1

A Newly Discovered Work of the Rambam?

|

A Newly Discovered Work of the Rambam?

By Eli Genauer

I recently purchased a Chumash which was printed in Sulzbach in 1741 by Meshulam Zalman ben Aharon Fraenkel

Marvin Heller succinctly sums up the history of Hebrew printing in Sulzbach as follows:

“This small Bavarian community was for over two centuries the site of Hebrew presses that printed many important titles. Duke Christain-Augustus due to his interest in Kabbalah, permitted the opening of Hebrew print shops in the 1660’s. Sulzbach was subsequently home to Hebrew presses belonging to Isaac Kohen Gersonides, Isaac ben Judah Loeb of Prague, Moses Bloch, and afterwards the Frankel-Arnstein family which printed books there from 1699-1851.”[1]

The bibliographic record at the NLI, most likely copied from the cover page of the book, notes nothing very unusual about it.

http://aleph.nli.org.il:80/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000333882&local_base=MBI01

עם שלשה [פירושים]… רש”י ז”ל, עם רש”י ישן, גם הפירוש רבינו יחזק’ בעל חזקוני, ובעל הטורים [לר’ יעקב ב”ר אשר] וכל הספר תולדת אהרן [מאת ר’ אהרן מפיסארו], וחסירות ויתירות וקרי כתיב… גם הפטורת [!] ופירוש המילות. והוגה בעיון רב…

One line that stands out a bit though, is one which indicates that there is a Peirush Hamilot for the Haftorot

                                                                                     … גם הפטורת [!] ופירוש המילות.

It also notes that there are separate title pages for the Chamaish Megillot and Haftorot

 סד דף, עם שער חלקי: “חמש מגילות… עם פירש רש”י”, וכן ההפטרות לכל השנה.

This bibliographic record comes from The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book (מפעל הביבליוגרפיה העברית)

We are informed on the NLI website that “The recording of the books is done in a scientific manner according to rules set by an editorial staff led by Prof. Gershom Scholem and Prof. Ben – Zion Dinur, and was based on examination of the books themselves. It includes a full description of the contents of the book and accompanying material, as well as all participants in its composition: editors, translators, authors of forewords and introductions, interpreters and illustrators and more.”

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/infochannels/Catalogs/bibliographic-databases/Pages/the-hebrew-book.aspx

It seems though that the bibliographers missed a very unusual and important feature of this Chumash.

Here is the separate cover page for the section on Haftorot:

This title page contains the following information

”  כמנהגי כל קהלת קדושות…..ועם פירוש המלות של הרמב״ם ז״ל“

“According to the customs of all the holy communities…with a “Peirush Ha’Milot” of the Rambam.”

This information is also included in the preface portion of the Chumash section under the title of אמר בעל המדפיס:

“גם ההפטרות ופסקי טעמים מדוקדק…עם פירוש המלות של תורת משה הרמב״ם..”

There seems little doubt that this Peirush Hamilot is being attributed to the Rambam.

Here is what one page looks like.

An example of a “Peirush Hamilot” would be the words “קול גדול” being interpreted as “בקול גדול”

However, this other page evidences differences in methodology in the “Peirush Hamilot”.

“בדרך” is just translated as “במנהג.”

But “והיית לאיש” is expanded upon and explained as “מושל ברוחך”

“בדרכיו” is also very much expanded upon by saying exactly which paths should be followed:  “מה הוא חנון אף אתה תהא כן”.

In this section below, we are told that the four Metzoraim are Gechazi and his three sons, a comment mirroring Rashi and Radak:

In the story of Yonah, we are told that he was troubled that Hashem had forgiven the people of Ninveh.

The Peirush HaMilot explains that it was because he did not want to be thought of as a false prophet. This is similar to Rashi’s approach:

I had never heard of such a commentary on Navi by the Rambam and was not able to find any reference to it anywhere. I checked with numerous experts in the field and no one else had heard of it either.

Imagine that! A work ascribed to the Rambam showing up in Sulzbach in 1741 and seemingly never to be heard from again. The printer gives us no hint of its origin and treats it as if it were a known work.

There is more, though. There is a fascinating reference to the Sulzbach Chumash of 1741 by none other than Rabbi Reuven Margoliot.[2] In a lengthy discussion of names that are missing from the Rambam’s Hakdamah to Peirush HaMishnayot, Rabbi Margoliot posits there is a portion of this Hakdamah missing from our printed editions and expresses the hope that

                           ״ואולי תוחזר לנו האבדה הגדולה שני פרקים מהקדמת רבינו זו שהושמטו בהעתקות ולא נדפסו״

As a proof that there are missing chapters, he quotes from the Chida who writes:[3]

   ״מצאתי בספר ישן נושן כת״י שני פרקים מהקדמת פירוש המשנה להרמב״ם שלא נדפסו, והם ביאור מלות חמורות שבתלמוד״

In a footnote Rabbi Margoliot then makes a connection between the “lost” “ביאור מלות חמורות שבתלמוד” and the פירוש המלות של הרמב״ם ז״ל״” which appears in the Sulzbach Chumash of 1741.

״בחומש דפוס זולצבך תק״א בחלק ההפטרות מכל השנה הנלוה לתורה עם פרש״י וחזקוני הוא רושם שכולל פירוש המלות של הרמב״ם ז״ל״

Finally, by only citing this Chumash as containing the Peirush HaMilot, Rabbi Margoliot seems to be indicating it was the only time it was published. It certainly is a rare find for a Chumash printed in 1741.

*Seforim Blog editor’s note: The Warsaw 1860 Mikraot Gedolot included this perush hamilot (calling it haftarot im biur hamilot on the title page) but does not give the attribution to the Rambam, or to anyone.  Some of the content are word for word quotations of Rashi in the print editions. Here is the title page (from a 1951 photo offset reprint):

 

[1] Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book by Marvin J. Heller- Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2008.- p.40.
[2] Nitsotse or : heʼarot be-Talmud Bavli ṿe-heʻarot be-divre gedole ha-rishonim ṿeha-aḥaronim. Reuven Margoliot. Yerushalyim, Mosad Ha-Rav Kuk, 2002, p.34. The discussion of the missing names starts on page 30. The footnote cited is footnote 29 on page 34. My appreciation goes to a fine young scholar named Yosef, who brought this source to my attention.
[3] Sefer ʻEn zokher, Chaim Joseph David Azulay, Yerushalayim, 1962. p.185 #29



A Compromise in Halacha – On Menachot 33a

|

A Compromise in Halacha – On Menachot 33a
By Eli Genauer
A common D’var Torah delivered at a wedding goes something like this: “Dear Chatan and Kallah. You are standing beneath a Chupah which is representative of the home you will build within the Jewish people. When you walk into your home, you will notice that that Mezuzah is placed in a diagonal position on the doorpost. There is a disagreement between Rashi and his grandson Rabbeinu Tam as to whether the Mezuzah should be affixed in a vertical or horizontal position. Later decisors ruled that a compromise between those two opinions was in order and therefore prescribed that the Mezuzah be affixed diagonally. This lesson of compromise is an important one as you embark upon you marriage and the Mezuzah on your door is an important reminder of this principle. Mazal Tov!”
This wedding Dvar Torah is based on a Gemara in Menachot 33a
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, עשאה כמין נגר פסולה.
איני? והא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר כולהו מזוזתא דבי רבי כמין נגר הוו עביד……. ?
לא קשיא, הא דעבידא כסיכתא, הא דעבידא כאיסתוירא. 
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one affixes a Mezuzah like a bolt, it is invalid. Is this so? But when Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef came ( from Eretz Yisroel ) he said that all Mezuzot in the house of Rebbe ( Yehuda HaNasi) were affixed like a bolt……? This is not difficult. This ruling (where it is ruled as being unfit) is where it was prepared like a peg; that ruling (in the house of Rebbe where it is ruled as being fit) is where it is prepared like an ankle. [1] 
Rashi explains that a “נגר” is something that is embedded in a wall “שתוחבין הנגרין בכותל”[2] 2. He then writes the word “כזה” and illustrates this with a drawing showing a horizontally placed Mezuzah. This is one of many times here that Rashi tells us something and then uses the word “כזה” which is then followed by a diagram. In this case, the illustration shows a horizontally affixed Mezuzah and it is a mezuzah affixed in this direction that is improper.
Rabbeinu Tam (תוס’ ד״ה “הא דעבידא כסיכתא) is bothered by the explanation of Rashi because he feels that it is more honorable to have the Mezuzah affixed in a horizontal position just as it is more honorable to have a Sefer Torah lying horizontally than standing vertically. He therefore translates the word “נגר” as a “peg” and says that the disqualification of a Mezuzah affixed כמין נגר is that it is affixed vertically, like a peg. He also translates the word כסיכתא as a peg and therefore disqualified because it is vertical, and the word איסתוירא, which is considered to be proper, as the part of the foot below the ankle which is horizontal.
The idea that affixing the Mezuzah diagonally is a compromise between the positions of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam is based on the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 289:6

צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת זְקוּפָה, אָרְכָּהּ לְאֹרֶךְ מְזוּזַת הַפֶּתַח….. הַגָּה: וְכֵן נָהֲגוּ. (בֵּית יוֹסֵף) אֲבָל יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁפְּסוּלָה בִּזְקוּפָה, אֶלָּא צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת שְׁכוּבָה, אָרְכָּהּ לְרֹחַב מְזוּזַת הַפֶּתַח (טוּר וְהַפּוֹסְקִים בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ תָּם). וְהַמְּדַקְדְּקִין, יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּמַנִּיחִים אוֹתָהּ בְּשִׁפּוּעַ וּבַאֲלַכְסוֹן (טוּר וְהַגָּהוֹת מַיְמוֹנִי ומהרי”ל ות”ה סי’ נ”ב), וְכֵן רָאוּי לִנְהֹג, וְכֵן נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ.

In truth, it is not really a compromise but rather an effort to affix the Mezuzah in a way in which both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam would approve. Rashi says that vertical is the proper way, horizontal is Pasul, but bent ( or diagonal) is also Kosher. Rabbeinu Tam says that horizontal is the proper way, vertical is Pasul, but bent is also Kosher. Some Meforshim take this idea even further by saying that since in the house of Rebbe the Mezuzot were affixed כאיסתוירא, this was some sort of Hidur and therefore something to be emulated.
The classic edition of the Vilna Shas (Vilna 1885) renders this Sugya and the accompanying diagrams as such
Here are the words of Rashi which correspond to these two diagrams which show the positioning of four Mezuzot
  1. עשאה כמין נגר – שקבעה ותחבה בסף כנגר, שתוחבין הנגרין בכותל כזה.
  2. פסולה – דמצותה לתתה באורך בסף כזה …. נגר, קביליא
  3. עבידא כסיכתא – נגר כשל אומנים כזה פסולה
  4. איסתוירא – היינו מקום חיבור השוק והרגל ומעומד הוא כזה, כשירה:
  5. ל”א איסתוירא, כי היכי דמקום חיבור השוק והרגל הוי השוק זקוף מלמעלה והרגל שוכב כזה כך הניחה למזוזה כשירה הואיל וראשה אחד זקוף:
The doorframe in the top illustration shows the position of two Mezuzot.
The one on top is horizontal which is improper, and the one on the bottom is vertical which is Kosher.
  1. עשאה כמין נגר – שקבעה ותחבה בסף כנגר, שתוחבין הנגרין בכותל כזה.
He affixed and inserted it in the doorpost like a bolt, for workmen who work with bolts insert it in the walls like this[3] 
  1. פסולה – דמצותה לתתה באורך בסף כזה ….
It is improper- Because the Mitzvah is to affix it vertically in the doorpost like this….
The doorframe in the lower illustration also shows two Mezuzot.
The one on top is horizontal and therefore improper and the one on the bottom is bent (it looks like the Hebrew letter Nun), and therefore Kosher. Here are the words of Rashi which correspond to these two Mezuzot.
עבידא כסיכתא – נגר כשל אומנים כזה פסולה
A bolt as fashioned by workmen like this is disqualified
ל”א איסתוירא. כי היכי דמקום חיבור השוק והרגל הוי השוק זקוף מלמעלה והרגל שוכב כזה כך הניחה למזוזה כשירה הואיל וראשה אחד זקוף
Another explanation of איסתוירא – like the point at which the “Shok” joins the ”Regel”, where the “Shok” is upright and the “Regel” rests, like this, so too if he affixes the Mezuzah like this it is Kosher because the top part is upright.
There is no diagram associated directly with this comment of Rashi
איסתוירא – היינו מקום חיבור השוק והרגל ומעומד הוא כזה, כשירה:
Whether a נגר is normally inserted horizontally or vertically is also “illustrated” in Jastrow’s explanation of the word
In Bava Batra 101a he describes it “like an upright bolt” and in our Gemara he describes it as “like a bolt shoved into a case, i.e. horizontally”
There are two issues with the standard depiction of the two diagrams in the Vilna Shas. Rashi uses the word כזה five times and there are only four “illustrations” (2 in each diagram) Also, we would expect that there would be a diagram after each time it says כזה.
This problem is solved when we look at the only handwritten manuscript we have of Rashi on this part of Menachot.
The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia Ms. EVR IV 25:

http://aleph.nli.org.il:80/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000159163&local_base=NNLMSS
It contains five depictions of the placement of the Mezuzot and each כזה is followed by a depiction.
The problem is also solved when we look at the first printed edition of Menachot ( Bomberg 1522) whose source had to be a manuscript. [4] 
This printed edition leaves space after every כזה. It even includes a rudimentary depiction of the last כזה looking like a “Nun” which is supposed to depict where the ankle meets the leg.
It looks very much like the Nun in the National Library of Russia manuscript and may have emanated from the same source.
It was very exciting for me personally to discover this “diagram” which clearly was added to illustrate the כזה. In his Maamar ‘al hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, (ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem: 2006, p.41)  Rav Natan Nata Rabbinowicz, writing about the first Bomberg edition, states as follows:

״ובכל התלמוד (וכן בכל הדפוסים הישנים עד דפוס בערמן) נשמטו הציורים בגמרא, רש״י ותוספות,ונשאר מקומם חלק, מלבד בסוטה מג. שישנו הציור ברש״י
“In all of the Talmud (and in all other older printed editions of the Talmud until the Berman edition ( Frankfurt an Der Oder 1697-99) the diagrams were not included in the Talmud, Rashi and Tosfot, and their space remained empty, except for Sotah 43A, where we find a diagram in Rashi.”

It turns out there was a diagram included in the second Bomberg edition of Zevachim( 1528) on 53b, which Rabbinowicz probably never saw. See my article here.
He may have also missed this one because it does not look much like a diagram, but just a letter, or perhaps he felt it was of no significance.
This depiction of the last כזה looking like a “Nun” was maintained by subsequent editions of the Talmud printed in Basel 1580, Cracow 1605, Amsterdam 1644, and Frankfurt an der Oder in 1699.
It was only dropped and replaced with the two larger diagrams we have today in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1720.
Since many people follow the advice of the Rema and affix the Mezuzah diagonally, it is important to understand the source. This is the word in the Gemara which state that in the house of Rebbe, the Mezuzot were affixed כאיסתוירא. This word is etymologically related to the Latin word astragalus which is described as “the bone in the ankle that articulates with the leg bones to form the ankle joint”. It is more commonly known today as the Talus and looks like this:[5] 
As used in the Gemara, it probably meant the entire area where the bottom of the foot ( which is horizontal) met the bottom of the leg ( which is vertical) at the ankle, thereby looking like something that was bent.
Finally, there is a fascinating story about the Talus bone related by Rav Yisroel Shachor in the Sefer “Dovair Yesharim”.[6] In discussing the איסתוירא, he writes that he was in a terrible automobile accident and בחסדי ה׳ escaped death by climbing out of the rear of the car only seconds before it burst into flames. The only injury he sustained was a broken bone in his foot, which he identified as the Talus. He had many opportunities to view x-rays of his broken foot and concludes “I see this as a source of amazement that the only bone of all 248 bones in my body which was broken, allowed me to understand the words of Torah, and to understand that this was the איסתוירא which is mentioned in Gemarot.”[7]

[1] Translation courtesy of Sefaria.org and follows the interpretation of Rashi.
[2] There is discussion on whether what is shown as Rashi in our editions of Menachot was actually written by Rashi. Rav Natan Nata Rabbinowicz ( author of Dikdukei Sofrim) writes that our “Rashi” was written by a student of Rabbeinu Gershom. ( Dikdukei Sofrim on Menachot 86a note 6 where he writes …מפני שהפרוש הזה המיוחס לרש״י הוא כנראה מתלמיד הרבינו גרשום מאור הגולה והעתיק ברובו לשון הרבינו גרשום מאור הגולה) Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi (the author of the Shita Mekubetzet) writes that for chapters 7-10, the “Rashi” in the standard editions was not written by Rashi and he substitutes his own version which is indicated by the words “Rashi Ktiv Yad” in the Vilna Shas. The editors of the Vilna Shas record this opinion at the beginning of the 7th chapter ( Menachot 72a) as follows: וזה לשונו “זה הפּרוש אשר הוא בדפוס מפרק אלו המנחות עד שתי הלחם אינו מפי׳ רש״י ז״ל והוא של פרשן אחר, וזה לשון רש״י כּ״י”.But Rav Ashkenazi seems to indicate that the Rashi of other chapters was in fact written by Rashi. ( see his note to the beginning of Menachot chapter 11 where he writes מכאן ואליך הוא פירוש רש״י ז״ל).
[3] We only know that it is affixed in a horizontal direction from the picture, not from Rashi’s words.
[4] The Soncino family printed many tractates of the Talmud from 1483-1519 before Bomberg printed the complete Talmud in 1520-1522, and those Soncino editions often formed the basis for the text of the Bomberg edition. But the Soncino family did not print tractate Menachot meaning the Bomberg edition was based solely on manuscripts.
[5] My source for this information is Dr. Carol Teitz who is a member of my Shul. Dr. Teitz is an orthopedic surgeon and most recently, the dean of admissions at the University of Washington Medical School
[6] Doveir Yesharim, Sefer Shemot, Jerusalem. 2014, page 128

[7] This source was brought to my attention by a Torah scholar named Aharon who has helped me immensely in my research on diagrams.


The Strange Shape of the Marcheshet Pan

|
                             The Strange Shape
of the Marcheshet Pan
                                                            
By Eli Genauer
“The underlying basis of our work is that
pictures are an organic part of the commentary, and it possible that Rashi even
allowed himself to limit his explanatory words when a picture was available to
the reader. This is in the sense of “a picture is worth a thousand
words”. The picture is an integral part of the written book, no less
important than the words.” 
                                                              
Dr Ezra Chwat
                                                    
Department of Manuscripts, National Library of Israel
                                                     
Giluy Milta B’Almah Blog
                                                          
January 15, 2017
There were many vessels
used in the Beit HaMikdash. Nevertheless, without pictures or diagrams drawn
contemporaneous to their existence, there remains some doubt as to exactly what
they looked like. I would like to discuss one vessel used quite often in the
Temple and see what the diagrams of the Rishonim can tell us about its makeup.
I would also like to analyze a diagram in Rashi’s commentary to Talmud Bavli
and see how it fits into our discussion.

Massechet Menachot 63a
האומר הרי עלי במחבת, לא יביא במרחשת; במרחשת, לא יביא במחבת.  מה בין מחבת למרחשת–אלא שהמרחשת יש לה כסוי, ולמחבת אין לה כסוי, דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי; רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, מרחשת עמוקה ומעשיה רוחשין, ומחבת צפה ומעשיה קשין
One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a grain offering prepared]
on a griddle, he must not bring [one baked] in a pan. If [he says “I take upon
myself to offer a grain offering prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring [one
prepared] on a griddle. What is the difference between a griddle and a pan? The
pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid – [these are ] the words of
Rabbi Yose Hagili; Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says : a pan is deep and what is
prepared is spongy, a griddle is flat and what is prepared is hard.[1]

Leaving  aside the opinion of Rabbi Yossi Haglili, let us concentrate on the statement of Rabi Chanina ben Gamliel
We would imagine that the Marcheshet is a deep vessel, and the Machvat
is flat, as it is described as a griddle. 
Perhaps like this:
                                   
The Gemara then cites a Braita which deals with the following
situation.  If a person takes a vow
saying “I take upon myself a Marcheshet”, it remains unclear whether he meant
he will bring the vessel called a Marcheshet, or the normal Korban Mincha that
is brought in a Marcheshet. Beit Hillel is of the opinion that since there was
a specific vessel in the Beit Hamikdash called a Marcheshet, we understand that
he is talking about that vessel and we require him to donate it to the Beit
HaMikdash.[2] Here are the words of the Braita which describe in some detail
the appearance of this Marcheshet pan:
כלי היה במקדש ומרחשת שמה ודומה כמין כלבוס עמוק וכשבצק מונח
בתוכם דומה כמין תפוחי הברתים וכמין בלוטי היוונים

There was a vessel in
the Temple called Marhesheth, resembling a deep mould, which gave the dough
that was put into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts. (The Soncino
Hebrew/English Babylonian Talmud)

Rashi goes to great
lengths to explain this uncertain statement and includes a diagram in his commentary.
This diagram first appeared in printed form in the early 18th
century but unfortunately, it does not align with the words Rashi uses to
describe the overall shape of the pan. 
Additionally, It does not match the diagram we have in a manuscript of
Rashi nor diagrams in manuscripts of other Rishonim.
But first some
background
The diagrams we have
today in the Vilna Shas in Rashi and other Rishonim come from earlier printed
editions. The first printed edition of the entire Talmud to contain diagrams
was the Behrmann Shas printed in Frankfurt on Oder, 1696-98.[3] Raphael Natan
Nata Rabinowitz posits that by the time diagrams were included in the printed
text, there were very few manuscripts around because most had been placed in
Genizah.[4]  He therefore concludes that manuscripts were not used in the early
18th century as a source for diagrams. What was the source of those
diagrams for the Behrmann Shas ? According to the editors of the Behrmann Shas,
they mostly came from the Chochmat Shlomo of 1582.[5] It’s an extremely
reliable source because it was written by Rav Shlomo Luria who specifically
wrote it to correct the text of the Bomberg Shas and to insert the relevant
diagrams. Rav Shlomo Luria lived at a time when there were still many
manuscripts around, so either he used those manuscripts for his textual
emendations and as a source for his diagrams, or he used his own capabilities
to come up with his changes and additions. Since most of our present day
diagrams follow from the Behrmann edition, they have an aura of authenticity
attached to them.[6]
The problem arises when
we discover that Chochmat Shlomo does not include all the diagrams we have
today. For example, in our case, there is no Chochmat Shlomo on Menachot.
Let us now take a look
at the diagram in Rashi on Menachot 63a.
The first time it
appeared in print was in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1722, exactly 200
years after the diagramless Bomberg edition. We know its source was not a
manuscript of Rashi nor was it the product of the Maharshal.
Putting aside the
diagram for a moment, let us concentrate on the words of Rashi as he tries to
describe the Marcheshet:
כלבוס
– גלואו”ן שם כלי עשוי כעין מחבת שלנו והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים
כזה  ומצוייר תוכו גומות גומות וכשהבצק מונח בתוכו [נכנס] הבצק
בגומות:
Rashi concentrates on
the word כלבוס as the Gemara itself says that a Marcheshet is shaped like a
deep כלבוס. Rashi first gives us an old French word
which is normally translated as “tongs”.[7] He says that the Marcheshet is like
his present day Machvat pan and that the “wall in the middle faces the inside,
like this”. The problem is that the diagram does not seem to show a wall in the
middle facing the inside. Additionally, if a כלבוס is a pair of tongs, and the shape of the
vessel looked somewhat like a pair of tongs, how does that align with the
diagram which is circular?
The Shita Mekubetzet
which is included on the standard page of the Vilna Shas has a completely
different diagram.
Notice that the word
Dofen is in the middle of the diagram just as Rashi says והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים
The
volume of the Bomberg edition that belonged to Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi the
author of the Shita Mekubetzet contains the exact same diagram inserted in the
blank space of the Rashi.
Jerusalem – The National Library of Israel Ms. Heb. 4°79 (link).
In his book Dikdukei
Sofrim on Menachot (Munich, 1886) R.N.N. Rabinowitz writes about the
importance of the comments of the Shita Mekubetzet as they were addressed to
the Bomberg edition of 1522 and relied heavily on manuscripts which included a Rashi
manuscript.[8] The Acharit Davar printed at the end of the Vilna Shas also
extols the importance of the Shita Mekubetzet on Kodshim as it came from a
manuscript and was based in part on a manuscript misidentified but actually of
Peirush Rashi.[9]
Going back in history,
we can get an idea if a diagram did in fact exist in Rashi manuscripts by
looking at the first printed edition of Menachot which was Bomberg 1522. Its
source had to be from manuscripts because no printed edition preceded it.
You can see that the
Bomberg editors included the word “כזה” in the text of the Rashi and left 2
spaces indicating that their manuscript included 2 diagrams. This may explain
why our present diagram does not reflect the shape of the overall pan as there
may have been one diagram depicting its shape and a second one depicting the
apple like insets. In fact, a notation in the Oz Vehadar edition states quite
clearly that our diagram just illustrates the words “גומות
גומות”.
As mentioned before,
the words of Rashi seem to support the idea that the Marcheshet pan was
semicircular in nature. In addition, the shape of the vessel is likened to a כלבוס which is an
item dealt with a number of times by Rashi
For example this Rashi
on Shabbat 59b:
Rashi states that an
item worn by women called a “מנקתא פארי” ( starting with the letters “וי״מ” for ויש מפרשים) is “כּמין חצי עגול עשוי כמין כלבוס” and then draws your attention to a
diagram of a semi circle.
Fortunately I was able
to find a manuscript of Rashi on Menachot which is identified as Vatican
487  and is from the 13th
century. (Made available by the Polonsky Digitization Project) It pictures the
Marchseshet pan in a semicircular shape and thus fits in more with the words of
Rashi.
It’s clear that the
diagram included only deals with the semicircular nature of the vessel and not
the little depressions inside the “Tocho Shel Kli”. This diagram is very
similar to the one in the Shita Mekubetzet and it is possible it served as a source
for the Shita Mekubetzet.[10]
We are confronted with
another diagram of the Marcheshet pan in what is known as the Peirush Rabbeinu
Gershom first printed in the Vilna Shas. This Peirush describes the vessel
being shaped like a כלבוס and then says it is “כמו פגום”, which means incomplete. One would expect
to see a vessel like in the Shita Mekubetzet and in the Rashi manuscript which
is not either completely circular or square in nature. Nevertheless, the diagram
in the Vilna Shas depicts this vessel as being square like this
In the Achrit Davar the
editors of the Vilna Shas state that they had a manuscript of this Peirush
Rabbeinu Gershom however the following manuscript shows the pan as having an
indentation and not being square.
Roma – Biblioteca Angelica Or. 1 (link):
It could be they that
had a manuscript depicting a square pan, or it is possible that their
manuscript had a pan with an indentation and this was not transferred
successfully to the printed page. Certainly the words of the Rabbeinu Gershom
indicate the latter.
Conclusion:
Nowadays it is easy for us to transfer an image from a
manuscript to a printed or electronic page. All we have to do is point, shoot,
copy and paste. The result is an exact duplicate of what is on the manuscript,
and it is even easier to work with than the original. But hundreds of years ago
it was not so simple. A woodcut or an engraving of the image could be made and
then transferred to the printed page, but that was time consuming and
expensive. Because of this, images such as diagrams were just left out, and
when they were added, they were often misleading and sometimes even incorrect.
The printing revolution was a giant step forward for the dissemination of
Jewish knowledge, but, at least at its beginning, played havoc with many important
diagrams.
[1] English translation
from Sefaria.org.
[2] The Rambam Paskens
according to Beit Hillel. Since Beit Hillel speaks about the Marcheshet being
different than a Machvat,  and not just having a cover) it is clear that the
Rambam holds like Rav Chananya ben Gamliel
[3] Maamar ‘al hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem: 2006, p.41. The Soncino family printed individual editions of the Talmud between 1483- 1518, but not an entire set. Some of those editions such as Eiruvin did contain diagrams and some did not. The first complete set of the Talmud was the Bomberg edition 1519-1522. That edition did not contain diagrams, only empty spaces which were to indicate where diagrams were to go (the only exception was Sotah 43a). There were numerous full editions of the Talmud printed between 1522-1697, but these also did not contain diagrams. 
[4] Printing
the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud, Marvin J. Heller, Im Hasefer 1993 p.6 states as follows: “Rabbinovicz attributes the dearth of Talmud codices to
the manner in which they, and many other manuscripts, had been written; without
any commentaries, with errors and erasures, and lacking even lines. Rashi and
Tosafot (additions by Ashkenazic luminaries after Rashi) were separate
manuscripts, suffering from the same conditions. As a result, learning must
have been difficult, with the reader having to continuously peruse three different
works, assuming that he owned them. Therefore, when the Talmud was printed with
Rashi and Tosafot, “men no longer learned from their manuscripts, but
considered them as utensils without further value, placing them in genizahs, so
that they no longer exist.”
[5] Other sources mentioned by the editors of the Behrmann Shas are Maharsha and Maharam Lublin. Neither of those sources contain diagram for our Rashi.
[6] A good summary of
the subject of where our present day diagrams came from can be found in the
introduction to the Shas Nehardea, under the heading of “המקור לציורי הש”ס”. (Vagshal Publishing Ltd,
Jerusalem, 2008, p.5 of the introduction. The overall section on diagrams
starts on page 4 of the introduction under the heading “מבוא לציורי הש״ס”.)There are a few diagrams that are
not in the Berman Shas but first appear in the Frankfurt am Main edition of
1720-1722. Here too, the editors of that edition say that the source of their
diagrams was the Chochmat Shlomo.
[7] All the Meforshim
understand that Beit Hillel is saying that the Marcheshet pan is shaped like
a כלבוס,
meaning the pan is shaped like a pair of tongs. 
I would imagine tongs to look like this, with the top part being
semicircular especially in the open position
Jastrow renders our
Braita saying that a Marcheshet is “a baking form in the shape of forceps with
cavities”
[8] Rabbinowitz writes
on page 1 of his introduction that when he wrote his emendations on Menachot
that “I had in my hand a handwritten manuscript of the Shita Mekubetzet by Rav
Betzalel Ashkenazi…..And he wrote his comments on the 1522 Venetian edition
including Gemara, Rashi and Tosafot with the help of handwritten manuscripts he
( Betzalel Ashekenazi) had in his hands”
[9] Achrit Davar at the
end of Masechet Nidah, p.6
[10] The Oz VeHadar edition of the Talmud
actually changes the diagram inside the Rashi to the diagram of the Shita
Mekubetzet


The 1908 Student Strike at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary: A Newly Discovered Document

|
The 1908 Student Strike at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological
Seminary: A Newly Discovered Document
By Eli Genauer

I would like to thank Dr Zev Eleff for his invaluable assistance in helping me frame this article. I would also like to thank Sharon Horowitz of the Library of Congress for providing research assistance.

The Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), present day Yeshiva University, was officially founded on March 20, 1897. RIETS was the first unequivocally Orthodox Jewish seminary on American soil.  Initially, its mission was entirely religious, limited “to promote the study of the Talmud and to assist in educating and preparing students of the Hebrew faith for the Hebrew Orthodox Ministry.”[1] RIETS’ first years were difficult ones.  It did not move into a building of its own until 1904.[2] Additionally, RIETS faced difficulty meeting its financial obligations.  including a student stipend. As a result, in 1906, RIET’s was beset by a major student strike. Among the student’s demands was that RIETS expand its mission beyond religious education and they demanded that they be instructed in secular subjects, including learning English.[3] While that strike was settled, another student strike and a lockout occurred over similar issues in May 1908. The strike was ended when changes were promised by the board of directors.  Yet, that settlement proved fleeting.
By August 1908, the students were striking again. The students’ strike received notice from the national press, when on August 19th,
the New York Times reported:[4]
the Talmuds are lying idle on the shelves of the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Theological Seminary at 156 Henry Street, and the drone of the voices
of the students as they walked back and forth reading aloud from the Hebrew
text is heard no more. For the last few weeks the students have not received
the $3.50 a week which they are paid while they are learning to become Rabbis.
Consequently, they have gone out on strike. Boruch Shapiro, Louis Mahler and
Samuel Broida, the leaders of the demonstration, stationed themselves at the
door of the school yesterday and effectively blockaded the entrance of all the
smaller boys. Nathan Lamport of the Lamport Manufacturing Supply Company, at
278 Canal Street, president of the school, and David Abramowitz of 47 Forsyth
Street, the Secretary, do not know what to do.[5]
On August 20th, citing financial reasons, the board locked out the students and
closed the school.[6] As a result of the closure of the school by the board of directors, some of the students and some Rabbinic leaders tried to form a new school called Yeshiva le-’Rabbanim which was designed to address some of the deficiencies of RIETS.[7]
Although the closure of the RIETS has been documented, the August 1908 student strike that led to the closure is not reflected in any published histories discussing the unilateral closing of the school and lockout of the students by the board ofdirectors on August 20th.[8]
One of the difficulties in piecing together exactly what happened during that August 1908 strike, lockout and its immediate aftermath is the dearth of contemporary records. This lacuna is in part attributable to a general lack of documntation of REITS’ early years.  And, “there are no records extant of the Seminary from its inception in 1897 to its merger with Yeshivat Etz Chaim in 1915. Only the Certificate of Incorporation, scattered newspaper accounts, one or two contemporary citations, and passing references in the memoir literature of the time remain as silent witnesses to the great vision and determination of a few men who…created the first Orthodox rabbinical seminary in America.”[9] As an example, in reporting on the August 1908 closure of the school by the board of directors and its aftermath, one scholar quotes mainly from newspaper accounts of the day.[10] There was an important memoir of that period written by Hayim Reuben Rabinowitz, who was an 18 year old student at the time, but Rabinowitz published his account 60 years later.[11]
Recently, however, a contemporaneous account of the events of 1908 has come to light.  This account was discovered as a result of construction at Congregation Bikur Cholim Machzikay Hadath in Seattle, Washington, when workers came upon a box of papers labeled, “Rabbi B. Shapiro Papers, 1920s-1960’s.” Rabbi Boruch Shapiro (1883-1970) was born in Szmorgon, Lithuania and was recognized as a Talmudic genius (Iluy) at an early age.[12] He was a student of, and received ordination from, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, (Or Sameakh), one of the outstanding rabbinic leaders of his time.[13] While in Dvinsk, R. Shapiro also received ordination from Rabbi Joseph Rozin, known as the “Rogatchover Gaon”.[14]  R. Shapiro immigrated to America in the early 1900’s and visited Seattle in 1913 on a fundraising trip. His visit became permanent when he ended up marrying a local woman, Hinda Gershonowitz and remained in Seattle until his passing in 1970. Rabbi Shapiro is perhaps best remembered as the Rav of Congregation Machzikay Hadath in Seattle, a position he held for forty years.
Before arriving in Seattle and shortly after arriving in America, Rabbi Shapiro studied at RIETS. Because he already possessed rabbinic ordination, he was considered in a special class of students, receiving a higher weekly stipend than most others who studied there. [15] He was sent by the school to give lectures at a synagogue in Brooklyn during the Sukkot holiday of 1905 as an example of the quality of students that were studying in the yeshiva.[16]
The box of papers discovered contains Rabbi Shapiro’s account of the events surrounding the student strike in August 1908, and the subsequent founding of the Yeshiva Le’Rabbanim. The account was written on October 7th, 1908 and covers the period from August 20 until that time. Because Rabbi Shapiro was one of the three student leaders of the strike, his account is particularly relevant to filling in the picture of the details of the August 1908 RIETS student strike.[17] Rabbi Shapiro’s writings, it should be noted, reflect that he and his fellow students had been involved in a struggle with, in his view, a dysfunctional and stubborn board of directors for over two years.[18]
Rabbi Shapiro records that:
On Thursday night, 24 Av 5668(20 August 1908), the Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Yeshiva was closed in a very unseemly fashion. Mr. [Jonathan] Shepp,
the treasurer of the Yeshiva called the police several times to evict the
yeshiva students from the building in which they learned.[19]
But despite all his efforts, the police declined to do harm to the students.
They remained there despite his displeasure until midnight and at that time
they left for their residences.”[20]
After the students of the Yeshiva had concluded that there was no
hope to improve both the physical and spiritual conditions of the Yeshiva due
to the obduracy of the leaders whose concern was only for themselves, the
students decided to separate from the above named Yeshiva and move to “Adas Bnei
Yisroel” at 213 East Broadway, which welcomed them with open arms.[21] On
28Av (25 August-1908), the students of the Yeshiva moved their place of Torah
study to the above mentioned address in the company of well-known rabbis, such
as Rabbi [Shalom Elchanan] Jaffee[22],
Rabbi [Chaim Sholom] Shoher[23],Rabbi
[Aaron] Gordon [24],
and others, who had gathered there to guide them. After much discussion, it was
decided that the yeshiva students would study temporarily in Adas Bnei Yisroel,
and that they would acquire a charter. So that the leaders of Yeshiva Rabbeinu
Yitzchak Elchanan would not collect money in their name, they decided that this
yeshiva would be called “Yeshiva L’Rabanim”. Similarly, they decided to send
out boxes to collect members and to try to establish this yeshiva on a proper
foundation.
From 28 Av 5668 until 12 Tishrei 5669, three meetings of well-known
rabbis and prominent lay leaders were held. At the second meeting, an interim
leadership team for Yeshiva L’Rabanim was chosen: Rabbi Jaffe, chairman; Rabbi
Shoher vice chairman and treasurer; Rabbi [Joseph Judah Leib] Sossnitz,
administrator;[25]
Rabbi Dr. Rabinowitz from Brooklyn, administrator; Rabbi [Judah Leib] Lazeroff,
administrator,[26]
and others. The job of developing a “program” both in religious and secular
studies for this yeshiva was also assigned to the above leaders.
Even before the closure of the Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan, the
physical situation of the students was very bad because for seven weeks prior
to the closure, all they received was a half a kilogram of bread per week.
However, the situation since they left the Yeshiva until now was much worse,
and the poverty and embarrassment they suffered is difficult to describe. Many
of them could have found other means of support, but because of their love of
Torah, they accepted their lot and did not abandon Torah study with which they
had been engaged their entire lives.
Many Rabbis, in writing, speech and action, promised to help. From
all the promises very little materialized, aside from Rabbi Lazaroff, who had
spoken up a few times in his synagogue on behalf of the Yeshiva. He assembled a
worthy number of members from whom he collected funds. The prominent Mr.
[Abraham J.] Goldstein and his brother-in-law, Mr. [P.] Feinberg from Jersey
City came to the assistance of the Yeshiva in the beginning. [27]With
the help of other prominent members of their congregation who worked alongside
their honored Rabbi [Shlomo David] Posner, that synagogue supported the yeshiva
a bit.[28]
To describe in detail all the problems faced by this new endeavor
and the stumbling blocks that were placed in front of this new Yeshiva from the
beginning until now would amount to an entire book. The task was difficult and
the conflict with the administration of the Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
weighed heavily on us. Many did not want to support the students of the Yeshiva
since they saw that the “Morgen Journal” had “sold out” to those above
mentioned administrators to do their bidding. They also felt that the “Tageblatt”
was leaning in the direction of those administrators, and not on the side of
the Yeshiva L’Rabanim. Many rabbis knew and admitted that the yeshiva students
were right, but kept silent due to fear. So much so, even those who had joined
the new Yeshiva were not really able to help it.
The primary laborers on behalf of the new Yeshiva were the students
themselves and especially a student council that was chosen from among them to
lead the struggle. The five members of this council were Mr. A.[vraham]
Shapira, Mr.[Ben Zion] Perl, Mr. [Chaim Yechezkel] Mosesohn, Mr. [H.S.] Linfeld
and Mr. B.[aruch] Shapira who was the leader.[29]
The politics were so intense that oftentimes those in the Yeshiva did not
confide in their fellow students for fear that they were supporting the other
side. The council worked diligently with the three main activists, Rabbi B.
Shapira, Rabbi A. Shapira, and Rabbi Perl who were most instrumental.  They abandoned all their other pursuits such
as attending “Preparatory School,” working day and night to battle with the
administration of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Isaac Elchanan.  Nothing was too difficult for them or beneath
their dignity. Their physical situation was worse than the conditions of other
students, as they had no other means of sustenance and they also received a
more meager stipend compared to what they had been entitled to. They suffered
immensely during this time. They knew that they were making great sacrifices
and losing precious time. Nevertheless, they did not consider their own
personal situations so that they could help establish this new Yeshiva on a
proper foundation. There were times that matters grew so bad that many of the
yeshiva students echoed the complaints of the Jews in the desert: they wanted
to return to their previous Yeshiva, but thanks to many of the yeshiva students
and the student council, especially Rabbi B. Shapira, these complaints were set
aside and it allowed the Yeshiva to attain the status it claims today. The
result of what has been done so far is small compared to what needs to be
completed. Nevertheless, laying the foundation, which was the most difficult to
accomplish, has been done. More effort is required to establish this Yeshiva on
a firm foundation and to transform it into an excellent school that will train
great rabbis in Torah, wisdom, fear of Heaven; who will work within the spirit
of ancient Israel and the spirit of this new generation; and who will unite
both old and young, thereby bring blessing to our people, our Torah and our
holy faith.”
In the end, Yeshiva Le-Rabbanim did not exist for very long because it never had substantial financial backing and support from the general community.[30] The attempt to form an alternative yeshiva apparently did not deter some of the student dissidents to return to RIETS. In 1917, in a RIETS publication, Rabbi Baruch Shapiro and his brother Rabbi Abraham Shapiro along with Rabbi Ben Zion Perl are listed among those ordained by RIETS now serving as rabbis in America.[31] Even more curious, the strike leader Rabbi Baruch Shapiro went on a fundraising tour in 1917 to raise money for the Rabbinical College of America, one of whose components was RIETS.[32]
The strike’s impact, however, on one of the most important future leaders of RIETS and Yeshiva University was profound.  Chaim Rabinowitz wrote “The strikes stimulated the mind of a young Rabbi who had recently arrived in America. This young Rav was Rabbi Dov Revel.” Rabinowitz cites a letter that Dr. Revel wrote to Rabbi Zvi Masliansky in the spring of 1908, where he grieves about the turmoil in RIETS that Rabbi Masliansky had told him about and hopes for better days for the Yeshiva. Rabinowitz concludes “the dream of Rabbi Revel came to fruition in 1915 when he became the Rosh Hayeshiva…and instituted great changes in the order of studies.”[33]
Here is a sample page of the document:

 

 

[1]
“Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association Certificate of
Incorporation,” March 20, 1897, (quoted in Gilbert Klaperman, “Yeshiva
University:  Seventy-Five Years in
Retrospect,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly 54,1 (September,
1964), 6). William Helmreich, however, states that teaching “the language of
the land” and Talmud was articulated in the RIETS charter, and, as such, “the
first such mention of combining secular and religious studies in one
institution.”  William B. Helmreich, “Old
Wine in New Bottles:  Advanced Yeshivot
in the United States,” American Jewish History, 69, 2 (December 1979),
235.  But, the 1897 certificate does not
mention “language of the land,” and Helmreich’s assertion is without
citation.
[2]
Gilbert Klaperman, The Story of Yeshiva University: The First Jewish
University in America (New York: Macmillan, 1969) 71-72.
[3]Alexander
Dushkin, Jewish Education in New York City (New York: Bureau of Jewish
Education, 1918), 77-78.
[4]
“Boys Go On Strike,” New York Times, August 19, 1908.
[5] The Times
report may have been the result of the RIETS’ students, who, to gain
sympathy to their cause alerted it to the unrest. See Klaperman, Story,
95
[6] The
most complete report on the student unrest from 1906-1908 can be found in Klaperman,
Story, 94-112.
According
to Rabbi Klaperman, the closure and lockout on August 20th was
reported by the Jewish Morning Journal on Friday August 21st,
1908 and the Judisches Tageblatt on Sunday August 23, 1908. Idem.
217n8.
[7] Gurock,
Men and Women, 40; Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553; and Klaperman, Story,
118.
[8] There
are three discussions regarding the closure of RIETS on Thursday, August 20th,
1908
See Klaperman, Story, 111-12. There is no mention of a
strike immediately preceding the board’s action. Rabbi Klaperman does not cite
the Times article in any of his footnotes. Additionally, in footnote 21,
p.218, he writes that there was no clear picture of presidential succession of
RIETS between February 1906 and fall of 1908, despite an indication in the NY
Times article that Nathan Lamport was the president of the school in August of
1908.
The
second is Hayim R Rabinowitz’s recollections that appeared in Hadoar in
1968. Hayim R. Rabinowitz, “60 Shana le-Shvitot be-Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchok Elchanan,”
Hadoar, June 14, 1968, 552-554. In 1908, Rabinowitz was an
eighteen-year-old student at RIETS, and writes at length regarding the
situation leading up to the closing of the school on August 20th,
with the resultant lockout of the students from the building at 156 Henry
Street, but does not mention that the students had been on strike immediately
preceding this event. Although Rabinowitz was a contemporaneous observer, his
reminiscences were only published sixty years after the events in question.
The third discussion is by Jeffrey Gurock.  Jeffrey Gurock, The Men and Women of
Yeshiva: Higher Education, Orthodoxy, and America Judaism (New York:  Columbia University Press, 1988) 39-40. Citing
Rabinowitz, p.553, he writes “Frustrated, feeling that a double cross was in
the making, RIETS students were once again talking strike in the late spring
and early summer of 1908.” Gurock, however, does not mention that a strike and
blockade of the building took place in August as indicated by the headline of
the New York Times and in the subsequent article.
[9] Klaperman,
Story, 48.
[10] Idem, 217-19.
[11]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 552-554, quoted extensively in Gurock, Men and Women,39-41.
[12] The
Jewish American Family Magazine and Gazette (Amerikaner Familian Magazin un
Gazetten), vol. XXXIX, no. 47, September 19, 1941, 2.
[13]
Rabbi Meir Simcha was the author of “Ohr Sameach”, an important commentary on
Maimonides’ “Mishna Torah”, and of “Meshech Chochmah”, a commentary on the
Torah. Rabbi Meier Simcha wrote of Rabbi Boruch Shapiro “he has the ability to
formulate outstanding novella acceptable to all”. The Jewish American Family,
2.
[14]
Prior to coming to America, Rabbi Shapiro obtained letters of support from two
other leading rabbinic figures in eastern Europe, Rabbi David Hirsch Eisenstein
and Rabbi Shlomo Vilner. The Jewish American,2. Rabbi Vilner wrote that
he never gives ordination to one so young, but in the case of Rabbi Shapiro, he
was willing to make an exception.
[15]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553.  Rabinowitz
also refers to Rabbi Shapiro as a “Gadol B’Torah”
[16] Klaperman,
Story, 62.
[17] The
New York Times article identifies him as one of the three student strike
leaders. See also, Rabinowitz, p.553 As early as 1906, R. Shapiro held a
leadership role.   He was among the four
students chosen to represent the students’ views before RIETS’ board of directors.  Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553; The Jewish American,
2, which states that Rabbi Shapiro was chosen as a representative by the
students in dealing with the board.
[18] Regarding
the student’s relationship with the board of directors, Klaperman describes an interaction
between the students and the directors as follows: “The student’s
dissatisfaction and the obduracy of the directors brought about continuous
agitation in the school and highlighted the confusion of aims in the
curriculum” Klaperman, Story, 86.
[19] Klaperman,
Story,99 writes that in 1906, Jonathan Shepp was elected as the new
treasurer, and that Jonathan Shepp was part of the finance committee appointed
on August 31, 1908 to assist in reopening the school after it was closed on
August 20. Klaperman, Story, 99, 113.
[20] Gurock
indicates that the treasurer threatened to call the police, but that in fact
the police were never called.  Gurock, Men
and Women, 40 (citing Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553).
[21]
Regarding the address of the building to which the students moved, Rabbi
Shapiro was physically at this new address so it is reasonable to assume that
he recorded it correctly. Additionally, on June 3, 2015, there was an auction
of documents associated with the newly founded Yeshiva La-Rabbanim (Kedem
Auction No.8, Lot 301). One of the documents evidences a stamp which says 213
East Broadway. Rabbi Klaperman lists the address
as 123 East Broadway.  Klaperman, Story,
116, 219n38.
[22] Rabbi
Shalom Elchanan Jaffe (1858-1923) was an important early American Orthodox
Rabbi. He received Semicha from both Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and Rabbi
Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor. He arrived in America in 1890 and served as a Rav in
St Louis and in Brooklyn before becoming the Rabbi in 1901 of the prestigious
Beth Midrash Hagadol synagogue on the Lower East Side of New York. He was one
of the most influential of Rabbis at the time, especially when it came to the
supervision of kosher meat. Jaffe’s motivations for his involvement with this breakaway
school, may have less to do with issues than his personality.  According to Klaperman, Jaffe was not one
wedded to the idea of secular education, one of the central demands of the
students. “On the other hand, Rabbi Jaffe was the stormy petrel on the rabbinic
scene, known as an impetuous non conformist who rushed in without fear when his
mind was made up.” Klaperman, Story, 117.
[23] Rabbi
Chaim Sholom Shochar (Rabbi H.S. Shoher) came to Boston in 1882 to be the Rabbi
of Bais Avraham synagogue and subsequently served as the Rabbi of Hadrath
Israel and Mishkan Tefillah among other synagogues in Boston. In 1905, he moved
to New York City to become the Rabbi of the prestigious Shaare Zedek synagogue
located at 38-40 Henry Street. In 1910, he is listed as living at 215 East
Broadway, next door to the location of Yeshiva Le-Rabbanim. He authored a
pro-Zionist book Shalom Yerushalyim in 1909 and passed away in 1918.
[24] Rabbi
Aaron Gordon (1845- 1922) known as the Miadziol (Myadel) Iluy, emigrated to
America in 1890 and was the chief Rabbi of Rochester, New York until 1900 when
he moved to New York City. He was one of the founders of the Agudath Harabanim
and served as head of a Bet Din on the lower east side. He served as the Rabbi
of Congregation Talmud Torah Tiphereth Jerusalem at 147 East Broadway. He was a
prolific writer, authoring many books on Halacha, among them Even Meir
(Pietrokov 1909), Teshuvat Meleat Even (Pietrokov 1912), Minchat Aharon
(Jerusalem, 1920) and Sha’arei Da’at (Jerusalem, 1921).
[25]
Rabbi Joseph Judah Leib Sossnitz (1837-1910) was born in Birzhi, district of
Kovno. He has been described as a Talmudic scholar, mathematician and
scientific author. He settled in New York in 1891 and in 1893, founded a Talmud
Torah on 104th street in Manhattan. In 1899, he was appointed a
lecturer in Jewish ethics at the Educational Alliance at 197 East Broadway.
[26]
Rabbi Judah Leib Lazarov (1875-1939), studied inTelz, Mir, Volozhin and Radin
before immigrating to America in 1898.He was hired as a preacher at Beth
Midrash Hayei Adam at 89 Henry Street in 1903 and succeeded Rabbi S.E. Jaffee
as Rabbi of Beth Midrash Hagadol in 1910. He authored a multi volume work Divrei
Yehudah (New York, 1906-1910).
Except for Rabbi Dr Rabinowitz who was from Brooklyn, all the above
named rabbinic leaders were from the Lower East Side near both Rabbi Isaac
Elchanan Yeshiva on Henry Street and Yeshiva La’Rabanim on east Broadway. They
most likely would have been aware of the struggles of the students with the
board of the Yeshiva and had possibly allowed them to speak in their synagogues
during the May strike. See Klaperman, Story, 104. It is also possible
they were consulted by the students on an ongoing basis even before they tried
to start a new school.
[27] Abraham
J. Goldstein emigrated to America in 1884 and immediately settled in Jersey
City. One book, Distinguished Jews of America, (New York, 1917), describes
him as “a strict Orthodox Jew in every sense”, “one of the richest and most
prominent citizens of Jersey City”, and “a member of almost every Jewish
organization in Jersey City”. He owned a grocery wholesale business, was
president of the Erie Building and Loan Association, and was one of the largest
real estate owners in Jersey City.
[28] Rabbi
Shlomo David Posner (Rabbi S.D Posner) was a Rabbi in Jersey City, New Jersey,
for many decades. He signed his letters “Rav V’Av Beit Din” of Jersey
City.  He authored a book of homilies Eshed
Hanahar (New York, 1932). In the introduction, he writes candidly about
being a Rabbi in America over many years. He was involved on a national level
in many Rabbinic organizations and he helped raise money for the Jewish
community in Palestine
[29] It
is interesting to note that Rabbi Shapiro refers to this group as Mr. but later,
refers to three of the group as Rabbi. The two Shapiro brothers and Ben Zion
Perl are referred to by Rabinowitz as having Rabbinic ordination already at
that time. Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553.
The four referred to by Rabbi Shapiro aside from himself are:
(1) Rabbi Abraham Shapiro was the brother of Rabbi Boruch Shapiro.
Like his brother, Abraham already possessed Semicha from Eastern Europe at this
time. He later served as a Rabbi in Canton, Ohio and in Utica, New York. He was
considered to be a prominent Musmach of RIETS in later years.
(2) Rabbi Ben Zion Pearl served as a Rabbi in Harlem. He was the
director of the Uptown Talmud Torah Association which had 2,400 students in
1919. In 1925, he was involved in raising money for the building fund of Rabbi
Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva. He passed away in 1929.
(3) Rabbi Chaim Yechezkel Moseson came
from Lodz Poland, learned in the Yeshiva in Lomza Poland and received Smicha
from Rabbi Yechial Michal Epstein, author of the Oruch Hashulchon. He was the
principal of Yeshiva Torah Vadath, Mesivta Tiferes Yerushlayim, and other
Yeshivot. He wrote many articles for Dos Yiddishe Licht, a newspaper
financed by Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt.
(4) Harry Sebee Linfield
(1889-1978), was a rabbi and statistician. His Jewish Statistical Bureau
conducted research on Jews in America and published numerous reports and other
publications on their findings, specifically the Statistics of Jews. He was born in
Lithuania and came to the United States in 1905. He was awarded a PhD by the
University of Chicago in Semitic language in 1916, and the following year was
ordained a rabbi by the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati
[30] Klaperman,
Story, 118.
[31] Idem.
262
[32] The
Reform Advocate, December 29, 1917, p.501
[33]
Rabinowitz, “60 Shana,” 553-554.


Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life

|

Rav Avraham Chai Reggio Brings A Sefer To Life
By Eli Genauer
Note: I would like to thank Rabbi Gad
Bouskila of Congregation Netivot Israel in Brooklyn for helping me decipher
Rav Avraham Reggio’s handwriting
Rav Avraham Chai (Vita) ben Azriel Reggio  (1755-1842) was the Rav of Gorizia, in
northern Italy for over forty years. During that time period, he answered
Sha’aylot both locally and from abroad, wrote a Sefer Torah, performed 300 circumcisions,
and gave many Drashot that changed people’s lives.[1] We are told that the
Derashot he gave before Neilah were so inspiring that
  ! החוטאים נתעוררו לשוב לה׳ בתשובה שלימה, והשונאים חבקו זה לזה ונשארו באהבה ואחוה ושלום
We are also informed that the
townspeople ascribed their being saved from a Cholera epidemic by Rav Avraham’s
righteousness.

Rav Avraham wrote a Sefer on the prohibition of
shaving on Chol Hamoed called “Tiglachat Hama’amar” printed anonymously in Livorno
(either 1839 or 1844) which was a refutation of his son Isaac Samuel Reggio’s  book “Ma’amar HaTiglachat” (Vienna 1835 ) which
argued for permitting it.[2]

One of the arguments put forward in his son’s book
was that “times have changed”, therefore the Halacha could be different.  Rav Avraham responds to this argument and
writes as follows about changing the Halacha:

I have a Mishnayot Zeraim which was printed in Amsterdam
in 1646 as part of the printing of the entire Babylonian Talmud by Immanuel
Beneveniste.
As you can see, there are numerous stamps on the
title page, but aside from those marks of ownership, we know that the book at
one time belonged to Avraham Reggio by this handwriting on the back page.
פלפולה כל שהוא
ממני הז׳ אברהם ריגייו
פיאה–פרק א׳ משנה ו׳
לעולם הוא נותן
משום פיאה ופטור מן המעשרות עד שימרח ע״כ
הרמ׳ב׳ם פירש
ז׳ק׳ל שכל מי שלא הניח פיאה וקצר כל השדה
כלו יוציא הפיאה ממה שקצר וכן אם לא הוציא מן השבלים הקצורים יוציא מן החטה אחר
שידושו אותה וימרחוה ויבררוה ואפילו טחנה וכו׳ 
קשיא לי טובא
שהפירוש הזה מנגד המשנה האומרת   ופטור מן המעשרות עד שימרח. א״כ המריחה קובע למעשר. ומה זה שאומר יוציא הפיאה אפי׳ אחר המריחה ויהא
פטור מן המעשרות! 
אם
לא שנוסיף תיבת קודם שימרחנה ויבררוה או שנוסיף אחר
אומרו מן הקמח
התיבות כלו׳ ובלבד שיוציא  קודם המעשרות
הראויות וצ״ע 
The matter under discussion is Mishnayot Peah 1:6
and deals with whether Maaser has to be taken from that which is designated as
Peah. Rav Avraham understands from his reading of the Peirush Hamishnayos on
this Mishneh, that the position of  the
Rambam is that Maaser does not have to be separated from that which is
designated as Peah even after Merichah has been done.[3]
The Rambam writes as follows:

 In asking his
question, it is clear That Rav Avraham understands the Rambam to be saying that
you are obligated to separate a portion for Peah even after the flour made from
harvested wheat is ground and that you are never obligated at any stage to
separate Ma’asrot. This is not clear to me from the Lashon of the Rambam who might
be saying normally one does not have to separate Maaser from Peah and adding
that Peah always has to be separated even at the latest stage of crop
production. The Rambam actually makes his comment דע שהפאה לא תחחייב להוציא ממנה מעשרות
on our Mishneh which says לעולם הוא נותן משום פיאה ופטור מן המעשרות
עד שימרח.
One would have to agree though, that
the Lashon of the Rambam is confusing.
There are
many diagrams that are drawn by hand in the book which fill in the blank spaces
left by the printer. Here is an example of a fairly complex one which I believe
was drawn by Rav Avraham Reggio.[4]


This
particular volume of Mishnayot needed some special Siyata D’Shemaya to survive
the Nazi annihilation of both Jews and their property. After being owned by Rav
Avraham Reggio, the book was the property of the library of the Jewish
community of Berlin.

We are
informed by the present day website of the Berlin Jewish Library that most of
the holdings belonging to this library did not survive the war. This makes this
book akin to an ״אוד מוצל מאש״ (זכריה ג:ב).

“The library of the Jewish Community of Berlin was founded in 1898. It opened its doors in 1902 in the community’s administration building on Oranienburger Strasse and quickly became a highly popular scientific resource, open to Jewish community members and the general public. By the time the National Socialist regime dissolved the Jewish community and forced its library to close, the institution had nine branches with more than 100,000 volumes, nearly all of which were lost in the war.” 

The book became part of the restitution efforts of the Jewish Cultural Reconstruction after the war and was eventually sent to Israel to be part of the library of the “Encyclopedia Hatalmudit”

Is it
possible that just as Rav Avraham Reggio saved his town from a cholera
epidemic, that his writings saved this book from being destroyed in the war?

[1] The
main source for his biography is from a series of two articles written in the
journal “Yerushalayim HaBenuyah” printed in 1844( Choveret Rishon, Zolkiew) and
1845 ( Choveret Sheniyah, Lemberg) The articles appeared under the title of
“Toldot Avraham” whose author was Mordechai Shmuel Ghirondi (1800-1852) Ghirondi
laments at length the loss of his teacher and goes into great detail of his
life. The two specific example cited above are on page 80 of the “Choveret
Rishon”
[2]  
For a discussion on shaving on Chol
HaMoed including quotations from both Avraham and Isaac Reggio’s books see
here. 

Bibliographic Information on
Tiglachat Hama’Amar comes from the Israel National Library website.

Note the date of death of 1846
which is incorrect as the eulogies on him by Mordechai Shmuel Ghirondi appeared
starting in 1844. Ghirondi gives the date of death as Asarah b’Tevet in 5602 (
1841). I am confused as to the date of publication of Tiglachat Maamar as the
NLI site gives it as תקצ“ט  but פ’ק’ד’ת’ך’ would indicate (5)604 or 1844. This date
is what is listed in Beit Eiked Sefarim.

The forward of the “Motzei L’Or”
indicates that it was written in 1836.

[3]    Tosfot Yom Tov gives us a summary of how Merichah
is understood by the various Meforshim. (From Mishnayot Zecher Chanoch) As you
can see, Rambam’s definition differs from other Meforshim.

[4]   We
know he was a Sofer and the ink looks very similar to writing in the back of
the book. (Additionally, his son Isaac Samuel was a skilled artist, and perhaps his artistic talent ran in the family. – Ed.)


An Obscure Diagram in the Bomberg Shas

|
 An Obscure Diagram in
the Bomberg Shas
By Eli Genauer
A recent book auction
by Kestenbaum featured the following listing:

AUCTION 65: JUNE 25TH, 2015
LOT:
111 (TALMUD, BABYLONIAN). Masechta Sotah. With commentaries by Rashi, Tosaphoth,
Maimonides and Rabbeinu Asher. FIRST BOMBERG EDITION .. ……Vinograd, Venice 27;
Habermann, Bomberg 22.

Daniel Bomberg, Venice: 1520.
                   This
Tractate contains the only appearance of a printed text illustration throughout
the entire Talmud issued by Bomberg (see f. 43r).

The reference to ( see f.43r ) indicates that this singular
printed diagram in the Bomberg Shas appears on Daf 43A in Sotah.
It is a diagram of the configuration of trees in a particular
orchard and it looks like this

We find other instances of a Bomberg edition of tractate Sotah
being offered for sale, and they contain the same basic information.

Kedem Auctions Auction no. 40 – Books, Manuscripts, Rabbinical LettersWednesday, September 3, 2014 – 17:00Books & ManuscriptsTractate Sotah –
Venice, 1520 – Bomberg Printing, First EditionBabylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah – with Rashi commentary and
Tosfot, Piskei Tosfot and Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna. Venice, 1520.
Printed by Daniel Bomberg, first edition.
On Leaf 43, 1 is an illustrative sketch on Rashi commentary. This is the
only printed sketch found in the Bomberg edition of the Talmud. Bomberg left
the rest of the places which were designated for sketches and illustrations
empty to complete with drawings after printing.

Sotheby’s
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1520
17 DECEMBER 2008 | 10:00
AM ESTNEW YORKBabylonian Talmud,
Tractate Sotah, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1520Folio (13¾ x 9½ in.; 350 x 242 mm.Folio 43r. provides the
only example of the inclusion of a printed diagram in the Bomberg Talmud.
In all other tractates, Bomberg simply left a blank space in which an
individual could insert a diagrammatic drawing.

The source for
this information most likely came from “Maamar al Hadfasat HaTalmud” by Raphael
Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz. It was first printed in 1868 as a hakdamah to
his book Dikdukei Sofrim on Masechet Brachot and later
added on to by Rabbinovicz and printed as a separate book.
I refer to this edition: Maamar ‘al
hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook,
Jerusalem: 2006

On page 41,
Rabbinowicz, writing about the first Bomberg edition, states as follows

״ובכל
התלמוד (וכן בכל הדפוסים הישנים עד דפוס בערמן) נשמטו הציורים בגמרא, רש״י
ותוספות,ונשאר מקומם חלק, מלבד בסוטה מג. שישנו הציור ברש״י

In all of the
Talmud ( and in all other older printed editions of the Talmud until the Berman
edition ( Frankfurt An Der Oder 1697-99) )the diagrams were not included in the
Talmud, Rashi and Tosfot, and their space remained empty, except for Sotah
43A, where we find a diagram in Rashi.

He seems to be
saying that not only in the Bomberg first edition was this the only diagram
included, but also in subsequent Bomberg editions this remained the only
diagram included. He even casts a wider net and says that this was the only
diagram included in any set of the Talmud until the Berman edition of Frankfurt
an Der Oder printed from 1697-1699.

Is this correct?
I would have to say it is mostly correct but not completely.

The Israel
National Library website contains the following page:

It can be
accessed at http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/bk_sub.html

It is a
wonderful source for early printed books and it contains every tractate of the
first edition of the Bomberg  Shas. What
may a bit less known is that it also contains one tractate of the third edition
of the Bomberg  Shas, Masechet Zevachim,
printed in 1548. (1)

If we look at
Daf 53B, we are confronted with the following

A close up of
the bottom of the page looks like this

At first I
thought that this diagram of the Yesod of the Mizbeach had been drawn in by
hand, but an analysis of the difference in the way this page was set up versus
the same page in the first two editions lead me to conclude that this diagram
was added by the Bomberg editors intentionally and was included as part of the
printed page. Aside from that, I had the privilege of looking at this same page
in a different copy held by the JTS Library with Sharon Lieberman Mintz, ( JTS
Curator of Jewish Art) and she confirmed that this mechanical drawing and the
one available online at the NLI website were exactly the same.
If we look at
the 1520 edition, we can see the problem that the editors faced

Here is both 53A
and 54A

Let’s take a
closer look at the bottom of 53B, where the diagram appears in the third
edition
After a lengthy
explanation by Rashi on the makeup of the Yesod, he adds the word “Kazeh”. It
is right at the bottom. Usually, we would find an empty space there, but alas,
there is no room.

The empty space
where the diagram should go is not on the bottom of 53B, but rather on the top
of 54A. It has nothing to do with the Rashi that begins with the word
“Retzuah”.

So it is
possible that by the third edition of Zevachim, the Bomberg editors decided to
fix that. They set the type for 53B in a different manner, allowing them the
space for a diagram, and they even included the diagram.
I thought I
might find other diagrams in this third Bomberg edition and spent an afternoon
at the JTS Library looking through various Masechtot of that edition, but did
not find another diagram. As far as I know, this was the only diagram added to
the third edition. There is no way to know for sure why the Bomberg editors
added this one, just as there is no way to know why the diagram on Sotah 43A
was included in the first edition. But at least one can see what might have
bothered them here.
[1] I refer to this as the third edition although there is much discussion as to
whether this might actually be a fourth edition. For more background on this,
please see Marvin J.  Heller, Printing the Talmud (A History of
the Early Printed Editions of the Talmud )Im Hasefer, Brooklyn, NY 1992,
pages 167-180