדו (1012) plus the number of letters in the title (7) equals the phrase Hadrath Kodesh הדרת קודש (=1019).^[18] It is that name that appears as the header in the volumes’ text pages. The intent of the book, as stated on the title page, is to save souls from destruction.

Adam Sedkheli is on the Decalogue, thirteen attributes of God (shelosh esreh middot), thirteen articles of faith, and resurrection, with a commentary by the author. The book, written about 1400, is completed with a poetic kabbalistic entreaty, Or Kadmon, which exhorts God to “[further] rescue us from the cruel decrees [following] the four miracles [performed] for us this year [1400].”^[19] The miracles are enumerated as:

Salvation from a decree of death in the Jubilee year

Rescue from thousands, all dressed in white

Deliverance from the murderous brigades of Geislsler

the abdication of the “Shameful King [Wentzel], who persecuted us for many years.

The printers’ names do not appear on Adam Sedkheli nor on several of the other books printed in Thiengen. In the absence of another press in this small community, however, it may be assumed that they were responsible for those works as well. David Gans, in Zemah David, notes that Eliezer died in Frankfort in 1563.^[20]

Adam Sedkheli has been reprinted several times. Ch. B. Friedberg records seven editions in the Bet Eked Sepharim, beginning with a Lublin (1599) edition through a Warsaw (1915) edition.^[21]

בגידת הזמן (משכיל על דבר ימצא טוב) Begidat Hazman – An allegoric maqāma (a poetic narrative in rhymed prose) by Mattathias (Mattityah ben Moses), a 15th century Spanish or Provençal Hebrew poet or Mattathias ha-Yiẓhari, a representative of the Jewish communities of Aragon at the Tortosa disputation (1413–14). This, the first edition of Begidat Hazman, was published in octavo format (8⁰: [26] pp.).

Begidat Hazman
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

The title page, with a pillared frame with cherubim, has the heading “מַשְׂכִּ֣יל עַל־דָּ֭בָר יִמְצָא־ט֑וֹב וּבוֹטֵ֖חַ בַּיהֹוָ֣ה אַשְׁרָֽיו He who is adept in a matter will attain success; Happy is he who trusts in the Lord (Proverbs 12:20).” Below it the text continues “For I will give all good things, and I will give the way of traitors. I will pour out my spirit, and I will declare to the multitude my words of the betrayal of time בגידת הזמן (Begidat Hazman); the words of Mattathias from captivity.” Here too the title-page header is not the book title.

Begidat ha-Zeman was written in c. 1450. It is described as having “a clear pedagogic, apologetic, and moral purpose. . . . It is written in the first person and the personal element is important. The author repents the sins of his youth, describing his experiences, writing that he speaks from his heart, so that his tale might serve as a warning.”^[22]

Mattathias is also credited as being the author of Ahituv ve-Zlmon, also a maqāma, similar in style to Begidat ha-Zeman, written prior 1453, inspired by the religious disputations held in Spain. He is also credited with a commentary on Psalm 119 with references to the disputation, and a commentary to Pirkei Avot (preserved in part only).

Ch. B. Friedberg records three subsequent editions of Begidat ha-Zeman, published in Prague (1609), Amsterdam (1650), and Offenbach (1714).^[23]

יסוד שירים Yesod Shirim – Our next title, Yesod Shirim, was written by Naphtali Hirz’s son Samuel. He was, as noted above, the brother who settled in Russia. Samuel authored Yesod Shirim, a kabbalistic commentary on the Book of Ruth, literal and kabbalistic explanations.^[24] It was published in 19 c. ([32] ff.).

Yesod Shirim
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Here too the title-page has a pillared frame with images of cherubim, unlike those employed on the title-pages of Begidat ha-Zeman (above), and Malah ha-Aretz De’ah and Shir ha-Yihud (below). The header on the title-page, in large bold letters, is given as Tapuchei Zahav, from “Like golden apples (Tapuchei Zahav) in silver showpieces is a phrase well turned (Proverbs 25:11).” Below the brief title-page text continues “behold, this is a new thing… and hidden secrets, the taste of Marut, the secret of the Kingdom of the House of David, head of the poets. Therefore, I entitled it Yesod Shirim.” Within the text, set in a single column in rabbinic letters, the page header is Yesod Shirim.

Yesod Shirim, as noted above, is on Megillat Ruth. But it is not a commentary, rather it is Midrash ha-Ne’elam, the first printing of that section of the Zohar on Ruth. The colophon states that it was printed in Thiengen by the oppressed Joseph ben Naphtali on Sunday, 23 Teves 320 (January 10, 1560). Why oppressed (עשוק) is unclear.

מלאה הארץ דעה Malah ha-Aretz De’ah – The siddur (prayerbook) prepared by R. Naphtali Hirz Treves. Malah ha-Aretz De’ah was published in octavo format (8⁰: [242] pp.). The text of the title-page has an attractive frame with cherubim at the sides.

Malah ha-Aretz De’ah
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

The title מלאה הארץ דעה is from “For the land shall be filled with devotion (malah ha-aretz de’ah) [to God]” and below it the verse continues “As water covers the sea” (Isaiah 11:9).^[25] The text of the title-page continues that it is tefillah (prayer) for the entire year with an attractive commentary as well as a commentary in a kabbalistic manner by R. [Naphtali] Hirz [Treves]. Malah ha-Aretz De’ah is an Ashkenaz rite siddur. The text of the volume is in vocalized square letters accompanied by the commentary in rabbinic letters.

In addition to Naphtali Hirz Treves’ use of kabbalistic works in preparing his commentary to the siddur, he utilized several other sources, among the most important of which was R. Eleazar of Worms (c. 1176–1238) Sefer ha-Rokeah, an important and classic halachic and kabbalistic work.^[26] Among his other sources was the Maharil (R. Jacob Moelin (c. 1365 –1427) and R. Bahya. Malah ha-Aretz De’ah closely follows the liturgy of Hasidei Ashkenaz. The commentary is extensive and lengthy.

Malah ha-Aretz De’ah was reprinted three times; two editions in Beni Brak, 1971 and 2004 and by Renaissance Hebraica c. 2000. The Renaissance Hebraica edition includes an alternative title page border. It reuses the border from Begidat Hazman.

מלכיאל Malkiel – A multi-faceted philosophical and ethical work on the afterlife, reward and punishment, and comforting Zion by R. Malkiel Hezkiah ben Abraham. Printed in quarto format (4⁰: 22 pp.), the text of the title-page is concise, set in a decorative border. The purpose of Malkiel is described as being intended to understand the words of the sages.

Malkiel
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

Malkiel addresses such subjects as Gan Eden and Gehinom for the souls and body after death. The concealed meaning of pairs is explained, and the issue of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9) that the Lord prohibited to the first man and the reasons for his sin. Also explicated are the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, Og King of Bashan and additional enigmatic aggadic materials. Additional subjects based on the words of the sages in the Talmud and Midrashim are addressed. The text is in a single column in rabbinic letters.

This is the first printing of Malkiel. Friedberg records seven later editions, beginning with Offenbach (1715) through Vilna and Grodno (1819).^[27]

שיר היחוד Shir ha-Yihud – Shir ha-Yihud (Hymn of Divine Unity) is an anonymous piyyut (liturgical poem) written in the mid-twelfth century, most often attributed to Samuel ben Kalonymus he-Hasid (c. 1130-1175), less often to his son, Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid (c. 1150-1217), author of the Sefer Hasidim, both among the foremost representatives of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, and, on occasion, to yet others. This edition was published in quarto format (4⁰: 20 ff.). The title-page has the same frame with cherubim as Begidat Hazman (above).

Although there exist several piyyuttim entitled Shir ha-Yihud, this is the most well-known. Unlike most early manuscript versions of the Shir, which were divided into chapters, later versions, and all printed editions, are divided by the days of the week, one for each day, praising God and his uniqueness, in contrast to the insignificance of man. Lines are divided into rhymed couplets, with four beats to a couplet The fourth day differs from the other days in that it is the only day for which the verses are arranged in alphabetic order; however, the number of lines to a letter are not equal. Shir ha-Yihud is, philosophically, based on the Sefer ha-Emunot ve-ha-De’ot of R. Saadiah Gaon (882-942), a fact acknowledged on the title page.

Shir ha-Yihud
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

It is customary, today, to recite Shir ha-Yihud on Yom Kippur eve, at the end of services, its more frequent repetition being opposed by a number of rabbinic figures, such as R. Jacob Emden (16971776), R. Solomon Luria (1510-1574) and Rabbi Judah Loew (Maharal, 1525-1609). The latter restricting it to Yom Kippur only, a “day set aside for praise of God, when a person is on a higher level, comparable to an angel” (Netivot Ovodah ch. 12, Netivot Olam).

The text of Shir ha-Yihud is accompanied by the commentary of Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen (14th-15th centuries). Muelhausen was a dayyan in Prague, a highly respected halakhist and kabbalist. His most famous work is the Sefer ha-Nizzahon, a polemic against Christianity, passed down by hand from generation to generation, until a monk, Theodore Hackspan, seized a copy from the rabbi of Schneittach. Hackspan translated Nizzahon into Latin, added notes in attempt to refute its arguments, and had it printed (Altdorf, 1644). A Jewish edition did not appear until 1701. In a brief introduction to Shir ha-Yihud, Muelhausen writes that he has seen many commentaries on this holy work, but found them to be “straw mixed with grain.” Noting that these are inadequate, not explaining the intent of the author, he asks, “help from the Helper, my Rock, the Almighty, and I will write here all that I received, “mouth to mouth” (Numbers 12:8) from those who know the truth.” ^[28]

1566 שיר היחוד Shir ha-Yihud – A improbable edition of Shir ha-Yihud is listed in the Thesaurus as the seventh Thiengen imprint. It is also recorded by Isaac Benjacob in Otzar ha-Sefarim (Vilna, 1880) together with the previous 1560 printing.^[29] Nevertheless, it is improbable that six years after the press was forced to close it should reopen and publish a single work, identical to one of its previous titles. Furthermore, no library records a copy of this edition. Perchance, the entry was a misreading of the early printing, copied by bibliographers and then recopied, so that in some circles it was accepted as a valid edition.^[30]

The books printed in Thiengen, small in number, are nevertheless diverse. Subject matter is varied, encompassing kabbalistic and philosophic works, an allegoric maqāma, a kabbalistic commentary on the Book of Ruth, the siddur prepared by R. Naphtali Hirz Treves, and a liturgical poem. An unusual and interesting aspect of several of the Thiengen imprints is that the large lead phrase on the title-page is not the book title, which follows later in a smaller text font.

The publishers were prominent rabbis from a distinguished rabbinic family. The books printed within the span of one year, to be repetitive, are rich and varied. Thiengen, as so many other small short-lived presses, deserves to be recalled, having made a short lived but valuable contribution to Hebrew literature.

1. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Eli Genauer for his insightful comments. ↑
2. Stephen G. Burnett, “The Regulation of Hebrew Printing in Germany 1555-1630” in Infinite Boundaries: Order, Disorder and reorder in early Modern German Culture, ed. M. Reinhart & T. Robisheux, Sixteenth century Essays and Studies, no. 40 (Kirksville, 1998), pp. 329-30. ↑
3. Yehoshua Horowitz, “Treves,” Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem, 2007), vol. 20 pp. 134-35. See generally, Marcus Horovitz, Rabbanei Frankfurt (Jerusalem, 1972), 21-26; Nahum Brüll, “Das Geshiechet der Treves,” in Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur (Year 1, 1874), 87-122; and his additions, id., (Year 2, 1876), 209-10; Tzvi Lehrer, Tolodot Naphtali Hertz Treves,” in Hetzei Geborim, 7, (2014), 485-95. ↑
4. Isidore Singer, Schulim Ochser, Frederick T. Haneman, Richard Gottheil, Isaac Broyde, “Treves,” Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 12 (New York, 1901-06), pp. 243-48. ↑
5. David Amram, The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy (Philadelphia, 1909, reprint London, 1963), pp. 205, 291. ↑
6. There is uncertainty about his birth and death dates. Horovitz, Rabbanei, 191-92. ↑
7. According to R David Gans, Eliezer attributed the failure to “the sins of the generation.” David Gans, Zemah David (Prague, 1592), Asher Lemlein (Lammlin) (16th century) was a false messiah active in 1500–02. Of Ashkenazi origin, Lemlein began his activities in northeast Italy, continuing in Germany. He claimed that, the redemption was approaching because the Messiah, Lemlein himself, had already come. Even some Christians accepted his Messianic prophecy. After his passing his movement ceased. Richard Gottheil, Isaac Broydé, “Lemmlein (Lammlin), Asher,” vol. 7, Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 680; “Lemlein (Lammlin), Asher,” vol. 12, Encyclopedia Judaica, p. 638. Dan Rabinowitz informed that Eliezer was living in Cracow already and transcribed the letters because he was caught up in the Messianic speculation. In 1531, he wrote to his father Naphtali, about the religious fever Molcho introduced into the general public. See Naphtali Hertz Treves, Malah ha-Aretz De’ah. ↑
8. Mordechai Margalioth, ed., Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel I (Tel Aviv, 1986), col. 190 [Hebrew]; Isidore Singer, Schulim Ochser, Frederick T. Haneman, Richard Gottheil, Isaac Broyde, “Treves,” Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 12 (New York, 1901-06), pp. 243-48. Horovitz, Rabbanei 22-28, who provides the most comprehensive discussion regarding Eliezer. ↑
9. Solomon Molcho (1500-32) was born Diogo Pires to Marrano parents. He circumcised himself, became a follower of David Reubeni, who claimed to be the son of a King Solomon and brother of a King Joseph ruler of the lost tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh in the desert of Habor. At some point he too claimed to be the Messiah. His sermons were published, Derashot (Salonika, 1529) and subsequently as Sefer ha-Mefo’ar. In 1532, Molcho went to Ratisbon, where the emperor Charles V imprisoned him. An ecclesiastical court sentenced Molcho to death by fire for Judaizing. He was offered a pardon by the emperor on the condition that he recant and return to the church. Molcho refused, choosing a martyr’s death. (Isidore Singer, Philipp Bloch, “Molko, Solomon,” vol. 8 JE, p. 651); Joseph Shochetman] “Molcho, Solomon,” vol. 14 EJ pp. 423-24. Elisheva Carlebach, “Messianism,” The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, Gershon David Hundert, ed. Vol. 1 (New Haven & London, 2008), p. 1160, informs that Molcho left a deep impression on Ashkenazic Jews. His messianic flag and caftan were preserved by the Jews of Prague and can still be seen there today. Concerning both false messiahs also see Moses Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven & London, 1998) and Gershom S. Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi; the Mystical Messiah (Princeton, 1973), var. cit. ↑
10. Dr Moshe Nathan Rosenfeld, “The Identity of an unknown Yiddish Prayer Book (From Zürich to Zürich),” Seforim Blog (February 18, 2025). ↑
11. He died prior to 1546 because, in Yesod Shirim, published that year, he is referred to as already deceased. But the exact year of his death is unknown. See Lehrer, Tolodot, 494n106. ↑
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtali_Hirsch_Treves. See also, Horovitz, Rabbanei, 21. Naftulei Elokim is one of two books printed in Heddernheim, a quarter of Frankfurt am Main. the other work being a Selihot, also printed in 1546, both published by a Hayyim ben Joseph (Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Listing of Books Printed in Hebrew Letters Since the Beginning of Printing circa 1469 through 1863 II (Jerusalem, 1993-95), p. 158. ↑
13. Michael A. Meyer, editor, German Jewish History in modern Times, vol. 1 Tradition and Enlightenment 1600-1780 (1996 New York) p. 72. ↑
14. “Tiengen,” The Encyclopedia of Jewish life Before and During the Holocaust, editor in chief, Shmuel Spector; consulting editor, Geoffrey Wigoder; foreword by Elie Wiesel, vol. 3, p.1306. ↑
15. Some question whether they were related or just shared similarly named fathers. See Lehrer, “Tolodot,” 295n110. ↑
16. Friedberg, Ch. B. History of Hebrew Typography of the following Cities in Europe: Amsterdam, Antwerp, Avignon, Basle, Carlsruhe, Cleve, Coethen, Constance, Dessau, Deyhernfurt, Halle, Isny, Jessnitz, Leyden, London, Metz, Strasbourg, Thiengen, Vienna, Zurich. From its beginning in the year 1516 (Antwerp, 1937), [Hebrew]; Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. II p. 3394 ↑
17. Yehoshua Horowitz, “Treves, Johanan ben Joseph,” EJ, vol. 20, p. 135. ↑
18. Executive Committee of the Editorial Board.,M. Seligsohn, “Simeon ben Samuel,” Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 11, p. 357. ↑
19. Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus vol. II (Brill, Leiden, 2004), pp. 504-05. ↑
20. David Gans, Zemah David (New York, n. d.), I, yr. 1563 [Hebrew].As Brüll notes, this is an error. Likely reversing the letter “gimal” and “zayin.” ↑
21. Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, (Israel, n. d), alef 629 [Hebrew]. ↑
22. Yonah David/Angel Sáenz-Badillos, “Mattathias (or Mattityah ben Moses?)” vol. 13 EJ, pp. 685-86. ↑
23. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, bet 243. Concerning the Prague edition, Gavin McDowell, “A Genealogy of Errors: Targum Pseudo-Yonatan’s Commentary Tradition” (https://books.openedition.org/ephe/2868?lang=en) informs that Shabbetai Bass (1641-1718), author of the first bibliography of Hebrew books by a Jewish author, in his Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680) misdated Begidat ha-Zeman. Acording to McDowell “The tally of the numeric value of these letters is 369 (80 + 5 + 80 + 200 + 1 + 3), which is 1608/09 of the Christian calendar. Bass forgot to count the word פה, reducing the date by 85 years and resulting in the year 284, which is 1524 CE.” ↑
24. Yehoshua Horowitz, EJ vol, 20 p. 134. ↑
25. The exact title is subject to some confusion and debate. The enlarged words on the title page, Malah ha-Aretz De’ah, would normally indicate it is the title. But, some of the other Thengin prints like Sod Yesharim, the enlarged letters, in that instance, Tapuchei Zahav, are not the title. Following Ben Jacob, Friedberg, in Bet Eked Sepharim refers to it Tefilot me-Kol ha-Shana Minhag Ashkenaz. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, Taf 1711. Yet, he is cited in many rabbinic texts as Siddur Rav Hirtz Shatz, and the two Beni Brak reprints use that title. See Lehrer, Tolodot, 492. Naphtali, in his introduction, titles the work Dikduk Tefilah. Unlike the printer’s introduction that precedes the work, Naphtali’s does not appear until after P’sukei D’Zimra, and may have been overlooked. ↑
26. The entire commentary for P’sukei D’Zimra are from Eleazar. See “Editor’s Note,” Hetzei Geborim, 8(2015), 1121. ↑
27. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, mem 2094. ↑
28. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, p. 518-19; Joseph Dan, ed., Shir Hayihud (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. xii-ix and 7-26 [Hebrew with English introduction]; and A. M. Habermann, Shir ha-Yihud ve-ha-Kovod (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 11-12 [Hebrew]. See also Abraham Berliner, “Shir ha-Yihud,” in Ketavim Nivharim I (Jerusalem, 1945), pp. 145-70 [Hebrew]. ↑
29. Isaac Benjacob in Otzar ha-Sefarim (Vilna, 1880), p. 183 no. 475 [Hebrew]. ↑
30. Concerning the misdating and other errors in the publishing of Hebrew books 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. 395-420; ibid. “Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, Deceptions, and other Variations in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise: Revisited,” Seforimblog, Sunday, July 03, 2016, reprinted in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Leiden/Boston, 2020, pp. 507-36. ↑

“A Woman Is Not an Elephant” – Some Jewish, Islamic and Classical Perspectives On the Conflict Between Authority and Truth

Unusually Long (Human) Gestations: Islam

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reports (hat tip: Rabbi Natan Slifkin):

Egyptian Medical Doctor Criticizes the Phenomenon of Accepting Unscientific Islamic Beliefs, like the Notion that a Woman's Pregnancy Can Last Up to Four Years

In an article on the liberal website Elaph, Dr. Khaled Montasser, a liberal Egyptian physician, criticizes the phenomenon of endorsing traditional ideas that have been disproven by science, such as the Muslim belief that a woman can be pregnant for up to four years. He points out that this notion is believed even by some Muslim doctors, and is acknowledged in the laws of some Arab countries, including those that are not theocracies. He calls on the Muslims not to accept outdated and unscientific ideas just because they were proposed by important clerics, stressing that contesting the opinions of religious scholars is not tantamount to attacking or disparaging the religion itself.Following are excerpts from his article:

At a Medical Conference, a Professor Raised the Notion of a Hidden Pregnancy Lasting One to Four Years

"In a medical conference held at one of the faculties of general medicine, a professor asked for permission to speak, and said: 'Why doesn't this conference deal with [the phenomenon of] hidden pregnancy?' When the participants asked what he meant by 'hidden pregnancy,' he replied: 'I mean a pregnancy that lasts one, two, three or four [years].' The conferees, both the students and the professors, were puzzled and asked one another, 'Is there such a thing as a pregnancy that lasts three or four years?' The professor answered confidently, with contempt for his colleagues' ignorance: 'Of course. Imam Malik [founder of the Maliki school of Islam] stayed in his mother's womb for three years.'"The danger posed by this belief is that, [in this case], the one who held it was a professor of medicine, who is probably schooled in the doctrine of scientific thinking, and relies on medical journals as his source [of knowledge]. Faced with a medical question, such as how long a pregnancy can last, he [is expected to] rely on what he has learned and read in these [scientific] sources, rather than on what he has read in texts of Islamic jurisprudence."Unfortunately, however, this doctor was not [just] speaking for himself. He represents a phenomenon, namely the victory of tradition over reason. He represents a school of thought that is willing to sacrifice all medical learning in order to uphold the predominance of jurisprudential Islamic texts and traditional fatwas. Proof of this is [the fact] that it is not only this professor who holds such views. I will have you know that the chief proponent of female circumcision [in Egypt] is a professor of gynecology and obstetrics, who even argued against the minister of health in a court hearing [about this matter]."

The Notion of Hidden Pregnancy Has Crept into the State Laws

"Some Islamic scholars, like those of the Hanafi [school], believe that a pregnancy can last up to two years, while those of the Maliki and Shafi'i schools think it can last up to four years, and some of them [have said] even five years or more. We [can] accept these statements as a kind of folklore, but not as any kind of scientific truth… I refuse to let anyone force me to accept this nonsense under the pretext of implementing the shari'a. Islam is a religion of reason, and [cannot] be associated with these medieval notions. Moreover, my mind refuses to accept something just because the Mufti wrote it in his book or because it appears in the Al-Azhar curriculum. How can I accept this as science when not a single gynecologist or obstetrician has ever witnessed [such an event] since the advent of scientific gynecology and obstetrics?… And from a moral perspective, how can I provide a jurisprudential loophole for a woman who was probably promiscuous after the death of her husband and then presented her baby, conceived in sin, as a baby of her dead husband by relying on the [notion] of a hidden pregnancy or on a fatwa issued by some [cleric] or religious school? This is what happened on December 14, 1927 at a shari'a court in Mecca. The qadi… ruled that the baby was conceived by the woman's dead husband who had died five years previously."The important question is whether the notion of a 'hidden pregnancy' is confined to religious legal texts and is acknowledged only in [Muslim] theocracies, or has [also] found its way into the laws of non-theocratic [Muslim] states that have been terrorized [into submission] by the slogans of the pressure group called political Islam. [Is Egypt] a state that respects reason and [rational] thinking or one that sanctifies tradition and accusations of heresy?"Science is familiar with the notion of a fetus, but does not recognize the notion of a hidden pregnancy or a pregnancy lasting more than ten months, let alone two to four years. The law is expected to be guided by [science] instead of pandering to religious scholars at the expense of science. [The ideas about 'hidden pregnancy'] are religious opinions that [reflect the beliefs] of past eras, and they should be treated as such, not as a sword that hangs over the neck of the legislator."It seems inconceivable that the laws of Egypt, Syria, or the Gulf states should include clauses about hidden pregnancy that reflect beliefs from the fourth century – [but the fact is that they do]. For example, [Egyptian] Law No. 15 from 1929 states that 'a woman's appeal to acknowledge her dead husband [as the father of] her child will not be considered if [the baby] was born over a year after [the husband's] death.' Law No. 131 from 1948 includes a clause stipulating that 'the law will take into account the rights of [a child] born as the result of a hidden pregnancy,' and Law No. 67 from 1980 [states that] 'a hidden pregnancy is legitimate [grounds] for granting rights.' Article 29 of the Personal Status Code [says]: 'The guardian of a child born [as a result of] a hidden pregnancy must inform the Attorney General's [office] when the pregnancy ends.' Article 128 in the Syrian legal code and the property guardianship law in Bahrain say the same thing."

A Woman Is Not an Elephant – She Can't Be Pregnant for More than 10 Months

"The proponents of tradition and enemies of rationality always argue that the religious scholars are [simply] cognizant of [unusual] cases that are possible, though rare. But there is a big difference between rare and impossible. It is impossible that a woman, who belongs to the human race, should suddenly turn into an Asian elephant and be pregnant for over two years. Even [a pregnancy lasting] one whole year… is impossible… The womb is not a storeroom… When a fetus stays in his mother's womb over 42 weeks, he is in danger of dying in utero, and if he stays there more than 43 weeks he will surely die… A 50-week fetus will certainly start to rot in his mother's womb… The duration of pregnancy is not a random affair; it is not a matter of possibilities, of changes in human nature or of changes that occur with time. Someone who says today that Imam Malik stayed in his mother's womb for three years is making light of a serious matter – and the blame lies not with those who said this in the past, but with those who endorse this opinion today."Debating and criticizing the opinions of religious scholars does not mean criticizing or disparaging religion. We mustn't be too sensitive to discuss a scientific issue that was misunderstood by the religious scholars of the past. There is no need to wave swords when discussing such issues. The fault lies not with those who [dare to] contest the [opinions of the religious scholars], but with those who think that these opinions are synonymous with the religion itself. The despicable questions that the clerics ask, [such as] 'Are you saying that the religious scholars were liars?' or 'Who are you to [argue] with figures of their caliber?' – are an impediment to any progress in science and in thinking."We are not accusing the religious scholars of lying, but are [merely] treating their opinions as part of [the beliefs] that prevailed in their time. We do not regard [these opinions] as sacrosanct just because those who held them were authoritative figures. Scientific truths are judged by other criteria that have nothing to do with the piety or devoutness of those who propose them. Moreover, one who contests a clerical opinion having to do with science is not attacking or disparaging the religious scholars, even if he is less pious than they. But he is probably equipped with modern research tools that are more effective than those that were available to those scholars. This does not in any way detract from their importance [as religious scholars] or from the [value] of their religious opinions…"The issue of hidden pregnancy opens a gateway to debating all the scientific and medical notions that appear in the jurisprudential texts. It is inconceivable that today, in the 21st century, we should repeat the opinions of ancient religious scholars – [such as the notion] that the menstrual blood feeds the fetus during pregnancy and turns into breast milk [after birth] – and discard everything science has taught us about gynecology… It is inconceivable that we should use terms like 'the man's [white] fluid' and 'the woman's [yellow] fluid' in discussing genetics, sexology, or infertility, while discarding [terms like] semen, ova, and the enormous wealth of knowledge gained since the discovery of DNA. The same goes for all the religious notions about medicine that are treated as religious commandments instead of as outdated medical [ideas], such as the notion of bloodletting which is defended so much that you would think it’s the sixth Koranic Pillar [of Islam]."

Unusually Long (Human) Gestations: Judaism

And what does our religion say about the possibility of abnormally long pregnancies? The Halachic discussion revolves around this Sugya: תניא איזהו בן שמנה כל שלא כלו לו חדשיו רבי אומר סימנין מוכיחין עליו שערו וצפרניו שלא גמרו טעמא דלא גמרו הא גמרו אמרינן האי בר ז' הוא ואישתהויי הוא דאישתהיאלא הא דעבד רבא תוספאה עובדא באשה שהלך בעלה למדינת הים ואישתהי עד תריסר ירחי שתא ואכשריה כמאן כרבי דאמר משתהאכיון דאיכא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר משתהי כרבים עבד דתניא רשב"ג אומר כל ששהה ל' יום באדם אינו נפל[1]The Shulhan Aruch, following the preponderant opinion of the Poskim, accepts the ruling of רבה תוספאה: האשב שהיה בעלה במדינת הים ושהה שם יותר מי"ב חדש וילדה אחר י"ב חדש הולד ממזר שאין הולד שוהה במעי אמו יותר מי"ב חדש ויש מי שאומר שאינו בחזקת ממזר וכיון דפלוגתא הוא הוי ספק ממזר: הגה אבל תוך י"ב חדש אין לחוש דאמרינן דאשתהי כל כך במעי אמו ודוקא שלא ראו בה דבר מכוער אבל אם ראו בה דבר מכוער לא אמרינן דאשתהי כל כך וחיישינן ליה[2]So normative Halachah recognizes pregnancies of up to twelve months as possible, if improbable,[3] but of longer than twelve months as impossible. There are, however, minority opinions that dissent from this position in both directions:

Even Longer Pregnancies

Meiri recounts a remarkable incident in his day of a woman who gave birth after a gestation of fifteen months, and although he acknowledges that Rambam, as well as his teachers, in the name of "The Book of Healing", by "great sages" in that discipline, deny that possibility, he stubbornly insists that his empirical experience trumps that view: ואחר שכן [שמכשירין את הולד שנולד לסוף י"ב חודש] אף ביתר משנים עשר חדש ואף בימינו אירע מעשה באשה ששהתה חמש עשרה חדשים וילדה והיה עיבורה ניכר כל ימי העבור שלא היה בה שום חשד והיו כל בני המחוז תמהים עליה וסבורים שהיה חולי הקרוי ריחים וילדה בן והיו שערו וצפרניו גדולים כאלו נולד ונתגדלוגדולי המחברים כתבו שאין העובר משתהא במעי אמו יותר משנים עשר חדש ואף רבותי העידו לי כן באותו זמן בשם ספר הרפואה לגדולי החכמים שבה אלא שמעשה שהיה כך היה ונראה לי לדון בה למעשה.[4]Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) cites a manuscript comment of Rav Yosef (Haim) Corinaldi, which cites an incident from "their histories" that the wife of one Caesar had a fourteen month gestation, and the resulting son eventually succeeded his father as Caesar: ראיתי להרב מהר"ר דוד קורינאלדי זלה"ה בעל בית דוד על המשניות שכתב דבדברי הימים שלהם כתוב דאשת קיסר שהה הולד במעיה ארבעה עשר חדש והיה קיסר אחר אביו והיה עולה על לב דרבה תוספאה דהכשיר עד תריסר ירחי מעשה שהיה כך היה והוא הדין אם שהה יותר כל שלא ראו בה דבר מכוער אבל כבר כתב הרמב"ם דאין הולד שוהה במעי אמו יותר מי"ב חדש וגם בה"ג דאמר דאינו בחזקת ממזר לא אמרה מטעם דשוהה יותר אלא משום דיש לומר בצנעא בא כמו שכתב בטור ובבית יוסף וחלילה להקל נגד מה שפסק מרן דהוי ספק ממזר עכ"ל בהגהותיו כ"י:[5]Hida then mentions Meiri, but concludes by accepting as Halachah the opinion of Maran (and Rav Corinaldi), and declaring that we "obviously pay no attention to their histories": וראה זה חדש שראיתי בפסקי הרב המאירי ז"ל ליבמות שנדפסו מחדש … והוא פלא דנקטינן שאינו משתהא יותר מי"ב חדש. ומכל מקום לענין הלכה כל שנשתהא טפי מי"ב חדש הוי ספק ממזר כמו שכתב מרן וכמו שכתב הרב מהרד"ק הנזכר ופשיטא דאין להשגיח בדברי הימים שלהם. ומה שכתב הרב המאירי ז"ל הוא מציאות רחוק מאד מאד ומה גם דשם ניכר בשינוי שערו וצפרניו גדולים. הלכך טפי מי"ב חדש הוא ספק ממזר See also Ozar Ha'Poskim[6] for various other sources on the issue of abnormally long pregnancies, including several who emphatically insist on the impossibility of a gestation of longer than twelve months, but also a couple who seem to consider it possible.

The Two Hundred and Seventy One Day Maximum

In counterpoint to the view of Meiri is the stance of some of the Tosaphists and their followers, who maintain that Le'Halachah, any baby born after a gestation of longer than two hundred and seventy one days (nine "full" months of thirty days each) is considered a mamzer. Helkas Mehokek and Beis Shemuel mention this view, although it is not clear how much weight they give it: התוספות בנדה (דף ל"ח בד"ה שפורא גרים) כתבו דלא קיימא לן כרבה תוספאה (דממנו הוציא הרב דין זה) ואין הולד משתהי יותר מרע"א ימים היינו ט' חדשים שלמים כל אחד ל' יום:[7]מיהו התוספות נדה דף ל"ח כתבו דלא קיימא לן אשתהי וכן פסק באגודה[8]See Ozar Ha'Poskim[9] for more sources on this view.[After I had completed this paper, Eliezer Brodt showed me a fascinating and remarkably erudite thirty eight page comprehensive survey, by יעקב ישראל סטל, of references in Jewish literature to unusually long pregnancies.[10]  This exhaustive article cites the aforementioned sources as well as numerous others, and includes suggestions that Yissachar, son of Ya'akov, experienced a gestation of twelve months or longer, and that Binyamin, son of Ya'akov, experienced a gestation of twenty four months, or even thirty months!I have not had a chance to carefully read the entire article, but I did notice one apparent error: the author repeatedly asserts that the Talmudic passage that we have cited clearly rejects the possibility of a pregnancy lasting longer than twelve months, to the extent that he wonders why a couple of Aharonim claim merely that such pregnancies are “against nature”, and not that they are “against the Talmud and the Halachah”.[11]  But as we have seen, the Talmudic passage itself merely asserts that pregnancies lasting up to twelve months are possible; it is not at all clear that longer ones are impossible, and those who insist that they are, such as Hida, are relying primarily on the authority of Rambam and Maran.Incidentally, one of these Aharonim is Rav Ya'akov Emden, whose comment appears in the midst of his “expurgation of the Zohar”:[12]אך זה שכתוב עוד שם. ומן דרחל אתעברת מבנימין. לא אתעכב תמן. זה אי אפשר. לפי חשבון ששהה יעקב אבינו ע"ה בדרך שתי שנים. עד שנולד בנימין. כמו שכתב בסדר עולם ומוסכם בתלמוד  מאין חולק. והרי בכאן מאריך ספר הזוהר ימי עיבורו של בנימין חוץ לטבע. מה שלא נמצא דוגמתו.[13]]

Rejecting Incorrect Scientific Opinions of Religious Scholars: Islam

We have seen Dr. Montasser's claim that: Debating and criticizing the opinions of religious scholars does not mean criticizing or disparaging religion.R. Slifkin comments that: The parallels are interesting – including how, 800 years ago, Muslims would definitely not have been so traditionalist!Indeed. As the great Muslim thinker Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī writes in the Introduction to his great classic Tahafut Al Falasifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers): [T]here are those things in which the philosophers believe, and which do not come into conflict with any religious principle. And, therefore, disagreement with the philosophers with respect to those things is not a necessary condition for the faith in the prophets and the apostles (may God bless them all). An example is their theory that the lunar eclipse occurs when the light of the Moon disappears as a consequence of the interposition of the Earth between the Moon and the Sun. For the Moon derives its light from the Sun, and the Earth is a round body surrounded by Heaven on all the sides. Therefore, when the Moon falls under the shadow of the Earth, the light of the Sun is cut off from it. Another example is their theory that the solar eclipse means that the interposition of the body of the Moon between the Sun and the observer, which occurs when the Sun and and the Moon are stationed at the intersection of their nodes at the same degree. We are not interested in refuting such theories either; for the refutation will serve no purpose. He who thinks that it his religious duty to disbelieve such things is really unjust to religion and weakens its cause. For these things have been established by astronomical and mathematical evidence which leaves no room for doubt. If you tell a man who has studied such things – so that he has sifted all the data relating to them, and is, therefore, in a position to forecast when a lunar or a solar eclipse will take place; whether it will be total or partial; and how long it will last – that these things are contrary to religion, your assertion will shake his faith in religion, not in these things. Greater harm is done to religion by an immethodical helper than by an enemy whose actions, however hostile, are yet regular. For, as the proverb goes, a wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend. If someone says:The Prophet (may God bless him) has said: The Sun and the Moon are two signs among the signs of God. Their eclipse is not caused by the death or the life of a man. When you see an eclipse, you must seek refuge in the contemplation of God and in prayer." How can this tradition be reconciled with what the philosophers say?We will answer:There is nothing in this tradition to contradict the philosophers. … The atheists would have the greatest satisfaction if the supporters of religion made a positive assertion that things of this kind are contrary to religion. For it would then be easier for them to refute religion which stood or fell with its opposition to these things. (It is, therefore, necessary for the supporter of religion not to commit himself on these questions,) because the fundamental question at issue between him and the philosophers is only whether the world is eternal or began in time. If its beginning in time is proved, it is all the same whether it is a round body, or a simple thing, or an octagonal or hexagonal figure; and whether the heavens and all that is below them form – as the philosophers say – thirteen layers, or more, or less. Investigation into these facts is no more relevant to metaphysical inquiries than an investigation into the number of layers of an onion, or the number of seeds in a pomegranate, would be. What we are interested in this is that the world is the product of God's creative action, whatever the manner of that action may be.[14]Note that this ringing endorsement of at least a certain basic rationalistic insistence on the preposterousness of rejecting the ineluctable conclusions of mathematics and astronomy actually occurs in the Preface to a work whose goal is the defense of religion against what the author perceives as the deeply misguided, heretical arrogance of the philosophers. The book is, after all, titled Incoherence of the Philosophers, and virtually every single chapter title contains either the phrase "their inability to prove" or "refutation [of some belief of the philosophers]". As al-Ghazālī writes (in that same Introduction): Now, I have observed that there is a class of men who believe in their superiority to others because of their intelligence and insight. They have abandoned all the religious duties Islam imposes on its followers. They laugh at all positive commandments of religion which enjoin the performance of acts of devotion, and the abstinence from forbidden things. They defy the injunctions of the Sacred Law. Not only do they overstep the limits prescribed by it, but they have renounced the faith altogether, by having engaged in diverse speculations, wherein they followed the example of those people who "turn men aside from the path of God, and seek to render it crooked; and who do not believe in the life to come." The heresy of these people has its basis only in an uncritical acceptance – like that of the Jews and Christians – of whatever one hears from others or sees all around. … The heretics in our times have heard the awe-inspiring names of people like Socrates, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. They have been deceived by the exaggerations made by the followers of these philosophers – exaggerations to the effect that the ancient masters possessed extraordinary intellectual powers; that the principles they have discovered are unquestionable; that the mathematical, logical, physical and metaphysical sciences developed by them are the most profound; that their excellent intelligence justifies their bold attempts to discover the Hidden Things by deductive methods; and that with all the subtlety of their intelligence and the originality of their accomplishments they repudiated the authority of religious laws; denied the validity of the positive contents of historical religions; and believed that all such things are only sanctimonious lies and trivialities. When such stuff was dinned into their ears, and struck a responsive chord in their hearts, the heretics in our times thought that it would be an honour to join the company of great thinkers for which the renunciation of their faith would prepare them. Emulation of the example of the learned held out to them the promise of an elevated status far above the general level of common men. They refused to be content with the religion followed by their ancestors. They flattered themselves with the idea that it would do them honour not to accept even truth uncritically. They failed to see that a change from one kind of intellectual bondage to another is only a self-deception, a stupidity. What position in this world of God can be baser than that of one who thinks that it is honourable to renounce the truth which is accepted on authority, and then relapses into an acceptance of falsehood which is still a matter of blind faith, unaided by independent inquiry? Such a scandalous attitude is never taken by the unsophisticated masses of men; for they have an instinctive aversion to following the example of misguided genius. Surely, their simplicity is nearer to salvation than sterile genius can be. For total blindness is less dangerous than oblique vision.[15]

Rejecting Incorrect Scientific Opinions of Religious Scholars: Judaism

Rav Yitzhak Arama vigorously endorses al-Ghazālī's stance, applying it, mutatis mutandis, to Hazal's parallel statement about the causes of eclipses: [אמרו חז"ל] בגמרא סוכה (כ"ט.) על ד' דברים מאורות לוקים על כותבי פלסתר ועל מעידי עדות שקר ועל מגדלי בהמה דקה בארץ ישראל ועל קוצצי אילנות טובות.כי פשוטו מבואר הביטול. ורש"י כתב שם בסמוך על מאמר הדומה לו אשר אזכרנו עוד. לא שמעתי טעם הדבר. ואמר זה לפי שפשוטו שקר מבואר. שהרי הלקיות הם מחוייבים שיחולו ברגע היום ההוא או הלילה היוצא על פי חשבון תנועת גלגלי המאורות הידוע משערי החכמה ההוא. ואינן נתלים בחטאת האדם וזכיותיו. ואין מתנאי התורני לקבל שקרים מפורסמים ולהעמיד דמיונות לקיים פשט דברי הנביאים או החכמים. וזה הענין בעצמו כתבו החכם אל"גזלי בתחלת ספר הפלת הפלוסופים על מה שטענו על מאמר נמצא מפי מניח דת הישמעאלים. וזה נוסחו. השמש והירח הם שני אותות מאותות הקל יתברך שאינן לוקין רק בסבת מות אחר חיותו. וכאשר תראו אותו גורו לכם והחזיקו בתפלה וזכרון הקלעד כאן. וכבר היה זה המאמר לסבה שאמרנו לשמצה בקמיהם. אמר זה לשונו. ומי שחשב שהויכוח בבטל את זה הוא מן האמונה כבר נשתגע באמונה ונחלש ענינו. לפי שאלו הענינים כבר עמדו עליהם המופתים ההנדסיים המספריים וכו': ואמר מי שיפקפק בהם לומר שהוא כנגד התורה לא יפקפק רק בתורה. וההזק הנמשך לתורה במי שעיין בה שלא כדרכה יהיה רב מההזק הנמשך ממי שיטעון ויחלוק עליה כדרכה: והנה זה הוא כמי שיאמר שהאויב[16] המשכיל הוא טוב מהאוהב הכסיל עד כאן דבריו: ואנו צריכין לקבל האמת ממי שאמרו ולדעת שאין כוונת הדברים האלה למניחיהן כפשוטן. רק להורות בהם ענינים נכבדים על דרך הרמז יושגו למעיינים בהם בדברים יש קצת יחס להם עם נגליהם:[17]Indeed, Rav Arama is so enamored of al-Ghazālī's clarion call  that he approvingly invokes it once again, in the context of the problematic passage in the Torah implying that rainbows are special signs from God, and not purely naturalistic phenomena:[18]הנה הרמב"ן ז"ל נתפרסם מגדולי המאמינים וכתב על ברית הקשת ז"ל. ואנחנו על כרחנו נאמין לדברי היונים שמלהט השמש באויר הלח יהיה הקשת בתולדת כי בכלי מים לפני השמש יראה כמראה הקשת וכאשר נסתכל עוד בלשון הכתוב נבין כך. כי יאמר את קשתי נתתי בענן ולא אמר אני נותן כאשר אמר זאת אות הברית אשר אני נותן. ומלת קשתי תורה שהיתה לו הקשת תחלה. עכ"ל.הנה הודה בהכרח על האמת המפורסם מהנסיון וגם אשר יאמתהו הנביא באומרו כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם (יחזקאל א') כמו שאמרנו בספקות והוא המוסר הישר אשר כתבנו בפתיחה מפי החכם בספר ההפלה שכתב על ענין הלקיות מהנזק המגיע אל התורה מהליץ בעדה שלא כדרכה ממה שיחלוק עליה כדרכה.[19]

Captain James Cook's Tahitian Expedition

Here is Rav Pinhas Eliyahu Horowitz of Vilna's vivid and picturesque account of the predictability of eclipses:ואני ראיתי אשר נעשה תחת השמים לקוי [השמש] על ידי הלבנה ב' פעמים א' בק"ק האג אשר במדינת (האלאנד) ואחד בק"ק ווילנא אשר במדינת (ליטא) עיר מולדתי,[20]I do not know which eclipses he is referring to, but he now discusses the Transit of Venus of 1769, which was accurately predicted years in advance by astronomers at “the University” in England:גם היה בימי לקוי שמש פעם אחת על ידי כוכב נוגה הנקרא (פענוס) שעבר לפני השמש כנקודה קטנה שחורה ועגולה, כי כמו הירח לא יאיר אלא כשהוא לנוכח השמש אבל כשהוא תחת השמש הוא חשוך כן מראה הנוגה חשוך כשהיא תחת השמש אף על פי שהוא יפה מאד כשהוא לנגד השמש,וזה הלקוי היה מפורסם בעולם בטרם היותה זמן רב. כי חכמי התכונה בבית מדרש החכמה הנקרא (אוניווערזיטעט) אשר (בענגלאנד) חקרו וחשבו מהלכי כוכבי לכת ומצאו שעתיד לבא עת ידוע אשר יעבור נוגה את פני חמה וכתבו זה בספר כמה שנים קודם שכך יקרה בעת ההיא ויהיה נראה במדינה זו בזו השעה, ובמדינה זו בזו השעה וכאשר כתבו כן נראה בכל מדינה ומדינה באותה שעה ממש,He proceeds to describe Captain James Cook's first voyage to Tahiti in “a mighty ship” (the celebrated bark HMS Endeavour) to observe the Transit:ולכן בשנה שלפניה נסעו הרבה בני שרים וחורי ארץ ממדינת (ענגלאנד) למדינה רחוקה מאוד מעבר לים בצי אדיר מהלך שנה תמימה היא אי אחת מאיי הים הנקרא (אטעהייטע) אשר במדינת (אמעריקא) לראות שם הנהיה הדבר הזה באותה מדינה כשאר כתבו ואיש כלי מחזה בידו וכלים המגדלים את הראות אשר כל אדם חזו בו היטב, הן המה כלי ההבטה הנקראים (פערען גלעזער) אשר המציאו חכמי (דיאפטיקא), ויהי כאשר באו שמה יום אחד לפני היום המוגבל הכינו את אשר הביאו מאותן הכלים במקום ידוע למען יעמדו ויהיו נכונים ליום מחר לראות על ידם הלקוי ההוא, ובלילה ההוא גנבו אנשי הארץ ההיא הכלים ההם מן המקום ההוא גנבו וגם כחשו, וכמעט היה בחנם כל נסיעתם וטרחתם, ועל ידי השתדלות רב החזירו להם, וכאשר פתרו כן היה נראה שמה גם כן לקוי חמה מנוגה נגדו ובאותה שעה אשר כתבו לא נפל דבר מכל אשר כתבו:The instrument stolen by the locals was apparently actually a quadrant, not a telescope:Used for fixing longitude from the stars with a 19 mm diameter objective and focal length of 330 mm and radius arm of 300 mm this instrument was stolen by the locals who thought it must have great powers because it was moved around in a wooden box and guarded with a sentry.it was recovered, attempts had been made to pull it to pieces but it was put back together again some would say that it had lost its original alignment and accuracy. The counter weight hanging at the left hand side was immersed in water to dampen any vibrations that might occur during observations. A mahogany tripod was used to support the quadrant when used on location around Tahiti.[The above is taken from here; see the page for the photographs of the instrument.]R. Horowitz then claims that the ability to retrodict eclipses enables us to refute a Chinese claim that the earth is much older than the Biblical five millenniums believed by the Europeans:ואל תתמה על החפץ כי אף גם כל לקות החמה והלבנה יחשבו החכמים יודעי העתים מקודם כאשר מחשבים את המולד ואת התקופה העתידה לבא, וכמו כן נוכל לחשוב עתה כל הלקות למפרע הפונה קדים (א פאסטריארי) לדעת הלקות אשר היו מימי קדם כי על חשבון צדק יהלך {הלקות} החמה או הלבנה יחשב לו כפי שניו אשר היה מחויב להיות אז כאשר נוכל לחשוב כל המולדות והתקופות למפרע עד התחלת הבריאה וראשית היצירה.ועל ידי תחבולות חכמה זו נצחו חכמי (אירופא) לתושבי ארץ (חינא) האומרים העולם הזה כבר עברו עליו אלפים רבבות שנים באמרם כי כן נמצא כתוב על ספר דברי הימים שלהם כמה רבבות מלכים אשר מלכו בארצם זה אחר זה וכמה שנים מלך כל אחד וכמה מלחמות עשה וכל הקורות אותו וכל לקוי חמה ולבנה אשר היו בימיו.וחכמי (אירופא) נתנו עיניהם בלקות חמה ולבנה הנמצא כתוב אצלם בחשבון חשבו עליהם ובדקו אחריהם בעיון יפה על פי חשבון האמיתי דרך הקדים למפרע ומצאו כל הלקות אשר מפאת קדמה עד ראשית הבריאה המפורסם אצלנו ואצל כל גויי הארצות הכל אמת צדקו יחדו, ואשר שם ולמעלה ההולך קדמה הבריאה לא מצאו אפילו אחד בהם שבא בעתו ובזמנו הראוי לו על פי החשבון, וזה לנו האות אשר פיהם דבר שוא בכל שארי הדברים והקורות מימי קדם קדמתה גם כן, וכל הנמצא כתוב על ספר שלהם דברי כזב הם והכל שקר כי לא היה ולא נברא עדיין העולם, ונחזיק טובה לחכמי (אירופא) אשר במזימות זו חשבו ודידן נצח, כי אין מעשה וחשבון ודעת אחר בכל ספרי הבל שלהם אשר מראש מקדמי ארץ שנוכל לברר השקר נגד פניהם כמו ענין הלקות והוא בנין אב לכל שאר דבריהם כי הכל הבל, וכל ענין ומספר לפי רוב השנים קדמוניות אשר בידם ירושה אינם אלא במוחם החלושה.וזה הלקוי על ידי נוגה היה בשנת תקכ"ט לפ"ק.I do not know exactly what Chinese records he is referring to, but here's Wikipedia's discussion of historical eclipses:Historical eclipses are a valuable resource for historians, in that they allow a few historical events to be dated precisely, from which other dates and a society's calendar may be deduced. Aryabhata (476–550) concluded the Heliocentric theory in solar eclipse. A solar eclipse of June 15, 763 BCE mentioned in an Assyrian text is important for the Chronology of the Ancient Orient. Also known as the eclipse of Bur Sagale, it is the earliest solar eclipse mentioned in historical sources that has been identified successfully. Perhaps the earliest still-unproven claim is that of archaeologist Bruce Masse asserting on the basis of several ancient flood myths, which mention a total solar eclipse, he links an eclipse that occurred May 10, 2807 BCE with a possible meteor impact in the Indian Ocean. There have been other claims to date earlier eclipses, notably that of Mursili II (likely 1312 BCE), in Babylonia, and also in China, during the Fifth Year (2084 BCE) of the regime of Emperor Zhong Kang of Xia dynasty, but these are highly disputed and rely on much supposition.

A Famous, Pseudepigraphic Aphorism

al-Ghazālī

Incidentally, in that same Introduction al-Ghazālī cites this purported aphorism of Aristotle: This is Aristotle, who refuted all his predecessors – including his own teacher, whom the philosophers call the divine Plato. Having refuted Plato, Aristotle excused himself by saying: "Plato is dear to us. And truth is dear, too. Nay, truth is dearer than Plato."

Ibn Janah and Rav Zerahiah Ha'Levi

Educated medieval Jews were also familiar with this aphorism; a version of it even appears in the introduction to the Sefer Ha'Meoros, where Rav Zerahiah Ha'Levi, in the course of his gathering numerous sources in justification of his temerity in disputing some positions of Rif, notes that Rav Yonah (Abu-l-walīd Marwān) Ibn Janah marshals the aphorism in defense of his boldness in dissenting from aspects of the grammar of his revered predecessor Rav Yehudah (Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn Dawūd) Ibn Hayyuj: וזה המנהג נהגו כל חכמי העולם כמו שכתב החכם המורה אבן גנא"ח בהשיבו על המורה הגדול בעל הדקדוק רבי יהודה ז"ל הזכיר דברי הפילוסוף שהשיב על רבו ואמרריב לאמת עם אפלטון ושניהם אהובנו אך האמת אהוב יותר[21]

Rav Yosef Kimhi

Versions of the aphorism also appear at least twice in the writing of Rav Yosef Kimhi (Rikam, surnamed Maistre Petit): ואמר פילוסוף אחד בהשיבו על אפלטון ראש החכמים אמר האמת ואפלטון שניהם אהובינו והאמת יותר חביבנו[22]ענה חכם בלבבו בר, בחלקו על דברחכמה ומדע, ותט לו אוזן והוא נדיבנוכי האמת אהוב ונחמד ורצוי, ואפלטוןגדול ורב ומאד צורב, גם הוא אהובינו,משפט שניהם נבחרה לנו, אך האמת יותר חביבנו:[23]Answer the wise in a fair, honest way when they discuss a matter with knowledge and wisdom; give ear to such, and they will become thy benefactors, for truth is a thing to be loved, desired, and received with favor; and even though our friend be a Plato, great and exalted, and renowned for his learning, the right of our judgment we claim in the matter of truth, for Truth is to us a friend dearer by far than aught.[24]These citations by Rav Zerahiah and Rav Kimhi are discussed by Prof. Howard Jacobson, in a brief JQR note,[25] in which he actually implies that Rav Zerahiah's citation of Ibn Janah is more complete than the defective extant text of the latter's Kitab al-Mustalḥaḳ, in which the aphorism apparently appears.[26]The Canadian folklorist Yehudah Leib Zlotnick (Avida) has an article on this aphorism in his מדרש המליצה העברית – אמרי חכמה ואמרי אנשי, in which he collects numerous citations of versions of it by various Jewish authors, and he goes so far as to claim that: הננו רואים כי זהו מאמר מהמפורסמים ביותר אצלנו, אבל הנוסחאות שונות ומענינות[27]Here are some of the sources he mentions:

Rashba

ולא עוד, אלא שאף מצד החקירה אין לנו לדון לבטל דבר שחקירת חכם מן החכמים מחייב בטולו, אם יש בידינו קבלה על קיומו. ולמה נסמוך על חקירת החכם ההוא, ואולי חקירתו כוזבת מצד מיעוט ידיעתו בעניין ההוא. ואולי אם יעמוד חכם ממנו, יגלה סתירת דבריו וקיום מה שסתר, וכמו שקרה לחכמים שקדמו לאפלטון עם אפלטון. ושקרה לאפלטון עם ארסטו תלמידו הבא אחריו, ואמר שיש ריב לאמת עמו. ואיני אומר שנסמוך על הדין הזה להכזיב כל מה שיאמר כל חכם, כי אילו אמרנו כן היה כסילות באמת. אך אני אומר: במקום שיש מצווה או אפילו קבלה, אין מדין האמת לבטל הקבלה מפני דברי החכם ההוא, מן הצד הזה שאמרתי.[28]

Menasseh Ben Israel

מודעת זאת בכל הארץ שירמיה הנביא אחר שנבא ארבעים שנה ונחרב הבית הלך לו לארץ מצרים ועמד שם שנים רבות עד יום מותו וממנו קבל אפלטון רוב חכמתו כאשר חכמי היונים מעידים. וכן תראה שרוב דרכיו דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיו שלום עם חכמי האמת והצדק. ובפרט בדברו על עסקי הנפש יחשוב שיש לנשמה צורות רשומות שעל ידיהן היא לומדת. כי הלמוד אצלו אינו רק הזכרה מה ששכח מיום היותה על האדמה. ואחריו בא תלמידו ארסטו ולהראות שחכמתו גדולה משלו ולהגדיל תפארתו בעיני העמים וששומעו ילך בכל הארצות חלק עליו בכל תוקף ואמר. אהוב אפלטון אהוב סוקרט אבל יותר אהובה האמת. …[29]Regarding the claim that Plato learned his wisdom from Yirmiyahu, see R. Josh Waxman's excellent discussion of this legend.

Rav Yair Haim Bacharach

כתב ראש הפילוסופים היוני אהוב סקראט אהוב אפלטון רק האמת אהוב יותר הביאו בספר נשמת חיים מ"ב פ"י ובספר מאור עינים חלק אמרי בינה פמ"ח. ובספר בא גד פ"ד ובהקדמת ספר חזוק האמונה ובהקדמת ספר האמונות ובכמה דוכתי ובכהאי גוונא כתב ריב"ש תשובה סימן ע'.[30]

Rav Tam Ibn Yahya

הן אמת כי נפלאה אהבתי אליך וחפצתי צדקך למען תזכה בשפטך. אך האמת יותר אהובה אצלי וארשתיה לי לעולם ולא אוכל כפרה.[31]One last mention of the aphorism, by R. Horowitz, who uses it to counter what he considers excessive deference to Rambam on matters of science:ותמהני על הרבה אנשים שלדעתם כל אשר ימצאו כתוב על ספר להרמב"ם ז"ל יחשבון שהודאי כן הוא עליו אין להוסיף וממנו אין לגרוע והפכו נמנע, ולא כן אבי, אבל האמת הוא שלא בכל הענינים כיוון לאמיתו של דבר והרבה יש בדבריו אשר הפכם הוא האמת כאשר כתבו שרים רבים ונכבדים מחכמי ישראל בספריהם הקדושים, כמו ספר עין הקורא לר' שם טוב ברבי שם טוב ועבודת הקודש לרבי מאיר גבאי ובעל נוה שלם ואור ד' לר' חסדאי ובדומה לאלה ספרים הרבה בשם הגדולים אשר בארץ החיים, ואנכי איש רש ונקלה לפני כבודו כגרגר חרדל לפני עולם מלא גם אני וכל מאמינים שהוא ואין בלתו ואין דוגמתו ביהודה וישראל החכמה והמדע והתורה הכל יכול וכוללם יחד כי מי כמוהו מורה בדת ודין במצות התורה בכל זאת אם בספרו היד החזקה אשר לפניו תכרע כל ברך יש בו כמה דברים שלא פסקינן כמותו מכל שכן בשאר ענינים:וכבר כתב בעל גבעת המורה בהקדמת ספרו שהסיבה מה שנתאחרה הפילוסופיא להגיע אל שלמותה זמן רב היה בעבור גודל חכמת (אריסטו) ופרסומו הנפלא ועל ידי כן נמשכו כל חכמי דור ודור בעיונם זמן רב אחר דעותיו והנחותיו בחשבם החולק עליו כחולק על דבר שאין ספק באמיתו עכ"ל.ככה ממש הסיבה מה שנתאחרה האמת להגיע באומתנו זמן רב הוא בעבור שרבים חושבים כי החולק על דבר מדברי הרמב"ם ז"ל כחולק על דבר שאין ספק באמיתו, וכמעט היינו הך כי כל דבריו משפט העיון אשר לאריסטו כי הוא ז"ל הלך בעקבותיו בעיוניות כידוע, אמנם כל איש ישר הולך אוהב הרמב"ם ז"ל ואוהב האמת יותר כאשר אמר החכם אהוב אריסטו אהוב סאקראט והאמת אהוב יותר:[32]The thesis that an unhealthy reverence for Aristotle had greatly retarded European scientific progress for centuries is the premise of L. Sprague de Camp's classic science fiction alternative history / time travel short story Aristotle and the Gun:Speculating that small changes in past history might have profound consequences on the present day world, scientist Sherman Weaver appropriates an experimental time machine to project himself back to the era of Philip II of Macedon. There he hopes to meet Aristotle, his belief being that the influential ancient philosopher's lack of interest in such had retarded scientific progress through much of subsequent history. Equipped with modern-day marvels and pretending to be a conventional traveler from India, which he represents as their source, he attempts to demonstrate to his new acquaintance the value of experimentation in the furtherance of knowledge.The Aphorism's Actual Provenance

Indeed the aphorism has sometimes been associated with Aristotle himself; and in this there is more than a grain of truth: while it does not appear verbatim in any of Aristotle's works, the proverb is a succinct paraphrase of a passage in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle, discussing the Idea of Form of the universal Good, remarks that the inquiry "is made an uphill one by the fact that the Forms have been introduced by friends of our own. Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for while both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.Aristotle is, in fact, indebted to Plato, the inventor of the Forms, for the idea expressed in that passage. In the Republic (X, 595) Plato has Socrates arguing that poetry is dangerous to the state, and remarking Although I have always from my earliest youth had an awe and love of Homer … for he is the great captain and teacher of the whole of that charming tragic company; but a man is not to be reverenced more than the truth, and therefore I will speak out. Again, in the Phaedo, Socrates says: This is the state of mind, Simmias and Cebes, in which I approach the argument. And I would ask you to be thinking of the truth and not of Socrates. But clearly we are far from having the sentiment compressed into an aphorism. …[33]See the rest of Guerlac's paper, summarized here, for the various medieval sources of the aphorism, its classical antecedents, and its appearances in the literature of the medieval period and subsequent ones.[1]              יבמות פ: – קשר[2]              שולחן ערוך אה"ע סימן ד' סעיף י"ד[3]              The degree of improbability is the matter of some dispute: see Ozar Ha'Poskim 7:46:1.[4]              בית הבחירה, יבמות דף פ' ע"ב ד"ה וגלגלו בה מעשה באשה שהלך בעלה למדית הים[5]              יוסף אומץ סימן צ"ד אות ג' – קשר[6]              7:43:4[7]              חלקת מחוקק שם ס"ק י[8]              בית שמואל שם ס"ק י"ז[9]              7:48:5-6.  See also the suggestion of Rav Meir Posner (published in Resp. Rabbi Akiva Eiger I:100, cited in Pis'he Teshuvah EH 11:11) that one can plead קים לי according to this view.[10]              אמרות טהורות חיצוניות ופנימיות (ירושלים תשסו), מילואים מאמר ו[11]              Notes 147 and 166.[12]              This description of the Mitpahas Sefarim is from the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Rav Emden by Max Seligsohn and Solomon Schechter.[13]              Mitpahas Sefarim (Altona 1768), Part I Chapter 4 #24 – link.[14]              Tahafut Al Falasifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers) (Pakistan Philosophical Congress: 1963 – Lahore), translated by Sabih Ahmad Kamali, Preface Two, pp. 6-8, available here: (PDF).[15]              ibid. pp. 2-3.[16]              בנדפס "שהאוהב", והיא טעות מוחלטת, כמובן, וכמבואר במקור באל"גזלי כנ"ל. ונראה שנתחלף להמהדיר "אויב" ב "אוהב"[17]              עקידת יצחק, מבוא שערים בשם ד', עמודים י"ט: – כ. – קשר[18]              See the exegesis of Ibn Ezra, Commentary to Genesis, 9:14 – link, and Ramban, Commentary to Genesis, ibid. – link, (a portion of which is cited by Rav Arama). It is ironic that Ramban is the one who is convinced here of the correctness of the naturalistic explanation of the Greek scholars, while Ibn Ezra, usually seen as the greater rationalist, hedges.  See also R. Pinhas Eliyahu Horowitz's discussion in his Sefer Ha'Bris (see below) Section I Essay 10 Chapter 12.[19]              עקידת יצחק, שער ארבעה עשר (פרשת נח), עמוד קכו: – קשר[20]              ספר הברית (ירושלים תש"ן) חלק א' מאמר ד' שני המאורות פרק י"ב ד"ה ואני ראיתי. דפוס ראשון (ברין תקנ"ז): קשר. הקטע בענין הויכוח עם "חינא" לא נמצא שם, וכנראה שהוא מההוספות במהדורה השניה.[21]              הקדמה לספר המאורות[22]              ספר הגלוי, הקדמה עמוד 2 – קשר[23]              שקל הקודש, #254 – קשר[24]              Translation of Professor Hermann Golancz – link.[25]              "A Note on Joseph Qimkhi's "Sefer Ha-Galuy"", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 85, No. 3/4 (Jan. – Apr., 1995), pp. 413-414 – link.[26]              See fn. 2, ibid.[27]              מדרש המליצה העברית – אמרי חכמה ואמרי אנשי, עמוד 18 – קשר[28]              שו"ת הרשב"א חלק א' סימן ט' – קשר. הרבה מתשובה זו מועתקת פה[29]              נשמת חיים מאמר שני ריש פרק י' – קשר[30]              שו"ת חות יאיר ריש סימן ט' –קשר[31]              תומת ישרים / אהלי תם – קשר[32]              ספר הברית שם מאמר ב' חוג שמים פרק ו' ד"ה ותמהני[33]              Henry Guerlac, "Amicus Plato and Other Friends", Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1978), pp. 627-633 – link. I am indebted to Mississippi Fred Macdowell for providing me with a copy of the article.