Thoughts on “Confrontation” and Sundry Matters, Part I By: Marc B. Shapiro Rabbi Meir Soloveichik’s year-old essay, “No Friend in Jesus,”[1] caused me to once again think about the Rav’s essay “Confrontation,” (available here) and how it should be understood. Before getting to that, let me note, for those who don’t know, that Soloveichik is emerging as one of the most interesting, if controversial writers, on interfaith matters. I don’t know if he picks the titles of his articles, but they are certainly catchy. In addition to “No Friend in Jesus,” I also have in mind “The Virtue of Hate,”[2] and “Of (Religious) Fences and Neighbors.”[3] The last article focuses on the Maria Johnson’s wonderful book, Strangers and Neighbors. Johnson is my colleague at the University of Scranton and the book deals with what she has learnt from living in a haredi community. The friendships she has developed (which would be impossible in a large city where the haredim have no substantive contact with non-Jews and certainly do not allow their children to play together) bring great enlightenment to her own Christian faith. With all of the bad press focusing on the haredi community (some of which is deserved and self-inflicted), it is nice to read such a positive portrayal.

Soloveichik is currently working on his PhD at Princeton, and due to his many essays he has already made a mark. While it is true that political concerns play a central role in his writing, and he seems most comfortable in the role of public intellectual rather than academic scholar, there is a great deal of learning in everything that he produces. He has also emerged as Orthodoxy’s most prominent “theocon,” which has led him to take positions that in my opinion are at odds with the proper halakhic response.[4] I also suspect that many will not look kindly upon his theoretical defense of torture, although no one can argue the case better than he can.[5]

There are those who will criticize Soloveichik because he engages in theological dialogue with Christians, and they think that this is in violation of the Rav’s strictures. If that were the case, then the Rav himself would be in violation, because he first delivered his famous “Lonely Man of Faith” as a lecture at a Catholic seminary.[6] The fact is that the Rav never said that theological issues couldn’t be discussed with non-Jews in a non-official setting. It all depends on the context of the discussions and the venue. In any event, it is very important to have a rabbi who actually understands Christian dogma. Otherwise, you can get poskim, like R. Joseph Messas, mentioned below, who come to decisions based on entirely incorrect information.

We should all be happy that there is a rabbi who knows that before Newman was an actor and then a tomato sauce, there was a more important Newman, that Immaculate Conception is not Virgin Birth, that Limbo is not only a game played at Bar Mitzvahs, and that St. Thomas is more than an island in the Caribbean. There are, however, many rabbis who know very little about Christianity. That is fine, but it is not fine when they try to speak about a matter they know nothing about. Some time ago I heard a talk in which the speaker gave his take on what was wrong with certain Christian ideas. The only problem was that that he had but a smattering of knowledge of the religion he was discussing. (Can you believe that there are people who speak about Catholicism without even knowing what happened at Vatican II?) After the talk someone asked me what I thought about the speaker. My reply was to quote the immortal words of Ha-Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz: “A man has got to know his limitations.”[7]

Let me begin with a short article I wrote on “Confrontation” that originally appeared on the website of Boston College’s Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding. I don’t think that many people have seen it, and posting it here will give it some more exposure. I would encourage people to also read the other papers.[8] One can even watch the original presentations.[9] “Confrontation”: A Mixed Legacy If any evidence were needed of the centrality of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in contemporary American Orthodoxy, one need only look at the vigorous exchange of ideas between Drs. Korn, Berger and Rabbi Klapper. These thinkers have focused on a close reading of the seminal essay “Confrontation,” and have argued about its message and implications in a changed world. I would like to call attention to some points that have not been raised, which I regard as unfortunate results of the widespread acceptance in American Orthodoxy of the perspective offered in “Confrontation.”

My goal in these comments is not to criticize the essay, but rather to clarify its impact. In fact, both in my personal and professional life (with perhaps one exception) I have avoided all venues of interfaith dialogue, and this despite being in my tenth year of teaching at a Jesuit university. I have participated in numerous events where Christians were exposed to Judaism, as well as some where I learnt more about Christianity, but it is unlikely that Rabbi Soloveitchik’s position has any relevance to these situations.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s warning was directed against Jews dialoguing with Christians in some sort of organized, presumably official,[10] meeting, and the fears he expressed relate to this type of setting. On the other hand, individual Jews and Christians discussing each other’s religion has occurred in every generation, and neither this, nor a Jew giving a lecture to Christians about some aspect of Judaism, qualifies as dialogue of the sort that the Rav was warning against. It is therefore not surprising that even the most strident opponents of dialogue do not mention the subject of Orthodox professors teaching at universities whose student body is primarily Christian.

I have abstained from involvement in interfaith dialogue not because I regard the Rav’s essay as a binding halakhic decision, but because I would have felt uncomfortable being regarded by the other side as a representative of Judaism. (Despite being part of a department of Theology and Religious studies, I am hardly a theologian.) In addition, I have always been sensitive to an aspect of dialogue that the Rav was concerned with, namely, that Jews will feel pressure to adjust their religious views in response to moves from the Christian side. In calling attention to this point, I feel that the Rav was uncannily prescient.

Yet despite the fact that I have lived my life in accordance with the Rav’s guidelines, I believe that his position has had certain negative consequences. It might be that these are the sorts of consequences that Orthodox Jews who follow the Rav’s prescriptions must live with, but I hope not.

One of these consequences is religious separatism, and when it comes to interfaith relations the Modern Orthodox have adopted the same position as that of the right-wing Orthodox. Thus, in the United States one finds virtually no relationships between Modern Orthodox rabbis and Christian clergymen, or between Modern Orthodox groups and their Christian counterparts, even of the sort that the Rav would encourage.[11] This type of separatism is to be expected when dealing with the haredim, but one would have thought that the rabbinic leadership of Modern Orthodoxy would be more open-minded in this area. Yet for many Modern Orthodox rabbinic figures this is not the case, and when a group of Cardinals recently toured Yeshiva University a number of faculty members and students of the Rav expressed strong criticism of the administration in allowing this visit.[12] In fact, the Rav was often cited as a source for this opposition, as if anything he wrote in “Confrontation” spoke against friendly relations and interchange of ideas in non-theological settings.[13]

In today’s Orthodox world, when it comes to Christianity the stress is on the negative, beyond anything the Rav wrote about in “Confrontation.” This has brought about a broad refusal on the part of Modern Orthodox rabbis to have even the barest of relationships with their Christian counterparts. I am not blaming this on “Confrontation,” since before the essay appeared such relationships were also rare, but the essay reinforced the atmosphere of distance between Orthodox Jews and Christians in all spheres, even though this was not its intent. To put it another way, I would say that, despite its intent, “Confrontation” reaffirmed Orthodox Jews’ inclination that, in all but the most negligible circumstances, they should ignore the dominant religion and its adherents. A different essay by the Rav could have put an even greater stress on the positive results of interfaith cooperation in “secular” spheres.[14] Instead, almost nothing was done to remove the fear of Christianity from Orthodoxy, and while in the very shadow of Vatican II this might have been the correct approach, by now I think we have moved beyond this. Yet even in our day it would still be unheard of for a Christian clergyman to address the members of an Orthodox synagogue or group about matters of joint concern. A lay Christian might be welcome, but any relationship with clergy is seen as dangerous, in that it could lead to a compromising of traditional Jewish beliefs.

Another result of the lack of any dialogue between Orthodox Jews and Christians is that in addition to the fear of Christianity, there remains an enormous amount of ignorance. On numerous occasions I have heard Orthodox Jews assert that according to Christianity one must accept Jesus in order to be “saved”. When I have pointed out that this notion has been repudiated by the Catholic Church as well as by most Protestants, the response is usually incredulity.

It is also significant that Orthodox Jews treat Christianity as an abstraction, and detailed discussions about its halakhic status continue to be published. I find it strange, however, that in our post-modern era people can write articles offering judgments about Christianity based solely on book knowledge,[15] without ever having spoken to Christian scholars and clergymen, that is, without having ever confronted Christianity as a living religion.[16] There is something deeply troubling about Orthodox figures discussing whether Christianity is avodah zarah without attempting to learn from Christians how their faith has impacted their lives. I would think that this narrative, attesting as it does to the redemptive power of faith, must also be part of any Jewish evaluation of Christianity.[17] Yet barring theological dialogue, how is this possible?
I realize that the halakhic system prefers raw data to experiential narratives, but certainly modern halakhists and theologians are able to find precedents for inclusion of precisely this sort of information. After all, wasn’t it personal contact with Gentiles, and the recognition that their lives were not like those of the wicked pagans of old, that led to a reevaluation of the halakhic status of the Christian beginning with Meiri and continuing through R. Israel Moses Hazan,[18] R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg?

The concern with dialogue leading to attempted revisions of traditional Jewish beliefs is certainly well-founded, but the flip-side is that without any direct contact distortions can arise in the other direction as well, namely, in how non-Jews are viewed. Could Saadia Grama ever have written his infamous book[19] if his Gentile neighbor, the Christian, was a real person instead of a caricature? Of course, one does not need interfaith theological dialogue in order to see adherents of other religions in a more positive light than Grama, but as noted above, a current trend opposes even non-theological dialogue. When all substantive contact with the Other is off-limits, it becomes much easier for extremists to reawaken old prejudices that should have no place in a modern democratic society.

I don’t have any illusions that the leaders of American Orthodoxy will change their stance on this matter even after considering what I and others have written. Yet this does not mean that all is lost when it comes to Jewish-Christian relations. Even without theological dialogue there is still a great deal that we can discuss, and thus ensure that neither Orthodox Jews nor Christians are strangers in each other’s eyes. There is a host of social and political issues that affect both of our communities and a vast reservoir of goodwill and respect among Christians for Jews, and Orthodox Jews in particular. Isn’t it time the Orthodox responded in kind?* * *With regard to the Rav and Christianity, it is interesting to note what R. Samuel Volk wrote. R. Volk was one of the other roshei yeshiva at RIETS, an outstanding talmudist who had studied in Telz. Yet he was no fan of the Rav and went so far as to accuse the latter of adopting Christian imagery. In his eulogy for Dr. Samuel Belkin, the Rav described the latter as a wandering and restless yeshiva student. This was too much for Volk (who clearly had a bone to pick with the Rav). In the introduction to volume 7 of his Sha’arei Tohar, he wrote: ראשית כל הנני להעיר שהביטוי הזה של “נודד” שאל “גאון” זה מהגוים ימ”ש, שאומרים שבעבור שעם ישראל לא קבלו תורת “אותו האיש” נתקללו להיות “עם נודד לעולם” ימ”ש וזכרם. ועליהם אין להתפלא דמה לנו ולהם? אבל על “גאון” הנ”ל שיש לו אפי’ “פאספארט” של זכות אבות יש להתפלא! He repeats this criticism of the Rav in his Sha’arei Tohar, vol. 8, p. 332.[20] Yet this is nothing compared to how he savages Dr. Belkin, his former boss. Out of respect for Belkin, I will refrain from reproducing what he writes (which can be found in the just mentioned sources). His words are a good reflection of the conflict and tension that existed between Belkin and the roshei yeshiva, many of whom saw Belkin’s goals as at odds with Torah Judaism[21] On occasion Belkin had to give in to them, as in their threat to resign en masse if he went through with his plan to move Stern College uptown near Yeshiva University. Yet they usually had to sit by and feel growing anger at what they viewed as Belkin’s wrong-headed moves. It was only after they were no longer employed at YU that they could express themselves openly. When they did, it is not surprising that they could be sharper than the most harsh haredi critics. Another strong attack on Belkin was penned by R. Chaim Dov Ber Gulevsky, who also taught at YU. (I will have a great deal more to say about his fascinating writings in one of my upcoming posts.) As with Volk, Gulevsky too, unfortunately, falls into the trap of attacking Belkin personally.[22] In the case of Gulevsky, I can say that he believed that in doing so he was defending the honor of the Rav, for whom he has the greatest respect. Yet, as with Volk, his attack is way overboard, so much so that I am again embarrassed to cite it. It is unfortunate that rather than focusing on all the Torah he taught while at YU, Gulevsky concludes on the following note: ואני תפילה שנזכר לחיים טובים ממלך חפץ בחיים אמן ואמן. ושלא יענישו ושלא ירחיקו אותי ממקורי, וממחיצת צדיקים ישרים ותמימים גאוני ישראל קדושי עליונין בגלל שפעם הייתי במחיצתו של “אותו הנשיא”, “אשר מכף רגל והראש לא היה בו מתום” . . . ר”ל. In Gulevsky’s attack, we also see reflected the long battle between the roshei yeshiva and the adherents of academic Jewish scholarship. This dispute was found at the institution from its early years, and is described in Rakefet’s biography of Revel, Solomon Zeitlin was probably the first focus of the roshei Yeshiva’s anger. A number of others, most notably Irving Agus and Meir Simhah Feldblum, would later run into trouble from the halls of RIETS on account of their outlooks. In Gulevsky’s mind, Belkin was not an adherent of Torah study of the traditional sort – he even denies the well-known story that Belkin received semikhah from the Hafetz Hayyim at age seventeen. He sees Belkin as having sold his soul to the idolatry of academic Jewish studies, with all the heresy that went along with it. In fact, it is not merely academic Jewish studies that Gulevsky sees as Belkin’s downfall, but no less than the hated ‘hokhmah yevanit” that the Sages had warned about. Philo of Alexandria is, in Gulevsky’s understanding, just another example of “hokhmah yevanit.”[23] This involvement with Greek wisdom also led Belkin to his friendships with Christian scholars and “the professor who thought that ‘the Jews made a terrible mistake’ in pushing away oto ha-ish r”l”. Gulevsky told me that (as I suspected) the unnamed professor is Harry A. Wolfson, who was the preeminent Philo scholar of his time. Yet I don’t think Wolfson ever said this, and I believe Gulevsky has confused Wolfson with Joseph Klausner. Gulevsky also recalls with pain how, in his annual shiur in memory of R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor, for whom RIETS was named, Belkin would include material dealing with Philo rather than give a traditional shiur. According to Gulevsky, this even led Belkin to make heretical statements with regard to the Oral Law. He also blasts Belkin’s lengthy article on Philo and Midrash Tadshe[24] and what he regards as Belkin’s foolish attempt to posit a Philonic influence on the Zohar through an ancient midrashic tradition.[25] Rather than seeing this last article as a worthy attempt to uphold an ancient dating for the Zohar, Gulevsky instead points out how Scholem rejected Belkin’s position as completely nonsensical, even doing so on a visit to Yeshiva University.[26] * * * Returning to the issue of Judaism and Christianity, let me begin by calling attention to some curiosities that are perhaps not so well known. The first relates to R. Israel Moshe Hazan, mentioned above. His positive view of Christian scholars seemed so over the top to R Eliezer Waldenberg, that the latter delivered a stinging rebuke in Tzitz Eliezer 13:12: שומו שמים למקרא מה יפית כזה לאמונת הנוצרים וחכמיהם מפורש יוצא וללא כל בושה, מפי בעל התשובה . . . ובכלל המותר לקרוא קילוס לחכמיהם? ואיה האיסור של לא תחנם שישנו בדבר? As far as I know, Hazan is the only rabbinic author to publish a Christian haskamah in his work (he actually publishes two). These appear in his Nahalah le-Yisrael, which is devoted to a halakhic problem dealing with inheritance. Translations of these haskamot are found in the appendix to Isadore Grunfeld’s The Jewish Law of Inheritance.[27] (The section dealing with Hazan and his Nahalah le-Yisrael is called: “A Cause Célèbre, A Remarkable Man and a Remarkable Book.”) The Christian scholars’ haskamot appear together with the haskamot of such renowned figures as R. Hayyim David Hazan of Izmir (later Rishon le-Zion in Jerusalem), R. Eleazar Horovitz of Vienna, R. Shimon Sofer of Mattersdorf, R. Avraham Samuel Sofer of Pressburg, and R. Meir Ash of Ungvar. Hazan’s testimony about Jews who would go to the Church to listen the music, even if they stood outside the sanctuary has also been very troubling for many. The whole question of the propriety of entering a church deserves its own post. In years past no Jew would enter a Church unless he was forced to, or in order to avoid enmity. R. Moses Sitrug, Yashiv Moshe, vol. 1, no. 235, discusses the latter case and he advises removing one’s head covering before entering the church. If not, one will be forced to do so in the church, and this would appear as if one was worshipping with the Christians.[28] (When the Chief Rabbi of England is present in a church for an important state function, he does not remove his kippah, and is not expected to.) I began this post with Meir Soloveichik. There was actually another Soloveitchik who also had a great interest in things Christian. I refer to R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik. Here is a picture of him.
He was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and the uncle of R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik, the Beit Halevi. He is also the subject of a comprehensive monograph by Dov Hyman, who was a medical doctor trained in London and who lived in Manhattan. For some reason this book was kept fairly secret, with only fifty copies published and never sold in stores. Here is the title page of the book.Among Soloveitchik’s works is a volume entitled Kol Kore (Paris, 1875). Friedberg, Beit Eked Seforim, describes this book as “in opposition to the New Testament.” Yet Friedberg never looked carefully at the volume, for if he did he would have seen that rather than being in opposition to the New Testament, it is in favor of it. Yet it is not a missionary tract. Rather, Soloveitchik followed the approach of R. Jacob Emden (whom he cites in his introduction) that the New Testament is only directed towards Gentiles, and supports the Noahide Laws. However, it has nothing to say to Jews, whom it acknowledges are obligated to keep the Torah. In line with this conception, Soloveitchik felt comfortable in authoring a commentary on the book of Matthew, and that is what the Kol Kore is. Here are the title pages of the first edition as well as the 1985 reprint. This is not the only rabbinic commentary on the book of Matthew. In 1900 R. Samuel Weintraub’s commentary on this Gospel was published (Milhemet Shmuel). Yet unlike Soloveitchik’s work, Weintraub’s commentary is devoted to exposing the Gospel’s faults.[29] Here are the two title pages of the book. The book is an interesting polemic, which unlike most polemics is written in the form of a commentary. Yet there are times when the author goes too far. For example, he deals with Matthew 1:18, which states that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, he strongly attacks this notion. But he also has to make sense of Gen. 6:2, which states that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them as wives.” The problematic words are בני אלהים, as this might be taken to show that the Torah also shares the mythological conception of gods impregnating women. Weintraub writes: הוא כתרגום אונקלס בני רברביא, ואמרו בב”ר ר”ש בן יוחאי הי’ מקלל למי שמתרגם בני אלהיא, כי לא יתכן כלל שהמלאך יבוא אל האשה ויחמוד אותה, ורק העובדי אלילים היו מאמינים בשטותים הללו כמבואר בספרי מיטהאלאגיע ובס’ יוסיפון, תדע שהרי הכתוב מסיים עלה: וירא ד’ כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ, ולא כתיב כי רבה רעת בני אלהים בארץ, כי בני אלהים האמורים היו ג”כ בני אדם כתרגום אונקלס. ואם רצה השי”ת לברא את המשיח ברוח קדשו היה לו לבראו עפר מן האדמה מבלי אב ואם כמו שברא את אדם הראשון ואז היו כולם מודים בו ואין הקב”ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו. The only problem with Weintraub’s point is that in his zeal to attack the Christian belief, and by asserting that only pagans could believe in a nonsensical notion such that an angel could desire a woman, he has unknowingly also placed certain rabbinic texts into the category of not simply fools, but עובדי אלילים. Devarim Rabbah 11:10 describes how “two angels, Uzah and Azael, came down from near Thy divine Presence and coveted the daughters of the earth and they corrupted their way upon the earth until Thou didst suspend them between earth and heaven.” Similar passages are found in other rabbinic texts, in particular Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22, which elaborates on how the angels desired and impregnated human women. This is part of the whole genre of “fallen angels” stories found in the ancient world. I personally have no doubt that passages such as these are foreign imports, mythological tales that somehow found their way into Jewish literature. Yet precisely because the “fallen angel” genre became part of Jewish tradition, even if one chooses to reject it I think it is going much too far to regard something that appears in traditional rabbinic sources as being idolatrous. The Sages could adopt non-Jewish notions when these related to science, history, and folklore – and even halakhah if Yaakov Elman is correct – but they would not adopt anything that smacked of idolatry. (I understand that this last statement can be challenged from a Maimonidean perspective. However, I don’t think Maimonides is correct, either historically or theologically, in the way he ties astrology to idolatry.)

With regard to ‘fallen angels”, and the cross-cultural influence on Judaism, Rabbi Leo Jung’s volume on the topic was long the classic treatment.[30] He deals with all sorts of folklore in the aggadic literature, much which has its origin in non-Jewish sources.[31] While today, this sort of book would be excommunicated in certain circles, even years ago Jung was sensitive to the implications of what he was writing. He therefore included at the beginning of the book some pages about the authority of the aggadah. This is quite interesting, since one does not expect to find such a discussion in an academic work.[32] He notes that the purpose of Aggadah is not history, but to amuse, to cheer up, to let the people forget their present suffering by either leading them back to the glorious past or by painting in bright colors the fullness of times when there will be no enemy, no slander, no prejudice. There is no trace of a definite method, of any endeavor to weave these stories into a dogmatic texture, the Haggadah containing all that had occupied the popular mind, what they had heard in the beth hammidrash, or at a social gathering. Stories contradicting each other, theories incompatible with one another, are very frequent. They are recorded as the fruits of Israel’s genius. They have no authority, they form no part of Jewish religious belief. Nor may they be taken literally: it is always the idea, the lesson, and not the story, which is important. It is wrong to say that the Haggadah contains the doctrines of the Rabbis, or that only orthodox views have been admitted to the exclusion of all the rest (pp. 3-4).Jung continues by citing the classic sources in this regard, namely, R. Sherira Gaon, R. Samuel ha-Nagid, and of course, R. Abraham ben Maimonides. He also cites R. David Zvi Hoffmann, “recognized as the greatest rabbinical authority of our age” (p. 4), who in his introduction to his commentary to Leviticus states that there is no obligation to accept Aggadah. Jung concludes:It is very important to remember that there is no such thing as a systematic Jewish Theology. Even a system of fundamental points of creed did not grow up before the times of the Karaites and then was evolved through the necessity of defending Judaism. Maimonides endeavored to condense Judaism into thirteen principles of faith, but, as Crescas rightly contends, they are both too many and too few. The Haggadah, while preaching the beauty of holy life, does not give us law of belief and practice; the religious conduct of the Jew is regulated entirely by the Halakha (pp. 6-7).The status of Aggadah has been raised so much in recent centuries that people today are often unaware of the attitude towards Aggadah of some geonim and rishonim, in how they were prepared to reject aggadot that didn’t appeal to them. Thus, they will be surprised to read what Jung writes. For similar sentiments from another Orthodox leader, let me quote from Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz, in his Foreword to the Soncino Talmud (in words that today would land him in herem): We have dogmatical Haggadah, treating of God’s attributes and providence, creation, revelation, Messianic times, and the Hereafter. The historical Haggadah brings traditions and legends concerning the heroes and events in national or universal history, from Adam to Alexander of Macedon, Titus and Hadrian. It is legend pure and simple. Its aim is not so much to give the facts concerning the righteous and unrighteous makers of history, as the moral that may be pointed from the tales that adorn their honour or dishonour. That some of the folklore elements in the Haggadah, some of the customs depicted or obiter dicta reported, are repugnant to Western taste need not be denied. “The great fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages,” says Schechter, “is that they did not observe the wise rule of Dr. Johnson who said to Boswell on a certain occasion, ‘Let us get serious, for there comes a fool.’ And the fools unfortunately did come, in the shape of certain Jewish commentators [!] and Christian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse, or represented the opinion of some isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience.” In spite of the fact that the Haggadah contains parables of infinite beauty and enshrines sayings of eternal worth, it must be remembered that the Haggadah consists of mere individual utterances that possess no general and binding authority. to be continued . . .

Two Editions of R. Chaim Berlin‘s Responsa: An Egregious Example of Censorship
by Eliezer Brodt

R. Chaim Berlin, Sefer Nishmat Hayyim, She’elot u-Teshuvot, R. Ya’akov Kosovsky-Shachor ed., Beni-Brak, 2002, 412 pp.

R. Chaim Berlin, Sefer Nishmat Hayyim, Mamorim u’Mechtavim, R. Ya’akov Kosovsky-Shachor ed., Beni-Brak, 2003, 424 pp.

R. Chaim Berlin, Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin, Shu”t Nishmat Hayyim, Jerusalem, 2008, 4 vol., 446, 462, 449, 298 pp.

R. Chaim Berlin (1832-1912), the son of the R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (author of the Netziv), although well known until recently none of R. Chaim’s extensive torah has been published. To be sure, some of R. Chaim’s torah can be found scattered throughout the seforim of his time, but never in a book of its own. In 2002, R. Kosovsky-Shachor (“R. KS”) published a collection of R. Chaim’s responsa entitled Nishmat Hayyim. These responsa were collected from various manuscripts in many collections as well as correspondences which R. KS found in the Rabbinic literature from R. Chaim’s era. A year later R. KS printed a second volume of letters, derashot, articles and approbations of R. Chaim Berlin also entilted Nishmat Hayyim. In the back of the volume of responsa, R. KS includes a nice historical write up of R. Chaim Berlin’s life (corrections and additions to the biography appear in the back of the second volume).

A few months ago another collection of R. Chaim Berlin’s respona were published by Yeshivat ve-Hegaditah le-Vinkha entitled Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin. This version was published in four massive volumes on all areas Shulchan Orach, Shas and more. In this post I will discuss a bit about the two versions, some of the interesting teshuovs found in them and many instances of censorship in the later edition. Regarding these examples of censorship, I can only assume that there are many more examples as I haven’t compared every line of the four volumes with the original. But, as will be apparent, the examples provided below are fairly egregious. Additionally, these works touch on the important topic of the reason behind the closing of Volozhin Yeshiva.

For purposes of this post, I will refer to the Nishmat Hayyim as the older edition and the Otzar Reb Hayyim Berlin as the new edition. The earlier edition contains about 200 responsa while the new version has well over 800 responsa. In the earlier edition they printed a volume of letters and haskamos which the new version did not do yet include but promises to print shortly. The newer version has an excellent index based on the order of shas and topics. Just a quick glance shows the tremendous wealth of topics discussed. They also included a list of all the people R. Chaim corresponded a veritable “who’s who” of the gedolim from that time period.

Some Highlights

Amongst the many interesting teshuvos there is one about riding on a train on Shabbas (1:171-172), creating something via the Sefer Yetzira on Shabbas (1:418), asking an agent to give a Get via a phonograph (4:39), throwing grass when one leaves the cemetery (2:359) and burning dead bodies as opposed to burial (2:353-355).

In the new edition there is a lengthy discussion (1:70-77) about answering Amen when one is in middle of davening. In the midst of this responsa (1:73) R. Berlin notes a very interesting thing :

נראה לענ”ד שאף במקום שמותר להפסיק בפשיטות ואין שם בית מיחוש כלל להחמיר כמו להפסיק מפסוקי דזמרה לקדושה, אין זה אלא רשות שמותר להפסיק אבל לא חיוב, וטעמא דידי, משום דקי”ל העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה….

Another interesting statement found in a correspondence between him and R. Sholomo Hakohen where R. Shlomo writes (#67 in the old edition and # 191 in the new edition):

כן שמעתי מפי אביו הצדיק זצ”ל (הכוונה להנצי”ב) שאמר בשם חמיו זקנו הצדיק מו”ה חיים מוואלזין זצ”ל שיש לומר פירוש בלשון הרמב”ם והשו”ע אם הוא עולה ע”פ ההלכה אף שבודאי לא כוונו לזה משום שרוח הקודש נזרקה על לשונם, וכן מצאתי כעין זה ממש בס’ בית אלוקים להגאון המבי”ט זצ”ל בסוף פ’ ס”ד ע”ש”

While discussing the topic of gramophones, R. Chaim Berlin (#1 in old edition) writes that they had these already in the time of Chazal:

ובזה נראה לי לפרש לשון הש”ס בפ’ ראוהו ב”ד רה”ש כ”ח ב’ דמשני הש”ס על הא דתנן הי’ עובר אחורי בית הכנסת ושמע קול שופר או קול מגילה, אם כיון לבו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא מאי לאו אם כיון לבו לצאת, ושמע מינה מצות צריכות כונה, ומשני לא לשמוע, והא שמעי, סבור חמור בעלמא הוא, ופירש רבינו חננאל בש”ס החדשים דפוס ווילנא אם כיון לבו לשמוע ולהבחין אם הוא תקיעת בן אדם או צהלת סוס, ותמוה דהא ניחא בקול שופר שיש לטעות שהוא צהלת סוס, אבל בקול מגילה דלא שייך לטעות שהוא צהלת סוס, מאי איכא למימר, ותפשוט מינה דמצות צריכות כונה, וכבר תמהו בזה הטורי אבן במקומו, והפרי חדש או”ח (סי’ תר”צ סעי’ י”ג). ונראה דבימי הש”ס הי’ כלי זו של הגרמפון עשויה כצורת חמור והליצנים היו משתמשין בו, וזהו חמרא דאכפא דאמר ר’ אבהו בפ’ במה אשה שבת ס”ו ב’ ופירש”י חמור הנישא בכתפים והליצנים עושים אותו ובמקומנו נקרא ארדפיסא, ותרגם בש”ס החדשים דפוס ווילנא שזה קומנדינט או פארשטעלונג, וביותר היו עושין כן בפורים לבדח ולשמח את ההמון, והיה הדבר מצוי לשמוע מהחמור הזה גם קול מגילה, ומבואר דאם הוא קול החמור הזה, אינו יוצא ידי חובתו, כנלע”ד, וה’ יודע האמת

Another nice point is found while dealing with the issue of reciting the tefilah of Birkat Rosh Chodesh in light of the general prohibition against praying for one’s livelihood on Shabbos. R. Chaim Berlin writes (#23 old version):

ע”ד אשר שאל, היאך מצלינן בשבת שמברכין החודש על חיים של פרנסה, לפלא שלא שאל גם על נוסח מי שברך שאומרים בכל שבת אחר יקום פורקן, דמצלינן וישלח ברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם, וגם על נוסח בריך שמי’ שאומרי’ בהוצאת ס”ת דמצלינן יהא רעוא קדמך דתוריך לן חיין בטיבותא. אבל כבר כתבו האחרונים ליישב מנהג ישראל, שלא אסרו לתבוע צרכיו בשבת, אלא ביחיד העושה לעצמו תפלה מיוחדת על איזה מקרה, הנחוצה לו באותה שעה לפרנסה או לרפואה וכדומה, אבל נוסח תפלה הקבוע לכולם בשוה בנוסחא אחת, אין קפידא בזה, וגם זה נכלל בלשון הירושלמי טופס ברכות כך הוא

Another nice piece (# 52 old version) I found is in regard to the famous discussion for those who observe gebrucks how can they make kneidel on Chol Hamoed Pesach?

והנה, קרבו ימי המועד לבוא, אשר לא אאחוז עט בידי לכבודו משך שמונת ימים, ע”כ אמרתי להודיעו מה שעוררתי את בני עדתי בדרשת שבת הגדול העבר, ע”ד האנשים הנזהרים ממצה שרוי’ כל ימי הפסח לבד מיום האחרון, ויש גם נשים הנזהרות בזה. ואותן הנשים שנזהרות בזה ואין להם משרתת בבתיהם ואופות ומבשלות בעצמן, הנכון שיזהרו בשביעי של פסח מלהכין תבשילי מצה שרויה על יום המחרת, מאחר שאין התבשילין הללו ראויין להן ביו”ט, ואפי’ אם יקלעו להם אז אורחים ביו”ט שביעי של פסח, ג”כ לא יתנו להם מצה שרוי’, הרי לא מהני עירוב תבשילין בזה, כמש”כ הרמ”א בסי’ תקכ”ז סעי’ כ’ לענין מי שמתענה ביו”ט ועי’ מגן אברהם שם

It is also apparent from this teshuvah that R. Chaim did not even write Torah on Chol Hamoed.

Another very interesting Teshuvah (new edition 3:1-3) is where he deals with the Tzavas R. Yehudah Hachassid, as he was asked about marrying someone where it would be against one of the statements in the Tzavah. To which he replied:

.מכאן נלמוד לכל האזהרות שהזהיר רבינו החסיד ז”ל בעניני זיווגים, שאם אין בדבר זה שום מצוה, אלא שחפץ בה לשם ממון או לשם נוי, ודאי יש ליזהר בכל אזהרותיו, אבל מי שעושה מעשיו לשם שמים, ומכוין למצוה, עליו לא הזהיר החסיד כלל

Another interesting piece found (#24) is about a piece of the Netziv in the journal of Rav Kook, Iytur Seforim where the Netziv wrote that it is permissible to read newspapers on Shabbas. Regarding this point R. Chaim Berlin wrote:

ועל דבר לעיין בשבת בהרהורא בעלמא בלי קריאה בפה באגרות רשות ובמכתבי העתים לא הי’ כלל דעת מר אבא הגאון שליט”א, לקבוע מסמרים בהלכה זו ככל דבריו שבעטור סופרים, ולא בא אלא ליישב מנהג העולם שקוראים במכתבי העתים בשבת שסומכים בזה על משמעות תלמודא דידן עפ”י דעתם, שמפרשים דתלמודא דידן פליג בזה על תלמוד ירושלמי, אבל להלכה גם הוא יודה דקיי”ל כהירושלמי, וכה”ג מצינו בהרבה מקומות שכתבו הפוסקים ליישב מנהג העולם, שסומכים על דעה יחידית אף שלא כהלכה

The Netizv defends his opinion in the Shut Bikurei Shlomo (1:2). Interestingly enough there is testimony to the contrary from R. Baruch Halevei Epstein who writes how on Shabbas his uncle the Netziv used to read the Hebrew newspaper, Hamagid (Mekor Baruch 4:1794). R. Meir Bar-Ilan echoes R. Baruch Halevi’s testimony about his father the Netziv that he would read newspapers on Shabbas (Me-Volzhin LeYerushalim 1:138).

Much has been written about how the responsa literature can aid in reconstructing the history of the period, this sefer also shows us this. Just to cite one example in volume one (p. 88) of the newer version (which shockingly was not edited out) someone wrote to R. Chaim:

גלוי וידוע לכבודו עד כמה פשתה הנגע בארצינו וביתר שאת בארצות אוירפפה ושדה תיכלה כמעט בכל בנות ישראל שוע ודל אשר גם בעליהן ואבותיהן המה משלומי אמוני היהודים המחזקים בדתינו הקדוש והמה גם הנה אינן ח”ו מפורקי עול בדרך כלל, ובכל זאת עברו ושנו ונעשה להן כהתיר לילך בגליות שער ראשיהן אחת המרבה ואחת המטמעטת, עיר ועיר ומדינה ומדינה כמנהגה וכפי חוקות המאדע שלה. ולא ישמרו את נפשותיהן מזה לילך כן גם בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמסיבות אנשים שרים סביב לשלחן בעת סעודות נשואין שבת ויום טוב

We see from this that the well known phenomena of woman not covering their hair in previous generations. The question which was posed to R. Chaim was what one should do about saying berokhot or Shema in front of such a woman. To which R. C. Berlin replied:

לענין קריאת שמע גופא יש מקילין בזמן הזה שכבר נהגו לגלות ראשן ודומה לשער שמחוץ לצמתן… ומעתה למעשה בזמן הזה, מי שאינו מחפש למצוא לו יתד על מה לסמוך, ומקלו יגיד לו, יוכל לסמוך על המקילין. ומי שהוא ירא חטא, ורוצה לצאת ידי שמים גם בסתר כבגלוי, ודאין אין לו לסמוך על המקילין

This is similar to the famous controversial pesak of the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 75:7):

עתה בואו ונצווח על פרצות דורינו בעוונותינו הרבים שזה שנים רבות שנפרצו בנות ישראל בעון זה והולכות בגילוי הראש וכל מה שצעקו על זה הוא לא לעזר ולא להועיל ועתה פשתה המספחת שהנשואות הולכות בשערותן כמו הבתולות אוי לנו שעלתה בימינו כך מיהו עכ”פ לדינא נראה שמותר לנו להתפלל ולברך נגד ראשיהן המגולות כיון שעתה רובן הולכות כך והוה כמקומות המגולים בגופה… וכיון שאצלינו גם הנשואות כן ממילא דליכא הרהור

Censorship in the New Edition

Of course this post would not be complete without mentioning some censorship in the new edition. Although I mentioned that the later edition has much more material than the first edition it seems a few teshuvos got “lost” in the later edition. [The family involved with the printing of this sefer is the same one mentioned by Dr. Gil S. Perl, in his Emek ha-Neziv, A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (PhD, Harvard, 2006), on pages 49-50, in light of Dr. Perl’s comments, it is of no surprise that they edited out these particular teshvot].

In the first edition (# 135, see volume 3:5 of the new edition) there is a discussion about shaking woman hands which has been a very controversial topic [See the recent Bina Ve-das p. 117]. Perhaps shockingly to many R. Chaim Berlin replied:

ואשר שאל על דבר נתינת ידו לרשעים או לנכרית, הנה ליתן יד לפושעים אין שום איסור בזה אם אין בזה הודאה וחיזוק להנהגותיהם בשרירות לבם. ולתת יד לאשה לשון הש”ס הוא ברכות ס”א א’ המרצה מעות לאשה מידו לידה כדי להסתכל בה, מבואר דאם אינו מכוין לשום דבר וכש”כ שאינו עושה כדי להסתכל בה כמו מעלתו שכל מעשיו לשם שמים אין איסור בזה לרצות מעות מידו לידה. ודאי אם יוכל להזהר בזה מה טוב, אבל אם אי אפשר לו להנצל מזה כגון אם הנכרית הקדימה והושיט לו את ידה ואין דעתו לשום הרהור ח”ו אין להחמיר בזה, ודרכיה דרכי נועם, ואהבת את ה’ אלקיך אמרו חכמים יומא פ”ו א’ שיהא שם שמים מתאהב על ידך, ולא יאמרו על יראי ה’ שהם משוגעים ואינם בעלי דרך ארץ

Two other pieces edited out from that same teshuvah in the new edition I am not sure as to why, are:

ועל דבר כסוי ראש האשה במטפחת אחת, אם אין שערה נראין אין בזה שום איסור, ועדיף טובא מפיאה נכרית, ואין צריך כלל שני כסויין, ואם אך אין השער נראה בחוץ די בכסוי אחד אף ברשות הרבים, ורשאי גם לקרות ק”ש כנגדה, ואין להחמיר עוד בזמן הזה

ולדבר עם אשה בשוק לא נאסר אלא לתלמיד חכם ולא למי שאינו מוחזק בתלמיד חכם, וכשם שתלמיד חכם המדבר עם אשה בשוק גורם בזה חלול השם כן מי שאינו מוחזק לתלמיד חכם הנזהר בזה שלא לדבר עם אשתו לעיני הבריות הוא מיחזי כיוהרא, ויש בזה גם כן חלול השם

Another very interesting statement which was edited out of the second edition is about Chasidim (# 7 in the old edition) where he writes:

ולהתפלל בבית הכנסת של החסידים אין שום חשש בזה, וגזירת רבינו הגר”א ז”ל לא הי’ אלא בזמנו שהקילו אז בכבוד תלמידי חכמים לומדי תורה, ולא כן בימינו שהחסידים חולקים כבוד לכל לומדי תורה והם יראי ה’ ושומרים תורה ומצוה. אך על דבר שינוי נוסחת התפלה, אסור לשנות בפרהסיא ממנהגיהם ומנוסחאותיהם ובנוסח הקדושה יאמר קדושת כתר בשביל שנאמרת בקול רם ויש בזה איסור לא תתגודדו, וגם שלא לעורר מחלוקת ח”ו, אבל בתפלה בלחש לא ישנה כבודו ממנהג אבותיו וממנהגו מעולם, ויתפלל שמונה עשרה בלחש כנוסח אשכנז

Another piece which was censored out although I am not sure what is so bad with it (#200 in the old edition) where he writes that there were additions to Mishnayos after Rabenu Hakadosh edited it:

שביארתי מאמרם ז”ל התמוה מאד בשלהי מס’ סוטה מ”ט ב’ על משנתינו משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא א”ל ר”י לתנא לא תיתני ענוה דאיכא אנא א”ל ר”נ לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא דאיכא אנא. והתמיה מפורסמת איך אמוראים קדושים כאלה ישבחו עצמם בענוה ויראת חטא, והמלך החכם אמר יהללך זר ולא פיך. וביארתי בס”ד על פי מש”כ הרע”ב ז”ל על האי בבא משמת רבי בטלה ענוה שתלמידיו של רבי הוסיפו וכתבו זה במשנה, וכ”כ בתוס’ רע”ק בשם הרמב”ן בחי’ ע”ז ל”ז א’ שהוא תוספת שהוסיף בר קפרא או לוי במשנה, והמה היו תנאים אחרונים תלמידי רבי. ואמרתי שהוא הוא התנא שדברו עמו רב יוסף ורב נחמן, שרב יוסף א”ל לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה א”ל לא תיתני ענוה שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ענוותן כרבי ועדיין לא בטלה ענוה משמת רבי, וכן א”ל רב נחמן לזה התנא שהוסיף במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא א”ל לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא שאתה מסתיר מדותיך הטובים ושונה במשנה משמת רבי בטלה יראת חטא ואנא ידענא שגם אתה ירא חטא כרבי, ועדיין לא בטלה יראת חטא משמת רבי, כן ביארתי זה המאמר לפי חומר הנושא

This censorship or editing goes the other way as well. In the first edition there is a piece (#120 old edition) about being a vegetarian but the whole question is not included for some odd reason but in the new version (#222) the whole question is printed out in full. R. Chaim Berlin was asked by R. Menashe Grossburg:

אם ראוי לישראל להיות מהחברה צער בעל החיים, ואם מותר לאכול בבית מרזח שלהם, שאין אוכלים אפילו חלב ובצים. לדעתי נראה לי בחפזי לפי מה שכתב הט”ז כמה פעמים דמה שמפורש התיר בתורה אין כח לשום אדם לאסור ובתורה מפורש התיר לאכול בשר מזמן נח. והם אומרים שכשם שאסור רציחה באדם גם כן אסור בבהמה אפילו בשחיטה, וזה נגד דעת תורתנו. ועוד ששמחת יום טוב מצות עשה גם בזמן הזה בבשר

To which R. Chaim Berlin answered:

נראה דעד כאן לא אמר הט”ז אלא דאין כח ביד חז”ל לגזור איסור לכל ישראל על דבר שפירשה התורה בפירוש להיתר, אבל מי שירצה לאסור על עצמו אכילת בשר, אין זה בכלל דברי הט”ז, והרי הוא ככל הנדרים שכתבה תורה בפירוש איש כי ידר נדר או השבע לאסר אסר על נפשו לא יחל דברו, אלא שחובה להתרחק מן הנדרים, והנודר כאלו בנה במה, ונקרא רשע כדתנן בפ”ק דנדרים ט’ א’ כנדרי רשעים, וביו”ד סי’ ר”ג

This teshuvah was a list of questions from R. Menashe Grossburg to R. Chaim Berlin which the old edition broke up and put it in the different places and never even included the name of R. Menashe Grossburg [at one time the editor makes it as if someone else asked the question (see p. 104)].

Some Final Points

When talking about the Malbim in a hesped (printed in volume two of R. KS Nishmat Chaim p. 14) R. Chaim Berlin said:

לחזק תורה שבעל פה כהגאון המלבי”ם ז”ל, ובענין זה לא הניח כמותו, ממלא מקומו, כי הניח כל החריפות והפלפולים שמילדותו והקדיש כל כחותיו להראות איך התורה שבעל פה מבוארת בבאר היטב בתורה שבכתב, אשר הענין הזה נחוץ ביותר בזמנינו

In another teshuvah we see how much he respected the Marsham as he (#19 old version) writes:

ואני אין רצוני להיות מדייני גזירות, אם לא שיבוא האיסור גם מרבנים זולתי כמו מהגאון ר’ שלום מרדכי הכהן מברעזאן וזולתו, אז יוכל לצרף להם גם את שמי ולא באופן אחר

His very close friend the Adres also felt the same way about the Marsham as the Adres even asked him to be his Rebbe in Halacha after R. Yitzchak Elchanan died (see Rabbosenu she-begoleh 1:13-125 and R. E. Katzman in his introduction to Chidushei Hagoan Hadres pp. 25-26).

I write that the Adres was very close to him based on two things. One, besides for the Netziv and other family members the most correspondences are with the Adres. Two, in his Tzevah he writes:

מקום קבורתי, קניתי בחיי, על יד קבר אהובי הרב ר’ אלי’ דוד ראבינאוויץ תאומים ז”ל

[On the friendship between Adres and R. Chaim Berlin see also the letter printed in the most recent volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (3:355-356).]

In a letter from the Adres (new edition 1:382) to R. Chaim Berlin the Adres describes to him when he first met the Netziv. The Netziv got up and made a Shecheaynu! [The Adres also records this incident in his now rare, autobiography Seder Eliyhu p. 85]. [On the friendship between Adres and Netziv besides for what Adres writes there in his autobiography (ibid) see the letter printed in the most recent volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (3:485-486).]

In a letter to a friend written when he first got to Yerushalim R. Chaim Berlin writes:

והנני מברך בכל יום בשמחה רבה שלא עשני עב”ד (אב”ד)

He also writes this statement in a short history of himself which he sent to R. Eisenstadt for his Doros Achronim (1:71-72). [This short history is included in the new edition of Nishmat Chaim p. 8 without providing their source.] [On this “Beracha” see R. S. Askenazi in his Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria p. 469 where he shows five places where R. Yakov Emden said this.]

In the newer edition of R. Chaim Berlin they write that they did not include a biography of R. Chaim Berlin in light of R. Chaim’s opposition to such biographies or histories:

The Closing of Volozhin

But they did include one historical thing which they felt was very important to be printed, the statement of R. Chaim Berlin about the closing of the Volozhin Yeshiva (based on a copy of the manuscript) where he writes:

מה שהזהירני וצוה עלי מר אבא הגאון זצלל”ה הכ”מ קודם פטירתו. על דבר שמסר נפשו על ענין ישיבה דוואלוזי’ין, שלא להכניס לתוכה שום לימוד חול ולסיבה זו נסגרה הישיבה ומזה נחלה בחוליו אשר לא עמד ממנה. וצוה לי באזהרה שלא להסכים לענין זה בלא שום הוראת היתר בעולם. ואמר שהקב”ה רמז כל זה בתורה. שאמר להבדיל בין הקודש ובין החול היינו שכל עניני חול המתערבים בקודש בלי הבדל. לא די שאין עניני למודי חול מקבלים קדושה אלא אף זה שעניני למודי קדש מתקלקלים מהם. ע”כ לא ירע לך בני מה שהענין זה גרם לי לצאת מן העולם כי כדאי הוא הענין הגדול הזה למסור נפשו עליו. כל זה דיבר אלי ביום ג’ כ”ו מנחם אב תרנג בוורשא עכ”ל

This piece has been printed before in many places (at times even an exact picture of it see S. Roz in his Tzadik Yesod Olam pg 142 and from there R. Eliach in Hagoan pg 629; see also Yeshurun 7:675). The letter was called into question as to its authenticity see R. Ben Zion Yadler in his Betov Yerushlaim pg 388-389. [These sources escaped Professor Stampfer’s notice see his book Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah pg 224].

The topic of the closing of Volozhin has been the subject of much discussion especially the often quoted article of Jacob J. Schacter, “Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892,” Torah u-Madda Journal 2 (1990). See even more recently the interesting discussion by R. N. Kamenetsky in his Making of a Godol (1: 442-455). Although we have this statement of R. Chaim Berlin about the closing of the Yeshiva but based on historical facts it can not be true. While it was very true that the government and maskilim had been making terrible trouble for years about learn2ing secular studies in the Yeshiva and for the most part were unsuccessful. We do have clear documentation that Secular studies were taught in Volozhin on some scale a few years before its closing. ]See Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah p. 223.] The various theories discussed in these articles attribute the close of the Volozhin Yeshiva to the fight of R. Chaim Berlin taking over his father’s position as the Rosh Hayeshiva. R. M. Shapiro in R. Moshe Shmeul Vedoro (an eyewitness to the closing) also writes that one factor in the closing of the Yeshiva was the rebellion against R. Chaim Berlin (p.76) [This excellent book was not used by R. KS in his writing up about R. Chaim Berlin.] Most recently all this has been reexamined by two people especially based on new evidence – documents that have been discovered after the Iron Curtain fell.

What I find interesting is how two people can see the same documents and came to completely different conclusions. A few years back R. Frank printed a book on yeshivas Volozhin called Toldos Beis Haskem Bevolozhin. This book deals with the history of the Yeshiva from the beginning until the end including a brief history of all the Roshei Hayeshiva. Although the book is weak on quoting sources it has many important discussions about the topic of Volozhin. One of the real new important things printed here is government documents dealing with the closing of the Yeshiva (pp. 274-96). Although he edits out many parts due to respect for R. Chaim Berlin and R. Chaim Solovetick he prints parts and concludes that the maskilim and a few renegade bochrim influenced by the maskilim caused the government to close down the Yeshiva and it revolved learning secular studies in the Yeshiva. A few years later Professor Saul Stampfer reissued his excellent book Hayeshiva Halitais Behishavetah with many important additions and corrections amongst the additions were these same documents but unedited. The picture one gets from these documents (as he shows pp. 245-66) is something else entirely. Specifically, the cause for the government closing down the Yeshiva was not because of learning secular studies, instead the closure was because of the whole terrible and disgusting controversy about the succession of R. Chaim Berlin for his father the Netziv to be the Rosh haYeshiva of the Yeshiva. The bochurim got the government involved and they were very unhappy how the whole thing was dealt with so they shut down the Yeshiva.

One of the things the Bochrim did was interrupt the shiur of R. Chaim Berlin constantly bombarding him with many questions. According to some, they used many seforim borrowed from R. Chaim’s vast library to stump him. This terrible act was done a few times before in Volozhin. Once when R. Alexander Moshe Lapides visited the Yeshiva the bochrim did the same thing to prove a point (see Yeshivos Lita, Pirkei Zicronos pp. 75-77). [This account is not included in the otherwise excellent edition of R. Alexander Moshe Lapides writings called Torah Hagoan R. Alexander Moshe.] When R. Yitzhkach Elchanan Spektor visited the yeshiva at a different time they tried the same thing but were unsuccessful in stumping him (see Toldos Yitchack p. 61 see also Harishon Leshalshles Beis Brisk pp. 128-32).

As an aside in researching this topic I was (and still am) horrified about this whole controversy how the bochurim (even if it was not the majority of the Yeshiva) could do all the terrible things they did during the whole fight. Ultimately causing the close of the Yeshiva and the premature death of the Netziv!

In the Derech Etz Chaim, Y. Meltzer (pp. 51-52) prints a letter of someone (he edits out the name) (see also Nishamt Chaim old edition 2:122) who asked mechilah from R. Chaim Berlin for making him trouble when he was supposed to take over Volozhin and R. Chaim Berlin writes back:

אנכי עפר ואפר ואין אני כדאי לפני המקום יתברך שמו, כי יענש חס ושלום שום אדם בסיבתי. ובר מן דין, כבר באותם הימים שצערוני אמרתי בכל לילה כמר זוטרא מגילה כח א’ שרי ליה לכל דצערן לי ואין לו לחוש כלל לדרוש ממנו מחילה כי מצדי כבר מחלתי. אמנם מאי דשקליה למטרפסי ונענש מן השמים זה בשביל שני דברים: אחד בשביל חילול ה’ הגדול שגרם… ב. בשביל צערו של רבו המובהק, מר אבא הגאון מאור הגולה זצוקל”ה, שגרם לו אז כמובן… ובפרט שיכול להיות שמהצער הגדול הזה שגרם לו היה התחלה למחלתו האחרונה, שנפטר על ידה מן העולם

Another famous piece printed in Nishmat Chaim (volume two of the old edition pp. 380-83) is the dream he had after his very close friend R. Yitchack Blazaer died and R. Chaim Berlin gave a hesped although he requested that there be no hespedim. R. Chaim Berlin described the dream as follows:

נשמע אליו בזה שלא לספר בשבחו כלל, אולם על שלא נבכה על ההעדר לא צוה כלל… בא המונח אצלי בחלום ואמר לי יישר כח על שלא הגדתי שבח. ושאלתי ממנו מה נעשה בדינו בעולם ההוא, ואמר לי שדין של מעלה הוא חמור מאד שאי אפשר לשום אדם בעולם הזה לשער כלל, וביחוד מקפידים מאד על דבורים האסורים שנדברו שלא כהוגן

Another thing which R. Chaim Berlin was very famous for was his massive library which consisted of thousands of volumes. [See R. KS in Nishmat Chaim p. 376, vol 2 pp. 398, 352]. There are even some nice letters of his to his (and his fathers) friend E. Harkavy thanking him for some recent volumes from the Mikitze Nerdamim society with some comments on the seforim. This letter was printed in the first volume of Shnos Dor Vedor (p. 199) and than again in the second volume of the Nishmat Chaim of R. Kosovsky-Shachor. In the recent version of Nishmat Chaim (4: p. 45 part two) only part of the letter was printed. In the edited out piece R. C. Berlin wrote:

זה שנתים ימים, אשר הריצותי כסף שלומים, בעד שנת מקיצי הנרדמים חמשה רו”כ שלמה ליד בחיר החכמים, ידידנו הגאון ר”מ שטראשון ז”ל, ויענני במכתב, כי הריץ את הכסף לידדנו הרב הד”ר א’ ברלינר הי”ו בברלין

I am not sure why it’s a problem to acknowledge that R. Chaim Berlin liked R. Strashun but it’s not a problem in regard to R. Harkevey. As an aside we see R. Chaim Berlin wrote respectfully about A. Berliner contrary to the recent complaint voiced by someone in the recent Yerushenu (3:396).

This library also consisted of manuscripts one of which was the Seder Hadoros with the comments of the Radal. [There is a teshuvah (new edition 1:96) of his to the Radal someone who his father was also very close with] When R. Chaim Kahana was working on the Seder Hadoros R. Chaim Berlin gave him this sefer. R. Kahana included these notes which are very valuable to the topic in his Kochvei Or (available here ).

The bulk of this library passed on to R. Isser Zalman Meltzer. In Derech Etz Chaim, Y. Meltzer brings a few stories of how R. Isser Zalman Meltzer made use with it (pp. 451-52) and even had the editors of Otzar Haposkim use it (p. 328). Although Y. Meltzer writes that in the Tzevah of R. Berlin it said that if a Talmid Chaham moves into my apartment after my death he should get it (p. 50) but in the version of the Tzevah printed in Nishmat Chaim (vol. 2 pp. 403-05) it does not say any such thing. [See Nishmat Chaim volume one (old edition p. 376).]

R. KS brings a story (2:377) to show his incredible yedios which I find hard to believe. Someone asked R. Chaim Berlin where is the first time that the name Chaim is mentioned in our literature as its not found in Talmud, Medrash or the era of the Geonim. R. Chaim Berlin replied the first time the name is found is in Tosfos and than he started listing the rest of the people with that name. The reason I find it hard to believe this story is we do find this name in the era of the Geonim. As R. Sherirah Gaon and Ravad in Sefer haKabalah [Cohen ed. p. 41] bring that Rav Zemach Goan father was Chaim. A look at the index of Moshe Gil’s Bemalchut Yishmael Betekufos Hageonim (volume 4 p. 853) shows that the name Chaim was fairly common in the era of the Geonim [thanks to M.M. Honig for this source]. R. Chaim Palgai (Kol Hachaim 8:15) cites a Medrash in Bamedbar (14) that shows an Amorah had the name Chaim. But it seems to be a printing mistake as in our edition it says Chiyah [see also Kesser Shem Tov vol 1 pg 300].

I mentioned that R. KS collected the Haskomos of R. Chaim Berlin reaching over 140 but at least one is missing a haskamah to a reissue of Seder Hadoros that R. Yeruchem Leiner brother of the Radziner Rebbe started working on with many additions.

One weakness both editions have which E. Katzman in his introduction to Chidushei Hagoan Hadres (p. 42) already complains about, is that the older edition left out all the sources for the pieces. The second edition at times does quote the sources from where they found the pieces but more often than not they do not quote their sources.

In conclusion, to obtain the full version of R. Chaim Berlin’s responsa, both edition are necessary, and definitely worth owning.