WHEN HISTORY IS HIS STORY
A Review of R. Dovid Kamenetsky’s “Rabeinu Chaim Ozer: Raban Shel Kol B’nei Ha’golah” *
(Vol. 1, Hebrew, 671 pages)

Rabbi Jonah Steinmetz is a fellow in the Wexner Kollel Elyon and director of Asicha Seminars, an online learning program for women. This is Jonah’s first contribution to the Seforim Blog.

1. OF HISTORY AND STORY

When asked to describe the difference between recording history and telling stories, the prolific historical fiction novelist, E.L. Doctorow responded, “The historian will tell you what happened. The novelist will tell you what it felt like.” Doctorow’s assessment is unsurprisingly insightful, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of both historiography and storytelling; however, there are rare instances where history also tells a story.

R. Dovid Kamenetsky’s new book, Rabeinu Chaim Ozer: Raban Shel Kol B’nei Ha’goleh (Vol. 1), is one such instance. In culling almost entirely from primary sources such as letters from R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky and his contemporaries, newspapers, and journals, Kamenetsky unwraps the history and the story of not only the protagonist, but his entire generation.

In his introduction, the author notes that “multiple writers have published short biographies – and more are yet to come – which are filled with inaccuracies and incorrect stories, and therefore [these works] should not be relied upon.”[1] He also observes that while many of R. Chaim Ozer’s correspondences have been published, the order and fashion in which they were compiled make it “nearly impossible to discern the true greatness” of the man. In stating his objective, Kamenetsky writes,

This book… is not just a biography or a book of stories. I will leave that to others… In our book, the various events are arranged according to the [chronological] order of their occurrence, contextualized by a description of Rabeinu’s navigation – as the captain of the ship of [the] Jewish [people] – which led to the achievement of desired results.

In fact, this is not a biography. It is not a book of stories. It is a book of history through which the story unfolds. In stark contrast to rigid academic works often perceived as dry and removed, Kamenetsky’s book is refreshingly dynamic. Whereas one often relies on popular tales to discover the politics, drama, and personalities in the rabbinic world, Kamenetsky allows the reader to experience history by reading the firsthand accounts of the parties and witnesses to the events.

2. THE KIBUTZ IN VILNA

In the third chapter, Kamenetsky discusses R. Chaim Ozer’s famous kibutz in Vilna. The kibutz consisted of a small group of young prodigies who came from across Europe to study with one of the leading gedolim of the generation. In his eulogy for R. Chaim Ozer, R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel describes how there were no set shiurim. “He simply had no time.” However,

on Shabbos during bein hashmashos (the twilight hours), was our time, only our time. We felt the presence of the Shabbos queen as [R. Chaim Ozer] sat down to discuss torah with us.[2]

The students were handpicked by R. Chaim Ozer, and Kamenetsky exposes us to R. Chaim Ozer’s charisma, wisdom, and foresight without ever resorting to hearsay by sharing reports written by alumni of the kibutz. These documents reveal R. Chaim Ozer as an extraordinarily perceptive person with a keen insight into the human psyche. In perhaps the most exciting episode, R. Chaim Ozer turned down a young man applying to the kibutz with a letter of recommendation from none other than R. Chaim Soloveitchik![3] Although R. Chaim describes the potential student as an “outstandingly wonderful” prodigy from an exceptional family, he was “rejected at the doorstep.” In what is perhaps a retroactive exhibition of R. Chaim Ozer’s intuition, this young man eventually left the torah world to become an academic.[4]

In the course of this discussion, the reader learns about famous scholars such as R. Shlomo Polachek (the Meitcheter Iluy), R. Amiel, R. Reuven Katz, R. Eliezer Silver, and others who benefited from learning in the presence of R. Chaim Ozer in Vilna. Perhaps more critically, Kamenetsky disproves commonly held mistruths about others having learned in the kibutz. R. Yechezkel Abramsky fled Telz for Vilna in 1906 to avoid conscription into the Russian army. His biographers claim that he then joined the kibutz.[5] Kamenetsky notes, however, that this claim is unfounded. He similarly dispels the rumor that R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (the Chazon Ish) learned in the kibutz.[6]

Supporting and managing this group was no small task. However, relative to the drama which characterized his many public roles, one imagines that the kibutz held a special place in R. Chaim Ozer’s heart as a calm, safe space for growth in talmud torah.

3. TORAH KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES

But life was rarely calm for our protagonist. In 1932, R. Chaim Ozer wrote a letter to his nephew, Shlomo Kosovsky, in which he describes the many stressful responsibilities which burdened him in Vilna.

Thank G-d we and our family are well. However, there is no shortage of burdens and aggravation. [T]here is a decline in the physical and spiritual condition, [causing] many [people] to come to discuss and pour their bitter hearts out, and it is upon me to listen to their sighs all day. The institutions are on the verge of closure (lit. hang on nothingness), the Rameilles Yeshiva which is my load has no foundation or basis, and the future is covered in fog.[7]

Given this description of the local hardships and pressures, one would expect that R. Chaim Ozer focused exclusively on his role in Vilna, with no time to assist elsewhere. But this is not the case. When French rabbis instituted faulty halachic procedures regarding marriage and divorce, R. Chaim Ozer was at the helm of a collaborated effort on the part of the leading Eastern European rabbis to expose the colossal distortion and demand a retraction.[8] In this context, R. Chaim Ozer wrote,

Do not be surprised that foreign rabbis are intervening in halachic decisions in France, for our torah is not restricted by space.[9] Additionally… it is our opinion… that a woman who marries [under these circumstances]… [thus] her children are illegitimate and it is forbidden for others to marry them. As such, doesn’t this matter affect the entire nation?![10]

Still more political friction is uncovered through accounts of R. Chaim Ozer’s fiery disputes with R. Yosef Shaposhnik of London.[11] In 1928, Shaposhnik, self-declared “chief rabbi of the world,” published a pamphlet announcing his plans and methods for freeing agunos worldwide. The methods were halachically unfounded. Called upon by London’s R. Shmuel Yitzchak Hillman, R. Chaim Ozer led a fierce attack against Shaposhnik’s decisions, authority, and even his mental capacity.[12]

Later chapters are replete with further examples of R. Chaim Ozer’s political tact as he deftly steers the global Jewish community through the obstacle course of the 20^th century. The detailed account of R. Chaim Ozer’s intimate and devoted involvement in supporting the settlement of Israel and its rabbinate will be of particular interest to the reader.[13]

4. THE RABBINICAL CONFERENCES OF 1909-1910

With no embellishment and limited elaboration, six of the final seven chapters invite the reader into the world of the pre-Agudas Yisroel rabbinate struggling to unify in guiding the public on critical issues. Kamenetsky’s work is chronological, so this first volume does not discuss the founding of Agudas Yisroel in Kattowitz in 1912. However, these chapters discuss the seeds of the organization.

R. Chaim Ozer emerges as the founder and leader of these endeavors, and in studying his correspondences, one is welcomed into the mind and heart of the protagonist in a surprisingly intimate fashion.[14] Descriptive newspaper reports and detailed rabbinic correspondences unveil shockingly comprehensive accounts of the formation of K’nesses Yisroel – the forerunner of Agudas Yisroel – starting in 1908, as well as the rabbinical conferences in Vilna and Bad Homburg in 1909 and St. Petersburg in 1910. Kamenetsky allows the reader to feel as though he is sitting in on the events, meeting the characters, experiencing the drama, and navigating the politics.

One example of the heated nature of the conference in St. Petersburg is the reaction to the position of R. Shalom Dovber Schneerson of Lubavitch (herein Rasha”b) regarding who is eligible to be registered as a Jew in the communal records.[15] He was of the opinion that children who were uncircumcised due to the parents’ recalcitrance should not be registered as Jews. The Yiddish newspaper, Haynt (21 Adar Beis, 5670) reported this and more of Rasha”b’s inflammatory remarks.

Due to the sharp objection… to the rebbe of Lubavitch’s statements that one who does not wear tefillin is not considered a Jew, and along with this, the decision on the part of the conference to exclude uncircumcised children from the records, I felt it necessary to turn to some of the greatest rabbinic participants to hear their halachic opinion on this burning question…[16]

The pushback to these assertions was fierce and the arguments were impassioned. In further viewing reports of the intense discussions as to which Jews are eligible for higher statuses and positions within the community, the reader is drawn into fundamental, heartfelt dialogue about the core definition of a Jew.[17]

5. R. CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK: LEGENDS CONFIRMED

Throughout the book, we are brought into R. Chaim Ozer’s personal world as he balances his roles as decisor, teacher, and leader. But Kamenetsky exposes us to the protagonist’s social and professional circles, as well. In providing capsule biographies for many of the characters mentioned throughout the book, the author introduces us to significant, albeit lesser known, rabbinic personalities, providing background for the letters and articles from which he draws.[18]

One unforeseen benefit of Kamenetsky’s approach is the unveiling of the persona of R. Chaim Soloveitchik as perceived by his colleagues. Stories – factual, apocryphal, and everything in between – about R. Chaim’s legendary genius, benevolence, and sagacity abound. Many have been published, still more have been orally transmitted. It is fascinating to see the aforementioned stories and still other traits be corroborated and come to life through firsthand accounts recorded in this book.

R. Chaim’s position as one of the most respected rabbinic figures in Europe is revealed time and again. In introducing the concept of what eventually became Agudas Yisroel, R. Chaim Ozer heavily stresses R. Chaim’s involvement, noting that his greatness and dominance will surely draw other colleagues to join the movement.[19] In a letter encouraging Rasha”b to join, R. Yitzchak Isaac Rabinowitz points to R. Chaim as one of the three most important, influential contemporary rabbinic figures.[20] When chief rabbi of Jerusalem, R. Shmuel Salant’s assistant, R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim predeceased him, the former desperately pushed R. Chaim to assume the position immediately.[21] In a letter from R. Yehuda Leib Frank to his son, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, the writer makes the astonishing claim that the Hasidim of Jerusalem will agree to no Lithuanian rabbinic leader except for R. Chaim![22]

In one pointed display of his uniqueness, R. Rabinowitz writes that R. Chaim is unlike all other Russian rabbis in that there is “nothing in his world other than torah.” “Even the greatness of millionaires like Rothschild can not affect him even slightly.”[23] About R. Chaim, Rasha”b writes, “he literally became sick from aggravation, being that he is truly G-d-fearing.”[24] These lines aptly portray R. Chaim’s confidence and immovability and capture his intense, unyielding yiras shamayim.

It is well known that, all his greatness notwithstanding, R. Chaim was exceedingly humble. R. Yaakov Ha-levi Lifschitz corroborates this in a letter to R. Rabinowitz in which he describes R. Chaim’s aversion to hubris in the following terms: “The Gaon R. Chaim is as far from pride and self-praise as we are far from eating treifos (i.e. non-Kosher meat).”[25]

It is no wonder that the newspapers would eventually describe R. Chaim, along with one other rabbi, as the “living spirit” of the rabbinical gatherings.[26] Generally, he would listen quietly as the animated discussions carried on, waiting until the arguments subsided to succinctly summarize the points and offer a brilliant assessment and decision.[27] Often, his opinion was accepted.[28]

These commonly held truths about R. Chaim’s unique genius and character are compellingly corroborated at various junctures. The author provides important insight and perspective by bearing these facts out through presenting firsthand accounts of contemporaries.

6. OF HISTORY, NOT STORY

Kamenetsky is allergic to mythology. To be clear, he displays no disdain for tradition and no proclivity for sniffing out and destroying hagiographical accounts.[29] Balanced by genuine reverence, Kamenetsky’s commitment to intellectual honesty and academic rigor leads him to disprove baseless stories through revealing their inconsistencies with the primary sources.[30] He has a particular penchant for noting calendric contradictions which dispel the accuracy of popular tales.[31]

In the penultimate chapter, Kamenetsky recounts the classic tale of the meeting between R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (the Chafetz Chaim) and R. Meir Simcha Ha-kohen of Dvinsk at the 1910 rabbinical conference in St. Petersburg.[32] At the behest of R. Chaim Soloveitchik, the Chafetz Chaim visited the convention to reinforce the minority’s opposition to a requirement for rabbis to learn the Russian language. R. Meir Simcha – along with R. David Friedman of Karlin, R. Chaim Ozer, R. Yitzchak Yaakov Rabinowitz of Ponovizh, and the majority of those present – asserted, however, that knowledge of the national language would ultimately strengthen the orthodox hold on the rabbinate. Kamenetsky quotes R. M.M. Yoshor’s account of the following exchange.

… [The Chafetz Chaim] traveled to visit the Gaon [R. Meir Simcha] of Dvinsk in his hotel. As the Chafetz Chaim began to explain his reasoning for coming, R. Meir Simcha lightheartedly remarked: “Don’t fret. The torah will remain torah and the rabbis will remain rabbis.” And, in relying upon the letter [of support] from R. David of Karlin, he said, “You should not contend with the opinion of the eldest of the Geonim. Being that you do not serve in the rabbinate and you live in a small town, you are not expert in the ways of the world and its demands.”

Unmoved, the Chafetz Chaim calmly asked [R. Meir Simcha] if he too leads a Yeshiva, noting that only someone who is in close contact with a Yeshiva is capable of presciently sensing the impending danger [in this decision].

So as to avoid a quarrel, R. Meir Simcha bolted out of the room (this was his way) … On the way [home], the Chafetz Chaim remarked: “I am impressed by R. Meir Simcha’s refined character…”

Yoshor also recounts that R. Meir Simcha quipped,

“This small Jew from a small town makes more noise across the world with his simple words than the biggest rabbis from the biggest towns with their depth and sharpness.”[33]

This meeting and its narrative is preserved in many scholarly and other works, with slight but critical tweaks to the words, tones, and cadences of the parties involved.[34] Tradition has it that the Chafetz Chaim – who rarely cites contemporaries by name – relays the opinion of R. Meir Simcha in Beur Halacha (585, s.v. v’tov l’tkoah b’yad yemin) in an attempt to show the world that he bears no grudge against his colleague, their squabble notwithstanding.[35]

While this story has all the desired trappings of conflict and resolution, Kamenetsky declares that “anyone with eyes” will notice that the ending is patently false. The alleged meeting between these two rabbis occurred in 1910. The volume of Mishnah Berurah in which this paragraph appears was published sometime between 1896 and 1899, more than ten years prior to their contentious encounter![36] Of course, this does not call the veracity of the crux of the tale into question. The intellectually honest student of history must sift through the layers of a story until what remains is only the truth.[37]

In one instance, Kamenetsky disproves Ahron Sorosky’s claim that R. Avraham Bornstein of Socatchov (the Avnei Nezer) attended the 1909 conference in Vilna.[38] Although Sorosky describes the rebbe’s journey and his meetings with R. David of Karlin, the Chafetz Chaim, and R. Chaim Soloveitchik, Kamenetsky claims they are all fantasy which never occurred. R. Bornstein was invited to the conference, but he did not end up joining. Kamenetsky explains that Sorosky confused this conference with another one in Warsaw in which a rebbe from Socatchov – either R. Avraham or his son R. Shmuel (the Shem M’shmuel) did participate. He takes this opportunity to remind the reader to “never rely on any information without cross-checking other sources.”

In yet a third example, the author uses creative resources to disprove a rumored event. R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson (Rayat”z), son and successor of Rasha”b, reports yet another rabbinic gathering which occurred in Vilna in 1905.[39] He claims that R. David Tevele Katzenellenbogen presided over this conference which was attended by R. David of Karlin, R. Chaim Soloveitchik, and Rasha”b. Rayat”z relays his father’s call for only ordaining young rabbis who display impeccable yiras shamayim. Allegedly, R. Chaim then penned a letter to R. Chaim Ozer, informing him of this decision to only ordain such rabbinic candidates.

Kamenetsky disputes this, declaring that such an event was simply an imagined imitation of the 1909 conference in which the aforementioned rabbis participated.[40] Aside from the nonexistence of corroborating sources, the author highlights the glaring peculiarity that a rabbinical conference occurred in Vilna in 1905 and yet R. Chaim Ozer had to be informed through a letter. Furthermore, Kamenetsky notes that Rasha”b’s passport is still extant, displaying all his travels, and there is no such trip to Vilna in 1905 signified!

7. MEGALEH TEFACH, MECHASEH T’FACHAYIM

In some cases, Kamenetsky leaves us on the edge of our seat, wishing he would disclose additional sources or offer his insightful commentary. One such case is his passing reference to the well-known tale of R. Chaim Ozer’s alleged broken engagement. Legend has it that a young R. Chaim Ozer became engaged to the daughter of R. Eliyahu Feinstein of Pruzhin. For reasons unknown, the wedding was called off.[41] The most ambitious versions of this story append a sensational postscript. Years later, R. Chaim Ozer’s only daughter, Malka, fell fatally ill with polio. With no hope of medical salvation, the desperate father sent a message to the Chafetz Chaim, requesting that he pray for the girl’s recovery. Purportedly, the Chafetz Chaim refused to offer any hope, attributing his reluctance to the fact that R. Chaim Ozer had broken an engagement in his youth.

Twice, Kamenetsky references this story. Twice, he rejects it as unfounded.[42] Of course, the intellectually honest student of history approaches such a staggering, phenomenal story with cautious skepticism. However, being that the legend is entrenched in the Krakowsky and Soloveitchik family traditions and widely accepted, one hopes that the author will provide his reasons for disbelief. Sensing our excitement, Kamenetsky asserts his claim that this story exists “only in the imagination of the maskilic authors” who invented it, “but there is no space here to elaborate.”

The author teases us in other instances as well. In his description of the Rameilles Yeshiva, Kamenetsky discusses R. Shlomo Heiman’s role as maggid shiur.[43] In 1927, R. Chaim Ozer brought R. Heiman to teach in the yeshiva in Vilna, raising the institution to new heights.[44] In the summer of 1934, however, Mesivta Torah V’Daas recruited R. Heiman to join their staff. Much to the dismay of R. Chaim Ozer, R. Heiman accepted the offer and left for America.[45] While Kamenetsky cites R. Chaim Ozer’s letters expressing his feelings during this period, he adds,

Indeed, in a different letter, dated 8 Adar 1937, Rabeinu [Chaim Ozer] partially reveals (lit. – reveals one tefach while concealing two tefachim) the reason for [R. Shlomo Heiman’s] departure.[46]

Kamenetsky proffers that this mysterious reason is “connected to R. Heiman’s role in the Yeshiva” and announces that he has the letter in his possession, but stops short of sharing the information with us. As frustrating as it may be, the reader senses and respects that the author protects the information out of great reverence for the parties involved.[47]

8. HISTORY AS OUR STORY

In his approbation to R. Yehuda Ha-levi Lifschitz’s Dor Yesharim, R. Chaim Ozer writes the following about the study of Jewish history.

Historically, gedolei torah never devoted their minds to delving into Jewish history or even to write books about Jewish sages of past generations. The words of our ancient and later rabbis are alive and maintained in the mouths of those who learn torah. Every study hall is brimming with rabbis and their students studying a living torah as if the words were taught that day. There is no need to memorialize tzadikim, as their words are their legacy.

However, since the decline of Judaism in Europe during the time of the Reform… there is no torah and there is no fear of G-d. As such, the remaining authors devoted themselves to memorialize the great figures and occurrences of past generations. Some of them intended to endear the wisdom of Israel and its gedolim to this generation. If they won’t receive this through knowledge, recognition, and vision (i.e. through learning torah), [at least] they should receive it through hearing stories – that they had outstanding ancestors through which they claim honor.[48]

In this first volume, R. Kamenetsky fulfills R. Chaim Ozer’s charge.[49] In drawing exclusively from firsthand accounts, he presents a compelling and exciting perspective on the life and leadership of R. Chaim Ozer as well as his rabbinic milieu. He simultaneously wears the hats of both historian and novelist, telling us what happened and showing us how it felt. Most importantly, he reminds us of our great ancestors and rich history to which we strive endlessly to connect.

*Thank you to my good friends, R. Jacob Sasson and R. Dovid Bashevkin for their encouragement and involvement. Special thanks to R. Eliezer Brodt for his willingness and efforts to publish this review.

[1] See Jordan S. Penkower, "The Chapter Divisions of the 1525 Rabbinic Bible," Vetus Testamentum 48:3 (July 1998): 350-74; idem, "Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible," Vetus Testamentum 50:3 (July 2000): 379-93; idem, "Minhag and Mesorah: On the Recent Ashkenazi Custom of Double Vocalization of זכר עמלק (Deut. 25:19)," in R. Kasher, M. Sipor, Y. Sarfati, eds., Iyenei Mikrah u-Parshanut 4 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1997), 71-128. [2] Teshuvot ha-Rama, Ziv. ed. no. 124, and pp. 66-67; D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1991), vol. 2, p. 56 n.26; D. Sperber, Netivot Pesikah (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 2008), pp. 104-14; Y.S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri Ketivah ve-Hataka (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2007), p. 273 and the notes therein.

Apostates and More, Part 1

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

1. I am aware of two seforim found on both Otzar haHochma and Hebrewbooks.org which were written by men who later apostatized (there are probably more). There are also two seforim on Hebrewbooks.org which were written by someone afterhe apostatized. I realize that after this post appears it is possible that the books mentioned will be removed from Otzar haHochma and Hebrewbooks.org (as has happened in the past with problematic books that I called attention to). I am therefore providing links so that readers can access the books even if they are removed.

The first book by someone who later apostatized is Solomon Florentin’s Doresh Mishpat, published in Salonika in 1655. As mentioned, appears on both hebrewbooks.org and Otzar haHochma.

Here is the title page.

You can view the entire book here here.

Florentin was a follower of Shabbetai Zvi and was one of the group of Salonikan Jews who converted to Islam following Shabbetai Zvi’s own conversion.[1]

The second future apostate whose book appears on Hebrewbooks.org and Otzar haHochma is Aaron Israel Briman. He wrote Avnei Zikaron, which was published in Amsterdam around 1880.[2] Here is the title page.

You can view the entire book here here.

Briman, who appears to have been an ordained rabbi, was a real scoundrel. After his apostasy, which seems to have been done completely for monetary reasons, he wrote the infamous anti-Semitic work Der Judenspiegel and assisted the anti-Semite August Rohling in his attacks against the Talmud and Judaism in general.[3]  He also abandoned his wife and two small children, leaving his wife an agunah. After becoming a Christian, he engaged in various monetary frauds which landed him in prison. According to the article here in the Jewish Encyclopedia, he studied in the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, a point confirmed by Gotthard Deutsch.[4]

As for seforim written by someone after he converted, this brings us to Jehiel Zvi Lichtenstein (1827-1912; in his earlier years the last name he used was Hirschensohn, and I don’t know why he changed it). Detailed biographical information about Lichtenstein can be found in a good article by Samuel Leib Zitron included in volume 2 of his Me-Ahorei ha-Pargod: Mumarim, Bogdim, Mitkaḥashim that fortunately is also found online here. There is, however, no scholarly article on the writings of Lichtenstein, and although he was infamous in his day, today he is almost entirely forgotten.[5]

Lichtenstein was born in Bessarabia and was already an accomplished scholar as a young man. He was married at 18 to the daughter of a wealthy man, and he could have entered the rabbinate like so many others in his position. Yet as described by Zitron (and it appears that his description has been livened up, so it is not always clear if the facts are correct), various circumstances led him to divorce his wife, abandon his home, and convert to Christianity and become an enthusiastic missionary. Incredibly, even after converting to Christianity he continued to live as a Jew, moving to the town of Lubavitch where by all outward appearances he was a hasid of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Following this he went to Berlin where he was an open missionary. He then returned to Russia where he married the sister of the well-known Jewish-Christian missionary, Joseph Rabinowitz. In 1995 Kai Kjaer-Hansen published the English version of his book on Rabinowitz,[6] referring to him on the book’s cover and title page as the “Herzl of Jewish Christianity.”[7]

In 1872, after his apostasy, Lichtenstein published his book Derekh ha-Kodesh. The book was published in Berlin. I don’t know why the title page says it was printed in Russia, though this probably has something to do with taxes or customs for books sent to foreign countries.

As you can see, this is the second printing and Lichtenstein gave himself a fancy rabbinic title. I have never seen a copy of the first printing, but Ephraim Deinard states that Lichtenstein’s name did not appear on the title page of this edition.[8]

Zitron tells us that Lichtenstein returned to his hometown where he distributed Derekh ha-Kodesh among the local Hasidim. The book reads like a real rabbinic text, and on the very first page he cites both the Baal Shem Tov and R. Shneur Zalman of Liady, and he continues to cite R. Shneur Zalman constantly in the book. It is obvious from what he writes elsewhere that he pretended to be a Chabad hasid. Thus, in his self-defense published in Ha-Magid [9], when he was still pretending to be a faithful Jew, he mentions that he had lived in the town of Lubavitch. In seeking to defend Derekh ha-Kodesh from the accusation that it had Christian elements, he calls for it to be examined by leading Chabad rabbis to see if there is anything problematic in the book.

.ואקרא לשופטי צדק את רבני חב”ד הגדולים אשר ירדו לעמקי הלכה של הקבלה והחסידות הדבקים באלהים חיים המה יאמרו אם עולתה בו

His call was taken up by Jacob Solomon Alschwang who claimed to have a lot of knowledge in Kabbalah and hasidic thought, “like one of the great Chabad rabbis.”[10]  I am sure that this self-judgment contains a good deal of exaggeration, yet Alschwang did come from a Chabad background and received a traditional Chabad education before leaving that world for the world of Haskalah.[11]

Alschwang identifies a number of passages in the book which he thinks are evidence of the author’s Christian sentiments.[12] Experts in Kabbalah and Hasidism can weigh in on whether Alschwang is correct or if the passages he points to can also be supported by classic kabbalistic or hasidic texts.

One of the passages Alschwang points to is on p. 68, which according to Alschwang means that Lichtenstein is speaking of God taking physical form on earth.

וע”ז נא’ עיני ה’ המה משוטטים בכל הארץ (זכריה ד, י) שענין משוטטים היינו שמתפשטים ומתלבשים בכל הארץ, והש”י משגיח בארץ ע”י שמתלבש בהם כי המה הם כלים רוחניים שהאציל וברא להשתמש בהם, והם מתפשטים ומתלבשים בתחתונים, והמה כמו העינים אל [של] האדם שהאדם יביט בהם והשכל מתלבש בהם לראות, וכן הוא הענין באזני ה

So, what do readers think? Does this passage speak of God literally assuming some bodily form? Furthermore, can we find similar passages in standard kabbalistic texts?

Alschwang also calls attention to Derekh ha-Kodesh, p. 42, where Lichtenstein states that God will appear to prophets in a physical form. Although Lichtenstein adds that God does not really take physical form, but only appears this way, Alschwang sees this as an example of Lichtenstein is trying to push a Christian notion. I guess the idea would be to first get Jews used to the notion that God can be imagined looking like a human, and the next step is to identify a real flesh and blood human as God. Here are Lichtenstein’s words:

כי העולם הזה בכללו הוא אלהות גמור מצד שאינו נראה לנו, אך לעינינו עשה האלהים על עצמו גילוי וצורה ויתחפש בדמות גשמי (זיך זעלבסט ענטשטעלט) אשר הנבראים ישיגו בחושיהם הגשמיים (אשר גם הם רק לעיניהם) דמות וצורה גשמית ארבע יסודות ומורכביהם, דומם צומח חי מדבר וכו’, אולם לעומת הש”י הכל אלהות גמור ואין פה גילוי ודמות גשמי ומהות כלל

Alschwang also notes that on page 7 Lichtenstein makes use of the famous expression from Matthew 19:24, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,” which is not what one would expect to find in a rabbinic text.

At one time in his strange life, Lichtenstein actually began serving as a hasidic rebbe of sorts, praying for people and handing out amulets. Ephraim Deinard, who knew Lichtenstein from the latter’s missionary days in Berlin in the 1870s,[13] claims that it was he who exposed Lichtenstein as a fraud. He happened to be in Lichtenstein’s town on a business trip in 1879, and that is how the townspeople learned that the supposedly pious rebbe was actually a Christian missionary.[14] Even after being exposed Lichtenstein did not give up, and a few years later he was in Podolia serving as a rabbi![15]

Derekh ha-Kodesh is only found on hebrewbooks.org, not on Otzar haHochma. You can view it here. The copy on hebrewbooks.org is missing the second half of the book. It appears that not all printings of the book contained the second part which includes a commentary on various biblical passages. (Alschwang mentions that his copy only had 84 pages, which means that it also was missing the second half.). Here is the copy which is found at Harvard, which is almost twice as long as the copy on hebrewbooks.org.[16] Interestingly, in the copy found on hebrewbooks.org (and also in the complete Harvard copy), on the second page, there are corrections applicable to the missing second half of the book. Also of note is at the bottom of this page of corrections it states that the haskamot for the book were published in the first printing. As far as I can determine, no copies of this first printing have survived.

Zitron tells us that in 1882 Lichtenstein came to Odessa with the manuscript of his book, Sheva Hokhmot. He received haskamot for the book from rabbis and maskilim. Here is the title page of the London 1912 edition of Sheva Hokhmot and you can view the book here.[17]

This is a very helpful work which in alphabetical fashion discusses all the geographical sites mentioned in the Talmud and Midrash.[18] The book previously appeared in Lemberg in 1883 and can be viewed here. The title page of the Lemberg edition mentions that Lichtenstein wrote the responsa volume Keren ha-Tzvi and the book Megaleh Sod. While Keren ha-Tzvi never appeared, Megaleh Sod, which is a commentary on the Bible, was published in Budapest in 1906 and can be viewed here. It is incredible that an apostate would write such a commentary which on its face looks like any other traditional commentary. (I haven’t read it carefully to see if he also inserts Christian interpretations.)

The actual text of both editions of Sheva Hokhmot is the same, but there are some differences between the prefaces of the two volumes. In the first edition the preface is longer, contains some notes, and also includes a list of the rabbis and scholars who prepaid for the book. In the London edition, Lichtenstein included a passage from R. Aaron Hyman’s Toledot Tannaim ve-Amoraim (London, 1910), vol. 1, p. 15, which greatly praises the book and the author, with Hyman saying that Lichtenstein is “wise in the wisdom of the Torah.” Hyman obviously must have been unaware of who Lichtenstein was.

That people did not realize who Lichtenstein was explains how a copy of Derekh ha-Kodesh was bound with regular traditional seforim (including R. Moses Cordovero’s Tomer Devorah), as seen in a recent auction here.[19]

As you can see from the title pages of Derekh ha-Kodesh and Sheva Hokhmot, both of these books, now found on hebrewbooks.org, came from the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad.[20] You can also see from the title page of Sheva Hokhmot that, before it was acquired by the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad, it belonged to the great scholar Jacob Zallel Lauterbach.

With reference to Lichtenstein, Steven J. Zipperstein writes as follows:

His Sheva Hokhmot [The Seven Wisdoms] was introduced by letters of praise from important scholars such as Mattityahu Strashun, Samuel Joseph Fuenn, and others, though the book appeared three years after Lichtenstein was first denounced as a missionary (by the rather mercurial and widely disliked Ephraim Deinard) in the newspaper Ha-Maggid.[21]

Zipperstein’s information about the letters in Sheva Hokhmot comes from Zitron, who also claims that these haskamot were forged by Lichtenstein. Yet there are no such haskamot from these figures, forged or otherwise. In the 1883 edition of the book, p. 6, we are given a list of people who wrote haskamot and letters of praise (including R. Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, the Beit ha-Levi), but these were never published, not even in the 1912 edition. I have no reason to doubt that these haskamot and letters of praise were authentic, otherwise how could he have publicly announced in the various authors’ lifetimes that he received letters from them? However, these letters were also written before news of his apostasy was known.

What makes Derekh ha-Kodesh and Sheva Hokhmot so interesting is that they were both written after Lichtenstein had become a Christian, something you would never know from the title pages. I don’t know of any other such books, namely, seforim written in a rabbinic style by someone who had already converted to Christianity.

This is a picture of Lichtenstein that I found on a Messianic Jewish website here.

Here is the title page of Lichtenstein’s Hizuk Emunat Emet bi-Yeshua Mashiah ben ha-Elohim.[22]

You can find the entire book here. The author is listed as אבן צהר, which is simply the Hebrew translation of the name Lichtenstein. Also, צהר is the abbreviation of צבי הירשנזון, the birth name of the author.[23]

Lichtenstein also wrote a multi-volume Hebrew commentary on the New Testament, which you can see here. The commentary is preceded by a helpful article on Lichtenstein by Jorge Quiñónez. Lichtenstein’s revised commentary on Matthew can be seen here.[24]

There is an entry on Lichtenstein in Zalmen Reyzen’s Yiddish Lexicon.[25] Yet one of the sources in the bibliography is about Isaac Lichtenstein. This Lichtenstein is often confused with Jehiel Zvi Lichtenstein whom we have been discussing. However, they were two separate people, and Isaac Lichtenstein (1824-1908), who was actually a rabbi, was also a believer in Jesus (although it is reported that he never actually converted to Christianity).

This is his picture taken from here.

The following picture comes from here

There was another Chabad hasid, Israel Landau, who converted to Christianity and became the chief Russian censor. In Ruth Bachi-Kolodny’s article about him, entitled “The Chabadnik Who Became Czarist Russia’s Chief Censor for Jewish Writings,” available here, he is even referred to as a rabbi, but this is certainly not correct, and the description of him as a rabbi does not appear in the original Hebrew version of the article here. The article states:

Although he became an apostate Jew, he remained, deep in his heart, a devoutly religious Hasid and continued to look the part with his short trimmed beard, earlocks, skullcap and long, broad kapota ‏(the long black jacket of members of Chabad‏); he would eat only in kosher restaurants. In fact, Landau sent his wife and only daughter, Menuha, to Switzerland so they could live as Jews without any external hindrances.[26]

Ben Zion Dinur, who was from a Chabad family, mentions that it was jokingly said about Landau that even after apostatizing he still kept the holiday of 19 Kislev.[27] As for Landau’s wife and daughter, Ephraim Deinard, who knew Landau, states that they left Russia because they did not want to convert, not because Landau sent them out.[28]

My experience has been that as soon as I publish something, I find more relevant material and wish I could go back in time to include it in the publication. Fortunately, with the Seforim Blog I am able to update my writings. Not long ago I published Iggerot Malkhei Rabbanan. On pp. 300-301, R. Meir Mazuz writes that he read in Yated Ne’eman that the apostate Russian censor removed two lines from Bialik’s poem about the Kishinev pogrom of 1903, “In the City of Slaughter,” because he found them heretical and did not want to lose his share in the World to Come! I was not aware of this story but I looked at the poem and immediately identified what these two lines must be. In fact, as I only learned after the book was published, it was actually the following four lines that were deleted, and the censor who was responsible for this was none other than Landau.[29]

,סִלְחוּ לִי, עֲלוּבֵי עוֹלָם, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם עָנִי כְמוֹתְכֶם
עָנִי הוּא בְחַיֵּיכֶם וְקַל וָחֹמֶר בְּמוֹתְכֶם
–כִּי תָבֹאוּ מָחָר עַל-שְׂכַרְכֶם וּדְפַקְתֶּם עַל-דְּלָתָי
!אֶפְתְּחָה לָכֶם, בֹּאוּ וּרְאוּ: יָרַדְתִּי מִנְּכָסָי

Forgive me, beggars of the world, your God is as poor as you,
Poor he is in your living and so much more so in your deaths.
And if you come tomorrow for your due and knock on my doors—
I’ll open for you, come and look: I’ve gone down in the world.[30]

The story of the censorship is told by Benzion Katz in his memoir, in a chapter that deserves to be translated into English.[31] Katz was the founder and editor of the newspaper Ha-Zeman, where Bialik’s poem appeared. If you look in Ha-Zeman you will find that the title of the poem was changed to “Masa Nemirov”, and a note informs the reader of the infamous 1648 massacre in Nemirov. As Katz explains, this new title was suggested by Landau, who was willing to look the other way if Bialik and Katz would pretend that the words were not about the 1903 Kishinev pogrom but about another event 250 years prior.

As for the censorship of the lines mentioned above, Katz writes as follows (p. 135):

כשהיה הכל מוכן נתתי לו לקרוא את השירה. הכל נראה לו כשר, חוץ מנקודות אחדות, שלדעתו התריס שם ביאליק נגד א-לוהים. אין הוא יכול להרשות זאת – אמר הצנזור המומר. – בשביל הממשלה ימצא תמיד תירוץ אבל לא בשביל רבונו של עולם. “אינני צעיר ואצטרך לתת דין וחשבון בעולם הבא. אינני רוצה להפסיד את חלקי בעולם הבא”

Landau would not permit some lines to appear in the poem as he did not want to lose his share in the World to Come. Bialik wrote to the censor to defend himself and the censor replied as follows (as summarized by Katz, p. 135), pointing out among other things that Bialik had misunderstood the Zohar :

הוא הצעיר, אף על פי שהוא משורר גדול, מביא לי ראיות מן הזוהר הקדוש, שבו יש ביטויים שהם כביכול גם כן עלבון לקדוש ברוך הוא, אבל אלה אינם עלבונות אלא ביטויי צער וזעם. אני בקי בזוהר. אני לומד אותו יותר ממנו. אני הרשיתי להדפיס את הזוהר מה שלא הרשו הצנזורים הקודמים. היו מביאים את הספר בגניבה מחוץ לארץ. נגד א-לוהים אי אפשר לעשות כלום

All this goes to show that while you can take the Jew out of the shtetl, often (even with apostates) you can’t take the shtetl out of the Jew.

To be continued

2. I want to call attention to four recent valuable books. The first is Mitchell First, Roots and Rituals: Insights into Hebrew, Holidays, andHistory. This book is full of interesting chapters on liturgy, history, holidays, and the Hebrew language. If, like me, you have enjoyed First’s posts on the Seforim Blog, then his latest book will be a treat.

The second book is Bezalel Naor’s translation of R. Kook’s Commentary to the Legends of Rabbah bar Hannah. This book only further solidifies Naor’s standing as the leading interpreter of R. Kook in the English language. In addition to extensive notes, Naor also includes 11 appendices which include such topics such as R. Kook’s critique of the Mussar Movement and R. Kook and the Dybbuk in Jaffa.

The third book is a joint effort by the eminent scholars Menachem Kellner and James Diamond. Its title is Reinventing Maimonides in Contemporary Jewish Thought, published by my favorite press, Littman Library. This is a collection of articles by Kellner and Diamond which focus on various important Torah scholars and their understanding of Maimonides.

Here is the table of contents.

Anyone interested in nineteenth- and twentieth-century rabbinic thinkers will find this work of value.

The fourth book is Yitz Greenberg and Modern Orthodoxy: The Road Not Taken, edited by Adam Ferziger, Miri Freud-Kandel, Steven Bayme. This book, which is full of great essays, is available in paperback here, and this is the table of contents.

3. R. Yissachar Dov Hoffman was kind enough to send me this picture of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and R. Ovadiah Yosef from April 25, 1974.[32]

My question to readers is, can anyone identify the three young men standing behind the rabbis?

4. Anyone interested in my summer 2020 trips with Torah in Motion can find details here.
5. For those in the New York area, I will be speaking at Young Israel-Beth El of Boro Park (4802 15^thAvenue, Brooklyn) on Saturday night, December 21 at 8pm. The title of my talk is “Judaism and Islam: Some Halakhic and Historical Perspectives”.
   

   ---

[1] See Meir Benayahu, Ha-Tenuah ha-Shabta’it be-Yavan (Jerusalem, 1971-1978), pp. 35-36.
[2] Regarding Briman and his book, which is actually a complete plagiarism – the entire book lifted word for word from R. Abraham Wallerstein, Mahazeh Avraham, found in Wallerstein’s Ma’amar Avraham (Fuerth, 1757) – see Shmuel Ashkenazi, Asufah (Jerusalem, 2014), pp 53-55.
[3] See Joseph Samuel Bloch, Zikhronot Mimei Hayai, trans. S. Shalom, (Tel Aviv, n. d), vol. 1, pp. 84ff.
[4] See his letter in the Jewish Chronicle, June 26, 1914, conveniently posted in On the Main Line here. See also On the Main Line here for a fascinating post dealing with another apostate who appears to have been a rabbi.

For detailed discussions of Briman, see Samuel Leib Zitron’s article from volume 2 of his Me-Ahorei ha-Pargod: Mumarim, Bogdim, Mitkaḥashim, available here; Joseph Samuel Bloch, Zikhronot mimei Hayai (Tel Aviv, n.d.), vol. 1, pp 81ff.; Ha-Melitz, April 24, 1885, cols. 440-441. For numerous contemporary references to Briman, see Jonatan Meir, Literary Hasidism: The Life and Works of Michael Levi Rodkinson, trans. Jeffrey G. Amshalem (Syracuse, 2016), p. 167 n. 201. Unfortunately, Meir, p. 169 n. 214, cites Chaim Bloch – about whom I have a written a good deal on this blog – without realizing that none of the unpublished material Bloch claimed to possess can be assumed to be authentic. Regarding Bloch, see also Tesla Lee’s 2016 honors thesis at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “Sigmund Freud and Chajim Bloch: Exploring the Role of the Jewish Joke in European Jewish Identity,” available here. On pp. 5-6, Lee mentions another fabrication by Bloch. Bloch describes how he offered Freud his criticisms of Moses and Monotheism, yet we know that Freud did not begin working on this book until years after Bloch’s supposed conversation with him. For a recent discussion of Bloch and his role in popularizing the Golem story, see Samuel Jacob Spinner, “Jews behind Glass: The Ethnographic Impulse in German-Jewish and Yiddish Literature, 1900-1948” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2012) pp. 89ff.
[5] The biographical information I provide about Lichtenstein comes from Zitron. Here is what the Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. Hirschensohn-Lichtenstein, Jehiel Zevi Hermann, writes:

Born in Russia, he converted to Christianity in 1855 in Jassy, Rumania, but keeping this secret he spent some time among the Hasidim of Lubavitch and worked on his Derekh ha-Kodesh (“The Way of Holiness,” 1872), which deals with the fundamentals of the Jewish faith, but betrays the authors Christianizing tendencies. From 1868-1878 he worked, under the name of Hermann Lichtenstein, for the Protestant mission in Berlin. He then returned to Russia where, disguised as a hasidic rabbi, he distributed his book. He married in Kishinev, Moldavia, a sister of Joseph Rabinovich, who later, probably under Hirschensohn’s influence, founded the sect called Community of Evangelian Jews. His true character discovered, he had to leave Russia and became lecturer at Franz Delitzsch’s Institutum Judaicaum at Leipzig.

[6] Joseph Rabinowitz and the Messianic Movement (Edinburgh, 1995).
[7] This title was earlier given to Rabinowitz by Hugh J. Schonfield, The History of Jewish Christianity p. 5, available here.
[8] Zikhronot Bat Ami (St. Louis, 1920), vol. 2, p. 134.
[9] Ha-Magid, May 7, 1885, p. 144.
[10] Ha-Magid, June 25, 1885, pp. 208-209.
[11] See his autobiography in Sefer Zikaron le-Sofrei Yisrael ha-Hayyim Itanu ka-Yom (Warsaw, 1889), pp. 203ff, available here. He wrote under the pseudonym ישביאל. See Saul Chajes, Otzar Beduyei ha-Shem (Vienna, 1933), p. 173. The title of the book mentioned at the beginning of this note is of interest, as it is a “memorial volume” for living writers. Today I think we would only use the words “Sefer Zikaron” for people who are deceased. It is also of interest that in the past there were writers who used ז”ל either as זכרונו לברכה or זכור לטוב for living people. See Tovia Preschel, Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 1, pp. 35, 324-325, vol. 4, p. 418.

In 1878, R. Isaac Moses Abulafia published his Lev Nishbar. Here is the title page.

This book is a defense of his halakhic rulings in his responsa Penei Yitzhak against the blistering criticisms of R. Solomon Moses Gaguine in his Yismah Levav. Of interest at present is Lev Nishbar, no. 3 (p. 12b). R. Abulafia notes that R. Gaguine refers to him with ז”ל after his name, and he is certain that this was not done in accord with the view mentioned above that ז”ל can be used even with living people. Rather, he sees this as an intentional insult, and as he puts it, כונתו לרעה. This might mean that he believes that R. Gaguine, by using ז”ל after his name, is hoping for his death.

והן עתה הביאני חדריו וכתב עלי תיבת ז”ל כנז”ל וה’ יודע ועד עליו אם כונתו לרעה עלי והלב יודע אם לעקל וכו’ ועכ”פ מדקפיד בכל דוכתא ודוכתא אך בחלקות ישית להבדיל בין המתים ובין החיים בתיבת ז”ל ונר”ו כנז”ל ומדשינה עתה הפעם לכתוב עלי ז”ל במקום נר”ו הא ודאי דקפידה הוי וכונתו לרעה ב”מ

See also what R. Abulafia writes in his introduction and the first page of the opening responsum, where you can see that he is not inclined to be generous in his interpretation of R. Gaguine’s intent.

Regarding the dispute between Rabbis Abulafia and Gaguin, see Yaron Haarel, “Hashpa’atam shel ha-Sefarim Penei Yitzhak, Yismah Lev ve-Lev Nishbar al ha-Ma’avak Saviv ha-Rabanut be-Damesek,” Asuput 11 (1998), pp. 211-243.
[12] That the book contains hints to Lichtenstein’s belief in Jesus is also stated by Samuel Shraga Feigensohn, Elbonah Shel Torah (Berlin, 1929), p. 28b.
[13] Deinard, Zikhronot Bat Ami (New Orleans, 1920), vol. 2, p. 133.
[14] Ha-Magid, April 9, 1885, p. 112. See here that in his later years, Lichtenstein’s Christian missionary students would call him “Rebbe”. This source describes Lichtenstein as serving as a hasidic rebbe before adopting Christianity, but that is not correct.
[15] Deinard in Ha-Magid, April 9, 1885, p. 112. Deinard, Zikhronot Bat Ami, vol. 2, p. 137, reports that Lichtenstein served as a rabbi in Hungary. In Tzelem ba-Heikhal (New Orleans, n.d.), p. 143, Deinard writes that he was a rabbi for a short time in a town in the Austrian empire. Feigensohn, Elbonah Shel Torah, p. 28b, states that he served as the rabbi in a town in Volhynia for eight years, but there is no evidence to support this statement
[16] See Jacob Solomon Alschwang, Ha-Magid, June 25, 1885, p. 209, that David Kahana had additional pages from the book which are missing from the Harvard copy. These pages, from a section entitled Even Bohan, are explicitly Christian, as they cite Jesus and Paul, and this is no doubt why they were removed. In what looks like a defense of Even Bohan, Lichtenstein, Derekh ha-Kodesh, p. 83 in the note, states that this section was written for Christians and Muslims and deals with the Noahide laws. This is, of course, not believable, as Christians and Muslims would not be reading his Hebrew work.
[17] Deinard, Zikhronot Bat Ami, vol. 2, p. 137, claims that it was actually printed in Eastern Europe, but R. Mazin in London bought the entire printing and put a new title page on the book.
[18] The title “Seven Wisdoms” is strange as it is really not relevant to the subject of the book. Regarding the “Seven Wisdoms,” see Harry Austryn Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, MA, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 507ff. Abarbanel, Commentary to Exodus, ch. 25, p. 253, writes:

שבעת הנרות שבמנורה רומזים אל שבע החכמות שכלם ימצאו בתורת הא-להים

[19] In my post here, I briefly discussed the apostate Paul Levertoff. I neglected to mention that before he converted, Levertoff, whose Jewish first name was Feivel, was one of the future historian Ben Zion Dinur’s teachers in heder. See Dinur, Be-Olam she-Shaka (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 26.
[20] This library has a number of heretical books, and R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn’s earlier collection also contained books of this sort. R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson stated:

When I came to Leningrad, I was surprised to find various [anti-religious] books in my father-in-law’s library. . . . The reason, obviously, was . . . the library attracted non-religious Jews, and even Gentiles. In the meantime, they saw what Lubavitch was and that it shares knowledge, and were drawn to it as a result. This created the opportunity to speak with non-Jews about justice, honesty, and humanity, the Seven Noahide Laws, etc. The benefit was quite evident.

On another occasion, the Rebbe explained that his father-in-law needed such books, for “such things are also necessary for good purposes, as the Mishnah [Avot 2:14] states, ‘Know what to answer a heretic.’” Both of these passages appear in R. Baruch Oberlander’s and R. Elchanan Shmotkin’s beautifully produced work on the Rebbe, Early Years (Brooklyn, 2016), pp. 167, 168.

Ephraim Deinard, Zikhronot Bat Ami, vol. 2, p. 7, reports, as an eye-witness, that R. Shmuel Schneersohn read Haskalah works before he became rebbe of Lubavitch. It is hard to know whether Deinard is to be regarded as reliable in this matter as his antipathy to Chabad is apparent throughout his writings. See especially ibid., p. 16, where among other things he states:

.החסידים היותר רעים ומסוכנים לתורת ישראל, המה חסידי חב”ד

Deinard even falsely claims, ibid., p. 8, that the responsa of R. Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, the Tzemah Tzedek, were really written by R. Hayyim Jacob Widerwitz. In Chabad texts, R. Widerwitz is referred to as the editor of the Tzemah Tzedek’s responsa. See R. Shalom Duber Levin, Toldot Habad be-Artzot ha-Berit (Brooklyn, 1988), p. 3.
[21] “Heresy, Apostasy, and the Transformation of Joseph Rabinovich,” in Todd M. Endelman, ed., Jewish Apostasy in the Modern World (New York, 1987), p. 213. Contrary to what Zipperstein states, Sheva Hokhmot was published in 1883, and only in 1885 did Deinard denounce Lichtenstein. This information appears correctly in Zitron.
[22] The book can be seen here, along with two other Christian works by Lichtenstein and an obituary of him.
[23] See Zitron here.
[24] For more on Lichtenstein, see Ephraim Deinard, Ha-Magid, April 9, 1885, p. 112; Isaac Jacob Weissberg, Ha-Melitz, May 11, 1885, pp. 515-516; Deinard, Ha-Melitz, May 29, 1885, cols. 580-581; S. Mandelkern, Ha-Magid, June 11, 1885, pp. 190-192. See also David Assaf, Hetzitz ve-Lo Nifga (Haifa, 2012), pp. 75-76.
[25] Leḳsiḳon fun der Yidisher liṭeraṭur, prese un filologye (Vilna, 1927), vol. 2, cols. 151-154, available here. An abridged entry is found in the later edition of Reyzen’s lexicon, and you can see an English translation here.
[26] I should note that not everything Bachi-Kolodny cites from Benzion Katz’s memoir, Zikhronot (Tel Aviv, 1963), actually appears there. She also writes: “Interior Minister Vyacheslav Konstantinovich von Plehve issued orders that a pogrom be carried out in Kishinev ‏(now Chisinau, Moldova‏) in April 1903, on Passover, to expedite the Jews’ exit.” This is incorrect, as no such orders were ever issued by the unquestionably anti-Semitic Plehve. See Steven J. Zipperstein, Pogrom: Kishinev and the Tilt of History (New York, 2018), 94ff.
[27] Be-Olam she-Shaka, p. 13. Incidentally, Dinur tells us, pp. 17-18, that in his Chabad home in Russia they drank milk that came from non-Jews, rather than halav yisrael. This is what he writes about his father, who was a real Torah scholar.

זכורני, פעם אחת בא הביתה ואמר לאמא: היתה לי היום עגמת נפש מזה שאת משתמשת בחלב של לא-יהודים. תמהה אמא ושאלה: מאין יודעים? אמר אבא: אני סיפרתי את הדבר. התפלאה אמא: מה ראית להודיע ברבים? אמר: פשוט, התקיפו בבית-המדרש את דוד המלמד, שהוא משתמש בחלב נכרים, והלבינו את פניו. קמתי ואמרתי: מה אתם רוצים ממנו, גם אצלי נוהגים כך! ך

This is significant testimony, as it is well known how seriously Chabad hasidim regard this matter. There is even a story about how a big scholar who came to R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady was suffering from religious doubts. R. Shneur Zalman recognized that these doubts came about because the man had inadvertently drunk non-halav Yisrael milk. See R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, Sefer ha-Ma’amarim 5701-5705 (Brooklyn, 2012), Hebrew version, pp. 76-77.
[28] Deinard, Tzelem ba-Heikhal, p. 169. See also Deinard, Shibolim Bodedot (Jerusalem, 1915), pp. 58ff, for Deinard’s letter to Landau which among other things urges him to return to Judaism. See ibid., pp. 176-177, for Landau’s revealing letter to Deinard. As far as I know, neither of these letters have been mentioned by scholars who have discussed Landau. They are, however, mentioned here.

Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to a memoir by another former Chabad hasid who became a missionary. See Elieser Bassin, The Modern Hebrew and the Hebrew Christian (London, 1882), available here.
[29] A reproduction of the original publication from Ha-Zeman (July-Sep. 1904), is found in Michael Gluzan, Hannan Hever, and Dan Miron, Be-Ir ha-Haregah – Bikur Meuhar (Tel Aviv, 2005), pp. 158-168.
[30] Songs from Bialik, translated by Atar Hadari (Syracuse, 2000), p. 5.
[31] Zikhronot, ch. 37.
[32] R. Aharon Rakeffet provides another picture from this particular visit of R. Ovadiah. See The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, vol. 2, in the pictures that begin after p. 135, available here. I thank R. Yissachar Dov Hoffman for providing this information as well. He also called my attention to the following additional picture of the Rav and R. Ovadiah from this visit, taken from here.