David Sassoon, Bibliophile Par Excellence

 David Sassoon,
Bibliophile Par Excellence
By Dr. Pearl Herzog
The article below is an annotated version
of an article that appeared in the Inyan Magazine of HaModia, dated July 16,
2014.

Harav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski addressed him as
“Hanaggid” (The Prince).[1] The Michtav MeEliyahu (Rabbi
Eliyahu Dessler) came to his home to privately tutor his only son.[2] Named
after his grandfather, the founder of the Sassoon dynasty, David Sassoon was an
outstanding Talmid Chochom, whose tremendous collection of sefarim and
manuscripts, on which he expended much time and money, has enhanced the study
of every branch of Torah to this day.  

Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), the primary
port city in India is home to more than twelve million people. The city’s
largest fishing market is located at Sassoon Docks, one of the few docks open
to the public. It was the creation of Albert Sassoon, a member of the dynasty
known as the Rothschild’s of the East. who had built the Docks through land
reclamation (creating land out of the sea).[3] In 1869 when the Suez Canal
opened and merchant ships could travel between Europe and Asia without the need
to circumnavigate around Africa, it was imperative, in Albert Sassoon’s view,
that India have a dock for ships to load and unload goods. The government of
India which was initially against Albert’s plan, eventually realized the docks
cemented the future of India’s largest port and paid him a pretty penny for it
in addition to being eternally grateful.
Albert Sassoon, who was knighted by Queen
Victoria of England, was the son of David Sassoon, the founder of the Sassoon
dynasty who had laid the foundation in India, of a vast mercantile empire with
branches in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Turkey, Japan, Persia, and England, In the
words of a contemporary: “Silver, and gold, silks, gums and spices, opium,
cotton wool and wheat – whatever moved over land and sea felt the hand and bore
the mark of Sassoon and Company.”[4]
David Sassoon would always attribute his great
success to the fact that he would strictly observe the laws of Maaser.  David’s father Saleh Sassoon (mother Amam
Gabbai) was a wealthy businessman, chief treasurer to the pashas (the governors
of Baghdad) from 1781 to 1817 and leader of the city’s Jewish community.
Following increasing persecution of Baghdad’s Jews by Daud Pasha, the family
moved to Mumbai via Persia.
The Sasson family traced its Yichus back
to Shefatyah, the fifth son of Dovid HaMelech. When exiled to Spain the family
called itself Ibn Shoshana (son of a rose) which later became Ibn Sassoon (son
of Happiness).[5]
Magnanimous philanthropists, the family
supported many Torah institutions, built shuls, hospitals, Mikvaos and
helped employ many Jews.
Albert Sassoon was surprised one day when his 34
year old single half-brother Solomon Sassoon, expressed his interest in
marrying Albert’s granddaughter, Pircha (Flora) Gabbai. Solomon had been on a
business trip to China and had stopped for a business meeting at the Bombay
office. It was there he met for the first time his 17 year old great niece, and
was impressed with her knowledge of Hebrew, French, German, English, Hindustani
and Arabic as well as the fact that she had been taught Tanach and Yahadus
in private lessons given to her by Rabbonim.[6]
Albert loved the idea. The shidduch was
arranged and the couple had three children, two daughters Rachel and Mazel Tov
and their middle child, a son, David born to them in 1880. Shlomo and Flora’s
palatial home in Bombay was called Nepean Lodge and had a shul attached to it.
Considered the most Torah minded of the Sassoon brothers, Solomon would recite
all 150 perakim of Sefer Tehillim before leaving for his office every
day. Modest and unassuming, he served as a wonderful influence on his only son.
Young David astonished his parents one day when
at eight years old he traded his toy kite with a young boy for a rare printed
book containing an Arabic translation of the Book of Ruth that was written for
Baghdadi Jews who lived in India.[7] That trade was to be the first item in his
life long pursuit of collecting Jewish books and manuscripts. His interest in
collecting Seforim may have helped soften the pain of losing his father at the
tender age of 14. Solomon David passed away in 1894 leaving a young 35 year old
widow and three children, the youngest of whom was 10.
Because of his delicate health, young David’s
physician recommended that he live away from the city’s heat. Because of this
he spent most of the year at the family villas in Poona or Mahabeshwar,
studying Torah and having private lessons in Persian as well as other secular
subjects from a Munshi.[8]
Instead of being educated at Eton like his
Sassoon cousins, he was sent afterwards to a yeshiva in North London.
Although David learned to use a rifle as a
cadet, his poor health saved him from ever going to battle. Instead the navy
hired him to translate Hebrew and Arabic documents and decode messages
intercepted in the Middle East.
His mother had with her grandfather Albert’s
blessing, taken over her husband’s role in the business in India after he
passed away. But seven years later, when David had reached 21, she decided to
move to London where most of the Sassoon family had relocated.
David had developed into quite a Talmid Chochom
and had inherited his great love of seforim from his great grandfather Farji
Chaim Ben Abdullah Yosef whose large library of Seforim in Basra, Iraq had been
partly destroyed in 1775 by the invading Persians.[9] David decided to devote
his life to collecting Seforim. He explained in his Ohel David, a two volume
catalogue of his Seforim that he printed in 1931 that he assembled a huge
library because he wanted to observe the Mitzvah of writing or acquiring a
Sefer Torah by extending the mitzvah to include all religious literature:
Nevi’im, Kesuvim, Gemarah, etc.

David traveled extensively to Yemen, Germany,
Italy, Syria, China and the Himalayas seeking manuscripts and old Seforim. His
sister Rachel Ezra who by this time lived in Calcutta would alert him about
different valuable manuscripts in India, North Africa and China.[10] He would
also purchase items from the noted bookseller Rabbi David Frankel and from the
famous Orientalist Silvestre de Sacy.

David Sassoon spent ten years negotiating to buy
the Farchi Bible, a fourteenth century beautifully calligraphed and illuminated
Tanach which contained over 1000 pages and more than 350 illustrations. It took
seventeen years for Elisha Crescas of Provence to complete it, which he did in
1383. The name of the Bible is derived from the fact that it once belonged to
the wealthy Syrian Farchi family that had served as bankers and treasury
officials for the Turkish governors. Chaim Farchi, who was involved with Jazzar
Pasha in the defense of Acre against Napoleon in 1799 was the Sefer’s owner.
Almost two decades later, an orphan Muslim that Chaim Farchi helped raise and
get installed as a Turkish leader betrayed his wealthy Jewish benefactor. On
Erev Rosh Chodesh Elul (August, 1817), after having fasted all day, soldiers
suddenly entered his apartment and read him his death-warrant, [Chaim Farchi
was accused among other transgressions of building a shul higher than the
highest Mosque in Acre] and was executed.
The Farchi Bible then came into the possession
of the British Consul in Damascus and was only returned to the family a century
later. Unique about this Bible was that it contained the names of many Biblical
women that are not mentioned in the Torah but in Rabbinic writings such as the
names of the wives of Kayin, Hevel, Shet, Chanoch and Metushelach
etc.[11] It also contains the rules of Vocalization and Masoretic notes from
Ben Asher’s Dikdukei Ha’Teamim. The interesting illustrations which do
not show any human figures include Noah’s ark, the Mishkan and of the
city of Yericho with seven walls.
In 1902, a year after he moved to London with
his mother and sister, Dovid Sassoon purchased in Egypt several manuscripts
that had been discovered in the Cairo Geniza six years earlier. These
included an extremely early fragment of the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah which
contained the Rambam’s own glosses and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsir, a
Judeo-Arabic translation on Chumash Bamidbar.
The late Rabbi Dr. Tzi M. Rabinowicz, son of the
previous Biale Rebbe and author of more than 10 books including the Encyclopedia
of Hassidism visited the Sassoon 
library in 1966 and contributed an article at that time entitled “The
Sassoon Treasures” to Jewish Life magazine.[12] He stated that when visiting
the library of Rabbi Solomon David Sassoon, (David was no longer alive and the
library seems to have passed on to his son Shlomo) he thought of the pasuk
“Shal Naaleich me’al raglecha …. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet for the
place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” He describes it as the world’s
greatest private collection of priceless Sifrei Torah, incunabula, manuscripts
and unpublished writings that cover a period of nearly a thousand years. He
writes that a student of art can feast his eyes on exquisitely illuminated
manuscripts, Genizah fragments, Machzorim, Haggadoth, Ketuboth and important
documents.
David Sassoon wrote a diary in Hebrew entitled Massaei
Bavel[13] when he travelled in 1910 with his mother and sister Mazel Tov,
from Bombay to Basra stopping off at Baghdad.
The following is an English translation of an
excerpt of his dairy by Rabbi Aharon Bassous:
Tuesday Sept. 20
At 7:00 am we reached AL
Qurna where the Tigris and Euphrates unite. Tradition has it that the Garden of
Eden was here! We rested for 10 minutes. Continuing on our journey to Baghdad
we passed in the afternoon a building which is traditionally the grave of Ezra
HaSofer or Al Ezair in Arabic.
On the outside the grave
looks like the dome of a mosque and is covered with glazed blue tiles. We went
inside to visit. On entering the town we were in a large chamber leading to the
synagogue and grave. Before entering the building we were told to remove our
shoes. On top of the grave is a large tomb made from wood. Every Jewish visitor
lights a lamp and says: I am lighting this lamp in honor of our master Ezra the
scribe, after which he circles the grave and kisses it. Many give money for
someone to bless them at the grave. Even non-Jews, come there to pray.
Several days earlier he wrote that while in
Basra he was able to purchase some manuscripts but not old ones. One of them
called Megillat Paras was read every year on the 2nd day of Nisan because a of
great miracle that happened at Basra.
A very important acquisition David Sassoon made
in Sept. 1923 was the Diwan of Shmuel HaNagid which Oxford University Press
published with an introduction by Sasson in 1924. The manuscript which Sassoon
acquired in Aleppo (Aram Tzova), was copied in 1584-1585 by an Italian rabbi
Tam Ben Gedaliah ibn Yachya. It contained 1743 poems, of which 1500 were
previously unknown. In the manuscript is a poem about the earthquake and
eclipse of the year 1047 and a eulogy on the death of the Gaon Hai ben David
(939-1038) the last gaon of Pumbeditha.
In Cecil Roth: Historian Without Tears[14]
the late Irene Roth writes about  David
Sasson that he was a noted Hebraist and 
bibliophile and maintained a magnificent library of rare manuscripts
which was always open to her husband, the Oxford Historian. Incidentally Cecil
Roth, in his book “The Sassoon Dynasty,” calls David Sassoon a
scholar and writer of no mean distinction.
David Sasson also authored The History of the
Jews of Baghdad.[15]
In addition to constantly expanding his library
he would help his mother Flora answer thousands of letters from all over the
world requesting tzedkaka for Hachnasas Kallah, Yeshivos, Pidyon
Shevuyim, and other Jewish causes including requests to help print
seforim.[16]
In the sefer Ohr Elchonon its author A
Souraski,[17] writes that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski sent a letter to the
Prince (Nagid) David Sassoon that he should organize in London a vaad  devoted 
to the selling of Osiyos for  a
Sefer Torah in commemoration of the late Chafetz Chaim.
David was married to Sarah Selina Prins, the
daughter of Moshe Meir Ben Rabbi Eliezer Lippman Prins, a diamond merchant and
Talmid Chochom from Amsterdam who also owned a magnificent library.
In the Sefer “Parnas LeDoro: Hitkatvut
Eliezer Lipman Prinz Im Chachmei Doro” by Meir Herskovics[18] a letter
by Rabbi Eliezer Prinz to his grandson David Sassoon, the son-in-law of his
eldest son Moshe, he writes that he has difficulty in understanding the
commentary of Ramban on Bereishis 2:9, because when he examined different
girsaos, a word was spelled differently and it is evident that the scribe made
an error. Could David please check his different manuscripts to determine the
correct girsa.

David Sasson was not
only a great Talmid Chochom himself but he hired Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler author
of Michtav Eliyahu to learn with his son Solomon in 1928 at the
suggestion of Dayan Shmuel Yitzchok Hillman. Rabbi Solomon Sassoon, who
continued in his father’s footsteps in collecting seforim, developed into a
great Talmid Chochom who turned down the Israeli government twice when it asked
him to serve as Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel.[19]

By the time David Sassoon passed away in 1942 he
had amassed about 1300 items in his library. Sadly the collection has been
dispersed sold at a number of Sotheby auctions, beginning with one in Zurich in
1975. A New York Times article[20] describing the fourth Sassoon manuscript
collection in 1994 states that in the past decade the sales were due to satisfy
the estate’s British tax obligations. Nevertheless, thanks to David Sassoon,
universities and libraries around the world can continue to enhance Jewish
scholarship through the efforts of David Sassoon. Yehi Zichro Mevorach.









































Notes:
[1]
Aaron Souraski, Ohr Elchanan , 
2, p. 74.
[2] Rosenblum, Jonathan, Rabbi Dessler: The
Life and Impact of Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, the Michtav Me’Eliyahu,
Mesorah Publications,  Artscroll 2000
NY.,  p 144.
[3] Roth, Cecil, The Sassoon Dynasty,
Robert Hale Limited, London, 1941 p. 80.
[4] Jackson, Stanley, The Sassoons, EP
Dutton Inc., NY 1968 p. 30.
[5] Ibid. page 2
[6] Breger, Jennifer, “Flora Sassoon”
entry in Jewish Women’s Archive.
[7] Jackson, p. 104. Also see Introduction to
Sotheby Catalogue “Seventy-Six important Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts
from the Library of the late David Solomon Sassoon,” London June 21, 1994
.The latter was the fifth Sotheby sale of manuscripts from the collection of
David Sassoon, the previous sales took place in Zurich 1975 and1978 and in New
York, in 1981 and 1984.
[8] Ibid. Jackson,  p.105.
[9] Rabinowicz, Harry, The Sassoon Treasures,
Jewish Life Jan.-Feb. 1966 p.45.
[10] Jackson, p.158.
[11] David Sassoon, Ohel David, Oxford
University Press, 1932, p. 6.
[12] Shevat-Adar 5726, Jan.-Feb. 1966 issue
pp.42-48.
[13] Information from his travel diary, was
incorporated later in his, A History of the Jews in Baghdad (Letchworth
1949) and this diary was later edited and published in Hebrew by M. Benayahu in
1955, after its author’s death (Massei Bavel, Jerusalem 1955).
[14] Cecil Roth: Historian without Tears
Sepher, Hermon Press, N.Y., 1982, p. 92
[15] See note 13
[16] See Nachalat Avot: Asufat Genazim MiBeit
Mishpachat Sassoon, for a treasure trove of letters soliticing Tzedokoh
from many Gedolim. This sefer includes Teshuvot, Michtavim Tefillot and
Minhagim and was published by Yad Samuel Franco, 5767, Machon “Ahavat
Shalom,” Yerushalayim.
[17] p. 74.
[18] pp. 411-415.
[19] Rav Dessler, pp 145-.146.

[20] Dec. 5, 1984, “Sassoon Judaica Sold at
Sotheby’s”.


Legacy Judaica Auction, Cremation, R. Kook, and Other Items

Legacy Judaica is holding an auction on Monday, September 23rd, and a few items of note.  The Viennese Schmidt press produced two books with rather striking portraits.  One of R. Shmuel Eidels, Maharsha, and other of R. Yitzkah Alfasi, Rif, which is at lot 54.  Rif is depicted wearing robes and a turban with a long white beard.  Of course, there are no contemporaneous portraits of Rif, and this is a 19th century creation.  (For more on rabbinic portraits see Cohen, Jewish Icons, 114-153).

 

The first edition of R. Yitzhak Hutner’s, Torat ha-Nazir, contains three approbations from R. Chaim Ozer, R. Avraham Shapiro (Dvar Avraham), and R. Kook.  The next edition omits all three, presumably to avoid including R. Kook’s.  Although later reprints include just R. Chaim Ozer’s, leaving out the page that contains the Dvar Avraham’s and R. Kook’s letters (for example, the copy on Hebrewbooks). (See Marc Shapiro, Changing the Immutable, 157-160, and Eitam Henkin, “Historical Revisionism by the families of R. Kook’s Disciples:  Three Case Studies,” in Hakirah.)’

 

The polemical offerings include the Berlin 1905 book, Hayyei Olam, (lot 74) that opposes cremation of Jewish bodies.  At the turn of the twentieth century the issue of cremation was debated among Jews, with the rabbis of Hamburg and Altona having opposing views.  Hayei Olam, written by R. Lerner, the rabbi of Altona was against the practice and collects numerous other letters from sympathetic rabbis.  On the other side, R. Arentreu, in Or ha-Emet, and R. Shimon Tzvi Deutsch, in Heker Halakha, defended the practice.  (For more on the issue, see the entries for these works in Shmuel Glick’s Kuntres ha-Teshuvot ha-Hadash and Michael Heiger’s article in Halakhot ve-Aggadadot).

 

For a more recent controversial book, lot 80 is Making of a Godol, of the recently passed R. Nosson Kamenetsky.  We have discussed this book and its editions and the book, Anatomy of a Ban, which documents the controversy here

For those interested in bibliomancy, the edition of Tanakh recommended for the goral ha-Gra is at lot 123.  Of note is that this edition has two title pages in Hebrew and Latin, and likely not intended for a Jewish audience.

For one of the more bizarre travelogues, it is hard to surpass Sefer ha-Brit ha-Hadasha im ha-Nehar Sambatyyon be-Medinat China (lot 141).  After receiving permission from President McKinley, Uziel Haga accompanied US military forces in China for purposes of surveying the customs and life of Chinese Jews. Another lot of American Judaica, lot 138, is a collection of 10 works from R. Yekusiel Yehuda Greenwald.  R. Greenwald was a prolific author who wrote on many diverse topics. He is perhaps most well known for his book on the laws of mourning, Kol Bo Aveilut, but also wrote books on R. Yonathan Eiybschitz, the reform movement, and the Palestinian Talmud, and was a rabbi in Columbus, Ohio after emigrating from Hungary.

There is a well-known if an inaccurate story that on Yom Kippur, during a cholera epidemic, R. Yisrael Salanter wanted to ensure that those who needed to would eat.  So he got up on the bimah in the Great Synagogue of Vilna and made Kiddush and ate cake.  Although the veracity of the story has been questioned, with an eyewitness reporting that R. Yisrael announced from the bimah that those who needed to eat could do so without first asking their doctor but he ate nothing.  (See Yaakov Mark, Be-Mihitzatam shel Gedolim 68).  Lot 197 is a document from R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, author of Kitav veha-Kabbalah, instructing women to remain at home and not attend synagogue for fear of spreading communicable diseases. For more on cholera, Yom Kippur, and R. Yisrael Salanter, see Eliezer Marmalstein, “Eating on Yom Kippur during Epidemics — Cholera — R. Yisrael Salanter’s Permissive Stance and those who Opposed Him,” Kovets Ets Hayyim, (Bobov), vol. 7, 273-294 (Hebrew).



Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 2

Some Assorted Comments and a Selection from my Memoir, part 2
by Marc B. Shapiro
1. In a recent Jewish Action (Summer 2009), p. 21, Elli Fischer writes:
Brandeis University has been enclosed by an eruv for thirty years, longer than any other campus not adjacent to an established Jewish community. Since Brandeis is a Jewish institution, the eruv is funded by the university (as opposed to the students). . . . Rabbi David Fine, who graduated from Brandeis in the mid-1980’s, recalls checking the eruv as a student. . . . The first two JLIC rabbis to serve at Brandeis, Todd Berman and Aharon Frazer, each implemented minor upgrades to the eruv.

 

This gives me the opportunity to correct some errors and tell part of the story of the Brandeis Orthodox community. The eruv was first established in the 1982-1983 school year, when R. Meir Sendor was the Orthodox advisor. (Sendor is currently the rabbi of Young Israel of Sharon and is unusual in that he is both an academic scholar of Kabbalah, with a PhD from Harvard,[1] and also involved in Kabbalah from the spiritual side.) Rabbi Sendor informs me that Rabbi Yehudah Kelemer was the initial halakhic advisor, and Rabbi Shimon Eider was later brought in to be the official rav ha-machshir. (R. Eider later helped in putting up the eruv in Sharon, which was the first eruv in New England.)
When I arrived in Brandeis in the fall of 1985 we did not carry on Shabbat. (Contrary to the Jewish Action article, David Fine didn’t arrive at Brandeis until two years later.) I assume that due to some structural changes on campus, the eruv was no longer functional. During that academic year, Rabbi Eider returned, did what needed to be done, and the eruv was once again kosher. At this time, R. Yaakov Lazaros, a Chabad rabbi in Framingham (with semichah from R. Moshe Feinstein), was the Orthodox advisor.
The university paid (and I assume still pays) for the eruv’s upkeep, but this has nothing to do with Brandeis supposedly being a Jewish institution. In fact, it is not a Jewish institution. Brandeis paid because it saw this as an important service to the Orthodox community. The university has expanded since the 1980’s so that is probably why changes to the eruv had to be made. I don’t like the word “upgrade” that Fischer used, because “upgrade” means to improve the quality of something, and I don’t think that Rabbi Eider’s eruv needed to be improved.
When one speaks of Orthodox life at Brandeis, a lot of credit must go to Rabbi Albert Axelrad, who was the Reform Hillel rabbi at Brandeis. He is someone who over time I came to admire greatly, even though our religious outlooks were so very different. What Weinberg jokingly said about another Reform rabbi applies equally to Axelrad: He is a “hillul ha-shem,” (hillul ha-shem in quotation marks!) because he shows that “one can be an upstanding and noble man, full of the spirit of love for Israel, its Torah, and its language,” even if one is not a halakhic Jew.[2]
In ways that people don’t realize, Axelrad greatly assisted Orthodox growth on campus, and today Brandeis has a very large Orthodox contingent.[3] It was Axelrad who made sure that there would be an Orthodox advisor on campus, paid for from the Hillel budget. Yet despite his leaning over backwards to help the Orthodox, there were always those in the Orthodox community who had negative feelings towards him, not only ideologically, but also personally. These were people who came from yeshivot and had never had any contact with a Reform rabbi, and here was one who performed intermarriages. Axelrad had also been involved in some leftist causes and has the dubious distinction of having been officially put into herem, ceremony and all, by Rabbi Marvin Antelman. He shared this honor with the entire membership of the New Jewish Agenda, whom Antelman also placed under herem. (I mentioned Antelman in a previous installment and hope to return to him as his books are deserving of their own post.)
Rabbi Lazaros was only at Brandeis for one year and he was followed by Rabbi Marc Gopin. Those who saw the video on the Rav will probably remember Gopin as he has a few appearances in it. At the time he was working on his dissertation, which focuses on Samuel David Luzzatto.[4] He has also published a nice article on Elijah Benamozegh.[5] Since then he has made an international reputation for himself in the area of conflict resolution, travelling widely and publishing a number of books.[6]
Gopin was followed by another rabbi, a RIETS graduate, who would have been very good for the community in another ten years. But at this time he was too much to the right for them. The community had always been a somewhat liberal place. I recall the outrage among many when R. Moshe Dovid Tendler came to campus and expressed his feelings about homosexuality. There was the same outrage when the new campus rabbi said similar things. (Shmuley Boteach or R. Chaim Rapoport would have been more in line with the students’ feelings.) The following should give a further sense of the liberal nature of the community: The practice on Shabbat morning when taking the Torah out of the ark was for the hazan to carry it through the women’s section. This struck everyone as a very nice thing to do, and although it is not done at the typical synagogue, college is a very different place. Another example of how college differs from the “real world” is that during Shabbat morning services women routinely give divrei Torah, yet this is not something that most “regular” shuls are willing to allow.
When Rabbi Lazaros was the Orthodox advisor he ruled that the practice of carrying the Torah on the women’s side was forbidden. From the way he explained his decision I understood that the major issue wasn’t carrying the Torah on the woman’s side per se, but rather women kissing the Torah. As he was the rav, we had to listen to him, even on the Shabbatot that he was not there. However, in an act of rebellion the community made a decision that when the Torah was taken out of the ark the hazan, who now could not walk around the women’s side, would also not walk around the men’s side. He would bring the Torah right to the bimah. When the Torah was returned to the ark the hazan walked to the front of the synagogue and sang Mizmor le-David, once again without walking around the men’s side. The following year, with the arrival of a new Orthodox advisor, the community revived the old practice of carrying the Torah on the women’s side.
When I was the Orthodox advisor in the early 1990’s the Orthodox culture on campus had changed, and the situation with carrying the Torah was exactly reversed from what it had been in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s it was the students, or rather some students, who wanted to stop carrying the Torah on the women’s side. They didn’t think that an Orthodox shul could have such a practice. My position was that the minhag had to remain the way it was. At that time there was a very dynamic Ramah-type minyan and if the Orthodox were seen as too close-minded we would lose people to the Conservative minyan. In fact, it was precisely because of the liberal nature of our minyan that many non-Orthodox were attracted to it, and a number of students adopted an observant lifestyle while at Brandeis. While some students, coming to Brandeis after a year in Israel, wanted the minyan to be just like their shul in Teaneck and the Five Towns, the truth was that the minyan, to be successful, had to be run like an out of town shul.
This was not the only time I felt that for the sake of the wider appeal of the Orthodox community I had to make decisions that got some people upset. On Friday night there was a communal meal for all the different denominations. Often a woman would say kiddush. After that everyone could, of course, make their own kiddush. But there were some people who wanted to make a big deal about the women saying kiddush, and were also saying that men are not yotze with this, no matter which woman is reciting the kiddush. At the same time that this was happening, there were also those in the non-Orthodox groups who wanted to start having women lead the communal birkat ha-mazon. Until then, out of deference to the Orthodox, only a man led it.
We have a talmudic principle that if you try to grab too much you will end up with nothing, so I had to make a choice. The real halakhic issue here was birkat ha-mazon, as a woman cannot be motzi a man.[7] Therefore, I told the students that it was OK for the women to make kiddush but not birkat ha-mazon, and anyone who wanted to should make his own kiddush. This compromise was accepted. A year prior to this, before I was working at Brandeis, I had been wondering about this issue and asked R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin if it was permitted for a woman to say kiddush for a man. He replied in the affirmative. Shortly after receiving his answer, the same issue became pressing at Harvard Hillel. I told the Orthodox rabbi at Harvard, Harry Sinoff, what the practice at Brandeis was and that he might want to consult with R. Henkin. This is the responsum R. Henkin wrote, published here for the first time. (See also Bnei Vanim, vol. 2, pp. 40-41.)

I myself wrote a short Hebrew “mini-responsum” dealing with women, kiddush, and birkat ha-mazon. It was taped to the wall of the campus beit midrash, but with the move to the right, I am sure that not too long after my departure the responsum came down.
I just mentioned the Brandeis beit midrash, which it itself significant. Other than Brandeis, I don’t know if there is another secular university in the world that has a beit midrash in a university building. When the beit midrash was established in the early 1990’s it was a great achievement. It was an entirely student led project, but again, Rabbi Axelrad’s involvement, behind the scenes, was crucial. He spoke at the beit midrash dedication, as did the Boston Rosh Kollel.
There were also some minor conflicts related to the beit midrash. Although it was the Orthodox students who arranged for it, it was obviously something that all students could be part of. The question came up of what type of books should be stocked there. My feeling was that since the library had all the scholarly and academic books, there was no reason for these sorts of texts to be in the beit midrash.
Another issue arose with the Boston kollel. They had recently become involved with Brandeis students as part of their outreach. One of the kollel guys, who was having a great influence on the students, wanted to start a gemara shiur on campus. This was fabulous. He wanted to give the shiur in the beit midrash, which was the natural place. However, he said that he could only do it if no women were allowed into the beit midrash during this time (even if they were not participating in the shiur). One of the women students complained to me, and I agreed that this was improper. The beit midrash was established for all students and must be open 24 hours a day for everyone. We could not have a situation where, like a pool, the beit midrash is closed to women for certain hours. It also went against the ethos of the community to declare that women are barred from attending certain classes. I told the male students who were organizing the shiur that it would have to take place somewhere else, and that is what happened.
Right when we were having the discussions one of the students drove to Brookline to attend Prof. Isadore (R. Yitzhak) Twersky’s gemara shiur, and he came back reporting that there was a woman in attendance. If the Talner Rebbe welcomed women to his shiur, were the Brandeis students supposed to be more “frum”? For those who have never seen a picture of my late teacher, who was also the son-in-law of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, here he is:

 

There was another time when the Boston Rosh Kollel gave a decision to some of the students that I felt could drive away the less religious if it was adopted by the community as a whole. Since there were students who thought that the Rosh Kollel should be regarded as the halakhic authority for the community, I was in a difficult situation. This was especially so as I myself had asked him questions in the past, so it would not be an easy thing to reject his ruling in this case. I consulted a well-known haredi posek with whom I had discussed other matters, including an issue of possible mamzerut that came up on campus. He agreed with my position but said that he could not put his decision in writing.
I know that some people will find this objectionable, but it never bothered me. Why should I care if he put it in writing? He knew that if he did he might be attacked. Given the choice between no pesak (if it has to be in writing) or an oral pesak, obviously the latter is preferable. Although at the time I told people who gave the pesak (and anyone who wanted to could call him up to confirm it), revealing it on this blog would, I think, fall into the category of “putting it in writing.” This posek is still functioning, and if he was afraid of being attacked fifteen years ago, all the more so today. (There are reasons why I am being vague about the particulars of the pesak.)
Returning to the Brandeis beit midrash, Prof. Marvin Fox also spoke at its dedication. This was significant as it was the first time, in my memory, that the students took advantage of this great scholar and talmid hakham.[8] There was such a disconnect at Brandeis between the academic life and the religious life that regarding the latter we all overlooked the people in our midst, those who were teaching us in the classroom. I too regret not speaking to Fox in greater detail. For example, having lived in Columbus, Ohio he knew R. Leopold Greenwald very well, and yet other than hearing one or two stories about him from Fox, I never took the time to find out more. Fox also knew Chaim Bloch, the great rabbinic forger. (Greenwald and Bloch were themselves good friends.) He told me once that there was a lot he could say about Bloch, and yet I was foolish and never took advantage of this.
After Fox’s death I discovered a letter from him to Bloch in which he explains how it happened that Greenwald’s great library ended up at the Hebrew Union College. He also tells us the tragic fate of Greenwald’s huge collection of letters, letters that he received from gedolim and scholars over the course of many decades. This must have been one of the largest and most interesting collections in the world, full of priceless material which should have been given to a library so a Greenwald archive could be established. Among these papers were also to be found manuscripts from Greenwald’s own pen that had not yet been published. It was perhaps with this in mind that Fox told me very firmly, at the Brandeis beit midrash dedication, not to let the letters of Weinberg out of my hands. He was convinced that some people would want to destroy them, or at the very least make sure they were not made public.
Here is Fox’s letter to Bloch, courtesy of the Leo Baeck Institute, New York[9]:

Returning to the RIETS graduate who was the Orthodox advisor following Gopin, there were a few issues that created problems. Yet the straw that broke the camel’s back was that, in accordance with R. Moshe Feinstein’s pesak, he would not give an aliyah to Rabbi Axelrad. Axelrad’s practice was to come to the Orthodox minyan once a year. Not giving him an aliyah was something that simply wouldn’t fly at Brandeis. It was not a question of Axelrad being concerned about his kavod. I am certain that he did not take personal offense. But he was very concerned about what appeared to be a growing split in the community, a community that had always gotten along so well. To publicly refuse to give the Hillel rabbi an aliyah would give the Orthodox community a sectarian flavor very much removed from both the Hillel ethos, as well from the majority of Orthodox students as well. It was not surprising, therefore, that this rabbi was let go in the middle of the year. After he was let go he tried to create a separate Orthodox community independent of Hillel. It was to be a real Austrittsgemeinde, and he told us that money would be forthcoming from New York to help us form the new community. Yet none of the students were interested.
R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin’s responsum, Bnei Vanim, vol. 2, no. 9, on whether one can give a Reform rabbi an aliyah, is dealing with the Brandeis situation (and was sent to me). Rabbi Henkin’s responsa have an unfortunate characteristic in that they don’t mention to whom he is writing, or give other identifying details. Without this blog post, future historians would have had no way of knowing which of the many American campuses he was referring to. Think of how much we learn about the history of Orthodoxy in America from R. Moshe Feinstein’s responsa. We see him answering questions to Canton, Berkeley and all sorts of other places. Knowing to where he is writing is vital for getting a sense not only of Orthodoxy of the time, but of the responsum itself, since his ruling for an out-of-the way place cannot always be applied when dealing with a center of Jewish life. More leniencies are obviously found in the former. With regard to Bnei Vanim, since R. Henkin doesn’t tell us to whom he is writing, when he is offering comments on another’s work we have no way of identifying this text if we want to get a better sense of the opposing position. (Other poskim have also published responsa that deal with Brandeis, and I will discuss them in a future post.)
I think readers might also find the following story interesting, from my tenure as Orthodox advisor at Brandeis. Every Friday night all the different groups on campus would get together for an oneg, at which there would be a speaker. Out of respect for the Orthodox a microphone was never used, which wasn’t really an issue since the onegs were not that big. However, it so happened that Hillel had an opportunity to bring in Dr. Ruth Westheimer[10] to speak on Friday night. She wasn’t going to speak about any sexual matters, but about her early years in Germany and her family that was killed.
This was at the height of Dr. Ruth’s fame, and there was going to be a huge crowd to come hear her. Hillel had decided to break with tradition and use a microphone at the event, which was to be held in a hall much larger than was usually used. I was told that Dr. Ruth actually insisted on the microphone, and the Hillel leadership didn’t feel like they could refuse. Before continuing with the story, let me go back a few years and tell how I, and my classmates, first heard of Dr. Ruth, because I think it says something about how yeshiva administrators are sometimes very foolish. I still remember how one day on the bus all the talk was about how the administration of Bruriah High School – the girl’s school of the Jewish Educational Center in Elizabeth, where I was a student – had sent out a letter to all parents telling them about a very dangerous radio show called “Sexually Speaking” that was on very late on Sunday night. The parents were told to make sure that their daughters didn’t listen to it—as if a parent can control what a teenager does with her radio in the privacy of her room. It was an era before computers, when we all listened to radio. (I am sure many readers remember the days when 770 WABC played music.)
Now anyone should realize that the perfect way to bring teenagers to do something is to tell them that they can’t do it. Although perhaps none of the Bruriah students had ever even heard of the show, upon receipt of this letter they all were determined to find out what the administration wanted to keep them away from. Not only that, but on the bus, the day after the letter was received, they told all the boys about this strange letter. None of us had ever heard of Dr. Ruth, and our school never sent out a warning letter to parents. Yet you can be sure that after hearing the news we too were curious. It happens that some students found Dr. Ruth so funny and interesting that they listened to her while they were on the phone together. The whole novelty was about an older Jewish woman, with a strong accent, speaking so openly about the things people don’t usually speak about.
Returning to the story, I was now put in a difficult situation, since the Orthodox community could not support an event that involved Sabbath violation. I told this to the Hillel administration and I told the students that I would not be going and it was not something that the Orthodox community could be part of. I remained in the dining room with those students who chose to stay, and those who wanted to hear Dr. Ruth went upstairs, where the event was taking place. Imagine my surprise when someone sits down next to me, and lo and behold, it is Dr. Ruth. She had obviously been told that there was some controversy about her speaking on the microphone, and she wanted to come speak to me. She was extremely apologetic, and said that unfortunately she needs the microphone, otherwise no one would be able to hear her. She also told me that she was sorry that this created problems for the Orthodox community. Dr. Ruth stayed with us for about ten minutes or so, and even bentched together with us (though though she hadn’t eaten anything!). She told me that she remembered singing the standard tune to the first paragraph of birkat hamazon when she was a child in Germany. I don’t know if she had sung it since.
One other event is worth recalling, and this took place when I was an undergraduate. It involved a dispute between me and my friend David Bernstein, and I would be curious to hear what readers have to say.[11] We decided to create an organization so we could invite in speakers. In order to get money from the university, we had to be officially chartered, so in our senior year we created the Brandeis chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. It had exactly two members (we had no interest in having any others join), and lasted for only one year (i.e., until we graduated). I was a little surprised when the Brandeis student senate agreed to charter us and give us money, but hey, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. (Had Matthew Brooks not already graduated, we probably would have let him join our little club. Brooks is now the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. See here)
One of our events was sponsoring a debate between my father, Edward S. Shapiro, and Stephen S. Whitfield on what political ideology was more in line with Jewish interests. This had a very large turn-out and the problem was that Whitfield, although a Democrat, is more of a Truman or Kennedy Democrat. Every time my father cited some nonsensical statement by a Democratic figure, Whitlfield agreed that it was nonsense, so they ended up agreeing about as much as they disagreed. A debate isn’t much fun unless one of the speakers is prepared to defend what others regard as indefensible (e.g., anyone looking to defend ACORN?).
For those who don’t know, Whitfield is one of the leading experts on American Jewish culture, having written an enormous amount on the topic. My father started off as a general historian, but has also written a great deal on American Jewish history. I can’t help thinking that the reason the New York Times never reviewed his book on the Crown Heights Riots[12] – which was a National Jewish Book Award Finalist – was that they didn’t want to revisit the issue. It was, after all, the great embarrassment of the Dinkins administration, and the symbol of Democratic failure in New York City, ushering in the Giuliani era. Yet it was, precisely for these reasons, one of the most important events in recent New York City history, and one would think that the New York Times would have thought it worthwhile to review such a book. But no, they let it pass without comment.
We also brought in Dinesh D’Souza to speak. This was before he had published any of his books. In fact, I had never even heard of him when Bernstein suggested we bring him. His talk, though sparsely attended, was quite good. My dispute with Bernstein happened regarding our next speaker. I wanted to bring Lew Lehrman to speak. He was a prominent conservative who almost became governor of New York. He also had some honorary role in Young Americans for Freedom. Bernstein strongly disagreed. He argued that since Lehrman had converted to Catholicism a few years prior, he was not the sort of person we should be asking to speak. Although Bernstein was not Orthodox, that was a big issue for him and I agreed to drop the idea. But from my perspective, the fact that Lehrman had left the fold had no relevance for me in terms of having him speak. I wasn’t giving him an honor or asking him to speak on his theology. I wanted to hear him talk about economic matters and the situation in Nicaragua, and didn’t think that his personal life was of any relevance.
Although the cases are obviously not identical, there was a time when many people would have reacted the same way to inviting an intermarried speaker, and my response would have been the same. Since there is such a high intermarriage rate, one day most of us will have someone running for Congress in our district who is intermarried (some already have such representatives), just like most of us already know people, or have family members, who are intermarried. I don’t think this should have any relevance on my vote. In fact, I don’t think it should have any relevance on anything. Two generations ago, anyone who intermarried realized that he was doing something very much at odds with Jewish life and upbringing. Today, hardly anyone who grows up in the non-Orthodox world thinks that it is an issue at all, and it is only a matter of time before the Conservative movement accepts intermarriage. They have no choice, as their congregations are full of people whose children intermarry, and they can’t go on forever taking a hard line on this issue. Not only do they lose the intermarried children, they often lose the parents when the rabbi tells his long-time congregants that he is sorry but he can’t perform the wedding of their children or even announce it in the synagogue newsletter. I predict that within ten years we will see Conservative rabbis doing intermarriages.
The massive intermarriage rate has also impacted the Orthodox world. A number of years ago R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg stated that he thought that it might be a good idea for a father whose son was going to intermarry to attend the wedding, thus not completely cutting off all ties.[13] Weinberg had known the problems of intermarriage very well, as the son of his good friend R. Shlomo Aronson, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, had married a non-Jewish Russian woman. He also knew Jacob Klatzkin, the brilliant philosopher and Zionist thinker, who was the son of the even more brilliant R. Elijah Klatzkin. How many people know that Jacob Klatzkin intermarried?
According to Gotthard Deutsch, R. Esriel Hildesheimer’s son Levi intermarried.[14] It is hard to imagine that Deutsch, who was Levi’s contemporary, was mistaken with the facts, especially since he was never corrected in succeeding issues of the newspaper in which he published this information. Yet Dr. Meir Hildesheimer has told me that Levi Hildesheimer married the daughter of Abraham Brodsky of Odessa, the well known philanthropist. Levi’s son, Arnold Hildesheimer, was an active Zionist who made his living as a chemist and eventually moved to the Land of Israel. Arnold’s mother was definitely Jewish. Therefore, I don’t know if Deutsch erred or if Levi married twice.. Arnold Hildesheimer’s son was Wolfgang Hildesheimer, an important figure in pre-World War II German literature.
Unfortunately, we have a number of examples of not merely intermarriage of children of great rabbis, but even conversion. The story of the son of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady is well known, and I don’t need to repeat it here. Let me just mention, however, that the man was clearly mentally unbalanced. Michael Bernays, a son of Hakham Isaac Bernays, is probably the most famous apostate from a rabbinic family in modern times, converting seven years after his father’s death. Another son of Hakham Bernays, Jacob, actually sat shiva when this occurred.[15] If we want to look at descendants of great rabbis who converted, then the family tree of R. Akiva Eger has plenty of non-Jews. In fact, a predecessor to R. Akiva Eger as rav of Posen, the Beit Shmuel Aharon, R. Samuel ben Moses Falkenfeld,[16] had a most significant great-grandson, yet he was not Jewish. I refer to none other than Leon von Bilinski.[17] He was Austrian minister of finance and also military governor of Bosnia when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.
I assume the famous Posen family got its name from the city of Posen. R. Gershon Posen, the dayan of Frankfurt’s separatist community, had a grandson who was on the verge of converting to Christianity. Nahum Glatzer describes this young man’s disillusionment with Orthodoxy, and how he tried to talk him out of conversion.[18] (The conversion never took place, and another grandson, R. Raphael Posen, tells me that the more than seventy grandchildren of R. Gershon all remained Orthodox.)
How are Orthodox Jews supposed to relate to those who intermarry, and who typically don’t know any better? Many of us have even been invited to intermarriages. R Yuval Sherlow has stated that while it is not permitted to attend an intermarriage wedding ceremony, there are times (especially when family is involved) that it would be permitted to attend the party.[19] R. Ovadiah Yosef has ruled that it is permitted to give an intermarried man an aliyah,[20] and this opinion is also shared by R. Baruch Avraham Toledano and R. Pinchas Toledano (former Sephardic Av Beit Din of London).[21] I am also told that this is the practice at the Lakewood kiruv minyanim all over the country. This is so despite the fact that the most that R. Moshe Feinstein would permit in such a case is to allow the intermarried man to open and close the Ark.[22] It is actually Aish Hatorah that has done more to “normalize” intermarriage than any other organization in the Orthodox world. Not only does Aish Hatorah do outreach to the intermarried (something we can all appreciate), but they use various intermarried Jewish celebrities in their publicity, and have even honored these people at their events. I am not saying that they are wrong in what they do. After all, the old approach to intermarriage doesn’t work today, and although I find something distasteful about using an intermarried celebrity as the poster-boy to invite people to a Torah class, I see how people can disagree. But about one thing there can be no doubt, and that is that R. Aaron Kotler would be turning over in his grave if he saw what this supposedly haredi organization has done when it comes to tacit acceptance of intermarriage.

Yet we shouldn’t assume that it is only in modern times that intermarried people have been honored by Orthodox Jews. While it would have been unimaginable in previous years to put them on a pedestal the way Aish Hatorah does, there were times that the intermarried man did such great service for the Jewish community that it was only proper to express feelings of gratitude. Adolphe Cremieux is one such example. Although being intermarried, he helped the Jewish community in many ways. One can even say that he is a model for our time, in showing that one can love the Jewish people and sacrifice for them, even after having intermarried. Here is a song written in honor of Cremieux by the noted R. Aaron Fuld of Frankfurt, author of Beit Aharon. It is taken from Judaica Jerusalem auction cataloge of Summer 1997, p. 6.

 

Worse than intermarriage is apostasy, but the same issue came up there also. The apostate Daniel Chwolson staunchly defended his former religion and people. How were the Jews to relate to him? Let me quote Louis Jacobs, The Jewish Religion (Oxford, 1995) pp. 99-100:
When Chwolson celebrated his seventieth birthday, a number of Russian rabbis, in gratitude for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish community, sent him a telegram to wish him many happy returns. Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik was more typical of the standard Jewish abhorrence of apostasy when he refused to participate, saying: ‘I do not send congratulatory telegrams to a meshumad.” The wry remark attributed to Chwolson himself in the following story is probably apocryphal. Chwolson is reported to have said that he became a Christian out of conviction. “Who are you kidding?” said a Jewish friend. “How can you of all people, a learned Jew, be convinced that Christianity is true and Judaism false?” To which Chwolson is supposed to have replied: “I was convinced that it is better to be a professor at the university than to be a Hebrew teacher [melamed] in a small town.”
2. I have seen ads for the soon to be published new RCA Artscroll siddur. It will be interesting to see how the battle shapes up between the Sacks siddur and the new RCA Artscroll. I can’t see how the Sacks siddur is going to make any real headway, as I don’t think many shuls are going to get rid of the Artscroll siddur they have been using for so long, and which does just about everything you need a siddur to do. While the new RCA siddur was in the production stages, R. Asher Lopatin of Chicago sent the following letter to the Siddur Committee. I think it is interesting in that it shows some of the concerns of those on the Orthodox left. Although I haven’t seen the new siddur yet, I don’t think I am going out on too much of a limb to predict that the RCA will not be adopting Lopatin’s proposal. (I thank R. Lopatin for allowing me to publish his letter.[23])

 

The Practice of Saying She’asani Yisrael for the Birchot HaShachar instead of the three “Shelo Asani”s
In Masechet Menachot, 43b (Bavli), Rabbi Meir says that a person, “Adam”, has to (chayav) say three blessings every day: She’asani Yisrael, Shelo Asani Isha and Shelo Asani Bur. There is a note there that it should be Rabbi Yehuda saying this instead of Rabbi Meir, and also on the next line Rav Acha Bar Ya’akov replaces “Shelo Asani Bur” with “Shelo Asani Aved”.
The G’mara questions why we need to say both Shelo Asani Aved and Shelo Asani Isha, but it gives an answer to this question. Rashi, in his second explanation of that answer, on Menachot 44a, says that we need to say both in order to come up with 100 b’rachot. The Bach (O.C 46) argues that the main reason for saying all three is to increase the number of b’rachot we say to 100. He argues that that is the main reason for saying three b’rachot in the negative (shelo asani) instead of one b’racha in the positive (she’asani Yisrael) – basically, if you would say “She’asani Yisrael” then you couldn’t say “Shelo asani aved, isha”. The Aruch HaShulchan (46, yud) paskins as well that if you say She’asani Yisrael, you cannot say the other two negative b’rachot. The Mishna B’rura (46,16) leaves it as a dispute.
Most Rishonim, notably the Rif and the Rambam (according to the G’ra), disagree with our existing girsa of the words of Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Yehuda, and they have the first b’racha in the negative as “Shelo Asani Goy”. This is the standard version in siddurim, nusach Ashkenaz and Sepharad and Edot Hamizrach, with the occasional nusach of “Shelo Asani Nochri” instead of “goy”. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 46, tet) mentions, that there were siddurim – perhaps many of them – that had the b’racha of she’asani Yehudi , but that that is a mistake of the printers, and the Mishna B’rura (46, 15) says that there are several siddurim with “She’asani Yisrael” but that one should not say that as it is also a mistake that of the printers (shibush had’fus).
The Magen Avraham (O.C. 46, yud) and the Haghot Ha’Gra (O.C. 46) interpret the Rama (46, 4) as suggesting that converts should say “She’asani Ger” and the Bach (46) interprets the Rama as suggesting that converts say “She’asani Yehudi” – instead of the negative.
Moreover, the Rosh is in the back of Masechet B’rachot, paragraph #24 (daf 39 in our versions, referring to B’rachot 60a) – upholds the Girsa that we have in Menachot. It’s in rounded brackets in the Rosh, and the Divrei Chamudot on the Rosh doesn’t like it, but it is there. Importantly, the G’ra affirms it is the girsa of the Rosh (and the Tur, which doesn’t appear in our versions) in his Biur HaGra on OH 46:4.
Therefore:
Since many of the Nosei Keilim and the Aruch HaShulchan feel compelled to ask: Why are these b’rachot in the negative (see Taz 46:4 “Rabim makshim…”)?
And since the girsa that we have in our G’marras is She’asani Yisrael, supported by the Rosh and the G’ra
And since even though the Shulchan Aruch rejects our positive girsa of the b’racha, the Rama does support it (in some version) as a legitimate b’racha in certain circumstances – for a convert
And since even those who reject “She’asani Yisrael/Yehudi/Ger” for a convert, (Sh’lah and Bach, see Taz 46, 10), do not reject it because it is not a legitimate nusach, but, rather, because it does not apply to a convert who has made himself a Jew, rather than being created by God as a Jew.
And since the negativity of the three b’rachot causes lots of misunderstandings in shul where many people come from Reform, Conservative or unaffiliated backgrounds – or even from Orthodox backgrounds without perhaps truly understanding the love that Chazal had for all human beings, male, female, Jewish or Gentile
I have asked my shul, Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel Congregation, a shul that does a lot of kiruv, to follow the girsa of the b’racha according to the G’ra and the Rosh, and say, “She’asani Yisrael” and that a woman say “She’asani Yisraelit” instead of “Shelo Asani Goy.”
Once the first b’racha is said in this way, the way it appears in the G’marra Menachot, then we have no choice, based on the rule of ‘safek b’rachot lekula’ and based on the p’sak of the Aruch HaShulchan (from the Bach) , to avoid saying the final two, negative b’rachot of “Shelo Asani Aved” and “Shelo Asani Isha”.
Clearly this helps avoid many of the questions that people ask about the negativity toward “goyim” or “women” that someone who does not understand Chazal do ask. The answers given help, but for a shul dedicated to kiruv, these b’rachot are a big turn off.
On the other hand, the b’racha of “she’asani Yisrael/Yisraelit” is a beautiful b’racha, thanking God for making me Jewish – proud to be Jewish, excited to begin the day as a Yisrael.
In addition, from a philosophical point of view, rather than beginning the day with negative b’rachot, which accentuate the G’mara of “noach lo la’adam shelo nivra” (see Bach 46, then Taz 46, 4), let us begin the day with a positive b’racha “k’mo sha’ar b’rachot shemevarchim al hatova” (Magen Avraham, 46, 9). Not negating the p’sak of “noach lo…”, but just respecting the positive aspects which G’mara Menachot the way we have it preferred.
Homiletically, “She’asani Yisrael” matches very well with B’reishit 32:27: “Vayomer, Shalcheni ki alah hashacher” – see Rashi ad loc where that is referring to Birchot HaShachar of the angels! And then two p’sukim later, what b’racha (“ki im beirachtani”) does Ya’akov get? “Lo Ya’akov ye’ameir shimcha, ki im Yisrael”! There is no better way to bringing these p’sukim to life than by saying birchot hashachar every day the way our G’marra has it: “She’asani Yisrael” – proud as Ya’akov was to receive the name, “Yisrael.”
Finally, Rav Benny Lau, an important Talmid Chacham and leader of Beit Morasha, has told me that he, too, follows this practice of saying “She’asani Yisrael” – and he tells his daughters to say “Yisraelit” – in the morning and having it replace the three negative b’rachot.
At the same time, it is important to emphasize the need to reach 100 b’rachot a day, and to push people to be careful about saying Asher Yatzar when leaving the bathroom, and b’rachot before and after eating, and being in shul as frequently as possible in order to hear chazarat haShatz to more easily reach 100 b’rachot.
I would humbly ask the Committee responsible for the new RCA Artscroll siddur to consider either putting this practice in the siddur itself, as a possible “hanhaga”, or allowing this way of saying birchot Hashachar to appear on the RCA Artscroll siddur web site, to that I can download it and print it up for my shul, and any other shuls interested in this hanhaga can do the same.
Sincerely yours and with wishes of hatzlacha rabba,
Rabbi Asher Lopatin

 

3. Virtually every one of our sages, together with all their brilliance, offer at least one an unusual, sometimes even incomprehensible, idea. Since I am writing this right before Sukkot, here is something to think about when you take the Arba’ah Minim. R. Jacob Ettlinger, the greatest of nineteenth-century German gedolim, writes as follows in his Bikurei Yaakov 651:13. (If you raised this safek in shiur today, the rebbe would think you were joking, but as with even the strangest suggestions, one can often find a true gadol who discusses the issue.)
נסתפקתי אם אנו יושבי אירופא יוצאין בד’ מינין שגדלו באיי אמעריקא ואויסטראליען שיושבין לצדינו ותחתינו, וכן איפכא. שידוע מה שכתבו הטבעים שרגליהם נגד רגלינו, ומה שאין נופלין נגד השמים הוא מפני ששם הבורא כח מושך בארץ. וא”כ המינים שגדלו שם אם נוטלין אצלנו הוא הפוך מדרך גדולתן, שאצלנו גדלו ראשי הלולב וההדס ההם יותר למטה מזנבם. או אי נימא, כיון שנוטל הגדל סמוך לארץ למטה זה מקרי דרך גדילתו, והכי מסתברא.
4. In the latest Hakirah (Summer 2009), p. 134 n. 189, Chaim Landerer quotes my translation of a comment by R. Solomon Judah Rapoport. I didn’t know that Landerer was going to publish my translation, and I answered his e-mail quickly and carelessly. The correct translation is not that Rapoport is “as Catholic as the Pope,” but something even stronger. Frankel says that Shir is “more Catholic than the Pope.” (Thanks to R. Ysoscher Katz who caught the error and alerted me. Also thanks to Rabbi Jonah Sievers who is always helpful in matters concerning German translation. Not being a native speaker, and obviously not familiar with all idioms of the language, every translation I have published has been carefully reviewed by expert translators.)
Speaking of errors, let me also correct something that appears in Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy. This correction has already been taken care of in the more recent editions of the book, but those who have the first or second printing can insert the correction into the volume. How this error came about, I have no idea. I must have been in a daze, and it was only when the book was published that I saw it. On p. 180, beginning line 3 from the top, it states “Might one then be able to say that our great divine Torah cannot endure the conjunction of Torah with so-called secular studies . . .” It should be corrected to say, “Might one then be able to say that our great divine Torah cannot compete with so called secular studies . . .”
There is a popular expression
כשם שאין תבן בלא בר כך אין ספר ללא טעויות.
The internet is so amazing as it allows all of us to correct errors that have appeared in our works, and publicize them, something that was not possible in earlier years. R. Judah Ibn Tibbon wrote to his son, R. Samuel (Iggeret ha-Musar, ed. Korah [Kiryat Sefer, 2007], p. 45):
והטעות שתצא מיד האדם הוא הנתפש עליה ונזכר בה כל ימיו.
In other words, unlike a verbal error which is forgotten, something in print is there forever. Yet today, we can minimize this problem by means of the internet. Rather than be embarrassed by errors we have made, and try to ensure that no one learns of them, we should all welcome the opportunity to point out our errors, so that our works are as perfect as we can make them. This is quite apart from the unseemliness of pointing out the errors of others, but not being prepared to call attention to our own mistakes.
Incidentally, Ibn Tibbon’s work is full of important lessons, but he says one thing that is very problematic. On p. 42 he writes:
.
.ואל תתעקש אתה להחזיק בדעתך אפילו אם תדע שהאמת אתך
What sense does this make? Doesn’t the Torah tell us לא תגורו? Didn’t the Rambam speak his mind no matter who disagreed? In our own day, isn’t R. Ovadiah Yosef fearless in expressing his opinion, no matter how much he is attacked? I posed this question to R. Meir Mazuz and he replied:
זו הערה נכונה. כנראה ר’ שמואל היה עוד רך בשנים וחשש האב שיגרום לו קנאה ושנאה כמו שקרה לר”ש בן גבירול, וגם להגר”ע יוסף שליט”א בבחרותו כשחלק על הבא”ח כידוע. אבל כשאדם כותב ספר חייב לגלות את דעתו (בעדינות ובזהירות) ולא יכוף על האמת פסכתר. ובמשך הזמן תתגלה האמת, כי היא לעולם עומדת.
5. I want to call everyone’s attention to a fascinating new book. Dirshuni, edited by Tamar Biala and Nechamah Weingarten-Mintz, is a book of modern midrashim, written by women. It has been selling very well in Israel and is an exciting genre that deserves its own discussion. Those who want to see some small excerpts can go here.
To order the book you can go here
6. In my last post I mentioned R. Meir Amsel and the memorial volume that recently appeared. I should have also mentioned that his son, R. Eli Amsel, runs the site Virtual Judaica.
7. Finally, I thank everyone who commented and e-mailed me about R. Yerucham Gorelik. There is no question that he was a fascinating man, and an entire post could be devoted to the great stories told about him. It is also true that his relationship with YU was complicated. Let me quote what Dr. Norman Lamm wrote about Gorelik, shortly after his death.
Rabbi Yerucham Gorelick appeared at times to be engaged in some kind of titanic inner struggle. He was a cauldron of activity and movement, of perpetual motion. He was a man of striking, sometimes startling contradictions. He appeared to be moving in different directions simultaneously. He was a man of changing moods, of profound dialectical tensions, although he was at all times an ish ha-emet, a man of unshakeable integrity.
For Dr. Lamm’s article, see here

Notes
[1] “The Emergence of the Provencal Kabbalah : Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commentary on Sefer Yezirah” (1994).
[2] Letter to Samuel Atlas, dated Oct. 16, 1959, published in “Scholars and Friends: Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas,” Torah u-Madda Journal 7 (1997), p. 113.
[3] See R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg’s letter to R. Kook, Iggerot la-Reiyah (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 128
כבר הונח לי בהשתדלותו של רב אחד מרבני העדה הליברלית (דווקא ע”י רב ליברלי של העדה הליברלית, כאלו רוצה הקב”ה לזכות את כל ישראל במעלות שונות שיש בזה מה שאין וכו’).
[4] “The Religious Ethics of Samuel David Luzzatto” (Brandeis University, 1993).
[5] “An Orthodox Embrace of Gentiles? Interfaith Tolerance in the Thought of S. D. Luzzatto and E. Benamozegh,” Modern Judaism 18 (May 1998), pp. 173-195.
[6] See here A few days before his death, Rabbi Meir Kahane spoke at Brandeis. I think it was actually his last public talk before the night he was killed. For a video of Gopin confronting Kahane see here at 24:20, 31:50, and 43:05, and 56. Gopin starts to speak extensively at 1:02:45. The man standing next to Gopin is Dr. Aryeh Cohen, who also briefly served as Orthodox advisor at Brandeis. He now teaches at the American Jewish University. See here.
[7] See Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 199:6-7.
[8] He also had a nice sense of humor. On the first day of class he would come in and write his name on the board as “F-x.”
[9] The letter is found in the Chaim Bloch Collection, AR 7155.
[10] See here.
[11] Bernstein is now a nationally known professor of law. See here.
[12] Crown Heights: Blacks, Jews, and the 1991 Brooklyn Riot (Waltham, 2006).
[13] I have given the information on this to Rabbi Mark Dratch for his paper at the Orthodox Forum on the topic.
[14] See his article in the Jewish Chronicle, June 26, 1914.
[15] See Moshe Gresser, Dual Allegiance: Freud as a Modern Jew (Albany, 1994), p. 73. Hakham Bernays’ grandaughter, Martha (daughter of Berman Bernays) married Sigmund Freud. After they were married, Freud refused to allow her to light Shabbat candles. See ibid., p. 67.
[16] For details on the controversy surrounding Falkenfeld’s selection as rabbi, and how his opponents regarded as an “uncouth Polack” see Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1898), pp. 2-3. When he was rav in Tarnopol, he also had to contend with troublemakers. See R. Solomon Judah Rapoport’s letter in Leopold Greenwald, Toldot Mishpahat Rosenthal (Budapest, 1920), p. 76. For a picture of his tombstone, see here.
I can’t explain why on the tombstone he is referred to as “Moses Samuel,” when it should be Samuel ben Moses. For his biography, see Beit Shmuel Aharon al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 1994), introduction.
[17] See here. My information on Bilinski’s family background comes from Gotthard Deutsch’s article in the Jewish Chronicle, June 26, 1914.
[18] The Memoirs of Nahum N. Glatzer (New York, 1997), pp. 126-128. Although Glatzer left Orthodoxy, in his younger years he studied in R. Salomon Breuer’s yeshiva in Frankfurt, and also with R. Nehemiah Nobel. As such, he understood Orthodoxy very well. Glatzer, who died in 1990, was retired when I came to Brandeis in 1985. To my great regret, I never took the trouble to interview him as I did with Prof. Alexander Altmann, who retired from Brandeis in 1976. On pp. 129-130 of Glatzer’s memoir we find the following, which I am sure will interest many readers of the Seforim blog.
In 1944 Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (called “the Rov” by his followers and admirers) published in Talpiot a major article, “Ish ha-Halakhah” (the Halakhic Personality). The essay, written in a most beautiful Hebrew style, not only claimed for the observance of Jewish law the central place in Jewish life, but denied the—however circumscribed—validity of any other approach. The Halakhah demands a complete control of the Jew, to the exclusion of an emotional state of mind to accompany the halakhc function. There is no rightful place for, or justification of, a state of excitement or religious agitation, say, in the ceremony of blowing the shofar on New Year’s Day; what matters, and matters exclusively, is the proper execution of the ritual.
This exclusion of the emotional side of religion bothered me when I read the essay. I planned a polemic reply but was dissuaded by my colleagues. I happened to visit New York and voiced my feelings to Professor Louis Ginzberg, the great Talmudist. I expected him to agree with me and object to the rigid stand of the Rov. The cautious Ginzberg did not wish to commit himself, or to say something that could be quoted as a criticism of his Talmudic colleague. He, therefore, did not go beyond saying: “I like my whiskey straight,” which was a mild complaint against the Rov’s combination of Halakhah and philosophy. The only reference that could be interepreted as an admission of esthetics into the realm of religion was Ginzberg’s telling of the Gaon of Vilna (brother of Rabbi Abraham, Ginzberg’s forebear in the seventh generation), who near death admired the beauty of the etrog that was brought to him, since the day was one of the Sukkot festival days.
(The Rov, apparently, would have felt: Never mind the etrog’s beauty. What matters is that the citron is without blemish and the benediction is properly pronounced.).
I was disappointed that Ginzberg did not wish to take seriously the younger man’s question. In the meantime, the Rov changed his position and realized the wider dimension of faith. If you wait long enough . . . [ellipsis in original]. Yet, even with the changed position on the part of the Rov, Ginzberg, were he alive, would insist on having his whiskey straight.
Glatzer sees “The Lonely Man of Faith” as expressing a change in the Rav’s earlier “halakho-centrism.” I wonder if Prof. Lawrence Kaplan will agree.
[19] Reshut ha-Yahid (Petah Tivah, 2003), p. 186.
[20] Ma’ayan Omer (Jerusalem, 2007), vol. 1, pp. 186, 194, 205. R. Hillel Posek, Divrei Hillel, Orah Hayyim, no. 8, strongly supports giving an intermarried man an aliyah, but not as one of the first seven. To deny such an aliyah woould be to embarrass the man, and Posek explains why even sinners cannot be treated with disrespect. See also his comments in Ha-Posek, Sivan 5747, p. 1336. In Amsterdam the practice was also not to give an intermarried man one of the first seven aliyot. See R. Jacob Zvi Katz, Leket ha-Kemah he-Hadash (London, n.d.), vol. 3, p. 63.
[21] Sha’alu le-Varukh, vol. 1, no. 40.
[22] Of course, there are many other poskim who forbid giving an intermarried man an aliyah. Even as liberal a posek as R. Ben Zion Uziel was adamant that you cannot call an intermarried man up to the Torah. See Mishpetei Uziel, vol 8, no. 53.
[23] For those who don’t know, Lopatin was the first Rhodes Scholar to become an Orthodox rabbi. In fact, he might be the first Rhodes Scholar to become a rabbi in any denomination. R. Chaim Strauchler of Toronto is the second Rhodes Scholar-Orthodox rabbi.


Romm Press, Haggadah Art, Controversial Books, and other Bibliographical Historica

Legacy Auctions: Romm Press, Haggadah Art, Controversial Books, and other Bibliographical Historica

Legacy Judaica’s fall auction is next week, September 13, and we wanted to highlight some bibliographical historica.  Lot 95 is Elbona shel Torah, (Berlin, 1929), by R. Shmuel Shraga Feigneshon, known as Safan ha-Sofer.  He helmed the operations of the Romm Press in Vilna.  During his 55-year tenure, he oversaw the publication of the monumental Vilna Shas, among numerous other canonical works that became the model for all subsequent editions. He wrote a history of the press which first appeared in part in the journal HaSofer (vol. 1 27-33 and vol. 2-3 46-57, 1954-55). It was then published in its entirety in Yahadut Lita vol. 1. 1959.  This biography was plagiarized in nearly every respect by the Yated Ne’eman.  It was a near-perfect reproduction (albeit in English rather than the original Hebrew), except that certain names and select passages were omitted presumably because they reference Jewish academics or other materials deemed objectional to Haredi audiences.

In Elbona shel Torah, (51-52), Shafan Ha-Sofer discusses the censorship of Jewish texts from non-Jewish authorities.  There were not only omissions but also additions to the text.  He identifies one of the angels mentioned in the supplications between the Shofar sets with Jesus.  He claims that “Yeshu Sa’ar ha-Pinim” is in fact Jesus of Nazareth.  Nonetheless, he notes that this passage was included in most mahzorim.  Indeed, in the first Romm edition of the Mahzor this angel appears.  He explains that after it was published a rabbi from Yemen, who was unfamiliar with the historic inclusion of the passage, was shocked when he came this passage.  He immediately set about issuing a ban on all the Romm books, classifying them within the category of a sefer torah of a heretic which is consigned to the fire.  But the ban was annulled after a Jerusalem rabbi intervened and explained to his clergy brother that in fact the Romm edition merely followed an accepted text. According to Shafan ha-Sofer, after this brush with what is described as potential financial ruin, later editions of the Vilna Mahzor omit Yeshu.

Two books feature on their title pages an immodest Venus rising.  The title page of R. Moshe Isserles, Torat ha-Hatat, Hanau, 1628, lot 33, depicts in the bottom center of page Venus with a loincloth.  Additionally, on the two sides of the pages two similarly exposed women appear in medieval costume. This particular title page was reused on at least three other books.  A similarly undressed woman appears on the title page of R. Isaac of Corbeil’s Amudei Golah, Cremona 1556, lot 1.

Naftali Hertz Wessley’s, Divrei Shalom ve-Emet, Berlin, 1782, lot 99, (volume 2), is the controversial work wherein he provides his educational program.  Although some of his other works secured the approbations of leading Orthodox rabbi, some of the more traditional rabbis were opposed to Wessley’s reforms advocated in Divrei. See our discussion here, and Moshe Samet, Hadash Assur min ha-Torah (Jerusalem, Carmel, 2005), 78-83; Edward Breuer, “Naphtali Herz Wessely and the Cultural Dislocations of an Eighteenth-Century Maskil,” in New Perspectives on the Haskalah, Shmuel Feiner and David Sorkin eds., (London, Littman Library, 2001), 27-47.. Wessley advocated for the inclusion of some secular studies, separate grades for children of different ages and abilities, and satisfying testing requirements. These and many others of his suggested reforms are now commonplace in Orthodox schools. He was interested in improving all aspects of Jewish education and chided his more acculturated Jews who only adopted his policies as they related to secular subjects but did not otherwise incorporate contemporary intellectual rigor to their Jewish studies. Copies of the originals of the work are rare.

Another book that aroused a controversy is R. Zechariah Yosef Rosenfeld of St. Louis’ work, Yosef Tikva, St. Louis, 1903.  Rosenfeld defends the use of machine manufactured matzot for Passover.  There is a significant literature regarding the use of these matzot, see Hayim Gartner, “Machine Matzah, the Halakhic Controversy as a Test Case for Defining Orthodoxy,” in Orthodox Judaism: New Perspectives, (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 2006), 395-425 (Hebrew) and Jonathan Sarna, How Matzah Became Square: Manischewitz and the Development of Machine-Made Matzah in the United States, (New York, Touro College, 2005) .

Another Passover item Yaakov Agam’s limited edition of the Haggadah, Paris, 1985, lot 138.  Agam adds a rich color palette to the otherwise spare style of the German illustrator, Otto Geismar. His 1928 haggadah uses minimalism to great effect and has a whimsical flair, yet at times the thick black ink figures are dark and foreboding.  Agam’s offers of a kaleidoscopic version of the haggada that is purely uplifting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otto Geismar, Berlin 1928

Yaakov Agam, Paris 1985

Aside from the books, one letter of note, Lot 182.  In 1933 letter from R. Hayim Ozer Grodzensky writes that he had proclaimed a fast in Vilna in response to the rise of Hitler and that “the new persecutions will cause the old to be forgotten.” Despite the fact that R. Ozer recognized almost immediately the threat of Hitler, during WWII he was not as prescient.  As late as March 1940, he was encouraging Jews to remain in Vilna. See Eliezer Rabinowitz, R. Hayim Ozer’s Prophesy for Vilna has Been Fulfilled,” Morgen Journal, May 8, 1940.

Two final items, both relate to the Volozhin yeshiva.  The first is a copy of Meil Tzedakah, Prague 1756, lot 158that belonged to R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, the Bet ha-Levi, and rosh ha-yeshiva of Volozhin.  The book also belonged to the Vilna rabbi, R. Abraham Pasveller, and R. Chaim Soloveitchik.  The second, lot 166, is a letter by the R. Naftali Berlin, Netziv, the Bet Ha-Levi’s co-Rosh ha-Yeshiva and eventual disputant.  He writes to the journal HaTzfirah (see these posts (here, here and here) regarding the Netziv and reading the contemporary press), regarding 1886 fire in Volozhin Yeshiva and the rebuilding efforts. Among other things, he sought to publicizes the names of donor and provided a list from memory.  Among the donors was Yisrael Brodsky. Although Brodsky was a major donor to the Volozhin Yeshiva and a highly acculturated Orthodox Jews, some have attempted to portray him otherwise.  See our post “For the Sake of Radin!  The Sugar Magnate’s Missing Yarmulke and a Zionist Revision.”

 

 



Eliezer Brodt: A Censored Work by a Student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin: The Case of Menuchah u-Kedushah

A Censored Work by a Student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin:
The Case of Menuchah u-Kedushah
By Eliezer Brodt

A few years ago (c2000) a fascinating sefer was reprinted called Menuchah u-Kedushah. The sefer was written by R. Yisrael Isserl from Ponevezh. Not much is known about the author except that he was a talmid of R. Hayyim of Volozhin. It’s clear from the sefer that he was a very special person and a big talmid hakham. The haskamot that he received from the R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin (Neziv), R. Bezalel HaKohen and R. Avraham Eisenstadt, author of the Pitchei Teshuva, show that he was a very prominent, well-known person (for some reason these haskamot were omitted in the reprinted edition). R. Shlomo Elyashiv, the author of the Leshem, also writes that he was an Ish Kadosh, a Holy Man. It appears that he was a melamed [teacher], and (as we will see) it seems that he must have been an excellent one. In the recent reprint, R. Shmuel Auerbach writes that the sefer was famous in particular as a guide in raising children and many followed it and became true Ovdei Hashem. Interestingly, the sefer was originally published anonymously (Vilna, 1864).

In this post I would like to discuss this sefer a bit. The author in his introduction (which, oddly enough, was omitted in the newest reprinted version of the sefer) outlines very clearly what he had wanted to accomplish with this work. Divided into three parts, the first is called Sha’ar HaTefillah, an explaining as to what one should do in order for his tefillot to be accepted. Included are many explanations on different parts of Tefillah. The second part is called Sha’ar HaTorah, which is the way the author feels one should teach children. The third part is called Sha’ar Yichud HaMa’aseh which includes advice how to battle the Yetzer Hara in all different situations.

The sefer reviews many interesting things especially vignettes from R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna (the Gra) and R. Hayyim of Volozhin. Also, included are many beautiful explanations on different areas of Tanakh and Aggadah. Aside from the explanations, this the sefer also includes many halakhot and minhagim. The sefer begins with a nice collection of halakhot of kavod seforim including that the prohibition to use one sefer under another one to bring it closer to you, or leaning completely on seforim like a shtender. To list a few examples of Ta’amei Minhagim brought throughout the sefer: the reason behind the mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur (pg 51) and giving tzedakah (pg 204). He is very against talking at all during davening; even talking in learning between aliyot (pg 75). The author also wrote a lengthy discussion regarding the proper time to light the Chanukah menorah; opining to light after ma’ariv. The author states that the only reason why R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna lit earlier was because of concern that if he would have waited until after ma’ariv he would have this on his mind the throughout davening, similar to a groom who is exempt from kriat shema (pg 160) due to his preoccupation. When he discusses sitting shiva on ones parents he exclaims ‘do not just sit there making the same mistake most do’; namely, they claim that since it is prohibited for a mourner to learn Torah, they leave a Sefer Iyyov on the stool nearby just to glance at from time to time and fall asleep. Rather, one is supposed to learn the topics that a mourner is allowed to so that one could give one’s parent many merits; there is enough material to learn for three weeks (pp. 88-89)! He writes to his son any shiur that he goes to after he dies he should always say the kaddish de’rabbanan for him; not only the first year (pg 95-96).

Many interesting discussions on various topics, such as the Neshama Yetairah that one gets on shabbat (pp. 49-50) are found throughout the sefer. He also has a lengthy discussion on the now-famous topic (in light of all the biographies on the gedolim) that no great person achieved anything great in life without working very hard for it. The talmudic use of the term “Noch Nafshei” a term of resting, was not hapenstance. Instead, it was used to demonstrate that, in many instance, those persons did not have easy lives, and thus only after death is it approriate to use a term of rest – hence Noch Nafshei. This is in reference to Tana’aim and Amoraim; how much more so in regard to regular people (pp. 79-82). Elsewhere in the sefer he has a long discussion on chumrot, writing very strongly: “one should be concerned that the yetzer hara is bribing him and allowing him to do them so he will be too occupied to observe the ikkar.” As an example for this he gives, he points out that in Minhagei Ha-Gra that he had eaten Matzah Shemurah the whole Pessach. Whereas the author realizes that if because of this chumrah he will have to eat separately from the rest of his family and not have proper simchat yom tov which is a de’oraita, he should not be makpid on eating matzah shemurah which is just a pious action (pp. 155-156).

Another point of interest that he writes is that the Messilat Yesharim was written with ruach hakodesh so listen to what he says (pg 158). When he talks about the sefer Nefesh Ha-Hayyim from his teacher R. Hayyim of Volozhin, he writes “listen to his holy mouth as the sefer is exactly like its name ‘life for the soul’ and one should know that ruach hakodesh is in all the words in the sefer so that it should be accepted by its readers” (pg 69).

After reading all this it would seem to appear that this is a very good work and there should be no problems with anything written in it. However this is not the case. The people who printed it write that in the section called “Sha’ar HaTorah” we were advised by gedolim not to print some parts. This is very strange because as mentioned earlier he had very prominent haskamot from some big gedolim and as the Leshem writes he was a Holy Man, and he was also a known student of R. Hayyim of Volozhin. One is left wondering what in the world could have been wrong with what he had written prompting censor?

In the 1967 reprint of the original edition by Meir Kleiman, the missing pages are included, about five all together. In short, what the deleted material is as follows, he saw many people who had no business becoming teachers taking the job only for the money. He writes that he was a teacher and he would spend a few weeks trying to understand each student what was the best way to deal with him. Another thing he writes is the importantance that boys have a proper understanding of the Hebrew language; not that he has to be a baki in dikduk just to know the basics than it’s easier to learn chumash. Once the boy knows chumash only than should you go on to learn Gemara. When he begins this limud, be careful to go slowly so as not to over burden him. The main point is not to learn enmass, rather emphasis on making sure the student fully understands everything before going further. Instead what happens is the boy only knows how to parrot what the teacher says and on shabbos he shows this off to the father; however nothing of value ever comes out of this. Another thing he writes is in regard to the failure to teach the boys tanakh; not only Gemara as the study of Tanakh is extremely important. Professor Simha Assaf brings much of this edited part in his Mekorot le-Toledot ha-Hinnukh be-Yisrael (vol. 1 Pg 607-613). R. Yitzchak Abadie discusses this whole section in his Teshuvot Ohr Yitzchak (pp. 444-450), available for download at www.HebrewBooks.org.

Reading all of the above, one can only wonder as to what was wrong with printing these parts; the author can not be accused of having haskalic leanings for a few reasons: One, if he did have haskalic leanings, then why allow the rest of the sefer be reprinted. In all honesty, the very thought is quite ridiculous; the Leshem writes he was a Holy Man and a reading of the sefer will show how true that is. Also he was very against learning philosophy saying that only the Rishonim were they on the level to learn it (pg 47).

What’s interesting about all this is many schools in the United States would do well to follow this advice in their educational methods; I am sure it would help many. Not that it’s the solution to all the problems with the children of today but it’s certainly a good start. Interestingly enough R. Yakov Horowitz in a recent article in his column ‘Chinuch Matters’ in the English Mishpacha 143 (Pg 10) called ‘It Doesn’t Start in Tenth Grade‘ writes the same point. R. Yakov Horowitz continues with this theme in the next issue in an article called ‘Training Wheels‘. Of course these columns have been met with opposition. One reader writes (English Mishpacha 145, pg 6) “Torah is acquired thru yegia through no other method can Torah become yours. Making torah easy at the beginning only makes it harder later on. The author mentioned that he is backed by various Achranoim who have suggested alternative methods for teaching torah. It should definitely be mentioned that these methods were unaccepted in Klal Yisroel. Mesorah means tradition passed on Midor Ldor not looking in seforim for unaccepted methods.”

One only wonders what this reader is talking about as shown here a Holy Man and talmid of R. Hayyim of Volozhin wrote these same suggestions as R. Yakov Horowitz and received good haskamot from important known gedolim. Further more as I have mentioned R. Shmuel Auerbach writes that the sefer was famous, in particular, as a guide in raising children and many followed it and became true Ovdei Hashem.



To Censor or Not to Censor, that is the Question

To Censor or Not to Censor:  Electricity on Yom Tov, Illustrations and Other Items of Interest at Legacy Judaica’s March 2020 Auction

By:  Eliezer Brodt & Dan Rabinowitz

Legacy Auction’s latest auction will take place on March 26, 2020.  Their catalog provides us the opportunity to discuss a few items of interest to bibliophiles.

There are many examples of the phenomenon of censoring or declaring forgeries of teshuvot and other halakhic rulings especially when those rulings are contrary to contemporary practices. Nonetheless, there is at least one example where the urge to suppress contrary halakhic rulings was rejected.[1]

R. Yehiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein of Novogrudok is most well-known for his pseudo commentary on the Shulkhan Orakh, Orakh ha-Shulhan. [2] In addition to that work, he also wrote teshuvot and other important material, some of which was recently reprinted (see our post here) in Kitvei ha-Orukh ha-Shulkhan.  One was controversial responsum regarding turning on and off electric lights on Shabbat.

R. Dov Baer Abramowitz was born in 1860 in Lithuania but left at age 10 for Jerusalem.  He received ordination from R. Shmuel Salant and in 1894 emigrated to the United States.  He held a handful of rabbinic positions, eventually, in 1906 becoming the chief rabbi of St. Louis.  Abramowitz sought to reverse the trend of American Jews abandoning the faith and issued a variety of publications that sought to accomplish the goal of strengthening American Orthodoxy.  He was involved in the establishment of REITS, the Agudath Harabbonim, and the first branch of Mizrachi in America. [3] In 1903, Abramowitz, as part of his educational program, began issuing his journal, Bet Vaad le-Hakhamim, “the first rabbinic journal in America, to address the waning of religious observance and the lack of unity among religious authorities in America.” [4].  The annual subscription was $2, a fairly substantial sum when the average weekly wage in 1905 was approximately $11.  The journal lasted one year with six issues.

The first issue begins with an important announcement regarding the “new technology in the new land” that is a hot water heater and using it on Shabbat.  (Bet Va’ad vol. 1, 4).   Many important American (in addition to a few international) rabbis participated in the journal.  For example, R. Chaim Ozer Gordzinsky’s older cousin and with whom he studied, Zevi Hirsch the rabbi of Omaha, Nebraska, wrote a lengthy responsa regarding riding a bicycle on Shabbat.  He argues that the issue is carrying an object on Shabbat in a public space or even in a karmelit, but he identifies no other prohibition. (Bet Va’ad no. 5, Sivan 5663 [1903], 3-7).   Thus, it is unclear whether where there is eruv whether he would have permitted riding a bicycle.     The journal also includes a letter detailing the revolutionary production process of Manischewitz machine matzot and the various benefits of that process.  (Bet Va’ad, vol. 1 25-27). The letter is from the Chief Rabbi of Cincinnati because Manischewitz was originally founded in Cincinnati and only began production in the New York area in 1932 and shuttered its Cincinnati operations in 1958.[5]

The first issue includes four letters discussing the use of electricity on Yom Tov and whether one can turn on and off electrical switches, R. Epstein’s is the first.  (Bet Va’ad, vol. 1, 1). Therein he argues that one can turn on electrical switches on Yom Tov.  He identifies the issue of nolad or creating something as potentially prohibiting the action but concludes that one is merely connecting the circuits and nothing new is created.  But he caveats his responsum with the disclaimer that electricity is uncommon in Novogrudok and his opinion is based upon his best efforts to understand electricity. Indeed, R. Shlomo Zalman Aurbach refers to R. Epstein’s responsum as containing “devarim tmuhim” and explained that they are a product of a faulty understanding of the technology.(Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, Me’orei Or (Jerusalem, 1980), appendix). Lot 85, includes this volume as well as the second issue.

R. Epstein was not alone in permitting electricity on Yom Tov, indeed, the other three letters in Bet Vaad similarly permit electricity. Other contemporary rabbis also rule in favor of electricity.

Nonetheless, those are minority views and today the common Orthodox practice is to refrain from turning on and off electrical switches.  When the publishers of R. Epstein’s writings were deciding what to include in Kol Kitvei, they approached R. Chaim Kanievsky and asked whether they should exclude R. Epstein’s responsum regarding electricity.  Presumably, they were concerned that one of the greatest halkhic authorities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries permitted what is “established” law to the contrary (despite the other opinions). But R. Kanievsky rejected that position and held that the responsum should be reprinted.[6]

Another example of Americana and the use of fire on Yom Tov appears in one of the first haggadot printed in the United States.  The 1886 illustrated Haggadah contains a depiction of the four sons.  Depicting the four sons is very common in the illustrated manuscripts and printed haggadot. In this instance, the wicked son’s disdain for the seder proceedings shows him leaning back on his chair and smoking a cigarette. According to many halakhic authorities, smoking is permitted on Yom Tov, nonetheless, the illustration demonstrates that at least in the late 19th-century smoking was not an acceptable practice in formal settings. (For a discussion of smoking on Yom Tov, see R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Mo’adim be-Halakha (Jerusalem:  Mechon Talmud Hayisraeli, 1983), 7-8).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the other lots that also implicates illustration is lot 94, Shulhan Orakh im Pirush Gur Areyeh, Mantua, 1722, that contains the commentary of R. Yosef ben Ephraim Gur Areyeh Halevi.  As we have previously discussed at the end of this post, the Gur Areyeh’s title page to the first volume depicts six relevant personalities, Rashi, Rambam, MahaRIL, R Yosef Karo, R. Moshe Isserles, and R. Gur Areyeh.  According to some accounts, this illustration roused the ire of some rabbis because they felt the depictions were crude, and in some instances seem to show at least one rabbi in violation of Jewish law.  Allegedly, they claim that the Rambam is shown with insufficient peyot (sidelocks) in addition to long hair (as do others).  Thus in the remaining volumes of this edition, the illustrations were removed and they no longer appear (although at least in one preserved copy the illustration is repeated in the Yoreh De’ah volume).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One lot, # 161, is an incredible discovery: R. Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik’s (Bet Halevi) copy of the Halakhot Gedolot (BeHaG).  This copy contains hundreds of unpublished glosses, citations, and cross-references. This copy establishes that the Netziv was not the only Rosh Yeshivah of Volozhin who was involved in the works of the Geonim. One only can hope that whoever purchases this copy will publish the notes.

Another such item is # 87 is a presentation copy of Derishat Tzion that contains the commentary of R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank. Although not noted in the description R. Frank presented this copy to R’ Chaim Hirschenson.  In his Shut Malkei Bakodesh,(4:10) R’ Hirschsenson prints a very interesting letter from R Frank after he received a copy of one of R. Hirschenshon’s book. R Frank took issue with some of R. Hirschenshon’s conclusions and to his credit, he prints it without censoring it. The book being auctioned might have been a gift from R Frank in return for the gift he received. R. Frank’s letter is full of fascinating contemporary descriptions of Jerusalem.

Finally, for a discussion regarding lot 93, Menukha ve-Kedusha and censorship see our post here.

[1] See, for example, Yakkov Shmuel Speigel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri:  Ketivah veha-Atakah (Ramat Gan:  Bar Ilan University Press, 2005), 241-97; Marc Shapiro, Changing the Immutable:  How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites History (Oxford:  Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015), 81-118.

[2] For a biography see R. Eitam Henkin, Tarokh le-fani Shulkhan (Jerusalem:  Maggid, 2019).  Regarding this book see our discussion here.

[3] Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926:  A History and Annotated Bibliography (Brooklyn:  [YG Books], 2006), vol. 1, no. 584, 514. See our reviews of Goldman’s bibliography here and here.

[4] Goldman, Hebrew Printing, no. 591, vol. 1, 521.

[5] See generally, Yossi Goldman, vol. 1, no. 591, 520-21.  Bet Vaad contains materials beyond responsa and halakhic discussions, including poetry, discussions regarding Jewish life in America such as yeshivot, restaurants, and a fable written in verse.

For a discussion of Manischewitz, see Jonathan D. Sarna, “How Matzah Became Square: Manischewitz and the Development of Machine-Made Matzah in the United States,” in Rebecca Kobrin, ed., Chosen Capital: The Jewish Encounter with American Capitalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 272-288; Jonathan D. Sarna, How Matzah Became Square: Manischewitz and the Development of Machine-Made Matzah in the United States (New York: Touro College, 2005).

[6] Regarding the position that seeks to portray Orthodox Judaism a monolithic halakhic process and view as legitimate only certain opinions see Adiel Schremer, Ma’ase Rav: Shekul ha-Da’at ha-Halakhati ve-Eytsuv ha-Zehut ha-Yahadut (Ramat Gan:  Bar Ilan University Press, 2019), 191-97.